HE
SPECHES
OF
AEUS
YSE
888
14
W39
MBRIDGE
NRSITY PRES
:

ARTES
LIBRARY
1837
VERITAS
SCIENTIA
OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
E-PLURIBUS UNUS
1
TOEBUR
SQUAERIS PENINSULAM AMOENAM
CIRCUMSPICE
1
887
14
Way
་བ།།།། ་ སྒྱུ
༧ ཆོས་པ་
THE SPEECHES OF
ISAEUS
London: C. J. CLAY AND SONS,
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,
AVE MARIA LANE.
Glasgow: 50, WELLINGTON STREET.

Leipzig: F. A. BROCKHAUS.
New York: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.
Bombay and Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.
[All Rights reserved.]
ΙΣΑΙΟΣ
THE SPEECHES OF
ISAEUS
WITH CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES
BY
WILLIAM WYSE, M.A.,
Late Fellow and Lecturer of Trinity College, Cambridge,
Sometime Professor of Greek in University College, London.
CAMBRIDGE
At the University Press
1904
Cambridge:
PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
MATRI ET SORORI
TH
PREFACE.
HE character of Isaeus was regarded with suspicion in
antiquity. A rival orator taunted Demosthenes with
having 'dieted himself upon Isaeus,' to the detriment of his
moral constitution, and in the Augustan age the judgment
of orthodox criticism was summed up by Dionysius of Halicar-
nassus in these words: πρὸς μὲν τὸν ἀντίδικον διαπονηρεύεται,
τοὺς δὲ δικαστὰς καταστρατηγεῖ, τοῖς δὲ πράγμασιν, ὑπὲρ ὧν
ὁ λόγος, ἐκ παντὸς πειρᾶται βοηθεῖν. The leading purpose of
this edition is to show by analysis of the extant speeches that
ancient scholars had a juster appreciation of the orator's art
than is shown by modern writers on Greek Law, for some
of whom his unsupported statements appear to carry the
authority of decisions of a Supreme Court, and that to extract
truth from the arguments of an advocate bent on winning
a verdict from an ignorant tribunal is a more delicate operation
than many people seem to suppose. At the same time, though
the matter has claimed more of my attention than the manner,
I have done my best to meet fairly all textual and grammatical
difficulties.
The magnitude of my obligations to others will be manifest
from the notes, in which I have tried to render to all their due,
but there are debts which are not adequately acknowledged by
a series of references. I owe most to G. F. Schoemann, in
whose edition I first read Isaeus, and whose works on Athenian
Procedure and Greek Antiquities have been my companions
and counsellors ever since I began to study the Attic Orators.
PREFACE
Two books which have been always at my side are Beauchet's
Histoire du droit privé de la république Athénienne and the
collection of Greek legal inscriptions edited by MM. Dareste,
Haussoullier, and Reinach (Recueil des inscriptions juridiques
Grecques). Moy's Étude sur les plaidoyers d'Isée and Die attische
Beredsamkeit of Prof. Blass are indispensable to an editor.
I also wish to express my special gratitude to those American
and German scholars who have undertaken the laborious and
self-sacrificing task of providing Indices to the Attic Orators,
viz. F. L. van Cleef (Antiphon), L. L. Forman (Andocides,
Lycurgus, Dinarchus), D. H. Holmes (Lysias), S. Preuss
(Aeschines and Demosthenes), H. Reinhold (Hypereides). For
Isocrates I have been driven to rely on my own resources. The
man who shall make an Index to Isocrates will deserve the
epithet bestowed by the ancients on Didymus.
The printing of this book has taken more time and trouble
than I expected. To prevent disappointment I must warn
readers that the text was printed off in the course of the
summer of 1903, several months before the appearance of
Thalheim's edition. The proofs of the Commentary have been
revised under difficulties in a Warwickshire village, where Greek
authors are little read, and my sincere thanks are due to the
reader of the Cambridge University Press, whose vigilance has
removed many of my errors, and to the friends at Cambridge,
who have helped me by verifying references, among whom
I have to mention in particular Mr J. G. Frazer, Fellow of
Trinity College, and Mr W. T. Lendrum, Fellow of Gonville
and Caius College.
HALFORD, SHIPSTON ON STOUR.
November 16, 1904.
W. W.
CONTENTS.
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
§ I.
The Descendants of A .
i—vii
es es
§ 2.
The History of A
viii-xii
•
3. Description of A
xii-xxi
ير
$ 4.
The Corrections in A
$ 5. The Faults of A
§ 6. Description of Q
$
•
$ 8. Editions and Subsidia
TEXT
xxii-xxxvi
xxxvi-xlvii
xlviii-lii
•
§ 7. The Manuscripts of Dionysius of Halicarnassus
•
lii-liii
liii-lxiii
•
•
•
I-174
NOTES
INDICES
PEDIGREE TABLES .
·
•
175-723
725-735
to face pp. 403 and 671
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION.
§ 1. THE DESCENDANTS OF A.
A Crippsianus, Brit. Mus. Burneianus 95, saec. XIII.
B
L
M
P
Z
Laurentianus, Plut. Iv cod. 11, saec. XV.
Marcianus, append. class. vIII cod. 6, saec. xv exeuntis.
Brit. Mus. Burneianus 96, saec. xv exeuntis.
Ambrosianus, A 99, saec. xv exeuntis.
Vratislauiensis, olim bibliothecae Magdalenaeae, nunc biblioth.
urbicae Vratislau. 1069, saec. xv exeuntis.
The upshot of the critical studies of the text of the minor orators
inaugurated in 1872 by A. Hug (Commentatio de arte critica in Anti-
phontis orationibus factitanda, Turici) has been to show that BLMPZ
are all derived from A, so that the only authorities for Isaeus are A and
Q, for which see § 6. The credit of first arguing that B is not, as Hug
supposed, independent of A, seems to belong to Th. Thalheim (Jahrbb.
f. cl. Philol. 115, 1877, p. 673 sqq.). Thalheim however was still so
much under the influence of Hug's erroneous theories that he postu-
lated a lost. MS. (B) as a link between A and B. The proof that B
was copied from A was gradually developed by V. Jernstedt (Anti-
phontis orationes, 1880, praef. p. xx sqq.) and Fr. Blass (Antiphontis
orationes, ed. 2, 1881, praef. p. vii sqq.), and clinched by H. Buermann
(Hermes 17, 1882, p. 385 sqq., Rh. Mus. 40, 1885, p. 387 sqq.). The
contents of A (in folio, ff. 170) are as follows:
ཐོ་
W. I.
I
Andocides.
II
Isaeus (f. 27-76").
III
Dinarchus.
IV
Antiphon.
V
Lycurgus.
VI
Gorgias (Helen and Palamedes).
VII Alcidamas (Ulysses).
VIII Lesbonax.
IX
Herodes.
Ъ
ii
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
B (in 4 mai., ff. 125) has the same contents in the same order. At the
end of Isaeus (or. x1) a blank of 8 lines is left; in A only three lines
of f. 76" are filled, Dinarchus beginning on f. 77. The dependence of
B is demonstrated by certain lacunae, which cannot be traced to the
influence of repeated words. Thus it omits in Isae. III. 66. 1, 2
ἀνθρώπων μισεῖ τὸ λυσιτελοῦν οὐδὲ περὶ πλείονος τοὺς ἀλλοτρίους, and in
Lyc. 8ο κοῦσαι. καὶ γὰρ παλαιῶν ὄντων τῶν τότε πεπραγμένων, the first
letter of åkoûσaɩ being converted into å. In each case exactly a line of
A has dropped out. Sometimes the writer of B passed over a line, and
then discovering the slip added it in the margin; examples of such
additions are And: I. I οὐδὲν δεῖ περὶ τούτων πολλοὺς λόγους ποιεῖσθαι·
ἐγὼ δέ, ὦ ἄνδρες, δεήσομαι, Ant. Tetr. II. γ. 3 γνώμονες μὴ ἔργα φανερά
ὑπὸ πονηρᾶς λόγων ἀκριβείας, ib. Tetr. II. δ. 4 καὶ οὐ πρὸς τὰ λεγόμενα
ἀπολογεῖται. ov yàp ȧkovтíval. In Isae. v. 34. 5-7 B omits two lines
ἀκοντίσαι.
of A (ἵν᾽ ἃ ἡμῖν οἱ πρόγονοι κατέλιπον κομισώμεθα, καὶ μὴ μόνον τὰ ὀνόματα
(iv
αὐτῶν ἔχωμεν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ χρήματα. τῶν δὲ Λεωχάρους), the cause of the
error being the recurrence of the same word (Aewɣápovs) in the same
position. This evidence, of itself convincing, is corroborated by other
facts. In Isae. III. 29. 4 A has ỏλí (öλíya), B ô λóyos, the abbreviation
being misunderstood. The writer of B stumbled over the corrections in
A, which are sometimes in minute characters and hard to make out.
In Isae. v. 7. 5 the first corrector (A') added dikaio (Sikaloyévns) in the
margin after yevouévns. The word is not easy to read, & being repre-
sented by (see below p. xlvii). The writer of B was completely
puzzled; he put in his text ö kayu, with a cross over kayo and another
cross in the margin. In Isae. IV. 14. 8 µǹ added by A' above the line
looks like μèv, which appears in B. In Isae. III. 49. 4 Apr. has
προσήκει αὐτὸς. The second corrector (A2) rightly altered this to
Εν
γν
εν
προσῆκεἰ αὐτὸς (προσῆκεν εἰ αὐτὸς). We find in Β προσῆκει αὐτὸς, the
breathing over « not having been observed, and in the descendants of
Β προσῆκεν αὐτὸς. For evidence of a similar kind from Antiphon and
Lycurgus see Jernstedt (op. cit. p. xxi) and Thalheim (Lycurgus, 1880,
praef. p. vi).
That B is the source of LMZ was first maintained by H. Reutzel in
1879 (Exercitationes criticae in Antiphontis orationes, Gissae) and is no
longer disputed. Moreover P, which does not contain Antiphon,
undoubtedly belongs to the same family. The exact relation between
the members, a detail of no practical importance, is not absolutely
certain owing to the lack of complete collations. It is however clear
that M was copied from L, and Z from M, and highly probable that P
THE DESCENDANTS OF A
iii
was taken from M. LMPZ, so far as the evidence is known, omit
everything omitted in B, and all present a great lacuna in Isaeus,
having lost more than half of or. I (from $ 22. 6ékeive to the end)
and nearly the whole of or. II (down to § 47. 3 åλλ' èπeidη Tò πрâyμа).
The gap is explained by the composition of B. B is made up of ten-
leaved quires of paper (quiniones). Fol. 25 b ends with 1. 22. 5, 6 TηV
οὐσίαν ἕξειν βεβαιοτέραν, fol. 26 a begins with ἢ ἐκείνῳ μὴ ποιήσαντες,
fol. 31 a with II. 47. 3 åλλ' éteidǹ tò πρâyμa. Thus the writer of L
passed over the last five leaves of the third quire in B. Buermann
(Rh. Mus. 40, p. 389) offers an explanation of this singular accident.
At the time of copying B was unbound; in its present form the whole
of the eleventh quire containing part of Lycurgus is inserted in the
middle of Alcidamas. The copyist worked through the codex quire by
quire and folded back each leaf as he finished it. After this had been
done with five leaves, the third quire in outward appearance had returned
to its original condition and by an oversight was laid with the first and
second, as if it had been all copied. LMPZ also omit the Helen of
Gorgias. A. M. Bandini in the catalogue of the Greek MSS. of the
Laurentian Library (I. p. 533) states that the Eulogy of Helen occupies
fol. 103 and fol. 104 a, the defence of Palamedes beginning on fol. 104 b.
We can understand how a scribe turning over two leaves by mistake
might have missed fol. 103 b and fol. 104 a, but the man who had
copied the end of Lycurgus on fol. 102 b could hardly have failed
to see the beginning of Gorgias on fol. 103 a. The omission of the
Helen may have been intentional, although the index of L (Bekker,
ΣopiσTŵv Tivwv μeλétai, Oxford, 1823, p. i), like that of M, promises
the two speeches of Gorgias as well as the second speech of Isaeus.
It might be suggested that the copyist left out the Encomium of Helen
on instructions from his employer, because it was already known in
Italy, being found in Laur. plut. 57 cod. 4, Marcianus 522, and
Marcianus, append. class VIII cod. I. Aldus' text of this work
(printed after Isocrates) is taken from a descendant of the codex.
Palatinus (x) of Lysias. But the Ulysses of Alcidamas is not omitted
in L, although it is found in the MSS. mentioned. Aldus' edition
of the Ulysses of Alcidamas (printed between Lysias and Anti-
sthenes), like that of the Helen of Gorgias, is derived from the Palatine
family, not from a descendant of A. It is possible, after all, that
confusion was caused by some displacement in B. It is to be noted
that MZ, differing herein from B and in defiance of their indices, place.
the Palamedes of Gorgias after, not before, the Ulysses of Alcidamas,
and that the writer of M passes on the same page from Lycurgus to
b2
iv
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
Alcidamas without prefixing a title. Whether these peculiarities exist
in L, I do not know; it is much to be deplored that we have no com-
plete printed catalogue of the Greek MSS. in the Library of St Mark.
1
L on vellum, ff. 140, written at Florence (so Thalheim, Lycurgus p. vi;
on this point Bekker in his Oxford edition is silent), was collated by
Bekker for Andocides 1, Isaeus 1 and 111, Dinarchus 1, Antiphon 1-end
of Tetr. II, and Lycurgus. It still possesses a certain historical interest
as the source of the Aldine edition of 1513, which repeats all its lacunae
and many of its peculiar readings. Note Isae. III. 18. 4 Tupeтídny AB,
πupetídŋv
πυθετίδην L, Ald., i. 111. 8ο. Ι κεκτημένος Α, κεκτημένοι Β, κεκτημένη L,
Ald., Din. I. 23 ἐκ πελλήνης ΑΒ, ἐν πελλήνης L, Ald., ib. I. 32 περιιών A,
περιὼν Β, περὶ ὧν L, Ald., ib. I. 6ο νυνὶ ΑΒ, τανῦν L, τὰ νυνὶ Ald.
ib. 1. 69 ἕκαστον ΑΒ, ἕκαστος L, ἕκαστος Ald., ib. I. 114 ἐγκαταλέλοιπα ΑΒ,
ἐγκατέλιπα L, ἐγκατέλιπον Ald., Lyc. 16 ὀργίζεσθαι Α, ὀργίζεσθε Β,
ὀργίζεσθε L, ὀργίζησθε Αld., ib. 103 οἴχωνται N, ἥικωνται Apr., ψιχωνται Α',
n
ν
νυνὶ
про
ἥικχωνται Β, ἥκωνται L, ἵκωνται Αld., ib. 128 προδιδόντας ΑΒ, παραδι
δόντας L, προδιδόντας Μ, προπαραδιδόντας Ald. See for Andocides
J. H. Lipsius (Andocides, 1888, praef. p. xvi), for Antiphon Jernstedt.
(op. cit. p. xiv).
M on paper, ff. 206, contains three parts, I, ff. 143, the minor Attic
Orators, Alcidamas, Gorgias, Lesbonax, Herodes, written at Florence by
a scribe named Marcus, II, f. 145-205', Harpocration, III, ff. 205, 206,
grammatical notes on dialects, beginning Αἰνείας· καὶ Ἰωνικῶς Αἰνείης
tpotŷ toû a' eis n'. The latter parts are in a different hand from the
first. A note on f. 203" records that the book (parts II and III?)
once belonged to the Benedictine monastery of S. Pietro at Perugia.
Jernstedt (Antiphon, praef. xvii n. 11) would identify the scribe of
part I with Marcus the son of Joannes, a Cretan, who wrote at
Florence a MS. of Lysias, Bekker's E, now in the Laurentian Library
(plut. 57 cod. 52); Bandini assigns this MS. to the 16th century, but
E. Piccolomini (cited by R. Schoell, Hermes 11, 1876, p. 204) produces
Part I
evidence to show that it was in the Medicean Library in 1495.
was collated throughout by W. S. Dobson for his edition of the Attic
Orators (vols. I and II, London, 1828). Dobson's collation lacks
the minuteness now demanded by palaeographical experts, but the
material he supplies is enough, and more than enough, to determine
the place of M, and in the few passages in which I have looked at the
manuscript, I have found him right. Bekker dismissed M with con-
tempt, but took the trouble to collate the whole of Z, which was copied
THE DESCENDANTS OF A
V
from M. The mistake was probably caused by the false estimate of Z
propagated in Germany by F. Passow (Jernstedt, op. cit. p. ix).
Z on paper, ff. 216, written by one hand, consists of three parts,
I, ff. 136, containing the minor Attic Orators etc. as in M, II, ff. 24,
containing the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, III, ff. 56, containing Harpo-
cration. That part I was taken from M, is indubitable. The writer
with almost incredible negligence incorporates in his text errors which
the scribe of M observed and corrected. Thalheim (Jahrbb. f. class.
Philol. 115, p. 673) cites two examples from Lycurgus. I will add one
from Isaeus III. 5. 4, where M has μαρτυρήσας ψευδὴς ἔδοξεν εἶναι σαι
(the right reading being μαρτυρῆσαι), but Z gives μαρτυρήσας ψευδής
ἔδοξεν εἶναι. W. Dindorf in the preface (p. iv) of this edition of
Harpocration (Oxford, 1853) notices the similarity of Z and M in
Harpocration. The catalogue of the Town Library of Breslau (Catalogus
Codicum Graecorum qui in Bibliotheca Urbica Vratislauiensi adseruantur
P. 77) quotes the opinion of L. Cohn that the Harpocration in Z is a
copy of the Harpocration in M.
P on paper, ff. 265, contains according to Bekker (Or. Att. 1. p. iv)
Harpocration, Andocides, Isaeus, Dinarchus, Lycurgus, the Palamedes of
Gorgias, Lesbonax, Herodes, Lysias, Alcidamas, Antisthenes, Demades,
Aeschines. It was written at Florence by Michael Souliardos of
Nauplia, whom we find practising as a copyist in Crete in 1475, in
Florence from 1486 to 1497 (H. Omont, Inventaire sommaire des
manuscrits du fonds Grec de la Bibliothèque Nationale p. xlvi, Fac-
similés des manuscrits Grecs des xv et xvie siècles p. 14). Lycurgus and
Isae. I have been collated by Bekker, Andocides by Ad. Cinquini
(Andocidis de codicibus qui in bibliotheca Ambrosiana exstant, Mediolani
1886). Buermann (Hermes 17, p. 389) thinks that P (i.e. the first part
as far as Herodes) was copied from Z. I would suggest that M is its
οἰκείους
parent (note Isae. 1. 2. 6 ἀλλὰ καὶ pr. ΜΖ, ἀλλὰ Ρ, ib. I. 6. 5 ἀλλήλους
inducto ἀλλήλους Μ, ἀλλήλους Ρ, οἰκείους Ζ, ib. I. 7. I τὴν om. pr.
MP, habet Z), but I recognise that some of the readings of P in
Lycurgus make against this hypothesis; Cinquini's collation I have
not seen.
It can be proved that the dates of LMP, all written at Florence,
must fall between 1492 and 1508. The Aldine edition of the Greek
orators is preceded by a dedicatory letter to Franciscus Faseolus
Iurisconsultus Ac Senatus Veneti A Secretis Magnus' dated ‘Pridie
Nonarum Maii M.D.XIII. After eulogising his patron Aldus con-
tinues thus: Aeschinis, Lysiae, et caeterorum, qui in fronte libri excusi
vi
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
uisuntur, orationes sub tuo nomine, qui et haberis, et es magnus, illustrisque
orator, exire ex aedibus nostris uolui in manus studiosorum, id quod eo
gratius tibi futurum existimaui, quoniam quas plerique horum scripserunt
orationes, multis seculis abditae latuerunt. latebant autem in Atho
Thraciae monte. Eas Lascaris is, qui abhinc quinquennium pro Chris-
tianissimo rege Venetiis (Janus Lascaris was French Ambassador at
Venice 1503-1509) summa cum laude legatum agebat, doctissimus et ad
unguem factus homo, in Italiam reportauit. miserat enim ipsum Laurentius
ille Medices in Graeciam ad inquirendos simul et quantouis emendos pretio
bonos libros. unde Florentiam et cum iis ipsis orationibus et cum aliis tum
raris, tum pretiosis uoluminibus rediit.' The contents of the first volume
are Aeschines, Lysias, Alcidamas (Ulysses), Antisthenes (Aiax and
Ulysses), Demades, Avoíov ẞíos, тоû åλɩкapvaσéws (i.e. Dion. Hal.
iudicium de Lysia), of the second Andocides, Isaeus, Dinarchus,
Antiphon, Lycurgus, Gorgias (Palamedes), Lesbonax, Herodes. Which
then are the orators brought by Janus Lascaris from Mount Athos?
Jernstedt (op. cit. pp. ix, xvi) acutely argued that they were not
Aeschines nor Lysias, but that Aldus was referring to B, now in the
Laurentian Library. The soundness of Jernstedt's reasoning is proved
by a MS. discovered in the Vatican Library by K. K. Müller in 1879
and published by him with an elaborate commentary in 1884 (Neue
Mittheilungen über Janos Laskaris und die Mediceische Bibliothek, Cen-
tralblatt für Bibliothekswesen, I. p. 333-412). The MS. (cod. Vat.
gr. 1412, ff. 108) written throughout by Lascaris contains among much
miscellaneous matter extensive lists of MSS., one, f. 35º—43ª, being a
catalogue of Greek MSS. in the library of Lorenzo de' Medici, another,
f. 34º, f. 486—61ª, f. 76ª—84³, being an account of Greek MSS. found
or acquired by Lascaris himself. The second list under the heading ev
TQ Ваттшπedų has a precise description (f. 76ª, 10—76º, 19) of the
contents of a MS., which is indubitably B. Thus Lascaris acquired B
at Batopedion, the great monastery on Mount Athos from which A was
afterwards procured (p. xii). He started on his mission at the end of
April or beginning of May 1491 and was back in Florence on Feb. 25,
1492 (E. Legrand, Bibliographie Hellénique pp. cxxxiv, cxxxvi).
the time of the death of Lorenzo de' Medici (April 8, 1492) he was
absent in Candia completing a bargain about the purchase of MSS., one
of which E. Piccolomini (cited by R. Schoell, Hermes 11, 1876, p. 204)
would identify with a codex of Lysias and Aeschines now in the
Laurentian Library (plut. 57 cod. 45). The Lysias in this MS. is
imperfect and cannot be the source of the Aldine text; and with regard
to Aeschines the catalogue of Lascaris (ff. 37, 9, 38, 18) shows that
At
THE DESCENDANTS OF A
vii
Lorenzo de' Medici already possessed two copies of this orator.
Lorenzo's library passed to his son Pietro, on Pietro's expulsion in 1494
it became the property of the Signoria, then after various vicissitudes
and losses it was acquired in 1508 by Cardinal Giovanni de' Medici
(afterwards Leo X) and removed to Rome. After the death of Leo X
(1521) it was again established in Florence by Cardinal Giulio de'
Medici in 1527.
G. F. Schoemann had at his disposal a collation of the first part of
the first speech (1. 1—22) made by J. F. Boissonade from a Paris MS.,
which Schoemann designated R. This MS. (Bibl. Nat. 2989, Reg.
3542), on paper, ff. 58, saec. XVII, contains inter alia Isae. or. ïv and
or. I (as far as § 22. 4 ἀπέπεμψαν, with II. 47. 3 ἀλλ' ἐπειδὴ τὸ πρᾶγμα
to end), each accompanied by a Latin version. It is quite worthless,
the variants being either blunders or bad emendations with one ex-
ception, ảπоστepýσeɩ in 1. 18. 7. The great lacuna indicates its origin.
The Neapolitan MS. of the minor Attic Orators seen by Montfaucon
(Buermann, Rh. Mus. 40, p. 389) is a figment. The codex in question.
was found by Montfaucon in the spring of 1700 in the 4th pluteus of
the Laurentian Library (Bibliotheca Biblioth. MSS. Nova 1. pp. 234,
251) and is no other than B. The author of the mistake, which first
appears in Voemel, Demosthenis Contiones, 1857, p. 271, overlooked
the fact that the catalogue of the 'Bibliotheca Monasterii Benedictinorum
Sancti Severini Neapoli' ends on p. 233 of Montfaucon's work. Mont-
faucon (Diarium Italicum p. 238, Biblioth. Biblioth. MSS. Nova
I. p. 175) in his notes on the Bibliotheca Chiggia Romae' mentions
'Andocides, in codice recenti.' Jernstedt (op. cit. p. vi) conjectured that
the Andocides was the beginning of a collection of the minor orators,
and that the great Benedictine was prevented from giving an exact
account of the contents by the churlishness of the princely proprietor;
see Montfaucon's lamentations, op. cit. 1. p. 175 Codex recens cum multis
Hexaplorum lectionibus. Nihil non egi apud Chiggium Principem ut
notarum huiusmodi mihi copia fieret: diuque excubavi in aditum inter-
ventu usus hominum clarissimorum; at numquam exorabilis ille fuit.
Jernstedt's conjecture was right. Buermann (1.7.) reports that the MS.
(R. iv. 42, cod. membr. saec. xv, ff. 90), though its index agrees with
the index in B and L, now contains only Andocides, Isaeus, Dinarchus
and the beginning of Antiphon, fol. 90 b (i.e. the 9th quire) ending with
Ant. 1. 8 εὖ εἰδέναι· ὃς οὐκ ἠθέλησε σαφῶς πυθέσθαι ἐμοῦ ἐθέλοντος τῇ
Sika. It belongs to the same family as LMPZ, having the great
lacuna (Isae. I. 22—II. 47) and the loss of a line of A in Isae.
III. 66. I, 2.
viii
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
§ 2. THE HISTORY OF A.
The Codex Crippsianus derives its name from John Marten Cripps,
whose connexion with Edward Daniel Clarke (1769—1822) is best de-
scribed in the words of Clarke's friend and biographer, the Rev. William
Otter (1768-1840), some time Senior Tutor of Jesus College, Cam-
bridge, and ultimately Bishop of Chichester. "In the meantime
(i.e. when Clarke was preparing to return to Cambridge to be Bursar of
his College in the spring of 1798) an engagement more directly con-
nected with the line of life he had adopted was proposed to him……………….
The object of the proposal was a young man of his own neighbourhood
in Sussex; who having lately succeeded to a considerable estate in that
county, was desirous of placing himself under the guidance and in-
struction of Mr Clarke for three years, in the meritorious hope of
supplying the defects of an indifferent education, by these means, which
though late were still within his power. In the pursuit of this ad-
vantage, the place was of secondary importance to him, and he was
easily induced, at Mr Clarke's recommendation, to admit himself a
Fellow-Commoner of Jesus College, and to accompany his tutor to
Cambridge; with an understanding, which was equally agreeable to
both, that after a certain time spent in preparatory study, they should
undertake some journey to the Continent together.
The pecuniary
part of the proposal was very liberal, and the plan was entered upon
without delay" (The Life and Remains of the Rev. E. D. Clarke,
London, 1824, p. 334). Cripps entered at Jesus College in April 1798
and in May 1799 started with his tutor on a 'grand tour' of more than
three years, which forms the subject of Clarke's Travels in various
countries of Europe, Asia, and Africa (six vols., London, 1810-1823).
When Cripps acquired the MS. is not known. Clarke's references to the
matter are the following. (1) In a letter to the Rev. W. Otter, dated
"Mount Hoemus, Pass of the Balcan, April 10th, 1802," he writes.
thus: "Now, I must tell you, what surprising success I have had in the
chasse de manuscrits. You will find in my last letter to Malthus, a
catalogue of them; but since I wrote to him, on the very eve of my
departure from Constantinople (he left Constantinople on March 31,
1802) an acquaintance with a Greek Prince, a man of letters, who
became my friend, and was interested in my labours, opened the way to
perhaps almost all that remains of Greek literature, in manuscript, in
the Turkish empire. Prince Alexander Bano Hantzeri (sic) is his
name, of the remnant of those noble Greeks left in Constantinople
THE HISTORY OF A
ix
==
when it was taken by the Turks. He procured for me fifteen volumes
of Greek manuscripts....... He has moreover promised to add fifteen
more, and to procure besides, MSS. from Mount Athos, whence I
hope to obtain a copy of Homer, and one of Demosthenes " (Life
p. 525-6). (2) In the account of his first stay at Constantinople
(Nov. 1800-Feb. 1801) he alludes to the literary tastes of the Greek
Princes "resident at the Phanar, a district in the N. part of the city"
and says that "Prince Alexander Bano Hantzerlï had a magnificent
collection of Greek MSS. and long corresponded with me after my
return to England," adding in a note "It was through his means that I
procured for Mr Cripps, at the particular instigation of the late
Professor Porson (Porson died in Sept. 1808), who had read his letters
on the subject, the superb copy of the Orators, now in the possession of
Dr Burney" (Travels, Part the second, Section the first vol. II, 1812,
P. 55). (3) In his remarks on Mount Athos (Travels, Part the second,
Section the third = vol. IV, 1816, p. 389) he argues that there is good
reason to believe that discoveries of an important nature relating to
Greek MSS. in the libraries of Mount Athos were made by his
Cambridge contemporary, John Tweddell, Fellow of Trinity College,
a classical scholar and traveller, whose melancholy death at Athens in
1799 at the age of thirty was made more bitter to his friends and
admirers by the mysterious disappearance of his valuable journals and
drawings, a disaster attributed by Clarke and others to the negligence
of Lord Elgin, then British Ambassador at Constantinople: "the author
has since purchased a valuable manuscript of the Greek Orators from
a Greek Prince, who thence obtained it." It is plain that the Codex
Crippsianus was sent by Prince Alexander Bano Hantzerlï after Clarke
and Cripps had returned to England in October 1802. Clarke met
Porson for the first time in January 1803 (Life p.
mitted to him in Dec. 1802 his 'Patmos Plato':
writes, "is all rapture and joy about the Plato...."
he, may be considered equivalent to the combined authorities of any
two known MSS. It is a monument of literature." Clarke allowed
Porson to have custody of the MS. "From the moment this treasure
was confided to his care, it scarcely ever was suffered to be out of his
hands; wherever he went, he carried it about with him, and it remained
in his possession till he died" (Life p. 559). When the Codex Cripp-
sianus arrived, it was placed, as was natural, in Porson's hands. The
Library of the University of Cambridge possesses a copy of Tyrwhitt's
edition of Isae. II, bequeathed to the University by Dobree, in which
Porson has entered with characteristic neatness and precision the
560), having sub-
"Porson," Clarke
"The Plato, said
X
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
variants of A. I have not found in Porson's books any trace of a
complete collation; his copy of the Aldine edition of the Orators was
included in the general sale of his library in 1809, which indicates that
the book did not contain extensive notes in his hand. Cripps, an
English country gentleman, more interested in agriculture than in
Greek, soon put the MS. on the market. In April 1808 Messrs King
and Lochée announced a sale by auction at their rooms, No. 38,
King Street, Covent Garden, of MSS., Antiquities, Medals, Minerals,
Botanical Specimens etc. The advertisement is inserted at the end
of the Codex Crippsianus in the British Museum, of Dobree's Stephanus
in the Library of Cambridge University, and of Dobree's Aldine in the
Library of Trinity College. I think it certain that a large part of these
collections belonged to Clarke. He had now a young wife, having
taken Holy Orders and a College living, at which he did not reside,
and was feeling-to use the language of his biographer-" that powerful
stimulus to exertion which the wisdom of Providence has happily
annexed to a prolific marriage"; his negotiations with the Curators of
the Bodleian Library for the purchase of the 'Patmos Plato' and other
MSS. began in the spring of 1808. The only Greek MS. offered for
sale by Messrs King and Lochée was the Codex Crippsianus, an account
of which was subjoined over the initials M. R. The writer was Matthew
Raine (1760-1811), Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, Headmaster
of Charterhouse School, and an intimate friend of Porson. This de-
scription was reprinted by Sir Egerton Brydges in his Censura Literaria
(vol. x., 1815, p. 357 of the second edition; the first edition, vol. vIII.,
1808, p. 214, from which Jernstedt (op. cit. p. xxviii) quotes, I have not
seen). Raine assigned the Codex to the twelfth, or, at the latest, to
the thirteenth century, and stated that, having collated Lycurgus and
the first speech of Dinarchus, he could certify its containing a great
number of important various readings, and whole passages not found in
any known edition. The MS. was bought by Mr Nicol of Pall Mall for
355 guineas, a price to which Clarke appealed in fixing the value of his
Plato at £450 (Letter to the Curators of the Bodleian Library, Life
p. 563). Mr Nicol was probably the agent of Charles Burney, one of
the authorities whom Clarke consulted about the quality of his MSS.
Between 1808 and 1811, the date of his death, Matthew Raine made a
collation of the whole of the Codex Crippsianus in the margin of his
Aldine, which together with other valuable books was bequeathed in
1831 to the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge, by his brother
Jonathan Raine, also once Fellow of the College. Matthew Raine and
Charles Burney were both schoolmasters in London and moved in the
THE HISTORY OF A
xi
same circles, so that it is reasonable to conjecture that Raine borrowed
the MS. from Burney. At any rate one of the passages quoted above
from Clarke's Travels proves that it was in Burney's possession in
1812. When Burney died in 1817, his books and MSS. were purchased
by the nation for £13,500 and placed in the British Museum. Dobree's
books in the University Library at Cambridge show that in his studies
of the minor Attic Orators he was content with the testimony of Porson
and Raine and did not himself examine the MS. No doubt Matthew
Raine's Aldine was lent him by Jonathan Raine. He also had access
(Adv. I. p. 178) to a collation by George Burges (c. 1786-1864)
recorded in an Aldine now in the possession of Prof. Bywater of
Oxford, who informs me that Burges gives full and complete collations
for Andocides, Dinarchus, and Lycurgus, but notes only occasional
variants in Isaeus and after the first three pages (p. 100-102) entirely
neglects Antiphon. In an interleaved copy of Bekker's edition of
Isaeus Dobree began to register discrepancies between Bekker and
Raine, presumably with the intention of consulting the MS., but the
project of a new edition of the Attic Orators was defeated by his
untimely death in September 1825 in his forty-third year. In 1817,
after the Codex Crippsianus had been transferred to the British Museum,
F. Osann was staying in London and made a hasty inspection of
Lycurgus, the results of which appear in his edition of that orator
published in 1821. Immanuel Bekker, princeps criticorum, spent part
of 1820 in England collating MSS. in London, Oxford, and Cambridge
(Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie II. p. 301). Though "silent in seven
languages," he seems to have announced his discovery on his return to
Germany, for A. G. Becker writing at Magdeburg in December 1820
excuses himself for not giving the readings of "Dr Burney's MS. in the
British Museum" and of other MSS. on the ground that he prefers to wait
for the testimony of Bekker "qui se sospitatorem Oratorum Atticorum.
fore publice professus est" (Lycurgus, praef. p. viii). Bekker's Oxford
edition of the Oratores Attici began to appear in 1822 and was
completed in the following year; Dobree was busy with the first
volume (Antiphon, Andocides, Lysias) in November 1822. A remarkable
contrast with Bekker's great work is presented by the compilation of
W. S. Dobson (Oratores Attici, 16 vols., London, 1828), homo diligens
sed ingenio hebetiore (Jernstedt). Dobson went once more over the
Codex Crippsianus and brought to light some readings of Apr., which
Bekker had disdained to mention. He also accomplished the tedious.
task of collating M, but did not perceive the significance of the material
which he had laboriously collected. After Dobson A was left in peace
xii
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
until the revival of interest in the text of the minor orators at the begin-
ning of the seventies of last century. The efforts of modern scholars
have been directed to recovering the readings of Apr., but whether the
harvest repays the labour expended, is a matter concerning which
doubts may be felt (see § 4). A. Hug in 1872 trusted to a new
collation of Antiphon made for him by J. Sigg. Since Sigg the MS.
has been studied by many enquirers, V. Jernstedt, F. Blass, C. de Boor,
Th. Thalheim, H. Müller-Strübing, J. H. Jeayes. A spicilegium of its
readings in Isaeus was published in 1881 by H. Schenkl (Die Ueberlie-
ferung der Reden des Isaeus im Codex Crippsianus, Wiener Studien, III.
p. 195 sqq.). H. Buermann collated it in the summer of 1881 for his
edition of Isaeus and re-examined it in the next year. Buermann's
record is a model of accuracy and completeness; as in duty bound, I
have worked through the MS. but have discovered nothing new of the
least value.
§ 3. DESCRIPTION OF A.
The Codex Crippsianus on vellum, in folio, ff. 170, is assigned to
the second half of the thirteenth century by Mr G. F. Warner and
Dr F. G. Kenyon, of the British Museum, who have kindly given me
the benefit of their wide experience of MSS. The cover (f. 1¹) bears an
ancient inscription in large characters
θεςεως R
I
i.e. plutei tertii (Gardthausen, Griech. Palaeographie p. 372). If the
number of the book as well as that of the shelf was originally given, it
is no longer decipherable. A modern hand has written underneath in
smaller letters
ἐκ τῆς μεγάλης βιβλιοθήκης
τοῦ βατοπαιδίου
Through these words a pen has been drawn. A description of the great
monastery of Batopedion at the N.E. end of Mount Athos can be read
in a work by Doctor John Comnenus, Προσκυνητάριον τοῦ ῾Αγίου 'Ορους
TOû "A◊wvos (Bucharest 1701, Venice 1701 and 1745), reprinted with a
Latin translation by Montfaucon in his Palaeographia Graeca, 1708,
P. 440 sqq. See also V. Langlois, Le Mont Athos et ses Monastères,
Paris 1867, pp. 17, 18. According to local legends it was founded by
Constantine the Great, destroyed by Julian the Apostate, and restored
by Theodosius I to commemorate the miraculous salvation of his son
Arcadius, who on his way from Rome to Constantinople fell overboard
DESCRIPTION OF A
xiii
in a storm off Imbros and was transported by the Virgin to Mount
Athos, where Imperial emissaries discovered him asleep in a bramble
bush (ẞáros); hence the name Вaтодaidíov. The authentic history of
the establishment begins in the 10th century. The library is reported
to contain 4000 MSS. (Gardthausen, Sammlungen und Cataloge Griech-
ischer Handschriften p. 81), but when Sp. P. Lambros paid his second
visit to Mount Athos, the monks refused him permission to review their
treasures, alleging that they intended to publish a catalogue themselves
(Sp. P. Lambros, Catalogue of the Greek MSS. on Mount Athos, vol. II.
Cambridge 1900, p. v).
The inside of the cover (f. 1") contains the following notes, ap-
parently in the ink used by the modern hand seen on the outside:
Les dix orateures athéniens.
Andocides, orateur athénien. né vers l'an 468 avant l'ére chrétienne,
se distingua par son éloquence. il fut plusieurs fois exilé de sa
patrie, et toujours rappelle. son style était simple et presque
entierement denue de figures et d'ornemens. il nous reste de lui
quatre discours qui furent publiés p: Guillaume Canterus a
Bâle 1566 in fol.
Dictionnaire des hommes illustres.
isée, orateur grec né à chalcis en syrie, avait été [disciple] de Lysias, et
fut maître de demosthènes à athénes où il tenoit une école d'éloquence.
il nous reste 10 de ses harangues. on les trouve dans les anciens
orateurs grecs d'Etienne, 1575. il y a eu un autre isée aussi
orateur grec, contemporain de pline le jeune, qui en parle dans ses
lettres, et en fait un grand éloge.
The latter of these extracts has been discovered by Jernstedt (op. cit.
p. xxix) in a book bearing the title Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel,
Historique, Biographique, Bibliographique et Portatif......Traduit de
l'anglais de John Watkins...et considérablement augmenté par M. L'Ecuy,
ci-devant docteur de Sorbonne et abbé de Prémontré, A Paris, An xı=
1803. In the English original (An Universal Biographical and His-
torical Dictionary, by John Watkins, A.M., LL.D., London, 1800) the
article on Isaeus is as follows: Isaeus, a Greek orator, was born at
Chalcis in Syria. He was the disciple of Lysias and preceptor of
Demosthenes, at Athens, where he kept a famous school of eloquence. We
have only ten of his orations remaining, which were translated into
English by Sir William Jones in 1779. The first extract concerning
Andocides is copied from a work that seems to have had a considerable
xiv
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
circulation in Europe in the 18th century, Nouveau Dictionnaire His-
torique ou Histoire Abrégée de tous les Hommes qui se sont fait un nom
par le Génie, les Talens, les Vertus, les Erreurs etc. depuis le commence-
ment du Monde jusqu'à nos jours. Par Une Société De Gens-De-Lettres
(really by L. M. Chaudon). I have seen the 'new and revised edition'
published at Amsterdam in 1770, which has no notice of Andocides
and, like Watkins' book, describes Isaeus as born at Chalcis in Syria,
the 4th edition in six vols. (Caen 1779) and the 8th edition in thirteen
vols. (Lyon, An XII = 1804). The article on Andocides in the 4th
edition agrees verbatim with the note in the MS., so far as it goes, but
adds at the end one sentence: Ils se trouvent aussi dans les Oratores
Graeci d'Etienne, 1575, in-f. The 8th edition appends two more
clauses Auger les a traduits en françois en 1783, in-8°. Le plus
curieux est celui qu'il prononça contre Alcibiade. In both editions the
mistake concerning the birthplace of Isaeus is corrected (né à Chalcis
dans l'isle d'Eubée), and a separate article is assigned to his namesake of
the imperial age.
There can be little doubt that these notes were inserted in the MS.
by Prince Alexander Bano Hantzerlï, who was familiar with the French
language; Clarke sent him "the original edition of the French
Encyclopédie" as a present from Paris in the autumn of 1802 (Travels,
Part the second, Section the first = vol. 11, 1812, p. 55). It may be con-
jectured that he exchanged his Dictionnaire des hommes illustres for the
compendium of L'Ecuy in order to save space, and that he abandoned
the enterprise of equipping the MS. with short biographies on perceiving
that the remainder of f. 1" and the whole of f. 2', which is blank, would
not supply room even for the briefest account of Dinarchus, Antiphon,
Lycurgus, Gorgias, Alcidamas, Lesbonax, and Herodes.
The Prince must also be considered the author of a number of
marginal comments which disfigure the pages of Isaeus, Antiphon, and
Gorgias. They are various readings taken from a printed book (e.g.
Isae. v. 16. 5 elo tòv tútov' yvvaîkes). The selection is capricious, the
notes on Isaeus being confined to V. II. 10, 16. 5, 18. 4, 25. 8, 34. I, 5,
36. 5, 38. 2, 41. 5, 43. 5, 44. 2, VI. I. 5, 16. 6, 27. 6, 57. 8, 64. 3. The
text used was not the Aldine, for it had oùкoûv in v. 34. 1. It was not
Stephanus nor the edition published at Hanover in 1619, for it had in
VI. 27. 6 μουνυχίᾳ καὶ μουνυχίασι. It follows that the commentator had
access to Reiske, who in vI. 27. 6 puts in his text Movvvxía, in his note
"malim Movvvxião." Clarke observes (Travels 11. p. 53) that Phanariot
Princes, who refused to sell MSS., were willing to exchange them for
good modern editions, especially of the Orators. If Prince Alexander
DESCRIPTION OF A
XV
Bano Hantzerlï in his letters to Clarke gave specimens of divergences
from the vulgate, we can comprehend why Porson was urgent for the
purchase of the MS.
The fourth page (f. 2") contains an index of contents in parallel
columns by the hand which wrote the MS., beginning with ráde eveotiv
ἐν τῇδε τῇ βίβλω and ending with εἰσὶ δὲ τῶν πάντων οἱ λόγοι μα'. LMZ,
though defective (see p. iii), reproduce this index with trifling variations;
thus in M the title of Isae. II (περὶ τοῦ μενεκλέους κλήρου) is smudged
and illegible, and the titles of only 13 (not 15) speeches of Antiphon
are given. Andocides begins at the top of f. 3 and the authors.
enumerated on p. i follow in order to f. 170, the last page (f. 170")
being blank. The scribe knew that Isaeus was incomplete; contrary
to his usual practice in passing from author to author he left nearly a
whole page blank where or. XI breaks off; on f. 76" he wrote only three
lines and began Dinarchus at the top of the next page (f. 77′).
The number of lines on a page varies considerably; in Isaeus it
ranges from 32 to 40. Buermann's attempt (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 355)
to shew that the archetype had a page of about the same size, is in my
opinion unsuccessful.
Red ink is employed for titles, lemmata, and the initial letter of each
hypothesis and oration. The title is placed between the argument and
the speech; before the argument is generally written vπóbeσɩs Tоû ɧîs or
τοῦ ἑξῆς ὑπόθεσις, but in or. VII ὑπόθεσις τοῦ ἀπολλοδώρου κλήρου, in
or. 1x ὑπόθεσις τοῦ ἑξῆς. περὶ τοῦ ἀστυφίλου κλήρου, in or. x ὑπόθεσις
τοῦ πρὸς ξεναίνετον, ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀριστάρχου κλήρου. The MS. has suffered
from the negligence of the rubricator, who sometimes turned over a leaf
before his ink was quite dry.
Ι
The compendia used for final syllables and for γάρ, δέ, καί, ως, ὅτι are
of the ordinary type, and call for no comment. O. Lehmann (Die
tachygraphischen Abkürzungen der griechischen Handschriften p. 3) states
that the representation of v by a horizontal stroke above the line is rare
in Greek MSS. except at the end of a line and uncommon in MSS. of
the thirteenth century. The sign occurs occasionally in the codex
Crippsianus (1. 26. 3 ἐστι, ib. 27. 2 ἐστὶ, ΙΙ. 24. 6 προσήκουσι, ΧΙ. 44. I
πλεí∞), but never, so far as I have seen, at the end of a line. Lehmann
(op. cit. p. 85) also observes that the sign 4 for dia seems to have gone
out of use after the twelfth century. In Isae. II. 27. I we find atí for
dià Tí, a form which may be an imperfect reproduction of a symbol
found in the archetype. In the middle of words the syllable μar is
sometimes contracted to με as in φιλοχρήμτος (1. 21. 5), πραγμάτων
(11. 30. 5), χρήμτα (v. 34. 7), ονόμτι (Vi. 21. 11). The ecclesiastical
xvi
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
I
abbreviations (Lehmann, op. cit. p. 1) άνος (ἄνθρωπος), μηρ (μήτηρ), πηρ
(marýρ) are in regular use. The accent is rarely omitted (11. 13. 7 åvwv);
the line is generally waved and often combined with the accent (III. 70. 6
Mpa). The contraction is extended to derivatives (1. 1. 8 πршшv, X. 26. 3
πрwov, V. 45. 5 pidi). Other abbreviations, which have a bearing on
the text, are treated in § 5 (p. xliv).
Transpositions are indicated by the letters a, ß, y (II. 26. 2, IV. 18. 6,
V. 4. 5, VIII. 32. I, X. 17. 1). Dots above words signify that they are to
be omitted (e.g. v. 5. 1, VI. 31. 3, VII. 43. 5, X. 4. 5). Sometimes the
writer drew his pen through the fault (e.g. 1. 6. 7, III. 33. 2). The place
in the line of words supplied in the margin is marked by ·/. (VI. 23. 2,
57. 5, VIII. 27. 6, XI. 5. 7), but this sign is rarely needed, since nearly
all the marginal additions are made at the end or beginning of a line.
Other signs in the margin are (at the end of the line тòv vóμov, ☎
ἄνδρες, αμφισβητεῖν μὲν ὡς ὑπὲρ γνησίων VI. 12. 7, 8) and ~
(at the
beginning of the line -σάμενος ἄλλον οἰκειότερον ἐμοῦ ποιήσαιτ᾽ ἄν.
Sei§άTw yàp OûTOS II. 22. 4, 5). In vI. 12. 7, 8 there is a lacuna, in
II. 22. 4, 5 following Dobree I have changed ποιήσαιτ᾽ ἄν to ἐποιήσατ'
to
ἄν. The second sign is also found beside the line συγχωρήσαι μεν, ὡς
ἐκεῖνος ἐπανορθῶσαι τὰς διαθήκας ἐβούλετο, πᾶσι δήπου, 1. 26. 2, 3, where
no flaw is perceptible, and according to Buermann sixteen times in
Andocides. Three dots mark a lacuna in Ix. 5. 3. What the three
dots mean in IX. 10. 3, is not clear. Apart from the hideous anno-
tations by Prince Alexander Bano Hantzerlï there is in Isaeus only one
marginal comment, ἰανουαρίου in explanation of μεμακτηριώνι, V. 31. 3, 4.
äv.
The text has been extensively corrected. The nature and value of
these alterations will be discussed at length in the following section.
The view which I have adopted is that only two correctors can be
distinguished with certainty, the first (A¹) being the scribe himself, who
detected his own blunders inter scribendum or on revision, the second
(A²) a later critic with a taste for conjectural emendation. The author-
ship of a considerable number of corrections-I have counted 73-
cannot be determined, because they consist in mere erasures of letters
or parts of letters. These are designated in the critical notes by
'A corr' or 'rasur. corr. The leading fault of the copyist was the
omission of small words. Many of these were supplied by A¹ and A² in
or above the line or in the margin. A¹ had also another plan, which
deserves notice; he scratched out a word or final syllable, which he
then wrote above the line, and in the space so gained inserted his
supplement. Additions made in this way I have indicated, following
Buermann, by 'in rasur. add. A¹ without specifying the number of
DESCRIPTION OF A
xvii
νος
OV
letters erased. The following is a list of these erasures: II. 19. 7 TÒV
ἑτ*****ύο γάρ, ΙΙΙ. 71. 3 ἐπιμελεῖσθε τοῦ, ib. 74. 5 θείων τικκκῶν νῦν,
IV. I. 8, 9 δοκεῖ****ἱκανὰ, ib. I. 9 γενέσθα*τεκμήρια, ib. 7. I τού*****
γνοίητ᾽, ib. 14. 6 κυρί**κελεύει, v. Io. 4 γενόμεν***** τῶν καθημέραν,
VI. 30. 4 EŮKTýμo*** тàs Ovyaтépas—an obscure case; from the corrected
reading εὐκτήμοἄλλἢ τὰς θυγατέρας it is hard to settle whether εὐκτήμον
ἢ τὰς θυγ. οι εὐκτήμονος τὰς θυγ. was originally written—VII. 40. 1, 2
λειτουργί**ἐξελειτούργησεν, VIII. 15. 3 οἷα γὰρ εἶ*** υἱέων, ΙΧ. 7. 5
ἐποιήσα** ταῦτα.
¿πoιýσa** yàρ, XI. 49. 3 T** tavтα. Compare III. 74. 3 (yévous omitted
by the first hand?), Iv. 5. 5, v. 19. 8, VIII. 38. 10, 11, IX. 25. 3 (Yeud*
λaµßáveiv), XI. 20. 4, ib. 38. 2, 3 (πЄρì Tŵv omitted by the first hand?).
In III. II. I KA EKασTOV Ste are in an erasure, but, as Buermann
observes, the penknife seems to have been used to remove dirt, not
writing.
r
Iota adscript appears once, in IV. 10. 2 díέavтes. In III. 39. 4 the
corruption παλλακίδι arose from misreading παλλακίαι, perhaps when
written in uncial characters; cf. III. 74. 6, XI. 5. 10. It is possible that
iota adscript has been erased in 11. 11. 2 έavтŵ* λóyovs. Buermann
suggests this explanation for the erasures in II. 10. 7 avтŵ*, III. 18. 5
δίκη*, IV. 8. 3 αὐτῶ*, v. 26. 7 αὐτῶ*, VI. 46. 2 αὐτῶ*, ib. 64. 3 ἐπιδεικνύη*.
See however p. xx. In VII. 44. 4 èkeívw*, ib. 45. 2 avтw*, XI. 26. 2
auro the letter scratched out was v. Iota subscript in the first hand.
in these cases I cannot distinguish between A and A¹-is found in
ΙΙΙ. 25. 2 ᾤμην, ib. 32. 2 ᾔδει, ib. 41. 4 ᾔδεις, ib. 48. 8 προσποιήση,
VII. 6. 5 διώκησεν, ib. 34. 3 ᾔδει, ΙΧ. 26. 2 ῥᾳδίως, ib. 29. 5 διώκει, ΧΙ. 20. I
ῥᾳδίως. It was added by A' in III. 34. I ᾔδει, ib. 40. 6 ᾔδεις, ib. 49. 2
yolov, ib. 50. 6 ydeɩ, ib. 62. 5 άonpeîto, ib. 63. 2 ydeoav, ib. 74. 2 ÿdec,
IV. 28. 7 ❤xeto, V. 17. 3 eloýeɩ, VI. 5. 5 ovvýkel, ib. 6. 4 ovvýkel, ib. 6. 5
ovvýkel, ib. 15. 3 ovvýknoev, ib. 15. 4 Siŋtýon, ib. 21. 6 ✿kel, ib. 21. 8
διητᾶτο, ib. 51. 5 συνῴκησε, VII. 9. 2 συνδιώκει, ib. 14. το ᾔτησε, ib. 15. 2
ᾤχετο, ib. 32. I ᾔδει, ib. 39. 4 ᾤετο, VIII. 9. 5 διῃτᾶτο, ib. 29. 6 ᾔδεσαν,
ib. 35. 5 ᾤκει, ib. 35. η ᾤκει, ib. 38. το ᾤμην, ΙΧ. 5. 3 ᾐσθόμην, ib. II. 5
ᾔδει, ib. 23. 6 καταψεύδῃ, ib. 24. 4 προσῄει, ib. 27. η διῃτᾶτο, Χ. 19. 2
συνῴκει, ΧΙ. 9. 5 ᾠόμεθα, ib. 15. 7 ᾠήθη, ib. 22. 9 διῄρηται.
The so-called v épeλkvotikóv (Jannaris, Historical Greek Grammar,
App. 11. 16 sqq., Meisterhans, Gramm. d. att. Inschr.3 p. 113) is absent
before vowels in II. hyp. 7 εἶπε, ὧδε, ΙΙ. 4. 3 εἶχε ἀνδρὶ, ν. 43. 8 κτήμασι.
ἀλλ', VI. II. 3 οἶδε (οἶδεν Α') οὐδ᾽, ΧΙ. 50. 2 ὑπῆρχε· οὐδὲ, is present
before consonants in I. 33. 3, 4 τισιν καὶ, ib. 38. 2 ἀποφαίνωσιν σφᾶς,
ib. 41. 4 ἀμφισβητοῦσιν. τὴν, ΙΙΙ. 13. 6 μεμαρτυρήκασιν γίνεσθαι, ib. 75. 5
W. I.
C
xviii
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
κατέλιπεν τῶν, ΙV. 12. 3 μάρτυσιν πιστεύειν, v hyp. 2 ἧκεν διαθήκην, ib. 6. 2
ἐτελεύτησεν μαχόμενος, ib. 16. 3 προσῆκεν τοῦ, ib. 19. 3 ἐξήρκεσεν τὰ,
VII. 20. 4, 5 ἄρρεσιν τῶν, ib. 22. 2 εἰσίν. λαβὲ, ΙΧ. ΙΙ. 5 ἐγίνωσκεν, καὶ.
In II. 3I. 2, 3 κεφαλαίωσιν τὰ is a corruption of Κεφαλῆσιν τὰ, in
VIII. 27. 5 ἐτόλμησεν ἐρύξαι has been emended to ἐτόλμησεν γρύξαι, in
III. 23. 2 φησι* ποιούμενος and iv. 5. I ἔστι μὲν the letter v has been
erased. When è stands before consonants, I have followed the MS.;
when it is absent before vowels, I have added it, even in a pause.
In
Athenian official inscriptions between 403 B.C. and 336 B.C. before
vowels in media oratione v is present 41 times, absent 9 times, before
vowels in pausa v is present 39 times, absent 15 times (Meisterhans, op.
cit. p. 114). See for the evidence of codex Σ of Demosthenes Voemel,
Prolegg. gramm. §§ 16, 17, for the practice of the MSS. of Isocrates
Benseler on Areopagit. p. 185 sqq.
I have kept outws before consonants (1. 21. 5, 33. 2, IV. 24. 7,
VI. 44. 5, VII. 26. I, IX. 31. 1, X. hyp. 8, 8. 1). Compare Voemel, op.
cit. § 25, Blass-Kühner, Griech. Gramm. 1. p. 296.
2
With regard to accents note λáße (Chandler, Greek Accentuation
$ 774), Tnon (Chandler, op. cit. § 87, but rnen in VIII. 32. 6), Opiáσi
(XI. 42. 5), πOλítɩs (VIII. 43. 8; πoλíтαι in III. 59. 5 has been corrected
by A²), éπideiкvôvai (VI. 65. 5, X. 23. 4; Kalıσтávαι in x. 22. 5 was
altered to kalioтâvaι by A², cp. VI. 17. 5, XI. 13. 11, Ant. v. 17
καθεστάναι Α, καθιστᾶναι Α'), τὰ ληθῆ, τὰ λλότρια, ταναντία, τὰ μαυτοῦ,
Täpуúρlov (VIII. 24. 7, the accent on a erased). The difficulty of dealing
with verbal derivatives in -Tos (Chandler, op. cit. §§ 530, 531) was felt by
the scribe; he generally wrote εἰσποίητος, ἐκποίητος, but in some cases
the proparoxytone or paroxytone accent is a second thought, e.g. vII.
25. 2 ἐκποίητος, III. 46. 2 εἰσποιήτου, ib. 61. 2 εἰσποιήτους. Αδελφιδή,
ådeλpidŋv were made perispomena by A²; note VII. 19. 2 adeλp**ǹv.
A² also changed Tóre to TOTÈ in v. 8. 2, corrected various trifling
errors, and added accents in many places, e.g. vi. 46. 7 vieos, ib. 57. 2
ἀλλα,
aλλa, VII. 2. 7 Tep, not however without oversights; we find dnλovori
ΙΙΙ. 36. 4, εἰσποιητοι VI. 44. 4, ἐπιδειξειν VII. 29. 7, μετα δε ταῦτα ΧΙ. 4Ο. 2.
The treatment of enclitics often differs from the modern convention,
but a consistent rule is not observed; corrections are sometimes intro-
duced by A². The following are typical examples: IV. 24. 3 ávtídikoi
φασί, ΙΙΙ. 79. 6 τεκμήριον ἐστὶ, II. 36. 5 ἐκείνου τε, ΙΙΙ. ΙΙ. 4 λέγειν τὶ, 10.
9. 6 ὅτι ποτ᾽ Apr., ὅτί ποτ' Α', ib. 20. 4 ὅταν ib.
TLS, 73. 2 ἄλλον τινα Apr.,
äλλóv Tiva A² (Chandler, op. cit. § 965), ib. 9. 5 πeρì тE, VIII. 1. 7 OÛTOL
τε, ΧΙ. 34. Ι εἶναι φησὶ, VI. 25. 4 οἷος τε, 111. 21. 4 ὑμεῖς τὲ, ib. 74· 3 ἡμῶν
τινὰ, ib. 67. 8 μαθεῖν ἐστι τοῦτο, ΙΧ. 7. 3, 4 ἀναγκαῖόν μοι ἔστιν, ΙΙΙ. 14. 1, 2
2
οὗτοι
DESCRIPTION OF A
xix
οὐ δή που γε, but ib. 35. 6 ὅστίς γέ φησιν. Compare Jernstedt, Anti-
phontis Orationes, praef. p. xli.
Two words are often run into one, especially when the first is a
preposition, e.g. δηλονότι, διατί, διαταῦτα, ἐξαρχῆς, καταρχάς, καταταῦτα,
περιπολλοῦ, περιπλείονος, περιπλείστου, τοπαράπαν, τοπρότερον. The writer
was not consistent (note x. 3. 3 ἐξ ἀρχῆς, ib. 8. Ι ἐξαρχῆς, ib. 15. I, 2
ἐξαρχῆς), but the practice seems to be based on a theory, for the accent
over the preposition has sometimes been erased, e.g. IV. 3I. I, 2
περιπλείονος, ΧΙ. I. I Διαταῦθ' ; compare το πρότερον ΧΙ. 23. 2, 3. Here
and there the accent has been added by A' as in περιπλείονος III. 66. 2,
περιπλείστου VII. 14. 9 (but περιπλείστου VII. 12. 3), προδίκης Χ. 24. 5,
καταδιαθήκην ΧΙ. 18. 5, κατὰταῦτα ΧΙ. 2. 6 (but καταταῦτα ΧΙ. 12. 6),
κατανόμον VI. 14. 10. The form οὐδὲ πώποτε is found in II. 28. 8,
ΙΧ. 33. 6, 7 ; οὐδεπώποτε in I. 48. 4, III. 8ο. 6, VIII. 15. 4, and μηδεπώποτε
in IX. 29. 2 are due to a corrector, who erased the accent over the first
We find both ταυτὸν (ΧΙ. 13. 2, 19. 4) and ταὐτὸ (ΧΙ. 17. 6), μὴδὲ
(I. 25. 7, 26. 6, 33. 3, II. 39. 2, III. 51. 2, IX. 12. 4, X. 10. 3, 23. 10) and
μηδὲ, οὐκοῦν and οὐκ οὖν (III. 69. r). The last word troubled ancient
copyists as it still troubles modern editors; in III. 68. 4 and XI. 32. I
οὐκ οὖν has been corrected to οὐκοῦν by erasure of the breathing, A
changed ούκουν into οὐκοῦν in XI. 13. 4, and into οὐκ οὖν in Ant. v. 67.
I have not admitted ouк ouv; see the commentary on V. 34. I.
Ε.
In the perplexing problem of determining the range in oratorical
prose of the reflexive pronoun αυτόν, αὑτοῦ etc. the MS. gives no help.
It is sometimes uncertain (e.g. I. hyp. 2, 15. 5) whether the writer meant
the rough or the soft breathing. The aspirate, when unmistakable, is
always right, but it is found very rarely, viz. II. 21. 4, 24. 4, III. 32. 7,
VIII. 40. 7, IX. 13. 3, XI. 41. 4 (Kai Tóvľ AvTOû), 49. 5. On the other
hand in a host of passages the lenis is demonstrably wrong. What an
editor desires is some guiding principle in dealing with the troublesome
residuum ; see the note on II. II. 3. The first hand wrote ωμόσαμεν,
ὁμόσαι, ὁμόσας, ὁμωμόκατε, ὁμοθέντα, but ὀμνῦναι (II. 39. 4); A has
restored the soft breathing in two places only, xi. 6. 7 ώμοσεν and ib. 6. 8
ὁμωμοκότας. In or. iv. ἄγνων is constant
2
2
The MS. shows traces of a singular system of punctuation. How
foreign it was to modern methods may be seen from the following
examples; IX. 15. Ι τῶ, οὖν ἂν ὑμῶν φανείη, ib. 24. 9 δοκεῖ δέ μοι κἂν,
ὁμόσαι, Χ. Ι. 7 οἱ μὲν, γὰρ, ib. 3· 3 ὁ κλῆρος οὗτος, οὐ τούτων ἦν, ib. 5. I
ἅπαντα ταυτί, τῆς ἐμῆς μητρὸς ἐγένετο, ib. 7. 5, 6 ὥστε τὸν κλῆρον, ἐπὶ τῇ
ἐμῇ μητρὶ γενέσθαι, ib. 21. 4 ἐπίκληρος ἦν ἐπὶ τούτοις τοῖς χρήμασιν, ἡ ἐμὴ
μήτηρ, ΧΙ. 19. 1 τὰς μὲν, νενίκηκα, ib. 43. 3 ἐνεπώλησαν, τετρακισχιλίας
C2
XX
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
2
ων
αν
3
ἐννακοσίας, ib. 49. Ι, 2 Χαιρέλεως δὲ, τὸ Προσπαλτοῖ χωρίον κατέλιπεν.
The interest of these oddities lies in the explanation which they afford
of numerous erasures, some of which have been misinterpreted by
collators. Take for example or. 1; erasures can be seen after the
following words: ἐσώθη (το. 3), βραχέα (17. 7), ἀποστερήσειε (18. 7),
ὀργισθέντες (19. 2), ὀργιζόμενος (19. 5), γένοιτο (2ο. 1), ὢν (20. 2), διατί-
θεσθαι (20. 3), ὧν (20. 4), ἐντεῦθεν (26. 4), γνώμη (26. 9), ἂν (27. 4),
σκοπείν (33. 4), κλεωνύμου (50. 3), ἂν (51. 3). It is plain that someone
has been waging war against commas. Certain erasures registered by
Buermann I have passed over in my critical notes, believing that they
signify nothing but the removal of stops, viz. 1. 10. 3 éσwon*, ib. 17. 7
βραχέα, ΙΙ. 1ο. 7 αὐτῶν, ΙΙΙ. 7. 3 παραχρῆμα*, ib. 7. 4 ἐπιδέδεικται,
ib. 18. 5 δίκη*, ib. 68. 3 καταλίπη» (after γνησίους), 73. 8 κλήρ, IV. 8.
αὐτῶ*, ν. 26. 7 αὐτῶν, VI. 43. 7 ταναντία», ib. 45. 5 προσμεμαρτυρήκασιν,
ib. 46. 2 αὐτῶν, ib. 50. 5 ψηφισμάτων», ib. 64. 3 ἐπιδεικνύη*, Χ. 5. 8
κυρωνίδη*, ib. 26. 4 υἱῶ*, XI. 21. 4 τι*, ib. 31. 2 ἐμὲ*, ib. 47. 7 ἀφανίζω*.
A² devoted some attention to stops as well as to breathings and
accents; e.g. he put a mark of interrogation after repo in IV. 24. 3
(wherein he erred), and after Toñσaι in V. 13. 5, he added a comma
after peúyovτas in VIII. 13. 7, he changed a full stop into a comma after
iepŵv in vI. 47. 3 etc. Trifles of this kind are not unworthy of mention
in view of the controversy about the work of the second corrector.
In respect of crasis and elision I have simply reproduced the
irregularity of the Codex Crippsianus. C. F. G. Meutzner (Jahrbb. f.
cl. Philol. 83, 1861, p. 464) gravely censured Scheibe for leaving in his
text unelided prepositions (11. 6. 3, III. 27. 6, 29. 5, 37. 5, 73. 7, V. 37. 7,
42. 3, VIII. 7. 4, IX. 5. 4, 5, 6. 1, 5, 23. 3, 27. 6) and for inconsistent
treatment of ἀλλά, οὐδέ, οὔτε, μηδέ, μήτε, εἴτε. Even Cobet (Mnem. II,
p. 123) thought it worth his while to emend μerà 'Ipikpárovs in II. 6. 3. In
this matter correction of our sole authority is futile. Even if we could
recover the original copy of the orations in Isaeus' own hand, there is
no reason to suppose that its spelling would reflect faithfully the elisions
of contemporary speech. Athenian official inscriptions are reckless of
consistency in the treatment before vowels of dé, re, and prepositions.
(Meisterhans, Gramm. d. att. Inschr.³ p. 69), and the oldest Greek book
in existence, the papyrus of the Persae of Timotheus, attributed to the
fourth century before Christ, exhibits the same freedom as the inscrip-
tions, giving e.g. in col. 11. 6 ei dè ávτítoixos, in col. II. II èv SËπɩTTE,
in col. III. 14, 15 χειρῶν δὲ ἔγβαλλον and στόματος δ᾽ ἐξήλλοντο etc.
In the restoration of Attic spelling I have followed the example of
Scheibe and Buermann, my immediate predecessors. I have always
DESCRIPTION OF A
xxi
given γίγνεσθαι, γιγνώσκειν, and the Attic forms of ἐγγυαν. The MS. has
yíyveolaɩ in 1. 45. 4 (A¹), 111. 36. 8, 43. 2 (yv in rasur. A¹), 61. 5, 73. 9,
IV. 15. 8, V. 13. 6, 15. 5, 44. 5, VIII. 7. 7, 34. 7, X. 26. 6, XI. 22. 8,
yɩyváσkeɩ in III. 10. 4, 12. 7, 15. 3, 37. 7, V. 29. 5, VI. 15. 2, 26. 7, 32. 5,
VII. 3. 5, but yíveolaι in 23 places and yivwoкev in 24 places. The
Attic pluperfect of ¿yyvâv (see Voemel, Prolegg. gramm. ad Dem. § 63) is
preserved in III. 58. 6 yуvýκe; everywhere else characteristic Attic
forms have yielded to those of a later age, viz. éve*yúa III. 45. 4, 70. 2,
¿ve*yúŋoe(v) III. 36. 5, 52. 2, 79. 2, IX. 29. 4, éve*yvâтo III. 70. 6,
V. 18. 5, 20. 3 (ẻyyvâto Apr., éveyvâto A¹), 20. 7, 8, VIII. 14. 5 (¿yyvŵvto
Apr., ἐνεγυώντο Α'), ἐνε γυήσατο III. 55. 2, V. 2. 7, 4. 6, ἐνε*γε*γύητο
111. 55. 5, ¿yyeyuŋkws III. 40. 6, ¿yyvnµévos III. 73. 5. I restore through-
out the Accusative in ʼn in compound proper names of the third
declension (Blass-Kühner I. p. 512, Voemel, op. cit. § 58). A has
piλoɣápη in III. 22. 6, Sikaιoyévŋ in v. 12. 7, but dikaιoyévŋv in v. 1. 2,
4. I, 19. 5, 22. 8, 30. 4, 35. I, .Newɣápny (corrected from λewyapu by A³)
in v. 3. 2, 17. 5, 19. 5, ¿pyaµévnv in v1. 10. 7, dnµoxáρnv (corrected from
Snμóxapiv by A) in x. 9. 8. The following forms are also tacitly
δημόχαριν
corrected:
viós, vieîs etc. passim.
Ópáτopes etc. passim.
ἠμφισβήτουν, ἠμφισβήτησα etc. passim.
λειτουργεῖν, λειτουργία passim (Blass, Αθηναίων Πολ. praef. p. xxi).
προήδειν (VI. I. 6), ᾔδειν (ΙΧ. 19. 1), ἀπῄειν (v. 24. 4), ᾔδεις (III. 40. 6,
4I. 4).
προσποιήσῃ (111. 48. 8), οδύρη (ν. 43. 3), καταψεύδη (ΙΧ. 23. 6); see
Voemel, op. cit. § 80, Blass-Kühner II. p. 60, Meisterhans,
Gramm. d. att. Inschr.³ p. 165.
γνοίητε (ιν. 7. 1), ἀποδοίητε (VII. 41. 2), εἰδείητε (VIII. 40. 2).
εὕρισκεν (ΙΙ. ΙΙ. Ι), ευτύχει (VI. 18. 4), εύχετο (VIII. 16. 7).
eipyάow (V. 45. 5); see Voemel, op. cit. § 75, Blass-Kühner II. p. 13,
Αθηναίων Πολ. c. 2.
τρισκαιδεκαετής (ΧΙΙ. 10. 2).
XI
ἀπέκλεισαν (VI. 40. 3), ἀποκλειομένης (ΧΙ. 17. 7).
ἐκτετικέναι (Χ. 15. 8, 9).
All other changes in orthography are recorded in the critical notes.
With δωρεά (1. 18. 3, 22. 3, 7, 46. 2, 48. 6, II. 31. 4), ᾔδεσαν (ΙΙΙ. 63. 2,
VIII. 29. 3), ἀφήκαμεν (v. I. 5, 6), ἀπεδώκαμεν (ν. 28. 3), περιεωράκασι
(VII. 32. 5) I have not meddled, and I now regret that I listened to
Cobet on II. 31. 3 and altered διῄτησαν to ἐδιῄτησαν.
xxii
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
§ 4. THE CORRECTIONS IN A.
Bekker made no attempt to subdivide the numerous corrections
found in the MS. In general he was content with the terms ‘pr. A’
and ‘correctus A,' but occasionally gave something more definite such
as a recentiore manu' (1. 49. 2), ‘a recenti manu' (II. 24. 6, IV. 14. 8),
'rec. A' (IV. I. 10, V. 7. 5, 6). Dobson was not more precise than
Bekker. J. Sigg, who opens the new era (p. xii), discovered the hands
of three correctors (Jernstedt, Antiphontis orationes, praef. p. xxxi,
Buermann, Hermes 17, p. 393). Jernstedt (op. cit. p. xxx), Blass
(Antiphontis orationes, ed. 2, praef. p. v), Thalheim (Lycurgus, praef.
p. v, De Dinarchi codicibus commentatio, Breslau, 1886, p. 1) and other
scholars (see Lipsius, Andocides, 1888, praef. p. xvi) find only two
correctors, (1) the scribe himself (A'), who introduced many changes,
some while writing, others, it would seem, on revising his work, (2) a
later critic (A2), whose alterations can be easily distinguished by the
yellowish colour of the ink. This view appears to me right, but, not
being a trained observer of palaeographical minutiae, I recognise that
my opinion on such points is of little value. The corrections commonly
lumped together under the designation A¹ are subjected to an elaborate
analysis by H. Schenkl (Wiener Studien III. p. 195 sqq.), who attributes
very few to the copyist, the majority to a second hand (the first
corrector), others to a third hand, some even to a fourth; he also
considers that the scribe was not the rubricator. The differences in the
shape of letters, upon which Schenkl rests these conclusions, can be
explained by the different conditions under which the corrector had to
work; for example, a copyist with any regard for the neatness of his
page would naturally use finer and minuter characters when making
additions between the lines or in the margin. Buermann (Isaei orationes,
praef. p. v) so far agrees with Schenkl as to think it probable that the
MS., when completed, was revised by a second person, but he does not
allow this qualified assent to complicate the critical problem, since he
supposes that the reviser had before him, if not the same original as the
scribe, at any rate a MS. which was its twin-brother (exemplar archetypi
simillimum), and moreover rejects as impracticable any systematic
separation between corrections made inter scribendum and corrections
afterwards introduced by the reviser. The personality of the rubricator
may be disregarded by an editor. On the other hand the character of
the changes attributed to A¹ needs examination, not only on account of
their number-in Isaeus there are more than 400-but also in view of a
THE CORRECTIONS IN A
xxiii
modern tendency, which reached its climax in Buermann's Isaeus, to
exaggerate the value of the readings of Apr.
In the first two speeches of Isaeus the relations of Apr. and A¹ can
be elucidated by comparison with the Ambrosian MS., Q, an authority
independent of A and derived from the same archetype (generally called
a). Since the hand of A² first appears in or. III, corrections made by
simple erasure may be assigned to A¹. Q agrees with A' in 65 places,
but disagrees with A' and agrees with Apr. in seven only, viz.:
1. 6. 5 ἀμύνεσθαι Apr., ἀμύνασθαι Q, ἀμύνεσθαι Α'.
1. 27. 4 *βουλήθη Apr., ἠβουλήθη Q, ἐβουλήθη Α'.
I. 34. 3 o Te Apr. Q, oï ye A rasur. corr.
1. 46. 3 ἐνεχειρήσαμεν Apr. Q, ἐνεχειρίσαμεν A rasur. corr.
I. 47. I ὑμᾶς Apr. Q, ἡμᾶς Α'.
ΙΙ. 3. 4 θυγατέρα* Apr., θυγατέρας Q, θυγατέρες Α'.
λ
II. 34. 2 ἐπίβαλε A, ἐπίβαλε Q.
TE,
The coincidence of vulgar errors in Apr. and Q is not enough to convict
A¹ of interpolation. In II. 40. 4 A has os ye, but B, its copy, os тe, and
in IV. 20. 2 B gives diexeípio ev, but its descendant, M, Siexeípnoev.
I cannot follow Buermann, when in 1. 6. 5 he takes aμívaola in
preference to aµúveσlai on the strength of the agreement of Apr. and Q
(Hermes 17, p. 396); Schoemann's worthless Paris MS. (R) also has
ἀμύνασθαι. It is true that in II. 34. 2 ἐπίβαλε is nearer to the right
reading ἐπίλαβε than ἐπίβαλλε, but this fact does not prove that ἐπίβαλε
stood in a. In III. 12. 7, where èríλaße is required, ABLM concur in
èπíßaλλe, but Z, a copy of M, gives éπíßaλe. The evidence of Q points
to the conclusion that the corrections of A' represent faithfully the
archetype, the readings of Apr. being mere blunders. In the third and
fourth speeches of Andocides the relation of Q and A' is the same.
Q rarely has what stood in A before correction; Lipsius (Andocides,
praef. p. xvii) cites only one certain instance (IV. 5 évláde Apr. Q,
év évde A'). Before leaving Q an interesting variant should be noted.
In 1. 15. 8 Q has aжeµπéμei, whereas Apr. had aπéμeμvev, corrected by
A¹ to άπéñeµev. Buermann (Rh. Mus. 40, p. 395) makes the fair
ἀπέπεμψεν.
inference that the reading of a was άñéµeµyev. Other evidence will
appear to show that the archetype, as might have been expected,
contained corrections similar in form to some found in its descendants;
compare And. iv. 8 τούτου Q, Is. I. 4. 7 πάθη Q, ib. XI. 22. 8 ἐξαπατήσαι
A, Din. I. 73 ἐπαμινώνδας A, Ant. v. 67 ἔχη A, ib. 81 τεκμηραμένους Ν,
EL
ων
οι
οι
αι ο
ειν
xxiv
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
€ αν
Lyc. 15 áкηkóαow A. It is superfluous to enlarge on the artificiality of
ἀκηκόασιν
Buermann's hypothesis (Rh. Mus. 40, p. 392) that the writer of Q
generally (der Regel nach) adopted in his text the pretended variants of
a, while Apr. generally (der Regel nach) disregarded them.
Thus far, nothing has emerged to create mistrust of A'. But Q
contains only the first two speeches of Isaeus and the last two speeches
of Andocides, and a wider induction is desirable. In Dinarchus,
Antiphon, and part of Lycurgus A can be controlled by the Oxford MS.,
N, also derived from a. In Dinarchus N agrees with A' in 143 places
(erasures not reckoned), but disagrees with A' and agrees with Apr. in
12 places, viz.:
I. 5. 8 μέλει ΝApr., μέλλει Α.
1. 9. 7 ὃ φυλάττει NApr., ὦ φυλάττει Α'.
I. 14. 2 Πελοπόνησον NApr., Πελοπόννησον Α'.
ως
1. 15. 7 φανερός Ν, φανερός Α, ως added by Α'.
1. 40. 7 παρακρούονθ' ὑμᾶς NApr., παρακρούονται ὑμᾶς Α'.
1. 47. 3 γενόμενος NApr., γινόμενος Α'.
1. 56. 3 πενταδραχμίαν NApr., πεντεδραχμίαν Α'.
1. 60. II λυσιτελής ᾖ NApr., λυσιτελές ᾖ Α'.
EL
I. 73. 2 ἐπαμινώνδας Ν, ἐπαμινώνδας Α, ει added by A'.
1. 79. 5 ἀποδοκιμάσει N and probably Apr., ἀποδοκιμάσῃ Α'.
1. 98. 2 βουλεύεσθε NApr., βουλεύησθε Α'.
III. 15. 2 ὑμῶν NApr., ἡμῶν Α'.
To these divergences between N and A' we may add the following:
II. 3. 6 γενήσασθ᾽ αὐτὸν Apr., γενήσεσθ' αὐτὸν Npr., γενήσεσθαι αὐτὸν
N2A¹.
III. 9. 3 καταστή***τε Npr. (probably καταστήσαιτε), καταστήσετε
N'Apr., καταστήσητε Α'.
In the first group the nature of the changes supports the view that in
8 places A¹ restored the reading of the archetype, where N and Apr.
had fallen into the same blunder. Further, it is hard to divine what
prompted A' to prefer pavepôs in 1. 15. 7, if the archetype gave no
encouragement, for pavepós, the reading of N and Apr., not only
presents no difficulty to a reader, but is manifestly right. The re-
maining three cases warrant some suspicion of A'. The alteration of
ö puλátte, which is right, into ☎ þuλátteɩ in 1. 9. 7 is a consequence of
the error in 1. 9. 5 ( diaжepúλake A, o diaπepúλake N) and reveals a
thinking mind. It does not seem likely that N and Apr. would both
THE CORRECTIONS IN A
XXV
και
have written aракроúοvě vμâs (1. 40. 7), if the MS. before them had
πаракρоúоνтαι vuâs; and the same argument is applicable to II. 3. 6,
where N², a late corrector, agrees with A'. In I. 6ο. II λυσιτελὲς ᾖ
bears the stamp of a hasty conjecture, the true reading being AvoiteλŃON.
In the last example cited, III. 9. 3, although κатαστýσŋte is right, it may
fairly be doubted whether it was in a, for the writer of N (N') deliberately
restored kataστOETE. Thus A' cannot be acquitted of the offence of
presuming occasionally to exercise his own intelligence. The hypothesis.
that in all the cases quoted the archetype had two readings, lacks
plausibility. It must be borne in mind that the writer of N made but
few corrections, and these inter scribendum. If he had methodically
revised his work, it is probable that the coincidences between N and
Apr. would have been much reduced in number. No one will care to
deny that the archetype, like other MSS., may have contained corrections
written above the line, which were sometimes misinterpreted by the
copyists (see pp. xxiii, xxvii). But the known facts do not justify talk of
the 'varia lectio in a,' as if the archetype were equipped with something
resembling a critical apparatus. It is difficult to discover in Dinarchus
decisive evidence of what may properly be called a various reading in
the archetype. The divergences of A and N nearly always admit
another explanation. In I. 27. 4 (tŵv ådikyµátwv N, tîs πovypías A), as
Thalheim suggests, the writer of A may have been influenced by Tŵv
πονηρών in the preceding line. In I. 107. 8 (μοχθηρὰς ΝΑ', πονηρὰς
Apr.), ib. 109. 7 (κινδύνους ΝΑ', ἀγῶνας Apr.) we have only illustrations
of the intrusion of synonyms; cp. Ant. Tetr. III. B. 4 μox@npô N,
πονηρῷ A, ib. Tetr. I. γ. 6 ἀγῶνα Ν, κίνδυνον A, Isae. IX. 16. 5 οἰκείων Α,
μαθεῖν
φίλων M, Lyc. 79. I μαθεῖν Α, διδάσκεσθαι Μ, ib. 88. 6 εἰκότως Α,
δικαίως
The cause
εἰκότως M, Ant, Tetr. 1. β. 4 ἐγὼ δικαίως Ν, ἐγὼ δ᾽ εἰκότως Α.
of the difference in I. 52. 4 (Tulokλeî N, тiμokλe A) is probably to be
found in the similarity of π and Tɩ; cp. Thuc. 8. 50. 5 πâv ABEFM, tɩ
ầv C, tɩ đâv äv G, Ant. Tetr. 1. 8. 7 Tɩ où N, où A, πoû Reisk., Bast,
Commentatio Palaeographica p. 730. In I. 74. 8, 9 we have óλis **
τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἀπώλετο καὶ διεφθάρη Apr., ἡ πόλις μετὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων
ἁπάντων ἀπώλετο καὶ συνδιεφθάρη Α', ἡ πόλις μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων Ἑλλήνων
ἀπώλετο καὶ συνδιεφθάρη Ν. Blass conjectures that a had ἡ πόλις
μετὰ ἄλλων
ἁπάντων
ovv
ἐκ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἀπώλετο καὶ διεφθάρη and rejects the words μετὰ, ἄλλων,
åñávтwv, σvv as 'foedissima interpolatione inuecta' (Dinarchus, ed. 2,
praef. p. iv). I am disposed to accept his treatment of this troublesome
passage. Another case often quoted is dubious. It is argued that in
xxvi
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
ὀργίζησθε
1. 2. 6 the archetype had ἵνα μάλλον παροξύνωμεν, because we find in
Apr. ἵνα ὀργίζησθε μᾶλλον παροξύνομα* (παροξυνόμενοι Α'), in N ἵνα
μᾶλλον ὀργίζησθε (ὀργίζησθαι Ν2) παροξύνωμεν. Blass reads ἵνα μᾶλλον
[ὀργίζησθε] παροξύνωμεν, Thalheim ἵνα μᾶλλον ὀργίζεσθαι παροξύνωμεν.
It is also possible that the readings of I. 1o8. 6 (ἀπολογεῖσθαι Apr.
(right), ἀπολεῖσθαι ΝΑ rasur. corr.) go back to ἀπολογεῖσθαι in a. The
evidence gathered from Dinarchus, if I read it right, does not bear out
Blass' description of the archetype as 'multis locis correctus variaque
lectione auctus' (op. cit. praef. p. iv).
The testimony of Dinarchus teaches that, though the presumption is
against Apr. and in favour of A', the corrections of A' do not always
rest upon MS. authority, and must be treated accordingly. The same
lesson is enforced by an examination of Antiphon. After v. 84, where
traces of A² cease, erasures may be attributed to A'. The corrections
of N2 are generally considered late conjectures. In Antiphon N agrees
with A' in 230 places, but differs from A' and agrees with Apr. in
21 places. N and Apr. seem to have stumbled into the same error in
15 of these passages, viz.:
1. 5 προβολής Npr. Apr., προβουλῆς Ν Α'.
1. 26 sy NApr., os y' A' (only erasure?).
Tetr. I. a. hyp. λυσίω Npr., λυσείω Apr., λυσίου Ν Α'.
ib. α. η ἀποφεύξασθαι Npr. Apr., ἀποφεύξεσθαι Ν Α'.
ib. β. 12 κατάγνωτε NApr., καταγνώτε Α'.
ib. γ. 9 φανερὸς NApr., φανερῶς Α'.
ib. δ. 3 ἐπιβουλεύοντάς μου NApr., ἐπιβουλεύοντάς μοι Α' (only
erasure?).
ib. S. 11 ws NApr., os A'.
Tetr. II. β. 2 κἂν αὐτὸς NApr., καὶ αὐτὸς Α' (according to Thalheim
A³).
ib. y. 9 oỷ om. NApr., add. A'.
Tetr. III. γ. 6 οὗτος NApr., οὕτως Α' (an acute accent added above
the circumflex, and ws written above os).
ν. η διαπράσσονται NApr., διαπράσσωνται Α'.
ib. 28 ὁμολογῶσιν NApr., ὁμολογοῦσιν Α'.
i. 93 οἱ NApr., οἱ Α'.
VI. II διδασκάλιον NApr., διδασκαλεῖον Α'.
This theory will not fit the remaining cases. It can hardly be an
accident when N and Apr. concur in the right reading as in I. I (ἔχει
μοι NApr., ἔχοιμι Α'), Tetr. I. δ. 8 (διπολείοις NApr., διπολίοις Α',
according to Blass), V. 19 (ἐλασσωθεὶς NApr., ἔλος σωθεὶς Α'). A double
THE CORRECTIONS IN A
xxvii
reading in the archetype can be invoked to explain the reading of A' in
I. 1 and v. 19, but the conjectural critic stands revealed in the following
passages:
1. 30 δηλοῦσιν ὑφ᾽ ὧν ἀπόλλυνται] ἂν ἀπολοῦνται ΝApr., ἀπόλωνται Α',
ἀπόλλυνται Μ, Bekker.
αν
Tetr. III. a. 2 ὅστις οὖν τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀξιωθέντων τοῦ βίου ἡμῶν
ἀνόμως τινα ἀποκτείνει] τούτων ΝΑ, τῶν Blass, ἀξιωθέντος NApr.,
ἀξιωθεὶς Α', ἀξιωθέντων Blass.
VI. 10 οὔτ᾽ ἂν καταψηφίσαισθε] καταψηφίσεσθε NApr., καταψηφίσησθε
Α', καταψηφίσαισθε Bekker.
The argument is clinched by some instructive passages in which N
differs both from Apr. and A¹:
•
Tetr. 11. γ. 3 δέομαι ὑμῶν μὴ ὑπὸ πονηρᾶς λόγων ἀκριβείας πει-
σθέντας, ψευδῆ τὴν ἀλήθειαν τῶν πραχθέντων ἡγήσασθαι] πεισθέντες
Α', ἡγήσασθαι Ν, ἡγήσασθε Apr., ἡγήσησθε Α'.
VI. 22 εἶεν γὰρ οἱ συνειδότες πολλοὶ] εἰ ἓν Ν, ἐι** Apr. (above et a
circumflex accent seems to have been erased), eioì A', elev
Maetzner.
Here A' is twice caught in the act. In another passage the scribes of
both MSS. have attempted emendation :
:
VI. 23 ἕτοιμος ἦ] ἕτοιμος εϊ** Npr., ἕτοιμός εἰμι Ν', ἕτοιμος εἶεν Apr.,
ἕτοιμοι εἶεν Α', ἕτοιμος ή Jernstedt, ἕτοιμος εἴην Taylor, ἕτοιμος
είναι Dobree.
In VI. 16 N has καὶ οὐκ ἴσον ἐστὶ τόν τε διώκοντα μὴ ὀρθῶς γνῶναι.
The right reading was restored by Aldus from v. 89 καὶ οὐκ ἴσον ἐστὶ τόν
τε διώκοντα μὴ ὀρθῶς <αἰτιάσασθαι καὶ ὑμᾶς τοὺς δικαστὰς μὴ ὀρθῶς>
γνώναι. A has ruined everything by a facile conjecture, τόν γε διώκοντα.
Two passages in which N and A¹ agree, but notwithstanding Apr. is
right, can be satisfactorily explained by the presence of a correction in
the archetype, viz.:
δια
VI. 42 προδικασίας Apr., προδικασίας Α', προδιαδικασίας Ν, προδιαδι-
κασίας Β (teste Bekkero), διαδικασίας Μ.
ειν
VI. 47 καταδικάσαι Apr., καταδικάσαι Α', καταδικάσειν Ν.
Similarly in v. 90 ὅτι ἃ δὴ βούλεσθαι ΝΑ may go back to ὅτι δὴ
βούλεσθε. This hypothesis has also been applied in the following places :
Tetr. I. δ. η ὑπὸ τῶν κυρίων Apr., ὑπὸ τῶν κυρίως ΝΑΙ.
ib. III. δ. το αποκτείνειν Apr., ζητεῖν ἀποκτείνειν Ν Α'.
VI. 28 μαρτυρούντων Apr., κατα in marg. Α', καταμαρτυρούντων Ν.
xxviii
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
ἀνθρώπινον
In the first passage I think it possible that Apr. hit the truth by
accident, the second and third only illustrate the admitted proneness of
A to omit words. Traces of real various readings in a are as hard to
find as in Dinarchus. In Tetr. III. a. 2 N has rò av0páπivov þûλov,
A has тò aveρóπivov yévos. The poetic word is clearly right, but how
can we settle whether A found yévos in the archetype or substituted it on
his own responsibility? Nor need appeal be made to the archetype to
explain discrepancies such as the following: Tetr. 1. y. 6 kívdurov A,
κίνδυνον
ἀγῶνα N, Tetr. III. γ. 5 ἀποκτείναντα Α, ἀκοντίσαντα N, Tetr. III. β. 4
πονηρῷ Α, μοχθηρῷ N, Tetr. III. γ. 4 ἀπέθανεν Α, ἔπαθεν N, ib. 7 παθόντος
Α, ἀποθανόντος N, v. 9o ψηφισαμένους Α, φεισαμένοις Ν.
Blass in an article on Antiphon (Rh. Mus. 27, 1872, p. 99) once
described the archetype as presenting 'a multiple recension' (eine mehr-
fache Recension), and, though using more cautious language in his
second edition of Antiphon (praef. p. xviii seqq.), still labours to magnify
the extent of the corrections in a; many of them, he argues, must
necessarily elude proof, e.g. when the scribes of A and N concurred in
accepting or rejecting a variant, or when one took a variant and the
other passed it over; others, again, must be indistinguishable from
corrections made by the scribes themselves, e.g. when one scribe
adopted the correction written above a wrong reading in the archetype,
and the other first took the wrong reading but afterwards substituted the
correction. He does not clearly explain his reluctance to admit inter-
polation on the part of A'. If it springs from a feeling that a man
guilty of so many careless mistakes as were committed by the writer of
A, was not capable even of a poor emendation, a study of the various
readings of M will suffice to dissipate the illusion. However, if
interpolation can be detected-and it is granted that the supposed
variants in a were sometimes wrong-it is a work of supererogation for
an editor to debate whether the interpolation originated with the copyist
of A or with an unknown predecessor.
In Lycurgus Blass grants (praef. p. v) that we do not gain much
from the readings of Apr., which for the most part are obviously wrong
and rightly corrected. N, which contains only $1—34. 4 #роdоoías
and §§ 98. 4 τὸν Ποσειδῶνος-147. 5 ἐγκατα [λιπών, agrees with A' in
36 places, but differs from A¹ and agrees with Apr. in two only, viz.:
107, Tyrt. 1. 7 ἐχθρὸς γὰρ τοῖσι μετέσσεται NApr., ἐχθρὸς μὲν γὰρ τ.
μ. Α', ἀχθηρὸς γὰρ Hoerschelmann.
112. 2 οἰσύοις NApr., οἰσυίοις Α'.
In 112. 2 olσúois is right, but A¹ may have found in a either oiovíos or
THE CORRECTIONS IN A
xxix
something which looked like it, and in any case it is a mistake to press
small divergences of spelling. With regard to the line from Tyrtaeus
the arguments are equally balanced; if µèv is an obvious stop-gap, it is
also one of the little words which are apt to fall out. But A' is clearly
emending in 144. 11, where N has rightly åpeín, but Apr. åpiei,
A¹ apnoe. Appearances are against him in 76. 7 (тμwρησeσle Apr.,
ἀφήσει.
τιμωρήσοισθε Α', τιμωρήσαισθε Ducas, Bekk., uolg.) and 77. 7 (θέλη
ὑμῖν
Apr., θέλει Α', θέλοι Αld., Bekk., Blass). In 146. 6 (ἐγὼ τοίνυν μηνύω Α,
ὑμῖν added by A', ἐγὼ τοίνυν ὑμῖν μηνύω Ν, ὑμῖν om. Heinrich (1821),
Bekk., uolg.) N and A' wrongly insert vuîv, but it is impossible to prove
that the word was written above the line in the archetype. I am not
prepared to follow Blass in preferring Apr. to NA¹ in 3. 3 (avrò NA¹,
om. Apr.) and 140. 4 (µóvwv N, µóvov A¹, om. Apr.) and to A' in 67. 6
(διὰ τοῦτο om. Apr.), 76. 8 (παρασκευασάμενος Apr., παρεσκευασμένος Α'),
79. 4 (ταύτην πίστιν Apr., ταύτην τὴν πίστιν Α'). His choice betrays
that prejudice against A', which disfigures Buermann's text of Isaeus.
Apr. is peculiarly liable to the sin of omission. A¹ makes 30 additions
in Lycurgus, 30 in Dinarchus, 42 in Antiphon, in Dinarchus never dis-
agreeing with N, in Antiphon disagreeing twice (Tetr. II. B. 3 pèv Apr.,
οὖν
µèv oûv A¹, yoûv N, μèv perhaps in a, Tetr. II. y. 9 ov om. NApr.). In
Lycurgus I find no trace of various readings in the archetype; in 8. 7
(πόλιν Α, χώραν Ν) synonyms are interchanged, and in 99. 3 (των Α,
¿λov N) the writer of N may have presumed to correct the tense.
In treating Isaeus Buermann starts from the "established fact" that
a exhibited a "double recension, a varia lectio between the lines, and in
the margin" (Hermes 17, p. 392). This varia lectio, which contained
arbitrary conjectures as well as useful MS. variants (ib. p. 394), he
regards as the source of the corrections of A' (ib. p. 393). From these
assumptions is deduced the principle that, "wherever internal grounds
are not decisive, Apr. must be preferred to A'" (ib. p. 395). Premisses
and conclusion are both false. The only safe rule for an editor is to
prefer A', unless there are strong reasons for the contrary course,
because the comparison of A with N and Q indicates that in general A¹
represents the text of the archetype. In Isaeus the internal evidence is
so overwhelming that even Buermann can only sustain Apr. against A'
in 37 places out of about 420. If in so many cases the readings of
Apr. are manifest blunders, they have no claim to special favour,
whenever they happen to make sense. In III. 69. 2, 3 Buermann puts
in the text άκυρον ἂν ἦν αὐτῷ ἡ ποίησις, because Apr. had ἄκυρο*
(ἄκυροι ?), altered to ἄκυρος by A', and αὐτῶ, altered to αὐτοῦ by Α'.
XXX
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
I perceive no fault in avroû (cp. II. 47. 3), and aurŵ may well be a
1
οὐ
1
copyist's mistake; in this very place L has avr@, and Buermann himself
observes (praef. p. xii) that in A avroû is sometimes so written that it
has been taken for aur (see § 5, p. xl). The superiority of aкupos
appears to me to need no argument. In III. 75. 2 he takes avr✩ Apr.
and rejects αὐτῶ Α' (αὑτῷ uolg.), whereas in vii. 8. 6 he rejects ἑαυτὸν Α'
for αὐτὸν Apr. Fluctuations between ἑαυτόν, αυτόν, αὐτόν can be under-
stood without the help of a hypothetical interpolated varia lectio.
Compare 1. 20. 8 αὐτοῦ Α, ἑαυτοῦ Μ, III. 72. 8 αὐτῷ Α, ἑαυτῷ M, VII. 6. 4
αὐτὸν Α, ἑαυτὸν Μ, xi. hyp. 3 ἑαυτοῦ Α, αὐτοῦ M, Ant. Tetr. II. γ. 5
αὐτοῦ Apr., ἑαυτοῦ ΝΑ'. This partiality for Apr. leads to the systematic
retention of ὅπῃ (ιν. 27. 5 ὅπη Apr., ὅποι A', v. 35. 1ο ὅπη Apr., ὅποι Α',
οι
VI. 41. 7 öπη A (оπŋ in α?), öπоɩ Ald., 1x. 28. 3 оπŋ Apr., oɩ supra ŋ add.
A¹), although in Din. 1. 43. 10 A has on but N, followed by all recent
editors, oπo; in Demosthenes, where has oro, inferior MSS. re-
peatedly give ὅπη. In VIII. 32. 6, 7 Apr. wrote ἐκείνη γὰρ ἀρχὴ τοῦ
γένους ἐστὶ, Α' corrected ἐκείνη to ἐκεῖνοι; both readings are possible,
Buermann obedient to his principle embraces ékeivŋ, which I regard as
one of the numerous errors of Apr. The faultiness of his assumptions
is clearly shown in the treatment of the additions made by A'. His
practice is to omit these, whenever it is possible to do without them.
The theory on which he proceeds is stated in Hermes 17, p. 396 sqq.
He takes 8 cases (Ant. Tetr. II. y. 9 ov om. N, supra uers. add. A¹, ib.
Tetr. III. 8. 10 (ηteîv NA', om. Apr., ib. v. 50 deì om. Apr., in marg.
add. A', ib. v1. 26 πvvðáveσdai kaì πρó in ras. add. A', ib. vi. 28 kaтaμaρ-
τυρούντων Ν, μαρτυρούντων Apr., κατα in marg. add. A', ib. VI. 42
προδιαδικασίας Ν, προδικασίας Apr., δια supra uers. add. A', Lyc. § 107,
Tyrt. 1. 7 µèv om. NApr., add. A¹, ib. § 146 vµîv NA¹, om. Apr.)—I
omit one, Din. 1. 31. 4 év om. Apr. N, because ev is added by A², not
by A'-and concludes that in all of them the words added by A¹ were
not part of the continuous text of the archetype, but were placed above
the line or in the margin, in fact nearly as they stand in the copy A.
As "what is proved for 8 cases, must be allowed to be possible for all
similar cases," the additions of A¹ should be regarded with the same
distrust as 'the varia lectio of a.' It has already been pointed out
(p. xxix) that in Antiphon and Dinarchus the additions of A¹ regularly
agree with N, and it will be seen below that the real service of Q is to
restore certain words which were passed over by the writer of A.
Buermann himself recognises the omission of words to be one of the
cardinal faults of A (Hermes 17, p. 399, ib. 19, p. 325). Any one who
will take the trouble to go through the 87 additions made by A¹, will, I
THE CORRECTIONS IN A
xxxi
2
think, admit that to explain them it is unnecessary to embark upon
hazardous speculations about the state of the archetype. In the main
the words added were those which in all MSS. were most exposed
to danger, 'quorum salus saepissime a tenui lineola pendebat' (Cobet,
V. L. p. 100), ws, kaí, µév, µý, te, dé, yáp, av, où, ős, ei, îv, poi, öti, eivai,
cases of the article, etc. A few marginal supplements are more extensive
(II. 37. 7 Tŵv eidóтwv, III. 8. 6 tòv oîkov, V. 9. 3 Xpóvw, ib. 36. 8 ¿λáttw,
νι. 38. 2 οὐσίαν, ib. 56. 2, 3 τῷ εὐκτήμονος ὀνόματι), but there is no
In
reason for supposing that they are drawn from the margin of a.
each case the supplement fills a gap between the end of one line and
the beginning of another, in other words, the loss is the fault of the
writer of A, who in turning to a new line sometimes lost his place in
the original; cp. vi. 5. 8 καταλι| Α, καταλίπη Α', VIII. 19. 4 νομιζό| A,
µeva in marg. add. A'. That this is a uera causa is proved by the
existence of the opposite fault, the repetition of a word or words at the
end of one line and at the beginning of another (1. 6. 7, 27. 4, II. 41. 2,
IV. 8. 5, V. 28. I, VII. 21. I, XI. 46. 2). The additions made by A¹
stand on the same ground as his other corrections. But the very fact
which ought to defend them, that they are not always essential to sense
and grammar, can be converted into an engine of attack. Out of the
37 places in which Buermann champions Apr. against A', 18 are
examples of additions. He follows Apr. in omitting uâs (1. II. 8),
χρόνῳ (ν. 9. 3), ἐν (ν. 25. 5), ἂν (VI. 37. 6, ΙΧ. 11. 6), και (VIII. 30. 3).
Undoubtedly in each case the sentence can be construed without the
addition, but a critic free from predilections would not consider this
circumstance justification for excising the words in question. In three
places I agree with him in bracketing an article added by A' (11. 47. 9
τὰ δίκαια καὶ [τὰ] εὔορκα, IV. 25. 8 κατὰ [το] γένος, VIII. 19. 3 εἰς [τὰ]
eoμopópia), not under the influence of any theory concerning the
relation of A' to interlinear variants in a, but because usage or context
appears to be against the article, which in my opinion stood in the text
of the archetype.
2
My aim is not to prove A¹ right, but to shake off the obsession of a
false theory. A' is sometimes clearly wrong. Bekker, who did not
distinguish between A' and A², and was too busy to register every
careless blunder of the scribe, rightly adopted the reading of Apr. in
VII. 30. 3 (ἐξερημώσουσι Apr., ἐξερημώσωσι A') and xi. 27. 7 (λέγων Apr.,
λéyew A¹). It is difficult to understand what led A¹ to change ov to w
in VII. 30. 3, where the future indicative is protected by the continuation
of the sentence: πρόνοιαν ποιοῦνται σφῶν αὐτῶν, ὅπως μὴ ἐξερημώσουσι
τοὺς σφετέρους αὐτῶν οἴκους, ἀλλ᾽ ἔσται τις [καὶ] ὁ ἐναγιῶν καὶ πάντα τὰ
xxxii
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
voμižóμeva avтoîs ** Tonσwv. Buermann (Hermes 17, p. 396) thinks
that the subjunctive was taken from the 'varia lectio of a,' and in the
erasure after autoîs discovers , which I cannot recognise. In XI. 27. 7
the error of A' is intelligible; after rightly changing ouat in the
preceding line to elvai he made the mistake of supposing that Aéywv was
left without a construction. Bekker also followed Apr. in III. 74. I
(ἐπίκληρον καταλιπών Apr., ἐπίκληρον μὲν καταλιπών Α') and ib. 78. 4
(avrŷs Apr., Ald., avròs A'). In spite of the consensus of opinion in
favour of Bekker's choice I venture to suggest that in both these
passages the correction should be taken as the starting point of
criticism. Buermann is right in returning to Apr. in vII. 27. 4 (πара-
dedúкoι Apr., Taрadedwкe A') and ib. 33. 4 (ei Apr., A'). The first
correction, which may have existed in a, springs from the idea that the
Perfect Optative ought to be expressed by a periphrasis (πapadedwkws
eiŋ), as in fact in Attic it usually is. The author did not notice that
Isaeus resorted to the unusual form for the sake of variety; ëλeɣe…..ŏтɩ
tetoinµévos ein µe viòv kaì èyyeypapw's eis toùs ovyyeveîs kaì þpátepas, kaì
παραδεδώκοι τὴν οὐσίαν. These rare forms of the Perfect Optative were
pitfalls for scribes; compare Homer, 7. 8. 270 (Laroche) ВEẞλÝKOL
CHS, Aristarchus, ßeßλnket ADEGL, Thuc. VIII. 108 (Hude) TETоŃкоL
Сpr., TETоKEL ABC'EFGM, Xen. Hell. III. 5. 23 (Keller) dπокeXwρŃKOL
FMDV, ἀποκεχωρήκει BC, ib. v. 2. 3 υπηρετήκοι BCFcorr., ὑπηρετήκει
Fpr. MV. In Ant. Tetr. 1. y. 4 Apr. (according to Blass) made the
mistake of writing ← for ǹ (NA²), in Ant. v. 14, which stands in N, is
one of the corrections of A', but whether in Isae. VII. 33. 4 the arche-
type showed ei or ǹ or both, I shall not attempt to determine. 'Est
quod nescimus, nec pudendam eam putabis ignorantiam' (F. A. Wolf).
Other mistaken alterations made by A' are the following: VII. 35. 3
ἀφει Apr. (probably αφιειν), ἀφιέναι Α', ἀφανιεῖν Cobet, ib. 42. I
ποιήσασθε Apr. (ποιήσεσθε), ποιήσησθε Α', ποιήσαισθε Bekk., ib. 43. 5
αὐτοῖς expunxit A', VIII. 40. 2 σχεδόν τι Apr., σχεδόν του Α' (Bekker did
not consider o, which is written above 7, to be a correction or later
addition, cf. And. 1. 1), ib. 45. 7, 8 ẻyóvois Apr., èyyóvois A¹' (here A¹
may be reproducing the archetype; we find ἐγγόνοις VIII. 32. 8, ἐκγόνους
ib. 17. 2, ἔκγονοι ib. 30. 6). On 111. hyp. I (τὸν ἕτερον <τῶν> τῆς ἀδελφῆς
<Tŵv>
υἱῶν] τὸν τ**ν τῆς ἀδ. υἱῶν Apr., τὸν ἕτερον τῆς ἀδ. υἱῶν A') Buermann
makes the plausible suggestion that A¹ found in the archetype Tòv Tŵv
He
and thought that repov was meant to be an alternative to tôv.
explains by a similar theory the variants in Ix. 2. 8 (тoû ådeλþoû Apr.,
τῶν ex τοῦ Α', τῶν <τοῦ> ἀδελφοῦ Schoem.), but this corruption, as
Reiske conjectured, may have its ultimate source in Tŵv Tadeλpoû
ἕτερον
1
THE CORRECTIONS IN A
xxxiii
2
2
(Dem. 8. 35 Taveрúоv Z, тоû áv@púrov Vind. 4, Aug. 1 etc., ib. 10. 13
γένοιτοτανθρώπωι Σ, γένοιτο ἀνθρώπῳ uolg.), which in a had become τῶν
adeλpoû. On the other hand I think him right (Hermes 19, p. 343) in
ἀδελφοῦ.
starting from Apr. in xi. 40. 5, 6 ὥστε εἶναι μὲν οὐχ ἱκανά, λῃτουργεῖν δὲ
aέia, where A' added un above the line before aέia and A² accented the
word. But neither A' nor A² crossed out oux, which destroys the sense,
and was ejected by Reiske. Schoemann on grammatical grounds
demanded ὥστε εἶναι μὲν ἱκανά, λῃτουργεῖν δὲ οὐκ ἄξια, but, not knowing
that un was supra uersum, explained the corruption by the hypothesis.
that où was first written above µǹ äέia and afterwards inserted in the wrong
place. It is simpler to suppose that oйk aέia was the original reading,
that the negative was transposed by anticipation (see § 5, p. xxxviii),
and that μn comes from an unsuccessful attempt at emendation. The
obviously erroneous erasures in Isaeus are 9 in number, viz. II. 4. 2
τετάρτῳ ἔτει ** ὕστερον (τετάρτῳ ἔτει ἢ πέμπτῳ ὕστερον Q, the corrector,
here A', boggled at ή έ), III. 63. 3 καταλειπομένην, ib. 65. 5 καταλειπο-
μένη, ib. 72. 4 καταλειπομένη, VI. 16. 3 καλλίπην, VII. 9. 5 λακρατίδη,
VIII. 37. 2 τε Apr., γε A corr., ΙΧ. 5. 6 ἀκούσας * ἐγώ, ib. II. 4 κατέλιπε.
Four of these (II. 4. 2, VI. 16. 3, VIII. 37. 2, IX. 5. 6) are certainly the
work of a critic struggling unsuccessfully with a difficulty; in VIII. 37. 2
and Ix. 5. 6 the corrector did not detect the lacuna in his text. It is
also possible that the present participle in 111. 63. 3, 65. 5, 72. 4 stood
in the archetype, but was not understood by A' or A². On the other
hand it should be remembered that in Dem. 28. 6 even Σ exhibits Tŵv
kataλiñoµévwv, and that to copyists & and were always interchangeable;
cp. [Lys.] 2. 73 kaтaλeiπoμévois superscripto (катаλıя) a pr. m. X.
In XI. 2. 4, where all editors have followed Bekker in reading ẻkλeíπy
(ἐκλείπει i.e. ἐκλείπει Apr., ἐκλίπη Α'), the aorist, ἐκλίπῃ, appears to me
tenable.
Isaeus affords no good evidence of various readings in the archetype.
In 1. 14. 9 A has améfave, Q éreλEÚTησe; here Q was probably under the
influence of éteλeútnσev, which comes at the beginning of the section.
A better example is presented in VIII. 15. 3, where Apr. wrote eikòs
υἱέων, Α' εἰκὸς παίδων υἱέων; υἱέων is excised by Sauppe, παίδων by
Buermann Hermes 19, p. 355). In IX. 30. 3 (ἐκεῖνον [αὐτὸν] εἰσήγαγεν
Buermann (Z.c.) explains the superfluous avròv as an intrusion from the
varia lectio of a.' The ultimate origin of both 'doublets' is an over-
υιέων
παίδων ἐκεῖνον
αὐτὸν
written correction, traídwv or viéwv, avtòv or ẻkeîvov (cp. IX. 28. 2 μet'
μετ᾿ ἐκείνου
ἐκείνου συνεπαιδευόμην Α, συνεπαιδευόμην αὐτῷ Μ), but the corruption
may have been older than the MS., from which A was copied.
W. I.
d
xxxiv
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
1
2
The corrections of the second hand (A²) may be despatched more
briefly. They begin with the third speech of Isaeus, extend over the
whole of Dinarchus, and are carried through Antiphon as far as v. 84,
the bottom of f. 122". It was long believed that at this point they
stopped, but in 1882 Thalheim contended (see De Dinarchi codicibus
commentatio p. 2, Blass, Lycurgus, praef. p. v) that they crop up again
in Lycurgus $$ 70-86. About this discovery I am sceptical, for the
corrections of Lycurgus are not in the pale yellow ink which elsewhere
distinguishes the work of A2. In Isaeus they are distributed irregularly.
In or. v the corrector's activity ceases at § 20, in the middle of f. 46",
and begins again at the top of f. 49", i.e. at or. VI. I. I. (Thalheim, it
should be said, attributes to A² the alterations in v. 39. 1 and 42. 4;
which Schenkl also (Wiener Studien III. p. 197) refuses to put down to
A¹) Perhaps he was interrupted in his reading, or after emending
thirteen times the spelling and accentuation of λewxapis and λewxapiv he
may have become restive and have hurried on to a new speech, neglecting
the other examples of Aexapis and λewxapiv. In or. vi again no traces.
of his pen are found from § 24. 4 to § 46. 7, i.e. from the middle of
f. 51ª to the middle of f. 53'. He seems to have been a man of
a desultory mind. He took an interest in accents, breathings, and
stops (§ 3, pp. xviii, xx), but could not endure the tedious task of
amending every trivial error. Thus he accented vicos in vi. 46. 7, but
neglected εισποιητοι ib. 44. 4, he changed the aspirate in ὤμοσεν (ΧΙ. 6. 7)
and oμwμокóтas (ib. 6. 8), but left it untouched in v. 7. 1, VII. 28. 4,
VIII. 19. 5, IX. 24. 9, he passed over Teρɩπλeíσтov in VII. 12. 3 but
restored Teρìeίorov in VII. 14. 9, he added iota subscript to derav in
His real
VIII. 29. 6 but ignored ovvýdeσav in the same section.
emendations, apart from such quisquiliae, are about 190 in number, of
which not more than 25 or 26 are clearly wrong. The emendations
that are right are nearly always facile corrections of obvious faults, and
could be made by any man with a fair knowledge of Attic Greek. But
A had learning. No ordinary copyist would have changed éìdiaтo*s
(VIII. 31. 6) into eiÔieres, or roi tepor Xóyou (Din. I. 73) into roi tepor
λóxov. He could also work out the consequences implicit in an argu-
ment; the change of Twŵv to тρɩŵv in VIII. 40. 6 proves that he thought
over what he was reading. The limitations of a thirteenth or fourteenth
century critic appear in the emendations that are wrong. The following
examples from Isaeus are instructive: III. 12. 6 γεγενημένη Apr.,
γεγεννημένη Α', VI. 6. 6 υἱω δύο Apr., υἱω δύω Α', ΧΙ. 5. 8 τοῦτο ἂν
προσῆκεν ἀποκρίνασθαι] προσήκη Apr., προσήκοι Α', προσῆκεν Schoemann,
ΧΙ. 22. 9 διήρηται Apr., διῄρηται Α', διείρηται Reiske.
2
2
اد
THE CORRECTIONS IN A
XXXV
A. Hug (De arte critica in Antiphontis orationibus factitanda, 1872)
and H. Reutzel (Exercitationes criticae in Antiphontis orationes, 1879),
whose treatises I have not seen, contend that A² must have used a MS.
Not having read their arguments I can only state my own opinion that
nothing in the corrections seems to prove this. In any case all the
scholars, who accept the theory, are obliged to concede that the MS.
employed was very similar to A. Hug and Reutzel thought that it
was closely connected with B. But it has now been proved that B
Blass in
contains the readings of A², because it was copied from A.
1881 (Antiphontis orationes, praef. p. xi) conjectured that the MS.
collated by A² was imperfect, containing only three orators and these
mutilated, the end of Antiphon and the beginning of Isaeus together
with some pages from the middle being lost, that this MS. was a copy of
A made by a learned grammarian, who introduced many emendations,
and that at a later period, after it had been mutilated, a portion was
used for the purpose of correcting its parent A. This conjecture has
been withdrawn by the author (Dinarchi orationes, praef. p. vi). Ac-
cording to Buermann (Hermes 17, p. 392, Rh. Mus. 40, p. 392) the
corrections of A² were derived from the varia lectio of the archetype
of A. A MS. copied from a was broken into two parts, one being Q,
the other the MS. collated by A². The writer, it is supposed, had
regularly adopted in his text the variants of a, just as Apr. had regularly
ignored them; see p. xxiv. Ch. Cucuel (Essai sur la langue et le style
de l'orateur Antiphon, Paris, 1886) maintains that the corrections of A°
are in great part the result of a collation of A with a portion of a itself,
made when a had been broken into pieces, and that Q was copied from
another fragment. His principal argument is that 'A² often reproduces
the readings of N' (p. 8). An exacter account of the relation of A² to
N is needed. The apparatus criticus of Jernstedt and Thalheim reveals
that in Antiphon A² made 108 corrections, agreeing with N in 33 places,
and that in Dinarchus A² made 67 corrections, agreeing with N in
25 places. Neither the agreement nor the disagreement assists the
hypothesis that A was collated with a fragment of its archetype.
Could not a Greek, who was a scholar, emend suo Marte σwπóμevov
(Ant. I. 13), öpeλov (Din. 1. 36), aioxúvớŋ (ib. 111. 13), and similar errors?
Cucuel himself admits that A was a grammarian, who sometimes
trusted to his own inspiration (p. 11), but gives no criterion for dis-
tinguishing the emendations from the readings taken from a. Blass
(Dinarchi orationes, praef. p. viii) accepts Cucuel's theory, but with a
fatal reservation. He remarks very pertinently that A², if he had
collated the archetype of A, would have restored more frequently true
2
2
d 2
xxxvi
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
and valuable readings preserved in N, and decides that the corrector
consulted his MS. only when he came across a fault which he could not
emend out of his own head. A theory so waterlogged may be left to
its fate. I agree with Thalheim (Dinarchi orationes, praef. p. vi, De
Dinarchi codicibus p. 2) that the alterations made by A² do not rest
upon MS. authority, but are from the pen of an ancient scholar.
§ 5. THE FAULTS OF A.
2
The Codex Crippsianus is an inferior MS., remarkable neither for
age nor integrity, but infected with nearly all the vices to which MSS.
are liable.
(1) Omissions.
기
​αν
The numerous additions (87) made by A' show that the writer was
prone to leave out single words. Nor were all the deficiencies made
good on revision, for in the first and second speeches of Isaeus Q
supplies 14 words which are not in A, and in Antiphon A omits no
fewer than 31 words preserved in N. The great majority are words of
one syllable, particles (äv, ye, dé, dý, kai, µév), prepositions (èv, èk), and
parts of the article. With such a MS. as his only authority an editor
need not have scruples about inserting av and articles in accordance
with Attic idiom; see for the restoration of av II. 8. 6, III. 50. 6, 54. 1,
IV. II. 4, 19. 5, VII. 36. 3, IX. 5. 1, 8. 1, 13. 1, X. 18. 1, XI. 38. 7.
8
Lacunae of a more serious nature are rightly marked by A' in v1. 12. 7,
and in IX. 5. 3.
In IX. 10. 3, where we find Siariéμevov and three
points in the margin, nothing seems to be missing, and in xI. 5. 7 a
The end
word was added in the margin but afterwards scratched out.
of or. xi is lost, and staring gaps meet the eye in 111. 29. 2, IV. 18. 8,
22. 2, VI. 16. 4, VII. 12. 5, 23. 4, 43. 9, VIII. 13. 6, 37. 2, IX. 22. 3, 33. 5,
X. 8. I, XI. 15. 9.
The hypothesis of a lacuna is freely used by modern
critics ; see I. 1. 7, II. 5, 22. 5, 6, 32. 4, 46. 6, 48. 2, III. 2. 3, 23. 6, 7,
33. 3, 48. 6, 79. 4, 9, Iv. 3. 5, 9. 3, 18. 3, 20. 3, V. 9. 10, II. 10, 13. 6,
22. 3, 4, VI. I. 1, 13. 2, 25. 1, 59. 2, 8, 64. 4, VII. I. 3, 4, 31. 4, 40. 4, 6,
VIII. 34. 7, 35. 1, 5, IX. 18. 3, 19. 2, 27. 6, X. 10. 5, 13. 3, 20. 7, XI. 16. 6,
27. 6, 33. 7, 47. 2. Haplography will account for some of these chasms
and for I. 34. 7 ov<dè> dieλéyeTO, III. 22. 4 év0év<de> Alópavtov, ib. 39. 7
µéλλwv, <ws> &noi, VII. 19. I vóμos <os>. In all probability many of
the omissions are the fault of the archetype; in Antiphon N and A
concur in 23 lacunae (particles, conjunctions, and parts of the article
excluded).
THE FAULTS OF A
xxxvii
2
(2) Transpositions.
Words are transposed by A' in II. 26. 2, IV. 18. 6, VIII. 32. I,
x. 17. 1, by A² in v. 4. 5. The same correction has been rightly applied
by modern scholars to II. I. 6 (τεθνεῶτα ἄπαιδα Naber: ἄπαιδα τεθνεώτα),
ib. 1. 8 (Tŵ TE Вremi: TE Tŵ), IV. 21. 2 (vµâs μèv Dobree: µèv vµâs),
V. 12. τ (περὶ μὲν Dobree: μὲν περὶ), VI. 2. 4 (τε τὰ Reiske : τά τε),
ib. 39. I (καὶ ὁ Εὐκτήμων ἐτελεύτησεν Buermann: καὶ ἐτελεύτησεν ὁ
Εὐκτήμων), VIII. I.
I. 7 (τοῦ τε Reiske: τε τοῦ), ΙΧ. 36. 7 (πρότερον
ἀπέθανεν ἢ Bekker after Stephanus: πρότερον ἢ ἀπέθανε), ΧΙ. 21. 8 (τὸν
μὲν ἡττᾶσθαι τὸν δὲ νικᾶν Valckenaer: τὸν μὲν νικᾶσθαι τὸν δὲ ἡττᾶν);
compare with this last example Din. III. 16 ὁ κλῆρος ὑπὲρ δήμου Ν,
ὁ δῆμος ὑπὲρ κλήρου Α. Dubious applications of this remedy will be
found in III. 60. 8, 69. 7, v. 29. 6, vI. 6. 2, 65. 2, VII. 8. 5, 6, 9. 3,
XI. 12. 9, 28. 5, 6.
(3) Repetitions.
ων
ELT
The copyist often repeated words when passing from line to line or
from page to page; see 1. 6. 7, 27. 4, II. 41. 2, IV. 8. 5, v. 28. I,
VII. 21. I, XI. 46. 2. Most of these errors were observed by A¹ or A².
In II. 46. 2 the original reading was probably ete μeí¿wv čotìv oûtos elt'
ἐστὶν ἐλάττων, Α' having erased the second ἐστὶν, in v. 17. 8 ἡμῖν
¿έeyéveto nμîv) the second nuîv was struck out by A', in Ix. 1. I the
scribe first wrote μοι ἦν μοιομήτριος for μοι ἦν ὁμομήτριος, in VII. 44. 6
καὶ ὁμοίως, an echo from ἀλλ᾽ ὁμοίως in the same line, has been erased.
Similar repetitions have been detected by modern scholars in III. 19. 3
ὡς ὅταν μὲν [ὡς], ΙΧ. 18. 2 καὶ ᾿Αραφηνίων [και]. Since in 1. 2. 2 ἐπὶ
TOÚTOɩs, repeated from § 1. 8, appears both in A and Q, the mistake
existed in the archetype. For the tendency of MSS. to introduce a
word into the text which they repeat from a neighbouring line, the word
thus repeated sometimes extruding another word from the text and
sometimes not doing so, see W. L. Newman, The Politics of Aristotle
III. p. xv sqq., M. Schanz, Platonis Symposion, Prolegomena § 6. The
principle has been applied by Dobree in III. 34. 1 (πаτǹρ repeated from
§ 33. 7) and VII. 39. 6 (piλoriμws repeated from the preceding line), by
Sauppe in v. 18. 5 (kaì wμodóyeɩ introduced from § 18. 3), by Scheibe in
III. 52. 6 (ý§ɩwσev repeated from § 52. 4), by Buermann in correcting
ἐξελῃτούργησεν in vii. 40. 2 (ἐξ produced by ἐξαρκοίη in § 39. 9),
προσμεμαρτυρήκασι in vi. 45. 5 (προς from πρὸς ὑπερβολὴν in the
preceding line) and elsewhere (v. 25. 5). Cp. III. 7. 4, 8. 2, 10. 5,
IX. 17. 6. All these cases illustrate repetition from what has gone
xxxviii
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
å
before. Anticipation of what is coming, the eye ranging in advance of
the hand, is a common fault in the Codex Crippsianus. The error was
often perceived by the writer; note III. 33. 2, 3 ἃ πάλαι οὗτοι μαρτυροῦσι
γενέσθαι αὐτοῖς, πολλῷ πλέον τῆς λήξεως τοῦ κλήρου συγκεῖται αὐτοῖς (the
first αὐτοῖς struck out by A'), v. 5. 1 περὶ τούτων μόνον ἔμελλον ἀπολογή
σασθαι μόνον, VI. 31. 3, 4 προσεκαλέσατο πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα εἰς ἐμφανῶν
κατάστασιν. καταστάντος δὲ ἐκείνου πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα, VII. 37. 2, 3
δεόμεθα δ᾽ ὑμῖν ὑμῶν Α') βοηθεῖν ἡμῖν, ΙΧ. 15. 3, 4 ὥστε (οὕτως Α')
ἀκριβῶς τὰ παρὰ τῆς τύχης συμβῆναι, ὥστε κ.τ.λ., i. 24. 2, 3 οὐδενὶ ἄλλῳ
ἤ μοι (ή μοι erased) γίγνοιτο τὰ Ἀστυφίλου ἢ ἐμοί, ib. 29. 8 μαρτυροῦσι δὲ
καὶ ἡμῖν καὶ περὶ τῆς ἐγγύης (the first καὶ erased). Sometimes the
correction is incomplete, the word being added in the right place but
not crossed out in the wrong place, or erased where it is wrong but not
inserted where it is needed, as in Iv. 1. 8 τὰ δὲ ἐνθάδε μοι συμβεβηκότα
тà Sè
δοκεῖ μοι ὑμῖν ἱκανὰ γενέσθαι ἂν τεκμήρια (A' added the second μοι ‘in
rasura' but did not touch the first μo, which was ejected by Bekker),
ΙΙΙ. 73. 8 ἐπισκήψαι ἐκ τῶν γιγνομένων τῆς θυγατρὸς παίδων εἰσαγαγεῖν υἱὸν
ἑαυτῷ (ἐκ erased, added by Reiske before της), VII. 28. I οὐκούσαντες
Apr., ἀκούσαντες Α', οὐκ added by A in the next line; cp. III. 74. I.
We have already met with an interpolation produced by a displacement
of this kind (xi. 40. 5, 6 ὥστε εἶναι μὲν οὐχ ἱκανά, λητουργεῖν δὲ ἄξια; see
p. xxxiii). Effects of anticipation have been found by critics in VII. 15. I
(ἡ μὲν πάλαι, ἡ δ᾽ ὕστερον πολλῷ the Zürich editors after Reiske : ἡ μὲν
πάλαι πολλώ, ἡ δ᾽ ὕστερον), ΙΙΙ. 3. 7, 45. 2, V. 3. 4, VI. II. I, 53. 1, 56. 6,
57. 2, VII. 23. 7 (corr. A²), 30. 4, X. 2. 2, 17. 4, 21. 6 (eis erasum).
Buermann (Hermes 19, pp. 338, 340, 342, 343) traces the displacements
and repetitions in A to the presence of interlinear and marginal additions
in the archetype. The phenomena, which are not unusual in MSS., can
be explained without resorting to this hypothesis. Marcus, who wrote
M, exhibits the same failings as the scribe of A, and it is certain that
his archetype, L, did not possess a 'varia lectio.' Moreover in Antiphon
A anticipates or repeats words where N is free from error; see Tetr. 1. ß.
hyp. 4, 5 διαβάλλει δὲ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τοῦ οἰκέτου, ὡς ἐκ παρασκευῆς
γεγονυῖαν τῶν δεσποτών N (in A τοῦ οἰκέτου is crossed out after δεσποτών),
ib. I. γ. 7 ἀξιῶν δὲ διὰ τὸ φανερὰν εἶναι τὴν ὑποψίαν αὐτῷ μὴ καταδοκεῖσθαι
ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν Ν Α wrote μή before φανεράν and omitted it before κατα
δοκεῖσθαι, then observing the mistake added μὴ above the line before
καταδοκεῖσθαι and erased μὴ before φανεραν), v. 81 τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν θεῶν Ν,
τοῖς τῶν ἀπὸ τῶν θεῶν Α, ν. 94 τοῦτο μὲν γὰρ ἐμοὶ ὑμῖν Apr., ἐμοὶ ΝΑ')
πειθομένοις ὑμῖν μεταμελῆσαι ἔστιν, VI. 35 καὶ αὐτοῖς ἐκ μὲν τῶν πεπραγ
μένων οὐδεμία ἦν ἐλπὶς ἀποφεύξεσθαι Ν (before ἐλπὶς A repeats αὐτοῖς),
1
1
THE FAULTS OF A
xxxix
VI. 40 ἐπειδὴ ἐπύθετο προειρημένον μοι εἴργεσθαι τῶν νομίμων Ν Α first
wrote ἐπειδή μοι and omitted μοι before εἴργεσθαι, but afterwards added
μοι above the line after εἴργεσθαι and erased μοι after ἐπειδή). Cp.
Lyc. 1ο νῦν κολάσετε κατεψηφισμένοι N (in A vi erased after κατεψηφισ
μένοι), ib. 125 έψηφίσαντο γὰρ καὶ ὤμοσαν, ἐάν τις τυραννίδι ἐπιτιθῆται Ν
(after γάρ Apr. had τυραννίδι), Din. I. 20. Ι βοηθεῖν καὶ βοηθησάντων Apr.,
βοηθεῖν καὶ ἐλεησάντων ΝΑ', i. 7 δεινὰς ΝΑ', ἰδίας ? Apr. ἰδίᾳ in the
preceding line). There is evidence of the presence in the archetype of
words wrongly anticipated; see Lyc. 114 ἐψηφίσαντο δέ [τινες,] (del.
Auger, habent NA) καὶ ἐὰν ἀπολογῶνταί τινες. A phenomenon, which
does not admit a purely psychological explanation, is postponement,
i.e. the disappearance of a word from its right place and its appearance
afterwards in the wrong place. A clear case is found in XI. 49. 9, 10 ovx
ἵνα <μὴ> λῃτουργοίην, εἰ προσγένοιτό μοι τοῦτο τὸ χωρίον· ὁμοίως γὰρ καὶ
[μὴ] εἰσποιήσαντος τοῦτό γ᾽ ὑπῆρχεν. Here some mechanical cause must
have been at work, e.g. uǹ may have been so placed in the margin of
the archetype that it was not plain to which line it belonged. The
position of γυναικὸς in III. 6. 7 may be another example of this fault,
which Buermann finds also in III. 36. 2, 3, ΙΧ. 1o. 5, 6. Common
dittography (Iv. I. 5 πραχθέντων [ὡς], ΙΧ. 5. 7 κλεωνίου οὐχ (κλέωνι οὐχ
A³) nyoúμevos) is unusual; cp. I. 21. 6 n., II. 22. 3.
(4) Grammatical Assimilation.
Certain instances occur in II. 29. Ι, 2 ἠναγκάζετο ὑπολείπεσθαι οὗ
ἠμφεσβήτησεν οὗτος, τὸ δὲ ἄλλο ἀποδιδόναι (ἀποδίδοται Bekker) Φιλίππῳ,
III. 62. η εισαγγελθεὶς εἰς (πρὸς Reiske) τὸν ἄρχοντα, ib. 70. 2, 3 ὅτε δ'
ἠγγύα καὶ ἐξεδίδου ὁ Ἔνδιος τῇ γυναικὶ, ἐπετρέπετε ὑμεῖς τὴν γυναῖκα
schedae Etonenses, the comma after γυναικὶ is in the MS.), IV. 26. 4
οὐδεπώποτε ἐκεῖνοι (ἐκείνῳ Aldus) διάφοροι ἦσαν, v. 9. 9 ἀφείλετο δὲ τὴν
Δημοκλέους γενομένην γυναῖκα, ἡ (ἃ Reiske) Δικαιογένης ἀδελφὸς ὢν
ἔδωκεν, ib. I I. I ὁ πάντων δεινότατος (ὃ πάντων δεινότατον Reiske), ib. 12. 4
προσῆκον αὐτοῦ (αὐτῷ Α') τοῦ κλήρου μέρος ὅσονπερ ἐμοί, ib. 33· 4 Δημά-
ρατος δὲ ὁ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ Μνησιπτολέμῳ τῷ ἐγγυησαμένῳ Δικαιογένει (Δικαιογένη
Bekker) μετά Λεωχάρους ἦν ἀδελφός, νι. 33. 2 οὗπερ ἕνεκα οὗτοι λῦσαι
αὐτὸν ἔπεισαν, ἀποδίδονται (ἀποδίδοται Stephanus), VII. I. 5 ἅπανθ᾽ ὅσα
προσῆκεν αὐτοῖς αὐτὸς Α') ποιήσας, ib. 5. 5 τούτων τῶν δυο** (δυοῖν ?)
τελευτησάντων (τούτων τὼ δύ᾽ ἐτελευτησάτην Bekker), ib. 26. 3 αὐτῶ αὐτὸς
Buermann) ἔργῳ δεδήλωκεν, VIII. 6. 2 τὰ μὲν παλαιά (πάλαι Stephanus)
γεγενημένα ib. 23. 2 τὸν δὲ (τῶν δὲ Bekker) ἀρραβῶνα δεδωκέναι, ΧΙ. 10. 8
ταύτη μοι ταὐτὸν ἐμοὶ Bekker) τῇ συγγενείᾳ προσήκοντες, ib. 15. 8 οἱ
:
xl
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
τούτω (ταὐτὸ Bekker) τῷ παιδὶ προσήκοντες. Upon this tendency
Buermann bases his emendations in III. 25. 4 (ἐκμαρτυρήσασθαι in place
οἱ ἐκμαρτυρησάμενος), ib. 69. 5 (οἱ τοῦ Πύρρου θεῖοι in place of τῷ τοῦ
Πύρρου θείω), Χ. 23. 8 (τῆς μητρὸς ὢν κύριος in place of τῆς μητρὸς οὔσης
κυρίας). The influence of a familiar construction on the mind of the
writer accounts for the intrusion of ἢ in III. 28. 7 (μᾶλλον [ἢ] ὁ ἐγγυῶν)
and of καὶ in I. 37. 4, VII. 33. 6 (ἀλλὰ [καὶ]).
(5) Adscripts foisted into the text.
او
αν
Entire sentences of comment have been incorporated from the
margin; see II. 8. I-3 καὶ ἐκ ταύτης τῆς λέξεως δηλοῖ ὅτι φιλῶν
ἀπεβάλετο· οὐδεὶς γὰρ μισῶν τινα ἱκετεύει αὐτῷ (del. Sauppe), ib. 12. 2
ἐπειδὴ προετίμησεν αὐτοὺς πάντων (del. Dobree), ΙΧ. 6. 7, 8 ὅτι Ἱεροκλῆς
ἀπεκρίνατο (del. Reiske. The following words and phrases appear to
come from explanatory glosses : 1. 14. 8 οὐχ οὕτως [ὡς ἀσθενῶν] διακεί
μενος (del. Bekker), iv. 15. 7 ἐλθόντα ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν [ἀρχονίδην] ἀπέπεμψεν
(del. Dobree), 11. 24. 5 τοῦ ποιήσασθαι (del. Cobet), ib. 29. 9 διαιτῆσαι
(del. Fuhr), III. 63. 1 ἔτι δ᾽ ἂν πρότερον [τοῦ Ξενοκλέους] οἱ τοῦ Πύρρου θεῖοι
(del. Buermann), v. 24. I ἀποστὰς δὲ Δικαιογένης [ταῦτα τὰ μέρη] ὧν καὶ
νῦν ὁμολογεῖ ἀφεστάναι (del. Dobree), VI. 15. 5 ὀνόματα (del. Buermann),
ib. 60. 4 τὰς πλείστας [νίκας] νενίκηκεν (del. Sauppe), vii. 35. 5 καὶ
πολεμεῖν (del. Buermann), ib. 38. 3 οὐκ ἐκ συμμορίας [τὴν ναῦν ποιησά-
μενος] ὥσπερ οἱ νῦν (del. Halbertsma), VIII. 42. 4 φελλέα δὲ [χωρία ἄττα]
ἐκείνῳ δέδωκε (del. Reiske), Χ. 12. 7, 8 κρατεῖν τῶν χρημάτων (del. van
den Es). In X. 4. 5 τοῦ τόνδε τὸν κλῆρον | νόμον (expunxit A') ἀδίκως
ἔχοντος the ejected word may have arisen out of παρὰ νόμον, a variant of
ἀδίκως. Most of the foregoing instances leave little room for doubt,
those that follow are questionable. Dobree and Buermann condemn
οὗτοι γὰρ τὸ ἀνελεῖν αὐτὰς ἐκείνου βουλομένου διεκώλυσαν (Ι. 42. 7, 8).
Naber and Buermann would cut out ὁπότε γάρ τις ἐπεδικάζετο τοῦ κλήρου,
νόθην τὴν θυγατέρα τοῦ καταλιπόντος τὸν κλῆρον καθίστη (ΙΙΙ. 41. 5-7).
Cobet and Buermann reject λέγοντες καὶ (Ι. 49. I, 2), and ἡ τούτων
πλεονεξία (VIII. 2. 2). Buermann also proposes to expel καὶ διὰ τὴν
συγγένειαν (1. 41. 1), ὑπὸ δὲ παραφρονοῦντος (ΙΙ. 43. 8), τὸ ὄνομα τῆς
θυγατρός, ὡς φασι, τῆς αὐτοῦ (ΙΙΙ. 34. 1, 2), ἕνεκα τοῦ νόμου (ΙΙΙ. 35. 4),
πλείω καὶ (v. 8. 5), πάντων (ν. 1ο. 4), τῷ Ευκτήμονος ὀνόματι (VI. 56. 2),
ἀλλ᾽ εὐθυδικίᾳ εἰσιέναι (VI. 59. 2), καὶ κακῶς διέθηκα (ΧΙ. 35. 6). S. A. Naber
and H. van Herwerden following the lead of their illustrious master,
Cobet, ply the knife without mercy. Apparently they think it sound
criticism to excise everything which is not indispensable to a trained
THE FAULTS OF A
xli
scholar scrutinising a speech in his study. The numerous 'emblemata,'
which they have detected, may be discovered by the curious in the
critical notes.
(6) Anagrammatism.
II. 34. 2, III. 12. 7, 76. 5 èπíßadde (èñíλaße), IV. 4. 8, 10. 8 яapa-
κατέλαβεν (παρακατέβαλεν Α'), ib. 20. 2, 21. 2 στρατονίκου (Νικοστράτου
schedae Etonenses), VI. 22. 5 ἀφνιδαίου ('Αφιδναίου Stephanus), ib. 38. 8
προδόδους (προσόδους), VIII. 23. 7 καταλεποιπὼς, Χ. 8. 7 μόνον (νόμον Α'),
ΧΙ. 6. 6 ἀποκρίνουσι τοῦ (ἀπόκρισιν οὐ Α').
(1) Wrong division of words.
2
*
..
ως
1
The error was sometimes detected by A' or A2, as in VI. 13. 9
ἐξεπιτριπευομένης (ἐξ ἐπιτροπευομένης Α'), ib. 52. 9 ὡς οὐδ᾽ ὄντοσ ὡς οὐ
δόντοσ, VIII. 4. 8 οὐδέν ἐστι ἀναιδέστερον Apr., οὐδένες ἀναιδέστερον Α',
VIII. 31. 5 ἄλλοι Apr., ἀλλ᾽ οἱ Α', ΙΧ. 17. 3 θ᾽ οὐδε πις Apr., Θούδιππος Α'
and A', Χ. 4. 5 τούτων δὲ τὸν κλῆρον... ἔχοντος Apr., τοῦ τόνδε τὸν κλῆρον...
ἔχοντος Α'.
Modern scholars have corrected the following cases:
ΙΙ. 30. 6 ὥστε δηώμεθα (ως γε δή ᾤμεθα Dobree), III. 25. 5 οὗτος ἦν
(οὑτοσὶν Dobree), IV. 7. 4 εξάκις (ἐξ "Ακης Valckenaer), ν. 34. 4 ἂν
ἔγνωσαν (ἀπέγνωσαν Reiske), VI. 42. 2, 3 τῶν δ᾽ ἐφορᾶν (τῶνδε φωρᾶν
Scaliger and Petit), ib. 63. 2 ἂν αἴσιμός τις (ἄπαις ἦν ὅστις Reiske,
VII. I. 7 ταύτην γράμμασι (ταῦτ᾽ ἐν γράμμασι Reiske), VIII. 33. 8 του
λέγοντος (τουδέ γ' ὄντος Reiske), ib. 34. 7 ταύτη δὴ (ταῦτ᾽ ἤδη Reiske),
Χ. 2. 4 ἥδε ἡ γνῶσις (ἡ διάγνωσις Scheibe), ΧΙ. 27. 4 διὰ τούτου (διὰ τοῦτ᾽
οὐ Reiske), ib. 50. 5 ὥσπερ ἀχρήστου (ὡς περὶ ἀχρήστου Reiske.
(a)
ι for el.
(8) Confusion of vowels.
او
ΙΙΙ. 30. η κλιταρέτην (corr. Α'), IV. 8. 4 αμινιάδης (Αμεινιάδης
Turicenses, Αμυνιάδης Stephanus), v. 43. 7 ὀρικὸν, i. 44. 3 λιθουργίοις,
VI. 22. 3 κούριον, VII. 9. 5 λακρατίδη, ib. 34. 2 ἴστε (εἴς τε Α'),
VIII. hyp. 20 oikíav (oikeíav A²), IX. 32. I èπì, X. 3. 3, XI. 4. 6 iσeode
(corr. A²).
(6)
ει for L.
I. 25. 3 κατέλιπεν et passim, II. Ι. 4 πειθόμενος (II. 19. I, 25. 8,
38. 2), III. 76. 1 γαμηλίαν, v. 5. 9 φρεάριος, ib. 29. 9 φιλονείκω,
ib. 47. 4 προεδρειών, VI. 57. 5 φήσει, VII. 15. 5 θαλγήλεια, ΧΙ. 33. 6, 34. I
φήσει (corr. A').
1
xlii
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
(c) for n.
ɩ
જ
1. 2. 2 ισομοιρίσαι, IV. 7. 4 ἑξάκις (ἐξ Ακης), v. hyp. ii et passim
λεώχαρις, λεώχαριν (corr. Α'), Χ. 4. 3, 8, 7. 4 δημόχαρις (corr. A?).
(d) n for .
I. 16. 3, 28. I κηφήσανδρος, ib. 46. 3 ενεχειρήσαμεν (rasur. corr.),
III. 25. 5 οὗτος ἦν (οὑτοσὶν), IV. 20. 2 διεχείρησεν (rasur. corr.), V. 5. II
κηφησιοδότου, ib. 9. το κηφησοδότου (rasur. corr.), ib. 12. 2, 3 κηφησο-
φῶντος (rasur. corr.), ib. 22. 6 μηκίωνα, VI. 27. το κωφησιελ (rasur. corr.),
ib. 38. 8 pavñola (rasur. corr.).
(e) eɩ for n.
ΙΙ. 12. η βούλει (βούλη Q), III. 35. 4 ἀπολείπει (ἀπολίπη Α'), ib. 35. 6
εἴπου (ήπου Α'), VI. 12. 8 εἴ τις (corr. A'), ib. 59. 7 λέγει, ΙΧ. 15. 8 ᾔδει,
ΧΙ. 15. 7 ήθει (corr. Α'), ib. 38. Ι δεῖν (δὴ Α').
(f) n for eɩ.
III. 43. 1, 51. 4 dokŷ (corr. A³), IV. II. 3 in (yeɩ Bekker), v. 39. 6
eiλnOvías, VI. 10. 9 µnέiádov, ib. 51. 5 dǹ (deî A²), IX. 5. 5 iepokλî (corr.
A'), ib. 31. I doкn (corr. A²).
ɩ
(g) for v.
IV. 6. 1 Opaσiµáɣov (corr. A²), vII. hyp. 1 et passim Opáσiddos
(corr. A¹).
(h)
(ż)
v for i.
VIII. 35. 4 dvoxiλías, XI. 44. 5 dvoxidíwv (rasur. corr.).
oɩ for n.
η.
ΙΙΙ. 21. 5 πιστεύοιτε, VII. 7. 3 ἐμοὶ ἐμὴν Bekker), ib. 9. 4 ἐμοὶ ἐμῆ
Α'), ib. 27. 5 πάθοι, VIII. 4. 4 ἐνέγκοιτε, Χ. 8. 5 ἐμοὶ, ΧΙ. 47. 8 ἀπολαύοιτε.
(و)
η
for ol.
III. 26. 4 ǹ (oi A³), Iv. 27. 5, V. 35. 10, IX. 28. 3 öπη (öπoɩ A¹),
VI. 41. 7 ὅπη (όποι Aldus), VI. 29. 2 ἤδη (οἵδε Α'), VIII. 32. 6 ἐκείνη
(ἐκεῖνοι Α'), ΧΙ. 44. 7 εὕρη, ib. 49. 2 εὕρητε.
οι.
(k) el for ol.
V. 38. 3 eldev (oide Bekker).
(1) ol for el.
VI. 57. 6 οἶμαι (εἶναι Α'), ib. 65. Ι οἶδε (εἶδε Α'), Χ. 8. 9 οἴσεσθε
(εἴσεσθε Α'), ΧΙ. 27. 7 οἶμαι (εἶναι Α').
(m) n for aɩ.
1. 21. 8 ποιήσητε, ib. 49. 2 ἀποφήνωσι, VI. I. 2 χηρεστάτω (corr. Α'),
VIII. 14. 1ο ἀπιστήσητε, ΙΧ. 18. 6 ἐθελήση (ἐθελήσαι Μ), ib. 37. 9
ἀδικήσητε.
THE FAULTS OF A
xliii
(n) e for αι.
1. 51. 5, 6, 7 ψηφίσεσθε, ἡγήσεσθε, ἀξιώσετε, IV. 2. 2 σκέψασθε (corr.
Α'), ν. 31. 3, 4 μεμακτηριῶνι, VII. 14. 6 μ*μακτηριώνος (corr. A2), ib. 16. 6
διαψηφίζεσθε (corr. Α'), ib. 42. Ι ποιήσεσθε (ποιήσησθε Α', ποιήσαισθε
Bekker), VIII. 20. 4 ἀπεκρύψασθε (ἀποκρύψασθαι Α'), Χ. 21. 8 ψηφίσεσθε
(ψηφίσαισθε Α').
αι for e.
(ο) αι
Ε.
ν. 39. 3 ὁρᾶται (corr. A'), VI. 2. 4 ψηφιείσθαι (corr. Α'), VIII. 12. 4
χρῆσθαι (corr. Α'), ib. 44. το πεύσεσθαι (corr. Α'), ib. 46. 3 τίθεσθαι
(corr. A'), x. hyp. 19, 20 ξ**ναίνετον (ξεναίνετον Α'), ΧΙ. II. I γνώσεσθαι
(corr. A2).
(Þ)
ι for αι.
ν. 37. 6 λεχίον (Λέχαιον Reiske.
(9) e for η.
ΙΙ. 47. 3 καταστήσετε (καταστήσητε Q), III. 3. 5, V. 17. I ἐπισκεψά
μενοι, VI. 13. 2 σκεψάμενοι (corr. Α').
(~)
o for w.
ΙΙΙ. ΙΙ. 7 ὁμολογήκασιν (corr. Α'), ib. 37. 5 δν, ἐ. III. 59. I ἀδελφὸν
μὲν κλῆρον (corr. Α'), VI. 7. I οὗτος, ib. 14. 4 ον, ib. 42. 2 τῶν δ᾽ ἐφορᾶν
(τῶνδε φωρᾶν Scaliger and Petit), ib. 52. 5, 6 ἀγωνίζονται (corr. Α'),
VIII. 21. 5 οἰκεῖον οἰκείων Α'), ib. 44. 4 νικήσομεν (corr. Α'), ΙΧ. 27. 3
προσῆκον (corr. Α'), x. hyp. 3 τοῦτον, ib. 23. 1ο τοῦτον (corr. Α'), ib. 24. 5
αὐτὸν.
(s) w for o.
ΙΙΙ. 13. 2 οὕτως (corr. Α'), IV. 21. 2 βούλωνται (rasur. corr.), v. 29. 8
οὕτως, ib. 39. 4 μείζων, ib. 43. 4 φανερώς, VI. 62. 3 αὐτῶν (corr. A),
ib. 62. 5 ὢν (corr. Α'), ib. 63. 2 τῶν (corr. A'), VIII. 34. 5 πρώτω (πρὸ τοῦ
schedae Etonenses, Bekker).
(9) Confusion of prepositions.
II. 6. 3 ἐπεδημήσαμεν Apr., ἀπεδημήσαμεν ΑQ, ib. 9. 4 ἐπιδίδωσιν
(ἀποδίδωσιν Jenicke), ib. 33. 2 ἀπὸ ὑπὸ Q), 111. 8. 5 κατέλιπε ἀπέλιπε
Α'), i. 45. I διαδικασίας (ἐπιδικασίας Reiske), ib. 55. 8 περὶ ὑπὲρ
Bekker), v. 13. 8 vπèρ (vπò A'), ib. 15. 4 év (éπì Bekker), ib. 38. 2
ὑπογράμματι (ἐπιγράμματι Aldus), VI. 27. I ἐπὶ (περὶ Α'), i. 32. 6
προέδρων (παρέδρων Α'), ib. 37. 2 προσεκήρυττεν (προεκήρυττεν Α'), ib.
50. Ι προσελθεῖν (παρελθεῖν Α'), VII. 13. 5 ἐπιφάνειαν (περιφάνειαν
Dobree), VIII. hyp. 5 παρέδωκε (προέδωκε Α'), ib. 8. 9 ἀποδίδωσι (ἐπιδίδωσι
xliv
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
Reiske), ib. 32. 3 ἐπίδικος (υπόδικος Scaliger), ΙΧ. 21. 4 ἀποδημοίη
(ἐπιδημοίη Reiske), ib. 25. 6 προιὼν (περιιών Α'), Χ. 4. το ἐν ἐπὶ
Valckenaer), XI. 47. 3 πepì (wapà schedae Etonenses).
(10) Confusion of Future Infinitive and First Aorist Infinitive.
II. 8. 6 ποιήσειν Α, ποιῆσαι Q, III. 26. 3 εγγυήσασθαι (corr. Cobet),
V. 5. 2 áπоλoуnoaobai (corr. Cobet), ib. 23. 1 Beßauwσew (corr. Cobet),
ib. 32. 3 Tоiñoαi (corr. A'), vI. 4. 4 KATασTýσeσ@ai (corr. Aldus), IX. 19. 5
éάoe (corr. Baiter), XI. 22. 7 égaπarnσai (corr. A').
(11) Errors due to abbreviations.
It is probable that in the archetype the terminations of words were
sometimes curtailed, the initial or characteristic letter of the final
syllable or syllables being written above the line. The divergence of
N and A in Din. III. 19. 3 (πоλiteías A, tóλews N) may be explained in
this way; see Bast, Commentatio Palaeographica p. 834, Newman, The
Politics of Aristotle III. p. xii. Ambiguous abbreviations appear oc-
Kλ
T
casionally in A itself as μενε (= μενεκλεί) II. 4. 4, ἀποθανού (= ἀποθα
νόντος) III. hyp. 3, μεμαρτυρηκό (= μεμαρτυρηκότα) ib. 4. 2, ὀλ (= ὀλίγα)
γύ
ib. 29. 4, δικαιο (= δικαιογένης) in margine v. 7. 5, 6,
ע
ib. II. 4, εὐκτήμο (= εὐκτήμονος) in margine v1. 56. 2,
тв
ib. 56. 5, θυγα (θυγάτηρ edd. omnes) VIII. 33. 4,
те
λ
KT
Y
ὀγδοή (= ὀγδοήκοντα)
те
δικαιο (= δικαιότερον)
тр
δικαιο (= δικαιότερα)
λί
x. hyp. 37, Ovya (=Ovyarépa) ib. 5. 7, evßov Apr., evßov A² (= evßovλídov)
XI. 16. 5. Contractions of this kind are easily misread or misinterpreted.
B has & λóyos in III. 29. 4 and ökayw in v. 7. 5. In x. hyp. 37, though
M has δικαιότερα, the Aldine has δικαιότερος, which Matthew Raine
supposed to be the reading of A; compare Ant. Tetr. III. S. 1 ákɩvduvó-
τρ
I
τερα Ν, ἀκινδυνο A (ἀκινδυνότερον απ ἀκινδυνότερα habeat non liquet,
Bekk.), ȧkivdvvóτepov M, Ald. The rubricator, when cramped for
τρ
те
27. 9), μαρ for μαρτυρία or
Such forms throw light on
space, wrote μάρ for μάρτυρες (e.g. I. 16. 2, v.
µаpтvpíaι (e.g. II. 16. 6, III. 7. 2, IX. 18. 10).
the confusion of μάρτυρες, μαρτυρία, μαρτυρίαι (ΙΙΙ. 12. 8, 15. 5, 53. 5,
VI. 16. 9, IX. 19. 7, 25. 6, 7, 8, 28. 4, 29. 10, 30. 6, xI. 6. 5); in v. 27. 9
µáρrupes is wrong, µáprus was read by all editors before Buermann, who
restored μaprupía. To the use of abbreviations may be traced the
THE FAULTS OF A
xlv
errors in vi. 60. 7 (εἰσενήνοχαν for εἰσενηνόχασι), ΧΙ. 13. 6 πεποιηκότος
Apr., πεποιηκότων Α', ib. 37. 3, 4, 5 (διεξιόντος, κατασκευάσαντος,
κατηγοροῦντος, where accusatives are required), ib. 1o. 3 (παρεσκευάζοντο
for παρεσκευαζόμεθα ; see Bast, op. cit. p. 714), ib. 48. 3 μάκαρος Apr.,
μακάρτατος Α', νι. 47. 3 (ἀνδροκλείδης for ἀνδροκλῆς; see Bast, op. cit.
pp. 798, 839), and the frequent interchange of comparatives and
superlatives (And. I. 23 ανοσιώτερον καὶ ἀπιστότερον Reiske: ἀνοσιώτατον
καὶ ἀπιστότατον Α, [And.] iv. 4ο ἀσελγεστάτους Emper: ἀσελγεστέρους
QA, Din. I. 87 εὐσεβέστατοι Ν, εὐσεβέστεροι A, ib. I. III πλουσιώτατον
Ν, πλουσιώτερον Α, 10. 11. 20 πραότατον Reiske: πραότερον NA, Ant. v. 15
πονηρότερα Ν, πονηρότατα Α, ib. v. 65 μακρότατον Ν, μακρότερον Α,
ib. vi. 16 ἀληθέστατα καὶ εὐορκότατα Apr., ἀληθέστερα καὶ εὐορκότερα ΝΑ',
Isae. I. 28. 3 οἰκειότατος Bekker: οἰκειότερος QA, i. VII. 37. 5 προθυμο-
τάτους Stephanus: προθυμοτέρους Α); for the compendia by which
comparative and superlative endings are expressed see Bast, op. cit.
P. 790 sqq. Dobree acutely conjectured that the adscript χωρία ἅττα in
VIII. 42. 4 arose out of χωρίον (χ) αττικῆς (@r or dr, Bast, op. cit. p. 800).
The corruption in x. hyp. 35 (ζητεῖ for ζητείται) may be due to ζητεί
(Bast, op. cit. p. 808), but it should be noted that in v. 3. 3 the writer of
B was careless enough to convert τρέψεται, which he found in A, into
the meaningless τρέψε (τρέψε Μ, τρέψω Aldus, τρέψεται Stephanus, τρέψει
schedae Etonenses). Blunders over the cases of autós and oûtos are
common in A and are sometimes corrected by A¹ (11. 46. 5, III. 22. 5,
72. I, V. II. II, 12. 4, VII. 7. 4, 44. 4, X. hyp. 17, XI. 18. 3, 32. 1, 43. 4).
Here too abbreviations seem to be responsible for some of the confusion.
In 1. 12. 9 Q has ảv († and a circumflex accent over-written) for avroû,
and the same abbreviation appears in A (111. 24. 8, 76. 2, IX. 23. 5,
Χ. 2. 8), but in III. 76. 2 and IX. 23. 5 has been interpreted as -τῷ not
only by the scribe of B but by all modern scholars who collated the
MS. before Buermann. To expand properly contractions of the kind
described was a task which needed some care and scholarship (cp.
Newman, The Politics of Aristotle III. p. xi). But that sheer carelessness
played a part in confusing the cases of autós and ouros will not be
questioned by any one who will take the trouble to compare A with its
αῖς
descendants BLMZ; see v. Io. 5 οὕτως αὐτοὺς Α, οὕτως αὐτὸς Μ, οὕτως
αὐταῖς Ζ, οὗτος αὐτὸς Ald., ib. 23. Ι αὐτὸν Α, αὐτοῦ Μ, αὐτῷ Ald., vi. 5. 2, 3
τοῦτ' αὐτὸ ΑΒ, ταῦτ᾽ αὐτῷ Μ, Αld., VII. 20. 6, 7 ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν Α, ἐκ τῶν ΒΜ,
ἐκ τούτων Ald., i. 44. 5 τούτῳ ΑΒ, τοῦτο Μ, τοῦτον Αld., VIII. 16. 5 ταύτης
Α, ταύτας ΒΜ, Ald., ib. 26. . 2 τούτῳ Α, τοῦτο Μ, τοῦτον Ald. Naber's
xlvi
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
change of oudev to ovdérepov in x. 5. 7, though I am not convinced of its
necessity, rests upon a sound palaeographical foundation; Bast (op. cit.
ď
p. 827) shows that ov, the abbreviation for ovdérepov, was sometimes
misinterpreted and expanded into ovdév and ovdé. Traces are found in
A of the employment of letters to denote figures. In v. 5. 10 G. Kaibel
conjectures that d′ (reτάp™η) has fallen out after dè, in VIII. 7. 5 Téttapas
(8') is substituted by Dobree for тplákovтα (λ´), in Din. 1. 89, where
NApr. have Teτpakóσia, A² has TérTapa, an emendation approved by the
Zürich editors and by Blass in his second edition; cp. Isae. 11. 4. 2,
XI. 42. 8, Ant. vi. 44.
ν
(12) Miscellaneous errors of transcription.
Some mistakes may be of early date and go back to a MS., in which
uncial characters were used, e.g. παλλακίΔι for παλλακίΑι (III. 39. 4),
τοῦ Λέγοντος for τοῦΔέ γ᾽ ὄντος (VIII. 33. 8), Ουσίας for Θυσίας (ΙΧ. 21. 1),
πυρριχιΕ'ταις for πυρριχιСταῖς (ν. 36. 3), Μουνυχιάει for Μουνυχία (VI.
27. 6), Cre for ETO (VII. 39. 4); cp. And. I. 127 Xpvoládηs (A) for
Xpvoiλλns (Jernstedt), Din. II. 20 eíav (NA) for óoíav (Bekker), Lyc. 29
ἃ σωκράτης (ΝΑ) for Λεωκράτης (Aldus), 10. 142 οὐσιῶν (NA) for θυσιῶν
(Taylor), [And.] IV. 29 ovoías (QA) for Ovorías (Scaliger). But it must.
not be forgotten that all these commutations occur in minuscule writing;
see Bast, op. cit. pp. 703, 713, 718. The confusion of åv and dý (IX.
16. 4, Ant. v. 38) is generally considered an uncial corruption (Cobet,
N. L. p. 549, V. L.2 p. 101, Schanz, Novae Commentationes Platonicae
p. 50 sqq.). With uncials and common minuscules it is not easy to
take π for v (v. 34. 4 ἂν ἔγνωσαν for ἀπέγνωσαν, VI. 63. 2 ἂν αἴσιμός τις
for arrais v oσTIs), but the error is rendered intelligible by a glance at
ἄπαις ἦν ὅστις),
the early cursive hands figured by Gardthausen, Griech. Palaeographie
Taf. 4, col. 2, 3 (600 A.D.), and Thompson, Greek and Latin Palaeo-
graphy p. 148. The confusion of èv and èπí (v. 15. 4, X. 4. 10) also
seems ancient (Bast, op. cit. p. 741). Uncials are often invoked to
explain the interchange of K and IC (Cobet, V. L.2 pp. 14, 124, 127,
199, O. Keller, Xenophontis Hellenica p. xXVI). This mistake was
made by Apr. three times in Isaeus, and corrected once by A', in
XI. 45. 2 (elomо0évтоs Apг., EKTTоÉVтOS A'), and twice by A2, in
VII. 44. 5 (Kπоnoas Apr., elonоnσas A") and in VIII. 10. 2 (eis Baσávov
Apr., èk Baσávwv A²); cp. Din. 1. 36. 2 èk Apr., eis A'N'. I believe
that in each case the writer of A, not the archetype, was in fault. The
error can arise with minuscules (Bast, op. cit. p. 720), and that the
archetype was in a minuscule hand, appears to me certain.
The
THE FAULTS OF A
xlvii
copyists confused v and η (Ant. VI. 15 ἀγαγεῖν Α, ἀγάγω ἢ N, ib. v. 73
ἀρχὴ ἢ ΝΑ, ἀρχὴν Aldus), v and λ (Ant. v. 5 γλώσσης Ν, γνώσσης Α),
a and ev (Lyc. 96 ἀσεβῶν Α, εὐσεβῶν Aldus, Ant. Tetr. III. γ. 5 εὐθερα-
πείας Npr., ἀθεραπείας N'A, Isae. II. 20. 4 Άνοιαν (ἄνοιαν) Apr., εὔνοιαν
A'Q; cp. XII. II. 4 εὐφίλητος ΒΡ, ἀφίλητος Μ), εs and εν (Ant. VI. 29
παρεσχόμην Ν, παρεχόμην A, Isae. II. 29. 8 κηδεστή Α, κηδευτή Q), ου
and συ (Isae. III. 33. 3 οὐκέτι Apr., συγκεῖται Α'), καί and καν (Din. I.
113. 12 κἂν Α'Ν', καὶ ΑΓί, κα* Npr.), μή and μέν (And. III. 38 μὴ A,
μὲν Q), -ους and -ως (int. v. 41 ἀδίκως Α, ἀδίκους N, Isae. I. 7. 5
κακῶς Q, κακοὺς Α, i. i. II. 7 κακῶς QA', κακοὺς Apr., ib. IV. 14. I
Ε
ὁμολογουμένως Α', ὁμολογουμένους Apr.), περί (π) and ἐπί (ε) (VI. 27. I
περὶ Α', ἐπὶ Apr.). isaeus furnishes abundant examples of mistakes
characteristic of minuscules; observe the confusion of ɩ and s (c) in
ΙΙΙ. 37. 2 (τοσούτων for τοιούτων), ΧΙ. 47. 1ο (τοσούτων for τοιούτων),
VI. 42. I (οὗτος fο: οὗτοι), ν. 36. 7 (ἕτερος for ἕτεροι), VI. 64. 3 (γνήσιος
ἐστιν for γνήσιοί είσιν), VII. 21. η (νόμοι for νόμος), of ap and λι or λv in
uit. Isaei 1o (λιδύος A, λυδύος Q. *Αρδυος Aldus), of δ, δε, δι (Bast, op. cit.
p. 7 II, Gardthausen, op. cit. Taf. ro, col. 15) in v. 23. 5 (οὐδ' for οὐ δι'),
VI. 36. 7 (δι' αὐτοῦ for δ' αὐτοὶ), Χ. 2. 4 (ἦδε ή γνῶσις for ἡ διάγνωσις),
XI. hyp. 12, 13 (δὲ ἐπιτρόπου for δι' ἐπιτρόπου), of v and λ (Bast, ib.
p. 723) in II. 20. 6, ΙΙΙ. 18. 4 (τηνικαῦτα for τηλικαύτα), VI. 65. 4 (ἔνοχος
for ἔλεγχος), of η and τι (Gardthausen, ib. Taf. 8, col. ro) in II. 25. I
(ἤδηποτ' for τί δήποτ'), ΧΙ. 19. 9 (ἢ < τί> ποθεῖτε; π and τι and η are
similar in appearance, Bast, ib. pp. 715, 730), of ἤ and καί (Bast, ib.
p. 815) in v. 5. 2, of η and ws (Bast, ib. p. 78o) in vi. 49. 4 (ὁμολογουμένη
οὖσα for ὁμολογουμένως οὖσα, but here grammatical assimilation may
have cooperated), of περί and παρά (Bast, ib. p. 830) in xi. 47. 3. The
change of προσταττόμενα to πραττόμενα (Χ. 25. 6) was facilitated by the
compendium me for πρὸς ; the corruption reappears in the descendants
of A (x. hyp. 16 προστάξαντος Α, πράξαντος M, Ald.). But mental
rather than visual error must account for the common interchange of
δέ and γάρ ; see uit. Isaei 34 δὲ Q, γὰρ A, [And.] iv. 23 γὰρ Α, δὲ Q,
Ant. Tetr. I. δ. 9 γὰρ Ν, δὲ A, ib. Tetr. II. γ. 7 οὐ γὰρ ΝΑ', οὐδὲ Apr.,
ib. v. 62 οὐδὲ Ν οὗ δὲ Blass), οὐ γὰρ A, ib. vi. 4 γὰρ ΝΑ', δὲ Apr., Din. I.
59. 2 δὲ ΝΑ', γὰρ Apr., Lyc. 48 τοιαύταις δὲ Α', τοιαύταις γὰρ Apr. This
mistake also recurs in the descendants of A; e.g. in Isae. vII. 20. 5, 6
δὲ
M has κρατεῖν γὰρ.
xlviii
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
§ 6. DESCRIPTION OF Q.
This MS. (Ambrosianus D 42 sup.) once belonged to the scholar
and bibliophile Giovanni Vincenzo Pinelli (1535-1601), who migrated
from Naples to Padua in pursuit of learning. When he died, his library
was sent on three ships to his Neapolitan heirs. One ship was captured
by pirates, who threw the cargo into the sea. The books that reached
Naples came into the hands of Vandals, and narrowly escaped de-
struction; the remnants of the famous collection were discovered in
a granary and purchased by Cardinal F. Borromeo (1563—1631),
Archbishop of Milan and founder of the Ambrosian Library. Mont-
faucon saw Q, when he visited Milan in 1698, and noted in the
Diarium Italicum (ed. 1702, p. 16; cp. Bibliotheca Biblioth. MSS.
Nova 1. pp. 492, 493, 497, 500, 503, 529) that it contained inter alia
Andocides and Isaeus, but it rested secure and undisturbed till 1815,
when Angelo Mai published from it the first speech of Isaeus and
appended its various readings in or. II. Bekker collated Q for his
edition of the Attic Orators (1822/23), but spoke slightingly of it as
'not older than P,' which cannot have been written before the last
years of the fifteenth century (see § 1, p. v). The first precise de-
scription of the appearance and composition of the MS. was given by
Buermann in 1885 (Rh. Mus. 4º, p. 390 sqq.), who added some
specimens of its readings. A collation of the two speeches of Andocides
was published in 1886 by Ad. Cinquini (Andocidis de codicibus qui in
bibliotheca Ambrosiana extant, Mediolani). Cinquini is accused of care-
lessness by Lipsius (Andocides, praef. p. xviii), who examined Q in 1885
and again in 1887. I have not seen it, but the courtesy of the
Rev. P. A. Ceriani, the head of the Ambrosian Library, has enabled
me to procure photographs, from which, I hope, an adequately accurate
record can be presented.
I.
The codex (23 × 15cm., ff. 119) contains a collection of hetero-
geneous works written by different scribes and somewhat carelessly
bound together. The material is paper, from f. 102 to the end oriental
paper (charta bombycina). The contents are as follows:
f. I-22
selecta quaedam theologica ex patribus. 2. f. 23-73 orationes aliquot
Aristidis. 3. f. 74-88, Pseudo-Lysiae epitaphius 74 a-81 a, Gorgiae
Helena 81 a—83
-83 a, iterum Aristides 83 6—88. F. 89 does not belong
to this part; it is of oriental paper and contains the beginning of
Andocides' third speech (πepì eipńvns). 4. f. 90—101 Polemo. 5. The
rest (f. 89 + 102-118) is an independent whole, containing Andocides
DESCRIPTION OF Q
xlix
III. and IV. and Isaeus I. and II. Mai, whose opinion is accepted by
Cinquini and Lipsius, thought that this part was written in the
14th century. Buermann reports that there is no reason against
assigning it to the 13th century, although the remainder of the codex
belongs to the 15th. It must be remembered that an early date
for Q is required by one of Buermann's theories (see § 4, p. xxxv). The
paper is much worn; in places letters and even whole words are
obliterated. In binding the pages have been displaced.
sequence according to contents is the following:
f. 89: Andoc. or. III-§ 12. 5 уéураπтαι.
The proper
f. 102—108: or. III § 12. 5 to the end, or. Iv—§ 39. 4 åvnλeŵs.
f. 111, 113–118, 112: or. IV § 39. 4 to the end; Isaei uita, or. I,
or. II—§ 24. 5 îs ovdè.
F.
f. 109-110: or. II § 24. 5 to the end.
119 is also of oriental paper, but the hand is different and the
subject has nothing to do with the orators. The page begins with Tò
ξηρὸν μεταβάλλον εἰς τὸ ὑγρὸν ἤτοι ἐκ τοῦ ἐναντίου and gives quotations
from Galen and Aristotle.
tè, ws
I.
་་་
In accentuation Q bears a general resemblance to A. We find av,
ὅτ᾽ ἂν, μὴδὲ, μὴδ', οὐδε έν (ΙΙ. 39. 5, 41. 5), οὐδὲ πώποτε, λάβε, ομνύναι,
διατί, διαταῦτα, τοπαράπαν, οἷον τὲ ἐστὶ (Ι. 41. 5), ἐκεῖνος τε, ἡμεῖς φαμὲν,
ἄλλόν τινα, ἐκείνου τὲ, ὡς φασίν. The aspirate is never used in αυτόν,
αὐτοῦ, etc. : by the side of ωμόσαμεν we have ὁμόσαντες, ὁμόσαι, ὁμοθέντα,
Sμwμóкатe. ovx' (occasionally found in A) is constant. Iota subscript is
regular with r and rŷ and occurs once with (11. 26. 3), and a few
times with lavr, autų, aury: Adjectives, nouns, and verbs rarely have
it; the following are the examples: πρεσβυτέρᾳ ἀδελφῇ ΙΙ. 5. 4, ἀδελφῇ
ib. 6. 5, ἀφῃρέθην uit. Isaei 12, ᾔτει ΙΙ. 4. 5, ᾔσχυνόμην ib. 18. 6, διῄτησαν
ib. 31. 3. N ἐφελκυστικόν is absent before vowels in 1. 31. 8 ἐτόλμησε.
ἔτι, ib. 32. 3 προσηπείλησε ὅτι, ib. 39. 8 ἠνάγκαζε ἂν, ΙΙ. 15. 6 εἴκοσι ἔτη,
ib. 45. 3 elkoơɩ èπißioîvτa, is present before a consonant twice only,
II. 25. 4 ἔμελλεν ζῶντα, ib. 43. 5 ἐστιν τὰ. Q, like A, has οὕτως παρα-
φρονῶν in I. 21. 5, οὕτως ποιεῖν in I. 33. 2. Ἐγίγνετο appears in I. 45.
2, 4, but èyívero in 1. 44. 5, yɩoµévŋs in 1. 33. 7, katayiwokew in 1. 50. 3,
γινωσκόντων in I. 51. 4. As in A, the syllable μar in the middle of a
word is often written μr, e.g. in ἐνθυμήμτα, πράγμτος, γράμμτα; compare
θαυμασιώττον (Ι. 28. 1), δεινόττον (Ι. 43. 7, 51. 3), οἰκειόττα (οἰκειότητα
1. 47. 4), χρηστόττος (χρηστότητος II. 7. 4). The scribe uses the
abbreviations ἄνος, πηρ, πρώος, and the ordinary compendia for final
syllables and kaí, yάp, ws. The punctuation resembles that of A; note
W. I.
し
​e
1
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
e.g. I. I. 2, 3 ἐκεῖνος γὰρ, ζῶν μὲν ἡμῖν κατέλιπε τὴν οὐσίαν· ἀποθανὼν δὲ,
κινδυνεύειν περὶ αὐτῆς πεποίηκε, ib. 3. 5 πέμψας ποσείδιπον, ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν,
ib. 5. 4, 5 περὶ ὧν αἰσχρὸν ἦν ἀμφισβητῆσαι, καὶ τοῖς μηδὲν προσήκουσιν,
ib. II. 6 ὀργιζόμενος ἐκείνῳ καὶ οὐκ ὀρθῶς βουλευόμενος, ταῦτα διέθετο.
Such corrections as are discernible—erasures by a skilful hand cannot
be recognised in a photograph-seem to have been made inter
scribendum and are registered in the critical notes with two exceptions.
In II. 12. 2 the scribe began to write ἐτ**, but altered it to ἐπήν(εσε).
By an oversight I have omitted to record that in Il. 2. 6 ἀποδέχεσθαί
was corrected from ὑποδέχεσθαί. In consequence of the running of the
ink it is sometimes very difficult to distinguish ἡμεῖς and ὑμεῖς, e.g. in
§ 18. 4, where I have given the copyist the benefit of the doubt. There
are no marginal notes, save the sign (Bast, op. cit. p. 839) for σημείωσαι)
by the side of 1. 13. 4 drawing attention to the maxim that we are all
liable to err under the influence of anger.
The independence of Q is proved by the presence of words not
found in A. In Isaeus these additions are 14 in number, viz. uit. Is. 16
ȧkpɩßŵs, ib. 19 µèv, ib. 35 kaì, I. 25. 4 µèv, ib. 26. 5 kaì, ib. 26. 8 kaì,
ib. 47. 5 kaì, II. 4. 2 ǹ πéµπтw, ib. 4. 6 tǹv, ib. 12. 1 ô èµòs, ib. 13. 2
αὐτὸν, ib. 17. 2 ὑμῖν, ib. 26. 4 τοῖς, ib. 35· 3 μὲν. All seem right, with the
exception of kaì 1. 26. 5 and vµîv 11. 17. 2, and are generally taken into
the text. That the writer of A was prone to omit little words, is shown
by the corrections introduced by A¹. But Q is distinctly inferior to A.
Compared with A it has as many as 47 omissions, some of them utterly
destroying the sense and convicting the scribe of gross carelessness. Of
these 47 omissions only three are in my opinion improvements, viz. uit.
Is. 34 τῆς Δημοσθένους Q, τῆς τοῦ Δημοσθένους A, I. hyp. 2 ἔρχονται κατὰ
γένος, τὰς διαθήκας Q, ἔρχονται κατὰ γένος καὶ τὰς διαθήκας Α, ΙΙ. 19. 5
(πρότερον ἦν ἐκδεδομένη) ἢ τὴν ποίησιν γενέσθαι) Ο, πρινὴ A. Many
critics would add I. II. 5 οὐδὲν πονηρὸν Q, οὐδὲν πονηρὸν ἐγκαλεῖ A, and
ib. 21. 6 ὥσθ' ἡμᾶς περὶ ἐλαχίστου ποιεῖσθαι Q, ὥσθ' ἡμᾶς ἀεὶ κ.τ.λ. A.
Apart from additions and omissions Q exhibits a superior reading in
21 places, viz. uit. Is. 34 δὲ Q, γὰρ A, I. hyp. II μετεκαλέσατο Q,
μετεκαλέσαντο Α, I. 7. 5 κακῶς Q, κακοὺς A, ib. 13. 5 τὴν αὐτοῦ διάνοιαν Q,
αὐτοῦ τὴν διάνοιαν A, ib. 14. 6 εἰς Q, ἐς Α, ib. 16. 4 κηφίσανδρος Q,
κηφήσανδρος Α, ib. 18. 4 γενομένας Q, γινομένας Α, ib. 23. 7 εἰς Q, ἐς A,
ib. 26. 3 ὑμῖν Q, ἡμῖν A, ib. 28. 1 κηφίσανδρος Q, κηφήσανδρος Α, ib. 31. 2
ὑμῖν Q, ἡμῖν Α, i. 34. 5 αὐτὸν Q, αὐτῶ A, ib. 38. 3 ἡμᾶς Q, ὑμᾶς A,
II. 9. 3 σφηττίω Q, σφητίω Α, ib. 12. 7 ἐὰν βούλη Q, ἐὰν βούλει Α,
ib. 17. 4 ἡμῖν Q, ὑμῖν A, ib. 19. 3 τὸν πλεῖστον τοῦ λόγου Q, τὸ πλεῖστον
τοῦ λόγου A, ib. 32. 4 ποιήσειν Q, ποιεῖν A, ib. 33. 2 ὑπὸ Q, ἀπὸ A,
DESCRIPTION OF Q
li
ib. 39. 3 τῶν μενεκλέους Q, τοῦ μενεκλέους Α, ib. 47. 3 καταστήσητε Q,
καταστήσετε Α. Τo these passages, about which no dispute is possible,
I should add three more, viz. 1. 15. 6 avтòv Q, avròs A, ib. 22. 6 èkeivw Q,
ἐκεῖνο A, ib. 33. 3 ὅπως μηδὲ λόγον ὑπολείψει Q, ὥστε μηδὲ λόγον ὑπο-
λείψειν A. On the other hand in 66 places Q has inferior readings,
some of which are horrible corruptions, e.g. I. 25. 2 ἐβάλετο Q, ἐβούλετο
A, ib. 33. 5 ἔχθραν Q, οὐσίαν Α, ib. 46. 4 αἰτίαν Q, οὐσίαν Α, ΙΙ. 22. 2
κατηγορεῖν Q, καταγηρᾶν A, i. 36. 2 θεράπων Q, θυγάτηρ A, ib. 47. 8
ἐχρημένων Q, εἰρημένων A. The order of words differs from that in A in
39 places. Most of these transpositions can be traced to a cause
widely operative both in prose and verse (see W. Headlam, Class. Rev.
XVI, p. 243 sqq.), the choice partly deliberate, partly involuntary of the
simplex ordo. A should be followed everywhere, except in 1. 48. 5
(καὶ νῦν μὲν ἐβούλετο ἡμᾶς Α, καὶ νῦν ἐβούλετο ἡμᾶς μὲν Q) and II. 26. 5
(καὶ οὐκ αἰσχύνεται μὲν αὐτῷ Α, καὶ οὐκ αἰσχύνεται αὐτῷ μὲν Q). This
concession to Q will be denounced as rank inconsistency by such
champions of A as P. Graffunder (De Crippsiano et Oxoniensi Anti-
phontis Dinarchi Lycurgi codicibus, Berolini, 1882, p. 31), who reckons
among the sins of N the fact that this MS. gives μév its normal and
logical position in Ant. Tetr. 1. y. 8, V. 29, VI. 25, 29, 37. But μέν is
liable to displacement (Headlam lc. emends Aesch. Εum. 851 καίτοι
μὲν σὺ κάρτ᾿ ἐμοῦ σοφωτέρα into καίτοι σὺ μέν <που> κάρτ᾿ ἐμοῦ σοφωτέρα,
Cobet, N. L. p. 351, adduces inter alia Isocr. 6. 5 ἐν οἷς μὲν κατορθώσαντες
(ΓΕ) for ἐν οἷς κατορθώσαντες μὲν), and some limit must be set to the
application of the principle that 'the more difficult reading is the
better.'
In Andocides the relation of Q to A is, as might be expected, much
the same. Q has words, which are absent from A, in 14 places, viz.
III. 5 τοὺς, ib. 7 ταύτης, ib. 13 ὦ, ib. 19 τοῖς ἕλλησι, ib. 24 περὶ Κορίνθου,
ib. 24 ǹ, ib. 27 dè, ib. 32 tǹv, ib. 34 tŵv, ib. 39 πávтa, IV. 13 avtov, ib. 22
Te, ib. 30 Tǹv, ib. 41 eis. Two of these additions (III. 34 τῶν, IV. 22 τε
are plainly blunders, and in III. 24 and iv. 3o it is better to omit the
article. The rest are improvements. On the other hand the omissions.
are 35 in number, and a case cannot be made out for more than three
(III. 5 τὸν Πειραιᾶ τότε ἐτειχίσαμεν ἐν τούτῳ τῷ χρόνῳ Α, τότε om. Q,
ib. 34 εἰ πεμφθέντες αὐτοκράτορές τι ἀποδώσομεν ὑμῖν περὶ αὐτῶν σκέψασθαι
A, τι om. Q, ἔτι Reiske, IV. 31 ὁ δὲ πάντων τῶν συμμάχων καὶ χρήματα
λαμβάνων Α, καὶ om. Q, <άρχων> καὶ Emper). Apart from additions
and omissions Q shows a superior reading in 42 places, an inferior
reading in 85 places. The order of words differs from that of A in
23 places. Lipsius follows Q in 8 places, viz. 111. 7 bis, ib. 39, IV. 18, 21,
e 2
lii
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
23, 27, 32. In view of the higher authority of A and of the clear
tendency of Q to substitute the simple order (rò s) I should be
disposed to follow it in 2 places only viz.: Iv. 21 Tavρéav µèv TOσaûTA Q,
Ταυρέαν τοσαῦτα μὲν A, ib. 32 πάντας τοὺς στεφανηφόρους ἀγώνας Q,
πάντας ἀγῶνας στεφανηφόρους Apr., τοὺς post ἀγώνας supra uers. add. Α'.
F
§ 7. THE MANUSCRIPTS OF DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUs.
codex Florentinus bibliothecae Laurentianae plut. LIX 15
saec. XII.
M Ambrosianus D 119 sup. saec. xv ineuntis.
P
Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 58 saec. xv.
B Parisiensis bibl. nat. gr. 1742 saec. XV exeuntis aut XVI
ineuntis.
H. Usener has at last brought to a happy conclusion the arduous
enterprise begun in 1873 (Jahrbb. f. cl. Philol. 107, p. 145 sqq.) of
sifting and classifying the numerous MSS. of the rhetorical works of
Dionysius of Halicarnassus. The results of his labours are summarised
in the preface of the first volume of Dionysius' Opuscula, which he
issued in 1899 in conjunction with his pupil L. Radermacher. The
first book of the treatise Tepì тŵv áρxaíwv înτóρwv containing Lysias,
Isocrates, Isaeus has been handed down to us by a double tradition.
F stands alone on the one side, on the other are MPB, all derived from
a rhetorical Sylloge (S) now lost. A fourth representative of the second
family, superior in Usener's opinion to P and B, has been found in a
Venice MS. (Marcianus class. x n. xxxiv saec. xv), but a complete
collation has not as yet been published. I have seen none of these
MSS. The readings of FMBP given in my notes are extracted from the
critical apparatus of Usener and Radermacher's edition, which is based
upon collations made by Usener and his friends, D. Detlefsen,
K. Dilthey, G. Kaibel, A. Kiessling. I have also had before me the
collations of F and M published in 1877 by L. Sadée (De Dionysii
Halicarnassensis scriptis rhetoricis quaestiones criticae, Argentorati) and
the readings of B recorded by H. Buermann in his edition of Isaeus.
Where the collators disagree, my rule has been to accept the testimony
of the latest authority. Mr A. B. Poynton (Journ. Phil. XXVIII,
p. 161 sqq.) has thrown fresh light on the composition of the Oxford
MS., Misc. Gr. 36, a transcript of an 'exemplar Duditianum' made by
Sir Henry Savile (1549—1622, Warden of Merton College, Oxford, and
MANUSCRIPTS OF DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS liii
Provost of Eton) in the early part of 1581 while visiting Andreas Dudith
at Breslau, and presented by him to the Bodleian Library in 1620.
The marginalia, as well as the text, are in Savile's hand and contain
some successful emendations. The same corrections of many passages
are suggested in Sylburg's notes (1586). Reiske, whose knowledge of the
‘Bodleianus' was drawn from the imperfect account given in J. Hudson's
edition (1704), remarked this coincidence, and concluded that the MS.
was not to be trusted, ut quem constet coniecturis Sylburgianis scatere'
(p. 621, 7 n.). I have adopted the view that the conjectures are
throughout Savile's own.
§ 8. EDITIONS AND SUBSIDIA.
The editio princeps of 1513 was not only derived from an inferior
MS. (p. iv) but teemed with typographical errors, and was disfigured by
horrible examples of itacism, which show that the compositors were
Greeks. Tot mendis eluendis ne Hercules quidem literarius suffecerit
(Reiske, Or. Gr. VII. p. 21). The efforts of three centuries were spent
on purging the text of the Aldine. The two scholars of the 16th century
who did most for Isaeus were H. Stephanus (1528-1598) and J. J.
Scaliger (1540—1609). Stephanus' work is embodied in his edition of
the Greek Orators (Oratorum veterum orationes, Aeschinis, Lysiae,
Andocidis, Isaei, Dinarchi, Antiphontis, Lycurgi, Herodis, & aliorum,
Parisiis, 1575). Scaliger's corrections, first published by J. J. Reiske in
1773, are found in two Aldines, one in the Utrecht Library, which once
belonged to Peter Wesseling (1692-1764), the other in the Bodleian
Library (Auct. R. 4. 2), which once belonged to Edward Bernard
(1638—1696, Savilian Professor at Oxford 1673—1691). Reiske (Or.
Gr. 111. p. 715 sqq.) obtained a collation of the whole of the first book
from R. M. van Goens (1748-1810), a Professor at Utrecht, of part of
the second from Griesbach (alumnus celebris theologi Halensis Semleri,
Rambachii, theologi quondam item Halensis, postmodum Giessani, ex
filia nepos, per Arabicae linguae studium mihi conciliatus) and White.
(Joseph White, 1745—1814, Laudian Professor of Arabic at Oxford
1775-1814), and states that the marginalia in the two are sub-
stantially the same (Ultrajectinum exemplum cum Oxoniensi plerumque
convenit, nisi quod alias pauciora illo, alias plura tenet). In Isaeus he
had before him notes from the Utrecht book (cp. Or. Gr. VII Antiph.
p. 789 schedae Goensianae), and so missed about 30 conjectures entered
in the Oxford Aldine, a collation of which I owe to the kindness of
liv
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
Mr T. W. Allen, of Queen's College, Oxford. The most notable of
these emendations are pavepòs v. 43. 4 (Steph.), πратŵpа X. 24. 3 (Steph.),
éveπóλnσav XI. 43. 3 (Dobree). The right reading was restored by
Scaliger in 53 places, by Stephanus in 72 places. As was to be
expected, they often hit on the same idea, but it is not possible to
discover which of the two had priority.
The corrections of Isaeus attributed to M. A. Muret (1526—
1585) are a recent discovery. In 1874 E. Rosenberg published
some marginal notes on Isaeus, Andocides, and Lycurgus from an
Aldine in the Town Library of Hamburg (Jahrbb. f. cl. Philol. 109,
p. 333 sqq.). Before long it was pointed out by Th. Thalheim
(Jahrbb. f. cl. Philol. 115, 1877, pp. 678/9) and V. Jernstedt (Anti-
phontis Orationes, 1880, praef. p. vii n. 4) that the supplement of
Lyc. 46 occurs in Muret's Variae Lectiones XVII. 6, and that the notes on
Andocides in the Hamburg Aldine coincide with the marginalia of an
Aldine in the Leyden Library, which were first printed in 1804 in J. O.
Sluiter's Lectiones Andocideae. The conclusion suggested was that the
notes in the Hamburg Aldine were taken from the Leyden Aldine and
represent Muret's work. J. H. Lipsius in his edition of Andocides
(1888, praef. pp. xvii/xviii) accepted Muret as the author of the mar
ginalia published by Sluiter, and argued that he had used L, the Venice
MS. Finally M. Erdmann (Lysiaca, Progr., Strassburg, 1891) collated
the two books from beginning to end. All the marginalia of the
Hamburg Aldine were copied from the Leyden Aldine and may hence-
forward be neglected. The notes in the Leyden Aldine were written at
Venice by one hand. The author refers to various Mss. and the Variae
Lectiones of Victorius (1553), and distinguishes many suggestions by M.
or M. or Mur., i.e. by the name of Muret. Erdmann conjectures that
the writer was Paul Manutius, who in view of a second edition ‘per la
casa de' figliuoli di Aldo' availed himself of the help of Muret, who was
a Professor in Venice from 1554 to 1558. I desiderate more evidence.
The corrections of Isaeus, generally right, are scanty and stop abruptly
at III. 64. That L was used cannot be proved and is in my opinion
improbable.
€
The unpublished conjectures of Muret were handed down to a later
generation of French scholars. The Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris has
a copy of Stephanus' Greek Orators (Inventaire x 738, old number
x 1756) which once belonged to Fabio Brulart de Sillery (1655—1714),
a member of the French Academy and bishop first of Avranches, after-
wards of Soissons. This book contains a few marginalia on Isae. I and
111, which R. F. P. Brunck (1729-1803) copied and sent to Reiske in
EDITIONS AND SUBSIDIA
lv
1771 (Or. Gr. IV. Epilogus p. 136 sqq.). They include emendations
already made by Muret, Scaliger (1. 3. 3 diébeтo), and Heraldus (1. 14. 4
èπì tǹv åpxùv Ald., Steph., del. èπì), and others which may be assigned
to Brulart himself, who was counted a good scholar in his day. But he
did not always verify his references. The certain correction in III. 80. 3,
kotiâv tàs yvvaîkas for ẻorì avràs yvvaîkas, is attributed to Canter cap.
14. 8. Variae.
It is found not in Th. Canter's Variae Lectiones but in
W. Canter's Novae Lectiones, lib. VIII. cap. 14 (= J. Gruter's Thesaurus
Criticus 111, 1604, p. 688). From the comment on III. 23. 5 (ïows avrų
imo avròv) Reiske inferred that the schedae Brulartianae were the work
of two or more scholars. The first part of this note, lows autê, is in
the Leyden Aldine. Brulart may have had access to an Aldine in the
library of P. D. Huet (1630-1721), who was also a member of the
French Academy, and with whom he exchanged bishoprics in 1689.
In this book, presented by Huet to the Paris Jesuits in 1692 and now
in the Bibliothèque Nationale (Res. x 297, old number x 1754), some
one has copied out all the notes on Isaeus which are found in the
Leyden Aldine.
The contributions of the 17th century were meagre. An edition of
Antiphon, Andocides, and Isaeus with a Latin translation by Alphonsus
Miniatus Bononiensis' was published at Hanover in 1619 (Typis Weche-
lianis, impensis Danielis ac Davidis Aubriorum et Clementis Schleichii),
but the text is nothing but a reprint of Stephanus, and the translation is
contemptible (inscitissime utilissimas has orationes quae turpiter adeo
neglectae iacent latino sermone reddidit indoctus earum interpres Alphonsus
Miniatus, J. Perizonius, Dissertationum trias, 1679, p. 60 = Fabricius,
Biblioth. Gr. I, 1708, p. 914). Some certain emendations appeared in
the Leges Atticae (1635) of S. Petit (III. 49. 5, 64. I Tатрwv Ald., vi.
42. 2, 3, X. 10. 3 μedíµvwv Ald.), in the Observationes ad ius Atticum et
Romanum (1650) of D. Heraldus (1. 14. 4 èπì tǹv åpxǹv Ald., Iv. 19. 4
wμoλóynoev Ald.), in various works by J. Meursius, who died in 1639
(v. 18. 6, VII. 36. 6, VIII. 8. 2 λoɣayeî Ald., 19. 3, IX. 5. 5), in the Exer-
citationes in optimos fere auctores (1668) of J. Palmerius (v. 36. 3, 42. 7,
VIII. 3. 3 φιλιέα Αld., ΙΧ. 18. 2, Χ. 4. 1 στυπαλλήτιος Ald.). Reiske (Or.
Gr. vII. p. 240) had in his possession some conjectures extracted from a
copy of Stephanus' Greek Orators in the Leyden Library which once
belonged to Cl. Salmasius (1588-1653), but they do not seem to have
been of any value.
The most successful emender of this period is the author of the
schedae Etonenses, commonly called in critical commentaries Tophanes
Taylori. This quaint appellation has its origin in Reiske's failure to
lvi
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
read the handwriting of John Taylor of St John's College, Cambridge
(1704-1766), the editor of Lysias (1739). Richard Topham (1671--
1730), of Trinity College, Oxford, and Lincoln's Inn, M.P. for New
Windsor 1698-1713, Keeper of the Records in the Tower of London
(see Alumni Oxonienses), was a virtuoso, who made a large collection of
books, partly classical, partly antiquarian, and had executed for himself
in Rome by Bartoli and other artists of repute coloured drawings from
marbles, mosaics, frescoes, etc. existing at that time. He left his
collections to Sir Thos. Reeves († 1737) and Dr Richard Mead (1673—
1754), who presented them to Eton College. Among the books was a
copy of Stephanus' Greek Orators, in which were two loose sheets of
paper recording conjectures on Lysias, Andocides, Isaeus, Dinarchus,
Antiphon, Lycurgus, Demades, and Lesbonax. The book and the
paper are still in the Library of Eton College (B. c. 9), and the Vice-
Provost, Mr F. W. Cornish, has kindly furnished me with a transcript.
of the notes on Andocides, Isaeus, Antiphon, and Lycurgus. Taylor
copied out the comments on Isaeus as far as the end of or. vII, and
this Ms. together with books and papers of Taylor's was sent to Reiske
by Dr Antony Askew of Emmanuel College, Cambridge (1722-1774).
But Reiske misread the title. 6
• Tophanis cuias fuerit, nemo ex me
requirat, prorsus enim ignoro. Taylor ex eo codice non pauca ad Isaeum
suis in schedis retulit, hoc solo contentus indicio: Tophanis Book at Eaton.
Videtur ille liber Etonensis non codex antiquus calamo exaratus, sed
Aldina esse, a nescio quo notulis in marginem coniectis insignita. Ego
postmodum Tophanis librum laudabo, quoties usu veniet' (Or. Gr. VII.
p. 3). Sir W. Jones (Works Ix. p. 290) pointed out that Taylor wrote
'Topham's Book at Eaton,' and the correction was noticed by Dobson
(Or. Att. 1. praef. IV) and Schoemann (Isae. praef. p. 1x), but editors.
have unanimously preferred the old mumpsimus. The schedae Etonenses
agree sometimes with Muret, Scaliger, Salmasius, and Brulart, but may
be considered independent and the product of one mind. It is not
known whether they are in Topham's handwriting. Mr Cornish thinks
that the watermarks of the paper belong to the reign of William III.
To show the character of the document I subjoin the corrections of
Isaeus that were missing in Taylor's transcript: VIII. 2. 2 Kαι TO Tλŋłos
(Reiske), 4. 6 ταυτῃ (recte), 8. 8 χρηματων (pro πραγμάτων), 9. 3 pone
interrogationis signum post γεγενημενας, 19. 4 μετ' εκείνων, 22. η ην (pro
ἔνι), 34. 5 προ του (Reiske, Bekker), 37. 2 και τοκους επειτα τε τα γε
φανερα αυτου (ἔπειτα Scaliger), 37. 8 κατασταιη (Reiske), 42. 4 χωρια
τ' αλλα, ΙΧ. 15. 6, η εθελοντην τε εκπλείν, και τον, 16. 6 Κλεωνι, μ. η. τ.
υιον ποιησομενον (Salmasius), 21. 4 μη αποδημοιη, 24. 7, 8 και τα του
EDITIONS AND SUBSIDIA
lvii
(Dobree), 32. 1 επει τουτους (ἐπεὶ τούτοις Reiske), 34. 2 ψηφισαισθε, Χ. 11
υιον αυτου. αν δε λεγωσι ψεύσονται (Steph. p. 80, 36 has υἱὸν αὐτοῦ δὲ
ἂν, ψεύσονται), ib. Steph. p. 8o. 37 αγαγειν-εισαγαγειν, τ7. 1 ἢ certe,
ινα μη
XI. 3. 7 OTL—O TI
ο τι (recte), 9. 1ο ουσα (recte), 16. 3 μη εναντιουμην (recte),
17. 2 ο τι (recte), 18. 4 ίσχυσε τι (Reiske), 27. 4 μη παρακαταβαλλειν,
27. 6 ουδετερ'ουδ' ειπερ, 29. Ι ουδ' ει (Scaliger), 31. 2 η τους νομους.
intellige μαλλον, 38. 9 και μηδεμιαν. δ. και (Reiske, Baiter), 47. 3 περι
παρα (Hitzig), 49. 4, 5 εκεινος δε μ. τ. τ. ουσιας ην ειχεν, 49. 9 ουκ (sic)
iva un (Bekker). With regard to the corrections of Andocides, Antiphon,
and Lycurgus it is worth noting that the author anticipated Taylor in
Ant. vI. 10 (del. ovк), Valckenaer in And. 1. 4 (yî πoλλŋ), Reiske in And.
1. 41 (ἕνα αὐτὸν ἡμῶν), το2 (ὑμᾶς), ΙΙ. 24 (ἐμοῦ), Ant. Tetr. 1. β. 9 (del. οὐκ
ante ἀσφαλέστερον), VI. 44 (οὐδ᾽ αὐτοὶ), Luzac in And. 1. 82 (εύρισκον τε),
Sluiter in And. 1. 54 (<ǹ> tŵv åλλwv), Dobree in Ant. vi. 38 (öti oȧk
¿yxwpoin), Lyc. 122 (evyeveîs), Maetzner in Ant. Tetr. 1. y. 7 (ÉTÉVETO
Maetz., èñeтíðeto sched. Eton.), Blass in Ant. Tetr. II. ß. II (åµapтwv).
I have omitted the numerous passages in which the conjectures coincide
with the readings of A or N or both.
The great landmark of the 18th century is Reiske's edition of 1773
(Or. Gr. VII). Taylor's copy of Stephanus' Greek Orators, which
Askew sent to Reiske, contained some good corrections (1. 9. 2, 12. 7
χρημάτων Steph., χρηστῶν Taylor, III. 3. 5, 8. 2, 9. 6 ὅ τι ποτ' οὖν Steph.,
ὅ τι ποτ᾽ ἦν Taylor, 18. 4, 1V. 9. I, V. 31. 2 προεξόμεθα Steph., παρεξόμεθα
Taylor, XI. 2. 6, 5. 2). But Reiske missed the certain emendations of
L. C. Valckenaer (Iv. 7. 4, X. 4. 10, XI. 21. 8) and Tib. Hemsterhuys (1v.
10. 2 ä§avтes Ald., ağavres Hemsterhuys ad Ar. Plut. 732 teste Dobraeo).
J. Markland's (1693-1776) supplement in v. 6. 11 was first noticed by
Schoemann; it is in his Coniecturae in Lysiam (Taylor's Lysias p. 441,
Reiske's Lysias p. 144). His copy of Stephanus' Greek Orators now in
the British Museum, which my friend Prof. Housman of University
College, London, has examined for me, has only two notes on Isaeus,
both wrong. The fulfilment of Reiske's wish for meliores et integriores
codices (p. 260) has tended to obscure the magnitude of his achievement.
The 80 places in which he restored the reading of A are a more incon-
trovertible proof of his insight (diuinum plane acumen, Baiter and Sauppe,
Or. Att. 1 praef. ad Antiph.) than the 90 conjectures which are generally
admitted into modern texts based on A, for many of the grossest errors
of the Aldine had been removed by his predecessors.
In this case
Reiskiana illa emendandi rabies, which irritated the exact and careful
mind of Porson, has been abundantly justified by its fruits.
But even
the genius of Reiske was helpless before the lacunae, which, great and
lviii
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
•
small, were more than 100 in number. Taylor saw that the first speech
was mutilated, but did not, and indeed could not, discover that the end
of it belonged to another oration. In 1764 Bandini accurately described
B in his catalogue of the Greek MSS. of the Laurentian Library and
drew attention to the gap in the Aldine (defectus est quinque noștri codicis
paginarum; unde conjicere est exemplar illud, ex quo Aldina profluxit
editio, uno fortasse quaternione mutilum fuisse, 1. pp. 532/3). Reiske was
a poor man, who could not afford to buy expensive folios, and he was
probably too busy to hunt through a vast catalogue. But it is strange
that no Florentine scholar hastened to supplement the deficiencies of
the current text. The second speech was published anonymously in
London in 1785 (Isaei Rhetoris Oratio De Meneclis Hereditate descripta
ex Codice XI. Plutei iv. Bibliothecae Mediceae Laurentianae, Chartaceo in
4° majori, Saeculi XV. optimae notae. Excudebat Johannes Nichols). The
editor, who contributed a few corrections, was Thomas Tyrwhitt (1730-
1786). Tyrwhitt's text was reprinted at Göttingen in 1788 by Th.
Chr. Tychsen (Bibliothek der alten Litteratur und Kunst III. p. 3-22)
and at Zürich in 1814 by J. Conrad Orelli (1770-1826) as an appendix
to J. Caspar Orelli's (1787-1849) edition of Isocrates, De Permutatione,
with some notes by J. H. Bremi (1772—1827) and the two Orellis.
Why Tyrwhitt did not copy, or get copied, from B the missing portion
of Or. I is a mystery. This was first published in 1815 by Angelo Mai
from Q the Ambrosian мs. (Isaei oratio de hereditate Cleonymi nunc
primum duplo auctior inventore et interprete Angelo Maio, Mediolani).
At the end (p. 62 sqq.) he added the variants of Q in the 2nd speech.
using for this purpose the three editions already printed. Mai, as
befitted a librarian, had consulted Bandini's catalogue (p. 10), but did
not collect the divergencies of Q and B in Or. I.
A new epoch begins with Bekker's text founded on A (Oratores
Attici 111, Oxonii, 1823). Dobree was studying it during the last three
months of 1823, and wrote his continuous MS. notes on Isaeus in
February, 1824. These were first published by Dobson (Oratores
Attici Iv, London, 1828). Dobson is more accurate than J. Scholefield
(1789-1853, Regius Professor of Greek at Cambridge 1825--1853),
who edited Dobree's Adversaria in 1831. Warned by the significant
remarks on p. 66 of A Catalogue of Adversaria and Printed Books
containing MS. notes preserved in the Library of the University of
Cambridge (1864) I have taken the precaution to read for myself
Dobree's notes on the minor Attic orators and to examine his copies
of the Aldine, Stephanus, and Bekker. However eminent Scholefield
may have been in his time as a divine and pulpit orator-in Cambridge
EDITIONS AND SUBSIDIA
lix
In co-
his name is preserved by a theological prize-he was not worthy to
sit in the Chair of Greek after Porson, Monk, and Dobree, cathedrae
tantum, non ingenii et doctrinae successor, and a Prime Minister would
have rendered a real service to learning by promoting him to a
Bishopric. He presumed to use his own judgment in omitting his
predecessor's suggestions, and seems to have been ignorant of palaeo-
graphy in which Dobree was a master. He also darkened history by
suppressing dates; the notes on Antiphon and Andocides, based on
Raine's collation of the codex Crippsianus (p. xi), were written in 1820,
two years before the appearance of Bekker's text. But in Isaeus he
has done no harm, because he passed over only two good emendations,
both of which had been faithfully recorded by Dobson. Dobree's
comments escaped the notice of G. F. Schoemann, the author of the
first comprehensive explanatory commentary on Isaeus (Isaei orationes
XI cum aliquot deperditarum fragmentis. Recognovit annotationem
criticam et commentarios adiecit Georg. Fred. Schömann, Gryphiswaldiae,
1831). It is unnecessary to dwell on the merits of a book which
has been recognised as a standard work for more than 70 years.
Schoemann brought to his task remarkable qualifications.
operation with M. H. E. Meier he had already produced in Der
Attische Process (1824) a truly classical treatise on the Athenian
judicial system, and, although political and antiquarian studies were
the main work of his long and laborious life (1793-1879), on the
linguistic side he was an excellent scholar. Since Schoemann the text
of Isaeus has been edited by J. G. Baiter and H. Sauppe (Oratores
Attici, Zürich, 1840), by K. F. Scheibe (Leipzig, 1860), by H. Buer-
mann (Berlin, 1883), and by Th. Thalheim (Leipzig, 1903). The
Zürich editors and Scheibe used Bekker's critical material supple-
mented by Dobson's notes on A and M (p. xi). The editions of
Buermann and Thalheim rest upon independent collations of A.
My
text and the first seven sections of this Introduction were printed before
the appearance of Thalheim's article in Hermes 38, 1903, p. 456 sqq.,
which preceded his edition, but I have been able to incorporate in
the Commentary notices of most of his emendations, and have given
a general survey of his text in the Classical Review for March 1904
(vol. xvIII, p. 115 sqq.). The notable feature in his collation of the
Codex Crippsianus is the boldness with which he restores the effaced
readings of Apr. Though I think some of his supplements highly
probable, in general I cannot share his confidence for reasons set
forth in the Classical Review. In any case, as he agrees with me
that A' is to be preferred to Apr., our differences in regard to
lx
CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
the restoration of erased letters and words are of no practical
importance.
Isaeus has been translated into English by Sir W. Jones (Oxford,
1779, vol. IX. of his collected works), into German by G. F. Schoemann
(Stuttgart, 1830), into French by A. Auger (Paris, 1783) and R. Dareste
(Paris, 1898), into Italian by F. P. Caccialanza (Rome, 1901).
The modern articles, pamphlets, and treatises which I have used in
constituting the text are the following:
Albrecht, E., Hermes 18, 1883, p. 362 sqq.
Boekmeijer, R. K., Adnotationes criticae in Oratores Atticos, Diss.,
Groningen, 1895.
Buermann, H., Hermes 17, 1882, p. 385 sqq., ib. 19, 1884, p. 325 sqq.,
Jahrbb. f. cl. Philol. 129, 1884, p. 361 sqq., Rhein. Mus. 40, 1885,
p. 387 sqq.
Caillemer, Ex., Annuaire de l'association pour l'encouragement des études
Grecques en France 9, 1875, p. 164 sqq.
Cobet, C. G., Mnemosyne 9, 1860, p. 396 sqq., 438 sqq., ib. 11, 1862,
p. 113 sqq., Variae Lectiones, ed. 2, 1873, passim, Novae Lectiones,
1858, passim.
Emper, Ad., Opuscula philologica et historica, Göttingen, 1847.
Friedrich, Alex., Bemerkungen zu Isaios, Progr., Darmstadt, 1875.
Fuhr, K., Animadversiones in oratores Atticos, Diss., Bonn, 1877, Excurse
zu den attischen Rednern, Rhein. Mus. 33, 1878, p. 565 sqq.
Gebauer, G., De hypotacticis et paratacticis argumenti ex contrario
formis, quae reperiuntur apud oratores Atticos, Zwickau, 1877.
Halbertsma, T. J., Mnemosyne, N.S. 6, 1878, p. 109.
Hertlein, F. K., Hermes 12, 1877, p. 184, ib. 13, 1878, p. 11 sqq.
Herwerden, H. van, Mnemosyne, N.S. 9, 1881, p. 380 sqq.
Hirschig, G. A., Philologus 5, 1858, p. 322 sqq.
Hitzig, H., Jahrbb. f. cl. Philol. 123, 1881, p. 105 sqq., Studien zu
Isaeus, Progr., Bern, 1883.
Huettner, G., Bursian's Jahresbericht 46, 1886, p. 46 sqq.
Jebb, R. C., Selections from the Attic orators, London, 1880.
Jenicke, Ed., Observationes in Isaeum, Leipzig, 1838.
Kaibel, G., Hermes 17, 1882, p. 414.
Knop, H., De enuntiatorum apud Isaeum condicionalium et finalium
formis et usu, Diss., Celle, 1892.
Lincke, E. M., De elocutione Isaei, Diss., Leipzig, 1885.
Lugebil, K., Jahrbb. f. cl. Philol. 129, 1884, p. 161 sqq.
Meutzner, C. F. G., Acta Societatis Graecae II. p. 99 sqq., Leipzig, 1840,
Jahrbb. f. cl. Philol. 83, 1861, p. 460 sqq.
EDITIONS AND SUBSIDIA
lxi
Naber, S. A., Mnemosyne, N.S. 5, 1877, p. 385 sqq.
Papabasileios, G. A., 'Aoŋvâ II, 1899, p. 563 sqq.
Photiades, P. S., 'Aonvâ 9, 1897, p. 58 sqq., ib. 12, 1900, p. 448 sqq.
Rauchenstein, R., Jahrbb. f. cl. Philol. 85, 1862, p. 673 sqq.
Roeder, W., Beiträge zur Erklärung und Kritik des Isaios, Jena, 1880,
Ueber C. G. Cobets Emendationen der attischen Redner, ins beson-
dere des Isaios, Gnesener Progr., Berlin, 1882.
Rosenberg, E., Jahrbb. f. cl. Philol. 109, 1874, p. 333 sqq.
Sauppe, H., Epistola critica ad God. Hermannum, Leipzig, 1841.
Scheibe, K. F., Commentatio critica de Isaei orationibus, Progr., Dresden,
1859.
Schenkl, H., Wiener Studien 3, 1881, p. 195 sqq.
Schulze, E. R., Quaestiunculae grammaticae ad oratores Atticos pertinentes,
Bautzen, 1889.
Thalheim, Th., Hermes 38, 1903, p. 456 sqq.
Vollert, J., Adnotationes criticae ad Isaeum, Progr., Schleiz, 1885.
I learn from Thalheim's critical notes that the emendations in
I. 42. 4 (kupíws) and VI. 4. 4 (KATAOTĥσαι) were first proposed by
K. Katabaines in IIλáтwv E´, 1883, p. 303—313, an article which was
inaccessible to me. Among Katabaines' conjectures the following
are worth mention: II. 15. 3 ἐβούλοντο, IV. 13. 3 καταλείπειν, v. 8. 9
ὑπὸ δὴ τῶν, ΙΧ. 9. 2 διετίθετο, ΧΙ. 47. 3 οὔκουν ἄξιον. Another paper
which I have not been able to consult is K. L. Kayser's review of
Scheibe's text in Heidelberger Jahrb. 1862, p. 193–212.
CONSPECTUS SIGLORUM.
A scriptura manus primae codicis A.
Al corrector primus codicis A.
A² corrector secundus codicis A.
Eadem ratione in scripturis ceterorum codicum usus sum.
* litera erasa.
| uersus exitus.
[ ] uncis quadratis inclusi quae ut aliena omittenda sunt.
< > uncis hamatis inclusi quae per errorem omissa sunt.
+ obelus lectionem corruptam designat.
=
Bait. Baiter
Cob. Cobet
=
Dobr.
Dobree
Herw.
Nab.
Herwerden
Naber
Turr. - Turicenses.
Cetera conpendia ad intellegendum facilia sunt.
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE COMMENTARY.
A. E. F. An Alexandrian Erotic Fragment and other Greek Papyri, by
B. P. Grenfell.
A. J. Ph.
Att. Proc.2
American Journal of Philology.
Der Attische Process von M. H. E. Meier and G. F. Schömann
neu bearbeitet von J. H. Lipsius.
Ath. Mitteil. Mitteilungen des deutschen archaeologischen Instituts in
Athen.
B. M. Pap. Catalogue of Greek Papyri in the British Museum, by F. G.
Kenyon.
B. U. G. Aegyptische Urkunden aus den Königlichen Museen zu Berlin,
Griechische Urkunden.
Beauchet. Histoire du droit privé de la république Athénienne par L.
Beauchet.
Bull. Corr. Hell. Bulletin de correspondance Hellénique.
ABBREVIATIONS
lxiii
Ἐφ. Αρχ. Ἐφημερὶς ἀρχαιολογική.
F. T. Pap.
Fayûm Towns and their Papyri, by B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt,
and D. G. Hogarth.
Hruza. Beiträge zur Geschichte des griechischen und römischen Familien-
rechtes von E. Hruża.
Inscriptiones Graecae insularum maris Aegaei.
I. G. Ins.
I. G. S. I.
Inscriptiones Graecae Siciliae et Italiae.
I. G. Sept. Inscriptiones Graecae Graeciae septentrionalis.
Inscr. Jurid. Gr. Recueil des inscriptions juridiques Grecques par R.
Dareste, B. Haussoullier, Th. Reinach.
J. H. S. Journal of Hellenic Studies.
Michel. Recueil d'inscriptions Grecques par Ch. Michel.
Oxy. Pap. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt.
S. D. I. Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften herausgegeben.
von H. Collitz und F. Bechtel.
S. I. G². Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, iterum edidit Guilelmus Dit-
tenberger.
Teb. Pap. The Tebtunis Papyri, by B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, and J. G.
Smyly.
CORRIGENDA ET ADDENDA.
In uerbis oratoris restitui uelim: II. 11. 3 doкeîv avтų, III. 3. 7 κaтà (tolle uncos),
26. 2 μεθ᾽ αὑτοῦ, IV. 15. 3 γνοῖτε, 20. 5 ηὑρῆσθαι, 31. 4 ηὐεργετηκότας, V. 27. 3, 5
αὑτῷ, 27. 6 αὑτοῦ, VI. 22. 6 ἐᾶν (tolle uncos), 35. 6 αὑτῶν, VII. 4. 5 ηὐεργετημένος,
20. 6 ἐκ τῶν ἀρρένων, VIII. 22. 5 κλαούσης, 31. 6 διετές, Χ. 12. η διετές.
Notis criticis quae addam haec habeo: ΓΕΝΟΣ ΙΣΑΙΟΥ 15 αὐτοῦ om. Q,
β a
I. hyp. 4 ἦν Ald. : ἣν, II. 26. 2 μᾶλλον πολλῶ Α, μᾶλλον om. Q, 33. 3, 4 βουλόμενοι
παιδα
καταστήσαι Q, III. 7· 3 μὲν <οῦν> Dobr., 24. 5 Ξενοκλῆς del. Kayser, 24. 6 τὴν
Èkeívov coni. Thalheim, 37. 5 wv sched. Eton., Reisk., 47. 5, 6 tŵ Bovλoµévų del.
Kayser, 63. 6 eïn, <el> coni. Steph., Scaliger, Nab., v. 38. 2 éπiypáµµatı M, Ald.,
43. 4 pavepòs M, Steph., Scaliger, VII. 8, 9 ëws ov* A, ëws oû A², oû del. Albrecht.
Num ἕως συνευπορήσειεν ?, 12. 2 ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς τυχόντας suspectat Thalheim, IX. II. 6
ékeîvov édúvato malit Thalheim, 26. 5 titulum excidisse coni. primus Markland, X. 2. 1
ǹvaykáσ0ŋv malit Thalheim, 24. 3 πрактîра: corr. Steph. et Scaliger, XI. 12. 2
subesse in rasura μέχρις a coni. Thalheim, 21. 8 τὸν μὲν | νικᾶσθαι, τὸν δὲ ἡττᾶν:
corr. M, Valckenaer, 43. 3 éveπúλnσav: corr. Scaliger et Dobr.
Reponenda in notis criticis inueni haec: III. 12. I accent. add. A², 26. 2 Dyroff
(Geschichte des Pronomen reflexivum 11. p. 60), 40. I σIWTO**TOs A, corr. A², IV. 14. 3
Vide ne glossema sit éтoμóтeрov, VII. 33. 5 паρà тоÚтwv Вekk., Schoem., Lincke,
Huettner, ΙΧ. 24. 2 (ή μοι sec. Dobs.), Χ. 19. 4 αὐτῷ Α2, αὐτὸν Α, 22. 3 ἐλέους Α,
τες
ἐλοῦν Α', ΧΙ. 32. 2 οὐκ ἐθίζειν Α, corr. Α', 44. 7, 8 τετρακισχίλια Α, corr. Α2, XII. 12. 9
δήμω F”, δήμο F.
I. 47. I, 2. In the papyrus of Didymus' Commentary on Demosthenes (ed. Diels
and Schubart p. 3) 'ΩΑ = ὦ ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι.
V. 20. 2. The latest restoration of 'A0. Пoλ. col. 34, 22 sqq. is as follows: [tà dè
δημόσι]α τῶν [δικ]αστηρίων ἐστὶ φ[ά, καὶ τούτοις τὰ δημ]όσια [διδό]ασιν· ὅταν δὲ δέ[ῃ τι
ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησί]ας ε[ἰς ἃ εἰ]σαγαγεῖν, συν[έρχεται β δικαστή]ρια εἰ[ς] τὴν ἡλιαίαν. See
the criticisms of Dr Kenyon, Class. Rev. 18, 1904, p. 339.
V. 37. 6, 7. According to Philochorus quoted by Didymus (op. cit. col. 7, 16 sqq.)
Andocides' speech on the Peace was spoken in the archonship of Philocles, 392/1 B.C.
VII. 9. 5, 6. Lacrateides the hierophant' was appointed in 350/49 B. C. a com-
missioner for the delimitation of the iepà ỏpyás (Philochorus in Didymus, op. cit.
col. 13, 52, Androtion, ib. col. 14, 42).
III. 57. I.
IV. hyp. 4.
Read Ausgew. Schr. p. 136.
Read τὰ εἰς Ἰσαῖον ὑπομνήματα.
VII. 5. 7, 33. 5. For Blass read Huettner.
I
VITA ISAEI
EX VITIS X ORATORUM PLUTARCHO ADSCRIPTIS
Ισαῖος Χαλκιδεὺς μὲν ἦν τὸ γένος, παραγενόμενος δ'
εἰς ᾿Αθήνας, καὶ σχολάσας......Λυσίᾳ κατά τε τὴν τῶν
ὀνομάτων ἁρμονίαν καὶ τὴν ἐν τοῖς πράγμασι δεινότητα,
ὥστ᾽ εἰ μή τις ἔμπειρος πάνυ τοῦ χαρακτῆρος τῶν ἀνδρῶν
εἴη, οὐκ ἂν διαγνοίη πολλοὺς τῶν λόγων ῥᾳδίως, ὁποτέρου 5
τῶν ῥητόρων εἰσίν. ἤκμασε δὲ μετὰ τὸν Πελοποννησιακὸν
πόλεμον, ὡς ἔστι τεκμήρασθαι ἐκ λόγων αὐτοῦ, καὶ μέχρι
τῆς Φιλίππου ἀρχῆς παρέτεινε. καθηγήσατο δὲ Δημοσ-
θένους, ἀποστὰς τῆς σχολῆς, ἐπὶ δραχμαῖς μυρίαις· διὸ
καὶ μάλιστα ἐπιφανὴς ἐγένετο. αὐτὸς δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐπι- 10
τροπικοὺς λόγους συνέταττε τῷ Δημοσθένει, ὥς τινες εἶπον.
καταλέλοιπε δὲ λόγους ἑξήκοντα τέσσαρας, ὧν εἰσι γνήσιοι
πεντήκοντα, καὶ ἰδίας τέχνας. πρῶτος δὲ καὶ σχηματίζειν
I. Plutarchi Moralia v. p. 166 Bernardakis.
2.
Lacunam post Λυσίᾳ uel
Ισοκράτει ἔοικε μάλιστα
Λυσίᾳ (aut ζηλώσας>
δέκα ῥητόρων, μαθητής
post δεινότητα statuit Reisk., post σχολάσας Duebner, qui
suppl. Malit σχολάσας <Ισοκράτει, φαίνεται ἀκολουθήσας >
Λυσίαν) Bernardakis. 8. Suid. s.u. Ισαῖος. εἷς μέν ἐστι τῶν
δὲ Ἰσοκράτους, διδάσκαλος δὲ Δημοσθένους, ᾿Αθηναῖος τὸ γένος. Δημήτριος δὲ Χαλκιδέα
φησὶν αὐτὸν εἶναι. οὗτος ἐπαινεῖται καὶ ὡς ῥήτωρ καὶ ὡς Δημοσθένην ἀμισθὶ προαγαγών.
II. Liban. uit. Dem. p. 3 R. τοὺς δὲ λόγους τοὺς ἐπιτροπικοὺς εἰσὶν οἵ φασιν Ισαίου καὶ
οὐ Δημοσθένους εἶναι, διὰ τὴν ἡλικίαν τοῦ ῥήτορος ἀπιστοῦντες, ὀκτωκαίδεκα γὰρ ἐτῶν ἦν,
ὅτε πρὸς τούτους ήγωνίζετο, καὶ ὅτι δοκοῦσιν οἱ λόγοι τὸ τοῦ Ἰσαίου πως ἐπιφαίνειν εἶδος.
ἕτεροι δὲ νομίζουσιν συντετάχθαι μὲν ὑπὸ Δημοσθένους, διωρθῶσθαι δ᾽ ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἰσαίου,
argum. or. Dem. c. Onet. II. p. 875, Zosim. uit. Dem. p. 147 R. (Westermann,
Βιογράφοι p. 298. 42). 12. ἑξήκοντα τέσσαρας] Inscriptiones sex et quinquaginta
orationum collegit Blass, Att. Ber 2 11. p. 492 sqq. 13. τέχνας] Dion. Hal. Ep. ad
Amm. I. 2 οἱ τούτοις συμβιώσαντες τοῖς ἀνδράσι (Ισοκράτει καὶ ᾿Αναξιμένει καὶ ᾿Αλκιδά-
μαντι) παραγγελμάτων τεχνικών συγγραφεῖς καὶ ἀγωνισταί λόγων ῥητορικῶν, οἱ περὶ
Θεοδέκτην καὶ Φιλίσκον καὶ Ἰσαῖον καὶ Κηφισόδωρον Ὑπερείδην τε καὶ Λυκοῦργον καὶ
Αἰσχίνην.
W. I.
Ι
2
DIONYSII HALICARNASSENSIS
1
πι
ἤρξατο καὶ τρέπειν ἐπὶ τὸ πολιτικὸν τὴν διάνοιαν· ὃ μάλιστα
μεμίμηται Δημοσθένης. μνημονεύει δ᾽ αὐτοῦ Θεόπομπος 15
ὁ κωμικὸς ἐν τῷ Θησεῖ.
2
II
EX DIONYSII HALICARNASSENSIS
Ο
મ
DE ISAEO IUDICIO
Ἰσαῖος δὲ ὁ Δημοσθένους καθηγησάμενος καὶ διὰ τοῦτο
μάλιστα γενόμενος περιφανής, ὡς μέν τινες ἱστοροῦσιν,
Αθηναῖος ἦν τὸ γένος, ὡς δ᾽ ἕτεροι γράφουσι, Χαλκιδεύς.
ἤκμασε δὲ μετὰ τὸν Πελοποννησιακὸν πόλεμον, ὡς ἐκ λόγων
αὐτοῦ τεκμαίρομαι, καὶ μέχρι τῆς Φιλίππου δυναστείας 5
παρεξέτεινε. γενέσεως δὲ καὶ τελευτῆς τοῦ ῥήτορος ἀκριβῆ
χρόνον εἰπεῖν οὐκ ἔχω οὐδὲ δὴ περὶ τοῦ βίου τἀνδρός, οἷός
τις ἦν, οὐδὲ περὶ τῆς προαιρέσεως τῶν πολιτευμάτων οὐδέν,
ἀρχὴν εἰ προείλετο τινα ἢ πολιτείαν, οὐδ᾽ ὅλως περὶ τῶν
τοιούτων οὐδενὸς διὰ τὸ μηδεμιᾷ τοιαύτῃ περιτυγχάνειν
ἱστορίᾳ. οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁ τοὺς Ἰσοκράτους μαθητὰς ἀναγράψας
Ερμιππος, ἀκριβὴς ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις γενόμενος, ὑπὲρ τοῦδε τοῦ
ῥήτορος οὐδὲν εἴρηκεν ἔξω δυεῖν τούτων, ὅτι διήκουσε μὲν
Ισοκράτους καθηγήσατο δὲ Δημοσθένους. [συνεγένετο δὲ
τοῖς ἀρίστοις τῶν φιλοσόφων.]
Ο
ΤΟ
Λείπεται δὴ περὶ τῆς προαιρέσεως καὶ δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ
καὶ τίνι κέχρηται χαρακτῆρι λέγειν. γένους μὲν δὴ λόγων
ἑνὸς ἀσκητὴς ἐγένετο, τοῦ δικανικοῦ, καὶ περὶ τοῦτο μάλιστα
II.
1.
14. πολιτικὸν] παθητικόν Seeliger. 16. Cf. Com. Att. Fragm. Kock 1. p. 737.
Dion. Hal. v. p. 586 Reisk., eiusd. opusc. I. p. 93 Usener et Radermacher.
2. Harp. s.u. Ισαῖος: εἷς μέν ἐστι τῶν δέκα ῥητόρων οὗτος, μαθητὴς δὲ
Ισοκράτους, διδάσκαλος δὲ Δημοσθένους, Αθηναῖος τὸ γένος, καθά φησιν Ερμιππος ἐν
β' περὶ τῶν ᾿Ισοκράτους μαθητῶν. Δημήτριος δ᾽ ἐν τοῖς περὶ ὁμωνύμων ποιητῶν Χαλκιδέα
φησὶν αὐτὸν εἶναι. Patrem cleruchum fuisse coni. Schoem. 4. λόγων] <τῶν > λόγων
Sylburg, <τινῶν > λόγων Reisk.
7. τἀνδρὸς ΜΒ: το ἀνδρὸς Ρ, τοῦ ἀνδρὸς F.
8. οὐδέν, Radermacher: οὐδέ. Delere iubet οὐδὲ ἀρχὴνπολιτείαν Sadée, ή ante
πολιτείαν del. Sylburg.
10. μηδεμιά Krüger: μηδὲ.
12. ἀκριβῶς P.
14. συνεγένετο-φιλοσόφων del. Sadée, tuetur Blass (Att. Ber. II. p. 491).
2
IO
15
2. 1. δὴ Β: δὲ FMP.
DE ISAEO IUDICIUM
3
ἐσπούδασε χαρακτῆρα δὲ τὸν Λυσίου κατὰ τὸ πλεῖστον
ἐζήλωσε, καὶ εἰ μή τις ἔμπειρος πάνυ τῶν ἀνδρῶν εἴη καὶ 5
τριβὰς ἀξιολόγους ἀμφοῖν ἔχων, οὐκ ἂν διαγνοίη ῥᾳδίως
πολλοὺς τῶν λόγων, ὁποτέρου τῶν ῥητόρων εἰσίν, ἀλλὰ
παρακρούσεται ταῖς ἐπιγραφαῖς <οὐχ> οὕτως ἀκριβῶς
ἐχούσαις, ὡς διὰ μιᾶς δηλοῦταί μοι γραφῆς.
οὐ μὴν
ἀπαράλλακτός γέ ἐστιν ἡ τοῦ χαρακτῆρος ὁμοιότης, ἀλλὰ το
ἔχουσα διαφοράς τινας οὐ μικρὰς οὐδὲ ὀλίγας καὶ κατὰ τὴν
ἑρμηνείαν καὶ κατὰ τὰ πράγματα, περὶ ὧν καιρὸς ἂν εἴη
λέγειν, ὡς ἡμεῖς ὑπειλήφαμεν. ἐπειδὴ δὲ κατὰ τὴν λέξιν μᾶλ
λον ἔοικε τῷ Λυσίᾳ, τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπὸ ταύτης ποιησάμενος τὰς
ὁμοιότητάς τε καὶ τὰς διαφοράς, ἃς ἔχει πρὸς ἐκείνην, ἐρῶ. 15
αν
Καθαρὰ μὲν καὶ ἀκριβὴς καὶ σαφὴς κυρία τε καὶ ἐναργὴς 3
καὶ σύντομος, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις πιθανή τε καὶ πρέπουσα τοῖς
ὑποκειμένοις στρογγύλη τε καὶ δικανικὴ οὐχ ἡττόν ἐστιν
ἡ Ἰσαίου λέξις τῆς Λυσίου, καὶ κατὰ μὲν ταῦτα οὐκ ἄν
τις αὐτὴν διαγνοίη. διαφέρειν δὲ ἐκείνης δόξειεν ἂν ἐν 5
τοῖσδε· ἢ μὲν γὰρ ἀφελής τε καὶ ἠθικὴ μᾶλλον ἐστι
σύγκειταί τε φυσικώτερον καὶ ἐσχημάτισται ἁπλούστερον
ἡδονῇ τε καὶ χάριτι πολλῇ κέχρηται. ἡ δὲ Ἰσαίου τεχνι
κωτέρα δόξειεν ἂν εἶναι καὶ ἀκριβεστέρα τῆς Λυσίου τήν
τε σύνθεσιν περιεργοτέρα τις καὶ σχηματισμοῖς διειλημμένη
ποικίλοις, ὅσον τε ἀπολείπεται τῆς χάριτος ἐκείνης, τοσοῦτον
ὑπερέχει τῇ δεινότητι τῆς κατασκευῆς καὶ πηγή τις ὄντως
ἐστὶ τῆς Δημοσθένους δυνάμεως. τὴν μὲν οὖν λέξιν οὕτως
ἄν τις διαγνοίη, ἐν δὲ τοῖς πράγμασι τοιαύτας τινὰς εὑρήσει
διαφοράς. παρὰ Λυσίᾳ μὲν οὐ πολλὴν τὴν ἐπιτέχνησιν 15
οὔτ᾽ ἐν <τοῖς> μερισμοῖς τῶν πραγμάτων οὔτ᾽ ἐν τῇ τάξει
τῶν ἐνθυμημάτων οὔτ᾽ ἐν ταῖς ἐξεργασίαις αὐτῶν ὄψεται·
OUT
8. οὐχ add. Hudson. οὕτως in οὔτοι γ' uel οὐδαμῶς mutant alii. 9.
δι' οὐ μιᾶς Reisk., διὰ ἰδίας Blass, δι᾿ ἄλλης Usener.
1. ἀκριβὴς] ἀκραιφνής olim Radermacher.
3. I.
διὰ μιᾶς]
13.
ἐπεὶ ΜΒΡ.
3. τε
TE F: dè MBPFI
δὲ
|| Post δικανική scholion φανεροῦσα τοὺς δικανικοὺς ἀγῶνας agnouit Reisk., expulit
Radermacher.
5. ἐκείνοις Μ.
malit Radermacher.
8. κέχρηται suspectum Reiskio. κεχορήγηται
8, 9. τεχνηκωτέρα Μ. 16. τοῖς suppeditat γένος Ισαίου.
ΙΟ
I-2
4
ΓΕΝΟΣ ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
Ο
ἁπλοῦς γὰρ ὁ ἀνήρ. παρ᾽ Ἰσαίῳ δὲ <ἀκριβέστερον> καὶ
τεχνικώτερον ἤδη γινομένα ταῦτα εὑρήσει. καὶ γὰρ ἐφόδοις
χρῆται καὶ προκατασκευαῖς καὶ μερισμοῖς τεχνικωτέροις καὶ 20
τίθησιν ἐν οἷς δίδωσι <χρῆσιν> χωρίοις ἕκαστον καὶ μέχρι
πολλοῦ προάγει τὰς τῶν ἐπιχειρημάτων ἐξεργασίας σχη
μάτων τε μεταβολαῖς ἐναγωνίων καὶ παθητικῶν ποικίλλει
τοὺς λόγους. καὶ πρὸς μὲν τὸν ἀντίδικον διαπονηρεύεται,
τοὺς δὲ δικαστὰς καταστρατηγεῖ, τοῖς δὲ πράγμασιν, ὑπὲρ 25
ὧν ὁ λόγος, ἐκ παντὸς πειρᾶται βοηθεῖν.
III
ΓΕΝΟΣ ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
Ἰσαῖος ὁ ῥήτωρ ἐγένετο κατὰ μέν τινας ᾿Αθηναῖος,
κατὰ δέ τινας Χαλκιδεύς, πατρὸς δὲ Διαγόρου, μαθητής
δὲ Ἰσοκράτους τοῦ ῥήτορος, διδάσκαλος δὲ Δημοσθένους·
ἤκμασε δὲ μετὰ τὸν Πελοποννησιακὸν πόλεμον, καὶ ἐπ-
εβίω μέχρι τῆς Φιλίππου ἀρχῆς, ὥς φησι Διονύσιος ὁ 5
Αλικαρνασεὺς ὁ κριτικός. λέγεται δὲ μειράκιον μὲν ὢν
ἡδοναῖς σχολάζειν καὶ πότοις, καὶ λεπτῆς ἐσθῆτος ἀντι-
ποιεῖσθαι καὶ συνεχῶς ἐρῶν, ἀνὴρ δὲ γενόμενος τοσοῦτον
μεταβεβληκέναι τὴν πολιτείαν ὥσθ' ἕτερον ἐξ ἑτέρου δοκεῖν.
Αρδυος γοῦν ἐρωτήσαντος αὐτὸν εἰ ἡ δεῖνα καλὴ αὐτῷ
φαίνεται, λέγεται εἰπεῖν “ οὐκ οἶδα· τοὺς γὰρ τοιούτους
ἀφηρέθην ὀφθαλμούς.” ταῦτα δέ φησι Φιλόστρατος ἐν
τοῖς βίοις τῶν σοφιστῶν, οὐ πάντως περὶ τούτου λέγων
18. ἀκριβέστερον add. Sadée. Deesse aliquid perspexit Reisk. 21. χρῆσιν
χωρίοις Radermacher coll. Dion. Hal. de Dem. c. 34, p. 1062. 5, 6 R. : χωρίον. Coni.
ἐν οἷς δεῖ χωρίοις Reisk. 22. ἐπιχειρημάτων Krüger: ἐγχειρημάτων.
III. Tit. om. Q.
I.
4.
Ι.
σαλος littera initiali omissa Q. Cf. II. I. I.
κατὰ AQ, corr. Turr.
coll. Dion. Hal. de Isaeo iud. c. r, Pseudoplutarch. uitt. x. oratt. 839 Ε || πελοπονη
σιακὸν Α.
6. öv Q.
4, 5. ἀπεβίω Α, corr. Αl.
9. τὴν βιοτείαν Spengel,
< πρὸς> τὴν πολιτείαν Buerm. (Hermes 19. 331), οὕτω τι μετέβαλεν Philostr. || ὥστ' Α,
corr. A', ώς Q et Philostr. (ὡς ἕτερος ἐξ ἑτέρου νομισθῆναι) || δοκεῖ Q. 10. Αρδυος
Ald. et Philostratus uitt. soph. I. 2o, ed. Kays. p. 217: λιδύος Α, λυδύος Q
|| αὐτῷ καλὴ Q, Ald.
12- 14. ταῦτα δέαὐτὸν καλεῖ secl. Scheib. Spengelium
secutus. 13. τοῖς βίοις Ald. : τῷ βίω Q, *** βίω Α, τῷ in rasur. Al
Η
IO
ΓΕΝΟΣ ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
5
20
Ἰσαίου· ἀμέλει γοῦν καὶ ᾿Ασσύριον αὐτὸν καλεῖ. ἄδηλος
δὲ ὁ ἀκριβὴς τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ χρόνος. χαρακτῆρα δὲ 15
τὸν Λυσίου πάνυ ἀκριβῶς ἐζήλωσεν, ὥστε μηδὲ ῥᾴδιον
εἶναι διελεῖν τοὺς λόγους. ἔστι δὲ αὐτοῖς ἡ κοινωνία κατά
τε τὴν λέξιν καὶ τὰ ἐνθυμήματα, κατὰ μὲν τὴν λέξιν ὅτι ἡ
μὲν Λυσίου ἐστὶ καθαρὰ καὶ ἀκριβὴς καὶ σαφὴς καὶ κυρία
καὶ σύντομος, ἔοικε δὲ κατὰ ταῦτα πάντα ἡ Ἰσαίου σχεδόν.
διαφέρει δὲ ὅτι <τῇ μὲν> πολὺ τὸ ἀφελὲς καὶ τὸ ἠθικόν,
καὶ ἡ χάρις μεγάλη, ἡ δὲ Ἰσαίου τεχνικωτέρα δόξειεν ἂν
εἶναι καὶ ἀκριβεστέρα και σχηματισμοῖς διειλημμένη
ποικίλοις· ὅσον δὲ ἀπολείπεται <τῆς χάριτος>, τοσοῦτον
ὑπερέχει κατὰ τὴν δεινότητα. κατὰ μὲν οὖν τὴν λέξιν 25
εὑρήσομεν τοιαύτην διαφοράν, κατὰ δὲ τὰ πράγματα ταύτην,
ὅτι παρὰ Λυσίᾳ μὲν οὐ πολλὴν τὴν τέχνην εὑρήσομεν οὔτε
ἐν τοῖς μερισμοῖς τῶν πραγμάτων οὔτε ἐν τῇ τάξει τῶν
ἐνθυμημάτων, παρὰ δὲ Ἰσαίῳ πολλὴ τῆς τέχνης ἡ ἀκρίβεια.
καὶ γὰρ προκατασκευαῖς χρῆται καὶ μερισμοῖς <τεχνικω-30
τέροις>, καὶ πρὸς μὲν τὸν ἀντίδικον διαπονηρεύεται, τοὺς
δὲ δικαστὰς καταστρατηγεῖ. πολὺς δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ δικανικῷ,
καὶ σχεδὸν μόνον τοῦτο ἤσκησεν. ἀμέλει γοῦν πηγή τις τῆς
Δημοσθένους ἐκαλεῖτο δεινότητος. αὕτη δὲ ἦν ἡ διαφορὰ
Λυσίου καὶ Ἰσαίου, ὥστε Λυσίας μὲν καὶ ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων 35
ἔπειθε λέγων, Ισαῖος δὲ καὶ ὑπὲρ ἀγαθῶν λέγων ὕποπτος
ἦν.
14. καλεῖν Q.
19. μὲν om. Α.
20.
16. ἀκριβῶς om. Α.
κατὰ Α, καὶ Q.
24. ὅσον γὰρ
17. κοινωνία A, corr. Αl.
21. τῇ μὲν add. Turr. coll.
Dion. Hal. de Isaeo iud. c. 3, τῇ μὲν Λυσίου Reiskium secutus Bekk. 22. ἂν om.
AQ, habet Dion. Hal. de Isaeo iud. c. 3, primus add. Bekk.
ὑπολείπεται: corr. Turr. coll. Dion. Hal. 1. c. (ὅσον τε ἀπολείπεται τῆς χάριτος ἐκείνης,
τοσοῦτον ὑπερέχει τῇ δεινότητι της κατασκευής). ὅσον γὰρ ὑπολείπεται < κατὰ τὴν
χάριν > Reiskium secutus Bekk. 26. ταύτην εὑρήσομεν διαφοράν Q.
om. Q.
κατασκευαῖς Q | τεχνικωτέροις add. Turr. coll.
Dion. Hal. l.c. καὶ γὰρ ἐφόδοις χρῆται καὶ προκατασκευαῖς καὶ μερισμοῖς τεχνικωτέροις.
33. τοῦτον Q || πληγή Q. 34. Δημοσθένους Q, τοῦ Δημοσθένους Α. Cf. Dion.
29. πολύ Q.
30.
27. μὲν
Hal. l.c. πηγή τις ὄντως ἐστὶ τῆς Δημοσθένους δυνάμεως | δὲ Q, γὰρ Α || ἡ διαφορὰ
om. Q.
35. ἰσαίου καὶ λυσίου @ Ι και ante ὑπὲρ Q, Ald. om. Α.
36. ἀγαθῶ Q.
1
I
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΚΛΕΩΝΥΜΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ.
ΥΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ.
Steph.
35
Αδελφιδοῖ Κλεωνύμου τελευτήσαντος ἐπὶ τὸν κλῆρον ἔρχονται
κατὰ γένος, τὰς διαθήκας, ἃς παρέχονται εἰς αὑτοὺς οἱ περὶ
Φερένικον καὶ Σίμωνα καὶ Ποσείδιππον, γράψαι, ὡς ἀληθὲς
ἦν, καὶ θεῖναι παρὰ τοῖς ἄρχουσιν ὁμολογοῦντες Κλεώνυμον
κατὰ τὴν πρὸς Δεινίαν τὸν ἐπίτροπον αὐτῶν ὀργήν, ὕστερον 5
δὲ ἐπιχειρήσαντα λῦσαι καὶ μεταπεμψάμενον τὸν ἀστυνόμον
ἐξαίφνης < ἀποθανεῖν>· καὶ Πολύαρχον δὲ τὸν πάππον αὐτῶν,
Κλεωνύμου δὲ πατέρα, προστάξαι, εἴ τι πάσχοι Κλεώνυμος,
δοῦναι αὐτοῖς τὰ ὑπάρχοντα. Ἡ στάσις ὅρος διπλοῦς κατὰ
ἀμφισβήτησιν· οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλοι ταῖς γενομέναις ἐξ ἀρχῆς το
διαθήκαις διισχυρίζονται, οἱ δέ, λέγοντες ὅτι μετεκαλέσατο
τὸν ἄρχοντα, ἵνα λύσῃ αὐτάς, τοῖς τελευταῖον παρὰ τοῦ
Κλεωνύμου γενομένοις.
Πολλὴ μὲν ἡ μεταβολή μοι γέγονεν, ὦ ἄνδρες, τελευ-
τήσαντος Κλεωνύμου. ἐκεῖνος γὰρ ζῶν μὲν ἡμῖν κατέλιπε
τὴν οὐσίαν, ἀποθανὼν δὲ κινδυνεύειν περὶ αὐτῆς πεποίηκε.
καὶ τότε μὲν οὕτως ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ σωφρόνως ἐπαιδευόμεθα,
ὥστ᾽ οὐδὲ ἀκροασόμενοι οὐδέποτε ἤλθομεν ἐπὶ δικαστήριον,
νῦν δὲ ἀγωνιούμενοι περὶ πάντων ἥκομεν τῶν ὑπαρχόντων·
οὐ γὰρ τῶν Κλεωνύμου μόνον ἀμφισβητοῦσιν ἀλλὰ καὶ
I. Tit. om. Q, in marg. post hypoth. habet ἰσαίου.
Hyp. 2. καὶ τὰς Α || αὑτοὺς Schoem., αὐτοὺς uolg.
6. ἀστύμομον Q, μ inter scribendum corr.
τελευτῆσαι malit Scheib.
Cf. § 15. 6.
3. φρένικον Q, Ald.
7. ἀποθανεῖν add. Αld.,
ΙΙ. οἱ δ' ἀντιλέγοντες Steph., Bekk. || Post λέγοντες habet
φησὶν Α, φασὶ Q, φασὶν M, Ald. : del. Saupp. || μετεκαλέσατο Q, Ald., μετεκαλέσαντο Α.
12. τοῖς Saupp.: καὶ. Post τελευταῖον add. τοῖς Reiskium secutus Bekk. καὶ < τοῖς >
τελ. π. τ. Κλ. γενομένοις < χρῶνται τεκμηρίοις > malit Schoem.
1.
1. μοι] ἡμῖν malit Fuhr. Cf. II. 47. 5.
3. πεποίηκα Q, inter scribendum corr.
2.
κατέλειπε malit Lugebil.
5. οὐδ' Q | ἀκροασάμενοι A, rasur. corr.
7. où in rasur. 2 litt.
Cf. II. 12. 4, IX. 16. 6 || οὐδέπατε Α, corr. Α', οὐδέποτ' Q.
add. Α' || post ἀμφισβητοῦσιν add. οὗτοι Nab.
OR. I.
7
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΚΛΕΩΝΥΜΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
τῶν πατρῴων, ὀφείλειν ἐπὶ τούτοις <ἡμᾶς> ἐκείνῳ φά
σκοντες ἀργύριον. καὶ οἱ μὲν οἰκεῖοι καὶ οἱ προσήκοντες 2
[ἐπὶ τούτοις] οἱ τούτων ἀξιοῦσιν ἡμᾶς καὶ τῶν ὁμολογου-
μένων, ὧν Κλεώνυμος κατέλιπεν, αὐτῶν τούτων ἰσομοι-
ρῆσαι· οὗτοι δὲ εἰς τοῦτο ἥκουσιν ἀναισχυντίας, ὥστε καὶ
τὰ πατρῷα προσαφελέσθαι ζητοῦσιν ἡμᾶς, οὐκ ἀγνοοῦντες,
ὦ ἄνδρες, τὸ δίκαιον, ἀλλὰ πολλὴν ἡμῶν ἐρημίαν κατα-
γνόντες. σκέψασθε γὰρ οἷς ἑκάτεροι πιστεύοντες εἰς ὑμᾶς 3
εἰσεληλύθαμεν· οὗτοι μὲν διαθήκαις ἰσχυριζόμενοι τοιαύ-
ταις, ἃς ἐκεῖνος διέθετο μὲν οὐχ ἡμῖν ἐγκαλῶν ἀλλ᾽ ὀργισθεὶς
τῶν οἰκείων τινὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων, ἔλυσε δὲ πρὸ τοῦ θανάτου,
πέμψας Ποσείδιππον ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρχήν· ἡμεῖς δὲ γένει μὲν 4
ἐγγυτάτω προσήκοντες, χρώμενοι δὲ ἐκείνῳ πάντων οἶ-
κειότατα, δεδωκότων δ᾽ ἡμῖν καὶ τῶν νόμων κατὰ τὴν
ἀγχιστείαν καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Κλεωνύμου διὰ τὴν φιλίαν τὴν
ὑπάρχουσαν αὐτῷ, ἔτι δὲ Πολυάρχου, τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ>
Κλεωνύμου, πάππου δ᾽ ἡμετέρου, προστάξαντος, εἴ τι
πάθοι Κλεώνυμος ἄπαις, ἡμῖν δοῦναι τὰ αὑτοῦ. τοιού- 5
των τοίνυν ἡμῖν ὑπαρχόντων οὗτοι, καὶ συγγενεῖς ὄντες
καὶ οὐδὲν δίκαιον εἰπεῖν ἔχοντες, οὐκ αἰσχύνονται κατα-
στήσαντες ἡμᾶς εἰς ἀγῶνα περὶ τούτων, περὶ ὧν αἰσχρὸν
ἦν ἀμφισβητῆσαι καὶ τοῖς μηδὲν προσήκουσιν. οὐχ ὁμοίως 6
δέ μοι δοκοῦμεν, ὦ ἄνδρες, διακεῖσθαι πρὸς ἀλλήλους.
ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ οὐχ ὅτι ἀδίκως κινδυνεύω, τοῦθ᾽ ἡγοῦμαι
K
8. ὀφείλων Q, inter scribendum corr. || ἡμᾶς add. post ἐκείνῳ Nab., ante ἐκείνῳ
Buerm.
2. 2.
ἐπὶ τούτοις om. M, Ald. del Bekk. Cf. III. 34. I, v. 18. 5 || καὶ τῶν
ὁμολογουμένων del. Meutzner.
3. αὐτοῖς, τούτων : correxi. Coni. αὐτοῖς τούτοις
Buerm. (Hermes 19. 362), τούτων del. Scheib. Virgulam post αὐτοῖς seruant edd.
ante Turr. omnes || ισομοιρῆσαι M, Ald. : ισομοιρίσαι.
6. ἐρημίαν ἡμῶν Q.
3.
κεῖνος Q | διέθετο Scaliger :
5. πέμψας ἀρχὴν tamquam a sedulo
3. I. is vuâs: corr. Cob. Cf. vII. 14. 8.
δὴ ὑπέθετο. 4. ἔλνε Hitzig. Cf. § 43· 5·
lectore adscripta del. Herw. || ποσείδιπον Q.
4. 2, 3. οἰκειοτάτω Q.
add. Dobr. Cf. § 39. I, II. 2. 3, 4. 6, III. 47. 6, v. 5. 4, VI. 51. 5.
Cf. VII. 27. 5, Ant. v. 67.
||
5. αὐτῷ del. Herw. Cf. § 37. 2 | λυάρχου Q || τοῦ
5. 1. τοσούτων : correxi. Cf. III. 37. 3, VIII. 34. 5, ΧΙ. 47. 10.
Q || περὶ ὧν] περὶ in suspicionem uocat Herw. Cf. III. 61. 2, VII. 2. 8.
οι
7. παθη Q.
4. ἀγῶνας
8
OR. I.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
μέγιστον εἶναι τῶν παρόντων κακῶν, ἀλλ' ὅτι ἀγωνίζομαι
πρὸς οἰκείους, οὓς οὐδ᾽ ἀμύνεσθαι καλῶς ἔχει· οὐ γὰρ
ἂν ἐλάττω συμφορὰν ἡγησαίμην κακῶς ποιεῖν τούτους ἀμυ-
νόμενος, οἰκείους ὄντας, ἢ κακῶς παθεῖν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑπὸ
η τούτων. οὗτοι δ᾽ οὐ τοιαύτην ἔχουσι τὴν γνώμην, ἀλλ᾽
ἥκουσιν ἐφ' ἡμᾶς καὶ τοὺς φίλους παρακαλέσαντες καὶ 36
ῥήτορας παρασκευασάμενοι καὶ οὐδὲν ἀπολείποντες τῆς
αὑτῶν δυνάμεως, ὥσπερ, ὦ ἄνδρες, ἐχθροὺς τιμωρησόμενοι,
8 καὶ οὐκ ἀναγκαίους καὶ συγγενεῖς κακῶς ποιήσοντες. τὴν
μὲν οὖν τούτων ἀναισχυντίαν καὶ τὴν αἰσχροκέρδειαν ἔτι
μᾶλλον γνώσεσθε, ἐπειδὰν πάντων ἀκούσητε· ὅθεν δ'
οἶμαι τάχιστ' ἂν ὑμᾶς μαθεῖν περὶ ὧν ἀμφισβητοῦμεν,
ἐντεῦθεν ἄρξομαι διδάσκειν.
3
9 Δεινίας γὰρ ὁ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀδελφὸς ἐπετρόπευσεν ἡμᾶς,
θεῖος ὢν ὀρφανοὺς ὄντας. Κλεωνύμῳ δ᾽ οὗτος, ὦ ἄνδρες,
διάφορος ὢν ἔτυχεν. ὁπότερος μὲν οὖν αὐτῶν ἦν τῆς
διαφορᾶς αἴτιος, ἴσως οὐκ ἐμὸν ἔργον ἐστὶ κατηγορεῖν·
πλὴν τοσοῦτόν γε ἂν δικαίως αὐτοῖς ἀμφοτέροις μεμψαίμην,
ὅτι καὶ φίλοι τέως ὄντες καὶ προφάσεως οὐδεμιᾶς γενο-
μένης ἐκ λόγων τινῶν οὕτως εἰκῇ πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἔχθραν
10 ανείλοντο. †ὅτι γοῦν ἐκ ταύτης τῆς ὀργῆς Κλεώνυμος
ταύτας ποιεῖται τὰς διαθήκας, οὐχ ἡμῖν ἐγκαλῶν, ὡς ὕστε-
ρον ἐσώθη, ἔλεγεν†, ὁρῶν δὲ ἡμᾶς ἐπιτροπευομένους ὑπὸ
6.
EK
5. ἀμύνεσθαι A, e in rasur. Αl, ἀμύνασθαι Q, Buerm.
6. ἡγησαίμην
Ald. : ἡγησάμην AQ, tuetur Roeder. 7. ὑπὸ | ὑπὸ Α in uers. et pag. (f. 17") exitu,
prius induxit A¹. Cf. § 27. 4, II. 34. I, 41. 2, IV. 8. 5, V. 29. 8, VI. 26. 5, XI. 46. 2.
ἀπολείπονται Q, ἀπολιπόντες Reisk., Cob.
V.
7. 3.
uidit Steph. Cf. § 11. 7, Ant. v. 41 (ἀδίκως Α, αδίκους Ν).
I.
8.
9.
10.
2. αἰσχοκέρδειαν Α.
2.
3. ἀκούσετε Q.
5. κακούς Α.
4. μaleîv iµâs Q.
Verum
κλεωνύμου: corr. Taylor, tuentur Reisk., Bekk., Turr.
1-3· ὅτι γοῦν—ἔλεγεν tamquam interpolata del. Albrecht (Hermes 18. 362).
ὅτι γοῦν] τότε γοῦν coni. Schoem., prob. Saupp., ὅτι δ' οὖν Bekk. (in Addendis
p. 6ο1), Turr., Scheib., τί οὖν coni. Buerm. || ὀργῆς Α, ἀρχῆς Q. 2. ταῦτα Α, corr. Αl.
2, 3· ὡς ὕστερον ἐσώθη, ἔλεγεν locus desperatissimus et multis modis uexatus. ὕστερον
ἐπειδὴ ἐσώθη ἔλεγεν Steph., pro ἐσώθη malebat σωθείς Scaliger, ὡς ὕστερον ἔργῳ
ἐδήλωσεν Schoem., ὡς ὕστ. σαφῶς ἐδήλωσε Rauchenstein, ὡς ὕστ. ἠρωτήθη, ἔλεγεν
Jenicke, ὡς ὕστ. ἐρωτηθεὶς ἔλεγεν Buerm., ὡς ὕστ. ἔσθ' ὅτε ἔλεγεν Saupp., ὡς ὕστ.
ἑκάστοτε ἔλεγεν Hitzig, ὡς ὕστ. σωφρονισθεὶς (uel ὅτ' ἐσωφρονίσθη) ἔλεγεν Scheib., ὡς
ὕστ. ἐσωφρονίσθη, δῆλον ἐγένετο· ὁρῶν γὰρ κ.τ.λ. Nab., ὡς ἔλεγον (scil. aduersarii),
ὕστ. ἐγνώσθη Herw., ὕστ. εἰώθει λέγειν. ὁρῶν δὲ κ.τ.λ. Smilda (Sueton. uit. diu.
OR. I.
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΚΛΕΩΝΥΜΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
9
Δεινίου, καὶ δεδιὼς μὴ τελευτήσειεν αὐτὸς ἔτι παῖδας
ἡμᾶς καταλιπὼν καὶ τῆς οὐσίας ἡμετέρας οὔσης γένοιτο
κύριος Δεινίας· ἡγεῖτο γὰρ δεινὸν εἶναι τὸν ἔχθιστον τῶν
οἰκείων ἐπίτροπον καὶ κύριον τῶν αὑτοῦ καταλιπεῖν, καὶ
ποιεῖν αὑτῷ τὰ νομιζόμενα τοῦτον, ἕως ἡμεῖς ἡβήσαιμεν,
ᾧ ζῶν διάφορος ἦν· ταῦτα διανοηθεὶς ἐκεῖνος, εἴτ᾿ ὀρθῶς 11
εἴτε μή, τάς διαθήκας ταύτας διέθετο. καὶ εὐθὺς ἐρω-
τῶντος τοῦ Δεινίου παραχρῆμα εἴ τι ἡμῖν ἢ τῷ πατρὶ
ἐγκαλεῖ τῷ ἡμετέρῳ, ἀπεκρίνατο πάντων τῶν πολιτῶν
ἐναντίον ὅτι οὐδὲν πονηρὸν ἐγκαλεῖ, καὶ ἐμαρτύρησεν ὡς
ὀργιζόμενος ἐκείνῳ καὶ οὐκ ὀρθῶς βουλευόμενος ταῦτα
διέθετο. πῶς γὰρ ἂν εὖ φρονῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες, κακῶς ποιεῖν
ἡμᾶς ἐβουλήθη τοὺς μηδὲν αὐτὸν ἠδικηκότας; ὕστερον 12
δὲ τούτων, ὃ μέγιστον ἡμῖν τεκμήριον ὅτι οὐδὲ ταῦτα
ἔπραξεν ἡμᾶς βλάπτειν βουλόμενος· τελευτήσαντος γὰρ
Δεινίου καὶ τῶν πραγμάτων ἡμῖν πονήρως ἐχόντων οὐδὲ
περιεῖδεν ἡμᾶς οὐδενὸς ἐνδεεῖς ὄντας, ἀλλ᾿ αὐτοὺς μὲν
εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τὴν αὑτοῦ κομισάμενος ἐπαίδευε, τὴν δ᾽
οὐσίαν ἀφελέσθαι τῶν χρήστων ἐπιβουλευσάντων ἔσωσεν
ἡμῖν, ἐπεμελεῖτό τε ὁμοίως τῶν ἡμετέρων ὥσπερ τῶν
αὑτοῦ πραγμάτων. καίτοι χρὴ θεωρεῖν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἔννοιαν 13
ἐκ τούτων τῶν ἔργων μᾶλλον ἢ ἐκ τῶν διαθηκῶν, καὶ
τεκμηρίοις χρῆσθαι μὴ τοῖς μετ᾿ ὀργῆς πραχθεῖσιν, ἐν οἷς
Claudii, 1896, p. 189), ὡς ὕστ. εἰώθει λέγειν Papabasileios (Athena II, 1899, p. 563),
ὡς ὕστ. εὐθὺς ἔλεγεν Photiadles (Athena 9, 1897, p. 59), ὡς et εσώθη del. Huettner,
ws—ëλeyev del. Emper (Opusc. p. 316) et Meutzner.
7. τῶν αὑτοῦ om. Q.
8. ἡβήσαι εν A, corr. Αl.
11. 1. ταῦτα <δή> Cob.
χρῆμα del. Meutzner.
2. εὐθὺς del. Cob. Cf. III. 7. 3. 3. παρα-
4. τῶν πολιτῶν del. Cob., τῶν παρόντων uel τῶν δημοτῶν
malit Dobr. (cf. vi. 65. 3), τῶν φίλων Scheib., πάντων τῶν in πολλῶν mutat Photiades.
5. ἐγκαλεί om. Q, Dobr., πονηρὸν ἐγκαλεῖ del. Cob. || <$> καὶ ἐμαρτύρησεν Nab.,
καὶ < αὐτὸς uel οὕτω uel ἔργῳ > ἐμαρτύρησεν Rosenberg. Sed cf. VI. 24. 5. 7. κακούς
A, corr. A¹. Cf. § 7. 5. 8. ǹuâs in marg. add. A¹ prima littera sequentis uocis
βουλήσθη deleta, del. Buerm. coll. vi. 56. 6 || βουλήσθη Α, corr. Α'. Cf. § 27. 4 II
ἀδικήσαντας Q.
12. 2. ὑμῖν Steph., edd. ante Turr., Photiades.
3. ὑμᾶς Α, corr. Al.
πονήρως ἡμῖν Q ] οὐδὲ] οὐ Bekk. (in Addendis p. 6or), Dobr., Cob., Buerm.
οὐδ᾽ ἑνὸς Scheib., οὐδὲν ὡς Jenicke.
4.
5.
13.
I. διάνοιαν Bekk., Scheib., εὔνοιαν Photiades. Cf. § 43. 7·
7. χρηστῶν: corr. Bekk.
ΙΟ
OR. I.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
!
ἅπαντες πεφύκαμεν ἁμαρτάνειν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀφ᾽ ὧν ὕστερον φα
νερὰν τὴν αὑτοῦ διάνοιαν ἐποίησεν. ἔτι γὰρ μᾶλλον ἐν
14 τοῖς τελευταίοις ἐδήλωσεν ὡς εἶχε πρὸς ἡμᾶς. ἤδη γὰρ
ἀσθενῶν ταύτην τὴν νόσον ἐξ ἧς ἐτελεύτησεν, ἐβουλήθη
ταύτας τάς διαθήκας ἀνελεῖν καὶ προσέταξε Ποσειδίππῳ
τὴν ἀρχὴν εἰσαγαγεῖν. ὁ δὲ οὐ μόνον οὐκ εἰσήγαγεν, ἀλλὰ
καὶ τὸν ἐλθόντα τῶν ἀρχόντων ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν ἀπέπεμψεν.
ὀργισθεὶς δὲ τούτῳ Κλεώνυμος πάλιν εἰς τὴν ὑστεραίαν
Διοκλεί καλέσαι τοὺς ἄρχοντας προσέταξε· καὶ οὐχ οὕτως
[ὡς ἀσθενῶν] διακείμενος, ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι πολλῶν οὐσῶν ἐλπίδων
ἐξαπίνης τῆς νυκτὸς ταύτης ἀπέθανε.
15
Πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ὑμῖν παρέξομαι μάρτυρας ὡς οὐχ
ἡμῖν ἐγκαλῶν ἀλλὰ Δεινίᾳ πολεμῶν ταύτας τάς διαθήκας
διέθετο, ἔπειτα ὡς ἐκείνου τελευτήσαντος ἐπεμελεῖτό τε
τῶν ἡμετέρων ἁπάντων, καὶ αὐτοὺς ἐπαίδευεν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν
τὴν αὑτοῦ κομισάμενος, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ὡς Ποσείδιππον
ἔπεμψεν ἐπὶ τὸν ἀστυνόμον, οὗτος δ᾽ οὐ μόνον αὐτὸν οὐκ
εἰσεκάλεσεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐλθόντα ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν [ἀρχονίδην]
16 ἀπέπεμψεν. Ὡς οὖν ἀληθῆ λέγω, κάλει μοι τοὺς μάρτυρας.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
Ἔτι τοίνυν ὡς οἱ τούτων φίλοι καὶ Κηφίσανδρος ἠξίουν
νείμασθαι τὴν οὐσίαν καὶ τὸ τρίτον μέρος ἡμᾶς ἔχειν ἁπάν
των τῶν Κλεωνύμου, καὶ τούτων μοι κάλει | μάρτυρας.
5. τὴν αὐτοῦ Q, αὐτοῦ τὴν Α.
15.
4.
14. 5. ἀνέπεμψεν: corr. Steph. 6. és A. Cf. § 23. 7, VII. 39. 7. eis habet
iam Ald. 8. ὡς ἀσθενῶν del. Bekk., οὐχ οὕτως πω ἀσθενῶς διακ. Schoem., ἀσθενῶς
iam Reisk., οὐχ οὕτως ἀσθενῶς διακ. Jenicke. 9. ἐτελεύτησε Q.
ὑμῖν] ν ab Αl.
I.
Cf. II. 4· 7·
αὐτὸς: corr. Reisk.
5· ἑαυτοῦ Q.
6. ἀστύμομον Q, μ inter scribendum corr. Cf. hyp. 6 || αὐτὸν Q, Ald., edd.
ante Turr. omnes, avròs A, Turr., Scheib., Cob., Buerm. || ovк supra uers. Q.
7. ἐκάλεσεν coni. Cobet, prob. Buerm. | ἀρχονίδην tamquam ex ἄρχοντίδηλ (ἄρχοντα
δηλονότι) ortum del. Dobr., ΑΡΧΟΝΤΙ et ΑΡΧΟΝΙ similia esse monet Buerm., 'Αρχω-
νίδην Ald. edd. ante Buerm. omnes, Cob., ἄρχοντα et <τὸν> ἐλθόντα Photiades.
Nomen primus in suspicionem uocauit Jones.
8. ἀπέμεμψεν Α, corr. Α',
Π
ἀπεμπέμψει Q. Erat fortasse in archetypo ἀπέμεμψεν.
16. 2. Tit. in marg. A.
§ 28. 1 || ἠξίου Q.
ante Turr. omnes.
Cf. v. 31. 4.
Cf. § 32. 4.
3. τοίνυν] τούτων Q || κηφήσανδρος A. Cf.
καλεί α Ι τους μάρτυρας Μ, Ald., edd.
5.
37
OR. I.
I I
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΚΛΕΩΝΥΜΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
Ἡγοῦμαι μὲν τοίνυν, ὦ ἄνδρες, πᾶσι τοῖς τῶν κλήρων 17
ἀμφισβητοῦσιν, ὅταν ἀποφήνωσι σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ὥσπερ ἡμεῖς
καὶ τῷ γένει προτέρους ὄντας καὶ τῇ φιλίᾳ τῇ πρὸς τὸν
τετελευτηκότα, περίεργον εἶναι τοὺς ἄλλους λόγους λέγειν·
ἐπειδὴ δὲ τούτων οὐδέτερον ἔχοντες οὗτοι τολμῶσι τῶν
οὐ προσηκόντων ἀμφισβητεῖν καὶ ψευδεῖς παρασκευάζονται
λόγους, βούλομαι βραχέα καὶ περὶ τούτων αὐτῶν εἰπεῖν.
ἰσχυρίζονται γὰρ ταῖς διαθήκαις, λέγοντες ὡς Κλεώνυμος 18
μετεπέμπετο τὴν ἀρχὴν οὐ λῦσαι βουλόμενος αὐτὰς ἀλλ᾽
ἐπανορθώσαι καὶ βεβαιῶσαι σφίσιν αὐτοῖς τὴν δωρεάν.
ὑμεῖς δὲ σκοπεῖσθε τὰς διαθήκας τὰς μετ᾿ ὀργῆς γενο-
μένας πότερα εἰκός ἐστι βουληθῆναι Κλεώνυμον ἀνελεῖν,
ἐπειδὴ πρὸς ἡμᾶς οἰκείως ἔσχεν, ἢ σκοπεῖν ὅπως ἔτι βε-
βαιότερον ἡμᾶς ἀποστερήσει τῶν αὑτοῦ. τοῖς μὲν γὰρ 19
ἄλλοις κἀκείνων ὧν ἂν ὀργισθέντες τοὺς οἰκείους ἀδική-
σωσιν ὕστερον μεταμέλει· οὗτοι δὲ ἐκεῖνον ἀποφαίνουσιν,
ἐν ᾧ πρὸς ἡμᾶς οἰκειότατα διέκειτο, μᾶλλον βεβαιοῦν τὴν
διαθήκην βουλόμενον, ἣν ὀργιζόμενος ἐποιήσατο. ὥστ᾽
εἰ καὶ ἡμεῖς ὁμολογήσαιμεν ταῦτα καὶ ὑμεῖς αὐτοὶ πι-
στεύσαιτε, ἐνθυμεῖσθε ὅτι παράνοιαν αὐτοῦ τὴν μεγίστην
οὗτοι κατηγοροῦσι. τίς γὰρ ἂν γένοιτο ταύτης μανία 20
μείζων, ἢ τότε μὲν ὅτε Δεινίᾳ διάφορος ὢν ἔτυχεν, ἡμᾶς
κακώς ποιεῖν τε καὶ διατίθεσθαι τοιαύτας διαθήκας, ἐξ
ὧν οὐκ ἐκεῖνον ἐτιμωρεῖτο ἀλλὰ τοὺς οἰκειοτάτους ἠδίκει·
νυνὶ δὲ χρώμενος ἡμῖν καὶ περὶ πλείστου ποιούμενος ἁπάν
των, μόνους ἐβουλήθη τοὺς ἀδελφιδοῦς, ὡς οὗτοί φασιν,
ἀκλήρους ποιῆσαι τῶν ἑαυτοῦ; καὶ τίς ἂν εὖ φρονῶν, ὦ
5. οὕτω: corr. Bekk. (in Addendis
17. Ι. τὸν κλῆρον Q. Cf. III. 59. 1.
p. 601), Dobr.
7. τούτων del. Nab.
18. 2. μετεπέμπετο A, corr. Al. Cf. § 21. 4, IX. 4. 3.
19.
6. ὁμολο
4. γινομένας Α,
Ald., Steph. 7· ἀποστερήσει R, post Reisk. Turr. coll. § 33: ἀποστερήσειε AQ.
5. ἣν Α', ἣ Α, ἢ <ὅτε> temptat Dobr. Cf. XI. 18. 3.
γήσομεν : corr. Reisk. || αὐτοὶ] αὐτοῖς coni. Schoem., Cob., Nab. 6, 7. πιστεύσοιτε:
corr. Reisk.
7. οὗτοι τὴν μεγίστην αὐτοῦ Q
ὅτε] ὅτι Nab. || ὠν] ἦν Q.
ως
20.
2.
4. ἐτιμωρεῖτε Α, corr. Al.
5. ἡμῖν
7. Post ἑαυτοῦ interrog.
< οἰκείως > Brulart. 5, 6. ἁπάντων μόνος Hertlein.
signum posuit primus Schoen., reiciunt Turr., Scheib.
12
OR. I.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
T
21 ἄνδρες, τοιαῦτα περὶ τῶν αὑτοῦ βουλεύσαιτο; ὥστ᾽ ἐκ
τούτων τῶν λόγων ῥᾳδίαν ὑμῖν τὴν διάγνωσιν πεποιήκασι
περὶ αὑτῶν. εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἀνελεῖν τὰς διαθήκας βουλόμενος
μετεπέμπετο τὴν ἀρχήν, ὥσπερ ἡμεῖς φαμεν, οὐδεὶς ἔνεστι
τούτοις λόγος· εἰ δ᾽ οὕτως παραφρονῶν ἔτυχεν ὥσθ' ἡμᾶς
ἀεὶ περὶ ἐλαχίστου ποιεῖσθαι, τοὺς γένει πρωτεύοντας καὶ
χρωμένους αὐτῷ πάντων οἰκειότατα, δικαίως ἂν δήπου τὰς
τοιαύτας διαθήκας ἀκύρους ποιήσαιτε.
22
ΤΟ
Ετι τοίνυν ἐνθυμεῖσθε ὅτι φάσκοντες καλεῖν τὴν ἀρχὴν
Κλεώνυμον, ἵνα βεβαιώσῃ τὴν αὑτῶν δωρεάν, προσταχθὲν
αὐτοῖς οὐκ ἐτόλμησαν εἰσαγαγεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν ἐλθόντα
τῶν ἀρχόντων ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν ἀπέπεμψαν. καὶ δυοῖν τοῖν
ἐναντιωτάτοιν θάτερα μέλλοντες, ἢ τὴν οὐσίαν ἕξειν βε-
βαιότερον ἢ ἐκείνῳ μὴ ποιήσαντες ἀπεχθήσεσθαι, τὴν
23 ἀπέχθειαν είλοντο μᾶλλον ταύτης τῆς δωρεᾶς. καίτοι πως
ἂν ἕτερα τούτων γένοιτο ἀπιστότερα; τοὺς μὲν τηλικαῦτα
μέλλοντας ἐκ τοῦ πράγματος κερδαίνειν, ὥσπερ ζημιωθη
σομένους, φυλάξασθαι τὴν διακονίαν, Κλεώνυμον δ᾽ ὑπὲρ
τῆς τούτων ὠφελείας τοσαύτην ποιήσασθαι σπουδὴν ὥστε
Ποσειδίππῳ μέν, ὅτι κατημέλησεν, ὀργισθῆναι, Διοκλέους
δὲ ταὐτὰ πάλιν εἰς τὴν ὑστεραίαν δεηθῆναι;
24
Εἰ γὰρ δή, ὦ ἄνδρες, ὡς οὗτοί φασιν, ἐν ταῖς νῦν
γεγραμμέναις διαθήκαις ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς τὴν οὐσίαν, καὶ
τοῦτ᾽ ἄξιον εἶναί μοι δοκεῖ θαυμάζειν, ὅ τί ποτε ἐπαν
ορθώσας κυριωτέρας αὐτὰς ἡγεῖτ᾽ ἂν ποιῆσαι: τοῖς γὰρ
21. 2. ὑμῖν Ald. : ἡμῖν.
3. αὐτῶν Rosenberg || γὰρ] οὖν Α, corr. Al.
4. μETETÉμ**TO A, corr. A¹. Cf. § 18. 2 || ovd' eîs Scheib. coll. Dem. 21. 41 || ËT' ÉOTAL
Hirschig. 5. TOLOÚTOLS Q || Wor' A, corr. A¹. Cf. uit. Is. 9, I. 43. 1. 6. ἀεὶ
om. Q, Turr., Scheib., Buerm., uncis incl. Bekk., mutat in δή Dobr., tuentur Jenicke
et Meutzner || ποιεῖν Q. 8. ποιήσητε Α, ποιήσετε Q: corr. Bekk. Cf. § 51. 7,
VI. 1. 2, VII. 42. I, VIII. 14. 10, IX. 18. 6, 37. 9.
22. 2. τὸν κλεώνυμον Q. 5. θάτερον Brulart, Mai, Cob. || μέλοντες Q.
Cf. Ant. I. 31, Din. I. 5, 48, 94 | Ante τὴν οὐσίαν excidisse τὴν ἀρχὴν εἰσαγαγόντες
putat Buerm.
5, 6. βεβαιοτέραν A, uolg., βεβαιωτέραν Q: corr. Cob. || ἐκείνω Q,
probant Bekk., Schoem., Turr., Scheib., ἐκείνῳ μὴ ὑπακούσαντες Nab., ἐκεῖνο Α,
Buerm. || Ante ἀπεχθήσεσθαι aliquid (e.g. ἅπερ ἐκέλευσε excidisse uidetur. 7· ταύτης
del. Dobr., ἀντὶ τῆς δωρεᾶς coni. Scheib.
7. ταῦτα: corr. Cob. Cf.
23. 3. ζημιωσομένους Herw. Cf. x. 16. 8.
III. 21. 5, VII. 43. I, VIII. 38. 10, II, XI. 2. 6 || és A. Cf. § 14. 6.
24. 4· ἡγεῖτ᾽ ἂν Cob., ἡγοῖτ' ἂν AQ, Bekk., Schoem., Turr., Scheib.
OR. I.
13
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΚΛΕΩΝΥΜΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
ἄλλοις οὗτος ὅρος ἐστίν, ὦ ἄνδρες, τῶν δωρεῶν. ἔτι δὲ καὶ 25
εἴ τι προσγράψαι τούτοις ἐβούλετο, διὰ τί οὐκ ἐν ἑτέρῳ
γράψας αὐτὰ γραμματείῳ κατέλιπεν, ἐπειδὴ τὰ γράμματα
παρὰ τῶν ἀρχόντων οὐκ ἐδυνήθη λαβεῖν; ἀνελεῖν μὲν γάρ,
ὦ ἄνδρες, οὐχ οἷός τ᾽ ἦν ἄλλο γραμματεῖον ἢ τὸ παρὰ τῇ
ἀρχῇ κείμενον· γράψαι δ' ἐξὴν εἰς ἕτερον εἴ τι ἐβούλετο,
καὶ μηδὲ τοῦθ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀμφισβητήσιμον ἐᾶν. εἰ τοίνυν και 26
τοῦτο συγχωρήσαιμεν, ὡς ἐκεῖνος ἐπανορθῶσαι τὰς δια-
θήκας ἐβούλετο, πᾶσι δήπου φανερὸν ὑμῖν ἐστιν ὅτι οὐκ
ὀρθῶς αὐτὰς ἔχειν ἡγεῖτο. καίτοι σκοπεῖτε καὶ ἐντεῦθεν
τὴν ἀναισχυντίαν αὐτῶν, οἵ τινες ταύτας τὰς διαθήκας
ἀξιοῦσιν εἶναι κυρίας, ἃς ὁμολογοῦσι μηδὲ αὐτὸν τὸν δια-
θέμενον ταῦτα ὀρθῶς ἔχειν ἡγεῖσθαι, καὶ πείθουσιν ὑμᾶς
ἐναντία καὶ τοῖς νόμοις καὶ τῷ δικαίῳ καὶ τῇ τοῦ τετε-
λευτηκότος γνώμῃ ψηφίσασθαι. ἔτι τοίνυν τούτων ἁπάντων 27
ἀναιδέστατος τῶν λόγων ἐστίν, ὅταν τολμῶσι λέγειν ὡς
Κλεώνυμος οὐδὲν ἡμᾶς τῶν αὑτοῦ λαβεῖν ἐβούλετο. καίτοι,
ὦ ἄνδρες, τίνας ἂν ἄλλους ταῦτα ἔχειν ἐβουλήθη μᾶλλον
ἢ τούτους, οὓς καὶ ζῶν ἐκ τῶν αὑτοῦ πλεῖστα τῶν οἰκείων
ὠφέλει; πάντων δ᾽ ἂν εἴη θαυμασιώτατον, εἰ Κηφίσανδρος 28
μὲν ὁ τούτων οἰκεῖος δίκαιον ἡγεῖτο εἶναι μέρος ἕκαστον
ἡμῶν ἔχειν τῆς οὐσίας, Κλεώνυμος δ᾿ ὃς ἦν ἡμῖν οἰκειό-
τατος καὶ ἡμᾶς εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τὴν αὑτοῦ λαβὼν ἐθεράπευε
αν
4,5· τοῖς γὰρ ἄλλοις οὗτος] τίς γὰρ ἄλλος ἢ οὗτος Herw., ταῖς γὰρ ἄλλαις οὗτος
Photiades.
4.
25. 2. ἐβάλετο Q. 3. κατέλιπεν Α. Cf. II. 27. 6, III. 75. 5, v. Io. 7.
μὲν
μèv om. A, Schoem., Scheib. Cf. 11. 35. 3, IV. 16. 3, V. I. I, 5. 7, VII. 42. 2,
XI. 49. 3.
5. ἄλλῳ γραμματείῳ ἢ τῷ παρὰ τῇ ἀρχῇ κειμένῳ Roeder, ἄλλῳ γραμ-
7. και ante μηδὲ del. Herw.
6. μηδ' Q.
ματείῳ τὸ παρὰ τῇ ἀρχῇ κείμενον Lipsius.
5. καὶ τὴν Q.
26. 3. ǹuîv A.
Scheib., Buerm. || ὑμ * Α, corr. A', ἡμᾶς Q.
ΤΕ
τελευτηκότος Q.
**
27. 3. ἐβούλετο Mai: ἠβούλετο.
4.
8.
7. ταῦτα del. Mai,
καὶ ante τοῖς νόμοις om. Α ||
τίνας | τίνας Α, prius induxit Αl. Cf.
§ 6. 7 || «βουλήθη A, corr. Α', ἠβουλήθη Q. Cf. § II. 8, v. 19. 3 || μᾶλλον om. Q.
5. τούτους, οὓς] τοὺς οὓς Nab.
28. 1. κηφήσανδρος A. Cf. § 16. 3, V. 5. II.
τερος: tacite corr. Bekk. Cf. VII. 37. 5.
4.
Scheib., Buerm., αὐτοῦ Α, ἑαυτοῦ Q, Bekk., Schoem.
2. ἡγεῖται Nab.
3. οἰκειό-
avToû Turr. coll. §§ 12. 6, 15. 5,
14
OR. I
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
καὶ ἐπεμελεῖτο τῶν ἡμετέρων ὥσπερ τῶν αὐτοῦ πραγμάτων,
οὗτος μόνους ἐβούλετο ἡμᾶς ἀκλήρους εἶναι τῶν αὑτοῦ.
29 και τίς ἂν ὑμῶν πιστεύσειεν εὐνουστέρους και μετριω-
τέρους τοὺς ἀντιδίκους ἡμῖν εἶναι τῶν οἰκειοτάτων; κἀκεῖνον
μέν, ᾧ καὶ ἀναγκαῖον εὖ ποιεῖν ἡμᾶς καὶ αἰσχρὸν ἡμῶν
ἀμελῆσαι, μηδὲν τῶν αὐτοῦ ἡμῖν δοῦναι· τούτους δέ, οἷς
οὔτ᾽ ἀνάγκη ἐστὶν οὔτ᾽ αἰσχύνην οὐδεμίαν φέρει, τῶν οὐ
προσηκόντων, ὥς φασιν, ἡμῖν μεταδιδόναι; ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μέν,
ὦ ἄνδρες, πολλὴν ἀπιστίαν ἔχει.
ων
30 Ἔπειτα, εἰ μὲν καὶ νῦν οὕτω πρὸς ἀμφοτέρους ἡμᾶς
ἔχων ἐτελεύτησεν, ὥσπερ ὅτε τὰς διαθήκας ταύτας ἐποιή
σατο, εἰκότως ἄν τις ὑμῶν πιστεύσειε τοῖς λόγοις τοῖς
τουτωνί· νυνὶ δὲ πᾶν τοὐναντίον εὑρήσετε. τότε μὲν γὰρ
ἔτυχε Δεινίᾳ, ὃς ἡμᾶς ἐπετρόπευε, διάφορος ὢν ἡμῖν τε
οὔπω χρώμενος τούτοις τε ἅπασιν ἐπιτηδείως διακείμενος·
νῦν δὲ τούτων μέν τισι διάφορος ἐγένετο, ἡμῖν δὲ πάντων
31 ἐχρῆτο οἰκειότατα. καὶ ἐξ ὧν μὲν αὐτῷ πρὸς τούτους
ἐγένετο ἡ διαφορά, περίεργόν ἐστι λέγειν· σημεῖα δὲ ὑμῖν
ἐρῶ μεγάλα, περὶ ὧν καὶ μάρτυρας ἕξω παρασχέσθαι.
πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ θύων τῷ Διονύσῳ, καὶ τοὺς οἰκείους
ἅπαντας καλέσας καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πολιτῶν πολλούς, Φερένικον
οὐδαμοῦ παρεστήσατο. ἔπειτα μικρὸν πρὶν τελευτῆσαι
βαδίζων εἰς Πάνορμον μετὰ Σίμωνος, καὶ συντυχὼν αὐτῷ,
32 προσειπεῖν οὐκ ἐτόλμησεν. ἔτι δὲ πρὸς τούτοις πυνθανο
μένου τὴν διαφορὰν τοῦ Σίμωνος τήν τ᾽ ἔχθραν διηγήσατο,
καὶ προσηπείλησεν ὅτι δηλώσειέ ποτ᾽ ἂν τούτῳ ὡς διάκειται
πρὸς αὐτόν. Καὶ ὡς ἀληθῆ λέγω, κάλει μάρτυρας.
ων
6. μόνος: corr. Jenicke, tuentur Turr., Scheib. Cf. §§ 2o. 6, 38. 5.
29. 3. ἀναγκαῖον <ἦν > Herw. 4. δοῦναι ἡμῖν Q | ois in marg. add. Αl.
6. μεταδιδόναι] δόν in rasur. Αl. 7. ὦ ἄνδρες in marg. inferiore Q.
3. πιστεύσειε Scheib., πιστεύσαι uolg.:
4. τὸ ἐναντίον Α, corr. Αl.
30. I. καὶ νῦν] Κλεώνυμος Cob.
πιστεῦσαι. Cf. IV. 14. 4, VIII. 40. 4, IX. 18. 3.
οὕτω: corr. Mai. Cf. XI. 45. 7.
6.
31.
Σ.
τούτοις Q.
2. ἡμῖν Α.
3. ἔχω Scheib.
32. 3. πρὸς ἠπείλησεν Cob. Cf. v. 24. 4 || δηλώσει ποτ᾽ ἂν Α, δηλώσοι ποτ᾽ ἂν
Q, δηλώσεις ποτ' ἂν Dobr., Buerm., δηλώσει ποτε Turr., δηλώσοι ποτε Cob.
κάλει < μοι τοὺς > Nab., articulum desiderauit Schoem. Cf. § 16. 5, VIII. 2o. 13.
4.
OR. I.
15
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΚΛΕΩΝΥΜΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
Ο
οι
Οἴεσθε οὖν, ὦ ἄνδρες, τὸν ούτωσὶ πρὸς ἑκατέρους 33
ἡμᾶς διακείμενον ἡμῖν μέν, οἷς οἰκειότατα ἐχρῆτο, οὕτως
ποιεῖν ὅπως μηδὲ λόγον ὑπολείψει, τούτοις δέ, ὧν τισιν
καὶ διάφορος ἦν, σκοπεῖν ὅπως ἅπασαν βεβαιώσει τὴν
οὐσίαν; καὶ τούτους μὲν νῦν περὶ πλείονος ποιεῖσθαι
ταύτης ὑπούσης τῆς ἔχθρας, ἡμᾶς δὲ τοσαύτης οἰκειότητος
καὶ φιλίας γενομένης πειρᾶσθαι μᾶλλον κακῶς ποιεῖν;
ἀλλ᾽ ἔγωγε, εἰ κατηγορεῖν ἐβούλοντο τῶν διαθηκῶν ἢ τοῦ 34
τετελευτηκότος, οὐκ οἶδ' ὅ τι ἂν ἄλλο πρὸς ὑμᾶς εἶπον, οἵ
γε τὰς διαθήκας μὲν ἀποφαίνουσιν οὔτ᾽ ὀρθῶς ἐχούσας οὔτ᾽
ἀρεσκούσας τῷ διαθεμένῳ, τοῦ δὲ τοσαύτην μανίαν κατη-
γοροῦσιν, ὥστε φασὶν αὐτὸν περὶ πλείονος ποιεῖσθαι τοὺς
αὐτῷ διαφερομένους ἢ τοὺς οἰκείως χρωμένους, καὶ οἷς μὲν
ζῶν οὐδὲ διελέγετο ἅπασαν δοῦναι τὴν οὐσίαν, τοὺς δ᾽ οἰκειό-
τατα κεχρημένους οὐδὲ πολλοστοῦ μέρους ἀξιῶσαι. ὥστε 35
τίς ἂν ὑμῶν ταύτας εἶναι κυρίας τὰς διαθήκας ψηφίσαιτο, ἃς
ὁ μὲν διαθέμενος ὡς οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἐχούσας ἀπεδοκίμασεν, οὗτοι
δ᾽ ἔργῳ λύουσιν ἐθέλοντες ἡμῖν ἰσομοιρῆσαι τῆς οὐσίας, πρὸς
δὲ τούτοις ἡμεῖς ὑμῖν ἀποφαίνομεν ἐναντίας οὖσας καὶ τῷ
νόμῳ καὶ τοῖς δικαίοις καὶ τῇ τοῦ τετελευτηκότος διανοίᾳ;
αν
Οἶμαι δ' ὑμᾶς τὸ περὶ ἡμῶν δίκαιον σαφέστατ᾽ ἂν 36
παρ' αὐτῶν τούτων πυνθάνεσθαι. εἰ γάρ τις αὐτοὺς ἔροιτο
διὰ τί ἀξιοῦσι κληρονόμοι γενέσθαι τῶν Κλεωνύμου, τοῦτ᾽
ἂν εἰπεῖν ἔχοιεν, ὅτι καὶ γένει ποθὲν προσήκουσι καὶ ἐκεῖνος
αι
5. Tit. om. AQ (lac. 4 litt. apud Q), add. Mai.
33. 2. ἡμᾶς] ἡμῶν Lugebil. 3. ὅπως μηδὲ λόγον ὑπολείψει Q, Bekk., Schoem.,
ὥστε μ. λ. ὑπολείψειν (ft. ὑπολείψειν ex ὑπολείψει) A, Turr., Scheib., Buerm., ὅπως
μηδ' ὀβολὸν ἀπολείψει Cob., ὥστε μηδ' ὀβολὸν ὑπολείψειν Lugebil.
4. ἦν om. Q |
βεβαιώση Q. 5· οὐσίαν] ἔχθραν Q || νῦν om. Q, ἡμῶν Nab.
6. ταύτης]
T******s A, corr. Α' | ὑπαρχούσης Nab., Buerm.
4. τοῦ δὲ] αὐτοῦ δὲ
7. οὐδὲ Cob.: οὐ.
7· γινομένης Q.
34. 3. γε εx τε Α, τε Q || μὲν διαθήκας Q, Bekk.
Hertlein. 5. avтŵ A. Cf. x. hyp. 17. 6. διαφέροντας Q.
7, 8. οἰκειότητα κεκτημένους: corr. Bekk.
35. 2. κυρίας είναι ψηφίσαιτο τάς διαθήκας Q.
Cf. 11. 5. 5, III. 39. 7, V. 35. 2, VI. 45. 3.
36. 1.
περὶ ἡμᾶς Q.
3.
ὡς in uers. add. Αl.
6. τελευτηκότος Q. Cf. § 26. 8.
16
OR. I.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
1
αὐτοῖς χρόνον τινὰ ἐπιτηδείως διέκειτο. οὐκ ἂν ἄρα ὑπὲρ
ἡμῶν μᾶλλον ἢ ὑπὲρ σφῶν αὐτῶν εἶεν εἰρηκότες; εἴ τε
γὰρ διὰ τὴν τοῦ γένους ἀγχιστείαν δεῖ γενέσθαι τινὰς
37 κληρονόμους, ἡμεῖς ἐγγυτέρω γένει προσήκομεν· εἴ τε
διὰ τὴν φιλίαν τὴν ὑπάρχουσαν, ἴσασιν αὐτὸν ἅπαντες
ἡμῖν οἰκειότερον διακείμενον. ὥστ᾽ οὐ χρὴ παρ' ἡμῶν,
ἀλλὰ [καὶ] παρ᾽ αὐτῶν τούτων πυνθάνεσθαι τὸ δίκαιον.
38 πάντων δ᾽ ἂν εἴη δεινότατον, εἰ τοῖς μὲν ἄλλοις ψηφίζεσθε,
ὅταν θάτερα τούτων ἀποφαίνωσιν σφᾶς αὐτούς, ἢ γένει προ-
τέρους ὄντας ἢ τῇ φιλίᾳ τῇ πρὸς τὸν τετελευτηκότα, ἡμᾶς
δ᾽ οἷς ἐστιν ἀμφότερα ταῦτα παρὰ πάντων ὁμολογούμενα,
ἀξιώσετε μόνους ἀκλήρους ποιῆσαι τῶν ἐκείνου.
39
Ο
Ο
Καὶ εἰ μὲν Πολύαρχος ὁ πατὴρ ὁ Κλεωνύμου, πάππος
δ᾽ ἡμέτερος, ζῶν ἐτύγχανε καὶ τῶν ἐπιτηδείων ἐνδεὴς ὤν,
ή Κλεώνυμος ἐτελεύτησε θυγατέρας ἀπορουμένας κατα-
λιπών, ἡμεῖς ἂν διὰ τὴν ἀγχιστείαν καὶ τὸν πάππον γερο-
τροφεῖν ἠναγκαζόμεθα καὶ τὰς Κλεωνύμου θυγατέρας ἢ
λαβεῖν αὐτοὶ γυναῖκας ἢ προῖκα ἐπιδόντες ἑτέροις ἐκδι-
δόναι, καὶ ταῦθ' ἡμᾶς καὶ ἡ συγγένεια καὶ οἱ νόμοι καὶ
ἡ παρ' ὑμῶν αἰσχύνη ποιεῖν ἠνάγκαζεν ἄν, ἢ ταῖς μεγίσταις
40 ζημίαις καὶ τοῖς ἐσχάτοις ὀνείδεσι περιπεσεῖν· εἰ δ᾽ οὐσία
κατελείφθη, δίκαιον ἡγήσεσθ᾽ εἶναι ταύτης ἑτέρους ἡμῶν
μᾶλλον κληρονομεῖν; οὐκ ἄρα δίκαια οὐδ᾽ ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς
συμφέροντα οὐδὲ τοῖς νόμοις ὁμολογούμενα ψηφιεῖσθε,
εἰ τῶν μὲν συμφορῶν τοὺς ἐγγυτάτω γένει κοινωνεῖν ἀναγ
κάσετε, χρημάτων δὲ καταλειφθέντων πάντας ἀνθρώπους
κυριωτέρους ή τούτους ποιήσετε.
3.
οὐκ ἂν Mai: οὐκοῦν. Cf. III.
Cf. III. 54. Ι.
5.
37. 2. αὐτών Q, ω inter scribendum corr.
3. οἰκοιότερον Α, corr. A1 || ἡμῶν
< μόνον > Bait. 4. καὶ del. Scheib. Cf. vII. 33. 6, Ant. I. 3.
38. 1. ψηφίζεσθε Hertlein, Nab., ψηφίζοισθε AQ, edd. omn., ψηφίζοισθ᾽ ἂν
Gebauer.
2. θάττερα Α, θέατρα Q: corr. Mai, θάτερον Cob. Cf. § 22. 5.
τὸν om. Q || ὑμᾶς Α. 5. ἀξιώσαιτε Cob., Buerm.
39. I. Πολύαρχος Mai: ναύαρχος AQ. Corruptelam ex ΜΕΝΑΥΑΡΧΟΣ ortam
esse putat Buerm. (Hermes 19. 351) || ó ante Kλewvúμov in uers. add. A¹.
Cf. § 4. 5.
6. ἐπιδιδόντες : corr. Cob. Cf. II. 3. 6, 5. 3. 8. ἡμῶν Q.
5, 6. ἀναγκάζετε Hertlein.
40. 5. γένους Herw., Hitzig.
7. κυρία | Q.
1
OR. I.
17
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΚΛΕΩΝΥΜΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
Χρὴ δέ, ὦ ἄνδρες, καὶ διὰ τὴν συγγένειαν καὶ διὰ 41
τὴν τοῦ πράγματος ἀλήθειαν, ὅπερ ποιεῖτε, τοῖς κατὰ
γένος ψηφίζεσθαι μᾶλλον ἢ τοῖς κατὰ διαθήκην ἀμφισ
βητοῦσιν. τὴν μὲν γὰρ τοῦ γένους οἰκειότητα πάντες ἐπι-
στάμενοι τυγχάνετε, καὶ οὐχ οἷόν τε τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι πρὸς ὑμᾶς
ψεύσασθαι· διαθήκας δ' ἤδη πολλοὶ ψευδεῖς ἀπέφηναν,
καὶ οἱ μὲν τὸ παράπαν οὐ γενομένας, ἐνίων δ᾽ οὐκ ὀρθῶς
βεβουλευμένων. καὶ νῦν ὑμεῖς τὴν μὲν συγγένειαν καὶ τὴν 42
οἰκειότητα τὴν ἡμετέραν, οἷς ἡμεῖς ἀγωνιζόμεθα, ἅπαντες
ἐπίστασθε· τὰς δὲ διαθήκας, αἷς οὗτοι πιστεύοντες ἡμᾶς
συκοφαντοῦσιν, οὐδεὶς ὑμῶν οἶδε κυρίας γενομένας. ἔπειτα
τὴν μὲν ἡμετέραν συγγένειαν εὑρήσετε καὶ παρ᾽ αὐτῶν
τῶν ἀντιδίκων ὁμολογουμένην, τὰς δὲ διαθήκας ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν
ἀμφισβητουμένας. οὗτοι γὰρ τὸ ἀνελεῖν αὐτὰς ἐκείνου
βουλομένου διεκώλυσαν. ὥσθ' ὑμῖν, ὦ ἄνδρες, πολὺ κάλ- 43
λιόν ἐστι ψηφίσασθαι κατὰ τὸ γένος τὸ παρ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων
ἡμῶν ὁμολογούμενον μᾶλλον ἢ κατὰ τὰς διαθήκας τὰς οὐ
δικαίως γεγενημένας. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἐνθυμήθητε ὅτι
αὐτὰς ἔλυσε μὲν Κλεώνυμος εὖ φρονῶν, διέθετο δὲ ὀργι-
σθεὶς καὶ οὐκ ὀρθῶς βουλευόμενος· ὥστε πάντων ἂν εἴη
δεινότατον, εἰ κυριωτέραν αὐτοῦ τὴν ὀργὴν ἢ τὴν διάνοιαν
ποιήσετε.
Οἶμαι δ' ὑμᾶς καὶ λαμβάνειν παρὰ τούτων ἀξιοῦν 44
καὶ μὴ τυγχάνοντας ἀγανακτεῖν, οἷς ἂν ὑπάρχῃ καὶ παρ'
ὑμῶν τῶν αὐτῶν τυχεῖν. εἰ τοίνυν συνέβη Κλεωνύμῳ μὲν
ζῆν, ἐξερημωθῆναι δὲ τὸν ἡμέτερον οἶκον ἢ τὸν τούτων,
σκέψασθε ποτέρων ἐκεῖνος ἐγίγνετο κληρονόμος· δίκαιον
41. I. καὶ διὰ τὴν συγγένειαν deleta malit Buerm.
3, XI. II. 2.
2.
ποιείται Q.
3. Yndiseσle Q. Cf. IV. 2. 2, V. 39. 3, VI. 2. 4, VII. 16. 6, VIII. 12. 4, 44. 10, 46.
5. ἐστὶ τοῦτο Q.
7. Αη ἔνιοι ?
42. I. ὑμεῖς Mai: ἡμεῖς.
4. ἡμῶν Q il malim κυρίως.
γὰρ διεκώλυσαν tamquam gloss. del. Dobr., Buerm.
43. I. WoT' A, corr. A¹. Cf. § 21. 5, III. 50. 4, VIII. 20. 12, XI. 11. 2 || duîv
Mai: ἡμῖν.
5. ἔλνε Hitzig, Lugebil. Cf. § 3. 4.
7,8. οὗτοι
7. το del. Cob.
6. βεβουλευμένος Q.
7. διάνοιαν] ἔννοιαν Hitzig, Buerm., εὔνοιαν Meutzner. Cf. § 13. 1. 8. ποιήσαιτε Cob.
44. 3. ἡμῶν Ο || Κλεώνυμον Cob.
5. πότερον: corr. Mai | Post ἐγίγνετο
hic et § 45. 2, 4 add. àv Nab.
W. I.
2
18
OR. I.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
γάρ ἐστι τούτους ἔχειν τὰ ἐκείνου, παρ᾽ ὧν ὠφείλετο
45 καὶ λαβεῖν αὐτῷ. εἰ μὲν τοίνυν Φερένικος ἢ τῶν ἀδελφῶν
τις ἐτελεύτησεν, οἱ παῖδες οἱ τούτων, οὐκ ἐκεῖνος ἐγίγνετο
κύριος τῶν καταλειφθέντων· ἡμῶν δὲ τοιαύτῃ τύχῃ χρη-
σαμένων Κλεώνυμος ἁπάντων ἐγίγνετο κληρονόμος. οὔτε
γὰρ παῖδες ἡμῖν ἦσαν οὔτ᾽ ἄλλοι συγγενεῖς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνος
καὶ γένει προσήκων ἐγγυτάτω καὶ τῇ χρείᾳ πάντων ἦν
46 οἰκειότατος· ὥστε διὰ ταῦτα καὶ οἱ νόμοι δεδώκασιν αὐτῷ,
καὶ ἡμεῖς οὐδέν <ἂν> ἄλλον ἠξιώσαμεν ταύτης τῆς δωρεᾶς.
οὐ γὰρ δήπου ζῶντες μὲν οὕτως ἂν ἐνεχειρίσαμεν αὐτῷ
τὴν οὐσίαν, ὥστε περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων κυριωτέραν εἶναι
τὴν ἐκείνου διάνοιαν τῆς ἡμετέρας αὐτῶν, ἀποθνῄσκοντες
δὲ ἄλλους κληρονομεῖν ἐβουλήθημεν αὐτῶν μᾶλλον ἢ τὸν
47 πάντων οἰκειότατον. ὥσθ' ἡμᾶς μὲν ἐν ἀμφοτέροις, ὦ
ἄνδρες, καὶ ἐν τῷ δοῦναι καὶ ἐν τῷ λαβεῖν οἰκείους ὄντας
εὑρήσετε, τούτους δὲ νῦν μὲν ἀναισχυντοῦντας καὶ τὴν
οἰκειότητα καὶ τὴν ἀγχιστείαν λέγοντας, ὅτι λήψεσθαί τι
προσδοκῶσιν· ἐν δὲ τῷ δοῦναι πολλοὺς ἂν καὶ συγγενεῖς
καὶ φίλους ἐκείνου προείλοντο οἰκειοτέρους.
48
υσ
αν
Κεφάλαιον δὲ τῶν εἰρημένων, ᾧ πάντας ὑμᾶς προσέχειν
δεῖ τὸν νοῦν· †ὅσῳ γὰρ ἂν ταῦτα λέγοντες ἀποφαίνωσι
καὶ πειρῶνται πείθειν ὑμᾶς ὡς ἐκεῖνος διέθετο ταύτας τὰς
διαθήκας καὶ οὐδεπώποτε ὕστερον αὐτῷ μετεμέλησε, ἀλλὰ>
4. 8.
2.
4. ἐγένετο Α,
45. 1. ἤ τις τῶν ἀδελφῶν Q. 2. οὐ | κεῖνος Α. Cf. Χ.
corr. Al.
6. προσῆκεν malit Bekk.
46. Ι. ἔδωκαν malit Scheib., ἐδεδώκεσαν Gebauer.
οὐδένα ἄλλον: corr.
Bekk., Emper., Cob. 3. ἂν post γὰρ transp. Schoem. || ἐνεχειρήσαμεν A (rasur.
corr.) Q. Cf. IV. 20. 2.
οὐσίαν Α, αἰτίαν Q. Cf. Lys. 19. 29. 6. κληρο-
νόμους: corr. Bekk., είναι post έβουλήθημεν addere malit Scheib.
47. ι. ὑμᾶς QA, corr. Α' || ἐν ἀμφοτέροις om. Q.
4.
ὅτε Dobr., Cob.
4.
5. και ante συγγενείς om. Α.
1, 2. ὦ ἀθηναῖοι : corr. Turr.
Cf. §§ 26. 8, 49. 2, IV. 26. I,
v. 8. 5, VI. 64. 5, VIII. 2. 2, 30. 3, 39. 5, IX. 2. 7, XI. 5. 7, 10. 1, 35. 6, 40. 2, 50. 8.
6. προείχοντο Q, προκρίνοντας coni. Hertlein, προείλοντο damnat Cob.
48. Ι. πάντως Dobr.
I, 2. δεῖ προσέχειν Q. 2. ἐν ᾧ Schoem., <ἐν>
ὅσῳ del. ταῦτα λέγοντες ἀποφαίνωσι καὶ uel ὅσῳ γὰρ ἂν < μᾶλλον > del. ταῦτα λέγοντες
Dobr., ὅσῳ γὰρ ἂν < ἀεὶ uel μᾶλλον ἀεὶ> ταὐτὰ Buerm. (Hermes 19. 327). Quidni
ὅσοι γὰρ ἂν τἀναντία λέγοντες ἀναβαίνωσι?
4. αὐτῷ ὕστερον Q Η ἀλλὰ add.
Biass.
OR. I.
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΚΛΕΩΝΥΜΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
19
υσ
καὶ νῦν ἐβούλετο ἡμᾶς μὲν μηδὲν τῶν αὑτοῦ λαβεῖν, σφίσι
δ᾽ αὐτοῖς βεβαιῶσαι τὴν δωρεάν, καὶ ταῦτα πάντα λέγοντες 49
καὶ διισχυριζόμενοι μηδέτερον ἀποφαίνωσι, μήθ' ὡς ἐγ
γυτέρω τῷ γένει προσήκουσι μήθ' ὡς οἰκειότερον ἡμῶν
πρὸς Κλεώνυμον διέκειντο, ὑμεῖς ἐνθυμεῖσθε ὅτι ἐκείνου
κατηγοροῦσιν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὡς δίκαιόν ἐστι τὸ πρᾶγμα διδάσ
κουσιν ὑμᾶς. ὥσθ' ὑμεῖς ὅταν μὲν τοῖς τούτων λόγοις 50
πιστεύητε, οὐ τούτους προσήκει ποιῆσαι τῶν ἐκείνου κληρο-
νόμους, ἀλλὰ παράνοιαν Κλεωνύμου καταγιγνώσκειν, ὅταν
δὲ τοῖς ἡμετέροις, ἐκεῖνόν τε νομίζειν ὀρθῶς βεβουλεύσθαι
λῦσαι τὰς διαθήκας βουλόμενον, ἡμᾶς τε μὴ συκοφαντεῖν
ἀλλὰ δικαίως τούτων αμφισβητεῖν. ἔπειτα, ὦ ἄνδρες, 51
ἐνθυμεῖσθε ὅτι οὐχ οἷόν τε ὑμῖν ἐστι κατὰ τοὺς τούτων
λόγους γνῶναι περὶ αὐτῶν. πάντων γὰρ ἂν εἴη δεινότατον,
εἰ τῶν ἀντιδίκων γιγνωσκόντων ἡμᾶς δίκαιον εἶναι τὸ μέρος
αὐτῶν λαβεῖν, ὑμεῖς ἅπαντ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἔχειν ψηφίσαισθε, καὶ
τούτους μὲν ἡγήσαισθε χρῆναι πλείω λαβεῖν ὧν αὐτοὶ σφᾶς
αὐτοὺς ἠξίωσαν, ἡμᾶς δὲ μηδὲ τούτων ἀξιώσαιτε ὧν οἱ
ἀντίδικοι συγχωροῦσιν ἡμῖν.
5. νῦν μὲν A, Scheib., νῦν μόνους coni. Buerm. coll. §§ 20, 28, 38 | ἡμᾶς μὲν Q,
Bekk., Schoem., Turr. Cf. II. 26. 5.
3· τῷ
49. 1, 2. λέγοντες καὶ del. Cob., Buerm. (Hermes r9. 352), καὶ in uers. add. Αl.
Cf. § 47.5.
2. ἀποφήνωσι: corr. Schoem. || μήθ' Bekk. : μηδ' Q, μηδ' Α.
6. διδάσκουσιν ἡμᾶς Q.
ὅταν μὲν om. Q.
del. Bait.
50. I.
51. 2. ὑμῖν Mai, Bekk.: ἡμῖν.
3. κλεώνυμον Q.
5. ὑμεῖς om. Q.
(ψηφίζεσθε α, ξ inter scribendum corr.), ἡγήσεσθε: corr. Bekk.
5, 6.
ψηφίσεσθε
Cf. X. 21. 8.
7. ἀξιώσετε corr. Bekk. Cf. § 21. 8.
2-2
1
II
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΜΕΝΕΚΛΕΟΥΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ.
ΥΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ.
Ο
Μενεκλέους ποιησαμένου υἱὸν καὶ ἐπιβιώσαντος τῇ ποιήσει εἴκοσι
τρία ἔτη, ἀδελφῶν ἀμφισβητησάντων τοῦ κλήρου ἐμαρτύρησέ
τις Φιλωνίδης μὴ εἶναι τὸν κλῆρον ἐπίδικον, καταλείψαντος
υἱὸν Μενεκλέους. τούτῳ ἐπέσκηψαν ψευδομαρτυρίας οἱ
ἀδελφοί, καὶ πρὸς τούτους ὁ παῖς ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ τὴν ἀπολογίαν 5
εἰσέρχεται. Ἔστι δὲ ὁ λόγος οὗτος ἐναντίος τῷ περὶ τοῦ
Κλεωνύμου κλήρου· ἐκεῖ μὲν γὰρ ὑπὲρ συγγενείας εἶπεν, ὧδε
δὲ ὑπὲρ διαθήκης. Ἡ στάσις ἀντίληψις κατὰ στοχασμόν·
λέγει γὰρ ὅτι ἐξῆν αὐτῷ ποιεῖν ἑαυτῷ υἱόν. εἶτα τὸ στοχαστ
τικόν, ὅτι οὐ πεισθεὶς γυναικὶ ἐποιήσατό με.
Ἡγούμην μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες, εἴ τις καὶ ἄλλος ἐποιήθη
ὑπό τινος
κατὰ τοὺς νόμους, καὶ ἐγὼ ποιηθῆναι, καὶ οὐκ
ἄν ποτε εἰπεῖν οὐδένα τολμῆσαι ὡς ἐποιήσατό με Μενεκλῆς
παρανοῶν ἢ γυναικὶ πιθόμενος· ἐπειδὴ δὲ ὁ θεῖος οὐκ ὀρθῶς
βουλευόμενος, ὡς ἐγώ φημι, πειρᾶται ἐξ ἅπαντος τρόπου
τὸν ἀδελφὸν τὸν αὐτοῦ τεθνεῶτα ἄπαιδα καταστῆσαι, οὔτε
τοὺς θεοὺς τοὺς πατρῴους οὔθ᾽ ὑμῶν αἰσχυνόμενος οὐδένα,
Ο
II.
Tit. et hyp. om. Q. Cf. Harp. s.u. ἀγενής (Poll. 3. 15); ἀντὶ τοῦ ἄπαις παρ
Ισαίῳ ἐν τῷ ὑπὲρ Μενεκλέους κλήρου. Vocem in § 45. 4 restituit Blass, in adscripta
aliqua lege uel testimonio exstitisse coni. Schoem.
Hyp. 5.
αὑτοῦ Tychsen, Bekk., Schoem.
2.
3.
πειθόμενος: corr. Cob.
25. 8, 38. 2, IX. 36. 2, 3, XI. 6. 9. 6. άπαιδα τεθνεῶτα : transp. Nab.
1. I. ἡγοῦμε* A, corr. Α', γούμην littera initiali omissa Q. Cf. uit. Is. I.
Toùs in uers. add. A¹. Cf. §§ 2. 2, 4. 6, 39. 2, III. 70. 7, VI. 14. 10, VII. 4. 9.
ὡς ἐποιήσατο] ὡς ἄρα ποιήσαιτο Cob.
4.
Cf. §§ 19. I,
7. vµâs Q.
ΙΟ
OR. II. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΜΕΝΕΚΛΕΟΥΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
21
ἐμοὶ ἀνάγκη ἐστὶ πολλὴ βοηθεῖν τῷ τε πατρὶ τῷ ποιησαμένῳ
με καὶ ἐμαυτῷ. διδάξω οὖν ὑμᾶς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὡς προσηκόντως 2
τε καὶ κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ἐγένετο ἡ ποίησις, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν
ἐπίδικος ὁ κλῆρος ὁ Μενεκλέους ὄντος ἐμοῦ ὑοῦ ἐκείνου, ἀλλ᾽
ὁ μάρτυς διεμαρτύρησε τἀληθῆ. δέομαι δ' ὑμῶν ἁπάντων
καὶ ἀντιβολῶ καὶ ἱκετεύω μετ᾿ εὐνοίας ἀποδέχεσθαί μου τοὺς
λόγους.
Ο
"
Επώνυμος γὰρ ὁ ᾿Αχαρνεύς, ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἡμέτερος, ὦ 3
ἄνδρες, φίλος ἦν καὶ ἐπιτήδειος Μενεκλεῖ, καὶ ἐχρῆτο
οἰκείως· ἦμεν δὲ αὐτῷ παῖδες τέτταρες ἡμεῖς, δύο μὲν
ὑεῖς, δύο δὲ θυγατέρες. τελευτήσαντος δὲ τοῦ πατρὸς
ἐκδίδομεν ἡμεῖς τὴν πρεσβυτέραν ἀδελφήν, ἐπειδὴ εἶχεν
ὥραν, Λευκολόφῳ, προῖκα ἐπιδόντες εἴκοσι μνᾶς. καὶ ἀπ᾿ 4
ἐκείνου τοῦ χρόνου τετάρτῳ ἔτει ἢ πέμπτῳ ὕστερον ἥ τε
ἀδελφὴ ἡμῖν ἡ νεωτέρα σχεδὸν ἡλικίαν εἶχεν ἀνδρὶ συν-
οικεῖν, καὶ τῷ Μενεκλεῖ ἡ γυνὴ τελευτᾷ ἣν εἶχε πρότερον.
ἐπειδὴ οὖν ἐκείνῃ τὰ νομιζόμενα ἐποίησεν ὁ Μενεκλῆς, ᾔτει
τὴν ἀδελφὴν ἡμᾶς, ὑπομιμνῄσκων τήν τε φιλίαν τὴν τοῦ
πατρὸς καὶ ἑαυτοῦ, καὶ ὡς πρὸς ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς ἦν διακεί
μενος· καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰδότες ὅτι καὶ ὁ πατὴρ οὐδενὶ ἂν ἔδωκεν 5
ἥδιον ἢ ἐκείνῳ, δίδομεν αὐτῷ, οὐκ ἄπροικον, ὡς οὗτος λέγει
ἑκάστοτε, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἴσην προῖκα ἐπιδόντες ἥνπερ καὶ τῇ
πρεσβυτέρᾳ ἀδελφῇ ἐπέδομεν· καὶ ἐκ τοῦ τρόπου τούτου,
πρότερον ὄντες αὐτοῦ φίλοι, κατέστημεν οἰκεῖοι. Καὶ ὡς
Ο
8. τῷ τε Bremi: τε τῶ. Cf. VI. 2. 4, VIII. I. 7, XI. 12. 9.
διδάσκω: corr. Bekk. || < μὲν > οὖν malit idem.
2. I.
2.
9.
με om. Q.
τοὺς supra uers.
add. A¹. Cf. § 1. 2.
3. ὁ ante Μενεκλέους om. Q. Cf. I. 4. 5 || υἱοῦ ἐμοῦ Q.
Malit viéos Nab. Cf. IV. 3. 3, IX. 3. 7, X. 26. 4 || ėkeivų Hertlein.
4. δ' om. Q.
.
Cf. III. 6. 7, VIII. 14. 3, IX. 35. 1, 37. 6, XI. 26. 4, 29. 1.
οἰκείως Bekk. : οἰκείω || παῖδες τέσσαρες
4. θυγατέρ** Α, corr. Α', θυγατέρας Q.
3.
3. 1. χαρνεύς Q.
inferiore Q.
corr. A¹. Cf. § 5. 3, 1. 39. 6.
ἔτει ἢ πέμπτῳ Q, ἔτει * * A.
**
4. προτέραν malit Scheib.
4.
2.
VIII. 7· 4·
ἠμεῖς in marg.
6. ἐπιδή καντες Α,
Fuisse in A ἢ é coni. Scheib.
5. αἰτεῖ Cob.
I, 2.
Cf. v. 5. 10,
6. τὴν ante του om. Α.
Cf. I. 15. 4.
Cf. I. 4. 5.
7. ὑμᾶς A, corr. Α' || αὐτοὺς Saupp.: αὐτὸς.
5. I. ὅτι καὶ ὁ πατὴρ om. Q.
ἥδιον ἔδωκεν Q. 2. ἢ ἐκείνῳ del.
Herw. 3. ἐπικαδόντες A. Cf. § 3. 6. 5. ὡς in uers. add. Αl.
Cf. 1. 35. 3,
III. 39. 7.
22
OR. II.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
ἔλαβεν εἴκοσι μνᾶς ὁ Μενεκλῆς ἐπὶ τῇ ἀδελφῇ προῖκα,
τὴν μαρτυρίαν ταύτην πρῶτον βούλομαι παρασχέσθαι.
MAPTYPIA.
6 Ἐκδόντες τοίνυν τὰς ἀδελφάς, ὦ ἄνδρες, καὶ ὄντες
αὐτοὶ ἐν ἡλικίᾳ ἐπὶ τὸ στρατεύεσθαι ἐτραπόμεθα, καὶ
ἀπεδημήσαμεν μετὰ Ἰφικράτους εἰς Θρᾴκην· ἐκεῖ δὲ δό-
ξαντές του εἶναι ἄξιοι περιποιησάμενοί τι κατεπλεύσαμεν
δεῦρο, καὶ καταλαμβάνομεν τῇ πρεσβυτέρᾳ ἀδελφῇ ὄντα
δύο παιδία, τὴν δὲ νεωτέραν, ἣν εἶχε Μενεκλῆς, ἄπαιδα.
η καὶ ἐκεῖνος δευτέρῳ μηνὶ ἢ τρίτῳ, πολλὰ ἐπαινέσας τὴν
ἀδελφήν, λόγους ἐποιεῖτο πρὸς ἡμᾶς, καὶ ἔφη τήν τε
ἡλικίαν ὑφορᾶσθαι τὴν ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τὴν ἀπαιδίαν· οὔκουν
ἔφη δεῖν ἐκείνην τῆς χρηστότητος τῆς ἑαυτῆς τοῦτο ἀπο-
λαῦσαι, ἄπαιδα καταστῆναι συγκαταγηράσασαν αὐτῷ·
8 ἱκανὸς γὰρ ἔφη αὐτὸς ἀτυχῶν εἶναι. [καὶ ἐκ ταύτης τῆς
λέξεως δηλοῖ ὅτι φιλῶν ἀπεβάλετο· οὐδεὶς γὰρ μισῶν τινα
ἱκετεύει αὐτῷ.] ἐδεῖτο οὖν ἡμῶν δοῦναι χάριν ταύτην
αὑτῷ, ἐκδοῦναι ἄλλῳ αὐτὴν μετὰ τῆς γνώμης τῆς ἑαυτοῦ.
καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐκελεύομεν αὐτὸν πείθειν αὐτὴν περὶ τούτων·
ὅ τι γὰρ <ἂν> ἐκείνη πεισθῇ, τοῦτ' ἔφαμεν ποιήσειν.
9 κἀκείνη τὸ μὲν πρῶτον οὐδ᾽ ἠνέσχετ᾽ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος,
προϊόντος δὲ τοῦ χρόνου μόλις επείσθη· καὶ οὕτως ἐκδίδομεν
αὐτὴν Ἠλείῳ Σφηττίῳ, καὶ ὁ Μενεκλῆς τήν τε προίκα
ἀποδίδωσιν αὐτῆς, μετασχὼν τοῦ οἴκου τῆς μισθώσεως
6. ὁ Μενεκλῆς om. Q.
7.
post μαρτυρίαν Herw. Cf. vii. 1o. 5.
6. 3. ἐπεδημήσαμεν Α, corr. Αl.
Bremi.
Cob.
7. I.
4.
πρῶτον om. Q || ὑμῖν add. post βούλομαι Nab.,
8. Tit. om. Q, ut tamen spatium uacet.
Cf. IX. 21. 4.
3, 4. δόξαντες του: corr.
6. είχε] εἶχεν ὁ Q.
Τι supra uers. add. Αl.
μηνὶ δευτέρῳ Q.
2. καὶ ἔφη del. Cob. || ἔφην Q.
4. ἔφη del.
5. ἄπαιδα καταστῆναι συγκαταγηράσασαν αὑτῷ om. Q || ἄπαιδα καταστῆναι
del. Cob. || συγκαταγηρᾶσαν Dobr. coll. Moer. p. 115, Scheib. Sed cf. Cob. Mnem.
II. 124·
6. ἀτυχῶν ἔφη αὐτὸς Q | ἔφη del. Cob.
8. 1-3. Gloss. del. Saupp.
2. δῆλον Bekk., uolg. || ἀπεβάλλετο ο Ι
τινα om. Q. 3. αὐτὸν Q || δοῦναι χάριν ταύτην αὑτῷ del. Cob. 6. ἂν add.
Dobr. Cf. III. 54. I, 6ο. 6 || ποιῆσαι Q. Cf. v. 23. I, IX. 19. 5, ΧΙ. 22. 8.
9. 1. ἠνέσχετο Q.
4. ἐπιδίδωσιν: corr. Jenicke. Cf.
VIII. 8. 9 || αὐτῆς Buerm.: αὐτῶ AQ, defendit Jenicke, secl. Scheib., Cob.
3. σφητίω Α.
OR. II. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΜΕΝΕΚΛΕΟΥΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
23
ત
τῶν παίδων τῶν Νικίου, καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια, ἃ ἦλθεν ἔχουσα
παρ᾽ ἐκεῖνον, καὶ τὰ χρυσίδια, ἃ ἦν, δίδωσιν αὐτῇ. μετὰ 10
δὲ ταῦτα χρόνου διαγενομένου ἐσκόπει ὁ Μενεκλῆς ὅπως μὴ
ἔσοιτο ἄπαις, ἀλλ᾽ ἔσοιτο αὐτῷ ὅς τις ζῶντά τε γηροτροφήσοι
καὶ τελευτήσαντα θάψοι αὐτὸν καὶ εἰς τὸν ἔπειτα χρόνον
τὰ νομιζόμενα αὐτῷ ποιήσοι. τούτῳ μὲν οὖν ἑώρα ἕνα
μόνον ὑὸν ὄντα, ὥστε ἐδόκει αὐτῷ αἰσχρὸν εἶναι ἄπαιδα
τοῦτον καθιστάντα ἀρρένων παίδων αὑτῷ κελεύειν δοῦναι
τοῦτον εἰσποιήσασθαι. ηὕρισκεν οὖν οὐδέν᾽ ἄλλον οἰκειό- 11
τερον ὄνθ᾽ ἡμῶν ἑαυτῷ. λόγους οὖν πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἐποιεῖτο,
καὶ ἔφη δοκεῖν αὐτῷ καλῶς ἔχειν, ἐπειδὴ οὕτως αὐτῷ ἡ
τύχη συνέβη ὥστε ἐκ τῆς ἀδελφῆς τῆς ἡμετέρας παῖδας
αὐτῷ μὴ γενέσθαι, ἐκ ταύτης τῆς οἰκίας ὑὸν αὑτῷ ποιή
σασθαι, ὅθεν καὶ φύσει παῖδας ἐβουλήθη ἂν αὑτῷ γενέσθαι·
“ὑμῶν οὖν ἔφη “ βούλομαι τὸν ἕτερον ποιήσασθαι, ὁποτέρῳ
ὑμῶν καλῶς ἔχει.” καὶ ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὁ ἐμὸς ἀκούσας ταῦτα, 12
[ἐπειδὴ προετίμησεν αὐτοὺς πάντων,] ἐπῄνεσέ τε τοὺς
λόγους αὐτοῦ, καὶ εἶπεν ὅτι δέοιτο ἥ τε ἡλικία καὶ ἡ
παροῦσα ἐρημία ἐκείνου τοῦ θεραπεύσοντος αὐτὸν καὶ ἐπι-
δημήσοντος· “ ἐμοὶ μὲν οὖν ἔφη “ συμβαίνει ἀποδημία,
ὡς σὺ οἶσθα· ὁ δὲ ἀδελφὸς ουτοσί” ἐμὲ λέγων “ τῶν τε
σῶν ἐπιμελήσεται καὶ τῶν ἐμῶν, ἐὰν βούλῃ τοῦτον ποιή-
5.
Ο
Ο
τοῦ Νικίου: corr. Bekk. Cf. IV. 4. 2 || θαιμάτια Cob. 6. ἐκείνου Q.
10. 3. ζώντά τε Bekk., Schoem., Turr.: ζῶντά γε Q, ζώντα A, Scheib., Buerm.
Cf. §§ 25. 4, 45. 6, IV. II. 8 || γηροτροφήσει Q et, ut putat Buerm., fortasse Al
αὐτὸν om. Q, del. Cob. Cf. IX. 17. 6. 5. αὐτῷ del. Rosenberg || ποιήσει Q.
7, 8. αὑτῷεἰσποιήσασθαι del. et καθιστάναι coni. Nab. || κελεύει (. 8. τοῦτον]
τὸν υἱὸν Dobr., Scheib.
4.
Cf. VI. 22. I.
11. I. εὕρισκεν Α, εὑρίσκομεν @ || οὐδένα ἄλλον Q.
ἐμαυτῷ Q, inter scribendum corr.
3.
Scheib. Cf. III. 26. 2, 75. 2, IV. 19. 3, V.
ΙΧ. 24. 6, 25. 6 || αὐτῷ post οὕτως om. Q.
2.
αὐτῶν A, corr. Α',
καὶ ἔφη del. Cob. || αὑτῷ post δοκεῖν Turr.,
27. 3, 5, 6, VI. 35. 6, vII. 8. 6, VIII. 37. 8,
7· ὁπωτέρω Α.
8. ἔχειν Q.
Gloss. del. Dobr.: ἡμᾶς πάντων Schoem.,
12. Ι. ὁ ἐμὸς om. A, Scheib. 2.
αὐτὸν πάντων Saupp., τοὺς αὑτοῦ πάντων Scheib. 3. καὶ ante ή om. Q. 4. θερα
πεύσαντος A, rasur. corr. || αὐτὸν del. Cob. || ἐπιδημήσαντος Q. Cf. 1. 1. 5.
5. ἔφη
om. Q || συμβαίνειν ἀποδημίαν Α: συμβαίνει ἀποδημεῖν Bremi, συμβαίνει ἀποδημεῖν ἀεὶ
J. Caspar Orelli, συμβαίνειν ἀποδημεῖν αὐτὸς σὺ οἶσθα Saupp., συμβαίνειν ἀποδημεῖν ἴσως
σὺ οἶσθα Scheib., συμβαίνειν ἀποδημίαν καὶ σὺ οἶσθα Kaibel. Soloecismos castigat Cob.
(Mnem. II. 127).
7. βούλει Α.
•
24
OR. II.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
13
Ο
σασθαι.” καὶ ὁ Μενεκλῆς καλῶς ἔφη αὐτὸν λέγειν, καὶ ἐκ
τοῦ τρόπου τούτου ποιεῖταί με.
ον
υν
Ο
Ὡς οὖν κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ἐγένετο ἡ ποίησις, τοῦτο ὑμᾶς
βούλομαι διδάξαι. καί μοι τὸν νόμον αὐτὸν ἀνάγνωθι,
ὃς κελεύει τὰ ἑαυτοῦ ἐξεῖναι διαθέσθαι ὅπως ἂν ἐθέλῃ,
ἐὰν μὴ παῖδες ἄρρενες ὦσι γνήσιοι. ὁ γὰρ νομοθέτης,
ὦ ἄνδρες, διὰ τοῦτο τὸν νόμον ἔθηκεν οὕτως, ὁρῶν μόνην
ταύτην καταφυγὴν οὖσαν τῆς ἐρημίας καὶ παραψυχὴν τοῦ
βίου τοῖς ἄπαισι τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τὸ ἐξεῖναι ποιήσασθαι
14 ὅν τινα ἂν βούλωνται. διδόντων οὖν τῶν νόμων αὐτῷ
ποιεῖσθαι διὰ τὸ εἶναι ἄπαιδα, ἐμὲ ποιεῖται, οὐκ ἐν δια-
θήκαις, ὦ ἄνδρες, γράψας, μέλλων ἀποθνῄσκειν, ὥσπερ
ἄλλοι τινὲς τῶν πολιτῶν, οὐδ᾽ ἀσθενῶν· ἀλλ᾽ ὑγιαίνων,
εὖ φρονῶν, εὖ νοῶν, ποιησάμενος εἰσάγει με εἰς τοὺς
φράτερας παρόντων τούτων, καὶ εἰς τοὺς δημότας με ἐγ
15 γράφει καὶ εἰς τοὺς ὀργεῶνας. καὶ τότε μὲν οὐδὲν ἀντέλεγον
αὐτῷ οὗτοι ὡς <οὐκ> εὖ φρονοῦντι· καίτοι πολὺ κάλλιον
ἦν ζῶντα πείθειν ἐκεῖνον, εἴ τι βούλοιντο, μᾶλλον ἢ τελευ-
τήσαντα ὑβρίζειν καὶ ἐξερημοῦν αὐτοῦ τὸν οἶκον. ἐπεβίω
γὰρ ἐκεῖνος μετὰ τὴν ποίησιν οὐκ ἐνιαυτὸν ἕνα ἢ δύο,
ἀλλὰ τρία καὶ εἴκοσιν ἔτη· καὶ ἐν τούτῳ τῷ χρόνῳ,
τοσούτῳ ὄντι, οὐδὲν ἐκεῖνος μετέγνω τῶν πεπραγμένων
ἑαυτῷ, διὰ τὸ παρὰ πάντων ὁμολογεῖσθαι ὅτι ἦν ὀρθῶς
16 βεβουλευμένος. καὶ ὡς ἀληθῆ λέγω ταῦτα, τῆς μὲν ποιή-
σεως ὑμῖν τοὺς φράτερας καὶ τοὺς ὀργεῶνας καὶ τοὺς
8.
καὶ ὁ Μενεκλῆς om. Q.
9. ἐμὲ Bremi.
13. I. < μὲν > οὖν Nab. || ἐπεγένετο: corr. Tychsen, Dobr., Emper (Opusc.
p. 316).
2. βούλεται Q || αὐτὸν om. Α. 3. κελεύει damnat Cob. || αὐτοῦ Q.
8. ἂν] ἐὰν Α.
5. μόνην] μόνον Q.
14. 1. αὐτῷ τῶν νόμων Q. 2. ποιεῖσθαι —ἄπαιδα del. Nab. 4. πολιτῶν]
ἀνθρώπων Orelli, Bekk. edd. ante Buerm. omnes. Ed. Goettingensem inspicere non
licuit, πολιτῶν habet Tyrwhitt. 5. εὖ νοῶν del. Dobr., Cob., οὐ παρανοῶν malit
Rosenberg. 7. ὀρεγῶνας Q. Cf. §§ 16. 2, 17. 3. Idem tamen praebet ὀργεῶνας § 45. 2.
15. I. τότε Α', τοτε Α.
2. οὐκ add. Dobr., Schoem.: οὐ φρονοῦντι
Tyrwhitt, Bekk.
corr. Al.
16.
1
Cf. IV. 3. 3.
9. βεβουλευμένως Q.
6. κρία A, corr. Al ‖ τῷ τούτω χρόνω Q.
2.
7.
οὐδὲ Α,
ἡμῖν A, om. Q: corr. Tyrwhitt || καὶ τοὺς ὀργεῶνας post δημότας trans-
ponere uolt Fuhr coll. §§ 14, 17, 45 || ỏpeyŵvas Q.
OR. II. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΜΕΝΕΚΛΕΟΥΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
25
δημότας παρέξομαι μάρτυρας, ὡς δ᾽ ἐξῆν ποιήσασθαι, τὸν
νόμον αὐτὸν ὑμῖν ἀναγνώσεται, καθ' ὃν ἡ ποίησις ἐγένετο.
Καί μοι τὰς μαρτυρίας ἀνάγνωθι ταύτας καὶ τὸν νόμον.
οι
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑΙ. ΝΟΜΟΣ.
αν
Ὡς μὲν τοίνυν ἐξῆν τῷ Μενεκλεῖ ποιήσασθαι ὑὸν αὐτῷ 17
ὅν τινα ἐβούλετο, ὁ νόμος αὐτὸς δηλοῖ· ὡς δὲ ἐποιήσατο,
οἵ τε φράτερες καὶ οἱ δημόται καὶ οἱ ὀργεῶνες ὑμῖν μεμαρ
τυρήκασιν· ὥστε περιφανῶς ἀποδέδεικται ἡμῖν, ὦ ἄνδρες,
ὁ μάρτυς τἀληθῆ διαμεμαρτυρηκώς, καὶ οὗτοι πρός γε τὴν
ποίησιν αὐτὴν λόγον οὐδ᾽ ὁντινοῦν δύναιντ᾽ ἂν ἀντειπεῖν.
πραχθέντων δὲ τούτων ἐσκόπει ὁ Μενεκλῆς γυναικά μοι, 18
καὶ ἔφη με χρῆναι γῆμαι· καὶ ἐγὼ λαμβάνω τὴν τοῦ
Φιλωνίδου θυγατέρα. κἀκεῖνός τε τὴν πρόνοιαν εἶχεν
ὥσπερ εἰκός ἐστι πατέρα περὶ νέος ἔχειν, καὶ ἐγὼ τὸν
αὐτὸν τρόπον ὥσπερ γόνῳ ὄντα πατέρα ἐμαυτοῦ ἐθεράπευόν
τε καὶ ᾔσχυνόμην, καὶ ἐγὼ καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἡ ἐμή, ὥστ᾽ ἐκεῖνον
πρὸς τοὺς δημότας ἐπαινεῖν ἅπαντας.
Ο
Οτι δὲ οὐ παρανοῶν οὐδὲ γυναικὶ πιθόμενος ὁ Μενεκλής 19
ἐποιήσατο, ἀλλ᾽ εὖ φρονῶν, ἐνθένδε ἐστὶν ὑμῖν ῥᾴδιον
ἐπιγνῶναι. πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ ἡ ἀδελφή, περὶ ἧς οὗτος τὸν
πλεῖστον τοῦ λόγου πεποίηται, ὡς ἐκείνῃ πεισθεὶς ἐμὲ
ἐποιήσατο, πολλῷ πρότερον ἦν ἐκδεδομένη ἢ τὴν ποίησιν
γενέσθαι, ὥστ᾽ εἴ γ᾽ ἐκείνῃ πεισθεὶς τὸν ὑὸν ἐποιεῖτο, τῶν
ἐκείνης παίδων τὸν ἕτερον ἐποιήσατ᾽ ἄν· δύο γάρ εἰσιν
αὐτῇ. ἀλλ᾽, ὦ ἄνδρες, οὐχ ὑπ' ἐκείνης πεισθεὶς ἐμὲ ἐποιή- 20
4. ἡμῖν ο ΙΙ καθ' δν—ἐγένετο del. Nab. || ἡ supra uers. add. A'. Cf. XI. 21. 4.
5. τὸν om. Q. 6. Titt. in marg. A, om. Q.
17. 2. αὐτὸς ὑμῖν Q.
3. καὶ οἱ δημόται om. Q | ὀρεγῶνες Q.
6. δύναιτ' ἂν Q.
4· ἡμῖν
Q, uolg., ὑμῖν A. Pronomen delere malit Buerm. Cf. VI. IO. 2. 5. μεμαρτυρηκώς
A, δια in marg. add. Α'.
corr.
18. 2. καὶ ἔφη με χρῆναι γῆμαι del. Herw. || ἔφη | χρή με Q, inter scribendum
3. τὴν del. Cob. || τοιαύτην post πρόνοιαν addere uolt Scheib.
Bekk. (in Addendis p. 601) || viéws Q.
5. πατέρα ὄντα Q.
4. ἥνπερ
7. ἅπαντα Q.
19. 1. πειθόμενος: corr. Cob. Cf. § 1. 4 || ὁ Μενεκλῆς del. et έμέ substituit Nab.
ἐστι ῥάδιον ὑμῖν Q. 3. γὰρ in marg. inferiore Q || τὸν] τὸ Α. 5. ἢ]
πρινὴ Α, πρὶν ἢ Bekk., Schoem., πρὶν Scheib.
6. εἴ γε α || τὸν ὑὸν ἐποιεῖτο] ἐμὲ
ἐποιήσατο Q.
2.
7· ἐποιήσατ᾽ ἂν in rasur. add. Α'.
26
OR. II.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
σατο ὑόν, ἀλλὰ μάλιστα μὲν ὑπὸ τῆς ἐρημίας [ἐπείσθη],
δεύτερον δὲ διὰ τὰς προειρημένας αἰτίας καὶ διὰ τὴν
εὔνοιαν τὴν ὑπάρχουσαν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα τὸν ἐμόν, τρίτον
δὲ διὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι συγγενῆ μηδέν᾽ ἄλλον αὐτῷ, ὁπόθεν
ἂν ἐποιήσατο ὑόν. ταῦτα τηλικαῦτ᾽ <ὄντα> ἐνῆγεν ἐμὲ
ποιήσασθαι· ὥστε οὐ παραφρονῶν φαίνεται οὐδὲ τῇ γυναικὶ
πεισθείς, εἰ μὴ ἄρα τὴν ἐρημίαν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν ἀπαιδίαν
21 οὗτος βούλεται τὸ ὄνομα τοῦτο προσαγορεύειν. ἡδέως δ'
ἄν μοι δοκῶ τούτου πυθέσθαι τοῦ φάσκοντος εὖ φρονεῖν,
τίνα ποιήσασθαι ἐχρῆν [ἀπὸ] τῶν συγγενῶν; πότερα τὸν
ὑὸν τὸν τούτου; ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἂν αὐτῷ ἔδωκεν, ἄπαιδα αὑτὸν
καθιστάς· οὐχ οὕτως οὗτός ἐστι φιλοχρήματος. ἀλλὰ τὸν
τῆς ἀδελφῆς ἢ τὸν τῆς ἀνεψιᾶς ἢ τὸν τοῦ ἀνεψιοῦ; ἀλλὰ τὴν
ἀρχὴν οὐκ ἐγένετο αὐτῷ οὐδεὶς τούτων τῶν συγγενῶν.
22 οὐκοῦν ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἦν αὐτῷ ἄλλον τινὰ ποιήσασθαι μᾶλλον
ἢ ἄπαιδα καταγηρᾶν, ὥσπερ οὗτος ἀξιοῖ νυνὶ αὐτόν. ἐγὼ
τοίνυν πάντας [ἀνθρώπους] ἂν οἶμαι ὁμολογῆσαι ὑμᾶς
ὡς οὐκ ἂν ποιησάμενος ἄλλον οἰκειότερον ἐμοῦ ἐποιήσατ'
ἄν. δειξάτω γὰρ οὗτος ὑμῖν. ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἄν ποτε δύναιτο·
ἦν γὰρ οὐδεὶς ἄλλος συγγενὴς αὐτῷ πλὴν τούτων.
23 ᾿Αλλὰ νῦν οὗτος ἐπιτιμῶν αὐτῷ φαίνεται οὐχ ὅτι τὸν
ὑὸν οὐκ ἐποιήσατο τὸν αὑτοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι τὸ παράπαν ἐποιή
σατο καὶ οὐκ ἐτελεύτησεν ἄπαις, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ὁ ἐπιτιμᾷ,
ἐπίφθονον πρᾶγμα καὶ οὐ δίκαιον ποιῶν· ὄντων γὰρ αὐτῷ
20. 2. υἱὸν om. Q || ἐπείσθη del. Scheib.
3· δεύτερον δὲ] apud Q in
euanido uersus exitu uocis deútepov uestigia dispici possunt, num uoci dè satis uacet
spatii, incertum est | διὰ τὰς προειρημένας αἰτίας καὶ del. Albrecht.
Άνοιαν Α,
corr. Al
4.
6. τηλικαῦτ᾽ ὄντα Dobr.: τηνικαῦτα. Cf. 111. 18. 4 || ἐνῆγον Q. Cf.
IV. 23. 6, IX. 8. 2.
3.
ἀπὸ del. Buerm.,
5.
οὗτος del. Cob.
7.
οὐδεὶς αὐτῶ ΟΙ
21. 2. δοκῶ J. Caspar Orelli: ποθῶ | τοῦτο Q, Nab.
αὐτὸν Dobr., Scheib. || πότερον Q.
τούτων τῶν] τῶν τοιούτων Rosenberg.
22. 1. μᾶλλον del. Dobr., Cob.
Mnem. I I. 124. κατηγορεῖν Q.
3.
2. καταγηράναι Dobr. Sed cf. Cob.
ἀνθρώπους del. Bekk. ἀνους per dittographiam
ex ἂν natum esse monet Dobr. ὑμᾶς delebat Bremi, in ὁμοίως mutabat Jenicke.
ποιήσαιτ᾽ ἄν: corr. Dobr. probantibus Cob. et Buerm. (Hermes 19. 336), seruant
edd. omnes.
4.
6. γάρ om. Q.
23. 1. αὐτῷ νῦν Q.
2. τὸν αὑτοῦ Turr., Scheib., Buerm.: τὸν αὐτοῦ AQ,
edd. ante Turr. omnes, avroû sine articulo malit Scheib. Cf. 111. 78. 3, V. 39. 6.
OR. II. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΜΕΝΕΚΛΕΟΥΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
27
Ο
αν
παίδων ἐκείνῳ ὄντι ἄπαιδι καὶ ἀτυχοῦντι φαίνεται ἐπιτιμῶν.
καὶ τοῖς μὲν ἄλλοις ἅπασιν ἀνθρώποις καὶ Ἕλλησι καὶ 24
βαρβάροις δοκεῖ καλῶς οὗτος ὁ νόμος κεῖσθαι, ὁ περὶ
τῆς ποιήσεως, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο χρῶνται πάντες αὐτῷ· ὁ δὲ
θεῖος οὑτοσὶ οὐκ αἰσχύνεται τὸν αὐτοῦ ἀδελφὸν ταύτης
τῆς ἐξουσίας ἀποστερῶν νῦν, [τοῦ ποιήσασθαι,] ἧς οὐδὲ
τοῖς οὐδὲν γένει προσήκουσιν οὐδεὶς πώποτε ἐφθόνησεν.
οἶμαι δὲ καὶ τοῦτον, εἴ τις ἐρωτήσειεν αὐτὸν τί δή ποτ' 25
ἂν ἐποίησεν εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν τύχην ἐκείνῳ καταστάς, οὐκ
<ἂν> ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν εἰπεῖν ἢ ὅτι ἐποιήσατ᾽ ἂν ὅς τις αὐτὸν
ἔμελλε ζῶντά <τε> θεραπεύσειν καὶ τελευτήσαντα θάψειν
καὶ δῆλον ὅτι κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τοῦτον νόμον ἡ ποίησις
ἐγένετ᾽ ἄν, καθ' ὅν περ ἡ ἐμή. εἶτα αὐτὸς μὲν εἰ ἦν
ἄπαις, ἐποιήσατ᾽ ἄν· τὸν δὲ Μενεκλέα ποιήσαντα ταὐτὰ
τούτῳ παραφρονεῖν φησι καὶ γυναικὶ πιθόμενον ποιή
σασθαι. πῶς οὖν οὐ σχέτλια λέγων φαίνεται; ἐγὼ γὰρ 26
οἶμαι πολλῷ μᾶλλον τοῦτον παραφρονεῖν τῷ τε λόγῳ
τούτῳ ᾧ νυνὶ λέγει, καὶ οἷς ποιεῖ. τοῖς τε γὰρ νόμοις
καὶ τοῖς δικαίοις καὶ οἷς αὐτὸς ἐποίησεν ἂν τἀναντία λέγων
φαίνεται, καὶ οὐκ αἰσχύνεται αὑτῷ μὲν τὸν νόμον τὸν περὶ
τῆς ποιήσεως ποιῶν κύριον, τῷ δὲ ἀδελφῷ τὸν αὐτὸν τοῦτον
ζητῶν ἄκυρον ποιῆσαι.
5. ἄπαιδι ὄντι Q.
2. καλός Q.
24. 1. καίτοι τοῖς malit Scheib.
del. Cob. 4· οὐκ Α', ο** Α ]] τὸν ἀδελφὸν τὸν αὐτοῦ Q.
abesse malit Bekk., damnat Cob., uncis incl. Buerm.
uers. add. A¹.
2, 3· ὁ περὶ τῆς ποιήσεως
5. τοῦ ποιήσασθαι
6. οὐδὲν om. A, οὐ supra
Cf. XI. 19. 9.
Cf. III. 54. 1.
2.
ἐκείνω
4.
τε add.
25. I. τί δή ποτ' Tyrwhitt: ἢ δη ποτ' Α, πότ' Q.
τύχην Q. 3. ἂν add. Bekk. (in Addendis p. 6or).
Saupp. Cf. § 10. 3 | θεραπεύειν Q. 7. τὸν δὲ Μενεκλέα-ποιήσασθαι] Horum loco
superiora illa ὅς τις αὐτὸν-θάψειν iterum ponit Q.
8. πειθόμενον : corr. Cob
Cf. § I. 4.
8, 9. ποιῆσαι A, corr. Αl.
βα
I
26. 2. μᾶλλον πολλῶ A. Cf. iv. 18. 6, ν. 4. 5, VIII. 32. I, ΙΧ. 36. 7, Χ. 17. 1 ||
παραφρονεῖν τῷ] παραφρονεῖν φήσει καὶ γυναικὶ πειθόμενον ποιήσασθαι. πῶς οὖν οὐ
σχέτλια λέγων φαίνεται. ἐγὼ γὰρ οἶμαι πολλῶ τοῦτον παραφρονεῖν μᾶλλον τῷ Q.
3. ποιεῖται: corr. Bekk. (in Addendis p. 6or), probante Dobr. ita tamen ut τοῖς ἔργοις
ante ols addatur.
3, 4. τοῖς τε γὰρ νόμοις καὶ δικαίοις Α, τοῖς γὰρ δικαίοις καὶ
aútŵ A. Cf. I. 48. 5, IV. 21. 2, V. 12. I, VIII. 38. 2, 3.
6. ποιῶν ante τὸν περὶ (u. 5) collocat Q.
τοῖς νόμοις Q.
5. µèv
5, 6. τὸν περὶ τῆς ποιήσεως del. Col.
28
OR. II.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
27
cl
α
Τ
Ο
Εἶτα νῦν διὰ τί διαφερόμενος ζητεῖ οὗτος τὸν ἀδελφὸν
τὸν ἑαυτοῦ ἄπαιδα καταστῆσαι, ἄξιόν ἐστιν, ὦ ἄνδρες,
ἀκοῦσαι, εἰ μὲν γὰρ περὶ τοῦ ὀνόματός μοι διαφέρεται
καὶ ἀναίνεται, εἰ ἐγὼ ἔσομαι ὑὸς Μενεκλέους, πῶς οὐ
φθονερός ἐστιν; εἰ δὲ περὶ χρημάτων ἐστὶν ὁ λόγος αὐτῷ,
ἐπιδειξάτω ὑμῖν ὁποῖον χωρίον ἢ συνοικίαν ἢ οἰκίαν κατέ-
λιπεν ἐκεῖνος, ἃ ἐγὼ ἔχω νυνί. εἰ δὲ μηδὲν τούτων κατέλιπεν,
ἃ δ᾽ ἦν αὐτῷ ὑπόλοιπα, ἐπειδὴ τῷ ὀρφανῷ τὸ ἀργύριον
ἀπέδωκεν, οὗτος ἔλαβε ζῶντος ἐκείνου ἔτι, πῶς οὐ περιφανῶς
28 ἐξελέγχεται ἀναιδὴς ὤν; ὡς δὲ ἔχει, ἐγὼ ἐπιδείξω. ἐπειδὴ
γὰρ ἔδει τῷ ὀρφανῷ τὰ χρήματα ἀποδιδόναι, ὁ δ᾽ οὐκ
εἶχεν ὁπόθεν ἀποδῷ, τόκοι δὲ πολλοῦ χρόνου συνερρυη-
κότες ἦσαν αὐτῷ, τὸ χωρίον ἐπώλει. καὶ οὗτος καιροῦ
λαβόμενος καὶ βουλόμενος αὐτῷ ἐπηρεάζειν, ὅτι ἐμὲ ἐποιή
σατο, διεκώλυε τὸ χωρίον πραθῆναι, ἵνα κατοκώχιμον
γένηται καὶ ἀναγκασθῇ τῷ ὀρφανῷ ἀποστῆναι. ἠμφεσβήτει
οὖν αὐτῷ μέρους τινὸς τοῦ χωρίου, πρότερον οὐδεπώποτε
ἀμφισβητήσας, καὶ ἀπηγόρευε τοῖς ὠνουμένοις μὴ ὠνεῖσθαι.
29 κἀκεῖνος ἠγανάκτει, οἶμαι, καὶ ἠναγκάζετο ὑπολείπεσθαι
οὗ ἐμφεσβήτησεν οὗτος. τὸ δὲ ἄλλο ἀποδίδοται Φιλίππῳ
τῷ Πιθεῖ ἑβδομήκοντα μνῶν, καὶ οὕτω διαλύει τὸν ὀρφανόν,
ἑπτὰ μνᾶς καὶ τάλαντον ἀποδοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς τιμῆς τοῦ χωρίου·
τούτῳ δὲ λαγχάνει δίκην τῆς ἀπορρήσεως. λόγων δὲ
πολλῶν γενομένων καὶ ἔχθρας πολλῆς ἔδοξεν ἡμῖν χρῆναι,
ἵνα μή ποτε εἴπῃ τις ἐμὲ φιλοχρηματεῖν καὶ ἐχθροὺς ἀδελφοὺς
ὄντας αὐτοὺς καθιστάναι, ἐπιτρέψαι τῷ τε κηδεστῇ τῷ τούτου
1
27. I. νῦν om. Q | διαφερόμενος del. Cob. || οὗτος] οὕτως malit Bekk.
3, 4. διαφέρεται καὶ ἀναίνεται εἰ ἐγὼ ἔσομαι Α'χ, δια **κεται ὄ** ἔσομαι A secundum
Buerm. (Hermes 17. 397), qui διαφέρεται ὅτι ἔσομαι in textu ponit. Corr. ἀναίνεται in
ἀγανακτεῖ Schoem., in ἄχθεται Cob. 6. ἢ συνοικίαν om. Q.
7. κατέλιπεν Α. 8. ὑπόλοιπα] κατέλιπεν Q.
οὕτως post ἔχει addi iubet Bekk.
Cf. 1. 25. 3.
Q.
28.
IO.
2.
ἀποδίδοσθαι : corr. Bekk. (in Addendis p. 6ος).
6, 7. κατέλιπεν Α.
9. ἐκείνου ζῶντος
3. ἀποδοίη Cob.
5. διότι Q. Cf. III. 50. 6, VII. 13. 4. 6. κατόχιμον: corr. Dobr. coll. Moer. p. 221.
2. ο] οὐκ α || ἀποδιδόναι: corr. Bekk.
29.
1. ἠγανάγκτει Α.
corr. Saupp. Cf. VIII. 19. 3.
λεγομένων Q.
3. πιτθεῖ:
6. γενομένων Α,
αὐτοῦ : corr. Bremi || καθιστάνειν: corr.
5.
Tôs om. Q. Cf. v. 21. 5.
7· τίς εἴπη Q.
8.
Turr. Cf. Lys. 25. 3 (x) || κηδευτή Q.
OR. II. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΜΕΝΕΚΛΕΟΥΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
29
καὶ τοῖς φίλοις [διαιτῆσαι]. ἐκεῖνοι δ᾽ εἶπον ἡμῖν, εἰ μὲν 30
ἐπιτρέποιμεν αὐτοῖς ὥστε τὰ δίκαια διαγνώναι, οὐκ ἂν
ἔφασαν διαιτῆσαι· οὐδὲν γὰρ δεῖσθαι ἀπεχθέσθαι οὐδετέροις
ἡμῶν· εἰ δ᾽ ἐάσομεν αὐτοὺς γνῶναι τὰ συμφέροντα πᾶσιν,
ἔφασαν διαιτήσειν. καὶ ἡμεῖς, ἵνα δὴ πραγμάτων ἀπαλ-
λαγώμεν, ως γε δὴ ᾠόμεθα, οὕτως ἐπιτρέπομεν. καὶ ἐκεῖνοι 31
ὀμόσαντες ἡμῖν πρὸς τῷ βωμῷ τῷ τῆς ᾿Αφροδίτης Κεφαλῆσιν
τὰ συμφέροντα γνώσεσθαι, ἐδιῄτησαν ἡμᾶς ἀποστῆναι ὧν
οὗτος ἠμφεσβήτησε καὶ δοῦναι δωρεάν· οὐ γὰρ ἔφασαν
εἶναι ἄλλην ἀπαλλαγὴν οὐδεμίαν, εἰ μὴ μεταλήψονται οὗτοι
τῶν ἐκείνου. ἐκ δὲ τοῦ λοιποῦ χρόνου ἔγνωσαν ἡμᾶς εὖ 32
ποιεῖν ἀλλήλους καὶ λόγῳ καὶ ἔργῳ, καὶ ταῦτα ομόσαι
ἠνάγκασαν ἡμᾶς ἀμφοτέρους πρὸς τῷ βωμῷ ἢ μὴν ποιή-
σειν· καὶ ἡμεῖς ὠμόσαμεν εὖ ποιήσειν ἀλλήλους ἐκ τοῦ
ἐπιλοίπου χρόνου, κατὰ δύναμιν εἶναι, καὶ λόγῳ καὶ ἔργῳ.
καὶ ὡς ὅ τε ὅρκος ἐγένετο, καὶ ἔχουσιν οὗτοι ἃ ἐγνώσθη 33
αὐτοῖς ὑπὸ τῶν οἰκείων τῶν τούτου, εἶτα νυνὶ ταυτί τα
ἀγαθὰ ποιοῦσιν ἡμᾶς, τὸν μὲν τεθνεῶτα ἄπαιδα βουλόμενοι
καταστῆσαι, ἐμὲ δ᾽ ἐκβάλλειν ὑβρίσαντες ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου, τοὺς
γνόντας αὐτοὺς ὑμῖν παρέξομαι μάρτυρας, ἐὰν ἐθέλωσιν
ἀναβαίνειν—εἰσὶ γὰρ τούτων οἰκεῖοι,—εἰ δὲ μή, τοὺς παρα-
γενομένους. Καί μοι τὰς μαρτυρίας ἀνάγνωθι ταυτασί· σὺ 34
δ᾽ ἐπίλαβε τὸ ὕδωρ.
Ο
9. διαιτῆσαι del. Fuhr, δίαιταν Cob
el
α
30. I. εἶπον ἡμῖν del. Cob. || εἰ μὲν Bekk. : εἰ μὴ A, om. Q. 2. γνῶναι Q.
3· ἀπεχθέσθαι et hic et III. 73. 4, Fr. VII. 23. (Saupp.) malit Bekk.: ἀπέχθεσθαι AQ,
uolg. || οὐδετέροις apud Q in extremo uersu euanuit. 6. ώς γε δὴ ᾠόμεθα Saupp.
(Lycurgi Rell. 1834, p. 16ο): ὥστε δηώμεθα AQ, ὡς γε δὴ ᾤμεθα uel ὥσπερ δεῖν ᾤμεθα
coni. Dobr., qui tamen uerba ut ad ἵνα δὴ adscripta delere malit.
31. 2. τῆς Κεφαλῇσιν Dobr., Κεφαλῆσι Schoem.: κεφαλαίωσιν.
4.
3. διῄτησαν:
ἔφασαν del. Cob.
corr. Cobet. Cf. Voemel, Proleg. Gramm. ad Dem. § 66.
32. 2. ἀλλήλους A, corr. Al; item. u. 4. Cf. VII. 29. 2 || κατὰ δύναμιν εἶναι post
ἀλλήλους add. Herw.
3· ἡμᾶς ἠνάγκασαν Q. 4, 5. εὖ ποιήσειν—ἔργῳ del.
Herw.
33.
2.
4. ποιείν Α.
ἀπὸ Α.
34. I. Tàs *** A.
λ
ἐπι
5. λοιποῦ Α, λοίποῦ Α', ἐπιλοίπου Q, λοιποῦ tuetur Buerm.
3, 4. βουλόμενοι ἄπαιδα καταστῆσαι Q.
Fortasse geminauerat μap. Cf. 1. 6. 7.
ἐπίβαλε A: corr. Tyrwhitt. Cf. 111. 12. 7.
2. ἐπίβαλε Q,
30
OR. II.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑΙ.
Λαβὲ δή μοι τὰς μαρτυρίας ἐκείνας, ὡς τό τε χωρίον
ἑβδομήκοντα μνῶν ἐπράθη, καὶ ὡς ἀπέλαβεν ὁ ὀρφανὸς
ἑπτὰ καὶ ἑξήκοντα μνᾶς πραθέντος τοῦ χωρίου.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑΙ.
Ο
35 Ὁ θεῖος τοίνυν ουτοσί, ὦ ἄνδρες, κεκληρονομηκὼς τῶν
ἐκείνου ἔργῳ καὶ οὐ λόγῳ ὥσπερ ἐγώ, καὶ ἔχων ἐμοῦ
πολλῷ πλείω· ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ τὰς τριακοσίας δραχμὰς
ἔλαβον τὰς περιλειφθείσας ἀπὸ τῆς τιμῆς τοῦ χωρίου, καὶ
οἰκίδιον ὅ ἐστιν οὐκ ἄξιον τριῶν μνῶν· οὗτος δὲ πλέον
ἢ δέκα μνῶν χωρίον ἔχων, εἶτα προσέτι νῦν ἥκει τὸν οἶκον
36 αὐτοῦ ἐξερημώσων. καὶ ἐγὼ μὲν ὁ ποιητὸς ἐκεῖνόν τε
ζῶντα ἐθεράπευον, καὶ αὐτὸς καὶ ἡ ἐμὴ γυνή, θυγάτηρ
οὖσα τουτουὶ Φιλωνίδου, καὶ τῷ ἐμῷ παιδίῳ ἐθέμην τὸ
ὄνομα τὸ ἐκείνου, ἵνα μὴ ἀνώνυμος ὁ οἶκος αὐτοῦ γένηται,
καὶ τελευτήσαντα ἔθαψα ἀξίως ἐκείνου τε καὶ ἐμαυτοῦ,
καὶ ἐπίθημα καλὸν ἐπέθηκα, <καὶ τὰ τρίτα> καὶ τὰ ἔνατα
καὶ τἆλλα πάντα ἐποίησα τὰ περὶ τὴν ταφὴν ὡς οἷόν τε
37 κάλλιστα, ὥστε τοὺς δημότας ἐπαινεῖν ἅπαντας· οὗτος δὲ
ὁ συγγενής, ὁ ἐπιτιμῶν αὐτῷ ὅτι ὑὸν ἐποιήσατο, ζῶντος μὲν
τὸ χωρίον τὸ περιλειφθὲν αὐτῷ περιείλετο, τελευτήσαντα δ'
αὐτὸν ἄπαιδα καὶ ἀνώνυμον βούλεται καταστῆσαι. τοιοῦτός
ἐστιν οὗτος. Καὶ ὡς ἔθαψά τε ἐγὼ αὐτὸν καὶ τὰ τρίτα
καὶ τὰ ἔνατα ἐποίησα καὶ τἆλλα τὰ περὶ τὴν ταφήν, τὰς
μαρτυρίας ὑμῖν τῶν εἰδότων ἀναγνώσεται.
3. μαρτυρίαι Tyrwhitt: μαρτυρία A, tit. om. Q.
Scheib. 7. Tit. om. Q.
35. I.
I. 25. 4.
T
4. καὶ ante τὰς addi iubet
τοίνυν om. Q. 3. πλείονα: corr. Benseler | μὲν om. A, Scheib. Cf.
5. Ante μνῶν lit. a inducta Q || πλεῖον : corr. Benseler.
del. Papabasileios, ut ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ—χωρίον parenthesis fiat.
ἐξερημωθέντα Q.
36.
2.
7.
6. ἔχων
AŮTOû OM. Q ||
3.
Φιλωνίδου del. Nab.
Cf. III. 4. 3,
4. τὸ ante ἐκείνου om. Q.
6. καὶ τὰ τρίτα add. Nab. | ἔννατα: corr. Bekk.
Cf.
T
5. τρίτα Q, τρία Α, τρία Α1
εἰδότων in marg. add. Αl.
6. ἔννατα: corr. Bekk.
7· τῶν
θυγάτηρ Α, θεράπων Q.
VI. 5. 4, 6. 7, 6ο. 5 || παιδίω Α1Q, παιδίον Α.
ΙΧ. 36. 5 || αὐτοῦ] ἐκείνου Q.
37.
OR. II. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΜΕΝΕΚΛΕΟΥΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
31
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑΙ.
ων
Ὅτι τοίνυν ὁ Μενεκλῆς, ὦ ἄνδρες, ἐποιήσατό με οὐ 38
παρανοῶν οὐδὲ γυναικὶ πιθόμενος, βούλομαι ὑμῖν καὶ
αὐτοὺς τούτους μάρτυρας παρασχέσθαι, [καὶ] ἐμοὶ μαρτυ-
ροῦντας ἔργῳ καὶ οὐ λόγῳ, ἐξ ὧν ἔπραξαν αὐτοί, ὅτι ἐγὼ
τἀληθῆ λέγω. τὰς γὰρ διαλύσεις φαίνονται πρὸς ἐμὲ
ποιησάμενοι ἀμφότεροι οὗτοι, καὶ οὐ πρὸς τὸν Μενεκλέα,
καὶ ὀμόσαντες ὅρκους <ἐμοὶ> καὶ ἐγὼ τούτοις. καίτοι εἴ 39
γε μὴ κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ἐγεγένητο ἡ ποίησις, μηδὲ κληρο-
νόμος ἦν ἐγὼ τῶν Μενεκλέους ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν τούτων δεδοκιμαστ
μένος, τί ἔδει αὐτοὺς ὀμνύναι ἐμοὶ ἢ παρ᾿ ἐμοῦ λαμβάνειν
ὅρκους; οὐδὲν δήπου. οὐκοῦν ὁπότε ἐποίησαν ταῦτα,
φαίνονται αὐτοὶ οὗτοι ἐμοὶ μαρτυροῦντες ὅτι κατὰ τοὺς
νόμους ἐποιήθην [ἡ ποίησις] καὶ δικαίως εἰμὶ κληρονόμος
τῶν Μενεκλέους. ἐγὼ δ᾽ οἶμαι καταφανὲς ὑμῖν ἅπασι 40
τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι, ὡς καὶ παρὰ τούτων αὐτῶν ὁμολογούμενόν
ἐστιν ὅτι Μενεκλῆς οὐ παρεφρόνει, ἀλλὰ πολὺ μᾶλλον
οὗτος νυνί, ὅς γε ποιησάμενος τῆς ἔχθρας διάλυσιν πρὸς
ἡμᾶς καὶ ὀμόσας ὅρκους πάλιν νῦν ἥκει τὰ ὁμολογηθέντα
καὶ ὀμοθέντα παραβάς, καὶ ἀφελέσθαι με ἀξιοῖ ταυτὶ τὰ
λοιπά, οὕτως ὄντα μικρά. ἐγὼ δὲ εἰ μὴ πάνυ τὸ πρᾶγμα 41
αἰσχρὸν εἶναι ἐνόμιζον καὶ ἐπονείδιστον, προδοῦναι τὸν
πατέρα οὗ εἶναι ὠνομάσθην καὶ ὃς ἐποιήσατό με, ταχὺ
ἂν ἀπέστην αὐτῷ τῶν ἐκείνου· ἔστι γὰρ ὑπόλοιπον οὐδὲ
α
8. Tit. om. Q.
38. Ι. ἐποιήσατό με om. Q.
3. καὶ del. Cob., καὶ ταῦτ' coni. Buerm.
5. ἐμὲ Bremi: με.
6. o** A, où A¹.
2.
TO
πειθόμενος: corr. Cob. Cf. § I. 4.
4. ἐξ ὧν ἔπραξαν αὐτοὶ del. Cob.
7. έμοι add. Bremi.
39. 2. μή supra uers. add. Αl. Cf. IV. 14. 8 || τοὺς in marg. add. Αl. Cf.
5. οὐδὲν Tyrwhitt, Orelli, Buerm.: οὐδὲ ἓν AQ,
3· τῶν] τοῦ Α.
§ I. 2.
Bekk., Schoem., Turr., Scheib., οὐδὲ δι' ἓν Hertlein.
corr. Cob.
40. Ι. ἅπασιν ὑμῖν Q.
3. παραφρονεῖ Q.
2. ὁμολογοῦμεν **ν Α, ὁμολογοῦμενόν Α'.
7.
εποιήθη ἡ ποίησις:
5. ὡμολογηθέντα A, corr. Αl.
6. με in marg.
41. I. μή om. Q.
Cf. I. 6. 7.
3. καὶ ὃς ἐποιήσατό
3, 4. τάχ' ἂν Cob.
add. A¹.
2. τὸ
TÒ | TÒ A.
με in suspicionem uocat Scheib., del. Cob.
32
OR. II.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
42 ἕν, ὡς καὶ ὑμᾶς οἴομαι αἰσθάνεσθαι. νυνὶ δὲ δεινὸν τὸ
ΤΟ
πρᾶγμα καὶ αἰσχρὸν εἶναι τῇδε νομίζω, εἰ ἡνίκα μὲν ὁ
Μενεκλῆς εἶχέ τι, τότε μὲν ἔδωκα ἐμαυτὸν ὑὸν αὐτῷ ποιή-
σασθαι, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς οὐσίας τῆς ἐκείνου, πρὶν πραθῆναι
τὸ χωρίον, ἐγυμνασιάρχουν ἐν τῷ δήμῳ καὶ ἐφιλοτιμήθην
ὡς ὑὸς ὢν ἐκείνου, καὶ τὰς στρατείας, ὅσαι ἐγένοντο ἐν τῷ
χρόνῳ τούτῳ, ἐστράτευμαι ἐν τῇ φυλῇ τῇ ἐκείνου [καὶ ἐν
43 τῷ δήμῳ]· ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἐκεῖνος ἐτελεύτησεν, εἰ προδώσω καὶ
ἐξερημώσας αὐτοῦ τὸν οἶκον ἀπιὼν οἰχήσομαι, πῶς οὐκ ἂν
δεινὸν τὸ πρᾶγμα εἶναι καὶ καταγέλαστον δοκοίη, καὶ τοῖς
βουλομένοις περὶ ἐμοῦ βλασφημεῖν πολλὴν ἐξουσίαν παρά-
σχοι; καὶ οὐ μόνον ταῦτ᾽ ἐστὶ τὰ ποιοῦντά με ἀγωνίζεσθαι
τὸν ἀγῶνα τοῦτον, ἀλλ᾽ εἰ οὕτως φαῦλος ἄνθρωπος δοκῶ
εἶναι καὶ μηδενὸς ἄξιος, ὥστε ὑπὸ μὲν εὖ φρονοῦντος μηδ'
ὑφ᾽ ἑνὸς ἂν ποιηθῆναι τῶν φίλων, ὑπὸ δὲ παραφρονοῦντος,
ταῦτ᾽ ἐστὶ τὰ λυποῦντά με.
44
αν
ου
T
Ἐγὼ οὖν δέομαι ὑμῶν πάντων, ὦ ἄνδρες, καὶ ἀντι-
βολῶ καὶ ἱκετεύω ἐλεῆσαί με καὶ ἀποψηφίσασθαι τοῦ
μάρτυρος τουτουί. ἀπέφηνα δ᾽ ὑμῖν πρῶτον μὲν ποιη-
θέντα ἐμαυτὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ Μενεκλέους ὡς ἄν τις δικαιότατα
ποιηθείη, καὶ οὐ λόγῳ οὐδὲ διαθήκῃ τὴν ποίησιν γεγενη-
45 μένην, ἀλλ᾽ ἔργῳ· καὶ τούτων ὑμῖν τούς τε φράτερας καὶ
τοὺς δημότας καὶ τοὺς ὀργεῶνας παρεσχόμην μάρτυρας·
καὶ ἐκεῖνον ἐπέδειξα τρία καὶ εἴκοσιν ἐπιβιόντα ἔτη. εἶτα
42. I, 2. είναι ante τὸ πρᾶγμα collocat Q. 3. αὑτῷ malit Saupp. Cf. § 1 I. 3.
ἐγγυμνασιάρχουν Q. 6. ὢν om. Q || ἐκείνου in marg. inferiore Q || ἐγένετο Q.
7, 8. kai èv Tŵ dhuw ut e uers. 5 aduecta del. Dobr.
5.
43. 3. καὶ (ante τοῖς) apud Q in euanido uersus fine dispici non potest.
4, 5. παράσχοι Buerm., παρασχοίη Schoem. probante Cob., παρασχὸν ἂν Dobr.,
παρασχήσομαι Emper, παράσχοιμι uel παρασχοίμην Turr.: παράσχομαι A, apud Q
παρεσ et terminationis supra uers. scriptae uestigia dispici possunt. Bekk. putauit
ultimam litteram esse ή, Buerm., cui adsentior, agnouit μαι (Rh. Mus. 40. 395).
5. ταῦτά ἐστιν Q.
6. τὸν ἀγῶνα τοῦτον ἀγωνίζεσθαι Q | δόξω malit Nab.
8. ὑπὸ δὲ παραφρονοῦντος in suspicionem uocat Buerm. (Hermes 19. 352).
9. ἔστι
με
τὰ λυποῦντα Q.
44. 2. ἀποψηφίσαι Q.
5. ποιηθῆ: corr. Bekk. Cf. VII. 25. 3.
6. ἀλλ᾽
ἔργῳ τὴν ποίησιν γενομένην Q.
45.
3. ἐπιβιοῦντα : corr. Bamberg. Cf. Kühner-Blass, Griech. Gramm. II. 384.
OR. II. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΜΕΝΕΚΛΕΟΥΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
33
Α
ων
τοὺς νόμους ἐπέδειξα ὑμῖν τοῖς ἄπαισι τῶν ἀνθρώπων
ἐξουσίαν διδόντας ὑεῖς ποιεῖσθαι. καὶ ἔτι πρὸς τούτοις
ζωντά τε φαίνομαι θεραπεύων αὐτὸν καὶ τελευτήσαντα
θάψας. οὗτος δὲ νυνὶ ἄκληρον μὲν ἐμὲ ποιεῖν τοῦ κλήρου 46
τοῦ πατρῴου, εἴτε μείζων ἐστὶν οὗτος εἴτε ἐλάττων, ἄπαιδα
δὲ τὸν τελευτήσαντα καὶ ἀνώνυμον βούλεται καταστῆσαι,
ἵνα μήτε τὰ ἱερὰ τὰ πατρῷα ὑπὲρ ἐκείνου μηδεὶς τιμᾷ μήτ'
ἐναγίζῃ αὐτῷ καθ᾿ ἕκαστον ἐνιαυτόν, ἀλλὰ ἀφαιρῆται τὰς
τιμὰς τὰς ἐκείνου· ἃ προνοηθεὶς ὁ Μενεκλῆς, κύριος ὢν τῶν
ἑαυτοῦ, ἐποιήσατο ὑὸν ἑαυτῷ, ἵνα τούτων ἁπάντων τυγχάνῃ.
μὴ οὖν, ὦ ἄνδρες, πεισθέντες ὑπὸ τούτων ἀφέλησθέ μου τὸ 47
ὄνομα τῆς κληρονομίας, ὃ ἔτι μόνον λοιπόν ἐστιν, ἄκυρον δὲ
τὴν ποίησιν αὐτοῦ καταστήσητε. ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ τὸ πρᾶγμα
εἰς ὑμᾶς ἀφίκται καὶ ὑμεῖς κύριοι γεγόνατε, βοηθήσατε καὶ
ἡμῖν καὶ ἐκείνῳ τῷ ἐν ῞Αιδου ὄντι, καὶ μὴ περιίδητε πρὸς
θεῶν καὶ δαιμόνων δέομαι ὑμῶν-προπηλακισθέντα αὐτὸν
ὑπὸ τούτων, ἀλλὰ μεμνημένοι τοῦ νόμου καὶ τοῦ ὅρκου ὃν
ὀμωμόκατε καὶ τῶν εἰρημένων ὑπὲρ τοῦ πράγματος, τὰ
δίκαια καὶ [τα] εὔορκα κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ψηφίσασθε.
4. ὑμῖν τοὺς ἅπασι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις: corr. Nab. ὑμῖν τοὺς ἅπασι τοῖς ἀγενέσιν
aliquando Blass coll. Harp. s.u. ἀγενής, ἄπαισι coni. primus P. R. Miller (Bursian,
Jahresb. 21. 189).
46. I. ποιεί Q.
corr. Al
corr. Dobr.
47. I.
19. 368).
4. μήτ' Bremi: μήδ'. 5.
5, 6. τὰς τιμὰς om.
μου] με Q.
2. ei** (ante μeiswv) A, corr. A¹ || eit*****λáttwv A,
αὐτῶ A, sed @ a corr. || ἀλλ' Q || ἀφαιρεῖται:
Q. 6. τὰς ἐκείνου] ταύτας ἐκείνου malit Buerm.
έστιν Tyrwhitt: ἔσται AQ, tuetur Buerm. (Hermes
3. καταστήσετε Α. 4, 5. kaì ǹµîv] èµoì Q. Cf. 1. I. I. 6. δέομαι
2.
ὑμῶν del. Cob., unc. incl. Scheib., tuetur Kühnlein.
8. εἰρημένων ὑπὲρ] ἐχρημένων διὰ Q.
Buerm. Cf. IV. 25. 8, VIII. 19. 3.
7. τῶν τε νόμων Q.
9. τὰ supra uers. add. Α', del. Cob.,
W. I.
3
III
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΠΥΡΡΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ.
ΥΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ.
38
1
Πύρρου τὸν ἕτερον <τῶν> τῆς ἀδελφῆς υἱῶν υἱοποιησαμένου
Ἔνδιον, καὶ τούτου πλέον ἢ εἴκοσιν ἔτη τὸν κλῆρον κατα-
σχόντος, εἶτα ἀποθανόντος, Ξενοκλῆς λαχὼν τῶν χρημάτων
ὑπὲρ Φίλης, τῆς ἑαυτοῦ γυναικός, διεμαρτύρησεν εἶναι αὐτὴν
γνησίαν Πύρρου θυγατέρα, ἀμφισβητούσης τοῦ κλήρου τῆς 5
Ἐνδίου μητρός· καὶ ἑάλω ψευδομαρτυριῶν, Νικοδήμου †καὶ
αὐτοῦ μαρτυρήσαντος ἐγγυῆσαι Πύρρῳ τὴν ἀδελφὴν κατὰ
τοὺς νόμους, ἐξ ἧς γεγονέναι τὴν Φίλην. ὁ Ἐνδίου δὲ ἀδελφὸς
νόθην εἶναί φησιν, ἐξ ἑταίρας Πύρρῳ γενομένην, καὶ οὕτως
ὑπὸ Ἐνδίου ἐκδοθῆναι Ξενοκλεῖ. Ἡ στάσις στοχασμός, τὸ 10
δὲ ἔγκλημα ψευδομαρτυριῶν κατὰ τοῦ Νικοδήμου.
ων
Ανδρες δικασταί, ὁ ἀδελφὸς τῆς μητρὸς τῆς ἐμῆς
Πύρρος, ἄπαις ὢν γνησίων παίδων, ἐποιήσατο Ενδιον
τὸν ἀδελφὸν τὸν ἐμὸν ὑὸν ἑαυτῷ· ὃς κληρονόμος ὢν τῶν
ἐκείνου ἐπεβίω πλείω ἔτη ἢ εἴκοσι, καὶ ἐν χρόνῳ τοσούτῳ
III. Titulus in indice totius codicis extat, orationi ipsi post argumentum super-
scripta sunt haec: τοῦ Πύρρου κλήρου κατὰ ποίησιν πρὸς τὸ γένος διαμαρτυρία. Tit. apud
Harp. περὶ τοῦ Πύρρου κλήρου (cf. § 47. 4) et κατὰ Νικοδήμου (cf. § 1. 5).
1
Hyp. I. πύρρος A, corr. Αl | τὸν ἕτερον <τῶν > Muret: τὸν τ**ν Α, τὸν ἕτερον
ἕτερον
Al. Fuisse in archetypo τὸν τῶν putat Buerm. (Hermes r9. 333). Cf. IX. 2. 7
il viòv M, Taylor, Bekk., Schoem., Turr., Scheib. 2. τὸν κλῆρον Ald.: τοῦ κλήρου.
διεκαρτύρησεν Α, corr. Al.
6, 7. καὶ αὐτοῦ] δὲ αὐτῷ deleto δὲ post 'Ενδίου
8. Ante τήν erasum και. 9. φκσιν Α, corr. Α'.
4. ἐβίω: corr. Nab. (Mnem. I, 1852, p. 357) || πλείω (uel potius πλεῖν) ἢ
εἴκοσιν ἔτη Herw. Cf. §§ 2. 5, 31. 2, 57. 5, VI. 14. 6.
4.
(u. 8) Dobr., quod malim.
1.
·
OR. III.
35
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΠΥΡΡΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
;
ἔχοντος ἐκείνου τὸν κλῆρον οὐδεὶς πώποτε προσεποιήσατο
οὐδ᾽ ἀμφεσβήτησε τῆς κληρονομίας ἐκείνῳ. τελευτήσαντος
δὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ πέρυσιν, ὑπερβᾶσα τὸν τελευταῖον κληρονό- 2
μον, γνησία θυγάτηρ τοῦ ἡμετέρου θείου ἥκει φάσκουσα
εἶναι Φίλη, <καὶ Φίλη> καὶ κύριος Ξενοκλῆς Κόπρειος τοῦ
Πύρρου κλήρου λαχεῖν τὴν λῆξιν ἠξίωσαν, ὃς τετελεύτηκε
πλείω ἢ εἴκοσιν ἔτη, τρία τάλαντα τίμημα τῷ κλήρῳ ἐπι-
γραψάμενοι. ἀμφισβητούσης δὲ τῆς μητρὸς τῆς ἡμετέρας, 3
ἀδελφῆς δὲ τοῦ Πύρρου, ὁ κύριος τῆς εἰληχνίας τοῦ κλήρου
γυναικὸς ἐτόλμησε διαμαρτυρῆσαι μὴ ἐπίδικον τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ
μητρὶ τὸν τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ κλῆρον εἶναι, ὡς οὖσης γνησίας
θυγατρὸς Πύρρῳ, οὗ ἦν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὁ κλῆρος. ἐπισκηψάμενοι
δὲ ἡμεῖς, καὶ εἰς ὑμᾶς εἰσαγαγόντες τὸν διαμαρτυρῆσαι
τολμήσαντα [κατα] ταῦτα, ἐκεῖνόν τε ἐξελέγξαντες περι- 4
φανῶς τὰ ψευδῆ μεμαρτυρηκότα τὴν τῶν ψευδομαρτυρίων
δίκην εἵλομεν παρ' ὑμῖν, καὶ τουτονὶ Νικόδημον παραχρῆμα
ἐξηλέγξαμεν ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς δικασταῖς ἀναισχυντότατον τῇ
μαρτυρίᾳ ὄντα ταύτῃ, ὅς γε ἐτόλμησε μαρτυρῆσαι ἐγγυῆσαι
τῷ θείῳ τῷ ἡμετέρῳ τὴν ἀδελφὴν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα
εἶναι κατὰ τοὺς νόμους. ὅτι μὲν οὖν καὶ ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ 5
δίκῃ ἡ τούτου μαρτυρία ψευδὴς ἔδοξεν εἶναι, ὁ τόθ' ἑαλωκὼς
μάρτυς σαφέστατα τοῦτον ἐξελέγχει. εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἐδόκει
Ο
5. Harp. s.u. προσεποιήσατο (προσεποιήσαντο libri, corr. Saupp.): ἀντὶ τοῦ
ἀντεποιήσατο (ἀντεποιήσαντο libri, corr. Saupp.): Ισαῖος ἐν τῷ κατὰ Νικοδήμου· οὐδεὶς
πώποτε προσεποιήσατο οὐδ᾽ ἐμφισβήτησε τῆς κληρονομίας ἐκείνῳ (ἐκείνων libri, corr.
Saupp.).
2: ἥκει del. Dobr.
2. I, 2. κληρονόμον Α, corr. Α'.
3. καὶ Φίλη
addidi κύπριος Α, Κύπριος Meier; sed cf. Meisterhans, Gramm. pp. 43, 51.
4. ἠξίωσεν Α, ἠξίωσεν Α'. Cf. §§ 9. 3, 76. 3 || τετελευτήκει : corr. Bait. coll. § 57. 6.
5, 6. ἐπιγραψάμενος: correxi.
5.
πλεῖν Herw.
3. 5. ἐπισκεψάμενοι: corr. Taylor. Cf. v. 17. I, VI. 13. 2, 'Αθ. Πολ. col. 35. II,
Ar. Pol. 2. 12. 1274 b 7, Phot. s.u. Ίμβριοι.
7. κατὰ del. Reisk., in uers. seq.
transponit ut < κατα > μεμαρτυρηκότα efficiat Buerm., τολμήσαντα, κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἐκεῖνόν
Te malit Bait. Cf. § 33. 2, X. 17. 4.
4. 2. ψευδομαρτυρίων] ψευδομαρτύρων Α, ψευδομαρτυριών Reisk.; sed cf. ᾿Αθ.
Πολ. 59. 7 τὰ ψευδομαρτύρια τὰ ἐξ ᾿Αρείου πάγου, Plat. Theaet. 148 Β ἔνοχος τοῖς
ψευδομαρτυρίοις, Cob. V. L. p. 623 || τὴν τῶν ψευδομαρτυρίων δίκην del. Herw.
3. Νικόδημον del. Nab. Cf. II. 36. 3. Malit τὸν Νικόδημον Muret.
μαρτυρίᾳ et ταύτῃ tamquam ex $ 40 interpolata del. Herw.
5. 3.
τοῦτο malit Reisk.
45. Tôi
3-2
36
OR. III.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
αν
οὗτος τὰ ψευδῆ τότε μαρτυρῆσαι, δῆλον ὅτι ἐκεῖνός τ᾿
ἂν ἀποφυγὼν τὴν διαμαρτυρίαν ἀπῆλθε, καὶ κληρονόμος
ἂν τῶν τοῦ θείου ἡ διαμαρτυρηθεῖσα γνησία θυγάτηρ
6 εἶναι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἂν ἡ ἡμετέρα κατέστη μήτηρ. ἁλόντος δὲ
τοῦ μάρτυρος καὶ ἀποστάσης τοῦ κλήρου τῆς ἀμφισβη
τούσης γνησίας θυγατρὸς Πύρρῳ εἶναι, μεγάλη ανάγκη
ἅμα καὶ τὴν τούτου μαρτυρίαν ἑαλωκέναι· περὶ γὰρ αὐτοῦ
τούτου <6> διαμαρτυρήσας τὴν τῶν ψευδομαρτυρίων δίκην
ἠγωνίζετο, πότερον ἐξ ἐγγυητῆς ἢ ἐξ ἑταίρας ἡ ἀμφισβη
τοῦσα τοῦ κλήρου τῷ θείῳ [γυναικὸς] εἴη· γνώσεσθε <δ>
ἀκούσαντες καὶ ὑμεῖς τῆς τε ἀντωμοσίας τῆς ἡμετέρας καὶ
τῆς τούτου μαρτυρίας καὶ τῆς ἁλούσης διαμαρτυρίας.
7 Αναγίγνωσκε λαβὼν τασδὶ αὐτοῖς.
ΑΝΤΩΜΟΣΙΑ. ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ.
ΔΙΑΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ.
Ὡς μὲν ἔδοξε παραχρῆμα εὐθὺς τότε τὰ ψευδῆ μαρ-
τυρῆσαι Νικόδημος, ἐπιδέδεικται †τότε πᾶσι†· προσήκει δὲ
καὶ παρ' ὑμῖν τοῖς περὶ αὐτοῦ τούτου τὴν δίκην μέλλουσι
8 ψηφιείσθαι ἐξελεγχθῆναι τὴν τούτου μαρτυρίαν. ἐπιθυμῶ
δὲ πρῶτον μὲν †περὶ αὐτοῦ τούτου† πυθέσθαι, ἥν τινά
ποτε προϊκά φησιν ἐπιδοὺς ἐκδοῦναι τὴν ἀδελφὴν ὁ
μεμαρτυρηκὼς τῷ τὸν τριτάλαντον οἶκον κεκτημένῳ, εἶτα
7. μήτηρ add. Αl.
6.
I.
1. ἁλόντος] litt. a refinxit A', ut μηρ adderet. 2, 3· ἀμφισβητούσης] ἀπο-
φανθείσης Hitzig coll. §§ 30, 73, 79.
3. γνησίας θυγατρὸς Πύρρῳ εἶναι pendere
posse ab αμφισβητούσης cum neget, delenda censet Herw., nisi forte post ἀμφισβητούσης
excidisse καὶ ἀποφανθείσης uel simile aliquid putare malis. Post Πύρρῳ addere uolt
φασκούσης Reisk.
5. ὁ add. Reisk. || ψευδομαρτυριών. Cf. § 4. 2. 6. πκότερον.
Cf. § 8. 5, VI. 51. 4, VIII. 33. 3, IX. 15. 1, Din. 1. 46, 69, 110 || ÈÈ EYKuntûs A,
corr. A¹, spiritum add. A². 7. γυναικός aut tollendum aut cum γυνή mutandum
censet Bekk. (in Addendis p. 6or), in u. 6 post ἐγγυητής transponere malit
Dobr., tuentur Lincke, De elocutione Isaei p. 32, Blass, Att. Ber.2 11. p. 515 ||
δ' add. Ald. Cf. II. 2. 4.
7. Ι. αὐτοῖς] οι in rasur.
2. Titt. marginem superant.
3. μὲν < οὖν > Nab.
Cf. § 13. 1, VI. 17. 4, IX. 5. I || eveùs del. Brulart, Cob. Cf. § 48. 7, I. II. 2.
3, 4. διαμαρτυρῆσαι: corr. Reisk.
ἐπεδέδεικτο Reisk. || τότε πᾶσι tamquam
uariam lectionem ad τότε (u. 3) in archetypo adscriptam del. Buerm. Num τοῦθ᾽
ἅπασι?
5. περὶ αὐτοῦ τούτου] περὶ τούτου uel περὶ αὐτοῦ malit Dobr.
2.
4.
8. περὶ αὐτοῦ τούτου] e § 7. 5 inuecta et fortasse delenda.
Coni. παρ'
αὐτοῦ τούτου Taylor, Reisk., τούτου uel περὶ τούτου Dobr., παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦτο Nab.
3, 4. ὁ μεμαρτυρηκώς aut delendum aut in ὡς μεμαρτύρηκε corrigendum censet Dobr.
OR. III.
37
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΠΥΡΡΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
πότερον ἡ ἐγγυητὴ γυνὴ ἀπέλιπε τὸν ἄνδρα ζῶντα ἢ τε-
λευτήσαντος τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ, καὶ παρ᾽ ὅτου ἐκομίσατο
τὴν τῆς ἀδελφῆς προῖκα οὗτος, ἐπειδὴ τετελευτηκὼς ἦν
ᾧ μεμαρτύρηκεν οὗτος αὐτὴν ἐγγυῆσαι, ἢ εἰ μὴ ἐκομίζετο, 9
ὁποίαν δίκην σίτου ἢ τῆς προικὸς αὐτῆς ἐν εἴκοσιν ἔτεσι
39 τῷ ἔχοντι τὸν | κλῆρον δικάσασθαι ἠξίωσεν, ἢ εἴ του
ἀνθρώπων ἐναντίον προσῆλθεν ἐγκαλῶν τῷ κληρονόμῳ περὶ
τῆς προικὸς τῆς ἀδελφῆς ἐν χρόνῳ τοσούτῳ. περί τε οὖν
τούτων ἡδέως ἂν πυθοίμην, ὅ τί ποτ᾽ ἦν τὸ αἴτιον τοῦ
μηδὲν τούτων γεγενῆσθαι περὶ τῆς ἐγγυητῆς—ὡς μεμαρ
τύρηκεν οὗτος γυναικός, καὶ πρὸς τούτοις εἴ τις ἄλλος 10
ἐγγυητὴν ἔσχε τὴν τούτου ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα, ἢ τῶν πρότερον
χρησαμένων πρὶν γνῶναι τὸν ἡμέτερον θεῖον αὐτήν, ἢ ὅσοι
ἐκείνου γιγνώσκοντος ἐπλησίαζον αὐτῇ, ἢ ὅσοι ὕστερον
ἐπλησίαζον τετελευτηκότος ἐκείνου· δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι τὸν
αὐτὸν τρόπον ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτὴν ἅπασι τοῖς πλησιάζουσιν
ἐκδέδωκεν. περὶ ὧν εἰ δεήσειε καθ᾽ ἕκαστον διελθεῖν, οὐκ 11
ἂν πάνυ μικρὸν ἔργον γένοιτο. ἐὰν μὲν οὖν ὑμεῖς κελεύητε,
περὶ ἐνίων μνησθείην ἂν αὐτῶν· εἰ δέ τισιν ὑμῶν ἀηδὲς
ἀκούειν ἐστίν, ὥσπερ ἐμοὶ λέγειν τι περὶ τούτων, αὐτὰς
τὰς μαρτυρίας ὑμῖν παρέξομαι τὰς μαρτυρηθείσας ἐν τῇ
προτέρᾳ δίκῃ, ὧν οὐδεμιᾷ ἐπισκήψασθαι ἠξίωσαν οὗτοι.
καίτοι ὅπου κοινὴν αὐτοὶ ὡμολογήκασιν εἶναι τοῦ βουλο-
μένου τὴν γυναῖκα, πῶς ἂν εἰκότως ἡ αὐτὴ γυνὴ ἐγγυητὴ
δόξειεν εἶναι; ἀλλὰ μὴν ὁπότε μὴ ἐπεσκημμένοι εἰσὶ ταῖς 12
περὶ αὐτοῦ τούτου μαρτυρίαις, ὡμολογηκότες εἰσὶ ταῦτα.
ἀκούσαντες δὲ καὶ ὑμεῖς αὐτῶν τῶν μαρτυριῶν, γνώσεσθε
5. πεότερον. Cf. § 6. 6 ] κατέλιπε Α, corr. Αl. 6. τὸν οἶκον in marg. add. Αl.
9. 3. ἠξίωσαν: corr. Reisk. Cf. § 2. 4.
7· ἐκδέ-
10. 5. ἐπλησίαζον del. Muret || ὅτι supra uers. add. Αl. Cf. VI. 24. 5. 6. ó in
uers. add. Αl. Num in archetypo erat άδελφὸς ? Cf. ΙΧ. 2. 8, XI. 6. II.
δωκεν post Reisk. Buerm. (Hermes 19. 362), ἐκδεδώκει Bekk.: ἐδεδώκει.
11. 4. < καὶ> ἐμοὶ Reisk. || τι ut e proximo π natum del. Reisk. | τοιούτων malit
Rosenberg.
7. αὐτὴν: corr. Schoem., uel αὐτὴν uel τὴν γυναῖκα (u. 8) del.
Dobr. || ὁμολογήκασιν Α, corr. Α'. 8. τὴν γυναῖκα del. Halbertsma, Boekmeijer,
Papabasileios.
12. I. ἐπ**σκημμενοι A, e in rasur. add. A', accent. add. A1.
38
OR. III.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
13
ὡς οὗτός τε περιφανῶς τὰ ψευδῆ μεμαρτύρηκε, καὶ ὀρθῶς
καὶ κατὰ τοὺς νόμους οἱ δικάσαντες τὴν δίκην ἔγνωσαν τὴν
κληρονομίαν μὴ προσήκειν τῇ μὴ ὀρθῶς γεγενημένη γυναικί.
Αναγίγνωσκε· σὺ δ᾽ ἐπίλαβε τὸ ὕδωρ.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑΙ.
οι
Ὡς μὲν ἑταίρα ἦν τῷ βουλομένῳ καὶ οὐ γυνὴ τοῦ
ἡμετέρου θείου, ἣν οὗτος ἐγγυῆσαι ἐκείνῳ μεμαρτύρηκεν,
ὑπὸ τῶν ἄλλων οἰκείων καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν γειτόνων τῶν ἐκείνου
μεμαρτύρηται πρὸς ὑμᾶς· οἳ μάχας καὶ κώμους καὶ ἀσέλ.
γειαν πολλήν, ὁπότε ἡ τούτου ἀδελφὴ εἴη παρ᾽ αὐτῷ,
14 μεμαρτυρήκασιν γίγνεσθαι περὶ αὐτῆς. καίτοι οὐ δή πού
γε ἐπὶ γαμετὰς γυναῖκας οὐδεὶς ἂν κωμάζειν τολμήσειεν·
οὐδὲ αἱ γαμεταὶ γυναῖκες ἔρχονται μετὰ τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐπὶ
τὰ δεῖπνα, οὐδὲ συνδειπνεῖν ἀξιοῦσι μετὰ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων,
καὶ ταῦτα μετὰ τῶν ἐπιτυχόντων. ἀλλὰ μὴν τῷ γε με
μαρτυρηκότι οὐδ᾽ ἐπισκήψασθαι οὗτοι ἠξίωσαν. Καὶ ὡς
ἀληθῆ λέγω, ἀναγίγνωσκε πάλιν αὐτοῖς τὴν μαρτυρίαν.
15
16
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ.
ΕΠ
Ανάγνωθι δὴ καὶ τὰς περὶ τῶν πλησιασάντων αὐτῇ
μαρτυρίας, ἵνα εἰδῶσιν ὅτι ἑταίρα τε ἦν τοῦ βουλομένου,
καὶ ὅτι οὐδ᾽ ἐξ ἑνὸς ἄλλου φαίνεται τεκοῦσα. ᾿Αναγίγνωσκε
αὐτοῖς.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑΙ.
Ὡς μὲν τοίνυν ἦν κοινὴ τῷ βουλομένῳ, ἣν οὗτος ἐγ
γυῆσαι τῷ ἡμετέρῳ θείῳ μεμαρτύρηκε, μνημονεύειν χρὴ
ὑφ᾽ ὅσων ὑμῖν μεμαρτύρηται, καὶ ὅτι οὐδενὶ ἄλλῳ ἐγγυη
6. yeyevnµévn A, v post prius v supra uers. add. A². Cf. vIII. 7. 3, X. 23. 9, Din.
I. 71 | γυναικί del. Dobr.
7. ἐπίβαλλε: corr. Scaliger. Cf. § 76. 5, ΙΙ. 34. 2.
8. Tit. μαρτυρία: corr. Reisk.
13. I. μὲν < οὖν > Reisk. Cf. § 7. 3 || τοῦ βουλομένου Hirschig coll. § 15. 2.
2.
οὕτως A, corr. Α. Cf. v. 29. 8.
del. Herw.
of A¹, ** A.
4.
6. περὶ αὐτῆς
14. 5, 6. τῷ γε μεμαρτυρηκότι οὐδ᾽] τῶν γε μεμαρτυρηκότων οὐδενὶ οὐδ᾽ Reisk.,
quod ita probat Dobr. ut οὐδ' omittere malit, τοῖς γε μεμαρτυρηκόσιν οὐδ᾽ malit Buerm.
5. μαρτυρίαι Ald. : μαρτυρία.
15.
OR. III.
39
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΠΥΡΡΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
•
ЕК
θεῖσα οὐδὲ συνοικήσασα φαίνεται· σκεψώμεθα δὲ καὶ ἐξ
ὧν ἄν τις ὑπονοήσειεν ἐγγύην γενέσθαι τοιαύτης γυναικός,
εἰ ἄρα καὶ τῷ ἡμετέρῳ θείῳ τοιοῦτόν τι συμβέβηκεν. ἤδη 17
γάρ τινες νέοι ἄνθρωποι ἐπιθυμήσαντες τοιούτων γυναι-
κῶν, καὶ ἀκρατῶς ἔχοντες αὑτῶν, ἐπείσθησαν ὑπ᾽ ἀνοίας
εἰς αὑτοὺς τοιοῦτόν τι ἐξαμαρτεῖν. πόθεν οὖν ἄν τις
σαφέστερον γνοίη περὶ τούτων, ἢ ἔκ τε τῶν μαρτυριῶν τῶν
τούτοις μεμαρτυρημένων ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ δίκῃ καὶ ἐκ τῶν
εἰκότων τῶν περὶ αὐτὸ τὸ πρᾶγμα σκεψάμενος; ἐνθυμεῖσθε 18
δὲ τὴν ἀναίδειαν ὧν λέγουσιν. ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἐγγυᾶν μέλλων
εἰς τὸν τριτάλαντον οἶκον, ὥς φησι, τὴν ἀδελφήν, διαπρατ
τόμενος τηλικαῦτα ἕνα μάρτυρα παρεῖναι αὑτῷ Πυρετίδην
προσεποιήσατο, καὶ τούτου ἐκμαρτυρίαν ἐπ' ἐκείνῃ τῇ δίκῃ
παρέσχοντο οὗτοι· ἣν Πυρετίδης οὐκ ἀναδέδεκται αὐτοῖς,
οὐδὲ ὁμολογεῖ μαρτυρῆσαι οὐδὲ εἰδέναι τούτων ἀληθὲς
ὂν οὐδέν. μέγα δὲ τεκμήριον ὡς περιφανῶς ψευδῆ τὴν 19
μαρτυρίαν οὗτοι παρέσχοντο ταύτην· ἴστε γὰρ πάντες ὡς
ὅταν μὲν [ὡς] ἐπὶ προδήλους πράξεις ἴωμεν, ἃς δεῖ μετὰ
40 μαρτύρων γενέσθαι, τοὺς οἰκειοτάτους | καὶ οἷς ἂν τυγχά
νωμεν χρώμενοι μάλιστα, τούτους παραλαμβάνειν εἰώθαμεν
ἐπὶ τὰς πράξεις τὰς τοιαύτας, τῶν δὲ ἀδήλων καὶ ἐξαίφνης
γιγνομένων τοὺς προστυχόντας ἕκαστοι μάρτυρας ποιούμεθα.
καὶ ἐπὶ μὲν ταῖς μαρτυρίαις αὐταῖς τοῖς παραγενομένοις 20
αὐτοῖς, ὁποῖοί τινες ἂν ὦσι, τούτοις μάρτυσιν χρῆσθαι
ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν ἡμῖν· παρὰ δὲ τῶν ἀσθενούντων ἢ τῶν
ἀποδημεῖν μελλόντων ὅταν τις ἐκμαρτυρίαν ποιῆται, τοὺς
ἐπιεικεστάτους τῶν πολιτῶν καὶ τοὺς ὑμῖν γνωριμωτάτους
ἕκαστος ἡμῶν παρακαλεῖ μάλιστα, καὶ οὐ μεθ᾽ ἑνὸς οὐδὲ 21
μετὰ δυοῖν, ἀλλ' ὡς ἂν μετὰ πλείστων δυνώμεθα τὰς ἐκμαρ-
ον
17. 4. αὐτὰς: corr. Reisk.
18. 4.
19. 3.
del. Herw.
τηνικαῦτα: corr. Taylor. Cf. 11. 20. 6.
is del. Ald. Cf. IV. I. 5, VI. 10. 4.
6. ἐπὶ τὰς πράξεις τὰς τοιαύτας
7· προστυχ***τas A, corr. Α' || ἑκάστοτε coni. Nab.
20. 3. vµîv A, corr. A².
5. ὑμῖν Α, ἡμῖν Α2.
οὐ Bekk. : οὐδὲ.
21. I.
6. ὑμῶν Α, corr. Α2.
40
OR. III.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
ΤΟ
τυρίας πάντες ποιούμεθα, ἵνα τῷ τε ἐκμαρτυρήσαντι μὴ ἐξῇ
ὕστερον ἐξάρνῳ γενέσθαι τὴν μαρτυρίαν, ὑμεῖς τε πολλοῖς
καὶ καλοῖς κἀγαθοῖς ταὐτὰ μαρτυροῦσι πιστεύητε μᾶλλον.
22 Ξενοκλῆς τοίνυν Βήσαζε μὲν ἰὼν εἰς τὸ ἐργαστήριον τὸ
ἡμέτερον εἰς τὰ ἔργα, οὐχ ἡγήσατο δεῖν τοῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ
αὐτομάτου ἐκεῖ ἐντυχοῦσι μάρτυσι χρῆσθαι περὶ τῆς
ἐξαγωγῆς, ἀλλ᾿ ἧκεν ἔχων ἐνθένδε Διόφαντον τὸν Σφήττιον
μεθ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ, ὃς ἔλεγε τὴν δίκην ὑπὲρ τούτου, καὶ Δωρόθεον
τὸν Ἐλευσίνιον καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ Φιλοχάρη καὶ
ἄλλους πολλοὺς μάρτυρας, παρακεκληκὼς ἐνθένδε σταδίους
23 ἐγγὺς τριακοσίους ἐκεῖσε· περὶ δὲ τῆς ἐγγύης της τήθης
τῶν παίδων τῶν ἑαυτοῦ ἐν τῷ ἄστει ἐκμαρτυρίαν, ὥς φησι,
ποιούμενος τῶν μὲν οἰκείων οὐδένα τῶν ἑαυτοῦ παρακε-
κληκὼς φαίνεται, Διονύσιον δὲ <τὸν> Ερχιέα καὶ ᾿Αριστό
λοχον τὸν Αἰθαλίδην. μετὰ δυοῖν τούτοιν ἐν τῷ ἄστει αὐτοῦ
τὴν ἐκμαρτυρίαν ποιήσασθαί φασιν οὗτοι. †τοιαῦτα μὲν
τὰ τούτων†, οἷς οὐδ᾽ ἂν περὶ ὁτουοῦν πιστεύσειεν ἄλλος
24 οὐδείς. ἴσως γὰρ ἦν νή Δία πάρεργον καὶ φαῦλον, περὶ
οὗ τὴν ἐκμαρτυρίαν παρὰ τοῦ Πυρετίδου φασὶ ποιήσασθαι
οὗτοι, ὥστε οὐδὲν θαυμαστὸν ὀλιγωρηθῆναι ἦν τὸ πρᾶγμα.
καὶ πῶς; οἷς γε περὶ αὐτοῦ τούτου ὁ ἀγὼν ἦν ὁ τῶν
ψευδομαρτυρίων, ὃν Ξενοκλῆς ἔφευγεν, ἢ ἐξ ἑταίρας ἢ
ἐξ ἐγγυητῆς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα εἶναι. εἶτα ἐπὶ ταύτην
ἂν τὴν μαρτυρίαν, εἰ ἦν ἀληθής, οὐκ ἂν ἅπαντας τοὺς
αν
3. ἐξείη: corr. Dobr.
5. ταῦτα: corr. Muret. Cf. 1. 23. 7, VI. 12. 1, 2 ||
πιστεύοιτε: corr. Dobr. Cf. VIII. 4. 4, ΧΙ. 44. Το 47. 8, 49. 2.
XI. 7,
22. 2. οὐχ Α', οὐκ Α. 4· ἔνθεν: corr. Bekk. 5. TOÚT** A, corr. A¹.
Cf. §§ 40. 1, 72. 1, 79. 6, VII. 44. 4, XI. 32. I. 8. ἐγγὺς Dobr.: εὐθὺς.
23. 2. φησι* (eraso v).
τον add. Dobr.
4.
5. τὸν del. Scheib.
6, 7. τοιαῦτα μὲν τὰ τούτων]-
Η μετὰ δυοῖν μὲν τὰ τούτων (u. 7) del. Nab.
τοιαῦτα μετὰ τούτων Buerm., μετὰ iam Dobr., qui post οὗτοι lacunam statuerat.
τοιαῦτα α ποιήσασθαι pendere uolt Buerm., sed durior fit constructio. Scribendum
fortasse καὶ ταῦτα μετὰ τοιούτων. Libri lectionem seruant edd. ante Buerm. omnes.
γ. ἄλλος] ἄλλως Scheib., ἄλλον Μ, ἄλλου Ald. edd. ante Scheib.
7
24. 3. ἦν del. Brulart, abesse malit Bait.
4. οἷς γε Meutzner, Buerm.,
ὅτε Steph., ᾧ γε Reisk., Bekk., Schoem., εἴ γε uir doctus apud Scheib. praef. p. xx,
οπότε Gebauer: ὥστε. 5. ψευδομαρτυριών. Cf. § 4. 2 || δν Α', ν Α.
ἑαυτοῦ Α', τοιαυτοῦ cum rasura supra prius τ Α, τὴν τούτου coni. Buerm.
6. τήν
OR. III.
41
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΠΥΡΡΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
οἰκείους τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ παρακαλεῖν ἐκεῖνος ἠξίωσε; ναὶ μὲ 25
Δία, ὡς ἔγωγε ᾤμην, εἴ γε ἦν ἀληθὲς τὸ πρᾶγμα. οὐ
τοίνυν φαίνεται, ἀλλ' ὁ μὲν Ξενοκλῆς πρὸς τοὺς ἐπιτυχόντας
δύο ἐκμαρτυρησάμενος τὴν μαρτυρίαν ταύτην, Νικόδημος
δὲ οὑτοσὶ ἕνα μόνον μάρτυρα παρακαλέσας μεθ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ
τῷ τὸν τριτάλαντον οἶκον κεκτημένῳ ἐγγυῆσαί φησι τὴν
ἀδελφήν. καὶ οὗτος μὲν τὸν Πυρετίδην μόνον, οὐχ ὁμολο- 26
γοῦντα, προσεποιήσατο μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ παραγενέσθαι· ὑπὸ δὲ
τοῦ ἐγγυήσεσθαι μέλλοντος τὴν τοιαύτην Λυσιμένης καὶ
οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ, Χαίρων καὶ Πυλάδης, φασὶ παρακληθέντες
τῇ ἐγγύῃ παραγενέσθαι, καὶ ταῦτα θεῖοι ὄντες τῷ ἐγγυωμένῳ.
ὑμέτερον οὖν ἔργον σκέψασθαι νῦν, εἰ δοκεῖ πιστὸν εἶναι 27
τὸ πρᾶγμα. ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ νομίζω, ἐκ τῶν εἰκότων σκοπού
μενος, πολὺ ἂν μᾶλλον τὸν Πύρρον πάντας ἂν τοὺς οἰκείους
βούλεσθαι λεληθέναι, εἴ τι παρεσκευάζετο ὁμολογεῖν ἢ
πράττειν ἀνάξιον τῶν αὑτοῦ, ἢ παρακαλέσαι μάρτυρας τοὺς
θείους τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ ἐπὶ ἁμάρτημα τηλικοῦτον.
αν
Ἔτι δὲ καὶ περὶ ἐκείνου θαυμάζω, εἰ μηδεμίαν προίκα 28
μήθ' ὁ διδοὺς μήθ' ὁ λαμβάνων διωμολογήσαντο ἕξειν
ἐπὶ τῇ γυναικί. τοῦτο μὲν γὰρ εἴ τινα ἐδίδου, εἰκὸς ἦν
καὶ τὴν δοθεῖσαν ὑπὸ τῶν παραγενέσθαι φασκόντων μαρ-
τυρεῖσθαι· τοῦτο δ᾽ εἰ δι᾽ ἐπιθυμίαν τὴν ἐγγύην ὁ θεῖος
ἡμῶν ἐποιεῖτο τῆς τοιαύτης γυναικός, δῆλον ὅτι κἂν ἀρ-
γύριον πολλῷ μᾶλλον [ἢ] ὁ ἐγγυῶν διωμολογήσατο ἔχειν
αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τῇ γυναικί, ἵνα μὴ ἐπ᾿ ἐκείνῳ γένοιτο ῥᾳδίως
ἀπαλλάττεσθαι, ὁπότε βούλοιτο, τῆς γυναικός. καὶ μάρ- 29
μή
25. 2. ᾤμην suspectum. An addendum ἄν ?
Buerm.
Ο
4· ἐκμαρτυρήσασθαι coni.
5. οὑτοσὶ ἕνα] οὗτος ἕνα Ald. transposito ἦν post ταύτην (u. 4), οὗτος
ἣν ἕνα Α, ἦν del. Bekk., οὗτος ἦν (i.e. οὑτοσὶν) in οὑτοσὶ corr. Dobr. Cf. XI. 12. 8
|| μεθ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ del. Fuhr.
26. 2. μετὰ αὑτοῦ coni. Bait. coll. §§ 18. 4, 22. 5, 25. 5, probant Scheib.,
Dyroff (Geschichte des Pronomen reflexivum p. 60). Cf. II. II. 3.
γυήσασθαι: corr. Cob. Cf. v. 5. 2.
V.
corr. Α2.
27. 4. ὁμολογεῖν] λέγειν Dobr.
28. 2. ἕξειν del. Herw.
4.
3. ¿y-
οἱ Α, ἡ Α || παρακληκέντες Α,
5. ἀνάξιον αὑτοῦ malit Rosenberg.
7. ή del. Steph. Cf. ix. 36. 7, Ant. Tetr. III.
d. 4 || ëşew Herw. Cf. §§ 36. 4, 70. 7, 74. 7, VI. 32. 2.
42
OR. III.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
30
τυράς γε πολλῷ πλείους <εἰκὸς> ἦν τὸν ἐγγυῶντα παρακαλεῖν
ἢ τὸν ἐγγυώμενον τὴν τοιαύτην· οὐδεὶς γὰρ ὑμῶν ἀγνοεῖ
ὅτι ὀλίγα διαμένειν εἴωθε τῶν τοιούτων. ὁ μὲν τοίνυν
ἐγγυῆσαι φάσκων μετὰ ἑνὸς μάρτυρος καὶ ἄνευ ὁμολογίας |
προικὸς εἰς τὸν τριτάλαντον οἶκον ἐγγυῆσαί φησι τὴν 41
ἀδελφήν· οἱ δὲ θεῖοι τῷ ἀδελφιδῷ ἄπροικον τὴν τοιαύτην
ἐγγυωμένῳ μεμαρτυρήκασι παραγενέσθαι.
ΤΟ
Καὶ οἱ αὐτοὶ θεῖοι οὗτοι ἐν τῇ δεκάτῃ τῆς θυγατρός
ἀποφανθείσης εἶναι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀδελφιδοῦ κληθέντες μεμαρ
τυρήκασι παραγενέσθαι. ἐφ᾽ ᾧ δὴ καὶ δεινῶς· ἀγανακτῶ,
ὅτι ὁ μὲν ἀνὴρ λαγχάνων ὑπὲρ τῆς γυναικὸς τῆς αὐτοῦ
τοῦ κλήρου τοῦ πατρῴου Φίλην ὄνομα εἶναι ἐπεγράψατο
τῇ γυναικί, οἱ δὲ τοῦ Πύρρου θεῖοι ἐν τῇ δεκάτῃ φάσκοντες
παραγενέσθαι τὸ τῆς τήθης ὄνομα Κλειταρέτην τὸν πατέρα
31 ἐμαρτύρησαν θέσθαι αὐτῇ. θαυμάζω οὖν εἰ ὁ ἀνὴρ ὁ
συνοικῶν πλείω ἢ ὀκτὼ ἔτη ἤδη μὴ ᾔδει τοὔνομα τῆς
ἑαυτοῦ γυναικός. εἶτα οὐδὲ παρὰ τῶν αὑτοῦ μαρτύρων
πρότερον ἐδυνήθη πυθέσθαι, οὐδ᾽ ἡ μήτηρ τῆς γυναικὸς
τὸ τῆς θυγατρὸς ὄνομα τῆς αὐτῆς ἐν χρόνῳ τοσούτῳ ἔφρασεν
32 αὐτῷ, οὐδ᾽ ὁ θεῖος αὐτός, Νικόδημος, ἀλλ᾽ ἀντὶ τοῦ τῆς
τήθης ὀνόματος, εἴ τις ᾔδει τοῦθ᾽ ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς κείμενον
ταύτῃ, Φίλην ὁ ἀνὴρ ὄνομα ἐπεγράψατο εἶναι αὐτῇ, καὶ
ταῦτα λαγχάνων αὐτῇ τοῦ κλήρου τοῦ πατρῴου; τίνος
ἕνεκα; ἢ ἵνα καὶ τοῦ τῆς τήθης ὀνόματος τοῦ ὑπὸ τοῦ
πατρὸς τεθέντος ἄκληρον ὁ ἀνὴρ καταστήσειεν εἶναι τὴν
33 αὑτοῦ γυναῖκα; ἆρά γε οὐχὶ δῆλον, ὦ ἄνδρες, ὅτι ἃ πάλαι
TO
29. 2. εἰκὸς add. Reisk. et Scheib. (Comm. Crit. p. 27), ἐχρῆν add. Bekk.
(in Addendis p. 6ο1).
Reisk.
30.
γ
4.
όλι Α, ὁ λόγος BLMZ, Ald. Steph.,
5. ἐγράψατο: corr. Dobr. Libri lectionem seruant edd. ante Scheib. omnes,
Dobraeo adstipulantur Scheib. (praef. p. xxi) et Buerm.
ρέτην A, corr. Αl. Cf. VI. 22. 3.
31.
2.
πλείω] Cf. § Ι. 4.
7. τὸ Α', τα Α || κλιτα-
4. Post
τοῦ Α1, **** τοῦ (παρὰ τοῦ ?) A. Sed cf. v. 13. 8, Din. III. 21 (ὑπὲρ Α, ὑπὸ ΑΝ).
5. ὑπὸ
32.
2. ᾔδει Α', ήδε Α. 3. ταύτη Bekk., αὐτῇ Reisk.: ταύτην.
πατρῴου interrogationis signum posuit Schoem., improbant edd. ceteri.
OR. III.
43
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΠΥΡΡΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
Ο
αν
οὗτοι μαρτυροῦσι γενέσθαι, πολλῷ †πλέον† τῆς λήξεως τοῦ
κλήρου σύγκειται αὐτοῖς; οὐ γὰρ ἄν ποτε οἱ μὲν εἰς τὴν
δεκάτην, ὡς φασι, κληθέντες τῆς τοῦ Πύρρου θυγατρός,
ἀδελφιδῆς δὲ τούτου, ἐξ ἐκείνης τῆς ἡμέρας, ἥτις ἦν ποτε,
ἀκριβῶς εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον ἧκον μεμνημένοι ὅτι Κλειταρέτην
ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῇ δεκάτῃ ἀνόμηνεν, οἱ δ᾽ οἰκειότατοι τῶν
ἁπάντων, ὁ ἀνὴρ καὶ ὁ θεῖος καὶ ἡ μήτηρ οὐκ ἂν ᾔδει τὸ 34
ὄνομα τῆς θυγατρός, ὥς φασι, τῆς αὐτῆς. πολύ γε μάλιστ'
ἄν, εἰ ἦν ἀληθὲς τὸ πρᾶγμα. ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τούτων καὶ
ὕστερον ἐγχωρήσει εἰπεῖν.
Εν
Ο
αν
Περὶ δὲ τῆς τούτου μαρτυρίας οὐ χαλεπὸν καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν 35
τῶν νόμων ἐστὶ γνῶναι ὅτι φαίνεται περιφανῶς τὰ ψευδῆ
μεμαρτυρηκώς οὗτος. ὅπου γάρ, ἐάν τίς τι ἀτίμητον δῷ,
ἕνεκα τοῦ νόμου, ἐὰν ἀπολίπῃ ἡ γυνὴ τὸν ἄνδρα ἢ ἐὰν ὁ
ἀνὴρ ἐκπέμψῃ τὴν γυναῖκα, οὐκ ἔξεστι πράξασθαι τῷ δόντι
ὃ μὴ ἐν προικὶ τιμήσας ἔδωκεν, ἢ που ὅστις γέ φησιν ἄνευ
ὁμολογίας προικὸς τὴν ἀδελφὴν ἐγγυῆσαι, περιφανῶς ἀναίσ
χυντος ὢν ἐλέγχεται. τί γὰρ ἔμελλεν ὄφελος εἶναι αὐτῷ 36
τῆς ἐγγύης, εἰ ἐπὶ τῷ ἐγγυησαμένῳ ἐκπέμψαι ὁπότε
βούλοιτο τὴν γυναῖκα ἦν; ἦν δ᾽ ἂν ἐπ᾿ ἐκείνῳ, ὦ ἄνδρες,
δῆλον ὅτι, εἰ μηδεμίαν προίκα διωμολογήσατο ἕξειν ἐπ᾿
αὐτῇ. εἶτ᾽ ἐπὶ τούτοις ἂν Νικόδημος ἠγγύησε τῷ ἡμετέρῳ
θείῳ τὴν ἀδελφήν; καὶ ταῦτα εἰδὼς τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον
ἄτοκον οὖσαν αὐτήν, καὶ τῆς ὁμολογηθείσης προικὸς ἐκ τῶν
3. Post
33. 2. μαρτυροῦ ***ενέσθαι αὐτοῖς A, corr. Al inducto αὐτοῖς, quod uerbum ex
sequenti uersu influxit; cf. § 3. 7, V. 3. 4 ! Tλéov] locus nondum sanatus.
| πλέον]
ὕστερον
coni. Reisk., Rauchenstein, πλέον defendunt Jenicke, Scheib., Buerm.
κλήρου excidisse γενομένης ἤδη uel πρότερον οὐ suspicatur Buerm. Num κλήρου
< ἕνεκα > ? || συγκεῖται Α', οὐκέτ* Α || οἱ Ald.: εἰ.
34. I. ὁ ἀνὴρ Dobr.: ὁ πατὴρ A, quod ex superiore uersu defluxisse censet Dobr.
Cf. I. 2. 2. Sed ex ἀνὴρ nasci potuit πήρ.
acl ὠνόμηνεν adscripta del Buerm.
τῆς αὐτοῦ: corr. Saupp.
35. 3. ἐάν τίς—δῷ del. Albrecht.
2.
I, 2.
τὸ ὄνομα τῆς αὐτοῦ tamquam
ὥς φησι M, Ald. Steph., Reisk., Bekk. ||
4. ἕνεκα τοῦ νόμου del. Buerm., ἕνεκα
τοῦ γάμου coni. Reisk., probant Bekk., Schoem., Turr. || ἀπολείπει Α, corr. Α'. Cf.
XI. 2. 4.
6. εἴ που A, corr. Α.
36. 2. ἣν add. post εἰ Muret, post έγγυησαμένῳ Scaliger. Nempe in sequenti
uersu ἦν post γυναῖκα om. Ald. 3. ἣν post γυναῖκα del. Rosenberg, Buerm.
(Hermes 19. 342).
44
OR. III.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
1
νόμων γιγνομένης εἰς αὐτόν, εἴ τι ἔπαθεν ἡ γυνὴ πριν
37 γενέσθαι παῖδας αὐτῇ; ἆρ᾽ οὖν δοκεῖ τῳ ὑμῶν ὀλιγώρως
38
39
40
οὕτως ἔχειν χρημάτων Νικόδημος, ὥστε παραλιπεῖν ἄν τι
τῶν τοιούτων; ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ οὐ νομίζω. εἶτα παρὰ τούτου ὁ
ἡμέτερος θεῖος ἠξίωσεν ἂν ἐγγυήσασθαι τὴν ἀδελφήν, ὃς
αὐτὸς ξενίας φεύγων ὑπὸ ἑνὸς τῶν φρατέρων ὧν φησιν
αὑτοῦ εἶναι, παρὰ τέτταρας ψήφους μετέσχε τῆς πόλεως;
Καὶ ὡς ἀληθῆ λέγω, ἀναγίγνωσκε τὴν μαρτυρίαν.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ.
Οὗτος τοίνυν τῷ ἡμετέρῳ θείῳ ἄπροικον τὴν ἀδελφὴν
τὴν ἑαυτοῦ μεμαρτύρηκεν ἐγγυῆσαι, καὶ ταῦτα τῆς προικὸς
εἰς αὐτὸν γιγνομένης, εἴ τι ἔπαθεν ἡ γυνὴ πρὶν γενέσθαι
παῖδας αὐτῇ. Λαβὲ δὴ καὶ ἀνάγνωθι τοὺς νόμους τουσδι
αὐτοῖς.
ΝΟΜΟΙ.
Δοκεῖ ἂν ὑμῖν οὕτως ὀλιγώρως ἔχειν χρημάτων Νικό-
δημος, ὥστε, εἰ ἦν ἀληθὲς τὸ πρᾶγμα, οὐκ ἂν σφόδρα
διακριβώσασθαι περὶ τῶν ἑαυτῷ συμφερόντων; ναὶ μὰ
Δία, ὡς ἔγωγ᾽ οἶμαι, ἐπεὶ καὶ οἱ ἐπὶ παλλακίᾳ διδόντες
τὰς ἑαυτῶν πάντες πρότερον διομολογοῦνται περὶ τῶν δοθη
σομένων ταῖς παλλακαῖς· Νικόδημος δὲ ἐγγυαν μέλλων,
<ὥς> φησι, | τὴν ἀδελφὴν τὴν αὑτοῦ μόνον τὸ κατὰ τοὺς 42
νόμους ἐγγυῆσαι διεπράξατο; ὃς ἐπ᾽ ὀλίγῳ ἀργυρίῳ, οὗ
ἐπιθυμῶν λέγει πρὸς ὑμᾶς, σφόδρα βούλεται πονηρὸς εἶναι;
Περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς τούτου πονηρίας καὶ σιωπῶντος
ἐμοῦ οἱ πολλοὶ γιγνώσκουσιν ὑμῶν, ὥστε οὐκ ἀπορῶ γε
μαρτύρων, ὅταν τι λέγω περὶ αὐτοῦ· βούλομαι δὲ πρῶτον
ἐκ τῶν τοιῶνδε ἐξελέγξαι τοῦτον ἀναισχυντότατον τῇ μαρ-
8. Num πάθοι ?
37.
38.
3. TOXOÚTWV A, corr. A². Cf. 1. 5. 1.
3. ἂν γενομένης Hertlein || Num πάθοι ?
39. I. ἂν in οὖν corrigit Nab. Cf. § 43. I.
űs add. Reisk. Cf. § 52. 5, II. 5. 5.
7.
40.
5. ὑπό τινος Cob. || ὧν Reisk.: δν.
4. παλλακίδι: corr. Bekk.
9. οὕτω σφόδρα malit Nab.
I. τούτων: corr. Saupp. Cf. § 22. 5 || σιωποκκτος Α, corr. Α'. Cf. VI. 61.
5, And. III. I (ἐναντιοοῦνται Α).
2. γε suspectum.
3. αὐτῶν A, corr. Αl.
OR. III.
45
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΠΥΡΡΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
τυρίᾳ ὄντα ταύτῃ. φέρε γάρ, ὦ Νικόδημε, εἰ ἦσθα
ἠγγυηκώς τῷ Πύρρῳ τὴν ἀδελφὴν καὶ εἰ ᾔδησθα ἐξ αὐτῆς
θυγατέρα γνησίαν καταλειπομένην, πῶς ἐπέτρεψας τῷ ἡμε 41
τέρῳ ἀδελφῷ ἐπιδικάσασθαι τοῦ κλήρου ἄνευ τῆς γνησίας
θυγατρός, ἣν φὴς τῷ ἡμετέρῳ θείῳ καταλειφθῆναι; ἢ οὐκ
ᾔδησθα ἐν τῇ ἐπιδικασίᾳ τοῦ κλήρου νόθην καθισταμένην
τὴν ἀδελφιδῆν τὴν σαυτοῦ; ὁπότε γάρ [τις] ἐπεδικάζετο
τοῦ κλήρου, νόθην τὴν θυγατέρα τοῦ καταλιπόντος τὸν
κλῆρον καθίστη. ἔτι δὲ πρότερον ὁ Πύρρος ὁ ποιησάμενος 42
τὸν ἀδελφὸν τὸν ἐμὸν ὑὸν αὑτῷ· οὔτε γὰρ διαθέσθαι οὔτε
δοῦναι οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν ἔξεστι τῶν ἑαυτοῦ ἄνευ τῶν θυγατέρων,
ἐάν τις καταλιπών γνησίας τελευτᾷ. γνώσεσθε δὲ αὐτῶν
ἀκούσαντες τῶν νόμων ἀναγιγνωσκομένων. ᾿Αναγίγνωσκε
τούσδε αύτοῖς.
ΝΟΜΟΙ.
αν
αν
Δοκεῖ ἂν ὑμῖν ὁ μεμαρτυρηκὼς ἐγγυῆσαι ἐπιτρέψαι 43
ἄν τι τούτων γίγνεσθαι, καὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐπὶ τοῦ κλήρου τῇ
λήξει, ἣν ὁ Ἔνδιος λαχὼν ἐπεδικάζετο, ἀμφισβητῆσαι ἂν
ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀδελφιδῆς τῆς ἑαυτοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἂν διαμαρτυρῆσαι
μὴ ἐπίδικον τῷ Ἐνδίῳ τὸν ἐκείνης πατρῷον κλῆρον εἶναι;
᾿Αλλὰ μὴν ὡς γε ἐπεδικάσατο ὁ ἡμέτερος ἀδελφὸς τοῦ
κλήρου καὶ οὐκ ἠμφεσβήτησεν οὐδεὶς ἐκείνῳ, ἀναγίγνωσκε
τὴν μαρτυρίαν.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ.
Γενομένης τοίνυν τῆς ἐπιδικασίας ταύτης οὐκ ἐτόλμησεν 44
ἀμφισβητῆσαι τοῦ κλήρου Νικόδημος, οὐδὲ διαμαρτυρῆσαι
τὴν ἀδελφιδῆν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γνησίαν θυγατέρα Πύρρῳ κατα-
λειφθῆναι.
41. 4. καθισταμένην. Fuerat καθισταμμένην. Cf. And. I. 98 (καταλελυμένης
A), Din. II. 21. 5 (κεκριμμένων A, rasur. corr.).
5. τις uncis incl. Reisk., οπότε
γὰρ-καθίστη tamquam interpolata del Nab. et Buerm.
6. καταλείποντος Α,
corr. A¹. Cf. §§ 35. 4, 63. 3, 75. 5, V. 10. 7, IX. I. 5.
43. I. δοκή A, corr. A. Cf. § 51. 5, IX. 31. 1 || ἂν in οὖν corrigit Nab. Cf.
3. ἣν—ἐπεδικάζετο del.
§ 39. 1, Din. I. 96. 2. γίγνεσθαι] γν in rasur. A1.
Nab.
4. ådeλø** A, corr. A2. Cf. § 54. 5, V. 9. 7, VII. 19. 2.
Schoem.: οὐκ. Cf. § 47. 2 || τῷ Ενδίῳ del. Nab.
5. μὴ
46
OR. III.
ΣΑΙΟΥ
او
Ο
45 Περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς ἐπιδικασίας ἔχοι ἄν τις ψεῦδος
προφασίσασθαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς· ἡ γὰρ λαθεῖν σφᾶς προσποιή-
σαιτ᾽ ἂν οὗτος, ἢ καὶ ψεύδεσθαι αἰτιῷτ᾽ ἂν ἡμᾶς. τοῦτο
μὲν οὖν παρῶμεν· ἐπειδὴ δὲ τῷ Ξενοκλεῖ ἠγγύα ὁ Ἔνδιος
τὴν ἀδελφιδῆν σου, ἐπέτρεψας, ὦ Νικόδημε, τὴν ἐκ τῆς
ἐγγυητῆς τῷ Πύρρῳ γεγενημένην ὡς ἐξ ἑταίρας ἐκείνῳ
46 οὖσαν ἐγγυᾶσθαι; καὶ οὐκ [ἂν] εἰσήγγειλας πρὸς τὸν
ἄρχοντα κακοῦσθαι τὴν ἐπίκληρον ὑπὸ τοῦ εἰσποιήτου
οὕτως ὑβριζομένην καὶ ἄκληρον τῶν ἑαυτῆς πατρῴων
καθισταμένην, ἄλλως τε καὶ μόνων τούτων τῶν δικῶν
ἀκινδύνων τοῖς διώκουσιν οὐσῶν καὶ ἐξὸν τῷ βουλομένῳ
47 βοηθεῖν ταῖς ἐπικλήροις; οὔτε γὰρ ἐπιτίμιον ταῖς πρὸς τὸν
ἄρχοντα εἰσαγγελίαις ἔπεστιν, οὐδὲ ἐὰν μηδεμίαν τῶν
ψήφων οἱ εἰσαγγείλαντες μεταλάβωσιν, οὔτε πρυτανεία
οὔτε παράστασις οὐδεμία τίθεται τῶν εἰσαγγελιῶν· ἀλλὰ
τοῖς μὲν διώκουσιν ἀκινδύνως εἰσαγγέλλειν ἔξεστι, τῷ
βουλομένῳ, τοῖς δ᾽ ἁλισκομένοις <αἱ> ἔσχαται τιμωρίαι
48 ἐπὶ ταῖς εἰσαγγελίαις ἔπεισιν. ἔπειτα εἰ ἦν ἐξ ἐγγυητῆς ἡ
τούτου ἀδελφιδῆ τῷ ἡμετέρῳ θείῳ γεγενημένη, ἐπέτρεψεν ἂν
Νικόδημος ὡς ἐξ ἑταίρας οὖσαν αὐτὴν ἐγγυᾶσθαι; καὶ
γενομένων αὐτῶν οὐκ ἂν εἰσήγγειλε πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα
ὑβρίζεσθαι τὴν ἐπίκληρον ὑπὸ τοῦ οὕτως ἐγγυήσαντος
αὐτήν; †καὶ† εἰ ἦν ἀληθῆ ἃ νυνὶ τετόλμηκας μαρτυρῆσαι,
παραχρῆμα εὐθὺς τότε ἐτιμωρήσω ἂν τὸν ἀδικοῦντα. ἢ
49 καὶ ταῦτα λαθεῖν σεαυτὸν προσποιήσει; ἔπειτ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἐκ
cl
45. I. διαδικασίας: corr. Reisk. 2. σφᾶς coll. § 48. 8 Bekk. (in Addendis
p. 6ο1), < ἑαυτὸν ἐπιδικαζομένους > ἡμᾶς Reisk. : ἡμᾶς.
5. ἐπέτρεψας ἂν Ald.,
omnes ante Buerm. edd. 6, γ. οὖσαν ἐκείνῳ Fuhr coll. §§ 48, 52, 55, 70, 71.
46. I. ἂν del. Buerm. | εἰσήγγειλας Schoem., Bait. : εἰσήγγελλες. 6. Bondo**
(βοηθοειν ?) Α, corr. Αl.
47. 2.
8, ΧΙ. 26. 3.
ἔνεστιν: corr. Reisk. || μηδεμίαν Bekk. : οὐδεμίαν. Cf. § 43. 5, VIII. 39.
4. Cf. Harp. s.u. παράστασις: Ἰσαῖος ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ Πύρρου κλήρου.
5, 6. τῷ βουλομένῳ del. Nab. 6. ai add. Schoem. Cf. I. 4. 5, V. 5. 4.
48. 1-6. έπειτα αὐτήν uncis includunt Reisk., Bekk., Nab., tuentur Schoem.,
Turr., Scheib., Buerm.
I. ἐξ supra uers. add. Αl.
4. εἰσήγγειλε Μ,
6. καὶ] νὴ Δία Saupp., καὶ μὰ Δία Albrecht, να
7. <ούς παρα-
Schoem., Bait. : εἰσήγγελλε.
Quidni ναί, ? || τετολμήκασι : corr. Reisk.
μὰ Δία καὶ Buerm.
χρῆμα interrogatiue Nab.
OR. III.
47
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΠΥΡΡΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
ΕΠ
τῆς ἐπιδοθείσης αὐτῇ προικὸς ᾔσθου; ὥστε καὶ δι᾽ αὐτὸ
τοῦτο ἀγανακτήσαντι δήπου σοι εἰσαγγεῖλαι τὸν Ενδιον
προσῆκεν, εἰ αὐτὸς μὲν τριτάλαντον οἶκον ἔχειν ἠξίου ὡς
προσῆκον αὐτῷ, τῇ δὲ γνησίᾳ οὔσῃ θυγατρὶ χιλίας δραχμὰς
προῖκα ἐπιδοὺς ἐκδοῦναι ἠξίωσεν ἄλλῳ. εἶτ᾽ ἐπὶ τούτοις
οὐκ ἀγανακτήσας εἰσήγγειλεν ἂν τὸν Ενδιον οὗτος; ναὶ
μὰ Δία, εἴ γ᾽ ἦν ἀληθὲς τὸ πρᾶγμα. οἶμαι δὲ οὐδ᾽ ἂν 50
τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐκεῖνον οὐδ᾽ ἄλλον [δὲ] τῶν εἰσποιήτων οὐδένα
οὕτως εὐήθη οὐδ᾽ αὖ ὀλίγωρον τῶν νόμων τῶν κειμένων
43 γίγνεσθαι, ὥσθ' ὑπαρχούσης γνησίας θυγατρὸς τῷ τὸν
κλῆρον καταλιπόντι ἑτέρῳ δοῦναι ταύτην ἀνθ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ. ἀκρι-
βῶς γὰρ <ἂν> ᾔδει ὅτι τοῖς γε ἐκ τῆς γνησίας θυγατρὸς
παισὶ γεγονόσιν ἁπάντων τῶν παππῴων κληρονομία προσ-
ήκει. εἶτα εἰδὼς ἄν τις ταῦτα ἑτέρῳ παραδοίη τὰ αὑτοῦ,
καὶ ταῦτα τηλικαῦτα ὄντα ὅσων ἠμφεσβήτησαν οὗτοι;
δοκεῖ δ᾽ ἄν τις ὑμῖν οὕτως ἀναιδὴς ἢ τολμηρὸς εἰσποίητος 51
γενέσθαι, ὥστε μηδὲ τὸ δέκατον μέρος ἐπιδοὺς ἐκδοῦναι
τό
τῇ γνησίᾳ θυγατρὶ τῶν πατρῴων; γενομένων δὲ τούτων
δοκεῖ ἂν ὑμῖν ὁ θεῖος ἐπιτρέψαι, ὁ ἐγγυῆσαι μεμαρτυρηκὼς
αὐτῆς τὴν μητέρα; ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ οὐ νομίζω, ἀλλὰ καὶ
ἠμφεσβήτησεν ἂν τοῦ κλήρου καὶ διεμαρτύρησε καὶ εἰσήγ
γειλεν ἂν πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα, καὶ ἄλλο εἴ τι ἦν ἰσχυρότερον
τούτων, ἅπαντ᾽ ἂν διεπράξατο. ὁ μὲν τοίνυν Ενδιος ὡς ἐξ 52
ἑταίρας οὖσαν ἠγγύησεν, ἦν φησιν ἀδελφιδῆν Νικόδημος
εἶναι αὑτῷ· οὗτος δὲ οὔτε τῷ Ἐνδίῳ τοῦ Πύρρου κλήρου
ἀμφισβητῆσαι ἠξίωσεν, οὔτ᾽ ἐγγυήσαντα τὴν ἀδελφιδῆν
Εν
Ο
Εν
49. 4. προσήκει αὐτὸς Α, corr. Α2 (προσῆκεὶ αὐτὸς), προσῆκει αὐτὸς Β, προσῆκεν,
αὐτὸς M, Ald. Verum uidit Reisk. 5. ταύτῃ δὲ malit Rosenberg || θυγατρὶ χιλίας
Rauchenstein, χιλίας Petit (Leg. Att. vi. 2. r) et Reisk., δισχιλίας Saupp. : τρισχιλίας.
50. 2. dè del. Buerm. coll. §§ 21. 1, 72. 9, 76. 4, V. 16. 5, VI. 59. 8, dǹ Saupp.,
3. αὖ Bekk. : ἂν. Cf. VII. 35. 2.
4. ὥστ᾽ A, corr. Α'. Cf.
γε Scheib.
I. 43. I.
6. av addidi coll. IV. II. 4, IX. 13. 1, X. 23. 5, XI. 38. 7, 44. 6, 45. 4,
Ant. Tetr. III. δ. 3, Lyc. 93 || ὅτι Muret, Scheib., Buerm.: διότι A, uolg. Cf. II. 28. 5.
ἐπιδοὺς ἐκδοῦναι in ἐπιδοῦναι corrigit Nab. 4.
§ 43. I. 6, 7. εἰσήγγειλεν Αld., edd. ante Buerm. omnes:
51. 2.
7.
εἴ τι ἄλλο ἦν Μuret. Cf. IX. 3. 6.
52. 4. ἐγγυήσαντα (ἐγγυήσαντι ?) A, corr. Α'.
δοκή A, corr. Α. Cf.
εἰσήγγελλεν A, Buerm.
48
OR. III.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
<ὡς> οὖσαν ἐξ ἑταίρας εἰσαγγεῖλαι πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα
[ἠξίωσεν], οὔτ᾽ ἐπὶ τῇ δοθείσῃ προικὶ αὐτῇ ἠγανάκτησεν
οὐδέν, ἀλλὰ πάντα ταῦτα εἴασε γενέσθαι. οἱ δὲ νόμοι
53 περὶ ἁπάντων διορίζουσι τούτων. ἀναγνώσεται οὖν πρῶτον
ὑμῖν τὴν περὶ τῆς ἐπιδικασίας τοῦ κλήρου μαρτυρίαν πάλιν,
ἔπειτα τὴν περὶ τῆς ἐγγυήσεως τῆς γυναικός. Αναγίγνωσκε
αὐτοῖς.
54
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑΙ.
Ανάγνωθι δὴ καὶ τοὺς νόμους.
NOMOI.
Λαβὲ δὴ καὶ τὴν τούτου μαρτυρίαν.
MAPTYPIΑ.
Πῶς οὖν <ἂν> τις σαφέστερον ἐξελέγχοι ψευδομαρτυ-
ρίων διώκων ἢ ἔκ τε τῶν πεπραγμένων αὐτοῖς τούτοις
ἐπιδεικνύων καὶ ἐκ τῶν νόμων ἁπάντων τῶν ὑμετέρων;
Περὶ μὲν οὖν τούτου σχεδὸν εἴρηται τὰ πολλά· σκέ-
ψασθε δὲ καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἔχοντος τὴν ἀδελφιδῆν τὴν τούτου
γυναῖκα, ἐὰν ἄρα
ἐὰν ἄρα τι γένηται καὶ ἐκ τούτου τεκμήριον
55 ὡς ἔστι ψευδῆ τὰ μεμαρτυρημένα Νικοδήμῳ. ὡς μὲν οὖν
ἠγγυήσατο καὶ ἔλαβεν ὡς οὖσαν ἐξ ἑταίρας τὴν γυναῖκα,
ἐπιδέδεικται καὶ μεμαρτύρηται· ὡς δ᾽ ἀληθὴς ἡ μαρτυρία
ἐστὶν αὕτη, ὁ Ξενοκλῆς αὐτὸς ἔργῳ οὐκ ὀλίγον χρόνον ἤδη
[ἀληθῆ ταῦτα] μεμαρτύρηκε. δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι εἰ μὴ ἠγγύητο
παρὰ τοῦ ᾿Ενδίου ὡς ἐξ ἑταίρας οὖσαν τὴν γυναῖκα, ὄντων
αὐτῷ παίδων ἤδη τηλικούτων ἐκ τῆς γυναικός, ζῶντι ἂν
5. is add. Reisk. Cf. § 39. 7.
6. ἠξίωσεν del. Scheib. et Gebauer ad Lys.
13. 49, Append. p. 373 || ἐπιδοθείσῃ malit Scheib. coll. § 49. 2, 6.
53. 5. Tit. μαρτυρία: corr. Reisk.
Albrecht.
8, 9. Λαβὲ δὴ ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ damnat
54. I. äv add. Dobr. Cf. § 50. 6, 1. 36. 5, 11. 8. 6, 25. 3, IV. 19. 5, VII. 36. 3,
ΙΧ. 5. 1, 8. 1, Χ. 18. 1, ΧΙ. 38. 7 || τις supra uers. add. Α' || ἐξελέγχοι Ald. : ἐξελέγχει.
1, 2. ψευδομαρτυριών. Cf. § 4. 2. 3. ἡμετέρων : corr. Saupp.
******v A. Cf. Din. 1. 103 ὑπὲρ Α', περὶ Α, Ant. Tetr. III. δ. 10.
corr. A². Cf. § 43. 4.
4. περὶ μὲν Α1,
5. ådeλø** A,
55. 5. ἀληθῆ ταῦτα secl. Reisk., Bekk., tuentur Schoem., Turr., Scheib.,
Buerm.
OR. III.
49
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΠΥΡΡΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
τῷ Ἐνδίῳ ἠμφεσβήτησεν ὑπὲρ τῆς γνησίας θυγατρὸς τῶν
πατρῴων, ἄλλως τε καὶ παρεσκευασμένος μὴ ὁμολογεῖν τὴν 56
τοῦ Ἐνδίου ποίησιν τῷ Πύρρῳ γενέσθαι. †ὡς δ᾽ οὐχ
ὁμολογῶν πως† ἐπεσκήπτετο τοῖς μεμαρτυρηκόσιν ἐπὶ τῇ
διαθήκῃ τοῦ Πύρρου παραγενέσθαι. καὶ ὡς ἀληθῆ λέγω,
ἀναγνώσεται ὑμῖν τὴν μαρτυρίαν τὴν μαρτυρηθεῖσαν.
Αναγίγνωσκε αὐτοῖς.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ.
او
᾿Αλλὰ μὴν κἀκείνως δῆλον, ὡς οὐχ ὁμολογοῦσι τὴν 57
τοῦ Ἐνδίου ποίησιν ὑπὸ τοῦ Πύρρου γενέσθαι. οὐ γὰρ
ἂν ὑπερβάντες τὸν τελευταῖον τοῦ οἴκου γεγενημένον κλη-
ρονόμον ὑπὲρ τῆς γυναικὸς τοῦ Πύρρου κλήρου λαχεῖν τὴν
λῆξιν ἠξίωσαν οὗτοι. ὁ μὲν γὰρ Πύρρος πλείω ἢ εἴκοσιν
ἔτη τετελεύτηκεν ἤδη, ὁ δὲ Ἔνδιος τοῦ Μεταγειτνιῶνος
μηνὸς πέρυσιν, ἐν ᾧ ἔλαχον τοῦ κλήρου τὴν λῆξιν τρίτῃ
ἡμέρᾳ εὐθέως οὗτοι. ὁ δὲ νόμος πέντε ἐτῶν κελεύει δι- 58
κάσασθαι τοῦ κλήρου, ἐπειδὰν τελευτήσῃ ὁ κληρονόμος.
οὐκοῦν δυοῖν τὰ ἕτερα προσῆκε τῇ γυναικί, ἢ ζῶντι τῷ
Ἐνδίῳ ἀμφισβητῆσαι τῶν πατρῴων, ἢ ἐπειδὴ τετελευτη
κὼς ἦν ὁ εἰσποίητος, τῶν τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ τὴν ἐπιδικασίαν
ἀξιοῦν ποιεῖσθαι, ἄλλως τε καὶ εἰ, ὥς φασιν οὗτοι, ἠγγυήκει
αὐτὴν τῷ Ξενοκλεῖ ὡς γνησίαν ἀδελφὴν οὖσαν αὑτοῦ.
ἀκριβῶς γὰρ ἐπιστάμεθα πάντες ὅτι ἀδελφῶν μὲν κλήρων 59
ἐπιδικασία πασίν ἐστιν ἡμῖν, ὅτῳ δὲ γόνῳ γεγόνασι γνήσιοι
παῖδες, οὐδενὶ ἐπιδικάζεσθαι τῶν πατρῴων προσήκει. καὶ
περὶ τούτων οὐδένα λόγον λεχθῆναι δεῖ· ἅπαντες γάρ,
8. ἠμφισβήτησε περὶ : corr. Bekk. Cf. §§ 30. 4, 43. 4, 57. 4, 62. 3.
56. 2. τῷ Πύρρῳ] ὑπὸ τοῦ Πύρρου Nab. coll. §§ 57. 2, 66. 6. 2, 3. ὡς δ᾽ οὐχ
ὁμολογῶν πῶς] locus nondum sanatus. ὡς δὴ οὐχ ὁμολογῶν πως Ald. Schoem., Turr.,
Scheib., ὡς δὴ οὐχ ὁμολογῶν πως Steph., Bekk., πῶς uncis incl. Reisk., καὶ δὴ ὡς οὐχ
ὁμολογῶν Nab., πῶς γὰρ τοῦθ᾽ ὁμολογῶν requirit Buerm. Num ὡς γὰρ οὐχ ὁμολογῶν ?
3. ἐπέσκηπτε: corr. Reisk. 5. ὑμῖν Μ, Ald. : ἡμῖν. 7. Tit. in marg.
57. I. κἀκείνως scripsi coll. [Dem.] 58. 42: κἀκεῖνό γε | δηλοϊ coni. Schoem.
5. πλείω] Cf. § 1. 4.
58. I, 2.
ἐπιδικάσασθαι Herw.
1. A,
59.
ἀδελφὸν μὲν κλῆρον Α, corr. Αl. Cf. I. 17. Ι.
W. I.
4
50
OR. III.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
<καὶ> ὑμεῖς | καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι πολῖται, ἀνεπίδικα ἔχουσι τὰ 44
60 ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστοι πατρῷα. οὗτοι τοίνυν εἰς τοῦτο τόλμης
ἀφιγμένοι εἰσίν, ὥστε τῷ μὲν εἰσποιήτῳ οὐκ ἔφασαν
ἐπιδικάσασθαι προσήκειν τῶν δοθέντων, τῇ δὲ Φίλῃ, ἦν
φασι θυγατέρα γνησίαν τῷ Πύρρῳ καταλελεῖφθαι, λαχεῖν
τοῦ κλήρου τοῦ πατρῴου τὴν λῆξιν ἠξίωσαν. καίτοι—
ὅπερ εἶπον καὶ πρότερον—ὅσοι μὲν <ἂν> καταλίπωσι
γνησίους παῖδας ἐξ αὐτῶν, οὐ προσήκει τοῖς παισὶν ἐπι-
δικάσασθαι τῶν πατρῴων· ὅσοι δὲ διαθήκαις †αὐτοὶ†
εἰσποιοῦνται, τούτοις ἐπιδικάζεσθαι προσήκει τῶν δοθέντων.
61 τοῖς μὲν γάρ, ὅτι γόνῳ γεγόνασιν, οὐδεὶς ἂν δήπου ἀμφισ
βητήσειε περὶ τῶν πατρῴων· πρὸς δὲ τοὺς εἰσποιήτους
ἅπαντες οἱ κατὰ γένος προσήκοντες ἀμφισβητεῖν ἀξιοῦσιν.
ἵνα οὖν μὴ παρὰ τοῦ ἐντυχόντος† τῶν κλήρων αἱ λήξεις
τοῖς ἀμφισβητεῖν βουλομένοις γίγνωνται, καὶ μὴ ὡς ἐρήμων
τῶν κλήρων ἐπιδικάζεσθαί τινες τολμῶσι, τούτου ἕνεκα
62 τὰς ἐπιδικασίας οἱ εἰσποίητοι πάντες ποιοῦνται. μηδεὶς
οὖν ὑμῶν ἡγείσθω, εἰ ἐνόμιζε γνησίαν εἶναι τὴν ἑαυτοῦ
γυναῖκα Ξενοκλῆς, λαχείν ἂν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς τὴν λῆξιν τοῦ
κλήρου τοῦ πατρῴου, ἀλλ᾽ ἐβάδιζεν ἂν ἡ γνησία εἰς τὰ
ἑαυτῆς πατρῷα, καὶ εἴ τις αὐτὴν ἀφῃρεῖτο ἢ ἐβιάζετο,
ἐξῆγεν ἂν ἐκ τῶν πατρῴων, καὶ οὐκ ἂν ἰδίας μόνον δίκας
ἔφευγεν ὁ βιαζόμενος, ἀλλὰ καὶ δημοσίᾳ εἰσαγγελθεὶς πρὸς
5. και add. Buerm. (Hermes r9. 327).
Herw. (non tentato έavrŵv).
60. 5. λήκειν Α, corr. Al.
malit καταλείπουσι Vollert. Cf. II. 8. 6.
6.
5, 6. ἔχετε τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστος coni.
εἶπον Α2, εἶχον (εἶχον ?) Α || ἂν add. Dobr.,
8. An δ' ἐν ? || αὐτοὶ] υἱοὶ Emper, quod
praetulerim, vioùs Scheib. (Comm. Crit. p. 29), avroîs Dobr., Turr., in textu Scheib.,
ita ut in sequenti uersu τούτοις in τοῖς υἱοῖς corrigat, transpositione usus εἰσποιοῦνται,
αὐτοῖς τούτοις restituit Buerm.
61. I. γεγονόσιν Α, corr. Α2.
2.
περὶ in suspicionem uocat Herw.
Cf. I. 5. 4•
4· παρὰ τοῦ ἐντυχόντος] locus desperatus. πρὸς τοὺς ἐντυ
χόντας Saupp., παρὰ τοὐντυχόν (Opusc. p. 281) et ώσπερ τοῦ ἐπιτυχόντος (ib. p. 316)
Emper, παρὰ τὸ προσῆκον Rauchenstein, παρὰ τοῦ ἐπιτυχόντος Scheib., παρὰ τοὺς
τυχόντας Buerm. Nun ἵνα οὖν μόνον παρὰ τοῦ ἔχοντος τὸν κλῆρον ?
ἀμφισβητεῖν βουλομένοις del Platner. 6. τινος Α, corr. Α2.
62.
5. ἀφῃρεῖτο ἢ in suspicionem uocat Buerm. (Hermes 19. 356).
Reisk. : εἰς. Cf. §§ 46. 1, 48. 4. εἰς τὸν ἄρχοντα abesse malit Bait.
5. τοῖς
7. πρός
OR. III.
51
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΠΥΡΡΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
τὸν ἄρχοντα ἐκινδύνευεν ἂν περὶ τοῦ σώματος καὶ τῆς
οὐσίας ἁπάσης τῆς ἑαυτοῦ.
Ἔτι δ᾽ ἂν πρότερον [τοῦ Ξενοκλέους] οἱ τοῦ Πύρρου 63
θεῖοι, εἰ ᾔδεσαν γνησίαν θυγατέρα τῷ ἑαυτῶν ἀδελφιδῷ
καταλειπομένην καὶ ἡμῶν μηδένα λαμβάνειν ἐθέλοντα
αὐτήν, οὐκ ἄν ποτε ἐπέτρεψαν Ξενοκλέα, τὸν μηδαμόθεν
μηδὲν γένει προσήκοντα Πύρρῳ, λαβόντα ἔχειν τὴν κατὰ
γένος προσήκουσαν αὐτοῖς γυναῖκα ἢ δεινόν γ᾽ ἂν εἴη.
τὰς μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν πατέρων ἐκδοθείσας καὶ συνοικούσας 64
ἀνδράσι γυναῖκας—περὶ ὧν τίς ἂν ἄμεινον ἢ ὁ πατὴρ
βουλεύσαιτο ;—καὶ τὰς οὕτω δοθείσας, ἂν ὁ πατὴρ αὐτῶν
τελευτήσῃ μὴ καταλιπὼν αὐταῖς γνησίους ἀδελφούς, τοῖς
ἐγγύτατα γένους ἐπιδίκους ὁ νόμος εἶναι κελεύει, καὶ πολ-
λοὶ συνοικοῦντες ἤδη ἀφῄρηνται τὰς ἑαυτῶν γυναῖκας. εἶτα 65
τὰς μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν πατέρων ἐκδοθείσας διὰ τὸν νόμον ἐξ
ἀνάγκης ἐπιδίκους εἶναι προσήκει· Ξενοκλεῖ δὲ ἄν τις τόδ'
ἐπέτρεψε τῶν τοῦ Πύρρου θείων, εἰ ἦν γνησία θυγάτηρ
ἐκείνῳ καταλειπομένη, λαβόντα ἔχειν τὴν κατὰ γένος προσ-
ήκουσαν αὐτοῖς γυναῖκα, καὶ τοσαύτης οὐσίας τοῦτον
καταστῆναι κληρονόμον ἀνθ᾿ ἑαυτῶν; μὴ νομίσητε ὑμεῖς,
ὦ ἄνδρες· οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀνθρώπων μισεῖ τὸ λυσιτελοῦν, οὐδὲ 66
περὶ πλείονος τοὺς ἀλλοτρίους ἑαυτοῦ ποιεῖται. ἐὰν οὖν
προφασίζωνται διὰ τὴν τοῦ Ἐνδίου ποίησιν μὴ ἐπίδικον
εἶναι τὴν γυναῖκα, καὶ διὰ ταῦτα μὴ φῶσιν ἀμφισβητῆσαι
αὐτῆς, πρῶτον μὲν ἐκεῖνα αὐτοὺς ἐρέσθαι χρή, εἰ ὁμολο-
γοῦντες τὴν τοῦ Ἐνδίου ποίησιν ὑπὸ τοῦ Πύρρου γενέσθαι
63. I. πρότεροι Reisk. || τοῦ Ξενοκλέους del. Buerm. (Hermes 19. 353).
3. καταλειπομένην Α, καταλιπομένην Αld., καταλειπομένην Steph., edd. omnes.
Cf. §§ 41. 6, 65. 5, 68. 3, 72. 4. 6. ein, <ei> coni. Steph. et Nab.
64. 3· καὶ τὰς οὕτω δοθείσας del. Nab.
65. 4. θυγάτηρ Α', ****ηρ A (supra η rasur.).
καταλιπομένη Αld., καταλειπομένη Steph. edd. omnes.
στῆσαι: corr. Reisk. || ἑαυτοῦ malit Reisk.
5. καταλειπομένη Α,
Cf. § 63. 3.
7. κατα
66. 1, 2. ἀνθρώπων—ἀλλοτρίους, quae apud A unum uersum efficiunt, om.
BLMZ. Cf. Buerm. Hermes 17. 385. Horum loco ἄλλους περὶ πλείονος habent Αld.,
Steph., Reisk.
Cf. v. II. 10, 34• 5-7
5. εἰ] τί Nab. 6. ὑπὸ τοῦ Πύρρου
γενέσθαι in rasur. totidem litt. Αl.
4-2
52
OR. III.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
67 ἐπεσκημμένοι εἰσὶ τοῖς μεμαρτυρηκόσι ταῦτα, εἶτα <εἰ>
παρελθόντες τὸν τελευταῖον τοῦ οἴκου γεγενημένον κληρο-
νόμον τοῦ Πύρρου κλήρου τὴν λῆξιν λαχεῖν ἠξίωσαν παρὰ
τὸν νόμον. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἐκεῖνο αὐτοὺς ἔρεσθε, εἴ τις
τῶν γνησίων <τῶν> αὑτοῦ ἐπιδικάζεσθαι ἀξιοῖ. ταῦτα
πρὸς τὴν ἀναίδειαν αὐτῶν πυνθάνεσθε. ὡς δ᾽ ἦν ἐπίδικος
ἡ γυνή, εἴ περ γνησία κατελείφθη, ἐκ τῶν νόμων σαφέστατα
68 μαθεῖν ἔστι τοῦτο. ὁ γὰρ νόμος διαρρήδην λέγει ἐξεῖναι
διαθέσθαι ὅπως ἂν ἐθέλῃ τις τὰ αὑτοῦ, ἐὰν μὴ παῖδας
γνησίους καταλίπῃ ἄρρενας· ἂν δὲ θηλείας καταλίπῃ, σὺν
ταύταις. οὐκοῦν μετὰ τῶν θυγατέρων ἔστι δοῦναι καὶ
διαθέσθαι τὰ αὑτοῦ· ἄνευ δὲ τῶν γνησίων θυγατέρων οὐχ
οἷόν τε οὔτε ποιήσασθαι οὔτε δοῦναι οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν τῶν
69 ἑαυτοῦ. οὐκοῦν εἰ μὲν ἄνευ τῆς γνησίας θυγατρὸς τὸν
Ενδιον Πύρρος ἐποιεῖτο ὑὸν αὑτῷ, ἄκυρος ἂν ἦν αὐτοῦ ἡ
ποίησις κατὰ τὸν νόμον· εἰ δὲ τὴν θυγατέρα ἐδίδου καὶ
ἐπὶ τούτῳ ποιησάμενος κατέλιπε, πῶς ἂν ὑμεῖς | ἐπετρέψατε 45
ἐπιδικάζεσθαι-οἱ τοῦ Πύρρου θεῖοι-τὸν Ἔνδιον τοῦ
Πύρρου κλήρου ἄνευ τῆς γνησίας θυγατρός, εἰ ἦν ἐκείνῳ,
ἄλλως τε εἰ καὶ ἐμαρτυρήσατε ὡς ἐπέσκηψεν ὑμῖν ὁ ἀδελ
70 φιδοῦς ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τούτου τοῦ παιδίου; ἀλλ᾽ ὦ ἀγαθέ,
τοῦτο μὲν καὶ λαθεῖν φήσαιτ᾽ ἂν ὑμᾶς· ὅτε δ' ἠγγύα καὶ
ἐξεδίδου ὁ Ἔνδιος τὴν γυναῖκα, ἐπετρέπετε ὑμεῖς οἱ θεῖοι
τὴν τοῦ ἀδελφιδοῦ τοῦ ὑμετέρου αὐτῶν ὡς ἐξ ἑταίρας οὖσαν
ΟΤΕ
67. I. el uel potius τι addere uolt Reisk., malint τί Bekk., Schoem. (in Addendis
p. 510), ei Buerm., libri lectionem tuentur Turr., Scheib.
5. τῶν add. Reisk.
7. κατελείφθη Ald. Steph., Reisk., Schoem., Herw., καταλειφθείη A, Bekk., Turr.,
Scheib., Buerm. Cf. IV. II. 2.
68. 3. καταλείπη (post θηλείας). Cf. §§ 63. 3, 75. 5.
69. 2. ἄκυρο* Α, σ in rasur. Α', ἄκυρον Buerm. || αὐτοῦ Α', αὐτῷ Α, αὐτῷ
Buerm. Cf. II. 47. 4.
5. —οἱ τοῦ Πύρρου θεῖοι—τὸν Ἔνδιον Buerm., τὼ τοῦ
Πύρρου θείω, τὸν Ἔνδιον Αld., Reisk., Bekk., Schoem.; sed e § 26 tres fuisse apparet ;
τῷ τοῦ Πύρρου θετῷ, τῷ ᾿Ενδίῳ Meier, τὸν τοῦ Πύρρου θετὸν υἱὸν Ἔνδιον Saupp.,
τῷ τοῦ Πύρρου θετῷ (omissis τὸν Ενδιον) Scheib.: τῷ τοῦ Πύρρου θείω τὸν Ἔνδιον.
7. καὶ εἰ, ὡς ἐμαρτυρήσατε Nab., Buerm. coll. § 58. 6, καὶ εἰ ἐμαρτυρήσατε ὡς Reisk.
'yabol Saupp., ŵ 'yalè M, Ald., Reisk., edd. ante Buerm. omnes.
ὑμεῖς > coni. Buerm. coll. §§ 45. 2, 48. 8. 3. τῇ γυναικὶ: corr. sched.
2.
70.
Eton.
καὶ
I.
Cf. IV. 26. 4, V. 33. 4, VII. 5. 5.
OR. III.
53
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΠΥΡΡΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
Εν
ἐκείνῳ ἐγγυᾶσθαι, ἄλλως τε καὶ παραγενέσθαι φάσκοντες,
ὅτε ὁ ἀδελφιδοῦς ὑμῶν ἠγγυᾶτο τὴν μητέρα τὴν ταύτης κατὰ
<τοὺς> νόμους ἕξειν γυναῖκα, ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἐν τῇ δεκάτῃ τῇ
ταύτης κληθέντες συνεστιᾶσθαι; πρὸς δὲ τούτοις—τουτὶ 71
γὰρ τὸ δεινόν ἐστιν—ἐπισκηψαι φάσκοντες ὑμῖν τὸν ἀδελ
φιδοῦν ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τούτου τοῦ παιδίου, οὕτως ἐπεμελήθητε
ὥστ᾽ ἐᾶσαι ὡς ἐξ ἑταίρας οὖσαν αὐτὴν ἐγγυᾶσθαι, ἄλλως τε
καὶ ἔχουσαν τοὔνομα τῆς ὑμετέρας αὐτῶν ἀδελφῆς, ὡς
ἐμαρτυρεῖτε ;
Ἐκ τοίνυν τούτων, ὦ ἄνδρες, καὶ ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ πράγ- 12
ματος ῥᾴδιόν ἐστι γνῶναι ὅσον ἀναισχυντότατοι ἀνθρώπων
εἰσὶν οὗτοι. τίνος γὰρ ἕνεκα, εἰ ἦν γνησία θυγάτηρ
τῷ ἡμετέρῳ θείῳ καταλειπομένη, ποιησάμενος ὁ θεῖος
κατέλιπε τὸν ἐμὸν ἀδελφὸν ὑὸν ἑαυτῷ; πότερον ὅτι προσ-
ήκοντες αὐτῷ ἐγγυτέρω γένους ἡμῶν ἦσαν ἄλλοι, οὓς
βουλόμενος τὴν ἐπιδικασίαν τῆς θυγατρὸς ἀποστερῆσαι
ἐποιεῖτο τὸν ἀδελφὸν ὑὸν αὑτῷ; ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε ἐγένετο οὔτ᾽
ἔστι, μὴ γενομένων [δὲ] παίδων γνησίων ἐκείνῳ, ἐγγυτέρω
ἡμῶν οὐδὲ εἷς· ἀδελφὸς μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἦν αὐτῷ οὐδ᾽ ἀδελφοῦ
παῖδες, ἐκ δὲ τῆς ἀδελφῆς ἡμεῖς ἦμεν αὐτῷ. ἀλλὰ νὴ 73
Δία ἄλλον τινὰ ποιησάμενος τῶν συγγενῶν ἔδωκεν ἂν ἔχειν
τὸν κλῆρον καὶ τὴν θυγατέρα τὴν ἑαυτοῦ. καὶ τί αὐτὸν
ἔδει καταφανῶς καὶ ὁτῳοῦν ἀπεχθέσθαι τῶν οἰκείων, ἐξόν,
εἴπερ ἦν ἠγγυημένος τὴν ἀδελφὴν τὴν Νικοδήμου, τὴν
θυγατέρα τὴν ἐκ ταύτης ἀποφανθεῖσαν εἶναι εἰς τοὺς
φράτορας εισαγαγόντι ὡς οὖσαν γνησίαν ἑαυτῷ, ἐπὶ ἅπαντι
τῷ κλήρῳ ἐπίδικον καταλιπεῖν αὐτήν, καὶ ἐπισκῆψαι τῶν
7.
23. 7.
EK
τοὺς add. Schoem. Cf. II. 1. 2 || Malim ἔχειν. Cf. §§ 4. 7, 28. 7, 74• 7, Χ.
8. συνίστασθαι Α, corr. Α2.
71. 3.
4.
τούτου in rasur. add. Α' || κύτως Α, corr. Α' || ἐπιμελήθητε A, corr. Α.
72. I. τούτων Α', τούτου A. Cf. § 22. 5.
καταλειπομένη Α, κατα-
λιπομένη Αld., καταλειπομένη Steph., edd. omnes. Cf. §§ 63. 3, 65. 5.
6. ὑμῶν
A, corr. A². 8. τὸν < ἐμὸν > coni. Steph. et Nab. 9. dè del. Buerm. (cf.
§ 50. 2), γε Dobr., δὴ Saupp.
ΙΟ. οὐδὲ εἰς Α, οὐδε εις Α', οὐδεὶς Ald.
73. 2. δία a corr., fuisse δι᾽ ἃ suspicatur Buerm. 3. ἑαυτοῦ; uolg. Interpunc-
tionem corr. Gebauer. Cf. VII. 33. 6. 4. ἀπεχθέσθαι Bekk.: ἀπέχθεσθαι A, uolg.
8. Ante τῶν erasae 2 litt. (ἐκ sec. Dobs.). Cf. IV. 1. 8, VII. 28. I.
Cf. II. 30. 3·
54
OR. III.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
γιγνομένων <ἐκ> τῆς θυγατρὸς παίδων εἰσαγαγεῖν ὑὸν
74 ἑαυτῷ; δῆλον [μὲν] γὰρ ὅτι ἐπίκληρον μὲν καταλιπὼν
ἀκριβῶς ἂν ᾔδει ὅτι δυοῖν θάτερον ἔμελλεν ὑπάρχειν αὐτῇ·
ἢ γὰρ ἡμῶν τινα τῶν ἐγγύτατα γένους ἐπιδικασάμενον ἕξειν
γυναῖκα, ἢ εἰ μηδεὶς ἡμῶν ἐβούλετο λαμβάνειν, τῶν θείων
τινὰ τούτων τῶν νῦν μαρτυρούντων, εἰ δὲ μή, τῶν ἄλλων
τινὰ συγγενῶν τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ οὐσίᾳ
ἐπιδικασάμενον κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ἕξειν ταύτην γυναῖκα,
75 οὐκοῦν ἐκ. μὲν τοῦ τὴν θυγατέρα εἰς τοὺς φράτερας εἰσ-
αγαγεῖν καὶ μὴ ποιήσασθαι τὸν ἐμὸν ἀδελφὸν ὑὸν αὐτῷ
ταῦτ᾽ ἂν διεπράξατο· ἐκ δὲ τοῦ τοῦτον μὲν ποιήσασθαι
τὴν δὲ μὴ εἰσαγαγεῖν τὴν μὲν νόθην, ὥσπερ αὐτῷ προσῆκε,
καὶ ἄκληρον κατέστησε, τὸν δὲ κληρονόμον κατέλιπεν τῶν
76 ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλὰ μὴν ὥς γε οὔτε γαμηλίαν εἰσήνεγκεν ὁ θεῖος
ἡμῶν, οὔτε τὴν θυγατέρα, ἣν φασι γνησίαν αὐτοῦ εἶναι
οὗτοι, εἰσαγαγεῖν εἰς τοὺς φράτερας ἠξίωσε, καὶ ταῦτα
νόμου ὄντος αὐτοῖς, ἀναγνώσεται [δὲ] ὑμῖν τὴν τῶν φρα-
τέρων τῶν ἐκείνου μαρτυρίαν. ᾿Αναγίγνωσκε· σὺ δ᾽ ἐπίλαβε
τὸ ὕδωρ.
9.
αν
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ.
Ο
Λαβὲ δὲ καὶ ὡς ἐποιήσατο τὸν ἐμὸν ἀδελφὸν ὑὸν αὐτῷ.
74.
ẻk ante rîs add. Reisk. Cf. VIII. 45. 6 || viòv in uers. add. A¹.
1. μὲν deletum malit Buerm. (Hermes 19. 348). Cf. VI. 18. I, VIII. 36. 3.
Per μὲν γὰρ usque ad paginae marginem transcurrit duplex linea uelut impulso calamo
facta. Verba inducta esse sunt qui putent || μὲν post ἐπίκληρον in marg. add. Α', del.
Bekk., edd. post Bekk. omnes. Cf. IV. 1. 8, V. 5. I, XI. 40. 5, 6, Ant. Tetr. I. y. 7
3. γένους ἐπιδικασάμενον in rasur. 13 litt. Αl.
5. τούτων in rasur. add. A1.
6. περὶ πάσης τῆς οὐσίας: correxi, tuentur Turr., Scheib. περὶ del. Dobr., in μετά corr
Schoem., Buerm. 7. ἔχειν: corr. Reisk. Cf. § 70. 7.
2. αὐτοῦ, ut
Cf. IX. 23. 5.
75. 2. αὑτῷ Ald., uolg., ἑαυτῶ A, Buerm., αὐτῶ Α'. Cf. II. II. 3.
3· ταῦτ᾽
ἂν Ald. Steph., Reisk., Turr., Scheib., Buerm.: ταῦτα A, Bekk., Schoem. || τὸν
µèv Ald., edd. ante Turr. omnes.
5. κατέλειπεν. Cf. § 41. 6, I. 25. 3.
76. I. ὥς γε Ald. : ώστε || γαμηλκίαν. Cf. V. 47. 4, VII. 15. 5.
uidetur, litt. minutis supra uers. add. Α', αὐτῷ omnes ante Buerm. edd.
3. ἠξίωσε, ut mihi quidem uidetur, Α', sec. Buerm. Α', ήξίωσαν Α.
Dobr. (cf. § 72. 9), ita seruat Emper, ut αὐτοῖς in αὐτοὶ ἴστε corrigat.
corr. Steph. Cf. § 12. 7. 8. <Tηv> ws coni. Reisk. et Scheib. Sed cf. Lys. 23. 8
(καὶ τὸν δς ἔφη), Dem. 4. 36 (τὸ ἐφ' δ ἂν ἐκπλέωμεν Σ), 25. 30 (τοῖς ὧν ἀπέκτεινεν ὁ δῆμος
τοὺς πατέρας), Cob. Misc. Crit. p. 469.
4. δὲ del.
5· ἐπίβαλλε:
OR. III.
55
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΠΥΡΡΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
πι
Εν
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ.
Εἶτα ὑμεῖς τὴν Νικοδήμου μαρτυρίαν τῶν αὐτοῦ τοῦ 77
θείου ἐκμαρτυριῶν πιστοτέραν ἡγήσεσθε εἶναι, καὶ τὴν
οὕτω κοινὴν τοῖς βουλομένοις γεγενημένην, ταύτην ἐπιχει-
ρήσει τις ὑμᾶς πείθειν ὅτι ἐγγυητὴν γυναῖκα ὁ ἡμέτερος
θεῖος ἔσχεν; ἀλλ᾽ ὑμεῖς, ὡς ἔγωγ᾽ οἶμαι, οὐ πιστεύσετε,
ἐὰν μὴ ἀποφαίνῃ ὑμῖν, ὅπερ ἀρχόμενος εἶπον τοῦ λόγου,
πρῶτον μὲν ἐπὶ τίνι προικὶ οὗτος ἐγγυῆσαι τῷ Πύρρῳ 78
φησὶ τὴν ἀδελφήν, ἔπειτα πρὸς ὁποῖον ἄρχοντα ἡ ἐγγυητὴ
γυνὴ ἀπέλιπε τὸν ἄνδρα ἢ τὸν οἶκον [τὸν] αὐτοῦ, εἶτα
παρ' ὅτου ἐκομίσατο τὴν προῖκα αὐτῆς, ἐπειδὴ τετελευτηκὼς
ἦν ᾧ φησιν αὐτὴν ἐγγυῆσαι· ἢ εἰ ἀπαιτῶν μὴ ἐδύνατο
46 κομίσασθαι | ἐν εἴκοσιν ἔτεσιν, ὁποίαν δίκην σίτου ἢ τῆς
προικὸς αὐτῆς ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐγγυητῆς γυναικὸς ἐδικάσατο τῷ
ἔχοντι τὸν Πύρρου κλῆρον οὗτος. ἔτι δὲ πρὸς τούτοις 79
ἐπιδειξάτω ὅτῳ πρότερον ἢ ὕστερον ἠγγύησεν οὗτος τὴν
ἀδελφήν, ἢ εἰ ἐξ ἄλλου τινὸς γεγενημένοι εἰσὶ παῖδες αὐτῇ.
ταῦτα οὖν ἀξιοῦτε πυνθάνεσθαι παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ, καὶ περὶ τῆς
τοῖς φράτερσι γαμηλίας μὴ ἀμνημονεῖτε. οὐ γὰρ τῶν
ἐλαχίστων πρὸς τὴν τούτου μαρτυρίαν τεκμήριόν ἐστι
τοῦτο. δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι, εἰ ἐπείσθη ἐγγυήσασθαι, ἐπείσθη
ἂν καὶ γαμηλίαν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς τοῖς φράτερσιν εἰσενεγκεῖν καὶ
εἰσαγαγεῖν τὴν ἐκ ταύτης ἀποφανθεῖσαν «εἶναι» θυγατέρα
ὡς γνησίαν οὖσαν αὑτῷ. [καὶ] ἔν τε τῷ δήμῳ κεκτημένος 80
τὸν τριτάλαντον οἶκον, εἰ ἦν γεγαμηκώς, ἠναγκάζετο ἂν
ὑπὲρ τῆς γαμετῆς γυναικὸς καὶ θεσμοφόρια ἑστιᾶν τὰς
او
77. 5. πιστεύετε: corr. Steph.
78. 3.
τὸν del. Turr. Cf. II. 23. 2.
4. αὐτῆς A, Ald., uolg., αὐτὸς Α1.
Quidni οὗτος; Cf. VIII. 17. 6 || οὗτος uel ante τὴν uel post αὐτῆς addere uolt Scheib.
δ φκσιν Α, ὦ Α', φησιν Α1 || αὐτῆς A, corr. Α”.
5.
79. 4. Post τῆς add. εἰσενεχθείσης Scheib., ἐν Rauchenstein.
6. τούτου
M, Ald. : τούτων. Cf. § 22. 5. 9. είναι add. Scheib. coll. §§ 30. 2, 73. 6 (Comm.
Crit. p. 27).
80. I. καὶ del. Fuhr, Buerm. (cf. VIII. 7. 7), τε del. Turr., ἔν τε τῷ δήμῳ del.
Reisk., Dobr., Bekk.
2. nv **.
56
OR. III.
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΠΥΡΡΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
Εν
γυναῖκας, καὶ τἆλλα ὅσα προσῆκε λῃτουργεῖν ἐν τῷ δήμῳ
ὑπὲρ τῆς γυναικὸς ἀπό γε οὐσίας τηλικαύτης. οὐ τοίνυν
φανεῖται οὐδὲν τούτων γεγενημένον οὐδεπώποτε. οἱ μὲν οὖν
φράτερες μεμαρτυρήκασιν ὑμῖν· λαβὲ δὲ καὶ τὴν τῶν
δημοτῶν τῶν ἐκείνου μαρτυρίαν.
MAPTYPIΑ.
7. δὲ Bekk.: δή. Cf. IV. 14. 7.
9. Tit. add. Reisk.
IV
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΝΙΚΟΣΤΡΑΤΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ.
ΕΠΙΛΟΓΟΣ.
5
ΥΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ.
Νικοστράτου ἐν ὑπερορίᾳ τελευτήσαντος, "Αγνων καὶ ῾Αγνόθεος
ὡς ὄντες ἀνεψιοὶ ἐκ πατραδέλφων ἀμφισβητοῦσι τοῦ κλήρου
πρὸς Χαριάδην, φάσκοντα κληρονόμον αὐτοῦ εἶναι κατὰ δόσιν,
ὃ ἔστι κατὰ διαθήκας. Ἰσαῖος οὖν ὁ ῥήτωρ, ὡς συγγενὴς ὢν
τῶν περὶ τὸν Αγνωνα, λέγει συνηγορῶν αὐτοῖς. Ἡ στάσις
στοχασμός.
Επιτήδειοί μοι τυγχάνουσιν, ὦ ἄνδρες, ὄντες "Αγνων 1
τε οὑτοσὶ καὶ ῾Αγνόθεος, καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτῶν ἔτι πρότερον.
εἰκὸς οὖν μοι δοκεῖ εἶναι, ὡς ἂν οἷός τε ὦ, συνειπείν
αὐτοῖς.
Περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν ἐν τῇ ὑπερορίᾳ πραχθέντων [ὡς]
οὔτε μάρτυρας ἐξευρεῖν οἷόν τε, οὔτε τοὺς ἀντιδίκους, ἐάν
τι ψεύδωνται, ἐλέγχειν ῥᾴδιον, διὰ τὸ μηδέτερον τούτων
ἐκεῖσε ἀφιχθαι· τὰ δὲ ἐνθάδε [μοι] συμβεβηκότα δοκεῖ μοι
ὑμῖν ἱκανὰ γενέσθαι ἂν τεκμήρια, ὅτι ἅπαντες οἱ κατὰ
τὴν δόσιν τῶν Νικοστράτου ἀμφισβητοῦντες ἐξαπατῆσαι
IV. Tit. ΕΠΙΛΟΓΟΣ add. Turr.
Hyp. 1. άγνων et sic ubique.
2. παραδέλφων A, Ald. Steph., Reisk.,
Buerm., παραδέλφου, ut mihi quidem uidetur, A', Bekk. Schoem., Turr., Scheib.
5. ἄγνωνα Α', ἀγῶνα (ut putat Buerm.) A.
1. 5.
6. οἷόν
Cf. III.
9.
ἂν in
τῶν (7)
5. ὡς om. Ald., coni. ἴσως Dobr., ὦ ἄνδρες Scheib. Cf. III. 19. 3.
τε del. Albrecht.
7. ψεύ***ται Α, corr. Α'.
8. μοι del Bekk.
74. 1, V. 5. 1 || μοι in rasur. add. A', nec tamen prius μοι expunxit.
rasur. add. A¹, del. Nab. Cf. vI. 37. 6, IX. II. 6, XI. 25. 2, 45. 4.
supra uersum add. Α', τοῦ Μ, Αld., Steph. Verum uidit Reisk. Cf. II. 39. 3.
ΙΟ.
58
OR. IV.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
του
2 ὑμᾶς βούλονται. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν, ὦ ἄνδρες, περὶ τῆς τῶν
ὀνομάτων ἐπιγραφῆς ἄξιόν ἐστιν ἐξετάσαι, καὶ σκέψασθαι
ὁπότεροι ἁπλούστερον καὶ κατὰ φύσιν μᾶλλον τὰς λήξεις
ἐποιήσαντο. Αγνων μὲν γὰρ οὑτοσὶ καὶ ῾Αγνόθεος Θρασυ
μάχου ἐπεγράψαντο τον Νικόστρατον, καὶ ἑαυτοὺς ἐκείνῳ
ἀνεψιοὺς ἀποφαίνουσι, καὶ τούτων μάρτυρας παρέχονται·
3 Χαριάδης δὲ καὶ οἱ συνδικοῦντες αὐτῷ Σμίκρου μὲν πατρὸς
εἶναί φασι τὸν Νικόστρατον, ἀμφισβητοῦσι δὲ τοῦ Θρασυ-
μάχου ὑοῦ κλήρου. καὶ οἶδε μὲν οὐδὲν προσποιοῦνται
ἐκείνου τοῦ ὀνόματος οὔτε γιγνώσκειν οὔτε προσήκειν
αὑτοῖς· φασὶ μὲν οὖν εἶναι Θρασυμάχου Νικόστρατον,
4 τούτου δὲ ὁμοίως τῆς οὐσίας ἀμφισβητοῦσι. καὶ εἰ μὲν τὸ
ὄνομα πατρόθεν τὸ αὐτὸ ὡμολόγουν εἶναι τοῦ Νικοστράτου,
περὶ δὲ τοῦ κλήρου μόνου διεφέροντο, οὐδὲν ἂν ἔδει ὑμᾶς
σκέψασθαι αλλ' <ή> εἴ τι διέθετο ἐκεῖνος ὁ Νικόστρατος,
ὃν ἀμφότεροι ὡμολόγουν· νῦν δὲ πῶς οἷόν τε τῷ ἀνδρὶ δύο
πατέρας ἐπιγράψασθαι; τοῦτο γὰρ Χαριάδης πεποίηκεν·
αὐτός τε γὰρ ἔλαχε <τῶν> τοῦ Σμίκρου Νικοστράτου,
τούτοις τε <τῶν> τοῦ Θρασυμάχου λαχοῦσι παρακατέβαλεν
5 ὡς τὸν αὐτὸν ὄντα. ἔστι μὲν οὖν ἅπαντα ταῦτα ἐπήρεια
καὶ παρασκευή. ἡγοῦνται γὰρ τούτους, ἁπλοῦ μὲν ὄντος τοῦ
πράγματος καὶ μηδεμιᾶς αὐτοῖς | ταραχῆς ἐγγιγνομένης, οὐ 47
χαλεπῶς ἐπιδείξειν ὅτι οὐδὲν Νικόστρατος διέθετο· ἐὰν δὲ
μὴ τὸν πατέρα τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι φῶσι, τοῦ δὲ κλήρου μηδὲν
ἧττον ἀμφισβητῶσιν, ἀκριβῶς ἴσασιν ὅτι πλείονι λόγῳ
εἰπεῖν τουτουσὶ δεήσει ὡς Νικόστρατος Θρασυμάχου ἦν ἢ
2.
2.
σκέψασθε Α, corr. Αl. Cf. I. 41. 3.
Ο
αν
3. 3. ὑοῦ] Cf. II. 2. 3 || An <τοῦ > κλήρου? || οὐδὲν Steph., Turr., Scheib.,
Buerm., ovdè A, Ald., Reisk., Bekk., Schoem. Cf. II. 15. 7, V. 23. I, VII. 20. 8, Din.
1. 8ο (οὐδὲν Ν, οὐδὲ Α).
5. Post αὑτοῖς lacunam statuit Dobr.
Nab.
4. 2. τὸ Νικοστράτου malit Bekk. Cf. § 2o. 2, II. 9. 5·
3. μόνον malit
4. ἀλλ' ή Reisk., ἄλλ' ἢ Dobr., Fuhr: ἀλλὰ || νικόστατος A, corr. Αl.
5. τῷ <αὐτῷ> ἀνδρὶ Nab.
7. τῶν add. Roeder et Hitzig. Cf. IX. 2. 8.
τε Fuhr: δὲ. || τῶν add. Roeder et Hitzig || παρακατέκακεν Α, corr. Al. Cf. § 10.
8.
8, VI. 12. 3.
5. I. ἔστικ. Cf. III. 23. 2.
Cf. VIII. 32. 8.
3. αὐτῷ Herw. || ἐκγιγνομένης Α, corr. A1.
5, 6. ρου μηδὲν ἧττον in rasur. 8 litt. Αl. Aut μηδὲν aut ἧττον
omisisse primam manum coni. Buerm.
OR. IV. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΝΙΚΟΣΤΡΑΤΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
59
ὡς οὐδὲν διέθετο. ἔτι δὲ καὶ ὁμολογοῦντες Θρασυμάχου μὲν 6
εἶναι τὸν Νικόστρατον οὐκ ἂν εἶχον ἐξελέγξαι τούσδε ὡς
οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐκείνῳ ἀνεψιοί· ἄλλον δὲ πατέρα τῷ τεθνεῶτι
κατασκευάζοντες οὐ μόνον περὶ τῶν διαθηκῶν ἀλλὰ καὶ
περὶ τοῦ γένους λόγον ἐμβεβλήκασιν.
Οὐκ ἐκ τούτων δὲ μόνον γνοῖτ᾽ ἂν ὅτι ἄλλοι τινές 7
εἰσιν οἱ ταῦτα ἐπὶ τουτουσὶ ἐπάγοντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ τῶν
κατ᾿ ἀρχὰς γεγενημένων. τίς γὰρ οὐκ ἀπεκείρατο, ἐπειδὴ
τὼ δύο ταλάντω ἐξ ᾿Ακης ἠλθέτην; ἢ τίς οὐ μέλαν ἱμάτιον
ἐφόρησεν, ὡς διὰ τὸ πένθος κληρονομήσων τῆς οὐσίας;
ἢ πόσοι συγγενεῖς καὶ ὑεῖς κατὰ δόσιν προσεποιήσαντο
τῶν Νικοστράτου; Δημοσθένης μέν γε ἀδελφιδοῦς ἔφη 8
αὐτῷ εἶναι, ἐπειδὴ δ' ἐξηλέγχθη ὑπὸ τούτων, ἀπέστη·
Τήλεφος δὲ δοῦναι αὑτῷ Νικόστρατον ἅπαντα τὰ ἑαυτοῦ.
καὶ οὗτος οὐ πολλῷ ὕστερον ἐπαύσατο. ᾿Αμεινιάδης δὲ
ὑὸν αὐτῷ πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα ἧκεν ἄγων οὐδὲ τρί᾽ ἔτη γεγο-
νότα, καὶ ταῦτ᾽ οὐκ ἐπιδεδημηκότος τοῦ Νικοστράτου ἕνδεκα
ἐτῶν ᾿Αθήνησι. Πύρρος δὲ ὁ Λαμπτρεὺς τῇ μὲν ᾿Αθηνᾷ 9
ἔφη τὰ χρήματα ὑπὸ Νικοστράτου καθιερώσθαι, αὑτῷ δ᾽
ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐκείνου δεδόσθαι. Κτησίας δ᾽ ὁ Βησαιεὺς καὶ
Κραναός τὸ μὲν πρῶτον δίκην ἔφασαν τοῦ Νικοστράτου
ταλάντου καταδεδικάσθαι, ἐπειδὴ δ᾽ οὐκ εἶχον τοῦτο ἀπο-
δεῖξαι, ἀπελεύθερον αὐτὸν ἑαυτῶν προσεποιήσαντο εἶναι·
6. I.
Θρασιμάχου Α, corr. Α' || μὲν Θρασ. Reisk.
A
Ο
7. I. μόνον in rasur. add. Α' || ἄλλοι τινές] ἀλλότριοί τινές Boekmeijer, ἀδικοῦντές
Hitzig.
4· κύο Α, δυο Α1 || τὰ δύο τάλαντα Keck || ἑξάκις: corr. Valckenaer
(Diatribe in Eurip. perd. dram. rell., 1767, p. 294). Malint ἐξ Αἴσης Herw., ἐξαπίνης
Keck || ἤλθετον: corr. Herw. Malit ἦλθεν Keck.
5. ἐφόρεσεν: corr. Turr.
6. συγγενείς < είναι > Hirschig.
TOÎ
2
6, 7. προσεποιησαντο, νικοστράτου Α, τo, in
το (το τῶν) corr. Α', η in ή corr. Α' || τοῦ Νικοστράτου Hirschig.
8. 2. ἐξηλέγχη Α, ἐξηλέχθη. Αld., ἐξηλέγχθη M, Steph. Cf. § το. 7, VI. 53. 2,
And. 1. 68. 4. ἀμινιάδης: corr. Turr. 'Αμυνιάδης uoluit Steph.
πρὸς A in uers. et pag. (f. 42*) exitu, πρὸς | τον Α'. Cf. 1. 6. 7, v. 28. 1 || τριετῆ:
corr. Nab.
5. πρός
9. 1. λαμπρεύς: corr. Taylor. Cf. Lys. 12. 55.
2. αὐτῷ uolg., αὐτῷ Α,
Buerm., ἔπειτα δ᾽ αὑτῷ Rauchenstein.
3. ἐκείνου Α', ἐκείνω Α, αὐτῆς ἐκείνης
Blass. Post ἐκείνου deesse μέρος τι censet Reisk., lacunam indicat Buerm. || δίδοσθαι
A, corr. Al || κτήσις : corr. Reisk. Nusquam adhuc in Atticis titulis nomen Κτῆσις
repertum est.
4. Post Kpavaòs demi nomen excidisse putant Scheib. et Buerm.
60
OR. IV.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
10 καὶ οὐδ᾽ οὕτως ἃ ἔλεγον ἀπέδειξαν. καὶ οἱ μὲν εὐθὺς κατὰ
τὰ πρῶτα ἐπὶ τὰ Νικοστράτου ἄξαντες οὗτοί εἰσι· Χαριάδης
δὲ τότε μὲν οὐδαμοῦ ἠμφεσβήτησεν, ὕστερον δὲ οὐ μόνον
αὐτὸς ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ἐκ τῆς ἑταίρας παιδίον εἰσποιῶν ἦλθε.
ταὐτὸ δ᾽ ἦν αὐτῷ ὡς ἢ τῶν χρημάτων κληρονομήσοντι ἢ τὸ
παιδίον ἀστὸν ποιήσοντι. αἰσθόμενος δὲ καὶ οὗτος ὅτι
περὶ τοῦ γένους ἐλεγχθήσοιτο, τὴν μὲν τοῦ παιδίου ἀμφι-
σβήτησιν παρέλυσεν, ἑαυτῷ δὲ κατὰ δόσιν παρακατέβαλεν.
11
η το
Ἐχρὴν μὲν οὖν, ὦ ἄνδρες, ὅστις κατὰ δόσιν χρημάτων
ἀμφισβητῶν ἡττηθείη, μὴ κατὰ τὸ τέλος ζημιοῦσθαι, ἀλλ᾽
ἐφ' ὅσα περ ληψόμενος ᾔει, τοσαῦτα τῇ πόλει ἀποτίνειν·
οὕτω γὰρ <ἂν> οὔθ᾽ οἱ νόμοι κατεφρονοῦντο οὔτε τὰ γένη
ὑβρίζετο, πρὸ δὲ τούτων οὐδ᾽ ἂν τῶν τεθνεώτων οὐδεὶς
κατεψεύδετο. ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἅπασι καὶ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων ἁπάν
των, καθ᾽ ὅ τι ἂν τις βούληται, ἀμφισβητεῖν ἔξεστιν,
ὑμᾶς χρὴ περὶ αὐτῶν ὡς οἷόν τε ἀκριβέστατα ἐξετάζειν
12 καὶ μηδὲν εἰς ὅσον δύνασθε παραλείπειν. ἐν μόναις δὲ
ταῖς τῶν κλήρων εἰσαγωγαῖς δοκεῖ μοι προσήκειν τεκμη-
ρίοις μᾶλλον ἢ μάρτυσιν πιστεύειν. περὶ μὲν γὰρ τῶν
ἄλλων συμβολαίων οὐ πάνυ χαλεπὸν τοὺς τὰ ψευδή μαρ-
τυροῦντας ἐλέγχειν· ζῶντος γὰρ καὶ παρόντος τοῦ πράξαντος
καταμαρτυροῦσι· περὶ δὲ τῶν διαθηκῶν πῶς ἄν τις γνοίη
τοὺς μὴ τἀληθῆ λέγοντας, εἰ μὴ πάνυ μεγάλα τὰ δια-
7. οὕτως Blass: οὗτοι. Clausulam totam, καὶ οὐδ᾽ ἀπέδειξαν, refingit Hertlein
scribendo καὶ οὐδὲ τοῦτο εἶχον ἀποδεῖξαι (Hermes 13. 12), tollit funditus Albrecht
(Hermes 18. 372).
10.
2.
ἐπὶ τοῦ Α, corr. Al.
4. αὐτὸς <αὑτὸν > Boekmeijer, αὐτὸς
<συγγενής είναι φάσκων> Schoem. Quidni αὑτὸν pro αὐτός?
5. ταὐτὸ
Sauppe, qui ὡς in ἴσως corrigit: τοῦτο. Deesse aliquid censet Reisk., post αὐτῷ
addere uolt έπιμελὲς Scheib., lacunam indicat Buerm., ἦν in ἐπενενόητο mutat
Herw. | χληρονομήσοντι A, corr. A1. 7. ἐλεχθήσοιτο A, γ add. A. Cf. § 8. 2.
8. παρακατέκακεν Α, corr. Αl. Cf. § 4. 8. Fuerat παρακατέλαβεν. Cf. And. I. 93
(καταλάβη Α, καταβάλη Α'), Ant. Tetr. I. δ. II (καταβαλόντας Α, καταλαβόντας Α').
11. 2. An ηττήθη? Cf. III. 67. 7.
3. όσωπερ Α, corr. Al | ᾔει uel You
Bekk.: ἴη.
4. äv add. Reisk., Turr., Scheib., Buerm., codicem secuntur Bekk.,
Schoem., Roed. Cf. III. 54. Ι. 5. πρὸ δὲ τούτων] πρὸς δὲ τούτων Μ, πρὸς τούτων
Ald. edd. ante Scheib. omnes, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις Dobr., πρὸς δὲ τούτῳ coll. Hdt. I. 41,
Dem. 4. 34, D'Orville ad Charit. p. 286 (144) Scheib.
8. τε in uers. add. Αl.
Cf. II. 10. 3, VI. 55. 2, VIII. 1. 8.
12.
3. γὰρ supra uers. add. Αl. Cf. X. 23. 5.
OR. IV. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΝΙΚΟΣΤΡΑΤΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
61
78
φέροντα εἴη, αὐτοῦ μὲν καθ᾿ οὗ μαρτυροῦσι τεθνεῶτος,
τῶν δὲ συγγενῶν μηδὲν τῶν πεπραγμένων εἰδότων, τοῦ
δὲ ἐλέγχου μηδαμῶς ἀκριβούς γιγνομένου; ἔτι δέ, ὦ ἄνδρες, 13
καὶ τῶν διατιθεμένων οἱ πολλοὶ οὐδὲ λέγουσι τοῖς παραγιγ
νομένοις ὅ τι διατίθενται, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοῦ μόνου τοῦ καταλιπεῖν
διαθήκας μάρτυρας παρίστανται, τοῦ δὲ συμβαίνοντός ἐστι
καὶ γραμματεῖον ἀλλαγῆναι καὶ τἀναντία ταῖς τοῦ τεθνεῶτος
διαθήκαις μεταγραφῆναι· οὐδὲν γὰρ μᾶλλον οἱ μάρτυρες
εἴσονται, εἰ ἐφ᾽ αἷς ἐκλήθησαν διαθήκαις, αὗται ἀποφαί
νονται. ὁπότε δὲ καὶ τοὺς ὁμολογουμένως παραγενομένους 14
οἷόν τ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐξαπατῆσαι, πῶς οὐκ ἂν ὑμᾶς γε τοὺς μηδὲν
τοῦ πράγματος εἰδότας πολὺ [μᾶλλον] ἑτοιμότερόν τις παρα-
κρούσασθαι ἐγχειρήσειεν ;
او
οι
᾿Αλλὰ μὴν καὶ ὁ νόμος, ὦ ἄνδρες, οὐκ ἐάν τις δια
θῆται μόνον, κυρίας εἶναι κελεύει τὰς διαθήκας, ἀλλὰ
ἐὰν εὖ φρονῶν. σκεπτέον δὴ ὑμῖν πρῶτον μὲν εἰ ἐποι-
ήσατο τὰς διαθήκας, ἔπειτα εἰ μὴ παρανοῶν διέθετο.
ἀντιλεγόντων δ᾽ ἡμῶν μηδὲ τὸ παράπαν γενέσθαι τὰς 15
διαθήκας, ἐκ τίνος ἂν τρόπου, εἴ τις παρανοῶν διέθετο,
γνοίητε, πρὶν περὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ διαθέσθαι πιστεῦσαι; τοὺς
μὲν οὖν κατὰ τὴν δόσιν ἀμφισβητοῦντας ὁρᾶτε ὅσον ἔργον
ἐστὶν αἰσθέσθαι εἰ ἀληθῆ λέγουσι, τοὺς δὲ κατὰ τὸ γένος
πρῶτον μὲν οὐδὲν δεῖ μάρτυρας παρασχέσθαι ὡς αὑτῶν
ἐστὶν ὁ κλῆρος—παρὰ πάντων γὰρ ὡμολόγηται τοῖς ἐγ
γυτάτω γένους τὰ τοῦ τελευτήσαντος γίγνεσθαι, ἔπειτα 16
οἱ νόμοι οὐ μόνον οἱ περὶ τῶν γενῶν ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ περὶ
1ο. γενομένου A, e in rasur. A2.
し
​13. 2. διαθεμένων Α, corr. Α' τι supra uers. addito. Cf. IX. 1o. 3.
γενομένοις Α, c in rasur. A'.
ι
corr. Dobr.
6. Αη μετεγγραφήναι?
7, 8.
2, 3. παρα-
ἀποφαίνοιντο:
3. μᾶλλον
14. τ. ὁμολογουμένους A, corr. Α'. Cf. VI. 49. 4, Isocr. 4. 33.
del. Buerm. Vide ne glossema sit βεβαιότερον. Cf. XII. 9. 6. 4. ἐγχειρήσαι: corr.
Scheib. Cf. I. 30. 3.
6. είναι in rasur. add. Αl. Cf. VI. 13. 2 || ἀλλὰ <καὶ>
Reisk.
(δὲ Α, δὴ Ν).
7. on Reisk.: 8'. Cf. III. 80. 7, v. 16. 5, Ant. Tetr. 1. ß. 5, V. 49, 73
8. μή supra uers. add. Αl minutis litt. et uocis μὲν haud
dissimilibus, habent uèv BMZ. Cf. II. 39. 2.
15. 3. περὶ supra uers. add. Αl.
4· ἀμχισβητοῦντας A, corr. Α'.
62
OR. IV.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
τῶν δόσεων τοῖς συγγενέσι βοηθοῦσι. δοῦναι μὲν γὰρ ὁ
νόμος οὐδενὶ ἐᾷ τὰ ἑαυτοῦ, ἐὰν ὑπὸ γήρως ἢ ὑπὸ νόσου
ἢ ὑπὸ τῶν ἄλλων ἃ καὶ ὑμεῖς ἴστε παρανοήσῃ· κατὰ δὲ
τὸ γένος καὶ τὰ τοῦ ὁπωσοῦν διακειμένου ὁ ἐγγύτατα γέ-
17 νους ἀναμφισβητήτως λαμβάνει. χωρὶς δὲ τούτων ταῖς
μὲν διαθήκαις διὰ μαρτύρων ὑμᾶς δεῖ πιστεῦσαι, ὑφ᾽ ὧν
ἔνι καὶ ἐξαπατηθῆναι—οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἦσαν ψευδομαρτυρίων
ἐπισκήψεις, τῇ δ᾽ ἀγχιστείᾳ δι᾽ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν· κατὰ γὰρ
τοὺς νόμους οἱ συγγενεῖς ἀμφισβητοῦσιν, οὓς ὑμεῖς ἔθεσθε.
18 πρὸς δὲ τούτοις, ὦ ἄνδρες, εἰ μὲν οἱ κατὰ τὰς διαθήκας
αι
ἀμφισβητοῦντες ὁμολογουμένως Νικοστράτῳ ἐπιτήδειοι
ὄντες ἐτύγχανον, τὸ μὲν ἀκριβὲς οὐδ᾽ ἂν οὕτως, ὅμως
μέντοι μᾶλλον εἰκὸς ἦν ἀληθεῖς εἶναι δόξειν τὰς διαθήκας·
ἤδη γάρ τινες οὐκ εὖ διακείμενοι τοῖς συγγενέσιν ὀθνείους
φίλους τῶν πάνυ σφόδρα προσηκόντων περὶ πλείονος ἐποιή
σαντο· νῦν δὲ οὔτε συσσίτους οὔτε φίλους οὔτ᾽ ἐν τάξει
τῇ αὐτῇ τούτων δ᾽ ὑμῖν μάρτυρας ἁπάντων παρε-
19 σχήμεθα. ὃ δὲ μέγιστον, καὶ μάλιστα τῆς Χαριάδου
ἀναιδείας καταμαρτυρεῖ, τοῦτο σκέψασθε. ὅπου γὰρ τὸν
αὑτὸν ποιησάμενον οὔτ᾽ ἀποθανόντα ἀνείλετο οὔτ᾽ ἔκαυσεν
οὔτε ὠστολόγησεν, ἀλλὰ πάντα τοῖς μηδὲν προσήκουσι
παρῆκε ποιῆσαι, πῶς οὐκ <ἂν> ἀνοσιώτατος εἴη, ὃς τῷ
τεθνεῶτι μηδὲν τῶν νομιζομένων ποιήσας τῶν χρημάτων
20 αὐτοῦ κληρονομεῖν ἀξιοῖ; ἀλλὰ νὴ Δία ἐπειδὴ τούτων οὐδὲν
ἐποίησε, τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ Νικοστράτου διεχείρισεν. ἀλλὰ
16. 3. μὲν supra uers. add. Αl. Cf. I. 25. 4.
7· ἀμφισβητήτως Α, corr. Α2.
Bekk.
4.
«οὐδένα > οὐδενὶ malit
17. 3. ψευδομαρτυριών. Cf. III. 4. 2.
18. I. ei A², oi A. Cf. §§ 25. 1, 30. I.
3.
uel simile quid putat Reisk.
4. An δόξαι ?
6.
Post οὕτως excidisse έφάνη
β α
προσηκόντων, σφόδρα :
transpositionis signa β et a superscripsit A'. Cf. II. 26. 2.
8. Nonnihil deesse
perspexerunt Reisk. et Buerm., coniecit ille οὐδεὶς οἶδε τούτους πώποτε τῷ Νικοστράτῳ
γεγονότας uel simile quid. Apud A uox αὐτῇ uersum claudit.
19. 3. aúтòv Turr., Scheib., aửтòv A, Ald., Steph.,
Nab. (Mnem. N. S. 5. 393), Buerm. Cf. II. II. 3.
Cf. III. 54. Ι.
20. I 14. ἀλλὰ ἀρνεῖται deleri iubet Rosenberg.
Νικοστράτου sched. Eton.: τοῦ στρατονίκου. Cf. § 21. 2.
Reisk., Bekk., Schoem.,
5. ἂν add. Bekk.
2. τήν γ' Reisk. || τοῦ
Quidni τὴν Νικοστράτου ?
OR. IV. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΝΙΚΟΣΤΡΑΤΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
63
καὶ ταῦτα μεμαρτύρηται ὑμῖν, καὶ τὰ πλεῖστα οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸς
ἀρνεῖται. προφάσεις δὲ οἴομαι ἀναγκαίας ἐφ᾽ ἑκάσταις
τῶν πράξεων εὑρῆσθαι· τί γὰρ ὑπολείπεται τῷ διαρρήδην
ὁμολογοῦντι ;
Σαφῶς μὲν οὖν ἴστε, ὦ ἄνδρες, ὅτι οὗτοι οὐ δικαίως 21
τῶν Νικοστράτου ἐφίενται, ἀλλὰ βούλονται ὑμᾶς μὲν ἐξ
απατήσαι, τουτουσὶ δὲ συγγενεῖς ὄντας ἐκείνου, ἃ οἱ νόμοι
ἔδοσαν αὐτοῖς, ἀποστερῆσαι. οὐ μόνος δὲ Χαριάδης τοῦτο
πεποίηκεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ ἤδη τῶν ἐν τῇ ὑπερορίᾳ
ἀποθνῃσκόντων οὐδὲ γιγνώσκοντες ἐνίους τῆς οὐσίας ἠμ
φεσβήτησαν· ἐνθυμοῦνται γὰρ ὅτι κατορθώσασι μὲν 22
<ἔσται> τἀλλότρια ἔχειν, διαμαρτοῦσι δὲ μικρὸς ὁ κίν
δυνος· μαρτυρεῖν δὲ καὶ τὰ ψευδῆ τινες ἐθέλουσιν, οἱ δ᾽
ἔλεγχοι περὶ ἀφανῶν. συνελόντι πολὺ τὸ διαφέρον κατὰ
γένος ἢ κατὰ δόσιν ἀμφισβητεῖν. ἀλλ' ὑμᾶς χρή, ὦ
ἄνδρες, πρῶτον μὲν τὰς διαθήκας σκοπεῖν, εἰ δοκοῦσι
γενέσθαι· τοῦτο γὰρ οἵ τε νόμοι ὑφηγοῦνται καὶ δικαιό-
τατόν ἐστι. μὴ σαφῶς δὲ μήτ' αὐτοὺς τὴν ἀλήθειαν εἰδότας, 23
μήτε τῶν μαρτύρων τοῦ τελευτήσαντος ἐπιτηδείων ὄντων,
ἀλλὰ Χαριάδου τοῦ ταλλότρια βουλομένου λαβεῖν, τί ἂν
εἴη δικαιότερον ἢ τοῖς συγγενέσι τὰ τοῦ συγγενούς ψηφί
ζεσθαι; καὶ γὰρ εἰ οἵδε τι ἔπαθον, οὐδενὶ ἂν ἄλλῳ ἢ
Νικοστράτῳ τὰ τούτων ἐγένετο· κατὰ γὰρ τὸ αὐτὸ γένος ἂν
ἠμφεσβήτει, ἀνεψιὸς ὢν αὐτοῖς ἐκ πατραδέλφων. μα Δί' 24
οι
αν
او
Cf. § 4. 2, ΙΧ. 19. 6 || διεχείρησεν A (rasur. corr.) M, Ald. (cf. I. 46. 3), διεχείρισεν
Steph., post διεχείρισεν interrogationis signum habent edd. omnes, sustulit Seymour.
Cf. III. 73· 3·
3. ταῦτα] Malim τἀναντία. Post ταῦτα plura excidisse suspicatur
Schoem., ψευδῆ ὄντα add. Rauchenstein.
4. ἑκάσταις Steph., Schoem. (in com-
mentariis), Scheib., ἑκάστας A, Ald. edd. ceteri.
21. 2.
στρατονίκου: corr. sched. Eton. | βούλονται ex βούλωνται. Cf. VI. 52.
5, 6 || vµâs µèv Dobr., Buerm.: µèv vµâs A, Ald., uolg. Cf. 11. 26. 5.
4. μόνον:
corr. Papabasileios || dè in rasur. 2 litt. A¹. An μóvos d' ¿?
ὁ?
22. 2. <ἔσται> τἀλλότρια Scheib. (Comm. Crit. p. 32) coll. v. 8. 9: τὰ
ἀλλότρια. ἔχειν < ὑπάρχει> coni. Dobr., ἐστὶν aut ἔξεστιν interponendum censet Reisk.
τ· ἡγοῦνται: corr. Schoem. ἡγοῦνται < δεῖν > Dobr., αἰτοῦνται Scheib.
23. 3, 4. ἂν εἴη Reisk. : ἄν τι. 4, 5. ψηφίσθαι A, corr. Α'. ψηφίσασθαι
malit Buerm.
5. εἰ οἵδε τί Α, νἵδε εἴ τι Αld., Steph., Reisk., εἴ τι οἵδε Bekk.
(tamquam ex A), Schoem., Turr., Scheib., εἰ οἵδε τι Buerm. 6. ἐγένετο Μ, Bekk.,
uolg.: ¿yévovro A, Ald., Steph., Reisk. Cf. II. 20. 6, VIII. 32. 7, And. III. 38 (Q).
64
OR. IV.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
ων
Ο
Ο
ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ῞Αγνων οὐδ᾽ ὁ ῾Αγνόθεος τοῦ Νικοστράτου
συγγενής, ὡς οἱ ἀντίδικοί φασιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἕτεροι. ἔπειτα
τῷ μὲν κατὰ τὴν δόσιν τοῦ κλήρου λαχόντι μαρτυροῦσιν,
αὐτοὶ δὲ κατὰ τὸ γένος οὐκ ἀμφισβητήσουσιν; | οὐ γὰρ εἰς 49
τοῦτό γε ἀνοίας ἤκουσιν ὥστε πιστεύσαντες ταῖς διαθή
καις οὕτως ῥᾳδίως τοσούτων χρημάτων ἀφίστανται. ἀλλὰ
μὴν καὶ ἐξ ὧν αὐτοὶ οὗτοι λέγουσι, τούσδε τοῖς συγγενέσιν
αὐτοῖς ἐπιδικάσασθαι συμφέρει τῶν Νικοστράτου μᾶλλον
25 ἢ Χαριάδην. εἰς γὰρ τὸν λοιπὸν χρόνον, εἰ μὲν οἶδε κατὰ
τὸ γένος ἀμφισβητοῦντες λήψονται τὸν κλῆρον, ἐξέσται
καὶ τούτοις, ὁπόταν βούλωνται, κατὰ τὸ γένος λαχοῦσιν ἐπι-
δεῖξαι ὑμῖν ὡς αὐτοὶ ἐγγυτέρω ἦσαν τοῦ Νικοστράτου, καὶ ὡς
Σμίκρου ἦν καὶ οὐ Θρασυμάχου· ἐὰν δὲ Χαριάδης αὐτῶν
κληρονομήσῃ, οὐκ ἔσται οὐδενὶ συγγενεῖ ἐπὶ τὰ Νικοστράτου
ἐλθεῖν. κατὰ δόσιν γὰρ ἔχοντος τοῦ ἐπιδεδικασμένου, τί
φανοῦνται λέγοντες οἱ κατὰ [το] γένος λαγχάνοντες ;
26
27
او
αν
TO
Οπερ ἂν οὖν καὶ ὑμῶν ἕκαστος ἀξιώσειε, τοῦτο καὶ
τουτοισὶ τοῖς νεανίσκοις βεβαιώσατε. παρέσχοντο δ' ὑμῖν
μάρτυρας πρῶτον μὲν ὡς ἀνεψιοί εἰσιν ἐκ πατραδέλφων
Νικοστράτου, ἔπειτα δὲ ὡς οὐδεπώποτε ἐκείνῳ διάφοροι
ἦσαν, ἔτι δὲ καὶ ὡς ἔθαψαν Νικόστρατον, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις
ὡς Χαριάδης οὑτοσὶ οὐδαμῶς οὔτ᾽ ἐνθάδε οὔτ᾽ ἐπὶ στρατεύ
ματι ἐχρῆτο Νικοστράτῳ, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὴν κοινωνίαν, ᾗ
μάλισθ' οὗτος ἰσχυρίζεται, ψευδῆ οὖσαν.
T
Καὶ ἄνευ τούτων, ὦ ἄνδρες, ἄξιον ὑμῖν ἐξετάσαι ἑκα
τέρους αὐτῶν οἷοί εἰσι. Θράσιππος μὲν γὰρ ὁ ῞Αγνωνος
καὶ ῾Αγνοθέου πατὴρ ἤδη τι καὶ ἐλῃτούργησεν ὑμῖν καὶ
24. 3. συγγενείς: corr. Steph.
αὐτοὶ ἐγγυτέρω malit Hitzig.
9. φέρει Α, συμ in marg. add. Α'.
25. I. ei A¹, oi A. Cf. § 18. 1.
8. Tò supra uers. add. A¹, del. Fuhr.
Habet συγγενής Μ || ἕτεροι] αὐτοὶ coni. Schoem.,
7. οὕτω Ald. edd. ante Buerm. omnes.
Cf. viii. 38. Io.
4. εἰσὶ malit Nab. 7. ἐπιδεδικασμένου.
Cf. II. 47. 9. Articulum om. M.
26. I. καὶ (ante ὑμῶν) supra uers. add. Αl. Cf. I. 47. 5.
ἐκεῖνοι. Cf. III. 70. 3·
4· ἐκείνῳ Ald. :
6. οὐδ᾽ ἐνθάδε : corr. Bekk. οὐδ᾽ ἐνθάδε οὐδ᾽ Ald.,
Steph., Reisk. Cf. v. 43. 5, VI. 14. 7, 50. I, VII. 44. 5, VIII. I. 9, IX. 5. I, XI. 21. 10.
7· ἔτι] ἐπέδειξαν uel simile quid coni. Fuhr.
27. 3. ἁγοθέου A, corr. A1.
OR. IV. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΝΙΚΟΣΤΡΑΤΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
65
ΟΤ
ων ΕΠ
αν
εἰσήνεγκε, καὶ ἄλλως σπουδαῖος ἦν πολίτης· αὐτοὶ δὲ
οὗτοι οὔτε ἀποδεδημήκασιν οὐδαμοῖ πώποτε, ὅποι ἂν μὴ
ὑμεῖς προστάξητε, οὔτ᾽ ἐνθάδε μένοντες ἄχρηστοί εἰσι τῇ
πόλει, ἀλλὰ καὶ στρατεύονται καὶ εἰσφέρουσι καὶ τἆλλα
πάντα ποιοῦσι τὰ προσταττόμενα καὶ αὑτούς, ὡς πάντες
ἴσασι, κοσμίους παρέχουσιν, ὥστε πολὺ μᾶλλον τούτους 28
προσήκει κατὰ δόσιν τῶν χρημάτων τῶν Νικοστράτου ἢ
Χαριάδην αμφισβητεῖν. οὗτος γάρ, ὅτ᾽ ἐπεδήμει ἐνθάδε,
πρῶτον μὲν εἰς τὸ δεσμωτήριον ὡς κλέπτης ὢν ἐπ᾿ αὐτο-
φώρῳ ἀπήχθη, τότε δὲ ἀφεθεὶς μεθ᾿ ἑτέρων τινῶν ὑπὸ
τῶν ἕνδεκα, οὓς δημοσίᾳ ἅπαντας ὑμεῖς ἀπεκτείνατε, πάλιν
ἀπογραφεὶς εἰς τὴν βουλὴν κακουργῶν, ὑποχωρῶν ᾤχετο
καὶ οὐχ ὑπήκουσεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπ᾿ ἐκείνου ἑπτακαίδεκα ἐτῶν 29
Αθήναζε οὐκ ἀφίκετο, πλὴν ἐπειδὴ Νικόστρατος ἀπέθανε.
καὶ ὑπὲρ μὲν ὑμῶν οὔτε στρατείαν οὐδεμίαν ἐστράτευται
οὔτε εἰσφορὰν οὐδεμίαν εἰσενήνοχε, πλὴν εἴ τι ἄρα ἐξ
ὅτου τῶν Νικοστράτου ἠμφεσβήτησεν, οὔτ᾽ ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν
ὑμῖν λελῃτούργηκεν. ἔπειτα τοιοῦτος ὢν οὐκ ἀγαπᾷ εἰ
μὴ τῶν ἡμαρτημένων δίκην δώσει, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων
ἀμφισβητεί. εἰ μὲν οὖν οἶδε φιλοπράγμονες ἢ ἄλλοις 30
ὅμοιοι πολίταις ἦσαν, ἴσως ἂν οὐ περὶ τῶν Νικοστράτου
χρημάτων ήμφεσβήτει, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ τοῦ σώματος ἠγωνίζετο·
νῦν δ᾽, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, τοῦτον μὲν ἄλλος, ἐάν τις βού
ληται, τιμωρήσεται, τουτοισὶ δ᾽ ὑμεῖς βοηθήσατε, καὶ μὴ περὶ 31
πλείονος ποιήσησθε τοὺς ἀδίκως τἀλλότρια ἔχειν βουλομένους
ἢ τοὺς γένει τῷ τεθνεῶτι προσήκοντας καὶ χωρὶς τούτων ἤδη
τι ἐκεῖνον εὐεργετηκότας, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν νόμων ἀναμνησθέντες
καὶ τῶν ὅρκων οὓς ὠμόσατε, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις καὶ τῶν μαρ
τυριῶν ἃς ἡμεῖς παρεσχήμεθα, τὰ δίκαια ψηφίσασθε.
4.
ων
αὐτοὶ Α', οὗτοι A. Cf. VIII. 17. 6. 5· οὐδαμοῖ Bekk. (in Addendis
p. 601),
οὐδαμή A, Ald. Steph., Reisk., οὐδαμῇ Bekk. (in textu et uolg. Cf. IX. 14. 8 || ὅποι
Al, Ald., uolg. : ὅπη A, ὅπῃ Buerm. Cf. v. 35. 10, VI. 41. 7, IX. 28. 3.
3. évôáde A, corr. A¹.
28. I. τούτους.
ὡ ad σ 2 supra uers. add. Α'.
I. εἰ Α', οἱ Α. Cf. § 18. I.
τεἀλλότρια Α, τὰ λλότρια Α'.
30.
31.
2.
W. I.
2.
4.
πολίται Dobr.
Cf. § 22. 2.
δεσμωτήριονσκλέπτης Α,
5
1
1
V
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΓΕΝΟΥΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ.
ΥΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ.
50
Δικαιογένους τελευτήσαντος ἄπαιδος ἐπὶ τέσσαρσιν ἀδελφαῖς
Πρόξενος ἧκεν διαθήκην ἔχων, ἐν ᾗ Δικαιογένης ὁ τελευ-
τήσας τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, τοῦ Προξένου, Δικαιογένην υἱὸν θετὸν
ἐποιήσατο ἐπὶ τῷ τρίτῳ μέρει τῆς οὐσίας. τοῦτον δὲ τὸν
τρόπον διανειμαμένων αὐτῶν τὴν ὅλην οὐσίαν, τελευταῖον
5
ἦλθεν ὁ υἱὸς Προξένου Δικαιογένης φάσκων ἐπὶ ὅλῃ τῇ οὐσίᾳ
γεγονέναι υἱός, καὶ νικήσας ἀνέλαβε καὶ τὰ δύο μέρη τῶν
ἀδελφῶν τοῦ τελευτήσαντος. ὕστερον πάλιν οἱ παῖδες τῶν
ἀδελφῶν δικασάμενοι πρὸς Δικαιογένην ἐνίκησαν, καὶ συνέ-
θετο Δικαιογένης ἀποδοῦναι πάλιν τὰ δύο μέρη αὐτοῖς καθαρὰ το
καὶ ἀνέπαφα, ἐγγυησαμένου ταῦτα Λεωχάρους. νῦν δὲ ἀρ-
νουμένων τὰ δόξαντα τῶν περὶ Δικαιογένην καὶ Λεωχάρην,
ἐγκαλοῦσιν οἱ παῖδες τῶν ἀδελφῶν περὶ τῶν δύο μερῶν τῷ
μὲν ὡς συνθεμένῳ, τῷ δὲ ὡς ἐγγυητῇ. Ἡ στάσις στοχασμός·
ἀρνοῦνται γάρ.
Ωιόμεθα μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες, περὶ ὧν διεφερόμεθα πρὸς
Δικαιογένη, τὰ ὁμολογημένα ἐπὶ τοῦ δικαστηρίου κύρια
και
V. Tit. πρὸς λεώχαριν καὶ διογένην Α, λεωχάρην et διογένην Α2.
Hyp. I. Δικαιογένους (Δ.a rubricatore).
2. **καιογένης Α, corr. Αl.
4. τὸ τρίτον μέρος A, corr. Al.
9. διογένην Α, και supra uers. add. Α2. Cf.
§ 9.7.
12. λεωχάρην Α2, λεώχαριν A, item 3. 2; 17. 5 (λεώ χάρη); 19. 5.
λεωχάρης Α2, λεώχαρις Α 2. 7; 4.6; 5. 2; 16. 7; 17. 8; 18. 5; 19. 8. λεώχαριs et
λεώχαριν non correcta extant 20. 7 (accent. eras.); 25. 2; 27. 3; 3I. 3, 4; 32. 8;
34. 1 (λεώχάρις). Cf. Χ. 4. 3.
1.
·
I. μὲν supra uers. add. Α'. Cf. § 5. 7, 1. 25. 4 || διεφερόμεθα A, Dobr.,
Schoem., Turr., Scheib., Buerm., διαφερόμεθα M, Ald. Steph., Reisk., Bekk.
15
OR. V. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΓΕΝΟΥΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
67
ΤΟ
ἡμῖν ἔσεσθαι· ἀποστάντος γὰρ Δικαιογένους τοῖν δυοῖν
μεροῖν τοῦ κλήρου, καὶ ἐγγυητὰς καταστήσαντος ἢ μὴν
παραδώσειν ἡμῖν ταῦτα τὰ μέρη ἀναμφισβήτητα, ἀφή
καμεν ἀλλήλους τῶν ἐγκλημάτων· ἐπειδὴ δέ, ὦ ἄνδρες,
οὐ ποιεῖ Δικαιογένης ἃ ὡμολόγησε, δικαζόμεθα Λεωχάρει
ἐγγυητῇ γενομένῳ Δικαιογένους, ὥσπερ ἀντωμόσαμεν. Καί 2
μοι ἀνάγνωθι τὴν ἀντωμοσίαν.
α
ΑΝΤΩΜΟΣΙΑ.
Ως τοίνυν ἀληθῆ ἀντωμόσαμεν, Κηφισόδοτος οὑτοσὶ
οἶδε, καὶ μάρτυρας ὑμῖν παρεξόμεθα πρῶτον μὲν ὡς ἀπέστη
Δικαιογένης ἡμῖν τοῖν δυοῖν μεροῖν τοῦ κλήρου, εἶτα ὡς
ἠγγυήσατο Λεωχάρης. Καί μοι ἀνάγνωθι τὴν μαρτυρίαν.
αν
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ.
Τῶν μὲν μαρτύρων ἀκηκόατε, καὶ ὡς οὐ τἀληθῆ με 3
μαρτυρήκασιν, οὐδ᾽ ἂν αὐτὸν οἶμαι Λεωχάρη εἰπεῖν· ἴσως
δὲ ἐπ᾿ ἐκεῖνον τρέψεται τὸν λόγον, ὡς Δικαιογένης τε ἃ
å
ἡμῖν ὡμολόγησεν ἅπαντα πεποίηκε, καὶ αὐτὸς τὴν ἐγγύην
ὅτι ἀπέδωκεν. εἰ οὖν ταῦτ᾽ ἐρεῖ, ψεύσεται καὶ ῥᾳδίως
ἐξελεγχθήσεται. ἀναγνώσεται γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅσα κατέλιπε
Δικαιογένης ὁ Μενεξένου ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ καὶ τὰ χρήματα
ἔλαβε.
ΑΠΟΓΡΑΦΗ.
ત
Ταῦτα εἰ μὲν μή φασι Δικαιογένη τὸν ἡμέτερον θεῖον 4
ζῶντα κεκτῆσθαι καὶ ἀποθνῄσκοντα ἡμῖν δοῦναι, ἀποδει
ξάντων· εἰ δὲ καὶ ἐκεῖνον καταλιπεῖν καὶ ἡμᾶς κεκομίσθαι,
μαρτυρησάτω τις αὐτοῖς. ὅτι μὲν γὰρ Δικαιογένης ωμολόγει
παραδώσειν ἡμῖν ὧν κατέλιπεν ὁ Μενεξένου τὰ δύο μέρη,
5, 6. ἀφεὶμεν malit Herw.
2. 5. παρέξομαι malit Albrecht.
3. 4. ἐξεγγύην et (u. 6) ελεγχθήσεται: corr. Buerm.
5. ἀπέδωκεν Α', ότxxxwxεν Α.
VII. 40. 2.
4.
2, 3. ἀποδειξάτωσαν: corr. Herw.
β
α
9.
Cf. § 5. I, III. 33. 2,
Tit. add. Schoem.
ν Y
4. μαρτκρησάτω Α, corr. Α1.
5. ὁ μενεξένου | ὧν κατέλιπε τὰ Α, ὁ μενεξένου | ὢν κατέλιπε τὰ Α'. Cf. II. 26. 2.
5-2
68
OR. V.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
ἡμεῖς μάρτυρας παρεχόμεθα, καὶ ὅτι Λεωχάρης ἠγγυήσατο
αὐτὸν ταῦτα ποιήσειν· καὶ γὰρ δικαζόμεθα διὰ τοῦτο, καὶ
ταῦτα ἀντωμόσαμεν. Καί μοι ἀνάγνωθι τὴν ἀντωμοσίαν.
ΑΝΤΩΜΟΣΙΑ.
5 Εἰ μὲν τοίνυν, ὦ ἄνδρες, περὶ τούτων ἔμελλον ἀπο-
λογήσεσθαι μόνον Λεωχάρης καὶ Δικαιογένης, ἤρκει ἄν μοι
τὰ εἰρημένα· ἐπειδὴ δὲ παρεσκευασμένοι εἰσὶν ἐξ ἀρχῆς
περὶ τοῦ> κλήρου λέγειν, βούλομαι ὑμᾶς καὶ παρ᾿ ἐμοῦ
τὰ πραχθέντα πυθέσθαι, ἵνα εἰδότες τἀληθῆ, ὅ τι ἂν
δοκῇ ὑμῖν, ψηφίσησθε, ἀλλὰ μὴ ἐξηπατημένοι. Μενεξένῳ
γὰρ τῷ ἡμετέρῳ πάππῳ ἐγένετο ὑὸς μὲν εἷς, Δικαιογένης,
θυγατέρες δὲ τέτταρες, ὧν ἔλαβε μίαν μὲν Πολυάρατος ὁ
πατὴρ ὁ ἐμός, ἄλλην δὲ Δημοκλῆς ὁ Φρεάρριος, τὴν δὲ
Κηφισοφῶν ὁ Παιανιεύς· ἡ δὲ <τετάρτη> Θεοπόμπῳ ἐγή-
6 ματο τῷ Κηφισοδότου πατρί. καὶ ὁ μὲν Δικαιογένης,
τριήραρχος ἐκπλεύσας τῆς Παράλου, ἐτελεύτησεν μαχόμενος
ἐν Κνίδῳ· ἀποθανόντος δ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἄπαιδος διαθήκην ἀπέφηνε
Πρόξενος ὁ Δικαιογένους <τουδὶ> πατήρ, ᾗ πιστεύσαντες οἱ
ἡμέτεροι πατέρες ἐνείμαντο τὸν κλῆρον. καὶ ἐπὶ μὲν τῷ
τρίτῳ μέρει τοῦ κλήρου Δικαιογένης ὅδε τῷ Μενεξένου
Δικαιογένει, ἡμετέρῳ δὲ θείῳ, ὑὸς ἐγίγνετο ποιητός· τῶν δὲ
λοιπῶν ἑκάστη τοῦ μέρους | ἐπεδικάσατο τῶν Μενεξένου 51
θυγατέρων. ὧν ἐγὼ τοὺς τότε παρόντας ὑμῖν μάρτυρας
παρέξομαι.
ων
6. παρεξόμεθα : corr. Turr. Cf. IX. 25. 7.
del. Albrecht.
79. καὶ γὰρ—ΑΝΤΩΜΟΣΙΑ
5. I. τούτων μόνον. Cf. § 3. 4, 1V. 1. 8, VI. 31. 3, ΙΧ. 29. 8. τούτου M, Ald.,
edd. ante Turr. omnes. I, 2. ἀπολογήσασθαι: corr. Cob. Cf. III. 26. 3, ΙΧ. 13. 4,
TOû add. Reisk. Cf. § 36. 4, III. 47. 6.
4·
7. μέν
XI. 25. 7.
2. Kai Dobr.: 1.
6. ἡμῖν A, corr. A1 || ψηφισασθε A, corr. Α' || ἐξαπατημένοι A, corr. Α'.
supra uers. add. A¹. Cf. § I. I. 8. πολύαρτος: corr. Reisk. 9. Φρεάριος.
Cf. Lys. 21. 8 (x). Fuerat φρεάρρειος. Habet φρεάῤῥιος iam Ald. 10. ʼn dè <d'>
Kaibel. Cf. II. 4. 2.
ΙΙ. Κηφισοδότου Steph., κηφησιοδότου Α, κηφισιοδότου Μ,
6.
Ald. Cf. § 9. 10, 1. 28. 1.
κνίδω Α', κδκω Α.
3.
ὄντος add. Dobr. coll. §§ 10, 12,
20. 8, 23. 1, 2, XI. 23. 4.
Cf. § 42. 9.
15.
4. τουδί (uel τουτουὶ uel τοῦ νῦν
8. τὸ μέρος: correxi. Cf. § 16. 6, VII.
1
OR. V. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΓΕΝΟΥΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
69
α
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἐνείμαντο τὸν κλῆρον, ὀμόσαντες μὴ παρα-
βήσεσθαι τὰ ὡμολογημένα, ἐκέκτητο ἕκαστος δώδεκα ἔτη
ἔλαχε· καὶ ἐν τοσούτῳ χρόνῳ οὐσῶν δικῶν οὐδεὶς αὐτῶν
ἠξίωσε τὰ πεπραγμένα εἰπεῖν ἀδίκως πεπράχθαι, πρὶν
δυστυχησάσης τῆς πόλεως καὶ στάσεως γενομένης Δικαιο-
γένης οὑτοσὶ πεισθεὶς ὑπὸ Μέλανος τοῦ Αἰγυπτίου, ᾧ περ
καὶ τἆλλα ἐπείθετο, ἠμφεσβήτει ἡμῖν ἅπαντος τοῦ κλήρου,
φάσκων ἐφ' ὅλῃ ποιηθῆναι ὑὸς ὑπὸ τοῦ θείου τοῦ ἡμετέρου.
ἡμεῖς μὲν οὖν μαίνεσθαι αὐτὸν ἡγούμεθα τῇ λήξει, οὐκ 8
ἄν ποτε οἰόμενοι τὸν αὐτὸν ἄνδρα τοτὲ μὲν φάσκοντα
ἐπὶ τῷ τρίτῳ μέρει ποιηθῆναι τοτὲ δ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἅπαντι τῷ κλήρῳ
δόξαι τἀληθὲς λέγειν ὑμῖν· εἰς δὲ τὸ δικαστήριον εἰσελ.
θόντες καὶ πολλῷ πλείω καὶ δικαιότερα λέγοντες ἠδικήθημεν,
οὐχ ὑπὸ τῶν δικαστῶν ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ Μέλανος τοῦ Αἰγυπτίου
καὶ τῶν ἐκείνου φίλων, οἳ διὰ τὰς τῆς πόλεως συμφορὰς
ἐξουσίαν σφίσιν αὐτοῖς ἡγοῦντο εἶναι κεκτῆσθαί τε τάλ
λότρια καὶ τὰ ψευδῆ ἀλλήλοις μαρτυρεῖν· ὑπὸ δὲ τῶν τὰ
τοιαῦτα ποιούντων ἐξηπατήθησαν οἱ δικασταί. καὶ ἡμεῖς 9
μὲν καταψευδομαρτυρηθέντες ἀπωλέσαμεν τὰ ὄντα· καὶ
γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ οὐ πολλῷ χρόνῳ ὕστερον μετὰ τὴν δίκην
ἐτελεύτησε, πρὶν ἐπεξελθεῖν οἷς ἐπεσκήψατο τῶν μαρτύρων·
Δικαιογένης δὲ πρὸς ἡμᾶς ὡς ἐβούλετο ἀγωνισάμενος τῇ
αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐξήλασε μὲν τὴν Κηφισοφώντος τοῦ Παιανιέως
II. Tit. add. Markland.
7. 3.
οι
γύ
οὐθεὶς: corr. Bekk. 5, 6. δικαιο minutis et obscuris litteris in marg.
add. Α', ο καγώ Β, καγώ Μ, κἀγῶνος Ald., uolg. Cf. Buerm. Herm. 17. 386, Rh.
8. ἐφ'
Mus. 40. 388. Coniecerat Δικαιογένης iam Naber (Mnem. N. S. 5. 402).
ὅλῃ Ald., uolg., ἐφ' ὅλῃ <τῇ οὐσίᾳ > Fuhr coll. hyp. 6, ἐφ' ὅλῳ Buerm.: ὑφ' ὅλην A,
ἐφ' ὅλον A. Cf. hyp. 4, XI. 45. 3.
8. 2. ävdpa A¹, ävd** A || TOTè A2, Ald., uolg., TÓTE A, Scheib., Buerm. Cf.
Din. I. 194, And. III. 18, Ant. V. 49.
Buerm.: ποτέ.
A2. Cf. I. 47. 5.
3. τοτὲ Ald., uolg., τότε Scheib.,
4. ἡμῖν Α, corr. Al.
5.
πλείω καὶ delere malit Buerm.
δικαιότερα coni. Rosenberg.
καὶ post πλείω supra uers. add.
(Herm. 17. 391), πολλῷ ἐκείνου
9. 3. χρόνω in marg. A', del. Buerm. coll. IV. 8. 4. Cf. [Dem.] 58. 28.
6. κηφισοφώντος in rasur. circ. 5 litt. Α.
70
OR. V.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
او
ων
å
θυγατέρα ἐκ τοῦ μέρους, ἀδελφιδῆν οὖσαν Δικαιογένους
τοῦ καταλιπόντος τὰ χρήματα, ἀφείλετο δὲ τὴν Δημοκλέους
γενομένην γυναῖκα, ἃ Δικαιογένης ἀδελφὸς ὢν ἔδωκεν,
ἀφείλετο δὲς καὶ τὴν Κηφισοδότου μητέρα καὶ αὐτὸν
10 τοῦτον ἅπαντα. καὶ γὰρ τούτων [τε] ἅμα καὶ ἐπίτροπος
καὶ κύριος καὶ ἀντίδικος ἦν, καὶ οὐδὲ κατὰ τὸ ἐλάχιστον
μέρος τῆς οἰκειότητος ἐλέου παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἔτυχον, ἀλλ᾽ ὀρφανο
καὶ ἔρημοι καὶ πένητες γενόμενοι πάντων καὶ τῶν καθ᾽
ἡμέραν ἐπιτηδείων ἦσαν ἐνδεεῖς. οὕτως αὐτοὺς Δικαιογένης
οὑτοσὶ ἐγγυτάτω ὢν γένους ἐπετρόπευεν· ὅς γε, ἃ μὲν ὁ
πατὴρ αὐτοῖς Θεόπομπος κατέλιπε, τοῖς τούτων ἐχθροῖς
παρέδωκεν, ἃ δὲ ὁ πρὸς μητρὸς θεῖος καὶ ὁ πάππος αὐτοῖς
11 ἔδωκεν, αὐτὸς ἀφείλετο πρὸ δίκης. καὶ ὃ πάντων δεινότατον,
τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτῶν τὴν πατρῴαν, παίδων ὄντων τούτων, πριά-
μενος καὶ κατασκάψας [τὸν] κῆπον ἐποιήσατο πρὸς τῇ αὑτοῦ
οἰκίᾳ τῇ ἐν ἄστει. καὶ λαμβάνων μίσθωσιν ὀγδοήκοντα
μνᾶς ἐκ τῶν Δικαιογένους τοῦ ἡμετέρου θείου χρημάτων,
τὸν ἐκείνου ἀδελφιδοῦν Κηφισόδοτον τῷ ἑαυτοῦ ἀδελφῷ
Αρμοδίῳ συνέπεμψεν εἰς Κόρινθον ἀντ᾿ ἀκολούθου· εἰς
τοῦτο ὕβρεως καὶ μιαρίας ἀφίκετο. καὶ πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις
κακοῖς ὀνειδίζει καὶ ἐγκαλεῖ αὐτῷ ὅτι ἐμβάδας καὶ τρίβωνα
φορεῖ, ὥσπερ ἀδικούμενός τι εἰ ἐμβάδας Κηφισόδοτος φορεῖ,
α
Ο
Ο
7. θυγατέρα] γυναῖκα et ἀδελφὴν praetulit olim Buerm. (Rh. Mus. 32. 357)
ἀδελφὴν A, corr. A. Cf. III. 43. 4 || διογένους A, corr. A2 addito supra uers. και.
Cf. hyp. 9.
9. & Reisk. : 7.
ΙΟ. dè add. Reisk., Te huc e § 10. I transp.
Buerm. || κηφησοδότου (rasur. corr.), item . ex η §§ II. 6, 10, 12. 3.
Cf. §§ 5. II,
12. 2, 3 || Ante καὶ αὐτὸν excidisse καὶ τὴν ἀδελφὴν uel καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν putat
Buerm.
10. Ι. τε del. Reisk., γε ἅμα (uel ἅμα τε ἐπίτροπος) Dobr., τότε Scheib. (Comm.
Crit. p. 16), του in textu idem.
4. πάντων in rasur. add. Α', del. Buerm.
7. κατέλειπε. Cf. § 37. 2, 1. 25. 3, III. 41. 6, VI. 30. 6, VII. 5. 3.
uel potius ἔδοσαν Herw.
S
11. I. ὁ πάντων δεινότατος: corr. Reisk., ὁ π. δεινότατον Μ.
μενος] περιελόμενος Nab.
ΚΤ
4. bydon' A¹, *y*o** A.
9. ἔδωκαν
2, 3. πριά-
3. τὸν del. Dobr., τὸν κῆπον ἐπ. <τὸν> πρὸς Scheib.
7. συνεξέπεμψεν malit Dobr. || ἄνευ ἀκολούθου Nab.
9. τρίβωνα Cob. (N. L. p. 155), τριβώνιον Nab. : τριβώνια.
ΙΟ. ὥσπερ φορεῖ
om. BMZ, Ald., Steph., deesse aliquid perspexit Reisk. Fraudem fecit librario uox
φορεί repetita. Cf. § 34• 5-7 | Post εμβάδας addere uolt καὶ τρίβωνα uel καὶ τριβώνιον
Herw.
OR. V. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΓΕΝΟΥΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
71
τα
ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἀδικῶν ὅτι ἀφελόμενος αὐτὸν τὰ ὄντα πένητα
πεποίηκεν.
Π
ων
᾿Αλλὰ περὶ μὲν τούτων τοσαῦτά μοι εἰρήσθω· πάλιν 12
δ᾽ ἐπάνειμι ὅθεν ἀπέλιπον. Μενέξενος γὰρ ὁ Κηφισο-
φῶντος ὑός, ἀνεψιὸς ὢν Κηφισοδότῳ τουτῳὶ καὶ ἐμοί, καὶ
προσῆκον αὐτῷ τοῦ κλήρου μέρος ὅσον περ ἐμοί, ἐπεξῄει
τοῖς καταμαρτυρήσασιν ἡμῶν καὶ ἐκείνου τὰ ψευδῆ, καὶ
Λύκωνα, ὅν περ εἰσήγαγε πρῶτον εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον,
τοῦτον εἷλεν· ὃς ἐμαρτύρησε Δικαιογένη ποιηθῆναι τὸν
νῦν ὄντα ὑπὸ τοῦ θείου τοῦ ἡμετέρου ὑὸν ἐπὶ παντὶ τῷ
κλήρῳ. μαρτυρήσας δὲ ταῦτα ἑάλω ψευδομαρτυρίων. ἐπειδὴ 13
δὲ Δικαιογένης, ὦ ἄνδρες, οὐκέτι ὑμᾶς δύναται ἐξαπατῶν,
πείθει Μενέξενον τὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τε καὶ ὑπὲρ αὑτοῦ πράτ-
τοντα, ἃ ἐγὼ αἰσχυνόμενος ἀναγκάζομαι διὰ τὴν ἐκείνου
πονηρίαν λέγειν,τί ποιῆσαι; κομισάμενον αὐτὸν μέρος
ἐκ τοῦ κλήρου ὅ τι ἐγίγνετο, ἡμᾶς μὲν ὑπὲρ ὧν ἔπραττε
προδοῦναι, τοὺς δὲ μήπω ἑαλωκότας τῶν μαρτύρων ἀφεῖναι.
52 καὶ ἡμεῖς μὲν ταῦτα | ὑπὸ τῶν φίλων καὶ τῶν ἐχθρῶν
παθόντες εἴχομεν ἡσυχίαν. τούτων δ'
τούτων δ᾽ ὑμῖν μάρτυρας
παρέξομαι.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
Ὁ μὲν τοίνυν Μενέξενος παθὼν ἄξια τῶν ἑαυτοῦ τρόπων 14
ἠπατήθη ὑπὸ τοῦ Δικαιογένους· ἀφεὶς γὰρ τοὺς μάρτυρας
καὶ ἡμᾶς προδούς, ὧν ἕνεκα ταῦτ᾽ ἔπραξεν οὐκ ἐκομίσατο.
ἀδικηθεὶς δὲ ὑπὸ Δικαιογένους μεθ' ἡμῶν πάλιν ἔπραττεν.
11. aỦтŵ A, corr. A¹. Cf. x. hyp. 17. 12. πεποίηκεν A corr. (supra π Ι rasur.).
Fuisse ἐπεποίηκεν putat Buerm.
12. 1. ἀλλὰ μὲν περὶ : transp. Dobr. ἀλλὰ μὴν περὶ μὲν Reisk. (cf. Dem. 18. 192,
Hyper. 5. 15), ἀλλὰ μὴν περὶ Μ, Αld., Steph., Bekk., Schoem., Turr., Scheib. Cf. II.
2, 3. κηφησοφῶντος (rasur. corr.). Cf. § 9. 10.
3. τούτω: corr.
4. αὐτῶ Α1, αὐτοῦ Α. 7, 8. τὸν νῦν Α', τοίνυν Α.
Cf. III. 4. 2.
26. 5.
Scheib.
μαρτυριών.
13. 2.
ἡμᾶς: corr. Reisk.
ante μέρος add. Saupp. 6.
putat Albrecht (Hermes 18. 376)
Α, προ supra uers. add. Α2.
in marg. post μενέξενος (§ 14. 1).
9. ψευδο-
5. τὸ
4. αἰσχυνόμενος < ὅμως > Herw.
γίγνετο Α, corr. Α' | Post ἐγίγνετο excidisse εἰς αὐτὸν
coll. III. 36, 38, VIII. 25, Χ. 26, ΧΙ. 22.
7. δοῦναι
ὑπὸ Α', ὑπὲρ Α. Cf. III. 32. 5.
8.
ΙΙ. Tit.
72
OR. V.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
ἡμεῖς δὲ +καθηγούμενοι† οὐκέτι προσήκειν Δικαιογένει
ἔχειν τῶν ἐκ τοῦ κλήρου μέρος οὐδέν, ἐπειδὴ οἱ μάρτυρες
ἑάλωσαν, ἀμφισβητοῦμεν αὐτῷ ἅπαντος τοῦ· οἴκου κατ᾿
ἀγχιστείαν. καὶ ὅτι ἡμεῖς τε ὀρθῶς ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ οὐδὲν
15 ἔτι προσήκει Δικαιογένει τοῦ κλήρου, ῥᾳδίως διδάξω. δύο
γὰρ διαθῆκαι <ἀπ>εφάνησαν, ἡ μὲν πάλαι, ἡ δ᾽ ὕστερον
πολλῷ· καὶ κατὰ μὲν τὴν παλαιάν, ἣν ἀπέφηνε Πρόξενος
ὁ Δικαιογένους τουτουὶ πατήρ, ἐπὶ τῷ τρίτῳ μέρει τοῦ
κλήρου ἐγίγνετο τῷ θείῳ τῷ ἡμετέρῳ ὑὸς ποιητός, καθ'
ἣν δ᾽ αὐτὸς ἀπέφηνε Δικαιογένης, ἐπὶ παντὶ τῷ οἴκῳ.
τούτοιν δὲ τοῖν διαθήκαιν ἣν μὲν Πρόξενος ἀπέφηνε,
Δικαιογένης ἔπεισε τοὺς δικαστὰς ὡς οὐκ ἀληθὴς εἴη·
ἣν δὲ Δικαιογένης ἀπέφηνεν, οἱ μαρτυρήσαντες αὐτὴν τὸν
θεῖον τὸν ἡμέτερον διαθέσθαι ἑάλωσαν ψευδομαρτυρίων.
16 ἀμφοῖν δὲ τοῖν διαθήκαιν ἀκύροιν γιγνομέναιν, καὶ ἑτέρας
μηδεμιᾶς ὁμολογουμένης εἶναι, κατὰ δόσιν μὲν οὐδενὶ
προσῆκεν τοῦ κλήρου, κατ᾿ ἀγχιστείαν δὲ ταῖς Δικαιο-
γένους τοῦ ἀποθανόντος ἀδελφαῖς, ὧν εἰσιν αἱ ἡμέτεραι
μητέρες. διὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἔδοξέ τε ἡμῖν λαχεῖν τοῦ κλήρου
κατ᾿ ἀγχιστείαν, καὶ ἐλάχομεν τοῦ μέρους ἕκαστος. μελ.
λόντων δ᾽ ἡμῶν ἀντόμνυσθαι διεμαρτύρησε Λεωχάρης
17 οὑτοσὶ μὴ ἐπίδικον εἶναι τὸν κλῆρον ἡμῖν. ἐπισκηψαμένων
δ᾽ ἡμῶν ἡ μὲν λῆξις τοῦ κλήρου διεγράφη, ἡ δὲ τῶν ψευ-
δομαρτυρίων δίκη εἰσῄει. ἐν δὲ τῷ δικαστηρίῳ πάντα μὲν
ἡμῶν εἰπόντων ἅ περ νυνί, πολλὰ δὲ Λεωχάρους ἀνταπο
</
14. 5. καθηγούμενοι] καθάπαξ ἡγούμενοι Reisk., ἅθ᾽ ἡγούμενοι Bait., ὦ ἄνδρες,
ἡγούμενοι Saupp., καθ' ἡμᾶς ἡγούμενοι Buerm., οὐκέθ᾽ ἡγούμενοι προσήκειν Dobr. ||
di***oyével A, corr. A¹. Cf. hyp. 2.
6. μépo*s. 7· ἠμφεσβητοῦμεν Reisk.
ἐφάνησαν: corr. Dobr.
πάλαι πολλῶ A, Ald. Steph.,
Bekk., Schoem., Scheib. πολλῷ post ἡ δὲ transp. Reisk., post ὕστερον Turr., Buerm.
τούτου: corr. Scheib. || ἐπὶ Bekk. : ἐν. Cf. X. 4. IO.
7. ταύταιν δὲ ταῖν:
4.
corr. Nab.
15.
2.
2, 3.
ΙΟ. ψευδομαρτυριῶν. Cf. § 12. 9.
16.
I.
ταῖν: corr. Nab.
4. τοῦ
ἀποθανόντος ut super-
3. προσήκει Nab.
uacua et parum Attica del. Herw. Scilicet requirit του τεθνηκότος.
Cf. III. 50. 2. δὴ coni. Reisk. Cf. IV. 14. 7. 6. τὸ μέρος : corr.
17. I. ἐπισκηψαμένων Ald.: ἐπισκεψαμένων. Cf. III. 3. 5.
μαρτυριών. Cf. § 12. 9.
3. πάντα] ταὐτὰ Nab.
5. δὲ del. Buerm.
Buerm. Cf. § 6. 8.
2, 3. ψευδο-
4.
ἡμῶν supra uers.
add. A¹.
OR. V. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΓΕΝΟΥΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
73
α
λογησαμένου, ἔγνωσαν τὰ ψευδή μαρτυρῆσαι Λεωχάρη
οἱ δικασταί. ἐπειδὴ δὲ τοῦτο φανερὸν ἐγένετο ἐξεραθει-
σῶν τῶν ψήφων, ἃ μὲν τῶν δικαστῶν καὶ ἡμῶν ἐδεήθη
Λεωχάρης ἢ ὅσα ἡμῖν ἐξεγένετο διαπράξασθαι τότε, οὐκ
οἶδ' ὅ τι δεῖ λέγειν, ἃ δὲ ὡμολογήθη ἡμῖν, ταῦτα ἀκούσατε.
συγχωρούντων γὰρ ἡμῶν τῷ ἄρχοντι μὴ συναριθμεῖν ἀλλὰ 18
συγχέαι τὰς ψήφους, ἀφίστατο [μὲν] Δικαιογένης τοῖν δυοῖν
μεροῖν τοῦ κλήρου ταῖς Δικαιογένους ἀδελφαῖς, καὶ ὡμολόγει
ἀναμφισβήτητα παραδώσειν ἡμῖν ταῦτα τὰ μέρη· καὶ ταῦτα
ἠγγυατο αὐτὸν Λεωχάρης οὑτοσὶ καὶ [ὡμολόγει] ποιήσειν,
οὐ μόνος ἀλλὰ καὶ Μνησιπτόλεμος ὁ Πλωθειεύς. καὶ τούτων
ὑμῖν τοὺς μάρτυρας παρέξομαι.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
Ἡμεῖς τοίνυν ταῦτα παθόντες ὑπὸ Λεωχάρους, καὶ ἐγ- 19
γενόμενον ἡμῖν αὐτὸν ἐπειδὴ εἵλομεν τῶν ψευδομαρτυρίων
ἀτιμῶσαι, οὐκ ἐβουλήθημεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξήρκεσεν τὰ ἡμέτερα
ἡμῖν κομισαμένοις ἀπηλλάχθαι. τοιοῦτοι δὲ γενόμενοι
περὶ Λεωχάρη καὶ Δικαιογένη ἐξηπατήθημεν ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν,
ὦ ἄνδρες· οὔτε γὰρ Δικαιογένης τὰ δύο μέρη ἡμῖν τοῦ
κλήρου παρέδωκεν, ὁμολογήσας ἐπὶ τοῦ δικαστηρίου, οὔτε
Λεωχάρης ὁμολογεῖ ἐγγυήσασθαι αὐτὸν τότε. καίτοι εί 20
μὴ ἐναντίον μὲν τῶν δικαστῶν, πεντακοσίων ὄντων, ἐναντίον
δὲ τῶν περιεστηκότων ἠγγυᾶτο, οὐκ οἶδ' ὅ τι [ἂν] ἐποίησεν.
ὡς μὲν τοίνυν περιφανῶς ψεύδονται, μάρτυρας ὑμῖν παρε-
χόμεθα τοὺς παρόντας, ὅτε Δικαιογένης μὲν ἀφίστατο τοῖν
δυοῖν μεροῖν τοῦ κλήρου καὶ ὡμολόγει αναμφισβήτητα
ΟΤΕ
6, 7. ἐξαιρεθεισῶν: corr. Dobr., Nab.
μîv induxit A¹. Cf. vII. 44. 6, IX. I. I.
18. 2. μὲν abesse malit Buerm.
ταῦτα τὰ μέρη del. Herw.
4.
5.
8. ἡμῖν ἐξεγένετο ἡμῖν A, posterius
9. ἀντιλέγειν A, ἀντι induxit Al.
αναμφισβήτητα Ald. : ἀναμφίβητα
οὗτος: corr. Scheib. || καὶ ὡμολόγει
tamquam ex u. 3 male repetita del. Saupp., καὶ seruat Scheib. coll. §§ 2o. 8, 22. 2.
πλωτιεύς: corr. Meursius (De pop. Att., 1616, p. 1o5) et Schoen., Πλωθεύς malit
6.
Buerm.
7. ἡμῖν A, corr. Al.
3. ἠβουλήθημεν Α, corr. Αl. Cf. I.
8. ἐγγυήσα*** τὸν τότε Α, corr. Α'.
19. 2. ψευδομαρτυριών. Cf. § 12. 9.
27.4.
6. οὔτε Α', οὗτος Α.
20. 3. ἠγγύητο Nab. | ἂν del. Buerm. || ἐποιήσαμεν coni. Nab.
74
OR. V.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
a
παραδώσειν ταῖς Δικαιογένους ἀδελφαῖς, Λεωχάρης δὲ ἠγ
γυᾶτο αὐτὸν ἃ ὡμολόγησε καὶ ποιήσειν. δεόμεθα δὲ καὶ
ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες, εἴ τις ἐτύγχανε παρών τότε, ἀναμνησθῆναι
21 εἰ λέγομεν ἀληθῆ καὶ βοηθῆσαι ἡμῖν· ἐπεί, ὦ ἄνδρες, εἰ
Δικαιογένης ἀληθῆ λέγει, τί ἡμεῖς ὠφελούμεθα νικήσαντες,
ἢ τί οὗτος ἐζημιώθη ἡττηθείς; εἰ γὰρ ἀπέστη μόνον, ὥς
φησι, τοῖν δυοῖν μεροῖν τοῦ κλήρου, ἀναμφισβήτητα δὲ μὴ
ὡμολόγει παραδώσειν, τί ἐζημιοῦτο ἀφιστάμενος ὧν τιμὴν 53
εἶχεν; οὐδὲ γὰρ πρὶν ἡττηθῆναι τὴν δίκην εἶχεν ὧν ἡμεῖς
δικαζόμεθα, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ παρὰ τούτου πριάμενοι καὶ θέμενοι, οἷς
ἔδει αὐτὸν ἀποδόντα τὴν τιμὴν ἡμῖν τὰ μέρη ἀποδοῦναι.
22 διὰ ταῦτα γὰρ καὶ τοὺς ἐγγυητὰς παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐλάβομεν,
οὐ πιστεύοντες αὐτῷ ἃ ὡμολόγησε ποιήσειν. πλὴν γὰρ
δυοῖν οἰκιδίοιν ἔξω τείχους καὶ <ἀγροῦ> ἐν πεδίῳ ἑξήκοντα
πλέθρων οὐδὲν κεκομίσμεθα, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ παρὰ τούτου θέμενοι
καὶ πριάμενοι. ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐξάγομεν· δέδιμεν γὰρ μὴ
ὄφλωμεν δίκας. καὶ γὰρ Μικίωνα, κελεύοντος Δικαιογένους
καὶ φάσκοντος τοὐς βεβαιώσειν, ἐξαγαγόντες ἐκ τοῦ βαλα-
νείου ὤφλομεν τετταράκοντα μνᾶς διὰ Δικαιογένη, ὦ ἄνδρες.
23 ἡγούμενοι γὰρ οὐκ ἂν αὐτὸν βεβαιῶσαι οὐδὲν ὧν ἡμῖν
ἀπέστη ἐν τῷ δικαστηρίῳ, διισχυριζόμεθα πρὸς Μικίωνα
ἐναντίον τῶν δικαστῶν, ἐθέλοντες ὁτιοῦν πάσχειν, εἰ βε-
βαιώσειεν αὐτῷ Δικαιογένης τὸ βαλανεῖον, οὐκ ἄν ποτε
οἰόμενοι αὐτὸν ἐναντία οἷς ὁμολόγησε πρᾶξαι, οὐ δι' ἀλλ᾽
οὐδὲν ἢ διὰ τοὺς ἐγγυητάς, ὅτι καθειστήκεσαν ἡμῖν.
α
21. 2. **κήσαντες A, νικ in rasur. Αl.
Schoem.
4.
4.
K T
αν
ἀναμφισβήτητον : corr.
22. 2. αὐτὸν malit Nab. || καὶ ποιήσειν Reisk. Cf. § 20. 8.
3. ἀγροῦ add.
Buerm. coll. [Dem.] 49. 11.
Post ἀλλὰ excidisse ἔχουσι suspicatur Reisk.
5. OỦк A¹, **k A || dedíaµev: corr. Cob. 6. μηκίωνα Α, item 23. 2, ubi μηκίονα A,
μηκίωνα Α', et 24. 2, ubi μηκίωνι Α, μηκίωνι A corr. Coni. Μικκίωνα aut Μικίωνα Reisk.,
hoc praetulerunt omnes. Cf. C. I. A. I. 438.
7. οὐ addidi, μή add. Αld., quod
quamquam probarunt fere omnes, uereor ne soloecum sit. καὶ φάσκοντος μὴ βεβαιώσειν
del. Dobr. || ἐξαγαγόντες Nab.: ἐξάγοντος A, ἐξάγοντες Ald., uolg.
23. 1. βεβαιώσαι Cob., Buerm. (Hermes 19. 337): βεβαιώσειν A, edd. omnes.
Cf. § 32. 3 ποιῆσαι Α, ποιήσειν Α', ΧΙ. 22. 8 ἐξαπατῆσαι Α, ἐξαπατήσειν Α', I. 32. 3,
11. 8. 6 || οὐδὲν Ald. : οὐδὲ. Cf. IV. 3. 3.
οὐ δι' Ald. : οὐδ'. Cf. VI. 36. Τ.
5.
OR. V. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΓΕΝΟΥΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
75
ἀποστὰς δὲ Δικαιογένης [ταῦτα τὰ μέρη] ὧν καὶ νῦν 24
ὁμολογεῖ ἀφεστάναι ἡμῖν, ἐβεβαίωσε Μικίωνι τὸ βαλανεῖον.
καὶ ἐγὼ μὲν ὁ ἄθλιος οὐχ ὅπως τι ἐκ τοῦ κλήρου εἰληφώς,
ἀλλὰ προσαπολωλεκὼς τετταράκοντα μνᾶς, ἀπῇα ὑβρισ
μένος ὑπὸ τοῦ Δικαιογένους. καὶ τούτων ὑμῖν μάρτυρας
παρέξομαι.
cl
α
ου
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
cl
Ταῦτα μὲν πεπόνθαμεν ὑπὸ Δικαιογένους, ὦ ἄνδρες 25
ὁ δ᾽ ἐγγυησάμενος αὐτὸν Λεωχάρης καὶ τῶν πάντων ἡμῖν
κακῶν αἴτιος οὔ φησιν ἐγγυήσασθαι ἃ καταμαρτυρεῖται
αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἐν τῷ γραμματείῳ τῷ ἐπὶ τοῦ δικαστηρίου
γραφέντι οὐκ ἔνεστι ταῦτα. ἡμεῖς δέ, ὦ ἄνδρες, τότ᾽ ἐπὶ
τοῦ βήματος σπεύδοντες τὰ μὲν ἐγράψαμεν, τῶν δὲ μάρ
τυρας ἐποιησάμεθα· οὗτοι δέ, ἃ μὲν αὐτοῖς συμφέρει τῶν
ὁμολογηθέντων τότε, κύριά φασιν εἶναι, εἰ καὶ μὴ γέγρα-
πται, ἃ δ᾽ οὐ συμφέρει, οὐ κύρια, εἰ μὴ γέγραπται. ἐγὼ 26
δ᾽, ὦ ἄνδρες, οὐ θαυμάζω ὅτι ἔξαρνοί εἰσι τὰ ὡμολογημένα·
οὐδὲ γὰρ τὰ γραφέντα ἐθέλουσι ποιεῖν. ἡμεῖς δ᾽ ὡς λέγομεν
ἀληθῆ, καὶ ἄλλο τι τεκμήριον παρεξόμεθα. Πρωταρχίδη
γὰρ τῷ Ποταμίῳ ἔδωκε Δικαιογένης †τὴν ἀδελφὴν τὴν
ἑαυτοῦ† ἐπὶ τετταράκοντα μναῖς, ἀντὶ δὲ τῆς προικὸς τὴν
<συν>οικίαν αὐτῷ τὴν ἐν Κεραμεικῷ παρέδωκε. ταύτῃ
δὲ τῇ γυναικί, ἣν ὁ Πρωταρχίδης ἔχει, προσήκει τοῦ κλήρου
μέρος ὅσον περ τῇ μητρὶ τῇ ἐμῇ. ἐπεὶ δ᾽ οὖν ἀπέστη 27
Δικαιογένης ταῖς γυναιξὶ τοῖν δυοῖν μεροῖν τοῦ κλήρου,
4.
24. I. TAÛTa rà µépŋ tamquam ex § 18. 4 uel orationis initio petita del. Dobr.
προσαπλωλεκώς A, corr. Αl. Fuerat fortasse w.
δικαι (§ 25. 1).
7. Tit. in marg. post ὑπὸ
25. 5. ἐνέστι Α', ἐστι Α, ἔστι Buerm. coll. VI. 47. 2; praepositionem ex
superiore uersu inlatam putat. Cf. VII. 40. 2. 9. εἰ μὴ] εἰ καὶ Nab.
26. 3. ἐλέγομεν : corr. Reisk. 5, 6. τὴν ἀδελφὴν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ] corrupta necdum
sanata. Multa tentauerunt critici, τὴν ἀδ. τὴν ἐμαυτοῦ Reisk., τὴν ἀδ. τὴν τούτου
Schoem., τὴν ἀνεψιὰν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ uel potius τὴν ἀδελφὴν τὴν αὐτοῦ ἐκείνου (i.e. τοῦ
καταλιπόντος τὸν κλῆρον) Dobr., τὴν ἀδελφιδῆν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ Weissenborn probante
Scheib., τὴν ἀδελφὴν τὴν τοῦ θείου Saupp., τὴν ἀδελφὴν τὴν Μενεξένου Buerm.
οἰκίαν: corr. Reisk.
7.
27. 2. τον A corr., ταῖν Α.
76
OR. V.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
28
Ο
ἠξίου ὁ Λεωχάρης τον Πρωταρχίδην παραδιδόναι αὐτῷ
τὴν συνοικίαν ἣν εἶχεν ἀντὶ τῆς προικός, ὡς ὄντι ἐγγυητῇ
αὐτῷ, τὸ δὲ μέρος ὑπὲρ τῆς γυναικὸς τοῦ κλήρου παρ'
αὐτοῦ κομίζεσθαι. παραλαβὼν δὲ τὴν συνοικίαν το μέρος
οὐ παρέδωκε. καὶ τούτων ὑμῖν μάρτυρα τὸν Πρωταρχίδην
παρέξομαι.
α
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ.
Περὶ δὲ ἐπισκευῆς τοῦ βαλανείου καὶ οἰκοδομίας καὶ
πρότερον εἴρηκε Δικαιογένης καὶ νῦν ἴσως ἐρεῖ, ὡς ὁμολογή-
σαντες αὐτῷ ἀποδώσειν τὰ ἀνηλωμένα οὐκ ἀπεδώκαμεν,
καὶ ὅτι διὰ τοῦτο οὐ δύναται ἀπαλλάττειν τοὺς χρήστας,
29 οὐδὲ ἡμῖν παραδοῦναι ἃ δεῖ αὐτόν. ἡμεῖς δέ, ὦ ἄνδρες, ἐπὶ
<μὲν> τοῦ δικαστηρίου, ὅτε ἠναγκάζομεν αὐτὸν ἀφίστασθαι
τούτων, ἀντὶ τῶν λῃτουργιῶν καὶ τῶν εἰς τὰ οἰκοδομήματα
ἀνηλωμένων ἀφεὶμεν αὐτῷ τοὺς καρπούς, οὕτω τῶν δι-
καστῶν γιγνωσκόντων· ὕστερον δ᾽ οὐκ ἀναγκαζόμενοι ἀλλ᾽
ἑκόντες ἔδομεν αὐτῷ τὴν ἐν ἄστει οἰκίαν † ἐξαιρεθέντες †
πρὸς τῷ τρίτῳ μέρει τοῦ κλήρου ἔχειν ἀντὶ τῶν ἐπεσκευασ‐
μένων, ἣν οὗτος ἀντὶ πεντακισχιλίων δραχμών παρέδωκε
30 Φιλονίκῳ. ἔδομεν δὲ οὐ διὰ τὴν τοῦ Δικαιογένους χρη-
στότητα, ὦ ἄνδρες, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιδεικνύμενοι ὅτι οὐ περὶ πλείονος
χρήματα ποιούμεθα τῶν οἰκείων, οὐδ᾽ ἂν πάνυ πονηροὶ ὦσι.
καὶ γὰρ πρότερον ὅτ᾽ ἐφ' ἡμῖν ἐγένετο Δικαιογένη τιμωρή
σασθαι καὶ ἀφελέσθαι ἃ εἶχεν, οὐκ ἐβουλήθημεν τῶν
cl
اد
αν
3. αὐτῷ del. Herw., αὐτῷ Turr., Scheib. Cf. II. II. 3.
Scheib.
6. αὑτοῦ Turr., Scheib.
ΜΑΡΤΥΣ Αld., uolg.
5. αὑτῷ Turr.,
9. Tit. μάρτυρες: corr. Buerm.,
28. I. Post οἰκοδομίας erasum καὶ in uers. et pag. (f. 47*) exitu.
Cf. IV. 8. 5.
3. ἀναλωμένα: corr. Herw. || ἀπέδομεν Herw., malit ἀποδεδώκαμεν Buerm. Cf. $ 1.
5, 6.
4. ἀπαλλάττειν Buerm.: ἀπαλάσσειν Α, ἀπαλλάσσειν Αld., uolg. Cf.
VII. 12. 2, 3.
29. 2. μεν add. Bekk. Cf. § 5· 7·
4. ἀναλωμένων: corr. Herw.
5. γιγνωσκότων. Cf. VIII. 38. 10, 11. 6. ἐξαιρεθέντες] ἐξαίρετον uel ἐξαιρεθεῖσαν
Reisk., illud malit Dobr., ἐξαίρετον ἀφέντες Scheib., εξαιρεθέντες πρὸς refingit in
ἐξαίρετον προσθέντες Buerm. 8. οὗτος M, Ald.: οὕτως. Cf. VI. 7. I, Din. I. 93 || ἀντὶ
1.
9. φιλονείκω: corr. Herw.
abesse malit Scheib. || πεντακ|κισχιλίων. Cf. I. 6. 7.
30. I. ἔδομεν Reisk. : παρέδομεν || Post διὰ in fine uersus Δ erasum esse putat
Buerm.
OR. V. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΓΕΝΟΥΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
77
α
ΟΤΕ
54 τούτου | κτήσασθαι οὐδέν, ἀλλὰ τὰ ἡμέτερα μόνον κομί
σασθαι ἐξήρκει ἡμῖν. οὗτος δ᾽ ὅτε ἐκράτησεν ἡμῶν,
ἀπεσύλησεν ἃ ἐδύνατο, καὶ ὡς ἐχθροὺς ἀλλ᾽ οὐ προσή-
κοντας ἀπόλλυσι. τεκμήριον δὲ καὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων τρόπων 31
καὶ τῆς τούτου ἀδικίας μέγα παρεξόμεθα. μελλούσης γὰρ
τῆς πρὸς Λεωχάρη δίκης εἰσιέναι, ὦ ἄνδρες, ἐν τῷ Μαι-
μακτηριῶνι μηνί, ἠξίουν Λεωχάρης καὶ Δικαιογένης δίαιταν
ἡμᾶς ἐπιτρέπειν τὴν δίκην ἀναβαλλομένους.
καὶ ἡμεῖς
ὥσπερ μικρὰ ἀδικούμενοι συνεχωρήσαμεν, καὶ ἐπετρέψαμεν
διαιτηταῖς τέτταρσιν, ὧν τοὺς μὲν δύο ἡμεῖς ἠγάγομεν, τοὺς
δὲ δύο ἐκείνοι. καὶ ἐναντίον τούτων ὡμολογήσαμεν ἐμ-
μενεῖν οἷς οὗτοι γνοῖεν, καὶ ὠμόσαμεν. καὶ οἱ διαιτηταὶ 32
ἔφασαν, εἰ μὲν ἀνώμοτοι δύναιντ' [ἂν] ἡμᾶς διαλλάξαι,
οὕτω ποιήσειν, εἰ δὲ μή, καὶ αὐτοὶ ὀμόσαντες ἀποφανεῖσθαι
ἃ δίκαια ἡγοῦνται εἶναι. ἀνακρίναντες δὲ ἡμᾶς πολλάκις
καὶ πυθόμενοι τὰ πραχθέντα οἱ διαιτηταί, οἱ μὲν δύο οὓς
ἐγὼ προβαλόμην, Διότιμος καὶ Μελάνωπος, ἤθελον καὶ
ἀνώμοτοι καὶ ὀμόσαντες ἀποφήνασθαι ἃ ἐγίγνωσκον ἀληθέ-
στατα ἐκ τῶν λεγομένων, οὓς δὲ Λεωχάρης προβάλετο,
οὐκ ἔφασαν ἀποφανεῖσθαι. καίτοι Διοπείθης ὁ ἕτερος 33
τῶν διαιτητῶν Λεωχάρει μὲν ἦν τουτῳὶ κηδεστής, ἐμὸς
δ᾽ ἐχθρὸς καὶ ἀντίδικος ἐξ ἑτέρων συμβολαίων· Δημάρατος
δὲ ὁ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ Μνησιπτολέμῳ τῷ ἐγγυησαμένῳ Δικαιογένη
μετὰ Λεωχάρους ἦν ἀδελφός. οὗτοι μέντοι οὐκ ἠθελησαν
ἀποφήνασθαι, ὁρκώσαντες ἡμᾶς ἦ μὴν ἐμμενεῖν οἷς [ἂν]
αὐτοὶ γνοῖεν. καὶ τούτων ὑμῖν μάρτυρας παρέξομαι.
9. ἀπώλεσε Herw.
31.
2. παραξόμεθα A. corr. A1.
VII. 14. 6. 4. ἠξίουν Steph. : ἠξίου.
μένους ? Cf. Lyc. 85, Din. I. 17, 81.
3, 4. μαιμακτηριῶνι Ald. : μεμακτηριώνι. Cf.
5· ἐπιτροπεύειν : corr. Reisk. || Num αναβαλο-
8, 9. ἐμμένειν : corr. Reisk.
3.
9. Post oîs
add. ἂν Reisk., Bekk., Turr., Scheib., Buerm., οἷς ἂν... γνῶσι malit Herw. Cf. § 33. 6.
32. 2. av del. Bekk., seruant Schoem. et Scheib.
ποιῆσαι Α, corr.
Α1. Cf. § 23. Ι. 4. ἡγοῦντο uel ἡγοῖντο malit Scheib.
5. πυκθαμενοι
A, corr. A' || οἱ διαιτηταί del. Fuhr.
6. προύβαλον : corr. Reisk. || μελάνωπος
Ald. : μελάνιπος || *θελον A, ἤ in rasur. Αl. 9. ἔφτασαν. Fuerat fortasse ἔφρασαν.
33. 2. τούτω : corr. Scheib. 4. δικαιογένει: corr. Bekk. Cf. III. 70. 3.
6. ἐμμένειν : corr. Reisk. || ἂν del. Dobr. et Nab. Reponere malit γνώσιν pro γνοῖεν
Herw. Cf. § 31.9.
78
OR. V.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
34
α
ιν α
ων
α
Οὔκουν δεινὸν εἰ δεήσεται ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες, Λεωχάρης
ἀποψηφίσασθαι ἃ Διοπείθης κηδεστής ὢν αὐτοῦ κατε-
ψηφίσατο; ἢ ὑμῖν πῶς καλὸν ἀπογνῶναι Λεωχάρους
γε οὐδ᾽ οἱ προσήκοντες αὐτοῦ ἀπέγνωσαν; δέομαι οὖν
ὑμῶν καταψηφίσασθαι Λεωχάρους, ἵν᾽ ἃ ἡμῖν οἱ πρόγονοι
κατέλιπον κομισώμεθα, καὶ μὴ μόνον τὰ ὀνόματα αὐτῶν
ἔχωμεν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ χρήματα. τῶν δὲ Λεωχάρους ἰδίων
35 οὐκ ἐπιθυμοῦμεν. Δικαιογένη γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες, οὔτ᾽ ἐλεεῖν
ἐστε δίκαιοι <ὡς> κακῶς πράττοντα καὶ πενόμενον, οὔτ᾽
εὖ ποιεῖν ὡς ἀγαθόν τι εἰργασμένον τὴν πόλιν· οὐδέτερα
γὰρ αὐτῷ τούτων ὑπάρχει, ὡς ἐγὼ ἀποφανῶ, ὦ ἄνδρες.
ἅμα δὲ καὶ πλούσιον καὶ πονηρότατον αὐτὸν ὄντα ἀνθρώπων
ἀποδείξω καὶ εἰς τὴν πόλιν καὶ εἰς τοὺς προσήκοντας καὶ
εἰς τοὺς φίλους. οὗτος γὰρ παραλαβὼν τὸν κλῆρον παρ'
ὑμῶν φέροντα μίσθωσιν τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ὀγδοήκοντα μνᾶς,
καρπωσάμενος αὐτὸν δέκα ἔτη οὔτε ἀργύριον ὁμολογεῖ
κεκτῆσθαι οὔτε ὅποι ἀνήλωσεν ἔχοι ἂν ἐπιδεῖξαι, ὦ ἄνδρες.
36 ἄξιον δὲ καὶ ὑμῖν λογίσασθαι. οὗτος γὰρ τῇ μὲν φυλῇ
εἰς Διονύσια χορηγήσας τέταρτος ἐγένετο, τραγῳδοῖς δὲ
καὶ πυρριχισταῖς ὕστατος· ταύτας δὲ μόνας ἀναγκασθεὶς
<τὰς> λητουργίας λῃτουργῆσαι ἀπὸ τοσαύτης προσόδου
οὕτω κακῶς ἐχορήγησεν. ἀλλὰ μὴν τριηράρχων τοσούτων
8. Tit. in marg. post λεωχάρις ἀπο| § 34. 2.
5-7. iv'
34. I. οὔκουν A, Ald. Schoem., οὐκοῦν Steph., Reisk., Bekk., οὐκ οὖν Turr.,
Scheib., Buerm. Cf. XI. 13. 4.
2. αὐτοῦ **. Fuerat fortasse àv, quod reponere
uolt Dobr. 3. ἡμῖν A, corr. Αl. 4. ἂν ἔγνωσαν: corr. Reisk.
-Λεωχάρους om. BMZ, Ald. Steph., Reisk. Fraudem fecit librario uox Λεωχάρους
in uersus fine repetita. Inculcauit εἴπερ ἀδίκων Ald. (εἴπερ ἀδίκων οὐκ ἐπιθυμοῦμεν),
quod ne Reiskio quidem suspiciones mouit. Veram scripturam ex A reposuit Bekk.
Cf. § II. IO. 8. ἐπιθυμοῦμεν Μ, Ald. : ἐπεθυμοῦμεν.
35.
ὡς add. Bekk. Cf. I. 35. 3.
2.
4. ἀποφαίνω : corr. Reisk. 5. δὲ]
Malit yàp Reisk. Cf. Lyc. 48 (dè A¹, yàp A), 75, Din. 1. 59. 8. ἡμῶν: corr.
Dobr. coll. XI. 30. 8, 35. 5.
corr. Bekk. Cf. Ant. V. 39.
36. Virgula post
censuit G. Hermann.
2.
v.
9. <καὶ> καρπωσάμενος sched. Eton. || ὡμολόγει :
Io. ὅπη A, corr. Al. Malit ὅπῃ Buerm. Cf. IV. 27. 5.
paywdoîs posita dè del. Bentley, dè ex d' originem duxisse
3. πυρριχυέταις Α, πυρριχιέταις A corr.: em. Palmerius
Cf. VI. 27. 6, VII. 39. 4.
τάς add. Reisk.
edd. ante Buerm. omnes.
(Exercitationes, ed. 1694, p. 669).
Cf. § 5. 4.
5. καλῶς Μ, Ald.
4.
OR. V. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΓΕΝΟΥΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
79
κατασταθέντων οὔτ᾽ αὐτὸς ἐτριηράρχησεν οὔθ᾽ ἑτέρῳ συμ-
βέβληκεν ἐν τοιούτοις καιροῖς, ἀλλ᾽ ἕτεροι μὲν οὐσίαν
κεκτημένοι ἐλάττω ἢ οὗτος μίσθωσιν λαμβάνει τριηραρ
χοῦσι. καίτοι, ὦ ἄνδρες, οὐχ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτῷ τὴν πολλὴν 37
οὐσίαν κατέλιπεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑμεῖς ἔδοτε τῇ ψήφῳ· ὥστε εἰ
καὶ μὴ πολίτης ἦν, διά γε τοῦτο δίκαιος ἦν τὴν πόλιν
εὖ ποιεῖν. εἰσφορῶν τοίνυν τοσούτων γεγενημένων πᾶσι
τοῖς πολίταις εἰς τὸν πόλεμον καὶ τὴν σωτηρίαν τῆς πόλεως
Δικαιογένης οὐκ ἔστιν ἥντινα εἰσενήνοχε· πλὴν ὅτε Λέχαιον
ἑάλω, κληθεὶς ὑπὸ ἑτέρου ἐπέδωκεν ἐν τῷ δήμῳ τριακοσίας
δραχμάς, ἔλαττον ἢ Κλεώνυμος ὁ Κρής· καὶ τοῦτο ἐπέδωκεν, 38
οὐκ εἰσήνεγκεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπ᾽ αἰσχίστῳ ἐπιγράμματι ἐξετέθη
αὐτοῦ τοὔνομα ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἐπωνύμων, ὅτι οἶδε εἰς σωτη-
ρίαν τῆς πόλεως ὑποσχόμενοι τῷ δήμῳ εἰσοίσειν χρήματα
ἐθελονταὶ οὐκ εἰσήνεγκαν. καίτοι πῶς ἄξιον θαυμάζειν, ὦ
ἄνδρες, εἰ ἐμὲ ἐξηπάτησεν ἕνα ὄντα, ὃς ὑμᾶς ἅπαντας ἅμα
συνειλεγμένους ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοιαῦτα ἐποίησε; καὶ τούτων
ὑμῖν τοὺς μάρτυρας παρέξομαι.
ΕΠ
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
55 Εἰς μὲν τὴν πόλιν οὕτω καὶ τοσαῦτα | λελῃτούργηκε 39
Δικαιογένης ἀπὸ τοσούτων χρημάτων· περὶ δὲ τοὺς προσ-
ήκοντας τοιοῦτός ἐστιν οἷον ὁρᾶτε, ὥστε τοὺς μὲν ἡμῶν
ἀφείλετο τὴν οὐσίαν, ὅτι μεῖζον ἐδυνήθη, τοὺς δὲ περιεώρα
εἰς τοὺς μισθωτοὺς ἰόντας δι᾽ ἔνδειαν τῶν ἐπιτηδείων. τὴν
δὲ μητέρα [την] αὐτοῦ καθημένην ἐν τῷ τῆς Εἰλειθυίας
ἱερῷ πάντες ἑώρων, καὶ τούτῳ ἐγκαλοῦσαν ἃ ἐγὼ αἰσχύνομαι
α
6, 7. συμβεβλημένος uel συμβέβληται Fuhr. Hoc malim.
sched. Eton., Reisk. Cf. VI. 64. 3 || μὲν suspectum, μὴν Saupp.
corr. Reisk. | ἐλάττω in marg. add. Αl.
37. 2. κατέλιπεν. Cf. § 10. 7.
Α', απέδωκεν Α.
38.
I.
τούτο <> Reisk.
7. ἕτερος: corr.
κεκτημένος :
8.
6. λεχίον : corr. Reisk.
7. ἐπέδωκεν
2. ἐπιγράμματι Ald. : ὑπογράμματι || ἐξετέθη
Schoem. (De Comitiis Atheniensium, 1819, p. 292, n. 22), ἐξέκειτο Reisk., ἐξ < ετέθη
μεθ' > ἑτέρου Βuerm.: ἐξ ἑτέρου. 3. οἵδε Bekk.: εἶδεν. 4. οἶσοίσειν Α, corr. Αl.
6. ἅμα] ὁμοῦ Nab. 7· ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ damnat Herw. 8. ¿µîv A¹, ¿µ** (vµâs?) A.
1. λελειτούργησε Α, κ supra σ adscripsit Al. Cf. § 42. 3.
corr. A¹. Cf. I. 41. 3, X. hyp. 19.
6. τὴν del. Turr. τὴν τούτου coni. Scheib.
39.
4.
3. ὁρᾶται Α,
ὅτε malit Schoem. || μείζον Ald. : μείζων
Cf. II. 23. 2 || Εἰληθυίας : corr. Bait.
80
OR. V.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
ΕΚ
40 λέγειν, οὗτος δὲ ποιῶν οὐκ ᾔσχύνετο. τῶν δ᾽ ἐπιτηδείων
Μέλανα μὲν τὸν Αἰγύπτιον, ᾧ ἐκ μειρακίου φίλος ἦν, ὅπερ
ἔλαβε παρ' αὐτοῦ ἀργύριον ἀποστερήσας, ἔχθιστός ἐστι·
τῶν δὲ ἄλλων αὐτοῦ φίλων οἱ μὲν οὐκ ἀπέλαβον ἃ ἐδάνεισαν,
οἱ δ᾽ ἐξηπατήθησαν, καὶ οὐκ ἔλαβον ἃ ὑπέσχετο αὐτοῖς, εἰ
41 ἐπιδικάσαιτο τοῦ κλήρου, δώσειν. καίτοι, ὦ ἄνδρες, οἱ
ἡμέτεροι πρόγονοι οἱ ταῦτα κτησάμενοι καὶ καταλιπόντες
πάσας μὲν χορηγίας ἐχορήγησαν, εἰσήνεγκαν δὲ εἰς τὸν
πόλεμον χρήματα πολλὰ ὑμῖν, καὶ τριηραρχοῦντες οὐδένα
χρόνον διέλιπον. καὶ τούτων μαρτύρια ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς
ἀναθήματα ἐκεῖνοι ἐκ τῶν περιόντων, μνημεῖα τῆς αὐτῶν
ἀρετῆς, ἀνέθεσαν, τοῦτο μὲν ἐν Διονύσου τρίποδας, οὓς
42 χορηγούντες καὶ νικῶντες ἔλαβον, τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐν Πυθίου· ἔτι
δ᾽ ἐν ἀκροπόλει ἀπαρχὰς τῶν ὄντων ἀναθέντες πολλοῖς,
ὡς ἀπὸ ἰδίας κτήσεως, ἀγάλμασι χαλκοῖς καὶ λιθίνοις
κεκοσμήκασι τὸ ἱερόν. αὐτοὶ δ᾽ ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδος πολε-
μοῦντες ἀπέθανον, Δικαιογένης μὲν ὁ Μενεξένου τοῦ ἐμοῦ
πάππου πατὴρ στρατηγῶν ὅτε ἡ ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι μάχη ἐγένετο,
Μενέξενος δ᾽ ὁ ἐκείνου ὑὸς φυλαρχῶν τῆς Ὀλυνθίας ἐν
Σπαρτώλῳ, Δικαιογένης δὲ ὁ Μενεξένου τριηραρχῶν τῆς
43 Παράλου ἐν Κνίδῳ. τὸν μὲν τούτων οἶκον σύ, ὦ Δι-
καιόγενες, παραλαβὼν κακῶς καὶ αἰσχρῶς διολώλεκας,
καὶ ἐξαργυρισάμενος πενίαν ὀδύρει, ποῖ ἀναλώσας; οὔτε
γὰρ εἰς τὴν πόλιν οὔτε εἰς τοὺς φίλους φανερὸς εἶ δαπανηθεὶς
οὐδέν. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ καθιπποτρόφηκας· οὐ γὰρ πώποτε
ἐκτήσω ἵππον πλείονος ἄξιον ἢ τριῶν μνῶν· οὔτε κατεζευγο-
40. 3. ἐστὶ Α', και Α.
41. 5. μαρτύρια Steph.: μαρτυρία.
42.
15, 47-
4.
κ σ
κεκοσμήμακι A, superscripsit k et σ (μακι) A'. Cf. § 39. I, Ant. VI.
6. ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι] ἐν ῾Αλιεῦσιν Dobr. coll. Thuc. I. 1o5.
corr. Palmerius (Exercitationes, ed. 1694, p. 67ο). Οδρυσίας coni. Reisk.
aut fortasse kud*w A, corr. A¹. Cf. § 6. 3.
7. Ολυσίας:
9. κνιδω
43. I. τὸν μὲν τούτων ego, τὸν μὲν τούτου M, Ald. Steph., Bekk., Schoem.,
Turr., Scheib., τὸν μέντοι τούτου Reisk., τοῦτον μέντοι τὸν Buerm. (Hermes ty. 349):
τὸν μὲν τοῦτον.
3. που: corr. Bekk. Cf. IX. 14. 7, And. 1. 90.
4. φανερός
M, Steph.: pavepŵs. Cf. Din. 1. 15, 113, [And.] IV. 19, Ant. Tetr. 1. y. 9, 11. ß. 5 ||
δαπανήσας coni. Nab., probat Buerm. 5. οὐδὲ] Malim οὔτε. Cf. IV. 26. 6.
ļ
OR. V. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΓΕΝΟΥΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
81
મ
α
τρόφηκας, ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ ζεῦγος ἐκτήσω ὀρεικὸν οὐδεπώποτε ἐπὶ
τοσούτοις ἀγροῖς καὶ κτήμασιν. ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἐκ τῶν πολεμίων
ἐλύσω οὐδένα. ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ τὰ ἀναθήματα, ἃ Μενέξενος τριῶν 44
ταλάντων ποιησάμενος ἀπέθανε πρὶν ἀναθεῖναι, εἰς πόλιν
κεκόμικας, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τοῖς λιθουργείοις ἔτι καλινδεῖται, καὶ
αὐτὸς μὲν ἠξίους κεκτήσθαι ἅ σοι οὐδὲν προσῆκε χρήματα,
τοῖς δὲ θεοῖς οὐκ ἀπέδωκας ἃ ἐκείνων ἐγίγνετο ἀγάλματα.
διὰ τί οὖν ἀξιώσεις σου τοὺς δικαστὰς ἀποψηφίσασθαι, ὦ 45
Δικαιόγενες; πότερον ὅτι πολλὰς λῃτουργίας λελῃτούργηκας
τῇ πόλει, καὶ πολλὰ χρήματα δαπανήσας σεμνοτέραν τὴν
πόλιν τούτοις ἐποίησας; ἢ ὡς τριηραρχῶν πολλὰ κακὰ τοὺς
πολεμίους ἠργάσω, καὶ εἰσφορὰς δεομένῃ τῇ πατρίδι εἰς
τὸν πόλεμον εἰσενεγκών μεγάλα ὠφέληκας; ἀλλ᾽ οὐδέν
σοι τούτων πέπρακται. ἀλλ' ὡς στρατιώτης ἀγαθός; ἀλλ' 46
οὐκ ἐστράτευσαι τοσούτου καὶ τοιούτου γενομένου πολέ
μου, εἰς ὃν Ολύνθιοι μὲν καὶ νησιῶται ὑπὲρ τῆσδε τῆς γῆς
ἀποθνῄσκουσι μαχόμενοι τοῖς πολεμίοις, σὺ δέ, ὦ Δικαιόγενες,
πολίτης ὢν οὐδ᾽ ἐστράτευσαι. ἀλλ᾽ ἴσως διὰ τοὺς προγόνους
ἀξιώσεις μου πλέον ἔχειν, ὅτι τὸν τύραννον ἀπέκτειναν. ἐγὼ δ᾽
ἐκείνους μὲν ἐπαινῶ, σοὶ δὲ οὐδὲν ἡγοῦμαι τῆς ἐκείνων ἀρετῆς
μετεῖναι. πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ εἵλου ἀντὶ τῆς ἐκείνων δόξης τὴν 47
ἡμετέραν οὐσίαν κτήσασθαι, καὶ ἐβουλήθης μᾶλλον Δικαιο-
γένους καλεῖσθαι ὑὸς ἢ ῾Αρμοδίου, ὑπεριδὼν μὲν τὴν ἐν Πρυ-
τανείῳ σίτησιν, καταφρονήσας δὲ προεδριῶν καὶ ἀτελειῶν,
ἃ τοῖς ἐξ ἐκείνων γεγονόσι δέδοται. ἔτι δὲ ὁ ᾿Αριστογείτων
ἐκεῖνος καὶ ῾Αρμόδιος οὐ διὰ τὸ γένος ἐτιμήθησαν ἀλλὰ διὰ
τὴν ἀνδραγαθίαν, ἧς σοι οὐδὲν μέτεστιν, ὦ Δικαιόγενες.
ων
Ο
ει
7. ὀρικὸν. Cf. vi. 33. 7, Aesch. 2. III ὀρεικὰ gms, ib. 3. 76 ορεικά e, ὀρικά gnh,
Diod. 2. II. 5 (ed. Vogel).
44. I. Μενέξενος] Forsan legendum ἐκεῖνος, nempe ὁ Μενεξένου (Dobr.).
2. ποιησάμενος Α', fuisse ἐποίησεμενος putat Buerm., unde eruit εποίησε μὲν,
ἀπέθανε δέ.
3. λιθουργίοις: corr. Steph. Cf. VI. 22. 3, VIII. hyp. 20, And. I.
38, 62, 74 || κυλινδεῖται: corr. Cob. (N. L. p. 638).
45. 4. πεποίηκας Nab.
46. 2. οὐκ ἐστράτευσαι tamquam dittographiam del. Nab. 3. Οπούντιοι Jones,
Κορίνθιοι Schoem. 4. ἀποθνήσκουσι Ald.: ἀποθνήκουσι. Malit ἀπέθνησκον Buerm.
47. 4. προεδρειών: corr. M, Ald. Cf. 111. 76. 1, Din. 11. 13. 4, And. 1. 61,
[And.] IV. 42 (Q).
W. I.
5· εἴργασαι Nab.
6
1
VI
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΦΙΛΟΚΤΗΜΟΝΟΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ.
ΥΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ.
56
Ευκτήμονος υἱὸς Φιλοκτήμων τὸν τῆς ἑτέρας τῶν ἀδελφῶν καὶ
Φανοστράτου υἱὸν Χαιρέστρατον ποιησάμενος κατὰ διαθήκας
τὰς τεθείσας παρὰ Χαιρέᾳ τῷ τῆς ἑτέρας ἀδελφῆς ἀνδρί,
ἐτελεύτησε ζῶντος ἔτι τοῦ πατρός· ὕστερον δὲ κἀκείνου
ἀποθανόντος ἔλαχεν ὁ Χαιρέστρατος τοῦ κλήρου κατὰ τὸν 5
νόμον. διαμαρτυρήσαντος δὲ ᾿Ανδροκλέους μὴ εἶναι ἐπίδικον
ὄντος ᾿Αντιδώρου γνησίου παιδὸς Εὐκτήμονι, οἱ περὶ Χαιρέ-
στρατον ἐπεσκήψαντο τῇ διαμαρτυρίᾳ, καὶ τοῦτον καὶ τὴν
ἀδελφὴν αὐτοῦ νόθους γεγονέναι φάσκοντες, τὸν δὲ νόμον
διαγορεύειν νόθῳ καὶ νόθῃ μὴ εἶναι ἀγχιστείαν. Ἡ στάσις 10
στοχασμός· ἄδηλον γὰρ εἰ ἐποίησε Φιλοκτήμων Χαιρέ-
στρατον υἱὸν ἑαυτῷ, καὶ πάλιν ἄδηλον εἰ γνήσιοί εἰσιν οἱ
περὶ ᾿Αντίδωρον.
1 Ὅτι μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες, πάντων οἰκειότατα <τυγχάνω>
χρώμενος Φανοστράτῳ τε καὶ Χαιρεστράτῳ τουτῳί, τοὺς
πολλοὺς οἶμαι ὑμῶν εἰδέναι, τοῖς δὲ μὴ εἰδόσιν ἱκανὸν
ἐρῶ τεκμήριον· ὅτε γὰρ εἰς Σικελίαν ἐξέπλει τριηραρχῶν
Χαιρέστρατος, διὰ τὸ πρότερον αὐτὸς ἐκπεπλευκέναι
VI. Tit. Cf. Harp. s.u. εἰς ἐμφανῶν κατάστασιν (§ 31. 3).
Hyp. 3.
τὰς abesse malit Buern., διαθήκας κατατεθείσας post Reisk. Scheib.
1. 1,2. <τυγχάνω > χρώμενος restituit Blass (Ant., ed. 2, praef. p. xv): χρώμα ***
Α, χρώμαι Α', edd. omnes.
2. χερεστράτω Α, corr. Αl. Cf. I. 21. 8 || τούτω:
corr. Scheib.
εἰς Σικελίαν exterminata uolt Schoem., εἰς Θεσσαλίαν (sic) uel εἰς
Μακεδονίαν inculcat H. Weissenborn, ἐν ἡλικίᾳ ὢν coni. Buerm. 5. Χαιρέστρατος
ΑΒ, Μενέστατος M, Ald. Coni. Φανόστρατος Reisk., quod probant Dobr., Scheib.,
Jebb.
4.
OR. VI. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΦΙΛΟΚΤΗΜΟΝΟΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
83
προήδη πάντας τοὺς ἐσομένους κινδύνους, ὅμως δὲ δεομένων
τούτων καὶ συνεξέπλευσα καὶ συνεδυστύχησα καὶ ἑάλωμεν
εἰς τοὺς πολεμίους. ἄτοπον δὴ εἰ ἐκεῖνα μὲν προδήλων 2
ὄντων τῶν κινδύνων ὅμως διὰ τὸ χρῆσθαι τούτοις καὶ
φίλους νομίζειν ὑπέμενον, νῦν δὲ οὐ πειρῴμην συνειπεῖν
ἐξ ὧν ὑμεῖς τε τὰ εὔορκα ψηφιεῖσθε καὶ τούτοις τὰ δίκαια
γενήσεται. δέομαι οὖν ὑμῶν συγγνώμην τε ἔχειν καὶ μετ'
εὐνοίας ἀκροάσασθαι· ὁ γὰρ ἀγὼν οὐ μικρὸς αὐτοῖς, ἀλλὰ
περὶ τῶν μεγίστων.
τα
Ο
Φιλοκτήμων γὰρ ὁ Κηφισιεύς φίλος ἦν Χαιρεστράτῳ 3
τουτῳί· δοὺς δὲ τὰ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ ὑὸν αὐτὸν ποιησάμενος
ἐτελεύτησεν. λαχόντος δὲ τοῦ Χαιρεστράτου κατὰ τὸν
νόμον τοῦ κλήρου, ἐξὸν ἀμφισβητῆσαι Αθηναίων τῷ βου
λομένῳ καὶ εὐθυδικίᾳ εἰσελθόντι εἰς ὑμᾶς, εἰ φαίνοιτο
δικαιότερα λέγων, ἔχειν τὸν κλῆρον, διεμαρτύρησεν ᾿Αν- 4
δροκλῆς οὑτοσὶ μὴ ἐπίδικον εἶναι τὸν κλῆρον, ἀποστερῶν
τοῦτον τῆς ἀμφισβητήσεως καὶ ὑμᾶς τοῦ κυρίους γενέσθαι
ὅντινα δεῖ κληρονόμον καταστήσασθαι τῶν Φιλοκτήμονος·
καὶ ἐν μιᾷ ψήφῳ καὶ ἑνὶ ἀγῶνι οἴεται ἀδελφοὺς κατα-
στήσειν ἐκείνῳ τοὺς οὐδὲν προσήκοντας, καὶ τὸν κλῆρον
ἀνεπίδικον ἕξειν αὐτός, καὶ τῆς ἀδελφῆς τῆς ἐκείνου κύριος
γενήσεσθαι, καὶ τὴν διαθήκην ἄκυρον ποιήσειν. πολλῶν 5
δὲ καὶ δεινῶν ὄντων ἃ διαμεμαρτύρηκεν ᾿Ανδροκλῆς, τοῦτ᾽
αὐτὸ πρῶτον ἐπιδείξω ὑμῖν, ὡς διέθετο καὶ ἐποιήσατο ὑὸν
τουτονὶ Χαιρέστρατον. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τῷ Φιλοκτήμονι ἐκ μὲν
τῆς γυναικὸς ᾗ συνῴκει οὐκ ἦν παιδίον οὐδέν, πολέμου δ᾽
ὄντος ἐκινδύνευε καὶ ἱππεὺς στρατευόμενος καὶ τριήραρχος
α
6. προήδη < μὲν > malit Herw.
Cf.
2. 3. δὲ ἐπειρώμην Μ, δὲ μὴ ἐπειρώμην Ald. 4. τε τὰ Reisk., Bekk., Buerm.:
τά τε A, Schoem., Turr., Scheib. Cf. § 38. 4, II. I. 8 || ψηφιείσθαι A, corr. Α'.
6. εὐενείας Α, corr. Αl. Fuerat εὐμενείας.
Post ἦν erasum καὶ.
I. 41. 3.
2. τούτω : corr. Scheib.
6. Malit σχεῖν Lugebil. Cf. § 47. 6.
5. nuâs A,
3.
I.
corr. Al
4.
5.
4. καταστήσασθαι Αld.: καταστήσεσθαι. Quidni καταστῆσαι ? Cf. $ 17. 3.
4. Χαιρέστρατον del. Nab. Cf. §§ 6. 7, 60. 5, II. 36. 3.
add. A¹, spiritum add. A². Cf. VII. 28. 2, 40. 2, 41. 4.
5.
ουκ in uers.
1
6—2
84
OR. VI.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
πολλάκις ἐκπλέων, ἔδοξεν αὐτῷ διαθέσθαι τὰ αὑτοῦ, μὴ
6 ἔρημον καταλίποι τὸν οἶκον, εἴ τι πάθοι. τὼ μὲν οὖν
ἀδελφὲ αὐτῷ, ὦ περ ἐγενέσθην, ἄμφω ἄπαιδε ἐτελευτη-
σάτην· τοῖν δὲ ἀδελφαῖν τῇ μὲν ἑτέρα, ᾗ [ό] Χαιρέας
[ὁ]
συνῴκει, οὐκ ἦν ἄρρεν παιδίον οὐδὲ ἐγένετο πολλὰ ἔτη
συνοικούσῃ, ἐκ δὲ τῆς ἑτέρας, ᾗ συνῴκει Φανόστρατος
ουτοσί, ἤστην ὑὼ δύο. τούτων τὸν πρεσβύτερον τουτονὶ
7 Χαιρέστρατον ἐποιήσατο ὑόν· καὶ ἔγραψεν οὕτως ἐν δια-
θήκῃ, εἰ μὴ γένοιτο αὐτῷ παιδίον ἐκ τῆς γυναικός, τοῦτον
κληρονομεῖν τῶν ἑαυτοῦ. καὶ τὴν διαθήκην κατέθετο παρὰ
τῷ κηδεστῇ Χαιρέᾳ, τῷ τὴν ἑτέραν αὐτοῦ ἀδελφὴν ἔχοντι.
καὶ ὑμῖν ἥ τε διαθήκη αὕτη αναγνωσθήσεται καὶ οἱ παρα-
γενόμενοι μαρτυρήσουσι. Καί μοι ἀνάγνωθι.
ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ. ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
Εν
8 Ὡς μὲν διέθετο καὶ ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐποιήσατο ὑὸν τοῦτον,
ἀκηκόατε· ὡς δ᾽ ἐξὸν αὐτῷ ταῦτ᾽ ἔπραξεν, ὅθεν δικαιό
τατα ἡγοῦμαι τὰ τοιαῦτ᾽ εἶναι μανθάνειν, τοῦτον ὑμῖν
αὐτὸν | παρέξομαι τὸν νόμον. Καί μοι ἀνάγνωθι.
9
ΝΟΜΟΣ.
Οὑτοσὶ ὁ νόμος, ὦ ἄνδρες, κοινὸς ἅπασι κεῖται, ἐξ
εἶναι τὰ ἑαυτοῦ διαθέσθαι, ἐὰν μὴ παῖδες ὦσι γνήσιοι
ἄρρενες, ἐὰν μὴ ἄρα μανείς ἢ ὑπὸ γήρως ἢ δι᾽ ἄλλο
τι τῶν ἐν τῷ νόμῳ παρανοῶν διαθῆται. ὅτι δ᾽ οὐδενὶ
τούτων ἔνοχος ἦν Φιλοκτήμων, βραχέα εἰπὼν δηλώσω ὑμῖν.
ὅστις γὰρ καὶ ἕως ἔζη τοιοῦτον πολίτην ἑαυτὸν παρεῖχεν,
8.
καταλίποι ego, καταλι A (in fine uersus), καταλίπη Α2, καταλίπῃ uolg. Cf.
VIII. I9. 4.
6.
I, 2. τῶ εἰ ἀδελφῶ Α, corr. Α. 2. αὐτῷ ante ἐγενέσθην transp. Buerm.
(Hermes 19. 339) praeeunte Reiskio || ὥσπερ: corr. Reisk. οἵπερ sched. Eton.
Num ώπερ < ἔργῳ >? Cf. § 10. 6 || ἐγεννήθην Α, corr. Α'. 3. ταῖν: corr. Nab. |
• del. Saupp. Cf. IX. 2. I. 6. δύο Α, δύω Α. Cf. Ant. VI. 31 (δύο Ν, δύω Α).
7. Χαιρέστρατον del. Nab. Cf. § 5. 4.
7. I. οὕτως Ald.: οὗτος.
Cf. III. 13. 2, V. 29. 8, Ant. Tetr. III. γ. 6ο
5. ἀναγνώσεται: corr. M, Ald. 6. μεμαρτυρήκασι A, corr. Α'. 7. ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ
add. Turr. auctore Schoem.
8.
2, 3.
δικαιότατον dubitanter Reisk.
57
OR. VI. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΦΙΛΟΚΤΗΜΟΝΟΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
85
ὥστε διὰ τὸ ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν τιμᾶσθαι ἄρχειν ἀξιοῦσθαι, καὶ
ἐτελεύτησε μαχόμενος τοῖς πολεμίοις, πῶς ἄν τις τοῦτον
τολμήσειεν εἰπεῖν ὡς οὐκ εὖ ἐφρόνει;
Ὅτι μὲν οὖν διέθετο καὶ ἐποιήσατο εὖ φρονῶν, ἐξὸν 10
αὐτῷ, ἀποδέδεικται ὑμῖν, ὥστε κατὰ μὲν τοῦτο ψευδῆ
μεμαρτυρηκώς ᾿Ανδροκλῆς ἀποδέδεικται· ἐπειδὴ δὲ προσ-
διαμεμαρτύρηκεν [ὡς] ὑὸν εἶναι γνήσιον Εὐκτήμονος τοῦτον,
καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἀποδείξω ψευδῆ ὄντα. Ευκτήμονι γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες,
τῷ Φιλοκτήμονος πατρί, τοὺς μὲν ὄντως γενομένους παῖδας,
Φιλοκτήμονα καὶ Ἐργαμένη καὶ Ηγήμονα καὶ δύο θυγα-
τέρας, καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτῶν, ἣν ἔγημεν ὁ Εὐκτήμων,
Μειξιάδου Κηφισιῶς θυγατέρα, πάντες οἱ προσήκοντες
ἴσασι καὶ οἱ φράτερες καὶ τῶν δημοτῶν οἱ πολλοί, καὶ
μαρτυρήσουσιν ὑμῖν· ὅτι δ' [οὐδ᾽] ἄλλην τινὰ ἔγημε 11
γυναῖκα, ἐξ ἧς τινος οἵδε αὐτῷ ἐγένοντο, οὐδεὶς τὸ παράπαν
οἶδεν οὐδ᾽ ἤκουσε πώποτε ζῶντος Εὐκτήμονος. καίτοι
τούτους εἰκὸς πιστοτάτους εἶναι νομίζειν μάρτυρας· τοὺς
γὰρ οἰκείους εἰδέναι προσήκει τὰ τοιαῦτα. Καί μοι τούτους
κάλει πρῶτον, καὶ τὰς μαρτυρίας ἀνάγνωθι.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑΙ.
Ετι τοίνυν καὶ τοὺς ἀντιδίκους ἐπιδείξω ἔργῳ ὑμῖν 12
ταῦτα μεμαρτυρηκότας. ὅτε γὰρ αἱ ἀνακρίσεις ἦσαν πρὸς
τῷ ἄρχοντι καὶ οὗτοι παρακατέβαλον ὡς ὑπὲρ γνησίων
τῶνδ᾽ Εὐκτήμονος ὄντων, ἐρωτώμενοι ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν τίς εἴη
αὐτῶν μήτηρ καὶ ὅτου θυγάτηρ οὐκ εἶχον ἀποδεῖξαι, δια-
μαρτυρομένων ἡμῶν καὶ τοῦ ἄρχοντος κελεύοντος ἀποκρί-
10. 3, 4. προσ***μεμαρτύρηκεν Α, δια in rasur. Α'.
4. is del. Reisk.
(cf. 111. 19. 3, IV. 1. 5), ex ous supra viòv adscripto natum esse ratus reponit vioùs eîvai
γνησίους Εὐκτ. τούτους Blass.
9. μηξιάδου: corr. Dobr. et Herw., Μιξιάδου
cum Stephano edd. ante Buerm, omnes || Κηφισέως: corr. Dobr., qui tamen τοῦ
inserere uoluit, Κηφισιέως Reisk., Bekk., Schoem., Turr.
11. I. οὐδ' del Bekk.
12.
1, 2. ἡμῖν ταὐτὰ coni. Reisk. Cf. I. 23. 7.
corr. Al. Fuerant οὗτοι κατέλαβον. Cf. IV. 4. 8.
5, 6. μαρτυρομένων malit Bekk.
3. OÛT***TÉ*a*ov A,
4. ἥτις malit Dobr.
86
OR. VI.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
"
νασθαι κατὰ τὸν νόμον.... ὦ ἄνδρες, ἀμφισβητεῖν μὲν
ὡς ὑπὲρ γνησίων καὶ διαμαρτυρεῖν, μητέρα δὲ ἥ τις ἦν
13 μὴ ἔχειν ἀποδεῖξαι, μηδὲ προσήκοντα αὐτοῖς μηδένα. ἀλλὰ
τότε μὲν Λημνίαν σκηψάμενοι ταύτην ἀναβολὴν ἐποιή
σαντο· τὸ δ᾽ ὕστερον ἥκοντες εἰς τὴν ἀνάκρισιν, πρὶν καί
τινα ἐρέσθαι, εὐθὺς ἔλεγον ὅτι Καλλίππη μήτηρ, αὕτη δ'
εἴη Πιστοξένου θυγάτηρ, ὡς ἐξαρκέσον εἰ ὄνομα μόνον
πορίσαιντο τὸν Πιστόξενον. ἐρομένων δ᾽ ἡμῶν ὅστις εἴη
καὶ εἰ ζῇ ἢ μή, ἐν Σικελίᾳ ἔφασαν ἀποθανεῖν στρατευό
μενον, καταλιπόντα ταύτην θυγατέρα παρὰ τῷ Εὐκτήμονι,
ἐξ ἐπιτροπευομένης δὲ τούτω γενέσθαι, πρᾶγμα πλάττοντες
ἀναιδείᾳ ὑπερβάλλον καὶ οὐδ᾽ <ἂν> γενόμενον, ὡς ἐγὼ ὑμῖν
14 ἀποφανῶ ἐκ τούτων πρῶτον ὧν αὐτοὶ ἀπεκρίναντο. τῇ
μὲν γὰρ στρατιᾷ, ἀφ᾿ οὗ ἐξέπλευσεν εἰς Σικελίαν, ἤδη
ἐστὶ δύο καὶ πεντήκοντα ἔτη, ἀπὸ ᾿Αριμνήστου ἄρχοντος,
τῷ δὲ πρεσβυτέρῳ τούτων, ὧν φασιν ἐκ τῆς Καλλίππης
καὶ τοῦ Εὐκτήμονος εἶναι, οὔπω ὑπὲρ εἴκοσιν ἔτη. ἀφε-
λόντι οὖν ταῦτα ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν Σικελίᾳ ὑπολείπεται πλείω
ἢ τριάκοντα ἔτη· ὥστ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἐπιτροπεύεσθαι προσῆκε τὴν
Καλλίππην ἔτι, τριακοντοῦτίν γε οὖσαν, οὔτε ἀνέκδοτον
καὶ ἄπαιδα εἶναι, ἀλλὰ πάνυ πάλαι συνοικεῖν, ἢ ἐγγυη-
15 θεῖσαν κατὰ <τὸν> νόμον ἢ ἐπιδικασθεῖσαν. ἔτι δὲ καὶ
γιγνώσκεσθαι αὐτὴν ὑπὸ τῶν Εὐκτήμονος οἰκείων ἀναγ
7, 8. Iuxta uersum qui efficitur uerbis τὸν νόμον—γνησίων in marg. signum X posuit
Al. Lacunam indicauit Reisk. Alii alia suppleuerunt, δεινὸν sched. Eton., καίτοι
πῶς οὐκ εἴη (sic, omisso ἂν παράνομον Reisk., καίτοι δεινὸν Schoem., καίτοι πῶς οὐ
δεινὸν Turr., καίτοι ἄτοπον Scheib., ὥστε Emper.
8. ή τις Α2, εἴ τις Α.
9. αὐτῆς malit Reisk.
C. III. 3. 5.
Num σκηψάμενοι < είναι>?
4. καλλίππη Ald. : καλλίπη,
5· ἐξαρκέσον ex
13. 2. σκεψάμενοι Α, corr. A.
Cf. IV. 14. 6, VII. 43. 9 || ταύτην] αὐτὴν εἶναι Nab.
item π pro ππ § 14. 4, 8. Cf. § 16. 3 || ἡ μήτηρ malit Bekk.
ἐξαρκέσειν. 6. τὸν Πιστόξενον del. Rosenberg. 9. ἐξεπιτριπευομένης Α, corr.
Α | πράττοντες: corr. Bekk.
ΙΟ. οὐδὲ γενόμενον: corr. Herw. Coni. οὐδ'
ἐγγιγνόμενον Dobr., οὐδ᾽ ἐγγενόμενον Saupp., οὐδε < πώποτε> γενόμενον Buerm.
11. πρώτων Reisk., Bekk.
14. 3. ἀριμνήτου A, corr. Α'.
ὧν Reisk.: δν.
4.
Malit τούτοιν, ὦ Herw.
5. ὑπερείκοσιν Nab.
7. οὔτ᾽ Ald.: οὐδ'. Cf. § 50. I, IV. 26. 6 || προσήκει:
ΙΟ. Tòv add. M, Schoem. Cf. II. 1. 2.
coll. §§ 21. 10, 26. 2 τοῖν παίδοιν et §§ 13. 9, 36. 1 τούτω.
6. πλείω] Cf. III. I. 4.
corr. Saupp.
8. οὔτε Α1, ὥστε Α.
OR. VI. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΦΙΛΟΚΤΗΜΟΝΟΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
87
καῖον ἦν καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν οἰκετῶν, εἴ πέρ γε συνώκησεν ἐκείνῳ
ἢ διῃτήθη τοσοῦτον χρόνον ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ. τὰ γὰρ τοιαῦτα
οὐκ εἰς τὴν ἀνάκρισιν μόνον δεῖ πορίζεσθαι [ὀνόματα], ἀλλὰ
τῇ ἀληθείᾳ γεγονότα φαίνεσθαι καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν προσηκόντων
καταμαρτυρεῖσθαι. ἀποδεῖξαι τοίνυν ἡμῶν κελευόντων 16
ὅστις οἶδε τῶν Εὐκτήμονος οἰκείων ἢ συνοικήσασαν ἐκείνῳ
τινὰ [ἢ τὴν] Καλλίππην <ή> ἐπιτροπευομένην, καὶ παρὰ
τῶν ὄντων .... θεραπόντων τὸν ἔλεγχον ποιεῖσθαι, ἢ εἴ τις
τῶν παρ' αὐτοῖς οἰκετῶν φάσκοι ταῦτα εἰδέναι, ἡμῖν παρα-
58 δοῦναι, οὔτε λαβεῖν ἠθέλησαν οὔθ᾽ ἡμῖν | παραδούναι. Καί
μοι λαβὲ τήν τ᾽ ἀπόκρισιν αὐτῶν καὶ τὰς ἡμετέρας μαρ.
τυρίας καὶ προκλήσεις.
ΑΠΟΚΡΙΣΙΣ. ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑΙ. ΠΡΟΚΛΗΣΕΙΣ.
K
ιν
ει
Οὗτοι μὲν τοίνυν τοιοῦτο πρᾶγμα ἔφυγον· ἐγὼ δ' 17
ὑμῖν ἐπιδείξω καὶ ὅθεν εἰσὶ καὶ οἵτινες οὓς γνησίους
διεμαρτύρησαν εἶναι καὶ κληρονόμους ζητοῦσι καταστῆσαι
τῶν Εὐκτήμονος. ἴσως μέν ἐστιν ἀηδὲς Φανοστράτῳ, ὦ
ἄνδρες, τὰς Εὐκτήμονος συμφορὰς φανερὰς καθεστάναι·
ὀλίγα δ᾽ ἀναγκαῖον ῥηθῆναι, ἵν᾽ ὑμεῖς τὴν ἀλήθειαν εἰδότες
ῥᾷον τὰ δίκαια ψηφίσησθε. Εὐκτήμων μὲν γὰρ ἐβίω ἔτη 18
ἓξ καὶ ἐνενήκοντα, τούτου δὲ τοῦ χρόνου τὸν μὲν πλεῖστον
ἐδόκει εὐδαίμων εἶναι—καὶ γὰρ οὐσία ἦν οὐκ ὀλίγη αὐτῷ
καὶ παῖδες καὶ γυνή, καὶ τἆλλ᾽ ἐπιεικῶς ηὐτύχει, ἐπὶ
γήρως δὲ αὐτῷ συμφορὰ ἐγένετο οὐ μικρά, ἡ ἐκείνου
πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκίαν ἐλυμήνατο και χρήματα πολλὰ διώλεσε
Π
15. 5. ὀνόματα tamquam ex § 1 3. 5 petitum secl. Buerm. 6. ἀποφαίνεσθαι Scheib.
16. I. ὑμῶν A, corr. Α.
3. καλλίπην. Cf. § 13· 4· τινα [ἢ τὴν]
Καλλίππην < ἢ > coni. Reisk., probat Schoem., τὴν Καλλίππην del. Dobr. et Scheib.,
ἢ u. 2 et ἢ τὴν u. 3 deleta malit Buerm. 4. < · παρ' ἡμῖν > ὄντων Kayser, < ἡμῖν >
ὄντων Rauchenstein, ὄντων < ἐκείνῳ> Herw., ὄντων <ἔτι ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ > Buerm.
5. αὐτοῖς Α', αὐτοῦ Α || φάσκοι dubitanter Reisk. : φάσκει A, edd. omnes. 7. ήμερας
A, corr. Al.
9. Titt. μαρτυρία et πρόκλησις: corr. Reisk.
17. 1. τοιοῦτο] τὸ uel τοῦτο τὸ malit Dobr.
2. οὓς Nab.: αὐτοὺς. Malit
οἷοί τινες ὄντες αὐτοὺς Albrecht. 4. μὲν < οὖν > Dobr. Cf. 111. 7. 3 || Φανοστράτῳ]
Χαιρεστράτῳ dubitanter Buerm., καὶ Χαιρεστράτῳ inseri iubet Schoem.
5. καθε
στάναι Α, καθιστάναι Α'. Cf. xi. 13. rr, Ant. V. I, 17.
I. μὲν secl. Buerm. (Herm. 19. 348). Cf. III. 74. 1.
corr. Bekk.
τἀλ' A, corr. A. Cf. VIII. 16. 6.
18.
4.
2. εννενήκοντα:
88
OR. VI.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
19 καὶ αὐτὸν τοῖς οἰκειοτάτοις εἰς διαφορὰν κατέστησεν. ὅθεν
δὲ καὶ ὅπως ταῦτ᾽ ἐγένετο, ὡς ἂν δύνωμαι διά βραχυτάτων
δηλώσω. ἀπελευθέρα ἦν αὐτοῦ, ὦ ἄνδρες, ἢ ἐναυκλήρει
συνοικίαν ἐν Πειραιεῖ αὐτοῦ καὶ παιδίσκας ἔτρεφε. τούτων
μίαν ἐκτήσατο ᾗ ὄνομα ἦν ᾿Αλκή, ἣν καὶ ὑμῶν οἶμαι
πολλοὺς εἰδέναι. αὕτη δὲ ἡ ᾿Αλκὴ ὠνηθεῖσα πολλὰ μὲν
ἔτη καθῆστο ἐν οἰκήματι, ἤδη δὲ πρεσβυτέρα οὖσα ἀπὸ
20 μὲν τοῦ οἰκήματος ἀνίσταται, διαιτωμένῃ δὲ αὐτῇ ἐν
τῇ συνοικίᾳ συνὴν ἄνθρωπος ἀπελεύθερος-Δίων ὄνομα
αὐτῷ, ἐξ οὗ ἔφη ἐκείνη τούτους γεγονέναι· καὶ ἔθρεψεν
αὐτοὺς ὁ Δίων ὡς ὄντας ἑαυτοῦ. χρόνῳ δὲ ὕστερον ὁ μὲν
Δίων ζημίαν εἰργασμένος καὶ δείσας ὑπὲρ αὑτοῦ ὑπεχώ
ρησεν εἰς Σικυῶνα· τὴν δ᾽ ἄνθρωπον ταύτην, τὴν ᾿Αλκήν,
καθίστησιν Εὐκτήμων ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τῆς ἐν Κεραμεικῷ
21 συνοικίας, τῆς παρὰ τὴν πυλίδα, οὗ ὁ οἶνος ὤνιος.
Ο
Ο
Εν
κατοι
κισθεῖσα δ᾽ ἐνταυθοῖ πολλῶν καὶ κακῶν ἦρξεν, ὦ ἄνδρες.
φοιτῶν γὰρ ὁ Εὐκτήμων ἐπὶ τὸ ἐνοίκιον ἑκάστοτε τὰ
πολλὰ διέτριβεν ἐν τῇ συνοικίᾳ, ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ ἐσιτεῖτο
μετὰ τῆς ἀνθρώπου, καταλιπὼν καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα καὶ τοὺς
παῖδας καὶ τὴν οἰκίαν ἣν ᾤκει. χαλεπῶς δὲ φερούσης τῆς
γυναικὸς καὶ τῶν ὑέων οὐχ ὅπως ἐπαύσατο, ἀλλὰ τελευτῶν
παντελῶς διῃτᾶτο ἐκεῖ, καὶ οὕτω διετέθη εἴθ᾽ ὑπὸ φαρμάκων
εἴθ᾽ ὑπὸ νόσου εἴθ᾽ ὑπ᾽ ἄλλου τινός, ὥστε ἐπείσθη ὑπ᾽
αὐτῆς τὸν πρεσβύτερον τοῖν παίδοιν εἰσαγαγεῖν εἰς τοὺς
22 φράτορας ἐπὶ τῷ αὑτοῦ ὀνόματι. ἐπειδὴ δὲ οὔθ᾽ ὁ ὑὸς
αὐτῷ Φιλοκτήμων συνεχώρει οὔθ᾽ οἱ φράτερες εἰσεδέξαντο,
ἀλλ᾽ ἀπηνέχθη τὸ κούρειον, ὀργιζόμενος ὁ Εὐκτήμων τῷ ὑεῖ
καὶ ἐπηρεάζειν βουλόμενος ἐγγυαται γυναῖκα Δημοκράτους
τοῦ ᾿Αφιδναίου ἀδελφήν, ὡς ἐκ ταύτης παῖδας ἀποφανῶν καὶ
19. 4. Num <τὴν > ἐν Πειραιεῖ ? 6. ἡ ᾿Αλκὴ ὠνηθεῖσα del. Herw., ὠνηθεῖσα
in κληθεῖσα corr. Emper (Opusc. p. 316).
20. 6. τὴν ᾿Αλκήν del. Herw.
21.
3, 4.
ἑκάστοτε τὰ πολλὰ] Alterutrum deletum uolt Scheib.
22. I. ὁ υἱὸς Bekk. : οὗτος. Cf. II. 10. 8.
III. 30. 7, V. 44. 4.
5· ἀφνιδαίου: corr. Steph.
3. κούριον: corr. Reisk.
Cf. Din. I. 23.
Cf.
OR. VI. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΦΙΛΟΚΤΗΜΟΝΟΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
89
απ
Εν
Ο
εἰσποιήσων εἰς τὸν οἶκον, εἰ μὴ συγχωροίη τοῦτον [ἐᾶν]
εἰσαχθῆναι. εἰδότες δ᾽ οἱ ἀναγκαῖοι ὅτι ἐξ ἐκείνου μὲν οὐκ 23
ἂν ἔτι γένοιντο παῖδες ταύτην τὴν ἡλικίαν ἔχοντος, φανή
σοιντο δ᾽ ἄλλῳ τινὶ τρόπῳ, καὶ ἐκ τούτων ἔσοιντο ἔτι
μείζους διαφοραί, ἔπειθον, ὦ ἄνδρες, τον Φιλοκτήμονα
ἐᾶσαι εἰσαγαγεῖν τοῦτον τὸν παῖδα ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐζήτει ὁ Εὐ
κτήμων, χωρίον ἓν δόντα. καὶ ὁ Φιλοκτήμων αἰσχυνόμενος 24
μὲν ἐπὶ τῇ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀνοίᾳ, ἀπορῶν δ' ὅ τι χρήσαιτο τῷ
παρόντι κακῷ, οὐκ ἀντέλεγεν οὐδέν. ὁμολογηθέντων δὲ
τούτων, καὶ εἰσαχθέντος τοῦ παιδὸς ἐπὶ τούτοις, ἀπηλλάγη
τῆς γυναικὸς ὁ Εὐκτήμων, καὶ ἐπεδείξατο ὅτι οὐ παίδων
ἕνεκα ἐγάμει, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα τοῦτον εἰσαγάγοι. τί γὰρ ἔδει 25
αὐτὸν γαμεῖν, ὦ Ανδρόκλεις, εἴ περ οἵδε ἦσαν ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ
γυναικὸς ἀστῆς, ὡς σὺ μεμαρτύρηκας; τίς γὰρ ἂν γνησίους
ὄντας οἷός τε ἦν κωλῦσαι εἰσαγαγεῖν; ἢ διὰ τί ἐπὶ ῥητοῖς
αὐτὸν εἰσήγαγε, τοῦ νόμου κελεύοντος ἅπαντας τοὺς γνησίους
ισομοίρους εἶναι τῶν πατρῴων; ἢ διὰ τί τὸν μὲν πρεσβύ- 26
τερον τοῖν παίδοιν ἐπὶ ῥητοῖς εἰσήγαγε, τοῦ δὲ νεωτέρου
59 ἤδη γεγονότος οὐδὲ λόγον ἐποιεῖτο ζῶντος | Φιλοκτήμονος
οὔτε πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον οὔτε πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους; οὓς σὺ
νῦν διαρρήδην μεμαρτύρηκας γνησίους εἶναι καὶ κληρονό
μους τῶν Εὐκτήμονος. Ταῦτα τοίνυν ὡς ἀληθῆ λέγω,
ἀναγίγνωσκε τὰς μαρτυρίας.
ΕΠ
εί
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑΙ.
Ε
Μετὰ ταῦτα τοίνυν ὁ Φιλοκτήμων τριηραρχῶν περὶ 27
Χίον ἀποθνῄσκει ὑπὸ τῶν πολεμίων· ὁ δ᾽ Εὐκτήμων
6. ¿âv secl. Reisk., om. M, viòv coni. Jenicke.
23. 2.
ἔτι in marg. add. Al signo '/. post ἂν supra uers. addito. Cf. 3 57. 5.
5. τοῦτον] αὐτὸν Rauchenstein. 5, 6. ὁ Εὐκτήμων del. Dobr. Sed perspicuitatis
causa nomen additum est.
24. 3. οὐκ < έτι> Herw.
25. I. Ante τί γὰρ hiare
(in Addendis p. 6οι): ἀστοῦ. Cf. XII. 7. 5, Ar. Pol. 3. 12782 34.
26. 5. διαρρρήδην. Cf. I. 6. 7, VII. 21. I.
5. ὅτι supra uers. add. Αl. Cf. III. 1o. 5, Χ. 14. 2.
orationem suspicatur Hitzig.
2. αὐτοῦ Bekk.
27.
I, 2. ἐπὶ χίον A, corr. Α'.
90
OR. VI.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
ὕστερον χρόνῳ πρὸς τοὺς κηδεστὰς εἶπεν ὅτι βούλοιτο τὰ
πρὸς τὸν ὑόν οἱ πεπραγμένα γράψας καταθέσθαι. καὶ ὁ
μὲν Φανόστρατος ἐκπλεῖν ἔμελλε τριηραρχῶν μετὰ Τιμο
θέου, καὶ ἡ ναῦς αὐτῷ ἐξώρμει Μουνιχίασι, καὶ ὁ κηδεστής
Χαιρέας παρών συναπέστελλεν αὐτόν· ὁ δ᾽ Εὐκτήμων
παραλαβών τινας ἧκεν οὗ ἐξώρμει ἡ ναῦς, καὶ γράψας
διαθήκην, ἐφ᾽ οἷς εἰσήγαγε τὸν παῖδα, κατατίθεται μετὰ
28 τούτων παρὰ Πυθοδώρῳ Κηφισιεῖ, προσήκοντι αὐτῷ, καὶ
ὅτι μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες, οὐχ ὡς περὶ γνησίων ἔπραττεν Εὐκτή-
μων, ὁ ᾿Ανδροκλῆς μεμαρτύρηκε, καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἱκανὸν
τεκμήριον· τοῖς γὰρ φύσει θέσιν αὑτοῦ οὐδεὶς οὐδενὶ ἐν
διαθήκῃ γράφει δόσιν οὐδεμίαν, διότι ὁ νόμος αὐτὸς ἀπο-
δίδωσι τῷ ὑεῖ τὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ οὐδὲ διαθέσθαι ἐᾷ ὅτῳ
ἂν ὦσι παῖδες γνήσιοι.
αν
29 Κειμένου δὲ τοῦ γραμματείου σχεδόν δύ᾽ ἔτη καὶ τοῦ
Χαιρέου τετελευτηκότος, ὑποπεπτωκότες οἵδε τῇ ἀνθρώπῳ,
καὶ ὁρῶντες ἀπολλύμενον τὸν οἶκον καὶ τὸ γῆρας καὶ
τὴν ἄνοιαν τοῦ Εὐκτήμονος, ὅτι εἴη αὐτοῖς ἱκανὴ ἀφορμή,
30 συνεπιτίθενται. καὶ πρῶτον μὲν πείθουσι τὸν Εὐκτήμονα
τὴν μὲν διαθήκην ἀνελεῖν ὡς οὐ χρησίμην οὖσαν τοῖς
παισί· τῆς γὰρ φανερᾶς οὐσίας οὐδένα κύριον ἔσεσθαι
τελευτήσαντος Εὐκτήμονος ἄλλον ἢ τὰς θυγατέρας καὶ τοὺς
ἐκ τούτων γεγονότας· εἰ δὲ ἀποδόμενός τι τῶν ὄντων ἀρ
31 γύριον καταλίποι, τοῦτο βεβαίως ἕξειν αὐτούς. ἀκούσας
δ᾽ ὁ Εὐκτήμων εὐθὺς ἀπῄτει τὸν Πυθόδωρον τὸ γραμ-
ματεῖον, καὶ προσεκαλέσατο εἰς ἐμφανῶν κατάστασιν.
καταστάντος δὲ ἐκείνου πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα, ἔλεγεν ὅτι
32 βούλοιτ᾽ ἀνελέσθαι τὴν διαθήκην. ἐπειδὴ δ᾽ ὁ Πυθόδωρος
6.
v. 36. 3.
Μουνυχιᾶσι Reisk., Μουνυχίασι Bekk., Μουνιχίασι Herw.: μουνυχιάει. Cf.
10. κωφησιελ (rasur. corr.).
28. 3.
8 Bekk.: ó.
4. οὐδενὶ] Malit οὐδαμοῦ uel οὐδενὸς Dobr.
29. 2. ο δε ΑΒ, ἤδη ΑΜ, Ald.
ἄλλον in rasur. add. Αl.
30.
31.
4.
6. καταλείποι. Cf. v. Io. 7.
3. προσεκαλέσατο πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα εἰς. Cf. § 52. 9, III. 33. 2, V. 3. 4.
πρεκαλέσατο Reisk., Bekk. ]] εἰς ἐμφανῶν κατάστασιν: Harp. s.u. Ισαῖος ἐν τῷ περὶ
τοῦ Φιλοκτήμονος κλήρου.
4. καταστήσαντος malit Bekk.
OR. VI. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΦΙΛΟΚΤΗΜΟΝΟΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
ΟΙ
Ο
ἐκείνῳ μὲν καὶ τῷ Φανοστράτῳ παρόντι ὡμολόγει ἀναιρεῖν,
τοῦ δὲ Χαιρέου τοῦ συγκαταθεμένου θυγάτηρ ἦν μία, ἧς
ἐπειδὴ κύριος κατασταίη, τότε ἠξίου ἀνελεῖν, καὶ ὁ ἄρχων
οὕτως ἐγίγνωσκε, διομολογησάμενος ὁ Εὐκτήμων ἐναντίον
τοῦ ἄρχοντος καὶ τῶν παρέδρων καὶ ποιησάμενος πολλοὺς
μάρτυρας ὡς οὐκέτ᾽ αὐτῷ κέοιτο ἡ διαθήκη, ᾤχετο ἀπιών.
καὶ ἐν πάνυ ὀλίγῳ χρόνῳ, οὗπερ ἕνεκα οὗτοι λῦσαι αὐτὸν 33
ἔπεισαν, ἀποδίδοται ἀγρὸν μὲν ᾿Αθμονοῖ πέντε καὶ ἑβδο
μήκοντα μνῶν ᾿Αντιφάνει, τὸ δ᾽ ἐν Σηραγγίῳ βαλανείον
τρισχιλίων Αριστολόχῳ· οἰκίαν δὲ ἐν ἄστει τεττάρων καὶ
τετταράκοντα μνῶν ὑποκειμένην ἀπέλυσε τῷ ἱεροφάντῃ.
ἔτι δὲ αἶγας ἀπέδοτο σὺν τῷ αἰπόλῳ τριῶν καὶ δέκα μνῶν,
καὶ ζεύγη δύο ὀρεικά, τὸ μὲν ὀκτὼ μνῶν τὸ δὲ πεντήκοντα
καὶ πεντακοσίων δραχμῶν, καὶ δημιουργοὺς ὅσοι ἦσαν
αὐτῷ. σύμπαντα δὲ πλείονος ἢ τριῶν ταλάντων, ἃ ἐπράθη 34
διὰ ταχέων πάνυ τελευτήσαντος Φιλοκτήμονος. καὶ ταῦθ᾽
ὅτι ἀληθῆ λέγω, καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ὑμῖν τῶν εἰρημένων πρῶτον
καλῶ τοὺς μάρτυρας.
T
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
Ταῦτα μὲν δὴ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον εἶχε· περὶ δὲ τῶν 35
ὑπολοίπων εὐθὺς ἐπεβούλευον, καὶ πάντων δεινότατον
πράγμα κατεσκεύασαν, ᾧ ἀξιόν ἐστι προσέχειν τὸν νοῦν.
ὁρῶντες γὰρ τὸν Εὐκτήμονα κομιδῇ ἀπειρηκότα ὑπὸ γήρως
καὶ οὐδὲ <ἐκ> τῆς κλίνης ἀνίστασθαι δυνάμενον, ἐσκόπουν
ὅπως καὶ τελευτήσαντος ἐκείνου δι᾽ αὐτῶν ἔσοιτο ἡ οὐσία.
καὶ τί ποιοῦσιν; ἀπογράφουσι τώ παῖδε τούτω πρὸς τὸν 36
ἄρχοντα ὡς εἰσποιήτω τοῖς τοῦ Εὐκτήμονος ὑέσι τοῖς τε-
τελευτηκόσιν, ἐπιγράψαντες σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἐπιτρόπους, καὶ
μισθοῦν ἐκέλευον τὸν ἄρχοντα τοὺς οἴκους ὡς ὀρφανῶν
32. 4. <6> κύριος Saupp.
6. παρέδρων Α, corr. Α'. Cf. And. I. 78.
33. 2. ἀποδίδονται: corr. Steph., seruant Reisk. Schoem.
5. τεσσαρά
κοντα: corr. M, Buerm. 6. απολίω Α, corr. Αl.
34. I. δὲ] τάδε malit Reisk. Cf. VIII. 35. 8.
5. ἐκ add. Dobr.
35.
I. 64.
1. εἶχε] εἶχον malit Reisk.
I.
6. αὐτῶν Turr., Scheib. Cf. II. II. 3.
7. ὀρικά. Cf. v. 43. 7.
5.
Tit. add. Reisk.
Cf. VIII. 45. 6, And.
92
OR. VI.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
Ο
ὄντων, ὅπως ἐπὶ τοῖς τούτων ὀνόμασι τὰ μὲν μισθωθείη
τῆς οὐσίας, τὰ δὲ ἀποτιμήματα κατασταθείη καὶ ὅροι |
τεθεῖεν ζῶντος ἔτι τοῦ Εὐκτήμονος, μισθωταὶ δ᾽ αὐτοὶ 6ο
37 γενόμενοι τὰς προσόδους λαμβάνοιεν. καὶ ἐπειδὴ πρῶτον
τὰ δικαστήρια ἐπληρώθη, ὁ μὲν ἄρχων προεκήρυττεν, οἱ
δ᾽ ἐμισθοῦντο. παραγενόμενοι δέ τινες ἐξαγγέλλουσι τοῖς
οἰκείοις τὴν ἐπιβουλήν, καὶ ἐλθόντες ἐδήλωσαν τὸ πρᾶγμα
τοῖς δικασταῖς, καὶ οὕτως ἀπεχειροτόνησαν οἱ δικασταὶ μὴ
μισθοῦν τοὺς οἴκους· εἰ δ᾽ ἔλαθεν, ἀπωλώλει ἂν ἅπασα
ἡ οὐσία. Καί μοι κάλει τοὺς παραγενομένους μάρτυρας.
38
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
Πρὶν μὲν τοίνυν τούτους γνωρίσαι τὴν ἄνθρωπον καὶ
μετ᾿ ἐκείνης ἐπιβουλεῦσαι Εὐκτήμονι, οὕτω πολλὴν οὐσίαν
ἐκέκτητο Εὐκτήμων μετὰ τοῦ ὑέος Φιλοκτήμονος, ὥστε
ἅμα τε τὰ μέγιστα ὑμῖν λητουργεῖν ἀμφοτέρους τῶν τε
ἀρχαίων μηδὲν πραθῆναι τῶν τε προσόδων περιποιεῖν,
ὥστε ἀεί τι προσκτᾶσθαι·
προσκτᾶσθαι· ἐπειδὴ δ᾽ ἐτελεύτησε Φιλο-
κτήμων, οὕτω διετέθη ἡ οὐσία, ὥστε τῶν ἀρχαίων μηδὲ τὰ
ἡμίσεα εἶναι λοιπὰ καὶ τὰς προσόδους ἁπάσας ἠφανίσθαι.
39 καὶ οὐδὲ ταῦτα ἐξήρκεσεν αὐτοῖς διαφορῆσαι, ὦ ἄνδρες,
ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ καὶ ὁ Εὐκτήμων ἐτελεύτησεν, εἰς τοῦτο ἦλθον
τόλμης ὥστ᾽ ἐκείνου κειμένου ἔνδον τοὺς μὲν οἰκέτας ἐφύ
λαττον, ὅπως μηδεὶς ἐξαγγείλειε μήτε τοῖν θυγατέροιν
μήτε τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ μήτε τῶν οἰκείων μηδενί, τὰ δὲ
χρήματα ἔνδοθεν ἐξεφορήσαντο μετὰ τῆς ἀνθρώπου εἰς
τὴν ὁμότοιχον οἰκίαν, ἣν ᾤκει μεμισθωμένος εἷς τούτων,
κατασταθείεν.
36. 5. μισθων * Α, corr. Αl. 6. κατασταθεϊ** Α, corr. Αl. Fuerat fortasse
7. <καὶ> ζῶντος Ald. edd. ante Turr. omnes || δὲ αὐτοὶ Meutzner:
di aúтoû. Cf. v. 23. 5, X. 2. 4, XI. hyp. 12, 13, Din. 1. 97.
37. 2. προσεκήρυττεν A, corr. Α'.
οὗτοι ἐλθόντες malit Scheib.
4. καὶ ἐλθόντες] οἳ ἐλθόντες uel καὶ
6. ἔλαθον malint Reisk. et Bekk. || άπολώλει : corr.
Scheib. || ἂν supra uers. add. Α', secl. Buerm. (Hermes 17. 399). Cf. IV. I. 9.
38. 2. οὐσίαν in marg. add. Αl.
ante ἀρχαίων in uers. add. Αl. Cf. § 55. 2.
8. προδόδους || ἠφανῆσθαι (rasur. corr.).
4·
4, 5. τε
6. ὥστε προσκτᾶσθαι del. Nab.
τά τε Fuhr. Cf. § 2. 4.
4. ταῖν: corr. M, Nab.
39. 2. ἐτελεύτησεν ὁ Εὐκτήμων: transp. Buerm.
6. ἐξεφύρησαν Hirschig coll. §§ 42. 4, 43. 1, 2.
OR. VI. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΦΙΛΟΚΤΗΜΟΝΟΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
93
᾿Αντίδωρος ἐκεῖνος. καὶ οὐδ᾽ ἐπειδὴ ἑτέρων πυθόμεναι 40
ἦλθον αἱ θυγατέρες αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ γυνή, οὐδὲ τότε εἴων
εἰσιέναι, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπέκλησαν τῇ θύρα, φάσκοντες οὐ προσ-
ήκειν αὐταῖς θάπτειν Ευκτήμονα· καὶ οὐδ᾽ εἰσελθεῖν ἐδύ
ναντο, εἰ μὴ μόλις καὶ περὶ ἡλίου δυσμάς. εἰσελθοῦσαι 41
δὲ κατέλαβον ἐκεῖνον μὲν ἔνδον κείμενον δευτεραῖον, ὡς
ἔφασαν οἱ οἰκέται, τὰ δ᾽ ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας ἅπαντα ἐκπεφο-
ρημένα ὑπὸ τούτων. αἱ μὲν οὖν γυναῖκες, οἷον εἰκός, περὶ
τὸν τετελευτηκότα ἦσαν· οὗτοι δὲ τοῖς ἀκολουθήσασι παρα-
χρῆμα ἐπεδείκνυσαν τὰ ἔνδον ὡς εἶχε, καὶ τοὺς οἰκέτας
πρῶτον ἠρώτων ἐναντίον τούτων ὅποι τετραμμένα εἴη τὰ
χρήματα. λεγόντων δ᾽ ἐκείνων ὅτι οὗτοι ἐξενηνοχότες εἶεν 42
εἰς τὴν πλησίον οἰκίαν, καὶ ἀξιούντων παραχρῆμα τῶνδε
φωρᾶν κατὰ τὸν νόμον καὶ τοὺς οἰκέτας ἐξαιτούντων τοὺς
ἐκφορήσαντας, οὐκ ἠθέλησαν τῶν δικαίων οὐδὲν ποιῆσαι.
Καί ὅτι ἀληθῆ λέγω, λαβὲ ταυτὶ καὶ ἀνάγνωθι.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑΙ.
Τοσαῦτα μὲν τοίνυν χρήματα ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας ἐκφορή 43
σαντες, τοσαύτης δ᾽ οὐσίας πεπραμένης τὴν τιμὴν ἔχοντες,
ἔτι δὲ τὰς προσόδους τὰς ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ χρόνῳ γενομένας
διαφορήσαντες, οἴονται καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν κύριοι γενή-
σεσθαι· καὶ εἰς τοῦτο ἀναιδείας ἥκουσιν, ὥστ᾽ εὐθυδικία
μὲν οὐκ ἐτόλμησαν εἰσελθεῖν, ἀλλὰ διεμαρτύρουν ὡς ὑπὲρ
γνησίων ἅμα μὲν τὰ ψευδῆ ἅμα δὲ τἀναντία οἷς αὐτοὶ
ἔπραξαν· οἵτινες πρὸς μὲν τὸν ἄρχοντα ἀπέγραψαν αὐτοὺς 44
ὡς ὄντας τὸν μὲν Φιλοκτήμονος τὸν δ᾽ Εργαμένους, νῦν
40. 2. γυνὴ | *** οὐδὲ καὶ sec. Dobs.) || εἴων Hirschig: ἠφείων (ἠφείων) A,
ηφίων M, Ald., ηφίουν Steph., edd. ante Scheib. omnes. ἠξίουν αὐτὰς > Buerm.
(Hermes 19. 329). Locus nondum sanatus.
41. 5. οὗτοι] οἵδε uel οίδι postulat Dobr.
ὅπῃ Buerm. Cf. IV. 27. 5.
42. I. οὗτος A, corr. Αl.
et Petit (Legg. Att. VII. 5. 9).
Cf. v. 36. 7.
3. τὴν θύραν : corr. Dobr.
7. ὅποι Ald., uolg., ὅπἢ A,
2, 3. τῶν δ' ἐφορᾶν : corr. Scaliger
5. Post ἀνάγνωθι lac. circ. 5 litt. Titulum deesse
monuit Reisk. ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑΙ primi add. Turr. Censet excidisse etiam ΑΠΟΓΡΑΦΗ
Schoen. Desiderat insuper ΠΡΟΚΛΗΣΙΣ Scheib.
44.
I. ἑαυτοὺς A, corr. Αl.
2. Φιλοκτήμονος] Ηγήμονος coni. Saupp.,
probat Buerm.
94
OR. VI.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
εα
δὲ διαμεμαρτυρήκασιν Εὐκτήμονος εἶναι. καίτοι οὐδ᾽
εἰ γνήσιοι ἦσαν, εἰσποίητοι δέ, ὡς οὗτοι ἔφασαν, οὐδ᾽
οὕτως προσῆκεν αὐτοὺς Εὐκτήμονος εἶναι· ὁ γὰρ νόμος
οὐκ ἐᾳ ἐπανιέναι, ἐὰν μὴ ὑὸν <ἐγ>καταλίπῃ γνήσιον. ὥστε
καὶ ἐξ ὧν αὐτοὶ ἔπραξαν ἀνάγκη τὴν μαρτυρίαν ψευδῆ
45 είναι.
καὶ εἰ μὲν τότε διεπράξαντο μισθωθῆναι τοὺς
οἴκους, οὐκ ἂν ἔτι ἦν τοῖσδε ἀμφισβητῆσαι· νῦν δὲ ἀπο-
χειροτονησάντων τῶν δικαστῶν ὡς οὐδὲν αὐτοῖς προσῆκον,
οὐδὲ ἀμφισβητῆσαι τετολμήκασιν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς ὑπερβολὴν
ἀναισχυντίας [προσ]μεμαρτυρήκασι τούτους εἶναι κληρονό
μους, οὓς ὑμεῖς ἀπεχειροτονήσατε.
46 Ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοῦ μάρτυρος αὐτοῦ σκέψασθε τὴν τόλμαν
καὶ ἀναίδειαν, ὅστις εἴληχε μὲν αὐτῷ τῆς θυγατρὸς τῆς
Εὐκτήμονος ὡς οὔσης ἐπικλήρου, καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ κλήρου
τοῦ Εὐκτήμονος † πέμπτου | μέρους† ὡς ἐπιδίκου ὄντος, 61
μεμαρτύρηκε δ' Εὐκτήμονος ὑὸν εἶναι γνήσιον. καίτοι
πῶς οὗτος οὐ σαφῶς ἐξελέγχει αὐτὸς αὑτὸν τὰ ψευδῆ
μεμαρτυρηκότα; οὐ γὰρ δήπου γνησίου ὄντος νέος Εὐ-
κτήμονι ἐπίκληρος ἂν ἦν ἡ θυγάτηρ αὐτοῦ, οὐδὲ ὁ κλῆρος
ἐπίδικος. ὡς τοίνυν ἔλαχε ταύτας τὰς λήξεις, ἀναγνώσεται
ὑμῖν τὰς μαρτυρίας.
47
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑΙ.
Ο
Τοὐναντίον τοίνυν συμβέβηκεν ἢ ὡς ὁ νόμος γέγραπται·
ἐκεῖ μὲν γὰρ ἔστι νόθῳ μηδὲ νόθῃ <μὴ> εἶναι ἀγχιστείαν
μήθ᾽ ἱερῶν μήθ' ὁσίων ἀπ᾽ Εὐκλείδου ἄρχοντος, Ανδροκλῆς
δὲ καὶ ᾿Αντίδωρος οἴονται δεῖν, ἀφελόμενοι τὰς Εὐκτήμονος
θυγατέρας τὰς γνησίας καὶ τοὺς ἐκ τούτων γεγονότας, τόν
4. γνήσιοι < μὲν > Reisk.
6. ἐγκαταλίπῃ Herw.: καταλίπη.
45. I. διεπράξατο: corr. Reisk.
3. s in uers. add. A¹ (cf. I. 35. 3),
tamquam interpolatum del. Buerm. [[ οὐδὲν] οὐδ᾽ coni. Buerm. || προσῆκεν: corr. Dobr.
οὐδὲ] οὐ μόνον Reisk., < οὐχ ὅπως ἀντιδικῆσαι > οὐδὲ Dobr.
4.
Coni, διαμεμαρτυρήκασιν coll. VII. 40. 2, Χ. 2. 2 Buerm.
5. Uncos addidi.
46. 4. πέμπτου μέρους secl. Grasshoff, coni. τοῦ μέρους Buerm., τοῦ πέμπτου
μέρους Reisk., ἐπὶ μέρους Κ. F. Hermann, ἡμίσεος μέρους uel ἐκ μέρους Dareste.
Ευκτήμονι Dobr. II. Tit. add. Ald.
5.
47. 2.
2. μή add. Saupp.
tuetur Scheib.
3.
ἀνδροκλείδης: corr. Turr. auctore Schoem.,
OR. VI. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΦΙΛΟΚΤΗΜΟΝΟΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
95
τε Εὐκτήμονος οἶκον καὶ τὸν Φιλοκτήμονος ἔχειν. καὶ ἡ 48
διαφθείρασα τὴν Εὐκτήμονος γνώμην καὶ πολλῶν ἐγκρατὴς
γενομένη οὕτως ὑβρίζει σφόδρα πιστεύουσα τούτοις, ὥστε
οὐ μόνον τῶν Εὐκτήμονος οἰκείων καταφρονεῖ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς
πόλεως ἁπάσης. ἀκούσαντες δὲ ἓν μόνον σημεῖον ῥᾳδίως
γνώσεσθε τὴν ἐκείνης παρανομίαν. Καί μοι λαβὲ τοῦτον
τὸν νόμον.
ΝΟΜΟΣ.
Ταυτὶ τὰ γράμματα, ὦ ἄνδρες, ὑμεῖς οὕτω σεμνὰ καὶ 49
εὐσεβῆ ἐνομοθετήσατε, περὶ πολλοῦ ποιούμενοι καὶ πρὸς
ταύτας καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους θεοὺς εὐσεβεῖν· ἡ δὲ τούτων
μήτηρ, οὕτως ὁμολογουμένως οὖσα δούλη καὶ ἅπαντα τὸν
χρόνον αἰσχρῶς βιοῦσα, ἣν οὔτε παρελθεῖν εἴσω τοῦ ἱεροῦ 50
ἔδει οὔτ᾽ ἰδεῖν τῶν ἔνδον οὐδέν, οὔσης τῆς θυσίας ταύταις
ταῖς θεαῖς ἐτόλμησεν συμπέμψαι τὴν πομπὴν καὶ εἰσελθεῖν
εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἰδεῖν ἃ οὐκ ἐξῆν αὐτῇ. ὡς δὲ ἀληθῆ λέγω,
ἐκ τῶν ψηφισμάτων γνώσεσθε ἃ ἐψηφίσατο ἡ βουλὴ περὶ
αὐτῆς. Λαβὲ τὸ ψήφισμα.
ΤΟ
cl
α
α
ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ.
Ενθυμεῖσθαι τοίνυν χρή, ὦ ἄνδρες, πότερον δεῖ τὸν 51
ἐκ ταύτης τῶν Φιλοκτήμονος εἶναι κληρονόμον καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ
μνήματα ἰέναι χεόμενον καὶ ἐναγιοῦντα, ἢ τὸν ἐκ τῆς
ἀδελφῆς τοῦτον, ὃν ὑὸν αὐτὸς ἐποιήσατο· καὶ πότερον
δεῖ τὴν ἀδελφὴν <τὴν> Φιλοκτήμονος, ἣ Χαιρέᾳ συνῴκησε,
νῦν δὲ χηρεύει, ἐπὶ τούτοις γενέσθαι ἢ ἐκδοῦναι ὅτῳ βού
6. Malit σχεῖν Lugebil. Cf. § 3. 6.
48.
2.
νος
εὐκτήμο Α1, **τ** (τάτου?) A.
8. Tit. add. Ald.
49. 3. ταύτας Reisk. : ταῦτα. Malint ταύτα Bekk., τούτω Nab.
γουμένη: corr. Dobr. Cf. IV. 14. I.
50. Ι. οὐδὲ: corr. M, Bekk. Cf. § 14. 7 || προσελθεῖν Α, corr. Α1.
Bekk. : οὐδ'.
4. ὁμολο-
2. οὔτ᾽
2, 3. ταύταις ταῖς θεαῖς abesse malit Herw. Malit τοῖν θεοῖν Nab.
¿deîv ä initio in lacuna omissa postea a manu prima addita esse putat Buerm., ä del.
Nab. Num ἰδεῖν ἃ < ἰδεῖν >? || ἐξόν: corr. Bekk. (in Addendis p. 6or).
4.
el
51.
3. ἐναγοῦντα A, corr. Al.
4. πρότερον Α, corr. Αl. Cf. III. 6. 6.
5. deî A³, dǹ A || Tǹv add. Dobr. Cf. § 65. 3, I. 4. 5.
6. ἐκδοῦναι *** ὅτω.
96
OR. VI.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
ιν
αν
ει
λονται ἢ ἐᾶν καταγηράσκειν, ἢ γνησίαν οὖσαν ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν
52 ἐπιδικασθεῖσαν συνοικεῖν ὅτῳ ἂν ὑμῖν δοκῇ. ἡ γὰρ ψῆφός
ἐστι περὶ τούτων νυνί. τουτὶ γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἡ διαμαρτυρία
δύναται, ἵν᾽ ὁ κίνδυνος τοῖσδε μὲν ᾖ περὶ τούτων, οὗτοι
δὲ κἂν νῦν διαμάρτωσι τοῦ ἀγῶνος, δόξῃ δὲ ὁ κλῆρος
ἐπίδικος εἶναι, ἀντιγραψάμενοι δὶς περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν ἀγω‐
νίζωνται. καίτοι εἰ μὲν διέθετο Φιλοκτήμων μὴ ἐξὸν
αὐτῷ, τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ ἐχρῆν διαμαρτυρεῖν, ὡς οὐ κύριος ἦν
ὑὸν τόνδε ποιήσασθαι· εἰ δ᾽ ἔξεστι μὲν διαθέσθαι, ἀμφισ
βητεῖ δὲ ὡς οὐ δόντος οὐδὲ διαθεμένου, μὴ διαμαρτυρία
53 κωλύειν ἀλλ᾽ εὐθυδικίᾳ εἰσιέναι. νῦν δὲ πῶς ἄν [τις] περι-
φανέστερον ἐξελεγχθείη τὰ ψευδή μεμαρτυρηκὼς ἢ εἴ τις
αὐτὸν ἔροιτο “Ανδρόκλεις, πως οἶσθα Φιλοκτήμονα ὅτι
οὔτε διέθετο οὔτε ὑὸν Χαιρέστρατον ἐποιήσατο;” οἷς μὲν
γάρ τις παρεγένετο, δίκαιον, ὦ ἄνδρες, μαρτυρεῖν, οἷς δὲ
54 μὴ παρεγένετο ἀλλ᾽ ἤκουσέ τινος, ἀκοὴν μαρτυρεῖν· σὺ δ᾽
οὐ παραγενόμενος διαρρήδην μεμαρτύρηκας ὡς οὐ διέθετο
Φιλοκτήμων, ἀλλ᾽ ἄπαις ἐτελεύτησε. καίτοι πως οἷόν τε
εἰδέναι, ὦ ἄνδρες; ὅμοιον γὰρ ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ φαίη εἰδέναι,
καὶ μὴ παραγενόμενος, ὅσα ὑμεῖς πάντες πράττετε. οὐ
γὰρ δὴ τοῦτό γε ἐρεῖ, καίπερ ἀναίσχυντος ὤν, ὡς ἅπασι
παρεγένετο καὶ πάντ᾽ οἶδεν ὅσα Φιλοκτήμων ἐν τῷ βίῳ
55 διεπράξατο. πάντων γὰρ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνος ἔχθιστον ἐνόμιζε
διά <τε> τὴν ἄλλην πονηρίαν, καὶ διότι τῶν συγγενῶν
μόνος μετὰ τῆς ᾿Αλκῆς ἐκείνης τούτῳ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις
συνεπιβουλεύσας τοῖς τοῦ Εὐκτήμονος χρήμασι τοιαῦτα
διεπράξατο, οἷά περ ὑμῖν ἀπέδειξα.
7.
ἀνέκδοτον uel ἄγαμον post ἐᾶν add. Scheib.
52. 3. τούτων] πάντων Nab. 5, 6. ἀγωνίζονται Α, corr. Α'. Cf. VIII. 44ο 4ο
8. ἔξεστι] ἐξῆν coni. Schoem., probant Herw. et Buerm. 8, 9. ἀμφισβητεῖ] Quidni
ὡς οὐδ᾽ ὄντοσ ὡσ οὐ δόντοσ. Cf. § 3I. 3.
ἀμφισβητεῖται? Cf. x. hyp. 35.
9.
|
53. I. τις ante περιφανέστερον del. Scheib. (Comm. crit. p. 35). 2. ἐξελεγ
χείη: corr. M, Ald. Cf. IV. 8. 2.
3. Φιλοκτήμων: corr. Dobr., post διέθετο
μαρτυρεί Α, corr. Α2.
transponere iubet Buerm.
6.
55. 2. τε add. M, Ald. Cf. § 38. 4, 5, IV. II. 8. 3. τῷ ᾿Αντιδώρῳ ante τούτῳ
addere iubet Buerm. Significari hic Antidorum primus uidit Meutzner.
OR. VI. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΦΙΛΟΚΤΗΜΟΝΟΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
97
Πάντων δὲ μάλιστα ἀγανακτῆσαί ἐστιν ἄξιον, ὅταν 56
οὗτοι καταχρῶνται τῷ Εὐκτήμονος ὀνόματι τοῦ τουδι
πάππου. εἰ γάρ, ὡς οὗτοι λέγουσι, τῷ μὲν Φιλοκτήμονι
μὴ ἐξῆν διαθέσθαι, τοῦ δ᾽ Εὐκτήμονός ἐστιν ὁ κλῆρος,
πότερον δικαιότερον τῶν Εὐκτήμονος κληρονομεῖν τὰς ἐκεί-
62 νου θυγατέρας, ὁμολογουμένως οὖσας γνησίας, | καὶ [ἡμᾶς]
τοὺς ἐκ τούτων γεγονότας, ἢ τοὺς οὐδὲν προσήκοντας; οἱ 57
οὐ μόνον ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἐλέγχονται, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ὧν αὐτοὶ οἱ
ἐπίτροποι διαπεπραγμένοι εἰσί. τοῦτο γὰρ ὑμῶν δέομαι
καὶ ἱκετεύω σφόδρα μεμνῆσθαι, ὦ ἄνδρες, ὅπερ ὀλίγῳ
πρότερον ἀπέδειξα ὑμῖν, ὅτι ᾿Ανδροκλῆς οὑτοσὶ φησὶ μὲν
εἶναι ἐπίτροπος αὐτῶν ὡς ὄντων γνησίων Εὐκτήμονος,
εἴληχε δ᾽ αὐτὸς [ἐφ᾽] ἑαυτῷ τοῦ Εὐκτήμονος κλήρου καὶ
τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ ὡς οὔσης ἐπικλήρου· καὶ ταῦτα με
μαρτύρηται ὑμῖν. καίτοι πῶς οὐ δεινόν, ὦ ἄνδρες, πρὸς 58
θεῶν Ὀλυμπίων, εἰ μὲν οἱ παῖδές εἰσι γνήσιοι, τὸν ἐπί-
τροπον ἑαυτῷ λαγχάνειν τοῦ Εὐκτήμονος κλήρου καὶ τῆς
θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ ὡς οὔσης ἐπιδίκου, εἰ δὲ μή εἰσι γνήσιοι,
νῦν διαμεμαρτυρηκέναι ὡς εἰσὶ γνήσιοι; ταῦτα γὰρ αὐτὰ
ἑαυτοῖς ἐναντία ἐστίν. ὥστ᾽ οὐ μόνον ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἐλέγχεται
τὰ ψευδῆ διαμεμαρτυρηκώς, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ὧν αὐτὸς πράττει.
καὶ τούτῳ μὲν οὐδεὶς διαμαρτυρεῖ μὴ ἐπίδικον εἶναι τὸν 59
κλῆρον, ἀλλ᾽ εὐθυδικίᾳ <ἐᾷ> εἰσιέναι, οὗτος δ᾽ ἅπαντας
ἀποστερεῖ τῆς ἀμφισβητήσεως. καὶ διαρρήδην μαρτυρήσας
γνησίους τοὺς παῖδας εἶναι, οἴεται ἐξαρκέσειν ὑμῖν παρεκ-
56. 2, 3. καταχρῶνται | τῶ τουδὶ πάππω Α, τῷ εὐκτήμονος ὀνόματι in marg. inferiore
f. 53" add. A¹. Coni. τοῦ τοῦδε πάππου Reisk., τῷ τουδὶ παππῴῳ Schoem., τῷ
Ευκτήμονος ὀνόματι del Buerm. 6. ἡμᾶς del. Buerm.
57. 2. ἐξ ἡμῶν: corr. Bekk. || οἱ supra uers. add. Α', οἱ ἐπίτροποι del. Dobr.
5. •/. οὑτοσὶ in marg. et /. ante φήσει add. Α'. Cf. § 23. 2 || φήσει: corr. M, Ald.
Cf. IX. 10. Ι. 6. είναι Α', οἶμαι A. Cf. ΧΙ. 27. 6. 7. αὐτοῖς ἐφ' ἑαυτῷ: corr.
Reisk. || του Α', τῶ (sec. Buerm.) A.
« An ἐπιδίκου? Dobr.
58.
Cf. ΙΙΙ. 76. 2, ΙΧ. 23. 5.
8. ἐπικλήρου]
4. ἐπιδίκου Α', ἐπικλήτου (ἐπικλήρου) Α || γνήσιοι abesse malit Herw.
6. ἐστὶν Μ, Bekk. : εἰσὶν.
2.
59. 1. τούτῳ] τούτων Dobr. || οὐδεὶς] οὐ δοκεῖ Jenicke.
ἀξιοῖ Reisk., ἔξεστιν Dobr., ἀλλ᾽ εὐθυδικίᾳ εἰσιέναι del. Albrecht et Buerm.
W. I.
Add. eg Herw.,
7
98
OR. VI.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
*
βάσεις, ἐὰν δὲ τοῦτο μὲν μηδ᾽ ἐγχειρήσῃ ἐπιδεικνύναι ἢ
καὶ κατὰ μικρόν τι ἐπιμνησθῇ, ἡμῖν δὲ λοιδορήσηται
μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ καὶ λέγῃ ὡς εἰσὶν οἵδε μὲν πλούσιοι
αὐτὸς δὲ πένης, διὰ δὲ ταῦτα δόξειν τοὺς παῖδας εἶναι
60 γνησίους. τῆς δὲ τούτων οὐσίας, ὦ ἄνδρες, εἰς τὴν πόλιν
πλείω ἀναλίσκεται ἢ εἰς αὐτοὺς τούτους. καὶ Φανόστρατος
μὲν τετριηράρχηκεν ἑπτάκις ἤδη, τὰς δὲ λῃτουργίας ἁπάσας
λελῃτούργηκε καὶ τὰς πλείστας [νίκας] νενίκηκεν· οὑτοσὶ
δὲ Χαιρέστρατος τηλικοῦτος ὢν τετριηράρχηκε, κεχορήγηκε
δὲ τραγῳδοῖς, γεγυμνασιάρχηκε δὲ λαμπάδι· καὶ τὰς εἰσ-
φορὰς εἰσενηνόχασιν ἀμφότεροι πάσας ἐν τοῖς τριακοσίοις.
καὶ τέως μὲν δύ᾽ ὄντες, νῦν δὲ καὶ ὁ νεώτερος οὑτοσὶ χορηγεῖ
μὲν τραγῳδοῖς, εἰς δὲ τοὺς τριακοσίους ἐγγέγραπται καὶ
61 εἰσφέρει τὰς εἰσφοράς. ὥστ᾽ οὐ φθονεῖσθαί εἰσιν ἄξιοι,
ἀλλὰ πολὺ μᾶλλον νὴ τὸν Δία καὶ τὸν ᾿Απόλλω οὗτοι, εἰ
λήψονται ἃ μὴ προσήκει αὐτοῖς. τοῦ γὰρ Φιλοκτήμονος
κλήρου ἂν μὲν ἐπιδικάσηται ὅδε, ὑμῖν αὐτὸν ταμιεύσει, τὰ
προσταττόμενα λῃτουργῶν ὥσπερ καὶ νῦν καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον·
ἐὰν δ᾽ οὗτοι λάβωσι, διαφορήσαντες ἑτέροις ἐπιβουλεύ-
σουσι.
او
ει
62 Δέομαι οὖν ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες, ἵνα μὴ ἐξαπατηθῆτε, τῇ
διαμαρτυρίᾳ τὸν νοῦν προσέχειν περὶ ἧς τὴν ψῆφον οἴσετε·
καὶ πρὸς ταύτην αὐτὸν κελεύετε τὴν ἀπολογίαν ποιεῖσθαι,
ὥσπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς κατηγορήσαμεν. γέγραπται ὡς οὐκ ἔδωκεν
οὐδὲ διέθετο Φιλοκτήμων· τοῦτο ἐπιδέδεικται ψεῦδος ὄν·
Ald. : λέγει.
a]
ود
5. ἐπιχειρήσῃ M, Bekk., Schoem., Turr. Cf. IV. 14. 4, VIII. I. 5. 5, 6. ἢ καὶ
κατά] “ An ἣν καὶ κατὰ?” Dobr. 6. λοιδορήσηται Ald. : λοιδορήσεται. 7. λέγη
8. διὰ δὲ ταῦτα] δὲ del. Buerm., δὴ coni. Steph., lacunam statuit
Dobr. Cf. v. 16. 5.
60. 2. φανίστρατος A, corr. Α. 3· τετριηράρχηκ*** A, corr. Α1.
abesse malit Saupp., τὰς ante πλείστας del. Boekmeijer.
Nab. Cf. § 5. 4·
4. νίκας
5.
7. εἰσενήνοχαν : corr. Reisk.
9, 10.
Χαιρέστρατος del.
καὶ εἰσφέρει τὰς
εἰσφορὰς secl. Herw.
61. 2. νή Δία Scheib. Sed cf. Dem. 9. 65, 21. 198, [Dem.] 50. 13, Aesch.
1. 88, 108.
62.
iubet Reisk.
3.
5. λειτουργο* Α, corr. Α'. Cf. III. 40. Ι.
αὐτὸν Α', αὐτῶν A. Cf. Χ. 24. 5.
5.
ὂν Α2, ὢν Α.
4.
ἐν ᾗ ante γέγραπται addere
Cf. uit. Is. 6.
OR. VI. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΦΙΛΟΚΤΗΜΟΝΟΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
99
καὶ γὰρ ὁ δοὺς καὶ ὁ διαθέμενος <ἐκεῖνος>, καὶ μαρτυροῦσιν
οἱ παραγενόμενοι. τί ἔτι; τελευτῆσαι ἄπαιδα Φιλοκτήμονα. 63
πῶς οὖν ἄπαις ἦν ὅς τις τὸν ἑαυτοῦ ἀδελφιδοῦν ὑὸν ποιη-
σάμενος κατέλιπεν, ᾧ ὁμοίως ὁ νόμος τὴν κληρονομίαν
ἀποδίδωσι καὶ τοῖς ἐξ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις; καὶ διαρρήδην ἐν
τῷ νόμῳ γέγραπται, ἐὰν ποιησαμένῳ παῖδες ἐπιγένωνται, τὸ
μέρος ἑκάτερον ἔχειν τῆς οὐσίας καὶ κληρονομεῖν ὁμοίως
ἀμφοτέρους. ὡς οὖν εἰσὶ γνήσιοι οἱ παῖδες οἵδε, τοῦτ᾽ 64
αὐτὸ ἐπιδεικνύτω, ὥσπερ ἂν ὑμῶν ἕκαστος. οὐ γὰρ ἂν
εἴπῃ μητρὸς ὄνομα, γνήσιοί εἰσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν ἐπιδεικνύῃ ὡς
ἀληθῆ λέγει, τοὺς συγγενεῖς <μάρτυρας> παρεχόμενος τοὺς
εἰδότας συνοικοῦσαν τῷ Εὐκτήμονι <καὶ> τοὺς δημότας καὶ
τοὺς φράτερας, εἴ τι ἀκηκόασι πώποτε ἢ ἴσασιν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς
Ευκτήμονα λητουργήσαντα, ἔτι δὲ ποῦ τέθαπται, ἐν ποίοις
μνήμασι, <καὶ> τίς εἶδε τὰ νομιζόμενα ποιοῦντα Εὐκτήμονα· 65
ποῖ δ᾽ ἔτ᾽ ἰόντες οἱ παῖδες ἐναγίζουσι καὶ χέονται, καὶ τίς
εἶδε ταῦτα τῶν πολιτῶν ἢ τῶν οἰκετῶν <τῶν> Ευκτήμονος.
ταῦτα γάρ ἐστιν ἔλεγχος ἅπαντα, καὶ οὐ λοιδορία. καὶ
ἐὰν περὶ αὐτοῦ τούτου κελεύητε ἐπιδεικνύναι ὥσπερ καὶ
διεμαρτύρησεν, ὑμεῖς τε τὴν ψῆφον ὁσίαν καὶ κατὰ τοὺς
νόμους θήσεσθε, τοῖσδέ τε τὰ δίκαια γενήσεται.
6. καὶ γὰρ ὁ δοὺς καὶ ὁ διαθέμενος secl. Schoem., Scheib., καὶ γὰρ δοὺς καὶ
διαθέμενος (scil. ἐπιδέδεικται) Dobr., Turr. coll. III. 25. 4, add. οὗτος post καὶ γὰρ
Jenicke, ἐκεῖνος post διαθέμενος Buemm.
63. 2. ἄπαις ἦν ὅστις Reisk. : ἂν αἴσιμός τις || τὸν Α', τῶν Α.
κατέλειπεν Lugebil.
64. 3. γνήσιος ἐστιν: corr. Bekk. Cf. v. 36. 7.
5. καὶ add. Scheib. Cf. I. 47. 5.
3. Malit
4. μάρτυρας add. Reisk.
65. 1. Kai add. Buerm. || eîde A¹, Scaliger, oîde AM, Ald., edd. ante Dobs. omnes.
2. που Ald. edd. ante Turr. omnes || δ᾽ ἔτ᾽ ἰόντες Α', δ' ἔτι ὄντες ΑΜ, Ald. edd.
ante Turr. omnes, δὲ ἰόντες Dobr., ἔτι δὲ ποῖ ἰόντες malit Buerm. coll. IV. 26. 7.
3. οἶδε M, Ald., edd. ante Turr. omnes || In πολιτῶν haeret Dobr. Cf. I. 11. 4 ||
oikelwv malit Dobr. | Tŵv add. Dobr. Cf. § 51. 5, IX. 4. 3, 10. 6, 19. 4, 21. 6,
28. 3, 36. 5, X. 4. 7, I4. 4, XI. I3. IO, 44. 5. 4. ἔλεγχος Ald.: ἔνοχος.
7-2
VII
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΠΟΛΛΟΔΩΡΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ.
ΥΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ.
63
Εὔπολις καὶ Θράσυλλος καὶ Μνήσων ἀδελφοὶ γεγόνασι. τούτων
ὁ μὲν Μνήσων ἄπαις ἐτελεύτησεν, ὁ δὲ Θράσυλλος παῖδα
καταλιπών Απολλόδωρον· μόνος δ᾽ Εὔπολις καταλειφθεὶς
πολλὰ τὸν ᾿Απολλόδωρον ἠδίκησεν. ὅθεν ᾿Αρχέδαμος, πάππος
τοῦ λέγοντος τὸν λόγον, τῇ τοῦ ᾿Απολλοδώρου μητρὶ συνοικῶν 5
μετὰ τὸν Θρασύλλου τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς θάνατον, καὶ τὸν
᾿Απολλόδωρον ὡς ὀρφανὸν ἐλεῶν, πολλὰ τὸν Εὔπολιν ἀπῄ-
τησε χρήματα ὑπὲρ ὧν ᾿Απολλόδωρον ἠδίκησε. τούτων
μεμνημένος ᾿Απολλόδωρος εἰσήγαγεν εἰς τοὺς φράτορας θετὸν
υἱὸν ἑαυτῷ Θράσυλλον τοῦτον, υἱὸν ὄντα τῆς τε όμομητρίας το
αὐτοῦ ἀδελφῆς καὶ ᾿Αρχεδάμου. τοῦ δὲ Θρασύλλου ἤδη μὲν
εἰς τοὺς γεννήτας καὶ φράτορας ἐγγεγραμμένου, οὔπω δ᾽ εἰς τὸ
ληξιαρχικὸν γραμματεῖον, ἐτελεύτησεν ᾿Απολλόδωρος. καὶ
μετὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ τελευτὴν ἐγγέγραπται μὲν ὁ Θράσυλλος εἰς
τὸ ληξιαρχικὸν γραμματεῖον, οὐδὲν δ᾽ ἧττον Εὐπόλιδος θυγά- 15
τηρ, τοῦ θείου ᾿Απολλοδώρου, ἀμφισβητεῖ πρὸς Θράσυλλον,
λέγουσα μηδ' ὅλως ἐγγεγράφθαι τὸν Θράσυλλον εἰς τοὺς
φράτορας καὶ γεννήτας κατὰ γνώμην τοῦ ᾿Απολλοδώρου,
ἀλλὰ πεπλασμένην εἶναι τὴν ποίησιν. Καὶ ἡ μὲν ὑπόθεσις
αὕτη, ἡ δὲ στάσις στοχασμός· διὸ καλῶς πάνυ καὶ τεχνικῶς 20
τὸν λόγον οἰκονομῶν τὴν ἔχθραν διεξέρχεται τὴν ᾿Απολλο-
δώρου πρὸς Εὔπολιν, ὅπερ μέγα σημεῖον γίγνεται τοῦ μὴ
θέλειν αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τῆς Εὐπόλιδος θυγατρὸς κληρονομηθῆναι.
VII. Tit. περὶ Reisk. et totius codicis index: ὑπὲρ. Cf. Harp. s.u. γεννῆται
(§ 1. 3, 4), κοινὸν γραμματεῖον (§ 1. 4), ἱππὰς (§ 39. 2).
Hyp. 1. Θράσιλλος Α, corr. Al; item v ex ι corr. in u. 6 (Α2), 10, 11, 14, 16, 17,
§§ 5. 1, 7, 17. 6, 27. 6. 21. ἔχθραν Reisk.: ἐλευθέραν.
OR. VII. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΠΟΛΛΟΔΩΡΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
ΙΟΙ
Ωιμην μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες, προσήκειν οὐ τὰς τοιαύτας άμ- 1
φισβητεῖσθαι ποιήσεις, εἴ τις αὐτὸς ζῶν καὶ εὖ φρονῶν
ἐποιήσατο καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ ἱερὰ ἀγαγὼν εἰς τοὺς συγγενεῖς <καὶ
φράτερας> ἀπέδειξε καὶ εἰς τὰ κοινὰ γραμματεῖα ἐνέγραψεν,
ἅπανθ' ὅσα προσῆκεν αὐτὸς ποιήσας, ἀλλ᾽ εἴ τις τελευτή
σειν μέλλων διέθετο, εἴ τι πάθοι, τὴν οὐσίαν ἑτέρῳ, καὶ
ταῦτ᾽ ἐν γράμμασι κατέθετο παρά τισι σημηνάμενος.
ἐκεῖνον μὲν γὰρ τὸν τρόπον ποιησάμενος φανερὰς κατέ- 2
στησε τὰς αὑτοῦ βουλήσεις, ὅλον τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐπικυρώσας,
δόντων αὐτῷ τῶν νόμων· ὁ δ᾽ ἐν διαθήκαις σημηνάμενος
ἀδήλους ἐποίησε, δι᾿ ὃ πολλοὶ πεπλάσθαι φάσκοντες αὐτὰς
ἀμφισβητεῖν ἀξιοῦσι πρὸς τοὺς ποιηθέντας. ἔοικε δ᾽ οὐδὲν
προύργου τοῦτο εἶναι· καὶ γὰρ οὕτως αὐτῶν φανερῶς πε-
πραγμένων ὅμως ὑπὲρ τῆς θυγατρὸς τῆς Εὐπόλιδος ἥκουσι
περὶ τῶν ᾿Απολλοδώρου χρημάτων πρὸς ἐμὲ ἀμφισβητή
σοντες. ἐγὼ δ᾽ εἰ μὲν ἑώρων ὑμᾶς μᾶλλον ἀποδεχομένους 3
τὰς διαμαρτυρίας ἢ τὰς εὐθυδικίας, κἂν μάρτυρα προ
βαλόμην μὴ ἐπίδικον εἶναι τὸν κλῆρον ὡς ποιησαμένου
με ὑὸν ᾿Απολλοδώρου κατὰ τοὺς νόμους· ἐπειδὴ δ᾽ οὐ
διαφεύγει τὰ δίκαια μὴ οὐ καὶ τοῦτον γιγνώσκεσθαι τὸν
τρόπον [καὶ] παρ' ὑμῖν, αὐτὸς ἥκω διαλεξόμενος περὶ
τῶν πεπραγμένων, ἵνα μηδεμίαν ἡμῖν αἰτίαν περὶ τοῦ μὴ
βούλεσθαι δοῦναι δίκην τοιαύτην ἐπιφέρωσιν. ἀποδείξω δὲ 4
ὡς οὐ μόνον ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐγγυτάτω γένους τὸν κλῆρον ᾿Απολ-
λόδωρος οὐ καταλέλοιπε, πολλὰ καὶ δεινὰ ὑπὸ τούτων
1. 2. εἴ τις] ἄς τις malit Herw.
3, 4. καὶ φράτορας add. Buerm. Cf.
§ 27. 4, Harp. s.u. γεννῆται· Ἰσαῖος δ' ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ ᾿Απολλοδώρου κλήρου τοὺς συγγενεῖς
γεννήτας ὠνόμασεν. 4. Harp. s.u. κοινὸν γραμματεῖον· τὸ μὲν κοινὸν γραμματεῖόν
ἐστιν εἰς ὃ ἐνεγράφοντο οἱ εἰσάγομενοι εἰς τοὺς φράτορας καὶ γεννήτας...ὡς Ἰσαῖος ἐν τῷ
περὶ τοῦ ᾿Απολλοδώρου κλήρου.
ταύτην || παρά τινι malit Herw.
2. 4. πεπλάσθαι (rasur. corr.).
in suspicionem uocat Herw. Cf. I. 5. 4.
3. 2. μάρτυρας: corr. Buerm.
5.
avroîs A, corr. A².
7. ταῦτ᾽ ἐν Reisk.:
6. οὐδὲ τοῦτο coni. Reisk.
8. περί
6. καὶ Bekk.: κατὰ || παρ' ὑμῖν, αὐτὸς
7. ὑμῖν: corr.
4. I. ἐπιδείξω malit Buerm.
Hertlein.
2.
οὐ μόνον ὡς uel in u. 4 ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐμὲ malit
deleto και Dobr., αὐτὸς inuenerat Reisk. : καὶ παρ' ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς.
Reisk.
102
OR. VII.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
ΟΙ
ἀδικηθείς, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὡς ἐμὲ ἐποιήσατο δικαίως, ὄντα ἀδελ
φιδοῦν, καὶ μεγάλα εὐεργετημένος ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν. δέομαι δὲ
ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες, πάντων ὁμοίως εὔνοιάν τέ μοι παρασχεῖν,
κἂν ἐπὶ τὸν κλῆρον ἀναιδῶς αὐτοὺς ἰόντας ἐξελέγχω, βοηθεῖν
μοι τὰ δίκαια. ποιήσομαι δ᾽ ὡς ἂν κἀγὼ δύνωμαι διὰ
βραχυτάτων τοὺς λόγους, ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὡς ἔχει τὰ γενόμενα
διδάσκων ὑμᾶς.
και
Εὔπολις γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες, καὶ Θράσυλλος καὶ Μνήσων
ἀδελφοὶ ἦσαν ὁμομήτριοι καὶ ὁμοπάτριοι. τούτοις οὐσίαν
ὁ πατὴρ κατέλιπε πολλήν, ὥστε καὶ λῃτουργεῖν ἕκαστον
ἀξιοῦσθαι παρ' ὑμῖν. ταύτην ἐκεῖνοι τρεῖς ὄντες ἐνείμαντο
πρὸς ἀλλήλους. τούτων τὼ δύο ἐτελευτησάτην περὶ τὸν
τω
αὐτὸν χρόνον, ὁ μὲν Μνήσων ἐνθάδε ἄγαμος καὶ ἄπαις,
ὁ δὲ Θράσυλλος τῶν ἐν Σικελίᾳ καταλεγεὶς τριηράρχων,
καταλιπὼν ὑὸν ᾿Απολλόδωρον τὸν ἐμὲ νῦν ποιησάμενον.
6 Εύπολις οὖν μόνος αὐτῶν λειφθεὶς οὐ μικρά | ἀπολαῦσαι 64
τῶν χρημάτων ἠξίωσεν, ἀλλὰ τὸν μὲν Μνήσωνος κλῆρον,
οὗ καὶ ᾿Απολλοδώρῳ προσῆκε τὸ ἡμικλήριον, πάντα εἰς
αὑτὸν περιεποίησε, φάσκων αὑτῷ δοῦναι τὸν ἀδελφόν,
αὐτὸν δ᾽ ἐκεῖνον οὕτω διῴκησεν ἐπιτροπεύων ὥστε τριῶν
7 αὐτῷ ταλάντων δίκην ὀφλεῖν. ᾿Αρχέδαμος γὰρ ὁ πάππος
οὗμός, † ἐξ οὗ† τὴν μητέρα ἔχων τὴν ᾿Απολλοδώρου, τήθην
δὲ ἐμήν, ὁρῶν αὐτὸν πάντων ἀποστερούμενον τῶν χρη-
5. μέγα: corr. Dobr.
7. ἐξελέγχομεν Α, corr. Αl. Cf. VIII. 44. 4ο
8. κἀγὼ in suspicionem uocat Reisk., ante ὡς transponere malit Gebauer
δύνωμαι Ald.: δύναμαι. Cf. § 12. 4.
9. τοὺς supra uers. add. Α'. Cf.
11. Ι. 2.
5. τούτων τώ δύ᾽ ἐτελευτησάτην
5. 3. κατέλειπε. Cf. §§ 7. 6, 18. 4, V. 10. 7.
Bekk., τούτων δύο ἐτελεύτησαν Scaliger, quod probat Buerm.: τούτων δυο** (δυοῖν ?)
τελευτησάντων A, τούτων in τούτων τῶν corr. Αl.
Fuerat fortasse καταλλεγείς, ut in Lys. 32. 5 (G ap. Dion. Hal. Opusc. I. ed. Usener
et Radermacher p. 36). 8. νῦν] Malit υἱὸν Nab.
7. καταλεγείς Α, corr. Α'.
6. 2. Μνήσωνος A, Ald. Steph., Reisk., Buerm. Cf. C. I. A. II. 230. Μνήσονος
BM, Bekk., Schoem., Turr., Scheib. 6. ὄφειν Reisk., accent. corr. Schoem.:
ὀφείλειν. Cf. Cob. V. L. p. 129.
7. 2.
ἐξ οὗ] ἐξ Οἴου Schoem., quod articulo (6) addito malim, ἐξ οὗ del. Reisk.
Coni. ἐγγυητὴν Scaliger, ἔξω et < παλλακήν > ἔχων Buerm. ] ἔχων] ἔσχεν Saupp.
3. ἐμὴν M, Bekk. : ἐμοί. Cf. § 9. 4, Χ. 8. 5 || ἀποστερόμενον malit Herw. Cf. § 38. 8.
OR. VII. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΠΟΛΛΟΔΩΡΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
103
Ο
ων
μάτων, ἔτρεφέ τε αὐτὸν παῖδα ὄνθ᾽, ὡς ἑαυτὸν καὶ τὴν
μητέρα κομισάμενος, ἀνδρί τε γενομένῳ συνηγωνίσατο καὶ
εἰσέπραξε τὸ ἡμικλήριον ὧν Μνήσων κατέλιπεν ὅσα τε
ἐκ τῆς ἐπιτροπῆς ἀπεστέρησε, δίκας δύο ἑλών, καὶ τὴν
οὐσίαν ἐποίησε κομίσασθαι τὴν αὑτοῦ πᾶσαν. καὶ διὰ 8
ταῦτα Εὔπολις μὲν καὶ ᾿Απολλόδωρος ἐχθρῶς ἔχοντες τὸν
πάντα χρόνον διετέλεσαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, ὁ δὲ πάππος
οὑμὸς καὶ ᾿Απολλόδωρος φιλικῶς, ὥσπερ προσῆκε, τοῖς
δ᾽ ἔργοις ἄν τις τεκμήραιτο μάλιστα ὅτι ᾿Απολλόδωρος
πέπονθεν ὃ ἀντευποιεῖν ἠξίου τοὺς ἑαυτὸν εὐεργετήσαντας.
συμφορᾷ γὰρ τοῦ πάππου χρησαμένου καὶ ληφθέντος
εἰς τοὺς πολεμίους και χρήματα εἰσενεγκεῖν εἰς λύτρα
καὶ ὁμηρεῦσαι ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ ἠθέλησεν, ἕως [ου] εὐπορήσειεν
ἐκεῖνος τἀργύριον. ἐξ εὐπόρου τε ἀπορωτέρῳ γεγενημένῳ 9
συνδιῴκει τὰ ἐκείνου, μεταδιδοὺς ὧν εἶχεν. εἰς Κόρινθόν
τε στρατεύεσθαι μέλλων, εἴ τι πάθοι, διέθετο τὴν οὐσίαν
καὶ ἔδωκε τῇ ἐκείνου μὲν θυγατρί, ἐμῇ δὲ μητρί, αὑτοῦ
δὲ ἀδελφῇ, διδοὺς αὐτὴν Λακρατείδῃ τῷ νῦν ἱεροφάντῃ
γεγενημένῳ. τοιοῦτος ἦν ἐκεῖνος περὶ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἐξ ἀρχῆς
αὐτὸν σώσαντας. ὡς δ᾽ ἀληθῆ λέγω, καὶ δίκας εἷλεν 10
Εὔπολιν δύο, τὴν μὲν ἐπιτροπῆς τὴν δὲ ἡμικληρίου, τοῦ
πάππου συνηγωνισμένου καὶ λέγοντος, τά τε χρήματα ἐκο-
μίσατο δι' ἡμᾶς καὶ ταύτας τὰς χάριτας ἡμῖν ἀνταπέδωκε,
τούτων πρῶτον βούλομαι παρασχέσθαι τοὺς μάρτυρας.
Καί μοι κάλει δεῦρο αὐτούς.
4.
αὐτὸν Α', αὐτῷ Α. Cf. x. hyp. 17 || ὡς ἑαυτὸν Schoem.: ὡς ἑαυτοῦ, A, uolg.
4, 5· καὶ τὴν μητέρα κομισάμενος del. Albrecht, αὐτὸν ante καὶ add. Saupp. 6. τό
θ' malit Saupp. Cf. § 17. 2 || κατέλειπεν.
Η κατέλειπεν. Cf. § 5. 3.
8.
4. προσ**κε Α, corr. Αl.
5, 6. Απολλόδωρος πέπονθεν δ] locus
uexatissimus. πέπομφεν A, corr. A', & malit. Saupp., ὧν ᾿Απολλόδωρος πέπονθεν εὖ,
Ald. edd. ante Turr. omnes, 'Απολλόδωρος ἃ πέπονθεν, uel ᾿Απ. < ὧν εὖ> πέπονθεν,
uel 'Απ. < ἀνθ' ὧν εὖ > πέπονθεν, Ruerm. 6. ἑαυτὸν Α', αὐτὸν A, Buerm. Cf.
Albrecht || ἐκπορίσειεν uel τἀργυρίου Dobr.
Fuerat fortasse εύπορωτέρου τε || γ****μένω
3. εἴ τι πάθοι post διέθετο transponere
uolt Albrecht (Hermes 18.377). 4. ἐμὴ Α', ἐμοὶ Α. Cf. § 7. 3 || δὲ in marg. add. Α'.
dè
A¹.
II. I I. 3·
9. ἕως οὓς Α, corr. A', οὗ del.
9. I. εὐπόρου τὲ Α1, εὐπορ******** A.
A, corr. A¹.
Fuerat fortasse γιγνομένω.
5. λακρατκίδη. Ald. et uolg. Λακρατίδῃ, sed cf. C. I.
10. 5. βούλομαι < ὑμῖν > Nab. Cf. II. 5. 7.
A. II. 955. 7, 147. 41.
I04
OR. VII.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
11
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
cl
α
Αἱ μὲν οὖν παρ' ἡμῶν εὐεργεσίαι τοιαῦται καὶ τηλι-
καῦται τὸ μέγεθός εἰσιν· αἱ δὲ πρὸς ἐκεῖνον ἔχθραι περὶ
τοσούτων χρημάτων ἦσαν, ἃς οὐχ οἷόν τ᾽ εἰπεῖν ὡς διε-
λύσαντο καὶ φίλοι ἐγένοντο. μεγάλα γὰρ τεκμήρια αὐτῶν
ἐστιν· Εὔπολις γὰρ αὐτῷ δυοῖν θυγατέρων οὐσῶν καὶ ἐκ
τῶν αὐτῶν αὐτῷ γεγονὼς καὶ χρήμαθ᾽ ὁρῶν κεκτημένον,
12 οὐδετέραν αὐτῷ τούτων ἔδωκε. καίτοι δοκοῦσιν ἐπιγαμίαι
καὶ μὴ συγγενεῖς ἄνδρας ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς τυχόντας ἀπαλλάτ-
τειν μεγάλης διαφορᾶς, ὅταν ἃ περὶ πλείστου ποιοῦνται,
ταῦτ᾽ ἀλλήλοις ἐγχειρίζωσιν. εἶτ᾽ οὖν Εὔπολις γεγένηται
αἴτιος <δοῦναι> μὴ βουληθείς, εἴτ᾿ ᾿Απολλόδωρος λαβεῖν
μὴ ἐθελήσας, τὰς ἔχθρας, ὅτι διέμειναν, τὸ ἔργον δεδήλωκε.
13 Καὶ περὶ μὲν τῆς ἐκείνων διαφορᾶς ἱκανοὺς εἶναι
νομίζω καὶ τοὺς εἰρημένους λόγους· οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι καὶ ὑμῶν
ὅσοι πρεσβύτεροι μνημονεύουσιν ὅτι ἐγένοντο ἀντίδικοι·
τό τε γὰρ μέγεθος τῶν δικῶν, καὶ ὅτι πολὺ αὐτὸν ᾿Αρ
χέδαμος είλεν, περιφάνειαν τινα ἐποίησεν. ὡς δὲ ἐμὲ
ἐποιήσατο ὑὸν ζῶν αὐτὸς καὶ κύριον τῶν αὑτοῦ κατέστησε
καὶ εἰς τοὺς γεννήτας καὶ εἰς τοὺς φράτερας ἐνέγραψε,
14 τούτοις ἤδη μοι τὸν νοῦν προσέχετε, ὦ ἄνδρες. Απολλο
δώρῳ γὰρ ἦν ὑός, ὃν ἐκεῖνος καὶ ἤσκει καὶ δι᾽ ἐπιμελείας
εἶχεν, ὥσπερ καὶ προσῆκον ἦν. ἕως μὲν οὖν ἐκεῖνος ἔζη,
διάδοχον τῆς οὐσίας ἤλπιζεν αὐτὸν καταστήσειν τῆς ἑαυτοῦ·
ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἐτελεύτησε νοσήσας τοῦ ἐξελθόντος ἐνιαυτοῦ
μηνὸς Μαιμακτηριῶνος, ἐπὶ τοῖς παροῦσιν ἀθυμήσας καὶ
τὴν ἡλικίαν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ καταμεμψάμενος οὐκ ἐπελάθετο
4. αὐτῶν] Malit αὐτοῦ Reisk.
ΕΠ
11. Ι. τοιαῦται] τοσαῦται Nab. Cf. I. 5. I.
6. αὐτῷ om. M, Ald. edd. ante Buerm. omnes.
4. ἀλλήλκς Α, corr. Α'
12. 2, 3. ἀπαλάττειν Α, corr. Α'. Cf. v. 28. 4.
ἐγχειρίζονσιν Α, corr. A. Cf. §§ 20. 7, 27. 5, 6, VIII. I. 4, Χ. Ι7. 2.
5. Add.
δοῦναι post αἴτιος Hirschig, post βουληθείς Reisk. Scaligerum secutus, qui tamen
ἐκδοῦναι coniecit, post μή Scheib.
4.
13. διότι: corr. Buerm. Cf. II. 28. 5.
coll. § 28. 5, VIII. 20. 10.
7.
14. 2. ἦν supra uers. add. Αl.
ἐπὶ Α' (fortasse ex έν). Cf. Χ. 4. 10.
5. ἐπιφάνειαν: corr. Dobr.
εἰς τοὺς ante φράτορας in suspicionem uocat Herw.
6. μεμακτηριῶνος Α, corr. Α2. Cf. v. 31. 3, 4 ||
OR. VII. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΠΟΛΛΟΔΩΡΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
105
ὑφ᾽ ὧν καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆς εὖ πεπονθὼς ἦν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐλθὼν ὡς
τὴν ἐμὴν μητέρα ἑαυτοῦ δὲ ἀδελφήν, ἣν περὶ πλείστου
πάντων ἐποιεῖτο, λαβεῖν ἠξίωσέ με ὑὸν καὶ ᾔτησε καὶ
ἔτυχεν. οὕτω δ᾽ ἐπείσθη ταῦτα ποιῆσαι διὰ ταχέων, ὥστ᾽ 15
εὐθέως με λαβὼν ᾤχετο ἔχων πρὸς αὑτὸν καὶ πάντα τὰ
αν
65 αὑτοῦ διοικεῖν παρέδωκεν, ὡς αὐτὸς μὲν οὐδὲν ἂν ἔτι
πρᾶξαι τούτων δυνηθείς, ἐμοῦ δὲ ταῦτα πάντα οἵου τε
ἐσομένου ποιεῖν. καὶ ἐπειδὴ Θαργήλια ἦν, ἤγαγέ με
με ἐπὶ
τοὺς βωμοὺς εἰς τοὺς γεννήτας τε καὶ φράτερας. ἔστι δ' 16
αὐτοῖς νόμος ὁ αὐτός, ἐάν τέ τινα φύσει γεγονότα εἰσάγῃ
τις ἐάν τε ποιητόν, ἐπιτιθέναι πίστιν κατὰ τῶν ἱερῶν ἦ
μὴν ἐξ ἀστῆς εἰσάγειν καὶ γεγονότα ὀρθῶς καὶ τὸν ὑπάρ
χοντα φύσει καὶ τὸν ποιητόν· ποιήσαντος δὲ τοῦ εἰσάγοντος
ταῦτα μηδὲν ἧττον διαψηφίζεσθαι καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους, κἂν
δόξῃ, τότ᾽ εἰς τὸ κοινὸν γραμματεῖον ἐγγράφειν, πρότερον
δὲ μή· τοιαύτας ἀκριβείας ἔχει τὰ δίκαια τὰ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς.
τοῦ νόμου δὴ οὕτως ἔχοντος, καὶ τῶν φρατέρων τε καὶ 17
γεννητῶν ἐκείνῳ οὐκ ἀπιστούντων ἐμέ τε οὐκ ἀγνοούντων,
ὅτι ἦν ἐξ ἀδελφῆς αὐτῷ γεγονώς, ἐγγράφουσί με εἰς τὸ
κοινὸν γραμματεῖον ψηφισάμενοι πάντες, ἐπιθέντος ἐκείνου
τὴν πίστιν καθ᾽ ἱερῶν. καὶ οὕτω μὲν ὑπὸ ζῶντος ἐποιήθην,
καὶ εἰς τὸ κοινὸν γραμματεῖον ἐνεγράφην Θράσυλλος Απολ-
λοδώρου, ποιησαμένου με ἐκείνου τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον, τῶν
νόμων αὐτῷ δεδωκότων. Ὡς δ᾽ ἀληθῆ λέγω, λαβέ μοι τὰς
μαρτυρίας.
ω
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑΙ.
Οἶμαι τοίνυν, ὦ ἄνδρες, μᾶλλον ἂν ὑμᾶς τοῖς μεμαρ- 18
τυρηκόσι πιστεύειν, † καὶ οἵτινες τῶν ὁμοίως προσηκόντων
8. s eis.
ὡς Reisk. : εἰς. Cf. 1. 3. Ι.
15.
2. μεκλαβών Α, μεταλαβών Μ, Αld., Steph. || ἔχων del. Fuhr.
Ald. : Θαλγήλια. Cf. III. 76. Ι.
5. Θαργήλια
3. κοιητὸν Α, corr. Α' || πίστων Α, corr. Αl |
6. διαψηφίζεσθε A, corr. Αl. Cf. 1. 41. 3·
16. 2. eioáy** A, corr. A¹.
κατὰ in rasur. 3 litt. Αl.
2.
17.
1. dǹ Bekk., dè Reisk., quod probat Benseler (De Hiatu p. 189): diò.
ἐκείνῳ <τε> Fuhr. Cf. § 7. 6.
7. ἐκεῖνον A, corr. Αl.
18. 2. καὶ οἵτινες] εἴ τινες Reisk., εἰ καί τινες Bekk. (in Addendis p. 6or) et
Dobr., ἐπεὶ καί τινες Saupp., ὅσῳ καί τινες Buerm.
106
OR. VII.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
ἔργοις φανερῶς μεμαρτυρήκασιν ὡς ἐκεῖνος ταῦτα ὀρθῶς
καὶ κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ἔπραξε. κατέλιπε γὰρ Εὔπολις
θυγατέρας δύο, ταύτην τε ἡ νῦν ἀμφισβητεῖ καὶ Προνάπει
συνοικεῖ, καὶ ἄλλην ἣν ἔσχεν Αἰσχίνης ὁ Λουσιεύς, ἣ
τετελεύτηκεν ὑὸν ἄνδρα ἤδη καταλιπούσα, Θρασύβουλον.
19 ἔστι δὲ νόμος <ὅς>, ἐὰν ἀδελφὸς ὁμοπάτωρ ἄπαις τελευ-
τήσῃ καὶ μὴ διαθέμενος, τήν τε ἀδελφὴν ὁμοίως, κἂν ἐξ
ἑτέρας ἀδελφιδοῦς ᾖ γεγονώς, ἰσομοίρους τῶν χρημάτων
καθίστησι. καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἀγνοούμενόν ἐστιν οὐδὲ παρ᾽
αὐτοῖς τούτοις. ἔργῳ γὰρ οὗτοι φανερὸν τοῦτο πεποιή-
κασι· τοῦ γὰρ Ευπόλιδος νέος ἄπαιδος ᾿Απολλοδώρου
τελευτήσαντος τὰ ἡμίσεα Θρασύβουλος εἴληφεν, οὐσίας
20 καὶ πεντεταλάντου καταλειφθείσης ῥᾳδίως. πατρῴων μὲν
οὖν καὶ ἀδελφοῦ χρημάτων τὸ ἴσον αὐτοῖς ὁ νόμος μετα-
σχεῖν δίδωσιν· ἀνεψιοῦ δέ, καὶ εἴ τις ἔξω ταύτης τῆς
συγγενείας ἐστίν, οὐκ ἴσον, ἀλλὰ προτέροις τοῖς ἄρρεσιν
τῶν θηλειῶν τὴν ἀγχιστείαν πεποίηκε. λέγει γάρ “κρατεῖν
δὲ τοὺς ἄρρενας καὶ τοὺς ἐκ τοῦ ἀρρένων, οἳ ἂν ἐκ τῶν
αὐτῶν ὦσι, κἂν γένει ἀπωτέρω τυγχάνωσιν ὄντες.” ταύτῃ
μὲν οὖν οὐδὲ μέρους λαχεῖν προσῆκε, Θρασυβούλῳ δὲ
ἁπάντων, εἰ μὴ κυρίαν ἡγεῖτο εἶναι τὴν ἐμὴν εἰσποίησιν.
21 ἐκεῖνος τοίνυν οὔτε ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἠμφεσβήτηκε πρὸς ἐμὲ οὐδὲν
οὔτε νῦν δίκην εἴληχε περὶ αὐτῶν, ἀλλὰ ταῦτα πάντα
καλῶς ἔχειν ὡμολόγηκεν· οἱ δ᾽ ὑπὲρ ταύτης πάντων ἀμ-
φισβητεῖν τετολμήκασιν· εἰς τοῦτο ἀναιδείας ἐληλύθασι.
Λαβὲ δὴ αὐτοῖς τοὺς νόμους, παρ' οὓς ταῦτα πεποιήκασι,
καὶ ἀνάγνωθι.
οι αν K
3. ἔργῳ malit Buerm. coll. II. 38. 4, 111. 55. 4, VI. 12. I, VII. 19. 5.
Dem. 57· 43·
κατέλιπε.
4.
2.
19. Ι. ôs add. Ald.
πεντοταλάντου A, corr. Al.
8.
20.
Sed cf.
Cf. § 5. 3.
ἀδελφὴν. Cf. III. 43. 4 || κἂν Α1, καὶ ΑΜ.
A, A².
7. τυγχάνονσιν Α, corr. Α2. Cf. § 12. 4.
8. οὐδὲ Ald. : οὐδὲν.
Cf. IV. 3. 3 || μέρος Α, corr. Αl. Cf. § 23. 1, 2, ν. 6. 8 | Θρασυβούλου Α,
corr. Al. Cf. IX. 17. 2.
21. I.
ἐκεῖνος τοίνυν | ἐκεῖνος τοίνυν. Cf. I. 6. 7.
Nab. || oi d' A, oïd' A². Cf. § 23. 2.
3. ἔχειν < ἔργῳ > malit
1
OR. VII. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΠΟΛΛΟΔΩΡΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
107
ΝΟΜΟΣ.
Ἐνταῦθα μὲν ὁμοίως καὶ ἀδελφὴ καὶ ἀδελφιδοὺς ἰσό- 22
μοιροι κατὰ τὸν νόμον εἰσίν. Λαβὲ δὴ καὶ τοῦτον, καὶ
ἀναγίγνωσκε αὐτοῖς.
ΝΟΜΟΣ.
Ἐὰν μὴ ὦσιν ἀνεψιοί μηδὲ ἀνεψιῶν παῖδες, μηδὲ τοῦ
πρὸς πατρὸς γένους ᾖ προσήκων μηδείς, τότε ἀπέδωκε τοῖς
πρὸς μητρός, διορίσας οὓς δεῖ κρατεῖν. Λαβὲ δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ
τοῦτον τὸν νόμον καὶ ἀνάγνωθι.
ΝΟΜΟΣ.
ων
Ταῦτα τῶν νόμων κελευόντων ὁ μὲν ἀνὴρ ὢν οὐδὲ τοῦ 23
μέρους εἴληχεν, οἱ δ᾽ ὑπὲρ ταύτης, τῆς γυναικός, ἁπάντων·
οὕτω τὴν ἀναίδειαν οὐδεμίαν ζημίαν εἶναι νομίζουσι. καὶ
ὑπὲρ τούτων......τολμήσουσι, καὶ τοῖς λόγοις χρῶνται τοιού-
τοις, ὡς αὐτοῖς ὅλου τοῦ κλήρου ληκτέον, ὅτι Θρασύβουλος
ἐκποίητος εἰς τὸν οἶκον τὸν Ἱππολοχίδου γέγονε, λέγοντες
τοῦτο μὲν ἀληθές, ἐκεῖνο δ᾽ οὐ προσῆκον· τί γὰρ ἧττον 24
αὐτῷ τῆς συγγενείας ταύτης προσῆκεν; οὐ γὰρ κατὰ τὸν
πατέρα ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν μητέρα καὶ τῶν ᾿Απολλοδώρου τοῦ
Εὐπόλιδος νέος τὸ μέρος εἴληφε· καὶ τῶνδε ἐξῆν αὐτῷ
66 κατὰ ταύτην τὴν συγγένειαν λαγχάνειν, ὄντι προτέρῳ
ταύτης, εἴπερ τὰ πεπραγμένα μὴ κυρίως ἔχειν ἐνόμιζεν.
ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀναίσχυντος. μητρὸς δ᾽ οὐδείς ἐστιν 25
ἐκποίητος, ἀλλ᾽ ὁμοίως ὑπάρχει τὴν αὐτὴν εἶναι μητέρα,
κἂν ἐν τῷ πατρῴῳ μένῃ τις οἴκῳ κἂν ἐκποιηθῇ.
7. Tit. νόμος Ald. : νόμοι A, Bekk., Schoem.
2.
22.
κατὰ τὸν νόμον del. Boekmeijer.
Dobr.: γενομένου.
23.
1, 2.
4.
δι'
4.
Tit. add. Ald.
6. γένους
οἱ
τὸ μέρος : corr. Reisk. Malit οὐδὲ μέρους Dobr. coll. § 2o. 8. 2.
δ' Α, οίδ' Α. Cf. § 21. 3 || ταύτης, τῆς γυναικός,] commata addidi. Cf. XI. 43. 6.
Hiare orationem primus uidit Reisk. Ipse ἅπαντα uel ὁτιοῦν suppleuit, δὲ λέγειν
Emper (Opusc. p. 316), τι λέγειν Buerm. Totum incisum καὶ ὑπὲρ τούτων τολμήσουσι
ut e § 2r. 3, 4 (ὑπὲρτετολμήκασιν) petitum del. Dobr.
τοῦτο Α', ****0
(ἐκεῖνο ?) A.
Malit τοῦτο ἀληθὲς μὲν, ἐκείνῳ δ' Dobr.
προσήκει Nab.
7.
24. 2.
5.
25.
3. ἐκποιηθείη: corr. Bekk.
ταύτην τὴν] τὴν αὐτὴν Dobr.
Cf. II. 44· 5·
108
OR. VII.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
26
τῶν ᾿Απολλοδώρου χρημάτων οὐκ ἀπεστερήθη τοῦ μέρους,
ἀλλὰ μετειλήφει τὸ ἡμικλήριον, πρὸς ταύτην νειμάμενος.
Ὡς δ᾽ ἀληθῆ λέγω, κάλει μοι τούτων τοὺς μάρτυρας.
αν
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
Οὕτως μὲν οὐχ οἱ γεννῆται μόνον καὶ φράτερες γεγόνασι
μάρτυρες τῆς ἐμῆς ποιήσεως, ἀλλὰ καὶ Θρασύβουλος οὐκ
ἀμφισβητῶν αὐτὸς ἔργῳ δεδήλωκεν ὅτι τὰ πεπραγμένα
᾿Απολλοδώρῳ κυρίως ἔχειν νομίζει καὶ κατὰ τοὺς νόμους·
οὐ γὰρ ἄν ποτε τοσούτων χρημάτων οὐκ ἐλάγχανε. γε-
27 γόνασι δὲ ὅμως καὶ ἄλλοι μάρτυρες αὐτῶν. πρὶν γὰρ
ἐμὲ ἥκειν ἐκ τῆς Πυθιάδος, ἔλεγε πρὸς τοὺς δημότας
᾿Απολλόδωρος ὅτι πεποιημένος εἴη με ὑὸν καὶ ἐγγεγραφώς
εἰς τοὺς συγγενεῖς καὶ φράτερας, καὶ παραδεδώκοι τὴν
οὐσίαν, καὶ διεκελεύεθ᾽ ὅπως, ἄν τι πάθῃ πρότερον, ἐγ-
γράψουσί με εἰς τὸ ληξιαρχικὸν γραμματεῖον Θράσυλλον
28 Απολλοδώρου καὶ μὴ ὡς ἄλλως ποιήσουσι. κἀκεῖνοι
ταῦτα ἀκούσαντες, τούτων ἐν ἀρχαιρεσίαις κατηγορούντων
καὶ λεγόντων ὡς οὐκ ἐποιήσατό με ὑόν, καὶ ἐξ ὧν ἤκουσαν
καὶ ἐξ ὧν ᾔδεσαν, ὀμόσαντες καθ᾽ ἱερῶν ἐνέγραψαν με,
καθάπερ ἐκεῖνος ἐκέλευε· τοσαύτη περιφάνεια τῆς ἐμῆς
ποιήσεως ἐγένετο παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς. Ὡς δ᾽ ἀληθῆ λέγω, κάλει
μοι τούτων τοὺς μάρτυρας.
29
αν
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
Ἐπὶ μὲν τοσούτων μαρτύρων, ὦ ἄνδρες, γέγονεν ἡ
ποίησις, ἔχθρας μὲν παλαιᾶς αὐτῷ πρὸς τούτους οὔσης,
φιλίας δὲ πρὸς ἡμᾶς καὶ συγγενείας οὐ μικρᾶς ὑπαρ
4. or A, corr. Α1.
26. 2. οὐκ in rasur. r litt. (8?) add. Α.
Ald. et edd. ante Buerm. omnes.
Buerm.
3. αὐτὸς Buerm.: αὐτῷ A, om.
6. αὐτῶ: corr. Scheib. Cf. XI. 18. 3.
4. παραδεδώκοι A, οι in et corr. Α'.
27. 2. Πυθιάδος Μ, Reisk.: πυθαίδος.
παραδεδώκει edd. ante Scheib. omnes, παρεδεδώκει Scheib., ueram lectionem reuocauit
5. ἄντι Α2, ἀντι Α || πάθη G. H. Schaefer: πάθοι. Cf. I. 4. 7.
ἐγγράφονσι Α, ἐγγράφωσι A2: corr. Dobr. Cf. $ 12. 4.
ὡς del. Herw. || ποιήσωσι: corr. Dobr.
οὐκούσαντες Α, corr. Al.
5, 6.
coni. Dobr.
7. μὴ ὡς] μήπως
3. οὐκ supra uers. add. A. Cf. VI. 5. 5.
2. TOÚTOLS AM, corr. A². Cf. II. 32. 2, XI. 13. I.
28.
2.
29.
OR. VII. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΠΟΛΛΟΔΩΡΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
109
ΕΠ
Ο
χούσης. ὡς δ᾽ οὐδ᾽ εἰ μηδέτερον τούτων ὑπῆρχε, μήτε
ἔχθρα πρὸς τούτους μήτε φιλία πρὸς ἡμᾶς, οὐκ ἄν ποτε
᾿Απολλόδωρος ἐπὶ τούτοις τὸν κλῆρον τοῦτον κατέλιπεν,
οἶμαι καὶ ταῦθ᾽ ὑμῖν ῥᾳδίως ἐπιδείξειν. πάντες γὰρ οἱ 30
τελευτήσειν μέλλοντες πρόνοιαν ποιοῦνται σφῶν αὐτῶν,
ὅπως μὴ ἐξερημώσουσι τοὺς σφετέρους αὐτῶν οἴκους,
ἀλλ᾽ ἔσται τις [καὶ] ὁ ἐναγιῶν καὶ πάντα τὰ νομιζόμενα
αὐτοῖς ποιήσων· δι᾿ ὃ κἂν ἄπαιδες τελευτήσωσιν, ἀλλ᾽
οὖν ποιησάμενοι καταλείπουσι, καὶ οὐ μόνον ἰδίᾳ ταῦτα
γιγνώσκουσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ δημοσίᾳ τὸ κοινὸν τῆς πόλεως
οὕτω ταῦτ᾽ ἔγνωκε νόμῳ γὰρ τῷ ἄρχοντι τῶν οἴκων,
ὅπως ἂν μὴ ἐξερημῶνται, προστάττει τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν.
ἐκείνῳ δὲ πρόδηλον ἦν ὅτι εἰ καταλείψει τὸν κλῆρον ἐπὶ 31
τούτοις, ἔρημον ποιήσει τὸν οἶκον, τί προορῶντι; ταύτας
τὰς ἀδελφὸς τὸν μὲν ᾿Απολλοδώρου τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ κλῆρον
ἐχούσας, ἐκείνῳ δ᾽ οὐκ εἰσποιούσας ὄντων αὐταῖς παίδων,
καὶ τοὺς μὲν ἄνδρας αὐτῶν τὴν γῆν, ἣν ἐκεῖνος κατέλιπε,
καὶ τὰ κτήματα πέντε ταλάντων πεπρακότας καὶ τὸ ἀρ-
γύριον διανειμαμένους, τὸν δὲ οἶκον αἰσχρῶς οὕτως καὶ
δεινῶς ἐξηρημωμένον. ὃς δὴ ταῦτ᾽ ᾔδει τὸν τούτων ἀδελ- 32
φὸν πεπονθότα, πῶς ἂν προσεδόκησεν αὐτός, εἰ καὶ φίλος
ἦν, τυχεῖν τῶν νομιζομένων ὑπ' αὐτῶν, ἀνεψιὸς ὢν ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ
· ἀδελφὸς αὐταῖς; οὐκ ἐνῆν ἐλπίσαι δήπουθεν. ᾿Αλλὰ μὴν
ὅτι ἄπαιδα ἐκεῖνον περιεωράκασι καὶ τὰ χρήματα ἔχουσι
καὶ οἶκον ἐκ τοῦ φανεροῦ τριηραρχοῦντα ἀνῃρήκασι, κάλει
μοι καὶ τούτων τοὺς μάρτυρας.
4· μήθ᾽ ἕτερον Α, μηθέτερον Α': corr. Schoem.
Herw.
4, 5· μήτε ἔχθραἡμᾶς del.
4.
5·
καὶ del. Buerm., uel τις
αὐτοῖς **· Non uideo ήι,
6. viòv post oûv add. Scheib.
30. 3. ἐξερημώσουσι A, ou in ω corr. Αl.
uel ὁ abesse malint Turr. || πάντα τὰ Α', πάντα Α.
quod erasum esse putat Buerm. (Hermes 17. 396).
coll. Ix. 7. 6 || ïdia A, corr. A². Cf. Din. 1. 93 (ïdia NA, ¿día A²).
A, corr. A¹.
9. ὅκως Α, corr. Αl.
7· δημοκρα
31. I. ὅτι εἰ in rasur. 3 litt. Α'. Cf. VIII. 9. 5. 2. τί προορώντι. A, signum
interrog. pos. Buerm., προορῶντι Bekk., Turr., Scheib., διὰ τί; προορῶντι Αld.,
Steph., Reisk., Schoem.
4. ἐκείνῳ δ'] υἱὸν δ' Αld., Steph., Reisk., Bekk. Malit
υἱὸν δ' ἐκείνῳ Schoem.
7. διανενεμημένους Nab.
8. ἐξερημωμένον Α,
corr. A'. Cf. § 44. 5. Deesse περιδόντας uel περιεωρακότας suspicatur Reisk.
ΙΙΟ
OR. VII.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
33
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
Εἰ τοίνυν καὶ τοιοῦτοι τὰς φύσεις περὶ ἀλλήλους
εἰσὶ καὶ ἔχθραι πρὸς ᾿Απολλόδωρον τὸν ἐμὲ ποιησάμενον
ὑπῆρχον αὐτοῖς τηλικαῦται τὸ μέγεθος, τί βέλτιον ἂν
ἔπραξεν ἢ ταῦτα βουλευσάμενος ἅ περ ἐποίησεν; εἰ νὴ
Δία παιδίον ἐποιήσατο λαβὼν παρά του τῶν φίλων ὄντων,
καὶ τούτῳ τὴν οὐσίαν ἔδωκεν; ἀλλὰ [καὶ] τοῦτ᾽ ἦν ἄδηλον
καὶ τοῖς γεννήσασιν, εἴτε σπουδαῖον εἴτε μηδενὸς ἄξιον
34 ἔμελλεν ἔσεσθαι, διὰ τὴν ἡλικίαν· ἐμοῦ δὲ πεῖραν ειλήφει,
δοκιμασίαν ἱκανὴν λαβών. εἴς τε γὰρ τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν
μητέρα | οἷος ἦν ἀκριβῶς ᾔδει, τῶν τ᾽ οἰκείων ἐπιμελῆ καὶ
τἀμαυτοῦ πράττειν ἐπιστάμενον· ἐν ἀρχῇ τε, θεσμοθετήσας,
ὡς ἐγενόμην οὐκ ἄδικος οὐδὲ πλεονέκτης, ἠπίστατο σαφῶς.
ὥστ᾽ οὐκ ἀγνοῶν ἀλλὰ σαφῶς εἰδὼς ἐποίει με τῶν αὑτοῦ
35 κύριον. καὶ μὴν οὐδὲ ἀλλότριον ἀλλ᾽ ὄντα ἀδελφιδοῦν,
οὐδ᾽ αὖ μικρὰ πεπονθὼς ἀλλὰ μεγάλα ἀγαθὰ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν,
οὐδ᾽ αὖ ἀφιλότιμον, ὃς τὰ ὄντα ἀφανιεῖν ἔμελλον ὥσπερ
οὗτοι τὰ τοῦ κλήρου πεποιήκασιν, ἀλλὰ βουλησόμενον καὶ
τριηραρχεῖν [καὶ πολεμεῖν] καὶ χορηγεῖν καὶ πάνθ' ὑμῖν
36 τὰ προσταττόμενα ποιεῖν, ὥσπερ κἀκεῖνος. καίτοι εἰ καὶ
συγγενὴς καὶ φίλος καὶ εὐεργέτης καὶ φιλότιμος καὶ δεδοκι
μασμένος ὑπῆρχον τοιοῦτος εἶναι, τίς <ἂν> ἀμφισβητήσειε
μὴ οὐκ ἀνδρὸς εὖ φρονοῦντος εἶναι ταύτην τὴν ποίησιν; ἐγὼ
33. I. ἀλλήλο** Α, corr. Αl. Cf. XI. 43. 4ο
3. αὐταῖς: corr. Reisk.
4· <αὐτὰ> ταῦτα Nab. ] εἰ inuenit in A Buerm., e coniectura restituit Nab. ἢ
A¹, edd. ante Buerm. omnes. Fuit cum εί < μή> remoto post ἔδωκεν (u. 6) inter-
rogationis signo conicerem. 5. παρά του τῶν A, Reisk., Turr., Scheib., Buerm.,
παρὰ τοῦ τῶν Ald. Steph., παρὰ τούτων Bekk., Schoem., Lincke, Blass | Num
< ὄντως > ὄντων ? 6. ἔδωκεν;] Plene distinguit Seymour. Cf. III. 73. 3, IV. 20.
Cf. I. 37. 4.
2 || καὶ del. Dobr.
8. διὰ τὴν ἡλικίαν del. Nab.
,
34. 2. εἴστε Α', ἴστε Α, ἔς τε Ald. edd. ante Turr. omnes.
35. 2. προπεπονθὼς Nab.
(ἀφιειν) Α, ἀφιέναι Α'.
3. ἀφανιεῖν Cob., ἀφανίσαι Bekk. : ἀφιεικ
4. τὰ τοῦ κλήρου del. Nab. 5. καὶ πολεμεῖν priinus
in suspicionem uocauit Reisk., tamquam ad τὰ προσταττόμενα ποιεῖν adscriptum secl.
Buerm., coni. τῇ πόλει Dobr., καὶ εἰς πόλεμον εἰσφέρειν Saupp., καὶ τὰ τέλη τελεῖν
Scheib., καὶ δαπανᾶν Nab., καὶ εἰσφέρειν Herw.
36. 2. Quidni συγγενής <ήν>?
3. ἂν add. Bekk. Cf. III. 54. Ι.
67

OR. VII. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΠΟΛΛΟΔΩΡΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
III
γε
τοίνυν ἕν τῶν ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου δοκιμασθέντων ἤδη πεποίηκα·
γεγυμνασιάρχηκα γὰρ εἰς Προμήθεια τοῦδε τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ
φιλοτίμως, ὡς οἱ φυλέται πάντες ἴσασιν. Ὡς δ᾽ ἀληθῆ
λέγω, κάλει μοι τούτων τοὺς μάρτυρας.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
cl
ων
Τὰ μὲν ἡμέτερα δίκαια, καθ᾽ ἃ προσηκόντως ἔχειν 37
φαμὲν τὸν κλῆρον, ταῦτ᾽ ἐστίν, ὦ ἄνδρες· δεόμεθα δ'
ὑμῶν βοηθεῖν ἡμῖν καὶ ἕνεκα ᾿Απολλοδώρου καὶ ἕνεκα
τοῦ ἐκείνου πατρός· οὐ γὰρ ἀχρήστους αὐτοὺς εὑρήσετε
πολίτας, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς οἷόν τ᾽ εἰς τὰ ὑμέτερα προθυμοτάτους.
ὁ μὲν γὰρ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ τάς τε ἄλλας ἁπάσας λητουργίας 38
λελῃτούργηκε, καὶ τριηραρχῶν τὸν πάντα χρόνον διετέλεσεν,
οὐκ ἐκ συμμορίας [τὴν ναῦν ποιησάμενος] ὥσπερ οἱ νῦν,
ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῶν αὑτοῦ δαπανῶν, οὐδὲ δεύτερος αὐτὸς ὢν ἀλλὰ
κατὰ μόνας, οὐδὲ δύο ἔτη διαλιπὼν ἀλλὰ συνεχῶς, οὐδ᾽
ἀφοσιούμενος ἀλλ᾽ ὡς οἷόν τ᾽ ἄριστα παρασκευαζόμενος.
ἀνθ' ὧν ὑμεῖς κἀκεῖνον ἐτιμᾶτε, μεμνημένοι τούτων τῶν
ἔργων, καὶ τὸν ὑὸν αὐτοῦ τῶν χρημάτων ἀποστερούμενον
ἐσώσατε, τοὺς ἔχοντας ἀποδοῦναι τὰ ὄντ᾽ αὐτῷ καταναγ
κάσαντες. καὶ μὴν καὶ αὐτὸς ᾿Απολλόδωρος οὐχ ὥσπερ 39
Προνάπης απεγράψατο μὲν τίμημα μικρόν, ὡς ἱππάδα
δὲ τελῶν ἄρχειν ἠξίου τὰς ἀρχάς, οὐδὲ βίᾳ μὲν ἐζήτει τὰ
ἀλλότρι᾽ ἔχειν, ὑμᾶς δ᾽ ᾤετο δεῖν μηδὲν ὠφελεῖν, ἀλλὰ
φανερὰ τὰ ὄντα καταστήσας ὑμῖν, ὅσα προστάττοιτε,
5. ἓν γε] ἕν τι Αld., Steph., Reisk., ἕν γέ τι Nab. || δοκιμασθέντων] e uicinis ortum
esse suspicatur Dobr. Ipse φιλοτιμηθέντων uel προθυμηθέντων coni., προσδοκηθέντων
Boekmeijer. 6. προμήθειαν : corr. Meursius (Graecia Feriata, 16:9, p. 235) et Reisk.
37. 3. ὑμῶν Α', ὑμῖν Α. 5. προθυμοτέρους: corr. Steph. Cf. 1. 28. 3,
Ant. v. 15 (πονηρότερα Ν, πονηρότατα A), VI. 16, And. I. 23, [And.] IV. 4ο, Din.
I. 87, ΙΙ. 20.
38. 2. Αη ἐλῃτούργησε? 3· τὴν ναῦν ποιησάμενος del. Halbertsma (Mnem.
N. S. 6. 109), coni. τὴν ναῦν πορισάμενος Nab., τὴν ναῦν παρασκευαζόμενος Herw. moto
huc e uers. 6 participio. 5. **κλιπών A, δια in rasur. Αl.
6. παρα
σκευαζόμενος ad uers. 3 transp. Herw. 8. ἀποστερόμενον Herw. Cf. § 7. 3.
9. αὐτῶ καταναγκάσαντες Α', αὐτῶν ἀκταναγκάσαντες Α, αὐτῷ ἀνταναγκάσαντες malit
Buerm. (Hermes 17. 391).
39. 2. Harp. s.u. ίππάς· Ισαῖος ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ ᾿Απολλοδώρου κλήρου “ἀπεγρά-
ψατο μὲν τίμημα μικρὸν ὡς ἱππάδα τελῶν.”
4. ᾤετο Α2, ὥστε Α. Cf. v. 36. 3.
II2
OR. VII.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
Τ
ων
πάνθ' ὑπηρέτει φιλοτίμως, οὐδέν τ᾽ ἀδικῶν ἐκ τῶν ἑαυτοῦ
φιλοτίμως ἐπειρᾶτο ζῆν, εἰς αὑτὸν μὲν τὰ μέτρια ανα
λίσκειν οἰόμενος δεῖν, τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα τῇ πόλει περιποιεῖν, ἵνα
40 ἐξαρκοίη πρὸς τὰς δαπάνας. κἀκ τούτων τίνα λητουργίαν
οὐκ ἐξελῃτούργησεν; ἢ τίνα εἰσφορὰν οὐκ ἐν πρώτοις
εἰσήνεγκεν; ἢ τί παραλέλοιπεν ὧν προσῆκεν; ὅς γε καὶ
παιδικῷ χορῷ χορηγῶν ἐνίκησεν, ὧν μνημεῖα τῆς ἐκείνου
φιλοτιμίας ὁ τρίπους ἐκεῖνος ἕστηκε. καίτοι τί χρὴ τὸν
μέτριον πολίτην; οὐχ οὗ μὲν ἕτεροι τὰ μὴ προσήκοντ'
ἐβιάζοντο λαμβάνειν, τούτων μηδὲν ποιεῖν, τὰ δ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ
πειρᾶσθαι σώζειν; οὗ δ᾽ ἡ πόλις δεῖται χρημάτων, ἐν
πρώτοις εἰσφέρειν καὶ μηδὲν ἀποκρύπτεσθαι τῶν ὄντων;
41 ἐκεῖνος τοίνυν τοιοῦτος ἦν· ἀνθ' ὧν δικαίως ἂν αὐτῷ
ταύτην τὴν χάριν ἀποδοῖτε, τὴν ἐκείνου γνώμην περί
τῶν αὑτοῦ κυρίαν εἶναι ποιήσαντες. καὶ μὴν καὶ ἐμέ γε,
ὅσα κατὰ τὴν ἐμὴν ἡλικίαν, εὑρήσετε οὐ κακὸν οὐδὲ
ἄχρηστον. ἐστράτευμαι τὰς στρατείας τῇ πόλει, τὰ προσ-
ταττόμενα ποιῶ· τοῦτο γὰρ τῶν τηλικούτων ἔργον ἐστί.
42 καὶ ἐκείνων οὖν ἕνεκα καὶ ἡμῶν εἰκότως ἂν ποιήσαισθε
πρόνοιαν, ἄλλως τε καὶ τούτων <μὲν> τριηραρχοῦντα οἶκον
πέντε ταλάντων ἀνῃρηκότων καὶ πεπρακότων καὶ ἔρημον
πεποιηκότων, ἡμῶν δὲ καὶ λελῃτουργηκότων ἤδη καὶ λῃ-
τουργησόντων, ἂν ὑμεῖς ἐπικυρώσητε τὴν ᾿Απολλοδώρου
γνώμην ἀποδόντες ἡμῖν τοῦτον τὸν κλῆρον.
αν
6. ὑπηρέτει φιλοτίμως] ὑπηρέτει προθύμως Dobr. tamquam φιλοτίμως e seq. inlato
uel uice uersa. Insulsa sane uerbi repetitio || ovdév †' <oùdéva > Dobr. 7. ἐπειρᾶτο]
προήρητο Nab. ] ἐs: corr. Scheib. Cf. I. 14. 6.
40. 2. οὐκ in rasur. add. Αl. Cf. § 28. 2. Suspiciones mouit uerbum
ἐκλειτουργεῖν, quod nusquam nisi hoc loco inuentum esse uidetur. Praepositionem ut
ex ἐξαρκοίη natam dempsit Buerm. coll. II1. 3. 7, 33. 2, V. 3. 4, 25. 5, ΙΧ. 10. 5.
Add. μαρτύρια ante μνημεία coll. v. 41. 5 Saupp., καὶ post μνημεία sched. Eton.
Deleta malit τῆς ἐκείνου φιλοτιμίας Dobr. 6. Post πολίτην desiderat ποιείν Reisk.
Sed cf. Isocr. 15. 119, 16. 30. 7. ἐβιάζον Α, corr. Α'. Cf. VIII. 5. 3, Χ. 22. 3.
5. <ὅς γ' > ἐστράτευμαι Herw. ||
4. où in uers. add. A¹. Cf. § 28. 2.
4.
41.
ταῖς στρατείαις : corr. Scaliger.
I.
42. καὶ ἡμῶν] καὶ sollicitat Reisk. || ποιήσασθε Α, η in rasur. add. Αl: corr.
Bekk. Cf. I. 21. 8.
3.
2. μεν add. Ald.
πεντετάλαντον Ald. edd. ante Buerm. omnes.
A
Cf. I. 25. 4 || τριηραρχούντα».
OR. VII. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΠΟΛΛΟΔΩΡΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
ΙΙ
Ἵνα δὲ μὴ δοκῶ διατρίβειν περὶ ταῦτα ποιούμενος 43
τοὺς λόγους, βούλομαι διὰ βραχέων ὑμᾶς ὑπομνήσας οὕτω
καταβαίνειν, τί ἑκάτερος ἡμῶν ἀξιοῖ, δηλώσας. ἐγὼ μὲν
68 ἀδελφῆς οὔσης τῆς ἐμῆς | μητρὸς ᾿Απολλοδώρῳ, φιλίας
αὐτοῖς πολλῆς ὑπαρχούσης, ἔχθρας δ᾽ οὐδεμιᾶς πώποτε
γενομένης, ἀδελφιδοῦς ὢν καὶ ποιηθεὶς ὑὸς ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου
ζῶντος καὶ εὖ φρονοῦντος, καὶ εἰς τοὺς γεννήτας και φρά
τερας ἐγγραφείς, ἔχειν τὰ δοθέντα, καὶ μὴ ἐπὶ τούτοις
<εἶναι> ἐξερημῶσαι τὸν οἶκον τὸν ἐκείνου. Προνάπης δὲ
τί ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀμφισβητούσης; ἔχειν μὲν τοῦ τῆς γυναικὸς 44
ἀδελφοῦ τιμὴν τοῦ ἡμικληρίου πένθ᾽ ἡμιτάλαντα, λαβεῖν
δὲ καὶ τόνδε τὸν κλῆρον ἑτέρων ταῖς ἀγχιστείαις προτέρων
αὐτοῦ τῆς γυναικὸς ὄντων, οὔτ᾽ ἐκείνῳ παῖδα εἰσπεποιηκὼς
ἀλλὰ τὸν οἶκον ἐξηρημωκώς, οὔτε τούτῳ ἂν εἰσποιήσας
ἀλλ᾽ ὁμοίως ἂν καὶ τοῦτον ἐξερημώσας, καὶ ἔχθρας μὲν
τηλικαύτης ὑπαρχούσης αὐτοῖς, διαλλαγῆς δὲ οὐδεμιᾶς
πώποθ᾽ ὕστερον γενομένης. ταῦτα χρὴ σκοπεῖν, ὦ ἄν- 45
δρες, κἀκεῖνο ἐνθυμεῖσθαι, ὅτι ἐγὼ μὲν ἀδελφιδοῦς αὐτῷ,
ἡ δὲ ἀνεψιὰ τοῦ τελευτήσαντος, καὶ ὅτι ἡ μὲν δύ᾽ ἔχειν
ἀξιοῖ κλήρους, ἐγὼ δὲ τοῦτον μόνον εἰς ὅν περ εἰσεποι-
ήθην, καὶ ὅτι αὕτη μὲν οὐκ εὔνους τῷ καταλιπόντι τὸν
κλῆρον, ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ ὁ ἐμὸς πάππος εὐεργέται γεγόναμεν
αὐτοῦ. ταῦτα πάντα σκεψάμενοι καὶ διαλογιζόμενοι πρὸς
ὑμᾶς αὐτοὺς τίθεσθε τὴν ψῆφον ᾗ δίκαιόν ἐστιν.
αν
Ο
α
αν
Οὐκ οἶδ' ὅ τι δεῖ πλείω λέγειν· οἶμαι γὰρ ὑμᾶς οὐδὲν
ἀγνοεῖν τῶν εἰρημένων.
5.
αὐτοῖς expunxit Αl.
Cf. VI. 13. 2.
9. είναι
43. Ι. ταὐτὰ Saupp. Cf. I. 23· 7·
add. Reisk., ante ἐπὶ collocatum malit Scheib.
44. 4· αὐτοῦ Α', αυτο. Α.
**
Cf. III. 22. 5, Χ. 15. 8 || ἐκείνω* (eraso v).
5. ἐξρημωκώς cum rasur. supra p A, corr. Α'. Cf. § 3r. 8 ] οὔτε Bekk. : οὐδὲ Α,
Turr., Scheib. Cf. iv. 26. 6 || ἐκποιήσας Α, corr. Α'.
Cf. VIII. Io. 2.
2. auт w* (eraso »).
Cf. IX. 20. 7, XI. 26. 2.
Εξερημώσας eras. καὶ ὁμοίως. Cf. v. 17. 8.
45. 2.
6. Post
W. I.
8
VIII
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΚΙΡΩΝΟΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ.
Ο
ΥΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ.
Κίρωνος ἄπαιδος γνησίων τελευτήσαντος παίδων ἀδελφιδοῦς τις
αὐτοῦ κατὰ πατέρα ἀντιποιηθεὶς τοῦ κλήρου παρέλαβε τὴν
οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ παρὰ τῆς γυναικός· καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ὁ λέγων τὸν
λόγον γράφεται τὸν ἀδελφιδοῦν, φάσκων θυγατριδοῦς εἶναι
Κίρωνος, καὶ ὅτι ἡ γυνὴ τοῦ τελευτήσαντος ἑκοῦσα προέδωκε 5
τὸν κλῆρον τῷ ἀδελφιδῷ, ἵνα μέρος δοῦσα αὐτῷ τὰ λοιπὰ
κερδάνῃ. Καὶ ἡ μὲν ὑπόθεσις αὕτη, ἡ στάσις δὲ στοχασμός·
ζητεῖται γὰρ εἴτε θυγατριδοῦς ἐστιν οὗτος τοῦ Κίρωνος
γνήσιος εἴτε οὔ. ἐπιπλέκεται δ᾽ αὐτῷ καὶ ἡ κατὰ ποιότητα
ζήτησις· ὁ γὰρ ἀδελφιδοῦς ἠγωνίζετο, λέγων ὅτι εἰ καὶ δῶμεν το
ἐκείνην γνησίαν εἶναι θυγατέρα Κίρωνος, ἐπειδὴ ἐτελεύτησεν
ἐκείνη, ὁ δ᾽ υἱὸς αὐτῆς ἀμφισβητεῖ νῦν, προτιμητέος ἐστὶν ὁ
κατὰ πατέρα ἀδελφιδοῦς τοῦ ἀπὸ θυγατρὸς ἐκγόνου, κατὰ
τὸν νόμον ἐκεῖνον, τὸν κελεύοντα προτιμᾶσθαι τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν
ἀρρένων τῶν ἀπὸ τῶν θηλειῶν. οὗτος γὰρ τεχνικώτατα πάνυ 15
σιωπήσας τοῦτον τὸν νόμον, ἐκ τῆς τῶν τεκόντων διαφορᾶς
ἀγωνίζεται, δεικνὺς ὅτι ὅσον θυγάτηρ ἀδελφοῦ οἰκειοτέρα τοῖς
τελευτώσι, τοσοῦτον ἔκγονος ἀδελφιδοῦ διαφέρει. ἔρρωται οὖν
ἐνταῦθα τῷ δικαίῳ καὶ ἀσθενεῖ τῷ νομίμῳ· τὴν δὲ ἐργασίαν
τῶν κεφαλαίων κατὰ τὴν οἰκείαν πάλιν ἐργάζεται δύναμιν.
De tit. cf. Harp. ad §§ 3, 8, 24, 35, 39, 42.
παρέδωκε A, corr. A1.
VIII.
Hyp. 5.
9. ἐπιπλόνεται A, corr. AF. 16. διαφορικ
18. Num < θυγατρὸς > ἔκγονος ?
A, corr. A¹.
οἰκίαν A, corr. Α.
Cf. v. 44• 3, Din. 1. 69, Ant. v. 11 || πάλιν] Malit πάνυ Dobr.
20.
20
i
OR. VIII.
1 15
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΚΙΡΩΝΟΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
ΤΟ
τό
Ἐπὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις, ὦ ἄνδρες, ἀνάγκη ἐστὶ χαλεπῶς 1
φέρειν, ὅταν τινὲς μὴ μόνον τῶν ἀλλοτρίων ἀμφισβητεῖν
τολμῶσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ἐκ τῶν νόμων δίκαια τοῖς σφετέ-
ροις αὐτῶν λόγοις ἀφανιεῖν ἐλπίζωσιν· ὅπερ καὶ νῦν οὗτοι
ποιεῖν ἐγχειροῦσι. τοῦ γὰρ ἡμετέρου πάππου Κίρωνος
οὐκ ἄπαιδος τελευτήσαντος, ἀλλ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἐκ θυγατρὸς αὑτοῦ
γνησίας παῖδας αὑτῷ καταλελοιπότος, οὗτοι τοῦ τε κλήρου
λαγχάνουσιν ὡς ἐγγυτάτω γένους ὄντες, ἡμᾶς τε ὑβρί
ζουσιν ὡς οὐκ ἐξ ἐκείνου θυγατρὸς ὄντας, οὐδὲ γενομένης
αὐτῷ πώποτε τὸ παράπαν. αἴτιον δὲ τοῦ ταῦτα ποιεῖν 2
αὐτούς ἐστιν ἡ τούτων πλεονεξία <καὶ> τὸ πλῆθος τῶν
χρήματων ὧν Κίρων μὲν καταλέλοιπεν, οὗτοι δ᾽ ἔχουσι
βιασάμενοι καὶ κρατοῦσι· καὶ τολμῶσιν ἅμα μὲν λέγειν
ὡς οὐδὲν καταλέλοιπεν ἐκεῖνος, ἅμα δὲ ποιεῖσθαι τοῦ
κλήρου τὴν ἀμφισβήτησιν. τὴν μὲν οὖν κρίσιν οὐ δεῖ 3
μοι νομίζειν εἶναι ταύτην πρὸς τὸν εἰληχότα τοῦ κλήρου
τὴν δίκην, ἀλλὰ πρὸς Διοκλέα τὸν Φλυέα, τὸν Ὀρέστην
69 ἐπικαλούμενον· οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν | ὁ τοῦτον παρασκευάσας
πράγμαθ' ἡμῖν παρέχειν, ἀποστερῶν τὰ χρήματα ἃ Κίρων
ὁ πάππος ἀποθνῄσκων κατέλιπεν, ἡμῖν δὲ τούτους τοὺς
κινδύνους ἐπάγων, ἵνα μηδὲν ἀποδιδῷ τούτων, ἐὰν ὑμεῖς
ἐξαπατηθῆτε πεισθέντες ὑπὸ τῶν τούτου λόγων. δεῖ δὴ 4
τούτων τοιαῦτα μηχανωμένων πάνθ' ὑμᾶς τὰ πεπραγμένα
μαθεῖν, ἵνα μηδὲν ἀγνοήσαντες τῶν γεγενημένων ἀλλὰ
σαφῶς εἰδότες περὶ αὐτῶν, οὕτως ἐνέγκητε τὴν ψῆφον.
εἴ τινι οὖν καὶ ἄλλῃ πώποτε δίκῃ προσέσχετε ἀκριβῶς
ει
α
1. 4. ἀφανιεῖν Bait. et Buerm.: ἀφανίζειν A, uolg. || ἐλπίζουσιν Α, corr. Αl.
Cf. VII. 12. 4.
7. αὑτοῦ abesse malit Herw. || τοῦ τε Reisk. : τε | τοῦ. Cf.
II. I. 8.
8. τε in uers. add. Α'. Cf. iv. II. 8.
9. οὐδὲ Reisk.: οὔτε. Cf.
§ 27. 5, IV. 26. 6.
2. 2. kai add. sched. Eton., Reisk. Cf. §§ 30. 3, 39. 5, I. 47. 5. TÓ<TE>
malint Turr., ή τούτων πλεονεξία ut interpolata del Cob., Buerm. (Hermes ty. 352).
3. I, 2. οὐ δεῖ μοι νομίζειν] οὐδέν μοι νομίζω Nab.
3. Harp. s.u. Φλυέα
(Φλυεία libri, corr. Bekk.). Ίσαῖος ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ Κίρωνος (κήρωνος, κλήρωνος libri,
corr. Blancardus) κλήρου. 5. Κίρων del. Herw.
4. 4. ἐνέγκητε Ald. : ἐνέγκοιτε. Cf. III. 21. 5.
προσέχετε.
5. προσέσχετε Ald.:
8-2
116
OR. VIII.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
τὸν νοῦν, δέομαι ὑμῶν καὶ ταύτῃ προσέχειν ὁμοίως, ὥσπερ
καὶ τὸ δίκαιόν ἐστι. πολλῶν δὲ δικῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει γενο-
μένων, οὐδένες ἀναιδέστερον τούτων οὐδὲ καταφανέστερον
5 ἀντιποιησάμενοι φανήσονται τῶν ἀλλοτρίων. ἔστι μὲν
οὖν χαλεπόν, ὦ ἄνδρες, πρὸς παρασκευὰς λόγων καὶ μάρ
τυρας οὐ τἀληθῆ μαρτυροῦντας εἰς ἀγῶνα καθίστασθαι
περὶ τηλικούτων, παντάπασιν ἀπείρως ἔχοντα δικαστη
ρίων· οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ πολλὰς ἐλπίδας ἔχω καὶ παρ' ὑμῶν
τεύξεσθαι τῶν δικαίων καὶ μέχρι γε τοῦ τὰ δίκαια εἰπεῖν
καὶ αὐτὸς ἀρκούντως ἐρεῖν, ἂν μή τι συμβῇ τοιοῦτον ὃ
νῦν ὑπ᾿ ἐμοῦ τυγχάνει προσδοκώμενον. δέομαι οὖν ὑμῶν,
ὦ ἄνδρες, μετ᾿ εὐνοίας τέ μου ἀκοῦσαι, κἂν ἠδικῆσθαι
δοκῶ, βοηθῆσαί μοι τὰ δίκαια.
6 Πρῶτον μὲν οὖν, ὡς ἦν ἡ μήτηρ ἡ 'μὴ Κίρωνος θυγάτηρ
γνησία, ἐπιδείξω τοῦτο ὑμῖν, τὰ μὲν πάλαι γεγενημένα λόγων
ἀκοῇ καὶ μαρτύρων, τὰ δ᾽ ὥστε καὶ μνημονεύεσθαι, τοῖς
εἰδόσι χρώμενος μάρτυσιν, ἔτι δὲ τεκμηρίοις ἃ κρείττω τῶν
å
μαρτυριῶν ἐστιν· ἐπειδὰν δὲ ταῦτα φανερὰ καταστήσω, τόθ'
ὡς καὶ κληρονομεῖν μᾶλλον ἡμῖν ἢ τούτοις προσήκει τῶν
Κίρωνος χρημάτων. ὅθεν οὖν ἤρξαντο περὶ αὐτῶν, ἐντεῦθεν
ὑμᾶς κἀγὼ πειράσομαι διδάσκειν.
7 Ὁ γὰρ πάππος ὁ ἐμός, ὦ ἄνδρες, Κίρων ἔγημε τὴν
ἐμὴν τήθην οὖσαν ἀνεψιάν, ἐξ ἀδελφῆς τῆς αὐτοῦ μητρὸς
[αὐτὴν] γεγενημένην. ἐκείνη μὲν οὖν συνοικήσασα οὐ πολὺν
χρόνον, τεκοῦσα αὐτῷ τὴν ἐμὴν μητέρα, μετὰ ἐνιαυτοὺς
τέτταρας τὸν βίον ἐτελεύτησεν· ὁ δὲ πάππος μιας μόνης
8. οὐδένες Α1, οὐδέν ἐστ** Α, οὐδὲν ἐς Αld.
5.
I, 2. ἔστι μὲν οὖν in rasur. totid. litt. add. Α'.
supra uers. add. A¹. Cf. X. 22. 3.
3. μαρτυροῦντ Α, ας
7, 8. . δ νῦν] οἷον postulat Nab.
1
6. I. ἡ 'μὴ A, Dobs., Turr., Scheib., Buerm., ἡ ἐμὴ M, edd. ceteri. 2. παλαιὰ:
corr. Steph. 2, 3. λόγων ἀκοῇ καὶ μαρτύρων] Vitium inesse suspicatur Buerm.
Coni. μαρτύρων <πίστει> Reisk. Num καταμαρτυρῶν (VI. 15. 7)? 6. τοῦτον:
corr. Scheib.
7. οὖν < οὗτοι > Fuhr.
7. I. Κίρων del Herw. || ἔγκιμε Α, corr. Al.
8. < πρώτον > πειράσομαι Gebauer.
3. αὐτὴν del. Dobr., τῆς
μητρὸς αὐτοῦ γεγ. malit Herw. Cf. II. 10. 4, 5, ΙΧ. 17. 6, 30. 3 || γεγενημένην Α,
v supra uers. post γεγε add. Α.
Cf. III. 12. 6.
4.
ἐνιαυτούς] ἡμέρας Nab.
5. τέτταρας (i.e. δ') Dobr., τρεῖς Reisk. : τριάκοντα (i.e. λ').
Cf. II: 4. 2, ΧΙ. 42. 8.
OR. VIII. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΚΙΡΩΝΟΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
117
ΕΚ
οὔσης αὐτῷ θυγατρὸς λαμβάνει πάλιν τὴν Διοκλέους
ἀδελφήν, ἐξ ἧς αὐτῷ γίγνεσθον ὑεῖς δύο. καὶ ἐκείνην τε
ἔτρεφε παρὰ τῇ γυναικὶ καὶ μετὰ τῶν ἐξ ἐκείνης παίδων,
ἐκείνων τε ἔτι ζώντων, ἐπεὶ συνοικεῖν εἶχεν ἡλικίαν, ἐκ- 8
δίδωσιν αὐτὴν Ναυσιμένει Χολαργεῖ, σὺν ἱματίοις καὶ
χρυσίοις πέντε καὶ εἴκοσι μνᾶς ἐπιδούς. κἀκεῖνος μὲν
τρισὶν ἢ τέτταρσιν ἔτεσι μετὰ ταῦτα καμὼν ἀποθνῄσκει,
πρὶν αὐτῷ γενέσθαι παῖδας ἐκ τῆς ἡμετέρας μητρός· ὁ
δὲ πάππος κομισάμενος αὐτήν, καὶ τὴν προῖκα οὐκ ἀπο-
λαβὼν ὅσην ἔδωκε διὰ τὴν Ναυσιμένους ἀπορίαν τῶν
πραγμάτων, πάλιν ἐκδίδωσι τῷ ἐμῷ πατρὶ καὶ χιλίας
δραχμὰς προικ᾿ ἐπιδίδωσι. ταυτὶ δὴ πάντα πρὸς τὰς 9
αἰτίας, ἃς νῦν οὗτοι λέγουσι, πῶς ἄν τις δείξειε γεγενη-
μένα φανερῶς; ἐγὼ ζητῶν ἐξευρον. ἀνάγκη τὴν ἐμὴν
μητέρα, εἴτε θυγάτηρ ἦν Κίρωνος εἴτε μή, καὶ εἰ παρ᾽
ἐκείνῳ διῃτᾶτο ἢ οὔ, καὶ γάμους εἰ διττοὺς ὑπὲρ ταύτης
εἱστίασεν ἢ μή, καὶ προῖκα ἦν τινα ἑκάτερος ἐπ᾿ αὐτῇ τῶν
γημάντων ἔλαβε, πάντα ταῦτα εἰδέναι τοὺς οἰκέτας καὶ
τὰς θεραπαίνας ἃς ἐκεῖνος ἐκέκτητο. βουλόμενος οὖν πρὸς 10
τοῖς ὑπάρχουσι μάρτυσιν ἔλεγχον ἐκ βασάνων ποιήσασθαι
περὶ αὐτῶν, ἵνα μᾶλλον αὐτοῖς πιστεύητε μὴ μέλλουσι
δώσειν ἔλεγχον ἀλλ᾽ ἤδη δεδωκόσι περὶ ὧν μαρτυροῦσι,
τούτους ἠξίουν ἐκδοῦναι τὰς θεραπαίνας καὶ τοὺς οἰκέτας
περί τε τούτων καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων ὅσα τυγ-
χάνουσι συνειδότες. οὗτος δ᾽ ὁ νῦν ὑμᾶς ἀξιώσων τοῖς 11
αὑτοῦ μάρτυσι πιστεύειν ἔφυγε τὴν βάσανον. καίτοι εἰ
φανήσεται ταῦτα ποιῆσαι μὴ θελήσας, τί ὑπολείπεται τοῖς
ἐκείνου μάρτυσιν ἢ δοκεῖν νυνὶ τὰ ψευδῆ μαρτυρεῖν, τούτου
Ο
ει
7. γίγνεσθον Bekk. Schoem., ἐγιγνέσθην Μ, Turr., Scheib., Buerm. : γιγνέσθην
A, Ald. || kai deletum malit Buerm. Cf. § 16. I, III. 80. I.
8. 2. Harp. s.u. Χολαργεύς· Ἰσαῖος ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ Κίρωνος (κήρωνος libri, corr.
Blancardus) κλήρου. 4. κάμνων: corr. Boekmeijer. Cf. And. t. 120.
A, corr. Α' || ἀποδίδωσι: corr. Reisk.
Cf. II. 9. 4.
9. 5. ✈ oű del. Bait. || el in uers. add. A¹, del. Scheib. Cf. VII. 31. 1.
in rasur. 3 litt. add. A¹.
10. 2. èk A², ei* A. Cf. VII. 44. 5, XI. 45. 2.
9. δραχμὰς
7. τοὺς
118
OR. VIII.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
12
τηλικοῦτον ἔλεγχον πεφευγότος; ἐγὼ μὲν οἶμαι οὐδέν.
᾿Αλλὰ μὴν ὡς ἀληθῆ λέγω, λαβέ μοι πρῶτον | ταύτην τὴν το
μαρτυρίαν καὶ ἀνάγνωθι.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ.
Ὑμεῖς μὲν τοίνυν καὶ ἰδίᾳ καὶ δημοσίᾳ βάσανον ἀκρι-
βέστατον ἔλεγχον νομίζετε· καὶ ὁπόταν δοῦλοι καὶ ἐλεύθεροι
παραγένωνται καὶ δέῃ εὑρεθῆναί τι τῶν ζητουμένων, οὐ
χρῆσθε ταῖς τῶν ἐλευθέρων μαρτυρίαις, ἀλλὰ τοὺς δούλους
βασανίζοντες, οὕτω ζητεῖτε εὑρεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν τῶν γε-
γενημένων. εἰκότως, ὦ ἄνδρες· σύνιστε γὰρ ὅτι τῶν μὲν
μαρτυρησάντων ἤδη τινὲς ἔδοξαν οὐ τἀληθῆ μαρτυρῆσαι,
τῶν δὲ βασανισθέντων οὐδένες πώποτε ἐξηλέγχθησαν ὡς
13 οὐκ ἀληθῆ <τὰς ἐκ τῶν βασάνων εἰπόντες. οὗτος δ᾽ ὁ
πάντων ἀναισχυντότατος ἀνθρώπων λόγοις πεπλασμένοις
καὶ μάρτυσιν οὐ τἀληθῆ μαρτυροῦσιν ἀξιώσει πιστεύειν
ὑμᾶς, φεύγων οὕτως ἀκριβεῖς ἐλέγχους; ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ἡμεῖς,
ἀλλὰ πρότερον ὑπὲρ τῶν μαρτυρηθήσεσθαι μελλόντων ἀξιώ.
σαντες εἰς βασάνους ἐλθεῖν, τούτους δὲ φεύγοντας......
οὕτως οἰησόμεθα δεῖν ὑμᾶς τοῖς ἡμετέροις μάρτυσι πι-
στεύειν. Λαβὲ οὖν αὐτοῖς ταυτασὶ τὰς μαρτυρίας καὶ ~
ἀνάγνωθι.
14
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑΙ.
Τίνας εἰκὸς εἰδέναι τὰ παλαιά; δῆλον ὅτι τοὺς χρω-
μένους τῷ πάππω. μεμαρτυρήκασι τοίνυν ἀκοὴν οὗτοι.
τίνας <δ> εἰδέναι τὰ περὶ τὴν ἔκδοσιν τῆς μητρὸς
ἀνάγκη; τοὺς ἐγγυησαμένους καὶ τοὺς ἐκείνοις παρόντας
ὅτε ἠγγυώντο. μεμαρτυρήκασι τοίνυν οἵ τε Ναυσιμένους
προσήκοντες καὶ οἱ τοῦ ἐμοῦ πατρός. τίνες δὲ οἱ τρεφο-
12. 4. χρήσθαι Α, corr. A. Cf. §§ 20. 4, 44. 10, 46. 3, I. 41. 3.
(εις) Α, ἀληθῆ Α', ἀληθῆ τὰ Dem. 30. 37, quod melius.
9. ἀληθει
6. Inserere uoluit ἐπιδείξαντες,
*
13. 4. Num φυγών? Cf. Dem. 30. 38.
qui primus lacunam indicauit Reisk., add. τοῦθ᾽ ὁρῶντες Rauchenstein, ἐξελέγξαντες
Nab., οὕτως ἀκριβεῖς ἐλέγχους ἐπιδείξαντες Buerm., habent τούτου δὲ φεύγοντος sine
lacuna Turr., coni. τούτου δὲ φυγόντος <αὐτὰς αἰσχρῶς > Kayser.
Herw.
7. οιόμεθα
14. 3. δ' add. Reisk. Cf. II. 2. 4ο 6. oἳ (ante τρεφομένην) A, Ald., Steph.
OR. VIII. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΚΙΡΩΝΟΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
μένην ἔνδον καὶ θυγατέρα οὖσαν εἰδότες γνησίαν Κίρωνος;
οἱ νῦν ἀμφισβητοῦντες ἔργῳ φανερῶς μαρτυροῦσιν ὅτι
ταῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν ἀληθῆ, φεύγοντες τὴν βάσανον. ὥστε οὐ
δήπου τοῖς ἡμετέροις ἂν ἀπιστήσαιτε εἰκότως, ἀλλὰ πολὺ
μᾶλλον τοῖς τούτων μάρτυσιν.
cl
Ἡμεῖς τοίνυν καὶ ἄλλα τεκμήρια πρὸς τούτοις ἔχομεν 15
εἰπεῖν, [ἵνα γνώσεσθε] ὅτι ἐκ θυγατρὸς ἡμεῖς Κίρωνος
ἐσμέν. οἷα γὰρ εἰκὸς [παίδων] νέων <ὄντων> ἐξ' ἑαυτοῦ
θυγατρός, οὐδεπώποτε θυσίαν ἄνευ ἡμῶν οὐδεμίαν ἐποίησεν,
ἀλλ᾽ εἴ τε μικρὰ εἴ τε μεγάλα θύοι, πανταχοῦ παρημεν
ἡμεῖς καὶ συνεθύομεν. καὶ οὐ μόνον εἰς τὰ τοιαῦτα παρε-
καλούμεθα, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰς Διονύσια εἰς ἀγρὸν ἦγεν ἀεὶ ἡμᾶς,
καὶ μετ᾿ ἐκείνου τε ἐθεωροῦμεν καθήμενοι παρ' αὐτόν, καὶ 16
τὰς ἑορτὰς ἤγομεν παρ' ἐκεῖνον πάσας· τῷ Διί τε θύων
τῷ Κτησίῳ, περὶ ἣν μάλιστ᾽ ἐκεῖνος θυσίαν ἐσπούδαζε
καὶ οὔτε δούλους προσῆγεν οὔτε ἐλευθέρους ὀθνείους, ἀλλ᾽
αὐτὸς δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ πάντ᾽ ἐποίει, ταύτης ἡμεῖς ἐκοινωνοῦμεν
καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ συνεχειρουργοῦμεν καὶ συνεπετίθεμεν καὶ τἆλλα
συνεποιοῦμεν, καὶ ηὔχετο ἡμῖν ὑγίειαν διδόναι καὶ κτῆσιν
ἀγαθήν, ὥσπερ εἰκὸς ὄντα πάππον. καίτοι εἰ μὴ θυγατρι- 17
δοῦς ἡμᾶς ἐνόμιζεν εἶναι καὶ μόνους ἐκγόνους ἑώρα λοιποὺς
καταλελειμμένους αὑτῷ, οὐκ ἄν ποτε ἐποίει τούτων οὐδέν,
ἀλλὰ τόνδ' ἂν αὑτῷ παρίστατο, ὃς ἀδελφιδοῦς αὐτοῦ νῦν
εἶναί φησι. καὶ ταῦθ᾽ ὅτι ἀληθῆ πάντ᾽ ἐστίν, ἀκριβέστατα
μὲν οἱ τοῦ πάππου θεράποντες ἴσασιν, οὓς οὗτος παραδοῦναι
7. είδον: corr. Reisk.
8. <οΐ> ἔργῳ uel ἔργῳ <γὰρ> malit Reisk.
10. ὑμετέροις Α, corr. Α || ἀπιστήσητε : corr. Bekk. Cf. I. 21. 8.
15. 2. ἵνα γνώσεσθε A, e in rasur. add. Α'. ἵνα γνώσησθε Ald., ἵνα γνώσεσθε
del. Roeder, coni. οἷς γνώσεσθε Bekk., ἃ < ἀκούσαντες uel μαθόντες > γνώσεσθε Dobr.,
ἱκανὰ Hitzig, ἵνα γνῶτε Buerm. (Hermes 17. 395). 3. παίδων in rasur. add. A',
del. Buerm. (Hermes 19. 355). Pro παίδων inculcat πάππου Ald. Coni. πάππον
ὄντα ποιεῖν υἱέων Reisk., πάππον υἱέων Bekk., παίδων < ὄντων > deleto νἱέων Saupp. ||
ὄντων add. post νέων Buerm., post θυγατρός Scaliger. 5. πάρκιμεν Α, corr. Α'.
Cf. § 7. 7. 2. ἐκείνῳ Reisk.
16. I. καὶ ante μετ' deletum malit Buerm.
3. τῷ ** κτησίω. 6. συνετίθεμεν : corr. Scheib. || τἂλα Α, τἆλα Αl. Cf. VI. 18. 4.
17. 3. καταλελειμμένους del. Dobr., Herw.
§ 23. 3, III. 78. 4, IV. 27. 4, IX. 31. 3, Din. I. 79.
6. αὐτὸς: corr. Dobr. Cf.
I 20
OR. VIII.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
18
εἰς βάσανον οὐκ ἠθέλησεν, ἴσασι δὲ <τὰς περιφανέστατα
καὶ τῶν ἐκείνῳ χρωμένων τινές, οὓς παρέξομαι μάρτυρας.
Καί μοι λαβὲ τὰς μαρτυρίας καὶ ἀνάγνωθι.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑΙ.
ων
Οὐ τοίνυν ἐκ τούτων δῆλόν ἐστι μόνον ὅτι ἦν ἡμῶν ἡ
μήτηρ θυγάτηρ γνησία Κίρωνος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ πατὴρ
ἡμῶν ἔπραξε καὶ ἐξ ὧν αἱ γυναῖκες αἱ τῶν δημοτῶν περὶ
αὐτῆς ἐγίγνωσκον. ὅτε γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτὴν ἐλάμβανε,
γάμους εἱστίασε καὶ ἐκάλεσε τρεῖς αὑτοῦ φίλους μετὰ τῶν
αὑτοῦ προσηκόντων, τοῖς τε φράτερσι γαμηλίαν εἰσήνεγκε
19 κατὰ τοὺς ἐκείνων νόμους. αἵ τε γυναῖκες αἱ τῶν δημοτῶν
μετὰ ταῦτα προύκριναν αὐτὴν μετὰ τῆς Διοκλέους γυναικὸς
τοῦ Πιθέως ἄρχειν εἰς [τά] Θεσμοφόρια καὶ ποιεῖν τὰ
νομιζόμενα μετ᾿ ἐκείνης. ὅ τε πατὴρ ἡμῶν, ἐπειδὴ ἐγε-
νόμεθα, εἰς τοὺς φράτορας ἡμᾶς εἰσήγαγεν, ὀμόσας κατὰ
τοὺς νόμους τοὺς κειμένους ἢ μὴν ἐξ ἀστῆς καὶ ἐγγυητῆς
γυναικὸς εἰσάγειν· τῶν δὲ [ φρατέρων οὐδεὶς ἀντεῖπεν γι
οὐδ᾽ ἀμφεσβήτησε μὴ οὐκ ἀληθῆ ταῦτα εἶναι, πολλῶν
20 ὄντων καὶ ἀκριβῶς τὰ τοιαῦτα σκοπουμένων. καίτοι μή
οἴεσθ᾽ ἄν, εἰ τοιαύτη τις ἦν ἡ μήτηρ ἡμῶν οἵαν οὗτοί
φασι, μήτ' ἂν τὸν πατέρα ἡμῶν γάμους ἑστιᾶν καὶ γαμη-
λίαν εἰσενεγκεῖν, ἀλλὰ ἀποκρύψασθαι ταῦτα πάντα, μήτε
τὰς τῶν ἄλλων δημοτών γυναῖκας αἱρεῖσθαι ἂν αὐτὴν
συνιεροποιεῖν τῇ Διοκλέους γυναικὶ καὶ κυρίαν ποιεῖν
ἱερῶν, ἀλλ᾿ ἑτέρᾳ ἄν τινι περὶ τούτων ἐπιτρέπειν, μήτε
τοὺς φράτερας εἰσδέχεσθαι ἡμᾶς, ἀλλὰ κατηγορεῖν καὶ
ἐξελέγχειν, εἰ μὴ πάντοθεν ἦν ὁμολογούμενον τὴν μητέρα
7. τὰ add. Buerm.
αν
18. 1. μόνων M, Bekk., Schoem. Sed cf. § 32. Ι. 3. αἱ κκ τῶν A (erasum
ἐκ sec. Buerm.), ἐκ τῶν Μ.
19. 3. Πιθέως Meursius (De pop. Att., 1616, p. 104), Πιτθέως Reisk. : πίτεως.
Cf. II. 29. 3 || τὰ supra uers. add. Α', del. Buerm. Cf. § 15. 7, 11. 47. 9, VII. 15. 5.
4. νομιζό | Α, μενα in marg. add. Αl. Cf. vi. 5. 8.
20.
4.
Post ἀλλὰ desiderat σφόδρ' ἂν uel μάλιστ᾽ ἂν Meutzner | ἀπεκρύψασθε Α,
corr. A. Cf. § 12. 4.
6. σὺν ἱεροποιών A, corr. A1.
εἰσδέχεσθαι (u. 8) transp. Herw.
7. ἂν post
OR. VIII. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΚΙΡΩΝΟΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
121
ἡμῶν εἶναι θυγατέρα γνησίαν Κίρωνος. νῦν δὲ τῇ περι-
φανείᾳ τοῦ πράγματος καὶ τῷ συνειδέναι ταῦτα πολλοὺς
οὐδαμόθεν ἠμφεσβητήθη τοιοῦτον οὐδέν. Καὶ ταῦθ᾽ ὡς
ἀληθῆ λέγω, κάλει τούτων τοὺς μάρτυρας.
Ο
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
Ετι τοίνυν, ὦ ἄνδρες, καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Διοκλῆς ἔπραξεν 21
ὅτε ἡμῶν ὁ πάππος ἐτελεύτησε, γνῶναι ῥᾴδιον ὅτι ὡμο
λογούμεθα είναι θυγατριδοῖ Κίρωνος. ἧκον γὰρ ἐγὼ
κομιούμενος αὐτὸν ὡς θάψων ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας τῆς ἐμαυτοῦ,
τῶν ἐμαυτοῦ οἰκείων τινὰ ἔχων, ἀνεψιὸν τοῦ πατρός· καὶ
Διοκλέα μὲν οὐ κατέλαβον ἔνδον, εἰσελθὼν δὲ εἴσω κομί-
ζειν οἷος ἦν, ἔχων τοὺς οἴσοντας. δεομένης δὲ τῆς τοῦ 22
πάππου γυναικὸς ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας αὐτὸν ἐκείνης θάπτειν,
καὶ λεγούσης ὅτι βούλοιτ᾽ ἂν αὐτὴ τὸ σῶμα τὸ ἐκείνου
συμμεταχειρίζεσθαι μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν καὶ κοσμῆσαι, καὶ ταῦτα
ἱκετευούσης καὶ κλαιούσης, ἐπείσθην, ὦ ἄνδρες, καὶ τούτῳ
προσελθὼν μαρτύρων ἐναντίον εἶπον ὅτι ἐντεῦθεν ποιή-
σομαι τὴν ταφήν· δεδεημένη γὰρ εἴη ταῦτα ποιεῖν ἡ
τούτου ἀδελφή. καὶ ταῦτα Διοκλῆς ἀκούσας οὐδὲν ἀντεῖ- 23
πεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐωνῆσθαί τι τῶν εἰς τὴν ταφήν, τῶν δὲ
ἀρραβῶνα δεδωκέναι αὐτὸς φάσκων ταῦτα ἠξίου παρ᾿ ἐμοῦ
λαβεῖν, καὶ διωμολογήσατο τῶν μὲν ἠγορασμένων τιμὴν
ἀπολαβεῖν, ὧν δὲ ἀρραβῶνα ἔφασκε δεδωκέναι, συστῆσαι
τοὺς λαβόντας. εὐθὺς οὖν τοῦτο παρεφθέγγετο, ὡς οὐδ᾽
ὁτιοῦν εἴη Κίρων καταλελοιπώς, οὐδένα λόγον ἐμοῦ πω
ποιουμένου περὶ τῶν ἐκείνου χρημάτων. καίτοι εἰ μὴ ἦν 24
θυγατριδούς Κίρωνος, οὐκ ἂν ταῦτα διωμολογεῖτο, ἀλλ᾽
ἐκείνους ἂν τοὺς λόγους ἔλεγε
αν
I2. TaûT' A, corr. A¹. Cf. 1. 43. I.
21. 5.
22.
αν
«Ε
σὺ δὲ τίς εἶ; σοὶ δὲ τί
13. κάλει μοι Μ, Αld., Herw. Cf.
εἴσω in uers. add. Αl.
I. 32. 4, IX. 18. 8.
οἰκεῖον A, corr. Α'.
6.
7.
εἴη Reisk. : ἔνι.
23.
2.
3.
§ 17. 6.
35, 62.
τῶν δὲ Bekk. : τὸν δὲ.
4. < τήν > τιμὴν Herw.
7. καταλεποιπώς.
αὐτὸς Reisk. : οὗτος A, del. Nab. Cf.
Sed cf. v. 21. 5, Vil. 44. 2, [Dem.] 49. 32,
122
OR. VIII.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
25
προσήκει θάπτειν; οὐ γιγνώσκω σε· οὐ μὴ εἶσει εἰς τὴν
οἰκίαν.” ταῦτ᾽ εἰπεῖν προσῆκεν, ἅ περ νῦν ἑτέρους πέ-
πεικε λέγειν. νῦν δὲ τοιοῦτον μὲν οὐδὲν εἶπεν, εἰς ἕω δὲ
τἀργύριον ἐκέλευεν εἰσενεγκεῖν. Καὶ ταῦτα ὡς ἀληθῆ λέγω,
κάλει μοι τούτων τοὺς μάρτυρας.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
Οὐ τοίνυν ἐκεῖνος μόνος, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ὁ νῦν ἀμφισβητῶν
τοῦ κλήρου τοιοῦτον εἶπεν οὐδέν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ τούτου παρα-
σκευασθεὶς ἀμφισβητεῖ. κἀκείνου τὸ μὲν παρ' ἐμοῦ
κομισθὲν ἀργύριον οὐκ ἐθελήσαντος ἀπολαβεῖν, παρὰ
τούτου δ᾽ ἀπειληφέναι τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ φάσκοντος, οὐκ ἐκω-
λυόμην συνθάπτειν ἀλλὰ πάντα συνεποίουν· οὐχ ὅπως
τοῦδε ἀναλίσκοντος οὐδὲ Διοκλέους, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ὧν ἐκεῖνος
26 κατέλιπε γιγνομένων τῶν εἰς αὐτὸν ἀναλωμάτων. καίτοι
καὶ τούτῳ προσῆκεν, εἰ μὴ πάππος ἦν μοι Κίρων, ὠθεῖν
<καὶ> ἐκβάλλειν καὶ κωλύειν συνθάπτειν. οὐδὲν γὰρ
ὅμοιον ἦν μοι πρὸς τοῦτον· ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ εἴων αὐτὸν
ἀδελφιδοῦν ὄντα τοῦ πάππου ταῦτα πάντα συμποιεῖν,
τούτῳ δ᾽ ἔμ᾽ οὐ προσῆκεν ἐᾶν, εἴπερ ἀληθῆ ταῦτα ἦν ἅ
27 περ νῦν λέγειν τολμῶσιν. ἀλλ᾽ οὕτω τῇ τοῦ πράγματος
ἀληθείᾳ κατεπέπληκτο, ὥστ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῦ μνήματος ἐμοῦ
ποιουμένου λόγους, καὶ κατηγοροῦντος Διοκλέους ὅτι τὰ
χρήματα ἀποστερῶν τοῦτόν μοι πέπεικεν ἀμφισβητεῖν,
οὐκ ἐτόλμησεν γρύξαι τὸ παράπαν οὐδὲν οὐδ᾽ εἰπεῖν ἃ
νῦν τολμᾷ λέγειν. Καὶ ταῦθ᾽ ὅτι ἀληθῆ λέγω, κάλει μοι
τούτων τοὺς μάρτυρας.
4.
T
ΤΟ
α
cl
α
24. σετ | εἴσει εἰς Bekk. (in Addendis p. 6or): εἰσίης.
6. Harp. s.u.
εἰς ἕω· ἀντὶ τοῦ εἰς ἀρχομένην ἡμέραν Ισαῖος ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ Κίρωνος (Ηρωνος libri, corr.
Valesius) κλήρου.
25. 3. ἠμφισβήτει coni. Dobr.
26. 2. *μοι.
II. 14. 4, 5.
6. ὅπως] Malit ὡς Bekk.
3. καὶ add. Scheib. | καὶ deletum malit Buerm. coll.
27. 2. κατεπέπληκτο M, Ald. Steph., Reisk., Scheib., Buerm.: καταπέπληκτο,
A, Bekk., Schoem., Turr. || βήματος: corr. Schoem.
5. γρύξαι Steph. et Scaliger,
Cf. § 1. 9. Del. οὐδ' εἰπεῖν
γρύξαι Cob. (N. L. p. 253) : ἐρύξαι || οὐδ᾽ Bekk. : οὔτ'.
λέγειν Nab.
6. /. ἀληθῆ in marg. et /. post ὅτι add. Αl.
OR. VIII. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΚΙΡΩΝΟΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
123
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
Πόθεν χρὴ πιστεύεσθαι τὰ εἰρημένα; οὐκ ἐκ τῶν 28
μαρτυριῶν; οἶμαί γε. πόθεν δὲ τοὺς μάρτυρας; οὐκ ἐκ
72 τῶν βασάνων; εἰκός γε. πόθεν ] δ᾽ ἀπιστεῖν τοῖς τούτων
λόγοις; οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ φεύγειν τοὺς ἐλέγχους; ἀνάγκη μεγάλη.
πῶς οὖν ἄν τις σαφέστερον ἐπιδείξειε γνησίαν οὖσαν θυγα-
τέρα Κίρωνος τὴν μητέρα τὴν ἐμὴν ἢ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον
ἐπιδεικνύς; τῶν μὲν παλαιῶν ἀκοὴν μαρτυρούντων παρε- 29
χόμενος, τῶν δὲ ἔτι ζώντων τοὺς εἰδότας ἕκαστα τούτων,
οἱ συνήδεσαν παρ᾽ ἐκείνῳ τρεφομένην, θυγατέρα νομι
ζομένην, δὶς ἐκδοθεῖσαν, δὶς ἐγγυηθεῖσαν, ἔτι δὲ περὶ
πάντων τούτους βάσανον ἐξ οἰκετῶν πεφευγότας, οἳ ταῦτα
πάντα ᾔδεσαν. ἔγωγε μὲ τοὺς θεοὺς τοὺς Ὀλυμπίους οὐκ
ἂν ἔχοιμι πίστεις μείζους τούτων εἰπεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ἱκανὰς εἶναι
νομίζω τὰς εἰρημένας.
Φέρε δή, καὶ ὡς προσήκει ἐμοὶ μᾶλλον ἢ τούτῳ τῶν 30
Κίρωνος χρημάτων, νῦν ἤδη τοῦτο ἐπιδείξω. καὶ νομίζω
μὲν ἁπλῶς καὶ ὑμῖν ἤδη εἶναι φανερὸν ὅτι οὐκ ἐγγυτέρω
τῆς ἀγχιστείας εἰσὶν οἱ μετ᾽ ἐκείνου φύντες ἢ οἱ ἐξ ἐκείνου
γεγονότες (πως γάρ; οἱ μὲν γὰρ ὀνομάζονται συγγενεῖς,
οἱ δ᾽ ἔκγονοι τοῦ τελευτήσαντος)· οὐ μὴν ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ
καὶ οὕτως ἐχόντων τολμῶσιν ἀμφισβητεῖν, καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν
τῶν νόμων ἀκριβέστερον διδάξομεν· εἰ γὰρ ἔζη μὲν ἡ ἐμὴ 31
μήτηρ, θυγάτηρ δὲ Κίρωνος, μηδὲν δὲ ἐκεῖνος διαθέμενος
ἐτελεύτησεν, ἦν δὲ ἀδελφὸς οὗτος αὐτῷ, μὴ ἀδελφιδούς,
συνοικῆσαι μὲν ἂν τῇ γυναικὶ κύριος ἦν, τῶν δὲ χρημάτων
28. I-4.
Cf. Dion. Hal. Isae. 12.
Saupp. Or. Att. II. p. 232, fr. X. 2.
μαρτύρων Dion.
Reisk.
τούτων Dion.
2.
I.
Opusc. ed. Usener et Rademacher, I. p. 108,
Post ειρημένα e Dion. add. πρὸς θεῶν
πόθεν δέ γε ἀπιστεῖσθαι τοὺς λόγους τοὺς
3.
29. I. τοὺς ἀκοὴν μαρτυροῦντας Reisk.
A, Buerm.
5. τούτους Ald. uolg. : τούτων
Post ᾔδεσαν
6.
5, 6. οἳ ταῦτα πάντα ᾔδεσαν del. Nab.
uirgulam ponunt Dobr., Scheib., Buerm. || ἔγωγε Dobr., Scheib., Buerm., ἐγὼ δὲ Α,
edd. ceteri. 7. μείζ. A, corr. A1 || ἱκανῶς Α, corr. Αl.
30. 1. ἐμοὶ Bekk., μοι supra uers. add. Αl.
καὶ supra uers. add. Α', del. Buerm. Cf. § 2. 2.
quod malim. Cf. VII. 44. 3. 3. τἀκριβέστερον Nab.
3. μὲν in rasur. 3 litt. add. A1 ||
4. ταῖς ἀγχιστείαις Emper,
124
OR. VIII.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
32
οὐκ ἄν, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ γενόμενοι παῖδες ἐκ τούτου καὶ ἐξ ἐκείνης,
ὁπότε ἐπὶ δίετες ἥβησαν· οὕτω γὰρ οἱ νόμοι κελεύουσιν.
εἰ τοίνυν καὶ ζώσης κύριος αὐτὸς μὴ ἐγένετο τῶν τῆς
γυναικός, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ παῖδες, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ τετελευτηκυίας,
ἐπεὶ παῖδας ἡμᾶς καταλέλοιπεν, οὐ τούτοις ἀλλ᾽ ἡμῖν
προσήκει κληρονομεῖν τῶν χρημάτων.
οι
αν
Οὐ τοίνυν ἐκ τούτου μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ περὶ τῆς
κακώσεως νόμου δῆλόν ἐστιν. εἰ γὰρ ἔζη μὲν ὁ πάππος,
ἐνδεὴς δὲ ἦν τῶν ἐπιτηδείων, οὐκ ἂν οὗτος ὑπόδικος
ἦν τῆς κακώσεως ἀλλ᾿ ἡμεῖς. κελεύει γὰρ τρέφειν τοὺς
γονέας· γονεῖς δ᾽ εἰσὶ μήτηρ καὶ πατὴρ καὶ πάππος καὶ
τήθη καὶ τούτων μήτηρ καὶ πατήρ, ἐὰν ἔτι ζῶσιν· ἐκεῖνοι
γὰρ ἀρχὴ τοῦ γένους ἐστί, καὶ τὰ ἐκείνων παραδίδοται
τοῖς ἐκγόνοις· διόπερ ἀνάγκη τρέφειν αὐτούς ἐστι, κἂν
μηδὲν καταλίπωσι. πῶς οὖν δίκαιόν ἐστιν, ἐὰν μὲν μηδὲν
καταλίπωσιν, ἡμᾶς ὑποδίκους εἶναι τῆς κακώσεως, ἢν μὴ
τρέφωμεν, εἰ δέ τι καταλελοίπασι, τόνδ᾽ εἶναι κληρονόμον
ἀλλὰ μὴ ἡμᾶς; οὐδαμῶς δήπουθεν.
او
33 Πρὸς ἕνα δὲ τὸν πρῶτον τῶν συγγενῶν προσάξω, καὶ
τοῦ γένους καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ὑμᾶς ἐρωτήσω· ῥᾷστα γὰρ οὕτω
μάθοιτ' ἄν. Κίρωνος πότερον θυγάτηρ ἢ ἀδελφὸς ἐγγυ-
τέρω τοῦ γένους ἐστί; δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι θυγάτηρ ἡ μὲν γὰρ
ἐξ ἐκείνου γέγονεν, ὁ δὲ μετ᾽ ἐκείνου. θυγατρὸς δὲ παῖδες
ἢ ἀδελφός; παῖδες δήπουθεν γένος γὰρ ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ συγγένεια
τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν. εἰ δὴ προέχομεν ἀδελφοῦ τοσοῦτον, ἢ που
7. κἂν
10. Legis
31. 5. ἀλλ' οἱ Α, ἄλλοι Α || ἐκ Α', οἱ Α. 6. δίετες Α2, διατος (διατοὺς sec.
Dobs.) A. Cf. x. 12. 7 || ἡβήσειαν Scaliger, Salmasius, Reisk., Bekk.
ζώσης uel αὐτὸς ἂν postulat Gebauer, malim ἐγένετο in ἐγίγνετο corrigere
recitationem cum desideret, post xpημáтwv clausulam excidisse suspicatur Albrecht.
32. Ι. περὶ τοῦ A, transpositionis signa β et a supra uers. add. Αl. Cf. 11. 26. 2.
ἐπίδικος: corr. M, Steph., Scaliger.
6. ἐκεῖνοι Α', ἐκείνη Α, Buerm.
ἐστὶ A, Buerm., εἰσὶ Α', Αld., uolg. || παραδίδονται. Cf. IV. 23. 6.
8. éy-
γόνοις: corr. Turr. coll. §§ 17. 2, 30. 6. Cf. § 45. 7, 8, IV. 5. 4. II. ei in rasura
2 litt. Αl.
3.
7.
33. 1, 2.
Locus nondum sanatus.
< ἕνα τῶν ἐκγόνων > προσάξω Dobr., προσάξω
3. πότερον ex πρότερον.
καὶ τοῦ γένους < ἕνα τὸν πρῶτον, καὶ> καθ' ἕκαστον Herw.
Cf. III. 6. 6.
4. An [του] γένους ? Cf. 111. 72. 6.
OR. VIII.
125
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΚΙΡΩΝΟΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
τοῦδέ γ᾽ ὄντος ἀδελφιδοῦ πάμπολυ πρότεροί ἐσμεν. δέδοικα 34
δὲ μὴ λίαν ὁμολογούμενα λέγων ἐνοχλεῖν ὑμῖν δόξω· πάντες
γὰρ ὑμεῖς τῶν πατρῴων, τῶν παππῴων, τῶν ἔτι περαιτέρω
κληρονομεῖτε ἐκ γένους παρειληφότες τὴν ἀγχιστείαν ἀνεπί-
δικον, καὶ οὐκ οἶδ᾽ εἴ τινι πρὸ τοῦ πώποτε τοιοῦτος ἀγὼν
συμβέβηκεν. ἀναγνοὺς οὖν τὸν τῆς κακώσεως νόμον, ὧν
ἕνεκα τάλλα γίγνεται, καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἤδη πειράσομαι διδάσκειν.
ΝΟΜΟΣ.
Εν
Κίρων γὰρ ἐκέκτητο οὐσίαν,
ἐκέκτητο οὐσίαν, ὦ ἄνδρες, ἀγρὸν μὲν 35
Φλυῆσι, καὶ ταλάντου ῥᾳδίως ἄξιον, οἰκίας δ᾽ ἐν ἄστει
δύο, τὴν μὲν μίαν μισθοφοροῦσαν, παρὰ τὸ ἐν Λίμναις
Διονύσιον, χιλίας εὑρίσκουσαν, τὴν δ᾽ ἑτέραν, ἐν ᾗ αὐτὸς
ᾤκει, τριῶν καὶ δέκα μνῶν· ἔτι δὲ ἀνδράποδα μισθο-
φοροῦντα..... καὶ δύο θεραπαίνας καὶ παιδίσκην, καὶ ἔπιπλα
δι᾽ ὧν ᾤκει τὴν οἰκίαν, σχεδὸν σὺν τοῖς ἀνδραπόδοις ἄξια
τριῶν καὶ δέκα μνῶν· σύμπαντα δὲ ὅσα φανερὰ ἦν, πλέον
ἐνενήκοντα μνῶν· χωρὶς δὲ τούτων δανείσματα οὐκ ὀλίγα,
ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἐκεῖνος τόκους ἐλάμβανε. τούτοις Διοκλῆς μετὰ 36
73 τῆς ἀδελφῆς | πάλαι ἐπεβούλευεν, ἐπειδὴ τάχιστα οἱ παῖδες
οἱ Κίρωνος ἐτελεύτησαν. ἐκείνην μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἐξεδίδου
δυναμένην ἔτι τεκεῖν παῖδας ἐξ ἑτέρου ἀνδρός, ἵνα μὴ
χωρισθείσης περὶ τῶν αὑτοῦ βουλεύσαιτο καθάπερ προσή
κεν, ἔπειθε δὲ μένειν φάσκουσαν ἐξ αὐτοῦ κυεῖν οἴεσθαι,
προσποιουμένην δὲ διαφθείρειν ἄκουσαν, ἵν᾽ ἐλπίζων ἀεὶ
8. τοῦδέ γ' ὄντος Reisk.: τοῦ λέγοντος.
34. 2. ἡμῖν A, corr. Αl.
4, 5. ἐπίδικον : corr. Reisk.
5. προτοῦ
Reisk., πρὸ τοῦ sched. Eton., Bekk. : πρώτω || τοιοῦτος] ι refinxit A. Cf. 1. 5. I.
6. TÒV A¹, T** A.
τ· τἆλλα] ταῦτα Dobr., ταλλα <πάντα> Buerm., πάντα
γίγνεται ταῦτα, ἤδη Scheib., ταῦτα γίγνεται τὰ πράγματα, ἤδη Rauchenstein || καὶ
ταύτη δὴ : corr. Reisk., καὶ δὴ Dobr.
35. I. οὐσίαν <πολλήν > uel < σύχνην > uel aliquid eiusmodi malit Herw.
3. Harp. s.u. ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσιον: Ισαῖος περὶ τοῦ Κίρωνος κλήρου. 4. δυσχιλίας:
corr. Buerm., δισχιλίας Ald. uolg. Cf. xi. 44. 5, Din. I. 52 | Malim εὑρίσκουσαν
<¿v>. Cf. XI. 42. 5. 5, 6. Post μισθοφοροῦντα excidisse numerum monet Bekk.
8. τρισκαίδεκα : corr. Blass. | δὲ] τάδε malit Dobr. Cf. VI. 34. I.
A¹.
36. 3. oi ante κίρωνος supra uers. add. Αl. Cf. II. 1. 2 || μὲν abesse malit Buerm.
(Hermes 19. 348). Cf. III. 74. I.
6. μένειν < ἀεὶ > Nab. || κύειν : corr. Turr.
Cf. And. 1. 125, Lys. 13. 42 (X). 7. ἄκουσαν] ἀποκνοῦσαν Nab.
126
OR. VIII.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
γενήσεσθαι παῖδας αὑτῷ μηδέτερον ἡμῶν εἰσποιήσαιτο
ὑόν· καὶ τὸν πατέρα διέβαλλεν ἀεί, φάσκων αὐτὸν ἐπιβου-
37 λεύειν τοῖς ἐκείνου. τά τε οὖν χρέα πάντα ὅσα ὠφείλετο
αὐτῷ, καὶ <τοὺς> τόκους ἔπειθε....., τά τε φανερὰ δι᾽ αὑτοῦ
ποιεῖσθαι, παράγων ἄνδρα πρεσβύτερον θεραπείαις καὶ
κολακείαις, ἕως ἅπαντα τὰ ἐκείνου περιέλαβεν. εἰδὼς
δὲ ὅτι πάντων ἐγὼ τούτων κατὰ τὸ προσῆκον εἶναι κύριος
ζητήσω, † ὁπότε ὁ πάππος ἐτελεύτησεν†, εἰσιέναι μέν με καὶ
θεραπεύειν ἐκεῖνον καὶ συνδιατρίβειν οὐκ ἐκώλυε, δεδιὼς μὴ
τραχυνθεὶς εἰς ὀργὴν κατασταίην πρὸς αὑτόν, παρεσκεύαζε
δέ μοι τὸν ἀμφισβητήσοντα τῆς οὐσίας, μέρος πολλοστὸν
τούτῳ μεταδιδοὺς εἰ κατορθώσειεν, αὑτῷ δὲ ταῦτα πάντα
περιποιῶν, καὶ οὐδὲ πρὸς τοῦτον ὁμολογῶν τὸν πάππον
38 χρήματα καταλιπεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι φάσκων οὐδέν. καὶ ἐπειδὴ
ων
τάχιστα ἐτελεύτησεν, ἐντάφια προπαρασκευασάμενος τὸ μὲν
ἀργύριον ἐμὲ ἐκέλευεν ἐνεγκεῖν, ὡς τῶν μαρτύρων ἠκούσατε
μαρτυρησάντων, ἀπειληφέναι δὲ παρὰ τοῦδε προσεποιεῖτο,
παρ' ἐμοῦ δὲ οὐκέτι ἤθελεν ἀπολαβεῖν, ὑποπαρωθῶν, ὅπως
ἐκεῖνος δοκοίη θάπτειν ἀλλὰ μὴ ἐγὼ τὸν πάππον. ἀμφισβη
τοῦντος δὲ τούτου καὶ τῆς οἰκίας ταύτης καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὧν
ἐκεῖνος κατέλιπε, καὶ οὐδὲν φάσκοντος καταλελοιπέναι, βιά-
σασθαι μὲν καὶ τὸν πάππον μεταφέρειν ἐν ταῖς τοιαύταις
ἀκαιρίαις οὐκ ᾤμην δεῖν, τῶν φίλων μοι ταῦτα συγγιγνωσ-
κόντων, συνεποίουν δὲ καὶ συνέθαπτον, ἐξ ὧν ὁ πάππος
39 κατέλιπε τῶν ἀναλωμάτων γιγνομένων. καὶ ταῦτα μὲν
8. **δέτερον Α, μη in rasur. add. A. Cf. § 39. 8.
ων
37. 2. <τοὺς > add. Herw. || τόκους Α, corr. Α' || Lacunam indicauit et πράτ-
τεσθαι καὶ διοικεῖν πάντα suppl. Reisk., πράξασθαι inseruit Buerm. (Hermes 19. 33r) ||
Te A, Saupp. ex coniect., Turr., Scheib., Buerm., ye A rasur. corr., Ald., edd. ante
Turr. omnes || δι' αὐτοῦ edd. ante Schoem. omnes. 6. τελευτήσειεν Scaliger,
Dobr., Emper. Requiro ὁπόταν τελευτήσῃ et (u. 12) καταλείπειν. 8. κατασταίη
sched. Eton., Reisk., quod malim. Cf. x. 6. 2 avròv Schoem., Turr., Scheib.,
αὐτὸν Buerm., edd. usque ad Bekk. omnes. Cf. II. 11. 3.
τοῦτο A, corr. Α'.
38. 2, 3. τὸ ἀργύριον ἐμὲ μὲν malit Buerm. Cf. II. 26. 5. 7. Num αὐτῆς ?
8. καὶ] καίπερ uel καὶ τοῦτ' Herw.
ταῦτα *** νωσκότων Α, συγγι in
rasur. add. A', ν supra o add. A' (v. 29. 5). Habet γινωσκόντων Mpr.
Malit ταὐτὰ γιγνωσκόντων Reiskium secutus Buerm. Cf. 1. 23. 7.
<πάντα> Herw. coll. §§ 25. 6, 26. 5 || συνθάπτων Α, corr. Α'.
IO, II.
10.
Cf. IX. 25. 3.
ΙΙ. δὲ
OR. VIII. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΚΙΡΩΝΟΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
127
οὕτως ἀναγκασθεὶς ἔπραξα τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον· ὅπως δὲ
μηδέν μου ταύτῃ πλεονεκτοῖεν, παρ' ὑμῖν φάσκοντες οὐδέν
με εἰς τὴν ταφὴν ἀνηλωκέναι, τὸν ἐξηγητὴν ἐρόμενος
ἐκείνου κελεύσαντος ἀνήλωσα παρ' ἐμαυτοῦ καὶ τὰ ἔνατα
ἐπήνεγκα, ὡς οἷόν τε κάλλιστα παρασκευάσας, ἵνα αὐτῶν
ἐκκόψαιμι ταύτην τὴν ἱεροσυλίαν, καὶ ἵνα μὴ δοκοῖεν οὗτοι
μὲν ἀνηλωκέναι πάντα, ἐγὼ δὲ μηδέν, ἀλλ' ὁμοίως κἀγώ.
ω
el
Καὶ τὰ μὲν γεγενημένα, καὶ δι᾽ ἃ τὰ πράγματα ταῦτα 40
ἔχομεν, σχεδόν τι ταῦτ᾽ ἐστίν, ὦ ἄνδρες· εἰ δὲ εἰδεῖτε
τὴν Διοκλέους ἀναισχυντίαν, καὶ περὶ τὰ ἄλλα οἷός ἐστιν,
οὐκ ἂν ἀπιστήσαιτε τῶν εἰρημένων οὐδενί. οὗτος μὲν
γὰρ ἔχει τὴν οὐσίαν, ἀφ᾿ ἧς νῦν ἐστι λαμπρός, ἀλλοτρίαν,
ἀδελφῶν τριῶν ὁμομητρίων ἐπικλήρων καταλειφθεισῶν
αὑτὸν τῷ πατρὶ αὐτῶν εἰσποιήσας, οὐδεμίαν ἐκείνου περὶ
τούτων ποιησαμένου διαθήκην. τοῖν δ᾽ ἀδελφαῖν τοῖν 41
δυοῖν ἐπειδὴ τὰ χρήματα εἰσεπράττετο ὑπὸ τῶν ἐκείναις
συνοικούντων, τὸν μὲν τὴν πρεσβυτέραν ἔχοντα κατοικο-
δομήσας καὶ ἐπιβουλεύσας ήτίμωσε, καὶ γραφὴν ὕβρεως
γραφεὶς οὐδέπω τούτων δίκην δέδωκε, τῆς δὲ μετ᾽ ἐκείνην
γενομένης τὸν ἄνδρα ἀποκτεῖναι κελεύσας οἰκέτην ἐκεῖνον
μὲν ἐξέπεμψε, τὴν δ᾽ αἰτίαν εἰς τὴν ἀδελφὴν ἔτρεψε, κατα-42
πλήξας δὲ ταῖς αὑτοῦ βδελυρίαις προσαφῄρηται τὸν ὑὸν
αὐτοῦ τὴν οὐσίαν ἐπιτροπεύσας, καὶ κατέχει τὸν ἀγρόν,
φελλέα δὲ [χωρία ἄττα] ἐκείνῳ δέδωκε. καὶ ταῦτα ὅτι
39. 4. Harp. s.u. ἐξηγητής: Ισαῖος ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ Κίρωνος (σκίρωνος, σκύρωνος
libri, corr. Valesius) κλήρου. 5. kai in uers. add. A². Cf. § 2. 2. 8. μηδὲν
Herw.: ovdèr A, uolg. Cf. § 36. 8, III. 47. 2.
40. 2. τι ΑΜ, Αld., του Α'. Cf. And. I. I. 4. ἀπιστήσαιτε Reisk., Buemm.,
ἀπιστήσαι τις Α, ἀπιστήσαι τὶς Ald. Steph., απιστήσαι τις Bekk., Schoem., Turr.,
ἀπιστήσαιτ᾽ ἴσως Scheib. Cf. I. 30. 3.
5. είχε: corr. Bait. Coni. ἔσχε Bekk.
Cf. X. 21. 2, XI. 8. 6.
6. τινών Α, corr. Α'.
41. I. ταῖν bis: corr. Nab. 3, 4. κατοικοδομήσας] κατοικοφθορήσας Emper.
4. ήτίμωσε] ήτίμασε Schoem., ἐπήρωσε Herw.
5. ἔδωκε : corr. Saupp.
42. 3· αὐτοῦ] αὐτῆς Rauchenstein.
4. φελλεᾶδε χωρία ἅτα Α, φελλεά δὲ
et ἅτα Α', φελεάδα χωρία ἄττα Ald., Φελεάδα χωρία ἅττα Steph., φελλέας δὲ [χωρία
ἅττα] Reisk. coll. Harp. s.u. φελλέα, φελλέα δὲ χωρία ἄττα Wesseling (Observatt.
1740, p. 5), φελλεὰ δὲ [χωρία] ἄττα Bekk., φελλέα δὲ [χωρία ἄττα] Dobr., Schoem.,
φελλία δὲ [χωρία] ἄττα Jebb. Manifestum scholion ex χωρίον αττικῆς (cf. Bast,
128
OR. VIII.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
43
ἀληθῆ λέγω, δεδίασι μὲν αὐτόν, ἴσως δ᾽ ἄν
αν μοι
και μαρ
τυρῆσαι ἐθελήσειαν· εἰ δὲ μή, τοὺς εἰδότας παρέξομαι
μάρτυρας. Καί μοι κάλει δεύρο αὐτοὺς πρῶτον.
ΤΟ
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
ων
Οὕτω τοίνυν ἀσελγὴς ὢν καὶ βίαιος καὶ τὴν τῶν ἀδελ
φῶν οὐσίαν ἀπεστερηκὼς οὐκ ἀγαπᾷ τὰ ἐκείνων ἔχων,
ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι δίκην οὐδεμίαν αὐτῶν δέδωκεν, ἥκει καὶ τὰ τοῦ
πάππου χρήματα ἡμᾶς ἀποστερήσων, καὶ τούτῳ δύο μνᾶς,
ὡς ἀκούομεν, | μόνας δεδωκώς οὐ μόνον περὶ χρημάτων 14
ἡμᾶς ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τῆς πατρίδος εἰς κινδύνους καθί
στησιν. ἐὰν γὰρ ἐξαπατηθῆτε ὑμεῖς πεισθέντες ὡς ἡ
μήτηρ ἡμῶν οὐκ ἦν πολῖτις, οὐδ᾽ ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν· μετ᾿ Εὐ
κλείδην γὰρ ἄρχοντα γεγόναμεν. ἆρα περὶ μικρῶν τινων
44 ἡμῖν τὸν ἀγῶνα κατεσκεύακε; καὶ ζῶντος μὲν τοῦ πάππου
καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐδεμίαν αἰτίαν εἴχομεν, ἀλλ' ἀναμφι
σβήτητοι τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον διετελέσαμεν· ἐπειδὴ δὲ
ἐκεῖνοι τετελευτήκασι, κἂν νῦν νικήσωμεν, ὄνειδος ἕξομεν,
διότι ἠμφεσβητήθημεν, διὰ τὸν Ὀρέστην τοῦτον τὸν κακῶς
ἀπολούμενον, ὃς μοιχὸς ληφθεὶς καὶ παθὼν ὅ τι προσ-
ήκει τοὺς τὰ τοιαῦτα ποιοῦντας οὐδ᾽ ὡς ἀπαλλάττεται
τοῦ πράγματος, ὡς οἱ συνειδότες καταμαρτυροῦσι. τοῦτον
μὲν οὖν, οἷός ἐστι, καὶ νῦν ἀκούετε καὶ αὖθις ἀκριβέστερον
πεύσεσθε, ὅταν κατ᾿ αὐτοῦ τὴν δίκην ἡμεῖς εἰσίωμεν·
45 ὑμῶν δ᾽ ἐγὼ δέομαι καὶ ἱκετεύω, μή με περιίδητε περὶ
τούτων ὑβρισθέντα τῶν χρημάτων ὧν ὁ πάππος κατέλιπε,
μηδ᾽ ἀποστερηθέντα, ἀλλὰ βοηθήσατε καθ᾽ ὅσον ὑμῶν
ἕκαστος τυγχάνει δυνάμενος. ἔχετε δὲ πίστεις ἱκανὰς ἐκ
μαρτυριών, ἐκ βασάνων, ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν νόμων, ὅτι τ᾽ ἐσμὲν
Comment. Palaeogr. p. 800), deprauatum esse censet Dobr. Cf. Harp. s.u. φελλέα
(Ισαῖος ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ Κίρωνος (κήρωνος libri, corr. Blancardus) κλήρου. τὰ πετρώδη καὶ
αἰγίβοτα χωρία φελλέας εκάλουν), schol. ad Arist. Nub. 71. 5. ἴσως] ὅμως Hertlein.
6. ἐθελήσειαν Α', θελήσειαν A, Buerm.
43. 2. ἀποστερηκὼς A, corr. Αl.
44.
ως
Cf. § 11. 3, VII. 12. 6, X. 3. 2.
5. μόνας del. Nab.
21. 2, VI. 52. 5, 6, VII. 4. 7.
πεύσεσθαι Α, corr. Α'. Cf. § 12. 4.
νικήσομεν ΑΜ, corr. Α. Cf. IV.
4.
7. ἀπαλλάττεται A, corr. Α'.
45. 3. βοηθήσατε Α, corr. Αl.
10.
OR. VIII. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΚΙΡΩΝΟΣ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
129
<ἐκ> θυγατρὸς γνησίας Κίρωνος, καὶ ὅτι προσήκει ἡμῖν
μᾶλλον ἢ τούτοις κληρονομεῖν τῶν ἐκείνου χρημάτων, ἐκ-
γόνοις οὖσι τοῦ πάππου. μνησθέντες οὖν καὶ τῶν ὅρκων 46
οὓς ὀμόσαντες δικάζετε, καὶ τῶν λόγων οὓς εἰρήκαμεν, καὶ
τῶν νόμων, ᾗ δίκαιόν ἐστι, ταύτῃ τὴν ψῆφον τίθεσθε.
8
Οὐκ οἶδ' ὅ τι δεῖ πλείω λέγειν· οἶμαι γὰρ ὑμᾶς οὐδὲν
ἀγνοεῖν τῶν εἰρημένων. Λαβὲ δ᾽ αὐτοῖς τὴν μαρτυρίαν τὴν
λοιπήν, ὡς ἐλήφθη μοιχός, καὶ ἀνάγνωθι.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ.
6. ἐκ add. Dobr. Cf. III. 73. 9, VI. 35. 5.
Α'. ἐκγόνοις primi Turr. Cf. § 32. 8.
del. Herw.
7, 8. ἐκγόνοις A, y in rasur. add.
οὖσι in marg. add. Α' || τοῦ πάππου
8.
46. 3. τίθεσθαι A, e supra αι add. Αl. Cf. § 44. 10.
7. Tit. add. Reisk.
W. I.
9
IX
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΣΤΥΦΙΛΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ.
1
ΥΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ.
Αστύφιλος καὶ ὁ λέγων τὸν λόγον ἀδελφοὶ ὁμομήτριοι τελευτή-
σαντος δὲ τοῦ ᾿Αστυφίλου διαθήκας προήνεγκε Κλέων τις,
ἀνεψιὸς ὢν αὐτοῦ, φάσκων αὐτὰς γενέσθαι εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἑαυτοῦ.
ὁ δὲ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ ᾿Αστυφίλου κατηγορεῖ τῶν διαθηκῶν ὡς
πλαστῶν. Ἡ στάσις στοχασμός.
Αδελφός μοι ἦν ὁμομήτριος, ὦ ἄνδρες, Αστύφιλος,
οὗ ἐστιν ὁ κλῆρος· ἀποδημήσας οὖν μετὰ τῶν εἰς Μυτι-
λήνην στρατιωτῶν ἐτελεύτησε. πειράσομαι δ' ὑμῖν ἐπι-
δεῖξαι ὅπερ ἀντώμοσα, ὡς οὔτε ἐποιήσατο ἐκεῖνος ὑὸν
ἑαυτῷ, οὔτ᾽ ἔδωκε τὰ ἑαυτοῦ, οὔτε διαθήκας κατέλιπεν,
οὔτε προσήκει ἔχειν τὰ ᾿Αστυφίλου οὐδενὶ ἄλλῳ ἢ ἐμοί.
2 ἔστι γὰρ [ὁ] Κλέων οὑτοσὶ ἀνεψιὸς Ἀστυφίλῳ πρὸς πατρός,
ὁ δὲ ὑὸς ὁ τούτου, ὃν εἰσποιεῖ ἐκείνῳ, ἀνεψιαδοῦς.
εἰσποίητος δ᾽ ἦν ὁ πατὴρ ὁ Κλέωνος εἰς ἄλλον οἶκον,
καὶ οὗτοι ἔτι εἰσὶν ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ οἴκῳ, ὥστε γένει μὲν διὰ
τὸν νόμον οὐδὲν προσήκουσιν ᾿Αστυφίλῳ. ἐπειδὴ δὲ κατὰ
IX. De tit. cf. Harp. ad § 30. 3.
Hyp. 5.
1. I.
πλαστ *** στάσις A, corr. Α1.
μοι ἦν μοιομήτριος, inter scribendum corr.
2. οὖν] Malint οὗτος Reisk., δὲ Dobr. Cf. VII. 5.
Cf. § 18. 2, V. 17. 8.
2, 3. μιτυλήνην: corr. Turr.,
4· ὅπερ
item §§ 6. 6, 14. 2, 10. Cf. Voemel, Proleg. Gramm. ad Dem. § 109.
Α1, «κπερ Α. Fuerat fortasse ώσπερ (§ 34. I, V. Ι. 8).
5. κατέλκιπεν. Cf.
2. I. ò del. Saupp. Cf. vI. 6. 3, XII. I. 2.
2.
εἰσποιεί ex εἰσποιεῖν,
§ II. 4, III. 41. 6.
5
OR. IX. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΣΤΥΦΙΛΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
131
ταῦτα οὐκ ἦν ἀμφισβήτησις, διαθήκας, ὦ ἄνδρες, ψευδείς
— ὡς ἐγὼ οἶμαι ἐπιδείξειν κατεσκεύασαν καὶ ζητοῦσιν
ἀποστερῆσαί με τῶν τἀδελφοῦ. καὶ οὕτω σφόδρα Κλέων 3
οὑτοσὶ καὶ πρότερον καὶ νῦν οὐδένα ἄλλον τὸν κλῆρον
ἡγεῖται ἕξειν ἢ αὐτόν, ὥστ᾽ ἐπειδὴ τάχιστα ἠγγέλθη
Αστύφιλος τετελευτηκώς, τοῦ μὲν πατρὸς τοῦ ἐμοῦ ἀστ
θενοῦντος, ἐμοῦ δὲ οὐκ ἐπιδημοῦντος ἀλλὰ στρατευομένου,
εἰς τὸ χωρίον ἐνεβάτευσε, καὶ εἴ τι ἄλλο ἐκεῖνος κατέλιπεν,
ἅπαντα ἔφη τοῦ ὑοῦ τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ εἶναι, πρίν τι ὑμᾶς ψηφί
σασθαι. ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἐκομίσθη τὰ ὀστᾶ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ, ὁ μὲν 4
προσποιούμενος πάλαι ὑὸς εἰσπεποιῆσθαι οὐ προύθετο
75 οὐδ᾽ ἔθαψεν, | οἱ δὲ φίλοι <οἱ> Αστυφίλου καὶ οἱ συστρα
τιῶται, ὁρῶντες τὸν πατέρα τὸν ἐμὸν ἀρρωστοῦντα, ἐμὲ δὲ οὐκ
ἐπιδημοῦντα, αὐτοὶ καὶ προύθεντο καὶ τἆλλα πάντα τὰ
νομιζόμενα ἐποίησαν καὶ τὸν ἐμὸν πατέρα ἀσθενοῦντα
ἐπὶ τὸ μνῆμα ἤγαγον εὖ εἰδότες ὅτι ἀσπάζοιτο αὐτὸν
Αστύφιλος. τούτου δ᾽ ὑμῖν αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἐπιτηδείους τοὺς
ἐκείνου μάρτυρας παρέξομαι τῶν παρόντων.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
αν
Οτι μὲν οὐκ ἔθαψε Κλέων ᾿Αστύφιλον, οὐδ᾽ <ἂν> αὐτὸς 5
ἔξαρνος γένοιτο μεμαρτύρηταί τε ὑμῖν· ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἐπεδήμησα
ἐγὼ καὶ ᾐσθόμην καρπουμένους τούτους τὰ ἐκείνου,...... ὁ
δὲ ὑὸς αὐτοῦ ποιηθείη ὑπὸ ᾿Αστυφίλου, καὶ τούτων διαθήκας
6. ἀμφισβητῆσαι Nab. 7. καὶ supra uers. add. A. Cf. I. 47. 5. 8. τῶν
τἀδελφοῦ Reisk., Bekk. : τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ Α, τῶν ex τοῦ Α', τῶν <τοῦ > ἀδελφοῦ Schoem.,
τῶν
Turr., Scheib., Buerm. In archetypo τοῦ fuisse suspicatur Buerm. coll. III. hyp. I
(Hermes 19. 333). Cf. 111. 10. 6, IV. 4. 7.
3. 3. ἢ αὑτὸν Ald., uolg., del. Nab., η αὐτὸν Buerm. Cf. § 24. 6.
supra uers. add. A¹. Cf. §§ 11. 3, 20. I, II. I. 2.
6. τό
7.
ὑοῦ.
Cf. II. 2. 3.
3.
ë0a**ev A, Y in rasur. A¹.
4. I. ἐπεὶ δὲ < δεῦρο > Nab. coll. § 7. 3.
Cf. 1. 18. 2oi add. Bekk. Cf. § 10. 6, VI. 65. 3.
Hirschig, ήσπάζετο Fuhr. Cf. § 30. 9.
Jahresb. 46, 47), τῶν τότε παρόντων malit Albrecht.
7· ἀσπάζοιτο] ήσπάσατο
9. τῶν παρόντων del. Huettner (Bursian,
5. I. Post μὲν add. οὖν Reisk. Cf. III. 7. 3 ll οὔτ᾽ malit Bekk. (in Addendis
p. 601). Cf. IV. 26. 6 || äv add. Bekk. Cf. § 8. I, III. 54. I.
ἐκείνου supra uers. et in marg. terna puncta add. Α'. Lacunam indicauit Dobr.
3.
Et post
9-2
132
OR. IX.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
καταλίποι παρὰ Ἱεροκλεῖ Ιφιστιάδῃ.
ἀκούσας δ᾽ ἐγὼ
λέγοντος αὐτοῦ ταῦτα ἐπορευόμην παρὰ τὸν Ἱεροκλέα,
εὖ μὲν εἰδὼς ὅτι ὡς οἷόν τε μάλιστα ἐπιτήδειος εἴη Κλέωνι,
6 οὐχ ἡγούμενος δ᾽ ἂν αὐτὸν τολμῆσαί τι ψεύσασθαι κατὰ
Αστυφίλου τετελευτηκότος, καὶ ταῦτα θεῖον ὄντα καὶ ἐμοῦ
καὶ ἐκείνου. ὅμως δέ, ὦ ἄνδρες, οὐδὲν τούτων ὑπολογισά-
μενος ὁ Ἱεροκλῆς, ἐρωτώμενος ὑπ᾿ ἐμοῦ ἀπεκρίνατό μοι
ὅτι ἔχοι τὰς διαθήκας· λαβεῖν δὲ ἔφη αὐτὰς παρὰ ᾿Αστυ-
φίλου, ὅτε εἰς Μυτιλήνην ἔμελλεν ἐκεῖνος ἐκπλεῖν. Ὡς δὲ
ταῦτ᾽ ἔλεγεν, ἀνάγνωθί μοι ταύτην τὴν μαρτυρίαν [ὅτι
Ἱεροκλῆς ἀπεκρίνατο].
ΟΤΕ
ΟΤΕ
MAPTYPIA.
7 Ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν, ὦ ἄνδρες, οὔτε παραγενόμενος οὐδεὶς
ἔτυχε τῶν οἰκείων ὅτε ὁ ἀδελφὸς ἐτελεύτησεν, οὔτε ἐγὼ
ἐπεδήμουν ὅτε τὰ ὀστᾶ αὐτοῦ δεῦρο ἐκομίσθη, ἀναγκαῖόν
μοί ἐστιν ἐξ αὐτῶν ὧν οὗτοι λέγουσιν ἐλέγχειν ψευδείς
οὖσας τὰς διαθήκας [ἂς ἐποιήσατο]. εἰκὸς γὰρ ἐκεῖνον
οὐ μόνον ἐπιθυμεῖν ὑὸν ποιησάμενον καταλιπεῖν, ἀλλὰ
καὶ σκοπεῖσθαι ὅπως κυριώτατα ἔσται ἃ ἂν διαθῆται,
καὶ τήν τε οὐσίαν, ὃν ἂν ἐκεῖνος εἰσποιήσηται, οὗτος ἕξει,
καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς βωμοὺς τοὺς πατρῴους οὗτος βαδιεῖται, καὶ
τελευτήσαντι αὐτῷ καὶ τοῖς ἐκείνου προγόνοις τὰ νομιζό-
8 μενα ποιήσει· ἅπαντα δὲ ταῦτα μάλιστ᾽ ἂν εἰδέναι ὅτι
γένοιτο, εἰ μὴ ἄνευ τῶν οἰκείων τῶν ἑαυτοῦ τὰς διαθήκας
ποιοῖτο, ἀλλὰ πρῶτον μὲν συγγενεῖς παρακαλέσας, ἔπειτα
δὲ φράτερας καὶ δημότας, ἔπειτα τῶν ἄλλων ἐπιτηδείων
ὅσους δύναιτο πλείστους· οὕτω γὰρ εἴτε κατὰ γένος εἴτε
αν
5. ἱεροκλή Α, corr. Α' || Ιφιστιάδῃ scripsi, Ηφαιστιάδῃ Meursius (sec. Turr.) et
Schoen.: ἡφαιστίδῃ || Post ἀκούσας : litt. rasur., in qua δ' inuenit et in text. restituit
Buerm.
7. Κλεωνίου Α, corr. Α2.
θεῖον «κοντα A, corr. Α2.
6. 2.
7, 8. Gloss. del. Reisk. Cf. 11. 8. 1.
7. 5.
ἃς ἐποιήσατο uel del uel in ἃς ἐπορίσατο corr. Dobr., del. Herw., as
< οὐδέποτε> ἐποιήσατο uel ἃς ἐποιήσαντο Reisk. || εἰκὸς in rasur. add. Αl.
< ὡς > κυριώτατα uel ὅπως κύρια αὐτῷ Dobr.
7. ὅπως
8. öv A¹, #v (ÿv ?) A.
2. γένοιντο:
8. 1. μάλιστ᾽ ἂν Bekk. : μάλιστα. Cf. § 5. 1 || εἰδέναι Α', οἶδα Α.
corr. Dobr. Cf. II. 20. 7 || ἑαυτοῦ Α', ἐμαυτοῦ Α. 5. γένος εἴτε Ald. : γένος ἔτε.
OR. IX. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΣΤΥΦΙΛΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
133
ΟΤΕ
κατὰ δόσιν ἀμφισβητοίη τις, ῥᾳδίως ἂν ἐλέγχοιτο ψευδό-
μενος. ὁ τοίνυν Αστύφιλος οὐδὲν φαίνεται τοιοῦτον ποι- 9
ήσας, οὐδὲ παραστησάμενος οὐδένα τούτων ὅτε διέθετο ἃ
οὗτοί φασιν, εἰ μή τις ἄρα ὑπὸ τούτων πέπεισται ὁμολογεῖν
παρεῖναι. αὐτὸς δ᾽ ὑμῖν πάντας τούτους μαρτυροῦντας
παρέξομαι.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
Ἴσως τοίνυν Κλέων ουτοσί φήσει οὐκ εἰκὸς εἶναι 10
τεκμηρίοις ὑμᾶς χρήσασθαι τούτοις τοῖς μάρτυσιν, ὅτι
μαρτυροῦσι μὴ εἰδέναι ᾿Αστύφιλον ταῦτα διατιθέμενον.
ἐγὼ δ᾽ οἶμαι, περί γε διαθηκῶν οὔσης τῆς ἀμφισβητήσεως
καὶ περὶ τοῦ ποιηθῆναί τινα ὑὸν ᾿Αστυφίλῳ, ἡμῖν πολὺ
βεβαιοτέραν εἶναι μαρτυρίαν ἣν οἱ ἀναγκαῖοι <οἱ> ἐκείνου
περὶ τῶν μεγίστων μή φασι παραγενέσθαι, μᾶλλον ἢ ἣν
οἱ μηδὲν προσήκοντες μαρτυροῦσι παρεῖναι. καὶ ἐχρῆν 11
δ᾽, ὦ ἄνδρες, καὶ αὐτὸν Κλέωνα, μὴ δοκοῦντα εἶναι ἠλίθιον,
ὅτε τὸν ὑὸν τὸν τούτου ἐποιεῖτο Αστύφιλος καὶ τὰς διαθήκας
κατέλειπε, παρακαλέσαι εἴ τέ τινα συγγενῆ ἐπιδημοῦντα
ἐγίγνωσκεν, καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους, ὅτῳ περ ἔμβραχυ ᾔδει Αστύ
φιλον χρώμενον. κωλύσαι μὲν γὰρ οὐδεὶς ἂν αὐτὸν
ἐδύνατο, ὅτῳ ἐβούλετο, δοῦναι τὰ ἑαυτοῦ· τούτῳ δ᾽ ἂν
μεγάλη μαρτυρία ἦν, ὅτι οὐ λάθρα ταῦτα διέθετο. ἔτι 12
δ᾽, ὦ ἄνδρες, εἰ μὲν ὁ ᾿Αστύφιλος μηδένα ἐβούλετο εἰδέναι
ὅτι τὸν Κλέωνος ὑὸν ἐποιεῖτο μηδ' ὅτι διαθήκας καταλίποι,
εἰκὸς ἦν μηδὲ ἄλλον μηδένα ἐγγεγράφθαι ἐν τῷ γραμ-
ΟΤΕ
9. 4. τούτους] τοῦτο Nab. || ἐμοὶ post μαρτυροῦντας add. Reisk.
Εν
10. τ. φήσει Blass : φησιν. Cf. VI. 57. 5, ΧΙ. 33. 6, Din. 1. 26, [Dem.] 56. 14,
Lys. 13. 70.
2. ὅτι] οἳ malit Reisk.
3. διατιθέμενον] et supra or et in
marg. tera puncta posuit A', διαθέμενον coni. Scheib., Boekmeijer. Cf. iv. 13. 2.
4. περί τε Reisk.
5. εἰσποιηθῆναι coni. Nab., probat Buerm. (Hermes 19. 343)
praepositionem in u. 6 deerrasse ratus. Cf. VII. 40. 2, X. II. 6, XI. 49. 9 || ǹµîv] ĥ µý,
Reisk., ἢ μή, ἡμῖν Boekmeijer.
6. Ante v erasum eis || oi add. Saupp. Cf.
§§ 4. 3, 19. 4, 21. 6, 28. 3, 36. 5.
11. 3. τὸν ante τούτου supra uers. add. Αl. Cf. S 3. 6.
Cf. § 1. 5 || TÉ Dobr.: yé.
4. κατέλειπε.
5. ὅτῳ περ ἔμβραχυ Cob., ὅτῳ ἔμβραχύ περ Scheib.:
6. ἂν supra uers. add. A', del. Scheib.,
ὅτω ἐπιβραχύ περ (accent. supra . eraso).
Buerm. Cf. IV. I. 9. 7. d'A¹, y' A.
*ἦν **** (ἦν κλέων ?).
12. 4.
α
134
OR. IX.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
ματείῳ μάρτυρα· εἰ δ᾽ ἐναντίον μαρτύρων φαίνεται διαθέ
μενος, τούτων δὲ μὴ τῶν μάλιστα χρωμένων ἀλλὰ τῶν
ἐντυχόντων, πῶς εἰκός ἐστιν ἀληθεῖς εἶναι τὰς διαθήκας ;
13 οὐ γὰρ <ἂν> ἡγοῦμαι ἔγωγε οὐδένα, ὑὸν ἑαυτῷ ποιούμενον,
τολμῆσαι ἄλλους τινὰς παρακαλέσαι ἢ | τούτους, οἷς περ 76
καὶ ἱερῶν καὶ ὁσίων κοινωνὸν ἀνθ᾽ αὑτοῦ εἰς τὸν ἔπειτα
χρόνον ἔμελλε καταλείπειν. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδ᾽ αἰσχυνθῆναι
οὐδενὶ προσήκει ἐπὶ τοιαύταις διαθήκαις ὡς πλείστους μάρ-
τυρας παρίστασθαι, νόμου γε ὄντος ἐξεῖναι ὅτῳ βούλοιτο
δοῦναι τὰ ἑαυτοῦ.
14 Σκέψασθε δέ, ὦ ἄνδρες, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ χρόνου ὃν οὗτοι
λέγουσι περὶ τῶν διαθηκῶν. ὅτε γὰρ εἰς Μυτιλήνην ἐξέπλει
στρατευόμενος, τότε φασὶν αὐτὸν ταῦτα διαθέσθαι· φαίνεται
δὲ ὁ ᾿Αστύφιλος τῷ τούτων λόγῳ τὰ μέλλοντα ἅπαντα
ἔσεσθαι προειδώς. πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ ἐστρατεύσατο εἰς
Κόρινθον, ἔπειτα εἰς Θετταλίαν, ἔτι δὲ τὸν Θηβαϊκὸν πό
λεμον ἅπαντα, καὶ ἄλλοσε ὅπου περ αἰσθάνοιτο στράτευμα
συλλεγόμενον, ἁπανταχοῖ ἀπεδήμει λοχαγῶν· καὶ οὐδ᾽ ἐν
μιᾷ τούτων τῶν ἐξόδων διαθήκας κατέλιπεν. ἡ δὲ εἰς τὴν
Μυτιλήνην στρατεία τελευταία αὐτῷ ἐγένετο, ἐν ᾗ καὶ
15 ἀπέθανε. τῷ οὖν ἂν ὑμῶν φανείη πιστόν, πρότερον ἄλλας
στρατείας τοῦ ᾿Αστυφίλου στρατευομένου καὶ εὖ εἰδότος
ὅτι ἐν ἁπάσαις μέλλοι κινδυνεύειν, οὕτως ἀκριβῶς τὰ παρὰ
τῆς τύχης συμβῆναι, ὥστε ἐν μὲν τῷ πρόσθεν χρόνῳ μηδὲ
περὶ ἑνὸς αὐτὸν τῶν αὑτοῦ διαθέσθαι, ὅτε δὲ τὸ τελευταῖον
ἔμελλε στρατεύεσθαι, ἐθελοντήν τε ἐκπλέοντα καὶ μάλιστα
5. ἐναντίον < μὲν> Boekmeijer.
13.
ท
Malit οὐδένα < πώποτε> Buerm.
I. av add. Scheib. Cf. 111. 50. 6, 54. 1.
2, 3. οΰσπερ et κοινωνούς: corr. Dobr. 4. καταλιπεῖν: corr. Herw. Cf. V. 5. I, 2.
6. λέγοντος Nab. Cf. VIII. 33. 8 || οὕτω ex οὕτω.
14. 3. στρατευσόμενος Dobr., Scheib.
typothet. errore), Schoem., Turr., Scheib.
Schoem. Cf. v. 43. 4.
4.
7.
ἅπαντα om. Βekk. (fortasse
ὅποι Reisk., Bekk.,
8. ἁπανταχοί Reisk., Bekk., ἁπανταχῆκ
(puncto, ut uidetur, eraso) Α, ἁπανταχοῦ Ald. (omisso v), Steph.
Cf. § 30. 2,
IV. 27. 5.
15. 1. πότερον Α, corr. A. Cf. III. 6. 6.
6. ἐκπλέοντα Dobr.: έκπλεῖν τῶ.
3. οὕτως Α', ὥστε Α.
OR. IX. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΣΤΥΦΙΛΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
135
πως
ἐκ ταύτης τῆς στρατείας ἐλπίζοντα σωθήσεσθαι
τοῦτο πιστὸν ἤδη; τὰς διαθήκας τότε καταλιπεῖν καὶ
ἐκπλεύσαντα τελευτῆσαι ;
Χωρὶς δὲ τούτων, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ἔτι μείζω τεκμήρια 16
παρέξομαι ὡς οὐδὲν ἀληθὲς λέγουσιν οὗτοι. ἐπιδείξω γὰρ
ὑμῖν ἔχθιστον ἁπάντων ὄντα Αστύφιλον Κλέωνι, καὶ οὕτω
σφόδρα καὶ δικαίως μισοῦντα τοῦτον, ὥστε πολὺ ἂν θᾶττον
διαθέμενον μηδένα ποτὲ τῶν ἑαυτοῦ οἰκείων διαλεχθῆναι
Κλέωνι, μᾶλλον ἢ τὸν τούτου ὑὸν ποιησάμενον. Εὐθυκράτει 17
γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες, τῷ πατρὶ τῷ ᾿Αστυφίλου αἴτιος γενέσθαι
λέγεται τοῦ θανάτου Θούδιππος ὁ Κλέωνος τουτουὶ πατήρ,
αἰκισάμενος ἐκεῖνον διαφορᾶς τινος αὐτοῖς γενομένης ἐν τῇ
νεμήσει τοῦ χωρίου, καὶ οὕτως αὐτὸν διατεθῆναι, ὥστε
ἐκ τῶν πληγῶν [αὐτὸν] ἀσθενήσαντα οὐ πολλαῖς ἡμέραις
ὕστερον ἀποθανεῖν. ὡς δὲ ταῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν ἀληθῆ, ἴσως μὲν 18
καὶ ᾿Αραφηνίων [καὶ] πολλοὶ τῶν τότε συγγεωργούντων
μαρτυρήσειαν ἄν μοι, διαρρήδην δὲ περὶ τηλικούτου πράγ
ματος οὐκ ἂν ἔχοιμι ὅπως ὑμῖν παρασχοίμην. καὶ γὰρ
αὐτὸν τυπτόμενον ἰδὼν Ἱεροκλῆς, ὁ τὸ γραμματεῖον φάσκων
παρ' ἑαυτῷ τεθῆναι, οἶδ' ὅτι οὐκ ἂν ἐθελήσειε μαρτυρῆσαι
ἐναντία ταῖς διαθήκαις αἷς αὐτὸς ἀποφαίνει. Ομως μέντοι
καὶ κάλει Ἱεροκλέα, ἵνα ἐναντίον τούτων μαρτυρήσῃ ἢ
ἐξομόσηται.
αν
8.
τοῦτον Ald. edd. ante Buerm. omnes || ἤδη Ald.: ήδει. Παρένθεσιν et
interrogationem fecit Buerm. Del. πῶς τοῦτο πιστὸν Nab., πῶς τοῦτον πιστὸν ἤδη
Papabasileios, corr. ἤδη in δὴ Herw.
16. 4. av Dobr.: dǹ. Cf. Cob. N. L. p. 549, Lys. 20. 31.
μενον : corr. Reisk. Cf. I. I. 5.
17.
2.
6. ποιησό-
ἀστυφίλω Α, corr. A. Cf. VII. 20. 8. 3. Θούδιππος] θ᾽ οὐδεππές
A, t in rasur. 2 litt. add. A', o 2 in rasur. add. A2 || τούτου: corr. Scheib. 6. αὐτὸν
del. Herw. Cf. II. IO. 4.
18.
2. ραφηνίων: corr. Palmerius (Exercitationes, ed. 1694, p. 672). Natum
fortasse ex κάραφηνίων || καὶ del Bekk., οἱ coni. Palmerius. Cf. § Ι. Ι. 3. μαρ-
τυρήσαιεν : corr. Scheib. Cf. IV. 14. 4, And. I. 137, Ant. vi. 51 || διαρρήδην δὲ <τὸν
μαρτυρήσοντα> Reisk., post πράγματος suppl. μαρτυροῦντας Herw. 6. ἑαυτοῦ Α,
corr. Al. Cf. xi. hyp. 3 || έθελήση: corr. Dobr., ἐθελήσαι M, Bekk., Schoen., Turr.
Cf. § 37. 9, 1. 21. 8. 8. κάλει < μοι> Herw. Cf. VIII. 20. 13 || ἐναντία: corr.
Bekk. 9. ἐξομοκκκσηται Α, corr. Α.
136
OR. IX.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
<ΕΞΩΜΟΣΙΑ.>
19
20
21
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ.
Ακριβῶς μὲν ᾔδη· τοῦ γὰρ αὐτοῦ ἀνδρός ἐστιν, ἃ μὲν
οἶδεν, ἐξόμνυσθαι, τῶν δὲ μὴ γενομένων πίστιν ἐθέλειν
ἐπιθεῖναι ἢ μὴν εἰδέναι γενόμενα· ὡς δέ, ὅτε ἀπέθνῃσκεν
[ὁ] Εὐθυκράτης ὁ πατὴρ <ὁ> Αστυφίλου, ἐπέσκηψε τοῖς
οἰκείοις μηδένα ποτὲ ἐᾶσαι ἐλθεῖν τῶν Θουδίππου ἐπὶ τὸ
μνῆμα τὸ ἑαυτοῦ, τούτων ὑμῖν τὸν ἔχοντα τὴν τηθίδα τὴν
Αστυφίλου μάρτυρα παρέξομαι.
Ο
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ.
Ακούων τοίνυν ταῦτα ὁ ᾿Αστύφιλος καὶ τούτου καὶ
τῶν ἄλλων προσηκόντων εὐθέως ἐκ παιδίου, ἐπειδὴ τάχιστα
ἤρχετο φρονεῖν, οὐδεπώποτε διελέχθη Κλέωνι, ἀλλὰ πρό-
τερον ἐτελεύτησεν, οὐχ ἡγούμενος ὅσιον εἶναι, τοιαύτην
αἰτίαν ἔχοντος ουδίππου περὶ τὸν αὑτοῦ πατέρα, τῷ ἐκείνου
θεῖ διαλέγεσθαι. ὡς οὖν τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον διάφορος
ἦν Κλέωνι, τούτων ὑμῖν τοὺς συνειδότας μάρτυρας παρ-
έξομαι.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
Εἰς τὰς θυσίας τοίνυν, ἐν αἷσπερ οἱ ἄλλοι ᾿Αθηναῖοι
ἑστιῶνται, πρῶτον μὲν δημότην ὄντα, ἔπειτα <δ> ἀνεψιόν,
ἔτι δὲ τὸν ὑὸν τὸν τούτου μέλλοντα ποιεῖσθαι, εἰκὸς δήπου
ἦν, ὁπότε περ ἐπιδημοίη, μηδὲ μεθ᾿ ἑνὸς ἄλλου ἰέναι
ΙΟ. ΕΞΩΜΟΣΙΑ add. Schoem. corr. ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ in ΕΞΩΜΟΣΙΑ Τurr.,
Buerm.
19. 2. Post o δεν excidisse γενόμενα suspicatur Scheib.
4. ὁ ante Εὐθυ
κράτης del. Scheib., post πατήρ add. Dobr. Cf. § 4. 3 | ἐπέσκηψε Α', ἐπέτρεψε Α.
5. ἐάσειν: corr. Bait. Cf. II. 8. 6. 6. ὑμῖν ex ὑμῶν rasur. factum || τὴν Buerm. :
7. μάρτυρα Steph.: μαρτυρίαν.
τοῦ. Cf. IV. 20. 2.
Saupp.
20. I. ó in uers. add. A¹. Cf. § 3. 6.
§§ 29. 7, 30. 8, XII. 3. 3, And. I. 48.
8. ΜΑΡΤΥΣ malit
2. ἐκ παίδων : corr. Dobr. Cf.
3. διηλέχθη Α, διειλέχθη Α': corr. Reisk.
3, 4. ἀλλὰ πρότερον ἐτελεύτησεν del. Nab., post πρότερον add. ἂν Herw. Cf. § 36. 7.
7. τούτων] τουτῳ, coni. Scheib. Cf. VII. 44. 4, 45. 2, ΧΙ. 5. 3.
21. I. θυσίας Α', ουσίας A. Cf. Lyc. 142, [And.] IV. 29, Din. II. 2o, Ar. Pol.
2. δ' add. Dobr. Cf. § 35. I. 4. ἀποδημοίη : corr. Reisk.
3. 1285 b 10, 16.
Cf. 11. 6. 3 II είναι: corr. Reisk.
OR. IX.
137
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΣΤΥΦΙΛΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
?
τὸν ᾿Αστύφιλον ἢ μετὰ Κλέωνος. ὡς τοίνυν οὐδέποτ'
η ἦλθε μετ' αὐτοῦ, ὑμῖν τῶν δημοτῶν μαρτυρίαν | ἀναγ
νώσεται.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ.
Οὕτως τοίνυν διακείμενος τῷ τετελευτηκότι Κλέων ἀξιοῖ 22
τὸν ὑὸν τὸν ἑαυτοῦ τὰ ἐκείνου ἔχειν. καὶ τί δεῖ τοῦτον λέγειν ;
ἀλλ᾽ Ἱεροκλῆς, θεῖος ὢν <καὶ ἐκείνῳ> καὶ ἐμοί, οὕτως ἐστὶ
τολμηρὸς ὥστε οὐ γενομένας διαθήκας ἥκει φέρων, καί φησι
παρ' ἑαυτῷ Αστύφιλον ταύτας καταλιπεῖν. καίτοι, Ἱερόκλεις, 23
πολλὰ κἀγαθὰ παθὼν ὑπὸ Θεοφράστου τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ
ἐμοῦ, ὅτε χεῖρον ἔπραττες ἢ νυνί, καὶ ὑπὸ ᾿Αστυφίλου,
οὐδετέρῳ αὐτοῖν τὴν ἀξίαν χάριν ἀποδίδως· ἐμὲ μὲν γὰρ
ὑὸν ὄντα Θεοφράστου, σαυτοῦ δὲ ἀδελφιδοῦν, ἀποστερεῖς
μοι οἱ νόμοι ἔδοσαν, Αστυφίλου δὲ τεθνεῶτος καταψεύδει,
καὶ τὸ κατὰ σαυτὸν μέρος τοὺς ἐχθίστους καθίστης τῶν
ἐκείνου κληρονόμους. καὶ πρὶν μὲν ληχθῆναι του κλήρου, 24
ὦ ἄνδρες, εὖ εἰδὼς ὁ Ἱεροκλῆς ὅτι οὐδενὶ ἄλλῳ γίγνοιτο τὰ
Αστυφίλου ἢ ἐμοί, ἐν μέρει ἑκάστῳ τῶν ἐκείνου ἐπιτηδείων
προσῄει πωλῶν τὸ πρᾶγμα καὶ τοὺς οὐδὲν προσήκοντας
πείθων ἀμφισβητεῖν, λέγων ὅτι θεῖος εἴη Αστυφίλῳ καὶ
ἀποφανοίη διαθήκας ἐκεῖνον καταλελοιπότα, εἴ τις αὐτῷ
κοινώσαιτο· ἐπειδὴ δὲ πρὸς Κλέωνα διωμολογήσατο καὶ
τῶν τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ ἐμερίσατο, νυνὶ ὡς ἀληθῆ λέγων ἀξιώσει
πιστεύεσθαι. δοκεῖ δέ μοι κἂν ὀμόσαι ἄσμενος, εἴ τις
αὐτῷ ὅρκον διδοίη. καὶ ἐμοὶ μὲν συγγενὴς ὢν οὐδὲ τὰ 25
γενόμενα ἐθέλει μαρτυρεῖν, ᾧ δ᾽ οὐδὲν προσήκει, τούτῳ τὰ
5. < μᾶλλον > ἢ Nab.
Cf. §§ 1o. 6, 28. 3.
ων
6. Add. τὴν ante τῶν Saupp., ante μαρτυρίαν Nab.
22. I.
1. πρὸς τὸν τετελευτηκότα Hirschig coll. §§ 30. 7, 32. 3.
add. Dobr.
23. 4. áπodidws] o A2, fortasse ex e.
5.
Buerm. omnes. Cf. III. 76. 2.
Τ
3.
καὶ ἐκείνῳ
σαν Α', και Α, σαυτῷ edd. ante
24. 2. ἄλλω **** (ἤ μοι sec. Dobr.) γίνοιτο. Cf. § 29. 8.
6. ἀποφανοίη
Scheib., ἀποφανοῖ Bekk., ἀποφαίνει A, o in rasur. add. A. Malit ἀποφαίνοι <ἂν>
Buerm. (Hermes 19. 334) || ἐκεῖνον καταλελοιπότα del. Herw. ]] αὐτῷ] αὑτῷ Schoem.,
Turr., Scheib. Cf. §§ 3. 3, 25. 6, II. II. 3, X. II. 4, XI. 12. 10. 7. κοινώσαιτο]
κοινώσοιτο Cob. (N. L. p. 337). Cf. § 25. 6, ΧΙ. 24. 5. 8. τὰ ἀδελφιδοῦ Dobr.
"
138
OR. IX.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
26
27
ψευδῆ συλλαμβάνει καὶ τῶν οὐ πραχθέντων γραμματεῖον
ἥκει φέρων· πολὺ γὰρ προυργιαίτερον ἡγεῖται εἶναι τὸ
χρηματίζεσθαι ἢ τὴν ἐμὴν συγγένειαν. ὡς δὲ ἐπηγγέλλετο
περιιὼν διαθήκας ἀποφανεῖν, εἴ τις αὐτῷ κοινώσαιτο, αὐτοὺς
ὑμῖν οἷς προσῆλθε μάρτυρας παρέξομαι.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
Τί οὖν χρή, ὦ ἄνδρες, ὄνομα θέσθαι τούτῳ τῷ ἀνδρί,
ὅς τις ἐθέλει οὕτω ῥᾳδίως διὰ τὸ ἑαυτοῦ κέρδος τῶν τεθ-
νεώτων τινὸς καταψεύδεσθαι; ὡς δὲ οὐδὲ Κλέωνι προῖκα
τὰς διαθήκας ἀποφαίνει, ἀλλὰ μισθὸν εἴληφεν, αὕτη ὑμῖν
ἡ μαρτυρία οὐ μικρὸν τεκμήριον ἔσται. τοιαῦτα μέντοι
κοινῇ ἐπ' ἐμοὶ τεχνάζουσιν· ἡγεῖται γὰρ αὐτῶν ἑκάτερος
εύρημα ἔχειν ὅ τι ἂν τῶν ᾿Αστυφίλου λάβῃ.
ΕΠ
Ως μὲν οὖν οὐκ εἰσὶν ἀληθεῖς αἱ διαθῆκαι, ἀλλὰ Κλέων
καὶ Ἱεροκλῆς βούλονται ὑμᾶς ἐξαπατῆσαι, καθ᾽ ὅσον
ἐδυνάμην ἀπέδειξα· ὡς δ᾽ εἰ καὶ μηδὲν προσήκων ἔτυχον
Αστυφίλῳ, δικαιότερός εἰμι ἔχειν τὰ ἐκείνου ἢ οὗτοι, διδάξω
ὑμᾶς. ὅτε γὰρ ἐλάμβανε Θεόφραστος ὁ ἐμὸς πατὴρ τὴν
ἐμὴν μητέρα καὶ ᾿Αστυφίλου παρὰ Ἱεροκλέους, ἦλθε καὶ
αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον ἔχουσα μικρὸν ὄντα, καὶ διῃτᾶτο παρ' ἡμῖν
τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον ὁ ᾿Αστύφιλος, καὶ ἐπαιδεύθη ὑπὸ τοῦ
28 πατρὸς τοῦ ἐμοῦ. καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἐγὼ ἐγενόμην καὶ ὥραν εἶχον
παιδεύεσθαι, μετ᾽ ἐκείνου συνεπαιδευόμην. Λαβὲ δέ μοι
ταύτην τὴν μαρτυρίαν, εἶτα τῶν διδασκάλων ὅποι ἐφοιτῶμεν.
25. 3. λαμβάνειν Α, corr. Α'. Cf. VIII. 38. ΙΟ. 4. πουργιαίτερον A, corr. Α.
6. πρειών A, corr. Α', περιῶν Β, περὶ ὧν Μ, Ald. Cf. Din. 1. 32 περιιών ΝΑ, περιὼν
Β, περὶ ὧν LM, Ald., Voemel. adn. crit. ad Dem. 19. 188, 189, 242. Reuocant περιὼν
Naber et Blass (Dem. 18. 44, Hyper. I. col. 13. 6, 11. 2) || ἀποφαίνειν : corr. Dobr. ||
αὑτῷ Schoem., Turr., Scheib. Cf. S 24. 6 || κοινώσαιτο] κοινώσοιτο Cob. Cf. § 24. 6.
6, 7. αὐτοὺς ὑμῖν οἷς προσῆλθε μάρτυρας Scheib., αὐτῶν ὑμ. οἷς πρ. μαρτυρίας Schoem.,
Turr., αὐτῶν του ὑμ. οἷς πρ. μαρτυρίαν Vallen (Hermes 1o. 460), αὐτοῦ ὑμ. ᾧ πρ. μαρτυρίαν
Ald., Steph., Reisk., Bekk. : αὐτοῦ ὑμῖν ὡς προσῆλθε μαρτυρίας. 7. παρέξομαι Dobr. :
παρέχομαι A, edd. ante Scheib. omnes. Cf. v. 4. 6. 8. Tit. μαρτυρίαι : corr. Scheib.
26. I. τοῦτο Α, corr. Α2. 4. ειληφώς malit Nab.
5. μέντοι suspectat
Dobr. Titulum excidisse coni. Reisk.
27. 3. προσῆκον A, corr. A. Cf. x. 15. 10.
τῆς ἀδελφῆς suspicatur Reisk. coll. § 29.
28.
6. Post ήλθε excidisse μετὰ
3. τὴν ante τῶν add. Reisk., Bekk. Cf. § 2 1. 6 || ὅπη A, οι supra η add. Α',
ὅπῃ Buerm.
Cf. IV. 27. 5.
OR. IX.
139
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΣΤΥΦΙΛΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑΙ.
78
3
Ο
Τὸ τοίνυν χωρίον τὸ ἐκείνου πατρῷον, ὦ ἄνδρες, ὁ πατὴρ
ὁ ἐμὸς ἐφύτευσε καὶ ἐγεώργει καὶ ἐποίει διπλασίου ἄξιον.
Ανάβητέ μοι καὶ τούτων μάρτυρες.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
Ἐπεὶ τοίνυν ἐδοκιμάσθη ὁ ἀδελφός, ἀπέλαβε πάντα 29
ὀρθῶς καὶ δικαίως, ὥστε ἐκεῖνον μηδεπώποτε μηδὲν ἐγ
καλέσαι τῷ ἐμῷ πατρί. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τὴν ἀδελφὴν τὴν
ἐκείνου ὁμοπατρίαν ἠγγύησεν ὁ ἐμὸς πατὴρ ὅτῳ ἐδόκει
αὐτῷ, καὶ τἆλλα διῴκει, καὶ ταῦτα τῷ ᾿Αστυφίλῳ ἐξήρκει·
ἱκανὴν γὰρ ἡγήσατο βάσανον εἰληφέναι ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς
τοῦ ἐμοῦ τῆς εἰς αὑτὸν εὐνοίας, ἐκ μικροῦ παιδίου τεθραμ
μένος παρ' αὐτῷ. μαρτυροῦσι δὲ ὑμῖν καὶ περὶ τῆς ἐγγύης
οἱ εἰδότες.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
Εἰς τοίνυν τὰ ἱερὰ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐμὸς τὸν ᾿Αστυφιλον 30
<ὄντα> παῖδα ἦγε μεθ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ ὥσπερ καὶ ἐμὲ πανταχῇ.
καὶ εἰς τοὺς θιασώτας τοὺς Ἡρακλέους ἐκεῖνον [αὐτὸν]
εἰσήγαγεν ἵνα μετέχοι τῆς κοινωνίας. αὐτοὶ δ᾽ ὑμῖν οἱ
θιασώται μαρτυρήσουσιν.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
Ἐγὼ δέ, | ὦ ἄνδρες, ὡς διεκείμην πρὸς τὸν ἀδελφόν,
σκέψασθε. πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ συνετράφην ἐκείνῳ ἐκ παιδίου,
ἔπειτα οὐδέποτε διάφορος ἐγενόμην, ἀλλ' ἐσπάζετό με, ὡς
ἴσασιν οἱ οἰκεῖοι πάντες οἱ ἡμέτεροι καὶ οἱ φίλοι· οὓς
βούλομαι ὑμῖν μάρτυρας ἀναβιβάσαι.
4. Tit. μαρτυρία: corr. Reisk.
29. 6. ἀπὸ] παρὰ requirit Nab.
8. μαρτυρήσουσι malit Scheib. coll.
§ 30. 5 || Post dè erasum xaì. Cf. § 24. 2, V. 5. I || huîv: corr. Saupp.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ Μ, Ald. : μαρτυρία.
ΙΟ. Tit.
30. 2. ὄντα add. Dobr. Cf. VII. 7. 4, Χ. 7. 5, 26. 5 || πανταχοἳ malit Bekk. (in
Addendis p. 6o1). Cf. § 14. 8.
3. θιασώτας Saupp. : θιάσους. Harp. s. u.
θίασος...θιασῶται δ᾽ ἐκαλοῦντο οἱ κοινωνοῦντες τῶν θιάσων· Ισαῖος ἐν τῷ περὶ Αστυφίλου
κλήρου || αὐτὸν: del. Ald. καὶ αὐτὸν coni. Schoem., probat Scheib. Vocem ex uariis
lectionibus archetypo adscriptis influxisse putat Buerm. Cf. II. 36. 4, VIII. 7. 3.
6. Tit. MAΡΤΥΡΕΣ Ald. : μαρτυρία. 8. συνετρεφόμην Nab.
140
OR. IX.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
31
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
α
Ο
Δοκεῖ ἂν οὖν ὑμῖν Αστύφιλος, ὦ ἄνδρες, οὕτως μὲν
μισῶν Κλέωνα, τοσαῦτα δ᾽ ἀγαθὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ
ἐμοῦ πεπονθώς, αὐτὸς τῶν ἐχθρῶν ἄν τινος ὑὸν ποιήσασθαι
ἢ τὰ ἑαυτοῦ δοῦναι, τοὺς εὐεργέτας καὶ τοὺς συγγενεῖς
ἀποστερήσας; ἐγὼ μὲν οὐκ ἂν οἴομαι, εἰ καὶ δεκάκις ὁ
Ἱεροκλῆς διαθήκας ψευδεῖς ἀποδεικνύει, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὸ
ἀδελφὸν εἶναι καὶ διὰ τὴν ἄλλην οἰκειότητα πολὺ μᾶλλον
32 προσήκειν ἐμοὶ ἢ τῷ Κλέωνος ὑεῖ, ἐπεὶ τούτοις γε οὐδὲ
προσποιήσασθαι καλὸν ἦν τῶν ᾿Αστυφίλου, οἵ τινες οὕτω
διέκειντο πρὸς αὐτόν, τὰ δὲ ὀστᾶ οὐκ ἔθαψαν, ἀλλὰ πρό-
τερον ἐπὶ τὴν οὐσίαν ἦλθον πρὶν ἐκείνῳ τὰ νομιζόμενα
ποιῆσαι. ἔπειτα νῦν ἀξιώσουσι κληρονομεῖν τῶν ᾿Αστυ-
φίλου οὐ μόνον τὰς διαθήκας λέγοντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ γένος
33 παρατιθέντες, ὅτι ἀνεψιὸς ἦν Κλέων πρὸς πατρός, ὑμᾶς
δέ, ὦ ἄνδρες, οὐκ εἰκός ἐστι τῷ τούτου γένει προσέχειν
τὸν νοῦν· οὐδεὶς γὰρ πώποτε ἐκποίητος γενόμενος ἐκλη-
ρονόμησε τοῦ οἴκου ὅθεν ἐξεποιήθη, ἐὰν μὴ ἐπανέλθῃ κατὰ
τὸν νόμον......οὗτοι μέντοι ἀκριβῶς εἰδότες ὅτι οὐκ ἐποιήσατο
Αστύφιλος τὸν Κλέωνος υόν, πολλάκις ἐληλυθότι αὐτῷ οὐδε
πώποτε κεκρεανομήκασι. Λαβέ μοι καὶ ταύτην τὴν μαρτυρίαν.
34
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ.
Εκατέρῳ οὖν ἡμῶν, ἐξ ὧν ἀντωμόσαμεν σκεψάμενοι,
ψηφίσασθε. Κλέων μὲν γάρ φησι τὸν ὑὸν τὸν ἑαυτοῦ
Αστυφίλῳ εἰσποιηθῆναι, καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἐκεῖνον διαθέσθαι· ἐγὼ
δ᾽ οὔ φημι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐμὰ εἶναι πάντα τὰ ᾿Αστυφίλου, ἀδελφὸς
ὢν ἐκείνου, ὡς καὶ αὐτοὶ οὗτοι ἴσασι. μὴ τοίνυν, ὦ ἄνδρες,
εἰσποιήσητε ὑὸν ᾿Αστυφίλῳ ὃν οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸς ζῶν ἐκεῖνος
ου
3· αὐτὸς]
31. Ι. δοκή A, corr. Α'. Cf. III. 43. I, 51. 5 || ἡμῖν A, corr. Α.
οὗτος malit Emper (Opusc. p. 316). Cf. VIII. 17. 6. 5· μὲν <γὰρ> Rosenberg coll.
3. Post
II. 26. I, III. 27. 2, 37. 3. Sed cf. xi. 26. 7 || οίμαι malit Benseler.
32. 1. ἐπὶ: corr. sched. Eton., Reisk. Cf. Din. 1. 81 (ἐπεὶ Α', ἐπὶ Ν).
αὐτὸν add. ζῶντα Nab. 7. προστιθέντες coni. Dobr., probat Scheib. || ὅτι—πατρὸς
del. Nab.
33. 5. Lacunam perspexit primus Dobr.
34. 1. ¿¿ ŵv A¹, w*** A. Cf. § 1. 4.
7.
μοι supra uers. add. Αl.
3. Num < δεῖν > εἰσποιηθῆναι ?
5. οὗτοι Dobr.: τοῦτο. 6. εισποιήσησθε : corr. Saupp. (Ep. Crit. p. 93 = Ausgew.
Schriften p. 139) ‖ οὐδ᾽ ἂν αὐτὸς coni. Emper (Opusc. p. 316), probat Scheib.
OR. IX. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΣΤΥΦΙΛΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
141
τα
Ευ
ἐποιήσατο, ἀλλὰ τοὺς νόμους οὓς ὑμεῖς ἔθεσθε βεβαιώσατέ
μοι· κατὰ τούτους γὰρ ἀμφισβητῶ, ὁσιωτάτην δέησιν
δεόμενος, ὦ ἄνδρες, τῆς τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ οὐσίας κληρονόμον
με καταστήσαι. ἀπέδειξα <δ> ὑμῖν ὡς οὐδενὶ ἐκεῖνος 35
δέδωκε τὰ ἑαυτοῦ, καὶ μάρτυρας ἁπάντων ὧν εἶπον παρε-
σχόμην. βοηθήσατε οὖν μοι, καὶ εἰ λέγειν ἐμοῦ δύναται
Κλέων μᾶλλον, τοῦτο αὐτῷ ἄνευ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τοῦ δικαίου
μηδὲν ἰσχυσάτω, ἀλλ᾽ ὑμᾶς αὐτοὺς βραβευτὰς ἁπάντων
καταστήσατε. διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ συλλέγεσθε, ἵνα τοῖς μὲν
ἀναισχυντοῦσι μηδὲν πλέον ᾖ, οἱ δὲ ἀδυνατώτεροι τολμῶσι
περὶ τῶν δικαίων ἀμφισβητεῖν, εὖ εἰδότες ὅτι ὑμεῖς οὐδενὶ
ἄλλῳ τὸν νοῦν προσέχετε. ἅπαντες οὖν, ὦ ἄνδρες, μετ' 36
ἐμοῦ γένεσθε· ὡς ἐάν τι ἄλλο ψηφίσησθε Κλέωνι πειθό-
μενοι, σκέψασθε ὁπόσων αἴτιοι γενήσεσθε. πρῶτον μὲν
τοὺς ἐχθίστους ᾿Αστυφίλου ἐπί τε τὰ μνήματα ἰέναι καὶ
ἐπὶ τὰ ἱερὰ <τὰς ἐκείνου ποιήσετε· ἔπειτα τὰς Εὐθυκρά-
τους ἐπισκήψεις, τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ᾿Αστυφίλου, ἀκύρους
ποιήσετε, ἃς αὐτὸς πρότερον ἀπέθανεν ἢ παραβῆναι· ἔπειτα
τετελευτηκότα ᾿Αστύφιλον παρανοίας αἱρήσετε· εἰ γὰρ 37
τοῦτον ἐποιήσατο ὑὸν οὗ τῷ πατρὶ πολεμιώτατος ἦν, πῶς
οὐ δόξει τοῖς ἀκούσασι παρανοεῖν ἢ ὑπὸ φαρμάκων διεφθάρ
θαι; ἔτι δ᾽ ἐμέ, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ἐκτραφέντα ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ
καὶ συμπαιδευθέντα ᾿Αστυφίλῳ καὶ ἀδελφὸν ὄντα, περι-
όψεσθε ὑπὸ Κλέωνος ἀποστερηθέντα τῶν ἐκείνου. ἀντιβολῶ
ὑμᾶς καὶ ἱκετεύω ἐκ παντὸς τρόπου ψηφίσασθαί μοι· οὕτω
γὰρ ἂν μάλιστα Αστυφίλῳ τε χαρίσαισθε καμὲ οὐκ ἂν
ἀδικήσαιτε.
35. I. Post ảπédeığa add. yàp Reisk., d' Dobr.
x. 26. 1, Lys. 13. 95, 15. II. 3. δύνατος Nab.
5.
ἁπάντων Α', ἀκτο των Α.
36. 1. ἅπαντες] πάντως malit Dobr.
2, 3.
Cf. § 21. 2, II. 2. 4, 44. 3,
4· μᾶλλον] κάλλιον Scheib.
Malim πιθόμενοι. Cf. II. I. 4.
3. σκέπασθε Α, corr. Al | Post ὁπόσων add. κακῶν Reiskium secutus Albrecht (Hermes
M
18. 378). 5. rà add. Saupp. Cf. § 10. 6, 11. 36. 4.
ἂν ἀπέθανεν ἢ Steph.: ἢ ἀπέθανε. Cf. III. 28. 7.
37. 2. τούτου coni. Reisk. || οὗ Saupp.: δs.
Reisk., ' Herw. Cf. § 35. I.
σητε: corr. Bekk.
Cf. $ 18. 6.
7. ἀπέθανεν ή Bekk.,
6.
Post ἀντιβολῶ add. οὖν
8. χαρισθε (χαριεῖσθε) Α, corr. Α. 9. ἀδική-
4.
X
| ΠΡΟΣ ΞΕΝΑΙΝΕΤΟΝ
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΡΙΣΤΑΡΧΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ.
79
ΥΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ.
Ο
ων
Αρίσταρχός τις τεσσάρων πατὴρ γενόμενος παίδων, Κυρωνίδου
καὶ Δημοχάρους καὶ τῆς μητρὸς τοῦ λέγοντος τὸν λόγον καὶ
ἄλλης κόρης, τούτων μὲν τὸν Κυρωνίδην ἔτι περιὼν εἰσεποίησεν
εἰς τὸν Ξεναινέτου τοῦ κατὰ μητέρα πάππου κλῆρον, αὐτὸς δὲ
κληρονόμους τοὺς λοιποὺς ἑαυτῷ κατέλειψε παῖδας. μετὰ 5
ταῦτα τελευτᾷ μὲν Δημοχάρης ἄπαις, καὶ ἡ μία θυγάτηρ
[αὐτοῦ] καὶ αὐτὴ ἄπαις, ὁ δὲ κλῆρος ὅλος ἔρχεται δικαίως εἰς
τὴν μητέρα τοῦ λέγοντος τὸν λόγον. καὶ ταῦτα μὲν οὕτως·
μετὰ δὲ τὴν τελευτὴν ᾿Αριστάρχου ᾿Αριστομένης ἀδελφὸς ὢν
αὐτοῦ καὶ κατὰ νόμον ἐπίτροπος τῶν τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ γινόμενος το
παίδων, ἐκδέδωκε Κυρωνίδῃ τῷ ἐκποιήτῳ υἱῷ ᾿Αριστάρχου
τὴν θυγατέρα ἑαυτοῦ, ἐπαγγειλάμενος περιποιῆσαι αὐτῷ τὸν
Αριστάρχου κλῆρον. ὃ δὴ καὶ πεποίηκε· γενομένου γὰρ
υἱοῦ τῷ Κυρωνίδῃ πρῶτον μὲν ὄνομα τῷ παιδὶ τὸ τοῦ πάππου
δεδώκασιν, ᾿Αρίσταρχον ὀνομάσαντες, εἶτα εἰσεποίησαν αὐτὸν 15
εἰς τὸν <τοῦ> πάππου οἶκον ὡς δὴ τοῦτο ἐκείνου προστάξε
αντος, καὶ παραδέδωκεν ᾿Αριστομένης αὐτῷ τὸν ὅλον τοῦ
πάππου κλῆρον. ἔτι δὲ ἄπαις ὧν ἐκεῖνος [καὶ] τελευτῶν
Χ.
X. Tit. 2. τοῦ ἀριστάρχου κλήρου index totius codicis et Μ: τοῦ κλήρου τοῦ
ἀριστάρχου. Cf. Harp. ad § 10. 2.
Hyp. 3.
τοῦτον: corr. Bekk. (in Addendis p. 6or). Cf. §§ 23. 10, 24. 5 || μήν Α,
corr. A. Malit τὸν μὲν Κυρ. Bekk. 7. αὐτοῦ del. Dobr. 16. του add. Bekk.
17. αὐτῶ Α1, αὐτὸν Α. Cf. § 19. 4, I. 34. 5, II. 46. 5, V. II.
18. παῖς: corr. Fuhr. Cf. § 22 || καὶ del. Ald.
II, VII. 7. 4.
OR. Χ.
143
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΡΙΣΤΑΡΧΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
20
25
30
35
κληρονόμον κατὰ διαθήκας ἐνεστήσατο τὸν ἴδιον ἀδελφὸν Ξε
ναίνετον. τούτων οὕτω γενομένων, καὶ κρατοῦντος Ξεναινέτου
τὴν ᾿Αριστάρχου τοῦ παλαιοῦ οὐσίαν, ἀμφισβητεῖ πρὸς αὐτὸν
ὁ υἱὸς τῆς θυγατρὸς Αριστάρχου τοῦ παλαιοῦ, λέγων ἑαυτὸν
μόνον εἶναι κληρονόμον δικαίως τῶν ᾿Αριστάρχου τοῦ παλαιοῦ
χρημάτων. ὁ μὲν γὰρ Κυρωνίδης, φησίν, ἐκποίητος ἐγένετο·
ὁ δὲ πατὴρ υἱὸν ἔχων γνήσιον τὸν Δημοχάρην, οὐκ ἐδύνατο
θετὸν ἑαυτῷ ποιῆσαι παῖδα· ὁ δὲ Δημοχάρης ἀτελὴς ὢν οὐδὲ
αὐτὸς ἐδύνατο εἰσποιῆσαι τῷ πατρὶ θετὸν υἱόν· ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽
ἡ ἄλλη θυγάτηρ αὐτοῦ ἡ προτελευτήσασα. ὥστε οὐ κατὰ
τὸν νόμον, φησί, τῆς εἰσποιήσεως γενομένης τοῦ μικροῦ
Αριστάρχου, οὐκέτι συνίστατο ἡ διαθήκη αὐτοῦ, τοῦ νέου
Αριστάρχου ἃ γὰρ μὴ δικαίως ἐκτήσατο, πῶς ἄλλῳ παρα-
πέμπειν ἐδύνατο; ἀναιρουμένης δὲ τῆς διαθήκης εἰκότως ὁ
κλῆρος εἰς τὸν λέγοντα τὸν λόγον ἐφέρετο, υἱὸν ὄντα τῆς
γνησίας θυγατρὸς ᾿Αριστάρχου τοῦ παλαιοῦ. Καὶ ἡ μὲν
ὑπόθεσις αὕτη, ἡ στάσις δὲ πραγματικὴ ἔγγραφος· ζητεῖ-
<ται> γὰρ εἰ δεῖ τὰς τοιαύτας συνεστάναι διαθήκας, καὶ τίς
δικαιότερα λέγει.
αν
Εβουλόμην <μέν>, ὦ ἄνδρες, ὥσπερ Ξεναίνετος οὑτοσὶ 1
δύναται ψευδῆ λέγειν θαρραλέως, οὕτω κἀγὼ τἀληθῆ πρὸς
ὑμᾶς περὶ ὧν ἀμφισβητοῦμεν εἰπεῖν δυνηθῆναι· οἶμαι
γὰρ ἂν ὑμῖν εὐθέως δῆλον γενέσθαι εἴθ᾽ ἡμεῖς ἀδίκως
ἐπὶ τὸν κλῆρον ἥκομεν, εἴθ᾽ οὗτοι μὴ προσηκόντως πάλαι
τὰ χρήματα ταῦτα εἰλήφασι. νῦν δὲ οὐκ ἐξ ἴσου διακεί
μεθα, ὦ ἄνδρες. οἱ μὲν γὰρ καὶ λέγειν δεινοὶ καὶ παρα-
σκευάσασθαι ἱκανοί, ὥστε καὶ ὑπὲρ ἑτέρων πολλάκις ἐν
ὑμῖν ἠγωνίσθαι· ἐγὼ δὲ μὴ ὅτι ὑπὲρ ἄλλου ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ
ὑπὲρ ἐμαυτοῦ πώποτε δίκην ἰδίαν εἴρηκα, ὥστε πολλῆς
δεν με συγγνώμης τυχεῖν παρ' ὑμῶν.
Ἠνάγκασμαι μὲν οὖν, ὦ ἄνδρες, διὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι 2
30. συνίστατο A, edd. post
35. ζητεί: correxi. Cf. VI. 52. 8, VIII.
19, 20. **vaiverov A, corr. A¹. Cf. v. 39. 3.
Bekk. omnes, συνίσταται AM, Ald.
hyp. 8.
36. τίς Α', τί Α.
1. μèv add. Bekk., qui tamen µèv av malit.
Schoem. || θαρραλοίως A, corr. A', del. Nab.
corr. A².
Cf. v. I. I.
2. τὰ ψευδῆ malit
8. ἱκανοὶ] δυνατοὶ Nab. || ὥστε Α,
144
OR. X.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
δίκην παρ' αὐτῶν λαβεῖν, τὴν μητέρα τὴν ἐμὴν ἐν τῇ
ἀνακρίσει ᾿Αριστάρχου εἶναι ἀδελφὴν προσγράψασθαι·
οὐ μὴν διὰ τοῦτο ὑμῖν ἡ διάγνωσις ἧττον περὶ αὐτῶν
εὐκρινὴς γενήσεται, †ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῶν νόμων σκοποῦσιν εἰ τὰ
ἑαυτοῦ δέδωκε τούτῳ Αρίσταρχος ἢ τὰ μηδὲν προσήκοντα.
ἔστι δὲ δίκαιον τοῦτο, ὦ ἄνδρες· ὁ γὰρ νόμος κελεύει τὰ
μὲν ἑαυτοῦ διαθέσθαι ὅτῳ ἂν ἐθέλῃ, τῶν δὲ ἀλλοτρίων
3 οὐδένα κύριον πεποίηκε. τοῦτο οὖν ὑμᾶς πειράσομαι
πρῶτον διδάσκειν, ἐάν μου μετ᾿ εὐνοίας ἀκοῦσαι ἐθέλητε.
εἴσεσθε γὰρ ὡς ὁ κλῆρος οὗτος οὐ τούτων ἦν ἐξ ἀρχῆς,
ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐμῆς μητρὸς πατρῷος, ἔπειτα καὶ ὡς ᾿Αρίσταρχος
οὐδὲ καθ᾽ ἕνα νόμον αὐτὸν εἴληφεν, ἀλλὰ παρὰ πάντας τοὺς
νόμους ἀδικεῖ μετὰ τῶν οἰκείων τὴν ἐμὴν μητέρα. ὅθεν οὖν
σαφέστατα μαθήσεσθε ὡς ἔχει ταῦτα, ἐντεῦθεν ὑμᾶς πρῶτον
πειράσομαι διδάσκειν.
Ο
4 ᾿Αρίσταρχος γὰρ ἦν, ὦ ἄνδρες, Συπαλήττιος. οὗτος
ἔλαβε Ξεναινέτου ᾿Αχαρνέως θυγατέρα, ἐξ ἧς γίγνεται
Κυρωνίδης και Δημοχάρης καὶ ἡ μήτηρ ἡ ἐμὴ καὶ ἄλλη
τούτων ἀδελφή. Κυρωνίδης μὲν οὖν ὁ τοῦδε πατὴρ καὶ
θατέρου τοῦ τόνδε τὸν κλῆρον ἀδίκως ἔχοντος ἐξεποιήθη
εἰς ἕτερον οἶκον, ὥστε αὐτῷ τῶν χρημάτων οὐδὲν ἔτι
προσῆκεν· Αριστάρχου δὲ τοῦ πατρὸς <τοῦ> τούτων | τε- 80
λευτήσαντος Δημοχάρης <ὁ> ὑὸς κληρονόμος τῶν ἐκείνου
κατέστη. τούτου δὲ παιδὸς ἀποθανόντος καὶ τῆς ἑτέρας
ἀδελφῆς, ἡ μήτηρ ἡ ἐμὴ ἐπὶ παντὶ τῷ οἴκῳ ἐπίκληρος
5 ἐγένετο. καὶ οὕτω μὲν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἅπαντα ταυτὶ τῆς ἐμῆς
2.
5. ἀλλ' del. Dobr.,
8. ὅτῳ] ὅπως Fuhr.
2. ἐν Dobr.: πρὸς. 4· ἡ διάγνωσις Scheib., ήδη ή γνῶσις Dobr. : ἥδε ή
γνώσις. Cf. VI. 36. 7 || αὐτῶν] τούτων Dobr. Cf. § 14. 5.
Schoem. Num τἄμ' ? || σκοπῶμεν Μ. 7, 8. μὲν τὰ Dobr.
ἔσεσθε A, corr. Α'. Cf. § 8. 9, XI. 4. 5.
συπαλλήττιος: corr. Turr.
3. 3.
4. I.
7.4. Cf. v. hyp. 12.
3. δημόχαρις Α, corr. A', item §§ 4. 8,
5. τοῦ τόνδε τὸν κλῆρον Α', τούτων δὲ τὸν κλῆρον | νόμον
Α, νόμον expunxit Al. Num in archetypo adscriptum erat παρὰ νόμον ? || σχόντος
Saupp.
7. τοῦ add. Dobr. Cf. VI. 65. 3.
Schoem. || τῶν ἐκείνου Μ, Αld.: τῶν | κείνου.
8. o add. Saupp., viòs del.
9. παιδὸς < ὄντος > Hertlein coll.
§§ 7. 5, 26. 5, VII. 7. 4, IX. 30. 2. Sed uide ne cacophoniam uitauerit Isaeus.
IO.
ἐπὶ Valckenaer (ad Herod. 7. 224): έν.
Cf. v. 15. 4, VII. 14. 6.
OR. Χ.
145
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΡΙΣΤΑΡΧΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
ων
μητρὸς ἐγένετο. προσῆκον δ᾽ αὐτῇ μετὰ τῶν χρημάτων
τῷ ἐγγύτατα γένους συνοικεῖν, πάσχει δεινότατα, ὦ ἄνδρες.
Αριστομένης γὰρ ἀδελφὸς ὢν ἐκείνου τοῦ ᾿Αριστάρχου,
ὄντος αὐτῷ ὑέος καὶ θυγατρός, ἀμελήσας ἢ αὐτὸς αὐτὴν
ἔχειν ἢ τῷ ὑεῖ μετὰ τοῦ κλήρου ἐπιδικάσασθαι, τούτων
μὲν οὐδὲν ἐποίησε, τὴν δὲ αὑτοῦ θυγατέρα ἐπὶ τοῖς τῆς
ἐμῆς μητρὸς χρήμασι Κυρωνίδῃ ἐξέδωκεν, ἐξ ἧς ὁ Ξεναί-
νετος οὗτος καὶ ᾿Αρίσταρχος ὁ τελευτήσας ἐγένετο. τὸ μὲν 6
οὖν ἀδίκημα, καὶ ὃν τρόπον τῶν χρημάτων ἀπεστερήθη,
τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, ὦ ἄνδρες· μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τὴν ἐμὴν μητέρα
ἐκδίδωσι τῷ ἐμῷ πατρί. Κυρωνίδου δὲ τελευτήσαντος τὸν
τοῦ Ξεναινέτου ἀδελφὸν εἰσάγουσιν ᾿Αριστάρχῳ ὑόν, οὐδὲ
καθ᾽ ἕνα νόμον, ὦ ἄνδρες, ὡς ἐγὼ ἐκ πολλῶν τεκμηρίων
ὑμῖν ἐπιδείξω.
Πρῶτον μὲν οὖν μάρτυρας ὑμῖν παρέξομαι ὡς Κυρω η
νίδης ἐκποίητος εἰς τὸν Ξεναινέτου οἶκον ἐγένετο καὶ ἐν
ἐκείνῳ ἐτελεύτησεν, ἔπειθ᾽ ὡς ᾿Αρίσταρχος, οὗ ἦν οὗτος
ὁ κλῆρος, πρότερος τοῦ ὑέος Δημοχάρους ἐτελεύτησε, Δη-
μοχάρης δὲ παῖς ὢν ἀπέθανε καὶ ἡ ἑτέρα ἀδελφή, ὥστε
τὸν κλῆρον ἐπὶ τῇ ἐμῇ μητρὶ γενέσθαι. Καί μοι κάλει
τούτων τοὺς μάρτυρας.
ων
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
Οὕτως μὲν ἐξ ἀρχῆς <τῆς μητρὸς τῆς ἐμῆς ἦν, ὦ 8
ἄνδρες, ὁ κλῆρος, περὶ οὗ νῦν ὁ λόγος ἐστί, Κυρωνίδου μὲν
ἐκποιήτου γενομένου εἰς τὸν Ξεναινέτου οἶκον, τοῦ δὲ πατρὸς
᾿Αριστάρχου τῷ ὑεῖ Δημοχάρει καταλιπόντος, ἐκείνου δὲ τῇ
ἀδελφῇ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ταύτῃ, μητρὶ δὲ ἐμῇ. δεῖ δέ, ἐπειδὴ λίαν
ἀναισχυντοῦσιν, ὦ ἄνδρες, καὶ τὰ χρήματα παρὰ τὸ δίκαιον
5. 7. οὐδέτερον Nab. Del. τούτων—ἐποίησε et δὲ post τὴν Herw.
Herw.
6. 2.
ΤΟ
9. ἐγένοντο
ἀπεστερήθην: corr. Schoem., Tur. coll. §§ 15, 17. Malit ἀπεστερήθημεν
Scheib. Cf. VIII. 37. 8.
7. 8.
8. Γ.
Tit. add. Αld.
Add. τῆς μητρὸς τῆς ἐμῆς Buerm. (Hermes 19. 332), τῆς ἐμῆς μητρὸς Turr.,
ἡμῶν uel ἡμέτερος Reisk.
3. πατρὸς del. Dobr.
5. ἐμῇ M, Ald. : ἐμοὶ.
Cf. VII. 7. 3.
•
6. παρά τὸ Α2, παρά τε Α.
W. I.
ΙΟ
146
OR. Χ.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
αν
ἔχειν ἀξιοῦσι, μαθεῖν ὑμᾶς ὡς οὐδὲ καθ᾽ ἕνα νόμον 'Αρί
σταρχος εἰς τοὺς φράτερας τοὺς ἐκείνου εἰσῆκται· ἐὰν γὰρ
τοῦτο μάθητε, σαφῶς εἴσεσθε ὅτι τῷ μὴ δικαίως ἔχοντι
9 οὐδὲ διατίθεσθαι περὶ αὐτῶν προσῆκεν.
περὶ αὐτῶν προσῆκεν. οἶμαι τοίνυν
πάντας ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι, ὦ ἄνδρες, ὅτι κατὰ διαθήκας αἱ
εἰσαγωγαὶ τῶν εἰσποιήτων γίγνονται, διδόντων τὰ ἑαυτῶν
καὶ ὑεῖς ποιουμένων, ἄλλως δὲ οὐκ ἔξεστιν. εἴτε οὖν
Αρίσταρχον φήσει τις αὐτὸν διαθέσθαι, οὐκ ἀληθῆ λέξει·
γνησίου γὰρ ὄντος αὐτῷ Δημοχάρους νέος οὔτ᾽ ἂν ἐβούλετο
ταῦτα [δια πρᾶξαι, οὔτε ἐξῆν δοῦναι τὰ ἑαυτοῦ ἑτέρῳ· εἴτε
Αριστάρχου τελευτήσαντος Δημοχάρη αὐτὸν ποιήσασθαι,
10 καὶ ταῦτα ψεύσονται. παιδὸς γὰρ οὐκ ἔξεστι διαθήκην
γενέσθαι· ὁ γὰρ νόμος διαρρήδην κωλύει παιδὶ μὴ ἐξεῖναι
συμβάλλειν μηδὲ γυναικὶ πέρα μεδίμνου κριθῶν. μεμαρ-
τύρηται δὲ ᾿Αρίσταρχον μὲν πρότερον Δημοχάρους τοῦ ὑέος
τελευτῆσαι, ἐκεῖνον δὲ ὕστερον τοῦ πατρός· ὥστε κατά γε
διαθήκην ἐκείνων, οὐδ᾽ εἰ διέθεντο προσῆκεν αὐτῷ τούτων
τῶν χρημάτων κληρονομῆσαι. Ανάγνωθι δὴ καὶ τοὺς
νόμους, καθ' οὓς οὐδετέρῳ αὐτῶν ἐξῆν διαθήκας ποιήσασθαι.
11
ΝΟΜΟΙ.
Οὐ τοίνυν, ὦ ἄνδρες, οὐδὲ Κυρωνίδην οἷόν τε ἦν ὑὸν
᾿Αριστάρχῳ εἰσποιῆσαι, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτῷ μὲν ἐπανελθεῖν εἰς τὸν
πατρῷον οἶκον ἐξῆν, ὑὸν ἐγκαταλιπόντα ἐν τῷ Ξεναινέτου
οἴκῳ, ἐξ αὑτοῦ δέ τιν᾽ ἀντεισαγαγεῖν οὐκ ἔστι νόμος ἢ
9.
7. νόμον Α', μόνον Α.
*ἴσεσθε (ft. οἴσεσθε) Α, corr. Α2. Cf. § 3. 3.
3. τὰ ἑαυτῶν Saupp.: τὲ αὐτῶν. 5. αὐτὸν] αὐτῷ (sc. Aristarcho iuniori)
Cf. § 2. 8.
7. δια del. Bekk. coll. §§ 11. 7, 13. 7. Coni. διαπράξασθαι
8. δημοχάρην Α2, δημόχαριν Α.
Cf. § 4. 3.
9. ψεύδονται A, corr. Al.
κωλύει damnat Cob. coll. II. 13. 3, III. 68. 1 || Harp. s.u. "Οτι παιδὶ καὶ
γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐξῆν συμβάλλειν πέρα μεδίμνου κριθῶν Ἰσαῖος ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ ᾿Αριστάρχου
9.
Dobr.
Reisk.
10.
2.
('Αλεξάνδρου libri, corr. Valesius) κλήρου φησίν.
παῖδα ὄντα post πατρός excidisse putat Dobr.
ἀρίσταρχον
4· ἀλέξανδρον Μ.
5. ἔτι
11. 4. αὐτοῦ Bekk., Schoem., corr. Dobr. Cf. IX. 24. 6 || δέ τιν' ἀντεισαγαγεῖν
Blass, δὲ ἀντεισαγαγεῖν Dobr., δέ τιν' ἀναγαγεῖν Buerm.: δὲ ἄντι κ κ καγαγεῖν (post
fuerat o, ante ay non uideo dv, quod inuenit Buerm.) Α, δὲ ἄντικ να ἀγαγεῖν Α2 | οὐκ
ἔστι νόμος] suspecta. Coni. οὐκ ἐᾷ ὁ νόμος uel οὐκέτι νόμος uel οὐκ ἔστι νόμος, <ὃς
ἐξ· > Dobr.
OR. Χ.
147
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΡΙΣΤΑΡΧΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
αν
αν
ἐὰν φῶσι, ψεύσονται. ὥστε οὐδ᾽ ἂν φάσκωσιν ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου
<εἰσ>ποιηθῆναι, νόμον ἕξουσι δεῖξαι καθ᾿ ὃν ἐξῆν αὐτῷ
ταῦτα πρᾶξαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ὧν αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν ἔτι φανερώτερον
ὑμῖν γενήσεται τοῦτο, ὅτι παρανόμως καὶ ἀσελγῶς ἔχουσι
τὰ τῆς μητρὸς χρήματα. καὶ μὲν δή, ὦ ἄνδρες, οὐδὲ 12
Αριστομένει γε οὐδὲ ᾿Απολλοδώρῳ, οἷς προσῆκε τῆς ἐμῆς
μητρὸς ἐπιδικάσασθαι, οὐδὲ τούτοις ἐξῆν. θαυμαστὸν γὰρ
ἂν ἦν, εἰ τὴν ἐμὴν μητέρα ἔχοντι ᾿Απολλοδώρῳ ἢ ᾿Αριστο-
μένει οὐκ ἂν οἷόν τε ἦν τῶν ἐκείνης κυρίῳ γενέσθαι, κατὰ
τὸν νόμον ὃς οὐκ ἐᾷ τῶν τῆς ἐπικλήρου κύριον εἶναι, ἀλλ᾽
81 ἢ τοὺς παῖδας ἐπὶ δίετες ἡβήσαντας | [κρατεῖν τῶν χρη-
μάτων,] ἀλλ᾽ ἑτέρῳ αὐτὴν ἐκδόντι ἐξέσται εἰς τὰ ταύτης
χρήματα ὑὸν εἰσποιῆσαι. δεινὰ μέντ᾽ ἂν γίγνοιτο. καὶ 13
τῷ μὲν πατρὶ αὐτῆς, εἰ παῖδες ἄρρενες μὴ ἐγένοντο, οὐκ
ἂν ἐξὴν ἄνευ ταύτης διαθέσθαι· κελεύει γὰρ ὁ νόμος σὺν
ταύταις κύριον εἶναι δοῦναι, ἐάν τῳ βούληται, τὰ ἑαυτοῦ·
τῷ δὲ μήτε λαβεῖν αὐτὴν ἀξιώσαντι μήτε πατρὶ ὄντι, ἀλλ᾽
ἀνεψιῷ, παρὰ πάντας τοὺς νόμους εἰσαγαγόντι ἔσται κυρίως
ταῦτα πεπραγμένα; καὶ τίς ὑμῶν ταῦτα πεισθήσεται; ἐγὼ 14
μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες, σαφῶς ἐπίσταμαι ὅτι οὔτε Ξεναίνετος οὔτε
ἄλλος οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώπων ἕξει ἀποδεῖξαι ὡς οὐ τῆς ἐμῆς
μητρὸς οὗτος <ὁ> κλῆρός ἐστι, τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτῇ τοῦ
Δημοχάρους καταλιπόντος· ἐὰν δ᾽ ἄρα τολμῶσι περὶ αὐτῶν
λέγειν, νόμον κελεύετε δεῖξαι καθ' ὃν γεγένηται ἡ εἰσποίησις
᾿Αριστάρχῳ, καὶ τίς ὁ εἰσποιήσας· τοῦτο γὰρ δίκαιόν ἐστιν.
ἀλλ᾽ οἶδ' ὅτι οὐχ ἕξουσιν ἐπιδεῖξαι.
5. οὐδ᾽ Α', οὗ δ' Α. Cf. Ant. v. 62 (οὐ γὰρ Α, οὐδὲ Ν, οὗ δὲ Blass).
θῆναι: corr. Albrecht.
Cf. IX. 10. 5.
7. λέγουσιν] Num λέξουσιν ?
12. 2. ἀριστογένει Α, corr. Α' " προσήκει: corr. Reisk.
Gebauer | ἔχοντι < μὲν > Bekk. (in Addendis p. 6or).
6. Tŵv A², t** (TÒV ?) A.
7.
6. ποιη-
4· ἦν] εἴη
5. ἂν om. Nab.
6, 7. ἀλλ᾽ ἢ] Malint ἀλλὰ Saupp., ἄλλον ἢ addito καὶ
διετεξ A, accent. add. Α2, et ex o fecisse
7, 8. κρατεῖν τῶν χρημάτων del van den Es.
13. 3. Post νόμος excidisse ἐάν τις παῖδας καταλίπῃ θηλείας suspicatur Fuhr.
ante κρατεῖν Salmasius. Cf. IV. 4· 4·
uidetur Al. Cf. VIII. 31. 6.
4.
τω Α', τοῦ Α || βούλοιτο: corr. Dobr.
14. 2. ὅτι in marg. add. Αl. Cf. VI. 24. 5.
5. αὐτῶν] τούτων Dobr. Cf. § 2. 4, ΧΙ. 19. 6.
4.
7.
ὁ add. Saupp. Cf. vi. 65. 3.
Αριστάρχῳ omissum malit Dobr.
IO-2
148
OR. X.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
15
K
Περὶ μὲν οὖν τοῦ τὸν κλῆρον εἶναι τῆς μητρὸς ἐξ
ἀρχῆς καὶ ἀδίκως αὐτὴν ὑπὸ τούτων ἀπεστερῆσθαι, ἔκ τε
τῶν εἰρημένων καὶ μεμαρτυρημένων καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν νόμων
ἱκανῶς ἡγοῦμαι ἀποδεδεῖχθαι. οὕτω δὲ καὶ τούτοις φανερόν
ἐστιν ὅτι οὐ προσηκόντως ἔχουσι ταῦτα τὰ χρήματα,
ὥστε οὐκ ἐπὶ τῷ δικαίως ᾿Αρίσταρχον εἰσαχθῆναι εἰς τοὺς
φράτορας τὸν λόγον ποιοῦνται μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ δίκην φασὶν
ὑπὲρ τούτων τῶν χρημάτων τὸν πατέρα τὸν ἑαυτῶν ἐκτετει-
κέναι, ἵνα, ἂν μὴ κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον δικαίως δοκῶσιν ἔχειν, κατά
16 γε ταῦτα εἰκότως προσήκοντ᾽ αὐτοῖς· φαίνηται. ἐγὼ δ᾽, ὦ
ἄνδρες, ὅτι οὐκ ἀληθῆ λέγουσι, μεγάλοις ὑμᾶς τεκμηρίοις
διδάξω. εἰ γὰρ ἦν, ὡς οὗτοι λέγουσιν, ὑπέρχρεως οὗτος ὁ
κλῆρος, οὔτ᾽ ἂν χρήματα οὗτοι ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἐξέτινον—οὐ
γὰρ προσῆκεν αὐτοῖς, ἀλλ᾽ οἷς ἐγένετο ἡ ἐμὴ μήτηρ ἐπί-
δικος, τούτοις ἀναγκαῖον ἦν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν βουλεύσασθαι,
οὔτε ἂν εἰσεποίουν εἰς τοῦτον τὸν κλῆρον ὑὸν ᾿Αριστάρχῳ,
μέλλοντες ὠφεληθήσεσθαι μὲν μηδέν, ζημιωθήσεσθαι δὲ
17 μεγάλα. ή ἕτεροι μέν, ὅταν περὶ χρήματα δυστυχῶσι, τοὺς
σφετέρους αὐτῶν παῖδας εἰς ἑτέρους οἴκους εἰσποιοῦσιν, ἵνα
μὴ μετάσχωσι τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς ἀτιμίας· οὗτοι δὲ ἄρα εἰς
ὑπέρχρεων οὐσίαν † καὶ οἴκοθεν† εἰσεποίουν σφᾶς αὐτούς,
ἵνα καὶ τὰ ὑπάρχοντα προσαπολέσειαν; οὐκ ἔστι ταῦτα,
ἀλλ' ὁ μὲν κλῆρος ἐλεύθερος ἦν καὶ τῆς ἐμῆς μητρὸς ἐγένετο,
οὗτοι δὲ φιλοχρηματοῦντες καὶ ἐκείνην ἀποστεροῦντες ταῦτα
πάντα ἐμηχανήσαντο.
Ο
Cf. VII. 44. 4•
15. 8. ἑαυτοῦ ΑΜ, Ald. corr. Α2, Reisk.
9. ἂν in uers.
add. A¹ || èkeîvo Reisk., Bekk., Schoem. το. προσήκοντ' ego, προσήκων Α', edd.
ante Scheib. omnes, προσῆκον A, Scheib., Buerm., προσήκειν coni. Reisk. Cf. 1Χ.
27. 3 || φαίνεται Α, corr. Α2.
16. 3· ὑπέρχρεως A, Buerm., ὑπόχρεως A', uolg. Cf. Dem. 27. 25. 5. προσ-
ῆκεν Reisk.: προσῆκον A, uolg.
7. εἰσεποίουν Ald. : εἰσποικ* Α, εἰσποιειν Α1.
8. ὠφελήσεσθαι et ζημιώσεσθαι Herw. Cf. 1. 23. 3.
17. I. ὅταν μὲν A, β et a superscripsit A1. Cf. II. 26. 2 || χρήματα coni. Nab.,
ex A restituit Buerm., χρημάτων edd. ante Buerm. omnes.
corr. Α2.
Cf. VII. 12. 4.
2.
εἰσποιῶσιν Α,
4. ὑπέρχρεων Α, υπόχρεων Α. Cf. § 16. 3 || καὶ
οἴκοθεν] καὶ οἶκον Markland, Scheib., καὶ del. et οἴκοθεν in uers. 5 ante ὑπάρχοντα
transp. Buerm. Cf. III. 3. 7, V. 3. 4.
5. προσαπολέσειεν Α, corr. Α1.
1
OR. Χ.
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΡΙΣΤΑΡΧΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
149
ΕΠ
Ἴσως οὖν <ἂν> τις, ὦ ἄνδρες, τόν χρόνον ὑμῶν θαυ- 18
μάσειε, πῶς ποτε πολὺν οὕτως εἰάσαμεν καὶ ἀποστερούμενοι
οὐκ ἦμεν ἐπ᾿ αὐτά, ἀλλὰ νυνὶ περὶ αὐτῶν τοὺς λόγους
ποιούμεθα. ἐγὼ δὲ οἶμαι μὲν οὐ δίκαιον εἶναι διὰ τοῦτο
ἔλαττον ἔχειν, εἴ τις μὴ ἐδυνήθη ἢ κατημέλησεν—οὐ γὰρ
τοῦτό ἐστι σκεπτέον, ἀλλὰ τὸ πρᾶγμα εἰ δίκαιον ἢ μή
ὅμως μέντοι καὶ περὶ τούτων αἴτιον εἰπεῖν ἔχομεν, ὦ ἄνδρες.
ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ οὑμὸς ἐπὶ προικὶ ἐγγυησάμενος τὴν ἐμὴν 19
μητέρα συνῴκει, τὸν δὲ κλῆρον τούτων καρπουμένων οὐκ
εἶχεν ὅπως εἶσπράξαιτο· ὅτε γὰρ περὶ αὐτοῦ λόγους εποιή-
σατο τῆς μητρὸς κελευούσης, οὗτοι ταῦτα αὐτῷ ἠπείλησαν,
αὐτοὶ ἐπιδικασάμενοι αὐτὴν ἕξειν, εἰ μὴ βούλοιτο αὐτὸς ἐπὶ
προικὶ ἔχειν. ὁ δὲ πατήρ, ὥστε τῆς μητρὸς μὴ στερηθῆναι,
καὶ δὶς τοσαῦτα χρήματα εἴασεν ἂν αὐτοὺς καρποῦσθαι.
καὶ τοῦ μὲν τὸν πατέρα μὴ ἐπεξελθεῖν ὑπὲρ τούτων τοῦτό 20
ἐστι τὸ αἴτιον· μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ὁ Κορινθιακός πόλεμος
ἐγένετο, ἐν ᾧ ἐγὼ κἀκεῖνος στρατεύεσθαι ἠναγκαζόμεθα,
ὥστε οὐδετέρῳ ἂν ἡμῶν δίκην ἐξεγένετο λαβεῖν. εἰρήνης τ'
αὖ γενομένης ἐμοί τι ατύχημα πρὸς τὸ δημόσιον συνέβη,
ὥστε μὴ ῥᾴδιον εἶναι πρὸς τούτους διαφέρεσθαι. ὥστε οὐ
μικρὰς ἔχομεν <εἰπεῖν> αἰτίας περὶ τοῦ πράγματος. ἀλλὰ 21
νυνὶ δίκαιον εἰπεῖν ἐστιν, ὦ ἄνδρες, τίνος δόντος [ἔχει] τὸν
κλῆρον, κατὰ ποίους νόμους εἰς τοὺς φράτερας εἰσῆκται, καὶ
82 πῶς | οὐκ ἐπίκληρος ἦν ἐπὶ τούτοις τοῖς χρήμασιν ἡ ἐμὴ
μήτηρ. ταῦτα γάρ ἐστι περὶ ὧν ὑμᾶς δεῖ τὴν ψῆφον
ἐνεγκεῖν, οὐκ εἰ χρόνῳ τι ὕστερον ἡμεῖς τῶν ἡμετέρων
εἰσπραττόμεθα. μὴ δυνηθέντων δὲ ἐπιδεῖξαι, δικαίως ἂν
ἐμὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι ψηφίσαισθε.
T
18. I. ἄν add. Turr. Cf. §§ 22. 8, 23. 5, ΙΙΙ. 54. Ι.
Num αἰτίαν ? Cf. § 20. 7.
19. I, 2. τῇ ἐμῇ μητρὶ Nab.
20.
7· <τὸ αἴτιον Nab
4. αὐτῷ Α', αὐτὸν Α. Cf. hyp. 17.
4. λαχείν Emper (Opusc. p. 316), Scheib. Sed cf. § 2. 2.
add. Dobr., pro ἔχομεν coni. λέγομεν Scheib. coll. VIII. 9. 2.
7. είπ
21. 2. δίκαιος malit Reisk. || ἔχει del. Turr., ἐκείνῳ coni. Saupp. Habet αὐτῷ Ald
Num ἔσχεν? Cf. VIII. 40. 5ο 3. <καὶ> κατὰ Nab. 6. ***ἐνεγκεῖν. Erasum
esse els putat Buerm. 8. αὐτό malit Reisk. || ψηφίσεσθε A, corr. Α'. Cf. I. 5 I. 5, 6.
150
OR. X.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
22
αν
αν
Τοῦτο μὲν οἶδ' ὅτι ποιεῖν οὐχ οἷοί τ' ἔσονται· χαλεπὸν
γὰρ πρὸς νόμους καὶ δίκαιον πρᾶγμα ἀντιλέγειν ἐστί·
περὶ δὲ τοῦ τεθνεῶτος λέξουσιν, ἐλεοῦντες ὡς ἀνὴρ ὢν
ἀγαθὸς ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ τέθνηκε, καὶ ὅτι οὐ δίκαιόν ἐστι
τὰς ἐκείνου διαθήκας ἀκύρους καθιστάναι. ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ
αὐτός, ὦ ἄνδρες, οἶμαι δεῖν κυρίας εἶναι τὰς διαθήκας,
ἃς ἂν ἕκαστος διαθῆται περὶ τῶν ἑαυτοῦ, περὶ μέντοι τῶν
ἀλλοτρίων οὐ κυρίας εἶναι τὰς διαθήκας, ὥσπερ ἃς <ἂν>
23 ἕκαστος περὶ τῶν αὑτοῦ διαθῆται. ταῦτα δὲ οὐ τούτων
ὄντα ἀλλ᾽ ἡμέτερα φαίνεται. ὥστε ἂν ἐπὶ τοῦτον τὸν
λόγον καταφεύγῃ καὶ μάρτυρας παρέχηται ὡς διέθετο
ἐκεῖνος, ἐπιδεικνύναι κελεύετε καὶ ὡς τὰ ἑαυτοῦ. τοῦτο
γὰρ δίκαιόν ἐστι. δεινότατα γὰρ <ἂν> πάντων γένοιτο,
εἰ Κυρωνίδης μὲν καὶ οὗτοι, ὄντες ἐξ ἐκείνου, μὴ μόνον τὸν
Ξεναινέτου οἶκον πλέον ἢ τεττάρων ταλάντων ἕξουσιν, ἀλλὰ
καὶ τόνδε προσλήψονται, ἐγὼ δὲ τῆς μητρὸς οὔσης κυρίας
καὶ ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν Κυρωνίδῃ γεγενημένος εἰ μηδὲ τὸν τῆς
μητρὸς κλῆρον λήψομαι, καὶ ταῦτα μηδὲ ἐχόντων τούτων
24 ἀνενεγκεῖν παρ' ὅτου ποτ' εἰλήφασι. καίτοι δίκαιον, ὦ
ἄνδρες, ὥσπερ τῶν ἀμφισβητησίμων χωρίων δεῖ τὸν ἔχοντα
ἢ θέτην ἢ πρατῆρα παρέχεσθαι ἢ καταδεδικασμένον φαί-
νεσθαι, οὕτω καὶ τούτους καθ᾽ ἕν τι τούτων ἀποφήναντας
αὐτῶν ἀξιοῦν ἐπιδικάζεσθαι, μὴ πρὸ δίκης τὴν ᾿Αριστάρχου
22.
τες
I. τοῦτο μέντοι uel < ἀλλὰ> τοῦτο μὲν malit Reisk.
ἐλεοῦν Α1. Cf. VIII. 5. 3.
< μὲν > Herw.
§ 18. I.
8, 9.
5.
καθιστάναι Α'. Cf. XI. 13. II.
κυρίας-διαθῆται del. Herw.
23. 2. ὑμέτερα A, corr. A1.
3. ἐλέουν Α,
6. κυρίας
8. ἂν add. Turr. Cf.
4. καὶ ὡς Saupp. (Ausgew. Schriften p. 682),
δὴ καὶ ὡς Buerm. coll. VIII. 30. 1 : δικαίως Α, εἰ ante δικαίως supra uers. add. Α, εἰ
δικαίως edd. ante Buerm. omnes, εἰ δικαίως, <καὶ> coni. Reisk., δικαίως del. Dobr.
5. yàp supra uers. add. A'. Cf. IV. 12. 3 || âv add. Bekk. Cf. § 18. 1. 7· ἔχουσιν
Hertlein. Cf. III. 70. 7. 8. οὔσης κυρίας] ὢν κύριος coni. Buerm., quod malim.
9. γεγενημένος Α, ν post γεγεν supra uers. add. Α2. Cf. II1. 12. 6.
A, corr. A². Cf. hyp. 3.
11. ἐπενεγκεῖν : corr. Dobr.
II.
Kayser.
24. 2. ἀμφισβητησίμων Ald. : ἀμφισβητήσεων.
ΙΟ. τοῦτον
Coni. εἰπεῖν
3. πρακτῆρα: corr. Steph.
5. αὐτῶν Saupp., αὐτοῦ Schoem.: αὐτὸν. Cf. hyp. 3, vi. 62. 3 || καὶ μὴ Ald., Steph.,
Reisk., Bekk.
OR. Χ.
151
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΡΙΣΤΑΡΧΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
ΕΚ
θυγατέρα, ἐμὴν δὲ μητέρα, ἐκ τῶν πατρῴων ἐκβάλλειν.
ἀλλὰ γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες, οὐχ ἱκανόν ἐστι Ξεναινέτῳ τὸν 25
Αριστομένους οἶκον καταπεπαιδεραστηκέναι, ἀλλὰ καὶ
τοῦτον οἴεται δεῖν τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον διαθεῖναι. ἐγὼ δ᾽,
ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, βραχείας οὐσίας ὑπαρξάσης ἀδελφὰς
μὲν ἐξέδωκα, ὅσα ἐδυνάμην ἐπιδούς, κόσμιον δ᾽ ἐμαυτὸν
παρέχων καὶ ποιῶν τὰ προσταττόμενα καὶ τὰς στρατείας
στρατευόμενος ἀξιῶ τῶν τῆς μητρὸς πατρῴων μὴ ἀπο-
στερηθῆναι. ἀπέδειξα δ᾽ ὑμῖν Κυρωνίδην μὲν τὸν τούτων 26
πατέρα ἐκποίητον γενόμενον καὶ οὐκ ἐπανελθόντα εἰς τὸν
πατρῷον οἶκον, τὸν δὲ πατέρα τὸν Κυρωνίδου καὶ τῆς ἐμῆς
μητρὸς Δημοχάρει τῷ ὑῷ τοῦτον τὸν κλῆρον καταλιπόντα,
ἐκεῖνον δὲ παῖδα ὄντα τελευτήσαντα καὶ εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν μητέρα
τοῦτον τὸν κλῆρον ἐπιγιγνόμενον.
25. 5. 8' Reisk.: 7'. Cf. IV. 4. 8.
7. ἐστρατευμένος Boekmeijer.
5.
26. 4. Num vel? Cf. II. 2. 3.
6. γιγνόμενον Hirschig, περιγιγνόμενον Reisk.
6. πραττόμενα A, corr. Α.
παῖδα Meutzner: ἄπαιδα. Cf. hyp. 18.
XI
| ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΓΝΙΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ.
83
ΥΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ.
Αγνίας τις εἶχεν ἀνεψιοὺς πολλούς, Θεόπομπον καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν
αὐτοῦ Στρατοκλέα καὶ Στρατίον καὶ Εὐβουλίδην. οὗτος
μέλλων τελευτᾶν ἐποιήσατο θετὴν ἑαυτῷ θυγατέρα, κε-
λεύσας ἐν ταῖς διαθήκαις, εἴ τι πάθοι ἡ θυγάτηρ, ἔρχεσθαι
τὸν κλῆρον εἰς Γλαύκωνα, ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ τυγχάνοντα ὁμομή- 5
τριον. ἐπὶ τούτοις αὐτοῦ τελευτήσαντος ἡ θυγάτηρ λαβοῦσα
τὸν κλῆρον ἐτελεύτησεν. ἀποθανόντος δὲ καὶ Εὐβουλίδου ἡ
θυγάτηρ αὐτοῦ, τοῦ Εὐβουλίδου, δικασαμένη πρὸς Γλαύκωνα
ἔλαβε τὴν οὐσίαν. μετὰ ταῦτα τελευτησάντων καὶ τῶν περὶ
τὸν Στρατοκλέα καὶ Στρατίον Θεόπομπος μόνος ἐδικάσατο 10
πρὸς αὐτήν, καὶ ἔλαβε τὸν κλῆρον. πρὸς τοῦτον ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ
ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ, Στρατοκλέους, δικάζεται [πρὸς αὐτὸν] δι'
ἐπιτρόπου τινὸς [υἱός], φάσκων ἐξ ἴσου τὰ τῆς κληρονομίας
ἁρμόζειν τῷ τε Θεοπόμπῳ καὶ τῷ παιδὶ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ.
Ἡ στάσις πραγματική.
XI. De tit. cf. Harp. s.u. εισαγγελία· Ισαῖος μέντοι περὶ τοῦ ῾Αγνίου (αὐτοῦ libri,
corr. Valesius) κλήρου (§§ 32, 35) τὸ αὐτὸ πρᾶγμα εἰσαγγελίαν καὶ γραφὴν ὠνόμασεν, et
ad § 21. 4.
ον
Hyp. 2. Στρατίον Scheib., Buerm., Στράτιον Ald., edd. ante Scheib. omnes:
στρατίαν Α, στράτίαν Μ.
3. ἑαυτῷ Buerm., αὑτῷ Steph., αὐτῷ Ald. : ἑαυτοῦ.
Cf. IX. 18. 6. 3, 4. κελεύσαντ** Α, corr. Αl. 10. στράτιον : et sic ubique.
12, 13. πρὸς αὐτὸν et υἱός del. et δὲ in δι' corr. Schoem., πρὸς αὐτὸν δὲ ἐπιτρόπου τινὸς
υἱός tamquam uariam lectionem ad πρὸς τοῦτον ὁ υἱὸς (u. II) adscriptam del. Buerm.
Cf. III. 7. 4. Coni. πρὸς τοῦτον δι' ἐπιτρόπου ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀδ. αὐτ., Στρ., δικάζεται φάσκων
Saupp., πρὸς τοῦτον δὲ ἐπίτροπός τις τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀδ. αὐτ., Στρ., δικάζεται φάσκων Dobr.
De confusis de et dɩ cf. vi. 36. 7.
15
OR. XI.
153
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΓΝΙΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
ΝΟΜΟΙ.
Διὰ ταῦθ' ὑμῖν ἀνέγνων τοὺς νόμους, ὅτι κατὰ τὸν 1
πρῶτον αὐτῶν ἰσχυρίζεται τῷ παιδὶ τοῦ ἡμικληρίου προσ-
ήκειν, οὐκ ἀληθῆ λέγων. οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἡμῖν ῾Αγνίας ἀδελφός,
ὁ δὲ νόμος περὶ ἀδελφοῦ χρημάτων πρῶτον ἀδελφοῖς τε καὶ
ἀδελφιδοῖς πεποίηκε τὴν κληρονομίαν, ἂν ὦσιν ὁμοπάτορες·
τοῦτο γὰρ ἐγγυτάτω τοῦ τελευτήσαντος <τὸ> γένος ἐστίν.
ἐὰν δ᾽ οὗτοι μὴ ὦσι, δεύτερον ἀδελφὰς ὁμοπατρίας καλεῖ καὶ 2
παῖδας τοὺς ἐκ τούτων. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ὦσι, τρίτῳ γένει δίδωσι
τὴν ἀγχιστείαν, ἀνεψιοῖς πρὸς πατρὸς μέχρι ἀνεψιῶν παίδων.
ἐὰν δὲ καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐκλίπῃ [εἰς] τὸ γένος, πάλιν ἐπανέρχεται,
καὶ ποιεῖ τοὺς πρὸς μητρὸς τοῦ τελευτήσαντος κυρίους
αὐτῶν, κατὰ ταὐτὰ καθάπερ τοῖς πρὸς πατρὸς ἐξ ἀρχῆς
ἐδίδου τὴν κληρονομίαν. ταύτας ποιεῖ τὰς ἀγχιστείας ὁ 3
νομοθέτης μόνας, συντομωτέρως τοῖς ῥήμασιν ἢ ἐγὼ φράζω·
τὴν μέντοι διάνοιαν ὧν βούλεται ταύτῃ δείκνυσιν. ὁ δὲ παῖς
οὗτος οὐδὲ καθ' ἓν τούτων τῶν ὀνομάτων ῾Αγνίᾳ προσήκει
τῇ ἀγχιστείᾳ, ἀλλ᾽ ἔξω τῆς συγγενείας ἐστίν. ἵνα δ'
ἀκριβῶς μάθητε περὶ ὧν ψηφιεῖσθε, τοὺς πολλοὺς λόγους
ἐάσας οὗτος εἰπάτω ὅ τι ὁ παῖς προσήκει τουτωνὶ τῶν
εἰρημένων τῷ τὸν κλῆρον καταλιπόντι· κἂν φανῇ κατά τι
προσήκων, ἑκὼν ἐγὼ συγχωρῶ τὸ ἡμικλήριον εἶναι τοῦ
παιδός. εἰ δέ τοι μηδὲν τούτων ἕξει εἰπεῖν, πῶς οὐκ 4
ἐλεγχθήσεται φανερῶς ἐμὲ μὲν συκοφαντῶν, ὑμᾶς δ᾽ ἐξα-
πατῆσαι παρὰ τοὺς νόμους ζητῶν; ἀναβιβασάμενος οὖν
αὐτὸν ἐναντίον ὑμῶν ἐρωτήσω τὰ ἐν τοῖς νόμοις ὑπαναγι
1.
I.
Ο
NOMOI add. Turr. praeeunte Reiskio.
γένους Scheib.
6. τo add. Saupp. Malit
2. 3. μéxpis: corr. Turr. Cf. § 12. 2, Meisterhans, Gramm.3 p. 219, Voemel,
μέχρις:
Proleg. gramm. ad Dem. § 26. 4. ἐκλίπη Α', ἐκλείπει (ἐκλείπει) Α, ἐκλίπη Αld.,
Steph., Reisk., ἐκλείπῃ Bekk., edd. post Bekk. omnes. Cf. III. 35. 4 || eis unc. incl.
Schoem. commate post γένος transposito, coni. εἰς τὸ <πρῶτον> γένος Reisk.
6. ταῦτα: corr. Taylor. Cf. §§ 12. 6, 21. 7, 1. 23. Τ.
3. 2. συντομωτέρως uel συντομωτέροις Reisk., hoc malit Schwab (Syntax d.
griech. Comparation p. 247), illud edd. omnes: συντομωτέρας || φράζων malit Reisk.
5. τῇ συγγενείᾳ et ἔξω τῆς ἀγχιστείας malit Schoen. || ταύτης τῆς coni. Buerm.
7. καθ᾽ ὅ τι malit Reisk. Cf. §§ 5. 10, 19. 8.
154
OR. XI.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
5
γνώσκων· οὕτω γὰρ εἴσεσθε εἰ προσήκει τῷ παιδὶ τῶν
Αγνίου χρημάτων ἢ μή. Λαβὲ οὖν αὐτοῖς τοὺς νόμους· σὺ
δ᾽ ἀνάβηθι δεύρο, ἐπειδὴ δεινὸς εἶ διαβάλλειν καὶ τοὺς
νόμους διαστρέφειν. σὺ δ᾽ ἀναγίγνωσκε.
ΝΟΜΟΙ.
Ο
Επίσχες. ἐρωτήσω σέ. ἀδελφός ἐσθ᾽ ὁ παῖς ῾Αγνίου,
<ή> ἀδελφιδοῦς ἐξ ἀδελφοῦ ἢ ἐξ ἀδελφῆς γεγονώς, ἢ ἀνε-
ψιός, ἢ ἐξ ἀνεψιοῦ πρὸς μητρὸς ἢ πρὸς πατρός; τί τούτων
τῶν ὀνομάτων, οἷς ὁ νόμος τὴν ἀγχιστείαν δίδωσι; καὶ
ὅπως μὴ ἐκεῖνο ἐρεῖς, ὅτι ἐμὸς ἀδελφιδοῦς. οὐ γὰρ περὶ
τοῦ ἐμοῦ κλήρου νῦν ὁ λόγος ἐστί· ζῶ γάρ. εἰ δ᾽ ἦν
ἄπαις ἐγὼ τετελευτηκὼς καὶ ἠμφεσβήτει τῶν ἐμῶν, τοῦτο
ἂν προσῆκεν ἀποκρίνασθαι ἐρωτωμένῳ. νῦν δὲ φὴς τῶν
Αγνίου χρημάτων τὸ ἡμικλήριον εἶναι τοῦ παιδός· δεῖ δή
σε τῆς ἀγχιστείας, ὅ τι ὁ παῖς ῾Αγνίᾳ προσήκει, τὸ γένος
εἰπεῖν. φράσον οὖν τουτοισί.
Ο
6 Αἰσθάνεσθε ὅτι οὐκ ἔχει τὴν συγγένειαν εἰπεῖν, ἀλλ᾽
ἀποκρίνεται πάντα μᾶλλον ἢ ὃ δεῖ μαθεῖν ὑμᾶς. καίτοι
τόν γε πράττοντά τι δίκαιον οὐ προσῆκεν ἀπορεῖν ἀλλ᾽
εὐθὺς λέγειν, καὶ μὴ μόνον τοῦτο ποιεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ διόμ-
νυσθαι καὶ τοῦ γένους παρέχεσθαι μάρτυρας, ἵνα μᾶλλον
[ἂν] ἐπιστεύετο ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν. νῦν δ᾽ ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἀπόκρισιν οὐ
δέδωκεν, οὐ μάρτυρας παρέσχετο, οὐχ ὅρκον ὤμοσεν, οὐ
νόμον | ἀνέγνωκεν, οἴεται δεῖν ὑμᾶς, όμωμοκότας ψηφιείσθαι 84
κατὰ τοὺς νόμους, αὐτῷ πειθομένους ἐμοῦ καταγνῶναι
4.
5. ἴσεσθε Α, corr. Α'. Cf. x. 3. 3.
5. 2. ή add. Taylor.
3. τούτων] τούτῳ uel τούτων αὐτῷ malit Reisk. Cf.
ΙΧ. 20. 7·
7. Kai supra uers. add. A². Cf. §§ 10. 1, 35. 6, 40. 2, 50. 8, I. 47. 5 ||
Post ἐμῶν supra uers. erasum est aliquid (•/.), in marg. extat ./., uerbum quod additum
erat (χρημάτων ?) erasum est. 8. προσῆκεν Schoem.: προσήκη Α, προσήκοι Α2,
ΙΟ. καθ᾽ ὅ τι malit Reisk.
Steph., Reisk., Bekk., Turr., προσήκει B, Ald.
Cf. § 3. 8.
In hac clausula uide ne lateat corruptela. Num τῇ ἀγχιστείᾳ (§ 3. 5,
VII. 44. 3) et <καὶ> τὸ γένος ? Comma post γένος transponere iubet Reisk.
6. ἂν ut e dittographia ortum del. Dobr. ||
ἔδωκεν Μ, Nab. 8. ἀνέγνω Nab. ||
6. 5. μαρτυρίας: corr. Cob.
ἀπόκρισιν οὐ Α2, ἀποκρίνουσι τοῦ Α.
7.
οἴεται**. 9. Num αὑτῷ? || Num πιθομένους ? Cf. II. I. 4.
OR. XI.
155
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΓΝΙΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
ταύτην τὴν εἰσαγγελίαν παρὰ τοὺς νόμους· οὕτω σχέτλιος
καὶ ἀναιδὴς ἀνθρωπός ἐστιν. ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐγὼ ποιήσω τούτων 7
οὐδέν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ γένος ἐρῶ τοὐμὸν καὶ ὅθεν μοι προσήκει
τῆς κληρονομίας, καὶ τὸν παῖδα ἐπιδείξω καὶ τοὺς πρότερον
ἀμφισβητήσαντας ἐμοὶ τοῦ κλήρου πάντας ἔξω τῆς ἀγχι
στείας ὄντας, ὥσθ' ὑμᾶς ὁμολογεῖν. ἀνάγκη δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐξ
ἀρχῆς τὰ συμβεβηκότα εἰπεῖν· ἐκ τούτων γὰρ γνώσεσθε
τήν τε ἐμὴν ἀγχιστείαν καὶ ὅτι τούτοις οὐδὲν προσήκει τῆς
κληρονομίας.
υσ
Ἐγὼ γὰρ καὶ ῾Αγνίας, ὦ ἄνδρες, καὶ Εὐβουλίδης καὶ 8
Στρατοκλῆς καὶ Στρατίος ὁ τῆς ῾Αγνίου μητρὸς ἀδελφὸς
ἐξ ἀνεψιῶν ἐσμεν γεγονότες· καὶ γὰρ οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν
ἦσαν ἀνεψιοὶ ἐκ πατραδέλφων. Αγνίας οὖν, ὅτε ἐκπλεῖν
παρεσκευάζετο πρεσβεύσων ἐπὶ ταύτας τὰς πράξεις αἳ τῇ
πόλει συμφερόντως εἶχον, οὐκ ἐφ' ἡμῖν τοῖς ἐγγύτατα
γένους, εἴ τι πάθοι, τὰ ὄντα κατέλιπεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐποιήσατο
θυγατέρα αὑτοῦ ἀδελφιδῆν· εἰ δέ τι καὶ αὐτὴ πάθοι,
Γλαύκωνι τὰ ὄντα ἐδίδου, ἀδελφῷ ὄντι ὁμομητρίῳ· καὶ
ταῦτ᾽ ἐν διαθήκαις ἐνέγραψε. χρόνων δὲ διαγενομένων 9
μετὰ ταῦτα τελευτᾷ μὲν Εὐβουλίδης, τελευτᾷ δ᾽ ἡ θυγάτηρ
ἣν ἐποιήσατο ῾Αγνίας, λαμβάνει δὲ τὸν κλῆρον Γλαύκων
κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην. ἡμεῖς δ᾽ οὐδεπώποτ' ἠξιώσαμεν
ἀμφισβητῆσαι πρὸς τὰς ἐκείνου διαθήκας, ἀλλ᾽ ᾠόμεθα
δεῖν περὶ τῶν αὑτοῦ τὴν ἐκείνου γνώμην εἶναι κυρίαν, καὶ
τούτοις ἐνεμένομεν. ἡ δ᾽ Εὐβουλίδου θυγάτηρ μετὰ τῶν
αὐτῇ συμπραττόντων λαγχάνει τοῦ κλήρου καὶ λαμβάνει
νικήσασα τοὺς κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην ἀμφισβητήσαντας, ἔξω
μὲν οὖσα τῆς ἀγχιστείας, ἐλπίσασα δ᾽, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἡμᾶς
πρὸς αὐτὴν οὐκ ἀντιδικήσειν, ὅτι οὐδὲ πρὸς τὰς διαθήκας
ΙΙ.
Quidni άνθρωπος ? Cf. 111. 10. 6, Dem. 1. 3, 4. 50, 21. 198, 32. 26, [Dem.]
40. 32, 53.
7. I. τούτων] τοιοῦτον Nab. Cf. § 33. 7.
8. 6. čoxov Dobr., quod malim. Cf. VIII. 40. 5.
9. 4.
5. ὁμολογήσειν Herw.
οὐδεπώποτ' Α', οὐδὲ πώκοτ᾽ Α, οὐ πώποτ' Μ, Ald. edd. ante Buerm.
omnes.
156
OR. XI.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
Ο
10 ἠμφεσβητήσαμεν. ἡμεῖς δέ, ἐγὼ καὶ Στρατίος καὶ Στρα-
τοκλῆς, ἐπειδὴ τοῖς ἐγγύτατα γένους ἐγεγένητο ἐπίδικος ὁ
κλῆρος, παρεσκευαζόμεθα ἅπαντες λαγχάνειν· πρὶν δὲ γε-
νέσθαι τὰς λήξεις τῶν δικῶν ἡμῖν τελευτᾷ μὲν ὁ Στρατίος,
τελευτᾷ δ᾽ ὁ Στρατοκλῆς, λείπομαι δ᾽ ἐγὼ μόνος τῶν πρὸς
πατρὸς ὢν ἀνεψιοῦ παῖς, ᾧ μόνῳ κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ἐγίγνετο
ἡ κληρονομία, πάντων ἤδη τῶν ἄλλων ἐκλελοιπότων, οἳ
11 ταὐτὸν ἐμοὶ τῇ συγγενείᾳ προσήκοντες ἐτύγχανον. τῷ δὲ
γνώσεσθε τοῦθ᾽, ὅτι ἐμοὶ μὲν ἀγχιστεία <ἦν,> τοῖς δ᾽ ἐξ
ἐκείνων γεγονόσιν [οὐκ ἦν], ἐν οἷς οὗτος ὁ παῖς, «οὐκ> ἦν;
αὐτὸς ὁ νόμος δηλώσει. τὸ μὲν γὰρ εἶναι τὴν ἀγχιστείαν
ἀνεψιοῖς πρὸς πατρὸς μέχρι ἀνεψιῶν παίδων ὁμολογεῖται
παρὰ πάντων· εἰ δὲ μεθ᾽ ἡμᾶς δίδωσι τοῖς ἡμετέροις παισί,
τοῦτ᾽ ἤδη σκεπτέον ἐστί. Λαβὲ οὖν αὐτοῖς τὸν νόμον καὶ
ἀναγίγνωσκε.
12
Ο
[ΝΟΜΟΣ. Ἐὰν δὲ μηδεὶς ᾖ πρὸς πατρὸς μέχρις
ἀνεψιῶν παίδων, τοὺς πρὸς μητρὸς κυρίους εἶναι κατὰ
τὰ αὐτά.]
Ακούετε, ὦ ἄνδρες, ὅτι ὁ νομοθέτης οὐκ εἶπεν, ἐὰν
μηδεὶς ᾖ πρὸς πατρὸς μέχρι ἀνεψιῶν παίδων, τοὺς τῶν
ἀνεψιαδῶν εἶναι κυρίους, ἀλλὰ ἀπέδωκε τοῖς πρὸς μητρὸς
τοῦ τελευτήσαντος, ἂν ἡμεῖς μὴ ὦμεν, τὴν κληρονομίαν
ἤδη, ἀδελφοῖς καὶ ἀδελφαῖς καὶ παισὶ τοῖς τούτων καὶ
τοῖς ἄλλοις, κατὰ ταὐτὰ καθάπερ καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἦν ὑπει-
ρημένον· τοὺς δὲ ἡμετέρους παῖδας ἔξω τῆς ἀγχιστείας
τῶν Dobr. : του.
10. I. και ante στράτιος supra uers. add. A.
ζοντο : corr. Reisk.
ΑΜ, ταύτη μὲν Αld., ταύτῃ μὲν Steph., Reisk.
5.
Cf. § 5. 7.
3· παρεσκευά-
ταὐτὸν ἐμοὶ Bekk. : ταύτη μοι
8.
11. 2. yvúσeσðai A, corr. A². Cf. I. 41. 3 || TOûT' A, corr. A¹. Cf. 1. 43. 1 ||
ἀγχιστεία Hirschig, ἀγχιστεία < ἦν > Scheib., ἀγχιστεύειν < ἦν > Buerm.: ἀγχιστεύειν.
3. οὐκ ἦν del. Emper (Opusc. p. 316) probante Buerm. (Hermes 19. 344) || Post ἦν
3 litt. erasae, fuisse οὐκ putat Buerm., ante ἦν add. οὐκ Emper, ἐν οἷς οὗτος ὁ παῖς ἦν
del. Scheib. (Comm. Crit. p. 41).
2.
12. πόπατρ in rasur. add. Αl. Scripserat fortasse π μητρ || μέχρις: corr.
Turr. Cf. § 2. 3. 6. ταῦτα: corr. Reisk. Cf. § 2. 6.
OR. XI.
157
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΓΝΙΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
ἐποίησεν. οἷς δὲ μηδ᾽ εἰ καὶ τετελευτηκὼς ἦν ἐγώ, δίδωσιν
ὁ νόμος τὴν ῾Αγνίου κληρονομίαν, πῶς ἐμοῦ τε ζῶντος
καὶ κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ἔχοντος οἷόν τε αὐτοῖς εἶναι τὴν
ἀγχιστείαν; οὐδαμῶς δήπουθεν. ἀλλὰ μὴν εἰ τούτοις μὴ 13
μέτεστιν, ὧν οἱ πατέρες ταὐτὸν ἐμοὶ προσῆκον, οὐδὲ τούτῳ
τῷ παιδὶ γίγνεται· καὶ γὰρ ὁ τούτου πατὴρ ὁμοίως ἦν
ἐκείνοις συγγενής. οὔκουν δεινὸν ἐμοὶ μὲν διαρρήδην
οὕτω τῶν νόμων δεδωκότων τὴν κληρονομίαν, τούτους δ'
ἔξω τῆς ἀγχιστείας πεποιηκότων, τολμᾶν τουτονὶ συκο-
φαντεῖν, καὶ διαγωνίσασθαι μέν, ἡνίκ᾽ ἐγὼ τοῦ κλήρου τὴν
85 δίκην ἐλάγχανον, | μὴ οἴεσθαι δεῖν, μηδὲ παρακαταβάλλειν,
οὗ περὶ τῶν τοιούτων εἴ τι δίκαιον εἶχεν εἰπεῖν διαγνωσθῆναι
προσῆκεν, ἐπὶ δὲ <τῷ> τοῦ παιδὸς ὀνόματι πράγματ' ἐμοὶ
παρέχειν καὶ περὶ τῶν μεγίστων εἰς κίνδυνον καθιστάναι;
καὶ περὶ μὲν τῶν ὁμολογουμένων εἶναι τοῦ παιδὸς χρημάτων 14
μηδ' αἰτιᾶσθαι με, μηδ' ὥς τι εἴληφα ἔχειν εἰπεῖν—ἐφ᾽ οἷς,
εἴ τι αὐτῶν κακῶς διῴκουν ὥσπερ οὗτος, κρίνεσθαί μοι
προσῆκεν,—ἃ δ᾽ ὑμεῖς ἐμὰ εἶναι ἐψηφίσασθε, τῷ βουλομένῳ
δόντες ἐξουσίαν ἀμφισβητεῖν αὐτῶν, ἐπὶ τούτοις ἐμοὶ τοιού-
τους ἀγῶνας παρασκευάζειν καὶ εἰς τοῦτο ἀναισχυντίας
ἥκειν ;
ει
Οἴομαι μὲν οὖν καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἤδη εἰρημένων γιγνώσκε- 15
σθαι ὑμῖν ὅτι οὔτ᾽ ἀδικῶ τὸν παῖδα οὐδὲν οὔτ᾽ ἔνοχός
εἰμι ταύταις ταῖς αἰτίαις οὐδὲ κατὰ μικρόν· ἔτι δὲ ἀκρι-
βέστερον ἡγοῦμαι καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων ὑμᾶς μαθήσεσθαι,
καὶ τὴν ἐμὴν ἐπιδικασίαν, ὡς γέγονεν, ἀκούσαντας περὶ
8. μηδ' εἰ καὶ τετελευτηκὼς ἦν ἐγὼ Dobr. (ὼ ἐγὼ Reisk.), μηδὲ, κἂν τετελευτηκότες
ὦσιν, οἷος ἐγώ, Saupp.: μηδ' εἰ καὶ τετελευτηκότες ὦσιν ὡς ἐγώ. Corruptelae origo ὡς
ἦν in ώσιν deprauatum. 9. ἐμοῦ ζῶντός τε uel ἐμοῦγε ζῶντος Dobr., ζῶντος ἐμοῦ
τε Buerm.
ΙΟ.
Io. οἷόν τε uel οἴονται <δεῖν > Dobr.: οἴονται A, uolg. Cf. Lys. 19.
35 || avroîs Ald., Steph., Reisk., Bekk., avroîs edd. post Bekk. omnes.
Cf. IX. 24. 6.
13. I. τούτοις ex τούτους. Cf. VII. 29. 2.
edd. ante Turr. omnes, oùк oûv Turr., Scheib., Buerm. Cf. v. 34. I.
κότος Α, corr. Αl. 9. οὗ Α', οὐ Α.
I 1.
4. οὔκουν Α, οὐκοῦν Α', Αld.,
6. πεποιη-
10. T add. Schoem.
καθεστάναι Α, καθιστᾶναι Α2, καθιστάναι Ald.
14. I. χρήμα * (χρήμα??) A, corr. A2.
Cf. vi. 65. 3.
Cf. VI. 17. 5, Χ. 22.
5.
4.
ὑμεῖς Ald. : ἡμεῖς.
158
OR. XI.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
αν
αὐτῶν. ἐμοὶ γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες, λαχόντι τοῦ κλήρου τὴν δίκην
οὔτε οὗτος ὁ νῦν ἐμὲ εἰσαγγέλλων ᾠήθη δεῖν παρακατα-
βάλλειν ὑπὲρ τοῦ παιδός, οὔτε οἱ Στρατίου παῖδες οἱ ταὐτὸ
τῷ παιδὶ προσήκοντες,..... οὔτε δι᾽ ἄλλο οὐδὲν αὑτοῖς ἐνό-
16 μιζον προσήκειν τούτων τῶν χρημάτων· ἐπεὶ οὐδ᾽ ἂν οὗτος
νῦν ἐμοὶ πράγματα παρεῖχεν, εἰ τὰ τοῦ παιδὸς εἶων ἁρπάζειν
καὶ μὴ ἠναντιούμην αὐτῷ. οὗτοι μὲν οὖν, ὥσπερ εἶπον,
εἰδότες ὅτι ἔξω ἦσαν τῆς ἀγχιστείας, οὐκ ἠμφεσβήτουν
ἀλλ᾽ ἡσυχίαν εἶχον· οἱ δ᾽ ὑπὲρ τῆς Εὐβουλίδου θυγατρὸς
πράττοντες, τῆς τὸ αὐτὸ †δικαίως τῷ Στρατίου παιδὶ†
προσηκούσης, καὶ οἱ κύριοι τῆς ῾Αγνίου μητρὸς ἦσαν
17 οἷοί [τε] πρὸς ἐμὲ ἀντιδικεῖν. εἰς τοσαύτας δ᾽ ἀπορίας
κατέστησαν ὅ τι ἀντιγράψωνται περὶ τῆς ἀγχιστείας, ὥστε
ἡ μὲν τὸν κλῆρον ἔχουσα καὶ οἱ λέγοντες τὸ περὶ αὐτῆς
γένος, ἐπειδὴ κατεψεύσαντο, ῥᾳδίως ὑπ᾿ ἐμοῦ τότε ἐξη-
λέγχθησαν οὐκ ἀληθές τι γράψαι τολμήσαντες, οἱ δ᾽ ὑπὲρ
τῆς ῾Αγνίου μητρὸς γένει μὲν ἐμοὶ ταὐτὸ προσηκούσης
ἀδελφὴ γὰρ ἦν τοῦ Στρατίου-νόμῳ δὲ ἀποκλῃομένης,
ὃς κελεύει κρατεῖν τοὺς ἄρρενας, τοῦτο μὲν εἴασαν, οιόμενοι
δ᾽ ἐμοῦ πλεονεκτήσειν μητέρα εἶναι τοῦ τελευτήσαντος
ἔγραψαν· ὃ συγγενέστατον μὲν ἦν τῇ φύσει πάντων, ἐν δὲ
18 ταῖς ἀγχιστείαις ὁμολογουμένως οὐκ ἔστιν. εἶτα γράψας
ἀνεψιοῦ παῖς εἶναι κακείνας ἐξελέγξας οὐκ οὖσας ἐν ταῖς
ἀγχιστείαις, οὕτως ἐπεδικασάμην παρ' ὑμῖν, καὶ αὐτῶν οὐκ
15. 7. ὠήθει Α, corr. Αl.
8. ταὐτὸ Bekk. : τούτω.
9. Deesse
aliquid perspexit Reisk., suppl. οὔτε διὰ τοῦτο Buern., οὔτε διὰ τὴν ἀγχιστείαν
Huettner, coni. οὐδὲν δι᾿ ἄλλο ἢ ὅτι οὐδὲν Schoem., οὐ δι᾿ ἄλλο οὐδὲν ἢ ὅτι οὐδὲν
Albrecht, οὐδὲ pro οὔτε Turr.
16. εὐβου A, corr. Α2.
5.
Α
6. τὸ αὐτὸ *** δικαίως | τοῦ στρατίου παιδὶ Α,
ante δικαίως erasum putat τῷ Buerm., ἐν ᾧ Schenkl, τοῦ in τῶ corr. A', δικαίως del.
Dobr., tuetur Jebb, post είχον (u. 5) transp. Bait., στρατίου uel del. uel in Στρατοκλέους
corr. Schoem., τοῖς Στρατίου παισὶ coni. Bait., τὸ αὐτὸ τῷ παιδὶ καὶ τοῖς Στρατίου παισὶ
in text. Buerm.
8. τε del. Dobr.
17. 5. ἀληθές τι] ἀληθῆ malit Dobr. ('ΑΛΗΘΕς).
8. *os. 10. v del. Nab.
18. I. εἶτα γράψας] ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἀντιγράψας (uel ἀντιγραψάμενος) malit Dobr., εἶτα
2. παῖδας: corr. Emper. παΐδα Schoem., παϊδα με Saupp., παιδὸς
γραψάσης Jebb.
Jebb || ἐξελέγξας Reisk. : ἐξήλεγξα A, edd. ante Scheib. omnes, Jebb.
3. αὐτῷ
A, corr. A¹. Cf. § 32. 6, 1. 19. 5, VII. 26. 6.
OR. XI.
159
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΓΝΙΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
ἴσχυσέ τι οὔτε τῇ τὸν κλῆρον ἐχούσῃ τὸ προνενικηκέναι
τοὺς κατὰ διαθήκην ἀμφισβητήσαντας, οὔτε τῇ ἑτέρᾳ τὸ
μητέρα εἶναι τοῦ τὸν κλῆρον καταλιπόντος, ἀλλ᾽ οὕτως οἱ
τότε δικάζοντες καὶ τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τοὺς ὅρκους περὶ πολλοῦ
ἐποιήσαντο, ὥστ᾽ ἐμοὶ τῷ κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ἀμφισβητοῦντι
τὴν ψῆφον ἤνεγκαν. καίτοι εἰ τὰς μὲν νενίκηκα τοῦτον τὸν 19
τρόπον, ἐπιδείξας μηδὲν ῾Αγνίᾳ κατ᾿ ἀγχιστείαν προσ-
ηκούσας, οὗτος δὲ μὴ ἐτόλμησεν ἀντιδικῆσαι τῷ παιδὶ τοῦ
ἡμικληρίου πρὸς ἡμᾶς, οἱ δὲ Στρατίου παῖδες οἱ ταὐτὸν
τούτῳ προσήκοντες μηδὲ νῦν ἀξιοῦσιν ἀντιδικῆσαι πρὸς
ἐμὲ περὶ αὐτῶν, ἔχω δ᾽ ἐγὼ τὸν κλῆρον ἐπιδικασάμενος
παρ' ὑμῖν, ἐξελέγχω δὲ τοῦτον μηδέπω καὶ τήμερον ἔχοντ'
εἰπεῖν ὅ τι ὁ παῖς ῾Αγνίᾳ προσήκει κατ᾿ ἀγχιστείαν, τί
ἔτι δεῖ μαθεῖν ὑμᾶς ἢ <τί> ποθεῖτε ἀκοῦσαι περὶ τούτων;
ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ ὡς εὖ φρονοῦσιν ὑμῖν ἱκανὰ τὰ εἰρημένα
νομίζω.
Ο
Ο
τα
Οὗτος τοίνυν ῥᾳδίως ὅ τι ἂν τύχῃ ψευδόμενος, καὶ 20
τὴν αὑτοῦ πονηρίαν οὐδεμίαν ζημίαν εἶναι νομίζων, τολμᾷ
με διαβάλλειν ἄλλα τε πολλά, περὶ ὧν ποιήσομαι τοὺς
λόγους τάχα, καὶ νυνὶ λέγει ὡς ἐκοινωσάμεθα ἐγώ τε καὶ
Στρατοκλῆς, τὸν ἀγῶνα εἰσιέναι περὶ τοῦ κλήρου μέλλοντες.
ὃ μόνοις ἡμῖν τῶν ἀμφισβητεῖν παρεσκευασμένων οὐκ ἐνῆν,
διομολογήσασθαι πρὸς ἀλλήλους. τῇ μὲν γὰρ Εὐβουλίδου 21
θυγατρὶ καὶ τῇ ῾Αγνίου μητρὶ πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἀγωνιζομέναις,
μὴ κατὰ ταὐτὸ ἀμφισβητούσαις, ἐνῆν ποιήσασθαι συνθήκας,
ἂν ἡ ἑτέρα νικᾷ, μετεῖναί τι καὶ τῇ ἡττηθείσῃ· καδίσκος
86 γὰρ ἔμελλεν | ἑκατέρᾳ τεθήσεσθαι. τὸ δ᾽ ἡμέτερον οὐ
4.
τι sched. Eton., Reisk. : τις.
ἐμοὶ M, Bekk. : ὥστε μοι.
19. 4. ὑμᾶς: corr. Reisk.
Cf. x. hyp. 36 || προνενικηκέναι.
8. WOT'
6. αὐτῶν] τούτων malit Dobr. Cf. X. 14. 5.
7. ¿µŵv A, corr. A² || ëxovt' A¹, ëx****7' A (7 ex π correctum esse, tertiam litt. eras.
fuisse r putat Buerm.).
20.
2.
Cf. II. 25. I.
4.
9. τι add. Reisk.
αὑτοῦ del. Herw. coll. VII. 23. 3.
Al (scil. τάχα omiserat A), καὶ τάχα καὶ malit Buerm.
21. 3. κατὰ ταυτό Α', καταυτὸ Α. Cf. § 23. 4.
ἡ supra uers. add. Αl. Cf. 11. 16. 4 ||
Αγνίου κλήρου.
4.
τάχα καὶ in rasur. 3 litt. add.
Cf. § 23. 4. Post ταὐτὸ add. δ' Nab.
Harp. s.u. καδίσκος · Ισαῖος ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ
160
OR. XI.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
αν
T
τοιοῦτον ἦν, ἀλλ᾽ ἂν τὸ γένος, δύο δὲ λήξεις, ἡμικληρίου
ἑκατέρῳ· τοῖς δὲ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἀμφισβητοῦσιν εἷς τίθεται
καδίσκος, οὗ οὐκ ἂν ἦν τὸν μὲν ἡττᾶσθαι τὸν δὲ νικᾶν, ἀλλ᾽
ὁμοίως ἀμφοτέροις ἦν ὁ αὐτὸς κίνδυνος, ὥστ᾽ οὐκ ἐνῆν
22 κοινωνίαν οὐδὲ διομολογίαν ποιήσασθαι περὶ αὐτῶν. ἀλλ᾽
οὗτος, ἐπειδὴ Στρατοκλῆς ἐτελεύτησε πρὶν γενέσθαι τοῦ
ἡμικληρίου τὰς λήξεις ἡμῶν ἑκατέρῳ, καὶ οὐκέτ᾽ ἦν μετουσία
τῷ Στρατοκλεῖ τούτων οὐδὲ τῷ παιδὶ τῷδε διὰ τὸν νόμον,
ἀλλ᾽ ἐγίγνετο εἰς ἐμὲ ἡ κληρονομία κατ᾿ ἀγχιστείαν πάντων,
εἰ νικήσαιμι τοὺς ἔχοντας, τότ᾽ ἤδη πλάττει ταῦτα καὶ
μηχανᾶται, προσδοκῶν τούτοις τοῖς λόγοις ῥᾳδίως ὑμᾶς
ἐξαπατήσειν. ὅτι δ᾽ οὐχ οἷόν τ᾽ ἦν τούτων γίγνεσθαι οὐδέν,
ἀλλὰ διείρηται καθ᾽ ἕκαστον περὶ αὐτῶν, ἐκ τοῦ νόμου
γνῶναι ῥᾴδιον. Λαβὲ δ᾽ αὐτοῖς καὶ ἀναγίγνωσκε.
ΝΟΜΟΣ.
23 Αρ᾽ ὑμῖν ὁ νόμος δοκεῖ ποιεῖν ἐξουσίαν κοινωνίας,
ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἄντικρυς ούτωσὶ πᾶν τοὐναντίον, εἰ καὶ τὸ
πρότερον ὑπῆρχε κοινωνία, προστάττει, διαρρήδην κελεύων
τοῦ μέρους ἕκαστον λαγχάνειν καὶ τοῖς κατὰ ταὐτὸ ἀμφι-
σβητοῦσι τιθεὶς ἕνα καδίσκον καὶ τὰς ἐπιδικασίας τοῦτον
τὸν τρόπον ποιῶν; ὁ δέ, ταῦτα τῶν νόμων λεγόντων καὶ
οὐκ ἐνούσης γενέσθαι διομολογίας, οὕτως ἀλόγως πραγμα
24 τηλικοῦτον ψεύσασθαι τετόλμηκεν. οὐ μόνον δὲ τοῦτο
πεποίηκεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ πάντων ἐναντιώτατον πραγμα
εἴρηκεν, ᾧ προσέχετε τὸν νοῦν, ὦ ἄνδρες. φησὶ γὰρ ὁμολο-
γῆσαί με τοῦ κλήρου τῷ παιδὶ τὸ ἡμικλήριον μεταδώσειν,
7.
&
ταῦτα Α, ταυτά Α' (§ 2. 6), ταὐτὸ Albrecht coll. §§ 21. 3, 23. 4, 33. 5.
8. ἂν ἦν] ἐνῆν et in uers. 9 οὐδ᾽ ἐνῆν Scheib. || τὸν μὲν | νικᾶσθαι, τὸν δὲ ἡττᾶν: corr.
Valckenaer (Diatribe in Eurip. perd. dram. rell., 1767, p. 261). 9. οὐκ ἐνὴν Α2,
οὐκ οκνὴν Α.
ΙΟ. οὐδὲ Ald. : οὔτε. Cf. § 32. 2, IV. 26. 6.
22. 6. εἰἔχοντας del. Albrecht. 8. ἐξαπατῆσαι Α, ἐξαπατήσειν Α', coni.
ειν
Bait. Cf. II. 8. 6, Ant. VI. 47 (καταδικάσαι Α, καταδικάσειν Ν).
διήρηται Α': corr. Reisk. Cf. Cob. Mnem. II. 129.
9. διήρηται Α,
4.
κατὰ ταυτὸ Α”,
3. προστάττει Α2, del. Nab., προστάττειν
23. I. Post ποιείν erasum τὴν.
malit Reisk., πρὸς ταύτην A (sec. Buerm.), πρὸς τακτὶ ΑΙ.
κατ' αὐτὸ Α. Cf. § 2 1. 3.
OR. XI.
161
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΓΝΙΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
Ο
T
εἰ νικήσαιμι τοὺς ἔχοντας αὐτόν. καίτοι εἰ μέν τι καὶ
αὐτῷ μετὴν κατὰ τὸ γένος, ὡς οὗτος λέγει, τί ἔδει γενέσθαι
ταύτην αὐτοῖς παρ᾿ ἐμοῦ τὴν ὁμολογίαν; ἦν γὰρ ὁμοίως
καὶ τούτοις ἐπίδικον τὸ ἡμικλήριον, εἴ περ ἀληθῆ λέγουσιν.
εἰ δὲ μὴ προσῆκεν αὐτοῖς τῆς ἀγχιστείας μηδέν, διὰ τί 25
ἂν μεταδώσειν ὡμολόγουν, τῶν νόμων ἐμοὶ πάντων αὐτῶν
δεδωκότων τὴν κληρονομίαν; πότερον οὐκ ἦν μοι λαχεῖν,
εἰ μὴ πείσαιμι τούτους; ἀλλ᾽ ὁ νόμος τῷ βουλομένῳ δίδωσι
τὴν ἐξουσίαν, ὥστε τοῦτο οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς εἰπεῖν. ἀλλ᾽ εἶχόν
τινά μοι μαρτυρίαν τοῦ πράγματος, ἣν εἰ μὴ ἐμαρτύρουν,
οὐκ ἔμελλον ἐπιδικάσεσθαι τούτων; ἀλλὰ κατὰ γένος
ἠμφεσβήτουν, οὐ κατὰ δόσιν, ὥστ᾽ οὐδὲν ἔδει μαρτύρων.
ἀλλὰ μὴν εἰ μήτε κοινώσασθαι τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐνῆν, ὅτ' ἔζη 26
Στρατοκλῆς, μήτε ὁ πατὴρ αὐτῷ κατέλιπεν ἐπιδικασάμενος
τούτων μηδέν, μήτε εἰκὸς ἦν μεταδώσειν ἐμὲ τὸ ἡμικλήριον
ὁμολογῆσαι αὐτῷ, ἀπέδοτε <δ> ὑμεῖς ἐπιδικάσαντές μοι
τοῦτον τὸν κλῆρον, οἱ δὲ μήτε ἔλαχον τῶν αὐτῶν μήτ'
ἀμφισβητῆσαι πώποτ' ἠξίωσαν, πῶς χρὴ πιστοὺς εἶναι
νομίζειν τοὺς τούτων λόγους; ἐγὼ μὲν οἴομαι οὐδαμῶς.
προσποιεῖται τοίνυν οὗτος—ἐπειδὴ τοῦτ᾽ εἰκότως ἂν θαυμά- 27
ζοιτε, ὅτι τοῦ ἡμικληρίου τότε τὴν δίκην οὐκ ἐλάγχανον—
τοῦ μὲν μὴ λαχεῖν πρὸς ἐκείνους ἐμὲ εἶναι αἴτιον ὡς ὁμολο-
γήσαντα μεταδώσειν, ὥστε διὰ τοῦτ᾽ οὐ παρακαταβάλλειν
αὐτοῖς, τῆς δὲ πρὸς ἐμὲ λήξεως ἐμποδὼν εἶναι τοὺς νόμους
οὐ γὰρ εἶναι τοῖς ὀρφανοῖς κατὰ τῶν ἐπιτρόπων—οὐδέτερ᾽
ἀληθῆ λέγων. οὔτε γὰρ ἂν νόμον δείξειεν ὃς κωλύει 28
24. 5. νικήσοιμι Nab. Cf. IX. 24. Το
3· πότερον οὐκ
edd. ante Buerm. omnes, πότερον
Cf. v. 5. 1, 2.
25. 2. av in uers. add. A¹. Cf. §§ 44. 6, 45. 4, IV. I. 9.
ην Buerm. : πότερον δίκην Α, πότερα δ᾽ οὐκ ἦν Α',
οὐκ ἐνὴν Blass. 7. ἐπιδικάσασθαι: corr. Cob.
αὐτῶ ex αὐτῶν. Cf. VII. 45. 2.
III. 47. 2.
4. ἀπόδοτε ὑμεῖς: corr. Schoem.
εἰ || τῶν abesse malit Schoem.
26.
2.
27. 2. ἐλάγχανεν malit Fuhr.
malit Reisk.
3. μηδὲν Bekk.: οὐδὲν. Cf.
Cf. II. 2. 4. 5. οἱ Schoem. :
4. τοῦτο οὐ Reisk. : τούτου || παρακαταβαλεῖν
5. αὐτοὺς Dobr., quod melius.
vi. 57. 6 || Post ἐπιτρόπων desiderat λαγχάνειν Reisk.
λέγειν Α', Αld., Steph.
W. I.
6.
είναι Α', οίμαι Α. Cf.
7. λέγων Α, Reisk.,
I I
162
OR. XI.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
αν
ΤΟ
•
αν
τοῦτον ὑπὲρ τοῦ παιδὸς δίκην παρ᾿ ἐμοῦ λαμβάνειν· οὐ
γάρ ἐστιν ἐναντιούμενος οὐδείς, ἀλλ᾿ ὥσπερ καὶ γραφὰς
κατ᾿ ἐμοῦ δέδωκεν, οὕτω καὶ δίκας ἐμοὶ εἶναι καὶ τῷ παιδὶ
πεποίηκεν· οὔτ᾽ αὖ διὰ ταῦτα ἐκείνοις †τοῖς προσήκουσι
τὸν κλῆρον† οὐκ ἐλάγχανον, ὡς ἐμοῦ μεταδώσειν ὁμολογή
σαντος, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν αὐτοῖς τούτων τῶν χρημάτων
29 προσήκεν. εὖ δ᾽ οἶδ᾽ ὅτι «οὐδ᾽> εἰ συνεχώρουν τῷ παιδὶ
λαβεῖν ἐπιδικασαμένῳ παρ᾿ ἐμοῦ τὸ ἡμικλήριον, οὐκ ἄν
ποτε ταῦτ᾽ ἐποίησαν οὐδ᾽ ἐπεχείρησαν, εἰδότες <ὅτι,> ὁπότ
ἐν τῇ ἀγχιστείᾳ μὴ ὄντες εἶχόν τι τῶν μὴ προσηκόντων,
τοῦτ᾽ ἂν ὑπὸ τῶν ἐγγύτατα γένους ῥᾳδίως ἀφῃρέθησαν.
ὅ περ γὰρ καὶ πρότερον εἶπον, οὐ δίδωσι μεθ᾽ ἡμᾶς τοῖς
ἡμετέροις παισὶ τὸ παράπαν τὴν ἀγχιστείαν | ὁ νόμος, 87
30 ἀλλὰ τοῖς πρὸς μητρὸς τοῦ τελευτήσαντος. ἧκεν ἂν οὖν
ἐπ᾿ αὐτὰ τοῦτο μὲν ὁ Γλαύκων ὁ τοῦ ῾Αγνίου ἀδελφός,
πρὸς ὃν μὴ ὅτι γένος εἶχον ἄμεινον εἰπεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ
ἔξω τῆς ἀγχιστείας ἐφαίνοντ᾽ ἂν ὄντες, τοῦτο δ', εἰ μὴ
ἐβούλετο οὗτος, ἡ ῾Αγνίου κἀκείνου μήτηρ, προσῆκον καὶ
αὐτῇ τῆς ἀγχιστείας τοῦ αὑτῆς νέος, ὥσθ' ὁπότε ἠγωνίζετο
πρὸς τοὺς μηδὲν γένει προσήκοντας, φανερῶς ἂν ἔλαβε
τὸ ἡμικλήριον παρ᾽ ὑμῶν, τοῦτο τοῦ δικαίου καὶ τῶν
31 νόμων αὐτῇ δεδωκότων. οὐκοῦν διὰ ταῦτ᾽ οὐκ ἐλάγχανεν,
οὐχ ὡς δι᾿ ἐμὲ ἢ τοὺς νόμους κωλυόμενος, ἀλλὰ ταύτας
[τὰς] προφάσεις ποιούμενος ἐπὶ ταύτας τὰς συκοφαντίας
ἐλήλυθεν, ἐξ ὧν γραφὴν γραψάμενος καὶ ἐμὲ διαβάλλων
ἐλπίζει χρήματα λήψεσθαι καὶ ἐμὲ τῆς ἐπιτροπῆς ἀπαλλάξειν.
καὶ οἴεται δεινοῦ τινος ἀνδρὸς ἔργον διαπράττεσθαι ταύταις
ων
απ
28. 3. ἐναντιούμενος] ἐναντίος νόμος malit Dobr.
5, 6. ἐκείνοις τοῖς
προσήκουσι τὸν κλῆρον del. Albrecht, corr. προσήκουσι in ἔχουσι Dobr., quod malim,
in προέχουσι Photiades, in ήκουσι πρὸς Buerm., pro τὸν κλῆρον coni. τοῦ κλήρου Scaliger,
quem secuti sunt edd. ante Buerm. omnes.
7. ὅτι οὐδοχειοῦν Α, corr. Αl.
29. I. δ' in uers. add. Αl Cf. II. 2. 4 || οὐ δεῖ Ald., οὐδ' εἰ Scaliger.
3. ὅτι, οπότ' Dobr., Schoem., ὅτι, ὅτ' Bekk., edd. ceteri: ὁπότ'.
30. 2. Post αὐτά punctum et lac. 2 litt.
31. 2. ή] και malit Dobr. Cf. v. 5. 2.
ἐμὲ Bekk., καμέ Μ: καί με.
8. τοῦτο Α”, τούτο ** (τούτων?) Α.
3.
τὰς del. Dobr.
4. καὶ
OR. XI.
163
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΓΝΙΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
ταῖς παρασκευαῖς, ὅτι μὴ κατορθώσας μὲν οὐδὲν ἀπολεῖ
τῶν αὑτοῦ, διαπραξάμενος δ᾽ ἃ βούλεται καὶ τὰ τοῦ παιδὸς
ἀδεῶς ἤδη διαφορήσει.
α
Οὐκοῦν οὐ δεῖ προσέχειν ὑμᾶς τοῖς τούτου λόγοις τὸν 32
νοῦν, οὐδ᾽ ἐπιτρέπειν, οὐδ᾽ ἐθίζειν εἶναι γραφὰς περὶ ὧν
ἰδίας δίκας οἱ νόμοι πεποιήκασιν. ἁπλᾶ γὰρ τὰ δίκαια
παντάπασιν ἐστι καὶ γνώριμα μαθεῖν· ἃ ἐγὼ διὰ βραχέων
εἰπὼν καὶ παρακαταθέμενος ὑμῖν μνημονεύειν, ἐπὶ τὴν
ἄλλην ἀπολογίαν ἤδη τρέψομαι τῶν κατηγορηθέντων. τί 33
οὖν ἐστι ταῦτα, καὶ τί διορίζομαι; εἰ μὲν κατ᾿ ἀγχιστείαν
τῶν ῾Αγνίου μετεῖναί φησι τῷ παιδί, τοῦ ἡμικληρίου λαχέτω
πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα, κἂν ὑμεῖς ψηφίσησθε, λαβέτω· ταῦτα
γὰρ οἱ νόμοι κελεύουσιν. εἰ δὲ μὴ κατὰ τοῦτο ἀμφισβητεῖ,
φησὶ δὲ ὁμολογῆσαί με τῷ παιδὶ μεταδώσειν, φάσκοντος
ἐμοῦ τούτων εἶναι μηδὲν δικασάσθω, κἂν ἐξελέγξη με ὡς
ὡμολόγησα, τότ᾽ ἤδη πραξάσθω· δίκαιον γὰρ οὕτως ἐστίν.
εἰ δὲ μήτε πρὸς ἐμὲ μήτε κατ᾿ ἐμοῦ δίκην εἶναί φησι τῷ 34
παιδί, τὸν κωλύοντα νόμον εἰπάτω, κἂν ἔχῃ δεῖξαι, λαβέτω
καὶ οὕτω τὸ μέρος των χρημάτων. εἰ δ᾽ αὖ μήτ' ἐπι-
δικάσασθαί φησι δεῖν τοῦ ἡμικληρίου μήτε μοι δικάσασθαι,
ἀλλ᾽ ἤδη εἶναι ταῦτα τοῦ παιδός, ἀπογραψάσθω πρὸς τὸν
ἄρχοντα εἰς τὴν μίσθωσιν τῶν ἐκείνου χρημάτων, ἣν ὁ
μισθωσάμενος εἰσπράξει με ταῦτα ὡς ὄντα τοῦ παιδός.
ταῦτα μεγάλα δίκαιά ἐστι. ταῦτα καὶ οἱ νόμοι κελεύουσιν, 35
οὐ μὰ Δία οὐ γραφὰς ἐμὲ φεύγειν περὶ ὧν δίκας ἰδίας εἶναι
πεποιήκασιν, οὐδὲ κινδυνεύειν περὶ τοῦ σώματος, ὅτι οὐ
μεταδίδωμι τῷ παιδὶ τούτων, ἃ ψήφῳ κρατήσας ἐγὼ τοὺς
32. I. τούτ** (τούτων?) Α, corr. Α'. Cf. III. 22. 5.
corr. Al (cf. § 21. 1ο), οὐδενὶ νομίζειν malit Albrecht.
§§ 18. 3, 34. 6.
33. 3. Post ἡμικληρίου interpung. A, Ald., uolg.,
6. φήσει A. corr. Α'; item § 34. Ι. Cf. IX. το. Ι.
2. οὔτ᾽ ἐθίζειν Α,
6. των Α', τῷ Α. Cf.
comma transp. Reisk.
7.
τούτων] Num τοιοῦτον ?
Cf. § 7. I, Dem. 20. 20 || < ἀληθὲς > εἶναι Buerm. coll. VIII. 27. 6 (Hermes 19. 331).
34. 1. κατ' Α', «*τ' (μετ' ?) A.
4. μοι Blass, μὴ Α, μὴν Α', μή ut e ditto-
6. Tǹv A¹, Tǹ A. Cf. § 32. 6 ||
graphia ortum del. Buerm. (Hermes 19. 341).
ἣν] είθ' uel ἵν' et εισπράξῃ malit Reisk.
II-2
164
OR. XI.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
36
ἔχοντας οὕτω παρ' ὑμῶν ἔλαβον· ἀλλ᾽ εἴ τι τῶν ὁμολο-
γουμένων εἶναι τοῦ παιδὸς εἶχον καὶ κακῶς διέθηκα ὥστ᾽
ἐκεῖνον κακοῦσθαι, τότε ἄν μοι κατὰ ταύτην προσῆκε κρί-
νεσθαι τὴν γραφήν, οὐ μὰ Δί' οὐκ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐμοῖς.
Ο
Ὅτι μὲν οὖν οὔτε περὶ τούτων οὐδὲν δίκαιον πεποίηκεν
οὔτε περὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀληθὲς οὐδὲν εἴρηκεν, ἅπαντα δὲ
δεινῶς πλεονεξίᾳ μεμηχάνηται διαβάλλων καὶ τοὺς νόμους
παράγων καὶ ὑμῶν καὶ ἐμοῦ παρὰ τὸ δίκαιον περιγενέσθαι
ζητῶν, οἶμαι μὰ τοὺς θεοὺς οὐδ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν ἀλλ᾽ ὁμοίως
εἰδέναι πάντας, ὥστ᾽ οὐκ οἶδ' ὅ τι δεῖ πλείω περὶ τούτων
37 λέγειν. ὁρῶ δέ, ὦ ἄνδρες, τὴν πλείστην διατριβὴν τῶν
λόγων ποιούμενον περὶ τὴν τοῦ παιδὸς οὐσίαν καὶ περὶ
τὴν ἐμήν, καὶ τὰ μὲν ἐκείνου παντάπασιν ὡς ἄπορα δι-
εξιόντα, περὶ δ᾽ ἐμὲ πλοῦτόν τινα τῷ λόγῳ κατασκευάσαντα,
καί τινα κακίαν κατηγοροῦντα, ὡς ἐγὼ τεττάρων οὐσῶν
Στρατοκλέους θυγατέρων οὐδεμιᾷ τολμῶ συνευπορῆσαι
προικός, καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἔχων, ὡς οὗτός φησι, τὰ τοῦ παιδίου.
38 βούλομαι δὴ καὶ περὶ τούτων εἰπεῖν· ἐλπίζει γὰρ διὰ τῶν
λόγων ἐμοὶ μέν τινα φθόνον γενήσεσθαι παρ' ὑμῶν περὶ
τῶν προσγεγενημένων χρημάτων, τοῖς δὲ παισὶν ἔλεον,
ἂν ἄποροι παρ' ὑμῖν εἶναι δόξωσιν. οὔκουν ἀγνοῆσαι δεῖ
περὶ αὐτῶν ὑμᾶς οὐδέν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀκριβῶς καὶ ταῦτα μαθεῖν, ἵν'
εἰδῆθ᾽ ὅτι ψεύδεται, ὥσπερ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων | ἁπάντων. 88
ἐγὼ γὰρ <ἂν>, ὦ ἄνδρες, πάντων ὁμολογήσαιμι εἶναι
κάκιστος, εἰ Στρατοκλέους ἄπορα τὰ πράγματα καταλι-
πόντος αὐτὸς εὔπορος ὢν [καὶ] μηδεμίαν ἐπιμέλειαν ποιού-
39 μενος φαινοίμην τῶν ἐκείνου παίδων. εἰ δὲ πλείονα
35. 6. kai supra uers. add. A².
(Hermes 19. 352).
κατασκευάσαντος.
Cf. § 5. 7.
Del. καὶ κακῶς διέθηκα Buerm.
ῆς τῆς
3.
τ ἐμ A, bis ήν supra uers.
κατασκευάσαντα Ald. :
4.
37. 2. Ante ποιούμενον add. αὐτὸν Nab.
adposuit A'. 3, 4. διεξιόντα Ald.: διεξιόντος.
5. κατηγοροῦντος: corr. Steph.
Cf. VI. 51. 5 || διὰ τούτων τῶν Nab.
2, 3· περὶ τῶν
7. ἄν add. Dobr. Cf. III. 54. 1. 8. είεστρα-
9. Kai del. sched. Eton., praeeunte Reiskio Bait. Cf. Ant. Tetr. 1. ß. 12.
38. I. δὴ Α', δεῖν Α.
προσγεγεν in rasur. 9 litt. A'.
τοκλέους.
OR. XI.
165
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΓΝΙΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
K
κατέλιπεν αὐτοῖς τὰ ὄντα τῶν ἐμῶν καὶ βεβαιότερα, καὶ
ταῦτα τοσαῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν ὥστε καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας ἐξ αὐτῶν
διαθείναι καλῶς καὶ τὸν παῖδα ἐκ τῶν λοιπῶν μηδὲν ἧττον
εἶναι πλούσιον, ἐπιμελοῦμαί τε τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον αὐτῶν
ὥστε καὶ πολλῷ πλείω γενέσθαι τὴν οὐσίαν, εἰκότως μὲν
οὐκ ἂν ἔχοιμι μέμψιν, εἰ μὴ τἀμαυτοῦ προστίθημι τούτοις,
σῴζων δὲ τὰ τούτων καὶ πλείω ποιῶν δικαίως ἂν ἐπαινοίμην.
ὅτι δὲ ταῦτα οὕτως ἔχει, ῥᾳδίως ἐπιδείξω. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν 40
τὰ τῆς οὐσίας διέξειμι, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ὡς καὶ διοικεῖν ἀξιῶ
τὰ τοῦ παιδός.
αι
Ο
αν
Στρατοκλεῖ γὰρ καμοὶ τὰ μὲν ὑπάρξαντα πατρῷα του
σαῦτα ἦν, ὥστε εἶναι μὲν [οὐχ] ἱκανά, λητουργεῖν δὲ οὐκ
ἄξια. τεκμήριον δέ· εἴκοσι μνᾶς ἑκάτερος ἡμῶν ἐπὶ τῇ
γυναικὶ προῖκα ἔλαβε, τοσαύτη δὲ προὶξ οὐκ ἂν εἰς πολλήν
τινα οὐσίαν δοθείη. συνέβη δὲ Στρατοκλεῖ πρὸς τοῖς 41
ὑπάρχουσι πλέον ἢ πένθ᾽ ἡμιταλάντων οὐσίαν λαβεῖν·
Θεοφῶν γὰρ ὁ τῆς γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ ἀδελφὸς ἀποθνῄσκων
ἐποιήσατο τῶν θυγατέρων αὐτοῦ μίαν, καὶ τὰ ὄνθ᾽ αὑτοῦ
ἔδωκεν, ἀγρὸν Ἐλευσῖνι δυοῖν ταλάντοιν, πρόβατα ἑξήκοντα,
αἶγας ἑκατόν, ἔπιπλα, ἵππον λαμπρὸν ἐφ᾽ οὗ ἐφυλάρχησε,
καὶ τὴν ἄλλην κατασκευὴν ἅπασαν, ἧς κύριος ἐκεῖνος γε- 42
νόμενος ἐννέα ἔτη ὅλα κατέλιπε πέντε ταλάντων οὐσίαν
καὶ τρισχιλίων δραχμῶν σὺν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ πατρῴοις, χωρὶς
ἐκείνης ἧς Θεοφῶν τῇ θυγατρὶ αὐτοῦ ἔδωκεν, ἀγρὸν μὲν
Θριᾶσι πένθ᾽ ἡμιτάλαντα εὑρίσκοντα <ἂν>, οἰκίαν δὲ Μελίτῃ
τρισχιλίων ἐωνημένην, ἄλλην δὲ Ἐλευσῖνι πεντακοσίων.
5.
39. 4. διαθείναι] διατεθῆναι post Steph. Reisk. et Schoem., έκδοθῆναι Hirschig.
τὸν supra uers. add. Αl. Cf. IX. II. 3.
40. 2. καὶ supra uers. add. Αl. Cf. § 5. 7. 5. οὐχ del. Reisk. 5, 6. οὐκ
ἄξια Schoem., Buerm. (Hermes 19. 343): ἄξια A, μη supra uers. add. A', accent.
add. Α', μὴ ἄξια uolg. Cf. IV. I. 8.
41. 3. θεοφῶν Ald., θεόφων Μ: θεόφρων.
4. καὶ τόν θ᾽ αὑτοῦ: corr. Blass.
Vel καὶ uel θ' abesse malit Saupp., καὶ del. Fuhr, καὶ τούτῳ αὐτῷ Buerm. (Hermes
19. 346).
5. τὸν Ἐλευσῖνι malit Scheibe.
42. 4. Θεόφρων: corr. Steph.
5. ἄν add. Dobr. Cf. VIII. 35. 4.
6. ὠνημένην: corr. Reisk., έωνημένη Μ || Post πεντακοσίων excidisse quaedam putat
Saupp.
166
OR. XI.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
ἐδάφη μὲν ταῦτα, ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἡ μίσθωσις τοῦ μὲν ἀγροῦ δώδεκα
μναῖ, τῶν δὲ οἰκιῶν τριακόσιαι, <ἂ> πεντεκαίδεκα μναῖ
συναμφότερα γίγνονται· χρέα δ᾽ ἐπὶ τόκοις ὀφειλόμενα
περὶ τετρακισχιλίας, ὧν τὸ ἔργον ἐπ᾿ ἐννέα ὀβολοῖς ἑπτα-
κόσιαι καὶ εἴκοσι δραχμαὶ γίγνονται τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἑκάστου.
43 πρόσοδος μὲν αὕτη δύο καὶ εἴκοσι μναῖ καὶ πρός· χωρὶς
δὲ τούτων κατέλιπεν ἔπιπλα, πρόβατα, κριθάς, οἶνον,
ὀπώρας, ἐξ ὧν ἐνεπόλησαν τετρακισχιλίας ἐννακοσίας· ἔτι
δὲ ἔνδον ἐννακοσίας δραχμάς. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἐξ ἐράνων
ὀφλήματα εἰσπεπραγμένα, μικροῦ δεούσας χιλίας δραχμάς,
μαρτύρων ἐναντίον ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ, τοῦ παιδός, απεγρά-
ψατο. καὶ οὔπω λέγω περὶ τῶν ἄλλων, ἃ κατελείφθη
μὲν οὗτοι δ᾽ οὐκ ἀποφαίνουσιν, ἀλλὰ τὰ φανερὰ καὶ τὰ
ὑπὸ τούτων ὁμολογούμενα. Κάλει δέ μοι τῶν εἰρημένων
τοὺς μάρτυρας.
44
મ
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ.
Ἡ μὲν τοίνυν Στρατοκλέους οὐσία καὶ πλείων ταύτης
ἐστίν· ἀλλ᾽ ὕστερον περὶ τῶν παρακλεπτομένων ὑπὸ τούτων
ποιήσομαι τοὺς λόγους· ἡ δ᾽ ἐμὴ πόση τις; χωρίον ἐν
Οἰνόῃ πεντακισχιλίων καὶ Προσπαλτοῖ τρισχιλίων, καὶ
οἰκία ἐν ἄστει δισχιλίων, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις <ὁ> κλῆρος ὃν
Αγνίας κατέλιπε, περὶ δύο τάλαντα· οὐ γὰρ ἂν οἶδ' ὅτι
πλέον εὕροι τούτου. ταῦτ᾽ ἐστὶ τρία τάλαντα καὶ τετρα-
κισχίλιαι μόνον, δέκα καὶ ἑκατὸν μναῖς ἐλάττω τῶν τοῦ
45 παιδός. κἀγὼ μὲν ἐγκαταλογίζομαι καὶ τὰ τοῦ ὑέος τοῦ
ἐκποιηθέντος εἰς ταῦτα, τοῖς τοῦ παιδὸς δὲ οὐ προσέθηκα
8. τριακόσιαι, < ἃ> Blass, τρ***οσιαι Α, τρεῖς αἳ Α.
Reisk.
Α || μναῖ ex μνασ.
43. Ι. μὲν Α', δὲ
τούτο** Α, corr. Αl. Cf. § 30. 8, VII. 33. I.
VII. 23. 2.
4.
αν
9. συναμφότεραι coni.
3. ἐνεπώλησαν: corr. Dobr.
6. αὐτὴ malit Reisk. Cf.
44. I. Post οὐσία add. τοσαύτη Reisk., αὕτη Emper.
λόγους in suspicionem uocat Schulthess.
VIII. 35. 4 || ὁ add. Schoem. Cf. § 13. 10, VI. 65. 3.
5.
2, 3· ἀλλ᾽ ὕστερον
δυσχιλίων (rasur. corr.). Cf.
6. ἂν supra uers. add. Αl.
Cf. § 25. 2. 7. eüpn: corr. Bekk. Cf. §§ 47. 8, 49. 2, III. 21. 5. τ, 8. τετρα-
κισχίλια A, corr. Α'.
45. 2. εἰκποιηθέντος Α, corr. Αl. Cf. VIII. Io.
OR. XI.
167
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΓΝΙΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
89
ον
τὴν Θεοφῶντος οὐσίαν, πένθ᾽ ἡμιταλάντων οὖσαν, ἐφ᾽ ᾗ
ἐποιήσατο τὴν ἀδελφὴν αὐτοῦ· ῥᾳδίως γὰρ ἂν εὑρεθείη
καὶ ὀκτὼ ταλάντων ὁ τούτων οἶκος· ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνα ἀφῄρηται
χωρίς. καμοὶ μὲν ὁ κλῆρος ὃν ῾Αγνίας κατέλιπεν, οὗτος
οὔπω βέβαιός ἐστι· δίκαι γὰρ ἐνεστήκασι ψευδομαρτυρίων,
κελεύει δ᾽ ὁ νόμος, ἐὰν ἁλῷ τις τῶν ψευδομαρτυρίων, πάλιν 46
ἐξ ἀρχῆς εἶναι περὶ αὐτῶν τὰς λήξεις· τὰ δὲ τοῦ παιδὸς
ὡμολογημένα καὶ ἀναμφισβήτητα καταλέλοιπε Στρατοκλῆς.
Οτι δὲ τοσαῦτά ἐστι τἀμὰ σὺν τοῖς τοῦ ἐκποιήτου νέος, καὶ
ψευδομαρτυρίων ἐνεστᾶσι δίκαι περὶ τῶν ῾Αγνίου, λαβὲ τὰς
μαρτυρίας καὶ ἀνάγνωθι.
Ο
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑΙ.
Αρα μικρὰ τὰ διάφορα | ἑκατέροις τῆς οὐσίας ἡμῶν 47
ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τηλικαῦτα ὥστε <τὴν ἐμὴν> μηδεμίαν γενέ-
σθαι παρὰ τοὺς Στρατοκλέους παῖδας; <οὐκοῦν> οὐκ ἄξιον
τοῖς τούτου λόγοις πιστεύειν, ὃς τοσαύτης οὐσίας κατα-
λελειμμένης ἐτόλμησεν ἐπὶ διαβολῇ ψεύσασθαι κατ᾿ ἐμοῦ
τηλικαῦτα τὸ μέγεθος. καταλογίζεται τοίνυν ὡς ἐγὼ τρεῖς
κλήρους ειληφὼς καὶ πολλῶν χρημάτων εὐπορῶν ἀφανίζω
τὴν οὐσίαν, ἵν᾿ ὡς ἐλάχισθ᾽ ὑμεῖς αὐτῶν ἀπολαύητε, τοῖς
γὰρ μηδὲν δίκαιον ἔχουσι περὶ τῶν πραγμάτων λέγειν
ἀνάγκη πορίζεσθαι τοιούτους λόγους, ἐξ ὧν [ἂν] διαβάλ-
λοντες πλέον ἔχειν δυνήσονται τῶν ἀντιδίκων.
ιν
ἐμοὶ δὲ 48
μάρτυρές έστε πάντες ὅτι οἱ τῆς ἐμῆς γυναικὸς ἀδελφοί,
3. Schoem.: v. Cf. v. 7. 8.
7. οὔπω Α', οὕτω Α. Cf. I. 30. 6.
46.
III. 4. 2.
2.
Tàs | Tàs priore deleto.
47. Ι. ἑκατέρας Reisk.
2.
4. av supra uers. add. A'. Cf. § 25. 2.
7, 8. ψευδομαρτυριών. Cf. 111. 4. 2.
Cf. 1. 6. 7.
5. ψευδομαρτυριών. Cf.
τὴν ἐμὴν add. Roeder, post γενέσθαι aliquot
uersus excidisse putat Schoem., ante γενέσθαι add. ἐμοὶ Goelkel.
3. παρά sched.
Eton., Hitzig, πρὸς Reisk. : περὶ || οὐκοῦν add. Buerm., coni. οὐκ ἄξιον οὖν Reisk., οὐκ
4. τοῖς τούτου Reisk., τοιούτοις Gebauer: τούτοις τοῖς.
οὖν (uel ἄρ') ἄξιον Turr.
Cf. § 44. 7.
Cf. IX. 16. 4.
δυνήσονται : post
6. τηλικαύτα Ald. : τηλικαύτη. 8. ἀπολαύητε Ald. : ἀπολαύοιτε.
10. τοσούτους A, corr. A. Cf. 1. 5. 1 ][ ἂν del. Dobr., δὴ coni. Kaibel.
IO, II. διαβάλλοντες Α', διαβάλλο*** (διαβάλλωσι?) Α.
II.
o rasura, ut initio scriptum esse uideatur δυνήσωνται, unde δυνηθῶσι dubitanter coni.
Buerm. (Hermes 17. 395).
168
OR. XI.
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΓΝΙΟΥ ΚΛΗΡΟΥ
αν
ΤΟ
Χαιρέλεως καὶ Μακάρτατος, οὐ τῶν λῃτουργούντων ἦσαν
ἀλλὰ τῶν βραχεῖαν κεκτημένων οὐσίαν. Μακάρτατον γὰρ
ἴστε ὅτι τὸ χωρίον ἀποδόμενος καὶ τριήρη πριάμενος καὶ
ταύτην πληρωσάμενος εἰς Κρήτην ἐξέπλευσεν· οὐ γὰρ τὸ
ἔργον ἀφανὲς ἐγένετο, ἀλλὰ καὶ λόγον ἐν τῷ δήμῳ
παρέσχε, μὴ πόλεμον ἡμῖν ἀντ᾽ εἰρήνης ἐκεῖνος πρὸς
49 Λακεδαιμονίους ποιήσειε. Χαιρέλεως δὲ τὸ Προσπαλτοῖ
χωρίον κατέλιπεν, ὃ πλέον οὐκ ἂν εὕροι τριάκοντα μνῶν.
συνέβη δὲ τὸν μὲν ταῦτα καταλιπόντα τελευτῆσαι πρό
τερον ἢ Μακάρτατον, ἐκεῖνον δὲ μετὰ ταύτης τῆς οὐσίας,
ἣν ἔχων ἐξέπλευσεν· ἅπαντα γὰρ καὶ τὴν τριήρη καὶ αὑτὸν
κατὰ τὸν πόλεμον ἀπώλεσε. καταλειφθέντος δὲ τοῦ Προσ-
παλτοῖ χωρίου καὶ γιγνομένου τῆς ἐκείνων ἀδελφῆς, ἐμῆς
δὲ γυναικός, ἐπείσθην ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνης εἰσποιῆσαι Μακαρτάτῳ
τὸν ἕτερον τῶν παίδων· οὐχ ἵνα <μὴς λητουργοίην, εἰ
50 προσγένοιτό μοι τοῦτο τὸ χωρίον. ὁμοίως γὰρ καὶ [μή]
εἰσποιήσαντος τοῦτό γ᾽ ὑπῆρχεν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐλῃτούργουν
διὰ τοῦτό γ᾽ ἧττον οὐδέν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν εἰσφερόντων ἦν
καὶ τῶν τὰ προσταττόμενα ὑμῖν ἅπαντα ποιούντων. ὁ δὲ
ὡς περὶ ἀχρήστου μὲν πλουσίου δὲ ἐπὶ διαβολῇ ποιεῖται
τούτους τοὺς λόγους. ἐγὼ δ' ἓν κεφάλαιον ἐρῶ πάντων
μέγιστον, ὃ καὶ ὑμῖν οἶδ' ὅτι δόξει δίκαιον. κοινώσασθαι
γὰρ ἐθέλω τὴν οὐσίαν τὴν ἐμὴν τῇ τοῦ παιδός, καὶ εἴτε
πολλὰ εἶτ᾽ ὀλίγα ἐστίν, ἐν κοινῷ γενομένης λάβωμεν τὰ
ἡμίσεα ἑκάτερος, ἵνα μηδὲν πλέον ἔχῃ ἕτερος τοῦ ἑτέρου
τοῦ προσήκοντος· ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐθελήσει.
Ο
48. 3. μάκαρπος Α, corr. Αl.
desiderat Reisk.
ΤΟ
ΛΕΙΠΕΙ.
5. ὅτι Α2, ἔτι Α || τὸ χωρίον] Deni nomen
49. 2. εὕρητε: corr. Reisk. . Cf. § 44. Το
I. 25. 4.
4. μετ' αὐτῆς Reisk.
IX. 10. 5 | el M, Ald.: eis.
μή del. Schoem.
50. I.
corr. Α2.
§ 5. 7.
3. μὲν in rasur. add. Α'. Cf.
9. un add. sched. Eton., Bekk.
Cf.
2. οὐδὲ] malit οὐ Buerm.
5. ὥσπερ ἀχρήστου: corr. Reisk.
10. κάτερος A, corr. Αl.
4. ἡμῖν Α,
8. καὶ in uers. add. Α'. Cf.
II. τοῦ προσήκοντος del. Herw.
I 2. AEIIIEI add. Ald., om. Bekk. Deesse aliquantum sensit librarius. Fol. 76"
tres tantum uersus habet, a fol. 77 incipit Dinarchus.
5
ΙΟ
15
XII
ΥΠΕΡ ΕΥ ΦΙΛΗΤΟΥ.
ΥΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ ΔΙΟΝΥΣΙΟΥ.
Τὸν Ἐρχιέων δῆμον εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον προσκαλεῖταί τις τῶν
ἀποψηφισθέντων ὡς ἀδίκως τῆς πολιτείας ἀπελαυνόμενος.
ἐγράφη γὰρ δή τις ὑπὸ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων νόμος, ἐξέτασιν
γενέσθαι τῶν πολιτῶν κατὰ δήμους, τὸν δὲ ἀποψηφισθέντα
ὑπὸ τῶν δημοτῶν τῆς πολιτείας μὴ μετέχειν, τοῖς δὲ ἀδίκως
ἀποψηφισθεῖσιν ἔφεσιν εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον εἶναι προσκαλε‐
σαμένοις τοὺς δημότας, καὶ ἐὰν τὸ δεύτερον ἐξελεγχθῶσι,
πεπρᾶσθαι αὐτοὺς καὶ τὰ χρήματα εἶναι δημόσια. κατὰ
τοῦτον τὸν νόμον ὁ Εὐφίλητος, προσκαλεσάμενος τοὺς Ερχιέας
ὡς ἀδίκως καταψηφισαμένους αὐτοῦ, τὸν ἀγῶνα τόνδε δια-
τίθεται. προείρηται μὲν δὴ τὰ πράγματα ταῦτ᾽ ἀκριβῶς καὶ
πεπίστωται διὰ τῶν μαρτύρων· οἷς δὲ βεβαίας βούλεται
ποιῆσαι τὰς μαρτυρίας, τάδε ἐστίν, ὡς μὲν ἐγὼ δόξης ἔχω,
πάντ᾽ ἀκριβῶς ἐξειργασμένα, κρινέτω δὲ ὁ βουλόμενος εἰ τὰ
προσήκοντα ἔγνωκα περὶ αὐτῶν.
Ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ἀδελφὸς ἡμῖν 1
ἐστιν οὑτοσὶ Εὐφίλητος, οὐ μόνον ἡμῶν ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν
XII. Dion. Hal. v. p. 617-624 Reisk., eiusd. Opusc. 1. p. 115-120 ed.
Usener et Radermacher.
Hyp. 1. προσκαλεῖται M teste Usenero, Reisk. : προκαλεῖται FBP.
τις δη B inducto δη.
4. δήμος Μ, corr. Μι.
αποψηφισθε*** F, corr. Fl.
8. πεπράσθαι: corr. Schoem.
ἀρχιερέας F, έχιέας Β.
<οὕτω > Reisk.
MBP.
3. δή
6. υποψηφισθεῖσιν Ρ,
6, 7. προκαλεσαμένοις : corr. Reisk. 7· ἐξελεχθῶσι F.
9. προκαλεσάμενος: corr. Reisk. || Ερχιέας MP:
ἀδίκους F, corr. F” || αὑτοῦ Bait., Scheib. [ τόνδε
12. βεβαίως Μ. 12, 13. ποιῆσαι βούλεται
ΙΟ.
11. ταῦτα Ρ.
13. τάδ' Ρ.
14.
1. 1. τοίνυν (τοι ex και F.
del. Saupp.
πάντα Β.
2. ὁ Εὐφήλητος F, η in ι corr. F1, ὁ om. F MBP,
170
αν
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
او
α
OR. XII.
συγγενῶν ἁπάντων ἀκηκόατε μαρτυρούντων. σκέψασθε δὲ
πρῶτον τὸν πατέρα ἡμῶν, τίνος ἕνεκ᾽ ἂν ψεύδοιτο καὶ
2 τοῦτον μὴ ὄντα αὐτοῦ ὑὸν εἰσεποιεῖτο. πάντας γὰρ
εὑρήσετε τοὺς τὰ τοιαῦτα πράττοντας ἢ οὐκ ὄντων αὐτοῖς
γνησίων παίδων ἢ διὰ πενίαν ἀναγκαζομένους ξένους ἀν-
θρώπους εἰσποιεῖσθαι, ὅπως ὠφελῶνται τι ἀπ' αὐτῶν δι'
αὐτοὺς ᾿Αθηναίων γεγονότων. τῷ τοίνυν πατρὶ τούτων
οὐδέτερον ὑπάρχει· γνήσιοι μὲν γὰρ αὐτῷ ἡμεῖς δύο νεῖς
ἐσμεν, ὥστε οὐκ ἂν διά γ᾽ ἐρημίαν τοῦτον εἰσεποιεῖτο.
3 ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ τροφῆς τε καὶ εὐπορίας τῆς παρὰ τούτου
δεόμενος· ἔστι γὰρ αὐτῷ <βίος> ἱκανός, καὶ χωρὶς τούτου
μεμαρτύρηται ὑμῖν τοῦτον ἐκ παιδίου τρέφων καὶ ἀσκῶν
καὶ εἰς τοὺς> φράτερας εἰσαγαγών, καὶ ταῦτα οὐ μικρὰ
δαπανήματά ἐστιν. ὥστε τόν [τε] πατέρα ἡμῶν οὐκ
εἰκός ἐστιν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, μηδὲν ὠφελούμενον οὕτως
4 ἀδίκῳ πράγματι ἐπιχειρῆσαι. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδ᾽ ἐμέ γε
οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώπων οὕτως τελέως ἂν ἄφρονα ὑπολάβοι, ὥστε
τούτῳ μαρτυρεῖν τὰ ψευδῆ, ὅπως τὰ πατρῷα διὰ πλειόνων
διανείμωμαι. καὶ γὰρ οὐδ᾽ ἀμφισβητῆσαί μοι ἐξουσία
γένοιτ' ἂν ὕστερον ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν ἀδελφὸς οὗτος ἐμοῦ·
οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἂν ὑμῶν τὴν <ἐμὴν> φωνὴν ἀνάσχοιτ' ἂν
ἀκούων, <εἰ> νῦν μὲν ὑπόδικον ἐμαυτὸν καθιστὰς μαρ-
τυρῶ ὡς ἔστιν ἀδελφὸς ἡμέτερος, ὕστερον δὲ φαινοίμην
αν
3. ἀκηκόατε] o e corr. Β.
4. ÉVEK'] ÉVEKEV MBP, Turr., Scheib., Buerm.,
εἵνεκεν (εἴνεκεν teste Usenero) F, Reisk., Bekk., Schoem. || ψεύδοιτο* F, uidetur a fuisse.
αὑτοῦ Schoem., Turr., Scheib. || εἰσποιοῖτο Reisk., Bekk., Schoem.
5.
ι
2. 2. εὑρήσεται F, corr., ut uidetur, F2 || τὰ om F, add. F” || αὑτοῖς Turr., Scheib.
3. τὴν πενίαν Ρ.
5. αὐτοὺς Turr., Scheib. 6. γάρ om. F, add. Fi (sec.
Usen.), F2 (sec. Sad.) | vioì M (sec. Sad.). 7. ήμεν malit Radermacher || ἂν διά
γε Dobr.: ἄν γε δι' || εἰσεποιεῖτο ex εἰσποιοῖτο F, εἰσποιοῖτο Reisk., Bekk. Schoem.
3. I. τροφής γε malit Radermacher || ἀπορίας MBP.
praeeunte Sylburgio || ikavòs FBM: ikav@s P, corr. F, corr. B.
corr. Fi | ἐκ παίδων : corr. Scheib. Cf. ΙΧ. 20. 2.
εἰσαγὼν : corr. Schoem.
Turr., Scheib.
4.
4.
2. βίος add. Reisk.
3. μαρτυρεται F,
τους add. Schoem.
5. Te om. F, add. F2, del. Buerm., ye Bekk., Schoem.,
3. διά] μετὰ Hertlein (Hermes
5. ἐμοῦ] ἐμὸς Krüger.
6. ὑμῶν < ἐμοῦ οὐδὲ > Reisk. || ἐμὴν add.
2. οὐθείς: corr. Schoem., item u. 6.
13. 3).
4. ἀμφισ#κτησαί F, βη in rasur. Fl.
5, 6. ἐμοῦ γὰρ οὐθεὶς Radermacher.
Saupp. coll. Aesch. II. 1.
7. ei add. Sylb.
OR. XII.
171
ΥΠΕΡ ΕΥΦΙΛΗΤΟΥ
ΕΚ
Ο
τούτοις ἀντιλέγων. οὐ μόνον τοίνυν ἡμᾶς, ὦ ἄνδρες δι- 5
κασταί, εἰκός ἐστι τἀληθῆ μεμαρτυρηκέναι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς
ἄλλους συγγενεῖς.
ἐνθυμήθητε γὰρ πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι οἱ
τὰς ἀδελφὰς ἡμῶν ἔχοντες οὐκ ἄν ποτε ἐμαρτύρουν περὶ
τούτου τὰ ψευδῆ· μητρυιὰ γὰρ ἡ τούτου μήτηρ ἐγεγένητο
ταῖς ἡμετέραις ἀδελφαῖς, εἰώθασι δέ πως ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ
διαφέρεσθαι ἀλλήλαις αἵ τε μητρυιαὶ καὶ αἱ πρόγονοι·
ὥστε εἰ οὗτος ἐξ ἄλλου τινὸς ἀνδρὸς ἦν τῇ μητρυιᾷ καὶ
οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ ἡμετέρου πατρός, οὐκ ἄν ποτε, ὦ ἄνδρες δι-
κασταί, τοὺς ἑαυτῶν ἄνδρας αἱ ἀδελφαὶ μαρτυρεῖν [εἴασαν
καὶ] ἐπέτρεψαν. καὶ μὴν οὐδ᾽ ἂν ὁ θεῖος πρὸς μητρὸς 6
ἡμῖν ὤν, τούτῳ δὲ οὐδὲν προσήκων δήπου τῇ τούτου
μητρὶ ἠθέλησεν ἄν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, μαρτυρῆσαι ψευδῆ
μαρτυρίαν, δι᾿ ἣν ἡμῖν γίγνεται βλάβη περιφανής, εἴ περ
ξένον ὄντα τοῦτον εἰσποιοῦμεν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς. ἔτι
τοίνυν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, πρὸς τούτοις <πῶς> ἄν τις
ὑμῶν καταγνοίη ψευδομαρτυρίων Δημαράτου τουτουὶ καὶ
Ηγήμονος και Νικοστράτου, οἳ πρῶτον μὲν οὐδὲν αἰσχρὸν
οὐδέποτε φανήσονται ἐπιτηδεύσαντες, εἶτα δ᾽ οἰκεῖοι ὄντες
ἡμῖν καὶ εἰδότες ἡμᾶς ἅπαντας μεμαρτυρήκασιν Εὐφιλήτῳ
τουτῳὶ τὴν αὑτοῦ συγγένειαν ἕκαστος. ὥστε ἡδέως κἂνη
τῶν ἀντιδικούντων ἡμῖν τοῦ σεμνοτάτου πυθοίμην, εἰ ἄλ-
λοθέν ποθεν ἔχοι ἂν ἐπιδεῖξαι αὑτὸν ᾿Αθηναῖον ἢ ἐκ τούτων
ὧν καὶ ἡμεῖς Εὐφίλητον ἐπιδείκνυμεν. ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ
αν
5. I. ἡμᾶς ex ὑμᾶς Β.
οι πρόγονοι: corr. Reisk.
K
5. ἐγένετο Scheib.
8. ei M corr.
7.
ΙΟ.
ἀλλήλων Ρ et marg. Β ||
ἑαυτῶν ex ἑαυτὸν ΜΒ.
10, 11. εἴασαν καὶ in rasur. add. F, del. Buerm. Lacunae signa ponit Radermacher,
qui fuisse in F ἑκουσίως ex incertis uestigiis dubitanter coni. Del. καὶ ἐπέτρεψαν
Reisk., Scheib.
6. I.
corr. P.
οὐδ' Bekk. (in Addendis p. 6ο2): οὐκ.
3. μαρτυρήσαι] ν e corr. Β.
Reisk., Bekk. || ἔτι ex ἔστι F.
T
2. προσῆκον F, in προσήκων
5. εἰσεποιοῦμεν post Sylburgium
6. τοίνυν F || πώς e marg. Bodl. (Misc. Gr. 36)
add. Reisk. Harum emendationum auctor est H. Savile (J. Phil. XXVIII. 171).
7. ἡμῶν: corr. Savile, Sylb. || ψευδομαρτυριών Schoem. : ψευδομαρτυρίαν. Cf. III. 4. 2 ||
τουτουὶ] τουὶ F.
8. ***οστράτου F, corr. F.
10. ἅπαντα: corr. Reisk.
τούτῳ: corr. Scheib. || αὐτοῦ: corr. Reisk.
ἅπαντες coni. Sylb.
II.
7. 3.
ποθεν ex ποτεν Β || ἔχοι ἂν G. Holwell (1766), Reisk.: ἔχοιεν FMB,
ἔχειεν Ρ || αὐτὸν FMP. 4. yàp in rasur. F2, fuisse uidetur oûv.
172
OR. XII.
ΙΣΑΙΟΥ
Α
α
αν
Ο
αν
οἶμαι ἄλλο τι ἂν αὐτὸν <εἰπεῖν> ἢ ὅτι ἡ μήτηρ ἀστή τέ
ἐστι καὶ <γαμετὴ καὶ ἀστὸς> ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ὡς ταῦτ᾽ ἀληθῆ
8 λέγει, παρέχοιτ᾽ ἂν αὑτῷ τοὺς συγγενεῖς μάρτυρας. εἶτα,
ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, εἰ μὲν οὗτοι ἐκινδύνευον, ἠξίουν ἂν
τοῖς αὑτῶν οἰκείοις ὑμᾶς πιστεύειν μαρτυροῦσι μᾶλλον ἢ
τοῖς κατηγόροις· νυνὶ δὲ ἡμῶν πάντα ταῦτα παρεχομένων
ἀξιώσουσιν ὑμᾶς τοῖς αὐτῶν πείθεσθαι λόγοις μᾶλλον ἢ
τῷ πατρὶ τῷ Εὐφιλήτου καὶ ἐμοὶ καὶ τῷ ἀδελφῷ καὶ τοῖς
φράτερσι καὶ πάσῃ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ συγγενείᾳ; καὶ μὴν οὗτοι
μὲν † οὐδὲν οὐδενὶ † κινδυνεύοντες ἰδίας ἔχθρας ἕνεκα <ταῦτα>
ποιοῦσιν, ἡμεῖς δὲ πάντας ὑποδίκους ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς καθι-
9 στάντες μαρτυροῦμεν. καὶ πρὸς ταῖς μαρτυρίαις, ὦ ἄνδρες
δικασταί, πρῶτον μὲν ἡ τοῦ Εὐφιλήτου μήτηρ, ἣν οὗτοι
ὁμολογοῦσιν ἀστὴν εἶναι, ὅρκον ὀμόσαι ἐπὶ τοῦ διαιτητοῦ
ἐβούλετο ἐπὶ Δελφινίῳ ἢ μὴν τουτονὶ Εὐφίλητον εἶναι ἐξ
αὐτῆς καὶ τοῦ ἡμετέρου πατρός. καίτοι τίνα προσῆκε
μᾶλλον αὐτῆς ἐκείνης τοῦτ᾽ εἰδέναι; ἔπειτα, ὦ ἄνδρες
δικασταί, ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἡμέτερος, ὃν εἰκός ἐστι μετὰ τὴν
τούτου μητέρα ἄριστα τὸν αὑτοῦ ὑὸν γιγνώσκειν, οὗτος
καὶ τότε καὶ νυνὶ βούλεται ὀμόσαι ἢ μὴν Εὐφίλητον τουτονὶ
10 ὑὸν εἶναι αὐτοῦ ἐξ ἀστῆς καὶ γαμετῆς γυναικός. πρὸς
Ο
ΕΠ
5. εἰπεῖν add. Saupp. Lacunam primus intellexit Holwell || ἀστή M teste
Usenero, coni. Reisk. : αὐτή FBP. Cf. VI. 25. 2.
6. γαμετὴ καὶ ἀστὸς add.
Radermacher. Post έστι excidisse καὶ ἐγγυητή uel και γαμετή putat Buerm., post
πατήρ add. cum Herw. ἀστός. 7. αὐτῷ: corr. Savile. Malit αὐτῶν Reisk.
av in MBP omiss. in F eras. restituit primus Holwell, deinde Turr.
αὐτῶν: corr. Savile | οἰκεί *s F, corr. F2 || ὑμᾶς Savile: ἡμᾶς FMΒΡ, ἡμῖν F2
6. Post ἀδελφῷ excidisse καὶ τῷ
8. οὐδ᾽ ἐν οὐδενὶ
3.
8.
2.
5. ἡμᾶς P, corr. P2 ¦| αὐτῶν: corr. Schoem.
πρὸς μητρὸς θείῳ καὶ τοῖς ἀνδράσι τῶν ἀδελφῶν putat Reisk.
Reisk., οὐδὲν ἐν οὐδενὶ Turr., οὐδ᾽ ἐν ἑνὶ Scheib. || ἔχθρας] θ cum rasur. Μ || ταῦτα add.
ἡμᾶς
Reisk.
9. ὑποδίκους ἡμᾶς Victorius: ὑποδιημᾶς F (erat in archetypo υποδίκους),
ὑποδίκους FMBP.
ἡμεῖς δὲ καθιστάντες omiss. in M suppleuit manus
uetus in marg. inferiore.
9.
9, 10.
δικασταί om. FB || εὐφιλήπου Μ.
2.
3· ἀστὴν] αὐτὴν F. 5. αὐτῆς:
corr. Schoem.
6. ἐκείνης ἄμεινον ΜΒΡ, glossema om. F. Cf. IV. 14. 3 || τοῦτο
F | δὲ post ἔπειτα supra uers. additum in F, sed neque ab Fl neque ab F sed alia
8. ἄριστα τὸν Reisk. : ἄριστον || αὐτοῦ: corr. Bekk. || ἐγίνωσκεν: corr.
Sylb., γινώσκειν supra scripto έγινωσκε Bodl. 9. νῦν Ρ || *ούλεται F, corr. F2 ||
ἢ μὴν Sylb.: ἡμῖν MBF, ὑμῖν Ρ et marg. Β || τοῦτον : corr. Scheib.
corr. Schoem. || ἐξ αὐτῆς F.
manu.
ΙΟ. αὐτοῦ:
OR. XII.
173
ΥΠΕΡ ΕΥΦΙΛΗΤΟΥ
F
ΟΤΕ
τούτοις τοίνυν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ἐγὼ ἐτύγχανον μὲν
τρεισκαιδεκαετὴς ὤν, ὥσπερ καὶ πρότερον εἶπον, ὅτε οὗτος
ἐγένετο, ἕτοιμος δέ εἰμι ὀμόσαι ἢ μὴν Εὐφίλητον τουτονὶ
ἀδελφὸν εἶναι ἐμαυτοῦ ὁμοπάτριον. ὥστε, ὦ ἄνδρες
δικασταί, δικαίως ἂν καὶ τοὺς ἡμετέρους ὅρκους πιστο-
τέρους νομίζοιτε ἢ τοὺς τούτων λόγους· ἡμεῖς μὲν γὰρ
ἀκριβῶς εἰδότες ὀμόσαι περὶ αὐτοῦ θέλομεν, οὗτοι δὲ
ταῦτα ἀκηκοότες παρὰ τῶν τούτου διαφόρων ἢ αὐτοὶ πλάτ-
τοντες λέγουσι. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ἡμεῖς 11
μὲν τοὺς συγγενεῖς μάρτυρας καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν διαιτητῶν καὶ ἐφ᾽
ὑμῶν παρεχόμεθα, οἷς οὐκ ἄξιον ἀπιστεῖν· οὗτοι δέ, ἐπειδὴ
ἔλαχεν Εὐφίλητος τὴν δίκην τὴν προτέραν τῷ κοινῷ τῶν
δημοτῶν καὶ τῷ τότε δημαρχοῦντι, ὃς νῦν τετελεύτηκε, δύο
ἔτη τοῦ διαιτητοῦ τὴν δίαιταν ἔχοντος οὐκ ἐδυνήθησαν
οὐδεμίαν μαρτυρίαν εὑρεῖν ὡς οὑτοσὶ ἄλλου τινὸς πατρός
ἐστιν ἢ τοῦ ἡμετέρου. τοῖς δὲ διαιτῶσι μέγιστα <ταῦτα>
σημεῖα ἦν τοῦ ψεύδεσθαι τούτους, καὶ κατεδιῄτησαν αὐτῶν
ἀμφότεροι. Καί μοι λαβὲ τῆς προτέρας διαίτης τὴν μαρ-
τυρίαν.
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ.
αν
Ὡς μὲν τοίνυν καὶ τότε ὦφλον τὴν δίαιταν, ἀκηκόατε. 12
ἀξιῶ δέ, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ὥσπερ οὗτοι μέγα τοῦτ᾽ ἂν
ἔφασαν εἶναι σημεῖον ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν Ηγησίππου, εἰ οἱ
διαιτηταὶ αὐτῶν ἀπεδιῄτησαν, οὕτω τὸ νῦν ἡμῖν τοιοῦτον
εἶναι μαρτύριον, ὅτι ἀληθῆ λέγομεν, ἐπεὶ ἔδοξαν αὐτοὶ
10.
2.
τούτους F, corr. F.
ἢ μὴν Sylb. : ἡμῖν Ρ, ὑμῖν FMB.
excidisse putat Radermacher.
11. 3. ἀπειστεῖν ex ἀπειθεῖν P.
5. τετελεύτηκεν ΒΡ.
ἠδυνήθησαν: corr. Scheib.
in αὐτὸν corr. F.
3.
πρῶτον F || 8 τε F.
6.
4. εἰμι] εἰ μὴ Ρ ||
δικασταί in rasur. add. Μ' || Post ἂν aliquid
4· εὐφίλητος in marg. add. F', ἀφίλητος Μ.
6. τῶν διαιτητών Hudtwalker, De Diaetet. p. 6
8. ταῦτα add. Reisk. 9. καταδιῄτησαν ΒΡ || αὐτῶν
1ο. λαβέ Reisk. : λάβετε FMBP, sed accentum om. F, et λαβ
Tit. om. F, in marg. rubro adscripsit P.
2. μέγα Reisk.: μετὰ || τοῦτ᾽ ἂν Schoem.:
ἀπεδιαίτησαν Ρ || τοιοῦτον] τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦτο Saupp.
5. αὐτοὶ] αὐτοῖς malit Radermacher.
primo Μ || προτέρας F, corr. Εl.
12. I. ὤφειλον: corr. Holwell.
ταῦτα.
3· ἔφησαν F.
4.
coll. Ant. VI. 27, τοὐναντίον Scheib.
Quidni οὗτοι? Cf. III. 78. 4ο
12.
174
OR. XII.
ΥΠΕΡ ΕΥΦΙΛΗΤΟΥ
ἀδικεῖν τοῦτον ᾿Αθηναῖον ὄντα καὶ κυρίως πρῶτον ἐγγρα
φέντα ὕστερον ἐξαλείψαντες. ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἀδελφὸς ἡμῶν
ἐστιν οὑτοσὶ Εὐφίλητος καὶ πολίτης ὑμέτερος, καὶ ἀδίκως
ὑβρίσθη ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν τῷ δήμῳ συστάντων, ἱκανῶς οἴομαι
ὑμᾶς, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ἀκηκοέναι.
6. Αθηναίοι Μ sec. Sad. || πρῶτον] πρότερον praeeunte Reiskio Saupp. Cf. § 1o. 3.
ἐξαλήψαντες Ρ. 9. ὑπὸ bis P || δήμω F2, δημο F.
I
ON THE ESTATE OF CLEONYMUS.
THE NEPHEWS OF CLEONYMUS AGAINST PHERENICUS
AND OTHERS.
CLAIM TO AN INHERITANCE.
Cleonymus son of Polyarchus died childless leaving a will by which his
property was devised to certain collateral relations. How many of these
there were, how they were connected with the testator and with each other,
and what were their names, cannot be determined from the vague language
of the speech. One was Pherenicus (§§ 31, 45), and a phrase in § 45
(Φερένικος ἢ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τις) has been interpreted to mean that the others
were all brothers of his (Blass, Att. Ber.2 II. p. 528, n. 3, E. Albrecht, Jahrbb.
f. cl. Phil. 127 (1883), p. 167). Poseidippus mentioned in §§ 14, 15, 23,
appears from the speaker's argument (note in particular § 22) to have been a
beneficiary under the will; it is not so clear that this holds good of Diocles,
whose name occurs in the same connexion (S$ 14, 23). Schoemann in his
German translation published in 1830 before his commentary included Simon
(§§ 31, 32) and Cephisander (§§ 16, 28) among the testamentary heirs, and
this view, which he afterwards-and rightly-abandoned, has found a belated
champion in W. Roeder (Beiträge, p. 22 sqq., §§ 16. 3 N., 32. 4 n.). All that
can be affirmed concerning the relationship of the heirs with the deceased is
that they were further removed than nephews (§§ 17, 36). Schoemann doubts
whether they were as near as fireusins (àveioì), and suggests that they
may have been aveţiadoî (~ 11. 22. 5 n.) of Cleonymus. Moy (Étude sur
les plaidoyers d'Isée, p. 159) is more confident, describing them as sans
doute des fils de cousins germains." With regard to their number Schoemann
conjectures that they were twice as many as the next of kin, who seek to
dispossess them; he argues from the terms of a proposal made by arbitrators
before the trial, that the heirs appointed in the will should 'share the estate
equally) (ισομοιρῆσαι §§ 2, 35, cp. § 28 μέρος ἕκαστον ἔχειν τῆς οὐσίας) with
their opponents, and in consequence cede 'one third' (§ 16). Albrecht
(op. cit. p. 168) contends that the property was bequeathed to four brothers,
Pherenicus, Poseidippus, Diocles, and another, whose name is not stated,
that the assailants of the will were two in number, and that the arbitrators
(C
176
OR. I.
ISAEUS
There is
proposed that each person should receive one sixth of the estate.
nothing to show whether, as was often the case (III. 56, 60, IV. 10, 19, v. 6,
VI. 7, 8, IX. 2, 3, 5, X. 9, Isocr. 19. 12), the testament enjoined that any of the
heirs should enter by adoption the house of Cleonymus. It is not to the
advantage of the speaker to mention such an injunction if it existed. His
silence on the pathetic subject of the extinction of a family may be considered
a sign that Cleonymus' will did provide for an adoption.
The validity of the will was contested, as usual (III. 61, VII. 2), by the next
of kin, the heirs ab intestato, in this case nephews (§ 20), one of whom, pre-
sumably the eldest, delivers the present speech. The number of the nephews
is nowhere stated. They seem to have been children of Cleonymus' sister,
for the manner in which the orator treats the hostility between Deinias, his
father's brother, and Cleonymus, indicates that Deinias and Cleonymus were
not brothers (note § 9 piλoi réWS ÖVTES). Confirmation might be sought from
the fact that Deinias became guardian of the claimants on their father's
death (§ 9); it could be argued that the burden of the 'tutela legitima'
(§ 9. I n.) would fall first on the paternal uncle of the minors. But Deinias
may have been nominated guardian by will, and, if this was so, the speaker,
so far from being compelled by his case to mention it, had a motive for
passing over this detail, which suggested that his father was more intimate
with Deinias, Cleonymus' enemy, than with Cleonymus (note $30 ημîv
оvπw xрwµevos). Before the trial an attempt was made to settle the dispute
by the mediation of friends. The nephew speaks only of friends and con-
nexions of his opponents, and, in particular, of a certain Cephisander (§§ 2,
16, 28), but this looks like a rhetorical device: the common and reasonable
course was to choose as diaλλakтaì representatives of both parties. At any
rate the friends of the heirs were ready to make a compromise allowing the
nephews one third of the whole estate, and, though the phrasing of § 35 (ràs
διαθήκας οὗτοι ἔργῳ λύουσιν ἐθέλοντες ἡμῖν ἰσομοιρῆσαι τῆς οὐσίας) and of § 51
(τῶν ἀντιδίκων γιγνωσκόντων ἡμᾶς δίκαιον εἶναι τὸ μέρος αὐτῶν λαβεῖν) might by
itself be considered another trick of art, the tone of the speech reveals that
the heirs themselves assented to these terms. For, if they had refused even
this concession, Isaeus would, I think, have handled the subject in another
manner. To impute to the adversary the rejection of the good offices of
friends and to reproach him with litigiousness and indecent exposure of
family dissensions are among the commonplaces of Athenian forensic
oratory (Lys. 32. 2, Dem. 27. I, 30. 1, 41. I, 14, [Dem.] 42. 12, 48. 2, 53,
Dion. Hal. De Lys. iud. c. 24). Here the familiar topic of an abortive
arbitration is given a different turn, also tabulated, perhaps, in the manuals
and notebooks of expert practitioners: 'if our adversaries and their
friends were willing to set the will aside and give us a third, how can you,
impartial judges, uphold the will and give us nothing?' The adroitness of
this appeal should not blind the reader to the probability that the nephews
refused a generous offer in the hope of bamboozling the judges. If Solon
intended to grant a man full freedom 'to dispose of his own,' dialéolai тà
¿avroû, he defeated his purpose by committing the administration of justice
to tribunals appointed by lot and invested with powers so ample that they
became judges of fact and equity as well as of law. At Rome both the iuris-
OR. I.
177
INTRODUCTION
consulti and the judges showed a marked tendency to respect the last
wishes of a testator, provided that they were expressed in conformity with
legal rules, and it was long before Roman lawyers admitted the validity of
a querela inofficiosi testamenti and allowed that a will might be annulled on
the ground that relations with a natural claim had been passed over without
just cause. Moreover the persons entitled to claim the legitima portio were
defined and strictly limited (Inst. II. 18. I ultra fratres et sorores cognati nullo
modo aut agere possunt aut agentes uincere). The bias at Athens was in
the opposite direction (§ 41. 2 n.). One of the Aristotelian Problems (29. 3)
is to explain why in the courts they vote for the relations rather than for
the will.' The judges took the greatest liberties with testaments, and did
not hesitate to substitute their own sympathies and preferences in place of
the intentions of the deceased. The present suit is a good illustration of this
weakness; had not the courts been in the habit of setting aside wills with
singular light-heartedness, the nephews of Cleonymus would never have dared
to push matters to a trial.
(
All the skill of a practised advocate cannot disguise the weakness of their
case. No attempt is made to dispute the meaning or authenticity of the in-
strument. Random insinuations such as are hinted in § 24 (eỉ yàp dń, ws
οὗτοί φασιν, ἐν ταῖς νῦν γεγραμμέναις διαθήκαις ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς τὴν οὐσίαν) and in
§ 42 (τὰς διαθήκας...οὐδεὶς ὑμῶν οἶδε κυρίας γενομένας) are not worth serious
notice. Cleonymus seems to have taken particular pains to secure the
property to the heirs of his choice (§ 11. 2 12.). The document was deposited
in one of the offices of the board of ȧorvvóμoi (§ 3. 5 n.), and remained there
ἀστυνόμοι
for a period which must have been considerable; the exact time cannot be
stated, since the speaker maintains a prudent reserve on this head. During these
years Cleonymus made no motion to revoke the will, and his nephews would
have been left without the least chance of throwing doubt on his intentions, but
for an incident which occurred during his last illness. He sent for one of the
ȧσтνvóμoi, who apparently was to bring the will (§ 25), a magistrate came to
the house but was not admitted, and Cleonymus died that night (§§ 14, 15,
22). The question is, What did Cleonymus wish to do? The nephew pro-
tests that his object was to revoke the will, the heirs say that he did not
mean to disinherit them but only to make certain corrections (§ 18 où Xûσai
βουλόμενος αὐτὰς τὰς διαθήκας) ἀλλ᾽ ἐπανορθῶσαι, § 36), and various cir-
cumstances make this explanation more plausible than that put forward by
the speaker (see $$ 30-35). In combination with this ambiguous incident
the nephews rely on two arguments to persuade the judges not to ratify the
testament. The first is that they are nearer of kin to the deceased than their
opponents. The plea ought to have been inadmissible, since the law gave
Cleonymus full power to choose for himself his heirs; and even in an
Athenian court, where the law was neither strictly interpreted nor rigidly
observed, the weight of the argument would depend on the difference in
propinquity between the contending parties. The prospects of a claimant
who was not a blood relation would be black indeed, if he had nothing to
invoke but the law and a document, but it would not be so easy to excite the
emotions of a tribunal by dwelling on the natural rights, say, of a nephew as
compared with a first cousin. Observe that in the present case the speaker
W. I.
T2
178
OR. I.
ISAEUS
is careful not to state the relationship between Cleonymus and the testamen-
tary heirs (§ 36). In the second place the nephews maintain that Cleonymus
had a greater affection for them than for their adversaries. This is the key-
note of the oration, and, if a statement were confirmed by repetition, the
point would be demonstrated to superfluity. But it may be permitted to
doubt. The evidence produced comes to nothing (see the argument of
§§ 9-16,17-21), and instead of witnesses we meet easy generalities, 'You
all know,' 'All the world admits' (§§ 37, 38, 111. 40. 2 22.). As Isaeus was
not a teacher of style, but a business man whose trade was to win suits, the
absence of pertinent testimony is significant. Finally, if his nephews were
so dear to Cleonymus, it is strange that he allowed years to pass without
recalling the will which disinherited them.
The fourth, ninth, and tenth speeches are also directed against testa-
ments; in the fourth and ninth it is contended that the will produced is a
forgery, in the tenth that the testator disposed of property which was not his
to give. The Aegineticus of Isocrates (or. 19) deals with a case similar to
the present: the claimant, a half-sister (ôμoлатрíα) of Thrasylochus the
testator, does not impugn the authenticity of the testament, but petitions that
it be set aside on grounds of equity (§ 34). The heir under the will, who is
the speaker, after setting forth briefly the unquestionable legality of the
testator's action, devotes the greater part of his time to proving that he and
his family had been old friends and benefactors of Thrasylochus, and that
ill-feeling existed between the half-sister and the testator. Cleonymus' heirs
probably took the same line against Isaeus' clients and sought to show that
the relations between uncle and nephews were not at all such as the orator
describes. It should be noted, as a curiosity of criticism, that K. Seeliger,
with a simplicity worthy of Tom Pinch, finds in this speech support for his
thesis that Isaeus was 'a champion of equity against strict law' (Zur
Charakteristik des Isaios, Jahrbb. f. cl. Philol. 113, 1876, p. 673 sqq.).
The exordium (§§ 1—8) is the most elaborate in the existing works of
Isaeus, designed to give the speaker an engaging air of youth and innocence,
and to summarise at the same time the heads of his case. Calculated art is
also manifest in the cautious narrative (§§ 9-16), confined to a few indis-
pensable facts and mixed with reasoning and interpretation. The refutatio
(S$ 17-35) is a series of loosely connected arguments to show that
Cleonymus' last acts are susceptible of only one explanation, viz. that he
desired to revoke the will; an interesting feature in the arrangement is the
way in which Isaeus reserves to the end (§ 31) an important detail damaging
to his theory, viz. the existence of a quarrel between Cleonymus and one of
the heirs. The remainder of the speech (§§ 36-47) is made up of common-
places which could be employed by the next of kin in any attack on a
The peroration (§§ 48–51) has an unconventional and effective
testament.
close.
The special care shown in avoiding hiatus—there are only four examples,
§ 1 ἀκροασόμενοι οὐδέποτε, § 11 πατρὶ ἐγκαλεῖ, § 29 αὑτοῦ ἡμῖν, ἀνάγκη ἐστὶν
-leads Benseler (De hiatu, p. 192) to the conclusion that the first speech is
one of the latest works of Isaeus (si secundum tempus collocatur, ultimum
fere tenebit locum). But with Isaeus the absence or presence of hiatus is
OR. I.
179
COMMENTARY
not a sure criterion of date. Avoidance of hiatus is observable in the seventh,
eighth, and eleventh speeches. The earliest possible date of the seventh is
354/3 B.C., the eleventh belongs to 359 B.C. or 358 B.C., with regard to the
eighth we can only say that it falls between 383 B.C. and 363 B.C. On the
other hand no trouble is taken about hiatus in the sixth speech, which was
written in 365/4 B.C. or 364/3 B.C., or in the second speech, which is not
earlier than 360 B.C., and, in the opinion of Blass, is as late as 354 B.C., or in
the 12th speech, which, if Dionysius' account be accepted (see XII. Introd.),
was not composed before 343 B.C. The truth may be that Isaeus, a practical
man, exerted himself to give Isocratean polish only when he was paid for it,
and had plenty of time at his disposal.
2 εἰς αὑτοὺς.
HYPOTHESIS.
Schoemann quotes IX. hyp. 3 φάσκων αὐτὰς (τὰς διαθήκας)
γενέσθαι εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἑαυτοῦ. Bekker, Dobson, Buermann think that αὐτοὺς is
the reading of A. I believe that the writer meant auroùs. Cp. Crit. Introd.
p. xix.
3 Kal Elμwva, a mistake. Simon (§§ 31, 32) is only an acquaintance of
Cleonymus.
9 ἡ στάσις ὅρος διπλοῦς κατὰ ἀμφισβήτησιν. The meaning and ap-
ή
plicability of the technical terms have been discussed by J. Luňák (Ueber
den status der ersten rede des Isaeus, Philol. 42, 1884, p. 275 sqq.) and
R. Volkmann (Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer, ed. 2, p. 70 sqq.). ErάOIS
in the sense of constitutio causae, determination of the point at issue, belongs
only to the genus iudiciale and has four subdivisions, (1) σroɣaoµós, status
coniecturalis (11. hyp. 8 n.), (2) öpos or ópioµós, status definitiuus or finitiuus,
(3) ποióτηs, status qualitatis, (4) µetáλnvis or яaрayрaþý, translatio. The
term opos is used of a case in which a fact is admitted and the debate is
a controuersia nominis, i.e. turning on the character of the fact, how it is to
be defined, quid sit. Hermogenes (Spengel, Rh. Gr. II. p. 154, 35) divides opo
into årλoî and diλoî and further subdivides pot dirλoî into five classes.
The subdivision which is appropriate here is ὅρος κατὰ πρόσωπα διπλοῦς,
definitio ex personis duplex (ib. p. 156, 10), applicable when on the strength
of a 'definition' two persons lay claim to the same action or contend for the
possession of one and the same thing. But the phrase karà ảµþioßýtnoiv
added in the hypothesis is derived from a different and later classification,
and makes the qualification dɩπλoûs superfluous. All enquiries, to which the
theory of the status was applied, were divided into three great groups,
according as they dealt with the prosecution of an offence or with a demand
for a reward or with the competition of two persons or parties for a reward
or an inheritance: πᾶν ζήτημα ἢ κατὰ δίωξίν ἐστι καὶ φυγὴν ἢ κατὰ αἴτησιν ἢ κατὰ
àµpioẞýτηow (Walz, Rh. Gr. IV. p. 212, 12). Consequently three divisions
of ὅροι were established: γενικώτατα μὲν οὖν τρία εἴδη ὅρων ἐστί, τό τε κατὰ
κρίσιν καὶ τὸ κατὰ ἀμφισβήτησιν καὶ τὸ κατ᾽ ἀξίωσιν (op. cit. IV. p. 579, 12).
While the ὅρος κατὰ κρίσιν might be either ἁπλοῦς or διπλοῦς, the
12-2
180
OR. I
ISAEUS
ὅρος κατὰ ἀμφισβήτησιν was necessarily διπλοῦς, the ὅρος κατ᾿ ἀξίωσιν Οι
κατ' αἴτησιν necessarily ἁπλοῦς; some authorities however did not treat ὅροι
κατὰ ἀμφισβήτησιν as an independent group but preferred to consider them
a species of ὅροι κατ' αἴτησιν under the name of ὅροι κατ' αἴτησιν διπλοῖ
(op. cit. VII. p. 464, 19). The ὅρος κατὰ ἀμφισβήτησιν is always an ὅρος κατὰ
πρόσωπα διπλοῦς (op. cit. VII. p. 464, 1ο τρίτος ὁ κατὰ πρόσωπον διπλοῦς,
τούτεστιν ὁ κατὰ ἀμφισβήτησιν). What then is the pos in this suit? Accord-
ing to Volkmann the status, as conceived by the author of the hypothesis, is
the question whether a testament which the testator admittedly wished to
alter is a real and valid testament, and this opos is dλoûs, because the
case concerns not one thing and one person but one thing and several
persons, κατὰ ἀμφισβήτησιν, because these persons are competitors for the
possession of one and the same inheritance. Luňák denies the existence of
an opos, and charges the author of the hypothesis with complete misappre-
hension of the issue. His own view is that Greek rhetoricians would have
called the status in this suit ἀντινομία (ἔστι γὰρ ἀντινομία δύο ἢ καὶ πλειόνων
ῥητῶν ἢ καὶ ἑνὸς διαιρουμένου μὴ φύσει ἐναντίων, κατὰ περίστασιν δὲ μάχη,
Hermogenes ap. Spengel Rh. Gr. II. p. 141, 7), because the speech is concerned
with a conflict between two ῥητά (ῥητὰ δὲ λέγω οἷον νόμους, διαθήκας, ψηφίστ
ματα, ἐπιστολάς, κηρύγματα ὡρισμένα, πάντα ἁπλῶς τὰ ἐν ῥητοῖς, Hermogenes,
ib. p. 140, 19), viz. the will and the law of succession (das Erbgesetz). What-
ever opinions may be held about the felicity of the description given in the
hypothesis, no doubt can be entertained that the ancient writer has here the
advantage over his modern critic. There is not, and cannot be, a conflict
between the testament and the law, because the law to which the nephews
appeal is the law of intestate succession.
IO oi
οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλοι. For the confusion of ἕτερος and ἄλλος see X. hyp.
repos x.
28, Blass, Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch, § 51, 6.
1-8 How great is the change made to me by Cleonymus' death!
He regarded us as his heirs, and brought us up so modestly that we never
entered a court of law, not even as listeners; now we are here with all our
fortune at stake. For, although the friends of our opponents concede our
right to an equal share in Cleonymus' estate, our adversaries themselves not
only claim this property, but, on account of alleged debts to Cleonymus, seek
also to rob us of our very patrimony—well knowing what is just, but con-
vinced that we are utterly helpless. Only consider our respective pleas; they
rely on a will—a will made in a fit of passion and recalled before death-we
are next-of-kin, the most intimate associates of the deceased, the legal and
moral heirs. And yet these our relations are not ashamed to contest our
claims! I count it the greatest of my misfortunes that I am at law with
kinsfolk; they have no such feeling, but muster all their forces as if to avenge
themselves on enemies. But you will realise their effrontery and their greed
when you have heard my story.
The exordium is a dexterous application of rhetorical precepts (see
Volkmann, Rhetorik² p. 197 sqq.), both a роoíμiov èk diaßoλîs and a ‘captatio
beniuolentiae ab nostra persona' (Cornif. I. 5. 8 ab nostra persona beniuo-
lentiam contrahemus...si nostra incommoda proferemus, inopiam, solitudi-
nem, calamitatem...ab aduersariorum persona beniuolentia captabitur, si eos
OR. I.
181
COMMENTARY
in odium, in inuidiam, in contemptionem adducemus etc.). At the same time
in §§ 3, 4 regard is had to εὐμάθεια (Spengel, Rh. Gr. 1. p. 321, 10 ἔργον
προοιμίου εὔνοια πρόσεξις εὐμάθεια). The significance of this studied art is
revealed by Cornif. 1. 4. 6 si genus causae dubium habebimus, a beniuolentia
principium constituemus, ne quid illa turpitudinis pars nobis obesse possit....
si turpe causae genus erit, insinuatione utendum est..., nisi quid nacti
erimus, qua re aduersarios criminando beniuolentiam capere possimus. si
honestum genus causae erit, licebit recte uel uti uel non uti principio. This
innocent and 'high-toned' youth is the assailant and has rejected an offer of
one-third of Cleonymus' estate on the chance of winning the whole. For
the line of reply open to the advocate on the other side compare the
exordium of Isocr. 19 ἐνομίζον μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες, οὕτω καλῶς βεβουλεῦσθαι περὶ
τῶν αὑτοῦ Θρασύλοχον ὥστε μηδέν᾽ ἄν ποτ᾽ ἐλθεῖν ἐναντία πράξοντα ταῖς δια-
θήκαις αἷς ἐκεῖνος κατέλιπεν· ἐπειδὴ δὲ τοῖς ἀντιδίκοις τοιαύτη γνώμη παρέστηκεν
ὥστε καὶ πρὸς οὕτως ἐχούσας αὐτὰς ἀμφισβητεῖν, ἀναγκαίως ἔχει παρ' ὑμῶν
πειρᾶσθαι τῶν δικαίων τυγχάνειν κ.τ.λ.
1. 1 πολλὴ μὲν. Here μὲν simply emphasizes the preceding word: 'great
indeed has been the change.' So close an approximation to the primitive
use of the particle (see Monro, Hom. Gr.2 § 345) is rare in Attic prose, if
combinations such as ἀλλὰ μὲν δή, καὶ μὲν δή be excepted. Since emphasis
may indicate some contrast felt or expressed, it was natural for µèv to be
used to prepare the way for an adversative member, and the history of the
particle in Attic consists in the process by which the predominance of the
structure with dè limited and transformed the applications of µèv solitarium.
Sentences in which μèv is found without a corresponding dè are really relics
of original freedom, but the feeling of an Athenian probably was that such
sentences were elliptic, an antithetical word or proposition being supplied in
thought; the discussion in Plat. Prot. 343 D on the force of μὲν in the poem
of Simonides shows how instinctively μèv standing by itself was interpreted
by reference to the familiar type of μèv-dè clauses. In the Attic orators µèv
solitarium is not common except after éyò in certain set forms like èyà μèv
οἶμαι ἡγοῦμαι, νομίζω, οἶδα κ.τ.λ.), ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ οὐχ ὁρῶ (οὐκ ἀξιῶ, οὐκ οἴομαι
κ.τ.λ.); compare Dem. 25. 42, 31. 5 ἐμοὶ μὲν γὰρ δοκεῖ. A sentence such as
[Dem.] 44. 27 καὶ διὰ μὲν σὲ ὁ οἶκος ἐξηρήμωται is a rarity. Further, the
particle is occasionally used alone (1) after demonstrative pronouns, I. 29. 6,
IV. 3. 3, Lys. 25. 16 (TOÛTO), 32. 17 (Taûta), [Lys.] 6. 20 (avrŋ), [Dem.] 8. 59
(ἐκεῖνος), 18. 95 (τοῦτο), 20. 145 (ταῦτα), 25. 41 (οὗτοι), 50 (ἐκείνοις), 29. 59
(τοῦτο), 41. 20 (τουτί), [Dem.] 44. 62 (οὗτοι), 56. I (ἐκεῖνο), Εp. 2. 11 (τούτου),
Din. 3. 21 (oûtos), (2) after relatives, Dem. 25. 77 òv µèv yàp åñavтes vµeîs
ἑωράκατε, οὐκ ἔστι τοιοῦτος, Aesch. 3. 209 ἃ μὲν γὰρ ὑπὲρ σεαυτοῦ βεβούλευσαι,
πάντες ὁρῶμεν, (3) between the article and the substantive, Ant. 6. 2 καὶ τοὺς
μὲν νόμους...πάντες ἂν ἐπαινέσειαν, Lys. 29. Ι ὁ μὲν ἀγὼν οὗτος, Aesch.
I. 142 τὸν μὲν ἔρωτα, Din. I. 9 τὸ μὲν γὰρ συνέδριον, (4) after a substantive
without the article, Dem. 9. 15 εἰρήνην μὲν γὰρ ὠμωμόκει, 25. 59 θάνατος μὲν
γὰρ ἔμοιγε μικρὰ (τιμωρία) φαίνεται, [Dem.] 47. 82 λόγῳ μὲν γὰρ διηγήσασθαι οὐκ
ἂν ἱκανόν μοι γένοιτο τὸ ὕδωρ, (5) after adjectives, Lys. I. 27 ἐγὼ δὲ δίκαιον
μὲν ἂν ποιεῖν ἡγούμην, [Dem.] 44. 1 αἴτιος μέν ἐστι Λεωχάρης οὑτοσὶ τοῦ
καὶ αὐτὸς κρίνεσθαι καὶ ἐμὲ νεώτερον ὄντα λέγειν ἐν ὑμῖν, (6) after adverbs,
Δ
182
OR. I.
ISAEUS
II. 15. I, Lys. 12. 91 νυνὶ μὲν γὰρ, (7) after verbs, Ant. Tetr. III. a. I νενόμισται
μὲν, 5. 57 οἶμαι μὲν γὰρ οὐδένα, Dem. 19. 231 ᾔδεσαν μὲν γὰρ πάλαι, 20. 139
δεῖξαι μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἔχουσι. The range of the construction is much the same
in Aristophanes; see Starkie on Ar. Vesp. 77. The conversational irregu-
larity of Plato's οὐδαμῶς ἀληθινόν γε ἀλλ᾽ ἐοικὸς μέν (Soph. 240 B; cp. Hom.
Od. 15. 405) is not tolerated in the formal manner of oratory, and the
inevitable lack of dialogue in legal and political addresses explains the
absence of the use of µèv in interrogative sentences 'to mark the proposition
as preliminary and to point to a sequel' (Verrall on Eur. Med. 676) as in Ar.
Αν. 1214 ὑγιαίνεις μέν ; Plat. Men. 82 Β Ελλην μέν ἐστι καὶ ἑλληνίζει; The
idiom should be distinguished from anacoluthon, which is very common after
πρῶτον μὲν ; compare also Ant. Tetr. I. α. 7, 5. 31, 36, And. 2. 11, Lys. 14.
25, 32. 13. Dem. 23. 62, Aesch. 1. 49, 3. 142, Lyc. 52, Din. 1. 30. In Lys. 12.
15 (ἡγούμην μὲν) Reiske and Cobet justly suspect the text, and doubts may
be felt about v. 18. 2 ἀφίστατο μὲν, ib. 36. 7 ἕτεροι μὲν, Din. I. 69 τοὺς μὲν
ἄλλους, Lys. 19. 1 ἐγὼ μέν. Cp. also III. 74. I, IV. 29. 3, VI. 18. I, VIII. 36. 3.
2 ἡμῖν κατέλιπε τὴν οὐσίαν. The statement is false, but the proposal to
alter the aorist into an imperfect shows insufficient appreciation of the
impudence of an Athenian litigant and the unscrupulousness of a δικογράφος.
Cp. V. 4. 2 n.
4 οὕτως ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ σωφρόνως. For the position of οὕτως see VII. 2. 6,
Schneider on Isocr. 9. 39, Rehdantz, Demosth. Index II. s.v. οὕτως.
5 οὐδ᾽ ἀκροασόμενοι κ.τ.λ. In the golden past of Athens lauded by
Isocrates in the Areopagiticus οὕτως ἔφευγον (οἱ νεώτεροι) τὴν ἀγοράν, ὥστ᾽ εἰ
καί ποτε διελθεῖν ἀναγκασθεῖεν, μετὰ πολλῆς αἰδοῦς καὶ σωφροσύνης ἐφαίνοντο
τοῦτο ποιοῦντες (7. 48); in his Apologia (Περὶ ᾿Αντιδόσεως) he boasts com-
placently that he has not been one of those 'who supply speeches to litigants'
and 'make the law courts their home: ἐμὲ δ᾽ οὐδεὶς πώποθ᾽ ἑώρακεν οὔτ᾽ ἐν
τοῖς συνεδρίοις οὔτε περὶ τὰς ἀνακρίσεις οὔτ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῖς δικαστηρίοις οὔτε πρὸς τοῖς
διαιτηταῖς, ἀλλ᾽ οὕτως ἀπέχομαι τούτων ἁπάντων ὡς οὐδεὶς ἄλλος τῶν πολιτῶν
(15. 38). The speaker of Lys. XIX. is another exemplar of old-fashioned
ἀπραγμοσύνη: ἐγὼ γὰρ ἔτη γεγονὼς ἤδη τριάκοντα...ἐγγὺς οἰκῶν τῆς ἀγορᾶς
οὔτε πρὸς δικαστηρίῳ οὔτε πρὸς βουλευτηρίῳ ὤφθην οὐδεπώποτε, πρὶν ταύτην
τὴν συμφορὰν γενέσθαι (§ 55). Plato describes the warped and stunted
minds of those who 'from their youth upwards have been knocking
about in law courts and such places (Theaet. 172 C οἱ ἐν δικαστηρίοις καὶ
τοῖς τοιούτοις ἐκ νέων καλινδούμενοι), whereas the leaders of our chorus
(οἱ κορυφαίοι), from their youth upwards, have never known the way to the
Agora, οὐδὲ ὅπου δικαστήριον ἢ βουλευτήριον ἤ τι κοινὸν ἄλλο τῆς πόλεως
συνέδριον (ib. 173 C). Contrast Aesch. 1. 117 ὁρῶ δὲ πολλοὺς μὲν τῶν νεωτέ-
ρων προσεστηκότας πρὸς τῷ δικαστηρίῳ, πολλοὺς δὲ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, οὐκ
ἐλαχίστους δὲ τῶν ἐκ τῆς ἄλλης Ελλάδος συνειλεγμένους ἐπὶ τὴν ἀκρόασιν,
[And.] 4. 22 τοιγάρτοι τῶν νέων αἱ διατριβαὶ οὐκ ἐν τοῖς γυμνασίοις ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τοῖς
δικαστηρίοις εἰσί, καὶ στρατεύονται μὲν οἱ πρεσβύτεροι, δημηγοροῦσι δὲ οἱ
νεώτεροι. The oratorical use of the τόπος is illustrated by Anaximenes ap.
Spengel Rh. Gr. I. p. 229, 25 ἐὰν δὲ ἐκ τοῦ παρόντος χρόνου περὶ αὐτὸν τὸν
ἄνθρωπον αἱ διαβολαὶ ὦσι, ἀναγκαῖον διαβεβλῆσθαι, ἐὰν ἀπρεπὴς ᾖ τῷ παρόντι
ἀγωνι...ἀπρεπὴς μὲν οὖν γένοιτ᾽ ἄν, ἐὰν ἀγωνίζηται νεώτερος, ib. p. 230, 19 καθ᾽
OR. I.
183
COMMENTARY
اد
ἑκάστην δὲ τὴν διαβολὴν τάδε χρὴ προφασίζεσθαι· τὸν μὲν νεώτερον πρεσβυ-
τέρων φίλων ἀπορίαν τῶν ἀγωνιουμένων ὑπὲρ αὑτοῦ, ἢ μέγεθος ἀδικημάτων ἢ
προθεσμίαν χρόνου ἢ πλῆθος ἢ ἄλλο τι τοιοῦτον, Ant. I. I νέος μὲν καὶ ἄπειρος
δικῶν ἔγωγε ἔτι, δεινῶς δὲ καὶ ἀπόρως ἔχει μοι περὶ τοῦ πράγματος, Isae. fr.
VII. (Saupp.) δέομαι οὖν ὑμῶν συγγνώμην ἔχειν εἰ καὶ νεώτερος ὢν λέγειν ἐπὶ
δικαστηρίου τετόλμηκα· διὰ γὰρ τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας ἀναγκάζομαι παρὰ τὸν ἐμαυτοῦ
τρόπον τοιοῦτόν τι ποιεῖν, [Dem.] 44. 14; 58. 1-4, 41, 57, 58.
8,9 PάσKOVTES. The 'allegation' is nowhere distinctly denied. On the
contrary it is admitted in § 12 that Cleonymus had come to the rescue of his
brother-in-law's estate ('he saved our property from the designs of the
creditors'). Isaeus is too wary to enter on the dispute whether the money
so spent was a loan or a gift. For (1) if Cleonymus in his lifetime had
made a handsome present to his nephews, he had a valid reason for con-
sidering the claims of other relations and maintaining his original will
(see § 27. 5); (2) if the money was advanced e.g. on a mortgage (éπì
TOÚTOIs), the speaker had an obvious motive for repudiating compromise
and 'risking everything' in a trial, since, if successful, he would not only
obtain all Cleonymus' wealth but also clear his own estate from an en-
cumbrance.
2. 1 oi µèv oikeîoɩ K.T.λ. For the abortive arbitration see §§ 16, 28, 35, 51
and Introd. p. 176.
2, 3 τῶν ὁμολογουμένων, ὧν Κλεώνυμος κατέλιπεν, ‘the undisputed pro-
perty, which Cleonymus left,' opposed in thought to the contested debt,
which according to the opponents was part of the assets. The phrase
carries on the implication of pάokovres, that the debt was a fiction of the
adversaries, without revealing what was the verdict of the arbitrators on
this point. For the language compare Dem. 41. 24 wµoλoyeîto tà onµeîa
τῶν γραμμάτων (were not disputed), [Dem.] 56. I ἀργύριον φανερὸν καὶ ὁμολο-
yoúμevov (‘in a visible and indisputable form,' Sandys ad loc., hard cash
without any question), and the common opposition of óμoλoyoúμevos and
ȧµÞiσßηTоúμevos or avτiλeyóμevos (I. 42, Isocr. 2. 52, 12. 238, 15. 202, Dem.
19. 92, [Dem.] 35. 27, 56. 16, Aesch. 2. 44). I do not think that there is an
insinuation that the testamentary heirs were concealing part of Cleonymus'
property (XI. 43. 7 οὔπω λέγω περὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἃ κατελείφθη μὲν οὗτοι δ᾽ οὐκ
ἀποφαίνουσιν, ἀλλὰ τὰ φανερὰ καὶ τὰ ὑπὸ τούτων ὁμολογούμενα). According
to the usual interpretation 'the property admittedly left by Cleonymus' is
contrasted with 'our patrimony' (тà πатрa). Schoemann's paraphrase
arpa).
is 'quae nos quoque fatemur Cleonymi, non paterna nostra bona esse,' his
translation 'während die Freunde und Verwandten unserer Gegner uns
auch an Dem, was eingestandermassen zum Nachlass des Kleonymus gehört,
einen gleichen Antheil zugestanden wissen wollen.' His view seems to have
the approval of recent translators; Dareste (Les Plaidoyers d'Isée, p. 3) has
'les biens reconnus laissés par Cléonyme,' Caccialanza (Le Orazioni di Iseo,
p. 55) gives ‘il patrimonio riconosciuto da tutti come eredità di Cleonimo?
But the natural expression of this idea would be τῶν ὁμολογουμένων ὑπὸ
Κλεωνύμου καταλειφθῆναι (VIII. 21. 1, 2, ΧΙ. 14, 35, Lys. 19. 44 τῶν Κόνωνος
τῶν ὁμολογουμένων δικαίως ἀποφανθῆναι ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐκείνου, Isocr. 6. 24, 12. 155,
15. 20) or ὧν ὁμολογουμένως Κλεώνυμος κατέλιπεν. Even in English the
184
OR. I.
ISAEUS
admitted assets, which Cleonymus left' is distinguishable from 'the assets,
which Cleonymus admittedly left.'
3 aÚTŵν TOÚTwv. No words need be wasted over the old punctuation,
but to heal the place more is needed than the transference of the comma.
The fault is the position of aurois, a word which here ought to be un-
emphatic: ToÚTwv avroîs is the proper order. Scheibe, who brackets roúrov
and Lincke (De Elocutione Isaei, p. 37), who defends it, both miss the,
point. Buermann (Hermes 19, p. 362) observing that A contains certain
examples (Crit. Introd. p. xxxix) of the error of grammatical assimilation,
proposes αὐτοῖς τούτοις. Applying the same principle I prefer αὐτῶν τούτων.
3. I
ékátepol, of two sides or parties, not of two individuals; compare
§§ 30. 1, 33. I, II. 30. 3, 32. 3, IV. 2. 3, 27. I, Ant. 6. 11 (àµporépoɩs), And.
1. 105 (ἀμφότεροι), Lys. 12. 53 (ἑκάτεροι), Isocr. 4. 133 (ἀμφοτέρων ἡμῶν),
8. 59 (ὁπότεροι), 9. 17 (ἑκατέρων), Dem. 6. 5 (ἑκάτεροι), 21. 86 (οὐδετέρους), Aesch.
I. 47 (μηδετέρους).
εἰς ὑμᾶς. The regular formula of the orators is εἰς ὑμᾶς εἰσελθεῖν,
εἰσιέναι, developed out of εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον εἰσιέναι; cp. εἰς τὸ πλῆθος εἰσάγειν
(And. 1. 135). The instances of ws vµâs are rare and are attributed by Cobet
(Mnem. 9, p. 441 sqq.) to ‘scioli et correctores,' who imagined that es could
not be applied to persons. For the confusion of os and els see Porson on
Ar. Plut. 157, 237, 242, 404, 495, 900, 999, 1202. Blass leaves ὡς ὑμᾶς in
Dem. 21. 112, 37. 8, but adopts eiσeλ0òv eis vµâs in [Dem.] 47. 1; here Σ has
ὡς, Q and F corr. εis, but in §§ 3, 5 εἰς ὑμᾶς is in Σ; ὡς ὑμᾶς τοῦ πράγματος
¿λóvтos Dem. 21. 218 belongs to a passage obelised in F. All recent
editors have rejected is vµâs èλoeîv in Lys. 31. 1. Cobet l.c. also corrects
Plat. Αp. 24 D εἰσάγεις τουτοισὶ to εἰσάγεις εἰς τουτουσί, on which see Adam's
note ad loc. and And. 1. 116, and condemns πрòs vµâs eloeλbeîv in Dem.
20. 146, [Dem.] 34. 1, 56. 4, 46, a combination also found in Din. 1. 106,
2. 4 (kei). But the legitimacy of πρòs vµâs seems proved by Isocr. 19. 50
йкш πρòs vµâs, where Cobet's treatment would produce an intolerable hiatus;
ср. йÊŋ πρòs vµâs in [Dem.] 58. 61, ýêш πрòs vµâs in Aesch. 1. 32.
3 διέθετο : δὴ ὑπέθετο QA. The probable stages of corruption were δὲ
ἔθετο (Crit. Introd. p. xlvii), δὴ ἔθετο, δὴ ὑπέθετο.
4, 5 ἔλυσε δὲ...πέμψας. The sentence is equivocal and may mean
either ‘he sent Poseidippus etc. and revoked the will' or 'he revoked the
will, in that he sent Poseidippus etc.' Isaeus desired his hearers to accept
the first interpretation. The second is naturally taken by the translators
(en envoyant Posidippe chez le magistrat, Dareste, ‘testamento da lui
annullato col mandare Poseidippo al magistrato, Caccialanza). When the
argument against the will is completed, the time for qualifications is past;
hence the bold assertion of § 43 ἔλυσε μὲν εὖ φρονῶν, διέθετο δὲ ὀργισθείς.
For another ambiguous aorist participle cp. VII. 22. 7 n. Van Herwerden's
excision of the clause éµas—άpõǹv removes a feature characteristic of the
author's art. The emendation λve lets the cat out of the bag too soon; and
also raises a nice question of grammar. Can ëλve téµpas k.7.λ. bear the
sense ‘he sought to revoke the will by sending Poseidippus etc.'? The use
of the aorist participle to denote 'coincident action' (Gildersleeve, Syntax
§ 345, Goodwin, M. & T. § 150) is common in the Attic orators. The
π
OR. I.
185
COMMENTARY
leading verb is generally aorist indicative, but the construction is also found
with the aorist imperative (Lys. 27. 6 παράδειγμα ποιήσατε (ποιήσετε Χ: corr.
Halbertsma) τοῖς ἄλλοις...παρὰ τούτων δίκην λαβόντες, Din. 1. 29), aorist
subjunctive (VII. 42. 6, Ant. Tetr. II. β. 11 μὴ καταψηφισάμενοι ἡμᾶς δυσμόρους
καταστήσητε, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπολύοντες εὐσεβεῖτε, [Dem.] 50. 28), aorist optative (VII. 41. 3,
Ant. I. 27 ἀπολομένη καὶ μὴ τυχοῦσα μήτ' αἰδοῦς μήτ᾽ ἐλέου...τῆς δικαιοτάτης ἂν
τύχοι τιμωρίας), aorist infinitive (Lys. 12. 91 συμβουλεύω μὴ τούτων ἀποψηφισα-
μένους ὑμῶν αὐτῶν καταψηφίσασθαι, ib. 1. 12, 28. 9, Dem. 20. II, 25. 95,
[Dem.] 59. 122, And. 2. 27), historic present (Dem. 32. 11, [Dem.] 40. 11),
present indicative (Aesch. 3. 46 τὸν στέφανον...ἱερὸν εἶναι τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς ὁ νόμος
κελεύει, ἀφελόμενος τὸν στεφανούμενον, ib. 3. 34), present optative (Dem. 57.
69 ἡμῖν ἂν προσθέμενοι τὴν ψῆφον εὐορκοίητε), perfect indicative (II. 40. 4, 5,
VII. 18. 7, Lys. 30. 6 ἀχαρίστως ὑμῖν προσενήνεκται παρανομήσας, ib. I. 7ο
14. 32, And. 3. 18, Dem. 23. 67, 80, 87, Aesch. 3. 12, Isocr. 14. 11, 19. 38),
future indicative (Dem. 23. 64, Din. I. 15 τοῦτον οὐ τιμωρησάμενοι παράδειγμα
ποιήσετε τοῖς ἄλλοις; Isocr. 18. 34, [Gorg.] Palamed. 36 οὐ μόνον εἰς ἐμέ...
ἁμαρτήσεσθε δικάσαντες ἀδίκως, ἀλλ᾽ ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς δεινὸν...ἔργον συνεπιστήσεσθε
πεποιηκότες, ἀπεκτονότες ἄνδρα σύμμαχον). I have noted only two examples
of the aorist participle so used with the imperfect indicative, viz. Lys. 32. 11
ἠντεβόλει με καὶ ἱκέτευε...εἰποῦσα, Dem. 23. 10 παραβὰς τοὺς ὅρκους καὶ τὰς
συνθήκας ἐξέφερε πόλεμον (objections may be brought against And. I. 65
ἐδεῖτο σῴζεσθαι φράσας τοὺς πείσαντας αὐτόν), and it may be doubted whether
these passages are enough to justify the version of ἔλυε πέμψας which is in
question; would not ἔλυε draw with it πέμπων? The discussion of this usage
in the Classical Review, v. 3 sqq., 248 sqq. rests on an inadequate basis
of facts.
5 ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν, probably collective (ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀστυνόμους) here and in
§§ 14, 18, 21, 22; cp. § 14 τοὺς ἄρχοντας, § 25 παρὰ τῶν ἀρχόντων. So ἡ ἀρχὴ
signifies οἱ τῶν νεωρίων ἐπιμεληταί in [Dem.] 47. 21, 22, οἱ ἕνδεκα in [Dem.]
53. 24, οἱ τοῦ ἐμπορίου ἐπιμεληταί in [Dem.] 58. 8. Cleonymus' will was
deposited in an office of the board. As there were five doтvvóμoɩ for the
city and five for the Peiraeus ('Αθ. Πολ. c. 50), it may be assumed that there
was one ἀστυνόμιον in the Peiraeus and another in the ἄστυ. Plato provides
his city with an ἀστυνόμιον (Laws 918 A) and an ἀγορανόμιον (ib. 917 E), and we
know from an inscription (C. I. A. IV. 2 n. 192 c, p. 59, S. I. G.² n. 500, Michel n.
114) that in 320/19 B.C. the five αγορανόμοι for the Peiraeus had an office there.
4. 2 χρώμενοι, an imperfect; cp. VIII. 14. 1 ".
5, 6. ἔτι δὲ Πολυάρχου...προστάξαντος κ.τ.λ. No attention need be
given to this vague statement, which is not only not elucidated by testimony
but never alluded to again in the course of a speech teeming with repetitions.
Thalheim, Gr. Rechtsalt. p. 81 n. 4, actually cites the passage as an example
of a will, made by a father with legitimate sons in view of their decease
before coming of age ([Dem.] 46. 24 ὅ τι ἂν γνησίων ὄντων υἱῶν ὁ πατὴρ
διαθῆται, ἐὰν ἀποθάνωσιν οἱ υἱεῖς πρὶν ἐπὶ διετὲς ἡβᾶν, τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς διαθήκην
κυρίαν εἶναι). Schulin (Das Gr. Testament verglichen mit dem Römischen,
p. 29) goes to Roman law for an analogy: die Verfügung des Polyarchos...
scheint ein Universalfideicommiss sein zu sollen, das dann aber allerdings
gerade so wenig klagbar gewesen zu sein scheint, wie im ältern römischen
186
OR. I.
ISAEUS
Recht. Beauchet III. p. 705 also discovers here evidence of 'fideicommissa'
at Athens: 'Polyarque avait, dans son testament, recommandé à son fils
Cléonyme, s'il mourait sans enfants, de laisser ses biens à ses neveux.'
The alleged 'injunction,' viz. to bequeath his property to us in the event of
his death without children ([And.] 4. 15 τὰ χρήματα τῷ δήμῳ ἔδωκεν, εἴ πως
τελευτήσειεν ἄπαις), is hardly intelligible. If Cleonymus, being childless,
wished his nephews, the heirs at law, to succeed, he had no occasion to
make a will or indeed do anything. In general the purpose of a testament
was to defeat the rules of intestate succession, e.g. in this case Cleonymus
by means of a will might have adopted one of his nephews and given him
all the property, though at Athens, if a man had a strong preference for
a particular relative, it was wiser to secure the position of the favourite by
adoptio inter uiuos. But the obscurity of the 'injunction' is not due to
carelessness; Isaeus would not have helped the cause of his clients by
writing 'Our grandfather told Cleonymus not to make a will' or 'to adopt
one of us by will.' Note that the name Kλewvvμos is put in the conditional
clause to make it clear that Polyarchus is not the subject of the verb πάθοι.
5. I, 2
τοιούτων τοίνυν ἡμῖν ὑπαρχόντων. Reiske, who keeps τοσούτων,
observes subaudi δικαίων. But compare And. I. 92 σκέψασθε τοίνυν καὶ
τοὺς κατηγόρους, τί αὐτοῖς ὑπάρχον ἑτέρων κατηγοροῦσι, Lys. 18. 22 καὶ τοιούτων
ἡμῖν ὑπαρχόντων εἰς τίνας ἂν ἐβουλήθημεν δικαστὰς καταφυγεῖν; 34. 6 εἶτα
τοιούτων (τοῖς τῶν FMT, τοιούτων Baiter, τούτων Sluiter) ἡμῖν ὑπαρχόντων
ἐρωτῶσι. For the confusion of and s see Crit. Introd. p. xlvii.
اد
し
​اد
3, 4 καταστήσαντες ἡμᾶς εἰς ἀγῶνα. Cp. Anaximenes ap. Spengel Rh. Gr. 1.
p. 230, 8 αἱ δὲ περὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα συμβαίνουσαι (διαβολαί), ἐάν τις πραγματεύηται
πρὸς οἰκείους φίλους ἢ ξένους ἢ ἰδίους ἢ περὶ μικρῶν ἡ αἰσχρῶν· ταῦτα γὰρ
ἀδοξίαν τοῖς δικαζομένοις ποιεῖ. πῶς οὖν τὰς διαβολὰς τὰς προειρημένας ἀπολύ-
σομεν, τοῦτο δηλώσω. δύο μὲν δὴ στοιχεῖα λέγω κοινὰ κατὰ πάντων, τὸ μέν, οἷς
ἂν νομίζῃς τοὺς κριτὰς ἐπιπλήξειν, προκαταλάμβανε αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐπίπληττε, τὸ δὲ
ἕτερον, εἰ τὰς πράξεις μάλιστα μὲν εἰς τοὺς ἀντιδίκους ἀποτρέψεις, εἰ δὲ μή,
εἰς ἄλλους τινάς, προφάσει χρώμενος, ὅτι οὐχ ἑκὼν ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνταγωνιστῶν
ἀναγκαζόμενος εἰς τὸν ἀγῶνα κατέστης, ib. p. 230, 32 τὰς δὲ περὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα
(διαβολὰς) οὕτως ἀπωσόμεθα, τὴν αἰτίαν εἰς τὸν ἐναντίον τρέποντες, ἢ λοιδορίαν
ἐγκαλοῦντες αὐτοῖς, ἢ ἀδικίαν, ἢ πλεονεξίαν, ἢ φιλονικίαν, ἢ ὀργὴν προφασιζόμενοι,
ὅτι τοῦ δικαίου δι᾿ ἄλλου τρόπου τυχεῖν ἀδύνατον, Dion. Hal. De Lys. iud.
C. 24 τοῦτο τὸ προοίμιον (Lys. XXXII.) ἁπάσας ἔχει τὰς ἀρετάς, ὅσας δεῖ τὸ
προοίμιον ἔχειν. δηλώσουσι δὲ οἱ κανόνες αὐτῷ παρατεθέντες οἱ τῶν τεχνῶν.
ἅπαντες γὰρ δήπου παραγγέλλουσιν οἱ συνταξάμενοι τὰς τέχνας, ὅταν πρὸς
οἰκείους ὁ ἀγών, σκοπεῖν ὅπως μὴ πονηροὶ μηδὲ φιλοπράγμονες οἱ κατήγοροι
φανήσονται. κελεύουσίν τε πρῶτον μὲν τὴν αἰτίαν εἰς τοὺς ἀντιδίκους περιστάναι
καὶ τοῦ ἐγκλήματος καὶ τοῦ ἀγῶνος καὶ λέγειν, ὅτι μεγάλα τἀδικήματα καὶ οὐκ ἐνῆν
αὐτὰ μετρίως ἐνεγκεῖν καὶ ὅτι ὑπὲρ ἀναγκαιοτέρων προσώπων ὁ ἀγὼν καὶ ἐρήμων
καὶ ἧττον ὑπεροφθῆναι ἀξίων, οἷς μὴ βοηθοῦντες κακίους ἂν ἐφάνησαν· καὶ ὅτι
προκαλούμενοι τοὺς ἀντιδίκους εἰς διαλλαγὰς καὶ φίλοις τὰ πράγματα ἐπιτρέποντες
καὶ τὰ δυνατὰ ἐλαττοῦσθαι ὑπομένοντες οὐδενὸς ἠδυνήθησαν τυχεῖν τῶν μετρίων.
ταῦτα μὲν δὴ παραγγέλλουσι ποιεῖν οἱ τεχνογράφοι, ἵνα τὸ ἦθος τοῦ λέγοντος
ἐπιεικέστερον εἶναι δόξῃ. δύναται δὲ αὐτοῖς εὔνοιαν τοῦτο ποιεῖν καὶ ἔστι κράτιστον
τῆς κατασκευῆς μέρος, Rhetor incertus ap. Εxtraits de la Bibl. XIV. 189
αν
OR. I.
187
COMMENTARY
(quoted by Spengel in his separate edition of Anaximenes, 1844, p. 250)
ἐπειδὴ πολλάκις δυσχερὴς ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος γίνεται διὰ τὸ πρὸς οἰκείους λέγειν, χρὴ
τὴν αἰτίαν τούτων εἰς τοὺς ἀντιδίκους μετάγειν, τὰ πλήθη ἐπιδεικνύντας τῶν
ἀδικημάτων ὧν μέλλομεν πάσχειν μὴ ὑποστάντες τὴν δίκην, ἢ ὅτι οἱ νόμοι τοῦτο
ποιεῖν συγκεχωρήκασιν· οὕτω γὰρ ἡγοῦντό τινας ἔσεσθαι περὶ τοὺς οἰκείους.
Spengel in his commentary on Anaximenes, pp. 248 sqq., 255 sqq. illustrates
these precepts by examples (Lys. 32. 1, Isocr. 15. 14 sqq., Isae. 8. 2, Dem. 30.
I, 41. I, [Dem.] 40. 1, 44. I, 48. 1, 53. 1, Aesch. 1. 1—3).
4, 5 περὶ ὧν αἰσχρὸν ἦν κ.τ.λ., mere verbiage ; in the circumstances the
contrast of relatives and οἱ μηδὲν προσήκοντες is meaningless. Perhaps
the sentence is taken bodily from a collection of commonplaces.
...
7.2 ἥκουσιν ἐφ' ἡμᾶς κ.τ.λ. Cp. Cornif. I. 5. 8 ab aduersariorum persona
beniuolentia captabitur, si eos in odium, in inuidiam, in contemptionem
adducemus. ... in inuidiam trahemus, si uim, potentiam, factionem, diuitias,
nobilitatem, clientelas, hospitium, sodalitatem, adfinitates aduersariorum
proferemus, et his adiumentis magis quam ueritate eos confidere aperiemus,
Quint. iv. 1. 8 quaedam in his quoque commendatio tacita, si nos infirmos,
imparatos, impares agentium contra ingeniis dixerimus, Isae. fr. Χ. I (Saupp.)
ἐπεὶ δὲ πιστεύων ἑταιρείαις καὶ λόγων παρασκευαῖς ἐπὶ τὴν ἐμὴν οὐσίαν)
ἐλήλυθεν, ἀνάγκη, ὡς ἔοικε, συμφορὰν μὲν εἶναι νομίζειν ὅτι τοιοῦτός ἐστιν οἰκεῖος
ὤν, ἀπολογεῖσθαι δὲ περὶ ὧν ἐγκέκληκε καὶ ἔξω με τοῦ πράγματος διαβέβληκεν,
Dem. 27. 2 οἶδα μὲν οὖν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ὅτι πρὸς ἄνδρας καὶ λέγειν ἱκανοὺς
καὶ παρασκευάσασθαι δυναμένους χαλεπόν ἐστιν εἰς ἀγῶνα καθίστασθαι περὶ τῶν
ὄντων ἁπάντων, ἄπειρον ὄντα παντάπασι πραγμάτων διὰ τὴν ἡλικίαν, [Dem.]
44. 3 δέομαι δ᾽ ὑμῶν...βοηθῆσαι τῷ τε πατρὶ τουτῳὶ καὶ ἐμοὶ καὶ μὴ περιιδεῖν
πένητας ἀνθρώπους καὶ ἀσθενεῖς καταστασιασθέντας ὑπὸ παρατάξεως ἀδίκου.
ἡμεῖς μὲν γὰρ ταῖς ἀληθείαις πιστεύοντες εἰσεληλύθαμεν, καὶ ἀγαπῶντες, ἄν τις
ἡμᾶς ἐᾷ τῶν νόμων τυγχάνειν· οὗτοι δὲ τῇ παρασκευῇ καὶ τοῖς ἀναλώμασιν
ισχυριζόμενοι διατετελέκασιν, εἰκότως, οἶμαι ἐκ γὰρ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων ῥᾳδίως
ἀναλίσκουσιν, ὥστε καὶ τοὺς συνεροῦντας ὑπὲρ αὑτῶν καὶ τοὺς μαρτυρήσοντας
τὰ ψευδῆ πολλοὺς πεπορίσθαι.
3 ῥήτορας παρασκευασάμενοι, having procured (got at orators;
for the invidious connotation of παρασκευάζεσθαι see VIII. 3. 4 n., [Dem.]
48. 36 ἵνα μὴ αὐτίκ᾽ ἐξαπατήσωσιν ὑμᾶς οἱ ῥήτορες, οὓς οὑτοσὶ παρεσκεύασται
ἐπ' ἐμέ, [Dem.] 51. 2 τῆς τριήρους ἀμελήσαντες (sc. παρασκευάσαι) τοὺς
ῥήτορας παρεσκεύασαν (a play upon the two senses of the word). Democratic
judges regarded all advocates with suspicion (IV. I. 1 22.), but the strongest
prejudice was harboured against a politician, who spoke for a relation or
friend in a private suit. The remains of Athenian eloquence abound in
spiteful sallies against the orators' par excellence (οἱ ῥήτορες, οἱ λέγοντες),
the governing class of Athens, the men who spoke regularly in the debates
of the Assembly and the Council and shaped the policy of the state. The
admiration of the plain man (ἀνὴρ ιδιώτης Aesch. 3. 233, 1. 8, Dem. 25. 40,
Isocr. 7. 14) for their fluency and cleverness was tempered by distrust of
their integrity and jealousy of their power (Aesch. 3. 3, 234, 249). All the
familiar charges against 'professional politicians' were rife under the
Athenian democracy. 'The orators' were accused of forming 'rings' to
bully honest critics and insure each other against prosecutions (Dem. 22. 37,
188
OR. I.
ISAEUS
24. 147, Aesch. 1. 34, 2. 74, 3. 7, Din. 1. 112), of driving a profitable traffic
in resolutions (†ŋpioµara) and laws (Isocr. 12. 12, Lys. 13. 72, 18. 16, Dem.
23. 184, 201, 24. 142, Aesch. 3. 33, Din. 1. 41, 42), of living on the public
revenues (Aesch. 2. 79, 161), of taking bribes indiscriminately (åvédŋv), even
from the enemies of their country (Aesch. 3. 170, Din. 1. 46, 88, 98). They
rose from poverty to wealth and luxury—no man knew how—and became
ungrateful, even insolent, to 'the people' whose 'watchdogs' they professed
to be (Isocr. 8. 124, Dem. 24. 123, 124, 25. 40, Din. 1. 100), they were 'the
worst class in the state' (Dem. 23. 146 πονηρότατον τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει πάντων
ἐθνῶν), to be ranked with σοφιστής or γόης (Dem. 29. 32), οἱ κατάρατοι καὶ
Deoîs exopoì pýtopes (Dem. 23. 201). Demon in Dem. 32. 31 expects that his
adversaries will cast in his teeth the name of his relative Demosthenes :
αἰτιάσονται Δημοσθένην, καὶ ἐκείνῳ με πιστεύοντα φήσουσιν ἐξάγειν τουτονί,
ὑπολαμβάνοντες τῷ ῥήτορα καὶ γνώριμον εἶναι ἐκεῖνον πιθανὴν ἔχειν τὴν αἰτίαν.
Demosthenes (21. 189 sqq.), who knew his countrymen, meets Meidias'
anticipated appeal to popular prejudice (καὶ “ῥήτωρ ἐστὶν οὗτος᾽ ἴσως ἐμὲ
Phoeɩ λéywv) not by vindicating the honour of the class to which he belongs,
but by the boast that the current aspersions do not touch his own character:
εἰ μέντοι ῥήτωρ ἐστὶν οἷους ἐνίους τῶν λεγόντων ἐγὼ καὶ ὑμεῖς δ᾽ ὁρᾶτ᾽, ἀναιδεῖς
καὶ ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν πεπλουτηκότας, οὐκ ἂν εἴην οὗτος ἐγώ· εἴληφα μὲν γὰρ οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν
παρ' ὑμῶν, τὰ δ᾽ ὄντ᾽ εἰς ὑμᾶς πλὴν πάνυ μικρῶν ἅπαντ᾽ ἀνήλωκα. Even the
austere Lycurgus has to reckon with the same sentiment (Lyc. 31 AewkpárnS
ἀναβοήσεται αὐτίκα ὡς ἰδιώτης ὢν καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς τοῦ ῥήτορος καὶ συκοφάντου
δεινότητος ἀναρπαζόμενος). The popular feeling was that a duel between
an expert and an amateur was not fair play, and that politicians should fight
politicians or generals (Dem. 22. 66, 25. 40, 41, Hyp. 3. 27, Din. 1. 100—102).
ουν
8. 3, 4. ὅθεν δ' οἶμαι τάχιστ᾽ ἂν ὑμᾶς μαθεῖν κ.τ.λ. A conventional transition
to the narratio (VIII. 6, X. 3, Isocr. 19. 4 Tηv μèv ovv ToÚтWV Kakiαv è§ avτôv
τῶν ἔργων γνώσεσθ᾽ ἐπειδὰν διὰ τέλους ἀκούσητε τῶν πεπραγμένων· ὅθεν δ᾽
οἶμαι τάχιστ᾽ ἂν ὑμᾶς μαθεῖν περὶ ὧν ἀμφισβητοῦμεν, ἐντεῦθεν ἄρξομαι διηγεῖσθαι,
Lys. 13. 4, Dem. 23. 64, 27. 3, 29. 5, 30. 5, Aesch. 2. 11).
9-16 Deinias, our father's brother, became our guardian in our
orphanage. Now Deinias was at variance with Cleonymus—which of them
was to blame, it is not for me to say-and Cleonymus feared that, if he died
while we were minors, Deinias would get control of his property and perform
the rites at his grave. This was his motive, right or wrong, in making this
will. He had no grievance against us or our father, as was proved by an
answer made in public to Deinias. We have other evidence that he did not
wish to injure us. On the death of Deinias he took us into his house, brought
us up, and saved our fortune from the creditors. From these actions, not
from the will, his real mind must be discerned. In his last hours he showed
still more plainly his feelings towards us. Already suffering from the
malady of which he died he desired to revoke this will and ordered
Poseidippus to introduce the magistrates. Poseidippus not only did not do so,
but sent away from the door the magistrate who came. Cleonymus was
angry with him and ordered Diocles to summon the magistrates for the next
day. That night he died suddenly and unexpectedly. Witnesses. Moreover
the friends of our opponents and Cephisander were of opinion that the
OR. I.
189
COMMENTARY
property should be shared, and that we should have a third part of the
whole of Cleonymus' estate. Witnesses.
The narratio is conducted with extreme caution. The first concern
of the nephews is to remove the natural suspicion that they or their father
had offended or injured Cleonymus, so that disinheritance was a just
punishment. See IV. 26 (where, as here, the next-of-kin are attacking
a will) παρέσχοντο δ᾽ ὑμῖν μάρτυρας πρῶτον μὲν ὡς ἀνεψιοί εἰσιν ἐκ πατραδέλφων
Νικοστράτου, ἔπειτα δὲ ὡς οὐδεπώποτε ἐκείνῳ διάφοροι ἦσαν, ib. § 18 ἤδη γάρ
τινες οὐκ εὖ διακείμενοι τοῖς συγγενέσιν ὀθνείους φίλους τῶν πάνυ σφόδρα
προσηκόντων περὶ πλείονος ἐποιήσαντο, VII. 4, 11, 13, ΙΧ. 20, 30, Isocr. 19. 17,
[Dem.] 44. 63. The offender was Deinias their guardian, but the origin
of the quarrel between the two men is not explained; the subject may have
been dangerous to touch, implicating not only Deinias but Deinias' brother
and Deinias' whole family. So far, the story has not a plausible air. The
speaker himself betrays a consciousness that Cleonymus' action was most
unreasonable, if he disinherited children for no other reason than dislike of
their guardian (§§ 11, 20). Then, the reader cannot help feeling curiosity
about the circumstances in which the will was made. Were they in
any way peculiar? Why was the document deposited in the office of
the ἀστυνόμοι? Is not Isaeus concealing details indispensable to under-
standing this affair? Some light might of course be given, if we possessed
the depositions summarised in § 15 (παρέξομαι μάρτυρας ὡς οὐχ ἡμῖν
ἐγκαλῶν ἀλλὰ Δεινίᾳ πολεμῶν ταύτας τὰς διαθήκας διέθετο), but it is obviously
one thing to prove by testimony the existence of a feud with Deinias,
quite another to show that this was the only cause of the will. Observe
also that in § 15 no witnesses are called to testify that Cleonymus was
on good terms with the father of the claimants. The speaker asserts
vaguely that Cleonymus declared 'before all the citizens' (§ 11. 4 n.) that he
had 'nothing bad to bring against his nephews or their father.' The
convenience of protesting in default of witnesses that the facts are known
to all the world was well understood by Athenian pleaders (III. 40. 2 n.).
Men are rarely cordial towards impecunious brothers-in-law.
The rest of the narrative is equally indefinite and inconclusive. To
confirm his interpretation that the will originated in anger against Deinias
and not from ill feeling toward the nephews or their father, the claimant
relates how, on the death of Deinias, Cleonymus received his nephews into
his own house, educated them, and not only conscientiously managed their
patrimony but 'saved it from the designs of the creditors.' This is slippery
ground. The judges are to believe that Cleonymus' conduct sprang from love
for his nephews. But what if Cleonymus had only been fulfilling a legal,
or at any rate a moral, obligation? The death of Deinias, the paternal
uncle, may have left him in the position of 'tutor legitimus' (§ 9. 1 22.);
we are told-in another connexion-that the claimants had no other relation
but Cleonymus (§ 45). If Cleonymnus became their guardian, the education
of the children in his own house would be merely a question of convenience.
The other point that he saved their patrimony from the creditors, cannot be
pressed, as Isaeus well knows. His euphemistic phrase is to be interpreted
by the claim of the opponents, who say that the nephews are ordinary
190
OR. I.
ISAEUS
debtors, and who expect repayment as heirs of Cleonymus' estate (§ 1).
But even if Cleonymus had paid the debts of his brother-in-law out of his
own pocket and presented his nephews with an unencumbered estate, it is
easy to imagine how fluently an advocate might have argued for the other
side: 'granted for the moment that in the first instance Cleonymus was
so irrational as to disinherit his nephews from mere spite against their
guardian, yet after clearing their property of debt he might fairly have
thought that now he had satisfied the claims of kindred and had no cause
to revoke his will.' It is astonishing to mark how little proof is offered that
Cleonymus preferred his nephews to the other relatives who were appointed
heirs in the will. By repeated assertions Isaeus strives to hammer into the
judges the conviction that the nephews were nearer in affection as well
as nearer by blood, while their adversaries trusted only to a will, but, to say
nothing of the absence of any attempt to explain why Cleonymus did not
revoke his will after the death of Deinias, singular reserve is shown in
describing the relations of the nephews with their uncle. Witnesses are
called to prove that he took them into his house, brought them up, and
managed their property (§ 15). How many years did they live with him?
What time has elapsed since the speaker came of age? What has been the
nature of his intercourse with his uncle since he became independent?
An answer to these questions would have been a great help to a judge
who desired to get at the truth. The only fact that emerges makes against
the claimants: during his last illness not the nephews but some of the
relatives named in the will were with Cleonymus (§ 14)—apparently living
in the house.
The orator confidently treats Cleonymus' wish to get back the will as
a demonstration of his affection for his nephews (ἔτι γὰρ μᾶλλον ἐν τοῖς
τελευταίοις ἐδήλωσεν ὡς εἶχε πρὸς ἡμᾶς § 13). This is a petitio principii, as we
shall see before long. For the present it is enough to signalise the art of the
narrative. When the speaker tells the judges that Cleonymus was not very
ill on the day when the ảστʊvóµos came, that he was enraged with Poseidippus
and ordered Diocles to summon the magistrates for the next day, that his
death in the night was unexpected, he is guarding his tale against a possible
and probable objection, that Cleonymus was too weak to see the official.
Were these details, which form the heart of the case, confirmed by testimony?
In the summary of § 15 witnesses are promised only for the comparatively
unimportant statement that the ȧorvvóμos was not admitted into the house.
All the rest may have been invented by Isaeus. These particulars would be
best known by the servants, and yet there is no hint of a challenge to the
opponents to surrender for torture the slaves of the household.
9. I
ἐπετρόπευσεν ἡμᾶς. Whether Deinias was testamentary or statutory
guardian (tutor legitimus) cannot be settled (Introd. p. 176). It may be
assumed, although direct evidence is lacking, that the laws of Athens
provided for the appointment of a guardian or guardians, when the father
of minors had not left a will, or had not nominated a guardian, or when
a testamentary guardian refused or was unable to serve. Plato takes
account of these contingencies in the Laws (924 A, B ♣ dầv ÉπITρóπw
οἱ παῖδες δέωνται, ἐὰν μὲν διαθέμενος τελευτᾷ καὶ γράψας ἐπιτρόπους τοῖς παισὶν
OR. I.
191
COMMENTARY
ἑκόντας τε καὶ ὁμολογοῦντας ἐπιτροπεύσειν οὑστινασοῦν καὶ ὁπόσους ἂν ἐθέλῃ,
κατὰ ταῦτα τὰ γραφέντα ἡ τῶν ἐπιτρόπων αἵρεσις γιγνέσθω κυρία· ἐὰν δὲ ἢ τὸ
παράπαν μὴ διαθέμενος τελευτήσῃ τις ἢ τῆς τῶν ἐπιτρόπων αἱρέσεως ἐλλιπής,
ἐπιτρόπους εἶναι τοὺς ἐγγύτατα γένει πρὸς πατρὸς καὶ μητρὸς κυρίους, δύο μὲν
πρὸς πατρός, δύο δὲ πρὸς μητρός, ἕνα δὲ ἐκ τῶν τοῦ τελευτήσαντος φίλων.
τούτους δ᾽ οἱ νομοφύλακες καθιστάντων τῷ δεομένῳ τῶν ὀρφανῶν, 766 C ἐὰν
ὀρφανῶν ἐπίτροπος τελευτήσῃ τις, οἱ προσήκοντες καὶ ἐπιδημοῦντες πρὸς πατρὸς
καὶ μητρὸς μέχρι ἀνεψιῶν παίδων ἄλλον καθιστάντων ἐντὸς δέκα ἡμερῶν, ἢ
ζημιούσθων ἕκαστος δράχμῃ τῆς ἡμέρας, μέχριπερ ἂν καταστήσωσι τὸν ἐπίτροπον).
A guardian 'by law is mentioned in the Hypothesis of Isae. Χ. (1ο Αριστο-
μένης ἀδελφὸς ὢν αὐτοῦ καὶ κατὰ νόμον ἐπίτροπος τῶν τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ γινόμενος
παίδων), and legal rules are implied in the actions enumerated in ᾿Αθ.
Πολ. c. 56 εἰς ἐπιτροπῆς κατάστασιν, εἰς ἐπιτροπῆς διαδικασίαν. Whether the
parties to the dıadıkaσía are conceived as eager to shift a burden or competing
to win a privilege, the suit presupposes a law defining the conditions under
which persons were called upon to undertake guardianship. Beauchet II.
p. 183 following Schulthess, Vormundschaft nach attischem Recht, p. 69 sqq.
conjectures that the action εἰς ἐπιτροπῆς κατάστασιν was an application to the
Archon to designate a tutor (either legitimus or datiuus), when no one came
forward to take up the burden in obedience to the law or under the terms of
a will, and that no guardian, whether nominated by a will or summoned
to the office by law, was allowed to enter on his duties before presenting
himself to the Archon and obtaining authorisation. Debates on the scope
and limits of these suits are not likely to be fruitful until some definite
information from a trustworthy ancient authority is forthcoming. With
regard to the regulations of statutory guardianship, the duty must obviously
have devolved in the first place on the kinsmen of the father of the minors.
If the Athenians followed the Roman principle, ubi emolumentum successionis,
ibi et onus tutelae, the relatives of the mother ranked after sons of the
father's first cousins. The rights and obligations of the mother's kin cannot
be discovered from the few examples which our record shows of cognates in
the position of guardians. Diocles (VIII. 42. 3 n.) was guardian of the son
of his adoptive sister, Cleonymus brought up his sister's sons and managed
their property, the speaker of Lys. XIX laments that he is compelled
(ἠναγκασμένος) to keep his widowed sister and her three small children
(§§ 9, 33). The case of Diocles is obscure, and it is not certain that
Cleonymus and Lysias' client were acting under legal compulsion. The law
of Charondas entrusted the person of the minor to the relations of the
mother, the administration of the estate to the next-of-kin on the father's
side (Diod. Sic. 12. 15 τῶν μὲν ὀρφανῶν χρημάτων ἐπιτροπεύειν ἀγχιστεῖς
τοὺς ἀπὸ πατρός, τρέφεσθαι δὲ τοὺς ὀρφανοὺς παρὰ τοῖς συγγενέσι τοῖς ἀπὸ
μητρός). Under the code of Gortyn (VIII. 5o sqq., XII. 25 sqq.) in certain
circumstances the bringing up of the heiress (πατρωιῶκος) was committed
to her mother, or her mother's brothers (Inscr. Furid. Gr. I. p. 476).
Dionysius II. claimed to be legal guardian of the son of his half sister Arete
and Dion ([Plat.] Εp. 7. 345 C εἶναι γὰρ αὐτὰ τὰ χρήματα) οὐ Δίωνος ἀλλὰ τοῦ
υἱέος, ὄντος μὲν ἀδελφιδοῦ αὐτοῦ (sc. τοῦ Διονυσίου), κατὰ νόμους ἐπιτροπεύοντος).
In Spartan legend Theras figures as guardian of Procles and Eurysthenes,
192
OR. I.
ISAEUS
the twin sons of his sister Argeia and Aristodemus (Hdt. 4. 147, 6. 52).
See III. 2. 3 N., V. 10. 2 N., IX. 27. 7 n.
2 θεῖος ὢν ὀρφανούς ὄντας. The fullness of expression serves a purpose.
The speaker wishes to deprecate the idea that the nephews had anything to
do with Cleonymus' enemy becoming their guardian; Deinias was the natural
person for the office and they were helpless.
Κλεωνύμῳ. Taylor's emendation is confirmed by SS 1ο. 9, 33. 3, IV.
26. 4, IX. 20. 7, Ant. 5. 54, Lys. 7. 18, 14. 44, 16. 11, [Lys.] 20. 13.
The passages adduced in support of Kλewvúμov the reading of Q and A
(ΧΙΙ. 10. 9 τῶν τούτου διαφόρων, [Dem.] 29. 15 τὸν ἑαυτοῦ διάφορον καὶ τούτου
ἀδελφόν) are not pertinent. The phrase ὁ τούτου διάφορος does not prove the
legitimacy of τούτου διάφορος ὤν. The meaning of ἐχθρὸς ὢν αὐτοῦ (Ant.
Telr. 1. a. 5) cannot be misunderstood, but διάφορος ὢν αὐτοῦ might be taken
for 'being different from him.'
4 ἴσως οὐκ ἐμὸν ἔργον. See III. II. 3, 4 n. for similar professions of
delicacy, which old attendants at the courts were able to rate at their proper
value. A good example of the emptiness of such phrases in the mouth of
an Athenian litigant is provided by Dem. 45; at the beginning (§ 3),
to produce a good impression on the judges, Apollodorus is modest and
reserved, ὃν τρόπον δὲ (Φορμίων ἔγημε τὴν μητέρα τὴν ἐμὴν), οὐκ ἴσως καλὸν
υἱεῖ περὶ μητρὸς ἀκριβῶς εἰπεῖν ; his flial respect is sensibly diminished when
he comes to § 27 διεφθάρκει ἣν ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐ καλὸν λέγειν, ὑμεῖς δ᾽ ἴστε, and in
§ 84, the peroration being in sight, he accuses his own mother of adultery
with a slave: ἐγὼ γὰρ ὁμομήτριον μὲν ἀδελφὸν ἐμαυτοῦ Πασικλέα νομίζω,
ὁμοπάτριον δ᾽ οὐκ οἶδα, δέδοικα μέντοι μὴ τῶν Φορμίωνος ἁμαρτημάτων εἰς
ἡμᾶς ἀρχὴ Πασικλῆς ᾖ.
5 πλὴν τοσοῦτόν γε ἂν...μεμψαίμην. For the use of πλὴν (nisi quod)
in this and similar formulas Gebauer, De praeteritionis formis apud oratores
Atticos, p. 47, compares Isocr. 4. 114, 5. 23, 8. 87, 12. 105 (πλýν öti), Ep.
2. 22.
6 προφάσεως οὐδεμιᾶς γενομένης, sine ulla causa; compare [Lys.] 9.
13 δεῖ δ᾽ ὑμᾶς μὴ μόνον τοῦ ἐγκλήματος τὴν αἰτίαν ἀλλὰ τῆς ἔχθρας τὴν
πρόφασιν εἰδέναι, ib. 15 τὴν μὲν οὖν ὀργὴν διὰ τὰ προειρημένα συνεστήσαντο,
προφάσεως οὐδεμιᾶς πρὸς ἔχθραν ὑπαρχούσης, Dem. 30. 13 οὐκ ἔστ᾽ εἰπεῖν
ἄλλην πρόφασιν δι᾽ ἣν οὐκ ἀπέδοσαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀνάγκη ταύτην εἶναι τὴν αἰτίαν, δι᾽ ἣν
δοῦναι τὴν προῖκ᾽ οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν, Aesch. 2. 145 φήμη μέν ἐστιν, ὅταν τὸ πλῆθος
τῶν πολιτῶν αὐτόματον ἐκ μηδεμιᾶς προφάσεως λέγῃ τινα ὡς γεγενημένην πρᾶξιν
συκοφαντία δ᾽ ἐστίν, ὅταν πρὸς τοὺς πολλοὺς εἷς ἀνὴρ αἰτίαν ἐμβαλών, ἔν τε
ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις ἁπάσαις πρός τε τὴν βουλὴν διαβάλλῃ τινά, Hyp. fr. 21o (Blass)
διὰ δύο προφάσεις τῶν ἀδικημάτων ἄνθρωποι ἀπέχονται, ἢ διὰ φόβον ἢ διὰ
αἰσχύνην, Lyc. 6 καὶ τὰ κοινὰ τῶν ἀδικημάτων (δεῖ) κοινὰς καὶ τὰς προφάσεις
ἔχειν τῆς πρὸς αὐτοὺς διαφορᾶς, Ant. 5. 21, 59, 60, Lys. 14. 1, [Alcid.] Odyss.
17, [Isocr.] 1. 23, Isocr. 15. 69, 244, 19. 16, 20. 7, Ep. 1. 9.
10.1-3 ὅτι γοῦν—ἔλεγεν. The two difficulties of this vexed passage are
the tense of ποιεῖται and the meaning of ἐσώθη. (1) The present tense in
dependence on ëλeyev cannot be treated as historic, but must represent the
words of the speaker. Of the two ways of removing the flaw which have
been suggested (the change of ὅτι γοῦν to τότε γοῦν or τί οὖν ;), the first is
OR. I.
193
COMMENTARY
better; a question here is precipitate and jerky, while the statement of date
has point and helps the speaker's argument. The awkwardness of TOLEÎTAL
is entirely ignored by some of the correctors of ὡς ὕστερον ἐσώθη, ἔλεγεν.
Even if we acquiesce in an anacoluthon, and leave or without a con-
struction, the historic present remains a rock of offence. (2) ws......éowen
' when he
whether it be taken to mean 'postquam conualuit' (Reiske), or
came back safe,' is a detail either irrelevant or inconsistent with what follows.
That Cleonymus was not sick unto death, when he made the will, appears
from § 11. 2 εὐθὺς ἐρωτῶντος τοῦ Δεινίου παραχρῆμα κ.τ.λ. If at the time he
was starting on a campaign (VI. 5, IX. 14) or on a dangerous journey (XI. 8),
it is strange that this particular should be revealed by an allusion, and that
so little should afterwards be made of the professions in which he was accus-
tomed to indulge (ëλeyev) after his return. So far as the ductus litterarum is
concerned, the easiest of the emendations of èσwen is elébe (Crit. Introd.
p. xlvii). But this involves the change of eyev to déyew, and it is difficult to
resist the feeling that the clause is...λeyev refers to the incident afterwards
described in § II; for the correlation of the imperfect (λeyev) and the aorist
(ȧTEKρívaтO) Cp. IX. 6. The most radical cure is that of Albrecht (Hermes 18,
p. 362), who ejects the whole clause from őrɩ to eλeyev. His theory is that we
have to do with a marginal note by a reader, who took oux ýµîv éykaλŵv from
§ 3 οὐχ ἡμῖν ἐγκαλῶν ἀλλ᾽ ὀργισθεὶς τῶν οἰκείων τινι τῶν ἡμετέρων, and whose
late date is revealed by the use of ἐσώθη in the sense of ἐσωφρονίσθη. The
text of Isaeus undoubtedly contains whole sentences which have their origin
in marginal comments (Crit. Introd. p. xl), but I should have expected a
commentator to write οὐκ αὐτοῖς ἐγκαλῶν, and that σώζω was ever used by
Greeks with the meaning of owopoví(w, requires proof. My own inclination
is to adopt τότε γοῦν, to connect ὡς with ἔλεγεν, and, leaving ἐσώθη to the
ingenuity of future editors, to change opŵv dè into ópŵv yàp (Crit. Introd.
p. xlvii).
6 TÒV EX¤LOTOV is most effective when taken by itself, 'his bitterest
foe,' not 'celui de ses parents qui était son plus grand ennemi' (Dareste),
'il più abborrito dei suoi congiunti' (Caccialanza).
6, 7 τῶν οἰκείων ἐπίτροπον καὶ κύριον τῶν αὐτοῦ, guardian of his
kindred and in control of his goods': for kúpιov тŵv avтoù see VII. 13. 6,
34. 6, 7, Dem. 28. 16,, 36. 22, 38. 6. In Isaeus the chiasmus (XI. 39. 6 n.)
is remarkable—for Isocrates see 3. 15, 4. 95, 9. 10 quoted by Schneider on
I. 7—but it has the support of the rhythm (ἡγεῖτο γὰρ δεινὸν εἶναι | τὸν ἔχθιστον
τῶν οἰκείων ἐπίτροπον | καὶ κύριον τῶν αὑτοῦ καταλιπεῖν). The alternative is to
attach τῶν αὑτοῦ to τῶν οἰκείων. No difficulty need be made over the order
of the words (VII. 7. 8, 14. 4), especially when the desire to avoid hiatus is
taken into account, but the ambiguity which arises is disagreeable. The
gender of τôv oikeiwv is obscure, the governing words giving no guidance,
since éπírроos may be used of the management of an estate (Lys. 32. 18 ás
ἀνάξιον τῆς οὐσίας τὸν ἐπίτροπον κατέλιπεν, ib. fr. 124 (Saupp.) καταλειφθεὶς
ἐπίτροπος τῶν Ἰσοκράτους χρημάτων, Dem. 27. 55 μηδὲ τῶν φανερῶν μέλλοντ'
ἐπιτρόπους καταστήσειν), and the authority of a guardian over a minor may be
expressed by κύριος (Aesch. 1. 13 ἐάν τινα ἐκμισθώσῃ ἑταιρεῖν πατὴρ ἢ ἀδελφὸς
ἢ θεῖος ἢ ἐπίτροπος ἢ ὅλως τῶν κυρίων τις). The combination τὰ οἰκεῖα τὰ
13
W. I.
194
OR. I.
ISAEUS
αὑτοῦ is not a phrase to be rejected without question (Lys. 13. 41 τὰ οἰκεῖα
τὰ αὑτοῦ διέθετο ὅπως αὐτῷ ἐδόκει, where Herwerden deletes τὰ αὑτοῦ),
although τὰ οἰκεία generally stands alone, as the opposite of τὰ ἀλλότρια ;
cp. Lys. 25. 1 ἀμελοῦντες τῶν οἰκείων τῶν ἀλλοτρίων ἐπιμελοῦνται, [Isocr.] I. 35,
Isocr. 7. 24, 8. 84.
8 τὰ νομιζόμενα, the annual ἐναγίσματα at the grave (II. 10. 5 κ.).
Note that Cleonymus could have avoided the distressing consequences which
the orator sets forth, by adopting one of his nephews and appointing a
trustworthy friend as guardian in case of his death before the boy came of
age.
11. I ταῦτα διανοηθείς. Cobet's correction (ταῦτα <δή> διανοηθείς) is
refuted by Lys. I. 17, 3. 13, 12. 16, 13. 26, 79, [Lys.] 2. 10, Isocr. 7. 42, 15. 50,
16. 33, 17. 9, Aesch. 3. 91.
2 cùlùs, post quod factum? num post scriptum testamentum? an
postquam Cleonymus a morbo rursus conualuisset (Reiske). The first alter-
native must be taken. The deposit of a will in the office of a board of
magistrates was an act which could not be kept secret, and its significance
would at once be patent to Deinias; why should Cleonymus make a will, if
not to abridge or abolish the rights of the heirs-at-law? But as no other
example is known of state officials taking charge of a will in which the state
had no interest, it is possible that Cleonymus' will was not an ordinary will
(§ 24. 5 Oûtos opos тŵv dwрeŵv), and that the making of it was accompanied
by public formalities, at which Deinias happened to be present. The testa-
ment of Epicurus mentions no witnesses, and refers to a dóσis recorded in
the Metroon (Diog. Laert. Io. 16 κατὰ τάδε δίδωμι τὰ ἐμαυτοῦ πάντα ᾿Αμυνο-
μάχῳ Φιλοκράτους Βατῆθεν καὶ Τιμοκράτει Δημητρίου Ποταμίῳ κατὰ τὴν ἐν τῷ
Μητρῴῳ ἀναγεγραμμένην ἑκατέρῳ δόσιν). Harpocration has an obscure article
on the word δόσις· ἰδίως λέγεται παρὰ τοῖς ῥήτορσι συμβόλαιον γραφόμενον,
ὅταν
αν τις τὰ αὑτοῦ διδῷ τινὶ διὰ τῶν ἀρχόντων, ὡς παρὰ Δεινάρχῳ. Beauchet III.
p. 665 is satisfied with the explanation offered by Roeder, Beiträge p. 7, that
Harpocration only meant to say that an heir appointed by will gets possession
of the inheritance by éπidikaσía toû kλýpov, i.e. by a judgment either of the
Archon or of a tribunal over which the Archon presides. In this connexion
we should not forget the bronze of Petelia (Θεός· τύχα. Σάοτις δίδοτι Σικαινίαι
τὰν Γοικίαν καὶ τἄλλα πάντα. Δαμιοργός Παραγόρας. Πρόξενοι Μίνκον, Αρμοξί
δαμος, Αγάθαρχος, Ονάτας, Ἐπίκορρος, Inscr. Jurid. Gr. II. pp. 59, 68),
though the legal character of the instrument is dubious, the name of the
daμiopyòs may be inserted only to indicate the year, and the function of the
πρόξενοι (Hesych. προξενεῖ· μαρτυρεϊ) is problematical. The registration of
testaments in Ptolemaic Egypt (Mahaffy, Flinders Petrie Papyri 1. nn.
11—21) was a consequence of the Egyptian succession duty.
πι
C
εὐθὺς παραχρήμα. This pleonasm is also found in III. 7. 3, 48. 7,
Ant. 1. 20 (evðéws), Dem. 19. 42, 29. 15, [Dem.] 48. 40, 52. 6, Din. 1. 94.
Cp. [Dem.] 7. 19 παραχρῆμα τῶν λόγων εἰρημένων καὶ εὐθὺς τοῦ ψηφίσματος
ἐπαναγιγνωσκομένου. Cobet expunges evðús. Ubi παραχρῆμα legitur,
Graeculi εὐθὺς uel εὐθέως adscribunt, namque quid esset παραχρῆμα illis tem-
poribus uolgo ignorabatur' (Mnem. 9, 1860, p. 440). 'Tapaxpĥμa Atticum et
uetus est, evðús et evléws remanserunt in usu' (N. L. p. 731). Even Naber,
OR. I.
195
COMMENTARY
bred in Cobet's own school, shrinks from this severity (Mnem. N.S. 5, 1877,
p. 387) ; he quotes Schol. Plat. Gorg. 459 C, where αὐτίκα is explained by
εὐθέως καὶ παραχρῆμα, and Plat. Laws 867 A, where ἐκ τοῦ παραχρῆμα
εὐθὺς is protected by the antithesis, which is ἐκ τοῦ παραχρῆμα ἐξαίφνης.
Cobet rests his case not on the offensiveness of the tautology, but on the
statement that at some time rapaxîîµa ceased to be intelligible to readers of
Greek books. When did this happen? The papyri of the Berlin Museum
show that in Egypt the word was used in official documents throughout the
first four centuries of our era (B. U. G. I. II. indices). Although E. A. Sophocles
in his Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods does not recognise
the use of aρà with the accusative to express place and time, Euagrius has
παρὰ τὴν συμφοράν, παρὰ πόδας in a work composed at the end of the sixth
century (see the index to the edition of the Ecclesiastical History by Bidez and
Parmentier), and Cassianus Bassus, writing on agriculture for Byzantines of
the tenth century, did not banish πapaɣîµa from his compilations; see
Beckh's index to his edition of the Geoponica.
π
Π
2, 3 ἐρωτῶντος. The participle denotes time prior to that of the leading
verb and represents an imperfect indicative, ὅτ᾽ ἠρώτα. Compare § 32. 2
πυνθανομένου, Isocr. 17. 4 πυνθανόμενος δὲ καὶ περὶ τῆσδε τῆς πόλεως καὶ περὶ
τῆς ἄλλης Ἑλλάδος ἐπεθύμησ᾽ ἀποδημῆσαι, ib. § 37 ἐρωτῶντος γὰρ Στρατοκλέους,
ὅστις αὐτῷ ἀποδώσει τὰ χρήματα, ἐὰν ὁ πατὴρ οὑμὸς μὴ ποιήσῃ τὰ ἐπεσταλμένα...,
Πασίων᾽ αὐτῷ συνέστησα, Ant. 5. 38 προσιόντες αὐτῷ τ᾽ ἐμοὶ καὶ τοῖς φίλοις
ἐδέοντο, And. I. 122 προσιών Λυσίστρατον Ηγήμονα, Επιχάρη...ἔλεγε πρὸς
τούτους, [Dem.] 35. 29 προσιόντες διελεγόμεθα, Lys. 13. 13, 60, 20. 26,
Aesch. 2. 107. Herodotus often chooses the present participle to emphasise
the idea of iteration, disregarding the fact that the action expressed by the
participle precedes in each case the action expressed by the main verb; see
1. 100 καὶ τάς τε δίκας γράφοντες ἔσω παρ᾽ ἐκεῖνον ἐσπέμπεσκον καὶ ἐκεῖνος
διακρίνων τὰς ἐσφερομένας ἐκπέμπεσκε, ib. 17, 48, 78, 148, and compare the
Athenian decree in And. I. 83, 84 οἱ νομοθέται...ἀναγράφοντες ἐν σανίσιν
ἐκτιθέντων πρόσθε τῶν ἐπωνύμων…..καὶ παραδιδόντων ταῖς ἀρχαῖς...τοὺς δὲ
παραδιδομένους νόμους δοκιμασάτω πρότερον ἡ βουλή…..τοὺς δὲ κυρουμένους τῶν
νόμων ἀναγράφειν εἰς τὸν τοῖχον. But Herodotus, like Xenophon (e.g. Cyr.
5. 2. 7), also uses the present participle laxly, in the English fashion, where a
good Attic writer would put the aorist participle (1. 144 φέρων δὲ πρὸς τὰ
ἑωυτοῦ οἰκία προσεπασσάλευσε τὸν τρίποδα): contrast ᾿Αθ. Πολ. 63. 5 ἐπέθηκε
(gnomic) φέρων. In Lyc. 99 εἰς Δελφοὺς ἰὼν (ἰὼν Α, ἐλθὼν Ν) ἠρώτα τὸν θεὸν
the present participle is an echo from poetry (Soph. Ο. Τ. 604 Πυθώδ᾽ ἐὼν
πυθοῦ). For iὼν in Attic comedy cp. Dobree, Adv. II. pp. 313, 319.
4 πάντων τῶν πολιτῶν ἐναντίον. The words suggest an altercation
before the Assembly ([And.] 4. 15 ἐναντίον πάντων ὑμῶν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, Lys.
13. 32 ἐναντίον ᾿Αθηναίων ἁπάντων, Din. 3. I, Plat. Laws 828 D τὸν υἱὸν ὑπὸ
κήρυκος ἐναντίον ἁπάντων ἀπειπεῖν). The vagueness which has irritated the
critics may be a cloak for lack of testimony (III. 40. 2 n.).
5 οὐδὲν πονηρὸν ἐγκαλεῖ, he had nothing bad to complain of, i.e. no
ἀδίκημα (§ 11. 8 τοὺς μηδὲν αὐτὸν ἠδικηκότας). This grudging admission does
not indicate cordial relations between Cleonymus and his brother-in-law,
and the orator's argument would certainly be strengthened by the omission
13-2
196
OR. I.
ISAEUS
•
οἱ πονηρὸν ἐγκαλεί, for which Cobet pleads on other grounds. Si quis rogat :
τί ἡμῖν ἐγκαλεῖς; ineptum et ridiculum est, ut opinor, οὐδὲν πονηρὸν respondere,
quasi uero quis etiam χρηστόν τι ἐγκαλεῖν potuisset unquam (Mnem. 9, 1860,
p. 441). But how did πονηρὸν find its way into the text ? I once thought
that the word might be a corruption of a proper name, i.e. that of the brother-
in-law, but there is no Attic name closely resembling πονηρόν. A better case
can be made out for the omission of ἐγκαλεῖ, which might have been repeated
from the preceding line by the scribe of A (Crit. Introd. p. xxxvii). That
the word is untenable, I am not convinced.
5 καὶ ἐμαρτύρησεν. Cp. Dem. 37. 18 οὐ τοίνυν μόνον ἡμῖν εἰσιν οὗτοι
μάρτυρες...ἀλλὰ καὶ Πανταίνετος αὐτός. ὅτε γὰρ λαγχάνων Ενέργῳ τὴν δίκην
εἴασεν ἐμέ, τότ᾽ ἐμαρτύρει πρὸς ἔμ᾽ αὑτῷ μηδὲν ἔγκλημ᾽ ὑπόλοιπον εἶναι.
>
ΟΤΕ
7 εὖ φρονών, an allusion to the provisions of the law requiring that a
testator should be of sound mind (II. 14. 5, IV. 14. 7, VI. 9. 9, VII. I. 2).
The orator does not himself maintain that the will is invalid because
Cleonymus was mad when he made it; his contention is that Cleonymus
repented and wished to revoke it. But he intends to claim that the
case of his opponents amounts to an attack upon the testator's
sanity (SS 20, 21, 50). Compare IX. 36, 37 ἔπειτα τετελευτηκότα ᾿Αστύφιλον
παρανοίας αἱρήσετε· εἰ γὰρ τοῦτον ἐποιήσατο υἱὸν οὗ τῷ πατρὶ πολεμιώτατος ἦν,
πῶς οὐ δόξει τοῖς ἀκούσασι παρανοεῖν ἢ ὑπὸ φαρμάκων διεφθάρθαι; The best
comment on such passages is the action of the Thirty : περὶ τοῦ δοῦναι τὰ
ἑαυτοῦ ᾧ ἂν ἐθέλῃ κύριον ποιήσαντες καθάπαξ τὰς [δὲ] προσούσας δυσκολίας,
“ ἐὰν μὴ μανιῶν ἢ γήρως <ἕνεκα> ἢ γυναικὶ πιθόμενος” ἀφεῖλον, ὅπως μὴ
ᾖ τοῖς συκοφάνταις ἔφοδος ('Αθ. Πολ. c. 35).
8 ἡμᾶς. The bracketing of this word is part of Buermann's campaign
against the additions of A' (Crit. Introd. p. xxx).
12. 1, 2 ὕστερον δὲ τούτων belongs in logic to the proposition τελευτή-
σαντος γὰρ κ.τ.λ. For the anacoluthon Schoemann compares [Dem.] 56. 1o.
4, 5 οὐδὲ περιεῖδεν. Schoemann makes a satisfactory defence of the text,
which is a slightly disguised case of a familiar idiom, the repetition of
καὶ to emphasise the correspondence of two correlatives (Lys. 13. 33 ὁμολογεῖ
μὲν καὶ αὐτός, ὅμως δὲ καὶ τὸ ψήφισμα ὑμῖν ἀναγνώσεται, And. I. 3 εἰκότως τοι καὶ
ὑμεῖς τοιαῦτα περὶ αὐτῶν γιγνώσκετε οἷάπερ καὶ αὐτοὶ περὶ σφῶν αὐτῶν ἔγνωσαν,
1. 140 συμφοραὶ μὲν γὰρ ἤδη καὶ ἄλλοις πολλοῖς ἐγένοντο οὐκ ἐλάττους ἢ
καὶ ὑμῖν, Aesch. I. 146, 2. 102). Here οὐδὲ (also not') repeats the οὐδὲ
of § 12. 2 (οὐδὲ ταῦτα ἔπραξεν ἡμᾶς βλάπτειν βουλόμενος). Compare Isocr.
16. 36 οὐδὲ γὰρ τοῦτο παραλειπτέον ὥσπερ οὐδ᾽ ἐκεῖνος αὐτῆς ἠμέλησεν, Dem.
23. 24 ἃ δ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἡμῖν τοῖς γένει πολίταις ἐστίν, οὐδ᾽ ἐκείνῳ δεῖν οἶμαι γενέσθαι,
Xen. Cyr. 1. 6. 18 ὥσπερ οὐδὲ γεωργοῦ ἀργοῦ οὐδὲν ὄφελος, οὕτως οὐδὲ
στρατηγοῦ ἀργοῦντος οὐδὲν ὄφελος, Gebauer, De arg. ex contr. form. p. 361.
Buermann (Hermes 19, p. 359) upholds the correction (où) by enumerating
examples of the interpolation of dè (III. 21. 1, 50. 2, 72. 9, 76. 4, v. 16. 5, VI. 59. 8).
7 τῶν χρήστων. Grammarians distinguish between χρήστων (from
χρήστης) and χρηστῶν (from χρηστός) ; see Chandler, Greek Accentuation
§ 215. In Dem. 14. 21 χρήστων is in Σ, χρηστῶν in F, Aug.1, Υ, Ω, Vind.
8 ἐπεμελεῖτο τε. For re in Isaeus see III. 80. 1 κ.
(
13. Ι τὴν ἔννοιαν, his thought, what he intended, not here distin-
OR. I.
197
COMMENTARY
guishable from Tv diavolav used below (§ 13. 5). Schoemann renders évvolav
by 'feelings' (Gesinnung) and diávorav by 'intentions' (Absichten). There is
no evidence that ἔννοια is ever the opposite of παράνοια, meaning τὸ εὖ
Opovev (Zurechnungsfähigkeit, Roeder, Beiträge p. 81). As in Xenophon,
Plato, Aristotle it always signifies 'thought,' ' conception,' so in [Dem.] 11. 20
ὧν...λαβόντας ἔννοιαν, Isocr. 5. 150 ἑκάστοις τοιαύτην ἔννοιαν ἐμποιοῦσιν οἱ
Oeoì). Because the adjective evvous means in certain connexions mentis
compos' (Plat. Tim. 71 E, Dem. 31. 2), it does not follow that this sense may
be extended to the noun évvoia ; see § 43. 7. Nor is Roeder's interpretation
demanded by the argument. The reasoning is sophistical. (1) Cleonymus
made the will out of anger against Deinias, for, had he been in his senses, he
could not have wished to 'maltreat' (kakŵs πoieîv) us (§ 11). (2) That in
making the will he did not wish to ‘injure' (Bλáñtew) us is shown by his
acts after Deinias' death (§ 12). Yet 'his purpose' (that he had no wish to
'injure' us) should be judged from these acts rather than from the will, and
you should argue not from things done in anger (by which he did 'injure'
us) but from acts by which he afterwards made his intentions unmistakable
(§ 13). For in his last hours he wished to revoke the will' (§ 14). The
principal fallacy lies in the choice of the words 'maltreat' and 'injure.'
Cleonymus' kindness to his nephews after Deinias' death was compatible
with a resolve that they should not inherit his estate. If a correction were
needed, eúvocav is more specious palaeographically than diάvolav; cp. Aesch.
3. 46 eűvoiav] évvoiav e.
2
14. 6 eis tηv voтepalav kadéσai, an ambiguous phrase. Schoemann,
Dareste, and Caccialanza render 'summon the magistrates for the next day.'
Cp. Plut. Brut. 40 εἶναι δὲ κεκλημένος εἰς τὴν ὑστεραίαν ἐπὶ δεῖπνον ὑπ᾽
avтοû Yevéðìív ovo av, and the regular formula of Athenian decrees (W.
Larfeld, Handbuch d. griech. Epigraphik, II. p. 778 sqq.) kaλéoai dè éñì
δεῖπνον (ξένια) εἰς τὸ πρυτανεῖον εἰς αὔριον, in place of which we also find
καλέσαι κ.τ.λ. ἐς τὸν νομιζόμενον χρόνον (C. I. A. IV. 1. c., 454/3 B.C.) and
καλέσαι κ.τ.λ. εἰς τρίτην ἡμέραν (S. I. G. n. 88, 369/8 B.C.). But Reiske has
' iniunxit ut proximo die post archontas advocaret,' and this version is in
accordance with Greek idiom; see Hdt. I. 126 πроeîπε és Tηy votepaiŋv
παρεῖναι λελουμένους, 4. 113 τῇ δὲ χειρὶ ἔφραζε ἐς τὴν ὑστεραίην ἐλθεῖν, Xen.
Αn. 7. 1. 35 συντίθεται αὐτοῖς εἰς τὴν ὑστεραίαν παρέσεσθαι, [Plat. Εp. 7.
346 D ἔφην εἰς τὴν ὑστεραίαν αὐτῷ τὰ δόξαντα ἀπαγγελεῖν. The difference
between 'he told Diocles to ask the magistrates to come the next day,'
and 'he told Diocles to summon the magistrates by the next day,' is not
immaterial to the advocate, since the second statement might be made with-
out fear of refutation; the magistrates could give evidence, Diocles, if a
party to the suit, could not.
П
The development of the uses of eis in application to time is not
adequately illustrated in our dictionaries and grammars. As with ad
in Latin, the notion of the terminus ad quem passes into the notion of
the terminus in quo; the time at which a thing is likely to happen is
described as a limit up to which it may be expected. The transition is
very clear in certain familiar combinations. In general els apɩov does not
differ in sense from αὔριον (Plat. Crit. 43 D ἥξει τήμερον τὸ πλοῖον καὶ ἀνάγκη
198
OR. I.
ISAEUS
...
δὴ εἰς αὔριον ἔσται τὸν βίον σε τελευτᾶν). Similarly εἰς τρίτην commonly
means 'on the day after to-morrow' (Plut. Phoc. 22 οὐκοῦν εἰ σήμερον τέθνηκε,
καὶ αὔριον ἔσται καὶ εἰς τρίτην τεθνηκώς, Arist. Lys. 612, Xen. Cyr. 3. I. 42,
5. 3. 27, Plat. Hipp. Mai. 286 B, Eur. Alc. 320, Plut. Ant. 84, Moral. 196 B).
Many other phrases exhibit the same change; see Arist. Pax 366 ΕΡΜ. ἀπό-
λωλας, ἐξόλωλας. ΤΡΥ. ἐς τίν᾽ ἡμέραν; ΕΡΜ. ἐς αὐτίκα μάλ', Dem. 21. 78
μελλουσῶν εἰσιέναι τῶν δικῶν εἰς ἡμέραν ὡσπερεὶ τετάρτην ἢ πέμπτην, 29. 43
τοῦτο δ᾽ ἔμελλεν εἰς ἔτος δέκατον γενήσεσθαι, Aesch. 3. 98 πραχθήσεσθαι δ᾽ αὐτὰ
οὐκ εἰς μακράν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὴν ἕκτην ἐπὶ δέκα τοῦ ἀνθεστηριῶνος μηνός· εἰρῆσθαι
γὰρ καὶ παρηγγέλθαι πάντας ἥκειν ᾿Αθήναζε εἰς τὴν πανσέληνον, Χen. Cyr.
5. 3. 6 ήκετε (imperative) εἰς τριακοστὴν ἡμέραν, 8. 4. 27 ἀλλὰ καὶ σοί, ἔφη,
δώσω. ἐπήρετο ἐκεῖνος Πότε; Εἰς τριακοστόν, ἔφη, ἔτος, Hdt. 3. 155 σὺ δέ, ἀπ᾿
ἧς ἂν ἡμέρης ἐγὼ ἐσέλθω ἐς τὸ τεῖχος, ἀπὸ ταύτης ἐς δεκάτην ἡμέρην...χιλίους
τάξον κατὰ τὰς Σεμιράμιος καλεομένας πύλας. Inscriptions furnish some in-
structive evidence. With προσαγαγεῖν πρὸς τὴν βουλὴν Athenian official
language allows both ἐς τὴν πρώτην ἕδραν (S. I. G. n. 57, 33) and ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ
ἕδρα (ib. n. 19, 39). After τοὺς δὲ προέδρους προσαγαγεῖν, προθεῖναι, χρημα-
τίσαι, δοῦναι τὴν ψῆφον the date can be expressed either by ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ
ἐκκλησίᾳ or εἰς τὴν πρώτην ἐκκλησίαν oι εἰς τὴν ἐπιοῦσαν ἐκκλησίαν (Larfeld,
op. cit. pp. 677 sqq., 789 sqq.); cp. [Dem.] 59. 89 οὐκ ἐᾷ κυρίαν γενέσθαι τὴν
ποίησιν ἐὰν μὴ εἰς τὴν ἐπιοῦσαν ἐκκλησίαν ὑπερεξακισχίλιοι Αθηναῖοι ψηφί
σωνται. One use of the English preposition 'by,' though the history of the
idiom is entirely different, resembles this application of eis and ad: 'I will
come by 3 o'clock (ad horam nonam)' now means not only 'I shall not be
later than 3,' but also 'you need not expect me much before.' But the
Athenian use of eis differs in one particular from the Latin use of ad and the
English use of 'by.' In good Attic this use of eis is not admitted except with
reference to a point of time in the future: 'we started by daybreak,' 'ad lucem
profecti sumus, should not be rendered by ἀπήραμεν εἰς ἕω; cp. VIII. 24. 6,
Xen. An. I. 7. i. The only exceptions I know are Hyp. 4. 2 λοιδορεῖθ᾽
ὑμῖν μεθ᾿ ἡμέραν ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ, εἰς ἑσπέραν δὲ δειπνήσων ὡς ὑμᾶς ἔρχεται, Dem.
19. 15 ὁ δὲ ταῦτ᾽ εἰπὼν τῇ προτέρᾳ (προτεραι Σ, Voemel, προτεραίᾳ uolg.)
πάντων ἀκουόντων ὑμῶν, εἰς τὴν ὑστεραίαν (sc. ἐκκλησίαν coll. Thuc. 5. 46 τῇ
ὑστεραίᾳ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ὑστέραν Wolf, Dindorf), ἐν ᾗ τὴν εἰρήνην ἔδει κυροῦσθαι, ἐμοῦ
τῷ τῶν συμμάχων συνηγοροῦντος δόγματι...ἀναστὰς ἐδημηγόρει, Aesch. 2. 66 λόγον
γὰρ μὴ προτιθέντων εἰς τὴν ὑστέραν ἐκκλησίαν τῶν προέδρων οὐκ ἐνὴν εἰπεῖν (cp.
§ 65 γεγραφὼς τῇ μὲν προτέρᾳ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν συμβουλεύειν τὸν βουλόμενον, τῇ δ᾽
ὑστέρᾳ τοὺς προέδρους ἐπιψηφίζειν τὰς γνώμας, λόγον δὲ μὴ προτιθέναι, Thuc.
I. 44 γενομένης καὶ δὶς ἐκκλησίας, τῇ μὲν προτέρᾳ οὐχ ἧσσον τῶν Κορινθίων
ἀπεδέξαντο τοὺς λόγους, ἐν δὲ τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ (ὑστέρᾳ Cobet) μετέγνωσαν). In
the two passages of Demosthenes and Aeschines εἰς τὴν ὑστέραν (ὑστεραίαν)
ἐκκλησίαν is a phrase transplanted from the official style. The Attic limi-
tation is disregarded by Xenophon, Aristotle, Theophrastus, and later writers;
see Xen. Αn. 4. 1. 15 ταύτην μὲν τὴν ἡμέραν οὕτως ἐπορεύθησαν...εἰς δὲ τὴν
ὑστεραίαν γίγνεται χειμών πολύς, 3. 1. 3 ὀλίγοι μὲν αὐτῶν εἰς τὴν ἑσπέραν
(ad uesperam) σίτου ἐγεύσαντο, ὀλίγοι δὲ πῦρ ἀνέκαυσαν, 7. 4. 14 ταῦτα μὲν
τῆς ἡμέρας ἐγένετο· εἰς δὲ τὴν ἐπιοῦσαν νύκτα ἐπιτίθενται, Hell. I. 6. 20 τὴν μὲν
οὖν ἡμέραν οὕτως ἀνεῖχον, εἰς δὲ τὴν ἑσπέραν, ἐπεὶ σκότος εἴη, ἐξεβίβαζεν
I.
OR. I.
199
COMMENTARY
4. 6. 7 εἰς δὲ τὴν νύκτα οἱ μὲν ᾿Ακαρνάνες ἀπῆλθον, οἱ δὲ φυλακὰς καταστησά-
μενοι ἐκάθευδον, Ar. Nic. Eth. 9. 1. 1164 a 16 εἰς ἕω δ᾽ ἀπαιτοῦντι τὰς
ὑποσχέσεις ἀνθ᾽ ἡδονῆς ἡδονὴν ἀποδεδωκέναι ἔφη (but in Phys. 218 a 28 read
with Simplicius (796, 23 Diels) τὰ εἰς ἔτος γενησόμενα (γενόμενα libri)
μυριοστὸν), Theophr. De causis plant. III. 23. 5 διὰ ταύτην δὲ τὴν αἰτίαν καὶ
εἰς τὸ ἔαρ αἱ αὐξήσεις ταχεῖαι γίνονται, V. 17. 7 ὅτι γε βλαστητικὸν ἄμπελος
καὶ αἱ εἰς τὸν ὕστερον χρόνον ἐπιβλαστήσεις μηνύουσιν, Char. 9. 5 καὶ ξένοις δὲ
αὑτοῦ θέαν ἀγοράσας μὴ δοὺς τὸ μέρος θεωρεῖν, ἄγειν δὲ καὶ τοὺς υἱεῖς εἰς τὴν
ὑστεραίαν καὶ τὸν παιδαγωγόν, Polyb. 5. 13. 8 εἰς δὲ τὴν ὑστεραίαν προῆγε,
15. 9. 2 εἰς τὴν ἐπαύριον ἅμα τῷ φωτὶ ἐξῆγον, 4. 1. 4 διὰ τὸ καὶ τοῦτο τὸ πολίτευμα
παράδοξον ἐπίδοσιν λαβεῖν εἴς τε τοὺς πρὸ ἡμῶν καὶ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς καιρούς, Plut.
Nic. 19 εἰς δὲ τὴν ἐπιοῦσαν ἡμέραν ἔδειξεν οἷόν ἐστιν ἐμπειρία. In modern
Greek eis has entirely displaced and obliterated év; its encroachments begin
as early as the Hellenistic period (Jannaris, Historical Greek Grammar,
SS 1488, 1491, 1547).
7, 8 οὐχ οὕτως [ὡς ἀσθενῶν] διακείμενος. The gloss was added by some
one who did not understand that οὕτως refers to what follows, ἐξαπίνης της
νυκτὸς ταύτης ἀπέθανεν. It is very doubtful whether Jenicke's reading οὐχ
οὕτως ἀσθενῶς διακείμενος, non ita aeger, is good Attic; the idiom has been
introduced by emendation into Dion. Hal. De Isae. iud. c. 2 παρακρούσεται
ταῖς ἐπιγραφαῖς <οὐχ add. Hudson> οὕτως ἀκριβῶς ἐχούσαις. Thalheim
(Hermes 38, p. 453) proposes οὐχ οὕτως ὥστ᾽ ἀπειπεῖν διακείμενος.
15.2 πολεμῶν, of private hostility and particularly of the warfare of
political opponents: Dem. 18. 31 καὶ τότε καὶ νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ ὁμολογῶ πολεμεῖν καὶ
διαφέρεσθαι τούτοις, Lys. 32. 22, Dem. 19. 115, 19 hyp. 340, 21. 29, 22. 61, 63,
25. 38, [Dem.] 58. 44, Aesch. I. 64. The adjective πολέμιος is used in the
same way (IX. 37. 1).
6,7 αὐτὸν οὐκ εἰσεκάλεσεν. A closer study of the speech would have saved
Cobet from his correction ἐκάλεσεν (Mnem. 9, 1860, p. 443). Poseidippus
was sent to the magistrates (§ 4. 1 πέμψας Ποσείδιππον ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν); that
he did not go or employed a deputy (αὐτὸς οὐκ ἐκάλεσεν), is nowhere stated.
The charge is that, when a magistrate came, Poseidippus did not admit him
into the house. Compare $ 14. 4 ὁ δὲ οὐ μόνον οὐκ εἰσήγαγεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν
ἐλθόντα τῶν ἀρχόντων ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν ἀπέπεμψεν. For the sake of variety
Isaeus here substitutes εἰσεκάλεσεν for εἰσήγαγεν.
[ἀρχονίδην.] Αρχωνίδην, the reading of the Aldine and all the editors
save Buermann, is a name found in Athenian inscriptions; Kirchner,
Prosopographia Attica, quotes C. I. A. I. 358, II. 384, 985 D. With αὐτὸν (Q)
οὐκ εἰσεκάλεσεν it is manifestly incompatible. Those scholars who adopt
αὐτὸς (Α) οὐκ εἰσεκάλεσεν are able to defend ᾿Αρχωνίδην, but omit to explain
what sense they give to αυτός.
16. 3 ἔτι τοίνυν. For the formula of transition see §§ 22. 1, 27. I, VI.
12. I, VIII. 21. 1, and the examples collected by Gebauer on Lys. 25. 15,
Anhang p. 484.
καὶ Κηφίσανδρος, one of the friends of the opponents (ὁ τούτων οἰκεῖος § 28),
probably mentioned by name, because he had taken a leading part in the
attempt to find a compromise. Roeder, Beiträge pp. 22, 25, deduces from
the absence of the article in the phrase κάλει μάρτυρας that Cephisander was
200
OR. I.
ISAEUS
not called as a witness and concludes from this that he was one of the
testamentary heirs. Cp. § 32. 47.
3, 4 ἠξίουν νείμασθαι τὴν οὐσίαν. The subject of νείμασθαι is 'we' i.e. the
two contending parties; it is omitted because µâs could not be used with
exew in the sense of 'I and my brother or brothers,' if it had been already
applied to νειμασθαι in the sense of 'we and our opponents. The judgment
of the arbitrators presents itself to the speaker in the form ‘ἄξιον νείμασθαι
τὴν οὐσίαν (the general result, it is right to share the estate”) καὶ τὸ τρίτον
μέρος ὑμᾶς ἔχειν (the method of distribution, and that you, the nephews,
should have a third'). The subject of the infinitive governed by ağıô is
often omitted when the sense is clear; compare Lys. 7. 23 εἰ μὲν παρέσχετο
μάρτυρας, τούτοις ἂν ἠξίου πιστεύειν, 14. 20, 22, 17. 10, 32. 19, Dem. 24. 179,
[Dem.] 52. 10. The change of subject may be illustrated by [Dem.] 44. 24
ἀξιοῦμεν... κληρονομεῖν τῆς οὐσίας καὶ μὴ τῷ τετελευτηκότι...υἱὸν εἰσποιεῖν ἐπ᾿
ἀποστερήσει τῶν ἡμετέρων. This is one of the passages brought forward to
show that the middle, νέμεσθαι, is sometimes identical with the active, νέμειν,
and may mean 'divide, distribute among others without receiving a share';
Caccialanza translates 'come...avessero proposto di dividere la sostanza.
Another and more difficult passage cited with the same purpose is Dem. 36. 8
λογιζόμενοι πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς οἱ ἐπίτροποι, ὅτι, εἰ δεήσει κατὰ τὰς διαθήκας, ὅσ᾽ ἂν
οὗτος (Apollodorus) ἐκ κοινῶν τῶν χρημάτων ἀναλώσῃ, τούτοις ἐξελόντας ἀντι-
μοιρεὶ τὰς ἀντιμοιρίας Reiske) τὰ λοιπὰ νέμειν, οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν ἔσται περιόν,
νείμασθαι τὰ ὄνθ᾽ ὑπὲρ τοῦ παιδὸς (Pasicles) ἔγνωσαν. καὶ νέμονται τὴν ἄλλην
οὐσίαν πλὴν ὧν ἐμεμίσθωθ᾽ ουτοσί (Phormio)· τούτων δὲ τῆς προσόδου τὴν
ἡμίσειαν τούτῳ (Apollodorus) ἀπεδίδοσαν. The guardians are said to 'share
with Apollodorus as representatives of the minor Pasicles, who cannot act for
himself, and with whom they are identified. In Plat. Laws 771 B it is easy
change ἐνείμαντό τε to ἔνειμάν τε, but in 745 D νείμασθαι δὲ δὴ (δεῖ apographa)
καὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας δώδεκα μέρη, τὴν (τὰ Ast) τῆς ἄλλης οὐσίας εἰς ἴσα ὅτι μάλιστα
[τα] δώδεκα μέρη συνταξάμενον, ἀπογραφῆς πάντων γενομένης the corruption is
deep seated; note that the normal sense of the middle is found in the next
paragraph 745 Ε τέμνειν δ᾽ αὖ καὶ τὰ δώδεκα τῆς πόλεως τμήματα τὸν αὐτὸν
τρόπον, ὅνπερ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην χώραν διένεμον· καὶ δύο νέμεσθαι ἕκαστον οἰκήσεις,
τήν τε ἐγγὺς τοῦ μέσου καὶ τὴν τῶν ἐσχάτων, and compare 739 Ε, 740 Α νει-
μάσθων μὲν δὴ πρῶτον γῆν τε καὶ οἰκίας καὶ μὴ κοινῇ γεωργούντων...νεμέσθων δ᾽
οὖν τοιᾷδε διανοίᾳ πως, ὡς ἄρα δεῖ τὸν λαχόντα τὴν λῆξιν ταύτην νομίζειν μὲν
κοινὴν αὐτὴν τῆς πόλεως, 741 Β τὸ τῆς οὐσίας ὕψος τε καὶ μέγεθος, ὃ τὸ πρῶτον
ἐνείμασθε μέτριον ὄν, μὴ ἀτιμάσητε τῷ τε ὠνεῖσθαι καὶ τῷ πωλεῖν πρὸς ἀλλήλους.
For the use of the orators see V. 6. 5, VII. 5. 4, 25. 5, 31. 7, Lys. 16. 10, 19. 46,
32. 4, Isocr. 4. 179, 8. 13, Dem. 36. 10, 11, 19, 21, 32, 38; 39. 6; 45. 76,
[Dem.] 40. 14, 42, 52; 43. 19; 44. 18; 47. 35; 48. 27, 33; Lyc. 84, Aesch.
3. 251, Hyp. 6. 17.
to
5 κάλει μάρτυρας. In a request addressed to the crier (κῆρυξ [Dem.]
58. 42, Aesch. 2. 86) it is more natural to say 'call the witnesses' i.e.
those whose names you have before you, but the other form 'call witnesses'
is intelligible and occasionally appears in MSS. (§ 32. 4, Ant. 5. 35, 56,
Lys. 13. 66, 17. 2, 3, 9, 19. 41, Isocr. 17. 12, 16; 18. 8, 54); it may be
compared with καί μοι κάλει τὸν καὶ τὸν (Lys. 19. 59). At the same time
OR. I.
201
COMMENTARY
Κάλει...τοὺς μάρτυρας is the
there is room for uneasiness about the text.
predominant expression, no other being found in the Demosthenic corpus,
and one of the leading faults of A is the omission of small words; in Isaeus
alone cases of the article have been added 19 times by A¹, 17 times by
modern critics (I. 4. 5, III. 47. 6, v. 5. 4, 36. 4, VI. 51. 5, 65. 3, IX. 4. 3,
Io. 6, 19. 4, 21. 6, 28. 3, 36. 5, X. 4, 7, 8, I4. 4, XI. I3. IO, 44. 5).
17-21 When claimants prove themselves, as we do, nearer in blood
and nearer in affection, further argument is superfluous, but I would say a
few words on the lies of our opponents. They insist on the will and say that
Cleonymus sent for the magistrates, not in order to revoke the will, but to
correct it and confirm the bequest to themselves. Reflect! Is it likely that
Cleonymus, when on most affectionate terms with us, wished to confirm a
will made in a moment of anger? In arguing thus they charge the testator
with madness, and justify you in annulling such a will.
As yet Isaeus has proved nothing; he has not shown by testimony that
Cleonymus loved his sister's sons more than the testamentary heirs, nor has
he enabled the judges to compare the degree of propinquity in the two
cases, because he has not disclosed in what way the heirs were related to the
testator, and it must be borne in mind that the Athenian instinct was to give
more weight to descent in the male line. Now, he has to attack a strong
position, trusting only to 'proofs of art' (evtexvoi tíoteis) and the topic of
'probabilities' (Tà elκóra). The adversaries say that Cleonymus desired.
not to revoke but to correct the will and, as he had allowed it to stand after
Deinias' death and after his nephew came of age, the explanation is
plausible. Isaeus' first move is to shift his ground. In §§ 11-14 it has
been argued that Cleonymus made the will out of anger against Deinias
'because, if in his senses, he could not have wished to 'wrong' his nephews,
and that he did not wish to 'injure' his nephews, because he was kind to
them after Deinias' death and because in his last hours he wished to
revoke the will. For the rest of the speech the contention will be that
Cleonymus, because he loved his nephews, repented of a will made in a
moment of passion and wished to revoke it. Another device employed
is misrepresentation. The opponents' plea was that Cleonymus desired to
correct or rectify (èñavop¤ŵσai §§ 18, 24, 26) the will. What they meant,
may be guessed from the story not revealed till $ 30, that Cleonymus had
quarrelled with Pherenicus, one of the heirs; they may have said that
Cleonymus desired to alter in some respects the distribution of the property.
In lieu of 'correct'. Isaeus slips in a gloss of his own 'confirm.' Substitute in
S$ 18-23 'correct' wherever 'confirm' occurs, and the loose fabric of
argument tumbles to pieces. Finally, mark the trick by which the odium of
making reflexions on Cleonymus' sanity is cast upon the upholders of the will
(§§ 19, 20).
17. 3,4 τῇ φιλίᾳ τῇ πρὸς τὸν τετελευτηκότα, friendship with the deceased,
(§ 38. 3), not ‘affection pour le défunt' (Dareste). Compare éµvýolŋ dè kai
τῆς πρὸς Τιμόθεόν μοι φιλίας γεγενημένης Isocr. 15. 101, τὴν πρὸς αὑτοὺς φιλίαν
Lyc. 135, φιλίαν πρὸς τοὺς καταλιπόντας τὸν κλῆρον παλαιὰν καὶ πατρικὴν
καὶ πάντα τὸν χρόνον διατελέσασαν Isocr. 19. 50, τὴν πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας
φιλίαν Din. I. 19, τίνος ὄντος ἐμοὶ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐγκλήματος Lys. 10. 23, 16. 10,
202
OR. I.
ISAEUS
32. 2, Dem. I. 7, 5. 17, Hyp. 2. 16, δείσας τὴν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἀπέχθειαν
Isocr. 8. 38, Dem. 6. 3, 18. 36, 19. 17, 221, Aesch. 2. 105, тηv ëx@pav τǹv
πρòs enẞaiovs Dem. 19. 85, 134, Isocr. 7. 8, [Dem.] 17. 23, tiμwµevos kai
ζηλούμενος διὰ τὴν πρὸς ὑμᾶς πίστιν Din. 3. 12, ib. 10, 18, Dem. 20. 25,
23. 108, Lys. 12. 67, tǹv πρòs toútovs xápɩ Din. 3. 21. Contrast Dem. 25. 93
τῷ φόβῳ τῷ πρὸς ὑμᾶς with Din. 2. 23 ὁ φόβος ὁ παρ᾽ ὑμῶν. Hypereides
in the Epitaphius, where he is essaying the grand style, ventures on a
construction that seems an echo from Thucydides: παῖδες ἐφόδιον εἰς τὴν
πρὸς τὸν δῆμον ε[ὔνοι]αν τὴν τῶν οὐκ ἀπολωλότων ἀρετὴν...ἕξουσιν (6. 27);
compare Thuc. 5. 105 τῆς μὲν τοίνυν πρὸς τὸ θεῖον εὐμενείας οὐδ᾽ ἡμεῖς οἰόμεθα
λελείψεσθαι.
5, 6 τῶν οὐ προσηκόντων ἀμφισβητεῖν, i.e. produce an admittedly authentic
will giving them the property.
18.6 oikelws eσxev, ‘had become friendly.' See Gildersleeve, Syntax
§ 241, on ingressive translations of the second aorist. 'This (the ingressive
translation of oxov) is all the more natural, as exw connotes a state and is
often used in periphrases with verbal nouns.' The orator admits in § 30
that Cleonymus was not on intimate terms with his nephews at the time
when he made the will (μîv ovпш xрάμеvos). The translators render loosely
as if eixev was in the text. Something may be said for changing eσxev to
eixev; the imperfect would mask a weak point in Isaeus' position (§ 21. 6).
See for the interchange of εἶχεν and ἔσχεν And. I. 74 (εἶχον Α, ἔσχον
Bekk.), Dem. 19. 173 (éoxe 2, eixe r), Aesch. 1. 54, 3. 175, VIII. 40. 5, XI. 8. 6 12.,
for the confusion of and σ (c) Crit. Introd. p. xlvii.
し
​6,7 ἔτι βεβαιότερον ἡμᾶς ἀποστερήσει. Cp. § 19. 4 μᾶλλον βεβαιοῦν. The op-
ponents do not allow that Cleonymus' desire to 'correct' the will was prompted
by fear that e.g. some flaw in the wording might leave a loophole to the
heirs-at-law; the speaker grants afterwards (§ 24) that the form of the
bequest was unassailable. The 'rectification,' according to the other side,
way-neither for better nor for worse.
affected the nephews in no
19.2 KάKelvWV K.T.A.
The faultiness of the antithesis is unavoidable.
Two real contrasts are possible, neither of which Isaeus can employ. (1) He
has been arguing hitherto that Cleonymus did not make the will in con-
sequence of any real or imaginary grievance against his nephews or their
father, and dares not say 'The rest of the world repent afterwards of wrongs
done in a fit of anger with their relations (ỏpyɩơðévtes toîs oikeíois), Cleony-
mus according to our opponents, when his anger against us was changed
to warmest love, wished to confirm the will.' (2) The alleged cause of
the will is dislike of Deinias, the nephews' guardian. Why then did not
Cleonymus revoke the will as soon as Deinias died? The fear of raising this
fatal question deters Isaeus from writing 'All other men repent even of
wrongs (kȧkeivwv) done to relations under the influence of anger (for which
there may have been, and may still be, some justification), Cleonymus
according to our opponents, when on the best terms with us, wished to con-
firm a will for which not we, his relations, but our guardian was to blame.'
Si in Demosthene uersarer, dicerem aliquid excidisse, et sensum sup-
plendum, ἣν <ἑτέρῳ τινὶ, οὐχ ἡμῖν > ὀργιζόμενος ἐποιήσατο. Sed argumentum
continuat per § 20. quare nil sollicito. Tentabam <ÖTE> ỏρyıČ. (Dobree,
Adv. 1. p. 287).
OR. I.
203
COMMENTARY
4 ἐν ᾧ, here purely temporal as in Lys. 7. 7, 13. 93, [Dem.] 51. 10. The
Thucydidean use ('in a case where,' 'in a situation in which,' 2. 35. 2,
6. 55. 3, 8. 86. 4) is found in Ant. 5. 43, 62, 91, And. 2. 9, 17, 28; Isaeus has
où in this sense (VII. 40, XI. 13). The meeting-point of the two applications
of ἐν ᾧ is seen in Lys. 13. 36 ἅπαντες γὰρ ἤδη ἐγνωκότες ἦτε, οὗ ἦν κακοῦ ἡ
πόλις, ἐν ᾧ οὐδὲν ἔτι ὠφελεῖν ἐδύνασθε, where ἐν ᾧ picks up ἤδη.
6 εἰ καὶ, even if (V. 25. 8 π.). Cp. Isocr. 9. 33 ἡγοῦμαι μὲν οὖν, εἰ καὶ
μηδενὸς ἄλλου μνησθείην..., ῥᾴδιον ἐκ τούτων εἶναι γνῶναι, 11. 28, 12. 87, Εp. 6. 3,
Lys. 20. 23.
او
αν
7 παράνοιαν τὴν μεγίστην. Plato in Phaedr. 266 A treats παράνοια and
μανία as interchangeable, but in ordinary speech παράνοια seems to have
been the wider term: compare the law of Solon, [Dem.] 46. 14 τὰ ἑαυτοῦ
διαθέσθαι εἶναι, ὅπως ἂν ἐθέλῃ, ἂν μὴ παῖδες ὦσι γνήσιοι ἄρρενες, ἂν μὴ μανιῶν
ἢ γήρως ἢ φαρμάκων ἢ νόσου ἕνεκα ἢ γυναικὶ πιθόμενος, ὑπὸ τούτων του παρανοῶν,
ἢ ὑπ᾽ ἀνάγκης ἢ ὑπὸ δεσμοῦ καταληφθείς, and Ar. Nub. 844 sqq. οἴμοι, τί δράσω
παραφρονοῦντος τοῦ πατρός; | πότερον παρανοίας αὐτὸν εἰσαγαγὼν ἔλω, | ἢ τοῖς
σοροπηγοῖς τὴν μανίαν αὐτοῦ φράσω; ib. 1475/6. Plato himself in a statute uses
μαινόμενος of the lunatic (furiosus); μαινόμενος δὲ ἄν τις ᾖ, μὴ φανερὸς ἔστω
κατὰ πόλιν· οἱ προσήκοντες δ᾽ ἑκάστων κατὰ τὰς οἰκίας φυλαττόντων αὐτούς,
ὅτῳ ἂν ἐπιστῶνται τρόπῳ, ἢ ζημίαν ἐκτινόντων, Laws 934 CD. On the other
hand in his γραφὴ παρανοίας, the aim of which is to protect a son against
mismanagement of the family estate by his father, even an unusual degree
οἱ τρόπων χαλεπότης is made a ground of action: see Laws 928 Ε υἱεῖς δ᾽ αὖ
σφισι (ἡγοῖντ᾽ ἂν δεῖν τὸν νομοθέτην νομοθετεῖν) πατέρας ὑπὸ νόσων ἢ γήρως
διατιθεμένους αἰσχρῶς ἐξεῖναι παρανοίας γράφεσθαι, 929 D ἐὰν δέ τίς τινα νόσος
ἢ γῆρας ἢ καὶ τρόπων χαλεπότης ἢ καὶ ξύμπαντα ταῦτα ἔκφρονα ἀπεργάζηται
διαφερόντως τῶν πολλῶν, καὶ λανθάνῃ τοὺς ἄλλους πλὴν τῶν συνδιαιτωμένων,
οἰκοφθορῇ δὲ ὡς ὢν τῶν αὑτοῦ κύριος, ὁ δὲ υἱὸς ἀπορῇ καὶ ὀκνῇ τὴν τῆς παρανοίας
γράφεσθαι δίκην, νόμος αὐτῷ κείσθω κ.τ.λ., 929 Ε ὁ δὲ ὀφλὼν τοῦ λοιποῦ
χρόνου ἄκυρος ἔστω τῶν αὑτοῦ καὶ τὸ σμικρὸν διατίθεσθαι, καθάπερ παῖς δὲ οἰκείτω
τὸν ἐπίλοιπον βίον. Plato is probably guided by the interpretation put on
παράνοια in Athenian procedure ('Αθ. Πολ. c. 56 γραφαὶ δὲ καὶ δίκαι λαγχά
νονται πρὸς αὐτὸν (τὸν ἄρχοντα)...παρανοίας, ἐάν τις αἰτιᾶταί τινα παρανοοῦντα τὰ
[ὑπάρχοντα] ἀπολλύναι, Xen. Mem. I. 2. 49 φάσκων κατὰ νόμον ἐξεῖναι παρα-
νοίας ἑλόντι καὶ τὸν πατέρα δῆσαι, Aesch. 3. 251 ὁ δῆμος ὥσπερ παραγεγηρα-
κὼς ἢ παρανοίας ἑαλωκὼς αὐτὸ μόνον τοὔνομα τῆς δημοκρατίας περιποιεῖται, τῶν
δ᾽ ἔργων ἑτέροις (τοῖς ῥητόρσι) παρακεχώρηκεν); but as no detailed account
of the action has come down to us, we cannot tell how much was included
under the word either in law or in practice. Beauchet (II. p. 388) thinks
that by means of this suit even spendthrifts (prodigi) could be deprived of
the administration of their property..
20. 1, 2 ταύτης μείζων, ἢ. Gebauer, De arg. ex contr. formis, p. 3oo, and
Schwab, Syntax d. griech. Comparation, p. 251, cite from prose the follow-
ing examples of this construction; Lys. 10. 28, 25. 23, [Lys.] 2. 73, Dem.
15. 4, 29. II, Hyp. 3. 11, Plat. Crit. 44 C, Phaed. 89 D, Gorg. 500 C,
Laws 738 D, 811 E, [Plat.] Theag. 127 B, Ep. 7. 341 D. For the epexegetic
infinitive with the article the only passages quoted are Hyp. 2. II ἢ
ἔστιν τι τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει τούτου (τούτων : corr. Cob.) δημοτικώτερον, τοῦ τοὺς
204
OR. I.
ISAEUS
δυναμένους εἰπεῖν τοῖς ἀδυνάτοις τῶν πολιτῶν κινδυνεύουσι βοηθεῖν, [Plat.]
Εφ. 7. 332 C οὗ μεῖζον σημεῖον εἰς ἀρετὴν καὶ κακίαν οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδέν, τοῦ
ἔρημον ἢ μὴ τοιούτων ἀνδρῶν εἶναι. A third construction is possible
(§ 23. 2 n.).
5 vuvl dè K.T.A. For the anacoluthon Gebauer op. cit. p. 260 sqq. com-
pares Lys. 10. 13, 12. 36, 34. II, Dem. 23. 211-214, [Dem.] 59. 117, Plat.
Apol. 37 C, Alc. 1. 108 E, Laws 931 C. In these passages the shift of con-
struction is either chosen to heighten the rhetorical effect or made inevitable
by the length and complexity of the sentence. Here Isaeus has a more
urgent motive to avoid a symmetrical period; the weakness of his case
prevents him from pursuing the enthymeme to its proper conclusion.
Logically he ought to have written 'What greater madness than to make a
will just to spite Deinias and not revoke it when Deinias died?' The
arguments by which Herwerden (Mnem. N. S. 9, 1881, p. 381/2) supports
his proposal to cut out the whole paragraph (ἢ τότε μὲν—τῶν ἑαυτοῦ) show
that he does not understand the situation.
6 μóvous, 'alone' among the members of his family. Critics who tamper
with the text here, forget that the heirs appointed in the will were relatives
of Cleonymus.
21.3 πeρì aútŵv. Rosenberg ( Jahrbb. f. cl. Philol. 109, 1874, p. 336) wishes
to read repì air@v (neuter). Roeder, Beiträge p. 81, adduces against him.
περὶ αὐτῶν
Lys. 12. 34 οὗτος δὲ ὡμολόγηκεν ἀδίκως συλλαβεῖν, ὥστε ῥᾳδίαν ὑμῖν τὴν
διαψήφισιν περὶ αὑτοῦ πεποίηκε.
او
4 ἔνεστι. Cp. Dem. 21. 41 οὐκ ἐνέσται (ενεστ᾽ sine spiritu et accentu Σ)
αὐτῷ λόγος οὐδὲ εἷς, ib. 99 τῇ τοῦ πατρὸς συμφορᾷ χωρὶς τῶν ἄλλων κακῶν οὐδ᾽
ἐπικουρίαν ἐνοῦσαν ὁρᾷ, 2. 22 πολὺ γὰρ πλείους ἀφορμὰς...ὁρῶ ὑμῖν ἐνούσας
(οὔσας Cob.) ἢ 'κείνῳ, 9. 65 ἐπειδὰν εἰδῆτ᾽ ἐκλογιζόμενοι μηδὲν < ἔθ᾽ > ὑμῖν
(ἐν ὑμῖν ΣL) ἐνόν, Isocr. 8. 145 πολλῶν δὲ καὶ καλῶν λόγων ἐνόντων περὶ τὴν
ὑπόθεσιν ταύτην, Xen. Cyr. 2. 1 οὐκ ἐνὴν πρόφασις μειονεξίας. The attack
on eveσri is the consequence of a mistake in grammatical analysis; the
dative roúroɩs is not governed by the preposition év but depends on the idea
expressed by the compound verb ('to be available, at disposal"). The
reference of the preposition is shown by comparing the common phrase và
ἐνόντα εἰπεῖν (Aesch. 2. 38) with Isocr. 13. 9 ὑπισχνοῦνται τοιούτους
ῥήτορας τοὺς συνόντας ποιήσειν ὥστε μηδὲν τῶν ἐνόντων ἐν τοῖς πράγμασι
παραλιπεῖν.
5 εἰ δ᾽ οὕτως παραφρονῶν ἔτυχεν κ.τ.λ. The true antithesis, 'if on the
other hand he wished to correct the will,' would destroy the argument.
5,6 ηµâs deì. I retain deì with Jenicke, Observ. in Isaeum, p. 7, and
Meutzner, Jahrbb. f. cl. Philol. 83, 1861, p. 470. The obvious objection is
the presence of the words χρωμένους αὐτῷ πάντων οἰκειότατα; it has been
admitted (§ 18. 6) that the nephews were not 'on most intimate terms' with
Cleonymus when the will was made. But Isaeus is 'capable de tout'; in
§ 20. 4 he smuggles in an ambiguous phrase, Toùs oikeιotáтous, which may
mean 'closest friends' as well as 'nearest relations.' Let us try to seize
the slippery ratiocination. The opponents (according to Isaeus) say that
Cleonymus wished to 'confirm' the will.
'confirm' the will. To say this, Isaeus retorts, is
equivalent to saying that Cleonymus was suffering from mental derange-
•
OR. I.
205
COMMENTARY
ment in an extreme form (аρávoιav την μeyiorηv). Why? Because there
could be no greater lunacy (µavía) than first to make a will wronging his
nearest relations (Toùs olкELOTάTOνs) out of impotent spite against their
guardian, and then, when he valued them more than anyone else in the
world, to desire to leave his nephews alone without any share in the
succession (μόνους...ἀκλήρους ποιῆσαι). ‘If he was so crazy as always (not
only in his last hours but also at the time of making the will) to care least
for his nearest and most intimate relations, you will be justified in invalidating
such a will.' The madness seems to be a deduction from two circumstances,
the character of the will and the alleged intention of 'confirming' it, and the
will is to be declared invalid, because from first to last (deì) Cleonymus
behaved like a man out of his senses (oùk ev pрov@v). Scheibe suggests that
deì is a dittography of the last syllable of huâs. No stress can be laid on the
omission of the word by Q (Crit. Introd. p. 1).
22, 23 Again, if it was Cleonymus intention to confirm the bequest to
them, why did they send away the magistrate? The alternatives before
them were either to have more secure possession of the property or to incur
Cleonymus enmity by not obeying his command, and they chose the latter!
Could there be anything more incredible? They, who had so much to gain,
shrank from rendering the service, as if they were going to suffer loss,
while Cleonymus displayed such anxiety for their welfare that he was angry
with Poseidippus and repeated his request for the next day.
The sophism of the 'confirmation' of the will has been already noted.
The identification of Poseidippus and Diocles with the whole body of the
heirs is a new trick. As Cleonymus died in the night, the opponents would
have no difficulty in explaining the dismissal of the magistrate; when he
came, Cleonymus was too ill to alter the terms of the will or make a new
one. Remember that no evidence seems to have been adduced that
Cleonymus was angry with Poseidippus or desired to see the magistrate
the next day.
22. 1. ἔτι τοίνυν.. Cp. § 16. 3 κ.
þáσкovтes Kaλεiv, though they say (now) that Cleonymus summoned,
etc.,' a remarkable construction, produced by the desire of avoiding a repeti-
tion of ås þaσív. See for the participle III. 70. 5 n., for the infinitive
IV. 3. 2 N.
φασίν.
2 προσταχθέν. Cp. Lys. 30. 2 προσταχθὲν γὰρ αὐτῷ τεττάρων μηνῶν ἀνα-
γράψαι τοὺς νόμους τοὺς Σόλωνος ἀντὶ μὲν Σόλωνος αὑτὸν νομοθέτην κατέστησεν
κ.τ.λ., [Dem.] 50. 12 προσταχθέν μοι ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου Μένωνα τὸν στρατηγὸν ἄγειν
εἰς Ἑλλήσποντον, ᾠχόμην ἀναγόμενος, Xen. Hell. 2. 3. 35 ἐκεῖνοι ἔφασαν προσ-
ταχθέν μοι ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν οὐκ ἀνελέσθαι τοὺς δυστυχοῦντας. For the rarity of
the Accusative Absolute of the Aorist Participle see V. 19. 1, 2 n. ; Lell (Der
Absolute Accusativ im Griechischen bis zu Aristoteles, Würzburg, 1892) quotes
χρησθὲν and κυρωθὲν from Thucydides (3. 96. 1, 4. 125. 1), ὁρισθὲν from
Plato (Phaedr. 265 D), åµeλnßèv and Kataɣeɩpoтovηlèv from Demosthenes
(55. 11, 21. 199), åñoppηlèv from Pseudo-Demosthenes (33. 21), πeраvÕévта
from Xenophon (Hell. 3. 2. 19).
4, 5 δυοῖν...θάτερα. Cp. § 38. 2 θάτερα τούτων, ΙΙΙ. 58. 3 δυοῖν τὰ ἕτερα. The
combination dvoîv Oárepa, assailed ante Agamemnona, before Cobet, has
206
OR. I.
ISAEUS
او
..
Platonic warranty (Crit. 52 A, Theaet. 187 B, Laws 841 D); dvoîv тà étepa is
found in Charm. 16ο B. Compare Laws 765 D παίδων γνησίων πατήρ, μάλιστα
μὲν υἱέων καὶ θυγατέρων, εἰ δὲ μή, θάτερα, Phaed. 68 C ὁ αὐτὸς δέ που οὗτος
τυγχάνει ὢν καὶ φιλοχρήματος καὶ φιλότιμος, ἤτοι τὰ ἕτερα τούτων ἢ ἀμφότερα,
Phil. 43 Ε τριών οὖν ὄντων ἡμῖν, ὧντινων βούλει, τίθει τὸ μὲν χρυσόν, τὸ
δ᾽ ἄργυρον, τρίτον δὲ μηδέτερα τούτων…..τὸ δὲ μηδέτερα τούτων ἔσθ᾽ ἡμῖν ὅπως
θάτερα γένοιτ᾽ ἄν, χρυσὸς ἢ ἄργυρος; The common Platonic use of οὐδέτερα
(e.g. Phaedr. 228 A, Prot. 334 A), µndétepa (e.g. Rep. 470 A, Parm. 165 D),
ὁπότερα (e.g. Crat. 438 D, Euthyd. 275 E) appears also in the orators ;
see V. 35. 3, XI. 27. 6, Ant. 5. 34, And. 1. 71 (éµoì dè Toútwv ovdétepa
πεποίηται· οὔτε ἠσέβηται οὔτε ὡμολόγηται), Isocr. 12.233 ὁπότερα δ᾽ ἂν ἐκείνοις
δόξῃ, ταῦτα ποιεῖν, Lys. 32. 23 (ὁπότερα (FM: ὁπότερον Τ) τούτων ἐποίησεν),
Dem. 5. 23, 21. 156, 27. 49, [Dem.] 13. 36, 42. 1, 52. 25 (οὐκ ἀδύνατος
οὐδέτερα ποιῆσαι, οὔτε κακῶς οὔτε εὖ). Riddell, Digest of Platonic idioms
§ 41 B, observes that this usage (use of Plural Neuter Pronoun to express a
singular fact) contributes to the enrichment of the style; firstly, by varying
it; and secondly, by representing the fact as a complex phenomenon, an
aggregate of many parts, the sum of many constituents, the meeting-point
of many relations.' This may be true in some cases, but I suspect that the
frequency of οὐδέτερα, μηδέτερα, θάτερα, ὁπότερα is a result of the assimilating
influence of the form ἀμφότερα; note Plat. Rep. 365 Ε οἷς ἀμφότερα ἢ οὐδέτερα
πειστέον and Phaed. 68 C (quoted above). The severely logical critics reply
that the phenomena merely prove the existence in the best MSS. of erroneous
expansions of τρ written above the line (Crit. Introd. p. xliv).
C
2
5, 6 βεβαιότερον. Cobet's correction (V.L. p. 155), which all editors have
rejected, suits the context better than βεβαιοτέραν, the reading of A. The
opponents are supposed to say to themselves, 'The property (which
Cleonymus has to dispose of and has already bequeathed to us) will be more
securely ours,' not 'our property (the property which will be ours) will be
more secure' (τὴν οὐσίαν ἕξομεν βεβαιοτέραν). On the other hand the adjec-
tival predicate is defensible in [Isocr.] 1. 36 τὴν παρ᾽ ἐκείνων εὔνοιαν βεβαιο-
τέραν ἔχειν. For βεβαίως ἔχειν compare VI. 30. 6, Isocr. 15. 28, 184, Dem.
8. 41, 18. 26, Aesch. 2. 173.
6 ἐκείνῳ μὴ ποιήσαντες ἀπεχθήσεσθαι. The omission of an object to
ποιήσαντες is awkward and not justified by [Isocr.] 1. 31 μηδὲ τὰς χάριτας
ἀχαρίστως χαριζόμενος, ὅπερ πάσχουσιν οἱ πολλοί, ποιοῦντες μέν, ἀηδῶς δὲ
τοῖς φίλοις ὑπουργοῦντες. Buermann Hermes 19, p. 326) takes ἐκεῖνο (A)
‘on principle and conjectures that in the previous clause τὴν ἀρχὴν
εἰσαγαγόντες has fallen out before τὴν οὐσίαν. In such a connexion Attic
idiom demands τοῦτο, not ἐκεῖνο (ΧΙ. 6. 4, Xen. Cyr. 5. 3. 19 Χαῖρε, Κύρε.
᾿Αλλὰ ποιῶ ταῦτ᾽, ἔφη, Isocr. 12. 67 ἐπιδείξομεν συμφορώτερα πράξαντας τοὺς
ἡμετέρους ἢ Λακεδαιμονίους ταῖς πόλεσι ταῖς τὸν φόρον ἐνεγκούσαις. πρῶτον μὲν
γὰρ οὐ προσταχθὲν ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν τοῦτ᾽ ἐποίουν, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοὶ γνόντες, Dem. 18. 52
εἰ δ᾽ ἀπιστεῖς, ἐρώτησον αὐτούς, μᾶλλον δ᾽ ἐγὼ τοῦθ᾽ ὑπὲρ σοῦ ποιήσω, [Dem.]
44. 23, Buttmann's Index to Dem. Meid. s.v. ποιεῖν). If adopted, ἐκεῖνο must
refer to § 22. 2, 3 προσταχθὲν αὐτοῖς οὐκ ἐτόλμησαν εἰσαγαγεῖν. But ἀπε-
χθήσεσθαι needs a complement as much as ποιήσαντες. I have thought of
inserting ἅπερ ἐκέλευσε before ἀπεχθήσεσθαι.
OR. I.
207
COMMENTARY
7 Taúrηs should not be meddled with; the 'confirmation' is contrasted
with the original bequest.
23.2
τούτων explained by the infinitives which follow, φυλάξασθαι and
Tonoaobai. Schoemann compares Plat. Gorg. 519 D kaì TOÚTOV TOû λóyov
τί ἂν ἀλογώτερον εἴη πρᾶγμα, ἀνθρώπους...ἀδικεῖν τούτῳ ὃ οὐκ ἔχουσιν, Lucian,
Abdicat. 1 οὗ τί γένοιτ᾽ ἂν ἀτοπώτερον, θεραπεύειν ἐκ προστάγματος, ib. 13
οὗ τί γένοιτ᾽ ἂν ἀχαριστότερον, σωθέντα δι᾿ ἐμὲ τοῖς τοιούτοις εὐθὺς ἀμείβεσθαι,
Calumniae non tem. cred. 24 οὗ δὴ ἐγὼ οὐδὲν οἶμαι ἀδικώτερον οὐδὲ δουλο-
πρεπέστερον, ἐνδακόντα τὸ χεῖλος ὑποτρέφειν τὴν χολήν. In oratorical prose
an epexegetic infinitive without the article is common only after a pronoun
in the Nominative or Accusative, but is occasionally found after a genitive
as in Dem. 3. 12 τούτου μόνου περιγίγνεσθαι μέλλοντος, παθεῖν ἀδίκως τι
KAKÒV TÒV TAûT' Elπóνтα; see Rehdantz, Demosth. Index II. s.v. Artikel,
p. 203.
2
3 ζημιωθησομένους. The form, condemned by Cobet (V. L.² p. 137),
occurs in X. 16. 8, Lys. 8. 18, 29. 4, [Lys.] 6. 15, Dem. 23. 80; Snμiwooμaι
is found in And. 1. 72, Isocr. 18. 37, Dem. 1. 27, [Dem.] 52. 11. For the
confusion of these and similar forms in the MSS. of Demosthenes see Voemel,
Proleg. Gramm. § 94 p. 106 sqq. Cobet's authority has been shaken by the
testimony of the stones ; thus τιμηθήσομαι, which with ζημιωθήσομαι and
wpeλn@nooµai he attributed to the 'Graeculi,' appears in Athenian inscrip-
tions of the 4th century (Meisterhans, Gramm. d. att. Inschr.3 § 77. II,
p. 193, Blass-Kühner, Gr. Gramm. II. p. 112).
7 Eis Tηv vσTepalaν, 'repeated the request for (with a view to) the next
day'; compare Dem. 18. 151 eis Tηv éπιoûσav IIvλaíav (against the coming
meeting) ἐπὶ τὸν Φίλιππον εὐθὺς ἡγεμόν᾽ ἦγον, Plat. Laws 849 Β εἰς πάντα
τὸν μῆνα ὠνεῖσθαι, Xen. An. 5. 3. το θήραν ἐποιοῦντο εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν. The
passage does not remove the ambiguity of eis tǹv vσtepaíav in § 14. 6.
24-29 If, as they say, Cleonymus bequeathed to them the property
in the will as it now stands, what possible correction could have rendered
it more valid? If, however, Cleonymus wished to add anything to these
dispositions, why did he not write his wishes in another document, when
he could not get the will from the magistrates, instead of leaving this
point open to controversy? But even if we were to concede that he wished
to correct the will, mark the effrontery of our opponents who ask you to
ratify a testament, which, by their own admission, the testator himself did
not think right. Of all their assertions the most impudent is that Cleonymus
did not wish us to get anything out of the estate. Whom could he have
wished to have the property in preference to those to whom in his lifetime
he gave more help out of it than to any other member of his family?
Cephisander, a connexion of our opponents, thought it just that each of the
relatives should have a share of the estate. It would be most amazing
if Cleonymus who gave us so many proofs of affection, wished that we
alone should have neither part nor lot in it. Who can believe that our oppo-
nents in a court of law are kinder to us than the relative who was bound
in duty to do good to us?
At last Isaeus kicks aside the man of straw which he has been pommelling
since § 18, admits that 'confirmation' of the will in the sense put upon
208
OR. I.
ISAEUS
it hitherto is a meaningless phrase, and faces the real contention of his
adversaries, that Cleonymus wished to make certain corrections. Their
line of attack can be discerned from the defence. They urged that to
annul the will because Cleonymus wished to correct it would defeat the
testator's intentions and be most unjust, for such a vote would hand over
all the property to the heirs-at-law, whom Cleonymus did not wish to get
anything. This account of the uncle's attitude towards his sister's sons is
more plausible than the version presented by the speaker. The cause of
the will, according to Isaeus, was mere dislike of the boys' guardian, and
yet after the guardian's death Cleonymus took no steps to withdraw such
senseless dispositions. The reply to the opponents is not without a humorous
aspect. 'Cleonymus must have wished his nephews to inherit his estate.'
Why? Because in his lifetime he had done more for them than for any
other relative.' The argument from the arbitrators' proposal shows a more
splendid audacity. The compromise suggested was that everybody con-
cerned should have a share. 'Certainly not,' answered the nephews; ‘if
we can upset the will, we shall get all.' In the hands of the other side the
incident would become a proof of the shameless rapacity of the nephews
and of the conciliatory spirit of the testamentary heirs.
Writers on Attic Law (Schulin, Das griech. Test. p. 9, Lipsius in Att. Proc.
p. 597, Beauchet 111. p. 668 sqq.) have made two deductions from § 25, (i) that
a later will rightly completed did not invalidate an earlier, (ii) that additions
to, and modifications of, an existing will inserted in a separate document
were valid equally with the will. Schulin and Beauchet add the proviso,
that the same formalities were required for this document as for the testa-
ment itself; Lipsius and Beauchet call it a codicil. Neither of these in-
ferences is justified by the passage in question. The first proposition rests
on an innocent belief in the nephew's story, which seems to imply that
Cleonymus could not revoke his will unless he got it back from the magis-
trates. Obviously, if Cleonymus wished the heirs-at-law to succeed to
everything, his simplest course was to destroy the will and die intestate.
But was there no other way of rendering it inoperative? There is no room
here for the procedure adopted by Euctemon (VI. 31), who made a solemn
declaration in court before witnesses, ὡς οὐκέτ᾽ αὐτῷ κέοιτο ἡ διαθήκη, because
Euctemon's so-called will was really a contract, and because Cleonymus
was on his death-bed. But assume for the moment that Cleonymus, whom
the nephew supposes strong enough to write, could have nullified the existing
will by making a new one. Would it be surprising if a Greek speech-writer
ignored a possibility so injurious to his case? What Isaeus does say is
so curiously worded as at once to awake the suspicions of any reader,
who, unlike the orator's audience, has leisure to analyse and reflect. åveλeîv
μὲν γὰρ οὐχ οἷός τ᾽ ἦν ἄλλο γραμματεῖον ἢ τὸ παρὰ τῇ ἀρχῇ κείμενον· γράψαι
δ᾽ ἐξῆν εἰς ἕτερον εἴ τι ἐβούλετο, καὶ μηδὲ τοῦθ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀμφισβητήσιμον ἐᾶν.
'Cleonymus could take up (retract, tollere, aufheben, a play on the two
senses of aveλeîv, § 25. 4 n.) only the document lying in custody of the
board.' This is obvious, so obvious that Roeder, Beiträge p. 13, alters
the text to ἄλλῳ γραμματείῳ ἢ τῷ παρὰ τῇ ἀρχῇ κειμένῳ, the object to
ἀνελεῖν being τὰ γράμματα, which must be understood from the sentence
OR. I.
209
COMMENTARY
before, while Lipsius improves the nephew's reasoning by writing aλλọ
γραμματείῳ τὸ παρὰ τῇ ἀρχῇ κείμενον. The empty phrase may be a mark
not of a corrupt text but of an advocate's chicanery. My own belief is that
the plain unmistakable statement which Lipsius introduces, is exactly what
Isaeus was obliged to avoid, and that the sentence, so far from showing that
the Athenians did not recognise the commonsense rule of Roman and
modern law, is indirect evidence of the contrary; cp. V. 7. 8 n. Neither is
the second proposition borne out by the words of the orator.
What he says
is only this: 'if Cleonymus wished to make additions, why did he not write
down his wishes, when the will could not be recovered? Then we should
not have had this controversy about his intentions.' He does not cut
his own throat by asserting that the document would have been binding
in law, a valid codicil, but stops short at the harmless conclusion that the
present uncertainty would not have existed, though, if such a paper had been
produced in evidence by the other side, we should have heard a very
different strain. The passage is not enough to prove that 'codicils' were
known to Athenian law. Finally, those scholars who hold at the same
time proposition (i) and proposition (ii), have to reckon with some em-
barrassing questions. What exactly do they mean by 'additions to,' and
‘modifications of,' an existing testament? If the former dispositions of a
testator could be altered in a supplement, what prevented the use of the
'codicil' as an instrument to revoke a prior will? And if the same solem-
nities were required for 'codicil' and testament, how were the two distin-
guished? At Rome codicilli and testamentum were rival forms of bequest,
and codicilli found favour and prospered because they were exempt from
the cumbersome regulations of the testamentum. Under English law the
formalities of execution and of attestation are as strict in the case of
codicils as in that of wills; and a will may be revoked by a codicil.
24. I εἰ γὰρ δή, ὡς οὗτοί φασιν. The nephew does not dare to deny
the genuineness of the document, which must have been produced at
the ȧváкpiois before the trial, but he can scatter dark innuendos; cp.
$42.4 12.
I, 2
ἐν ταῖς νῦν γεγραμμέναις διαθήκαις, 'by the dispositions now in writing,
as they now stand,' i.e. by the will in its present form, which is contrasted
with the corrected will. Blass (Att. Ber.2 II. p. 529 n. 2) misses the point
when he translates yeypaµµévais by 'indicted' (angeklagt). Moreover, what
authority is there for the phrase ypáþoµai diałŋkas, ‘I indict a will’?
4 ἡγεῖτ᾽ ἂν ποιῆσαι. Buermann (Hermes 19, p. 336) attaches av to
nyeiro, so that the meaning is 'I cannot help wondering what the cor-
rection would have been which would have made him believe that he had
increased the validity of the will.' Like Cobet, Mnem. 9, 1860, p. 439,
I would rather give av to Tonσα, and render 'I cannot help wondering
what the correction was by which he imagined he was going to make the
will more valid. The protasis to ἂν ποιῆσαι is contained in ὅ τι ἐπανορ-
Owσas and Cleonymus' thought might be expressed in the direct form by
τí èñavoplwσas яoinσaiµi v; Roeder, who defends (Beiträge p. 41 sqq.,
Ueber C. G. Cobet's Emendationen p. 10) the reading of A and Q (ýyoîr' äv
Toñoa), is driven to maintain not only that yoîr' av may be a past potential
αν
W. I.
14
210
OR. I.
ISAEUS
(II. 22. 4 22.), but also that Tonσai is legitimate, although he regards the
dependent action as belonging to the future.
The adversaries do not say that the form of the will was such as to
need 'confirmation.' They maintained that the drift of the proposed altera-
tions was to confirm the bequest to themselves in the sense that Cleonymus
did not desire to revoke the will or leave anything to his nephews.
4, 5 τοῖς γὰρ ἄλλοις οὗτος ὅρος ἐστὶ τῶν δωρεῶν. ' La règle est celle-ci:
quand un legs a été fait de cette manière, tout est dit' (Dareste). I take
ouros to mean 'To bequeath property by a will such as this.' Schoemann
interprets it as 'To bequeath property by will,' for his translation is 'A
will is generally regarded as a means of making bequests perfectly secure'
(denn sonst sieht man ja eben ein Testament als das Mittel an, Ver-
mächtnisse vollkommen zu sichern). Schoemann's analysis is approved by
Caccialanza and Luňák; the latter (Philol. 42, 1883, p. 284) gives the
following translation: denn sonst werden ja die testamentarischen Geschenke
nach dem Testament allein bestimmt. "Opos râv dwpeŵv is 'the point where
bequests stop, there being nothing beyond.' Though opos here in meaning
draws near to réλos, final and perfect shape or consummation, the primary
force of the word is clearly perceptible; after such a will there was nothing
more for Cleonymus to do, the form in which the bequest was made is
commonly considered ultimate. Similarly in Dem. 21. 105 éva öpov Déµevos
θέμενος
πavтì тρótæ µe åvedeîv the notion of 'limit' is not lost; Meidias, Demos-
thenes says, will stop at nothing short of my destruction.
25.2
TOÚTOɩs, neuter. Dareste and Caccialanza take it to be masculine
('in their favour').
αν
4 άvedeîv, tollere, aufheben, cannot be translated by a single verb in
English, since it means both 'take up,' corresponding to keiµevov (Plato,
Laws 913 B åvedeîv tην YŶ πаρakaтaðýêŋv), and 'make away with,' ‘abolish.'
Substitute Avσai for åveλeîv, and the hollowness of the sentence is manifest.
Isaeus is trying to evade an objection which might occur to a listener: ‘if
Cleonymus could write, why did he not make a will in your favour?' His
answer is 'Cleonymus' real object was to revoke his will and the only thing
he could 'retract' (revoke) was out of his reach.' The middle, åvaɩpéîσlaɩ,
is generally used to express the idea of 'taking up' (VI. 31. 5 n.), though the
active sometimes bears this sense even in Attic prose; compare Ant. 5. 42
TefiveŵTA ovvaveλeîv μoi (helped me in lifting up the corpse), [Alcid.] Odyss. 6
ἀνελὼν τὸν οἰστὸν δίδωμι Εὐρυβάτῃ, Xen. Cyr. 8. 8. 20 τοὺς παρατιθέντας καὶ
ȧvaiρoûvтas. But in the active, even when the original force of the verb is
still discernible, it takes its colour from the notions of removal and de-
struction ; see And. 1. 103 στήλας ἀνείλετε καὶ νόμους ἀκύρους ἐποιήσατε καὶ
ψηφίσματα ἐξηλείψατε, Dem. 25. 90 τὰ καλῶς οὕτω πεπηγότα...κινεῖ καὶ ἀναιρεῖ
καὶ μεταρρίπτει, 30. 28 ἃ μὲν οἷόν τ᾽ ἦν ἐξενεγκεῖν, ᾤχετο λαβὼν ὁ δ᾽ οὐχ οἷόν
τ᾽ ἦν ἀνελεῖν, ἐξ ἀνάγκης ὑπέλιπεν, 31. 4 τοὺς ὅρους ἀνεῖλε γενομένης τῆς δίκης,
[Dem.] 59. 90 τὴν ψῆφον διδόναι πρὶν τοὺς ξένους εἰσιέναι καὶ τὰ γέρρα ἀναιρεῖν.
7 ő
καὶ μηδὲ τοῦθ᾽, i.e. ὅ τι ἐβούλετο. With ἀμφισβητήσιμον ἐᾶν compare
Ant. I. 13 σιωπώμενον καὶ ἀβασάνιστον αὐτὸ ἐᾶσαι, Dem. 19. 258 τοῦτον ἀθῷον
ἐᾶσαι, 20. 64 τὰς στήλας ταύτας κυρίας ἐᾶν, Aesch. 1. 145 ἐάσας ἀτιμώρητον τὸν
τοῦ Πατρόκλου θάνατον, Lyc. 117 ἔρημον τὸν ἀγῶνα ἐάσαντα.
T
...
OR. I.
2II
COMMENTARY
26. 1 εἰ τοίνυν και. Cp. § 19. 6 n., Isocr. 14. 39 εἰ δ᾽ οὖν καὶ τἀναντία
μέλλοιεν ἅπαντα πράξειν, οὐδ᾽ οὕτως ἡγοῦμαι προσήκειν ὑμῖν τῆς Θηβαίων πόλεως
πλείω ποιήσασθαι λόγον ἢ τῶν ὅρκων.
7 ταῦτα is governed by διαθέμενον; compare Hyp. 3. 3 ὧν οὐδεμία
δήπου τῶν αἰτιῶν τούτων οὐδὲν κοινωνεῖ τῷ εἰσαγγελτικῷ νόμῳ, Kühner, Gr.
Gramm. II. § 561. 1, Anmerk. 2, p. 937.
8 ἐναντία καὶ τοῖς νόμοις κ.τ.λ. The appeal to law and justice is an idle
flourish; and it has not been shown that Cleonymus wished to cancel all the
dispositions of his will.
8,9 τῇ τοῦ τετελευτηκότος γνώμῃ. Cp. VII. 41 δικαίως ἂν αὐτῷ ταύτην τὴν χάριν
ἀποδοῖτε, τὴν ἐκείνου γνώμην περὶ τῶν αὑτοῦ κυρίαν εἶναι ποιήσαντες, Isocr. 19. 47
ἐπιδεῖν ἄκυρον μὲν τὴν ἐκείνων γνώμην οὖσαν, ἔρημον δὲ τὸν οἶκον γιγνόμενον.
27. 1 ἔτι τοίνυν. Cp. § 16. 3 n.
äv
او
4 τίνας ἂν ἄλλους...ἐβουλήθη. 'Whom else could he have wished (to have
the property)?' For the Potential of the Past see Gildersleeve, Syntax § 430,
Goodwin, M. & T. §§ 244, 412, Thompson on Plat. Meno 93 C, II. 20. 6
μὴ εἶναι συγγενῆ μηδένα ὁπόθεν ἂν ἐποιήσατο ὑόν, VII. 32. 2 πῶς ἂν προσεδό-
κησεν ; ΧΙΙ. 6. 3 οὐδ᾽ ἂν ὁ θεῖος...ἠθέλησεν ἄν. Frohberger on Lys. I. 44,
Anhang p. 186, asserts that the 'potentialis praeteriti' is normally (der
Regel nach) expressed by the Imperfect Indicative with av. Here is an
opportunity for grammarians with a taste for statistics.
ó
28. 2, 3 ékaσтоv ημŵv, not 'each of the nephews' but each member
of the contending parties.'
6 μóvovs. Cp. § 20. 6 n.
29.4 µndèv Tâν aúтoû ηµîv Sovval. Truth is sacrificed to the antithesis.
The judges were really asked to believe that Cleonymus, having satisfied in
his lifetime all the claims of kinship, did not wish his nephews to get any
part of his property when he died, and consequently did not intend to revoke
his will or to make any alterations in favour of the heirs-at-law. Though the
reading of Q (doûvai nµîv) removes a harsh hiatus, the antithetical member
(μiv peтadidóvai) supports the order of A. Cp. Crit. Introd. p. li.
6 ταῦτα μέν. Cp. § I. I n.
30-35 Had there been no change in Cleonymus' feelings since
the making of the will, their story might not unreasonably be believed by
some of you. Then he was at variance with Deinias, our guardian, not
yet familiar with us, on friendly terms with all our opponents. At the
time of his death he had fallen out with some of them, and was more in-
timate with us than with anybody. It is superfluous to tell the origin of
his difference with them. I will mention some striking indications of his
sentiments, which I shall be able to prove by testimony. He made a sacri-
fice to Dionysus to which he invited all his connexions and many of his
fellow-citizens, but gave no place to Pherenicus. Shortly before his death,
while going with Simon to Panormus, he met Pherenicus and would not
speak to him. Questioned by Simon, he narrated the history of the quarrel
and added the threat that he might show Pherenicus some day how he
felt towards him. Witnesses.
Do you believe now that Cleonymus wished to confirm the property to
them in spite of the enmity which he cherished, that he tried to do more
14-2
212
OR. I.
ISAEUS
injury to us in spite of the great intimacy and affection that had sprung
up between us? If they wished to attack the will or the deceased, what
else would they say? The will they make out to be wrong and disapproved
by the testator, the deceased they charge with such lunacy as to prize
enemies above friends, as to bequeath all his property to people with whom
he was not on speaking terms and not spare even a fraction for those
with whom he was most intimate. How can you ratify a will which the
testator condemned, which our adversaries set aside by consenting to share
equally with us, which we show to be contrary to law, to justice, and to
the purpose of the deceased?
Isaeus reckoned on the carelessness or stupidity of his audience. After
asserting that Cleonymus had fallen out with some of his opponents (Toúтwv
μέν τισι διάφορος ἐγένετο § 30), the speaker proves only that Cleonymus
cherished a grudge against one of them, Pherenicus (§§ 31, 32), and not-
withstanding proceeds to argue as if the testator were not on speaking terms
with any of them (οἷς μὲν ζῶν οὐδὲ διελέγετο, ἅπασαν δοῦναι τὴν οὐσίαν § 34).
After this we need not wonder that Isaeus shuts his eyes to the possibility
that Cleonymus meant to correct his will by cutting down the amount
left to Pherenicus. 'Il peut être utile de relever ce trait pour faire ap-
précier l'honnêteté de l'avocat et l'attention du tribunal. Ces sortes d'inex-
actitudes ne sont pas rares dans les plaidoyers athéniens.' (Moy, Les
Plaidoyers d'Isée, p. 143 n. 1.)
30. I
kaì vôv qualifies the participle exov, which contains the main
thought of the sentence; Isaeus shuns the awkwardness of eixev öt'
ÉTEλEÚTηOEV. Cobet derides the text. ‘Ludicrum uitium inest...Quorsum
refertur kaì vûv? Nempe ad éteλeútŋoev. Non datur ulla optio. Sed ab-
surdum hoc est εἰ καὶ νῦν ἐτελεύτησεν, quasi uero et antea diem obiisset,
quod quodammodo in histriones cadit, quorum unus tumulo suo inscribi
iussit: πολλάκις ἀποθανὼν ὧδε δ᾽ οὐδεπώποτε, in caeteros homines non items
(Mnem. 9, 1860, p. 444).
ἀμφοτέρους ἡμᾶς. Cp. § 3. 1 κ.
3 εἰκότως ἄν τις...πιστεύσειε. We expect εἰκὸς ἦν...πιστεῦσαι oι εἰκότως
åv TIS...étíoteve. But ei—éteλeútnoev is here ‘si mortuus est,' not ‘si mortuus
esset,' and we should translate 'if he died cherishing the sentiments which
inspired the will, you may (can) reasonably believe their statements.' The
protasis does not of itself imply that the condition is untrue; the unreality of
the hypothesis is reserved for subsequent demonstration. See Goodwin, M.
& T. §§ 404, 503, Gebauer on Lys. 13. 62 Anhang p. 413, Ant. Tetr. III. S.
4 εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὁ μὲν ἄρξας τῆς πληγῆς τύπτειν καὶ μὴ ἀποκτείνειν διενοήθη, ὁ
δὲ ἀμυνόμενος ἀποκτεῖναι, οὗτος ἂν ὁ ἐπιβουλεύσας εἴη· νῦν δὲ καὶ ὁ ἀμυνόμενος
τύπτειν καὶ οὐκ ἀποκτεῖναι διανοηθεὶς ἥμαρτεν, εἰς ἃ οὐκ ἐβούλετο πατάξας,
[Lys.] 15. 8, Isocr. 4. 102, Xen. Mem. 1. 2. 29. I am inclined to follow
Gebauer in assigning to this class Dem. 18. 206 εἰ μὲν τοίνυν τοῦτ᾽ ἐπεχείρουν
λέγειν, ὡς ἐγὼ προήγαγον ὑμᾶς ἄξια τῶν προγόνων φρονεῖν, οὐκ ἔσθ᾽ ὅστις
οὐκ ἂν εἰκότως ἐπιτιμήσειέ μοι (ἐπετίμησέ μοι AY, Dion., Blass). Goodwin
ad loc. and M. & T. § 504 considers the passage a not strictly logical com-
bination of a present unreal condition, if I were (now) undertaking, with a
future conclusion, everybody would justly censure me, but the imperfect
OR. I.
213
COMMENTARY
ἐπεχείρουν may refer to the glorification of Athens which the orator had
just completed. On the other hand it must be granted that Goodwin's view
is supported by Isocr. 12. 149 εἰ μὲν γὰρ μόνος ἐπίστευον τοῖς τε λεγομένοις περὶ
τῶν παλαιῶν καὶ τοῖς γράμμασι τοῖς ἐξ ἐκείνου τοῦ χρόνου παραδεδομένοις ἡμῖν,
εἰκότως ἂν ἐπιτιμῴμην (ἐπετιμώμην Ε)· νῦν δὲ πολλοὶ καὶ νοῦν ἔχοντες ταὐτὸν
ἐμοὶ φανεῖεν ἂν πεπονθότες. If the best MSS. are right here, Isocrates
cannot be acquitted of the charge of confusion; the optative in the apodosis
(ἂν ἐπιτιμῴμην) demands a present indicative (πιστεύω) in the protasis.
Compare Xen. Αn. 7. 6. 15 ἐπεί γε μὴν ψεύδεσθαι ἤρξατο Σεύθης περὶ τοῦ
μισθοῦ, εἰ μὲν ἐπαινῶ αὐτόν, δικαίως ἄν με καὶ αἰτιῷσθε καὶ μισοῖτε· εἰ δὲ
πρόσθεν αὐτῷ πάντων μάλιστα φίλος ὢν νῦν πάντων διαφορώτατός εἰμι, πῶς
ἂν ἔτι δικαίως ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν αἰτίαν ἔχοιμι; In Xen. Mem. 3. 5. 8 read with
Gilbert and B ἐξωρμῶμεν in place of ἐξορμῷμεν.
It is not certain that Tevoaι bears an accent in Q; over ev a small
mark is visible, which I take to mean a circumfex. Mai's πιστεύση is an
error.
4 vuvì Sè. Cp. II. 42. I, XII. 8. 4, Lys. 10. 3, 13. 22, 18. 17, 22. 12, 24. 11,
Dem. 21. 129, 23. 7, 24. 77, Lyc. 23, fr. 31 (Saupp.). The usual formula is
νῦν δὲ ( as it is, as it was ') ; see IV. 4. 5, 18. 7, VIII. 24. 6, ΧΙ. 5. 8, and
Gebauer's collections on Lys. 12. 62 Anhang p. 389 sqq. Hofmeister (Ueber
Gebrauch und Bedeutung des Iota demonstrativum bei den attischen Rednern,
1877, p. 42 sqq.) argues that vvvì refers logically to the present (‘an ex-
tended present'), even when used with the future (IX. 24. 8, XII. 8. 4), the
aorist ind. (Lys. 17. 5, Dem. 2. 14, 18. 76, 23. 186, 24. 77, 55. 6, Ar. Nub.
786, 825), and the imperfect (Ar. Ran. 791), and consequently he changes νυνὶ
to νῦν in Lys. 22. 12 νυνὶ δ᾽ ἐνιότε τῆς αὐτῆς ἡμέρας ἐπώλουν δραχμῇ τιμιώτερον.
But he is wrong in saying that in the orators vuvì with an Imperfect only
occurs twice (Lys. 22. 12, 26. 10) ; see Dem. 18. 14, 22 (ἡλίκην νυνὶ διεξῄεις
followed by ἃ νῦν κατηγόρεις), 23. 191, [Dem.] 33. 32 (εἰ μὴ ἐμὲ νυνὶ ἐδίωκε).
Their choice of vûv or vuvi was determined by considerations of euphony and
rhythm, not by any substantial difference in the meaning of the two words.
31. 6 οὐδαμοῦ παρεστήσατο. Cp. VIII. 17. 3 τόνδ' ἂν αὑτῷ παρίστατο
(at a sacrifice), IV. 13. 4, IX. 9. 2.
αν
7 εἰς Πάνορμον. Panorimo, a harbour (now silted up) on the S.E. coast of
Attica, about midway between Sunium and Thoricus; see Leake, The Demi
of Attica, ed. 2, II. p. 68, Milchhoefer, Karten von Attika, Erläuternder Text,
Heft III-VI. p. 28.
8 προσειπεῖν οὐκ ἐτόλμησεν, adloqui non sustinuit, & could not bear, could
not bring himself, to speak to him'; compare XI. 37. 6, And. 2. 7, [And.] 4. 35,
Lys. 12. 5, 32. 2, [Lys.] 2. 50, 6. 49, Isocr. 4. 57, 7. 82, Dem. 29. 34, [Dem.] 49. 23,
59. 44, 95, Aesch. 2. 148, Lyc. 43, Din. 1.21. Οὐκ ἐτόλμησε is the prose equivalent
of ouk ëtλŋ—Aristotle (Rhet. 3. 7. 1408 b 17) and Dionysius (De ui Dem. 40)
read ἔτλησαν in Isocr. 4. 96, where our Mss. have ἐτόλμησαν—but its range is
restricted by the competition of οὐχ ὑπέμεινε and οὐκ ἠνέσχετο ; note Antisth.
Αίαχ. 5 ὁ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν ὅ τι ἂν δράσειε φανερῶς, ἐγὼ δὲ οὐδὲν ἂν λάθρα
τολμήσαιμι πρᾶξαι. κἀγὼ μὲν οὐκ ἂν ἀνασχοίμην κακῶς ἀκούων, ὁ δὲ κἂν
κρεμάμενος, εἰ κερδαίνειν τι μέλλοι. The orators, unlike Plato (Crit. 53 D,
Rep. 360 B, Laws 840 B), very rarely use τολμᾶν in its primary sense of
enduring,' unless it is accompanied by a negative or stands in a question to
214
OR. I.
ISAEUS
which a negative answer is expected; an exception is found in Din. 1. 16
τίς οὐκ ἂν καταγελάσειεν ὑμῶν τῶν τοῦτο τολμώντων ἀκούειν; Plato sometimes
copies the use of the tragic poets. He constructs roλuâv with a participle in
Laws 872 Ε εἰ πατέρα ἀπέκτεινέ ποτε τις, αὐτὸν τοῦτο ὑπὸ τέκνων τολμῆσαι
βίᾳ πάσχοντα ; compare Eur. Herc. Fur. 755 ἀντίποινα δ᾽ ἐκτίνων τόλμα,
διδούς γε τῶν δεδραμένων δίκην. In Laws 661 A Tyrtaeus' line τετλαίη μὲν
ὁρῶν φόνον αἱματόεντα appears in the form ὃς ἄδικος ὢν μήτε τολμῷ ὁρῶν
φόνον αἱματόεντα μήτε κ.τ.λ. Photius s.v. τολμῆσαι explains these two passages
from the Laws by the glosses ὑπομεῖναι and ὑπομένοι. But even Plato has no
example of Toλuâv with an accusative of the thing submitted to (Eur. Hec. 337
τὸ δοῦλον ὡς κακὸν πέφυκ᾽ ἀεί, τολμᾷ θ᾽ ἃ μὴ χρὴ τῇ βίᾳ νικώμενον).
32. Ι, 2 πυνθανομένου. For the present participle see § 1 I. 2 n. Here
the aorist is inadmissible, because the usual meaning of πυθομένος τὴν
διαφορὰν is having heard of the quarrel (V. 32. 5). In Attic the sense of
'enquire' (sciscitari) is almost confined to the present, imperfect, and future
οἱ πυνθάνεσθαι, never being found with the perfect, hardly ever with the
aorist. I know only one certain example of the aorist with this signification,
viz. Arist. Αv. 1420 Π. ἀλλ᾽ ὅτου χρὴ δεῖ λέγειν. Σ. πτερῶν πτερῶν δεῖ· μὴ πύθῃ
τὸ δεύτερον. In Aesch. 3. 343 (ἐπερώτησον δὴ τοὺς δικαστάς, εἰ ἐγίγνωσκον
Χαβρίαν καὶ Ἰφικράτην καὶ Τιμόθεον, καὶ πυθοῦ παρ᾽ αὐτῶν, διὰ τί τὰς δωρεὰς
αὐτοῖς ἔδοσαν...ἅπαντες γὰρ ἅμα ἀποκρινοῦνται ὅτι Χαβρίᾳ μὲν διὰ τὴν περὶ
Νάξον ναυμαχίαν κ.τ.λ.) it is possible to take πυθοῦ as learn. But there
can be no doubt that πυθέσθαι in Χen. Cyr. 2. 4. 7 is a synonym of ἐρωτῆσαι
(Phot. πυθόμενος· ἐρωτήσας, Hesych. πυθοῦ· ἐρώτησον) and that Plutarch
freely uses the aorist with the meaning enquire'; see Mor. 228 D ἐπύθετό
τις τὴν αἰτίαν, ib. 109 A ἐπισκήψαντος τοῖς πεμφθεῖσιν εἰς θεοῦ πυθέσθαι τί
ἄριστόν ἐστιν ἀνθρώποις, Lyc. 19 περὶ τῶν θυσιῶν πρὸς τὸν πυθόμενον, διὰ
τί μικρὰς οὕτω καὶ εὐτελεῖς ἔταξεν κ.τ.λ. For the accusative after πυνθανομένου
cp. Ant. Tetr. I. δ. 5 πυνθανόμενον τοὺς κακούργους (asking who were the
criminals), Aesch. 2. 36 ἐκπλαγέντος δὲ οὐκ ἐμοῦ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν συμπρέσβεων
ἁπάντων, καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν πυνθανομένων δι᾽ ἣν ταῦτ᾽ εἶπεν, Lyc. 86 προσελθόντων
αὐτῷ δυοῖν ἀνδρῶν ἐκ τοῦ στρατοπέδου καὶ τὰ κατὰ τὴν πόλιν πυνθανομένων,
Din. I. 27 τοὺς μὲν γὰρ τυχόντας τῶν κρινομένων, ὅταν ἁλῶσιν, οὐδεὶς οἶδεν
οὐδὲ ζητεῖ πυθέσθαι τί πεπόνθασι· τοὺς δ᾽ ἐνδόξους πάντες πυνθάνονται, καὶ
τοὺς δικάζοντας ἐπαινοῦσιν, ὅταν τὸ δίκαιον μὴ πρόωνται ταῖς τῶν κρινομένων
δόξαις. The same construction is found with ἐρωτᾶν (Dem. 37. 11 τοὺς
ἀμφισβητοῦντας (who were the claimants) καὶ τί ταῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν ἠρώτων).
3 προσηπείλησεν. Cp. v. 24. 4 κ., Aesch. 2. 156 ἐπιδακρύσας καὶ τὴν
Ελλάδα κατοδυράμενος καὶ Σάτυρον τὸν κωμικὸν ὑποκριτὴν προσεπαινέσας.
δηλώσειέ ποτ' ἂν. Dobree's correction approved by Buermann Hermes
19, p. 336) is palaeographically more probable than δηλώσει ποτε (Baiter and
Sauppe) or δηλώσοι ποτε (Cobet), but it must be admitted that δηλώσω ποτε
expresses anger and menace more energetically than δηλώσαιμι ποτ᾽ ἄν, ‘Ι
may show some day.' For av with the future see V. 23. I, XI. 47. 10, II,
Gildersleeve, Syntax §§ 432, 441, Η. Richards, Classical Review VI. (1892)
p. 336 sqq.
4 κάλει μάρτυρας. Cp. § 16. 5 n. Roeder, Beiträge pp. 23, 24, concludes
that Simon did not appear as a witness, partly because the crier is not
expressly ordered to call him, partly on account of the absence of the article
OR. I.
215
COMMENTARY
with μάρτυρας, and builds upon this basis a theory that Simon was one of the
testamentary heirs. But, if Simon was not called, how did Isaeus prove the
conversation with Cleonymus, hearsay evidence (ἀκοὴν μαρτυρεῖν) being for-
bidden by law (VI. 53. 6 n.)? Roeder is reduced to conjecturing that other
persons (not mentioned by the orator) happened to be present and overhear
Cleonymus threat. Compare [Dem.] 58. 33 καί μοι κάλει Φιλιππίδην τὸν
Παιανιέα, πρὸς ὃν ἔλεγε ταῦτα Θεοκρίνης ουτοσί, καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους οἱ συνίσασι
τούτῳ ταῦτα λέγοντι.
33. 1 πρὸς ἑκατέρους ἡμᾶς. Cp. § 3. I n. The construction is modelled
on that of ἀμφοτέρους ἡμᾶς (§ 30. 1) and it is not necessary to read ἡμῶν ;
see 'Αθ. Πολ. col. XXXII. 33 ἑκατέρους τούς κύβους, Thuc. 4. 96. 2 ἑκατέρων
τῶν στρατοπέδων, 3. 55. 3 ἃ δὲ ἑκάτεροι ἐξηγεῖσθε, Isocr. 12. 59 ὡς ἑκάτεροι
προσηνέχθημεν, 12. 159, 160, Lys. 12. 53 πολλὰς ἑκάτεροι ἐλπίδας εἴχομεν,
Ant. Tetr. II. δ. I ἡμεῖς μὲν οἱ ἀντίδικοι...δίκαια ἑκάτεροι αὑτοὺς οἰόμεθα λέγειν.
In support of the genitive may be quoted Thuc. 3. 62. 3 σκέψασθε ἐν
οἵῳ εἴδει ἑκάτεροι ἡμῶν τοῦτο ἔπραξαν, Isocr. 5. 42 οὗ (Ξέρξου) τὴν φιλίαν ἅπαντες
ἴσασιν ἡμᾶς τε καὶ Λακεδαιμονίους μᾶλλον ἀγαπήσαντας ἢ τῶν συγκατασκευασάντων
ἑκατέροις ἡμῶν τὴν ἀρχήν, 4. 41 (ἑκατέροις αὐτῶν), 5. 150 (ἑκάτερα τούτων),
15. 305 (ἑκατέρους αὐτῶν), [Dem.] 12. 10 (ἑκατέρους αὐτῶν), Aesch. 2. 81,
3. 168 (ἑκάτερα τούτων). In Dem. 20. 18 (ὧν ἑκατέρων), Isocr. 8. 124 (ἐφ'
ἑκατέρων αὐτῶν), 10. 13 (περὶ ἑκατέρων αὐτῶν) the construction is ambiguous.
>
3 ὅπως μηδὲ λόγον ὑπολείψει. Cobet objects to the phrase ὑπολείπειν
λόγον. • Scheibe...sententiae labem non animaduertit, quam ego, si potero,
sic patefaciam ὥστε μηδένα αὐτῷ λόγον ἀπολιπεῖν, id est ut nihil habeat
quod dicat aut contra dicat. Hoc enim sensu, ut nemo nescit, Graece dicitur
quis οὐδένα λόγον τινι ἀπολείπειν (Mnem. 9, 1860, p. 438). This hasty asser-
tion is easily refuted by Roeder (Beiträge p. 63, Ueber C. G. Cobet's Emen-
dationen der attischen Redner p. 13), who cites Ant. Tetr. II. β. 4 οὐδεὶς ἡμῖν
λόγος ὑπελείπετο, ib. 5. 16, And. 3. 18, 26, Lys. 7. 2o (where Cobet himself
reads with Franz ὑπέλιπες, though X has ἀπέλιπες), 31. 15, Isocr. 4. 146,
Thuc. 8. 2. 2. A closer scrutiny of the argument would have saved the great
Dutch scholar from a deplorable 'emendation, ὅπως μηδ᾽ ὀβολὸν ἀπολείψει.
The obscurity, which has puzzled several critics, is the consequence of a
false antithesis ; one and the same thought is expressed by οὕτως ποιεῖν ὅπως
μηδὲ λόγον ὑπολείψει and σκοπεῖν ὅπως βεβαιώσει κ.τ.λ. After granting in
§ 24 that the form of the testament was unexceptionable, Isaeus reverts again
to the sophism that according to the adversaries Cleonymus sent for the
magistrates because he wished to 'confirm' the will, i.e. to deprive the
nephews of any chance of raising a claim (SS 18, 19), ' to leave them without
a word to say.' The judges are asked whether this version of Cleonymus'
intentions is credible. Roeder op. cit. contends that the requisite sense can
be extracted from the reading of A (ὥστε μηδὲ λόγον ὑπολείψειν), which he
translates by 'Do you believe that Cleonymus' action showed that it was his
intention not to concede us even the possibility of an objection?' (Glaubt ihr
dass...(er) so handelte dass er uns auch nicht die Möglichkeit zu einem Ein-
spruch hätte einräumen wollen?). If there is one thing certain in Greek
Syntax, it is that the future infinitive after &σte expresses consequence ; see
Gildersleeve, Am. Journ. Philol. VII. 1886, pp. 173, 174, Goodwin, M. & Τ.
216
OR. I.
ISAEUS
88 591, 594. When the negative is οὐ, as it commonly is, this is obvious, but
it is also unmistakable, when the negative is μὴ ; see Dem. 9. 67 τηλικαύτην
ἡγεῖσθαι πόλιν οἰκεῖν τὸ μέγεθος, ὥστε μηδ᾽ ἂν ὁτιοῦν ᾖ δεινὸν πείσεσθαι, Isocr.
12. 155 οὕτως οἶμαι σαφῶς ἐπιδείξειν ὥστε μήτε τοὺς ἀνοήτως λακωνίζοντας ἀντει-
πεῖν δυνήσεσθαι τοῖς ῥηθεῖσι μήτε κ.τ.λ. Matters are not mended by substituting
tendency for result and changing υπολείψειν to ὑπολείπειν (‘Do you believe
that Cleonymus so acted as to leave us,' etc.); the question for the judges is
not what Cleonymus did, but what he meant to do. Υπολείπειν is only
tolerable, if ἂν be added after οἴεσθε: ' Do you think that Cleonymus would
have so acted as to leave us' etc. But this remedy is inapplicable, because
σκοπείν does not need v. I concur with Bekker and Schoemann in preferring
the reading of Q, ὅπως--ὑπολείψει, which is intelligible. Not that we are
done with difficulties. The ordinary way of stating Cleonymus' object in
the oratorical style would have been πράττειν (or τοῦτο πράττειν) ὅπως...
ὑπολείψει. The nearest analogy from an orator is Dem. 19. 299 φησὶ δέ γ' ἡ
y
μαντεία δεῖν ὅπως ἂν μὴ χαίρωσιν οἱ ἐχθροὶ ποιεῖν, where the old-fashioned
ὅπως ἂν (VII. 30. 9 n.) is an echo from the language of the oracle, καὶ τὴν
πόλιν συνέχειν ὅπως ἂν μίαν γνώμην ἔχωσιν ἅπαντες καὶ μὴ τοῖς ἐχθροῖς
ἡδονὴν ποιῶσι ; compare [Dem.] pro. 50. 3 Ιφικράτης ἔφη δεῖν οὕτω προαιρεῖ-
σθαι κινδυνεύειν τὸν στρατηγόν, ὅπως μὴ τὰ ἢ τὰ γενήσεται, ἀλλ᾽ ὅπως τά, Plat.
Rep. 403 Β οὕτως ὁμιλεῖν...ὅπως μηδέποτε δόξει κ.τ.λ. For exact parallels we
have to go to 'two vagrom men who are often found straying outside of
Attic syntax (Gildersleeve, op. cit. p. 167), Herodotus (7. 18 ποίεε δὲ οὕτω
ὅκως...τῶν σῶν ἐνδεήσει μηδὲν) and Xenophon (Cyr. 6. 3. 28 σὺ δὲ...οὕτω ποίει
ὅπως τὰ ζεύγη... ἕψεται, ib. 7. 3. 10). The fault in A may be classified under
grammatical assimilation (Crit. Introd. p. xxxix), οὕτως producing ὥστε.
Moreover I think with Dobson that the scribe first wrote vroλeive and
added afterwards. If I may argue from his silence, Buermann disagrees.
6 ταύτης ὑπούσης τῆς ἔχθρας, 'in spite of this enmity which he harboured
at heart'; compare Dem. 18. 36 ταῦτα δ᾽ ἀσμένως ἤκουον αὐτοῦ διὰ τὴν τόθ᾽
ὑποῦσαν ὑπάρχουσαν Aug.1, Naber) ἀπέχθειαν πρὸς τοὺς Θηβαίους (on account
of the undercurrent of enmity between Athens and Thebes, the hostile feeling
which then underlay their apparently pacific relations), 18. 315 τοῖς μὲν
ζῶσι πᾶσιν ὕπεστί τις ἢ πλείων ἢ ἐλάττων φθόνος, Isocr. 12. 1ο ἐλπίδες
ὕπεισιν. Naber (Mnem. N. S. 5, 1877, p. 391) asserts that the notion of
concealment is inappropriate to the context. Hitzig, Studien zu Isaeus, p. 8,
defends úrovσns on a different ground, that it is here identical in sense with
ὑπαρχούσης citing Hdt. 1. 31 τούτοισι...βίος τε ἀρκέων ὑπῆν καὶ πρὸς τούτῳ ῥωμὴ
σώματος τοιήδε, and Thuc. 8. 36. I τὰ ἐκ τῆς Ἰάσου μεγάλα χρήματα
διαρπασθέντα ὑπῆν τοῖς στρατιώταις, on which Goodhart remarks that
ὑπεῖναι seems to differ from ὑπάρχειν in meaning to be all along instead
of ' to be to start with. For this use in the orators see [Dem.] 26. 4 τὸ γὰρ
τιμωρησόμενον οὐχ ὑπέσται τῆς πολιτείας καταλυθείσης, 56. 13 ἡμᾶς ὑπολαμ
βάνων οὐκ ἂν ἐθελῆσαι λαβεῖν τὸ ἀργύριον διὰ τὰς ὑπούσας αἰτίας, Isocr. 4. 82
τοῖς μὲν γὰρ οὐχ ὕπεισι πράξεις.
v
Ι
τό
7 μᾶλλον κακῶς ποιεῖν. Cp. § 18. 6 σκοπεῖν ὅπως ἔτι βεβαιότερον ἡμᾶς
ἀποστερήσει τῶν αὑτοῦ, § 19. 4 μᾶλλον βεβαιοῦν τὴν διαθήκην βουλόμενον.
ὅ τι ἂν εἶπον. I do not know what else they would say, not
34.2
OR. I.
217
COMMENTARY
would have said.' For the aorist with av in opposition to the present see
Gildersleeve, Syntax § 429, who quotes Ar. Eg. 1276 sqq. εἰ μὲν οὖν ἄνθρωπος,
ὃν δεῖ πόλλ᾽ ἀκοῦσαι καὶ κακά, | αὐτὸς ἦν ἔνδηλος, οὐκ ἂν ἀνδρὸς ἐμνήσθην
φίλου. | νῦν δ᾽ Αρίγνωτον γὰρ οὐδεὶς ὅστις οὐκ ἐπίσταται, Goodwin, Μ. & Τ.
§ 414, Thompson on Plat. Meno 72 B. This rare idiom affords an explanation
of Dem. 19. 214 εἰ ἐκρινόμην μὲν ἐγώ, κατηγόρει δ᾽ Αἰσχίνης οὑτοσί, Φίλιππος δ᾽
ἦν ὁ κρίνων, εἶτ᾽ ἐγὼ μηδὲν ἔχων εἰπεῖν ὡς οὐκ ἀδικῶ, κακῶς ἔλεγον τουτονὶ καὶ
προπηλακίζειν ἐπεχείρουν, οὐκ ἂν οἴεσθε καὶ κατ᾿ αὐτὸ τοῦτ᾽ ἀγανακτῆσαι τὸν
Φίλιππον, εἰ παρ᾽ ἐκείνῳ τοὺς ἐκείνου τις εὐεργέτας κακῶς λέγει (λέγει ΣFYQ,
uolg. ante Reisk., Blass, λέγοι AP, Turr., Shill., Voemel, Dind.), [Dem.] 17. 3
εἰ δή τις ἐρωτήσειεν ἐπὶ τίνι ἂν μάλιστ᾽ ἀγανακτήσαιτ᾽ εἴ τις ἀναγκάζοι, οἶμαι ἄν, εἰ
ἦσαν κατὰ τὸν νυνὶ χρόνον οἱ Πεισιστρατίδαι καί τις ἐβιάζετο κατάγειν αὐτοὺς
δευρί, ἁρπάσαντας ἂν ὑμᾶς τὰ ὅπλα πάντα κίνδυνον ὑπομεῖναι ἀντὶ τοῦ
παραδέξασθαι, ἢ πεισθέντας γε δουλεύειν ἀντὶ τῶν ἀργυρωνήτων (‘nam si id
uobis persuaderi siuissetis, seruiretis' Blass), Lyc. 66 ei tis éva vóµov eis tò
Μητρῷον ἐλθὼν ἐξαλείψειεν, εἶτ᾽ ἀπολογοῖτο, ὡς οὐδὲν παρὰ τοῦτον τῇ πόλει ἐστίν,
ἆρ᾽ οὐκ ἂν ἀπεκτείνατ᾽ αὐτόν; ἐγὼ μὲν οἶμαι δικαίως, εἴπερ ἐμέλλετε καὶ τοὺς
ἄλλους σῴζειν.
4, 5 μανίαν κατηγορούσιν. Cp. §§ 19, 20, 21, 50.
7 οὐδὲ διελέγετο. Cp. Lys. 3. 31 τούτῳ μὲν οὐδὲ διελέγετο, ἀλλ᾽ ἐμίσει πάντων
ἀνθρώπων μάλιστα, [Dem.] 43. 59 Μακαρτάτῳ δὲ τούτῳ οὐδὲ οὐδὲν libri : corr.
Blass) διαλέγονται (οἱ νόμοι). For the similarity of δε and δι see Crit.
Introd. p. xlvii.
δοῦναι. δοῦναι βούλεσθαι would be a more faithful representation of the
facts. The bequest was prior to the difference with Pherenicus.
7, 8 οἰκειότατα κεχρημένους: οἰκειότητα κεκτημένους AQ. The source of the
corruption is indicated by Q, in which οἰκειότητα, χρηστότητος are written
οἰκειόττα, χρηστόττος (Crit. Introd. p. xlix).
nents.
estate.
35.4,5 πρὸς δὲ τούτοις κ.τ.λ. The clause does not contain an additional
(πρὸς τούτοις) ground for annulling the will, but is only an arbitrary de-
duction from ἃς ὁ μὲν διαθέμενος ὡς οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἐχούσας ἀπεδοκίμασεν: com-
pare § 26 ταύτας τὰς διαθήκας ἀξιοῦσιν εἶναι κυρίας, ἃς ὁμολογοῦσι μηδὲ αὐτὸν
τὸν διαθέμενον ταῦτα ὀρθῶς ἔχειν ἡγεῖσθαι, καὶ πείθουσιν ὑμᾶς ἐναντία καὶ
τοῖς νόμοις καὶ τῷ δικαίῳ καὶ τῇ τοῦ τετελευτηκότος γνώμῃ ψηφίσασθαι.
36-38 You will learn best the justice of our cause from our oppo-
Ask them on what they rest their claim to inherit Cleonymus'
They will reply that they are somehow related to him and that
for a time he was friendly with them. Will not this answer be in favour
of us rather than of them? We are nearer relations, we, as all the world
knows, were on more friendly terms with him. You are in the habit of
voting for claimants who prove one of two things, either that they are
nearer by blood or that they are nearer in affection. It will be very hard
if you decide that we alone are to have no share in Cleonymus' estate,
when, by the admission of all, we possess both these qualifications.
Isaeus quietly assumes that the authority of Cleonymus' will is now
destroyed, and in these sections prepares the way for the second division
(§§ 39-47) of the speech, a selection of commonplaces, which could be used
in any attack on a testament.
218
OR. I.
ISAEUS
36. Ι οἶμαι δὲ. ‘The orators are fond of using for transitions the verbs
I
of believing (ἡγεῖσθαι, οἴεσθαι, νομίζειν), most frequently in combination with
dé.' (Gebauer on Lys. 25. 18 Anhang p. 492 sqq., who has collected many
examples.)
τὸ περὶ ἡμῶν δίκαιον.
Isaeus might have written τὸ ἡμέτερον δίκαιον
(VII. 37. I, Ant. 5. 7, And. 2. 9, Dem. 24. 3) or even τὸ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν δίκαιον
([Dem.] Ep. 2. 10). Here πepì is produced by the influence of the verb
πυνθάνεσθαι ; compare XI. 17. 3 οἱ λέγοντες τὸ περὶ αὐτῆς γένος. On the other
hand in Dem. 37. 21 ἵνα μή τις οἴηται τοῖς περὶ τῶν πραγμάτων αὐτῶν δικαίοις
ἁλισκόμενόν μ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἀποχωρείν and in [Dem.] 56. 45 τὰ μὲν οὖν περὶ τοῦ
πράγματος δίκαια βραχέα ἐστὶ καὶ εὐμνημόνευτα the preposition is a means of
avoiding a harsh personification.
4 γένει ποθὲν προσήκουσι. Cp. III. 63. 4, 5 τον μηδαμόθεν μηδὲν γένει προσή-
κοντα Πύρρῳ.
37.2 ἴσασιν ἅπαντες. Cp. 111. 40. 2n. No testimony has been produced.
3 διακείμενον, an imperfect; see § 4. 2 7., Dem. 29. 38 περὶ τοῦ γ' ἐλέφαντος
καὶ τοῦ σιδήρου, πάντας ἐγώ φημι τοὺς οἰκέτας εἰδέναι τοῦτον πωλοῦντα.
...
38. I τοῖς μὲν ἄλλοις ψηφίζεσθε. For the dative see § 41. 2, ΙΧ. 34. I,
37. 7, Dem. 21. 188, 24. 35. The change of ψηφίζοισθε το ψηφίζεσθε, first
proposed by Hertlein (Hermes 12, p. 184), produces a sentence of a familiar
type; compare VI. 2. 3 n., X. 23. 7 n., XII. 4. 7, [Dem.] 40. 46 kai yàp ầv
εἴη δεινὸν εἰ αὐτοὶ μὲν ἐμμένετε ταῖς ὁμολογίαις...τούτῳ δὲ νῦν μνησικακεῖν
ἐπιτρέψετε (ἐπιτρέψαιτε Schaefer, Blass, Sandys), [Dem.] 26. 24 πῶς δ᾽ οὐκ
ἂν εἴη τὸ συμβαῖνον ἄλογον εἰ νομοθετοῦντες μὲν ὀργίζεσθε τοῖς πονηροῖς, ἐπ᾿
αὐτοφώρῳ δέ τινας εἰληφότες ἀθῴους ἐάσετε (ἐάσαιτε Cobet, Blass), Aesch. 3. 244
καὶ γὰρ ἂν εἴη δεινόν, εἰ τὰ μὲν ξύλα καὶ τοὺς λίθους καὶ τὸν σίδηρον...ἐάν τῷ
ἐμπεσόντα ἀποκτείνῃ, ὑπερορίζομεν...Δημοσθένην δὲ ὑμεῖς τιμήσετε, Hdt. 7. 9
καὶ γὰρ δεινὸν ἂν εἴη πρῆγμα εἰ Σάκας μὲν καὶ Ἰνδοὺς καὶ Αἰθίοπας...κατα-
στρεψάμενοι δούλους ἔχομεν, Ἕλληνας δέ οὐ τιμωρησόμεθα. Similarly the
present indicative should be restored in Lys. 18. 15 οὐκ οὖν αἰσχρόν, εἰ ..τοῖς
μὲν ἄλλοις Ἕλλησιν ὀργίζοισθε (ὀργιεῖσθε οι ὀργίζεσθε Aldina Contii, ὀργίζοισθ᾽
ἂν Gebauer), εἴ τις Λακεδαιμονίους ὑμῶν περὶ πλείονος ποιεῖται, ὑμεῖς δ᾽ αὐτοὶ
φανήσεσθε πιστότερον πρὸς ἐκείνους ἢ πρὸς ὑμᾶς αὐτοὺς διακείμενοι; In the
present passage, as in Lys. 18. 15, Gebauer, De arg. ex contr. formis p. 197,
prefers to add ἂν (ψηφίζοισθ᾽ ἂν) in spite of the proximity of ὅταν. Bekker,
Schoemann, the Zürich editors, and Scheibe retain the reading of the MSS.,
ὀργίζοισθε-ἀξιώσετε. Cobet (Mnem. 9, 1860, p. 444) and Buermann change
ἀξιώσετε το ἀξιώσαιτε. Many examples of periods in this form with two
optatives) can be found in our Mss., e.g. Isocr. 15. 165 πάντων ἂν συμβαίη
δεινότατον, εἰ οἱ μὲν δεδωκότες μοι χρήματα τοσαύτην ἔχοιεν (ἔχουσι οι εἶχον
Hertlein) χάριν ὥστ᾽ ἔτι καὶ νῦν με θεραπεύειν, ὑμεῖς δ᾽ εἰς οὓς ἀνήλωκα τἀμαυτοῦ,
δίκην ἐπιθυμήσαιτε παρ᾿ ἐμοῦ λαβεῖν, ib. ep. 2. 2, 15, Lys. 18. 8 ; 21. 22 ; 24. 23;
29.9, 11. All these instances are attacked either by Cobet (N. L. p. 361 sqq.)
or Hertlein. Gebauer op. cit. p. 201 sqq. upholds the tradition of the MSS
and contends that the present optative in the first member is put for the
present indicative ‘by attraction.' My own feeling is that emendation is neces-
sary wherever it is impossible to refer both the first and second optative to the
κατὰ
same time, i.e. to the future. If it is legitimate to write δεινὸν ἂν εἴη
OR. I.
219
COMMENTARY
μὲν τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ νομιζομένων παίδων οἱ περὶ τῶν γονέων ἰσχύσουσι
νόμοι, κατὰ δὲ τῶν αὑτοὺς εἰσβιαζομένων ἄκοντας ποιεῖσθαι ἄκυροι γενήσονται
(Dem. 39. 33), why should we stumble over Lys. 29. 11 deivòv av ein ei oi µèv
τὰ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν ἀπολλύμενα τοῖς κλέπταις συνειδότες τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἐνέχοιντο
(ἐνέχονται Cobet), οὗτος δὲ τὰ τῆς πόλεως Ἐργοκλεῖ συνειδὼς κλέπτοντι μὴ τῆς
αὐτῆς τιμωρίας τύγχανοι? But in Isocr. 15. 165 ἔχοιεν cannot be treated as a
future, and should be altered.
2 θάτερα τούτων. Cp. § 22. 5 π.
$
3 τῇ φιλίᾳ τῇ πρὸς τὸν τετελευτηκότα. Cp. § 17. 3 n.
39, 40 If Polyarchus, Cleonymus' father and our grandfather, were
alive and in want, or if Cleonymus had left daughters in poverty, the
law would oblige us to maintain our grandfather, to marry or portion
Cleonymus' daughters. Will you compel the next-of-kin to share in mis-
fortunes, but, when property has been left, make others heirs? This will
not be just, not in your own interest, not in accordance with the laws.
The claimants in or. VIII. also call upon the court to grant them the estate
of Ciron, their alleged maternal grandfather, on the ground that the law
would have imposed on them the burden of keeping him, if he had been
penniless (§ 32); compare [Dem.] 44. 66. Here Cleonymus' nephews ignore
the fact that their uncle could not have inherited the family estate if he had
died before his father, and that, if Cleonymus were dead and Polyarchus
alive, their mother would be the heiress, with indefeasible rights to the suc-
cession. The other argument loses much of its force, when we reflect that
if Cleonymus had died intestate, leaving daughters with property, the
nephews, as next-of-kin, would have had a legal right to marry them and
enjoy the usufruct of the estate for a considerable period (Beauchet I.
p. 440 sqq.).
39. 3 ἀπορουμένας, medial and in sense undistinguishable from ἀπορούσας.
The examples of this use in the orators are Lys. 3. 9, 9. 5, Dem. 27. 53
(ảπopηßeìs), [Dem.] 33. 6, 49. 13, 17, 22, 64, 68, 50. 47 (åπopnlévтi), 53. 13, 59.
103, 113, Aesch. 2. 132; in Dem. 54. 12 åπopovµévwv is a passive. The
first instance from the inscriptions belongs to the middle of the 4th century
(C. I. A. II. 1 1 5 b 34, S. I. G. κ. 137 ὅπως ἂν δὲ μὴ ἀπορῆται τ[ροφῆς Πει]σιθείδης).
Schoemann seeks to establish a distinction between ἀπορεῖν and ἀπορεῖσθαι,
which he seems to regard as passive in all cases: 'puellae àñорovσai erunt
inopes simpliciter, àñopoúµevaι autem, quae patris morte inopes factae sunt.'
4, 5 γηροτροφεῖν ἠναγκαζόμεθα, by ὁ τῆς κακώσεως νόμος (VIII. 32. 2,
Lys. 13.91), which was attributed to Solon (Ar. Av. 1354 év taîs tŵv ñeλapyŵv
Kúρßeσiv, Dem. 24. 103, Aesch. 1. 28, Diog. Laert. I. 55). The exact title
was yovéwv kákwσis (TOKéwv Lyc. 147), and the speaker of or. VIII. is careful
to explain to the judges that the term yoveîs would include a grandfather
(§ 32); Plato (Laws 931 A D E) concurs with this interpretation. The law
seems to have specified at least four offences, τὸ τύπτειν, τὸ μὴ τρέφειν, τὸ μὴ
πaρéɣew оiênσi (Lys. 13. 91, Aesch. 1. 13, 28, Ar. Av. 757), and, what is an
interesting index of ancient sentiment, τὸ τοὺς τάφους μὴ κοσμεῖν (Xen. Mem.
2. 2. 13) or τὸ τοὺς γονέας τῶν νομίμων, τῶν νομιζομένων, ἀποστερείν (Lys. 31. 21,
Dem. 24. 107, Lyc. 144, Din. 2. 8, 18). The procedure by which the law
was enforced was the γραφὴ γονέων κακώσεως which came before the Archon ;
220
OR. I.
ISAEUS
the prosecutor was not subject to a penalty, if he failed to obtain one fifth of
the votes, and his eloquence was untrammelled by the κλεψύδρα, the action
being one of the δίκαι ἄνευ ὕδατος; see ᾿Αθ. Πολ. c. 56. 6, Harp. s.vv.
κακώσεως, εἰσαγγελία. In Plato's legislation (Laws 932 A sqq.) it is or-
dained that the neglected parent shall either come himself, or send some
one, to inform (ἐξαγγέλλειν) the three eldest guardians of the law (νομο-
φύλακες), and three of the women who have the care of marriages ; and
these authorities are empowered to chastise 'by stripes and bonds' evildoers
who have not passed a certain age (30 for men, 40 for women). Older
offenders are to be brought before a court composed of the eldest citizens,
which may inflict any penalty that a man can pay or suffer (ἀποῤῥητον
μηδὲν ποιούμενοι ὅσων δύνατος ἄνθρωπος πάσχειν ἢ τίνειν). Further, if the
parent is unable to complain, any freeman who hears of his case, is bound to
inform the magistrates on pain of incurring dishonour and being liable to a
suit for damages (κακὸς ἔστω καὶ ὑπόδικος τῷ ἐθέλοντι βλάβης), while any slave
who informs is to receive freedom. Plato's conception of filial duty is
exalted (Laws 930 E sqq.), and the punishments which he prescribes are
sterner than the sanctions of the Attic law; if a man is found guilty of
striking his father or his mother or their fathers or mothers, he is to be for
ever banished (φευγέτω ἀειφυγίαν) from the city into the country and excluded
from all temples, and punished with death if he return (ib. 881 D). At
Athens a son convicted of 'maltreatment of parents' was ἄτιμος τὸ σῶμα
(And. 1. 74), i.e. was excluded from the ȧyopà (Dem. 24. 63) and could not
speak in the Assembly (Aesch. I. 28). If he dared to exercise any of the
rights from which he was debarred, he was liable to ἀπαγωγή, i.e. any person
could hale him before the Eleven, who were required to keep him in prison
until the trial : ἐὰν δ᾽ ἁλῷ, τιμάτω ἡ ἡλιαία ὅ τι χρὴ παθεῖν αὐτὸν ἢ ἀποτείσαι.
ἐὰν δ᾽ ἀργυρίου τιμηθῇ, δεδέσθω τέως ἂν ἐκτείσῃ (Dem. 24. 105). Whether this
ἀτιμία was the only penalty is not known. Apart from the consequences of
a formal prosecution the unnatural son ran the risk of being shut out from
office ; one of the questions at the scrutiny (δοκιμασία) of the nine archons
was ‘yovéas ei eû moieî' ('A8. Hoλ. c. 55. 3, Din. 2. 17, Dem. 57. 70), and a
negative answer entailed rejection (Xen. Μem. 2. 2. 13 ἀποδοκιμάζουσα
οὐκ ἐξ ἄρχειν ἡ πόλις). See Beauchet I. p. 362 sqq., Thonissen, Droit Pénal
de la République Athénienne, p. 288 sqq., Att. Proc.2 pp. 354, 355.
ή
</
او
5, 6 ἢ λαβεῖν αὐτοὶ γυναῖκας ἢ προῖκα κ.τ.λ. The law is preserved in
[Dem.] 43. 54 τῶν ἐπικλήρων ὅσαι θητικὸν τελοῦσιν, ἐὰν μὴ βούληται ἔχειν ὁ
ἐγγύτατα γένους, ἐκδιδότω ἐπιδοὺς ὁ μὲν πεντακοσιομέδιμνος πεντακοσίας δραχμάς,
ὁ δ᾽ ἱππεὺς τριακοσίας, ὁ δὲ ζευγίτης ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα, πρὸς τοῖς αὐτῆς.
ἐὰν δὲ πλείους ὦσιν ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ γένει, τῇ ἐπικλήρῳ πρὸς μέρος ἐπιδιδόναι
ἕκαστον. ἐὰν δ' αἱ γυναῖκες πλείους ὦσι, μὴ ἐπάναγκες εἶναι πλέον ἢ μαν
ἐκδοῦναι τῷ γένει (τῷ γ' ἑνί Κ. F. Hermann, Blass), ἀλλὰ τὸν ἐγγύτατα ἀεὶ (δεῖ
libri : corr. Blass) ἐκδιδόναι ἢ αὐτὸν ἔχειν. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἔχῃ ὁ ἐγγυτάτω γένους ἢ
μὴ ἐκδῷ, ὁ ἄρχων ἐπαναγκαζέτω ἢ αὐτὸν ἔχειν ἢ ἐκδοῦναι. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἐπαναγκάσῃ
ὁ ἄρχων, ὀφειλέτω χιλίας δραχμὰς ἱερὰς τῇ Ηρᾳ. ἀπογραφέτω δὲ τὸν μὴ ποιοῦντα
ταῦτα ὁ βουλόμενος πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα. If, then, the imaginary daughters of
Cleonymus had been θῆτται οι πενιχραὶ κόραι (Harp. s.v. θῆτες), and
Cleonymus' nephews had been members of the wealthiest class according to
or
OR. I.
221
COMMENTARY
the Solonian census, they would have been required to contribute between
them the sum of five minae for the dower of a single daughter; if the reading
τῷ γένει is right, they would not have been compelled to portion more than
one of the girls. When the male next-of-kin were themselves in the
position of Oîtes, apparently the obligation did not exist. There is little to
show what their punishment was, if, possessing the means, they chose to be
contumacious. Another law dealing with ἐπίκληροι is found in [Dem.]
43. 75: ἐὰν δέ τις ὑβρίζῃ (περὶ τὰς ἐπικλήρους) ἢ ποιῇ τι παράνομον, κύριος ἔστω
ἄρχων) ἐπιβάλλειν κατὰ τὸ τέλος (IV. 11. 2 n.). ἐὰν δὲ μείζονος ζημίας δοκῇ
ἄξιος εἶναι, προσκαλεσάμενος πρόπεμπτα (C. I. A. II. 841 b 61, S. I. G. n. 439,
Michel 7. 961 Β 3 προγράφεν δὲ πρόπεμπτα τῆς Δορπίας) καὶ τίμημα ἐπιγρα-
ψάμενος ὅ τι ἂν δοκῇ αὐτῷ, εἰσαγέτω εἰς τὴν ἡλιαίαν. ἐὰν δ᾽ ἁλῷ, τιμάτω ἡ ἡλιαία
περὶ τοῦ ἁλόντος, ὅ τι χρὴ αὐτὸν παθεῖν ἢ ἀποτεῖσαι. Obstinate contempt of
the law requiring well-to-do next of kin either to marry or portion a poor
ἐπίκληρος would be ὕβρις of a serious kind. Perhaps the action used against
recusants, whether instituted on the initiative of the Archon or in conse-
quence of an εἰσαγγελία, was for κάκωσις ἐπικλήρων ; if so, partial ἀτιμία may
have been included in the penalty (III. 47. 6 n.).
او
2
8 ἡ παρ' ὑμῶν αἰσχύνη, ‘the sense of shame which you inspire'; the
prepositional structure is chosen in order to escape the ambiguity of
ὑμετέρα αἰσχύνη. Compare Lys. 12. 66 διὰ τὸν πρὸς ἐκείνους φθόνον καὶ τὸ
παρ᾽ ὑμῶν δέος, Lyc. 130 ὁ παρὰ τῶν πολιτῶν φόβος ἰσχυρὸς ὢν ἀναγκάσει τοὺς
πρὸς τοὺς πολεμίους κίνδυνους ὑπομεῖναι, Din. 2. 23 ὁ φόβος ὁ παρ᾽ ὑμῶν τοὺς
ὁρμῶντας ἐπὶ τὰ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν ἥκοντα χρήματα ἀνείργει, Lys. ap. Plat. Phaedr. 232 A
τὸ βέλτιστον ἀντὶ τῆς δόξης τῆς παρὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων (not the opinion of man-
kind' but 'reputation which comes from, and depends on, the world,' cp.
Plut. uit. Agid. 2, uit. Ant. 14) αἱρεῖσθαι, [Lys.] 9. 7 τὸν παρ᾽ ὑμῶν κίνδυνον
ὑποστάντες, Lyc. 15 εἰ τὴν παρ' ὑμῶν διαφύγοι τιμωρίαν, ib. 123 καὶ ὅτ᾽ ἐκεῖνοι
τοὺς ἐπιχειρήσαντας <τὴν πατρίδα Herwerden > τῆς παρὰ τοῦ δήμου σωτηρίας
ἀποστερεῖν οὕτως ἐκόλασαν, τί ὑμᾶς προσήκει τὸν αὐτοῦ τοῦ δήμου τὴν σωτηρίαν
προδόντα ποιῆσαι; A different standpoint is taken in Dem. 16. 10 τοῦ πρὸς
Λακεδαιμονίους φόβου, 25. 93 τῷ φόβῳ τῷ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ; compare § 17. 3 κ.
In Dem. 19. 2 Blass ought not to have adopted from Libanius τῷ παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ
φόβῳ in preference to τῷ καθ᾿ ἑαυτὸν φόβῳ, the reading of all our MSS.
40. 5 τοὺς ἐγγυτάτω γένει. Praegresso έγγυτέρω et ἐγγυτάτω nec addito
uerbo είναι uel προσήκειν, scribendi usus postulat ἐγγυτάτω γένους ut recte
scribitur III. 64, IV. 16, alibi saepe' (Herwerden, Mnem. N.S. 9, 1881, p. 382).
But see VIII. 33. 4 22.
5,6 αναγκάσετε. Her werden l.c. approves ἀναγκάζετε proposed by Hertlein
(Hermes 12, p. 184). The future is legitimate; see X. 23. 7 1., and Gebauer,
De arg. ex contr. formis p. 195 sqq., who cites Dem. 39. 33 (quoted on
§ 38. 2), 25. 71 ἢ δεινά γ᾽ ἂν πάθοιεν οἱ δραχμὴν ἐγγεγραμμένοι μόνην, εἰ, διότι
μικρὰ καὶ οὐδὲν ἠδικήκασιν, ἰσχύσει τὸ ὀφείλειν κατ᾿ αὐτῶν, ἐὰν δέ τις μεγάλ᾽
ἠδικηκώς ᾖ, μίαν θεὶς ἢ δύο καταβολὰς ἐπίτιμος ἔσται, Isocr. 16. 50, [Lys.] 6. 13,
Thuc. 1. 35. 3, 121. 5, Xen. Cyr. 7. 5. 84, Plut. Tib. Gracch. 15. 3. In Thuc.
I. 35. 3 Cobet (Mnem. 11, 1862, p. 36o) changes ἔσται to ἔστι, but he has no
facile correction for οὐκ ἀπεροῦσιν in I. 121. 5. Hertlein 7. c. demands ἐστι
in Dem. 21. 57 εἶτα τὸν μὲν χορευτὴν οὐδ᾽ ὁ προσκαλέσας ἀζήμιος ἔσται κατὰ
222
OR. I.
ISAEUS
τὸν νόμον, τὸν δὲ χορηγὸν οὐδ᾽ ὁ συγκόψας παρὰ πάντας τοὺς νόμους οὕτω
φανερῶς δώσει δίκην; For the two futures in such a period compare Dem. 19.
280/1, 20. 57, 158, 21. 195, [Dem.] 17. 18, 51. 11, Hyp. 1. 26 (24), Gebauer
op. cit. p. 188 sqq.
41-43 You are wont—and very properly—to vote for kinsmen in
preference to claimants under a will. The rights of kinship cannot be
misrepresented to you; wills are often forged or made by misguided testators.
In this case all of you are aware of our relationship, none of you has any
knowledge of the validity of the will. Besides, our relationship is admitted
by our opponents, we contest the will, for they prevented its destruction.
Remember too that Cleonymus made the will in a fit of anger, revoked it
when in his right mind. It will be very hard, if you enforce his passion
rather than his reason.
The locus communis is used again in IV. 12-18, where the untrust-
worthiness of wills is expounded at greater length. The topics of the reply
may be gathered from II. 13, Isocr. 19. 33 καίτοι δίκαιόν ἐστιν ὑμᾶς τὴν ψῆφον
φέρειν οὐκ εἴ τινες γένει μέν φασι προσήκειν, ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἔργοις ὅμοιοι τοῖς ἐχθροῖς
γεγόνασιν, ἀλλὰ πολὺ μᾶλλον ὅσοι μηδὲν ὄνομα συγγενείας ἔχοντες οἰκειοτέρους
σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἐν ταῖς συμφοραῖς τῶν ἀναγκαίων παρεῖχον (some of the opponents
were looking after Cleonymus in his last illness), ib. 49 ἄξιον δ᾽ ἐστὶ καὶ τῷ
νόμῳ βοηθεῖν καθ᾿ ὃν ἔξεστιν ἡμῖν καὶ παῖδας εἰσποιήσασθαι καὶ βουλεύσασθαι
περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων αὐτῶν, ἐνθυμηθέντας, ὅτι τοῖς ἐρήμοις τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀντὶ
παίδων οὗτός ἐστιν· διὰ γὰρ τοῦτον καὶ οἱ συγγενεῖς καὶ οἱ μηδὲν προσήκοντες
μᾶλλον ἀλλήλων ἐπιμελοῦνται, Plat. Laws 922 D δεινόν γε, ὦ θεοί, φησίν, εἰ τὰ
ἐμὰ ἐμοὶ μηδαμῶς ἐξέσται δοῦναί τε ὅτῳ ἂν ἐθέλω καὶ μή, καὶ τῷ μὲν πλείω, τῷ δ᾽
ἐλάττονα τῶν ὁπόσοι περὶ ἐμὲ φαῦλοι καὶ ὅσοι ἀγαθοὶ γεγόνασι φανερῶς, βασα-
νισθέντες ἱκανῶς ἐν νόσοις, οἱ δ᾽ ἐν γήρᾳ καὶ ἄλλαις παντοίαισι τύχαις, Plut. Sol.
21 εὐδοκίμησε δὲ καν τῷ περὶ διαθηκῶν νόμῳ......φιλίαν τε συγγενείας ἐτίμησε
μᾶλλον καὶ χάριν ἀνάγκης, καὶ τὰ χρήματα κτήματα τῶν ἐχόντων ἐποίησεν.
41. I καὶ διὰ τὴν συγγένειαν, condemned and bracketed by Buermann
(Hermes 19, p. 352) because what follows refers only to ἡ τοῦ πράγματος
ἀλήθεια, the two preceding sections having dealt with ἡ συγγένεια. I think
that the words were inserted to make a transition from $$ 39, 40 to
§§ 41-43 : ‘you ought to vote for kinsmen not only on account of the duties
of kinship but also because of the certainty of their claim.’
I, 2 διὰ τὴν τοῦ πράγματος ἀλήθειαν, ‘the certainty of the case, the
unmistakable truth of the claim, in which there can be no falsity. The
commoner meaning of ἡ ἀλήθεια (σαφήνεια) τοῦ πράγματος is “the truth of the
matter' i.e. “the real state of the facts'; compare VIII. 12. 5 (τὴν ἀλήθειαν
τῶν γεγενημένων), ib. 27. I, Plat. Soph. 234 C τοὺς νέους καὶ ἔτι πόρρω τῶν
πραγμάτων τῆς ἀληθείας ἀφεστῶτας, and Antiphon's favourite phrases ἡ ἀλήθεια
τῶν πραχθέντων, πραγμάτων (Tetr. II. β. 2 opposed to ἡ δόξα τῶν πραχθέντων,
ib. 3, 10, Tetr. I. δ. I, Tetr. II. γ. 3, δ. 2, or. V. 3), ἡ σαφήνεια τῶν πραχθέντων
(1. 13). In Thuc. 2. 41 λόγων κόμπος, bragging words, is opposed to ἔργων
ἀλήθεια, 'facts, which do not lie.
ὅπερ ποιεῖτε. Cp. Ar. Vesp. 583 sqq. κἂν ἀποθνῄσκων ὁ πατήρ τῳ δῷ κατα-
λείπων παῖδ᾽ ἐπίκληρον, | κλάειν ἡμεῖς μακρὰ τὴν κεφαλὴν εἰπόντες τῇ διαθήκῃ
καὶ τῇ κόγχῃ τῇ πάνυ σεμνῶς τοῖς σημείοισιν ἐπούσῃ, [ ἔδομεν ταύτην ὅστις ἂν
OR. I.
223
COMMENTARY
:
ἡμᾶς ἀντιβολήσας ἀναπείσῃ. [ καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἀνυπεύθυνοι δρῶμεν· τῶν δ᾽ ἄλλων
οὐδεμία ἀρχή, ib. 589 ΒΔΕ. τῆς δ᾽ ἐπικλήρου τὴν διαθήκην ἀδικεῖς ἀνακογχυλιάζων,
[Aristot.] Probl. 29. 3. 950 b 6 διὰ τί ἐν τοῖς δικαστηρίοις τοῖς γένεσι μᾶλλον ἢ
ταῖς διαθήκαις ψηφίζονται; ἢ ὅτι γένος μὲν οὐκ ἔστι καταψεύσασθαι ἀλλὰ τὸ ὂν
ἀποφαίνειν· διαθῆκαι δὲ πολλαὶ ψευδεῖς ἤδη ἐξηλέγχθησαν οὖσαι.
4 τὴν τοῦ γένους οἰκειότητα, ‘the connexion of kinship, a vaguer phrase
than Dareste's translation 'la parenté à tous ses degrés.' The simple and
direct phrase τὸ μὲν γὰρ γένος κ.τ.λ. would have exposed just the spot which
Isaeus was anxious to cover up. That a nephew was nearer than a first
cousin, all the judges understood; whether in a given case X and Y were
nephews of Z, all the judges did not know, and the assertions of the
claimants might be as false as a will ; see IV. 17, XI. 17 οἱ λέγοντες τὸ περὶ
αὐτῆς γένος, ἐπειδὴ κατεψεύσαντο, ῥᾳδίως ὑπ᾿ ἐμοῦ τότε ἐξηλέγχθησαν οὐκ ἀληθές
τι γράψαι τολμήσαντες.
6 ψευδείς. Cp. III. 19. 1 7. Here a 'false' will is not identified with a
‘forged) (ἐσκευωρημέναι) will, as the next clause shows.
7 ἐνίων. The period would gain in symmetry if we read ἔνιοι.
7, 8 οὐκ ὀρθῶς βεβουλευμένων. The term includes more than the language of
Solon's law: ἂν μὴ μανιῶν ἢ γήρως ἢ φαρμάκων ἢ νόσου ἕνεκα, ἢ γυναικὶ πιθόμενος,
ὑπὸ τούτων του παρανοῶν ([Dem.] 46. 14). A perfectly legal will might be an-
nulled by the omnipotent judges on what seemed to them grounds of equity,
ὡς οὐκ ὀρθῶς βουλευσαμένου τοῦ διαθεμένου. Legatees had to take account of
this possibility. The claimant in Isocr. 19, a half-sister (ὁμοπατρία) of the
testator, did not contest the genuineness of the will, but, like the nephews of
Cleonymus, urged the tie of blood (λέγουσι δ᾽, ὡς τὰς μὲν διαθήκας οὐκ
ἀπιστοῦσι Θρασύλοχον καταλιπεῖν, οὐ μέντοι καλῶς οὐδ᾽ ὀρθῶς φασὶν αὐτὰς
ἔχειν $ 34). The adopted son on the other side promises to prove that the
will was not only legal but just (αἰσχυνθείην γὰρ ἂν ὑπὲρ τοῦ τετελευτηκότος,
εἰ μὴ πάντες πεισθείητε μὴ μόνον ὡς κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ἀλλ᾽ ὡς καὶ δικαίως ταῦτ᾽
ἔπραξεν § 16) and devotes the greater part of his speech to describing how
he and his family had been friends and benefactors of the testator, the
half-sister an open enemy.
αν
42. 1, 2 καὶ τὴν οἰκειότητα τὴν ἡμετέραν may mean either our relationship
with Cleonymus' or 'our close relations with Cleonymus.' The ambiguity
is useful, because Isaeus has no proof of the nephews' intimacy with their
uncle; compare § 37. 2 n.
4 συκοφαντοῦσιν. The charge of συκοφαντία may be retorted (§ 50. 5
ἡμᾶς τε μὴ συκοφαντεῖν ἀλλὰ δικαίως τούτων ἀμφισβητεῖν).
οὐδεὶς ὑμῶν οἶδε κυρίας γενομένας. The obscurity of this sentence is
reflected in Dareste's rendering ‘Quant au testament...nul de vous ne sait s'il
a jamais reçu sa perfection. The natural translation of αἱ διαθῆκαι κυρίαι
ἐγένοντο is 'the will was ratified or enforced, κύριον γίγνεσθαι being the passive
of κύριον ποιεῖν (e.g. Plat. Laws 924 A), and the opposite of λύεσθαι (Dem.
20. 65). The phrase, κυρίας γενομένας, can be strained to mean 'proved
authoritative' i.e. received Cleonymus' sanction as the final and effective
expression of his wishes ; compare Isocr. 18. 68 καὶ γὰρ ἂν εἴη δεινόν, εἰ τοὺς
μὲν ἠδικηκότας τιμωρίας ἀφεῖναι κυρίαι γένοιντο (αἱ συνθῆκαι), ἐφ' ἡμῖν δὲ τοῖς
εὖ πεποιηκόσιν ἄκυροι κατασταθεῖεν, 4. 176 πάντες αὐτὰ κύρια ποιοῦμεν, ἃ χρὴν
224
OR. I.
ISAEUS
ἀναιρεῖν καὶ μηδὲ μίαν ἐἂν ἡμέραν. But the nephew has been arguing
throughout his speech that Cleonymus intended to destroy the will, and
makes this point in the next sentence. The sense most appropriate to the
context is 'no one knows that the will was made regularly ('nessuno può dire che
sia stato fatto secondo le regole,' Caccialanza), but to get this we must change
κυρίας to κυρίως (Χ. 13. 6); κυρίας cannot be treated as a secondary predicate.
The notorious genuineness of the document deters Isaeus from writing ovdeìs
ὑμῶν οἶδεν ἀληθεῖς οὔσας, but he is not above titillating the suspiciousness of
vulgar minds by insinuating that after all there may have been hocus-pocus
somewhere; compare § 24. I N.
7 Tò åvedeîv aỦтàs K.T.λ., 'our opponents prevented the destruction of
the will, which Cleonymus desired.' The construction seems to have no
parallel in prose, and Dobree and Buermann expel the sentence, which
they consider a gloss added to explain audioßηтovμévαs. I think that an
explanation of àµpioßnrovµévas is not superfluous. The use of ëλvσe below
(§ 43. 5) is not fatal to the clause; for revocation (úous, ruptio) can be
effected without actual destruction (avaípeois, sublatio).
ň.
43. 1-3 κάλλιον...μᾶλλον ἤ. Cp. IV. 14. 3 n.
5 ἔλυσε μὲν εὖ φρονῶν. Cp. § 3. 4 η. (ἔλυσε...πέμψας Ποσείδιππον ἐπὶ τὴν
ȧpxýv). If Cleonymus had made another will on his death-bed, the heirs-at-
law would have attacked it on the ground that the testator's intellect was
deranged by sickness or that he was in the power of their rivals; see the
law [Dem.] 46. 14 νόσου ἕνεκα......παρανοῶν, ἢ ὑπ᾽ ἀνάγκης ἢ ὑπὸ δεσμοῦ
καταληφθείς.
7 Tηv Siάvolav. Meutzner (Jahrbb. f. cl. Philol. 83, 1861, p. 472) suggests
Tǹv evoιav. Hitzig (ib. 123, 1881, p. 111) proposes, and Buermann prints,
Tǹv évvolav, which is said to be equivalent to rò ev Opoveîv ; see § 13. 1 n.
The context shows the application of the vague word diávoia. A sharper
antithesis would have been provided by τὸν λογισμόν or even τὴν εὐβουλίαν,
since in common speech diávoia often meant 'intention,' 'purpose,' in which
sense it is consistent with opyn. In Aristotle diávoia is generally 'thought,'
whether the faculty or the process, in opposition to 'sensation' (aïolŋois),
but it also stands for 'thought' or 'intellect' in contrast with 'character' or
'disposition' (os), for 'intelligence' in contrast with 'spirit' (Oupòs), for
'mind' in contrast with 'body'; see Bonitz, Ind. Aristotelicus. Even Plato
uses it so as to include non-intellectual elements of the soul; see Phaedr.
256 Α ἐὰν μὲν δὴ οὖν εἰς τεταγμένην τε δίαιταν καὶ φιλοσοφίαν νικήσῃ τὰ βελτίω
τῆς διανοίας ἀγαγόντα, ib. c οὐ πάσῃ δεδογμένα τῇ διανοίᾳ πράττοντες. The
elasticity of the word in non-philosophical writers is clearly seen in
Isocrates, with whom it is a favourite. His use of diávoia resembles our use
of 'mind.' Atávota shifts in sense according to the context, being commonly
the intellectual or rational faculty (1. 32, 4. 2, 7. 32, 15. 212), but sometimes
the soul as distinguished from the body (3. 51, 5. 63, 15. 185) and as the
seat of joy and pain and fear and pride and shame (1. 42, 6. 10, 12. 230, 14.
50), sometimes spirit and character, what a man is accustomed to think and
feel (6. 92, 7. 15, 69, 8. 93, 9. 75, 10. 38, 12. 184, 197, 15. 196). In addition
we find a variety of concrete applications ('intention,' 'idea,' 'belief’), which
are adequately illustrated in the dictionaries. The other orators agree with
OR. I.
225
COMMENTARY
Isocrates ; see Ant. 1. 28 θαυμάζω δὲ τῆς τόλμης τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ καὶ τῆς διανοίας
ἀνοίας Reiske, ἀναιδείας Jernstedt), τὸ διομόσασθαι ὑπὲρ τῆς μητρὸς εὖ εἰδέναι
μὴ πεποιηκυῖαν ταῦτα, Lys. 3. 44 θαυμάζω δὲ μάλιστα τούτου τῆς διανοίας. οὐ
γὰρ τοῦ αὐτοῦ δοκεῖ εἶναι ἐρᾶν τε καὶ συκοφαντεῖν, 24. 3 καὶ γὰρ οἶμαι δεῖν
τὰ τοῦ σώματος δυστυχήματα τοῖς τῆς ψυχῆς ἐπιτηδεύμασιν ἰᾶσθαι, εἰκότως.
εἰ γὰρ ἐξ ἴσου τῇ συμφορᾷ καὶ τὴν διάνοιαν ἕξω καὶ τὸν ἄλλον βίον διάξω, τί
τούτου διοίσω; Dem. 24. 138 οἶμαι γὰρ τοιοῦτον οὐδὲν εἶναι ὅτου ἂν ἀπέσχετο.
ὁρᾶτε δὲ τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτοῦ· ὁ γὰρ νόμος, ὃν ἐτόλμησε θεῖναι, τὸν τρόπον αὐτοῦ
δείκνυσιν, Lyc. 49 οὐδ᾽ οἷόν τ᾽ ἐστὶν εἰπεῖν ἡττῆσθαι τοὺς ταῖς διανοίαις μὴ
πτήξαντας τὸν τῶν ἐπιόντων φόβον, Din. 2. 9 καίτοι τίνα χρὴ τοῦτον νομίζειν
διάνοιαν ἔχειν, ὃς διὰ μὲν πονηρίαν εἰς τὸ δεσμωτήριον ἐνέπεσεν, ἐκεῖ δ᾽ ὦν παρὰ
τοῖς ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων ἀνθρώπων κακούργοις ἀπηγμένοις οὕτως εἶναι πονηρὸς ἔδοξεν
ὥστε μηδ᾽ ἐκεῖ τῶν ἴσων ἀξιοῦσθαι τοῖς ἄλλοις.
When
44-47 It is common fairness that we should have the estate.
a man has the right of inheriting from you, you claim the right of inheriting
from him. If Pherenicus or one of his brothers had died, their children, not
Cleonymus, would have succeeded. If we had died, Cleonymus would have
succeeded. The law gives him our property; and we should never have left
it away from him. Now our opponents talk of their close connexion and legal
propinquity, because they expect to get something; if it had been a question
of bequeathing, they would have found many relations and friends closer and
dearer than Cleonymus.
The argument is repeated in IV. 23, in a briefer and less ridiculous form.
In this case the doctrine of reciprocity savours of comedy. The nephews
appear to have possessed little that they could call their own; according to
their opponents (§ 1) they were in debt to Cleonymus, and the speaker
himself admits that Cleonymus had rescued their estate from their father's
creditors (§ 12).
44. 3 Κλεωνύμῳ. Cobet (Mnem. 9, 1860, p. 445) demands Κλεώνυμον :
'manifesto enim requiritur “si usu uenisset ut Cleonymus uiueret,” non
“ si Cleonymo accidisset ut uiueret,” quod sensu uacuum est. Probably he
would have raised no objection, if the second half of the sentence had
been ‘ἡμῖν δὲ ἢ τούτοις ἀποθανεῖν. This however, and more, is implied
in ἐξερημωθῆναι.
اد
4 ἐξερημωθῆναι τὸν ἡμέτερον οἶκον ἢ τὸν τούτων. Isaeus is not playing fair.
The house of the opponents' would not have become ἔρημος, unless all of
them had died, leaving no children. Whether in this case Cleonymus would
have succeeded ab intestato, we do not know; there may have been nearer
collateral relations. But the orator's subterfuge that Cleonymus would not
have inherited from his testamentary heirs because they had children,
favours the conjecture that he would have been their heir, if they and their
children had all been cut off simultaneously. Of course, if only one of them
had died childless, his brothers or his brothers' children would have ranked
before Cleonymus, but, again, ‘the house of the opponents' would not have been
ἔρημος, and, as regards intestate succession, Cleonymus would have been in
exactly the same position, if only one of his nephews had died. The state-
ment that Cleonymus would have been the heir of his sister's sons, throws
an interesting sidelight upon the case. If the speaker is telling the truth, it
15
W. I.
226
OR. I.
ISAEUS
**
sons.
follows that no children of Deinias, the paternal uncle of the claimants, were
in existence, and that consequently Deinias' estate had fallen to his brother's
But Deinias may have been of the same kidney as his brother and
have left little but bad debts (§ 12). The right of an uncle to succeed to
a nephew has been disputed by some modern scholars, but without sufficient
reason; see Beauchet III. pp. 531 sqq., 558 sqq., Att. Proc.² p. 584, n. 273.
αν
5 èyíyvero. Here and in § 45. 2, 4 Naber (Mnem. N.S. 5, p. 392) would
add av. The problem is not so simple as it looks. (1) In Isaeus kλŋpovóµos
κληρονόμος
is usually ó ròv kλĥpov veµóμevos, the heir in possession, post aditam heredi-
tatem, rarely the heir apparent, with rights which as yet are in abeyance
(II. 39. 2, VI. 26. 5, 45. 5). Tiyveσdai kλŋpovóμov (§ 36. 3) is the passive of
κληρονόμον ποιεῖν (§ 50. 2), as καταστῆναι κληρονόμον (Χ. 4. 6) is the passive of
kataotĥoai kλŋpovóμov (VI. 4. 3, 17. 3, IX. 23. 7, 34. 10), and generally
describes the establishment of the heir in his inheritance, by a decree of
a court or otherwise, though there is no reason why it should not also
signify the acquisition of a right of succession in consequence of the death of
nearer relatives or the making of a will. (2) The handiest category for
èyíyvero is that of likelihood, intention, or danger in past time (Goodwin,
M. & T. § 38, Gildersleeve, Syntax § 213). This pregnant use of the
imperfect is liked by the early orators (Ant. Tetr. 1. B. 3, 9, or. V. 24, 37, 60,
And. 1. 58, 59, 2. 16, Lys. 7. 12, 13, 32, 12. 27, 88, 25. 10) but becomes
relatively rarer as style grows more logical and analytical (Isocr. 5. 48, [Lys.]
2. 68, Dem. 30. 22, 32, 41. 29, 45. 13, 54. 33, [Dem.] 49. 2, 53. 24, 59. 8,
Hyp. 5. 7); the idea can be expressed with more precision by the imperfect
of µéλλew in conjunction with an infinitive. Various emendations show that
the construction is sometimes misunderstood. For example, it would be a
blunder to add ἂν in Ant. 5. 60 οὔτε κίνδυνος αὐτῷ ὑπῆρχεν οὐδεὶς ὅντινα
διέφευγεν ἀποθανόντος ἐκείνου. The participial clause stands for εἰ ἀποθάνοι
ἐκεῖνος, not for εἰ ἀπέθανεν ἐκεῖνος. The supposed thought of the man
referred to was διαφεύγω ἐὰν ἀποθάνῃ, and the imperfect tense may be called
in certain cases the oratio obliqua of the prophetic present (Riddell, Digest
of Platonic Idioms § 92 b). Compare Hyp. 5. 7 eỉ µèv yàp èñ' ¿λevlepią
ἐπ᾿ ἐλευθερίᾳ
καταβάλλοιμι αὐτῶν τὸ ἀργύριον, τοῦτο μόνον ἀπώλλυον ὃ δοίην αὐτῷ ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν
δεινὸν ἔπασχον· εἰ δὲ πριαίμην ὠνῇ καὶ πράσει, ὁμολογήσας αὐτῷ τὰ χρέα
ἀναδέξεσθαι...., ἐπάξειν μοι ἔμελλεν ὕστερον τοὺς χρηστὰς καὶ τοὺς πληρωτὰς τῶν
ἐράνων, Antisth. Odyss. 2 ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἐμοῖς κινδύνοις....εἰ μὲν κατορθώσαιμι,
ἅπαντα ἡμῖν ἐπετελείτο ὧν ἕνεκα δεῦρο αφίγμεθα, εἰ δ᾽ ἐσφάλην (σφαλείην
libri corr. Spengel), éµoû ầv évòs àvòpòs éσtépnode, Isae. XI. 25. 7 n. That
the hearer or reader must go back to the standpoint of the person expecting,
fearing, or planning, is also indicated by Ant. Tetr. I. ß. 3 ěk Te yàp aútoû
τοῦ ἔργου φανερὸς γενόμενος (εἰ φανερὸς γενοίμην) ἀπωλλύμην, λαθών τε σαφῶς
ἤδη τήνδε τὴν ὑποψίαν εἰς ἐμὲ ἰοῦσαν. (3) It follows that Κλεώνυμος ἐγίγνετο
kλŋpovóμos, taken by itself, may mean 'Cleonymus had a prospect or ex-
pectation of coming into the estate.' But the sentence as a whole contains
an unrealised condition. The prospect was not presented to Cleonymus; he
never entertained the expectation. What is required by the context is
Cleonymus would have had (or 'would have') the prospect etc.' The clear
and logical statement would be ἔμελλεν ἂν γενήσεσθαι (γίγνεσθαι) κληρονόμος.
(
OR. I.
227
COMMENTARY
el
Perhaps Isaeus purposely chose the rhetorical exaggeration of èyíyvero to veil
the extreme remoteness of the contingency contemplated. Something similar
occurs in Dem. 45. 13 ἐθελήσαντος μέν γ᾽ ὑπεύθυνον ἐλάμβανον, εἰ δ᾽ ἔφευγεν,
πάλιν αὐτὸ τοῦθ᾽ ἱκανὸν τεκμήριον ἦν μοι τοῦ πεπλάσθαι τὸ πρᾶγμα. καὶ δὴ καὶ
συνέβαινεν ἐκείνως μὲν ἕν᾿ εἶναι, πρὸς ὃν τὰ πράγματ᾽ ἐγίγνετό μοι, ὡς δ᾽ οὗτοι
μεμαρτυρήκασι, πρὸς πολλούς. Here (see what precedes) Demosthenes is
assuming a case which never arose, and is entangled in a mesh of hypothetical
consequences; plain writing would have betrayed the futility of the reasoning.
Another parallel exists in III. 36. 8, 38. 3 τῆς προικὸς γιγνομένης εἰς αὐτόν,
Tɩ étadev ʼn yvvý, if the text is sound, which is disputed. Cp. also VIII. 31.
7 n. Buermann (Hermes 19, p. 334) rejects av on different grounds: es ist
in diesen und ähnlichen Fällen gar nicht das Verhältniss der Irrealität
bezeichnet, die Handlung wird vielmehr als wirklich in der Vergangenheit
gesetzt, ebenso wie für die Gegenwart eine an sich unmögliche Bedingung
durch den Optativ als möglich gesetzt werden kann. See And. 1. 114.
Schoemann says that èyíyvero here is equivalent to edeɩ yiyveolaɩ and refers
V. dè
to v. 44. 5 τοῖς δὲ θεοῖς οὐκ ἀπέδωκας ἃ ἐκείνων ἐγίγνετο ἀγάλματα, where the
construction is different.
45. I τῶν ἀδελφῶν τις.
See Introd. p. 175. It is not clear whether
this means 'one of his (Pherenicus') brothers' or one of 'the brothers,' a
group contrasted with Pherenicus.
3 κύριος. Cp. [Dem.] 43. 51 (Law) ὅστις ἂν μὴ διαθέμενος ἀποθάνῃ, ἐὰν
μὲν παῖδας καταλίπῃ θηλείας, σὺν ταύτῃσιν, ἐὰν δὲ μή, τούσδε κυρίους εἶναι
τῶν χρημάτων, VI. 30. 3, XI. 2. 5, 12. 3.
5 oav. We expect eiơi; the imperfect is due to the assimilating force
of ἐγίγνετο and ἦν.
6 προσήκων, adjectival, with ἦν; the correction προσῆκεν is unnecessary.
Cp. VII. 19. 147., Isocr. 5. 110 ἤπερ ἦν προσήκουσα μὲν καὶ πρέπουσα τοῖς
προειρημένοις, τὸν δὲ καιρὸν ἔχουσα μάλιστα σύμμετρον.
46.2 οὐδέν ἄλλον.
او
αν
ovdév' <äv> äλλov. The addition of av seems to me an improve-
ment. Not only has the law given our estate to him (in so far as it lays down.
that the next-of-kin always succeed ab intestato), but also we should not have
thought it right to bequeath it to any one else' (Cleonymus being not only
next-of-kin but also τî xρeia távtwv oikelótatos). The attempts to import some
sort of conditional meaning into ovdéva äλλov ý§ióraµev result in obscurity.
See for example Roeder, Beiträge p. 30: "der Aorist nέiwoaμev stellt die
Handlung als unter der angegebenen Bedingung eintretend hin und
bezeichnet ohne av die unbedingte Folge ohne Rücksicht darauf, dass die im
Bedingungssatze enthaltene Handlung nicht wirklich ist....so dass der
Gedanke des Sprechers ist: "wir durften im dem Falle keinen anderen
für würdig erachten." Buermann (Hermes 19, p. 335) upholds nέiwoaµev
(without av) as conveying a plain statement of fact, we judged no one
else deserving.' This interpretation fits ill with the next sentence and also
with what precedes: 'if we had died, our property would have come to
Cleonymus the heir-at-law, for we thought no one else preferable,' and,
consequently, did not make wills! The awkwardness of the perfect dedwkaσiv,
in place of which edwкav is suggested by Scheibe, èdedwkeσav by Gebauer,
comes from the mixture of the general (the established rule of intestate
15-2
228
OR. I.
ISAEUS
}
succession) and the particular (the application of this law to a hypothetical
case in the past). The author should be blamed, not the copyists.
او
αν
3 ἂν ἐνεχειρίσαμεν. The word is not applicable to the facts. The nephews
did not 'put their property into the hands' of Cleonymus; when their uncle
took over the management, they were minors, and without a voice in the
matter. Av qualifies ἐβουλήθημεν as well as ενεχειρίσαμεν ; 'surely it cannot
be that in our lifetime we should have given Cleonymus complete control of
our property and yet when dying should have preferred others as heirs.' I
cannot quote a parallel from prose; cases, where kaì links the two clauses, are
different. In the examples produced by Gebauer, De arg. ex contr. formis
p. 210, the verbs in the two members are both optatives, e.g. And. 1. 67 év ois
ἐγὼ τῆς μὲν τύχης ᾗ ἐχρησάμην δικαίως ἂν ὑπὸ πάντων ἐλεηθείην, τῶν δὲ
πεποιημένων ἕνεκα εἰκότως (here ἂν is inserted by Reiske and Blass ; but cp.
[And.] 4. 10) ἀνὴρ ἄριστος δοκοίην εἶναι, Xen. Hier. 6. 15 ὥσπερ γε καὶ ἵππος
εἰ ἀγαθὸς μὲν εἴη, φοβερὸς δὲ μὴ ἀνήκεστόν τι ποιήσῃ, χαλεπῶς μὲν ἄν τις αὐτὸν
ἀποκτείναι διὰ τὴν ἀρετήν, χαλεπῶς δὲ ζῶντι χρῷτο, or infinitives representing
optatives, e.g. Plat. Rep. 7. 538 Β μαντεύομαι τοίνυν μᾶλλον αὐτὸν τιμᾶν ἂν τὸν
πατέρα καὶ τὴν μητέρα....ἢ τοὺς κολακεύοντας, καὶ ἧττον μὲν ἂν περιιδεῖν ἐνδεεῖς
τινος, ἧττον δὲ παράνομόν τι δρᾶσαι ἢ εἰπεῖν εἰς αὐτούς, ἧττον δὲ ἀπειθεῖν τὰ
μεγάλα ἐκείνοις ἢ τοῖς κόλαξιν, ἐν ᾧ χρόνῳ τὸ ἀληθὲς μὴ εἰδείη. In all these
passages the construction is easier and no ambiguity exists. The usual
position of av in bimembral clauses of this kind is at the head, before µèv
and as near as possible to the negative ; see [Dem.] 40. 23 οὐκ ἂν δήπου ἐπὶ
μὲν τῷ τἀλλότρια λαμβάνειν ὁτιανοῦν ἐποίουν, τὰ δ᾽ αὑτῶν τὸν ἐμὸν πατέρα
περιεῖδον κομισάμενον, Dem. 37. 18 οὐ γὰρ ἂν δήπου, τῶν αὐτῶν ἀδικημάτων
παρόντοιν ἀμφοῖν ὁμοίως ἐγκαλῶν, τὸν μὲν εἴασεν τῷ δ᾽ ἐδικάζετο, Lys. 12.
47, Isocr. 4. 109, 21. 16. This is the form which Schoemann would
restore here, deleting av after ourws, inserting it after yáp. It is also possible
to repeat ἂν in the second member as in Dem. 27. 55 εἰ δ᾽ ἐπίστευεν, οὐκ ἂν
δήπου τὰ μὲν πλεῖστ᾽ αὐτοῖς τῶν χρημάτων ἐνεχείρισε, τῶν δ᾽ οὐκ ἂν κυρίους
ἐποίησεν, Lys. 31. 28 οὐ γὰρ ἂν δήπου, εἰ μέν τις λίποι τὴν τάξιν μὴ αὐτῆς τῆς
πόλεως ἐν κινδύνῳ οὔσης ἀλλ᾽ ἑτέρους εἰς τοῦτο καθιστάσης, ἐτέθη νόμος ὡς
μεγάλα ἀδικοῦντος, εἰ δέ τις αὐτῆς τῆς πόλεως ἐν κινδύνῳ οὔσης λίποι τὴν πόλιν
αὐτήν, οὐκ ἂν ἄρα ἐτέθη (Thalheim puts a mark of interrogation after ἐτέθη).
Isaeus has this structure in III. 33 and might have used it here, with a slight.
change in the second member: οὐ γὰρ ἂν δήπου ζῶντες μὲν οὕτως ἐνεχειρί
σαμεν....ἀποθνῄσκοντες δὲ οὐκ ἂν ἐβουλήθημεν κληρονομεῖν τὸν πάντων οἰκειό-
τατον.
αν
αν
The only instance in Gebauer op. cit. of av placed after µèv and also
after δὲ is Lys. 1ο. 8 οὐ γὰρ δήπου, εἰ μέν τίς σε εἴποι πατραλοίαν ἢ μητραλοίαν,
ἠξίους ἂν αὐτὸν ὀφλεῖν σοι δίκην, εἰ δέ τις εἴποι ὡς τὴν τεκοῦσαν ἢ τὸν φύσαντα
ἔτυπτες, ᾤου ἂν αὐτὸν ἀζήμιον δεῖν εἶναι. In all the preceding types the force
of av is felt in both limbs of the sentence, but Isaeus had at his disposal yet.
another form of expression; he might have confined av to the second
member: οὐ γὰρ δήπου ζῶντες μὲν οὕτως ἐνεχειρίσαμεν....ἀποθνῄσκοντες δὲ
ἄλλους ἂν ἐβουλήθημεν κληρονομεῖν, 'surely it cannot be that we entrusted
him with our property and yet would have preferred others as our heirs'
compare Dem. 18. 13 οὐ γὰρ δήπου Κτησιφῶντα μὲν δύναται διώκειν δι᾽ ἐμέ, ἐμὲ
δ᾽, εἴπερ ἐξελέγξειν ἐνόμιζεν, αὐτὸν οὐκ ἂν ἐγράψατο.
•
OR. I.
229
COMMENTARY
Thalheim (Hermes 38,
ductus litterarum, and
6 ἄλλους κληρονομεῖν: ἄλλους κληρονόμους AQ.
p. 453) objects that the emendation is against the
proposes ἄλλους κληρονομήσ᾽ (ἐβουλήθημεν). I regard κληρονόμους as a case
of grammatical assimilation (Crit. Introd. p. xxxix). Those who are dis-
satisfied with these suggestions have the resort of adding elvai after aútŵv,
where it will not make a hiatus. For the omission of elvaι in A see IV. 14. 6,
VI. 13. 2, VII. 43. 9.
8
Ꮎ
εινα
A 0
47.1,2 ŵ ävdpes: &'AOŋvaînı AQ, a formula which never recurs in Isaeus.
Thalheim retains it in Lys. 1. 6, 7, 34. 1, 3, 9, 11; Blass in his editions of
Aeschines and Lycurgus makes a practice of restoring ὦ ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι, but
respects & 'A◊ŋvaîo in Andocides and Dinarchus. In Demosthenes & always
has ὦ ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι and ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, but inferior MSS. often omit
ävôpes in these phrases (Voemel, Prolegg. Gramm. § 137). The com-
pendia lend themselves to confusion; thus @ and w a= - ὦ ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι,
w a=☎ åvdpes dikaσraí (Gardthausen, Griech. Palaeographie pp. 246, 258).
The effect of these abbreviations may be seen in Usener and Radermacher's
critical note on Lys. 32. 1 (Dion. Hal. Op. Rhet. 1. p. 33, 18): & avdρes dikaσraí]
ω Μ ἄνδρες om Syrianus | Ἀθηναῖοι in mg eadem manu γρ. δικασταί Ρ. In
the Florentine MS. of Dionysius Hal. (F) w= 'AOŋvaîol, w=& ävdpes, and
Victorius' reading & 'Anvaîo, in p. 652. 10 R (Op. Rhet. I. p. 311. 21) is
probably due to a misinterpretation of w, which stands in F (Sadée, De
A
Dion. Hal. scriptis rhetoricis p. 33).
Dem. 18. 223). Cp. VI. 10. 4 n.
A
Ꮎ
Δ
A
Sometimes w= dikaσтai (Voemel,
6 ἐκείνου προείλοντο οἰκειοτέρους. The genitive ἐκείνου belongs to οίκειο-
Tépous, which is postponed to avoid hiatus. The remains of the Attic orators
contain one example of a genitive dependent upon #poaipeio@ai, viz. Dem.
6. 5 τὰ βέλτιστα καὶ τὰ σώσοντα (σώσοντα Σ, σώσοντ᾽ ἀντὶ uolg.) τῶν ῥᾴστων
καὶ τῶν ἡδίστων προαιρετέον. In 23. 112 Demosthenes adds the preposition
avrì, which is common in Xenophon (Mem. 2. 7. 10; 3. 9. 5; 4. 5.7; 4. 8. II,
Cyr. 5. 2. 12, Rep. Lac. 9. 6). Plato has mрò in Phaedr. 245 B. Any one
who may think #poeiλovтo in need of defence, should consult Dem. 23. 164,
[Dem.] 61. 20, Aesch. 1. 159, Xen. Mem. 3. 4. 5. Compare with the
corruption in Q (πρоeíɣovтo) Ant. Tetr. I. a. 5 eiλev NAM, eixev Ald., Dem.
19. 192 εἷλεν Σ, εἶχεν r. Laur. 8, Lys. 32. 20 ἔχειν Reisk. : ἑλεῖν FMT.
π
48-51 To sum up when they set forth that Cleonymus never
regretted his will, but at the end wished to leave us nothing and to confirm
the bequest to them, and notwithstanding all their words and protestations
do not prove either that they are nearer relations or that they were on better
terms with him, bear in mind all the time that they are accusing him, not ex-
pounding the justice of their cause. If you believe what they say, you should
pronounce Cleonymus insane, not make them his heirs. Besides, they
themselves recognise that in justice we ought to get our share. How, then,
can you grant them more than they have claimed for themselves, and refuse
to us even what is conceded by our adversaries ?
230
OR. I.
ISAEUS
Α
48. 2 +ὅσῳ γὰρ ἂν ταῦτα λέγοντες ἀποφαίνωσι†. Thalheim (Hermes 38,
p. 453) proposes ὅσῳ γὰρ ἂν <πλείω > λέγ. ἀποφ. ; for the other emendations
see n. cr. It is strange that any one should ever have thought the text
adequately defended by references to Ellendt, Lex. Soph. s. v. öσos, Thuc.
6. 89. 6, 92. 5, Hdt. 5. 49 άλγος μέγιστον μὲν αὐτοῖσι ἡμῖν, ἔτι δὲ τῶν λοιπῶν
ὑμῖν, ὅσῳ προέστατε τῆς Ἑλλάδος, Lys. 4. 13 πολὺ ἂν δικαιότερον ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ
αἰτία βασανισθείη ἢ ἐπὶ τῇ ἐκ τῶν πολεμίων λύσει πραθείη, ὅσῳ παρὰ μὲν ἐκείνων
βουλομένων ἀπολῦσαι ἔστι...ἐπὶ δὲ τοῖς ἐχθροῖς γενόμενον οὐ δυνατόν. For the
suggested change of ταῦτα into τἀναντία compare IV. 20. 3, Lys. 7. 30 μηδὲ περὶ
ὧν αὐτοὶ σύνιστε, ταῦτ᾽ (τἀναντί᾽ Weidner, τοιαῦτ᾽ Lipsius, τὰ τοιαῦτ᾽ Hamaker)
ἀνασχέσθαι τῶν ἐμῶν ἐχθρῶν λεγόντων. Το alter ἀποφαίνωσι into ἀναβαίνωσι
may be thought temerarious (Din. 1. 21 ὑποφαινούσας ΑΒ, ὑποβαινούσας Ald.,
ὑπομενούσας Μ), and ἀποφαίνωσι can be sustained if put in connexion with
ὡς, the words καὶ πειρῶνται πείθειν ὑμᾶς being in a parenthesis (διὰ μέσου) ;
compare Lys. 13. 7ο λέξει δὲ ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, καὶ ἐξαπατῆσαι ὑμᾶς πειράσεται,
ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν τετρακοσίων Φρύνιχον ἀπέκτεινε, Dem. 23. 92 οἶμαι τοίνυν αὐτὸν
κἀκεῖνον ἐρεῖν τὸν λόγον, καὶ σφόδρα ταύτῃ ζητήσειν ἐξαπατῶν ὑμᾶς, ὡς ἄκυρόν
ἐστι τὸ ψήφισμα. But the appearance of the word in § 49. 2 (where Thalheim
would retain ἀποφήνωσι) does not seem to me an argument in favour of
keeping it here. The repetition may be due to 'anticipation' (Crit.
Introd. p. xxxviii).
βαι
4 <αλλά. > For the omission of ἀλλὰ in MSS. see Lys. 14. 41, Porson's
notes on Ar. Plut. 229, 316, Αν. 1692, Thesm. 204, Dobree, Adv. II. 91.
5 ἡμᾶς μέν. Cp. Crit. Introd. pp. xxxvii, li. The reading of A, νῦν
µèv, gives a false emphasis to vûv, suggesting that a clause beginning with
πρότερον δὲ or something similar is to follow. Gebauer, De arg. ex contr.
formis p. 123 sqq., has assembled a miscellaneous crowd of examples of the
'displacement' of μév, but many are plainly corrupt and of those that seem
sound not one is so misleading as this ; compare Aesch. 1. 98 τόπον μὲν
πόλυν, δεινῶς δ᾽ ἐξηγριωμένον ὑπὸ τούτου, Din. 1. 97 ἔπειτα τὸν μὲν ἐν ταῖς
πολεμικαῖς πράξεσιν ἄπιστον γεγενημένον, ἐν δὲ ταῖς κατὰ τὴν πόλιν οἰκονομίαις
ἄχρηστον, περιεωρακότα δε μεταβεβλημένον δὲ τοῦτον περιποιῆσαι βούλεσθε;
Dem. 18. 94 καὶ μὴν ὅτι μὲν πολλοὺς ἐστεφανώκατ᾽ ἤδη...ἅπαντες ἴσασι· δι᾽ ὅντινα
δ᾽ ἄλλον ἡ πόλις ἐστεφάνωται...οὐδ᾽ ἂν εἷς εἰπεῖν ἔχοι. The explanation of the
irregularity is nearly always 'anacoluthon'; the place of µèv is appropriate
and effective, but the corresponding clause is unsymmetrical; see IV. 29. 3,
VI. I. I, XI. 39. 6. Buermann's conjecture νῦν μόνους may be supported by
Din. 3. 5, where recent editors read after Reiske περὶ μόνης (μὲν ΝΑ) τῆς
τιμωρίας, and by Aesch. 1. 36, where f has μέν, the other MSS. μόνον.
C
...
49. 2, 3 ἐγγυτέρω τῷ γένει προσήκουσι. The article in this phrase is
unusual in Attic prose and suspect; compare VIII. 33. 4 n., [Isocr.] 1. 10
μᾶλλον ἐθαύμαζε τοὺς περὶ αὑτὸν σπουδάζοντας ἢ τοὺς τῷ γένει προσήκοντας,
where yével is preferred by all editors except Bekker and Benseler. In § 17.3
QA have τῷ γένει προτερούς, in § 38. 3 γένει προτέρους. Cp. 1. hyp. 2 κατὰ γένος A,
κατὰ τὸ γένος Μ, v. 1o. 6 ἐγγυτάτω ὢν γένους A, ἐγγυτάτω ὢν τοῦ γένους Μ.
4 3, οἰκειότερον πρὸς Κλεώνυμον διέκειντο, “were on a more friendly footing
with Cleonymus'; compare $ 17. 3η., Lys. 13. 82 τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ πρὸς τοὺς
OR. I.
231
COMMENTARY
ὁπλίτας (πολίτας Taylor) διέκειτο· οὐδεὶς γὰρ αὐτῷ διελέγετο, Isocr. 19. 5
Θράσυλλος... οὕτως οἰκείως διετέθη πρὸς αὐτὸν (Πολεμαίνετον) ὥστ᾽ ἀποθνῄσκων
ἐκεῖνος (Πολεμαίνετος) τὰς βίβλους τὰς περὶ τῆς μαντικῆς αὐτῷ κατέλιπε καὶ τῆς
οὐσίας μέρος τι τῆς νῦν οὔσης ἔδωκεν, 16. 5 πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος πιστῶς διακείμενον,
17. 6 οὕτω γὰρ οἰκείως πρὸς αὐτὸν διεκείμην ὥστε μὴ μόνον περὶ χρημάτων ἀλλὰ
καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων τούτῳ μάλιστα πιστεύειν.
50. 3 παράνοιαν Κλεωνύμου καταγιγνώσκειν. Cp. §§ 11, 19-21, 34. It is
not made clear whether Cleonymus was to be considered out of his mind
because he made a will passing over his sister's children, or because
(according to the other side) he never desired to revoke it. The haziness of
the reasoning springs from the consciousness that judges cannot fairly be
asked to annul a will on the ground that years after making it the testator
became insane (§ 21. 5 n.).
5 ἡμᾶς τε μὴ συκοφαντεῖν.
Isaeus anticipates, and with good reason,
some plain speaking from the adversaries.
51.4 τῶν ἀντιδίκων γιγνωσκόντων. Strictly speaking, the judgment
was not that of the opponents, but of the friends and connexions (§§ 2, 16, 28)
who represented their interests at the arbitration. But it is a fair conjecture
that the award of the arbitrators was accepted by the testamentary heirs,
repudiated by the nephews; see Introd. p. 176.
II
ON THE ESTATE OF MENECLES.
THE ADOPTED SON OF MENECLES AGAINST THE
BROTHER OF MENECLES.
DEFENCE OF PHILONIDES ON A CHARGE OF
BEARING FALSE WITNESS.
Menecles who had been twice married without issue adopted one of the
two sons of Eponymus of Acharnae. When he died twenty-three years after
the adoption, his brother claimed the estate as next-of-kin, alleging that the
adoption was invalid, having been brought about by 'the influence of a
woman,' Menecles' second wife and sister of the adopted son. This the
latter denies, and defends his rights in the present speech. Before dis-
cussing the case it will be convenient to consider the form of procedure
which the speaker has chosen to repel his opponent.
At Athens the right of succession of legitimate lineal male descendants
was placed on a different footing from all other claims. Collateral relations
and testamentary heirs were required to lay their claims before the Archon
(éπidikášeobai), and, even if unopposed, to wait for a judgment before they
could lawfully take possession. In short, a legal process was necessary
to establish their title. But sons, whether lawfully begotten or lawfully
adopted, were constituted owners at once by the mere fact of the death of
the father. If the estate was held by a third party, they had only to ‘make
entry' (éußarevew), having in an ordinary 'action for ejectment' (écouλns
díkŋ, Att. Proc.² pp. 665 sqq., 965 sqq., Beauchet III. p. 393 sqq.) a means of
overcoming and punishing resistance. If, on the other hand, they were
themselves in possession, and a claimant who contested their legitimacy
preferred an application to the Archon, they enjoyed the privilege of being
able to meet him by a special plea: they could object that the claim could
not be brought into court. The form of special plea that we find always
used in these circumstances is not the rapaypapń, which seems to have been
an invention of the fourth century (Att. Proc. p. 849 sqq.), but a modification
of the διαμαρτυρία.
The archaic procedure which bears this name was not confined to cases
of disputed succession. It could be employed in certain ypapai; Harpocra-
tion (s.v. διαμαρτυρία) mentions the γραφὴ ἀπροστασίου and the γραφὴ ἀπο-
στασίου, and the title of Lys. fr. xv. Saupp. πρὸς τὴν ᾿Αριστοδήμου γραφὴν
OR. II.
233
INTRODUCTION
a
διαμαρτυρία may refer to a γραφὴ ἀποστασίου brought by Aristodemus. For
its use in private suits we have the evidence of Isocr. 18. 11, where the
reference seems to be to a díkŋ Bλáßns, the defendant pleading a release
under an arbitration, and of Lys. 23. 13, in which the nature of the plaint is
not specified. Our principal authority for the course of a diaµaprvpía is
Harpocration, whose article is probably based on the description in Dinarchus'
speech κarà 'Hdúλns åtvoraσiov, fr. XLIX. Saupp. According to this account
the procedure in its widest application was as follows. If at the preliminary
investigation before the magistrate it was pleaded by the defendant that the
action was not maintainable (ὡς οὐκ εἰσαγωγιμός ἐστιν ἡ δίκη), the prosecutor
had the prior right to put forward (πрoßáλλoda) a witness, who deposed
the contrary, that the action was maintainable, for reasons specified, which
would in general consist of a direct denial of the special plea of the defendant.
The contest was thus transformed into a suit for false testimony (evdoμap-
Tuρiwv dikŋ), brought by the defendant against the witness produced by the
prosecutor. Such a suit was an ȧywv тiμηrós, and the prosecutor had the
prospect of winning the money that the accused would be condemned to pay
in the event of conviction. The speaker of [Dem.] 47 says т µpèv diákovti
ἐλάττω ἐποίησαν (οἱ νόμοι) τὰ ἐπιτίμια, ἐὰν ἡττηθῇ, ἵνα μὴ διὰ τὸ πλῆθος ἀποτρέ-
πωνται διώκειν τοὺς μάρτυρας τῶν ψευδομαρτυρίων οἱ ἀδικούμενοι ( 2), from
which it has been conjectured that the prosecutor, who failed to obtain a
fifth of the votes, was not condemned to pay the witness the Twßeλía, i.e.
one-sixth of the ríunua entered on the plaint. Against this conclusion is
quoted Isocr. 18. 12 ἐκείνῳ μὲν (τῷ μάρτυρι) οὐκ ἐπεξῆλθεν εἰδὼς ὅτι, εἰ μὴ
μεταλάβοι τὸ πέμπτον μέρος τῶν ψήφων, τὴν ἐπωβελίαν ὀφλήσει. For the
alleged risk of aruia incurred by the witness see V. 17. 8 n. If judgment
was given against the witness, the prosecutor in the original case might
be either debarred from all further proceedings or compelled to alter his
procedure or amend his plaint, according to the particulars of the plea
successfully upheld in the trial for false witness. If, on the other hand,
the witness was acquitted, the original suit resumed its course, unless
indeed the defendant after his first defeat preferred to arrange a settlement
out of court. The procedure may be illustrated from Lys. 23. 13, 14.
Here
the defendant Pancleon, declaring himself to be a Plataean, not a resident
alien, denied the competence of the Polemarch to receive the charge against
him (exceptio fori). Thereupon the plaintiff Aristodicus produced testimony
that the defendant was not a Plataean, and the defendant gave notice that
he would prosecute the witness. But Pancleon did not pursue this action,
and in the end Aristodicus got a verdict against him on the original plaint.
But it might happen that the prosecutor did not choose to exercise his
right. The witness ran some risk, and the prosecutor himself, if the witness
was convicted, may have been liable to a díkŋ kakotexviŵv for suborning false
testimony (Att. Proc². pp. 492 sqq., 977 sqq.). All that he lost by foregoing
his privilege was the advantage of standing on the defensive, and throwing
upon his adversary the burden of proof. For when the prosecutor declined
to move, it became the duty of the defendant to put forward a witness to
testify that the action could not be brought into court, for reasons specified
(Isocr. 18. 11 προβαλλομένου δ' ἐμοῦ μάρτυρα, ὡς οὐκ εἰσαγώγιμος ἦν ἡ δίκη
234
OR. II.
ISAEUS
διαίτης γεγενημένης), and it was now the turn of the prosecutor to take the
offensive and bring an action against the defendant's witness. If he won,
the original case could be continued. If he lost, his course would be deter-
mined by the wording of the defendant's special plea, and by the amount of
prejudice caused by the failure of the prosecution for false witness. Whether
the witness was required to fortify his statement by an oath is uncertain;
Suidas' article on éέwµooía is not decisive.
In its application to cases of disputed succession this procedure is
somewhat simplified. When e.g. sons resort to a diapapтvpía to shut out
claimants alleging themselves to be the rightful heirs, there is strictly neither
plaintiff nor defendant. The diaµaprvpía always takes the same form, the
declaration of the witness being that 'the estate cannot be claimed at law
(οὐκ ἔστιν ἐπίδικος ὁ κλῆρος), there being legitimate sons.
ó We have no
example of a contrary declaration emanating from the other side. The
burden of disproof falls on the claimants, who always appear as prosecutors
of the witness produced by the lineal descendants. And the consequences
of the secondary action are more decisive. If the witness was acquitted, the
claimants necessarily abandoned their pretensions, and the sons remained in
possession. If he was convicted, the estate was as good as lost to the sons,
but not as yet secured by the claimants, who had still to establish their rights
in court, and in the end might see themselves ousted by new competitors.
Such then was the procedure chosen by the adoptive son of Menecles.
In the eyes of the law a son lawfully adopted was not distinguishable from a
son lawfully begotten, and Menecles had observed the due formalities in
entering his son on the registers of his parpía and his deme. It was the
absence of these entries that barred the use of the diapaprvpía to a son
adopted by will, who had neither this nor other privileges of a son (e.g. the
right of entry, éµßárevois) until the will had been confirmed by a legal
judgment, and supplemented by the ceremonies before the ppárepes and
dnμórai. Thus when Menecles' brother claimed the estate as next-of-kin, in
the course of the proceedings before the Archon (v. 16. 7 µedλóvtwv ýµwv
ἀντόμνυσθαι διεμαρτύρησε, VI. 12 ότε αἱ ἀνακρίσεις ἦσαν πρὸς τῷ ἄρχοντι) the
adopted son was able to put forward Philonides his father-in-law (hyp. 3. 12.)
to tender the required testimony, μὴ εἶναι ἐπίδικον τὸν κλῆρον τὸν Μενεκλέους
ὄντος αὐτῷ νέος γνησίου (§ 2; I take γνησίου from [Dem.] 44. 46 διαμεμαρτύρηκεν
οὗτος, ὡς ἀκηκόατε, “ μὴ ἐπίδικον εἶναι τὸν κλῆρον τὸν ᾿Αρχιάδου, ὄντων αὐτῷ
παίδων γνησίων καὶ κυρίως κατὰ τὸν θεσμόν,” see III. 61. 2 7.). Thereupon the
opponent gave notice of his intention to prosecute the witness, the claim
to the estate was struck off the record for a time (v. 17. 2), and the trial for
false witness came on in due course. The claimant as prosecutor spoke first,
and then after some words from the defendant (cp. [Dem.] 59. 1-15) the
adopted son came forward as his σvvýyopos and delivered the present speech,
which might be entitled Piλwvidŋ σvvnyopía (Din. fr. LXIX. Saupp.) or
ἀπολογία διαμαρτυρίας περὶ τοῦ Μενεκλέους κλήρου or ὑπὲρ τῆς Φιλωνίδου διαμαρ
τυρίας.
tòv
Menecles' brother founded his claim on the Solonian law preserved in
[Dem.] 46. 14 τὰ ἑαυτοῦ διαθέσθαι εἶναι, ὅπως ἂν ἐθέλῃ, ἂν μὴ παῖδες ὦσι
γνήσιοι ἄρρενες, ἂν μὴ μανιῶν ἢ γήρως ἢ φαρμάκων ἢ νόσου ἕνεκα, ἢ γυναικὶ
OR. II.
235
INTRODUCTION
πιθόμενος, ὑπὸ τούτων του παρανοῶν. He contended that the adoption was
made by an old man under the influence of a woman, and was therefore
invalid. The woman was the younger sister of the adopted son, who had
lived for a short time with Menecles as his wife, but had separated from him
and remarried before the adoption (§§ 4-10). The claimant, as his case
required, devoted most of his speech ($19) to the subject of this young
woman's position and power, and it is plain that his account of her relations
with the old man was in harsh contrast with the idyllic picture painted by
her brother. He asserted that the girl had been given to Menecles without
a dowry (§ 5. 2 12.), and it may be conjectured that he attacked the honour of
her brothers, representing her as a concubine or worse ([Dem.] 48. 56 ñapa-
φρονῶν ὡς οὐδεὶς πώποτε παρεφρόνησεν ἀνθρώπων, γυναικὶ πειθόμενος πόρνῃ),
and made capital out of the speedy separation (111. 29 ỏλíya diaµéveiv éïwde
Tâv Toloútwv). This last incident is handled with anxious care in the reply,
but the description of the old man's benevolence and the child wife's devo-
tion is in the vein of Mr Pecksniff, and much remains that wears an ugly
look. Further, it seems likely that the claimant sought to explain to the
judges how it was that twenty-three years ago he allowed his infatuated and
imbecile brother to introduce an unprincipled adventurer into his Oparpía and
his deme (§ 15. 3 22.).
The defence hardly touches the real issue. The adopted son was in an
embarrassing situation. The phrase in the law on which everything turned,
γυναικὶ πιθόμενος, ὑπὸ τούτου παρανοῶν, was vague, and the judges were con-
trolled by no legal tradition in settling the kind of passion for a woman
that might be branded as #apávoɩa, and invalidate an adoption or a will.
He was called upon to prove that twenty-three years ago his own sister, who
had once been Menecles' wife, had exercised no improper influence in deter-
mining Menecles' choice of a son. But all that he can urge is that, when
Menecles adopted him, his sister had been long married' ($19) to her
second husband, Eleius of Sphettus (§ 9), and that Menecles would have
taken one of her children, if his adoption of a son had been due to her seduc-
tiveness. This is not a strong argument, even if the sister had at the time
two sons (§ 19. 7 n.); what is needed is proof that after the separation
Menecles saw nothing of his former wife. There is no attempt to show this.
The speaker's line of defence is that Menecles wished for a son because he
was old and lonely, that he had no relation whom he could adopt, and that
he selected one of his late wife's brothers out of liking for the family generally
and respect for their dead father Eponymus. Two comments on this
argument suggest themselves. (1) The reasons given ($ 10, 21) why
Menecles could not adopt his brother's son are far from plausible. (2) Why
are no witnesses called to prove one point of considerable importance, that
Menecles was a friend of Eponymus and his house long before there could
be any question of the charms of Eponymus' youngest daughter? It may be
that it was impossible to get good evidence of an intimacy that belonged
to a remote past, but it is conceivable that the statement was one of those
insidious falsehoods for which the narrative of a speech was the recognised
opportunity.
The speech is so constructed as to conceal as much as possible the
236
OR. II.
ISAEUS
meagreness of the proofs. A brief exordium (§§ 1-2), which strikes the
keynote of the whole oration, the impious and unnatural conduct of Menecles'
brother, is followed by a long narrative leading up to the adoption and
designed to convince the judges of the respectability of the adopted son and
his brother, of the old friendship between their family and Menecles, of the
propriety of Menecles' marriage with their sister, and of the honourable
separation which terminated the union (§§ 3-12). Then the law is appealed
to, and proof given of the performance of the necessary ceremonies (§§ 13-
17). A fragment of narrative is next interposed to give a glimpse of
Menecles' happy home after the adoption (§ 18), and smooth the way for the
four sections (§§ 19-22), in which the orator attempts to rebut the charge of
his opponent. The remaining twenty sections are taken up with an onslaught
against the greed and malice of Menecles' brother, which are contrasted with
the delicate feeling and filial piety of Menecles' adopted son (ẻàv éµπíπ™y
ἄλυτος ἀντίθεσις, ἐν προσχήματι τοῦ δοκεῖν λύειν ἀντικατηγορεῖν δεῖ τοῦ ἀντιδίκου,
Rh. Gr. v. p. 577, 9 Walz).
This work is Isaeus' most elaborate effort in the representation of los
and πάθος. "Accusé d'être un intrigant qui s'est servi d'une femme pour`
capter un vieillard, l'orateur raconte avec un air de bonhomie et de naïveté
comment tout s'est passé, ainsi qu'il convient entre gens honorables et délicats.
Mais en parlant de Ménéclès dont il a été appelé le fils pendant vingt-trois
ans, en parlant des honneurs funèbres qu'on veut ravir à ce père, des devoirs
sacrés qu'on veut interdire à un fils, le ton de l'orateur s'élève et s'échauffe.
La piété filiale s'élevant au-dessus des intérêts d'argent éclate en mouvements
pathétiques, qui sont encore des arguments à l'appui de la cause..
De plus,
l'orateur s'appuie sur le caractère sacré de l'adoption. Une pensée religieuse
enveloppe en quelque sorte le plaidoyer; c'est par elle que l'orateur commence,
par elle qu'il finit, et elle reparait à plusieurs reprises dans le discours" (Moy,
Les plaidoyers d'Isée p. 149). Skilful speech-writers assisted by clients of a
histrionic turn prepared admirable little comedies for the entertainment of
Athenian judges.
The speech is one of the latest of Isaeus' works, though the exact date
cannot be determined. The clue given is the statement that the speaker and
his brother after marrying their sister to Menecles went abroad to Thrace
under the command of Iphicrates" ($6). Schoemann supposes that they
served in the expedition of 8 triremes and 1600 peltasts commanded by
Iphicrates, which was sent by Athens in 389 or 388 B.C. to oppose Anaxibius
in the Chersonnese and the Hellespont (Xen. Hell. 4. 8. 34 sqq.). Iphicrates
seems to have remained in these regions till the peace of Antalcidas,
387/6 B.C. (Xen. Hell. 5. 1. 25). Schoemann assuming that the speaker's
sister was separated from Menecles about 386 B.C., and that the adoption
took place about 383 B.C., arrives at the conclusion that the speech was
delivered in 360 B.C. or thereabouts. Blass (Att. Ber.² 11. p. 533, n. 2)
observes that "the orator's language seems to exclude the idea that at the
time Athens was engaged in a great war." He thinks that the allusion in § 6
is to "Iphicrates' contests with Cotys in 383 B.C.," and puts the speech about
354 B.C.
The evidence concerning these contests is a passage from Seneca,
Excerpt. Controu. VI. 5 missus Iphicrates aduersus Thracum regem bis acie
OR. II.
237
COMMENTARY
The marriage
uictus foedus cum eo percussit et filiam eius uxorem duxit.
feast of Iphicrates and Cotys' daughter is caricatured in the Protesilaus of
Anaxandrides (Athen. 4. 131 A, Kock, Com. Att. Fr. II. p. 151), and according
to Corn. Nep. Timoth. 3 Menestheus, the issue of this union, commanded in
the Social War in 356/5 B.C. Now Cotys was assassinated in 360/59 B.C.
after a reign of 24 years (Harp. s.v.), and it is conjectured that Menestheus
was born about 381 B.C. Nepos (Iphicr. 2) brings Iphicrates into connexion
with Seuthes (bellum cum Thracibus gessit: Seuthen, socium Atheniensium,
in regnum restituit). In 390 B.C. Thrasybulus effected a reconciliation
between Seuthes (ó éπì aλáτтη ❝ρxwv) and his rival Medocus, and made
ἐπὶ θαλάττῃ ἄρχων)
them allies of Athens (Xen. Hell. 4. 8. 26, cp. C.I.A. IV. 2. 12 and 12 b).
But according to Aristides (Panath. 172, I. p. 282. 12 Dind.) Seuthes was
hostile to Athens at the time of the peace of Antalcidas. Rehdantz (Vitae
Iphicr. Chabr. Timoth. p. 29) would place his expulsion and reinstatement by
Iphicrates between 390 B.C. and 387 B.C., Lupus in his commentary on Nepos
suggests that the Roman biographer confused Seuthes and Cotys. The
truth is that we have not enough material to pretend to date Iphicrates'
campaigns in Thrace whether in the service of Athens or of native princes.
The imperfection of the literary record is shown by C. I. A. IV. 2. 14 C
(386/5 B.C.), a decree in honour of king Hebrytelmis and his envoys.
HYPOTHESIS.
2 άdeλþŵv. There was only one brother. The error was caused by
ἀδελφῶν.
the plurals in §§ 14, 15, 17, 31, 38. Probably the son of the claimant was
present in court.
3 Piλwvídns Cp. §§ 18, 36. I see no reason to doubt that the witness
on trial was the speaker's father-in-law. The writer may have derived his
information from another title (e.g. vmèp Piλwvidov), as Blass remarks (Att.
Ber.2 11. p. 532 n. 4), or from a subscription. The names of the speakers are
preserved in the arguments of Dem. 23, 57, [Dem.] 35, 43, 48, 56, 58; in
[Dem.] 35 and 43 the name occurs in the documents appended, in [Dem.] 56
it is in the subscription of Σ.
4 ἐπέσκηψαν ψευδομαρτυρίας. In Attic ἐπεσκήψαντο ψευδομαρτυρίων (111.
4. 2 12.).
8 ἡ στάσις ἀντίληψις κατὰ στοχασμόν. See for στάσις I. hyp. 9 n. In
the στoxaσμòs or status coniecturalis a controuersia de facto is involved, the
question being not quid sit as in the opos, but an sit (repì ovoías). The fact
is denied, and the truth must be elicited from the material by 'conjecture.'
Hence we find two definitions of σтoxaσμós, one from the standpoint of the
accused, ἄρνησις παντελὴς τοῦ ἐπιφερομένου ἐγκλήματος (Minucianus in Rh.
Gr. IV. 214, 16, 299, I Walz), another from the standpoint of the accuser,
ἀδήλου πράγματος ἔλεγχος οὐσιώδης από τινος φανεροῦ σημείου ἢ ἀπὸ τῆς περὶ
TÒ πρÓσWÃоV Vποvías (Hermogenes in Rh. Gr. II. p. 138 Spengel). Here the
issue is, Was Menecles under the influence of a woman? The introduction
of ἀντίληψις, which is a subdivision of the status qualitatis, ποιότης or
dıkaɩodoyía, is a blunder. The origin of the term is explained by Syrianus
238
OR. II.
ISAEUS
<
او
in Rh. Gr. IV. 369, 28 Walz ἡ ἀντίληψις ὠνόμασται μὲν ἀπὸ μεταφορᾶς τῶν ὑπὸ
ρευμάτων παραφερομένων, ξύλου δὲ ἢ λίθου ἀντιλαμβανομένων καὶ τὴν σωτηρίαν
διὰ τούτου ποριζομένων· καὶ γὰρ ὁ φεύγων ὥσπερ ἐν κλύδωνι τῷ δικαστηρίῳ
κινδυνεύων λαμβάνεται τῆς ἀντιλήψεως. In the status qualitatis the fact is
admitted, and the question is quale sit, whether it is lawful or unlawful,
expedient or inexpedient etc. ᾿Αντίληψις is the constitutio iuridicialis absoluta,
στάσις καθ᾽ ἣν ὁ φεύγων ὁμολογῶν τὸ πεπραγμένον τῆς ἐξουσίας ἀντιλαμβάνεται
(Rh. Gr. IV. 584, 1 Walz), and δικαιολογία κατ᾽ ἀντίληψιν is opposed to
δικαιολογία κατ᾿ ἀντίθεσιν, constitutio iuridicialis assumptiua, in which the
defendant admits that his action was wrong, but places against it some
counterbalancing advantage (αντίστασις, compensatio, comparatio), or argues
that the injured party deserved to suffer (ἀντέγκλημα, relatio criminis), or
throws the blame on some one else (μετάστασις, remotio criminis), or on
circumstances beyond his control, accident, ignorance, necessity (συγγνώμη,
purgatio). In this case there are not two issues, but one only; for the charge
is that the adoption, which is admitted on both sides, was not legitimate,
because Menecles acted 'under the influence of a woman.' For the technical
terms see Volkmann, Rhetorik2 pp. 41, 57, 74, 82.
1-2 The unnatural and impious conduct of my uncle compels me to
come into court to defend my dead father and myself. The testimony of the
witness is true. I was rightfully and lawfully adopted.
Throughout the speech the orator pretends that religious feeling and
a sense of duty towards the dead are his only motives for resisting his uncle's
claims upon the estate. Blass (Att. Ber.2 11. p. 507) quotes this exordium
in illustration of Dionysius' judgment that in characterisation Isaeus lacks
the light and natural touch of Lysias (τίς οὖν οὐκ ἂν ὁμολογήσειε τὸν μὲν
Λυσίου νέον καὶ ἰδιώτην καὶ ἀπράγμονα ἀρχέτυπόν τινα εἶναι τῆς ἀληθείας
διαφέροντα ἐκείνης οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν· τὸν ἕτερον δὲ ἀπόγραφόν τινα καὶ οὐ λανθάνοντα
ὅτι πέπλασται ῥητορικῇ τέχνῃ; De Isae. iud. c. 11. p. 106, 5 sqq. Usener
et Radermacher).
1. : ἡγούμην μέν. A conventional opening; cp. v. I, VII. I, Lys. 5. 2,
7. 1 (πρότερον μὲν ἐνόμιζον), 9. 3, 31. 1, Isocr. 19. I, Dem. 57. 4. For further
illustrations see Isocr. 15. 102, Dem. 22. 17, 24. 116, [Dem.] 43. 67, Εp.
2. 1, Din. fr. XLV. (Saupp.), Philemon ap. Athen. 14. 658 A, Kock, Com.
Att. Fr. II. p. 499 (πρότερον μὲν ᾠόμην), Antiphanes ap. Athen. 6. 224 C,
Kock, op. cit. II. p. 79 (réws µèv wóµnv), Rh. Gr. (Hammer) I. pp. 232. 14,
235. 15 (ᾤμην μὲν ἔγωγε), Gebauer on Lys. 25. 17 Anhang p. 489.
4 γυναικὶ πιθόμενος. Here and elsewhere AQ have πειθόμενος. But
πιθόμενος occurs in 'Αθ. Πολ. 35. 2 (ἐὰν μὴ μανιῶν ἢ γήρως <ἕνεκα> ἢ γυναικὶ
πιθόμενος), and πεισθεὶς is used in § 19 and Lys. fr. CXVIII. 230 Saupp. τῆς
διαθέσεως ἣν διέθετο οὐ παρανοῶν οὐδὲ γυναικὶ πεισθείς. The confusion of
πειθόμενος and πιθόμενος is common; cp. Ant. 5. 91 (καὶ ὀργῇ χρησαμένους καὶ
διαβολῇ πειθομένους: corr. Cobet), 94, Lys. 13. 53, 26. 14, 21, Dem. 23. 116
(πιθήσθε Cob., πείθησθε pr. ΣΑΥ, πεισθῆτε uolg.), 143 (πιθῆσθε Cob., πεισθῆτε
A, πείθησθε uolg.), 29. 53 (πιθομένους Blass), 39. 34 (πιθοῦ Blass), [Dem.] 44.
19 (πιθόμενος Blass). The legitimacy of the 2nd aorist middle is guaranteed
by an inscription of 387/6 B.C., C. I. A. 11. 38, 14 (S. I. G.² n. 74, Michel n. 85)
εἰ οἱ στρατηγοὶ ἐπίθοντο, ἑάλωσαν ἂν αἱ τριήρεις αἱ πολέμιαι.
OR. II.
239
COMMENTARY
ὁ θεῖος. The speaker maliciously chooses the very title which his opponent
repudiates; cp. §§ 24. 4, 35. I.
ναισκος
7 τοὺς θεοὺς τοὺς πατρῴους. The range of this term is not easily fixed.
The general opinion is that at Athens the expressions θεοὶ πατρῷοι, ἱερὰ
πατρῷα, were used of the private cult, ἱερὰ πάτρια, θεοὶ πάτριοι of the public
cult (Lipsius-Schoemann, Gr. Alterthiimer II. p. 577). There is no doubt
that beoì marρo sometimes refers to the gods of a household, the gods
whose figures were handed down from father to son and stood in the house
in the valokos (Aristid. or. sacr. 3. 312, I. p. 491, 11 Dind., II. p. 416, 20,
Keil ἐδόκουν ἐπὶ τῆς πατρῴας ἑστίας εἶναι, ἐν δὲ τῷ τοίχῳ, οὗ τὰ ἕδη τῶν θεῶν,
ἐπιγράμματα εἶναι τοιάδε). Such were τὰ ἱερὰ τὰ πατρῷα, which Leocrates
on settling at Megara had conveyed to him from Attica (Lyc. 25, 56), and
Procne has in view domestica sacra when she moralizes on the 'hapless lot
of woman': ὅταν δ᾽ ἐς ἥβην ἐξικώμεθ᾽ ἔμφρονες, | ὠθούμεθ᾽ ἔξω καὶ διεμπολώ-
μεθα | θεῶν πατρῴων τῶν τε φυσάντων ἄπο (Soph. Tereus fr. 517 Dind.);
cp. Eur. Dan. fr. 330 Dind. τὸ δ᾽ ἄρσεν ἕστηκ᾽ ἐν δόμοις ἀεὶ γένος | θεῶν
πατρῴων καὶ τάφων τιμάορον. In Lys. cxxv 288 Saupp. constat igitur,
iudices, Simonem domo sua, ab suis diis penatibus ui cum summa iniuria
esse exturbatum (Rut. Lup. de fig. 1. 13) it is probable, as Lobeck (Aglaoph.
p. 1238) observes, that the Greek was ἀπὸ τῶν πατρῴων θεῶν, for Dion. Ηal.
Ant. Rom. 1. 65 (cp. Plut. Coriol. 29. 2) gives πατρῷοι θεοὶ as one of the current
translations of penates; cp. Lycophr. Alex. (of Aeneas) 1259 sqq. δείμας δὲ
σηκὸν Μυνδία Παλληνίδι | πατρῷ ἀγάλματ᾽ ἐγκατοικιεῖ θεῶν, Xen. Cyr. 1. 15
Αἰνείας σώσας μὲν τοὺς πατρῴους καὶ μητρῴους θεούς, σώσας δὲ καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν
πατέρα, Hor. Od. 2. 18. 26 pellitur paternos in sinu ferens deos et uxor et uiν.
But the phrase was not confined to the domestic cult. Plato (Laws 717 B)
after speaking of the honours to be paid to oἱ Ὀλύμπιοί τε καὶ οἱ τὴν πόλιν
ἔχοντες θεοί, to οἱ χθόνιοι θεοί, to οἱ δαίμονες, and to οἱ ἥρωες, adds ἐπακολουθεῖ
δ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἱδρύματα ἴδια πατρῴων θεῶν κατὰ νόμον ὀργιαζόμενα, alluding to
peculiar cults preserved in ancient gentes, such as e.g. the worship of
Δημήτηρ 'Αχαία by the Gephyraei (Hdt. 5. 61) and of Ζεὺς Κάριος by the gens
of Isagoras (ib. 5. 66; cp. C. I. A. IV. I. 5 a A 6). The θεοὶ πατρῷοι include
also the gods of the φρατρία. When Dionysodorus jeers at Socrates
(ταλαίπωρος ἄρα τις σύ γε ἄνθρωπος εἶ καὶ οὐδὲ ᾽Αθηναῖος, ᾧ μήτε θεοὶ πατρῷοί
εἰσι μήτε ἱερά, Plat. Euthyd. 302 B), Socrates replies that though, as an Ionian,
he has no Ζεύς πατρῷος (worshipped by the Κλυτίδαι of Chios, S. I. G. n. 572,
35, by the Λαβυάδαι of Delphi, S. I. G. n. 438, 14, by the Εὐθαλίδαι of Netteia
in the island of Rhodes, I. G. Ins. I. n. 890, 25), he has notwithstanding
Απόλλων πατρῷος, and he has too Ζεὺς ἑρκεῖος and Ζεὺς Φράτριος ([Dem.]
43. 14, C. I. A. 11. 8416 1=S. I. G.² n. 439, Michel n. 961), and 'AOŋvaia
Αθηναία
Φρατρία (S. I. G. n. 44ο Cos). Ζεὺς Φράτριος and ᾿Αθηναία Φρατρία were
common to all Athenian φρατρίαι, but it is possible that even after Cleisthenes
the pparpiai retained beside or beneath these abstractions each their own
archaic worships, just as the Εὐμηλίδαι, a φρητρία at Neapolis, had Εὔμηλος
for θεὸς πατρῷος (C. I. G. 5786=1. G. I. S. n. 715 Εὔμηλον θεὸν πατρῷον
φρήτορσιν Εὐμηλειδῶν Τ. Φλαούιος Πίος φρονιστὴς ἀνέθηκεν); cp. C. I. A. II.
1653 (S. I. G. n. 441, Michel n. 749) Ἱερὸν ᾿Απόλλωνος Ἑβδομείο φρατρίας
Αχνιαδών, ib. II. 1652 (S. I. G. n. 442, Michel n. 750) Ἱερὸν ᾿Απόλλωνος
>
2
2
2
240
OR. II.
ISAEUS
πατρώιου φρατρία]ς Θερρικ[λειδ]ῶν, ib. 11. 1062 (S. I. G. n. 443, Michel κ. 741)
Ορος ἱερό Τριτοπατρέων Ζακυαδῶν. ᾿Απόλλων πατρῷος had a temple in the
market place (Paus. 1. 3. 4), and in the imperial age a seat of honour was
reserved for his priest in the front row of the theatre of Dionysus (C. I. A.
III. 279, Larfeld, Handbuch d. gr. Epigraphik II. Taf. 1), but he was also
worshipped by gentes as well as by pparpiai (C. I. A. IV. 2. 1074 e=S. I. G.² n.
444, Michel n. 746 Ορος τεμένους ᾿Απόλλωνος Πατρώιο Ελασιδῶν). The lack
of ancient testimony has made Zeùs épkeîos a plaything of modern conjecture;
see Bull. Corr. Hell. 18, 1894, p. 441 sqq. for an inscription from Galepsus
Aiòs ÉρKEίO Tαтρwio kai Aiòs kryσío (Michel n. 774), C. I. A. II. 1664 (end
of 3rd c.) Διὸς ἑρκείου, Ἑρμοῦ, ᾿Ακάμαντος. One of the questions at the
scrutiny of the nine archons was εἰ ἔστιν αὐτῷ ᾿Απόλλων πατρῷος καὶ Ζεὺς
ἑρκεῖος καὶ ποῦ ταῦτα τὰ ἱερά ἐστιν ('Αθ. Πολ. 55. 3). In the age of Aristotle
this seems to have been equivalent to asking whether the candidate had
2 φρατρία (Din. 2. 17 εἰ ἱερὰ πατρῷά ἐστιν, fr. XXVII. Saupp. εἰ φράτορες αὐτῷ
καὶ βωμοὶ Διὸς ἑρκείου καὶ ᾿Απόλλωνος πατρῴου εἰσίν). In addition to the cults
of household, gens, and pparpía some of the demes had iepà, to which
members of another deme were not admitted (C. I. A. II. 589, 15=S. I. G.²
n. 430, Michel n. 145), and these too would be rarрa, since a son inherited
the deme as well as the pparpía of his father. Nor do I see how the epithet
can be denied to rà râv pvdíwv Dewv iepà (Poll. 8. 111); at Methymna
2 χελληστὺς had θεοὶ πατρῷοι (Michel nn. 360, 361). In the present passage
it is arbitrary to limit the words τοὺς θεοὺς τοὺς πατρῴους, as Schoemann does,
to gods of the family. The speaker assumes the worst, that neither the
opponent nor his son, if successful, will introduce into the house (oikos)
a child to be son to Menecles, that the house of Menecles will therefore
perish and the domestic gods be left unhonoured. But the gods of pparpía,
deme, and tribe will also suffer, since they will lose a worshipper if the
adoption be declared invalid.
2
2.3 voû. The balance of evidence is in favour of the form véos. In
inscriptions vou is first found in the last quarter of the 4th century (C. I. A.
11. 835, 320/17 B.C.), the last appearance of véos is in C. I. A. II. 1513, which
is assigned to the first half of the 4th century, in the imperial age vioù, viê,
vioi, vioùs etc. are normal (Meisterhans, Gramm. d. att. Inschr.3 § 58, 14,
p. 144). The MSS. of the orators fluctuate between forms of the 2nd and 3rd
declension. Hyp. 1. col. 26. 4, i.e. a papyrus of the 2nd century A.D., has voû,
vioù occurs 4 times in the codex Crippsianus (here, IV. 3, IX. 3, Lyc. 136),
once in the codex Palatinus (Lys. 14. 17), 4 times in codex Parisinus Σ (Dem.
23. 66, [Dem.] 40. 6, 44. 28, 51), vią occurs once in the codex Crippsianus
(X. 26), once in the codex Palatinus (Lys. 19. 17), twice in Σ ([Dem.] 49. 66
vieî uolg., Bekk., 58. 30 vieî A, Bekk.). On the other hand viéos occurs
12 times in the codex Crippsianus (II. 18, VI. 38, 46, VII. 19, 24, X. 5, 7, 9, 10,
XI. 30, 45, 46), twice in the codex Palatinus (Lys. 14. 16, 19. 14), 5 times in Σ
([Dem.] 43. 23, 24, 40, 73, 77), vieî occurs 9 times in the codex Crippsianus.
(VI. 22, 28, IX. 20, 31, X. 5, 8, And. 1. 121, Din. 1. 14, 3. 17), 4 times in the
codex Palatinus (Lys. 19. 12, 36, 40, 47), 15 times in 2. Dual forms are
naturally rare; we find viù in the codex Crippsianus (VI. 6), vieî in the codex
Palatinus (Lys. 19. 46, where it was taken as a dative and the text corrupted
OR. II.
241
COMMENTARY
accordingly); according to Hasse, Der Dualis im Attischen, 1893, p. 47, the only
other examples are viée in Plat. Apol. 20 A and Alcib. 1. 118 E, where Burnet
writes veî, and viéow in Plat. Lach. 186 A. In the plural the 3rd declension
has a great preponderance ; vioì is in one MS. (M) of Isae. XII. 2, in some MSS.
of Aesch. 2. 152, in all MSS. of Dem. 57. 68 (though vieîs is used in the same
section), in Lys. 32. 4, i.e. in the MSS. of Dion. Hal., vioùs is in Lys. 17. 3,
[Dem.] 44. 23, 54, viŵv is in [Dem.] 46. 24, vioîs in Lys. fr. LXII. 124 Saupp.
i.e. in the MSS. of Dion. Hal., whereas we have vieis (nom.) in three MSS.
of Isae. XII. 2, 3 times in the codex Crippsianus (II. 3, IV. 7, VIII. 7), 3 times
in the codex Palatinus (Lys. 12. 34, 18. 27, 20. 36), once in the better MSS.
of Aeschines (2. 152), 20 times in 2, vieîs (accus.) 4 times in the codex
Crippsianus (II. 45, X. 9, Lyc. 53, Din. 1. 71), once in the codex Palatinus
(Lys. 12. 83), once in the MSS. of Aeschines (1. 134), once in the 2nd century
papyrus of Hyp. 5. 4, 13 times in &, véwv once in Σ (Dem. 45. 27), viewv
twice in the codex Crippsianus (VI. 21, VIII. 15), 3 times in Σ ([Dem.] 43. 20,
48, 50), viéσɩ twice in the codex Crippsianus (VI. 28, 36), 3 times in Σ (Dem.
54. 16, 22, [Dem.] 43. 42). That the forms of the 2nd declension were
introduced by copyists is more probable than that Isaeus used both voû
and νέος. In Lyc. 53, where A has vieîs, its descendant M has vioús. The
same degeneration can be traced in the MSS. of Demosthenes (23. 202 vieîs Σ,
vioùs N, 44. 10 vieïs Σ, vioì r). It is creditable to the scribes that the forms
of the 3rd declension have been so extensively preserved, for according to
the evidence of papyri they had disappeared from the vulgar tongue early in
the Ptolemaic period (Mayser, Gramm. d. gr. Papyri auș d. Ptolemäerzeit
I. p. 29, Crönert, Memoria Graeca Herculanensis p. 175).
3-12 The speaker explains the circumstances of the marriage of his
sister to Menecles, of the separation which followed, and of his adoption.
The purpose of this narrative, which cannot be summarised without injury to
the art, is partly to dispel by an air of honesty and candour the prejudice
caused by the opponent's denunciations, partly to meet some of the charges
without the inconvenience of producing witnesses. Before attempting to
prove that his sister did not persuade Menecles to adopt him, the speaker
has to clear the character of himself and his family. According to his story
the marriage and the adoption were the most natural things in the world.
Menecles was an intimate friend of his father (§ 3), and entertained kindly
feelings towards himself and his brother before there could be any question
of adopting one of them. In fact it was this friendship that led to the
marriage; Menecles himself asked for the girl's hand because she was the
daughter of his old friend. Here comes a critical point. Did the brothers
give their sister a dowry? The matter is so important that it is not enough
to convey indirectly the impression that he and his brother were not the sort
of men to neglect their duty and leave their sisters to grow old unmarried
(§ 3 ἐκδίδομεν τὴν πρεσβυτέραν ἀδελφήν, ἐπειδὴ εἶχεν ὥραν), and that they
would not go out to the wars to seek their fortune before the girls were
honourably settled (§ 6 ἐκδόντες τὰς ἀδελφὰς καὶ ὄντες αὐτοὶ ἐν ἡλικίᾳ ἐπὶ
τὸ στρατεύεσθαι ἐτραπόμεθα). The orator interrupts his simple tale to call
witnesses, who testify that Menecles' wife had a dowry of 20 m. (§ 5). The
remainder of the narrative rests entirely on the assertions of the narrator.
W. I.
16
242
OR. II.
ISAEUS
In treating the awkward fact of the separation he brings out Menecles' appre-
ciation of his young wife's devotion (§ 7 πολλὰ ἐπαινέσας, τῆς χρηστότητος τῆς
éavτñs), her reluctance to leave the kind old man (§§ 8, 9), her lawful and
honourable union to a second husband (§ 9); as for himself and his brother,
they were passive in the matter, only desiring to consult their sister's wishes
and leaving it to Menecles to win her consent (§ 8). The account however
has its weak points. In view of the accusations of Menecles' brother it
is natural to enquire how long the speaker's sister lived with Menecles. The
adopted son does not state the number of years, but prefers to indicate the
period by an expression, which is vague, if not misleading (§ 6. 5 n.). Again,
we are told that one of Menecles' reasons for separating from his wife was
his age (§ 7), and are surprised to learn afterwards (§ 15), that he lived
twenty-three years after the adoption. If he was old when he parted with
his wife, long before his death he must have fallen completely into the power
of his adopted son, and the irritation of his brother and the charge of rapávola
become intelligible. Menecles' age when he died is not stated. After the
separation came an interval, the duration of which is not given (§§ 10. 2,
19. 7), devoted by Menecles to deliberation on the choice of a son (§ 10).
The good man shrank from adopting his brother's only son; he, unlike the
opponent, was unwilling to make his own brother childless. What more
obvious than to take one of the sons-no matter which (§ 12)—of Eponymus
his old friend, one of the brothers of his late wife?
3. I d'Axapveús. For the site and remains of Acharnae see Frazer on
Paus. 1. 31. 6. It belonged to the tribe Oeneis, was the largest of all the
demes, furnishing at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war no less than
3000 infantry to the Athenian army (Thuc. 2. 20), and was situated about
7 miles from Athens, in view of the capital but not in the Athenian plain.
It probably stood at or a little to the south of Epano-Liossia.
5 ἐκδίδομεν ἡμεῖς τὴν ἀδελφήν. At Athens daughters had no right of
succession by the side of sons, but a father might settle a dowry on his
daughter by will (Lys. 32. 6), and brothers were under a moral obligation to
provide their sisters with a suitable portion, and not 'suffer them to grow old
unmarried' (Lys. 13. 45, Dem. 30. 33, [Dem.] 45. 74, Hyp. 2. 12). Instances
of brothers cooperating in this duty are recorded in [Dem.] 40. 2, 7, 19, 25,
44. 9, 17. The code of Gortyn (IV. 30 sqq., Inscr. Jurid. Gr. 1. p. 463 sqq.,
Michel n. 1333) grants daughters a fixed and legal claim, one-half of a
brother's share, but the privilege is in lieu of dowry, a daughter portioned in
her father's lifetime having no further rights. The aim of the laws is curtail-
ment of dowries rather than extension of women's rights; if the daughters
are protected against neglect on the part of their brothers, the father is pre-
vented from impoverishing the sons by giving extravagant dowries. Ephorus,
as quoted by Strabo (10. 4. 20), attributes the rule of Gortyn to Crete as
a whole: φερνὴ δ᾽ ἐστίν, ἂν ἀδελφοὶ ὦσι, τὸ ἥμισυ τῆς τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ μερίδος.
Thalheim (Gr. Rechtsaltert. pp. 11, n. 1, 65, n. 7) deduces from certain
inscriptions that daughters inherited together with sons at Tenos and Delphi
in the 2nd and 3rd century B.C., but the evidence is ambiguous and contested
(Inscr. Jurid. Gr. 1. p. 93 sqq., Mitteis, Reichsrecht u. Volksrecht p. 65, n. 7,
Lipsius, Von der Bedeutung d. griech. Rechts, Leipzig, 1893, p. 27, n. 6).
4
OR. II.
243
COMMENTARY
6 eľkoσi μvâs. The modest dowry gives an idea of the social position of
the litigants; cp. XI. 40 εἴκοσι μνᾶς ἑκάτερος ἡμῶν ἐπὶ τῇ γυναικὶ προῖκα ἔλαβε,
τοσαύτη δὲ προὶξ οὐκ ἂν εἰς πολλήν τινα οὐσίαν δοθείη, [Plat.] Εp. 13. 361 Ε δεῖ
δὲ ταύτῃ οὐδὲν πλέον ἢ τριάκοντα μνῶν· μέτριαι γὰρ αὗται ἡμῖν προῖκες. In
literature we have record of dowries of 10 m. (VIII. 8, [Dem.] 59. 70), of 25 m.
(VIII. 8), of 30 m. (Lys. 16. 10 ovσías μoi où toλλĤs kataλeipßeions, [Dem.]
59. 50, Plut. Aristid. 27), of 40 m. (v. 26, Lys. 19. 15, [Dem.] 41. 3), of 50 m.
(Lys. 32. 8, Dem. 27. 4), of 60 m. (Lys. 32. 6, Dem. 30. 20, [Dem.] 40. 6, 19,
Hyp. 2. 13), of 80 m. (Dem. 27. 5, 31. 1, 7, 9), of more than 100 m. ([Dem.]
40. 20). Demosthenes' father, whose property is estimated at 14 talents by
his son, gave his daughter a dowry of 2 t. (Dem. 27. 5). The widow of the
banker Pasion, a nouveau riche, received 3 t. (Dem. 45. 28, 35 πpoσtibeìs
προίκα ὅσην οὐδεὶς τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει φαίνεται, 74). In Menander's Περικειρομένη
(Oxy. Pap. II. n. 211, 40) the father gives a dowry of 3 t., much to the lover's
satisfaction. Hipponicus, the richest man in Athens or indeed in Greece,
gave his daughter 10 t. on her marriage with Alcibiades, and promised 10 t.
more on the birth of a son ([And.] 4. 13, Plut. Alc. 8). See Boeckh, Staats-
haush.³ 1. p. 598. Athenian inscriptions, mortgage pillars (őpoı) set upon
land or houses pledged by the husband as securities for repayment (άπоτɩµŋ-
para), mention 300 dr. (C. I. A. II. 1124), 500 dr. (ib. 1150), 1050 dr. (ib. 1105),
1700 dr. (ib. 1132), 3000 dr. (ib. 1149), 4000 dr. (ib. 1137), 4500 dr. (ib. 1128),
I t. (ib. 1113), but it is impossible to tell whether in a given case the sum
represents the whole of the dowry. A register from Myconus of the
3rd century B.C. (S. I. G.² 22. 817, Michel n. 1350, Inscr. Jurid. Gr. 1. p. 48)
contains dowries of 700, 1300, 1500, 1600, 3500, 10000, 14000 dr. Cp.
v. 26. 7 n.
4. 3 σχεδὸν ἡλικίαν είχεν. For the early age at which marriage was
allowed see III. 31. 2 2. Probably the tender years of the bride figured in
the brother's attack on Menecles' second marriage.
5 тà voμilóμeva étolŋσev, 'performed the due observances.' The meaning
of the phrase varies with the context. In I. 10, II. 10, VI. 65 the speaker has
in view the annual evayioμaтa (§ 46. 5 n.). Demosthenes' words ereidη dè
τελευτήσειέ τις αὐτῶν καὶ τὰ νομιζόμενα αὐτῷ φέροιτο, ἀκολουθῶν ἐπὶ τὸ μνῆμα
(18. 243) appear in Aeschines' version as τελευτήσαντος δὲ ἐλθὼν εἰς τὰ ἔνατα
(3. 225). In IV. 19, IX. 4, 32 the ceremonies connected with the funeral are
meant. In this passage, as in Lys. 32. 8, Aesch. 3. 77, 'the due observances'
include the laying out (πpóleσɩs), the burial, the funeral feast (rò #epideɩπvov),
the offerings at the grave on the 3rd and 9th day (rà тρíтa kaì tà évata,
§ 36. 6 n.), and everything ordained by custom for a family in mourning; for
all which see Rohde, Psyche³ p. 218 sqq. A law of Gambreum in Aeolis
(S.I.G.² n. 879, Michel n. 520, Inscr. Jurid. Gr. I. p. 19) prescribes that
mourning shall not last longer than three months for men and four months
for women. In Sparta the period was only eleven days (Plut. Lyc. 27), at
Athens thirty days; see Lys. 1. 14 (ἔδοξε δέ μοι τὸ πρόσωπον ἐψιμυθιῶσθαι τοῦ
ἀδελφοῦ τεθνεῶτος οὔπω τριάκονθ' ἡμέρας) and the articles of the lexicographers
on тρiakàs and κaðédpa, which state that on the thirtieth day (after death
according to Harp. and Phot., after the funeral according to Dittenberger,
S. I. G.² n. 877, 20, and Rohde, op. cit. p. 233 n. 3) the relatives met and
16-2
244
OR. II.
ISAEUS
banqueted together in honour of the deceased (ἐπὶ τῷ ἀποθανόντι), not re-
clining but sitting according to ancient custom (ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ καθέδρα ὅτι
καθεζόμενοι ἐδείπνουν καὶ τὰ νομιζόμενα ἐπλήρουν Phot.); it is supposed that
this banquet marked the end of mourning. For the importance of the
thirtieth day in this connexion see Sartori, Die Speisung der Toten,
Dortmund, 1903, p. 32.
5. 2 οὐκ ἄπροικον, ὡς οὗτος λέγει. Athenian speakers, when it suits
their argument, represent marriage with a portionless girl as an act of virtue
(Lys. 19. 14 παρὸν μετὰ πολλῶν χρημάτων γῆμαι ἄλλην, τὴν ἐμὴν μητέρα ἔλαβεν
οὐδὲν ἐπιφερομένην). The other side is shown by Lesbonicus in the Trinum-
mus, 689 sqq.: nolo ego mihi te tam prospicere qui meam egestatem leues, | seď
ut inops infamis ne sim, ne mihi hanc famam differant, | me germanam
meam sororem in concubinatum tibi, | si sine dote <dem>, dedisse magis
quam in matrimonium. | quis me improbior perhibeatur esse? haec fami-
geratio | te honestet, me conlutulentet. si sine dote duxeris, | tibi sit emolumentum
honoris, mihi quod obiectent siet; cp. ib. 605 sine dote illam in tantas diuitias
dabit? non credibile dicis, ib. 612 flagitium quidem hercle fiet, nisi dos dabitur
uirgini, [Dem.] 40. 25, 59. 8. The freedom of divorce allowed by Athenian
law made the position of a wife without a dowry very precarious.
III. 28, 29 analysis.
See
6. 3 μετὰ Ιφικράτους. To have followed so great a captain was
something to be proud of Aesch. 2. 149 Φιλοχάρης ὁ πρεσβύτατος ἀδελφὸς
ἡμῶν οὐκ ἀγεννεῖς διατριβάς, ὡς σὺ βλασφημεῖς (Dem. 19. 237), ἔχων ἀλλ᾽ ἐν
γυμνασίοις διατρίβων καὶ μετὰ Ἰφικράτους συνεστρατευμένος καὶ συνεχῶς ἔτος
ἤδη τουτὶ τρίτον στρατηγών). The episode of mercenary service lends a handle
to the adversary, and needs palliation.
5, 6 καταλαμβάνομεν τῇ πρεσβυτέρᾳ ἀδελφῇ ὄντα δύο παιδία. The statement
throws no light on the duration of Menecles' marriage, since the elder sister
was married 'three or four years' (§ 4) before the younger. Isaeus wishes
the judges to believe that the two children were not born when the brothers
went on campaign, but it must be remembered that the advantages of lying
by implication were well understood in his profession.
8. 3 δοῦναι χάριν is sustained by Lys. 21. 17 ὑμᾶς ἂν ἠξίουν ἐμοὶ δοῦναι
τὴν χάριν, Dem. 21. 24 ἡμῖν δότε τὴν χάριν ταύτην, And. 2. 21 εἴ μοι βουληθεῖτε
δοῦναι χάριν μικράν τε καὶ ἄπονον ὑμῖν καὶ ἅμα δικαίαν, Meineke, Com. Gr. Fr.
iv. p. 361, monost. 746 χάριν λαβὼν εὔκαιρον ἐν καιρῷ δίδου.
4 μετὰ τῆς γνώμης τῆς ἑαυτοῦ, with his consent, approval (Diog. Laert.
10. 20 (will of Epicurus) τὴν δὲ προῖκα μερισάτωσαν...ὅσον ἂν ἐπιδέχηται ἀπὸ
τῶν ὑπαρχόντων ἀφαιροῦντες μετὰ τῆς Ἑρμάρχου γνώμης, Dem. 25. 10 εἰ μὲν οὖν
ὑμεῖς ταῦτα βούλεσθε καὶ μετὰ τῆς ὑμετέρας γνώμης ταῦτα ποιοῦσιν, [Dem.] 33. 38
εἴπερ ἄνευ τῆς τούτου γνώμης ἀπολώλασιν αἱ συνθῆκαι, Isocr. 3. 54, 11. 18).
For inscriptions and papyri see C. I. A. I. 9, 26, 27 (S. I. G.² n. 8) ävev rôs
γνώμης τῆς ᾿Αθηναίων καὶ τοῦ δήμου, Michel n. 340 (decree of Aegina,
2nd century B.C.), 54 ἀναπέμψαι δὲ τόδε τὸ ψήφισμα τοὺς στρατηγοὺς πρὸς τὸν
βασιλέα (Attalus), ἵνα μετὰ τῆς ἐκείνου γνώμης συντελῆται τὰ ἐψηφισμένα,
Wilcken, Aktenstücke aus der königl. Bank zu Theben (Abhandl. d. königl.
Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin, 1886, p. 1 sqq.) VIII. 6 ἄνευ τῆς ἡμετέρας γνώμης,
Teb. Pap. n. 1o4 (92 B.C.), 28 ἄνευ τῆς Φιλίσκου γνώμης. De consilii sententia
OR. II.
245
COMMENTARY
is translated by μετὰ συμβουλίου γνώμης and ἀπὸ συμβουλίου γνώμης (Viereck,
Sermo Graecus quo senatus Romanus usus est pp. 63, 64); cp. Dion. Hal.
Ant. Rom. 1. 31 ὁ δὲ στόλος οὗτος οὐκ ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ τῆς γνώμης ἐπέμφθη.
9. 3 Σφηττίῳ. For the site of the deme Sphettus see III. 22. 4η.
3, 4 τήν τε προῖκα ἀποδίδωσιν αὐτῆς. If αὐτῷ, the reading of the Mss., be
retained with Thalheim, the meaning is 'he paid over the dowry to Eleus';
so in Dem. 30. 8 οὐκ ἀποδεδωκὼς τὴν προῖκα is said of Onetor, whom
Demosthenes accuses of not having really paid his sister's dowry to Aphobus
her second husband, and ib. 10 οὐκ ἀπέδοσαν is applied to Onetor and the
first husband Timocrates. But in view of [Dem.] 59. 52 κατὰ τὸν νόμον ὃς
κελεύει, ἐὰν ἀποπέμπῃ τὴν γυναῖκα, ἀποδιδόναι τὴν προῖκα and of the frequent
confusion of the cases of avròs (Crit. Introd. p. xl), after some hesitation
I have adopted Buermann's correction, αὐτῆς.
4, 5 μετασχών τοῦ οἴκου τῆς μισθώσεως τῶν παίδων τῶν Νικίου. The
clause is added to explain how Menecles was able to repay promptly the
2o minae ; cp. VIII. 8 τὴν προῖκα οὐκ ἀπολαβὼν ὅσην ἔδωκε διὰ τὴν Ναυσιμένους
ἀπορίαν τῶν πραγμάτων, Dem. 30. 10, 11 οὔτε γὰρ δι᾽ ἀπορίαν οἷόν τ᾽ εἰπεῖν ὡς
οὐκ εὐθὺς ἀπέδοσαν· Τιμοκράτει τε γάρ ἐστιν οὐσία πλέον ἢ δέκα ταλάντων,
Ονήτορί τε πλέον ἢ τριάκοντα, ὥστ᾽ οὐκ ἂν διὰ τοῦτό γ' εἶεν οὐκ εὐθὺς δεδωκότες·
οὔτε κτήματα μὲν ἦν αὐτοῖς, ἀργύριον δ᾽ οὐκ ἔτυχε παρόν…ἀργύριόν τε γὰρ οὗτοι
δανείζουσιν ἄλλοις οὐκ ὀλίγον κ.τ.λ. Menecles, having become part-lessee
of the estate of the orphan children of one Nicias, was in possession of
a large sum of ready money (§ 27 ἐπειδὴ τῷ ὀρφανῷ τὸ ἀργύριον ἀπέδωκεν),
for which his land, or part of it, was security (§ 28, [Dem.] 49. 11 ó µèv év
πεδίῳ ἀγρὸς ἀποτίμημα τῷ παιδὶ τῷ Εὐμήλου καθειστήκει). Several records
of such mortgages are preserved (Inscr. Jurid. Gr. I. p. 108, Larfeld,
Handbuch d. gr. Epigraphik II. p. 932, S. I. G.² n. 820, Michel nn. 1364,
1365), two examples of which will suffice, C. I. A. II. 1114 όρος ἀποτιμήματος
Εὐβοίου παίδων Οῆθεν, ib. 1138 ἐπὶ Νικοκλέους ἄρχοντος (302/I B.C.)· ὅρος
χωρίων καὶ οἰκίας καὶ τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ προσόντος τοῖς χωρίοις κλήρων δυεῖν
ἀποτετιμημένων παισὶν ὀρφανοῖς τοῖς Χαρίου ἰσοτελοῦς, Χαιρίππῳ καὶ Χαρίᾳ
(perhaps in this case the lessees were two brothers, hence the specification
of κλήρων δυεῖν). For the nature and purpose of μίσθωσις οἴκου ὀρφανικοῦ
see the notes on §§ 27, 28, VI. 36 sqq., XI. 34, Schulthess, Vormundschaft
nach attischem Recht p. 139 sqq., Beauchet 11. p. 238 sqq.
5, 6 τὰ ἱμάτια...καὶ τὰ χρυσίδια...δίδωσιν αὐτῇ. This is evidence of
Menecles' generosity and respect for his late wife. The clothes and
ornaments of the bride were often valued and reckoned in the dowry
(ἐν προικὶ τετιμημένα, see III. 35. 6 n., VIII. 8), in which case the husband
was bound to restore them or an equivalent in money on dissolution of
marriage. If the articles were not included in the dowry, the kúpos of the
woman had no right of recovery. In the present case, if the dress and
jewelry formed part of the dowry, Menecles had discharged all his legal
obligations by repaying the 2o minae; if they did not, they could not
lawfully be claimed on behalf of the departing wife. For gifts to a wife
over and above the dowry compare the will of Pasion in Dem. 45. 28 δίδωμι
τὴν ἐμαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ᾿Αρχίππην Φορμίωνι, καὶ προῖκα ἐπιδίδωμι ᾿Αρχίππῃ
τάλαντον μὲν τὸ ἐκ Πεπαρήθου, τάλαντον δὲ τὸ αὐτόθεν, συνοικίαν ἑκατὸν μνῶν,
1
246
OR. II.
ISAEUS
θεραπαίνας καὶ χρυσία, καὶ τἆλλ᾽ ὅσα ἐστὶν αὐτῇ ἔνδον, ἅπαντα ταῦτα ᾿Αρχίππῃ
δίδωμι, and the last injunctions of Diodotus in Lys. 32. 6 ἐπέσκηψε δέ, ἐάν τι
πάθῃ, τάλαντον μὲν ἐπιδοῦναι τῇ γυναικὶ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῷ δωματίῳ δοῦναι. Contrast
Dem. 41. 27, where Polyeuctus pays to Leocrates his former son-in-law,
with whom he had quarrelled, ‘more than 10 m.' for the clothes and jewelry
(tà xpvoia kaì tà iµária), which his daughter brought back from her husband's
house.
10. 2 χρόνου διαγενομένου. Cp. VI. 27. 3 n., XI. 9. I n. The length of
the interval between the separation and the adoption is important, and the
judges might fairly have demanded a plain statement; see § 19. 7 n.
3 ἄπαις. Thalheim suggests that ἀγενής which Harpocration quotes
from this speech (see the critical note on the title) should be inserted here
in place of anais. In Delphic deeds of manumission belonging to the last
half of the 2nd century B.C. the word is applied to women (S. I. G.² n. 855,
ΙΟ, ΙΙ εἰ δέ τι Μνασὼ πάθοι ἀγενὴς ὑπάρχουσα, τὰ καταλειφθέντα ὑπὸ Μνασῶς
'Aynoißoúdas eσtw, S. D. I. II. nn. 1684, 9, 2090, 23; cp. ib. n. 1891, 29
άyévelos), άTeKvOs being used of men (ib. n. 1878, 13), and etymologically
it seems more appropriate to the female sex. If it should be restored
anywhere, a better place would be § 6. 6.
5 τὰ νομιζόμενα, here the annual ἐναγίσματα; cp. § 4. 5 n.
παις
6, 7 άπαιδα τοῦτον καθιστάντα ἀρρένων παίδων. Menecles' brother seems
to have had a daughter or daughters (§ 23. 4 övtwv avtê naidwv). If then
he had given his son to Menecles, he would not have been made arais in
the worst sense of the word; see VIII. 1 Κίρωνος οὐκ ἄπαιδος τελευτήσαντος
ἀλλ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἐκ θυγατρὸς αὑτοῦ γνησίας παῖδας αὑτῷ καταλελοιπότος, III. 73
ἐπισκῆψαι τῶν γιγνομένων ἐκ τῆς θυγατρὸς παίδων εἰσαγαγεῖν ὑὸν ἑαυτῷ, [Dem.]
43. 12 ἐσπούδαζεν ὅπως ἐκ τῆς θυγατρὸς εἰσποιηθῇ αὐτῷ ὑὸς εἰς τὸν οἶκον τὸν
Éavтoû. Remember also (1) that it was possible for the adopted son under
certain conditions to return to the house of his natural father (X. 11), (2) that
Menecles might have adopted the daughter (VII. 9. 4) and taken precautions
that her son should carry on his house and attend at his tomb.
K
8 τοῦτον εἰσποιήσασθαι. Dobree (Adv. I. p. 288) in place of roûTOV
proposes tòv viòv, which is accepted by Scheibe and Thalheim. He compares
the corruption of ó viòs into oûtos (VI. 22. 1, [Dem.] 43. 22, 63). Similarly
Cobet (Coll. Crit. p. 377) restores Toû vioû for Toúroυ in Iambl. Vit. Pythag.
§ 142.
But if Menecles' nephew was present in court (§ 38. 6 аµþóтeρоι
oûtoɩ), a glance or gesture would have made clear to whom the pronoun
referred.
11. 3 ἔφη δοκεῖν αὐτῷ. I think αὑτῷ necessary and regret that it is
not in the text; cp. III. 26. 2, V. 27. 3, 5, 6, VI. 35. 6. One of the small
troubles of an editor is the choice between αὑτὸν and αὐτὸν, αὑτῷ and αὐτῷ
etc., the testimony of A and Q being entirely worthless (Crit. Introd. pp. xix,
xlix.), and that of other MSS. of the orators of no great weight. According
to Diels (Meisterhans, Gramm. d. att. Inschr³ p. 154 n. 1317) Byzantine
scribes in general distinguish only avròv and avτóv, and traces of the
confusion of avròv and avròv appear in Athenian inscriptions as early as the
4th century B.C. Naber (Mnem. N. S. 5. pp. 392-3) accuses editors, and
especially modern editors (hodie etiam frequentius peccari uideo quam olim
OR. II.
247
COMMENTARY
factum est), of importing Latinisms into Greek texts, and propounds a canon,
which, if it means anything, means a denial that αὑτὸν, αὑτῷ etc. can be used
as indirect reflexives. He seems to believe that avròv, avr@ always represent
se ipsum, sibi ipsi, never se, sibi, and in the present passage lays down that
The
αὐτῷ is right, because the oratio recta is ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, not ἐμαυτῷ δοκεῖ.
development of the reflexives of the first and second persons is enough
to upset this rule; it is clear that σεαυτὸν answers to te in III. 48 ἢ καὶ ταῦτα
λαθεῖν σεαυτὸν προσποιήσει, and that in Lys. 32. 13 ἐθέλω τοὺς παῖδας
παραστησαμένη καὶ τούτους καὶ τοὺς ὕστερον ἐμαυτῇ γενομένους ὀμόσαι ὅπου ἂν
οὗτος λέγῃ the right translation of ἐμαυτῇ is not mihi ipsi but mihi. In
oratorical prose nearly all the work of %, οὗ, οἷ, σφᾶς, σφῶν, σφίσι has been
transferred to the cases of avròv and aúróv (III. 45. 2 n.). The examples and
arguments of Dyroff (Geschichte des Pronomen Reflexivum, Würzburg,
1892/3) convince me that in infinitival and participial clauses after uerba
dicendi et sentiendi and the like good Attic prose admitted only the reflexive
construction, and that the exceptions, which in modern texts are not numerous
(e.g. in the orators XI. 6. 9, Ant. Tetr. II. y. 3, And. I. 41, 42, 120, Lys. 7. 2,
23. 14, 29. 10, 32. 10, 14 (αὐτὴν Thalheim, ἑαυτὴν Dyroff, ταύτην Χ), [Lys.]
2. 15, Dem. 23. 153, Aesch. 2. 126, 3. 215, Hyp. 2. 8), should by removed
by restoration of the aspirate; I doubt whether Demosthenes would have
approved the expression in C. I. A. II. 758 A III. 3o (c. 344 Β.C.) τάδε
προσπαρέδωσαν ἐπιστάται οἱ ἐπὶ Πυθοδήλου ἄρχοντος ἀνατεθέντα ἐπ᾿ αὐτῶν
ἐπιστάταις τοῖς ἐπὶ Εὐαινέτου ἄρχοντος. A large region of uncertainty remains,
in which it is now impossible to determine the point of view taken in each
case by the writer. On the one hand the tendency of our MSS. is to omit
rather than to add the aspirate, on the other hand it is certain that e.g. in
subordinate clauses in oratio obliqua the anaphoric pronoun was as legitimate
as the reflexive. The contrast between the systematic regularity of Latin
and the mobility of Greek is shown by the occasional appearance of ἐκεῖνος
(Isocr. 12. 16ο τοὺς μὲν θεραπεύοντας αὑτὸν ὑβρίζειν εἴθισται, πρὸς δὲ τοὺς
ἀντιταττομένους καὶ καταφρονοῦντας τῆς ἐκείνου δυνάμεως ἐκ παντὸς τρόπου
διαλύεσθαι πειρᾶται τὰς διαφοράς, Dem. 18. 148 εἰ μὲν τοίνυν τοῦτ᾽ ἢ τῶν παρ'
ἑαυτοῦ πεμπομένων ἱερομνημόνων ἢ τῶν ἐκείνου συμμάχων εἰσηγοῖτό τις, ὑπό-
ψεσθαι τὸ πρᾶγμ᾽ ἐνόμιζε καὶ τοὺς Θηβαίους καὶ τοὺς Θετταλούς, [Dem.] 7. 26
φησὶ δ᾽ ᾿Αμφίπολιν ἑαυτοῦ εἶναι· ὑμᾶς γὰρ ψηφίσασθαι ἐκείνου εἶναι, ὅτ᾽ ἐψηφί
ζεσθε ἔχειν αὐτὸν ἃ εἶχεν, Xen. Hell. I. 6. 14 οὐκ ἔφη ἑαυτοῦ γε ἄρχοντος οὐδέν
ἂν Ελλήνων εἰς τὸ ἐκείνου δυνατὸν (εἰς-δυνατὸν del. Kruse) ανδραποδισθῆναι).
>
6 φύσει παῖδας, opposed to ποιητοὺς (VI. 28. 4, VII. 16. 2, Isocr. 19. 46
ἐκ ποίας δ᾽ ἂν οἰκίας ἥδιον εἶδεν υἱὸν αὑτῷ κατὰ τοὺς νόμους εἰσποιηθέντα μᾶλλον ἢ
ταύτης ἐξ ἧσπερ καὶ φύσει παῖδας ἐζήτησεν αὑτῷ γενέσθαι, [Dem.] 40. 47, 56,
43 hyp. ad fin., 44. 32, 59. 28, Lyc. 48, Bekk. An. Gr. 1. p. 247, 18, F. T. Pap.
7. 19 (letter ascribed to the emperor Hadrian), II ὁ μὲν φύσει πατὴρ γενόμενος,
Dobree Adv. II. p. 212 on Ar. Pax 1164). So in Latin natura is contrasted
with adoptione; Dobree Adv. I. p. 551 quotes Liv. 42. 52 filios duos; quorum
maior, Philippus, natura frater, adoptione filius; minor...naturalis erat,
44. 44 P. Scipio...naturalis filius Paulli, adoptione Africani nepos. In
inscriptions púσei and karà þúow have a wide range, being found at Olympia
(Die Inschriften von Olympia, n. 420 (age of Augustus) Κλεογένη Σωτέλεος,
}
248
OR. II.
ISAEUS
2
κατὰ φύσιν δὲ Δαμοσῶντος ᾿Αργεῖον), Amphissa (S. I. G. n. 844, 2), Gonnos
(Lolling, Thessalische Freilassungsurkunde, Sitzungsber. d. Berl. Ak. 1887,
p. 370), Samos (Michel n. 901, 6), Teos (Bull. Corr. Hell. 4. p. 174), Eresus
(I. G. Ins. III. 547, 4), Calymna (S. I. G. n. 865, 8), Cos (Bull. Corr. Hell.
6. p. 264, C. I. G. n. 2502, 4), Antandros (Michel n. 668, 1), Magnesia ad
Maeandrum (S. I. G.² n. 699, 34), Smyrna (C. I. G. n. 3264, 9), Aphrodisias
(C. I. Gr. n. 2772). At Rhodes κατὰ γένεσιν seems to have been the official
phrase (I. G. Ins. I. 19, 10, 884, 14). At Chios yovĝ is found (C. I. G. 12. 2221).
The formula of Athenian inscriptions is not φύσει but γόνῳ (§ 18. 5 n., C. I. Α.
11. 2179 Ξενόκριτος ᾿Ασκληπιάδου Κηφισιεύς, γόνῳ δὲ Ἡρακῶντος Ραμνουσίου,
ib. III. 1394 ...Κοσσινίου θυγάτηρ, γόνῳ δὲ...άνδρου Μαραθωνίου, Larfeld, Hand-
buch d. gr. Epigraphik 11. p. 849).
12. 5 ἐμοὶ μὲν οὖν συμβαίνει ἀποδημία. Cp. [Dem.] 44. 18 ἀποδημίας
τινος εἰς τὴν ὑπερορίαν συμβάσης τῷ Μειδυλίδῃ, 47. 49 συμβέβηκέ μοι τριηραρχία,
53. 5 συμβαίνει δή μοι τριηραρχία περὶ Πελοπόννησον.
σε
66
66
6 ἐμὲ λέγων. Cp. Isocr. 12. 215 “ σὺ μὲν πεποίησαι τοὺς λόγους” ἐμὲ λέγων
“ ὡς ἅπαντ᾽ ἀποδεχομένου μου τἀκεῖ,” Dem. 21. 116 “τὸν αὐτόχειρ᾽ ἔχοντες”
λέγων τὸν ᾿Αρίσταρχον “μέλλετε καὶ ζητεῖτε καὶ τετυφῶσθε,” ib. 189 καὶ “ ῥήτωρ
ἐστὶν οὗτος” ἴσως ἐμὲ φήσει λέγων, Aesch. 2. 43 “ οὔτ᾽ ἂν οὗτος” ἐμὲ δὴ λέγων
‘τολμήσειεν εἰπεῖν πρὸς ᾿Αθηναίους,” Schneider on Isocr. 5. 9o (use of λέγω δὲ).
13-18 The law allowed Menecles to adopt a son.
He was sound in
body and mind when he adopted me, and observed all due formalities. Even
my opponents did not object at the time on the ground of imbecility. More-
over he lived twenty-three years after the adoption satisfied with his choice, the
head of a happy household.
The orator completes his proof of the legality of the adoption before he
lets the judges hear the law. If the law had been read at the beginning
of § 13 instead of at the end of § 16, his hearers could not have failed to
perceive that the argument does not bear upon the issue, which is whether
Menecles acted under the infuence of a woman (γυναικὶ πιθόμενος). It is
curious to find the right of adoption founded on Solon's law of testament, for
in the order of historical development adoption is prior to testation. Blass
(Att. Ber. II. p. 534, n. 6) comments on the place of $ 18 ' strangely interposed
between the two parts of the main proof.' The position is intentional. The
picture of domestic felicity is inserted here, that the speaker may have the
benefit of the sentiment evoked, when in the next section he approaches the
most dangerous part of his task.
2
او
او
13.2
τὸν νόμον αὐτὸν ἀνάγνωθι. Part of the law is preserved in [Dem.]
46. 14 ὅσοι μὴ ἐπεποίηντο, ὥστε μήτε ἀπειπεῖν μήτ' ἐπιδικάσασθαι, ὅτε Σόλων εἰσῄει
τὴν ἀρχήν, τὰ ἑαυτοῦ διαθέσθαι εἶναι, ὅπως ἂν ἐθέλῃ, ἂν μὴ παῖδες ὦσι γνήσιοι
ἄρρενες, ἂν μὴ μανιῶν ἢ γήρως ἢ φαρμάκων ἢ νόσου ἕνεκα, ἢ γυναικὶ πιθόμενος,
ὑπὸ τούτων του παρανοῶν, ἢ ὑπ᾽ ἀνάγκης ἢ ὑπὸ δεσμοῦ καταληφθείς. For allu-
sions to it cp. I. II, III. I, IV. 14, 16, VI. 9, 21, 28, IX. 11, 13, 37, X. 2, 9. The
place of the clause protecting the rights of daughters (III. 42. 3, 68. 3, Χ. 13. 3)
is not known. The first sentence, ὅσοι μὴ ἐπεποίηντο κ.τ.λ., is a bone of con-
tention (Att. Proc.2 p. 593, Thalheim-Hermann, Gr. Rechtsaltert. p. 79,
n. 6, Beauchet II. p. 34 sqq., Inscr. Jurid. Gr. II. p. 65). The privilege
conferred by the law was withheld from 'such persons as had been adopted,
1
OR. II.
249
COMMENTARY
without renouncing or obtaining a judgment, before Solon's entry into office.'
With regard to the first qualification, ὥστε μήτε ἀπειπεῖν, something like
agreement has now been reached. If a man after being adopted had
renounced the bond and gone back to his own family, he was not to be
debarred from 'disposing of his own.' The meaning of the second qualifica-
tion, ὥστε...μήτ᾽ ἐπιδικάσασθαι, is still disputed. I think that Solon had in
view the practice of posthumous adoption (Beauchet II. p. 24 sqq.), and desired
to guarantee liberty of disposition to men who had succeeded to an estate as
next-of-kin, under a legal judgment, and afterwards from motives of piety
or otherwise had transferred themselves to the family of the deceased owner.
3 κελεύει ἐξεῖναι. Cobet (Mnem. II, p. 127) objects to the combination
on logical grounds (componi non possunt κελεύει et ἐξεῖναι), and demands
διαγορεύει ἐξεῖναι. But cp. Lys. 22. 5 πλείω σῖτον συμπρίασθαι πεντήκοντα
φορμῶν ὧν ὁ νόμος ἐξεῖναι κελεύει (ὧν...κελεύει del Naber), Dem. 21. 46
μήτε πρὸς δοῦλον μήθ᾽ ὅλως ἐξεῖναι πράττειν ἐπέτρεψεν, 22. 8 του νόμου
τοῦ διαρρήδην οὐκ ἐῶντος ἐξεῖναι μὴ ποιησαμένῃ τῇ βουλῇ τὰς τριήρεις
αἰτῆσαι τὴν δωρεάν, 37 hyp. 6 νόμον τὸν κελεύοντα, περὶ ὧν ἂν ἄφεσις καὶ
ἀπαλλαγὴ γένηται, περὶ τούτων μηκέτ' ἐξεῖναι δικάζεσθαι, Xen. Hell. 5. 2. 30 τοῦ
νόμου κελεύοντος ἐξεῖναι πολεμάρχῳ λαβεῖν, εἴ τις δοκεῖ ἄξια θανάτου ποιεῖν.
The knife must cut deep to get rid of Dem. 22. 8.
αν
5, 6 μόνην ταύτην καταφυγὴν οὖσαν τῆς ἐρημίας κ.τ.λ. The commonplace
appears in Isocr. 19 (a speech in defence of an adoption), 49 ἄξιον δ᾽ ἐστὶ καὶ
τῷ νόμῳ βοηθεῖν, καθ᾿ ὃν ἔξεστιν ἡμῖν καὶ παῖδας εἰσποιήσασθαι καὶ βουλεύσασθαι
περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων αὐτῶν, ἐνθυμηθέντας ὅτι τοῖς ἐρήμοις τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀντὶ
παίδων οὗτός ἐστιν· διὰ γὰρ τοῦτον καὶ οἱ συγγενεῖς καὶ οἱ μηδὲν προσήκοντες
μᾶλλον ἀλλήλων ἐπιμέλονται. See also Dem. 20. 102 ὁ Σόλων ἔθηκεν νόμον
ἐξεῖναι δοῦναι τὰ ἑαυτοῦ ᾧ ἄν τις βούληται, ἐὰν μὴ παῖδες ὦσι γνήσιοι, οὐχ ἵν᾿
ἀποστερήσῃ τοὺς ἐγγυτάτω γένους τῆς ἀγχιστείας, ἀλλ᾽ ἵν᾽ εἰς τὸ μέσον καταθεὶς
τὴν ὠφελίαν ἐφάμιλλον ποιήσῃ τὸ ποιεῖν ἀλλήλους εὖ, Plut. Sol. 21 ὁ δ᾽ ᾧ
βούλεταί τις ἐπιτρέψας, εἰ μὴ παῖδες εἶεν αὐτῷ, δοῦναι τὰ αὑτοῦ, φιλίαν τε συγγε-
νείας ἐτίμησε μᾶλλον καὶ χάριν ἀνάγκης, καὶ τὰ χρήματα κτήματα τῶν ἐχόντων
ἐποίησεν.
14. 2, 3 οὐκ ἐν διαθήκαις γράψας. For attacks on wills cp. III. 61. 2 κ.
3 μέλλων ἀποθνῄσκειν. The best commentary on this is Plato, Laws
922 B sqq.; note in particular 922 C ανοήτως γὰρ δὴ καὶ διατεθρυμμένως τινὰ
τρόπον ἔχομεν οἱ πλεῖστοι, ὅταν ἤδη μέλλειν ἡγώμεθα τελευτᾶν, 923 Β οὐκ, ἐάν
τις ἡμᾶς θωπείαις ὑποδραμὼν ἐν νόσοις ἢ γήρᾳ σαλεύοντας παρὰ τὸ βέλτιστον δια-
τίθεσθαι πείθῃ, ξυγχωρήσομαι ἑκών, and cp. [Dem.] 59. 55 sqq. ψυχαγωγούμενος
ἐν τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ τῇ θεραπείᾳ τῇ ὑπό τε τῆς Νεαίρας καὶ τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτῆς...
ἐπείσθη τὸ παιδίον...πάλιν λαβεῖν καὶ ποιήσασθαι υἱὸν αὑτοῦ, λογισμὸν ἀνθρώπινον
καὶ εἰκότα λογιζόμενος, ὅτι πονήρως μὲν ἔχοι καὶ οὐ πολλὴ ἐλπὶς εἴη αὐτὸν
περιγενήσεσθαι, τοῦ δὲ μὴ λαβεῖν τοὺς συγγενεῖς τὰ αὑτοῦ μηδ᾽ ἅπαις τετελευτηκέναι
ἐποίησατο τὸν παῖδα καὶ ἀνέλαβεν ὡς αὑτόν· ἐπεὶ ὅτι γε ὑγιαίνων οὐκ ἄν ποτε
ἔπραξε, μεγάλῳ τεκμηρίῳ ἐπιδείξω. Plato's tacit assumption that in general
wills are made on a sick bed or in fear of immediate death agrees with the
allusions in the orators, who often mention illness or some dangerous
expedition in connexion with testaments. Thus Demosthenes' father (Dem.
28. 15 ὡς ᾔσθετο τὴν νόσον οὐκ ἀποφευξόμενος), Pasion (Dem. 36. 7), Conon
250
OR. II.
ISAEUS
(Lys. 19. 41), Thrasylochus (Isocr. 19. 12 πovýρws diékeito kaì ovdeµíav éλñída
eixev toû Biov) were sick; Philoctemon (VI. 5), Apollodorus (vII. 9), Astyphilus
(IX. 14), Hagnias (XI. 8), Diodotus (Lys. 32. 5) were going on foreign service.
Under the Athenian law men had not the motives for making a will which
are influential in modern European life.
4, 5 ὑγιαίνων, εὖ φρονῶν, εὖ νοῶν. Cp. Α. Ε. F. n. 2I (126 Β.C.), 1 τάδε
διέθετο ὑγιαίνων νοῶν φρονῶν Δρύτων Παμφίλου Κρὴς τῶν διαδόχων, η. 12
(148 B.C.), 14. The formula, νοῶν καὶ φρονῶν, is constant in Greek wills
and can be traced in inscriptions and papyri from the 3rd century B.C.
to the 6th century A.D. Cobet (Mnem. 11. p. 138) denies that ev voŵv can
be used in Attic as the opposite of πapavoŵv. But such an application is
not more remarkable than the use of ev poveîv in the two senses. of 'sanae
mentis esse' and 'bene uelle' (And. 2. 4, Aesch. 3. 226). Moreover, as Cobet
himself points out (or. de arte interpret. p. 94, N. L. p. 552), to express
'being well disposed' Attic prose prefers evvous àv to evvoŵv (Lys. 13. 13,
[Dem.] Ep. 1. 1).
7 εἰς τοὺς ὀργεώνας. Two interpretations of this phrase have been
propounded, the first of which I think right. (1) Menecles was a member
of a private religious association (Kowòv opуeávov), into which his adopted
son was admitted, just as Astyphilus (IX. 30) was introduced by his step-father
into a θίασος Ηρακλέους. The evidence concerning such societies has been
collected and explained by Foucart, Des associations religieuses chez les Grecs,
Paris, 1873, and Ziebarth, Das griechische Vereinswesen, Leipzig, 1896,
p. 33 sqq. The satire of the comedians and Demosthenes' attacks upon
Aeschines' mother (Dem. 18. 259, 19. 199) must not lead us into the fallacy
of concluding that these unions were necessarily disreputable or formed
of worshippers of some foreign deity, Bendis, Cybele, the Syrian Aphrodite,
Cotytto, Sabazius. There were differences between the voluntary associations
bearing the general name of opyeŵves, and the society to which Menecles
belonged may have been a union of respectable Athenian citizens assembling
at stated times for sacrifice and feast in honour of a national hero or deity,
like οἱ ὀργεῶνες τοῦ ᾿Αμύνου καὶ τοῦ ᾿Ασκληπιοῦ καὶ τοῦ Δεξίονος (S. I. G. n.
725, Michel n. 966). Schöll (Die Kleisthenischen Phratrien, Sitzungsber.
d. bay. Ak. d. Wiss. 1889, II. p. 15. n. 2) objects that such a body had
nothing to do with family law. This is not a weighty objection. In the
first place, it was natural for relations to join the same society (C. I. A. II.
990), and, apart from this, if the speaker had been introduced by Menecles.
at an ἀγορὰ κυρία τοῦ κοινοῦ τῶν ὀργεώνων (Ziebarth, op. cit. p. 144), if he had
passed the dоkiμaσía prescribed by the lex collegii (ib. p. 141), if his name
had been engraved on the σrýλn (C. I. A. 11. 610, 22, 624, 44) as son of
Menecles and member of Menecles' deme, the testimony of the opуe@ves
would have been pertinent enough for Isaeus' purposes. (2) According
to the second view the word ỏpye@ves should be taken here in a limited
and technical application, being supposed to mean groups united of course
by common worship, but confined within, and subordinate to, the parpía.
Photius s.v. opye@ves has the following quotation from the fourth book (Harp.
s.v. γεννῆται) of the Atthis of Philochorus: περὶ δὲ τῶν ὀργεώνων γέγραφε
καὶ Φιλόχορος· τοὺς δὲ φράτορας ἐπάναγκες δέχεσθαι καὶ τοὺς ὀργεῶνας καὶ τοὺς
OR. II.
251
COMMENTARY
ὁμογάλακτας, οὓς γεννήτας καλοῦμεν. Much has been built by historians upon
this fragment, the context of which is entirely unknown (see Gilbert, Gr.
Staatsaltert.² 1. p. 164 sqq., Busolt, Gr. Staatsaltert.² in Müller's Handbuch
IV. 1. p. 160 sqq.). They argue that after Cleisthenes two contrasted
elements, ὀργεῶνες and γεννῆται, entered into the composition of the φρατρίαι.
The theory is supported by an appeal to the decrees of the Oparpía of the
Anµoriwvidai (C. I. A. 11. 841 b=S. I. G.² n. 439, Michel n. 961). This Oparpía
was subdivided into a number of díaσo, to which were assigned certain rights
and duties in connexion with the introduction of children (eioaywyǹ raidwv).
Now the terms taσôraι and opyeŵves seem to have been interchangeable
(C. I. A. IV. 2. 620 b), and it is concluded that the ỏpye@ves who received
Menecles' adopted son were a group inside Menecles' parpía. But Isaeus'
language suggests that the entry of the name on the list of opye@ves was
a ceremony distinct both from the admission into the pparpía and from the
registration on the roll of the deme. Why did he tack on kai eis TOÙS
opyeŵvas at the end of the sentence, if the pye@ves in question were a
constituent element of the parpía?
15. I τότε μέν. Cp. I. I. 1 7.
2 ws <oỦK> EỦ þрovoûνтɩ. “Vulgatam, si tanti est, defendas, non
reprehenderunt, quippe quem sapere constaret” (Dobree, Adv. 1. p. 288).
3 ζῶντα πείθειν ἐκεῖνον. The phrases in this section are chosen to leave
the impression that the brother did not protest against the adoption in
Menecles' lifetime. But it is plain from what follows (§ 28 sqq.) that he
did object, and that strenuously. If for reasons unknown he failed to oppose
during the proceedings before the pparpía and the deme, his opportunity
was gone. If he had been able to convince his brother of his error, Menecles
would not have found it easy to revoke the adoption against the will of the
adopted son (Beauchet 11. pp. 69, 133 sqq.). If on the other hand Menecles.
remained obdurate, how could his brother undo what had been done?
Could he have brought a díkη waρavoías? Our authorities seem to show
that this suit could be instituted only by sons or representatives of sons
(Att. Proc.² p. 566 sqq., 'að. IIoλ. 56. 6).
기
​3 E TI BOúλOLTO. Katabaines (quoted by Thalheim) would read ei tɩ
ἐβούλοντο. Cp. IV. II. 2n.
17. 5, 6 πρός γε τὴν ποίησιν αὐτήν. An attempt to obscure the issue.
The opponents did not argue that the necessary formalities of adoption had
not been observed, and that therefore the diaµaprupia was false. Their
contention was that Menecles was not a responsible agent.
18. 5 yóvą ovта Tатéρа. Сp. § 11. 6л., III. 59. 2, 61. I, Lys. 13. 91,
ὄντα πατέρα.
[Dem.] 44. 34, 49, 51, 64, 60. 4. In [Dem.] 44. 25 the MSS. have oűre yével
ἦν αὐτῷ υἱὸς οὐδεὶς οὔτ᾽ ἐποιήσατο ζῶν, where Blass after Reiske restores γόνῳ,
although he makes no change in $ 2 οὔτε γένει τοῦ τετελευτηκότος υἱὸς ὤν,
οὔτ᾽ εἰσποιηθεὶς κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ; cp. [Dem.] 40. 47 οἱ δὲ νομιζόμενοι μὲν υἱεῖς,
μὴ ὄντες δὲ γένει ἐξ ἐκείνων. Plato (Laws 923 Ε) writes εἴτε γεννητὸς ὢν εἴτε
ποιητός, where an orator would have said φύσει οι γόνῳ γεγονώς.
19-22 Menecles did not adopt me because he was under the influence
of my sister, but because he was childless and lonely, because he cherished an
affection for my father, because he had no blood-relation whom he could adopt,
252
OR. II.
ISAEUS
because I was more closely connected with him than any one else in the
world.
We have reached the heart of the case, and Isaeus has now to meet the
real charge. The opponent had devoted most of his speech (§ 19) to showing
the influence exercised over Menecles by the speaker's sister, and it is certain
that his story was not complimentary to the parties involved. What is the
reply? In an easy off-hand manner the orator pretends to brush aside the
accusations by the remark that if Menecles had been persuaded by his sister
to adopt a son, he would have taken one of her two children (§ 19). But, if
these two children were born before the adoption, which is not certain (§ 19.
72.), they must have been very young, and Menecles would hardly have
cared to adopt a small child, if, as the speaker maintains (§ 10), he was
at the time an old man, who began to feel the need of a nurse for his
infirmities; compare the argument of VII. 33 sqq., and note the absence
here and in the narratio (§ 10 sqq.) of an explicit denial that Menecles saw
anything of his former wife after the separation. In the following sections
(§§ 20-22) the orator's perplexities increase, since he has to explain why
Menecles adopted him, if his sister had no finger in the business. He refers
to ‘the reasons already mentioned' (§ 20. 3)—in other words, the marriage—
and to 'the affection which Menecles felt for my father.' That Menecles and
Eponymus were intimate friends is a statement placed at the opening of the
narrative (§ 3), but no witnesses have been called to prove it. Lastly, aware
of the tendency of Athenian judges to sympathise with 'the relations,' he
demands who there was 'more closely connected' (oiketóтepov § 22, cp. § 11.
1, 2 ηὕρισκεν οὖν οὐδέν᾽ ἄλλον οἰκειότερον ὄνθ᾽ ἡμῶν ἑαυτῷ) with Menecles than
himself. It was not to be expected that Menecles should prefer to 'die
childless,' and he had no relation whom he could adopt, since his brother
would never have parted with his son: 'he is not so avaricious as that'
(§ 21; cp. § 10). That the brother shrank from the sacrifice has not been
demonstrated (§ 10. 6, 7 n.), and the 'close connexion' resolves itself into
another name for the marriage and the alleged friendship between Eponymus
and Menecles.
19. 3 éπiyvŵvaɩ, 'know again,' 'recognise,' as if the point had been
already proved ([And.] 4. 29 ὅσοι δὲ ἢ παρὰ τῶν πολιτῶν ἤκουον ἢ καὶ
ἐπεγίγνωσκον τὰ τούτου, κατεγέλων ἡμῶν).
πρῶτον μὲν γάρ. Cp. I. I. I 2.
3, 4 τὸν πλεῖστον τοῦ λόγου.
For examples of this idiom in the orators
see Isocr. 4. 34, 132, 148, 9. 41, 56, 19. 24, 56, Dem. 9. 52, 20. 8, 36. 9, [Dem.]
44. 6, 58. 15, Aesch. 2. 8.
5 πολλῷ πρότερον...ἤ. A has πρινή, Bekker πρὶν ἤ, Scheibe and Thalheim
πρív. In the MSS. of the orators πρìvǹ is found in Isocr. 4. 19 (TE), 6. 26 (Ə),
[Dem.] 33. 34 (omnes), 35. 3 (omnes), Lyc. 129 (AN), Aesch. 2. 132, 3. 25, 77,
but is now generally rejected; its appearance in an inscription of 418/7 B.C.
(C. I. A. IV. I. 53 a 9 πρᾶχσαι δὲ ταῦτα πρὶν ἢ ἐχσιέναι τένδε τὲν βολὲν) has
been set down to Ionic influence by some scholars (Meisterhans, Gramm. d.
att. Inschr.³ § 91. 13, p. 251), whereas Dittenberger (S. I. G.² n. 550) thinks that
the engraver inserted a wrong aspirate (πριν εχσιέναι). In this passage the
writer of A may have added πрɩ, which is absent from Q. In IX. 3. 3 where
OR. II.
253
COMMENTARY
A has ἤ, M its descendant has πρότερον ἤ, and in Aesch. 2. 132 the MSS. are
divided between πρότερον ἤ, πρότερον πρίν, and πρότερον πρὶν ἤ.
7
εἰσιν. The argument requires ἦσαν. As Isaeus here and in § 1oz
avoids a precise statement of the time which intervened between the sister's
second marriage and the adoption of her brother, the use of the present tense
is probably an advocates trick (πάλαισμα δικαστηρίου Aesch. 3. 205). It is
surprising that no simple-minded scholar has proposed to alter the text.
20. 3 διὰ τὰς προειρημένας αἰτίας. The only reason discoverable in the
preceding sections, apart from the alleged friendship with the speaker's
father, is that Menecles had married the sister. Albrecht (Hermes 18, 1883,
p. 364), observing the emptiness of the phrase, condemns διὰ τὰς προειρημένας
airías as 'a marginal comment,' and ejects the words together with the
succeeding kai, which he supposes to have been added after the note had
been incorporated in the text.
αν
5, 6 ὁπόθεν ἂν ἐποιήσατο. For the Potential of the Past cp. 1. 27. 4 ".,
Lys. 1 27 οὔτε σίδηρον οὔτε ξύλον οὔτε ἄλλο οὐδὲν ἔχων, ᾧ τοὺς εἰσελθόντας ἂν
ἠμύνατο, 25. 12 συμφορὰ οὐδεμία πώποτε ἐγένετο, ἀνθ᾽ ἧς τινος ἂν ἑτέρων
ἐπεθύμουν πραγμάτων, Dem. 23. 155 οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν ἔχων χωρίον ἐπὶ θαλάττῃ, ὅθεν
ἂν σιτοπομπίας ηπόρησε, [Dem.] 50. 15 οὐδὲ διάδοχον ἥκοντα ἐπὶ τὴν ναῦν, παρ'
οὗ ἄν τις ἠξίωσεν ὠφεληθῆναι.
6 ταῦτα τηλικαῦτ᾽ < ὄντα >: ταῦτα τηνικαῦτα AQ. Bekker suggested
ταῦτα τὰ τηλικαῦτα. Thalheim keeps the reading of the MSS. Even good
authorities confuse ἡνίκα and ἡλίκα ; see Dem. 19. 40 ἡλίκα] ἡνίκα Σ, ἡλίκα
L corr. pr. m., ib. 149 ἡλίκα Σ, ἡλίκα L corr. pr. m., ἡνίκα uolg.
21. 2
τοῦ φάσκοντος εὖ φρονεῖν, lui qui se trouve lui-même si raisonnable
(Dareste), che si vanta tanto ragionevole (Caccialanza); cp. §§ 26. 2, 40. 3.
Thalheim denounces this interpretation (Hermes 38, 1903, p. 457 Das ist bare
Thorheit), and proposes του φάσκοντος < οὐκ > εὖ φρονεῖν (der behauptet
dass er (Menekles) nicht zurechnungsfähig gewesen sei). The change, in itself
easy (cp. V. 22. 7), creates a grammatical difficulty; the absence of a pronoun
to show the subject of the infinitive is not compensated by the substitution of
αὐτὸν for ἀπὸ in the next line (τίνα ποιήσασθαι ἐχρῆν αὐτὸν τῶν συγγενῶν).
4, 5 ἄπαιδα αὐτὸν καθιστάς. Cp. § 10. 6, 7 n.
6 τὸν τῆς ἀνεψιᾶς ἢ τὸν τοῦ ἀνεψιού. Cousins' children mark the limit
of relations with the rights of ἀγχιστεία (ΧΙ. 2, VII. 22. 5 n.).
22. 2
καταγηρᾶν. The form is vindicated by Cobet, Mnem. II. p. 124.
Thalheim reads καταγηρᾶναι (sic), but leaves συγκαταγηράσασαν in § 7. 5.
4, 5. ἐποιήσατ᾽ ἂν: ποιήσαιτ᾽ ἂν AQ. Dobree's correction is accepted by
the two latest editors of Isaeus, Buermann and Thalheim. Roeder (Beiträge
p. 41 sqq.) maintains that in Attic prose both the present optative (1. 24. 4 22.)
and the aorist optative with ầv may refer to past time. The following
examples are found in the orators : (1) Lys. 7. 16 ὥστε εἰ καὶ τὰ μέγιστα εἰς
ἐμὲ ἐξημάρτανον, οὐκ ἂν οἷόν τε ἦν δίκην με παρ᾽ αὐτῶν λαμβάνειν· εὖ γὰρ ἂν
εἰδείην (ᾔδειν Emper) ὅτι ἐπ᾿ ἐκείνοις ἦν καὶ ἐμὲ τιμωρήσασθαι καὶ αὐτοῖς
μηνύσασιν ἐλευθέροις γενέσθαι, (2) Lys. 12. 85 ὧν ἄξιον ἐπιμεληθῆναι, ἐνθυμου
μένους ὅτι οὔτ᾽ ἂν ἐκεῖνα δύναιντο (ἐδύναντο Markland) ποιεῖν μὴ ἑτέρων συμ-
πραττόντων οὔτ᾽ ἂν νῦν ἐπεχείρησαν ἐλθεῖν μὴ ὑπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν οἰόμενοι σωθήσεσθαι,
αν
254
OR. II.
ISAEUS
(3) Ant. Tetr. III. β. 5 ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν πῶς ἂν ἐπιβουλεύσαιμι (ἐπεβούλευσα τι
Blass after Kayser and Weidner) αὐτῷ, εἰ μὴ (ὅ τι μή Blass after Scholl and
Jernstedt) καὶ ἐπεβουλεύθην ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ; τοῖς γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἀμυνόμενος αὐτὸν καὶ τὰ
αὐτὰ δρῶν ἅπερ ἔπασχον, σαφὲς ὅτι τὰ αὐτὰ ἐπεβούλευσα καὶ ἐπεβουλεύθην,
(4) Lyc. 90 καίτοι γε ἐπεχείρησεν εἰπεῖν, ὃ καὶ νῦν ἴσως ἐρεῖ πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ὡς οὐκ
ἄν ποτε ὑπομεῖναι (ὑπομείναι Bekk., ὑπέμεινε Schaub) τὸν ἀγῶνα τοῦτον συνειδὼς
ἑαυτῷ τοιοῦτόν τι διαπεπραγμένῳ. These few instances come from MSS. which
teem with solecisms, viz. A, Q, N for Isaeus, Antiphon, and Lycurgus, X, the
codex Palatinus, for Lysias. Better evidence is needed before importing into
familiar Attic a Homeric construction (72. 5. 311 καί νύ κεν ἔνθ᾽ ἀπόλοιτο ἄναξ
ἀνδρῶν Αἰνείας, εἰ μὴ ἄρ᾽ ὀξὺ νόησε Διός θυγάτηρ Αφροδίτη). No cogent ex-
amples (see Gildersleeve, Syntax § 439) have been produced from Isocrates and
Demosthenes, for whom we have first-rate authorities in I and 2. A different
issue is raised by Ar. Eg. 413/4 ὑπερβαλεῖσθαί σ᾽ οἴομαι τούτοισιν, ἢ μάτην γ'
ἂν ἀπομαγδαλίας σιτούμενος τοσοῦτος ἐκτραφείην. The sense required is
"I shall beat you, else it will be in vain that I was reared on scraps." As
Gildersleeve puts it, ἐκτραφείην is a briefer expression for ἐκτεθραμμένος εἴην.
A similar construction occurs in Herodotus e.g. 9. 71 ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν καὶ
φθύνῳ ἂν εἴποιεν, ' It may be that they said this out of envy.' H. Richards
(Class. Rev. 17, 1903, p. 143) proposes, and Rutherford (ib. p. 249) approves,
the emendation ἐκτραφεὶς ἦν, which I think wrong, if for no other reason,
because of the time of v. See Postgate, Cambridge Philol. Transactions
III., 1894, p. 60 sqq., Gerth-Kühner, Gr. Gramm. 1. § 396. 2.
αν
23-26 The real grievance of my opponent is that Menecles ventured
to adopt a son at all instead of dying childless. He actually grudges his own
brother the exercise of a right which is recognised both by Greeks and bar-
barians, which he himself would be the first to claim. What senseless and
wicked malice!
Isaeus hastens to conceal the feebleness of the reply by putting an odious
interpretation on the motives and conduct of the antagonist. The imputation
of avarice (§ 21. 5), the usual theme in the circumstances, cannot be pressed,
because he is going to argue (§ 27 sqq.) that Menecles left practically
nothing.
23. 1, 2 οὐχ ὅτι τὸν ὑὸν οὐκ ἐποιήσατο τὸν αὐτοῦ. Dyroff (Geschichte des
Pronomen Reflexivum p. 388) condemns avïoû, because the causal clause is
not part of the thought of the subject of the principal sentence, and rejecting
Scheibe's remedy, the excision of the second τόν, defends αὐτοῦ, the reading
of AQ, which he considers strongly accented and equivalent to ipsius, not
eius This view has the support both of Krüger (Gr. Sprachlehre § 47. 9. 12)
and Kühner (Gr. Gramm. II. § 455. '3, p. 490), and the usage undoubtedly
occurs in Herodotus (e.g. 1. 165 δειμαίνοντες μὴ αἱ μὲν ἐμπόριον γένωνται, ἡ δὲ
η δέ
αὐτῶν νῆσος ἀποκληϊσθῇ, 2. 133 ἀντιμεμφόμενον ὅτι ὁ μὲν αὐτοῦ πατὴρ καὶ
πάτρως.ἐβίωσαν χρόνον ἐπὶ πολλόν, αὐτὸς δ᾽ εὐσεβέων μέλλοι ταχέως οὕτω
τελευτήσειν). Its existence in good Attic prose is not proved. Nothing can
be deduced from the inscriptions. In C. I. A. IV. 1. 61 a (408 B.C.), 30 we find
ἀναγράφσαντας τός τ[ε Κόρκος καὶ τὰς συνθέκας μετὰ τὸ γραμματέος τες
βολές......] ἐν στέλει λιθί[νει τέλε]σι τοῖς αὐτο[ν, but in this inscription the
aspirate is sometimes written, sometimes omitted, so that τέλεσι τοῖς αὑτῶν
OR. II.
255
COMMENTARY
may be the true reading. In Thucydides' version (5. 47. 7) of the treaty of
420 B.C. between Athens, Argos, Mantinea, and Elis modern editors print
ἡ δὲ πόλις ἡ μεταμεμψαμένη τὴν ἡγεμονίαν ἐχέτω, ὅταν ἐν τῇ αὐτῆς (αὐτῇ libri :
corr. Duker) ὁ πόλεμος ᾖ, and on the basis of an estimate of the space
required by the letters it has been argued (Schmolling, Ueber den Gebrauch
einiger Pronomina auf attischen Inschriften, 1882, p. 4) that the ornλn at
Athens (C. I. Α. 1V. I. 46 b) could not have had hαυτής. Such calculations
are worthless, because just at this point the inscription diverges from
Thucydides, in that after μεταπεμψάμενη it had τει στρατιᾶι. In a badly
mutilated fragment of a decree belonging to the first quarter of the 4th cen-
tury B.C. (C. I. A. II. 45) Koehler restores τέλε[σι τοῖς αὐτοῦ ἐμ πόλ]ει, against
which may be set τέλεσι τοῖς ἑαυτῶ, ib. IV. 2. 841 b, 67. No words need be
wasted over τὴν αὐτοῦ ἐπιμέλειαν, ib. IV. 2. 245 €, 5. One example is left,
from an inscription of 318/7 Β.C., τιμήσαντος αὐτὸν τοῦ δήμου πολιτείᾳ καὶ ταῖς
ἄλλαις τιμαῖς…..καὶ αὐτὸν καὶ ἐγγόνους διά τε τὴν αὐτοῦ (Koehler and Dittenberger)
ἀρετὴν καὶ διὰ τὰς τῶν προγόνων εὐεργεσίας (ib. IV. 2. 231 b, 57), where αὑτοῦ
appears to me tenable. From literature Dyroff produces four passages, viz.
[Dem.] 43. 54 (law) ὁ δὲ ζευγίτης (ἐκδιδότω αὐτὴν ἐπιδοὺς) ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα,
πρὸς οἷς (τοῖς H. Wolf) αὐτῆς, 59. 44 συκοφαντῶν ἄλλους τε καὶ ἐμὲ τουτονὶ
πεποίηκεν αὐτὸν (αὑτὸν ΥΩ Bekk.) καὶ ταύτην εἰς τηλικοῦτον ἀγῶνα καταστῆσαι
(καταστῆναι ΣΥΩ), ὥστε ἐξετασθῆναι μὲν ταύτην ἥτις ἐστίν, ἐξελεγχθῆναι δὲ τὴν
αὐτοῦ πονηρίαν, Lyc. 38 εἰς τοσοῦτον προδοσίας ἦλθεν ὥστε κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ
(τούτου Thalheim, Blass, αὑτοῦ Turicenses) προαίρεσιν ἔρημοι μὲν <ἂν> ἦσαν
οἱ νεῴ, ἔρημοι δ᾽ αἱ φυλακαὶ τῶν τειχῶν, Xen. Αn. 6. 2. 14 ὅπως οὖν μηδεὶς
μετάσχοι, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοὶ καὶ οἱ αὐτῶν (αὑτῶν R. Kühner, G. Sauppe) στρατιῶται
ἐκπλεύσειαν ἐπὶ τῶν τριήρων, διὰ ταῦτα συνεβούλευε. Other instances can be
found even in recent texts of Xenophon (e.g. Cyr. 1. 1. 5 ἐδυνάσθη δὲ ἐπι-
θυμίαν ἐμβαλεῖν τοσαύτην τοῦ αὐτῷ χαρίζεσθαι ὥστε ἀεὶ τῇ αὐτοῦ γνώμῃ ἀξιοῦν
κυβερνᾶσθαι), but Xenophon should be set aside on account of the possibility
that in this as in other respects his style was affected by foreign idioms
(S. D. I. II. n. 1878 (Delphi), 13 ἀγώγιμος ἔστω Σῶσος Καλλιξένωι αὐτὸς καὶ τὰ
αὐτοῦ πάντα ; cp. [Dem.] 59. 7 εἰς ἀπορίαν καταστήσεσθαι καὶ αὐτὸς καὶ παῖδες
οἱ ἐκείνου). Few scholars are likely to approve Hude's reading in Thuc. I. 50
τούς τε αὐτῶν φίλους...ἀγνοοῦντες ἔκτεινον. Only one plausible example of the
construction occurs in the orators, viz. Isocr. 19. 44 εἰ μὲν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τὸν
ἐμὸν δεδωκὼς ἦν Θρασύλοχος τὴν οὐσίαν, τοῦτ᾽ ἂν ἐπιτιμᾶν εἶχον αὐτῷ· νῦν δ᾽ εἰς
τὸν αὐτῶν (αὑτοῦ Coraes, αὐτῶν μ' Blass) εἰσεποιήσατο, ὥστ᾽ οὐκ ἐλάττω τυγχά-
νουσιν εἰληφότες ὧν δεδώκασιν, where I believe αὑτῶν μ' to be right.
او
24. 2 δοκεῖ καλώς οὗτος ὁ νόμος κεῖσθαι. The commonplace is used
by Isocrates in defending an adoption (19. 50 ἥκω πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἔχων...διαθήκας
παρ' αὐτῶν τῶν ἀντιδίκων ὁμολογουμένας, ἔτι δὲ νόμον ταύταις βοηθοῦντα, ὃς
δοκεῖ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἅπασι καλῶς κεῖσθαι. τεκμήριον δὲ μέγιστον· περὶ γὰρ
ἄλλων πολλῶν διαφερόμενοι περὶ τούτου ταὐτὰ γιγνώσκουσιν).
5, 6 ἧς οὐδὲ τοῖς οὐδὲν γένει προσήκουσιν οὐδεὶς κ.τ.λ. A false antithesis,
since strangers, unlike relatives, are neither interested nor justified in
scrutinising the circumstances of an adoption.
25. I οἶμαι δὲ καὶ τοῦτον. Gebauer's emendation, κἂν for καί, accepted
by Thalheim, is easier than Bekker's correction which I adopted. The
256
OR. II.
ISAEUS
confusion of kầv and kaì is common and occurs in the codex Crippsianus
(Crit. Introd. p. xlvii.).
4 ζώντα <τε θεραπεύσειν καὶ τελευτήσαντα θάψειν, the duties of a son
enforced by law (I. 39. 5 n.). The most grievous wrongs inflicted by a father
did not absolve a son from the obligation of performing the rites due to the
dead (Aesch. 1. 13, 14). To ordinary Greek sentiment 'to be cast out
unburied was a dreadful doom (δειλίαν γὰρ ἐσφέρει τοῖς ἀλκίμοισι, Eur.
Suppl. 540), but even to be neglected in the grave was no light calamity.
Hence the prayer of the pious (Lys. 13. 46, Plat. Hipp. Mai. 291 D E, Eur.
Med. 1032 sqq., Suppl. 174, Troad. 387) for children to bury them as well as
to tend their old age, since the love of children was a pledge of tranquillity
after death, an assurance that the funeral ceremonies would be marred by no
omissions, that the tomb would receive its due of offerings in season (§ 46.
5 n.), that the spirit would not be unhonoured among the dead, ‘an unfed
and famished citizen of the other world for lack of friends or kinsmen on
earth' (Luc. De luct. 9).
6 elтa. Cp. IV. 29. 6 n.
26. 2 οἶμαι τοῦτον παραφρονεῖν τῷ τε λόγῳ κ.τ.λ. The dative is probably
causal ; see III. 4. 4, 5 Νικόδημον ἐξηλέγξαμεν...ἀναισχυντότατον τῇ μαρτυρίᾳ
ὄντα ταύτῃ, ib. 40. 3, V. 8. 1 μαίνεσθαι αὐτὸν ἡγούμεθα τῇ λήξει, VIII. 20. 10, 11
τῇ περιφανείᾳ τοῦ πράγματος...ἠμφεσβητήθη τοιοῦτον οὐδέν, Dem. 39. 26 ἐπ'
αὐτοφώρῳ συκοφάντην ἐπιδεικνύει τοῦτον ταῖς δίκαις ταύταις, [Dem.] 33. 10
τοῦτον ἀνοσιώτατον ἡγησάμην εἶναι τῷ ἐπιχειρήματι, 59. 29 πολυτελὴς ἦν ἡ
Νικαρέτη τοῖς ἐπιτάγμασιν, ἀξιοῦσα τὰ καθ᾿ ἡμέραν ἀναλώματα ἅπαντα τῇ οἰκίᾳ
παρ' αὐτῶν λαμβάνειν.
5, 6 αὑτῷ μὲν τὸν νόμον ποιῶν κύριον, demanded by the antithesis, but not
a truthful description of the opponent's conduct. So in Dem. 20. 65 тàs µèv
συμφορὰς...πάντα τὸν χρόνον κυρίας αὐτοῖς γεγενημένας, τὰς δὲ δωρεάς...καὶ δὴ
λeλvμévas the correspondence is verbal rather than real.
27-37 Why is he seeking to make his own brother childless? Is it
the name of son of Menecles that he grudges me? Or is it the property?
Menecles had but little to leave, for before his death by an unfounded claim
submitted to the judgment of not impartial arbitrators this unnatural brother
got hold of a portion of his estate, which is far more valuable than all the
property which descends to me, and now desires to extinguish utterly his name
Contrast the love and piety shown by me the adopted son.
and his house.
The narrative of the dispute between the two brothers is plainly an
ex parte statement, and is not corroborated in detail by testimony. The
judges are told that Menecles was obliged to sell his land in order to repay
'the orphan' (§ 28; cp. § 9), but they are not told what Menecles had done
with the orphan's money, which he had received on the security of that land.
On this head Menecles' brother might have had something to say, e.g. that
the adopted son and his sister had helped to get through it; see § 42. The
opponent is represented as spitefully taking advantage of his brother's
embarrassment to raise a new and unheard of claim to part of the land (§ 28),
but the ground of the claim is not explained, and the speaker has to confess
that the arbitrators decided against Menecles and in favour of the brother.
To colour ugly facts was the business of a λoyoypápos. The reference to
OR. II.
257
COMMENTARY
arbitration was due to the magnanimity of the adopted son, indifferent to
money and anxious not to make bad blood between brothers (§ 29), the
arbitrators were connexions and friends of the adversary, they expressly
refused to pronounce on the strict justice of the case (§ 30), the terms of
their award did not recognise the brother's legal right to the land (§ 31), the
present suit is a violation of the oaths sworn at the reconciliation which they
sought to bring about (§§ 32, 33). The effect of all this is spoilt by the orator's
admission that he does not expect that the arbitrators themselves will consent
to testify to his story (§ 33). Had he thought it expedient, he could have
compelled them to bear witness (§ 33. 5, 6 n.).
27. I διὰ τί διαφερόμενος ζητεί κ.τ.λ. Cobet ejects διαφερόμενος;
neque enim διαφέρεσθαι διά τι dicitur sed περί τινος, de aliqua re contendere,
et quo tandem pacto dici potuit frater cum defuncto fratre contendere (Mnem.
11, 1862, p. 140)? Buermann (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 341) thinks that if
a change is needed, it would be better to omit διά. But διαφέρεσθαι cannot
be tied down to one construction; cp. Lys. 10. 17 μηδὲν διὰ τοῦτο διαφέρον,
[Lys.] 6. 39 ἕνεκά γε τούτου διαφερόμενοι, Aesch. 3. 81 συνέβη τε διαφέρεσθαί
τι Δημοσθένην καὶ Φιλοκράτην σχεδὸν ὑπὲρ τούτων ὑπὲρ ὧν καὶ ὑμεῖς αὐτοὺς
ὑπωπτεύσατε διενεχθῆναι, S. I. G. n. 304 (Olympia, after 164 B.C., award in
a dispute between Sparta and the Achaean league), 45 ὑπὲρ ταύτας τας χώρας
διαφερόμενοι.
4 ἀναίνεται, εἰ ἐγὼ ἔσομαι ὑὸς Μενεκλέους, 'disdains, repudiates, the prospect
of my being son of Menecles.' The construction is unique and has been
a stumbling-block to critics. Dobree seems to have been the first scholar
to take offence (Adv. I. p. 529 ἀναίνεσθαι Isaeus Menecl. 32 pro v.l.). But
in Attic tragedy the verb is used with a participle; see Eur. H. F. 1235
ἐπῄνεσ᾽· εὖ δράσας δέ σ᾽ οὐκ ἀναίνομαι (was ich an dir tat, reut mich nicht,
Wilamowitz), I. Α. 1503 ἔθρεψας ῾Ελλάδι με φάος, | θανοῦσα δ᾽ οὐκ ἀναίνομαι
(now slain (for Hellas) I spurn not), Bacch. 251 ἀναίνομαι, πάτερ, (a vexed
passage, πάτερ being absent from the MSS. ; αἰδοῦμαι, πάτερ, Porson) τὸ γῆρας
ὑμῶν εἰσορῶν νοῦν οὐκ ἔχον. Hermann on Bacch. 251 is substantially right
in saying that the word passes from the sense of detrecto, recuso, to the sense
of piget me. The modern way of expressing this is to say that the meaning
of ἀναίνομαι moves in the direction both of αἰσχύνομαι and of ἀγανακτῶ
(Wilamowitz on Eur. H. F. 632). In prose the word is rare and found only
with an accusative of the object (Dem. 36. 31 εἰ δὲ πρὸς γένους δόξαν ἀναίνει
Φορμίωνα κηδεστήν, ὅρα μὴ γελοῖον ᾖ σὲ ταῦτα λέγειν, ib. εἶθ᾽ ὅς ἐστιν ὁμοιότερος
σοῦ τῷ σῷ πατρί, τοῦτον, εἰ τὴν μήτερα τὴν σὴν ἔγημ᾽, ἀναίνει; Plat. Phil. 57 Ε
ἀλλ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἀναίνοιτ᾽ ἂν ἡ τοῦ διαλέγεσθαι δύναμις, εἴ τινα πρὸ αὐτῆς ἄλλην κρίναιμεν,
Xen. Cyr. 2. I. 31 τοῦτο ἀσκεῖν (δεῖν τοὺς ὑπηρέτας) ὡς μηδὲν ἀναίνοιντο ἔργον,
ἀλλὰ πάντα νομίζοιεν πρέπειν αὑτοῖς πράττειν ὅσα ἄρχων προστάττοι, Harp. s.v.
κοινῶς μὲν τὸ ἀρνεῖσθαι, ἰδίως δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν κατὰ τοὺς γάμους καὶ τὰ ἀφροδίσια
λέγεται· Δημοσθένης ἐν τῇ ὑπὲρ Φορμίωνος παραγραφῇ, Πλάτων Φάωνι, Μένανδρος
Σικυωνία). In what other way could Isaeus have worked the invidious word
into this sentence? He could not write ἀναίνεται ἐμὲ ἀδελφιδοῦν; that the
speaker was 'disdained and disowned' by 'his uncle' was obvious from the
proceedings taken against him. The question was whether in the future
he was to enjoy the name of son of Menecles.
W. I.
17
258
OR. II.
ISAEUS
The scribe of the codex Crippsianus first wrote dia | *** ЄTⱭι *** ἔσομαι
K.T.λ., then added after dia at the end of the line pépera in minute letters,
and in the next line converted *** Taι *** into κaì ávaíverai el éyw.
It seems likely that owing to ὁμοιοτέλευτον he missed the words καὶ ἀναίνεται.
This explanation does not satisfy Buermann, always on the watch for 'the
double recension in a' (Crit. Introd. p. xxix sqq.). He rejects the telling
phrase kaì ávaíveraι as 'a foreign addition, which in a had not yet forced its
καὶ ἀναίνεται
way into the text' (ein fremdartiger Zusatz, Hermes 17, 1882, p. 398), and
prints in his edition διαφέρεται ὅτι ἔσομαι κ.τ.λ. He believes that in and
beneath ei éyò he can discover ő * * . But Thalheim is just as sure that the
reading here of Apr. was * *.
6 ἢ οἰκίαν. Cp. § 35 ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ τὰς τριακοσίας δραχμὰς ἔλαβον τὰς
περιλειφθείσας ἀπὸ τῆς τιμῆς τοῦ χωρίου, καὶ οἰκίδιον ὅ ἐστιν οὐκ ἄξιον τριῶν
μνῶν.
8,9 ἐπειδὴ τῷ ὀρφανῷ τὸ ἀργύριον ἀπέδωκεν. Cp. § 9 μετασχὼν τοῦ οἴκου
τῆς μισθώσεως τῶν παίδων τῶν Νικίου. The eldest son of Nicias on coming
of age assumed the administration of the estate, and perhaps became guardian
of the other minor or minors.
28. 3, 4 τόκοι δὲ πολλοῦ χρόνου συνερρυηκότες ἦσαν αὐτῷ. Demosthenes
(27. 64) speaks in general terms of estates (oikoi) of orphans which had been
doubled and trebled by being leased (ék roû µioßw¤ñvai), and cites (ib. 58)
the example of the property of Antidorus, which was 'leased' to Theogenes
of Probalinthus and grew in 6 years from 3t. 30 m. to ‘6 t. and more.'
Simple interest on 3 t. 30 m. for 6 years at 12 p.c. would be 2 t. 31 m. 20 dr.
In the fourth century at Athens 12 p.c. seems to have been the average rate
of interest on sound investments (Billeter, Geschichte des Zinsfusses p. 18
sqq.); in the case of an orphan's estate the 'lessee' or borrower was compelled
to furnish substantial security approved by the Archon (§ 9. 4, 5 N., VI. 36
sqq.). Isaeus' words do not necessarily imply that Menecles had failed
to make due periodical payments of interest; Theogenes (Dem. l.c.) ‘counted
out to Antidorus in the market place' the whole sum of '6t. and more,' i.e.
the total of the interest for 6 years together with the capital, and Menecles
may have borrowed on the same terms.
6 διεκώλυε τὸ χωρίον πραθῆναι κ.τ.λ. The narrative is incomplete and
incoherent. (1) According to Isaeus Menecles offered his land for sale in
order to get money to repay the orphan. But he could not lawfully do
this without coming to an arrangement with the representatives of the
children of Nicias. The land, or part of it, was their security (àπoríμnμa),
and no one has yet maintained that at Athens a man who had mortgaged
real estate retained the power to sell it at pleasure. (2) According to Isaeus
the brother out of spite tried to prevent the sale in order that Menecles.
might be compelled to cede possession (aroσTĥvai, decedere) of the land
to the orphan. It is implied that in case of non-payment at the proper time
the orphan acquired a right to the whole security, which more than covered
the debt, in other words that the entry into possession (éµßárevois) of the
mortgagee conveyed ownership (v. 21. 7 n., Hitzig, Das griechische Pfandrecht
p. 82 sqq.). The brother's malice would not have been gratified, and
Menecles would not have been injured, if the mortgagee was only able to
OR. II.
259
COMMENTARY
recover by a forced sale the exact sum due to him, i.e. principal, interest, and,
it may be, expenses also. But did Menecles' brother really entertain the
design attributed to him? Either the whole or part of Menecles' land con-
stituted the orphan's security. In the first case, if the whole estate had been
marked by mortgage-pillars (öpoɩ, § 9. 4, 5 n.) for many years, an entirely
novel claim to a portion of it would surely have brought into the field
the friends of the children of Nicias, and even the Archon himself, who
was charged with the duty of protecting the interests of orphans, and who
before sanctioning a μirewors oikov deputed agents to inspect and value the
security offered ('A0. IIoλ. 56. 7, Harp. s.v. ȧπотiμηтai). If on the other hand
only a part of Menecles' land was an àñoríµŋua, the brother's object may
have been not to interfere with the sale of this, on which prima facie the
orphan had a prior lien, but to maintain his own rights in another portion
and prevent Menecles from turning the whole estate into ready money.
Whether a wrong was done to Menecles depends on the nature of the claim
about which no particulars are vouchsafed. The obscurity of the affair
is much increased by Hitzig's suggestion (op. cit. p. 110 n. 1) that Menecles'
brother was guardian of the children of Nicias.
6 κατοκώχιμον: κατόχιμον AQ. Cp. Moeris p. 221 κατοκώχιμα· τὰ
κατεσχημένα ἐνέχυρα, Αττικῶς, Hesych. κατοκώχιμον· κατόχιμον, ἐνέχυρον.
Egyptian papyri show kaтóxiμos (Teb. Pap. 27. 67, 60. 102, 61 (b). 253, 64 (b). 6,
70. 65, 72. 226), and κaтoxǹ (B. U. G. I. 140. 24, 323. II, II. 619. 5, 7,
III. 919. 28), not κατοκώχιμος and κατοκωχή.
ат
κι
اد
او
7, 8 ἠμφεσβήτει οὖν αὐτῷ μέρους τινὸς τοῦ χωρίου. Brothers sometimes
found it convenient to hold part of their inheritance in common (Lys. 32. 4
ἀδελφοὶ ἦσαν...καὶ τὴν μὲν ἀφανῆ οὐσίαν ἐνείμαντο, τῆς δὲ φανερᾶς ἐκοινώνουν,
S. I. G.² n. 474, 12- Michel n. 385 (Olbia, 5th c. B.C.) Taîdes ǹ ådeλpoì ois
Koivà Tà TATρâia). Dareste (Les Plaidoyers d'Isée p. 35) thinks that this was
the case with Menecles and his brother. 'Son frère intervient et s'oppose
à la vente, évidemment parce que l'immeuble est indivis entre son frère et lui.
Ménéclès est obligé de lui donner satisfaction en faisant distraction de la part
qui lui revient. Il ne vend donc que sa part. Après la vente Ménéclès
se retourne contre son frère, et soutient que l'opposition de celui-ci était mal
fondée...
..La part de ce frère dans les immeubles indivis ne pouvait, selon lui,
être déterminée que par un partage régulier? But Menecles may have
borrowed money from his brother ; see [Dem.] 53. 10 ἔλεγεν...ὅτι τὸ χωρίον τὸ
ἐν γειτόνων μοι τοῦτο οὐδεὶς ἐθέλοι οὔτε πρίασθαι οὔτε τίθεσθαι· ὁ γὰρ ἀδελφὸς ὁ
Αρεθούσιος οὐδένα ἐῴη οὔτε ἀνεῖσθαι οὔτε τίθεσθαι, ὡς ἐνοφειλομένου αὑτῷ ἀργυρίου.
29. I oîμaι confirms a self-evident proposition, nimirum, ‘of course.'
Cf. Ant. I. 16 καὶ ἡ ὑπέσχετο τάχιστα ὡς οἶμαι, Dem. 2. 23 ἀλλ', οἶμαι, καθήμεθ᾽
οὐδὲν ποιοῦντες, 23. 171 οὐκ ἔχων δ᾽ ἐκεῖνος, οἶμαι, δύναμιν (' aliquid urbanitatis
inest; opinantur tantum Graeci, ubi de certis loquuntur,' Weber ad loc.), and
the examples collected by Rehdantz, Demosth. Index II. s.v., an examination
of which will show the difficulty of catching in each case the tone of the
phrase, which may express equally well despairing acquiescence ('I suppose'),
irony (forsooth'), mock humility ('I imagine'), and confident assertion
(I presume'). The meaning of ut opinor is just as elusive (Anton, Studien
zur lateinischen Grammatik u. Stilistik, Hft. 2, p. 180 sqq.).
17-2
260
OR. II.
ISAEUS
3 τῷ Πιθεῖ. The site of the deme Πίθος, which belonged to the tribe
Κεκροπίς, is not known. Milchhoefer (Untersuchungen über die Demenordnung
des Kleisthenes p. 30) and Loeper (Athen. Mitteil. 17, 1892, p. 413) agree in
assigning it to the eastern side of the inland trittys of the tribe. The form
Πιτθεὺς is often found in MSS. (Dem. 21. 62, 54. 31 (Πιθεὺς Σ), [Dem.]
35. 13, 14).
5 τούτῳ δὲ λαγχάνει δίκην τῆς ἀπορρήσεως. 'Against his brother he
brought an action for interdicting the sale.' It is vain to ask what form this
action took. Schoemann thinks that it was a suit for damages (δίκη βλάβης),
for which see Att. Proc. pp. 223 sqq., 650 sqq., Beauchet IV. p. 386 sqq.
6 ἔδοξεν ἡμῖν χρῆναι κ.τ.λ. The language is meant to suggest that the
reference to arbitrators was a concession made by the speaker or by Menecles
and the speaker (μîv being ambiguous), but will be seen on examination not
to exclude the possibility that the opponents were the first to propose an
amicable settlement. Arbitration was a topic on which an experienced
writer for the law courts had a fund of commonplaces (1. Introd. p. 176).
If the rejection of the offices of mediators could be construed as a sign of a
grasping and litigious temper, an offer of arbitration could be ascribed to a
bad conscience and fear of the law (Dem. 39. 3, [Dem.] 34. 18, 59. 68).
9 τοῖς φίλοις, our friends, i.e. common friends (Lys. 32. 2 ἔπεισα τοῖς
φίλοις ἐπιτρέψαι δίαιταν, Dem. 41. 1 βουλόμενος διαλύεσθαι καὶ τοῖς φίλοις
ἐπιτρέπειν, 27. 1 περὶ ὧν διαφερόμεθα τοῖς οἰκείοις ἐπιτρέπειν, 30. 2 οἰόμενος
δεῖν ἐν τοῖς φίλοις διαδικάσασθαι καὶ μὴ λαβεῖν ὑμῶν πεῖραν). The description
of the arbitrators in § 33 as 'connexions of my adversary' is probably one of
the petty artifces of a δικογράφος. The ordinary and sensible practice was
for both parties to nominate arbitrators; wherever precise information is
given, we find both sides represented (v. 31, Dem. 36. 15, [Dem.] 33. 14,
59. 45). That very superior person, Isocrates, boasts of his magnanimity in
this respect : ήπιστάμην αὐτὸς μὲν εἰς τοὺς ἄλλους μηδὲν ἐξαμαρτάνειν, ἀδικού-
μενος δὲ μὴ μετὰ δικαστηρίου ποιεῖσθαι τὰς τιμωρίας ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τοῖς φίλοις τοῖς
ἐκείνων διαλύεσθαι περὶ τῶν ἀμφισβητουμένων (15. 27). The voice of rude
common sense is heard in or. 18. 13 οὐκ ἄν ποτ᾽ ἐπέτρεψε Νικομάχῳ δίαιταν,
ὃν ἐπίστατο πάλαι χρώμενον ἡμῖν.
αν
[διαιτήσαι.] An infinitive after ἐπιτρέπειν is an unobjectionable con-
struction (And. 1. 5 ἐπέτρεψα διαγνῶναι ὑμῖν περὶ τοῦ σώματος, [Dem.] 40. 16
τούτῳ ἐπετρέψαμεν δικάσαι περὶ ὧν ἐνεκαλοῦμεν ἀλλήλοις, Aesch. I. 63 ἐπέ-
τρεψαν διαγνώναι τὸ πρᾶγμα Διοπείθει). But the custom of the orators in
describing arbitration is to say either ἐπιτρέπειν τινι οἱ ἐπιτρέπειν τινι δίαιταν.
In the latter phrase MSS. (e.g. Isocr. 18. 13, Lys. 32. 2) sometimes have
διαιτᾶν, which is now generally changed to δίαιταν after Cobet (V.L.2 p. 252,
Mnem. II, 1862, p. 141). The combination ἐπιτρέψαι...διαιτῆσαι is unique.
Here Cobet first proposed to change διαιτῆσαι into δίαιταν (Mnem. l.c.), but
afterwards (Coll. Crit. 1878, p. 177) approved Fuhr's treatment (Animaduer-
siones in oratores Atticos p. 56). I would rather put down diarĥoal with
Fuhr as an adscript (Crit. Introd. p. xl) than as a case of anticipation
from the next line but one (ib. p. xxxviii). Thalheim defends the word.
30. 3 οὐδὲν γὰρ δεῖσθαι ἀπεχθέσθαι. ‘They did not want i.e. wish to
quarrel (Isocr. 7. 25 χαλεπώτερον ἦν εὑρεῖν τοὺς βουλομένους ἄρχειν ἢ νῦν
OR. II.
261
COMMENTARY
τοὺς μηδὲν δεομένους, ΙΙ. 43 εἰ μὲν γὰρ μηδὲν δέονται (μηδὲ βούλονται uolg. ante
Bekk.) χρηστοὺς αὐτοὺς εἶναι, χείρους εἰσὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὴν διάνοιαν, εἰ δὲ
βούλονται μέν, ἀποροῦσι δ᾽ ὅπως ποιήσωσιν, ἐλάττω τῶν σοφιστῶν τὴν δύναμιν
ἔχουσιν, 14. 8 τὰς μὲν ἰδίας ἡμῶν ἑκάστων πόλεις ἀφανίζουσι, τῆς δὲ σφετέρας
αὐτῶν πολιτείας οὐδὲν δεομένους (inuitos) κοινωνεῖν ἀναγκάζουσιν). This sense
of οὐδὲν οὐ) δεῖσθαι is common enough in Attic prose to deserve more
distinct recognition in the dictionaries; see And. 1. 80, Lys. 1. 21, 12. 42,
fr. 44. 1. (Saupp.), Isocr. 15. 150, Aesch. 3. 139, Thuc. 4. 130. 4, 8. 43. 4,
48. 4, Xen. Hell. 2. 4. 23, 35, 4. 4. 6, Cyr. I. 4. 10, 3. 2. 12, [Xen.] De Rep.
Ath. 1. 3, Plat. Apol. 21 C, Rep. 2. 367 A, 9. 579 A, Prot. 331 C.
is not specifically Attic, being frequent e.g. in Plutarch (Caes. 34 ovdèv deó-
μενος = inuitus (cp. Tib. Gracch. 21, Cic. 38), Pomp. 40, 54, Cat. 16, 25, Brut.
40, Sertor. 9, Sol. 8, 27, Aristid. 23, Cim. 11, Nic. 28, Pyrrh. 10, Ag. 2, Cleom.
19 (see Schoemann ad loc.), An seni sit ger. resp. 8, 788 D (μὴ δεόμενον μηδὲ
βουλόμενον libri), Non posse suauiter uiui sec. Epic. 21, 1102 Β).
The use
3, 4 οὐδετέροις ἡμῶν, i.e. Menecles and his adopted son on the one side,
Menecles' brother and his family on the other; cp. I. 3. I N.
31. 2 ομόσαντες. Private arbitrators were not always under oath
(V. 32. 2 n.).
2 πρὸς τῷ βωμῷ τῷ τῆς ᾿Αφροδίτης Κεφαλῆσιν. Private arbitrations were
sometimes held in temples (Dem. 36. 16 ἐν ἀκροπόλει, [Dem.] 33. 18 ἀπαντήσας
εἰς τὸ Ἡφαιστεῖον, 40. 11 ἐν τῷ Δελφινίῳ, 59. 46 ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ), but it is not known
whether Aphrodite of Cephale possessed a temple. Pausanias (1. 31. 1)
mentions that the Dioscuri were particularly honoured in the deme under
the name of Great Gods. Κεφαλή belonged to the maritime trittys of the
tribe Acamantis. Milchhoefer (Untersuchungen über die Demenordnung des
Kleisthenes p. 25) and Loeper (Athen. Mitteil. 17, 1892, p. 398) concur in
placing it near Keratea, the chief place in the south of Attica, a large and
thriving village II or 12 miles north of Sunium (Frazer on Paus. l.c.).
A boundary stone inscribed ὅρος τῆς ᾿Αφροδίτης Κεφαλῆθεν (C. I. A. IV. 2.
1074 b) was found between Keratea and Kaki Thalassa, a bay on the east
coast.
4 καὶ δοῦναι δωρεάν. The brother's legal right to the land was not
recognised in the award; cp. Dem. 36. 15 πεισάντων τούτων (four arbitrators)
Φορμίωνα τουτονὶ δοῦναι δωρεὰν τὰς τρισχιλίας καὶ τὸ προσόν, καὶ φίλον μᾶλλον
ἔχειν τοῦτον ἢ διὰ ταῦτ᾽ ἐχθρὸν εἶναι.
5 ἀπαλλαγήν. Cf. [Dem.] 40. 43 τὴν δίαιταν ταύτην ἐπιτρέπειν με πρού
καλεῖτο, οὐχ ὅπως ἀπαλλαγῇ πρός με, 59. 48 ὡς δ᾽ ἀπηλλαγμένοι ἦσαν, οἱ
παρόντες ἑκατέρῳ ἐπὶ τῇ διαίτῃ...ἐπὶ δεῖπνον ἦσαν.
32. Ι ἐκ τοῦ λοιποῦ χρόνου, only found in two other passages in the
orators, [Dem.] 59. 46 (an arbitrators award) ἐκ τοῦ λοιποῦ χρόνου φίλους
εἶναι ἀλλήλοις καὶ μὴ μνησικακεῖν, and Din. 2. 22 δυοῖν θάτερον ἐκ τοῦ λοιποῦ
χρόνου ποιήσει τοὺς ἄλλους ἢ χρήματα λαμβάνειν ἢ κ.τ.λ. ; cp. Xen. Symp. 4. 56
ὡς δ᾽ ἅπαξ εἶπον Πάνυ μὲν οὖν, τοῦτο πάντες ἐκ τοῦ λοιποῦ ἀπεκρίναντο, Hell.
3. 4. 9 τάδε οὖν μοι ἐκ τοῦ λοιποῦ χάρισαι, ὅπως ἂν μήτ᾽ αἰσχύνωμαι ἀδυνατῶν
παρὰ σοὶ μήτ' ἐμποδών σοι ω, ἀπόπεμψόν ποί με. The phrase, which will not
bear logical analysis, is an outgrowth of combinations such as ἐκ πολλοῦ
χρόνου (And. I. 6), ἐκ πλείονος χρόνου (Isocr. 14. 2), ἐκ πλείστου χρόνου
262
OR. II.
ISAEUS
ΙΟ,
([Dem.] 60. 4), ἐκ παντὸς τοῦ χρόνου (Dem. 18. 26, 203, 20. 14Ι, 23. 73, 37. 60,
38. 22 [Dem.] 10. 54), ἐκ τοῦ παρεληλυθότος χρόνου (Dem. 4. 1, 2, 24. 90,
[Dem.] 26. 22), ἐκ τῶν ἔμπροσθεν χρόνων (Aesch. 3. 6o, Hyp. I. col. 21. 10,
C. I. A. II. 312, 13, ib. IV. 2. 614C, 2), ék tôv ävwbev xpóvwv ([Dem.] prooem.
30. 2), many of which are loosely used with scant regard to the original force
of the preposition. The normal expression here would have been els ròv
λοιπὸν χρόνον (And. I. 79, [And.] 4. 24, Lys. 14. 4, 16. 2, 19. 30, 30. 34, 32. 3,
Isocr. 4. 124, Aesch. 3. 114, Lyc. 2, Din. 1. 87, C. I. A. II. 86, 6, 117, 30, ib.
IV. 2. 104 a, 52, 192 C, 34).
2, 3 ομόσαι ἠνάγκασαν ἡμᾶς ἀμφοτέρους. The ambiguous words conceal
a fact which is disclosed afterwards (§ 38 sqq.), that Menecles did not swear,
and that the oaths were taken by his adopted son on the one side, by his
brother and brother's son on the other. It would have damaged the speaker's
case to reveal at this stage that Menecles was not the ruling spirit in the
transactions which are being described.
4, 5 ἐκ τοῦ ἐπιλοίπου χρόνου. In MSS. λοιπὸς and ἐπίλοιποs are sometimes
interchanged (Isocr. 4. 124 εἰς τὸν λοιπὸν χρόνον Γ, εἰς τὸν ἐπίλοιπον χρόνον
uolg., Dem. 20. 83 τὸν λοιπὸν χρόνον Σ, τὸν ἐπίλοιπον χρόνον v., [Dem.] 53.
12 τοῦ ἐπιλοίπου ἀργυρίου Σ, τοῦ λοιποῦ ἀργυρίου Α). Buermann faithful
to his principle (Crit. Introd. p. xxix) prints here λοιποῦ, the reading of
Apr., although Q agrees with Ai. Isocrates often has ὁ ἐπίλοιπος χρόνος
(3. 58, 5. 35, 6. 46, 107, 10. 50, 58, 12. 6, 15. 166, 17. 55, Ep. 6. 9).
5 κατὰ δύναμιν εἶναι. Cp. Plat. Pol. 300 C τὰ παρὰ τῶν εἰδότων εἰς δύναμιν
εἶναι γεγραμμένα, Lys. 13. 58 καὶ τό γ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἐκεῖνον εἶναι ἐσώθης, 28. 14 τὸ ἐπὶ
τούτοις εἶναι ἐν τοῖς δεινοτάτοις κινδύνοις καθεστήκατε, S.I.G. n. 734, 116 (Cos),
Kühner, Gr. Gramm. 11. § 473. n. 13, p. 585, § 479. 4, p. 608.
او
2
33. 5, 6 ἐὰν ἐθέλωσιν ἀναβαίνειν. If the speaker sincerely wished for
the arbitrators' evidence, the law gave him means of overcoming their
reluctance ; see IX. 18. 9 n., Dem. 19. 176 τῶν ἄλλων πρέσβεων ἕκαστον καλῶ,
καὶ δυοῖν θάτερον, ἢ μαρτυρεῖν ἢ ἐξομνύειν ἀναγκάσω, [Dem.] 49. 20 νυνὶ δὲ τῷ
Αντιφάνει εἴληχα βλάβης ἰδίαν δίκην, ὅτι μοι οὔτ᾽ ἐμαρτύρησεν οὔτ᾽ ἐξωμόσατο
κατὰ τὸν νόμον. καὶ ἀξιῶ αὐτὸν ἀναβάντα εἰπεῖν ἐναντίον ὑμῶν διομοσάμενον,
πρῶτον μὲν εἰ ἐδάνεισεν Τιμοθέῳ ἐν Καλαυρείᾳ χιλίας δραχμάς, δεύτερον δ᾽ εἰ
παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς Φίλιππος ἀπέλαβεν ἐνθάδε τοῦτο τὸ ἀργύριον, Lyc. 20 ἀξιοῦτε
οὖν τοὺς μάρτυρας ἀναβαίνειν καὶ μὴ ὀκνεῖν...ἀλλ᾽ ἀποδιδόναι τῇ πατρίδι τἀληθῆ
καὶ τὰ δίκαια...ἢ λαβόντας τὰ ἱερὰ κατὰ τὸν νόμον ἐξομόσασθαι. ἐὰν δὲ μηδέτερον
τούτων ποιῶσιν, ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καὶ τῶν νόμων καὶ τῆς δημοκρατίας κλητεύσομεν
avτoús, Att. Proc.² p. 880 sqq., Beauchet IV. p. 389 sqq. Demosthenes in or.
36. 16 puts in a copy of the arbitrator's award on which he relies (λαβέ μοι
τὴν γνῶσιν τὴν γενομένην ἐν ἀκροπόλει καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν παραγενομένων
ὅτ' ἠφίει τῶν ἐγκλημάτων ἁπάντων Απολλόδωρος). In [Dem.] 59. 47, 71 the
arbitrators themselves are called, and testify to the accuracy of copies of their
awards.
ου
34. 1 τὰς μαρτυρίας ἀνάγνωθι ταυτασί. The absence of documents in
Isaeus is an irreparable loss to students of Athenian law and Athenian
oratory (III. 41. 2 N., 43. 8 N., VI. II. 6 n.). Much might have been learned
from a careful comparison of these depositions with the preceding narrative.
4, 5 ώς τό τε χωρίον...ἐπράθη, καὶ ὡς κ.τ.λ. Cp. III. 15. 3 n.
OR. II.
263
COMMENTARY
35. I ὁ θεῖος. Cp. § 1. 4 n.
3, 4 ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ τὰς τριακοσίας δραχμὰς ἔλαβον. Seven years at least,
probably more, intervened between the sale of the land and the death of
Menecles. Menecles became part lessee of the estate of the children of
Nicias at the time of his separation from the speaker's sister (§ 9). According
to Isaeus the adoption took place 'long after' (§ 19) the separation. If we
interpret this to mean a year (§ 19. 7 n.), and assume, what is not likely, that
the lease ran for 17 years, Menecles existed during the last seven years of his
life on ‘3 m. and a paltry house not worth that,' for he lived 23 years after
the adoption (§ 15).
36. 3 τουτουί Φιλωνίδου. The usual position of οὑτοσὶ is after the
proper name, but there is good authority for the order in the text; cp.
III. 4, VI. 5, 6, 60, XII. 1, Lys. 23. 1, 9; 31. 2, Dem. 18. 114; 19. 2; 24. 72;
41. 4; 45. 2, 7, 36, 40, 53, 56, [Dem.] 33. 16; 35. 5, 15, 17; 42. 1, 8, 23; 43.
82; 44. 21, 29, 47; 48. 5, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, 25, 31, 58; 58. 18, 60; 59.
43, 50, 83, Lyc. 25. In Dem. 18. 114 the place of οὑτοσὶ may be due to
a desire to avoid a succession of short syllables (εἶθ᾽ οὑτοσὶ Νεοπτόλεμος). In
Dem. 45, a speech of disputed authenticity, we have οὑτοσὶ Στέφανος five
times, but Στέφανος οὑτοσὶ only once, in § 5, where Blass restores οὑτοσὶ
Στέφανος. On the other hand in [Dem.] 46 and [Dem.] 59 the combination
Στέφανος οὑτοσὶ is always used. Antiphon, Andocides, Aeschines, Dinarchus
furnish no examples of this pronoun placed before a proper name. Naber,
Mnem. N. S. 5, 1877, p. 395, goes through Isaeus ejecting in each place the
proper name, and would extend the same treatment to Demosthenes and
Pseudo-Demosthenes.
3, 4 τῷ ἐμῷ παιδίῳ ἐθέμην τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ἐκείνου. Cp. III. 30. 7 n., Plat. Lach.
179 Α ἡμῖν εἰσὶν υἱεῖς οὗτοιί, ὅδε μὲν τοῦδε, πάππου ἔχων ὄνομα, Θουκυδίδης, ἐμὸς
δὲ αὖ ὅδε· παππῷον δὲ καὶ οὗτος ὄνομ᾽ ἔχει, τοὐμοῦ πατρός· ᾿Αριστείδην γὰρ
αὐτὸν καλοῦμεν.
5 ἔθαψα αξίως ἐκείνου τε καὶ ἐμαυτοῦ. Cp. § 25. 4 ., IV. 19, 26, VI. 40,
VIII. 24, 26, 39, IX. 4, 5, Isocr. 19. 31, 33, Lys. 31. 21. A 'handsome and
dignifed funeral (Plat. Hipp. Μai. 291 Ε τοὺς αὑτοῦ γονέας τελευτήσαντας
καλῶς περιστείλαντι ὑπὸ τῶν αὑτοῦ ἐκγόνων καλῶς καὶ μεγαλοπρεπῶς ταφῆναι)
might be a heavy charge on the heirs. In Lys. 31. 21 a mother who has no
confidence in her son entrusts a friend with 3 m. εἰς τὴν ἑαυτῆς ταφήν, in
[Dem.] 40. 52 a son borrows 10 m. 'to bury his father.' One source of
expense was the ancient custom of depositing precious articles in the grave
(Blümner-Hermann, Gr. Privataltert. p. 379 n. 2, Müller, Gr. Privataltert.
Handbuch IV. I. p. 463 c). Legislators strove to check this waste; hence
the rule attributed to Lycurgus (Plut. Lyc. 27 συνθάπτειν οὐδὲν εἴασεν, ἀλλὰ
ἐν φοινικίδι καὶ φύλλοις ἐλαίας θέντες τὸ σῶμα περιέστελλον), the law of Solon
(Plut. Sol. 21 οὐδὲ συντιθέναι πλέον ἱματίων τριῶν εἴασεν), the ordinances of
Iulis in Ceos (Inscr. Jurid. Gr. 1. p. 10, S. I. G.² n. 877, Michel n. 398 A Oïde
νόμοι περὶ τῶγ καταφθιμένων· κατὰ τάδε θάπτεν τὸν θανόντα· ἐν ἑματίοις τρισὶ
λευκοῖς, στρώματι καὶ ἐνδύματι καὶ ἐπιβλέματι—ἐξῆναι δὲ καὶ ἐν ἐλάσσοσι-μὲ
πλέονος ἀξίοις τοῖς τρισὶ ἑκατὸν δραχμέων), and of the φρατρία of the Λαβυάδαι
at Delphi (S. I. G. n. 438, 132 sqq., Michel n. 995 C, 2o sqq. h Οδ᾽ ὁ τεθμὸς
πὲρ τῶν ἐντοφηΐων· Μὴ πλέον πέντε καὶ τριάκοντα δραχμᾶν ἐνθέμεν, μήτε
3
264
OR. II.
ISAEUS
αι
πριάμενον μήτε οίκω· τὰν δὲ παχεῖαν χλαῖναν φαωτὰν εἶμεν. αἱ δέ τι τούτων
παρβάλλοιτο (i.e. παραβαίνοι), αποτεισάτω πεντήκοντα δραχμάς, αἴ κα μὴ
ἐξομόσηι ἐπὶ τῶι σάματι μὴ πλέον ἐνθέμεν. στρῶμα δὲ μὲν hυποβαλέτω καὶ
ποτοκεφάλαιον hὲν ποτθέτω). Solon seems to have met with some measure
of success, for Athenian graves of the 4th century contain little but λήκυθοι
and ἀλάβαστρα. The sepulchral magnificence which surprises an English
visitor to the great campi santi of modern Italy is no new thing in
Southern Europe. Apollodorus accuses Phormio of having expended 'more
than 2 t.' on a monument (Dem. 45. 79). In the 13th Epistle (361 E) Plato is
made to say that 'not more than 10 m.' would be needed to construct his
mother's tomb (εἰς τὴν οἰκοδομίαν τοῦ τάφου). Attempts were made to control
this form of extravagance by legislation. Cicero (De Legg. ΙΙ. 26. 64) quotes
an Athenian law 'long after Solon,' ne quis sepulchrum faceret operosius
quam quod decem homines efficerent triduo, and eulogizes the efforts of
Demetrius of Phalerum to combat the same evil (ib. § 66): sepulchris
autem nouis finiuit modum; nam super terrae tumulum noluit quid statui
nisi columellam (κιονίσκος) tribus cubitis ne altiorem aut mensam (τράπεζα)
aut labellum (περιρραντήριον ? or ὑδρία?), et huic procurationi certum magis-
tratum praefecerat. Thus the sculptured στήλαι and artistic ναΐσκοι, which
we associate with Attica, were made illegal. Brückner (Berl. Phil. Woch.
12, 1892, p. 448) attributes to this legislation the plainness of Athenian
monuments in the 3rd century B.C. Demetrius was applying Platonic
principles; see Laws 717 D τελευτησάντων δὲ γονέων ταφὴ μὲν ἡ σωφρο-
νεστάτη καλλίστη, μήθ᾽ ὑπεραίροντα τῶν εἰθισμένων ὄγκον (ὄγκων libri: corr.
Badham), μήτ' ἐλλείποντα ὧν οἱ προπάτορες τοῖς ἑαυτῶν γεννηταῖς τοὺς ἑαυτῶν
γεννήτας libri: corr. Badham) ἐτίθεσαν, ib. 958 Ε χῶμα δὲ μὴ χοῦν ὑψηλότερον
πέντε ἀνδρῶν ἔργον, ἐν πένθ᾽ ἡμέραις ἀποτελούμενον· λίθινα δὲ ἐπιστήματα
(Poll. 8. 66, S. I. G. n. 88o (Nisyrus), 1 εἰ δέ τίς κα θάπτηι ἢ ἐπίσταμα ἐφιστᾶι)
μὴ μείζω ποιεῖν ἢ ὅσα δέχεσθαι τὰ τοῦ τετελευτηκότος ἐγκώμια βίου, μὴ πλείω
τεττάρων ἡρωϊκῶν στίχων, ib. 959 C οὐδέποτε οἰκοφθορεῖν χρὴ τὸ δὲ παρὸν δεῖν
ποιεῖν τὰ μέτρια ἀναλίσκοντα ὡς εἰς ἄψυχον χθονίων βωμόν.
او
..
6 ἐπίθημα. The most general term for a gravestone, for the various
forms of which see Blümner-Hermann, op. cit. p. 383 n. 2, Müller op. cit.
p. 463 c, Dict. of Gr. & Rom. Ant. II. p. 645.
τὰ τρίτα καὶ τὰ ἔνατα, the offerings taken to the grave on the third and
ninth day after the funeral. The first are mentioned in Ar. Lys. 611 sqq. μῶν
ἐγκαλεῖς ὅτι οὐχὶ προυθέμεσθά σε; | ἀλλ᾽ ἐς τρίτην γοῦν ἡμέραν σοὶ πρῷ πάνυ
ἥξει παρ᾽ ἡμῶν τὰ τρίτ᾽ ἐπεσκευασμένα. The ancient Attic name may be
preserved in a scholium on this passage: τῇ τρίτῃ τὸ τῶν νεκρῶν ἄριστον
ἐκφέρεται. For the second term cp. VIII. 39. 5, 6 τὰ ἔνατα ἐπήνεγκα ὡς οἷόν
τε κάλλιστα παρασκευάσας. A gathering of friends and relations at the tomb
is indicated by a comparison of Aesch. 3. 225 τελευτήσαντος δὲ ἐλθὼν εἰς τὰ
ἔνατα διεξίοι πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους and Dem. 18. 243 ἐπειδὴ δὲ τελευτήσειέ τις καὶ
τὰ νομιζόμενα αὐτῷ φέροιτο, ἀκολουθῶν ἐπὶ τὸ μνῆμα διεξίοι. The ceremonies of
the Latin nouemdiale embraced a feast (Petron. 65, Tac. Ann. 6. 5) as well as
offerings at the grave (Porph. ad Hor. Epod. 17. 48), but in so far as it seems
to have marked the end of mourning (Apul. Metam. 9. 31 nono die rite
completis apud tumulum sollemnibus, Donat. ad Ter. Phorm. 1. 1. 5 nonus
OR. II.
265
COMMENTARY
dies quo parentalia concluduntur), the nouemdiale may be compared with the
Athenian Tρlakás (§ 4. 5 n.). Similar practices on the third and ninth day
after burial are found among many races (Sartori, Die Speisung der Toten,
pp. 30, 31).
38-43 My opponents themselves have recognised the validity of the
adoption. It was with me, not with Menecles, that the reconciliation was
made; they swore to me, and I swore to them. It is Menecles' brother, who
is out of his senses, to break his oaths and seek to rob me of an inheritance
that exists merely in name. Only a sense of honour and filial duty makes me
fight this action.
The opening argument is not cogent. Though Menecles' brother and
nephew were induced by the arbitrators to patch up the feud with the
intruder, the treaty of peace was not necessarily equivalent to an admission
that Menecles had never been under the influence of a woman, and that the
adoption was legally unassailable. On the contrary the incident may be used
in support of the charge made by the opponents, that Menecles was an
imbecile old man, a helpless victim of intriguers (§ 32. 3 n.). The contingent
advantages of the position of 'son of Menecles' suffice to explain the desire
of the family to get rid of a person whom they considered an adventurer.
If Menecles' brother should lose his only son, valuable rights of succession
might accrue to the son of Menecles.
39.5 oúdèv: ovdè èv A, but Q has ovdeèv here and in § 41. 4, 5; cp. III.
72. 10 nvdè eîs A, ovdeeìs A², Din. 1. 48 undèv A, undeèv L, undeù M. The
proper answer to τί ἔδει (what need was there?) is οὐδὲν ἔδει (there was no
need). In inscriptions (Meisterhans, Gramm. d. att. Inschr.3 § 92. 3, p. 258)
the full form, ovdè eîs, does not necessarily mean ne unus quidem, but the
distinction between ovdeìs and ovdè eîs was firmly established in ordinary
speech, as is proved by the evidence of comedy; cp. Straton ap. Ath. 9.
382 C, Kock, Com. Att. Fr. III. p. 362, 16 ‘οὐδεὶς παρέσται φημί. τί λέγεις;
οὐδὲ εἷς; Consequently οὐδὲν ought to be restored in Dem. 36. 30 ὑμῖν μὲν
γὰρ τοῖς γένει πολίταις οὐδὲ ἓν πλῆθος χρημάτων ἀντὶ τοῦ γένους καλόν ἐστιν
ελέσθαι, 45. 12 τί ἦν μοι κέρδος τὸ μὴ ἐθέλειν, οὐδὲ ἓν (οὐδὲν F) δήπου. The
corruption of ovdè els into ovdeìs is naturally commoner (Dem. 5. 17 ovdè eîs Σ,
ovdeìs A, 8. 40 oùdè èv Σ, oùdèv A, 25. 17 oùdè eîs Σ, ovdeìs ceteri, Aesch. 3. 46
ovdè els plurimi, ovdeìs ac). The combination, eîs ovdeìs, ‘no single one,' which
is found in late Greek (Bekk. An. Gr. 1. p. 138, 21 sqq., Dion. Hal. De
Demosth. c. 33, p. 1059 R, p. 202, 3 Usener and Radermacher, Cobet,
Observat. ad Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. p. 104), appears even in Demosthenes
(21. 12 ἓν γὰρ οὐδέν ἐστιν ἐφ᾽ ᾧ τῶν πεπραγμένων οὐ δίκαιος ὢν ἀπολωλέναι
φανήσεται), and testifies to the weakened force of οὐδείς.
}
40. 5, 6 ἥκει... παραβάς. Cp. I. 4. 5 n.
äv
41. 3, 4 ταχὺ ἂν ἀπέστην αὐτῷ τῶν ἐκείνου. ‘Le fils adoptif dit ici
formellement qu'il aurait pu renoncer à la succession de son père adoptif.
Il n'était donc pas héritier nécessaire comme on l'a soutenu' (Dareste, Les
Plaidoyers d'Isée p. 35). The orator's point is that the right to the property
of Menecles and the position of son of Menecles are indissoluble, and that
honour constrains him to retain that position, and consequently to resist
a claim to the estate which implied a denial of the legality of the adoption.
266
OR. II.
ISAEUS
The passage has no bearing on the controversy concerning the existence
of heredes necessarii at Athens (Beauchet III. p. 587 sqq.). It was possible
for an adopted son to renounce his adoption (ἀπειπεῖν § 13. 2 7.), but little
is known of the conditions under which such renunciation was allowed
(VI. 44, IX. 33, X. II).
Cobet finds fault with ταχύ: quid est celeriter cedere bonis ? poterat id
statim, continuo, sine mora fieri, sed celeritatis notio in talem rem non cadit'
(Mnem. 11, 1862, p. 143). No one who appreciates the situation is likely to
prefer his correction, τάχ᾽ ἂν (perhaps I might have surrendered etc.).
42. 2 τῇδε occurs nowhere else in the orators, though familiar in
Plato (Rep. 4. 433 Ε σκόπει δὴ καὶ τῇδε, εἰ οὕτω δόξει).
2, 3 ἡνίκα μεν...τότε μέν. In the orators the repetition of μὲν and δὲ is
dè
confined within narrow limits, appearing only after οὗτος, ἐκεῖνος (once,
Lys. 32. 22), ὁ τοιοῦτος (thrice, Isocr. II. 24, 12. 133, 157), ἐνταῦθα (thrice,
Ant. 5. 62, 6. 9, Isocr. 7. 47), τότε (thrice, here, Lys. 24. 8, [Dem.] 42. 28),
τηνικαῦτα (twice, Dem. 20. 80, [Dem.] 56. 23), ὑμᾶς (once, Lys. 14. 21). Three
types may be distinguished. (1) In the most symmetrical form the two
halves of the period correspond, µèv being repeated in the first half, dè in the
second (Isocr. 7. 47, 8. 55, 11. 24, 12. 132, 133, [Dem.] 17. 18). Isocr. 8. 55
is a good example : οἷς μὲν γὰρ περὶ τῶν μεγίστων συμβούλοις χρώμεθα, τούτους
μὲν οὐκ ἀξιοῦμεν στρατηγοὺς χειροτονεῖν ὡς νοῦν οὐκ ἔχοντας, οἷς δ᾽ οὐδεὶς ἂν
οὔτε περὶ τῶν ἰδίων οὔτε περὶ τῶν κοινῶν συμβουλεύσαιτο, τούτους δ᾽ αὐτοκρά-
τορας ἐκπέμπομεν ὡς ἐκεῖ σοφωτέρους ἐσομένους. (2) As here, only μὲν is
repeated (Ant. 5. 30, 54, 6. 9, Lys. 13. 54, 14. 11, 24. 8, 32. 22, [Lys.] 6. 15,
20. 19, Isocr. 4. 60, 9. 25, 12. 157, 13. 5, 17. 48, Dem. 2. 18, 8. 44, 19. 280, 24. 112,
45. 14, [Dem.] 40. 19, 42. 28, 43. 56, 48. 54, 12 (Phil. Ep.). 13, Hyp. 2. 15).
As examples take Ant. 5. 30 καὶ ὃν μὲν τότε παραχρῆμα ἐβασάνισαν, οὗτος μὲν
οὐδὲν εἶπε περὶ ἐμοῦ φλαῦρον· ὃν δ᾽ ἡμέραις ὕστερον πολλαῖς ἐβασάνισαν, ἔχοντες
παρὰ σφίσιν αὐτοῖς τὸν πρόσθεν χρόνον, οὗτος ἦν ὁ πεισθεὶς ὑπὸ τούτων καὶ κατα-
ψευσάμενος ἐμοῦ and [Dem.] 43. 56 καίτοι πῶς οἴεσθε ἄτοπον εἶναι, τῆς μὲν
ἐπικλήρου, ἡ ἦν ῾Αγνίᾳ ἀνεψιοῦ παῖς πρὸς πατρός, ταύτης μὲν μηδεπώποτ᾽ ἀμ-
φισβητῆσαι Θεόπομπον, τὸν δὲ κλῆρον τὸν ῾Αγνίου ἀξιοῦν ἔχειν παρὰ τοὺς νόμους;
(3) Only dè is repeated (Ant. 5. 42, 62, And. 1. 149, Lys. 14. 21, Isocr. 4. 1,
98, 176, 7. 63, 8. 125, 11. 2, 12. 135, 13. 16, 15. 305, 18. 58, Dem. 8. 3, 20. 79,
21. 100, 23. 126, 28. 6, [Dem.] 48. 39, 56. 23, Isae. vI. 59 (disputed), Lyc. 127).
See [Dem.] 48. 39 ἃ μὲν οὖν οὗτος λέγει, ὑπόνοιαι πλασταί εἰσι καὶ προφάσεις
ἄδικοι καὶ πονηρίαι, ἐπὶ τῷ ἀποστερῆσαι ἃ προσήκει αὐτὸν ἀποδοῦναι ἐμοί· ἃ δ᾽
ἐγὼ ἐρῶ πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ὅτι οὗτος ψεύδεται, ταῦτα δὲ ὑπόνοια μὲν οὐδεμία ἔσται,
φανερῶς δ᾽ ἐπιδείξω τὴν τούτου ἀναισχυντίαν, and And. 1. 149 μὴ βούλεσθε
Θετταλοὺς καὶ ᾿Ανδρίους πολίτας ποιεῖσθαι δι᾽ ἀπορίαν ἀνδρῶν, τοὺς δὲ ὄντας
πολίτας ὁμολογουμένως, οἷς προσήκει ἀνδράσιν ἀγαθοῖς εἶναι καὶ βουλόμενοι
δυνήσονται, τούτους δὲ ἀπόλλυτε. Herodotus presents two more varieties,
(4) µèv—dé, dè—dé (2. 39, 4. 126, 9. 6), and (5) µèv—dé, without resumption of
δὲ in the second half (Ι. 13, 2. 149, 3. 36, 4. 3, 94, 165, 5. 73). An instance of
(4) occurs in Xen. An. 5. 7. 6 ἔστιν οὖν ὅστις τοῦτο ἂν δύναιτο ὑμᾶς ἐξαπατῆσαι,
ὡς ἥλιος ἔνθεν μὲν ἀνίσχει, δύεται δὲ ἐνταῦθα, ἔνθα δὲ δύεται, ἀνίσχει δ᾽ ἐντεῦθεν ;
Such a sentence would not be tolerated in the oratorical style. Antiphon
offers an apparent example of resumptive µèv preceded by a verb, viz. Tetr.
OR. II.
267
COMMENTARY
The
ΙΙΙ. β. 2 τὸν γὰρ ἄρξαντα τῆς πληγῆς, εἰ μὲν σιδήρῳ ἢ λίθῳ ἢ ξύλῳ ἠμυνάμην
αὐτόν, ἠδίκουν μὲν <ἂν> οὐδ᾽ οὕτως—οὐ γὰρ ταὐτὰ ἀλλὰ μείζονα καὶ πλείονα
δίκαιοι οἱ ἄρχοντες ἀντιπάσχειν εἰσί·—ταῖς δὲ χερσὶ τυπτόμενος ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ταῖς
χερσὶν ἅπερ ἔπασχον ἀντιδρῶν, πότερα ἠδίκουν; But the second μὲν is inde-
pendent of the first, and belongs to the category illustrated in I. I. I n.
iteration of μèv or dè or both is generally a means of articulating the structure
of a complex period, and should be separated from the construction of dè in
apodosi (Kühner, Gr. Gramm. 11. § 533, p. 816 sqq.), of which one case, easily
corrigible, is found in Ant. 6. 41 καὶ πρῶτον ἃ τοῦ βασιλέως κατηγοροῦσι καὶ
διὰ τὴν ἐμὴν σπουδὴν οὔ φασιν ἐθέλειν αὐτὸν ἀπογράφεσθαι τὴν δίκην, τοῦτο δὲ
(δὴ Baiter) κατ᾿ αὐτῶν τούτων ἔσται τεκμήριον ὅτι οὐκ ἀληθῆ λέγουσι. See
Buttmann's 12th Excursus on Demosthenes' speech against Meidias,
Schneider on Isocr. 7. 47, Gebauer, De arg. ex contr. formis p. 107 sqq.,
Kühner, Gr. Gramm. II. § 529, p. 810 sqq.
5 ἐγυμνασιάρχουν ἐν τῷ δήμῳ. This is the only evidence known of
a yvμvaσíapxos serving in a deme, but it is sufficient. Thumser's scepticism
(De ciuium Atheniensium muneribus p. 93, Gr. Staatsaltert. pp. 469 n. 8,
696 n. 10) is unfounded. The demes celebrated festivals of their own, iepà
Enμoтiкά (Haussoulier, La vie municipale en Attique p. 162 sqq.), and
required Aŋroupyiaι from wealthy members (III. 80). Inscriptions mention
a theatre (C. I. A. iv. 2. 584 d), and two xopnyoì (ib. II. 579, IV. 2. 584 b)
at Aexone. Icaria which also had two xopnyoì in the middle of the 4th
century (ib. IV. 2. 572 c) published in the last half of the 5th century a set
of rules permitting ȧvridoois and regulating the incidence of the xopnyia
(ib. IV. I. 5a). We possess a decree of the deme Eleusis (ib. IV. 2. 574b)
in honour of a resident alien, Damasias the Theban, who had provided
'at his proper charges' two choruses for the Dionysia, one of men, one
of boys, and it is known that there were theatres in many other demes,
in Peiraeus (ib. II. 573), in Thoricus, in Acharnae (ib. IV. 2. 587 b), in
Athmonon, in Myrrinus (Haussoulier, op. cit. p. 166 n. 1), and that both
tragedies and comedies were performed at Collytus (Dem. 18. 180, Aesch.
I. 157). If at any festival of a deme there was a λaμmadηdρoµía, rich men
of the township might have been called upon to discharge a function similar
to that of the yvμvaoiapɣo, who were nominated by the tribes to train and
maintain teams for the torch race which was a part of certain state festivals
(VI. 60. 612.). The speaker of Lys. 21 says (§ 3) that he spent 12 m. as
yvμvaoiapxos at the Prometheia in 405 B.C., but the torch race of a deme
must have been simpler and less costly than a contest at a national celebration
which touched the honour of the competing tribes. According to the orator's
statements Menecles' property, even if unencumbered, would not have made
him liable to state Aŋrovрyía, since the land sold fetched 70 m. (§ 34), the
land ceded to the brother was worth 'more than 10 m.,' and the house was
'not worth 3m.' (§ 35). The minimum census for public burdens was not
lower than 2t. (III. 80. 2 12., V. 36. 7, 8n., Dem. 27. 64 oikoi taλavtiaioi kai
διτάλαντοι καταλειφθέντες, ἐκ τοῦ μισθωθῆναι διπλάσιοι καὶ τριπλάσιοι γεγόνασιν,
ὥστ᾽ ἀξιοῦσθαι λητουργεῖν).
¿þiλotiµń0ŋv. The stereotyped phrase in the orators (VII. 36. 7) and
honorary decrees (Larfeld, Handbuch d. gr. Epigraphik 11. pp. 746, 749, 751,
268
OR. II.
ISAEUS
1
764, 771-773, 832) for display of public spirit, especially in the form of
liberal donations. The 'public spirit' of Menecles' adopted son may explain
the disappearance of 'the orphan's money.'
7, 8 ἐστράτευμαι ἐν τῇ φυλῇ τῇ ἐκείνου [καὶ ἐν τῷ δήμῳ]. Εupolemus the
father of the speaker (§ 3) belonged to Acharnae, i.e. to the tribe Oeneis.
Schoemann suggests that Menecles may have been a member of the deme
Kepaλń (§ 31), and consequently of the tribe Acamantis. I follow Dobree
(Adv. 1. p. 289) in bracketing kaì èv tậ dýµw, which I consider a repetition
from 1. 5 (Crit. Introd. p. xxx). The words are open to two objections.
(1) The combination στρατεύεσθαι ἐν τῇ φυλῇ τῇ ἐκείνου is natural, because
the levy furnished by a tribe, the largest tactical unit of the Athenian army,
was called φυλή as well as τάξις (Thuc. 6. 98. 4 φυλὴ μία τῶν ὁπλιτῶν, ΙΟΙ. 5
ἡ πρώτη φυλὴ τοῦ κέρως, Lys. 13. 79 οὔτε γὰρ συσσιτήσας τούτῳ οὐδεὶς
φανήσεται οὔτε σύσκηνος γενόμενος οὔτε <ὁ> ταξίαρχος εἰς τὴν φυλὴν κατατάξας).
No such defence can be put forward for the singular expression σrparεÚEσÔαι
èv tậ dýµw tô èkeívov. (2) While Greek habits make it probable that members
of the same deme were kept together so far as was practicable, it is not
likely that each of the ten tribal regiments of infantry was permanently
distributed into unequal groups each composed of men of one deme. The
subdivisions (Xen. Hell. 1. 2. 3 тŵv óπÀítŵv dúo λóxoi) must have followed
a different principle and have sometimes involved the breaking up of the
contingent furnished by a deme. The roll (karáλoyos) of men liable to service
was arranged according to years ('Aе. Пoλ. 53. 4, Aesch. 2. 133 ¥nPioaµévwv
vµŵv тOÙS µéxρɩ тetтapákovтa étŵv éέiévaɩ, Gilbert, Gr. Staatsaltert.² 1. p. 353
sqq.). It is idle to produce in support of the text Lys. 16. 14 (ovddeyévtwv
τῶν δημοτῶν πρὸ τῆς ἐξόδου), which merely shows that men of the same place,
when called out, sometimes started from home in a body.
dè
43.1 ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἐκεῖνος ἐτελεύτησεν κ.τ.λ. In illustration of the structure
of the period and the addition of a new apodosis (πῶς οὐκ ἂν δεινὸν κ.τ.λ.)
which repeats the thought of the opening phrase (νυνὶ δὲ δεινὸν τὸ πρᾶγμα
k.7.λ.) Gebauer, De arg. ex contr. formis p. 256, cites two remarkably similar
sentences from Xenophon, Oec. 8. 17 and Cyr. 4. 2. 46. Cp. also IX. 15.
6 δοκῶ need not be changed to δόξω. The present tense gives a
tolerable meaning: 'it pains me to be thought such a good-for-nothing
fellow that no friend in his senses would have adopted me, so that I have
an additional motive for fighting those that think so ill of me.' The
translators all prefer the future and give a different turn to the thought:
'if I do not resist this claim, the world will think me a worthless fellow
whom no one in his senses but only an imbecile would have adopted, and
this prospect hurts my pride.' Buermann (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 352) de-
siderates either the insertion of μóvov after параþроvоûνтos or the excision
of ὑπὸ δὲ παραφρονοῦντος.
7, 8 ὥστε...ἂν ποιηθῆναι. For the construction cp. III. 37. 2 n.
44-47 Have compassion upon me and acquit this witness. I have
proved that I was lawfully adopted and that I have treated Menecles with
filial love and care. Defeat the unnatural malice of my adversary, who seeks
to render his own brother childless, and rob him of the honours due to the
dead.
OR. II.
269
COMMENTARY
44. 2, 3 τοῦ μάρτυρος.
Cp. §§ 2. 4, 17. 5.
Cp. III. 61. 2 n., IV. 12-14, VII. 2.
5 οὐ λόγῳ οὐδὲ διαθήκῃ.
45. 3 ἐπιβιόντα: ἐπιβιοῦντα AQ. Blass restores ἐπιβιόντος in Dem. 41.
18, 55. 4, ἐπιβιόντα in Dem. 41. 19. In Poll. 3. 108 (καὶ ἐπεβίω δὲ καὶ ἐπιβιούς·
καὶ τὸ παιδίον ἐπίβιον Ἰσαῖος εἴρηκε) Veitch and Bethe prefer ἐπιβιοῦν, but the
right reading is ἐπιβιόν (Thalheim, Isae. p. 201). In papyri βιοῦντες, βιοῦν
belong to the present participle (Crönert, Memoria Graeca Herculanensis
p. 247). In Aesch. I. 5 παρανομούντων καὶ ἀσελγῶς βιούντων the last three
words are omitted by several MSS., and by modern editors. See VI. 49. 5,
Cobet, N.L. p. 576 sqq.
46. 4 τὰ ἱερὰ τὰ πατρῷα. Cp. § 1. 7 n., VII. I. 3, IX. 7. 9, 36. 5, Lys.
fr. 109 Saupp. ὡς ἔμελλεν ἐπί τε τοὺς βωμοὺς ἰέναι καὶ <τὰ> νομιζόμενά γε
ποιήσειν, Din. 2. 17. εἰ ἱερὰ πατρῷ ἔστιν.
5 ἐναγίζῃ αὐτῷ καθ᾿ ἕκαστον ἐνιαυτόν. These yearly offerings at the
grave are alluded to in § 10, 1. 10 (τὰ νομιζόμενα), VI. 51, 65, VII. 30, 32
(τὰ νομιζόμενα), ΙΧ. 7, 36. Other evidence of the annual recurrence of such
rites is found both in literature and inscriptions ; see Hdt. 4. 26 τὴν δὲ
κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ ψιλώσαντες καὶ ἐκκαθήραντες καταχρυσοῦσι καὶ ἔπειτα ἅτε
ἀγάλματι χρέωνται, θυσίας μεγάλας ἐπετείους ἐπιτελέοντες. παῖς δὲ πατρὶ
τοῦτο ποιέει, κατά περ Ελληνες τὰ γενέσια, Plat. Laws 717 Ε τάς τε αὖ κατ᾿
ἐνιαυτὸν τῶν ἤδη τέλος ἐχόντων ὡσαύτως ἐπιμελείας τὰς κόσμον φερούσας
ἀποδιδόναι· τῷ δὲ μὴ παραλείπειν μνήμην ἐνδελεχῆ παρεχόμενον, τούτῳ
μάλιστ᾽ ἀεὶ πρεσβεύειν, δαπάνης τε τῆς διδομένης ὑπὸ τύχης τὸ μέτριον τοῖς
κεκμηκόσι νέμοντα, Stob. Flor. 44. 40 χρὴ τῶν τελευτώντων ἕκαστον τιμᾶν...
μνήμῃ ἀγαθῇ καὶ τῇ τῶν κατ᾽ ἔτος ὡραίων ἐπιφορᾷ, S. I. G. n. 878 = Michel
n. 398 B, Inscr. Jurid. Gr. 1. p. 12 (Iulis in Ceos) τῆι τρίτηι [ἐπ]ὶ τοῖς
ἐνι[αυ]σ[ί]οις καθαροὺς εἶναι τοὺς ποι[ου]ντας, S. I. G. n. 438, 160= Michel n. 995
(Delphi) μηδὲ τᾶι Κυστεραία μηδ᾽ ἐν ταῖς δεκάταις μηδ᾽ ἐν τοῖς ἐνιαυτοῖς μήτ'
οἰμώζεν μήτ᾽ ὀτοτύζεν, Bekk. An. Gr. I. p. 187, 17 ἐνιαύσια καὶ ἐνιαυτός: ἣν
ποιοῦσι τοῦ τετελευτηκότος μνείαν. ἔστι δὲ ἀρχὴ (?), S. D. I. II. n. 1775 (Delphi),
21 στεφανωσάτω δὲ τὸ μνῆμα τὸ Κλευνίκας κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν ταῖς ὡρίοις (sc. ἡμέραις),
ib. n. 1545 (Stiris), 8, 9 θαψάντω καὶ τὰ ὧρια αὐτῶν ποιησάτωσαν· εἰ δὲ μή
θάψωντι καὶ ποιήσωντι τὰ ὥρια αὐτῶν, καθὼς προγέγραπται, ἀτελὴς ἔστω ἁ
ἀνάθεσις, Hesych. s.v. ὡραῖα· νεκύσια, οἱ δὲ †δαιμόνια. τάσσεται δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ
τῶν ἐκ γῆς ὡραίων καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν καθ᾿ ὥραν συντελουμένων ἱερῶν. Baunack
explains the ἀλλαθεάδες of Delphi as 'memorial festivals, Erinnerungsfeier-
lichkeiten” (S. D. I. II. n. 1731, 1ο ἐπεί κα ἀποθάνη, θαψάτω Κίντος καὶ τὰς
ἀλλαθεάδας ποιησάτω καθὼς νομίζεται, ib. n. 1775, 29 ποιησάτω δὲ καὶ τὰς
ἀλλαθεάδας καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τὰ νομιζόμενα πάντα, ib. n. 1796, 5 ποιήσας τὰ
νομιζόμενα τὰ ἐν τὰν ταφὰν καὶ ἀλλαθεάδας). Little is known about the
time of these annual ceremonies. There are traces in Greek calendars of
periods set apart for propitiating the spirits of the dead, which in all
probability were similar in origin and character to the Latin dies parentales
(Feb. 13—21 at Rome, in May among many Latins); see Lipsius-Schoemann,
Gr. Altert. II. p. 497. The ἀποφράδες οι μιαραὶ ἡμέραι at Athens are some-
times defined as ἐν αἷς τοῖς κατοιχομένοις χοὰς ἐπιφέρουσιν οι μάλιστα ἐν αἷς τὰ
évayioµara (Schol. Plat. Laws 800 D, Bekk. An. Gr. I. p. 438, 31, Eustath.
1538, 19, 1878, 51, Suid. s.v.). The great Athenian Festival of All Souls was
the Anthesteria, 11th-13th of the month Anthesterion (roughly February),
26
270
OR. II.
ISAEUS
when ghosts roamed at large (Miss J. E. Harrison, J.H.S. 20, 1900, p. 99 sqq.,
Rohde, Psyche³ p. 237 sqq.). The Athenians, like many other races and the
Church of Rome (Sartori, Die Speisung der Toten p. 53 sqq.), also kept an
autumn festival, on the 5th of Boedromion, called Tevéσia (Bekk. An. Gr. 1.
pp. 86, 20, 231, 19, Hesych. s.v., Phryn. Ecl. s.v.). Besides these public
festivals families seem to have celebrated the anniversaries of the birthdays
of deceased members. The evidence is not so precise as could be desired
(Blümner-Hermann, Gr. Privataltert. p. 372, Lipsius-Schoemann, op. cit.
p. 605, Rohde, op. cit. p. 235), being in fact principally the etymology of the
word yevéσia, and it has been maintained both in ancient and modern times.
(Ammon. De dif. voc. p. 35 Valck. γενέσια δὲ (τάττεται) ἐπὶ τῶν τεθνηκότων, ἐν
еκασтоs ημéрą тeteλeúтnke, Mommsen, Feste der Stadt Athen p. 173 n. 3)
that the private yevéσɩa fell on the anniversary of the death of the person
honoured. In favour of the current doctrine may be quoted the will of
Acusilaus (Oxy. Pap. III. n. 494, 156 A.D.), who orders his wife, and after
her death his son, to give 100 dr. to his slaves and freedmen eis evwxiav
αὐτῶν ἣν ποιήσονται πλησίον τοῦ τάφου μου κατ᾽ ἔτος τῇ γενεθλίᾳ μου (11. 24, 25).
ειν
What offerings were considered legitimate and appropriate at Athens in
the time of Isaeus, and what ritual was observed at the grave, we do not
know. The verb évayičev is sometimes so defined by lexicographers (Hesych.,
Suid., Et. Mag.) as to embrace libations as well as other offerings, and, when
used alone, probably has this comprehensive sense, but évayioµara and
ἐναγίζειν are often coupled with goal and χεῖσθαι (e.g. vi. 51, 65), and thus
limited in application. As constituents of libations (xoaí, äreр veкpoîσi μei-
ἅπερ νεκροῖσι μει
XIKTηpia) the Attic tragedians mention milk, honey, water, wine, oil (Aesch.
Pers. 609 sqq., Soph. El. 894, Eur. Or. 114, I. T. 158, El. 511). The Scholiast
on Eur. Hec. 527 adds äλevpov; cp. Aesch. Choeph. 91 Téλavov and Ov. Fast.
2. 539 inque mero mollita ceres. According to Eustathius on Hom. Od.
10. 519 the μeλíкρатov (Luc. Char. 22, Menipp. 9) was a mixture of honey
and milk in Homeric times, but of honey and water in the historical period.
Stengel (Philolog. 39, 1880, p. 378 sqq., Jahrbb. f. cl. Philol. 1887, p. 653)
seeks to show that Eustathius is in error, and that milk was always an
ingredient. The libation was poured on the grave, and accompanied by
words of prayer (Kock, Com. Att. Fr. I. p. 517, Aristoph. 2. 488, 12 sqq.
καὶ θύομεν αὐτοῖσι τοῖς ἐναγίσμασιν ¦ ὥσπερ θεοῖσι, καὶ χοάς γε χεόμενοι ¦ αἰτού-
μεθ᾿ αὐτοὺς δεῦρ᾽ ἀνεῖναι τἀγαθά, Aesch. Choeph. 91 sqq. ἢ τοῦτο φάσκω τούπος,
ὡς νόμος βροτοῖς, ἔσθλ᾽ ἀντιδοῦναι τοῖσι πέμπουσιν τάδε). The monument was
sometimes so constructed that the liquid could reach without hindrance the
bones or ashes below (Brückner and Pernice, Ein Attischer Friedhof, Athen.
Mitteil. 18, 1893, p. 155). The remaining offerings constituted the deîñvoV
(Artemid. Oneirocr. 1. 4 év veкpŵv deíπvois) or daìs of the dead (Aesch. Choeph.
483 sqq. daîtes évvoµoi)(xoai), and must have varied greatly according to local
customs and the tastes and means of individuals. No Greek author tells us,
like Ovid (Fast. 2. 537 sqq.), the minimum that was supposed to satisfy a
ghost. The most exalted dead, the heroes, demanded blood. It was the
practice to kill the victims (σpáyia évtéµveiv Thuc. 5. 11, Plut. Sol. 9, Sertor. 9)
over an eoxapà or trench (ẞó@pos, Müller's Handbuch V. 3 p. 14), so that the
blood ran away into the earth. Pausanias (10. 4. 7; see Frazer's note) tells
of a Phocian hero into whose grave the blood of victims was poured through a
OR. II.
271
COMMENTARY
T
T
hole (δι' οπῆς). That the ordinary dead as well as heroes were sometimes
regaled with blood seems certain. 'The brave men who fell for the freedom
of Hellas' at Plataea form a class intermediate between the two, and Plutarch
(Aristid. 21) describes how in his time the Archon of Plataea sacrificed a
bull over the funeral-mound (ἐπὶ τὴν πυράν), and invited the dead ἐπὶ τὸ δεῖπνον
καὶ τὴν αἱμακουρίαν. See also Eur. Troad. 381 οὐδὲ πρὸς τάφους ἔσθ᾽ ὅστις
αὐτοῖς αἷμα γῇ δωρήσεται, Εl. 92 πυρᾷ τ᾽ ἐπέσφαξ' αἷμα μηλείου φόνου, and note
that the word aiμakovpíaι (Pind. Ol. 1.90, Bacchyl. 6. 5) is explained by
Hesychius, the Etymologicum Magnum, and a Scholiast on Pind. .c. as
Boeotian for τὰ τῶν νεκρῶν ἐναγίσματα. In Attica a law of Solon made it
illegal to offer an ox to the dead (Plut. Sol. 21), and no description is pre-
served either of the évayioμara which the Polemarch offered annually to
Harmodius and Aristogeiton, or of the rites which accompanied the ảyòv
éжTápios in honour of citizens that had fallen in war ('A. Ioλ. 58. I, C. I. A.
II. 471 (c. 112/1 Β.C.), 26 παραγενόμενοι δὲ ἐπὶ τὸ ἐμΜαραθῶνι πολυανδρεῖον ἐστε-
φάνωσάν τε καὶ ἐνήγισαν τοῖς κατὰ πόλεμον τελευτήσασιν ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐλευθερίας).
The sacrifice to Konnidas, the Troezenian paedagogus of Theseus, was a ram
(Plut. Thes. 4 ᾧ μέχρι νῦν ᾿Αθηναῖοι μια πρότερον ἡμέρᾳ τῶν Θησείων κριὸν
évayičovσi). Wealthy and religious Athenians probably contented themselves
with sheep like Orestes (Eur. El. 92) or lambs and kids like the Romans of
the elder Cato's age (Plut. Cat. Mai. 15). But it is reasonable to suppose
that many kinds of food were used in offerings which were conceived as
‘a feast for the dead.' Athenaeus (8. 344 C) quotes from Clearchus an anecdote
of a flute-player who offered the fish called ảñoñνpìs (ib. 334 E) at the grave
of a brother artist, 'because he loved fishes,' Thucydides speaks of first-fruits
of the crops (3. 58. 4 ὅσα ἡ γῆ ἡμῶν ἀνεδίδου ὡραῖα, πάντων ἀπαρχὰς ἐπιφέροντες),
according to Pliny (N. H. 20. 113) Chrysippus, probably the Cnidian physician
of the 4th century B.C., and an unidentified Dionysius pronounced that
parsley (neutrum apii genus, oéλwov) ought not to be eaten as food, nam id
defunctorum feralibus epulis dicatum esse. The meal presented, whatever it
was, was burnt (Kaibel, Ep. Gr. 646 a μηδὲ τὸ πῦρ φλέξεις· ἰς κενὸν ἡ δαπάνη).
The lexicographers defne εναγισμοί as ὁλοκαυτώματα (Hesych., Suid., Lex.
Bachm. p. 219), and καίειν or διὰ πυρὸς δαπανᾶν is prominent in articles on
évayitew (Hesych., Suid., Et. Mag.). Charon in Lucian (Char. 22) is
astonished to see men burning 'costly banquets' on a pyre (πupà) in front of
the graves (πρὸ τῶν χωμάτων), and pouring wine and hydromel (μελίκρατον)
into a freshly dug trench (ẞółpos). When Lucian (De merc. cond. 28) describes
the relatives first anointing the ornaŋ with unguents and crowning it with
garlands (cp. ib. De luct. 19, Char. 22, Plut. Aristid. 21, De Is. et Os. 20, and
for Athenian vase-paintings of the 4th century Rohde op. cit. p. 240), then
themselves eating the food prepared and making merry, he has in view
the feasts celebrated at the tomb, against which the Christian Fathers
(Tertull. De testim. animae c. 4, I. p. 406 Oehler) and the Christian Church
waged war (Sartori, op. cit. p. 42), but we may be sure that at such festivities
a meal, which the living did not dare to touch, was set apart to cheer the
dead who was supposed to be present at the banquet either as guest or host.
6 & πрovoηdels K.T.λ. The commonplace is developed with more elabora-
tion in VII. 30.
ειν
κύριος ὢν τῶν ἑαυτοῦ. Cp. [Dem.] 44. 49 ἀλλὰ μὴν ῾γνησίων γ᾽ ὅταν λέγῃ
272
OR. II.
ISAEUS
‘καὶ κυρίως κατὰ τὸν θεσμόν, παρακρούεται παρὰ τοὺς νόμους. τὸ μὲν γὰρ
γνήσιόν ἐστιν, ὅταν ἦ γόνῳ γεγονός (cp. 111. 61. 2 π.)...τὸ δὲ κυρίως κατὰ τῶν
ποιήσεων <ὧδε > ὁ νομοθέτης ἔλαβεν, ὑπολαμβάνων δεῖν, ὅταν τις ὢν ἄπαις καὶ
κύριος τῶν ἑαυτοῦ ποιήσηται υἱόν, ταῦτα κύρια εἶναι.
47. 2
ὃ ἔτι μόνον λοιπόν ἐστιν: ἔσται AQ. The interchange of ἐστὶ and
ἔσται is so frequent in MSS. (Isocr. 8. 15, 18. 58, Dem. 21. 41, [Dem.] 7. 43,
48. 5, Rh. Gr. 1. pp. 54. 16, 250. 5 Hammer) that the resistance of recent
editors to Tyrwhitt's correction is somewhat surprising. Buermann (Hermes
19, 1884, p. 368) defends the future by references to I. 31, II. 22, VIII. 13.
Thalheim (Hermes 38, 1903, p. 457) proposes to alter the punctuation (rò
ὄνομα, τῆς κληρονομίας ὃ ἔτι μόνον λοιπὸν ἔσται) or the order of the words (τὸ
ὄνομα, ὃ τῆς κληρονομίας κ.τ.λ.).
Solche
4, 5 βοηθήσατε καὶ ἡμῖν καὶ ἐκείνῳ τῷ ἐν Αιδου ὄντι. Genau genommen
kann dem zum Hades Abgeschiedenen Niemand mehr βοηθεῖν.
Widersprüche zwischen einem Todtencult im Hause oder am Grabe und der
Vorstellung des Abscheidens der Seelen in ein unzugängliches Jenseits bleiben
wenigen Völkern erspart: sie entstehen aus dem Nebeneinanderbestehen von
Vorstellungen verschiedener Phantasierichtungen (und eigentlich verschiedener
Culturstufen) über diese dunkelen Gebiete' (Rohde, Psyche³ p. 257 n. 1).
5, 6 πρὸς θεῶν καὶ δαιμόνων δέομαι ὑμῶν. In support of δέομαι ὑμῶν, ejected
by Cobet, Kühnlein (De ui et usu precandi et iurandi formularum apud
oratores Atticos, Neustadt, 1882, p. 58) produces [Dem.] 50. 2 καὶ πρὸς θεῶν,
ἄνδρες δικασταί, δέομαι ὑμῶν, μή με ἡγήσησθε ἀδολεσχεῖν, Ερ. 5. 1 δέομαι δή σου
πρὸς Διὸς ξενίου καὶ πάντων τῶν θεῶν, μή με καταστήσῃς ἀηδεῖ καὶ δεινῷ μηδενὶ
περιπετή, Aesch. 3. 156 μὴ πρὸς τοῦ Διὸς καὶ τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν, ἱκετεύω ὑμᾶς, ὦ
ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι, μὴ τρόπαιον ἵστατε ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν, where however Cobet,
Weidner, and Blass omit ἱκετεύω ὑμᾶς on account of the hiatus and read with
some support from MSS. μὴ πρὸς τοῦ Διὸς καὶ θεῶν ὦ ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι τρόπαιον
ἵστατε ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν. There is only one other example in the orators of
an appeal to δαίμονες, viz. [Dem.] 42. 17 πῶς οὖν ἄλλως, πρὸς τῶν θεῶν καὶ
δαιμόνων ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ἐπιδεικνύειν ὑμῖν δεῖ τὸν Φαίνιππον ἔνοχον ὄντα
τοῖς ἀνεγνωσμένοις ;
8, 9 τὰ δίκαια καὶ [τά] εὔορκα. Cobet fairly objects to the distinction
here made between 'a just vote' and 'a vote in accordance with your oaths.'
In defence of AQ it is possible to quote Lyc. 128 τὴν δικαίαν καὶ τὴν εὔορκον
ψῆφον, and Din. 2. 20 τὴν ὁσίαν καὶ τὴν εὔορκον ψῆφον. But in Din. I. I11,
where N has τὴν δικαίαν καὶ τὴν ὁσίαν ψῆφον, A gives τὴν ὁσίαν καὶ δικαίαν ψῆφον.
Better MSS. than A and N are not to be followed blindly with regard to the
addition or omission of the article in such a combination. In Aesch. 1. 5
editors generally read τὴν ἴσην καὶ ἔννομον πολιτείαν, although the group of
MSS. designated A, to which Blass gives the first place, adds rǹv before
ἔννομον. In Dem. 19. 311 ΣLΥΩ have τὴν ὁσίαν καὶ τὴν δικαίαν ψῆφον, Α
has τὴν δικαίαν καὶ ὁσίαν ψῆφον, the rest τὴν ὁσίαν καὶ δικαίαν ψῆφον. The
majority of editors bow to the authority of E, Butcher following Cobet
accepts τὴν ὁσίαν καὶ δικαίαν ψῆφον, which is supported by Dem. 21. 227,
where only t.v. show τὴν ὁσίαν καὶ τὴν δικαίαν ψῆφον. The present passage
of Isaeus should not be confounded with sentences like [Dem.] 43. 84. καὶ
ταῦτα ποιοῦντες τά τε δίκαια ψηφιεῖσθε καὶ τὰ εὔορκα καὶ τὰ ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς
συμφέροντα.
III
ON THE ESTATE OF PYRRHUS.
This speech might be called with more exactness κατὰ Νικοδήμου ψευδο-
μaprupíwv, being delivered by the prosecutor in an action brought against
one Nicodemus for bearing false witness. But the traditional title has the
advantage of serving as a better index of contents, since the speaker is
obliged to travel over many particulars of the suit in which the alleged
offence was committed. The subject of this suit was the succession to the
estate of Pyrrhus.
Pyrrhus died more than twenty years before the date of the speech
leaving a will (§ 56), in which he adopted one of his sister's sons (§ 1).
This son, whose name was Endius, succeeded to Pyrrhus' property without
opposition (§§ 1, 41, 43, 69), and held it unmolested (§§ 1, 55) until his death
in the month Metageitnion (roughly August) of the year preceding that in
which this speech was delivered (§§ 2, 57). The estate was at once (§ 57)
claimed by Xenocles of the deme Kórpos on behalf of his wife Phile, who
was declared to be a legitimate daughter of Pyrrhus. He was opposed by
the mother of Endius, who denied the legitimacy of Phile, and made a
counter claim as sister of Pyrrhus (§ 3). As she was represented by a son,
brother of Endius the late tenant, it may be inferred that her husband was
dead. The friends of Phile met the pretensions of the collateral relation by
a diaμapтvpía (see II. Introd. p. 232 sqq.): Xenocles made an affidavit that 'the
estate of Pyrrhus could not be claimed at law by Pyrrhus' sister, inasmuch
as Pyrrhus had a lawful daughter' (§ 3). Thereupon Endius' brother, acting
for his mother, prosecuted Xenocles for perjury, and won his action. The
illegitimacy of Phile was thus affirmed by a sentence of a court, but this
first triumph did not end the struggle. Xenocles had announced before the
verdict his intention of prosecuting the witnesses to Pyrrhus' will (§ 56), and
his opponent had apparently adopted the same tactics with regard to the
evidence given by Nicodemus, brother of Phile's mother, who was supporting
Xenocles. The exact effect of such notices on execution of judgment is not
known, but it seems reasonable to assume that the law prescribed a limit
of time within which proceedings must be instituted against the witnesses
denounced, and that the judgment did not become operative until this period
had expired. If this be so, the prosecution of Nicodemus was not, as Blass
18
W. I.
274
OR. III.
ISAEUS
(Att. Ber.2 11. p. 537) supposes, merely an act of vengeance on the part of the
victors, but was a manœuvre directed against Xenocles; for the action of
which he had given notice suspended the final decision and might be used
as a means of reopening the controversy. The case against Nicodemus
instituted by Endius' brother came on first. Whether Xenocles followed up
his denunciation, we do not know.
Nicodemus had deposed that he had formally betrothed (§ 4. 6 n.) his
sister to Pyrrhus to be his lawful wife. The object of the present speech is
to prove that this testimony was false, and that Nicodemus' sister was not
married to Pyrrhus. The prosecutor opens (§§ 1-7) with a narrative of the
origin and issue of the previous trial, but is unable to insist on the verdict
then given, partly from fear of offending the judges, but principally because
the veracity of his most important witnesses had been challenged by the ad-
versaries. He argues briefly that the sentence implied belief in Nicodemus'
guilt, and then addresses himself to the task of demonstrating to the new
tribunal that Nicodemus did not give his sister in marriage to Pyrrhus. The
elaborate reasoning that follows is almost entirely drawn from the topic of
probabilities which occupies so large a space in the theory and practice of
Greek rhetoric. A string of questions in a tone of indignant irony leads up
to the argument that the character of Nicodemus' sister makes it improbable
that she was married to Pyrrhus (§§ 7-15); not only did her treatment while
living in Pyrrhus' house and her own conduct stamp her as an éraípa, but
she had had many lovers before and after Pyrrhus, and had been married to
none of them.
In support of these assertions the orator calls witnesses, who
had appeared in the former suit, and contends that the truth of their evidence
is admitted by the other side, because none of them had been threatened
with a prosecution. But obviously this is not enough, even if the account of
the witnesses really was unchallenged and indisputable. Marriage with an
éraípa, and, what was worse, a έévn éraípa, is precisely the charge brought by
Apollodorus in [Dem.] 59 against Stephanus, and the speaker himself admits
(§ 17) that a man might conceivably marry an éraípa. The line of proof
attempted is that the story and behaviour of Nicodemus do not square
with the theory that his sister was lawfully married to Pyrrhus. Nicodemus
said that he invited only one witness, Pyretides, to attend the contract of
betrothal concluded with Pyrrhus (§ 18). If his sister had made so good a
match, would he not have summoned many witnesses? Moreover, at the
trial this one witness did not appear in person, and the two witnesses called
to prove the genuineness of his written deposition taken out of court were
people whom nobody would believe (§§ 17—26). But Pyrrhus' three maternal
uncles had also deposed that they had been present at the betrothal, invited
by Pyrrhus to act as his witnesses. Is it credible, asks the speaker, that
Pyrrhus would have invited relations, when he was going to betroth himself
to a woman of bad character (§§ 26, 27)? Further, Nicodemus declared that
he had given his sister in marriage without a dowry. Even this circumstance
is turned against him. If Pyrrhus had really been so enamoured as to be
willing to marry such a woman, a fictitious dowry would have been settled
on her, if only to make divorce more difficult (§§ 28, 29). But Pyrrhus'
uncles also testified that no dowry was given. The orator turns aside to
OR. III.
275
INTRODUCTION
deal a blow at Nicodemus' supporters. The uncles are not trustworthy
witnesses. Other evidence given by them was plainly manufactured, and
manufactured so clumsily that they did not even give Phile's name right
(§§ 30-34). After this digression the attack on Nicodemus is resumed
(§§ 35-39); what did he gain by giving his sister in marriage without an
agreement about the dowry? She might have been repudiated by Pyrrhus
at any moment. Moreover it was Nicodemus' interest to arrange a settle-
ment, because the money would have come to him, if she had died without a
child, and he knew that she had never borne one. These arguments based
on the absence of a marriage portion are so patently ineffective that the
stress laid on the point is not a little puzzling. In fact, the whole train of
reasoning from § 8 to § 39 is entirely inconclusive, and no great ingenuity
would be required to make out a case just as plausible in favour of
Nicodemus. The examination of Nicodemus' consistency is brought to a
close by two questions, which seem at first harder to meet. If his sister
was the lawful wife of Pyrrhus, then Phile, her child, was Pyrrhus' heiress.
(1) How, then, was it that Nicodemus offered no sort of opposition to
Endius, when he claimed the estate as Pyrrhus' adopted son (§§ 40-44)?
(2) Granted that neither prudence nor respect for law was sufficient to
deter the adopted son from giving Pyrrhus' legitimate daughter to Xenocles
instead of taking her himself, why did not Nicodemus interpose to prevent
such an outrage on the heiress (§§ 45-54)? The bearing and value of these
two arguments are fully discussed in the commentary. The rest of the
speech is devoted to considering the conduct, first, of Xenocles, Phile's
husband ($$ 54-62), next of Pyrrhus' uncles (§§ 63-71), and lastly of
Pyrrhus' himself (§§ 72-76). The advocate seeks to establish that the
behaviour of all of them implied recognition of Phile's illegitimacy. I have
set forth at length in the notes the reasons which lead me to think that this
contention is not made good. Xenocles is asked (1) why he did not take
action on behalf of his wife in Endius' lifetime, and (2) why on Endius'
death he did not choose a different form of procedure and either claim at
law in the name of Endius' sister or take possession of the estate in the
name of Pyrrhus' daughter, trusting to overcome opposition by means of the
penalties attached to the offence of 'maltreatment of an heiress' (kákwσis
Éπɩкλýρov). Here it is enough to point out that Xenocles' procedure was
dictated by the necessities of the situation and by the rivalry with Pyrrhus'
sister, who was bound to claim the estate of Pyrrhus, not the estate of
Endius, and that he was prepared with a good reply to the other inter-
rogation. Pyrrhus' uncles could also put forward a reasonable explanation
of their conduct. Only one question specially concerns them. They are
asked why none of them claimed Phile's hand, if she was Pyrrhus' legitimate
daughter, instead of allowing her to be married to Xenocles, who was un-
connected with Pyrrhus' family. The answer is simple; even if any of them
had desired to marry the girl, it is not shown that they were the next-of-kin.
Lastly come the inferences from the attitude of Pyrrhus himself. If he had
a legitimate daughter, why did he adopt a son? Why did he not introduce
that daughter into his opɑrpía? Why did he make no offering to the
Oparpía on the occasion of the alleged marriage with Nicodemus' sister?
18-2
276
OR. III.
ISAEUS
There is no substance in these objections. The orator concludes (§§ 77—80),
by recapitulating the principal arguments of the first part of the speech, by
insisting once more on the absence of a marriage offering to the parpía,
and by calling witnesses from Pyrrhus' deme to prove that Pyrrhus, though
possessing a fortune of 3 talents, discharged no public services (λŋroupyíaı)
in the deme on behalf of his pretended wife.
The line of defence is naturally matter of conjecture, but some remarks
dropped by the speaker, when compared with the reasoning of other speeches
of Isaeus, give an idea of the case presented by Phile's friends. Unlike
Endius' brother, who elaborates artful dilemmas and reckons on the cumula-
tive effect of probabilities, they grounded themselves on testimony. In the
first place, they put forward the evidence of the witnesses to the betrothal
(§§ 26, 27). Secondly, Pyrrhus' uncles had deposed that Pyrrhus kept 'the
tenth-day feast' (ʼn dekárŋ) in honour of Phile's birth (§ 30). The account
of Endius' succession to the estate and of the marriage of Phile to Xenocles
must have been more complicated. The challenge of the prosecutor to explain
these two facts could not be evaded, for it does not seem as if Pyrrhus' will
was questioned in Endius' lifetime. A clue is provided by an incautious
allusion in § 31. Phile was an infant when Pyrrhus died, so that it was
impossible for Endius to marry the daughter, when he established his
title as Pyrrhus' adopted son. But the difficulty is only postponed. The
obligation of Endius remained unimpaired and yet twelve years or
so after Pyrrhus' death Phile was married to Xenocles. What sort of
'excuses' (po¶áσes) might be furnished to weaken the significance of this
fact may be seen from the tenth speech, in which the orator explains that
his mother, although an 'heiress' (èπíkλŋpos), was defrauded of her rights
and married to a stranger by an iniquitous family compact, and that her
husband was prevented from claiming her patrimony by the fear of losing
his wife, to whose hand the next-of-kin had a legal claim. Such an arrange-
ment, though illegal, was within the range of possibility at Athens, and
Phile's champions might have urged that the marriage to Xenocles could not
be considered an incontrovertible demonstration of her illegitimacy. Still
this apology would not entirely clear the character of Nicodemus and Pyrrhus'
uncles, who remain open to censure for allowing Endius to compromise the
prospects and position of a helpless girl. In extenuation of the fault it may
be noted that Endius, as an adopted son, could only transmit the estate to
legitimate children born of his body, and that, since he never married, Phile's
chances of succession to her father's estate were not directly threatened.
Blass (Att. Ber. II. p. 539) considers that Isaeus has accomplished his
task with masterly power, and that Nicodemus could not have stood up against
the blows rained down upon him by his relentless opponent. Declaimed
with Southern fire and speed the speech might certainly have carried
away a popular audience, but I know few examples of Greek oratory that
leave on the mind a more disagreeable impression of trickiness and dis-
honesty. The composition too is crude, and the verbosity and repetitions
offensive to a reader. 'In hac oratione nitor non nimis quaerendus' (Dobree,
Adv. I. p. 291).
The date of the speech cannot be determined. The only evidence is the
OR. III.
277
INTRODUCTION
mention of Diophantus of Sphettus and Dorotheus of Eleusis as supporters
and friends of Xenocles (§ 22. 4, 5 nn.). Diophantus, one of the opponents
of Eubulus, appears for the last time in 343 B.C., but we do not know when
he was born. Dorotheus was a trierarch is 357/6 B.C. Blass (Att. Ber.2 II.
p. 537) is disposed to conclude that the oration is not one of the earliest
works of Isaeus.
A very different interpretation of this case has been propounded by
Buermann, Drei Studien auf dem Gebiet des attischen Rechts, Jahrbb. f. cl.
Philol., 1877/78, Supplementband 9, pp. 578 sqq., 638 sqq. The purpose of
the first of these three essays is to prove the existence at Athens of 'legitimate
concubinage.' The author's hypothesis is that an Athenian citizen, already law-
fully married, might contract another union with an Athenian woman, who,
like a wife, was formally betrothed (verlobte, eyyuŋrn) by her kúptos, and
whose children were legitimate, like those of a wife, but who nevertheless
was not a wife. In support of this theory he adduces among other evidence
the present speech, and argues that Nicodemus really deposed that he
betrothed (nyyúnoe) his sister as a concubine (Taλλaký), not as a wife.
Further, since Phile, being the child of a 'legitimate concubine,' is ex
hypothesi legitimate, Buermann, to surmount certain obstacles presented by
the adoption of Endius, conjectures that Pyrrhus in fact completed the
adoption in his lifetime, probably before Phile's birth (op. cit. p. 641; see
§§ 56. 5 n., 60. 2 12.). This newly discovered institution was received at first
with some applause in spite of the similarity, coming near to identity, of
'lawful wife' and 'lawful concubine.' The doctrine even penetrated into
handbooks, but has now succumbed to time and common-sense. Some of the
literature of the controversy may be found in Daremberg & Saglio, Dict. d.
Ant. p. 1134, Att. Proc.² pp. 501 n. 64, 530 sqq., 543 n. 196, Hruza 1.
p. 26 sqq., II. pp. 33 n. 4, 54 n. 71, 88 n. 38, Beauchet I. p. 83 sqq.,
Müller, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des attischen Bürger- und Eherechts,
Jahrbb. f. cl. Philol. 1899, Supplementband 25, p. 667 sqq. Buermann's view
of the issue in the present trial was at once challenged by Philippi (Jahrbb.
f. cl. Philol. 25, 1879, p. 414 sqq.) and has since found active assailants in
Hitzig (Studien zu Isaeus, 1883, p. 14 sqq.), Zimmermann (De nothorum
Athenis condicione, Berolini, 1886, p. 19 sqq.), and Hruza I. p. 30 sqq. His
position has been shown to be untenable. He is obliged to put aside as
distortions of the truth various passages in the speech which either state or
imply that Nicodemus described his sister as Pyrrhus' lawful wife, e.g. §§ 4,
14. To misrepresent the adversary is quite like Isaeus, but the critic is bound
both to lay bare the fraud and to exhibit the motive, and this Buermann has
not done. If Nicodemus had deposed that he 'betrothed' his sister as a
concubine, and if the issue of such a connexion was legitimate, what had the
speaker to gain by attributing to him a different statement? A prosecution
for perjury conducted on these principles would not be formidable. What,
then, is the evidence on the strength of which a practised advocate is charged
with adopting this strange method of attack? Nothing but an arbitrary and
perverse exegesis of a single sentence, § 79 δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι, εἰ ἐπείσθη
ἐγγυήσασθαι, ἐπείσθη ἂν καὶ γαμηλίαν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς τοῖς φράτερσιν εἰσενεγκεῖν καὶ
εἰσαγαγεῖν τὴν ἐκ ταύτης ἀποφανθεῖσαν < εἶναι> θυγατέρα ὡς γνησίαν οὖσαν
278
OR. III.
ISAEUS
avr. The meaning seems and is simple. Nicodemus had made an affidavit
that he had 'betrothed' (nyyúŋoe) his sister to Pyrrhus to be his lawful wife
(§ 4). The testimony, argues Endius' brother, is false; in cases of lawful
marriage the presentation of a marriage offering (yaunλía) is usual in addition
to the 'betrothal' (éyyúŋois), Pyrrhus did not present this offering, therefore
Nicodemus' sister was not 'betrothed' to him, and Nicodemus must be pro-
nounced guilty of bearing false witness. The reasoning is worthless, but the
aim of the argument is plain, and it is clear that the orator regards éyyúŋois
as the basis of marriage, not of concubinage. Buermann however (op. cit.
p. 578 n.) finds in the passage a revelation that Nicodemus really asserted only
the existence of 'legitimate concubinage.' 'Hätte Nikodemus selbst den
Vollzug des yáµos behauptet, so hätte der Sprecher nicht erst diesen Schluss zu
formuliren brauchen; er würde sich direkt gegen die aufgestellte Behauptung
gewandt haben. Der Umstand, dass er dies nicht kann, beweist, dass Ñ. nur
die Verlobung ẻπì пaλλakią behauptet hatte.' This reasoning can be con-
futed by two simple observations. (1) The prosecutor in this trial has only
to disprove the deposition of Nicodemus, which was that he ‘betrothed' his
sister to Pyrrhus; he has no direct interest in Nicodemus' other assertions.
(2) If the theory of 'legitimate concubinage' be applied to the argument of
$ 79, the speaker's conclusion appears not 'entirely unwarranted,' as Buer-
mann says (ib. p. 578), but absurd and purposeless, since ex hypothesi it was
common for men to be 'betrothed' to concubines, whom they were unwilling,
or, if already married, unable to convert into 'lawful wives' by the additional
ceremony of the yaµŋdía, which Buermann considers a mark of marriage.
The truth is that this speech, far from confirming the theory, shows that the
act of eyyúŋois, whatever its exact nature, led to nothing but marriage, and
that the term eyyuŋτǹ was applicable to a wife only; see §§ 6, 39. But if
there is no proof that a concubine was ever called eyyuŋrý, the whole fabric
of ‘legitimate concubinage' falls to pieces. It is unnecessary to pursue the
subject further. What inferences may fairly be drawn from VI. 13 sqq., 22 sqq.,
will be discussed in the notes ad loc.
The case of Phile figures in another controversy about an obscure detail
of Athenian life. The problem is to discover the political status in the 4th
century B.C. of bastards, both of whose parents were Athenians. Were they
citizens? If they were not, were they in the same position as resident
aliens? Or did they form an intermediate body, distinct de iure as well
as de facto from foreigners? Illegitimate children of this class cannot
have been very numerous, since concubines and mistresses (éraîpai) were
drawn in the main from slaves and aliens, and it is not surprising that
our ancient authorities contain no explicit and unambiguous statement of
Athenian law on this particular. The majority of scholars seem now to lean
to the opinion that they were admitted to the citizenship, their pure
Athenian blood securing them a privilege denied to the offspring of unions
between Athenians and non-Athenians; see Att. Proc.2 pp. 439, 533
n. 143, Lipsius-Schoemann, Gr. Altert. I. p. 377, Thumser-Hermann, Gr.
Staatsaltert. p. 449, Busolt, Gr. Gesch. 11.2 p. 118, III. 1, p. 338, Gilbert, Gr.
Staatsaltert. 1.2 p. 211 (E. T. p. 190), Hruza 11. p. 89, Beauchet I. p. 506 sqq.
The opposite view is maintained by Philippi, Beiträge zu einer Geschichte
OR. III.
279
INTRODUCTION
des attischen Bürgerrechts, 1870, p. 81 sqq., Buermann, op. cit. p. 635 sqq.,
Zimmermann, op. cit. p. 27 sqq., Müller, op. cit. p. 732 sqq.
The present
speech has furnished one of the pieces of evidence adduced to show that in
the 4th century a bastard of Athenian parentage on both sides enjoyed
full political rights. The argument runs as follows. The speaker describes
Phile as illegitimate, 'the child of an éraípa,' but drops no hint that this was
'an obstacle to her marriage with Xenocles, an Athenian citizen. Now, if
Phile was not a citizen (Toλîtis, áσrý), she must have been counted an
alien, since there is no trace at Athens in this age of a class of bastards
(vóło) such as we find e.g. at Cos in the 3rd century B.C., placed between
citizens on the one side and resident aliens on the other (Gr. Inscr. in
the Br. Mus. 343, 9, 10, Michel n. 642 ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι τὸς δηλομένος τῶν τε
πολιτᾶν καὶ πολιτίδων καὶ νόθων καὶ παροίκων καὶ ξένων). But if the
illegitimate daughter of an Athenian mother and an Athenian father
was in the eyes of the law an alien, Phile's marriage was illegal, since
a statute cited in [Dem.] 59. 16, 17, a speech delivered between 343 B.C.
and 340 B.C. (Blass, Att. Ber.2 III. I, p. 536), prohibits under severe
penalties marriage between a ξένη and an ἀστός, and between an ἀστὴ
and a έévos, and it is conjectured with some plausibility that this
law is one of the measures enacted after the restoration of democracy in
403 B.C. in order to preserve the purity of the Athenian race. It follows
that the speaker considered Phile a citizen in spite of her illegitimacy; if
he had not, he would have denounced her marriage with Xenocles. This
conclusion is logically unsound. Apart from the necessary imperfection
of all arguments ex silentio a very important fact is overlooked.
the speaker's own brother, Endius, who gave Phile in marriage to Xenocles,
and, even if this act had not exposed him to the danger of the prose-
cution mentioned in [Dem.] 59. 52 (ἐάν τις ἐκδῷ ξένην γυναῖκα ἀνδρὶ ᾿Αθηναίῳ
ὡς ἑαυτῷ προσήκουσαν, ἄτιμος ἔστω κ.τ.λ.), the speaker might still have
thought it prudent not to canvass his brother's conduct in this business.
This at any rate must be conceded, that his silence affords no presumption
that at the date of the speech bastards of pure Athenian descent were
citizens. For Xenocles contended that his wife was legitimate, and it is
by no means certain that Endius regarded her as illegitimate and warned
Xenocles of the fact.
K
It was
Müller (op. cit. pp. 744 sqq., 786 sqq.) offers a different and more elaborate
explanation. Like the majority of critics he assumes that in the opinion of
Isaeus and of the judges who decided the first suit Phile, although ille-
gitimate, was notwithstanding a citizen, and, as such, was lawfully betrothed
to Xenocles. But he also contends that after 403 B.C. the illegitimate son or
daughter of an Athenian father and an Athenian mother did not enjoy the
citizenship. To remove the contradiction he first puts Phile's birth before
403 B.C.
We have no means of testing this hypothesis, since the date of the
speech is unknown (p. 276). In the second place he conjectures that after
the failure of the Sicilian expedition, probably in 411 B.C., remarkable changes
were introduced into the Athenian law of marriage, principally with the
object of increasing the number of citizens. His theory briefly stated is this.
The Athenians set up by the side of marriage a peculiar form of union,
I
280
OR. III.
ISAEUS
which he calls Nebenehe, granting to the issue of such unions certain definite
and valuable rights. A citizen could only contract marriage in the proper
sense with an Athenian woman, but he was permitted and encouraged by
the new legislation to take in addition to his Athenian wife another partner
of his bed and board, who was distinguished alike from yuvǹ and waλλaký,
but had in Greek no specific title. This Nebenfrau or secondary wife might
be either an Athenian citizen or a woman of foreign birth. Her children
were citizens, but they were also vóðo; they were not admitted to their
father's φρατρία, but were organised in a συντέλεια, which had its centre at
the gymnasium called Kuvóσapyes (Bekk. An. Gr. I. p. 274, 21). At the same
time, if the father left no children by a real wife, these vólo were granted
full rights of inheritance, while, if such legitimate issue (yvýσio maîdes)
existed, they received voleîa, the amount of which was prescribed by the law
and varied according to the value of the father's estate. The institution of
Nebenehe had a short life, and was abolished on the re-establishment of
democracy in 403 B.C. Müller's system, which to a plain man appears
a priori improbable, is not supported by adequate evidence, and the appli-
cation to the case of Phile involves arbitrary treatment of the statements
made in this speech. According to the prosecutor Nicodemus' sister was
simply a courtesan (éraípa), and was not married to Pyrrhus. Nicodemus
on the other side had deposed that he had betrothed her to Pyrrhus to
be his lawful wife. Müller holds that both Nicodemus and his assailant
misrepresented the facts, the truth being as follows. Pyrrhus, although
unmarried, took Nicodemus' sister as Nebenfrau, not as Frau. Phile the
daughter was consequently vóen, and, as such, was not introduced into
Pyrrhus' parpía. Still, as Pyrrhus had no proper wife and therefore no
prospect of legitimate offspring, under the new law Phile would have become
an ἐπίκληρος, when Pyrrhus died. But in 403 B.C. such rights of succession
as had been conceded to vółoɩ in 411 B.C. were entirely swept away, and
Phile ceased to be an heiress. Thus after 403 B.C. it became possible for
Pyrrhus to adopt Endius without requiring him to marry Phile. After the
death of Pyrrhus Endius regarded himself as kúptos of Phile and betrothed
her to Xenocles an Athenian citizen. This marriage was in no way irregular,
because the legislators of 403 B.C. had allowed all vółoɩ born before that year
to retain their citizenship (see VI. 47. 2 n., VIII. 43. 7 n.). I am content to
make only one comment on this coacervation of hypotheses. On Müller's
interpretation Phile had no legal title to succeed to the estate of Pyrrhus.
This being so, what motive had Isaeus to suppress the series of facts which
the German scholar claims to have brought to light? Why is it that the
speech contains not one word about the institution of Nebenehe and the
status of volo before and after 403 B.C.?
Müller however (op. cit. p. 732) makes out a strong case against the
prevalent opinion that in the 4th century the illegitimate children of an
Athenian father and an Athenian mother were admitted to the citizenship.
This is not the place to review a long, confused, and unimportant con-
troversy, but it may be noted that the doctrine popular for the moment has
a very insecure foundation. It is based on 'Αθ. Πολ. 42: μετέχουσιν μὲν
τῆς πολιτείας οἱ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων γεγονότες ἀστῶν. ἐγγράφονται δ᾽ εἰς τοὺς δημότας

OR. III.
281
INTRODUCTION
αν
ὀκτωκαίδεκα ἔτη γεγονότες. ὅταν δ' ἐγγράφωνται, διαψηφίζονται περὶ αὐτῶν
ὀμόσαντες οἱ δημόται, πρῶτον μὲν εἰ δοκοῦσι γεγονέναι τὴν ἡλικίαν τὴν ἐκ τοῦ
νόμου, κἂν μὴ δόξωσιν, ἀπέρχονται πάλιν εἰς παῖδας, δεύτερον δ᾽ εἰ ἐλεύθερός ἐστι
καὶ γέγονε κατὰ τοὺς νόμους. ἔπειτ᾽ ἂν [μὲν] ἀποψηφίσωνται μὴ εἶναι ἐλεύθερον,
ὁ μὲν ἐφίησιν εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον, οἱ δὲ δημόται κατηγόρους αἱροῦνται πέντε ἄνδρας
ἐξ αὑτῶν, κἂν μὲν μὴ δόξῃ δικαίως ἐγγράφεσθαι, πωλεῖ τοῦτον ἡ πόλις, ἐὰν δὲ
νικήσῃ, τοῖς δημόταις ἐπάναγκες ἐγγράφειν. This passage is seized as a proof
that the bastards, whose political status is in dispute, were admitted to a
deme, and, consequently, to the citizenship, the assumption being that γέγονε
κατὰ τοὺς νόμους does not refer to birth in lawful wedlock, but merely repeats
the qualification already expressed by οἱ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων γεγονότες ἀστῶν. The
crux is the meaning of ἐλεύθερος. If this word be taken in the normal sense,
and the whole passage strictly interpreted, a strange anomaly results. An
appeal from the assembly of the deme was permitted, if the boy presented
was voted to be of servile origin, but a father had no remedy if his son was
attacked and rejected on the plea that the mother, though free, was an alien.
Nor does it appear businesslike to ask a meeting to vote on these two
questions, (1) whether both the parents of this boy are free, (2) whether
both the parents of this boy are Athenians, when only the second question
is of importance. The right explanation is suggested by Newman's remark
(The Politics of Aristotle 1. p. 248 n. 1, IV. p. 173) that èλevſepía occasionally
seems to mean something more than 'free birth,' in fact 'citizen birth,' and
that ἐλεύθερος is sometimes used in contradistinction to ξένος. Some of the
instances he quotes are no doubt disputable, but others can be discovered.
See Dem. 57. 69 τίνος οὖν ἂν προσδέοισθε; (the speaker has just proved
that his mother was the daughter of a citizen) καὶ γὰρ ὅτι κατὰ τοὺς
νόμους ὁ πατὴρ ἔγημε καὶ γαμηλίαν τοῖς φράτερσιν εἰσήνεγκε μεμαρτύρηται.
πρὸς δὲ τούτοις καὶ ἐμαυτὸν ἐπέδειξα πάντων μετειληφότα ὅσων προσήκει τοὺς
ἐλευθέρους (he has shown in $ 54 that he was introduced to his father's
φρατρία and participated in various sacra), and Aesch. 3. 169 οἶμαι τοίνυν
ἅπαντας ἂν ὑμᾶς ὁμολογῆσαι, τάδε δεῖν ὑπάρξαι τῷ δημοτικῷ, πρῶτον μὲν
ἐλεύθερον εἶναι καὶ πρὸς πατρὸς καὶ πρὸς μητρός, ἵνα μὴ διὰ τὴν περὶ τὸ γένος
ἀτυχίαν δυσμενὴς ᾖ τοῖς νόμοις, οἳ σῴζουσι τὴν δημοκρατίαν, ib. 171 τούτῳ πατὴρ
μὲν ἦν Δημοσθένης ὁ Παιανιεύς, ἀνὴρ ἐλεύθερος· οὐ γὰρ δεῖ ψεύδεσθαι· τὰ δ᾽ ἀπὸ
τῆς μητρὸς καὶ τοῦ πάππου τοῦ πρὸς μητρὸς πῶς ἔχει, ἐγὼ φράσω, ib. 172 οὐκοῦν
ἀπὸ μὲν τοῦ πάππου πολέμιος ἂν εἴη τῷ δήμῳ, θάνατον γὰρ αὐτοῦ τῶν προγόνων
κατέγνωτε, τὰ δ᾽ ἀπὸ τῆς μητρὸς Σκύθης, βάρβαρος Ελληνίζων τῇ φωνῇ ;
Aeschines does not pretend that Demosthenes' mother was the daughter
of a Scythian slave (γαμεϊ (Γύλων) γυναῖκα πλουσίαν μὲν νὴ Δία καὶ χρυσίον
ἐπιφερομένην πολύ, Σκύθιν δὲ τὸ γένος). If this meaning of ἐλεύθερος be
allowed, the question submitted to the voters of the deme was 'Is this boy
of citizen birth and the issue of a lawful union?' i.e. born in lawful wedlock of
an Athenian father and an Athenian mother, marriage between Athenians
and foreigners being illegal. An appeal was allowed, if the boy was rejected
as wholly or in part of alien blood (ἂν ἀποψηφίσωνται μὴ εἶναι ἐλεύθερον).
The temptations to mixed marriages in a community containing thousands
of resident aliens explain the savage punishment of the defeated appellant.
It may be doubted whether the case which has perplexed modern scholars
Τ
기
​282
OR. III.
ISAEUS
ever arose in practice. Presentation to a deme-required the cooperation of
the father of the boy, or, if the father was dead, of his representative, since
membership was transmitted in the paternal line. Was a man likely to come
before a public body, intensely jealous of foreign intrusion, and attempt to
demonstrate that he himself, and no one else, particularly no foreigner and
no slave, was the father of the child of an Athenian woman born out of
wedlock eighteen years ago? It would have been safer and easier and
kinder to the woman and her family to trump up evidence of marriage.
Even if such a bastard had been received into a deme, his position would
have been anomalous and precarious under the institutions of the 4th century..
He had no parpía, and in the event of a dianpiois in the demes such as
that of 346/5 B.C. he would have found it hard to prove that he was aμpoTÉ-
ἀμφοτέ-
polev ȧorós, that not only his mother but his father also was an Athenian.
A woman who was illegitimate would have been still more liable to be
denounced as a foreigner, since she could not even point to the roll of a
deme, but was dependent on the testimony of persons acquainted with the
circumstances of her birth. Again, suppose that a man, who was a bastard,
married and had a family. Since, as a bastard, he was not a member of any
Oparpía, adoption was the only road by which his legitimate children could
enter the parpiai. Thus the normal tendency would have been for the
stigma of bastardy to be propagated indefinitely on the male side, whereas
the children of a woman who was illegitimate but married to a citizen of
lawful birth, could have been introduced into their father's parpía and
liberated from reproach. Laws of eccentric operation have been known to
exist, but so curious a rule should not be accepted on vague and indirect
evidence. It is urged that the rule is not so unjust and unreasonable as to
refuse the title of Athenians to persons without a tincture of foreign blood.
The objection ignores an important difference. Aristotle tells us (Pol. VII.
(VI.) 2. 1319 b 6 sqq., VI. (IV.) 4. 1292 a 1 sqq., ib. 5. 1292 b 35 sqq.) that the
illegitimate children of citizens were disqualified in some constitutions, in
others admitted to political rights, and his testimony is confirmed by the
inscription from Cos cited on p. 279. The existence of such an injustice in
Greece is a proved fact, whereas it is only a modern hypothesis that in the
particular instance of the Athenian democracy of the 4th century such
persons were admitted to the citizenship, although, as all scholars seem now
to agree, they were debarred from the pparpíaι.
HYPOTHESIS.
6,7 †kai aŬTOût. I am unwilling to assign this obscure and clumsy
phrase even to a Byzantine grammarian, and prefer Dobree's correction.
The origin of the corruption was the interchange of the symbols for dè and
kai; see Dobree, Adv. I. p. 600.
1ο ή στάσις στοχασμός. Cp. I. hyp. 9 n., II. hyp. 8 π.
1-7 The exordium is direct and businesslike, as befits a 'fighting
speech' (Tò ȧywvioтikóv). The orator attacks his subject at once, eschewing
(τὸ ἀγωνιστικόν).
?
OR. III.
283
COMMENTARY
conventional openings. He begins with a terse statement of the circum-'
stances of the previous trial (for which see Introd. p. 273), and argues that
the verdict of the judges implied disbelief in Nicodemus' evidence.
1. 2
ἄπαις ὢν γνησίων παίδων. Α petitio principii. The adoption in
itself is no proof that Pyrrhus had not a legitimate daughter (Dem. 41. 3
οὗτος ὁ Πολύευκτος, ἐπειδὴ οὐκ ἦσαν αὐτῷ παῖδες ἄρρενες, ποιεῖται Λεωκράτην ...
οὐσῶν δ᾽ αὐτῷ δύο θυγατέρων τὴν μὲν πρεσβυτέραν ἐμοὶ δίδωσι...τὴν δὲ νεωτέραν
Дewкράтel). The law allowed the father of a legitimate daughter to adopt a
Λεωκράτει.
son either in his lifetime or by will, but imposed the condition that the
adopted son should marry the daughter (Beauchet II. p. 31 sqq.). The
speaker wisely refrains from mentioning at this stage that his brother was
adopted by testament (§ 56). This form of adoption was always liable to
suspicion (II. 14. 2, 3), and at the previous trial Xenocles had given notice of
his intention to prosecute the witnesses to Pyrrhus' will (§ 56). Further, to
appreciate Isaeus' art it should be borne in mind that Phile was not
of marriageable age, when the adopted son claimed the estate under the
will (§ 31. 2 n.), and that Endius so far recognised the child as to bring her
up and betroth her with a dowry to an Athenian citizen (§ 45).
"
..
4 πλείω ἔτη ἢ εἴκοσι. Cp. Isocr. 7. 1 οὐ πλείους μὲν τριήρεις ἢ διακοσίας
κεκτημένης, εἰρήνην δὲ ἀγούσης. Elsewhere (§§ 2. 5, 31. 2, 57. 5, VI. 14. 6) Isaeus
has the common order #λeiw ǹ elkoσw erŋ. This last phrase is proscribed by
modern Atticists (Cobet, V. L.² p. 237) in obedience to the rule of Moeris,
p. 294 : πλεῖν ἢ μύριοι ᾿Αττικοί, πλέονες ἢ μύριοι Ἕλληνες. The construction
is not confined to the codex Crippsianus (Ant. 6. 22, And. 3. 9, Din. 1. 70,
Lyc. 21), but occurs in older and better MSS. (Isocr. 7. 9, 67, Aesch. 3. 235,
Hyp. 1. col. 25 (23). 16, 3. 34, 5. 31, Dem. 18. 312, 19. 84, 22. 66, 57. 13, 15,
[Dem.] 34. 39, 35. 29). On the other hand „λeîv ǹ is found in codex Σ
of Demosthenes (once, in Dem. 19. 230) and in MSS. of Aristophanes, where
it is protected by metre. In the matter of πλείους (πλείω) ἢ it is certain that
the testimony of our MSS. is not trustworthy; in Dem. 19. 230, where Σ has
πλείν, the other MSS. have πλέον οι πλείους, in Din. 1. 70 πλείω is in A, πλεῖον
in N, in Aesch. 3. 98, where Weidner reads #λeiv ǹ dioxiλious, the MSS.
fluctuate between πλέον, πλείονας, and πλείους. What is the right course for
an editor? W. Dindorf's principle in his Oxford edition of Demosthenes
(see his cr. nn. on 19. 230 (254), 20. 152 (170)) is to change πλéον (πλéîov) †
into „λeîv ŋ, but he is unsystematic, sometimes leaving „λéov † (e.g. [Dem.]
πλεϊν
42. 20, 28, 30), and does not meddle with deiovs (πλeiw) †. There is no such
paltering about Cobet and Schwab (Syntax d. griech. Comparation p. 197
sqq.). Schwab disregards the MSS. entirely, and restores λev wherever
he can.
Sometimes the inflected comparative is secured against assault by
its position or syntactical relations as in Dem. 3. 24 πέντε μὲν καὶ τετταράκοντ᾽
ἔτη τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἦρξαν ἑκόντων, πλείω δ᾽ ἢ μύρια τάλαντ᾽ εἰς τὴν ἀκρόπολιν
ἀνήγαγον, ib. § 28 ἀπεστερήμεθα μὲν χώρας οἰκείας, πλείω δ᾽ ἢ χίλια καὶ πεντα-
κόσια τάλαντ᾽ ἀνηλώκαμεν, 19. 266 χιλίους ἱππέας κεκτημένοι, πλείους δ᾽ ὄντες ἢ
μύριοι, 20. 20 τῶν μετοίκων πλείονας ἢ τοσούτους τοὺς λῃτουργοῦντας ἔσεσθαι, 22. 35
πλείους ἢ μυρίους τοὺς ἄλλους πολίτας βελτίους εἶναι προτρέψετε, 57. 13 αἱ δὲ ψῆφοι
ἠρίθμησαν πλείους ἢ ἑξήκοντα. Schwab also spares οὐ πλείους ή (Dem. 57.
10) and oỷk éλáttous † (Aesch. 1. 56, 2. 162, 175). But if, as is allowed,
284
OR. III.
ISAEUS
Athenian orators said οὐ πλείους ἢ μύριοι, οὐκ ἐλάττους ἢ μύριοι, πλείους ὄντες
ή μύριοι, neither Apollonius Dyscolus (Voemel, Proleg. Gramm. § 56) nor
Choeroboscus nor Moeris nor any other grammarian, old or new, will
convince me that they never permitted themselves the licence of saying
e.g. πλείω ἢ ὀκτὼ ἔτη (§ 31. 2). Even in. Aristophanes πλεῖν ἢ is not uni-
versal (Eccl. 1132 ὅστις πολιτῶν πλεῖον ἢ τρισμυρίων ὄντων τὸ πλῆθος οὐ
δεδείπνηκας μόνος). The evidence of the inscriptions is scanty, but such
as there is does not support the rigid Atticists; see C. I. A. II. 314, 26
(284/83 Β.C.) πλείους ὄντας ἢ τριακοσίους, ib. 352, 12 (third cent. B.C.) ἀναθήματα
πλέον ἢ (rest lost), ib. 578, 22 (fourth cent., after 344-340 B.C., erroribus
foedissimis et grauissimis scatet, Koehler) ἐὰν παρῶσιν μὴ ἐλάττους ἢ Δ Δ Δ,
ib. 811 c, 113 (323 B.C.) ἐτίμησαν πλέονος ἢ τοῦ διπλασίου. The papyrus of
the 'Αθηναίων πολιτεία, assigned to the end of the first century of our era or,
at latest, the beginning of the second, has πλείους ἢ δισμυρίους (24. 3) and
πλεῖον ἢ ἅπαξ (3Ι. 3, 44. 3). The safe rule is not to alter the readings of
the MSS. wherever grammar allows, but to keep them if we can.
After all,
is it certain that πλεῖν ἢ was anything but a colloquialism ?
5 προσεποιήσατο. Cp. 1V. 3. 3, 7. 6, ΙΧ. 32. 2, Aesch. 3. 167, Ar. Eccl. 871,
Harp. s.v. (quoted in cr. n.).
7 πέρυσιν, sc. τοῦ Μεταγειτνιῶνος μηνός (§ 57. 6).
2. 1 ὑπερβᾶσα τὸν τελευταῖον κληρονόμον. The speaker intends to argue
that Phile's friends ought to have claimed at law the estate of Endius, not
the estate of Pyrrhus, if they admitted the validity of the adoption, while, if
they did not, their proper procedure would have been to take possession
of the property without applying to a court for authorisation. In § 67
he even dares to say that their action was illegal (παρελθόντες τὸν τελευταῖον
τοῦ οἴκου γεγενημένον κληρονόμον τοῦ Πύρρου κλήρου τὴν λῆξιν λαχεῖν ἠξίωσαν
παρὰ τὸν νόμον). No other course was open to Phile; see the notes on
§§ 22. 4, 57 sqq., 67.
3 <καὶ Φίλη> καὶ κύριος Ξενοκλῆς. Α' changed ἠξίωσαν into ἠξίωσεν.
To complete the correction he should have added the article before κύριος.
It is better to alter ἐπιγραψάμενος (Crit. Introd. p. xlvii), and restore the
legal formula, Φίλη καὶ κύριος, for which see Ar. Eg. 969 διώξεις Σμικύθην καὶ
κύριον, Michel n. 1387, 109= Inscr. Jurid. Gr. 1. p. 84 (Tenos, 3rd c. B.C.)
᾿Αλκίππη Κλεοφάνου Ελειθυαῖς μετὰ κυρίου Ηγελέω Επάνδρου Κλυμενέως παρὰ
Καλλιῶς Διομήδου Θεστιαδῶν καὶ κυρίου Διαίτου Ποσειδωνίου Θεστιάδου ἐπρίατο
τὴν οἰκίαν τὴν ἐν ἄστει...πᾶσαν ὅσην ἐπρίατο Καλλιὼ καὶ ὁ κύριος Δίαιτος παρὰ
Θεοδίππου, S. I. G. n. 831, 5= Michel n. 1385 (Amorgos, third cent. B.C.),
ἀπέδοτο Νικήρατος καὶ ῾Ηγεκράτη καὶ ὁ κύριος Τελένικος, Grenfell, A. E. F. 18, 4
(132 B.C.) ἐδάνεισεν ᾿Απολλωνία Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Ἑρμοκράτου...μετὰ κυρίου τοῦ
ἑαυτῆς ἀνδρὸς Δρύτωνος τοῦ Παμφίλου. In Egyptian documents of the Roman
age the phrase ἡ δεῖνα μετὰ κυρίου τοῦ δεῖνος is regular, as may be seen from the
indices to B. U. G. I. II. III. and to the volumes of papyri published by Grenfell
and Hunt. Xenocles represented Phile as being her husband. Husbands
appear as κύριοι at Tenos (Inscr. Jurid. Gr. 1. p. 92) and Thespiae (ib. p. 280,
80 ἐδάνεισεν Νικαρέτη Θέωνος θεσπικὴ παρόντος αὐτῇ κυρίου τοῦ ἀνδρὸς Δεξίππου
Εὐνομίδου). Aphobus would have become κύριος of Demosthenes' mother, if
he had married her (Dem. 27. 55, 56, 29. 47, 48). Hruza (1. p. 69 sqq.) and
OR. III.
285
COMMENTARY
Beauchet (1. p. 216 sqq.), who contend that at Athens the husband, as such,
was not kúpios of his wife and did not represent her in court, have to explain
why in this trial Xenocles acted for Phile. Hruza has elaborated an intricate
An ille-
theory. Phile was really illegitimate, as Endius' brother asserts.
gitimate child was without dyxoreis, and, consequently, an illegitimate girl
was without a kúptos designated by law out of the circle of ayxɩTeîs. In such
a case it was the duty of the Archon to nominate a kúpios. Endius was
chosen kúpos of Phile by the Archon and in virtue of this appointment
married her to Xenocles. Xenocles did not become kúptos of his wife, till
after Endius' death, and then only because he, too, was instituted by the
Archon. If these hypotheses be true, Isaeus has bungled his case and
stupidly neglected to adduce a simple and incontrovertible proof of Phile's
illegitimacy.
ειναι.
·
ó
The truth is that the theory is a series of arbitrary conjectures, starting
from a misconception and emendation of a law cited in [Dem.] 46. 18: v äv
ἐγγυήσῃ ἐπὶ δικαίοις δάμαρτα εἶναι ἢ πατὴρ ἢ ἀδελφὸς ὁμοπάτωρ ἢ πάππος ὁ πρὸς
πατρός, ἐκ ταύτης εἶναι παῖδας γνησίους· ἐὰν δὲ μηδεὶς ᾖ τούτων, ἐὰν μὲν
ἐπίκληρός τις ᾖ, τὸν κύριον ἔχειν, ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ᾖ, ὅτῳ ἂν ἐπιτρέψῃ, τοῦτον κύριον
eival. This document has given rise to much controversy, for which see
Hruza I. p. 54 sqq., Beauchet II. p. 338 sqq., Thalheim-Hermann, Gr.
Rechtsaltert.¹ p. 9, Thalheim, Zu den griech. Rechtsaltert. II, Hirschberg, 1894,
p. 4 sqq. Hruza assumes that the purpose of the law is to answer this
question: 'Who is kúpos of a woman?' On the contrary, its aim is to
determine what is a valid marriage, (1) when a woman is under the pro-
tection (tutela) of certain near relations, (2) when no such relations are
available. The first sentence presents no difficulty; who can doubt that the
brother undertakes the betrothal (see § 4. 6 n.) in the absence of the father,
the paternal grandfather in the absence of the brother? If there were
several brothers, they were jointly responsible (II. 3). The second division
of the statute abundantly justifies the complaints heard in antiquity about
the obscurity of Solon's laws ('A. Пoλ. 9, 35, Plut. Sol. 18). The first
clause, ἐὰν μὲν ἐπίκληρός τις ᾖ, τὸν κύριον ἔχειν, appears to mean ‘if α
woman be an èπíкλŋpos (i.e. if her father has died without leaving sons, and
if her paternal grandfather is no longer alive, and if no testament exists; see
Beauchet I. p. 409 sqq.), she shall be wife of her kúpios.' This interpretation
of ἔχειν is supported by the law preserved in [Dem.] 43. 54 τῶν ἐπικλήρων
ὅσαι θητικὸν τελοῦσιν, ἐὰν μὴ βούληται ἔχειν ὁ ἐγγύτατα γένους, ἐκδιδότω, ib. ἐὰν
δ' αἱ γυναῖκες πλείους ὦσι, μὴ ἐπάναγκες εἶναι πλέον ἢ μίαν ἐκδοῦναι τῷ γένει
(τῷ γ᾽ ἑνὶ coni. K. F. Hermann), ἀλλὰ τὸν ἐγγύτατα ἀεὶ (δεῖ libri: corr.
Blass) ἐκδιδόναι ἢ αὐτὸν ἔχειν. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἔχῃ ὁ ἐγγυτάτω γένους ἢ μὴ ἐκδῷ, ὁ
ἄρχων ἐπαναγκαζέτω ἢ αὐτὸν ἔχειν ἢ ἐκδοῦναι. The κύριος of an ἐπίκληρος
([Dem.] 46. 19) in the absence of a will was the nearest male relative in the
order prescribed by law (§§ 63-71 analysis), and apparently eπidikaoía ex-
cluded ἐγγύησις (VI. 14. 9, 10 ἢ ἐγγυηθεῖσαν ἢ ἐπιδικασθεῖσαν, with note). The
last clause, ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ᾖ, ὅτῳ ἂν ἐπιτρέψῃ, τοῦτον κύριον εἶναι, is a dark saying,
dignus uindice nodus. There is now general agreement that éπíkλŋpos, not
κύριος, is to be supplied as subject of the conditional sentence, ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ᾖ.
But what is the subject of éπirpéŋ? What is the object? Must we under-
او
286
OR. III.
ISAEUS
stand eyyʊñσaι after kúpiov elvai? The most plausible solution of the riddle.
is that originally proposed by K. F. Hermann in 1836 (Iuris domestici et
familiaris apud Platonem in Legibus cum ueteris Graeciae inque primis
Athenarum institutis comparatio pp. 9, 10), and recently developed by
Thalheim, Zu den griech. Rechtsaltert. pp. 5 sqq., 12. Hermann held that
the general sense was rightly given by tutor eam desponsato, Petit's version
in the Leges Atticae, and in support of this brought forward Plato, Laws
774 Ε ἐγγύην δὲ εἶναι κυρίαν πατρὸς μὲν πρῶτον, δευτέραν πάππου, τρίτην
δὲ ἀδελφῶν ὁμοπατρίων· ἐὰν δὲ μηδὲ εἷς ᾖ τούτων, τὴν πρὸς μητρὸς μετὰ τοῦτο
εἶναι κυρίαν ὡσαύτως· ἐὰν δ᾽ ἄρα τύχη τις ἀήθης συμβαίνῃ, τοὺς ἐγγύτατα γένους
ἀεὶ κυρίους εἶναι μετὰ τῶν ἐπιτρόπων. The subject of ἐπιτρέψῃ is ὁ κύριος,
ó
which has to be supplied from the context, and the object is the woman.
The translation is as follows: if she be not an erikλпpos, that person to
whom he (her last kúpios) shall have committed her, shall be kúpios (have
authority to contract a valid betrothal).' Thalheim, I may note, wavers
with regard to the object of éπɩрé√ŋ, agreeing with Hermann on p. 12, but
rendering on p. 5: 'the person to whom he has committed it,' i.e. the charge.
The law has in view the delatio tutelae by testament, and covers at least
two cases. (1) Suppose that a woman had neither father nor paternal
grandfather alive, but only a brother who was a minor. She was not an
è´íkλŋpos, and her brother had not the power of betrothing her. The duty
devolved on the person appointed by her father, who would naturally be
the guardian (èπíтрожоs) of the minor (Lys. 32. 6). (2) Suppose that a
woman had neither father nor brother nor paternal grandfather alive, but
a dead brother had left descendants. She was not an é´íêλŋpos, and it was
her brother's duty to provide a kúpɩos, who would naturally be the guardian
of her nephews and nieces, if they were minors.
Hruza objects that the last clause ought to contain a general rule so
framed as to embrace every case which does not fall under the first two
sections, and points out lacunae in the law as interpreted by Hermann.
(1) What was to be done when the last kúpos made no dispositions? (2) The
illegitimate daughter of citizen parents had in the eyes of the law no father,
no brother by the same father, no paternal grandfather. (3) If a naturalised
citizen died leaving an éπíkλŋpos, she could have no relations on the father's
side among Athenian citizens. Other situations are enumerated in which
the law gives no guidance. Hruza's remedy is to insert ó äpxwv after
éπiтρéŋ. The law is thus made to furnish a method of appointing a
kúpɩos, which is applicable to all possible contingencies: if a woman has
neither father nor brother by the same father nor paternal grandfather and
is not an èπíêλŋpos, her kúpɩos is that person to whose care the Archon shall
have committed her. At present we possess no evidence whatever (see VI.
32. 3.) that the Archon appointed a kúpios, if a woman for any reason
was without one. Hruza replies that this is due to the imperfection of
the record, but does not explain how his interpretation is reconcileable with
the right of a kúpɩos to transmit his power by testament.
πιπ
Finally, it should be observed that this perplexing law, whatever view be
taken of the last sentence, throws no light on the husband's control over the
wife. This is not Hruza's opinion. The husband, he argues, could not be
OR. III.
287
COMMENTARY
•
་
called kúpios of his wife, unless he possessed all the rights inherent in this
power. Now it appears that the husband, as such, had not the right to
dispose of his wife in marriage. Ergo he was not his wife's kúpos in any
sense in virtue of marriage. The reasoning is fallacious. Plato in the
passage cited above specifies, like the Athenian legislator, various persons
who are to be kúpio of a woman, so far as betrothals and marriages are
concerned, but he does not conceive this right or duty as inconsistent with
the representation of the wife by the husband. He does not permit a married
woman to plead in court (ovvηyopeîv) or bring an action. Widows over forty
are granted these privileges; a free woman, if her husband be alive, is only
allowed to give evidence (Laws 937 A). For the disabilities of women at
Athens see further the commentary on X. 10, 12.
Kómpetos. The deme Kórpos belonged to the tribe Hippothontis. Its
site is unknown. One of the suggestions in the Scholia on Ar. Eq. 899
(ἀνὴρ Κόπρειος) is νῆσος τῆς ᾿Αττικής. On the strength of this Milchhoefer
(Untersuchungen über die Demenordnung des Kleisthenes p. 33) identifies
Kóπρos with the island Gaidaro-nisi off the southern point of Attica, Loeper
Κόπρος
(Ath. Mitteil. 17, 1892, p. 417) looks for it among the small islands between
Salamis and the coast of Attica.
4 τετελεύτηκε, The Ms. reading, τετελευτήκει, points to τετελεύτηκεν.
Cp. VII. 44. 4, 45. 2, Porson on the confusion of oλλŵ and о\\ŵv
(Aristophanica, Ach. 270 et addenda), Crit. Introd. p. xvii.
5 τίμημα. Cp. Lys. 17. 7 ῥᾴδιον γνῶναι ἐκ τοῦ τιμήματος τοῦ ἐπιγεγραμ-
μένου τοῖς χρήμασιν. ἅπαντα μὲν γὰρ πλείονος ἢ ταλάντου τετίμηνται (τετίμηται
Scaliger), ὧν δ᾽ ἐγὼ ἀμφισβητῶ τῷ μὲν πέντε μνᾶς τῷ δὲ χιλίας δραχμὰς
ἐπεγραψάμην, Dem. 21. 44 ἂν δὲ μικροῦ πάνυ τιμήματος ἄξιόν τις λάβῃ, βίᾳ δὲ
τοῦτ᾽ ἀφέληται, 29. 8 τὸ τίμημα τῶν χρημάτων ὧν ἀπεστερήθην ἐλογιζόμην
TOσOÛTOV. The document containing the particulars of Phile's claim perhaps
ended thus: τίμημα τοῦ κλήρου τρία τάλαντα. For the use of τίμημα in con-
nexion with taxation see VII. 39. 2.
3.1 ἀμφισβητούσης δὲ τῆς μητρός. The speaker's mother claimed as
sister of Pyrrhus (§ 3. 4 τὸν τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ κλῆρον, § 59. 1 ἀδελφῶν μὲν κλήρων
ἐπιδικασία πασίν ἐστιν ἡμῖν). Caillemer (Droit de succession légitime à
Athènes p. 125 sqq.) contends that she claimed as mother of Endius,
accepting the statement of Isaeus in VII. 25 that in the eyes of the law
adoption did not abolish the relationship of son and mother. It is doubtful
whether legally there was such a thing as the estate of Endius (§§ 45-54
analysis). In any case, as the preference was given to the paternal
collaterals by Athenian law ([Dem.] 43. 51 ἐὰν μηδεὶς ᾖ πρὸς πατρὸς μέχρι
ἀνεψιῶν παίδων, τοὺς πρὸς μητρὸς κυρίους εἶναι κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ), it was more
politic for Endius' mother to stand upon her relationship to Pyrrhus, who
by the adoption had become Endius' father. Whether a mother had rights
of succession to a son is matter of controversy. Cp. XI. 17. 8, 9 n.
rà
3 ἐτόλμησε διαμαρτυρήσαι. For the general principles governing this
procedure see or. II. Introd. p. 232 sqq. Xenocles, though conducting the
suit, is allowed to depose because his wife is the claimant. The guardian in
or. VI. is in a similar position. In Att. Proc. p. 847 on the strength of
[Dem.] 44 and especially of § 55 of that speech it is argued that the actual
*
288
OR. III.
ISAEUS
claimant could interpose a diapapтvpía. I do not believe that Leostratus,
legally the opponent of the orator in [Dem.] 44, could have given the
testimony required, and attach no importance to § 55. Any one unfamiliar
with Isaeus' narratives (διηγήσεις πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον ᾠκονομημέναι Dion. Hal.
I. p. 113, 18 Usener and Radermacher) might suppose that Xenocles first laid
a claim with the Archon (λaxe rǹv λî§w), and afterwards, on the appearance
of a competitor, used a special plea to bar the process at law. But we do
not know all the moves of the two parties between Endius' death and the
diaμaprvpía, and the sequence and relation of the events mentioned are
beyond discovery. That something is suppressed is certain, for it is dis-
closed in § 22 that at some time undefined Xenocles attempted to take
possession by formal entry (eußárevois) of a 'mining factory' (épyaσrnpiov),
which is described by the speaker as our property.' Probably after Endius'
death the whole estate fell into the hands of his mother and brother, and this
circumstance may have complicated the procedure. In or. II., or. VI., and
[Dem.] 44 the party resorting to the diaµaprvpía is in possession of the
property; in [Dem.] 44 the assailants tried the method of éµßátevois before
going to the Archon (§ 34 γενομένης οὖν τῆς ἐξαγωγῆς, ἵνα τὰ πλεῖστα παραλίπω,
ἐλάχομεν πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα τοῦ κλήρου).
K
6
5 émioknyáμevo. The èπionis ([Dem.] 46. 7, 47. 51, Plat. Laws 937 B,
Ar. Pol. II. 12. 1274 6 7) or denunciation is the protest made against a
deposition (Schol. Plat. Laws 871 E) and should be distinguished from the
prosecution, which did not always follow; cp. v. 9. 4, Lys. 23. 13 dieµaptvpńOn
μὴ Πλαταιεὺς εἶναι. ἐπισκηψάμενος δὲ τῷ μάρτυρι οὐκ ἐπεξῆλθε, [Dem.] 47. 5.
Plato (Laws 937 B) ordains that the evidence shall be challenged before the
decision of the suit, and that the authorities shall keep 'the denunciations'
under seal until the trial for false witness. The practice of Athenian courts
is described in ᾿Αθ. Πολ. col. 35, 1o sqq. : ἐπειδὰν δὲ διαψηφί[ζεσθαι] μέλλωσιν
[οἱ δικασ]ταί, ὁ κῆρυξ ἀγορεύει πρῶτον, ἂν ἐπισκή[πτων]ται οἱ ἀντίδικοι ταῖς
μαρτυρίαις· οὐ γὰρ [ἔστιν] ἐπισκήψασθαι ὅταν ἄρ[ξω]νται διαψη[φίζεσθαι.
7 κατὰ ταῦτα. Reiske condemns and Buermann brackets kará. Schoe-
mann's account of the force of the preposition is not clear: refertur karà
ταῦτα ad illud: ὡς οὔσης γνησίας θυγατρὸς Πύρρου (διαμαρτυρίαν petitioni
nostrae opposuit eiusmodi ut legitimam Pyrrhi filiam uxorem suam esse
contenderet). Dareste translates 'dans ces circonstances?' If we render 'on
these grounds' (x. 15. 10, 24. 4), the reading of the MS. may be kept. Reiske
puts in his text μerà тaîта. Вuermann (Hermes 19, p. 342) thinks that the
μετὰ ταῦτα.
preposition comes from the following line, where he would read <kara>-
μεμаρтνρηкÓта; see Crit. Introd. p. xxxviii.
4. 1, 2 περιφανώς probably qualifies τὰ ψευδή μεμαρτυρηκότα, as in § 12. 4
περιφανῶς τὰ ψευδή μεμαρτύρηκε, § 19. 1 περιφανῶς ψευδῆ τὴν μαρτυρίαν
παρέσχοντο, § 35. 2 φαίνεται περιφανῶς τὰ ψευδή μεμαρτυρηκώς. Contrast
$ 35. 7.
2 Vevdoµaptuplov. I follow Cobet (V. L.² p. 623) and Blass (Hyp. 4. 12,
Aesch. 1. 85) in rejecting yevdoμaprupiŵv on the strength of 'Aе. IIλ. 59. 6
and Plat. Theaet. 148 B. Attic prose shows no sound example of Yeudo-
μαρτυρία. In Isae. XII. 6 (πῶς ἄν τις ὑμῶν καταγνοίη ψευδομαρτυρίαν Δημαράτου
τουτουὶ καὶ Ἡγήμονος καὶ Νικοστράτου) Schoemann proposed ψευδομαρτυριών.
OR. III.
289
COMMENTARY
Reiske disputed KivdvvEVEL Tηy vevdoμaprupíav in Dem. 41. 16, conjecturing
κ. τὴν ψευδομαρτυριών. Cobet changed ἐν ψευδομαρτυρίαις in Dem. 57. 53 to
ἐν ψευδομαρτυρίοις.
3 τουτονί. Cp. II. 36. 3 n.
Εν
4, 5 Tĥ μaρrupía. For the dative see II. 26. 2 12.
...
5,6 ἐγγυῆσαι τὴν ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα εἶναι. Compare the register of dowries
from Myconus, S. I. G.2 n. 817, 14 (Michel n. 1350, Inscr. Furid. Gr. 1.
p. 48) ᾿Αμεινοκράτης... Αρισταγόρην τὴν θυγατέρα ἐνηγγύησε Φιλοτίμῳ γυναῖκα
καὶ προῖκα ἔδωκε μυρίας δραχμάς, Dem. 28. 15 γυναῖκ᾽ αὐτῷ ταύτην ἐγγυῶν,
29. 47 αὐτὴν δὲ τούτῳ γυναῖκ᾽ ἐγγύησεν.
Ó
The novel theory propounded by Hruza in the first volume of his Beiträge
zur Geschichte des griechischen und römischen Familienrechtes, approved
by Gilbert, Staatsaltert. 1.2 p. 209 and Beauchet T. p. 120 sqq., rejected by
Müller, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des attischen Bürger- und Eherechts,
p. 746 sqq., makes it necessary to examine at some length the meaning of the
verb éyyvâv when used in connexion with marriage. According to Athenian
law an éyyúŋois was a necessary condition of a valid marriage, except in the
case of an éπíkλпpos (see VI. 14. 9, 10 n.). The most important effect of
marriage, i.e. the legitimacy of the issue, depended on the propriety of the
ἐγγύησις. See the law in [Dem.] 46. 18 ἣν ἂν ἐγγυήσῃ ἐπὶ δικαίοις δάμαρτα
εἶναι ἢ πατὴρ ἢ ἀδελφὸς ὁμοπάτωρ ἢ πάππος ὁ πρὸς πατρός, ἐκ ταύτης εἶναι
´aîdas yvŋσíovs, and compare [Dem.] 44. 49, Hyp. 5. 16. A connexion which
did not rest on ἐγγύησις was called by Greeks ἀνέγγυος (Poll. 3. 34 γάμος
ὑπέγγυος) (γάμος ἀνέγγυος, Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2. 24 ἀνεγγύους μίξεις, Plut.
Mul. Virt. 249 Ε φθορὰν ἀνέγγυον)(μοιχείαν), a woman living in such a union
was said to be ἀνέγγυος (Plut. Mul. Virt. 262 A ἀχθομένη ἐπὶ τῷ συνοικεῖν
ἀνέκδοτος καὶ ἀνέγγυος, Quaest. Rom. 103, 288 F σπόριον προσαγορεύειν τὸν ἐκ
γυναικὸς ἀγάμου καὶ ἀνεγγύου γεγενημένον, Comp. Arist. et Cat. 6 ἀνεγγύῳ
yuvaikì kai koly ovykoμwμevos, Comp. Thes. et Rom. 6), and the same term
was applied to the illegitimate offspring of such a connexion (Plat. Rep. 5. 461 B
νόθον καὶ ἀνέγγυον καὶ ἀνίερον παῖδα, Plut. Thes. 2 Θησεὺς καὶ Ῥωμύλος ἄμφω
ἀνεγγύω καὶ σκοτίω γενόμενοι). This ἐγγύησις was a contract concluded be-
tween the suitor and the person who as kúpios had authority over the woman.
The act of the kúpios was expressed by the active voice (éyyvâv), that of the
bridegroom by the middle (ẻyyvâobai), the passive was applied to the woman
(èyyvâσbai III. 45, 48, 70, 71, éyyuŋbeîσa VI. 14, VIII. 29, Plut. Cat. Ut. 7, Mul.
Virt. 249 D, hyyvnµévn Plut. Pomp. 47, Caes. 14, ǹyyúntaι Dio Cass. fr. 56. 47,
Zonar. 9. 8), who was also called ¿yyʊntǹ (Dem. 57. 54, [Dem.] 40. 26, 59. 60,
92, 106, Hyp. 5. 16); the passive is not common, its place being filled by
periphrases with the noun éyyúŋ (e.g. § 16) and the adjective eyyuŋtý ([Dem.]
40. 26). Of the formalities necessary or customary little is known. It is
remarkable that at Athens we never hear of written documents, but it would
be more remarkable if the whole procedure including the settlement of the
dowry was oral. The contract took place before witnesses representing
the two parties, and was generally accompanied by the appointment of the
dowry, whether paid at once or only promised. Nothing is said in our
records of the consent of the woman or even of her presence; she seems
helpless in the hands of her kúpios, de iure an object of barter between the
W. I.
19
290
OR. III.
ISAEUS
contracting parties. What in each case her real power was, is another
matter; the influence wielded by individual women stands in no relation to
the legal disabilities of the sex. The aim of Hruza's book is to refute the
old-established view that this contract was a betrothal or affiancing.
No one will contend that the familiar translation represents perfectly
the nature of an ¿yyúŋois. The word has gathered round it misleading
associations. A betrothal now means the plighting of troth between a man
and a woman upon agreement of marriage, the only parties necessary are
the two persons contemplating marriage, and the woman's consent is
essential. The development of the Roman sponsalia ended in the same
theory: sponsalia sicut nuptiae consensu contrahentium fiunt, et ideo sicut
nuptiis ita sponsalibus filiam familias consentire oportet (D. 23. I. 11).
A father could not betroth a filius familias without his consent.
The filia
familias was in a worse position, since she was presumed to consent if she
did not oppose her father's decision. But the consent of the filius familias
and the filia familias was not always of practical significance, since a
betrothal could be effected as soon as the persons to be betrothed had the
slightest comprehension of the act in which they were engaging, i.e. as soon
as they had emerged from the stage of infantia. For speculations on the
original type of Roman sponsalia see Karlowa, Römische Rechtsgeschichte II.
p. 176 sqq., Hruza 1. p. 80 sqq. An instructive form of sponsalia, plainly a
survival from marriage by purchase, prevailed in Latium before the intro-
duction of Roman law which was the consequence of the grant of citizenship by
the lex Iulia of 90 B.C. These Latin sponsalia are described by Aulus Gellius
(4. 4) on the authority of a work of Servius Sulpicius Rufus entitled De
Dotibus; I give the text as corrected by Mommsen. Qui uxorem ducturus
erat, ab eo, unde ducenda erat, stipulabatur, eam in matrimonium datum iri;
qui daturus erat, id eidem spondebat. item qui uxorem daturus erat, ab eo,
cui eam daturus erat, stipulabatur, eam in matrimonium ductum iri; qui
ducturus erat, id eidem spondebat. is contractus stipulationum sponsionum-
que dicebatur sponsalia. tunc quae promissa erat, sponsa appellabatur, qui
spoponderat ducturum, sponsus. Sulpicius goes on to explain how a breach
of contract gave rise to an actio ex sponsu, by which damages could be
obtained.
Here we seem to have an example from classical antiquity of an insti-
tution resembling in its outlines the Athenian éyyúŋois, the parties being the
same, and the woman's consent appearing to be unnecessary in point of law,
and it is not surprising that scholars have equated ẻyyvậ Ovyarépa with
spondet filiam, hyyunuévos (middle) with sponsus, eyyuŋrn with sponsa.
Against this comparison Hruza protests on grounds of etymology and of
law. That etymological difficulties exist must be granted, but not that
they are unsurmountable. Spondeo acquired the meaning of 'I solemnly
promise' in the same way as èπɩoπévdw, which has this sense in the code
of Gortyn (V. 3, VI. II, 19). In both cases the idea of a binding obligation
came from an archaic contract accompanied by a libation (σñovềǹ) and
perhaps by a solemn self-denunciation: 'even as this wine (or water) flows,
so may the gods cause the blood of him to flow who shall be the first to break
this covenant! The history of ẻyyvâv is obscure. Modern etymologers
OR. III.
291
COMMENTARY
πισπ
(Prellwitz, Etymol. Wörterb. d. griech. Spr. s.v.) as well as ancient
grammarians (Et. Mag. s.v. éyyvôμai, Eustath. Od. 0. 352, p. 1600, 6)
make ¿yyvô equivalent originally to ¿yxeɩpí(w, the root being the same as
in γυίον; see also Stephanus on παρεγγυώ and Harp. s.v. παρεγγύησεν. On
this theory the earliest signification of eyyúŋ was 'something put into the
hand,' a gage or a pledge (a word said to be derived from praebere). The
father's act then in the eyyuŋois was to pledge or engage (ẻyyvâv) his
daughter to the suitor as wife, i.e. to promise her in marriage, while
éyуvôμаι Tηy maida, the bridegroom's formula, answered to the father's
declaration, ἐγγυῶ, as ἁρμόζομαι to ἁρμόζω in Ionic, and ἐπισπένδομαι to
ÉTισTéνd in the code of Gortyn (VI. 13, 21, X. 28), and meant 'I accept the
pledge or engagement.' Liddell and Scott trace the other and more familiar
sense of éyyvôμai 'I become a surety' to a different application of the middle
voice, viz. 'I pledge or engage myself, but Prellwitz (l.c.) defines éyyvos as
‘a person bound by giving of the hand' and eyyv@μai as 'I give my hand
upon a transaction. The development sketched above appears more
plausible than two other theories. One is the view adopted by the editors
of the Recueil des inscriptions juridiques grecques (1. p. 52), that the father
is surety (éyyunrǹs) for the daughter, inasmuch as he attests her legitimate
birth. The second is a suggestion made by Thalheim (Zu den griech.
Rechtsaltert. p. 6 sqq.). Thalheim builds on Isae. III. 70 ó ådeλpidoûs vµôv
ἠγγυᾶτο τὴν μητέρα τὴν ταύτης κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ἕξειν γυναῖκα, where I think
ἕξειν a blunder for ἔχειν ; see note ad loc. He finds in the passage a proof
that the bridegroom at the éyyúŋois made a promise that he would keep the
woman as his lawful wife, that in fact he bound himself after the fashion of
a surety. A defect of this interpretation is the difficulty of explaining the
application of the active voice to the father. Thalheim conjectures that
ἐγγυᾶν, like the compounds κατεγγυάν and διεγγυᾶν 'Αθ. Πολ. 4), may
mean 'to take securities from a person,' and that the father's rôle was to
bind (verpflichten) the daughter to be a lawful wife (dáμapra eivai).
The legal objections raised by Hruza are independent of the dispute
about the etymology. He refuses to believe that Athenian law made the
legitimacy of children depend on a betrothal, which is, and must be, ex ui
termini, merely an act preparatory of marriage. 'Eyyúnois, he says, since it
produced the consequences of marriage, constituted marriage, and should
be compared with the consensus nuptalicius of Roman law, not with the
consensus sponsalicius. This criticism involves more than a definition of
words. Hruza proceeds to argue that the ¿yyúŋois was the beginning of the
married state, and that it was the first and most important ceremony of the
wedding day, as a rule preceding immediately the marriage festivities and
the home-bringing of the bride. He even doubts whether betrothals existed
in Attica. Further, with regard to the etymology, ¿yyvâv is said to be
identical with διδόναι and ἐκδιδόναι, ἐγγνῶμαι corresponding to έγγυῶ as
δανείζομαι το δανείζω, and ἐγγύησις is rendered by giving away) (Vergebung).
These are doctrines which can be submitted to the test of facts. In
the first place it is demonstrable that later Greek writers sometimes mean
'betroth,' when they use the word éyyvâv. The story of Verginia in Livy 3.
44 sqq. and Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 11. 28 sqq. is a proof. Lucius Icilius is
19-2
292
OR. III.
ISAEUS
αν
called by Livy the 'sponsus' of Verginia, a maiden (uirgo) of 15 still going
to school. Dionysius describes him as ὁ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἠγγυημένος τὴν
Kópηv (c. 28; cp. Liv. c. 44 pater desponderat filiam L. Icilio) and as ó µéλλwv
ἄγεσθαι τὴν κόρην (c. 31), and observes of the girl τραφεῖσαν τὴν παρθένον, ὡς
ἐλευθέρᾳ καὶ ἀστῇ προσῆκεν, ἁρμοσθῆναι κατὰ νόμον Ἰκιλίῳ καὶ τέλος ἂν ἐσχη-
κέναι τὸν γάμον, εἰ μὴ θᾶττον ὁ πρὸς Αἰκανοὺς ἐνέστη πόλεμος (C. 30). Many
passages could be quoted from Greek literature of the imperial age showing
the equivalence of hyyunμévos and sponsus, of hyyunμévn and sponsa, but it is
enough to refer to Plut. Pomp. 47, Caes. 14, Cat. Mai. 24, Cat. Ut. 7, Anton. 53,
Dio Cass. 38. 9, 46. 56, 51. 15, 58. 11, 60. 31, 32. Hruza's translation of
ἐγγυαν and ἐγγυᾶσθαι makes nonsense of all these passages. He cannot
reply that the meaning of the terms has been entirely transformed in the
interval between Isaeus and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Euripides in the
Orestes uses Kateyyvâv in the sense of 'betroth,' i.e. promise, not give, in
marriage. Orestes, after Electra has declared her resolution to die with
him, speaks to Pylades thus : γάμων δὲ τῆς μὲν δυσπότμου τῆσδ᾽ ἐσφάλης, ¦ ἦν
σοι κατηγγύησ᾽, ἑταιρίαν σέβων· ' σὺ δ᾽ ἄλλο λέκτρον παιδοποίησαι λαβών
(1078 sqq.). If any doubt is possible, it is removed by Apollo's words at
the end of the play: Πυλάδῃ δ᾽ ἀδελφῆς λέκτρον, ᾧ ποτ᾽ ᾔνεσας, | δός· ὁ δ᾽
ἐπιών νιν βίοτος εὐδαίμων μένει (1658/9). Observe also what Menelaus says to
Orestes: 'Ορέστα, σοὶ δὲ παῖδ᾽ ἐγὼ κατεγγυῶ, | Φοίβου λέγοντος· εὐγενὴς δ᾽ ἀπ᾿
εὐγενοῦς | γήμας ὄναιο καὶ σὺ χώ διδοὺς ἐγώ (1675 sqq.). He does not hand over
Hermione to Orestes to become his wife on the spot, but makes a promise
to give her in marriage, when Orestes shall return purged from the guilt of
matricide (1648 sqq.). Hruza is driven to desperate expedients even in
interpreting the Attic orators, on whom he mainly relies. Demosthenes'
father on his deathbed is described (Dem. 28. 15) as éyyvov his daughter to
Demophon. Surely this is 'betrothing,' for she was a child of five years old
and could not marry: see Dem. 29. 43 δύο μὲν τάλαντα Δημοφῶντα λαβεῖν
εὐθύς, τὴν δ᾽ ἀδελφὴν ὅταν ἡλικίαν ἔχῃ, τοῦτο δ᾽ ἔμελλεν εἰς ἔτος δέκατον
yevýσeσbai. According to Hruza the girl by this act of her father's was
made a wife; he defines her condition on the principles of the canon law
as matrimonium legitimum sed non consummatum, and cites in support of
this subtlety Roman abuses of the imperial age in which marriages were
sometimes concluded with female children who had not reached puberty.
It is true that in Attic writers there are passages where Hruza's version of
¿yyvâv or ¿yyvâo@aɩ will make sense, but these prove nothing, because the
rival translation is equally applicable. On the other hand the old view
is in harmony everywhere with the usus uerborum.
The reply to Hruza's legal refinements is that the presumptions of a
Roman jurist are out of place in a discussion of Athenian law. That the
validity of a betrothal should determine the legitimacy of the issue of a
marriage ceases to seem amazing as soon as we free ourselves from modern
conceptions of the nature of marriage, and especially from the principle of
the Digest 'consensus facit nuptias.' The origin of the Greek eyyúŋois lies
in marriage by purchase, and its analogue in respect of form, though not of
substance, is a contract of sale with possession to follow in the future. The
Athenian legislator did not act irrationally in taking as a mark of a lawful
OR. III.
293
COMMENTARY
marriage the validity of the contract between the parties rather than the
formalities which attended delivery of the object of the contract. Marriage
by purchase naturally generates such a rule. As at Athens, so in the ancient
law of Germany and Scandinavia the betrothal is a contract between the
suitor on the one side, and the father, brother, or guardian of the maiden on
the other, perfectly distinct from the wedding, but nevertheless an indis-
pensable condition of a valid marriage. The difference is that the Athenians
had travelled farther from the idea of purchase than the Germans and
Norwegians, among whom the betrothal is still an unmistakable sale. See
Leist, Alt-arisches Ius Gentium p. 144 sqq., Alt-arisches Ius Ciuile II.
p. 113 sqq.
τοῦτον ἐξελέγχει. Cp. IV. 6. 2 ἐξελέγξαι τούσδε ὡς οὐκ εἰσὶν
5. 3
ἀνεψιοί.
5 ἀποφυγὼν ἀπῆλθε. Cp. v. 24. 4, Ar. Ach. 661 οὗ μ' ἐχρῆν σορὸν
πρίασθαι, τοῦτ᾽ ὀφλὼν ἀπέρχομαι, Lys. 15. 10 ἐὰν ὑμᾶς ἐξαπατήσῃ, καταγελῶν
τῆς πόλεως ἔπεισιν, 19. 4, Isocr. 17. 57, Dem. 45. 6, Aesch. 1. 163.
6 ή διαμαρτυρηθείσα γνησία θυγάτηρ εἶναι. Cp. Lys. 23. 13 διεμαρτ
τυρήθη μὴ Πλαταιεὺς εἶναι.
6. 2 ἀποστάσης του κλήρου. The words may be used both of a claimant
abandoning pretensions (IV. 8. 2, 24. 7, [Dem.] 35. 4, 44) and of an occupant
retiring from possession (V. 18. 2, Dem. 37. 10 καταλαβὼν τοῦτον μὲν ἀφεστη-
κότα, τὸν δ᾽ Εὔεργον ἔχοντα καὶ κρατοῦνθ᾽ ὧν ἐωνήμεθα). The estate seems
to have been in the hands of the mother and brother of Endius (§§ 3. 3 n.,
22. 4 n.). Dareste translates 'la soi-disant fille de Pyrrhos ne reclamant
plus la succession.' But, since Xenocles had given notice of intention to
prosecute the witnesses to Pyrrhus' will (§ 56), it is possible that Phile's
friends had by no means thrown up the contest (Introd. p. 273). For the
suspensory effect of an ἐπίσκηψις cp. XI. 45, 46.
2, 3 τῆς ἀμφισβητούσης γνησίας θυγατρὸς εἶναι. The construction has
excited the suspicions both of Reiske and Herwerden (Mnem. N. S. 9,
1881, p. 384). Objection on the score of grammar is unfounded. Schoemann
points out that the negatived infinitive after ἀμφισβητῶ (‘I contend that it is
not sol) is common (Dem. 19. 19 ἠμφεσβήτει μὴ ἀληθῆ λέγειν ἐμέ, 27. 15, 23,
[Dem.] 33. 4, Lys. 23. 13, Isae. VIII. 9), and that when is with the indicative
takes the place of the infinitive, we meet not only phrases such as ẻàv
ἀμφισβητῇ ὡς οὐκ ἀληθῆ λέγομεν (Plat. Rep. 5. 476 D), but also like [Dem.]
34. 4 ἐὰν δέ τις γενέσθαι μὲν (συνθήκας) όμολογῇ, ἀμφισβητῇ δὲ ὡς πάντα
πεποίηκε τὰ συγκείμενα; cp. Theoph. Char. 23. 3 καὶ περὶ τῶν τεχνιτῶν τῶν
ἐν τῇ ᾿Ασίᾳ ὅτι βελτίους εἰσὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ Εὐρώπῃ ἀμφισβητῆσαι. He might have
clinched his argument by adducing Aesch. 2. 148 σὺ δὲ ὁ ἀμφισβητῶν ἀνὴρ
εἶναι (οὐ γὰρ ἂν τολμήσαιμι εἰπεῖν ὡς ἀνὴρ εἶ) ἐγράφης λιποταξίου and Plat.
Gorg. 452 c αμφισβητεῖ γε Γοργίας ὅδε τὴν παρ᾽ αὑτῷ τέχνην μείζονος ἀγαθοῦ
αἰτίαν εἶναι ἢ τὴν σήν. Since in §§ 1. 6, 3. 1 ἀμφισβητεῖν has been used in its
legal application of claiming an estate, a fastidious writer would not have
repeated it in a different application in proximity to κλήρου. But Isaeus is
careless of such refinements, and Dobree (Adv. I. p. 289) truly remarks that
repetition of 'uerba, locutiones, sententiae' is characteristic of this speech.
7 [γυναικός.] Blass and Lincke believe that γυναικὸς in this position can
294
OR. III.
ISAEUS
belong to ¿yyʊŋtŷs only, though Lincke admits that the collocation is ‘a little
harsh.' Dobree goes too far in denying the possibility of eraípa yuvǹ (Lys.
fr. CXXIV. 245 Saupp. ἔστιν οὖν γυνὴ ἑταίρα, Ναῖς ὄνομα, ἧς ᾿Αρχίας κύριός
ἐστιν), but is right in rejecting the combination ἐξ ἐγγυητῆς ἢ ἐξ ἑταίρας
yuvaιkós. Thalheim (Hermes 38, 1903, p. 458) would save yuvaikòs by trans-
posing ἑταίρας and ἐγγυητής in 1. 6 (πότερον ἐξ ἑταίρας ἢ ἐξ ἐγγυητής κ.τ.λ. ;
cp. § 24. 5, 6). I incline to Dobree's remedy, transposition after eyyuŋrns, and
should classify the error under the head of postponement (Crit. Introd.
p. xxxix).
8 rîs ȧvτwμoolas tŷs ηµetépas. The word ('counter-swearing') signified
originally the oaths taken at the preliminary proceedings (áváкpiois) by the
contending parties in confirmation of the truth of their respective declarations
(Harp. s.v. ἀντώμνυον οἱ διώκοντες καὶ οἱ φεύγοντες, οἱ μὲν ἀληθῆ κατηγορήσειν, οἱ
δὲ ἀληθῆ ἀπολογήσεσθαι); so in Lys. 23. 13 ἐν τῇ ἀντωμοσίᾳ τῆς δίκης. The
term is wrongly limited to the oath of the defendant in Poll. 8. 55. 'Avтoμvúvaι
is applied to the prosecutor in V. 1. 7, 4. 8, Isocr. 16. 2, to the defendant in
Ant. 1. 8, to one or more claimants to a contested estate in IX. I. 4, 34. I,`
[Dem.] 43. 3. The middle occurs in v. 16. 7, Isocr. 18. 37. The meaning
shifted from the oath to the statements to which the oath lent sanction, so
that ȧvroμooía can be used for the plaint of the prosecutor, as here and in
Plat. Apol. 19 B, and for the counter-plea of the defendant; that we have no
example of the noun in the latter signification is an accident. The speaker
has in view his plaint against Xenocles at the previous trial. The form of
the document that was read out by the clerk may be gathered from [Dem.]
45. 46 ᾿Απολλόδωρος Πασίωνος ᾿Αχαρνεὺς Στεφάνῳ Μενεκλέους ᾿Αχαρνεί ψευδο-
μαρτυρίων, τίμημα τάλαντον. τὰ ψευδῆ μου κατεμαρτύρησε Στέφανος μαρτυρήσας
τὰ ἐν τῷ γραμματείῳ γεγραμμένα. Αντωμοσία in the title of a lost speech of
Isaeus, πρὸς Τληπόλεμον ἀντωμοσία (Harp. s.v. ἐπώνια, Isae. fr. XLIV. 128
Saupp.), is explained by Sauppe 1. c. and Blass (Att. Ber.2 II. p. 495 n. 2) as
exception, special plea („apaypa¶ń), by Lipsius (Att. Proc.² p. 831 n. 189) as
counter-charge (ȧvтiуpapń). The judicial use of this word is not peculiar to
Athens; see the judgment of Cnidus in favour of Calymna given in the
2nd century, Ancient Greek Inscr. in the Brit. Mus. II. 299. 5 (S. I. G.²
n. 512, Michel n. 1340, Inscr. Jurid. Gr. I. p. 159) dikaσσéw neρì ŵv oi
ἀντίδικοι ἀντώμοσαν κατὰ γνώμαν τὰν δικαιοτάταν.
7-16 Nicodemus has deposed that he betrothed his sister to Pyrrhus
as lawful wife. What was the dowry? When did she leave Pyrrhus'
house? What measures were taken to recover the dowry? Was she
lawfully married to anyone else before or after her connexion with Pyrrhus?
No, she was a courtesan, as was proved by witnesses in the former suit,
witnesses whom my opponents have not dared to threaten with a prosecution,
and was never married to any of her numerous lovers.
Isaeus counts on the effect of the chain of ironical interrogations, with
which the direct attack on Nicodemus is opened (§§ 8—10), for the series
is repeated with but slight alterations at the close of the speech (§§ 78,
79). Yet the questions are mainly noise and bluster; Nicodemus did not
pretend to have given a dowry (§§ 29, 35, 38). Now, though brothers were
under a moral obligation to portion their sisters, if they had the means,
OR. III.
295
COMMENTARY
in Athenian public opinion it was better to get a girl married without a
dowry, if possible, then to let her become an old maid; the absence of a
marriage portion was not a proof that a woman was not honourably married
(II. 5. 2 n.). The plea of poverty would have been sufficient answer to
§§ 8, 9 but for the succeeding paragraphs (§§ 10--16), which make it difficult
for Nicodemus to assume the rôle of the virtuous brother, though they do not
show that his sister was not married by Pyrrhus.
7.3 ws µév. Naber's correction, ws µèv <ovv>, is unnecessary. After
the reading of documents the orators often proceed without using a connect-
ing particle, and, if a particle is added, roívvv is preferred to ovv. See the
collections made by Gebauer on Lys. 12. 48, Anhang p. 246 sqq.; he has
found six examples of os μèv (III. 7. 3, 13. I, VI. 8. 1, Ant. 5. 31, And. 1. 113,
Dem. 20. 36), four of ws µèv toívvv (III. 16. 1, [Dem.] 49. 34, 43, 58. 10),
not one of is μèv ovv, eight of örɩ µèv (IX. 5. 1, Lys. 13. 33, 17. 4, 10,
[Dem.] 33. 16, 43. 32, 52. 8, 17), eighteen of őtɩ µév toívvv, one only of
őtɩ µèv ovv ([Dem.] 48. 4). Compare V. 3. I, 25. I, 39. I, VII. 26. I, 29. I,
37. I.
παραχρῆμα εὐθύς. Cp. I. 11. 2 η. For τότε παραχρῆμα see Dem. 19. 25,
36. 10, 54. II.
τότε πάσι
4 †TÓTE Tâσit. At the previous trial it was demonstrated to the judges
(according to the speaker) that Nicodemus had given false evidence; in the
preceding sections of this speech it has been demonstrated that the judges
at the previous trial believed that Nicodemus had given false evidence. The
vulgate confuses these two propositions. Buermann (Hermes 19, 1884,
p. 357) ejects Tóтe Tâσɩ as 'variants to róre in the preceding line.' It would
be a great convenience to get rid of тóтe Tâσɩ, but Buermann's theory of the
origin of the words will not bear examination (Crit. Introd. § 4). Even if the
second Tóre may be bracketed as a repetition (Crit. Introd. p. xxxvii), a
difficulty remains; we expect something less arrogant and presumptuous than
πᾶσι e.g. ἱκανῶς.
8. 2
†περὶ αὐτοῦ τούτου, repeated from $ 7. 6. It is useless to
speculate about the words that have been extruded. That the obvious
emendation #ap' avтοû TOÚTOυ is wrong is shown by the appearance of o
μεμαρτυρηκώς in l. 4.
4 τὸν τριτάλαντον οἶκον. Cp. § 80. 1 2.
5 ἡ ἐγγυητή γυνὴ ἀπέλιπε τὸν ἄνδρα. Cp. § 78. 2 πρὸς ὁποῖον ἄρχοντα...
àréλine. For the technical meaning of ảπoλeíπew (III. 35. 4, Dem. 30 passim,
[And.] 4. 14) see Bekk. An. Gr. I. p. 201, 22 áñódeifis· onµaívei µèv átλôs tò
ἀπολείπειν· ἰδίως δὲ ὅταν γαμετὴ τὸν ἄνδρα ἀπολείπῃ καὶ χρηματίζῃ πρὸς ἄνδρα
ἀπόλειψιν, ib. p. 421, 6 ἀπέλιπε μὲν ἡ γυνὴ τὸν ἄνδρα, ἀπέπεμψε δὲ ὁ ἀνὴρ τὴν
yvvaîka. In addition to àñoñéµñew ([Dem.] 59. 52, 59, 82) the verbs ékßáλ-
λew ([Dem.] 59. 51, Thom. Mag. s.v. άπoλeiteɩ) and éktéµπEL (III. 35. 5,
[Dem.] 59. 55, 56, Lys. 14. 28, Ant. Soph. 131. 6 Blass) and àñоñéµñeσðаi
(Poll. 3. 46) were used of the husband divorcing the wife. When the wife
sought a separation, it was necessary to give a written notice to the Archon
(III. 78. 2, Dem. 30. 17, 26, Phot. s.v. σirov dikn). Plutarch states (Alc. 8;
cp. [And.] 4. 14) that she had to appear in person in order to deposit tò tŷs
ἀπολείψεως γράμμα. This has been questioned, but nothing definite is
296
OR. III.
ISAEUS
known of the procedure or of the grounds on which a divorce could be
obtained. For speculations on the subject see Beauchet 1. p. 381 sqq. The
husband's power of repudiation was not fettered by official intervention,
but he was liable to a díêŋ åñoñοµñîs (Poll. 3. 46, 6. 153, 8. 31) or άπо-
réμ↓ews (Lys. ap. Poll. 8. 31), the conditions of which are unknown; con-
jectures will be found in Beauchet I p. 391 sqq. The law of Gortyn (II.
53, 54, Inscr. Jurid. Gr. 1. p. 456) in regulating the pecuniary consequences
of dissolution of marriage provides that the husband shall pay the wife
five staters, if he 'is the cause of the divorce' (aï k' ó avèp airios êi tâs
αἴτιος
kepevσios), but does not define the nature of his responsibility. If the
husband plead that he is not the cause, the judge is to decide the point
under oath (τὸν δικαστὰν ὀμνύντα κρίνεν).
31
5, 6 ἢ τελευτήσαντος τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ. The widow might remain in the
house of her husband, if there were children by the marriage. She then fell
under the authority of the guardian or guardians of her children, as long
as their minority lasted, and her dowry became the property of the children
([Dem.] 42. 27, 46. 20). She also might stay, if she declared herself pregnant
([Dem.] 43. 75); in which case it was the duty of the Archon to protect her
interests ('AO. Hoλ. 56. 7). But even when there were children, the widow
was at liberty to return to the house of her kúpɩos, and demand through him
the restitution of her dowry ([Dem.] 40: 6). No doubt in such circumstances.
a second marriage was usual; cp. Dem. 29. 26 ǹ µýτηρ KAT' èµoû Kaì TŶS
ἀδελφῆς, οἱ μόνοι παῖδές ἐσμεν αὐτῇ, δι' οὓς κατεχήρευσε τὸν βίον, πίστιν ἠθέλησ᾽
ἐπιθείναι. If there were no children, she went back to her own family (VIII.
8. 6). See Att. Proc. p. 519 sqq., Beauchet I. p. 395 sqq.
9. 2 ὁποίαν δίκην σίτου ἢ τῆς προικὸς αὐτῆς. Cp. Dem. 28. 11 ταύτην
(τὴν προῖκα) οὔτ᾽ αὐτὴν οὔτε τὸν σῖτον ἀποδέδωκεν. The wife's dowry did not
become the property of the husband. He only enjoyed the usufruct, and
was sometimes required to mortgage real estate as security for eventual
´repayment (Att. Proc.² p. 518, Beauchet I. p. 331 sqq.). When such security
(åπoтíµŋµa, Inscr. Jurid. Gr. I. p. 110, S. I. G.² n. 818 sqq., Michel
n. 1366 sqq.) had been given, the kúpios of the wife on severance of
marriage by divorce or death was able to recover the dowry by taking
possession of the land or houses and bringing an action for ejectment (dikŋ
¿§oúλŋs) if hindered (Att. Proc.² p. 523). If there was no añoтíµŋµa, a díkŋ
πpoikos might become necessary. This action, one of the eµµnvoi dikai,
i.e. suits which had to be decided within a month ('A. Hoλ. 52. 2 eiơì d'
ἔμμηνοι προικός, ἐάν τις ὀφείλων μὴ ἀποδῷ κ.τ.λ.), could be brought not only
when the wife returned to the house of her kúpios in consequence of divorce
(III. 35, Dem. 30 passim, [Dem.] 59. 52) or the death of her husband, but also
when the wife died before the husband and left no children (III. 36, 38).
The relation between the diκŋ роikòs and the dikŋ σirou, the alimony suit, is
not stated distinctly by the ancient authorities. The latter seems to have
been a demand for maintenance from the date of dissolution of marriage
(Phot. s.v. σίτου δίκη· ὅταν γυνὴ...ἀπαιτῇ τὴν προῖκα καὶ τροφὰς ἀφ᾿ ἧς
åíŋλλáyn ýµépas) until such time as the dowry should be restored.
Whether the amount claimable on this head was the same in all cases is
not known; the law cited in [Dem.] 59. 52 provides that the husband who
OR. III.
297
COMMENTARY
divorces his wife shall restore the dowry or pay 18 p. c. interest (éàv άто-
πέμπῃ τὴν γυναῖκα, ἀποδιδόναι τὴν προῖκα, ἐὰν δὲ μή, ἐπ᾿ ἐννέ᾽ ὀβολοῖς
TOKOPOρeiv), and Demosthenes (27. 17) contends that the same percentage
was by right due from Aphobus, who had appropriated the dowry given to
Demosthenes' widowed mother, but neither married her nor restored the
money nor granted maintenance (27. 15 οὐ διδόντος τούτου σῖτον τῇ μητρί, τὴν
δὲ προῖκ᾽ ἔχοντος, 29. 33 ἐμαρτύρησαν σῖτον τῇ μητρὶ δώσειν ὁμολογεῖν τοῦτον ὡς
ἔχοντα τὴν προίκα). Onetor only exacted 10 p. c. when his sister was
separated from (àπéλɩne) her first husband Timocrates, and the dowry was
not repaid (Dem. 30. 7, 9, 22), but this was an amicable arrangement. Suits
for alimony were taken before the Archon to the 'Nideîov ([Dem.] 59. 52,
Ar. Vesp. 1109, Poll. 8. 33, Phot. s.v. 'Odeiov, Bekk. An. Gr. I. p. 318, 2).
The fact that provision of maintenance to a widow or divorced wife took the
form of payment of interest on the dowry explains the definition of oiros as
τόκος for which Harpocration s.v. σίτος censures Timachidas (Hesych. σίτος
τροφὴ καὶ τόκος. καὶ ὁ μισθός). This use of σίτος has a wider range. See
the law in [Dem.] 46. 20 ἐὰν ἐξ ἐπικλήρου τις γένηται καὶ ἅμα ἡβήσῃ ἐπὶ διετές,
κρατεῖν τῶν χρημάτων, τὸν δὲ σῖτον μετρεῖν τῇ μητρί. Harpocration includes
the further application of maintenance due to orphans: σίτος καλεῖται ἡ διδο-
μένη πρόσοδος εἰς τροφὴν ταῖς γυναιξὶν ἢ τοῖς ὀρφανοῖς, ὡς ἐξ ἄλλων μαθεῖν ἔστι
καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Σόλωνος α'· ἄξονος καὶ ἐκ τῆς ᾿Αριστοτέλους Αθηναίων πολιτείας.
The accuracy of this statement, which was denied by Schulthess (Vor-
mundschaft nach attischem Recht, 1886, p. 90 sqq.), has been demonstrated
by the discovery of the 'Αθηναίων Πολιτεία, where we read [καὶ τοὺς ἐπι-
τρόπους], ἐὰν μ[ὴ δι]δῶσι τοῖς παισὶ τὸν σῖτον, οὗτος (ὁ ἄρχων) εἰσπράττει,
c. 56 ad fin. For the whole subject of restitution of dowry see Beauchet
I. p. 323 sqq., Att. Proc.² p. 525 sqq.
او
10. 7 ékdédwкev. The fault in dedwκel, the MS. reading, is the tense.
The pluperfect does not take into account what is said to have happened
after the alleged marriage with Pyrrhus. It is beside the point to quote
examples of didóval meaning 'to give in marriage' (§ 64. 3, V. 26. 5, Dem.
41. 4, [Dem.] 43. 74).
Cp. I. 9. 41., V. 13. 4, 39.
(with Weber's note), 24. 7,
Quintilian (IX. 2. 65 sqq.)
11. 3, 4 εἰ δέ τισιν ὑμῶν ἀηδὲς ἀκούειν κ.τ.λ.
7, VI. 17. 4, Dem. 2. 19, 18. 103, 21. 58, 79, 23. 202
132, 54. 9, 57. 33, [Dem.] 40. 9, 45. 3, 83, 48. E, 52.
is worth reading; note § 76 Cum obstat nobis personae reuerentia, tanto
cautius dicendum est quanto ualidius bonos inhibet pudor quam metus. hic
uero tegere nos iudex, quod sciamus. et uerba ui quadam ueritatis erum-
pentia credat coercere. nam quaeso minus aut ipsi in quos dicimus aut iu-
dices aut adsistentes oderint hanc maledicendi lasciuiam si uelle nos credant?
7 κοινὴν αὐτοί: κοινὴν αὐτὴν A, a case of grammatical assimilation
(Crit. Introd. p. xxxix).
12.2 wμoλoyŋkótes eiol taûta. A convenient fallacy. A sensible man
does not undertake the burden and expense of half a dozen prosecutions for
perjury, if he can attain his object by one. Xenocles had directed his attack
against the witnesses to Pyrrhus' will. The absence of an éπioкnus is
treated as proof of the truth of evidence in Dem. 29. 6, 33, 41, 57, 45.
51 sqq., [Dem.] 47. 5, Din. 1. 52.
298
OR. III.
ISAEUS
4 περιφανῶς τὰ ψευδή μεμαρτύρηκε. The air of confidence is fictitious.
The orator has to admit before long (§ 17) that it was not absolutely
unknown for a man to marry an ἑταίρα.
6 τῇ μὴ ὀρθῶς γεγενημένῃ γυναικί, ' the woman whose birth was irregular.
‘Γυναικὶ ambiguum, uxori an mulieri. Melius esset θυγατρί. Sed praestat
delere uocem' (Dobree, Adv. I. p. 289). We certainly should not miss
γυναικί, but all ambiguity is removed by the context; only Phile can be
meant. The commoner expression would be γεγονυία (VII. 16. 4 ἐξ ἀστῆς
καὶ γεγονότα ὀρθῶς, And. 1. 123, Lys. 7. 1, 13. 93, 14. 41, 19. 15, [Lys.] 2. 20, 72,
Isocr. 4. 24 καλῶς καὶ γνησίως γεγόναμεν, 7. 37, 8. 50, 12. 165, Dem. 39. 18,
[Dem.] 40. 13). It was a consciousness of this fact that led A2 to conjecture
yeyevvnµévŋ. But yeyevnµévŋ is quite legitimate (§§ 45. 6, 48. 2, 79. 3, VIII. 7.
3, Χ. 23. 9, Din. I. 71, Dem. 57. 54 ἀστὸν ἐξ ἀστῆς ἐγγυητῆς αὑτῷ γεγενημένον,
C. I. A. II. I. 564, 18 ἐπειδὴ δὲ συμβαίνει ᾿Αντισθένει θυγατέρα εἶναι ἐπί-
κληρον ἐκ τῶν νόμων γεγενημένην, Crönert, Memoria Graeca Herculanensis
p. 248).
13. 1 ὡς μέν. Cp. § 7. 3 n.
T
14.3 οὐδὲ αἱ γαμεταὶ γυναῖκες ἔρχονται μετὰ τῶν ἀνδρῶν κ.τ.λ. Cp. [Dem.]
59. 24 συνέπινε καὶ συνεδείπνει ἐναντίον πολλῶν Νέαιρα αὑτηὶ ὡς ἂν ἑταίρα οὖσα,
ib. § 33 ἐπὶ τὰ δεῖπνα ἔχων αὐτὴν πανταχοῖ ἐπορεύετο, ὅπου πίνοι, ἐκώμαζέ τ᾽ ἀεὶ
μετ᾿ αὐτῆς, ib. § 48 ἐπὶ δεῖπνον ἦσαν ὡς ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν, ὁπότε καὶ Νέαιραν
ἔχοιεν, καὶ αὕτη συνεδείπνει καὶ συνέπινεν ὡς ἑταίρα οὖσα, Corn. Nep. Praef. 6,
7 quem enim Romanorum pudet uxorem ducere in conuiuium? aut cuius
non materfamilias primum locum tenet acdium atque in celebritate uersatur?
quod multo fit aliter in Graecia. nam neque in conuiuium adhibetur nisi
propinquorum, neque sedet nisi in interiore parte aedium, quae gynaeconitis
appellatur; quo nemo accedit nisi propinqua cognatione coniunctus, Cic.
Verr. 11. 1. 26, 66.
5, 6 τῷ γε μεμαρτυρηκότι οὐδ᾽ ἐπισκήψασθαι. The reference is to one
deposition, testifying to the presence of Nicodemus' sister at dinner parties.
The text is supported by τὴν μαρτυρίαν in the next line. Reiske, Dobree, and
Buermann, who emend these words, ought also to propose τὰς μαρτυρίας,
since the use of ἡ μαρτυρία for a joint deposition of several witnesses (S 56. 5,
V. 2. 7, IX. 26. 5, Dem. 45. 61) cannot be invoked by those who adopt
ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑΙ in § 12. 8.
15.3
καὶ ὅτι. For the repetition of ὅτι cp. II. 34. 5, V. 3. 5, VII. 4. 4,
VIII. 45. 6, Dem. 39. 37, Isocr. 19. 16, Thuc. 8. 108 ἀγγέλλων ὅτι τάς τε
Φοινίσσας ναῦς ἀποστρέψειε...καὶ τὸν Τισσαφέρνη ὅτι φίλον πεποιήκοι, Xen. Αn.
5. 4. 18 ἤχθοντο ὅτι τούς τε πολεμίους ἐπεποιήκεσαν θρασυτέρους καὶ ὅτι οἱ
Ἕλληνες ἐπεφεύγεσαν.
οὐδ᾽ ἐξ ἑνὸς ἄλλου τεκοῦσα. This point is made to awaken a suspicion in
the minds of the judges that Phile was a supposititious child ; cp. §§ 30. 1 τῆς
θυγατρὸς ἀποφανθείσης εἶναι, 34. 2 τῆς θυγατρός, ὡς φασι, τῆς αὐτῆς, 52. 2 ἣν
φησιν ἀδελφιδῆν Νικόδημος εἶναι αὑτῷ, 73. 6, 79. 9 τὴν θυγατέρα τὴν ἐκ ταύτης
ἀποφανθεῖσαν εἶναι. But Isaeus does not intend to argue seriously that
Phile was not the daughter even of Pyrrhus' mistress. His calculation is
that an innuendo dropped here and there may not be fruitless. Hitzig
(Studien zu Isaeus p. 18) prefers to regard the remark as nothing more than
OR. III.
299
COMMENTARY
a preparation for the argument developed in § 36 εἶτ᾽ ἐπὶ τούτοις ἂν Νικόδημος
ἠγγύησε τὴν ἀδελφήν; καὶ ταῦτα εἰδὼς τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον ἄτοκον οὖσαν
αὐτὴν κ.τ.λ.
17-27 But perhaps Pyrrhus blinded by passion did marry a woman
of this character. What is the evidence? What are the probabilities?
Nicodemus actually pretends that he brought one witness only, Pyretides,
to attend a transaction of such importance as the betrothal of his sister
to a wealthy man! And Xenocles did not produce this witness at the
previous trial, but put in an èkµaptvpía, which was attested by two casual
witnesses, whom nobody would believe, and has not been acknowledged
by Pyretides. On the other side Pyrrhus' three uncles declare that they were
invited to be present. Can you believe that Pyrrhus would have summoned
relations to witness his betrothal to an éraípa?
An obvious defect in the argument up to this point is that Pyrrhus might
conceivably have married Nicodemus' sister, even if the description given of
her be sober truth. To prove that he did not is no easy matter. The
alleged betrothal (èyyúŋois) took place more than twenty years ago, and
a betrothal was a transaction essentially private and domestic; it does
not appear that the wedding-feast, and the home-bringing of the bride, and
various archaic marriage customs had any legal significance, except as the
natural consequences of the formal contract. Pyrrhus, too, on his nephew's
own showing (§ 13), was not a model of respectability and might have been
careless of public opinion. Lastly, the witnesses, Pyretides and Pyrrhus'
three uncles, are on the side of Nicodemus. Isaeus' treatment of the
difficulty is characteristic of the forensic art of his age. He asserts that
Pyretides refused to acknowledge the deposition attributed to him, but calls
no witnesses in proof of the assertion. Why is not Pyretides himself pro-
duced? Was there no way of inducing him to repudiate publicly an im-
pudent fraud? His disavowal is a fact of such capital importance that,
if made at all, it ought to have been, and, I suspect, could have been,
established. Nicodemus' credit would have been ruined by testimony from
Pyretides, given in or out of court, that his name had been used without his
knowledge, that he had given no such deposition, and had not been present
at the betrothal. In default of a damning revelation of this sort one might
have expected that the advocate would be at pains to demonstrate by
evidence the notoriously bad character of Dionysius and Aristolochus, the
two witnesses to the exµaprvpía. He attempts nothing of the kind (§ 23.
7 n.), but falls back on reasoning from probability. And what reasoning!
His argument, stripped of all disguise, is nothing but this: Pyretides'
deposition is not a true and genuine deposition, because there are only
two witnesses and these not friends and connexions of Xenocles. Such
is the 'art' of the rhetorical hand-books, which drew down the scathing
scorn of Plato. If the witnesses are strangers, you are instructed to argue,
according to the needs of your case, either that friends and relations refused
to perjure themselves for the benefit of the litigant ([Dem.] 49. 37), or that
strangers would never expose themselves to risks to gratify a man they did
not know (Dem. 54. 32). If the witnesses are not strangers, the rule is to say
that it is easy for a man to get his friends to conspire against an enemy
300
OR. III.
ISAEUS
([Dem.] 52. 17, 22, Dem. 54. 33). The objection against the evidence of
Pyrrhus' uncles is of the same consistency (§ 27. 3, 4 n.). For commonplaces
on the subject of evidence see Ar. Rhet. I. 15, Quintil. v. 7, and other references
in Volkmann, Rhetorik² p. 187 sqq.
17. 1, 2 ἤδη γάρ τινες κ.τ.λ. The line of attack suggested by this
remark is not pursued. There is no attempt anywhere in the speech to
show that Pyrrhus' age, character, and reputation were such as to make the
marriage improbable.
4 TOLOÛTÓν TI aμapтeîv. Apollodorus in [Dem.] 59 alleges that Stephanus
τοιοῦτόν τι ἐξαμαρτεῖν.
and Neaera, described as a éraípa of servile origin, lived together as man
and wife. The statements found in Athenaeus that Themistocles (Ath. 13.
37, 576 c; cp. Plut. Amat. 753 D), Timotheus son of Conon (ib. 13. 38,
577 A), and Demeas son of Demades (ib. 13. 61, 591 F) were children of
Éraîpaι, look like figments of comic writers or orators. To accuse an
opponent of having a family by an ἑταίρα (παιδοποιεῖσθαι ἐξ ἑταίρας) was one
of the recognised topics of political invective (Aesch. 2. 177, Dem. 22. 61,
[Dem.] 25. 80, Din. 1. 71). In the thirteenth book of Athenaeus the charge
is levelled against Aristophon (c. 38, 577 B), Sophocles (c. 61, 592 A; cp.
Schol. Arist. Ran. 78, Vit. Soph. Westermann, Bɩoyρápoɩ, p. 129, 53), Isocrates
(c. 62, 592 D; cp. Vitt. x. Orat. 839 B), Demosthenes (c. 63, 592 EF), and
Aristotle (c. 56, 589 C).
5, 6 τῶν τούτοις μεμαρτυρημένων. "TOÚTOιs uerte ab his, sed quinam hi?
Dele uocem " (Dobree, Adv. 1. p. 290). With Schoemann I take rоÚTOIS
(Xenocles and his friends) as a datiuus commodi.
18.5 ĚKµаρтupíav, a deposition 'out of court'i.e. of a person sick or
abroad or about to go abroad, and, consequently, unable to attend either the
trial or the preliminary investigation. Such evidence was taken down in
writing in the presence of witnesses, who were called at the trial to testify
that the document produced and read was a faithful and authentic statement
of the deposition. See Aesch. 2. 19 τὴν ἐκμαρτυρίαν ἀνάγνωθι τὴν ᾿Αριστο-
δήμου καὶ κάλει πρὸς οὓς ἐξεμαρτύρησεν. The form of an ἐκμαρτυρία is shown
by the documents in [Dem.] 35. 20, 34, as explained by Drerup, Jahrbb.
f. cl. Philol. Supplementband 24, p. 318 sqq. ; we find here after a deposition
cast in the usual shape (Ιππίας ᾿Αθηνίππου Αλικαρνασσεὺς μαρτυρεῖ κ.τ.λ.)
the words πρὸς τούσδ᾽ ἐξεμαρτύρησεν followed by five names in the nominative
i.e. by the names of the five witnesses present when the deposition was
taken. Part of the law on the subject is preserved in [Dem.] 46. 8 åkoŋv
εἶναι μαρτυρεῖν τεθνεῶτος, ἐκμαρτυρίαν δὲ ὑπερορίου καὶ ἀδυνάτου. Cp. Dinarch.
fr. Lx. 1 (Saupp.) αναγνώσεται δὲ τῶν μὲν ἐπιδημούντων τὰς μαρτυρίας, τῶν δὲ
ἀποδημούντων τὰς ἐκμαρτυρίας. Isaeus expresses 'I get a deposition from
a man unable to appears by ἐκμαρτυρίαν παρά τινος ποιοῦμαι (§§ 20, 21, 23,
24) or eκμаρтuрοûµаι τηv µаprvpíav (§ 25), and 'in the presence of two
witnesses' by μeтà dvoîv (§§ 21, 23) or πρòs dúo (§ 25). To testify to
the genuineness of such a deposition is μαρτυρεῖν τὴν ἐκμαρτυρίαν (Dem.
46. 7). For éyμaprupíaι at Cnidus see Ancient Greek Inscr. in the Brit.
Mus. II. 299, 24 sqq. (Michel n. I34o, S. I. G. 2. 512) Toi sè a vaToi tu
μαρτύρων παραγενέσθαι ἐπὶ τὸ δικαστήριον ἐγμαρτυρησάντω ἐπὶ τῶν προστατᾶν
ἐν ἑκατέρᾳ τῇ πόλι...παρεύντων τῶν ἀντιδίκων, εἴ κα χρείζωντι παρῆμεν, τοὶ δὲ
Tậ
2
OR. III.
3ΟΙ
COMMENTARY
μάρτυρες ποτομνύντω τὸν νόμιμον ὅρκον ἐπὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἀλαθέα μαρτυρεῖν
καὶ μὴ δυνατοὶ ἦμεν παραγενέσθαι, Inscr. Jurid. Gr. I. p. 174.
6 ἀναδέδεκται. Cp. [Dem.] 46. 7 καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς ἐπισκήψεως (οἱ νόμοι
κελεύουσιν) τήν τε μαρτυρίαν καὶ ἐκμαρτυρίαν ἀγωνίζεσθαι ἅμα, ἵν᾽ ἐὰν μὲν
ἀναδέχηται ὁ ἐκμαρτυρήσας, ἐκεῖνος ὑπόδικος ᾖ τῶν ψευδομαρτυρίων, ἐὰν δὲ μή
ἀναδέχηται, οἱ μαρτυρήσαντες τὴν ἐκμαρτυρίαν. There is ground for suspecting
the assertion that Pyretides has not acknowledged the deposition attributed
to him.
If he was now out of the country, the speaker could safely say
what he liked. If on the other hand he was still in Athens (§ 23) but
unable to appear in court, surely he could have been made to give another
ἐκμαρτυρία. It is remarkable that no evidence is brought to prove that
Pyretides disavowed his deposition and threw over Nicodemus. How the
topic of the absence of witnesses could be handled by the opponents, may be
gathered from Dem. 30. 20 sqq.
19. 1, 2 ψευδὴ τὴν μαρτυρίαν. The deposition must be that attributed
to Pyretides. The choice of the epithet, ψευδής, springs from a desire to
confuse two distinct questions, viz. whether Pyretides really gave such
It is
a deposition, and whether the statements put in his mouth were true.
natural to describe a forged will as a 'false' will (IX. 2, 7, 31, IV. 18. 4 n.
(ἀληθεῖς), Dem. 45. 11, 18, [Dem.] 43. 4; cp. [Dem.] 46. 18 κατεσκευασμένης
διαθήκης ψευδὴς μάρτυς, ib. § 19 μάρτυρας ψευδεῖς καὶ διαθήκας οὐκ οὔσας); it is
not so natural to use the phrase ψευδής μαρτυρία to signify nothing more than
a 'spurious deposition.' No doubt on the prosecutor's theory this particular
deposition may be fairly called 'false, in so far as it opened with Πυρετίδης
μαρτυρεί, and probably ended with πρὸς τούσδε ἐξεμαρτύρησεν, but the orator
does not wish to draw the attention of the judges to this distinction, but to
discredit the whole document. See § 24. 6, 7 n.
3 προδήλους. For the contrast with τῶν ἀδήλων καὶ ἐξαίφνης γιγνομένων
cp. Ar. Nic. Eth. 3. 8. 1117 @ 11 sqq. ἀνδρειοτέρου δοκεῖ εἶναι τὸ ἐν τοῖς
αἰφνιδίοις φόβοις ἄφοβον καὶ ἀτάραχον εἶναι ἢ ἐν τοῖς προδήλοις......τὰ προφανῆ
μὲν γὰρ κἂν ἐκ λογισμοῦ καὶ λόγου τις προέλοιτο, τὰ δ᾽ ἐξαίφνης κατὰ τὴν ἕξιν.
The antithesis is different in Plut. Timol. 14 (Dionysius in exile) οἱ πρὸς τὴν
μεταβολὴν τρεπόμενοι καὶ συμπαθοῦντες ἐθεῶντο πολλὴν ἐν ἀσθενέσι τοῖς ἀνθρω
πίνοις καὶ προδήλοις τὴν τῶν ἀδήλων καὶ θείων δύναμιν. The fundamental
meaning of πρόδηλος is not clear or manifest beforehand (Liddell and
Scott) but clearly visible in front (Dem. 15. 30 τοὺς προδήλους ἐχθροὺς), and,
by metaphor, with reference to approaching events, 'in prospect' and so
'foreseen' (VI. 2. I, VII. 31. 1, Ant.. Tetr. I. B. 3, Isocr. 10. 20, 40, Dem. 18.
196, 199, 21. 66, 23. 42, [Dem.] 56. 18, prooem. 30. 1, Aesch. 1. 69, 2. 132, 3.
90, 152). But in many passages the word is nothing more than an ex-
aggerated δῆλος (Dem. 25. 50 πρόδηλος ὢν ὅτι τοιοῦτός ἐστι τῷ βίῳ, 16. 26,
23. 50, Isocr. 6. 37, 14. 36, Hyp. 6. 8).
<
7 ἕκαστοι ποιούμεθα, an alternative expression to ἕκαστος ἡμῶν παρακαλεῖ
(§ 20. 6). Naber's ἑκάστοτε is wrong. See I. 33. I n., Isocr. II. 20 ἕκαστοι
τὴν αὑτῶν ἔχοντες εὐδαιμόνως ἂν τὸν βίον διατελοίμεν, Dem. 28. 10 πάντες δὲ
κοινῇ μὲ ἐπιτροπεύσαντες, ἰδίᾳ μετὰ ταῦθ᾽ ἕκαστοι μηχανᾶσθε, Χen. Cyr. 4. 2. 23
παρ' ἐμοὶ μὲν καταλίπετε ἕκαστοι τάξιν ἱππέων.
20. I ἐπὶ μὲν ταῖς μαρτυρίαις αὐταῖς. No real antithesis follows.
302
OR. III.
ISAEUS
Depositions in court (uapropia) may be opposed to depositions out of court
(ékµaprvpíai). This is not the speaker's purpose; he wishes to contrast
witnesses to an unexpected incident, whose number and quality are beyond
the control of litigants, with witnesses summoned to attend a legal ceremony
such as e.g. the taking of a deposition out of court. The clause is nothing
but a restatement of the thought expressed more clearly in the preceding
sentence (Tŵv dè ådŋdwv k.t.d.), but this is not a reason for suspecting the
soundness of the text, as Reiske does.
4 ἀποδημεῖν μελλόντων. It must not be inferred that ἐκμαρτυρίαι were
not procured from persons abroad at the time when the parties were
collecting evidence. The orator's argument would be ruined, if he had said
ὑπερορίων οι ἀποδημούντων.
5 Tоùs vμîv уvæрμштáтоνя. Bekker, Schoemann, the Zürich editors, and
Scheibe read quiv. Buermann first discovered that this was an 'emenda-
tion' of A2.
π
21.3 ¿§î. Dobree's correction here and in 1. 5 (Tɩσteúŋte) must be
accepted, because no satisfactory explanation of the anomalous optatives has
been produced. Kühner (Gr. Gramm. II. § 553, 4 b) discovers in Toloúμela a
reference to the past as well as to the present (Wir machen und machten
stäts die Zeugnisse). See Goodwin, M. & T. §§ 322, 323, and for the difficult
optative (vπápxo) in Dem. 3. 34 Sandys' note ad loc. In Isocr. 5. 154
(λοιπὸν οὖν ἐστὶ τὰ προειρημένα συναγαγεῖν, ἵν᾽ ὡς ἐν ἐλαχίστοις κατίδοις τὸ
κεφάλαιον τῶν συμβεβουλευμένων) Baiter's easy emendation κατίδης is adopted
by Blass. The Zürich editors justly suspect µéλλoɩ in Isocr. 2. 25.
Βήσαζε.
ιν
>
с
22. 1 Bńoale. Besa, a deme of the tribe Antiochis, is mentioned in
the registers of mines leased by the πωληταί (C. I. A. II. 782, 10 ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ
Bηoace pé[povoa). Xenophon (De Vect. 4. 44) recommends the construction
of a fort 'on the highest part of Besa,' which should be half way between the
fort at Anaphlystus on the West, and the fort at Thoricus on the East, and
complete the defences of the mining district. The site is probably the
modern Syntérini; 'the col leading from Synterini to Camareza is easily
defended, and the height which rises near Ripari is very suitable for a fort'
(Ardaillon, Les Mines du Laurion p. 212, with map).
Tò Épyaστýpιov. The 'factory' of a miner was a building or group of
buildings furnished with mortars and mills for crushing the ore, with
apparatus for washing out the precious metal (καθαριστήρια, κεγχρεῶνες),
and with furnaces for smelting (κáμivoi). For a description of the processes
required, first, to extract the argentiferous lead, secondly, to separate the
silver, see Ardaillon, op. cit. c. IV. p. 59 sqq. A 'factory' was private property
(C. I. A. II. 783, 13 ᾿Αντιδότου ἐργαστήριον, ib. 782 b 5 p. 513 ἐργαστήριον τὸ
Niki[ov), could be sold (Aesch. 1. 101), mortgaged (Dem. 37. 4), and inherited
(Aesch. 1. 101, and below ll. 3, 4 n.). The mines (µéraλλa), on the other hand,
belonged to the state, and were leased to private individuals or to companies.
for short terms ('Αθ. Πολ. 47. 2 τά τ᾽ ἐργάσιμα τὰ εἰς τρία ἔτη πεπραμένα καὶ
тà σvукexwрημéva rà eis (Blass) [T] TETрauéva). Lipsius (Att. Proc.2
p. 1019 sqq.) argues that there were private mines as well as state mines
(Hyp. 3. 36 οἱ δικασταὶ... ἔγνωσαν ἴδιον εἶναι τὸ μέταλλον). Francotte, Lin-
dustrie dans la Grèce ancienne II. p. 185, agrees with Lipsius, and contends that
α
OR. III.
303
COMMENTARY
in Dem. 37. 4 the word épyaσrnpiov includes the mine itself. In the few records.
that have been preserved (C. I. A. II. 780 sqq., IV. 2. 1078 d, Bull. Corr.
Hell. 18, 1894, p. 532) the majority of the mines are named from deities (rò
᾿Αθηναϊκόν, τὸ ᾿Αρτεμισιακόν, τὸ ᾿Αφροδισιακόν, τὸ Δημητριακόν, τὸ ᾿Απολλω
viakóv, tò ‘Epµaiïkóv, tò IIoσeidwviakóv), but a few of the titles are patronymics
which may be derived from the first adventurer (τὸ Διφίλειον καλούμενον, τὸ
Λευκίππειον, τὸ Κτησιακόν, τὸ Φιλημονιακόν), and one is topographical (τὸ
Προσπαλτιακόν).
2 τὰ ἔργα. The full official phrase is τὰ ἔργα τὰ ἀργύρεια (formula of oath
in [Dem.] 42. 18 ἀποφανῶ τὴν οὐσίαν τὴν ἐμαυτοῦ ὀρθῶς καὶ δικαίως, πλὴν τῶν
ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς ἀργυρείοις, ὅσα οἱ νόμοι ἀτελῆ πεποιήκασιν), but the adjective
could be dropped (Dem. 37. 4, [Dem.] 42. 3, 17, 21, 23, Hyp. 2. 1), unless
there was danger of confusion (Dem. 21. 167, [Dem.] 42. 20, Hyp. Fr. vII.
29 Blass, Xen. De Vect. 4. 5 roîs ȧpyvpeiois épyois). The orators have also tà
ȧpyúpeia (Dem. 23. 146, Aesch. 1. 101, 105).
-
3, 4 Teρì Tηs égaywyns. The 'factory' probably was part of Pyrrhus' estate.
The speaker calls it 'our factory'; in other words, after Endius' death his
mother and her family were in occupation. Xenocles acting for his wife, as
Pyrrhus' legitimate daughter, and availing himself of the rights granted by
Athenian law to heredes sui,' sought to take possession of her paternal
inheritance by formal entry (eµßáтevois), and prudently brought witnesses
with him from Athens; mining establishments were worked by slaves, whose
evidence was not admissible. Two points in this business are left in dark-
ness. (1) Did Xenocles make this attempt before or after claiming the
estate at law? If Schoemann in his note on § 59 is right in concluding that
the procedure by way of èπidikaσia (§ 2) was chosen in consequence of the
failure of this èµßátevσis, Xenocles must have tried to seize the factory before
Endius was buried. Athenian funerals were generally on the next day but
one after the decease (Ant. 6. 34 Tŷ dè tρity ǹµépạ îì è¿eþépero, [Dem.] 43. 62;
cp. Plat. Laws 959 A тpitaía πρòs τò µvĤµa èkpopá), and it is said in § 57 that
Xenocles' appeal to the Archon was made 'instantly on the third day' (τpi™ŋ
nμépa evléws) after Endius' death. Consequently, on Schoemann's theory,
Xenocles behaved with extraordinary indecency (see VI. 39, IX. 3, 32, [Dem.]
44. 32, 48. 6), actually invading the estate during the solemn рółeσis, while
the late owner was lying dead in his house. The silence of the orator with
respect to this outrage on natural sentiments cannot be used as an argument,
since it is his cue to ignore this part of his adversaries' proceedings (§ 62),
but it is permissible to doubt whether Xenocles was guilty of such a blunder,
especially as no proof can be given that the attempt to dispossess his
opponents could not have been posterior to the visit to the Archon. When
property was at stake, Athenian litigants sometimes engaged in very irregular
transactions, if the orators are to be believed. The speaker of [Dem.] 44
admits that his own father, Aristodemus, though claiming as a collateral,
tried to 'enter on the property' in dispute (opeúeσdai eis tà krýµara) before
lodging a petition with the Archon (§ 32 sqq.); cp. IX. 3, X. 24, [Dem.]
48. 8. (2) The vagueness of the phrase, πepì tŷs égaywyŷs, may be designed.
The noun describes equally well the 'eviction' of Xenocles and the 'eviction'
of his opponents. In some passages (Dem. 30. 2, 4, 8, [Dem.] 44. 32 sqq.)
π
304
OR. III.
ISAEUS
the ‘eviction,' ¿§aywyń, is the act of the party in possession, and the person
6 evicted, ὁ ἐξαγόμενος, is the claimant using ἐμβάτευσις, whose remedy is an
'action for ejectment' (¿§oúλŋs díkŋ); and it is possible that Xenocles' aim
was to set on foot a prosecution of this kind; cp. § 62. The narrative in
Dem. 32. 17 sqq., where the dispute is about a cargo of corn, is desperately
obscure; see Philippi, Jahrbb. f. cl. Philol. 13, 1867, p. 577 sqq., Hug, Com-
mentatio de Pseudodem. or. adv. Zenothemin, Turici, 1871, Leist, Der attische
Eigentumsstreit p. 54 sqq., Thalheim, Hermes 23, 1881, p. 202 sqq. The
puzzle is to find out who was in possession. I am disposed to agree with
Thalheim (l.c. p. 207 sqq.) that Protus repelled an attempt of Zenothemis to
take possession, and was sued on a charge of eέoúλŋ, that before the trial
Protus left Athens, handing over the cargo to Demon, and that Zenothemis
then brought an action against Demon, who had also opposed his entry into
possession. The relation of the parties cannot be made out in Hyp. 2
col. 47 (45), 15 οὐκ ἔδει δήπου αὐτοὺς κωλύειν τοὺς ἐγγυτάτω γένους ἐξάγειν τὸν
Εὔφημον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐᾶν. On the other hand in v. 22. 5 (ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐξάγομεν) the
active verb is applied to the cousins of Dicaeogenes, who essayed to take
possession of some property, which Dicaeogenes had engaged to restore to
them under a compact made in court, and, by so doing, apparently brought
upon themselves a prosecution instituted by purchasers holding the said
property; see notes ad loc. None of these texts exhibits the formalities of
word or deed that determined the rôle of the two parties in the fictitious
struggle. Rules of some sort, and words of style, seem a natural develop-
ment in a procedure which had come to be nothing more than a joinder of
issue in a dispute about proprietary rights. Perhaps real or simulated
violence may have been required as a foundation of the subsequent action,
but symbolism is foreign to the Athenian law of the 4th century, and the
technicalities of a Roman 'deductio, quae moribus fit' with its 'uis ex
conuentu' must not be transported into Greece without clear evidence.
See Hofmann, Beiträge zur Geschichte des griech. u. röm. Rechts p. sqq.
ωπ
118
4 Διόφαντον τὸν Σφήττιον. Probably Diophantus the orator and politician
mentioned without the name of his deme in Dem. 19. 86, 198, 297, 20. 137,
Schol. Aesch. 3. 24. The identification rests on a comparison of [Dem.] 35. 6
and a note in Harpocration s.v. Meλávwπos. Androcles of Sphettus, the
speaker of [Dem.] 35 (c. 350 B.C.), refers to 'his friend Thrasymedes, the son
of the well-known Diophantus of Sphettus (ékeivov Toû Epηrríov), and his
brother Melanopus.' Harpocration says that Melanopus, the ambassador
attacked in Dem. 24. 12, 126, probably son of Laches, the general killed at
Mantinea in 418 B.C. (Thuc. 5. 74), was 'a connexion by marriage (Kndeotǹs)
(êŋdeorns)
of Diophantus the orator.' It is conjectured that Diophantus married a
sister of Melanopus and named his second son after his brother-in-law.
Aιópavтos Opaσvμndovs Σþýttios in C. I. A. II. 787 (end of 4th century) must
be his grandson (Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica 1. p. 297). Diophantus
was alive in 343 B.C., for Demosthenes in the speech on the Embassy
(19. 198) calls him as a witness. The fact that a politician (þýτwp) con-
ducted the defence in the previous trial suggests that Xenocles was a person
of some consideration. The site of Sphettus is disputed. It is placed by
Leake and Kastromenos (Die Demen von Attika p. 99) at Spata, by Bursian
OR. III.
305
COMMENTARY
(Geogr. v. Griechenland 1. p. 346) at Keratia, by Ross (Die Demen von
Attika p. 96) and Brückner (Athen. Mitteil. 16, 1891, p. 207 sqq.) to the
north of Anaphlystus (now Anavyso) at the modern Olympos, by Hanriot
(Recherches sur la Topographie des Dèmes p. 203), Milchhoefer (Berl.
Philol. Wochenschrift 12, 1892, pp. 30, 34), and Loeper (Athen. Mitteil. 17,
1892, p. 399) west of Koropi. What is certain is that it belonged to the
tribe Acamantis.
5, 6 Δωρόθεον τὸν Ἐλευσίνιον. Apollodorus in the speech against Neaera
([Dem.] 59. 39) delivered between 343 B.C. and 340 B.C. (Blass, Att. Ber.²
III. I, p. 536) narrates how soon after the battle of Leuctra, 371 B.C.,
Stephanus brought Neaera from Megara 'to the little house which he had
near the Whispering Hermes (Harp. s.v. ψιθυριστής· ἦν τις ᾿Αθήνησιν Ἑρμῆς
ovtw kaλoúμevos), between the house of Dorotheus of Eleusis and that of
Clinomachus.' Dorotheus was a man of substance, for in 357/6 B.C. he was
serving as a trierarch (C. I. A. II. 793 f 71). Phileas of Eleusis mentioned
in Dem. 37. 4, a speech not earlier than 346/5 B.C., seems to have been his
son (C. I. A. 111. 1656, Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica II. p. 352).
7, 8 σταδίους ἐγγὺς τριακοσίους. About 33 miles.
23. I Tηons. See Lobeck's note on Phrynichus Ecl. 110: µáµµŋv Týv
τοῦ πατρὸς ἢ μητρὸς μητέρα οὐ λέγουσιν οἱ ἀρχαῖοι ἀλλὰ τήθην, μάμμην δὲ καὶ
μαμμίον τὴν μητέρα. ἀπρεπὲς οὖν τὸ τὴν μάμμην ἐπὶ τῆς τήθης λέγειν, Β. U. G.
I. 19 (135 A.D.), col. II. 7. For the accent cp. Crit. Introd. p. xviii.
4 Ερχιέα. The deme Ερχία belonged to the inland trittys of the
tribe Aegeis. Milchhoefer (Untersuchungen über die Demenordnung des
Kleisthenes p. 14) places it at Spata, Loeper (Athen. Mitteil. 17, 1892,
P. 353) seeks it 4 kilometres to the north of Spata. Xenophon and Isocrates
were members of this deme.
5 Ailaλídny. The site of the deme Aiðaλída is not known. Milchhoefer
(op. cit. p. 20) and Loeper (op. cit. p. 386) both assign it to the inland trittys
of the tribe Leontis, but Milchhoefer identifies it with the village Chassia in
the Parnes range to the north-west of Acharnae, while Loeper puts it to the
south-east of Acharnae, on the right bank of the Cephissus.
6, 7 † τοιαῦτα μὲν τὰ τούτων †. If Buermann's correction (τοιαῦτα μετὰ
TоÚTwν) be accepted, the sentence is an abrupt outburst of indignation; Tolaûra
is to be taken as dependent on ποιήσασθαι, and τούτων refers to Dionysius
and Aristolochus. With no more than these two witnesses, here on the spot
(avrov) at Athens, they took, they say, the exμaprupía! A procedure of such
moment with these men as witnesses, whom nobody else would believe on
any subject whatsoever!' But the construction assigned to rolaûra is very
harsh, and the emphasis thrown on the word does not, in my opinion,
harmonise with the next sentence, lows yàp v K.T.λ. Dobree (Adv. I. p. 290),
who first proposed μετὰ for μὲν τά, conjectured that a verb governing τοιαῦτα
(e.g. ἀλλ' οὐκ ἂν διεπράξαντο) had fallen out. I have thought of καὶ ταῦτα
μETÀ TOLOÚTWV. 'They had only two witnesses, when it was easy to get more,
and these men of no character.' Cp. [Dem.] 40. 28 woπep kλntĤpes, dúo µóvoi
ὄντες μαρτυροῦσι, 47. 11 οὗτοι γάρ, εἴπερ ἀληθῆ ἦν ἅ φασι προκαλέσασθαι τὸν
Θεόφημον, οὐκ ἂν δήπου δύο μόνους μάρτυρας ἐποιήσαντο κηδεστὴν καὶ ἀδελφόν,
τοὺς τἀληθῆ μαρτυροῦντας, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλους ἂν πολλούς. ἡ μὲν γὰρ δίαιτα ἐν τῇ
W. I.
ñu
20
306
OR. III.
ISAEUS
ἡλιαίᾳ ἦν. τῶν δὲ τοιούτων προκλήσεων...πολλοὶ προΐστανται ἐπακούοντες τῶν
λεγομένων, ὥστε οὐκ ἂν ἠπόρησαν μαρτύρων, εἴπερ καὶ ὁπωστιοῦν ἀληθὴς ἦν ἡ
μαρτυρία. Thalheim (Hermes 38, 1903, p. 458) proposes τοιαύτην μετὰ τούτων.
7 οἷς οὐδ᾽ ἂν κ.τ.λ. An Athenian advocate scatters recklessly remarks of
this kind. Cp. § 40. 2 n., Dem. 2. 5 τὸ μὲν οὖν ἐπίορκον κἄπιστον καλεῖν, ἄνευ
τοῦ τὰ πεπραγμένα δεικνύναι, λοιδορίαν εἶναί τις ἂν φήσειε κενὴν δικαίως, 57. 34
νῦν δὲ τούτων μὲν ἀπέδειξεν οὐδέν, λελοιδόρηκε δ᾽, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, οὐδὲν ὅ τι οὔ.
τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν ὁ συκοφάντης, αἰτιᾶσθαι μὲν πάντα, ἐξελέγξαι δὲ μηδέν, Gorg.
Pal. 29 λοιδορίαν οὐκ ἔχουσαν ἔλεγχον ὁ λόγος αὐτῷ δύναται, Polyb. 12. 8 (9)
δοκεῖ δή μοι τὰ τοιαῦτα μόλις <ἂν> ἄνθρωπος ἀγύρτης καὶ προπετὴς ἐπὶ
δικαστηρίου ῥιψολογῶν ἀνεκτὸς φανῆναι.
24. 6, 7 ἐπὶ ταύτην τὴν μαρτυρίαν, ‘to attend (as witnesses) this
deposition, i.e. that attributed to Pyretides. For ἀληθὴς see § 19. I n.
25. I καὶ μα Δία, a phrase savouring more of conversation than
argument, much affected by Xenophon (see Sturz, Lex. Χen.), found occa-
sionally in Plato (Ast cites only Rep. 3. 407 B, 8. 564 C), but nowhere in the
orators except in this speech (§§ 39. 3, 49. 7), although they use vaì without
the adjuration in answers, like Plato and the comedians (Lys. 22. 5, Dem. 23.
96, Din. 1. 7), and ναί, ἀλλὰ as a form of hypophora (Dem. 18. 251, 25. 72,
37. 36, Aesch. 3. 22, 28, 84, 168, Hyp. 4. 10 ; cp. And. 3. 26 ναί, φασί τινες, ἂν
Κόρινθόν τε φυλάττωμεν καὶ συμμάχους ἔχωμεν 'Αργείους, Aesch. 3. 48 ναι,
εἴ γε σέ τις ἄλλη πόλις στεφανοῖ). Ναὶ μά Δία, ‘aye, by Zeus, is necessarily
affirmative. Hence Cobet ejects val from Xen. Cyr. 5. Ι. 8 ἀλλὰ πάντως,
ἔφη, καὶ σὺ θέασαι αὐτήν. ὁ Κῦρος ἔφη, Ναὶ μά Δία, πολύ γε ἧττον, εἰ τοιαύτη
ἐστὶν οἵαν σὺ λέγεις. In Eur. Cycl. 558/9 (Κ. ἀπολεῖς· δὸς οὕτως. Σ. ναὶ μὰ
Δί᾽ οὐ πρὶν ἄν γέ σε | στέφανον ἴδω λαβόντα γεύσωμαί τέ τι) Wecklein suggests
où for vaí, which is not a plausible emendation.
2 ᾤμην. The tense has not been satisfactorily explained. In the
similar argument in § 39 the present is used (ναὶ μά Δία, ὡς ἔγωγ᾽ οἶμαι).
Schoemann observes that the imperfect is chosen here in preference to the
present to suggest the idea that the result has fallen out contrary to expecta-
tion, and cites ἡγούμην ΙΙ. I. I (see n.), ἐβουλόμην Χ. Ι. 1 (see n.), and ἠξίουν
Lys. 12. 37 (ἐγὼ τοίνυν ἠξίουν ἱκανὰ εἶναι τὰ κατηγορημένα). These examples
are not really analogous. In II. I. I and like cases there is always affirmation
of a past fact (‘I once thought so, but apparently I was wrong '); here we
are concerned only with the present, for the speaker was not consulted by
Xenocles, when he was getting up his case. The peculiar use of the
imperfect of verbs of wishing, without "v, and with a dependent infinitive
(see Goodwin, M. & T. § 425), cannot be extended at pleasure to a verb
of thinking in a parenthesis and unaccompanied by an infinitive. Either àv
should be inserted (‘I should have thought that he would have done so') or
οἶμαι restored on the hypothesis of grammatical assimilation (Crit. Introd.
p. xxxix).
3 ἐπιτυχόντας. Not identical in meaning with προστυχόντας in § 19. 7
and ἐντυχοῦσι in § 22. 3 (cp. ΙΧ. 12); the combination οἱ ἐπιτυχόντες is often
indistinguishable from οἱ τυχόντες, and describes quality. See Ant. Tetr. I.
α. 1 ὁπόσα μὲν τῶν πραγμάτων ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπιτυχόντων ἐπιβουλεύεται, οὐ χαλεπὰ
ἐλέγχεσθαί ἐστιν· ἂν δ᾽ οἱ ἱκανῶς μὲν πεφυκότες, ἔμπειροι δὲ πραγμάτων ὄντες,
Π
OR. III.
307
COMMENTARY
ἐν δὲ τούτῳ τῆς ἡλικίας καθεστῶτες ἐν ᾧ κράτιστοι φρονεῖν αὑτῶν εἰσί, πράσσωσι,
χαλεποὶ καὶ γνωσθῆναι καὶ ἐλεγχθῆναι εἰσι, [And.] 4. 37 ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἴσως μετὰ
μικρᾶς διαβολῆς ἢ φαύλων κατηγόρων ἢ διὰ τῶν ἐπιτυχόντων ἐχθρῶν ἐκινδύνευον,
ἀλλ᾽ οὐ διὰ τῶν ἐρρωμενεστάτων καὶ λέγειν καὶ πράττειν, ib. 26 τοῦτον ᾿Αλ-
κιβιάδης, πολίτην ὄντα καὶ <οὐ> τὸν ἐπιτυχόντα, ἀφελόμενος αὐτὸς ἠγωνίζετο,
[Dem.] 59. 73 ἃ δὲ μηδ᾽ ἀκοῦσαι πᾶσιν οἷόν τ᾽ ἐστί, πῶς ποιῆσαί γε τῇ ἐπιτυ-
Xovon evσeßâs exe; The convenient indefiniteness of the phrase, not dislike
of repetition, explains the selection of éπiruXóvTes here. The orator avoids
the statement that Dionysius and Aristolochus just met Xenocles in the
street; cp. § 23 τῶν μὲν οἰκείων οὐδένα τῶν ἑαυτοῦ παρακεκληκὼς φαίνεται,
Διονύσιον δὲ τὸν Ἐρχιέα καὶ ᾿Αριστόλοχον τὸν Αἰθαλίδην.
4 ékμaptupησáμevos. Buermann (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 360) proposes éκµap-
τυρήσασθαι, (1) because the clauses introduced by μὲν and δὲ ought to be
'similarly treated,' (2) because to supply paiveraι with ékµaptupηoáµevos is to
make the speaker admit the reality of the exµapтvpía. The corruption, he
suggests, was due to the influence of πapakaλéσas, the infinitive being
assimilated to the participle. These objections do not take into account
the tortuous ways of Isaeus. 'If the deposition (attributed to Pyretides)
had been genuine (ảλŋ¤ýs), Xenocles would have summoned all his friends
to witness it. We see that he did not (où roívvv paiverai), but that he took
this deposition in the presence of two casual witnesses.' This is very
confusing, since the orator is trying to prove that Pyretides gave no de-
position. But remember the difficulties with which Isaeus is struggling.
He asserts that Pyretides disclaimed the deposition, but he has not produced
him as a witness. Neither does he deliver a direct and sustained attack
upon the life and character of Dionysius and Aristolochus, in order to show
that they were persons likely to cooperate in a fraud. He begins (§ 19)
with a protracted comparison and contrast of exµapтvpíaι and other de-
positions. 'A man takes numerous friends to witness an important
deposition given out of court, he does not take two casual people whom
he does not know.' This sounds reasonable, but proves nothing, and implies
the existence of a deposition; compare IX. 7—13 analysis. Isaeus dares
not, and does not, say 'A deposition to which a litigant's friends are wit-
nesses, is a genuine deposition, whereas a deposition to which parties un-
connected with the litigant are witnesses, is a spurious deposition,' nor does
he wish to make himself ridiculous by laying down definitely the proposition
that when a man wants false witnesses to palm off a forged document,
he catches at the first people he comes across. The muddled argument
is designed to muddle the judges. As to the structure of the period, it
is undoubtedly clumsy to make the effect of paiveraι stop with the first
clause (ὁ μὲν Ξενοκλῆς κ.τ.λ.), but it is not less clumsy to make ἐκ μαρτυρήσασθαι
governed by oŋo at the end of the second clause.
26.2 μer aŬTOû. With Dyroff (Geschichte des Pronomen reflexivum
P. 388) I prefer here the reflexive: whether μετὰ αὑτοῦ or μεθ᾽ αὑτοῦ be
written, is indifferent (Crit. Introd. p. xx). For the difficulty about reflexive
constructions cp. II. II. 3 n.
3 ἐγγυήσεσθαι. Cp. V. 5. 2 n.
27.2 ¿yw µèv yáp. Cp. I. I. I N.
20-2
308
ISAEUS
OR. III.
3, 4 πάντας ἂν τοὺς οἰκείους λεληθέναι. If the witnesses had not been
relations, we should have had arguments similar to those in IX. 10, Dem.
39. 22 ἐτόλμα τοίνυν πρᾶγμα ἀναιδέστατον λέγειν, ὡς ὁ πατὴρ αὑτοῦ δεκάτην
ἐποίησεν ὥσπερ ἐμοῦ, καὶ τοὔνομα τοῦτ᾽ ἔθετο αὐτῷ, καὶ μάρτυράς τινας παρεί
χετο, οἷς ἐκεῖνος οὐδεπώποτε ὤφθη χρώμενος, [Dem.] 40. 28 εἰς τοῦτο τόλμης
ἥκει ὥστε φησὶ τὸν πατέρα μου δεκάτην ὑπὲρ αὑτοῦ ἑστιᾶσαι. καὶ περὶ τούτου
μόνον Τιμοκράτους καὶ Προμάχου ἐμβέβληται μαρτυρίας, οἳ οὔτε γένει προσήκουσί
μου τῷ πατρὶ οὐδὲν οὔτε φίλοι ἦσαν ἐκείνῳ.
4 ὁμολογεῖν, in the technical legal sense, as in XI. 33. 6 Hyp. 5. 13
ὁ νόμος λέγει, ὅσα ἂν ἕτερος ἑτέρῳ ὁμολογήσῃ, κύρια εἶναι, [Dem.] 56. 2 ὅσα ἄν
τις ἑκὼν ἕτερος ἑτέρῳ ὁμολογήσῃ, κύρια εἶναι, Din. 3. 4 ἐάν τις <ἑνὸς > ἐναντίον
τῶν πολιτῶν ὁμολογήσας τι παραβῇ, [Dem.] 42. 12, 47. 77, Plat. Symp. 196 C,
Laws 920 D. See Beauchet IV. p. 22 sqq.
28, 29 It is astonishing that, if there was a betrothal, no agreement
was made concerning a dowry.
A dowry was not a necessary condition of a valid marriage (see II. 5. 2 n.
and Beauchet 1. p. 253 sqq.), but respectable Athenians made sacrifices
to portion daughters or sisters, hoping to protect them against capricious
divorce and ill usage. In the present case both Nicodemus (§ 35) and
the witnesses summoned by Pyrrhus to attend the marriage contract (§ 29)
affirm that no dowry was given to Phile's mother. The omission might
fairly have been taken as a sign that Nicodemus was poor or careless of his
sister's welfare. But Isaeus, who has accused (§ 10) him of systematically
prostituting his sister, gives a new and surprising turn to the circumstance.
'If Pyrrhus had really been so enamoured as to be willing to marry
a woman of bad character, her brother would never have let slip such an
opportunity of benefiting himself by means of a fictitious dowry. This
he did not do. Therefore there was no marriage.' In §§ 28 and 29 the
orator is preparing the way for this remarkable argument, which is developed
more clearly in SS 35-39. But the conditions under which a fictitious dowry
was possible and probable are nowhere elucidated. Explicitness was out of
the question. Isaeus could not, with any plausibility, argue at length that,
if Pyrrhus had been so infatuated as to marry the woman, he would have
also entered into a contract, oral or written, with Nicodemus acknowledging
that he had received a dowry which had not been paid; the point is
despatched in a single sentence (§ 28. 7). On the other hand, it would have
been absurd to say that if Pyrrhus had really married her, Nicodemus would
have portioned her at his own expense, knowing that the connexion would
soon be dissolved (§ 28), and that he was sure to get back his money in the
end (§ 36). The truth is that, if the speaker's description of Nicodemus
sister is true, she was just the sort of person to be married without a dowry.
28. 1, 2 εἰ μηδεμίαν προῖκα μήθ' ὁ διδοὺς μήθ' ὁ λαμβάνων διωμολογήσαντο
Έξειν, an awkward combination of two constructions, (1) εἰ ὁ διδοὺς μὴ
διωμολογήσατο προῖκα τὸν λαμβάνοντα ἕξειν ἐπὶ τῇ γυναικὶ (§ 28. 7), (2) εἰ
ὁ λαμβάνων μὴ διωμολογήσατο προῖκα ἕξειν ἐπὶ τῇ γυναικὶ (§ 36. 4).
The reader is troubled by the feeling that εἰ διωμολογήσατο μηδεμίαν προῖκα
ἕξειν, if he entered into an agreement to receive no dowry, is not
identical with εἰ μὴ διωμολογήσατο προῖκα ἕξειν, ' if he did not enter into
OR. III.
309.
COMMENTARY
an agreement to receive a dowry.' Herwerden (Mnem. N. S. 9, 1881, p. 384)
would dispel the confusion by expunging gew. The accusative after
διομολογεῖσθαι is justified by [Dem.] 56. 5 διομολογησάμενοι τοὺς τόκους, and
Plat. Laws 953 Ε τὴν πρᾶξιν πᾶσαν διομολογούμενος ἐν συγγραφῇ καὶ ἐναντίον
μαρτύρων, but the removal of ἕξειν leaves ἐπὶ τῇ γυναικὶ high and dry.
TOÛTO µÈV…..TOÛTO Sé, found again in V. 41, XI. 30. The use of the idiom
in the Attic orators is much the same as in Herodotus, for whom see Stein
on 5. 45. Thus the complete antithesis, rOÛTO µÈV...TOÛTo dé, is found in Ant.
I. I, II, 5. 5, 11, 26, 31, 50, 52, 53, 67, 81, 83, And. 1. 103 (Toûto dè bis), 2. 16,
17, 3. 40, Isocr. 3. 23, 4. 21, Dem. 9. 11, 20. 59, 25. 38, [Dem.] 26. 5, 58. 15,
Lyc. 62. Toûтo μèv without the correlative roûro dè appears in Ant. I. 9,
Isocr. 9. 14, Dem. 9. 24, 22. 13, 23. 66, [Dem.] 33. 32; TOûTO dè without ToûTo
μèv stands in Ant. 5. 13, 69, 82 (Toûto dè bis), And. 3. 7 (after πрŵтоv µév),
Hyp. 3. 35 (after πрôтоv μév). It is noteworthy that Antiphon employs
the phrase only in the 1st and the 5th oration, and that it does not occur in
Lysias.
εἴ τινα κ.τ.λ.
eử tɩva édídov K.T.λ. As the witnesses declare that no dowry was given,
this sentence may be thought otiose. But Isaeus has in mind the contrast
between actual delivery of a dowry, which sometimes took place at the
éyyúnois (see the inscription from Myconus quoted in the next note), and
an agreement about delivery.
6
6-8 ἀργύριον διωμολογήσατο ἔχειν αὐτόν. Nicodemus would have made
an agreement with Pyrrhus to the effect that Pyrrhus had received money with
his wife.' The Greek formula for a receipt is óµodoyê exew, which is very
common in Egyptian papyri of the Roman period; see also Lys. 32. 20
óμodoynσas exew, Michel n. 1350, 23, 24=S. I. G.² n. 817, Inscr. Jurid. Gr. I.
p. 48 (register of dowries from Myconus, 3rd c. B.C.) Kτŋowvidns Aikainv
τὴν ἀδελφὴν ἐνηγγύησε Παππίᾳ γυναῖκα, καὶ προῖκα χιλίας ἀργυρίου καὶ ἐσθὴν
πεντακοσίων· τὴν ἐσθὴν ὡμολόγει ἔχειν Παππίας καὶ ἀργυρίου ἑκατὸν δραχμάς,
Teb. Pap. n. 104, 1 sqq. (92 B.C.) ὁμολογεῖ Φιλίσκος... Απολλωνίᾳ μετὰ κυρίου
τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτῆς ἔχειν παρ' αὐτῆς τάλαντα δύο καὶ δραχμὰς τετρακισχιλίας
τὴν διωμολογημένην αὐτῷ φερνήν. I have found no example of the accusative
and infinitive after διομολογεῖσθαι. Her werden's ἕξειν changes the sense
and injures the argument; Isaeus' drift is that Nicodemus would have got
Pyrrhus to acknowledge the receipt of money that had not been paid.
29. 5, 6 ἄνευ ὁμολογίας προικός. Nicodemus said that he betrothed his
sister 'without a dowry,' not 'without an agreement about a dowry.' For
the difference see § 35. 6, 7 n.
30-34 The evidence of Pyrrhus' three uncles, who pretend to have
witnessed the betrothal, is worthless. For they also assert that they were
present at the ceremony of naming the child, and that Pyrrhus called her
Cleitarete. But Xenocles, making a formal claim for her inheritance, styled
his wife Phile. It is plain that the uncles' story was manufactured for the
occasion.
The digression is calculated. The credit of Nicodemus and of his
witness, Pyretides, has been vigorously assailed, but the testimony of
Pyrrhus' uncles remains intact in spite of § 27, and apparently (see § 34.
4 n.) they had not been menaced with a prosecution for bearing false
310
OR. III.
ISAEUS
witness. The discrepancy on which the orator lays stress, does not, taken
by itself, appear enough to warrant his inference that the uncles had lied,
since the opponents might fairly retort that conspirators concocting false
evidence would have taken the simple precaution of agreeing about the
name. Nor was a change of name anything incredible, as is shown by the
familiar examples of Plato, Theophrastus, and Stesichorus. According to
the author of [Dem.] 59 Neaera's daughter was called, as a little child,
Strybele, but, when grown to womanhood, Phano (§§ 59, 121). Buermann
Jahrbb. f. cl. Philol. Supplementband 9, 1877/8, p. 640) points out that
Glycerium, the heroine of Terence's Andria, was named by her parents
Pasibula (l. 945 with Dziatzko's reading). If it be assumed that Cleitarete
had come to be called Phile in the family circle, Xenocles was well advised
in employing the name by which his wife was known to her friends. Note
that, if the infant had been introduced into Pyrrhus φρατρία (see § 76. 3 κ.),
Isaeus could hardly have dared to treat this point, as he does, since additional
and independent testimony might have been forthcoming.
30. I
ἐν τῇ δεκάτῃ. Children were commonly named on the tenth day
after birth, and this great occasion was celebrated by a sacrifice and feast,
to which relations and friends were invited. See Ar. Αν. 494 ἐς δεκάτην γάρ
ποτε παιδαρίου κληθεὶς ὑπέπινον ἐν ἄστει, ib. 922 οὐκ ἄρτι θύω τὴν δεκάτην
ταύτης ἐγώ, καὶ τοὔνομ᾿ ὥσπερ παιδίῳ νῦν δὴ θέμην, Εubulus ap. Athen. 15.
668 D (Kock, Com. Att. Fr. II. p. 165) εἶεν, γυναῖκες· νῦν ὅπως τὴν νύχθ᾽
ὅλην ἐν τῇ δεκάτῃ τοῦ παιδίου χορεύσετε, Harp. s.v. έβδομευομένου, Bekk.
An. Gr. I. p. 237. 26 s.v. δεκάτην ἑστιᾶσαι, Hesych. s.v. δεκάτην θύομεν,
Blümner-Hermann, Griech. Privataltert. p. 282, Beauchet I. p. 341 sqq.
The festival was evidence that the father recognised the legitimacy of
the child. Compare the argument of Mantitheus in Dem. 39. 22 (οὐκ ἂν
ἐποίησε δεκάτην οὐδεὶς παιδίου μὴ νομίζων αὑτοῦ δικαίως εἶναι) and [Dem.]
40. 28.
αν
1, 2 τῆς θυγατρὸς ἀποφανθείσης εἶναι. For the insinuation see § 15. 3 n.
and VI. 22. 6 ὡς ἐκ ταύτης παῖδας ἀποφανῶν καὶ εἰσποιήσων εἰς τὸν οἶκον
κ.τ.λ.
7 τῆς τήθης, the child's paternal grandmother, sister to the three
witnesses (§ 71). A good illustration of the practice of naming children
from relatives is furnished by [Dem.] 43. 74 ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἐπειδὴ ἐπεδικασάμην τῆς
τούτου μητρὸς καὶ ἐγένοντό μοι υἱεῖς μὲν τέτταρες, θυγάτηρ δὲ μία, τὰ ὀνόματα
ἐθέμην τούτοις, τῷ μὲν πρεσβυτάτῳ τὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἐμαυτοῦ ὄνομα, Σωσίαν,
ὥσπερ καὶ δίκαιόν ἐστι, καὶ ἀπέδωκα τῷ πρεσβυτάτῳ τοῦτο τὸ ὄνομα τῷ δὲ
μετ᾿ αὐτὸν γενομένῳ τούτῳ ἐθέμην Εὐβουλίδην, ὅπερ ἦν ὄνομα τῷ πατρὶ τῷ τῆς
μητρὸς τοῦ παιδὸς τουτουί· τῷ δὲ μετὰ τοῦτον Μενεσθέα ἐθέμην· καὶ γὰρ ὁ
Μενεσθεὺς οἰκεῖος ἦν τῆς ἐμῆς γυναικός· τῷ δὲ νεωτάτῳ ἐθέμην ὄνομα Καλ-
λίστρατον, ὃ ἦν ὄνομα τῷ πατρὶ τῷ τῆς ἐμῆς μητρός. Cp. II. 36. 3, Dem.
39. 27 ἀξιοῖ δ' αὐτὸς ὡς δὴ πρεσβύτερος ὢν τοὔνομ᾽ ἔχειν τὸ τοῦ πρὸς πατρὸς
πάππου, and Blümner-Hermann, op. cit. p. 284 π. Ι.
31. 2 ὀκτώ. This figure indicates that Phile was very young, when
Endius succeeded. Pyrrhus died 'more than twenty years' (§§ 1, 57) before
the trial, and his daughter might well have been married to Xenocles at the
age of 14. The wife of Ischomachus in Xenophon's Oeconomicus (7. 5) was
OR. III.
311
COMMENTARY
ग
not yet 15' at the time of her marriage. Demosthenes' sister was 5, when
her father died, and she was to be married to Demophon, ötav ýλıkiav ëx?,
τοῦτο δ᾽ ἔμελλεν εἰς ἔτος δέκατον γενήσεσθαι (Dem. 29. 43). Mantitheus in
[Dem.] 40. 4 sqq. appeals to the compassion of the judges on the ground
that he needs money to portion his daughter, who is 'now marriageable'
(éπíуaμos); the child was born 'not many years' (ib. § 13) before the death
of the speaker's father, Mantias, which took place 11 years before the
delivery of the speech (ib. §§ 3, 18). The code of Gortyn permits the
marriage of an ‘heiress” (πατρωιῶκος) as early as 12: ὀπυίεθαι δὲ δυοδεκα
Féria è πрeiуova (XII. 35). If Blass' brilliant restoration of 'A§. Пoλ. 56. 7
be accepted, a higher limit was fixed by law in the case of the Athenian
heiress: μισθοῖ δὲ (ὁ ἄρχων) καὶ τοὺς οἴκους τῶν ὀρφανῶν καὶ τῶν
ἐπι[κλήρων, ἕως ἂν τις τετταρ]ακαιδε[κέ]τις γένηται. Compare VI. 14. 8,
Blümner-Hermann, op. cit. p. 36 n. 1, Beauchet I. p. 160, and, for marriages
before puberty, Friedländer, Sittengesch. Roms» 1. p. 511 sqq.
T
3 eira. With Schoemann I consider the period interrogative. Cp. § 48.
I n. and IV. 29. 6 n.
32.4 λayxávwv aútŷ toû kλńpov. For the dative see § 60. 3, VI. 46. 2,
57. 7, 58. 3, ΧΙ. 19. 3, And. 1. 121 λαγχάνει τῷ ὑεῖ τῷ ἑαυτοῦ τῆς ἐπικλήρου,
Lys. 26. 21 ὃς αὐτῷ ἀπολογήσεται.
او
33.2 Toλλ tλéovt. Scheibe (praef. p. xxi) and Buermann (Hermes
19, 1884, p. 327) concur in thinking that Jenicke (Observ. in Isaeum p. 18
sqq.) has demonstrated that these words are sound and mean multo
potius. But Jenicke only proves that in certain places in Sophocles and
Thucydides λéov approximates in meaning to µâλλov: see the lexica of
Ellendt and Bétant. His examples from the orators are (1) Ant. 5. 44 kai
μὴν πολλῷ πλέον γε ἀγνοεῖν ἔστι νύκτωρ ἢ μεθ᾿ ἡμέραν, a corrupt passage,
where Blass now gives after Schoemann and Cobet πολλῷ <ἐπὶ> πλέον
γεγωνείν, and (2) Isocr. 15. 166 ἐμοὶ δὲ πολὺ πλείω καὶ κάλλιον ἐγκεκωμιακότι
καὶ τὴν πόλιν καὶ τοὺς προγόνους, which is irrelevant. In default of more
pertinent evidence Jenicke's interpretation must be rejected and, with it,
Buermann's proposal to insert γενομένης ἤδη or πρότερον οὐ after τοῦ κλήρου.
Reiske suggested πολλῷ ὕστερον, not supposing ὕστερον likely to generate
„λéov, but conjecturing that λéov had crept in from § 36. I, where his
authorities omitted opeλos. But, as Buermann (l. c.) observes, #оììậ
is fatal to this reading. How could the orator even pretend to find
in the discrepancy about the name plain proof that the story of the
dekάτŋ was made up 'long after the claim to the estate'? What
purpose was served by insisting on the length of the interval between
the presentation of the claim and the hearing of the action in which
the uncles appeared as witnesses? The difficulty in the way of re-
storation is the inconclusiveness of the reasoning. Isaeus argues that,
because the name Phile was entered on the claim, neither Xenocles nor
Nicodemus nor Phile's mother knew anything whatever about the name
Cleitarete. The assumption is convenient but unwarrantable. The circum-
, stance does not and cannot prove that Xenocles and the rest were at the
time unacquainted with the uncles' story, whether that story be considered
by the critic true or false. If it was true, it does not follow that Xenocles
312
OR. III.
ISAEUS
1
had no good reason for choosing the name Phile, but ought to have used the
name Cleitarete. If it was false, there is nothing extravagant in the supposi-
tion that the account was manufactured before the claim was made. Strict
logic does not conduct, as Isaeus would have the judges believe, to any
'obvious' conclusion, and the particular sophism which he judged most
effective, is matter of guesswork. The text gives little help. Corrupt it
certainly is, since, apart from the doubt about the use of λéοv, nobody
is now likely to acquiesce in the view of Meutzner and Jenicke that rês
λήξεως τοῦ κλήρου can stand as a 'causal genitive,' signifying 'propter
hereditatis petitionem.' Buermann's emendation rests on the belief that the
orator only asserted that the false testimony was arranged after Xenocles'
application to the Archon. But Isaeus might have preferred something
vaguer than this and said e.g. 'The events which according to their
testimony in court happened more than twenty years ago have been made
up in view of the claim to the estate' (τῆς λήξεως τοῦ κλήρου < ἕνεκα>
σúуkeiтαι). Dareste defends the MS. reading, and translates thus: N'est-il
pas évident, que les témoignages de ces hommes sur des faits déjà anciens
sont l'effet d'un concert frauduleux bien plus encore que la demande en
revendication de la succession? Isaeus, he thinks, simply meant to say:
there is fraud on one side or the other, and it is on the side of the uncles
rather than on the side of Xenocles. Thalheim accepts Reiske's correction.
34. I ó άvýp. The introduction here of Pyrrhus is so absurd that it is
surprising that editors before Buermann acquiesced in the MS. reading,
ỏ πаτηр. For repetitions in A see Crit. Introd. p. xxxvii.
οὐκ
oùк äv de. For the repetition of ầv cp. I. 46. 3 n.
&
1, 2 τὸ ὄνομα τῆς θυγατρός, ὥς φασι, τῆς αὐτῆς. I accept Sauppe's correction
of Tŷs avτoù; cp. § 31. 5. In delivery the speaker made a pause after ovoμa.
τῆς αὐτοῦ;
For the innuendo in s paσi see § 15. 3 n. Buermann (Hermes 19, 1884,
p. 350) ejects these words as an 'adscript,' declining however to pronounce
whether the note referred to wvóμŋvev or was appended to explain de, after
ἀνὴρ had been corrupted into πατήρ.
3 TOÚTWV, masculine, Pyrrhus' uncles. Their conduct is attacked again
in §§ 63-71. If a prosecution for bearing false witness had been hanging
over them, the speaker would not have failed to mention it here.
35-39 What did Nicodemus gain by giving his sister in marriage
without an agreement about the dowry? She might have been divorced at
any moment. Further, if she had died without a child-and he knew that
she had never borne one-by law her dowry would have fallen to him.
Nicodemus is not a man to put principle before money.
These sections are a repetition and expansion of the singular argument
begun in § 28, and interrupted by the digression of $$ 30-34. The blustering
language and the parade of 'the laws' (§ 35) are signals of weakness, and
little thought is needed to detect the hollowness of the contention that
Nicodemus would have bargained for a settlement before consenting to
betroth his sister to a rich man. Nicodemus' prospect of private profit
would have been remote, his only chance of getting the money lying in
the death of his sister without issue. A dowry, once constituted, whether
the payment was real or fictitious, was regarded as the wife's property and
OR. III.
313
COMMENTARY
passed to her heirs. The claims of her children preceded the claim of her
brother, and were only extinguished (1) by her refusal, on the death of
her husband, to accept a life of widowhood in his house, and (2) probably
(see Beauchet I. p. 321) by divorce or separation. If any of these con-
tingencies had occurred, or if Nicodemus' sister, being childless, had parted
from Pyrrhus in consequence of a divorce or separation, she would have
brought back her portion to the house of her brother, who was her kúpios,
and thus, no doubt, the money would have come under his control, but it
is dubious whether, as kúpios, he would have had, in the circumstances, a
legal right to anything more than the administration of the dowry, and it
is certain that it would have been considered his duty to do his best to
find his sister another husband, if she was of marriageable age. If Isaeus
could have proved that under the fiction of a dowry paid and received money
had been settled on the woman by Pyrrhus, he would have nimbly turned
round and argued that she must have been really a concubine, not a lawful
wife.
35. 2 φαίνεται περιφανώς κ.τ.λ. A clumsy collocation; the adverb be-
longs to τὰ ψευδή μεμαρτυρηκώς (§ 4. I n.).
6
3 OπOV уaρ K.T.λ. This overloaded period has naturally provoked attacks.
Dobree's hint (‘impedita est periodus, forsan luxata') has been taken up by
Albrecht (Hermes 18, 1883, p. 365), who finds the words éáv tis ti átíµntov
da vague, superfluous, and cumbrous in construction, and ejects them as ‘a
gloss.' They are much more like an extract from a law than an explanation
by a scholiast, and Lincke (De elocutione Isaei p. 27, n. 1) and Blass (Att.
Ber.² p. 511, n. 1) justly protest against reforming Isaeus' laxities of style.
As examples of diffuseness Lincke quotes III. 19, 40, 55, IV. 19, VII. 15,
VIII. II, and for the two conditional clauses VI. 9. The phrase ἕνεκα τοῦ
νόμου is a real difficulty. Reiske proposed ἕνεκα τοῦ γάμου, which he con-
toû
strued with do, and this has been accepted by Bekker, Schoemann, the
Zürich editors, and Blass. The change gives a fair sense and satisfies the
jurists, e.g. Dareste, Les Plaidoyers d'Isée p. 64, and Beauchet 1. p. 283,
but lacks palaeographical probability. Dobree's comment on the emendation
is a model of terseness and acumen : Male. éveka тoû vóμov optime se habet.
ἕνεκα του νόμου
Quantum ad legem attinet. As far as the law is any security.
Vide ipsum
Reisk. Ind. Dem.' Reiske's references are Dem. 3. 14, 9. 75 (a gloss now
expelled from the text), [Dem.] 10. 44, Dem. 20. 14, 24. 65; add Isocr. 7. 39,
15. 163. Buermann (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 353) detects in eveкα тoû vóμov
ἕνεκα τοῦ νόμου
an interpolated gloss on οὐκ ἔξεστι, urging that διὰ τὸν νόμον ought to have
been written as in IX. 2, XI. 22, which seems arbitrary, and that the position
of the words is impossible.
impossible. The vagaries of commentators, ancient and
modern, are incalculable, but it does not appear probable that any man
dealing with this sentence would have appended a marginal note on a phrase
so simple and common as oùкK EσTI. Taken in the sense suggested by
Dobree and approved by Scheibe the words éveka тoû vóμov are not otiose,
but point to the distinction between legal rights and friendly settlements;
objects not specifically included in the dowry were sometimes recovered, but
not by means of an appeal to law. The awkward position may be due to a
desire to separate the two conditional clauses and to mark the fact that the
314
OR. III.
ISAEUS
second is not dependent on the first. The natural place of such a qualification
would have been immediately after or before οὐκ ἔξεστι; compare Xen. Cyr.
3. 2. 30 ἐξέσται ἡμῖν ἐκείνου ἕνεκεν πρὸς τὸ ἡμέτερον συμφέρον πάντα τίθεσθαι,
Hiero 11. 10 ἐξείη μὲν ἄν σοι ἕνεκεν ἀσφαλείας, εἴ ποι βούλοιο, θεωρήσοντι
πορεύεσθαι, Plat. Phaed. 85 Β ἀλλὰ τούτου γ᾽ ἕνεκα λέγειν τε χρὴ καὶ ἐρωτᾶν
ὅ τι ἂν βούλησθε. The law limiting dowries, which Plutarch (Sol. 2o) attri-
butes to Solon, fell into desuetude, if it ever was enforced, for there is no trace
of any such restrictions at Athens in the age of the orators. Hence it is
not possible to connect ἕνεκα τοῦ νόμου (‘in view of the law) with ἐάν τις
dộ, and see in the clause an allusion to devices for evading a statute fixing a
maximum for dowries.
ἀτίμητον. The indefiniteness of this word in this place deserves
Albrecht's censure; see the preceding note. The point of importance is
not whether an article brought by the bride was valued at a certain sum,
but whether the agreement (ὁμολογία) made by the two parties declared it
to be part of the dowry; in which case it was naturally valued.
4, 5 ἀπολίπῃ ἐκπέμψῃ. See § 8. 5 n.
6 ἐν προικὶ τιμήσας. Cp. Dem. 41. 27 τούτῳ μὲν (Spudias, the husband)
ἐν ταῖς τετταράκοντα μναῖς (the dowry) ἐνετιμᾶτο τὰ χρυσία καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια τῶν
χιλίων, [Dem.] 47. 57 τὰ δ᾽ ἐκ τῆς ἄλλης οἰκίας ἐξέφερον σκεύη, ἀπαγορευούσης
τῆς γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσθαι αὐτοῖς καὶ λεγούσης ὅτι αὐτῆς εἴη ἐν τῇ προικὶ τετιμη-
μένα, Harp. s. v. ἐνετιμᾶτο· ὅταν ἐν εἴδεσί τισι λογίσηταί τις μέρος τι τοῦ ἀργυρίου,
τοῦτο λέγεται ὡς ἐνετιμήσατο. Probably people of moderate means generally
reckoned the trousseau of the bride as part of her dowry ; see VIII. 8. 2, and
the public register of dowries discovered at Myconus, S. I. G.2 n. 817 (Michel
n. 1350, Inscr. Jurid. Gr. I. p. 48 sqq.), e.g. 1. 16 sqq. Καλλίξενος τὴν θυγατέρα
Τιμηκράτην Ροδοκλεῖ καὶ πρ[οϊκ]α ἔδωκεν ἑπτακοσίας δραχμάς· τούτου ἐσθὴν
τριακοσίων· τὴν ἐσθὴν [καὶ] ἑκατὸν δραχμὰς ὡμολόγει ἔχειν Ῥοδοκλῆς, τῶν δὲ
τριακοσίων [δρα]χμῶν ὑπέθηκε Καλλίξενος Ροδοκλεῖ τὸ οἴκημα τὸ ἐμ πόλει, ᾧ
γείτων [ἡ οἰκία ἡ] Κτησιδήμου. At Massilia, where the law prescribed a
maximum for dowries, five χρυσοί were allowed for ἐσθὴς and five for
χρυσοῦς κόσμος (Strabo 4. I. 5, p. 181). An idea of the variety of articles
that might be comprised in a dowry is furnished by a Ptolemaic will from
the Fayoum, Mahaffy, The Flinders Petrie Papyri 11, 1893, p. 22. Peisias,
a Lycian, first divides his estate between his son Peisicrates and his wife
Axiothea, also a Lycian. He then continues, 1. 14 : ὅσα δὲ ᾽Αξιοθέα προσενή-
νεγται ἐμ φερνῇ καὶ περίεστιν, ἔχειν αὐτὴν καὶ μὴ μετεῖναι Πεισικράτει, ὅσα δ᾽ ἂν
μὴ περίῃ ἢ τετριμμένα ᾖ, ἀποδότω Πισικράτης ᾿Αξιοθέᾳ τιμὰς τὰς ὑπογεγραμμένας,
ὅσῳ ἂν ἔλασσον εὑρίσκωσιν. The subjoined list, which is hard to decipher
and incomplete, includes tunics (χιτῶνες) for men and women, summer
dresses (θέριστρα), an ἁπλοΐδιον, a man's girdle, women's shoes, ear-rings
(ἐνδια), a quantity of fine linen (σινδόνες ?) and soft wool (ἔρια μαλακά), a
knife (μάχαιρα), a bronze bowl (φιάλη), and a bronze wine-cooler (ψυκτήρ).
The sums appended range from i drachma for the man's girdle to 2oo dr.
for the wine-cooler; a 'new summer dress' is reckoned at 32 dr. The
marriage-contracts from the Fayoum edited by C. Wessely in the Corpus
Papyrorum Raineri 1. p. 121 sqq., though as late as the 2nd and 3rd century
A.D., help the imagination to fill up the picture of ancient life ; note n. xxvii,
OR. III.
315
COMMENTARY
5 sqq. ἔχειν τὸν Ἰσίδωρον παρὰ τοῦ Πασίωνος τοῦ καὶ Ἰσιδώρου [ἐπὶ τῇ ἐπιτρο-
πευομένῃ αὐτοῦ Θαισ]αρίῳ Ηρακλείδου παρθένῳ οὔσῃ συνερχομένῃ αὐτῷ πρὸς
γάμον φερ[νὴν χρυσ]οῦ μνα[ίαια τρία ἐν κ]οσμαρ[ίοις] καὶ ἱμάτια ἐν συντείμησι
δραχμῶν τριακοσίων (a list of clothes follows), ib. 1. 16 sqq. ἐὰν δὲ διαφορᾶς
αὐτοῖς γενομένης χωρίζωνται ἀπ᾽ ἀλ[λήλων οἱ γαμοῦντες, ἀπ]οδότω ὁ Ἰσίδωρος τὴν
προκειμένην φερνήν, τὸ μὲν χρυσίον ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς κοσμαρίοις καὶ ἴσῃ ὁλ[κῇ,
τὰ δὲ ἱμάτι]α σὺν τῇ ἴσῃ συντειμήσει, ἐγλογῆς αὐτῇ οὔσης ἤτοι τὰ ἱμάτια λαμβάνειν
καὶ τὸ ἅπαν ἐνεχθὲν ἐπὶ [τὸν γάμον ἢ τὴν ἴση]ν συντείμησιν, ἐπὶ μὲν τῆς ἀπο-
πομπῆς παραχρῆμα, ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς ἑκουσίου ἀπαλλ[αγῆς ἐν ἡ]μέραις [τριάκοντα ἀφ']
ἧς ἂν ἀπαιτήθῃ. The conditions of repayment in the event of divorce or
separation are illustrated by the contracts in B. U. G. I. 22. 183 (85 A.D.),
n. 251 (81 A.D.), n. 252 (98 A.D.), Oxy. Pap. II. n. 265 (81-95 A.D.), III.
n. 496 (127 A.D.), n. 497 (2nd c. A.D.), Teb. Pap. n. 104 (92 B.C.). With
regard to the constituent elements of a dowry at Athens and the legal
problems connected therewith, consult Beauchet I. pp. 289 sqq., 3oo sqq.
6, 7 ἄνευ ὁμολογίας προικός, a sophism. Substitute ἄνευ προικός, and
the argument vanishes. No Athenian judge could be expected to believe
a man, who pretended to have given his sister a dowry without protecting
her interests—and his own-by an agreement in due form.
But this was
not Nicodemus' pretension; he said he had not given any dowry at all.
7 περιφανώς belongs to ἐλέγχεται. See § 4. I 7., II. 17. 4, VI. 53. 2, And.
1. 24, Lys. 8. 12, 19. 4, 25. 14, Dem. 23. 206, [Dem.] 35. 27, 59. 72.
36. 2 εἰ... ἐκπέμψαι ὁπότε βούλοιτο τὴν γυναῖκα ἦν. Rosenberg (Jahrbb.
f. cl. Philol. 109, 1874, p. 334) produces passages to prove that the proper
place of r is at the beginning of the clause, immediately after el. Buermann
(Hermes 19, 342) accepts the transposition, and, to explain the displacement,
conjectures that in the archetype v stood in the margin or between the lines.
For this theory see Crit. Introd. pp. xxxviii, xxxix.
ν
4 διωμολογήσατο, sc. ὁ ἐγγυησάμενος (§ 28. 2).
7 ἄτοκον. See § 1 5. 3 κ.
ὁμολογηθείσης. Cp. Dem. 41. 26 οὐ δήπου δίκαιον ἐμὲ τὴν ὁμολογηθεῖσαν
προῖκα μὴ λαβεῖν, [Dem.] 56. 12 τοὺς τόκους ἠξιοῦμεν ἀπολαβεῖν τοὺς ἐξ ἀρχῆς
ὁμολογηθέντας, Plat. Laws 921 C.
8 γιγνομένης εἰς αὐτόν. The participle represents an Imperfect Indicative.
Hertlein (Hermes 13, 1878, p. 12) demands àv yevoµévŋs in § 38. 3, and
presumably would make the same change here; cp. IV. 23. 5, 6. The text
is defensible (I. 45. 2 n.), especially since γιγνομένης εἰς αὐτὸν conveys the
idea of rightful devolution (v. 44. 5, X. 26. 5, XI. 22. 5), and is equivalent
to καθηκούσης εἰς αὐτόν, ἐπιβαλλούσης αὐτῷ. The proper way to restore
a normal conditional sentence is to read εἴ τι πάθοι, which I prefer as
expressing Nicodemus' standpoint at the time of the marriage; ‘if she die
without bearing children, the dowry comes by law to me.' The indicative
(ἔπαθεν) obtrudes an idea better kept in the background: but she did not
die before the birth of children.' The plural, πaîdas, is part of a fixed phrase;
see VIII. 8. 4 καμὼν ἀποθνῄσκει, πρὶν αὐτῷ γενέσθαι παῖδας ἐκ τῆς ἡμετέρας
μητρός, Dem. 57. 43 παῖδας ποιησάμενος (when there was only one daughter).
37.2 ὥστε παραλιπεῖν ἄν, oratio obliqua for ὥστε παρέλιπεν ἄν. The
infinitive with av after σTe is rare in the orators. In Antiphon, Aeschines,
316
OR. III.
ISAEUS
Lycurgus, Hypereides, and Dinarchus the construction does not occur at all.
In oratio obliqua, or what may be considered equivalent to oratio obliqua,
it is found in § 39. 2, II. 43. 7, And. 2. 5, Lys. 18. 6, 34. 1, Isocr. 12. 20, 144,
19. 1, Dem. 14. 34, [Dem.] 47. 28, 52. 29. In oratio recta it is found in And.
I. 7, Lys. 12. I, 25. 15, Dem. 8. 35, [Dem.] 50. 59, 60, 52. 25, 53. I, 59. 8,
61. 8. Note that of the eight examples from Pseudo-Demosthenes six come
from speeches delivered, and perhaps written, by Apollodorus, son of
Pasion.
3 yw µév. Cp. I. I. I n.
5 ξενίας φεύγων. To be ‘prosecuted for alienage, and that by a member
of his own φρατρία, who would be credited with special knowledge of the
facts, was a serious matter for an Athenian, even if he were acquitted. Cp.
the attack on Pytheas in [Dem.] Ep. 3. 29 ὡς δοῦλον ἐλαυνόμενον καὶ γραφὴν
ξενίας φεύγοντα καὶ μικροῦ πραθέντα ὑπὸ τούτων οἷς νῦν ὑπηρετῶν τοὺς κατ'
ἐμοῦ λόγους ἔγραφεν, and the apprehensions of the claimant in VIII. 44 ὄνειδος
ἕξομεν, διότι ἠμφεσβητήθημεν. Any person, who, being an alien, acted as a
citizen, was liable to a terrible penalty; if convicted, he was sold as a slave
and his property was confiscated. Procedure was either by εἰσαγγελία or by
2 γραφή taken before the Thesmothetae ('Αθ. Πολ. 59. 3 εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ γραφαὶ
πρὸς αὐτοὺς τοὺς θεσμοθέτας) ὧν παράστασις (ΙΙΙ. 47. 4 κ.) τίθεται, ξενίας καὶ
δωροξενίας, ἄν τις δῶρα δοὺς ἀποφύγῃ τὴν ξενίαν). For the authorities and
further details with regard to this action see Att. Proc.2 p. 437 sqq. and the
commentators on 'Αθ. Πολ. 26. 4 Περικλέους εἰπόντος ἔγνωσαν μὴ μετέχειν τῆς
πόλεως, ὃς ἂν μὴ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ἀστοῖν ᾖ γεγονώς.
ὑπὸ ἑνὸς τῶν φρατέρων κ.τ.λ. ‘by one of the members of the φρατρία,
to which he pretends to belong.' 'One' is not here opposed to 'many,' nor
is the individual contrasted with the corporation. Cobet's correction TÓ
τινος is wrong. Throughout the whole of Greek literature, from Homer
(ΙΙ. 14. 275) to Alciphron (r. 3 ἤκουσα ἑνὸς τῶν ἐν τῇ ποικίλῃ διατριβόντων
ἀνυποδήτων), εἷς with a partitive genitive is used exactly as one of...
in English. Two types are very common, (1) where els is an attribute
of a proper name, as in Dem. 19. 140 Φίλων, εἷς τῶν πρέσβεων (cp. Aesch.
2. 64 ἀνὴρ ἀξιόλογος, εἷς τῶν πολιτευομένων, ᾿Αμύντωρ), (2) where εἷς is a
predicate, as in Dem. 19. 291 συγκατηγόρει μετ' ἐκείνου σοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐχθρῶν
τῶν σῶν εἷς ἐξητάζετο, Isocr. 20. 11 ὧν οὗτος εἷς ὢν τυγχάνει, 12. 225 ὧν μίαν
εἶναι, And. I. 41 ἕνα αὐτὸν ἡμῶν εἶναι. The third type, shown in the present
passage, is not so frequent in consequence of the competition of eis rɩs and
but parallels can easily be found. The orators alone supply the following;
And. 1. 11 θεράπων ὑμῖν ἐνθάδε ἑνὸς τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἀμύητος ὢν ἐρεῖ τὰ μυστήρια,
Isocr. 4. 111 ᾑροῦντο δὲ τῶν Εἱλώτων ἑνὶ δουλεύειν, 9. 26 εἷς τῶν δυναστευόντων
ἐπιβουλεύσας τὸν τύραννον ἀπέκτεινε, Dem. 21. 87 καὶ νῦν εἷς ᾿Αθηναίων, ὅτι
Μειδίας ἔρημον ὦφλε δίκην, ἁπάντων ἀπεστέρηται τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει, [Dem.] 35. 49
ἐγὼ δ᾽ εἰμὶ ἔμπορος καὶ σὺ ἀδελφὸς καὶ κληρονόμος ἑνὸς τῶν ἐμπόρων τοῦ λαβόντος
παρ᾽ ἡμῶν τὰ ἐμπορικὰ χρήματα, 48. 14 ἐν δὲ τῇ μερίδι τῇ τουτουὶ ἦν εἷς τῶν φαρ-
μακοτριβῶν, ὃν μάλιστ᾽ ἐνόμιζε πιστὸν ἑαυτῷ εἶναι ὁ Κόμων, Din. I. 63 ἐδέθη τῶν
ἀφ' Αρμοδίου γεγονότων εἷς κατὰ τὸ σὸν ψήφισμα. That an Athenian felt es in
this last construction to be an alternative to Tis, is proved by a sentence in
Aesch. . Ι. 180 δημηγοροῦντος γάρ τινος ἐν τῇ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων ἐκκλησίᾳ......
τις,
OR. III.
317
COMMENTARY
παρελθών τις τῶν γερόντων......τούτων εἷς, ὡς λέγεται, παρελθὼν ἰσχυρῶς ἐπέπληξε
τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις. In Aesch. I. 165 (ἀνὴρ εἷς τῶν πολιτῶν) one MS. has τις,
which Cobet accepts, but the same phrase recurs in I. 182. Observe that in
this idiom els is not identical with Tɩs. In sentences of the second type the
indefinite pronoun could not be substituted without altering the emphasis,
and in none of the types has the force of the numeral vanished entirely.
See W. Headlam, On editing Aeschylus p. 44 sqq., Blass, Gramm. d.
neutestamentl. Griech. § 45.
6 παρὰ τέτταρας ψήφους κ.τ.λ. ‘by four votes only was ' (not acquitted
but) 'received into the community, granted the status of a citizen'; as if
Nicodemus' civic rights had been created by the verdict, and not inherited
from his parents. See for the force of the aorist tense Dem. 45. 73 ἧς παρ'
ἡμῶν τύχης μέτεσχε, ταύτης ἡμῖν μὴ τολμῶν μεταδοῦναι, Lys. 18. 6 Νικήρατος...
συλληφθεὶς ὑπὸ τῶν τριάκοντα ἀπέθανεν, οὔτε γένει οὔτε οὐσίᾳ οὔτε ἡλικίᾳ δοκῶν
ἀνάξιος εἶναι τῆς πολιτείας μετασχεῖν (i.e. to be put on the list of the 3000,
Αθ. Πολ. 36. 2), 12. 66; for the meaning of the preposition Hyp. 3. 28
παρὰ δύο ψήφους απέφυγε, Dem. 23. 205 Κίμωνα...παρὰ τρεῖς μὲν ἀφεῖσαν
ψήφους τὸ μὴ θανάτῳ ζημιῶσαι, πεντήκοντα τάλαντα δ᾽ ἐξέπραξαν, 24. 138
Φίλιππον...μικροῦ μὲν ἀπεκτείνατε, χρημάτων δὲ πολλῶν αὐτοῦ ἐκείνου ἀντιτιμω‐
μένου παρ᾽ ὀλίγας ψήφους ἐτιμήσατε, 22. 3 ταῦτα μὲν (a γραφὴ ἀσεβείας and a
charge of parricide) οὐ παρὰ μικρὸν (by no narrow majority) αγωνιζόμενος
παρ᾽ ὑμῖν ἀπελυσάμην, ἀλλ᾿ ὥστε τὸ πεμπτὸν μέρος μὴ λαβεῖν τούτους τῶν
ψήφων. In these applications of παρὰ the idea of measure of difference
(Isocr. 8. 63 δεινὸν καὶ παρὰ πολὺ τῆς τῶν ἄλλων ἐξηλλαγμένον διανοίας) melts
into the idea of cause (Isocr. 3. 48 οὐ παρὰ τοῦτ᾽ ἐστίν, propter hoc), and we
cannot be sure, at any rate with regard to the first 3 instances, which notion
was prominent in the consciousness of the writer. The interaction of the
various uses of 'by' in English is similar; compare 'plural faith which is
too much by one' and 'he got in by one vote?'
The malignant insinuations of the orator should be contrasted with the
acts of Endius. If the Athenian parentage of Nicodemus and his sister had
really been uncertain, Endius ran no small risk in marrying Phile to
Xenocles. For, if Nicodemus' sister could be proved an alien, then Phile
ceased to be a citizen (πολίτις, ἀστή), unless she was born before 403 B.C.
(VIII. 43). This would be admitted even by Hruza and Beauchet, who
maintain that marriages between Athenians and aliens were not illegal.
Consequently, Endius would have been liable to the penalties of the statute
preserved in [Dem.] 59. 52 ἐὰν δέ τις ἐκδῷ ξένην γυναῖκα ἀνδρὶ ᾿Αθηναίῳ ὡς
ἑαυτῷ προσήκουσαν, ἄτιμος ἔστω, καὶ ἡ οὐσία αὐτοῦ δημοσία ἔστω, καὶ τοῦ ἑλόντος
τὸ τρίτον μέρος. γραφέσθων δὲ πρὸς τοὺς θεσμοθέτας οἷς ἔξεστι, καθάπερ τῆς
ξενίας. Moreover, if, as nearly all scholars believe, an Athenian could not
contract a valid marriage with a foreign woman, Phile's claims might have
been met by the menace of a prosecution under the law cited in [Dem.]
59. 16 ἐὰν δὲ ἁλῷ (ξένος ἀστῇ συνοικῶν), πεπράσθω καὶ αὐτὸς καὶ ἡ οὐσία αὐτοῦ,
καὶ τὸ τρίτον μέρος ἔστω τοῦ ἑλόντος. ἔστω δὲ καὶ ἐὰν ἡ ξένη τῷ ἀστῷ συνοικῇ
κατὰ ταὐτά, καὶ ὁ συνοικῶν τῇ ξένῃ τῇ ἁλούσῃ ὀφειλέτω χιλίας δραχμάς. It is
plain that this paragraph of the speech need not be taken seriously.
Cp.
Introd. p. 279.
C
318
OR. III.
ISAEUS
7 μαρτυρίαν, a deposition of some one present at the trial of Nicodemus
or aware otherwise of the facts. Court records, if kept, are never put in as
evidence by Athenian pleaders. Cp. §§ 43. 9, 53. 5, V. 6. 9, [Dem.] 43. 31
βούλομαι οὖν μάρτυρας παρασχέσθαι ὡς ἐνίκησε τοῦ κλήρου τοῦ ῾Αγνίου ἡ Εὐβου-
λίδου θυγάτηρ Φυλομάχη... ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ. μαρτυροῦσι παρεῖναι πρὸς τῷ διαιτητῇ
ἐπὶ Νικοφήμου ἄρχοντος, ὅτε ἐνίκησε Φυλομάχη ἡ Εὐβουλίδου θυγάτηρ τοῦ κλήρου
τοῦ ῾Αγνίου τοὺς ἀμφισβητοῦντας αὐτῇ πάντας.
38.4 τοὺς νόμους. Not one of these laws concerning the restitution of
dowries has been preserved. The passage in [Dem.] 59. 52 is a summary
rather than a quotation. For their general purport consult Att. Proc.²
p. 519 sqq., Beauchet I. p. 309 sqq., and the notes on $$ 9, 35.
39. I Sokeî av. Naber's alteration of av to ovv is unnecessary.
Asyndeton is common in cases like this. See § 7. 3 n. and Dem. 20. 79
δοκεῖ τισιν ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, οὗτος κ.τ.λ. (after a list of Chabrias
exploits read by the clerk). May not Isaeus have chosen av deliberately, to
avoid an exact repetition of the form already used in § 37. 1?
,
2 εἰ ἦν ἀληθὲς τὸ πράγμα. The generality of the phrase is an effect of art ;
the argument would have been less persuasive, if he had said 'if a contract
of marriage (ἐγγύη) had really been concluded, and well-nigh absurd, if he
had honestly stated Nicodemus' story that his sister was given in marriage
without a dowry.
αν
οὐκ ἄν. Cp. ΧΙ. 27. 4, ΙΧ. 17. 6 n. The negative of oratio recta is retained,
ὥστ᾽ οὐκ ἂν διακριβώσασθαι standing for ὥστ᾽ οὐκ ἂν διηκριβώσατο. See
Shilleto, Demosthenes, De Falsa Legatione, Appendix B, Goodwin,
Μ. & Τ. §§ 594-599, Gildersleeve, Am. Fourn. of Philol. 7, 1886, p. 174,
and contrast Lys. 34. 1 ἐνομίζομεν τὰς γεγενημένας συμφορὰς ἱκανὰ μνημεῖα τῇ
πόλει καταλελεῖφθαι, ὥστε μηδ᾽ ἂν τοὺς ἐπιγιγνομένους ἑτέρας πολιτείας
ἐπιθυμεῖν.
5 τὰς ἑαυτῶν, a characteristically vague phrase, which has given rise to
protracted debate. Literature provides examples of slaves (Ant. I. 14),
freedwomen (Neaera in [Dem.] 59), and freewomen of foreign origin (e.g.
Theoris, Athen. 13. 61, 592 A, Westermann, Βιογράφοι p. 129, 53, and Phila,
Athen. 13. 58, 590 CD, [Plut.] Vitt. X. Or. 849 D), living in concubinage
with Athenian citizens, and we may hazard a guess that the majority of
concubines at Athens were drawn from these three classes of women, who
were debarred by law from the privilege of conubium.
But the present
(
speech and the works of the comedians (see Antiphanes ap. Athen. 13. 29,
572 A, Kock, Com. Att. Fr. 11. p. 103) suffice to show that Athenian women
sometimes become ἑταῖραι, and, if ἑταῖραι, παλλακαὶ also, since a ἑταίρα who
entered into permanent relations with one man and lived in his house, was
converted for a time into a παλλακή; thus Lagisca the ἑταίρα, when
received into Isocrates' house (εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν ἀναληφθεῖσα Athen. 13. 62,
592 D) was described by Strattis as 'Isocrates' concubine,' and 'Timandra
the ἑταίρα (Plut. Alc. 39; cp. Athen. 13. 34, 574 Ε δύο ἑταίρας περιήγετο
αἰεὶ ὁ ᾿Αλκιβιάδης) might equally well have been called by Plutarch
Alcibiades παλλακή. A sad lack of common-sense is shown by scholars
who insist on the distinction drawn by Apollodorus in [Dem.] 59. 122 τὰς
μὲν γὰρ ἑταίρας ἡδονῆς ἕνεκ᾽ ἔχομεν, τὰς δὲ παλλακὰς τῆς καθ' ἡμέραν θεραπείας
OR. III.
319
COMMENTARY
тоÛ σάμатos. Such a remark should not be quoted to demonstrate that a
concubine, even when free and of Athenian birth, was necessarily in a
menial and quasi-servile position. It has been supposed that concubines
who were citizens (πodíτides, àσraí), enjoyed at Athens rights denied to
concubines who, though free, were aliens. But no special laws can be
produced which defined and guaranteed the status of Athenian, as distin-
guished from foreign, concubines. Buermann's theory of 'legitimate concu-
binage' is now generally repudiated (Introd. p. 277), and the clause in Draco's
laws which alludes to concubines (Dem. 23. 53 ἐάν τις ἀποκτείνῃ ἐπὶ παλλακῇ
ἣν ἂν ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθέροις παισὶν ἔχῃ, τούτων ἕνεκα μὴ φεύγειν κτείναντα must be taken
to include free foreign women, until more cogent proof is offered that
éλeúdepos cannot in this place bear its usual sense, and must signify some-
thing else, e.g. 'with full civic rights.' See for the controversy on this point
Hruza II. p. 81, and for abnormal applications of éλeúßepos Introd. p. 281.
The difference which did exist lay in the social stigma. Few Athenian
women could ever have preferred concubinage to matrimony, so that con-
cubines of pure Athenian blood were probably in the main women sacrificed
by unprincipled relatives or destitute of friends and money; note the lines
of Antiphanes already referred to, ἐν γειτόνων αὐτῷ κατοικούσης τινὸς ¦ ἰδὼν
ἑταίρας εἰς ἔρωτ᾽ ἀφίκετο, ἀστῆς, ἐρήμου δ᾽ ἐπιτρόπου καὶ συγγενῶν.
We have then to examine what kind of concubine Isaeus has in view in
this sentence. Hruza (11. p. 83 sqq.), whose conclusions have been adopted
by Beauchet (1. p. 100 sqq.), contends that citizens (πoλítides) cannot be
meant, and that to ràs cautŵv it is necessary to supply in thought, not
θυγατέρας οι ἀδελφάς, but δούλας οι θεραπαίνας. (1) Women of Athenian
birth, he urges, must be excluded from consideration, because an Athenian
who disposed of a daughter or sister as a concubine not only outraged
public opinion, but broke the law, and was probably liable to the ypaþǹ
πрoɑywyeías, the action against procurers and procuresses (Aesch. 1. 14 éáv
τις ἐλεύθερον παῖδα ἢ γυναῖκα προαγωγεύῃ). This is not proved. Our records,
such as they are, contain, as Hruza admits, no traces of a penal law on the
subject. Neither is there any evidence that a father or brother in the
circumstances supposed could be prosecuted as a procurer.
In any case,
the crime, if crime it was, might have been committed in spite of the law,
and Isaeus might have founded an argument on the conduct of the criminals.
(2) The argument, it is said, is more telling, if the reference is to slaves.
Isaeus on this hypothesis was thinking of the precautions of a slave-owner,
а πоρνoßоσкós, who before letting out to a lover for a long period one of the
slaves of his establishment made a contract not only about the price he was
himself to receive, but about allowances for maintenance to be given to the
woman. These allowances (tà dolŋoóµeva), as well as the hire, would be a
source of profit to the master, especially if the woman remained in his
house, which, according to Hruza, usually happened. The words used (éπì
waddakiḍ didóvtes) seem singularly inappropriate to such an arrangement,
but the real issue is whether this interpretation adds force to the orator's
question. The antithesis, according to the new view, is this.
'Even men
who are letting out their slaves as concubines make an agreement beforehand
about the allowances to be given to the concubines, (which will come into the
320
OR. III.
ISAEUS
masters' pockets); did then Nicodemus, a venal and unscrupulous character,
give his sister in lawful marriage without making an agreement about
a dowry (which he had a prospect of getting for himself)?' To put it more
tersely, if even a leno takes good care of his own interests in letting out
a slave, a wicked brother will do the same in marrying his sister. This
comparison is not, in my opinion, more effective than a contrast between
Athenian women given as concubines and Athenian women given as wives.
The traditional way of taking the passage is not to be lightly set aside.
‘Even men who are giving their women-folk to be concubines make an
agreement beforehand about what is to be given to the concubines (in the
event of dismissal or of their partner's death); did then a man like
Nicodemus give his sister in lawful marriage without making an agreement
about a dowry?' Both arguments are utterly worthless, but the second is
more specious than the first, and also has the merit of fitting the words more
closely. Dobree in a note ignored by Scholefield suggests the omission of
ταῖς παλλακαῖς. But money given to indemnify a concubine on termination
of the connexion came under the control of her kúpios, if she had one, and
bore in this respect a superficial similarity to the dowry of a divorced wife.
The orator did not expect a cross-examination on the extent and nature of
the rights which such an agreement gave to the concubine and her repre-
sentatives, nor was he obliged to use in place of ràs éavrâv the phrase found
in a law ([Dem.] 59. 52) ràs éavroîs „poσŋkovσas. Only one detail of the
προσηκούσας.
ordinary explanation provokes a question. Why should the allusion be
limited to Athenian women? It is possible that some of the many aliens
domiciled in Attica may have been glad to see a daughter or sister settled
with a citizen, if her material interests were protected by a formal agreement.
The most recent speculations about the position of Taλλakaì at Athens will
be found in Müller, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des attischen Bürger-
und Eherechts, Fahrbb. f. cl. Philol. Supplementband 25, 1899, pp. 710–732.
He calls the adλakǹ Frau zur linken Hand, and is of opinion that it was
illegal to make an Athenian woman a яaλλaký, and that an Athenian citizen,
if he had a lawful wife, was not allowed by law to keep a шаλλaкý. Сp.
Introd. p. 279 sqq.
π
6 Νικόδημος δὲ κ.τ.λ. The sentence is strangely dislocated and wordy.
Μέλλων ἐγγυᾶν does not fit τὸ ἐγγυῆσαι διεπράξατο, but belongs to an un-
expressed thought. 'Did Nicodemus, when he was going, as he says, to
betroth his sister, [neglect to secure stipulations profitable to himself, and]
succeed in effecting only the act of betrothal required by law?' The active
infinitive with the article after dieπpáέaro is a round-about expression, of
which I can find only one example, Dem. 18. 93 où µóvov tò Xeppóvnσov kaì
Βυζάντιον σῶσαι, οὐδὲ τὸ κωλῦσαι τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον ὑπὸ Φιλίππῳ γενέσθαι τότε,
οὐδὲ τὸ τιμᾶσθαι τὴν πόλιν ἐκ τούτων ἡ προαίρεσις ἡ ἐμὴ καὶ ἡ πολίτεια διεπρά-
ξατο; contrast VI. 45 εἰ διεπράξαντο μισθωθῆναι τοὺς οἴκους, Dem. 23. 9
διαπράττονταί σφισι τοῦτο γενέσθαι τὸ προβούλευμα, Aesch. 3. 126 τὸ δ᾽ αὐτὸ
τοῦτο διεπράξατο ἐπιψηφισθῆναι. The translators smooth away the roughness.
Schoemann renders thus: Und Nicodémus, da er, nach seiner Behauptung,
seine Schwester zur rechtmässigen Ehe verloben wollte, sollte an nichts
Anderes gedacht haben als nur sie in gesetzmässiger Form zu verloben?
C
OR. III.
321
COMMENTARY
Dareste's version is as follows: Nicodème, au moment de donner sa sœur en
mariage, du moins à ce qu'il dit, se serait borné à accomplir les formalités
légales du mariage! Caccialanza translates µéλλov in the same way as
Dareste: Nicodemo nell' atto, com' ei dice, di collocare in legale matrimonio
la sorella sua, avrebbe pensato soltanto a fare le nozze in forma regolare?
The explanation of pov is to be sought in the preceding clause, oi éì
παλλακίᾳ διδόντες πρότερον διομολογοῦνται; Nicodemus too would have struck
a bargain before betrothing his sister.
8, 9 οὗ ἐπιθυμῶν λέγει πρὸς ὑμᾶς. The reference according to Reiske is
to activity as a hired advocate (Dem. 51. 16 èπì μolą ovvŋyopoûvtes, [Dem.]
46. 26, Lyc. 138). In the opinion of Schoemann, all that is meant is that
Xenocles had promised to pay Nicodemus for his evidence in the suit.
Isaeus more suo avoids making a precise charge which could be met and
confuted. Dobree compares Dem. 19. 200 οὐκ ἴσασιν οὗτοί σε......ταῖς ἀρχαῖς
ὑπογραμματεύοντα καὶ δυοῖν ἢ τριῶν δραχμῶν πονηρὸν ὄντα ;
40-44 The subsequent conduct of Nicodemus proves that his sister
was not married to Pyrrhus. For (1) if the daughter was legitimate, how
was it that Nicodemus offered no sort of opposition to Endius when he came
to the court claiming the estate as an adopted son?
Isaeus does not press this argument, but not for the reasons alleged
in § 45. He is aware that the circumstances of the 'claim at law’(éπıdı-
kaoía) were peculiar, inasmuch as Phile at the time was very young (§ 31.
2 n.; cp. § 73. 6, 7 n.) and, consequently, immediate marriage was out of the
question. Nicodemus' action must have been determined by the nature
of the will, which is neither produced nor described. If the will was made
after Phile's birth and contained no reference to the child, the speaker would
have had good grounds for asserting that the omission stamped her as illegiti-
mate, and in this case Nicodemus and his friends, if they could prove
marriage, ought to have challenged instantly any claims based on such a
document. The general principles of the Athenian law of succession support
the statement made here and again in §§ 68, 69 that a father who had no
son, could not ignore the rights of a legitimate daughter, and that, if he
made a will adopting an heir but not requiring him to marry the daughter,
the testament could be upset. If, on the other hand, the will of Pyrrhus
resembled that of Aristotle preserved in Diog. Laert. 5. 11, and contained
clauses prescribing marriage in due course but providing for the contingency
of the death of either Endius or Phile before marriage, Nicodemus had no
occasion to interpose at this stage. Such a will was perfectly valid and
in no way prejudicial to the rights of the daughter. To insist on the absence
of opposition to Endius' suit and imply that he claimed the estate but not
the daughter, because ultimately he did not marry her, is not a straight-
forward way of treating the matter. If Endius' case was approved by the
Archon or the judges (supposing that an unopposed petition came before
judges), the reason presumably was that it was shown to be in agreement
with the will; cp. Isocr. 19. 12. Why, then, does not the advocate produce
the will, which would settle at once, whether Pyrrhus really bequeathed the
estate without the daughter? It is because Xenocles in the preceding trial
had challenged the will put forward by his opponents (§ 56). For another
W. I.
2 I
322
OR. III.
ISAEUS
view of the situation at Pyrrhus' death see notes on §§ 56. 5, 60. 2. Observe,
also, that if Pyrrhus had died intestate, Phile, if legitimate, would have been
an éπíkλŋpos, and, therefore, liable to be claimed (érídikos) in marriage by
her father's nearest male relative (§§ 63–71 analysis) according to the order
of succession, i.e. according to § 72 in the first place either by Endius or
by Endius' brother. But, apart from Blass' restoration of TETтapakaidekÉTIS
(see § 31. 2 n.) in 'A0. IIoλ. 56. 7, we have as yet no certain knowledge of
the time and manner of enforcing such a claim in the case of a minor. Some
scholars (e.g. Hafter, Die Erbtochter nach attischem Recht pp. 15, 31 sqq.)
teach that the child could not be claimed by the procedure of éridiкaσía
until she came of age, and that in the interval she was not treated as an
éπíkλnрos, but as an ordinary orphan, and placed under a guardian or
guardians (ἐπίτροποι). But how were these guardians appointed? Ex
hypothesi no testament of the father exists. It is far more probable that
the midikaria took place immediately after the death of the father (Hruza
I. p. 109, Thalheim, Zu den griech. Rechtsaltert. II. p. 17). Whether the suc-
cessful claimant was éπirроros of the child until she reached the age fixed
for marriage, is not known. Hruza op. cit., whom Beauchet I. p. 413 sqq.
follows, maintains that the éπidikaσía had the effects which he attributes
to εγγύησις (§ 4. 6 n.) and converted the ἐπίκληρος at once into a lawful wife
in spite of her tender years. This paradox is confuted by 'Aе. IIoλ. 56. 6,
where the guardians (ἐπίτροποι) of ἐπίκληροι are distinguished from their
husbands (oi ovvoikoÛvтes). Plato in the Laws recognises guardians of
συνοικοῦντες).
unmarried éπíkλnpoɩ (925 A, C), but nothing certain can be elicited from
the cases of Callippe (VI. 13 sqq.) and Chaereas' daughter (VI. 32. 3). The
code of Gortyn does not permit the marriage of the атpwiŵkos so long
as she is avwpos óñvíev, and gives detailed provisions concerning the care
of the girl's person and property, until she reaches puberty or is married
(VII. 29—40, VIII. 43-53, XII. 25-35). A law of Charondas mentioned by
Diodorus (12. 15) prescribed that orphans' estates should be managed by the
next-of-kin on the father's side (ayxiσreîs oi àñò паτρós), but that the children
themselves should be brought up among their mother's relations (σvyyeveîs
οἱ ἀπὸ μητρός), but it is not stated that this rule applied to ἐπίκληροι.
K
πατ
"
او
40. 2 οἱ πολλοὶ γιγνώσκουσιν. For this hackneyed trick of the speech-
writers compare I. 37. 2 n., Lys. 22. 22 περὶ μὲν γὰρ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν ἀδικούντων
δεῖ παρὰ τῶν κατηγόρων πυθέσθαι, τὴν δὲ τούτων πονηρίαν ἅπαντες ἐπίστασθε,
Dem. 57. 33 ἐμοὶ δ᾽ ἐπιτιμήσετ᾽ ἴσως ἐὰν λέγω ὃν τρόπον οὗτος ἐργάζεται περιιὼν
ἐν τῇ πόλει, καὶ εἰκότως· ἃ γὰρ ὑμεῖς ἴστε, τί δεῖ λέγειν ; Din. 2. 19 οὐ γὰρ παρ'
ἐκείνης ὑμεῖς πυθόμενοι τοῦτον ἴστε πονηρὸν καὶ ἄδικον ὄντα, ἀλλ᾽ ἕκαστος ὑμῶν
ἀκριβῶς οἶδε τὴν τούτου πονηρίαν, [Dem.] 40. 54 ὅ τι ἂν μὴ ἕκαστος ὑμῶν εἰδῇ,
μηδὲ τὸν πλησίον νομιζέτω εἰδέναι, ἀλλ᾽ ἀξιούτω τοῦτον ἀποδεικνύναι σαφῶς ὑπὲρ
ὧν ἂν λέγῃ καὶ μὴ ὑμᾶς φάσκοντα εἰδέναι, περὶ ὧν αὐτὸς οὐδὲν ἕξει εἰπεῖν δίκαιον,
ἀποδιδράσκειν τὴν ἀλήθειαν, Dem. 51. 19 ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ἀναισθησίας προήκουσιν
ὥστ᾽ οἴονται τὸν ἅπαξ εἰρηκότ᾽ ἂν καλέσωσιν ἀναιδῆ, σφᾶς αὐτοὺς <τοὺς add.
Blass> πάντα τὸν βίον καλοὺς κἀγαθοὺς νομίζεσθαι, Dem. 45. 63, 54. 34, Din.
I. 42. The most outrageous examples of this abuse are found in Aeschines'
abominable speech against Timarchus; see §§ 44, 70, 89 (oi d'avтoí µoi
δικασταὶ καὶ μάρτυρές ἐστε τῶν λόγων), 93. The effect of the device is analysed
او
αν
μοι
OR. III.
323
COMMENTARY
by Aristotle, Rhet. III. 7. 1408 a 33 sqq. пáσxovσi dé ti oi åkpоaтai Kai & KATA-
κόρως χρῶνται οἱ λογογράφοι, τίς δ᾽ οὐκ οἶδεν; ἅπαντες ἴσασιν· ὁμολογεῖ γὰρ ὁ
ἀκούων αἰσχυνόμενος, ὅπως μετέχῃ οὗπερ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι πάντες. Spengel in his
note ad loc. quotes examples from Isocrates and other orators, and draws
special attention to Demosthenes' use of these phrases in the scurrilous
attacks on Aeschines father and mother (18. 129 ἀλλὰ πάντες ἴσασι ταῦτα, κἂν
ἐγὼ μὴ λέγω, ib. 130 ἣν Ἔμπουσαν ἅπαντες ἴσασι καλουμένην).
2, 3 ὥστ᾽ οὐκ ἀπορῶ γε μαρτύρων. If the text is sound, γε must qualify the
whole sentence: 'so that at any rate I do not lack witnesses.' If a single
word is to be emphasised, it should be μaprúpwv, as in Lys. IO. I μaρrúρwv
μὲν οὐκ ἀπορίαν μοι ἔσεσθαι δοκῶ. The examples of ὥστε... ye in the
orators are the following, XII. 2. 7, Aesch. 1. 26, Dem. 9. 56, 18. 251, 19. 43,
22. 30, 30. 10, 51. 14, 57. 70, none being parallel; σre ye does not occur.
It is hardly worth while taxing our wits over abnormal cases of
ye; in MSS.
the particle is often misplaced (XII. 2. 7 n.), and wrongly inserted; see Neil
on Ar. Eq. p. 200, Blass, Dem. I. p. cxli, Voemel on Dem. 18. 82 (nulla
particula saepius temere inculcabatur). I do not understand why in Dem.
21. 221 Blass takes ovdév ye Opovri¿wv from AF. Naber (Mnem. N. S. 5,
p. 399) proposes here 'yo. The MSS. of Aristophanes contain instances of
the interchange of ye and 'yà (Porson on Av. 444, Vesp. 536, Nub. 1032), the
codex Crippsianus shows prodelision in VIII. 6. I ( 'un), and, as Gildersleeve
(Syntax § 69) remarks, the use of unemphatic éyò is commoner than many
grammarians (e.g. Krüger, Gr. Sprachlehre § 51. 12) allow; cp. Ant. 5. 57,
71, And. I. 11, 123, Lys. 1. 15, 3. 14, 13. 33, 23. 14, Aesch. 1. 42, 47, 99, 165,
2. 28, 103, 152, 3. 69, 119, 217, 225, 228, Dem. 19. 182, 20. 91, 21. 132, [Dem.]
12.7. At the same time I shrink from introducing this idiom by emendation,
it being certain that eyò is sometimes interpolated in MSS.; see Aesch. I.
26, 44, 65, 3. 12, 118.
3 Tρŵтov. The second part begins with § 45.
4,5 Tη μаρтupía. For the dative see II. 26. 2 n. The whole phrase,
ἀναισχυντότατον τῇ μαρτυρίᾳ ὄντα ταύτῃ, is repeated from § 4.
7 катaλaжоμévηv. The present participle is found again in §§ 63. 3,
65. 5, 72. 4.
41. 1, 2 τῷ ἡμετέρῳ ἀδελφῷ. Cp. § 43. 6 ὁ ἡμέτερος ἀδελφός. But ἐμὸς
predominates (§§ 1. 3, 42. 2, 72. 5, 75. 2, 76. 8). It cannot be inferred that
Pyrrhus' sister had other children besides Endius and the speaker, for in
Isaeus, as in other orators, peîs and μérepos sometimes refer to one person
only; see VII. 37. 3 22.
2 ἐπιδικάσασθαι. The aorist of ἐπιδικάζεσθαι may mean either to prosecute
a suit in claim of an estate or an éπíkλnpos' or 'to succeed in such a suit.'
The first sense is seen in ἐπεδικασάμην [Dem.] 43. 3, ἐπιδικάσωμαι [Dem.]
43. 16, éπidikáσaoðaɩ III. 60. 3, 8, XI. 34. 4, [Dem.] 48. 41, the second in
ἐπεδικασάμην ΧΙ. 18. 3, [Dem.] 43. 16, 70, 74, 48. 27, 34, ἐπιδικάσηται
VI. 61. 4, [Dem.] 43. 16, ἐπιδικασαίμην V. 40. 6, ἐπιδικάσασθαι IV. 24. 9,
Éπidikaσáμevos III. 74. 3, 7, XI. 26. 2, [Dem.] 43. 16, 48. 32, 35. The
remaining examples admit either meaning. On the other hand the present
(§ 69. 6 n.), imperfect, and future (And. 1. 121) are confined to the first
signification, the perfect to the second (ó éidedikaσµévos IV. 25. 7, [Dem.]
21-2
324
OR. III.
ISAEUS
43. 7, 16, 48. 29). The active is used of the Archon or judges who
pronounce on the claim ([Dem.] 48. 26 ἐπεδίκασεν ὁ ἄρχων τοῖς ἀντιδίκοις τοῖς
ἡμετέροις τὸν κλῆρον, ΧΙ. 26. 4 ἀπέδοτε δ᾽ ὑμεῖς ἐπιδικάσαντές μοι τοῦτον τὸν
κλῆρον), the passive of the estate or ἐπίκληρος ([Dem.] 43. 16 ἐὰν δ᾽ ἐπιδεδικασ-
μένου ἀμφισβητῇ τοῦ κλήρου ἢ τῆς ἐπικλήρου, VI. 14. 10, 51. 8 ἐπιδικασθεῖσαν).
In the present passage and in § 43. 6 Schoemann, as his translation shows,
supposes the aorist to refer to the final verdict in favour of Endius, not to the
form of his claim. Dareste wavers, giving in § 41 'comment as-tu permis à
notre frère de revendiquer la succession en écartant cette fille légitime?' but
in § 43 'notre frère a obtenu l'adjudication de la succession? On Schoemann's
view, which is tenable, the argument is this: 'How was it, Nicodemus, that
you allowed Endius to get a judgment giving him the estate without the
legitimate daughter' by not raising objections before the Archon within the
interval that elapsed between the lodgment of the claim (\î§ɩs) and the
decision of the court? My own feeling is in favour of the other interpreta-
tion: 'How was it that you allowed Endius to bring a suit claiming the
estate without the daughter,' and did not at any point interrupt these
proceedings by asserting your niece's rights? This way of taking the words
fits in with the use of the present participle καθισταμένην (not καταστᾶσαν) in
§ 41. 4 and with the language of § 69. 4, 5 πῶς ἂν ὑμεῖς ἐπετρέψατε ἐπι-
δικάζεσθαι τὸν Ἔνδιον τοῦ Πύρρου κλήρου ἄνευ τῆς γνησίας θυγατρός, εἰ ἦν
ἐκείνῳ, where Dareste's version (réclamer la succession de Pyrrhus sans
réclamer en même temps la fille légitime') seems to me right. Without the
will it is impossible to discover what happened, but, if fortune had preserved
the deposition read at the end of § 43, we should be able to estimate better
the advocate's dexterity in handling this delicate topic. Hruza (1. p. 119)
founds arguments on this passage in the belief that it is an honest statement
(‘eine durchaus unverdächtige Stelle').
3 τῷ θείῳ καταλειφθῆναι. The dative indicates the possessor, not the
agent; cp. §§ 44. 3, 63. 2 (τῷ ἀδελφιδῷ καταλειπομένην), ΙΧ. 10. 5. In §§ 65. 5,
72. 4 the dative may be taken with ἦν, not with καταλειπομένη. Distinguish
the datives in Dem. 23. 48 ὅτῳ ποτε τοἔργον ἐπράχθη, 37. 6, 9 τὰ πραχθέντα
τούτῳ, 29. 11 τὰ τούτῳ ῥηθέντα, [Dem.] 59. 46 ἃ αὐτῇ τῇ ἀνθρώπῳ ἀγοράσθη,
Isocr. 4. 14 τοῦ περὶ τὸν λόγον ἡμῖν διατριφθέντος χρόνου, and see Sandys on
Dem. I. 28.
4 ἐπιδικασία, ‘by the prosecution of the claim rather than by the
award' (Schoemann). In pressing his suit Endius was at the same time
bastardising Nicodemus niece. The noun ἐπιδικασία, like διαδικασία and
προδικασία, generally describes the proceedings of the suitor or suitors
(III. 44. 1, 59. 2, 72. 7, XI. 23. 5, [Dem.] 46. 22, 'A8. Hoλ. 56. 7), so that
ἐπιδικασίαν ποιεῖσθαι (III. 58. 5) is synonymous with ἐπιδικάζεσθαι. But the
issue of the suit is clearly meant in [Dem.] 43. 16 ἐὰν δὲ μὴ προσκαλεσάμενος
ἐπιδικάσηται, ἀτελὴς ἔσται ἡ ἐπιδικασία τοῦ κλήρου, and ib. 69 οὐ γὰρ ἔφθη ὁ
Θεόπομπος τὴν ἐπιδικασίαν ποιησάμενος τοῦ κλήρου...καὶ εὐθὺς ἐνεδείξατο ὅτι
τὰ οὐδὲν προσήκονθ᾽ ἑαυτῷ ἔχειν ἐνόμιζεν. In the first of these two passages
the noun may represent the active verb (ἐπιδικάζειν).
5-7 ὁπότε γάρ-καθίστη. The whole clause is ejected by Naber
(Mnem. N. S. 5, 1877, p. 399) and Buermann (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 350) as
OR. III.
325
COMMENTARY
'an obvious interpolation.' But the excision creates a new difficulty, since
the next sentence (eтi dè πрóтepov K.T.λ.) is left without a construction; it is
difficult to supply νόθην καθίστη (cp. § 75. 4) out of νόθην καθισταμένην.
I prefer Reiske's remedy, to bracket ris and to regard Endius as the subject.
'OTÓTε is causal, 'in that'; see VIII. 37. 6 n., Aesch. 1. 119, 138, Dem. 23. 86,
[Dem.] 46. 3. The sentence is certainly feeble and otiose, but this speech is
full of verbosity and repetitions. Schoemann's apology for the vulgate is a
failure.
42. 2, 3 οὔτε διαθέσθαι οὔτε δοῦναι κ.τ.λ. It may be doubted whether
this interpretation of Solon's law was acceptable to the Athenian public, and
enforced by the Athenian tribunals in the 4th century. According to Isaeus'
paraphrase of the clause relating to daughters (ἂν δὲ θηλείας καταλίπῃ, σὺν
TaÚTAIS § 68. I n.), for which he is our only authority, the power of testation
conceded to an Athenian citizen, whose only legitimate children were
daughters, was limited to the appointment of their husbands and the
distribution of the estate, and did not include the right of leaving legacies
to servants or friends or for other purposes. Similarly, the opening
words of the same statute, for which see II. 13. 2 12., if interpreted strictly
and with regard to the legislator's intention, debarred a man with legitimate
sons from making any testament at all, and Isaeus presses this view on the
judges, when it suits his purpose (VI. 28. 4, 5 m.). Notwithstanding this, the
remains of the orators furnish instances of wills which are treated as good
and valid, although the testator not only had legitimate sons but, what is
more important, bequeathed large legacies to friends or religious bodies
(Att. Proc. p. 591 sqq., Beauchet III. p. 674 sqq.). The most probable
explanation of this discrepancy is that the law, though never repealed
or amended after the attack made on it by the Thirty ('AO. Io. 35), was
not enforced consistently, because society had outgrown the ideas and
needs of the 6th century. The average Athenian regarded the name of
Solon with superstitious reverence, but, when called by the lot to the office
of a judge, was not accustomed to apply a rule with conscientious severity,
if in any case he thought it irksome or inequitable. If, then, legacies were
tolerated in spite of the claims of sons, it is likely that they were tolerated in
spite of the claims of daughters.
Some ingenuity has been misapplied in inventing distinctions be-
tween dialéσðaɩ and doûvaɩ in this and similar passages. Schoemann in
his commentary following Bunsen (De iure hereditario Atheniensium,
Göttingen, 1813, p. 55) lays down that dialéolai is properly applied only to
the testator who adopts an heir, though he admits that it is sometimes
applied 'improperly,' e.g. in the case of the wills of Pasion ([Dem.] 46. 14)
and of Demosthenes' father (Dem. 28. 14; 29. 42), which from the nature of
the case prescribe no adoption, whereas doûva is more comprehensive and
may be used of the bequest of an entire estate or part of an estate, whether
the recipient be adopted or not. Isaeus here according to Schoemann
wished to say 'A man can neither adopt a son nor leave a legacy
apart from (setting aside) his daughters.' Schulin (Das Griech. Testament
verglichen mit dem Römischen, Basel, 1882, p. 32) endorses Schoemann's
view of διαθέσθαι, but contradicts his definition of δοῦναι, believing that
326
OR. III.
ISAEUS
Isaeus here and in IX. 1. 4 is distinguishing the testament with adoption
from the testament without adoption. Boissonade (Histoire de la réserve
héréditaire, Paris, 1873, p. 51) cited by Lipsius (Att. Proc.² p. 591 n. 288)
suggests that diabéolai in Solon's law expresses the appointment of a
universal heir.' These subtleties of legal terminology are entirely foreign
to the Athenian orators, even to Isaeus the most legal-minded of them all.
The verb diarieσ0aι embraces all acts of testation without any reference to
the terms and form of the instrument, the reason being that the original
sense, 'to make dispositions,' never entirely disappears. The idea that the
word implies adoption is a false inference from the circumstance that most
of the 'dispositions' mentioned in the remains of the orators were made by
men without sons who adopted their heir. The need of a son to perpetuate
the house and the family cult and to minister at the family grave is a topic
that figures so often in speeches about disputed inheritances that the
sentiment must have been common and respectable at Athens, but some-
thing more than the calculated pathos of advocates is needed to prove that
this superstition was so mighty and universal that a childless Athenian,
when making his will, never omitted the condition of adoption. See I.
Introd. p. 176 and vII. 6. 4 n. The grammatical limitations of διατίθεσθαι
explain why didóval is so extensively employed to signify testamentary
bequests. The normal constructions of diarileoba are the following:
(1) diatíßetai tà avroû, the consecrated phrase of Solon's law (e.g. VI. 5. 8,
Lys. 13. 41, [Dem.] 46. 15, Hyp. 5. 17, Aesch. 3. 21, Plat. Laws 923 C) with
rare extensions such as διατίθεται τὴν οὐσίαν (VII. 9. 3) or τὰ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ
([Dem.] 44. 67), (2) diaтiberal teρì тŵv έavтoû, which is unusual (IX. 15. 5,
X. 8. 10; cp. the will of Lyco, Diog. Laert. 5. 69 ráde diaribeµai teρì tŵv
κατ' ἐμαυτόν), (3) τάδε (ταῦτα, οὐδὲν) διατίθεται, a combination found every-
where and in all ages (e.g. I. 11. 6, Dem. 36. 7, 41. 17, the wills of Plato,
Diog. Laert. 3. 41, of Aristotle, ib. 5. 11, of Theophrastus, ib. 5. 51, of Strato,
ib. 5. 61, of the military settlers in the Fayoum 237 B.C. to 225 B.C., Flind.
Petr. Pap. I. n. XI. sqq., of Epicteta c. 200 B.C., Michel n. 1101, Inscr.
Jurid. Gr. II. p. 77, of Dryton, a Cretan soldier settled in the Thebaid,
126 B.C., A. E. F. n. 126, of Soeris daughter of Harpocras 96 A.D., Oxy.
Pap. I. n. 104), (4) diaтíbeтai absolutely, 'he makes a will,' also very common
(e.g. IV. 14. 5, VI. 52. 6, B. U. G. 1. n. 361, col. III, 21, ib. II. n. 448, 24);
mark the utility of the participles, ὁ διατιθέμενος (διαθέμενος), the testator
and οὐ διαθέμενος intestate, the word ἀδιάθετος (Oxy. Pap. I. n. 105 ἄτεκνον
kaì ádiáðetov teλevrñσaï) not being found in Attic. One construction however
is very rare; the verb does not readily admit a dative expressing the person
in whose favour the dispositions are made. Only three instances are known
to me, viz. VII. I. 6 εἴ τις τελευτήσειν μέλλων διέθετο, εἴ τι πάθοι, τὴν οὐσίαν
ἑτέρῳ, Χ. 2. 8 ὁ γὰρ νόμος κελεύει τὰ μὲν ἑαυτοῦ διαθέσθαι ὅτῳ ἂν ἐθέλῃ, Isocr.
19. 43 γενέσθαι διαδόχους τῆς κληρονομίας μὴ ταύτην, ἀλλ᾽ οἷς ἐκεῖνος διέθετο.
The gap is filled by the substitution of didóval, as is clearly shown by the
paraphrases of Solon's law found in IV. 16. 3, IX. 13. 6, Dem. 20. 102 (éðŋkeV
νόμον ἐξεῖναι δοῦναι τὰ ἑαυτοῦ ᾧ ἄν τις βούληται), ᾿Αθ. Πολ. 35. 2 (τὸν
θεσμὸν περὶ τοῦ δοῦναι τὰ ἑαυτοῦ ᾧ ἂν ἐθέλῃ), Plut. Sol. 21 (ὁ δ᾽ ᾧ βούλεταί τις
ἐπιτρέψας, εἰ μὴ παῖδες εἶεν αὐτῷ, δοῦναι τὰ αὑτοῦ). When, therefore, as not
기
​(
OR. III.
327
COMMENTARY
infrequently happens (III. 68. 5, VI. 52. 9, 62. 5, VII. 9. 3, IX. II. 7, X. 9. 5),
δοῦναι appears in conjunction with διαθέσθαι, no contrast or opposition of
any kind, not even of legacies and gifts inter uiuos, is intended by the
writer; the first word means 'to make a bequest,' the second 'to make a
will.' Note in conclusion that in Isaeus the ordinary expression for claiming
under a will is ἀμφισβητεῖν κατὰ δόσιν, not ἀμφισβητεῖν κατὰ διαθήκην, which
only occurs in I. 41. 3 ; cp. IV. 18. 1 οἱ κατὰ τὰς διαθήκας ἀμφισβητοῦντες,
ΧΙ. 9. 9 τοὺς κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην ἀμφισβητήσαντας.
5 τῶν νόμων. The plural probably refers to the various clauses of
Solon's law concerning testaments, but it is possible that the clerk read also
a law dealing with the rules of ἐπιδικασία (ΧΙ. 22).
43. 2, 3 ἐπὶ τοῦ κλήρου τῇ λήξει κ.τ.λ. The application to the Archon
(λῆξις) was the first step of a man prosecuting a suit in claim of an estate
(ἐπιδικαζόμενος). Το advertise interested parties the Archon published the
petition on the notice board (σανίς, λεύκωμα), which announced suits brought
before him, and at the next κυρία ἐκκλησία a statement of the claim was read
out to the people, ὅπως μηδένα λάθῃ μηδὲν ἔρημον γενόμενον (᾿Αθ. Πολ. 43. 4).
Further, at some time not defined by our authorities, possibly immediately
after the recital of the claim, proclamation was made by the herald e Tis
ἀμφισβητεῖν ἢ παρακαταβάλλειν βούλεται τοῦ κλήρου τοῦ δεῖνος ἢ κατὰ γένος ἢ
κατὰ διαθήκας ([Dem.] 43. 5). The condensed and idiomatic phrase ἡ λῆξις
τοῦ κλήρου seems to have been developed out of λαγχάνειν τὴν λῆξιν τοῦ
κλήρου, which in its turn was derived through λαγχάνειν τοῦ κλήρου out of
λαγχάνειν τὴν δίκην τοῦ κλήρου (VII. 21. 2, VIII. 3. 2, ΧΙ. 1Ο. 4, 13. 8, 15. 6,
27. 2). The explanation in Att. Proc. p. 794 is in my opinion erroneous.
The correlative of λαγχάνειν τοῦ κλήρου is found in the law preserved in
[Dem.] 46. 22 κληροῦν δὲ τὸν ἄρχοντα κλήρων καὶ ἐπικλήρων, ὅσοι εἰσὶ μῆνες,
πλὴν τοῦ σκιροφοριῶνος (the last month of the official year).
ǹ
4 διαμαρτυρήσαι. If Pyrrhus' will was made before Phile's birth or,
though made after that event, passed over the child in silence, Nicodemus
might have attacked its validity, if his sister was Pyrrhus' lawful wife and
Phile was her daughter. A convenient way of raising the issue would have
been to use the procedure of διαμαρτυρία ; see II. Introd. p. 232 sqq. and vi.
52. 6 εἰ μὲν διέθετο Φιλοκτήμων μὴ ἐξὸν αὐτῷ, τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ ἐχρῆν διαμαρτυρεῖν, ὡς
οὐ κύριος ἦν ὑὸν τόνδε ποιήσασθαι· εἰ δ᾽ ἔξεστι μὲν διαθέσθαι, ἀμφισβητείται>
δὲ ὡς οὐ δόντος οὐδὲ διαθεμένου, μὴ διαμαρτυρίᾳ κωλύειν ἀλλ᾽ εὐθυδικίᾳ εἰσιέναι.
But if Pyrrhus in adopting Endius had imposed on him obligations with
regard to the child, i.e. had left him the estate together with the daughter,
then Nicodemus had no need to oppose and no opportunity of interposing a
διαμαρτυρία.
6 ὁ ἡμέτερος ἀδελφός. See § 41. I 2.
8 τὴν μαρτυρίαν. The loss of this deposition is much to be regretted.
See §§ 37. 7 n., 4I. 2 n.
44. 1 γενομένης τῆς ἐπιδικασίας, when this claim had been made, not
' when this judgment had been given.' Isaeus is not breaking new ground
but summing up the preceding argument.
3, 4 Πύρρῳ καταλειφθῆναι. See § 41. 3 κ.
45-54 The subsequent conduct of Nicodemus proves that his si
328
OR. III.
ISAEUS
was not married to Pyrrhus. For (2) if the daughter was legitimate, how
was it that Nicodemus allowed Endius to marry her to Xenocles with a
slender dowry? A denunciation (eioayyeλía) for maltreatment of an
heiress can be made by any one without risk or expense, and exposes the
defendant to the severest penalties.
This division of the speech is the most effective part of the attack on
Nicodemus, but the reasoning is far from conclusive. The assailant
assumes as obvious what the adversaries deny (§ 58), that Phile's marriage
to Xenocles proves that Endius considered her a bastard, and this assump-
tion is reiterated incessantly in its most offensive form, that she was
betrothed as a courtesan's child. Endius' real attitude towards the girl
cannot be discovered. The gift of a portion is not inconsistent with the
orator's theory, but two circumstances, which he keeps out of sight, must
not pass unobserved. (1) Endius was old enough to be Phile's father.
(2) If he did not marry her, it appears that he did not marry any one else.
This being so, Phile's marriage to Xenocles did not prejudice her position as
much as the advocate pretends. Endius, as an adopted son, could only
transmit the estate to legitimate children born of his body, and was not
permitted by the law to adopt an heir ([Dem.] 44. 64) or make a will
(ib. § 68), while his natural relations, e.g. his brother, had, as such, no legal
claims on property held by him in virtue of his adoption. So long as he
remained unmarried, Phile's chances of succession to the estate were not
directly menaced. Her friends could have made out a better story than the
speaker of or. X, who essays to explain to the judges why his mother,
being, as he alleges, an éπíkλŋpos, was married to a stranger and defrauded
of her inheritance. She was the victim, he says, of a wicked uncle, who
declined to marry her, but laid hands on the property. Endius' conduct
might have been represented as the fruit of a friendly compromise. If the
will, in which he was adopted, required him to marry the daughter when
she reached a fit age, he was under a legal obligation, which could have
been enforced not only by a prosecution instituted by Nicodemus or any
other citizen, but also by the intervention of the Archon himself, who was
armed with special powers to protect orphans and heiresses ([Dem.] 43. 54,
75). But, if the marriage was distasteful to either of the two persons
concerned, the conclusion of a private settlement which left Endius in
possession for his lifetime, does not seem outside the range of possibilities.
Whatever the value of such conjectures, a judge who credited the speaker's
denunciations of Nicodemus' bad character, might fairly argue that his
neglect of his niece's interests at this crisis ought not to be reckoned
decisive evidence against her.
45. 2 opâs. The MS. reading, µâs, is an anticipation (Crit. Introd.
p. xxxviii) from the following line. Sensus λαθεῖν ταῦθ᾽ αὑτὸν (Dobree,
Adv. I. p. 291); cp. § 48. 8 ἢ καὶ ταῦτα λαθεῖν σεαυτὸν προσποιήσει; The
use of σφᾶς, σφῶν, σφίσι, as indirect reflexives, which is so prominent in
Thucydides, disappeared from Attic oratory in the course of the 4th century.
It is not found at all in Lycurgus, Aeschines, Dinarchus, and Hypereides.
There are four examples in Antiphon (oi 1. 16, V. 93, opioi I. 13, VI. 35),
eight in Andocides (oi 1. 15, 38, 40, 41, 42, 126 (add. Muret), opŵv 3. 27,
OR. III.
329
COMMENTARY
opioı 3. 36), four in Lysias (oi 23. 13, opioɩ 12. 85, 13. 7, 19. 36), two in
Isocrates (opeîs 12. 257, opâs 4. 11), nine in Demosthenes (opeîs 19. 140,
σpâs 22. 10, 30. 23, 37. 12, opioɩ 19. 324, 20. 63, 22. 32, 23. 9, 51. 16). Since
Isaeus has of in VI. 27. 4 (тà πрòs тòv vóv oi тетрауµéva), Вekker's opâs may
be accepted here without apprehensions. Perhaps èpâs was in the archetype;
cp. Isocr. 12. 191 (σφῶν for ἐφ᾽ ὧν), Lys. 8. 11 (ἐφ᾽ ὧν for σφῶν).
П
ΕΠ
46. 1 eiońyyeλas. The action for maltreatment of an 'heiress' (kakó-
σεως ἐπικλήρου), according to 'Αθ. Πολ. 56. 6, lay against the guardians
(ἐπίτροποι) and the husbands (οἱ συνοικοῦντες); cp. Poll. 8. 53 Δημοσθένης δὲ
ἐν τῷ κατὰ Μέδοντος καὶ κατὰ τῶν μὴ προσηκόντως (προσηκόντων libri : corr.
Meier) τῇ ἐπικλήρῳ συνοικούντων γίνεσθαι τὰς εἰσαγγελίας λέγει, and Plut.
Sol. 20 τρὶς ἑκάστου μηνὸς ἐντυγχάνειν πάντως τῇ ἐπικλήρῳ τὸν λαβόντα. But
Dem. 37. 45 and the law in [Dem.] 43. 75, in addition to § 62 of this speech,
indicate that the statement of Aristotle is not exhaustive, and that the
procedure could be used against any person who in any way wronged an
éπíkλŋpos and, in particular, against the nearest male relative of a poor
ἐπίκληρος οι θῆττα, if he sought to evade his obligation either to marry her
himself or to furnish a dowry according to the scale fixed by law (I. 39,
[Dem.] 43. 54). The action is catalogued in 'Aе. Пoλ. l.c. under the heading
of γραφαὶ καὶ δίκαι <αὶ> λαγχάνονται πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα, and is called a γραφή
in Menand. fr. 328 (Kock, Com. Att. Fr. III. p. 96) µǹv årоíσei oo ypaþǹv
kakwσews. Similarly the action for maltreatment of orphans appears both
as an εἰσαγγελία (ΧΙ. 6, 15, Harp. s.v. εἰσαγγελία) and as a γραφή (ΧΙ. 28, 31,
35, [Dem.] 58. 32, Poll. 8. 35 ἐξῆν τῷ βουλομένῳ γράφεσθαι τὸν ἐπίτροπον ὑπὲρ
τῶν ἀδικουμένων ὀρφανῶν); cp. Harp. s.v. κακώσεως: ἐξῆν καὶ παντὶ τῷ
βουλομένῳ γράφεσθαι κακώσεως γονέων καὶ ταῖς ἐπικλήροις βοηθεῖν. No doubt
denunciation,' eloɑyyeλía, was the specific and exact title of the procedure ;
we must not look in our authorities for fixity of terminology. Some of the
characteristics, which mark off this kind of action from an ordinary ypaþń,
are here enumerated by Isaeus. Harpocration s. v. kakwσews adds ǹv dè kaì
åvev üdaros. Further, though no definite evidence exists and the opposite
view is maintained in Att. Proc.2 p. 335, it seems unlikely that the com-
plainant was required by law to summon the offender before laying his
denunciation before the Archon. Note the last clause of the law in [Dem.]
43. 54 ἀπογραφέτω δὲ τὸν μὴ ποιοῦντα ταῦτα ὁ βουλόμενος πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα.
For a complete discussion of εἰσαγγελίαι πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα as distinguished
from εἰσαγγελίαι εἰς τὴν βουλὴν or εἰς τὸν δῆμον consult Schulthess, Vormund-
schaft nach attischem Recht p. 191 sqq., Att. Proc.² p. 353 sqq.
Remember that Phile was not exactly in the position of an éπíkλŋpos,
even if she was legitimate and if Endius was required by the will to marry
her.
The adoption made Endius the real heir to the exclusion of the
daughter. If he had married her, he would not have been obliged to
render an account of the estate either to her or to her children, and a
son or sons born of the marriage would have been regarded as heirs of
Endius, not of Pyrrhus; see Beauchet II. pp. 31 sqq., 71. I see no good
grounds for denying that a father, if he chose, might bequeath daughter and
estate to a man who was not adopted (Ar. Vesp. 583 kầv åñoðvýσkwv ô πatýρ
τῳ δῷ καταλείπων παῖδ᾽ ἐπίκληρον). In this case the daughter would be an
330
OR. III.
ISAEUS
ἐπίκληρος in the strictest sense, and her son or sons on attaining their
majority would enter into possession of the property (§§ 50. 6, 73. 9 n.,
VIII. 31, X. 12).
3 ὑβριζομένην. Cp. [Dem.] 43. 75 (law) τούτων ἐπιμελείσθω (ὁ ἄρχων)
καὶ μὴ ἐάτω ὑβρίζειν μηδένα περὶ τούτους. ἐὰν δέ τις ὑβρίζῃ ἢ ποιῇ τι παράνομον,
κύριος ἔστω ἐπιβάλλειν κατὰ τὸ τέλος.
4 δικῶν, in its largest sense, including public actions (δίκαι δημοσίαι Dem.
18. 21). See VIII. 44. io n., Poll. 8. 41 ταύτας τὰς δίκας ἢ ὅσαι τοιαῦται
(ἐκαλοῦντο γὰρ αἱ γραφαὶ καὶ δίκαι, οὐ μέντοι καὶ αἱ δίκαι γραφαί) ἐξῆν τῷ
βουλομένῳ γράφεσθαι καὶ ἐκ πασῶν τούτων ὁ μὴ μεταλαβὼν τὸ πεμπτὸν μέρος
τῶν ψήφων προσωφλίσκανε χιλίας, Harp. s.v. κακώσεως : δίκης ὄνομά ἐστι,
[Lys.] 6. 11 προσεκαλέσατο δίκην ἀσεβείας πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα καὶ ἔλαχεν, Plat.
Euthyph. 1 Α οὐ γάρ που καὶ σοί γε δίκη τις οὖσα τυγχάνει πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα
ὥσπερ ἐμοί. Σ. οὔτοι δὴ ᾿Αθηναῖοί γε, ὦ Εὐθύφρον, δίκην αὐτὴν καλοῦσιν ἀλλὰ
γραφήν. Ε. τί φῄς; γραφήν σέ τις, ὡς ἔοικε, γέγραπται; ᾿Αθ. Πολ. 57. 2
γραφαὶ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν τὸν βασιλέα) λαγχάνονται ἀσεβείας, Plat. Laws 9o9 C
δίκας ἀσεβείας τῷ ἐθέλοντι λαγχάνειν ὑπεχέτω.
47.1 ἐπιτίμιον. The prosecutor in a public action was generally fined
1000 dr. (αἱ χίλιαι), if he failed to obtain one-fifth of the votes. A 'present-
ment' (προβολή) may have been an exception; see Att. Proc. p. 344.
We
do not know the rule that was applied in the first half of the 4th century
to denunciations brought before the people or council. At the date of
Hypereides' speech for Lycophron, which Blass (Att. Ber.2 III. 2, p. 69)
assigns to the time of the second war with Philip, the accuser in an
εἰσαγγελία εἰς τὸν δῆμον ran no risk; see $ 12 εἰσαγγελίαν δέδωκας ὑπὲρ ὧν
γραφαὶ πρὸς τοὺς θεσμοθέτας ἐκ τῶν νόμων εἰσίν, ἵνα ἀκίνδυνος εἰσίῃς εἰς τὸν
ἀγῶνα. The language of Demosthenes in 18. 250 admits the inference that
in the period immediately following the battle of Chaeronea the ordinary
penalty was exacted from the authors of political denunciations. Pollux
(8. 53) quotes a statement from Theophrastus treatise Περὶ Νόμων that in
ordinary ypapaì the penalty was 1000 dr. together with disfranchisement
(cp. Harp. s.v. ἐάν τις), in εἰσαγγελίαι the money fine without disfranchise-
ment. Theophrastus was probably describing the practice of his own day.
3 πρυτανεία. According to Pollux (8. 38) πρυτανεία were court fees paid
before the trial by plaintiff and defendant, 3 dr. if the suit was for more than
100 dr. and less than 1000 dr., 30 dr. if it was for more than 1000 dr., the
successful litigant being reimbursed by the party cast. That such fees
belonged properly to private, not public, actions, is indicated by the tenor of
this description and by the few mentions of πρυτανεία found in extant
literature, viz. Ar. Nub. 1197 (a claim against a debtor), Isocr. 18. 12 (a suit
for damage done, δίκη βλάβης), [Dem.] 47. 64 (a suit for assault, δίκη αἰκείας).
The only certain reference to payment of рутavéîa in a public cause occurs
in a law preserved in [Dem.] 43. 71. This law provides that any person
found guilty of unlawfully rooting up olive trees in Attica shall pay for each
tree so destroyed 1oo dr. to the state, and the same sum to the private
person who prosecutes (τῷ ἰδιώτῃ τῷ ἐπεξιόντι), and adds afterwards: πρυ-
τανεῖα δὲ τιθέτω ὁ διώκων τοῦ αὑτοῦ μέρους. It has been inferred that in public
causes the prosecutor was required to pay πρυτανεία, when he was not
OR. III.
331
COMMENTARY
pursuing the interests of the community alone, but had also before him the
prospect of private profit, as e.g. in an 'information' (páσis; see Att. Proc.²
p. 294 sqq.), in which the informer, if successful, was rewarded by half the
penalty. Boeckh in accordance with this inference has restored [πρυτανεία
τιθέ]τω τοῦ αὑτοῦ μέρους in C.I.A. 1. 28, 13 (c. 445 B.C.), and Lipsius argues
that the principle should be applied to C.I.A. IV. 1. 22 a, fr. c. 10
(450/49 Β.C.?) τὰ δὲ πρυτανεῖα τιθέντων πρὸς [τοὺς ἄρχοντας τοὺς ᾿Αθήνησιν];
see Att. Proc.2 p. 809 sqq. Honorary decrees occasionally grant the
privilege of exemption from payment of πρυτανεία, e.g. C. I. A. IV. I. 551,
5 sqq. : καὶ δίκας, ἐάν [τις] ἀδικῆς αὐτόν, Α[θήν]ησιν πρὸς τὸμ [πολέμαρχον ἄνευ
π[ρυταν]είων, ib. II. 85. 3 κα[ὶ τὰς δίκας ἄνευ πρυτανέζων ᾿Αθήνησιν, Larfeld,
Handbuch d. gr. Epigraphik pp. 795, 937.
Π
4 παράστασις. From the grammarians (Harp. s.v., Poll. 8. 39, 127,
Phot. s.v. παρακατάστασις) and ᾿Αθ. Πολ. 59. 3 we learn (1) that in private
suits πapáσraσis was the name of a fee of 1 dr. paid by the prosecutor to the
public arbitrator when the plaint was formally presented, (2) that παράστασις
was paid to the Thesmothetae in certain ypapaì within their jurisdiction,
viz. ξενίας, δωροξενίας, συκοφαντίας, δώρων, ψευδεγγραφῆς, ψευδοκλητείας,
βουλεύσεως, ἀγραφίου, μοιχείας. Probably in public, as in private actions,
payment was made by the prosecutor. If the amount also was the same,
the charge was a mere form and was not likely to deter men from engaging
in a public prosecution. Pollux (8. 39) explains the origin of the term
by citing Plat. Rep. 8. 555 Β ἵνα παραστησώμεθ᾽ αὐτὸν εἰς κρίσιν ; cp. Phot. s.v.
παραστησόμεθα. «The word, which according to Harpocration was common
in the orators, is quite rare in works that have come down to us. It is found
in And. 1. 120 εὐθὺς ἔθηκα παράστασιν καὶ ἔλαχον Λεάγρῳ, where the nature of
the suit is obscure. Harp. s.v. quotes a passage from Menander's Μισογύνης
(Kock, Com. Att. Fr. III. fr. 327, p. 95) ἕλκει δὲ γραμματείδιον | ἐκεῖσε δίθυρον
καὶ παράστασις, μία | δραχμή. Phot. s.v. has preserved a line aimed at
Athenian litigiousness, άνδρες Ελλήνων ἄριστοι καταβαλεῖν παράστασιν.
5, 6 τῷ βουλομένῳ. Cp. Dem. 24. 105 (law) ἐὰν δέ τις ἀπαχθῇ...δησάντων
αὐτὸν οἱ ἕνδεκα καὶ εἰσαγόντων εἰς τὴν ἡλιαίαν, κατηγορείτω δὲ ὁ βουλόμενος οἷς
ἔξεστιν, ib. § 63, 21. 47, Aesch. I. 23, 32, [Dem.] 43. 54 (law) ἀπογραφέτω
δὲ τὸν μὴ ποιοῦντα ταῦτα ὁ βουλόμενος πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα, C.I.A. IV. 2. 104 a
(352/1 B.C.), 16 sqq. ἐπιμελεῖσθαι δὲ τῆς ἱερᾶς ὀργάδος καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἱερῶν
τεμενῶν τῶν ᾿Αθήνησιν...τὴν βουλὴν τὴν ἐξ ᾿Αρείου πάγου...καὶ τὴν βουλὴν τὴν
ἀεὶ βουλεύουσαν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ᾿Αθηναίων τὸν βουλόμενον.
او
6 <αί ἔσχαται τιμωρίαι. The case was an ἀγὼν τιμητός, so that the severity
of the punishment depended upon the temper of the accuser and the judges;
see [Dem.] 43. 75 ἐὰν δ᾽ ἁλῷ, τιμάτω ἡ ἡλιαία περὶ τοῦ ἁλόντος, ὅ τι χρὴ αὐτὸν
παθεῖν ἢ ἀποτεῖσαι, Dem. 37. 46 τῷ μὲν ἠδικηκότι κίνδυνος περὶ τοῦ τί χρὴ
παθεῖν ἢ ἀποτεῖσαι, τῷ δ᾽ ἐπεξιόντι μετ᾿ οὐδεμιᾶς ζημίας ἡ βοήθεια. Isaeus is
indulging in exaggeration in § 62. 7, 8 (δημοσίᾳ εἰσαγγελθεὶς πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα
ἐκινδύνευεν ἂν περὶ τοῦ σώματος καὶ τῆς οὐσίας ἁπάσης τῆς ἑαυτοῦ); the utmost
that can be conceded is that the offender may not only have been heavily
fined but made, to use Andocides' phrase (1. 74), τὸ σῶμα ἄτιμος, like the son
convicted of maltreatment of a parent (I. 39. 5 κ.). Compare XI. 35. 3 κινδυ
νεύειν περὶ τοῦ σώματος, Dem. 37. 49 καὶ πρὸς ἀτιμῶσαι ζητείς.
332
OR. III.
ISAEUS
48. 1-6 ἔπειτα—ἐγγυήσαντος αὐτήν. No scholar seeks to deny the
charge first made by Reiske and expanded by Naber in less temperate
language (Mnem. N.S. 5, 1877, p. 399 sqq.), that this section is a mere
reiteration of what has been already said in §§ 45, 46. What divides critics
is a difference in the tests applied to discriminate Isaeus' work. Naber l.c.
cannot persuade himself that Isaeus could have composed so loosely, and,
therefore, first resorts to the conjecture that the passage is from the hand of
a diligent reader who noted on the margin of his copy the heads of the
principal proofs and arguments, and, next, to make things smooth after the
excision, inserts où before #apaxpîµa in 1. 7, treating the clause kaì ei ĥv…..
ádikoûvтa as a question. But Albrecht (Hermes 18, 1883, p. 367 sqq.) has
ἀδικοῦντα
shown (1) that §§ 45-52, diffuse as they are, yet reveal on analysis a certain
symmetry of grouping, (2) that repetition, and especially repetition which
consists in the reproduction of the opening phrases of a division of the
argument, is characteristic of Isaeus, (3) that like other orators, ancient and
modern, he falls back on verbosity when his matter is meagre and his
arguments thin.
Ι
I errata, introducing an inference, not a new thought, 'then,' i.e. this
being so.' For the position of the particle at the head of an interrogative
sentence Albrecht .c. compares § 49. I, IV. 24. 3, Lyc. 148, Aesch. 1. 164,
173, 2. 92, 161, Din. 2. 11, and the like use of era in §§ 24. 6, 36. 5, 37. 3,
49. 6, 50. 8, 77. I. See also IV. 29. 6 n.
4 αὐτῶν. We expect τούτων as in § 51. 3, but in Isaeus αὐτὰ is often
used in this vague way; compare IV. 25. 5, VII. 2. 6, 11. 4, 26. 6, vIII. 10. 3,
43. 3, X. 2. 4, 14. 5, XI. 2. 6, 15. 6, 19. 6, 2I. IO.
6 tkait ei ηv K.T.λ. The MS. reading kaì is not defensible. For the
confusion of vaì and kaì see Dobree, Adv. I. p. 156, D'Orville on Charito,
p. 525 (ed. 1750). Buermann thinks that the whole phrase, vaì µà ▲ía
(§§ 25. 1, 39. 3, 49. 7), has fallen out before κaí. But ériμwpnow is a weak
word to mark the climax of conviction crowning denunciation, and the
juncture with the preceding question is awkward. 'Would not Nicodemus
have brought a denunciation? Yes, by Zeus, he would; and, if your present
evidence were true, you would have punished the offender at the time (TÓTE)
straightway on the spot. A better transition is gained by altering κaí.
'Would not N. have brought a denunciation? (Pause, during which the
speaker turns to N.) Yes, if your present evidence were true, you would
have punished the offender etc. The natural and easy use of the combination
vaì µà Aía, kai, which is not common, is seen in sentences like Xen. Cyr.
2. Ι. 2 ἀτὰρ δέει τι αὐτῶν ἢ μάτην ἐφοβήθης, οἱ δὲ πολέμιοι οὐκ ἔρχονται; Ναὶ μὲ
Δία, ἔφη, καὶ πολλοί γε, ib. 7. 1. 6 πολὺ γάρ μοι δοκοῦσιν ἀποσπᾶν τὰ κέρατα ἀπὸ
kai
Tà
τῆς ἑαυτῶν φάλαγγος. Ναὶ μὰ Δία, ἔφη, καὶ ἀπό γε τῆς ἡμετέρας. Xenophon
has also rai vài mà Aa (Cyr. 2. 3. Io) and ả là vài mà Aa (2b. I. 6. 19). See
§ 25. I n.
7 παραχρήμα εὐθύς. See § 7. 3, I. II. 2 2.
49.5 Ovɣaтρl xilas. The MS. reading тpoxiλías does not agree with
§ 51. 2 (µndè Tò déκαтov μéρos éπidoús), 3000 dr. being one-sixth of 3 talents.
τρ
Note that Ovyarpì would be more exposed to corruption if written Ovya (Crit.
OR. III.
333
COMMENTARY
In
Introd. p. xliv). Schoemann finds an additional reason for preferring xiλías
in Harpocration's article on τὰ νοθεία: τὰ τοῖς νόθοις ἐκ τῶν πατρῴων διδόμενα
οὕτω καλεῖται, ἦν δὲ μέχρι χιλίων δραχμῶν· Λυσίας ἐν τῷ πρὸς Καλλιφάνη ξενίας,
εἰ γνήσιος, Ἰσαῖος πρὸς Λυσίβιον περὶ ἐπικλήρου. This maximum of 1ooo dr.
apparently applied to legacies to bastards (see Beauchet I. p. 499), and in
any case, if Phile was illegitimate, the rule did not affect Endius, who was
not her father. The orator's argument is, not that Endius gave a dowry of
exactly 1000 dr., the largest sum that a bastard could lawfully receive from a
parent under a will, but that if the story of Nicodemus and Xenocles is true,
he ought to have given much more than 1000 dr. The speaker in VIII. 8 is
careful to explain why his mother had so small a dowry as 1000 dr.
[Dem.] 59. 70 a man contributes this sum to portion a former mistress.
7,8 vai µà Aía. Cp. § 25. I n.
50.2
ovd' äλλov [dé]. Scheibe's change of de to ye is possible ([Dem.]
7. 28 οὐδ᾽ Ολυνθόν γε οὐδ᾽ Απολλωνίαν οὐδὲ Παλλήνην, 47. 72 οὐδ᾽ αὖ θεράπαινά
að
ye), but the normal combination in oratorical prose is ovde ye, not oʊdè…..ye
(e.g. Dem. 20. 138 οὐ...καλῶς ἔχειν οὐδέ γ᾽ ἀξίως ὑμῶν, ib. 161 οὐδὲ γὰρ
Λακεδαιμονίοι...οὐδέ γ᾽ ἴσως Συρακόσιοι). On the other hand δὲ has certainly
been foisted into the text in §§ 21. 1, 76. 4, and doubts may fairly be felt
about § 72. 9, v. 16. 5, VI. 59. 8. For the interpolation of dè in MSS. compare
Aesch. 3. 81, 241, Porson on Ar. Plut. 13, 385, 549, 707, 881, 1150, Dobree,
Adv. 11. p. 139, Blass, Dem. I. p. cxlii.
:
av
5, 6 ἀκριβῶς γὰρ <ἂν> ᾔδει ὅτι. The addition of ἂν eases the construc-
tion Endius would not have been so foolish etc., for he would have known
etc.' After yàp the word is often lost; add to the examples from A given in
the critical note Hyp. 4. 10 διὰ τί γὰρ <ἂν> τούτου φείσαισθε; Muret's
conjecture, ori for diori, should be accepted. The use of diór in the sense of
OTI, that,' to introduce an objective clause is not found in Antiphon,
Andocides, Aeschines, Hypereides, Lycurgus. Isocrates substitutes diÓTI
for ὅτι merely to avoid hiatus ; see 4. 48 καὶ διότι, 16. 43 ἐνθυμεῖ διότι, 6. 16
étíorηode dióti, ib. 24, 14. 23, 15. 133, 18. 1, 31, 20. 7, Ep. 2, 22, and Schneider
on 4. 48. The influence of Isocrates will explain the choice of dɩóri in
[Dem.] 12. 18 εἶναι διότι, Dem. 41. 23 (ἔσται διότι), [Dem.] 58. 36 γνώσεσθε
διότι, ib. 42 ἐπεὶ διότι, ib. 43 παρασχήσομαι διότι, [Dem.] 61. 38 καὶ διότι.
Not one of these works admits a hiatus before orɩ, since the case in [Dem.]
58. 52 ☎ ävdpes dɩkaσrai, öтɩ may be considered justifiable. The rule is not
ὅτι
applied with strictness in [Dem.] 46 (καὶ διότι 16, but ἐξέλεγξαι ὅτι 5, ἐνθυμη-
θῆναι ὅτι 15, 28), [Dem.] 40 (ἐγένετο διότι 2, ἢ διότι 41, but καὶ ὅτι 19), nor in
Dinarchus who has ποιήσετε διότι 1. 3, πόλει διότι 2. 5, but also παρέξομαι ὅτι
1. 51. It is interesting to note that the only genuine speech of Demosthenes
which contains an example of this artifice, i.e. or. 41, is considered by com-
petent critics an early work (Blass, Att. Ber.2 III. 1, p. 251). In Lysias kaì
dɩótɩ in 13. 4 was changed by Reiske, yvŵvai dɩórɩ in 16. 7 by Kayser, and all
recent editors accept the corrections. Isaeus, in this speech at any rate,
is as indifferent to hiatus as Lysias, and has no compunction whatever about
writing kai ori (§ 15. 3) and dei oti (§ 74. 2). Cp. VII. 13. 4.
6 τοῖς γε ἐκ τῆς γνησίας θυγατρός παισὶ κ.τ.λ. The reason here alleged is
inadequate to the circumstances. A son adopted under a will was ill-advised
334
OR. III.
ISAEUS
in refusing to marry the testator's legitimate daughter, because neglect
of the condition imposed by the testator and the laws (1) invalidated the
will and the adoption, and, consequently, (2) converted the daughter into an
ordinary éπíêλŋpos, open to the competition of the next-of-kin. But the
peculiarity of Phile's situation, provided that her legitimacy was recognised
by her father, was that, if the will was set aside, Endius still had the first
claim on her hand and the estate; at any rate his only rival was his own
brother. Endius, then, in making a bargain with Xenocles was in a strong
position and could say 'If you attack me, I shall not lose control of the
property, but you are likely to lose your wife; on the other hand, if you let
me alone for my lifetime, your children may inherit, for I cannot dispose of
the estate by will, I am not married, and I do not intend to marry.' In
parting with Phile Endius ran no risk, unless it be assumed that a woman
ceased to be subject to the liabilities of an éπíkλŋpos after she had given
birth to a legitimate male infant. In this case it is possible (see § 55. 6, 7 n.)
that Endius' legal rights as next-of-kin to Pyrrhus' legitimate daughter were
extinguished before his death, so that Xenocles, if he had thought it worth
while, could have tried to get hold of the estate on the plea that his son, if he
had one, was Pyrrhus' direct heir. That such was the rule of Athenian law
with regard to claims on an éπíkλŋpos is a conjecture of Caillemer's (La
prescription à Athènes, 1869, p. 17 sqq., Droit de succession, 1879, p. 42),
which is accepted by Hafter (Die Erbtochter nach attischem Recht, 1887,
p. 55) but treated with some scepticism by Hruza I. p. 111 n. 37 and Beauchet I.
p. 449. The provisions of the code of Gortyn (see § 64. 5 2.) strengthen
Caillemer's theory. Thalheim (Zu den gr. Rechtsaltert. II. pp. 16, 17)
argues that the children of Xenocles, an extraneus, had no rights in the
estate of Pyrrhus, even if Phile was legitimate. The evidence for Athenian
practice consists of this passage, §§ 55. 7, 64. 5, VIII. 31, X. 19, fr. 90 Saupp.
ἡγούμεθα γὰρ ἐκείνῃ μὲν τὸν ἐγγυτάτω γένους δεῖν συνοικεῖν, τὰ δὲ χρήματα τέως
μὲν τῆς ἐπικλήρου εἶναι, ἐπειδὰν δὲ παῖδες ἐπὶ διετὲς ἡβήσωσιν, ἐκείνους αὐτῶν
κρατεῖν.
51. 2, 3 ἐπιδοὺς ἐκδοῦναι τῇ γνησίᾳ θυγατρὶ τῶν πατρῴων. Naber's
ἐπιδοῦναι for ἐπιδοὺς ἐκδοῦναι should be rejected. The order of the words
that follow is remarkable, but has been rightly explained by Schoemann.
The orator stopped for a moment after éκdoûvaɩ, and added indignantly first
Tŷ yvŋσią Ovyаrpí, 'when she was the legitimate daughter,' and then, after
another but shorter pause, rŵν паτρówν, 'when the estate was her father's.'
Naber's view that the construction is 'not Greek,' is not shared by Lincke,
De Elocutione Isaei p. 32 and Blass, Att. Ber.2 11. p. 515, who cites IV. 21. 6,
and v. 41. 5 as examples of Isaeus' audacity in the arrangement of words.
Cp. $ 69. 5 n., IV. 24. 9 n.
5 ¿yw µèv yáp. Cp. I. I. I 2.
6 ἠμφεσβήτησεν ἂν καὶ διεμαρτύρησε. The orator is resuming somewhat
awkwardly the objections raised in §§ 40-44. A diapapropia could not be
διαμαρτυρία
employed against Endius after the award of the court which granted him
possession under the will. See § 43. 4 n.
52.6 [ý§íwoev.] For repeated words in A see Crit. Introd. p. xxxvii.
53.2 ἐπιδικασίας. Cp. § 41. 2 η., 4 κ.
OR. III.
335
COMMENTARY
3 Tîs yuvaɩkós, i.e. Phile. The deposition concerning Phile's marriage
contract would have been useful to students of Greek forensic methods.
Thus, for one thing, it would have revealed the exact value of Isaeus' repeated
statements that Phile was married 'as a courtesan's child.' Probably the
witness or witnesses produced merely declared, what was not denied, that
Phile was given to Xenocles with a modest dowry. The attack in §§ 45—53
would, I suggest, have taken a different form, if the advocate could have
brought forward persons present at the marriage contract to testify that in
the ceremony and agreement Endius carefully described Phile as his
illegitimate sister. The document might also have helped towards answer-
ing Hruza's conundrum (§ 2. 3 n.), Who was kúpios of an illegitimate
unmarried female orphan?
6 Toùs vóμous, i.e. toùs tŵv étiкλýρwv (Dem. 37. 45). [Dem.] 43 shows
the law concerning the duties of the Archon (§ 75) and the marriage of Oñttai
(§ 54), [Dem.] 46 contains part of the law about the rights of the son of an
ἐπίκληρος (§ 20).
8,9 λaßè-MAPTYPIA. Albrecht's reasons for casting out these words
are not convincing. He objects (Hermes 18, 1883, p. 366 sqq.) (1) that
Táλ ought to have been added, since the deposition of Nicodemus has
been read before (§ 7), (2) that only 'a careless reader and stupid interpolator'
could have thought it necessary to repeat a document to which the orator has
made repeated references, and the substance of which could not have been
forgotten by his hearers.
Whether Isaeus wrote
54. I πῶς οὖν <ἂν> τις σαφέστερον ἐξελέγχοι.
here πôs o³v åv (VIII. 28. 5, IX. 15. 1, Dem. 23. 36, 27. 47, 29. 55, Aesch. 3. 31)
or πôs ầv oʊv (IX. 31. 1, Ant. 5. 28, 90, [Lys.] 8. 7, 20. 15, Dem. 19. 85, 55. 20,
[Dem.] 43. 76, 44. 48, 48. 50, Aesch. 1. 17, 3. 219) cannot be settled; cp.
X. 18. I (lows ouv <äv> Tis). Gebauer (De arg. ex contr. formis p. 279)
τις).
suggests that the original reading was πôs av тis as in Dem. 18. 212, 19. 69,
23. 81, [Dem.] 43. 78; the asyndeton is no difficulty (§ 39. I n.), and ovv is
sometimes confused with av (1. 36. 5, Dem. 21. 223, Din. 1. 96, Dobree, Adv.
II. p. 139). Thalheim adopts Gebauer's suggestion.
Roeder (Beiträge p. 43 sqq.) defends the reading πôs oʊʊ TɩS ɧEλÉYXOI,
maintaining that the archaic and poetical use of the Potential Optative
unaccompanied by av lived on in Attic prose, and appealing from modern
editors to the authority of manuscript tradition (Ich stelle mich streng auf den
Standpunkt der hdschr. Ueberlieferung, der mir sicherer erscheint, als der
schlüpfrige Boden waghalsiger Konjektural-Kritik). The 'syntax of
Parnassus' is out of place in a court-house, and good critics take account of
the quality of a document before using it as a criterion of grammatical
principles. The codex Crippsianus repeatedly omits av, not only when the
sentence contains an Optative, but also with the Subjunctive and Infinitive
and with past tenses of the Indicative, 14 times in Isaeus (to the examples in
Crit. Introd. p. xxxvi add 111. 60. 6, 75. 3, X. 23. 5), 9 times in Antiphon
(I. 25, Tetr. I. a. 4, B. 4, Tetr. II. ß. 6, Tetr. III. §. 2, 3, V. 45, 64, VI. 19),
7 times in Andocides (1. 102, 2. 19, 21, 3. 1 (add. Q), 26, 4. 36, 38), 3 times in
Lycurgus (23, 50, 144), 6 times in Dinarchus (1. 50, 91, 2. 3, 3. 11 (add. A²),
18, 19). The codex Palatinus (X) of Lysias, also an inferior MS., omits àv
336
OR. III.
ISAEUS
24 times (2. 15, 3. 43 (add. C), 4. 7 (add. C), 5. 5, 7. 12, 10. 5, 7, 11. 7, 12. 62
(add. C), 13. 32, 85, 90, 14. 27, 18. 7, 19. 26, 35, 38, 48, 20. 2 (add. C), 21. 22,
24. 12, 25. 28, 28. 4, 31. 24). Contrast the testimony of more respectable
witnesses. The Urbinas (г) of Isocrates omits av 5 times (8. 93, 9. 69, 12. 26,
15. 79 (add. →), 197 (add. AE); in 7. 12 read Tηy opeŵs Toîs πрáуμаσι xрησo-
µévŋv). The record of codex Parisinus Σ of Demosthenes is not so good; in
the 59 speeches of the Demosthenic corpus it omits av 35 times, but is put
right by less famous MSS. in 22 places; the passages where all MSS. omit àv
are the following: 21. 35, 24. 72, 123, 34. 43, 44. 25, 45. 13, 34, 47. 29, 52. 29,
55. 16, 35, 57. 25, 58. 34. The MSS. of Aeschines concur in omitting av
3 times (3. 60, 217, 231; in 1. 181 тaɣù yàp is written for Taxú y'ầv). “Av is
ταχὺ ταχύ
absent from the papyri of Hypereides in 3 places (1. col. xxx (xxix), 8 où
πάντ᾽ ἂ<ν>...ὑπηρετοῦμεν, 3. 4 πρὶν <ἂν > αὐτὸ ἐξετάσωμεν, 4. 10 διὰ τί γὰρ
<ầv> Toútov þeíoaιode;). For the MSS. of Plato see Thompson on Meno
97 C. The cause of the phenomenon is mechanical; copyists were prone
to miss ầv in certain combinations of letters, after yàp and next to ouv
and when the subsequent word began with a or the preceding word ended
with -a, -av, -ov.
The scribe of the Urbinas sometimes detected his mistake
and added the word in or above the line (e.g. 5. 77 oỷk av åyavaktýσelE,
II. 33 οὐδεὶς ἂν ἀνθρώπων, 9. 14, 12. 145, 158; for pr. Σ cp. Dem. 19. 14 πῶς
ἂν ἄριστα, 20. 43 πῶς ἂν ἄνθρωπος, 21. 186 ὅσῳπερ ἂν αὑτόν, 23. 180). The
most tenacious upholders of MS. authority are generally people who have not
studied MSS.
...
54-62 The conduct of Xenocles proves that Phile is not legitimate.
For if Xenocles had believed his wife to be Pyrrhus' legitimate daughter,
(1) he would long ago have disputed Endius' usurpation of her father's
estate, especially as he denies the adoption and is not now claiming in the
name of Endius' sister, (2) on Endius' death he would not have come before
the Archon asking for a judgment, but would have availed himself of the
laws enabling a legitimate daughter to take possession of her inheritance and
punish severely all opposition.
Opinions may differ about the effectiveness of the attack on Nicodemus,
but no careful reader can fail to detect flaws in the two arguments drawn
from the behaviour of Xenocles, which form the next division of the speech.
His inaction during Endius' lifetime and the form of procedure, which he
chose after Endius' death, do not afford the least indication of his views
about his wife's mother's marriage. The orator, in the first place, pretends
to expose a fatal inconsistency in his conduct. Xenocles, he affirms, does
not admit that Endius was adopted by Pyrrhus: why, then, did he not seek
to dispossess Endius in the interests of his wife? Xenocles might have met
the question with the retort that Endius, even if not adopted, still had claims
on Phile as the next-of-kin (§ 50. 6 n.). But serious doubts may be enter-
tained about the truth of this statement, that Xenocles challenged the fact of
Endius' adoption. The detail is one which could have been proved by
testimony without any difficulty. It was absolutely necessary for Xenocles
and his advocate at the previous trial to define their position with regard to
the adoption; they may have contended that Pyrrhus made no will, or that
he made a will but not the will produced by their adversaries, or that the
OR. III.
337
COMMENTARY
will which he made was invalidated by subsequent events, but there could
have been no uncertainty and no lack of evidence about the line which they
actually took in attack or defence. But Endius' brother, instead of choosing
the straight road and calling witnesses, falls back on artificial and incon-
clusive inferences. He says that at the previous trial Xenocles gave notice
of an intention to prosecute the witnesses to Pyrrhus' will, and he produces
the incriminated deposition (§ 56). But then he suddenly shifts his ground
without making clear to the judges what particulars in the evidence were
assailed, and turns to another and even less satisfactory demonstration. If
Xenocles, it is argued, had admitted the adoption, after the death of Endius
he would have claimed for Phile, not as Pyrrhus' daughter, but as Endius'
sister. This conclusion is more than doubtful in view of the disabilities of
sons adopted by testament and of the exceptional position of Endius, if he
had not faithfully fulfilled the conditions of the will authorising his adoption,
but even if Endius' estate was a thing recognised by law and claimable as
such, Xenocles' procedure must have been guided by the necessities of the
situation and by the competition with Pyrrhus' sister, who was bound to
claim the estate of Pyrrhus, not the estate of Endius. Whether his course of
action was unusual, is not certain, but it is incredible that in the circum-
stances there was anything 'illegal,' as the speaker dares to assert at a later
stage (§ 67. 3, 4), in passing over Endius and going back to Pyrrhus. What
is surprising is that Isaeus should have thought it worth while to labour the
point. Even if Xenocles before Endius' death did refuse to acknowledge the
adoption, it by no means follows that the knowledge of Phile's illegitimacy,
and nothing else, must have been the reason why the usurper was left in
undisturbed possession.
The second argument, which is not separated from the first by any clear
line of demarcation, contains on the most lenient interpretation a suppressio
ueri and a suggestio falsi. Its substance is this: Xenocles, if he had
believed his wife to be legitimate, would never have gone before the Archon,
but would have instantly taken possession of the property and prosecuted the
occupants for ejectment (écouλn) and maltreatment of an heiress, if they
dared to offer resistance. But the tell-tale allusion of § 22 betrays the
important fact that Xenocles did try to oust his adversaries from part of the
estate, though unfortunately it does not reveal whether this move was made
before or after the application to the Archon (see § 22. 4 1.). The orator
clearly (§§ 2, 3) wishes the judges to believe that Xenocles forestalled
Pyrrhus' sister in the appeal to the court, and then, when she put in her
claim, interposed a diaµaprupía, the effect of which was a denial of the
jurisdiction of the court. This procedure is so odd and inconsistent that I
cannot help suspecting that Pyrrhus' sister was first in the race, and that
Xenocles was obliged to go to the Archon and to use the diapaprupía, lest the
question of ownership should be settled before the action for ejectment came
But even if it be assumed that Xenocles was really the first to lodge a
petition claiming the estate, how could this policy prejudice his wife's case?
To fail to take full advantage of his legal rights was not an offence nor a
mark of a bad conscience. The speaker's judgment on the propriety of the
procedure chosen must not be accepted as final. It is very dubious whether
on.
W. I.
22
338
OR. III.
ISAEUS
the actions for ejectment and for maltreatment of an heiress which in his
opinion Xenocles ought to have brought, were the right methods of vindi-
cating Phile's claims. The argument of $$ 59-61 leading up to this
conclusion is sophistical, and confounds the rights of sons and the rights of
daughters ($ 59. I n.). An 'heiress' did not take possession of her father's
estate, but was herself taken possession of, as Isaeus recognises when
dealing with Pyrrhus' uncles in §§ 63-71. Phile however, if legitimate, was
in a remarkable situation owing to the marriage with Xenocles; perhaps too
the birth of children had altered her status. We do not know what was the
correct procedure in so complicated a case. As the enemy was in possession
and was bound to come to the courts, Xenocles' advisers may have counselled
an assault on both sides.
54. 6 ἐκ τούτου, probably neuter; see Ant. 6. 31 τεκμήρια ἐξ αὐτῶν
Tŵv éρуwv, and IX. 10. 2 n.
55. 3 μeμаρTúρηтaι. See § 53. 3 n.
5 áληoñ Taûta. The reason for suspecting these words is not so much
the tautology, of which Isaeus might have been guilty, as the grammatical
difficulty of the expression. The phrase raûта μеμаρтúрηке commonly means
‘he has given this testimony,' though it may mean 'he has attested these
facts'; see [Dem.] 46. 6, Aesch. 1. 73, 3. 249, and compare μaprupeî þóvov
(Ant. 5. 48), dɩaðýías (Dem. 45. 26), πpókλnow (Dem. 45. 15), åkoǹv ([Dem.]
46. 8), τὰ πεπραγμένα ([Dem.] 46. 11), τὰ γενόμενα (ΙΧ. 25. 1), τὴν ἀρετήν (Lys.
fr. XVIII. 41 Saupp.). But the only natural sense of ảìîðî ravτa µeµaptúpηKE
is 'he has given this testimony which is true,' whereas the idea demanded by
the sentence is ‘he has attested the truth of this,' i.e. ảλŋôî eîvai taûтa µeµap-
ταῦτα μεμαρ
τύρηκε, οι ὡς ἀληθῆ ὄντα ταῦτα μεμαρτύρηκε, as in Lys. 20. 11 μαρτυρησάτω (τις)
os [del. Reisk.] ȧvayκaîov övтa puvix. The omission of the infinitive (or
participle) here is not justified by Plato, Phaedr. 244 D oow dǹ ovv TeλewτeρOV
καὶ ἐντιμότερον μαντικὴ οἰωνιστικῆς, τόσῳ κάλλιον μαρτυροῦσιν οἱ παλαιοὶ μανίαν
σwppoσúvns. For epy papтupeîv compare II. 38. 4, VI. 12. I, VII. 18. 3.
π
6, 7 övтwv aur@ πaldwv. This remark is not inconsistent with Caillemer's
theory (§ 50. 6 n.) that an éπíkλŋρos could not be claimed by the next-of-kin
after bearing a legitimate son. Although the orator does not say plainly aɩdòs
appevos or véos, he may have desired to suggest to his hearers that a son or
sons had been born, although he was aware that the children were all girls.
On the other hand the passage cannot be claimed as a confirmation of the
hypothesis, because the presence of any children, girls or boys, would
stimulate a father to assert their mother's rights, since her property would
of necessity descend to them. Had there been no children, Xenocles'
interest in Pyrrhus' estate would have been to some extent weakened,
inasmuch as he would have ceased to enjoy the fortune, if death or
divorce deprived him of his wife.
7 ồn rηdikoÚTwv. Xenocles and Phile had been married 'more than
eight years' (§ 31. 2 n.).
8 ὑπὲρ τῆς γνησίας θυγατρός. A has περί. For the confusion of περὶ and
Vπèр see Ant. 5. 63, Lys. 14. 2, Isocr. 12. 34, Dem. 8. 66, 22. 38, 24. 5, 18,
[Dem.] 40. 58, 42. 9, 59. 110, Aesch. 1. 17, 141, Rh. Gr. (Hammer) 1. pp. 265.
10, 311. 5, Dobree, Adv. II. p. 150.
OR. III.
339
COMMENTARY
56.1 παρεσκευασμένος μὴ ὁμολογεῖν. The phrase is designed to conceal
the absence of any proof that Xenocles questioned the adoption in Endius'
lifetime.
2 τῷ Πύρρῳ γενέσθαι. Naber demands ὑπὸ τοῦ Πύρρου, as in § 57. 2.
But compare § 61. 5, ΧΙ. 10. 4, 22. 3, [Dem.] 43. 15 καὶ ἡ πρόσκλησις ἐγένετο
τῷ παιδὶ τουτῳὶ κατὰ τὸν νόμον, καθ᾽ ὅνπερ καὶ οὗτοι προσεκαλέσαντο τὴν τουτουὶ
μητέρα, C. I. A. II. 614. I (280/79 Β.C.), 22 ἡ δ᾽ εἴσπραξις ἔστω τοῖς θιασώταις
καθάπερ καὶ τἆλλα ὀφειλήματα, S.I.G. n. 229= Michel n. 199 (decree of the
Achaean League, c. 234 Β.C.), 10 τῶι ψαφίσματ[ι τῶι γενομένωι τῶι κοι]ν[πι] τῶι
τῶν ᾿Αχαιῶν, Inscr. Jurid. Gr. p. 246, 2 (2nd c., from Mylasa) γενομένης δὲ
τῆς ὠνῆς τῶν προγεγραμμένων κτημάτων τοῖς κτηματώναις. If it is good Attic
to say ἡ πρᾶξις ἐστί μοι, ‘I have the right of recovery, why should any one
question the possibility of ἡ πρᾶξις ἐγένετό μοι, ‘I realised the right?
+ὡς δ᾽ οὐχ ὁμολογῶν πῶς †. I would change δὲ τo γὰρ (Crit. Introd. p. xlvii,
Dem. 9. 65, [Dem.] 47. 65, Aesch. 1. 6, 91), and suggest that râs comes from
a repetition of ὡς (cp. § 19. 3). As in Lys. 26. 12 (εἰ δὲ μή, πῶς) πῶς has been
corrupted in X to ὡς through haplography, η resembling π (Crit. Introd. l.c.,
Lys. 7. 42 ἢ ἄρα X for παρά, [Dem.] 49. 38 ἢ ὡς ΣFQ for πῶς, ib. § 47 που κ
pr. Σ for ἢ οὐκ, Rh. Gr. (Hammer) I. p. 232, 4 ἀκουόντων πῶς Β, ἀκουόντων ὥς
Α, ἀκουόντων ἢ ὡς Bake recte), so by dittography the final v of ὁμολογῶν may
have generated π, the two letters being sometimes confused (Crit. Introd.
p. xlvi, Blass, Hyp. praef. p. xxiv, Dem. 21. 191 ἀπαρνηθείην ΣΥQ for ἂν
ἀρνηθείην, [Dem.] 47. 8ο ἀπῆλθον Σ for ἀνῆλθον, 53. 17 ἀπιόντα ΣQ for
ἀνιόντα). Radermacher quoted by Thalheim postulates a lacuna : ὡς δ᾽ οὐχ
<ὡμολόγηκε τεκμήριον· τὴν γὰρ ποίησιν > ὁμολογῶν πῶς κ.τ.λ.
3 ἐπεσκήπτετο. See § 3. 5 κ.
5 τὴν μαρτυρίαν. The joint deposition (Χ. 26. 5) of the witnesses who
See the
said they had been present at the execution of Pyrrhus' will.
document in Dem. 45. 8 Στέφανος Μενεκλέους ᾿Αχαρνεύς, Ενδιος Ἐπιγένους
Λαμπτρεύς, Σκύθης ῾Αρματέως Κυδαθηναιεὺς μαρτυροῦσι παρεῖναι πρὸς τῷ
διαιτητῇ Τεισία ᾿Αχαρνεῖ, ὅτε προὐκαλεῖτο Φορμίων ᾿Απολλόδωρον κ.τ.λ. The
mere recital of this deposition is not enough to explain the precise object
of Xenocles' notice of prosecution. Buermann (Jahrbb. f. cl. Philol. Supple-
mentband 9, 1877/78, p. 641) hazards the conjecture that Xenocles was
prepared to attack the witnesses, because he maintained that the adoption
was completed during Pyrrhus' lifetime. See S 60. 2 7.
57. 1 κακείνως δῆλον. One argument has been produced in $ 56 to
show that Xenocles denied the adoption. This sentence brings forward
another, directed to the same end. Consequently, the MS. reading (κἀκεῖνό
γε δῆλον) is untenable. Sauppe's defence of A (Ep. Crit. ad G. H. p. 89=
Ausgew. Schr. p. 186) I do not understand. Thalheim accepts Schoemann's
δηλοί.
6 Μεταγειτνιώνος. The second month of the Attic civil year, corre-
sponding roughly to our August. May we infer from Téрvow that at
least eleven months had passed since the beginning of the struggle for
the estate of Pyrrhus? Dareste seems to take this view (Plaidoyers d'Isée
p. 36).
7, 8 τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ εὐθέως. See § 22. 4 n.
22-2
340
OR. III.
ISAEUS
within five years from the
B.C.), 18, 19 ẻàv dè µǹ πaρа-
58. 1 πέντε ἐτῶν...ἐπειδὰν τελευτήσῃ κ.τ.λ.,
death of the heir.' Cp. C.I.A. IV. I. 27 b (c. 431
δέχσωνται πέντε ἡμερῶν. ἐπειδὰν ἐπαγγελῇ. The insinuation is that it was
inconsistent to leave Endius in peace for twenty years or so, and yet appeal
to the Archon immediately after his death, when there was no occasion for
haste. The present passage is our only authority for the period of limitation
prescribed for suits in recovery of an inheritance. The point from which the
period ran and the details of the rule, which is very peculiar and has been
censured by modern jurists, e.g. by Caillemer, Droit de Succession p. 169 sqq.,
and Beauchet III. p. 627 sqq., are shown more clearly by the law preserved
in [Dem.] 43. 16 ἐὰν δ᾽ ἐπιδεδικασμένου ἀμφισβητῇ τοῦ κλήρου ἢ τῆς ἐπικλήρου,
προσκαλείσθω τὸν ἐπιδεδικασμένον πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων
δικῶν· παρακαταβολὰς δ᾽ εἶναι τῷ ἀμφισβητοῦντι...ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ζῇ ὁ ἐπιδικασάμενος
τοῦ κλήρου, προσκαλείσθω κατὰ ταὐτά, ᾧ ἂν ἡ προθεσμία (i.e. the 5 years) μήπω
ἐξήκῃ. τὴν δ᾽ ἀμφισβήτησιν εἶναι τῷ ἔχοντι, καθότι ἐπεδικάσατο οὗ ἂν ἔχῃ τὰ
Xphμara. This law shows that Xenocles, if he had permitted Pyrrhus' sister
to obtain possession by a judgment of a court without offering opposition,
would still have retained the power to bring an action against her during her
lifetime, and against her heirs for five years after her death, since the decease
of Endius, an adopted son and unable to transmit his title, opened afresh the
entire question of the succession to Pyrrhus' estate. But common prudence
bade Xenocles meet Pyrrhus' sister at once. The mere fact of her claim was
a direct denial of Phile's rights, and nothing could have been gained, while
much might have been lost, by allowing an award to be made in her favour.
The sophistry of the advocate conceals the truth that the limit of five years,
if applied to Endius' estate, would have merely affected the right of sum-
moning Endius' heir, who was non-existent, to prove in court the validity
of Endius' title; note the last clause of the law.
3 δυοῖν τὰ ἕτερα. Cp. I. 22. 5 η.
رد
59. I
ådeλþŵv µèv kλńpwv K.T.λ. 'Brother's estates may be claimed at
law by all of us, but, when the deceased has legitimate children born of his
body, no child should claim at law a father's estate. The contorted sentence
is not to be put down to literary incapacity. The object of the twist is to
convey the idea that it was wrong (not unnecessary or unusual) for Phile, a
daughter, to apply to the Archon. The principle inspiring the law is simple.
Legitimate sons enjoyed a special privilege, being permitted to take posses-
sion without judicial sanction; collaterals and testamentary heirs laboured
under a disability, in so far as they were forbidden to enter on occupation
before their claims had been submitted to a court. By using the word
'children' here and in § 60. 7 Isaeus assimilates the rights and duties of
sons and daughters. But legitimate daughters occupied a place by them-
selves, since, if the father died intestate and without sons and the daughters
happened to be unmarried, they did not claim at all, but were themselves
claimed by collaterals as appendages of the estate. Whether a married
daughter was claimable on the death of her father if she had given birth
to a son, has been questioned and is at any rate not certain; see $$ 50. 6 n.,
55. 6, 7 12., 64. 5, 6 n.
2 yóvų. Cp. 11. 18. 5 n.
OR. III.
341
COMMENTARY
5, 6 ἀνεπίδικα ἔχουσι τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστοι πατρῷα. For ἀνεπίδικα see VI. 4,
VIII. 34, [Dem.] 46. 22, Bekk. An. Gr. 1. p. 183, 26, Suid. s.vv. ȧveπidika and
éπídıкa. Buermann's insertion of kaì before vµeîs is preferable to the change
ἐπίδικα.
of exovoi to exETE (§ 19. 7 n.). Herwerden's further correction, ëkaσtos, in-
volves the alteration of ἑαυτῶν; see Thuc. 2. 87. 8 τὸ καθ᾿ ἑαυτὸν ἕκαστος
ἕπεσθε, Dem. 57. 2 οὐ πρὸς τὸ καθ᾽ αὑτὸν ἕκαστος ἀγωνιζόμεθα, Xen. Cyr. 6. 2.
41 ὑμεῖς δ᾽ οἱ ἡγεμόνες τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἕκαστος τάξιν εὐτρεπισάμενος, Dyroff,
Geschichte des Pronomen Reflexivum pp. 552, 614.
60. 2 τῷ μὲν εἰσποιήτῳ οὐκ ἔφασαν κ.τ.λ. Χenocles and his friends
undoubtedly blundered if they really at any time maintained that a son
adopted by will could proceed without judicial authorisation to carry out
A son
the necessary formalities of adoption and take over the estate.
adopted inter uiuos and duly admitted to the pparpía and deme of his
adoptive father was on the same footing as a son born in lawful wedlock,
and could bar the way of rivals by the diapapтupía, as is shown by or. II.
No such privilege is intelligible in the case of a son adopted by will, who
could not be recognised as lawful heir, until he had satisfied a court that the
testament constituting his title was genuine and valid; see VI. 3, IX. 3, X. 9,
[Dem.] 44. 19. Buermann (Jahrbb. f. cl. Philol. Supplementband 9, p. 641)
suggests that Isaeus is misrepresenting the statement made by the other
side, which was in fact, that Endius, having been adopted in Pyrrhus'
lifetime, was under no obligation to claim at law; see § 56. 5 n. The
adoption, he further argues, may have been completed before Phile's birth,
so that she was never in any sense an éπíkληpos, and could not have been
married by Endius, whose rights and duties in relation to her differed in no
respect from those of a real brother.
3 Tŵv Solévтwv. For didóvaι meaning 'to bequeath' see § 42. 3 n., IV. 8.
3, VI. 3. 2, IX. 31. 4, X. 9. 3, XI. 8. 9, [Dem.] 58. 31 (τǹv ovoíav åñaσav, îv
Αἰσχύλος ὁ ποιησάμενος αὐτὸν υἱὸν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ). But in VII. 43. 8 τὰ δοθέντα
is used in the case of an adoption inter uiuos.
7 ἐξ αὐτῶν. An alternative to yóva yeyovótas in §§ 59. 2, 61. 1. The
wordiness of S$ 59-61 should warn the reader to be on the watch for
fallacies and equivocations.
δ, 9 αὐτοὶ εἰσποιοῦνται. The emendations of αὐτοί, which, though not
questioned by Reiske, Bekker, and Schoemann, is undoubtedly corrupt, vary
according to the view held of the voice of eloπоlovνтαι. (1) One set of critics
urge that the verb is a middle, and point out the advantage of making oơo
δὲ διαθήκαις—εἰσποιοῦνται symmetrical with ὅσοι μὲν ἂν καταλίπωσι γνησίους
παῖδας ἐξ αὐτῶν. In place of αὐτοὶ Dobree (Adv. I. p. 291) tentatively
put forward αὑτοῖς or αὐτούς. The Zürich editors accepted avroîs and
promoted it to the text. Examples occur not only of eiσmoιoûµaι viòv
εἰσποιοῦμαι
(VIII. 36. 8, IX. 7. 8, XII. I. 5) and eloToLoûμαι пaîdas (Isocr. 19. 13, 49),
but of elσmoioûµaι without an object expressed ([Dem.] 44. 34, 51), and the
lack of any instance of eloπolovµai viòv èµavrâ is probably accidental, since
the combination seems as natural and intelligible as ποιοῦμαι υἱὸν ἐμαυτῷ
which is common (see e.g. § 42. 2). The fault of the Zürich text is that, if
avroîs be adopted, Tourous is open to misconstruction. To remove this
difficulty Scheibe (Comm. Crit. p. 29) first suggested vioùs eiσmoiûvrai, but
Π
342
OR. III.
ISAEUS
afterwards printed in his edition αὑτοῖς εἰσποιοῦνται, τοῖς υἱοῖς ἐπιδικάζεσθαι
K.T.λ. This treatment is too bold, for the confusion of ToÚTois and Toîs vioîs is
not as easy as the corruption of ô viòs into ouros, which has taken place in
VI. 22. 2, and [Dem.] 43. 22, 63. (2) Emper, Buermann, and others interpret
εἰσποιοῦνται as a passive. Emper substitutes υἱοὶ for αὐτοί, an easy emenda-
tion, against which there is only one objection, that the form vioì is rare
in MSS., and not found in A, which always has vieîs; cp. II. 2. 2 n.
Buermann, however, arguing from the admitted fact that one of the faults
of the Crippsianus is a tendency to misplace words, expresses a strong
preference, which I do not share, for the remedy of transposition, and
conjectures (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 338) that the original reading was őσo dè
διαθήκαις εἰσποιοῦνται, αὐτοῖς τούτοις κ.τ.λ. But doubts have been raised with
regard to the legitimacy of the passive here, which deserve analysis. The
present passive εἰσποιεῖταί τις υἱὸς is the natural correlative of εἰσποιῶ τινα
vióv, which is applied to a father or other relative, who allows or causes
a son or ward to be adopted into another family (IV. 10. 4, VII. 31. 4, 44. 5,
IX. 2. I, X. II. 2, 12. 9, 16. 7, XI. 49. 8); cp. [Dem.] 44. 66 oióµeða deiv
κληρονομεῖν τῶν ᾿Αρχιάδου καὶ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν τὸν εἰσποιούμενον...
μὴ παρὰ τούτων, ib. § 43 οἰόμεθα δεῖν ἐκ τῶν κατὰ γένος ἐγγυτάτω ἡμῶν εἰσποιεῖν
υἱὸν τῷ τετελευτηκότι. The question arises whether εἰσποιοῦμαι υἱόν, said of
a man who takes an adoptive son into his own family, would be represented
in the passive by υἱὸς εἰσποιεῖται ὑπ᾿ ἐμοῦ. There can be no doubt that the
aorist passive eiσeñoinen viòs was used when the agent expressed or implied
was the adoptive father. This appears from [Dem.] 44. 19 vπ' èkeivov (ŵvtos
ἔτι εἰσποιηθείς, ib. § 50 οὐκ εἰσποιηθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ τετελευτηκότος αὐτοῦ, and from
VII. 45. 4 eiσemonėŋy, which refers to an adoption inter uiuos. But the
passive forms of moιοûµaι viòv indicate that a distinction might have existed
between the aorist passive εἰσεποιήθην and the present passive εἰσποιοῦμαι.
By the side of Δικαιογένης ἐποιήθη ὑπὸ τοῦ θείου τοῦ ἡμετέρου υἱὸς (V. 12) we
find Δικαιογένης ἡμετέρῳ θείῳ ἐγίγνετο υἱὸς ποιητὸς (v. 6), but not Δικαιογένης
υἱὸς ἐποιεῖτο or υἱὸς ποιείται. The objection, then, to regarding eloπolouvтaι
here as a passive seems to be this, that while the instrumental dative dialŋkais
suggests the action of the testator, elσπoιûvτaι, if passive, implies the action
of other persons than the testator. In other words, ὅσοι κατὰ διαθήκας υἱοὶ
eloπoloÛvτaι would be a consistent and perspicuous statement, but would
describe the actual ceremony of adoption (the introduction into the pparpía
etc.) authorised by the will. I have sought to define what I conceive to be
the exact basis of the enigmatical observations of Scheibe (Comm. Crit.
p. 29), who asserts that the passive is not admissible in this sentence, but
I dissent from the results of the criticism, which is an attempt to bind
language too straitly. The present passive viòs Toleiтaι was apparently not
toiîtaι
tolerated at all. But the present passive viòs eloπoieîtai was admittedly in
use, and, if unqualified, stated the bare fact of the introduction of an adoptive
son into a family. I cannot imagine how or why such an expression could
have been proscribed by custom, whenever the agent expressed or implied
was an adoptive father.
T
>
Π
K
61.2 πρὸς δὲ τοὺς εἰσποιήτους κ.τ.λ. This statement is borne out by
the remains of the orators. The 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th of Isaeus' speeches
OR. III.
343
COMMENTARY
are directed against sons adopted by will, the 2nd and 7th are attacks on
sons adopted wholly or partially inter uiuos, the 19th speech of Isocrates is
a defence of a will by the adopted son. Compare VII. 2 ὁ δ᾽ ἐν διαθήκαις
σημηνάμενος ἀδήλους ἐποίησε (τὰς αὑτοῦ βουλήσεις), δι᾿ ὃ πολλοὶ πεπλάσθαι
φάσκοντες αὐτὰς ἀμφισβητεῖν ἀξιοῦσι πρὸς τοὺς ποιηθέντας, [Dem.] 44. 63 ὁρᾶτε
γὰρ ὅτι ταῖς κολακείαις οἱ πλεῖστοι ψυχαγωγούμενοι καὶ ταῖς πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους
διαφοραῖς πολλάκις φιλονικοῦντες ποιητοὺς υἱοὺς ποιοῦνται. Remember that
the pretext of the next-of-kin was the invalidity of the will or adoption, and
that a real son (οὐ ποιητός, ἀληθινὸς δέ, Plat. Laws 878 E) had to prove his
legitimacy, if required, and might expect attacks, if there was anything
irregular or unusual in his father's marriage or in the formalities with which
he was introduced into his father's φρατρία and deme. The proper antithesis
οἱ υἱὸς εἰσποίητος is υἱὸς γόνῳ γεγονώς or φύσει γεγονὼς (VI. 28. 4, VII. 16. 2), a
son begotten, not υἱὸς γνήσιος, which means a son lawfully begotten, and is
the proper antithesis of νόθος (VI. 44. 4). The author of [Dem.] 44 is playing
with etymology when he writes in § 49 τὸ μὲν γὰρ γνήσιόν ἐστιν, ὅταν ᾖ γόνῳ
γεγονός, and it may be doubted whether his opponents were really doing
violence to the language of their age when they spoke of adopted sons as
παῖδες γνήσιοι, legitimate children. The only example I have met of any
confusion of γόνῳ γεγονώς and γνήσιος is an inscription of the Roman age
cited in Reinach Epigr. Gr. p. 510 from Εστία, 1885, κ. 440 Ρούφου γνήσιος
υἱός, Ηρώδου εἰσποίητος. Contrast [Dem.] 6ο. 4 τοὺς μὲν ἐπηλύδας ἐλθόντας εἰς
τὰς πόλεις καὶ τούτων πολίτας προσαγορευομένους ὁμοίους εἶναι τοῖς εἰσποιήτοις
τῶν παίδων, τούτους δὲ τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους) γνησίους γόνῳ τῆς πατρίδος πολίτας
εἶναι. In Oxy. Pap. III. n. 496 (127 A.D.), 5 the editors render γνήσιος ἀδελφὸς
by ‘full brother; cp. B.U.G. II. n. 379 (67 A.D.), 9 τῷ γ[νησ]ίῳ ἡμῶν ὁμοπατρίῳ
καὶ ὁμομητρίῳ ἀδελφῷ, I. G. S. I. n. 2290 (Ticini, 471 A.D.), 3 γνήσιοι ἀδελφοί,
υἱοὶ ᾿Αββωσᾶ, Oxy. Pap. II. n. 249 (8ο Α.D.), 10 τοῦ ὁμογνησίου μου ἀδελφοῦ
Ποπλίου.
4 ἵνα οὖν μὴ παρὰ τοῦ ἐντυχόντος κ.τ.λ. This sentence remains an
unsolved riddle. Dobree's laconic note 'nil uidet Reiskius' is true of most
of Reiske's successors. Platner (Beiträge zur Kenntniss des attischen
Rechtes p. 136, cited by Schoemann) ejects τοῖς ἀμφισβητεῖν βουλομένοις, thus
removing an idiomatic construction (§ 56. 2 n.). Schoemann finds fault both
with the construction and with the sense, alters µǹ into kaí, and propounds
the following translation: ut a quolibet [etiam extraneo] instituendae actionis
[λήξεως] facultas fat omnibus quicumque contendere uelint. His German
version is this: Damit nun Jeder, wer nur Lust hat, einen Rechtsstreit
anzufangen, gegen Jeden seine Ansprüche auf eine Erbschaft vorbringen
könne. He confesses that there is 'something harsh' in this, and that either
καὶ τοῖς ἐντυχοῦσι τοῖς ἀμφισβητεῖν βουλομένοις οι παρὰ τοῦ ἐντυχόντος...τοῦ
ἀμφισβητεῖν βουλομένου would give an easier construction. The sense is as
strange as the grammar; for why should an adopted son take measures in
order to give any casual outsider an opportunity of trying a fall with him?
Jenicke (Observationes in Isaeum p. 24) after refuting Schoemann offers a
version which does not need refutation: ne igitur ab illo, qui adoptione heres
est, παρὰ τοῦ ἐντυχόντος sc. τῷ οἴκῳ, petitionis facultas deueniat ad illos qui
Litem de possessione intendere uolunt, i.e. propinquos, τοῖς κατὰ γένος. Dobree
6
344
OR. III.
ISAEUS
π
(Adv. I. p. 292) is, as usual, original and ingenious. 'Sensus, ne, cum a
quouis facta esset ʼn λñģis, liceret tậ Bovλoµévæ istum in ius uocare, et ab illo
in se transferre hereditatem. Anglice, to prevent a man of straw from
claiming the estate, in order that his suborner may prove a better right.
Nempe, cum semel facta esset éπidikaσía, non licebat litem possessori
intendere, ἀμφισβητεῖν, nisi τῷ παρακαταβάλλειν. For the rules regulating
the deposit (Tаρакатaßоλǹ) see IV. 4. 8 12. In support of his interpretation of
λῆξις γίγνεταί τινι παρά τινος, ‘a man gets an opportunity of claiming an
estate from another,' he refers to [Dem.] 43. 7 mapà тoû éñidedikaoµévov kai
ἔχοντος τὸν κλῆρον προσκαλεῖσθαι, ib. 16 ἡ πρόσκλησίς ἐστι παρὰ τοῦ ἔχοντος
Tòv KλĤpov. Sauppe (Ep. Crit. ad G. H. p. 91=Ausgew. Schr. p. 138)
dissents from Schoemann, Jenicke, and Dobree, also from Meutzner, from
whom he quotes this rendering: damit die im Interesse derer, welche
Ansprüche machen wollen, zu stellenden Anträge nicht von dem, den der
Zufall gerade darauf führt, gemacht werden. Sauppe's remedy is to read
πρὸς τοὺς ἐντυχόντας, on which τῶν κλήρων is supposed to depend. The
meaning extracted is 'in order that those who wish to make a claim may not
be compelled to take proceedings against persons who have the advantage
of being in possession (contra eos qui possessionem hereditatis iam adepti
sunt). Beati possidentes. Emper (Opusc. p. 280) has no difficulty in
showing that the motive assigned does not explain the behaviour of adopted
sons, and that the sense given to oi évтuxóvtes Tŵv Kλýрwv cannot be admitted
without evidence. His own guess is парà TOŮVTUɣóv, ‘in the power of
chance, in defence of which he cites πρὸς τὸ συντυχόν, ἐκ τοῦ παρατυχόντος,
ἐκ τοῦ συντυχόντος. With regard to the meaning of the clause he remarks
that, if the adopted son instituted an éridikaσía, at which any one could urge
a claim, the time and manner of the aµpioßýrησis were no longer left to
chance. But no analysis of the use of the preposition in πaρà тovvтuɣòv is
attempted. The analogy of aр' avrà тà σvµßávтa (Dem. 18. 285) points to
the conclusion that the phrase, if it existed, would signify 'on the occurrence
of an accident.' Scheibe (Praef. p. xxii) conjectures aрà тоû ÉTIтνɣÓVTOS,
and offers this explanation: ne a qualibet causa, per quamlibet occasionem
undequaque arreptam hereditatum petitiones ei qui de hereditate contendere
uolunt lites moueant. The sense is obscure, and Scheibe himself feels
doubts about the rendering of παρὰ τοῦ ἐπιτυχόντος. Buermann strikes out a
new path. He observes (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 363) that one benefit of an
award by a court of justice was that after a judgment no claim could be
raised without a formal summons of the tenant of the estate ([Dem.]
43. 15 sqq., 48. 29). Consequently, an adopted son who had used
the procedure of èπidikaria, could not remain without knowledge of a
subsequent λñģis on the part of a rival. This idea he would introduce by
changing τοῦ ἐντυχόντος to τοὺς τυχόντας, by construing των κλήρων with the
participle, and by taking mapà as equivalent to praeter. On this theory the
second clause καὶ μὴ—τολμῶσι only expresses a consequence of the first, ἵνα
ovv—yiyvwvтaι. Buermann supplies no translation, and does not define or
justify the construction of the preposition. Dareste (Les Plaidoyers d'Isée
p. 56) evades the difficulty: aussi, pour éviter que les successions soient
réclamées par le premier venu et attribuées à qui veut contester, ou bien
π
K
OR. III.
345
COMMENTARY
encore que la succession étant considérée comme vacante, certains osent en
demander l'attribution, par ce motif les adoptés demandent toujours l'ad-
judication. Thalheim (Hermes 38, 1903, p. 459) desiderates åva‹pôvтai in
place of γίγνωνται, or an adjective meaning inritus before γίγνωνται. Finally,
Vollert (Adnotationes criticae ad Isaeum p. 18) cuts out the whole sentence,
ἵνα οὖν—πάντες ποιοῦνται, as an interpolation proceeding from a stupid and
perverse grammarian.’
The seat of all this perplexity is the thought. Isaeus asserts that ‘all
adopted sons' claim at law, and professes to explain their object in so acting.
But (1) sons adopted inter uiuos were not obliged to claim at law, but could
take possession ([Dem.] 44. 19), and, if claimants presented themselves
before the Archon, could bar their way by the obstacle of a diaµaprvpía.
The second speech of Isaeus shows that this right was sometimes exercised.
Further, (2) sons adopted by will had no freedom of action in this matter,
but were ordered by the law to submit their titles to the consideration of a
court (Isae. fr. III. 6 Saupp. οὐ δεῖ τὸν ἐπίδικον κρατεῖσθαι κλῆρον πρὸ δίκης).
The position and motives of the two classes of adopted sons are different
and need separate treatment. The passage eludes the test of logical
analysis, because the writer is not attempting to give a faithful and con-
sistent interpretation of real facts. The critic is required to divine what sort
of vague explanation, loosely applicable to two distinct sets of conditions,
would have been, in the opinion of an experienced advocate, good enough to
present to an Athenian tribunal (§ 33. 2 n.). Buermann, I think, is on the
right track, although his emendation is untenable. It is possible that sons
adopted inter uiuos did sometimes claim at law, though under no obligation
to do so, their object being that claimants should be forced to give notice of
intended proceedings by way of formal summons of the tenant, and that no
person should be able to make an application to the Archon pretending that
the estate was 'vacant' (epnuos) in consequence of the death of the owner
without children. To convert the occasional action of members of one class
of adopted sons into a practice common to all adopted sons without any
restriction or qualification is not a rhetorical licence to dismay an Athenian
litigant. A tolerable sense can be got by reading ïva ovv µóvov пapà Toû
ἔχοντος τὸν κλῆρον αἱ λήξεις τοῖς ἀμφισβητεῖν βουλομένοις γίγνωνται. Thus ὡς
ἐρήμων τῶν κλήρων in the second clause is in opposition to παρὰ τοῦ ἔχοντος
Tòv Kληрov. For the construction compare the passages from [Dem.] 43
quoted by Dobree.
62.4 ἐβάδιζεν. Cp. [Dem.] 44. 64 ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τὰ σαυτοῦ κτήματα καὶ οὐκ
εἰς τὰ κατὰ νόμον τῷ προσήκοντι δοθησόμενα βαδίζων, ib. 32 πορευομένων ἡμῶν
εἰς τὰ κτήματα...ἐξήγαγε Λεώστρατος οὑτοσὶ φάσκων αὑτοῦ εἶναι, Plut. Αrat. 9
κατελθόντες δὲ (οἱ φυγάδες) ὧν κύριοι πρότερον ἦσαν ἐπελαμβάνοντο καὶ βαδί-
ζοντες ἐπὶ τὰ χωρία καὶ τὰς οἰκίας δεινὴν ἀπορίαν τῷ ᾿Αράτῳ παρείχον. But the
uox propria for taking possession seems to have been µßaтEVELV. See
IX. 3. 6, [Dem.] 33. 6, 44. 16, 19, Aristid. I. p. 532 Dind. (1. p. 346 Jebb,
II. p. 451 Keil) ἐνεβάτευον εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν καὶ τοῖς ἔνδον ἐχρῶντο ὡς οὖσιν ἑαυτῶν,
ib. 724 (I. p. 486 Jebb) εμβατεύων εἰς τὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων πράγματα ὥσπερ
εἰληφὼς ὑπερήμερον τὴν Ἑλλάδα, B. U. G. I. n. 101, 16, 17 (114 A.D.) μὴ ἐξεῖναι
δέ μοι λυτρῶσαι μηδὲ ἐνβαδεύειν, Suid. s.v. ἐξούλης δίκη. At Thespiae (Inscr.
346
OR. III.
ISAEUS
་
Jurid. Gr. I. p. 252), Mylasa (ib. p. 248), and Ephesus (ib. p. 38, S.I.G.²
n. 510, 75, Michel 2. 496) the terms used were épßaiveiv eis Kтημara and
éµßaois. In Oxy. Pap. III. 1. 485 (178 A.D.), n. 653 (162/3 A.D.) the noun
εμβάδεια is found.
5 άonpeîтo . Buermann is inclined to bracket these words because ‘a
person can only be deprived of what he already possesses,' and Phile was
not in possession. But any one who opposed her might be fairly considered
to be robbing her of her rights. Cp. [Dem.] 44. 2 diaµeµaptúpηkev ovтw tà
ψευδῆ προπετῶς, ἀφαιρούμενος ἡμῶν τὴν κληρονομίαν ; here, too, the speaker is
not in possession. Moreover, the word in this connexion is a recognised
term of law. See Harp. s.v. ἐξούλης: οἱ δὲ ἁλόντες ἐξούλης καὶ τῷ ἑλόντι
ἐδίδοσαν ἃ ἀφῃροῦντο αὐτόν, καὶ τῷ δημοσίῳ κατετίθεσαν τὰ τιμηθέντα, Dem.
21. 44, [Dem.] 47. 80, Inscr. Jurid. Gr. 1. p. 318, 36 sqq. (an inscription from
Arkesine) ἐὰν δέ τις ἀφαιρῆται τῶν ᾿Αρκεσινέων τὰ ἐνέχυρα ἢ τῶν οἰκούντων ἐν
Αρκεσίνῃ τοὺς πράττοντας ἢ ἐνιστῆται τῇ πράξει ἢ ἄρχων ἢ ἰδιώτης τρόπῳ ἢ
παρευρέσει ᾐτινιοῦν, ἀποτεισάτω ᾿Αλεξάνδρῳ ἀργυρίου δραχμὰς ΔΔΔ καὶ πρακτὸς
ἔστω τοῦτο τὸ ἀργύριον ὡς ὠφληκὼς δίκην ᾿Αλεξάνδρῳ ἐξούλης ἐν τῇ ἐκκλήτῳ καὶ
ὢν ὑπερήμερος.
6 ἐξῆγεν, sc. ὁ ἀφαιρούμενος ἢ βιαζόμενος, not, as Sir W. Jones, Bunsen,
Dareste, and Caccialanza suppose, ʼn yvnoía. The prosecution for ejectment
is normally directed against the party in possession who resists the formal
entry; see § 22. 4 n. Roeder (Beiträge p. 66 sqq.) arguing that rò è§úyew is
only a species of rò ẞiášeσbai, decides that the passage is corrupt, and
proposes ἢ ἐξῆγεν ἂν ἐκ τῶν πατρῴων, οὐκ ἂν ἰδίας κ.τ.λ. But, as Lipsius
(Att. Proc.² p. 603 n. 323) observes, the emphasis falls on ek TŵV TATρÓWV;
the act of 'ousting' Phile would have been more serious than the eέaywyǹ or
deductio of an ordinary claimant, because, according to the orator, she would
have been an heiress (éπíkλŋpos) taking possession of her father's estate.
Any judge on hearing this sentence would have concluded that Xenocles
had made no attempt whatever to enforce his wife's alleged right of entry,
but the allusion in § 22 proves that this was not the case. Observe, too, that
Isaeus does not say plainly 'Xenocles did not try to take possession and
did not bring either a private or a public action to overcome opposition,' but
strings together conditional clauses in which Xenocles is not subject: 'a
legitimate daughter would have made entry on her patrimony, and any
person resisting her would have been liable for an aggravated “ejectment,"
and would have been not only prosecuted civilly but denounced to the
Archon.'
ἰδίας δίκας. An action for ejectment, and, if the encounter did not end
peaceably but led to a scuffle and blows, an action for assault (dikŋ aikeias).
In the opinion of Meier, Schoemann, and Lipsius (Att. Proc.² p. 645) an
action for violence (díkŋ Biaíwv) was a remedy reserved for an owner
dispossessed of a movable by force. In an action for ejectment from land
or houses the defendant, if cast, was not only obliged to discontinue
possession but was condemned to pay a fine to the state equal in amount to
the value of the property in dispute. This at any rate was the rule, when
the suit corresponded to the Roman actio iudicati, and the plaintiff was
moving to enforce execution of a judgment. See Harp. s.v. é§oúλŋs and Solon's
OR. III.
347
COMMENTARY
law preserved by a scholiast on Homer (Nicole, Les Scolies genevoises de
l'Iliade I. p. 202 ἐρχθέντα, Oxy. Pap. II. n. 221, col. xiv, 12 sqq. ἐκτίθη[σι δὲ καὶ
(Crates) Σόλωνος ἐκ ἢ ἄξονος ἐξού[λης ἐάν τι]ς ἐξειλλπι (ἐξείλλῃ) ὧν ἐὰν (αν)
δίκην [νικήσῃ, ὅσ]ου (ὅτου Ludwich) ἐὰν (ἂν ἄξιον ᾖ, εἰς δημόσι[ον ὀφλε]ῖν καὶ
τῷ ἰδιώτῃ, ἑκατέρῳ [ἴσον]). The estate in this case was estimated by Xenocles
at 3 talents (§ 2). A prosecution for assault, which went before the Forty
about 346/5 B.C. (Dem. 37. 33), but before the 5 eloaywyeîs at the date of the
composition of the 'A. Ioλ. (c. 52), was classed among assessable actions
(TiµŋToì ȧyâves) and did not expose the defendant to very heavy damages,
since a man who considered himself wantonly outraged by physical violence,
had the alternative of bringing a public action, the ypapǹ üßpews, and of
asking for a sentence even of death or confiscation.
7 eiσayyeλeels on the charge of maltreatment of an heiress. Whether in
the circumstances Phile would have been recognised by the law as entitled
to the privileges of an érikλnpos, is another matter; see $$ 46. 1 n., 50. 6 n.
8 περὶ τοῦ σώματος καὶ τῆς οὐσίας ἁπάσης. The words suggest death or
exile and confiscation (Lys. 1. 50, 7. 26, 29. 11, Ant. 5. 8, 6. 1), but it is
incredible that any prosecutor would have proposed the penalty of murder or
high treason for the offence of kákwσis éπikλýpov; see § 47. 6 n.
63-71 The conduct of Pyrrhus uncles proves that Phile is not
legitimate. If Phile had been legitimate, they would never have abandoned
her and her fortune to Xenocles, a stranger in blood, but would have asserted
their own rights to her hand. If they reply that the adoption of Endius did
away with their rights, what, then, is the meaning of the prosecution with
which the witnesses to the adoption have been threatened, and of the claim to
the estate, not of Endius but of Pyrrhus? If Pyrrhus adopted Endius
without imposing the obligation to marry his legitimate daughter, the
adoption was invalid. If on the other hand he left his daughter to his
adopted son, how was it that Pyrrhus' uncles permitted Endius (1) to claim
the estate without the daughter, (2) to marry the daughter to Xenocles?
The staple of these sections is padding, being little more than a repetition
of arguments which have already been urged with more propriety against
Nicodemus and Xenocles, and have been examined in the course of the
commentary as they arose. Nicodemus legally and morally had a nearer
interest in the fortunes of his sister's child than the three brothers of
Pyrrhus' mother, and Xenocles, not Pyrrhus' maternal uncles, was re-
sponsible for the conduct of his wife's case against Pyrrhus' sister. But
a promise had to be fulfilled (§ 34), and it was important to challenge the
good faith of Pyrrhus' uncles, who had come forward in the previous trial as
witnesses to the marriage contract between Pyrrhus and Nicodemus' sister.
Only one detail needs investigation. The speaker says (§ 63) that, if the
uncles had known that Phile was legitimate and that ‘none of our family
would take her,' they would have claimed her themselves, as next-of-kin, for
the sake of her money. His meaning seems to be (§ 63. 5) that they would
have tried to deprive Xenocles of his wife on the ground that she was an
Eπíkλŋpos. But both the girl and the estate were completely at the mercy of
Endius, who could fall back upon his rights as her cousin, if the adoption
were attacked. However, putting out of sight this difficulty as well as the
348
OR. III.
ISAEUS
disparity of age between Phile and the supposed claimants, ought we to
accept unhesitatingly the propositions implied in the argument? Is it
certain (A) that, as a matter of fact, Pyrrhus' maternal uncles ranked
next to Endius and his brother, (B) that, as a matter of law, they had
any rights at all in Phile?
(A) The rules of succession to an 'heiress' (èπíkλnpos) followed the rules.
of succession to an estate (kλnpos) with certain necessary modifications, the
general principle being that the ẻπíkλŋpos was the prize of that male relative
who would have inherited the estate ab intestato, if she had not been annexed
to it. The first set of competitors was composed of descendants of the father
of the deceased. In the present case the complete sequence, if it had existed,
would have been (1) Pyrrhus' brothers, (2) sons of Pyrrhus' brothers, (3) the
sons of Pyrrhus' sister. With regard to the place of grandsons of Pyrrhus'
brothers and grandsons of Pyrrhus' sister nothing can be affirmed, but And.
I. 124 shows that a sister's grandson might compete; for the son of Chrysias
(or Chrysilla), a daughter of Epilycus' sister, claims at law the heiress
daughter of Epilycus, and is opposed by Andocides, who is the son of
another sister of Epilycus. In each branch the rule probably was 'seniores
priores.' The second group of competitors was composed of descendants of
the paternal grandfather of the deceased. In the present case the complete
sequence, if it had existed, would have been (1) brothers of Pyrrhus' father,
(2) sons of these brothers, (3) sons of the sisters of Pyrrhus' father. With
regard to the place of grandsons of Pyrrhus' paternal uncles and grandsons
of Pyrrhus' paternal aunts nothing can be affirmed, but grandsons of the
paternal uncle of the deceased were not excluded, as is proved by [Dem.]
43. 73; Sositheus who claimed at law and married Phylomache, the daughter
of Eubulides, was the son of a daughter of Callistratus, and Callistratus was
the brother of Philagrus, the father of Eubulides. As before, the rule in each
branch was probably ‘seniores priores. Now the whole of this second group
must have taken precedence of Pyrrhus' maternal uncles, and the orator does
not definitely declare that Pyrrhus' father had neither brothers nor sisters.
(B) The order of intestate succession suggests that the third batch of
competitors was composed of (1) descendants, and (2) collaterals of the
mother of the deceased. In the present case the complete sequence, if it
had existed, would have been (1) Pyrrhus' uterine brothers, (2) sons (and
grandsons?) of these brothers, (3) sons (and grandsons?) of Pyrrhus' uterine
sisters, (4) Pyrrhus' maternal uncles, (5) sons (and grandsons?) of these
uncles, (6) sons (and grandsons?) of Pyrrhus' maternal aunts. If the
orators are to be trusted, all these classes had legal rights at Athens, for
the claim of maternal uncles is here recognised by Isaeus, and the claim
of uterine brothers by Demosthenes, or whoever was the author of the 45th
speech in the Demosthenic corpus. Apollodorus, son of Pasion, remarks in
Dem. 45. 75‘If I had been rich and anything had happened to me, the sons
of Phormio' (who had married Archippe, Pasion's widow and Apollodorus'
mother) 'would have laid claim (éπedikáčovтo) to my daughters.' Therefore,
he argues, Phormio ought to portion the girls, as they happen to be poor.
Unfortunately the speeches delivered by Apollodorus are as dishonest as
those composed by Isaeus. For example, Apollodorus' daughters fell of
OR. III.
349
COMMENTARY
right not to Phormio's sons, but to Pasicles, Apollodorus' full brother, and
to Pasicles' sons, who would have been obliged either to portion or to marry
them, if they had really been in poverty. Tricks of this kind engender
mistrust. Who will pretend to determine the degree of licence which an
impudent rascal like Apollodorus permitted himself in dealing with the
principles of Athenian law? On the other hand Plato (Laws 924 E sqq.)
in his table of persons entitled to an éπíkλŋpos keeps to the line of the
father of the deceased; on the mother's side he admits only the uterine
brother of the deceased, and that under a condition, viz. that the brother
so admitted happens to be a man 'without a lot' (äkλŋpos, not holding one of
the 5040 lots into which the territory of the state is divided). With this
exception descendants and collaterals of the mother of the deceased are not
mentioned. On the father's side he does not go beyond sons' sons of the
brother of the deceased (adeλþoû viɩdoî), and sons' sons of the children
(πaîdes) of the grandfather of the deceased, i.e. sons of male first cousins
of the deceased (VII. 22. 5 12.). If no fit person be found within these limits,
he lays down that the heiress with the approval of her guardians (éπíтрожо)
shall be at liberty to choose a husband from the general body of the citizens.
The ordinances of Plato's model state, archaic as they seem, cannot be taken
to be faithful copies of Solon's laws, but, on the other side, in the circum-
stances little reliance can be placed on inferences from Isaeus and
Apollodorus, who do not scruple to distort a law, if misrepresentation
serves their purposes and has a fair chance of slipping through undetected.
It would not be surprising if the laws regulating succession to an éñíkλŋpos
so far diverged from the laws regulating intestate succession to property that
they respected the principle of ȧvdpoyéveia (S. I. G. n. 641, 20, Halicarnassus,
12. 734, 86, Cos) and granted no privileges to the descendants and collaterals
of the mother of the deceased.
ⱭT
If we accept the ordinary view (see § 73. 9 n.) that the original aim of the
institution was to perpetuate the male line and provide the father of the
heiress with a son of his own blood, we may fairly ask the question whether
in the opinion of primitive Greece the admission of uterine brothers and
maternal uncles would have secured this end. The code of Gortyn, which
has elaborate provisions on this subject (VII. 15—IX. 25), specifies as having
a right to the hand of an heiress (πатрwiwкos) (1) the brothers of her father,
(2) their sons, but mentions no other relations and contains nothing to prove
that the right belonged to collaterals in infinitum. My own guess would be
that the limitation is archaic. In essaying to determine what is old and
what is modern in 'the incoherent amalgam of dispositions' (Dareste in
Inscr. Furid. Gr. I. p. 470) which make up the Cretan law, I should take
as guide the assumption that the pecuniary interests of the relatives, which
gradually overshadowed the ancient conception of their sacred duty to the
dead man, constituted a force likely to enlarge rather than to contract the
circle of lawful claimants, and to end by assimilating, as far as practicable,
an éπíkληpos to a kλñpos. But it does not seem an excess of caution to
shrink from basing upon Isaeus' argument in this passage the conclusion
that at Athens either in the age of Solon or at a later period this trans-
formation had been completed and embodied in the law.
LK
350
OR. III.
ISAEUS
63. I [TOû EEVOKλÉOUS.] 'Even before Xenocles (i.e. before Xenocles'
action?) Pyrrhus' uncles, if they had known the existence of a legitimate
daughter etc., would never have allowed Xenocles to be the husband of Phile.'
The gross clumsiness of the phrase 'before Xenocles' in this sentence has
led me to adopt Buermann's proposal to bracket Toû Zevokλéovs as a gloss on
TротEроν. This is simpler than to suppose that there is a sort of anacoluthon,
the sentence starting as if the proposition was to be 'even before Xenocles
Pyrrhus' uncles, if they had known etc., would have taken steps on behalf of
the woman.' For érɩ dè πρóтepov Buermann compares § 42. I, IV. I. 2.
2 ᾔδεσαν. The word is more appropriate to the second clause ἡμῶν
μηδένα κ.τ.λ. than to the first γνησίαν θυγατέρα κ.τ.λ. The reader expects
a proof that Pyrrhus' uncles knew that their nephew did not leave a
legitimate daughter, not a proof that they did not know that he left
a legitimate daughter. Further, the two conditions which are linked
together are not co-ordinate, since the underlying argument is that, if
the uncles had been aware of the existence of a legitimate daughter, they
would have claimed her for themselves, when they ascertained, what was
made plain by the union with Xenocles, that Endius and his brother, whose
rights excluded their own, declined to marry the girl. The cause of the
obscurity is the orator's reluctance to state frankly his own theory of Phile's
origin. Sometimes (e.g. $$ 45-52) he talks as if, though illegitimate, she
was really Pyrrhus' child, sometimes he uses language (§§ 15, 30, 36, 73, 79)
suggesting that, so far from being Pyrrhus' daughter, she was not even the
offspring of Nicodemus' sister, but he nowhere explains who she was or why
Endius portioned her. To judge from § 33 the position he takes up with
regard to Pyrrhus' uncles is that they were unaware even of the existence of
Phile, until they were suborned by Xenocles and Nicodemus.
T@ éautŵv ádeλþidŵ kataλeitoµévnv. For the dative compare § 41. 3 n., for
the present participle § 40. 7, Dem. 28. 6 érepa µèv tapaonµývaodai ǹ§iwoav
ἐν οἷς πολλὰ τῶν καταλειπομένων οὐκ ἐγέγραπτο.
4 μηδαμόθεν. Cp. [And.] 4. 34 ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐδαμόθεν προσήκει τούτου τοῦ
πράγματος, Dem. 15. 26 ἐκείνοις οὐδαμόθεν προσήκει (Χαλκηδών), 21. 196 οὐκ
ἔστιν οὐδαμόθεν σοι προσήκων ἔλεος, [Dem.] 43. 5 οὐδαμόθεν αὐτῷ προσῆκεν
οὐδὲν τοῦ κλήρου τοῦ ῾Αγνίου.
EL
5 λaßóvтa exel. The stress is on the infinitive, not on the participle.
Their pecuniary interests would have urged the uncles not to oppose the
marriage of Phile and Xenocles, lest Endius or his brother should assert
their prior rights, but, when once the first set of lawful claimants had re-
nounced the heiress, an attempt to deprive Xenocles of his wife would have
promised some profit to the next in succession.
6
Selvóv y' av ein. The normal construction, which Stephanus and
Naber would restore by adding ei, is shown by Dem. 38. 18 ǹ decvóv y' av ein,
εἰ τῶν μὲν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἀδικημάτων οὐ δίδωσιν ἔξω πέντ᾽ ἐτῶν τὰς δίκας τοῖς ὀρφανοῖς
ὁ νόμος κατὰ τῶν οὐκ ἀφειμένων ἐπιτρόπων, πρὸς δὲ τοὺς ἐξ ἐκείνων ἡμᾶς, περὶ
ὧν αὐτοὺς ἀφήκατε, εἰκοστῷ νῦν ἔτει δίκην τελέσαισθ᾽ ὑμεῖς ; cp. And. 1. 30, Lys.
4. 13, [Lys.] 20. 19, Dem. 25. 71. But the text is justified by [Lys.] 6. 15
quoted by Schoemann: δεινὸν δέ μοι δοκεῖ εἶναι· ἂν μέν τις ἀνδρὸς σῶμα τρώσῃ,
κεφαλὴν ἢ πρόσωπον ἢ χεῖρας ἢ πόδας, οὗτος μὲν κατὰ τοὺς νόμους τοὺς ἐξ ᾿Αρείου
OR. III.
351
COMMENTARY
πάγου φεύξεται τὴν τοῦ ἀδικηθέντος πόλιν, καὶ ἐὰν κατίῃ, ἐνδειχθεὶς θανάτῳ
ζημιωθήσεται· ἐὰν δέ τις τὰ αὐτὰ ταῦτα ἀδικήσῃ τὰ ἀγάλματα τῶν θεῶν, οὐδ᾽
αὐτῶν κωλύσετε τῶν ἱερῶν ἐπιβαίνειν ἢ εἰσιόντα οὐ τιμωρήσεσθε; Cp. also
Dem. 20. 79.
64. 2
τίς ἂν ἄμεινον ἢ ὁ πατὴρ βουλεύσαιτο. Cp. Plato, Laws 924 D
ὅπερ ἂν πατὴρ διασκέψαιτο, ἐξ ἁπάντων τῶν πολιτῶν βλέπων εἰς ἤθη τε καὶ
τρόπους τὸν ἐπιτήδειον αὑτῷ μὲν υἱόν, νυμφίον δ᾽ εἶναι τῇ θυγατρί.
5, 6 πολλοὶ συνοικοῦντες κ.τ.λ. It is not impossible that the prerogative
of the next-of-kin was not so exorbitant as this passage has led scholars to
suppose. Isaeus mentions no limitations, but he had no motive to take
account of exceptions and provisos, and his silence is not enough to prove
that the lawful heir had an absolute and unqualified right to compel the
divorce of a married woman, who had become an èπíêλŋpos in consequence
of her father's death. Of course in practice an heiress could evade a painful
separation and an obnoxious second marriage by the sacrifice of her patri-
mony (see X. 19), since the claimant was commonly in pursuit of her fortune,
and was not averse to taking the money without the burden. But did
Athenian law sanction and regulate these bargains? Could the ȧyxiσreús,
if so disposed, force the ríkλnpos to abandon her husband? Did the
existence of issue of the marriage (see §§ 50. 6 n., 55. 6, 7 n.) affect in any
way her obligations? A few fragments from Solon's laws would teach us
more than a dozen speeches manufactured to deceive popular tribunals.
The discovery of the code of Gortyn has revealed the possibility of
intricac es which Isaeus passed over. The Cretan law distinguishes
(A) the case of the daughter who is married when she becomes a
πατρωιώκος or owner of a father's estate, and (B) the case of the
πатρжιкоs, who becomes a widow; but the liabilities of both are regu-
lated according to the presence or absence of children. (A) A married
woman on becoming a Tarрwiwkos is at liberty to separate from her
husband, even though he objects, but she is not compelled to dissolve
the marriage. (1) If there are children (Tékva), the rights of all relatives
are extinguished, and she may either remain as she is or by surrendering
one half of the property to her husband regain her freedom and marry again
within the circle of her tribe. (2) If there are no children, the rights of the
relatives come into operation, but by surrendering one half of the property to
that relative who has the first claim she can either keep her husband, or, if
she prefer a separation, marry again within her tribe. Zitelmann's interpre-
tation of those rules (VIII. 20-30, Recht von Gortyn p. 154 sqq.), which are
enigmatically brief, appears to me preferable to the view of Dareste (Inscr.
Jurid. Gr. I. p. 473 sqq.), which is adopted by Beauchet I. p. 428 n. 6. The
two French scholars concur in thinking that the first marriage, so long as it
lasted, abolished the rights of relatives, whether children existed or not.
(B) The rules (VIII. 30—35) concerning a πатрwwкos who becomes a widow
are stated with perfect clearness. (1) If there are children, the rights of the
relatives are extinguished, and the widow, if she desires another husband, is
free to remarry within the circle of the tribe. (2) If there are no children,
the previous marriage does not count, and she must either marry the relative
who has the first claim, or indemnify him as before (A 2). Now Gortyn and
352
OR. III.
ISAEUS
democratic Athens were societies so profoundly dissimilar in spirit and
structure that it would be absurd to seek to identify their laws on any subject,
and particularly with regard to women, who are known to have enjoyed in
the Cretan oligarchy rights of succession denied them at Athens. It is
conceivable that at Athens the existence of a legitimate male child of the
Éπíkλŋрos may have counted for nothing against the pretensions of the next-
of-kin, but it should be remembered that the only evidence of this rigorous
treatment is of the most treacherous nature, consisting of three passages in
Isaeus, the present, VIII. 31, and X. 19, which are supposed to imply that
marriage and the birth of children made no difference to the obligations
incumbent on a woman who became an 'heiress.' On the other hand a
detail of or. VI. must not be forgotten. Euctemon left two daughters, one
married with two sons, one a widow with a daughter. The widow is claimed
by a relative as éπíkλnpos and èπídiкos (§§ 46, 51, 57, 58), but we hear nothing
of pretensions to the hand of her married sister.
65. 3 Ξενοκλεϊ δέ. The proper antithesis to τὰς μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν πατέρων
ékdobeíσas is avoided because the speaker is unwilling to admit that Endius
in giving Phile to Xenocles acted as her brother.
4 ἦν...καταλειπομένη. Cp. § 72. 3, [Dem.] 50. 24 μόνῳ τοίνυν τούτῳ οὐκ
toútą…..oùk
ἔστι πρόφασις ὑπολειπομένη.
7 kλnρovóμov. The son, not the husband, of an eπikλŋpos became heir of
the estate (§ 50. 6 n.), but the husband enjoyed the usufruct until the son
came of age. For the use of kλŋpovóμos in Isaeus see 1. 44. 5 n. Plato
(Laws 925 A, B) treats the husband of the éπíkλŋpos as heir to her father:
ὅντιν᾽ ἂν ἡ παῖς μετ᾿ ἐπιτρόπων αἱρῆται τῶν πολιτῶν ἑκούσιον ἑκουσία, κληρονόμος
γιγνέσθω τοῦ τελευτήσαντος καὶ τῆς θυγατρὸς νυμφίος.
αν
I
67. 1 ἐπεσκημμένοι εἰσί. See § 56. 3 ἐπεσκήπτετο τοῖς μεμαρτυρηκόσιν
ἐπὶ τῇ διαθήκῃ τοῦ Πύρρου παραγενέσθαι. The uncles, who were only witnesses
in the previous trial, are identified with Xenocles, for whose actions the orator
pretends to consider them responsible.
3, 4 Taρà Tòv vóμov. Probably a suggestio falsi; see the analysis of the
argument of §§ 54–62.
5 ἐπιδικάζεσθαι ἀξιοῖ. Cp. § 59. 1 κ.
I Observe that τῶν γνησίων includes
daughters as well as sons, and yet in the next sentence but one Isaeus
declares that Phile, if legitimate, was éπídɩkos.
6 ὡς δ᾽ ἦν ἐπίδικος. What is shown in the subsequent argument is that
Endius ought to have married the girl, if Pyrrhus' will required him to do so,
not that she was claimable at law (éπídios). The real problem is to discover
what were the terms of Pyrrhus' will; and on this no fresh light is thrown.
A perception of the inadequacy of the demonstration is the cause of the
reading ὡς δ᾽ οὐκ ἦν κ.τ.λ. in the Schedae Etonenses and of Herwerden's
conjecture åveñídikos (Mnem. N.S. 9, 1881, p. 385).
7 κατελείφθη. The optative, καταλειφθείη, is not explained by those editors
who retain it in the text. Thalheim's references (XI. 22, 25) are irrelevant.
68. 1 ó yàp vóμos к.T.λ. The law is not quoted in full; see II. 13. 2 n.
For the form of the clause referring to daughters unfortunately Isaeus is our
only authority ; cp. X. 13. 3, 4 σὺν ταύταις κύριον εἶναι δοῦναι, ἐάν τῳ βούληται, τὰ
Eavτoû. The phrase also occurs in the opening clause of the law of intestate
ἑαυτοῦ.
OR. III.
353
COMMENTARY
succession, [Dem.] 43. 51 ὅστις ἂν μὴ διαθέμενος ἀποθάνῃ, ἐὰν μὲν παῖδας
καταλίπῃ θηλείας, σὺν ταύτῃσιν, ἐὰν δὲ μή, τούσδε κυρίους εἶναι τῶν χρημάτων;
for which see Beauchet III. pp. 442 sqq., 465 sqq.
4, 5 δοῦναι καὶ διαθέσθαι.
Cp. § 42. 2, 3 1.
69. 2, 3 ἄκυρος ἂν ἦν αὐτοῦ ἡ ποίησις. For Buermann's reading see
Crit. Introd. p. xxix.
4 ἐπὶ τούτῳ, sc. τῷ Ἐνδίῳ. Dareste apparently considers τούτῳ to be
neuter, for his translation (Plaidoyers d'Isée p. 58) is 's'il donnait sa fille,
et faisait du mariage une condition de l'adoption: Caccialanza follows
Dareste. But the meaning is if he left his daughter in the power of
Endius, whom he had adopted.'
θεῖος
5 οἱ τοῦ Πύρρου θεῖοι. The confusion of eeròs and Oeios is natural, as is
shown by Plut. Oth. 3, where θετὸν ὄνομα has been corrupted into θεῖον ὄνομα,
but the emendations of Meier (Att. Proc. p. 607 n. 331) τῷ τοῦ Πύρρου θετῷ,
τῷ Ἐνδίῳ and of Sauppe (Ep. Crit. p. 92=Ausgew. Schr. p. 138) τὸν τοῦ
Πύρρου θετὸν υἱὸν Ἔνδιον must be rejected, because this use of θετὸς is
foreign to the Attic orators, though common in the hypotheses of Isaeus
(v. hyp. 3, VII. hyp. 9, X. hyp. 26, XI. hyp. 3) and in grammarians. Artistic
motives explain the appearance of the word in Plato, Laws 929 C τὸν δ᾽
ἀποκηρυχθέντα ἐάν τις τῶν πολιτῶν υἱὸν βούληται θέσθαι, μηδεὶς νόμος ἀπειργέτω
ποιεῖσθαι. ἀποκηρυχθέντα δὲ ἄν τις δέκα ἐτῶν μὴ ἐπιθυμήσῃ θετὸν υἱὸν ποιή-
σασθαι, τοὺς τῶν ἐπιγόνων ἐπιμελητὰς ἐπιμελεῖσθαι καὶ τούτων. Isaeus, unlike
Plato, is not fastidious about repetitions. Buermann, whose correction I
have accepted, suggests (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 359) that the reading of the
MS. (τῶ τοῦ Πύρρου θείω) was due to the influence of ἐπετρέψατε, just as in
§ 70. 3 ἐπετρέπετε caused the change of τὴν γυναῖκα into τῇ γυναικί. The
singular arrangement of the words is not a fatal objection to this restoration;
see § 51. 2, 3 22.
기
​6 ἄνευ τῆς γνησίας θυγατρός.
§§ 40-44 and the note on $ 41. 2.
•
:
See the analysis of the argument of
7 ἄλλως τε εἰ καὶ ἐμαρτυρήσατε ὡς ἐπέσκηψεν. Naber's transposition
(ἄλλως τε καὶ εἰ, ὡς ἐμαρτυρήσατε, ἐπέσκηψεν), approved by Buermann, is
not necessary. For ἄλλως τε εἰ καὶ compare Dem. 41. 17 ἄλλως τ᾽ εἰ καὶ
μηδὲν ἴσον εἶχεν, Isocr. 15. 104 ἄλλως τ᾽ ἢν καὶ τύχῃ τις...κρινόμενος, 5. 79
ἄλλως θ᾽ ὅταν καὶ μηδὲν σαυτῷ συνειδῇς ἐξαμαρτάνων, 9. 7 ἄλλως τ᾽ ἐπειδὴ καὶ
τὰς ἐπιδόσεις ἴσμεν, 4. 66 ἄλλως τε ἐπειδὴ καὶ τὸν λόγον κατεστησάμην, 2. 51
(ἄλλως τ᾽ ἐπειδὴ); but Lys. 28. 5 (ἄλλως τε ἐπειδὴ καὶ X) is corrupt. The
logic is certainly improved by reading ὡς ἐμαρτυρήσατε, ἐπέσκηψεν, but the
form in the MS., in which ἐμαρτυρήσατε is not subordinate to ἐπετρέψατε but
signifies time past to the speaker, is a laxity of which Isaeus was capable.
Thalheim reads after Hirschig ἄλλως τε καὶ μαρτυρήσαντες.
ἐπέσκηψεν. The word suggests a death-bed scene. Cp. ΙΧ. 19, Lys. 13.
41, 42 ἐναντίον δὲ τῆς ἀδελφῆς τῆς ἐμῆς Διονυσόδωρος τά τε οἰκεῖα τὰ αὑτοῦ
διέθετο ὅπως αὐτῷ εδώκει, καὶ περὶ ᾿Αγοράτου τουτουὶ ἔλεγεν ὅτι αἴτιος ἦν τοῦ
θανάτου, καὶ ἐπέσκηπτεν ἐμοὶ καὶ Διονυσίῳ τουτῳί, τῷ ἀδελφῷ τῷ αὑτοῦ, καὶ τοῖς
φίλοις τιμωρεῖν ὑπὲρ αὑτοῦ ᾿Αγόρατον· καὶ τῇ γυναικὶ τῇ αὑτοῦ ἐπέσκηπτε,
νομίζων αὐτὴν κυεῖν ἐξ αὑτοῦ, ἐὰν γένηται αὐτῇ παιδίον, φράζειν τῷ γενομένῳ
ὅτι τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ ᾿Αγόρατος ἀπέκτεινε, καὶ κελεύειν τιμωρεῖν ὑπὲρ αὑτοῦ ὡς
23
W. I.
354
OR. III.
ISAEUS
povéa övra, Ant. 1. 29, 30, Dem. 28. 15, 36. 32, Rh. Gr. (Hammer) I. p. 326
(Apsines on ὁ τῆς ἐντολῆς καλούμενος τόπος).
70. 1 ☎ ȧyalé. Sauppe's & 'ya oì is not required. The speaker directs
his remark to one of the three uncles. Lobeck on Soph. Ai. 191 cites
Aesch. 2. 143 ἀνάβηθι δεῦρο, Λίπαρε καὶ Πυθίων, καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἀπόδοτέ (v.1.
ἀπόδος) μοι χάριν, Cratin. fr. Χ. 75 ἆρά γ᾽, ὦ τάν, ἐθελήσετε (Kock, Com. Att.
Fr. 1. p. 116), Soph. Phil. 369 & σxétλi', ĥ toλμýσeтe, O. C. 1104, Eur. I. A.
1368, and refers to Heindorf on Plat. Prot. p. 469, and Winckelmann on Plat.
Euthyd. p. 45.
5 ἐκείνῳ, sc. τῷ ἀδελφιδῷ. See § 45. 6, 7 τὴν ἐκ τῆς ἐγγυητῆς τῷ Πύρρῳ
γεγενημένην ὡς ἐξ ἑταίρας ἐκείνῳ οὖσαν ἐγγυᾶσθαι. For the argument compare
the note on § 53. 3.
φάσκοντες, not contemporaneous with ἐπετρέπετε. Isaeus could not write
ἄλλως τε καὶ παραγενόμενοι, because he denied the fact. He has used in
§ 58. 6 the form ädλws te kai ei, ös pate, tapeyéveσde and in § 69. 7 the form
åλλws te ei kai þare rapayevéσða, and is going to use in § 71. 4, 5 the form
ἄλλως τε καὶ παραγενόμενοι, ως φατε. Hence the abnormal use of the parti-
ciple to denote time absolutely present, although the leading verb is not
present, and no adverb (e.g. vûv) is added, ‘although you say you were
present.' The explanation of párkovтes in § 71. 2 is similar. Compare
I. 22. I 72., IX. 4. 2. The instances in Goodwin M. & T. § 141 are simpler
and only illustrate the attributive use of the present participle.
7ew. I think the future tense wrong. Thalheim (Zu den griech.
Rechtsaltert. II. p. 7) apparently considers τǹv µŋrépa to be the object of ëģeiv,
since he translates 'when he promised (bound himself) that he would keep
her as lawful wife'; see § 4. 6 n. This construction is contrary to usage;
everywhere else the object of eyyvoμai is the woman betrothed. Compare
§§ 26, 29, 55, Dem. 22. 53, [Dem.] 46. 21 (a deposition), 59. 51, and note in
particular § 37 παρὰ τούτου ἠξίωσεν ἂν ἐγγυήσασθαι τὴν ἀδελφήν, § 55 ἠγγύητο
παρὰ τοῦ Ἐνδίου τὴν γυναῖκα, Dem. 57. 41 ἐγγυᾶται ὁ πατὴρ τὴν μητέρα τὴν
ἐμὴν παρὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ Τιμοκράτους. The infinitive must be epexegetic, and
therefore ought to be in the present tense, as in § 4 éyyʊñoaɩ tậ Deiw tǹv
ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα εἶναι κατὰ τοὺς νόμους, and in the law [Dem.] 46. 18 ἣν ἂν
ἐγγυήσῃ ἐπὶ δικαίοις δάμαρτα εἶναι. For the interchange of ἔχειν and ἕξειν
see § 74. 7, Dem. 14. 4, [Dem.] 53. 24, Lys. 27. 6 (as corrected by Dobree),
Aesch. 1. 136. If Isaeus had wished to emphasise the notion of futurity, he
might have written ὡς κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ἕξων γυναῖκα ; compare Plato, Laws
923 D θυγατρί τε ᾗ μὲν ἂν ἠγγυημένος ὡς ἀνὴρ ἐσόμενος ᾖ, μὴ νέμειν, ᾗ δ᾿ ἂν μή, νέμειν.
71. 2 φάσκοντες. Cp. § 70. 5 η.
5 τοὔνομα τῆς ὑμετέρας αὐτῶν ἀδελφῆς, sc. Κλειταρέτη (§ 30. 7).
72-76 The conduct of Pyrrhus proves that Phile is not legitimate.
If he possessed a legitimate daughter, what motive had he for adopting
Endius? It was not a desire to shut out the claims of nearer relatives,
because we are the nearest. Why should he have faced the odium of adopting
any other relation? Why did he not introduce her into his pparpía, and
leave her at his death in the position of an èñíkλnpos, giving solemn in-
junctions that one of her children should be introduced as his son? Why
did he not make the marriage offering to his parpía?
OR. III.
355
COMMENTARY
The reasoning does not carry conviction. Let us assume that Pyrrhus
did marry Nicodemus' sister, as Nicodemus and Pyrrhus' uncles declared,
and that Phile was the offspring of this union. Now, that Phile was very
young at the time of Pyrrhus' death may be regarded as certain (§§ 31. 2,
69. 8, 71. 3). This being so, the natural course for her father to take in view
of death was to adopt as son some trustworthy person to whose care and
protection the minor could be committed. In this way Pyrrhus could save
his daughter from the clutches of greedy litigants, and secure the perpetuity
of his own house, should she happen to die in infancy. Nothing is known
about Athenian law and practice with respect to the custody of ẻπíkλnpoi,
who had not reached a marriageable age (§§ 40-44 analysis), but it is highly
probable that a little girl with a fortune might have been sorely buffeted in
the conflicts of rival claimants, in spite of the penalties attached to the
offence of 'maltreating an heiress.' Why should not Pyrrhus have judged
Endius a fit and proper person for the trust? The orator ignores these
possibilities, and has the audacity to contend that the adoption of Endius
proves Phile to be illegitimate, because Pyrrhus had no occasion to adopt
a son, if he had a daughter born in lawful marriage. The first reason
alleged is that the adoption of Endius was unnecessary, because the sons of
Pyrrhus' sister had the first claim on Pyrrhus' daughter. The speaker does
not say that Endius' right was prior to his own, so that the opponents might
have replied that Pyrrhus chanced to have a preference for Endius. The
second argument, beginning at § 73, is hard to disengage from the wrappings
of interrogations and conditional propositions. The thought in the speaker's
mind, though he is too wary to be candid, seems to be that Pyrrhus would
have offended his sister and nephews if he had adopted any other relation,
and, therefore, would have adopted nobody, but would have left the fate of the
child to be decided by the action of his various relatives and the judgment
of a court. Further, two new points are made. (1) Witnesses are called to
testify that Pyrrhus did not introduce his daughter into his parρía. The
bearing of this fact cannot be estimated, because we are not told how old
Phile was when Pyrrhus died (§ 31. 2 n.). (2) It is stated and confirmed by
testimony that Pyrrhus made no marriage offering (γαμηλία) to his φρατρία
on behalf of his pretended wife. That the yaunλía, whatever form it took
(§ 76. I n.), was not a necessary condition of a valid marriage, is indicated
by the place given to the topic in this speech. An advocate who held in his
hands an unanswerable refutation of his opponents would not have strained
his ingenuity in elaborating interpretations of circumstantial evidence.
Probably the offering to the parpia was a normal concomitant of marriage,
so that proof of the offering was nearly equivalent to proof of the marriage.
The proof, too, was easy, because a oparpía might be a large body, while the
witnesses to the private formalities of the ¿yyúŋois were necessarily few in
number. But the absence of a marriage offering to the pparpia was no
more a disproof of marriage than the absence of a wedding party. A man
who had contracted a mésalliance of any kind might not care to solicit the
attention and comments of a public body, and it is not proved that a parρía
had power to compel a recalcitrant member to make this particular con-
tribution.
23-2
356
OR. III.
ISAEUS
72. 2 ὅσον ἀναισχυντότατοι. Cp. Hom. Il. Ι. 515 ὄφρ᾽ ἐὺ εἰδῶ ¦ ὅσσον
ἐγὼ μετὰ πᾶσιν ἀτιμοτάτη θεός εἰμι, ib. 8. 17 γνώσετ᾽ ἔπειθ᾽, ὅσον εἰμὶ θεῶν
κάρτιστος ἁπάντων. In default of parallels from Attic prose I am inclined
to read ås.
4 кaтaλEιπоµévŋ. Cp. §§ 40. 7, 63. 3, 65. 5.
6 ἐγγυτέρω γένους. Cp. VIII. 30. 3, 4 κ., 33. 3, 4 κ.
6, 7 οὓς βουλόμενος τὴν ἐπιδικασίαν…ἀποστερήσαι. See [Dem.] 44. 63
(quoted on § 61. 2), 59. 55 διαφορᾶς δ᾽ οὔσης αὐτῷ παλαιᾶς πρὸς τοὺς
οἰκείους τοὺς αὑτοῦ καὶ ὀργῆς καὶ μίσους, πρὸς δὲ καὶ ἄπαις ὤν, ψυχαγωγού-
μενος ἐν τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ τῇ θεραπείᾳ τῇ ὑπό τε τῆς Νεαίρας καὶ τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτῆς
...ἐπείσθη δὴ τὸ παιδίον...πάλιν λαβεῖν καὶ ποιήσασθαι υἱὸν αὑτοῦτοῦ δὲ μὴ
λαβεῖν τοὺς συγγενεῖς τὰ αὑτοῦ μηδ᾽ ἄπαις τετελευτηκέναι ἐποιήσατο τὸν παῖδα.
A demonstration that the testator had no feud with the next-of-kin is one of
the commonplaces of a speech against a will; cp. I. 15 and passim, IV. 26,
ΙΧ. 16, 20, 30, 31 (τοὺς συγγενεῖς ἀποστερήσας). For ἐπιδικασία see S 41. 4 2.
9 μὴ γενομένων [δὲ] παίδων γνησίων ἐκείνῳ. A singular qualification, when
the whole argument is proceeding upon the assumption that Pyrrhus had
a legitimate daughter. Dobree (Adv. I. p. 292) would omit the words.
Caccialanza evades the difficulty by translating 'non essendovi rimasti di
lui figli legittimi.' For 'dè intrusum' see § 50. 2 n.
73. 1,2 áλλà vǹj Aía K.T.λ. 'But, it may be said, he might (could) have
adopted some other relative and given him his estate and his daughter.'
The proposition is treated as conditional, not as potential, by Reiske and
Schoemann ('Atque tamen, medius fidius (ita fortasse occurret mihi quis-
piam), Pyrrhus alium e cognatis si adoptasset, una cum hereditate filiam
quoque ei dedisset habendam pro uxore,' Reiske, 'Aber vielleicht würde er
einen anderen Anverwandten adoptirt, und Diesem dann sein Vermögen
sammt seiner Tochter hinterlassen haben,' Schoemann). What is the bearing
of this remark? Dobree (Adv. 1. p. 292) strives in vain to give point and
coherence to the objection. So far as I can penetrate the obscurity, the
connexion of thought is something of this sort: 'if Pyrrhus had a legitimate
daughter, he had no motive to adopt Endius, because he was the next-of-kin,
while he had a reason (fear of giving offence) for not adopting any other
relative.' The traditional punctuation, rejected by Gebauer (Lys. 12. 83
Anhang p. 285) and long ago tacitly corrected by Dobree, in no way helps
matters, as may be seen from the following translations: Voudriez-vous
qu'il fût allé chercher un autre parent plus éloigné pour lui donner à la
fois sa succession et sa fille?' (Dareste), 'Ma, per Zeus, forse Pirro, se avesse
adottato un altro qualunque de' suoi parenti, insieme con l'eredità gli avrebbe
concesso in moglie la figlia?' (Caccialanza). The legitimacy of a question
after ảììà vǹ Día is denied by some scholars, e.g. by T. D. Seymour (Class.
Rev. 15, 1901, p. 108). Undoubtedly in oratorical prose the proper place of
vǹ Aía is in an affirmative statement, µà ▲ía being used in negative state-
ments, pòs Alòs in questions and with imperatives. But in hypophora
(subiectio) vǹ Aía becomes part of a set formula and is modified by its
associations; ảλλà vǹ ▲ía appears in negative statements (Hyp. 3. 13 ảλλà
νὴ Δία αὐτὸς τοιούτῳ πράγματι οὐ κέχρησαι, Dem. 6. 13 ἀλλὰ νὴ Δί᾽, εἴποι τις ἄν,
οὐ πλεονεξίας ἕνεκ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ὧν ἐγὼ κατηγορῶ τότε ταῦτ᾽ ἔπραξεν ἀλλὰ τῷ δικαιότερ
6
2.
OR. III.
357
COMMENTARY
ἀξιοῦν τοὺς Θηβαίους ἢ ὑμᾶς, 54. 34 ἀλλὰ νὴ Δί᾽ οὐκ εἰσὶ τοιοῦτοι), and with
a hortative subjunctive Dem. 20. 75 ἀλλὰ νὴ Δία τὸν παῖδα τὸν Χαβρίου
περιίδωμεν ἀφαιρεθέντα τὴν ἀτέλειαν), and νή Δία is joined with an imperative
(Dem. 21. 222 θάρρει νή Δία, φήσειέ τις ἄν), so that ἀλλὰ νή Δία with an
interrogation cannot be considered a grammatical impossibility.
But no
certain and indisputable example of the construction is forthcoming. The
Zürich editors, Blass (ed. 2, 1880), and Lipsius (1888) punctuate inter-
rogatively And. 3. 15 (ἀλλὰ νή Δία ἕως ἂν Λακεδαιμονίους καταπολεμήσωμεν,
μέχρι τούτου δεῖ πολεμεῖν;), making the sentence the climax of a series of
questions. On this view there is no hypophora, the question being put by
the speaker, not by an imaginary opponent. A parallel is found in a frag-
ment of Polyeuctus as given in Apsines, Rh. Gr. (Hammer) I. p. 300, 5 ảλλà
νὴ Δία στήσεται (Δημάδης) προσευχόμενος τοῖς θεοῖς, κακόνους ὢν τῇ πόλει καὶ τὰ
ἐναντία πᾶσιν ὑμῖν ηὐγμένος; Here, as in And. 3. 15, the clause introduced
by ἀλλὰ νή Δία follows a string of rhetorical questions. But Sauppe (Or.
Att. II. p. 274) changes the punctuation of the whole passage, and places
a colon after θεοῖς and a mark of interrogation after ηὐγμένος. For IV. 20. 2
and VII. 33. 6 see the notes. Opinions have been divided over Dem. 24. 99,
125, 126, 25. 67, 77, [Dem.] 35. 47, 48, Din. 2. 8, but the tendency now is to
regard all these passages as affirmations. The interrogative use of ἀλλὰ γὰρ
is assailed by like doubts and has been nearly eradicated from modern texts.
Blass allows it in Isocr. 4. 175, 8. 49, but it has been expelled from Lys. 12.
40, 83, [Lys.] 6. 40, 48 by Gebauer and Thalheim, from [And.] 4. 37 by
Blass and Lipsius.
2 τῶν συγγενῶν. The speaker of or. II. assumes in the same way that
a man desiring to adopt a son would not travel outside the circle of his
relations (§ 20 διὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι συγγενῆ μηδέν᾽ ἄλλον αὑτῷ, ὁπόθεν ἂν ἐποιήσατο
ὑὸν). But mark the admission in IV. 18 ἤδη γάρ τινες οὐκ εὖ διακείμενοι
τοῖς συγγενέσιν ὀθνείους φίλους τῶν πάνυ σφόδρα προσηκόντων περὶ πλείονος
ἐποιήσαντο.
4 καταφανώς. The word suggests that in the previous sentence the
orator had in view adoption inter uiuos. Cautious men, who wished to
avoid scenes with disappointed heirs at law, made wills and kept the
contents secret ([Dem.] 46. 28 τούτου γὰρ ἕνεκα (διαθήκας) καταλείπουσιν οἱ
διατιθέμενοι, ἵνα μηδεὶς εἰδῇ ἃ διατίθενται, ΙΧ. 12 εἰ μὲν ὁ ᾿Αστύφιλος μηδένα
ἐβούλετο εἰδέναι ὅτι τὸν Κλέωνος ὑὸν ἐποιεῖτο μηδ᾽ ὅτι διαθήκας καταλίποι, εἰκὸς
ἦν μηδὲ ἄλλον μηδένα ἐγγεγράφθαι ἐν τῷ γραμματείῳ μάρτυρα κ.τ.λ., 1V. 13).
καὶ ὁτῳοῦν ἀπεχθέσθαι τῶν οἰκείων. The relations specially aggrieved
would have been Pyrrhus' nephews, but it would have been injudicious to
say 'Pyrrhus would not have dared to adopt any other relation from fear of
our anger.'
6 τὴν ἐκ ταύτης ἀποφανθεῖσαν εἶναι. Cp. §§ 15. 3 7., 30. 1, 2, 79. 9.
6, 7 εἰς τοὺς φράτερας εἰσαγαγόντι. Pyrrhus may have been prevented by
death from introducing Phile. The significance of the fact is not easily
appreciated, for Isaeus does not reveal how old Phile was when her father
died, and we do not at present know at what age children were admitted
into their father's φρατρία. It is certain that uniform rules were not imposed
on the Òparpíaɩ by the state, but the evidence, such as it is, seems to justify
358
OR. III.
ISAEUS
the conclusion that normally the enrolment took place in the early years of
a child's life. The regular date of admission was the third and last day
(ʼn koupeŵris) of the feast of Apaturia in the month Pyanopsion, which corre-
sponds roughly to October (Mommsen, Feste der Stadt Athen p. 328 sqq.).
According to Et. Mag. s.v. 'Anатоúρia the children (πaîdes) born in the year
were 'enrolled' (évéypaþov) at this festival; see VIII. 19. 5 éπeidǹ éyevóµeda
and And. 1. 125 (which however may concern a gens). On the other hand,
Proclus on Plat. Tim. 21 says that boys (kópoɩ) were registered (évéypaþov)
when three or four years old; cp. VI. 21 ἐπείσθη τὸν πρεσβύτερον τοῖν
παίδοιν εἰσαγαγεῖν εἰς τοὺς φράτερας ἐπὶ τῷ αὑτοῦ ὀνόματι. An upper limit is
indicated by Ar. Ran. 417 sqq. σκώψωμεν ᾿Αρχέδημον, ὃς ἑπτέτης ὢν οὐκ ἔφυσε
φράτερας, νυνὶ δὲ δημαγωγεῖ. Apparently the time of presentation was left to
the discretion of the parents, but delay excited suspicions as to the legitimacy
of the child ; note Lys. 30. 2 ὅσα ἔτη γεγονώς εἰς τοὺς φράτορας εἰσήχθη.
The decrees of the pparpia of the Demotionidae preserved in an inscription
(C. I.A. 11. 841 b, IV. 2. 841 b, S. I. G.2 n. 439, Michel n. 961), far from clearing
up this matter, raise more problems than they solve. The third resolution
(B 56 sqq.) moved by Menexenus contains the following clause: őñws d'àv
εἰδῶσι οἱ φράτερες τοὺς μέλλοντας εἰσάγεσθαι, ἀπογράφεσθαι τῶι πρώτωι ἔτει
ἢ ὧι ἂν τὸ κούρεον ἄγει τὸ ὄνομα πατρόθεγ καὶ τοῦ δήμου καὶ τῆς μητρὸς πατρόθεν
καὶ τοῦ δήμου πρὸς τὸν φρατρίαρχον. This passage has been considered a
proof that in this particular parpía two presentations were required in the
case of sons, one in the first year after birth (Tậ πpúτë ëтei), and another
when they were grown up, the victim called тò kоúρetov being reserved for
the second and really important ceremony, while rò μetov, which the in-
scription (A 5 sqq.) distinguishes from тò koúpetov, was a 'smaller' victim
presented at the introduction of an infant (Busolt, Müllers Handbuch Iv². 1.
p. 209, Müller, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des attischen Bürger- und
Eherechts p. 758 sqq.). In support of this theory appeal is made to a passage
in Pollux (8. 107), which in the opinion of many critics is confused and
worthless: καὶ εἰς ἡλικίαν προελθόντων ἐν τῇ καλουμένῃ κουρεώτιδι ἡμέρᾳ ὑπὲρ
μὲν τῶν ἀρρένων τὸ κούρειον ἔθυον, ὑπὲρ δὲ τῶν θηλειῶν τὴν γαμηλίαν; see for
the γαμηλία § 76. I n. It is also urged that the etymology of koúpetov points
to a ceremony performed at or after puberty, the word being derived from
keipw (kovpà) and taken to signify an offering made on cutting the hair. But
if in the sixth speech Isaeus is telling the truth (VI. Introd. p. 485, § 14. 5 n.),
the candidate for whom the koupelov was presented by Euctemon (§ 22. 3 n.)
was not grown up.
Moreover those scholars who insist on the derivation of
κούρειον and κούρειος (S. I. G. n. 445 (Teos) Απόλλωνος Κουρέου Πολλιδῶν καὶ
Daiviaồŵv) from κeipw, forget that it is possible to make offerings of hair
before puberty. Thumser (Thumser-Hermann, Gr. Staatsaltert. p. 324)
endorses Busolt's view of the distinction between τὸ κούρειον and τὸ μεῖον,
but desiring to do justice to the disjunctive particle (τῷ πρώτῳ ἔτει ἢ ᾧ
av K.T.λ.) supposes that the purpose of the regulation is to give the father
the power of choosing between two dates. Lipsius (Leipziger Studien 16,
1894, p. 163 sqq.) contends that the expression no more conveys an alter-
native than the Latin 'primo aetatis anno uel quocumque hostiam obtulerit,
and believes that boys were presented, and the Koupelov offered, in their
•
OR. III.
359
COMMENTARY
1
first year of life. Sauppe (De Phratriis Atticis II. 1890, p. 10), Gilbert
(Staatsaltert.2 1. p. 213, E. T. p. 192), Mommsen (Feste der Stadt Athen
p. 329 n. 3) think that the written notice had to be sent the year before
the offering of the κούρειον, πρώτῳ standing for προτέρῳ. But such a
use of πрôτos is not found before the Christian era, and, apart from this
difficulty, to ask for a notice 'in the year before' a ceremony is not a
businesslike regulation; what we expect is the specification of a date after
which notices will not be received. Dittenberger holds exactly the opposite
opinion, that the year after the offering is meant (non priorem annum sed
proximum), but he produces no example of this singular construction (sic
sane ante desideratur aduerbium comparatiuum, sed ea breuiloquentia
neutiquam aliena est a Graecorum usu, ut etiam Latini sic nudum quam
pro postea quam usurpant). In respect of derivation I would equate the
Athenian κоúpela with the Delphic raidhia (§ 76. 1 n.), but prefer not to
commit myself to the doctrine of Gilbert and Lipsius that the victim
presented for a girl was called rò µeîov; cp. Schol. Ar. Ran. 798, which
describes μείον as a sheep offered on behalf of sons (ὑπὲρ τῶν υἱῶν) but
at the same time erroneously identifies it with κούρειον, Harp. s.v. μείον, and
The ordinances of
Poll. 3. 53, both of whom use the vaguer word maîdes.
the Demotionidae which have come down to us take no notice of girls. Sons
only are specified in the oath of the witnesses at the 'introduction of children,'
B. 51 sqq. : ὅρκος μαρτύρων ἐπὶ τῆι εἰσαγωγεῖ τῶν παίδων· Μαρτυρῶ ὃν εἰσάγει
Éavtôi vòv êvai тôtov yvýolv éy yaμerns. Buermann (Berl. Philol. Wochenschr.
9, 1889, p. 259) infers that in this parpía, as in a deme, sons only, not
daughters, were put upon the register; note § 76. 3, 4 kaì тaûтa vóμov övtos
avroîs. The silence of the inscription is not conclusive, but it is worth noting
that there is little evidence on the point apart from this passage of Isaeus.
A scholium on Ar. Acharn. 146 speaks of the registration of children of both
sexes (kópoɩ kai kópai). Plato also in the Laws (785 a) prescribes that a
record of the birth of girls and boys shall be kept in every oparpía, though
this does not count for much in view of the emancipation of women, which
is one of the peculiarities of the Platonic state. Euxitheus in Dem. 57 calls
'the opάrepes of his mother's relations' (§§ 40, 69) to bear witness that she
was a citizen (ảσtý, πoλîtis), but does not refer explicitly to enrolment on the
list, and the speaker of or. vIII makes no attempt to show that his mother,
who is dead, was introduced into her father's Oparpía. Perhaps in these last
two instances the omission is a sign of a weak place in the argument.
Nothing can be deduced from Apollodorus' definition of marriage in [Dem.]
59. 122 τὸ γὰρ συνοικεῖν τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, ὃς ἂν παιδοποιῆται καὶ εἰσάγῃ εἴς τε τοὺς
φράτερας καὶ δημότας τοὺς υἱεῖς, καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας ἐκδιδῷ ὡς αὑτοῦ οὔσας τοῖς
ȧvdpáσi; the separation of sons and daughters is an inevitable consequence
of the turn of the phrase, daughters having no place on the roll of the
deme.
αν
With regard to the cogency of Isaeus' argument it should be observed
that, although introduction into the parpia was of value in proving legiti-
macy, because the act implied formal recognition of the child by the father
and by his kinsmen, whose interests were prejudiced by the admission of
bastards, yet the omission of the ceremony did not amount to a demon-
360
OR. III.
ISAEUS
stration of illegitimacy. If this had been the view of the law, the orators
might have confined themselves to proving the absence or existence of the
entry. A father at Athens had not the right to bastardise his children born
in lawful wedlock. Thus Mantias was compelled under threat of legal
proceedings to recognise Boeotus and Pamphilus, his sons by Plango, and
to introduce them into his φρατρία (Dem. 39. 3 sqq., [Dem.] 40. 11). See
Hruza 1. p. 136 n. 7, Beauchet I. p. 350 sqq.
7, 8 ἐπὶ ἅπαντι τῷ κλήρῳ. Cp. v. 6 ἐπὶ τῷ τρίτῳ μέρει τοῦ κλήρου...ὑὸς
ἐγίγνετο ποιητός, Χ. 4. 10 ἡ μήτηρ ἡ ἐμὴ ἐπὶ παντὶ τῷ οἴκῳ ἐπίκληρος ἐγένετο,
Plato Laws 923 D ἐὰν δὲ περιγίγνηταί τις τῶν υἱέων αὐτῷ μὴ ἐπί τινι κλήρῳ
πεποιημένος.
8 ἐπισκηψαι. Observe that the speaker does not mention the person
or persons who were to receive these injunctions.
9 εἰσαγαγεῖν, sc. εἰς τοὺς αὑτοῦ φράτορας. See [Dem.] 43. 12, 13 ἐπειδὴ
δὲ οὐκ ἐγένετο παῖς ἄρρην αὐτῷ οὐδὲ εἷς, μετὰ ταῦτ᾽ ἤδη ἐσπούδαζεν Εὐβουλίδης
ὅπως ἐκ τῆς θυγατρὸς εἰσποιηθῇ αὑτῷ υἱὸς εἰς τὸν οἶκον τὸν ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τὸν ῾Αγνίου,
καὶ εἰς τοὺς φράτερας εἰσαχθῇ τοὺς ἐκείνου, ἡγούμενος ἐκ τῶν ὑπολοίπων τοῦτον
εἶναι ἑαυτῷ οἰκειότατον, καὶ οὕτως ἂν μάλιστα τὸν οἶκον τὸν ἑαυτοῦ διασῴζεσθαι
καὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐξερημωθῆναι. καὶ ἐγὼ ταῦτα ὑπηρέτησ᾽ αὐτῷ, ὁ τὴν Εὐβουλίδου
θυγατέρα ἔχων ἐπιδικασάμενος γένει ὢν ἐγγυτάτω, καὶ εἰσήγαγον τὸν παῖδα τουτονὶ
εἰς τοὺς ῾Αγνίου καὶ Εὐβουλίδου φρατερας, ib. 14 έψηφίσαντο οἱ φράτερες...ὀρθῶς
καὶ προσηκόντως τὸν παῖδα τουτονὶ εἰσάγεσθαι Εὐβουλίδῃ υἱόν. Sositheus, who
delivers this speech, keeps out of sight the facts that he had four sons (§ 74)
by the marriage, and notwithstanding waited more than 18 years before
gratifying the alleged aspirations of the father of the ἐπίκληρος, and in the
end merely acted in order to gain a pretext for reviving the dispute about
the estate of Hagnias. These two passages from Pseudo-Demosthenes and
Isaeus are important, because they seem to imply that the husband of the
ἐπίκληρος was under no legal obligation to introduce a son into the house of
her father. The 'solemn injunctions' of which Isaeus speaks would be more
appropriate, if the obligation was only moral and religious : see VII. 31, 44,
XI. 49. Sositheus in [Dem.] 43 must in the first instance have entered his 2nd
son in his own φρατρία, and afterwards, as a speculation, transferred him to
the pparpia of Eubulides, his wife's father; for it is highly improbable that
the boy was left without a Óparpía for many years, until the chance presented
itself of claiming the estate of Hagnias. Was there at Athens in this
age any necessary connexion between the transmission of the sacra of the
father of the ἐπίκληρος and the transmission of his property? Take the case
of Sositheus. At the time of the trial he and his wife, Phylomache, daughter
of Eubulides, had four sons. The eldest son, Sosias, had come of age and
was a member of his father's φρατρία. The 2nd son was a minor, and had
recently been enrolled in the parpía of Eubulides as son of Eubulides. The
3rd and 4th sons, also minors, were presumably in their father's φρατρία.
The adoption (εἰσποίησις) made the 2nd son heir of the sacra, and repre-
sentative of the house (oikos), of his maternal grandfather. Did it also have
the effect of transmitting to him the succession to the whole of his grand-
father's property, if there was any property to inherit (note the significance
of §§ 54, 55)? Or did each of his three brothers retain a right to an equal
OR. III.
361
COMMENTARY
share, although they were not members of Eubulides' par pía, and were not
considered sons of Eubulides? No clear answer can be given to these
questions. Part of the law on the subject is preserved in [Dem.] 46. 20
καὶ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐπικλήρου τις γένηται, καὶ ἅμα ἡβήσῃ ἐπὶ διετές, κρατεῖν τῶν
χρημάτων, τὸν δὲ σῖτον μετρεῖν τῇ μητρί. These words admit the possibility
that the first son born to the ríkλnpos had an exclusive right to the
succession of his maternal grandfather, whereas Isaeus' interpretation of
the law excludes it; for in three passages he speaks in the plural of
'the children' of the eπikλŋpos, as if all sons inherited without any dis-
tinctions ; see VIII. 31 οἱ γενόμενοι παῖδες ἐκ τούτου καὶ ἐξ ἐκείνης, ὁπότε ἐπὶ
διετὲς ἡβήσαν, Χ. 12 τοὺς παῖδας ἐπὶ διετὲς ἡβήσαντας, fr. 9o Saupp. τὰ δὲ
χρήματα τέως μὲν τῆς ἐπικλήρου εἶναι, ἐπειδὰν δὲ παῖδες ἐπὶ διετὲς ἡβήσωσιν,
ékeivovs avtŵv êpateîv, and compare § 50. 6 n., Hyp. fr. 192 (Blass) quoted
by Harpocration s.v. ἐπιδιετὲς ἡβῆσαι: ὁ νόμος...κελεύει κυρίους εἶναι τῆς
ἐπικλήρου καὶ τῆς οὐσίας τοὺς παῖδας ἐπειδὰν ἐπιδιετὲς (sic Harp.) ἡβῶσιν.
Nowhere in our existing authorities is transference to the house of the
maternal grandfather made a condition of receiving the estate, nowhere
do we read of any privilege accruing to the son who leaves his father's
family in order to maintain the continuity of the house of his mother's
father. Yet in spite of this silence it is difficult to believe that a son
selected to discharge this duty was placed in a worse position than his
brothers, as he would have been, if he could only claim lawfully his quota
of the grandfather's property, since the adoption broke the bond which con-
nected him with his father and deprived him of all rights in his father's
estate. The analogies found in Hindoo and Jewish customs support the
hypothesis that the son who was transferred took over both the cult and
the wealth of his grandfather. Under the Mosaic law (see Gide, Étude
sur la condition privée de la femme p. 58) if the deceased left only a
daughter, it was her duty to provide her father with posterity, and prevent
his name from perishing. As in Greece, she was in a sense part of the
succession. No one could take the inheritance without marrying the
daughter and inscribing in the genealogical lists, under the name of the
deceased, the first male child she bore. The Laws of Manu (Sacred Books
of the East, xxv. G. Bühler) are similar in spirit. He who has no son may
make his daughter in the following manner an appointed daughter (putrika)
(saying to her husband) "The (male) child born of her shall perform my
funeral rites" (IX. 127). The son of an (appointed) daughter shall take the
whole estate of (his maternal grandfather) who leaves no son (ib. 131). The
son of an (appointed) daughter, indeed, shall (also) take the estate of his
(own) father, who leaves no (other) son; he shall (then) present two funeral
cakes, to his own father and to his maternal grandfather (ib. 132). But if,
after a daughter has been appointed, a son be born (to her father), the division
(of the inheritance) must in that case be equal; for there is no right of
primogeniture for a woman (ib. 134). But if an appointed daughter by
accident dies without leaving a son, the husband of the appointed daughter
may, without hesitation, take that estate (ib. 135). A prudent man should not
marry a maiden who has no brother, through fear lest she be made an ap-
pointed daughter' (III. 11). Now it is certain that the laws of Solon did not
362
OR. III.
ISAEUS
agree in detail with the regulations attributed to Moses and Manu, but it is
also plain that the motive which originally inspired all these rules was one
and the same, the desire to enable a father who had only a daughter to make
himself a son by means of a legal and religious fiction, and so procure a
successor, who should continue his family and carry on without a break the
family cult and, especially, the sacrifices to the manes of ancestors. It is,
further, plain that the superstition which regarded the extinction of a house
as a great calamity existed at Athens in the time of Isaeus and the author of
[Dem.] 43, because litigants are often made to appeal to it. Looking at
these facts and bearing in mind the uncertainty which besets all inferences
from statements made by Athenian orators, I am not prepared to accept
with Beauchet (1. p. 469 sqq.) the conclusion reached by Hruza (I. p. 91 n. 7),
that at Athens in the 4th century adoption into the house of the father of the
Éπíkλŋρos was not only not a condition of inheriting the estate, but actually
gave the adopted son no advantages over his brothers who remained in the
family of their father. For other cases of 'posthumous adoption,' in which
the deceased is the brother, not the father, of the mother of the adopted
child, see VII. 31 and XI. 49.
74. 1 δῆλον [μὲν] γὰρ ὅτι ἐπίκληρον μὲν καταλιπών. That μὲν cannot
stand in both places is clear. All editors since Bekker, except Thalheim,
have cut out the second μév, Buermann wishes to abolish both. I regard
the first μèv as a case of anticipation (Crit. Introd. pp. xxxii, xxxviii), and
believe that A¹ was crossing it out, when his pen slipped (cr. n.). For μèv
solitarium see I. I. I ~.; the antithesis to eπíkλnpov µèv kataλɩñìv is left to
the imagination of the hearer.
5, 6 τῶν ἄλλων συγγενῶν. Any person who is inclined to take this
seriously should ask himself what relations could have ranked after Pyrrhus'
maternal uncles and their sons and grandsons (§§ 63–71 analysis). The
first class might have been sons and grandsons of Pyrrhus' maternal aunts.
After these all is darkness; but if modern speculations on the order of
intestate succession be worth anything, on the failure of these representa-
tives of the maternal line, the Athenians went back to the father's side, and
the inheritance devolved on the relation nearest in degree among those
who were connected with the deceased (1) as descendants of his father's
mother, (2) as descendants of his father's grandfather, (3) as descendants
of his father's great-grandfather. See Beauchet III. p. 559 sqq.
6 ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ οὐσίᾳ. Cf. § 73. 7, 8 n. A has περὶ πάσης τῆς οὐσίας, which
is kept by Bekker, the Zürich editors, and Scheibe. Buermann and Thalheim
after Schoemann change repì to μerá, doing justice to the sense, but not
し
​π
to the ductus litterarum. I regard the MS. reading as derived from e máσŋɩ
Tĥɩ ovσiai: see for the confusion of ɩ and s (c) Crit. Introd. p. xlvii, of πepì
and èπì ib. p. xliii, Dem. 32. 26, Aesch. 1. 181, Rh. Gr. (Hammer) 1. pp. 80. 1,
101, 7, 251. 10, Bast, Commentatio Palaeographica p. 783 sqq., Dobree, Adv.
I. pp. 437, 495, 11. p. 98.
π
75. 4 ὥσπερ αὐτῷ προσήκε. The Accusative is more commonly used
with pooŋke in elliptical clauses of this kind, in which an infinitive must be
supplied from the principal proposition. Gebauer on Lys. 25. 7 Anhang
p. 474 cites from the orators only one example of a Dative (Isocr. 8. 92), but
OR. III.
363
COMMENTARY
seven of an Accusative (Isocr. II. 33, 12. 159, 230, 15. 322, Dem. 18. 180, 21.
133, [Dem.] prooem. 43. 2). See C. I. A. IV. 2. 318 b, 10 éπeɩồn dè ô äpxwv tás
τε ἄλλας θυσίας τέθυκεν, ὅσας αὐτῷ προσῆκεν, and VIII. 6. 6 n.
Εν
76. 1 yaµŋλlav eiońveykev. The meaning of this phrase has been
carefully examined by Hruza I. p. 133 sqq. The lexicographers and gram-
marians give confused and inconsistent accounts. Some identify the yaµnλía
with a sacrifice offered when girls were presented to the pparpía (Poll. 8. 107
φράτορες. εἰς τούτους τούς τε κόρους καὶ τὰς κόρας εἰσῆγον, καὶ εἰς ἡλικίαν
προελθόντων ἐν τῇ καλουμένῃ κουρεώτιδι ἡμέρᾳ ὑπὲρ μὲν τῶν ἀρρένων τὸ
κούρειον ἔθυον, ὑπὲρ δὲ τῶν θηλειῶν τὴν γαμηλίαν, Et. Mag. s.v.). Others
make it a sacrifice at the registration of eonßo on the roll of the deme
(Bekk. An. Gr. I. p. 228, 5, Et. Mag. s.v.). This last definition is certainly
a blunder, but Pollux' account of the yaµnλia has been approved by some
scholars (Müller, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des attischen Bürger- und
Eherechts p. 772 sqq.), who explain that a father was required to
make an offering to his parpía, as soon as his daughter reached a
marriageable age. Other ancient authorities (rightly, in my opinion) con-
nect the word with proceedings before a pparpía on the celebration of a
marriage, but offer two contrasted explanations. (1) The yaµnλía is said to
be the introduction (eloaywyǹ) or enrolment (eyypapǹ) of the wife (Harp. s.v.,
Bekk. An. Gr. I. p. 228, 4). (2) The yaµnλía is described as a sacrifice (Ovoía,
Poll. 3. 42), or a banquet (deîπvov, Hesych. s.v.), or a donation (Harp. s.V.,
Bekk. An. Gr. I. p. 233, 31, Suid. s.v.). The uncertainty goes back at least as
far as to the first century B.C., for Harpocration states that Didymus (Xaλ-
κέντερος) gave the first interpretation in his commentary (ὑπομνήματα) on
Demosthenes, but the second in his commentary on Isaeus. The two
versions are not necessarily contradictory, since the sacrifice or banquet
or donation might be only preliminary to the introduction or enrolment.
This is probably the reason why some modern scholars (e.g. Busolt, Müllers
Handbuch IV.2 1. p. 211, Schoemann and Lipsius, Gr. Altert. 1. p. 385) have
combined the definitions and taught that the husband introduced his wife
into his parpía, offered a sacrifice, and feasted his brother øpárepes. But
Hruza urges with justice that the evidence for the introduction of the wife is
not satisfactory. Isaeus and Demosthenes, weightier witnesses than the
grammarians, never use the words eloáyew and eloaywyǹ in this connexion,
but exhibit only the technical and fixed phrase, γαμηλίαν ὑπὲρ τῆς γυναικὸς
toís þpátepoiv eiopépeiv (§ 79. 8, VIII. 18. 6, 20. 3, 4, Dem. 57. 43, 69), which,
strictly interpreted, comprehends nothing more than a marriage offering,
whether the offering took the form of a sacrifice and banquet or of some
other contribution in kind or money, and does not imply that the bride was
presented to the assembled society and enrolled on the list of members.
So
far, Hruza's criticisms of the current theory are sound, but I decline to follow
him, when he passes into the region of conjecture and maintains that it was
impossible for a wife to enter her husband's Oparpía, that the yaµndia could
not have been a sacrifice to the gods of the pparpia followed by a feast, and
that it was a sum of money paid into the treasury of the corporation. These
are propositions, which, with the materials at our disposal, can neither be
proved nor disproved.
1
364
OR. III.
ISAEUS
The ordinances concerning γάμελα voted by the φρατρία of the Λαβυάδαι
at Delphi (Bull. Corr. Hell. 19, 1895, p. 5 sqq., S. I. G.² n. 438, Michel
n. 995, S. D. I. II. n. 2561 with Baunack's notes) contribute little to the
elucidation of Athenian usages. The most important clauses are the
following: A 23 sqq. Τοὺς τάγους (officers of the φρατρία) μὴ δέκεσθαι μήτε
δαρατᾶν γάμελα μήτε παιδήϊα μήτ' ἀπελλαῖα, αἰ μὴ τᾶς πατρίας ἐπαινεούσας καὶ
πληθυόσας, ἃς κα ἦι, ib. 31 sqq. Τὰ δὲ ἀπελλαῖα ἄγεν ᾿Απέλλαις καὶ μὴ ἄλλαι
ἁμέραι, ib. 44 sqq. ῎Αγεν δὲ τἀπελλαῖα ἀντὶ Γέτεος (Hesych. s.v. ἀντετοῦς· τοῦ
αὐτοῦ ἔτους, Prott, Leges Graecorum Sacrae, n. 5, 43 ἀντὶ νυκτός, hac ipsa
nocte) καὶ τὰς δαράτας φέρεν. Κ' Οστις δέ κα μὴ ἄγηι τἀπελλαῖα ἢ τὰν δαράταν
μὴ φέρηι, ἀμμόνιον (to obtain postponement and in recognition of the obliga-
tion) κατθέτω στατῆρα ἐπὶ εκατέρωι· τῷ δὲ hυστέρωι Fέτει ἀγέτω τἀπελλαῖα καὶ
τὰν δαραταν φέρετω· if in the next year the duty is not performed, the
defaulter is fined, B 35 sqq. Αἰ δέ κα δέξωνται τοὶ τάγοι ἢ γάμελα ἢ παιδια
πὰρ τὰ γράμματα, ἀποτεισάτω πεντήκοντα δραχμὰς δέκαστος τῶν δεξαμένων. Αἰ
δέ κα μὴ ἀποτείσηι, ἄτιμος ἔστω ἐγ Λαβυαδῶν...Πέντε κ᾿ ἀποτείσηι· καὶ hô κα
δέξωνται ἢ δαράταν ἢ ἀπελλαῖα πὰρ τὰ γράμματα, μὴ ἔστω Λαβυάδας, μηδὲ
κοινανείτω τῶν κοινῶν χρημάτων μηδὲ τῶν θεμάτων. According to authorities
cited by Athenaeus (3. 110 D, 114 Β) δάρατος was the Thessalian word for
unleavened bread (ἄζυμος ἄρτος). The inscription on the one hand contrasts
ἡ δαράτα with τὰ ἀπελλαΐα, and on the other hand seems to classify γάμελα
and παιδήϊα as species of δαράται. Athenian practices suggest the conjecture
that when a Aaßvádŋs married or had a child born to him, he was required to
present to the authorities of his parpía an offering of unleavened bread, the
penalty for delay in presentation being a fine, for illegal presentation exclusion
from the corporation. The ᾿Απέλλαι, at which the victims called τὰ ἀπελλαῖα
were brought by members of the φρατρία, was a festival in the first month of
the Delphic year (roughly July), which bore the name ᾿Απελλαῖος. That these
victims corresponded to the κούρεια of an Athenian φρατρία (§ 73. 6, 7 n.) is a
deduction from the guess that the festival resembled the Apaturia at Athens.
I think it more probable that the Athenian analogue is not introduction into
2 φρατρία but enrolment in a deme, and that the offerings were made when
the sons of members attained their majority and were admitted to political
rights. Hesychius explains ἀπέλλαι by σηκοί, ἐκκλησίαι, ἀρχαιρεσίαι, and
ἀπελλάζειν is used of the Spartan assembly (Plut. Lyc. 6).
4 νόμου ὄντος αὐτοῖς. Cp. VII. 16, VIII. 18, C.I.A. II. 841 b (S.I.G.2
n. 439, Michel n. 961), 12, 13 ὁπόσοι μήπω διεδικάσθησαν κατὰ τὸν νόμον τὸν
Δημοτιωνιδών. See Ziebarth, Das griechische Vereinswesen pp. 144 sqq.
188 sqq. for the use of the word by the innumerable societies, which in
the Greek world possessed a corporate organisation modelled after the
constitution of the state.
8 λαβὲ δὲ καὶ ὡς.
Reiske's emendation, <rǹv> ws, is against Attic
add to the references in the critical note Gebauer, Lys. 13. 91,
Anhang p. 461 sqq.
usage;
9 MAPTYPIA. The deposition is probably that of the witnesses to
Pyrrhus' will ($ 56).
77-80 These sections recapitulate the principal arguments of the
first part of the speech. The orator repeats the series of questions addressed
OR. III.
365
COMMENTARY
to Nicodemus in §§ 8—10, insists again on the absence of a marriage
offering to the Oparpía, and concludes by calling witnesses from Pyrrhus'
deme to prove that Pyrrhus, though possessing a fortune of 3 talents,
discharged no public services (Aŋrovρyía) in the deme on behalf of his
alleged wife.
77. 1,2 TŵV тοû delov èкµаprupiŵv: an artificial figure; Pyrrhus cannot
appear in court, but he has given depositions by his actions. In the
documents we possess the noun, éкµаpтʊpía, is confined to the sense of
a 'deposition out of court' (§ 18. 5 m.), but the use of the verb, ékμapтupeîv,
with the meaning of 'testify openly' is known to prose (Aesch. 1. 107 тηu
αὑτοῦ συμφορὰν εἰς πολλοὺς ἐκμαρτυρήσοντα, Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 7. 33 ἔτι
μᾶλλον ἔφη μετὰ πάντων ἐκμαρτυρήσειν, Strabo 12. 6, p. 673 ὑφ᾽ Ομήρου σαφῶς
ἐκμαρτυρεῖται).
6 ȧpxóμevos, i.e. § 8 sqq.
οικον
78.2 πρὸς ὁποῖον ἄρχοντα. Cp. § 8. 5 n. and Dem. 30. 17 τὴν ἀπόλειψιν
οὗτοι πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα ἀπεγράψαντο. The condensation of the phrase is
remarkable. The words ròv oikov avтoû are an afterthought, awkwardly
appended, for there is no evidence that a woman who returned to her kin
on the death of her husband was required to give a written notice to the
Archon.
79. 4, 5 της τοῖς φράτερσι γαμηλίας. As illustrations of the Dative
Schoemann quotes from the orators Dem. I. 22 τὰ τῆς τροφῆς τοῖς ξένοις,
3. 20 δι' ἀπορίαν ἐφοδίων τοῖς στρατευομένοις, [Dem.] 52. 26 δωρειὰς τῇ πόλει,
53. 29 ἀπορίας καὶ τροφὰς μητρὶ λέγοντες. Add Lys. 32. 20 ὄψον δυοῖν παιδίοιν
καὶ ἀδελφῇ, Hyp. 2. 17 τὸν μισθὸν τοῖς ἱππεῦσιν. Meisterhans, Grammatik
d. att. Inschr³ § 84, 25 sqq., p. 209, has collected from the inscriptions some
remarkable applications of the Dative: (1) where a Genitive might be expected,
e.g. γραμματεὺς τῇ βουλῇ καὶ τῷ δήμῳ, ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τῆς θυσίας τῇ Ηβῃ καὶ τοῖς
ἄλλοις θεοῖς, στέφανος χρυσοῦς ἀριστεῖα τῇ θεῷ, (2) where εἰς with the Accusa-
tive seems more natural, e.g. πλινθεῖα τοῖς πύργοις, ξύλα καὶ ἄνθρακες τῷ
μoλúßd (for smelting the lead). See also C. I.A. II. 114 (340/39 B.C.) C. 10
ἐπειδὴ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως ἐπεμελήθη ὧν αὐτῷ ἡ βουλὴ προσέταξεν, τῆς τε
διοικήσεως τῇ βουλῇ (ib. Β 1ο τῆς διοικήσεως ὑπὸ τῆς βουλῆς) καὶ τῆς εὐκοσμίας.
7 ἐπείσθη ἂν κ.τ.λ. Hruza I. p. 144 n. 17 infers that the presentation of
the marriage offering, though sanctioned by custom, was a matter of choice,
like the conclusion of the marriage contract. If it had been an obligation,
which the authorities of the opaтpía were able to enforce by legal proceed-
ings, Isaeus, he urges, would have argued that Pyrrhus must have made
the offering, not that Pyrrhus would have been persuaded to do so. This
inference is not incontestable. The solicitations of Phile's mother and of
her friends, not the claims of the Oparpía, may have been prominent in the
writer's thoughts, and in any case allowance must be made for the possibility
of irony.
9 ἀποφανθεῖσαν. Cp. §§ 15. 3 n., 30. 1, 2, 73. 6.
80. 1 [kal] ëv te tậ dýµw. The alleged examples in Attic prose of the
combination kaì...Te are examined and set aside by Sauppe (Ep. Crit. að
G. H. p. 82 sqq. = Ausgew. Schr. p. 133 sqq.). For XI. 41. 4 Kaì Tóv 0' avTOÛ
see note ad loc.; in Isocr. 17. 40 г alone has kaì Taûrá 0' ws, the rest kaì raûð
ws, which editors rightly adopt. Isaeus uses the conjunction re without a
366
OR. III.
ISAEUS
correlative particle to balance it ('afterthought re,' Gildersleeve) more freely
than the other orators, resembling in this respect Antiphon and Andocides,
but differing widely from the leading writers of the next generation. The
construction is found 15 times in Isaeus (I. 12, 30, VII. 7 (TE...TE Sauppe),
9(bis), 10, 17 (TE...Te Fuhr), 39, VIII. 16, 18, 19 (bis), IX. 5, X. 20, XI. 39),
II times in Antiphon (1. 9 (NA pr.), 10 (N: dè A), 26, Tetr. I. a. 7, 8, ß. I
(N: dè A), y. 3, d. 1, V. 18 (bis), 51), 11 times in Andocides (1. 61, 107, III,
II. 11, 15, 19, III. 7, 9, 30, 33, 40), 8 times in Lysias (1. 6, 17, 13. 1, 82, 23. 3,
31. 2, 32. 1, 22), once in Isocrates (17. 41), once in Demosthenes (37. 35; but
Fuhr and Blass rightly correct the MSS.), 9 times in Pseudo-Demosthenes
(34. 41 (dè Fuhr), 40. 8, 44. 31, 46. 15, 49. 27, 59. 38, 63, 73, 115), once in
Hypereides (6. 42), once in Aeschines (3. 87); in Lycurgus and Dinarchus it
does not occur. The combination тe yàp is on a different footing; see Ant.
τε
Tetr. III. 8. 3, And. 1. 5, [Lys.] 2. 17, Dem. 19. 159, Lyc. 14, Hyp. fr. 80 (Blass)
and the commentators on these passages, particularly Shilleto on Dem. 19.
159. The various uses of Te in the orators have been classified and discussed
by Fuhr, Excurse zu den attischen Rednern, Rh. Mus. 33, 1878, p. 577 sqq.,
and Schmidt, De usu particulae re earumque quae cum тoɩ compositae sunt
apud oratores atticos, Rostock, 1891. Thalheim reads kaì èv dè τậ dýμw, for
which see IX. II. 1, 2 n.
2 τὸν τριτάλαντον οἶκον. The minimum census which involved the obli-
gation of performing public burdens is not known, but that it was exactly
three talents is not proved by this passage.
3 θεσμοφόρια ἑστιῶν. For the construction compare γάμους ἑστιῶν (VIII.
9, 18, 20), τὴν δεκάτην ἑστιῶν ([Dem.] 40. 28), τὰ ἐπινίκια ἑστιᾶν ([Dem.] 59.
33, 34). This banquet is mentioned nowhere else, and it is idle to make
conjectures about its place among the ceremonies of the Thesmophoria, for
the course of which see Purser, Dict. of Ant. 11. p. 831 sqq., Mommsen, Feste
der Stadt Athen p. 318 sqq. The speaker of or. VIII. says (§ 19) that the
married women of his father's deme selected (πpoúêρiav) two women 'to
hold office for the Thesmophoria and perform the customary rites,' and many
scholars (e.g. Lipsius-Schoemann, Gr. Altert. 11.4 p. 504 sqq., Stengel, Gr.
Sakralaltert., Müller's Handbuch V. 3. p. 159) have ventured to assume that
the banquet here alluded to and described as a burden incumbent on a
married man of means was given by these two officials at the expense of
their husbands to the other women of the deme, who were taking part in
the festival. The assumption is arbitrary, but, if confirmed by facts, would
furnish an excellent specimen of oratorical effrontery; for, if the account
given of the life of Nicodemus' sister be true, she was the last woman likely
to be selected by the matrons of Pyrrhus' deme to conduct rites which were
due to the goddess presiding over marriage, and from which courtesans were
excluded.
4 λητουργεῖν. Cp. VI. 64. 7ο What other public services a deme re-
quired from a married man on behalf of his wife is not known. For the
γυμνασιαρχία and χορηγία in a deme see II. 42. 5 n.
8 μαρτυρίαν. Scaliger appended the note ατελής, Reiske rightly added
the lemma MAPTYPIA. For the abrupt and unconventional close com-
pare or. VIII., [Lys.] 14 (NOMOI. OPKOI. гPAØH), Dem. 55 (ПРOKAHƐIƐ.
MAPTYPIAI), [Dem.] 47 (MAPTYPIA), 50 (MAPTYPIA).
IV
ON THE ESTATE OF NICOSTRATUS.
HAGNON AND HAGNOTHEUS AGAINST CHARIADES.
CLAIM TO AN INHERITANCE.
Nicostratus had been absent from Athens eleven years (§ 8), serving
abroad (§§ 1, 7, 18, 26) as a soldier. When he died, killed, it would seem,
in action (§ 19), his ashes (§§ 19, 20) and two talents of money (§ 7) were
sent home. If the lively narrative of the speaker (§ 7 sqq.) is true, a
swarm of claimants swooped down on this tempting prize. In the end all
competitors were beaten off, except two young men (§ 26), Hagnon and
Hagnotheus, sons of Thrasippus, and a certain Chariades, their opponent.
Chariades, who had served in the same force as Nicostratus, and who also
claimed to have been his partner (§§ 18, 20, 26), produced a will by which
Nicostratus adopted him as son and heir. The genuineness of this document
was contested by Hagnon and Hagnotheus, who claimed the succession as
heirs ab intestato, declaring themselves first cousins of Nicostratus (§§ 2, 23,
26). At the trial one of the brothers, perhaps Hagnon-he is mentioned.
first (§§ 1, 2, 24, 27) and may have been the elder-first ascended the Bμa
(v. 25. 6 n.), and, after having marshalled his facts and evidence, asked the
court (And." I. 150, Isocr. 20. 22, [Dem.] 34. 52, 56. 50, 59. 14, Hyp. 2. 20,
3. 11) for permission to call an advocate (ovvýyopos). Thereupon an older
and more experienced man, a friend of the father Thrasippus, who is dead
(§§ 1, 27), came forward and delivered the following speech, which might
not unftly be entitled Υπέρ "Αγνωνος καὶ ῾Αγνοθέου συνηγορία. Since such
a speech, being a sort of peroration or conclusion, was sometimes called by
rhetoricians an ériλoyos, the Zürich editors added this word to the title; cp.
Isocr. 20 Karà Aoxíтov aiκías éπíλoуos (so г), Lys. 28 and 29, where the MSS.
have KΑΤΑ ΕΡΓΟΚΛΕΟΥΣ ΕΠΙΛΟΓΟΣ, and KΑΤΑ ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΟΥΣ ΕΠΙΛΟΓΟΣ,
and Harp. s.v. ἐπιδιατίθεσθαι: Λυσίας ἐν τῷ πρὸς Θεοπείθη ἐπιτροπῆς ἐπιλόγῳ.
The author of the hypothesis makes out the friend to be none other than
Isaeus himself. There is no means of determining whether this is, as
Schoemann conjectures, an ancient tradition, but the statement is in-
credible. The advocacy of a man, who was a professional 'speech-writer'
(λoyoypápos), would not have promoted the interests of the litigants for
whom he appeared, and it is doubtful whether Isaeus was an Athenian
citizen (Dion. Hal. De Isaeo iud. c. 1).
•
368
OR. IV.
ISAEUS
Hagnon and Hagnotheus seem to have had a poor case. It was in-
cumbent upon them to demonstrate (1) that they were the next-of-kin, and
(2) that the will was a forgery. So far as we can judge from the summary
given by their advocate, neither of these points had been made out in a
satisfactory manner. Chariades asserted that Nicostratus' father was one
Smicrus (§ 3 sqq.), and invoked the testimony of persons who said that they
were members of the family (§§ 24, 25). On the other side, Hagnon and
Hagnotheus described Nicostratus as son of Thrasymachus, and produced
evidence that Nicostratus son of Thrasymachus was their first cousin (§§ 2,
23, 26). The question of identity ought not to have been hard to settle, even
though Nicostratus had lived abroad for eleven years, and yet the speaker
neither attempts himself to prove that the deceased was the son of Thrasy-
machus, nor gives any intimation that Hagnon or Hagnotheus (whichever
had already spoken) had solidly established the connexion, which is the
basis of their claim. The pretensions of the two brothers collapsed, if the
Nicostratus who left the two talents was not the son of Thrasymachus; it
was useless to put in evidence (§ 26) that the son of Thrasymachus had
never quarrelled with them and so had no motive to disinherit his first
cousins. To Chariades the descent of Nicostratus was a matter of no
importance, except as a weapon to repel his adversaries. He took his
stand on the will, and had witnesses (§ 23) to show that it was made by
that Nicostratus who had died abroad and owned the money. If the orator
presents adequately the main lines of the attack, the testament would not
have been endangered in any properly constituted court of justice. The
core of his speech, when the abuse has been cut away, is a mass of
generalities (§§ 11—23), which read like extracts from a guide to litigants,
and might be used against any and every testament. Only three arguments
pertinent to the particular case are embedded in the composition, (1) that
the witnesses to the will are friends of Chariades (Týdeιoi § 23) and
therefore not to be trusted, (2) that Nicostratus was not intimate with
Chariades (§§ 18, 26) and certainly was not, as alleged, his partner (§§ 20,
26), (3) that Chariades left to strangers the sacred duty of paying the last
honours to the dead man (§ 19). The first argument and the last are of no
value, and with regard to the friendship and partnership between Chariades
and Nicostratus there was testimony on both sides.
The structure of the work and the arrangement of the topics show no
feature of special interest. The orator assumes an air of confidence, and
opens with the daring declaration (§ 1) that recent proceedings at Athens
are enough to disclose the hollowness of all testamentary claims to Nico-
stratus' estate, and absolve him from the task of confuting by evidence the
opponents' narrative of what happened abroad. These proceeding are, in
the first place, the dispute about Nicostratus' father, which is brushed aside
as a malicious manœuvre devised by Chariades to disconcert his young
adversaries (§§ 1-6), and, in the second place, the rush of claimants,
Hagnon and Hagnotheus being pourtrayed as the rightful heirs harassed
by a succession of impudent swindlers (§§ 7-10). Next comes (§§ 11—23)
a promiscuous mosaic of commonplaces setting forth the deceptiveness of
wills when in conflict with the claims of kinsfolk. But the objection (§ 24)
OR. IV.
369
COMMENTARY
that Hagnon and Hagnotheus are not in any way related to the dead man
is too serious to be passed over without comment. The speaker's answer is
a strange mixture of cynicism and impertinence (§§ 24, 25). He argues
(1) that, if the witnesses who confirm Chariades' account of Nicostratus'
family were what they profess to be, relations of the deceased, they would
not be 'such fools' as to abandon a fortune out of belief in a will, (2) that it
is actually in the interest of these relations that sentence should be given
against Chariades, since, if the will be annulled, they also can claim as next-
of-kin, and expel Hagnon and Hagnotheus from possession by proving that
Nicostratus was the son of Smicrus. A summary of the evidence brought
by the previous speaker (§ 26) prepares the way for an invidious peroration
(§§ 27-30), contrasting the public spirit and good character of the two
brothers and their father with the conduct of Chariades, who had left Athens
to avoid a criminal prosecution, and for seventeen years had not served his
country with his person or his purse.
A clue to the date is given by Valckenaer's emendation in § 7. 4 (¿§”Akŋs,
see n.). Ake was the mustering place of the immense host with which
Pharnabazus assailed Egypt in the summer of 374 B.C. (Diod. 15. 41,
Judeich, Kleinasiatische Studien p. 160 sqq., Beloch, Gr. Gesch. 11. p. 293).
Probably Nicostratus was a soldier in the contingent of Greek mercenaries.
HYPOTHESIS.
2 ἐκ πατραδέλφων. Cp. § 23. 7 n. The change of πατραδέλφων to
πατραδέλφου was, I believe, the work of A. The word πατράδελφος was
familiar to late writers. Lobeck (Phryn. Ecl. p. 306) quotes Themist.
VIII. 169 B, Nicet. Ann. XI. II. 350 E, Stephanus refers to LXX. Parall.
II. xxvii. 32, Epiphan. 1. pp. 24 B, 288 a, 636 C, II. p. 12 c. Egyptian papyri
show θεῖος, not πατράδελφος (B. U. G. I. 19, col. I, 15 θεῖον πρὸς πατρός).
4 Ισαῖος οὖν ὁ ῥήτωρ κ.τ.λ. All modern scholars repudiate this statement
with varying degrees of emphasis. Blass (Att. Ber.2 11. p. 541 n. 3) calls it
'nothing but a stupid conjecture.' Schoemann observes that it may be a
figment of a grammarian's imagination, nothing in the speech warranting
such an assertion, but suggests also the possibility that the authority was
Didymus' Commentary on Isaeus, тà 'Iσaíov úπoµvýµara, mentioned by Harp.
s.v. yaµnλía. (For Didymus' notes on the Attic orators see M. Schmidt,
Didymi Chalcenteri Fragmenta p. 310 sqq.). Jebb (Attic Orators II. p. 332)
thinks that the writer took his σvyyevns from the first word of the speech,
éπɩτýdeɩɩ, which he interpreted as 'relations,' whereas it means 'friends.'
στοχασμός.
5,6 ý oráois σтоxaσμós. See I. hyp. 9 12., II. hyp. 8 n., III. hyp. 10.
1 I consider my friendship with Hagnon and Hagnotheus and with
their father before them a good reason for advocating their cause to the
best of my ability.
A very brief exordium suffices in an ἐπίλογος or a δευτερολογία (a term
not to be identified with a second speech in reply to an opponent, the vorePOS
λóyos of [Dem.] 43. 8 and 48. 51), and sometimes the speaker plunges in
medias res without a preface. See for the facts Lys. or. 5, or. 28, or. 29,
W. I.
24
370
OR. IV.
ISAEUS
Dem. or. 20, or. 22; for the theory Volkmann, Rhetorik2 pp. 144, 146, who
cites the scholia on Dem. 4. 30 (ἐντεῦθεν Διονύσιος ὁ ῾Αλικαρνασεὺς ἑτέρου
λόγου <οἴεται> εἶναι ἀρχήν. προοίμιον δέ, φησίν, οὐκ ἔχει, ἐπειδὴ δευτερολογία
ἐστίν, ἐν αἷς οὐκ εἰσὶ προοίμια), and on Dem. 22 ad init. (ὁ λόγος δευτερολογία· ὁ
γὰρ Εὐκτήμων εἶπε πρῶτος, ἐν δευτέρῳ δ᾽ ὁ Διόδωρος λέγει. ὅθεν οὔτε προοίμιον
EXEL Ó λóYOS OŰte diηynoi). The orator's opening is familiar, a specimen of
the class catalogued by Hermogenes as προοίμια ἐξ ὑπολήψεως (Volkmann,
op. cit. p. 129, Anaximenes ap. Spengel, Rh. Gr. I. p. 230, 23 sqq.); cp.
Lysias' speech against Teisis, fr. CXIX. 231 (Saupp.) éπiτýdeiós poí éotiv
Αρχιππος ουτοσί, ὦ δικασταί. Advocates (συνήγοροι) in particular often begin
&
by justifying their intervention on the ground either of friendship for one
side (Lys. fr. cXX. 233 (Saupp.), Isocr. 21, Isae. VI.) or of hatred for the other
([Lys.] 14, Dem. 22, [Dem.] 59. 16). The judges and the public were apt to
suspect them of the offence of taking money for their services (III. 39. 9,
Lyc. 138, Att. Proc.2 p. 922).
1-10 So far as the transactions abroad are concerned, witnesses
cannot be found, nor is it easy to expose the lies of our opponents. But
what has happened at Athens is enough to prove that all testamentary titles
to Nicostratus' estate are swindles. In the first place, the petitions of the
claimants differ with regard to the name of the dead man. Hagnon and
Hagnotheus style him Nicostratus son of Thrasymachus and prove that they
are his cousins. Chariades calls him Nicostratus son of Smicrus. But for
the question of identity you would have had to ask merely, Did or did not
Nicostratus make a will? This is nothing but an impudent conspiracy of
our adversaries, who seek to confuse a simple issue and bewilder my clients.
Moreover, on the arrival of Nicostratus' money at Athens relatives and
heirs started up on all sides. Six pretenders had already been exposed before
Chariades put in a claim; and he has shifted his ground since his first
appearance.
The air of injured innocence is a rhetorical artifice. The onus probandi
rests upon Hagnon and Hagnotheus. Since they claim as the sons of
Thrasippus, brother of Thrasymachus, it is their duty to show by testimony
that the dead man, who left the money, was the son of Thrasymachus. If
they have trouble over the capital point in their case, it may be suspected
that they are not distinguishable from the other adventurers who 'pounced
upon' the estate of Nicostratus.
1. 6 οἷόν τε. Albrecht (Hermes 18, 1883, p. 371) gives two reasons for
ejecting these words from the text. (1) The fact that Hagnon and Hagno-
theus had not visited the scene of Nicostratus' death might make it ‘difficult’
for them to find witnesses, but could not make this 'impossible.' (2) After-
wards (§§ 18, 19, 20, 26) we find that they had produced testimony with
regard to transactions abroad. The inconsistency is real, but Isaeus, not
a scribe, should be censured.
9, IO
οἱ κατὰ τὴν δόσιν ἀμφισβητοῦντες. But the crowd of claimants at
oi katà
Athens ($7 sqq.) included persons who pretended, like Hagnon and
Hagnotheus themselves, to be heirs ab intestato.
2.3 óπóreρol, 'which of the two parties.' See § 27. I ÉKаaTépovs and
I. 3. I n.
OR. IV.
371
COMMENTARY
αν
κατὰ φύσιν μᾶλλον. Cp. Plat. Laws 858 C γένοιτο γοῦν ἂν κατὰ φύσιν
μᾶλλον ἡμῖν ἡ σύνοψις τῶν νόμων, [Dem.] 43. 34 δικαιότερα καὶ κατὰ τοὺς
νόμους μᾶλλον, Dem. 18. 234 φοβερώτατον καὶ μάλισθ᾽ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐχθρῶν,
Plat. Laws 637 Ε Πέρσαι δὲ σφόδρα μὲν χρῶνται καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις τρυφαῖς,
ἃς ὑμεῖς ἀποβάλλετε, ἐν τάξει δὲ μᾶλλον τούτων (Schwab, Hist. Syntax d.
gr. Comparation p. 478).
4, 5 Θρασυμάχου ἐπεγράψαντο τὸν Νικόστρατον. Cp. [Dem.] 44. 42 Tôi
διαμαρτυρίᾳ τῇ πρὸς τῷ ἄρχοντι τοῦτον ἐπιγράφεται (απογράφεται libri: corr.
Lipsius) ὡς υἱὸν ὄντα γνήσιον τῷ τετελευτηκότι, Dem. 57. 51 οὐ γὰρ ἂν ξένην
καὶ ξένον τοὺς ἐμαυτοῦ γονέας ἐπιγραψάμενος μετέχειν ἠξίουν τῆς πόλεως,
37 hyp. 5 μεταλλικὴν ἐπιγραφόμενος τὴν δίκην, Lys. 13. 73, 76, Class. Rev.
12, 1898, p. 391 sqq.
6 ἀνεψιούς, sc. ἐκ πατραδέλφων (§§ 23, 26).
3. 2
εἶναι represents an imperfect, as is indicated by § 5 ὡς Νικό-
στρατος Θρασυμάχου ἦν, and § 25 ὡς Σμίκρου ἦν καὶ οὐ Νικοστράτου ; cp. § 6. 2.
Isaeus did not always compose with care; see I. 22. 1 π. (φάσκοντες καλεῖν)
and IX. 9. 3 n. (εἰ μή τις ἄρα ὑπὸ τούτων πέπεισται ὁμολογεῖν παρεῖναι). A writer in
search of precision would have turned the sentence with the help of γενέσθαι ;
compare Xen. Cyr. 1. 2. 1 πατρὸς μὲν δὴ λέγεται ὁ Κῦρος γενέσθαι Καμβύσου...
μητρὸς δὲ ὁμολογεῖται Μανδάνης γενέσθαι. The depositions preserved in [Dem.]
43. 35 sqq., 42 sqq. abound in loose constructions of the present infinitive.
Take as an example the testimony in § 37: μαρτυρεῖ πάππον εἶναι ἑαυτοῦ
Αρχίμαχον καὶ ποιήσασθαι ἑαυτὸν υἱόν, καὶ εἶναι αὐτὸν συγγενῆ Πολέμωνι τῷ
πατρὶ τῷ ῾Αγνίου, καὶ ἀκούειν ᾿Αρχιμάχου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων συγγενῶν ὅτι κ.τ.λ.
Archimachus was dead, but we deduce this, not from the grammar, but from
a rule of Athenian law, ἀκοὴν εἶναι μαρτυρεῖν τεθνεῶτος (VI. 53, [Dem.] 46. 8,
44. 55).
ó
2, 3 τοῦ Θρασυμάχου ὑοῦ κλήρου. If the text is sound, this is an attempt
to convert into the genitive ὁ τοῦ Θρασυμάχου ὑοῦ κλῆρος. Isaeus, not wishing
to repeat the word Νικόστρατος, was in a quandary, as consideration of the
constructions at his disposal shows. They were the following: (1) ὁ Νικο-
στράτου τοῦ Θρασυμάχου νέος κλῆρος (V. 9, 16), (2) ὁ Νικοστράτου κλῆρος τοῦ
Θρασυμάχου νέος (VIII. 19), (3) ὁ Νικοστράτου κλῆρος τοῦ ὑέος τοῦ Θρασυμάχου
(ΙΧ. 36), (4) ὁ κλῆρος ὁ Νικοστράτου τοῦ Θρασυμάχου νέος, (5) ὁ κλῆρος ὁ τοῦ
Θρασυμάχου νέος Νικοστράτου, (6) ὁ τοῦ Θρασυμάχου νέος κλῆρος, (7) ὁ κλῆρος ὁ
τοῦ Θρασυμάχου νέος, (8) ὁ κλῆρος ὁ τοῦ ὑέος τοῦ Θρασυμάχου. If figures are of
any value, Isaeus preferred the type ὁ Νικοστράτου κλῆρος (ΙΙΙ. 2, 52, 57, 67,
69, 78, VI. 58, 61, VII. 6, 31) to ὁ κλῆρος ὁ Νικοστράτου (II. 2, VI. 46); the latter
alone is found in [Dem.] 43 (ὁ κλῆρος ὁ ῾Αγνίου), [Dem.] 44 (ὁ κλῆρος ὁ
᾿Αρχιάδου), [Dem.] 48 (ὁ κλῆρος ὁ Κόμωνος). The type ὁ Θρασυμάχου ὑὸς
occurs in I. 39, IV. 27, V. 6, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 34, 42, VI. 10, 15, 16, 17, 47,
48, VII. 19, 24, VIII. 7, 19, 20, 40, IX. 12, 17, 31, 33, X. 24, XI. 8, 21, 30, 47; the
type ὁ ὑὸς ὁ Θρασυμάχου in I. 4 (em.), 39, II. 9 (em.), III. 73, VI. 46, 51 (em.),
65 (em.), VII. 2, 7, VIII. 36, IX. 2, 4 (em.), 17, 19 (em.), 30, 36 (em.), X. 4, 26,
XII. 8; the third form, ὁ τοῦ Θρασυμάχου ὑός, is rarer (III. 33, 63, 65, VI. 36, 55,
XI. 30, XII. 9). This is not the only example in our author of a troublesome
accumulation of genitives. Compare II. 9 μετασχὼν τοῦ οἴκου τῆς μισθώσεως
τῶν παίδων τῶν Νικίου, and VII. 44 ἔχειν μὲν τοῦ τῆς γυναικὸς ἀδελφοῦ τιμὴν
24-2
372
OR. IV.
ISAEUS
τοῦ ἡμικληρίου πένθ᾽ ἡμιτάλαντα. These passages suggest the possibility of
reading here τοῦ Θρασυμάχου νέος <τοῦ> κλήρου. For the position of attri-
butes in the genitive case note also VIII. 8 διὰ τὴν Ναυσιμένους ἀπορίαν τῶν
πραγμάτων, for the doubtful form ὑοῦ II. 2. 3 n.
3 οἵδε μέν. Hagnon and Hagnotheus are designated by οἵδε here and
in §§ 6, 23, 24, 25, 30, but by οὗτοι in §§ 4, 5, 21, 23, 27, 28. Isaeus makes
no attempt to distribute the demonstrative pronouns with strict consistency;
a glance or a gesture of the speaker would remove any obscurity. The force
of pèv solitarium (I. 1. I n.) seems to be this: 'my clients (whatever their
opponents may be doing) make no pretensions to that name.' Dobree (Adv.
I. p. 293) suspects a lacuna after αὑτοῖς ; and the next sentence (φασὶ μὲν οὖν)
is certainly abrupt and jerky. But the roughness may be set down to the
charge of Isaeus.
3, 4 οὐδὲν προσποιοῦνται ἐκείνου τοῦ ὀνόματος κ.τ.λ. ‘My clients make no
pretensions to that name, either that they know it, or that it belongs to
them. For the genitive with προσποιεῖσθαι see § 7. 6 and III. 1. 5 n. ; for the
infinitive § 9. 6, III. 18. 5, 26. 2. In the forensic style of the fourth century
the harshness of the construction is surprising, but we may compare Isocr.
5. 146 πολλῶν πόλεων ἐξουσίαν ἔλαβε τὰς μὲν ἀναστάτους ποιῆσαι, τὰς δ᾽
αὐξῆσαι, τὰς δ᾽ ὅπως ἠβουλήθη διοικήσαι, Dem. 19. 137 οὐδὲ τοῦ ζῆν ὄντα
κύριον αὑτῷ βεβαιώσαι, 23. 69 οὐδ᾽ οὕτω κύριος γίγνεται τοῦ ἁλόντος, ἀλλ᾽
ἐκείνου μὲν οἱ νόμοι κύριοι κολάσαι καὶ οἷς προστέτακται, ib. 209 τῷ κυρίῳ
τῶν φόρων γενομένῳ τάξαι ᾿Αριστείδῃ. Attraction' is much more powerful
in Plato : Riddell, Digest of Platonic Idioms § 180, has some remarkable
examples (Rep. 4. 443 Β εὐθὺς ἀρχόμενοι τῆς πόλεως οἰκίζειν, Gorg. 513 Ε οὕτως
ἐπιχειρητέον ἡμῖν ἐστὶ τῇ πόλει καὶ τοῖς πολίταις θεραπεύειν, ὡς βελτίστους αὐτοὺς
τοὺς πολίτας ποιοῦντας, Laws 790 C κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ὅνπερ ἤργμεθα τῶν
περὶ τὰ σώματα μύθων λεχθέντων διαπεραίνειν). Reiske took a different view,
defending the MS. reading oùdè against Stephanus, and proposing to insert.
οὐδὲν after ὀνόματος. He regarded, I conjecture, οὐδὲν τοῦ ὀνόματος as object
of γιγνώσκειν and subject of προσήκειν : ‘my clients do not so much as
pretend that they know anything of that name or that it has anything to
do with them.' This raises a nice question. Would Isaeus have tolerated
οὐδὲν τοῦ ὀνόματος γιγνώσκομεν ? I doubt it, although Lysias has οἶδε τοῦ
πράγματος οὐδέν (13. 71); for the example in § 14 (τοὺς μηδὲν τοῦ πράγματος
εἰδότας) is not exactly similar, being developed out of μηδὲν τῶν πεπραγμένων
εἰδότας (§ 12). On the other side it might be argued that the needs of
προσήκειν explain the licence, the writer having in his mind the familiar
construction οὐδὲν προσήκει ἡμῖν τοῦ ὀνόματος.
4. I, 2
τὸ ὄνομα πατρόθεν. This is quibbling. The dispute is not about
names but persons, not about patronymics but paternity. The opponents
admitted that the man who left the money was called Nicostratus, but
denied that he was identical with Nicostratus the son of Thrasymachus.
For the phrase τὸ ὄνομα πατρόθεν compare Dem. 39. 17 ἠναγκαζόμην κατὰ
τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ ἐμαυτοῦ πατρόθεν (i.e. Μαντίθεος Μαντίου) δέχεσθαι τὴν λῆξιν,
᾿Αθ. Πολ. 63. 4 ἔχει δ᾽ ἕκαστος δικαστὴς πινάκιον πύξινον, ἐπιγεγραμμένον τὸ
ὄνομα τὸ ἑαυτοῦ πατρόθεν καὶ τοῦ δήμου, Plat. Laws 753 C εἰς πινάκιον γράψαντα
τοὔνομα πατρόθεν καὶ φυλῆς καὶ δήμου ὁπόθεν ἂν δημοτεύηται, C. I. A. IV. 2. 841 b,
OR. IV.
373
COMMENTARY
•
2
B. 6o (S. I. G. n. 439, Michel n. 961) ἀπογράφεσθαι...τὸ ὄνομα πατρόθεγ καὶ τοῦ
δήμου καὶ τῆς μητρὸς πατρόθεν καὶ τοῦ δήμου, ib. IV. 2. 251 b (305/4 B.C.), ib. II.
341 (3rd c. B.C.), 17, Michel n. 486 (decree of the Ionian confederation, c. 266
Β.C.), 39, 40 αναγράψαι δὲ καὶ εἰστήλην τὸ ψήφισμα τόδε καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα πατρόθεν
τῶν ἡκόντων συνέδρων, ib. n. 457, 29= S.I.G. n. 216 (decree of Bargylia, c. 262
Β.C.) ὅπως ἀναγραφῇ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ πατρόθεν ἐν τῇ στήλῃ, S.I.G. n. 928 (decree
of Magnesia ad Maeandrum, 2nd c. B.C.), 22 ἀναγραψάτω τὴν ἀπόφασιν τῶν
δικαστῶν καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα πατρόθεν, ib. n. 645, 41 = Michel n. 713 (Amorgus,
Ist c. B.C.) ἀναγραψάντων τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ δανεισαμένου πατρόθεν. We also find
the combinations ἀναγράφειν, ὀνομάζειν, καλεῖν, τινα πατρόθεν; see for ἀναγρά
pew Hdt. 6. 14, 8. 90, Bull. Corr. Hell. 14, 1890, p. 433, n. 3 (Delos)
ἀναγραφόντων αὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν στήλην πατρόθεν, C. I. A. II. 114 Β 5 (S.I.G.2
κ. 495, Michel n. 100) ἐπιγρ[άψαι...τοὺς β]ουλευτὰς πατρόθεν καὶ τοῦ δήμου,
for καλεῖν, ὀνομάζειν etc. S. I. G. n. 479, 19= Michel n. 527 (Ilium, 3rd c. B.C.)
παρακαλεῖν δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς Παναθηναίοις εἰς προεδρίαν ὀνομαστεὶ πατρόθεν καὶ
AvTOùs Kaì ¿yyóvovs, Hdt. 3. 1, Thuc. 7. 69. 2, Xen. Oec. 7. 3, Plat. Lys. 204 E,
᾿Αθ. Πολ. 21. 4, Plut. Brut. 49, Sept. Sap. Conv. 3, 148 D, De Pyth Or. 14,
401 B, Paus. 7. 7. 8.
4 ἀλλ᾽ <>. I see no reason for preferring ἄλλ᾽ ἤ ; cp. And. 1. 86, Lys.
19. 28, Dem. 24. 59, 98, 29. 7, [Dem.] 33. 17, 34. 7, 16, C.I.A. II. 573 b (end of
4th c. B.C.), 8 ἐπιμελεῖσθαι ὅπως ἂν...μηδὲ τὸ μέγαρον προσίωσιν ἄνευ τῆς ἱερέας
[ἀλ]λ᾽ ἢ ὅταν ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Θεσμοφορίων, ib. II. 1055 (346/5 Β.C.), 27 τὴν δὲ γῆν
τὴν ἐκ τῆς γεωρυχίας μὴ ἐξεῖναι ἐξάγειν μηδενὶ ἀλλ᾽ ἢ εἰς αὐτὸ τὸ χωρίον, S.I.G.2
n. 461 (Chersonese, end of 4th c. B.C.), 50 οὐδὲ σῖτον ἐξαξῶ ἀλλᾶι ἀπὸ τοῦ
πεδίου ἀλλ᾽ ἢ [εἰς χ]ερσόνασον, Voemel, Prolegg. Gramm. § 39, Riddell, Digest
of Platonic Idioms § 148. Dobree's emendation was ἄλλ᾽ ἢ (not ἀλλ᾽ ἢ) τί
διέθετο.
5 ὃν ἀμφότεροι ὡμολόγουν. A rare construction, used occasionally by
Plato, e.g. Rep. 6. 485 Α τὴν φύσιν αὐτῶν πρῶτον δεῖν καταμαθεῖν καὶ οἶμαι
ἐὰν ἐκείνην ἱκανῶς ὁμολογήσωμεν, ὁμολογήσειν καὶ ὅτι οἷοί τε ταῦτα ἔχειν οἱ
αὐτοί, ib. 10. 597 Ε τὸν μὲν δὴ μιμητὴν ὡμολογήκαμεν, ib. 8. 544 Α ὁμολογη-
σάμενοι τὸν ἄριστον καὶ τὸν κάκιστον ἄνδρα. The normal way of expressing
the idea is to use the passive voice, τὸν παρὰ ἀμφοτέρων ὁμολογούμενον. See
I. 2. 2, 3 12.
7,8 <τῶν > τοῦ Σμίκρου Νικοστράτου... <τῶν > τοῦ Θρασυμάχου. Cp. τῷ
Μενεξένου Δικαιογένει V. 6, ὁ Μενεξένου V. 4. After some hesitation I have
adopted Roeder's supplements (Beitrage p. 82). We find in § 24 ἐπιδικά-
σασθαι τῶν Νικοστράτου, and there is no good ground for objecting to έλαχε
τῶν τοῦ Σμίκρου Νικοστράτου; Isaeus writes ἔλαχον τῶν αὐτῶν (ΧΙ. 26) and
τοσούτων χρημάτων οὐκ ἂν ἐλάγχανε (VII. 26). But the familiar phrase is
undoubtedly έλαχε τοῦ κλήρου τοῦ ἡμικληρίου, τοῦ μέρους VII. 20, 23, ΧΙ. 23),
and the problem is complicated here, as in § 3. 2, 3, by the intractability of the
genitives. Before pronouncing a confident verdict against the MS. reading
a critic should feel able to give a negative answer to two questions. (1) Can
τοῦ Σμίκρου Νικοστράτου and τοῦ Θρασυμάχου represent ὁ τοῦ Σμίκρου Νικο-
στράτου (κλῆρος) and ὁ τοῦ Θρασυμάχου (κλῆρος)? (2) Can του κλήρου be
supplied in thought to τοῦ Σμίκρου Νικοστράτου and τοῦ Θρασυμάχου? An
Athenian, guided by habit and instinct, would have replied unhesitatingly,
374
OR. IV.
ISAEUS
but it is hard for a foreigner to determine by logic the legitimacy of a rare
ellipse in a dead language.
8 τούτοις τε. The combination re-dè is very rare in the orators, but
has the support of good MSS., appearing in the Urbinas (r) of Isocrates
(3. 32, 9. 15, 12. 136, 144, 212, 15. 232) and in the codex Parisinus Σ of
Demosthenes (7. 39, 8. 50, 11. 16). But the readings even of г and Σ, to
say nothing of the codex Crippsianus, must not be adopted indiscriminately.
The confusion of re and dè is not unknown in Σ. The Zürich editors, famous
for fidelity to this noble manuscript, do not venture to defend what it has in
8. 50 (εἰ δὲ μηδενὶ τοῦτο μήτε δοκηι, τοὐναντίον δὲ πρόϊσμεν ἅπαντες) and in 29.
23 (μὴ ὅτι ἐμοὶ ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε σφίσιν αὐτοῖς, and ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἀδελφὸς καὶ σύνδικος,
Φᾶνος δ᾽ ἐπιτήδειος...Φίλιππος τε (Σ pr.) οὔτε φίλος οὔτε ἐχθρός). A good
working rule in dealing with re-dè is to remove the irregularity, unless the
thought or the form of the sentence affords an easy explanation of the
anacoluthon. The construction is secure in And. 1. 58, Isocr. 3. 32, 12. 144,
15. 232, [Dem.] 7. 39, 11. 16. The MSS. should be corrected here and in Ant.
5. 95, Lys. 19. 62 (Steph., Bekk.), 25. 34 (Reisk., Bekk.), Isocr. 9. 15 (Blass),
12. 212 (Bekk., Blass), Aesch. 3. 80 (Blass); in Isocr. 12. 136, where I has
Te-dé, editors generally follow the other MSS. which have TE—TE. See III.
80. 1 n., Fuhr, Rhein. Mus. 33, 1878, pp. 347, 597, Gebauer on Lys. 25. 34
Anhang p. 507.
Tаρакатéẞaλev, 'paid in his deposit,' a preliminary of a trial. In their
most general sense (Isocr. 21. 2, Dem. 37. 41) the words Tаракатaßáλλew
and Taρakaтaẞoλǹ are applicable to the deposit of ordinary court fees
(πρυτανεία and παράστασις, ΙΙΙ. 47. 3, 4 nn.), but they are more frequently
used of a special kind of deposit required by the presiding magistrate from
two classes of litigants, viz. (1) those who proceeded against the State on the
ground of alleged rights in confiscated property ([Dem.] 49. 46, Harp. s.vv.
παρακαταβολή, ενεπίσκημμα), (2) those who laid claim to an inheritance
(VI. 12, XI. 13, 15, 27, [Dem.] 43. 5, 16, 44. 34, 39, 40, 42, 52, 53). The
amount deposited was in the first case one-fifth of the sum said to be due
from the treasury (Harp. s.v. яаρакатаßоλý, Poll. 8. 39), in the second one-
tenth of the estimated value of the disputed estate (Phot. s.v. πаρaкaтaßoλý,
παρακαταβολή,
Poll. 8. 39), and apparently (§ 11. 2 12.) in both cases the caution money of
a defeated claimant was forfeited to the State. Our authorities do not state
the rules governing the demand of a deposit from parties contending about
an inheritance. In the remains of the orators we read of πapakaraßoλaì paid
by persons (1) coming forward against a claimant earlier in the field (VI. 12,
XI. 13, 15, 27, [Dem.] 43. 5, 44. 34), and (2) attacking the tenant of an estate,
who is in possession on the strength of a previous judgment ([Dem.] 43. 16),
but it is not logical to deduce from this evidence that the competitor who
was the first to bring his petition before the Archon was on a different footing
from subsequent pretenders, and was not compelled to make a deposit, when
a conflict of claims rendered a trial necessary. The ancient lexicographers
(Harp., Suid. s.v. åµßioßnteiv kaì ñaρakaтaßádλew, Bekk. An. Gr. I. p. 197,
9, Poll. 8. 32), according to whom яаρакатаßoλǹ was a form of procedure
distinct from, and opposed to, aµpioßhτnois, do not deserve serious con-
sideration. Their definitions are confused and irreconcileable with the
OR. IV.
375
COMMENTARY
testimony of Isaeus and Demosthenes, and are probably derived from
mistaken exegesis of [Dem.] 43. 5 τοῦ κήρυκος κηρύττοντος εἴ τις ἀμφισβητεῖν
ἢ παρακαταβάλλειν βούλεται τοῦ κλήρου τοῦ ῾Αγνίου ἢ κατὰ γένος ἢ κατὰ διαθήκας
οὐκ ἐτόλμησε (Θεόπομπος) παρακαταβαλεῖν. The proclamation followed the
reading in the κυρία ἐκκλησία of claims to estates ('Αθ. Πολ. 43. 4), and
ἀμφισβητεῖν is the wider term, including, not excluding, παρακαταβάλλειν,
and describing any sort of opposition to the claim or claims already lodged,
e.g. an objection from some one who does not pretend to be himself an heir.
In its special application to suits concerning inheritances παρακαταβάλλειν
has annexed the constructions of ἀμφισβητεῖν and appears with a genitive of
the property in dispute (παρακαταβάλλω τοῦ κλήρου [Dem.] 44. 40, 42, 52, 53),
and a dative of the rival claimant (παρακαταβάλλω τινί ΧΙ. 15, 27; but πρός
τινα [Dem.] 44. 39, 53). See Att. Proc. pp. 608 sqq., 841 sqq., Beauchet
III. p. 6o5 sqq.
5.2 παρασκευή, in a bad sense, cabal, ' conspiracy, the stock phrase
of Athenian pleaders for an opponent's activity (XI. 31, Ant. 5. 79, And. I. I,
Lys. 3. 2, 12. 75, 19. 2, 28. 11, fr. XCVIII. (Saupp.), [Dem.] 43. 10, 32, 81, 44.
3, 36, Ep. 1. 11, Aesch. 1. 193, 3. 1, 3, Lyc. 20).
6.2 eival. Cp. § 3. 2 12.
4 κατασκευάζοντες, setting up, i.e. trumping up, fabricating, as in [Dem.]
42. 28 κατεσκευασμένοι δανεισταί, 53. 29 ἢ γὰρ ὀρφανοὺς ἢ ἐπικλήρους κατα-
σκευάσαντες ἀξιώσουσιν ἐλεεῖσθαι, Din. 1. 95 κατασκευάζων ψευδῆ μηνυτήν.
The use of the word in malam partem is common in the orators (VI. 35. 3 N.,
VIII. 43, IX. 2).
7. I ἄλλοι τινές, according to Schoemann other persons than Char-
iades' (who has been instigated by some of the defeated claimants). This
is a flat remark, and a non sequitur into the bargain. The conclusion
anticipated by the reader is something more energetic: 'the first rush of
pretenders, as well as this piece of chicanery on the part of Chariades,
ought to show you that my young clients are being harassed by impostors.'
Γνοῖτ᾽ ἂν ὁποῖοί τινές would satisfy the sense, but not the ductus litterarum.
I am inclined to accept Boekmeijer's emendation (ἀλλότριοί τινές) ; cp. VII.
35. 1 καὶ μὴν οὐδὲ ἀλλότριον ἀλλ᾽ ὄντα ἀδελφιδοῦν. Thalheim reads ἀλλότριοί.
2 ταῦτα ἐπὶ τουτουσὶ ἐπάγοντες. Α dative is more usual after ἐπάγειν ; cp.
VIII. 3 ἡμῖν τούτους τοὺς κινδύνους ἐπάγων, Dem. 21. 105 οὐδ᾽ ᾐσχύνθη εἰ τοιοῦτο
κακὸν καὶ τηλικοῦτ᾽ ἐπάγει τῳ, 18. 249 συστάντων…..καὶ γραφὰς εὐθύνας εἰσαγ
γελίας, πάντα ταῦτ᾽ ἐπαγόντων μοι, Hyp. 5. 7 ἐπάξειν μοι ἔμελλεν ὕστερον τοὺς
χρήστας καὶ τοὺς πληρωτὰς τῶν ἐράνων. The addition of the preposition
personifies Taûτa; the plots are set in motion against Hagnon and Hagno-
theus; see Aesch. 3. 140 τὸν πόλεμον ὃν πρότερον ἐξήλασεν ἐκ τῆς χώρας
τῆς Βοιωτῶν, τοῦτον πάλιν τὸν αὐτὸν πόλεμον ἐπῆγε διὰ τῆς Φωκίδος ἐπ᾿ αὐτὰς
τὰς Θήβας, 3. 128, Dem. 3. 31, 12. 7.
4 τώ δύο ταλάντω...ἠλθέτην. Keck's reasons for rejecting the text are
set forth in his monograph on the Dual in the Greek Orators, Schanz's
Beiträge zur historischen Syntax der griech. Sprache 1. p. 203.
ἐξ "Ακης, the modern Acre, the Accho ("Ακχω) of the Old Testament
(Judg. i. 31). The name Ptolemais which the city afterwards bore (Strab.
16. 25, p. 758, Harp. s.v. "Akŋ) was given it when Ptolemy Soter was in
occupation of the cities on the coast of Philistia and Phoenicia (Mahaffy,
376
OR. IV.
ISAEUS
The Empire of the Ptolemies p. 67). Nicostratus was probably serving in
the army of 20,000 Greek mercenaries under the command of Iphicrates,
which Pharnabazus assembled at Ake (Diod. 15. 41, Nepos Datam. 5,
Polyaen. 3. 9. 56) when preparing his unfortunate campaign against Egypt
in 374 B.C. Herwerden (Mnem. N.S. 9, 1881, p. 386), assuming that Nico-
stratus was in the service of Athens, rejects Valckenaer's brilliant restoration,
and proposes έ Aïoŋs, a reading in every way inferior. Aloa (Steph. Byz.
s.v.) or Aioa (C.I.A. I. 243) was a Thracian city near Pallene. With regard
to the accent of”Akŋ I follow Dindorf on Harp. l.c. Scheibe, Buermann, and
Thalheim read 'Aks. In [Dem.] 52. 20 eis "Akŋy was restored by Valesius
for εἰς Θρᾴκην.
6 Kaтà Sóσw, with veîs.
κατὰ δόσιν,
I
Filii per testamentum adoptati' (Reiske).
• Ιη μέν γε the Ye is not connected with the pèv-clause as
8. Ι μέν γε.
contrasted with the dè-clause, but introduces the whole statement consisting
of the two clauses. ye in this combination is just like the yàp of introduction'
(Neil on Ar. Eq. p. 192). A large collection of examples from prose has
been gathered together by Gebauer on Lys. 12. 27 Anhang p. 342 sqq.
In MSS. μέν γε is often confused with μὲν γάρ ; see Isocr. 3. 45 (μέν γε Γ, μὲν
Ye
yàp uolg.), 9. 45, Dem. 18. 93 (µèv yàp &, µèv yàp L, cp. Dobree, Adv.
I. p. 398), 189 (µév ye E, µèv yàp L), 200 (µév ye Σ, pr. L, µèv yàp uolg.),
19. 331 (Blass), [Dem.] 26. 6, 56. 30, Sadée, De Dionysii Halicarnassensis
scriptis rhetoricis p. 89.
2 ȧTTÉOTη.
άπéστη. Ср. III. 6. 2 n.
Cp.
3 Soûval, by a will (111. 42. 2, 3 n., 60. 3). Schulin (Das griech. Testament
p. 32) rashly quotes this passage as an example of the institution of an heir
who was not adopted (VII. 6. 4 n.).
5 ὑὸν αὐτῷ πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα κ.τ.λ. Isaeus probably wished to suggest
to the judges that Ameiniades pretended to be guardian of the infant.
Beyond this it is not safe to go. Schulthess (Vormundschaft nach attischem
Recht pp. 55, 73) conjectures that Ameiniades professed to have been
nominated by Nicostratus in a will, and came to the Archon to be confirmed
in his office. Schoemann supposes that he desired to obtain the Archon's
sanction to a lease of the ward's estate (uíolwσis oikov, II. 9. 4, 5 n.).
кev is in sense an aorist, not a pluperfect (Gildersleeve, Syntax § 225).
In the Attic orators the aoristic use of ĥкov and @xóμŋv is, I think, pre-
dominant; good examples are furnished by Lys. 32. 10 Taûr' ȧkoúσavtes
ἐκπεπληγμένοι καὶ δακρύοντες ᾤχοντο πρὸς τὴν μητέρα, καὶ παραλαβόντες
ἐκείνην ἧκον πρὸς ἐμέ, and [Dem.] 43. 55 ὅτε δὲ τῆς ἐπικλήρου ἔδει ἐπιδικάζεσθαι,
ἐγὼ μὲν ἧκον φοβούμενος τὸν νόμον...Θεόπομπος δὲ οὐδὲ προσῆλθε τὸ παράπαν.
Cp. III. 22, IV. 29, VI. 27, 33, VII. 15, VIII. 21, XI. 30. The forms of ĥкov and
λov are sometimes confused in MSS. (Dem. 19. 139, Aesch. 1. 51).
ETH
T
5, 6 οὐδὲ τρί᾽ ἔτη γεγονότα. I have adopted Naber's correction of τριετῆ
(Mnem. N.S. 5. p. 401). In Plat. Laws 793 D Bekker restored tηv tοû tρí
ἔτη γεγονότος ἡλικίαν ; τριετῆ is in ΑΩvfhr, τριετούς in Ξ. The papyrus of
᾿Αθ. Πολ. 42. 1 presents ΟΚΤΩΚΑΙΔΕΚΑΕΤΕΙΣΓΕΓΟΝΟΤΕΣ, where editors
prefer the variant, but in 56. 7, where we find TETTAP]AKAIAE[KE]TEIƐ
ΓΕΝΗΤΑΙ, the right reading is τετταρακαιδεκέτις oι τετρακαιδεκέτις ; cp. Dion.
H
>
OR. IV.
377
COMMENTARY
Hal. De Lys. iud. 12 (p. 20, 23 Usener and Radermacher) oydoŋkovтαETη
yevóμevov. With the aorist the adjective is natural, and I do not believe
that Attic prose would tolerate τοὺς ἑκκαίδεκα ἔτη γενομένους (Schol. Aesch.
3. 122), Okтwkaideka ëтn yevóμevoi (Poll. 8. 105). On the other hand, in Isocr.
19. 22 MS. authority supports ἀδελφὴν δὲ κόρην τετρακαιδεκέτιν γεγονυίαν ;
before Bekker purged the text with the help of the Urbinas, the accepted
reading was τέτταρα καὶ δέκ᾽ ἔτη γεγονυίαν, which is in the Marcianus (Ξ).
On such a point the testimony of the codex Crippsianus carries no
weight.
6, 7 ἕνδεκα ἐτῶν. See for the genitive § 29. 1, 2 n.
9. I Λαμπτρεύς. The deme Aаµπтρаì belonged to the maritime
(Tapaλía) trittys of the tribe Erechtheis and included two villages, Lower
(vπéveрlev) or Seaside Lamptrae, and Upper (кaðúπeрlev) Lamptrae. The
site of the latter is marked by the ancient remains at Lambrika, a deserted
village on an arable table-land surrounded by hills, about 4 miles north-
east of Vari (Frazer on Paus. I. 31. 3, Milchhoefer, Untersuchungen über
die Demenordnung des Kleisthenes p. 11).
τῇ μὲν ᾿Αθηνᾷ κ.τ.λ. It is a mistake to look for sense in this passage.
The speaker's design was to state Pyrrhus' pretensions in such a way that
comment on their absurdity should seem unnecessary. The caricature is
overdone, for it is incredible that Pyrrhus simply asserted that Nicostratus
had dedicated the property to Athena and yet bequeathed it to himself.
Buermann feels this so strongly that, following a hint of Reiske, he marks
a lacuna before dedóσal. But a palpable falsehood in a piece of Athenian
oratory is no proof of a fault in the text. In any case conjecture is helpless,
since we do not know Pyrrhus' real story, and cannot calculate the amount
of misrepresentation which Isaeus would have thought judicious in the
circumstances. Schoemann believes that, in point of fact, Pyrrhus professed
that only part of the property was bequeathed to him, the rest being left to
Athena. Dareste's guess (Plaidoyers d'Isée p. 78) does not travel so far
from the orator's words: 'Pyrrhos s'efforce de mettre sa prétention sous le
couvert d'un legs universel fait par Nicostrate à la déesse Athéna. Il
prétend sans doute que ce legs a été fait à la charge d'un fideicommis fait
en sa faveur.'
Literature and inscriptions furnish instances of dedications subject to
conditions and charges (Guiraud, La propriété foncière en Grèce pp. 238,
256, 364, Beauchet III. pp. 37, 705 sqq.). Sometimes the donor provided that
the revenues of the property should be set apart to maintain in perpetuity
a sacrifice, or games, or some ceremony. Nicias (Plut. Nic. 3) purchased an
estate (xwpiov) for 10,000 dr. and consecrated it (kabiépwσev) to the Delian
Apollo, on condition that the Delians should spend the rents on a sacrifice
and public banquet, accompanied with prayers to the gods for blessings on
Nicias. Sometimes the founder reserved certain advantages to himself or
his descendants. Thus Demon, son of Demomeles of the deme Paeania,
a relation of the orator Demosthenes (Dem. 27. 11, C.I.A. 11. 554 b), in
accordance with an oracle of the Pythian Apollo gave a house and garden
to Asclepius (C.I.A. II. 1654), but secured that he should be priest of the
sanctuary, i.e. that he should reap the benefits of the foundation. In such
378
OR. IV.
ISAEUS
a case the deity is owner, but the usufruct, entire or partial, of the property
is retained by the dedicator. Transactions of this sort explain why Athenian
law forbade a man to dedicate his property so long as he was accountable
(vπeúðuvos) for his administration of a public office (Aesch. 3. 21). No
distinction can be made between testamentary bequests and donations
completed in the giver's lifetime. In the 2nd c. B. C. one Alkesippos, son
of Boutheras, of Calydon, in the event of death (ei тɩ ка málŋ) consecrated
his property to 'the god and city of Delphi,' one condition being that a
sacrifice and public banquet (dŋμolowvia) in honour of Pythian Apollo should
be celebrated annually and called 'Aλкeσíππela (Michel n. 1345, Inscr. Jurid.
Gr. II. p. 62); cp. S.I.G.2 n. 827, Inscr. Jurid. Gr. I. p. 110 n. 24. It was,
I think, quite possible for Nicostratus, had he so wished, either to bequeath
his money to Pyrrhus with a provision that at Pyrrhus' death, or some
earlier date, it should be dedicated to Athena, or to leave the money to
Athena under an obligation to make certain payments to Pyrrhus during
his lifetime. Had the property been land, it is conceivable that he might
have left the goddess a perpetual rent-charge secured by a right of mortgage;
compare the terms of the testament of Epicteta, made about 200 B.C. (Inscr.
Jurid. Gr. II. p. 109, Michel n. 1001).
Γεια
3 Bηoaleús. For the site of the deme Besa see III. 22. I n.
4 Kpavaós. Scheibe (Praef. p. xxiv), followed by Buermann, believes
that a demoticum has fallen out after this name. Isaeus' account is not
a stringent proof that Cranaus was of Athenian origin, since in an in-
scription (C. I.A. II. 772 B 16, which should be compared with IV. 2. 775 b
1. 20-23) we find an Athenian citizen ("Αρχων Ταχυδήμου ἐκ Κοίλης) and
a proxenus (Πάνκαλος ᾿Αθηνάδου πρόξενος) bringing a joint action for
desertion' (arоσтaσíov, see Harp. s.v., Att. Proc.2 p. 619 sqq.) against a
girl (πaidíov) whom they have emancipated. But by a curious accident
Athenaeus (10. 416 D sqq.) has preserved several fragments from the
comedian Anaxilas (Kock, Com. Att. Fr. 11. pp. 272, 273) in which a Ctesias
is described as a famous glutton, and is once coupled with a Cranaus :
οὐκ ἐτὸς ἐρωτῶσιν < με> προσιόντες τινές· ἡ ὄντως ὁ Κραναὸς Κτησίου κατεσ-
θίει | ἔλαττον ἢ δειπνοῦσιν ἀμφότεροι συχνά ; Anaxilas was contemporary with
Isaeus, and it is probable that the orator meant this notorious pair, and
that Cranaus was the son of Ctesias. In two honorary decrees passed in
the Archonship of Avoiáồns c. 250 B.C. (C.I.A. II. 373 b I. II.) Kirchner
(Prosopographia Attica 1. p. 588) would read Kpavaòs Krηoilov Bnoaieùs] in
place of Κραναός Κτησι[φῶντος. For joint-rights of a father and son in a
freedman see next note.
6 ἀπελεύθερον ἑαυτῶν κ.τ.λ. Scholars have inferred from this passage
that at Athens the estate of a freedman, who died intestate and without
children, was inherited by his former master. The conclusion is supported
by appeal to a forensic argument preserved in Anaximenes c. I. p. 8, 14 sqq.
ed. Spengel (Rh. Gr. I. p. 16, 4 sqq. Hammer): кaðúñeρ ó voµoðétηs kλnpo-
νόμους πεποίηκε τοὺς ἐγγυτάτω γένους ὄντας τοῖς ἄπαισιν ἀποθνῄσκουσιν, οὕτω
καὶ τῶν τοῦ ἀπελευθέρου χρημάτων ἐμὲ νῦν προσήκει κύριον γενέσθαι· τῶν γὰρ
ἀπελευθερωσάντων αὐτὸν τετελευτηκότων ἐγγυτάτω γένους αὐτὸς ὢν καὶ τῶν
ἀπελευθέρων (τὰ τοῦ ἀπελευθέρου coni. Spengel) δίκαιος ἂν εἴην ἄρχειν ἔχειν
αν
OR. IV.
379
COMMENTARY
coni. Spengel). The law of Athens, it is supposed, resembling in this respect.
the law of Rome, did not recognise the natural bond which connected the
freedman with his ascendants or collaterals, so that the only relatives
whom an emancipated slave could legally possess were descendants born
of a lawful marriage contracted after emancipation.
The normal rights of a patron (πроστáτηs) of a freedman, as defined by
Athenian law, are not stated in detail by any extant authority. Probably it
was common to attach conditions to the manumission, so that the liabilities
of the freedman varied according to the pleasure of the manumissor. In the
acts of emancipation clothed in the form of a sale to the god, which have
been found in such large numbers on the walls of the temple of Apollo at
Delphi, the master often stipulates that the validity of the purchase (và)
shall depend on the due discharge by the emancipated slave of more or less
onerous obligations. Sometimes the patron expressly reserves to himself the
right of succession to all the property of the freedman, if he die without
issue. This provision, the significance of which has been disputed, was
designed in all probability to nullify testamentary dispositions. In other
inscriptions the patron's claim to inherit is guaranteed more effectually by
clauses forbidding any kind of alienation of any part of the property.
Sometimes the freedman is not permitted to create descendants by means
of adoption. Sometimes the prohibition against alienation is extended even
to the descendants of the freedman in the event of their dying without
children. The result of these bargains between the master and the slave
was the creation not only of stages intermediate between slavery and
freedom, which elude precise definition, but also of a species of precarious
freedom revocable on breach of contract. Roman law did not tolerate such
vagueness, and only admitted three classes clearly distinguished from each
other, viz. freemen, slaves, and statu liberi, i.e. future freemen, but actual
slaves, being those persons whom a master had manumitted by his will
subject to a condition precedent, or the lapse of a specified time, and who
in the eyes of the law were slaves till the condition happened or the
appointed day arrived. See Caillemer, Droit de succession p. 137 sqq.,
Mitteis, Reichsrecht und Volksrecht p. 384 sqq., Beauchet 11. p. 491 sqq.,
11. 573 sqq., Thalheim-Hermann, Gr. Rechtsaltert.¹ p. 25 sqq.
At Rome on the death of the patron the iura patronatus devolved on
his children. Inscriptions at Delphi contain the provision that the patron's
rights shall pass to his heirs (èióμoi, S.I.G.2 n. 860). Neither literature
nor inscriptions reveal the law or practice of the Athenians. The relevant
inscriptions (C.I.A. 11. 768 sqq., Iv. 2. 768 b sqq.) consist of lists of silver
bowls (φιαλαὶ ἐξελευθερικαὶ) dedicated by freedmen and freedwomen who had
been acquitted on a charge of 'desertion' (àñoσtaσiov) brought against them
by their patrons. These records show that an emancipated slave might owe
duties to several patrons, sometimes related to each other, sometimes not.
Docimus (IV. 2. 768 b, A II. 11—16) was the freedman of Peithenous, Lysis-
tratus, and Thoudosius, all of the deme Alopeke. It is possible that the
three men were brothers, who had inherited from their father rights in
Docimus, but the conclusion is not proved, for in another catalogue (ib.
772 b, B 1. 15) we come across a freedwoman under the patronage of three
380
OR. IV.
ISAEUS
σι
men belonging to different demes and different families (Eucrates son of
Euxenus of Pallene, Nicoxenus son of Hegesias of Erchia, and Demostratus
son of Demostratus of Pallene). The case of Lycinus (ib. 771 b 9 sqq.) is
more important; he was the freedman of Meidon son of Euthycritus, and of
Euthycritus and Meidylides sons of Meidon. It may be conjectured that
the freedman's obligations towards the sons were imposed upon him by the
father as conditions of emancipation. A clause in the will of Theophrastus
(Diog. Laert. 5. 54) has been interpreted as a renunciation of the right of
succession possessed by the heirs of the patron. The clause is as follows :
'with regard to Pompylus and Threpta who have long been free (ñáλai
éλevőépois ovσi; cp. Lyco's will, ib. 5. 72) and have rendered me many
services, I consider that they ought to possess in security (àopaλŵs oîµai
deîv avтoîs vπáрxew) whatever they have formerly received from me, what-
ever they have acquired for themselves, and the sum which I now assign
them as a charge upon Hipparchus, viz. 2000 dr.; and I have spoken to
this effect to Melantes and Pancreon, and they have given full assent.'
Melantes and Pancreon the sons of Leon were the heirs to whom Theo-
phrastus left all the property in the house' (τὰ οἴκοι ὑπάρχοντα πάντα
ib. 51). The language of the will indicates that Pompylus and Threpta
had been emancipated by Theophrastus on condition of staying in the
house and serving him till his death. But the special form of molestation
from which he desired to protect his old servants cannot be settled with
certainty. It is not necessary to suppose that Theophrastus' heirs agreed
to waive a right to inherit from Pompylus and Threpta, or even to control
them in the disposition of their property after leaving Theophrastus' house.
The desire of the philosopher may have been to prevent disputes about
the conditions of the term of service (apaμový), during which the so-called
freedman was sometimes in a position hardly distinguishable from slavery,
and to ensure that the heirs did not send Pompylus and Threpta out into
the world stripped of all they possessed.
10. 2 aέavтes, a lively word ('leap at,' ' spring upon ') borrowed from
poetry. In Attic prose it is very rare, occurring twice in the orators (Dem.
25. 52 ᾄττων δεῦρο κἀκεῖσε, [Dem.] 47. 53 ἐπὶ τοὺς οἰκέτας ᾖξαν), and occasion-
ally in Plato (Theaet. 144 A, 190 A, Rep. 10. 621 B, Laws 709 A, Alc. I.
118 B).
3, 4 οὐ μόνον αὐτὸς κ.τ.λ. The text in this and the next sentence is
faulty, and the narrative indistinct. The general sense is rightly given,
I think, in the translations of Reiske and Sir W. Jones. The speaker
wished his hearers to understand that Chariades first produced his own
child by a mistress as the son of Nicostratus, but afterwards, suspecting
that the infant's origin would be brought to light, claimed in his own name
under a will. The word elomov is an invidious description of the attempt
to foist a bastard and an alien into Nicostratus' family; compare VI. 22. 5, 6
ὡς παῖδας ἀποφανῶν καὶ εἰσποιήσων εἰς τὸν οἶκον, VIII. 40. 7 αὑτὸν τῷ πατρὶ
αὐτῶν εἰσποιήσας, οὐδεμίαν ἐκείνου περὶ τούτων ποιησαμένου διαθήκην, [Dem.]
44. 19. It does not necessarily imply that the child was given out as a
son adopted by Nicostratus by testament or inter uiuos. But a difficulty
is presented by the alternatives which follow, ὡς ἢ τῶν χρημάτων κληρονομή-
*
OR. IV.
381
COMMENTARY
σοντι ἢ τὸ παιδίον ἀστὸν ποιήσοντι. The second is plain enough ; the child,
whose mother in view of her profession was presumably a foreigner (III.
39. 5 n.), would have been made an Athenian citizen, if declared Nicostratus'
legitimate son by a judgment of a court. But on what grounds did
Chariades calculate 'to inherit the property,' if this scheme were defeated?
The sentence, as it stands in the MS. (οὐ μόνον αὐτὸς ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ἐκ τῆς
ἑταίρας παιδίον εἰσποιῶν ἦλθε), does not disclose the title which Chariades is
supposed to have set up for himself. Schoemann in his commentary
conjectures that something like συγγενὴς φάσκων εἶναι has fallen out after
autós, and offers the following explanation of the argument. Chariades
pretended to be next-of-kin to Nicostratus, and represented the child as
Nicostratus' illegitimate son, disguising the nationality of the mother. His
petition was that the boy should be adopted, i.e. legitimated (for this theory
of legitimation see VI. 17-26 analysis), and that he himself should be
appointed guardian. In this way he hoped either to procure the legitima-
tion of the child, who would become Nicostratus' heir and an Athenian
citizen, or, if the child's claims were rejected, to be declared heir himself
as next-of-kin to the deceased. This artificial interpretation refutes itself.
Boekmeijer proposes to read avtòs <aůtòv>. The correction is simple, and
gives as much precision of statement as can be exacted from Isaeus in a
calumniatory passage. 'Chariades came foisting in not only himself but
his child by his mistress.' Here subsequent developments are anticipated
by a rhetorical prolepsis, the allusion being to Chariades' pretension that
Nicostrates had adopted him (§ 19). He entered the field with two strings
to his bow, intending either to pass off his bastard as Nicostratus' legitimate
son and heir, or to claim for himself under a will. If the first fraud proved
feasible, the alien would win the privileges of Athenian citizenship. If the
second scheme succeeded, Chariades would inherit the fortune. On reflexion
Chariades discerned obstacles in the way of proving the boy's parentage,
and determined to stand upon the testamentary title. The speaker's
indefinite language shows that Chariades had not made a formal claim
on behalf of the child, which had been formally withdrawn. A shrewd
advocate would have fastened on so compromising an incident and probed
it to the bottom. Perhaps the grain of truth in the story is the existence
of a child and mistress, whom Chariades, like other soldiers of fortune, had
brought back with him from foreign parts.
5 ταὐτὸ δ᾽ ἦν αὐτῷ. Sauppe's correction (Ausgew. Schr. p. 681) Of TOÛTO
is satisfactory, but it is a mistake to change és into lows. I do not think
that the MS. reading can be defended by Alexis' lines in Athen. 13. 30.
572 C (Kock, Com. Att. Fr. II. p. 385) οὐδὲ τῶν πράσων | ἑκάστοτ᾽ ἐπεδείπνει
μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν· τοῦτο δ᾽ ἦν, | ἵνα μή τι λυπήσειε τὸν ἐραστὴν φιλῶν, and Dem.
iva
57. 9 κατέτριψε τὴν ἡμέραν δημηγορῶν καὶ ψηφίσματα γράφων. τοῦτο δ᾽ ἦν
οὐκ ἀπὸ ταὐτομάτου, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιβουλεύων ἐμοί, ὅπως ὡς ὀψιαίταθ᾽ ἡ διαψήφισις
γένοιτο. Thalheim marks a lacuna after αὐτῷ.
6 Kal OûTOs, like the other impostors.
8 mapéλvσev, 'uncoupled,' a surprisingly bold metaphor for a private
oration. Compare Eur. Andr. 305 sqq. παρέλυσε δ᾽ ἂν ἡ τεκοῦσα) ῾Ελλάδος
ἀλγεινοὺς | πόνους, ὅτ᾽ ἀμφὶ Τρωΐαν | δεκέτεις ἀλάληντο νέοι λόγχαις. The effect
r
382
OR. IV.
ISAEUS
may be rendered by changing the figure: 'he cut adrift (threw overboard)
the child's claim.' Note that the technical term for withdrawal (ảvaɩpeîσðaı,
VI. 31. 5 n.) is not used.
8 παρακατέβαλεν. Cf. § 4. 8 n.
11-20 Claimants under a will, if defeated, ought to be fined in the
whole amount of the property claimed. Then we should not see the laws
contemned, families outraged, the dead calumniated. But since adventurers
enjoy untrammelled licence, your duty is to sift most scrupulously their
pretensions. In these cases—and in no other—arguments from probability
should carry more weight than testimony. It is peculiarly difficult to expose
the falsehoods of witnesses brought to prove a will. Even persons really
present at the execution of a testament are generally not informed of the
contents, and cannot know whether another document has been substituted
or the testator's dispositions altered. Moreover, proof must be given not
only that a will has been made, but that the testator was of sound mind.
The presumption is always in favour of the natural heirs, who need no
witnesses to prove their rights, and are regarded with special favour by
your laws. In this suit the probabilities make against Chariades. He was
not intimate with Nicostratus. He left to strangers the sacred duty of
rendering the last honours to the dead. He was not, as he pretends,
Nicostratus' partner. All these statements have been already proved by
testimony.
A patient inspection of this jumble of commonplaces and fallacies will
help to an understanding of the contempt with which Plato regarded the
democratic courts, and the writers who gained a livelihood by exploring
the vices of their organisation. After reading the orators one is disposed
to doubt whether it was possible for an Athenian to safeguard the heirs
of his choice from the assaults of disappointed relations. In the present
case there is not the least indication that Hagnon and Hagnotheus had
made any serious attempt to prove forgery, or to destroy the credibility of
the witnesses to Nicostratus' will. If we can judge from the summary given
by their friend, they had merely brought evidence that Chariades and
Nicostratus were neither intimate nor partners, and the friend himself
contributes nothing more than generalities, which can be urged against
any and every will. For these commonplaces compare I. 41, IX. 7 sqq.
11. I
Kaтȧ Sóσw. Why limit the salutary rule to one class of pre-
tenders ? See III. 61 πρὸς δὲ τοὺς εἰσποιήτους ἅπαντες οἱ κατὰ γένος προσή
κοντες ἀμφισβητεῖν ἀξιοῦσιν, VII. 2 ὁ δ᾽ ἐν διαθήκαις σημηνάμενος ἀδήλους (τὰς
αὑτοῦ βουλήσεις) ἐποίησε, διὸ πολλοὶ πεπλάσθαι φάσκοντες αὐτὰς ἀμφισβητεῖν
ἀξιοῦσι πρὸς τοὺς ποιηθέντας.
2 ηTTηlelη. I prefer τrýŋ; cp. [Xen.] Resp. Ath. 1. 16 ei dè oikoɩ
εἶχον ἕκαστοι τὰς δίκας, ἅτε ἀχθόμενοι Αθηναίοις τούτους ἂν σφῶν αὐτῶν ἀπώλο
λυσαν, οἵτινες φίλοι μάλιστα ἦσαν ᾿Αθηναίων τῷ δήμῳ, Goodwin, M. & Τ.
§ 528. If the optative is kept, we ought to read loɩ in l. 3. See 11. 15. 3,
VI. 3. 5.
μὴ κατὰ τὸ τέλος ζημιοῦσθαι. A defeated claimant forfeited his deposit,
i.e. one-tenth of the estimated value of the estate (§ 4. 8 m.). Lipsius (Att.
Proc. p. 821) concludes from the words that follow (roσaûta tŷ tóλel
πόλει
OR. IV.
383
COMMENTARY
ἀποτίνειν, not τοσαῦτα καὶ τῇ πόλει ἀποτίνειν) that the money went to the
State, as it certainly did in the case of suits against the treasury. Though
the drift of the argument is plain, there has been debate over the expression
κατὰ τὸ τέλος. The phrase occurs again in the law preserved in [Dem.]
43. 75 ἐὰν δέ τις ὑβρίζῃ ἢ ποιῇ τι παράνομον, κύριος ἔστω (ὁ ἄρχων) ἐπιβάλλειν
κατὰ τὸ τέλος. ἐὰν δὲ μείζονος ζημίας δοκῇ ἄξιος εἶναι, προσκαλεσάμενος πρό-
πεμπτα καὶ τίμημα ἐπιγραψάμενος, ὅ τι ἂν δοκῇ αὐτῷ, εἰσαγέτω εἰς τὴν ἡλιαίαν.
Here the reference is to the maximum fine (ἐπιβολή), which the Archon was
empowered to inflict. But I hesitate to accept Schoemann's conclusion :
τέλος in uniuersum significat praefinitum quendam et statutum modum.
That Téλos ever means 'limit' needs proof. Through the ideas of perfection
and consummation the word might conceivably have acquired in certain
combinations the sense of a maximum,' but such a translation will not
fit the present passage. It is simpler to look to the other aspect of réλos
('charge,' ' tax,' 'due'), and explain karà rò téλos in Isaeus and the law
quoted as 'according to the rate. Reiske's version, 'pro censu,' has been
accepted by Liddell and Scott. Sir W. Jones (Works IX. 271 sqq.) was at
first inclined to think that Isaeus meant the costs of the suit, expensa litis,
in quibus uictus uictori condemnandus est, but in the end approved the
following rendering: 'Every claimant...should not be amerced by the limited
power of the magistrate, etc.' Dareste, Plaidoyers d'Isée p. 71, has ‘Il
faudrait que le taux de l'amende à payer ne fût pas limité.'
'
αν
4 γάρ <ἂν>. For the omission of ἂν in the codex Crippsianus see
III. 54. I n., Crit. Introd. p. xxxvi.
6
τὰ γένη, families, i.e. the blood-relations (οἱ συγγενεῖς), as in [Dem.]
44. 14 τὸν νόμον τὸν τοῖς τε γένεσι καὶ τοῖς ἐγγυτάτω πρὸς ἀνδρῶν τὰς κληρονο-
μίας ἀποδιδόντα, ib. 63 οὐ δίκαιον δήπου τὸν ποιητὸν υἱὸν ποιητοὺς ἑτέρους
εἰσάγειν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐγκαταλείπειν μὲν γιγνομένους, ὅταν δὲ τοῦτ᾽ ἐπιλίπῃ, τοῖς γένεσιν
ἀποδιδόναι τὰς κληρονομίας· ταῦτα γὰρ οἱ νόμοι κελεύουσιν...εἰ δ᾽ ἔσται τῷ
εἰσποιηθέντι εἰσποιεῖν ὃν ἂν βούληται, οὐδέποτε τοῖς γένεσιν αἱ κληρονομίαι
δοθήσονται, [Arist.] Probl. 29. 3. 95o b 5 sqq. (quoted on 1. 41. 2). Dis-
tinguish from this sense the use in 'Αθ. Πολ. 21 τοὺς ἐξετάζειν τὰ γένη βου-
λομένους, and Dem. 57 Hyp. 2 δεῖ δὲ μὴ τὰ ἀτυχήματα προφέρειν ἀλλὰ τὰ
γένη ζητεῖν, where the meaning is to scrutinise the descent or birth (τὸ
γένος) of people, the plural, τὰ γένη, being due to the plurality of subjects,
as in Hyp. 6. 7 ἰδίᾳ τὰ γένη ἐγκωμιάζειν. Cp. § 16. 2 n.
5 πρὸ δὲ τούτων, and, what is more important than this, no one etc.
Dobree (Adv. I. p. 293) remarks with his customary brevity ‘malim πρὸς
δὲ τούτοις.” No doubt he took offence at the anti-climax and the singularity
of the construction. For the latter see Dem. 4. 19 ταῦτα μέν ἐστιν ἃ πᾶσιν
δεδόχθαι φημὶ δεῖν καὶ παρεσκευάσθαι προσήκειν οἴομαι· πρὸ δὲ τούτων δύναμίν
τιν᾽ ὦ ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι φημὶ προχειρίσασθαι δεῖν ὑμᾶς, ἡ συνεχώς πολεμήσει.
An examination of the context of this extract will show that πρὸ τούτων
cannot refer to priority in time. The vulgate here was πρὸς δὲ τούτοις,
which G. H. Schaefer thought right, but all subsequent editors have bowed
to the authority of the better MSS. (e.g. Σ Β F), which have πρὸ δὲ τούτων.
The conflict between πρὸς τούτοις, πρὸς τούτων, πρὸ τούτων has left many
traces in Demosthenes' MSS., for which see Voemel ad loc.
384
OR. IV.
ISAEUS
اد
7 καθ᾽ ὅ τι ἂν κ.τ.λ. Cp. [Dem.] 43. 16 (law) τὴν δ᾽ ἀμφισβήτησιν
εἶναι τῷ ἔχοντι καθ᾽ ὅ τι ἐπεδικάσατο οὗ ἂν ἔχῃ τὰ χρήματα. The herald's
proclamation was εἴ τις ἀμφισβητεῖν ἢ παρακαταβάλλειν βούλεται ἢ κατὰ γένος
ἢ κατὰ διαθήκας (ib. 5). Compare XI. 14 à ὑμεῖς ἐμὰ εἶναι ἐψηφίσασθε, τῷ
βουλομένῳ δόντες ἐξουσίαν ἀμφισβητεῖν αὐτῶν, ib. 25, VI. 3 ἐξὸν ἀμφισβητῆσαι
Αθηναίων τῷ βουλομένῳ.
12. 2, 3 τεκμηρίοις μᾶλλον ἢ μάρτυσιν πιστεύειν. The appearance of this
principle in a speech is a signal of weakness. See Arist. Rhet. 1. 15. 1376 a
17 sqq. πιστώματα δὲ περὶ μαρτυριῶν μάρτυρας μὲν μὴ ἔχοντι, ὅτι ἐκ τῶν
εἰκότων δεῖ κρίνειν καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι τὸ γνώμῃ τῇ ἀρίστῃ, καὶ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἐξαπα-
τῆσαι τὰ εἰκότα ἐπὶ ἀργυρίῳ, καὶ ὅτι οὐχ ἁλίσκεται τὰ εἰκότα ψευδομαρτυρίων·
ἔχοντι δὲ πρὸς μὴ ἔχοντα, ὅτι οὐχ ὑπόδικα τὰ εἰκότα, καὶ ὅτι οὐδὲν ἂν ἔδει
μαρτυριῶν, εἰ ἐκ τῶν λόγων ἱκανὸν ἦν θεωρῆσαι, Cope's note ad loc., [Cic.]
Ad C. Herennium 2. II.
2
3, 4 τῶν ἄλλων συμβολαίων. Bunsen (De iure hereditario Atheniensium,
1813, p. 53) inferred from these words that the Athenians considered a will
to be a contract. Gans (Das Erbrecht in weltgeschichtlicher Entwickelung
1824, I. p. 384) accepted Bunsen's premiss, but not all Bunsen's conclusions,
sagely observing that the origin of the Athenian view must be sought not
in the content but in the form of a testament. Modern scholars, e.g. Schulin
Das griech. Testament p. 8 n. 6, Lipsius in Att. Proc. p. 595 n. 297,
Schulthess, Vormundschaft nach attischem Recht p. 104, very properly
repudiate this classification, and explain that ovμßóλacov here does not
mean a contract, but signifies either a legal transaction (Rechtsgeschäft,
Schulin, Rechtshandlung, Schulthess, tout acte juridique, Beauchet II. p. 364)
or an instrument (Geschäftsurkunde, Lipsius). In support of this last inter-
pretation appeal is made to an obscure article in Harpocration (δόσις: ἰδίως
λέγεται παρὰ τοῖς ῥήτορσι συμβόλαιον γραφόμενον, ὅταν τις τὰ αὑτοῦ διδῷ τινὶ
διὰ τῶν ἀρχόντων, ὡς παρὰ Δεινάρχῳ), for which see I. II. 2 η. Schulin is
nearer to the truth than Lipsius. Isaeus contrasts transactions' with
'dispositions' (dia@ĥkai), as Isocrates contrasts 'dealings' with 'insult' in
20. 16 περὶ μὲν τῶν ἄλλων συμβολαίων τοσούτου τιμᾶν, ὅσον προσήκει τῷ
διώκοντι κομίσασθαι, περὶ δὲ τῆς ὕβρεως, ὅσον ἀποτείσας ὁ φεύγων παύσεσθαι
μέλλει τῆς παρούσης ἀσελγείας. He is playing with an ambiguity to disguise
the weakness of the argument, and avails himself of the etymological
possibilities of the word, which, although usually limited to the sense
'contracts' in the language of ordinary life, might nevertheless be made
to embrace other relations and other modes of intercourse and connexion
than those created by a formal declaration of mutual consent; see Eur. Ion
410/1 ὦ πότνια Φοίβου μῆτερ, εἰ γὰρ αἰσίως | ἔλθοιμεν, ἅ τε νῷν συμβόλαια
πρόσθεν ἦν ἐς παῖδα τὸν σόν, μεταπέσοι βελτίονα, Plut. Alex. 30 τί γὰρ
εὐπρεπὲς ἀνδρὶ νέῳ πρὸς ἐχθροῦ γυναῖκα συμβόλαιον, Αnt. 25, Arat. 20.
Hence the appearance in the orator's next sentence of τοῦ πράξαντος, the
agent, not τοῦ ποιησαμένου (sc. τὸ συμβόλαιον) or τοῦ συμβαλόντος. Plato
often uses τὰ συμβόλαια in the wide sense of dealings between man and
manso as to approximate to κοινωνήματα (Rep. I. 333 A); he speaks of
τὰ ἑκούσια συμβόλαια (Rep. 8. 556 B), just as Aristotle (Nic. Eth. 5. 13. 1131 a
2 sqq.) distinguishes ἑκούσια συναλλάγματα (e.g. selling, buying, lending,
OR. IV.
385
COMMENTARY
letting) from ἀκούσια συναλλάγματα, which are either furtive (theft, false
witness, etc.) or violent (murder, slander, etc.); compare the Roman
division of contracts, quasi-contracts, and delictual obligations. A good
example of this application occurs in Laws 913 Α τὸ δὲ μετὰ ταῦτ᾽ εἴη ξυμ-
βόλαια ἂν πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἡμῖν δεόμενα προσηκούσης τάξεως. ἁπλοῦν δέ γ' ἐστί
που τὸ τοιοῦτον· μήτε οὖν τις τῶν ἐμῶν χρημάτων ἅπτοιτο εἰς δύναμιν μηδ᾽ αὖ
κινήσειε μηδὲ τὸ βραχύτατον ἐμὲ μηδαμῇ [μηδαμῶς] πείθων· κατὰ ταὐτὰ δὲ ταῦτα
καὶ περὶ τὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἐγὼ δρώην. This fundamental principle of society,
respect for the rights of others, is applied in the first place to treasure-
trove and cases of disputed ownership (913 D), and Plato treats the duties
of freedmen (915 A) before proper contracts such as buying and selling,
letting and hiring (915 D). When the word is used in this wide signification,
it may cover any relation between two or more parties, but it is an error to
say that Plato expressly classed the testament among τὰ ξυμβόλαια. The
passage produced in proof of this assertion is Laws 922 A тà µèv dǹ µéyiota
τῶν ξυμβολαίων, ὅσα πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἄνθρωποι ξυμβάλλουσι, πλήν γε ὀρφανικῶν
καὶ τῆς τῶν ἐπιτρόπων ἐπιμελείας τῶν ὀρφανῶν, σχεδὸν ἡμῖν διατέτακται· ταῦτα
δὲ δὴ μετὰ τὰ νῦν εἰρημένα ἀναγκαῖον ὁμῶς γέ πως τάξασθαι. τούτων δὲ ἀρχαί
πάντων αἵ τε τῶν τελευτᾶν μελλόντων ἐπιθυμίαι τῆς διαθέσεως αἵ τε τῶν μηδὲν
τὸ παράπαν διαθεμένων τύχαι. Here it is the relationship of ward and
guardian, which is ranked among the great ξυμβόλαια of human life. The
testament is only one of the sources of this relationship, and is not described
by Plato as itself a ξυμβόλαιον; compare X. IO. 2, 3 7.
4 οὐ πάνυ χαλεπόν. It is not clear whether the adverb belongs to χαλεπὸν
(not very difficult') or to the negative (not altogether difficult, scarcely
difficult'). Compare Dem. 20. 76 οὔτε πάνυ ῥᾴδιον κατὰ τὴν ἀξίαν εἰπεῖν
πολλή τ' αἰσχύνη λέγοντος ἐμοῦ ταῦτ᾽ ἐλάττω φανῆναι, and Plat. Lach. 183 C
οὐ πάνυ ὀλίγοις ἐγὼ τούτων παραγέγονα, where in Riddell's opinion πάνυ goes
closely with ὀλίγοις. Schoemann pronounces arbitrarily that the meaning
is οὐδαμῶς χαλεπόν, πάνυ ῥᾴδιον. Would not this be a wanton exaggeration ?
For the uses of οὐ πάνυ, and especially the ironical application by which
'not quite' acquires the force of 'not at all,' see Cope's Appendix to his
translation of Plato's Gorgias p. 139 sqq., Riddell, Digest of Platonic Idioms
$ 139.
7, 8 εἰ μὴ πάνυ μεγάλα τὰ διαφέροντα. Some sort of a saving clause is
necessary, for the judges might have cried out at the proposition that they
were never justified in approving a contested will. But the orator's meaning
is decidedly obscure. The following versions have been propounded; (1)
nisi enormis sit discrepantia inter ambarum postulationes, altera parte nimis
abhorrentia ab aequo et inconsentanea petente, aut affirmante ea quae
prorsus sint incredibilia (Reiske), (2) unless there be palpable contradictions
in the evidence (Sir W. Jones), (3) unless one side shows a case decidedly
better than the other (Dobree, who however preferred to read εἰ καὶ πάνυ
κ.τ.λ. however great the interest at stake), (4) falls nicht sehr bedeutende
Umstände des Urtheil an die Hand geben (Schoemann in his translation
of 1830), (5) nisi permagnum sit discrimen, quo uerum a falso facilius
internosci possit (Schoemann in his commentary), (6) à moins que l'intérêt
ne soit très grand (Dareste). The phrase (τὰ διαφέροντα) in the orators, as
25
W. I.
386
OR. IV.
ISAEUS
મ
in Thucydides (1. 70, 2. 43, 6. 92), signifies either differences (Lys. 31. 5
μεγάλα τὰ διαφέροντά ἐστιν εὖ τε πράττειν τὴν πόλιν τήνδε καὶ ἀνεπιτηδείως,
[And.] 4. 19 πολὺ δὲ χαλεπώτερον ὅταν ἐπιστάμενος τὰ διαφέροντα παραβαίνειν
τολμᾷ) or interests at stake (Lys. 32. 1 εἰ μὲν μὴ μεγάλα ἦν τὰ διαφέροντα,
οὐκ ἄν ποτε εἰς ὑμᾶς εἰσελθεῖν τούτους εἴασα, Dem. 30. 24 ἁπλῶς οὐδ᾽ ἂν μικρὸν
ὑπὲρ τῶν διαφερόντων ἀλλ᾽ ὡς οἷόν τ᾿ ἀκριβέστατα πράξαντες). Dobree's
interpretation of the text (not his correction) is most plausible, but I cannot
suppress the suspicion that Isaeus meant nothing in particular.
9 τῶν δὲ συγγενῶν κ.τ.λ. In IX. 10 Isaeus has the audacity to contend
that the evidence of relations, who deposed that they were unaware of the
existence of a will, ought to outweigh the evidence of persons not connected
by blood with the family, who deposed that they were present as witnesses
when the will was made. In the present dispute the judges have to find
out who were Nicostratus' relations, for in § 23 sqq. the speaker lets out
that Chariades' witnesses claimed that they, not Hagnon and Hagnotheus,
were really kinsfolk of the deceased.
π
13. 2, 3 οὐδὲ λέγουσιν ὅ τι διατίθενται κ.τ.λ. It is impossible to discover
what amount of truth is contained in this generalisation. The statement is
opposed to the assumption underlying the argument of IX. 7 sqq., which is
that witnesses may be expected to have knowledge of the substance of a
will; if, says the speaker, Astyphilus wished no one to know he was adopting
Cleon's son, he would not have called the witnesses whose names stand in
this will (ib. § 12 with notes). The impudence of an Athenian orator may
be gauged by Apollodorus' remarks in [Dem.] 46. 28 dialýêŋs ovdeìs #winte
ἀντίγραφα ἐποιήσατο, ἀλλὰ συγγραφῶν μέν, ἵνα εἰδῶσι καὶ μὴ παραβαίνωσι,
διαθηκῶν δὲ οὔ. τούτου γὰρ ἕνεκα καταλείπουσιν οἱ διατιθέμενοι, ἵνα μηδεὶς εἰδῇ
à diarioevтal. The logic is bad, since a duplicate may be kept as secret
as the original, and the assertions cannot be reconciled with known facts.
There were three copies of the will of Theophrastus 'sealed with his own
ring' (Diog. Laert. 5. 57), three copies also of the will of Arcesilas (ib. 4. 44),
two copies of the will of Diodotus, one in the keeping of Diogeiton and one
in Diodotus' house (Lys. 32. 7). Bonds and testaments were protected
against fraud and accidents by precisely the same precautions, and their
authenticity was proved in precisely the same way. Witnesses were present
at the making of both and their names were recorded in the documents;
see for wills IX. 12, Diog. Laert. 5. 57, ib. 5. 74, Michel n. 1345, Inscr. Jurid.
Gr. II. p. 62; for contracts [Dem.] 35. 13. Bonds and wills alike were sealed
(see for wills VII. 1. 2, Dem. 45. 17, Diog. Laert 5. 57; for contracts [Dem.]
33. 36, 35. 15, Hyp. 5. 8, 18), and committed to the custody of trustworthy
persons, who were responsible under the laws regulating the contract of
deposit,' πарakaтaðýêŋ; see for wills VI. 7, IX. 5, Dem. 45. 19, Diog. Laert.
4. 44, 5. 57; for contracts Dem. 32. 16, [Dem.] 33. 15, 36, 34. 6, 35. 14, 48. 11,
Isocr. 17. 20, Hyp. 5. 9. Whether the document was a contract or a testa-
ment, the witnesses always possessed one means of identifying it, viz. the
seal of the testator or the joint seals of the contracting parties. Seals no
doubt could be counterfeited, but I believe that Isaeus is not doing justice
either to the honesty or to the business habits of his countrymen, when he
affirms that it was 'a matter of chance' (Toû ovµßaívovtos 1. 4) whether the
OR. IV.
387
COMMENTARY
true will was rewritten or replaced by a forgery, and that the witnesses
could not discover the difference. The orator however has succeeded in
winning the confidence of eminent modern scholars. Philippi, Symbolae
ad doctrinam iuris Attici p. 7 sqq., Lipsius, Att. Proc.2 p. 596 n. 300,
Beauchet III. p. 659 sqq., all deduce from this passage that at Athens the
witnesses never affixed their seals to a will. If they had done so, it is
said, how could Isaeus have propounded this argument? Surely witnesses
could identify a will bearing their own seals. If implicit trust is to be
placed in Isaeus, we ought to go farther and conclude that the testator
himself did not always seal. There is no evidence that it was necessary
for witnesses to seal either wills or contracts, and it would be rash to apply
to Athens the Roman rule that a will was not valid unless the witnesses
at the same time and place and in the presence of the testator adhibited
both their names and their seals. But there is also no evidence that the
practice of sealing by witnesses was unusual, or forbidden, or considered
inexpedient. If it be true that in most cases the contents of the document
were not disclosed to the witnesses, prudence might have sometimes sug-
gested to a testator that the addition of seals other than his own would help
to prevent kinsfolk from frustrating his last wishes. Documents were
sometimes sealed by witnesses (Dem. 28. 5), and in connexion with wills
we occasionally read of 'the seals' in the plural; see Dem. 45. 17 elπep
ἀληθὲς ἦν, ἐχρῆν αὐτὸ τὸ γραμματεῖον (the will itself, not a copy) εἰς τὸν ἐχῖνον
ἐμβαλεῖν καὶ τὸν παρέχοντα μαρτυρεῖν, ἵν᾽ ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ τοῦ τὰ σημεῖ᾿ ἰδεῖν
οἱ δικασταὶ τὸ πρᾶγμ᾽ ἔγνωσαν, Ar. Vesp. 584/5 κλάειν ἡμεῖς μακρὰ τὴν κεφαλὴν
εἰπόντες τῇ διαθήκῃ | καὶ τῇ κόγχη (the capsule) τῇ πάνυ σεμνῶς τοῖς σημείοισιν
ἐπούσῃ; on which Schol. Rav. has ὡς κόγχας ἐπιτιθέντων ταῖς σφραγῖσιν
ἀσφαλείας ἕνεκα, Schol. Ven. τῷ κογχυλίῳ τῷ ἐπικειμένῳ ταῖς σφραγῖσι διὰ
τὸ μὴ ἀφανίζεσθαι τοὺς τύπους αὐτῆς. In Egypt both contracts and wills
were sealed by the witnesses. A marriage contract of 92 B.C. (Teb. Pap.
n. 104) ‘is endorsed on the verso, and below are the names of the contracting
parties and of the six witnesses, arranged in four groups. Between the first and
last pair of groups was a clay seal, and beneath the seals passed the threads
with which the roll was fastened up. Nos. 105, 106, 109 were sealed and
signed in the same way.' The four witnesses to the will of Acusilaus (Oxy.
Pap. III. n. 494, 156 A.D.) state that they recognised the seals which they
had affixed to the original document: the form of declaration may be seen
from ll. 33/4: Δίδυμος...ἶς τῶν μαρτυρησάντων τῇ προκιμένῃ διαθήκῃ ἐγνώρισα
τὴν ἰδίαν μου σφραγῖδα οὖσαν γλύμματος Ἑρμοῦ καὶ ἐσφράγισα τῇ αὐτῇ σφραγῖδι.
This will seems to have been an official copy (ékdóσïov) given out to the
testator for the purpose of adding a codicil, that he might be spared the
trouble of withdrawing and cancelling the original deed. Another sealed
will is Oxy. Pap. III. n. 487, 117 A.D.: 'the seals of the testator and witnesses.
were attached to the outside of the roll, but these have not been preserved.'
See also Oxy. Pap. I. n. 105, a will of 117-137 A.D., which contains the
signatures of the testator and six witnesses together with a description of
the seals.
4 TOÙ σνμẞalvovтós éσTɩ. 'It depends upon accident,' easily happens.
τοῦ συμβαίνοντός ἐστι.
A unique construction, which excited Dobree's suspicions (Adv. I. p. 293).
25-2
388
OR. IV.
ISAEUS
او
5 τἀναντία...μεταγραφῆναι. The construction is the same as in Xen. Hell.
6. 3. 19 ἀπογραψάμενοι δ᾽ ἐν ταῖς ὀμωμοκυίαις πόλεσι καὶ οἱ Θηβαῖοι, παρελθόντες
πάλιν...ἐκέλευον μεταγράφειν ἀντὶ Θηβαίων Βοιωτοὺς ὀμωμοκότας, and to be
distinguished from that in Isocr. 17. 32 ἐπειδή γε μετεγράφησαν (αἱ συνθῆκαι),
ib. 34 γραμματείδιον παρ᾽ ἀνθρώπῳ ξένῳ κείμενον μετέγραψαν. But I think it
possible that the true reading is μετεγγραφῆναι; in Theophrastus fragment
On Contracts, Stob. Flor. 44. 22. 2, μετεγγράφει has been corrupted into
μετεγράφη by the Laurentian MS.
(
6 διαθήκαις, not testament, but dispositions, arrangements.
7, 8 ἀποφαίνονται. Cp. v. 6 (ἀποθανόντος δ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἄπαιδος διαθήκην
ἀπέφηνε Πρόξενος), 15, 1Χ. 18, 24, 25, Dem. 27. 41, 28. 5.
14. 2, 3 μηδὲν τοῦ πράγματος εἰδότας. The way has been smoothed by
μηδὲν τῶν πεπραγμένων in § 12 ; see § 3. 4 n.
αν
او
3 πολὺ [μᾶλλον] ἑτοιμότερον. This pleonasm is very suspicious in an
orator. Outside the tragedians the construction is extraordinarily rare;
Schwab's investigations (Historische Syntax d. griech. Comparation pp.
83 sqq., 377 sqq.) have brought to light only two parallels from the whole
body of Attic prose, for it is necessary to set aside all passages in which
µâλλov is separated from the comparative and attached to the particle
, such as I. 43, II. 15, IX. 10, 16; in these and many similar cases the
repetition of the comparative idea needs no explanation. Plato has admitted
the pleonasm once, Laws 781 Α ὃ καὶ ἄλλως γένος ἡμῶν τῶν ἀνθρώπων
λαθραιότερον μᾶλλον καὶ ἐπικλοπώτερον ἔφυ, τὸ θῆλυ, διὰ τὸ ἀσθενές, οὐκ
ὀρθῶς τοῦτο...δύστακτον ὃν ἀφείθη ; compare the remarkable combination in
854 D ἢ βελτίονα ἢ μοχθηρότερον ἧττον. But in Euthyd. 281 C (πότερον οὖν
ἂν μᾶλλον ἐλάττω τις πράττοι πένης ὢν ἢ πλούσιος), where Badham wished
to eject μάλλον, the idea underlying ἐλάττω πράττειν is positive, and μᾶλλον
belongs to . One instance also occurs in Xenophon, De re equestri 1. 13
ἢν δὲ πάντα στερεὰ ᾖ, κουφότερα ἂν τὰ πρὸς τὸν δρόμον εἴη καὶ ὀξύτερον μᾶλλον
ἂν τὸν ἵππον παρέχοιτο. In Isocr. 15. 35, where ΔΕΘ uolg. give πολὺ ἂν μᾶλλον
δικαιότερον, Bekker and all subsequent editors follow Γ and omit μᾶλλον.
We have a clear case of a scribe's blunder in [And.] 4. 5 οὗτος οὐδ᾽ ἀπελθὼν
ἐνθένδε παύσεται ἀλλ᾽ ὅπου ἂν οἰκῇ, ταύτην <τε> τὴν πόλιν διαφθερεῖ καὶ τῇδε
οὐδὲν ἧττον ἐπιβουλεύσει, ἀλλὰ καὶ μᾶλλον δικαιότερον ἢ πρὶν ἐκβληθῆναι;
Reiske inserted καὶ between μᾶλλον and δικαιότερον, and this correction has
been generally approved. The same remedy might be applied here, πολύ
μâλλov being then interpreted as multo potius. As the text now stands,
it is not possible to treat πολὺ μᾶλλον as independent of ἑτοιμότερον. Had
Isaeus wished to make such a distinction, his natural course would have
been to place πολὺ μᾶλλον after οὐκ ἂν or ὑμᾶς γε. I think an excision
unavoidable. Buermann Hermes 19, p. 358) brackets μᾶλλον, which may
be considered an unconscious interpolation'; in late Greek μᾶλλον ἑτοιμό
τερον is a lawful combination (Dion. Hal. I. pp. 57. 14, 90. 21, 100. 17
Usener and Radermacher). But ἑτοιμότερον might have been originally an
explanation of μᾶλλον ; compare the intrusion of ἄμεινον in XII. 9. 6, and
of δεινότερον in Rh. Gr. I. p. 286, 1ο (Hammer) εἰ τοίνυν καὶ τὸ εἰς χρήματα
ζημιοῦν χαλεπόν ἐστι, πόσῳ μᾶλλον [δεινότερον] τό γε εἰς αὐτὸ τὸ σῶμα;
Thalheim inserts και after μᾶλλον.
αν
OR. IV.
389
COMMENTARY
5 ὁ νόμος. Cp. I. II. 7 n., II. 13. 2 7.
8 μὴ παρανοῶν. The words are to be taken together, and are chosen
to avoid the repetition of εὖ φρονῶν. The orator's remarks on the point
of sanity are strangely irrelevant, and somewhat clumsy in form.
15. 6 οὐδὲν δεῖ μάρτυρας παρασχέσθαι κ.τ.λ. It is not necessary to call
witnesses to show that in default of a testament an estate goes to relations
of the deceased in the order fixed by law, but it is very necessary for any
person who claims as a relation to prove by testimony that he is really next-
of-kin, and Hagnon and Hagnotheus recognised the obligation, for they
have produced witnesses that they are first-cousins of Nicostratus (§ 26).
The sophism is repeated in § 17 τῇ δ᾽ ἀγχιστείᾳ (δεῖ πιστεῦσαι) δι᾽ ὑμῶν
αὐτῶν.
8 γίγνεσθαι. Cp. § 23. 5, 6, ΙΙΙ. 36. 7, 8 τῆς προικὸς ἐκ τῶν νόμων γιγνομένης
eis aútóv, V. 44. 5 n., IX. 24, X. 26, XI. 10, 22.
16.2
οἱ νόμοι οἱ περὶ τῶν γενῶν. In some combinations γένος means
' relationship' (gradus propinquitatis, Schoemann); see § 23. 6, IX. 32 tò yévos
παρατιθέντες, ὅτι ἀνεψιὸς ἦν Κλέων πρὸς πατρός, ΧΙ. 21 ἓν τὸ γένος, δύο δὲ
λήξεις, [Dem.] 43. 20 ὄντες ἐν ταὐτῷ γένει Θεοπόμπῳ καὶ προσήκοντες ὁμοίως
τῷ ῾Αγνίᾳ, 42, 54. Here however the plural seems to refer to the various
'stocks' as they succeeded each other in the law, first brothers by the same
father and their children, τοῦτο γὰρ ἐγγυτάτω τοῦ τελευτήσαντος <τὸ> γένος
ἐστίν (ΧΙ. 1), then sisters by the same father and their children, then cousins
on the father's side and their children, who are called in ΧΙ. 2 τρίτον γένος,
and so forth. For other uses of the word see § 11. 4 22., VIII. 33, XI. 5, 7,
17, Plat. Laws 925 B, C.
3 δούναι. Cp. III. 42. 2, 3 η.
17. 3, 4 ψευδομαρτυρίων ἐπισκήψεις. Cp. III. 3. 5 κ.
5 οὓς ὑμεῖς ἔθεσθε. The judges are identified with the sovereign people.
The fattery is common (VI. 49, ΙΧ. 34, [Lys.] 6. 52, [Dem.] 42. 18, 43. 72).
It should not be forgotten that an Athenian court (δικαστήριον) was the nation
in miniature, each of the ten tribes being represented ('Αθ. Πολ. col. xxxi,
I sqq.), and that in the 4th century the Nomothetae or legislative com-
missioners were taken from the Heliastae.
<
18. 3 τὸ μὲν ἀκριβές, an adverbial phrase according to Schoemann,
who renders 'accuratius examinanti ne sic quidem sed magis tamen proba-
bile esset, and with οὐδ᾽ ἂν οὕτως understands from what follows ἀληθεῖς
ἐδόκουν εἶναι αἱ διαθῆκαι. In support of the construction he quotes Plat. Rep.
4. 443 C τὸ δέ γε ἀληθές, τοιοῦτόν τι ἦν, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἡ δικαιοσύνη, and Tim. 86 D.
But the freedom with which Plato uses accusatives in apposition with, or
standing for, sentences or parts of sentences (see Riddell, Digest of Platonic
Idioms § 10 sqq.) is characteristic of his art, and is more appropriate to
conversation than to the conventions of the forensic manner. The orators
confine themselves to a few simple forms of this idiom, e.g. Aesch. 3. 161 kaì
τὸ πάντων δεινότατον, ὑμεῖς μὲν τοῦτον οὐ προὔδοτε.... οὗτος δ᾽ ὑμᾶς νυνὶ προδέ
δωκεν, Ant. 5. 63 ἀλλ᾽, αὐτὸ τοὐναντίον, ἐκεῖνος τοῦτο θᾶσσον ἂν ὑπ᾿ ἐμοῦ ἐπείσθη
ἢ ἐγὼ ὑπὸ τούτου, Dem. 18. 108 τὸ δ᾽ αἴτιον, ἐν τοῖς πένησιν ἦν τὸ λῃτουργεῖν.
That Reiske's hypothesis of a lacuna after outws is unnecessary, appears from
Dem. 20. 117 εἰ μὲν γάρ τις ἔχει δεῖξαι κἀκείνους ὧν ἔδοσάν τῷ τι, τοῦτ᾽ ἀφῃρη
390
OR. IV.
ISAEUS
μένους, συγχωρῶ καὶ ὑμᾶς ταὐτὸ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι, καίτοι τό γ᾽ αἰσχρὸν ὁμοίως· εἰ δὲ
κ.τ.λ. Compare for the structure of the period as a whole Dem. 16. 8 εἰ μὲν
ὑπὲρ τούτου μόνου βουλευτέον, εἰ χρὴ Μεγάλην πόλιν ἡμᾶς προέσθαι.... δίκαιον
μὲν οὔ, συγχωρῶ δ᾽ ἔγωγ᾽ ἐᾶσαι καὶ μηδὲν ἐναντιωθῆναι.... εἰ δ᾽ ἐπίστασθ᾽ ὅτι....,
φρασάτω τις ἐμοὶ……..τί ποθ᾽ ἡμῖν συμβουλεύσει, 21. 117 εἰ μὲν οὖν ταῦτ᾽ ἔλεγεν,
χρὴν μὲν οὐδ᾽ οὕτω...ὅμως δ᾽ ἔστω τούτῳ γε συγγνώμη· εἰ δὲ……..φανήσεται, πῶς οὐ
δεκάκις δίκαιός ἐστ᾽ ἀπολωλέναι; 29. 2 εἰ μὲν ἐπεπράγμην τοῦτον τὴν δίκην....
ἠδίκουν μὲν οὐδ᾽ ἂν οὕτως....ὅμως δ᾽ ἂν εἶχέ τις εἰπεῖν ὡς λίαν ὠμῶς τοῦτον
ἐκβέβληκα· νῦν δὲ τοὐναντίον ἐστίν, Isocr. 12. 206, Gebauer on Lys. 12. 62
Anhang p. 393.
αν
او
...
4 εἰκὸς ἦν ἀληθεῖς εἶναι δόξειν. See for ἀληθεῖς V. 15, ΙΧ. 12, 27. I know no
example of a future infinitive after elkòs in the Attic orators. The aorist
infinitive with ἂν is found in And. 2. 19 οὓς πολλῷ δήπου εἰκὸς (εἰς Α : corr.
Ald.) ἧττον ἄν τι ἐξαμαρτεῖν ἢ εἰ ὑμᾶς δέοι ἀκούσαντάς τι ἐν τῷ παραχρῆμα δια-
βουλεύσασθαι. The usual construction would be either δόξαι oι δοκεῖν. The
former is more probable palaeographically (cp. Crit. Introd. p. xliv for the
confusion of Future Infinitive and First Aorist Infinitive), the latter suits
better the drift of the sentence, which may be paraphrased by εἰκότως, ἂν
ἀληθεῖς εἶναι ἐδόκουν. Cp. Lys. 23. 15 εἴπερ ἦν Πλαταιεύς, πανταχοῦ μᾶλλον ἢ
Θήβησιν εἰκὸς ἦν αὐτὸν μετοικῆσαι, [Dem.] 34. 15 καίτοι εἰκός γ᾽ ἦν αὐτὸν εἰπεῖν
(=εἰκότως ἂν εἶπε), Dem. 57. 15 εἰ μὲν συνέβαινε τοῖς Αλιμουσίοις περὶ ἁπάντων
τῶν δημοτῶν διαψηφίσασθαι ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, εἰκὸς ἦν καὶ εἰς ὀψὲ ψηφίζεσθαι,
ἵν᾽ ἀπηλλαγμένοι ἦσαν ποιήσαντες τὰ ὑμῖν ἐψηφισμένα.
·
او
5 οὐκ εὖ διακείμενοι τοῖς συγγενέσιν. Hagnon and Hagnotheus have
produced evidence that they had never quarrelled with Nicostratus.
(§ 26. 4 22.).
5, 6 ὀθνείους φίλους. Cp. Harp. s.v.: Ισαῖος ἐν τῷ κατὰ Στρατοκλέους ἀντὶ
τοῦ ἀλλοτρίους ὡς καὶ παρὰ Πλάτωνι ἐν α Νόμων, VIII. 16 ἐλευθέρους ὀθνείους,
Lyc. 25 ηξίωσε (τὰ πατρῷα ἱερὰ) καὶ ἱδρύσασθαι ἐπὶ ξένης καὶ ἀλλοτρίας, καὶ εἶναι
ὀθνεῖα τῇ χώρᾳ καὶ τοῖς νόμοις τοῖς κατὰ τὴν Μεγαρέων πόλιν εἰθισμένοις, Plat. Prot.
316 C τὰς τῶν ἄλλων συνουσίας καὶ οἰκείων καὶ ὀθνείων (Protagoras is speaking),
Rep. 5. 470 Β τὸ μὲν οἰκεῖον καὶ συγγενές, τὸ δὲ ἀλλότριον καὶ ὀθνεῖον, Laws 1. 629 E
τὸν ὀθνεῖόν τε καὶ ἔξωθεν πόλεμον, 3. 697 Ε ὑπὸ μισθωτῶν καὶ ὀθνείων ἀνθρώπων.
The accuracy of Harpocration's definition may be tested by these examples.
In the remains of Attic prose the word is rare; it has been restored by
Usener in C. I.A. 1. 1, 53 (S. I. G.2 n. 646, Michel n. 669) σñovdàs eivai toÎσI
μύστ[εσιν] καὶ τοῖς ἐπ]ύπτεισιν καὶ τοῖς ἀκολ[ούθ]οισιν καὶ [χρέμα]σιν τῶν
[ὀθ]ν[ε]ίον καὶ ᾿Αθεναίοισιν ἅπασιν. Isaeus combination stranger friends
is forced and unnatural; cp. Arist. Nic. Eth. 9. 3. 1165 b 34 φίλοις μᾶλλον ἢ
ὀθνείοις οἰόμεθα δεῖν χαρίζεσθαι, ib. 4. 12. 1126 b 27 οὐ γὰρ ὁμοίως προσήκει
συνήθων καὶ ὀθνείων φροντίζειν.
7 οὔτε συσσίτους οὔτε φίλους. Το explain the accusatives Schoemann
supplies from the context περὶ πλείονος ἐποιήσατο, scilicet, εἰ ἀληθεῖς ἦσαν αἱ
διαθήκαι. The addition of this conditional clause reveals the defect of the
explanation; the orator denies that Nicostratus made a will. It is better to
suppose that there is a lacuna. The use of the plural in this section (oi....
ἀμφισβητοῦντες) probably cloaks some chicanery. Why does the speaker
obscure a simple issue, which is whether Chariades was Nicostratus' friend
OR. IV.
391
COMMENTARY
(§ 26)? The relations of Chariades' supporters with Nicostratus (§ 23. 2 n.)
is another matter. And might not men be friends without being messmates
or members of the same brigade? Fuhr, Animadv. in Or. Att. p. 58,
suggests the excision of oure piλovs, 'because the orator is descending
a maiore ad minus.'
19. 2, 3 Tòv aůtòv moiŋoáμevov, i.e. in the will. The reflexive avròv
seems to me necessary; cp. II. II. 3 n. Thalheim keeps αὐτόν.
3 άveíλero, applied to a soldier, suggests death in battle. Nicostratus
may have been killed in the unsuccessful attack on Egypt (§ 7. 4 n.), having
left his money at Acre, when the great army broke up its camp and moved
southwards. But avaiρéîodaι can be used of the 'picking up' of persons who
have died a natural death ([Dem.] 43. 57 (law) τοὺς δ᾽ ἀπογιγνομένους ἐν τοῖς
δήμοις, οὓς ἂν μηδεὶς ἀναιρῆται, ἐπαγγελλέτω ὁ δήμαρχος τοῖς προσήκουσιν
ἀναιρεῖν καὶ θάπτειν καὶ καθαίρειν τὸν δῆμον, τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ᾗ ἂν ἀπογένηται ἕκαστος
αὐτῶν).
4 worolóynoev. Cp. Blümner-Hermann, Gr. Privataltert. p. 374, Bau-
meister, Denkmäler p. 307, Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Ant. i. p. 887. The bones
were brought home (§ 26. 5 ἔθαψαν, ΙΧ. 4 ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἐκομίσθη τὰ ὀστᾶ τοῦ
ἀδελφοῦ, [Plut.] Vitt. Χ. Οr. 849 C ᾿Αλφίνουν δὲ ἀνεψιὸν ὄντα αὐτῷ (Hyper-
eides)...λαβόντα ἐξουσίαν τοῦ σώματος καῦσαι αὐτὸν καὶ τὰ ὀστᾶ κομίσαι εἰς
᾿Αθήνας τοῖς προσήκουσι).
5 πῶς οὐκ <ἂν> ανοσιώτατος. See for the addition of ἂν III. 54. Ι π. ;
for the sacred duty of burying a father Rohde, Psyche³ 1. p. 216 sqq., who
quotes Aesch. I. 13; for the meaning of rà voµišóμeva II. 4. 5 n., ib. 36, 37,
VIII. 24, 26, 39, IX. 4.
20. I ἀλλὰ νὴ Δία κ.τ.λ. The analysis of this sentence has perplexed
editors and translators. Reiske gives the following rendering: At enimuero,
quamquam Chareades horum omnium nihil fecit, facultates Nicostrati tamen
administrauit? Schoemann's German version makes the clause affirmative,
not interrogative: Wahrscheinlich aber, wenn er davon nichts gethan, hat er
doch das Vermögen des Nicostratus verwaltet. What is the precise force of
Éπedη? Are we, or are we not, dealing with a question? Two answers are
possible, the first being in my judgment right. (1) The gist of the sentence
is an affirmation attributed to an imaginary objector and designed to suggest
that there was really a close connexion between Chariades and Nicostratus :
'Yes, but he administered Nicostratus' property?' On this view éteiồǹ toútwy
ovdèv étoínoe is a parenthetical remark which belongs to the orator, not to the
opponent: 'I shall be told-seeing that he did not bury Nicostratus-that he
managed Nicostratus' money? Compare the use of éñeồǹ in XI. 27. I.
idea might have been put in another way, with the help of the elliptical use
οἱ ἐπεί: ἀλλὰ νὴ Δία τὴν οὐσίαν διεχείρισε, ἐπεὶ τούτων γ᾽ οὐδὲν ἐποίησε, where
in English we should probably say 'although he did not render any of the
last offices'; see Kühner, Gr. Gramm. II. p. 964, and Gebauer, De arg. ex
contr. formis p. 267, who compares the use of nam in Latin. This interpre-
tation draws with it Schoemann's conclusion that something is wrong with
the next sentence, for taûтa µeµaprúpŋrai must mean 'this has been proved by
testimony,' not 'testimony has been given in disproof of this' (contro tale
asserzione abbiamo prodotto testimoni, Caccialanza). Hence on the hypo-
The
392
OR. IV.
ISAEUS
thesis of hypophora Rosenberg Jahrb. f. cl. Philol. 109, 1874, p. 337) demands
either καταμεμαρτύρηται οι μεμαρτύρηται ψευδῆ ὄντα, though he inclines to the
excision of two whole sentences, ἀλλὰ νή Δία—ἀρνεῖται. I would rather
change raûra to råvavría (1. 48. 2 n.). The first scholar who insisted on the
necessity of altering the traditional punctuation was T. D. Seymour (Class.
Rev. 15, p. 108). (2) The sentence is an ironical question put to the judges
by the speaker, and intended to show that Chariades did not administer
Nicostratus' property: But in heaven's name did he manage Nicostratus'
money, when he did not pay him any funeral honours ?' It is an example of
the argumentum ex contrario so beloved by Greek rhetoricians: 'He did not
bury him, can he then have been, as he asserts (§ 26), his partner?' In these
enthymemes óπÓTE (VIII. 37. 6 n.), őπov (III. 11, 35), and ei are more usual,
but for éneidǹ and éreì Gebauer, op. cit. p. 311, quotes Lys. 12. 84 éteiồǹ toívvv
ἐπειδὴ
πάντα ποιοῦντες δίκην παρ᾽ αὐτῶν <ἱκανὴν > οὐκ ἂν δύναισθε λαβεῖν, πῶς οὐκ
αἰσχρὸν ὑμῖν καὶ ἡντινοῦν ἀπολιπεῖν, ἥντινά τις βούλοιτο παρὰ τούτων λαμβάνειν ;
13. 53 οὔκουν τούτου ἕνεκα δεῖ σε παρ᾽ ἡμῶν συγγνώμης τινὸς τυχεῖν, ἐπεὶ
οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνοι παρὰ σοῦ οὐδεμιᾶς ἔτυχον, [Lys.] 20. 20, [And.] 4. 27 (ἐπεὶ QA1,
éπeidǹ Apr.). The argument can be stated in many forms, e.g. (1) elð' ôs
τούτων οὐδὲν (μηδὲν ἐποίησεν, οὗτος τὴν οὐσίαν διεχείρισεν ; (2) καίτοι ὅστις
τούτων μηδὲν οὐδὲν ἐποίησε, πῶς οὗτος ἂν τὴν οὐσίαν διεχείρισεν; (3) ἀλλ᾽
οἴεσθε τοῦτον τὴν οὐσίαν διαχειρίσαι, ὃς τούτων οὐδὲν ἐποίησε; see Gebauer,
op. cit. passim. On this theory raûra in the next sentence refers not to
the partnership but to the burial: 'but these facts about the funeral have
also (i.e. as well as the fact that Chariades and Nicostratus were not mess-
mates etc. § 18) been proved by witnesses, and most of them are not denied
by Chariades himself.' The recommendation of this second view is that it
does away with the necessity of postulating a lacuna or corruption. On the
other hand witnesses had been called to disprove the alleged partnership of
Chariades and Nicostratus (§ 26. 7), and the legitimacy of vǹ Aía in a question
is disputed (III. 73. 1, 2 N.).
αν
4 oloμaɩ, ironical, ‘of course' (II. 29. I n.).
πpoþáσeis åvayкaías, the best excuses that can be found, insufficient but
such as he is obliged to put up with under stress of circumstances, make-
shifts; cp. Lys. 31. 18, [Dem.] 50. 38, Aesch. 3. 69, 169. In Dem. 54. 17 (oi
μὲν γὰρ νόμοι...καὶ τὰς ἀναγκαίας προφάσεις, ὅπως μὴ μείζους γίγνωνται,
πρоeídovтo) Paley and Sandys render the phrase 'pleas of necessity,' i.e.
pleas that a person was compelled to act in a certain way. May not Demos-
thenes have meant 'excuses that the courts are constrained to accept’?
4, 5 ἐφ' ἑκάσταις τῶν πράξεων ηὑρῆσθαι. The accusative, ἑκάστας, may be
defended by the analogy of expressions such as χειροτονησάντων ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τοὺς
ὅρκους (ἐπὶ τὴν ἀπόληψιν τῶν ὅρκων) αὐτὸν (Dem. 19. 17), αἱρεθεὶς ἐπὶ τὰς
κρήνας (C.I.A. IV. 2. 169 b, 11), οἱ ἐπὶ τὰ πομπεία αἱρεθέντες (C.I.A. II. 740),
and translated 'with a view to explaining each action' (facto cuique suo
excusando, Reiske, pour justifier toute sa conduite, Dareste). Schoemann
argues that the proper sense of πρόφασις ἐπὶ πρᾶξιν is ‘an excuse for a
contemplated action'; cp. Kock, Com. Att. Fr. 11. p. 412 Axion. 2 рópaσiv
éπì kŵµov (the sentence is corrupt). I prefer with him the easy correction of
Stephanus, 'in the case of each action, 'for each action.' For evρĥoðaι
K
π
OR. IV.
393
COMMENTARY
ĥ
او
Reiske proposes εὕρηται. But εὑρίσκειν προφάσεις, not εὑρίσκεσθαι προ-
þáσeis, is the natural combination; see Dem. 21. 225 (deî) µýte λŋtovpyias
μήτ᾽ ἔλεον μήτ' ἄνδρα μηδένα μήτε τέχνην μηδεμίαν μήτ᾽ ἄλλο μηδὲν ηὑρῆσθαι,
δι' ὅτου παραβάς τις τοὺς νόμους οὐ δώσει δίκην, Lyc. 20 πολλοὶ ἐπείσθησαν ἢ
ἀμνημονεῖν ἢ μὴ ἐλθεῖν ἢ ἑτέραν πρόφασιν εὑρεῖν, [Dem.] 11. 1 προφάσεις
ἀδίκους ἐξευρών, Rh. Gr. t. p. 240, 6 (Hammer) διὰ τὸ μὴ θαρρεῖν τοῖς δικαίοις
προφάσεις τινας εὑρήσει καὶ διαδύσεις, δι᾽ ὧν ἑαυτῷ τὸ μὴ δοῦναι δίκην ποριεῖται,
Kock, op. cit. II. p. 279 Aristophont. 9 πpópaow evpóvτes kaλýv, ib. II. p. 507
Philem. 93, 10.
Schoemann thinks that the sentiment is general: causae,
quae aliquo modo praetexi possint, in omnibus rebus inuentae sunt, h. e.
inueniri solent; cp. Aesch. 3. 11 καὶ ταῦτα οὕτως εὖ προκατειληφότος τοῦ
νομοθέτου, ηὕρηνται κρείττονες λόγοι τῶν νόμων.
21-25 This is an attempt to deceive you and to defraud my clients
of their legal rights. The property of persons dying abroad has often been
claimed by perfect strangers. The prize is tempting, the risk is small, there
are people willing to perjure themselves, and refutation is difficult. As you
have no personal knowledge of the facts, and Chariades witnesses are untrust-
worthy, what can be juster than to award Nicostratus' estate to his cousins,
Hagnon and Hagnotheus? If they had died, he would have succeeded to their
property under the same title. But the adversaries declare that Hagnon and
Hagnotheus are not relations of Nicostratus, while Chariades witnesses are.
These witnesses are not such fools as to renounce so much money out of belief
in a will! Moreover, according to their own story, it is to their interest that
the property should be adjudged to my clients, not to Chariades. It will be
open to them in the future, if my clients get the estate, to bring an action on
their own account and prove that Nicostratus was the son of Smicrus, not
of Thrasymachus, whereas, if the will be confirmed, all claims founded on
kinship will be untenable.
The impudence of these paragraphs is a measure of Isaeus' contempt for
the intelligence of an Athenian tribunal. Chariades has witnesses who
testify that they are kinsfolk of the deceased, and that the deceased was the
son of Smicrus, and consequently unconnected with Hagnon and Hagno-
theus. This difficulty is met, in the first place, by a cynical insinuation that
they are not relations, because no relations believe in a will by which they
lose a large sum of money. But in XII. 4 sqq. Isaeus argues that witnesses
are to be believed when their testimony is against their interest. What
follows is even more entertaining. If they are relations, it is their interest
that Hagnon and Hagnotheus should get the estate. The statement is
absurd. Why should these witnesses desire a verdict that their evidence
was false, and that the deceased was the son of Thrasymachus, not of
Smicrus? And what is the bearing of this remarkable argument that the
defeat of Chariades is to the advantage of his witnesses? It would have
been more plausible to contend that they are suspect, because they will
profit from the confirmation of the will.
21.2 úµâs µév. See Crit. Introd. p. xxxvii. The authority of the codex
Crippsianus is not sufficient to uphold irregularities and oddities in the place
of particles. In Antiphon, where A can be compared with an independent
witness, the Oxoniensis (N), this form of error is generally recognised.
394
OR. IV.
ISAEUS
Gebauer (De arg. ex contr. formis p. 122 sqq.) defends the reading of the
MS. as 'an incomplete anaphora,' the proper correlative being Boúλovтai
dé, and produces parallels from Thucydides, Xenophon, Plato, and the
orators. Few however of the passages cited have been spared by editors
and critics (Cobet, N. L. p. 351); for the orators see And. I. 74, 139, Lys. 8. 5,
12. 15, Isocr. 6. 5, Dem. 18. 102, Aesch. 2. 179, 3. 53, Din. 1. 97. Thalheim
follows the MS.
oi
3, 4 οἱ νόμοι ἔδοσαν. Cp. 1. 4, VII. 2, IX. 23.
5, 6 τῶν ἐν τῇ ὑπερορίᾳ ἀποθνησκόντων... τῆς οὐσίας. For the interlace-
ment of the words Blass (Att. Ber.2 11. p. 515) compares III. 51. 2, 3, V. 41. 5, 6;
for the present participle Schoemann quotes [Dem.] 43. 57 (тoùs àπoyɩyvo;
μένους), Hdt. I. 41, 4. 190 (τοὺς ἀποθνῄσκοντας) ; cp. I. 11. 3 n.
űvev
22. 2 <ἔσται> τἀλλότρια ἔχειν κ.τ.λ. Cp. Lyc. 13 οὕτω γὰρ ἔσται τοῖς
τε κρινομένοις ἄνευ διαβολῆς ὁ ἀγὼν καὶ τοῖς διώκουσιν ἥκιστα συκοφαντεῖν καὶ
ảyìv
ὑμῖν εὐορκοτάτην <τὴν > ψῆφον ἐνεγκείν. Schoemann in opposition to
Reiske contends that orì can be understood, but the examples in Bern-
hardy, Syntax d. gr. Sprache p. 358, to which he refers, are either corrupt or
irrelevant.
4 πολὺ τὸ διαφέρον.
$
4 Trong Tỏ Sia épov. Cp. § I2. 7, 8, XI. 47. I, Plat. Phil. 45 D (To) Tò
diapépov ópŵ), Laws 654 D.
7
τοῦτο οἱ νόμοι < ὑφ>ηγοῦνται. See Lys. 33. 3 ἐκεῖνος μὲν οὖν (Ἡρακλῆς)
ταῦθ᾽ ὑφηγήσατο, [Ar.] Oec. I. 4. 1344 a 9 τοῦθ᾽ ὑφηγεῖται δὲ καὶ ὁ κοινὸς νόμος,
Phot. (Suid.) ὑφηγήσονται: ὑποδείξουσιν, Thom. Μag. ὑφηγοῦμαι: τὸ διδάσκω
Kai Taрaι. For the loss of the preposition in the MS. compare Isocr. 5. 70
elonyoúμevos A Vict., Bekk., Blass: youμevos r E uolg.
23.2 τῶν μαρτύρων κ.τ.λ. Is this statement made on the assumption.
that Nicostratus was son of Thrasymachus, not of Smicrus? Or are these
witnesses to the will to be distinguished from the witnesses of $24, who
claimed to be kinsfolk of the deceased? In IX. 8, 12 the genuineness of the
will of Astyphilus is denied on the ground that the witnesses were not
relations or intimate friends of the testator.
5 καὶ γὰρ εἰ οἵδε τι ἔπαθον κ.τ.λ. If Hagnon and Hagnotheus had died
intestate simultaneously, and had possessed neither children nor sisters nor
nephews nor any other relation who took precedence of a male first cousin
on the father's side, then that first cousin would have had a legal claim to
the property of the two brothers. Compare the argument of the nephews of
Cleonymus in 1. 44 sqq.
6 τὸ αὐτὸ γένος. Cp. § 16. 2 η.
7 ἀνεψιὸς ὢν αὐτοῖς ἐκ πατραδέλφων. Cp. Hyp. 2 n. Neither πατράδελφος
nor ék ñаτрadéλpou is known to Attic prose, although the singular is some-
times required by logic, as here, since Nicostratus, if son of Thrasymachus,
was cousin to Hagnon and Hagnotheus as son of their father's brother, èk
πατραδέλφου ; compare § 26, Dem.] 43. 36 (μαρτυροῦσιν Οινάνθην ἀνεψιὰν εἶναι
ÈK TATρadéλÓшv Hoλ鵜vi), 37, 43. On the other hand the form of the state-
ment demands the plural in XI. 8. 3, 4 oi πaтépes nμwv (Polemo, Phanostratus,
Charidemus, Philagrus) oav ȧveì èк патрadéλpov (Hagnias I, Stratius I,
Eubulides I) and in [Dem.] 43. 42. It is curious that nothing but èk πarρa-
ἐκ πατρα-
déλpwv should be found in our authorities, for the expression 'We are cousins
ⱭT
απ
OR. IV.
395
COMMENTARY
born of paternal uncles' is not more natural than 'He is my cousin born of
my paternal uncle,' and 'I am his cousin born of his paternal uncle.'
Perhaps the origin of the fossilised phrase is an old law mentioning ἀνεψιοὶ ἐκ
πατραδέλφων. The author of [Dem.] 44 is ignorant of the meaning of the
words, for in § 13 he writes thus: γίγνεται ᾿Αρχιάδης θεῖος τῇ τοῦ πατρὸς
τοῦ ἐμοῦ μητρὶ ἐκ πατραδέλφων, πρὸς ἀνδρῶν ἔχων τὴν συγγένειαν ταύτην
καὶ οὐ πρὸς γυναικῶν. Archiades was himself paternal uncle (πατράδελφος)
of the woman in question, who was a daughter of his brother Meidylides.
When used with accuracy ἀνεψιὸς ἐκ πατραδέλφων is not coextensive with
ἀνεψιὸς πρὸς πατρὸς (ΙΧ. 2, 32, ΧΙ. 2), which includes the son of a paternal
aunt; see [Dem.] 43. 42 κατὰ δὲ τὴν μητέρα τὴν ἑαυτοῦ…..ἀνεψιὸν εἶναι Εὐβου-
λίδην ῾Αγνίᾳ πρὸς πατρός, ἐκ τηθίδος γεγονότα ῾Αγνίᾳ τῆς πρὸς πατρός. The
orators word for ‘uncle is θεῖος with the necessary qualifications (πρὸς
πατρός, πρὸς μητρός); πάτρως and πατράδελφος, μήτρως and μητράδελφος
are never used. The decree of the Delphic φρατρία of the Λαβυάδαι
contains πατραδελφεοί (S.I.G. n. 438, 157, Michel n. 995 ἀπίμεν οίκαδε
ἕκαστον ἔχθω Ηομεστίων καὶ πατραδελφεῶν καὶ πενθερών κἠγγόνων καὶ
γαμβρῶν).
24. I, 2
μὰ Δί᾽ ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἔστιν κ.τ.λ. Cp. Dem. 8. 17 ἀλλὰ μα Δι' οὐχ
ἥξει. καὶ τίς ἐγγυητής ἐστι τούτου; The commoner form in hypophora is ἀλλὰ
νὴ Δία οὐκ (111. 73. 1, 2 7.).
3 συγγενής. The MS. reading, συγγενεῖς, is retained by Reiske, Bekker,
Schoemann, and the Zürich editors. Schoemann quotes Lys. 12. 12 επιτυγ‐
χάνει Μηλόβιός τε καὶ Μνησιθείδης ἐκ τοῦ ἐργαστηρίου ἀπιόντες, Plat. Laws
729 Ε δύναται δὲ διαφερόντως ὁ ξένιος ἑκάστων δαίμων καὶ θεὸς τῷ ξενίῳ ξυνεπό-
μενοι Διΐ. Gebauer on Lys. 12. 12 adds Xen. An. 2. 4. 16 ἔπεμψέ με 'Αριαίος
καὶ ᾿Αρτάοζος πιστοὶ ὄντες Κύρῳ, Dem. 23. 12 οὔτε γὰρ ὑμετέρῳ στρατηγῷ
προχείρως ἐναντία θήσεσθαι τὰ ὅπλ᾽ ἤμελλ᾽ ὁ Σίμων οὐδ᾽ ὁ Βιάνωρ, πολῖται
γεγενημένοι καὶ ἄλλως ἐσπουδακότες πρὸς ὑμᾶς. Νone of these passages is
exactly similar.
ἀλλ᾽ ἕτεροι.
The emendations are uncalled for. 'But, say the ad-
versaries, Hagnon and Hagnotheus are not related to Nicostratus; his
relations are quite different people.' It soon appears that these relations
were making common cause with the opponent of Hagnon and Hagnotheus,
but Isaeus does not blurt out at once this awkward fact.
9 ἐπιδικάσασθαι, ‘to get an award of Nicostratus' estate' (III. 41. 2 n.);
for the artificial order of the words in this sentence cp. § 21. 5, 6, III. 51. 2,
3 n., 69. 5 12.
25.4 ἐγγυτέρω. The comparative conceals the point at issue. Chari-
ades' supporters maintained that Hagnon and Hagnotheus were not related
in any way to Nicostratus.
6, 7 ἐπὶ τὰ Νικοστράτου ἐλθεῖν. Cp. VII. 4 (ἐπὶ τὸν κλῆρον ιόντας), ΙΧ. 32
X. 1, 18, XI. 30, Dem. 20. 40.
7, 8 τί φανοῦνται λέγοντες. They might say that the will was furged or
invalid. Claims to Nicostratus' estate would not be barred till 5 years after
Chariades' death (111. 58. 1 22.). We shall see in or. v. that Dicaeogenes, who
had been adopted by a will, was attacked by the next-of-kin after he had held
the property for 22 years.
396
OR. IV.
ISAEUS
26-31 My young clients have produced testimony that they are Nico-
stratus' first cousins, and never had a quarrel with him, that Nicostratus was
not intimate with Chariades either at home or on campaign, that the partner-
ship, on which he relies, is a fabrication. Quite apart from all this my clients
are more deserving. Like their father before them, they are well-behaved and
public-spirited citizens, who serve in the army, pay the property tax, and
discharge all the duties you lay on them. Chariades is a fugitive thief and
notorious malefactor, who for good reasons has not set foot in Athens for 17
years, and has rendered you no services of any kind. But for the forbearance
of my clients you would now be trying him on a criminal charge. Protect
from rascally adventurers the relations and benefactors of the dead man, and
give a just verdict in accordance with the laws, your oaths, and the evidence
we have brought.
The intrusion of the public services of Thrasippus and his sons, when the
matter to be decided was the genuineness of Nicostratus' will, appears to a
dispassionate reader unseasonable and improper. Athenian pleaders, aware
of the frailties of their audience, knew that extraneous considerations of this
sort were not to be neglected, especially in a peroration. What in this case
is notable is the orator's moderation; probably his material was meagre,
Thrasippus' family not having distinguished themselves by lavish expenditure
on choruses and triremes. With what exuberance Isaeus can amplify this
topic, even when most irrelevant to the issue, will appear in v. 35 sqq., VII.
37 sqq. In this respect he is neither better nor worse than his brother
practitioners. The appeal to the pockets of the judges in VI. 61 is not one
whit more impudent and coarse than Demosthenes' peroration in the second
speech against Aphobus. Lysias makes one of his clients affect a candid air,
and inform his hearers that he has spent upon them more than the laws
require, 'in order that you may think me a good citizen, and that I may
have a better chance in a trial, should any misfortune befall me' (25. 12).
But this note is rarely heard. The well-to-do Athenian, who in private
groaned over the burdens of democracy and the 'tribute' (pópos) exacted by
the people (Xen. Symp. 4. 32, Lys. 29. 4, Isocr. 8. 128, 12. 145, Dem. 24. 198,
38. 26, [Dem.] 47. 54, Theoph. Char. 26. 6, Anaximenes c. 2, Rh. Gr. (Hammer)
I. p. 22, 5 sqq.), descanted on his generosity and public spirit (pdoriµía), when
confronted by rows of jealous democratic judges, and asked, sometimes very
plainly, for a recompense from the people's representatives (Lys. 3. 47, 7. 31,
21. 12, 25, Isocr. 16. 35, 18. 58, Dem. 20. 151, 21. 151, 25. 76, 78, 36. 41, 38. 25,
[Dem.] 47.48). The adversary's trump card was a longer list of benefactions
(Dem. 21. 154). If poor, his resource was to denounce the mendacious boasting
(Isocr. 7. 53, Dem. 36. 40) and general insolence of the rich, and to remind
the judges of the solemnity of their office: 'This is not the question on which
you have to pronounce under oath,' 'The world will conclude that you have
put this money before the laws and your oaths' (Dem. 22. 43, 45: cp. Dem.
21. 169, 225, 36. 42, Lyc. 139, 140), 'Contributions to the war tax and the
furnishing of choruses are a proof of opulence, but not of innocence' (Ant.
Tetr. I. y. 8). Old men, who earned their living by attendance in the courts,
must have been familiar with every move in the game.
26.3 ἐκ πατραδέλφων. Cp. § 23. 7 n.
•
OR. IV.
397
COMMENTARY
1
4, 5 οὐδεπώποτε ἐκείνῳ διάφοροι ἦσαν, so that he presumably had no motive
to leave the property away from them. See § 18. 5, III. 72.
See $ 18. 5, III. 72. 7 n., IX. 30. 9.
5 ἔθαψαν Νικόστρατον. They placed in the sepulchre of their family the
ashes and bones which had been brought from Phoenicia. See § 19. 3, 4 nn.,
Plut. Phoc. 37, 38, Rohde, Psyche³ p. 218.
7, 8 ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὴν κοινωνίαν... ψευδῆ οὖσαν. The change of construction is
defensible, (1) as a relief to the monotony of the clauses introduced by
ὡς, and (2) because the idea of ἐπέδειξαν is implicit in μάρτυρας παρέσχοντο.
The verb μaρтuρeîv (see 111. 55. 5 n.) is used occasionally with participles, as in
Lys. 20. 11 μαρτυρησάτω ὡς ἀναγκαῖον ὄντα Φρυνίχῳ, ΧΙΙ. 3 μεμαρτύρηται ὑμῖν
τοῦτον ἐκ παιδίου τρέφων, [Dem.] 59. 118 μεμαρτύρηται ἑταίρα οὖσα, but such
passages are beside the mark. Fuhr (Animadv. in Or. Att. p. 58) condemns
the text and proposes various tentative restorations, e.g. éñédeiέav dè kai
K.T.λ. Compare VIII. 29. 5 12.
27. 1, 2 ἑκατέρους αὐτῶν. Cp. § 2. 3, I. 3. 1 "., 33. I n.
ΣΥΩ.
οι
I
äv
5 ἀποδεδημήκασιν οὐδαμοῖ πώποτε, ὅποι ἂν κ.τ.λ. Cp. Plat. Rep. 9. 579 B
οὔτε ἀποδημήσαι ἔξεστιν οὐδαμόσε, Phaed. 61 Ε μέλλοντα ἐκεῖσε ἀποδημεῖν,
Ar. Ran. 48 ñоî yîs åñedýµeis, Vesp. 1188. In Xen. Symp. 4. 30 (åñodnµñoai
dè ovdaµoû ¿§îv) and Luc. Somn. c. 11 § 16 (кäv ñoν ảñodnµns) Cobet has
restored οὐδαμοῖ and ποι I do not understand why Bekker's ovdaμoî here
has been scouted by all subsequent editors. The interchange of -oɩ and -ŋ,
which appears in Egyptian documents as early as the second century B.C.
(Jannaris, Hist. Gr. Gramm. § 44), has left many traces in our MSS., particularly
in those of the second class (Crit. Introd. p. xlii). In Dem. 23. 166 the
MSS. followed by Reiske and his predecessors show οὐ γὰρ ἦλθεν οὐδαμῆ τῆς
Θρᾴκης, ΒΓΑkrs have οὐδαμοῦ, Bekker first restored οὐδαμοῖ from corr.
With respect to πανταχοῖ, πανταχῆ (πανταχῇ), πανταχοῦ, it is enough to
refer to Voemel's Prolegomena Grammatica ad Dem. § 135, and to his notes
on Dem. 4. 9, 8. 76, 9. 71, 19. 10. The confusion of πη and τοι, of ὅπη and
oo is a familiar phenomenon in any extensive critical apparatus. No MS.
can be considered impeccable in this matter. E, which has preserved аνтα-
xoî in Dem. 8. 76 and 19. 10, drops to the common level in [Dem.] 59. 33 and
gives πανταχοῦ ἐπορεύετο ὅποι πίνοι, which is actually printed by the Zurich
editors. The choice between οὐδαμῇ and οὐδαμοῖ, and between ὅπῃ and ὅποι
should be determined by authority only when reason gives no help, i.e. when
both forms are equally suitable. This is not the case here. Wherever
ovdaµn is certain and undisputed in the orators, it means 'in no way,' ' nulla
ratione' (And. 2. 9, 16, Lys. 20. 17, Dem. 19. 139, 20. 105, 45. 51, Hyp. 5. 26).
When joined with verbs expressing or implying movement, which is rare, it
does not become identical with οὐδαμοῖ. It is unnecessary to change οὐδαμῇ
in Plat. Rep. 4. 436 Ε φαῖμεν ἂν (τὸν στρόβιλον) κατὰ μὲν τὸ εὐθὺ ἑστάναι, οὐδαμῇ
γὰρ ἀποκλίνειν, κατὰ δὲ τὸ περιφερὲς κύκλῳ κινεῖσθαι: the top leans 'in no
way,' i.e. in no direction. If ȧπodedημýкασw ovdaµn be retained here out
ἀποδεδημήκασιν οὐδαμῇ
of deference to the codex Crippsianus, the translation should be 'they have
not gone abroad in any way,' i.e. at all (Xen. Hell. 4. 5. 11 éάv Te σтρаTEVÓ-
μενοι ἐάν τε ἄλλως πως ἀποδημούντες), or ' they have not gone abroad in any
direction.' The plain statement 'they have not gone abroad anywhere' is
more appropriate to the circumstances. This conclusion is in no way
398
OR. IV.
ISAEUS
weakened by the naïve qualification introduced by the relative clause.
Buermann, who wages war upon A¹, argues that ovdaµn supports oŋ, the
reading of A pr. (Crit. Introd. p. xxx). I reply that ὅποι, the reading of
Al, supports οὐδαμοῖ, for ὅποι never means anything but quo, while ὅπῃ may
be either qua ratione or qua uia, according to the verb with which it is
connected (Plat. Euthyph. 14 C ἀκολουθεῖν ὅπῃ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ὑπάγῃ). I can find
no evidence that writers of classical Attic ever used ὅπῃ in the sense of ὅποι ;
a passage such as Thuc. 4. 13. 3 ἀπορήσαντες ὅπῃ καθορμίσωνται, ἐς Πρώτην
τὴν νῆσον ἔπλευσαν should be corrected. Since then ὅπῃ is as vague as
οὐδαμῇ, Buermann's reading (οὐδαμῇ, ὅπῃ) labours under the defect of am-
biguity. Did the speaker wish to say 'They have gone abroad in no way-
except such way as you have ordered,' or 'They have gone abroad in no
direction-except such direction as you have ordered'? Thalheim also
reads οὐδαμῇ, ὅπῃ.
6, 7 ἄχρηστοί εἰσι τῇ πόλει, a familiar strain ; compare VIII. 37, 41, XI. 50,
Thuc. 6. 16. 3, Dem. 54. 44 πόλλ᾽ ἂν εἰπεῖν ἔχοιμι καὶ ὡς ἡμεῖς χρήσιμοι, καὶ
αὐτοὶ καὶ ὁ πατήρ, ἕως ἔζη, καὶ τριηραρχοῦντες καὶ στρατευόμενοι καὶ τὸ προστατ-
τόμενον ποιοῦντες, καὶ ὡς οὐδὲν οὔθ᾽ οὗτος οὔτε τῶν τούτου οὐδείς· ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε τὸ
ὕδωρ ἱκανόν, οὔτε νῦν περὶ τούτων ὁ λόγος ἐστίν. εἰ γὰρ δὴ ὁμολογουμένως ἔτι
τούτων ἀχρηστοτέροις καὶ πονηροτέροις ἡμῖν εἶναι συνέβαινεν, οὐ τυπτητέοι, οὐδ᾽
ὑβριστέοι δήπουθέν ἐσμεν. The epithet serviceable was specially applied to
the citizen who spent money on 'the people' ([Dem.] 42. 22 δεῖ γὰρ τοὺς εὐπόρους
χρησίμους αὑτοὺς παρέχειν τοῖς πολίταις, ib. 31 ποῖ γὰρ τραπέσθαι δεήσει....
ὅταν οἱ πλούσιοι καὶ μηδὲν ὑμῖν πώποτε χρήσιμοι γεγενημένοι πλεονεκτῶσι παρ
ὑμῖν, Isocr. 15. 161, Isae. fr. XXIII. 29 (Saupp.), Dem. 18. 257, 19. 281, 36.
56, 38. 25, 45. 85, [Dem.] 50. 64, Ep. 2. 12, Hyp. 4. 10, Larfeld, Handbuch d.
gr. Epigraphik 11. p. 747).
8 τὰ προσταττόμενα, a technical term of Athenian politics for 'duties' laid on
the rich, especially the war-tax, the trierarchy, and the normal public services
(αἱ ἐγκύκλιοι λῃτουργίαι) ; see VII. 35, 39, VI. 61, Χ. 25, Lys. 7. 31, 18. 7, 21. 22,
25. 12, [And.] 4. 42, Isocr. 8. 128 (τὸ πλῆθος τῶν προσταγμάτων καὶ τῶν
λῃτουργιών), 12. 45, 15. 145, 150, Dem. 21. 165, 29. 24, 38. 25, 45. 78, [Dem.]
47. 48, Xen. Oec. 2. 6, Symp. 4. 30, Michel. 12. 122 B (C.I.A. IV. 2. p. 78),
15 sqq. συνεστράτευνται δὲ καὶ τὰς στρατείας πάσας τάς τε ναυτικὰς καὶ τὰς
πεζὰς…..καὶ ὅσα πώποτε αὐτοῖς ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου προσετάχθη ἅπαντα καλῶς καὶ
φιλοτίμως πεποιήκασιν, ib. n. 112 (C.I.A. II. 186), 25.
9 κοσμίους. Cp. Χ. 25, Lys. 12. 20 κοσμίους δ᾽ ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς παρέχοντας
καὶ πᾶν τὸ προσταττόμενον ποιοῦντας, 21. 19 μὴ μόνον τῶν δημοσίων λῃτουργιῶν
μεμνῆσθαι ἀλλὰ τῶν ἰδίων ἐπιτηδευμάτων ἐνθυμεῖσθαι, ἡγούμενος ταύτην εἶναι τὴν
λῃτουργίαν ἐπιπονωτάτην, διὰ τέλους τὸν πάντα χρόνον κόσμιον εἶναι καὶ
σώφρονα, 26. 3 λέξειν ὡς πολλὰ εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἀνηλώκασι...καὶ ὅτι αὐτὸς κόσμιος
ἐστι καὶ οὐχ ὁρᾶται ποιῶν ἃ ἕτεροι ἐνταῦθα τολμῶσιν, ἀλλὰ τὰ ἑαυτοῦ πράττειν
ἀξιοῖ.
28. 2 κατὰ δόσιν, said in mockery; if it comes to 'giving, you ought to
reward my clients by a gift of this estate. Compare v. 37 καίτοι, ὦ ἄνδρες,
οὐχ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτῷ (Dicaeogenes, who had been adopted under a will) τὴν
πολλὴν οὐσίαν κατέλιπεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑμεῖς ἔδοτε τῇ ψήφῳ.
4 εἰς τὸ δεσμωτήριον κ.τ.λ. See [And.] 4. 18 ἀγανακτῶ δ᾽ ἐνθυμούμενος ὑμῖν
OR. IV.
399
COMMENTARY
αν
μὲν οὐδὲ τοὺς κακούργους ἀσφαλὲς εἰς τὸ δεσμωτήριον ἂν ἀπάγειν, ᾿Αθ. Πολ.
52. 1 καθιστᾶσι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἕνδεκα κληρωτούς, ἐπιμελησομένους τῶν ἐν τῷ δεσμω
τηρίῳ, καὶ τοὺς ἀπαγομένους κλέπτας καὶ τοὺς ἀνδραποδιστὰς καὶ τοὺς λωποδύτας,
ἂν μὲν ὁμολογῶσι, θανάτῳ ζημιώσοντας, ἂν δ᾽ ἀμφισβητῶσιν, εἰσάξοντας εἰς
τὸ δικαστήριον, κἂν μὲν ἀποφύγωσιν, ἀφήσοντας, εἰ δὲ μή, τότε θανατώσοντας.
The procedure by summary arrest (ἀπαγωγή) and the penalty of death on
conviction were only applicable to certain forms of furtum manifestum
defined by law (Dem. 24. 133, Att. Proc.2 p. 276).
4, 5 ἐπ' αὐτοφώρῳ, with κλέπτης ὤν, a rare construction, for ἐπ᾿ αὐτοφώρῳ
is generally joined with λαμβάνειν, ἁλίσκεσθαι, δεικνύναι (ἐπιδεικνύναι), ἐλέγχειν
(ἐξελέγχειν). Lysias is straining a point when he writes in 13. 87 οὐκοῦν
ὁ αἴτιος τοῦ θανάτου, οὗτος ‘ἐπ᾿ αὐτοφώρῳ᾽ ἐστί; τίς οὖν ἄλλος αἴτιος ἢ σὺ
ἀπογράψας; ὥστε πῶς οὐκ ἐπ᾿ αὐτοφώρῳ” σὺ εἶ ὁ ἀποκτείνας; A parallel
occurs in Dem. 45. 81 εἰ κλέπτην σ᾽ ἀπῆγον ὡς ἐπ᾿ αὐτοφώρῳ εἰληφώς, if Blass
is right in bracketing εἰληφὼς on account of the hiatus ; about which I am
doubtful.
6
6 οὓς δημοσίᾳ ἀπεκτείνατε. The passage suggests that the magistrates
were tried and executed for suffering criminals to escape from the prison, but
nothing is known about the incident.
7 ἀπογραφείς εἰς τὴν βουλὴν κακουργών. The meaning seems to be that
Chariades after his release from jail was again denounced to the Council
(the Five Hundred) on the charge of theft. The phrase ἀπογράφειν τινα, ‘to
enter a man's name in a document,' is used repeatedly in Andocides' story of
the disclosures of the various informers, who in 415 B.C. came before the
Council with lists of persons implicated in the profanation of the Mysteries
and the mutilation of the Hermae (And. 1. 13, 15, 17, 19, 34, 47, 67); see also
the law in [Dem.] 43. 54 (ἀπογραφέτω δὲ τὸν μὴ ποιοῦντα ταῦτα ὁ βουλόμενος πρὸς
τὸν ἄρχοντα) and Lysias' account of the revelations made to the Council by
the informer Agoratus (13. 31, 45, 55, 56, 57). The word κακουργῶν, if not
technical, would be indefinite and weak. Now 'malefactors' (κακούργοι) in
the technical sense were thieves, housebreakers (τοιχωρύχοι), stealers of
clothing (λωποδύται), cutpurses (βαλαντιοτόμοι), and kidnappers (ἀνδραπο-
δισταί). The Eleven had jurisdiction over this class of criminals, who were
under a special law (ὁ τῶν κακούργων νόμος, Ant. 5. 9 sqq., Att. Proc. p. 86),
and normally there was no occasion for an informer to trouble the Council
with a case of robbery or kidnapping. Isaeus probably wished to convey
the idea that the alleged denunciation of Chariades was connected in some
way with the prosecution of the Eleven. The Council may have been com-
missioned by the Assembly to investigate and report upon the scandal, and
may have offered a reward (μήνυτρα) for any information concerning the
prisoners said to have escaped.
ὑποχωρῶν ᾤχετο. Cp. Dem. 24. 17 πολλῶν μὲν στρατηγῶν ἠδικηκότων τὴν
πόλιν, πολλῶν δὲ ῥητόρων, οἳ παρὰ τουτοισὶ κέκρινται, ὧν οἱ μὲν τεθνᾶσιν ἐφ᾽ οἷς
ἠδίκουν, οἱ δ᾽ ὑποχωρήσαντες ᾤχοντο καταγνόντες αὑτῶν.
8 καὶ οὐχ ὑπήκουσεν, a vague statement. Does the speaker wish his
hearers to suppose that Chariades did not answer a summons to appear
before the Council, or that he did not put in an appearance when a charge
arising out of the denunciation was submitted to a court of judges? The
400
OR. IV.
ISAEUS
word vπakove has a wide range and can be applied to any one who answers
to a call. In the legal sphere (Poll. 8. 61) it is used of witnesses (Aesch. 1.
47) and prosecutors ([Dem.] 58. 1o) as well as of defendants (Hyp. 3. 2 οὔτε
τούτων οὐδεὶς ὑπέμεινε τὸν ἀγῶνα, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοὶ ᾤχοντο φεύγοντες ἐκ τῆς πόλεως,
οὔτ᾽ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ τῶν εἰσαγγελλομένων, ἀλλ᾽ ἦν σπάνιον ἰδεῖν ἀπ᾿ εἰσαγγελίας
τινα κρινόμενον ὑπακούσαντα εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον). For a discussion of Dem. 19.
257 (ἠτίμωσ᾽ ὑπακούσαντά τιν᾽ αὐτοῦ κατήγορον) see Shilleto's note ad loc.
29. I, 2
ἑπτακαίδεκα ἐτῶν οὐκ ἀφίκετο. If a group of familiar quasi-
adverbial phrases (ἡμέρας, νυκτός, μεσημβρίας, ἑσπέρας, θέρους, χειμῶνος, etc.)
be put aside, it will be found that the temporal genitive is rarely used with
verbs in a past tense, unless they are accompanied by a negative; see § 8. 6, 7,
Ar. Vesp. 490, Thesm. 806/7, Eq. 944/5, Plut. 98, Hdt. 4. 151, Plat. Phaed.
57 A, Symp. 172 C, Gorg. 448 A, Xen. An. 1. 9. 25, 2. 2. 11, Lys. 3. 39, 8. 15, 30. 5,
Isocr. 8. 92, Dem. 25. 42, Ar. Pol. 3. 5. 1278 a 25 (τὸν δέκα ἐτῶν μὴ ἀπεσχημένον
ἀγορᾶς), Plut. Pomp. 48 (ὀκτὼ μηνῶν οὐ προῆλθε). The same limitation seems
to hold good when the time is present, but examples are scarce; compare
Plat. Phaedr. 248 Ε εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ ὅθεν ἥκει ἡ ψυχὴ ἑκάστη, οὐκ ἀφικνεῖται ἐτῶν
μυρίων, Hdt. 6. 58 ἐπεὰν δὲ θάψωσι τοὺς βασιλέας), ἀγορὴ δέκα ἡμερέων οὐκ
ἵσταταί σφι. A sentence such as Dem. 22. 14 ἴσθ᾽ ὅτι πρώην Εὐβοεῦσιν
ἡμερῶν τριῶν ἐβοηθήσατε is exceptional; the ordinary modes of expression
are shown by Aesch. 3. 85 ἐν πέντε ἡμέραις ἐβοηθήσατε, and by Isocr. 6. 46
ἐντὸς τριῶν μηνῶν κατέσχεν ἅπασαν Μακεδονίαν. But when the verb is in the
future tense or refers to future time, no such difference is discernible. The
type, ἀκούσεσθε δυοῖν ἢ τριῶν ἡμερῶν (Dem. 18. 35), is normal and cannot be
separated from the type, οὐχ ἥξει δέκα ἐτῶν ('Αθ. Πολ. 11. 1). In fact it is the
established form in laws (III. 58. I, Dem. 21. 47 οἱ δὲ θεσμοθέται εἰσαγόντων
τριάκοντα ἡμερῶν ἀφ᾿ ἧς ἂν γραφῇ, 24. 42 ἐπιγράψαι δὲ τοῖς μὲν νῦν κειμένοις τὸν
γραμματέα τῆς βουλῆς τριάκοντα ἡμερῶν, [Dem.] 42. 11), decrees (And. I.
79 ποιεῖν δὲ ταῦτα τριῶν ἡμερῶν ἐπειδὰν δόξῃ τῷ δήμῳ, Larfeld, op. cit. II.
p. 719, Meisterhans, Gramm. d. att. Inschr.3 § 84. 14, p. 205), and contracts
([Dem.] 35. 24 ἐπειδὰν ἀφίκωνται ᾿Αθήναζε, ἀποδοῦναι εἴκοσιν ἡμερῶν τὸ ἀρ-
γύριον, 53. 10).
1,
3 ὑπὲρ μὲν ὑμῶν. For μὲν solitarium in the orators see I. I. I 7. The
unexpressed antithesis is the service given by Chariades to foreign masters.
6 ἔπειτα. In these arguments introduced by ἔπειτα and εἶτα (quae cum
ita sint) it is not always easy to distinguish between an indignant question and
an indignant exclamation. See for the interrogation after ἔπειτα III. 48. 1 7.,
for the affirmation IX. 32, Dem. 18. 122. In both types eira is commoner
(II. 25. 6, III. 31. 3). The two forms were copied in Roman Rhetoric. Com-
pare Cic. Ad Fam. v. 15. 4 Hic tu me abesse urbe miraris in qua domus
nihil delectare possit, summum sit odium temporum, hominum, fori, curiae ?
and In Verr. Act. 11. Lib. v. 22. 57 Hic mihi etiam audebit mentionem facere
Mamertinae laudationis! (Gebauer, De arg. ex contr. formis p. vii sqq.).
30. 3 ὑπὲρ τοῦ σώματος. Cp. III. 62. 8 π. Here the penalty of death
may be meant, since the speaker maintains that Chariades had been caught
red-handed in a theft that warranted procedure by way of ἀπαγωγή (§ 28. 4 n.).
But could such a charge have been revived after 17 years by persons who
were infants at the time of the alleged crime?
OR. IV.
401
COMMENTARY
5 Tiμwρńσeraι, voluntative rather than predictive: 'someone else shall
punish him—if any one desires to do so.' The future has modal force and
approximates to an imperative; see C. I.A. II. 841 (soon after 300 B.C.), 9, 10
ἂν μὲν δοῦλος εἶ ὁ ληφθείς, μαστιγώσεται πεντήκοντα πληγὰς καὶ παραδώσει αὐτὸν
καὶ τοῦ δεσπότου τοὔνομα ὁ ἱερεὺς τῶι βασιλεῖ, i. ΙΙ. Ιο54 (347/6 B.C.), 94 sqq.
ταῦτα πάντα ἐξεργάσονται οἱ μισθωσάμενοι κατὰ τὰς συγγραφὰς καὶ ἐν τοῖς χρόνοις
ἀποδώσουσιν οἷς ἂν μισθώσωνται ἕκαστα, ib. IV. 2. 1054 g (338323 B.C.), where
the infinitive, imperative, and future indicative are interchanged. With the
2nd person this use is easily recognised, but when the verb is in the third
person, it needs delicate discrimination to determine whether the future
is predictive or promissory or anticipatory or imperative. See Gildersleeve,
Syntax § 269, Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of New Testament
Greek § 65 sqq., p. 34.
31. 3, 4 ἤδη τι ἐκεῖνον ηὐεργετηκότας, by burying him (§ 26. 5 κ.) ?
26
W. I.
V
ON THE ESTATE OF DICAEOGENES.
THE NEPHEWS OF DICAEOGENES AGAINST LEOCHARES.
ACTION TO COMPEL THE DISCHARGE OF A SURETYSHIP.
This case introduces us to the highest circles of Athenian society, and
illustrates the history of the great houses, which for a space of nearly two
centuries provided the republic with captains and politicians. The position
and family connexions of the parties are shown in the annexed pedigree, for
the details of which I am indebted to Schaefer, Demosthenes u. s. Zeit III.
Beilage VI. p. 211, and Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica 1. p. 256, Hermes 31,
1896, p. 259.
Dicaeogenes II, the son of Menexenus I, of the deme Kudalývaιov, was
killed in a sea-fight off Cnidus, either in the autumn of 412 B.C. or in the
opening days of 411 B.C. (§ 6. 3 n.). He belonged to a distinguished family
connected by marriage with the house of Harmodius (§ 6. 4 12.), his wealth,
measured by Athenian standards, was very large, the annual income of his
estates amounting to 80 m. (§§ 11, 35), and in the campaign in which he
fell he held the high position of commander of the Paralus, one of the state
triremes. He had no children and no brothers. His four sisters (§ 5) were
all married, the first to Polyaratus of the deme Cholargus, one of the board
of Hellenotamiae in 410/9 B.C., the second to Democles of the deme péappoi,
the third to Cephisophon of the deme Paeania, a well known public man
(§ 5. 10 n.), the fourth to Theopompus. As there was no brother, the sisters
may have expected to inherit all the property. But Proxenus of the deme
Aphidna, who had married the sister of Menexenus I, aunt of Dicaeogenes II,
and had named one of his sons after her father Dicaeogenes I, produced a
will by which Dicaeogenes II adopted this son, Dicaeogenes III, and
bequeathed to him one third of his estate. The will was not challenged,
the adopted son was received into the family and deme of Dicaeogenes II,
and the remainder of the property was shared equally between the four
sisters. This settlement lasted for twelve years ($7). Then Dicaeogenes III
brought forth another will, which gave him not one third but the whole of
the inheritance. At the time one of the sisters was certainly a widow,
Theopompus being dead (§ 9). Democles was either dead or divorced;
Dica ogenes I of the leme Κυδαθήναιον,
strategus, killed in battle at Eleusis
(437 B.C.? Isae. V. 42)
Menexenus I, killed at Spartolus in 429
while in command of the cavalry (Isae. v. 42)
daughter
=
Proxenus of Aphidna, Helleno-
tamias in 410/9 (C. I. A. 1. 188. 18)

Polyaratus of Cho-
daughter
largus ([Dem.] 40. | (Isae. v. 5)
6, 24, 25), assessor
of a Hellenotamias
in 410/9 (C. I. A. L.
1. 188. 22)
daughter
([Dem.]
40. 6)
Cleomedon, son =
of Cleon the
demagogue,
χορηγός after
403/2 (C. I. A.
II. 553)
Cleon,
trierarch
in 356/5
(C. I. A. II.
794 b. 83)
3 daughters
daughter, wife of ephisophon
of Paeania, secary of the
Council, 403/2 (Isa V. 5. 10 n.)
daughter,
wife of
Democles
(Isae. v. 5)
Menexenus III daughter
Mantias,
son of
Manti-
theus of
Thoricus
Mantitheus
son (?)
daughter,
married to
Eryximachus,
brother-in-law
of Chabrias
([Dem.] 40. 24)
Me exenus
IV peaker
of ae. V.,
ti arch,
6/5
(CA. II.
7b. 67)
Theoph tus,
trierarch 323/2
(C. I. A. 811
d. 16
daughter, wife
of Theopompus
(Isae. v. 5)
Cephiso- son or
dotus
Dicaeogenes II,
trierarch, killed
at Cnidus in 411
(Isae. v. 6, 42)
Dicaeogenes III,
daughter attacked in Isae. v.
(Isae. v. 9)
Bathyllus Periander,
author of the
trierarchic
symmories of
357 ([Dem.]
49. 21), trierarch
(C. I. A. II.
793 f. 19)
in 357/6
Polyaratus,
trierarch in the
Lamian war,
322 (C. I. A. II.
812 a. 338)
Menexenus II
(epitaph in
C. Ì. A. II. 2232)
Dicaeogenes IV,
strategus in 325/4
and 324/3 (C. I. A.
II. 811 b. 189,
811 c. 134, epi-
taph in C. I. A.
II. 2232, married
to Eucoline,
daughter of
Aristogeiton
of Aphidna)
Harmodius
(Isae. V. II)
Dicaeogenes III
adopted by
Dicaeogenes II
(Isae. v.)
Proxenus, strategus in 346
(Aesch. 2. 133, Dem. 19. 50,
52), tried and condemned before
343 (Dem. 19. 280), one of the
sureties for the Chalcidians in
340 (C. I. A. II. 804 B. a. 4),
a commander in the war of
339/8 (Din. I. 74)
Harmodius, mentioned in
325/4 (C. I. A. 11. 809 c. 49)
To face p. 403
OR. V.
403
INTRODUCTION
whether the sister whom he had married had now a second husband is
one of the problems of the speech (§§ 9. 8, 9 n., 26. 5, 6 n.). The wife of
Cephisophon was dead, but had left a daughter and a son Menexenus III,
named after his maternal grandfather (§§ 9. 6, 7 n., 12. 2 n.). Polyaratus was
still alive and made a stand in defence of his wife and her sisters. But the
court pronounced in favour of Dicaeogenes III,, and Polyaratus, who had
given notice of an action for false witness, died before he could execute
his threat (§ 9). The judgment was carried into effect without delay.
Dicaeogenes III showed no mercy towards the sisters and their children,
and for 10 years enjoyed the whole estate (§ 35). The first attempt to
dislodge him was made by Menexenus III, the son of Cephisophon, who
prosecuted one of the witnesses to the second will, and secured a con-
viction (§ 12). He was preparing to attack the other witnesses, when
Dicaeogenes III, feeling his position imperilled, disarmed his assailant by
promising to restore to him his due share of the estate, on condition that he
should not push further the advantage he had gained (§ 13). Menexenus III
accepted this arrangement, and left his first cousins to fight their own
battles. But this treachery, as his relations thought it, met the reward it
deserved. Dicaeogenes III broke faith, and Menexenus III, completely
foiled in his selfish aims, made common cause with his cousins and con-
certed with them a new method of attack (§ 14). His confederates were
Cephisodotus, the son of Theopompus, and Menexenus IV, one of the sons
of Polyaratus; apparently the sister who married Democles was not repre-
sented (§ 16. 4 22.). Their plan this time was to ignore both wills, the first
as well as the second, and to claim, as next-of-kin, the whole estate on the
plea that Dicaeogenes II had died intestate. Dicaeogenes III parried the
stroke by a diapapтupía (11. Introd. p. 232 sqq.); Leochares was put forward
to testify that 'the estate was not claimable at law (μὴ ἐπίδικον εἶναι τὸν
kλĥpov § 16). This line of defence excites surprise, but it is no part of
Isaeus' scheme to show plainly the ground taken by Dicaeogenes III.
Procedure ran its ordinary course. Leochares was prosecuted for bearing
false witness, the parties delivered their orations, the judges voted, the
ballots were emptied out of the urn; and it was manifest-so the speaker
declares that the sentence was against Leochares, and that he was doomed
to 'disfranchisement' (àriµía, § 17). Then, just as the votes were about to
be counted, the parties came to a compromise (§ 18). Dicaeogenes III
promised to cede two thirds of the property to 'the sisters of Dicaeogenes II,'
Leochares and Mnesiptolemus becoming sureties for the fulfilment of the
engagement, the opponents on their side consented to release Leochares
from the consequences of the prosecution, and, odd as it may seem, this
bargain was sanctioned by the court. But a fresh quarrel broke out over
the interpretation of the compact. The twenty-two years that had passed
since the death of Dicaeogenes II in 412 or 411 B.C. had distressed and im-
poverished the Athenian upper classes. The representatives of the sisters
only recovered 'two little houses outside the wall and 60 plethra (about
13 acres) of land' (§ 22). The rest of the estate had been sold or mortgaged
(see § 21. 7 n.)—by Dicaeogenes III according to the speaker (§ 21)—and
the titles of the holders could not be upset (§ 23). Further, Dicaeogenes III
26-2
404
OR. V.
ISAEUS
claimed compensation for expenditure on public services (groupyia) and
on maintenance and repairs (§§ 28, 29). As nothing substantial could be
extracted from the principal, the cousins sued his surety Leochares. An
attempt to settle the difficulty by private arbitration was a failure (§§ 31-34),
and the case came into court. The present speech was written by Isaeus for
this trial, and was delivered by Menexenus IV, the son of Polyaratus.
Leochares had a reasonable defence. The cousins asserted that Dicaeo-
genes III had promised in court to restore two thirds of the estate ‘free from
all claims and liabilities' (åvaµÞiσßýтηтa §§ 1, 18, 20, 21), and argued that he
was obliged to recover and hand over everything that had been sold or
mortgaged. Leochares flatly denied that this promise was given. 'The
written agreement,' he said, 'does not show this condition (§ 25). Un-
doubtedly I am a surety, but my responsibility must not be stretched
beyond the terms of the document. Dicaeogenes has done all that lies in
his power, and I ought not to be held liable for his poverty and misfortunes'
(§ 35). The truth of these statements, so far as they went, could not be
disputed; the all-important clause was not in the document. The cousins
replied that the paper, hastily drafted in court, did not contain the whole
agreement and was supplemented at the time by oral engagements, in proof
of which they produced the evidence of persons who had been present at the
trial. That Isaeus was aware of the lameness of this answer is indicated by
the care with which he screens from view the question whether the surety
was bound by obligations not specified in the deed. The speech is a long
indictment of Dicaeogenes III, in the course of which even a careful reader
is prone to forget that Leochares is the defendant. The orator begins by
calling witnesses (§ 2), but he does not produce the document, and he does
not put his trust in formal proofs. His hope is that the judges, heated by
his denunciations, will disregard the significant silence of the written agree-
ment. Hence the long narrative (§§ 5—18) travelling over twenty-two years,
and arranged so as to exhibit the greed and cunning of Dicaeogenes III, the
inexperience and ingenuousness of his victims. Dicaeogenes had taken
advantage of national calamities (§ 7) to plunder widows and bring his own
wards to beggary (§§ 9—11). Dicaeogenes had duped both friends and
enemies with sinister indifference. What a contrast to the moderation
and family piety of Cephisodotus, Menexenus III, and Menexenus IV, who
allowed him one third of the property, because, wicked as he was, he was
after all a relation! The picture is over-coloured. Such a series of injuries
and deceptions might have instilled distrust and circumspection into the
simplest minds, and Menexenus IV was not a novice in litigation (§ 33).
Isaeus is trying to manage simultaneously two arguments that go ill together,
(1) that Dicaeogenes' opponents would never have been content to accept
anything short of a covenant assuring undisputed possession of two thirds of
the original estate, (2) that they were persons likely to commit the blunder
of drawing up an instrument which omitted a stipulation of paramount im-
portance. But the argumentative passages concerning the liability of the
surety are very brief, seven sections at the most (§§ 19-26). The more
fruitful theme of the iniquities of Dicaeogenes is soon resumed, and in the
vigorous peroration Leochares vanishes out of sight. The last twelve sections
OR. V.
405
COMMENTARY
(§§ 35-47) are an appeal to political passions. Dicaeogenes, the unpatriotic
citizen, who had been stingy in the performance of the 'public services,' who
had given no 'subscriptions' (étidóσeis), who had served in no campaign, is
set against his predecessors, 'our ancestors' (§ 41), men who spent their
wealth on the state with splendid profusion, and died, in battle for their
country.
to
The trial took place about twenty-two years after the death of Dicaeo-
genes II. If the battle 'at Cnidus' (§§ 6, 42), in which he was killed, was
the fight with Astyochus' squadron near Syme in 411 B.C. (Thuc. 8. 42), the
date of the speech will be about 389 B.C. Other indications point to the
period of the Corinthian war, 395—387 B.C. Cephisodotus was sent
Corinth' (§ II) in the ignominious position of attendant on Harmodius,
brother of Dicaeogenes III. The allusion to the capture of Lechaeum,
which was taken by the Lacedaemonians in 392 or 391 B.C. (§ 37. 6, 7 n.),
suggests that the reverse was fresh in the memories of the audience.
A great war is still going on, 'in which Olynthians (see note ad loc.) and
islanders are dying (άπоvýσkovo) for this land in battle with the enemy'
(§ 46). Benseler (De Hiatu in Oratoribus Atticis p. 185 sqq.) contended
against Schoemann that Dicaeogenes II perished in the famous battle of
Cnidus in 394 B.C., and that, consequently, the work was composed in 372 B.C.
or thereabouts. Dobree (Adv. 1. p. 296 sqq.) inclined to the same conclusion.
For the objections to this view see the notes on §§ 6. 3, 7. 5, II. 7, 46. 3.
HYPOTHESIS.
3 0eròv rare in Attic prose (III. 69. 5 n.).
IO, II
· ..
каlaρà кal άνéπapa, 'clear of charges and free from claims.' No
sharp distinction can be drawn between the two words. This use of κaðapós,
with and without qualifications, is common in Egyptian papyri of the
imperial age; see Oxy. Pap. I. n. 100 (a sale of land, 133 A.D.), 14/15
βεβαιώσειν πάσῃ βεβαιώσει καὶ παρέξειν καθαροὺς ἀπὸ διαγραφῆς πάσης καὶ
TAνTÒS OÚTIVOσOûv äλλov, B. U. G. II. n. 536 (a census return of Domitian's
reign), 5 sqq. κατὰ τὰ κελευσθέντα ἀπογράφομαι...καθαρὰ ἀπό τε ὀφειλῆς καὶ
ὑποθήκης καὶ παντὸς διεγγυήματος, ib. II. n. 542 (a sale of land, 165 A.D.)
16 sqq. παρέξονται τὰς αὐτὰς καὶ προκειμένας ἀρούρας καθαρὰς ἀπὸ δημοσίων
τελεσμάτων πάντων τῶν μέχρι τοῦ διεληλυθότος τετάρτου ἔτους καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ
ἔτους ἀπό τε ἰδιωτικῶν καὶ πάσης ἐμποιήσεως διὰ παντός, ib. I. n. 193 (sale of
a slave, 136 A.D.), 19 sqq. ἀνέπαφον καὶ ἀνενεχύραστον καὶ ἀνεπιδάνειστον καὶ
καθαρὸν ἀπὸ παντὸς ὀφειλήματος δημοσίου μέχρι νῦν, ib. II. n. 6o2 (a private
letter), 5 sqq. ἀγόρασόν μοι τὸ μέρος τοῦ ἐλεῶνος ἐλαιῶνος)......ἐξέτασον περὶ
αὐτοῦ καὶ μαθὲ ἠ (εἰ) καθαρόν ἐσσι (έστι). In the literature and inscriptions of
an earlier age we find èλeúßepos used in this sense; see X. 17. 6, [Dem.] 35.
21, 22, 42. 19, 'A8. Hoλ. 4. 2, Theophrastus IIepì Evµßoλaiwv (Stob. Flor.
44, 22), 2 παρ᾽ οἷς γὰρ ἀναγραφὴ τῶν κτημάτων ἐστὶ καὶ τῶν συμβολαίων, ἐξ
ἐκείνων ἔστι μαθεῖν εἰ ἐλεύθερα καὶ ἀνέπαφα καὶ τὰ αὑτοῦ πωλεῖ δικαίως, S. I. G.2
n. 426= Michel n. 24 (Stiris, after 181 B.C.), το ἔχοντες ἱερά, πόλιν, χώραν,
λiμévas, mávтa éλevlepa, S. I. G.2 n. 510=Inscr. Jurid. Gr. I. p. 30 (Ephesus,
>
406
OR. V.
ISAEUS
II.
84 Β.C.), 38 εἰ δέ τινες ὑποθέντες ἄλλοις κτήματα δεδανεισμένοι εἰσιμ παρ᾽ ἑτέρων
ὡς ἐπ᾿ ἐλευθέροις τοῖς κτήμασιν. In the deeds of manumission found at Delphi
the emancipated slave is generally described as ȧvéþaπтos, 'not liable to
seizure,' but the form ȧvéπapos is not unknown to these records (S. D. I.
n. 2156, 8 sqq. εἶμεν αὐτοὺς ἐλευθέρους καὶ ἀνεπάφους τὸν πάντα
χρόνον ἀπὸ πάντων….εἰ δέ τις ἐφάπτοιτο ἐπὶ καταδουλισμῷ τῶν προγεγραμ-
μένων, βέβαιον παρεχόντω τῷ θεῷ τὰν ἀνὰν κ.τ.λ.), and seems to have been
preferred in some districts, e.g. in Phocis (ib. 11. n. 1555 f. 21 éλevőépa ëσтw
kaì ảvéπapos); cp. I. G. Sept. 1. 1778 (Thespiae), Menand. fr. 400 τà d³ äλx'
ȧvéñaþa owµara (Kock, Com. Att. Fr. 111. p. 114). But when a slave is called
ávéπapos in a contract of sale such as B. U. G. I. n. 193 already cited, the
meaning is that the vendor guarantees a full legal title. If, as the derivation
suggests, the term was originally confined to slaves, animals, and moveable
chattels, on which a creditor or claimant could literally lay hands, its sphere
was soon extended. It is applied to a cargo in [Dem.] 35. 11, 24, 37, 38, to a
ship in [Dem.] 56. 38, 40, to houses and land in Theophrastus Пepì Evµßodaiwv
(quoted above), in a decree of Delphi (S. I. G.² n. 306= Michel n. 263, 35
ἔστωσαν δὲ τὰ ἐνέχυρα ἀξιοχρείονα καὶ ἀνέφαπτα), in C. I. A. IV. 2. 584 c 15 =
S. I. G. n. 432 τὰ ἐνέχυρα...ἀνέπαφα ἀνθυποτιθῶσιν, in B. U. G. I. n. 177
(46/47 A.D.) παρέξεσθαι...ἀνέπαφον καὶ καθαρὸν ἀπὸ δημοσίων τελεσμάτων
Távтшν. Some contracts concluded in the beginning of the 2nd century
B.C. between the city of Arcesine and money-lenders (Inscr. Jurid. Gr. I.
pp. 314, 21, 318, 22, 320, XV C. 12, 322, XV D. 10) contain a more remarkable
application; they stipulate that all payments shall be made in 'ATTIKòv ǹ
᾿Αλεξάνδρειον νόμισμα ᾧ ἡ πόλις χρῆται... ὁλοσχερές, δόκιμον, ἄσυλον, ἀνέπαφον,
åteλès távtwv. The last two epithets are translated by the French editors
net et sans charge. Suidas explains the word by ἀνεύθυνον, καθαρόν, ἀθιγές,
ἀψηλάφητον. Compare Bekk. An. Gr. I. pp. 203, 26 (τὰ ἀνεπίληπτα, ὧν οὐκ
ἄν τις ἅψαιτο), 397, 30, Hesych. s. v. (ἀψηλάφητος) and s. v. ἄστικτον: τὸ ἀνέ-
παφον χωρίον· τὸ γὰρ ὑποκείμενον ἐστίχθαι ἐλέγετο.
2
14 Ń OTÁσIS Oтоxασμós. Cp. I. hyp. 9 2., II. hyp. 8 n.
1-4 The speaker defines the issue by quoting the affidavit (åvтwμoría)
of the prosecutors. He then calls witnesses to prove that Dicaeogenes III
engaged to restore two thirds of the estate, and that Leochares became his
surety. An inventory of the property left by Dicaeogenes II is next read, in
order to show that Dicaeogenes III has not restored two thirds of the estate,
and that Leochares is therefore liable as his surety.
The simplicity of this demonstration is a fraud. It is quietly assumed
that Dicaeogenes III had bound himself to deliver unimpaired and free from
claims (avaμpioßýτητa § 1) the several pieces of property which were inherited
by the sisters of Dicaeogenes II twenty-two years ago, and which at that
time constituted two thirds of the whole estate. This is exactly what Dicaeo-
genes III denied, and he had on his side a written compact which did not
mention this obligation. This awkward fact is concealed as long as possible.
When the prosecutor is at last compelled to allude to Leochares' defence
(§ 25), he pretends that he and his allies had witnesses for conditions not
stated in the document. But it is not clear that the witnesses called in § 2
testified to anything of the sort. Dicaeogenes III maintained that the
OR. V
407
COMMENTARY
agreement as interpreted by his opponents promised what was manifestly
impossible (§ 35); and it is quite conceivable that the property left by
Dicaeogenes II had been to some extent wasted and depreciated in the
disastrous twelve years (411-399 B.C.) during which it was in the hands of
his sisters and their husbands.
1. 1 'Nióµeða µév. Cp. II. I. I N.
2 ἐπὶ τοῦ δικαστηρίου. Cp. §§ 19, 25, 29, C. I. Α. 11. 804 (Michel n. 602,
S. I. G. n. 530), Aa 8 sqq. ταύτην ὡμολόγησεν ἐπὶ τοῦ δικαστηρίου καινὴν
ἀποδώσειν τῇ πόλει, ib. 28, ib. Ab 130, ib. II. 609 (Michel n. 974),
10 μεμαρτυρήκασιν ἐπὶ τοῦ δικαστηρίου, 1. G. Sept. I. 399, 4, 400,
(Oropus), S. I. G. n. 510 (Ephesus, 84 B.C.), 6 τὰς ἐπικρίσεις τὰς τῶν
διαιτητῶν ὡς ἂν ἐπὶ τοῦ δικαστηρίου συνομολογήσωσιν, ib. 52 κρίσιν αὐτοῖς
γίνεσθαι ἐπὶ τοῦ ξενικοῦ δικαστηρίου, ib. n. 511 (Amorgus, not later than
middle of 4th c.), 33 οἷς δεῖ τὰς δίκας ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀστικοῦ δικαστηρίου γενέσθαι,
ib. n. 512 (Calymna), 24, 25, Isae. fr. VII. 15, 31 (Saupp.), Dem. 29. 16, 18,
[Dem.] 48. 50, 58. 32, 40, Hyp. 2. 1, 4. 7, Aesch. 1. 114. The origin of the
idiom must be sought in phrases such as XII. 11 μάρτυρας καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν διαιτητῶν
καὶ ἐφ᾽ ὑμῶν παρεχόμεθα, VII. 29 ἐπὶ τοσούτων μαρτύρων, Ant. Tetr. I. γ. 8 οὐ
γὰρ ἐπὶ μάρτυρων πράσσεται τὰ τοιαῦτα, S. I. G. 438, 41 = Michel n. 995
(Delphi, end of 5th c. B.C.) ἐπὶ τῶν Κυστέρων τάγων καταγορείτω, Inscr. Furid.
Gr. I. p. 248 (Mylasa, 2nd c. B.C.), 14 ποιήσασθαι τοὺς ταμίας τὴν μίσθωσιν ἐπὶ
τῶν δικαστῶν καὶ τοῦ νομοφύλακος, Anaximenes, Rh. Gr. 1. p. 88, 7 (Hammer)
τὰς μὲν οὖν ἰδίας διαβολὰς ἐπὶ τῶν δικαστῶν οὕτω λύσομεν, Dion. Hal. De Lys.
iud. c. 14, p. 24, I (Usener and Radermacher) τὸν ὑπὲρ Νικίου τοῦ στρατηγοῦ
τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων λόγον, ὃν εἶπεν ἐπὶ Συρακουσίων αἰχμάλωτος ὤν, Dio Chrys. 15. Ι
(235 Μ.) οὐκ ἐπὶ δικαστῶν οὐδ᾽ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ, Dem. 29 hyp. I ὡμολογηκέναι ἐπὶ
τοῦ διαιτητοῦ, B. U. G. I. n. 19, col. I. 14 ἐδικάσατο ἐπὶ Ἡρακλειδοῦ κριτοῦ.
4 ἐγγυητάς, Leochares and Mnesiptolemus (§ 18). The speech says
nothing of the distribution of liability between the two sureties. Was the
obligation in solidum? If one surety was sued and condemned in the whole
amount, could he in any way compel the co-surety to bear his share in the
loss?
5 ἀναμφισβήτητα. Cp. §§ 18, 20, 21, 25 (Leochares' reply).
5,6 ἀφήκαμεν. In $ 29 we have ἀφεῖμεν, which Herwerden (Mnem.
N. S. 9, 1881, p. 387) and Thalheim restore here. The following forms of
the plural of the first aorist occur in the orators: ἀφήκατε Dem. 36. 1o
(ἀφήκατ᾽ ἂν αὐτὸν ἁπάντων τῶν ἐγκλημάτων), 38. 18, 27 bis, Aesch. 3. 85
(ἀφείκετε ? Weidner), Din. 1. 57 bis, ἀφῆκαν Dem. 36. 10, προήκασθε Dem.
19. 78, 84. Demosthenes has ἀφεῖτε in 3. 5, ἀφεῖσαν in 19. 231, 23. 205,
36. 11, 14, 38. 3, 4, 6, προεῖσθε in 18. 134. Aeschines has ἀφεῖσαν in 3. 88
(v.1. ἀφίεσαν). With regard to these forms MSS. fuctuate very much; in
η
Dem. 3. 5 Σ has ἀφίετε, Αr have ἀφεῖτε, F γρ. has ἀφείκατε, Β γρ. has
ει
ἀφήκατε, in Dem. 19. 231 ἀφείσαν is in ΣΑΠΦ, ἀφίεσαν in L. uolg., ἀφῆκαν in
δ. ε. η.
But I am not prepared to join Cobet (N. L. p. 378) in expelling
ἀφήκαμεν, ἀφήκατε, ἀφῆκαν from Attic prose. See note on απεδώκαμεν § 28. 3,
Blass-Kühner, Gr. Gramm. II. § 291, p. 214.
8 ἀντωμόσαμεν. Cp. 111. 6. 8 π.
408
OR. V.
ISAEUS
2.4 KnowódоTOS. Cp. §§ 5, 9, 10, 11. Cephisodotus, son of Theopompus,
had taken the oath as one of the prosecutors. Whether Menexenus III, son of
Cephisophon, was cooperating is a moot point (§§ 9. 6, 7 n., 26. 5, 6 n., 44. 2 n.).
5 πаρeέóμela. Albrecht (Hermes 18, 1883, p. 376) desires to alter this to
the singular, because Isaeus regularly says παρέξομαι (μάρτυρας, μάρτυρα);
cp. I. 15, 11. 16. 33, V. 6, 13, 18, 24, 27, 33, 38, VIII. 17, 42, IX. 9, 19, 20, 25,
X. 7.' He also accumulates a mass of examples from Antiphon, Lysias,
Isocrates, Aeschines, Dinarchus, Demosthenes, to show that rapéέoµaι in this
formula is usual. Why a speaker should not employ the plural when it is
suitable to the circumstances, is not explained. Isaeus has тeкμηριov тaρeέó-
μεθα in v. 26, 31, μάρτυρας παρεχόμεθα in v. 4, 20, ΧΙΙ. 11, μάρτυρας (μαρτυρίας)
παρεσχήμεθα in IV. 18, 31.
Τε
5,6 ἀπέστη κ.τ.λ. Note that the clause καὶ ὡμολόγει αναμφισβήτητα παρα-
dwσeiv ýµív taûta тà µépη (§§ 18, 20, 21) is wanting here. The omission is
suspicious; in spite of §§ 18 and 25 I think it possible that the plaintiffs had
no witnesses to this article. But in the absence of the deposition certainty
is unattainable.
ment.
7 τηv µaprupíav, singular because the witnesses made the same state-
For joint-depositions see III. 14. 5, 6 n., 56. 5, IX. 26. 5, Dem. 45. 8,
[Dem.] 35. 14, 59. 25, 34, 47, 48, 61, 71, 123.
3. I Tŵv µèv µapтúpwv. For the asyndeton see III. 7. 3 12., V. 25, 39, VI. 8,
VII. 26, 29, 37.
4 ¿yyúŋv. I accept Buermann's correction. A has éşeyyúŋv here and
ἐλεγχθήσεται in the next line but one. But éέeyyvâv (Ant. 5. 47, Dem. 24. 73)
is 'to release from custody on receipt of bail,' é§eyyvŋðîvaɩ (And. 1. 44, Lys.
23. 10, 11, Dem. 24. 40, 87) and ¿§nyyvñσbaɩ (Dem. 19. 169) 'to be bailed out.'
The noun seyyúŋois (Dem. 24. 77) refers to the same procedure. It is
difficult to believe that eέeyyúŋ can be identical with eyyuŋ. The reading in
the text is supported by [Dem.] 53. 27 οἵ γε νόμοι κελεύουσι τὴν οὐσίαν εἶναι
δημοσίαν, ὃς ἂν ἐγγυησάμενός τι τῶν τῆς πόλεως μὴ ἀποδιδῷ τὴν ἐγγύην and Ant.
Tetr. 1. β. 12 μεγάλας ὑπὲρ πολλῶν ἐγγύας ἀποτίνοντα; compare ἐγγύην πράτ-
τεσθαι ([Dem.] 33. 23), εἰσπράττειν (ib. 24, 28), ἀπαιτεῖν ib. 25). The error may
be classified under the head of 'anticipation' (Crit. Introd. p. xxxviii).
4, 5 καὶ ὅτι. Cp. § 28 ἐρεῖ ὡς...καὶ ὅτι, ΙΙΙ. 15. 3, VII. 4. 4; Χ. 22. 4, Isocr. 18.
9, 10 λέγοντες ὡς πολλὰ παρὰ γνώμην ἐν τοῖς δικαστηρίοις ἀποβαίνει, καὶ ὅτι τύχῃ
μᾶλλον ἢ τῷ δικαίῳ κρίνεται τὰ παρ᾽ ὑμῖν.
7 Δικαιογένης ὁ Μενεξένου. Isaeus resorts to several devices in order to
distinguish Dicaeogenes II from Dicaeogenes III. The former is called
Δικαιογένης ὁ Μενεξε τον (§§ 3, 4, 6) or Δ. ὁ ἡμέτερος θεῖος (§§ 4, 11), or Δ. ὁ
ó 'ov
καταλιπὼν τὰ χρήματα (§ 9), or Δ. ὁ ἀποθανών (§ 16). The latter is Δικαιογένης
without any qualification, or Δ. οὑτοσὶ (§§ 10, 15), or Δ. ὁ νῦν ὢν (§ 12).
او
ων
7,8 a λaße, i.e. Dicaeogenes III. The document which followed re-
moved all obscurity; cp. VI. 37. 4 N., VIII. 36. 5 n. Albrecht (Hermes 18, 1883,
p. 370 n. 1) suggests that the clerk read out to the judges two lists, the first
of the property which Dicaeogenes III took under the first will of
Dicaeogenes II, the second of the remaining two thirds of the estate, which
fell to the four sisters of Dicaeogenes II (§ 6), and that in § 4. I Taûтa refers
to the contents of the second catalogue.
OR. V.
409
COMMENTARY
4. 2
δοῦναι. This word is introduced again in § 9 & Δικαιογένης ἀδελφὸς
ὢν ἔδωκεν and § 10 ἃ ὁ πρὸς μητρὸς θεῖος καὶ ὁ πάππος αὐτοῖς ἔδωκεν. But it
is not clear that the first will of Dicaeogenes II (§ 6. 7 n.) contained express
provisions with regard to the shares of his sisters; some critics argue that
they inherited two thirds of the estate ab intestato. Moreover, the speaker
repudiates the authority of this will (§§ 15, 16). Compare the rhetorical use
of KаTaλeíTew in I. I. 2, V. 34. 6, X. 14. 5.
2, 3 ἀποδειξάντων. The imperative ending -ωσαν only occurs once in Attic
inscriptions before the 3rd century B.C. (Meisterhans, Gr. d. att. Inschr.³ § 63.
10, p. 167), in C. I. A. IV. 2. 104 a, 47=S. I. G.2 n. 789, Michel n. 674 (352/1
Β.C.) καθελόντωσαν; but the same decree shows παρασκευασάντων, κατενεν-
KÓVTWV, ÅVEVEVкóvтwv. In papyri the Attic form is almost unknown (Moulton,
Class. Rev. 15, 1901, p. 36); it occurs twice in B. M. Pap. II. 150 (1st-2nd
C. A.D.), 1, 5 χειρογραφησάντων, ὑπακουσάντων (Crönert, Memoria Graeca
Herculanensis p. 219).
ἡμᾶς κεκομίσθαι.
3 ηµâs kekoμlobal. The speaker afterwards (§ 22) admits that some of
the property had been recovered.
4 μаprvρησáтw Tis avтoîs. It is obviously the prosecutor's duty to show
that Dicaeogenes III has not fulfilled his engagements, but Isaeus is far too
wary to enter at this stage on any details which might lead to a disclosure of
the existence of a written agreement.
5 ὧν κατέλιπεν ὁ Μενεξένου.
7
This
This is precisely the point in dispute.
kai yàp dikalóµeða к.T.λ. Albrecht (Hermes 18, 1883, p. 370) ejects the
words καὶ γὰρ δικαζόμεθα--ΑΝΤΩΜΟΣΙΑ as a futile repetition of §§ 1. 72. 3
dikaÇóµeða sewɣápeɩ k.t.λ. Naber (Mnem. N. S. 5, 1877, p. 402) is sterner;
he excises the preceding clause as well, thus making § 4 end abruptly with
μαρτυρησάτω τις αὐτοῖς.
5-18 A narrative of events beginning from the death of Dicaeo-
genes II twenty-two years ago and ending with the agreement. The orator
describes the first division of the estate, the production of the second will and
the triumph of Dicaeogenes III, the attempt of Menexenus III to upset the
will, the joint attack delivered by the cousins, the prosecution of Leochares
for false witness, and the final compromise.
The speaker prefaces his 'true story' by the observation that, his charges
being now made good, his only object in reviewing the past is to guard the
judges against the falsehoods of his opponents, who contemplate discussing
the whole course of the dispute. Only a very credulous reader will take on
trust an assertion of this sort. No doubt Dicaeogenes III had a version of
these proceedings, which differed considerably from the account given by
Menexenus IV, but his strength lay in the document, the genuineness of
which was not contested. Leochares certainly had no need to trace in detail
the fortunes of the estate of Dicaeogenes II, when he could read out the
words of the instrument in which his name was recorded as a surety. But
the whole case of Menexenus IV hangs upon this digression. The purpose
of the narrative, which is managed with the highest art, is not only to
blacken the character of Dicaeogenes III and to conquer the sympathy of
the Court for his opponents, but also to prepare a foundation for the only
argument which the speech contains. The audience is skilfully conducted
410
OR. V.
ISAEUS
to the conclusion that the cousins, being rightful heirs to the whole of the
property and holding Dicaeogenes III and Leochares at their mercy, would
never have acquiesced in the terms specified in the deed. The difficulties
and obscurities in the orator's story will be best treated as they arise.
5. 1, 2 ἀπολογήσεσθαι: ἀπολογήσασθαι Α. Fuhr (Rhein. Mus. 33, 1878,
pp. 322, 575 sqq.) calculates that in the Attic orators the Future Infinitive
after µéλλw is found 260 times, the Present Infinitive 228 times. The
number of Aorist Infinitives is insignificant, viz. 6 in the codex Crippsianus,
Ant. I. 14 καταστῆσαι (καταστήσειν Reiske, And. I. 51 ἀπολέσθαι (ἀπολεῖσθαι
Stephanus), Isae. III. 26 ἐγγυήσασθαι, ν. 5 ἀπολογήσασθαι (ἀπολογήσεσθαι
Cobet), ΙΧ. 13 καταλιπεῖν (καταλείπειν Herwerden), ΧΙ. 25 ἐπιδικάσασθαι
(éπidikáσeσbai Cobet), I in the Palatinus, [Lys.] 15. 10 npíoaodai, 1 in Σ,
Dem. 24. 207 οὐ δήπου μέλλων καταλύειν ὑμᾶς ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον αὐτὸς ἐν ὑμῖν
ἀπολέσθαι, where Ar followed by Cobet and Blass have καταλύσειν and
ảπodeîσðaɩ, 1 in a Venice MS. (e) of Aeschines 2. 120, Bovλevoaodaɩ, where
the best MSS. and most editions have Bouleveσbai, but Weidner prefers
βουλεύσεσθαι. In Isocr. 20. 16 the vulgate παύσασθαι was changed to
Tаúσeσoaι by Bekker on the authority of the Urbinas. An anomaly cannot
be maintained by evidence like this. The confusion between the Aorist
Infinitive and the Future Infinitive is a familiar error of copyists (Cobet,
V. L. pp. 97 sqq., 262, N. L. pp. 164, 365 sqq., 405, Madvig, Adv. Crit. 1.
p. 156 sqq.), which is known to exist in the codex Crippsianus and the
Palatinus; see Crit. Introd. p. xliv, Ant. 5. 72 (μeraoтhoew AN), 6. 47
(καταδικάσαι Α, καταδικάσειν Ν), Din. 1. 81 (ἐπιτρέψαι Α, ἐπιτρέψειν Ν),
3. 1 (καταπλεύσειν ΑΝ), Lys. 12. 19 (κτήσασθαι), 13. 15, 47 (ἐπιτρέψαι),
53 (διαπράξασθαι), 14. 8, 26. 1 (ποιήσασθαι), 26. 3 (ἀπολογήσασθαι), 25. 33
(éñidúoaobai). With regard to Lys. 15. 10 (†npíoaoðaı) it should be noted
that X has ψηφίσονται in 14. 47, ψηφίσοισθε in 12. 72, ψηφίσετε in 13. 22, and
that in Aesch. I. 154 some MSS. give ¥nþíoaσðai, others ynpicio@ai. For
the testimony of Plato's MSS. consult Schanz, Sympos. Prolegg. p. vii, who
decides that the Aorist Infinitive after μéλλ cannot be condemned as un-
Platonic. There are two instances in Aristophanes, Av. 366, Ach. 1159
(Chor.), which do not admit of reasonable emendation (Rutherford, The New
Phrynichus p. 424). The construction is defended by Giles, Proceedings of
the Cambridge Philological Society, LVIII—LX, 1901, p. 12. Thalheim retains
the aorist here and in III. 26. 3, IX. 13. 4, XI. 25. 7, [Lys.] 15. 10.
ειν
2 Λεωχάρης καὶ Δικαιογένης. All editors keep ἤ. For the confusion of ἢ
and kaì see Crit. Introd. p. xlvii, Dobree, Adv. I. pp. 468, 482, 483, And. 1.
101, Dem. 3. 27, 8. 18, 18. 52, 224, 19. 183, 22. 25, 23. 91, 163, 25. 61, [Dem.]
35. 44, Aesch. 1. 39, Rh. Gr. (Hammer) I. pp. 39. 13, 236. 6, 287. 10, 288. 2,
294. 18.
3 παρεσκευασμένοι εἰσὶν κ.τ.λ. One of the regular formulae of the ante-
occupatio, прóλŋvis or πpokatáλŋyis (Volkmann, Rhetorik² p. 279, Gebauer
on Lys. 13. 55 Anhang p. 380 sqq.). Compare Isocr. 18. 13, Dem. 19. 332,
20. 105, 38. 19, 45. 43, 54. 13.
6 Mevetévų, killed before Spartolus in 429 B.C. (§ 42. 7, 8 n.).
8 Ioλváρatos. See C. I. A. 1. 188, accounts of the Treasurers of Athena
Πολυάρατος.
OR. V.
4II
COMMENTARY
for 410/9 B.C. (S. I. G.² n. 51, Michel n. 569), 20—22 тpiakoσtêi tês πpuraveias
(the 6th of the year) τὰ ἐχ Σάμο ἀνομολογέθε : Πελλενοταμίαι : Αναιτίοι
rà
Σφεττίοι καὶ παρέδροι [Π]ολυαράτοι Χολαργεῖ. It is supposed that each of
the 10 Hellenotamiae had an assessor (Gilbert Gr. Staatsalt.² p. 271, E. T.
p. 243), but nothing is known about the manner of appointment. The demes
ΣøηTTòs and Xoλapyòs both belonged to the tribe Acamantis. For the site of
the former see III. 22. 4 n.; Xoλapyòs probably formed part of the inland
trittys of its tribe, and is placed by Milchhoefer (Untersuchungen über die
Demenordnung des Kleisthenes p. 24) to the North of Athens on the West
side of the Cephissus in the neighbourhood of Levi. Mantitheus son of
Mantias speaking in 347 or 346 B.C. ([Dem.] 40) gives some information
about Polyaratus and his family, which is in accord with the testimony of the
inscriptions (see the pedigree p. 403). Polyaratus was very wealthy and had
been elected by the people to high offices (§ 24 vÞ vµôv ¿Tiμâтo). He had
three sons, also rich men, Menexenus, Bathyllus, and Periander (§§ 6, 7, 25),
and two daughters, each of whom received the splendid dowry of a talent.
One became the wife of Eryximachus, brother-in-law (êŋdeorǹs) of Chabrias
(§ 24). The other was first married by her father to Cleomedon son of
Cleon, to whom she bore one son Cleon and three daughters (§ 6). On the
death of Cleomedon (§§ 7, 25) her brothers Menexenus and Bathyllus,
Periander being at the time a minor, found her a second husband in Mantias
of Thoricus, a well-known politician (ó þýτwp, Ar. Rhet. II. 23. 1398 b 2).
Mantitheus the speaker of Dem. 39 (πρὸς Βοιωτὸν περὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος) and
[Dem.] 40 (πpòs Bowτòv TEρi poikòs) was her son, born, it would
seem ([Dem.] 40. 3, 4, 13), about 380 B.C. No one could have guessed
from the speech of Menexenus IV that he was well off (note § 9 àπw-
déoaµev tà ővтa) and had two brothers and two sisters (see § 12). Critics
anxious to vindicate Isaeus' honesty, if such there be, may perhaps argue
that Polyaratus married twice or even thrice. But the difficulty cannot be
cleared away by conjectures. It appears from §§ 5, 6 that the sister of
Dicaeogenes II was wife of Polyaratus in 411 B.C. Not only is there no
indication in the speech that she died before her husband, but her son uses
language (§ 16 ταῖς Δικαιογένους τοῦ ἀποθανόντος ἀδελφαῖς, ὧν εἰσιν αἱ ἡμέτεραι
µŋrépes) which permits a reader to suppose that she was still alive in
389 B.C. Now, since we do not know when Polyaratus married the sister of
Dicaeogenes II, an apologist is free to maintain that Polyaratus' daughter,
who married first Cleomedon, and secondly Mantias, was the fruit of an
earlier marriage, provided that in calculating the date of her birth he does
not forget that she was given in marriage to Cleomedon before her father's
death, which took place soon after 399 B.C. (§ 9), and that she bore a son to
Mantias about 380 B.C. But what is to be done with Periander? He could
not have been born before 411 B.C., for he was still a minor, when Menexenus
and Bathyllus married Cleomedon's widow to Mantias. Either Periander was
a full brother of Menexenus IV, or the sister of Dicaeogenes II died before
399 B.C. and Polyaratus married again. There can be little doubt which is
the easier alternative.
(πρὸς Βοιωτὸν
ω
9 Anμokλns, dead (or divorced) in 399 B.C. (§ 9. 8, 9 n.). Was he alive in
412 or 411 B.C., when Dicaeogenes II was killed? It is not clear that he is
412
OR. V.
ISAEUS
The
included in our fathers' (oi nµéteρoi tatépes, § 6. 4); see § 26. 5, 6 n.
deme péappoɩ belonged to the tribe Leontis. The site is unknown.
Milchhoefer (Untersuchungen p. 22) thinks that it was in the maritime trittys
of the tribe, and lay between Sunium and Potamus.
1ο Κηφισοφών ὁ Παιανιεύς. An Athenian bearing this name was
Secretary of the Council in 403/2 B.C. (C. I. A. II. addend. I b 20, IV. 2. I b 1)
and one of the Treasurers of Athena and the other gods in 398/7 B.C. (C. I. A.
II. 652 A 4). The offices indicate that he was a man of good position ('A0.
Hoλ. 54. 3, 8. I, 2, 47. 1). Kirchner (Prosopographiae Atticae specimen, 1890,
p. 23) thinks that the Cephisophon of this speech must be a different person,
because the orator's words in § 9 imply that he was dead in 399 B.C. I doubt
whether Isaeus is to be trusted in the matter; he gets a better effect by
conveying the idea that Cephisophon's daughter had no natural protector.
Kirchner's hypothesis is that the brother-in-law of Dicaeogenes II was a
first cousin of his namesake, the Secretary and Treasurer. The family
maintained its place for three generations. Καλλίβιος Κηφισοφῶντος Παια-
vieùs was Secretary of the Council in 378/7 B.C. (C. I. A. II. 17, 2) and a
trierarch in 377/6 B.C. (C. I. A. 11. 791, 87); in spite of Isaeus' silence
Kirchner does not scruple to put him down as a brother of Menexenus III
(§ 12). Κηφισοφῶν Καλλιβίου Παιανιεύς proposed a decree in honour of the
Council in 343/2 B.C. (C. I. A. II. 114 B 7); he is probably identical with
Cephisophon of Paeania, one of the friends of Chares, who moved a resolution
in the Assembly. in 353 B.C. (Aesch. 2. 73), and with Cephisophon, who in
346 B.C. spoke in favour of peace with Philip (Dem. 18. 21; cp. ib. 75), and
who at some period unknown was prosecuted by Eubulus (Dem. 19. 293).
Paeania was the largest deme of the tribe Pandionis, divided into an upper
(кaðúñeρðev) and lower (úπévepőev) part, and gave its name to the inland
trittys. Ross in 1837 (Hanriot, Topographie des Dèmes de l'Attique p. 197)
placed it at Liopesi on the Eastern slopes of Hymettus, and this view has
had the good fortune to be approved by all subsequent writers.
OεоTÓμт, dead in 399 B.C. (§ 9).
6. 2 τριήραρχος τῆς Παράλου. Cp. C. I. A. II. 1212 (dedication by oἱ
Пápaλoι and their trierarch Anthippus). In the fourth century the Treasurer
of the Paralus (raµías Пapáλov) was elected by the Assembly (Dem. 21.
171 sqq., 'Að. Пøλ. 61. 7) and appears in inscriptions (C. I. A. II. 109, 7
(347/6 B.C.), 804 B a 66 (334/3 B.C.), 808 A 79 (326/5 B.C.), Athen. Mitteil. 8.
p. 165). The relation between Treasurer and Trierarch is not known ;
Koehler (Athen. Mitteil. 8. p. 171) conjectures that the treasurer was really
trierarch, and that the word rpiŋpapxos in C. I. A. 11. 1212 is inexact. For the
sacred triremes see Boeckh, Staatshaush.³ 1. p. 305 sqq. and Sandys on 'A8.
Пoλ. l. c., for their use in battle Plut. Them. 7 ('Apxitéλns èπì tŷs iepâs veÒs
Tρinpapxos), Thuc. 3. 77. 3, Xen. Hell. 6. 2. 14. The crew of the Paralus
were all of free birth and Athenian citizens (Thuc. 8. 73. 5), and received
4 obols a day all the year round, whether on active service or not (Harp.
s. v. Пápaλos). In the early summer (April-May) of 411 B.C. the ship was at
Samos (Thuc. 8. Z.c.).
3 év Kvidų. Modern scholars, Dobree and Benseler excepted (see Introd.
p. 405), believe that Dicaeogenes II was killed in a sea fight described by
OR. V.
413
COMMENTARY
π
Thucydides (8. 42), in which early in 411 B.C. the Peloponnesian fleet under
Astyochus surprised and defeated 20 Athenian triremes in the neighbour-
hood of Syme. Syme is an island lying to the S.E. of Cnidus in the
entrance of the Sinus Doridis, but nearer to the point of the Chersonnesus
Rhodia than to the town of Cnidus. Dobree (Adv. I. p. 296) concedes that
this engagement might conceivably be called a battle ‘at Cnidus,' év Kvído,
but objects that, if the speaker had meant it, he would have preferred to say
Teρì Kvidov 'to avoid confusion with the famous battle of 394 B.C.' It is
strange that Dobree should have forgotten Xenophon's account of Conon's
victory, Hell. 4. 3. ΙΙ εἶναι μὲν γὰρ περὶ Κνίδον τὸν ἐπίπλουν ἀλλήλοις ;
compare Paus. 6. 3. 16 Κόνωνος κεκρατηκότος τῇ ναυμαχίᾳ περὶ Κνίδον καὶ ὄρος
τὸ Δώριον ὀνομαζόμενον. That Dicaeogenes II was not fighting in Conon's
Greek contingent, is indicated by the words τριήραρχος ἐκπλεύσας τῆς
Пapáλov. I can discover no evidence that before the restoration of the Long
Walls and of the fortifications of Peiraeus Athens sent, or was able to send,
any ships to assist the Persian fleet; cp. Plato, Menex. 245 A Baoiλeî dè avτη
μὲν οὐκ ἐτόλμησε βοηθῆσαι, αἰσχυνομένη τὰ τρόπαια τά τε Μαραθῶνι καὶ Σαλαμῖνι
καὶ Πλαταιαῖς, φυγάδας δὲ καὶ ἐθελοντὰς ἐάσασα μόνον βοηθῆσαι ὁμολογουμένως
ἔσωσε. But ἐν Κνίδῳ is certainly a phrase ill suited to a fight off Syme, and
it is possible that Dicaeogenes II was killed in the late autumn of 412 B.C.,
when the Athenians made two unsuccessful attempts to storm Cnidus (Thuc.
8. 35).
άπéþηve. Cp. § 15, IV. 13. 7,
IV. 8 1.
ἀπέφηνε.
4 Πρόξενος ὁ Δικαιογένους <τουδὶ> πατήρ. Proxenus of Aphidna was
a Hellenotamias in 410/9 (C. I. A. 1. 188, 18, S. I. G.² n. 51, Michel 2. 569).
If the conjecture be right that the 10 Hellenotamiae were elective officers,
chosen from Pentacosiomedimni, he was a man of wealth and reputation.
For his descendants see the pedigree, Introd. p. 403. Schaefer (op. cit.
p. 214) suggests that he was great-grandson of Harmodius the tyrannicide.
His marriage with a daughter of Dicaeogenes I is an inference from the
name of his son and the adoption. Reiske, in a note on § 47, first put out
this idea, which has been generally accepted. Aphidna belonged to the
inland trittys of the tribe Aiantis. It is now identified with the ruins of an
ancient Greek fortress, on the isolated hill of Kotroni, on the left bank of the
Charadra, the river of Marathona. G. Finlay discovered the site; see
Frazer on Pausanias I. 17. 5.
ᾗ πιστεύσαντες. Cp. IV. 24 οὐ γὰρ εἰς τοῦτό γε ἀνοίας ἥκουσιν ὥστε
πιστεύσαντες ταῖς διαθήκαις οὕτως ῥᾳδίως τοσούτων χρημάτων ἀφίστανται, 111. 61
πρὸς δὲ τοὺς εἰσποιήτους ἅπαντες οἱ κατὰ γένος προσήκοντες ἀμφισβητεῖν
ἀξιοῦσιν.
4, 5 oi nμétepOL TаTÉρES. Menexenus IV is the spokesman of Men-
exenus III, son of Cephisophon, and of Cephisodotus, son of Theopompus.
There is no sign that Democles had any children. Did the speaker mean
to include Proxenus?
5, 6 ἐπὶ τῷ τρίτῳ μέρει. Cp. §§ 8, 15, III. 73. 7, Χ. 4. 10.
7 ¿ylyveTo. The same tense again in § 15. 5. The imperfect is chosen
to express the purport of the document (Gildersleeve, Syntax § 213). The
aorist, éyévero, would have expressed the result of the judgment of the court,
414
OR. V.
ISAEUS
to which the testament was submitted in due course; the speaker for
obvious reasons ignores this-detail. Compare Dem. 30. 32 ἐδεῖτο ταλάντου
τιμῆσαι, καὶ τούτων αὐτὸς ἐγίγνετο (offered to become) ἐγγυητής, Dem. 53. 24 οὐ
γὰρ τῆς βασάνου κύριος ἐγιγνόμην (I was not to control the examination). This
will of Dicaeogenes II is cited by Thalheim-Hermann, Gr. Rechtsaltert.ª p. 81,
as a proof that the Roman rule, nemo a parte testatus, a parte intestatus
decedere potest, was entirely foreign to the Greek law of succession. The
language certainly leaves the impression that the sisters were not mentioned,
and claimed their portions ab intestato; but I should like fuller information
before building much upon this incident. It is strange to find an Athenian
adopting a son and limiting simultaneously the son's rights, it is stranger
that in a will imposing such restrictions no provision should be taken for the
disposal of the rest of the estate, and it must not be forgotten that 12 years
later Dicaeogenes III procured a judgment setting aside this will. Was
some compromise effected between Proxenus on the one side, and the
husbands of the sisters on the other, Dicaeogenes at the time being a minor?
8 ἑκάστη τοῦ μέρους. The accusative is not used after ἐπιδικάζεσθαι ; in
X. 24. 5 avròv should be changed to avrov. Lipsius (Att. Proc.² p. 606 n.
331) defends τὸ μέρος here and in § 16. 6 (ἐλάχομεν τὸ μέρος ἕκαστος) as 'an
adverbial accusative.' Thalheim appears to accept this explanation, for he
retains the accusative in both passages.
ἐπεδικάσατο, ambiguous ; see III. 4I. 2 n.
ο τοὺς τότε παρόντας. Note that court records are not produced, and
compare III. 37. 7 n.
7. 1, 2 ὀμόσαντες μὴ παραβήσεσθαι τὰ ὡμολογημένα. Apparently after the
decision of the court the parties, including presumably Dicaeogenes III or
his father Proxenus, made a private arrangement not to sell the estate and
divide the proceeds, but to cast lots (ἃ ἔλαχε) for their several shares, and
accept loyally the result. If this is the true interpretation, such a compact
did not, and could not, restrain Dicaeogenes III or anyone else from assail-
ing the validity of the testament. For the use of the lot by heirs see Inscr.
Jurid. Gr. I. p. 244 (deed of sale from Mylasa, assigned conjecturally to the
last part of the second century B.C.), Β 3, 4 οὐθὲν ὑπολιπόμενος αὑτῷ ἐν τοῖς
τόποις τούτοις, οὔτε ὧν ἔλαχεν διελόμενος πρὸς τὸν ἀδελφόν, οὔτε ὧν προσεπρίατο
παρὰ ᾿Αρτεμίας τῆς Εκαταίου, ib. p. 74 (register of sales from Tenos, 3rd c. B.C.),
51 ὅσα τ᾽ ἔλαχεν Τελεσικλῆς πατρῴων [μέρ]ος καὶ ἃ προσεπρίατο παρὰ Καλ-
λιτέλους τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ.
3 οὐσῶν δικών. Cp. Lys. 17. 3 ἐν μὲν οὖν τῷ πολέμῳ, διότι οὐκ ἦσαν δίκαι,
οὐ δυνατοὶ ἦμεν παρ' αὐτῶν ἃ ὤφειλον πράξασθαι· ἐπειδὴ δὲ εἰρήνη ἐγένετο, ὅτε
περ πρῶτον αἱ ἀστικαὶ δίκαι ἐδικάζοντο, λαχὼν ὁ πατὴρ παντὸς τοῦ συμβολαίου
Ἐρασιστράτῳκατεδικάσατο ἐπὶ Ξεναινέτου ἄρχοντος (401/ο Β.C.), Isocr. 21. 7
ἀκαταστάτως ἐχόντων τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει (during the rule of the Thirty, 404-3 B.C.)
καὶ δικῶν οὐκ οὐσῶν, Dem. 45. 4, [Dem.] 33. 26, S. I. G. n. 177 = Michel. n. 34
(Letter of King Antigonus to the people of Teos, end of 4th c. B.C.), 40 ὅσοι
δ᾽ ἂν μὴ γράψων[ται ἢ ἐγδικάσωνται ἐν τῷ γεγραμμένῳ χρόνῳ (one year) δικῶν
οὐσῶν, μηκέτι εἶναι γράψασθαι μηδ' [ἐγδικάσασθαι]. Naber (Mnem. 5, 1877,
p. 402) demands < πολλῶν > οὐσῶν δικῶν.
5 δυστυχησάσης τῆς πόλεως καὶ στάσεως γενομένης.
Concessum est
OR. V.
415
COMMENTARY
Q
rhetoribus ementiri in historiis, ut aliquid dicere possint argutius (Cic.
Brut. 42). On the most liberal interpretation of 'civil strife' (σráσis) Athens
recovered peace and unity in 401/0 B.C., when the democrats were finally
reconciled to the seceders, who had been established at Eleusis in 403 B.C.
by the insidious diplomacy of Sparta; see 'A@. IIoλ. 40. 4, Xen. Hell. 2. 4.
43 ὀμόσαντες ὅρκους ἢ μὴν μὴ μνησικακήσειν ἔτι καὶ νῦν ὁμοῦ τε πολιτεύονται
καὶ τοῖς ὅρκοις ἐμμένει ὁ δῆμος. In what way then did the misfortunes of
Athens' (§ 8. 7) enable Dicaeogenes III to get a verdict in his favour? The
passions kindled in the struggles of 'the Peiraeus party' and 'the City party'
smouldered for years, and Lysias appeals to democratic resentment against
the oligarchs as late as 382 B.C. (26. 9, 10). But Isaeus' phrases contain
no clear idea. What did he wish the judges to understand? That the trial
took place before the restoration of order? or that Dicaeogenes III was an
oligarch? or that he was an unprincipled democrat who denounced his oppo-
nents as enemies of the people and made capital out of political prejudices?
6 Μέλανος τοῦ Αἰγυπτίου. Probably a resident alien (Dem. 21. 163 τὸν
μέτοικον ἐξέπεμψε τὸν Αἰγύπτιον, Πάμφιλον, C. I. A. II. 769 c II. 7 (end of
4th c.) Μέλας ἐν Μελίτῃ οἰκῶν). Egyptians appear to have been in ill repute
at Athens (Hyp. 5. 3 τί οἴεσθε αὐτὴν νυνὶ ποιεῖν, προσλαβοῦσαν συναγωνιστὴν
Αθηνογένην, ἄνθρωπον λογογράφον τε καὶ ἀγοραῖον, τὸ δὲ μέγιστον Αἰγύπτιον ;).
dè
For the hatred and contempt which the Romans of the imperial age enter-
tained for the race see Mayor Juv. 15, Introd. p. 355, Script. Hist. Aug.
Saturninus c. 7 sunt enim Aegyptii uentosi furibundi iactantes iniuriosi
atque adeo uani liberi nouarum rerum usque ad cantilenas publicas
cupientes uersificatores epigrammatarii mathematici haruspices medici, iam
et Christiani Samaritae.
7 nuîv, here 'my mother and her sisters'; but nueis §§ 8. 1, 9. 1 and
ηµâs § 9. 5 seem to refer only to the family of Polyaratus.
8 þáσкwv. Observe that at this stage not a word is said of the will on
which Dicaeogenes III based his new claims (§ 15), also, that his objections
to the will accepted in 411 B.C. are nowhere set forth with clearness. The
only information vouchsafed on this second point is that he persuaded the
Judges that the will produced by Proxenus was not 'true' or not 'genuine'
(§ 15 ovк ảλŋoǹs ; cp. I. 41. 6 n., III. 19. 1, 2 22.). That Proxenus was accused
by his own son of forgery is unlikely. Dicaeogenes may have asserted that
the will which he put forward in 399 B.C. was made after the will confirmed
by the court in 411 B.C., and rendered the earlier document null and void.
For the possibility of such a plea see 1. 24—29 analysis.
>
è öλŋ, a dubious emendation, but nearer to the MS. (vp' öλŋv) than
Buermann's ep' oλw, which Thalheim approves. In the codex Crippsianus v
sometimes takes the place of iota adscript (Crit. Introd. p. xvii). I desi-
derate an example of the confusion of ŋ and w.
η
8. 1 tỷ λýžel. For the dative compare II. 26. 2 n., for the procedure
the law in [Dem.] 43. 16; Dicaeogenes III was bound to serve a summons
on each of the sisters, or, if any of them were dead, on their heirs.
4,5 eiσedlóvtes. The opposition on the part of the sisters was apparently
conducted by Polyaratus (§ 9. 2, 3).
5 πολλῷ πλείω καὶ δικαιότερα. A wrote πολλῷ πλείω δικαιότερα, A2 added
416
OR. V.
ISAEUS
kaì above the line before dikaιóтepa. Buermann rejects this emendation and
proposes #odλą dikaiótepa (Hermes 17, 1882, p. 391). He objects that the
length of a speech is not generally represented as a merit, and brushes aside
Theίw as 'an unconscious interpolation' (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 358). Her-
werden (Mnem. N. S. 9, 1881, p. 387), opposing Rosenberg's conjecture oλ
ékeivov dikaιótepa, observes 'in vulgata lectione non haerebit qui reputarit
Graecos dicere solere πολλὰ καὶ δίκαια pro πολλὰ δίκαια.
1ο ἐξηπατήθησαν οἱ δικασταί. The conventional formula of Attic orators,
when a judgment has been given against them. Compare Dem. 36. 25 ó µèv
γὰρ ἐν ὑμῖν ἡττηθεὶς τάχ᾽ ἂν εἴποι τοῦθ᾽ ὡς ἐξηπατήθηθ᾽ ὑμεῖς, 37. 20 περὶ ὧν
ἔγνω τὸ δικαστήριον, ἔστιν εἰπεῖν ὡς ἐξαπατηθὲν τοῦτ᾽ ἐποίησε, 45. 7, [Dem.]
43. 10, 46. 9, 47. 1, 3, 9, 15, passim, 59. 5. Their opponents in such circum-
stances enlarged on the sanctity of the chose jugée (Dem. 47. 7 ouтws eiσì
μιαροὶ οὗτοι, καὶ οὐκ οἴονται δεῖν οὔτε τοῖς νόμοις τοῖς ὑμετέροις πείθεσθαι οὔτε
τοῖς γνωσθεῖσιν ἐν τῷ δικαστηρίῳ, ἀλλὰ πάντα τρόπον ἐπιχειροῦντες ἀφελέσθαι
πάλιν τὴν γυναῖκα τὸν κλῆρον ὃν ὑμεῖς αὐτῇ ἐψηφίσασθε, συνομόσαντες κ.τ.λ.).
9. I μeîs. 'We' seems to mean here 'I and my family.' Remember
that Menexenus IV had two sisters and two brothers. The statement 'We
lost our property' is decidedly misleading; the wife of Polyaratus lost one-sixth
of the estate of her brother, but her husband's great wealth was not reduced
(§ 5. 8 n.).
4 ἐπεσκήψατο. Cp. III. 3. 5 n.
5, 6. Tỷ avtî yµépą. Obscure. Reiske understood the words to mean
that Dicaeogenes III instantly (eadem protinus die) took possession of the
rest of the estate on the day on which he had triumphed over Polyaratus.
Schoemann in his German translation makes the speaker affirm nothing
more than that after the victory the daughter of Cephisophon, the widow of
Democles, and the mother of Cephisodotus were despoiled on one and the
same day. Dareste (Plaidoyers d'Isée p. 87) gives a different turn to the
phrase: ‘Dicéogène luttant contre nous à sa convenance obtint le même jour
trois sentences: But for eέýλaσe, which suggests physical ejection, I should
have been inclined to regard the period as a rhetorical expansion of a simple
idea: 'by defeating us he at the same time deprived the other heirs of their
rights!
6,7 τὴν Κηφισοφῶντος τοῦ Παιανιέως θυγατέρα. The appearance here of
the daughter of Cephisophon has perplexed all critics. Had we no other
evidence, we should conclude that her father and mother were dead, and
that, having no brothers, she was in sole possession of her mother's property.
But (1) it has been already pointed out (§ 5. 10 n.) that a person named
Cephisophon of Paeania was alive in 398/7 B.C. May he not have been the
Cephisophon of Paeania, who married a sister of Dicaeogenes II? (2) The
speaker's language in §§ 16 (ταῖς Δικαιογένους τοῦ ἀποθανόντος ἀδελφαῖς, ὧν
elow ai ηµétepai µnтépes), 18, 20 suggests that the wife of Cephisophon was
alive in 389 B.C. How could the daughter be in occupation during her
mother's lifetime? Buermann at one time considered this difficulty so serious
that he proposed (Rh. Mus. 32, 1877, p. 357 sqq.) to change Ovyarépa to
γυναῖκα, and to retain in the same line ἀδελφήν, the reading of the first hand,
his theory being that the corruption of ἀδελφὴν τὸ ἀδελφιδῆν drew after it the
OR. V.
417
COMMENTARY
2
alteration of yuvaîka; for his view of the origin of the readings of A² see
Crit. Introd. p. xxxv. (3) The reader is astonished to meet in § 12 a son of
Cephisophon, Menexenus III, claiming a share in the estate. If Cephisophon
had a son, it is certain that Cephisophon's daughter could never have been
owner of the whole portion that had fallen to her mother under the arrange-
ment of 411 B.C., and it is very probable that she would have been entirely
excluded by her brother; for no proof is forthcoming that children succeeded to
their mother's property without distinction of sex. Naber (Mnem. N. S. 5, 1877,
p. 401 sqq.) claims to have removed this obstacle in a paper written in Dutch
and published in Mnem. 1, 1852, p. 365 sqq. His hypothesis is that Cephisophon,
having an only daughter, adopted by will Menexenus III, who married the
heiress in accordance with the law. But, if this view be accepted, (1) Callibius
son of Cephisophon of Paeania (§ 5. 10 12.) must be assigned to another
family, (2) the orator must be censured for asserting (§ 12) that Menexenus
In his own person
son of Cephisophon had the same claims as himself.
Cephisophon's adopted son had no rights in the estate of his adoptive father's
wife or widow, but could only claim as the legal representative of his wife,
Cephisophon's daughter and niece of Dicaeogenes II. Buermann, having
abandoned the conjecture mentioned above, has now (Hermes 19, 1884,
p. 364 n. 2) discovered another loophole. Menexenus III, son of Cephisophon,
died, he supposes, between 399 B.C. and 389 B.C., so that at the later date his
sister, who survived him, had a clear right to her mother's full share. The
introduction of the sister into the proceedings of 399 B.C. is to be explained
as 'an intentional anachronism.' But the evidence for the death of
Menexenus III is unconvincing; see § 44. I N.
Thalheim (Hermes 38, 1903,
p. 460) goes back to the conjecture discarded by Buermann, and would read
γυναῖκα and ἀδελφήν. This reading undoubtedly clears away many diff-
culties, but must be rejected on critical grounds. The corruption of yuvaîka
into Ovyarépa does not appear likely, whereas the confusion of ådeλøηv and
ἀδελφιδὴν is easy and common. Is it not possible that Isaeus deliberately
distorted the truth to get a rhetorical effect, wishing to represent Dicae-
ogenes III as the cruel oppressor of a defenceless girl?
8, 9 τὴν Δημοκλέους γενομένην γυναῖκα. Cp. And. 1. 16 ἡ γυνὴ ᾿Αλκμεω-
νίδου, γενομένη δὲ καὶ Δάμωνος. Was she at the time the wife of Protarchides
(§ 26. 5, 6 n.)? Or was Dicaeogenes III her kúpios?
SwкEV.
9
IO, II
Cp. §§ 4. 2 n., 6. 7 N., 10. 9 N.
καὶ αὐτὸν τοῦτον. It is plain from § 10 & ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῖς κατέλιπε
and § 11 τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτῶν τὴν πατρώαν that Cephisodotus was not his mother's
only child. Buermann (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 328) conjectures that kaì ròv
ἀδελφὸν οἱ καὶ τὴν ἀδελφὴν has fallen out of the text before καὶ αὐτὸν τοῦτον,
Thalheim (Hermes 38, 1903, p. 460) proposes kaì aỶTOÙS TOÚTOUS.
10. 1, 2 ĚTÍTρоπos kai kúριos. The speaker's silence does not prove
that Dicaeogenes III was not appointed guardian of Theopompus' children
under a will (1. 9. I n.). If, on the other hand, no will was left or no guardian
was nominated, and if Dicaeogenes was called to the office by the law as
next-of-kin (§ 10. 6 ¿yyvtáтw ŵv yévous), account should be taken of the
possibility that he was in some way related to Theopompus; for legitima
tutela at Athens see I. 9. I N. Schoemann thinks that Dicaeogenes is called
W. I.
27
418
OR. V.
ISAEUS
here kúpɩos in respect of his power as guardian of the children (1. 10. 6, 7 n.),
and that Touтwv does not include the children's mother. I incline to Reiske's
view, that the epithet refers to his authority over Theopompus' widow.
Since she had neither grandfather nor father nor brother alive, who could
have been her kúpios except her nephew, the adopted son of Dicaeogenes II?
See III. 2. 3 n. Moreover a widow who stayed in the house of her late
husband naturally came under the authority of the legal guardian of her
children (III. 8. 5, 6 n.).
π
2, 3 οὐδὲ κατὰ τὸ ἐλάχιστον μέρος τῆς οἰκειότητος. This curious expression
may have been imitated from Lys. 12. 20 οὐδὲ κατὰ τὸ ἐλάχιστον μέρος τῆς
ovσías éλéov Tаρ' ανтŵν èтνуxávoμev. Lysias' 12th speech, Against Erato-
sthenes, was probably delivered in the late autumn of 403 B.C. A passage in
Lys. 21. 19 is quoted by Stobaeus (Flor. 5. 54) under the name of Isaeus
(fr. 131 Saupp.).
7, 8 τοῖς τούτων ἐχθροῖς παρέδωκεν. Perhaps Theopompus died insolvent,
and the creditors took possession of the estate; cp. I. 12 Tǹv dovoíav
ἀφελέσθαι τῶν χρήστων ἐπιβουλευσάντων ἔσωσεν ἡμῖν.
9 SwкEV. Cp. §§ 4. 2 n., 9. 9 n. The grandfather's gift or bequest is
a rhetorical flourish. The action won by Dicaeogenes III had no bearing
on the dowry of Cephisodotus' mother, even if it were established that
she was portioned by her father Menexenus I, and not by her brother
Dicaeogenes II.
πрò lêηs, indicta causa, ante sententiam (Dig. 3. 16. 1), without waiting for
a judgment. This is a quibble. Dicaeogenes III, according to § 9, took the
property on the strength of the verdict given against Polyaratus, which
established the validity of the second will and did away with the rights of
all the sisters; provided that he summoned each of the tenants to appear
before the court, he fulfilled all his legal obligations. For the technical term
see X. 24. 5, Code of Gortyn I. I, 2 (Inscr. Jurid. Gr. I. p. 352, Michel n. 1333)
ὅς κ᾿ ἐλευθέροι ἢ δόλοι μέλλει ἀντιμολἓν (Hesych. s.v. μωλεῖ), πρὸ δίκας μὲ ἄγεν,
C. I. A. II. 600, 33 sqq. (Inscr. Jurid. Gr. 1. p. 264, Michel n. 1357) èàv dè µǹ
ἀποδιδῷ τὴν μίσθωσιν ἐν τοῖς χρόνοις τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἢ μὴ ἐργάζηται τὸ χωρίον
κατὰ τὰ γεγραμμένα, ἐξεῖναι τοῖς φρατριάρχοις καὶ Δυαλεῦσιν ἐνεχυράζειν πρὸ δίκης,
Plut. Fab. Max. 9 καὶ γὰρ εἶρξαι τῷ δικτάτορι καὶ θανατῶσαι πρὸ δίκης ἔξεστι.
11. 2,3 πριάμevos. Schoemann (ad loc.) and Lipsius (Att. Proc.² p. 560
n. 219) have deduced from this passage that at Athens a guardian could not
lawfully buy from his ward. The inference is unwarranted, for the house
may have been sold by the creditors of Theopompus. Under Roman law
a tutor might buy from his pupillus, (1) when the property was sold by a
creditor (Dig. 26. 8. 5), and (2) when the sale was of a portion of the property
that the tutor did not manage, with the consent of the managing tutor
(ib. 26. 8. 5, 6). The Athenian regulations on this point are at present
unknown. Schulthess (Vormundschaft nach attischem Recht p. 119) and
Beauchet (II. p. 231 sqq.) argue that the guardian was allowed not only to
alienate the ward's property, but also to become himself a purchaser. The
principal piece of evidence is a clause in Plato's will (Diog. Laert. 3. 41): Kai
μὴ ἐξέστω τοῦτο τὸ ἐν Ἰφιστιαδῶν χωρίον) μηδενὶ μήτε ἀποδόσθαι μήτε ἀλλά-
ξασθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἔστω ᾿Αδειμάντου τοῦ παιδίου εἰς τὸ δυνατόν. This prohibition, it
OR. V.
419
COMMENTARY
is said, must have been addressed to the guardians of Adeimantus, and
implies that the law did not interdict alienation of a ward's property by a
guardian. The code of Gortyn (IX. I sqq.) permits the paternal and maternal
uncles of an heiress (πατρωιῶκος) who has not reached puberty to sell and
mortgage (καταθέμεν) her estate.
3, 4 κῆπον πρὸς τῇ αὑτοῦ οἰκίᾳ τῇ ἐν ἄστει. Cp. Thuc. 2. 62. 3 κηπίον καὶ
ἐγκαλλώπισμα πλούτου, Plin. N. H. 19. 4. 51 iam quidem hortorum nomine in
ipsa urbe delicias agros uillasque possident. primus hoc instituit Athenis
Epicurus otii magister; usque ad eum moris non fuerat in oppidis habitari rura,
Bekk. An. Gr. I. p. 32, 2 οἰκόπεδον οἰκίας κατερριμμένης ἔδαφος, γήπεδα δὲ τὰ
ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι προκείμενα (προσκείμενα ?), οἷον κηπία, S. I. G. n. II (Halicar-
nassus, end of 5th cent.), 14 sqq. Βόσθων ᾿Αστυνόμου (ἐπρίατο) οἰκίην τὴν
᾿Αρλιώμο του Πύργωνος τὴμ πρὸς τῷ τείχει καὶ τὸ κηπίον τὸ πρὸς τῇ οἰκίῃ.
Sir W. Jones (Works IX. p. 235) remarks that 'the cruelty of the act seems
to have consisted in his having demolished the dwelling house and dug up
the area, as if Theopompus had been a traitor (καὶ τὸ οἰκία κατασκάψαι
αὐτοῖν καὶ ὅρους θεῖναι <ἐπὶ> τοῖν οἰκοπέδοιν, ἐπιγράψαντας ᾿Αρχεπτολέμου καὶ
Αντιφῶντος τοῖν προδόταιν, [Plut.] Vitt. X. Οr. 834 Α).
4, 5 λαμβάνων μίσθωσιν ὀγδοήκοντα μνάς, receiving in rent 80 m. For this
sense of μίσθωσις compare § 35. 8, XI. 42, Fr. 13o Saupp., Isocr. 7. 32, Dem.
28. 12, 36. 9, 33, 36, 37, 38 (ὅσα εἴληφε μίσθωσιν), 41, 51, 41. 5, 57. 63, [Dem.]
43. 58 (law), 'Αθ. Πολ. 2. 2, C. I. A. IV. I. 53 a (418/7 Β.C.), 15 ὁπόσεν δ᾽ ἂν
ἄλφει μίσθοσιν τὸ τέμενος κατὰ τὸν ἐνιαυτὸν ἕκαστον, ib. IV. I. 277 a (415/4 B.C.),
26, 27 [γές Μυρρινοντι μίσθεσις [κατεβλέ]θε, ib. II. 565, 10, 570, 24, 600, 33,
814 A 27, 29, 1055, 6, 1058, 17, 1859, 13 (τὴν μίσθωσιν καταθήσουσι).
7 Αρμοδίῳ. He was alive in 371 B.C., when he attacked as illegal a
motion to grant certain honours to Iphicrates. The general defended the
author of the resolution in a speech known to antiquity under the title #pòs
Αρμόδιον περὶ Ιφικράτους δωρεών and falsely ascribed to Lysias. See Sauppe,
Or. Att. II. p. 178 sqq., Blass, Att. Ber. I. p. 359.
εἰς Κόρινθον. See Introd. p. 405.
ἀντ᾽ ἀκολούθου. The attendant' in peace and war alike was generally a
slave; see Blümner-Hermann, Gr. Privataltert. p. 85, and Thuc. 7. 75. 5 oi
τε ἄλλοι ἔφερον πάντες ὅ τι τις ἐδύνατο ἕκαστος χρήσιμον, καὶ οἱ ὁπλῖται καὶ οἱ
ἱππῆς παρὰ τὸ εἰωθὸς αὐτοὶ τὰ σφέτερα αὐτῶν σιτία ἐπὶ τοῖς ὅπλοις, οἱ μὲν ἀπορίᾳ
ἀκολούθων, οἱ δὲ ἀπιστίᾳ· ἀπηυτομολήκεσαν γὰρ πάλαι τε καὶ οἱ πλεῖστοι παρα-
χρῆμα, Theoph. Char. 25. 4 τρέχειν ἐπὶ τὴν σκηνήν, τὸν παῖδα ἐκπέμψας καὶ
κελεύσας προσκοπεῖσθαι, ποῦ εἰσιν οἱ πολέμιοι, Dem. 54. 4 τοὺς παῖδας ἡμῶν
τοὺς ἀκολούθους, Kock, Com. Att. Fr. II. p. 16, Antiph. 16 χλαμύδα καὶ λόγχην
ἔχων, ἀξυνακόλουθος, ξηρός, αὐτολήκυθος. Examples of free ἀκόλουθοι are found
in [Dem.] 49. 22, 55 and C. I. A. 11. 1661 (if rightly restored). Naber (Mnem.
N. S. 5, 1877, p. 403 sqq.) pronounces it incredible that this servile office
could have been imposed on an Athenian citizen of good family, and con-
cludes, not that the orator is exaggerating, but that the text is corrupt.
He proposes ἄνευ ἀκολούθου, comparing Lys. 32. 16 ἐκβαλεῖν τούτους ἠξίωσας
θυγατριδοῦς ὄντας ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας τῆς αὑτῶν ἐν τριβωνίοις, ἀνυποδήτους, οὐ μετὰ
ἀκολούθου, οὐ μετὰ στρωμάτων, οὐ μετὰ ἱματίων, οὐ μετὰ τῶν ἐπίπλων ἃ ὁ πατὴρ
αὐτοῖς κατέλιπεν.
27-2
420
OR. V.
ISAEUS
!
συκοφάντης
9, το εμβάδας καὶ τρίβωνα φορεῖ. Menexenus IV and his friends, like
Dicaeopolis in the Acharnians, had prepared a mise en scène to excite the
indignation of the judges (Moy, Étude sur les plaidoyers d'Isée p. 191);
Cephisodotus was exhibited in the dress of the 'people' (Ar. Eccl. 633).
Philocleon, the typical dicast, wore both ẻµßádes (Ar. Vesp. 103, 275, 1157)
and Tρiẞviov (116, 1131). In the Plutus, which was played in 388 B.C., the
'righteous man' comes to dedicate to the god his тρißóviov (842) and éµßádia
(847), while the ovкoþávтns has a iµátiov (926, 936). Pollux (7. 85) gives the
following account of ἐμβάδες: εὐτελὲς μὲν τὸ ὑπόδημα, Θρᾴκιον δὲ τὸ εὕρημα,
τὴν δὲ ἰδέαν κοθόρνοις ταπεινοῖς ἔοικεν. They were not sandals but shoes or
low boots, into which the foot went (Et. Mag. s. v. àñò toù èµßaiveiv toùS
πόδας, Ar. Eg. 321 πρὶν γὰρ εἶναι Περγασῆσιν, ἔνεον ἐν ταῖς ἐμβάσιν). We
have no means of identifying the Athenian éµßàs with any particular shoe
figured on ancient monuments. The Tρißov was a mantle of coarse woollen
cloth. The Spartans wore it short (Plat. Prot. 342 C) and without a shirt
(xíτwv), and this style was affected by the Cynics. The 'mean man’in
Theoph. Char. 22. 13 (καὶ καθεζόμενος παραστρέψαι τὸν τρίβωνα, ὃν αὐτὸς
popeî) may have been shirtless, but in my opinion it is not proved that the
presence of the rρißwv implied in all cases the absence of the xirwv. See
Dict. of Ant. II. p. 869 b, Müller's Handbuch, IV. 1. Privataltert. § 57,
p. 424, Neil on Ar. Eq. 881.
12. 2 Ödev áπéλITOV. Lobeck (Phryn. Ecl. p. 44 n. 2) quoted by
Schoemann has collected examples of this formula, e.g. Plat. Phaed. 78 B
ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν δὴ ὑπάρξει· ὅθεν δ᾽ ἀπελίπομεν, ἐπανέλθωμεν, Galen, de Us.
Part. I. 14. 296 E aððis éñáviµev ödev λéyovtes åñeλíñoµev, Strab. 8. 5. 3
ἀρξάμενοι ἀφ᾽ ὧνπερ ἀπελίπομεν. The idiom is fairly common in Plato;
Ast cites Gorg. 497 C, Euthyd. 282 E, 288 C D. Cp. Xen. Oec. 6. 1.
2, 3 Μενέξενος ὁ Κηφισοφῶντος υός. Cp. §§ 5. 1o n., 9. 6 n. It would be
interesting to know when Menexenus III took action against the witness
Lycon. If the implications of the narrative are to be trusted, this prose-
cution was not separated by any considerable lapse of time from the
agreement of 389 B.C. Isaeus manages to convey to his hearers the general
notion that for a time the sisters were helpless, until their sons were strong
enough to assail the usurper; but that Cephisodotus and Menexenus IV
were inactive for ten years, only emerges at a later stage and in another
connexion (§ 35). On the other hand, if Lycon was accused of bearing false
witness by Menexenus III soon after the trial of 399 B.C., it was not to the
speaker's advantage to reveal the fact, especially after his remarks in § 9
(πρὶν ἐπεξελθεῖν οἷς ἐπεσκήψατο τῶν μαρτύρων).
4 προσῆκον αὐτῷ μέρος ὅσον περ ἐμοί, as claiming in the name of one of the
sisters, who had all received equal shares, i.e. each one-sixth of the whole
estate. If Menexenus III had one full brother, Callibius (§ 5. 10 n.), and
Menexenus IV had two full brothers, Bathyllus and Periander (§ 5. 8 n.), it
is plain that their individual portions could not have been the same in
amount. Literal interpretations of this passage lead to inextricable confusion.
Bunsen (De iure hereditario Atheniensium p. 27 sqq.) arrives at the remark-
able result that, if a man died intestate, leaving neither children nor brothers
but sisters only, his estate was divided in capita among the sisters and their
OR. V.
421
COMMENTARY
children without any discrimination, so that e.g. in this case Menexenus IV,
his mother, Menexenus III, the sister of Menexenus III, all had a right to
precisely the same portion of the property of Dicaeogenes II. Schoemann
also deduces from this speech the principle of division in capita, but with a
qualification; the living sisters of Dicaeogenes II were obliged to share
equally with the children of a deceased sister, but not with their own
children. Thus, if the wife of Cephisophon was dead, her two children,
Menexenus III and his sister, were each entitled to get as much as the
wife of Polyaratus, on the assumption that she was alive, whereas her son,
Menexenus IV, was only his mother's spokesman, and had no claims
in his own person. We must hold fast to the common-sense rule of
division in stirpes. See Hitzig, Studien zu Isaeus p. 22 sqq., Beauchet
III. p. 524 sqq.
7 ὃς ἐμαρτύρησε κ.τ.λ. He seems to have deposed that the second will
was the work of Dicaeogenes II (§ 15). Naber discovers here a long inter-
polation; the words ὃς ἐμαρτύρησεἑάλω ψευδομαρτυρίων are to be ejected,
because 'to an attentive reader (sic) they are superfluous.' Herwerden
(Mnem. N. S. 9, 1881, p. 388), who agrees with Naber, adds that the
phrase Tov vûv övтa betrays the hand of an interpolator.
13. 5 Tí πOLĥoa; For the rhetorical question Schoemann compares
VI. 35 ad fin., Dem. 41. 20, 57. 8 ad fin. For details on this subject consult
Rehdantz, Demosthenes, Index I. s. v. Frage, Gebauer on Lys. 13. 20,
Anhang p. 338 sqq.
6 % TI ÈYÍYVETO, 'which was due' (§ 44. 5 n.).
7 áþeîval. The transaction is obscure.
ἀφεῖναι.
It is difficult to believe that a
prosecutor could give a valid release and discharge (for which see Dem.
36. 25, 37. 19, 38. 5, 45. 41, [Dem.] 33. 3) to persons accused of false witness.
If, on the other hand, Menexenus III merely promised Dicaeogenes III to
take no further steps (Dem. 29. 41) on condition of recovering the share due
to him, what hindered Menexenus IV and Cephisodotus from moving on
their own account, and instituting actions against the remaining wit-
nesses? Why did they wait (eïxoμev novxíav § 13. 9) for the cooperation of
Menexenus III (§ 14)?
14. I, 2
παθὼν ἄξια...ἠπατήθη. For aorist participles coincident in
time with the main verb see I. 3. 4, 5 n.
5 + καθηγούμενοι +. The verb καθηγεῖσθαι is nowhere found with the
meaning 'to think.' The objection to Baiter's emendation (äë' nyoúμevo) is
that are does not occur in oratorical prose. For Sauppe's correction (w
ävdpes, nyoúµevoɩ) cp. I. 47. 2 1., VI. 10. 4 N.
oi
(oi
6, 7 οἱ μάρτυρες εάλωσαν. The plural again in § 15. 9 (οἱ μαρτυρήσαντες).
One only, Lycon, was actually convicted (§ 12).
15. 5 ἐγίγνετο. Cp. § 6. 7η.
7
ToÚTolv dè Toîv Siałýkaιv. Cp. § 16. 1, VI. 6. 3, 39. 4, VIII. 41. 1, and
the evidence collected by Keck, Ueber den Dual bei den griech. Rednern
pp. 176 sqq., 185 in the first volume of Beiträge zur historischen Syntax der
griech. Sprache, herausgegeben von M. Schanz.
8 ws oúk áλŋlýs ein. Cp. § 7. 8 n., 1. 41. 6 N., III. 19. 1, 2 n. Dicaeogenes III
undoubtedly persuaded the judges to set aside the first will, but it is not likely
422
OR. V.
ISAEUS
that he asserted it to be a forgery. Would not the speaker have dilated on
an incident so discreditable to Proxenus?
16. I
ἀμφοῖν δὲ τοῖν διαθήκαιν ἀκύροιν γιγνομέναιν, 'as both the wills
were going to be invalidated' i.e. as the second will was sure to meet the
fate of the first. One will had really been declared null and void, no judg-
ment had as yet been obtained against the other, but the condemnation of
one of the witnesses had damaged the credit of the document. The participle,
γιγνομέναιν, represents an imperfect of the type illustrated on I. 44. 5.
Schoemann's paraphrase is δέον δὲ τὰς διαθήκας ἀκύρους εἶναι.
1, 2 ἑτέρας μηδεμιᾶς ὁμολογουμένης είναι. The clause is in substance causal,
not conditional. For abnormal cases of µn with a participle see Dem. 3. 8
οὐδὲ τὸν φόβον μικρὸν ὁρῶ τὸν τῶν μετὰ ταῦτα, ἐχόντων μὲν ὡς ἔχουσι Θηβαίων
ἡμῖν, ἀπειρηκότων δὲ χρήμασι Φωκέων, μηδενὸς δ᾽ ἐμποδὼν ὄντος Φιλίππῳ τὰ
παρόντα καταστρεψαμένῳ πρὸς ταῦτα ἐπικλῖναι τὰ πράγματα, 21. 97 τοῦτον
ὑβρίζοντα λαβόντες...ἀφήσετε καὶ μήθ᾽ ἑορτῆς μήθ᾽ ἱερῶν μήτε νόμου μήτ᾽ ἄλλου
μηδενὸς πρόνοιαν ποιούμενον οὐ καταψηφιεῖσθε; οὐ παράδειγμα ποιήσετε (καὶ
μήθ'ποιήσετε obelised in Σ), 24. 189 ἀλλὰ μὴ περὶ τούτων ὑμῶν οἰσόντων τὴν
ψῆφον τί δεῖ ταῦτα λέγοντα ἐνοχλεῖν με νυνί ; 36. 6 ὁρῶν ὅτι, μήπω τῆς πολιτείας
αὐτῷ παρ᾽ ὑμῖν οὔσης, οὐχ οἷός τ᾽ ἔσοιτ᾽ εἰσπράττειν ὅσα Πασίων ἐπὶ γῇ καὶ
συνοικίαις δεδανεικὼς ἦν, 39. 35 οὐ γὰρ δίκαιον μὴ περὶ τούτων ὄντος τοῦ λόγου
νυνί, [Dem.] 33. 29 ὁπότε δὲ μὴ ἔγνωσται...τί βουλόμενος ἠρνούμην ἂν τὴν
ἐγγύην; μὴ γὰρ γενομένης τῆς γνώσεως κατὰ τὰς συνθήκας, οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἐγὼ τῆς
ἐγγύης ὑπόδικος ἦν, 40. 13 πῶς ἂν οὖν μὴ εἰδὼς αὐτὸν ᾿Αθηναῖον ἐσόμενον
ἔδωκεν ἂν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ;
4, 5 ὧν εἰσιν αἱ ἡμέτεραι μητέρες, the mothers of Cephisodotus, Menexenus
III, and Menexenus IV respectively. It is doubtful whether the fourth
sister, once wife of Democles, was represented in the action.
5 διὰ δὲ ταῦτα, justly suspected by Reiske and Buermann. The
idiomatic construction here is asyndeton, and in such places scribes are
prone to interpolate dé; see Blass, Dem. I. p. cxlii, Aesch. 3. 81, 149. In
§ 8. 9 (ὑπὸ δὲ τῶν τὰ τοιαῦτα ποιούντων κ.τ.λ.) Katabaines quoted by Thalheim
would change δὲ into δή.
6 τοῦ μέρους. Cp. § 6. 8 n. The meaning of λαγχάνω μέρος is 'a part is
allotted to me' (§ 7). In VII. 20. 8 the mistake was corrected by A¹.
7 ἀντόμνυσθαι. Cp. III. 6. 8 n. The middle, which is rare (Isocr. 18. 37),
is probably due to the influence of διόμνυσθαι, ἐξόμνυσθαι, ὑπόμνυσθαι. The
affidavit which the cousins were about to make was that Dicaeogenes II had
adopted no son and left no will, and that their mothers were the next-of-kin
(IX. I, 34).
διεμαρτύρησε. Cp. II. Introd. p. 232 sqq. The special plea threw upon
the claimants the burden of disproving Dicaeogenes' title. Whether the
declaration of the witness was cast in the common form, ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐπίδικος
ὁ Δικαιογένους κλῆρος ὄντος αὐτῷ νέος γνησίου, is not disclosed; variations
and expansions were allowed, e.g. the διαμαρτυρία put forward by the holders
of the estate of Archiades, who, like Dicaeogenes, founded their right of
possession on an adoption, was μὴ ἐπίδικον εἶναι τὸν κλῆρον τὸν ᾿Αρχιάδου,
ὄντων αὐτῷ παίδων γνησίων καὶ κυρίως κατὰ τὸν θεσμόν ([Dem.] 44. 46) ; see also
VI. 5, 62, 63. To convict Leochares of bearing false witness the cousins had
OR. V.
423
COMMENTARY
to upset two judgments. The award of 411 B.C. had made Dicaeogenes III
the legitimate (γνήσιος) son of Dicaeogenes II, the award of 399 B.C. had
extended his rights to the whole of the estate. The case of Dicaeogenes III
cannot be understood without exacter information about the issue in the trial
of 399 B.C. If the first will was then pronounced a forgery, he was now in a
precarious position, being obliged to stake everything on the second will, which
was prejudiced by the condemnation of Lycon. If, however, the judges in
399 B.C. had merely affirmed that a later will invalidated an earlier, he had a
double line of defence, and could fall back on the first testament, the
genuineness of which had not been questioned at the time by the family of
Dicaeogenes II.
17. Ι ἐπισκηψαμένων. Cp. III. 3. 5 n.
6
ó
2 διεγράφη. The suit for the estate was struck out' of the cause list.
See Poll. 8. 57 ἄγραπτος δὲ δίκη ἐκαλεῖτο ἡ ὑπὸ τῆς παραγραφῆς ἀναιρεθεῖσα καὶ
διαγραφείσα, Lex. Rhet. Cant. s.v. διάγραπτος δίκη· ἡ αὐτὴ καὶ διεξυσμένη
λέγεται, καθ᾽ ἧς ἴσχυσεν ἡ παραγραφή, οἷον ἤρθη ἡ δίκη· οὐ γὰρ εἰσαγώγιμος
ἐστιν, ἠκυρωμένη ὑπὸ τῆς παραγραφής. The active, διαγράφειν, is used of the
presiding magistrate ([Dem.] 48. 26 διέγραψεν ὁ ἄρχων Πυθόδοτος (343/2 B.C.)
κατὰ τὸν νόμον τὴν τουτουὶ Ὀλυμπιοδώρου ἀμφισβήτησιν, διαγραφείσης δὲ ταύτης
ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἦν κἀμοὶ ἐκλιπεῖν τὴν τοῦ ἡμικληρίου ἀμφισβήτησιν, Poll. 8. 38), the
passive of the suit (Arist. Nub. 774, [Dem.] 48. 41, 58. 8), the middle, διαγρά-
φεσθαι, is 'to get a suit struck out' (Dem. 20. 145 of a prosecutor, Lys. 17. 5,
as emended by Meier and Dobree, of defendants) and, when applied to the
prosecutor, is an alternative to ἀναιρεῖσθαι (Harp. s.v. διαγράψασθαι : Λυσίας
ἐν τῷ κατὰ Νικίδου, εἰ γνήσιος, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀνελέσθαι τὸ ἔγκλημα). But in S. I. G.
n. 511 (Amorgus), 28 ὅσαι δίκαι διεγράφησαν means 'such suits as have been
written out, i.e. put on the list ; cp. ib. 48 τὰς δίκας τὰς διαγρ[αφείσας ἐν τοῖς]
λευκώμασιν. On the other hand in C. I. A. IV. I. 35 b 19 (440-432 B.C.)
ἐκγράφειν means 'to expunge.
3 εἰσῄει, was set down for hearing, not equivalent to εἰσῆλθε.
6, 7 ἐξεραθεισῶν τῶν ψήφων. Dobree's emendation of ἐξαιρεθεισῶν is
confirmed by ᾿Αθ. Πολ. col. 35, 22 sqq. πάντες δ᾽ ἐπειδὰν ὦσι διε[ψηφισ]μένοι,
λαβόντες οἱ ὑπηρέται [τὸν ἀ]μφορέα τὸν κύριον [ἐξε]ρῶσιν ἐπὶ ἄβα[κα τρ]υπήματα
ἔχοντα ὅ[σ]αιπερ εἰσὶν αἱ ψῆ[φοι, Ar. Vesp. 993 φέρ᾽ ἐξεράσω, Ach. 341 τοὺς
λίθους νῦν μοι χαμᾶζε πρῶτον ἐξεράσατε. The ballots were poured out, not
‘taken out' (εξαιρεθεῖσαι) one by one ('Αθ. Πολ. col. 31, 23, 24 ἐπειδὰν δὲ ἐ[ξέλῃ]
τοὺς κύβους, καλεῖ τοὺς εἰληχότας ὁ κ[ῆρυξ]), or in handfuls. Si praetori
licuisset ἐξαιρεῖν τὰς ψήφους, nemo satis tutus fuisset a multiplici fraude
(Naber, Mnem. N. S. 5, 1877, p. 405). The mode of voting is described in
Αθ. Πολ. col. 34, 27 sqq.
The ballots were discs of bronze with a cylindrical
axis (αὐλίσκος) in the centre, which projected on both sides and was either
perforated or solid. For pictures of extant specimens see the frontispiece to
Sandys' edition of Aristotle's Constitution of Athens, Daremberg and Saglio,
Dict. d. Antig. III. p. 190, fig. 2415-6, Smith's Dict. of Gr. and Rom.
Antig. II. p. 516 a. When the speeches were over, each judge was given
two ballots, one pierced, ἡ τετρυπημένη ψῆφος (Aesch. 1. 79), for condemna-
tion, the other solid, ἡ πλήρης ψήφος, for acquittal. Two urns (αμφορείς)
were placed to receive the votes, one of bronze called o kúpɩos, because each
κύριος,
424
OR. V.
ISAEUS
judge deposited in it the √ĥpos which expressed his decision on the case, the
other of wood called ó kupos, into which each dropped his second and
inoperative ballot. This plan secured the possibility of complete secrecy in
voting; the bronze urn had a lid with an opening filed through (érionua
dieppivnµévov) just large enough to admit one ballot, and if the voter held his
↓ĥpos sideways by the two ends of the cylinder between thumb and second
finger, lowered it to the slit, and pushed it through with the first finger, no
one could see whether he had pronounced in favour of plaintiff or defendant.
When all the judges had voted, the bronze urn, ó kúpɩs àµþopeús, was
emptied out upon an abacus fitted with holes (трνжηµата) to receive the axes
of the ballots, and four judges selected by lot at the opening of the session
counted the pierced and solid ballots (οἱ δ[ὲ ἐπὶ] τὰς ψήφους είλη[χότες]
(oi
δια[ριθμοῦσιν] αὐτὰς [ἐπ]ὶ τοῦ ἄβακος [χωρὶ]ς μὲν τὰ]ς πλήρεις χω[ρ]ὶς δὲ τὰς
tetput]nµévas, col. 35, 28 sqq.). The numbers were proclaimed by the
herald. Now it is plain that, when, as in this trial, 500 (§ 20) √ñpoɩ lay
unsorted on the abacus, it was hard to tell at a glance whether the prosecutor
had triumphed, unless perforated no were in an immense majority, and
this is the inference which the orator desired his hearers to draw. Many
scholars however, e.g. Jebb, Selections from the Attic Orators, note ad
loc., Szanto, Wiener Studien 3, 1881, p. 29, Lipsius, Att. Proc.2 p. 941 n.
499, consider that Isaeus' narrative proves the existence in the 4th century of
an older system of voting, entirely different from that prevalent in the age of
Aristotle. The main evidence for this second method comes from two
comedies of the 5th century, the Wasps of Aristophanes produced in 422 B.C.
(11. 987/8 τηνδὶ λαβὼν τὴν ψῆφον ἐπὶ τὸν ὕστερον | μύσας παρᾷξον κἀπόλυσον,
☎ Táтeр), and the Muses of Phrynichus brought out at the Lenaea of 405 B.C.
in competition with the Frogs of Aristophanes (ἰδού, δέχου τὴν ψῆφον· ὁ
καδίσκος δέ σοι | ὁ μὲν ἀπολύων οὗτος, ὁ δ᾽ ἀπολλὺς ὁδί, Harp. s.v. καδίσκος,
Kock, Com. Att. Fr. 1. p. 479). Apparently two vessels were used, one for
votes of condemnation, one for votes of acquittal, and each judge was
provided with one √ĥpos only, a shell or an imitation of a shell (xoıpivŋ, Ar.
Wasps 332/3, 349), which gained its significance from the vessel into which
it was cast. When this method was used, spectators must often have been
able to guess the result of the voting, as soon as the two vessels were
emptied, by comparing the size of the two heaps of shells. It is also urged
that by συγχέαι τὰς ψήφους (§ 18. 2) Isaeus must mean the mixing up or
throwing together of the shells from the two vessels, and that diapıßµeîv, not
ovvapıßµéív, is the proper word to describe the counting of the two kinds of
no employed under the other system sketched by Aristotle. These
arguments are not conclusive. In the first place the interpretation weakens
the force of ἐξεραθεισῶν τῶν ψήφων. No one is able to explain with any
approach to plausibility how with this method the secrecy of the ballot was
preserved, and Szanto (op. cit.) consequently contends that the voting was
open. Would not everybody have discovered the verdict long before 'the
pouring out of the ballots,' by observing the judges as they approached the
urn of acquittal or the urn of condemnation? The objections brought
against ovvapıðµeîv are capricious and unfounded. Szanto.(op. cit.) appears
to think that συναριθμεῖν means 'to count up ψήφοι of one kind, διαριθμεῖν
OR. V.
425
COMMENTARY
to count ψήφοι of two kinds. Compare Reiske's note: uidetur διαριθμεῖν
melius conuenire, seorsim suffragia quaeque numerare, tam quae pro Leochare
quam quae contra essent. The word συναριθμεῖν is perfectly applicable to
both methods. The same process may be described by ovvapioμeiv and
διαριθμεῖν. The latter verb, which in this connexion is official (C. I. A. IV. 2.
841 b 30=S. I. G. n. 439, Michel n. 961 τὰς ψήφος...ὁ φρατρίαρχος διαριθμη-
σάτω καὶ ἀναγορευέτω ὁπότερ᾽ ἂν ψηφίσωνται, Plut. Aristid. 7 οἱ ἄρχοντες
διηρίθμουν τὸ σύμπαν ἐν ταὐτῷ τῶν ὀστράκων πλῆθος), draws attention to the
separate items which the calculator must go through; it is to 'count over,'
dinumerare rather than enumerare. In συναριθμεῖν regard is had to the
collective total; it is to count up' (Aesch. 2. 130 λογισμόν τινα ἡμερῶν
συνηριθμεῖτο πρὸς ὑμᾶς, Plat. Phil. 23 D κατ᾽ εἴδη διιστὰς καὶ συναριθμούμενος),
just as συνωνεῖσθαι ('Αθ. Πολ. 6. 8, Lys. 22. 5, 7, 9, 10, Dem. 23. 208) and
coemere are 'to buy up,' and is chosen here in preference to the common
term for the sake of alliteration (παρήχησις); the effect can be kept in
English, 'not to count up but mix up the votes. A man may be said 'to
count up the votes,' if he has before him half a dozen kinds of ballots.
Naber however (op. cit. p. 4o5) thinks ἀριθμεῖν the true reading, the repetition
of our being a scribe's error. The only real difficulty is to understand the
bearing of συγχέαι τὰς ψήφους, if applied to the perforated and solid ballots
on the abacus. Gilbert (Gr. Staatsaltert.² I. p. 465 n. 2, E. T. p. 413 n. 3)
suggests that the ballots were sorted and fixed in the holes before the
counting began. The words, συγχέαι τὰς ψήφους, are intelligible, if the
compromise was not reached until the work of arranging and ordering the
votes was completed.
7 ἃ μὲν τῶν δικαστῶν καὶ ἡμῶν ἐδεήθη. We do not know under what
conditions a litigant was allowed to address the court after the voting and
before the τίμησις and ἀντιτίμησις. It should be remembered that the judges
had a voice in the compromise reached; see § 29 ἀφεῖμεν αὐτῷ τοὺς καρποὺς
οὕτω τῶν δικαστῶν γιγνωσκόντων, and compare [Dem.] 48. 3 δέομαι οὖν ὑμῶν, ὦ
ἄνδρες δικασταί, ἀκούσαντας ἀμφοτέρων ἡμῶν καὶ αὐτοὺς δοκιμαστὰς τοῦ
πράγματος γενομένους, μάλιστα μὲν διαλλάξαντας ἀποπέμψαι καὶ εὐεργέτας
ἡμῶν ἀμφοτέρων ὑμᾶς γενέσθαι, ἐὰν δ᾽ ἄρα μὴ ἐπιτυγχάνητε τούτου, ἐκ τῶν
ὑπολοίπων τῷ τὰ δίκαια λέγοντι, τούτῳ τὴν ψῆφον ὑμᾶς προσθέσθαι, ib. 58
ἀντιβολοῦμεν ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί...μάλιστα μὲν τουτονὶ Ὀλυμπιόδωρον πεῖσαι μὴ
ἀδικεῖν ἡμᾶς, ἐὰν δ᾽ ἄρα μὴ θέλῃ πείθεσθαι, ὑμᾶς...ψηφίζεσθαι ὅ τι ἂν ὑμῖν δοκῇ
βέλτιστον καὶ δικαιότατον εἶναι, Isocr. 18. 39 πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἔξεστιν
αὐτῷ, πρὶν ἀποπειραθῆναι τῆς ὑμετέρας γνώμης, ἀφέντι τὴν δίκην ἀπηλλάχθαι
πάντων τῶν πραγμάτων.
ע:
8 ὅσα ἡμῖν ἐξεγένετο διαπράξασθαι. Cp. § 19 ἐγγενόμενον ἡμῖν αὐτὸν ἐπειδὴ
εἴλομεν τῶν ψευδομαρτυρίων ἀτιμῶσαι, Ant. Tetr. I. δ. 7 οἱ μὲν γὰρ (ελεύθεροι)
ἀτιμοῦνταί τε καὶ χρήμασι ζημιοῦνται, ἐὰν μὴ τἀληθῆ δοκῶσι μαρτυρῆσαι, Dem.
29. 16 δίκην ἄν μοι βλάβης ἔλαχεν, εἰ ψευδομαρτυρίων ὑπόδικον αὐτὸν ἐποίουν
κατὰ τἀδελφοῦ οὐ προσῆκον, ἐν ᾗ καὶ περὶ χρημάτων καὶ περὶ ἀτιμίας ἄνθρωποι
κινδυνεύουσι, ib. 50 τῷ μάρτυρι τοῦ κινδύνου περὶ τῆς ἐπιτιμίας ὄντος. These
passages have greatly perplexed interpreters. With regard to prosecutions
for false witness two things are certain, (1) that the suit was an ἀγὼν τιμητός,
in which after conviction the judges chose in the usual way between a money
penalty proposed by the prosecutor and a counter-proposal made by the
426
OR. V.
ISAEUS
defendant (Dem. 45. 46 ᾿Απολλόδωρος Πασίωνος Αχαρνεὺς Στεφάνῳ Μενεκλέους
Αχαρνεί ψευδομαρτυρίων, τίμημα τάλαντον), (2) that in the 5th century a person
thrice found guilty of bearing false witness became ipso iure äriµos (And. I.
74). But Antiphon, Isaeus, and Demosthenes write as if 'disfranchisement'
was a necessary result of any conviction of this kind. K. F. Hermann (De
uestigiis institutorum ueterum, imprimis Atticorum, per Plat. de Legibus libros
indagandis, 1836, p. 71 n. 313) on the strength of Isaeus' language, in which
he suspected no exaggeration, conjectured that the Athenian law was made
more severe after the archonship of Euclid, so that in the 4th century
a single conviction entailed the punishment of ariuía. The conjecture has
been refuted by the discovery in 1891 of the conclusion of Hypereides' speech
against Philippides (Classical Texts from Papyri in the British Museum,
edited by F. G. Kenyon, p. 43 sqq.), which Blass (Att. Ber.2 111. 2, p. 79)
assigns to the first half of 336 B.C. The fragment shows that the resemblance
between Plato's ordinances and Attic Law was closer than Hermann sup-
posed. Compare Plat. Laws 937 C ἐὰν δέ τις ἁλῷ δὶς ψευδομαρτυρῶν, τοῦτον
μηκέτι νόμος ἀναγκαζέτω μηδεὶς μαρτυρεῖν, ἐὰν δὲ τρίς, μηκέτ᾽ ἐξέστω τούτῳ
µaprupeîv with the papyrus, col. VIII, I sqq. (4. 12 ed. Blass.) éteiтa dè wσñeρ
τοῖς τῶν ψευδομαρτυρίων δὶς ἡλωκόσι δεδώκατε ὑμεῖς τὸ τρίτον μὴ μαρτυρεῖν,
μηδ᾽ οἷς ἂν παραγένωνται, ἵνα μηδενὶ τῶν πολιτῶν ᾖ τὸ ὑμέτερον πλῆθος αἴτιον
τοῦ ἠτιμῶσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς αὑτῷ, ἂμ μὴ παύηται τὰ ψευδῆ μαρτυρῶν, οὕτω καὶ τοῖς
ἡλωκόσι παρανόμων ἔξεστιν μηκέτι γράφειν, εἰ δὲ μή, δῆλόν ἐστιν ὅτι ἰδίου τινὸς
EVEKA TOÛTO TOLOûσv. Philippides, having been already twice convicted of
ἕνεκα τοῦτο ποιοῦσιν.
illegal proposals, was now in peril of partial áruµía; see Antiphanes, Sappho
(Athen. 10. 451 A, Kock, Com. Att. Fr. II. p. 95) πŵs yàp yévoir' av, &
πάτερ, | ῥήτωρ ἄφωνος; ἢν ἁλῷ τρὶς παρανόμων, [Dem.] 51. 12 τὸν μὲν εἰπόντα
τι μὴ κατὰ τοὺς νόμους, ἐὰν ἁλῷ τὸ τρίτον, μέρος ἠτιμῶσθαι τοῦ σώματος, Att.
Proc.2 p. 437. Boeckh had suggested in 1817 (Kl. Schr. IV. p. 123) that the
judges had power to impose ἀτιμία as an additional penalty (προστίμημα),
and this doctrine, which Hermann rejected, seems now to hold the field
(Thalheim-Hermann, Gr. Rechtsalt. p. 136). But, as Lipsius remarks, it
involves an exception to the ordinary principles of Attic Law; in all other
cases arīµía is a punishment fixed by statute, not left to the discretion of
a court. Schoemann, comparing Dem. 27. 67, and Isocr. 16. 47, to which
may now be added Hyp. 5. 27, regards the ȧriµía, which according to the
orators' statements menaced the defendant accused of false witness, as nothing
more than a possible consequence of refusal or inability to pay the damages
given by the court; if the prosecutor enforced the judgment by a successful
action for 'ejectment' (díkŋ ¿§oúλns), the defendant forfeited his civic rights
so long as the money remained unpaid; see Att. Proc.² pp. 219, 489. I do
not believe that Leochares really ran any risk of disfranchisement. If his
prosecutors had put in their plaint a heavy ríµŋµa, it does not follow that the
sum would have been approved by the court.
4
9 wμodoyýłŋ ńµîv. For the dative see III. 41. 3 1., Lys. 23. 15 πρìv Taûта
ὁμολογηθῆναι αὐτῷ, Plat. Crat. 431 Ε ἐάνπερ τὰ ἔμπροσθεν ἐκεῖνα ὁμολογηθῇ
ἡμῖν. Plato uses the case freely even with the present passive of ὁμολογεῖν
(Gorg. 497 D οἶμαι γάρ σοι οὐδὲ ταύτῃ ὁμολογεῖσθαι, Rep. 5. 478 Α καὶ δῆλον ὅτι
ἕτερον ἐπιστήμης δόξα ὁμολογεῖται ἡμῖν, ib. 4. 434 D).
18. 1 συγχωρούντων ἡμῶν τῷ ἄρχοντι κ.τ.λ., not (with Reiske and Schoe-
OR. V.
427
COMMENTARY
mann) on our allowing the Archon not to count the votes,' nobis conce-
dentibus Archonti ut suffragia non dinumerata confunderet (Dem. 20. 143
συγχωρήσεται γὰρ ὑμῖν λῦσαι περὶ ὧν αὐτὸς ἥμαρτε), but ' on our agreeing with
the Archon not to count the votes,' i.e. not to have them counted by the four
officials appointed for that purpose. For the construction compare [Dem.]
58. 20 οὐ γὰρ ἐὰν Κτησικλῆς ὁ μέτοικος συγχωρήσῃ τούτῳ, πονηρὸς πονηρῷ, μὴ
παραδοθῆναι τοῖς πράκτορσι τὸν προσοφλόντα κατὰ τὸν νόμον, διὰ τοῦτο δεῖ τὴν
πόλιν ἀπεστερήσθαι τῶν ἐκ τῶν νόμων ἐπικειμένων ζημιών, ib. 19 διοικησαμένου
πρὸς Κτησικλέα τὸν λογογράφον, ὃς ἦν ἐπὶ τοῖς τῶν ἀντιδίκων πράγμασι, ὥστε μήτε
ἐκτεῖσαι μήτε εἰς ἀκρόπολιν ἀνενεχθῆναι. It is often hard to determine whether
συγχωρείν means 'to yield (to give way, concedere) or 'to make terms (to
come together, conuenire) ; see [Dem.] 47. 43 δεομένων τούτων καὶ ἱκετευόντων
καὶ τίνα οὐ προσπεμπόντων...συνεχώρησα ὥστε τῷ Θεοπόμπῳ πέντε καὶ εἴκοσι
δραχμῶν προστιμηθῆναι, ib. 80 τῷ δὲ τιμήματι συγχωρήσαι, [Dem.] 53. 26 οὗτοι
γὰρ ὅτε οἱ δικασταὶ ἐβούλοντο θανάτου τιμῆσαι τῷ ᾿Αρεθουσίῳ, ἐδέοντο τῶν
δικαστῶν χρημάτων τιμῆσαι καὶ ἐμοῦ συγχωρῆσαι, 59. 6 ἐπειδὴ περὶ τοῦ τιμήματος
ἐλάμβανον τὴν ψῆφον οἱ δικασταί, δεομένων ἡμῶν συγχωρῆσαι οὐκ ἤθελεν ἀλλὰ
πεντεκαίδεκα ταλάντων ἐτιμᾶτο, Dem. 21. 84, [Dem.] 34. 52, Lys. I. 29 ἐγὼ δὲ
τῷ μὲν ἐκείνου τιμήματι οὐ συνεχώρουν, τὸν δὲ τῆς πόλεως νόμον ἠξίουν εἶναι
κυριώτερον. On the other hand the idea of agreement is prominent in the
following passages : V. 31. 6, Ant. 5. 27, Lys. 4. 1, Isocr. 15. 35, Dem. 9. 70,
18. 227, 21. 146, 32. 26, 27, 37. 13, 41, 41. 19, [Dem.] 40. 11, 42. 13, 56. 26,
59. 47. We need more details to comprehend the nature of this transaction.
What was the part played by the judges and by the Archon as organ of the
will of the judges? The orator's intention is to portray himself and his
cousins as kindly and magnanimous opponents, but we shall see (§ 29) that
the court, which had heard the whole history of the case, had something
to say to the terms of the compromise ; note in § 29. 5 the appearance of
ἀναγκαζόμενοι.
1, 2 μὴ συναριθμεῖν ἀλλὰ συγχέαι. Cp. § 17. 6, 7 η.
The
2 ἀφίστατο [μέν], 'was ready to resign two thirds of the estate.
imperfect explains the present participle συγχωρούντων. We can hear
Dicaeogenes bargaining : ἐὰν ὑμεῖς συγχωρῆτε τῷ ἄρχοντι μὴ συναριθμεῖν, ἐγὼ
ἀφίσταμαι ; see I. 44. 5 7., VI. 32. 2 ". Here μèv can only be defended by
supposing an anacoluthon (I. I. I n.); for examples of pèv inculcatum
see Lys. 12. 5, Dem. 6. 33, 9. 5, 19, 16. 19, and Voemel's notes on Dem. 18.
33, 41, 77.
4 αναμφισβήτητα παραδώσειν. Dicaeogenes and Leochares deny that this
promise was made (§§ 21, 25).
6 Πλωθειεύς. The deme Πλήθεια belonged to the inland trittys of the
tribe Aegeis. Its site was on the North-eastern slopes of Pentelicus to the
West of Marathon, where now stands Palaeo Stamata (Milchhoefer, Unter-
suchungen über die Demenordnung des Kleisthenes p. 14). In the 4th century
the spelling of the demoticum fuctuates between Πλωθειεύς, Πλωθεύς, Πλω-
θεύς; we find Πλωθῆς, Πλωθειᾶς, Πλωθέας, Πλωθεῦσι in C. I. A. II. 570
(according to Koehler soon after 403 B.C.), Πλωθεεὺς ib. 7o3 (341/o B.C.),
Πλωθείς ib. 872 (341/0 Β.C.), Πλωθειῶς ib. 809 c 140 (325/4 Β.C.), Πλωθεὺς ib. 269
(302/1 Β.C.), Πλωθεὺς IV. 2. 269 c (302/I B.C.). In the 3rd century Πλωθεύς
428
OR. V.
ISAEUS
appears to have established a predominance. I have assumed that Isaeus
used the oldest form.
19-24 In return for our forbearance at the trial we have been swindled.
Dicaeogenes has not carried out the covenant, and Leochares repudiates his
obligations as surety. Dicaeogenes pretends that he did not engage to hand
over the property free from charges and liabilities, but only resigned his rights
in two thirds of the estate. A palpable falsehood, as our witnesses prove. If
his story is true, what did we gain by our victory? What did he lose by
defeat? We have only recovered two paltry houses outside the Wall and
13 acres of land in the Plain. The rest had been mortgaged by Dicaeogenes,
and was in the hands of the purchasers and mortgagees before the trial.
dare not oust the occupiers for fear of lawsuits. I have already been con-
demned in 40 m. for an attempt to get possession of the bath.
We
19. 1, 2 ἐγγενόμενον, probably for ἐκγενόμενον (§ 17. 8 ἐξεγένετο). In
Athenian inscriptions eyyovos for exyovos appears as early as the end of the
6th century (C. I. A. 1. 381, Larfeld, Handbuch d. gr. Epigraphik II. p. 418)
and is found 12 times in the 4th century (Meisterhans, Gramm. d. att. Inschr.3
$ 41, 4, p. 107); cp. èy yaµetîs in C. I. A. IV. 2. 841 b, 53 (c. 396/5 B.C.).
Similar assimilations of κ are shown not only in inscriptions (S. I. G.2 III.
p. 230) but in papyri and MSS. (Hyp. 2. 13 åvéydoтov, Blass, Hyp. praef.
p. xiv, Dem. 20. 87 éy λóyou pap. Berol., 21. 123 éyλoyıČoµévois pr. 2, 10. 34
Ἐγβατάνοις pr. A, [Dem.] 43. 19 ἐγγόνους ΣFQ, 26 ἔγγονον Q, 48 ἔγγονοι FQ,
Crönert, Memoria Graeca Herculanensis p. 54). It may be doubted whether
the impersonal forms ἐγγίγνεται, ἐγγενήσεται etc. ever represent a compound
with the preposition év. The evidence is as follows: eyyiyveraι occurs
in Plat. Phaed. 66 C, éyyevýσeraι in Isocr. 16. 45, éyyévŋtai in And. 1. 141,
Lys. 31. 16, Dem. 19. 253, [Dem.] 17. 26, ¿yyévoto in Isocr. 5. 132, 15. 166,
[Dem.] prooem. 20. 2, éyyevéodaɩ in Ant. 5. 17, 46, Isocr. 4. 44, Dem. 30. 28,
37. I, whereas éέeyévero occurs in Plat. Parm. 128 D, Euthyd. 275 E,
Isocr. 8. 92, Ep. 9. 4, Lys. 7. 37, [Lys.] 2. 6, Isae. 5. 17, Dem. 28, 2,
[Dem.] 43. 9, Aesch. 3. 58, éκyevýσeтaι in Lys. 4. 13 (after ¿¿ñv), [Dem.]
40. 55 (after ἐξῆν ; ειτενησεται pr. Σ, ἐγγενήσεται rc. Σ, εἰ γενήσεται FQ),
ἐκγένοιτο in Dem. 57. 12 (after ἐξουσία γένοιτο), ἐκγενόμενον in Isocr. 16. 36
(sic T, èyyevóμevov uolg.), ékyivóμeva in S. I. G.² n. 569, 9 (Paros). The
absence of éveyévero is significant. Lell's collections (Der Absolute Accusativ
im Griechischen bis zu Aristoteles, Würzburg, 1892) show that, if dó§av and
TUXòv be set aside, the Accusative Absolute of the Aorist participle of im-
personal verbs is uncommon. While maρóv, é§óv, deòv are used with freedom,
παρασχόν
πарaσxòν is found only four times (Thuc. I. 120. 3, 5. 14. 2, 60. 5, 63. 1),
ἐκγενόμενον once, ἐγγενόμενον once, δεῆσαν once (Isocr. 12. 180), γενόμενον
once (And. 1. 81 ἐπειδὴ δ᾽ ἐπανήλθετε ἐκ Πειραιῶς, γενόμενον ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν τιμω-
ρεῖσθαι ἔγνωτε ἐᾶν τὰ γεγενημένα). He also points out that ἐνὸν is not met
before Aristotle. See I. 22. 2 n.
7 ἐπὶ τοῦ δικαστηρίου. Cp. § 1. 2 7.
7, 8 oűte óµoλoyeî éyyvýσaodai avτóv, an exaggeration; compare § 25. 3 ov
φησιν ἐγγυήσασθαι ἃ καταμαρτυρεῖται αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἐν τῷ γραμματείῳ τῷ ἐπὶ τοῦ
δικαστηρίου γραφέντι οὐκ ἔνεστι ταῦτα.
20. 2
πεντακοσίων ὄντων. Cp. ᾿Αθ. Πολ. col. 34, 22 sqq. [τὰ δὲ πολλ]ὰ
OR. V.
429
COMMENTARY
τῶν [δικ]αστηρίων ἐστὶ φ[α, οἷς τὰ ἴδια (?) ἀποδιδό]ασιν· ὅταν δὲ δέ[ῃ τὰς
δημοσίας γραφ]ὰς [εἰ]σαγαγεῖν, συν[έρχεται β' δικαστήρ]ια [εἰς] τὴν ἡλιαίαν
ΤΑΛ ... ... ... ... ΚΛΕ . . δ᾽ εἰς φ' καὶ χ' (i.e. χιλίους) τρία [δικαστήρια], Harp. s.v.
ἡλιαία, Dem. 24. 9 δυοῖν δικαστηρίων εἰς ἕνα καὶ χιλίους ἐψηφισμένων, ᾿Αθ. Πολ.
53. 3 οἱ δὲ (οἱ τέτταρες οἱ τὴν φυλὴν τοῦ φεύγοντος δικάζοντες) παραλαβόντες
(παρὰ τοῦ διαιτητοῦ) εἰσάγουσιν εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον, τὰ μὲν ἐντὸς χιλίων εἰς ἕνα καὶ
διακοσίους, τὰ δ᾽ ὑπὲρ χιλίας εἰς ἕνα καὶ τετρακοσίους, Poll. 8. 48, Dem. 21. 223
τῷ ποτ᾽ εἰσὶν ὑμῶν οἱ ἀεὶ δικάζοντες ἰσχυροὶ καὶ κύριοι τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει πάντων,
ἐάν τε διακοσίους ἐάν τε χιλίους ἐάν θ᾽ ὁποσουσοῦν ἡ πόλις καθίσῃ.
3 ó Ti [äv] éπoínσev. Reiske offers two interpretations of the MS. reading.
τι ἐποίησεν.
His note is as follows: id est éñalev, quid eo factum fuisset. Nos quoque
simili modo usurpamus was er würde gemacht oder angefangen haben, h.e.
wie es ihm würde ergangen seyn, wie es mit ihm würde abgelaufen seyn. In
his translation he takes a different view: atqui, factum qui infitiatur id,
cuius testes fuerunt iudices, numero quingenti et reliqua tam densa corona
ciuium...circumstantium, quid ille uobis facturus uidetur, si pauciores minor-
isque auctoritatis testes habuisset? Schoemann and Dobree (Adv. 1. p. 295
quid peteret praesidii? quo se uerteret, quominus ariuos fieret) approve the
first version, which takes no account of the force of ἐναντίον μὲν τῶν δικαστῶν
...ἐναντίον δὲ τῶν περιεστηκότων. With regard to the second Naber (Mnem.
N. S. 5, 1877, p. 406) pertinently remarks that, if the engagement had been
private instead of public, the result would presumably have been the same, a
breach of faith, and he consequently proposes ἠγγύητο and ὅ τι ἂν ἐποιήσαμεν.
This makes good sense, but I prefer with Buermann (Hermes 19, 1884,
p. 335) to bracket av. The only objection to this remedy is that we expect
ἠγγυήσατο in correspondence with ἐγγυήσασθαι and ἐποίησεν. For the intru-
sion of av cp. §§ 32. 2, 33. 6, x1. 6. 6, 47. 10, And. 1. 21, Lys. 9. 20, 12. 52,
93, 13. 73, 15. 6, 26. 15, Dem. 1. 15, 6. 18, 9. 45, Voemel on Dem. 18. 18, 32.
5 ἀφίστατο. Cp. § 18. 2 n.
21.2 wpeλoúµeda. An imperfect (Schoemann), not a present (Reiske,
Dareste).
7 οἱ παρὰ τούτου πριάμενοι καὶ θέμενοι. All commentators and translators
seem to hold that the speaker has in view two classes, purchasers and
mortgagees (éμevoi). Such a distinction is not supported by the grammar
of the sentence, and encounters grave objections on grounds of law and
common sense. (1) It is extravagant to call upon Dicaeogenes to recover
portions of the estate which had been sold before the trial. Even if he had
the means to buy back these properties, he could not override at pleasure
the rights of the present owners. It was not to be expected that to gratify
him they would at once consent to resell at the price (run) which they had
given, or at any price, and no one has alleged any reason for supposing that
in the circumstances described sale was compulsory. On their own state-
ment of the case the cousins' legal remedy was in the first place to demand
from Dicaeogenes the purchase money which he had received. (2) With
regard to mortgaged property Dicaeogenes was no better off, if he had
borrowed on an ordinary hypothec (vжоðýкη). In cases of hypothec the
debtor retained both possession and ownership of the estate hypothecated,
but was liable to eviction by the creditor in case of non-payment of the whole
430
OR. V.
ISAEUS
debt (capital, interest, and costs) in accordance with the terms stipulated.
As Dicaeogenes had parted with possession (§ 21. 6 ovdè eixev), we may
conclude that he had incurred forfeitures, and that the creditors had entered
on the property. The legal effects of entry (éµßárevois) are disputed. The
most plausible theory is that the mere fact of eµßárevois vested at once in
the creditor the absolute ownership of the entire security, and that the law
allowed the debtor no interval of grace between the seizure of the pledge and
the transference of proprietary rights within which he might satisfy the
creditor and extinguish the hypothec. The creditor could maintain the
ejectment against payment or tender by the debtor of principal, interest,
costs, and damages (propter culpam et moram), and, if the value of the
security exceeded the total amount of the debt, he was not bound to restore
the surplus to the debtor. If all this be true, what is the bearing of åñodóvra
Thu Tiμηv? The notion of price is entirely foreign to the obligations of
hypothec. On the other side, if run be interpreted as value (àgia Aesch.
1. 96; cp. Plat. Laws 744 B, 921 A), as in Inscr. Jurid. Gr. 1. p. 30, S. I. G.
n. 510 (Law of Ephesus, c. 132 B.C.), 42 sqq. vñèρ tôv éyyúwv tôv éyyvwµévwv
πρὸς [αὐτὰ] τὰ κτήματα: ἐὰμ μὲν ἴση ᾖ ἡ τιμὴ τοῦ κτήματος τῷ δανείῳ πρὸς ὃ
[ἂν ᾖ] ἔγγυος, τῇ τιμήσει τῇ πρὸ τοῦ πολέμου γεγενημένῃ, ἀπηλλάχθαι τὸν
ἔγ[γυον] τῆς ἐγγύης· ἐὰν δὲ πλέον ᾖ τὸ ὀφείλημα τῆς τιμῆς τοῦ κτήματος, τὸ πλέον
ὀφει[λόμενον τῆς] τιμῆς ὁ ἔγγυος ἀποτινέτω κατὰ λόγον, S. I. G. n. 154- Michel
n. 530 (decree of Zeleia), 14 sqq. ὡς δ᾽ ἂν τιμήσωσι οἱ αἱρεθέντες ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμο,
ἐκτίνεν τὴν τιμὴν τὸν ἰδιώτην τῇ πόλει, ἢ τοῦ χωρίου ἐξίστασθαι, Plat. Laws
914 C, we pass out of the sphere of hypothec, and come back to sale and
purchase. Dicaeogenes is actually asked to buy back at market rates
estates which he had forfeited through inability to pay the mortgage moneys.
Some scholars however take a different view of the law of hypothec and
maintain that by entry the creditor only gained possession and enjoyment of
the thing hypothecated with the right either at once, or possibly after the
expiry of a determinate period, to realise its value for the purpose of dis-
charging his claim. According to this doctrine it is conceivable that it was
still in Dicaeogenes' power to get back the property from the creditors, if he
could pay the amount of the debt together with the accumulations, but here
again there is no place for the conceptions of price or value. The difficulty
with regard to the sense of run recurs, if the engagements into which
Dicaeogenes had entered were a form of antichresis, i.e. if the estates were
pledges delivered into the possession of the creditors (pignora tradita, not
pignora conuenta), who enjoyed the produce (карπоí, fructus) in lieu of
interest on the money advanced (Dem. 27. 24, 26, C. I. A. II. 1139, 1140
quoted below).
A better explanation of the passage is offered by the institution
of пρâσis èπì λúσe, sale with power of release or redemption, vente
à réméré. This method of furnishing real security, which has points
of resemblance to the Roman mancipatio fiduciae causa, appears to have
been common at Athens, being often mentioned in inscriptions (C. I. A.
II. 1116 ὅρος οἰκίας πεπραμένης ἐπὶ λύσει Μενεφίλῳ Ἰκαριεεΐ ΗΗΓΔΔ; over
thirty of these opoɩ have been found, Larfeld, Handbuch d. gr. Epigraphik 11.
p. 931, Inscr. Furid. Gr. I. p. 112, Hitzig, Das griechische Pfandrecht p. 68),
OR. V.
431
COMMENTARY
and occasionally in literature ([Dem.] 33. 8, Dem. 37. 5, 13). The operation
consisted in a sale by the debtor to the creditor of the property assigned to
meet the obligation, under the condition that the debtor should recover the
property on payment of the debt within a limited term. The sale, unlike the
Roman mancipatio fiduciae causa, was a real sale with a real price. The
purchaser became owner immediately, but his ownership was not absolute
and unconditional, in that the vendor reserved the right to repurchase at the
same price within the period agreed upon, in other words, to resume owner-
ship by payment of the loan. Moreover, in order that the transference of
ownership might take effect, it was not necessary for the creditor to acquire
possession; when the object of a πрâσis éπì Xúσe was land or houses, the
creditor and owner commonly leased the property to the debtor for a rent
identical with the interest of the loan or purchase money, not calculated on
the value of the estate, retaining of course authority to terminate the lease
and expel the tenant if the rent was not paid regularly. In the absence of
any arrangement of this kind the creditor became possessor as well as owner,
and had the use and enjoyment of the estate like an ordinary purchaser,
except in so far as his powers of disposition were restrained by the obligation
to restore the property in integro statu, if the debtor used his privilege of
repurchase within the stipulated period. Though the transaction was in form
and effect a sale, in the intention of the parties it was a loan on real security,
and was sometimes described by language applicable in strictness only to
hypothec. Athenians did not hesitate to call the object sold a pledge or
gage, ενέχυρον (Dem. 33. 1ο παρέδωκα τὸ ἐνέχυρον, but ib. 8 ὠνὴν ποιοῦμαι τῆς
νεως), the procedure a pledging, θέσις ib. 12 μόλις εἰσέπραξα τὸ ἀργύριον
πραθείσης τῆς νεὼς τετταράκοντα μνῶν, ὅσουπερ ἦν ἡ θέσις, Poll. 8. 142
Ὑπερείδης δὲ ἐν τῷ πρὸς Χάρητα ἔφη ἀποδόμενος ἀντὶ τοῦ ὑποθείς), the rent
(uíolwois Dem. 37. 5, μio0wμa S. I. G.² n. 831, from Amorgus) interest
(Dem. 37. 5, 29), the vendor a debtor, xpηorns (Dem. 37. 10), the purchasers
lenders (Dem. 37. 4, 10). The mixed terminology is also illustrated by the
register of sales discovered in Tenos (Anc. Gr. Inscr. in the Brit. Mus. II.
n. 377, Inscr. Furid. Gr. I. p. 64 sqq.); note § 30 (1. 74), oikiav, † †ν πρóτeрov
Εὐβούλου, ἣν ἐπρίατο Πραξίας παρὰ Εὐβούλου κατὰ δάνειον, and § 46 (11. 120/1)
Φώκος Φωκίωνος παρ' Αθηνάδου ᾿Αμφιθέου...ἐπρίατο τὴν οἰκίαν καὶ τὸ χωρίον τὸ
ἐν Ειλειθυαίῳ δραχμῶν ἀργυρίου χιλίων τετρακοσίων ἃ ἀ[πέ]δωκ[ε] Φῶκος ᾿Αθηνάδει
δανειζόμενος παρ' Αθηνάδου χιλίας καὶ τετρακοσίας δραχμάς ; the second entry
is a clear case of repurchase (cp. § 45, l. 117 åvεñρíaτo, proposed by Newton),
the debtor returning the exact sum, 1400 dr., which he had borrowed.
ΚΕΙ
å
ע
Looking at this evidence I think it probable that Isaeus' words oi #apà
τούτου πριάμενοι καὶ θέμενοι refer not to two classes but to one only, viz.
creditors from whom Dicaeogenes had borrowed by way of πρᾶσις ἐπὶ λύσει.
In the circumstances the use of eixev and of кeкоμíoμela (§ 22. 4 n.) suggests
that Dicaeogenes was no longer in possession, though it should be re-
membered that ó exwv by itself may designate either proprietor or occupier;
Athenian law has no single exact and technical term to express ownership,
dominium, паɣкrŋoía (law of Ephesus in S. I. G.² n. 510, 77= Inscr. Jurid. Gr.
I. p. 30). With this interpretation àπodóvтa τǹv Tiµǹv is easily understood.
Dicaeogenes had not lost the right of redemption and by 'returning the price'
432
OR. V.
ISAEUS
2
could constrain the purchasers to resell. See for the difference between 0éσis
and πρᾶσις ἐπὶ λύσει the monograph of Hitzig, Das griechische Pfandrecht,
and the discussion in Beauchet III. p. 237 sqq., for the use of τιθέναι and
τίθεσθαι Harp. s. v. θέσθαι and θέτης (Χ. 24. 3 n.), Bekk. An. Gr. 1. pp. 263, 32
(θέσιν), 264, 3, 1ο (θέτην, θέμενος), Poll. 8. 142 θεῖναι μὲν οἰκίαν ἐστὶ τὸ δοῦναι
εἰς ὑποθήκην, θέσθαι δὲ τὸ λαβεῖν εἰς ὑποθήκην, Dem. 41. 11, [Dem.] 53. 10, 12,
13, Plat. Laws 820 E, C. I. A. II. 1139 (Inscr. Furid. Gr. I. p. 116 n. 62,
1.
S. I. G. n. 821) ὅρος χωρίου καὶ οἰκίας ὑποκειμένων FHHH δραχμῶν ὥστε ἔχειν
καὶ κρατεῖν τὸν θέμενον κατὰ συνθήκας τὰς κειμένας παρὰ Δεινίᾳ Εὐωνυμεῖ,
ib. 1140, ib. II. 17 (S. I. G. n. 80, Michel n. 86), 36 sqq. μὴ ἐξεῖναι... Αθηναίων
μηθενὶ ἐγκτήσασθαι...μήτε οἰκίαν μήτε χωρίον μήτε πριαμένῳ μήτε ὑποθεμένῳ
μήτε ἄλλῳ τρόπῳ μηθενί. ἐὰν δέ τις ὠνῆται ἢ κτᾶται ἢ τιθῆται τρόπῳ ὁτῳοῦν,
S. I. G. n. 831 (Amorgus), 12 τὰ χωρία ἃ ἔχει θέμενος Νικήρατος παρὰ
Ἐξακέστου, S. I. G. n. 226 = Michel n. 337 (Olbia), 14 τῶν ἀρχόντων θέντων
τὰ ἱερὰ ποτήρια προς Πολύχαρμον πρὸς χρυσοῦς ἑκατὸν καὶ οὐκ ἐχόντων
λύσασθαι. The compound κατατιθέναι was used in some parts of Greece
(Code of Gortyn II. I κατακείμενον, VI. 5 καταθίθεθθαι, 13 κατάθειτο, 19 κατα-
θένς, 21 καταθεμένοι, ΙΧ. 5 καταθέμεν, Χ. 29 καταθέθαι, S. I. G. n. 229 = Michel
n. 229 (Orchomenus in Arcadia), 18 καταθέντες ἐνέχυρα, S. I. G. n. 829=
Inscr. Furid. Gr. I. p. 118 n. 65 (Amorgus), 3 sqq. ὅρος οἰκιῶν καὶ κήπου
ὧν κατέθηκεν ᾿Αντήνωρ Κλεοδίκου Πασαρίστηι Εὐαγόρου μετὰ κυρίου Σάμωνος
ἀργυρίου δραχμῶν ἐνενήκοντα, Michel 7. 1001 = Inscr. Furid. Gr. II. p. 78 sqq.
(Thera) II. 15 μήτε καταθέμεν μήτε διαλλάξασθαι μήτε ἐξαλλοτριῶσαι).
2
22. 3 ἔξω τείχους. Cp. C. I. A. IV. 2. 1123 b ὅρος οἰκίας καὶ ἐργαστηρίων
πεπραμένων ἐπὶ λύσει τῶν ἐντὸς τείχους καὶ τοῦ ἔξω τείχους λιθουργείου, Isocr. 4.
116, 7. 52, Dem. 19. 86, Plat. Phaedr. 227 A, Parm. 127 B, Lys. 203 A, Ar. Av. 497.
'Names of localities (Lokal-namen), which have acquired the value of proper
names are generally found without the article in the classical age, e.g. ἀγορά,
ἀκρόπολις, πόλις (meaning the Acropolis), βουλευτήριον, νεώριον, πρυτανεῖον.
In the 4th century several of these words also take the article' (Meisterhans,
Gramm. d. att. Inschr.³ § 86, 21, p. 227). Starkie (Ar. Vesp. 492) shows that
Meisterhans states the rule too broadly. 'The names in question invariably
take the article, except after local prepositions, and even then, in Comedy,
motives of convenience dictated whether the article should be present or
absent.' An examination of the MSS. of the orators leads to the same
result. The tendency is to use the article, except in certain official phrases.
We find ev ảyopậ in Lys. 13. 23, Dem. 19. 330, 54. 7, 31, [Dem.] 26. 23, eis
ἀγορὰν in Lys. 23. 9, but ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ and εἰς τὴν ἀγορὰν predominate in such
force as to daunt the most determined levellers. The combinations ἐν ἄστει,
ἐξ ἄστεως, εἰς ἄστυ are a little commoner than ἐν τῷ ἄστει, ἐκ τοῦ ἄστεως, εἰς
τὸ ἄστυ. Whereas εἰς ἀκρόπολιν (And. I. 45, Isocr. 17. 18, 20, Dem. 9. 41,
25. 99, [Dem.] 58. 19, Hyp. 1. col. II. 3, Din. 1. 37, 96, 2. 24) is not more
frequent than εἰς τὴν ἀκρόπολιν (C. I. A. II. 113, 344/3 B.C.), there are no
examples of ἐν τῇ ἀκροπόλει (C. I. A. II. 69, 355/4 B.C., ib. 162, 335/4 B.C.) and
ἐκ τῆς ἀκροπόλεως against seven of ἐν ἀκροπόλει (And. 1. 42, Isocr. 17. 34,
Dem. 24. 129, 25. 4, 36. 16, [Dem.] 58. 48, 59. 1o5) and three of ἐξ ἀκροπόλεως
(Dem. 24. 129, Lyc. 117, 118). The phrase σίτησις ἐν πρυτανείῳ (§ 47, [And.]
4. 31, Isocr. 15. 95, Dem. 19. 330, 23. 130, Aesch. 2. 80, 3. 178, Lyc. 87, Din.
OR. V.
433
COMMENTARY
I. 43, IOI) is stereotyped, as in the inscriptions (Larfeld, Handbuch d. gr.
Epigraphik II. p. 781); for in Din. 1. 101 the reading of N, tŷs év Tậ
πρvτaveί@ σiτησews, has no claim to consideration, and in Aesch. 3. 196 тŵv
τὰς σιτήσεις τινες εὑρημένων ἐν τῷ πρυτανείῳ ἐξαιτοῦνται Schultz ejects τῷ,
Weidner and Biass condemn the whole phrase év tâ ñputaveíœ in view of its
position and the hiatus. On the other hand, in Aeschines and Demosthenes
and the inscriptions (Larfeld, op. cit. p. 778 sqq.) kaλéσai eis тò πрνтаvεiov
(Dem. 19. 31, 32, [Dem.] 50. 13, Aesch. 2. 46, 53) is commoner than kaλéσai
εἰς πρυτανείον (Dem. 19. 234). The orators provide no instances of ἐν
βουλευτηρίῳ, ἐκ βουλευτηρίου, εἰς βουλευτήριον ; even in the lapidary style the
article is not proscribed (C. I. A. I. 21, 450 B.C., IV. I. 1166, 5th c., ẻv rậ
βουλευτηρίῳ). For εἰς πόλιν see § 44. 2 η.
<ἀγροῦ > ἐν πεδίῳ. Cp. [Dem.] 49. 11 ὁ μὲν ἐν πεδίῳ ἀγρὸς ἀποτίμημα τῷ
παιδὶ τῷ Εὐμηλίδου καθειστήκει, C. I. A. IV. I. 3 (c. 45o B.C.) C 7, 8 Ηρωιν ἐμ
πεδίωι, ib. I. 4, 12 Ηρώινηι ἐμ π[εδίωι. ' The plain' is the plain of Athens, i.e.
the valley of the Cephissus and its tributaries. Thucydides in his account of
the invasion of Archidamus in 431 B.C. distinguishes rò mediov (2. 20) from Tò
Θριάσιον πεδίον. For the πεδιακοί in the age of Solon see 'Αθ. Πολ. 13. 4 with
Sandys' notes.
3, 4 ἑξήκοντα πλέθρων. As a measure of length the πλέθρον was 100 Greek
feet (97 ft. 0‘96 inch.); its square, the regular unit of land measure with the
Greeks of historical times, is equivalent to 94245 sq. ft. or 34 per. 167.5 sq. ft.
The English acre is 160 perches or 4840 sq. yds. Hence the λéopov is less
than of an acre, and 60 „λé@pa may be put down roughly as 13 acres. For
the origin of the measure see Ridgeway, Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Ant. s. v.
mensura ii. p. 160 sqq.
4, 5 οὐδὲν κεκομίσμεθα, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ παρὰ τούτου θέμενοι καὶ πριάμενοι. Reiske's
proposal to provide οἱ παρὰ τούτου θέμενοι καὶ πριάμενοι with a predicate by
inserting somewhere exovo is a mistake. It is not true that the verb is
unsuitable to the second half of the sentence; koµíčeσðaɩ means 'to receive
what is due' as well as 'to recover what is due,' and is applied to the vendor
getting the purchase money (Theophr. Пepì Evµßoλaiwv 7, Stob. Flor. 44. 22),
to the creditor getting interest (Dem. 30. 9, Plat. Rep. 8. 555 E), to the suc-
cessful litigant getting the damages which the court had awarded ([Dem.] 47.
51, 76, 77), to the master getting the wages of a slave let out to hire ([Dem.]
53. 20, Ant. 1. 38 koµíoaobai ȧñoдopáv), to the husband getting the dowry
promised at the betrothal (Dem. 27. 16, 41. 5). 'We have got nothing, but
his creditors have.' Ausser zweien kleinen Häusern...haben wir nichts
bekommen, sondern Die, an welche er es verkauft oder verpfändet hat'
(Schoemann).
οὐκ ἐξάγομεν.
(
5 ok §άyoμev. Since the cousins were confessedly not in possession,
we expect not ἐξάγομεν but ἐμβατεύομεν. The normal terminology is
ἐμβατεύει μὲν ὁ μὴ ἔχων, ἐξάγει δὲ ὁ ἔχων, ἐξούλης δὲ λαγχάνει ὁ ἐξαχθείς ; see
III. 22. 3, 4 N., 62. 6 n. The action for ejectment lay against the ejector. If
the cousins, attempting to make entry, had been forcibly ejected, or had been
met with a ceremony of ¿§aywyǹ or ouster corresponding to the deductio quae
moribus fit, they could have instituted a díkŋ é§oúλŋs against the possessors.
As it was, they seem for some reason to have preferred the rôle of defendants
28
W. I.
434
OR. V.
ISAEUS
to the rôle of prosecutors. In the case of the bath Menexenus IV ap-
parently dispossessed Micion either clandestinely or by physical violence,
and was then prosecuted for ejectment. The situation is exceedingly
obscure, because the speaker does not state explicitly the titles alleged by
the contending parties and the issue in the suit in which he was condemned.
We may conjecture that the cousins claimed the exercise of rights of
execution in virtue of the compromise made in court, which they treated as
equivalent to a judgment. If this be right, one would like light on the
motives which led Menexenus IV to avoid the position of prosecutor. It is
certain that the unsuccessful defendant in a díên ¿¿oúλns brought in execution
of a judgment was condemned, in addition to his liabilities to the plaintiff,
to pay to the treasury a sum equal in amount to the damages, or to the value
of the property which he was unlawfully detaining. On the other side, we
do not know that the defeated plaintiff was also liable to the poena dupli,
or that actual possession of the property in dispute gave the defendant any
advantage in regard to the onus probandi.
Further, Micion's plea, if it could be discovered, might remove some
uncertainty about the basis of an action for ejectment. Harpocration
concludes a valuable article on éέoúλns by the observation that the procedure
was open to any person ousted from his property (ἐπὶ παντὸς τοῦ ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων
ἐκβαλλομένου τάττεται τοὔνομα, καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἴεται Καικίλιος μόνων τῶν ἐκ κατα-
δίκης ὀφειλόντων). This plain statement has been challenged by some
modern scholars (Beauchet III. p. 397 sqq.), who maintain that a díkŋ
¿έoúλns presupposed the existence either (1) of a judgment, or (2) of certain
rights which the law specially protected and 'considered as it were con-
secrated by a judgment' (op. cit. p. 396), viz. the rights (a) of the heres suus,
(b) of the person who had acquired property from the state by gift or
purchase, (c) of the mortgagee. Outside these four cases, it is argued, the
action was not applicable, diadikaσía being the procedure employed by an
owner who was not in possession against a non-owner who was in possession.
Let us assume that Micion was in possession of the bath at the date of the
compromise, whether as mortgagee, or as an ordinary purchaser, or as a
purchaser under a „ρâσis éπì λúσeɩ, and that, being in some way dispossessed
by Menexenus IV, he brought against him an action for ejectment. No one,
so far as I am aware, has yet denied that in the case of hypothec the
creditor could proceed to eµßárevois, if the debt was not discharged at the
appointed time, and if he encountered resistance from the debtor or any
third person, could enforce his rights by a díkŋ égoúλŋs. But the state of
affairs was considerably altered, if the creditor, being himself in possession,
was expelled by some person other than the debtor, for on one theory of the
Athenian law of hypothec (§ 21. 7 n.) he had gained ownership, and to prove
this title had only to show that the mortgage was lawfully forfeit (X. 24. 3 22.).
Consequently, if Micion was a mortgagee, who had made entry, and if he
used against Menexenus IV the díkŋ éέoúλŋs, it seems probable that he sued
in the character of an owner expelled from his property, ós èx tôv idíwv
ékßadλóµevos, not on the ground of any special privilege extended by law to
mortgagees. But the appearance in the next two sections of the verb Beẞaιoûv
(§ 23. I n.) points to the conclusion that Micion's title was purchase of some
OR. V.
435
COMMENTARY
π
sort. If he was an ordinary purchaser, we are bound to assent to Harpo-
cration's generalisation. For, if Micion, having been ejected from property
which he had lawfully purchased, brought an action for ejectment against the
persons who had taken possession, he could not have rested his case on any
of the four grounds enumerated above. He prosecuted because he con-
sidered himself to be owner. If, however, he held under a mρâσis ènì
dúore, it may of course be said that the law of Athens, in spite of the form
of the transaction, did not regard the creditor in possession as purchaser,
on account of the temporary and conditional character of his rights, but
assimilated his standing to that of the mortgagee, granting him as quasi
mortgagee the exercise of the díkŋ éέoúλŋs, if ejected by the debtor or a third
person, Such a contention in the present state of our knowledge can neither
be established nor refuted, but the hypothesis has an artificial and modern
air, and I have a decided preference for a simpler view, that the title which
enabled Micion to prosecute Menexenus IV for ejectment and win a verdict,
was ownership derived from lawful purchase by way of πρᾶσις ἐπὶ λύσει.
But it should not be forgotten that all this fabric of conjectures is unstable
in an uncommon degree; Isaeus does not assert in plain and unmistakable
words that Micion prosecuted Menexenus IV for ejectment.
With regard to the origin and development of the dikŋ ¿§oúλŋs I am
loth to speculate when I look at the scanty and ambiguous evidence, but,
without committing myself in any way to any of Leist's theories, I may
endorse his protest (Der Attische Eigentumsstreit im System der Diadikasien
p. 49) against the habit of comparing, and even identifying, the Athenian
'action for ejectment' with Roman possessory interdicts, and in particular
with the interdictum unde ui. This interdict was employed recuperandae
possessionis causa, was used in cases of dispossession by physical force, and
was directed against the ejector. So far, there is a superficial resemblance
at any rate to one application of the dixŋ éέoúλns, though it should be noted
that the Athenian action could be used adipiscendae possessionis causa, and
that the violence might be fictitious. Far more important is the fact that the
interdictum unde ui could be claimed by a plaintiff quite apart from the
question whether he had any right in the thing or not. The point to be
determined was not one of right, but of fact: Was the plaintiff actually in
possession? Was he ejected by violence (uz)? For the defendant to plead
that he was the true owner was in the time of Justinian no defence at all;
he was not allowed to put in an exceptio uitiosae possessionis to the effect
that the plaintiff had acquired possession from him ui, clam, precario, or
otherwise, Now the remains of the law of Athens show no traces of the
distinction made by Roman jurists between possessory titles and titles to
ownership. Mere naked possession as such, abstracted from any right of
possession, was not protected by the state in the interests of public order.
The dikn éέovλns was founded on a right, a ius in re, when exercised by the
legitimate son and the purchaser from the state, a ius in personam, when
exercised by a mortgagee or by a successful litigant in execution of judgment,
and no prosecutor could hope to recover possession without proving his title
to the satisfaction of the court.
7 φάσκοντος <ού> βεβαιώσειν. By Athenian law an implied warranty
28-2
é
OR. V.
436
ISAEUS
of title was annexed to every sale; in the absence of an express agreement
to the contrary the vendor undertook an obligation to answer for eviction.
Two courses were open to the vendee, if after delivery and price paid his
right or possession was impeached or disturbed by a third party. (1) He
might elect to stand alone, to 'fight his own battle' against the claimant
(Harp. s.v. avтoμaɣeîv, Suid. s.v. avroμaxñoa); under what conditions this
procedure was customary or obligatory, and whether in the event of defeat
the purchaser necessarily forfeited all right to compensation from the vendor,
is not stated by our authorities; for modern conjectures see Beauchet IV.
p. 137 sqq. (2) He might think it better to 'refer to the vendor,' àváyew eis
πρατήρα (Plat. Laws 915 C, Aesch. 3. 249 ἐπανάγειν, Hyp. 5. 15 ὅταν τις πωλῇ
ἀνδράποδον, προλέγειν ἐάν τι ἔχῃ ἀρρώστημα· εἰ δὲ μή, ἀναγωγὴ τούτου ἐστίν,
Harp. s.v. ἀνάγειν, Bekk. An. Gr. 1. p. 214, 16 ἀνάγειν εἰς πράτην καὶ ἀνάγειν
wvv). The 'reference' involved a summons to the vendor to come in and
defend the title. If he obeyed and took up the case, he was said to warrant
(Beẞacoûv) the sale or the thing sold; for the constructions usual with
BeBaιoûv see § 23. I n. Apparently the guarantor took the place of the
purchaser in the trial and maintained against the claimant that at the time of
the sale he was the rightful owner of the property which he had sold (Harp.
s.v. αὐτομαχεῖν: ἐάν τις εἰς πρατῆρα ἀνάγῃ, πρὸς ἐκεῖνον ἀποφαίνει τὴν δίκην
οὖσαν, Bekk. An. Gr. 1. p. 214, 18, 19 ὁ τὸν οἰκέτην διακατέχων παραγίνεται
ἐπὶ τὸν πεπρακότα, καὶ ἀναγκάζει αὐτὸν συνίστασθαι τὴν δίκην πρὸς τοὺς ἀμφισ‐
ВηTоûvтas). In like manner at Rome the mancipio dans, who on denuntiatio
appeared in court as auctor of the mancipio accipiens threatened with
eviction, became a party to the case and sustained in his own person the
periculum iudicii (Cic. Pro Mur. 2, Karlowa, Röm. Rechtsgesch. II. pp.
578/9). If the verdict was given against him, the Roman auctor was liable in
duplum to the buyer. At Gortyn a seller or mortgagor was required to pay
to an evicted buyer or mortgagee twice the price of the property and com-
pensation for any injury suffered (IX. II sqq. ὁ δ᾽ ἀποδόμενος ἒ καταθένς τοι
πριαμένοι ἢ καταθεμένοι, αἴ κα νικαθει, διπλεῖ καταστασεῖ, κ' αἴ τί κ᾽ ἄλλ᾽ ἄτας ει,
τὸ ἁπλόον ἐπικαταστασεῖ). The liabilities of the vendor appear to have been
less heavy at Athens; we hear only of restitution of the price (Poll. 8. 35 Tηv
τὴν
τιμὴν ἐκομίζετο) and of payment of damages (Suid. s.v. αὐτομαχῆσαι: ἀποτῖσαι
τὴν ζημίαν).
Tǹv Šnµíav). If, however,, the vendor, when called upon, shirked his re-
sponsibility (defugere auctoritatem, Dig. 45. 1. 85 (5), 139), and declined or
failed to intervene, the purchaser's remedy was the action for warranty, díkŋ
Beßaiwσews (actio auctoritatis). The scope of this suit is disputed; see
Harp. s.v. ßeßaiwoσews, Bekk. An. Gr. I. p. 219, 33, Poll. 8. 34, and Beauchet
IV. p. 134. I regard it as a means of exacting from the vendor a penalty for
his non-appearance, which in most cases would ensure the triumph of the
claimant, not as a means of constraining him to fight the claim. In an
action for warranty the dispute would commonly turn on the terms and legal
consequences of the contract of sale, as, whether the vendor had refused to
warrant against eviction either absolutely or in certain contingencies, how
far he was liable if the ground of eviction had not existed at the time of the
sale, etc., but it is conceivable that other questions might be introduced,
e.g. whether the vendor had received proper notice of the hostile claim. It
اد
αι
اد
OR. V.
437
COMMENTARY
was the practice in many parts of Greece for the seller to furnish sureties
against eviction, called by the Romans auctores secundi (Ulpian in Dig. 21. 2.
4), by the Greeks βεβαιωται, βεβαιωτῆρες, προπωληταί, προαποδόται, συμ-
πрaτîрes, and even πрarîрes (Mitteis, Reichsrecht u. Volksrecht p. 504, Inscr.
Jurid. Gr. 1. p. 97 sqq.), but at present no proof has been found of their
existence at Athens. For the general principles of the contract of sale in
Greece consult Beauchet IV. p. 104 sqq., Att. Proc.2 p. 712 sqq.
After considering the law I am astonished at the statement of the speaker
that Dicaeogenes promised 'not to warrant the bath,' and that his conduct in
giving the guarantee was a violation of the compromise. Even if, as his
adversaries assert, he had engaged to hand over the bath avaµÞiσßýтητov, he
owed obligations to Micion as well as to his cousins. Whether Micion was
mortgagee or purchaser, made no difference to the responsibility of
Dicaeogenes; with regard to warranty against eviction the law of Gortyn
draws no distinction between seller and mortgagor. Dicaeogenes had
nothing to gain by promising to desert Micion. What defence could he
have set up, if Micion had lost his case, and thereupon brought against him
an action for warranty? He was debarred from pleading that he was aware
of the flaw in the title, for this would have been equivalent to a confession
that he had been privy to forgery, and would have been of no avail, unless
he could prove that Micion had been warned of the fact. To urge that at
the time of the sale or hypothec his title was good was hardly a valid excuse
for not appearing in court to support Micion, though it might have been taken
into account in mitigation of damages, if in spite of Dicaeogenes' assistance
Micion had been defeated by Menexenus IV. But Dicaeogenes denied that
he had covenanted in court to deliver undisputed possession of two thirds of
the property which once belonged to Dicaeogenes II. His action was
consistent with this denial. The abandonment of Micion would have been
construed as a confirmation of the account of the agreement put forward by
his opponents. Being claimed as auctor by both parties, by Menexenus IV
on the ground of a surrender, by Micion on the ground of a sale or
hypothec, he seems to have repudiated the pretensions of Menexenus IV,
and affirmed the rights of Micion. Could he have acted otherwise in the
circumstances?
πω
8 ὤφλομεν τετταράκοντα μνᾶς. Schoemann and Dareste (Les Plaidoyers
d'Isée p. 101), while regarding the suit as one for ejectment and Micion as
prosecutor, believe that the 40 m. constituted the eπwßeλía or fine of one
sixth of the ríµnua. Micion, then, estimated the loss caused him by dis-
τίμημα.
possession at 4 t., which is a large sum, and Menexenus IV did not get
one fifth of the votes. The explanation is untenable, apart from the question
whether defendants were liable to the Twßeλía (Att. Proc.2 p. 949).
P. 949). In a
trial for ejectment the defendant, if condemned, was required not only to
deliver to the prosecutor the property which he was wrongfully holding, but
also to pay to the state a sum equivalent to the estimated value of that
property (Harp. s.v. ¿§oúλns). On Schoemann's hypothesis Menexenus IV,
having lost 4 t. as well as 40 m., mentions only the smaller amount. It is
more reasonable to conjecture that 40 m. was Micion's riμnμa and, therefore,
the penalty due to the treasury.
438
OR. V.
ISAEUS
I
23. 1 βεβαιώσαι οὐδέν. The verb βεβαιούν in its technical sense takes
an accusative (1) of the thing sold, (2) of its qualities, (3) of the sale or
contract. See for the first construction Din. I. 42 τὰ μὲν ἐπώλει ὧν οὐκ
εἰλήφει τὴν τιμήν, τὰ δ᾽ ἀποδόμενος οὐκ ἐβεβαίου, Bekk. An. Gr. I. p. 220, 2
ἀξιοῦντες βεβαιοῦν αὐτοῖς τὸ πραθέν, Poll. 8. 99, Bekk. An. Gr. 1. p. 193, 16 τὰ
πωλούμενα, Oxy. Pap. I. n. 99, 9, 1ο (55 A.D.) βεβαιώσει δὲ τὸ διατιθέμενον
μέρος ἥμισυ τῆς οἰκίας διὰ παντὸς ἀπὸ πάντων πάσῃ βεβαιώσει, B. U. G. I. 2.
236, 7 (2nd cent. A.D.) βεβαιώσειν...κλῆρον πάσῃ βεβαιώσει, for the second
construction B. U. G. 1. 2. 316, 27 sqq. (359 a.D., sale of a slave), iepàv dè
νόσον καὶ σίνος παλεὸν (παλαιὸν) καὶ κρυπτὸν πάθος μέχρις μηνῶν ἓξ καὶ
δρασμὸν μέχρις μηνῶν δέκα δύο ὁμοίως ὁ πεπρακὼς καὶ διάδοχοι αὐτοῦ βεβαιώ-
σουσιν τῷ πριαμένῳ καὶ διαδόχοις αὐτοῦ ἢ ἐκτείσουσιν αὐτῷ τὴν τειμὴν καὶ τὸ
βλάβος, for the third construction C. I. A. II. 1058= Michel κ. 1355, S. I. G.2
η. 834 (2nd half of 4th cent. B.C.), 22 sqq. βεβαιοῦν δὲ τὴν μίσθωσιν
Κυθηρίων τοὺς μερίτας Εὐκράτει καὶ τοῖς ἐγγόνοις αὐτοῦ, εἰ δὲ μή, ὀφείλειν
δραχμάς Χ, Oxy. Pap. I. n. 1ΟΙ (142 A.D.) βεβαιουμένης δὲ τῆς μισθώσεως,
B. U. G. I. n. 87, 16 (144 A.D.) βεβαιώσειν τὰ κατὰ τὴν πρᾶσιν ταύτην διά
παντὸς πάσῃ βεβαιώσει, Gr. Pap. Series II, Grenfell and Hunt, n. 74, 1
(302 A.D.) βεβαιώσω σοι τήνδε τὴν πρᾶσιν πάσῃ βεβαιώσει, B. U. G. I. n. 71, 18
(189 A.D.) βεβαιώσομεν πάσῃ βεβαιώσει τὸ χιρόγραπον (χειρόγραφον). In the
Delphian acts of manumission, which take the form of a fictitious sale to
the god, the regular formula is βέβαιον δὲ παρεχόντω τὴν ὠνὰν τῷ θεῷ ὅ τε
ἀποδόμενος καὶ ὁ βεβαιωτὴρ (οἱ βεβαιωτῆρες), e.g. S. I. G. n. 849. The
accusative however is often omitted; see Dem. 37. 12 του Μνησικλέους
βεβαιοῦντος ἡμῖν, S. I. G. n. II (Halicarnassus, last decades of the 5th cent.
Β.C.) οἵδε ἐπρίαντο παρὰ τοῦ ᾿Απόλλωνος καὶ τῆς ᾿Αθηναίης καὶ Παρθένου γέας
καὶ οἰκίας τῶν ὀφειλόντων τοῖς θεοῖς τούτοις· βεβαιοῦν τοὺς θεοὺς τὸν ἀΐδιον
χρόνον, συμβεβαιοῦν δὲ τοὺς νεωποίας τῶν θεῶν τοὺς αἰεὶ ὄντας, S. I. G. n.
850= Michel n. 1403 (Delphi), 21 ὁ βεβαιωτὴρ βεβαιούτω, B. U. G. 1. n. 100, 9
(159 A.D.) καὶ βεβαιώσω πάσῃ βεβαιώσει, ib. n. 87, 30, 1. 228, 8. For the
correction of the Ms. reading (οὐκ ἂν αὐτὸν βεβαιώσειν) see I. 32. 3 η.
Thalheim keeps the future infinitive here, but accepts Dobree's emendation
in I. 32. 3.
2
2
3, 4 ἐθέλοντες ὁτιοῦν πάσχειν, εἰ βεβαιώσειεν κ.τ.λ. The words suggest a
challenge (πρόκλησις) to Micion to produce Dicaeogenes as auctor; which
he promptly accepted to the utter discomfiture of his opponents.
24. 3 ἐγώ. Hitherto he has used ἡμεῖς; cp. §§ 31. 7, 32. 6. Was he
acting in this matter for himself or as a representative of the cousins?
4 προσαπολωλεκώς. Having not only got nothing but having lost into
the bargain (ultro, insuper) 40 m.' Cp. I. 32. 3, VIII. 42. 2, X. 17. 5, Dem. 19.
112 καὶ τὰς μὲν Θεσπιὰς καὶ Πλαταιὰς οὐ τετείχικε, τὸν δ᾽ Ορχομενὸν καὶ τὴν
Κορώνειαν προσεξηνδραπόδισται, ib. 326 ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ τὴν Εὔβοιαν ἀντ᾿ Αμφι-
πόλεως ὑμῖν παραδοθῆναι ὁρμητήρια ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἐν Εὐβοίᾳ Φίλιππος προσκατα-
σκευάζεται (‘is preparing on the contrary, as a further step, Shilleto),
Hyp. 5. 18 [εἰ] ἐγὼ τῇ ᾿Αθηνογένους ἑταίρᾳ ἐπείσθην, προσαπολωλέναι [αὖ ?
δ]εῖ, Dem. 57. 45. In cases of this kind Cobet's rule (N. L. p. 465) is that
πρὸς must always be regarded as an adverb (Dem. 27. 68 ὧν ὁ πατὴρ
κατέλιπε στερομένους καὶ πρὸς ὑπὸ τούτων ὑβριζομένους, Ar. Eg. 578 καὶ πρὸς
OR. V.
439
COMMENTARY
αν
οὐκ αἰτοῦμεν οὐδέν, Lys. 628 καὶ διαλλάττειν πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἀνδράσιν Λακωνικοῖς,
Plut. 1001 Kai πρòя Éπì TоÚтois elπev), and written as a separate word.
Editors are inconsistent. In Aristophanes Bergk prints in Vesp. 1420 kai
χάριν πρὸς εἴσομαι, but in Lys. 1238 ἐπηνέσαμεν ἂν καὶ προσεπιορκήσαμεν,
and in Plut. 16 οὗτος δ᾽ ἀκολουθεῖ κἀμὲ προσβιάζεται. Schanz has καὶ χάριν
προσειδέναι (Plat. Αpol. 20 Α), but καὶ φυγῇ πρὸς ἐζημίωσαν (Gorg. 516 D).
In Demosthenes Dindorf and Blass give οὐδὲ τοῖς θάψασι τὴν ταφὴν
ἀπέδωκεν ἀλλὰ καὶ δίκην πρὸς ἔλαχεν in 25. 54, but οὐκ ἐλήλυθε μόνον ἀλλὰ
καὶ τοῦ σίτου τοῦ ἡμετέρου αμφισβητήσας ἡμῖν δίκην προσείληχεν in 32. 9;
Blass never writes πρὸς ὀφείλειν (Cobet ad Hyp. Or. Funeb. p. 53), πρὸς
öpλiokávei; see Dem. 22. 75, 23. 89, 27. 32, 67, 29. 21, 37. 38, 49, 39. 23, 55.
29, [Dem.] 40. 29. Voemel (Prolegg. Gramm. § 130, p. 147) attempts to
formulate a principle: Сum рòs non nisi cum «aì et dè constructum in aduerbii
usu sit, non nisi cum his coniunctionibus coniunctum a uerbo separari
potest. Franke (Philol. 13, 1858, p. 615) points out some cases where it is
impossible to separate πρός, e.g. Thuc. 6. 2. 3 προσξυνῴκησαν δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ
Φωκέων τινες. In Soph. Ο. Τ. 232 τὸ γὰρ κέρδος τελῶ 'γώ χή χάρις προσ-
κείσεται metrical considerations compel us to attach πρὸς τo κείσεται, but
it is not certain that the meaning is 'my thanks shall rest with him (be stored
up) besides' (Jebb); πроσкeiσeraι may be 'shall be added.' See Sandys on
Dem. 3. 31, Blaydes and Starkie on Ar. Vesp. 1420.
π
4, 5 ἀπῇα ὑβρισμένος. Cp. III. 5. 5 7.
dè
25-27 Leochares says that the obligations attested by our witnesses
do not appear in the document drawn up in court. But this document was
written in a hurry, and does not contain the whole compact. Our opponents
play fast and loose with the agreement; provisions in their interest are
binding, even if not in writing, provisions not in their interest are not
binding, unless in writing. They refuse to carry out even the written terms.
Here is another proof of the truth of our story. The wife of Protarchides
has a right to the same share in the estate as my mother. Leochares re-
quired Protarchides to hand over to him, as surety, the lodging-house, which
had been given with his wife in lieu of dowry; Protarchides was to get
the share due to her. Leochares took the house and did not deliver the share.
The secret is out at last; we discover that a written agreement was
in existence, which lent no support to the claims of the cousins. The
speaker pretends that it was incomplete, but he does not condescend to
explain how much of his case rests on testimony, how much on the docu-
ment. He suppresses the most important piece of evidence, and then
turning on his adversaries asserts with incredible impudence that they do
not execute even the terms in writing, much less the whole agreement. It is
hard to see what is supposed to be proved by the account of Leochares'
conduct to Protarchides; see § 26. 3 12.
25. I μév. Cp. III. 7. 3 n.
2 juîv. For the position of µîv see Gebauer on Lys. 12. 94 Anhang
p. 304, who quotes some remarkable examples of trajection, e.g. [Dem.] 53. 12 év
τῷ πρὸ τοῦ σοι χρόνῳ φίλος ἦν ἀληθινός, Aesch. 2. 177 εἰς τοὺς ἐσχάτους ἡμῶν
κινδύνους τὴν πόλιν καθιστᾶσι (where however the Zürich editors and Blass
eject ἡμῶν).
440
OR. V.
ISAEUS
3 κακῶν αἴτιος. The addition of ὢν is not necessary; cp. Isocr.18. II
ἐπιβουλεύσας μετὰ Ξενοτίμου τοῦ τοὺς νόμους διαφθείροντος καὶ τὰ δικαστήρια
δεκάζοντος καὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς λυμαινομένου καὶ πάντων κακῶν αἰτίου λαγχάνει μοι
δίκην.
4 ἐπὶ τοῦ δικαστηρίου. Cp. § 1. 2 n.
I.
5 ἔνεστι: ἐστι Apr., ἐνέστι Α1. Both ἔστι (VI. 47. 2, Lys. 13. 72, Dem. 20.
131, [Dem.] 50. 46, 53. 1o) and ἔνεστι (Gebauer on Lys. 13. 14 Anhang
p. 331, Xen. Hell. 1. 4. 3) make good Attic. The forms are naturally liable
to confusion (Blass, Dem. I. p. cxlix), but there is no reason for giving a
preference to Apr. (Crit. Introd. p. xxix sqq.).
5, 6 ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος. We possess no description of the internal arrange-
ments of an Athenian court of justice. Aeschines (3. 207) distinguishes the
βημα (platform) of the prosecutor from the βῆμα of the defendant, and in
[Dem.] 48. 31 Callistratus narrates how ‘he sat silent upon the other βήμα
(ἐκαθήμην ἐπὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου βήματος), while his collusive competitor Olympiodorus
was speaking ; cp. Ar. Plut. 382 sqq. ὁρῶ τιν᾽ ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος καθεδούμενον
ἱκετηρίαν ἔχοντα μετὰ τῶν παιδίων | καὶ τῆς γυναικός. From Aesch. 2. 59
(παρελθὼν τοίνυν Δημόσθενες ἐπὶ τὸ βῆμα τοῦτο ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ λόγῳ εἰπὲ) and
3. 165 (εἰ βούλει, παραχωρῶ σοι τοῦ βήματος, ἕως ἂν εἴπῃς) Lipsius in Att.
Proc.² p. 182 deduces that the prosecutor and the defendant did not address
the judges each from his own ßîµa, but mounted in turn for this purpose a
separate stage or platform, also called Bîμa, and used by witnesses as well as
pleaders. Aeschines' language does not seem to me a conclusive proof of
this theory. Aristophanes writes as if a court had only one ẞîµa; see Eccl.
677 sqq. ΒΛΕ. τὸ δὲ βῆμα τί σοι χρήσιμον ἔσται; ΠΡΑ. τοὺς κρατῆρας κατα-
θήσω | καὶ τὰς ὑδρίας, καὶ ῥαψῳδεῖν ἔσται τοῖς παιδαρίοισιν ¦ τοὺς ἀνδρείους ἐν
τῷ πολέμῳ κεἴ τις δειλὸς γεγένηται. No light comes from the other passages
in which the βῆμα of a court of law is mentioned (Lys. 10. 15, 20, Dem. 19.
31, [Dem.] 58. 40, Aesch. 2. 127 (κάλει μοι τοὺς οἰκέτας δεῦρο ἐπὶ τὸ βῆμα, καὶ
τὴν τῶν συμπρεσβέων ἀναγίγνωσκε μαρτυρίαν), 3. 55, 257 (ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος, οὗ
νῦν ἑστηκὼς ἐγὼ λέγω).
6 σπεύδοντες. Compare the excuse made by Nicobulus in Dem. 37. 42
for repudiating a challenge sealed with his own seal: ἀντὶ τοῦ τὴν πρόκλησιν
ἀνοίξας δεῖξαι τὰ γεγραμμένα καὶ κατὰ ταῦτα πράττειν ὅ τι δόξαι (διὰ γὰρ τὸν θόρυ
βον τότε καὶ τὸ μέλλειν καλεῖσθαι τὴν δίκην τοιοῦτον ἦν· προκαλοῦμαι σε ταυτί·
δέχομαι· φέρε τὸν δακτύλιον· λαβέ· τίς δ᾽ ἐγγυητής; οὑτοσί· οὐδὲν οὔτ᾽ ἀντί-
γραφον οὔτ᾽ ἄλλ᾽ οὐδὲν ἐποιησάμην τοιοῦτον) ἀντὶ δὴ τοῦ ταῦθ᾽ οὕτως ὥσπερ
λέγω πράττειν, ἑτέραν ἧκεν ἔχων (Πανταίνετος) πρόκλησιν. The client for
whom Hypereides wrote the speech against Athenogenes pleads that he did
not attend to the terms of the contract which is the ground of action
against him ; εὐθὺς ἐκ τῶν γονάτων λαβὼν τῶν αὑτοῦ γραμματεῖόν τι (?) [τὸ
ἐγ]γεγραμμένον ἀνεγίγνωσκεν· ἦσαν δὲ αὗται συνθῆκαι πρὸς ἐμέ· ὧν ἐγὼ
ἀναγιγνωσκομένων μὲν ἤκουον, ἔσπευδον μέντοι ἐφ᾿ ὃ ἧκον τοῦτο διοικήσασθαι.
καὶ σημαίνεται τὰς συνθήκας εὐθὺς ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ οἰκίᾳ ἵνα μηδεὶς τῶν εὖ φρο-
νούντων ἀκούσαι τὰ ἐγγεγραμμένα, προσεγγράψας μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ Νίκωνα τὸν
Κηφισιέα (Hyp. 5. 8); Athenogenes, as might be expected, held by the
bond (§ II). Oral agreements made before witnesses were enforced by
Athenian law, except in the 'mercantile cases” (ἐμπορικαὶ δίκαι, Att. Proc.
OR. V.
441
COMMENTARY
p. 636), but in the 4th century all important compacts were committed to
writing, attested by witnesses, sealed, and deposited in safe custody (IV. 13.
2, 3 n.). It should be observed that the speaker does not challenge the
genuineness of the instrument to which Leochares appeals. I think that
he is trying to upset a precise and formal settlement by the vague testimony
of persons present at the trial. See Introd. p. 404.
el
αν
8 εἰ καὶ μὴ γέγραπται, even if such stipulations are not in writing. The
speaker emphasises the general validity of the apodosis by selecting an extreme
case; he does not mean 'although (as a matter of fact) such stipulations
are not in writing. It is not at all uncommon to find εἰ καί, ἐὰν καὶ
bearing the sense of 'even if'; cp. § 37. 3, I. 19. 6, 26. I, VII. 32. 2, IX. 27.
3, 31. 5, ΧΙ. 23. 2, Ant. 5. 27 κατ᾽ ἐγὼ συγχωρῶ τῷ τούτων λόγῳ, παρεχόμενος
μὲν τοὺς μάρτυρας ὡς οὐκ ἐξέβην ἐκ τοῦ πλοίου· εἰ δὲ καὶ ὡς μάλιστα ἐξέβην
ἐκ τοῦ πλοίου, οὐδενὶ τρόπῳ εἰκὸς ἦν ἀφανισθέντα λαθεῖν τὸν ἄνθρωπον,
ὁ τε
εἴπερ γε μὴ πάνυ πόρρω ἀπῆλθεν ἀπὸ τῆς θαλάσσης, Tetr. I. γ. 3
κίνδυνος ἥ τε αἰσχύνη μείζων οὖσα τῆς διαφορᾶς, εἰ καὶ διενοήθησαν ταῦτα
πρᾶξαι, ἀρκοῦσα ἦν σωφρονίσαι τὸ θυμούμενον τῆς γνώμης, And. I. 21 φέρε
δὴ τοίνυν, εἰ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐβούλετο ὑπομένειν, τοὺς φίλους ἂν οἴεσθε ἢ ἐπι-
τρέπειν αὐτῷ μένειν ἢ ἐγγυήσασθαι; Lys. 20. 23 εἵλετο μᾶλλον συνειδέναι
ὑμᾶς, ἵν᾽, εἰ καὶ βούλοιτο κακὸς εἶναι, μὴ ἐξείη αὐτῷ, 31. 20 τοιαῦτα γάρ
ἐστιν, ὥστ᾽ εἰ καὶ μηδὲν αὐτῷ ἄλλο ἡμάρτητο, διὰ μόνα ταῦτα δίκαιον εἶναι
ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι, Isocr. II. 33 ἔπειτ᾽ εἰ καὶ τυγχάνομεν ἀμφότεροι ψευδῆ
λέγοντες, ἀλλ᾿ οὖν ἐγὼ μὲν κέχρημαι τούτοις τοῖς λόγοις, οἷσπερ χρὴ τοὺς
ἐπαινοῦντας, σὺ δ᾽ οἷς προσήκει τοὺς λοιδοροῦντας, 12. 202 εἰ καὶ μηδὲν ἄλλο
πεποιήκασιν (οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι) τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἀγαθόν, ἀλλ᾽ οὖν δι᾽ ἐκεῖνό γε
δικαίως ἂν αὐτοῖς ἅπαντες χάριν ἔχοιεν, ὅτι τὰ κάλλιστα τῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων
εὑρόντες αὐτοί τε χρῶνται καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις κατέδειξαν, Dem. 16. 24 τὰ μὲν
δίκαια πάντες, ἐὰν καὶ μὴ βούλωνται, μέχρι τού γ᾽ αἰσχύνονται μὴ πράττειν,
τοῖς δ᾽ ἀδίκοις ἐναντιοῦνται φανερῶς, 41. 15 εἰ καὶ μηδὲν τούτων ὑπῆρχεν ἡμῖν,
οὐδ᾽ ὡς χαλεπόν ἐστι γνῶναι περὶ αὐτῶν ὁπότεροι τἀληθῆ λέγουσι, Aesch. 3.
211 ὃν ἐχρῆν, εἰ καὶ μανεὶς ὁ δῆμος ἢ τῶν καθεστηκότων ἐπιλελησμένος ἐπὶ
τοιαύτης ἀκαιρίας ἐβούλετο στεφανοῦν αὐτόν, παρελθόντα εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν
εἰπεῖν. As Fox observes on Dem. 16. 24, it is not surprising that ‘if even'
(in dem Falle sogar) should have the same meaning as 'even if' (sogar in
dem Falle). What is surprising is that grammars extend such scant
recognition to a common idiom, and that scholars have been found to
deny that εἰ καὶ is ever equivalent to καὶ εἰ (see Voemel's references on
Dem. 19. 95). The evidence of Isocrates is decisive; his doctrines of
euphony allow κἄν and καὶ γὰρ εἰ (4. 28, 20. 11), but proscribe κεί or καὶ
εί, which occurs only once in his works, viz. in or. 21 (a speech questioned by
Benseler), 11 Νικίας μέν, εἰ καὶ τὸν ἄλλον χρόνον εἴθιστο συκοφαντεῖν, τότ᾽ ἂν
ἐπαύσατο, Εὐθύνους δέ, καὶ εἰ μηδὲ πώποτε διενοήθη ἀδικεῖν, τότ᾽ ἂν ἐπήρθη. The
consequence is that cases of ei kai, 'even if,' are more numerous in Isocrates
καί,
than in all the other orators put together. Demosthenes is not so pedantical
as to deny himself the use of καὶ εἰ (2. 20 καὶ εἰ Σ, εἰ καὶ uolg., 19. 95 καὶ εἰ Σ,
εἰ καὶ Ω, 21. 189 καὶ εἰ Σ, εἰ Ω, εἰ καὶ F, 24. 61 καὶ εἰ Σ, εἰ καὶ ks ; cp. 20. 10 ἀλλ᾽
καὶ, ib. 41 ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰ), but that he does not like the combination is shown by
the appearance of kầv ei (19. 282, 24. 109, 30. 14 (ei µǹ kaì E), 36. 42, 45. 12;
αν
442
OR. V.
ISAEUS
cp. 21. 51 νῦν δέ μοι δοκεῖ, κἂν ἀσέβειαν εἰ καταγιγνώσκοι, τὰ προσήκοντα
ποιεῖν). The feeling was shared by Aeschines (2. 103 kầv ei тoùs vπηρéтаs
τοὺς ὑπηρέτας
ἔπεμψεν ἡ πόλις περιθεῖσα πίστιν αὐτοῖς, ἅπαντ᾽ ἂν πραχθῆναι νομίζω). The
absence of kaì ei in Isaeus, Lycurgus, and Dinarchus is probably an accident.
It is found in Hyp. 1. col. 30, 10, 11, if the restoration of Boeckh and
Babington be right, and of course no orator before Isocrates made a bugbear
of the phrase (Ant. 6. 7, Lys. 14. I, 16. I, 19. 37, 59, 26. 11).
II
9 ei µǹ yéуpaπтаι. Naber (Mnem. N. S. 5, 1877, p. 106) writes ei kai
yéуpatтaι, and is astonished that this emendation of a 'senseless text' should
γέγραπται,
have escaped all previous scholars. 'Res aperta est? I dissent. The whole
passage is a gross petitio principii, since Leochares' defence is that the
written articles represented the full agreement, but, great as is the hardihood
of Athenian advocates, would Isaeus venture to say of opponents who have
taken their stand on the letter of a written instrument that they say that
provisions not in their interest are not binding, even if (or ‘although'; Naber
gives no translation) they are in writing?' The words in § 26 ovde yàp rà
ypaþévтa éléλovoɩ moieîv, to which Naber makes appeal, introduce a new
point. They say provisions not in their interest are not binding, if not in
writing. But in practice they refuse to carry out even the written articles.'
This would be a fair retort, if the orator read the document, and pointed
out to the judges those clauses, which Dicaeogenes was not executing.
26.3, 4 ws λéyoµev åλŋ0ñ. The bearing of the narrative which follows
is obscure. What does the speaker desire to show to the court? That in
this instance Leochares acted as surety? Or that he broke faith and is not
to be trusted? Or that he did not fulfil terms specified in the written
compact?
5 TO IIоTaμlw. The deme Потaµòs (Harp. s. v.) belonged to the mari-
time trittys of the tribe Leontis; it lay on the east coast of Attica between
Thoricus on the south and Prasiae on the north. The territory of the deme
probably extended from the bay of Daskalio on the north to the valley of
the river, still called simply Potami, which flows south into the bay of Thoricus
(Milchhoefer, Untersuchungen über die Demenordnung des Kleisthenes p. 22,
Frazer on Paus. I. 31. 3).
5, 6 έδωκε Δικαιογένης †τὴν ἀδελφὴν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ†. A famous crux criti-
corum. If the reading of the MS. be kept, Dicaeogenes III cannot be the
subject, since his sister, if he had one, possessed no claim to inherit anything
from Dicaeogenes II. If, on the other hand, Dicaeogenes II is the subject,
who is meant by 'his sister'? He had four sisters (§ 5); of these one
married Polyaratus, another Democles, another Cephisophon, and the fourth
Theopompus. Naber (Mnem. 1, 1852, p. 384 sqq.) and Caillemer (Succession
Légitime p. 101) decide in favour of the sister who married Democles, the
wife of Protarchides, if a sister of Dicaeogenes II, having an incontestable
right to the same share in the estate as the speaker's mother, the widow of
Polyaratus. Now in 399 B.C. Democles was either dead or divorced, for we
read in § 9. 8, 9 that Dicaeogenes III deprived 'the quondam wife of
Democles' of what her brother Dicaeogenes had given her. The words, tǹv
Δημοκλέους γενομένην γυναῖκα, do not exclude the possibility that at the time
she was the wife of Protarchides. But this is not enough; the marriage to
OR. V.
443
COMMENTARY
Protarchides must have taken place in the lifetime of Dicaeogenes II, i.e.
before 411 B.C. Hitzig (Studien zu Isaeus p. 23) and Buermann (Hermes 19,
1884, p. 363) think this out of the question on account of the language used
in § 5. 9 (ἄλλην δὲ (ἔλαβε) Δημοκλῆς) and in § 6. 4 (οἱ ἡμέτεροι πατέρες ἐνείμαντο
Tòv Kλĥρov). Their argument is that, if this sister had been married a second
time in her brother's lifetime, the name of Protarchides could not have been
omitted by the orator in § 5, but would have been stated either in addition
to, or in place of, the name of the first husband, Democles. A defect in
this criticism is the tacit assumption that Isaeus' narrative is honest and
straightforward; what if the concealment of the second marriage at this
stage were a piece of chicanery, which would be made intelligible by the
contents of the agreement and the comments of the other side? But, even
if it be conceded that for some unknown reason Isaeus burked the truth in
§§ 5 and 6, an obstacle still remains. Why did Leochares, as surety, ask for
the return of the sister's dowry? And why did her husband accede to this
request? Could she not keep her dowry and get her share as well? Suppose
that an Athenian died childless and intestate, leaving four married sisters,
three of whom had been portioned by his father, the fourth by himself. His
estate would be divided between the four sisters, but no one has yet
maintained that the dowry of the sister, whom the deceased had portioned,
would have to be brought back to the estate before division. In theory a
girl's dowry, even when paid by her brother, represented a charge on her
parents' property. Perhaps the agreement, which the orator suppresses so
carefully, might have illuminated this and other dark places in his speech;
but, if Dicaeogenes here means Dicaeogenes II, the bargain between
Leochares and Protarchides is inexplicable. Naber's explanation of the text
is unsatisfactory, and, no other having been set up, it is necessary to review
the emendations. (1) Reiske in his note ad loc. proposed éµavtoû, which was
adopted by Sir W. Jones (Works IX. p. 133), and by Bunsen (De iure
hereditario Atheniensium p. 28), who deduced from the reading rules of law.
Schoemann (p. 288) easily demolished Reiske's conjecture. The subject
must be Dicaeogenes III, since the girl's father, Polyaratus, was alive in
399 B.C., twelve years after the death of Dicaeogenes II. Dicaeogenes III
could not have given in marriage a daughter of Polyaratus, unless he had
been her guardian. The narrative of $$ 9, 10 implies that Dicaeogenes III
was not guardian of the family of Polyaratus, and, in addition to this
inference, it appears unlikely that Polyaratus would have permitted the office
of guardian to devolve on a man whom he had been fighting in the law
courts. Further, what can Polyaratus' son mean by saying that his sister
had a right to the same share as his mother? Finally, the husbands of the
two daughters of Polyaratus are known; one daughter was married to
Eryximachus, the other to Cleomedon son of Cleon, and, after him, to
Mantias (§ 5. 8 n.). (2) Schoemann's own remedy was to substitute for
¿avroû either roû….. (a name having dropped out) or, by preference, TOútov,
meaning Cephisodotus son of Theopompus, who was present in court
(§§ 2. 4, II. 2, 12. 3). Dicaeogenes III according to §§ 10 and 11 was
guardian of Theopompus' children, and, therefore, may have had occasion to
give in marriage a sister of Cephisodotus. Guardians were not required to
444
OR. V.
ISAEUS
give portions to girls who were their wards, so that, if Dicaeogenes III had
generously provided the sister of Cephisodotus with a dowry of 40 m., he
might fairly have bargained for its return, when he engaged to surrender to
her her share of the estate of Dicaeogenes II. Such an interpretation is
not in accord with the tone of §§ 10 and 11, where Dicaeogenes III is fiercely
denounced for reducing the children of Theopompus to beggary, but no
stress need be laid on this discrepancy. A more serious objection must be
taken on the score of law and common sense. Cephisodotus' sister, we are
told, had a claim to the same share as the mother of the speaker, Me-
nexenus IV. In order to elucidate this statement Schoemann lays down,
(a) that the mother of Cephisodotus was dead, (b) that the daughter was
not shut out by the son, (c) that Cephisodotus and his sister were each to
get as much as the mother of Menexenus IV. Confirmation of this curious
principle of succession is sought from §§ 9 and 12; in § 9. 7 the share of the
daughter of Cephisophon is alluded to, while in § 12. 4 the share of the son
of Cephisophon, Menexenus III, is said to be the same as the share of
Menexenus IV. Schoemann concludes that each of the children of a
deceased sister inherited the same amount as a living sister. Consequently,
on this hypothesis, the succession of sisters and the succession of brothers
were governed by entirely different rules. When an Athenian died childless
and intestate, leaving e.g. a brother and three nephews, sons of a predeceased
brother, the property was distributed per stirpes; the three nephews in-
herited concurrently with their uncle, but received only that portion which
would have fallen to their father, had he been alive. That this was the law
of Athens, is certain (Beauchet III. p. 500 sqq.), and strong reasons ought to
be advanced for refusing to extend a simple and intelligible principle to a
case in all respects similar, i.e. when, in default of brothers and the descen-
dants of brothers, the succession passed to sisters and the descendants of
sisters. Schoemann's only reason is the necessity of interpreting three
obscure passages in this speech, one of which is ex hypothesi corrupt. Yet
the anomaly is extraordinary. Schoemann expressly declines to commit
himself to Bunsen's doctrine that in the case under discussion the division
was per capita without any discrimination, a mother sharing equally with her
own children, female as well as male. His view is that the estate was
divided per capita among the living sisters (whose children are not taken
into account), and the children, daughters as well as sons, of dead sisters.
What motive induced Athenian legislators to penalise living sisters in the
interest of the issue of dead sisters? Why are sisters' daughters placed on
the same footing as sisters' sons in contravention of the principle enunciated
in the law of inheritance, κρατεῖν δὲ τοὺς ἄρρενας καὶ τοὺς ἐκ τῶν ἀρρένων,
ἐὰν ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν ὦσι, καὶ ἐὰν γένει ἀπωτέρω (Dem. 43. 51)? On the death of
their brother the four sisters received equal shares. Did the death of one
(or more) of the sisters in the interval between 411 B.C. and 389 B.C.
completely alter the method of distributing the property, so that in 389 B.C.
the mother of Menexenus IV no longer had a right to the share which she
had enjoyed for twelve years after the death of Dicaeogenes II in 411 B.C.?
On what grounds could Cephisodotus and his sister, who in 411 B.C. were not
in a position to inherit directly from their uncle, claim in 389 B.C. an amount
OR. V.
445
COMMENTARY
different from that assigned to their mother at the time of their uncle's
death? Schoemann's correction and explanation end in bewildering con-
fusion. (3) Weissenborn (Ersch u. Gruber, Sect. II. Bd. 24, p. 294) followed
by Scheibe (Comm. Crit. p. 14), and Hitzig (op. cit. p. 23) suggested rǹv
ådeλþidñv tǹv čavтoù. Dicaeogenes II is subject. His niece is the only
child of the sister who married Democles. On the death of Democles
Dicaeogenes II, who was by law kúpios of the widow, became also (by
testament?) guardian of her daughter, and married her to Protarchides with
a dowry, when she reached the proper age. When Dicaeogenes II died, the
widow got her share of his estate, and was ultimately dispossessed by
Dicaeogenes III. She is now dead and all her rights have passed to her
daughter. This theory is coherent, but does not show why Protarchides
gave up his wife's dowry as a preliminary to recovering her share in the
estate. The dowry seems to have been given independently of the mother's
interest in the property of her brother; it was apparently a free gift from
Dicaeogenes II to his niece, and had been in her possession for more than
22 years. (4) Dobree's first idea (Adv. I. p. 295) was Tηv aveiav tηv
Eavтov, Dicaeogenes III being the subject, and his authority being derived
from the position of guardian (§ 10). But on putting the question, who was
this cousin, Dobree perceived that she could not be the daughter of Cephiso-
phon (§ 9. 7), because Cephisophon's daughter could not claim as much as
the mother of Menexenus IV, Cephisophon having left a son, Menexenus III
(§ 12. 2) as well as a daughter. So, as a second thought, he offered τηv
ἀδελφὴν τὴν αὐτοῦ ἐκείνου (i.e. τοῦ τὸν κλῆρον καταλιπόντος), the sister being
the widow of Democles. Sauppe in the Zürich edition appears to agree
in substance with Dobree : sensus postulat τὴν ἀδελφὴν τὴν τοῦ θείου.
(5) Buermann also was at first a supporter of the widow of Democles
(Rh. Mus. 32, 1877, p. 359) and desired to read here tηv ådeλøηv thu
Anμokλéovs yevoμévŋv yvvaîka. In a subsequent paper (Hermes 19, 1884,
p. 363) he condemns all previous emendations of this passage as either im-
probable palaeographically or faulty in respect of sense. His own contribution
is to propound Μενεξένου in place of ἑαυτοῦ. Το prove that a proper name
might have been expelled by a pronoun he quotes VI. 48. 2, where the scribe
first wrote either τούτου or αὐτοῦ, which he corrected to Εύκτήμονος. The real
basis of the emendation is a conjecture, which I cannot approve (§ 44. 1 22.),
that Menexenus III the son of Cephisophon was no longer alive, having died
some time between 399 B.C. and 389 B.C., and that his sister was now her
mother's sole heir. The orator commits 'an intentional anachronism,' when
in § 9. 7 he describes Cephisophon's daughter as holding a share of the
estate in 399 B.C. On the death of Menexenus III Dicaeogenes III became
her guardian, as he had become the guardian of the children of Theopompus
(but see § 10. 1, 2 12.), and, as guardian, married her to Protarchides. Buermann
does not point out that Dicaeogenes III was not so black as he is painted in
this speech, if after the attacks upon him by Menexenus III he furnished the
girl with a dowry at his own expense. What were the relations of Cephiso-
phon, her father, doing? (6) To conclude, I repudiate all the corrections,
and propose nothing of my own. Yet two results emerge from this long
discussion. (a) The Dicaeogenes, who gave the dowry, must be Dicaeo-
446
OR. V.
ISAEUS
genes III, not Dicaeogenes II; otherwise the request for its restoration is
unintelligible. (b) The wife of Protarchides must either be a sister of
Dicaeogenes II or the sole heir of a sister of Dicaeogenes II; she is either
the sister who married Democles or her only child.
6 ἀντὶ δὲ τῆς προικός. In the Attic orators dowries ordinarily consist of
a sum of money, very rarely of real estate (11. 3. 6 n.). The dowry given by
Pasion to Archippe (Dem. 45. 28) included a lodging-house worth 100 m.
(σvVOIKίav ÉKAтòv μvwv). According to Plutarch (Aristid. 27) the people
portioned a granddaughter (Ovyarpɩdî) of Aristogeiton with a piece of land (rò
Ποταμοί χωρίον εἰς φέρνην ἐπέδωκαν); on the other hand the two daughters of
Aristides each received from the state 30 m. (ib.). The register of dowries
from Myconus (Inscr. Jurid. Gr. 1. p. 49, S. I. G.² n. 817, Michel 2. 1350)
shows in its present state nine entries; in one of these a house (ʼn oikia ǹ éµ
Tроaσri) constitutes the entire dowry, in another a house is given in
addition to 1600 dr. and 2 female slaves. A list of sales from Tenos (Anc.
Gr. Inscr. in the Brit. Mus. II. n. 377, Inscr. Jurid. Gr. 1. p. 64 sqq.,
Michel n. 1387) has the following title: κατὰ τάδε πράσεις ἐγένοντο χωρίων
kai oikɩŵv kai πроiкŵν dóσels. Sir C. Newton suggested that of the forty-
seven sales recorded many were due to the necessity of finding ready money
for a dowry; cp. II. 9. 4, 5 n.
7 év Kepaμeik@. The deme Ceramicus ('The Potter's Deme'), which
belonged to the tribe Acamantis, extended over two quarters in the north-west
part of Athens, one outside, the other inside the Dipylum. The inner
Ceramicus seems to have stretched from the gate to the western ascent of
the Acropolis and, consequently, to have contained the market-place (ȧyopá);
in the age of Pausanias the name Ceramicus was specially applied, if not
indeed restricted, to the agora. The outer Ceramicus extended as far as the
Academy, six stadia (Cic. De Fin. 5. 1. 1) distant from the Dipylum. The
road to the Academy was lined on both sides by public graves; here, ‘in the
fairest suburb of Athens' (Thuc. 2. 34. 5), the bones of all Athenians who
died in battle for their country were buried by the state. See Baumeister's
Denkmäler, Athen. p. 150, Frazer on Paus. 1. 3. I, 29. 2. The curious phrase
of Thucydides 6. 57 (Ιππίας ἔξω ἐν τῷ Κεραμεικῷ καλουμένῳ...διεκόσμει ὡς
ἕκαστα ἐχρῆν τῆς πομπῆς προιέναι) seems a protest against a popular tendency
to use the name only for the region outside the walls; compare Ar. Av. 395 ó
Κεραμεικός δέξεται νώ, Plat. Parm. 127 Β καταλύειν δ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἔφη παρὰ τῷ
Πυθοδώρῳ ἐκτὸς τείχους ἐν Κεραμεικῷ, VI. 20. 7, 8 τῆς ἐν Κεραμεικῷ συνοικίας
παρὰ τὴν πυλίδα.
27. 3 avтậ. Here and in 11. 5, 6 the reflexive should be read (11.
II. 3 n.).
28-33 Dicaeogenes will probably repeat what he has said before,
that he is unable to satisfy us, because we on our side have broken our engage-
ment to make good his expenditure on repairs and building. But in court, in
accordance with the decision of the judges, we abandoned all claims to the
revenues he had received, in allowance for the public services performed and
the money spent on the buildings; and afterwards, of our own free will, we
made him a present of the house in the city, worth 50 m., as a set off against
the repairs. We respected the ties of kinship, not so Dicaeogenes in his hour
OR. V.
447
COMMENTARY
of triumph. We will produce another proof of our forbearance and
Dicaeogenes' wrong-doing. On the request of Leochares and Dicaeogenes we
consented to postpone the trial of this action, and refer the dispute to four
arbitrators, two nominated by us, two by our opponents. My nominees were
ready to make an award, whereas the friends whom Leochares had chosen as
his representatives refused to pronounce sentence.
The quarrel about the amount of compensation promised to Dicaeogenes
cannot be appreciated without accurate knowledge of the clauses of the
agreement, which is not produced. As to the failure of the arbitration, all
that is clear is that the arbitrators differed in opinion. That the attitude of
Leochares' friends was proof of Leochares' guilt is a rhetorical gloss.
A writer for the courts had a stock of commonplaces ready to hand, when
dealing with an arbitration, whether successful or the reverse; see I. Introd.
p. 176, 11. 29. 6 n.
28. I oikodoµías. Schoemann, Dareste (Les Plaidoyers d'Isée p. 93),
and Caccialanza confine 'the building' to the bath, but rà oikodoµýµata in
$ 29. 3 is not in favour of this limitation.
>
I, 2 kai πρótepov et̃pŋke, according to Schoemann at the action for eject-
ment brought by Micion (§ 22 sqq.). Why not in the course of the hearing
by the arbitrators?
νικώς.
3 ἀνηλωμένα. Cp. Moeris p. 23 ἀνηλωμένον ᾿Αττικῶς, ἀναλωμένον Ἑλλη
The truth of the rule is proved by the inscriptions (Meisterhans,
Gramm. d. att. Inschr.3 § 64. 21, p. 173). MSS. are not consistent; thus the
codex Crippsianus has åvaλwµéva here and in § 29. 4, áváλwoɑv in Lyc. 46,
but ἀνήλωσεν in § 35. 10, ἀνηλωκέναι in VIII. 39. 8. See for the MSS. of
Demosthenes Voemel, Prolegg. Gramm. § 64, p. 73, for papyri Crönert,
Memoria Graeca Herculanensis p. 286.
ἀπεδώκαμεν. With regard to the plural of the aorist active of τίθημι and
didwμ the evidence of the MSS. of the orators has been collected and tabu-
lated by Schulze, Quaestiunculae grammaticae ad oratores Atticos spectantes,
Bautzen, 1889. With regard to the second verb the results are as follows:
edwкaμev simple or compounded occurs six times, once in Isaeus (here), twice
in Demosthenes (20. 139, 23. 65), thrice in Pseudo-Demosthenes (13. 3, 34. 38,
39), whereas edoμev simple or compounded is found eight times (in Isaeus
thrice II. 5, V. 29, 30); édwкate simple or compounded occurs twelve times,
once in Antiphon (5. 77), ten times in Demosthenes (20. 84, 85, 86, 97, 120,
21. 11, 56, 23. 112, 28. 8, 57. 6), once in Pseudo-Demosthenes (51. 8), whereas
edote simple or compounded is found thirty times (in Isaeus twice V. 37, XI.
26); edwкav simple or compounded occurs sixteen times, once in Lysias (19.
7), once in Isocrates (12. 106), eight times in Demosthenes (19. 76, 94, 190,
20. 53, 70, 23. 200, 36. 14, 44), five times in Pseudo-Demosthenes (13. 23, 24,
34, 60. 4, prooem. 53. 5) once in Hypereides (6. 16), whereas dooar simple or
compounded is found seventy-eight times (in Isaeus thrice IV. 21, IX. 23, fr.
129 Saupp.). These figures should be compared with the testimony of Attic
inscriptions; Meisterhans, op. cit. § 76. 3, p. 188, states that plural forms with κ
do not appear till 385 B.C., and are in a minority down to 300 B.C., the
proportion of forms without k to forms with κ being 133 to 10, but from
300 B.C. to 30 B.C. are in undisturbed possession (26 examples). In view
448
OR. V.
ISAEUS
of these facts modern Atticists are not justified in expelling such forms from
Lysias, Isocrates, Isaeus, Demosthenes, Hypereides, and Aeschines. It
should be remembered that they furnish Demosthenes with a means of
escape from breuium concursio (19. 76 ἐνέδωκαν ἑαυτούς, 23. 202 προσέθηκαν
αὐτῷ, 36. 14 παρέδωκαν ἰδίαν). Whether, as Schulze thinks, ἐδώκατε should
be altered in Ant. 5. 77 is a more difficult problem; Antiphon has àπédoo av
in 5. 34, πepɩéleoav in 5. 18, ovvéðeoav in 5. 25. It is possible that the forms
with k were used in prose literature before they began to creep into the official
style. See Blass-Kühner, Gr. Gramm. II. § 283. 2, p. 196.
4 καὶ ὅτι. Cp. § 3. 5 κ.
ἀπαλλάττειν τοὺς χρήστας. Cp. [Dem.] 33. 9 ἀπήλλαξε τοὺς χρήστας
(mortgagees), 34. 22 τοὺς τὰ ἑτερόπλοα δανείσαντας μόλις ἀπήλλαξεν, 49. 17, 53.
11, And. 1. 122, Lys. 29. 1, Dem. 24. 37, 'Að. Пoλ. 55. 4. The use of the
word 'creditors' (xpñσral, I. 12. 7 n.) is not inconsistent with the hypothesis
that Dicaeogenes had parted with his property by a series of 'sales with
power of release' (§ 21. 7 12.). In the law of Ephesus (S. I. G.² n. 510, 37
sqq., Inscr. Jurid. Gr. I. p. 34 ἐξεῖναι τοῖς ὑστέροις [δανεισ]ταῖς ἐξαλλάξασι
τοὺς πρότερον δανειστὰς κατὰ τὸν συλλογισμὸν τοῦ κοινοῦ πο[λέμου] ἔχειν τὰ
Kτημaтα) Hitzig (Das griechische Pfandrecht p. 126) and Thalheim (Gr.
Rechtsalt. p. 159) regard the verb égaλλátteɩ as equivalent to the Athenian
άπаλλáттeι, to 'get rid of a person' by satisfying his demands.
29. I, 2 ἐπὶ < μὲν > τοῦ δικαστηρίου. Cp. § 1. 2 n.
3 Tŵν Anтouрyi@v, insignificant according to § 36.
4 τοὺς καρπούς. Cp. § 35. 9 καρπωσάμενος αὐτὸν (τὸν κλῆρον) δέκα ἔτη.
4, 5 τῶν δικαστών γιγνωσκόντων. Cp. § 17. 7 7., 18. I n., C. I. A. II. 842
(beginning of 3rd century B.C.?) 3 sqq. táde diéλvoav oi dikaσTai ¿TI-
τρεψάντων ἀμφοτέρων· τὰ μὲν κτήματα εἶναι τῆς θεοῦ κ.τ.λ.
6 +αιpettes t. Few scholars are likely to be convinced of the sound-
ness of this reading by Schoemann's defence: uidetur mihi Isaeus consulto
¿§aiрelévтes de iis dixisse, qui passi essent ut de suis rebus alter aliquid
exciperet, non è¿eλóµevoi, quod de iis potius dicitur, qui ipsi sibi aliquid
excipiunt; eodemque modo dañavŋoñvaí тɩ de eo, qui non uoluntate sua, sed ui
et necessitate coactus sumptus de suo non tam fecit quam passus est.
For the limits of the use of the aorist in -Oŋv in a middle or active sense see
Rutherford, New Phrynichus p. 186 sqq. and § 43. 4 n.
Reiske's ἐξαίρετον
αν
τι
or éέaɩpebéîoav gives a satisfactory sense, but does not explain the origin of
the corruption. Dobree and Thalheim decide in favour of éĝaíperov. Scheibe
(Comm. Crit. p. 15) conjecturing that two words have been fused into one,
proposed éέaípetov åþévtes, tamquam praecipuum munus domum ei permit-
tentes. Buermann (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 338) objects with good reason that
ἀφέντες is unsuitable here, and prefers ἐξαίρε<τον> προσθέντες τῷ τρίτῳ
μέρει κ.τ.λ.
8 v...πаρédшкe. The translators (Reiske, Sir W. Jones, Schoemann,
Dareste, Caccialanza) agree in regarding rapédwкe as posterior in time to
édoµev: 'We made him a present of the house...and he has transferred it to
Philonicus for 50 m. The use of v in place of κai тaúтηv or тaúτηv dé, and
ταύτην ταύτην
of the word 'transferred' 'made over' is curious; Reiske boldly substitutes
‘Domum hanc…..uendidit.' I think it possible that the 'transfer' had taken
OR. V.
449
COMMENTARY
place before the trial of Leochares on the charge of perjury, and that the
sentence may be translated 'which he had transferred etc.' On this
hypothesis the generosity of the cousins was certainly not remarkable; they
merely abandoned a claim to a piece of property which had passed out of
Dicaeogenes' hands.
30. 5, 6 οὐκ ἐβουλήθημεν τῶν τούτου κτήσασθαι οὐδέν. Remember
that the cousins brought an action claiming the entire estate of Dicaeo-
genes II (§ 14), and that the judges had a hand in arranging the settlement
(§§ 17. 7, 29. 5).
Hubert (De
31. 2, 3 μελλούσης τῆς πρὸς Λεωχάρη δίκης εἰσιέναι.
arbitris Atticis et priuatis et publicis, Lipsiae, 1885) conjectures that the
case had been heard before a public arbitrator, who had given sentence:
interdum factum est ut res iam introitura in iudicium, arbitro publico nostra
sententia iam munere functo, arbitris priuatis diiudicanda traderetur (p. 39).
If this were so, it would be useful to know (1) what was the verdict of the
public arbitrator, (2) which of the two parties refused to accept his decision
(Αθ. Πολ. 53. 1 οἱ δὲ (διαιτηταὶ) παραλαβόντες, ἐὰν μὴ δύνωνται διαλῦσαι,
γιγνώσκουσι, κἂν μὲν ἀμφοτέροις ἀρέσκῃ τὰ γνωσθέντα καὶ ἐμμένωσιν, ἔχει τέλος
ἡ δίκη· ἂν δ᾽ ὁ ἕτερος ἐφῇ τῶν ἀντιδίκων εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον κ.τ.λ.). If the
judgment had been against Leochares, would not Menexenus IV have
mentioned the circumstance, if only to exhibit his own magnanimity? But
on examining the account of the procedure before a public arbitrator given
in 'A. Пoλ. 7. c. I think it doubtful whether a case could be transferred to
private arbitrators after the formal sentence of the public arbitrator; the
remedy granted to the dissatisfied litigant, whether prosecutor or defendant,
was an appeal to a court of judges, and the arbitrator was bound to transmit
to that division of the Forty, from which he derived his commission, a copy
of his verdict together with all the depositions, challenges, and laws that
had been laid before him by either side. When affairs had reached this
stage, could the parties avoid a hearing by means of a private arrange-
ment? Whatever be the answer to this question, Hubert's conjecture raises
A suit to
problems of considerable interest to students of Isaeus' art.
compel discharge of a suretyship (éyyúŋs díên) appears eminently a matter to
be taken before a section of the Forty, and to be allotted in due course
to a public arbitrator ('A. IIoλ. .c., Lipsius, Verhandlungen d. königl.
Sächs. Ges. d. Wiss., 1891, P. 54, Att. Proc.² pp. 707 sqq., 1009 sqq.).
A prosecutor could withdraw his charge, after it was in the hands of the
arbitrator ([Dem.] 52. 14 λαχὼν δὲ (βλάβης) παρὰ μὲν τοῦ διαιτητοῦ ἀνείλετο τὸ
γραμματεῖον, προὐκαλέσατο δ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐπιτρέψαι Λυσιθείδη, αὑτοῦ μὲν καὶ
Ισοκράτους καὶ ᾿Αφαρέως ἑταίρῳ, γνωρίμῳ δὲ τοῦ πατρός), and Menexenus IV
may have taken this course; in which case µedλovons eloiévai must not be
strictly interpreted. But what was the further history of the suit, after the
four private arbitrators failed to come to an agreement? Was it referred
again to a public arbitrator? If so, what was his judgment? And which
party appealed?
3, 4 év To Maiμактηpiŵvi µnví, the fifth Attic month, roughly November.
The speaker specifies the month to show how long he had waited.
4 ἠξίουν Λεωχάρης καὶ Δικαιογένης, probably by means of a challenge
W. I.
29
450
OR. V.
ISAEUS
(πρόκλησις); see [Dem.] 40. 39, 43, 52. 14, 30. All editors, except Stephanus
and Reiske, give ἠξίου with A, and this reading may be defended by Lys. 12.
12 ἐπιτυγχάνει Μηλόβιός τε καὶ Μνησιθείδης, 13. 17, 23, Dem. 23. 12, 24. 13,
[Dem.] 49. 44, C. I. A. II. 804 Β, 34 κατὰ ψήφισμα δήμου ὃ εἶπε Λυκοῦργος
Βουτάδης καὶ ᾿Αριστόνικος Μαραθώνιος, ib. IV. 2. 834 b, II. 31 ἐμίσθωσεν ὁ
βασιλεὺς καὶ οἱ πάρεδροι. But with a Ms. like the codex Crippsianus it
is not worth while to fight over the omission of final », which is peculiarly
exposed to peril; see VII. 26. 6, XI. 18. 3, 32. 6, 34. 6, Crit. Introd. p. xv.
6 συνεχωρήσαμεν, ' we agreed (§ 18. 1 n.).
7 ἡμεῖς ἠγάγομεν, but in § 32. 6 ἐγὼ προὐβαλόμην ; see § 24. 3 η.
αν
9 οἷς οὗτοι γνοίεν. Reiske, Bekker, the Zürich editors, Scheibe, and
Buermann insert ἂν after oἷs in deference to the reading in § 33. 6 ἢ μὴν
ἐμμενεῖν οἷς ἂν αὐτοὶ γνοῖεν. Naber (Mnem. N. S. 5, 1877, p. 408) and
Herwerden (ib. 9, 1881, p. 388) rightly reject this construction as a solecism.
The oath sworn would be not ἐμμενῶ οἷς ἂν γνοῖεν but ἐμμενῶ οἷς ἂν γνῶσιν ;
cp. C. I. A. IV. 2. 584 c, II (S. I. G.2 n. 432) ὀμόσαι δὲ καὶ [ὅταν ἐπιτρέπωσιν]
ἐμμενεῖν οἷς ἂν ψηφίσωνται οἱ δημόται (the members of the deme acting as
arbitrators). In indirect narration after a past tense the only two legitimate
forms are ἐμμενεῖν οἷς ἂν γνῶσιν and ἐμμενεῖν οἷς γνοῖεν ; see [Dem.] 33. 15
συνέθεντο ἐν ταῖς συνθήκαις, εἰ μὲν τρεῖς ὄντες ὁμογνώμονες γενοίμεθα, ταῦτα
κύρια εἶναι αὐτοῖς, εἰ δὲ μή, οἷς οἱ δύο γνοίησαν, τούτοις ἐπάναγκες ἐμμένειν.
The error undoubtedly occurs even in good MSS., e.g. in the Urbinas (Isocr.
17. 15 ἠξίουν αὐτοὺς μαστιγοῦν τὸν ἐκδοθέντα καὶ στρεβλοῦν ἕως ἂν τἀληθῆ
δόξειεν αὐτοῖς λέγειν) and in Σ (Dem. 21. II οὐ γὰρ ὅπως τὸ σῶμ᾽ ὑβρίζεσθαί
τινος ἐν ταύταις ταῖς ἡμέραις, ἢ τὴν παρασκευὴν ἣν ἂν ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων πορίσαιτό τις
εἰς λητουργίαν, ᾤεσθε χρῆναι ἀλλὰ κ.τ.λ., 30. 6 ἐπειδὰν δοκιμασθείην), but the
number of examples is not enough to prove that the irregularity or confusion
existed in the classical age. See the instances cited by Goodwin, M. & T.
§§ 692, 702, and the commentators on Thuc. 8. 54. 2 (ὅπῃ ἂν αὐτοῖς δοκοίη
ABEFGM, ὅπῃ αὐτοῖς δοκοίη C), ib. 68. 1 (ἃ γνοίη CG, ἃ ἂν γνοίη ΑΒΜ,
Αναγνοίη Ε), Xen. Αn. 3. 2. 12 (εὐξάμενοι τῇ ᾿Αρτέμιδι ὁπόσους ἂν κατακάνοιεν
τῶν πολεμίων, τοσαύτας χιμαίρας καταθύσειν), Ant. 5. 34 (πρὶν ἂν ἐγὼ ἔλθοιμι).
...
...
32. 2 ανώμοτοι. The award of a public arbitrator was accompanied by
a solemn oath in the market-place, ἐπὶ τοῦ λίθου ἐφ᾽ οὗ τὰ τόμι᾽ ἐστίν, where
the Archons after passing the doкipaσía swore 'to rule righteously and in
δοκιμασία
accordance with the laws (Αθ. Πολ. 55. 5). With regard to the ordinary
practice in private arbitrations there is little evidence, but on general grounds
it seems probable that the parties insisted on an oath, when large sums of
money were at stake. See II. 31. 2, Dem. 29. 58 νῦν δ᾽ ἐπιτρέψαι με πείσας
("Αφοβος) Αρχενέῳ καὶ Δρακοντίδῃ καὶ Φάνῳ τούτους μὲν ἀφῆκεν ἀκούσας
αὐτῶν ὅτι, εἰ μεθ᾽ ὅρκου ταῦτα διαιτήσουσι, καταγνώσονται τὴν ἐπιτροπήν, ἐπὶ τὸν
κληρωτὸν δὲ διαιτητὴν ἐλθὼν καὶ οὐδὲν ἔχων ἀπολύσασθαι τῶν ἐγκεκλημένων,
ὦφλε τὴν δίαιταν, [Dem.] 34 (Against Phormio, a special plea in a 'mer-
cantile suit, in which a public arbitrator did not act), 18 μελλούσης δὲ τῆς
δίκης εἰσιέναι εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον ἐδέοντο ἡμῶν ἐπιτρέψαι τινί· καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐπετρέ-
ψαμεν Θεοδότῳ ἰσοτελεῖ κατὰ συνθήκας, ib. 21 ἀκούσας τοίνυν ἡμῶν ὁ Θεόδοτος
πολλάκις καὶ νομίσας τὸν Λάμπιν ψευδῆ μαρτυρεῖν, οὐκ ἀπέγνω τῆς δίκης, ἀλλ᾿
ἀφῆκεν ἡμᾶς εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον· καταγνῶναι μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἐβουλήθη διὰ τὸ οἰκείως
OR. V.
451
COMMENTARY
ἔχειν Φορμίωνι τουτῳί, ὡς ἡμεῖς ὕστερον ἐπυθόμεθα, ἀπογνῶναι δὲ τῆς δίκης ὤκνει,
ἵνα μὴ ἐπιορκήσειεν, [Dem.] 52. 31 Λυσιθείδης γάρ, ἕως μὲν ὁ πατὴρ ἔζη, καὶ ἄνευ
ὅρκου καὶ μεθ᾽ ὅρκου ἴσως ἂν οὐκ ἠδίκησεν ἐκεῖνον· ἔμελε γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐκείνου.
ἐμοῦ δὲ ἄνευ μὲν ὅρκου οὐδὲν αὐτῷ ἔμελε, μεθ᾽ ὅρκου δὲ ἴσως ἂν οὐκ ἠδίκησε διὰ
τὸ αὑτοῦ ἴδιον· διόπερ ἀνώμοτος ἀπεφήνατο. In this last speech Apollodorus,
who has lost the arbitration, tries to make out (§ 3o) that the arbitrator acted
illegally in making an award without an oath, but I understand neither the
argument nor Hubert's explanation of it (De arbitris Atticis p. 17); it looks
like a pettifogging attempt to represent a private arbitrator in the colours of
a public arbitrator.
δύναιντ' [ἂν]. Bekker (Att. Or. III, Addenda p. 6or), Baiter, Buermann,
and Thalheim are against av, Schoemann and Scheibe retain it. Schoemann's
explanation of the construction is as follows: εἰ δύναιντ᾽ ἂν significat: si
futurum esset ut possent. Nimirum hoc posse, cum sit pro hypothesi
sequentis hypotheseos οὕτω ποιήσειν, tamen et ipsum tamquam ex condicione
aptum cogitatur, eaque condicio posita est haud dubie in rei disceptandae
ratione. Nam quae plana sunt et facilia ad disceptandum, de his etiam
iniurato arbitro pronuntiare licebit; in difficilioribus autem et intricatioribus
aequum est iurare arbitrum se diligenter ac religiose in causa cognoscenda
uersatum ex animi sententia pronuntiaturum esse. This note provokes
Naber (Mnem. N. S. 5, 1877, p. 407) to merriment: Tant de choses en deux
mots! An analysis of some sentences, in which the optative with av after ei
is intelligible and right, will show the fault in our text. (1) [Xen.] Apol.
Socr. 18 εἴ γε μὴν ὅσα εἴρηκα περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ, μηδεὶς δύναιτ᾽ ἂν ἐξελέγξαι με ὡς
ψεύδομαι, πῶς οὐκ ἂν ἤδη δικαίως καὶ ὑπὸ θεῶν καὶ ὑπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων ἐπαινοίμην ;
The sentence contains not a future but a present condition, and the protasis
approximates to a causal clause. Socrates might have stated the argument
in a more positive and less modest form: ἐπεὶ μέντοι οὐδεὶς δύναται..., ἆρ᾽ οὐ
δίκαιός εἰμι ἤδη ἐπαινεῖσθαι; (2) Aesch. 2. 88 εἰ γὰρ μηδεὶς ἂν ὑμῶν ἑαυτὸν
ἀναπλῆσαι φόνου δικαίου βούλοιτο, ἢ που ἀδίκου γε φυλάξαιτ᾽ ἄν, τὴν ψυχὴν ἢ τὴν
οὐσίαν ἢ τὴν ἐπιτιμίαν τινὸς ἀφελόμενος. Aeschines might have used ὁπότε οι
ὅπου in place of εἰ; the reasoning starts from an admitted truth, οὐδεὶς ἂν
βούλοιτο ἀναπλῆσαι ἑαυτὸν φόνου δικαίου. (3) Plat. Laws 905 C ταῦτα εἰ μέν σε
πείθει,...περὶ θεῶν ὡς οὐκ οἶσθα ὅ τι λέγεις, καλῶς ἄν σοι ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸς ξυλλαμ
βάνοι· εἰ δ᾽ ἐπιδεὴς ἔτι λόγου τινὸς ἂν εἴης, λεγόντων ἡμῶν πρὸς τὸν τρίτον
ἐπάκουε, εἰ νοῦν καὶ ὁπωσοῦν ἔχεις. The second condition is present, no less
than the first: 'if you can still need further argument, listen.' Such sentences
do not resemble the present passage. According to Schoemann the proposi-
tion in direct narration would be εἰ μὲν ἀνώμοτοι δυναίμεθ᾽ ἂν ὑμᾶς διαλλάξαι,
οὕτω ποιήσομεν. This may be converted into a simpler form : εἰ δυναίμεθ᾽ ἄν,
ἀνώμοτοι ὑμᾶς διαλλάξομεν. What can be the force of ἄν?
What can be the force of av? A present condi-
tion conveyed by a potential optative is manifestly out of place. Schoemann
asserts that the particle is added to show that the condition, which refers to
future time, is itself dependent on another condition, but is unable to make
clear what this second condition is. Is any one prepared to maintain that in
the statement of a supposed future case the optative with av may be used in
the protasis, in short, that εἰ δυναίμεθ᾽ ἂν is here as legitimate as ἐὰν δυνώμεθα,
εἰ δυνησόμεθα, εἰ δυναίμεθα ? There is no other way of justifying the reading
αν
29-2
452
OR. V.
ISAEUS
of A. Cp. Dem. 4. 18, 18. 190, 20. 117, 21. 212, 23. 144, 24. 154, [Dem.]
33. 34, 50. 2, 58. 46 (corrupt), Aken, Grundzüge der Lehre von Tempus u.
Modus im Griechischen, Cap. 31, p. 160 sqq., Kühner, Gr. Gram. II. § 577. I,
p. 983 sqq., Goodwin, M. & T. § 506, p. 192.
5 пulóμevol. Cp. I. 32. 1, 2 n.
for this mistake cp. [Dem.] 59. 103
μενοι Blass.
Here the scribe first wrote rvvðavóµevoi;
αἰσθανόμενοι Σ, προαισθόμενοι FQ, αἰσθό-
6 προβαλόμην : προύβαλον Α. Reiske's correction, rejected by Bekker
and Schoemann, is indubitably right. In Attic prose the middle, never the
active, is used of the person who puts forward a witness or proposes a candi-
date for any post (µáprupa VII. 3, Isocr. 18. 11, [Dem.] 46. 10, 47. 1, diaitηtηv
[Dem.] 40. 44, Plat. Laws 916 B, yvμvaσíapɣov And. 1. 132, πреσßeνтην Din.
1. 81, étiµeλntǹv Dem. 21. 15, 24. 160, σтpatnyoùs Plat. Laws 756 A, Xen. An.
6. 1. 25, áoтvvóμov Plat. Laws 753 D).
33. 3 ovμßoλalwv. Cp. IV. 12. 3, 4 N., X. 10. 2 n. Here the word seems
to be used in its ordinary sense of 'a contract, especially in acknowledgment
of a loan,' and to refer to 'money transactions.'
4 Myηoiπtodéµw. It is strange that we hear so little of the liability of
Mnesiptolemus. Was it the design of Menexenus IV to bring a separate
action against him?
6, 7 οἷς [ἂν] αὐτοὶ γνοίεν. Cp. § 31. 9 n. Dobree first demanded the
omission of ầv (Adv. 1. p. 295). Thalheim prefers Herwerden's emendation
(οἷς ἂν αὐτοὶ γνῶσιν).
αν
34-47 Can you then acquit Leochares, when he has been condemned
by his own relations? We do not covet the property of Leochares; we petition
for the wealth left us by our ancestors. Dicaeogenes deserves no compassion
on the ground either of poverty or of patriotism. On the contrary, he is rich
and has treated most villainously his country, his kinsfolk, and his friends.
How has he spent the great revenues, which he has enjoyed for ten years?
Not on the public services, not on the trierarchy, not on contributions
to the state. Once, indeed, when Lechaeum was taken, he promised in the
Assembly, not spontaneously, the paltry sum of 3 m.; and even this he did not
pay, and was posted as a defaulter before the statues of the Eponymi. How
he has behaved to his kinsfolk you see, but there are other notorious charges
against him, which decency forbids me to mention. His friends have fared no
better; Melas, the friend of his boyhood, is now his bitter enemy; Dicaeogenes
got money from him and kept it; and swindled in like manner or deceived by
false promises the rest of his friends. Contrast the generosity and public
spirit of our ancestors, who discharged magnificently the public services, who
contributed large sums to the war-tax, who served perpetually as trierarchs,
who died in battle for their country. Having shamefully ruined a great
estate, Dicaeogenes, do you now bewail your poverty? On what have you
spent your riches?
What have you done for your country that you should
ask the judges to acquit you? Will you appeal to your ancestors, who slew
the tyrant? To get our property you renounced their glory and the privileges
granted to their descendants. Besides, they were honoured for virtue, of which
you are totally destitute, Dicaeogenes.
The attack on Dicaeogenes with which the speech ends exemplifies the
OR. V.
453
COMMENTARY
two qualities in Isaeus, energy and unscrupulousness (rò dparтýριov Kai Tò
Tаvоûруov), which are said to have attracted the youthful Demosthenes
(Plut. Dem. 5). The protracted denunciation with its abrupt and con-
temptuous close is one of the best pieces of rhetoric in Isaeus. Dicaeogenes
is held up to execration as a perfect type of a character hateful to poor
democrats--the selfish and wicked rich man, who spent nothing for the benefit
of the people and the state. The continuous fire of invective might tell even
upon a modern reader disciplined to neglect the vehemence of politicians
and journalists, if he forgot for a moment that the depravity of Dicaeogenes
has nothing to do with the nature and extent of the obligations undertaken
by Dicaeogenes' surety. Leochares was liable for his engagements, whether
Dicaeogenes was rich or poor, but he was not bound to perform what he had
not promised, because Dicaeogenes was said to be a rogue. The vigour of
the peroration is a measure of the author's anxiety that this simple truth
should not be recognised by the judges. For the commonplaces about the
public services (λŋrovpyiai) see the commentary on IV. 27—31.
34. I οὔκουν.
OKOVV. I follow the MS. and the tradition of ancient gram-
marians. All editors since Baiter and Sauppe write ouk ovv. This form is
not consistently used in modern texts. Thalheim, who has here oỷk ovv,
gives in Lys. 10. 12 OvкOûv άтоπоν with a mark of interrogation, but in the
next section οὐκ οὖν δεινὸν also in a question. Blass prints οὔκουν ἐναντίον...;
in Dem. 20. 97, but oùк oυv åтоñoν...; in [Dem.] 34. 49, and oỷkoûv deɩvóv; in
[Dem.] 59. 107. Voemel (Prolegg. Gramm. § 40) makes the following distinc-
tions: Discernimus (1) oỷkoûv—; interrogantis=nonne igitur? (2) oỷkoûv
sine interrogatione propria=igitur. (3) oйkovv (cum ovv_enclitica)=non pro-
fecto, neutiquam. In interrogatione ovкovv graviter negans (i.q. non ergo?)
magis perspicue scribitur oỷK ouv; These rules do not seem to be borne out
by the evidence; in particular it may fairly be doubted whether oùкoûv is
allowable in a question to which an affirmative answer is expected. The
difficulty was felt by A2 (Crit. Introd. p. xix).
oùк
2 ἀποψηφίσασθαι κ.τ.λ. Cp. Ant. 6. 47 καίτοι πῶς ἂν ἄνθρωποι σχετλιώ
τεροι ἢ ἀνομώτεροι γένοιντο; οἵτινες ἅπερ αὐτοὶ σφᾶς αὐτοὺς οὐκ ἔπεισαν, ταῦθ᾽
ὑμᾶς ἀξιοῦσι πεῖσαι, καὶ ἃ αὐτοὶ ἔργῳ ἀπεδίκασαν, ταῦτα ὑμᾶς κελεύουσι κατα-
δικάσαι.
5, 6 ἃ ἡμῖν οἱ πρόγονοι κατέλιπον. Cp. §§ 4. 2 η., 41. 2, Lys. 19. 9
κινδυνεύομεν περὶ ὧν οἱ πρόγονοι ἡμῖν κατέλιπον κτησάμενοι ἐκ τοῦ δικαίου.
6 тà óvóμата. Two of the claimants were named after their maternal
grandfather, Menexenus I, the father of Dicaeogenes II. The son of
Dicaeogenes III was also called Menexenus. See the pedigree p. 403.
35. 2 πενόμενον. Cp. VI. 59. 7, 8 n., Dem. 29. 49 οὗτος δ᾽ ἵν᾽ εὔπορος
εἶναι δοκῶν μηδενὸς τύχω παρ᾽ ὑμῶν ἐλέου, τούτοις χρῆται τοῖς λόγοις.
3 ovdérepa. Cp. I. 22. 4, 5 N., 38. 2 n.
οὐδέτερα.
ιν
7, 8 παραλαβὼν τὸν κλῆρον παρ' ὑμῶν. Thalheim justly observes that
παραλαβών (not λαβών, as in XI. 30. 8, 35. 6) supports ἡμῶν, the reading of
the MS.; cp. $ 43. 2. On the other side in view of $ 11 (λαμβάνων μίσθωσιν
ὀγδοήκοντα μνᾶς ἐκ τῶν Δικαιογένους τοῦ ἡμετέρου θείου χρημάτων) it is natural
to regard the 80 m. as the revenue of the whole estate once possessed by
Dicaeogenes II, not of the portion (two thirds) which the court awarded to
454
OR. V.
ISAEUS
Dicaeogenes III in 399 B.C. If the text is sound, which I now think
probable, παρ' ἡμῶν must be taken as a rhetorical expression for 'from our
uncle Dicaeogenes II and from his sisters, our mothers.'
8 φέροντα μίσθωσιν. Cf. § 11. 4 7., C. I. A. II. 570= Michel 7. 140 (decree
of the deme Plotheia), 24 sqq. ἀπὸ δὲ τὸ τόκο τε καὶ τῶμ μισθώσεων, ἀντὶ ὅτο
ἂν τῶν κεφαλαίων ὠνήματα ᾖ μίσθωσιν φέροντα, θύεν τὰ ἱερά.
JO
το ὅποι ανήλωσεν. Buermann and Thalheim prefer the reading of Apr.
(ὅπη) here and in vi. 41. 7 (ὅποι τετραμμένα εἴη τὰ χρήματα). But compare
IV. 27. 5 n., v. 43. 3 (where both Buermann and Thalheim accept roî
ἀναλώσας from Bekker), Lys. 32. 20 οὐκ ἔχων ὅποι τρέψειε τὰ χρήματα (Contus,
ὅπου στρέψειεν F, ὅπου στράψειε Μ), ib. 25 ὅποι (ὅπη G) μὲν ἀνήλωται τὰ
χρήματα, [Dem.] 50. 30 ὅποι ἀνηλώθη, Plat. Rep. 4. 420 Α οὐδ᾽ ἀναλίσκειν ἄν
ποι βούλωνται ἄλλοσε, Ar. Vesp. 665 καὶ ποῖ τρέπεται δὴ ἔπειτα τὰ χρήματα
τἆλλα, Nub. 858/9 τὰς δ᾽ ἐμβάδας που τέτροφας, ἀνόητε σύ; ΣΤ. ὥσπερ Περι-
κλέης ἐς τὸ δέον—ἀπώλεσα (a surprise for ἀνήλωσα), Eccl. 682 τὰ δὲ κληρωτήρια
ποῖ τρέψεις; ΠΡ. ἐς τὴν ἀγορὰν καταθήσω, Anaxandrides ap. Αthen. 4. 176 A
(Kock, Com. Att. Fr. II. p. 158) τὸν μόναυλον ποῖ τέτροφας; οὗτος Σύρε. What
reason is there for rejecting the correction made by A¹? Of course I do not
mean to assert that circumstances may not be found in which ö″ŋ after
τρέπω and even after ἀναλίσκω is tenable; see Plat. Rep. 7. 520 Α οὐχ ἵνα
ἀφιῇ τρέπεσθαι ὅπῃ ἕκαστος βούλεται, ib. 8. 556 Α εἴργοντες τὰ αὑτοῦ ὅπῃ (ὅποι
Bekk., Herm.) τις βούλεται τρέπειν, Laws 847 Ε δώδεκα μὲν γὰρ δὴ μέρη τὰ
πάντα ἐκ τῆς χώρας γιγνόμενα νέμειν χρεὼν πάντας, ᾗπερ καὶ ἀναλωτέα.
36. 1, 2 τῇ μὲν φυλῇ εἰς Διονύσια χορηγήσας τέταρτος ἐγένετο. Bentley
(Diss. upon Phalaris p. 361) 'corrected the fault' by ejecting dè after rpayw-
doîs. The emendation was revived by G. Hermann, who explained dè as a
mistake for δ' (τέταρτος), and is incorporated in the text by Scheibe (Comm.
Crit. p. 18) and Thalheim, but is demonstrably wrong, since the number of
competitors in tragedy never exceeded three. Reiske suspected the loss of
αὐληταῖς or some word defining the contest in which Dicaeogenes was fourth.
Buermann (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 349) seeks the contrast to τῇ μὲν φυλῇ in the
unexpressed idea of a χορηγία ἐν τῷ δήμῳ (ΙΙ. 42. 5 7., III. 8ο. 4 π.). The
truth is that a dithyrambic contest, in which the tribes contended against
each other, is opposed to a tragic contest, with which the tribes were not
concerned. See C. I. A. II. 544 (decree of Pandionis), 2 sqq. ἐπαινέσαι
Νικίαν Ἐπιγένους Κυδαθηναιέα ἀν]δραγαθίας ἕν[εκα τῆς εἰς τὴν φυλήν, ὅτι εξὖ καὶ
προθύμω[ς ἐχορήγησεν τοῖς παισὶ κ]αὶ ἐνίκα Διονύσια και Θαργήλια ἀνδράσι,
ib. 11. 557 (decree of Erechtheis), 2 sqq. ἐπειδὴ καλῶς [ἐχορ]ήγησεν Σαυρίας
Πυθογένου[ς Λα]μπτρεὺς καὶ ἐνίκησεν τῇ Ἐρ[εχθη]ΐδι φυλῇ, ib. IV. 2. 663 c
(decree of Pandionis), 3 sqq. καλῶς [καὶ φιλοτίμως ἐχορήγη]σεν τῇ ΙΙ[ανδιονίδι
νικήσας (?) ἀνδρῶν, ib. iv. 2 563 d decree of Kekropis), 2 sqq. [αἱρε]θεὶς τῇ
[Κεκροπίδι φυλῇ προθύμως ἐ]χορήγησεν, [Plut.] Vitt. X. Οr. 835 Β καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ
(Ανδοκίδης) ἐχορήγησε κυκλίῳ χορῷ τῇ αὑτοῦ φυλῇ διθυράμβῳ, καὶ νικήσας
(C. I. A. II. 553 Διονύσια παισὶ... Ανδοκίδης Λειωγόρο Κυδαθηναιεὺς ἀνέθηκε
τρίποδα ἐφ' ὑψηλού < βάθρου> ἀντικρὺ τοῦ πωρινοῦ Σειληνοῦ, ᾿Αθ. Πολ. 56. 3
ἔπειτα (ὁ ἄρχων) χορηγούς τραγῳδοῖς καθίστησιν τρεῖς, ἐξ ἁπάντων Αθηναίων
τοὺς πλουσιωτάτους· πρότερον δὲ καὶ κωμῳδοῖς καθίστη πέντε, νῦν δὲ τούτους
αἱ φυλαὶ φέρουσιν. ἔπειτα παραλαβὼν τοὺς χορηγούς τοὺς ἐνηνεγμένους ὑπὸ
OR. V.
455
COMMENTARY
2
τῶν φυλῶν εἰς Διονύσια ἀνδράσιν καὶ παισὶν καὶ κωμῳδοῖς, καὶ εἰς Θαργήλια
ἀνδράσιν καὶ παισὶν εἰσὶ δ᾽ οἱ μὲν εἰς Διονύσια κατὰ φυλάς, εἰς Θαργήλια
δὲ δυοῖν φυλαῖν εἷς· παρέχει δ᾽ ἐν μέρει ἑκατέρα τῶν φυλῶν) τούτοις τὰς
ἀντιδόσεις ποιεῖ καὶ τὰς σκήψεις εἰσάγει. The account given in the Constitu-
tion of Athens is confirmed by the inscriptions. The state records of
dramatic victories contain the names of the choregus, of the poet, and,
after the middle of the 5th century, of the protagonist, but never mention
a tribe. The complete list of the contests at the City Dionysia of 458 B.C.
is as follows: [Οἰ]νηὶς παίδων, Δημόδοκος ἐχορήγει· Ιπποθωντὶς ἀνδρῶν,
Εὐκτήμων Ελευσίνιος ἐχορήγει· κωμωιδῶν, Εὐρυκλείδης ἐχορήγει, Εὐφρόνιος
ἐδίδασκε· τραγωιδῶν, Ξενοκλῆς ᾿Αφιδναῖος ἐχορήγει, Αἰσχύλος ἐδίδασκε (C. I. Α.
IV. 2. 971 f., Michel n. 879 C). In a record of tragic contests at the same
festival in 341 and 340 B.C. (C.I.A. II. 973, Michel n. 881, S. I. G. n. 696)
even the names of the choregi are omitted. But each of the dithyrambic,
or, to use the Athenian term, cyclic choruses, which performed at the
City Dionysia, whether composed of men or boys, was the representative
of one of the ten tribes. The choregus was nominated by his fellow tribesmen,
and chose the choreutae from members of the tribe (Ant. 6. 11, 12). The
prize of victory, the tripod (§ 41. 7 κ.), though presented to the choregus and
set up in some public place at his expense (Lys. 21. 2), was regarded as an
honour won by the tribe (Dem. 21. 5 τῆς φυλῆς ἀδίκως ἀφαιρεθείσης τὸν
τρίποδα). During the 5th and most of the 4th century the tribe figures
as victor on the commemorative monuments erected by choregi; see
C. I. A. I. 336 (Michel n. 915) Οἰνεὶς ἐνίκα παίδον. Εὐρυμένες Μελετεῖνος
ἐχορέγε. Νικόστρατος ἐδίδασκε (c. 450 B.C.?), ib. II. 1244 (Michel n. 922)
Αἰγηὶς ἀνδρῶν ἐνίκα, Εὐαγίδης Κτησίου Φιλαΐδης ἐχορήγει, Λυσιμαχίδης Επι
δάμνιος ηύλει, Χαρίλαος Λοκρὸς ἐδίδασκε, Εὐθύκριτος ἦρχε (328/7 Β.C.). In
the last quarter of the 4th century a different formula appears (C. l. A. II.
1247, Michel n. 924 Θράσυλλος Θρασύλλου Δεκελεεὺς ἀνέθηκεν χορηγῶν νικήσας
ἀνδράσιν Ιπποθωντίδι φυλῇ κ.τ.λ., 320/19 Β.C.). The record of a success
at the Thargelia, at which the choregus represented two tribes, is naturally
cast in a slightly different form: Κλεισθένης ἐχορέγε Αὐτοκράτος Ερεχθηΐδι
Αἰγηΐδι. Κεδείδης ἐδίδασκε (C. I. A. IV. I. 337 a, S. I. G. n. 702, Michel n.
931, end of 5th century BC.), Αἴσιος Μνησιβούλου Σφήττιος χορηγῶν ἐνίκα
Ακαμαντίδι Πανδιονίδι παίδων, Εὐκλῆς ἐδίδασκε, Εὐδαμίσκος ηὔλε, Χίων
(365/4 B.C.) Ppxev (C. I. A. II. 1236, Michel n. 932, S. I. G. n. 704). It
appears, then, that at the City Dionysia there were two dithyrambic
competitions, one between choruses of boys (παῖδες κύκλιοι, Plut. Aristid. 1.),
the other between choruses of men. The present passage indicates that
there were not twenty choruses, but ten only, five of boys and five of men;
Dicaeogenes, when tragic choregus, was last, when choregus to his tribe
Pandionis, fourth or last but one. We possess a decree of this tribe in honour
of Nicias son of Epigenes of Κυδαθήναιον (Dicaeogenes deme), who was
victorious with a chorus of boys at the Dionysia and a chorus of men at the
Thargelia; after the usual compliments to Nicias the resolution continues
thus: αναγράψαι δὲ καὶ εἴ τις ἄλλος νενίκηκεν ἀπ᾽ Εὐκλείδο ἄρχοντος παισὶν ἢ
ἀνδράσιν Διονύσια ή Θαργήλια ἢ Προμήθια ἢ Ηφαίστια. ἀναγράφεν δὲ καὶ τὸ
λοιπόν, ἐάν τις τούτων τι νικήσῃ, τὸς ἐπιμελητὰς ἐφ᾽ ὧν ἂν νικήσῃ, ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ
456
OR. V.
ISAEUS
orýλŋ (C. I. A. 11. 553, Michel n. 136, S. I. G.² n. 712). A list follows containing
the names of three choregi, who had won prizes at the Dionysia with choruses
of boys, and of eight choregi, who had been successful at the Thargelia,
four with choruses of men, four with choruses of boys. The most famous
choregus of Pandionis is the orator Demosthenes, who at the City Dionysia
in 348 B.C.—I take Weil's date-brought out a cyclic chorus of men, not, as
is often said, a chorus of fluteplayers; for the interpretation of Dem. 21. 156
αὐληταῖς ἀνδράσι see Plut. Aristid. Ι. ὁ μὲν αὐληταῖς ἀνδράσιν, ὁ δὲ παισὶ
kukλiois xopnyńoas, and Brinck, Inscriptiones Graecae ad choregiam per-
tinentes, 1885, p. 7. In the speech against Meidias he observes that he
had undertaken a much more expensive duty than his enemy, who had
only been a tragic choregus. This statement tallies with some figures
preserved in Lysias; Aristophanes (19. 29, 42) on behalf of himself and
his father spent in a space of four or five years 50 m. on two tragic choruses,
the speaker of or. 21 spent 50 m. on a chorus of men at the Dionysia of
4C9 B.C. (ảvdpáσi xopnyŵv eis Aiovúσia § 2), and 30 m. on a tragic chorus
in 410 B.C. (KATασtàs xopnyòs тpayodoîs § 1). It should be remembered that
a cyclic chorus consisted of 50 members, a tragic chorus of 15, and that
in the age of Demosthenes three tragedies were not always exhibited by
each of the three competing poets (C. I. A. 11. 973). Further, Dicaeogenes'
failure in the tragic competition is not a proof that he was a stingy choregus;
the success of a play principally depended on the poet and the protagonist.
See for the lyrical and dramatic competitions at the City Dionysia Brinck,
op. cit., Haigh, The Attic Theatre, ed. 1, p. 14 sqq., Mommsen, Feste der
Stadt Athen p. 442 sqq., for the formulae of the inscriptions Larfeld, Hand-
buch d. gr. Epigraphik 11. p. 921 sqq.
2, 3 τραγῳδοῖς δὲ καὶ πυρριχισταῖς ὕστατος. Understand χορηγήσας from
the first half of the sentence, and for the construction, probably a dativus
commodi, see H. Richards, Class. Rev. 14, 1900, p. 201 sqq. (On the use of the
words τραγῳδὸς and κωμῳδός), who argues that in good Attic of the 5th and
4th centuries paydoì means only a tragic chorus, [And.] 4. 20 ȧvτixopηyòs
ἦν ᾿Αλκιβιάδῃ παισί, Plut. Dion 17. 2 Πλάτωνι χορηγοῦντι παίδων χορῷ.
The extant notices of performances of the war dance (πʊpρíɣn) at
Athens all refer to the Panathenaea. The speaker of Lys. 21 expended
8 m. 'on pyrrhichists' (§ 1) at the Great Panathenaea in 410/09 B.C.
(Ol. 92. 3), and at the Little Panathenaea of a later year brought out
a chorus of 'beardless pyrrhichists' ($ 4 exophуovv πуррixioтais ȧyeveίois),
which cost 7 m. A 4th century inscription (C. I. A. 11. 965, S. I. G.² 12. 668,
Michel n. 880), which enumerates the contests and prizes at the Great
Panathenaea, distinguishes three sets of pyrrhichists, boys, beardless youths,
and men; Bb, 71 sqq. νικητήρια. Η παισὶμ πυρριχισταῖς βοῦς. Η ἀγενείοις
πυρριχισταῖς βοῦς. Η ἀνδράσι πυρριχισταῖς βοῦς. The figure Η (1oo dr.) denotes
the money value of the ox, which was probably sacrificed to the goddess.
The choruses had a religious significance; the Pyrrhiche was first danced
by Athena herself, after the destruction of the Titans (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom.
7. 72. 7), or, according to Lucian's version, when she emerged from the head
of Zeus (Deorum Dial. 8, p. 225). It is not known whether the tribes were the
competitors, as in the torch race (C. I. A. II. 1229 'Akaµavtìs évíka Xaµñádi
OR. V.
457
COMMENTARY
-
Παναθήναια τὰ μεγάλα ἐπ᾿ ᾿Αρχίου ἄρχοντος (346/5 Β.C., Οl. 108. 3), Ξενοκλῆς
ἐγυμνασιάρχει). Part of a monument erected by a victorious choregus can
still be seen (C. I. A. II. 1286 b). Beulé discovered below the Propylaea
a pedestal, which had once borne the bronze statues of two boys, with the
following inscription: [πυρριχισταῖς νικήσας "Αταρβος Λυσ ἀνέθηκε.
Κ]ηφισό[δ]ωρο[ς ἦρχε]. The victory therefore was either in 366/5 B.C. (ΟΙ.
103. 3) or in 323/2 B.C. (Ol. 114. 2). A relief on the front of the marble
shows a choregus in long flowing raiment, and eight naked youths, with
shields and light headdress, all in one attitude. A gap between the 4th and
5th youth has been interpreted to mean that they danced in fours. For
an illustration see Beulé, L'Acropole II. p. 314 (plates at end of book).
If the beardless pyrrhichists furnished by the speaker of Lys. 21 at an
expense of 7 m. were also eight in number, each dancer cost him 87 dr. 3 ob.
and, consequently, was dearer than a comic choreutes. This singularly
generous citizen, who, if the trierarchy and war-tax be included, contributed
in nine years more than 10 t. 36 m., in 403/2 B.C. expended 16 m. on a comic
chorus, the dedication of their costume being reckoned in (σὺν τῇ τῆς
σκευῆς ἀναθέσει $ 4). Now a comic chorus consisted of 24 members, so that
the expense per head was 66 dr. 4 ob. See for the Pyrrhiche at the great
Panathenaea Mommsen, Feste der Stadt Athen p. 98 sqq., for the nature of
the dance Downes, Class. Rev. 18, 1904, p. 101 sqq.
3 ἀναγκασθείς. The suggestion is that Dicaeogenes, when nominated,
had vainly sought to evade the burdens by appealing to the procedure of
ἀντίδοσις or raising other objections (σκήψεις); see 'Αθ. Πολ. 56. 3 (quoted
on § 36. I, 2), Lys. 21. 5 καὶ τούτων ὧν κατέλεξα, εἰ ἐβουλόμην κατὰ τὰ
γεγραμμένα ἐν τῷ νόμῳ λῃτουργεῖν, οὐδ᾽ ἂν τὸ τέταρτον μέρος ἀνήλωσα, Dem.
21. 156 κἀγὼ μὲν ἐθελοντὴς νῦν (§ 13 ὑπεσχόμην ἐγὼ χορηγήσειν ἐθελοντής),
οὗτος δὲ καταστὰς ἐξ ἀντιδόσεως τότε, οὗ χάριν οὐδεμίαν δήπου δικαίως ἄν
τις ἔχοι, [Dem.] 42. 23 σὺ τοίνυν δεῖξον χαλκοῦν ἕνα μόνον εἰς τὴν πόλιν
ἀνηλωκώς, ὁ τὰς δύο λητουργούσας ουσίας παρειληφώς. ἀλλ᾿ οὐ δείξεις·
ἀποκρύπτεσθαι γὰρ καὶ διαδύεσθαι καὶ πάντα ποιεῖν ἐξ ὧν μὴ λῃτουργήσεις
τουτοισὶ μεμάθηκας, ib. 25 καλῶν γὰρ κἀγαθῶν ἐστι δικαστῶν, τοὺς μὲν τῶν
πολιτῶν ἐθελοντάς, ὅταν εὐπορῶσι, λῃτουργοῦντας καὶ ἐν τοῖς τριακοσίοις ὄντας
ἀναπαύειν, ὅταν τούτου δεόμενοι τυγχάνωσι, τοὺς δὲ νομίζοντας ἀπολλύειν,
ὅταν εἰς τὸ κοινόν τι δαπανήσωσιν, ἄγειν εἰς τοὺς προεισφέροντας καὶ μή
ἐπιτρέπειν δραπετεύειν. Dicaeogenes had apparently discharged three
liturgies in ten years. As the obligation only recurred every other year
(Dem. 20. 8 ἐνιαυτὸν διαλιπών ἕκαστος λῃτουργεί), five was the maximum
number of public services that could have been lawfully imposed on him
in the period, it being assumed that his income was throughout 80 m.
The grounds of exemption (ἀτέλεια) admitted by law are enumerated in
᾿Αθ. Πολ. 56. 3.
5 οὕτω κακῶς ἐχορήγησεν. I incline to καλῶς, which is found in M and
the Aldine, and, if we may judge from Bekker's critical note, is the reading
of B.
The phrase thus becomes a sarcastic parody of the language of
honorary degrees (C. I. A. II. 557, 2 sqq. ἐπειδὴ καλῶς [ἐχορ]ήγησεν Σαυρίας
Πυθογένους Λαμπτρεὺς καὶ ἐνίκησεν τῇ Ἐρ[εχθη]ίδι φυλῇ καὶ τὰς ἄλλας
λῃ[τουργ]ίας καλῶς λητουργεῖ). All editors, except Buermann, Thalheim,
458
OR. V.
ISAEUS
and myself, have put this correction into the text. The interchange of
Kaλws and κak@s often occurs in MSS. (Isocr. 8. 49 kaλws г, kakŵs EO, 12. 221
kaλos uolg., kaкs г, 16. 37 kakŵv г, kaλŵv uolg., Aesch. 1. 73, Dobree,
Adv. II. p. 95).
5, 6 τριηράρχων τοσούτων κατασταθέντων. If the speech was delivered
in 389 B.C., the demand for trierarchs must have been quite recent. In
the period between the capitulation of 404 B.C. and the outbreak of the
Corinthian war in the autumn of 395 B.C. the trierarchy was practically
in abeyance, since by the terms of peace Athens was not allowed to keep
more than twelve triremes (Xen. Hell. 2. 2. 20, And. 3. 12). Nor is it likely
that she dared to equip a fleet before Conon's victory at Cnidus in August
394 B.C., though building was going on at the Piraeus in June of this year
(C. I. A. IV. 2. 830 b). With the help of Conon and the allies (Xen. Hell.
4. 8. 10) the Long Walls and the fortifications girdling the Piraeus were put
in a state of defence in the summer of 393 B.C., but the great work was not
complete in 392/1 B.C. (C. I. A. IV. 2. 830 d). It is probable that the
Athenians began to create a fleet, as soon as their harbour and shiphouses
were secure. The struggle, which had begun as a land war round Corinth,
ended in naval operations in the Hellespont and Aegean conducted by
Athens alone. The chronology after much controversy remains unsettled,
but the limits of divergence are necessarily narrow. Sometime in 390 B.C.
ten ships under Philocrates were sent to Cyprus to help Evagoras, but were
all captured by Teleutias in the neighbourhood of Rhodes (Xen. Hell. 4. 8.
24). This disaster was followed by the first considerable enterprise of
Athens, the despatch of 40 ships commanded by Thrasybulus (ib. 4. 8. 25),
which is assigned by some critics to the autumn of 390 B.C., by others to the
spring of 389 B.C. Either in the autumn of 389 B.C. or in the first half of
388 R.C. Iphicrates went to the Hellespont with eight ships (ib. 4. 8. 34).
During 389 and 388 B.C. a force was also needed to hold in check the pirates
in Aegina (ib. 5. 1. 1-—9). In 388 B.C. Chabrias took 10 ships to Cyprus (ib.
5. I. 10), and during the winter of 388/7 B.C. an Athenian squadron of
32 triremes was blockading Nicolochus in Abydus (ib. 5. I. 7). These
do not seem great efforts, when we remember that the fleet numbered at
least 100 triremes in 377/6 B.C. (C. I. A. II. 791), and as many as 349 in
353/2 B.C. (C. I. A. 11. 795), but fifteen years after the calamities of the great
war the maintenance of even 50 ships may have strained the resources of the
Athenian upper classes. We learn from Lysias (19. 29, 42) that in the 'four
or five years' that succeeded the victory at Cnidus Aristophanes son of
Nicophemus, Conon's friend and subordinate (Xen. Hell. 4. 8. 8), held the
office of trierarch for three years in succession, on which he spent 80 m.
In addition to this he expended 100 m. on an embassy to Dionysius of
Syracuse (393 B.C.?), and 300 m. on the despatch of 'the ten triremes' that
went to Cyprus (390 B.C. or 388 B.C.?).
Trierarchs were selected by the Generals (Dem. 39. 8, [Dem.] 35, 48,
42. 5, Αθ. Πολ. 61. 1 ἕνα δ᾽ ἐπὶ τὰς συμμορίας, ὃς τούς τε τριηράρχους καταλέγει
καὶ τὰς ἀντιδόσεις αὐτοῖς ποιεῖ καὶ τὰς διαδικασίας αὐτοῖς εἰσάγει). According to
tàs avtoîs tàs
Demosthenes 'volunteer trierarchs' served for the first time in the Euboean
campaign of 357 B.C. (Dem. 18. 99 τῶν ἐθελοντῶν τριηράρχων τότε πρῶτον
OR. V.
459
COMMENTARY
γενομένων τῇ πόλει; cp. 21. 16o sqq.). If Demosthenes means that before
357 B.C. no Athenian had ever spontaneously offered his services to the
Generals, the assertion is extravagant and incredible; cp. Lys. 29. 3, 4, 7
quoted on $ 36. 7, 8.
,
6, 7 οὔθ᾽ ἑτέρῳ συμβέβληκεν. If, as is universally believed, the orator
alludes to the practice of allowing two citizens to share the expense of the
trierarchy (Isocr. 18. 6ο πείσας τὸν ἀδελφὸν συντριηραρχεῖν, between Aegos-
potami and the fall of Athens), συμβέβληκεν must be changed, as Fuhr
(Animadversiones in oratores Atticos p. 59) proposes, to συμβεβλημένος Οι
συμβέβληται ; cp. Lys. 32 (probably spoken in 401 B.C.), 24 οὗτος γὰρ
συντριηραρχῶν ᾿Αλέξιδι τῷ ᾿Αριστοδίκου, φάσκων δυοῖν δεούσας πεντήκοντα
μνᾶς ἐκείνῳ συμβαλέσθαι, τὸ ἥμισυ τούτοις ὀρφανοῖς οὖσι λελόγισται, οὓς ἡ
πόλις οὐ μόνον παῖδας ὄντας ἀτελεῖς ἐποίησεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπειδὰν δοκιμασθῶσιν
ἐνιαυτὸν ἀφῆκεν ἁπασῶν τῶν λῃτουργιών, ib. 26 ηὕρομεν Διογείτονα τέτταρας
καὶ εἴκοσι μνᾶς ἐκείνῳ συμβεβλημένον εἰς τὴν τριηραρχίαν, Dem. 45. 69
τῷ πώποτ᾽ εἰσήνεγκας ἢ τίνι συμβέβλησαί πω ἢ τίν᾽ εὖ πεποίηκας; Lyc.
43 τὸν συμβεβλημένον οὐδὲν εἰς τὴν τῆς πόλεως καὶ τοῦ δήμου σωτηρίαν.
In Attic prose the active, συμβάλλειν τινί, never seems to be identical
with the middle, συμβάλλεσθαί τινι, ‘to make a contribution to some one.
The Ms. reading οὔθ᾽ ἑτέρῳ συμβέβληκεν ought to mean either he has
not made a contract with another person,' or more specifically 'he has
not lent money to another person'; for this second and narrower use of the
word see Isocr. 21.13 οἷς μὴ συνέβαλεν ἐγκαλείν, [Dem.] 33. 28 ὅπως μὴ ἀπολεῖ
ἃ δι᾿ ἐμοῦ τούτῳ συνέβαλεν, Dem. 37. 52 καθ᾿ ὃ συνέβαλον ἀργύριον, Ar. Eccl.
446 sqq. Here the idea of an investment is clearly out of place, but a trierarchy
might lead to a contract; men sometimes hired a substitute to discharge
their duties (Dem. 21. 80 δίδωμι εἴκοσι μνᾶς τούτοις, ὅσου τὴν τριηραρχίαν ἦσαν
μεμισθωκότες, ib. 155 ταλάντου μισθοῦσι τὰς τριηραρχίας οὗτοι, [Dem.] 51. 7
σκεψάμενοι γὰρ τὸν ἐξ ἐλαχίστου τριηραρχεῖν βουλόμενον μεμισθώκασι τὴν
λῃτουργίαν), although such conduct was contrary to the spirit, if not to the
letter, of the law, and might be represented as desertion ([Dem.] 51. 8, 11,
16, 17). The statement that Dicaeogenes had neither been trierarch himself
nor made a contract with an agent is not so suitable to the context as a
reference to a joint trierarchy.
.. •
ἕτεροι μέν. I can find no parallel in the orators, or indeed in Attic prose,
to the use of μèv in this sentence; cp. I. I. I N. It can only be defended as
an extreme case of anacoluthon, the original scheme of the writer having
been to continue with a parallel clause (ἕτεροι μὲν τριηραρχοῦσι...ἕτεροι δὲ
εἰσφέρουσι). The construction and the sense would be improved by reading
μόνον <οὐκ >; for the confusion of μὲν and μόνον cp. 1. 48. 5 n., [Dem.] 7. 31
(µǹ µóvov nµâs libri: µǹ µâs µèv Butcher), Cobet, Misc. Crit. p. 488, Obser-
vationes ad Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. p. 81.
7, 8 οὐσίαν κεκτημένοι ἐλάττω κ.τ.λ. This statement looks like an exaggera-
tion. Though the lower limit of the trierarchic census is not known (Boeckh,
Staatshaush.³ 1. p. 671 sqq.), it is certain that a man whose estate was worth
only 80 m., was not liable to the burden, and, if nominated by the Generals,
had a right of appeal to the law courts. Since the trierarchy involved an
expenditure of 40 to 60 m., it is improbable that Athenians of modest means
460
OR. V.
ISAEUS
volunteered for an office which would reduce them to actual poverty;
according to the speaker of [Dem.] 42 it was 'not easy to live' (§ 22) on
a property of 45 m. Contrast the tone of Lys. 29. 3, 4 καὶ τὸ τελευταῖον
τριήραρχον αὐτὸν κατέστησεν (Εργοκλῆς, one of the colleagues of Thrasybulus
in the expedition of 39o or 389 B.C.). καίτοι δεινὸν εἰ οἱ μὲν τὰς οὐσίας ἔχοντες
ὀλοφύρονται τριηραρχοῦντες, οὗτος δὲ οὐδὲν πρότερον κεκτημένος ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ
χρόνῳ ἐθελοντὴς ὑπέστη ταύτην τὴν λῃτουργίαν. οὐκοῦν δὴ οὐχ ὡς ζημιωθησό
μενον αὐτὸν τριήραρχον κατέστησεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ὠφεληθησόμενον καὶ φυλάξοντα
τὰ αὑτοῦ χρήματα, ib. 7 μάρτυρας πεπόρισται...ὡς ἦν ἔχθιστος ἁπάντων
ἀνθρώπων Εργοκλεῖ. καίτοι οἴεσθ᾽ ἂν αὐτὸν εἰς τοῦτο μανίας ἀφικέσθαι, ὥστε
Θρασυβούλου στρατηγοῦντος καὶ Ἐργοκλέους αὐτῷ διαφερομένου ἐθελοντὴν
ὑποστῆναι τριηραρχίαν; πῶς γὰρ ἂν θᾶττον ἀπώλετο ; Ar. Ran. 1065/6 οὔκουν
ἐθέλει γε τριηραρχεῖν πλουτῶν οὐδεὶς διὰ ταῦτα, ͵ ἀλλὰ ῥακίοις περιιλάμενος
κλάει καί φησι πένεσθαι, Antiphan. ap. Athen. 3. 103 E (Kock, Com. Att.
Fr. II. p. 98) ἢ γὰρ εἰσφορά τις ἥρπακεν | τἄνδοθεν πάντ᾽, ἢ δίκῃ τις περι-
πεσὼν ἀπώλετο, | ἢ στρατηγήσας προσῶφλεν, ἢ χορηγὸς αἱρεθεὶς | ἱμάτια χρυσᾶ
παρασχὼν τῷ χορῷ ῥάκος φορεῖ, | ἢ τριηραρχῶν ἀπήγξατ᾽, ἢ πλέων ἥλωκέ ποι.
Demosthenes is also exaggerating, when in 21. 61 he writes τῶν...χορηγῶν
τῶν ἀνηλωκότων πολλάκις πάντα τὰ ὄντ᾽ εἰς τὰς λῃτουργίας.
η
او
η
37.2 ὑμεῖς ἔδοτε. Cp. IV. 28. 2 7., VI. 4. 3η.
to confirm the alleged will of Dicaeogenes II.
2, 3. εἰ καί. Cp. § 25. 8 κ.
αν
او
What the court did was
4 εἰσφορών τοσούτων γεγενημένων. Cp. Lys. 28 (Against Ergocles,
delivered in 389 or 388 B.C.), 3 καὶ γὰρ δὴ δεινὸν ἂν εἴη εἰ νῦν μὲν οὕτως αὐτοὶ
πιεζόμενοι ταῖς εἰσφοραῖς συγγνώμην τοῖς κλέπτουσι καὶ τοῖς δωροδοκοῦσιν
ἔχοιτε, 29 (same date), 9 καὶ γὰρ δὴ δεινὸν ἂν εἴη, εἰ τοῖς μὲν μὴ δυναμένοις
τὰ σφέτερ᾽ αὐτῶν εἰσφέρειν ὀργίζεσθε καὶ τὰς οὐσίας αὐτῶν ὡς ἀδικούντων
δημεύετε, τοὺς δὲ τὰ ὑμέτερα αὐτῶν ἔχοντας μὴ τιμωροῖσθε. In what follows
Isaeus avails himself of the ambiguity of the word εισφορά, 'contribution,
which generally signifies payment of the war-tax, but covers also a voluntary
subscription (ἐπίδοσις). When the Assembly had voted the war-tax, all
persons liable could be compelled to contribute according to their several
assessments, on pain of imprisonment and confiscation (Dem. 22. 42—44, 51,
53, 54, 24. 198, 29. 66, 39. 15). No rich man could escape by the simple
method of declining to pay (Xen. Oec. 2. 6 οἶδ' ὅτι σε τιμωρήσονται ᾿Αθηναῖοι
οὐδὲν ἧττον ἢ εἰ τὰ αὑτῶν λάβοιεν κλέπτοντα). If Dicaeogenes really paid
no war-tax between 395 and 389 B.C., when Athens was fighting for a great
prize, he must have put forward, and, what is more remarkable, have
successfully sustained, a plea of incapacity. But Isaeus does not attempt to
show that Dicaeogenes defrauded the revenue officers by making a false
return of his property; all that he proves is that Dicaeogenes failed to pay
a subscription which he had promised in the Assembly. For εἰσφέρειν and
elo popà applied to a free gift see Lys. 30. 26, 31. 15, Dem. 45. 69.
او
6,7 ὅτε Λέχαιον άλω. In his speech on the Peace Andocides (3. 18)
reckons the capture of Lechaeum as one of the three decisive Spartan
victories in the war, the other two being the battles at Corinth and Coroneia :
τρίτον δ᾽, ἡνίκα Λέχαιον ἔλαβον, Αργείους μὲν ἅπαντας καὶ Κορινθίους (νενικήκασι),
ἡμῶν δὲ καὶ Βοιωτῶν τοὺς παρόντας. Aristides seems to place the battle at
OR. V.
461
COMMENTARY
Lechaeum' in 393/2 B.C., the year of Demostratus (rns év Kopivow µáxηs kai
τῆς ἐν Λεχαίῳ μέσος ἄρχων Εὐβουλίδης, or. 46 Ὑπὲρ τῶν τεττάρων, ΙΙ. 370,
15 Dind.); but his chronology cannot be trusted, since in all probability
the battle of Corinth was fought not at the end of the year of Diophantus,
395/4 B.C., but at the beginning of the year of Eubulides, 394/3 B.C., in the
month of July (C. I. A. 11. 2084, S. I. G.2 n. 67, Beloch, Gr. Gesch. II.
p. 197 n. 1). Owing to Xenophon's peculiar manner of writing history the
date and circumstances of the capture of Lechaeum are involved in obscurity.
He tells with many curious and interesting details (Hell. 4. 4. 7 sqq.) how
by the treason of two Corinthian aristocrats Praxitas, the commander of
the Lacedaemonian garrison in Sicyon, was admitted by night into the
space between the two walls which connected Corinth with its port
Lechaeum, and how with a Lacedaemonian mora, the levy of Sicyon, and
150 Corinthian exiles he utterly defeated the Corinthians, the Argives, and
Iphicrates' mercenaries, who after a day's interval attempted to expel him
from his position. After a remarkable description of the carnage among
the Argives Xenophon adds this sentence (ib. 4. 4. 12): 'the garrison of
Boeotians in the harbour were also killed, some on the walls, others upon
the roofs of the shiphouses (vewσoikoi), where they had climbed up.' The
natural inference from these words (Fuhr, Animadversiones in oratores
Atticos p. 11) is that Praxitas captured the port town. This battle between
the Long Walls is now generally put in 392 B.C. (after Grote VII. p. 494 n. I;
Holm, Gr. Gesch. III. p. 52, is sceptical). Praxitas' first measure after his
victory was to raze enough of the two walls to allow a free passage to
an army (ib. 4. 4. 13). He then advanced on the road leading to Megara
and stormed Sidus and Crommyon, in which he left garrisons. The
Athenians heard with consternation of the breach in the Long Walls of
Corinth, which exposed Attica to invasion (ib. 4. 4. 18). They marched out
with their whole force (avdηueí), taking stonelayers, masons, and carpenters,
and built in a few days 'a quite fine wall' on the side looking west towards
Sicyon; then they proceeded to complete the eastern wall in a more leisurely
fashion. Xenophon does not say that Lechaeum was retaken by the
Athenians; he does not even mention the place. Subsequently (ib. 4. 4. 19)
Agesilaus after ravaging all the Argive territory crossed to Corinth by way
of Tenea, and 'captured the walls which had been rebuilt by the Athenians.
He was supported on the sea-side by his brother Teleutias with a force
of about 12 triremes; and their mother was congratulated on the successes
won on the same day by her two sons, one having captured the enemy's
walls by land, the other his ships and dockyards (veópia) by sea.' Grote,
followed by most historians, maintains that Lechaeum did not fall into
the hands of the Lacedaemonians before this joint attack by Agesilaus
and Teleutias, which according to his scheme falls in the first half of
391 B.C.
His strongest argument (VII. p. 504 n. 4) is that it would have
been 'impracticable and useless' for the Athenians to restore the Long
Walls, if Lechaeum had been in the possession of the enemy. Breitenbach
in his commentary on Hell. 4. 4. 12 seeks to evade the difficulty by the
hypothesis that Praxitas retained the town of Lechaeum, but evacuated
the harbour, because the Corinthians commanded the sea before the
παν
462
OR. V.
ISAEUS
appearance of Teleutias. Fuhr (op. cit. p. 12) acquiesces in Hertzberg's
conjecture that 'the dockyards' taken by Teleutias lay to the east of
Lechaeum, not in the port, having been constructed by the Corinthians
after the rebuilding of the Long Walls, and he quotes the present passage
of Isaeus to show that the Athenians in spite of their overwhelming strength
did not expel the Lacedaemonians from Lechaeum; the orator, he argues,
speaking after 390 B.C. knows only of one capture of Lechaeum by the
Lacedaemonians, for he does not add τὸ πρῶτον or τὸ δεύτερον, although
it is certain that the Lacedaemonians held the town (ib. 4. 5. 11) at the time
of the destruction of the mora by Iphicrates, and that this disaster was
posterior to the taking of the walls by Agesilaus, and on no system of
chronology later than midsummer 390 B.C. The narrative of Diodorus
(14. 86) is totally different from that of Xenophon; he makes the Lace-
daemonians and Corinthian exiles storm Lechaeum by night before the
battle between the Long Walls.
1
7 ἐπέδωκεν ἐν τῷ δήμῳ. Cp. Plut. Phoc. 9 πρὸς δὲ θυσίαν τινα τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων
αἰτούντων ἐπιδόσεις καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐπιδιδόντων, κληθεὶς πολλάκις ἔφη ‘Τούτους
αἰτεῖτε τοὺς πλουσίους· ἐγὼ δὲ αἰσχυνοίμην ἄν, εἰ τούτῳ μὴ ἀποδιδοὺς ὑμῖν
ἐπιδοίην δείξας Καλλικλέα τὸν δανειστήν, Theoph. Char. 22. 3 καὶ ἐπιδόσεων
γιγνομένων ἐκ τοῦ δήμου, ἀναστὰς σιωπᾶν ἢ ἀναστὰς σιωπῇ Needham) ἐκ τοῦ
μέσου ἀπελθεῖν, Plut. Alc. 10 πρώτην δ᾽ αὐτῷ πάροδον εἰς τὸ δημόσιον γενέσθαι
λέγουσι μετὰ χρημάτων ἐπιδόσεως, οὐκ ἐκ παρασκευῆς, ἀλλὰ παριόντα θορυβούντων
Αθηναίων ἐρέσθαι τὴν αἰτίαν τοῦ θορύβου, πυθόμενον δὲ χρημάτων ἐπίδοσιν
γίνεσθαι παρελθεῖν καὶ ἐπιδοῦναι· τοῦ δὲ δήμου κροτοῦντος καὶ βοῶντος ὑφ᾽
ἡδονῆς ἐπιλαθέσθαι τοῦ ὄρτυγος, ὃν ἐτύγχανεν ἔχων ἐν τῷ ἱματίῳ, Athen. 4. 168
F ἐπιδόσεων δέ ποτε γινομένων παρελθὼν καὶ αὐτὸς (ὁ Φωκίωνος υἱὸς) εἰς τὴν
ἐκκλησίαν ἔφη ‘ἐπιδίδωμι κἀγώ, καὶ οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἀνεβόησαν ' εἰς
ἀκολασίαν, Dem. 18. 312 ὅθ᾽ ἅπαντες, ὅσοι πώποτ᾽ ἐφθέγξαντ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος,
εἰς σωτηρίαν ἐπεδίδοσαν, καὶ τὸ τελευταῖον ᾿Αριστόνικος τὸ συνειλεγμένον εἰς τὴν
ἐπιτιμίαν, οὐδὲ τότε οὔτε παρῆλθες οὔτε ἐπέδωκας οὐδέν, οὐκ ἀπορῶν, πῶς γάρ;
ὃς γ᾽ ἐκεκληρονομήκεις μὲν τῶν Φίλωνος τοῦ κηδεστοῦ χρημάτων πλειόνων ἢ
πεντεταλάντων, διτάλαντον δ᾽ εἶχες ἔρανον παρὰ τῶν ἡγεμόνων τῶν συμμοριῶν.
These subscriptions were also announced in the Council (Dem. 21. 161 ἐν τῇ
βουλῇ γιγνομένων ἐπιδόσεων παρὼν οὐκ ἐπεδίδου τότε). We possess a 3rd
century (c. 229 B.C.) decree (C. I. A. II. 334, Michel n. 608, S. I. G. n. 232),
which not only invites subscriptions from Athenians and resident aliens,
but also prescribes a minimum (50 dr.) and a maximum (200 dr.) for the
gifts: τοὺς βουλομένους τῶ[ν πολιτῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλ]λων τῶν οἰκούντων ἐν τῇ πόλει
ἐπιδιδόναι εἰς τὴν σωτηρία]ν τῆς πόλεως καὶ τὴν φυλακὴν τῆς χώρας ἐ[παγγεί
λασθαι τει β]ουλει ἢ πρὸς τοὺς στρατηγοὺς ἀπογράψα[σθαι ἐντὸς μηνὸς Μο]υνυ-
χιῶνος· μὴ ἐξέστω δὲ μηθενὶ ἐπιδοῦναι πλέον ΗΗ δραχμῶν] μηδ᾽ ἔλαττον Γ.
A list of subscribers is appended under the following heading: Οἵδε ἐπέδωκαν
εἰς τὴν σω[τηρίαν τῆς πό]λεως καὶ τὴν φυλακὴν τῆς [χώρας κατὰ τὸ] ψήφισμα τοῦ
δήμου. See Thumser-Hermann, Gr. Staatsaltert. p. 689, where references
to other Athenian inscriptions will be found. We possess a long inscription
from Cos containing a list of subscriptions ἐς τὰν σωτηρίαν τὰν τᾶς πατρίδος
given about 200 B.C. (Michel n. 642).
8 Κλεώνυμος ὁ Κρής.
Several Athenian decrees are extant which
.
OR. V.
463
COMMENTARY
2
commend and reward the donations of aliens; see C. I. A. II. 176, 329 B.C.,
(Michel 7. 109, S. I. G. n. 151) in honour of Eudemus of Plataea, ἐπειδὴ
πρότερόν τε ἐπ[ηγγε]ί[λατο τ]ῷ δήμῳ ἐπιδώσει[ν εἰ]ς [τὸν π]όλεμον εἴ τ[ι] δέ[οι]το
[XXX]X δραχμάς, καὶ νῦν [ἐπ]ι[δέδ]ω[κεν] εἰς τὴν ποίησιν τοῦ σταδίου καὶ τοῦ
θεάτρου του Παναθη[ναϊ]κοῦ χίλια ζεύγη, ib. IV. 2. 179 b, 330/25 B.C., (Michel n.
IIO, S. I. G. n. 152) in honour of Heracleides of Salamis in Cyprus, ἐπειδὴ...
πρότερόν τε ἐπέδωκεν ἐν τῇ σπανοσιτίᾳ : ΧΧΧ : μεδίμνους πυρῶν πεντεδράχμους
πρῶτος τῶν καταπλευσάντων ἐνπόρων, καὶ πάλιν, ὅτε αἱ ἐπιδόσεις ἦσαν, ἐπέδωκε
: XXX: Spaxµàs eis oırwvíav, ib. IV. 2. p. 77, 301 B.C., (Michel n. 122 B, 6,
S. I. G.² 12. 187, 29) in honour of two resident aliens, Nicander of Ilium and
Polyzelus of Ephesus, [καὶ ὅτε ᾿Αθηναῖοι ἔθεντο τὰς ἐπιδόσεις εἰς τὴν
παρασκευὴν τοῦ π]ολέμου καὶ τὴν σωτηρίαν τῆς π[όλεως ἐπέδοσαν ἀμ]φότεροι :
Χ δραχμάς, ib. II. 808 c, 28-30, 809 d, 166/7 (a subscription from Meidon of
Samos).
38. 2, 3 ἐξετέθη αὐτοῦ τοὔνομα : ἐξ ἑτέρου αὐτοῦ τοὔνομα A. The appear-
ance of érépov can be explained as a consequence of the wrong division
of the word, and of the assimilating influence of αὐτοῦ. In Buermann's
emendation έξ<ετέθη μεθ' > ἑτέρου the addition of μεθ᾽ ἑτέρου injures the
oratorical effect, and if there were only two defaulters recorded, duals would
be more natural in the following clause.
3 ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἐπωνύμων. The statues of the ten eponymous heroes
appear to have stood somewhere on the northern slope of the Areopagus,
above the Metroum, the Council House, and the Rotunda (θόλος); see Paus.
I. 5. I with Frazer's note, 'Αθ. Πολ. 53. 4, Schol. Ar. Pax 1183. Lists of the
men called out for a campaign were posted up at these statues (Ar. 1. c. εἶτα
προσστὰς πρὸς τὸν ἀνδριάντα τὸν Πανδίονος εἶδεν αὑτόν); this circumstance
explains Dem. 21. 103 οὔθ᾽ οὗτος οὐδενὸς εἵνεκ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐμισθώσατο, πλὴν ἵν᾽
ἐκκέοιτο πρὸ τῶν ἐπωνύμων καὶ πάντες ὁρῷεν ὁ Εὐκτήμων Λουσιεὺς ἐγράψατο
Δημοσθένην Παιανιέα λιποταξίου. Copies of proposed laws were also set up
before them for public inspection (And. 1. 83 αναγράφοντες ἐν σανίσιν
ἐκτιθέντων πρὸς τοὺς ἐπωνύμους, a suspicious phrase, πρόσθε (πρόσθεν) τῶν
ἐπωνύμων appearing in the other passages, Dem. 20. 94, 24. 18, 23, Aesch.
3. 39). The speaker of Isocr. or. 18 narrates how the people voted to crown
his brother and himself for services as trierarchs and to proclaim (ἀνειπεῖν)
them 'before the eponymous heroes' as public benefactors (§ 61).
3, 4 οἵδε κ.τ.λ. For the form of the notice compare C. I. A. II. 808 d,
1o5 sqq. (326/5 Β.C.) οἵδε τῶν τριηράρχων τῶν ἐπιδόντων ὀφείλουσιν τὸ ἀργύριον
ἕκαστος ΗΗΝΗΗΗ! τὸ ἀναλωθὲν εἰς τὴν ἐπισκευὴν τῶν τριήρων τῶν παρα-
σκευασθεισῶν ἐπὶ Χαιρώνδου ἄρχοντος (338/7 Β.C.), ib. 811 c, 33 sqq. (323/2 B.C.)
οἶδε τῶν τριηράρχων τῶν ὁμολογησάντων ἐν τῷ δικαστηρίῳ καινὰς ἀποδώσειν
τριήρεις καὶ τοὺς ἐμβόλους ὀφείλουσιν τῇ πόλει, τὰς δὲ τριήρεις ἀποδεδώκασιν·
Δίφιλος Φειδίππου Πιθεὺς κ.τ.λ., ib. 804 Bb, 66 (334/3 B.C.) οἵδε των τριηράρχων
τῶν ἐπιδόντων τὰς τριήρεις σκεύη ἔχουσιν κατὰ ψήφισμα δήμου ὃ Λυσικλῆς εἶπεν·
Φιλόμηλος Χολαργούς κ.τ.λ. I conjecture that a separate list of subscribers was
posted before each of the ten statues, beginning with the names of the
tribesmen who had paid by the appointed date, and ending with the
defaulters, if any. It should be remembered that one of the objects of
a request for éπidóσeis was to provide the state with cash at short notice.
464
OR. V. ·
ISAEUS
The arrangements of the προεισφορὰ show how Athenian finance suffered
from the difficulty of getting ready money from tax-payers whose property
consisted largely of land and houses.
6 ἅπαντας ἅμα συνειλεγμένους. Naber (Mnem. N. S. 5, 1877, p. 408)
assumes that ἅμα belongs to συνειλεγμένους and proceeds to alter it to ὁμοῦ.
But it should be attached to ἅπαντας; this combination is unimpeachable
(Thuc. 3. 77 πάσαις ἅμα ἐπιγενέσθαι, ‘to come up afterwards with their
ships all together, not in detachments, Dem. 19. 92 ἐὰν μὴ πάνθ᾽ ἅμ᾽ ἐᾶτε
ταράττειν αὐτόν, 21. 219 οὐδ᾽ ἐχορηγεῖθ᾽ ἅμα πάντες, 23. 21 οὐχ ἅμα πάνθ᾽ ἁθρό
ἐξετάζοντες, 55. 21 ἵνα μὴ πάνθ᾽ ἅμα συνταράξας λέγω).
>
The principle on which Naber sets about to correct this and other
passages is that qua must always be temporal, óμoû must always be local.
The element of truth in this rule is that the use of åµa to denote simultaneity
has gained an immense preponderance in Attic prose. But some traces
remain of the old freedom so conspicuous in Herodotus. Thucydides has
ἅμα νέοι γεραιτέροις (6. 18. 6), ἐπὶ Λακεδαιμονίους τοὺς ἅμα Γυλίππῳ μετὰ
Αθηναίων ὅπλα ἐπέφερον (7. 57. 6), μυριάδες γὰρ οὐκ ἐλάσσους τεσσάρων
ἅμα ἐπορεύοντο (7. 75. 5), μή ξυμβαίνειν τῳ μηδὲ πολεμεῖν ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἅμα (ὁμοῦ
Naber, 5. 80. 1). Compare 7. 19. 4 ἀπέστειλαν δὲ καὶ Σικυώνιοι διακοσίους
ὁπλίτας ὁμοῦ τοῖς Κορινθίοις with 4. 50. 3 τὸν δὲ ᾿Αρταφέρνη οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι
ἀποστέλλουσι τριήρει ἐς Ἔφεσον· καὶ πρέσβεις ἅμα, and 7. 71. 4 ἦν δὲ......πάντα
ὁμοῦ ἀκοῦσαι with 7. 44. 4 σφίσι τε αὐτοῖς θόρυβον πολὺν παρεῖχον ἅμα πάντες
ἐρωτῶντες. Here the two words ἅμα and ὁμοῦ are indistinguishable and
convertible; and editors rightly refuse to change even 4. 30. 4 καὶ ἅμα (ὁμοῦ
Krüger) γενόμενοι πέμπουσι κήρυκα in spite of the familiarity of ὁμοῦ γίγνεσθαι
(e.g. Plat. Laws 895 A). In Xenophon note Cyr. 2. 4. 30 (παραγγείλας ἃ
ἔδει τοῖς ἅμα αὐτῷ μέλλουσι πορεύεσθαι ἀνεπαύετο), Hell. I. I. 26 (οἱ Συρακόσιοι
ἅμα τοῖς Αντανδρίοις τοῦ τείχους τι ἐπετέλεσαν), Anab. 2. 4. 9 (ἐπορεύετο δὲ καὶ
Αριαῖος τὸ Κύρου βαρβαρικὸν ἔχων στράτευμα ἅμα Τισσαφέρνει καὶ Ὀρόντα
καὶ συνεστρατοπεδεύετο ἐκείνοις), in Plato Cratyl. 437 Β (ἡ τοῦ ἅμα θεῷ ἰόντος
πορεία), Laws 878 Α (συνελθόντας τοὺς οἰκείους ἅμα νομοφύλαξι σκέψασθαι),
Pol. 275 Ε (ἐξην περικαλύπτειν καὶ τὸν πολιτικὸν ἅμα τοῖς ἄλλοις), in the
orators Ant. 5. 52 (ἠφάνισ᾽ ἂν τὸ ἀνθρώπω, ὅτε ἐπ᾿ ἐμοὶ ἦν εἰς τὴν Αἶνον
ἀπάγειν ἅμα ἐμοὶ), Isocr. 16. 41 (ὑπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν κακῶς πάσχων, ἅμα τῇ πόλει
δυστυχῶν, τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἐχθροὺς καὶ φίλους ὑμῖν νομίζων), Dem. 18. 258 (παῖς μὲν
ὢν μετὰ πολλῆς ἐνδείας ἐτράφης, ἅμα τῷ πατρὶ πρὸς τῷ διδασκαλείῳ προσεδρεύων ;
Demosthenes could not use σùv and was reluctant to repeat µerà), [Dem.]
34. 2 (τῶν ἐν Βοσπόρῳ ἐπιδημησάντων ἅμα Φορμίωνι, an ambiguous example),
in Aristophanes Vesp. 712 (χωρεῖθ᾽ ἅμα τῷ τὸν μισθὸν ἔχοντι), Pax 727
(ἕπεσθον ἅμ᾽ ἐμοὶ), Ran. 512 (ἀλλ᾽ εἴσιθ᾽ ἅμ᾽ ἐμοὶ). The history of μετά, σύν,
and aµa in Greek has been described with great erudition by Tycho
Mommsen, Beiträge zu der Lehre von den griechischen Praepositionen; see
pp. 361 sqq., 384 sqq., 646 sqq., and VI. 33. 6 n. (σὺν τῷ αἰπόλῳ).
39. μέν. Cp. III. 7. 3 n.
..
5 εἰς τοὺς μισθωτούς ἰόντας. Others he suffered to join the ranks of
the common labourers' (Isocr. 18. 48 ἐπὶ θητείαν ἰόντας). At Athens in
the 4th century the term hirelings” (μισθωτοί) had a special and limited
application, denoting the whole body of workers, who gained a precarious
OR. V.
465
COMMENTARY
1
2
living by unskilled labour. After Plato (Rep. 2. 371 DE) has furnished his
state with husbandmen, craftsmen of various kinds, merchants (europoi),
and retailers (кáπηλoi), he completes its equipment by the addition of
'hirelings'; who are described in these words: éri dʼn tives eioì kai äddo
διάκονοι, οἳ ἂν τὰ μὲν τῆς διανοίας μὴ πάνυ ἀξιοκοινώνητοι ὦσι, τὴν δὲ τοῦ
σώματος ἰσχὺν ἱκανὴν ἐπὶ τοὺς πόνους ἔχωσιν· οἱ δὴ πωλοῦντες τὴν τῆς ἰσχύος
χρείαν, τὴν τιμὴν ταύτην μισθὸν καλοῦντες, κέκληνται, ὡς ἐγᾦμαι, μισθωτοί.
Similarly in Pol. 290 A 'hirelings and res' are put at the bottom of the
social scale. Pollux (7. 130) after going through a list of porters and
carriers (αχθοφόροι, ἀμφορεαφόροι, υδροφόροι, ξυλοφόροι, σκευοφόροι, ληφόροι,
πλινθοφόροι, πηλοφόροι, φρυγανοφόροι) observes that the name of the class
was μiolwrol. He is confirmed by [Dem.] 49. 51, and C. I. A. 11. 834 b
(S. I. G. n. 587, 329/8 Β.C.), I. 28 μισθωτοῖς τοῖς ἐπὶ τὸν πύργον καὶ τὸν πυλῶνα
πλινθοφοροῦσιν καὶ πηλοδευστοῦσιν καὶ τὰ ξύλα ἀνακομίσασιν καὶ τὸν κέραμον,
45 μισθωτοῖς τοῖς τὰς πλίνθους καὶ τὸγ χοῦν ἀποφορήσασι εἰς τὸ θέατρον καὶ
βωλοκοπήσασι, 60 μισθωτοῖς τοῖς τὴν γῆν βωλοκοπήσασι καὶ διαττήσασιν, ΙΙ. 22
μισθωτοῖς τοῖς διακαλίσασιν τὰ ξύλα : ΠΗ : μισθωτοῖς τοῖς ἐπὶ θάλατταν
κατακομίσασιν καὶ εἰς τὸ πλοῖον ἐνθεῖσιν : Δ.
A. In the lists of silver bowls
consecrated by freedmen (piaλaì égeλevßepikai, C. I. A. II. 768 sqq., IV.
2. 768 b sqq.) one dedicator is called a podwròs (769 11. 4), but the entries
generally contain a specific title (aµpopeapópos IV. 2. 768 c II. 3, diákovos
ib. III. 10, þоρτηуòs IV. 2. 773 b A. 26, 775 b III. 9, yewpyòs IV. 2. 775 b III. 7).
Another set of 'hirelings' were the men and women needed on farms,
especially to get in the crops, weeders (πоαorpiai), mowers and reapers
(Oepiotai Dem. 18. 51), olive-gatherers (¿λaoλóyoɩ Ar. Vesp. 711, [Dem.] 53. 20),
grape-pickers (Tpvynтpiaι Dem. 57. 45), gleaners (kaλaunтpides). Jobbing
cooks (µáyeɩpoi C. I. A. IV. 2. 775 b II. 4, Theoph. Char. 22. 4) and chariot
drivers (víoxo Plat. Lys. 208 A) probably considered themselves craftsmen.
These labourers were nicknamed Κολωνῖται (Poll. 7. 132) or Κολωνέται (Harp.
s.v. with Sauppe's reading, Hesych. s.v. öλßes, åλλ' és tòv Koλwvòv ieσo),
because the usual gathering place of men waiting to be hired was an
elevation in the Market Place called Κολωνός (ὁ Μίσθιος λεγόμενος, Schol.
Ar. Av. 998), near the temple of Hephaestus and the shrine of Eurysaces.
In the Ecclesiazusae, which according to Goetz was performed in 389 B.C.,
Aristophanes speaks of three obols as a day's wage for hod-men (1. 308
πnλopopoûvtes); for the evidence of inscriptions see Francotte, L'Industrie
dans la Grèce ancienne 1. p. 315 sqq., Guiraud, La Main d'Euvre in-
dustrielle dans l'ancienne Grèce p. 183 sqq. To fall to the position of a
day-labourer was a cruel indignity to a well-bred Athenian (Xen. Mem. 2. 8);
his lot was harder than that of the Homeric Ons, for he met on every side
the competition of foreign slaves (VIII. 35. 5 n.) and freedmen; cp. Beauchet
IV. p. 222.
6, 7 ἐν τῷ τῆς Ειλειθυίας ἱερῷ. Ilithyia had a temple in the city, the site of
which is not known, and a sanctuary in the suburb of Agrae, to the south-
east of Athens; see Frazer on Paus. 1. 18. 5. Probably Isaeus is thinking
of the first. In Reiske's opinion the speaker wishes the judges to believe
that Dicaeogenes had crowned his enormities by committing incest with his
own mother. The form Eiλý@via (Paus. 2. 22. 6, Luc. Deorum Dial. 8 p. 225,
W. I.
30
466
OR. V.
ISAEUS
Bekk. An. Gr. I. p. 326, 30, Stadtmüller on Anth. Pal. 6. 146. 1, 200. I,
270. 2, 274. 3) is not attested either by Attic inscriptions (Meisterhans,
Gramm. d. att. Inschr.³ § 15, 35, p. 56) or by good Mss. of Attic writers.
7 αἰσχύνομαι κ.τ.λ. Cp. I. 9. 4 n., Aesch. I. 55 ἃ γὰρ οὗτος ἔργῳ πράττων
οὐκ ᾐσχύνετο, ταῦτ᾽ ἐγὼ λόγῳ σαφῶς ἐν ὑμῖν εἰπὼν οὐκ ἂν δεξαίμην ζην.
40. 2
Μέλανα. Cp. § 8. 6.
3 ἀποστερήσας, the uox propria for repudiation of a debt; see Isocr.
7. 34 μεῖζον ὀργιζομένους τοῖς ἀποστεροῦσιν αὐτῶν τῶν ἀδικουμένων, 12. 243 τοὺς
ἀποστεροῦντας τὰ συμβόλαια, 21. 13 τῷ μὲν γὰρ ὅσον Εὐθύνους δυναμένῳ ἐξῆν
ἅ τ᾽ ἔλαβεν ἀποστερεῖν καὶ οἷς μὴ συνέβαλεν ἐγκαλεῖν, Dem. 37. 53, [Dem.]
56. 4.
T
5, 6 εἰ ἐπιδικάσαιτο του κλήρου, ' if the estate should be awarded to him
(III. 41. 2 n.).
41.5
καὶ τούτων μαρτύρια κ.τ.λ.
this sentence see IV. 21. 5,
622.
For the artificial order of the words in
6 μνημεία. Cp. VII. 40. 4, Lys. 26. 4 ὥστ᾽ εἶναι ταῦτα τὰ ἔργα ἀειμνηστότερα
ἢ τὰ ἐκ τῶν λῃτουργιῶν αὐτῷ ἀναθήματα, Isocr. 15. 7 μνημεῖόν μου κατα-
λειφθήσεσθαι πολὺ κάλλιον τῶν χαλκῶν ἀναθημάτων, Lyc. 136, [Dem.] 42. 22.
7,8 τοῦτο μὲν τοῦτο δέ. Cp. III. 28. 3 κ.
663
...
7 ἐν Διονύσου τρίποδας. See Plut. Nic. 3 χορηγίαις ἀνελάμβανε καὶ γυμνα-
σιαρχίαις ἑτέραις τε τοιαύταις φιλοτιμίαις (VII. 40. 4) τὸν δῆμον ὑπερβαλλόμενος
πολυτελείᾳ καὶ χάριτι τοὺς πρὸ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ καθ᾿ ἑαυτὸν ἅπαντας. εἱστήκει δὲ καὶ
τῶν ἀναθημάτων αὐτοῦ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς τό τε Παλλάδιον ἐν ἀκροπόλει, τὴν χρύσωσιν
ἀποβεβληκός, καὶ ὁ τοῖς χορηγικοῖς τρίποσιν ὑποκείμενος ἐν Διονύσου νεώς·
ἐνίκησε γὰρ πολλάκις χορηγήσας, ἐλείφθη δὲ οὐδέποτε, Plat. Gorg. 472 A
μαρτυρήσουσι, ἐὰν μὲν βούλῃ, Νικίας ὁ Νικηράτου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ, ὧν οἱ
τρίποδες οἱ ἐφεξῆς ἑστῶτές εἰσιν ἐν τῷ Διονυσίῳ, ἐὰν δὲ βούλῃ, ᾿Αριστοκράτης
ὁ Σκελίου (Σκελλίου cdd.; cp. C. I. A. I. 422 ᾿Αριστοκράτης Σκελίο ἀνέθηκεν
νικήσας Κεκροπίδι), οὗ αὖ ἔστιν ἐν Πυθίου (πυθίου F : πυθοῖ BTW) τοῦτο τὸ
καλὸν ἀνάθημα, Plut. Arist. 1 νίκης ἀναθήματα χορηγικοὺς τρίποδας ἐν Διονύσου
καταλέλοιπεν, οἳ καὶ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἐδείκνυντο τοιαύτην ἐπιγραφὴν διασώζοντες
Αντιοχὶς ἐνίκα, ᾿Αριστείδης ἐχορήγει, ᾿Αρχέστρατος ἐδίδασκε” (C. I. A. II.
1257). Isaeus and Plutarch doubtless mean by ἐν Διονύσου the sanctuary of
Dionysus beside the theatre (Paus. 1. 20. 3 with Frazer's note, VIII. 35. 3 n.).
The choregic monument of Thrasyllus (C. I. A. II. 1247 Θράσυλλος Θρασύλλου
Δεκελεεὺς ἀνέθηκεν χορηγῶν νικήσας ἀνδράσιν Ιπποθωντίδι φυλῇ, Εὔιος Χαλκιδεὺς
ηὔλει, Νέαιχμος (320/19 Β.C.) ήρχεν, Καρκίδαμος Σώτιος ἐδίδασκεν) stood in the
mouth of a cave above the theatre (Paus. 1. 21. 3), until it was destroyed
during the siege of the Acropolis by the Turks in 1826 and 1827. ‘On the
steep slope above the cave, at the foot of the wall of the Acropolis, are still
standing two high columns of Hymettian marble, with triangular Corinthian
capitals. These columns, which are of unequal height, originally supported
tripods; the holes in which the feet of the tripods were fastened can be
perceived on the top of the triangular capitals by looking down at them from
the wall of the Acropolis' (Frazer ad loc.). Harpocration s.v. κατατομὴ quotes
the following passage from the 6th book of Philochorus: Αἰσχραῖος ᾿Αναγυράσιος
ἀνέθηκε τὸν ὑπὲρ τοῦ θεάτρου τρίποδα καταργυρώσας, νενικηκώς τῷ πρότερον
ἔτει χορηγῶν παισί, καὶ ἐπέγραψεν ἐπὶ τὴν κατατομὴν τῆς πέτρας ; the cutting
C
i
OR. V.
467
COMMENTARY
is the chiselled perpendicular face of the rock on both sides of the cave,
which still shows some defaced votive inscriptions and two large niches.
The street of Tripods led from the Prytaneum to the theatre of Dionysus,
skirting the eastern foot of the Acropolis; 'the place is so called from certain
relatively large temples (ναοὶ ὅσον (θεῶν cdd.) ἐς τοῦτο μεγάλοι), on which stand
tripods. These tripods are of bronze, but enclose most memorable works of
art' (Paus. 1. 20. 1 with Frazer's note). The last remark refers to the custom
of placing statues under the tripods. Only one specimen of these 'temples'
has survived, the beautiful monument of Lysicrates, which stands 130 or 140
yards from the eastern cliff of the Acropolis and bears on the architrave the
following inscription: Λυσικράτης Λυσιθείδου Κικυννεὺς ἐχορήγει, ᾿Ακαμαντὶς
παίδων ἐνίκα, Θέων ηὔλει, Λυσιάδης ᾿Αθηναῖος ἐδίδασκε, Εὐαίνετος (335/4 B.C.)
}pxe (C. I. A. II. 1242). The tripod stood on a floral ornament rising from
the centre of the roof. Pausanias (1. 18. 8) also mentions near the Olympieum
a group, in Phrygian marble, of Persians supporting a bronze tripod: 'the
figures and the tripod are both worth seeing.'
8 év IIvěíov. The Pythium seems to have been reserved for prizes given
at the Thargelia; see Phot. and Suid. s.v. Πύθιον : ἱερὸν ᾿Απόλλωνος ᾿Αθήνησιν
ὑπὸ Πεισιστράτου γεγονός· εἰς ὃ τοὺς τρίποδας ἐτίθεσαν οἱ τῷ κυκλίῳ χορῷ
vikýσavtes tà Oapyńλia. Thucydides (2. 15) mentions the Pythium among
the ancient sanctuaries of Athens on the south side of the Acropolis. He
also tells (6. 54) how Pisistratus the son of Hippias dedicated here (ev IIvíov)
an altar to Apollo in memory of his tenure of office, and engraved on it an
inscription which was still to be seen; μνῆμα τόδ᾽ ἧς ἀρχῆς Πεισίστρατος
Ἱππίου υἱὸς | θῆκεν ᾿Απόλλωνος Πυθίου ἐν τεμένει. This inscription was
found in 1877 on the right bank of the Ilissus, below the spring Callirrhoe
(C. I. A. IV. I. 373 e, a photograph in Athen. Mitteil. 23, Taf. 10, 1). The
natural inference that this was the site of the Pythium is confirmed by
the discovery in the same neighbourhood of three inscribed marble bases
of tripods which were won at the Thargelia, as is proved by the mention in
each of two tribes (C. I. A. II. 1236 (365/4 B.C.), 1237 (364/3 B.C.), 1251, Michel
nn. 932, 933, 935). See Frazer on Paus. 1. 19. 1, C. I. A. IV. 2. 25 (394/3 B.C.)
1. 10 ἐν πόληι καὶ ἐν Πυθίου.
42. 2 ἐν ἀκροπόλει ἀπαρχὰς τῶν ὄντων ἀναθέντες. Cp. C. I. A. I. 397
(Kaibel n. 753) Πότνι, ἀπαρχὴν τήνδε Μένανδρο[ς θῆκ᾽ ἀπὸ τέχνης] | εὐχωλὴν
τελέσας, σοὶ χάριν ἀντ[ιδιδούς, ib. i. 403 (Kaibel n. 751) τόνδε Πύρης] ἀνέθηκε
Πολυμνήστου φίλο[ς υἱὸς] | εὐξάμενος δεκάτην Παλλάδι Τριτογενεῖ, ib. II. 1422
--]ου Λαμπτρεὺς [ἀνέθηκε δεκάτ]ην τῇ ᾿Αθηναίᾳ, ib. II. 1547 (from the south
slope of the Acropolis) Ηρῳ εὐξ[άμενος ἀνέθηκε]ν ἀπαρχήν. The period
before the year of Euclid, 403/2 B.C., furnishes a very large number of
inscriptions recording the dedication of first-fruits (àπapxý); see C. I. A. I.
351, 352, IV. I a 373 w II, 14, IV. I b 373, 77, 104, 105, 218, 225, IV. I c 373,
241, 1. 375, 382, 401, 402, IV. I c 422, 13. All these come from fragments of
stone, which belonged to pedestals or marble bowls, but similar dedications
are found on pieces of bronze; see Bather, The bronze fragments of the
Acropolis, J. H. S. 13. p. 124 sqq., n. 12 (on a bowl) Aeɩσídeos Evðúdnµo[s]
ἀπαρχὴν] ἀνεθέτη[ν] τῇ ᾿Αθηναίᾳ. In inscriptions of the 4th and subsequent
centuries mention of an åπapõǹ is unusual. In addition to the statues and
30-2
468
OR. V.
ISAEUS
reliefs which decorated the whole area of the Acropolis the interior of the
Parthenon and the Erechtheum was filled with offerings. An idea of their
number and diversity may be gathered from Michaelis' review of the sacred
treasures (Der Parthenon p. 313 sqq.).
3 ἀγάλμασι, statues and reliefs either of deities or of heroes and heroines
who were counted half-divine. The ordinary meaning of ἄγαλμα in Attic
prose is ‘a divine image'; see Plat. Crit. 116 DE χρυσὰ δὲ ἀγάλματα
ἐνέστησαν, τὸν μὲν θεὸν ἐφ᾽ ἅρματος ἑστῶτα...Νηρῇδας δὲ ἐπὶ δελφίνων ἑκατὸν
κύκλῳ· πολλὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα ἀγάλματα ἰδιωτῶν ἀναθήματα ἐνῆν. περὶ δὲ τὸν νεὼν
ἔξωθεν εἰκόνες ἁπάντων ἕστασαν ἐκ χρυσοῦ, τῶν γυναικῶν καὶ αὐτῶν ὅσοι τῶν
δέκα ἐγεγόνεσαν βασιλέων, καὶ πολλὰ ἕτερα ἀναθήματα μεγάλα τῶν τε βασιλέων
καὶ ἰδιωτῶν ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς πόλεως καὶ τῶν ἔξωθεν ὅσων ἐπῆρχον, [Lys.] 6. 15,
Thuc. 2. 13, 6. 28, Xen. Hell. 4. 4. 3, 7. I. 31 (τέμενός τε καὶ ἄγαλμα Ἡρακλέους),
C. I. A. IV. 2. 15 C, 21 (S. I. G. n. 75) ἐν ἀκροπόλει πρόσθεν τὸ ἀγάλματος,
ib. II. 652, a 41 (S. I. G. n. 586, Michel 7. 814) ἡ Νίκη ἡ ἐπὶ τῆς χερὸς τὸ
ἀγάλματος το χρυσό. Schoemann referring to Boeckh on C. I. G. I. 3 (παῖ
Διός, Ἐκφάντῳ δέξαι τόδ᾽ ἀμενφὲς ἄγαλμα) states that the word here has a
wider range and includes votive offerings (donaria) of every kind. But
Boeckh does not show that in Attic prose ἀγάλματα and ἀναθήματα are
interchangeable terms; he proves something quite different, that, when
ἄγαλμα occurs in dedicatory formulae, especially if metrical, it is illegitimate
to conclude that the offering was an image. An ivory horn of Amalthea
which Pausanias (6. 19. 9) saw at Olympia bore the following inscription in
old Attic characters: Ζηνί μ' ἄγαλμ᾽ ἀνέθηκαν Ολυμπίῳ ἐκ Χερονήσου | τείχος
ἑλόντες ᾿Αράτου· ἐπῆρχε δὲ Μιλτιάδης σφῶν. At the second Pythian festival
Echembrotus an Arcadian won the prize for singing to the flute (Paus. 10.
7. 6), and dedicated to Heracles at Thebes a bronze tripod, on which was
engraved Εχέμβροτος ᾿Αρκὰς ἔθηκε τῷ Ἡρακλεῖ νικήσας τόδ᾽ ἄγαλμ' ᾿Αμφικτυό-
νων ἐν ἀέθλοις Ἕλλησιν δ᾽ ἄδων (αὐλοῖσιν ἀξείδων, Preger, Inscriptiones
metricae n. 138) μέλεα καὶ ἐλέγους. Compare Athen. 6. 232 D χάλκεός εἰμι
τρίπους, Πυθοῖ δ᾽ ἀνάκειμαι ἄγαλμα, Paus. Io. 21. 5 (a 3rd century inscr. from
the temple of Zeus Eleutherius at Athens) ἀσπὶς ἀριζήλου φωτός, ἄγαλμα Διί,
S. I. G. n. 749 = Michel n. 1208 (Miletus) Χάρης εἰμὶ ὁ Κλέσιος Τειχιόσης ἀρχός, |
ἄγαλμα το ᾿Απόλλωνος. In verse ayaλµa retained tenaciously its primitive
sense (Hom. Od. 3. 438, 4. 602, 18. 300, 19. 257) of something which conveys
honour or excites feelings of pride and gratification. Poetical usage is
enough to explain why the grammarians sometimes identify ayaλua with
ἀνάθημα (Bekk. An. Gr. I. 334, 18 ἄγαλμα : πᾶν ἐφ᾽ ᾧ τις ἀγάλλεται. ἀγάλματα
δὲ τὰς γραφὰς καὶ τοὺς ἀνδριάντας (not in Attic) λέγουσιν. οἱ δὲ ἁπλῶς ἄγαλμα
πᾶν ἀνάθημα καὶ καθιέρωμα, ἢ (εἴτε) ξόανον (here a statue simply, not a wooden
figure) ἢ εἴτε) τι ἄλλο τοιοῦτον εἴη, Et. Mag. s.v. πᾶν ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ἀγάλλεταί τις καὶ
χαίρει, κἄν τε ἱμάτιον ᾖ, κἄν τε εἰκών· οἱ δὲ μεθ᾽ Ομηρον ποιηταὶ ἄγαλμα εἶπον
τὸ ξόανον), but it should be noted that the word is used loosely in the epitaph
on the wife of Herodes Atticus (S. I. G. n. 888, 5 τὰς τούτων τῶν ἀγαλμάτων
εἰκόνας).
η
5, 6 Δικαιογένης μὲν ὁ Μενεξένου τοῦ ἐμοῦ πάππου πατήρ. In a note omitted
by Scholefield but noticed by Dobson Dobree tentatively suggested the
removal of Μενεξένου, and Thalheim has acted on the suggestion. But the
OR. V.
469
COMMENTARY
"
name serves a purpose. The speaker had a paternal as well as a maternal
grandfather, and wished to remind the judges that his own name, Menexenus,
was derived from his mother's father.
6 ἡ ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι μάχη. Palmerius (Jacques le Paulmier de Grentemesnil,
1587-1670), Exercitationes in optimos fere auctores Graecos, ed. 1694, p. 670,
conjectured that this battle was fought in 458/7 B.C. (Diod. 11. 79 pxe
Bíov, a mistake for "Aßpwv, Thuc. I. 105), when the Corinthians invaded
the territory of Megara and were twice defeated by the Athenians under
Myronides. Reiske referred it to the time of the revolt of Euboea (according
to Busolt, Gr. Gesch. III. 1, p. 422 n. 1, the summer of 446 B.C.), when the
Peloponnesians under king Pleistoanax invaded Attica and advanced as far
as Eleusis and Thria (Thuc. 1. 114). But on neither of these occasions do
our authorities speak of a battle at Eleusis. Dobree in a letter appended
to Rose's Inscriptiones Graecae Vetustissimae, 1825, p. 417, proposed to read
év ´Aλɩevσw in accordance with a famous inscription in the Louvre (Rose,
plate XIV, p. 105, C. I. A. 1. 433, S. I. G.² n. 9, Michel n. 597) 'Epex¤êidos |
hοίδε : ἐν τοι : πολέμοι : ἀπέθανον : ἐν Κύπροι : ἐν Αἰγ[ύ]πτοι : ἐν Φοινίκει,
ἐν Αλιεῦσιν, ἐν Αἰγίνει : Μεγαρο[ι] | τὸ αὐτὸ ἐνιαυτο ; compare Thuc. 1. 105
Αθηναίοις δὲ ναυσὶν ἀποβᾶσιν ἐς ῾Αλιᾶς πρὸς Κορινθίους καὶ Ἐπιδαυρίους μάχη
ἐγένετο, καὶ ἐνίκων Κορίνθιοι. What the year in question was, is disputed ;
Busolt (op. cit. III. 1, p. 304 n. 1, p. 307 n. 4) argues that it was the Athenian
civil year 459/8 B.C., and that the descent upon Halieis took place in the
autumn of 459 B.C. or in the spring of 458 B.C. The emendation has much
to recommend it. Quite apart from the historical puzzle, the presence of the
preposition casts suspicion upon the text of the MS. (Cobet, V. L. p. 201);
Isaeus (XI. 41, 42) and the other orators (And. 1. 111, [Lys.] 2. 10, 6. 4, Dem.
21. 158, 55. 28, [Dem.] 59. 116) always use the locative 'Eλevoîvi, agreeing in
this respect with 4th century inscriptions, the one exception (C. I. A. 11.
1217, 2 (c. 316/5 B.C.) οἱ τεταγμένοι ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι καὶ Πανάκτῳ
kaì èñì Quλî) being explained by the influence of another name, as appears
from the words which follow, ᾿Αθηναίων οἱ τεταγμένοι Ἐλευσῖνι, ᾿Αθηναίων οἱ
TETаYμÉVOI ɵ Пaváкт. Early in the 3rd century (C. I. A. IV. 2. 614 b)
Ἐλευσῖνι and ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι are written indiscriminately in the same decree.
See Meisterhans, Gramm. d. att. Inschr³ § 84, 23, p. 208.
7, 8 φυλαρχῶν τῆς Ολυνθίας ἐν Σπαρτώλῳ. This battle described in
Thucydides 2. 79 was one of the disasters (Plut. Nic. 6. 3) of the Pelopon-
nesian war. In the summer of 429 B.C. the Athenians sent an expedition
against the Chalcidians of Thrace and the Bottiaeans, consisting of 2000
Athenian hoplites and 200 cavalry, under the command of Xenophon,
Calliades (Plut. l.c.), and Phanomachus (Diod. 12. 47). The army was
utterly defeated under the walls of Spartolus by the Bottiaeans assisted
by Chalcidians from Olynthus, the Athenian cavalry and light-armed troops
being no match for the Chalcidian cavalry and peltasts; the three generals
were killed, and their troops were driven in flight to Potidaea. Athens
maintained a force of 1000 cavalry, each of the 10 tribes contributing a
regiment commanded by a púλapxos ('A8. Hoλ. 61. 5); the squadron de-
spatched on this occasion probably consisted of drafts from several tribes,
under more than one officer. The site of Spartolus cannot be fixed with
470
OR. V.
ISAEUS
accuracy; it was in the neighbourhood of Olynthus and is commonly placed
in modern maps to the west of that city. Harpocration s.v. states that it was
a city of Bottice (πόλις τῆς Βοττικῆς). Thucydides and Diodorus call it the
Bottian Spartolus” (Σπάρτωλος ἡ Βοττική). The Spartolians appear repeatedly
in the quota lists (C. I. A. 1. 266 sqq.), but in one document (C. I. A. 1. 234,
446 B.C.) their place seems to be taken by the Bottiaeans. Fragments of a
treaty between Athens and the Bottiaeans can be seen in C. I. A. 1. 52
(S. I. G.² n. 36, 'not much older than 420 B.C., cp. Thuc. 5. 18. 5'). The
Bottiaeans together with Amphipolis, Acanthus, and Mende were hostile
to the Chalcidians (i.e. to Olynthus) at the time of the alliance (Michel n. 5,
S. I. G.² n. 77) concluded between Amyntas son of Arrhidaeus and the
Chalcidian League (τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Χαλκιδέων). The chronology depends on
the date of the accession of Amyntas (von Stern, Gesch. der spartanischen
u. thebanischen Hegemonie p. 30, Beloch, Gr. Gesch. II. p. 223). Some
scholars (Scala, Die Staatsverträge des Altertums p. 101) assign the treaty
to 394/3 B.C., others are content to say that it is not earlier than 389 B.C., and
not later than 383 B.C., when Amyntas was at war with the League (Xen.
Hell. 5. 2. 12, 13). In any case this inscription cannot be considered fatal to
Palmerius' emendation ('Oλuveías for 'Oλvoías); it remains possible that in
389 B.C., when Isaeus composed this speech, Olynthus had succeeded in
absorbing Spartolus. Thalheim keeps 'Oλvoías in his text.
Dobree compar-
ing τρικόρυνθος and τρικορύσιος thought it possible that Ολυσίας might have
existed by the side of 'OXvv¤ías (Adv. 1. p. 296).
Cp. § 6. 2, 3 nn.
8,9 τριηραρχῶν τῆς Παράλου ἐν Κνίδῳ.
43. 1 τὸν μὲν τούτων οἶκον. Thalheim adopts τὸν μὲν τούτου οἶκον, but,
like Reiske and Buermann, takes exception to µév, and would prefer tòv ovv
τούτου οἶκον.
2 διολώλεκας. See VII. 42 τούτων μὲν τριηραρχοῦντα οἶκον πεντετάλαντον
ἀνῃρηκότων καὶ πεπρακότων (scil. τὴν γῆν καὶ τὰ κτήματα § 31) καὶ ἔρημον
πεποιηκότων, ἡμῶν δὲ καὶ λελῃτουργηκότων ἤδη καὶ λῃτουργησόντων, and com-
pare Aeschines' attack upon Timarchus (1. 96 sqq.) for selling his patrimony
partly to gratify his vices, but partly also to evade public burdens (poßŋbeis
Tàs λNTOUPуiás § 101). To charge Dicaeogenes with gambling, drinking,
gluttony, and debauchery does not suit Isaeus' argument; for he wishes to
prove that Dicaeogenes is really rich.
3 ἐξαργυρισάμενος. Cp. Dem. 5. 8 ἐπειδὴ διὰ τὴν εἰρήνην ἀδείας ἔτυχεν
(Νεοπτόλεμος), ἣν ἐνθάδ᾽ ἐκέκτητ᾽ οὐσίαν φανεράν, ταύτην ἐξαργυρίσας πρὸς
ἐκεῖνον (Φίλιππον) ἀπάγων οἴχεται, [Plut.] Vitt. X. Οr. 850 D εξαργυρισάμενος
τὰ πλεῖστα τῆς ουσίας (Δείναρχος) ἔφυγεν εἰς Χαλκίδα. Athenian democrats
looked with disfavour on men who made their wealth invisible (VII. 31, 35,
XI. 47. 7) by converting real estate into money.
4 Saπavnoeís. Naber (Mnem. N.S. 5, 1877, p. 409) substitutes dañavýσas,
classing damavneis among the corruptions explained by Cobet, V. L. p. 167.
He overlooks an important distinction. Cobet does not lay down that the
aorist in -Oŋu can never have a middle sense; he condemns the use of waра-
yuμvwbeis (Charit. p. 71, 19) and eikaσ beis (Phot. s.v. oïoeis) in place of
παραγυμνώσας and εἰκάσας, and points out that the compendium for the
ending -as was liable to be confused with the compendium for the ending
OR. V.
471
COMMENTARY
-Oeis. But here we are dealing with a verb which has a middle, dañavŵµai
being as legitimate as damavô. Further, there is no trace in Classical Greek
οἱ ἐδαπανησάμην, whereas δαπανηθεὶς occurs three times in Attic with a
middle sense (here, and in Isocr. 15. 156, 225), once with a passive sense
(Xen. Cyr. 2. 4. 11). It seems more logical to infer that the aorist of the
middle daπav@μai was edaravneŋv than to deny that the middle possessed
an aorist. The fact that Isaeus uses dañavýσas in § 45. 3 proves nothing;
the author of [And.] 4. uses dañavóμevo in § 32 but damavŵ in § 42,
Isocrates has δαπανώντας 2. 21 (δαπανωμένους uolg.), δαπανωμένοις 15. 289,
δαπανῶσι Εφ. 2. 19 (δαπανῶνται uolg.), δεδαπανημένος 18. 63 (middle). See
Veitch, Greek Verbs s.v., Rutherford, New Phrynichus p. 191. Thalheim
adopts δαπανήσας.
5 ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ καθιπποτρόφηκας. For the compound compare X. 25
τὸν ᾿Αριστομένους οἶκον καταπεπαιδεραστηκέναι, Lys. 19. 42 πεντακισχιλίας
δραχμὰς κατεχορήγησε, Dem. 36. 39 πολλὰ καταλελῃτουργηκώς, Aesch. 1. 95
ταῦτα μὲν ἀπωλώλει καὶ κατεκεκύβευτο καὶ κατωψοφάγητο, Hyp. 1. col. 26 (24), 4
καταρρητορευθείς, S. I. G. n. 645 (Amorgus), 15 τὸν δὲ τόκον...καθιστιάτωσαν
dè
(in dapes sollennes impendant).
π
Aristotle in the Politics (6 (4). 3. 1. 1289 b 35, 7 (6). 6. 1321 a 10) treats
iπпотроþíα as a mark of great opulence. The Greeks did not use the horse
at all in field labour, and only to a very slight extent for cartage and haulage.
Neither did they keep riding horses in the modern sense. That an Athenian
gentleman did not ride simply for pleasure and health is indicated by Xen.
Oec. 11. 14 sqq.; Ischomachus walks out to his farm in the early morning,
mounts his horse there, and practises exercises likely to be needed in war
(ἱππασίαν ὁμοιοτάτην ταῖς ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ ἀναγκαίαις ἱππασίαις); after which he
gives the horse to a groom and returns to town on foot, partly walking,
partly running. In his treatise On Horsemanship (πepì iññɩкĤs, De re
equestri) Xenophon assumes (3. 7) that the horse purchased by the 'young
friends' for whom he writes is intended for war, and tells them that, since a
man must have a firm seat when riding at full speed over all sorts of ground
and must also be able to use his weapons well on horseback, ‘there can be
no objection to practising horsemanship in combination with the chase'
(8. 10 άμεμπτος ἡ ἐν θήραις μελέτη τῆς ἱππικής), when the country suits and
there are wild animals. The hares of Attica were hunted on foot (see for
the working of harriers Xenophon's Cynegeticus), and the wealthy Athenians
who kept horses either desired to own good cavalry mounts or to gain glory
by competing in the races at the great festivals. Citizens who were
‘physically and pecuniarily able' (Xen. Hipp. 1. 9 Toùs dvvaTwTáTovs Kai
χρήμασι καὶ σώμασι, ᾿Αθ. Πολ. 49. 1, 2) could be compelled to serve in the
cavalry, but the amount of property that rendered a man liable is nowhere
stated. Young and vigorous and ambitious rich men coveted the distinction
of a place in the aristocratic corps ([Dem.] 42. 24). On the other hand
Xenophon (Hipp. 9. 5) recognises the existence of wealthy Athenians, who
shrank so much from cavalry service that they would have been glad to pay
down a sum of money to be relieved of the duty. The State granted the
Knight (ἱππεύς) on enrolment a sum of money called κατάστασις, which he
had to refund on leaving his regiment, and also paid him a regular allowance
472
OR. V.
ISAEUS
LT T
(oiros) for the keep of his horse, so long as he remained in the service; in
return the recruit was bound to furnish an efficient charger, and to keep it in
proper condition. It was one of the duties of the Council to inspect the
cavalry every year and take care that these requirements were fulfilled. For
further details see Martin, Les Cavaliers Athéniens p. 308 sqq., Gilbert,
Gr. Staatsaltert.2 1. p. 358 sqq., E. T. p. 320 sqq. In the treatise On Horse-
manship Xenophon describes the points of a good war horse (oλEμIσTÝρIOS
πяоs 3. 7), but does not say what he considered a fair price for such an
animal. Whether the кожTarías for which Strepsiades owed 12 m. (Ar.
Nub. 23) was a charger or a race-horse is not clear. It is difficult to believe
that Alexander's famous charger, Bucephalas, cost the prodigious sum of 13 t.
(Chares ap. Gell. N. A. 5. 2). Still it is plain that a cavalry regiment was
considered expensive; the Hipparch in search of promising recruits is
instructed by Xenophon (Hipp. 1. 11, 12) to disarm the opposition of parents
and guardians by undertaking to deter their lads from mad extravagance in
horse-buying (τῶν πολυτελῶν τε καὶ μανικῶν ἱππωνιῶν). Doubtless many a
young knight aspired to figure on 'a horse adapted to parades and proces-
sions, a high-stepper and of splendid action' (De Re Eq. 11. Ι ἵππος
πομπικὸς καὶ μετέωρος καὶ λαμπρός, ΧΙ. 41. 6 π.), like those prancing steeds
'on which gods and heroes are represented in art' (ib. 11. 8). Xenophon
observes (ib. 11. I) that these qualities are not to be found in every horse,
and makes it plain to his 'young friends' that a horse might be serviceable
in war without possessing ‘a magnificent proud bearing, a joy and terror to
behold' (ib. 10. 17). A sensible Athenian of the upper classes could keep a
useful charger without ruining himself.
TOT
TOL
The really dangerous form of the 'horse complaint' (iπTIKǹ vóσos, Ar.
Nub. 243) was the breeding and training of race horses (iππоι åðìηtai
》(îññοɩ λаµñρоi, Lys. 19. 63). At all Greek festivals the most brilliant and
(їпп
exciting of the equestrian contests were the chariot races, and especially the
races with chariots drawn by four horses, instituted at Olympia in 680 b.c.
(Paus. 5. 8. 6). The old oixíaι тεðρiжпотрÓþоi (Hdt. 6. 35, Diog. Laert. 8. 51,
of Empedocles, λαμπρᾶς ἦν οἰκίας ἱπποτροφηκότος τοῦ πάππου) were the
nearest approach to a feudal nobility that the Greek world knew, and the
iπлоτроþíα, by which Alcibiades dazzled Athens and Greece, and exhausted
his immense wealth, reached its summit in the entry of no less than seven
quadrigae at the Olympic festival of 420 B.C. (Thuc. 6. 12. 2, 15. 3, 16. 2,
Isocr. 16. 33, [And.] 4. 26, 27). Chariots with two horses (ovvwpides) were
not admitted at Olympia before 408 B.C. (Paus. 5. 8. 10), nor at Delphi before
398 B.C. (Paus. 10. 7. 7). The horse race in the modern style (iñños kéλns),
which was introduced at Olympia in 648 B.C. (Paus. 5. 8. 6), is less prominent
in the remains of Greek literature (Plat. Lys. 205 C πλoúтovs te kaì iñño-
τροφίας καὶ νίκας Πυθοῖ καὶ Ἰσθμοῖ καὶ Νεμέᾳ τεθρίπποις τε καὶ κέλησι), and in
the monuments which Pausanias saw at Olympia records of victories
with the iлos kéλŋs do not seem to have been common (Paus. VI. I. 4, 2. 8,
12. I, 13. 9, 10, 14. 4, 12, 15. 2). But in the 5th century states and tyrants
competed at Olympia in this contest; Argos was victorious in 480 B.C. (Oxy.
Pap. II. n. 222. I. 6), Hiero of Syracuse in 476 B.C. and 472 B.C. (ib. 1. 19, 32,
Pind. Ol. I, Bacchyl. 5, Paus. 6. 12. 1). Even in a later age it is clear that
ππος
T
OR. V.
473
COMMENTARY
萨
​ef
Π
to win the single horse race at one of the great festivals brought a Greek
fame abroad and honour at home (Plat. Apol. 36 D TOV TOLOÛTOV vdpa
(πρέπει) ἐν πρυτανείῳ σιτεῖσθαι, πολύ γε μᾶλλον ἢ εἴ τις ὑμῶν ἵππῳ ἢ ξυνωρίδι
ἢ ζεύγει νενίκηκεν Ολυμπίασιν, C. I. A. I. 8 (fragment of a law concerning
persons privileged to dine in the Prytaneum), 16 κέλητι νενικήκασι Ολυμπί[ασι,
Michel n. 954 (3rd c. B.C.) Τηλέμαχος Τηλεμάχου Ολύμπια τεθρίππωι, Πύθια
κέλητι, Φιλωνίδης ἐποίησε). The greater popularity of the chariot races at
Athens is shown by the programme of the great Panathenaea in the first
part of the 4th century B.C. (C. I. A. 11. 965, S. I. G.² n. 668, Michel n. 880,
Martin op. cit. p. 220 sqq., Mommsen, Feste der Stadt Athen p. 85 sqq.).
There was a race for 'war horses' (Toλeμoτηρių inπQ KéλŋTɩ), in which the
competitors were probably Athenian knights (C. I. A. II. 444 (164/3 B.C.),
Michel π. 884, 79 ἐν ὅπλοις δίαυλον ἐκ τῶν φυλάρχων, 83 ἵππῳ πολεμιστῇ
díavλov ek twv innéшv), but the first prize was only 16 amphorae of oil, the
second 4 amphorae, whereas in the race for chariots drawn by four full-grown
horses (ἵππων ζεύγει ἀδηφάγῳ = ἵππων ζεύγει τελείῳ) the first prize was 140
amphorae, the second 40 amphorae, and in the race for chariots drawn by
four colts (Twv пwλikų Čevуe) the first prize was 40 amphorae, the second
8 amphorae. Plato had no sympathy with the prodigal and useless rivalry
of 'chariot keepers' (äpµатos тpopeîs), and permits in his model state only
competitions between horsemen in military equipment under the supervision
of the colonels and generals of the cavalry (Laws 834 C). Whenever we
read in Athenian literature of the expense of irrоrрopía (Thuc. 6. 15. 3,
Isocr. 16. 33, Lyc. 139, Plat. Lys. 205 C, Xen. Oec. 3. 8, Hier. 11. 5), the
presumption is that the author is thinking of racing with the ostentation and
extravagance that were wont to accompany it. At the same time the word,
iππоτроДÉî, is also applicable to the plain knight, who kept a horse because
it was his duty (Xen. Hipp. 1. 11, Hyp. 2. 16, [Dem.] 42. 24). All racing
men were probably knights for a time, but all knights were not racing men.
ПП
π
ΠΟ
These being the facts, so far as the evidence goes, what did Isaeus mean
by distinguishing καθιπποτρόφηκας from κατεξευγοτράφηκας ? The prevalent
opinion is that he had in view the difference between expenditure on horses
and especially race horses, and expenditure on carriages (Fuhrwerk,
Schoemann, attelages, Dareste, equipaggi, Caccialanza). At Athens the
antithesis was not false, as it now is in Western Europe. Little as we can
state about Greek carriages, one point seems clear, that for this work mules
were preferred to horses; it should be borne in mind that the Greeks used
entire horses, not geldings, for all purposes (Morgan, Xenophon's Art of
Horsemanship p. 98, who, however, thinks that this circumstance does not
explain completely the dangerous temper attributed to the Greek horse).
But healthy and active men did not ride in carriages, unless they were going
a long journey, like the Macedonian ambassadors in 346 B.C., who left
Athens in three mule carriages, which Demosthenes hired for them (тpía
ỏpeikà Čevyn Aesch. 2. 111, 3. 76, Din. 1. 28; cp. Plat. Cat. Mai. 6 ävev
ζεύγους πορευόμενος, Caes. 31 ἐπὶ μισθίων ζευγών). The wealthy class at
Athens had no evening corso, and a man who went about in a carriage, when
he could walk, was liable to be attacked for arrogance and effeminacy
([Dem.] 42. 24 ἀποδόμενος τὸν πολεμιστήριον ἵππον καταβέβηκεν ἀπὸ τῶν
474
OR. V.
ISAEUS
ἵππων, καὶ ἀντ᾽ ἐκείνου ὄχημ᾽ αὑτῷ τηλικοῦτος ὢν ἐώνηται, ἵνα μὴ πεζῇ πορεύηται·
TOσAÚTηS OÛTOS TрupĤs ÉσTI µEσtós). Timoleon, when aged and blind, used to
be taken in a carriage (ènì (eúyous) to the Syracusan assembly to give
counsel on great occasions (Plut. Timol. 38), and Plutarch calls the vehicle
an άmývŋ, i.e. a mule carriage. A passage in Hypereides (2. 5) shows us a
bridal procession, in which mules were drawing the wife to her new home
(ἀνάγκη γάρ…ὀρεωκόμον καὶ προηγητὴν ἀκολουθεῖν τῷ ζεύγει, ὃ ἦγεν τὴν
yuvaîka). Athenaeus in his notes on celebrated courtesans has preserved
(13. 586 B) a fragment of a sentence from Hypereides' speech against
Mantitheus (fr. 121 Blass): ἄγων Γλυκέραν τε τὴν Θαλασσίδος, ζεῦγος ἔχων.
The carriage (Čeûyos) seems to have been a woman's luxury. This does not
preclude the possibility that it was sometimes expensive. One of Demo-
sthenes' illustrations of the insolent and selfish profusion of Meidias is
that he used to take his wife to the mysteries and anywhere else where she
wished to go ἐπὶ τοῦ λευκοῦ ζεύγους τοῦ ἐκ Σικυῶνος (Dem. 21. 158, a pair of
white mules would be a remarkable rarity); to check such ostentation a law
was passed by the orator Lycurgus ([Plut.] Vitt. X. Or. 842 A, Westermann,
Βιογράφοι p. 273 ἐπὶ ζεύγους μὴ ἀπιέναι ἀπεῖναι cdd.: corr. Taylor) γυναῖκα
Ἐλευσῖνάδε, ὅπως μὴ ἐλαττῶνται <αἱ δημοτικαὶ> ὑπὸ τῶν πλουσίων). Still it is
hard to believe that Athenians spent fortunes on keeping carriages for their
women. Work could be found for mules on the farm, when they were not
needed for the vehicle, which was probably inexpensive. Euctemon (VI. 33)
had two pairs of mules (Čevyn dúo ỏpeiká); one pair was sold for 8 m., the
other for 5 m.
In view of this difficulty Martin, op. cit. p. 304, maintains that Isaeus
meant by καθιπποτρόφηκας the maintenance of a cavalry horse, by κατε-
ČevуOTρópηKas the keeping of horses for chariot racing, and lays stress on the
presence of οὐδὲ (which he translates by not even before καθιπποτρόφηκας,
and of οὔτε before κατεξευγοτροφηκας. 'Non seulement Dicéogène ne se
soumet pas à l'hippotrophie des concours (which Martin considers a λŋroup-
yía); bien plus, il ne se soumet pas à cette hippotrophie beaucoup moins
coûteuse du cavalier qui entretient un cheval pour le service public. Thus
Čevyoτpopeîv is identified with ȧpμaroтρopeîv (Plat. Laws 834 B, Xen. Ag. 9. 6,
ζευγοτροφείν
Hier. 11. 5). That this is a possible meaning of Čeʊyorpoдeiv must be
granted, though an example is lacking; for in the language of the hippo-
drome (εûуos îлπшν was a technical term denoting quadrigae, and is opposed
to ovvwpís, bigae; see the inscriptions relating to the Great Panathenaea,
C. I. A. II. 965–969, which prove the fixity of racing terminology, I. G.
Sept. 1. 414, 36 (Oropus), ib. 1. 1764, 1 (Thespiae), Ar. Thesm. 812 (cp. Nub.
69), Isocr. 16. 25, 34, [And.] 4. 26, 27, Thuc. 5. 50. 4, [Dem.] 61. 28, Plat.
Apol. 36D (quoted above). But Martin's interpretation cannot be accepted
in its entirety. (1) The opening phrase ảλλà µǹv ovdé, if oʊdè be sound—I
should prefer to read oure, while Thalheim would rather alter oure before
κατεξευγοτρόφηκας to οὐδέ—may be a formula of transition, like ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ in
§ 43. 8, and signify 'but neither' (but also not'), not, as Martin urges, but
not even.' (2) The contrast between spending a fortune on chargers and
spending a fortune on race horses is not defined with sharpness and pre-
cision, since the word in the first half of the comparison, κaðɩя потроÉî,
π
OR. V.
475
COMMENTARY
does not, and cannot, exclude the idea of extravagant expenditure on a
racing stable. When Xenophon (Ag. 9. 6) wishes to mark this opposition,
he sets on one side πολεμιστηρίους ἵππους τρέφειν, which he considers manly
and laudable, on the other side ἁρματοτροφεῖν, in which even a woman (like
Cynisca, the sister of his friend Agesilaus, Paus. 6. 1. 6) can indulge if she is
able, and willing, to lay out the money. I take καθιπποτροφεῖν to include
racers as well as the πομπικοὶ καὶ λαμπροὶ ἵπποι, which in Xenophon's judg-
ment were not really required by an efficient knight. The second clause,
οὔτε κατεξευγοτράφηκας, refers, as Martin first saw, to chariot races ; it was
tacked on by Isaeus for the sake of a lusus uerborum, which we cannot
represent, the contrast in sense between ζεύγος ἵππων and ζεῦγος ὀρεικόν. In
the 4th century racing with mules had gone out of fashion; at Olympia the
contest between mule cars (τῆς ἀπήνης ὁ δρόμος Paus. 5. 9. 1) was established
in 500 B.C. but abolished by proclamation in 444 B.C.
기
​8, 9 ἐκ τῶν πολεμίων ἐλύσω οὐδένα. Speakers sometimes boast of their
liberality in ransoming countrymen from captivity ; see Lys. 12. 20 πάσας
τὰς χορηγίας χορηγήσαντας, πολλὰς δ᾽ εἰσφορὰς εἰσενεγκόντας, κοσμίους δ᾽ ἡμᾶς
αὐτοὺς παρέχοντας...πολλοὺς δ᾽ Αθηναίων ἐκ τῶν πολεμίων λυσαμένους, 19.
59 ἔτι τοίνυν (after a list of λῃτουργίαι) καὶ ἰδίᾳ τισὶ τῶν πολιτῶν ἀποροῦσι
συνεξέδωκε θυγατέρας καὶ ἀδελφάς, τοὺς δ᾽ ἐλύσατο ἐκ τῶν πολεμίων, Dem. 18.
268 ἐν μὲν τοίνυν τοῖς πρὸς τὴν πόλιν τοιοῦτος· ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἰδίοις εἰ μὴ πάντες ἴσθ᾽
ὅτι κοινὸς καὶ φιλάνθρωπος καὶ τοῖς δεομένοις ἐπαρκῶν, σιωπῶ καὶ οὐδὲν ἂν
εἴποιμι οὐδὲ παρασχοίμην περὶ τούτων οὐδεμίαν μαρτυρίαν, οὔτ᾽ εἴ τινας ἐκ τῶν
πολεμίων ἐλυσάμην, οὔτ᾽ εἴ τισιν θυγατέρας συνεξέδωκα, 19. 40, 169 sqq., 229,
Aesch. 2. 100, [Dem.] 53. 8 sqq. In most cases the money for the ransom
was a loan on which no interest was demanded (VII. 8. 8, Dem. 19. 170
συγκαλέσας τούτους οἷς αὐτὸς ἔχρησα τὸ ἀργύριον, [Dem.] 53. 12 κίχρημι ὅ τι
βούλει...ἐνιαυτὸν ἀτόκῳ χρῆσθαι τῷ ἀργυρίῳ, ib. 11 οἶσθα ὅτι καὶ οἱ νόμοι
κελεύουσι τοῦ λυσαμένου ἐκ τῶν πολεμίων εἶναι τὸν λυθέντα, ἐὰν μὴ ἀποδιδῷ τὰ
λύτρα), but free gifts are also mentioned ([Dem.] 53. 9 ἔδωκα δωρειὰν αὐτῷ τὸ
ἀργύριον, Dem. 19. 170 ἔδωκα δωρειὰν τὰ λύτρα).
I
T
44. Ι τὰ ἀναθήματα κ.τ.λ. Cp. [Ar.] Oec. 2. 2. 1346 b 9 τά τε ἀναθήματα,
ὅσα ἦν αὐτῶν τῶν φυγάδων) ἔν τισιν ἐργαστηρίοις ἡμίεργα ἀνακειμένα (κείμενα
Wilamowitz, ἀποκείμενα Keil), ἐπώλει τοῖς τε φυγάσι καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῷ βουλο-
μένῳ, ὥστ᾽ ἐπιγραφῆναι τὸ τοῦ πριαμένου ὄνομα, Diog. Laert. 5. 15 (Aristotle's
will) ἐπιμελεῖσθαι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἐκδεδομένων εἰκόνων παρὰ Γρυλλίωνα, ὅπως
ἐπιτελεσθεῖσαι ἀνατεθῶσιν, ἥ τε Νικάνορος καὶ ἡ Προξένου, ἣν διενοούμην
ἐκδοῦναι, καὶ ἡ τῆς μητρὸς τῆς Νικάνορος· καὶ τὴν ᾿Αριμνήστου τὴν πεποιημένην
ἀναθεῖναι, ὅπως μνημεῖον αὐτοῦ ᾖ, ἐπειδὴ ἄπαις ἐτελεύτησε· καὶ τὴν τῆς μητρὸς
τῆς ἡμετέρας τῇ Δήμητρι ἀναθεῖναι εἰς Νεμέαν ἢ ὅπου ἂν δοκῇ.
e
او
Μενέξενος. Dobree (Adv. I. p. 297) proposes ἐκεῖνος i.e. ὁ Μενεξένου,
insisting on the unreasonableness of the speaker's grievance, if the votive
offerings were ordered by Menexenus I, the father of Dicaeogenes II;
Menexenus I died in 429 B.C. (§ 42. 7, 8 n.), so that the person in fault was his
son Dicaeogenes II, who lived till 411 B.C. (§ 6. 3 22.). Buermann (Hermes
19, 1884, p. 364) is so much impressed by this argument that he conjectures
Menexenus III son of Cephisophon to be meant. This hypothesis makes
confusion worse confounded (§§ 5. 10 n., 9. 6 n., 10. 2 n., 26. 6 n.). Why was
476
OR. V.
ISAEUS
Dicaeogenes III responsible for the execution of commissions given by
Menexenus III, one of his opponents (§ 14. 4)? Had the son of Cephisophon
no kindred on his father's side (§ 5. 10 12.)? Was the adoptive son of his
maternal uncle the natural administrator of his estate? Is it likely that
Menexenus III made a will appointing Dicaeogenes III his executor? How
after § 42 could the judges understand that the Menexenus alluded to was
the son of Cephisophon? Dobree's difficulty does not seem to me so serious
as it does to Buermann. In vituperation Greek pleaders are absolutely
reckless, and Isaeus was a man who would stick at nothing; the broadside
of invective here is too furious for the judges to reflect on the justice of each
accusation.
2 ποιησάμενος. Cp. Dem. 21. 16 τὴν γὰρ ἐσθῆτα τὴν ἱερὰν…..καὶ τοὺς
στεφάνους τοὺς χρυσοῦς, οὓς ἐποιησάμην ἐγὼ κόσμον τῷ χορῷ, ἐπεβούλευσε
διαφθείραί μοι νύκτωρ ἐλθὼν ἐπὶ τὴν οἰκίαν τὴν τοῦ χρυσοχόου, C. I. A. II. 114 B
14 ελέσθαι πέντε ἄνδρας τὴν βουλὴν αὐτίκα μάλα οἵτινες ποήσονται τὸν στέφανον,
ib. II. 1208 οἱ αἱρεθέντες τὸ ἄγαλμα ποήσασθαι τει ᾿Αφροδίτει, ib. IV. 2. 109 b 26
ποιεῖσθαι δὲ τοὺς στεφάνους τοὺς ἀθλοθέτας τῷ προτέρῳ ἔτει Παναθηναίων τῶν
µeyáλwv, Xen. An. 5. 3. 5, 6, Hdt. 2. 135, Plut. Them. 5. 4. Only the active
is said of the artist.
εἰς πόλιν, i.ε. εἰς ἀκρόπολιν (Thuc. 2. 15 καλεῖται δὲ διὰ τὴν παλαιὰν
ταύτῃ κατοίκησιν καὶ ἡ ἀκρόπολις μέχρι τοῦδε ἔτι ὑπ᾽ ᾿Αθηναίων πόλις). In the
official style of inscriptions εμπόλει (στῆσαι, θεῖναι) is constant up to the year
of Euclid, 403/2 B.C., and for about fifteen years after (C. I. A. II. 11, between
394 B.C. and the peace of Antalcidas, ib. IV. 2 11 b, between 390/89 B.C. and
the peace of Antalcidas). In the year of the peace, 387/6 B.C., we meet for
the first time a new form, ἐν ἀκροπόλει (C. I. A. II. 14. fr. b 2, ib. II. 38, 5),
which from that date onwards is fixed and regular; see Foucart, Bull. Corr.
Hell. 12, 1888, p. 166. Aristophanes uses ἐς πόλιν (Lys. 302, 912, Thesm.
812), πρὸς πόλιν (Nub. 69, Lys. 266, 288), ἐκ πόλεως (Eq. 1093), ἐν πόλει (Eg.
267, Lys. 245, 317, 754, 758, 1183), never ἐς ἀκρόπολιν, ἐν ἀκροπόλει κ.τ.λ. ;
but it should be noted that, when there is no local preposition, he chooses
ἀκρόπολις (Lys. 176 καταληψόμεθα γὰρ τὴν ἀκρόπολιν τήμερον, ib. 179, 241, 263,
482), which is not exposed to misinterpretation ; there is only one exception,
Lys. 486/7 καὶ μὴν αὐτῶν τοῦτ᾽ ἐπιθυμῶ νὴ τὸν Δία πρῶτα πυθέσθαι, | ὅ τι
βουλόμεναι τὴν πόλιν ἡμῶν ἀπεκλῄσατε τοῖσι μοχλοίσιν, where in the circum-
stances no one could mistake the sense. The same limitations are observed
in prose. The word πόλις in the sense of ἀκρόπολις is only tolerated after a
local preposition, and in certain familiar and unambiguous combinations;
see Thuc. 5. 18. 10, 23. 5, 47. 13 (treaties) ἐν ᾿Αθήναις ἐν πόλει στῆσαι,
αναγράψαι (but I. 126. 4 ἀνεῖλεν ὁ θεὸς καταλαβεῖν τὴν ᾿Αθηναίων ἀκρόπολιν,
6. 55. 1 ἡ στήλη ἡ ἐν τῇ ᾿Αθηναίων ἀκροπόλει σταθεῖσα), Ant. 6. 39 διηλλάγην
τούτοις ἐν τῇ πόλει ἐναντίον μαρτύρων, οἵπερ διήλλαττον ἡμᾶς πρὸς τῷ νεῷ τῆς
Αθηνάς, Xen. An. 7. 1. 27 ὑπαρχόντων πολλῶν χρημάτων ἐν τῇ πόλει (Thuc. 2.
24. 1 ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν τῇ ἀκροπόλει χρημάτων), De red. 5. 12 πολλὰ χρήματα εἰς τὴν
πόλιν ἀνενεχθέντα (And. 3. 7, Aesch. 2. 175 εἰς τὴν ἀκρόπολιν ἀναφέρειν),
Aesch. 1. 97 οἰκίαν ὄπισθεν τῆς πόλεως, Schol. Ar. Lys. 273 (perhaps from the
writer of an 'Ατθις or from Craterus) ἔστησαν ἐν πόλει παρὰ τὸν ἀρχαῖον νεών,
᾿Αθ. Πολ. 8. 4 τὰς ἐκτίσεις ἀνέφερεν εἰς πόλιν, ib. 24. 3 ἐν τῇ πόλει φρουροί
<
OR. V.
477
COMMENTARY
...
πεντήκοντα, Plut. Per. 3. 4 Τηλεκλείδης δὲ ποτὲ μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν πραγμάτων
ἠπορημένον καθῆσθαί φησιν αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ πόλει καρηβοροῦντα, ib. 32. 2 ψήφισμα
κυροῦται, Δρακοντίδου γράψαντος, ὅπως οἱ δικασταὶ τὴν ψῆφον ἀπὸ τοῦ βωμού
φέροντες ἐν τῇ πόλει κρίνοιεν. The survival of ἐν τῇ πόλει, εἰς τὴν πόλιν in
4th century prose, in which ἐν ἀκροπόλει, εἰς ἀκρόπολιν, εἰς τὴν ἀκρόπολιν are
the ordinary modes of expression, was assisted by the fact that the Attic for
Gin town, to town was ἐν ἄστει, ἐν τῷ ἄστει, εἰς ἄστυ, εἰς τὸ ἄστυ. For the
absence of the article in such phrases see § 22. 3 n.
(
3 καλινδείται.
His con-
Cobet lays κυλινδεῖσθαι under an interdict.
tention is that κυλινδῶ, κυλινδοῦμαι, are late forms, and that Athenian writers
of the classical age used only κυλίνδω, κυλίνδομαι, and καλινδούμαι (Ν. L.
pp. 454, 459, 637, V. L. p. 133). The symmetry of this scheme has been
disturbed by the excavator; C. I. A. II. 834b (329/8 B.C., S. I. G.² n. 587,
Michel n. 581) shows μισθωτοῖς το[ῖς δι]ακαλίσασιν τὰ ξύλα (11. 22). If, as
seems agreed, this inscription proves the existence in Attic of διακαλίνδω,
Cobet's argument against κυλινδοῦμαι may be applied to καλινδοῦμαι also.
With regard to these two verbs grammarians and editors are still at variance.
But the MSS. are
Veitch, Greek Verbs s.v. κυλίνδω, pins his faith to the MSS.
not consistent ; Σ has προὐκυλινδεῖτο (προὐκαλιν δεῖτο Dind., Blass) in Dem
19. 338 but καλινδούμενον in Dem. 19. 199, in Isocrates Γ has προκαλινδού-
μενοι in 4. 151 (προκυλινδούμενοι uolg.), κυλινδουμένοις in 5. 81 (καλινδουμένοις
EZ uolg.), καλινδουμένων in 13. 20 and 15. 30, καλινδουμένας in 15. 213 (the
first syllable corrected). Plato's MSS., if I may judge from Schanz's text, in
which κυλινδεῖται, κυλινδούμενος are printed without comment, must be
reckoned against the forms with a. In Xenophon recent editors (e.g. Hug
and Schenkl) root out κυλινδώ and κυλινδοῦμαι. Plutarch's MSS. (Bernardakis,
Moralia I. praef. p. lxxxii) exemplify nearly every possible form (κυλινδή-
σεις, κυλίνδων, κυλινδόμενον, κυλινδούμενον, περικαλινδήσεις, καλινδούμενοι).
Keil on Aristides 33. 31, II. p. 235, 19 (II. p. 582 Dind.), where κυλινδοίμεθα
is in APT', καλινδοίμεθα in DU, and 34. 47, 11. p. 594, 14 (II. p. 564 Dind.),
where κυλινδουμένων is in ARI, καλινδουμένων in DUTR2, revives an obsolete
doctrine for the guidance of perplexed editors : καλινδεῖσθαι Atticis erat
‘uersari qualibet in re, ita ut notioni contemptus macula deesset, κυλινδεῖσθαι
proprie uersari in re contemptu digna dicebant; cf. e.g. Plat. Phaedr. 257 A
περὶ γῆν κυλινδουμένην αὐτὴν (ψυχὴν) καὶ ὑπὸ γῆς ἄνουν, et Polit. 309 Α τοὺς
δ᾽ ἐν ἀμαθίᾳ αὖ καὶ ταπεινότητι πολλῇ κυλινδουμένους. But texts of Plato,
which never admit καλινδεῖσθαι, cannot afford a principle of discrimination.
Hesychius explains ἐγκαλινδεῖται by ἐπαναστρέφεται, ἐνδιατρίβει, on which
Cobet remarks recte, nisi quod rei immundae et turpis notionem continet'
(N. L. p. 638). Cobet's definition is based on Dem. 19. 199 παῖδ᾽ ὄντ᾽ ἐν
θιάσοις καὶ μεθύουσιν ἀνθρώποις καλινδούμενον, Isocr. 5. 81 τοῖς ἐπὶ τοῦ
βήματος καλινδουμένοις (κυλινδουμένοις Γ), 13. 20 χείρους ἐγένοντο τῶν περὶ τὰς
ἔριδας καλινδουμένων, 15. 30 οὔτε τῶν περὶ τὰ δικαστήρια καλινδουμένων οὔτε
τῶν περὶ τὴν φιλοσοφίαν διατριψάντων, Hdt. 3. 52 ἐν τῇσι στοιῇσι ἐκαλινδέετο.
In all these passages the word is contemptuous and very like the English 'to
knock about,' nor can the tone of Isocr. 15. 30 be distinguished from the
tone of Plat. Theaet. 172C οἱ ἐν δικαστηρίοις καὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις ἐκ νέων
κυλινδούμενοι, and of Plut. Phoc. 16 τῶν εἰωθότων κυλινδεῖσθαι περὶ τὴν
!
Εν
478
OR. V.
ISAEUS
ἡλιαίαν καὶ συκοφαντεῖν. The MSS. of Xen. Symp. 8. 32 have ὑπὲρ τῶν
ἀκρασίᾳ συγκυλινδουμένων, but the Mss. of Athenaeus (5. 216 E), who quotes
the passage, have συγκαλινδουμένων, and editors after Mekler and Cobet now
print ἐγκαλινδουμένων. Athenaeus furnishes another example worth con-
sideration (6. 262 Β τεθαύμακα τὸ τῶν δούλων γένος ὥς ἐστιν ἐγκρατὲς τοσαύταις
ἐγκαλινδούμενον λιχνείαις). The only instance I can find of καλινδεῖσθαι
used metaphorically but without the note of scorn is Xen. Cyr. 1. 4. 5 ovk
ἀπεδίδρασκεν ἐκ τοῦ ἡττᾶσθαι εἰς τὸ μὴ ποιεῖν ὁ ἡττῷτο, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκαλινδεῖτο ἐν τῷ
πειρᾶσθαι αὖθις βέλτιον ποιεῖν. On the evidence of MSS. καλινδεῖσθαι is
uolutari, not uersari. But the distinction Cobet seeks to establish between
προκυλίνδομαι (supplicis est) and προκαλινδούμαι (adulantis est et adorantis)
is arbitrary and unproved. Blass (Blass-Kühner, Gr. Gramm. II. p. 453)
allows the legitimacy in Attic prose of κυλινδεῖσθαι by the side of καλιν-
δεῖσθαι, but notwithstanding follows Dindorf in correcting προὐκυλινδεῖτο in
Dem. 19. 338. I have adopted καλινδεῖται in the present passage out of
deference towards the authority of the Urbinas of Isocrates. For the
etymological relations of καλίνδω and κυλίνδω see Weir Smyth, The Ionic
Dialect § 132. p. 138, who considers καλ- and κυλ- both weak forms of
κελ=qel. Thalheim retains κυλινδεῖται.
..
5 ἃ ἐκείνων ἐγίγνετο, ‘which were their due, were theirs by right'; cp.
C. I. A. 1. 40 (428 B.C.), 30=S. I. G.² n. 33, Michel n. 74 éxeɩpotóveσev ó dêµos
Μεθοναίος τελᾶν ὅσον τει θεοι ἀπὸ τὸ φόρο ἐγίγνετο ὃν τοῖς προτέροις Παναθεναίοις
ἐτετάχατο φέρεν, τὸ δὲ ἄλλο ἀτελες ἶναι, [Dem.] 7. 3 εἰ φαίη, ἃ ἐκεῖνος ἀδίκως
καὶ ἀλλότρια εἶχον, ταῦθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ γίγνεσθαι, 12. 21 εἴτε γὰρ τῶν ἐξ ἀρχῆς κρατη-
σάντων γίγνεται, πῶς οὐ δικαίως ἡμεῖς αὐτὴν ἔχομεν...εἴτε ἀξιοῖ τις γίγνεσθαι
τῶν ὕστερον γενομένων κυρίων, ὑπάρχει μοι καὶ τοῦτο τὸ δίκαιον, Dem. 21.
11 τὰ δίκῃ καὶ ψήφῳ τῶν ἑλόντων γιγνόμενα, τῶν ἡλωκότων καὶ κεκτημένων
ἐξ ἀρχῆς τὴν γοῦν ἑορτὴν ἀπεδώκατ᾽ εἶναι, 24. 120 τὰ δ᾽ ὅσια, ἃ ἐγίγνετο
ὑμέτερα, κεκλοφότες, 38. 7 ὅσ᾽ αὐτοῖς κατελείφθη, ταῦθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν γίγνεσθαι,
39. 6 τῶν πατρῴων ἃ πάντ᾽ ἐμὰ ἐγίγνετο, [Dem.] 43. 71 (law) έγγρα
φόντων. τοῖς πράκτορσιν, ὃ τῷ δημοσίῳ γίγνεται, 49. 43 γίγνεται ἐμὸν τὸ μέρος,
Isocr. 6. 18 ηὕρισκον "Αργος μὲν κατ᾽ ἀγχιστείαν αὑτῶν γιγνόμενον...Λακεδαίμονα
δὲ κατὰ δόσιν. The origin of the idiom is the use of γίγνεσθαι to give the
result of arithmetical calculations. Ultimately the participle γιγνόμενος be-
comes an alternative to ὀφειλόμενος, προσήκων, ἐπιβάλλων; see Dem. 38. 25
οὐ δικαίαν οὐδὲ γιγνομένην χάριν ἀξιώσουσιν κομίζεσθαι παρ' ὑμῶν, 37. 5 μισ-
θοῦται δ᾽ οὗτος παρ' ἡμῶν τοῦ γιγνομένου τόκου τῷ ἀργυρίῳ, [Dem.] 35. II ἕως ἂν
ἀποδῶσι τὸ γιγνόμενον ἀργύριον κατὰ τὴν συγγραφήν, followed by ἐάν τι ἐλλείπῃ
τοῦ ἀργυρίου, οὗ δεῖ γενέσθαι τοῖς δανείσασι κατὰ τὴν συγγραφήν, C.I.A. I. 59, 24
(410/9 B.C.)=S. I. G.² n. 50 µépos tò yɩyvóµevov, ib. IV. 2. 270, 36 (302/1 B.C.)=
S. I. G. n. 187, Michel n. 122 τὸ μέρος τὸ ἐπιβάλλον αὐτοῖς, ib. II. 1137, 9, 10
(305/4 B.C.) = S. I. G. n. 818, Michel κ. 1367 τὸ ἐκ τούτου γιγνόμενον αὐτει εἰς
Λεώστρατον ἄρχοντα (303/2 Β.C.), S. I. G. n. 425 (Melitaea)- Michel n. 22, 21
ἀποδόντω δὲ οἱ Πηρεῖς τὰς δεκάτας τὰς γινομένας τοῖς δανεισταῖς, ἃς ὀφείλοντι
ἐτέων τριῶν, ἀναβολων λαβόντες ἔτη τρία, ib. η. 512 (Calymna), 8ο φάμενοι
ἀποδεδώκεν αὐτὰ καὶ τοὺς τόκους τοὺς γινομένους. Το express the lawful
devolution of property Isaeus uses. γίγνεσθαι with the genitive (ΧΙ. 49. 7),
and dative (IV. 15. 8, IX. 24. 2, XI. 10. 6, 13. 3), and the preposition els
2
OR. V.
479
COMMENTARY
(III. 36. 8, X. 26. 6, XI. 22. 5); cp. And. 1. 117 åπéðave dè űñais åppévwv
παίδων, θυγατέρας δὲ δύο καταλιπών, αἱ ἐγίγνοντο εἴς τε ἐμὲ καὶ Λέαγρον.
45. Ι διὰ τί οὖν ἀξιώσεις κ.τ.λ. Isaeus is here in the beaten track of
rhetorical conventions. For the stereotyped form compare [Lys.] 6. 46 φέρε
δή, εἰς τί σκεψαμένους χρὴ ὑμᾶς ᾿Ανδοκίδου ἀποψηφίσασθαι; πότερον ὡς στρα-
τιώτης ἀγαθός; ἀλλ᾽ οὐδεπώποτ᾽ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ἐστρατεύσατο, οὔτε ἱππεὺς οὔτε
ὁπλίτης, οὔτε τριήραρχος οὔτε ἐπιβάτης, οὔτε πρὸ τῆς συμφορᾶς οὔτε μετὰ τὴν
συμφοράν, πλέον ἢ τετταράκοντα ἔτη γεγονώς, ib. 48 ἀλλὰ πλουτῶν γὰρ καὶ
δυνάμενος τοῖς χρήμασι καὶ βασιλεῦσιν ἐξενωμένος καὶ τυράννοις...ποίαν εἰσφορὰν
(lacuna), Lys. 30. 26 διὰ τί δ᾽ ἄν τις ἀποψηφίσαιτο τούτου; πότερον ὡς ἀνδρὸς
ἀγαθοῦ πρὸς τοὺς πολεμίους καὶ πολλαῖς μάχαις καὶ ναυμαχίαις παραγεγενημένου;
ἀλλὰ ὅτε ὑμεῖς ἐκινδυνεύετε ἐκπλέοντες, οὗτος αὐτοῦ μένων τοὺς Σόλωνος νόμους
ἐλυμαίνετο. ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι χρήματα δεδαπάνηκε καὶ πολλὰς εἰσφορὰς εἰσενήνοχεν;
ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὅπως ὑμῖν τῶν αὑτοῦ τι ἐπέδωκεν, ἀλλὰ τῶν ὑμετέρων πολλὰ ὑφῄρηται.
ἀλλὰ διὰ τοὺς προγόνους; ἤδη γάρ τινες καὶ διὰ τοῦτο συγγνώμης ἔτυχον παρ᾽
ὑμῶν. ἀλλὰ τούτῳ γε προσήκει διὰ μὲν αὑτὸν τεθνάναι, διὰ δὲ τοὺς προγόνους
πεπρᾶσθαι. ἀλλ᾽ ὡς, ἐὰν νῦν αὐτοῦ φείσησθε, αὖθις ἀποδώσει τὰς χάριτας; ὃς
οὐδ᾽ ὧν πρότερον μετέλαβε παρ' ὑμῶν ἀγαθῶν μέμνηται.
4 ἢ ὡς. For the use of the conjunction ὡς see, in addition to the
passages cited in the previous note, Ant. 5. 62, 63 τοῦτο τὸ ἔργον ἐγώ ποτ᾽
ἂν ἐπείσθην ἀντ᾽ ἐκείνου ποιῆσαι; πότερα ὡς ἐγὼ ἢ τῷ σώματι ἐπιτήδειος
διακινδυνεύειν, ἐκεῖνος δὲ χρήμασι τὸν ἐμὸν κίνδυνον ἐκπρίασθαι; οὐ δῆτα· τῷ
μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἦν χρήματα, ἐμοὶ δὲ ἦν, Lys. 14. 41 σκέψασθαι δὲ χρή, διὰ τί ἄν
τις τοιούτων ἀνδρῶν φείσαιτο; πότερον ὡς πρὸς μὲν τὴν πόλιν δεδυστυχήκασιν,
ἄλλως δὲ κόσμιοί εἰσι καὶ σωφρόνως βεβιώκασιν ; 20. 3 οὗτος δὲ τίνος ἂν
ἕνεκα ὀλιγαρχίας ἐπεθύμησε; πότερον ὡς ἡλικίαν εἶχε λέγων τι διαπράττεσθαι
παρ' ὑμῖν, ἢ τῷ σώματι πιστεύων, ἵνα ὑβρίζοι εἰς τῶν ὑμετέρων τινά; ἀλλ᾽ ὁρᾶτε
αὐτοῦ τὴν ἡλικίαν, ᾗ καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἱκανός ἐστιν ἀποτρέπειν τούτων, 31. 24
τί ἂν οὖν βουληθέντες ὑμεῖς τοῦτον δοκιμάσαιτε; πότερον ὡς οὐχ ἡμαρτηκότα;
ἀλλὰ τὰ μέγιστα περὶ τὴν πατρίδα ἠδίκηκεν· ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἔσται βελτίων; τοιγάρτοι
πρότερον βελτίων γενόμενος περὶ τὴν πόλιν ὕστερον βουλεύειν ἀξιούτω, Aesch. 3.
230 θαυμάζω δ᾽ ἔγωγε καὶ ζητῶ, πρὸς τί ἂν ἀποβλέψαντες ἀποψηφίσαισθε τὴν
γραφήν· πότερον ὡς τὸ ψήφισμά ἐστιν ἔννομον; ἀλλ᾽ οὐδεμία πώποτε γνώμη
παρανομωτέρα γεγένηται. ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ὁ τὸ ψήφισμα γράψας οὐκ ἐπιτήδειός ἐστι
δίκην δοῦναι; οὐκ ἄρ᾽ εἰσὶ παρ᾽ ὑμῖν εὔθυναι βίου, Xen. Hell. I. 2. 15 οἱ πρότεροι
στρατιῶται οὐκ ἠβούλοντο τοῖς μετὰ Θρασυβούλου συντάττεσθαι, ὡς αὐτοὶ μὲν ὄντες
αήττητοι, ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἡττημένοι ἥκοιεν.
6
Frohberger and Thalheim on Lys. 30. 27 (ἀλλ' ὡς...ἀποδώσει;) commenting
on the proposal to read ἀποδώσοντος say that a subjective reason’may be
expressed not only by os with the participle, but by s with the indicative,
which means 'in the belief or presumption that? Krüger, to whom they
refer for this interpretation, states in his treatment of the causal sentence
(Gr. Sprachlehre § 65. 8) that or is purely objective, while as is properly
subjective and so often equivalent to the German 'als ob,' just as with the
Participle, which sometimes appears with os by the side of the Indicative
or Optative (Xen. Hell. 1. 2. 15 quoted above). The origin of the causal
meaning of us, and the limitations of this use, need more accurate investi-
gation. When followed by a finite verb the conjunction generally introduces
480
OR. V.
ISAEUS
not a subordinate causal clause, but an independent sentence which gives
the speaker's reason for what he has just said. The type is represented by
Xen. Cyr. 8. 3. 27 πάντως τοίνυν, ἔφη, δεῖξόν μοι· ὡς βαλῶ γε ταύτῃ τῇ βώλῳ,
ἔφη ἀνελόμενος. But sentences occur in which ὡς appears to be nothing but
an alternative for ὅτι or ἐπειδή; see Plat. Crat. 418D ὅτι γὰρ ἁσμένοις τοῖς
ἀνθρώποις καὶ ἱμείρουσιν ἐκ τοῦ σκότους τὸ φῶς ἐγίγνετο, ταύτῃ ὠνόμασαν ἱμέραν
...καίτοι τινὲς οἴονται, ὡς δὴ ἡ ἡμέρα ἡμερα ποιεῖ, διὰ ταῦτα ὠνομάσθαι αὐτὴν
οὕτως, Tim. 58 Β διὸ δὴ πῦρ μὲν εἰς ἅπαντα διελήλυθε μάλιστα, ἀὴρ δὲ
δεύτερον, ὡς λεπτότητι δεύτερον ἔφυ, καὶ τἆλλα ταύτῃ, Xen. Cyr. 4. 2. 29
Κροῖσος δὲ, ὡς θέρος ἦν, τάς τε γυναῖκας ἐν ταῖς ἁρμαμάξαις προαπεπέμψατο
τῆς νυκτός, ὡς ἂν ῥᾷον πορεύοιντο κατὰ ψύχος, καὶ αὐτὸς ἔχων τοὺς ἱππέας
ἐπηκολούθει, ib. I. 4. 5 ὡς δ᾽ οὐκ ἀπεδίδρασκεν ἐκ τοῦ ἡττᾶσθαι εἰς τὸ μὴ
ποιεῖν ὁ ἡττῷτο, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκαλιν δεῖτο ἐν τῷ πειρᾶσθαι αὖθις βέλτιον ποιεῖν, ταχὺ μὲν
εἰς τὸ ἴσον ἀφίκετο τῇ ἱππικῇ τοῖς ἥλιξι, ταχὺ δὲ παρῄει. The analogy of the
temporal and causal uses of as occurs at once to an Englishman, and in
Greek another conjunction shows the beginnings of a similar development ;
passages can be found, in which ὥσπερ is partly causal, i.e. includes among
other things a causal notion, e.g. Thuc. 7. 80. 4 τὸ μὲν Νικίου στράτευμα, ὥσπερ
ἡγεῖτο, ξυνέμενε (Nicias' force, forming as it did the advance guard, kept
together), ib. 8. 22. 1 οἱ Χῖοι, ὥσπερ ἤρξαντο (' once committed to this course),
οὐδὲν ἀπολείποντες προθυμίας...στρατεύονται ; see Goodhart on Thuc. 8. 22. I.
5 ἠργάσω. See Crit. Introd. p. xxi, Meisterhans, Gramm. d. att. Inschr.3
$ 64, 11, p. 171, Crönert, Memoria Graeca Herculanensis p. 203. Traces of
the old spelling survive in Σ (Dem. 27. 10 κατηργάζοντο ut uidetur pr., 2. 30
ἠργάζοντο, 37. 28 ἠργάσαντο pr., [Dem.] 59. 20, 41, 49 ἠργάζετο, Voemel,
Prolegg. Gramm. § 75), and in the 2nd century papyrus which contains
Hyp. III. (ἠργάζετο § 35).
καὶ εἰσφορὰς κ.τ.λ. Naber proposes ἢ ὡς εἰσφορὰς κ.τ.λ. See for the
confusion of and kaì § 5. 2 n., of and is Dem. 25. 53, Bast, Comm.
Pal. p. 780 sqq.
46. I, 2 ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐστράτευσαι. If Dicaeogenes had shirked service
illegally, any one could have prosecuted him by a γραφὴ ἀστρατείας (Att.
Proc.² p. 462 sqq.), but to do this with any hope of success it would have
been necessary to prove that he was called out by the generals, and did
not present himself at the muster; the law is quoted by Aesch. 1. 29 ἢ τὰς
στρατείας μὴ ἐστρατευμένος ὅσαι ἂν αὐτῷ προσταχθῶσιν. A conviction entailed
disfranchisement and exclusion from public worship, but not confiscation of
property. Compare Isocr. 18. 47 δέκα μὲν ἔτη συνεχῶς ὑμῖν Λακεδαιμονίων
πολεμησάντων οὐδὲ μίαν παρέσχεν αὑτὸν ἡμέραν τάξαι τοῖς στρατηγοῖς, ἀλλ᾽
ἐκεῖνον μὲν τὸν χρόνον διετέλεσεν ἀποδιδράσκων καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν ἀποκρυπτόμενος,
ἐπειδὴ δ᾽ οἱ τριάκοντα κατέστησαν, τηνικαῦτα κατέπλευσεν εἰς τὴν πόλιν.
3 eis ov, according to Schoemann an abbreviated expression for eis ov
πορευθέντες ἀποθνῄσκουσι; he compares θύειν εἰς τὰ ἱερὰ (Thuc. 6. 54), θύειν
εἰς τὴν πανήγυριν ([Lys.] 6. 5), πανηγυρίζειν ἐς Βούβαστιν πόλιν (Hdt. 2. 59).
I believe the preposition to belong to ἐστράτευσαι in § 46. 5. Rehdantz
compares Lyc. 85 ὀλίγοι ὄντες κατακλῃσθέντες ἐπολιορκοῦντο καὶ διεκαρτέρουν
εἰς τὴν πατρίδα, where van den Es brackets ἐπολιορκοῦντο καί.
Ολύνθιοι μὲν καὶ νησιώται. Schoemann would change Ολύνθιοι το
OR. V.
481
COMMENTARY
π
Kopivio, observing 'Concedent mihi, opinor, omnes pro Atheniensibus
Olynthios non magis illo tempore propugnasse quam postea, cum aduersus
Spartanos bellum illud gererent, quod Olynthium uocari solet.' But
Diodorus states (14. 82) that the league formed against Sparta in 395 B.C.
was joined by the Chalcidians (Χαλκιδεῖς οἱ πρὸς τῇ Θράκη). Xenophon
does not mention this fact, but in the description of Agesilaus' march
home in the summer of 394 B.C. he says that after a halt at Amphipolis
(which was hostile to the Chalcidian League, S. I. G.2 n. 77, Michel n. 5)
his hero crossed Macedonia and arrived in Thessaly (διαλλάξας Μακεδονίαν
eis OeTraλíav åþíкeтo, Hell. 4. 3. 3); perhaps the army took the direct route
from Amphipolis to Therma, in order to avoid Chalcidice. It is highly
probable that Olynthians were actually fighting in the cause of Athens at
the time when this speech was delivered. Xenophon's account (Hell. 4. 8.
26, 27) of Thrasybulus' successes in the north Aegean in 390 or 389 B.C. is
incomplete, as is proved by Dem. 20. 59 арadóvтes vµîv Oáσov kaì тηv
Λακεδαιμονίων φρουρὰν μεθ᾽ ὅπλων ἐκβαλόντες καὶ Θρασύβουλον εἰσαγαγόντες
καὶ παρασχόντες φίλην ὑμῖν τὴν αὑτῶν πατρίδα αἴτιοι τοῦ γενέσθαι σύμμαχον τὸν
περὶ Θρᾴκην τόπον ὑμῖν ἐγένοντο (see Judeich, Kleinasiatische Studien p. 95
n. 1), and by C. I. A. IV. 2. IIb, fragments of a treaty between Thasos and
Athens, which falls between the expedition of Thrasybulus and the peace of
Antalcidas. At a later period in the war, probably in the autumn of 388 B.C.,
Athenian ships under the command of Iphicrates and Diotimus were posted
at Samothrace, Thasos, and 'the places in that region' (Xen. Hell. 5. 1. 7,
25, 26). There is nothing unreasonable in the conjecture that the Athenians
were assisted in these operations by their allies, the Chalcidians. That
islanders (vŋoirai) fought for Athens is recorded by the historians. Thrasy-
bulus on leaving the Hellespont sailed to Lesbos; at Mytilene he organised
an army composed of hoplites from his ships, of the stoutest troops of the
Mytilenaeans, and of a corps of exiles from the Lesbian cities on the side of
Sparta (ai λakwvíčovσai), with which he attacked and defeated Therimachus,
the Lacedaemonian harmost of Methymna (Hell. 4. 8. 28 sqq.). When he
continued his voyage in the direction of Rhodes, he was accompanied by
ships supplied by the Mytilenaeans and the Chians (Diod. 14. 94. 4).
Clazomenae was reckoned one of the islands (Xen. Hell. 5. I. 31 tŵv výow
Kλačoµevàs kaì Kúπρov), and in 387/6 B.C., but before the peace of Antalcidas,
a treaty (C. I. A. IV. 2. 14 b, S. I. G.² n. 73, Michel n. 83) was made between
Athens and Clazomenae, which contains (ll. 5, 6) the following sentence,
ἐπαινέσαι μὲν τὸν δῆμον τὸν Κλαζομενίων, ὅτι πρόθυμός ἐστιν ἐς τὴμ πόλιν τὴν
Αθηναίων καὶ νῦγ καὶ ἐν τῷ πρόσθεν χρόνῳ. No doubt Clazomenae, like
Mytilene and Chios, had welcomed the arrival of Thrasybulus' squadron
(1. 8 ὑποτελῶντας Κλαζομενίους τὴν ἐπὶ Θρασυβούλο εἰκοστήν).
47. 2, 3 Δικαιογένους καλεῖσθαι ὑὸς ἢ ῾Αρμοδίου. Dicaeogenes' father was
named Proxenus (§ 6. 4 22.), his brother Harmodius (§ 11. 7). If, as his
name indicates, he was the younger son, he certainly could not claim all the
privileges enumerated by the speaker. The orators in this connexion speak
vaguely of the descendants of Harmodius and Aristogeiton” (οἱ ἀφ᾽ ῾Αρμοδίου
Kaì 'ApiσToyeίTovos Dem. 19. 280, 20. 18, 29, 127, 128, 160, Din. 1. 63, oi
Αρμοδίου καὶ ᾿Αριστογείτονος ἀπόγονοι Din. I. IOI, And. I. 98). A fifth century
W. I.
31
482
OR. V.
ISAEUS
او
inscription (C. I. A. 1. 8, see Schoell, Hermes 6, 1872, p. 31 sqq.), which
enumerates the persons enjoying the honour of σίτησις ἐν πρυτανείῳ, grants
the right to only one representative of each line ; l. 4 sqq. [...εἶναι τὴν σίτησιν
τὴν ἐ]μπρυτανείῳ πρῶτον μὲν τοῖ[σιν............κ]ατὰ τὰ πάτρια, ἔπειτα τοῖσι
᾿Αρμ[οδίου καὶ τοῖσι ᾿Αριστογεί]τονος, ὃς ἂν ᾖ ἐγγυτάτω γένους. The meaning
of the limitation is made plain by the later formula, ἐκγόνων ἀεὶ τῷ πρεσ-
βυτάτῳ, which occurs in the decrees in honour of Demosthenes ([Plut.] Vitt.
Χ. Οr. 850 F εἰκόνα χαλκὴν ἐν ἀγορᾷ καὶ σίτησιν ἐν πρυτανείῳ καὶ προεδρίαν
αὐτῷ καὶ ἐκγόνων ἀεὶ τῷ πρεσβυτάτῳ), Demochares (ib. 851 D), Lycurgus
(ib. 852 Ε στῆσαι αὐτοῦ τὸν δῆμον χαλκὴν εἰκόνα ἐν ἀγορᾷ, πλὴν εἴ που ὁ νόμος
ἀπαγορεύει μὴ ἱστάναι, δοῦναι δὲ σίτησιν ἐν πρυτανείῳ τῶν ἐκγόνων ἀεὶ τῶν
Λυκούργου τῷ πρεσβυτάτῳ; part of this decree is preserved in C. I. A. II. 240),
Herodorus (C. I. A. II. 3oo (295/4 Β.C.), 34 sqq. [εἶναι δ᾽ αὐτ]ῷ καὶ σίτησιν
ἐμπρυτ[ανείῳ καὶ ἐκγό]νων ἀεὶ τῷ πρεσβυτ[άτῳ καὶ προεδρ]ίαν ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς
ἀγώ[σιν, οὓς ἡ πόλις τ]ίθησιν· στῆσαι δ᾽ αὐτο[ῦ τὸν δῆμον καὶ εἰκόνα χαλκὴν ἐν
ἀγορ[α πλὴν παρ' Αρμόδιον καὶ ᾿Αριστογείτ[ονα καὶ τοὺς Σωτ]ῆρας), and an
unknown benefactor in the second part of the 3rd century (C. I. A. II. 410).
Had there been no restriction, the Prytaneum might have been crowded by
the stock of Harmodius and Aristogeiton.
4 ἀτελειών. The exemptions did not extend to the trierarchy and war
tax (Dem. 20. 18), nor to religious duties (Dem. 20. 128 ákovete tôv åvti-
γράφων της στήλης ἀτελεῖς αὐτοὺς εἶναι κελευόντων πλὴν ἱερῶν).
T
6, 7 οὐ διὰ τὸ γένος ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν ἀνδραγαθίαν. See the fragments of a
speech attributed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus to Lysias, πρὸς ῾Αρμόδιον
περὶ Ιφικράτους δωρεών, fr. 37 (Saupp.) καὶ γὰρ ῾Αρμοδίῳ καὶ ᾿Αριστογείτονι
οὐδὲν πρότερον ὑπῆρχε γενναῖον πρὶν γενναῖόν τι πρᾶξαι τὰ γοῦν ἔργα συγ
γενέστερά ἐστι τὰ ἐμὰ τοῖς ῾Αρμοδίου καὶ ᾿Αριστογείτονος ἢ τὰ σά, fr. 43 (Saupp.)
τὸ μὲν ἐμὸν ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ γένος ἄρχεται, τὸ δὲ σὸν ἐν σοὶ παύεται. The word
ἀνδραγαθία is one of the stock phrases of honorary decrees ; see C. I. A. II.
553 (end of 5th century), 3 sqq. ἐπαινέσαι Νικίαν Ἐπιγένος Κυδαθηναια ἀνδρα-
γαθίας ἕνεκα τῆς εἰς φυλήν, ib. IV. 2. II c (c. 390 B.C.), 3 ἀνδραγαθίας ἕνεκα τῆς
ἐς Αθηναίους, Larfeld, Handbuch d. gr. Epigraphik II. pp. 771, 837, [Plut.]
Vitt. X. Οr. 852 Α ζῶντες ἐτιμῶντο ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου καὶ τελευτήσασιν αὐτοῖς δι᾿
ἀνδραγαθίαν ἔδωκεν ὁ δῆμος δημοσίας ταφὰς ἐν Κεραμεικῷ, Dem. 22. 72, [Dem.]
59. 89 (a law), and compare in literature Isocr. 18. 65 οὓς ἐκ τῶν ἔργων
κρίναντες δι' ἀνδραγαθίαν ἐστεφανώσατε, ὅτ᾽ οὐδ᾽ οὕτω ῥᾴδιον ἦν ὥσπερ νῦν
τυχεῖν ταύτης τῆς τιμῆς, Hyp. 2. 16 ἐστεφάνωμαι δ᾽ ὑπό τε τῶν ἱππέων πάντων
ἀνδραγαθίας ἕνεκα καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν συναρχόντων.
ΟΤ
7 ὦ Δικαιόγενες. Videtur deesse epilogus (Scheibe, Praef. p. xxviii).
This singular piece of criticism proves that Scheibe had no appreciation
of oratorical effects. Contrast the comments of Sir W. Jones (Works IX.
p. 288); Contempt and indignation cannot be more strongly marked, than
by the position of the proper name at the end of this speech; but it would
not have the same effect in our language without voice, look, and gesture, to
enforce it.
The single name of Dicaeogenes, as it stands in the original,
supplies the place of epithets, and instantly suggests the idea of everything
despicable.
VI
ON THE ESTATE OF PHILOCTEMON.
CHAERESTRATUS AGAINST ANDROCLES.
PROSECUTION FOR BEARING FALSE WITNESS.
The sixth speech has afforded much stimulating exercise to the ingenuity
of jurists and antiquaries. Out of its intricacies and obscurities great dis-
coveries have been brought to light. In the opinion of Hruza (Beiträge zur
Geschichte des griechischen u. romischen Familienrechtes I. p. 29, II. pp. 44,
48, 49) Isaeus' narrative implies that polygamy was not illegal at Athens.
The same incidents manipulated by Buermann turn into a proof of the
existence of 'lawful concubinage' (Jahrbb. f. cl. Philol. Supplementbd 9,
1877/8, p. 571 sqq., or. III. Introd. p. 277 sqq.). The deductions of Bunsen
(De iure hereditario Atheniensium, 1813, p. 21 sqq.) have been refuted so often
(Schoemann, Comm. on Isaeus pp. 319, 340, Opusc. Ac. I. p. 274 sqq.,
Friedrich, Bemerkungen zu Isaios, 1875, p. 10 sqq., Grasshoff, Symbolae ad
doctrinam iuris Attici, 1877, 1. p. 48 sqq., Hitzig, Studien zu Isaeus, 1883,
p. 26 sqq.) that now they only deserve a place in a history of human error.
Even standard works on Greek antiquities and law (Att. Proc.2 p. 532, Lipsius-
Schoemann, Gr. Altert. I. p. 377, Busolt, Die griechischen Staats- und Rechts-
altertümer² p. 202, Thalheim-Hermann, Rechtsaltert.¹ p. 8) continue to find in
this speech an instance of the legitimation of bastards. The precariousness
of all these theories is a significant warning of the treacherous nature of the
evidence. Confidence in the veracity and virtue of Isaeus' clients argues
truly Arcadian innocence. But even if the critic can convict the advocate of
contradictions or chicanery, he may still be no nearer to the truth; both the
facts of the case and the principles of law which bore upon them may be out
of his reach. The student of this and other speeches must take for his
guidance the maxim of Epicharmus, καφε καὶ μέμνασ᾽ ἀπιστεῖν, supplemented
by the reflection that a professional writer for the courts, though not troubled
by moral scruples, did not lie out of mere exuberance of mendacity, but artis-
tically, with an eye to the effect.
The subject of the speech is the succession to the estate of Euctemon,
not to the estate of Philoctemon; the reason for the misleading title will soon
be seen. Euctemon of the deme Cephisia, a man of great wealth (§ 38), died
31-2
484
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
in 365/4 B.C. or 364/3 B.C. (§ 14. 3 n.) aged 96 years.
14. 3 n.) aged 96 years. His wife, the daughter
of Meixiades of Cephisia (§ 10), had borne him three sons, Philoctemon,
Ergamenes, Hegemon, and two daughters. The three sons died before their
father and left no issue. Philoctemon outlived Ergamenes and Hegemon (§ 6),
but the date of his death cannot be stated precisely. A comparison of various
allusions (§§ 5. 5, 6 n., 14. 5 n., 27. 1, 2, 5 nn.) suggests that the outbreak of the
war with Sparta in 378 B.C. may be taken as a terminus post quem, and the
expedition of Timotheus in 373 B.C. as a terminus ante quem. There was thus
an interval of not less than 10 years between the death of the son and the
death of the father. Both of the daughters survived Euctemon. One was a
widow with one daughter (§ 32); her husband, Chaereas, had died about
seven years before Euctemon (§ 29). The other was the wife of Phano-
stratus (§ 6) of Cephisia (§ 60. 2, 5), and had two sons, the eldest of whom
Chaerestratus (§ 6), though still young (Tηλikoûtos wv, § 60), had not only
served as a trierarch, but had also discharged two 'liturgies' (¿b.); his age
may have been anything between 23 and 30 ($ 3. I N.).
The death of the old man was a signal for a battle over his money.
Chaerestratus put in a claim alleging that he had been adopted in Philo-
ctemon's will (§ 3). This pretension was in many ways remarkable.
Chaerestratus appears to have assumed that the estate of Philoctemon was
identical with the estate of Euctemon. Now Philoctemon would undoubtedly
have inherited the whole estate of Euctemon, if he had survived his father,
and if Euctemon had left no other sons. In point of fact Philoctemon had
not only predeceased his father, but during his father's lifetime had possessed
no separate estate of his own (§ 38). If, then, his will was genuine, what was
now its value? That Philoctemon should pretend to settle by a will the
destiny of all his father's property, seems a preposterous idea; surely his
rights, such as they were, perished with him. On the other hand the law of
Athens allowed a childless man to adopt a son. If Philoctemon had adopted
Chaerestratus in his lifetime and had introduced him into his parpía in ac-
cordance with its rules, the adoptive son would have obtained all the rights
of a son begotten in lawful wedlock, and among these rights certain claims
upon the estate of Euctemon, now converted into his paternal grandfather.
But a testamentary adoption was not on the same footing as an adoption
inter uiuos, since the will did not take effect until it had been approved by a
court. In this case no such sanction had been sought or given. When
Philoctemon died, the proper course for Chaerestratus' friends was to
produce the will, and, on authorisation by the judges, to enrol Chaerestratus
in Philoctemon's parpía as Philoctemon's son. These steps had not been
taken, either because the will did not then exist, or because the risks of a
change of family were judged to outweigh the contingent profits. As Philo-
ctemon left no property of his own, Chaerestratus would have forfeited his
prospect of inheriting half of Phanostratus' wealth, and would have received
in return only reversionary rights in the estate of Euctemon, who had fallen
out with his son and his married daughters, and was quite capable of defeating
the hopes of an heir at law. No one could prevent Euctemon from giving
away his money in his lifetime to persons whom he preferred to his family.
Another point to be noticed with regard to Chaerestratus' plans is that, if
OR. VI.
485
INTRODUCTION
successful, he would get into his hands all the property left by Euctemon.
If, on the other hand, it should be adjudged that Philoctemon made no will,
and that Euctemon died without legitimate male issue, the estate would be
divided in equal portions between Euctemon's two daughters. Whether in
that case both women could be claimed at law by relatives of Euctemon, and
whether the offspring of their first marriages had any rights in Euctemon's
estate, is a problem hard to solve (III. 64, VIII. 30—34).
But the prize brought other competitors into the field. Androcles, one
of Euctemon's collateral relatives (§§ 46, 55, 57), met Chaerestratus with a
diaµapтupía (II. Introd. p. 232 sqq.) affirming (1) that Euctemon's estate could
not be claimed at law, because legitimate sons of Euctemon were in existence,
(2) that Philoctemon had not made a will (§§ 3, 5, 12, 17, 62, 63). It was also
urged that Philoctemon had no right to make such a will (§§ 52, 56), but this
argument was not part of the deposition. Androcles, Antidorus (§ 47), and
possibly others (§ 39. 7 n.) pretended to intervene in the character of guardians
(§§ 56–58) of two youths, who were put forward as the offspring of a second
marriage contracted by Euctemon (§§ 12—16, 25). The chronology of the
affair is, as usual, very obscure. We are informed that the eldest of the
alleged sons was 'not over twenty' (§ 14) at the time of the examination of
the litigants by the Archon. 'Not over twenty' is a phrase which has excited
the suspicion of critics; for it is the interest of our informant to reduce the
age of the claimant as much as possible. Moreover, if he was over 18, he
must have ceased to be in tutelage, but the references to the guardians are
explicable, if the younger brother was still a minor. Thus the speaker's
version of Androcles' story is that Euctemon had a son by a second wife
when he was about 76 years old. The guardians relied upon a fact which
their opponents do not venture to challenge, namely, that before Philoctemon's
death Euctemon had entered the eldest boy in his Oparpía as his own son.
Prima facie this was strong evidence of legitimacy, since the members of the
Oparpia were bound by law to refuse admission to bastards, and Philoctemon
had every reason to denounce a fraud, which curtailed his inheritance.
Chaerestratus was not at a loss for an explanation. The friend who
speaks for him goes into a long narrative (§§ 17—42) of a 'misfortune,' as he
euphemistically terms it, which overtook Euctemon in his old age. The two
claimants were in reality the sons of a common prostitute of servile origin
called Alce, and their putative father was a freedman, Dion by name. This
woman managed a lodging house owned by Euctemon (§ 20), and gradually
gained such an ascendancy over the old man that he deserted his family and
went to live with her. Finally, she persuaded him to introduce her eldest
son into his parpía. Philoctemon resisted at first, and induced the members
of the pparpia to reject or postpone (§ 22. 3 2.) the candidate. Euctemon,
infuriated at the rebuff and resolved to spite his son, threatened to marry
again. The prospect of more brothers sobered Philoctemon. He made a
bargain with his father, and consented to withdraw his opposition on receiving
a promise that only one farm (èv xwpiov § 23) should be given to the child.
Conformably with the compact the boy was again presented, and, what is
surprising, was admitted by the Oparpía (§ 24). This is a story discreditable
to all parties, to Philoctemon and the members of the Oparpía no less than
486
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
to Euctemon. After Philoctemon's death Euctemon in the presence of his
two sons-in-law, Phanostratus and Chaereas, who presumably desired to safe-
guard the interests of their wives, recorded the terms of the agreement made
with his son in a document, which is called by the speaker a will (dɩaðŋêŋ
§ 27), but after about two years this instrument was publicly revoked, and
Euctemon began to convert his property into ready money. The alleged cause
of this change was the appearance on the scene of Androcles and Antidorus,
who curried favour with Alce and hatched a plot against Euctemon's daugh-
ters and their children. Their scheme was to get hold of Euctemon's wealth
under the disguise of guardians of Alce's two sons, and their scandalous
machinations (§§ 36, 37) were so far successful that, when Euctemon died,
half of his capital had disappeared (§ 38), his revenues had been embezzled,
and his house had been ransacked and rifled (§§ 39-42). These accusations
by no means exhaust the list of offences with which Androcles is charged.
It is asserted that the tactics which he adopted after Euctemon's death
convict him of impudent fraud. According to the speaker he presented in
his own name a claim to the hand of Euctemon's second daughter, the
widow of Chaereas, representing her to be an éπíkλŋpos. This procedure
was a flagrant contradiction of the testimony which he gave in the dia-
μaprupía, that Euctemon had left legitimate sons. If his testimony was true,
then Chaereas widow was not an ἐπίκληρος.
The sequence and causal connexion of the moves and countermoves of
the combatants are not clearly explained. It would be interesting to know
at what stage in the struggle Androcles made a claim in his own behalf.
Issue was joined between the parties, when he confronted Chaerestratus
with a formal diaµaprupía, which forced his opponent to institute a prosecution
for bearing false witness. At the trial Chaerestratus, as prosecutor, doubtless
spoke a few prefatory words, deprecating his youth and inexperience, and
asking the permission of the judges to call up an advocate (σvvýyopos); he
then made way for an old friend of the family, for whom Isaeus had
composed the present speech. In his exordium (§§ 1, 2) the speaker
attributes his intervention to motives of friendship. Without questioning
in any way the genuineness of these sentiments we may bear in mind that
a bad impression might have been made on the judges, if Chaerestratus, who
was a rich man, had recited to them a scandalous history about his mother's
father with the avowed object of securing his fortune. Even the friend feels
the need of an apology (§ 17), when he broaches this disagreeable subject,
and anticipates that Androcles will fulminate against the family of Phano-
stratus, and contrast their opulence with his own poverty (§ 59).
Androcles had made two statements, (1) that legitimate sons of Euctemon
were alive, (2) that Philoctemon had not made a will. The juxtaposition of
two distinct and independent issues is confusing. The substance of a
diapaρrupia was a protest founded on the existence of sons. To sustain such
an objection Androcles had to prove the legitimacy of the alleged sons, but
was not obliged to show that Philoctemon had not made a will. Even if a
genuine will existed, its effects were problematical. In any case, if other
sons of Euctemon were alive, the will could not make Philoctemon's adopted
son Euctemon's sole heir. The advantage of the combination was that a
OR. VI.
487
INTRODUCTION
verdict against Chaerestratus would annihilate his pretension that as heir of
Philoctemon he possessed rights not shared by his brother and his cousin.
Further, Androcles may have thought it dangerous to postpone the contest
about the will; a vigorous attack is often the best means of self-defence. On
the other hand the policy had its perils. How would a judge vote, if he were
convinced that Euctemon had left legitimate sons, but was not convinced
that Philoctemon had not made a will? Still, as the orator complains (§ 52),
Androcles was in a better position than Chaerestratus. If the διαμαρτυρία
was defeated, Chaerestratus had still to establish his exclusive claim to the
whole property. He could not count on a court accepting his interpretation
of the consequences of Philoctemon's will. Androcles had disclosed his
intention to dispute it (§ 56). If his wards were pronounced illegitimate, he
could take his stand upon his relationship to Euctemon, and demand in
marriage the widow of Chaereas (§§ 46, 57) with the share of the estate
that accrued to her.
The style of the speech calls up ideas of a man of weight and experience
exposing calmly and contemptuously the intrigues of scoundrels. The
situation did not lend itself to an effusion of pathos and invective. The
orator first vindicates very briefly the justice of Chaerestratus' claim, proving
by testimony that Philoctemon made a will, and quoting the law to show
that he had a right to do so (§§ 3-9). The defence is sophistical, the real
difficulties being ignored. The remaining 56 sections are devoted to
attacking the legitimacy of the pretended sons of Euctemon, and the
honesty of their supporters. In the first place negative evidence is adduced,
to the effect that no one knew anything about a second wife of Euctemon
(§§ 10, 11). Next the evidence of the opponents is criticised; when cross-
questioned before the Archon they were at first unable to furnish particulars
concerning the mother of the two claimants, after an adjournment of the
hearing they came knowing her name and the name of her father, but
without proofs that she was married to Euctemon and lived in his house
(§§ 12—16). The way is thus prepared for the account of the true parentage
of Androcles' alleged wards. The core of the speech (§§ 17-42) is a long
narrative describing the origin and consequences of Alce's influence over
Euctemon, and the conspiracy against his heirs, in which Androcles and
Antidorus were her confederates. The steady onward march of the argument
stops with the end of this story. A medley of topics follows, the shameless
manœuvres of the guardians (§§ 43-45), the inconsistency of Androcles
(§ 46), the presumption of Alce (§§ 47—50), the higher right of Philoctemon's
adopted son (§§ 51, 52). Then the speaker turns back abruptly to his
starting-point, and demands how Androcles could possibly know that
Philoctemon had not made a will (§§ 52-55); he even has the courage
at this stage to allude to the objection that Philoctemon had no right to
dispose by will of Euctemon's estate (§ 56), but speedily abandons this
dangerous ground for a fresh onslaught on Androcles (§§ 57-59). A com-
mendation of the generosity with which Phanostratus and Chaerestratus
spend their wealth on the public services, and a promise of more liberalities,
if the verdict is for Chaerestratus, herald the peroration, which consists of a
business-like recapitulation of the points in the case.
488
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
The name of Chaerestratus, son of Phanostratus, of Cephisia appears in
a dedication assigned by Koehler to 'the middle of the fourth century or a
little later' (C.I.A. II. 1177, 11 Χαιρέστρατος Φανοστράτου Κηφισιεὺς ἐγραμ-
μάτευε). If this inscription is really posterior to the date of the trial, it
proves that Chaerestratus lost his case. Had he been successful, his style
would have been Χαιρέστρατος Φιλοκτήμονος Κηφισιεύς.
HYPOTHESIS.
7 Αντιδώρου, an error. Antidorus was one of the guardians (SS 39, 47).
The name of the eldest of the alleged sons is nowhere stated.
8,9 τὴν ἀδελφὴν αὐτοῦ, another slip of the commentator; no daughter is
mentioned.
10, 11 ή στάσις στοχασμός. See I. hyp. 9 n., II. hyp. 8 n.
1–2 My intimate friendship with Phanostratus and Chaerestratus
constrains me to help them in this important case and to advocate the cause
of justice.
The exordium is typical; see IV. I n.
1. ι ὅτι μέν.
ὅτι μέν. For the position of μὲν compare Xen. Cyr. I. 6. 2 ὦ παῖ,
ὅτι μὲν οἱ θεοὶ ἵλεφ τε καὶ εὐμενεῖς πέμπουσί σε καὶ ἐν ἱεροῖς δῆλον καὶ ἐν οὐρανίοις
σημείοις, γιγνώσκεις δὲ καὶ αὐτός, Dem. 25. 43 οὓς ὁποίους μέν τινας χρὴ νομίζειν,
αὐτοὶ σκοπεῖσθε, ἐγὼ δ᾽ οὐδὲν ἂν εἴποιμι πλὴν ὅτι γ᾽ οὐ σωφρονοῦσι προσνέμοντες
αὑτοὺς τούτῳ (Gebauer, De arg. ex contr. formis p. 125).
4, 5 εἰς Σικελίαν ἐξέπλει τριηραρχῶν Χαιρέστρατος. Chaerestratus, who
according to § 60 was a young man, could not have served in the famous
Sicilian expedition, which took place 52 years before the date of this
speech (§ 14). Lysias (19. 19) mentions the despatch of an embassy to
Dionysius I during the Corinthian war: βουλομένου Κόνωνος πέμπειν τινὰ
εἰς Σικελίαν ᾤχετο ὑποστὰς (Αριστοφάνης) μετὰ Εὐνόμου, Διονυσίου φίλου ὄντος
καὶ ξένου....καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἔπραττον πολλῶν κινδύνων ὑπαρχόντων πρὸς τὴν θάλατταν
καὶ τοὺς πολεμίους. A decree in honour of Dionysius (ὁ Σικελίας ἄρχων) was
passed at Athens in January or February 393 B.C. (C.I.A. II. 8, Michel n. 82,
S.I.G.² 12. 66). If Chaerestratus went to Sicily about this time, he was no
longer a young man at the date of the trial. In 372 B.C. Dionysius I sent
10 ships to assist the Spartans who were besieging Corcyra (Xen. Hell 6. 2.
33 sqq.). The whole squadron was captured by Iphicrates, but our authorities
contain no mention of any retaliatory measures on the part of the Athenians.
In 368/7 B.C. Athens concluded a treaty of alliance with Dionysius I and his
descendants (C.I.A. 11. 52, S.I.G." n. 90). It is probable that the voyage to
Sicily of Apollodorus son of Pasion was connected with these negotiations;
see [Dem.] 53. 5 συμβαίνει δή μοι τριηραρχία περὶ Πελοπόννησον, ἐκεῖθεν δ᾽
εἰς Σικελίαν ἔδει τοὺς πρέσβεις ἄγειν, οὓς ὁ δῆμος ἐχειροτόνησεν. Kirchhoff
(Philologus 12, 1857, p. 578) conjectures that Athenian ambassadors were
sent to Syracuse in the summer of 369 B.C., and in 368 B.C. It is certain that
envoys from Dionysius I were present at Athens in the 10th prytany of the
year of Lysistratus, 369/8 B.C. (C.I.A. 11. 51, Michel n. 90, S.I.G.² n. 89).
So far as the chronology of the speech is concerned, Chaerestratus might
OR. VI.
489
COMMENTARY
perfectly well have been ordered to Sicily between 369 B.C. and 367 B.C. But
it is surprising that the orator should dwell on the dangers of such a com-
mission. What enemies had an Athenian trireme to fear on a voyage to
Syracuse in these years? Were they Carthaginians? Carthage was at war
with Dionysius I in 368 B.C. (Diod. 15. 73). We hear nothing of Thebar
activity at sea until Epaminondas' expedition to the Hellespont in 364/3 B.C.
(Diod. 15. 79). All the critics assume that Isaeus must mean by eis Eikeλiav
égéπλe the campaign of 415 B.C., and consequently pronounce the text
corrupt. Schoemann is prepared to expel the words eis Eikeλíav, his
hypothesis being that they were originally a note in the margin added by a
reader, who was troubled by the vagueness of the orator's statement, and
erroneously imagined that the deficiency could be supplied from § 14 (ap' où
ἐξέπλευσεν (ἡ στρατιὰ) εἰς Σικελίαν). H. Weissenborn (quoted by Scheibe,
Praef. p. xxix) proposes eis eσoaλíav (sic) or eis Makedovíav. An Athenian
squadron under Iphicrates was engaged in Macedonian and Thracian waters
from 368 B.C. to 365 B.C. (Aesch. 2. 26 sqq., Dem. 23. 149 sqq.). Buermann
(Hermes 19, 1884, p. 364) citing 11. 6 (övtes avtoì év ýλikią ènì tò oтpareveσdai
ἐτραπόμεθα) wishes to alter εἰς Σικελίαν into ἐν ἡλικίᾳ ὤν. These are rude
remedies. Reiske, who had before him Mevéσrparos, the reading of M and
the Aldine, conjectured Pavóσтpaтos, an emendation approved by Dobree
(Adv. 1. p. 298), Scheibe (Praef. p. xxix), and Jebb (Attic Orators II. p. 346).
But a difficulty still exists. The natural inference from the words deoµévwv
TOútwv (§ 1. 6, 7) is that Chaerestratus was alive when his father, Phanostratus,
was preparing for a voyage to Sicily. If then the allusion is to the disaster
of 415 B.C., Chaerestratus was now well over 50, and the contradiction with
§ 60 is not removed. On the other hand the language is very misleading, if
the speaker meant by rоúтwv 'Phanostratus and his family,' Chaerestratus
being excluded. Schoemann's objection that Reiske's reading makes the
orator a septuagenarian is rightly set aside by Scheibe (l.c.). Thus all the
corrections are unsatisfactory. My own conclusion is in favour of the text of
the MS. Xenophon and Diodorus do not afford an exhaustive account of the
foreign relations of Athens between 369 B.C. and 365/4 B.C., and with our im-
perfect knowledge it is presumptuous to pronounce that a mission to Sicily
in this period involved no peril (XI. 8. 4 22.).
7,8 eis toùs
7, 8 ἑάλωμεν εἰς τοὺς πολεμίους. Cp. VII. 8 ληφθέντος εἰς τοὺς πολεμίους,
eis
Plat. Rep. 5. 468 Α τὸν δὲ ζῶντα εἰς τοὺς πολεμίους ἁλόντα, S. I. G. n. 112
(Arkesine), 15 τῶν ἁλόντων εἰς τὸς πολεμίους οἷς περιέτυχεν ἐλύσατο.
2. 1 προδήλων. Cp. 111. 19. 3 n.
2
3 νῦν δὲ οὐ πειρώμην. The various types of the bifurcated protasis
dependent on expressions such as δεινόν, θαυμαστόν, ἄτοπον, have been
analysed and copiously illustrated by Gebauer, De arg. ex contr. formis
pp. 154 sqq., 191 sqq. The upshot is that this sentence is abnormal, if not
unique. With the optative in the second member Attic writers regularly use
the negative μή, not οὐ; see Lys. 31. 31 σχέτλιον δ᾽ ἂν εἴη, εἰ οὗτος μὲν ἅπαντας
τοὺς πολίτας περὶ οὐδενὸς ἡγήσατο, ὑμεῖς δὲ τοῦτον ἕνα ὄντα μὴ ἀποδοκιμάσαιτε,
Isocr. II. 41 καὶ γὰρ ἄλογον εἰ τῆς μὲν ἡμετέρας εὐπαιδίας εἰς τοὺς θεοὺς τὴν
yàp
µèv eis
αἰτίαν ἀναφέρομεν, τῆς δὲ σφετέρας αὐτῶν μηδὲν αὐτοὺς φροντίζειν νομίζοιμεν,
14. 52 καὶ γὰρ ἂν πάντων εἴη δεινότατον εἰ πρότερον μὲν ἡμῖν μετέδοτε τῆς
490
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
αν
πατρίδος τῆς ὑμετέρας αὐτῶν, νῦν δὲ μηδὲ τὴν ἡμετέραν ἀποδοῦναι δόξειεν ὑμῖν,
14. 6, 15. 166, Dem. 19. 267, Plat. Hipp. Min. 364 D. Had Isaeus written
πειράσομαι instead of πειρώμην, the appearance of οὐ would have occasioned
no surprise; compare [Lys.] 20. 19 ἢ δεινά γ᾽ ἂν πάθοιμεν, εἰ τοὺς μὲν οὐχ οἵους
τε ὄντας ἐξάρνους εἶναι...τούτους μὲν ἀφεῖτε ἀνδρὶ ἐξαιτουμένῳ, ἡμῖν δὲ οὐ
χαριεῖσθε, Aesch. 3. 242 καὶ γὰρ ἂν ἄτοπόν σοι συμβαίνοι, εἰ πρώην μέν ποθ᾽
ὑπέμεινας πρεσβευτής χειροτονεῖσθαι, νῦν δὲ οὐ φήσεις δύνασθαι λέγειν, And. 1. 102,
Plat. Apol. 34 C, Thuc. I. 121. 5, Xen. Cyr. 7. 5. 84, Hdt. 7. 9. A parallel is
hard to find. The following two sentences cited by Aken, Die Grundsätze
der Lehre von Tempus und Modus im Griechischen § 115, p. 89, are not
really analogous, Aesch. 2. 157 émeînev...ws deivòv ein (eïn om. els C, Blass)
εἰ ὁ μὲν τοὺς Καρίωνας καὶ Ξανθίας ὑποκρινόμενος οὕτως εὐγενὴς καὶ μεγαλόψυχος
γένοιτο, ἐγὼ δὲ ὁ τῆς μεγίστης σύμβουλος πόλεως...οὐ κατάσχοιμι τὴν ὕβριν, ἀλλὰ
παραθερμανθείς, ὅθ' ἡμᾶς εἰστία Ξενόδοκος, ἕλκοιμι τῶν τριχῶν καὶ λαβὼν ῥυτῆρα
μαστιγοίην αἰχμάλωτον γυναῖκα, Plut. Timol. 11 οἱ δ᾽ ἐν τῷ Ῥηγίῳ Καρχηδόνιοι...
χαλεπώς φέροντες ἐν τῷ κατεστρατηγῆσθαι διατριβὴν (pastime, diversion) τοῖς
Ρηγίνοις παρείχον, εἰ Φοίνικες ὄντες οὐκ ἀρέσκοιντο τοῖς δι᾽ ἀπάτης πραττομένοις.
In each case the Optative is due to Oratio Obliqua; in Aeschines οὐ κατάσχοιμι
represents οὐ κατέσχον, and in Plutarch οὐκ ἀρέσκοιντο comes from οὐκ ἀρέ-
σκονται. But the influence of Oratio Obliqua will not explain Plut. Tib.
Gracch. 17 ἀλλὰ Βλόσσιος ὁ Κυμαῖος παρὴν αἰσχύνην ἔφη καὶ κατήφειαν εἶναι
(παρεῖναι cdd.: εἶναι Sintenis, ἂν εἶναι Cobet) πολλήν, εἰ Τιβέριος Γράγχου μὲν
υἱὸς ᾿Αφρικανοῦ δὲ Σκηπίωνος θυγατριδούς...κόρακα δείσας οὐχ ὑπακούσειε τοῖς
πολίταις καλοῦσι. Whether we insert or not av before eivai, there can be no
doubt that the Optative ὑπακούσειε is part of the Oratio Recta. Holden and
Fuhr ad loc. say that the où negatives only the verb, and that the conditional
clause is really positive. This is G. Hermann's explanation of the presence
of où in genuine conditional protases, which has been shown to be incomplete
by Aken op. cit. § 234, p. 164; compare also Gebauer, op. cit. p. 365 sqq.,
XII. 5. 9 12., and note the fact that in Attic où in a true conditional protasis
nearly always goes with an Indicative, eàv où being exceedingly rare (Plat.
Apol. 25 Β ἐάν τε οὐ φῆτε ἐάν τε φῆτε, Lys. 13. 76 ἐὰν μὲν οὖν φάσκῃ…. ἐὰν δ᾽ οὐ
φάσκῃ, with Gebauer's note). With respect to the sentence from Plutarch's
Gracchus most scholars will in all probability uphold Hermann's canon, but
to apply this explanation to the present passage of Isaeus, as Schoemann
does (οὐ πειράσθαι idem est quod κατοκνεῖν), comes near to a reductio ad
absurdum of the whole principle. Gebauer, op. cit. p. 279, places a colon
after ὑπέμενον, and a mark of interrogation after γενήσεται, arguing that, as
the sentence proceeds, the orator changes the construction, and closes with a
direct question. This view rests on an assumption which I do not admit
(III. 54. I n.), that in Attic prose the Optative without av may be used with a
potential meaning. Neither does it mend matters to read οὐκ ἂν πειρῴμην
with Gebauer's stopping, for the Optative with av seems inappropriate to such
an interrogation; the natural form would be οὐκ ἄρα πειράσομαι. On the
other hand, if the usual punctuation is retained, the phrase οὐκ ἂν πειρώμην
is out of place. The parallels produced are Isocr. Εp. 1. 10 ὥστ᾽ οὐδὲν ἄτοπον
εἴ τι τῶν συμφερόντων ἰδεῖν ἂν μᾶλλον δυνηθείην τῶν εἰκῇ μὲν πολιτευομένων
μεγάλην δὲ δόξαν εἰληφότων, and Xen. Cyr. 3. 3. 55 τοὺς δ᾽ ἀπαιδεύτους παντά-
OR. VI.
491
COMMENTARY
او
πασιν ἀρετῆς θαυμάζοιμ᾽ ἂν εἴ τι πλέον ἂν ὠφελήσειε λόγος καλῶς ῥηθεὶς εἰς
ἀνδραγαθίαν ἢ τοὺς ἀπαιδεύτους μουσικῆς ᾆσμα καλῶς ἀσθὲν εἰς μουσικήν; Dem.
20. 62 and Plat. Men. 91 DE are not pertinent, and the text of Lys. 7. 35 is
dubious (Gebauer, op. cit. p. 206). The ordinary structure is seen in Isocr.
5. 41 ὥστ᾽ οὐδὲν ἄτοπον εἰ καὶ ταῦτα μόνος συστῆσαι δυνηθείης, and Xen. Cyr. 3.
3. 37 ὧν γὰρ ἂν ὀψιμαθεῖς ἄνθρωποι γένωνται, οὐδὲν θαυμαστὸν εἴ τινες αὐτῶν καὶ
τοῦ ὑπομιμνήσκοντος δέοιντο, ἀλλ᾽ ἀγαπητὸν εἰ καὶ ἐξ ὑποβολῆς δύναιντο ἄνδρες
ἀγαθοὶ εἶναι. In Isocr. Ep. 1. 10 the presence of av is to be explained by the
principle illustrated in the note on V. 32. 2; the self-complacent pamphleteer
affirms as a fact his own intellectual superiority, but his tone changes in 5. 41,
when he comes to speak of Philip's capacity and the prospect of uniting
Greece. The passage from Xenophon (Cyr. 3. 3. 55) cannot be brought
under this category, and I am tempted to bracket av. It would appear then
that ἄτοπον δὴ εἰ ἐκεῖνα μὲν ὑπέμενον, νῦν δ᾽ οὐκ ἂν πειρῴμην συνειπεῖν is
good Greek, but means 'it is odd that I faced those perils in the past, and
now cannot try to speak for a friend.' Since this sense does not suit the
context, we must reject Gebauer's view that ouк av teiρáμŋv might have been
used by Isaeus as an alternative to οὐ πειρῴμην. In Dem. 20. 24 δεινόν, εἰ ἐν
κοινῷ μὲν μηδ' ὁτιοῦν ὑπάρχει τῇ πόλει, ἰδίᾳ δέ τινες πλουτήσουσιν ἀτελείας ἐπει
λημμένοι there are traces of a legitimate and idiomatic variant οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν
(und F), but the change of an original and simple un pun into the
curious and difficult text of our MS. is on the face of it unlikely.
ου
π
αν
5 συγγνώμην ἔχειν. Quod scilicet diuiti opem fero contra pauperem,
§ 59 sqq. (Dobree, Adv. I. p. 298).
3-9 Philoctemon of Cephisia adopted Chaerestratus as son and heir,
but when Chaerestratus in accordance with the rules of the law submitted a
claim to the estate, Androcles, instead of disputing his rights in a straight-
forward way, blocked the course of justice by deposing that the estate could
not be claimed, with the design of making himself master of the property and
invalidating the will. I have therefore first to show that Philoctemon made
a will, and adopted Chaerestratus. As his wife had no child and he was
constantly risking his life in battle for his country, he resolved to make
provision for the event of death. Now both his brothers were dead and had
left no issue. One of his sisters, married to Chaereas, had no male child.
The other, the wife of Phanostratus, had two sons. He adopted by will the
elder of these, and deposited the testament with his brother-in-law Chaereas.
The document shall be read to you, and you shall hear the testimony of the
witnesses who were present at its execution. Will. Depositions. In the
second place Philoctemon was fully entitled to make a will. The law which
I produce makes this perfectly clear. Law.
This is a disingenuous narrative. Wills being regarded with suspicion
in Athenian courts (IV. 11—20 with notes) Isaeus takes pains to bring out
that circumstances compelled Philoctemon to think of adopting a son in this
way, and that his choice of an heir was guided by family considerations.
But the question, whether Philoctemon had an estate to dispose of, is
screened from sight. The orator asks in indignation (§ 9) whether a patriot,
like Philoctemon, could be considered out of his mind, but he does not
mention the rights of Philoctemon's father in his own property. What
492
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
judge listening to these artful paragraphs could have suspected that Philo-
ctemon had been dead at least 10 years, and that Chaerestratus only applied
to the Archon after the death of Euctemon? Chaerestratus' adversaries not
only contested the genuineness of a will put forward after years of silence,
but maintained also that it could not make Chaerestratus Euctemon's sole
heír, even if it were not a forgery.
3. I
ὁ Κηφισιεύς. The deme Κηφισιά belonged to the inland trittys
of the tribe Erechtheis, and lay 12 miles N.E. of Athens at the foot of
Pentelicus, hard by one of the principal springs of the river Cephisus. The
ancient name has been transmitted to the modern village.
φίλος ἦν Χαιρεστράτῳ. We have not sufficient data to determine the age
of Chaerestratus at the time when the will was said to have been made. If,
as Jebb thinks (Attic Orators II. p. 346), Philoctemon was killed in 389 B.C.
(§§ 5. 5, 6 n., 27. I, 2 n.), he must have been a little child. If on the other
hand Philoctemon's death fell between 378 B.C. and 373 B.C. (§ 27. 5, 6 n.),
he may have been as old as 18 or 19.
2 δοὺς δὲ τὰ ἑαυτοῦ κ.τ.λ. Cp. III. 42. 2, 3 n., 60. 3 n., Χ. 9 κατὰ διαθήκας αἱ
X. ai
εἰσαγωγαὶ τῶν εἰσποιήτων γίγνονται, διδόντων τὰ ἑαυτῶν καὶ ὑεῖς ποιουμένων,
ἄλλως δὲ οὐκ ἔξεστιν.
3, 4 λαχόντος κατὰ τὸν νόμον. A son adopted by will could not enter on
possession until he had satisfied a court that the testament constituting his
title was genuine and valid; see III. 60. 2 n., 61. 2 n. It is not explained
that Chaerestratus and his family were so indifferent to the testator's last
wishes (§ 5. 8) that Philoctemon's house was after all left desolate for
many years.
5 εὐθυδικίᾳ εἰσελθόντι. Cp. § 43. 5, 6 εὐθυδικίᾳ μὲν οὐκ ἐτόλμησαν εἰσελθεῖν
ἀλλὰ διεμαρτύρουν, 52. 10, 59. 2, VII. 3. 2 (τὰς διαμαρτυρίας )( τὰς εὐθυδικίας), Dem.
45. 6 διὰ τὸ παραγραφὴν εἶναι καὶ μὴ εὐθυδικίᾳ εἰσιέναι, [Dem.] 34. 4 (εὐθυδικίαν
εἰσιόντα )( παραγραφόμενον). The definition of εὐθυδικία in Phot., Suid., Et.
Mag. s.v., Bekk. An. Gr. 1. pp. 187, 8, 259, 4 only contemplates one form of the
παραγραφή, and ignores the διαμαρτυρία. Androcles had chosen the proper
and legal course on the assumption that his wards were legitimate sons of
Euctemon. If he had not availed himself of his right, Isaeus would have
taunted him with a guilty conscience; in III. 43, 44 the speaker is made to
argue that Phile the daughter of Pyrrhus was illegitimate, because her uncle
Nicodemus had not put in a διαμαρτυρία against Endius who had been
adopted in Pyrrhus will. Claimants pulled up by a διαμαρτυρία, and com-
pelled to disprove in court a definite allegation before they can proceed
with their own case, vent their annoyance in cavils at the procedure of their
opponents. The strictures of Chaerestratus' advocate appear moderate and
sensible by the side of the tirade of the son of Aristodemus in [Dem.] 44. 59
ἔτι τοίνυν ἐπὶ τὸ τῶν διαμαρτυρούντων μέρος οὔτε δικαστήρια ἦν ἂν οὔτε ἀγῶνες
ἐγίγνοντο· κωλύει γὰρ πάντα ταῦτα τὸ τῶν διαμαρτυριῶν γένος καὶ ἀποκλείει
εἰσαγωγῆς ἕκαστα τῆς εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον, κατά γε τὴν τοῦ διαμαρτυροῦντος
βούλησιν. διόπερ οἶμαι δεῖν κοινοὺς ἐχθροὺς τοὺς τοιούτους ἀνθρώπους ὑπολαμ
βάνειν πᾶσιν εἶναι, καὶ μηδέποτε τυγχάνειν αὐτοὺς συγγνώμης ἀγωνιζομένους παρ᾽
ὑμῖν· προελόμενος γὰρ ἕκαστος αὐτῶν τὸν ἐκ τοῦ διαμαρτυρῆσαι κίνδυνον, οὐκ
ἀναγκασθεὶς εἰσέρχεται.
OR. VI.
493
COMMENTARY
4. 1 διεμαρτύρησεν κ.τ.λ. See II. Introd. p. 232 sqq. The deposition in
full was μὴ ἐπίδικον εἶναι τὸν κλῆρον τὸν Εὐκτήμονος, ὄντων αὐτῷ ὑέων γνησίων
(§§ 10, 12, 17, 26, 28, 43, 57-59, 64). The time has not come to let the cat
out of the bag, by mentioning Euctemon's name.
2, 3 ἀποστερών τοῦτον τῆς ἀμφισβητήσεως. Cf. § 59. 2, 3 οὗτος δ᾽ ἅπαντας
ἀποστερεῖ τῆς ἀμφισβητήσεως. A curious grievance. The διαμαρτυρία enabled
the judges to examine whether the alleged sons of Euctemon were or were
not legitimate. If they were, the pretensions of other claimants instantly
collapsed, a legitimate son being considered at Athens the rightful owner of
the property of his dead father. If they were not, the estate was open to
competition, and a second trial became necessary to decide which competitor
had the best claim according to the rules of the law.
3 καὶ ὑμᾶς τοῦ κυρίους γενέσθαι κ.τ.λ. For the unscrupulous flattery
compare § 51. 7, V. 37. 1, 2 οὐχ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτῷ τὴν πολλὴν οὐσίαν κατέλιπε, ἀλλ᾽
ὑμεῖς ἔδοτε τῇ ψήφῳ, VII. 42, [Dem.] 43. 6 ἐπιχειροῦντες ἀφελέσθαι πάλιν τὴν
γυναῖκα τὸν κλῆρον ὃν ὑμεῖς αὐτῇ ἐψηφίσασθε, ib. 30.
4 καταστήσασθαι. Katabaines (quoted by Thalheim) was the first to
suggest καταστῆσαι.
κληρονόμον τῶν Φιλοκτήμονος. Cp. §§ 5 1. 1 ἐνθυμεῖσθαι χρὴ πότερον δεῖ τὸν
ἐκ ταύτης τῶν Φιλοκτήμονος εἶναι κληρονόμον...ἢ τὸν ἐκ τῆς ἀδελφῆς τοῦτον, ὃν
ὑὸν αὐτὸς ἐποιήσατο, 61. 3 τοῦ γὰρ Φιλοκτήμονος κλήρου ἂν μὲν ἐπιδικάσηται ὅδε
κ.τ.λ. But it is impossible to stick to this description of the property, when
combating the enemy; see §§ 17. 3, 4 γνησίους διεμαρτύρησαν εἶναι καὶ κληρονό-
μους ζητοῦσι καταστῆσαι τῶν Εὐκτήμονος, 26. 5, 6 κληρονόμους τῶν Εὐκτήμονος,
46. 3 τοῦ κλήρου τοῦ Εὐκτήμονος, 55. 4 τοῖς τοῦ Εὐκτήμονος χρήμασι. Νο
arguments are brought forward to rebut the plea that the estate was
Euctemon's (S 56).
7 ἀνεπίδικον. Cp. III. 59, VIII. 34, [Dem.] 46. 22.
ἕξειν αὐτός. The two claimants are made out to be puppets of Androcles.
τῆς ἀδελφῆς τῆς ἐκείνου κ.τ.λ., the sister who married Chaereas, now a
widow; see § 51. On the death of her husband seven or eight years before
the trial (§. 29. 2) her father Euctemon became again her κύριος. If the
claimants were declared by the court legitimate sons of Euctemon, she
would fall under the authority of their guardians, so long as both the
brothers were minors. But if one of them had already attained his majority
(§ 14. 5 κ.), then he, and not Androcles, would be formally her κύριος. See
III. 2. 3 N.
5. I, 2
πολλῶν δὲ καὶ δεινῶν ὄντων ἃ διαμεμαρτύρηκεν. Cf. §§ 62 γέγραπται
ὡς οὐκ ἔδωκεν οὐδὲ διέθετο Φιλοκτήμων, 63 τί ἔτι; τελευτῆσαι ἄπαιδα Φιλοκτήμονα.
For the bearing of this, the second, part of Androcles' deposition see Introd.
p. 486, and v. 16. 7 n.
3 διέθετο.
The omission of the subject is awkward, but no one could
mistake the meaning. Compare V. 3. 8 n.
4 τουτονὶ Χαιρέστρατον. For the position of the pronoun see II. 36. 3 π.
5, 6 πολέμου δ᾽ ὄντος, the Corinthian war according to Jebb (Attic
Orators II. p. 346), the Theban war (IX. 14), 378—371 B.C., in the opinion
of Blass; see § 27. 1, 2 n. for the naval operations and Philoctemon's death.
Athenian cavalry were engaged in Boeotia in 377 B.C. (Diod. 15. 32. 2). As
494
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
it is not asserted that Philoctemon's will was made immediately before the
particular expedition in which he lost his life, Isaeus can evade the criticisms.
which he levels against the genuineness of the will of Astyphilus (IX. 14, 15).
For other instances of wills made before a campaign see II. 14. 3 n. The
exact date of the document might have been a valuable detail. Did the
witnesses reveal whether it was executed before or after the quarrel with
Euctemon related in § 22 sqq.?
7,8 μὴ ἔρημον καταλίποι τὸν οἶκον. Cp. II. 10, 15, 35, ΙΙΙ. 42. 2, 3 n., VII. 30.
6. 1, 2
τὼ μὲν οὖν ἀδελφὴ αὐτῷ, ὥ περ ἐγενέσθην. Thalheim removes the
comma after αὐτῷ and construes αὐτῷ with ἐγενέσθην ; compare his treatment
of II. 47. 2.
4
οὐκ ἦν ἄρρεν παιδίον. She had one daughter (§ 32). The adoption of
a daughter was not unknown; see VII. 9, XI. 8.
6 ὑω δύο. There being two sons Philoctemon could not be accused of
reprehensible selfishness; compare II. 10 τούτῳ μὲν οὖν ἑώρα ἕνα μόνον ὑὸν
ὄντα, ὥστε ἐδόκει αὐτῷ αἰσχρὸν εἶναι ἄπαιδα τοῦτον καθιστάντα ἀρρένων παίδων
αὑτῷ κελεύειν δοῦναι τοῦτον εἰσποιήσασθαι. For the form ὑὼ see II. 2. 3 κ.
6, 7 τουτονὶ Χαιρέστρατον. Cp. § 5. 4 π.
7. 3, 4 παρὰ τῷ κηδεστῇ Χαιρέα. Chaereas died about seven years
before Euctemon (§ 29. 2).
8. I
ὡς μέν. The addition of oὖν is not called for (III. 7. 3 n., V. 3. I n.).
2 ὡς δ᾽ ἐξὸν αὐτῷ ταῦτ᾽ ἔπραξεν. The adversaries said that Philoctemon
had no power to dispose of his father's estate (§ 56 εἰ γάρ, ὡς οὗτοι λέγουσι,
τῷ μὲν Φιλοκτήμονι μὴ ἐξῆν διαθέσθαι, τοῦ δ᾽ Εὐκτήμονός ἐστιν ὁ κλῆρος).
기
​T
2, 3 ὅθεν δικαιότατα ἡγοῦμαι τὰ τοιαῦτ᾽ εἶναι μανθάνειν. The clumsy form
of the platitude has troubled editors and translators. Reiske debates
whether δικαιότατα should be changed to δικαιότατον, and, whether, if re-
tained, it should be considered an adjective or an adverb. If it be an
adjective, he decides that ovтa must be supplied, the construction being öðev
ἡγοῦμαι εἶναι μανθάνειν τὰ τοιαῦτα ὄντα δικαιότατα (unde mea sententia discere
est eiusmodi (coepta et acta) esse aequissima). Schoemann very properly
rejects this view, but it is exceedingly dubious whether he is justified in
suggesting that δικαιότατα, if an adjective, might be regarded as an alter-
native for δικαιότατον. Because δίκαιός εἰμι μανθάνειν is in sense equivalent
to δίκαιόν ἐστιν ἐμὲ μανθάνειν, it by no means follows that δικαιότατά ἐστι ταῦτα
μανθάνειν may be substituted for δικαιότατόν ἐστι ταῦτα μανθάνειν. Schoemann
however concedes that such a use appears foreign to Isaeus' style, and rightly
concludes that δικαιότατα is an adverb; cp. III. 67. 7, 8 ἐκ τῶν νόμων σαφέστατα
μαθεῖν ἔστι τοῦτο. His Latin translation (unde iustissime talia disci posse
arbitror) is clearer and neater than the original.
9. Ι οὑτοσὶ ὁ νόμος. For the terms of the law see II. 13. 2 n.
او
2 τὰ ἑαυτοῦ. This is the phrase on which Chaerestratus' opponents
would fasten, as Isaeus himself does in X. 2 ἐκ τῶν νόμων σκοποῦσιν εἰ τὰ
ἑαυτοῦ δέδωκε τούτῳ ᾿Αρίσταρχος ἢ τὰ μηδὲν προσήκοντα. ἔστι δὲ δίκαιον τοῦτο,
ὦ ἄνδρες· ὁ γὰρ νόμος κελεύει τὰ μὲν ἑαυτοῦ διαθέσθαι ὅτῳ ἂν ἐθέλῃ, τῶν δὲ
ἀλλοτρίων οὐδένα κύριον πεποίηκε.
3, 4 δι' ἄλλο τι τῶν ἐν τῷ νόμῳ. Mark the absence of the clause, γυναικὶ
πιθόμενος, which is so prominent in the attack on the adopted son of
OR. VI.
495
COMMENTARY
Menecles (or. II.). Isaeus did not wish to attract attention to the influence
which might have been exerted by Philoctemon's sister.
7 ἄρχειν ἀξιοῦσθαι. He was probably elected to one of the military posts
e.g. that of phylarch (§ 5. 6, 'A. Пoλ. 61). Had he been a strategus or
hipparch, I think that the honour would have been specified.
8 μαχόμενος. Cp. § 27. 1, 2 τριηραρχῶν περὶ Χίον ἀποθνῄσκει ὑπὸ τῶν
πολεμίων.
8, 9 TOûTOV Eiπeîv ws oúk eû éþpóvel. For the accusative see § 53. 3 1.,
Dem. 19. 114 οὐκ ἔνι τοῦτον εἰπεῖν ὡς οὐκ εἴληφε, Aesch. 2. 139 ἐφ᾽ ἣν τολμᾷς
με λέγειν ὡς οὐ χειροτονηθεὶς ᾠχόμην, 1. 40. Androcles did not assert that
Philoctemon was of unsound mind.
10-16 Having refuted Androcles deposition so far as it concerns
Philoctemon's will, I will proceed to refute the assertion that legitimate
sons of Euctemon are in existence. Euctemon's real children, 3 sons and
2 daughters, and his wife, the daughter of Meixiades of Cephisia, are known
to all his relations, to his parpía, and to most members of his deme. No one
knows that he married a second wife, the mother of these claimants, no one
heard about it in his lifetime. Depositions. Further, the conduct of the
opponents witnesses against them. At the examination before the Archon,
when cross-questioned about the mother of their clients, they had at first
nothing better to answer than that she was from Lemnos. Having obtained
an adjournment they returned with the information that she was Callippe,
daughter of Pistoxenus, that her father was killed in Sicily, that Euctemon
was her guardian. An audacious fabrication! An impossibility! (1) The
Sicilian expedition was 52 years ago, and the eldest claimant is not over 20.
But at the age of 30 Callippe, instead of being a ward, ought to have been
long married. (2) The friends and servants of Euctemon must have known
her, if she had been married to him or had lived so long in his house. We
therefore demanded what friend of Euctemon testified to this, we offered to
surrender slaves to be examined under torture, and called on them to do the
same. But they refused. Answer of the opponents. Depositions. Challenges.
A peculiarity in this argument has excited some controversy. It after-
wards (§§ 39, 40) comes out that Euctemon's wife, the daughter of Meixiades,
survived her husband. But Isaeus makes no use of this circumstance in
attacking the credibility of Androcles' statement at the preliminary examina-
tion. He does not urge that Euctemon could not have married Callippe,
because he had a wife already. Moreover in §§ 22-24 Chaerestratus' friend
asserts that Euctemon betrothed himself to a sister of Democrates of Aphidna
in order to spite Philoctemon. Would a brother betroth his sister to a married
man? A perfectly adequate explanation was offered nearly a century ago
by the Dutch scholar Luzac (Lectiones Atticae, De digamia Socratis, 1809,
p. 55 sqq.) and is rightly accepted by Schoemann (Comm. pp. 315, 334),
Lipsius (Att. Proc.² p. 501 n. 64), and Müller (Untersuchungen zur Geschichte
des attischen Bürger- und Eherechts p. 698 sqq.). The advocate is sup-
pressing a fact that might injure the effect of his pleading. The truth was
that Euctemon had divorced Philoctemon's mother. That he had ceased to
live with her, is afterwards admitted by the orator himself (§ 21). But
Buermann (Jahrbb. f. cl. Philol. Supplementbd 9, 1877/8, p. 571 sqq.) and
496
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
Hruza (Beiträge zur Geschichte des griech. u. röm. Familienrechtes, 1. p. 28
n. 9, 11. pp. 44, 48 sqq.) are not content with this simple solution; they insist
that in §§ 39, 40 Philoctemon's mother is called Euctemon's wife (yuvn), and
apparently attach importance to Isaeus' silence about the divorce. Buermann
removes the difficulty by the figment of 'legitimate concubinage' (or. III.
Introd. p. 277). Hruza refutes Buermann in order to substitute a more
startling novelty. His doctrine is that polygamy was not actually illegal at
Athens, though monogamy was recognised 'in principle,' and was sustained
by the force of public opinion (op. cit. II. p. 31). In other words, bigamy was
very rare, because it was expensive and uncomfortable and considered im-
moral, not because it was forbidden by law. This speech is put forward as
one of the proofs of the paradox. Since Euctemon was already married, the
reasoning in §§ 12—16 indicates that bigamy was lawful. If it had been
illegal, Isaeus would not have simply denied the fact of Euctemon's marriage
with Callippe, but would have triumphantly pointed out that such a union
was null and void. For Hruza's deductions from Euctemon's threat to
marry the sister of Democrates see § 22. 4 n. The other proofs are also
ropes of sand, laboured inferences from bewildering stories told by litigants
(Mantitheus' account in Dem. 39 and [Dem.] 40 of his father's relations with
Plango, and Andocides' denunciations of Callias in And. I. 124 sqq.); see
Müller's examination of these two cases op. cit. pp. 679 sqq., 733 sqq.,
809 sqq.
Another point deserves notice. Since Chaerestratus is prosecuting
Androcles for bearing false witness, one would have expected at the outset
a vigorous attempt to disprove the definite proposition that Callippe was
Euctemon's wife and the mother of the two claimants. Witnesses are called
to depose that they were not aware of a second marriage contracted by
Euctemon, but with regard to Callippe the advocate here and in §§ 64, 65
throws the burden of proof upon his opponents, and complains that they
refused to submit their slaves to the ordeal of torture. It is plain that their
plea was disconcerting, and difficult to meet. Schoemann has called atten-
tion to the oddity of the argument in § 14, which on examination appears to
amount to this: Callippe could not have been Euctemon's wife, because
according to Androcles she was about 30 when she gave birth to the elder
of the two claimants.
10. 3, 4 προσδιαμεμαρτύρηκεν [ὡς] ὑὸν εἶναι γνήσιον Ευκτήμονος τοῦτον.
Schoemann defends the MS. reading against Reiske, and os has found
champions in Kühner, Gr. Gramm. II. § 550, 1, p. 877, and Gebauer, De arg.
ex contr. formis p. 318; see Cobet, N. L. p. 432 sqq. The only question
worth consideration is the origin of the intrusion. Blass (Att. Ber.² 11. p. 501
n. 2) thinks that ós is an erroneous interpretation of a correction, ous, placed
above υἱόν, and conjectures that the true reading is υἱοὺς εἶναι γνησίους Εὐκτή-
μονος τούτους. Undoubtedly the rights of two sons were asserted in the
diaμaρтupía (§§ 12, 17, 26, 43, 44, 58, 59), but the singular recurs in §§ 46, 51.
An easier hypothesis is that is arises from an abbreviation for å ävdpes
(I. 47. I, 2 n.). In Dem. 9. 65 ás stands in Σ pr. L, where other MSS. rightly
give ☎ ävdpes 'Alŋvaîoɩ. In Dem. 18. 40 Marcellinus (Rh. Gr. 4. p. 513, 2 Walz)
has ἀκούετε ὦ ἄνδρες ὡς σαφῶς, where the MSS. of Demosthenes have only
OR. VI.
497
COMMENTARY
ἀκούετε ὡς σαφῶς. The same explanation may be applied to the superfluous
as in Xen. Hell. 6. 5. 42. For the possibility of such mistakes cp. Dem. 8.
50 (where the MSS. have & avôpes 'Alŋvaîoi, but Sopater (Rh. Gr. 4. p. 748, 25
Walz) substitutes oùv be), Rh. Gr. (Hammer) I. pp. 218, 9 ☎ A, a dè B, 220, 3
б
ὦ δῆμε Α, ω Β.
Μειξιάδου Κηφισιάς.
8
9 Meiέiádov Knpiows. Dobree (Adv. I. p. 278) quotes a vase for the
form Meiέiáons, but it is not easy to discover from his laconic note whether
he anticipated Herwerden's proposal (Mnem. N.S. 9, 1881, p. 389) to insert
this spelling in the text. Kirchner's Prosopographia Attica shows Meiέiádns,
Μειξίας, Μειξιγένης, Μειξίδημος, Μειξικλῆς, Μείξιππος, Μειξωνίδης; Μιξιάδης,
Migías etc. are not found. But Dobree is wrong in wishing to insert the
article before the demoticum here and in VI. 28, VIII. 8, IX. 5, X. 4; add
II. 9. The official style (Meiέiádns Knpiσievs) is often used by the orators;
see Lys. 30. 10, 31. 16, Isocr. 18. 10, Dem. 21. 103, 57. 37, 38, [Dem.] 33. 14, 22,
43. 7, 44. 9, 10, 17, 48. 11, 50. 47, Aesch. 1. 43, 53, 65 (artic. add. Franke),
100 (artic. om. Blass), 104, 2. 67 (artic. add. Fr.), 68, 155 (káλei μoi 'Apio-
Toþávnv 'OXúvOlov, artic. add. Fr.), 3. 115 (artic. add. Bait.), Lyc. 22, 23, 24,
τοφάνην Ολύνθιον,
Hyp. 5. 9. Compare the wills of Lyco, Diog. Laert. 5. 74 µáprupes Kaλλîvos
Ερμιονεύς, Αρίστων Κεῖος, Εὐφρόνιος Παιανιεύς, and of Epicurus, ib. 10. 16 κατὰ
τάδε δίδωμι τὰ ἐμαυτοῦ πάντα ᾿Αμυνομάχῳ Φιλοκράτους Βατῆθεν καὶ Τιμοκράτει
Δημητρίου Ποταμίῳ.
ΙΟ τῶν δημοτῶν οἱ πολλοί. The deme was not coextensive with the
Oparpía, and its members did not necessarily live in the same place. Hence
it was not to be expected that all members of Knpirià should know
Euctemon's wife and children. It is also possible that the other side had
witnesses to testify that the elder claimant had been put on the register of
the deme as Euctemon's son (§ 14. 5 22.).
11. 3 ζώντος Ευκτήμονος. But Euctemon had introduced the elder of
the two claimants into his parpía during Philoctemon's lifetime (§§ 21-24).
What account did he then give of the candidate's parentage? It is certain
that he did not say that the boy was the child of a freedwoman; see
§§ 17-26 analysis.
4 τούτους εἰκὸς πιστοτάτους είναι νομίζειν μάρτυρας. For the artificial order
of the words cp. IV. 24. 8, 9, VIII. 3. I, 2.
6 τὰς μαρτυρίας ἀνάγνωθι. The situation cannot be properly understood
without these documents. They probably resembled the depositions pre-
served in [Dem.] 43. 35 sqq., 42 sqq., the first of which is testimony of
certain members of the deme to the effect that 'they had never heard from
any one that Polemon had a brother'; most of the rest only contain hearsay
evidence. Isaeus in IX. 9 calls witnesses to testify that they were not aware
that Astyphilus had made a will, but he foresees (§ 9) that he will be met by
the objection that this is not evidence. Demosthenes exposes the trick in
29. 40 τεκμήριον δὲ καὶ πίστις ἐστίν, οὐκ εἴ τίς τι μὴ οἶδε τοῦτον ἔχοντα (πολλοὶ
γὰρ ἂν εἶεν), ἀλλ᾽ εἴ τις οἶδεν, but none the less uses it in 45. 55 Δεινίας
Θεομνήστου ᾿Αθμονεὺς μαρτυρεῖ...μηδεπώποτε παραγενέσθαι μηδὲ αἰσθέσθαι,
ὅτι ᾿Απολλόδωρος ἀφῆκε τῶν ἐγκλημάτων ἁπάντων Φορμίωνα.
W. I.
32
1
498
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
12. 1, 2 ἔργῳ...μεμαρτυρηκότας. Cp. II. 38. 4, III. 55. 4, VII. 18. 3 (ἔργοις).
2 αἱ ἀνακρίσεις. Cp. x. 2. 3, [Dem.] 48. 23 ἐπειδὴ ἀνεκρίθησαν πρὸς τῷ
ἄρχοντι ἅπασαι αἱ ἀμφισβητήσεις, Harp. s.v. ἀνάκρισις, Att. Proc. pp. 43 sqq.,
823 sqq.
2, 3 πρὸς τῷ ἄρχοντι. This use of the preposition seems confined within
the judicial sphere; we find πρὸς τῷ ἄρχοντι ([Dem.] 44. 1 ψευδή διαμαρτυρίαν
πρὸς τῷ ἄρχοντι ποιησάμενος, 10. 42, 52), πρὸς τῷ πολεμάρχω ([Dem.] 59. 49),
πρὸς τοῖς θεσμοθέταις (Dem. 20. 98), πρὸς τῷ διαιτητῇ (Dem. 22. 28, 27. 49, and
passim), πρὸς τοῖς κριταῖς (Dem. 21. 18), πρὸς τοῖς δημόταις (Dem. 39. 21). But,
as might be anticipated, "apà with the dative competes; see C. I. A. II. 11, 10
(Michel n. 6, S. I. G. n. 72) τὰς δ]ίκας γίγνεσθαι πα[ρὰ τῷ πο]λεμάρχῳ, Lys. 23. 3
πυθόμενος ὅτι καὶ ἑτέρας δίκας τὰς μὲν φεύγοι, τὰς δ᾽ ὠφλήκοι παρὰ τῷ πολεμάρχῳ,
Dem. 29. 58, 36. 18 παρὰ τῷ διαιτητῇ.
3 παρακατέβαλον. See IV. 4. 8η. It would seem that alleged sons
using the privilege of the diapapтupia were treated like other claimants, so
far as the payment of a deposit was concerned. The obligation is not
mentioned in the other passages referring to a διαμαρτυρία (ΙΙΙ. 4-6, V. 16,
VII. 3, [Dem.] 44 passim); for the action of Leostratus in [Dem.] 44, when
he paid a deposit (παρακαταβάλλει ὡς υἱὸς ᾿Αρχιάδου ἐκείνου § 34) is dis-
tinguished from the subsequent διαμαρτυρία of Leochares (§ 42).
4 εἴη probably represents an Imperfect Indicative (§§ 12. 8 ἥτις ἦν, 13. 5,
IX. 4. 7, IV. 3. 2 n.).
7 κατὰ τὸν νόμον. Cp. [Dem.] 46. 1Ο ΝΟΜΟΣ. Τοῖν ἀντιδίκοιν ἐπάναγκες
εἶναι ἀποκρίνασθαι ἀλλήλοις τὸ ἐρωτώμενον, μαρτυρεῖν δὲ μή, ΧΙ. 4. 47.
13. 2 Λημνίαν σκηψάμενοι κ.τ.λ. ‘They pretended that she was a
Lemnian (i. e. a daughter of an Athenian κληρούχος settled in Lennos) and
made this a ground for a postponement.' Androcles and his supporters
asked the Archon to adjourn the examination (αναβαλέσθαι τὴν ἀνάκρισιν)
in order that information might be procured from Lemnos, and the magis-
trate granted the petition. For the use of ἀναβολή (means of postponement)
see [Dem.] 48. 23 ἐσκοποῦμεν κοινῇ εἴ πως ἀναβολή τις γένοιτο, ib. 24 καὶ
συνεβεβήκει, ὡς ᾠόμεθα ἡμεῖς, αὕτη καλλίστη αναβολή, δημοσίᾳ τούτου ἀποδη
μοῦντος στρατευομένου; Isaeus' phrase ταύτην ἀναβολὴν ἐποιήσαντο is the
correlative of αὕτη ἀναβολὴ ἐγένετο. Thalheim puts a comma after ταύτην.
Naber (Mnem. N.S. 5, 1877, p. 409) insists on the need of an infinitive
after σκηψάμενοι, and writes Λημνίαν σκηψάμενοι αὐτὴν εἶναι ἀναβολὴν ἐποιή
That elva is wanted I agree, but I should prefer to insert it after
σκηψάμενοι οι Λημνίαν, and ταύτην must on no account be meddled with.
Naber ought to go a step farther and read αναβολὰς ἐποιήσαντο, ‘they
temporised ([Dem.] 48. 20 ἀεί τι προφασίζετο καὶ ἀναβολὰς ἐποιεῖτο), for
ἀναβολὴν ἐποιήσαντο is equivalent to ἀνεβάλοντο (Thuc. 2. 42. 4, Plat. Symp.
201 D), whereas the adjournment, τὸ ἀναβαλέσθαι, is properly the act of the
presiding magistrate, not of one of the contending parties ([Dem.] 42. 13
καὶ δίκας καὶ κρίσεις ἀναβάλλονται τοῖς ἀντιδίκοις οἱ ἄρχοντες συγχωρησάντων
ἐκείνων ἀλλήλοις). With regard to the legal status of Athenian κληροῦχοι
see Gilbert, Griech. Staatsalt.² 1. p. 506 sqq., E.T. p. 449 sqq.; although
designated by the name of the place where they were settled (C. I. A. 1. 443
Λημνίων ἐγ Μυρίν(ης)), they were citizens of Athens, and continued to be
σαντο.
OR. VI.
499
COMMENTARY
members of the tribe and deme to which they belonged before emigrating.
We see from the plot of the Phormio of Terence, which was adapted from
the Επιδικαζόμενος of Apollodorus, that the child of a Lemnian wife might
be accepted as an Athenian citizen. Chremes, the husband of the shrew
Nausistrata, having secretly taken another wife at Lemnos under the false
name of Stilpo, Phanium, the issue of this union, is treated as legitimate
and ultimately married to Antipho, Chremes' nephew. But Androcles' plea
was one associated with ideas of chicanery and subterfuge. Athenian
litigiousness did not fail to seize the opportunities of fraud presented by
the existence of a body of citizens practically unknown in Attica; see
Poll. 8. 81 Σκυρίαν δὲ δίκην ὀνομάζουσιν οἱ κωμῳδοδιδάσκαλοι τὴν τραχείαν, ἣν
οἱ φυγοδικοῦντες ἐσκήπτοντο εἰς Σκῦρον η εἰς Λῆμνον ἀποδημεῖν, Suid. s.v.
Σκυρίαν δίκην, Phot. s.v. Ιμβριοι· οἱ τὰς δίκας ὑποφεύγοντες· ἐπειδὴ ἐσκήπτοντο
ἐν Ιμβρῳ εἶναι, Hesych. s.v. Ιμβριος καὶ Λήμνιος· οἱ τὰς διαίτας (δίκας) ὑπο-
φεύγοντες ἐσκήπτοντο ἐν Λήμνῳ ἢ ἐν Ἴμβρῳ εἶναι. It is, however, a mistake to
conclude from these passages that by Λημνίαν σκηψάμενοι the speaker meant
Λημνίαν σκῆψιν σκηψάμενοι (so Palmerius, Exercitationes p. 671, quoted by
Reiske, Dobree, Adv. I. p. 298).
9 ἐξ ἐπιτροπευομένης δὲ τούτω γενέσθαι. There is some misrepresentation
or shuffling here. It appears incredible that Androcles asserted that Callippe
was a minor (III. 31. 2 n.) when the two boys were born. Even if the man
was a swindler, he could have subtracted 2o from 52 (§ 14). Schoemann
suggests that the word επιτροπευομένης must not be interpreted strictly ;
even after coming of age Callippe might have continued to be called
Euctemon's ward, if the only effect of her majority was to convert her
guardian (ἐπίτροπος) into her κύριος. This apology cuts at the root of the
argument in S 14 οὔτ᾽ ἐπιτροπεύεσθαι προσῆκε τὴν Καλλίππην ἔτι, τριακον-
τοῦτίν γε οὖσαν ; it was in no way abnormal for a woman of 3o to be under
2 κύριος. With regard to the usus uerborum an ἐπίτροπος may be called
kúpios (1. 10. 6, 7 n., V. 10. 1, 2 n.), but no passage has been produced, in which
the κύριος of a woman who is of age is called her ἐπίτροπος; Plat. Laws
774 E proves nothing. Note that the orator's treatment reveals that the
law adduced by Syrianus, Rh. Gr. IV. p. 328, 6 Walz (νόμος τὴν ἐπιτροπευο-
μένην γυναῖκα μήτε τὸν ἐπίτροπον μήτε τὸν παῖδα αὐτοῦ γαμεῖν) and by Cyrus
(De Cyri uita et aetate nihil constat, Walz), περὶ διαφορᾶς στάσεως, ib. VIII.
p. 387, II (νόμος τὴν ὀρφανὴν μήτε τὸν ἐπίτροπον γαμεῖν μήτε τὸν τοῦ ἐπιτρόπου
παιδα) was certainly not Athenian. If the alleged marriage of Callippe and
Euctemon had been illegal, Isaeus would hardly have passed over the
point without comment (Att. Proc.² p. 503 n. 69, Schulthess, Vormundschaft
nach attischem Recht p. 82 sqq.).
ΙΟ οὐδ᾽ <ἂν> γενόμενον. The fatness of οὐδὲ γενόμενον, which Thalheim
retains, seems to me intolerable in spite of [Dem.] 11. 1 αἰτίας οὐκ οὔσας
πλασάμενος. In Herwerden's correction γενόμενον represents an indicative,
not an optative (ὃ οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἐγένετο, quod ne feri quidem poterat). Dobree
(Adv. I. p. 299) translates his emendation, οὐδ᾽ ἐγγιγνόμενον, by a down-
right impossibility,' for which we may compare S.I. G.² n. 569 (Paros), 9
ἐάν τινα ἴδηι κόπτοντα πὰρ τὰ ἐκγινόμενα; see V. 19. I, 2, a passage to which
Sauppe (Ausgew. Schr. p. 130) refers in support of his conjecture οὐδ᾽
32-2
500
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
ἐγγενόμενον. Buermann's idea, οὐδε<πώποτε> γενόμενον, may be defended
by [Dem.] 43. 9 περὶ ἡμῶν λέγειν τὰ οὐδεπώποτε γενόμενα.
>
14. 2 áþ' où étéπλevoev. A participle is more common; see Thuc.
3. 29. 1 ἡμέραι δὲ μάλιστα ἦσαν τῇ Μυτιλήνῃ ἑαλωκυίᾳ ἑπτὰ ὅτε ἐς τὸ Ἔμβατον
κατέπλευσαν, Eur. Ion 353 χρόνος δὲ τίς τῷ παιδὶ διαπεπραγμένῳ; and
compare Thuc. I. 13. 4 ἔτη δὲ μάλιστα καὶ ταύτῃ τῇ ναυμαχία) ἑξήκοντα καὶ
διακόσιά ἐστι μέχρι τοῦ αὐτοῦ χρόνου, Hdt. 2. 145 Ηρακλέϊ μὲν δὴ ὅσα αὐτοὶ
Αἰγύπτιοί φασι εἶναι ἔτεα ἐς ῎Αμασιν βασιλέα, δεδήλωται (Gerth-Kühner, Gr.
Gramm. 1. § 423 f., p. 425).
3 ἀπὸ ᾿Αριμνήστου ἄρχοντος. The year of Arimnestus was 416/5 B.C.,
Ol. 91. I.
The expedition started about midsummer 415 B.C. (Thuc. 6. 30. I
Оéρovs μeσovvтos on). If the year of Arimnestus be counted in, we get
Ol. 103. 4, 365/4 B.C. for the date of the speech, with the modern way of
reckoning Ol. 104. 1, 364/3 B. C.
5 оÚπш VπÈρ Elkoσiv erη. See Introd. p. 485. This was the boy whose
οὔπω ὑπὲρ εἴκοσιν ἔτη.
admission into Euctemon's parpia was opposed by Philoctemon (§§ 22—24).
Jebb (Attic Orators II. p. 346) assigns Philoctemon's death to 389 B. C.
(§ 27. 1, 2 n.), and concludes that in 363 B.C. the elder of the two claimants
was in fact about 27. The advocate has a motive to make out the claimant
to be younger than he really was, since the misrepresentation strengthens
his reasoning, but a falsehood so gross was exposed to a crushing rejoinder.
At the age of 18 a young Athenian was admitted into his father's deme
('AO. Ioλ. 42), and placed on the military roll, which furnished incontestable
evidence of his age ('A. IIoλ. 43. 4). If the claimant was 27, and had not
been presented to the deme by Euctemon, it is remarkable that so strong
a presumption of illegitimacy was overlooked or omitted by Isaeus. If on
the other hand the deme had put him on the register, he could prove his
age to the court, and point out that for 9 years he had been accepted as
Euctemon's son. No doubt the difficulty with regard to the deme remains,
if the claimant was only 19, but the obstacle is less formidable; as Euctemon
was bedridden (§ 35), something could be said on both sides, whether the
youth had been presented or not. Remember that, if Euctemon's deme had
admitted the claimant to membership, a disclosure of this fact would have
been most damaging to Chaerestratus. The judgment of the deme would
have put a sharp weapon into the hands of Androcles. He could ask
Chaerestratus (1) whether as member of the deme (Introd. p. 488) he had
protested against the enrolment of the claimant, (2) why, if his objection
had been disregarded, had he not instituted a prosecution for usurpation
of civic rights (ypapn έevias, III. 37. 5 n.), if he was so sure that the son of
a freedman and freedwoman was masquerading as an Athenian citizen?
See also § 22. 3 n.
6 ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν Σικελίᾳ. The words belong in construction to ὑπολείπεται
...TρiákoνTA ÉTη. All the translators from Reiske to Caccialanza connect them
with apeλóvrɩ, the consequence being that by an impossible brachylogy
Tà év Eikeλía is made to mean 'the years that have elapsed since the Sicilian
expedition.'
7 ἐπιτροπεύεσθαι. Cp. § 13. 9 n.
κ.τ.λ.
8, 9 ȧvékdotov kai άwaida K.T.λ. If at the age of 30 Callippe was still
ἀνέκδοτον
OR. VI.
501
COMMENTARY
unmarried, the circumstance certainly needed an explanation. Girls were
married young at Athens (III. 31. 2 n.). But did the adversaries admit that
she was as old as this, when the marriage took place? The speaker deduces
the date from the birth of the eldest claimant, which is not a sound basis
of calculation. Dobree's proposal to bracket καὶ ἄπαιδα, which Scholefeld
ignored, sprang from a perception of the paralogism.
9, 10 ἐγγυηθεῖσαν κατὰ <τὸν > νόμον. See for the law III. 2. 3 n., for the
significance of ἐγγύησις ΙΙΙ. 4. 6 π.
αν
1ο ἢ ἐπιδικασθεῖσαν, probably passive to ἐπιδικάζειν (111. 41. 2 .) as
in § 51. 8, not to ἐπιδικάζεσθαι. For the obscurities surrounding claims to
the hand of an heiress who had not reached a marriageable age see III.
40-44 analysis. The natural interpretation of the opposition here between
ἐγγυηθεῖσαν and ἐπιδικασθεῖσαν is that in the case of heiresses᾽ ἐπιδικασία
took the place of ἐγγύησις, the conditions of a betrothal being absent.
The ἐγγύησις was a private contract in which the woman's κύριος promised
to give her in marriage to the suitor. In an ἐπιδικασία a court determined
on consideration of the law of succession that a particular relative was κύριος
of the ἐπίκληρος, and had a right to take her as wife together with the
estate. Busolt, Die griech. Staats- und Rechtsaltert.2 p. 201 n. 5, teaches
that the heiress was 'betrothed' to the successful claimant by the Archon.
No ancient authority mentions the betrothing of heiresses as one of the
duties of the Archon, and no modern scholar has elucidated the utility and
significance of this formality. The ceremony has been invented to explain
passages such as VIII. 19 εἰς τοὺς φράτερας ἡμᾶς εἰσήγαγεν, ὀμόσας κατὰ τοὺς
νόμους τοὺς κειμένους ἢ μὴν ἐξ ἀστῆς καὶ ἐγγυητῆς γυναικὸς εἰσάγειν, Dem.
57. 54 ὀμόσας τὸν νόμιμον τοῖς φράτερσιν ὅρκον εἰσήγαγέ με, ἀστὸν ἐξ ἀστῆς
ἐγγυητῆς αὐτῷ γεγενημένον εἰδώς, [Dem.] 59. 92 ὅσους γὰρ ἂν ποιήσηται ὁ δῆμος
ὁ ᾿Αθηναίων πολίτας, ὁ νόμος ἀπαγορεύει διαρρήδην μὴ ἐξεῖναι αὐτοῖς τῶν ἐννέα
ἀρχόντων γενέσθαι, μηδὲ ἱερωσύνης μηδεμιᾶς μετασχεῖν· τοῖς δ᾽ ἐκ τούτων
μετέδωκεν ἤδη ὁ δῆμος ἁπάντων, καὶ προσέθηκεν, ἐὰν ὦσιν ἐκ γυναικὸς ἀστῆς
καὶ ἐγγυητῆς κατὰ τὸν νόμον, ib. 106. From these formulae it has been
inferred that every legitimate wife without any exception was ἐγγυητή. But
in Isae. VIII. and Dem. 57 the appearance of ἐγγυητή in the oath is ade-
quately explained by the special circumstances, since the speakers in each
case bring witnesses to prove an ordinary ἐγγύησις, and with regard to
[Dem.] 59 it is obvious that a naturalised citizen could not get an Athenian
wife by way of ἐπιδικασία. Further, the word ἐγγυητή is not used in the
oath prescribed by the pparpía of the Demotionidae, C. I. A. IV. 2. 841 b 52
(S.I. G. n. 439, Michel n. 961 Β): ὅρκος μαρτύρων ἐπὶ τῆι εἰσαγωγεῖ τῶν
παίδων· μαρτυρῶ ὃν εἰσάγει ἑαυτῶι ὑὸν ἶναι τότον γνήσιον ἐγ γαμετῆς. Cp.
also ᾿Αθ. Πολ. 4. 2 στρατηγοὺς δὲ καὶ ἱππάρχους οὐσίαν ἀποφαίνοντας οὐκ
ἔλαττον ἢ ἑκατὸν μνῶν ἐλευθέραν καὶ παῖδας ἐκ γαμετῆς γυναικὸς γνησίους ὑπὲρ
δέκα ἔτη γεγονότας, or XII. 9 ἢ μὴν ὑὸν εἶναι αὐτοῦ ἐξ ἀστῆς καὶ γαμετῆς
γυναικός. Thus there is no evidence that the heiress adjudged to a claimant
(ἡ ἐπιδεδικασμένη) was also betrothed (ἐγγυητή). See Thalheim, Zu den
griechischen Rechtsalterthiimern, 1894, pp. 1 sqq., 18, Müller, Untersuchungen
zur Geschichte des attischen Bürger- und Eherechts p. 747 sqq.
2
I
15.5 [ὀνόματα.] It is plain that ὀνόματα cannot be joined with γεγονότα
502
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
φαίνεσθαι. Schoemann persuaded himself that τὰ τοιαῦτα had no connexion
with ὀνόματα, and that the clause οὐκ εἰς τὴν ἀνάκρισιν μόνον δεῖ πορίζεσθαι
óvóμaтa was a parenthesis interrupting and suspending the original design of
the sentence, according to which τὰ τοιαῦτα referred to γεγονότα φαίνεσθαι.
Buermann (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 354) suggests that the word has been
imported from § 13. 5, 6 el ővoμa μóvov Tоρíσavто, and compares the
indubitable example of a like interpolation which is found in V. 24. I
ἀποστὰς δὲ Δικαιογένης [ταῦτα τὰ μέρη] ὧν καὶ νῦν ὁμολογεῖ ἀφεστάναι.
π
16. 2, 3 ή συνοικήσασαν ἐκείνῳ τινὰ [ἢ τὴν] Καλλίππην <ἢ> ἐπιτροπευο-
μévηv. The restorations of this corrupt passage are examined by Buermann
(Hermes 19, 1884, pp. 355/6). The defect in Dobree's remedy (Adv. 1. p. 299),
the excision of rηv Kaλλíππηу as a gloss, is that with this reading the
speaker seems to deal too easily with his opponents. Instead of pinning
them down to their assertion that Euctemon married a ward named Callippe,
he is content to demand evidence that any woman was either wife or ward
of Euctemon. Reiske proposed ἢ συνοικήσασαν ἐκείνῳ τινα [ἢ τὴν] Καλλίππην
<ἢ> ἐπιτροπευομένην, conjecturing that ἢ τὴν was originally written above
Tiva to indicate the existence in some MS. of the variant rýv; for the use of
to indicate a various reading or a gloss cp. Lys. 16. 2, Dem. 54. 21, 33
(Tí yàp ầv ǹ) dià rí), Dobree, Adv. I. pp. 80, 415. Buermann accepts in
substance Reiske's account of the intrusion of Tv, but objects to the
alternative, which he considers too liberal a concession on the part of the
assailant; instead of adding before Tтрожеνoµévην he ejects before
ovvoikýoaoav. Thalheim agrees with Buermann. I prefer Reiske's treatment.
LT
رد
οντο
4 τῶν ὄντων...θεραπόντων. Reiske paraphrases by τῶν ἔτι περιόντων,
remarking that in a period of 52 years many of Euctemon's servants must
have died. Schoemann compares oi övtes Oepáñovтes (a cacophonous com-
bination) with oi övтes äv◊ρwжоɩ in Dem. 5. 5, 8. 58, and translates ‘de
omnibus nostris quotquot sunt seruis quaestionem habendam aduersariis
obtulimus.' Thus like Kayser, who conjectures тŵν <πар' nµîv > övτwv
θεραπόντων, Rauchenstein, and Thalheim, who reads τῶν ὄντων <ἡμῖν >
Оeраπóνтшv, he supposes the slaves of Chaerestratus' family to be meant.
If this was really the offer, Androcles had some excuse for declining the
challenge. The servants of Euctemon (§ 15. 3) were the proper persons
to examine. But it
But it is not clear in whose possession and control these slaves
were, pending the suit which was to assign them to a new master.
To
Herwerden's supplement, τῶν ὄντων <ἐκείνῳ> θεραπόντων (Mnem. N.S. 9,
1881, p. 389), Buermann (op..cit. p. 331) opposes the argument that Tv Tар'
avtoîs oiketŵv in § 16. 5 also refers to slaves of Euctemon, i.e. to those who
were attending in the house where he died (§ 39), and who were de facto in
the power of Androcles and his associates, and that the other group must be
the slaves whom Euctemon left behind when he deserted his family house
(§ 21), τῶν ὄντων <ἔτι ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ> θεραπόντων. He does not explain how
tŷ
these slaves came to be at the disposal of Chaerestratus. In the absence
of the text of the challenges read to the judges at the close of this section
I despair of eliciting the truth.
π
5 þáσkoli: þáσket A. Reiske's suggestion should be accepted; see Blass-
Kühner, Gr. Gramm. II. p. 558, Veitch, Greek Verbs s.v. The MS. reading
OR. VI.
503
COMMENTARY
is the only example in Attic literature of the Present Indicative of this verb.
In a fragment of the comedian Alexis, ἔπειτ᾽ ἔχειν προῖκ᾽ οὐχὶ τιμὴν πάσχομεν
(Athen. 13. 558 F, Kock, Com. Att. Fr. II. p. 350), þáσкoμev is an old but
futile emendation. Radermacher (Dion. Hal. Opusc. I. p. 44, ed. Usener et
Radermacher) foists páσke into Lys. 32. 25 in defiance of the MSS. (páσкw v
FMPB, épaσкev G, edd. post Ald. omnes). Bekker in [Ar.] Rhet. ad Alex.
9. 1429a 31 read ei tis púokei, but Spengel, Anaxim. Ars Rhet. c. 8. p. 30, 25
(Rh. Gr. 1. p. 40, 9 Hammer) restored páσko from EG.
"
For
7, 8 τὰς ἡμετέρας μαρτυρίας καὶ προκλήσεις. The depositions are those of
the witnesses present when the challenges were made and declined.
the form see Dem. 45. 61 MAΡΤΥΡΙΑ. ΠΡΟΚΛΗΣΙΣ. Μαρτυροῦσι παρεῖναι, ὅτε
᾿Απολλόδωρος προὐκαλεῖτο Στέφανον παραδοῦναι τὸν παῖδα τὸν ἀκόλουθον εἰς
βάσανον περὶ τῆς ὑφαιρέσεως τοῦ γραμματείου, καὶ γράμματα ἦν ἕτοιμος γράφειν
᾿Απολλόδωρος, καθ᾽ ὅ τι ἔσται ὁ βάσανος. ταῦτα δὲ προκαλουμένου Απολλοδώρου,
οὐκ ἐθελῆσαι παραδοῦναι Στέφανον, ἀλλ᾽ ἀποκρίνασθαι ᾿Απολλοδώρῳ δικάζεσθαι,
εἰ βούλοιτο, εἴ τί φησιν ἀδικεῖσθαι ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, [Dem.] 46. 21. These two
examples show that the substance of the challenge might be embodied
in the deposition. In [Dem.] 59. 123, 124 Apollodorus submits two distinct
documents, first the deposition of the witnesses ending with Tǹv dè πρókλnow
εἶναι ἣν παρέχεται ᾿Απολλόδωρος, then the terms of the challenge beginning
with τάδε προκαλεῖτο ᾿Απολλόδωρος.
17-26 I will now expose the origin of these alleged legitimate sons
of Euctemon. The subject is painful to my clients, but the truth must be told
in the interests of justice. A great calamity befell Euctemon in his old age.
A freedwoman of bad reputation, named Alce, gained such an influence over
him that he deserted home and family and went to live with her. The
claimants are this woman's sons-as she said, by a freedman called Dion.
Euctemon's infatuation went so far that at last he was persuaded to introduce
the elder boy into his parpía, as his son. Philoctemon opposed, and defeated,
the enrolment. To spite his son. Euctemon betrothed himself to the sister of
Democrates of Aphidna, and threatened to bring fresh children into the family.
Then the relations foreseeing worse dissensions (for Euctemon was too old to
have children of his own) urged Philoctemon to allow the introduction of the
child on condition that only one farm was given him. So Philoctemon agreed
to waive his protest, the boy was admitted into the parpía, and Euctemon
broke off his engagement with the sister of Democrates. Now, if these
claimants had been legitimate sons of Euctemon, why should he have resorted
to the menace of a second marriage? Who could have stopped the enrolment
of legitimate sons? Why did Euctemon introduce the elder boy under specified
conditions? Why did he not so much as mention the younger child during
Philoctemon's lifetime? Depositions.
Phanostratus and Chaerestratus may well have felt some reluctance to
relate in a court of law this scandalous story. Their advocate does his best
to spare the memory of the dead; Euctemon's sins were the infirmities of
old age, and Philoctemon yielded to the pressure of relations solicitous to
preserve peace and quiet in the family. But the veil of euphemistic verbiage
does not conceal the ugly features of the accusation. In plain English
father and son were alike guilty, if the tale is true, of the gravest offence
504
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
against the constitution of Athenian society. Euctemon smuggled into the
cherished privileges of citizenship the offspring of a freedman and a prostitute
of servile birth. Philoctemon, the patriot of § 9, connived at the crime,
when menaced with curtailment of his inheritance. But in the narrative
there is a notable omission. At the introduction into the pparpía Euctemon
must have offered the usual oath (VII. 16, VIII. 19, XII. 7, 9), that the boy was
his child by a lawful wife, ἐξ ἀστῆς καὶ γαμετῆς γυναικός, and since the enrolment
was at first opposed (§ 22), it is probable that there was debate, and that
questions were put and answered. In the parpía of the Demotionidae a
written notice stating the name of the mother and of her father with his deme
had to be given to the parpíapxos before the presentation (III. 73. 6, 7 n.).
What was Euctemon's statement, which in the end, be it noted, was accepted
by the members of the parpía? What account did he give of the mother of
the candidate? The speaker vouchsafes not a word of information. Now
this silence is intelligible and prudent, if Euctemon, like Androcles, put
forward Callippe. If however some other woman was said to be the
mother, it is extraordinary that Isaeus should not have pounced on so
significant a discrepancy. The story has been quoted by an imposing
array of writers (Gans, Erbrecht 1. p. 319, Schoemann in his Commentary
p. 336, van den Es, De iure fam. apud Athen. p. 77, Att. Proc.² p. 532,
Zimmermann, De nothorum Athenis condicione, 1886, p. 9, Busolt, Die griech.
Staats- und Rechtsaltert.2 p. 202, Thalheim-Hermann, Rechtsaltert.ª p. 8,
Lipsius-Schoemann, Gr. Altert. I. p. 377) as furnishing evidence that a
bastard could be legitimated by introduction into his father's parpía.
I agree with those scholars (Platner, Beiträge zur Kenntniss d. att. Rechtes
p. 121, Philippi, Beiträge zu einer Gesch. d. att. Bürgerrechts p. 89 sqq.,
Beauchet, I. p. 529 sqq., Müller, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des attischen
Bürger- und Eherechts p. 711 sqq.) who consider such an inference entirely
baseless. The point hardly deserves serious discussion. It is enough to
observe that no reasons exist for assuming what the orator does not assert,
and what his opponents deny, i.e. that at the presentation Euctemon de-
scribed the child as illegitimate.
17. I
тоιоÛто πρâуμa puyov, shirked so decisive a test.' Dobree
(Adv. 1. p. 299) suggests rò (or тоûто тò) πрâyµа epuyov, which he translates
by 'would not come to the point.' See for the use of peúyew in this connexion
VIII. II. 2 n. (ëþvye tǹv Báoavov), for the commonplaces on the subject of
examination by torture VIII. 12, 13.
4 ἴσως μέν ἐστιν ἀηδὲς κ.τ.λ.
4 22., III. II. 3, 4 n.
18. I
For the apologetic preface compare I. 9.
Ευκτήμων μὲν γὰρ ἐβίω κ.τ.λ. The place of μὲν excites sus-
picion (I. I. I n.). Blass (Att. Ber.2 11. p. 501 n. 2) seems to lean towards
transposition, but it should be noted that this remedy is not applicable to the
parallel passage in VIII. 36 (ἐκείνην μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἐξεδίδου κ.τ.λ.).
ó
19. 3, 4 ἐναυκλήρει συνοικίαν. Cp. Harp. s.v. Ναύκληρος: Υπερείδης ἐν τῷ
περὶ τοῦ ταρίχους οὐ μόνον ὡς ἡ συνήθεια χρῆται τῷ ὀνόματι, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ
μεμισθωμένου ἐπὶ τῷ τὰ ἐνοίκια ἐκλέγειν ἢ οἰκίας ἢ συνοικίας, ὡς ὁ αὐτὸς ῥήτωρ
δηλοῖ ἐν τῷ πρὸς ᾿Αριστογείτονα καὶ Σαννυρίων Γέλωτι καὶ Δίφιλος Εμπόρῳ,
Hesych. s.v. ὁ συνοικίας προεστὼς <ἢ μεμισθωμένος ὅλην >, Ammon. De dif.
OR. VI.
505
COMMENTARY
vocab. s.v. ἐλέγοντο δὲ ὁμοίως ναύκληροι καὶ οἱ μισθωτοὶ (μισθωταὶ) τῶν συνοικιῶν.
The articles in Phot., Lex Rhet. Cant., Suid., Bekk. An. Gr. I. p. 282, 10 are
derived from Harpocration. Thus ναύκληρος was a name given to a person
who rented a house or lodging-house with a view to sub-letting. Pollux, I. 75,
10. 20, defines ναύκληρος as δεσπότης τῆς οἰκίας, and in Phot. s.v. and Bekk.
An. Gr. 1. p. 109, 19 ναυκληρείν is explained by οἰκίας δεσπόζειν, but preference
should be given to the exacter accounts of Harpocration and Hesychius. The
use may have started in sailors' slang; the keeper was 'the skipper' of the
establishment. In the present case the freedwoman, if in form a tenant, was
probably in fact Euctemon's agent and manager ; compare § 20. 7 τὴν ᾿Αλκὴν
καθίστησιν Εὐκτήμων ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τῆς ἐν Κεραμεικῷ συνοικίας, and the use of
insularius in Latin. In Corp. Gloss. Lat. 2. 208, 43 uilicus (Juv. 3. 195) is
explained by οἰκονόμος, ἐνοικιολόγος.
ιν
<
4 παιδίσκας ἔτρεφε, nourrissait des filles (Dareste), kept girls, i.e. for
prostitution. Compare [Dem.] 59. 18, 19 ἑπτὰ γὰρ ταύτας παιδίσκας ἐκ μικρῶν
παιδίων ἐκτήσατο Νικαρέτη, Χαρισίου μὲν οὖσα τοῦ Ἠλείου ἀπελευθέρα, Ιππίου
δὲ τοῦ μαγείρου τοῦ ἐκείνου γυνή, δεινὴ δὲ φύσιν μικρῶν παιδίων συνιδεῖν
εὐπρεπῆ, καὶ ταῦτα ἐπισταμένη θρέψαι καὶ παιδεῦσαι ἐμπείρως, τέχνην ταύτην
κατεσκευασμένη καὶ ἀπὸ τούτων τὸν βίον συνειλεγμένη. προσειποῦσα δ᾽ αὐτὰς
ὀνόματι θυγατέρας, ἵν᾿ ὡς μεγίστους μισθοὺς πράττοιτο τοὺς βουλομένους πλη-
σιάζειν αὐταῖς ὡς ἐλευθέραις οὔσαις, ἐπειδὴ τὴν ἡλικίαν ἐκαρπώσατο αὐτῶν
ἑκάστης, συλλήβδην καὶ τὰ σώματα ἀπέδοτο ἁπασῶν ἑπτὰ οὐσῶν, Hyp. 5. 2
ἐκείνη γοῦν (Αντιγόνα) φενακίζουσα [ἅπαντ]α ταῦτα προσπεριέκοψεν αύτῇ
[μέ τ]ι εἰς παιδίσκην, τριακοσίας δραχμὰς [εὐν]οίας ἕνεκα. ἴσως μὲν οὖν ὦ
ἄνδρες δι[καστα]ὶ οὐ[δ]έν [ἐστι] θαυμαστόν με ὑπὸ ᾿Αν[τιγόν]α[ς] τὸν τρόπον
τοῦτον παιδαγω[γηθῆ]ναι, γυναι[κ]ὸς ἡ δεινοτάτη μὲν [τῶν ἑ]ταιρῶν ὥς φασιν
ἐφ' ἡλ[ικί]ας ἐγένε[το, διατ]ετέλεκε δὲ πορνοβοσκοῦσα, Plut. Per. 24. 3 Ασπασίαν
οὐ κοσμίου προεστῶσαν ἐργασίας οὐδὲ σεμνῆς, ἀλλὰ παιδίσκας ἑταιρούσας τρέ-
φουσαν, Athen. IO. 437 E F καὶ πρὸς τὰς δημοσίας εἰσῄει παιδίσκας ἀδιαφόρως
(Διονύσιος ὁ Ἡρακλεώτης). καί ποτε πορευόμενος μετά τινων γνωρίμων ὡς ἐγένετο
κατὰ τὸ παιδισκεῖον, εἰς ὃ τῇ προτεραίᾳ παρεληλυθὼς ὤφειλε χαλκοῦς <πέντε>,
ἔχων τότε κατὰ τύχην ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα πάντων ὁρώντων ἀπεδίδου. The girls
in question were of course slaves, but this idea is conveyed by the context
(as in VIII. 35, Lys. I. 12, 13. 67), not inherent in παιδίσκη ; see Phrynichus
s.v. παιδίσκη (τοῦτο ἐπὶ τῆς θεραπαίνης οἱ νῦν τιθέασιν. οἱ δ᾽ ἀρχαῖοι ἐπὶ τῆς
νεάνιδος, οἷς ἀκολουθητέον) with Lobeck's note p. 239, Schmid, Der Atticismus
I. pp. 131 (Dio Chrys.), 282 (Lucian), III. p. 144 (Aelian).
4, 5 τούτων μίαν ἐκτήσατο. The speaker probably wished the judges to
understand that the keeper of the tenement house, not Euctemon, was the
purchaser. Schoemann suspects that Euctemon was secretly engaged in the
infamous traffic of a πορνοβοσκός, standing behind his freedwoman and
supplying her with capital. He points out that the courtesans described
in [Dem.] 59. 18, 19 as the property of the freedwoman Nicarete are called
in Athen. 13. 593 F the slaves of Nicarete's patron. The statement in
Athenaeus looks like a compiler's blunder, but Isaeus' story certainly
suggests the idea that Alce, who gained in the end her freedom (§ 20.
3, 4 n.), was manumitted by Euctemon and became his freedwoman. The
orator discreetly leaves in darkness this incident of her career.
506
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
πι
7 καθῆστο ἐν οἰκήματι, in cella meretricia. See Friedländer on Juv. 6.
122, who also (p. 6o7) cites Histor. Apoll. Tyr. 33 Amiante, cella, ubi Briseis
stat, exornetur diligenter et titulus scribatur, Schol. Plat. p. 324 Bekk. ἐπ᾿
οἰκήματος : ἐπὶ τοῦ δεσμωτηρίου ὡς Λυσίας, ἢ ἐπὶ πορνείου, ὡς Αττικοί, Poll. 9.
45, Harp., Hesych. s.v., Xen. Mem. 2. 2. 4, Hdt. 2. 121 €, 126. 3 τǹv Ovyatépa
τὴν ἑωυτοῦ κατίσαι ἐπ᾽ οἰκήματος, Aesch. 1. 74 ὁρᾶτε τουτουσὶ τοὺς ἐπὶ τῶν
οἰκημάτων καθημένους, τοὺς ὁμολογουμένως τὴν πρᾶξιν πράττοντας, ib. 120 τοὺς
τόπους ἐπερωτήσει, ὅπου ἐκαθέζετο, καὶ τοὺς τελώνας, εἰ πώποτε παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸ
πορνικὸν τέλος εἰλήφασιν, Din. I. 13 τὴν Ολυνθίαν παιδίσκην ἔστησεν ἐπ᾿
οἰκήματος, [Dem.] 59. 67 ὁπόσαι ἐπ᾿ ἐργαστηρίου καθῶνται ἢ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ
πωλῶνται ἀποπεφασμένως, Athen. 13. 569 D πρῶτος Σόλων ἔστησεν ἐπὶ οἰκη-
μάτων γύναια πριάμενος, ib. αἱ προστᾶσαι τῶν οἰκημάτων, Diog. Laert. 4. 46
ἐμοὶ ὁ πατὴρ μὲν ἦν ἀπελεύθερος...μήτηρ δὲ οἷαν ὁ τοιοῦτος ἂν γήμαι, ἀπ᾿
οἰκήματος. Schoemann thinks that the cella was in Euctemon's συνοικία.
No doubt the Peiraeus was like other great port towns (Ar. Pax 165).
8 ἀνίσταται. Cp. Dem. 18. 129 ὁ τριηραύλης Φορμίων, ὁ Δίωνος τοῦ
Φρεαρρίου δοῦλος, ἀνέστησεν αὐτὴν ἀπὸ τῆς καλῆς ἐργασίας, Aesch. 1. 41
ἀργύριόν τι προαναλώσας ἀνέστησεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἔσχε παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ.
ιν
20.2 συνήν. The speaker does not admit that even a freedman
married Alce.
3 ἔφη ἐκείνη. The insinuation is that the children were uolgo geniti.
3, 4 έθρεψεν αὐτοὺς ὁ Δίων. It is implied that Alce was now free; other-
wise the children would have been her owner's property; cp. § 49. 4 n.
αν
اد
5 ζημίαν εἰργασμένος. See Hyp. 5. 22 εἰδὼς (Σόλων) ὅτι πολλαὶ ὠναὶ
[γίγνον]ται ἐν τῇ πόλει, ἔθηκε νόμον δίκαι[ον, ὡς] παρὰ πάντων ὁμολογεῖται,
τὰς ζη[μίας, ἃς ἂν] ἐργάσωνται οἱ οἰκέται καὶ τὰ ἀ[ναλώμ]ατα (malim ἀ[δικήμ]ατα
coll. Leg. Gort. VII. 1o sqq. αἴ κ᾿ ἐκς ἀγορᾶς πριάμενος δόλον μὲ περαιώσει τἂν
Εεκσέκοντ᾽ ἁμερᾶν, αἴ τινά κα πρόθ᾽ ἀδικέκει ὲ ὕστερον, τοι πεταμένοι ἔνδικον
ἐμεν) διαλύειν τὸν δεσπότην παρ᾽ ᾧ [ἂν ἐργάσ]ωνται οἱ οἰκέται (is dominus cuius
erat seruos cum damnum intulit, Blass). εἰκότως· καὶ γὰρ [ἐάν τι ἀγ]αθὸν
πράξη ή έρ[γασί]αν εὕρ[η] ὁ ο[ικέτης, τοῦ κεκτημένου αὐτὸν γ[ίγ]νετ[αι]; cp.
[Dem.] 53. 20. Thus it appears that ζημίαν ἐργάζεσθαι was an old technical
term for the delict of a slave, answering to noxam (noxiam) facere in Roman
law; see Mommsen-Bruns, Fontes Iuris Romani³, 1887, p. 37, Leges XII
tabularum, XII. 2 si seruos furtum faxit noxiamue no[x]it, and Karlowa,
Rom. Rechtsgeschichte II. p. 104 sqq., where conjectures will be found con-
cerning the history of the terms noxa and noxia in their application to
noxales actiones. Dion's apprehensions indicate that at Athens, as at Rome,
a freedman could be sued for wrongful acts committed by him while a slave.
The passage from Hypereides refers to sales of slaves and seems to show
that in regard to the uitium noxae the law of Athens was the opposite of the
law of Rome. At Rome the responsibility for a slave's delict attached, not
to his master at the time of the misdemeanour, but to his master at the time
when the action was brought. Hence, as the seller of a slave ceased to be
answerable when he ceased to be owner, it was not safe to buy a slave
without a special warranty. Plato (Laws 916 C) annuls the sale and inflicts
damages (three times the price), if the vendor is proved to have known that
the slave sold was guilty of homicide, and to have concealed this fact from
OR. VI.
507
COMMENTARY
1
the purchaser, and it is probable that the Athenian law of sale distinguished.
between responsibility for capital crimes and responsibility for civil offences.
The clause in the code of Gortyn (VII. 10 sqq. cited above) is obscure (Inscr.
Jurid. Gr. 1. p. 469, Buecheler & Zitelmann, Das Recht von Gortyn p. 168,
Baunack, Die Inschrift von Gortyn p. 108), but implies, I think, the Roman
principle.
Two other interpretations have been proposed. (1) Spanheim on Ar.
Plut. 1124 (èπoieis (nμíav, 'you caused loss') translates (nuíav eipyaoµévos by
're male administrata'; compare 'damnum facere,' 'to incur loss.' Dareste
has 'Dion fit un mauvais coup. Schoemann gives in his German version
'weil er schlechte Streiche begangen hatte,' in his note 'cum noxiam com-
meruisset. (2) The rendering in Stephanus' Lexicon is 'cum multam
contraxisset,' 'when he had incurred a fine.' Reiske mentioned this as a
possibility in his commentary, but chose in his translation 'ob noxiam
nescio quam datam. Caccialanza has 'incorse in una pena.
5,6 ὑπεχώρησεν εἰς Σικυῶνα : so that a very important piece of evidence is
not forthcoming.
7 ἐν Κεραμεικῷ. Cp. V. 26. 7 n., Bekk. An. Gr. I. p. 275, 19 Κεραμεικός :
τόπος ἐν ᾧ αἱ πόρναι ἑστήκασιν, Hesych. s.v. Δημίαισι πύλαις...πρὸς αὐτάς
φασιν ἑστάναι τὰς πόρνας.
اد
8 παρὰ τὴν πυλίδα, οὗ ὁ οἶνος ὤνιος. Cp. Arist. Eg. 1245 sqq. πότερον
ἐν ἀγορᾷ | ἠλλαντοπώλεις ἐτεὸν ἢ ἐπὶ ταῖς πύλαις; ΑΛΛ. ἐπὶ ταῖς πύλαισιν, οὗ τὸ
τάριχος ὤνιον.
Táρixos viov. The excavations of 1873-74 brought to light a double gate
in the city-wall to the south-west of the Dipylum and only 60 yards distant
from it. This may be the Sacred Gate mentioned by Plutarch (Sull. 14).
Between the Dipylum and this gate remains of the old city-wall, or rather of
two such walls, an inner and an outer wall, are, still standing. Beyond the
Sacred Gate both walls are prolonged to the south-west for about 40 yards
as far as the slope of the rocky eminence on which stands the chapel of
St Athanasius, where they come to an end, the rocky slope having been
apparently judged a sufficient natural defence. In the inner wall, imme-
diately to the west of the tower which flanks the Sacred Gate on the
south-west, there is a small postern gate. This is in all probability the
little gate meant by Isaeus (Frazer on Paus. 1. 2. 4).
21. 2 évтaveoî, not to be meddled with; see for the evidence of gram-
marians and MSS. Voemel, Prolegg. Gramm. ad Dem. p. 156 sqq., Shilleto on
Dem. 19. 356 (311), for the conclusions derived from comparative philology
and inscriptions Blass- Kühner, Griech. Gramm. II. p. 304, Meisterhans,
Gramm. d. att. Inschr.3 § 59, 11, p. 147.
3 ÉTTỪ TÒ ÉVOLKLOV ÉKάσTOTE. Boeckh, Staatshaush.3 I. p. 177, lays down
ἐπὶ ἐνοίκιον ἑκάστοτε.
the rule that at Athens house-rent, like interest, was paid and calculated by
the month. This cannot be deduced from the passage he cites, Theoph.
Char. 1ο ὁ δὲ μικρολόγος τοιοῦτός τις, οἷος ἐν τῷ μηνὶ ἡμιωβόλιον ἀπαιτεῖν ἐλθὼν
ẻπì Tηv oikiav. In a lease in perpetuity (C. I. A. 11. 1058) of a workshop
(épyaσrýpɩov) in the Peiraeus with a dwelling house (oikŋois) attached to it
and a small building (oiknµátiov) a corporation stipulates that the rent shall
be 54 dr. a year, 30 dr. payable in the month of Hecatombaeon, the remaining
24 dr. in the month of Poseideon. The ordinary practice of Athenian house-
508
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
owners and lodging-house keepers is not known. We have instances of rent
of land paid three times (C. I. A. II. 565 Hecatombaeon, Gamelion, Thar-
gelion), twice (ib. II. 1o59 Hecatombaeon, Posideon, ib. II. 6oo Boedromion,
Elaphebolion) and once a year (ib. II. 1055 Hecatombaeon); see Inscr. Jurid.
Gr. 1. p. 267, Guiraud, La propriété foncière en Grèce p. 430.
5, 6 τοὺς παῖδας : in the next line τῶν ὑέων. Euctemon's two daughters
must have been long married (§ 6. 4). Ergamenes and Hegemon were not
alive when Philoctemon made the alleged will (§ 6). Apparently they died
before the introduction of the claimant into Euctemon's φρατρία.
8 παντελώς διῃτᾶτο ἐκεῖ. The phrase may be Isaeus' way of concealing
the divorce of Euctemon's wife.
...
οὕτω διετέθη κ.τ.λ. Cp. [Dem.] 59. 55 sqq. οὐ πολλῷ χρόνῳ γὰρ ὕστερον ...
ὁ Φράστωρ ἠσθένησε καὶ πάνυ πονήρως διετέθη καὶ εἰς πᾶσαν ἀπορίαν κατέστη.
διαφορᾶς δ᾽ οὔσης αὐτῷ παλαιᾶς πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους τοὺς αὑτοῦ καὶ ὀργῆς καὶ
μίσους, πρὸς δὲ καὶ ἄπαις ὤν, ψυχαγωγούμενος ἐν τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ τῇ θεραπείᾳ τῇ ὑπό
τε τῆς Νεαίρας καὶ τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτῆς...ἐπείσθη δὴ τὸ παιδίον, ὃ ἔτεκεν ἡ θυγάτηρ
ἡ Νεαίρας ταυτησὶ πάλιν λαβεῖν καὶ ποιήσασθαι υἱὸν αὑτοῦ, λογισμὸν ἀνθρώπινον
καὶ εἰκότα λογιζόμενος, ὅτι πονήρως μὲν ἔχοι καὶ οὐ πολλὴ ἐλπὶς εἴη αὐτὸν περι-
γενήσεσθαι, τοῦ δὲ μὴ λαβεῖν τοὺς συγγενεῖς τὰ αὑτοῦ μηδ᾽ ἄπαις τετελευτηκέναι
ἐποιήσατο τὸν παῖδα καὶ ἀνέλαβεν ὡς αὑτόν. ἐπεὶ ὅτι γε ὑγιαίνων οὐκ ἄν ποτε
ἔπραξε, μεγάλῳ τεκμηρίῳ καὶ περιφανεῖ ἐγὼ ὑμῖν ἐπιδείξω κ.τ.λ. Apollodorus
here is in the same position as Chaerestratus' friend. He is struggling to
destroy the significance of a fact which he cannot deny; Phrastor had
recognised the child as his own and had sought to introduce him into
his γένος.
11 ἐπὶ τῷ αὑτοῦ ὀνόματι. Cp. § 36. 5 ἐπὶ τοῖς τούτων ὀνόμασι. The
vagueness is calculated. The speaker is reluctant to state Euctemon's
description of the boy.
22. 3 ἀλλ' ἀπηνέχθη τὸ κούρειον. Cp. [Dem.] 43. 14 καὶ οἱ φράτερες ὦ
ἄνδρες δικασταὶ οἱ τουτουὶ Μακαρτάτου, οἱ ἄριστα εἰδότες περὶ τοῦ γένους, ὁρῶντες
αὐτὸν μὲν τοῦτον οὐ θέλοντα κινδυνεύειν οὐδ᾽ ἀπάγοντα τὸ ἱερεῖον ἀπὸ τοῦ βωμού,
εἰ μὴ προσηκόντως εἰσήγετο ὁ παῖς ουτοσί, αὐτοὺς δ᾽ ἀξιοῦντα ἐπιορκεῖν (i.e.
Macartatus opposed the enrolment), λαβόντες τὴν ψῆφον καομένων τῶν ἱερείων,
ἀπὸ τοῦ βωμοῦ φέροντες τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ φρατρίου, παρόντος τουτουὶ Μακαρτάτου,
ἐψηφίσαντο τὰ δίκαια ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ὀρθῶς καὶ προσηκόντως τὸν παῖδα
τουτονὶ εἰσάγεσθαι Εὐβουλίδῃ (who is dead) υἱόν, ib. 82 καὶ ὅτε εἰσήγετο, οἱ
μὲν ἄλλοι φράτερες κρύβδην ἔφερον τὴν ψῆφον, οὑτοσὶ δὲ Μακάρτατος φανερᾷ
ψήφῳ ἐψηφίσατο ὀρθῶς εἰσάγεσθαι Εὐβουλίδῃ υἱὸν τὸν παῖδα τουτονί, οὐκ
ἐθελήσας ἅψασθαι τοῦ ἱερείου οὐδ᾽ ἀπαγαγεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ βωμοῦ ὑπεύθυνον αὑτὸν
ποιήσας· ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν μερίδα τῶν κρεῶν ᾤχετο λαβὼν παρὰ τοῦ παιδὸς τουτουί,
ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι φράτερες. These passages suggest that under certain
conditions--observe that Macartatus was related to Eubulides—a single
member of the φρατρία, if prepared to undertake the responsibility (κινδυ-
νεύειν, ὑπεύθυνον αὑτὸν ποιεῖν), had the right to prevent or delay the
admission of a candidate by removing the victim from the altar. The
nature of the risk incurred is not known. Gilbert, Gr. Staatsaltert.² p. 217,
E. T. p. 196, conjectures that the objector was required to make good his
case in a court of law by means of a γραφή ξενίας or ὑποβολής (Bekk. An.
OR. VI.
509
COMMENTARY
Gr. I. p. 311, 33 ὑποβολῆς γραφὴ τί ἐστιν ; εἶδος ἐγκλήματος. εἴ τις ἐγκαλοίη
τινί, ὡς ὑποβολιμαῖος εἴη, ἐγράφετο ὑποβολῆς, καὶ ἁλόντα αὐτὸν ἔδει πεπρᾶσθαι).
Possibly the issue was tried by the pparpía at a subsequent meeting (a
διαδικασία, C.I.A. II. 841 b 28 sqq. τὴν δὲ διαδικασίαν τὸ λοιπὸν ἐναι τῶι
ὑστέρωι ἔτει ἢ ὧι ἂν τὸ κόρεον θύσηι, τῆι Κορεώτιδι Απατορίων), the objector
being fined, if his protest was found to be unjustifiable. Gilbert also con-
cludes from Isaeus' language that in the present case the removal of the
victim was the consequence of an adverse decision of the assembled
Opárepes. The words do not prove this, and it seems quite as likely that
Philoctemon threw down the gauntlet to his father by taking away the
victim, and that no vote was taken, the matter being referred to another
meeting. If the society had rejected the child by a formal vote, it would
have been difficult to get their judgment rescinded, whereas the parts of the
story are at any rate coherent, if at the second meeting to settle the contro-
versy Philoctemon withdrew his opposition. For the κoúpetov see Poll. 3. 52
καὶ ὄις φράτηρ καὶ φράτριος αἲξ ἡ θυομένη τοῖς φράτερσιν, and the note on III.
73. 6, 7. If, as many scholars maintain, the koupelov was the offering made
for a candidate who had reached or passed puberty, the speaker is guilty of
an impudent falsehood in § 14. 5 (οὔπω ὑπὲρ εἴκοσιν ἔτη).
ἐγγυάται γυναῖκα.
رد
4 eyyvâтaι yuvaîкa. Buermann and Hruza both contend that at this
time Philoctemon's mother was still Euctemon's wife. Buermann (Jahrbb.
f. cl. Philol. Supplementbd 9, 1877/78, pp. 581/2) gets out of the difficulty
by the help of his theory of 'legitimate concubinage' (III. Introd. p. 277),
a union inaugurated by eyyúnois and producing legitimate children, but
notwithstanding distinct from marriage (yáµos). But if Democrates' sister
was to be Euctemon's concubine, what induced Isaeus to use the words
éyáµei (§ 24) and yaµeîv (§ 25)? Hruza (Beiträge zur Gesch. d. griech. u. röm.
Familienrechtes 1. pp. 28/9, II. p. 44) discovers another 'certain example' of
lawful bigamy. Since he denies that eyyuŋois means 'betrothal' (III. 4. 6 n.),
he is obliged to maintain that Euctemon actually married the sister of
Democrates and afterwards (§ 24) divorced her. See $$ 10-
See §§ 10-16 analysis.
4, 5 Δημοκράτους τοῦ ᾿Αφιδναίου. A descendant of Harmodius or Aris-
togeiton (Hyp. 4. 3), a politician, and a wit. Aeschines (2. 17) says that in
346 B.C. he persuaded the Council to hear the report of Aristodemus, which
led to the despatch of an embassy to Philip. He survived the battle of
Chaeronea (Plut. Praec. Ger. Reipubl. 7, 803 D). Hypereides' fourth speech,
against Philippides, assigned by Blass (Att. Ber2 III. 2. p. 78) to the first
half of 336 B.C. contains a lively attack upon him (§ 2 sqq.): kai Anµokpátn[s
ἐν αὐτοῖς ὁ ᾿Αφιδναῖος [ἐστί, συγκαθημένος καὶ χορό]ν ἱστὰς γελωτοπ[οιῶν
ἐπὶ τοῖς τῆς πόλεω[ς ἀ]τυχήμασιν, καὶ λοι[δορεῖ]θ᾽ ὑμῖν μεθ᾽ ἡμέρ[αν ἐν τῇ ἀγο]ρᾷ,
εἰς ἑσπέραν δὲ δε]ιπν[ή]σων (he enjoyed the privilege of σίτησις ἐν πρυτανείῳ,
V. 47. 3) is vµ[âs ép]xeTaι K.T.λ. Specimens of his humour, which was dis-
tinguished by a Bismarckian vigour and coarseness, are preserved in Ar.
Rhet. III. 4. 1407 a 6, Plut. l. c., Stob. Floril. 13. 31, 22. 43 (Sauppe, Or. Att.
II. p. 320). For the site of the deme Aphidna see v. 6. 4 12.
او
The language is
5, 6 παῖδας ἀποφανῶν καὶ εἰσποιήσων εἰς τὸν οἶκον.
highly invidious, implying that Euctemon's design was to obtrude alien blood
into the family. The rôle of the wife is not defined, but the drift of the
510
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
abominable accusation is unmistakable. The inferences of Buermann (op.
cit. p. 582) are worthless; see Müller op. cit. p. 717 n. 1. The phrase εἰσποι-
howv eis tòv oikov describes the importation of outsiders and impostors, and
is not applicable to the introduction of legitimate children by their father.
See for the difference between εἰσποιοῦμαι ὑὸν and εἰσποιῶ τινὶ ὑὸν ΙΙΙ. 60.
8 n., IV. 10. 4 N., VIII. 40. 7, for the insinuation contained by ảπоḍavâν III.
30. 1 τῆς θυγατρὸς ἀποφανθείσης εἶναι, 73. 6 τὴν θυγατέρα τὴν ἐκ ταύτης ἀπο-
φανθεῖσαν εἶναι εἰσαγαγόντι ὡς οὖσαν γνησίαν ἑαυτῷ, 79. 9 τὴν ἐκ ταύτης
ἀποφανθεῖσαν < εἶναι> θυγατέρα. The existence of Philoctemon debarred
<eivai>
Euctemon from adopting a son.
C
6, 7 εἰ μὴ συγχωροίη τοῦτον [ἐᾶν] εἰσαχθῆναι.
I now think Thalheim
right in keeping eâv, which is tenable, if σvyxwpoiŋ be taken in the sense of
come to an arrangement' (v. 18. 1 22.).
23.5 ἐᾶσαι εἰσαγαγεῖν κ.τ.λ. This passage affords no foundation what-
ever for Schulin's theory (Das griech. Testament p. 19) that an Athenian
with legitimate sons had the power of adoption subject to the consent of
his sons, and on condition of specifying the property that was to be inherited
by the adopted son. Caillemer (Droit de succession légitime p. 140) has a
more sober observation: Le droit attique n'avait pas prohibé les conventions
sur hérédités futures. But the arrangement described by the orator was a
secret compact between father and son, contrary to law and morality.
24. 4, 5 άπyλλáyn tîs yuvaɩkós, 'got rid of the woman,' i. e. broke off
the engagement. Divorce (Plat. Laws 868 D, Dem. 31. 13) is not meant,
as Hruza (§ 22. 4 n.) supposes. Compare Isocr. 19. 7 ékeivηs µèv kaì Twv
ἄλλων ἀπηλλάγη (concubines).
6 ¿yάµel, a conative imperfect, ' was preparing to marry.'
:
"
25. I 2 Tí yàp edeɩ avròv yaμeîv. Hitzig (Studien zu Isaeus p. 29)
γὰρ ἔδει αὐτὸν γαμεῖν.
directs attention to the loose connexion of the argument here. At the end
of § 24 the orator arrives at the result that Euctemon threatened marriage
only in order to introduce the claimant (Toûrov) into the pparpía, because
the project was abandoned as soon as the child was admitted. Then in
§ 25 he continues thus: For what need had he to marry, if these children
were legitimate, as Androcles has deposed? Who could have prevented
their admission?' The questions do not contain a reason for the conclusion
asserted in the preceding sentence, but confirm a thought which is un-
expressed 'Therefore the claimant was not legitimate.' I cannot endorse
Hitzig's inference that either there is a lacuna in the text at this point or
yàp is wrong. Isaeus shrinks from formulating his argument precisely and
logically, because he is conscious of its imperfection. In itself Euctemon's
engagement to the sister of Democrates does not appear a convincing proof
of the claimant's illegitimacy. A menace might have been needed to break
down Philoctemon's contumacy, even if everything said by Androcles was
true. If an old man of 76 or thereabouts presented a child to a Oparpia,
and his grown up son arose and protested that it belonged to some one else,
there could be no certainty that the members would believe the father in
preference to the son, and vote for the admission of the candidate. Thalheim
(Hermes 38, 1903, p. 462) proposes тí yàp <κaì> ede, which is an improve-
ment (Lys. 24. 12, Dem. 32. 21).
OR. VI.
511
COMMENTARY
4, 5 ἐπὶ ῥητοῖς αὐτὸν εἰσήγαγε. Probably Androcles denied the existence
of any reservations. It is admitted by the prosecution (1) that the bargain
between Euctemon and Philoctemon was not committed to writing (§ 27),
(2) that the document subsequently drawn up, which is said to have specified
the conditions, was revoked by Euctemon before his death (§ 32).
5 TOû VÓμOV K.T.λ. For the absence in Greece of rights of primogeniture
see Beauchet III. p. 450 sqq. The result stated here applied only to intestate
succession.
26. 3 ζῶντος Φιλοκτήμονος. It is not denied that Euctemon recognised
the younger boy after Philoctemon's death (§§ 28. 2, 30. 2, 3, 36. 1).
27-42 Some time after Philoctemon's death in battle Euctemon
informed his sons-in-law that he wished to put in writing his arrangement
with his son, and commit it to safe keeping. In the presence of Phanostratus
and Chaereas he made a will, which with their concurrence he deposited with
a connexion, Pythodorus of Cephisia. This by itself is enough to show the
claimants' illegitimacy. Men don't give legacies to their legitimate sons.
After the document had lain with Pythodorus about two years and Chaereas
was dead, our opponents joined in the attack, having curried favour with
Alce, and seeing their opportunity in the age and folly of Euctemon. First,
they urged him to revoke the will as disadvantageous to the children; by
converting his property into money he could defeat the claims of his daughters
and their children. Euctemon at once demanded the return of the document,
served Pythodorus with a summons to produce it, and, when the case came
before the Archon, made a formal declaration before witnesses that the will
was withdrawn. Then he began to sell, and in a short time parted with
property worth more than three talents. Depositions. The next move of
the conspirators was a scheme to get into their hands the rest of the property.
Under the title of guardians they presented to the Archon the names of the
two claimants as adoptive children of Euctemon's deceased sons, and requested
that the estates of the alleged orphans should be leased, intending that
Euctemon's property in his lifetime should be partly leased, partly mortgaged
as security, and that they should become lessees themselves and take the
revenues. The Archon was actually inviting bids before a court, when the
relations, warned by bystanders, arrived, and opened the eyes of the judges;
who on a vote forbade the lease. Depositions. Before our adversaries
engaged in this conspiracy with Alce, Euctemon and Philoctemon possessed a
large fortune. After the death of Philoctemon, it was reduced to such a state
that not half the capital is left and the revenues received have vanished.
This booty did not content them. When Euctemon died, they concealed his
death and let the body lie for a whole day, while they and Alce were carrying
out property into the adjoining house, tenanted by Antidorus. As soon as
my clients got in and saw how the house had been ransacked, they claimed a
right of search, and demanded the surrender of the slaves who had carried
out the goods. But they could get no justice. Depositions.
The obscurity of this narrative has sorely perplexed interpreters. Apart
from minor details, such as the indefiniteness of the chronology, two great
puzzles ask for a solution. The first is the nature of the so-called will.
What is the meaning of the concurrence of Euctemon's sons-in-law (§§ 27,
512
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
32)? Was the revocation of the 'will' a necessary preliminary to selling
portions of the estate (§ 30), and, if so, why? On what grounds did
Pythodorus defend in court his refusal to give up the document entrusted to
his custody (§§ 31, 32)? Schoemann meets these questions by the conjecture
that the deed was not strictly a testament, but embodied a compact between
Euctemon and his sons-in-law imposing mutual obligations. Hence the
legal point taken by Pythodorus, that he required the authority of a repre-
sentative of Chaereas (§ 32). The second difficulty is the story of the lease
($$ 36, 37), which, as told to the judges, is unintelligible. The whole
passage is so difficult, that the more I reflect on the nature and consequences
of such a conspiracy, the less I understand how it could ultimately have
availed the conspirators; nor is it possible that such a transaction could long
have been kept secret at Athens, where so flagrant an insult on public justice
would have been punished with the last severity? (Sir W. Jones, Works IX.
p. 332.) It is dubious whether even the depositions appended would have
illuminated the darkness and enabled a critic to separate attested facts from
perversions, glosses, and lies. The practice of submitting evidence in
writing and the absence of oral cross-examination opened a wide door to
chicanery and jesuitical arts.
27. 1,2 πepì Xíov ảπo@výσkel. Cp. §§ 5. 5, 622., 14. 5 . Dobree's conjec-
ture (Adv. I. p. 298), that Philoctemon was killed at the battle of Arginusae in
406 B.C., does not show his usual shrewdness. As the action was fought in
the channel between Lesbos and the mainland, he is obliged to suppose
that Philoctemon lost his life in the pursuit (Xen. Hell. 1. 6. 33 Qvyn tŵv
Πελοποννησίων ἐγένετο εἰς Χίον). Perceiving that at the time of the trial
eis
Chaerestratus will be over 40 years old, he proposed in § 60. 5 tyλikoûtos v
<τετράκις> τετριηράρχηκε, but apparently did not notice that the elder of the
two claimants, said in § 14. 5 to be 'not yet over 20,' will also be over 40.
Jebb (Att. Or. II. p. 346) suggests that Philoctemon's death took place ‘early
in 389 B.C.,' when the expedition of Thrasybulus was moving along the
coast of Asia Minor from Lesbos to Rhodes (Xen. Hell. 4. 8. 30, Diod. 14.
94. 4). The objection (§ 14. 5 22.) to this is that it makes the elder claimant
at least 27. Jebb's principal argument is that he 'can find no place for
hostilities "near Chios" in which Athenians were likely to have been engaged,
between 389 B.C. and the siege of Chios by Chares in 357 B.C.' This is a
real difficulty. An inscription (C. I. A. 11. 15, IV. 2. 15 c, S. I. G.² n. 75,
Hicks, Greek Hist. Inscr. n. 80) posterior to the peace of Antalcidas contains
considerable portions of a defensive alliance between Athens and Chios.
Koehler assigns it to 386 B.C., and in view of Isocr. 14. 28 it is now generally
considered probable that Chios was allied with Athens before the great
decree of the 7th Prytany of 378/7 B.C. (C. I. A. 11. 17, S. I. G.² n. 80,
Michel n. 86, Hicks n. 81), which shows (7. 23, 79) that the Chians were the
first members of the new Athenian confederation. But between 386 B.C.
and 378/7 B.C. there is no record of any enemy attacking Chios. Blass, who
holds (Att. Ber.2 II. p. 549 n. 1) that Philoctemon met his death in the
course of the 'Theban war' (IX. 14) between 378 B.C. and 375 or 373 B.C.,
cites no evidence of fighting in the neighbourhood of Chios during these
years. The extant authorities for the naval operations in the war with Sparta
OR. VI.
513
COMMENTARY
begun in 378 B.C. are Xenophon and Diodorus. In 377 B.C. (before the
autumn) Chabrias first attacked Hestiaea held by a Spartan garrison, and
then sailing against the Cyclades (ταῖς Κυκλάσι νήσοις ἐπιπλέων) brought
over Peparethus, Sciathus (C. I. A. 11. 17, 85, 86), and other islands placed
under the power of Lacedaemon (Diod. 15. 30. 5). In 376 B.C. a Lacedae-
monian fleet under Pollis cruised 'round Aegina, Ceos, and Andros' (Xen.
Hell. 5. 4. 61) intercepting the corn supply of Athens, and was ultimately
attacked and destroyed by Chabrias near Naxos (Diod. 15. 35), but it is not
stated that Chios was in any way molested by this squadron. In 375 B.C.
Chabrias was engaged in Thracian waters (Diod. 15. 36). In the same year
Timotheus at the head of 60 ships (Xen. Hell. 5. 4. 63, Diod. 15. 36) was
sent round the Peloponnese into the Ionian gulf, and, among other
successes, won Corcyra for the new league. Timotheus' second expedition
started from Athens in April (Munichion) 373 B.C. ([Dem.] 49. 6, Xen. Hell.
6.2. 11). Thus we have to choose between three possibilities, (1) that in
§ 14. 5 the speaker is not telling the truth, (2) that Philoctemon perished in
some encounter between roaming cruisers too trivial to be recorded in
history, (3) that the text is corrupt. I incline to the second. The emenda-
tion Teρì "Iкov would be tempting, if we knew that in 377 B.C. Chabrias'
fleet encountered any resistance in the neighbourhood of this island, but it
should not be forgotten that in C. I. A. II. 17, 84 the people of Icus ("Ikioi)
were entered together with the Euboean cities (Χαλκιδῆς, Ερετριῆς, ᾿Αρεθόσιοι,
Καρύστιοι), the names Πεπαρήθιοι, Σκιάθιοι being engraved by a different hand
(S. I. G.² 12. 80, p. 128). C. I. A. II. 22, which contains KIO or IKIOE, is
now referred by Koehler (Hermes 31, p. 141) to 406/5 B.C., not to 377/6 B.C.
3 VσTEρov Xρóvą, 'some time after'; whether the interval was short or
long, to be measured by months or years, is not indicated by the context,
and cannot be determined from the phrase. We must know the speaker's
standard. In X. 21. 6 the reference is to as much as 37 years, in Lys. 32. 5
to about 11 years, in Andoc. 2. 10 to 3 or 4 years, in Dem. 57. 42 to at
least 3 years.
In § 20. 4, Isocr. 17. 5, the words are as enigmatical as here.
Classen on Thuc. 1. 8. 4 says that in Thucydides xpórą vσTeρov always
denotes a considerable period, but I demur to the translation, ‘long after,'
given by Liddell and Scott s.v. χρόνος, and to the idea that διὰ χρόνου is the
same as dià molλoû xpóvov (Ar. Plut. 1045). See II. 10. 2, XI. 9. I.
3, 4 Tȧ πρÒS Tòv vóν oi Teπpayμéva, 'his transactions with his son'; see
Lys. 17. 1 ἂν πάντα διηγήσωμαι τὰ πεπραγμένα ἡμῖν πρὸς Ἐράτωνα καὶ τοὺς
ἐκείνου παῖδας, Isocr. 17. 36 τὰ πρὸς Στρατοκλέα πραχθέντα (the arrangement
with Stratocles), Dem. 37. 19 ἀκούετε τοῦ νόμου λέγοντος ἄντικρυς, ὧν ἂν ἀφῇ
καὶ ἀπαλλάξῃ τις, μηκέτι τὰς δίκας εἶναι. καὶ μὴν ὅτι γ᾽ ἀμφότερ᾽ ἐστὶ πεπραγ
μένα ταῦτα τούτῳ πρὸς ἡμᾶς, ἠκούσατε τῶν μαρτύρων, ib. §§ 6, 9, Dem. 45. 1
εἰπεῖν πειράσομαι τὰ πεπραγμένα μοι πρὸς Φορμίωνα (my dealings with Phormio),
[Dem.] 34. 36, 58. 30.
ત
5,6 µetà Tiµołéov, either in 375 B.C. or 373 B.C. (§ 27. 1, 2 n.). Timotheus
was in disgrace between 373 B.C. and 366/5 B.C., when he commanded at the
siege of Samos (C. I. A. II. 53, 9, 10, Diod. 18. 18 ad fin., Isocr. 15. 111).
In 372 B.C. he entered the Persian service ([Dem.] 49. 25, 28, 29, 35).
6 Movvixíaoi. Phanostratus' trireme may have been docked in the
Μουνιχίασι.
W. I.
33
514
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
harbour of Munichia. Here in 353/2 B.C. there were 36 ship-sheds (C. I. A.
II. 795 b, 17—21), at a later period after 330/29 B.C. as many as 82 (C. I. A.
II. 807 c, 27—35 (330/29 B.C.), ib. 808 d, 95—104 (326/5 B.C.), ib. 809 e, 55—61
(325/4 B.C.), ib. 811 c, 6—10 (323/2 B.C.)). A fragment of a catalogue
(C. I. A. 11. 791), which probably belongs to 377/6 B.C., enumerates 106
vessels, but the list is incomplete, and it is not possible to state the size of
the Athenian fleet at this period, and its distribution among the three
military harbours of Munichia, Zea, and Cantharus. Very considerable
remains of the ancient ship-houses are still to be seen in the harbours of
Munichia and Zea; for a description see Frazer on Paus. I. I. 2. With
regard to the form Movvixiaoi consult Meisterhans, Gramm. d. att. Inschr.3
$ 59, 3, p. 146.
9, 10
>
,
8, 9 γράψας διαθήκην, ἐφ᾽ οἷς εἰσήγαγε τὸν παῖδα, having written a will
declaratory of the conditions on which he had introduced the boy' (Sir W.
Jones). The construction is obscure and awkward, but is somewhat eased
by the fact that dɩaðýêŋ has not parted entirely with the idea of 'disposition';
'having drafted a settlement, viz. the terms on which he had introduced the
child.' Schoemann seems to analyse èp' ois into èïì Toútois é☀' oîs, if I may
judge from his German version (da er ein Testament, welches der wegen der Ein-
führung des Knaben verabredeten Bedingung gemäss war, aufgesetzt hatte).
κατατίθεται μετὰ τούτων. Cp. § 32. 3 τοῦ δὲ Χαιρέου τοῦ συγκατα-
Jeμévov. Set out in plain language the story seems to come to this, that
Phanostratus and Chaereas, representing Euctemon's daughters, renewed the
corrupt bargain made by Philoctemon, who, aware of the base origin of the
boy, allowed him to be introduced into the Oparpía as Euctemon's legitimate
son on condition that 'only one estate should be given (or bequeathed) him'
(§ 23. 6 xwpiov ev dóvтa). What was the weapon by which the old reprobate
broke down the virtue of the wealthy and public-spirited Phanostratus
($60), whose son Chaerestratus had been adopted by Philoctemon?
Euctemon could not make a will disinheriting his daughters (III. 68), but he
could dispose of his property in his lifetime. Perhaps he purchased the
silence of his sons-in-law by dividing the bulk of his property between his
two daughters; compare the will of Polyeuctus which forms the subject of
Dem. 41. Moreover it is conceivable that neither Phanostratus nor
Chaereas wished Euctemon to die sonless and intestate, from fear that their
wives would become èπídiкoι (III. 64). Thus the 'will' was a compromise,
which both Phanostratus and Chaereas pledged themselves to observe, and
which could not be abrogated without the consent of the three contracting
parties (§ 32). As the document is not read to the court, the terms of the
alleged compact cannot be discovered. Schoemann supposes that in addition
to specifying the property to be inherited by the boy (or boys, § 30. 3)
Euctemon bound himself not to alienate any part of his landed estates
(praedia). This conjecture is designed to elucidate the old man's motives
in revoking the 'will' ($ 30). But adopting the speaker's point of view we
can explain the repudiation in another way, i.e. by the hypothesis that in the
document the entire estate had been distributed piece by piece among the
two daughters and the two boys, so that the sale of certain portions might
constitute a violation of the agreement.
1
OR. VI.
515
COMMENTARY
10 Κηφισιεί. Cp. § 3. 1 π.
28. 4 TOîs yàp þúσeɩ véσɩ. The proper antithesis is adoptive sons,
Toîs toɩntois véow, not illegitimate sons (II. 11. 6 n., III. 61. 2 n., VII. 16. 2 n.).
The principal use of a will was to adopt a son, and, if Isaeus is to be believed
(v. 6. 7 n.), it was legitimate to bequeath to the adopted son as little as one-
third of the estate.
4, 5 οὐδεὶς οὐδενὶ ἐν διαθήκῃ γράφει δόσιν οὐδεμίαν κ.τ.λ. This generalisa-
tion is not borne out by the accessible evidence. It is clear that at Athens
a father had little occasion to make a will in order to facilitate the transmis-
sion of his goods and chattels to his legitimate sons. Intestacy entailed no
troublesome consequences such as e.g. expensive legal proceedings. But it
does not seem true that in the fourth century a father of sons was absolutely
intestable, without power either to give a special legacy to one of his sons or
to devise property to other persons (III. 42. 2, 3 n., X. 9. 7 n.). Pasion the
banker, who had two sons Apollodorus and Pasicles, aged respectively 24
years and 10 years at the time of his death, made a will in which he so far
recognised the claim of primogeniture as to give Apollodorus a lodging-
house as an elder son's privilege, πрeσßéîa (Dem. 36. 34; cp. Dem. 39. 29).
He also bequeathed to his wife Archippe by way of dowry a sum of 2 t., a
lodging-house worth 1 t. 40 m., maidservants, trinkets (xpvoía), and every-
thing else belonging to her in the house (Dem. 45. 28). Apollodorus, it is
true, contends in Dem. 45 and [Dem.] 46 that the will was (1) a forgery,
(2) invalid, if genuine, but his reasoning is dishonest and sophistical, and he
waited 20 years before bringing this charge. Demosthenes the father,
having a son aged 7 years and a daughter aged 5 years, left by will large
sums to the three guardians whom he appointed, viz. to Therippides the
usufruct of I t. 10 m. until the majority of the young Demosthenes, to
Demophon his daughter with a dowry of 2 t., to Aphobus his wife with a
dowry of 1 t. 20 m. and the use of his house and furniture (Dem. 27. 5 sqq.,
29. 43). These legacies absorbed about one-third of the testator's fortune.
Diodotus, the father of two sons and a daughter, gave 1 t. to his daughter,
and I t. to his wife as dowry together with 20 m., 30 Cyzicene staters, and
'the contents of the chamber' (tà èv tậ dwµariw, Lys. 32. 6). Demosthenes
and Diodotus, like Euctemon, were providing for minors. The celebrated
Conon (Lys. 19. 39, 40) in his will dedicated 5000 staters (100,000 dr. = 16 t.
40 m.) to Athena and to Apollo at Delphi, and bequeathed I t. 40 m. to his
nephew and 3 t. to his brother; 'the residuum, 17 t., he left for his son' (rà
δὲ λοιπὰ τῷ υἱεῖ κατέλιπεν, not ἔδωκεν). Thus Timotheus did not inherit one
half of his father's wealth; as he was 'very old' (Nep. Tim. 3) when he
died in 354 B.C., he was of age in 390 or 389 B.C., the probable date of his
father's death. These facts blunt the edge of Isaeus' argument. The
making of a will could not in itself cast suspicion on the legitimacy of a
minor. The real bearing of this particular 'will' on the position of the two
claimants cannot be estimated without knowledge of the exact contents,
which are not revealed to the judges. See Beauchet III. p. 680.
29. 2 ÚπOTETTWкÓTES Tη άveрúπw, 'cringing before, truckling to, the
woman' (Dem. 45. 63, 65, [Dem.] 59. 43, Aesch. 3. 116, Ar. Eq. 47). Schoe-
mann compares the use of vπéрxeodaɩ (Dem. 23. 8, [Dem.] 59. 72, [And.]
33-2
516
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
4. 21, Ar. Eg. 269, Plat. Crito 53 E, Xen. Resp. Lac. 8. 2, [Xen.] Resp. Ath.
2. 14, Plut. Per. 7, Lucull. 6, Pyrrh. 4, Cat. Min. 50), ὑποδύεσθαι (Plut. Alc.
25, Philop. 8, Arat. 1, Romul. 25, Publ. 10, Mar. 28, Cat. Μin. 57), ὑποτρέ
χειν (Eur. Οr. 670, Plat. Rep. 4. 426 C, Laws II. 923 B, Aesch. 3. 162).
οἵδε. Cp. οἱ ἀντίδικοι (§ 12. 1). The phrase includes Androcles and
Antidorus (§§ 39. 7, 55. 3), and perhaps others (§ 36. 7, 8 n.).
5 συνεπιτίθενται, made plain by § 38. 1, 2 πρὶν μὲν τούτους γνωρίσαι τὴν
ἄνθρωπον καὶ μετ᾽ ἐκείνης ἐπιβουλεῦσαι Εὐκτήμονι; cp. § 55. 2, 3 τῶν συγγενῶν
μόνος (Ανδροκλῆς) μετὰ τῆς ᾿Αλκῆς ἐκείνης τούτῳ τῷ ᾿Αντιδώρῳ) καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις
συνεπιβουλεύσας τοῖς τοῦ Εὐκτήμονος χρήμασι.
او
ιν
30. 3 τῆς γὰρ φανερῶς οὐσίας. Cp. Harp. s.v. ἀφανὴς οὐσία καὶ φανερά:
ἀφανὴς μὲν ἡ ἐν χρήμασι καὶ σώμασι καὶ σκεύεσι, φανερὰ δὲ ἡ ἔγγειος· Λυσίας ἐν
τῷ πρὸς Ιπποθέρσην. This definition is not confirmed by the remains of the
Attic orators. It is true that the Athenians applied the term 'visible
property' to land and houses (Lys. fr. 234 Saupp. εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἀγροὺς κατέλιπεν
᾿Ανδροκλείδης ἢ ἄλλην φανερὸν οὐσίαν, ἐξῆν ἂν εἰπεῖν τῷ βουλομένῳ, ὅτι οὗτος
μὲν ψεύδεται, αὑτῷ δὲ δέδοται· περὶ δὲ ἀργυρίου καὶ χρυσίου καὶ ἀφανοῦς οὐσίας
δῆλον ὅτι ὅστις ἔχων αὐτὰ φαίνεται, τούτῳ δέδωκεν, [Dem.] 50. 8 προσαπηνέχθη
μου τοὔνομα ἐν τριττοῖς δήμοις, διὰ τὸ φανερὰν εἶναί μου τὴν οὐσίαν, Lys. 20. 33),
and that money, being normally out of sight, was opposed to 'visible
property (Din. I. 70 καὶ τοὺς μὲν φανερὰν κεκτῆσθαι τὴν οὐσίαν καὶ ἀπὸ ταύτης
εἰσφέρειν, σὲ δὲ πλείω ἢ πεντήκοντα καὶ ἑκατὸν τάλαντα εἰληφέναι, μηδὲν δὲ
φανερὸν ἐν τῇ πόλει κεκτῆσθαι, Lys. 20. 23 ἐξὸν αὐτῷ τὴν οὐσίαν ἀφανῆ καταστή
σαντι μηδὲν ὑμᾶς ὠφελεῖν εἵλετο μᾶλλον συνειδέναι ὑμᾶς, ἵν᾽, εἰ καὶ βούλοιτο
κακὸς εἶναι, μὴ ἐξείη αὐτῷ, ἀλλ᾽ εἰσφέροι τε τὰς εἰσφορὰς καὶ λῃτουργοίη),
especially money lent out at interest (VIII. 35, Dem. 38. 7 τὴν οὐσίαν ἅπασαν
χρέα κατέλιπον καὶ φανερὰν ἐκέκτηντο μικράν τινα, 45. 66 ταῦτα μέντοι ἐπὶ τῷ
τὴν πόλιν φεύγειν καὶ τὰ ὄντ᾽ ἀποκρύπτεσθαι προῄρηται πράττειν, ἵν᾽ ἐργασίας
ἀφανεῖς διὰ τῆς τραπέζης ποιῆται) or deposited in a bank (Isocr. 17. 7 τὰ μὲν
φανερὰ τῶν χρημάτων παραδοῦναι, περὶ δὲ τῶν παρὰ τούτῳ κειμένων ἔξαρνον
εἶναι). But the phrase does not exclude slaves and furniture, as Harpocration
asserts. Euctemon, when he acts on the advice here given him, sells goats,
mules, and slaves, as well as land and houses. In VIII. 35 (where I adopt
Buermann's correction xıλías) slaves and furniture go to make up the total of
the property that was visible, and in Dem. 38. 7 σκεύη and άνδράποδα form
part of the φανερὰ οὐσία. Thus in Dem. 5. 8 (ἣν ἐνθάδ᾽ ἐκέκτητ᾽ οὐσίαν
φανεράν, ταύτην ἐξαργυρίσας πρὸς ἐκεῖνον ἀπάγων οἴχεται) we have no right
to assume that only land is meant. On the other hand, no evidence, apart
from Harpocration's article, exists to show that in Lys. 32. 4 (τὴν μὲν ἀφανῆ
οὐσίαν ἐνείμαντο, τῆς δὲ φανερᾶς ἐκοινώνουν) the words invisible property
denote anything but money. In Andoc. I. 118 (τὰ δὲ πράγματα τὰ οἴκοι
πονήρως εἶχε τὴν μὲν γὰρ φανερὰν οὐσίαν οὐδὲ δυοῖν ταλάντοιν κατέλιπε, τὰ δὲ
ὀφειλόμενα πλέον ἢ πέντε τάλαντα) ‘visible property appears to be much the
same as assets'; compare Lys. 12. 83 ἀλλὰ γὰρ εἰ τὰ χρήματα τὰ φανερὰ
δημεύσαιτε, καλῶς ἂν ἔχοι ἢ τῇ πόλει, ἧς οὗτοι πολλὰ εἰλήφασιν, ἢ τοῖς ἰδιώταις,
ὧν τὰς οἰκίας ἐξεπόρθησαν, [Dem.] Εp. 3. 41 οὐ γὰρ δὴ χρήματά γ᾽ εἶναί μοι
προσδοκατ᾽ ἔξω τῶν φανερῶν, ὧν ἀφίσταμαι. We are not dealing with fixed
and technical terminology (XI. 43. 8), and the distinction should not be con-
OR. VI.
517
COMMENTARY
founded with the classification of property into movables and immovables or
res corporales and incorporales (Just. Inst. 2. 2) used by Roman lawyers.
See for the theories on the subject Beauchet III. 13 sqq., Att. Proc. p. 670
7. 519.
οὐδένα κύριον ἔσεσθαι κ.τ.λ. ‘No one would have a right to the visible
property but Euctemon's daughters and their issue. For this use of κύριος
cp. I. 45. 3 n., VIII. 31. 4, X. 12. 5, and contrast § 43. 4, I. 10. 6, 7 n.,
Dem. 45. 27. Phanostratus, it is implied, would be certain to break faith,
when Euctemon was dead, and to attack the 'will,' which in law was not
binding. Here and in §§ 47. 5, 56. 6, 7 Isaeus ignores the complications
that might be caused by claims to the daughters as ἐπίκληροι, and treats
their existing children as heirs of Euctemon.
6 βεβαίως ἕξειν. Cp. I. 22. 5, 6 n., Plut. Philop. 5 ἐπὶ τῷ καὶ τὴν πόλιν ἔχειν
βεβαιότερον, De amicor. mult. 93 Β μηδέπω μίαν φιλίαν κεκτημένοι βεβαίως.
}
31. 3 προσεκαλέσατο εἰς ἐμφανῶν κατάστασιν, 'served on him a summons
"for the production of the objects." See for ἐμφανῆ (ἐμφανές) καθιστάναι
[Dem.] 33. 18, 52. 10, 56. 3, 38, 40, 45, Aesch. 1. 99, and for the technical
combination εἰς ἐμφανῶν κατάστασιν Isae. fr. 6 Saupp. (Dion. Hal. de Isae.
c. 15, p. 613 R., 112 Usener and Radermacher) ἐν τῇ λήξει τῇ πρὸς ᾿Αριστο-
γείτονα καὶ "Αρχιππον...κλήρου τις ἀμφισβητῶν, ἀδελφὸς ὢν τοῦ τελευτήσαντος,
προσκαλεῖται (προκαλείται Sylburg) τὸν ἔχοντα τἀφανῆ χρήματα εἰς ἐμφανῶν
κατάστασιν, ὁ δὲ τοῦ κλήρου κρατῶν παραγράφεται τὴν κλῆσιν, δεδόσθαι λέγων
ἑαυτῷ τὰ χρήματα κατὰ διαθήκας, [Dem.] 53. 14 ἐγγράφει τῷ δημοσίῳ ἀπρόσκλη-
τον ἐξ ἐμφανῶν καταστάσεως ἐπιβολὴν ἑξακοσίας καὶ δέκα δραχμάς, διὰ Λυκίδου
τοῦ μυλωθροῦ ποιησάμενος τὴν δίκην, Harp. s.v. εἰς ἐμφανῶν κατάστασιν: ὄνομα
δίκης ἐστὶν ὑπὲρ τοῦ τὰ ἀμφισβητήσιμα εἶναι ἐν φανερῷ Ἰσαῖος ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ
Φιλοκτήμονος κλήρου. ὁ δὲ ᾿Αριστοτέλης ἐν τῇ ᾿Αθηναίων πολιτεία (in c. 56. 6
εἰς [ἐμφανῶν κατάστασ]ιν is generally read after εἰς ἐπιτροπῆς διαδικασίαν)
πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντά φησι λαγχάνεσθαι ταύτην τὴν δίκην, τὸν δὲ ἀνακρίνοντα (ἀνα-
κρίναντα Bekker, confirmed by ᾿Αθ. Πολ. 56. 6) εἰσάγειν εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον.
These passages do not throw much light on the scope and limitations of the
Athenian action ad exhibendum. The extract from [Dem.] 53. 14, a famous
crux interpretum (see Lipsius in Att. Proc.² p. 1016 sqq. and Sandys ad loc.),
suggests that a defendant condemned in contumaciam incurred a fine to the
State. Dionysius' account of the issue in Isaeus' speech against Aristogeiton
and Archippus implies the principle that the person holding the object could
plead ownership as a reason for non-production; perhaps the two claimants.
were engaged in a preliminary skirmish for the interim possession of the
ready money, which formed part of the estate. In Lex. Rhet. Cant. s. v. it is
said that a plaintiff under this action could demand the production before
judges of a disputed estate (κλῆρος) and of stolen goods (φώριόν τι). The
article on εἰς ἐμφανῶν κατάστασιν and ἐξ ἐμφανῶν καταστάσεως in Bekk. An.
Gr. I. p. 246, 4 states that the action was competent to an owner, who found
lost property (furniture, slaves, cattle) in the possession of another, and that
the possessor was bound not only to produce the property, but to discover
his title. Plato (Laws 914 C D) establishes a similar procedure in which the
purpose of production before the magistrate is to ascertain the identity of
the object, and determine the question of ownership. According to this
518
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
description the summons to produce was introductory and auxiliar to recovering
possession of goods wrongfully detained, or, if re-delivery was impossible, to
obtaining damages for wrongful detention, so that the suit corresponded to
the English actions of detinue and of trover and conversion (Blackstone,
Commentaries, Book III. Cap. 9, vol. III. p. 151 sqq., 18th ed., 1829). Specu-
lations concerning the 'Graeco-Italic' origin of the procedure may be found
by the curious in Leist, Graeco-italische Rechtsgeschichte p. 492 sqq. The
connexion between the Roman actio ad exhibendum and the rei uindicatio is
discussed by Karlowa, Römische Rechtsgeschichte II. p. 442 sqq. It is often
stated that a suit εἰς ἐμφανῶν κατάστασιν was a means by which a litigant
was enabled to compel the other party or a third person to allow inspection
of documents in his custody or under his control relating to the controversy.
Such a right was enforceable at Rome by an actio ad exhibendum, and is
recognised by English law, which provides inter alia a writ of sub poena
duces tecum (Blackstone, ib. Book III. Cap. 23, vol. III. p. 382), but I am
aware of no good evidence that it was admitted at Athens. Isaeus' narrative
of Euctemon's proceedings is too brief and obscure to be of any value.
Apparently the dispute did not go beyond the preliminary investigation
before the Archon. Pythodorus refused to destroy the 'will' before he had
received the consent of a representative of Chaereas' daughter, the Archon
upheld his objection, the parties came to an agreement of some kind, and
Euctemon withdrew after a formal declaration before witnesses that he no
longer recognised the 'will.' That Pythodorus produced the 'will' in court,
and that it was inspected and read, is not stated. The orator seems to
regard Euctemon's repudiation as effective; at any rate nothing more is
heard about this mysterious document. The case bears no resemblance to
the exhibitio tabularum testamenti treated in Dig. 29. 3 (testamenta quemad-
modum aperiantur inspiciantur et describantur). The Roman doctrine is
clearly expounded by Gaius, ib. 29. 3. 1: omnibus quicumque desiderant tabulas
testamenti inspicere uel etiam describere, inspiciendi describendique potestatem
facturum se praetor pollicetur: quod uel suo uel alieno nomine desideranti
tribuere eum manifestum est. ratio autem huius edicti manifesta est: neque
enim sine iudice transigi neque apud iudicem exquiri ueritas de his con-
trouersiis quae ex testamento proficiscerentur aliter potest quam inspectis
cognitisque uerbis testamenti. The petition was only entertained after the
testator's death, and inspection was not allowed if there was any doubt on
this head (Dig. 29. 2. 4). Here, if the document was really nothing more
than a will, the testator himself was claiming his own property from a
depositary. We are told by [Dem.] 33. 38 that a depositor of a contract
could sue the depositary, if he refused to produce (rapéɣew) the document,
but the form of the suit is not stated. It has been inferred (Att. Proc.²
p. 703) that an action eis éµpavŵv karáσтaσi might be brought as an alterna-
tive to a díkŋ паракатаðýкηs, to procure restitution of any deposit, but the
conclusion has been challenged by Caillemer (Beauchet IV. p. 330). The
idea (Gans, Erbrecht 1. p. 393, Roeder, Beiträge p. 14) that at Athens a man
could not revoke a will without the consent of the heirs therein instituted (in
this instance the families of Phanostratus and Chaereas) does not deserve
refutation (Beauchet III. p. 670 sqq.).
кат
ιν
OR. VI.
519
COMMENTARY
αν
5 ἀνελέσθαι τὴν διαθήκην, to take up, i.e. get back, his will (Dem. 45. 21
εἰ δὲ...ἐπὴν “διαθήκη Πασίωνος, πῶς οὐκ ἂν ἀνῃρήμην αὐτὴν ἐγώ, συνειδὼς μὲν
ἐμαυτῷ μέλλοντι δικάζεσθαι, συνειδὼς δ᾽ ὑπεναντίαν οὖσαν, εἴπερ ἦν τοιαύτη, τοῖς
ἐμαυτῷ συμφέρουσι, κληρονόμος δ᾽ ὢν καὶ ταύτης, εἴπερ ἦν τοὐμοῦ πατρός, καὶ τῶν
ἄλλων τῶν πατρῴων ὁμοίως;). The middle, ἀναιρεῖσθαι is the mox propria for
recovering any kind of deposit (Plat. Laws 913 C ἃ μὴ κατέθου, μὴ ἀνέλῃ,
Dem. 37. 41 τὰς παρακαταβολάς, [Dem.] 52. 14 τὸ γραμματεῖον παρὰ τοῦ διαιτη-
τοῦ, 58. 34, 59. 68, 69 τὴν γραφήν, Din. I. 94 τὴν εἰσαγγελίαν), and is often
applied to the withdrawal of a bond by one or both the parties on termina-
tion of the contract ([Dem.] 33. 12 ἐναντίον πολλῶν μαρτύρων τὰς συγγραφὰς
ἀνειλόμεθα καθ᾽ ἃς ἐδανείσθη τὰ χρήματα, 34. 31 τὴν γὰρ συγγραφὴν ἀνελόμενος
ἀπήλλαξο ἂν τοῦ συμβολαίου, 48. 46, 56. 14, 15, 16, Inscr. Jurid. Gr. I. p. 306 Β,
18 (Orchomenus) Fάρνων Πολυκλεῖος ταμίας ἀπέδωκε Εὐβώλυ ᾿Αρχεδάμω Φωκεῖι
ἀπὸ τᾶς σουγγράφω τὸ κατάλυπον, ἀνελόμενος τὰς σουγγράφως τὰς κιμένας παρ
Σώφιλον κὴ Εὔφρονα Φωκεῖας κὴ πὰρ Διωνύσιον Καφισοδώρω Χηρωνεῖα κὴ Λυσί-
δαμον Δαμοτέλιος). In the active the idea of destruction is uppermost (I. 25.
4 n., Isocr. 17. 31 ἠξίου μ᾽ ἢ Μενέξενον ἀπαλλάττειν ἢ τὰς συνθήκας τὰς γεγενη-
μένας πρὸς αὑτὸν ἀναιρεῖν, Dem. 29. 36 τὰς συγγραφὰς ἀνελόντες, [Dein.] 34. 33
ἀμφισβητεῖς πρὸς ἓν ῥῆμα τῶν ἐν τῇ συγγραφῇ, καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἀνῃρηκὼς αὐτός).
2
32. 2 ἐκείνῳ μὲν καὶ τῷ Φανοστράτῳ παρόντι ώμολόγει ἀναιρεῖν, he was
prepared to make an agreement with Euctemon and Phanostratus, who was
present, to destroy the instrument.' For the force of the imperfect see
V. 18. 2 n. I can find no other example in the orators of ὁμολογεῖν followed
by a present infinitive which refers to the future, but the construction is
legitimate ; cp. [Dem.] 33. 15 καὶ συνέθεντο ἐν ταῖς συνθήκαις, εἰ μὲν τρεῖς
ὄντες ὁμογνώμονες γενοίμεθα, ταῦτα κύρια εἶναι αὐτοῖς, εἰ δὲ μή, οἷς οἱ δύο γνοί-
ησαν, τούτοις ἐπάναγκες εἶναι ἐμμένειν, S. I. G. n. 517, 46= Inscr. Jurid. Gr. 1.
p. 316 (Amorgus, 2nd c. B.C.) ώμολόγησαν δὲ ᾿Αρκεσινεῖς ἀναγεγραμμένην παρέ-
χειν τήνδε τὴσ συγγραφὴν ἐν ᾿Αρκεσίνηι...ἐσ στήληι λιθίνηι ἡμερῶν ἑξήκοντα ἀφ᾿
ἧς ἂν ἐπαγγείλωσιν οἱ δανεισταί, εἰ δὲ μή, ὀφείλειν κ.τ.λ. But in [Dem.] 42. 12
(ὁμολογῆσαι ποιήσασθαι) Madvig's correction, ποιήσεσθαι, should be accepted,
and Burnet rightly reads ομολογήσας ἡμῖν πείσεσθαι in Plat. Crito 51 E, ὡμο
λόγεις καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς πολιτεύσεσθαι ib. 52 C, ὡμολογηκέναι πολιτεύσεσθαι καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς
ib. 52 D. Cp. VIII. 23 διωμολογήσατο τιμὴν ἀπολαβεῖν.
ιν
3 τοῦ δὲ Χαιρέου του συγκαταθεμένου θυγάτηρ ήν μία κ.τ.λ., but, as
Chaereas, who was one of the depositors, had left an only daughter, he
thought it right not to destroy the deed until a legal representative of the
girl presented himself. The word κατασταίη bears the same sense as κατα-
στάντος in § 31. 4, and corresponds to παρόντι in § 32. 2 ; cp. S. I. G. n. 470
(Ephesus, 3rd c. B.C.), 1, 2 ἐπειδὴ ᾿Αντιφῶν ᾿Αντιμένοντος Ιστιαιεὺς...καταστὰς
εἰς τὴν βουλὴν καὶ τὸν δῆμον αἰτεῖται πολιτείαν. This interpretation was first
put forward by Dareste (Plaidoyers d'Isée p. 115), following a hint given by
Sauppe (Or. Att. 1. p. 353). Pythodorus did not assert that Chaereas'
daughter possessed at the moment no κύριος, but pointed out that no repre-
sentative of the third depositor was in court.
It is not however necessary to
adopt Sauppe's emendation, <6> κύριος. The indefiniteness of κύριος is
natural; Pythodorus said, 'I ought not to make away with the document
until a legal representative of Chaereas' daughter is present.' According to
520
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
:
the old version ἧς ἐπειδὴ κύριος κατασταίη means 'when a κύριος should be ap-
pointed for her.' The purport of Pythodorus' objection is the same; Chaereas
having been one of the depositors, the conscientious custodian felt scruples
about surrendering his trust before he had been authorised by a proper legal
representative of Chaereas' daughter and heiress. But why was Chaereas'
daughter without a κύριος ? And how was the deficiency to be supplied?
Reiske conjectured that the girl was an ἐπίκληρος, unmarried and probably
not yet marriageable, and that Pythodorus wished to wait until she had
a husband to act as her κύριος. But an ἐπίκληρος, who was under age (III.
31. 2 7.), could not have been without a κύριος during the interval between
her father's death and her marriage. It is highly probable that a minor,
who carried with her an estate, was claimed in marriage as soon as her father
died (III. 40-44 analysis), and possible that the relative, to whom the court
adjudged her, became ipso facto her κύριος, even if many years must elapse
before he could become her husband ([Dem.] 46. 18 ἐὰν μὲν ἐπίκληρός τις ᾖ,
τὸν κύριον ἔχειν, ΙΙΙ. 2. 3 n.). We might neglect her age, and content our-
selves with the hypothesis that the claims to the daughter and estate of
Chaereas presented at the time of his death were still unsettled. But the
choice of kataσrain in this connexion is surprising. On the other hand the
word is suitable to the appointment of a guardian ('Αθ. Πολ. 56. 6 εἰς ἐπι-
τροπῆς κατάστασιν, Plat. Laws 924 Β τούτους δὲ (the guardians specified by
Jaw on failure of testamentary dispositions) οἱ νομοφύλακες καθιστάντων τῷ
δεομένῳ τῶν ὀρφανῶν). Consequently Schoemann, though he uses the
ambiguous word 'tutor,' appears to hold that Pythodorus' plea for delay was
the absence of a guardian. With regard to the appointment of guardians in
defect of a will nothing precise is recorded in our authorities (1. 9. I n.). The
case of an éπíkλnpos is peculiarly perplexing, because it is not known whether
the man who had established a right to marry her became ipso facto guardian
during the minority, or whether he could be constituted sole or joint guardian
by special procedure.
κατασταίη
4, 5 ὁ ἄρχων οὕτως ἐγίγνωσκε, ‘the Archon was of the same opinion as
Pythodorus.' To guard the interests of orphans and heiresses was one of
this magistrate's duties ('Αθ. Πολ. 56. 7, [Dem.] 43. 75).
5 διομολογησάμενος ὁ Εὐκτήμων. With whom did Euctemon make this
agreement? With Pythodorus alone, or with Pythodorus and Phanostratus?
And what was the substance of the arrangement?
6 τῶν παρέδρων. Cp. Αθ. Πολ. 56. 1 λαμβάνουσι δὲ καὶ παρέδρους ὅ τε
ἄρχων καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ ὁ πολέμαρχος δύο ἕκαστος, οὓς ἂν βούληται, καὶ οὗτοι
δοκιμάζονται ἐν τῷ δικαστηρίῳ πρὶν παρεδρεύειν, καὶ εὐθύνας διδόασιν ἐπὰν
παρεδρεύσωσιν.
·
6, 7 ποιησάμενος πολλοὺς μάρτυρας. Cp. [Dem.] 48. 46, 47 ἐχρῆν γὰρ
αὐτὸν παραλαβόντα πολλοὺς μάρτυρας ἀξιοῦν ἀναιρεῖσθαι τὰς συνθήκας παρὰ τοῦ
᾿Ανδροκλείδου, ὡς παραβαίνοντος ἐμοῦ…..καὶ οὐκέτι κυρίων οὐσῶν τῶν συνθηκῶν
ἐμοὶ καὶ τούτῳ (Ολυμπιοδώρῳ), καὶ τῷ ᾿Ανδροκλείδῃ τῷ ἔχοντι τὰς συνθήκας
διαμαρτύρασθαι, ὅτι αὐτῷ οὐδέν ἐστιν ἔτι πρᾶγμα πρὸς τὰς συνθήκας ταύτας.
ταῦτ᾽ ἐχρῆν αὐτὸν ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, εἴπερ τι ἦν ἀληθὲς ὧν λέγει, καὶ μόνον
προσιόντα τῷ ᾿Ανδροκλείδη διαμαρτύρεσθαι καὶ μετὰ μαρτύρων πολλῶν, ἵν᾽ αὐτῷ
πολλοὶ ἦσαν οἱ συνειδότες.
ιν
OR. VI.
521
COMMENTARY
33.2 dypòv 'Alμovoî. Cp. VIII. 35. I, 2, XI. 41. 5, Aesch. 1. 97
ἐσχατιὰν δὲ Σφηττοῖ, ᾿Αλωπεκῆσι δ᾽ ἕτερον χωρίον, ib. 1οι ἀπέδοτο...χωρίον
Κηφισιᾶσιν, ἕτερον ἀγρὸν (del. Cobet) 'Αμφιτροπῆσιν, Lys. 17. 8, C. I. A. I. 277,
3 ἐπικαρπία ᾿Αθμονοι, ib. II. 785 b, 2 ἀπέδ]οτο ἐσχατιὰν Κεφαλῆσι. For the
form of the locative see Meisterhans, Gramm. d. att. Inschr.3 § 59, II, p. 147.
Athmonon belonged to the inland trittys of the tribe Cecropis (Milchhoefer,
Untersuchungen über die Demenordnung des Kleisthenes p. 30). It was on
or near the site of Marusi, a considerable village in the northern part of the
Athenian plain, about seven miles north-east of Athens and a mile and a
half south of Cephisia, Euctemon's deme (Frazer on Paus. I. 31. 4).
3 τὸ δ᾽ ἐν Σηραγγίῳ βαλανείον. Cp. Harp. s.v. Σηράγγιον : Λυσίας ἐν τῷ
κατ' ᾿Ανδροτίωνος. χωρίον τι τοῦ Πειραιῶς οὕτως ἐκαλεῖτο. μνημονεύει δ'
αὐτοῦ καὶ ᾿Αριστοφάνης ἐν Γεωργοῖς, Phot. s.v. Σηράγγειον (= Bekk. An. Gr. I.
p. 301, 16): τόπος τοῦ Πειραιῶς, κτισθεὶς ὑπὸ Σηράγγου· καὶ ἡρῷον ἐν αὐτῷ,
Alciphr. Εp. 3. 43 λουσάμενοι εἰς τὸ ἐν Σηραγγείῳ βαλανεῖον. The Serangium
(‘place of caverns, from σήραγξ, a hollow rock) was discovered in 1897
(S. P. Lambros in the Athenaeum, March 20, 1897, p. 385 sqq.). The
entrance is beside the sea, at the eastern foot of the hill of Munichia, near
the modern sea-baths of Paraskeuas. Here was found a subterranean
chamber, which had clearly been used as a bath, with openings from it
through the cliff in several directions. A stone, bearing the inscription
'Hpov opos, confirms Photius' statement that the place contained a shrine
of the hero Serangus. For a description of the remains see Frazer's
Pausanias, v. p. 477.
5 ἀπέλυσε. Hitzig Das griech. Pfandrecht pp. 9 n. 1, 106 7. 1) thinks
that Euctemon's rights may have been founded on a πρᾶσις ἐπὶ λύσει (V. 21.
7 n.), but the use of ὑποκειμένην (not πεπραμένην) does not favour this
suggestion. The active, ἀπολύειν, is used of the creditor who grants the
release, the middle of the debtor who obtains the release and redeems his
pledge (Lys. 19. 25 ἐπειδὴ δ᾽ ἀφίκοιτο εἰς Κύπρον, λύσεσθαι (τὴν φιάλην)
ἀποδοὺς εἴκοσι μνᾶς, [Dem.] 50. 28 ἵνα λύσωνταί μοι τὸ χωρίον ἀποδόντες
᾿Αρχένεῳ καὶ Θρασυλόχῳ τριάκοντα μνᾶς, 53. 12 συλλέξας δ᾽ ἔρανον...(τὴν
συνοικίαν) λύσαί μοι, C. I. A. IV. 2. 584 c = S. I. G. π. 432, 28 λύ[σομαι οὐδὲν]
τούτων, S. I. G. n. 226 (Olbia), 19 τὰ ἱερὰ ποτήρια αὐτὸς ὑπεραποδοὺς τοὺς
ἑκατὸν χρυσοῦς ἐλύσατο). Isaeus wrote a speech entitled πρὸς Εὐκλείδην περὶ
τῆς τοῦ χωρίου λύσεως (Dion. Hal. De Isaeo c. 14, p. 612 R., 112, 5 Usener
and Radermacher, Isae. fr. XIV. Saupp.).
2
τῷ ἱεροφάντῃ. The hierophant, whose principal duty was to show the
sacred symbols and figures at the Eleusinian Mysteries, was a member of
the gens of the Eumolpidae. He held office for life, but the rule of succes-
sion or manner of appointment is unknown. Lucian (Lexiph. 10) states that
it was an offence to mention his name: εἶτ᾽ εὐθὺς ἐντυγχάνω δᾳδούχῳ τε καὶ
ἱεροφάντῃ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀρρητοποιοῖς Δεινίαν σύρουσιν ἄγδην ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρχήν,
ἔγκλημα ἐπάγοντας, ὅτι ὠνόμαζεν αὐτούς, καὶ ταῦτα εὖ εἰδὼς ὅτι, ἐξ οὗπερ
ὡσιώθησαν, ἀνώνυμοί τέ εἰσι καὶ οὐκέτι ὀνομαστοὶ ὡς ἂν ἱερώνυμοι ἤδη γεγε-
νημένοι. The statement is confirmed and illustrated by an inscription of the
3rd century A.D. found at Eleusis on the base of the statue of a hierophant
(Εφ. Αρχ. 1883, col. 79-80): Οὔνομα δ᾽ ὅστις ἐγὼ μὴ δίζεο· θεσμὸς ἐκεῖνο
522
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
6
μυστικός ᾤχετ᾽ ἄγων εἰς ἅλα πορφυρέην. [ ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν εἰς μακάρων ἔλθω καὶ
μόρσιμον ἦμαρ, | λέξουσιν τότε δὴ πάντες ὅσοις μέλομαι. After his death his
children added the name: νῦν ἤδη παῖδες κλυτὸν οὔνομα πατρὸς ἀρίστου
φαίνομεν, ὁ ζωὸς κρύψεν ἁλὸς πε[λάγει]. | οὗτος ᾿Απολλώνιος ἀοίδιμος. Compare
C. I. A. III. 900 (Kaibel, Ep. Gr. n. 863), where a hierophantis is speaking:
Μήτηρ Μαρκιανοῦ, θυγάτηρ Δημητρίου εἰμί· | τοὔνομα σιγάσθω· τοῦτ᾽ ἀποκλῃ
ζομένη | εὖτέ με Κεκροπίδαι Δηοῖ θέσαν ἱεροφάντιν | αὐτὴ ἀμαιμακέτοις ἐγκατέ
Kρvya Bubois. In inscriptions, where it was necessary to define the
personality of the hierophant, the name of his father was inserted between
the title and the demoticum of the priest, e.g. Ιεροφάντης Εὐστρόφου Πειραιεύς
and 'Iepopávτns Mevekλeidov Kudaðŋvaieùs (C. I. A. II. 1047, end of 2nd cent.
B.C.). In the imperial age we find the Roman gentile name given (Kλaúdios
iepodávτns 'Axapveús, about 190 A.D.). In an inscription belonging to the last
decades of the 4th century B.C. (C. I. A. II. 949) Koehler has restored in
1. 1 [Ιεροφάν]της Νουφρά[δου, and in 1. 6 Ἱεροφάντην Νουφρ[άδου. From
this evidence we should expect that the appearance of the name of a hiero-
phant was proof that he was dead. But this is not the case. The speaker
of or. VII. mentions (§ 9) ' Lacrateides who has now become hierophant.' An
inscription (C. I. A. IV. 2. 597 c=S. I. G.² n. 605, Michel n. 964) found at
Eleusis and assigned conjecturally to the 3rd century B.C. contains a decree
of the two great priestly gentes in honour of the hierophant, whose full name
is given: δεδόχθαι Κήρυξι καὶ Εὐμολπίδαις ἐπαινέσαι τὸν ἱεροφάντην Χαιρήτιον
Προφήτου Ελευσίνιον καὶ στεφανώσαι μυρρίνης στεφάνω (11. 13, 14). Toepffer's
explanation (Attische Genealogie p. 53) is that 'the holy name' (iepwvvµía)
was an institution that arose in the Roman age, and that the rule of silence
only applied to a limited circle of persons connected with the priest by a
religious or personal tie. Paton (Proceedings of the International Folk-Lore
Congress, 1891, p. 202 sqq.) points out the improbability of a late origin for
a piece of ritual, which has every appearance of great antiquity, and offers
an alternative theory. He distinguishes between the original name of the
hierophant, and the 'holy name' taken when he succeeded to the office.
The 'holy name,' immediately on its assumption, was committed to the sea,
and kept secret until the death of the hierophant. Dead hierophants were
designated by the 'holy name.' After consecration the original name was
entirely abandoned; it was no longer the hierophant's name, and its use was
improper. But, as the decree concerning Chairetios shows, members of the
priestly families might employ it, and though its mention by others was
forbidden, it is probable that the prohibition was not strictly enforced. This
theory is open to a grave objection. The names which on Paton's hypothesis
were 'holy' and religiously concealed during the hierophant's lifetime,
prove to be, with one exception, quite commonplace and secular, viz.
Ocódwpos (Plut. Alc. 33), BioTTOS (C. I. A. IV. 2. 767 b 35), Evpvµédwv (Diog.
Laert. 5. 5), 'Aµvvópaxos (C. I. A. IV. 2. 1203 b), 'Aπodλivápios (C. I. A. 111.
1140), Απολλώνιος (Εφ. Αρχ. 7. c.), Ηρακλείδης, Λόγιμος (?), Γλαύκος (all in
Philost. Vitt. Soph. 2. 20; cp. 'Ep. 'Apx. 1883, col. 81), 'Epórios (C. I. A. III.
718). The exception is Zákopos ([Lys.] 6. 54). I believe that the name
committed to the sea was the priest's ordinary family name. See also
Mommsen, Feste der Stadt Athen p. 253 sqq.
OR. VI.
523
COMMENTARY
6 oùy tậ aimóλw, 'the goat-herd included.' The orators rarely use the
preposition σúv. In the few places where it occurs it nearly always means,
as here, 'inclusive of, with reference to items in an account or enumeration
(VIII. 8, 35, XI. 42, 46, Ant. Tetr. I. a. 4, And. 2. 7, Lys. 21. 2, 4, Aesch. 2.
162, Hyp. 5. 9, Dem. 19. 155; 27. 23, 31, 35, 38, 50, 61; 28. 13; 31. II,
[Dem.] 34. 7, 35. 18). Demosthenes has σὺν θεοῖς εἰπεῖν (29. 1), a set phrase.
In Antiphon, whose style has an archaic and poetical tinge, we find oủê ầv
ἔβαλεν αὐτὸν ἀτρέμα σὺν τοῖς θεωμένοις ἑστῶτα (Tetr. II. δ. 6, but μετὰ τῶν
θεωμένων ἑστὼς in § 5), in Pseudo-Isocrates (1. 16) τέρψις γὰρ σὺν τῷ καλῷ
μὲν ἄριστον, ἄνευ δὲ τούτου κάκιστον. In place of σὺν τοῖς ὅπλοις (Thuc.,
Aristoph., Plat.) the orators always say μετὰ τῶν ὅπλων. Isaeus interprets
σὺν ταύτῃσιν in the law (ἂν δὲ θηλείας καταλίπῃ, σὺν ταύταις III. 68, Χ. 13,
[Dem.] 43. 51) by μετὰ τῶν θυγατέρων (III. 68). Isocrates, Lycurgus,
Dinarchus furnish no example of the preposition. An examination of the
Athenian inscriptions leads to the same result, that in plain prose only one
application of où was permitted (Meisterhans, Gramm. d. att. Inschr.³
§ 85, 47, p. 221). See for further particulars the exhaustive enquiry of Tycho
Mommsen, Beiträge zu der Lehre von den griechischen Praepositionen
pp. 356, 368 sqq., 496 sqq., and for the use of aμa in oratory v. 38. 6 n.
8 δημιουργοὺς ὅσοι ἦσαν αὐτῷ. Compare VIII. 35. 5, 6 n., and the inventory
of the property left by Arizelus the father of Timarchus (Aesch. 1. 97):
οἰκέτας δημιουργοὺς τῆς σκυτοτομικῆς τέχνης ἐννέα ἢ δέκα, ὧν ἕκαστος τούτῳ
δύ᾽ ὀβολοὺς ἀποφορὰν (And. 1. 38) ἔφερε τῆς ἡμέρας, ὁ δ᾽ ἡγεμὼν τοῦ ἐργαστηρίου
τριώβολον· ἔτι δὲ πρὸς τούτοις γυναῖκα ἀμοργὸν ἐπισταμένην ἐργάζεσθαι καὶ
ἔργα λεπτὰ εἰς τὴν ἀγορὰν ἐκφέρουσαν, καὶ ἄνδρα ποικιλτήν.
34. 2
διὰ ταχέων πάνυ. The interval between the death of Philoctemon
and the revocation of the 'will' was not less than two years (§§ 27, 29).
35. 3 κατεσκεύασαν, 'got up, concocted, an invidious word much
affected by Athenian pleaders (And. 1. 110, [And.] 4. 11, Dem. 2. 6; 21. 134 ;
22. 1, 2; 39. 2; 57. 65, [Dem.] 33. 3; 40. 34; 42. 29, 30; 43. 4; 44. 56; 45.
5, 13, 20, 22, 39, 42; 48. 31; 59. 9, 18; Aesch. 3. 95, 223; Din. 1. 30, 49). It
is not easy to find passages in the orators in which it is used without any
suggestion of fraud ([Dem.] 52. 2 εἰ γὰρ ἔθος καταστήσετε, τοῖς δυναμένοις
εἰπεῖν καὶ δόξαν ἔχουσι μᾶλλον πιστεύειν ἢ τοῖς ἀδυνατωτέροις, ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς
ἔσεσθε τὸ ἔθος τοῦτο κατεσκευακότες, Lyc. 75 ἐγκώμιον γάρ εἰσι τῆς πόλεως οἱ
παλαιοὶ νόμοι καὶ τὰ ἔθη τῶν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ταῦτα κατασκευασάντων). See IV. 6. 4 η.,
VIII. 43, IX. 2.
6 δι' αὑτῶν ἔσοιτο, might be in their hands, under their control (VIII.
37. 2, 3 7., Dem. 15. 14 εἰ δι᾽ αὑτῶν εἶχον τὴν πόλιν οἱ νῦν ὄντες ἐν αὐτῇ Ρόδιοι,
22. 38 δι᾿ ἑαυτῶν εἶχον μετὰ τούτου τὸ βουλευτήριον, [Dem.] 48. 15 τὸ ἀργύριον
τοῦθ᾽ ἅπαν εἶχεν αὐτὸς δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, Ar. Pol. 7 (5), 1. 1301 b 12 τὴν
μὲν κατάστασιν προαιροῦνται τὴν αὐτήν, δι᾽ αὑτῶν δ᾽ εἶναι βούλονται ταύτην).
I regret that I did not put avrŵv in the text (II. II. 3 22.).
36. 2, 3 εἰσποιήτω τοῖς τοῦ Εὐκτήμονος ὑέσι τοῖς τετελευτηκόσιν, a loose
and ambiguous description, since the passive form εἰσποίητος, like εἰσπεποιη-
μένος and εἰσποιηθείς (111. 60. 8, 9 n.), may belong either to εἰσποιοῦμαι υἱὸν
(II. 10, VIII. 36, ΙΧ. 7, ΧΙΙ. 1, 2, [Dem.] 44. 51 εἰκότως δ᾽ οὐ προσέγραψαν τὴν
ποίησιν τῇ διαμαρτυρίᾳ. ἔδει γὰρ ἐγγράψαι αὐτοὺς εἰσποιησαμένου τοῦ δεῖνος.
524
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
1
ὁ δ᾽ οὐκ εἰσεποιήσατο, ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς εἰσποιοῦντες ἀποστεροῦσιν ἡμᾶς τῆς κληρο-
voμías, Isocr. 19. 13, 45, 49, [Plut.] Vitt. X. Orr. 843 A) as in III. 58, IX. 2,
X. 9, or to elσñow Tivì viòv (VII. 31, 44, VIII. 40, IX. 2, 34, X. II, 16, XI. 49,
[Dem.] 40. 10; 43. 77; 44. 24, 27, 41, 43, 55, 63, Plat. Laws 878 A) as in
[Dem.] 44. 19 ἐᾶν ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ εἶναι τὸν Λεωκράτην υἱὸν εἰσποίητον τῷ ᾿Αρχιάδη, 10.
21 ὁ εἰσποίητος γενόμενος τῷ ᾿Αρχιάδη. The use of the dative, τοῖς θέσι, does not
exclude the idea of testamentary adoption, as is indicated by IX. 34 (Kλéwv
μὲν γάρ φησι τὸν ὑὸν τὸν ἑαυτοῦ ᾿Αστυφίλῳ εἰσποιηθῆναι, καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἐκεῖνον
διαθέσθαι) and Isocr. 19. 36 (ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἴσως ἀνάξιος ἦν υἱὸς εἰσποιηθῆναι
Opaσvλóx; the dispute is about a will), but neither here nor in § 44 does
Isaeus assert that the children were said to have been adopted by Euctemon's
sons. If a sister could transfer one of her children into the house of a
brother who had died intestate (VII. 31, 44, XI. 49), Euctemon, or persons
acting in his name, might have claimed the right to introduce the two
children into the houses of his dead sons without putting forward testa-
mentary provisions. As the minors were alleged to be Euctemon's legitimate
issue ($ 44), the adoption did not involve a change of pparpía, so that in all
probability such a transference as the speaker appears to have in view could
have been managed privately without a ceremony of admission and a vote
of the society. According to $ 44. 2 one child was given to Philoctemon,
one to Ergamenes. Sauppe proposes to substitute Hegemon for Philo-
ctemon; see note ad loc. In any case the two adoptive fathers must have
been dead for several years.
3 ἐπιγράψαντες σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἐπιτρόπους. Writers on law (Schulthess,
Vormundschaft nach attischem Recht pp. 55, 73, Thalheim-Hermann, Gr.
Rechtsaltert. p. 14 22. 5, Beauchet II. p. 184) have quoted this passage to
show that guardians nominated in a testament were required by law to
present themselves to the Archon for confirmation, submitting their own
names, the names of the orphans, and the will which constituted their
credentials. I see no means of proving or disproving the assumption that
in this instance the conspirators rested their claim to be guardians on a will
or wills, though it should be remembered that Androcles at any rate was
Euctemon's kinsman, and that Euctemon, the natural guardian, was a bed-
ridden old man. But Isaeus does not say that the guardians came before
the Archon in order to be installed in office. His language is consistent
with the view that before presenting the petition for the lease of the estates
of the orphans they already were, or pretended to be, the properly qualified
guardians of the children. Little is known about tutores testamentarii and
legitimi at Athens (I. 9. I n.).
4 μισθοῦν ἐκέλευον τὸν ἄρχοντα τοὺς οἴκους. Cp. II. 9. 4, 5 π., 'Αθ. Πολ.
56. 7 μισθοῖ δὲ (ὁ ἄρχων) καὶ τοὺς οἴκους τῶν ὀρφανῶν καὶ τῶν ἐπι[κλήρων, ἕως
ἄν τις τετταρ]ακαιδε[κέ]τις γένηται, καὶ τὰ ἀποτιμήματα λαμβάνει. Isaeus is our
only authority for the cooperation of a court of judges, but modern scholars
are probably right in concluding that their presence at the auction of the
lease was prescribed by statute. Such control of an executive magistrate
would be quite in the spirit of the Athenian constitution. It is possible that
the judges decided between the bidders by a show of hands; compare the
account of the relation of the Council to the wλnrai in 'A0. Ioλ. 47. 2:
OR. VI.
525
COMMENTARY
μισθοῦσι δὲ τὰ μισθώματα πάντα καὶ τὰ μέταλλα πωλοῦσι, καὶ τὰ τέλη μετὰ τοῦ
ταμίου τῶν στρατιωτικῶν καὶ τῶν ἐπὶ τὸ θεωρικὸν ᾑρημένων ἐναντίον τῆς βουλῆς,
καὶ < κατα> κυροῦσιν, ὅτῳ ἂν ἡ βουλὴ χειροτονήσῃ (C. I. A. II. 167, 23 ἐν τῇ βουλῇ
κατὰ τὸν νόμον). We read of a lease of public works (C. I. A. II. 834, 8, 21,
building of the temple of Zeus Soter in the Peiraeus) and of sales of public
property ('Αθ. Πολ. 47. 3 τἀπογραφέντα καὶ πραθέντα ἐν τῷ δικαστηρίῳ) taking
place ἐν τῷ δικαστηρίῳ. Manumissions in court (Isae. fr. 66 Saupp., Dion.
Hal. de Isaeo c. 5, p. 594 R., 98, 14 Usener and Radermacher καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα
ἄγοντος αὐτὸν Διονυσίου ἐξειλόμην εἰς ἐλευθερίαν εἰδὼς ἀφειμένον ἐν τῷ δικαστηρίῳ
ὑπὸ Ἐπιγένους) were probably matters of private arrangement with a view to
securing a large number of witnesses (Att. Proc. p. 51 n. 29).
5, 6 ὅπως...τὰ μὲν μισθωθείη τῆς οὐσίας, τὰ δὲ ἀποτιμήματα κατασταθείη καὶ
ὅροι τεθείεν. See for καθιστάναι ἀποτίμημα Dem. 30. 7, [Dem.] 49. 11, C. I. A.
II. 1059, 4 (= Michel n. 1351, Inscr. Jurid. Gr. 1. p. 236) τους μισθωσαμένους
ὑπὲρ : Δ : δραχμὰς καθιστάναι ἀποτίμημα τῆς μισθώσεως ἀξιόχρεων, Lys. fr. 137
Saupp. (= Harp. s.v. τίμημα) οὗτοι δὲ φάσκοντες πλείονος μισθώσασθαι (μισθώ
σεσθαι Dobree) καὶ τίμημα (C. I. A. II, 570, 20 ὃς ἂν [πείθ]ηι τὸς δανείξοντας
ἄρχοντας [τιμή]ματι ἢ ἐγγυητῆι) καταστήσασθαι (καταστήσεσθαι Dobree), and
for the shape and size of the opor that have been discovered Hitzig, Das
griech. Pfandrecht p. 69. The majority are square stones, only a few are
pillars. Grammarians speak of boards, σανίδες, σανίδια (Bekk. An. Gr. I.
pp. 192, 5, 285, 13) as well as of στήλαι of stone (Poll. 3. 85, 9. 29, Hesych.
s.v.). The former, which have perished, may be the same as the tabulae of
Dig. 43. 22. 2 si ad ianuam meam tabulas fixeris et ego eas priusquam tibi
denuntiarem refixero, deinde inuicem interdicto quod ui aut clam egerimus.
In addition to ὅρους τιθέναι (Dem. 31. I, 3, 13 ; 25. 69) we find ὅρους ἐπιτιθέναι
(Bekk. An. Gr. 1. pp. 192, 5, 285, 14), iorávaι (Dem. 31. 12, 13, 41. 16),
ἐφιστάναι (Dem. 41. 6, C. I. A. II. 578, 28 δανείζειν τοὺς ἱερέας ἀξιοχρείωι ἐπὶ
χωρίωι ἢ οἰκίαι ἢ συνοικίαι καὶ ὅρον ἐφιστάναι, Poll. 3. 85), καταπηγνύναι
(Hesych. s.v. ὅρος), ἐγκαταπηγνύναι (Bekk. An. Gr. 1. p. 285, 15). The removal
is denoted by ἀναιρεῖν (Dem. 25. 69, 31. 4, Solon fr. 12, 6= Αθ. Πολ. 12. 4),
ἀνασπᾶν ([Dem.] 49. 12), ἀφαιρεῖν (Dem. 31. 3).
If the judges who heard the speaker comprehended the design which he
attributes to his opponents, they were more acute than modern commen-
tators. So far as the lease of part of Euctemon's property is concerned,
a meaning can be extracted from the words without a great effort of imagina-
tion. The deceased sons had left no real estate, since the family property
remained undivided, so long as the father lived, but it was open to Euctemon,
and consequently to persons acting in his name, to designate this or that
parcel as the share of Ergamenes and Philoctemon (or Hegemon), and to
register it in the inventory of the orphans' goods and chattels, which was
presented to the Archon by the guardians (XI. 34). It was also possible to
pretend that the estates of the two orphans consisted of money. But how
could the conspirators have hoped to pass off any of Euctemon's land or
houses in lieu of the security which had to be mortaged by the lessees?
According to Harpocration s.v. ἀποτιμηταί the Archon was bound to send
persons to value the pledges offered (ἀποτιμησομένους τὰ ἐνέχυρα). The
purpose of the institution would have been entirely frustrated, if these
526
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
1
'valuers' (άTотiμηтai) were not instructed to report on the title of the
mortgagors; and the orator does not charge the Archon or his agents with
complicity in the plot. Schoemann, who in 1. 7 reads <kaì> (ŵvтos and dử
avrov, conjectures that Euctemon either assented to the mortgage of his
property or became surety for the lessees.
7, 8 μισθωταὶ δ᾽ αὐτοὶ γενόμενοι κ.τ.λ. Whether the law of Athens allowed
a guardian to take a lease of his ward's estate is a disputed point. A man
who was both guardian and lessee was clearly in a very anomalous position.
It is generally agreed that the laws regulating μίσθωσις ὀρφανικοῦ οἴκου were
designed at the same time to protect infants and to relieve guardians. The
petition to the Archon to lease the estate was made either in conformity with
the provisions of a will (Dem. 27. 40, 29. 29) or on the motion of the guardian
or guardians. Apparently the latter course could be taken by persons who,
owing to incapacity or some other cause, desired to be released either
from the responsibility of making investments or from the onerous task
of managing a ward's property (Dem. 27. 58, Lys. 32. 23 el éßoúλeto díkalos
ἐβούλετο
εἶναι περὶ τοὺς παῖδας, ἐξὴν αὐτῷ κατὰ τοὺς νόμους, οἳ κεῖνται περὶ τῶν ὀρφανῶν
καὶ τοῖς ἀδυνάτοις τῶν ἐπιτρόπων καὶ τοῖς δυναμένοις, μισθῶσαι τὸν οἶκον ἀπηλ-
λαγμένον πολλῶν πραγμάτων), but the conditions on which the petition was
granted are not stated in any ancient authority. Now, if this view be right,
is it probable that the law allowed a guardian to undertake with a view to
profit business which he had shirked, when it was an unremunerative duty?
What Plato would have thought of such indulgence, may be learned from the
lofty passage (927 a sqq.) in which he describes the sacredness of the trust
committed to a guardian. If a guardian was dishonest, he lost rather than
gained by becoming a lessee; for a lessee was required to guarantee a fixed
return and to furnish substantial security. One of Demosthenes' charges against
Aphobus, Demophon, and Therippides is that in contravention of his father's
will they refused to 'lease the estate,' wishing to keep it in their own hands
and enjoy the revenues (Dem. 30. 6). Athenian legislators had provided
a special action (φάσις ὀρφανικοῦ οἴκου? Cp. XI. 35. 6 n., Αθ. Πολ. 56. 6.
οἴκου ὀρφανικοῦ κακώσεως) to compel incompetent or fraudulent guardians to
proceed to a lease (Dem. 38. 23 οὐκ ἐμίσθωσαν ἡμῶν τὸν οἶκον, ἴσως ἐροῦσιν,
οὐ γὰρ ἐβούλεθ᾽ ὁ θεῖος ὑμῶν ἀλλὰ φήναντος Νικίδου τοὺς δικαστὰς ἔπεισεν ἐᾶσαι
dioikeîv avtóv), and, although vague and unsatisfactory definitions are given
by the grammarians (Poll. 8. 47, Harp., Phot., Suid. s.v. páơis, Lex. Rhet.
Cant. s.v. évdeıĝıs, Bekk. An. Gr. 1. pp. 313, 20, 315, 16; see Schulthess, op.
cit. p. 209 sqq., Beauchet II. p. 294 sqq., whose conclusions I reject), it is
plain that the aim of the procedure was to remove guardians from adminis-
tration. On the other side no one has suggested any motive, which would
have induced a capable guardian, careful of his ward's interests, to constitute
himself a lessee. I can only think of one case in which such an appointment
might have been honestly sought. When the father's will prescribed a lease,
it might have sometimes happened that the guardian, confident of his own
efficiency, decided that it was not to the advantage of the orphan to let in a
stranger and speculator, who was certain not to bid more than he could help.
But such devotion cannot have been common, and it may be doubted
whether the law provided for the contingency. These considerations make
OR. VI.
527
COMMENTARY
me disposed to agree with Platner (Der Process und die Klagen bei den
Attikern, 1824/5, II. p. 281), who denied that it was lawful for a guardian to
take a lease of his ward's estate. Modern authorities (Schulthess, op. cit.
p. 146 n. 2, Thalheim-Hermann, Gr. Rechtsaltert.¹ p. 16 n. 1, Beauchet II.
p. 244) all teach the opposite doctrine. Their main argument is that in this
passage the speaker does not accuse his adversaries of violating the law
when they prepared to bid (ἐμισθοῦντο) at the auction. But Isaeus' description
of the incident is vague. He does not state the number and the names of
the conspirators, nor does he distinguish their respective rôles. He may
have desired the judges to conclude e.g. that the guardian or guardians of
one child made a bid for the estate of the other child. The inference drawn
in $45 from the refusal of the court to grant a lease is that the children
were not Euctemon's heirs.
K
2
37. 1, 2 ἐπειδὴ πρῶτον τὰ δικαστήρια ἐπληρώθη, ' on the first day that the
courts were made up'; no time was lost by the intriguers. The technical
phrase, πληροῦν δικαστήριον (Lys. 26. 6, Dem. 21. 209, 24. 58, 92, Αθ. Πολ.
63. 2, Poll. 8. 123), means 'to get together the proper complement (201, 501
etc. according to the business) of judges' by means of the elaborate processes
of sortition (κλήρωσις) described in 'Αθ. Πολ. col. xxxi sqq. ; see Gilbert, Gr.
Staatsaltert. I. p. 445 sqq., E. T. p. 397 sqq. Decrees of the 3rd and 2nd
century B.C. conferring citizenship generally provide that 'the Thesmothetae
shall bring in the scrutiny of the grant on the first day that they make up
a court of 5or judges (C. I. A. II. 395, 7, 8 τοὺς δὲ θεσμ]οθέτας ὅταν [πρῶτον
πληρῶσιν δικαστήριον εἰς ἕνα καὶ] πεντακοσίους δικαστάς, εισαγαγεῖν αὐτῷ τὴν]
δοκιμασίαν κα[τὰ τὸν νόμον, ib. 401, 16 ὅταν καὶ ὣς πληρῶσιν δικαστήριον εἰς ἕνα
καὶ πεντακοσίους δικαστάς, ib. 402, 15 ὅταν πληρῶσι δικαστήρι]α εἰς ἕνα καὶ
πε[ντακοσίους δικαστάς, ib. 427, 8 ὅταν πρῶτον] πληρῶσιν τὸ δικαστ[ήριον εἰς ἕνα
καὶ πεντακοσίους δ]ικαστάς. The compound παραπληροῦν appears in C. I. Α.
II. 809 A 207 sqq., 325/4 B.C. (ὅπως δ᾽ ἂν [καὶ] αἱ σκήψεις εἰσαχθῶσι, τοὺς
θεσμοθέτας παρα[πλ]ηρῶσαι δικαστήρια εἰς ἕνα καὶ διακοσίους τῶι στρατηγῶι τῶι
ἐπὶ τὰς συμμορίας ἡρημένωι (Αθ. Πολ. 61. ι) ἐν τῶι Μουνιχιῶνι μηνὶ τῆι δευτέραι
ἱσταμένου καὶ τῆι πέμπτηι ἱσταμένου ; these two courts were additional and for
a particular purpose), αναπληροῦν has been restored in C. I. A. II. 300, 51
ὅταν πρῶτον δικαστήρια [ἀναπληρῶσιν. ἀν]αγράψαι δὲ κ.τ.λ., ib. IV. 2. 407 d 9
εἰσαγαγεῖν αὐτῷ τὴν δοκιμασίαν [τῆς δωρεᾶς τοὺς θεσμοθέτας εἰς τὸ δι]καστήριο[ν,
ὅταν ἀναπληρῶσι δικαστήρια. The law concerning leases of orphans' estates,
like the law concerning grants of citizenship, may have specified the number
of judges who were to witness and supervise the auction.
2 προεκήρυττεν, made public proclamation, i.e. had the lease put up to
auction ; see Poll. 4. 94 προκηρῦξαι δ᾽ ἐστὶ τὸ προκαλέσασθαι ὑπὸ κήρυκος, ib.
8. 103 κήρυκες...οἱ κατ᾽ ἀγορὰν τὰ ὤνια προκηρύττοντες, [Ar.] Oec. 2. 2. 135o a 20
Καλλίστρατος ἐν Μακεδονίᾳ πωλουμένου τοῦ ἐλλιμενίου...προεκήρυξεν ἀνεῖσθαι
τὸν βουλόμενον, καὶ τοὺς ἐγγύους καθιστάναι τοῦ τρίτου μέρους κ.τ.λ., Theophr.
Περὶ Συμβολαίων (Stob. Flor. 44. 22), 1 οἱ μὲν οὖν ὑπὸ κήρυκος κελεύουσι πωλεῖν
καὶ προκηρύττειν ἐκ πλειόνων ἡμερῶν...παρὰ δέ τισι προκηρύττειν κελεύουσι πρὸ
τοῦ κατακυρωθῆναι πένθ᾽ ἡμέρας συνεχῶς, εἴ τις ἐνίσταται ἢ ἀντιποιεῖται τοῦ κτή-
ματος ἢ τῆς οἰκίας, S. I. G. n. 653, 65 (Andania) = Michel n. 694 οἱ ἱεροὶ προ-
καρύξαντες ἐγδόντω τὰν παροχὰν τῶν θυμάτων...τῶι τὸ ἐλάχιστον ὑφισταμένωι
λάμψεσθαι διάφορον.
2
اد
528
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
4 ἐλθόντες, sc. οἱ οἰκεῖοι. The change of subject produces no obscurity
(v. 3. 8 n.).
38. 3 ἐκέκτητο μετὰ τοῦ ὑέος Φιλοκτήμονος. Although in fact Philoctemon
shared the property with his father, Euctemon alone was the legal owner.
'The estate of Philoctemon' is a fiction of the orator (§ 47. 5, 6 n.).
4 λητουργεῖν ἀμφοτέρους. Cp. § 60, Lys. 19. 29 τραγῳδοῖς δὶς χορηγῆσαι
ὑπὲρ αὑτοῦ τε καὶ τοῦ πατρός, Isocr. 15. 145 λῃτουργοῦντας οὐ μόνον αὑτὸν
παρέχεις ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν υἱόν, Ar. Rhet. II. 23. 1399 2 34 sqq. Ιφικράτης τὸν υἱὸν
αὐτοῦ νεώτερον ὄντα τῆς ἡλικίας, ὅτι μέγας ἦν, λῃτουργεῖν ἀναγκαζόντων εἶπεν ὅτι
εἰ τοὺς μεγάλους τῶν παίδων ἄνδρας νομίζουσι, τοὺς μικροὺς τῶν ἀνδρῶν παῖδας
εἶναι ψηφιοῦνται.
4, 5 τῶν τε ἀρχαίων...τῶν τε προσόδων, capital' and ' revenues'; compare
Dem. 36. 41 καὶ τοσαῦτ᾽ ἀνηλωκὼς ὅσ᾽ ὑμεῖς ἠκούσατε, οὐδὲ πολλοστὸν μέρος τῶν
προσόδων, μὴ ὅτι τῶν ἀρχαίων, εἰς τὰς λῃτουργίας, ὅμως ἀλαζονεύσεται καὶ
τριηραρχίας ἐρεῖ καὶ χορηγίας, 27. 50 ἐρωτηθεὶς δ᾽ ὑπὸ τοῦ διαιτητοῦ ταῦτά τε καθ'
ἕκαστον, καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν τὴν αὑτοῦ πότερον ἐκ τῶν ἐπικαρπιῶν ἢ τἀρχαῖ᾽ ἀνα-
λίσκων διώκηκε, καὶ πότερον ἐπιτροπευθεὶς ἀπεδέξατ᾽ ἂν τοῦτον τὸν λόγον παρὰ
τῶν ἐπιτρόπων ἢ τἀρχαῖ᾽ ἂν ἀπολαβεῖν ἠξίου σὺν τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς γεγενημένοις,
ib. 60, 61 ἐξὸν...καὶ εἰ μὴ μισθοῦν τὸν οἶκον ἐβούλοντο, ἀπὸ μὲν τούτων τῶν
προσιόντων, ἐῶντας ὥσπερ εἶχε κατὰ χώραν, ἡμᾶς τε τρέφειν καὶ τὰ πρὸς τὴν
πόλιν διοικεῖν, καὶ ὅσ᾽ ἐξ αὐτῶν περιεγίγνετο, ταῦτα προσπεριποιεῖν, τὴν δ᾽ ἄλλην
οὐσίαν ἐνεργὸν ποιήσασιν...αὑτοῖς τ᾽, εἰ χρημάτων ἐπεθύμουν, μέτρι᾽ ἐξ αὐτῆς
λαβεῖν, ἐμοί τε σὺν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις τὸν οἶκον ἐκ τῶν προσόδων μείζω ποιῆσαι, ib. 62
οὐ πρόσοδον μὲν ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐκ ἀποφαίνοντες, τὰ δὲ κεφάλαια φανέρ᾽ ἀποδεικ
νύντες, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὰ τὰ ἀρχαῖα οὕτως ἀναιδῶς ἀνηλῶσθαι φάσκοντες.
>
The
39. 6 ἐξεφορήσαντο. Cp. § 42. 4 τοὺς οἰκέτας τοὺς ἐκφορήσαντας.
middle may have a causative force. But in [Dem.] 47 the active (§§ 65, 81)
and the middle (§§ 53, 75) seem to be convertible.
7 εἰς τούτων. Cp. III. 37. 5 n. Since eis, not ó érepos, is used, Schoe-
mann concludes that there were more than two guardians. Compare § 55. 3
τούτῳ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις.
40. 3 ἀπέκλῃσαν τῇ θύρα. The reading of A, τὴν θύραν, is not good
Attic (Lys. 1o. 17 ὅστις δ᾽ ἀπίλλει τῇ θύρᾳ ἔνδον τοῦ κλέπτου ὄντος, Ar. Vesp.
334 τίς γάρ ἐσθ᾽ ὁ ταῦτά σ᾽ εἴργων | κἀποκλῄων τῇ θύρᾳ, where R has τὰς θύρας,
ib. 775 οὐδείς σ᾿ ἀποκλῄσει θεσμοθέτης τῇ κιγκλίδι, Eccl. 420, Dem. 25. 28);
compare Hor. Sat. 1. 2. 67 exclusus fore, Sall. Cat. 28 ianua prohibete. But
it is not necessary to change the genitive in Ar. Lys. 423 ἀποκέκλῃμαι τῶν
πυλῶν (ταῖς πύλαις Hamaker), and in Timocles ap. Athen. 13. 567 E (Kock,
Com. Att. Fr. II. p. 462, n. 23) τῆς θύρας | ἀπεκλῃόμην (τῇ θύρα Blaydes).
41. 5 οὗτοι, 'my clients, but ἐναντίον τούτων in § 41. 7 means in the
presence of our opponents.' Dobree demands oïde or oidi, both of which are
awkward before δέ. A glance or gesture would have made the reference
clear; cp. § 6ο. 8, IV. 3. 3 n.
7 ὅποι τετραμμένα εἴη. Buermann and Thalheim read ὅπῃ. See 1V. 27.
5 n., V. 35. 10 7., Crit. Introd. p. xxx.
42. 3 φωρᾶν κατὰ τὸν νόμον, to search the house in the manner pre-
scribed by law.' The conditions on which this claim could be made are
indicated by the scholia on Ar. Nub. 497 sqq. (ΣΩ. ἴθι νυν, κατάθου θοἰμάτιον.
ΣΤ. ἠδίκηκά τι; | ΣΩ. οὔκ, ἀλλὰ γυμνοὺς εἰσιέναι νομίζεται. | ΣΤ. ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ
OR. VI.
529
COMMENTARY
φωράσων ἔγωγ᾽ εἰσέρχομαι): ἔθος ἦν τοὺς εἰσιόντας εἰς οἰκίαν τινὸς ἐπὶ τῷ
ἐρευνῆσαι γυμνοὺς εἰσιέναι, ἵνα μή τι ὑπὸ τὰ ἱμάτια κρύψαντες λάθωσιν, ἢ ἵνα μὴ
ὑπὸ ἔχθρας λάθωσιν ὑποβαλόντες τὸ ζητούμενον καὶ ζημίας αἴτιοι τούτῳ γένωνται.
The law of Athens was probably the source of Plato's regulations on this
subject, Laws 12. 954 A: φωρᾶν δὲ ἂν ἐθέλῃ τίς τι παρ᾽ ὁτῳοῦν, γυμνὸς ἡ
χιτωνίσκον ἔχων, ἄζωστος, προομόσας τοὺς νομίμους θεοὺς ἢ μὴν ἐλπίζειν εὑρή-
σειν, οὕτω φωρᾶν· ὁ δὲ παρεχέτω τὴν οἰκίαν, τά τε σεσημασμένα καὶ τὰ ἀσήμαντα,
φωρᾶν. ἐὰν δέ τις ἐρευνᾶν βουλομένῳ φωρᾶν μὴ διδῷ, δικάζεσθαι μὲν τὸν ἀπειργό-
μενον τιμησάμενον τὸ ἐρευνώμενον, ἂν δέ τις ὄφλῃ, τὴν διπλασίαν τοῦ τιμηθέντος
βλάβην ἐκτίνειν. Plato also makes provision for the case of the absence in a
foreign country of the master of the house (ib. 954 B). It is not likely that
an action lay against Antidorus for refusing to allow the search of his house.
Isaeus' clients were not owners of the property alleged to have been stolen,
and they only sustained injury, in so far as it was their interest that the
estate which they intended to claim should not be depreciated in the interval
between Euctemon's death and the final verdict. But their opponents un-
doubtedly retained a right of possession, until their wards were proved to be
impostors. As soon as this point was settled, the heirs appointed by the
court could sue the guardians to recover damages. The power of searching
a house for stolen property, the Scandinavian rannsaka, is granted in the
laws of so many Aryan peoples (Romans, Slavs, Welsh, Anglo-Saxons,
Burgundians, Bavarians etc.) that the institution has some claims to be
dubbed 'pro-ethnic.' The XII Tables prescribed a procedure called by
Gellius (16. 10. 8; cp. 11. 18. 9) ‘furtorum quaestio cum lance et licio. The
explanation given in Paulus' extracts from Festus, De significatione uerborum,
is as follows: lance et licio dicebatur apud antiquos, quia qui furtum ibat
quaerere in domo aliena licio cinctus intrabat, lancemque ante oculos tenebat
propter matrum familiae aut uirginum praesentiam. Compare the Turin
glosses on the Institutes (2. 466, Mommsen-Bruns, Fontes I. R.5 p. 31): is qui in
alienam domum introibat ad requirendam rem furtiuam nudus ingrediebatur
discum fictile in capite portans, utrisque manibus detentum. Gaius, to whom the
practice seemed ridiculous and unintelligible, makes the following comments
(111. 192 sqq.): prohibiti (furti) actio quadrupli est ex edicto praetoris intro-
ducta; lex autem eo nomine nullam poenam constituit. hoc solum praecipit,
ut qui quaerere uelit, nudus quaerat, linteo (licio: van der Hoeven) cinctus
lancem habens; qui si quid invenerit, iubet id lex furtum manifestum esse.
Quid sit autem linteum (licium : van der Hoeven) quaesitum est. sed uerius
est consuti genus esse, quo necessariae partes tegerentur. quae res [lex tota]
ridicula est. nam qui uestitum quaerere prohibet, is et nudum quaerere
prohibiturus est, eo magis quod ita quaesita re et inuenta maiori poenae
subiciatur. deinde quod lancem siue ideo haberi iubeat, ut manibus occupatis
nihil subiciat, siue ideo ut quod inuenerit, ibi inponat, neutrum eorum pro-
cedit, si id quod quaeratur, eius magnitudinis aut naturae sit, ut neque
subici neque ibi inponi possit. Certe non dubitatur, cuiuscumque materiae sit
ea lanx, satis legi fieri. The significance of the lanx and the licium is still
debated by the historians of Roman law; see Leist, Graeco-italische Rechts-
geschichte p. 247 sqq., Cuq, Les institutions juridiques des Romains 1. p. 344
sqq., Karlowa, Römische Rechtsgeschichte 11. p. 777 sqq. Leist conjectures
34
W. I.
530
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
that the purpose of the platter (lanx) was to pour a libation to the domestic
gods, and that the searcher was only allowed to wear an apron round the
loins (licio cinctus=mit nur einem Schurz um die Lenden), lest he should
conceal arms about his person and attack the owner of the house. Cuq
believes that the licium was the same as the subligaculum (Cic. De Off. 1. 35.
129) or campestre (Hor. Ep. 1. 11. 18), which was worn under the toga, before
the tunica came into fashion (Marquardt, Privatleben der Römer2 p. 550),
and that Gaius wrote linteo and linteum in the belief that nudus meant
'naked,' not 'without a toga.' In the opinion of Karlowa both lanx and
licium, which he translates literally, 'thread,' were symbolical, the plate of
carrying away the stolen property, the thread of binding and securing the
thief.
то
5 laßè TAUTI Kai άváyvwłɩ. Depositions were certainly read. Moreover
the opening words of § 43 (TOσaûTа K.T.λ.) point to an inventory of the
property said to have been removed from the house. Whether the demand
for the surrender of the slaves was embodied in a formal challenge is not
clear.
43-46 These plunderers, loaded with spoil, now hope to appropriate
all that is left by means of an impudent diaµaprupía, which is proved false
by their own actions; the claimants whom they have testified to be sons of
Euctemon, they themselves presented to the Archon as sons of Philoctemon
and Ergamenes. Even if their account of the adoption were true, the
claimants would not now be sons of Euctemon. Yet after the vote of the
judges rejecting the children's pretensions they have had the hardihood to
depose that they are heirs. Look also at the effrontery of Androcles. He has
claimed for himself Euctemon's daughter with part of Euctemon's estate,
representing her to be an heiress, and notwithstanding the same man has
given evidence that a legitimate son of Euctemon is in existence. Is he not
self-condemned?
The inconsistency between the petition to the Archon and the terms of
the diaμaprupía admits of explanation and in any case is of no importance.
But the second criticism is really damaging, and it is not surprising that
Isaeus thinks it worth while to repeat the blow (§§ 57, 58). The contradic-
tion is patent, and justifies suspicions of Androcles' integrity; whether it
proves that his wards were not Euctemon's sons, is another matter.
43. 5, 6 εὐθυδικίᾳ μὲν οὐκ ἐτόλμησαν εἰσελθεῖν. See for this captious
criticism § 3. 5 n.
6 Sieμaρтúρovv. Androcles alone was legally responsible for the deposi-
tion (§§ 4, 25, 26, 65).
If
44. 2
τὸν μὲν Φιλοκτήμονος. I am not convinced of the necessity of
Sauppe's emendation, 'Hypovos (Index schol. hibern. Gotting. 1873, p. 11
=Ausgewählte Schr. p. 681), which Buermann has put into the text.
Androcles and Antidorus had asserted one of their wards to be Philoctemon's
son, then, urges Sauppe, (1) they would have claimed the inheritance of
Philoctemon, (2) they would not have denied (§ 56) that Philoctemon was
entitled to appoint an heir by will during Euctemon's lifetime, (3) if at any
time they had admitted the power but had pretended that Philoctemon had
made the 'son of Alce' his heir, the orator would not have failed to expose
OR. VI.
531
COMMENTARY
the inconsistency. The first argument is an assertion which no one has
a right to make, especially when so little can be gleaned from the speech
with respect to the grounds and effects of the refusal of the judges to
authorise the lease. The second and third arguments both involve the
postulate that the pretext of the petition for a lease was testamentary adop-
tion by Euctemon's deceased sons. Isaeus certainly does not say this (§ 36.
2, 3 nn.), and his reserve gains significance, when we reflect on the usefulness
of a burst of invective against forgers. The real objection to Diλoktýμovos
Φιλοκτήμονος
here is of a different kind, viz. the feud with his father and the hostility he
had shown towards the elder claimant. On the other hand an obscure
remark which the speaker lets fall in § 45 makes in favour of the MS. reading.
'If,' he says, 'they had managed to get the estates leased, my clients would
no longer be able to put in a claim.' Chaerestratus would indeed have been
nonplussed, if one of the claimants had been accepted by a court as son of
Philoctemon. But I do not venture to affirm that this is the only obstacle to
which the speaker alludes.
4 εἰ γνήσιοι ἦσαν, εἰσποίητοι δέ, ὡς οὗτοι ἔφασαν. Sensus est, si γνήσιοι
quidem erant Euctemonis, sed ex eius domo èкπоinтoi, et in filiorum domos
εἰσποίητοι. Lucidius esset έκποίητοι δέ, ὡς—uel εἰσποίητοι δέ, οἷς-(Dobree
Adv. I. p. 299). ÉKπоíŋToι is tempting (IX. 2. 3 n.), but Isaeus has no wish to
give the judges a clear history of this incident. The proper antithesis of
εἰσποίητος is γόνῳ γεγονώς, not γνήσιος (III. 61. 2 n., VI. 28. 4 n.).
КП
4, 5 οὐδ᾽ οὕτως προσῆκεν αὐτοὺς Ευκτήμονος είναι κ.τ.λ. This is im-
pertinent quibbling. The rule (see VII. 23, IX. 2, 33, X. 4, II, XI. 45) would
have applied to Chaerestratus, if on the death of Philoctemon his relations
had submitted the alleged will to a court, and obtained authority to transfer
him from the house of Phanostratus to the house of Philoctemon, because
there would certainly have been a change of family, and possibly a change of
pparpía. But the claimants, if transplanted to the houses of Ergamenes and
Philoctemon respectively, did not pass out of the family of Euctemon in the
sense contemplated by the law; the only result of the adoption was that they
were converted from Euctemon's sons into Euctemon's grandsons. This
alteration of name did not in the circumstances affect their rights in
Euctemon's estate. When pleading for a grandson Isaeus (VIII. 34) an-
nounces as an indisputable fact that the succession of grandsons was
protected by the same privileges as the succession of sons; compare Bekk.
An. Gr. I. p. 183, 26 ἀνεπίδικα : ὅσα τις κατέχει τοῦ τετελευτηκότος ὡς πατρῷα
καὶ παππῷα. τὰ γὰρ δικαζόμενα παρὰ τῶν συγγενῶν ἐπίδικα καλοῦσιν. Con-
sequently the guardians could interpose a diaμapтvpía in defence of their
wards, whether they were styled Euctemon's sons or Euctemon's grandsons.
If however the decision of the court in the matter of the lease was equivalent
to annulment of the adoption, they were compelled to give the children the
title of Euctemon's sons. Observe that in quoting the law Isaeus suppresses
qualifications which throw light on its purpose. The provisions fully stated
would have been something like this: οὐκ ἐᾷ τὸν ποιητὸν ὑὸν εἰς τὸν πατρῷον
οἶκον ἐπανιέναι, ἐὰν μὴ ὑὸν γνήσιον ἐγκαταλίπῃ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ τοῦ ποιησαμένου
([Dem.] 44. 33, 46, 47, 61, 64). The legislator had in view two distinct oiko,
not the house of a father and the house of his son: compare [Dem.] 44. 63 ov
34-2
532
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
δίκαιον δήπου τὸν ποιητὸν υἱὸν ποιητοὺς ἑτέρους εἰσάγειν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐγκαταλείπειν μὲν
γιγνομένους, ὅταν δὲ τοῦτ᾽ ἐπιλίπῃ, τοῖς γένεσιν ἀποδιδόναι τὰς κληρονομίας· ταῦτα
γὰρ οἱ νόμοι κελεύουσιν, ib. 68 ὡς τοῖς γε ποιηθεῖσιν οὐκ ἐξὸν διαθέσθαι, ἀλλὰ
ζῶντας ἐγκαταλιπόντας υἱὸν γνήσιον ἐπανιέναι ἢ τελευτήσαντας ἀποδιδόναι τὴν
κληρονομίαν τοῖς ἐξ ἀρχῆς οἰκείοις οὖσι τοῦ ποιησαμένου, Law of Gortyn XI. 6
sqq. [αἰ δ᾽ ἀπο]θάνοι ὁ ἀνπαντὸς γνέσια τέκνα μὲ καταλιπόν, πὰρ τὸ[νς το
ἀν]παναμένο ἐπιβαλλόντανς ἀνκορὲν τὰ κρέματα. For the choice between
καταλείπειν and ἐγκαταλείπειν in this connexion see Blass on [Dem.] 44.
44, 46.
45. 2 οὐκ ἂν ἔτι ἦν τοῖσδε ἀμφισβητήσαι. One explanation of this dark
saying has already been offered (§ 44. 2 n.). The difficulty is to define
the obstacle that would have barred the claims of Chaerestratus or of
Chaerestratus' mother and aunt. The speaker has told us (§§ 36, 39) that, if
the lease had not been defeated, Euctemon would have parted with his
estate in his lifetime. Now, if it had been given away to strangers, his
family would have had little prospect of recovering anything; they had
thrown away their chances by not bringing an action to deprive him of the
management of his affairs on the plea of senile imbecility (παράνοια, ᾿Αθ. Πολ.
56. 6, Att. Proc.² p. 566). But if, when he died, part of the property had
been held by lessees in the name of two sons of Hegemon (Sauppe's emenda-
tion being accepted for the sake of argument) and Ergamenes, who were
notoriously impostors of servile birth, why would it have been impossible or
useless for Chaerestratus or Euctemon's daughter to attack the intruders?
Or does the orator mean that the property would have vanished, and that
there would have been nothing to fight for?
A
2, 3 ἀποχειροτονησάντων τῶν δικαστῶν ὡς οὐδὲν αὐτοῖς προσῆκον κ.τ.λ.
has προσήκεν, which editors generally retain. But they are not at one about
the sense of s. Reiske considers that it expresses the effect of the ἀπο-
χειροτονία : iudices causam eorum dumnarunt atque negarunt iuris quicquam
illis in hereditatem competere. In his commentary Schoemann seems to
agree with Reiske (ὡς οὐδὲν αὐτοῖς προσῆκεν. Scil. τὸ μισθωθῆναι τοὺς οἴκους.
Nam ἀποχειροτονεῖν h.l. idem ualet atque ἀπαγορεύειν, proprie sufragiis latis
declarare aliquid non esse uel non debere fieri), but he treats ós as causal in
his German translation (obgleich die Richter die Verpachtung untersagten,
weil Jene kein Recht auf das Vermögen hätten), and this latter interpretation
is adopted by Dareste (les juges ont repoussé leur demande par ce motif qu'ils
sont sans qualité), and by Caccialanza. For the causal use of is see
V. 45. 4 12. Thalheim puts a comma after δικαστῶν, and says that ὡς is sicut,
referring to Plat. Apol. 21 D ἐγὼ δέ, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐκ οἶδα, οὐδὲ οἴομαι. Dobree
(Adv. 1. p. 300) cleared away a remarkable construction by a simple conjec-
ture, προσήκον, but his further changes are violent and unsatisfactory. He
proposed <οὐχ ὅπως ἀντιδικῆσαι> οὐδὲ (not οὔτε, as is shown by his reference
to VIII. 25) ἀμφισβητῆσαι τετολμήκασιν, but added no translation and did not
explain the force of the preposition in προσμεμαρτυρήκασι. Reiske removed
this last difficulty by boldly substituting οὐ μόνον for οὐδέ : ‘they have not only
dared to make a claim, but have testified into the bargain' (v. 24. 4 22.).
Schoemann replied to Reiske that ἀμφισβητῆσαι expresses the same idea as
εὐθυδικίᾳ εἰσιέναι (§ 43. 5, 6): qui διαμαρτυρίαν interponit, is ἀμφισβήτησιν
OR. VI.
533
COMMENTARY
1
detrectare uidetur, cum id agat ut aduersarios a petitione prorsus excludat,
contra qui petitionem petitioni opponit, is evevdikią eiσéρxeσdau (sic) dicitur.
Buermann's treatment (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 343) is radical.
He alters προσ-
μεμαρτυρήκασι τo διαμεμαρτυρήκασι, supposing the expulsion of δια by προς to
have been caused by πрòs vπерßoλny which precedes (Crit. Introd. p. xxxvii).
He also ejects is after dikaσTv as one of the interpolations of A¹ (Crit.
Introd. p. xxix sqq.), and reads οὐδ᾽ αὐτοῖς προσῆκεν (sc. ἀμφισβητῆσαι) οὐδὲ
ἀμφισβητῆσαι τετολμήκασιν. Νo rendering is given of the phrase οὐδ᾽ αὐτοῖς,
in place of which oude ToÚTous might be expected in the circumstances, but
Buermann presumably means 'neither ought our opponents on their side
(avroîs) to make a claim, nor have they dared to do so.' Having no bias
against A¹ I am satisfied with Dobree's πроσnkov (§ 50. 4 22.), and on the whole
think it better to regard προς in προσμεμαρτυρήκασιν as a case of repetition
than to appeal to sentences such as Dem. 19. 112 (quoted on V. 24. 4 22.). But
a delicate question remains. Is ὡς οὐδὲν αὐτοῖς προσῆκον to be connected
with ἀποχειροτονησάντων or with οὐδὲ ἀμφισβητῆσαι τετολμήκασιν ? The latter
alternative is clearly possible: 'after the adverse vote of the court, conscious
that they have no rights, they have not so much as dared to put in a (direct)
claim.' In any case the whole period is nothing but a reiteration of the idea
already expressed in § 43 εἰς τοῦτο ἀναιδείας ἥκουσιν, ὥστ᾽ εὐθυδικίᾳ μὲν οὐκ
ἐτόλμησαν εἰσελθεῖν, ἀλλὰ διεμαρτύρουν κ.τ.λ.
46.2 €λnxe μèv air@. For the dative cp. III. 32. 4 2.
εἴληχε
Reiske's
2, 3 τῆς θυγατρὸς τῆς Εὐκτήμονος, i.e. Chaereas' widow (S 51).
3, 4 αὐτοῦ τοῦ κλήρου τοῦ Εὐκτήμονος +πέμπτου μέρους.
remedy, the addition of the article before éµπтоʊ, saves the grammar, but
leaves the evil uncured, κάλλος κακῶν ὕπουλον. How was it that Androcles
claimed Euctemon's daughter and a fifth part of Euctemon's estate? Sir
W. Jones (Works IX. p. 335) with the approval of Schoemann (p. 320)
answers that the property of Euctemon was divided in equal parts between
the two daughters and their three children, i.e. that when an Athenian died
intestate leaving daughters who had issue, the distribution of his estate
was not in stirpes but in capita. This singular rule, for which there is no
evidence but these two words éµíтov µépovs, is now generally repudiated
(Beauchet III. p. 470 sqq.). Chaereas' widow, if an éríkληpos, was entitled to
a moiety of her father's fortune. K. F. Hermann proposed éπì µépovs on the
hypothesis that
= πέμπτου (van den Es quoted by
Caillemer, Succession Légitime p. 54 n. 3), but the Greek is in fault; éπì
μépovs cannot mean für seinen Theil, so viel auf seinen Theil kommt.
Dareste (Les Plaidoyers d'Isée p. 127) offers a choice between ýµíσeos µépovs,
which is not palaeographically plausible, and èk µépovs, the corruption of the
MS. being traced to a confusion of èk and the sign for 5 ('A@. IIoλ. 54. 7).
But ék μépovs (And. 3. 20) is almost as bad as èñì µépovs. Buermann's con-
tribution (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 365) is toù µépovs (VII. 23, XI. 23), which yields
good sense; he explains the insertion of πéμπтоυ by comparing Dem. 18. 103
τὸ μέρος τῶν ψήφων ὁ διώκων οὐκ ἔλαβεν, where inferior MSS. (see Voemel's
apparatus ad loc.) have тò téµñтov µépos K. T. λ. But the case is not parallel,
since τὸ πέμπτον μέρος τῶν ψήφων is a familiar combination (And. I. 33,
π
―
€
was mistaken for
ου
€
534
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
1.
π
[And.] 4. 18, Dem. 18. 266, 22. 3, 23. 80, 24. 7, 25. 83, 57. 8, [Dem.] 26. 9, 58.
6, Aesch. 2. 14, Hyp. 3. 34, Din. I. 54). Grasshoff, Symbolae ad doctrinam
iuris Attici, 1877, p. 25, would cut out réμжтоν μéроνs as a marginal note
made by a reader not well posted in the principles of the Athenian law of
succession. If пéμжтоν μépovs be excised, the statement is obviously untrue,
since no reason can be found why the whole estate of Euctemon should go
with one of his two daughters, but it may be urged that the orator permits
himself the same liberty in §§ 57. 7 εἴληχε δ᾽ αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ τοῦ Εὐκτήμονος
κλήρου καὶ τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ, 58. 3 ἑαυτῷ λαγχάνειν τοῦ Εὐκτήμονος κλήρου καὶ
τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ. I have thought of substituting πρὸς μέρος, which is found
in laws ([Dem.] 43. 54 ἐὰν δὲ πλείους ὦσιν ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ γένει, τῇ ἐπικλήρῳ πρὸς
µépos éπididóvaɩ ékaσtov), and is good Attic (Dem. 36. 32, [Dem.] 47. 21, 56.
12). The error may have arisen out of a compendium for πpòs (Bast, Commen-
tatio Palaeographica p. 727, Lehmann, Die tachygraphischen Abkürzungen
d. gr. Handschr. p. 87, Allen, Notes on Abbreviations in Greek MSS. p. 23).
5 vòv elvaɩ yvýolov. For the singular cp. § 10. 4 2.
47–50 Whereas the law shuts out bastards from the succession,
Androcles and Antidorus are resolved to despoil of their patrimony Euctemon's
legitimate daughters and their issue. The woman who destroyed Euctemon's
reason, and got possession of his wealth, is encouraged by her accomplices
to set at defiance not only Euctemon's family, but the whole state and its
laws. Law. A slave and a prostitute she had the presumption to join the
procession in honour of Demeter and Persephone, to enter the sacred precinct,
to look upon mysteries. I submit resolutions of the Council touching her
lawlessness. Resolution.
The defective arrangement of the last part of the speech has been noted
in the Introduction (p. 487). Between § 46 and § 47 there is no juncture,
and § 48 has no real connexion with § 47. Further, the introduction in § 47
of the law of bastardy is not felicitous, since the speaker has denied that
Euctemon is the father of either of the claimants (§ 20), and leads to a false
antithesis. The charge of impiety made against Alce should be compared
with the similar attack on the alleged daughter of the foreign courtesan
Neaera in [Dem.] 59. 73 sqq. Apollodorus, having failed utterly to prove
that Neaera was Stephanus' wife, and that the woman assailed was Neaera's
daughter, essays to strengthen his arguments by inflaming the piety and
national pride of his audience.
47. 2 ἐκεῖ μὲν γὰρ ἔστι. Cp. v. 25. 5 n., Lys. 13. 72 ὅτι μὲν οὐκ ἀπέκτεινε
Φρύνιχον, ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ψηφίσματος δῆλον· οὐδαμοῦ γὰρ ἔστιν (ἔνεστιν Francken)
‘Αγόρατον 'Αθηναῖον εἶναι.
2, 3 νόθῳ μηδέ νόθῃ <μή > εἶναι ἀγχιστείαν...ἀπ᾿ Εὐκλείδου ἄρχοντος.
Apart from the absence of the introductory particle (vó dè) this reading
agrees uerbatim with the last clause in the law of intestate succession
preserved in [Dem.] 43. 51. Lincke (De Elocutione Isaei p. 14) opposes the
insertion of μn before eivai, adducing passages which are not parallel (Thuc.
8. 99. I, 5. 47. 2, [Dem.] 59. 17) and arguing that Isaeus would have added dè
as in VII. 2o (λέγει γάρ κρατεῖν δὲ τοὺς ἄρρενας κ.τ.λ.), if he had intended to
give an exact quotation. It is quite possible that dè has fallen out here as in III.
6. 7. H. Schenkl (Zur Geschichte des attischen Bürgerrechts, Wiener Studien
OR. VI.
535
COMMENTARY
اد
>
v, 1883, p. 61 n. 13) maintains that the words an' Evκλeídov apxovros are an
observation made by the speaker, not a part of the law, and explains their
presence in [Dem.] 43. 51 by the threadbare hypothesis of interpolation.
The combination, tá te iepà kaì tà őσia, sacra profanaque, is comprehensive
enough to embrace all the rights of a citizen (Dem. 23. 65, [Dem.] 59. 104,
Ant. 5. 62), but in connexion with the succession of the next-of-kin (ảyxı-
σreía) iepà probably refers to the family cult (sine sacris nulla hereditas),
ooia to the family property (IX. 13, Dem. 39. 35); for other applications of
the antithesis see Rehdantz on Lyc. 78 Anhang 2 p. 148. The law cited
dates from the general revision of the statute book, which was one of the
measures of the restored democracy in 403/2 B.C. (And. I. 83, 87 toîs dè
νόμοις χρῆσθαι ἀπ᾿ Εὐκλείδου ἄρχοντος). The law of Solon according to the
quotation given by Peithetaerus to Heracles in the Birds of Aristophanes
(1660 sqq.) was cast in a different form: vó dè µǹ eîvai ảyxioтeiav πaidwv
ὄντων γνησίων· ἐὰν δὲ παῖδες μὴ ὦσι γνήσιοι, τοῖς ἐγγυτάτω γένους μετεῖναι τῶν
Xpημáτwv. The meaning of these words is disputed. Some scholars (Meier,
De bonis damnatorum p. 74, Thalheim-Hermann, Rechtsaltert.4 p. 7, the
editors of Inscr. Jurid. Gr. 11. p. 71) interpret the provisions strictly, laying
stress on the presence of the condition aidшv övтwv yvŋoiwv and on the use
of μereivai ('share'), and deduce that Solon excluded bastards only when
legitimate issue existed, but admitted them to succession concurrently with
collaterals. This is not the view which Peithetaerus takes of the meaning
of the statute; Heracles is told plainly that by law he has no rights whatever
(ΙΙ. 1649/8 τῶν γὰρ πατρῴων οὐδ᾽ ἀκαρῆ μέτεστί σοι | κατὰ τοὺς νόμους· νόθος
γὰρ εἶ κοὐ γνήσιος), and that he is shut out not only by Athena the ἐπίκληρος,
but also by Zeus' legitimate brother Poseidon (l. 1657 sqq. o&tos ó Пoσeid@v
Ποσειδών
πρῶτος, ὃς ἐπαίρει σε νῦν, | ἀνθέξεταί σου τῶν πατρῴων χρημάτων | φάσκων
ἀδελφὸς αὐτὸς εἶναι γνήσιος). Müller Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des
attischen Bürger- und Eherechts p. 803) contends that the statements of
Peithetaerus cannot be reconciled with the language of the alleged law of
Solon, and solves the difficulty by condemning the extract as a mutilated
interpolation. I accept Peithetaerus' interpretation and believe that the
second clause may mean 'on failure of legitimate issue those who are next-
of-kin shall have their parts, as defined in other laws; compare the use of
µeradıdóvaι in Dem. 57. 25, 29. In discussing the rules of intestate succession
at Athens it is useless to appeal, as some writers do, to an inscription from
Tegea (Michel n. 1343, Inscr. Jurid. Gr. 11. p. 60, Roehl, I. G. A. n. 68), in
which one Xouthias (a Spartan ?) directs what shall be done in the event of
his death with certain sums of money which he had deposited, probably in
the temple of Athena Alea, and places the claims of his illegitimate children
before the claims of his collaterals, but after the claims of his legitimate
issue.
But if by the law of Solon as understood by an Athenian in 414 B.C.
bastards at Athens had no rights of succession, why was the limitation àπ'
EUKλeídov äρXovтоs appended to the law of 403 B.C.? Müller's theory (op. cit.
p. 791 sqq.) is that a new law had been passed in 411 B.C., which granted
the citizenship together with certain rights of succession both to nothi ex
peregrina and nothi ex ciue, and that the legislators of 403 B.C. made an end
536
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
of these privileges, depriving all vółoɩ in existence at that date of rights of
inheritance, but permitting them to retain the citizenship. For further
information concerning Müller's conjectures see III. Introd. p. 279 sqq. In
the absence of any direct evidence of new enactments between 414 B.C. and
the institution of the Thirty it seems more prudent to acquiesce in a simpler
explanation, viz. that the principle expressed in Solon's law had not been
rigorously enforced during the difficulties of the last years of the Pelopon-
nesian war. Possibly special indulgence had been shown to bastards ex
matrimonio non iusto, the offspring of regular and permanent unions not
sanctioned by the law. In opposition to Hruza (11. p. 123 sqq.) and Beauchet
(1. p. 189 sqq.) I assume that Pericles' law of 451/0 B.C. ('Aе. IIoλ. 26. 4) not
only denied political privileges to all who were not born of an Athenian
father and an Athenian mother, but also branded them indiscriminately with
the stigma of bastardy by refusing to admit the possibility of lawful marriage
between an Athenian and an alien. Now in respect of the political status
of nothi ex peregrina irregularities seem to have been tolerated before
403 B.C. (VIII. 43. 8 n., Dem. 57. 30, Schol. Aesch. 1. 39), and it is perhaps
not unreasonable to conjecture that this class had also been allowed to
inherit. On this hypothesis the law of 403 B.C. marks the return to Pericles'
policy of excluding jealously all alien blood. It is also possible that after the
end of the war the Thirty, who according to 'A. Пoλ. 35. 2 tampered with
Solon's laws, had in some way recognised the claims of bastards, whatever
their origin, and that the clause under discussion refers to some such quite
recent changes.
3 ᾿Ανδροκλής : ἀνδροκλείδης Α. The mistake was caused by erroneous
expansion of an abbreviation (Crit. Introd. p. xliv, Bast, Commentatio
Σ
мх
has puλo for puλo-
φυλο Φυλο-
Sandys on 'Αθ. Πολ.
Palaeographica pp. 798, 839). In [Dem.] 43. hyp. I
μάχην, in Lys. 30. II X has Νικομαχίδην for Νικόμαχον.
27. 4 (Aaµwvídov Toû Oiĥlev) quotes examples of double names from
Hemsterhuys on Lucian, Timon p. 157, and from a paper by Crusius (N.
Jahrb., 1891, pp. 385–394, Die Anwendung von Vollnamen und Kurznamen
bei derselben Person). I believe them to be nothing but scribes' blunders.
One of the alleged cases is Evßovλidŋs and Eűßovλos, forms admittedly con-
fused in the codex Crippsianus (XI. 16. 5), and the others are of the same
character (Κλεανδρίδης and Κλέανδρος, Φρασικλείδης and Φρασικλῆς, Θεσπιάδης
and Θέσπιος, Καλλιππίδης and Κάλλιππος, Εξηκεστίδης and Εξήκεστος, etc.).
4, 5 τὰς θυγατέρας τὰς γνησίας καὶ τοὺς ἐκ τούτων γεγονότας. For the rights
of daughters' children cp. III. 50. 6 N., VIII. 31-34. Remember that, if
Chaerestratus' plea is upheld, he will take the whole estate, and that neither
his brother nor his aunt and her daughter will get anything.
5, 6 τόν τε Ευκτήμονος οἶκον καὶ τὸν Φιλοκτήμονος ἔχειν. The dis-
tinction between the two estates is fictitious (Introd. p. 484, §§ 38. 3, 51. 2,
56. 4).
48.7 Tov vóμov. The law probably contained regulations concerning
the Thesmophoria in which women of servile origin or of immoral life were
not allowed to participate (III. 80. 3 n.). The 'procession' (πoμη, 50. 3) may
be identified with the vodos or κálodos (Schol. Ar. Thesmoph. 585), i.e. the
OR. VI.
537
COMMENTARY
return of the women from Halimus to Athens, the sanctuary (rò iepóv, § 50.
I, 4) with the Thesmophorium; see Mommsen, Feste der Stadt Athen p. 320,
Dict. of Greek and Rom. Antiq. II. p. 833 b.
49. I ὑμεῖς. Cp. IV. 17. 5 7.
3 ταύτας, Demeter and Persephone.
4 ὁμολογουμένως οὖσα δούλη. The Ms. reading, ὁμολογουμένη, is defended
by Schoemann and by Schneider on Isocr. 4. 33. The construction of ὁμολο-
γεῖσθαι with a participle in lieu of the infinitive is exceedingly rare and of
doubtful authenticity. In the orators there are only two other places in which
it is supported by a consensus of Mss., viz. Lys. 4. 7 νῦν δὲ ὁμολογούμεθα πρὸς
παῖδας καὶ αὐλητρίδας καὶ μετ᾽ οἴνου ἐλθόντες, and Isocr. 4. 33 τοὺς ὑπὸ πάντων
ὁμολογουμένους καὶ πρώτους γενομένους καὶ πρός τε τὰς τέχνας εὐφυεστάτους
ὄντας καὶ πρὸς τὰ τῶν θεῶν εὐσεβέστατα διακειμένους. Even Cobet in the
second edition of his Lysias (1882) does not assail the first example. The
second passage divides editors into two camps, Bekker, Schneider, Sandys,
Rauchenstein retaining ὁμολογουμένους, Koraes, Baiter, Mehler, Blass pre-
ferring ὁμολογουμένως, the conjecture of Jerome Wolf; Benseler in his text
of Isocrates' works (1851) followed the Mss., but adopted the emendation in
his translation of the Panegyricus and Philip (1854). The objection brought
against Wolf's reading that vrò ñávτшv cannot be joined with the adverb is
refuted by And. 1. 140 ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν παρὰ πάντων ὁμολογουμένως ταῦθ᾽ ἡμῖν
ὑπάρχει. Copyists stumbled over the form ὁμολογουμένως, and were prone to
alter it, wherever a change was at all plausible; see Dem. 20. 39 (ὁμολογου-
μένως F), 29. 14 (ὁμολογούμενον ὡς F), ib. 39 (ὁμολογουμένους F), [Dem.] 26.
22 (ὁμολογουμένοις καὶ F v), 59. 107 (ὁμολογουμένους F Φ Ω), Aesch. I. 1
(ὁμολογουμένους Α), 2. 72 (ὡμολογημένην ε, ώμολογημένους 2, ὡμολογημένως kf g
VF1.). Considering these facts together with the flatness of ourws and the
gratuitous clumsiness of ὁμολογουμένη οὖσα, when εἶναι might have been
substituted for the second participle, I have no hesitation in accepting here
Dobree's correction, and think Reiske's ὁμολογουμένως right in [And.] 4. 17
(τῶν ὁμολογουμένων δούλων ; cp. Isocr. 12. 140, And. I. 149, Dem. 29. 14, 39).
See also I. 2. 2, 3 N.
ου
141
To call a freedwoman (§ 20. 3, 4 n.) a ‘slave' is a pardonable license
(Lys. 13. 18, 64, 30. 27); cp. iv. 9. 6 n., Athen. 6. 267 Β διαφέρειν δέ φησι
Χρύσιππος δοῦλον οἰκέτου γράφων ἐν δευτέρῳ περὶ ὁμονοίας διὰ τὸ τοὺς ἀπελευθέ-
ρους μὲν δούλους ἔτι εἶναι, οἰκέτας δὲ τοὺς μὴ τῆς κτήσεως ἀφειμένους. “ὁ γὰρ
οἰκέτης, φησί, δοῦλός ἐστιν <ἐν> κτήσει κατατεταγμένος.
5 βιοῦσα is an aorist, not a present (II. 45. 3 7., Blass-Kühner, Gr. Gramm.
II. p. 354).
50.4 καὶ ἰδεῖν ἃ οὐκ ἐξὴν αὐτῇ. Thalheim thinks that the scribe first
wrote καὶ δεῖν οὐκ ; see n. crit. He also retains égòv the reading of the MS.,
in defence of which he refers to I. 29, Lys. 18. II οὐ τοὺς πονηροτάτους τῶν
πολιτῶν ἀπέκτεινον, ἀλλ᾽ οἷς μάλιστα προσῆκον (προσῆκεν Taylor) καὶ διὰ γένος
καὶ διὰ πλοῦτον καὶ διὰ τὴν ἄλλην ἀρετὴν τιμᾶσθαι, 25. 2 εἰ δὲ ὡς ἐμοί τι προσῆκον
περὶ αὐτῶν ποιοῦνται τοὺς λόγους, ib. 7 ἀποφαίνων ὡς οὔτε ἐξ ὧν ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ
οὔτε ἐξ ὧν ἐν ὀλιγαρχίᾳ πεποίηκα, οὐδέν μοι προσῆκον (προσῆκεν Taylor)
κακόνουν εἶναι τῷ πλήθει. These passages are not relevant, and it should be
538
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
noted that the confusion of προσῆκεν and προσῆκον (§ 45. 3) is found even in
codex Parisinus Σ (Dem. 19. 304, ‘confusio O et E frequentissima est, prae-
sertim in hoc verbo,' Voemel ad loc.). In Lys. 13. 52, according to Schoell,
the writer of X first wrote ἐξόν, which he afterwards changed to ἐξῆν.
ειν
кат
5 ἃ ἐψηφίσατο ή βουλή. In accordance with a law of Solon the Council
met in the Eleusinium on the day after the Mysteries (And. I. 111, C. I. A. II.
372, 4 βουλὴ ἐν [τ][ι Ελευσινίωι], ib. 431, 30 βουλὴ ἐ[ν β]ου[λευτηρίωι καὶ ἐκ]
τοῦ βουλευτηρίου ἐν τῶι Ελευσινίωι, ib. III. 2, 3 (age of Hadrian) βουλὴ ἱερὰ ἐν
'Elevσeivi[wi]), and received a report from the King concerning the conduct
of the festival (τὰ γεγενημένα Ἐλευσῖνι κατὰ τὴν τελετήν, And. l.c.). A special
session after the Thesmophoria is not recorded and is not probable, but
doubtless opportunity was given to the King or other persons to bring under
the notice of the Council any disturbance or act of impiety committed during
the celebration. What powers the Council had to punish offenders is not
known. Accusations of impiety could be brought in many other ways (Dem.
22. 27 τῆς ἀσεβείας κατὰ ταὔτ᾽ ἔστ᾽ ἀπάγειν, γράφεσθαι, δικάζεσθαι πρὸς Εὐμολ-
πίδας, φράζειν (φαίνειν, Weil, Blass) πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα).
51-61 Is this woman's son to be Philoctemon's heir, and take funeral
offerings to the family sepulchres? Or Philoctemon's own nephew and
adopted son? Is Philoctemon's sister, Chaereas' widow, to be at the mercy of
our adversaries or to be married to a husband of your choice? These are the
questions on which you have now to vote, these are the risks my clients run,
whereas the diapapтvpía enables our enemies, if they lose the day, to lodge
a claim against us and fight the same case twice. But if Philoctemon's will
was illegal, the diapaprvpía ought to have stated this point. If on the other
hand the ground taken is that he made no will, the proper course was to join
issue directly, not to block the way by a diapapтvpía. How can Androcles
know that Philoctemon did not make a will and did not adopt Chaerestratus?
Impudent as he is, he will not assert, I imagine, that he was aware of, and
present at, every act of Philoctemon, who counted him a mortal enemy. The
most provoking thing of all is when our opponents harp upon the name of
Chaerestratus' grandfather. If Philoctemon had no power to make a will,
and if the estate in dispute is the estate of Euctemon, who has the better title
to inherit Euctemon's property, his legitimate daughters and their issue or
complete strangers, exposed not only by us but by the conduct of the guardians
themselves? Androcles, who says that the claimants are Euctemon's legiti-
mate children, and that he is their guardian, has claimed for himself
Euctemon's daughter as an éπíкληpos together with Euctemon's estate! If
they are legitimate, why has he put in this claim? His own deeds convict him
of perjury. His trust is in evasions. Instead of attempting to prove his
deposition he hopes to lead you astray by loud abuse of us and by contrasting
his own poverty and the affluence of my clients. They deserve gratitude, not
envy. The riches, not only of Phanostratus but of both his sons, are spent
lavishly on the state and the public services. If the estate of Philoctemon be
adjudged to Chaerestratus, he will manage it in your interest as your steward.
Our opponents will first despoil it, and then seek other victims.
Neither the composition nor the matter of these sections will bear
examination. Analysis at once lays open the loose joints and general
OR. VI.
539
COMMENTARY
The argument invites severer censure.
To
incoherence of the structure.
proceed on the assumption that the claimants have already been proved to
be the children of Alce may be considered fair advocacy. But the treatment
of Philoctemon's will is bluster and claptrap. Chaerestratus' case breaks
down if he cannot show that this document was not only genuine but had the
effects he attributes to it. His spokesman fights shy of the difficulty and
dodges to another position. The last appeal to the cupidity of the judges is
in the worst style of an Athenian pleader (IV. 27—31 analysis).
51. 2 τῶν Φιλοκτήμονος. Androcles' wards claimed the estate of
Euctemon, not the estate of Philoctemon (§§ 47. 6, 56. 4).
2, 3 ἐπὶ τὰ μνήματα ἰέναι. Cp. §§ 64, 65, ΙΧ. 36. 4.
3 χεόμενον καὶ ἐναγιοῦντα.
•
6 ἐπὶ τούτοις γενέσθαι κ.τ.λ.
Cp. § 65. 2, II. 46. 5 κ.
Cp. § 4. 7n. Note that Euctemon had not
provided his daughter with a second husband, although she had been a widow
for seven or eight years. Probably she was a middle-aged woman; Euctemon
was 96 when he died (§ 18).
7 ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν. Cp. § 4. 3n.
8 ἐπιδικασθεῖσαν. Cp. § 14. 10 2. Isaeus here is trying to dupe the
judges by mixing up the case of Androcles and the case of Chaerestratus.
Androcles, who denied that Philoctemon left a will and asserted that the
estate belonged to Euctemon, could maintain consistently that in the event
of a verdict against the diapapтvpía Chaereas' widow would become an
Éπíkληpos claimable by Euctemon's kin according to the rules laid down in
the law (III. 63–71 analysis). He himself, being a relative of Euctemon,
was prepared to enter the field, and a court, if it did its duty, had only to
examine whether he could prove his right to take her. Whether the other
daughter, Phanostratus' wife and Chaerestratus' mother, would also be
claimable at law, is dubious (III. 64. 5, 6 22.). But Chaerestratus stood on
different ground. He was not claiming Euctemon's estate as a son of
Euctemon's daughter. He described the estate as Philoctemon's property,
and came forward as a son of Philoctemon adopted by will. If this
contention was true, Chaereas' widow was not an èπíkλŋpos, and a court
of law had no concern with her marriage.
52. 3
score.
TEρì TOÚTWV. A flat phrase, but not to be altered on that
5 άvтiуpaɣáμevou, 'filing a competing claim'; see XI. 17. 2, [Dem.] 44.
39 καὶ τὸν ἄρχοντά γ᾽ ἐξηπάτησε παρακαταβάλλων (IV. 4. 8 π.) πρὸς ἡμᾶς καὶ
ἀντεγράψατο Οτρυνεὺς εἶναι, 48. 31 κατὰ τὸν νόμον τοῦτον ἡ πρόσκλησις (τῶν
πρότερον ἐπιδικασαμένων) ἐγένετο καὶ τὰς ἀμφισβητήσεις ἀντεγραψάμεθα, ὃν
τρόπον τουτῳὶ ἐδόκει Ολυμπιοδώρῳ, Harp. s.v. ἀντιγραφή (=Suid. s.v., Bekk.
An. Gr. I. pp. 200, 9, 410, 8); ἰδίως μὲν ἐπὶ ταῖς τῶν κλήρων διαδικασίαις
ἀντιγραφὴ καλεῖται, ὅταν τις ὡς ἄπαιδος ὄντος τοῦ τετελευτηκότος ἑαυτῷ φάσκῃ
προσήκειν τὸν κλῆρον κατὰ γένος ἢ δόσιν. κοινῶς δ᾽ ἐν ταῖς δίκαις ταῖς δημοσίαις
< καὶ ταῖς ἰδίαις> τὰ τῶν δικαζομένων γράμματα, ἃ ἐδίδοσαν περὶ τοῦ πράγματος,
καὶ τὰ τοῦ διώκοντος καὶ τὰ τοῦ φεύγοντος (Lys. 23. 5, [Dem.] 42. 17), ἀντιγραφή,
καὶ τὰ μαρτύρια (?) Δημοσθένης κατὰ Στεφάνου (Dem. 45. 45, 46, 87) καὶ Ὑπερείδης
(Hyp. 3. 4, 31). Πλάτων δὲ ἐν τῇ Σωκράτους ἀπολογίᾳ (27 C) τὸ αὐτὸ καλεῖ ἀντωμο-
σίαν (III. 6. 8 n.) καὶ ἀντιγραφήν, Poll. 8. 33 ἀντιγραφὴ δὲ ἐκαλεῖτο ἐπὶ τῶν κατὰ
540
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
γένος ἀμφισβητούντων. The word is elastic and can also be used of a cross action
(Poll. 8. 58 αντιγραφὴ δέ, ὅταν τις κρινόμενος ἀντικατηγορῇ, καὶ ἡ παραγραφὴ δὲ
ἀντιγραφῇ ἔοικεν· διὸ καὶ προεισέρχεται. ὁ δ᾽ ἀντιγραψάμενος μὴ κρατήσας τὴν
ἐπωβελίαν προσωφλίσκανεν. τίθενται δὲ τὸ τῆς ἀντιγραφῆς ὄνομα καὶ κατὰ τῶν
ἀπαντώντων πρὸς τὰς γραφάς (Aesch. I. 119, 154), καὶ ἔστι πρὸς τὴν γραφὴν τὸ
τοῦ φεύγοντος γράμμα ἀντιγραφή, οἷον (Dem. 45. 46) ‘τὰ ψευδῆ μου κατεμαρτύ-
ρησε Στέφανος, γράψας τὰ ἐν τῷ γραμματείῳ '). See Att. Proc. pp. 830 sqq.,
857 sqq.
6 καίτοι εἰ μὲν διέθετο Φιλοκτήμων κ.τ.λ. The dilemma is not formidable.
After deposing that Philoctemon did not make a will and died childless
(§§ 62, 63), Androcles had no need to add that ‘Philoctemon had no power
to adopt Chaerestratus.' The statement would have been both superfluous
and false. Since Philoctemon was childless, it was lawful for him to adopt
a son. If he had done this in his lifetime, the adopted son on Euctemon's
death could have claimed Philoctemon's share of Euctemon's estate. If the
alleged will had been brought out immediately after Philoctemon's death
and sanctioned by a court of law, Chaerestratus would now have been in
possession of such rights as his adoptive father was able to transmit. But
no will left by Philoctemon could convey to another person the whole of
Euctemon's estate, so as to debar Euctemon's other sons, if legitimate, from
inheriting their proper share. Philoctemon was not entitled to make a testa-
ment in this sense.
8 εἰ δ᾽ ἔξεστι μὲν διαθέσθαι κ.τ.λ. The shift from the particular to the
general has vexed commentators, and Buermann and Thalheim have boldly
printed év, tentatively proposed by Schoemann. But the antithesis is past
praying for. The malformation betrays a twist in the thought. The in-
capacity and capacity of Philoctemon, the existence and non-existence of
a will, may be properly contrasted, but the capacity of Philoctemon and the
non-existence of a will are ideas which cannot be yoked together without
a break-down. It would be absurd to write 'If Philoctemon was entitled to
make a will, but did not do so etc.' The question of the legality of a non-
existent will is beside the mark. The speaker declares that Philoctemon did
make a will, and will not assert the opposite even in a conditional sentence.
This is why he sacrifices symmetry to sense and says 'If, however, it is
lawful to make a will (in such circumstances), and Androcles is claiming (aupi-
σẞηreî) on the ground that no will was made, he ought to join issue directly.'
The subject of aµpioßηтeî has to be extracted from the clause preceding
(τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ ἐχρῆν διαμαρτυρεῖν). But ἀμφισβητεῖται ([Dem.] 44. 7) is an easy
correction, which straightens out to some extent the crooked sentence.
the reference to Androcles is abolished, the particular can be speciously
merged in the general: 'when it is lawful to make a will, and a claim is put
in on the ground that no will was made, issue ought to be joined directly?
Such a proposition ought to have been expressed by eàv with the subjunctive,
but the writer may have intended to confound the principle and the special
application. In any case the use of åµpioßnteîv hides a snare. The speaker
himself discloses that it is not the proper word to describe the interposition
of a diaµapтvpía (§§ 3. 4, 4. 3, 59. 2, 3). Such appropriateness as it possesses
is derived from the assumption which the opponents challenge, that what is
If
OR. VI.
541
COMMENTARY
claimed is the estate of Philoctemon. But they did not, and could not,
argue that, if Philoctemon had left an estate of his own, the guardians of his
brothers had a right to lodge a diaµaprupía against persons claiming that
estate under a will.
9 οὐ δόντος οὐδὲ διαθεμένου. Cp. III. 42. 2, 3 κ.
9, το μή διαμαρτυρίᾳ κωλύειν. Cp. §§ 3. 5 n., 4. 2, 3 n.
53. 3 πῶς οἶσθα Φιλοκτήμονα ὅτι. A has Φιλοκτήμων. Dobree's
emendation, which Baiter alters to Φιλοκτήμον', restores a familiar idiom (VII.
17, VIII. 9, XI. 15, 48, And. 1. 139, 3. 36, Lys. 13. 34, 19. 48, 20. 34, 27. 7,
Isocr. 3. 23, 8. 103, 9. 52, 10. 2, 12. 56, 15. 122, 217, Dem. 29. 49, 45. 2, [Dem.]
40. 58, 43. 23, 44. 15, 47. 38, 48. 46, 50. 13, 29, 58. 15, 58, Aesch. 1. 41, 118,
2. 73, Lyc. 62, Din. 3. II, Riddell, Digest of Platonic idioms $ 226).
Buermann Hermes 19, 1884, p. 344) prefers to transpose Φιλοκτήμων and put
it after διέθετο. Thalheim considers that no change is needed.
6 ἤκουσέ τινος κ.τ.λ. An important qualification is omitted. No evidence
of discourse with another was admitted in Athenian courts, if the person
whose declarations were quoted was alive (Att. Proc. p. 878). Compare VIII.
6, 14, XII. 10, [Dem.] 46. 6 οἱ δέ γε νόμοι οὐ ταῦτα λέγουσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἃ ἂν εἰδῇ τις
καὶ οἷς ἂν παραγένηται, ταῦτα μαρτυρεῖν κελεύουσιν ἐν γραμματείῳ γεγραμμένα...
ἀκοὴν δ᾽ οὐκ ἐῶσι ζῶντος μαρτυρεῖν, ἀλλὰ τεθνεῶτος, τῶν δὲ ἀδυνάτων καὶ ὑπερο-
ρίων ἐκμαρτυρίαν γεγραμμένην ἐν τῷ γραμματείῳ, ib. 8 Law ἀκοὴν εἶναι μαρτυρεῖν
τεθνεῶτος, ἐκμαρτυρίαν δὲ ὑπερορίου καὶ ἀδυνάτου, 44. 55 νὴ Δί', ἀλλ᾽ ἀκηκοὼς τοῦ
αὑτοῦ πατρὸς διαμεμαρτύρηκεν. ὁ δέ γε νόμος ἀκοὴν < πλὴν > τῶν τετελευτηκότων
κωλύει < μαρτυρεῖν· οὗτος δὲ τετόλμηκε > διαμαρτυρεῖν ζῶντος τοῦ πατρὸς τὰ
ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου πραχθέντα, Dem. 57. 4 (Demosthenes, like Isaeus, is not telling
the whole truth) οὐδὲ μαρτυρεῖν ἀκοὴν ἐῶσιν οἱ νόμοι, οὐδ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῖς πάνυ φαύλοις
ἐγκλήμασιν, εἰκότως· ὅπου γὰρ εἰδέναι τινὲς ἤδη φάσκοντες ψευδεῖς ἐφάνησαν,
πῶς ἅ γε μηδ᾽ αὐτὸς οἶδ᾽ ὁ λέγων προσήκει πιστεύεσθαι; ἀλλὰ μὴν ὅπου γε μηδ'
ὑπεύθυνον καθιστάνθ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἔξεστιν, δι᾽ ὧν ἂν ἀκοῦσαί τις φῇ, βλάπτειν μηδένα,
πῶς ἀνυπευθύνῳ γε λέγοντι προσήκει πιστεύειν ὑμᾶς; Att. Proc. p. 878.
54. 2
οὐ παραγενόμενος. Obviously Androcles could not have been
present at a transaction which according to him was invented by his adver-
saries. That the form of his deposition was illegal I do not believe; with
what arguments he upheld his testimony is another matter. The orator's
reasoning, if taken seriously, would conduct to the conclusion that at Athens
no one could bear witness that another person did not make a will, unless
he had been told so by the person to whom the will was attributed.
4 ὅμοιον γὰρ ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ. Gebauer, De arg. ex contr. formis p. 286,
compares [Isocr.] 1. 27, Isocr. 10. 10, 15. 2, 14, 299, 18. 57, Plat. Phaed. 98 c.
Isaeus might have omitted ὅμοιον γὰρ (Dem. 18. 194, 243, 24. 73).
55. 2, 3 διότι τῶν συγγενῶν μόνος κ.τ.λ. This does not square with
the statement in §§ 29, 38 that Androcles and Antidorus became confederates
of Alce after Philoctemon's death.
3 τούτῳ. Schoemann asserts that τούτῳ can only designate Philoctemon,
and is consequently compelled to alter χρήμασι to γνησίοις. The reference,
as Meutzner (Scheibe, Praef. xxxi) saw, is to Antidorus, presumably present
in court; with τοῖς ἄλλοις compare § 39. 7, 8 εἷς τούτων, ᾿Αντίδωρος ἐκεῖνος.
56. 2, 3 καταχρῶνται τῷ Ευκτήμονος ὀνόματι τοῦ τουδὶ πάππου, ‘make
542
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
ITE
free with Euctemon's name'; Kaтaɣρñσbai λóyw (λóyois), ‘to make free with
assertions,' is often found in the orators ([Dem.] 17. 1, 35. 44, 47. 9, 40, 49.
39; cp. кaтaɣpĥσbaι πроþáσeɩ Dem. 18. 150, ȧroλoyią [Dem.] 49. 63), and
occasionally the noun is omitted as in [Dem.] 43. 39 катεxpŵvto ás tậ
Πολέμωνι οὐδεμία γένοιτο ἀδελφή, 48. 44 κατεχρήσατο πρὸς τοὺς δικαστὰς ὅτι
ἐγὼ τὴν οἰκίαν μεμισθωμένος εἴην. The Ms. reading is καταχρῶνται | τῶ τουδὶ
πάππω with τῷ εὐκτήμονος ὀνόματι added by A' under the last line of fol. 53
uerso. Buermann, who holds a brief against A¹ (Crit. Introd. p. xxix sqq.),
brackets τῷ Ευκτήμονος ὀνόματι as a gloss designed to explain τῷ τουδὶ πάππῳ,
and considers that the combination καταχρῶνται τῷ τουδὶ πάππῳ is ‘not too
bold for Isaeus' (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 351). He does not explain the exact
force of this singular phrase, but the context demands the sense put upon it
by the supposed glossator: 'what is most exasperating is when they make
free use of Chaerestratus' grandfather' i.e. in their arguments. Without
some such qualification the Greek would be as curious as the English, for rậ
Tоvềì Táππ cannot be taken as an ironical quotation of words constantly
recurring in speeches of the adversaries. Schoemann's correction @ Tovdì
πапл, though involving only a trivial change of the MS., produces an
awkward and questionable construction. I have accepted Reiske's emenda-
tion, Tоû Tоvềì áлTоν, on the hypothesis that the corruption was caused by
grammatical assimilation (Crit. Introd. p. xxxix), i.e. by the influence of
καταχρώνται. The Zürich editors, Scheibe, and Thalheim print καταχρῶνται
τῷ Εὐκτήμονος ὀνόματι τῷ τουδὶ πάππῳ, which I cannot translate.
6 [ἡμᾶς] τοὺς ἐκ τούτων γεγονότας. The advocate, a friend of Phano-
stratus and Chaerestratus (§ 1), cannot reckon himself among the children of
Euctemon's daughters (Buermann, Hermes 17, 1882, p. 399).
π
57.2 úp ηµŵv éléyxovтaι. The reading of A, è§ ǹµwv, is untenable
(§ 58. 6). Antiphon has τn ảλŋleíạ tôv ¿§ éµoû праɣОévтшv (Tеtr. 1. d. 1), and
¿¿ àµþoîv Toû þóvov yevoµévov (Tetr. II. y. 10, ß. 6), but it may be doubted
whether even Antiphon would have dared to say ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐλέγχονται. The
passages usually cited from oratorical prose in defence of the MS. are Lys.
16. 18 ἐκ δὲ τῶν κινδυνεύειν ἐθελόντων πρὸς τοὺς πολεμίους ἅπαντες ὑμεῖς
ὠφελεῖσθε, Dem. 23. 68 ὥστε καὶ ἐκ τοῦ χρόνου καὶ ἐκ τῶν μεταχειριζομένων
ἅπαν, ὅσον ἔσθ' ὅσιον, πεπρᾶχθαι, Lyc. 62 Μεσσήνην ἐκ τῶν τυχόντων ἀνθρώπων
σvvoikiσdeîσav, in all of which the reason for the choice of the preposition is
visible at a glance. Here the mistake is due to anticipation (Crit. Introd.
p. xxxviii), é§ &v following in the same line.
ισ
4, 5 ὀλίγῳ πρότερον, in § 46.
58. 1, 2 πρòs beŵv 'Оλvµπlov, a somewhat uncommon adjuration (VIII.
29, Lys. 13. 95, 19. 35, 54, Aesch. 3. 182, 228). Zeùs 'Oλúµñios is appealed to
in Dem. 24. 121, Aesch. 1. 55, 76, 3. 255.
59. I TOÚTŲ μév, i.e. Androcles, the dative being governed by eπidikov
(III. 3, 43, 64, V. 16, X. 16, XI. 10, 24). Reiske, Sir W. Jones, Schoemann,
Dareste, all suppose that Chaerestratus is meant, and that the construction
is a datiuus commodi ('for, in the interest of, Chaerestratus'). Hitzig
(Studien zu Isaeus p. 29) perceiving the absurdity of this proposition desires.
to alter Tour to Touro. Jenicke (Observationes in Isaeum p. 29) seeks to ease
the construction by substituting οὐ δοκεῖ for οὐδείς.
OR. VI.
543
COMMENTARY
2 ἀλλ᾽ εὐθυδικίᾳ <ἐᾷ> εἰσιέναι. Herwerden's emendation is simple and
satisfactory. Thalheim (Hermes 38, 1903, p. 462) prefers to insert ἐξῆν after
εἰσιέναι. Albrecht (Hermes 18, 1883, p. 372) and Buermann (ib. 19, 1884,
p. 354) cut out the words as derived from § 52. 10. Albrecht is of opinion
that it is not possible to extract the subject of the missing verb from οὐδείς.
Buermann elaborates a theory to account for the intrusion. The interval
between ταῦτα τὰ μέρη interpolated in v. 24 and the same words in v. 18
(παραδώσειν ἡμῖν ταῦτα τὰ μέρη) is 36 lines in A, that between ἀλλ᾽ εὐθυδικία
εἰσιέναι in § 59 and the same words in S 52 is 32 lines in A. Such a coin-
cidence is not an accident. The interval is nearly equal to the space of a
page in A, which contains from 34 to 36 lines. A and the original from
which it was copied were manuscripts of nearly the same size and shape
('Format), and in the original the lines v. 18 and 24, and the lines VI. 52
and 59 faced each other on two inside pages.
2, 3 ἅπαντας ἀποστερεῖ τῆς ἀμφισβητήσεως. Cp. § 4. 2, 3 η.
4, 5 ἐξαρκέσειν ὑμῖν παρεκβάσεις. The Athenian pleader often deprecates
the digressions of his adversary ; see Dem. 23. 95 ἁπλῆν μὲν οὐδὲ δίκαιαν οὐδ᾽
ἡντινοῦν ἀπολογίαν ᾿Αριστοκράτης ἕξει λέγειν, παραγωγὰς δέ τινας ἐρεῖ, ὡς ἄρα
κ.τ.λ., ib. 219 καὶ τὰς μὲν παραγωγής, ἃς οὗτοι ποιήσονται, χαίρειν ἐᾶτε καὶ μὴ
ἐπιτρέπετε λέγειν αὐτοῖς, [Dem.] 40. 21 ταῦτα διέξεισιν οὔτε μαρτυρίαν οὐδεμίαν
ἐμβεβλημένος ὑπὲρ τούτων οὔτ᾽ ἀγνοῶν ὡς οὐδὲν ὑγιὲς λέγει, ἀλλ᾽ ἀκριβῶς εἰδώς, ὅτι
ὁμολογῶν μὲν ἀδικεῖν ἐν ὑμῖν οὐδείς πω ἀπέφυγε, ψευδόμενος δὲ καὶ παραγωγὰς
λέγων ἤδη τις δίκην οὐκ ἔδωκεν, Aesch. 1. 166, 170, 178, 3. 205, 206, Hyp. 2. 9,
3. 10, 31.
7, 8 ὡς εἰσὶν οἵδε μὲν πλούσιοι αὐτὸς δὲ πένης, a formidable argument in
a democratic court; compare I. 7. 2 n., V. 35. 2, ΧΙ. 37. 3, 4, Hyp. 3. 32 καὶ τὸ
πάντων δεινότατον τῶν ἐν τῷ λόγῳ λεγομένων ὑπὸ σοῦ, ὁ σὺ ᾤου λανθάνειν ὧν
ἕνεκα λέγεις, οὐ λανθάνων, ὁπότε παραφθέγγοιο ἐν τῷ λόγῳ πολλάκις, ὡς πλούσιός
ἐστιν Εὐξένιππος, καὶ πάλιν διαλιπών, ὡς οὐκ ἐκ δικαίου πολλὴν οὐσίαν συνεί
λεκται· ἃ εἰς μὲν τὸν ἀγῶνα τοῦτον οὐδὲν δήπου ἐστίν, εἴτε πολλὰ οὗτος κέκτηται
εἴτε ὀλίγα, τοῦ δὲ λέγοντος κακοηθία καὶ ὑπόληψις εἰς τοὺς δικαστὰς οὐ δικαία, ὡς
ἄλλοθί που οὗτοι τὴν γνώμην ἂν σχοίησαν, ἢ ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ τοῦ πράγματος καὶ πότερον
ἀδικεῖ ὑμᾶς ὁ κρινόμενος ἢ οὔ.
او
Buermann's
8 διὰ δὲ ταῦτα. For the repetition of dè see II. 42. 2, 3 22.
reasons for bracketing the particle are (1) that there is no other example of
the construction in Isaeus, (2) that in his opinion A contains many instances
of the interpolation of δὲ (Ι. 12. 4, III. 21. I, 50. 2, 72. 9, 76. 4, V. 16. 5, ΧΙ.
50. 2). Thalheim also (Hermes 38, 1903, p. 462) suspects the construction,
but his remedy is to bracket dè after èàv in 7. 5.
Η
60. I, 2
εἰς τὴν πόλιν πλείω ἀναλίσκεται ἢ εἰς αὐτούς τούτους. For
the oratorical treatment of this topic see 1V. 27-31 analysis, V. 35 sqq., VII.
37 sqq. A good parallel to the argument here is furnished by Lys. 21. 15 sqq.
ἄξιον δέ ἐστιν ἐνθυμηθῆναι ὅτι πολὺ μᾶλλον ὑμῖν προσήκει τῶν ὑμετέρων ἐμοὶ
διδόναι ἢ τῶν ἐμῶν ἐμοὶ ἀμφισβητῆσαι, καὶ πένητα γενόμενον ἐλεῆσαι μᾶλλον ἢ
πλουτοῦντι φθονῆσαι, καὶ τοῖς θεοῖς εὔχεσθαι τοὺς ἄλλους εἶναι τοιούτους πολίτας,
ἵνα τῶν μὲν ὑμετέρων μὴ ἐπιθυμήσωσι, τὰ δὲ σφέτερα αὐτῶν εἰς ὑμᾶς ἀναλί-
σκωσιν...τοιοῦτον γὰρ ἐμαυτὸν τῇ πόλει παρέχω, ὥστ᾽ ἰδίᾳ μὲν τῶν ὄντων φείδομαι,
δημοσίᾳ δὲ λῃτουργῶν ἥδομαι, καὶ οὐκ ἐπὶ τοῖς περιοῦσι μέγα φρονῶ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ
544
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
τοῖς εἰς ὑμᾶς ἀνηλωμένοις, ἡγούμενος τούτων μὲν αὐτὸς αἴτιος εἶναι, τὴν δὲ οὐσίαν
ἑτέρους μοι καταλιπεῖν, καὶ διὰ ταύτην μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν ἐχθρῶν ἀδίκως συκοφαντεῖσθαι,
δι' ἐκεῖνα δὲ ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν δικαίως σώζεσθαι.
T
2, 3 Φανόστρατος μὲν τετριηράρχηκεν. The name of Phanostratus of
Cephisia is found in an inventory of the Superintendents of the Docks
(ἐπιμεληταὶ τῶν νεωρίων), which Koehler assigns to 356/5 B.C.: τάσδε τῶν
τριήρων τῶν ὑπαιθρίων παραδοθεισῶν καὶ ἐκ τῆς ὑπερορίας κατακομισθεισῶν
ἠνάγκασαν τοὺς τριηράρχους ἐπισκευάσαντας τῇ πόλει ἀ[ποδοῦναι τὰς] ναῦς...
Ἡγεμόνη· τριήραρχοι Φανόστρατος Κηφισιεύς, Νικίας Ἐροιάδης, C. I. A. II. 794 b
76; Koehler's theory is that the ships in question had served in the first
year of the Social War 357/6 B.C. That this is the Phanostratus of our
speech is made probable by a fragment of a dedication conjecturally attri-
buted to 'the middle of the 4th century or a little later,' C. I. A. II. 1177, 11
Χαιρέστρατος Φανοστράτου Κηφισιεὺς ἐγραμμάτευε. But Phanostratus of
Cephisia mentioned in Dem. 54. 7 must belong to a later generation; he
was of the same age as Ariston the speaker, who seems to have been a
young man (ib. 1), and, though the exact date of the speech is unknown
(Blass, Att. Ber.2 III. 1. p. 457), we cannot put it before 356 B.C.
friend may have been a son of Chaerestratus.
I.
Ariston's
5 Χαιρέστρατος τηλικοῦτος ὢν τετριηράρχηκε. At a later period, i.e. after
357/6 B.C. when the trierarchic system was reorganised by the law of
Periander ([Dem.] 47. 21), Chaerostratus held the office of ἡγεμὼν συμμορίας
(C. I. A. II. 800 b 41-43 Αιαντεία, ἐπισκευῆς δεομένη, Λυσικλέους ἔργον, Χαι-
ρεστράτου Κηφισιέως συμμορία).
Cp. V. 36. I, 2 η.
5,6 κεχορήγηκε δὲ τραγῳδοῖς.
6 γεγυμνασιάρχηκε δὲ λαμπάδι. Cp. [And.] 4. 42 νενικηκώς εὐανδρίᾳ καὶ
λαμπάδι καὶ τραγῳδοῖς, C. I. A. II. 1229=Michel n. 941 ᾿Ακαμαντὶς ἐνίκα
λαμπάδι Παναθήναια τὰ μεγάλα ἐπ᾿ ᾿Αρχίου ἄρχοντος (346/5 Β.C.). Ξενοκλῆς
ἐγυμνασιάρχει, ib. II. 1181 Ερμῃ Εναγωνίῳ Αὐτοσθ[ενίδης] Αὐτοσθε[νί]δου
Ξυπεταίων ἀνέθηκε γυμνασιαρχήσας Κεκροπίδι φυλῇ [εἰς Παν]αθήναια τὰ μεγάλα...
ἐπὶ Χαιρώνδου ἄρχοντος (338/7 B.C.), ib. IV. 2. 1233 b= Michel n. 942 (2nd half
of 4th century B.C., found at Rhamnus) γυμ]νασίαρχοι ἀνέθεσαν [--- ἄρχ]οντος
λαμπάδι νικήσαντες [--- Εὐ]ωνυμεύς, Χαρικλῆς ᾿Αλεξιμένου Περγασῆθεν. Λαμ-
παδηφόροι (all members of the tribe Erechtheis, 48 names in 4 columns),
ib. II. 606 (middle of 4th century B.C.) decree of λαμπαδηφόροι of the tribe
Aeantis in honour of the γυμνασίαρχος (one column containing Io names
preserved, room for 3 more columns), ib. IV. 2. 1233 c=Michel n. 944 (4th
century B.C.) Μεγακλῆς Μεγακλέους Ραμνούσιος ἀνέθηκεν στεφανωθεὶς ὑπὸ τῶν
δημοτῶν δικαιοσύνης ἕνεκα...καὶ νικήσας παισὶ καὶ ἀνδράσι γυμνασιαρχῶν
(probably an instance of a γυμνασίαρχος in a deme ; cp. II. 42. 5 κ.). Torch
races (λαμπαδηδρομίαι) under the superintendence of the King ('Αθ. Πολ. 56.
1) took place at the Great Panathenaea (C. I. A. 11. 964 (=S. I. G.² n. 668,
Michel n. 880) Bb 28 Δ Δ Δ λαμπαδηφόρωι νικῶντι ὑδρία), and at the festivals
of Prometheus (VII. 36, Lys. 21. 3, C. I. A. IV. I. 35 b 28), Hephaestus (And.
1. 132, C. I. A. IV. I. 35 b 23, 24, ib. II. 1340), and Pan (Hdt. 6. 105, Bekk.
An. Gr. I. p. 228, 11, Patmos Schol. on Dem. 57. 43 in Bull. Corr. Hell. 1,
1877, p. 11). The tribes competed against each other, and appointed γυμνα-
oiapxoi (Dem. 39. 7, C. I. A. IV. I. 35 b 28) to defray the expenses of the
OR. VI.
545
COMMENTARY
C
λаμñadηþóροi; cp. the Scholium on Dem. 57. 43 referred to above (oi ënßol
ἀλειψάμενοι παρὰ τοῦ γυμνασιάρχου κατὰ διαδοχὴν τρέχοντες ἧττον τὸν βωμόν·
καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἅψας ἐνίκα καὶ ἡ τούτου φυλή). Ephebic inscriptions of the
2nd century B.C. mention torch races at the Thesea and Epitaphia. See
Thumser, De ciuium Atheniensium muneribus p. 88, Mommsen, Feste der
Stadt Athen pp. 103, 292 sqq., 301 sqq., 399 sqq.
7 εἰσενηνόχασιν. I blundered in classifying the MS. reading εἰσενήνοχαν
among errors due to the use of abbreviations (Crit. Introd. p. xl). The
true cause is the confusion between the terminations of the aorist and the
perfect; εἴληφαν, ἐκτέθεικαν, ἐκβέβληκαν appear in Ptolemaic papyri of the
2nd century B.C. (Crönert, Memoria Graeca Herculanensis p. 210, Moulton,
Class. Rev. 15, 1901, p. 36), and similar forms are found in inscriptions of
the Roman age (S. I. G.² n. 930 (a senatusconsultum of 112 B.C.), 44 аπodé-
δωκαν, 52 γέγοναν, ib. n. 330, 2 διατετέλεκαν, 31 πεποίηκαν).
ev Toîs тpiakoσíols. The 300 were the richest citizens of Athens (Dem.
18. 171). Their place in the system of ovµµopíaι established in 378/7 B.C.
(Harp. s.v. σvµµopía, Dem. 2. 29) is unknown. Gilbert (Gr. Staatsaltert.2 1.
p. 413 n. 1, E. T. p. 368) identifies them with the first assessment class.
Thumser (De ciuium Atheniensium muneribus p. 58) supposes that they
were designated by the generals from lists of wealthy persons submitted by
the demes. What is certain is that, when [Dem.] 42 was spoken, i.e. in
Alexander's age according to Blass (Att. Ber.2 III. 1, p. 505), the 300 were
liable to the 'liturgy' called Tроeɩσpoрá, i.e. when a war tax had been decreed
by the Assembly, they were required to pay in advance the whole amount
(§§ 3, 25), being empowered to recover afterwards the sums due from the
other taxpayers (Dem. 37. 37, [Dem.] 50. 9). They are also mentioned in
connexion with Demosthenes' reform of the trierarchic organisation in
340/39 B.C. (Aesch. 3. 222 τὰ δὲ περὶ τὰς τριήρεις καὶ τοὺς τριηράρχους τίς ἂν
ἀποκρύψαι χρόνος δύναιτ᾽ ἄν, ὅτε νομοθετήσας περὶ τῶν τριακοσίων…..ἐξηλέγχθης
ὑπ᾿ ἐμοῦ ἑξήκοντα καὶ πέντε νεῶν ταχυναυτουσῶν τριηράρχους ὑφῃρημένος, Din.
1. 42 εἰσί τινες ἐν τῷ δικαστηρίῳ τῶν ἐν τοῖς τριακοσίοις γεγενημένων, ὅθ᾽ οὗτος
¿TíðEL TÒV TEρì тŵv тρinpáρxwv vóμov, Hyp. fr. 134 Blass (=Harp. s.v.
συμμορία) ἐπειδή... Δημοσθένης νόμον ἔθηκε τοὺς τ' τριηραρχεῖν καὶ βαρεῖαι
yeyóvaσiv ai тρinpapxía). It is conjectured that the 300 were distributed
equally among the 20 trierarchic ovμpopía (Gilbert op. cit. p. 416, E. T.
p. 371).
8 Ó VEŃTEPOS OUTOσí. Phanostratus had two sons (§ 6). I have thought
of adding vòs before ouroσí, but the supplement is not necessary (II. 10.
8 n.).
61. 3, 4 τοῦ Φιλοκτήμονος κλήρου. Cp. §§ 4. 4, 51. 2, 56. 4. For the
meaning of ẻmɩdikáσŋтai see III. 41. 2 n.
4, 5 τὰ προσταττόμενα. Cp. IV. 27. 8 n.
62-65 I beg you, judges, to hold the defendant to the terms of his
deposition. He has affirmed that Philoctemon did not make a will and died
childless. The falsity of this has been demonstrated. He has affirmed that
these children are legitimate. Let him prove it in the proper way, by the
evidence of relations and of the members of Euctemon's deme and pparpia.
It is not enough to mention their mother's name. Who testifies that she lived
35
W. I.
546
OR. VI.
ISAEUS
with Euctemon as his wife, and that Euctemon performed public services on
her account? Where is she buried? Who has seen Euctemon or the children
making offerings at her grave? Require from him strict proof, and your
verdict will be righteous and lawful, while my clients will get justice.
The peroration should be compared with the epilogue of or. III. (§ 77
sqq.). In both a recapitulation of previous arguments developes into a new
and vigorous assault on the enemy. But we must not forget that, if the
defendant had to prove the legitimacy of the children, the prosecutor was
under a prior obligation to prove their illegitimacy. Philoctemon's will has
nothing to do with this issue.
62. 4 γέγραπται κ.τ.λ. Schoemann thinks that the διαμαρτυρία was con-
ceived in these terms: ᾿Ανδροκλῆς μαρτυρεῖ μὴ ἐπίδικον εἶναι τὸν τοῦ Εὐκτήμονος
κλῆρον· παῖδας γὰρ εἶναι ἐκείνου γνησίους (or παῖδα γὰρ εἶναι γνήσιον, τὸν καὶ
τόν)· Φιλοκτήμονα δὲ τὸν τούτων τῶν παίδων ἀδελφὸν ὁμοπάτριον, οὗ φησι
Χαιρέστρατος εἶναι τὸν κλῆρον, μὴ δοῦναι αὐτῷ τὴν οὐσίαν μηδὲ διαθέσθαι, ἀλλ᾽
ἄπαιδα ἀποθανεῖν.
6 καὶ γὰρ ὁ δοὺς καὶ ὁ διαθέμενος. Το excise these words with Schoe-
mann and Scheibe leaves καὶ μαρτυροῦσιν οἱ παραγενόμενοι hanging in
the air. Dobree, who is followed by the Zürich editors, proposed καὶ γὰρ
δοὺς καὶ διαθέμενος, understanding ἐπιδέδεικται from the previous sentence, an
intolerable construction. It is simpler to suppose that something has fallen
out (Crit. Introd. p. xxxvi). Kayser (quoted by Thalheim) would omit the
articles with Dobree and add ἐπιδέδεικται. Jenicke (Observ. in Isaeum
p. 29) inserts οὗτος after καὶ γάρ, Buermann (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 329) gets the
same idea more neatly, by supplying ἐκεῖνος after διαθέμενος. The emphasis
is wrong, since the fact, not the person, was in dispute, but Buermann replies
that such a sophism is in keeping with Isaeus' habits.
63. 5 ἐὰν ποιησαμένῳ παῖδες ἐπιγένωνται κ.τ.λ. In such a case the Code
of Gortyn (x. 48—XI. 6) treats the adopted son less generously. When the
adoptive father leaves legitimate children (αἰ δέ κ' ει γνέσια τέκνα τοι ἀνπανα-
μένοι), the adoptive son is only allowed the rights of a daughter. That is to
say, if there are other sons, he is to receive half a son's portion, if there are
daughters but no sons, he is to share equally with his sisters by adoption.
Cp. Buecheler and Zitelmann, Das Recht von Gortyn p. 163, Inscr. Jurid. Gr.
I. p. 483, Beauchet II. p. 69.
64. 2 ὥσπερ ἂν ὑμῶν ἕκαστος. See for the omission of ἐπιδείξειε Isocr.
15. 141 ἐσκόπουν περὶ αὐτῶν τούτων, ὥσπερ ἂν ὑμῶν ἕκαστος, And. 1. 57 χρή
γὰρ ἀνθρωπίνως περὶ τῶν πραγμάτων ἐκλογίζεσθαι, ὥσπερ ἂν αὐτὸν ὄντα ἐν τῇ
συμφορᾷ, Dem. 19. 125 ἐπειδὴ τέλος εἶχε τὸ μίσθωμ᾿ ὥσπερ ἂν ἄλλο τι τούτῳ,
21. 117 χρώμενος ὥσπερ ἂν ἄλλος τις τούτῳ, 39. 27 ὁρῶν ὥσπερ ἂν ἄλλον τιν᾽
ούτωσί, [Dem.] 49. 27 ἔφη γὰρ οὐκ ὀργισθήσεσθαι ὥσπερ ἂν ἄλλος τις ἀποτυχών,
and for the appeal to the judges Ι. 44, IV. 26, Dem. 45. 87 ἣν τοίνυν ὑμῶν ἂν
ἕκαστος δίκην ἂν ἀξιώσειε λαβεῖν, ταύτην νομίζετε κἀμοὶ προσήκειν νῦν.
5 συνοικούσαν. The absence of any allusion to a betrothal (ἐγγύησις,
III. 4. 6 n.) is worth noting. The adversaries must have come armed with
some sort of evidence that Euctemon married Callippe. Did they maintain
that Euctemon used his power as guardian (§§ 13, 14) to make her his own
wife?
OR. VI.
547
COMMENTARY
Schoemann thinks
6, 7 ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς λῃτουργήσαντα. Cp. III. 80. 3, 4 nn.
that the expression may include the γαμηλία (III. 76. 1 κ.), on which Isaeus
lays stress when attacking the legitimacy of Phile in or. III.
65. 1 τὰ νομιζόμενα. Cp. II. 4. 5 κ.
2 ποῦ δ᾽ ἔτ᾽ ἰόντες. Reiske's explanation of the reading of the first hand
(ἔτι ὄντες) by liberi adhuc superstites, περιόντες, is accepted by Schoemann.
Dareste renders the text as corrected by A2 'Où ces enfants vont-ils aujour-
d'hui encore lui offrir des sacrifices et des libations?' Dobree (Adv. I. p. 300)
proposed ποῖ δὲ ἰόντες, but with the warning sed altius uidetur ulcus.
Buermann (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 339) argues for ěti dè toî ìóvtes, and appeals
in defence of the transposition to I. 13. 5, II. 26. 2, IV. 18. 6, v. 4. 5, VIII. 32.
I, IX. 36. 7, X. 17. I. I interpret the text in the same sense as Buermann
(‘where, further, do they go?'), but feel no confidence that it is sound.
ἐναγίζουσι καὶ χέονται. Cp. § 51. 3, II. 46. 5 κ.
4 ἔλεγχος καὶ οὐ λοιδορία. Cp. III. 23. 7 n., Dem. 22. 22 πάμπολυ λοιδορία
τε καὶ αἰτία κεχωρισμένον ἐστὶν ἐλέγχου· αἰτία μὲν γάρ ἐστιν, ὅταν τις ψιλῷ
χρησάμενος λόγῳ μὴ παράσχηται πίστιν ὧν λέγει, ἔλεγχος δ᾽ ὅταν ὧν ἂν εἴπῃ τις
καὶ τἀληθὲς ὁμοῦ δείξῃ.
35-2
VII
ON THE ESTATE OF APOLLODORUS.
THRASYLLUS, APOLLODORUS' ADOPTED SON, AGAINST
THE DAUGHTER OF EUPOLIS, WIFE OF PRONAPES.
CLAIM TO AN INHERITANCE.

Eupolis I
Mneson
Thrasyllus I
Apollodorus II
11
A =
Archedamus

wife of
Aeschines
of Lousia
Thrasybulus
wife of
Pronapes
of Aexone
Apollodorus I
daughter
Eupolis II
son
Thrasyllus II
adopted by
Apollodorus I
The 7th oration, in this respect resembling the 2nd, is the defence of an
adopted son assailed by heirs-at-law. The speaker's narrative (§§ 4—17,
26-28) of the facts of the case is as follows. Eupolis, Thrasyllus, and
Mneson were three brothers who had inherited from their father a large
fortune. Mneson died at home, unmarried and childless. Thrasyllus
perished in the Sicilian expedition, 415—413 B.C., leaving one son, Apollo-
dorus, a minor, who became the ward of Eupolis. The uncle shamefully
abused his trust, appropriating by means of a pretended will the whole estate
of Mneson, half of which belonged of right to Apollodorus, and embezzling
and mismanaging his nephew's property. The child however found a
protector in his mother's second husband, Archedamus, who received him
into his house, brought him up with a father's care, and, when the boy came
of age, championed his cause in two law-suits, by which Eupolis was com-
pelled to give up half of Mneson's estate, and condemned in three talents for
his misconduct as guardian. Apollodorus gave practical proofs both of
his gratitude to his step-father, and of his affection for his half-sister,
OR. VII.
549
INTRODUCTION
Archedamus' daughter. Ordered to Corinth on military service, c. 394—
392 B.C., he made a will bequeathing to her his fortune and directing whom
she should marry. But Apollodorus was not destined to meet the same fate
as his father. He came back safe from the war, married a wife, and had one
son. In the month Maimacterion (November) of the year preceding the trial
(probably 355 B.C.) his heir fell sick and died. Being now well-stricken in
years--he was not less than 60, and may have been as old as 74 (§ 14. 7)—
and having no hope of issue, he was anxious to perpetuate his house and
name by adoption. He turned naturally to the family of his step-father and
benefactor, and selected the son of his half-sister, a young man in the prime
of life, who had held the office of eσμoléтns (§ 34). At the festival of the
Thargelia, i.e. sometime in May 354 B.C. (§ 15. 5 n.), the adopted son was
presented to Apollodorus' yévos and Òparpía, and entered in their roll under
the name of Thrasyllus son of Apollodorus. The next step was admission
into Apollodorus' deme, but, before this measure could be taken, Apollodorus
died. Notwithstanding this, in the teeth of the protests of Apollodorus'
nearest relatives, the members of the deme placed Thrasyllus on their
register as son of Apollodorus.
The validity of the adoption was challenged by Apollodorus' first cousin,
daughter of Eupolis and wife of Pronapes of Aexone (§ 18. 5 n.). Eupolis'
family had consisted of a son named Apollodorus, who was now dead, and
of a second daughter, also dead, who had been married to Aeschines of
Lousia (§ 18), and had left one son named Thrasybulus. Thrasybulus did
not enter into competition with his aunt, according to the speaker, because
he was satisfied of the legality of the adoption (§ 21), but the other side
asserted that he had lost his rights, having been himself adopted into another
family (§ 23). The speech contains no frank statement of the line of attack,
but it is probable that Pronapes acting for his wife urged that the adoption
of Thrasyllus was null and void for two reasons, (1) because Apollodorus was
a weak-minded old inan under the influence of a woman, i.e. his half-sister,
Thrasyllus' mother, (2) because the proper formalities had not been observed,
the entry on the register of the deme having been made after Apollodorus'
death, i.e. after his estate had become vacant and claimable at law. The
first charge is illustrated by or. II. The second objection raises a nice point
of law. The death of Apollodorus brought Thrasyllus face to face with an
embarrassing dilemma. On the one side he could neither claim under a
will, nor pretend that he was next-of-kin. On the other it was not expedient
to put in a diaµaprupía to the effect that Apollodorus' estate was not claim-
able at law, there being a legitimate son. When Apollodorus died, the
adoption was certainly incomplete, and it is not likely that Pronapes lost
time in presenting to the Archon a formal petition (λîģɩs). Isaeus' policy is
to slur over the technical irregularity as if it were a thing of no consequence,
inasmuch as the members of the deme in admitting Thrasyllus were only
carrying out wishes expressed to them by Apollodorus in his lifetime,
and to persuade the judges that Apollodorus had good cause to cherish
irreconcilable hostility against the family of Eupolis.
The plan of the speech is simple. In the exordium (§§ 1—4) the orator
expresses his amazement that the adoption should have been contested,
550
OR. VII.
ISAEUS
flatters the judges by professing that confidence in them and in the justice
of his cause had led him to court a direct trial instead of resorting to a
diaµaprupía, and ends with a terse statement of the points he proposes to
prove. The narrative (§§ 5—17) falls into two parts. The first (§§ 5—12)
sets forth Apollodorus' quarrel with Eupolis and his friendship with Arche-
damus. In the second (§§ 13-17) the circumstances of the adoption and
of the introduction into the parpía are described in detail. The dangerous
subject of the admission into the deme is postponed, and the story is
interrupted by a legal argument (§§ 18-26) of a very suspicious complexion.
intended to show that Thrasybulus' omission to put in a claim to the estate
is evidence of the legality of the adoption. The vote of the assembly of
the deme is slipped in casually as an appendage and confirmation of this
argument (§§ 27, 28). After this the speaker makes a sally against the
enemy (§§ 29—32). Apollodorus, apart from his hatred of the family of
Eupolis and his love for the family of Archedamus, had a strong motive to
keep his estate out of the hands of his relatives; he desired a son, and he
knew what he had to expect from the daughters of Eupolis, who had allowed
the house of their own brother to become extinct. Apollodorus' choice was
sufficient proof of sanity (§§ 33-36); a more suitable and deserving son he
could not have found. A long eulogy (§§ 37-42) of the virtue, generosity,
and public spirit of Apollodorus and his father, with Pronapes as the foil, is
followed by a recapitulation (§§ 43-45) contrasting the claims and merits of
Thrasyllus and Pronapes' wife.
The date can be approximately fixed by two allusions. (1) In § 38 the
trierarchic symmories are mentioned, no trace of which is found before
Ol. 105. 4, 357/6 B.C. ([Dem.] 47. 21, 44). (2) In the year in which the speech
was delivered Thrasyllus went on a sacred embassy to the Pythian festival
(§ 27). The Pythia fell in the 3rd year of each Olympiad, so that the
earliest possible date is Ol. 106. 3, 354/3 B.C. But there is nothing to show
that the case was not heard in Ol. 107. 3, 350/49 B.C., except the reasonable
doubt whether Isaeus was practising so late as this; see XII. Introd. With
regard to the time of year all that can be said is that the trial was after the
Пpoµýleia (§ 36. 6 n.), i.e. after Pyanopsion (roughly October).
HYPOTHESIS.
4 'Apxédapos. Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica 1. p. 157 sqq., produces
from the inscriptions examples of ᾿Αρχέδημος, ᾿Αρχεδημίδης, Αρχίδαμος, ᾿Αρχί-
dnμos. In C. I. A. 11. 54 b 21 (363/2 B.C.) ’Apxédaµos is a Delphian exile, and
the epitaph in C. I. A. II. 3436 'Ayà 'Apɣedáµov may refer to the wife of a
foreigner. But Stephanus was wrong in preferring 'Apxidapos; why should
the name 'Apxédaµos have been proscribed by Athenians?
9 OETÓV. Cp. III. 69. 5 n.
10, 11 υἱὸν ὄντα τῆς τε ὁμομητρίας αὐτοῦ ἀδελφῆς καὶ ᾿Αρχεδάμου, a blunder;
Archedamus was maternal grandfather of Thrasyllus (§ 7). That the
speaker's father as well as his grandfather was named Archedamus is not
stated in the speech and is prima facie improbable. Schoemann, who omits
OR. VII.
551
COMMENTARY
τε with Z, doubts whether the text is sound and suggests καὶ ᾿Αρχεδάμου
<θυγατριδοῦν > or ᾿Αρχεδάμου < δὲ θυγατριδοῦν>.
20 ἡ δὲ στάσις στοχασμός. See I. hyp. 9 n., II. hyp. 8 n.
1-4 That an adoption committed to a testament should be suspected is
not surprising, for wills may be forged, but I did not expect any one to dispute
an act performed in public with due formalities by a man in possession of all
his faculties. Had I thought fit, I might have barred the claim of Eupolis'
daughter by means of a διαμαρτυρία, but confident in the justice of my cause
I have chosen the direct issue, and have come to tell you the facts. I propose
to prove (1) that Apollodorus has not left his estate at the disposal of relatives,
who did him terrible wrongs, (2) that he rightly adopted me, his sister's son,
remembering what benefits he had received from our family. My story will
be brief.
Compare for the pose of injured innocence the exordia to or. II. and
Isocr. 19. The remarks concerning the διαμαρτυρία must be taken cum grano
salis. Athenian litigants had not such trust in their courts as to forego a
tactical advantage. It is more likely that Thrasyllus was prevented from
lodging a diaμaprupía by the death of Apollodorus before the ceremonies of
adoption were completed.
1. Ι
Ωιμην μέν. Cp. II. I. I n.
2 εὖ φρονῶν. Cp. § 36 τίς ἂν ἀμφισβητήσειε μὴ οὐκ ἀνδρὸς εὖ φρονοῦντος
εἶναι ταύτην τὴν ποίησιν; ΙΙ. 14, IV. 14. The opponents probably took the
same line as the brother of Menecles in or. II, and asserted that Apollodorus
was in his dotage and under the influence of his half-sister. He was certainly
an old man and unable to manage his property (§§ 14, 15). Compare
$2
28.2 12.
3 ἐπὶ τὰ ἱερά. Cp. § 15. 6 ἐπὶ τοὺς βωμούς, II. 46. 4 7., Dem. 57. 54
παιδίον ὄντα μ᾽ εὐθέως ἦγον εἰς τοὺς φράτερας, εἰς ᾿Απόλλωνος πατρῴου μ᾽ ἦγον,
eis täλλ' iepá, ib. 67, 'AÐ. IIoλ. 55. 3, Harp. s. v. êprelos Zeús.
3, 4 εἰς τοὺς συγγενείς <καὶ φράτερας> ἀπέδειξε. Cp. § 27. 4 εἰς τοὺς
συγγενεῖς καὶ φρατερας, Harp. s. v. γεννῆται: Ἰσαῖος δ᾽ ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ ᾿Απολλο-
δώρου κλήρου τοὺς συγγενεῖς γεννήτας (συγγενεῖς τοὺς γεννήτας Schoemann)
ὠνόμασεν· οὐχ οἱ συγγενεῖς μέντοι ἁπλῶς καὶ οἱ ἐξ αἵματος γεννῆταί τε καὶ ἐκ τοῦ
αὐτοῦ γένους ἐκαλοῦντο, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ ἐξ ἀρχῆς εἰς τὰ καλούμενα γένη κατανεμηθέντες.
The combination preferred by the speaker is γεννῆται καὶ φράτερες (§§ 13, 15,
17, 26, 43). I cannot find in Attic any certain example of this use of συγγενείς.
It is not clear that the word has this sense in a fragment of Cratinus the
younger quoted in Athen. I I. 46o F (Kock, Com. Att. Fr. II. p. 291): πολλοστῷ
δ᾽ ἔτει | ἐκ τῶν πολεμίων οἴκαδ᾽ ἥκων, ξυγγενεῖς | καὶ φράτερας καὶ δημότας εὑρὼν
μόλις, | εἰς τὸ κυλικεῖον ἐνεγράφην· Ζεὺς ἔστι μοι | ἑρκεῖος, ἔστι φράτριος, τὰ
τέλη τελῶ. Demosthenes (57. 23, 24) distinguishes οἱ συγγενεῖς from οἱ
φράτερες and οἱ γεννῆται; membership of the γένος and φρατρία was trans-
mitted in the male line only. In Plat. Laws 878 D τους γεννήτας καὶ τοὺς
συγγενεῖς μέχρι ἀνεψιῶν παίδων (§ 22. 5 κ.) πρὸς γυναικῶν καὶ ἀνδρῶν read
γεννητάς, 'parents. In Xen. Hell. I. 7. 8 (ἐγίγνετο ᾿Απατούρια, ἐν οἷς οἵ τε
πατέρες καὶ οἱ συγγενεῖς σύνεισι σφίσιν αὐτοῖς) there is no need to change
πατέρες to φράτορες and interpret συγγενείς as γεννῆται. Diodorus (II. 53)
applies σvyyeveîs to the Fabii, but Dionysius describing the same event, the
552
OR. VII.
ISAEUS
disaster on the Cremera, has oi μetéxovtes toù yévovs (Ant. Rom. 9. 15. 2,
19. 3).
2
4 εἰς τὰ κοινὰ γραμματεία. What is the force of the plural? In describing
the admission in §§ 16, 17 Thrasyllus twice uses the singular, τὸ κοινὸν
γραμματείον, the public register, i.e. of the φρατρία, τὸ φρατερικὸν γραμ
ματεῖον of [Dem.] 44. 41; the phrase is applicable to the book of any
association religious (C. I. A. II. 1061, 20 ἀναγράψαι δὲ τάσδε τὰς συνθήκας
τοὺς μὲν ὀργεῶνας εἰς τὸ κοινὸν γραμματεῖον Διοπείθην δὲ εἰς στήλην) or political
(Dem. 57. 6ο δημαρχῶν ὁ Εὐβουλίδου πατὴρ τὸ κοινὸν γραμματεῖον ἔφη ἀπολω-
λέναι, ὥστ᾽ ἔπεισε τοὺς ῾Αλιμουσίους διαψηφίσασθαι περὶ αὑτῶν). Three
explanations are possible. (1) Apollodorus φρατρία may have kept two
lists, like the φρατρία of the Demotionidae, C. I. A. II. 841 b, IV. 2. 841 b
(S. I. G. n. 439, Michel n. 961), Β 40 ἐὰν...τοῖς ἅπασι δόξει ἶναι φράτηρ,
ἐνγραφέσθω εἰς τὰ κοινὰ γραμματεία, Α 19 sqq. ὃς δ᾽ ἂν δόξηι μὴ ὢν φρατὴρ
ἐσαχθῆναι, ἐξαλειψάτω τὸ ὄνομα αὐτὸ ὁ ἱερεὺς καὶ ὁ φρατρίαρχος ἐκ τὸ γραμματείο
τὸ ἐν Δημοτιωνιδῶν καὶ τὸ ἀντιγράφο. (2) The register of the γένος may have
been distinct from the register of the φρατρία; see [Dem.] 59. 59 ὡς γὰρ
εἰσῆγεν ὁ Φράστωρ εἰς τοὺς φράτερας τὸν παῖδα...καὶ εἰς τοὺς Βρυτίδας, ὧν καὶ
αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ Φράστωρ γεννήτης, εἰδότες οἶμαι οἱ γεννῆται τὴν γυναῖκα ἥτις ἦν...
αποψηφίζονται τοῦ παιδὸς καὶ οὐκ ἐνέγραφον αὐτὸν εἰς σφᾶς αὐτούς. (3) Müller
(Untersuchungen zur Geschichte d. att. Bürger- und Eherechts p. 757)
thinks that the speaker means the registers (1) of the φρατρία, (2) of
the deme.
5 ἅπανθ᾽ ὅσα προσῆκεν αὐτὸς ποιήσας. This is not true of Apollodorus,
who did not live to present Thrasyllus to the deme (§§ 27, 28).
5, 6 τελευτήσειν μέλλων. Cp. II. 14. 3 n.
6 ἑτέρῳ. For the dative after διατίθεσθαι cp. III. 42. 2, 3 κ.
Fuhr
(Animaduersiones in oratores Atticos p. 55) condemns the construction, and
wishes to omit érépo here and to read oπws in X. 2. 8 and oûs in Isocr. 19. 43.
6,7 καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἐν γράμμασι κατέθετο κ.τ.λ., and deposited these dispositions
with custodians in sealed documents. With σημηνάμενος understand αὐτά,
i.e. τὰ γράμματα (Lys. 32. 7, Dem. 28. 6, 41. 22, [Dem.] 33. 36). Isaeus avoids
the simple and natural expression καὶ ταῦτα γράψας κατέθετο, because he
wishes to conceal as far as possible the assumption that the testator 'about
to die' (τελευτήσειν μέλλων), who is contrasted with a man in full possession
of his faculties (ζῶν καὶ εὖ φρονῶν), is notwithstanding able to write his own
will and does not communicate its contents to the witnesses. Herwerden
(Mnem. N. S. 9, 1881, p. 391) corrects παρά τισι to παρά τινι. But duplicates
of wills were not unknown at Athens (IV. 13. 2, 3 7.), and though γράμματα
often denotes a single piece of writing (Dem. 9. 42, 43 an inscription, 28. 5
a will, [Dem.] 33. 17 a bond, Aesch. 3. 162 a letter), it may also signify a
plurality of documents (Aesch. 3. 24 τὰ δημόσια γράμματα, the public records,
Dem. 36. 21 accounts, [Dem.] 49. 59 bankers' books, 56. 8 letters). On the
other side it may be said that this is a place in which it is injudicious to
allude to the precautions of a prudent testator.
2. 3 ὁ δ᾽ ἐν διαθήκαις σημηνάμενος. Schoemann's analysis is ὁ δ᾽ ἐν
διαθήκαις (ποιησάμενος), σημηνάμενος (αὐτάς). I think a simpler version
possible, 'a man who has sealed up his wishes in a will.'
OR. VII.
553
COMMENTARY
4 πολλοὶ πεπλάσθαι φάσκοντες αὐτὰς κ.τ.λ.
III. 61. 2 n., and the commentary on IV. 12-14.
6 αὐτῶν. Cp. III. 48. 4 n.
See for this topic II. 44. 5,
Η
3. 1, 2 μᾶλλον ἀποδεχομένους τὰς διαμαρτυρίας ἢ τὰς εὐθυδικίας. Cp. VI.
3. 5 n.
2 μάρτυρα : μάρτυρας Α. Since one witness sufficed (v. 16), the plural
seems a senseless exaggeration (Buermann, Hermes 19, 1884, p. 365). It
would have been as reasonable to hand in several copies of a written special
plea (παραγραφή). The use of διεμαρτύρουν in VI. 43 and of διαμεμαρτυρήκασι
ib. 44 is inexact ; Androcles alone was responsible for the διαμαρτυρία (ib. §§ 5,
26, 28, 65).
6 [καὶ] παρ' ὑμῖν, αὐτὸς ἥκω. Schoemann translates the reading of A,
καὶ παρ' ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς ἥκω κ.τ.λ. by etiam apud uos iudices, non solum apud
archontem, i.e. ἐν τῇ ἀνακρίσει. If, he observes, Thrasyllus had presented a
διαμαρτυρία, οὐκ ἂν παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς τοῖς δικασταῖς ἀλλὰ μόνον παρὰ τῷ ἄρχοντι περὶ
τῶν αὑτοῦ δικαίων διελέχθη. But this is a very dubious proposition; in or. II.
the adopted son of Menecles defends his rights before the court as the
advocate of the witness whom he has put forward. With Dobree's correction
αὐτὸς is opposed to μάρτυρα προβαλόμενος.
8 δοῦναι δίκην τοιαύτην, submit to such a trial'; cp. Lys. 20. 6 οἱ δ' οὐχ
ὑπέμειναν, καταγνόντες σφῶν αὐτῶν ἀδικεῖν· ὁ δὲ ἡγούμενος μηδὲν ἠδικηκέναι
δίκην δίδωσι, [Xen.] De rep. Ath. 1. 18 δεῖ μὲν ἀφικόμενον ᾿Αθήναζε δίκην δοῦναι
καὶ λαβεῖν οὐκ ἐν ἄλλοις τισὶν ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ δήμῳ, Xen. An. 5. 8. Ι ἔδοξε δὲ καὶ
τοὺς στρατηγοὺς δίκην ὑποσχεῖν τοῦ παρεληλυθότος χρόνου. καὶ διδόντων Φιλήσιος
ὦφλε. This is the regular meaning of δίκας δοῦναι (Hdt. 5. 83. I, Thuc. I.
28. 2, 85. 2, 140. 2, 144. 2, Xen. Hell. 7. 4. 11, Plat. Laws 778 C, Aesch. 3. 124),
δίκην δοῦναι being normally equivalent to 'poenam dare. To express 'iudicium
subire Attic prose writers prefer δίκην ὑπέχειν (Thuc. 3. 53, 80, Plat. Laws
754 E, 844 C, Dem. 19. 95, 182, 23. 55, [And.] 4. 35).
4. 2
ὡς οὐ μόνον...ἀλλὰ καὶ ὡς. Cp. III. 15. 3 7., V. 3. 4, 5 n. Hertlein
(Hermes 13, 1878, p. 12) takes offence at the irregularity and would read
either οὐ μόνον ὡς or ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐμέ. But cp. Isocr. 16. 50, Xen. Hell. 6. 2. 36,
An. 5. 7. 32.
4, 5 ὄντα ἀδελφιδοῦν. Thrasyllus makes the most of the point that he is
Apollodorus' ‘nephew (§§ 17, 43, 45), but in the eyes of the law the relation-
ship was distant; the kindred of the father of the deceased ranked before the
kindred of the mother, so that Apollodorus' first cousins took precedence of
his half-sister.
5 μεγάλα ηὐεργετημένος. Cp. Χ. 16 ζημιωθήσεσθαι δὲ μεγάλα. The plural,
μεγάλα, is more appropriate here than μέγα; Apollodorus had received several
benefits. Dobree's references prove that μεγάλα εὐεργετεῖν (βλάπτειν) is very
common (see Thuc. 6. 64, 7. 40, 8. 60, Xen. Cyr. 5. 3. 30, 8. 2. 12, [Lys.] 9. 16,
Lyc. 19, 110, 140, Aesch. 1. I, Ar. Ran. 1428), but not that μέγα εὐεργετεῖν is
in itself untenable; cp. Thuc. 6. 72. 4 μέγα δὲ βλάψαι καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν
στρατηγῶν, 7. 44. 6 μέγιστον δὲ καὶ οὐχ ἥκιστα ἔβλαψεν ὁ παιανισμός, Lyc. 66
πέφυκε τὸ ἀδίκημα τοῦτο ἐπὶ πλεῖον ἐλθὸν μέγα βλάπτειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους.
ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν, our family' (§§ 9. 6, 10. 4, II. I, 35. 3). Thrasyllus was not
born when his mother's father showed kindness to Apollodorus, but notwith-
554
OR. VII.
ISAEUS
standing he twice goes so far as to call himself Apollodorus' benefactor
(§§ 36. 1, 2 καὶ συγγενὴς καὶ φίλος καὶ εὐεργέτης, 45. 6 ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ ὁ ἐμὸς πάππος
εὐεργέται).
7 ἐπὶ τὸν κλῆρον ἰόντας. Cp. IV. 25. 6, 7 η.
8 ποιήσομαι δ᾽ ὡς ἂν κἀγὼ δύνωμαι κ.τ.λ. The formulae with which
Athenian orators introduce the narratio have been collected by Gebauer on
Lys. 12. 3 Anhang p. 204 sqq. The peculiarity here is the presence of kảyà
after ὡς ἄν, for the adversary has not spoken (§ 23. 4). By adding κἀγὼ
the speaker seems to contrast himself with his hearers: ‘Do you listen
favourably, I on my side will be brief.' But the natural order, as Gebauer
points out, would be ποιήσομαι δὲ κἀγὼ ὡς ἂν δύνωμαι διὰ βραχυτάτων κ.τ.λ. ;
cp. [Dem.] 43. 2, 18, 47. 3, 56. 4, Dem. 27. 3, 30. 5. I am inclined to accept
Gebauer's transposition (Crit. Introd. p. xxxvii).
5-17 The substance of the narrative contained in these sections has
been given in the Introd. pp. 548/9. One argument is so extraordinary that it
deserves special notice. There could have been no reconciliation, it is urged,
between Eupolis and Apollodorus; for Apollodorus did not marry either of
Eupolis' daughters.
5. 2, 3 οὐσίαν...πολλήν. Apollodorus son of Eupolis left property worth
at least 5 t. (§ 19).
3, 4 καὶ λῃτουργεῖν ἕκαστον ἀξιοῦσθαι παρ' ὑμῖν. Cp. ΧΙ. 40 Στρατοκλεί
γὰρ κἀμοὶ τὰ μὲν ὑπάρξαντα πατρῷα τοσαῦτα ἦν, ὥστε εἶναι μὲν ἱκανά, λῃτουργεῖν
δὲ οὐκ ἄξια. Scaliger and Reiske demand παρ' ὑμῶν, but the soundness of
the dative is proved by Rehdantz on Lyc. 3 (παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς ὑπειλῆφθαι)
Anhang p. 124, who produces examples of παρά τινι with πιστεύεσθαι (Dem.
22. 1, [Dem.] 58. 44), dokeîv (XI. 38, Lys. 26. 19, Dem. 29. 10, [Dem.] 40. 10,
Hyp. 3. 12), ὁμολογεῖσθαι (Lyc. 12, 54, [Dem.] 44. 56, 60. 4), κρίνεσθαι ([Dem.]
prooem. 47. 1), ἀγνοούμενον εἶναι (VII. 19). Cp. Lutz, Die Praepositionen bei
den attischen Rednern p. 148.
5 τούτων. Blass (Att. Ber.² II. p. 508) comments on the ugly repetition
of the pronoun (τούτοις—ταύτην—τούτων) in this section, and remarks that this
exaggerated simplicity' (übertriebene Schlichtheit) is most conspicuous in
Isaeus' narratives (IX. I, X. 4).
7 τῶν ἐν Σικελίᾳ καταλεγεὶς τριηράρχων. Contrast And. I. 11 ἦν μὲν γὰρ
ἐκκλησία τοῖς στρατηγοῖς τοῖς εἰς Σικελίαν. Here, as Lincke (De elocutione
Isaei p. 13) points out, ἐν Σικελίᾳ is parallel to ἐνθάδε and due to the influence
οἱ ἐτελευτησάτην ; attractions of this kind are not rare (see Thuc. 1. 8. 2 οἱ
γὰρ ἐκ τῶν νήσων κακοῦργοι ἀνέστησαν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, with the commentators ad
loc.), and there is no need of the conjecture ἐπὶ Σικελίας (Frohberger on
Lys. 30. 8) Blass (Bursians Jahresber. 46 p. 49) compares Lys. 19. 43 eis dè
τὸν ἐν Σικελίᾳ πλοῦν ἀνήλωσεν ἑκατὸν μνᾶς, where the reading may fairly be
suspected (ἐπὶ Σικελίας Hertlein). See for καταλεγείς V. 36. 5, 6 n., and for
the use of the genitive Lys. 32. 5 καταλεγείς Διόδοτος μετὰ Θρασύλλου τῶν
ὁπλιτῶν, 30. 8 οὐδὲ τῶν πεντακισχιλίων κατελέγην, [Lys.] 6. 4, Lys. 24. 13
κληροῦσθαι τῶν ἐννέα ἀρχόντων, [Dem.] 59. 106 τῶν ἐννέα ἀρχόντων λαχεῖν.
6. 3 οὗ καὶ ᾿Απολλοδώρῳ προσῆκε τὸ ἡμικλήριον. Probably Thrasyllus
died before Mneson, and Apollodorus' rights were founded on the law in
[Dem.] 43. 51 ἐὰν παῖδες ἐξ ἀδελφῶν γνήσιοι, τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς μοῖραν λαγχάνειν
1
OR. VII.
555
COMMENTARY
1
(Lipsius in Att. Proc.² p. 582 n. 270). But it must be conceded to Caillemer
(Le droit de succession légitime p. 84) that this is not proved, and that
Thrasyllus might have survived Mneson; in which case Apollodorus ought
to have received a moiety of Mneson's estate as part of his father's property.
Perhaps it may not have been easy to determine the exact date of Thrasyllus'
death in Sicily.
4 δοῦναι. If Eupolis claimed the whole estate under a will (111. 42.
2, 3 N., IV. 8. 3 n., V. 4. 2 n.), we should have here an example of a testament
not containing an adoption (Schulin, Das griechische Testament p. 32, Att.
Proc.² p. 590 n. 287). It is improbable that Eupolis pretended to have been
made his brother's son (VI. 36. 2 n.).
5 ἐκεῖνον οὕτω διώκησεν. Cp. Dem. 24. 202 ἀλλὰ νὴ Δία τὴν ἀδελφὴν καλῶς
διῴκηκεν. ἀλλ᾽ εἰ καὶ μηδὲν ἄλλ᾽ ἠδίκει, κατὰ τοῦτ᾽ ἄξιός ἐστ᾽ ἀπολωλέναι·
πέπρακε γὰρ αὐτήν, οὐκ ἐκδέδωκε.
7. 1, 2 Αρχέδαμος γὰρ ὁ πάππος οὑμός, † ἐξ οὗ + κ.τ.λ. The only good
correction is Schoemann's έ Olov, which he describes erroneously as the
reading of Aldus. But the article must be added (<ó> è§ Oľov). The
unusual position of the demoticum is explained by reference to the cause
célèbre in which Archedamus defeated Eupolis (§ 13): 'Archedamus my
grandfather-Archedamus of Oeum, a name some of you may have heard
of.' Buermann's proposal, gw Thν µηтéρа <пaλλaкηv> “xov (Hermes 19,
1884, p. 329), is an application of his theory of 'legitimate concubinage'
(III. Introd. p. 277).
6
3 ἀποστερούμενον. Sententia postulat ἀποστερόμενον, i.e. ἀπεστερημένον
(Herwerden, Mnem. N. S. 9, 1881, p. 391). The present tense is right;
Apollodorus was a ward who was being defrauded of all his property.
4, 5 ὡς ἑαυτὸν καὶ τὴν μητέρα κομισάμενος. Archedamus was touched by
the forlorn lot of the orphan child deprived of maternal care and left in the
power of an unjust guardian, and 'fetched him to his own home-and to his
mother. See for the force of κομισάμενος Ι. 12 αὐτοὺς μὲν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τὴν
αὑτοῦ κομισάμενος ἐπαίδευε, for the use of ὡς Dem. 28. 12 ταῦτα τἀνδράποδ᾽ ὡς
avròv λaßóv, 23. 31, 27. 27, 29. 37, 54. 10, Isocr. 21. 2, Aesch. 1. 57. Albrecht's
reasons for ejecting kaì τηv µŋtépa koµiσáµevos as a 'gloss' will be found in
Hermes 18, 1883, p. 365.
8. 2, 3 ἐχθρῶς ἔχοντες τὸν πάντα χρόνον. In §§ 11, 12 Thrasyllus tries to
prove that Apollodorus and Eupolis were never reconciled.
'
5, 6 Απολλόδωρος πέπονθεν ὃ ἀντευποιεῖν ἠξίου. This singular phrase has
provoked many emendations, the latest being that proposed by Thalheim,
Απολλόδωρος <ὧν > ἐπεπόνθει [ὃ] ἀντευποιεῖν ἠξίου. The perfect tense is
remarkable, not merely because Apollodorus is dead, but because more than
half a century has passed since as a child and young man he was befriended
by Archedamus. Moreover éπεπÓνeɩ might easily have become first TeπÓVÕEL
(VI. 37. 6, VIII. 27. 2, Crönert, Memoria Graeca Herculanensis p. 209), and then
πέπονθεν. But the perfect recurs in § 12. 4 γεγένηται αἴτιος, where ἐγεγένητ᾽
airios is not plausible, and in § 40. 3 тí ñapadéλoɩπev; with regard to λeλŋ-
Tоúpynke in § 38. 2 I cherish suspicions. It must also be remembered that
the speaker wishes the judges to believe that his recent adoption was one of
the manifestations of Apollodorus' gratitude towards 'his benefactors.' The
556
OR. VII.
ISAEUS
grammatical construction of the relative () constitutes a greater difficulty.
The expression appears confused and illogical by the side of Thuc. 6. 35. I
τί ἂν δράσειαν αὐτοὺς ὅ τι οὐκ ἂν μεῖζον ἀντιπάθοιεν; The treatment which
Apollodorus has received' is not identical with 'the good return which he felt
bound to make to his benefactors.' Buermann (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 339)
contends that the reading of A is contrary to the intention of the speaker,
who wishes to demonstrate that Apollodorus was grateful and eager to
return the kindness which had been shown him. But it is not unnatural for
Thrasyllus to quote the services rendered by Apollodorus to Archedamus in
after-life in confirmation of his statement that Archedamus had helped
Apollodorus in childhood; men do not give large sums of money to a
step-father for nothing. I think that Isaeus may have written the sentence
as it stands.
7, 8 ληφθέντος εἰς τοὺς πολεμίους. Cp. VI. I. 7,
eis
8n.
8 xρýμata eiσeveykeîv eis Xútpа. Cp. v. 43. 8, 9 n. Probably Archedamus'
friends joined to get together an epavos (XI. 43. 42., Ant. Tetr. I. ß. 9 épavov
παρὰ τῶν φίλων συλλέξας).
9 ews [ou]. The facile emendation of A² deserves no mercy; ews oû is
found in Greek of the Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine periods (Krebs,
Die praepositionsartigen Adverbia bei Polybius I. p. 28, Schmid, Der
Atticismus IV. p. 86, Jannaris, Historical Greek Grammar §§ 1785, 1786),
but is unknown to pure Attic prose of the classical age, though Aristotle
and Theophrastus (Hist. Plant. 3. 12. 7 λoßoùs éoxioµévovs ëws tŷs ivòs)
tolerate the use of ews as a preposition governing the genitive. The original
reading was ous (ovs) according to Buermann, ovv (ovi) according to Thalheim,
who proposes av. If
If I felt sure that Thalheim was right, I should suggest
ἕως συνευπορήσειεν, but I have no skill in deciphering erased letters and can
see only ov* .
1.
9, 10 εὐπορήσειεν ἐκεῖνος τἀργύριον, until he should provide the money'
([Dem.] 33. 7 ώμολογηκὼς εὐπορήσειν αὐτῷ δέκα μνᾶς). This sense is regular
with the compounds eloevroрeiv (Diod. 16. 40), europeiv (Plat. Laws 918 c),
πроσενπореîv (Dem. 24. 97, where πроενπореîo@aι is written by Cobet, Misc.
Crit. p. 552, πроeiσevπорéîσdaι by Naber, Mnem. N. S. 5, 1877, p. 411, Dem.
36. 57, where Naber op. cit. requires eloevropyкós), πρоeɩσεvπopeîv (C. I. A.
II. 621, 1o, Michel n. 984 εἰς ταῦτα προεισευπορῶν πλεονάκις ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων),
σvvevπoрeiv (XI. 37. 62.). When Dobree (Adv. I. p. 301) proposed here
συνευπορείν
τἀργυρίου or ἐκπορίσειε, he had not read or had forgotten the comments of
Lobeck (Phryn. Ecl. Parerga p. 595) who shows (1) that europeiv with an
Accusative may mean either abunde habere (as in [Dem.] 40. 36) or suppeditare,
(2) that a form such as euroрησe followed by an Accusative is liable to be
corrupted first to εὐπορίσει and then to ἐκπορίσει. There is no occasion to
emend Isae. fr. 66 Sauppe (Dion. Hal. De Isaeo c. 5, p. 593 R.) ávě ☎v éyò
σωθεὶς ἐχρώμην τε αὐτῷ ἔτι μᾶλλον καὶ κατασκευαζομένῳ τὴν τράπεζαν προσ-
éti
eiσevñópnσa åpyupíov, where Cobet (Mnem. 5, 1856, p. 290) argues for
πроеισενñóρησа, Radermacher (Dion. Hal. Opuscula 1. p. 98) for eiσevπópnσa,
Buermann for προσευπόρησα; the compound προσεισευπορεῖν suits the context
excellently ('I was a closer friend than ever and, what is more (πрós),
furnished him with money'); compare C. I. A. II. 613, 10, 11 (298/7 B.C.) Tà
OR. VII.
557
COMMENTARY
κοινὰ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως διεχείρισε...καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ἑαυτοῦ προσανήλωσεν
ἀργύριον.
9. Ι ἐξ εὐπόρου ἀπορωτέρῳ. Cp. Hdt. 9. 27 καὶ γὰρ ἂν χρηστοὶ τότε ἐόντες
ὡυτοὶ νῦν ἂν εἶεν φλαυρότεροι καὶ τότε ἐόντες φλαῦροι νῦν ἂν εἶεν ἀμείνονες,
Isocr. 8. 125 ἐκ ταπεινῶν εὐδαιμονεστέρους (ΓΕ Bens., εὐδαίμονας Blass) γεγενη-
μένους, Plat. Laws 744 C πλουσιώτεροι ἐκ πενήτων καὶ ἐκ πλουσίων πένητες
γιγνόμενοι, [Xen.] De rep. Ath. 1. 13 ἵνα οἱ πλούσιοι πενέστεροι γίγνωνται
(Schwab, Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comparation p. 113). We say in the same
way 'He was easier in his mind,' i.e. than before, when he felt oppressed.
See IX. 23. 3 n., 35. 7 n.
2,3 εἰς Κόρινθόν τε στρατεύεσθαι μέλλων. The Athenians had troops at or
around Corinth from 394 B.C. to 390 B.C. It would have been interesting to
study the depositions (§ 10), and discover how the speaker, who suspects
testaments (§§ 1, 2), proved the existence of a will, made about 40 years
before the trial and revoked by its author.
5,6 διδοὺς αὐτὴν Λακρατείδῃ τῷ νῦν ἱεροφάντῃ γεγενημένῳ. This is generally
supposed to indicate that in the will Apollodorus adopted his heiress, thus
acquiring the right of a father to dispose of his own daughter in marriage
(Att. Proc.² p. 505 n. 75, Beauchet II. p. 44). He had no power to name
a husband for Archedamus' daughter. But the theory of the transaction
puzzles the lawyers (Hruza 1. p. 56 n. 21); Apollodorus had not become the
adoptive father of the girl, when he made the will, and settled the marriage,
since the adoption was only to take effect in the event of his death. What
Apollodorus presumably desired was to prevent his daughter from becoming
éπídɩkos, and falling into the hands of the family of Eupolis. Whether
adoption of a daughter (Ovуarроπоia) was something unusual, is not known,
but it should be remembered that a woman could not perpetuate in her own
person the house and its cult, which according to Athenian orators was one
of the objects of adoption. Isaeus furnishes two more cases; Hagnias (XI. 8)
and Theophon (XI. 41) severally adopted by will a niece. The gleanings
from inscriptions (Keil, Rhein. Mus. 20, 1865, p. 537 sqq., Beauchet II. p. 44)
are meagre; two examples have been found at Athens (C. I. A. 111. 205,
ib. 783, the latter of the age of Augustus), one at Cyrene (C. I. G. 5132, age
of Claudius or Nero), six at Rhodes (I. G. Ins. I. 115, 4, 379, 6, 646, 2, 818, 5,
854, 2, 894, 2), one at Teos, one at Cos, and some at Halicarnassus. The
match planned by Apollodorus was ambitious, for Lacrateides belonged to
the great house of the Eumolpidae (VI. 33. 5 m.). Whether celibacy was a
condition of appointment to the office of hierophant, is a moot point
(Toepffer, Attische Genealogie p. 54, Mommsen, Feste der Stadt Athen
p. 258); we are told that he was bound to chastity, but we also hear of
sons and daughters of a hierophant ([Lys.] 6. 54, Harp. s.v. iepoþávτns). It
is probable that only bachelors or widowers were permitted to hold the
post.
P.
10.6 Seûpo. Cp. v. 25. 5, 6 n., IX. 28. 7 (åváßnte), XI. 4. 7 (áváßnði),
Aesch. 2. 127 κάλει μοι τοὺς οἰκέτας δεῦρο ἐπὶ τὸ βῆμα.
11.4 autŵv. Reiske's auroû is unnecessary (III. 48. 4 n.).
5,6 EK TŵV Autŵv autê yeyovás, a legal tag (§ 20. 6, 7 n.). The father of
Eupolis was grandfather of Apollodorus.
558
OR. VII.
ISAEUS
13. I, 2
ἱκανοὺς εἶναι νομίζω καὶ τοὺς εἰρημένους λόγους. The formula is
copiously illustrated by Gebauer on Lys. 12. 79 Anhang p. 281.
4 καὶ ὅτι. I made a mistake in accepting Buermann's correction of
διότι, for which see [Dem.] 53. Ι ὅτι μὲν οὐ συκοφαντῶν τὴν ἀπογραφὴν
ἐποιησάμην, μέγιστον ὑμῖν ἔστω τεκμήριον τό τε μέγεθος τῆς ἀπογραφῆς καὶ ὅτι
αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἀπέγραψα. It is true that in Hellenistic and later Greek διότι
encroached upon orɩ, and that this encroachment has left traces in MSS. of
Attic writers (III. 50. 5, 6 n.), but diór with the sense of 'because' was
established in Attic literature in the 5th century B.C. (Ant. 5. 3, Thuc. 1. 22. 3,
52. 3), though not admitted in the lapidary style (Meisterhans, Gramm. d. att.
Inschr.³ § 91, 24, p. 252). Here Isaeus had a reason for preferring dɩórɩ; in
the preceding sentence he had twice used őrɩ. Thalheim, who defends the
MS., cites very pertinently Lys. 4. 12 ἀξιῶ...τοσοῦτον ἐμοὶ τεκμήριον γενέσθαι
ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι, διότι οὗτος οὐκ ἠθέλησεν ἐκ τῆς ἀνθρώπου ποιήσασθαι τὸν
ἔλεγχον.
6 κύριον τῶν αὑτοῦ κατέστησε. According to Thrasyllus the old man
surrendered to him the management of his estate (§§ 15, 27).
7 εἰς τοὺς γεννήτας καὶ εἰς τοὺς φράτερας ἐνέγραψε. Her werden (Mnem.
N. S. 9, 1881, p. 391) objects to the repetition of eis roùs, because elsewhere
in the speech the combination used is οἱ γεννῆταί τε καὶ φράτερες (§§ 15, 26,
43 εἰς τοὺς γεννήτας καὶ φράτερας ἐγγραφείς) or οἱ φράτερές τε καὶ γεννῆται (§ 17)
Οι οἱ συγγενεῖς καὶ φράτερες (§ 27 ἐγγεγραφώς εἰς τοὺς συγγενεῖς καὶ φράτερας).
But, though the yévos was included in the parpía, it is not certain that only
one entry was made (§ 1. 4 n.).
14. 2
ἤσκει. Cp. XII. 3, Ar. Plut. 47 ἀσκεῖν τὸν υἱὸν τὸν ἐπιχώριον
трóпоν. The word is not limited to bodily training.
6 μηνός Μαιμακτηριώνος. Cp. v. 31. 3, 4 n. The date serves a purpose;
the month is mentioned to remind the judges that Apollodorus had no
opportunity of introducing his adopted son into the pparpía at the festival
of the Apaturia, which fell in Pyanopsion, the month before Maimacterion.
15. 5 éπteldη Oapyńλia v, the 6th and 7th of the month Thargelion
(May—June); see for the ceremonies Schmidt, Griech. Chronologie p. 296 sqq.,
Mommsen, Feste d. Stadt Athen p. 469 sqq. It is illegitimate to conclude
from this one passage, as Schmidt (op. cit. p. 277) and Mommsen do, that
the Thargelia was the proper time for introducing adult adoptive sons into
the pparpía of their adoptive father. Members of a pparpía saw each other
at this as at other great festivals, but there is no obvious connexion between
the rites of the Thargelia and the constitution of the pparpiai. Mommsen's
explanation, that the festival was in honour of 'Añóììæv паτрâos, is a
conjecture supported by no evidence. The silence of Isaeus does not
prove that the registration of Thrasyllus at this date was not irregular and
exceptional, and due to a well-founded apprehension that Apollodorus would
not survive till the Apaturia in the autumn. We must not forget that the
validity of the adoption is called in question, and that the state had an
interest in preventing introductions at hole and corner meetings.
16. 2 νόμος ὁ αὐτός. Cp. III. 76. 4 η. May we conclude from ó avTÒS
that in some pparpíaι the admission of adopted sons was regulated by
special rules?
OR. VII.
559
COMMENTARY
φύσει γεγονότα. Cp. II. I I. 6 π.
3 ἐπιτιθέναι πίστιν κατὰ τῶν ἱερῶν. Cp. [Dem.] 59. 60 λαχόντος δὲ τοῦ
Φράστορος αὐτοῖς δίκην ὅτι οὐκ ἐνέγραφον αὐτοῦ υἱόν, προκαλοῦνται αὐτὸν οἱ
γεννῆται πρὸς τῷ διαιτητῇ ὀμόσαι καθ᾽ ἱερῶν τελείων, ἢ μὴν νομίζειν εἶναι αὑτοῦ
υἱὸν ἐξ ἀστῆς γυναικὸς καὶ ἐγγυητῆς κατὰ τὸν νόμον, Dem. 29. 33, 57. 26. The
person swearing laid his hand on the victim (Ar. Lys. 202 προσλαβοῦ μοι τοῦ
κάπρου). The gens of the Κήρυκες required the father to swear with his hand
on the altar (And. 1. 127 έψηφίσαντο δὲ οἱ Κήρυκες κατὰ τὸν νόμον ὅς ἐστιν
αὐτοῖς, τὸν πατέρα ὀμόσαντα εἰσάγειν ἢ μὴν υἱὸν ὄντα ἑαυτοῦ εἰσάγειν. λαβόμενος
τοῦ βωμοῦ ὤμοσεν (Καλλίας) ἢ μὴν τὸν παῖδα ἑαυτοῦ εἶναι γνήσιον, ἐκ Χρυσίλλης
γεγονότα). In the remains of the ordinances of the Demotionidae (C. I. A.
II. 841 b, IV. 2. 841 b=S. I. G.² n. 439, Michel n. 961) an oath on the part of
the father is not mentioned, but the three witnesses whom he has to produce
from the circle of his θιασῶται (ΙΙ. 14. 7 n.) swear ἐχόμενοι τοῦ βωμου (Β. 18);
the oath is μαρτυρῶ ὃν εἰσάγει ἑαυτῶι ὑὸν ἶναι τὸτον γνήσιον ἐγ γαμετῆς· ἀληθῆ
ταῦτα νὴ τὸν Δία τον Φράτριον· εὐορκοντι μέν μοι πολλὰ καὶ ἀγαθὰ ἶναι· εἰ δ᾽
ἐπιορκοίην, τἀναντία. This may be put down as ὁ νόμιμος τοῖς φράτερσιν
ὅρκος (Dem. 57. 54, VIII. 19). In the φρατρία of the Λαβυάδα at Delphi all
the members were required to take an oath before voting (S. I. G.2 n. 438,
65 sqq., Michel n. 995 Β 5 sqq. πάντες δὲ το]ὶ Λαβυάδαι [Εὐκλείοι]ς· περὶ τᾶν
δα[ρατᾶν ἐπι]κρινόντων καὶ [Απέλλα]ις περὶ τῶν ἀπελ[λαίων] (for ἡ δαράτα and
τὰ ἀπελλαία cp. III. 76. I n.), παρεόντες μὴ μείο[ς μεν]ὸς καὶ hεκατόν· τὰ[ν δὲ]
ψάφον φερόντων ἀνδ[εξ]άμενοι ποὶ τὸ ᾿Απόλλωνος καὶ τοῦ Ποτειδᾶνος τοῦ
φρατρίου καὶ τοῦ Διὸς πατρώιου δικαίως οἰσεῖν κὰτ τὸν νόμους τῶν Δελφῶν·
κηπευχέσθω δικαίως τὴν ψᾶφον φέροντι πόλλ᾽ ἀγαθὰ τοὺς θεοὺς διδόμεν, αἱ δὲ
ἀδίκως, τὰ κακά).
4 γεγονότα ὀρθῶς, i.e. in lawful wedlock (III. 12. 6 π.). Consequently
it was not permitted to adopt a bastard ex ciue Attica. The disability is an
argument in favour of the view that the illegitimate child of an Athenian
father and an Athenian mother was excluded from the citizenship (III. Introd.
p. 28o sqq.).
6 μηδὲν ἧττον διαψηφίζεσθαι καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους. Is it safe to conclude from
these words that there were parpía into which a new member could be
lawfully admitted without a vote? The oath of the introducer seems a
totally inadequate guarantee. In the φρατρία to which Hagnias (or. XI.)
belonged the members voted with religious solemnities at the reception
of an adopted son ([Dem.] 43. 14 οἱ φράτερες...οἱ ἄριστα εἰδότες περὶ τοῦ
γένους...λαβόντες τὴν ψῆφον καιομένων τῶν ἱερείων, ἀπὸ τοῦ βωμοῦ φέροντες
τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ φρατρίου...ἐψηφίσαντο τὰ δίκαια, ὀρθῶς καὶ προσηκόντως τὸν παῖδα
τουτονὶ εἰσάγεσθαι Εὐβουλίδῃ υἱόν). At the beginning of the 4th century the
Demotionidae (§ 16. 3 7.) on the motion of Nicodemus adopted an elaborate
procedure. The diaσ@raι of the child presented for enrolment voted first,
by ballot (κρύβδην ἀπὸ τοῦ βωμοῦ φέροντες τὴν ψῆφον). Their verdict, if
favourable (ψηφισαμένων τῶν θιασωτῶν εἶναι αὐτοῖς φράτερα), needed con-
firmation by a vote of the other members present at the meeting (ayopá).
If unfavourable, it could be reversed, the introducer being allowed an appeal
to the rest of the society (ἔφεσις εἰς τοὺς ἅπαντας), but, if he did not use his
right, the decision of the taoŵraι was final. The relation of these new rules
θιασώται
560
OR. VII.
ISAEUS
to the previous practice of the parpía is one of those obscure subjects on
which diametrically opposite opinions can be held by scholars of distinction ;
see Wilamowitz, Aristoteles und Athen II. p. 260 sqq., Lipsius-Schoemann,
Gr. Altert. II. p. 575 22. 4.
Perhaps all that Isaeus meant to convey was that
no irregularities were tolerated in Apollodorus' pparpía. Some of the demes
had a bad name for conniving at fraudulent entries on their register (Harp.
5.ν. Ποταμός· ἐκωμῳδοῦντο ὡς ῥαδίως δεχόμενοι τοὺς παρεγγράπτους), and there
may have been particular parpiai, which lay under the same imputation ;
note § 16. 8 τοιαύτας ἀκριβείας ἔχει τὰ δίκαια τὰ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς, VIII. 19 πολλῶν
ὄντων (τῶν φρατέρων) καὶ ἀκριβῶς τὰ τοιαῦτα σκοπουμένων, [Dem.] 44. 41 πείσας
ἕνα τινὰ τῶν φρατέρων ἐνέγραψε (τὸν υἱὸν) εἰς τὸ φρατερικὸν γραμματεῖον.
7 τὸ κοινὸν γραμματεῖον. Cp. § 1. 4 n., Harp. s.v. κοινὸν γραμματεῖον καὶ
ληξιαρχικόν: τὸ μὲν κοινὸν γραμματεῖόν ἐστιν εἰς ὃ ἐνεγράφοντο οἱ εἰσαγόμενοι
εἰς τοὺς φράτερας καὶ γεννήτας, τὸ δὲ ληξιαρχικὸν εἰς ὃ ἐνεγράφοντο οἱ εἰς τοὺς
δήμους ἐγγραφόμενοι, ὡς δεικνύουσιν ἄλλοι τε ῥήτορες καὶ Ἰσαῖος ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ
'Aπоλλodάρον кλýpov. Harpocration's distinction is false, for in Dem. 57. 60
τὸ κοινὸν γραμματεῖον ἐς τὸ ληξιαρχικόν γραμματείον, the register of the
deme.
17. 6, 7 ἐνεγράφην Θράσυλλος ᾿Απολλοδώρου. It is probable that the
speaker changed his name at adoption; Apollodorus followed a common
practice if he called his new son Thrasyllus after his own father. Keil
(Rhein. Mus. 20, 1865, p. 539 sqq.) thinks that an adopted son usually kept
his former name, altering only the name of his father and, if necessary,
his demoticum. The material he uses consists of inscriptions such as
C. I. A. II. 2179 (Ξενόκριτος ᾿Ασκληπιάδου Κηφισιεύς, γόνῳ δὲ Ἡρακῶντος
Ραμνουσίου), ib. 2458 (Φιλίνος Διοφάντου Πειραιεύς, γόνῳ δὲ ᾿Αριστομένου),
in which only one name is mentioned. This type with local variations
(φύσει δέ, καθ᾽ ὑοθεσίαν δέ; see II. II. 6 n.) is very common in the Greek
world, whereas he can find only one example giving two names, viz. C. I. G.
2158, 7 (Samothrace). ικις Μνησισ[τρ]άτου, φύσει δὲ ᾿Ασκληπιάδης Αττάλου
Ku[Sikn]vós. But with regard to the ordinary practice at Athens in the
4th century B.C. the evidence is too meagre and defective to warrant any
assertion.
...
18-26 The validity of the adoption is confirmed by the conduct
of Thrasybulus, nephew of my adversary. Although his rights to the estate
of Apollodorus exclude entirely the rights of his aunt, the wife of Pronapes,
he has put in no claim. Would he have abandoned so great a fortune
without a struggle, if he had not been convinced of the legality of Apollodorus
acts? The reply will be that he has lost his rights because he has been
adopted by Hippolochides. The fact is true, the conclusion false. In virtue
of the adoption he has changed his father, but not his mother; and it is
through his mother that his title to Apollodorus' property is derived.
The dishonesty of this argument, which had before excited some
suspicion, was first exposed in all its ugliness by Buermann (Das attische
Intestaterbfolgegesetz, Rhein. Mus. 22, 1877, p. 360 sqq.). Isaeus' proposition
is this: if an estate was claimed by a female first cousin (åve√ià) of the
deceased, and by the son of another female first cousin, sister of the first,
the female claimant had to give way to the male claimant; there was neither
OR. VII.
561
COMMENTARY
representation nor division in stirpes. To prove this surprising assertion
Isaeus brings forward a law according a preference to males and the
descendants of males (§ 20 κρατεῖν δὲ τοὺς ἄρρενας καὶ τοὺς ἐκ τῶν ἀρρένων,
οἳ ἂν ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν ὦσι, κἂν γένει ἀπωτέρω τυγχάνωσιν ὄντες), and argues that
the principle enunciated is applicable only to first cousins and to relations
more distant than first cousins. But that the privilege of the male begins
with first cousins, is contrary to established facts and to Isaeus' statements
elsewhere. It is unnecessary to demonstrate that in the direct descending line
sons and sons' sons (vidoî) came before daughters and daughters' children
(Ovyarpidoî). With regard to the succession of collaterals Isaeus himself
(XI. 1, 2) says in the precisest language that 'the law gives the inheritance
first to brothers of the deceased by the same father and to sons of these
brothers (πρῶτον ἀδελφοῖς τε καὶ ἀδελφιδοῖς πεποίηκε τὴν κληρονομίαν, ἂν ὦσιν
óμодáτорes), and, in default of such, summons in the second place sisters
of the deceased by the same father and their children' (ẻàv d'oûтoι µǹ wơi,
No one
δεύτερον ἀδελφὰς ὁμοπατρίας καλεῖ καὶ παῖδας τοὺς ἐκ τούτων).
ventures to deny that the son of the brother of the deceased, though
remoter in degree, had priority over the sister of the deceased. What
is this but an application of the rule, κρατεῖν δὲ τοὺς ἄρρενας καὶ τοὺς ἐκ τῶν
ȧppévwv K.T.λ., which according to Isaeus in this speech did not become
operative until a succession accrued to first cousins, or remote relatives,
of the deceased? The truth is that the principle governed the devolution
of all successions, whether in the direct line or in the collateral branches.
With regard to the latter a warning is necessary (20. 6, 7 n.). The provision
only held good within each of the three orders of successors admitted to the
ȧyxɩreía, viz. (1) descendants of the father of the deceased, (2) descendants
of the paternal grandfather of the deceased, (3) descendants and collaterals
of the mother of the deceased. A woman in the first class had precedence
of a man in the second class and so forth; thus an adeλon óμожатрía ranked
before an ἀνεψιὸς πρὸς πατρός, and a uterine brother of the deceased (ἀδελφὸς
ὁμομήτριος) yielded place to an ἀνεψιὰ πρὸς πατρός. Allowing for this
important qualification we find no good evidence of any exception to the
rule; see V. 9. 6, 7 n., 12. 4 2. for the theory that the son and daughter
of a sister of the deceased shared equally. The orators who quote the law
([Dem.] 43. 78, 44. 62) do not restrict its operation to special classes of heirs.
In itself this circumstance does not count for much, but the author of [Dem.]
44 goes farther, and expounds the statute in a sense directly opposed to the
interpretation which Isaeus has put into the mouth of Thrasyllus. The
estate with which the speech deals is that of Archiades. The claimant
Aristodemus, for whom his son Aristoteles speaks, is a grandson of Meidylides.
brother of Archiades, and he is attacking Leostratus, who is the great-
grandson of Archidice sister of Archiades. The advocate in proof of his
father's better right appeals to this very prerogative of sex, which according
to Thrasyllus was confined to the circle of first cousins and more distant
kindred : § 12 sqq. περὶ δὲ τοῦ γένους, ὡς οὐκ εἰσὶν ἡμῶν ἐγγυτέρω, τοῦτο δεῖ
μαθεῖν ὑμᾶς. ἓν μὲν οὖν ὁμολογεῖται, τὸ κρατεῖν τῶν κληρονόμων (ΣΕΦ;
κληονομιών Bekk., Blass) τοὺς ἄρρενας καὶ τοὺς ἐκ τῶν ἀρρένων· ἁπλῶς γὰρ
τοῖς ἐγγυτάτω πρὸς ἀνδρῶν, ὅταν μὴ παῖδες ὦσιν, ὁ νόμος τὰς κληρονομίας
W. I.
36
562
OR. VII.
ISAEUS
ἀποδίδωσιν. οὗτοι δ᾽ ἐσμὲν ἡμεῖς· ἄπαις μὲν γὰρ ὁ ᾿Αρχιάδης ὁμολογεῖται
τετελευτηκέναι (the opponents deny this), τούτῳ δὲ πρὸς ἀνδρῶν ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν
ἐγγυτάτω...Λεώστρατος δ᾽ οὑτοσὶ γένει τε ἀπωτέρω ἐστὶ καὶ πρὸς γυναικῶν οἰκεῖος
᾿Αρχιάδῃ. Thus according to the view presented by Aristoteles the law,
κρατεῖν δὲ τοὺς ἄρρενας καὶ τοὺς ἐκ τῶν ἀρρένων κ.τ.λ., expressed a general
principle, which might be invoked to show that a descendant of the brother
of the deceased ought to be preferred to a descendant of the sister of the
deceased. Aristoteles' case is not so simple as he pretends, and it is plain
that the man had not a scrupulous regard for exact truth, but in this matter
he is more trustworthy than Isaeus. Not only does Isaeus contradict
himself, but the extension of the rule to all groups of heirs is in harmony
with that general preference for the male line, which sprang from the desire
to preserve the continuity of the house and its cult.
K
An additional and independent refutation of Isaeus' sophistry is supplied
by the remains of the law of intestate succession preserved in a mutilated
and corrupted state in [Dem.] 43. 51. Three paragraphs must be quoted at
length: τούσδε κυρίους εἶναι τῶν χρημάτων (Α) ἐὰν [δὲ] ἀδελφοὶ ὦσιν
ὁμοπάτορες· καὶ ἐὰν παῖδες ἐξ ἀδελφῶν γνήσιοι, τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς μοῖραν
λαγχάνειν· ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀδελφοὶ ὦσιν ἢ ἀδελφῶν παῖδες, < ἀδελφὰς ὁμοπατρίας
καὶ παῖδας> ἐξ αὐτῶν κατὰ ταὐτὰ λαγχάνειν. (Β) κρατεῖν δὲ τοὺς ἄρρενας
καὶ τοὺς ἐκ τῶν ἀρρένων, ἐὰν ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν ὦσι, καὶ ἐὰν γένει ἀπωτέρω., (C) ἐὰν
δὲ μὴ ὦσι πρὸς πατρὸς μέχρι ἀνεψιῶν (ἀνεψιαδῶν libri: corr. Wesseling)
παίδων, τοὺς πρὸς μητρὸς τοῦ ἀνδρὸς κατὰ ταὐτὰ κυρίους εἶναι. In (A) ἀδελφὰς
καὶ παῖδας was added by Meier, ὁμοπατρίας by Buermann. Buermann also
inserts κρατεῖν after ὁμοπάτορες, but κυρίους εἶναι can be understood from
what precedes (Drerup, Ueber die bei den attischen Rednern eingelegten
Urkunden, Jahrbb. f. cl. Philol. Supplementbd 24, p. 284). Now, if (1) the
order of these paragraphs and (2) the supplement in (A) be right, the
regulation, κρατεῖν δὲ τοὺς ἄρρενας καὶ τοὺς ἐκ τῶν ἀρρένων κ.τ.λ., defines
the application of the two ambiguous words παῖδες and παῖδας. It cannot
be limited to any particular order of heirs, but must comprehend all qualified
collaterals both on the side of the father of the deceased and on the side
of the mother of the deceased. In support of the position of (B) Isaeus
himself can be called as a witness; in § 22 of this speech he gives the
following loose paraphrase of (C): ἐὰν μὴ ὦσιν ἀνεψιοὶ μηδὲ ἀνεψιῶν παῖδες,
μηδὲ τοῦ πρὸς πατρὸς γένους (γενομένου A: corr. Dobree) ή προσήκων μηδείς,
τότε ἀπέδωκε τοῖς πρὸς μητρός, διορίσας οὓς δεῖ κρατεῖν. The last words refer
to clause (Β), κρατεῖν δὲ τοὺς ἄρρενας κ.τ.λ., and this is the law which the
speaker bids the clerk read next (λαβὲ δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ τοῦτον τὸν νόμον καὶ
ἀνάγνωθι). Isaeus is playing tricks with the aorist tense, διορίσας, which
may mean either 'having first defined who shall have the preference,' i.e. in
a previous clause, or 'defining who shall have the preference,' i.e. in the
same or a subsequent clause; he desires to obscure the fact that he is
sailing very near the wind in transposing the order in which the provisions
stood in the law. For a similar equivocation compare I. 3. 5 π. The
ambiguity is a sign that in [Dem.] 43. 51 section (B) is in its right place.
If Isaeus had aimed at perfect clearness, nothing would have been easier
than to remove any possibility of misconstruction. Again, if (B) is made to
OR. VII.
563
COMMENTARY
π
follow (C) and to bear the sense attributed to it in this speech, Isaeus is
caught in a contradiction. In XI. 2 he informs the judges that the relations
on the side of the mother of the deceased inherit on precisely the same
terms as the relations on the side of the father of the deceased (Toleî rovs
πρὸς μητρὸς τοῦ τελευτήσαντος κυρίους αὐτῶν, κατὰ ταὐτὰ καθάπερ τοῖς πρὸς
πατρὸς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐδίδου τὴν κληρονομίαν). This is obviously the effect of
(A), (B), (C) in their present sequence and with the usual interpretation.
But it is not the effect according to the reasoning of Thrasyllus, who
stretches his doctrine beyond first cousins to remoter relations (§ 20 áve¥ioû
δὲ καὶ εἴ τις ἔξω ταύτης τῆς συγγενείας ἐστίν), and consequently takes in the
kindred of the deceased through his mother. Or. VII is inconsistent with
or. XI, for it implies that an άdeλøn óμожaтpía of the deceased was treated
differently from an adeλpǹ óµομηтpía of the deceased, in so far as e.g. the
latter was entirely shut out by the son who represented another ådeλøǹ
ὁμομητρία.
πατ
The extent of the lacuna in (A) is a perplexing and perhaps insoluble
problem. We cannot start from the assumption, reasonable as it may seem,
that the law contained express and positive provisions defining the rights of
the brothers and sisters of the father of the deceased and of their children
and grandchildren, i.e. of the first cousins and first cousins once removed
of the deceased; this is exactly what Buermann and Drerup deny (§ 22. 5 n.,
XI. 2. 2, 3 n..). Still let us for the moment suppose with Lipsius (Att. Proc.2
p. 584 n. 273) that the gap is far larger than Meier and Buermann thought,
and reconstitute the latter part of (A) as follows: ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀδελφοὶ ὦσιν ἢ
ἀδελφῶν παῖδες, <ἀδελφὰς ὁμοπατρίας καὶ παῖδας ἐξ αὐτῶν λαγχάνειν· ἐὰν δὲ
μὴ ἀδελφαὶ ὦσιν ἢ παῖδες ἐξ αὐτῶν, ἀδελφοὺς τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ἀδελφὰς καὶ
παῖδας> ἐξ αὐτῶν κατὰ ταὐτὰ λαγχάνειν. How can this reading be
accommodated with the gloss of Isaeus? The words affirm that the uncles,
aunts, and first cousins of the deceased on the father's side are to succeed
under the same conditions (κarà taỏtà λayɣáveiv) as his sisters by the same
father and their children. The subsequent paragraph, κρατεῖν δε τοὺς ἄρρενας
καὶ τοὺς ἐκ τῶν ἀρρένων κ.τ.λ., cannot annihilate the force of κατὰ ταὐτὰ
λayɣávew, and justify the statement that the daughter of Eupolis, the brother
of Apollodorus' father, had absolutely no rights against Thrasybulus, the son
of her sister. The case would have been quite different, if Thrasybulus had
represented a deceased son, not a deceased daughter, of Eupolis. The
privilege of sex would at once have come into play, and Thrasybulus, though
remoter in degree, would have excluded his aunt, being preferred as the
representative of the male line. But the son of the son of a paternal aunt of
the deceased would not possess this advantage over the daughter of another
paternal aunt, both son and daughter being in the female line.
I know no means of discovering whether the supporters of Eupolis'
daughter were right in contending that Thrasybulus' adoption disqualified
him from claiming half of Apollodorus' estate. That an adoption affected in
no respect a man's legal relations with his mother, must not be accepted as an
axiom of Athenian law merely because it is asserted by Isaeus (X. 25. 1, 2 n.).
18.5 Прováπeɩ, of the deme Aiέwvý, which belonged to the maritime
trittys of the tribe Cecropis, and was situated south of Athens in the neigh-
36-2
564
OR. VII.
ISAEUS
bourhood of Trachones (Milchhoefer, Untersuchungen über die Demenordnung
des Kleisthenes p. 30); see C. I. A. 11. 804 A a 60 sqq. Eűñoλıs Пpováπovs
Αἰξωνεὺς τῶν σκευῶν προσώφειλεν ὧν ἔλαβε ἐπὶ τὴν Σάλπιγγα, ᾿Αριστομάχου
Épyov PACEFFF, ib. 11. 806 a 7. The date of the first inscription is
334/3 B.C., so that the trierarch in default may well be a son of the
daughter of Eupolis.
6 8 Aovoleús. The deme Aovoià belonged to the tribe Oineis. The site
is unknown. Milchhoefer (op. cit. p. 29) on the strength of an inscription
found to the south-west of Kato-Liossia suggests that the village may have
been in the inland trittys, in the district of Acharnae.
19. I ἐὰν ἀδελφὸς ὁμοπάτωρ κ.τ.λ., an application to the present case of
section (A) of the law preserved in [Dem.] 43. 51. The son of a dead sister
of the deceased represents his mother and takes her share, which in the
circumstances assumed is half the property. The law itself is read to the
court at the end of § 21.
4 ἀγνοούμενόν ἐστιν. Cp. 1. 45. 6 n., II. 40 (ὁμολογούμενόν ἐστιν), VIII. 20
(ἦν ὁμολογούμενον), ΧΙ. 28 (ἐστὶν ἐναντιούμενος), Gildersleeve, Greek Syntax
§§ 191, 291, Gerth-Kühner, Gr. Gramm. I. § 353 n. 3, p. 38, Rehdantz,
Demosth. Index II. s.v. Participium p. 268.
8 ῥᾳδίως. Cp. VIII. 35 καὶ ταλάντου ῥᾳδίως ἄξιον, ΧΙ. 45 ῥᾳδίως γὰρ ἂν
εὑρεθείη καὶ ὀκτὼ ταλάντων ὁ τούτων οἶκος, Dem. 27. 31 ῥᾳδίως δύο μνᾶς τοῦ
μηνὸς ἀνήλισκεν.
20. 1, 2 πατρῴων μὲν οὖν καὶ ἀδελφοῦ χρημάτων, an awkward expression,
since father and brother have a different meaning to Thrasybulus and his
aunt.
The meaning is that Thrasybulus had the same rights in the property
of Eupolis, his mother's father, as he had in the property of Eupolis' son, his
mother's brother; in each case he represented his mother and shared equally
with his aunt. Isaeus had a motive for avoiding the plain statement, that in
default of brothers sisters share equally and may be represented by their
children. He did not wish to cut his own throat.
3, 4 εἴ τις ἔξω ταύτης της συγγενείας, i.e. οἱ πρὸς μητρὸς τοῦ τελευτήσαντος.
6,7 οἳ ἂν ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν ὦσι, κἂν γένει ἀπωτέρω τυγχάνωσιν ὄντες. The
quotation is not exact; the law in [Dem.] 43. 51 runs thus: éàv ẻk tôv avtôv
ὦσι, καὶ ἐὰν γένει ἀπωτέρω. This obscure clause has provoked much con-
troversy; for the theories proposed see Caillemer, Droit de succession légitime
p. 87 sqq., Att. Proc.2 p. 586 n. 275, Thalheim-Hermann, Gr. Rechtsaltert.ª
p. 64 n. 6, Beauchet III. p. 517 sqq., Drerup, op. cit. p. 281 sqq. The dispute
turns on the reference of ẻ TÔV aỦTôv. Thalheim supplies ¿έ ☎νπeρ ó
kataλiñóν, and translates as follows: 'preference shall be given to males
and the descendants of males, if they spring from the same parents (as the
deceased), and if their relationship is more remote. He supposes that the
first part of the sentence (eàv ék tôv avtŵv oi) describes the brothers and
sisters of the deceased with their descendants, and that the second part (îai
¿àv yéveɩ àπwтépw) extends the principle to all other classes of heirs, even
beyond the limits of the ȧyxireía. This interpretation, as Lipsius observes,
requires a change in the text; the first éàv must be altered to kav or to ẻáv
Tε. According to Thalheim and Buermann (op. cit.) Isaeus by substituting
oi àv for eàv deliberately perverted the sense of the law. I agree with those
οι
K
OR. VII.
565
COMMENTARY
scholars who supply éέ ☎vπeρ ai Onλcial. The translation is this: 'preference
ἐξ ὧνπερ θήλειαι.
shall be given to males and the descendants of males (over females and the
descendants of females), if the males have the same origin (as the females),
even if they (the males) are in degree more distant from the common
ancestor). Succession at Athens was arranged according to a sequence
of stocks. The first place was assigned to the descendants of the deceased,
stock A, the second to the descendants of the father of the deceased, stock B,
the third to the descendants of the paternal grandfather of the deceased as
far as first cousins once removed of the deceased, stock C, the fourth to the
descendants and collaterals of the mother of the deceased, who may be called
stock D, though they were subdivided into groups on the same principles as
the paternal kindred of the deceased. The effect of the law was to split
each stock into two parts, one having precedence of the other, e.g. B was
broken into B¹, the brothers of the deceased by the same father and their
descendants, and B², the sisters of the deceased by the same father and
their descendants, the members of B¹ ranking before the members of B², so
that the son of the ἀδελφὸς ὁμοπάτωρ excluded the ἀδελφὴ ὁμοπατρία, although
he was one degree farther from the common ancestor. The puzzle is to
understand the application of the rule within B¹, C¹ on the one hand and B²,
C² on the other. To take B¹, it is clear that the son of an ådeλþòs óµoñáτWρ
of the deceased would not share with his own sister, and that in like manner
this sister would be shut out by her brother's son. But suppose that the son
of the son of one ådeλpòs óµолáтwр' of the deceased was in competition with
the daughter of another adeλpòs óµоτáтwρ of the deceased. Would the whole
inheritance fall to the male? The wording of the clause (кpareîv dè TOÙS
appevas K.T.λ.) appears to authorise such an award, the male and female
being èk tôv autŵv, although the male is remoter from the common head.
But here account must be taken of the principle of representation which a
preceding clause explicitly recognises (ἐὰν παῖδες ἐξ ἀδελφῶν γνήσιοι, τὴν τοῦ
πατρὸς μοῖραν λαγχάνειν); in my opinion it is more probable that the estate
would be divided between the representatives of the two brothers, the woman
receiving one half, the man the other half. Seeing no sufficient reason for
a different treatment of C¹ I venture to think that an avevioû viòs descended
from a paternal uncle of the deceased did not shut out from the succession
an aveia, who happened to be the only child of another paternal uncle of
the deceased.
δίκην είληχε.
21.2 Síkŋy eλnxe. Cp. VIII. 3, XI. 10, 13, 15, 27. The addition of the
accusative (díkŋv) should be noted as throwing light on the origin of the
construction, λayxávei kλýpov, which is disputed (III. 43. 2, 3 n.).
7 NOMOX. Here the clerk read the law contained in [Dem.] 43. 51 so
far as it bore on brothers and sisters of the deceased on the father's side:
τούσδε κυρίους εἶναι τῶν χρημάτων· ἐὰν [δὲ] ἀδελφοὶ ὦσιν ὁμοπάτορες· καὶ ἐὰν
παῖδες ἐξ ἀδελφῶν γνήσιοι, τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς μοῖραν λαγχάνειν· ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀδελφοὶ
ὦσιν ἢ ἀδελφῶν παῖδες, <ἀδελφὰς ὁμοπατρίας καὶ παῖδας> ἐξ αὐτῶν κατὰ ταὐτὰ
λαγχάνειν.
او
22.4 NOMOΣ. Here the clerk read clause (C) of the law: éàv dè µǹ
ὦσι πρὸς πατρός μέχρι ἀνεψιών παίδων, τοὺς πρὸς μητρὸς τοῦ ἀνδρὸς κατὰ
ταὐτὰ κυρίους εἶναι.
566
OR. VII.
ISAEUS
5 ἐὰν μὴ ὦσιν ἀνεψιοί μηδὲ ἀνεψιών παῖδες κ.τ.λ. This is a misleading
paraphrase of the original; cp. the more faithful reproduction in XI. II, 12.
Isaeus' object is to slur over the transposition of clauses (B) and (C).
Buermann (op. cit. p. 362 sqq.) and Drerup (op. cit. p. 282) argue from the
form of the recapitulation that the law contained no positive provisions
defining the rights of avevoí. If it had, why should Isaeus have begun his
summary with 'if there are no ȧveioì etc.'? They conclude that ȧveyiôv
Taîdes only appeared in the law as the limit of the stocks on the father's side
included in the range of the ȧyxıoreía. Lipsius (Att. Proc.² p. 584 n. 273),
who holds that the lacuna contained a reference to the paternal uncles and
paternal aunts of the deceased with their children (see p. 563), replies with
force that the peculiar turn chosen by the orator only shows at the most that
the word aveviòs was not used in stating the rights of the descendants of the
paternal grandfather of the deceased. It should further be noted that Isaeus
had a good reason for not quoting here Lipsius' supplement; it would have
destroyed his argument. But there remains one difficulty which Lipsius
does not remove; if in the law the class following the ȧdeλpaì óµотатрíαι
were the ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ἀδελφαὶ καὶ παῖδες ἐξ αὐτῶν, why are the
were
paternal uncles and paternal aunts passed over in silence in XI. 2? See
note ad loc.
Many recent writers on Greek law (Caillemer, Droit de succession légitime
p. 108, Lipsius in Att. Proc.2 p. 585 n. 274, Thalheim-Hermann, Gr. Rechts-
altert.4 p. 68 n. 1, Beauchet III. p. 536) decide that in the line of descendants
of the paternal grandfather of the deceased representation was permitted in
infinitum, so that the grandson and great-grandson of the first cousin of the
deceased ranked in theory among possible heirs. The phrase of the law,
μéxpi ȧvețiôv Taídov, is rendered 'as far as descendants of first cousins.'
Against this view common sense revolts. What is the use of a limit that is
in perpetual motion? The only natural meaning of µéxpɩ åveчıôv maídwv is
'up to, and including, sons and daughters of first cousins.' Whether we look
at the rights of succession, or at the duties of the blood-feud, or at the
honours owed to the dead, we discover on all sides signs that the dyxOTEίa
was not a conception that could be extended indefinitely. A law attributed
to Solon ([Dem.] 43. 62) lays down what women may follow a corpse to
the grave, and attend the funeral feast: γυναῖκα δὲ μὴ ἐξεῖναι εἰσιέναι εἰς τὰ
τοῦ ἀποθανόντος μηδ᾽ ἀκολουθεῖν ἀποθανόντι, ὅταν εἰς τὰ σήματα ἄγηται,
ἐντὸς ἑξήκοντ᾽ ἐτῶν γεγονυῖαν, πλὴν ὅσαι ἐντὸς ἀνεψιαδῶν εἰσι· μηδ᾽ εἰς τὰ τοῦ
ἀποθανόντος εἰσιέναι, ἐπειδὰν ἐξενεχθῇ ὁ νέκυς, γυναῖκα μηδεμίαν πλὴν ὅσαι
ἐντὸς ἀνεψιαδῶν εἰσιν. The orator's paraphrase in the next section is τὰς
προσηκούσας μέχρι ἀνεψιότητος. The word ἀνεψιαδούς properly refers to the
Roman 5th degree and signifies the son of a first cousin, i.e. a first cousin
once removed, consobrini filius (IX. 2, XI. 12, [Dem.] 44. 26). It is commonly
believed that it may also refer to the Roman 6th degree and signify a second
cousin, sobrinus. The evidence adduced is Poll. 3. 28, 29: oï ye µǹv èk tôv
ἀνεψιῶν φύντες ἀλλήλοις ἀνεψιαδοῖ, ἄν τ᾽ ἐκ δύο θηλειῶν ἀνεψιῶν ὦσιν, ἄν τ᾽ ἐκ
δύο ἀρρένων, ἄν τ᾽ ἐκ θηλείας τε καὶ ἄρρενος, ἄν τ᾽ αὐτοὶ δύο ἄρρενες ὦσιν, ἄν
τε θήλεια καὶ ἄρρην, ὁ μὲν ἀνεψιαδοῦς ἡ δ᾽ ἀνεψιαδῆ, ἄν τε δύο θήλειαι, ἄμφω
ἀνεψιαδαῖ. οἱ δ᾽ ἐκ τῶν ἀνεψιαδῶν ἀλλήλοις ἐξανέψιοί τε καὶ ἐξανέψιαι. Against
T
OR. VII.
567
COMMENTARY
Pollux must be set the authority of Aristophanes of Byzantium (fr. 10, p. 143
Nauck): ἀνεψιοὶ οἱ ἐξάδελφοι (see Lobeck on Phryn. Εpit. p. 306 ἐξάδελφος :
ἀποδιοπομπητέον, ἀνεψιὸς δὲ ῥητέον), καὶ ἀνεψιαδοῦς, ὥσπερ ἀδελφιδοῦς, ὁ τοῦ
ἀνεψιοῦ υἱός· καὶ ἀνεψιαδῆ ὁμοίως. ἐξανέψιοι δὲ οἱ τῶν ἀνεψιῶν παῖδες, οὓς νῦν
λέγομεν διεξαδέλφους; cp. also Hesych. ἐξανέψιοι· ὧν οἱ πατέρες ἀλλήλων
ἀνεψιοὶ ἢ μητέρες, Ammon. De dif. voc. s.v. ἐξανέψιοι with Valckenaer's note.
The Greek for second cousins' was ἐξανέψιοι, a word used by Menander
(Poll. l.c.), and found in Egyptian papyri (Oxy. Pap. II. n. 270, 4, 94 A.D., ¿b. III.
n. 502, 14, 164 A.D.), but very rare in the literary record (Polyb. ap. Athen.
10. 440 F). But my ἀνεψιαδους is the son of my ἀνεψιός or ἀνεψιά, just as my
ἀδελφιδοῦς is the son of my ἀδελφὸς or ἀδελφή. Only one passage in Attic
In Dem. 45. 54
prose appears to support the definition given by Pollux.
Bekker and Dindorf read as follows: ἔστι γὰρ ἡ τούτου (Stephanus) μήτηρ καὶ
ὁ τῆς ἐμῆς γυναικὸς πατὴρ ἀδελφοί, ὥστε τὴν μὲν γυναῖκα τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνεψιὰν εἶναι
τούτῳ, τοὺς δὲ παῖδας τοὺς ἐκείνου καὶ τοὺς ἐμοὺς ἀνεψιαδούς. But 2 has ἐκείνης
with ου written above and Q has ἐκείνης. This reading is rightly adopted by
Blass; 'my wife' says Apollodorus 'is Stephanus' ἀνεψιά, and consequently
her children are his ἀνεψιαδοῖ. All hesitation about the meaning of ὅσαι
ἐντὸς ἀνεψιαδῶν in Solon's law is set at rest, if Dittenberger has rightly
restored a mutilated passage in the funeral law of Iulis in Ceos (Inscr. Furid.
Gr. I. p. 12, S. I. G.² n. 877, 27, 29, Michel n. 398 A). The law of Ceos
admits to the house of the dead man after the carrying out of the corpse
(ἐπὴν ἐξενεχθει) the mother, wife, sisters, and daughters; then, according to
Dittenberger, it proceeds thus: πρὸς δὲ ταύταις μὲ [πλέον πέντε γυναικῶν,
παῖδας δὲ [δύο, θ]υγ[ατέρας ἀ]νεψιῶν, ἄλλον δὲ μ[ε]δ[έν]α. The general
similarity of the two laws strengthens the conclusion that ὅσαι ἐντὸς ἀν-
εψιαδών is intended to include, not exclude, the ἀνεψιαδαῖ, and that Solon's
aveviadaî are the daughters of the first cousins of the deceased. Both at
Athens and at Ceos the limit was fixed and certain.
A definite area of relationship was also marked out by Draco's law of
homicide. Kinsmen of the man killed were required to join in the prose-
cution 'up to cousins' children.' The effect of the ordinance is stated by
Pseudo-Demosthenes (47. 72) in the following terms: ὁ νόμος κελεύει ἐπεξιέναι
μέχρι ἀνεψιαδών. The actual provisions were more elaborate according to
the ass. of [Dem.] 43. 57: προειπεῖν τῷ κτείναντι ἐν ἀγορᾷ ἐντὸς ἀνεψιότητος
καὶ ἀνεψιοῦ, συνδιώκειν δὲ καὶ ἀνεψιῶν παῖδας καὶ γαμβροὺς καὶ ἀνεψιοὺς καὶ
πενθεροὺς καὶ ἀνεψιαδοῦς καὶ φράτερας. The disorder of the 2nd clause is
manifest. The true reading has been established by a minute examination
of the remains of the στήλη containing the law, which was set up in 409/8 B.C.
(C. I. A. 1. 61, Michel n. 78, S. I. G.² n. 52, Inscr. Jurid. Gr. 11. p. 2). The
following restoration is generally accepted: προειπεν δὲ τοι] κτέ[ναντι ἐν
ἀ]γορ[αι ἐντ]ὸ[ς ἀνεφσιότετος καὶ ἀνεφσιο· συνδιόκε]ν δὲ [καὶ ἀνε]φσ[ιὸς καὶ
ἀνεφσιον παῖδας καὶ γαμβρὸς καὶ πενθερὸ]ς [κ]αὶ φ[ρά]τ[ε]ρ[ας. See Philippi,
Der Areopag und die Epheten p. 71 sqq.
Plato in the Laws repeatedly alludes to this inner circle of relations. If
in a moment of passion a brother wounds a brother (ἐὰν ὁμόγονος ὁμόγονον
τρώση), the parents and kindred of either sex, up to the children of cousins
on the male and female side (μέχρι ἀνεψιῶν παίδων πρὸς γυναικῶν καὶ
568
OR. VII.
ISAEUS
ȧvdρâv), are to assemble, and, when they have judged the case, to entrust
the assessment of damages to the parents (878 D). If a man who has been
sentenced to perpetual banishment for wounding his wife with intent to kill,
leaves behind him no children, the kindred of the exile to the degree of
children of cousins both on the male and female side (μέχρι ἀνεψιῶν παίδων
τοῦ πεφευγότος, ἀμφοτέρωθεν πρός τε ἀνδρῶν καὶ πρὸς γυναικῶν) shall meet
together, and after taking counsel with the Guardians of the Laws and the
Priests shall appoint a 5040th citizen to be heir of the house (877 D). If a
guardian of orphans dies, the relations on the father's and mother's side up
to cousins' children (οἱ προσήκοντες πρὸς πατρὸς καὶ μητρὸς μέχρι ἀνεψιῶν
Taídov) are ordered to appoint another guardian within 10 days on pain of
being fined a drachma a day till they do so (766 c). The sense in which
Plato uses μέχρι ἀνεψιῶν παίδων is shown clearly by two other passages. In
the first (929 B) he is making regulations touching the public renunciation
(ảπokýpuέis) of a son by his father. Such a penalty must not be inflicted by
a single person, the father, but by the whole family (vπò πavтòs toû yévovs).
The father must collect together his own kinsmen as far as cousins (TOÙS
αὑτοῦ ξυγγενεῖς μέχρι ἀνεψιῶν) and his son's kinsmen in like manner by the
mother's side (καὶ τοὺς τοῦ υἱέος ὡσαύτως τοὺς πρὸς μητρός), and in their
presence he shall accuse his son, setting forth that he deserves at the hands
of them all to be expelled by proclamation from the family (ὡς ἄξιος ἅπασιν
ἐκ τοῦ γένους ἐκκεκηρύχθαι). Why is this summons not extended to the
father's cousins' children? Because they would be second cousins to the
youth and so outside the ȧyxiσTeía, whereas the son who is on trial is cousin's
son (ȧvețioû πaîs) to his father's first cousins (Seebohm, On the Structure of
Greek Tribal Society, London, 1895, p. 61). The second passage states the
principles on which an éπíkλŋpos shall be given in marriage (925 A). If there
be a lack of kinsmen in the family, extending to sons' sons of a brother,
and to sons' sons of children of a grandfather in like manner (µéxpɩ µèv
ἀδελφοῦ υἱιδῶν μέχρι δὲ πάππου παίδων ὡσαύτως), then the girl may choose
with the approval of her guardians any one of the citizens who is willing, and
whom she wills, and he shall be made heir of the dead man and husband of
his daughter. 'Sons' sons of the children of the grandfather' is another way
of expressing ȧveriôv taîdes, sons of male first cousins of the deceased.
The orators agree with Plato. Isaeus (XI. 12) says plainly that the grand-
son of a first cousin of the deceased on the father's side was shut out by the
descendants and collaterals of the mother of the deceased. The case of
Theopompus, to whom a court awarded the estate of his 2nd cousin Hagnias,
will be explained in the Introduction to Or. XI. The action of the opponents
of Theopompus' son Macartatus affords another proof of the limited range of
μέχρι ἀνεψιῶν παίδων. Εubulides III claimed the estate of Hagnias, which
Macartatus had inherited from his father Theopompus. Now Eubulides III
was by birth the grandson of a first cousin of Hagnias (see the pedigree
prefixed to Or. XI.), but before the trial he was transferred by adoption into
the house of his mother's father Eubulides II ([Dem.] 43. 13 sqq.), in order
that he might come within the legal definition, and enter his petition as
ἀνεψιοῦ παῖς of Hagnias.
This classification, which appears to a modern reader arbitrary and
OR. VII.
569
COMMENTARY
To
irrational, and in all likelihood was not intelligible to Athenians of the
4th century, bears the imprint of archaic institutions. The application to
the transmission of property is obviously a late development. Community
in the blood-feud is an older bond, but a difference in religious obligations
towards the dead may be conjectured to be the original line of demarcation
of those within and without the ȧyxιoteía. The Laws of Manu divide the
kindred into two groups, (1) Sapindas, who owe the funeral cake at the
tomb, (2) Samânodakas, who pour the water libation at the tomb.
three (ancestors) water must be offered, to three the funeral cake is given,
the fourth (descendant is) the giver of these (oblations), the fifth has no
connexion (with them) (IX. 186, ed. Bühler, Sacred Books of the East,
vol. xxv.). 'Always to that (relative within 3 degrees) who is nearest to
the (deceased) Sapinda the estate shall belong' (ib. 187). The Indian system
does not coincide with the arrangement of the Athenian ȧyxiσreía. All who
offer the cake to the same ancestors are Sapindas. As the receivers of the
cake are father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, 2nd cousins form the
limit of the Sapinda family. The receivers of water are great-grandfather's
great-grandfather, great-grandfather's grandfather, great-grandfather's father.
Consequently the group of Samânodakas begins with 3rd cousins and
ends with 5th cousins, 6th cousins being excluded. See Seebohm, op. cit.
p. 51 sqq., Leist, Graeco-italische Rechtsgeschichte p. 21.
7 Siopíoas ous Seî кρатεîν. Seeliger (Rhein. Mus. 31, 1876, p. 179), who
maintains that the law in [Dem.] 43. 51 is a forgery, is driven to the con-
clusion that these words merely refer to a provision stating that paternal
collaterals shall come before maternal collaterals, not to the rule kрaтεîv dè
τοὺς ἄρρενας κ.τ.λ. But he is forced to admit that the third law read out by
the clerk at the end of this section 'contained' the formula in question.
23.2 ταύτης, τῆς γυναικός. This punctuation is desirable, to bring out
the opposition to ȧvǹp wv; cp. XI. 43. 6.
XI.
3 οὕτω τὴν ἀναίδειαν οὐδεμίαν ζημίαν εἶναι νομίζουσι. Cp. ΧΙ. 20 τὴν αὑτοῦ
πονηρίαν οὐδεμίαν ζημίαν εἶναι νομίζων. Loss of character is no loss. For
examples of ζημίαν (κέρδος) νομίζειν, ἡγεῖσθαι see Gebauer on Lys. 25. 6
Anhang p. 472.
6 EKTTOĺNTOS. Cp. IX. 2, 33, X. 4, 7, 8, XI. 45.
24. 3, 4 κατὰ τὴν μητέρα καὶ τῶν ᾿Απολλοδώρου τοῦ Εὐπόλιδος νέος τὸ μέρος
λŋpe. The justice of this reasoning depends upon dates, which are not
given. It is not prudent to accept without question the implication that
Thrasybulus was adopted into the house of Hippolochides before the death
of Apollodorus son of Eupolis. The only point clear is that Thrasybulus'
mother died before her brother Apollodorus (§§ 29—32 analysis).
4 Kai Tŵvde. Thalheim suggests kaì tâvde <dé>; cp. IX. II. I, 2 N.
26. I
OUTWS μév. See $$ 29. 1, 37. I, III. 7. 3 n.
5 οὐ γὰρ ἄν ποτε τοσούτων χρημάτων οὐκ ἐλάγχανε. For the cynical argu-
ment compare III. 66, IV. 24, X. 16.
αὐτῶν.
6 AUTŵν. Cp. §§ 2. 6, 11. 4, III. 48. 4 n.
27, 28 The members of the deme are also witnesses of my adoption.
Before I came back from the Pythian festival, Apollodorus told them that he
had adopted me, and had enrolled me in his yévos and parpía, and had
570
OR. VII.
ISAEUS
handed over his property; and he urged them, in the case of his death, to
place me on the official register as his son. At the elections, in spite of
the charges and remonstrances of my opponents, they entered my name, on
the strength of what they had heard and what they knew, in accordance
with the request of Apollodorus.
To claim the testimony of the members of the deme in support of the
adoption is a stroke of daring. Isaeus is now skirting the weak place in his
argument; he cannot pass over the admission to the deme, which was an
essential element of a valid adoption, and at the same time he has to treat
the incident without revealing its irregularity. The extreme vagueness of his
remarks is explained by the necessities of the situation. It is plain that
Apollodorus died before Thrasyllus was admitted. It is also believed by
many scholars (e.g. Schaefer, Demosthenes u. s. Zeit III. Beilage II. p. 29,
Schmidt, Gr. Chronologie p. 344, Haussoulier, La vie municipale en Attique
pp. 17 2. 1, 24) that there was another and a more troublesome complication,
in that the entry was made while Thrasyllus was absent at Delphi. This
last point cannot be taken for granted. Although reading between the
lines we can discern that Apollodorus must have died before Thrasyllus'
return, and also before 'the elections,' we have unfortunately no means
of determining the chronological relations of the Pythia and 'the elections.'
The Pythia fell in Boukários (S. D. I. II. n. 2501, 45, S. I. G.² n. 140, 105), the
2nd month of the Delphic year, which began, like the Athenian, with the
summer solstice, so that theoretically Bucatius was equivalent to Meta-
geitnion (roughly August). Further, it has been conjectured that the festival
opened on the 7th of the month, because that was the day on which Apollo
was said to have celebrated it (Schol. Pind. Pyth. Arg. p. 297 Boeckh).
Let us examine the consequences of assuming that in the year in which
Thrasyllus attended the Pythia the calendars of Athens and Delphi corre-
sponded, and that he left Athens at the beginning of Metageitnion, a week
before the festival. A great part of Thargelion, the whole of Scirophorion,
and the whole of Hecatombaeon must have elapsed between his introduction
into Apollodorus' pparpía (§ 15) and his departure for Delphi. How was it
that he was not presented to the deme in these three months? It is easy to
answer that during the period no assembly was held at which he could law-
fully be enrolled, but the reply is not plausible, because Hecatombaeon was
the first month of the Athenian year, in which we naturally look for an
ordinary general meeting of the deme. It seems reasonable that the annual
examination (dokiμaría) of the ephebi ('A. Пoλ. 42), and the entry of their
names on the military roll (ib. 53), should be placed at the beginning of the
civil year; and a passage in Lys. 21. 1 indicates that in the 5th century this
was the Athenian practice. The speaker says of himself édokiµáoÔŋv µèv étì
Θεοπόμπου ἄρχοντος (411/10 Β.C.), καταστὰς δὲ χορηγὸς τραγῳδοῖς ἀνήλωσα
τριάκοντα μνᾶς. Now one of the first duties of the new Archon ('Aе. Пoλ.
52. 2) was to appoint (κaðiσrávaι) choregi for the tragic performances at the
Dionysia in Elaphebolion. The fact that owing to the usurpation of the 400
the Archon of 411/10 B.C. came into office two months late ('A. Hoλ. 33),
does not destroy the value of Lysias' evidence. The only loophole of escape
is the conjecture that it was not possible to introduce adopted sons at the
K
OR. VII.
571
COMMENTARY
meeting for the general registration of eonßo, who had attained their
majority.
Our perplexities are increased by the statement that Thrasyllus was put
on the ληξιαρχικὸν γραμματεῖον ‘at the elections. Ex hypothesi the elections
in question did not take place in Thargelion or Scirophorion or Hecatom-
baeon. But what were these elections? Lipsius (Jahrbb. f. cl. Philol. 107,
1878, p. 299 sqq.) and Schmidt (Gr. Chron. p. 302) believe them to be
elections of state officials. Concerning the time when the κλŋρwтai aрxuì
were appointed, nothing is on record, and the word ȧpxaiperiai is unsuitable
to the process of κλήρωσις. With regard to χειροτονηταὶ ἀρχαὶ we learn from
'AO. IIoλ. 44 (see Sandys' note) that the military officials were elected in the
Assembly, in the course of the 7th prytany, which began three days before
the end of Gamelion, and answered in the main to the month Anthesterion,
i.e. to part of February and March. Thus according to this view seven
months of the year passed before Thrasyllus was received into Apollodorus'
deme. So long a delay is very singular. What were Thrasyllus' adversaries
doing all this time? Moreover the speaker's language in § 36. 6 (see note)
suggests that he represented Apollodorus as early as Pyanopsion, the 4th
month of the year (roughly October). But the majority of writers on this
subject (Schoemann, Opusc. Ac. I. p. 291, Schaefer l.c., Philippi, Rhein. Mus.
34, 1879, p. 610, Haussoulier l.c., Gilbert, Beiträge zur innern Geschichte
Athens p. 7, Gr. Staatsaltert.2 1. p. 219, E.T. p. 197) hold that Isaeus is
alluding to the elections of the deme. Schoemann, Schaefer, and Haus-
soulier try to fix the date of the elections of a deme from this passage,
assuming that Thrasybulus was still absent when his name was added to the
register. But Isaeus does not say that the elections were held immediately
after Apollodorus' death, and before the return of Thrasyllus, and, apart
from this, Metageitnion, the 2nd month of the civil year, is an extraordinary
time for the appointment of magistrates. Philippi seeks for light from the
narrative in [Dem.] 44. 35 sqq. describing the repeated attempts of
Leostratus to get his name placed on the ληξιαρχικόν γραμματεῖον of the
deme 'Orρʊvns as adopted son of Archiades. Leostratus was baffled by
his opponents on three several occasions, first ἐν τῇ τῶν ἀρχόντων ἀγορᾷ
(§ 36), after that (§ 37) at the Great Panathenaea, i.e. at the end of Heca-
tombaeon, the great day of the festival being the 27th or 28th of the month
(Mommsen, Feste der Stadt Athen p. 53), next 'at the last elections' (raîs
παρελθούσαις ἀρχαιρεσίαις ταύταις). After the third rebuff he changed his tactics
and managed to introduce his son into Archiades' deme before the dokɩµaoía
(§ 41 πρὶν τοῦ δήμου τὴν δοκιμασίαν γενέσθαι). Haussoulier op. cit. p. 27)
regards ǹ τŵv ȧpxóvтwv ảyopá ('the magistrates' assembly,' i.e. the assembly
for appointing magistrates) as synonymous with ai apxapeσía, and concludes
that Leostratus spent a whole year, the period between two regular elections,
in fruitless efforts to worm himself into Archiades' deme. This is hard
to believe. The passage gives no real help. It does not prove that the
elections of the deme were at the beginning of the year. The 'elections'
to which the speaker refers were posterior to the Panathenaea, and
apparently prior to the dokμaría of the ephebi. If this dokipaoía, like the
Panathenaea, was in Hecatombaeon, we arrive at the futile result that the
572
OR. VII.
ISAEUS
elections of a deme were after the end of Hecatombaeon in one year, and
before an unknown point in Hecatombaeon of the next year.
But what if the basis of all these theories is an arbitrary postulate?
Have we any right to assume that the civil year at Delphi was always
identical with the civil year at Athens? Schmidt (op. cit. p. 343), believing
that this speech was delivered in Ol. 106. 3, 354/3 B.C., asserts that when the
Pythia came in an even Olympiad (e.g. in Ol. 104. 3, 362/1 B.C., Ol. 106. 3,
354/3 B.C., Ol. 108. 3, 346/5 B.C.), the 2nd Delphic month Bucatius began on
the last day of the Athenian month Scirophorion, and answered to the first
Athenian month Hecatombaeon; thus in 354/3 B.C. the first day of Bucatius
was July 22, the first day of Hecatombaeon was July 23. By what methods
Schmidt professed to demonstrate this correspondence will never be known,
since the 11th chapter of his treatise expounding the Delphic calendar was
left unfinished at his death. It is not worth while to follow him through the
fine-spun arguments by which he proves to his own satisfaction that
Thrasyllus left Athens about the middle of Scirophorion, that Apollodorus
died on the 25th, and that the apxaiperiai were the state elections, held on
the last four days of the month. The house of cards toppled down in 1891,
when the Constitution of Athens came to light. But the possibility of a
considerable divergence between the calendars of Delphi and of Athens
must be taken into account. It seems quite likely that Thrasyllus started for
Delphi before the opening of the new year at Athens. The ancient and
traditional embassy which was sent by the Athenians to the Pythia con-
sisted of the Thesmothetae and of sacred envoys (θεωροι) from the Council
(Dem. 19. 128). Now Thrasyllus, as he tells the judges, had been a
θεσμοθέτης (§ 34), and, if he held the office during the year before the trial,
he might have been compelled to attend the festival in spite of the risk and
inconvenience of going away at such a critical juncture. But this is guess-
work, and I see at present no way of discovering the truth.
27. 2
ἐκ τῆς Πυθιάδος, sc. θεωρίας. Cp. Ephorus ap. Strab. 9. 12,
p. 422 (F. H. G. I. p. 255) ἐξ ᾿Αθηνῶν δ᾽ ὁρμηθέντα (τὸν ᾿Απόλλωνα) ἐπὶ
Δελφοὺς ταύτην ἰέναι τὴν ὁδόν, ᾗ νῦν ᾿Αθηναῖοι τὴν Πυθιάδα πέμπουσι,
Philochorus ap. Schol. Soph. Oed. Col. 1047 (F. H. G. 1. p. 411): őтav dè
σημεία γένηται <τὰς παραδεδομένα ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς, τότε ἀποστέλλουσι τὴν
θεωρίαν οἱ ἐκ τοῦ γένους Πυθιάδα καὶ Δηλιάδα (πύθιαι δὲ καὶ δηλιάδες libri:
corr. Valesius), ὁποτέρα ἂν καθήκῃ αὐτοῖς· θύει δὲ ὁ μάντις, ὅταν μὲν τὰ εἰς
Δελφοὺς πόμπιμα γένηται καὶ θεωρία πέμπηται, ἐν Οἰνόῃ καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν
ἐν τῷ Πυθίῳ, εἰ δὲ εἰς Δῆλον ἀποστέλλοιτο ἡ θεωρία, κατὰ τὰ προειρημένα θύει ὁ
μάντις εἰς τὸ ἐν Μαραθῶνι Δήλιον· καὶ ἔστιν ἱεροσκοπία τῆς μὲν εἰς Δελφοὺς
θεωρίας ἐν τῷ ἐν Οἰνόῃ Πυθίῳ, τῆς δὲ εἰς Δῆλον ἐν τῷ ἐν Μαραθῶνι Δηλίῳ,
Dem. 19. 128 ὥστε μήτε. τοὺς ἐκ τῆς βουλῆς θεωροὺς μήτε τοὺς θεσμοθέτας εἰς
τὰ Πύθια πέμψαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἀποστῆναι τῆς πατρίου θεωρίας, Bull. Corr. Hell. 20,
1896, p. 676 (an inscription found at Delphi) Ὁ δῆμος ὁ ᾿Αθηναίων τῶι
Απόλλωνι ἀν[έθηκεν. ἱ]εροποιοὶ οἱ τὴν Πυθιάδα ἀγαγόντες (1ο names, in-
cluding the orators Lycurgus and Demades).
>
3, 4 έγγεγραφώς εἰς τοὺς συγγενεῖς καὶ φρατερας. Cp. § 1. 3, 4 η.
4 παραδεδώκοι. Cp. Crit. Introd. p. xxxii. Unresolved forms of the Perfect
Optative are very rare in Attic prose; La Roche, Beiträge zur griech.
OR. VII.
573
COMMENTARY
Grammatik, 1893, p. 166, cites pλnko Lys. 23. 3, ȧþeσтýкolev Thuc. 4.
122. 1, ἐσβεβλήκοιεν ib. 2. 48. I, παραδεδώκοιεν ib. 7. 81. 1, πεποιήκοι ib. 8.
108. I, dediein Plat. Phaedr. 251 A, ẻoíkoɩ ib. Phaedr. 270 D, Kaleσтýкоɩ ib.
Laws 6. 759 B, teñóvðοɩ ib. Parm. 140 A, ñeñóνðoiµev ib. Hipp. Mai. 301 A,
ἀποκεχωρήκοι Χen. Hell. 3. 5. 23, ἐμπεπτώκοι ib. Αn. 5. 7. 26, ἐξηπατήκοι
ib. Mem. 1. 7. 5, éoikoɩ ib. Cyr. 7. 5. 11, KATAλEλOίTоlev ib. Hell. 3. 2. 8,
λελήθοι ib. Symp. 3. 6, πεφύκοι ib. De re equ. 1. 8, προεληλυθοίης ib. Cyr. 2. 4.
17, προεστήκοι ib. Mem. 3. 2. 2, ὑπηρετήκοι ib. Hell. 5. 2. 3.
5 πρотεроν, before Thrasyllus' return. Others (Haussoulier op. cit. p. 24)
understand 'before the meeting of the deme.'
7 ws äλλws, rare in Attic and suspected by G. H. Schaefer, who proposed
ws µn äλλws (Bos, Ellipses Graecae, ed. 1808, p. 890), Dobree, and Herwerden.
In Dem. 6. 32 (ovd' iv' w's äλλws ảdoλeσxw) the phrase is generally taken to
mean 'to no purpose,' rv ädλws. In euphemisms the usual turn is w's
ÉTÉρws (Dem. 6. 10, 18. 85, 212, 306; cf. Plat. Phaedr. 276 C, Soph. 266 A,
Tim. 63 E, Ar. Soph. El. 7. 169 a 31 mоła wσavтws kai πoła ws ÉTÉρws
λέγεται). The use of ὡs in these and similar combinations (ὡς ἀληθῶς, ὡς
Étηtúμws, ws övтws) is not satisfactorily explained (Kühner, Gr. Gramm.
11. § 555 n. 15, p. 921, Rehdantz, Demosthenes, Index II s. v.). Blass on Dem.
18. 85 adopts the view that as is to be regarded as the adverb of the article,
so that ὡς ἑτέρως is equivalent to τὸν ἕτερον τρόπον. Aristotle l. c. clearly felt
ὡς ἑτέρως to be parallel to ὡσαύτως.
28. 2
τούτων κατηγορούντων. Perhaps the opponents used arguments
similar to those with which in [Dem.] 44 the alleged next-of-kin of Archiades
opposed the attempts of Leostratus to enrol himself as son of Archiades in
the deme 'Orpuvns; they urged that by accepting Leostratus the assembly of
the deme would be passing judgment on a disputed succession and en-
croaching on the prerogatives of the law courts (§§ 36, 40, 43). It is also
probable (§ 1. 2 12.) that something was heard about Apollodorus' age and
infirmities and the influence of his half-sister, Thrasyllus' mother. To argue
from the next words, καὶ λεγόντων ὡς οὐκ ἐποιήσατό με ὑόν, that Pronapes
simply denied the fact of the introduction into the oparpía, is to fail in appre-
ciation of Isaeus' art.
4 ὀμόσαντες καθ᾽ ἱερῶν ἐνέγραψαν. Cp. § 16. 3 n., Dem. 57. 6ι ὀμόσαντες
οἱ δημόται περὶ ἐμοῦ τὴν ψῆφον ἔφερον, ᾿Αθ. Πολ. 42. 1 διαψηφίζονται ὀμόσαντες
οἱ δημόται, And. 1. 98. The entry on the roll was made by the head of the
deme ([Dem.] 44. 37).
29-32 Even if Apollodorus had entertained no enmity against our
adversaries, and no affection for us, he would never have allowed his estate
to fall into their hands. Men in view of death are always solicitous that
their house may not be extinguished, and that they may have some one to
perform the due rites at their grave. Now Apollodorus had seen what
Eupolis daughters had done to their own brother. They had sold the estate,
divided the money, and suffered his house to perish rather than give him a
son.
Yet they had children. How could Apollodorus have expected from
them better treatment? He was only their cousin, not their brother.
These sections do not harmonise with the rest of the speech. One of
the sisters, the wife of Aeschines, died before her brother, leaving only
574
OR. VII.
ISAEUS
اد
one son, Thrasybulus (§§ 18, 19). She is therefore guiltless of the offence
imputed to her. Further, the argument of §§ 23, 24 implies that Thrasybulus
had been transferred to the family of Hippolochides before the death of his
mother's brother. If the implication is true, which may be questioned
(§ 24. 3 n.), how unreasonable it is to expect that Thrasybulus should have
been removed again into the house of his mother's dead brother, because he
had inherited from him 2 talents! What was the value of the estate of
Hippolochides? What were Thrasybulus' obligations towards his adopted
father? Next, with regard to the other sister, the wife of Pronapes, observe
that Isaeus does not state explicitly that she had two sons at the time of
her brother's death or afterwards. His words are indefinite, övтwv avтaîs
Taidшv (§ 31), 'the sisters having children.' There is evidence (§ 18. 5 n.)
that at some time the wife of Pronapes gave birth to a son, who was called
Eűπoλɩs after his maternal grandfather, and was a defaulting trierarch in
334/3 B.C., i.e. about twenty years after the delivery of this speech (Introd.
p. 550). If she had only one son, her husband might have protested (II. 10.
6, 7 n.) against extinguishing his own line in order to perpetuate the house
of his wife's brother. Again, if at the date of this trial the wife of Pronapes
had a son, what becomes of the reasoning in §§ 18-25? It is there con-
tended that Thrasybulus, the son of one sister, because he was a male,
excluded the other sister from all claims to the estate of her cousin
Apollodorus. But if the other sister had a son, this son was surely in the
same position as Thrasybulus. Why should the death of one daughter of
Eupolis have invested her son with rights which were denied to the son
of the other daughter of Eupolis? Mendacem memorem esse oportet.
29. 3, 4 φιλίας δὲ πρὸς ἡμᾶς καὶ συγγενείας οὐ μικρᾶς ὑπαρχούσης. Scheibe
(Comm. Crit. p. 37) objects both to the combination σvyyéveia ov µikpá,
cognatio non exigua, and to Reiske's transposition σvyyeveías dè πρòs ηµâs
καὶ φιλίας οὐ μικρᾶς ὑπαρχούσης. He proposes εὐμενείας in place of συγγενείας.
The poetical colour of the noun is out of keeping with its surroundings. In
oratorical prose it only occurs once, in a speech attributed to Lysias, which
Dionysius rightly considered spurious, and which Theophrastus selected as
an example of bad taste (Dion. Hal. Dẻ Lysia c. 14, p. 484 R., 24, 16
Usener and Radermacher). In VI. 2. 6 evμeveías, the reading of A, is
corrected by Al to εὐνοίας. The adjective, εὐμενής, and the adverb, εὐμενῶς,
are also uncommon in the orators ([And.] 4. 7, Isocr. 4. 43, 9. 2, Dem. 4. 45,
45. 1, [Dem.] Ep. 3. 45, Lyc. 96). In all these passages, except Isocr. 4. 43
and [Dem.] Ep. l.c., the word expresses the 'graciousness' of a superior, an
idea not suitable here; cp. § 36 εἰ καὶ φίλος καὶ συγγενὴς καὶ εὐεργέτης...
ὑπῆρχον. I once thought of inserting δὲ after συγγενείας and reading with
altered punctuation φιλίας δὲ πρὸς ἡμᾶς, καὶ συγγενείας δ', οὐ μικρᾶς ὑπαρχούσης
on the analogy of Dem. 18. 21 5 τὰ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς καὶ παρὰ πᾶσι δ᾽ ἐν πλείστῃ φυλακῇ,
57. 4 προσήκειν Εὐβουλίδῃ καὶ πᾶσι δ᾽ ὅσοι...κατηγοροῦσιν, [Dem.] 52. 11 πρὸς
τὸν ᾿Αρχεβιάδην καὶ τὸν ᾿Αριστόνουν καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν δὲ τὸν Κηφισιάδην, but
I now believe that in delivery καὶ συγγενείας was separated from οὐ μικρᾶς
and pronounced as a parenthesis. Since Athenian judges were prone to
sympathise with the relations (I. 41. 222.), the speaker in passing lets fall
the warning that his family were relatives as well as great friends of the
OR. VII.
575
COMMENTARY
deceased (§ 43 ἐγὼ μὲν ἀδελφῆς οὔσης τῆς ἐμῆς μητρὸς ᾿Απολλοδώρῳ, φιλίας
αὐτοῖς πολλῆς ὑπαρχούσης, ἔχθρας δ᾽ οὐδεμιᾶς πώποτε γενομένης).
4, 5 οὐδ᾽ εἰ...οὐκ ἄν ποτε. For οὐδὲ resumed by οὐκ cp. VIII. 27, ΧΙ. 29,
Lys. 7. 5, ib. fr. 147 Saupp., Dem. 21. 129, 22. 32, 24. 149, 25. 19, 27. 65,
[Dem.] 34. 2, Aesch. 3. 78.
30. 3 ὅπως μὴ ἐξερημώσουσι τοὺς οἴκους. Cp. vi. 5. 8n.
Un-
3
4 ἔσται τις [καὶ] ὁ ἐναγιῶν κ.τ.λ. The omission of the article suggested
by the Zürich editors makes bad Greek; even the libertine Xenophon is
sound on this point (An. 2. 3. 5, 4. 5, 22; 3. 2. 31, 5. 12; 4. 3. 7; 5. I. 4, II,
7. 28; 6. 5. 9, 20; 7. 7. 42, Joost, Sprachgebrauch Xenophons in der Anabasis
p. 285). Kayser quoted by Thalheim would eject τιs as well as καί.
doubtedly τις can be spared (Ant. 5. 37 ἦσαν οἱ ἀφανιοῦντες, Isocr. Εp. 1.
οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ διορθώσων), but this is the only fault that can be found with it;
cp. Liban. IV. 351, 1 R. εἰ μή τις ὁ κωλύσων φανεῖται, Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom.
7. 22. 2 ὅταν μηθεὶς ὁ κωλύσων ᾖ. I regard καὶ as an example of the error of
'anticipation' (Crit. Introd. p. xxxviii). Thalheim inclines to transposition
(τις ὁ καὶ ἐναγιῶν). For the annual ἐναγίσματα see II. 46. 5η.
5, 6 κἂν ἄπαιδες τελευτήσωσιν, ἀλλ᾽ οὖν ποιησάμενοι καταλείπουσι. Scheibe
inserts viòv after ovv. But daughters, as well as sons, were adopted (§ 9. 5 22.),
and it is possible to supply παῖδα from ἄπαιδες. This remark should not be
reverently quoted as if it were a scientific law. There were esprits forts at
Athens in the 4th century, and men sometimes died unmarried and without
leaving behind them an adopted child (§ 6. 4 n., XI. 49, [Dem.] 44. 18). But
any one who has complete confidence in the obiter dicta of Athenian orators
is free to argue that the absence of an adopted son is a proof of sudden
death.
7, 8 τὸ κοινὸν τῆς πόλεως ταῦτ᾽ ἔγνωκε. Cp. Plat. Laws 11. 928 D τὸ δὲ
κοινὸν τῆς πόλεως ἕτερον νομοφύλακα ἀντὶ τούτου καθιστάτω τῇ χώρᾳ καὶ
τῇ πόλει.
<
8, 9 τῶν οἴκων, ὅπως ἂν μὴ ἐξερημώνται κ.τ.λ. In inscriptions of the 5th
and 4th century the regular construction after ἐπιμελεῖσθαι is ὅπως ἂν with
the subjunctive (Dessoulavy, Beobachtungen über die Absichtssätze bei den
attischen Rednern pp. 31, 33), whereas in objective clauses after verbs such
as σκοπεῖν, φυλάττεσθαι, σπουδάζειν etc. the oratorical style shows a marked
preference for ὅπως with the future indicative, ὅπως ἂν appearing once only,
in a quotation (Dem. 19. 299 φησὶ δέ γε ἡ μαντεία δεῖν ὅπως ἂν μὴ χαίρωσιν οἱ
ἐχθροὶ ποιεῖν; cp. I. 33. 3 7.). Subordinate clauses with ἐπιμελεῖσθαι happen
to be rare; see Isocr. 9. 80 ἐπιμελεῖσθαι καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ἀσκεῖν ὅπως ἄξιος ἔσει
τοῦ πατρός, [Dem.] 35. 29 ἐκελεύομεν τούτους ἐπιμελεῖσθαι ὅπως ἂν ὡς τάχιστ'
ἀπολάβωμεν (Α, Blass; ἀπολάβοιμεν Σ, Bekk. Dind.) τὰ χρήματα, 17. 15
ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τοὺς συνεδρεύοντας...ὅπως...μὴ γίγνωνται θάνατοι καὶ φυγαί, 43. 84
τοῖς τε νόμοις βοηθεῖτε καὶ τῶν τετελευτηκότων ἐπιμελεῖσθε ὅπως μὴ ἐξερημωθῇ
αὐτῶν ὁ οἶκος, Lys. 13. 32 οὕτω σφόδρα τινὲς ἐπεμελοῦντο ὅπως...μήνυσις
γένοιτο, [Lys.] 6. 39 δεινὸν ἂν εἴη, εἰ...ἐπεμελήθημεν ὅπως ἐξαλειφθείη αὐτῷ τὰ
ἁμαρτήματα. The choice here of ὅπως ἂν is explained by the legal favour of
the old-fashioned construction and by the desire for variety, the common
idiom having been already used in this section. See Goodwin, M. & T.
§ 348, Neil on Ar. Eg. 80 (σκόπει, ὅπως ἂν ἀποθάνωμεν ἀνδρικώτατα).
576
OR. VII.
ISAEUS
Isaeus seems to be alluding to the law preserved in [Dem.] 43. 75 d äpxwv
ἐπιμελείσθω τῶν ὀρφανῶν καὶ τῶν ἐπικλήρων καὶ τῶν οἴκων τῶν ἐξερημουμένων
καὶ τῶν γυναικῶν, ὅσαι μένουσιν ἐν τοῖς οἴκοις τῶν τεθνηκότων φάσκουσαι κυεῖν.
τούτων ἐπιμελείσθω καὶ μὴ ἐάτω ὑβρίζειν μηδένα περὶ τούτους. ἐὰν δέ τις ὑβρίζῃ
ἢ ποιῇ τι παράνομον, κύριος ἔστω ἐπιβάλλειν κατὰ τὸ τέλος; cp. ᾿Αθ. Πολ. 56. 7.
In my opinion the words of the statute, ἐπιμελείσθω τῶν οἴκων τῶν ἐξερημου-
μένων, only mean that, when a man died without children, it was the
Archon's duty to see that his property was not seized by violence but was
awarded by a court in accordance with the law of succession. Some
scholars however (Caillemer, Droit de succession legitime p. 133, Beauchet III.
p. 571) accept unhesitatingly Isaeus' gloss, and proceed to speculate about
the means by which the Archon could save a house from extinction. Their
theory is that, if no heirs were found either in the group of the άyxioteîs or
in the wider circle of the συγγενεῖς, the Archon looked about for a citizen
disposed to take the estate, and continue the domestic cult, of the deceased,
and, when he had found one, introduced him into the house by a sort of
posthumous adoption. Absolutely nothing is known about the disposal of
bona uacantia at Athens. It is customary in this connexion to quote
Anaximenes, Ars Rhet. c. 2, p. 14, 8 ed. Spengel (p. 22, 14 sqq. Rh. Gr. 1.
Hammer) δεῖ δὲ πρὸς τούτοις καὶ περὶ τοῦ μήτε χώραν ποιεῖν ἀνάδαστον μήτε
δημεύειν τὰς οὐσίας τῶν τελευτώντων ἰσχυροὺς κεῖσθαι νόμους, καὶ μεγάλας
ἐπικεῖσθαι τιμωρίας τοῖς παραβαίνουσι ταῦτα, and to argue that upon defect
of heirs inheritances did not escheat to the state, the maintenance of a house
being in Athenian sentiment more important than the profit accruing to the
treasury. But in the first place τελευτώντων is corrupt; Usener proposes
ἰδιωτῶν, I prefer πλουτούντων. In the second place the author is suggesting
safeguards against the besetting sins of Greek democracies, so that the
proper inference is that 'the estates of the dead' (whatever that may mean)
were peculiarly liable to confiscation. Lastly he cannot have in view the
But
property of persons who happen to have left no legitimate successors.
one thing is certain; with a people so inventive and litigious as the
Athenians an unclaimed and unawarded estate was rare.
31. I πρόδηλον. Cp. III. 19. 3 κ.
2 προορῶντι, seeing before him, under his very eyes (Thuc. 3. 22. I, 4. 34.
3, 7. 25. 7, 44. 2). Reiske demands either προσορῶντι οι ὁρῶντι. Schoemann
prefers ὁρῶντι, but is not sure that προορῶντι may not mean πρότερον ὁρῶντι,
cum iam ante uideret.
6,7 πεπρακότας καὶ τὸ ἀργύριον διανειμαμένους. Cp. V. 43. 3 n. The aim of
the remark is made plain by § 35 τὰ ὄντα ἀφανιεῖν ὥσπερ οὗτοι τὰ τοῦ κλήρου
πεποιήκασιν.
32. 2 πῶς ἂν προσεδόκησεν, ‘how could he have expected? For the
Potential of the Past cp. I. 27. 4 2. The Aorist Infinitive τυχεῖν) after
προσδοκᾶν referring to the future is a construction very rare in the orators;
the only instance I know is And. 3. 27 ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ πολέμου χρονισθέντος
Κόρινθον ἑλεῖν προσδοκῶσι, κρατήσαντες δὲ τούτων ὑφ᾽ ὧν ἀεὶ κρατοῦνται, καὶ
τοὺς συννικῶντας ἐλπίζουσι παραστήσεσθαι. The case of [Dem.] Ep. 3. 18
διασωθῆναι προσδοκίαν ἔχει is not parallel, because with substantival phrases
such as ἐλπίς ἐστι the Aorist Infinitive is normal (Sandys on Dem. I. 14
OR. VII.
577
COMMENTARY
εἰς τί ποτ᾽ ἐλπὶς ταῦτα τελευτῆσαι). There are four examples of the Aorist
Infinitive with ἄν, viz. Dem. 15. 19 κακὸν αὑτοῖς ἄν τι γενέσθαι προσδοκῶσι,
23. 15 συκοφαντίας, ἣν εἰκὸς προσδοκᾶν ἐκείνους ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς ἐλθεῖν ἂν διὰ τοῦ
ψηφίσματος τουτουί, Aesch. 2. 151 πότερα γὰρ ἂν προσδοκᾷς αὐτοὺς εὔξασθαι,
Hyp. 6. 22 τὰ προσδοκώμεν᾽ ἂν γενέσθαι. In And. 3. 27 it is easy to insert
åv, but in this sentence the repetition of the particle would be inelegant. See
Gerth-Kühner, Gr. Gramm. I. § 389 n. 7, p. 197.
2 ei kal, ‘even if' (v. 25. 8 n.).
6 οἶκον ἐκ τοῦ φανεροῦ τριηραρχοῦντα ἀνῃρήκασι. Cp. § 42 τριηραρχοῦντα
οἶκον πέντε ταλάντων ἀνῃρηκότων καὶ πεπρακότων καὶ ἔρημον πεποιηκότων.
Dareste construes ἐκ τοῦ φανεροῦ with τριηραρχοῦντα (une maison or la
fortune apparente suffisait pour faire face aux triérarchies). Reiske does
the same, but gives a different rendering (id quod inter omnes constat).
Schoemann points out that ἐκ τοῦ φανεροῦ belongs to ἀνῃρήκασι (de medio
sustulerunt). The charge is unfair. An estate of 5 t. was liable to the
burden of the trierarchy, half such an estate in all probability was not
(Boeckh, Staatshaush.³ 1. p. 671 sqq.). If then the wife of Pronapes had
been able to supply her dead brother with a son to continue his house, the
democracy would not have gained a trierarch. On the other hand the
accession of 2 t. might have brought up to the trierarchic census the pro-
perty both of Thrasybulus and Pronapes; and we know that Eupolis, son of
Pronapes, did serve as a trierarch (§ 18. 5 κ.). The orator's grievance comes
to nothing more than this, that Thrasybulus and Pronapes, instead of casting
lots (V. 7. 1, 2 n.), adopted the not unreasonable plan of selling the land and
belongings and sharing equally the proceeds of the sale. Of course their
intention was to secrete the money and defraud the 'People'!
33-36 Such being his cousins, what better course was open to
Apollodorus ? To take some friend's child, whose character no one could
forecast? My virtues he had tried by the test of experience. He knew
accurately what I was, as a son, as a man of affairs, as a magistrate.
I was his nephew, his benefactor, and a citizen of public spirit, such as
he approved. Is not his choice proof enough of the soundness of his
intellect?
اد
η
33. 4, 5
εἰ νὴ Δία παιδίον ἐποιήσατο. The correction made by A¹
(ʼn), which Thalheim prefers, is not an improvement (Crit. Introd. p. xxxii).
The absence in the Attic orators of the combination, ἢ νή Δία, may be an
accident; cp. Kock, Com. Att. Fr. II. p. 505, Philem. n. 90, 3, 4 oîov
τέθνηκεν υἱὸς ἢ μήτηρ τινί, | ἢ νὴ Δί᾽ ἄλλων τῶν ἀναγκαίων γέ τις, Plut. Thes.
31, Mor. 27 D, 393 B, Rh. Gr. (Hammer) I. pp. 326, 8, 362, 15. More serious
is the necessity of understanding ἂν both with ἐποιήσατο and ἔδωκεν.
Schoemann thinks that he fairly meets this difficulty by quoting VIII. 20
and Dem. 31. 9 εἰ τότ᾽ αὐτῷ τις ἔδωκεν, ὀμόσαντι ταῦτ᾽ ἀληθῆ λέγειν, κομίσασθαι
(τὴν προῖκα), τί ἐποίησεν ἄν; ἢ δῆλον ὅτι ὤμοσε. With the reading of Apr. a
question arises about the proper punctuation. Seymour (III. 73. 1, 2 N.,
IV. 20. I 11.) treats the clause as an example of hypophora, and makes
it affirmative on the analogy of sentences such as Dem. 4. 10 πότε ἃ χρὴ
πράξετε; ἐπειδὰν τί γένηται; ἐπειδὰν νὴ Δί᾽ ἀνάγκη τις ᾖ, 37. 27 τίνος γὰρ
εἵνεκ᾽ ἔπειθον ; ἵνα νὴ Δί᾽ αὐτοὺς κτήσωμαι. I consider the hypothesis to be
W. I.
ιν
37
578
OR. VII.
ISAEUS
not the reply of an imaginary objector, but an ironical question proceeding
from the speaker and intended as a reductio ad absurdum; and, if the note
of interrogation be removed, which does not seem to me necessary, I should
prefer to read εί < μή> νή Δία, nisi uero ; cp. Dem. 8. 7 τί οὖν ἐστι τοῦτο;
ἀμύνεσθαι τὸν πρότερον πολεμοῦνθ᾽ ἡμῖν. πλὴν εἰ εἰ μὴ v.1. for πλὴν εἰς τοῦτο
λέγουσι νή Δί', ὡς, ἂν ἀπέχηται τῆς ᾿Αττικῆς... οὔτ᾽ ἀδικεῖ τὴν πόλιν οὔτε
ποιεῖ πόλεμον, Lyc. 140 ἡγοῦμαι δ᾽ ἔγωγε οὐδέν᾽ οὕτως ἀνόητον ὥστε φιλοτι-
μεῖσθαι μὲν πρὸς τὴν πόλιν, τούτῳ δὲ βοηθεῖν ὃς αὐτοῦ πρώτου τὰς φιλο-
τιμίας ἠφάνισεν· εἰ μὴ μὴ Δία μὴ ταὐτὰ τῇ πατρίδι καὶ τούτοις ἐστὶ συμ-
φέροντα, Plut. Sol. 19 τίνες γὰρ ἦσαν οἱ πρὸ Σόλωνος ἐν ᾿Αρείῳ πάγῳ κατα-
δικασθέντες ; εἰ μὴ νὴ Δία γέγονέ τις ασάφεια τοῦ γράμματος ἢ ἔκλειψις, Dion. Hal.
Ant. Rom. 9. 22 οἱ δὲ πατέρες αὐτῶν. οὐκ ἂν ἑκόντες τε καὶ ἄκοντες ἑτέρους
παῖδας ἐποιήσαντο; εἰ μὴ ἄρα οὐδὲ πατέρες αὐτῶν τισιν ἐλείποντο, ἀλλὰ πάντα
εἰς ταὐτὸ συνῆλθε τὰ ἀδύνατα.
5 παρά του τῶν φίλων ὄντων, from one of those who were friends, not
enemies like the family of Eupolis. Bekker prints ToÚTwv without making
any comment in the critical apparatus, and this reading is backed by
Schoemann, Lincke (De elocutione Isaei p. 60), and Blass (Bursian,
Jahresb. 46, 1886, p. 49). With TOU TV Schoemann finds the participle
VTV intolerable. Those who share this feeling may perhaps be satisfied
with the insertion of ὄντως before ὄντων. Liücke fastens on a fault in the
argument. Why a child? Apollodorus was an old man, and surely some of
his friends had grown-up sons whom he might have adopted. The orator
must be thinking of a child of Pronapes and his wife, and φίλων ὄντων is a
piece of irony. Lincke also appeals to the next sentence, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἦν
ἄδηλον κ.τ.λ., which he interprets thus: But, apart from the enmity between
Apollodorus and his cousin, the wife of Pronapes, this also was uncertain
etc. But after what has immediately preceded (ἔχθραι πρὸς ᾿Απολλόδωρον
τηλικαῦται τὸ μέγεθος) we look for a more emphatic and distinct expression of
sarcasm, <ώς δὴ> φίλων ὄντων or something of the sort. In his Latin
version Lincke slips in uidelicet (puerulum istorum, qui uidelicet eius amici
erant).
34. 3, 4 τῶν τ' οἰκείων ἐπιμελῆ καὶ τἀμαυτοῦ πράττειν ἐπιστάμενον. Accord-
ing to his own account Thrasyllus was like the Athenians of the good old
times described in Isocr. 7. 24. Compare the virtues of Apollodorus set
forth in S 39 sqq., and Lys. 26. 3 λέξειν...ὅτι αὐτὸς κόσμιος ἐστι, καὶ οὐχ ὁρᾶται
ποιῶν ἃ ἕτεροι ἐνταῦθα τολμῶσιν ἀλλὰ τὰ ἑαυτοῦ πράττειν ἀξιοῖ.
35. 3 τὰ ὄντα ἀφανιεῖν. Cp. §§ 31. 6, 7, 39. 5, 40. 9, V. 43. 3 1., ΧΙ.
47. 7.
6 τὰ προσταττόμενα ποιεῖν. Cp. § 41. 5, 6, 1V. 27. 8 κ.
36.2 εὐεργέτης. Cp. § 4. 5 η.
5 ἕν γε τῶν ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου δοκιμασθέντων, a strained and unnatural phrase.
Sir W. Jones renders 'one of those duties which Apollodorus would have
applauded. But, when δοκιμάζειν means 'to approve, the approval is
generally the result of trial and scrutiny, and, though the word may be
used loosely even in Attic prose (Dem. 18. 162 quoted by Thalheim, [Dem.]
40. 54 δοκιμαζέτω Σ Blass; for other dialects cp. S. I. G. n. 247, 8, 656, 47,
923, 18), here after δοκιμασίαν ἱκανὴν λαβὼν (§ 34. 2) and δεδοκιμασμένος
579
τοιοῦτος (sc. φιλότιμος) εἶναι (§ 36. 2, 3), we are forced to refer it to Apollo-
dorus' experience of Thrasyllus in particular. But what Apollodorus had
tested and approved was goodwill and promise (§ 34. 4 Bovλnoóμevov), not
performance. Thrasyllus had not actually discharged public services with
liberality, but, according to his own story, had convinced Apollodorus that
he was a man who could be trusted to do his duty when occasion arose.
The awkwardness of the expression is best shown by appending some of the
translations that have been proposed: aliquod eorum quae mihi ab eo
iniuncta fuerunt (Reiske), Eines von Dem, was er von mir erwartete
(Schoemann), das, was er prüfend an mir erfunden hatte (Blass, Att. Ber.2
II. p. 502), one of the things about which he had satisfied himself (Jebb, Att.
Or. II. p. 274 n. 2).
εια
6 γεγυμνασιάρχηκα γὰρ εἰς Προμήθεια. See for the duties of a γυμνασίαρχος
VI. 60. 6n., and for the torch race at the Проµýðeιa Рaus. 1. 30. 2 with
Frazer's note; the course was from the altar of Prometheus at the entrance
of the Academy (Schol. Soph. O. C. 56) to some point (not defined) in the
city. It is conjectured that the festival was celebrated in Pyanopsion, the
4th month (roughly October), after the Apaturia, which probably occupied
the 19th to the 21st (Schmidt, Gr. Chron. p. 282 sqq., Mommsen, Feste der
Stadt Athen p. 340 sqq.).
7 piλotíμws. Cp. II. 42. 5 N., Lys. 26. 3, Hyp. 2. 16, Lyc. 15.
As to
37-42 These are my claims; and I beg you to help me for the sake
of Apollodorus and of his father. Both were valuable citizens and most
zealous for your welfare. Apollodorus' father, in addition to undertaking
all the other public burdens, served continuously as trierarch at a time when the
office was far more onerous than now; for which you conferred honours upon
him, and saved his son from being despoiled of his patrimony.
Apollodorus himself, he did not conceal his fortune, like Pronapes, nor seek
to rob others, nor object to benefiting the people, but laid his wealth before you,
ministering gladly to your mandates, and spending sparingly on himself
that he might have more for the state. What liturgy did he not discharge?
What war levy did he not pay among the first? What duty did he pass
over? The tripod which he won with a chorus of boys stands as a monu-
ment of his public spirit. He was the pattern and exemplar of a good
citizen, whom you should repay by ratifying his decision concerning the
disposal of his property. I too have served my country so far as my years
While my adversaries have extinguished and made away with a
house that supported the trierarchy, I have already contributed to the liturgies
and shall continue to contribute in the future, if you confirm Apollodorus
choice, and grant me his estate.
allow.
V. 35 sqq.,
Compare with this invidious and improper argument IV. 27 sqq.,
VI. 60 sqq., and remember that more than half a century has passed since
the death of Apollodorus' father.
37. 1, 2 προσηκόντως ἔχειν τὸν κλῆρον. Thrasyllus was in possession
(§§ 15. 3, 27. 4, 5, 43. 8).
3 juîv, here and in § 43. 4, 6 indistinguishable from the singular; cp. III.
41. I, 2 n. The use of the First Person Plural for the First Person Singular,
though not common except in Isocrates, to whom the forms of µeîs furnish
37-2
580
ISAEUS
UR. Vlı.
an escape from hiatus (see Schneider on 4. 14), nevertheless occurs more
frequently in the orators than the grammars (Gerth-Kühner 1. § 371, 3,
Gildersleeve § 54) would lead one to suppose; see And. 1. 108, 3. 6, 29, Lys.
12. 81, 100, 13. 4, Dem. 23. 3, 18, 19, 82, 98; 28. 18; 37. 9, 18, 19; 39. 6, 36;
45. 14, 22, 74, 81, 86; [Dem.] 7, 1; 42. 2; 43. 2, 73; 44. 12; 51. 3, 6; 52. 28,
29; prooem. 44. 2, 48. I, Aesch. 1. 141, 3. 80, Lyc. 31.
38.2 λελητούργηκε. It is strange to find the perfect tense applied to a
man who was killed in the Sicilian expedition, more than 50 years ago.
Cp. §§ 8. 6 (πέπονθεν), 12. 4 (γεγένηται).
τριηραρχῶν τὸν πάντα χρόνον διετέλεσεν. Cp. Lys. 19. 29 χαλεπὸν τρία ἔτη
συνεχῶς (during the Corinthian war) τριηραρχῆσαι, 21. 2 τὸν δὲ μέταξυ χρόνον
(411-405 B.C.) ἐτριηράρχουν ἑπτὰ ἔτη καὶ ἓξ τάλαντα ἀνήλωσα.
3 οὐκ ἐκ συμμορίας [τὴν ναῦν ποιησάμενος] ὥσπερ οἱ νῦν. The allusion
furnishes a terminus post quem (357/6 B.C.) for the delivery of the speech
(Introd. p. 550). In the obscurity which envelops the naval organisation
established by the law of Periander some details are distinctly visible.
Twenty ‘companies, συμμορίαι, were constituted, containing 60 members
each, and a certain number of triremes was assigned to each company. But
the state, not the members of the company, provided the vessels and their
various fittings (σκεύη), and also undertook the payment of the rowers
(ναῦται, πλήρωμα). A trierarch, if so disposed, could furnish fittings of his
own ([Dem.] 50. 7, 51. 5), and either pay himself (Isocr. 18. 60) or raise
([Dem.] 50. 7) the wages of the sailors, but he was not bound by law to do
So. That the same principles prevailed in 424 B.C. is indicated by Cleon's
threat in the Knights of Aristophanes, /. 913 sqq. : ἐγώ σε ποιήσω τριηραρχεῖν,
ἀναλίσκοντα τῶν σαυτοῦ, παλαιὰν (C. I. A. II. 790 b 34, ib. 791, 79) ναῦν ἔχοντ᾽,
εἰς ἣν ἀναλῶν οὐκ ἐφέξεις οὐδὲ ναυπηγούμενος· διαμηχανήσομαι θ᾽ ὅπως ἂν
ἱστίον σαπρὸν λάβῃς. For the Sicilian expedition the state gave the hulls
only (Thuc. 6. 31. 3 τὸ μὲν ναυτικὸν μεγάλαις δαπάναις τῶν τε τριηράρχων καὶ
τῆς πόλεως ἐκπονηθέν, τοῦ μὲν δημοσίου δραχμὴν τῆς ἡμέρας τῷ ναύτῃ ἑκάστῳ
διδόντος καὶ ναῦς παρασχόντος κενὰς ἑξήκοντα μὲν ταχείας, τεσσαράκοντα δὲ
ὁπλιταγωγοὺς καὶ ὑπηρεσίας ταύταις τὰς κρατίστας, τῶν < δὲ > τριηράρχων
ἐπιφοράς τε πρὸς τῷ ἐκ δημοσίου μισθῷ διδόντων τοῖς θρανίταις τῶν ναυτῶν
καὶ ταῖς ὑπηρεσίαις καὶ τἆλλα σημείοις καὶ κατασκευαῖς πολυτελέσι χρησα-
μένων). No criteria exist for distinguishing what was abnormal in the
arrangements on this great occasion. If then τὴν ναῦν ποιησάμενος means
'having built the ship' or 'having caused it to be built' (v. 44. 2 n.), the state-
ment is contrary to facts; at no time was it the duty either of a trierarch or
of a company to supply the state with a ship. Again, the antithesis of èk
συμμορίας and of ἐκ τῶν αὑτοῦ δαπανῶν (a participle) is false. Both before
and after the creation of the ovμμopíaι the trierarch 'paid out of his own
pocket.' The significance of the new system lay in the reduction of the
amount of money demanded from an individual. The expense of keeping a
trireme in good trim for a year was much about the same in the 5th century
as in the 4th. Between 411 and 405 B.C. the speaker of Lys. 21 spent
an average of 51, minae for each year of service (§ 2). In Lys. 32. 24, 27
a speech assigned to 401 B.C. (Blass, Att. Ber.² 1. p. 610), we find two joint-
trierarchs (συντριήραρχοι) contributing 24 minae each. Demosthenes in the
II
501
speech against Meidias circ. 348 B.C. puts the cost at I talent (Dem. 21. 155),
but, when in 364/3 B.C. he was himself compelled to accept the liturgy, he
got off with a payment of 20 minae (Dem. 21. 80), i.e. the total expenditure
was only 40 m. Now in the palmy days of the 5th century the Generals
apparently had no difficulty in finding plenty of men wealthy enough to
maintain a trireme for a whole year. But when the Sicilian disaster and the
collapse of the Athenian empire had ruined the Athenian upper classes,
the state was compelled to allow two men to share the burden. The reform
of Periander was another step in the same direction. Each συμμορία
contained groups of joint-contributors (σvvredeîs, Dem. 21. 155, C. I. A.
11. 811d 49, 55, 105, 107, 114) varying in number-3, 5, 6, and 7 are
mentioned --who combined to meet the expenses of a single ship. Now,
though the relations of such a group to the duty of preparing for sea and
commanding the trireme are nowhere defined, it is improbable that the
captain was changed e.g. seven times a year, and it is equally improbable
that all the members of a ouvréλeia were absolved from personal service.
The modicum of truth in Isaeus' comparison of Periander's system with the
practice of a more prosperous age is that after 357/6 B.C. it was certainly
possible for a man to claim the credit of having performed the liturgy, when
he had paid less than half a year's charge, and that it may have been
possible for one or more of the joint-contributors to escape entirely the
responsibility of managing a battle-ship, which belonged to the state. The
proper contrast to ἐκ τῶν αὑτοῦ δαπανῶν would be ἐκ συντελείας, not ἐκ
ovμμopías; for the distribution of the 1200 richest Athenians into 20 com-
panies did not prevent a patriotic citizen, who possessed the means, from
discharging the office of trierarch without the assistance of a colleague.
The misfortune of Athens was that wealth, as well as public spirit, had
diminished.
τὴν
With regard to the text I prefer with T. J. Halbertsma to apply the
knife; the words tηv vaûv tomσáµevos may conceivably be a gloss added to
explain οὐκ ἐκ συμμορίας ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῶν αὑτοῦ δαπανών, where δαπανών was not
seen to be a participle. Naber (Mnem. N.S. 5, 1877, p. 413) offers τηv vaûv
πoρισáμevos, which does not touch the difficulty. Herwerden (Mnem. N. S.
9, 1881, p. 392), objecting to the tense as well as to the meaning, ejects
ñoiŋσáµevos, and moves into its place #apaσkevaČóµevos from § 38. 6. Thalheim
would change ποιησάμενος into πληρωσάμενος, quoting Dem. 21. 154, 155
κἀγὼ μὲν κατ᾽ ἐκείνους τοὺς χρόνους ἐτριηράρχουν...ὅτε σύνδυ᾽ ἦμεν οἱ τριήραρχοι
καὶ τἀναλώματα πάντ᾽ ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων καὶ τὰς ναῦς ἐπληρούμεθ᾽ αὐτοί· οὗτος
δέ...ὅτε πρῶτον μὲν διακοσίους καὶ χιλίους πεποιήκατε συντελεῖς ὑμεῖς, παρ᾽ ὧν
εἰσπραττόμενοι τάλαντον ταλάντου μισθοῦσι τὰς τριηραρχίας οὗτοι, εἶτα πληρώμαθ᾽
ἡ πόλις παρέχει καὶ σκεύη δίδωσιν, ὥστ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐνίοις τῇ ἀληθείᾳ τὸ μηδὲν
ἀναλώσαι καὶ δοκεῖν λελῃτουργηκέναι καὶ τῶν ἄλλων λῃτουργιῶν ἀτελεῖς γεγε-
vĥobaι πeρieσTIV. But why is the aorist tense used? And what is the
meaning of πληροῦσθαι ναῦν ἐκ συμμορίας?
K
5 Súo ETη Siaλınóv. For other public services the period of exemption
was one year (Dem. 20. 8).
5,6 ovd' apoσɩoúμevos, not doing it perfunctorily, for form's sake, to be
acquitted of the obligation: see Isocr. 12. 269, Plat. Laws 752 D, [Plat.] Ep.
7. 331 B, Plut. Cim. 14, Timol. 39, Bekk. An. Gr. I. 472, 1, Harp. s.v. Tò dè µn
ἐντελῶς τι ποιῆσαι, ἀλλ᾿ ὥσπερ ὁσίας ἕνεκεν, ἀφοσιώσασθαι εἶπεν Ἰσαῖος ἐν τῷ
πρὸς Ερμωνα.
39. 2, 3 ὡς ἱππάδα δὲ τελῶν ἄρχειν ἠξίου τὰς ἀρχάς, referred to by Harp.
s.v. ἱππάς; cf. 'Αθ. Πολ. 7. 4 ἔδει δὲ τελεῖν πεντακοσιομέδιμνον μὲν ὃς ἂν ἐκ τῆς
οἰκείας ποιῇ πεντακόσια μέτρα τὰ συνάμφω ξηρὰ καὶ ὑγρά, ἱππάδα δὲ τοὺς
τριακόσια ποιοῦντας...ζευγίσιον δὲ τελεῖν τοὺς διακόσια τὰ συνάμφω ποιοῦντας·
τοὺς δ᾽ ἄλλους θητικόν, οὐδεμιᾶς μετέχοντας ἀρχῆς. διὸ καὶ νῦν ἐπειδὰν ἔρηται
(c. 55. 3) τὸν μέλλοντα κληροῦσθαί τιν᾿ ἀρχήν, ποῖον τέλος τελεῖ, οὐδ᾽ ἂν εἷς
εἴποι θητικόν. In the time of Aristotle the property qualification for certain
offices prescribed by Solon's laws had not been formally abolished, but was
practically obsolete; οἱ ταμίαι τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς εἰσὶ μὲν δέκα, κληροῦται δ᾽ εἷς ἐκ τῆς
φυλῆς, ἐκ πεντακοσιομεδίμνων κατὰ τὸν Σόλωνος νόμον (ἔτι γὰρ ὁ νόμος κύριος
ἐστιν), ἄρχει δ᾽ ὁ λαχὼν κἂν πάνυ πένης ᾖ (ib. 47. 1). In 457 B. C. the 3rd class,
οἱ ζευγῖται, were made eligible to the post of Archon, but in the 4th century
candidates were admitted, who cannot have possessed this census (Lýs. 24.
13, 22, Αθ. Πολ. 49. 4, [Dem.] 59. 72), and to whom legally the office was not
open. The law also required a General to own land within the borders
(Din. I. 71, Αθ. Πολ. 4. 2), but whether it was enforced may be doubted ;
Phocion, who was elected general 45 times (Plut. Phoc. 8), was a poor man
(ib. 4, 18, 19). To what magistracies Isaeus here alludes, we do not know.
He comes dangerously near the undemocratic sentiment that poverty is a
disqualification for office, but propitiates his audience by the innuendo
that Pronapes was a selfish, mean, and dishonest citizen, who disguised
his wealth.
ιν
5 φανερὰ τὰ ὄντα καταστήσας ὑμῖν. Cp. § 35. 3 n., Lys. 20. 23 ἐξὸν αὐτῷ
τὴν οὐσίαν ἀφανῆ καταστήσαντι μηδὲν ὑμᾶς ὠφελεῖν εἵλετο μᾶλλον συνειδέναι
ὑμᾶς, ἵν᾽, εἰ καὶ βούλοιτο κακὸς εἶναι, μὴ ἐξείη αὐτῷ, ἀλλ᾽ εἰσφέροι τε τὰς εἰσφορὰς
καὶ λῃτουργοίη. Attempts to inflame the envy and jealousy of the judges are
part of the stock-in-trade of the Athenian advocate (Isocr. 7. 35, 18. 48, 60,
Dem. 28. 2, 7, 24; 45. 66, [Dem.] 42. 23, Aesch. 1. 101, Din. 1. 70).
7 φιλοτίμως, probably repeated from the preceding line (Crit. Introd.
p. xxxvii). Thalheim suggests that the word extruded was κοσμίως (IV. 27,
X. 25, Isocr. 2. 31, 3. 38). With the thought of the sentence compare Lys.
19. 10 μὴ οὖν προκαταγιγνώσκετε ἀδικίαν τοῦ εἰς αὑτὸν μὲν μικρὰ δαπανώντος,
ὑμῖν δὲ πολλὰ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον τὸν ἐνιαυτόν, 21, 16 τοιοῦτον γὰρ ἐμαυτὸν τῇ πόλει
παρέχω, ὥστ᾽ ἰδίᾳ μὲν τῶν ὄντων φείδομαι, δημοσίᾳ δὲ λῃτουργῶν ἥδομαι, καὶ
οὐκ ἐπὶ τοῖς περιοῦσι μέγα φρονῶ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῖς εἰς ὑμᾶς ἀνηλωμένοις, Dem.
38, 26 οἱ δ᾽ ὅσα μὲν προστάττεθ᾽ ὑμεῖς ποιοῦντες προθύμως, τῇ περὶ τἆλλα δὲ
σωφροσύνῃ τὰ ὄντα σώζοντες.
40. 2 ἐξελῃτούργησεν. The compound occurs nowhere else, and its
force here is not obvious. Reiske renders ‘Ecquam liturgiam non ad finem
perduxit?, concluding that men sometimes failed to discharge public
services which they had undertaken. But in a eulogy the question 'What
liturgy did he not complete?' strikes a false note. Schoemann thinks that
the word means to discharge perfectly,' without neglect or omissions.
I incline to the view of Buermann (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 342) that eέ comes
from ἐξαρκοίη (Crit. Introd. p. xxxvii).
2, 3 ἐν πρώτοις εἰσήνεγκεν. F. Α. Wolf and Schoemann identify this
with ἐν τοῖς τριακοσίοις εἰσήνεγκεν (VI. 6ο. 8 n.). The speaker only means
that Apollodorus was always one of the earliest to pay his taxes. Το
Schoemann's demand for the article (èv <roîs> πράтоis) Thalheim replies.
by quoting Plat. Rep. 7. 522 C ὃ καὶ παντὶ ἐν πρώτοις ἀνάγκη μανθάνειν.
4 πaidika xop Xopnyŵv. For 'cyclic' choruses of boys at the Dionysia
and Thargelia see V. 36. 1, 2 n. When he won this victory, Apollodorus
must have been over 4o ('Αθ. Πολ. 56. 3 δεῖ γὰρ τὸν τοῖς παισὶν χορηγοῦντα
ὑπὲρ τετταράκοντα ἔτη γεγονέναι, Aesch. I. II).
4, 5 ὧν μνημεῖα τῆς ἐκείνου φιλοτιμίας. The poetic Pluralis magni-
ficentiae (Gerth-Kühner, Gr. Gramm. 1. § 348 n. 2, Gildersleeve, Syntax § 52)
is stilted and rather ridiculous, but not worse than the phrase in [Dem.]
12. 4 ὑπομνήματα (ὑπόμνημα Reiske) δὲ τῆς ἀδικίας ἔστησαν ἀνδριάντα πρὸ τῶν
πυλῶν. According to Schoemann ὧν is a neuter (sc. τῶν λελῃτουργημένων)
governed not by μvnμeîa but by piλoriuías. This is bad writing, but no
convincing correction has been found. Reiske's (sc. xopo) μvnμéîov is in
his worst vein. Thalheim offers <ap'> wv.
5 Ó TρíπOVS ÉKeîvos, 'the well-known tripod'; Schoemann thinks that the
monument may have been visible from the court, which in my opinion is
exceedingly unlikely. For the dedication of tripods by victorious choregi
see V. 41. 7 n.
6, 7 οἱ μὲν ἕτεροι ἐβιάζοντο κ.τ.λ. The allusion is primarily to the
misdeeds of Apollodorus' wicked uncle, Eupolis (§ 6), but the speaker is
also glancing obliquely at the character of his opponent, Eupolis' son-in-law
and a bird of the same feather (§ 39).
41.2 ταύτην τὴν χάριν ἀποδοῖτε. Cp. Lys. 21. 12 ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἂν δεξαίμην
ὑβρισθῆναι οὐδὲ παραστῆναι τοῖς διαδυομένοις τὰς λῃτουργίας ἐμοὶ μὲν ἀχάριστα
εἶναι τὰ εἰς ὑμᾶς ἀνηλωμένα, ἐκείνους δὲ δοκεῖν ὀρθῶς βεβουλεῦσθαι ὅτι ὑμῖν
οὐδὲν προεῖνται τῶν σφετέρων αὐτῶν.
4 ὅσα κατὰ τὴν ἐμὴν ἡλικίαν. Schoemann argues that Thrasyllus must
have been over 30, because he had held the office of coμolérns (§ 34). Men
under 30 could not be councillors (Xen. Mem. 1. 2. 35) or dicasts ('A. Пoλ.
63. 3), but I can discover no ancient authority for applying this rule to the nine
Archons. Nicias considered Alcibiades νεώτερος ἐς τὸ ἄρχειν in 415/4 B.C.,
when he was about 36 (Thuc. 6. 12. 2), although Alcibiades had been elected
General as early as 420 B.C. See Sandys on 'Αθ. Πολ. 26 (Κίμωνα τὸν
Μιλτιάδου νεώτερον ὄντα).
π
42. 1
καὶ ἡμῶν. The pronoun is governed by ἕνεκα, not, as Dareste
holds, by toinσaide πрóvoιav. The absence of an object for the verbal
phrase is certainly awkward. Reiske thought of omitting κaí, but granted
the possibility of understanding μôv with the verb.
2, 3 οἶκον πέντε ταλάντων.
Táλavтov; cp. X. 23, XI. 42.
There is no good cause for introducing πεντε-
43-45 Before I step down, let me remind you of the claims of the two
parties. My mother was Apollodorus' beloved sister. I was adopted in Apollo-
dorus lifetime, when he was in full possession of his faculties, and was enrolled
by him in his yévos and pparpía. I only ask that I may keep what was given
me, and that my opponents may not be permitted to extinguish Apollodorus'
house. Pronapes in the name of his wife asks to treat Apollodorus like his
wife's brother, whose money he has appropriated, and whose line he has
suffered to perish. Having secured one estate he now demands another,
and that though other relatives of Apollodorus have precedence of his wife,
though she and Apollodorus were irreconcilable enemies, while I and my
grandfather have been Apollodorus' benefactors. Bear in mind these facts,
and vote in accordance with justice.
This summary is an effective piece of rhetoric, well adapted to its
purpose. The value of the various statements and insinuations has been fully
examined in the commentary and introduction.
43. I ἵνα δὲ μὴ δοκῶ διατρίβειν κ.τ.λ. A familiar formula; see Isocr. 4.
51, 6. 40, 10. 38, 18. 45, and other examples collected by Gebauer on Lys. 13.
38 Anhang p. 362.
τα
3 Kaтaßαívelv, 'descend from the Bμa' (v. 25. 5, 6 n.). Gebauer on Lys.
12.92 Anhang p. 291 quotes Dem. 8. 76, 20. 154, 21. 184, 23. 215, [Dem.]
58. 57, Aesch. 2. 183, Lyc. 146, Hyp. 3. 40.
7, 8 εἰς τοὺς γεννήτας καὶ φράτερας ἐγγραφείς. Note that nothing is said of
the entry on the roll of the deme, which was necessary to complete the
adoption (Introd. p. 549).
44. 1,2 τοῦ τῆς γυναικὸς ἀδελφοῦ τιμὴν τοῦ ἡμικληρίου. For the awkward
accumulation of genitives cp. II. 9. 4, 5, IV. 3. 2, 3 n.
3,4 ἑτέρων ταῖς ἀγχιστείαις προτέρων ὄντων, only Thrasybulus according to
the argument in §§ 18-26.
45.2 ἐγὼ μὲν ἀδελφιδοῦς, ἡ δὲ ἀνεψιά.
Cp. § 4. 4, 5 κ.
5 αὕτη μὲν οὐκ εὔνους τῷ καταλιπόντι. What has been proved is that
Apollodorus was once at feud with Eupolis, not that Eupolis' daughter took
part in the quarrel and cherished enmity against Apollodorus.
6 ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ ὁ ἐμὸς πάππος εὐεργέται. Cp. § 4. 5 n. Thrasyllus nowhere
speaks of his father's relations with Apollodorus.
9, IO
οὐκ οἶδ' ὅ τι δεῖ πλείω λέγειν· οἶμαι γὰρ κ.τ.λ. . The same sentences
form the conclusion of or. VIII and of Dem. 20, 36, 38, 54. Compare also
XI. 36. 6, and Gebauer on Lys. 12. 79 Anhang p. 282.
VIII
ON THE ESTATE OF CIRON.
DAUGHTER'S SONS AGAINST A BROTHER'S SON.
CLAIM TO AN INHERITANCE.
The struggle for the estate of Ciron began before his corpse was laid in
the tomb. He had not been dead more than a day, when two claimants
presented themselves at his house, each eager to gain an initial advantage
by taking charge of the body and defraying the expenses of burial (§§ 21 sqq.,
25, 38); and the funeral ended with an indecent scene at the graveside
(§ 27). One competitor was the son of Ciron's brother (§ 31). His rival,
who delivers this speech, was, according to his own account, the son of a
deceased daughter of Ciron. His tale is to this effect. Ciron, an old man
at the time of his death (§ 37), had married twice. His second wife, the
sister of Diocles of Phlya, survived him, but her children, two sons, had
long been dead (§ 36 ráλai). The first wife, Ciron's first cousin, a daughter
of his mother's sister, had died after four years of marriage, leaving an only
daughter ($7). This daughter, as soon as she reached a fit age, was married
by her father first to Nausimenes of Cholargus, and, after his death, to a
second husband, also dead, to whom she bore two sons (§§ 8, 36). The
'eldest of these is Isaeus' client. He argues (§§ 30--34) that his brother and
himself are Ciron's rightful heirs, because sons of a legitimate daughter,´
descendants in the direct line, rank before all collaterals. But the nephew
met the story with a flat denial, declaring that Ciron never had a daughter
(§ 1), and that his opponent's mother, far from being Ciron's lawful issue,
was not even of citizen birth (§ 43). Probably she was said to be the child
of a foreign courtesan. The war was thus carried into the enemy's country;
since the pretended grandsons were born after 403 B.C. (§ 43), they forfeited
their civic rights, if the judges pronounced against their mother. Further,
the author of the hypothesis states that Ciron's nephew, founding himself on
the law that gave a preference to males and the descendants of males,
(VII. 18—26 analysis), maintained that he had a better right as son of a
brother, even if the speaker's mother was Ciron's legitimate daughter. This
law was not properly applicable to the present case, and no reference is
made to it in the speaker's attempt to prove that as son of a daughter he had
precedence of the son of a brother. But provisions so obscure could be
586
ISAEUS
OR. VIII.
interpreted in many ways, and it should be remembered that the writers, to
whom we owe the Greek introductions to the speeches of the orators, had
access to information now lost (11. hyp. 32.).
Isaeus' first business was to demonstrate that his client's mother was
Ciron's legitimate daughter. A scrutiny of the speech discloses that this
was no easy task. Precise dates are not vouchsafed, but apparently not less
than forty years had passed since the alleged first marriage (§ 7. I n.), and
witnesses were hard to find. The orator, who speaks after his adversary, can
only produce hearsay evidence (§§ 14, 29) of the marriage and the birth of a
daughter, the pertinence of which cannot be appreciated owing to the loss of
the depositions read out to the court. He is confronted by hostile testimony
($$ 5, II 13), which he does not venture to criticise in detail, and he betrays
his uneasiness by the absurd importance which he attaches to the refusal of
the other side to surrender for torture the slaves of Ciron (§§ 9, 14, 17, 28,
29). A comparison of the attack on the legitimacy of Phile in or. III. will
show the gaps left in the defence on this occasion. To prove marriage
Nicodemus called witnesses, who had been present at the betrothal of his
sister to Pyrrhus and at the tenth-day feast celebrated in honour of the birth
of her child. His assailant argued at length against the credibility of this
evidence, and, among other objections, laid stress on the fact that Pyrrhus
had neither presented a marriage offering (yaµnλía) to his Oparpía nor intro-
duced his daughter when she was born. Since the present speech passes
over in silence all such particulars, the inference suggests itself that Isaeus
was unable to bring forward witnesses to the betrothal of Ciron to his first
wife, to the presentation of a marriage offering, and to the introduction of
the daughter into Ciron's parpía. No doubt it is conceivable that Ciron
had outlived all his contemporaries, but the indirect proofs of Ciron's
marriage, which take the place of the depositions of first-hand witnesses, are
not such as to lay at rest all suspicion of the honesty of the speaker's claim.
He professes to establish his mother's legitimacy by producing evidence that
she was formally betrothed to both her husbands. Here again the case of
Phile supplies a useful commentary. Phile was betrothed to her husband
Xenocles by her adoptive brother Endius, who gave her a dowry, but Isaeu,
in or. III. declines to accept this as an incontrovertible demonstration that
she was Pyrrhus' legitimate daughter. If Endius portioned and gave in
marriage Pyrrhus' illegitimate daughter, a fortiori a father might treat his
own bastard in the same way. But the speaker's mother was said to be of
alien origin—a charge not brought against Phile. The orator's reply is weak.
He cannot contend that, had this been true, she would not have been
married by an Athenian citizen, such unions being prohibited by law. The
petitio principii would have been too patent; it was the occurrence of these
alliances that justified the severe penalties imposed by the legislator. He
falls back on two arguments. (1) His father would have avoided publicity,
if he had been marrying a foreigner, whereas he gave a wedding party, and
made a marriage offering (yaµndía) to his Oparpía. But we may argue with
equal plausibility that secrecy was a more dangerous policy; it might have
excited suspicion, and would have been tantamount to a confession of guilt.
(2) His brother and himself were duly enrolled in their father's Oparpía; and
OR. VIII.
INTRODUCTION
587
the members, who were punctilious and strict in such matters, would never
have received into their society the children of a foreign woman. But the
most that can be deduced from the admission into the parpía is that the
members did not suppose at the time that the mother of the candidates was
not an Athenian citizen. That their belief was correct, is exactly what has
to be proved. The rest of the circumstantial evidence (§§ 15—17 inferences
from the behaviour of Ciron, $$ 21-27 inferences from the behaviour of
Diocles) is flimsy stuff. The value of the demonstration (§§ 30-34) of the
prior right of a daughter's son will be examined in the commentary.
Unable or unwilling to come to close quarters with the adversary Isaeus
rides off on a side issue. The hearts of the judges must be melted by a
picture of virtue and inexperience engaged in an unequal struggle with
knavery and cunning. The villain of the piece, one of the most sinister
figures in the artist's collection, is for once not the rival claimant, whose
personal character is treated with remarkable forbearance, but Ciron's
brother-in-law, Diocles nicknamed Orestes (§ 3), a forger (§ 40), a murderer
($ 41), a dishonest guardian (§ 42), and a confirmed adulterer (§§ 44, 46).
This man, having by various arts got possession of all Ciron's estate (§§ 36,
37), now denied (§§ 2, 23, 37, 38) that any property was left, and, fearing that
he might be compelled to make restitution, suborned Ciron's nephew for a
paltry sum (§§ 2, 27, 37) to put in a claim and contest not merely the right of
succession of Ciron's grandsons but also their title to Athenian citizenship.
The speaker promises more revelations concerning the iniquities of Diocles,
when he should bring into court an action against him that was now pending
(§ 44. 10), but the nature of the charge is not stated, and the suit in question
cannot be certainly identified with either of the two actions against Diocles
for which Isaeus supplied speeches (Sauppe, Or. Att. 11. p. 230 kaтà Alokλéovs
ὕβρεως and πρὸς Διοκλέα περὶ χωρίου).
The clearly marked divisions and logical sequence of the parts make the
speech a model of rhetorical method. The exordium (§§ 1-5) is of unusual ·*
length and elaboration. The judges have been listening to ugly charges,
and a strenuous effort is made to recover their sympathy; the rival claimant,
it is explained, is only a puppet, behind him stands the notorious Diocles,
who has concerted an infamous plot to rob and ruin an inexperienced youth
by oratorical arts and perjured witnesses. The speaker opens his case
by a prefatory sketch of his argument (§ 6); he proposes to prove (1) that
his mother was Ciron's legitimate daughter, (2) that as son of Ciron's daughter
he has a better claim to the property than the son of Ciron's brother. The
first topic occupies $$ 7--29. A very brief narrative (§§ 7, 8) is followed by
a series of proofs. It is first contended, with copious use of commonplace,
that the refusal of the adversary to surrender Ciron's slaves for torture
discredits the hostile testimony which has been brought forward (§§ 9—13);
after which the speaker calls his own witnesses (§ 14). The remaining
proofs are only circumstantial (TEKμnpia). Ciron had recognised his grand-
sons by taking them with him to festivals and by allowing them to be
present at domestic sacrifices (§§ 15-17). Their mother had been married
with all due forms, and their father had introduced them into his purpía
(§§ 18--20). After Ciron's death Diocles and Ciron's nephew had permitted
588
ISAEUS
OR. VIII.
the speaker to assist at the funeral, thus admitting his relationship
(§§ 21-27). A recapitulation of the proofs (§ 29) forms the transition to the
second branch of the argument ($$ 30-34), in which, with the help of the
laws concerning the privileges of the sons of erikλnpoi and the maltreatment
of parents, it is shown that descent (yévos) is a nearer tie than collateral
kinship (σvyyéveia), and that descendants (ekyovo) inherit before collateral
relations (σvyyeveis). Obviously no law existed expressly guaranteeing the
rights of the sons of a daughter, who had died before her father. The
promise of the preface (§ 6) having been fulfilled, the speech reverts to the
subject of Diocles, who denied that Ciron had left property. The retort is
conveyed in a narrative (§§ 35-39) setting forth the intrigues by which
Diocles had got into his hands all Ciron's wealth, how he had put up a
bogus claimant, how he had vainly attempted to prevent the speaker from
paying the last honours owed to a grandfather. The personal attack is
pushed further in the peroration (§§ 40-46). After committing outrageous
crimes against his own half-sisters and their husbands Diocles was now
scheming to deprive Ciron's unhappy grandsons both of their inheritance
and their country. The speaker implores the help of the judges in his
~ peril, and after a brief summary concludes by producing evidence that
Diocles was taken in adultery.
The work appears to belong to the middle of Isaeus' career. It cannot
have been composed before 383 B.C., because the speaker and his brother
were born after the archonship of Euclid, 403/2 B.C. The lower limit,
363 B.C., is fixed by Demosthenes' orations against Aphobus and Onetor, in
which he adapts to his purposes several passages in this speech; see the
notes on $$ 5, 12, 28, 45.
παρέλαβε τὴν οὐσίαν.
HYPOTHESIS.
2, 3
The statement is not in agreement with
$$ 37, 43. According to the orator Diocles, who was in possession, per-
suaded the nephew to come forward as a claimant by promising to give him
a small fraction of the property.
4 γράφεται τὸν ἀδελφιδοῦν, a misconception ; the suit was a διαδικασία, in
which there was neither plaintiff nor defendant, and the proper expression
would have been ἀμφισβητεῖ οι παρακαταβάλλει πρὸς τὸν ἀδελφιδοῦν. Schoe-
mann thinks that the nephew forestalled the speaker in presenting his
petition (λñέis) to the Archon, and that this is why he was given the first
word at the trial. But it is not proved that claimants to an estate addressed
the court in the order in which they had come before the Archon. For the
application of ypúþeσðaɩ to a private suit Meier and Schoemann (Att. Proc.²
p. 233 n. 84) quote Dio Chrys. 15. 8. 447 R. kaknyopias didwow ó vópos
γράψασθαι τοῦτον, ὃς ἂν βλασφημῇ τινα οὐκ ἔχων ἀποδεῖξαι περὶ ὧν λέγει
σapès oùdév, Maximus Planudes ap. Rh. Gr. v. 546, 9, 10 Walz éypá↓aro
Διογείτονα κακῆς ἐπιτροπῆς τῶν παίδων (a reference to Lys. 32). The use
does not occur in Attic, for in Dem. 38. 6 (áp³ ov tvyxávovoi yeypaµµévoi)
Blass has rightly adopted eyyeypaµµévoɩ from A. The other passages cited
OR. VIII.
589
COMMENTARY
in Att. Proc.² and by Schoemann here (viz. Isocr. 18. 12, Dem. 38. 15,
Ar. Nub. 759, 770) are not parallel.
7 ἡ στάσις δὲ στοχασμός. Cp. I. hyp. 97., II. hyp. 8 π.
C
9, 10 ǹ KATȧ tolótηta Lýtnois, qualitatis quaestio. In the status quali-
tatis or iuridicialis the question is neither an sit nor quid sit but quale sit
(Hermogenes, Rh. Gr. II. p. 139, I sqq. Spengel av μévтoi þavepòv ĥ kai
τέλειον τὸ κρινόμενον, ἡ ζήτησις περὶ τὴν ποιότητα τοῦ πράγματος ἵσταται, οἷον εἰ
δίκαιον, εἰ συμφέρον, εἰ ἔννομον ἤ τι τῶν τούτοις ἐναντίων, καὶ ὄνομα μὲν γενικὸν
τούτῳ ποιότης). The rhetoricians drew out elaborate subdivisions of ποιότης ;
the one appropriate here is σráσis voµiêý, genus legale, the problem being to
determine whether the law called to the succession the son of the brother or
the sons of the daughter. See Volkmann, Rhetorik2 p. 74 sqq.
14, 15 προτιμάσθαι τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρρένων τῶν ἀπὸ τῶν θηλειών. The law
does not touch the present issue (VII. 18-26 analysis, 20. 6 n.).
19 ἀσθενεῖ τῷ νομίμῳ. For the legal difficulty which the orator had to
meet see the analysis of S$ 30-34.
19, 20 TỶν épуaσíav тŵv kepaλalwv, 'the working up of the topics'; com-
pare Dem. 24. hyp. 2. § 11 (699, 5) Tò µèv vóµµov keþáλalov ÉvteλéσTATA
εἴργασται, τὸ δὲ δίκαιον καὶ τὸ συμφέρον καὶ τὸ δυνατὸν ἀλλήλοις συμπλέκεται.
The word κepáλatov is used repeatedly in this technical sense in the Ars
Rhetorica attributed to Dionysius of Halicarnassus; see pp. 54, 19 (Usener)
τριῶν ὄντων κεφαλαίων τοῦ ἐπιταφίου, ἐπαίνου θρήνου παραμυθίας, 55, 12 πάλιν
αὖ κεφάλαιόν ἐστιν ἐν τοῖς ἐγκωμίοις ἡ παραβολή, 118, 22 ὧν ἡ ζήτησις ἐν
τέσσαρσι τοῖς τῆς συμβουλῆς κεφαλαίοις, τῷ δικαιῷ, τῷ συμφέροντι, τῷ καλῷ, τῇ
dvváµei, and other passages cited in Usener's index uerborum.
C
1-5 It is impossible not to resent attempts like this, when people
impudently claim what does not belong to them, and hope by their sophistries
to sweep away legal rights. We are Ciron's heirs, children of his legitimate
daughter. Our opponents insult us by questioning our birth, and lay claim
to our grandfather's estate. Why? Because they have wrongfully appro-
priated his wealth, though now they pretend that he had nothing to leave.
But my real adversary is not the nominal claimant. He is only the tool of
Diocles of Phlya-better known by the nickname Orestes-who to keep his
plunder brings us into this jeopardy. I implore your careful attention to the
case; never was there a more shameless and open claim to the property of
others. Hard though it is for utter inexperience to contend against lying
witnesses and artful oratory, I have confidence in your sense of justice and
in the righteousness of my cause. Listen kindly, and help me, if you think
me wronged.
1. I
ἐπὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις κ.τ.λ. Blass (Att. Ber.2 11. p. 558 n. 5) thinks
that the opening was copied by Dinarchus in his speech against Ameino-
crates (Dion. Hal. De Dinarcho c. 12, p. 663 R., 318, 15 Usener and
Radermacher Πρὸς ᾿Αμεινοκράτην διαδικασία περὶ καρπῶν χωρίου· ἐπὶ
τούτοις, ὦ ἄνδρες, ἀνάγκη ἐστί).
4 apavieîv. Baiter's change of the MS. reading apavíčev is necessary.
The context demands 'hope that they will put out of sight,' not 'hope, i.e.
imagine, that they are putting out of sight.' In the orators the verb ewigELV
takes regularly the future infinitive when it refers to a future object. They
ειν
590
OR. VIII.
ISAEUS
αν
furnish only three examples of the substitution of the aorist infinitive with av
(Ant. 6. 4 as corrected by Jernstedt, Dem. 19. 240, Din. 1. 65). In [Lys.]
2. 21 δουλώσασθαι ought to be altered to δουλώσεσθαι. The present infinitive,
which is rare (Aesch. 3. 221, [Dem.] Ep. 2. 20), expresses present time.
The construction of ἐλπίς ἐστι is entirely different, being assimilated to that
of εἰκός ἐστι (IV. 18. 4 n.); Demosthenes prefers an aorist infinitive after this
phrase ; cp. VII. 32. 2 n., Lyc. 6ο ἐλπὶς ἐκ τοῦ κακῶς πρᾶξαι μεταπεσεῖν.
Blass (Att. Ber.2 II. p. 514) considers that ἀφανίζειν here is sufficiently
defended by the 'Isocratean rhythm.'
6 οὐκ ἄπαιδος τελευτήσαντος. The orator has not the courage of his
convictions; he has neither 'made entry' (éveßárevσe) on the estate nor met
his rival with a διαμαρτυρία.
ἡμᾶς, a real plural; there was a brother (§ 36). Cp. VII. 37. 3 n.
8, 9 ὑβρίζουσιν. The mother was said to be an alien (§§ 20, 43). It
has been plausibly conjectured that the opponents made her out to be the
child of a foreign courtesan; so Apollodorus in [Den.] 59 contends that
Neaera was the mother of Stephanus' children. The son is reticent about
this painful subject.
2. 3, 4 ἔχουσι καὶ κρατοῦσι. Cp. Αθ. Πολ. 56. I καὶ ὁ μὲν ἄρχων εὐθὺς
εἰσελθὼν πρῶτον μὲν κηρύττει, ὅσα τις εἶχεν πρὶν αὐτὸν εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν ἀρχήν,
ταῦτ᾽ ἔχειν καὶ κρατεῖν μέχρι ἀρχῆς τέλους, Dem. 37. 10 καταλαβὼν τοῦτον μὲν
ἀφεστηκότα, τὸν δ᾽ Εὔεργον ἔχοντα καὶ κρατοῦνθ᾽ ὧν ἐωνήμεθα, C. I. Α. 11. 1139
ὅρος χωρίου καὶ οἰκίας ὑποκειμένων ΗΗΗ δραχμῶν ὥστε ἔχειν καὶ κρατεῖν τὸν
θέμενον κατὰ συνθήκας τὰς κειμένας παρὰ Δεινίᾳ Εὐωνυμεῖ, ib. II. 1140, S.I.G. n.
10, 30 (= Michel n. 541), decree of Halicarnassus, καρτερὸς δ᾽ εἶναι γῆς καὶ
οἰκίων, οἵτινες τότ᾽ εἶχον ὅτε ᾿Απολλωνίδης καὶ Παναμύης έμνημόνευον, εἰ μὴ
ὕστερον ἀπεπέρασαν, [Dem.] 46. 20, 49. II, Harp. s.v. οὐσίας δίκη. The plural
οὗτοι is used inuidiae causa; it was Diocles who was in possession (§ 37), and
who said that Ciron had left nothing (§§ 23, 37, 38).
μοι
3. 2
μοι, with εἶναι ; ' it must not be supposed that the case is between
me and the claimant.' Naber (Mnem. N. S. 5, 1877, p. 413) constructs po
with δεῖ : 'quam imperite hoc dictum est : non me putare oportet! Scripsit
orator ; οὐδέν μοι νομίζω εἶναι. For the order of the words ep. IV. 24. 8, 9,
VI. II. 4.
3 Διοκλέα τὸν Φλυέα. Another Diocles is mentioned in S 19. The deme
Φλυὰ belonged to the inland trittys of the tribe Cecropis. It was contiguous
with Athmonon (C. I. A. III. 61 A col. II, 13), and, since Athmonon can be
identified with Marusi (VI. 33. 2 n.), Phlya may be placed at Chalandri, a
thriving village about 2 miles south of Marusi, and 5 miles north-east of
Athens (Frazer on Paus. I. 31, Milchhoefer, Untersuchungen über die
Demenordnung des Kleisthenes p. 30).
3, 4 τὸν ᾿Ορέστην ἐπικαλούμενον. Cp. § 44. 5. The origin and signif-
cance of the nickname are not known. From this speech one would
conclude that Orestes was a title considered appropriate to a man of
violence; compare Plat. Crat. 394 Ε ὥσπερ γε καὶ ᾿Ορέστης κινδυνεύει ὀρθῶς
ἔχειν, εἴτε τις τύχη ἔθετο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα εἴτε καὶ ποιητής τις, τὸ θηριώδες τῆς
φύσεως καὶ τὸ ἄγριον αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ ὀρεινὸν ἐνδεικνύμενος τῷ ὀνόματι. Schoe-
mann thinks it possible that Diocles may have been mad for a time, like the
OR. VIII.
591
COMMENTARY
hero of tragedy. According to the scholia on Ar. Ach. 1167 (εἶτα πατάξει
τις αὐτοῦ μεθύων τὴν κεφαλὴν Ορέστης μαινόμενος) and Av. 712 (εἶτα δ' Ορέστῃ
χλαῖναν ὑφαίνειν, ἵνα μὴ ῥιγῶν ἀποδύῃ) Orestes was a footpad (λωποδύτης),
who simulated madness and fell upon wayfarers by night; and another
scholium explaining Av. 1490 sqq. (εἰ γὰρ ἐντύχοι τις ἥρῳ ¦ τῶν βροτῶν νύκτωρ
Ορέστῃ, | γυμνὸς ἦν πληγεὶς ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ | πάντα τἀπιδέξια) goes so far as to add
the name of his father: σκότους ὄντος Ορέστης ὁ Τιμοκράτους λωποδυτεί
τοὺς προστυγχάνοντας. These confused notes look like the figments of
commentators in despair (Müller-Strübing, Aristophanes und die historische
Kritik p. 31 sqq.), and it needs much faith to believe that once upon a time
there lived at Athens a famous highwayman, Orestes son of Timocrates,
who, like Jonathan Wild, became the type of a class. The great Thessalian
families (Thuc. I. III) and the royal house of Macedon (Diod. 14. 37) used
the name Orestes, but no trace has been found as yet of its employment by
Athenians ; the persons mentioned in C. I. A. 11. 1011 (Ορέστης Παντακλέους,
Παντακλῆς ᾿Ορέστου) may be Macedonians, as Koehler points out. With
regard to the comedy by Timocles entitled Ορεσταυτοκλείδης (Harp. s.vv.
Αὐτοκλείδης, παράβυστον, Athen. 13. 567 E, Kock Com. Att. Fr. 11. p. 462)
Meineke conjectures plausibly that the play was in part a parody of the
Eumenides, Autocleides (Aesch. 1. 52) being pursued by Furies in the shape
of fashionable courtesans.
26
4 παρασκευάσας, in malam partem, 'procured, suborned, a use common
in the orators (IV. 5. 2 n.). The middle however (I. 7, X. 1, And. 1. 105,
Lys. 7. 8, Isocr. 17. 54, Dem. 27. 2, 57. 4, [Dem.] 40. 9, 44. 15, 39, 48. 36,
51. 20) and passive (VIII. 25, Lys. 15. 5, Dem. 20. 145, 57. 10, [Dem.] 47. 8,
59. 120) show this sense more frequently than the active (VIII. 37, And. 1. 123,
Lys. 13. 12, [Dem.] 51. 2, ᾿Αθ. Πολ. col. xxxiii, 12 sqq. ἵνα μηδεὶς παρασκευάζη]ι
[μήτε] τὸν ἐ[πὶ τὸ] ὕδωρ μήτε τοὺ[ς ἐπὶ τ]ὰς ψή[φους], μηδ[ὲ γί]γνηται περὶ
ταῦτ[α κα]κουρ[γία μηδεμία).
7 κινδύνους. Cp. § 43 οὐ μόνον περὶ χρημάτων ἡμᾶς ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τῆς
πατρίδος εἰς κινδύνους καθίστησιν.
4. 7 πολλῶν δὲ δικῶν κ.τ.λ., copied by Demosthenes in or. 37. 3 πολλῶν
γὰρ δικῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει γεγενημένων, οὐδένα πω δίκην οὔτ᾽ ἀναιδεστέραν οὔτε
συκοφαντικωτέραν οἶμαι φανήσεσθαι δεδικασμένον, ἧς νῦν οὑτοσὶ λαχὼν εἰσελθεῖν
τετόλμηκεν.
8 οὐδένες, no set of persons' acting together; compare § 12. 8, Dem.
19. 31 οὐδένας πρέσβεις, ib. 312 λόγοι οὐδένες, 27. 7 τῶν πώποτ᾽ ἐπιτροπευσάν-
των οὐδένες ἀναιδέστερον οὐδὲ περιφανέστερον ἢ οὗτοι τὰ ἡμέτερα διηρπάκασιν,
[Dem.] 51. 21, Isocr. 15. 281. The forms oùdéves, ovdévas, etc. are legitimate,
if one plurality (a people, city, class, group) is contrasted with another.
They are used freely by Demosthenes (2. 17; 5. 5, 14; 14. 1 ; 15. 19; 18. 23
(Cobet); 19. 66; 23. 204; 24. 214; 30. 37) and Isocrates (4. 57; 5. 52, 136;
6. 41, 60; 12. 177, 179, 227; 14. 2, 8; 15. 300), but in the remains of the
other orators we can only point to [Lys.] 2. 22 and Hyp. 6. 19. See
Rehdantz, Demosth. Index II. s.v. οὐδείς.
5. 1, 2
ἔστι μὲν οὖν χαλεπὸν κ.τ.λ., adapted by Demosthenes in or. 27. 2, 3
οἶδα μὲν οὖν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ὅτι πρὸς ἄνδρας καὶ λέγειν ἱκανοὺς καὶ παρα-
σκευάσασθαι δυναμένους χαλεπόν ἐστιν εἰς ἀγῶνα καθίστασθαι περὶ τῶν ὄντων
592
OR. VIII.
ISAEUS
}
ἁπάντων, ἄπειρον ὄντα παντάπασι πραγμάτων διὰ τὴν ἡλικίαν· ὅμως δέ, καίπερ
πολὺ τούτων καταδεέστερος ὤν, πολλὰς ἐλπίδας ἔχω καὶ παρ᾽ ὑμῖν τεύξεσθαι τῶν
δικαίων, καὶ μέχρι γε τοῦ τὰ γεγενημένα διεξελθεῖν καὶ αὐτὸς ἀρκούντως ἐρεῖν,
ὥσθ᾽ ὑμᾶς μήτ᾽ ἀπολειφθῆναι τῶν πραγμάτων μηδὲ καθ᾽ ἕν, μήτ᾽ ἀγνοῆσαι περὶ ὧν
δεήσει τὴν ψῆφον ἐνεγκεῖν. δέομαι δ᾽ ὑμῶν ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταὶ μετ᾿ εὐνοίας τ'
ἀκοῦσαί μου, κἂν ἠδικῆσθαι δοκῶ, βοηθῆσαί μοι τὰ δίκαια. As Blass (Att. Ber.2
II. p. 558 n. 6) points out, Demosthenes' modifications produce a better
rounded and more artistic period, but detract from the 0os of the appeal.
2, 3 πρὸς παρασκευὰς λόγων καὶ μάρτυρας οὐ τἀληθῆ μαρτυροῦντας, copied in
Dem. 30. 3 οἶδα μὲν οὖν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ὅτι μοι πρὸς παρασκευὰς λόγων καὶ
μάρτυρας οὐ τἀληθῆ μαρτυροῦντας ὁ ἀγών ἐστιν. Compare Dem. 22. 35 εἰσὶ
δὲ αὐτῷ λόγοι πρὸς τὸ φενακίζειν ὑμᾶς εὖ μεμηχανημένοι, 29. 10 ἐπιδεῖξαι οὐκ
ἐξ εἰκότων οὐδὲ λόγων πρὸς τὸ παρὸν μεμηχανημένων, ib. 54 ἐπὶ λόγοις μεμη-
χανημένοις καὶ μάρτυσιν οὐ τἀληθῆ μαρτυρεῖν εἰθισμένοις τὸ πρᾶγμα καταστήσας,
[Dem.] 59. 120 πρὸς δὴ τὴν ἀναίδειαν αὐτοῦ τοῦ λόγου καὶ τὴν παρασκευὴν τῆς
ἀπολογίας, Lyc. 32 τίνας ἀδύνατον ἦν τῇ δεινότητι καὶ ταῖς παρασκευαῖς ταῖς
τοῦ λόγου παραγαγεῖν; Isae: fr. 29 Saupp. πιστεύων δ᾽ ἑταιρείαις καὶ λόγων
παρασκευαῖς ἐπὶ τὴν ἐμὴν οὐσίαν) ἐλήλυθε.
5, 6 παρ᾽ ὑμῶν τεύξεσθαι τῶν δικαίων. Cp. Lys. 3. 3 εἰ μὲν οὖν ἄλλοι τινὲς
εί
ἔμελλον περὶ ἐμοῦ διαγνώσεσθαι, σφόδρα ἂν ἐφοβούμην τὸν κίνδυνον, ὁρῶν ὅτι
καὶ παρασκευαὶ καὶ τύχαι ἐνίοτε τοιαῦται γίγνονται, ὥστε πολλὰ καὶ παρὰ γνώμην
ἀποβαίνειν τοῖς κινδυνεύουσιν· εἰς ὑμᾶς δ᾽ εἰσελθὼν ἐλπίζω τῶν δικαίων τεύξεσθαι.
7 ἂν μή τι συμβῇ κ.τ.λ., an obscure remark, on which no light is thrown
by the rest of the speech. Cp. I. 5. 5 2.
7, 8 τοιοῦτον ὁ νῦν. Naber (Mnem. N. S. 5, 1877, p. 413) demands To-
οὗτον οἷον, asserting that vir is entirely otiose. Reiske also observes 'proprie
si uoluisset dicere, debuisset oiov usurpare,' but adds rightly 'sed paulo sunt in
his indiligentiores. In the orators the construction τοιοῦτος ὃs is normal and
regular, not exceptional. The grammars are misleading on this point; it
might be supposed from the statements made and the examples cited that
τοιοῦτος οἷος and τοιοῦτος ὅστις were common, while τοιοῦτος ὃς was rare.
6 I propose to prove (1) that my mother was Ciron's legitimate daughter,
(2) that my brother and I have a better right to Ciron's property than our
opponent.
According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus (De Lysia c. 17, p. 490 R., 28,
15 Usener and Radermacher) Lysias' usual practice was to place the pro-
positio (πρόθεσις) between the exordium and the narratio (διήγησις). For the
theory of the schools compare Volkmann, Rhetorik² p. 167 sqq.
<
6. 2, 3 λόγων ἀκοῇ καὶ μαρτύρων, a harsh combination in the manner of
Thucydides and Antiphon. The two genitives are ill-matched. Here ἀκοὴ
μαρτύρων means not that which is heard from witnesses (Plat. Τim. 25 D τὰ
μὲν δὴ ῥηθέντα ὑπὸ τοῦ Κριτίου κατ᾽ ἀκοὴν τὴν Σόλωνος) but statements which
witnesses have heard' from persons deceased, as opposed to statements
which witnesses make from their own knowledge (VI. 53. 6 n., Dem. 57. 4
προσήκειν...ὅσ᾽ ἴσασιν ἀκριβῶς λέγειν καὶ μηδεμίαν προσάγειν ἀκοὴν πρὸς τὸν
τοιοῦτον ἀγῶνα). The genitive must be subjective, but the usual expression
is μαρτυρεῖν ἀκοὴν τετελευτηκότος, to testify what one has heard from some
one dead. On the other hand λόγων in λόγων ἀκοὴ seems to be a genitive
OR. VIII.
593
COMMENTARY
of definition or content, the phrase being equivalent to λóyoɩ ákovoßévtes,
'statements that people have heard'; cp. Thuc. 1. 73 kaì тà µèv távv madaià
τί δεῖ λέγειν, ὧν ἀκοαὶ μᾶλλον λόγων μάρτυρες ἢ ὄψις τῶν ἀκουσομένων; 1. 20 τὰς
γὰρ ἀκοὰς τῶν προγεγενημένων ἀβασανίστως παρ᾽ ἀλλήλων δέχονται, Plat. Tim.
22 Β οὐδεμίαν ἔχετε δι᾿ ἀρχαίαν ἀκοὴν παλαιὰν δόξαν. Thus the addition of
μαρτύρων limits and defines λόγων ἀκοή; mere report was not considered
a satisfactory method of proof even in Athenian courts. Schoemann and
Blass consider λóywv to be an objective genitive. Buermann (Hermes 19,
1884, p. 340) suspects the existence of a deep-seated corruption. Reiske
desired to insert πίστει after μαρτύρων. I have thought of changing καὶ
μαρτύρων το καταμαρτυρῶν.
3 Tà 8' wσTe Kal µvnμoveveσdal. The orator's distinction between things
in the far past (máλai) and things that can be still remembered is amusing
in the light of what follows. He produces eye-witnesses of his mother's
betrothal to her first husband Nausimenes (§ 14), but treats her birth and
childhood as beyond the range of memory of living contemporaries. Yet
Diocles' sister is still alive, and she was married to Ciron, when the speaker's
mother was a little child (§ 7).
4, 5 τεκμηρίοις ἃ κρείττω τῶν μαρτυριῶν ἐστιν. Cp. IV. 12. 2, 3 n.
6 κληρονομεῖν μᾶλλον ἡμῖν ἢ τούτοις προσήκει. A has τοῦτον. After
πрoσýκeι a dative with the infinitive (§ 26, III. 75, IX. I, 31, Isocr. 8. 120, Dem.
21. 33, 92, 22. 18) and an accusative with the infinitive (III. 65, VI. II, 14, 44,
VII. I, VIII. 44, XI. 6, XII. 9) are equally legitimate constructions, though
owing to the analogy of xpǹ and deî the latter seems to be commoner
(Gebauer on Lys. 25. 7 Anhang p. 472 sqq.), but to combine them in one
sentence is, to quote Reiske's comment, inconstantia et uelut desultoria
leuitas. Contrast § 45 προσήκει ἡμῖν μᾶλλον ἢ τούτοις κληρονομεῖν, and IV. 28
πολυ μᾶλλον τούτους προσήκει...ἢ Χαριάδην ἀμφισβητεῖν. Shilleto on Dem. 19.
239 (274) defends the MS.
7 ödev ovv ňρžavтo. Fuhr (Animaduersiones in oratores Atticos p. 60)
would insert ouro after ouv to balance kayò in the next line. Gebauer (Lys.
12. 3 Anhang p. 206) rightly decides that the addition is unnecessary, though
the passages he adduces Dem. 27. 3 and 30. 5 (see VII. 4. 8 n.) are not
parallel, since Demosthenes was the first speaker. Gebauer however is not
satisfied with the text, and desiderates πрŵτоv before πeɩpáσoµaι (XI. 2. 4 12.).
7-8 Ciron's first wife and my grandmother was his first cousin, a
daughter of his mother's sister. After a short married life she died, leaving
one daughter, my mother, and Ciron married Diocles' sister by whom he had
two sons. As soon as his daughter was old enough, his sons being then
alive, he gave her in marriage to Nausimenes of Cholargus with a dowry
amounting in all to 25 m. Three or four years afterwards Nausimenes died
without children, and my mother returned to her home. She was next
married to my father with a dowry of 10 m., my grandfather having been
unable to recover the whole of her portion owing to the embarrassed condition
of Nausimenes' affairs.
This meagre narrative should be compared with Dem. 57. 36 sqq., where
Euxitheus is seeking to prove that his mother was a citizen. He not only
gives the name of his grandmother, but calls as witnesses her sister's
1
W. I.
38
594
OR. VIII.
ISAEUS
#
grandson as well as members of the parpía and deme, to which his
mother's kin belonged. Yet, if the speech was delivered in 345 B.C. (Blass,
Att. Ber.² III. 1. p. 486), Euxitheus was obliged to go back to a more distant
past than Isaeus' client: for his father was taken prisoner in the Decelean
Note also the speaker's care to explain the smallness of the dowry,
a circumstance which might be considered suspicious (III. 49, 51), if Ciron
was as well off as he pretends (§ 35): Ciron gave his daughter on her second
marriage only 10 m. because her two brothers were then alive, and because
Nausimenes her first husband died insolvent.
war.
7. Ι έγημε.
Assuming that the speaker is only twenty, and that his
mother married her first husband at the age of fourteen, we discover that
on the lowest estimate about forty years have passed since Ciron's first
marriage.
αὐτοῦ
2, 3 ἐξ ἀδελφῆς τῆς αὐτοῦ μητρὸς [αὐτὴν] γεγενημένην. An legendum τῆς
αὑτοῦ μητρὸς αὐτῷ (VI. 6. 1, 2 τὼ μὲν οὖν ἀδελφὼ αὐτῷ, ὥπερ ἐγενέσθην)? Sed
praestat simpliciter delere avτýv' (Dobree, Adv. 1. p. 303). Herwerden
(Mnem. N. S. 9, 1881, p. 392) proposes τŷs µηтρòs avтοû yeyevnµévŋv, con-
jecturing that the archetype had τῆς μητρὸς αὐτὴν γεγενημένην, and that the
copyist put avroû in the wrong place, not perceiving that it was a correction
of αὐτήν. I have thought of reading ἀνεψιὰν αὐτῷ, ἐξ ἀδελφῆς τῆς αὑτοῦ
μητρὸς γεγενημένην ; cp. Dobree, Adv. I. p. 68 Nil frequentius αὐτὸς a librariis
transposito, ib. I. pp. 340, 366. For the intrusion of avròs see Voemel on
Dem. 9. 1, 18. 35.
4, 5 μετὰ ἐνιαυτοὺς τέτταρας: μετὰ ἐνιαυτοὺς τριάκοντα A. Thalheim prefers
Naber's correction, ἡμέρας for ἐνιαυτούς. The word uépa is sometimes
ἡμέρα
abbreviated in MSS. (Bast, Commentatio Palaeographica p. 785), but I know
no example of the confusion of ýµépa and éviautós. Dobree's emendation
(d' for X') rests on a surer basis (Crit. Introd. p. xlvi).
7 yiyveσlov veîs dúo, a rare construction outside Plato (Keck, Ueber den
Dual bei den gr. Rednern p. 195, Hasse, Der Dualis im Attischen p. 66).
In Lys. 13. 37 δύο δὲ τράπεζαι ἐν τῷ πρόσθεν τῶν τριάκοντα ἐκείσθην Cobet
proposes τραπέζα. Here Hasse suggests ύεῖ; cp. II. 2. 3 n., VI. 6. 6 ἤστην ὑὼ
δύο. Bekker's emendation of the MS. reading yɩyvéσ0ŋv is better than that
of the scribe of M (ẻyıyvéσ0ŋv). The imperfect is out of place, the historic
present is entirely appropriate (X. 4 οὗτος ἔλαβε Ξεναινέτου Αχαρνέως θυγατέρα,
ἐξ ἧς γίγνεται Κυρωνίδης κ.τ.λ.).
καὶ ἐκείνην τε κ.τ.λ. For the inelegant reiteration of ἐκεῖνος in this
sentence cp. VII. 5. 5 n.
Lincke (De elocutione Isaei p. 16) compares the
repetition of ἐπλησίαζον (III. 10), ἀποδέδεικται (VI. 10), ἀπέφηνε (V. 15),
Éπitiµŵv (II. 23). Buermann would eject kaì here and in § 16. 1 (Hermes
19, 1884, p. 346). The text is defended by Blass (Att. Ber.2 II. p. 501 n. 2).
8.2 Ναυσιμένει Χολαργεί. Χολαργός, the deme of Pericles, belonged to
the inland trittys of the tribe Acamantis. The site is not known. Milchhoefer
(Untersuchungen über die Demenordnung des Kleisthenes p. 24) places it in
the plain to the north-west of Athens, in the direction of the modern village
Levi. The Secretary to the Council in the archonship of Euthios 287/6 B.C.
(C. I. A. II. 314, IV. 2. 314 C, Ferguson, The Athenian Secretaries p. 51) was
Ναυσιμένης Ναυσικύδου Χολαργεύς ; he probably belonged to the same family
เ
OR. VIII.
595
COMMENTARY
as the Nausimenes here mentioned. Kirchner (Prosopographia Attica 1.
p. 114) conjectures that the alleged first husband of the speaker's mother
was the son of a Nausicydes noticed in Plat. Gorg. 487 C oida vµâs éyw, w
Καλλίκλεις, τέτταρας ὄντας κοινωνοὺς γεγονότας σοφίας, σέ τε καὶ Τείσανδρον τὸν
᾿Αφιδναῖον καὶ ῎Ανδρωνα τὸν ᾿Ανδροτίωνος καὶ Ναυσικύδην τὸν Χολαργέα.
2, 3 σὺν ἱματίοις καὶ χρυσίοις. The value of the clothes and trinkets is
reckoned in the 25 m. (II. 9. 5, 6 n.). For the use of oùv by the orators see
VI. 33. 6 n.
9-14 How can these facts be clearly demonstrated? By examination
of Ciron's slaves, who must know whether my mother was Ciron's daughter
or not, whether she lived in his house, whether he married and dowered her
twice. Wishing then to confirm the statements of my witnesses I challenged
my opponent to surrender Ciron's servants to be tortured. He refused. Does
not this destroy the credit of his witnesses? In all cases, public and private
alike, you rightly consider the torture of slaves to be the surest method of
eliciting the truth. My adversary shrank from this searching test, I did not,
and on this ground I claim that my witnesses are to be believed rather than
his. Depositions of witnesses. As to events in the far past, Ciron's associates
have testified what they have heard. As to my mother's marriage, you have
the evidence of the relations both of Nausimenes and of my father. And the
conduct of the other side in shirking trial by torture is evidence that she was
Ciron's lawful daughter, brought up in his house.
It is plain from this feeble and wordy argument that the weight of
testimony was against the speaker. He cannot bring forward any good
evidence of his mother's birth and bringing up, and tries to cover his weak-
ness by raising a false issue. Even if the slaves possessed the knowledge
attributed to them, the opponents could not be fairly required to give
assistance to a fishing enquiry. Their rejection of the challenge is no
sign of a bad conscience. The burden of proof rested upon the claimant.
Challenges were abused to an extraordinary extent in Athenian courts of
law. The author of the speech against Neaera ([Dem.] 59) resorts to exactly
the same trick as Isaeus here. Apollodorus accused Neaera, a foreign
courtesan, of living in wedlock with Stephanus, and among other arguments
alleged that Stephanus had introduced her sons into his parpía, and given
her daughter in marriage to an Athenian citizen. Stephanus' defence was
that the children in question were not Neaera's, but the issue of a lawful
marriage between himself and an Athenian woman. Apollodorus retorted
with a challenge demanding that Neaera's women servants should be given
up to be examined under torture (ib. 120 sqq.); if the slaves confessed that
Neaera was the mother of the children, Neaera was to be sold into slavery,
and the children were to lose their citizenship, if however the slaves did not
make such a confession, Apollodorus was willing to drop the prosecution of
Neaera, and to pay compensation for any injuries which the slaves might
suffer from torture. Stephanus was not so simple as to listen to this one-
sided bargain; whereupon Apollodorus informs the judges with an air of
triumph that Stephanus has himself passed sentence against Neaera,
inasmuch as his refusal was convincing testimony (ἀκριβεστάτη μαρτυρία)
of the truth of the charge (ib. 122, 125).
38-2
596
OR. VIII.
ISAEUS
9.2 νῦν, now, i.e. after so many years of silence.
اد
5 ἢ οὔ, placed between εἴτε μή (1. 4) and ἢ μή (1. 6) for the sake of variety ;
compare Ant. 5. 14 οὐ δεῖ ὑμᾶς ἐκ τῶν τοῦ κατηγόρου λόγων τοὺς νόμους κατα-
μανθάνειν, εἰ καλῶς ὑμῖν κεῖνται ἢ μή, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῶν νόμων τοὺς τῶν κατηγόρων
λόγους, εἰ ὀρθῶς καὶ νομίμως ὑμᾶς διδάσκουσι τὸ πρᾶγμα ἢ οὔ, 6. 2, Dem. 20. 83.
The sole ground of the alternation of où and µn appears to be the wish to
avoid monotony. No difference in sense can be established between où and
μὴ when used in indirect questions introduced by εἰ (Aesch. 2. 36 ἤρετό με...
εἰ μὴ μέμνημαι, 1. 84 ἤρετο τὸν δῆμον εἰ οὐκ αἰσχύνοιντο).
5, 6 γάμους διττοὺς εἱστίασεν. The orator in § 18 sqq. brings witnesses to
prove that his father gave a wedding party to which his relations and three
friends were invited, but normally the marriage feast took place in the house
of the father of the bride, and preceded the procession to the house of the
bridegroom (Blümner-Hermann, Gr. Privataltert. p. 271).
7, 8 τοὺς οἰκέτας καὶ τὰς θεραπαίνας. According to § 35 Ciron possessed
two women servants, a girl' (παιδίσκη), and an uncertain number of ἀνδρά-
ποδα μισθοφοροῦντα; these latter did not necessarily live in his house.
10. 3 περὶ αὐτῶν, neuter; compare § 13 πρότερον ὑπὲρ τῶν μαρτυρη-
θήσεσθαι μελλόντων ἀξιώσαντες εἰς βασάνους ἐλθεῖν, III. 48. 4 n., Dem. 29. 5
ἐπιδείξω δὲ τοῦτον οὐ μόνον ὡμολογηκότ᾽ εἶναι τὸν Μιλύαν ἐλεύθερον, ἀλλὰ καὶ
φανερὸν τοῦτ᾽ ἔργῳ πεποιηκότα, καὶ πρὸς τούτοις ἐκ βασάνου περὶ αὐτῶν
πεφευγότα τοὺς ἀκριβεστάτους ἐλέγχους.
ἵνα μᾶλλον αὐτοῖς πιστεύητε κ.τ.λ., that you may believe my witnesses
(οἱ ὑπάρχοντες μάρτυρες) the more. The prospective test of their veracity
(μέλλουσι δώσειν ἔλεγχον) was a possible prosecution for perjury. The
speaker affects to believe that the testimony of freemen and citizens would
carry more weight, if tried and confirmed by confessions wrung from tortured
slaves. The argument recurs in Dem. 29. 13 περὶ τῆς μαρτυρίας ἔφυγε τὴν
βάσανον, ib. 21 καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἤθελον (παραδοῦναι τὸν παῖδα) οὐχὶ μαρτύρων ἀπορῶν
οἱ παρῆσαν· ἦσαν γάρ· ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα μὴ τούτους αἰτιῷτο τὰ ψευδῆ μαρτυρεῖν, ἀλλὰ τὸ
πιστὸν ἐκ τῆς βασάνου τούτοις υπάρχοι, Lyc. 28 οὐ γὰρ οἶμαι δεῖν ὑμᾶς ὑπὲρ
τηλικούτων ἀδικημάτων εἰκάζοντας ἀλλὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν εἰδότας ψηφίζεσθαι, καὶ
τοὺς μάρτυρας μὴ δώσοντας ἔλεγχον μαρτυρεῖν ἀλλὰ δεδωκότας. προυκαλεσάμην
(παρεκαλεσάμην ΝΑ: corr. Taylor) γὰρ αὐτοὺς αὐτὸν Dobree) πρόκλησιν ὑπὲρ
τούτων ἁπάντων γράψας καὶ ἀξιῶν βασανίζειν τοὺς τούτου οἰκέτας. Rehdantz
in his edition gives a different and erroneous explanation of the passage in
Lycurgus ('witnesses should not be freemen, whose veracity can only be tested
by a subsequent prosecution, but slaves, who have passed the ordeal of the
rack'), and in consequence maintains that auroîs in Isaeus means the slaves,
not the citizen witnesses.
11. 1, 2 ὁ νῦν ὑμᾶς ἀξιώσων τοῖς αὑτοῦ μάρτυσι πιστεύειν. The future here
is difficult. One would naturally conclude that the opponent has still to
speak (IX. 24, XII. 8, Lyc. 35), but this interpretation is prohibited by § 6. 7
ὅθεν οὖν ἤρξαντο περὶ αὐτῶν. We expect the present as in Dem. 29. 22
τηλικαῦτα τοίνυν δίκαια φυγὼν οὗτος...τοῖς μὲν αὑτοῦ μάρτυσιν ἀξιοῖ πιστεύειν
ὑμᾶς, τοὺς δ᾽ ἐμοὺς διαβάλλει καί φησιν οὐ τἀληθῆ μαρτυρεῖν. The solution is to
be found in the meaning of ἀξιώσων, which denotes not the claims urged in
the previous speech, but the adversary's attitude of mind, which will only be
OR. VIII.
597
COMMENTARY
changed, if at all, by an unfavourable verdict; this man, who now will
expect you to trust his witnesses, then (before the trial) shrank from the test
of torture.' The rhetorical future in an interrogation is different and easier
to explain. The question 'Shall he commit these crimes?' may be put after
the crimes have been committed. Thus in § 13. 3 ἀξιώσει; is a terse and
vigorous way of saying ἀξιοῦν ἔξεσται; Compare for this idiom Aesch. I. 173
ὑμεῖς Σωκράτην μὲν τὸν σοφιστὴν ἀπεκτείνατε... Δημοσθένης δ' ὑμῖν ἑταίρους
ἐξαιτήσεται (will you permit this ?); Din. 3. 4 καὶ ὁ μὲν κοινὸς τῆς πόλεως νόμος,
ἐάν τις < ἑνὸς > ἐναντίον τῶν πολιτῶν ὁμολογήσας τι παραβῇ, τοῦτον ἔνοχον
ἶναι κελεύει τῷ ἀδικεῖν· ὁ δὲ πάντας ᾿Αθηναίους ἐξηπατηκώς...οὗτος ἐπὶ τὴν
ἀπολογίαν ἥκειν φήσει; Cic. pro Sest. 13. 30 hoc uero quid est? exterminabit
(i.e. exterminare licebit) ciuis Romanos edicto consul a suis dis penatibus ?,
De Fin. 2. 31. 102 sed ut sit (natalis dies), etiamne post mortem coletur?
idque testamento cauebit is, qui nobis quasi oraculum ediderit, nihil post
mortem ad nos pertinere? (Gebauer, De arg. ex contr. formis p. 187).
2 έφυγε, the regular word in this connexion (VI. 17. I, Ant. 5. 38, 6. 27,
Lys. 4. 12, Isocr. 17. 16, Dem. 29. 5, 13, 17, 22, 27; 30. 27; 37. 44; 45. 62,
[Dem.] 47. 7, 79, Lyc. 29, 34).
3 μὴ θελήσας. Cp. XII. Io. 8 περὶ αὐτοῦ θέλομεν, VII. 12. 6 μὴ ἐθελήσας,
VIII. 42. 6 μαρτυρῆσαι ἐθελήσειαν, Χ. 3. 2 ἀκοῦσαι ἐθέλητε. In the orators, if
set phrases like ἐὰν θεὸς θέλῃ, ἂν θεοὶ θέλωσι be put aside, the general rule
with regard to λw is that the form is allowed when a long vowel or
diphthong precedes; see Schneider on [Isocr.] 1. 24, Voemel, Prolegg.
Gramm. § 12, Rehdantz, Demosth. Index II. s.v. ἐθέλω, And. I. 22 (τοὺς μὲν
παραδιδόντας μὴ ἐθέλειν ἐλέγχειν, τοὺς δὲ μὴ θέλοντας ἀναγκάζειν), [And.] 4. 37
(μὴ θέλοντας; but ib. 7 τῷ μὲν θέλοντι, Aesch. I. 118 (εἰ θέλετε), 2. 68 (μὴ
θέλῃ), 3. 55 (μὴ θέλω), Hyp. 3. 11 (μὴ θέλειν), Lyc. 77 (μὴ θέλει), 129 (μή
θελόντων). Antiphon stands by himself; in the Tetralogies he begins
sentences with θέλω (Tetr. II. 8. 3 θέλω δὲ πρῶτον ὑμᾶς μαθεῖν, ib. 5, Tetr.
III. γ. 1). In Attic inscriptions θέλω is not found before 250 B.C. (Meister-
hans, Gramm. d. att. Inschr.3 § 65, 23, p. 178), in papyri it is normal
(Crönert, Memoria Graeca Herculanensis p. 131).
6,7 ταύτην τὴν μαρτυρίαν, the testimony of the witnesses present, when
the challenge was made and declined. For the form of such depositions see
VI. 16. 7, 8 n.
12. I
ὑμεῖς μὲν τοίνυν κ.τ.λ. This whole section is incorporated with
some trifling changes in Dem. 30. 37 : ὑμεῖς τοίνυν καὶ ἰδίᾳ καὶ δημοσίᾳ βάσανον
ἀκριβεστάτην πασῶν <πίστεων add. Dobr.> νομίζετε, καὶ ὅπου ἂν (ΣΑ, ὁπόταν
F, Blass) δούλοι καὶ ἐλεύθεροι παραγένωνται, δέῃ δ' εὑρεθῆναι τὸ ζητούμενον, οὐ
χρῆσθε ταῖς τῶν ἐλευθέρων μαρτυρίαις, ἀλλὰ τοὺς δούλους βασανίζοντες, οὕτω
ζητεῖτε τὴν ἀλήθειαν εὑρεῖν (τῶν πεπραγμένων add. F, Blass, om. ΣΑ). εἰκότως,
ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί· τῶν μὲν γὰρ μαρτυρησάντων ἤδη τινες οὐ τἀληθῆ μαρτυρῆσαι
ἔδοξαν, τῶν δὲ βασανισθέντων οὐδένες πώποτ᾽ ἐξηλέγχθησαν, ὡς οὐκ ἀληθῆ τὰ ἐκ
τῆς βασάνου (τὰ ἐκ τῶν βασάνων Blass hiatus uitandi causa) εἶπον. Porphyry
ap. Euseb. Praep. Ev. 10. 3, p. 466 notes the similarity of these two passages,
and also compares Isocr. 17. 54 ὁρῶ δὲ καὶ ὑμᾶς καὶ περὶ τῶν ἰδίων καὶ περὶ τῶν
δημοσίων οὐδὲν πιστότερον οὐδ᾽ ἀληθέστερον βασάνου νομίζοντας, καὶ μάρτυρας
μὲν ἡγουμένους (μὴ γενομένους Blass) οἷόν τ᾽ εἶναι καὶ τῶν μὴ πεπραγμένων
τα
598
OR. VIII.
ISAEUS
παρασκευάσασθαι, τὰς δὲ βασάνους φανερῶς ἐπιδεικνύναι, ὁπότεροι τἀληθῆ
Aéyovow. The view of torture presented by an Athenian pleader depends
on the needs of his argument. The case against this method of seeking
truth is stated in Ant. 5. 31 sqq., ib. 40, Lys. 5. 3 sqq., 7. 35, Dem. 37. 41;
compare Cic. pro Sulla 28. 78 quaestiones nobis seruorum accusator et
tormenta minitatur. In quibus quamquam nihil periculi suspicamur, tamen
illa tormenta gubernat dolor, moderatur natura cuiusque cum animi tum
corporis, regit quaesitor, flectit libido, corrumpit spes, infirmat metus, ut in
tot rerum angustiis nihil ueritati loci relinquatur. Vita P. Sullae tor-
queatur; ex ea quaeratur, num quae occultetur libido, num quod lateat
facinus, num quae crudelitas, num quae audacia. Nihil erroris erit in
caussa nec obscuritatis, iudices, si a uobis uitae perpetuae uox, ea quae
uerissima est et grauissima debet esse, audietur. The other side is taken
in Ant. 1. 8 sqq., 6. 25 sqq., [Dem.] 47. 8. Outlines of the current common-
places will be found in the treatises on rhetoric (Anaximenes c. 16, Rh. Gr.
I. p. 50 Hammer, Arist. Rhet. 1. 15. 1376b 31 sqq., [Cic.] ad C. Herenn. 2.
7. 10, Cic. Part. Or. 14. 50, 34. 117, 118, Top. 20. 74, Quintil. 5. 4). One fact
suffices to indicate that the average Athenian citizen reposed no great
confidence in the statements made by a slave on the rack. Challenges
offering or demanding the surrender of servants for examination abound in
the remains of the orators, but no case is reported in which the torture was
inflicted. The challenge was generally declined (Aesch. 2. 128 éteiồn toivvv
οὐ δέχεται τὴν πρόκλησιν, οὐδ᾽ ἄν φησιν ἐν βασάνοις ἀνδραπόδων γενέσθαι), and
in the few instances in which it was accepted we find that a dispute about
the terms of the agreement and the conduct of the enquiry was made an
excuse for withdrawing the slave (Isocr. 17. 15, Dem. 37. 42).
8 ovdéves. Cp. § 4. 8 22.
...
13. 1 οὗτος δὲ ἀξιώσει;, opposed to ὑμεῖς μὲν...νομίζετε (§ 12. 1, 2): this
being your deliberate opinion, is he to (shall he) ask you to stultify your-
selves? For the force of the future tense in sentences of this type see
§ II. 1, 2 N. In the imitation in Dem. 30. 38 (ἀξιώσει πιστεύεσθαι παρ' ὑμῖν)
the situation is different, Demosthenes being the first speaker.
4 ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ἡμεῖς τοῦτο ποιήσομεν i.ε. ἀξιώσομεν ὑμᾶς τοῖς ἡμετέροις
μάρτυσι πιστεύειν φεύγοντες ἀκριβεῖς ἐλέγχους.
7 οίησόμεθα. • Malim οιόμεθα. Vitium natum ex praegressi futuri
ağıσei ratione non satis intellecta' (Herwerden, Mnem. N. S. 9, 1881,
p. 393). But it is possible that the future was selected by Isaeus of set
purpose, in order to harmonise with aέióσe. Buermann (Hermes 19, 1884,
p. 368) supposes that the speaker has in view the moment when he will
produce the witnesses; compare I. 31. 3.
14. I, 2 xpwµévous, an imperfect; compare I. 4. 2, 37. 3, II. 45. 6,
VIII. 14. 7, 17. 8, 28. 5, IX. 4. 9, 10. 3, 12. 6, 14. 5, 16. 3, 4, X. 4. 5.
2
μεμαρτυρήκασι τοίνυν ἀκοήν. For the law see VI. 53. 6 n. The sub-
stance of these depositions would have been interesting. Some idea of the
hearsay evidence admitted in Athenian courts may be gathered from the
documents preserved in [Dem.] 43. 35 sqq., 42 sqq. One piece of testimony
may serve for an example: μαρτυροῦσιν Οινάνθην, τὴν μητέρα τοῦ πάππου
τοῦ ἑαυτῶν Στρατωνίδου, ἀνεψιὰν εἶναι ἐκ πατραδέλφων Πολέμωνι τῷ πατρὶ τῷ
OR. VIII.
599
COMMENTARY
ʼn
Αγνίου, καὶ ἀκούειν τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἑαυτῶν, ὅτι Πολέμωνι ἀδελφὸς οὐδεὶς γένοιτο
πώποτε, τῷ πατρὶ τῷ ῾Αγνίου, ἀδελφὴ δὲ Φυλομάχη ὁμοπατρία καὶ ὁμομητρία, ἡ
μήτηρ ἡ Εὐβουλίδου τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ Φυλομάχης τῆς Σωσιθέου γυναικός (ib. 36).
4 TOÙS Eyyuησaμévovs. Cp. III. 4. 6 n. Marriage to an Athenian citizen
cannot be unhesitatingly accepted as proof of a woman's legitimate birth,
but the fact created a presumption that she was not of alien origin (III.
Introd. p. 279).
8 οἱ νῦν ἀμφισβητοῦντες ἔργῳ μαρτυροῦσιν κ.τ.λ. The proper answer to
the preceding question 'Who are they who know that she was brought up in
the house and was Ciron's legitimate daughter?' would be 'The slaves of
Ciron.' But the slaves' evidence was not available, and the speaker can
only make an indirect reply 'The present claimants bear witness that the
facts are so, by shrinking from the test of torture.' Reiske's suggestion
<oi> epyw, repeated by Naber (Mnem. N. S. 5, 1877, p. 413), is a
mistake.
15-17 Ciron's treatment of us shows that we are his daughter's sons.
He offered no sacrifice, great or small, at which we did not assist. With him
we kept all festivals, and he always took us to the Dionysia of his deme, and
set us by his side at the spectacles. When he sacrificed to Zevs Krýσios, a
ceremony which he considered peculiarly domestic and personal, we were
allowed to take part in the rites, and he prayed the god to give us health and
wealth. He would never have acted thus, if he had not believed us to be his
daughter's sons, if he had not seen in us the only descendants left to him.
He would have put in our place our adversary, who now says that he is
Ciron's nephew. Depositions.
15. 2 [ἵνα γνώσεσθε.] A has γνώσεσθε, Α' inserted e in the erasure.
This is a bad conjecture, Attic prose containing no example of iva with the
future indicative in a final sentence. In the orators even the future indica-
tive after őïws with a final meaning is very rare, occurring only in And. 1. 43
and 89 (?). There are two alleged cases of this construction with ós, viz.
Dem. 24. 146 ὡς δὲ σαφῶς γνώσεσθ᾽ ὅτι ἀληθῆ λέγω, ἐγὼ ὑμῖν ἐρῶ, [Dem.]
43. 42 ὡς δὲ μᾶλλον καταφανὲς ὑμῖν ἔσται ὅτι τὸ πρότερον ἀναισχυντοῦντες
περιεγένοντο, ἀναγίγνωσκε τὰς μαρτυρίας, both of which are disputed (Des-
soulavy, Beobachtungen über die Absichtssätze bei den attischen Rednern
p. 25, Goodwin, M. & T. p. 110 22. 2). Buermann and Thalheim agree that
the reading of Apr. was yvwoŋobe, and they are probably right, for Veitch,
Greek Verbs, cites the form yváσaσbai from Manetho 2. 51, and there is
evidence that in late Greek yvwo ai competed with yvwva (Crönert, Memoria
Graeca Herculanensis p. 248). Buermann's conclusion is that yvore should
be restored. I prefer the view of Roeder (Beiträge p. 77) that we are dealing
with an interpolation designed to explain the construction of őtɩ; cp. VI. 28
ὅτι μὲν οὐχ ὡς περὶ γνησίων ἔπραττεν Εὐκτήμων, καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἱκανὸν τεκμήριον,
III. 19, Lys. 15. 5, Ant. 5. 83.
ત
3, 4 οἷα γὰρ εἰκὸς [παίδων] νέων < ὄντων> ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ θυγατρός. The com-
bination waîdes veîs may mean either boy children as contrasted with girl
children or sons who are minors; see Kock, Com. Att. Fr. II. p. 356
Alex. n. 162 ἔστιν ἀνήρ μοι πτωχός, κἀγὼ γραῦς καὶ θυγάτηρ καὶ παῖς υἱός,
Dem. 25. 88 ὅπου πατήρ ἐστι καὶ υἱεῖς ἄνδρες, Lys. 3. 7 παῖδας κόρας καὶ
600
OR. VIII.
ISAEUS
ὀρφανάς, Dem. 21. 79 παιδὸς οὔσης κόρης, Κock, op. cit. II. p. 477 Theophil.
η. 12 κιθαριστρίας ἐρῶν, παιδὸς κόρης, ib. II. p. 337 Alex. n. 112 ἦσαν κόραι
θυγατέρες αὐτῷ, Ι. G. Ins. II. 68, 6 (Mytilene) γυναιξι καὶ παίδεσσι κόραις. As
neither of these meanings is suitable here, one of the two words must be cut
out. The corruption arises from the misunderstanding of a correction
written above the line (Crit. Introd. p. xxxiii). I regard véwv as the right
reading, παίδων as the mistake; cp. [Dem.] 40. 26, where r has παῖδες, the
other MSS. υἱεῖς. Thalheim reads πάππον in place of παίδων.
4 θυσίαν ἄνευ ἡμῶν οὐδεμίαν ἐποίησεν. Cp. I. 31, ΙΧ. 21, 30, Isocr. 19. 10
ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ Θρασύλοχος τοσαύτην φιλίαν παρὰ τῶν πατέρων παραλαβόντες... ἔτι
μείζω τῆς ὑπαρχούσης αὐτὴν ἐποιήσαμεν. ἕως μὲν γὰρ παῖδες ἦμεν, περὶ πλείονος
ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς ἡγούμεθα ἢ τοὺς ἀδελφούς, καὶ οὔτε θυσίαν οὔτε θεωρίαν οὔτ᾽ ἄλλην
ἑορτὴν οὐδεμίαν χωρὶς ἀλλήλων ἤγομεν.
7 εἰς Διονύσια εἰς ἀγρὸν ἦγεν ἡμᾶς. The rural Dionysia (Διονύσια τὰ κατ᾿
ἀγροὺς Aesch. I. 157, opposed to Διονύσια τὰ ἐν ἄστει, but τὰ κατὰ δήμους
Harp. s.v. Θεοίνιον and τὰ κατὰ κώμας Plat. Rep. 5. 475 D) were celebrated in
the month Poseideon (Theoph. Char. 3), roughly December, when the new
wine was broached. That all the demes kept the feast on the same day is
denied by Mommsen (Feste der Stadt Athen p. 352) and Schmidt (Gr.
Chron. p. 285); at Myrrhinus (C. I. A. II. 578, 37, Michel n. 150) the demarch
was bound to bring forward business concerning the Dionysia (χρηματίζειν
περὶ Διονυσίων) on the 19th of the month. The amusements were rustic
sports such as the ἀσκωλιασμός or dancing on greased and infated wine
skins (Poll. 9. 121, Schol. Ar. Plut. 1129), and dramatic performances on
improvised stages or in the permanent theatre of the deme (11. 42. 5 n.).
Ciron's deme may have been Phlya, where he owned land (§ 35), but he did
not live there; his house was in Athens (§ 35). Hence eis ȧypòv ĥyev ýµâs.
16. I
καθήμενοι παρ' αὐτόν. Cp. Ar. Vesp. 392 καβουλήθης μόνος ἡρώων
παρὰ τὸν κλάοντα καθῆσθαι, Plat. Euthyd. 271 Β ὁ δὲ παρ᾽ ἐμὲ καθήμενος ἐξ
ἀριστερᾶς, Symp. 175 C δεύρο, Σώκρατες, παρ' ἐμὲ κατάκεισο, Ar. Eccl. 617 αἱ
φαυλότεραι καὶ σιμότεραι παρὰ τὰς σεμνὰς καθεδοῦνται, Plat. Rep. I. 328 c
ἐκαθεζόμεθα οὖν παρ᾽ αὐτόν, Symp. 175 A σὺ δὲ παρ᾽ Ερυξίμαχον κατακλίνου,
ib. 213 Α καθίζεσθαι παρὰ τὸν ᾿Αγάθωνα ἐν μέσῳ Σωκράτους τε καὶ ἐκείνου, Xen.
Symp. 1. 8 Αὐτόλυκος μὲν οὖν παρὰ τὸν πατέρα ἐκαθέζετο, ὥσπερ εἰκός, Plut.
Sept. Sap. Conu. 4, 150 B, παρῆλθεν ἡ Μέλισσα καὶ κατεκλίθη παρὰ τὸν
Περίανδρον. For the construction with the dative see Plat. Symp. 175 Ε,
213 C, 223 AB, Plut. Demetr. 19.
2 τὰς ἑορτὰς ἤγομεν παρ' ἐκεῖνον πάσας. The usual answer to Reiske's
demand for παρ' ἐκείνῳ, which he translates by apud eum, domi eius, is that
motion is implied (for every festive celebration we came to his house,' Jebb).
The harshness of the brachylogy is best shown by a comparison of some
passages in which this explanation is generally allowed, e.g. Thuc. 3. 3. 4 ràS
δὲ τῶν Μυτιληναίων δέκα τριήρεις, αἱ ἔτυχον βοηθοὶ παρὰ σφᾶς κατὰ τὸ ξυμμα
χικὸν παροῦσαι, κατέσχον οἱ ᾿Αθηναῖοι, Kock, Com. Att. Fr. II. p. 456, Timol.
11, 3 ὠψώνει παρ᾽ αὑτὸν οἴκαδε, pisces emebat ad se domum ferendos (Meineke),
Plut. Dio 6 συλλόγου τῶν φίλων γενομένου παρὰ τὸν νέον Διονύσιον, De defect.
orac. 2, 410 Β νεωστὶ δὲ γεγονὼς παρ' Αμμωνα τὰ μὲν ἄλλα τῶν ἐκεῖ δῆλος ἦν μὴ
πάνυ τεθαυμακώς. But the real objection to Reiske's correction and rendering
OR. VIII.
601
COMMENTARY
Π
Π
is that the festivals of Athens were celebrated out of doors, in theatres,
temples, and public places. The general sense required is 'we kept all
festivals with him, in his company.' I think that the MS. reading may have
the meaning attributed to it by Dareste, 'à côté de lui nous célébrions toutes
les fêtes. It is certain that Attic prose came to use rapà with the Accusative
of things to denote mere juxtaposition (beside) without any idea either of
previous movement or of extension (VI. 20, VIII. 35, And. I. 62 ὁ Ἑρμῆς ὁ παρὰ
τὴν πατρῴαν οἰκίαν, Lys. 23. 3 τὸ κουρεῖον τὸ παρὰ τοὺς Ερμᾶς, Lyc. 112
Φρυνίχου ἀποσφαγέντος παρὰ τὴν κρήνην τὴν ἐν τοῖς οἰσύοις). In fact in the
orators this use is normal, the dative in And. I. 116 (ή στήλη παρ' ᾗ ἕστηκας)
being in the manner of poets and of Herodotus (4. 15 ἕστηκε ἀνδριὰς ἐπωνυ-
μίην ἔχων ᾿Αριστέω παρ᾽ αὐτῷ τῷ ἀγάλματι τοῦ ᾿Απόλλωνος). Xenophon seems
to extend the construction to persons; compare Cyr. 1. 4. 18 εἶπεν αὐτῷ
μένειν παρ᾽ ἑαυτόν (παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ cum Brodaeo Stephanus), he told him to stop
by his side, with Cyr. 4. 2. 23 παρ᾽ ἐμοὶ μὲν καταλίπετε ἕκαστοι τάξιν ἱππέων,
ὡς, ἄν τι δέῃ, χρῶμαι μένων παρὰ τὸ στρατόπεδον, 'stopping beside the camp.
But the testimony of Xenophon is assailed on two sides. (1) Rau (Curtius'
Studien III, 1870, p. 64) would read παρ' ἑαυτῷ in Cyr. 1. 4. 18, observing that
Xenophon has μένειν παρά τινι in 16 places, and not admitting a distinction
between παρά τινι, apud aliquem, and παρά τινα, iuxta (prope) aliquem,
(2) It may be urged that the construction in Xen. Cyr. 1. 4. 18 is an anticipa-
tion of the Kown, in which apà with the Accusative encroached upon the old
domain of πaρà with the Dative; see Krebs, Die Präpositionen bei Polybius
p. 55 (who cites Pol. 3. 26. 1, 6. 35. 4, 11. 14. 3, 12. 16. 1, Diod. 6. 7. 6), and
S. 1. G2 n. 850 (Delphi), 5 παραμεινάτω δὲ παρὰ ᾿Αμύνταν Σωτήριχος ἔτη ὀκτώ,
ib. III. p. 239. In the 3rd century this confusion appears in comedy (Kock,
Com. Att. Fr. III. p. 357 Demetr. I, 5 sqq. ἀβυρτακοποιὸς παρὰ Σέλευκον
ἐγενόμην, | παρ' ᾿Αγαθοκλεῖ δὲ πρῶτος εἰσήνεγκ᾽ ἐγὼ | τῷ Σικελιώτῃ τὴν τυραν-
νικὴν φακήν), and found its way even into official records (C. I. A. II. 312
(286/5 Β.C.), 22, 23 παρέχεται δὲ χρείας καὶ ἰδίαι τοῖς τε διατρίβουσιν Αθηναίων
παρ᾽ ἑαυτὸν καὶ τοῖς ἀφικνουμένοις εἰς τὴν χώραν), in Aristophanes it is the
mark of a barbarian (Thesm. 1193 τί οὐ κατεύδει παρ᾽ ἐμέ;). The Accusative
in the present passage of Isaeus is excused by special circumstances. In
the first place the way is prepared by καθήμενοι παρ᾽ αὐτόν. Secondly the
natural and obvious expression, μετ᾽ ἐκείνου, has been already used. Thirdly,
as Reiske felt, the construction with the dative (παρ' ἐκείνῳ) inevitably suggests
the meaning chez lui ; cp. Plut. Demosth. 30 κατέστρεψε δὲ ἕκτῃ ἐπὶ δέκα
τοῦ Πυανεψιῶνος μηνός, ἐν ᾗ τὴν σκυθρωποτάτην τῶν Θεσμοφορίων ἡμέραν
ἄγουσαι παρὰ τῇ θεῷ νηστεύουσιν αἱ γυναῖκες. I believe that a parallel exists
in Den. 15. 7 εἰ βασιλεὺς παρ᾽ αὑτὸν ὄντα με σύμβουλον ποιοῖτο, where Weil
renders ‘transporté chez lui! Nothing can be deduced from the testimony
of Bekk. An. Gr. I. p. 111, 11 (παρ' ἡμᾶς οἰκεῖ: ἀντὶ τοῦ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν οἰκεῖ.
"Αλεξις Φιλαθηναίῳ) and of Priscian 18. 264 (Attici παρὰ σὲ pro παρὰ σοί,
quomodo et nos apud te. Aristophanes Ποιήσει: γυναῖκα δὴ ζητοῦντες ἐνθάδ'
ἥκομεν, | ἣν φασιν εἶναι παρὰ σέ). The first passage cannot be judged without
the context; in the second the text is due to M. Haupt, the MSS. having
ΕΝΘΑΔΕ ΕΙΚΟΜΗΝ. ΗΝΘΑΣΙΝ or ΕΝΕΑΔΕ ΚΟΜΗΝΝΗΝΕΑΣΙΝ (Kock,
Com. Att. Fr. I. p. 507).
>
602
OR. VIII.
ISAEUS
2, 3 τῷ Διί τε θύων τῷ Κτησίῳ. Cp. Ant. 1. 16, 18. A temple at Phlya
contained an altar of Ζεὺς Κτήσιος (Paus. I. 31. 4). Zeus giver of increase,
though sometimes honoured by public sacrifices (Oracle in Dem. 21. 53 Διὶ
κτησίῳ βοῦν λευκόν), was essentially a household god, guardian of the family
wealth. His image or symbol was set up in the storeroom (Harp. s.v. Κτησίου
Διός, who quotes from Menander's Pseudheracles (Kock, Com. Att. Fr. III.
p. 149) τὸν δὲ Δία τὸν κτήσιον | ἔχοντα τὸ ταμιεῖον οὐ κεκλεισμένον). This
explains why one of the Greek translations of Penates is θεοὶ κτήσιοι (Dion.
Hal. Ant. Rom. I. 67). With regard to the form under which the deity was
worshipped Athenaeus (11. 46, 473 B sqq.) has an important but obscure note:
ἀγγεῖον δ᾽ ἐστὶ (καδίσκος) ἐν ᾧ τοὺς κτησίους Δίας ἐγκαθιδρύουσιν, ὡς ᾿Αντικλείδης
φησὶν ἐν τῷ Ἐξηγητικῷ γράφων οὕτως· Διὸς κτησίου σημεία (fortasse σιπύας
Kaibel) ἱδρύεσθαι χρὴ ὧδε· καδίσκον καινὸν δίωτον ἐπιθηματοῦντα (ἐπίθημα
ἔχοντα Müller) στέψαι τὰ (στέψαντα libri: corr. Jacobs) ὦτα ἐρίῳ λευκῷ
καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ὤμου τοῦ δεξιοῦ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ μετώπου <καθέσθαι τὰ ἄκρα sup-
pleuit Kaibel> τοῦ κροκίου, καὶ ἐσθεῖναι ὅ τι ἂν εὕρῃς καὶ εἰσχέαι ἀμβροσίαν.
ἡ δ᾽ ἀμβροσία ὕδωρ ἀκραιφνές, ἔλαιον, παγκαρπία· ἅπερ ἔμβαλε. With this
should be compared an article in Hesychius, καδίσκοι· σιπύαι εἰς ἃς τὰ ἱερὰ
ἐτίθεσαν. It is not clear from this account whether the jar (καδίσκος) itself
represented the god of acquisition” (ἐσθεῖναι ὅ τι ἂν εὕρῃς) or contained the
sacred emblems (rà iepà) of the deity.
6
4 οθνείους. Cp. IV. 18. 5, 6 π.
Philoneos in Ant. 1. 16-18 was not so
scrupulous when he sacrificed to Ζεὺς Κτήσιος ; he had with him a friend, and
a concubine, who was a slave.
6 συνεπετίθεμεν. Cp. Ant. I. 18 σπονδάς τε ἐποιοῦντο καὶ λιβανωτὸν ὑπὲρ
αὑτῶν ἐπετίθεσαν, Ar. Vesp. 95/6 τοὺς τρεῖς ξυνέχων τῶν δακτύλων ἀνίσταται
ὥσπερ λιβανωτὸν ἐπιτιθεὶς νουμηνίᾳ, Nub. 426 οὐδ᾽ ἂν θύσαιμ', οὐδ᾽ ἂν σπείσαιμ᾽,
οὐδ᾽ ἐπιθείην λιβανωτόν, S. I. G. n. 589 (Oropus), 26, 27 κατεύχεσθαι δὲ τῶν
ἱερῶν καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν βωμὸν ἐπιτιθεῖν, ὅταν παρεῖ, τὸν ἱερέα, ὅταν δὲ μὴ παρεῖ,
τὸν θύοντα.
17.2 μόνους ἐκγόνους ἑώρα λοιπούς, i.e. after the death of his two sons
(§ 36). The speaker nowhere tells the judges how many years they had
been dead.
4, 5 ὃς ἀδελφιδοῦς νῦν εἶναί φησι, mere verbiage ; for the orator does not
seriously argue that his opponent was not Ciron's nephew (§ 26).
18-20 The conduct of our father and of the married women of the
deme shows that our mother was Ciron's legitimate daughter. When he
married, our father gave a banquet to his relations and friends, and presented
the marriage offering (γαμηλία) to the members of his φρατρία. His wife was
selected by the women of the deme to preside at the Thesmophoria. When we
were born, he introduced us to the Oparpia with the usual oath as issue of an
Athenian woman lawfully betrothed. If our mother had been what the
opponents say, do not imagine that our father would have given such
publicity to the marriage, that the women of the deme would have entrusted
her with a sacred office, that the members of the φρατρία would have admitted
us into their ranks instead of denouncing and exposing the fraud. The truth
is that it was admitted on all hands that our mother was Ciron's legitimate
daughter.
OR. VIII.
603
COMMENTARY
The inconclusiveness of this reasoning has been pointed out in the Intro-
duction p. 586. In spite of the penalties of the law Athenian citizens did
sometimes marry women of alien origin, and smuggle their children into the
Opaтpíaι. The adversaries without denying the facts recited could draw
a different conclusion, that the women of the deme and the members of the
Oparpia had been the victims of a successful fraud.
18. 5 γάμους εἱστίασε. Cp. § 9. 5, 6 n. The speaker apparently has
no witnesses to prove that Ciron gave a wedding feast.
6 τοῖς τε φράτερσι γαμηλίαν εἰσήνεγκε. See for the use of τε III. 80. I n.,
for the meaning of γαμηλία III. 76. I n.
19. 2, 3 Alokλéovs тoû IIɩléws, a well-known man, an enemy of Iphi-
crates (Dem. 21. 62), trierarch in 377/6 B.C. (C. I. A. 11. 791, 91). It follows
that the speaker's father belonged to the deme Пíos, for which see
II. 29. 3 22.
ουσ
3, 4 ἄρχειν εἰς [τα] Θεσμοφόρια καὶ ποιεῖν τὰ νομιζόμενα. Cp. III. 80. 3 n.
The coμopopiášovσai were matrons of pure Athenian blood (Ar. Thesm.
329/30 τελέως δ' ἐκκλησιάσαιμεν Αθηναίων (Αθηνέων Bergk) εὐγενείς
yvvaîkes).
4 ἐπειδὴ ἐγενόμεθα. Cp. III. 73. 6, 7 κ. We expect εὐθὺς or εὐθέως as in
Dem. 57. 54 παιδίον ὄντα μ᾽ εὐθέως ἦγον εἰς τοὺς φράτερας.
5 KATȧ TOÙS VÓμovs, i.e. of the Oparpía (III. 76. 4 12.).
6 ἐξ ἀστῆς καὶ ἐγγυητής. Cp. VI. 14. 10 π. The son's desire to prove
that his mother was betrothed by Ciron is enough to explain his choice of
ἐγγυητής.
9 ἀκριβῶς τὰ τοιαῦτα σκοπουμένων. Cp. VII. 16. 6 κ.
n.
20. 2, 3 οἵαν οὗτοί φασι. Cp. § 43 ἐὰν ἐξαπατηθῆτε πεισθέντες ὡς ἡ μήτηρ
ἡμῶν οὐκ ἦν πολίτις. The speaker shrinks from a precise statement of the
charge against her (§ 1. 8, 9 22.).
4 ἀποκρύψασθαι ταῦτα πάντα, would have kept in the dark everything
connected with the marriage. The looseness of taûтa ñávтa is intentional
and characteristic.
7,8
αν
μήτε τοὺς φράτερας εἰσδέχεσθαι ἡμᾶς. The absence of ἂν in this
clause is very suspicious (Crit. Introd. p. xxxvi).
10, 11 τῇ περιφανείᾳ τοῦ πράγματος. For the causal dative see II. 26. 2 7.,
Ant. 5. 3 πολλοὶ μὲν γὰρ ἤδη τῶν οὐ δυναμένων λέγειν ἄπιστοι γενόμενοι τοῖς
ἀληθέσιν, αὐτοῖς τούτοις ἀπώλοντο, οὐ δυνάμενοι δηλῶσαι αὐτά.
21-27 Diocles' conduct after the death of our grandfather shows
that we were admitted to be the sons of Ciron's daughter. When Ciron died
I came to get the body, intending that the funeral should take place from my
house. Yielding however to the tears and entreaties of the widow, Diocles'
sister, who begged to help in laying out and dressing the corpse, I informed
Diocles that I would conduct the funeral from Ciron's house. On hearing
this he raised no objection, and even entered into an arrangement that
I should undertake the expenses of the burial. He did not say 'Who are
you? What right have you to bury him? You shan't enter the house, but
requested me to produce the money by dawn.
the
sum,
he refused to take it, and pretended to
In reality neither of the two spent anything; the charges were defrayed out
The next day, when I brought
have been paid by my opponent.
604
OR. VIII.
ISAEUS
}
of Ciron's estate. Notwithstanding, I was allowed to take part in the
ceremonies. But if, as my opponent now says, I was not Ciron's grandson,
he ought to have repulsed and ejected me as an alien intruder. My situation
in regard to him was not the same; I allowed him to join in the rites as
Ciron's nephew. At the time he did not open his mouth, not even when at
the grave I denounced Diocles' conspiracy.
ΟΤ
Athenian claimants to property often insist on their piety in paying
funeral honours to the deceased owner (II. 36, IV. 19, 26, ΙΧ. 4, 32), but the
ingenuousness of this narrative and of the remarks in §§ 38, 39 is unsur-
passable. The parties contended for the body as if it were one of the assets.
Compare [Dem.] 43. 65 ὑπεραναίσχυντον δὴ οὗτοι κατασκευάζουσι πρᾶγμα, ὡς
ἄρα δεῖ ἡμᾶς καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας τὰς ἡμετέρας τοῦ μὲν σώματος τοῦ ῾Αγνίου, ὅτ᾽
ἐτετελευτήκει, κληρονόμους εἶναι καὶ ποιεῖν ἅπαντα τὰ νομιζόμενα, ὡς προσήκοντας
καὶ γένει ὄντας ἐγγυτάτω· τὸν δὲ κλῆρον οἴεσθαι δεῖν ἔχειν τὸν ῾Αγνίου τοῦ
τετελευτηκότος Μακάρτατον....ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε δίκαιον οὔθ᾽ ὅσιον τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, 44. 32 καὶ
τὸ μὲν ποιεῖν τι τῶν νομιζομένων κωλῦσαι ἡμᾶς τῷ τετελευτηκότι, πατὴρ ὢν αὐτὸς
ἐκείνου, ἔχει λόγον, καίπερ ὄντος παρανόμου τοῦ ἔργου· τῷ γὰρ φύσει πατρὶ τῆς
ταφῆς τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν παραδίδοσθαι εἰκός ἐστιν, ἔπειτα μέντοι καὶ τοῖς οἰκείοις
ἡμῖν, ὧν ἦν συγγενὴς κατὰ τὴν ποίησιν ὁ τετελευτηκώς, Lys. fr. 64. Saupp. καὶ μὲν
ó
δὴ οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἂν ἔχοι Γλαύκων εἰπεῖν ἢ ἄλλος τις τῶν Δικαιογένους συγγενῶν, ὡς,
ὅτε μὲν προὔκειτο, ὤκνουν καὶ ᾐσχύνοντο λόγους περὶ αὐτοῦ ποιεῖσθαι, ἐξενεχ
θέντος δὲ ἢ περὶ τῶν χρημάτων τινὰ μνείαν εἴχετε (ἔχετε libri: corr. Sauppe)
ἢ τὰς θυγατέρας ἠξιοῦτε ἀξιοῦτε libri: corr. Sauppe) διαιτᾶσθαι (fortasse τῶν
θυγατέρων ἠξιοῦτε ἐπιδικάσασθαι Sauppe).
ار
21.4 κομιούμενος αυτόν, to get the body, to which I had a right; the
active κομίζειν (11. 6, 7) is 'to carry off, remove.
ὡς θάψων ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας τῆς ἐμαυτοῦ. Cp. Lys. 12. 18 καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἀπεφέρετο
ἐκ τοῦ δεσμωτηρίου τεθνεώς, τριῶν ἡμῖν οἰκιῶν οὐσῶν <ἐξ> οὐδεμιᾶς εἴασαν
ἐξενεχθῆναι, ἀλλὰ κλεισίον μισθωσάμενοι προὔθεντο αὐτόν. For the laying out
of the corpse (πρόθεσις) and the procession to the grave (πρὸς τὸ μνῆμα
ἐκφορά) see Blumner-Hermann, Gr. Privataltert. p. 363 sqq.
6, 7 κομίζειν οἷος ἦν. Cp. Harp. s.v. οἷος εἶ καὶ οἷός τε εἶ: τὸ μὲν χωρὶς
τοῦ τέ σημαίνει τὸ βούλει καὶ προῄρησαι, τὸ δὲ σὺν τῷ τέ τὸ δύνασαι. ἀμφοτέροις
ἐχρήσατο Λυσίας ἐν τῷ κατὰ Λυσιθέου, εἰ γνήσιος, Phot. s.v. οἷος: ἀντὶ τοῦ
ἕτοιμος....καὶ οἷος ἦν, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἕτοιμος ἦν· τίθεται δὲ καὶ ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐσπούδαζεν·
Λυσίας (fr. 159 Saupp.) ἐβιάζετό τε γὰρ καὶ οἷος ἦν ἐξευρεῖν τὴν θύραν. The
definition of the grammarians fits the few passages in the orators where the
text is undisputed, i.e. Dem. 4. 9 καὶ οὐχ οἷός ἐστ᾽ ἔχων ἃ κατέστραπται μένειν
ἐπὶ τούτων, [Dem.] 44. 19 ηγανάκτει τε τῷ γεγενημένῳ καὶ οἷος ἦν ἐπεξιέναι τῷ
Λεωκράτει, 52. 10 οἷος οὖν εἰμι καὶ ἐγὼ τὰ ἐνθάδε αὐτὸς ἀξιοῦν λαμβάνειν. In
Dem. 21. 85, 23. 170, 41. 14, [Dem.] 44. 35 editors are divided between olos
and οἷός τε, and choice is often difficult. Note that οἷός εἰμι ποιεῖν is not
identical with eiµì oîos moleîv, is sum qui faciat (XI. 16. 7, 8 n.).
22.7 δεδεημένη γὰρ εἴη. For the independent Optative in continuation
of Oratio Obliqua see Goodwin, M. & T. § 675, Ant. 1. 10, 6. 22, And. 1. 40,
Lys. 13. 9, 78, Isocr. 17. 21 (κατεροίη Cobet), Dem. 1. 22, [Dem.] 50. 44, 50,
53. 10.
4
23.3 ἀρραβῶνα. Cp. Thalheim-Hermann, Gr. Rechtsaltert. p. 88 n. I,
OR. VIII.
605
COMMENTARY
and for the evidence of papyri Crönert, Memoria Graeca Herculanensis
p. 80, Gradenwitz, Einführung in die Papyruskunde p. 60 αναπόριφος
ἀρραβών, earnest money which the vendor may not return).
5, 6 συστῆσαι τοὺς λαβόντας, ' to present or introduce (to me) the persons
who had received the earnest money: see Isocr. 17. 37 ἐρωτῶντος γὰρ
Στρατοκλέους ὅστις αὐτῷ ἀποδώσει τὰ χρήματα... Πασίων᾽ αὐτῷ συνέστησα καὶ
ὡμολόγησεν οὗτος αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ ἀργύριον καὶ τοὺς τόκους ἀποδώσειν, Dem. 41. 6
ἅπαντα τὸν χρόνον ὀφείλειν ὡμολόγει μοι Πολύευκτος καὶ τὸν Λεωκράτην συνέσε
τησε, [Dem.] 49. 26, 52. 4, 18.
ef
6 τοῦτο παρεφθέγγετο, ' he casually let fall the remark (Hyp. 3. 32 cited
on VI. 59. 7, 8).
24. 3
ἐκείνους ἂν τοὺς λόγους ἔλεγε. Compare Dem. 19. 109 ἐγὼ δ᾽
ἐκείνους τοὺς λόγους ἐζήτουν παρὰ τούτου, εἰ μὴ πεπρακὼς αὑτὸν ἦν ‘ἄνδρες
Αθηναῖοι, ἐμοὶ μὲν χρήσασθ᾽ ὅ τι βούλεσθε· ἐπίστευσ᾽, ἐξηπατήθην, ἥμαρτον,
ὁμολογῶ κ.τ.λ. τούτων οὐδέν᾽ ἀκούω τῶν λόγων, [Dem.] 34. 15 καίτοι εἰκός
γ᾽ ἦν αὐτὸν εἰπεῖν, ‘τί με προσκαλεῖ, ἄνθρωπε; ἀποδέδωκα γὰρ τούτῳ τῷ
παρεστηκότι τὸ χρυσίον, καὶ ἅμα ὁμολογοῦντα παρέχειν τὸν Λάμπιν· νῦν δ᾽
οὐδέτερος αὐτῶν οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν εἶπεν ἐν τοιούτῳ καιρῷ.
4, 5 οὐ μὴ εἴσει εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν. You shall not enter the house; the
future is not predictive but prohibitory, expressing the will of the speaker.
Schoeman is the only editor who rejects Bekker's correction and defends the
MS. reading (où µǹ eioiŋs tǹv oikiav). See Goodwin, M. & T. § 295 sqq. and
Appendix II. p. 389 sqq.
ત
6 εἰς ἕω. See 1. 14. 6 ¾., and to the examples there cited add [Dem.]
prooem. 34. Ι οὐκ ἄδηλον ἦν...ὅτι οἱ τότε κωλυθέντες ἐροῖεν εἰς ἑτέραν ἐκκλησίαν,
S. I. G. n. 589 (Oropus), 19, 20 προσκαλεῖσθαι δὲ καὶ αὐθημερὸν περὶ τῶν ἐν
τοῖ ἱεροῖ ἀδικίων· ἂν δὲ ὁ ἀντίδικος μὴ συνχωρεῖ, εἰς τὴν ὑστέρην ἡ δίκη
τελείσθω.
<
25. I ἀλλ' οὐδέ. The negative oùdè is awkward, since où which pre-
cedes belongs only to μόνος. Jebb points out that the sentence would be
clearer, if we had either οὐ μόνος ἐκεῖνος οὐδὲν εἶπεν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ὁ νῦν ἀμφισ
βητῶν οι οὐ μόνος ἐκεῖνος ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ νῦν ἀμφισβητῶν ἐσίγησεν.
2, 3 παρασκευασθείς. Cp. § 3. 4 κ.
5 τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ, with φάσκοντος ; he alleged (§ 38 προσεποιεῖτο) next day,
when I brought the money according to my engagement (eis ëw § 24), that
he had been paid by my adversary.
6,7 οὐχ ὅπως τοῦδε ἀναλίσκοντος οὐδὲ Διοκλέους. We shall see in §§ 38,
39 that the opponent claimed credit for having defrayed the expenses of
Ciron's funeral, and that the speaker felt himself put at a disadvantage by
this stroke of policy. He meets the claim by a denial of the fact: 'so far
from my opponent and Diocles laying out money, the charges were drawn
from the property left by the deceased. For the idiomatic use of οὐχ ὅπως,
'not to speak of,' see Goodwin, M. & T. § 707; the correlative clause is
generally introduced by ἀλλὰ καὶ or ἀλλ᾽ οὐδέ, but compare with this passage
v. 24, Lys. 3o. 26 ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὅπως ὑμῖν τῶν αὑτοῦ τι ἐπέδωκεν, ἀλλὰ τῶν ὑμετέρων
πολλὰ ὑφῄρηται, Dem. 18. 131 οὐχ ὅπως χάριν αὐτοῖς ἔχεις, ἀλλὰ μισθώσας
σαυτὸν κατὰ τουτωνὶ πολιτεύει.
26. 3, 4 οὐδὲν γὰρ ὅμοιον ἦν μοι πρὸς τοῦτον, scil. καὶ τούτῳ πρὸς ἐμέ, 'my
606
OR. VIII.
ISAEUS
position in regard to him was in no way the same' (as his in regard to me).
The speaker forestalls an objection: 'if, as you say, he ought to have
excluded you, why did not you exclude him?'
27.2 οὐδ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῦ μνήματος κ.τ.λ. Compare for the thought the passage
of Lysias cited above (§§ 21-27 analysis); when once the body was in the
grave, the time for reserve and silence was past.
5 γρύξαι, a homely colloquialism, not often found outside the comedians
(Plat. Euthyd. 301 A ἡγούμην δίκαια πεπονθέναι ὅτι ἔγρυξα, Xen. Oec. 2. 1 1 οὐδ᾽
ἀναγρύζειν μοι ἐξουσίαν ἐποίησας, Dem. 19. 39 περὶ δὲ Φωκέων ἢ Θηβαίων ἢ τῶν
ἄλλων ὧν οὗτος ἀπήγγειλεν, οὐδὲ γρῦ).
28-29 Summary of the first division of the argument. What clearer
proof can be given that my mother was Ciron's legitimate daughter? With
regard to the remote past I produce witnesses who depose to what they have
heard, from men still living I produce those who have personal knowledge of
the several facts; and I show that my opponents have shrunk from applying
the test of torture to slaves who knew all the circumstances.
28. Ι πόθεν χρὴ πιστεύεσθαι κ.τ.λ. This passage down to ἀνάγκη
μεγάλη recurs nearly uerbatim in another speech of Isaeus, apparently a
defence of a guardian prosecuted by a ward, Dion. Hal. De Isaeo c. 12,
p. 607 R., 108 Usener and Radermacher, Isae. fr. 30 Sauppe: πόθεν
χρὴ πιστεύεσθαι τὰ εἰρημένα πρὸς θεῶν; οὐκ ἐκ τῶν μαρτύρων; οἴομαί γε
(δὲ libri : corr. Sylburg). πόθεν δὲ τοὺς μάρτυρας; οὐκ ἐκ τῶν βασάνων ; εἰκός
γε. πόθεν δέ
ἀπιστεῖσθαι τοὺς λόγους τοὺς τούτων; οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ φεύγειν τοὺς
ἐλέγχους; ἀνάγκη μεγάλη. The substance is a commonplace from an 'Art of
Oratory, but the form, as Dionysius observes, is characteristic of Isaeus.
Ye
K
5 πῶς οὖν ἄν τις σαφέστερον ἐπιδείξειε κ.τ.λ., imitated by Demosthenes in
27. 47 sqq. πῶς οὖν ἄν τις σαφέστερον ἐπιδείξειε πάντα διηρπακότα καὶ μηδὲ τῶν
μικρῶν ἀπεσχημένον, ἢ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἐπιδεικνὺς μετὰ τοσούτων μαρτύρων
καὶ τεκμηρίων; τὴν μὲν προῖκα λαβεῖν ὁμολογήσαντα καὶ ἔχειν αὐτὸν πρὸς τοὺς
ἐπιτρόπους ἀπογράψαντα, τὸ δ᾽ ἐργαστήριον κεκαρπωμένον κ.τ.λ. (participial
clauses), and in 29. 55 sqq. πῶς οὖν ἄν τις σαφέστερον ἐξελέγξειε συκοφαντου-
μένους ἡμᾶς καὶ καταμεμαρτυρημένον τἀληθῆ καὶ τὴν δίκην δικαίως ὠφλημένην, ἢ
τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἐπιδεικνύς; οἰκέτην τὸν τὴν μαρτυρίαν γράφοντ᾽ οὐκ ἐθελή-
σαντα τοῦτον βασανίζειν περὶ αὐτῶν τῶν μεμαρτυρημένων· Αἴσιον τὸν ἀδελφὸν
αὐτοῦ ταῦτα μεμαρτυρηκότα, ἅ φησιν εἶναι ψευδῆ κ.τ.λ. (more participial
clauses).
29. Ι τῶν μὲν παλαιῶν ἀκοὴν μαρτυρούντων κ.τ.λ. Cp. § 6. 2, 3 τὰ μὲν
πάλαι γεγενημένα λόγων ἀκοῇ καὶ μαρτύρων. The contortions of this period
are caused by the perplexities of the argument. The antithesis to τῶν
παλαιῶν is only conveyed by implication in τῶν ἔτι ζώντων, because it cannot
be precisely stated. On examination of §§ 9, 10, 14 it appears that Ciron's
first marriage, the birth of a daughter, and her residence in Ciron's house are
the facts for which the speaker can produce nothing better than hearsay
evidence (ἀκοή), i.e. accounts by witnesses of discourse with persons now
dead. But he calls witnesses who were personally cognisant of his mother's
betrothal first to Nausimenes, and next to his father, and he also argues that
Ciron's slaves ought to be tortured, because they must know whether she was
Ciron's daughter, and whether she lived in Ciron's family. The 'remote
OR. VIII.
607
COMMENTARY
past' is a figment. If at the time of the trial there were people still alive
who had personal knowledge of the two betrothals, surely among Ciron's
friends and relations, and in the larger circle of members of his parpía and
deme, men might have survived, whose memory carried them 14 or 15 years
farther back. Ciron married Diocles' sister when the orator's mother was a
little child (§ 7), and she is still living. Further, how old were the slaves
who are assumed to know about the birth and early years of Ciron's
daughter? Who were the witnesses (§§ 11, 13) put forward by the other
side to declare that Ciron never had a daughter? In § 6 rà μèv nádαi
πάλαι
γεγενημένα was opposed to τὰ δ᾽ ὥστε καὶ μνημονεύεσθαι, but at the beginning
of the speech Isaeus could take liberties; his case, and his witnesses, had
not been heard. The strange expression akoǹ μартνроúvтшv is supported by
λóywv åkoǹ kai µaprúpwv used in § 6. Reiske demanded the proper term of
Athenian law, and proposed τοὺς ἀκοὴν μαρτυροῦντας. Jebb approves, if the
article be omitted.
2 ékaota Toútwv, misleading; for the words convey the idea that the
hearsay evidence was confirmed in detail by witnesses who spoke from their
own knowledge. The relations of Nausimenes and of the speaker's father
might of course have stated in their depositions (§ 14) that the speaker's
mother, whose betrothals they attended, was brought up in Ciron's house and
reputed his daughter (παρ' ἐκείνῳ τρεφομένην, θυγατέρα νομιζομένην), but a
comparison of §§ 9, 10, 14 suggests that their knowledge on these two points
was not of the same nature as their knowledge of the marriage. In any case
the two marriages do not constitute conclusive evidence of legitimacy.
θυγατέρα νομιζομένην.
3, 4 Ovyaтépa voμišoµévηv. Compare the deposition in [Dem.] 43. 35
μαρτυροῦσι δημόται εἶναι Φιλάγρῳ τῷ Εὐβουλίδου πατρὶ καὶ Πολέμωνι τῷ πατρὶ
τῷ ῾Αγνίου, καὶ εἰδέναι Φυλομάχην τὴν μητέρα τὴν Εὐβουλίδου νομιζομένην ἀδελφὴν
εἶναι Πολέμωνος τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ῾Αγνίου ὁμοπατρίαν καὶ ὁμομητρίαν.
5 τούτους...πεφευγότας. The accusative is governed by ἐπιδεικνὺς sup-
plied from above; compare Dem. 27. 47 sqq., 29. 55 sqq. quoted on § 28. 5.
The construction is awkward, but no other explanation seems possible; the
case cannot depend either on Taрexóμevos or, as Schoemann thinks, on
ovvýdeσav. For a similar but more pardonable license see IV. 26. 7, 8 n.
Buermann (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 367) and Thalheim retain ToúTwv, the reading
of A, which increases the grammatical difficulty.
6 μὰ τοὺς θεοὺς τοὺς Ὀλυμπίους. Cp. VI. 58. 1, 2 η.
30-34 I will now show that I have a better title to Ciron's property
than my opponent. Though it must be manifest to you that descendants are
nearer in succession than collaterals, I will prove it in detail from the laws.
Suppose that my mother was alive, that Ciron had died intestate, and that my
opponent was Ciron's brother, not Ciron's nephew. In that case he would
have had a right to marry her, but no right to the property, which would
have belonged to his and her children when they attained their majority.
This is the law. If then in her lifetime the right to her property was vested
not in him but in her children, obviously the children she has left ought to
inherit it, now that she is dead. This is also plain from the law concerning
maltreatment of parents. If my grandfather were alive, and in want, we,
not his nephew, should be compelled to maintain him. Is it just that we
608
OR. VIII.
ISAEUS
should be liable for not maintaining our ascendants, when they leave nothing,
and that our opponent should be heir to anything they happen to have left?
The best way of explaining matters is to put some questions. Is Ciron's
daughter or Ciron's brother nearer of kin? The daughter obviously. Are
the daughter's children nearer or the brother? Plainly the children, who are
descendants, not collateral relations. If then we have such an advantage over
the brother, a fortiori we rank before the nephew. But I am afraid of weary-
ing you with the recital of truths universally recognised; you all inherit
from fathers, grandfathers, and remoter ascendants without having to go to
the courts. I question if any one has ever before been engaged in such a suit
as this.
I will content myself with reading the law concerning maltreat-
ment of parents, and then I will try to explain the real object of these
proceedings.
This argument deals with one of the most obscure problems of Athenian
law. We have already learned in the course of the 3rd speech how hard
it is to discover from the pleadings of an advocate the exact truth with regard
Isaeus there con-
to the legal rights of an only daughter and her children.
tends (§§ 59-62) that Phile, if a legitimate daughter of Pyrrhus, ought not
to have sought an award by a court (éπidikaσía), but should have made entry
(éµßátevois) on her patrimony, like a legitimate son. The rights of sons and
daughters are completely identified. But the proof offered (§ 59. 1 n.) is
fallacious, and the orator is inconsistent, for he also (§ 63 sqq.) maintains
that Phile could be claimed by the nearest male relative in the order of
intestate succession, in other words, that she was not in the same position as
a son, since she was not heir and owner, but was herself inherited as an
appendage to the property. Again, in the same speech (§ 50. 6) Isaeus lays
down in general terms the principle that 'the children born of a legitimate
daughter are heirs of all the property of their mother's father,' and concludes
that, if Phile had been legitimate, Endius would have endangered his hold
on Pyrrhus' property by permitting Xenocles to marry her (see also § 55.7).
No distinction is made between the children of a daughter married after her
father's death by the next-of-kin, and the children of a daughter who had
been given in marriage to some one outside her family, before by her father's
death she was constituted an èπíkλŋpos. And yet the same authority also
states (§§ 64, 65) without any reserves or qualifications with respect to the
existence of issue, that a married daughter became érídios when her father
died, and could be compelled by a claimant to dissolve her marriage.
πικ
Such contradictions warn us to look closely into Isaeus' reasoning. Many
scholars (Beauchet III. p. 467) are entirely convinced by the argument of these
five sections, and enunciate as a rule of Athenian law that, on failure of sons,
the descendants of a daughter deceased before her father succeeded their
maternal grandfather as representatives of their mother, with all the rights
that their mother would have enjoyed, and that consequently descendants of
daughters always excluded collaterals. But the question raised in this speech
cannot be settled so easily. The speaker's contention is that his mother
was Ciron's legitimate daughter. If her father, he says (§ 31), had made no
will, and she had survived him, she would have been an éπíкλŋpos, and could
have been claimed and married by Ciron's brother, and the children (waîdes)
OR. VIII.
609
COMMENTARY
of this union, on reaching their majority (ẻπì dietès ýßýoavtes), would have
come into possession of Ciron's property. It is thus admitted that an ẻπí-
kλŋpos does not inherit under the same conditions as a son, that she is only
the intermediary by whom the estate is transmitted to a male of the same
blood as her father. Now what would have been the position of the speaker,
if his mother had really survived Ciron, and had become an éπíkληpos?
Would he have possessed rights in Ciron's estate? Or would he have been
excluded by male issue of the supposed union between his mother and
Ciron's brother? The point is vital, but it is passed over in silence. But, as
a matter of fact, his mother never was an éπíkλŋpos, since she died before
her father. Her sons certainly inherited the dowry which her father is said
to have given her. Did they also inherit reversionary rights to her father's
estate? The character of Isaeus' exposition is such that doubts may fairly
be entertained. The general considerations which are alleged, equitable as
they appear, are a poor substitute for a quotation from a law. All the rules
concerning the éšíkλŋpos are a violation of equity. In a later portion of the
speech (§ 36) the orator lets fall a significant remark. 'Ciron's wife,' he says,
'instigated by her brother Diocles, repeatedly pretended to be pregnant in
order that Ciron, hoping to have children, might not adopt either of us as
his son.' This
This is not an absolute proof that the sons of the daughter were
not recognised by the law as Ciron's heirs, for it may be said that a man
might adopt a daughter's son to ensure the preservation of the family cult or
to prevent the breaking up of the family property. But the observation
marks a difference between the son of a son (vidoûs) and the son of a
daughter (Ouyaтpidoûs). I know no instance of an Athenian adopting a
vůdoûs. A question may also be asked about procedure. The speaker
assimilates the rights of sons and daughters (§ 1 Κίρωνος οὐκ ἄπαιδος
τελευτήσαντος, ἀλλ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἐκ θυγατρὸς αὑτοῦ γνησίας παῖδας αὑτῷ καταλε-
λοιπότος, § 34 πάντες ὑμεῖς τῶν πατρῴων, τῶν παππῴων, τῶν ἔτι περαιτέρω
κληρονομείτε ἐκ γένους παρειληφότες τὴν ἀγχιστείαν ἀνεπίδικον). Why then
did he not avail himself of the advantages presented by diaµaprvpía and
ἐμβάτευσις ?
tôv
The only evidence for the opponent's line of attack is the statement in
the hypothesis that he grounded himself upon the law κρατεῖν δὲ τοὺς ἄρρενας
Kaì TOÙS ÉK Tŵv åppévwv (Introd. p. 585). The speaker ignores entirely the
case against him. We can imagine the adversary arguing that the accident
of death ought not to prejudice his interests. 'I deny that Ciron had a
daughter. But suppose that my uncle, dying intestate, had left a legitimate
daughter. Then I, as nephew, should have inherited her, together with the
estate. Suppose further that he had had a daughter who had predeceased
him, leaving sons. Why should I suffer? She would have had her due,
viz. her dowry, and her sons would have no ground of complaint, except
against their grandfather for not making a will in their favour.'
30. 2 éπideížw, probably an aorist subjunctive, not a future indicative ;
see Dem. 20. 62 φέρε δὴ κἀκεῖνο ἐξετάσωμεν, [Dem.] 59. 55 φέρε δὴ ὑμῖν καὶ
ἑτέραν μαρτυρίαν παράσχωμαι.
3 áλws, opposed to ȧкpißéσrepov below, 'as a general proposition,' in
Dobree's λws is unnecessary. Buermann condemns kai
uniuersum.
W. I.
39
610
OR. VIII.
ISAEUS
before vµîv, presumably because it was added by A¹, for it makes good
sense ('clear to you as well as to me').
3, 4 οὐκ ἐγγυτέρω τῆς ἀγχιστείας. If this means 'not nearer to the
proximity recognised by law (the legal order of succession),' the expression
is hardly intelligible, for brothers were ranked among the άyxioтeîs and could
be said to be ἐν τῇ ἀγχιστείᾳ (ΧΙ. 29) or ἐν ταῖς ἀγχιστείαις (ΧΙ. 17, 18). Matters
are not sensibly bettered by interpreting ȧyxiστeía here as 'the rights of
ἀγχιστεῖς (Dem. 21. 102 οὐχ ἵν᾽ ἀποστερήσῃ τοὺς ἐγγυτάτω γένει τῆς ἀγχιστείας),
for the question is who possess these rights, not who come nearer to them.
Schoemann translates 'Im Allgemeinen...ist es...klar, dass Seitenverwandte
nicht näher berechtigt sind als Descendenten. Obviously this is the sense
required by the context ('in respect of the legal succession collaterals are
not nearer than, do not come before, descendants'), but it can only be
extracted from the words by supposing that the phrase ἐγγυτέρω τῆς ἀγχι
στείας is a sort of parody of ἐγγυτέρω γένους (§ 33. 3, 4 π.), which does some-
times seem to mean 'nearer in respect of kinship.' Emper, Opusc. p. 316,
proposed ταῖς ἀγχιστείαις as in VII. 44 ἑτέρων ταῖς ἀγχιστείαις προτέρων αὐτοῦ
τῆς γυναικὸς ὄντων. The singular τῇ ἀγχιστείᾳ (τῆι ἀγχιστείαι) is closer to the
ductus litterarum (III. 74. 6 n., XI. 5. 10 n.). It will be objected that the
change creates hiatus, which in this speech is avoided (1. Introd. p. 179).
But in this matter Isaeus is never pedantically scrupulous; see §§ 1. 1 áváyêŋ
ἐστί, 5. 9 μου ἀκοῦσαι, 12. 3 δέῃ εὑρεθῆναι, 15. 4 ἄνευ ἡμῶν, 15. 7 ἀεὶ ἡμᾶς, 20. 7
ἑτέρᾳ ἄν τινι, 21. 5 ἐμαυτοῦ οἰκείων, 36. 2 πάλαι ἐπεβούλευεν, 45. 6 προσήκει ἡμῖν.
31. 3 ἦν δὲ ἀδελφὸς οὗτος αὐτῷ, μὴ ἀδελφιδούς. The speaker does not
mean to assert, as Caillemer (Droit de succession légitime p. 39) and Hafter (Die
Erbtochter nach attischem Recht p. 36) suppose, that Ciron's daughter, if an
éπíkλŋpos, could not be claimed by Ciron's nephew; see X. 5, 13, III. 63–71
analysis. His point is that his opponent, if he were a degree nearer to
Ciron, would still only be entitled to marry Ciron's daughter, but would not
be entitled to the property.
4,5 tŵv dè xpηµátwv ovk äv K.T.λ. The law, or part of it, is preserved in
[Dem.] 46. 20 καὶ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐπικλήρου τις γένηται, καὶ ἅμα ἡβήσῃ ἐπὶ διετές, κρατεῖν
τῶν χρημάτων, τὸν δὲ σῖτον μετρεῖν τῇ μητρί ; see also the references in III. 50.
6 n., 73. 9 n. The meaning of ἐπὶ διετὲς ἡβῆσαι has been disputed both in
ancient and modern times; see Beauchet II. p. 107 sqq. The phrase is
archaic, handed down from an age prior to the institution of the deme. In
the 4th century Athenians attained their majority when they were enrolled
on the register of their deme, and this was done 'when they were eighteen
years of age,' i.e. in the course of their nineteenth year ('A☺. Hoλ. 42. 1 éyypá-
φονται δ᾽ εἰς τοὺς δημότας ὀκτωκαίδεκα ἔτη γεγονότες). The natural conclusion
is that in the time of Isaeus ἐπὶ διετὲς ἡβῆσαι was equivalent to ἐτῶν ὀκτωκαί
deka yevéolai (Bekk. An. Gr. I. p. 255, 15), the age of puberty (ñ³ŋ) in the
male being fixed at 16 years. But here a difficulty arises; there is a large
body of evidence (Schmidt, Gr. Chron. p. 315), that in the opinion of the
Greeks the male reached puberty at the age of 14, and it is on record that
Didymus (Harp. s.v. éπidietès ßñσai, Schol. Aesch. 3. 122) defined ó éπì
διετὲς ἡβήσας by ὁ ἑκκαίδεκα ἔτη γενόμενος. The best solution is to suppose
that in the age of the orators the legal and the natural age of puberty were
1
OR. VIII.
611
COMMENTARY
not the same.
The only alternative is the improbable hypothesis that sons
of èπíkλnрoɩ were entered on the register of the deme, received the admini-
stration of their estate, and began their military service two years earlier
than other youths. For the form of the sentence compare [Dem.] 46. 19 ǹ
μάρτυρας μὲν ψευδεῖς οἴεσθ᾽ ἂν αὐτοὺς παρασχέσθαι καὶ διαθήκας οὐκ οὔσας,
ἀδελφὸν δὲ ἢ πάππον ἢ πατέρα οὐκ ἄν, εἴπερ ἦν δυνατὸν ἕνεκα χρημάτων ;
6 ὁπότε... ἥβησαν. Scaliger corrected the reading of the Aldine, ἐβίωσαν,
to ẞýσelav, and Reiske and Bekker are in favour of the optative. The indi-
cative is right. The first half of this complex conditional sentence refers to
present time: if my mother were now alive and an èπíkλnpos, he would be
κληρος,
entitled to marry her, but not entitled to the property. The second half
refers to an imaginary result of an event which has not taken place. To
express this the writer shifts his point of view and looks upon the unrealised
consequence as something belonging to the past: (if he had married her)
the children born of this marriage (if children had been born of the marriage)
would have been entitled to the property, when they came of age. Compare
Dem. 23. 91 καίτοι εἴ γ᾽ ἐδίδου κρίσιν καὶ μὴ ἀφῃρεῖτο, τότ᾽ ἂν προσέγραψεν
κατὰ τῶν ἀφελομένων τὴν τιμωρίαν, ὁπότ᾽ εἰς τὴν κρίσιν μὴ παρέσχον ὃν
éģeíλovтo. It may fairly be doubted whether the optative is possible here,
since no marriage has taken place; see IV. II. 2 n. The complications are
increased by the ambiguity of the word kúpios (VI. 30. 3 12.). The son of an
ἐπίκληρος becomes master of the property (κύριός ἐστι=κρατεῖ) when he
attains his majority, but he has a right to it (kúpiós éσti) as soon as he is
born. During the minority of the son his father has control (kúpiós éσti) of
the estate, resembling a guardian who administers the property of a ward.
기
​7 éyéveTo. The legitimacy of the aorist here is questionable. The words
καὶ ζώσης describe an unfulfilled condition, not a fact, like καὶ τετελευτηκυίας
in the next line. I prefer èyíyveto; see for the construction I. 44. 5 22.
Gebauer, De arg. ex contr. formis p. 320, proposes κầv (wons or avtòs åv.
Observe that the speaker's argument can be turned against himself. The
adversary can reply thus: since on your own showing you would not have
come into Ciron's property, if your mother had survived him, why should
you now inherit it, when she has died before her father?
10 Xpηµáтwv. Albrecht (Hermes 18, 1883, p. 377) conjectures that there
is a lacuna after this word, considering it improbable that Isaeus omitted to
quote the terms of the law on which this part of the argument is based.
ἐκ τοῦ περὶ τῆς κακώσεως νόμου. For the law concerning mal-
treatment of parents and its sanctions see I. 39. 5 n.
32. I, 2
dè
5 γονεῖς δ᾽ εἰσὶ κ.τ.λ. For the strained use of γονεύς compare Hdt. I. 91
Κροῖσος δὲ πέμπτου γονέος (Gyges) ἁμαρτάδα ἐξέπλησε. In Attic prose γονείς
never means anything but 'parents.'
6, 7 ἐκεῖνοι γὰρ ἀρχὴ τοῦ γένους. The rights of ἀγχιστεία stopped at first
cousins once removed in the male line (VII. 22. 5 n.), i.e. at persons who were
connected with the deceased through their great-grandfather. Thalheim,
though he does not join in Buermann's war against A¹ (Crit. Introd.
p. xxix), nevertheless accepts here èxeivŋ (Apr.) in preference to ẻkeîvoi (A¹).
8, 9 διόπερ ἀνάγκη τρέφειν αὐτούς ἐστι, κἂν μηδὲν καταλίπωσι. Isaeus is
speaking to the judges as 'men of the world.' Popular audiences like
39-2
612
OR. VIII.
ISAEUS
a little cynicism as well as effusions of sentiment. At Athens neither law
nor public opinion founded filial duty on the right of succession; see Plat.
Laws 931 A-E, Xen. Mem. 2. 2. 13 sqq., Ar. Nic. Eth. 9. 2. 1165 a 22 sqq.,
Aesch. 1. 28, Lyc. 94 sqq.
33. I πρὸς ἕνα δὲ τὸν πρῶτον τῶν συγγενῶν προσάξω κ.τ.λ. The text of
these two clauses is unsound, though the general sense is clear: I will com-
pare the first of the collaterals (i.e. the brother of the deceased) with the
several descendants. Reiske, after suggesting that vuâs may be supplied.
with πρoσáέw, prefers to consider the verb intransitive and ‘equivalent to
προσελεύσομαι, προσβαδιοῦμαι, προσχωρήσω, adibo, accedams; the second
clause (καὶ τοῦ γένους καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ὑμᾶς ἐρωτήσω) he translates thus:
insistens paululum in unoquoque тwv ẻкyóvwv interrogabo uos. But in
classical prose the so-called 'intransitive' use of πрoσáɣew is confined to
the military sphere, where the omitted accusative is obviously the army
(Xen. Cyr. 1. 6. 43, 5. 4. 44). Schoemann appears to be satisfied with the
reading of the MS.: mihi καθ᾽ ἕκαστον τοῦ γένους etiam huius uerbi (προ-
oáέw) obiectum esse uidetur, licet paullo liberius collocatum post kaì coniunc-
tionem; poterat enim ita: πρὸς ἕνα....προσάξω τοῦ γένους καθ᾽ ἕκαστον καὶ
ἐρωτήσω ὑμᾶς. That in certain circumstances τοῦ γένους (i.e. τῶν ἐκγόνων)
καθ᾽ ἕκαστον might be the object of a verb is indicated by Dem. 54. 26 τῶν
παρόντων καθ᾿ ἕν᾿ οὑτωσὶ πρὸς τὸν λίθον ἄγοντες, and many similar passages
(Rehdantz, Demosth. Index II S.V. кαтá), but the words cannot have a
double construction and belong both to προσάξω and to ὑμᾶς ἐρωτήσω ; we
must make our choice. Schoemann's German version is 'Doch ich will nur
einmal den nächsten unter den Seitenverwandten nehmen, und bei jedem
Grade der Descendenz euch selbst fragen. Jebb supplies in thought ròv ěkyovov
as object of πpoσáέw, and translates the second clause by 'I will question
you on the details of lineal descent.' Agreeing with Dobree (Adv. 1. p. 307)
and Herwerden (Mnem. N.S. 9, 1881, p. 393) that the object of πρoσáέw
προσάξω
must be expressed, I am inclined to adopt with a slight change Herwerden's
emendation, πρὸς ἕνα δὲ τὸν πρῶτον τῶν συγγενῶν προσάξω καὶ τοῦ γένους
< ἕνα, καὶ> καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ὑμᾶς ἐρωτήσω, against one of the collaterals, the
first, I will bring up one of the descendants (i.e. I will confront them,
marshal them against each other), and will interrogate you on each case.'
The metaphor in προσάξω is surprising; we expect παρ' να....παραθήσω,
παρεξετάσω. Further, the phrase εἷς ὁ πρῶτος generally means 'the first who
comes' (Dem. 1. 9).
3, 4 EYYUTÉρW TOû yévous, a construction hard to analyse. The com-
bination, ὁ ἐγγυτάτω (ἐγγύτατα) γένους, in which the genitive is partitive, is
derived from the laws of Solon (Ar. Aves 1655, [Dem.] 43. 54); it is normal
in Isaeus and not infrequent in other Athenian writers (e.g. Lys. fr. 108
Sauppe, [Dem.] 44. 2, Plat. Laws 774 E). The alternative, ó ¿yyvtátw
(éyyútata) yével (Plat. Laws 866 C, 924 B), occurs once only in Isaeus
(1. 40. 5); its choice is sometimes due to a desire to avoid an accumulation
of genitives (Plat. Laws 866 A B ó Toû Teλevrýσavтos yével éyyúтara, Soph.
265 A, Dem. 20. 102). Further, Isaeus has the expression éyyvrátw yévous
eivaɩ (V. 10, VIII. 1), but this development, natural as it appears, is rare
(C. I. Α. 1. 8, 6 ὃς ἂν ᾖ ἐγγυτάτω γένους, Aesch. Suppl. 393 φάσκοντες ἐγγύτατα
αν
OR. VIII.
613
COMMENTARY
γένους εἶναι, Plat. Hipp. Μai. 304 D καὶ γάρ μοι τυγχάνει ἐγγύτατα γένους ὤν,
Anaximenes ap. Rh. Gr. 1. p. 16, 5 Hammer å voµoléτns kλnpovóμovs teñoinke
τοὺς ἐγγυτάτω γένους ὄντας τοῖς ἄπαισιν ἀποθνῄσκουσιν), the usual turn being
ἐγγυτάτω γένει είναι (e.g. [Dem.] 44. 26 τῷ ᾿Αρχιάδῃ ἐγγυτάτω γένει ἐσμέν,
43. 17 yével éyyúrara övras, Plat. Lach. 187 E). With the comparative
(eyyuréρw) the dative (yéve) is regular (e.g. [Dem.] 44. 15 ws cloì yéveɩ éyyv-
τέρω, 48. 6 οὐδεὶς ἦν ἄλλος τῷ Κόμωνι γένει ἐγγυτέρω ἐμοῦ, Plat. Αpol. 30 A ὅσῳ
μου ἐγγυτέρω ἐστὲ γένει), and Isaeus stands alone in admitting the genitive
(ΙΙΙ. 72 πότερον ὅτι προσήκοντες αὐτῷ ἐγγυτέρω γένους ἡμῶν ἦσαν ἄλλοι;).
This last phrase has grown out of eyyurárw yévous, there being no evidence,
so far as I know, of the existence in Attic of oi éyyùs yévous, which is used by
Plutarch (Mor. 289 D), and the genitive is not the object of ¿yyvrépw, but seems
to define the application of the comparative ('nearer of kin,' i.e. in respect
of kin). But it is doubtful whether eyyurépw Toû yévous can be explained in
the same way as eyyuтépw yévous, since Attic prose furnishes no example
either of ἐγγυτάτω τοῦ γένους εἶναι or of ἐγγυτάτω τῷ γένει εἶναι; compare
I. 49. 3 n. If the article be retained, the sentence should be rendered 'Is
Ciron's daughter or brother nearer to Ciron's stock?,' not 'Is daughter or
brother nearer of kin to Ciron?? I would rather cut out the article.
6 γένος ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ συγγένεια. The antithesis is forced. Normally γένος
does not exclude collaterals (XI. 1, 2, [Dem.] 44. 27 tò óµoλoyoúµevov yévos
(a grand-nephew and his son) égeλaúvwv, Plat. Laws 925 B éàv µèv §vyyevǹs
ᾖ, κατὰ τὴν τάξιν τοῦ νόμου ἐπὶ τὸν κλῆρον πορευέσθω, ἐὰν δὲ ἐκτὸς γένους, τῶν
ἐν τῇ πόλει ὄντων ἔξω τῆς συγγενείας, κύριος ἔστω κ.τ.λ.), and Isaeus himself
uses σvyyevns of the relation of son and mother (XI. 17).
T
34. 2, 3 πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς τῶν πατρῴων, τῶν παππῴων, τῶν ἔτι περαιτέρω
κληρονομείτε κ.τ.λ. The fallacy is contained in τῶν παππῴων ; Isaeus keeps
out of sight the difference between succeeding to a paternal grandfather and
succeeding to a maternal grandfather. It is probably true that an Athenian,
if his father was dead, could take possession of property left by his father's
father without obtaining a judgment from the courts, but it is not true that
he could always deal in the same way with property left by his mother's
father. A man's rights in the estate of his maternal grandfather were
limited by the preference given to the male line and by the laws regulating
the marriage of ẻπíkλŋpoɩ, and cannot be expressed in any general pro-
position. For ȧveridikov сp. III. 59. 5, 6 n.; here the word is used ab-
normally, for what is 'not liable to legal process' (aveπidikos) is commonly
the estate (ó kλîpos), not the right of the next-of-kin (ʼn ȧyxioteía). In
strict legal language the ȧyxoreîs do not include sons and grandsons;
they are the persons who succeed on failure of lineal descendants, and who
may not take possession without adjudication in due form (éπidikaσía).
6, 7 ὧν ἕνεκα τἆλλα† γίγνεται, καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἤδη πειράσομαι διδάσκειν. Reiske
says that rẩììa is equivalent to тà σúµñaνтa, tota haec controuersia. The
difficulty is ignored by the translators ('Was der eigentliche Grund dieses
ganzen Rechthandels ist, Schoeman, 'l'objet du présent procès, Dareste).
I am disposed to follow Scheibe so far as to substitute πάντα for τἆλλα,
conjecturing that râλλa was first written above яávта as an addition, and
afterwards taken by a copyist as a correction; for the interpolation of råλλa
π
614
OR. VIII.
ISAEUS
after πάντα and of πάντα after τἆλλα see Voemel on Dem. 4. 33, 18. 75,
Dobree, Adv. 1. pp. 422, 427. Thalheim transposes råλλa and raûra (Hermes
38, 1903, p. 464).
35-39 The cause of our troubles is Ciron's wealth, amounting to
more than 90 m., which long ago excited the cupidity of Diocles. With the
help of his sister he misled the old man by intrigues, calumnies against my
father, and flattering attentions, until he got all his property into his own
hands. Then on Ciron's death he declared that the deceased left no estate,
and sought to rob me of my rights by suborning a rival claimant, who was
promised a fraction of the spoil. He also did his best to prevent me from
discharging my religious duties to my dead grandfather, but I defeated this
attempt to prejudice my cause; though I was not allowed to contribute to the
charges of the funeral, I celebrated the ninth-day rites most handsomely
at my own expense.
Notice the unsatisfactory treatment of a critical point in the case. If
Diocles was at the time in possession of the estate claimed, the first and
obvious duty of the speaker was to prove by witnesses that the property
in question had once belonged to Ciron. Then the judges might have
expected Diocles to show that he had acquired it by legitimate means. The
absence of testimony was an invitation to the opponents to deny and deride
the assertions of their adversary (Dem. 57. 34). Dareste (Les Plaidoyers
d'Isée p. 165) thinks that there is a lacuna between §§ 34 and 35. Caccia-
lanza agrees with him (Le orazioni di Iseo p. 419).
35. 1,2 dypòv µèv HλvĤoi. Cp. VI. 33. 2 N., XI. 42. 5. See for the site of
the deme § 3. 3 12., for the case-ending Meisterhans, Gramm. d. att. Inschr³
§ 59, 3, p. 146.
2 padlws. Cp. VII. 19. 8 n.
3, 4 παρὰ τὸ ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσιον. The sanctuary of Dionysus in the
Marshes is mentioned by Thucydides (2. 15) together with other temples as
proof that ancient Athens, so far as it exceeded the limits of the Acropolis,
lay chiefly to the south of it. According to [Dem.] 59. 76 this was the
oldest and holiest sanctuary of the god in Athens, opened only once a year,
on the 12th of Anthesterion (February-March), i.e. on the 2nd day of the
Anthesteria, 'the more ancient festival of Dionysus' (rà ȧpxaiótepa Diovúσia,
Thuc. l.c.); conjectures as to the ceremonies performed on this day, the
Feast of Pitchers (Xóes), will be found in Mommsen, Feste der Stadt Athen
p. 392 sqq., Miss J. E. Harrison, J. H. S. 20, 1900, p. 99 sqq. There has
been considerable controversy about the site in recent years. Many scholars
(e.g. Mommsen 7. c.) identify the sanctuary of Dionysus in the Marshes
with the sanctuary of Dionysus beside the theatre (V. 41. 7 n.); Dörpfeld
considers it the same as the Lenaeum, which he claims to have discovered
at the western foot of the Acropolis, to the south of the Areopagus. See
Frazer on Paus. 1. 20. 3.
4 χιλίας εὑρίσκουσαν. A has δυσχιλίας. I accept Buermann's cor-
rection xiλías (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 347). The orator reckons the total
amount of the 'visible property' (§ 35. 8 n.) at 'more than 90 m.,' but if the
house let to a tenant or tenants be valued at 20 m., the several items come to
106 m. (1 t.+20 m. +13 m. +13 m.). For the value of houses at Athens
OR. VIII.
615
COMMENTARY
ΤΟ
Boeckh, Staatshaush.³ 1. p. 84, should be consulted. The addition of av
seems to me necessary here and in XI. 42. 5 ἀγρὸν μὲν Θριᾶσι πένθ᾽ ἡμιτά-
λavra evρioкovтa, the meaning being that the house would fetch, bring in, the
price of io m. in the market (XI. 44. 6, 7 οὐ γὰρ ἂν οἶδ᾽ ὅτι πλέον εὕροι τούτου,
ib. 49. 2 ὃ πλέον οὐκ ἂν εὕροι τριάκοντα μνῶν); for rates of capitalisation
at Athens see Billeter, Geschichte des Zinsfusses p. 15 sqq. This application
of evρiokev is widely diffused in inscriptions; see C. I. A. II. 573, 18=S. I. G.²
η. 433, Michel n. 143 πεπόηκεν τριακοσίαις δραχμαῖς πλέον εὑρεῖν τὸ θέατρον,
S. I. G.² n. 306, 73= Michel n. 263 B 25 (Delphi) ei dè twλeiµeva tà èvéxvpa µǹ
εὑρίσκοι τὸ ἀργύριον ποθ᾽ ὁ ὑπέκειτο τῇ πόλει, Bull. Corr. Hell. 14, 1890,
P. 432, 7. 3 (Delos) τὸ δὲ λοιπόν, ὅσῳ ἔλαττον ηὗρεν ἡ γῆ ἀναμισθωθεῖσα, ὀφείλει
Μνησίμαχος Αὐτοκράτους καὶ οἱ ἔγγυοι, Michel n. 589. 8, 39, 76=S. I. Gn. 540
(Lebadea), I. G. Sept. 1739, 14 (Thespiae), Michel n. 908 (Iasus). To the
examples from literature cited in Stephanus and Liddell and Scott add [Ar.]
Oec. II. 22. 1350 a 17, Polyb. 31. 7. 12, 24. 4. Timaeus, Lex. Plat., interprets
τιμαλφέστατον as τιμὴν πολλὴν εὑρίσκον, and Suidas s.v. explains αλφάνει
by evρioke, quoting Menander, 'Oμолáтрiοi (Kock, Com. Att. Fr. III. n. 362,
p. 105), Aristophanes, eσμopopiášovσai ▲eúтepaι (ib. I. n. 324, p. 478),
Eupolis, Tagiapxoɩ (ib. I. n. 258, p. 329), but this use of aλpávew seems
foreign to Attic prose, although it is found in a 5th century inscription
C. I. A. IV. 53 a 15 (S. I. G.² n. 550, Michel n. 77) óñóσev d'àv äλpel
μίσθοσιν τὸ τέμενος. No slight perplexity has been caused by the phrase
ảπодóσðαι тоû evρíσкovтos or тoù evρóvтos (Aesch. 1. 96, Xen. Mem. 2. 5. 5), 'to
sell a thing for what it fetches'; compare C. I. A. 11. 1055, 36 sqq. (S. I. G.²
n. 535) ἀποδώσονται τὰς ἐλάας τῷ τὸ πλεῖστον διδόντι, τοῦ δὲ εὑρόντος ἀργυρίου
λογισάμενοι ἐπὶ δραχμεῖ τὸν τόκον τὸν ἥμυσυν ἀφελεῖν ἀπὸ τῆς μισθώσεως,
Revenue Laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus col. 48, 15 éktidétwoav tò evpíokov
ἐφ' ἡμέρας δέκα, ib. p. 180, Louvre Pap. n. 62. col. 6, 9 αἱ ὠναὶ ἐπαναπραθή-
σovtaι toû evρíσkovтos, Letronne, Oeuvres Choisies 1. p. 491/2, Pap. of Zois,
I. part 3, 1. 15 κατ᾽ εὑρίσκοντος. The ordinary analysis is that τὸ εὑρίσκον
means 'the price that gets an article for the buyer.' The oddity of the
expression was felt by scribes, for in Aesch. I. 96 some MSS. have тOÛ
εὑρισκομένου. The idea can also be expressed by ὅ τι ἂν εὕρῃ as e.g. in
Michel n. 589, 8=S. I. G. n. 540 ἐγδίδομεν δὲ τὸ ἔργον ὅλον πρὸς χαλκόν, τὰς
dè tò
μὲν στήλας...ὅ τι ἂν εὕρωσιν, Eupolis l. c. οὐ θᾶττον αὐτὴν δεῦρό μοι τῶν τοξοτῶν |
ἄγων ἀποκηρύξει τις ὅ τι ἂν ἀλφάνῃ.
او
5,6 ȧvdpáπoda μioloдoρoûvтa. Cp. VI. 33. 8 n., Francotte, L'industrie
ανδράποδα μισθοφοροῦντα.
dans la Grèce ancienne I. p. 226 sqq. It is often asserted (Blümner-Hermann,
Gr. Privataltert. p. 91, Thumser-Hermann, Gr. Staatsaltert. p. 417, Thal-
heim-Hermann, Gr. Rechtsaltert.4 p. 29, Beauchet II. p. 445) that this term
designates only slaves who have attained to a certain degree of independence,
supporting themselves by their own industry, and paying to their masters
only a portion of their earnings (àπоþoρá, [Xen.] De rep. Ath. 1. 11, And. 1.
38, Aesch. 1. 97, Theoph. Char. 30. 15, Teles ap. Stob. Flor. 5. 67). It
is implied that the term is not applicable to slaves let out by their owners to
labour in the mines (Xen. De Vect. 4. 14 έξεμίσθωσεν, ib. 15 ἀνδράποδα
ἐκδεδομένα, ib. 19 μισθοῦσθαι ἀνδράποδα) or to work in a factory (Dem. 27. 20)
or to discharge other offices ([Dem.] 53. 20, Inscr. from Delphi in Bull. Corr.
616
OR. VIII.
ISAEUS
Hell. 17, 1893, p. 393, n. 103 éyμobоûvтes тηv épyaríav). This limitation.
seems to rest upon the idea that ἀνδράποδον μισθοφορούν can only mean a
slave earning wages' ('receiving µolòs' for himself, μodapvovv). Nothing
certain can be deduced from the context in which the phrase occurs, since it
is only found here, in [Xen.] De rep. Ath. 1. 17 el tų Čeûyos čotw † ávdpáπodov
μισθοφοροῦν, and in Bekk. An. Gr. I. p. 212. 12 ᾿Ανακεῖον : Διοσκούρων ἱερόν,
οὗ νῦν οἱ μιθοφοροῦντες δοῦλοι ἑστᾶσιν ; the last passage should be compared
with Poll. 7. 133 κολωνὸς ἐν ἀγορᾷ παρὰ τὸ Εὐρυσακεῖον, οὗ συνῄεσαν οἱ μισθαρ-
νοῦντες (V. 39. 5 n.). But ἀνδράποδον μισθοφοροῦν may be parallel to οἰκία
μobopopovoa in 1. 3, as Liddell and Scott suppose. The house 'brings in
µioðòs' (mercedem adfert, Stephanus) to the owner or 'bears rent'; compare
καρποφορεῖν and κλῆρος μίσθωσιν φέρων (V. 35. 8 n.). In like manner the slave
may be regarded not as a labourer who is paid for his services, but as a
chattel let out by a proprietor, to whom the hire is due.
6 Taidlokηy. Cp. VI. 19. 4 n., S. I. G.² n. 846 (Delphi), 4 àñédoto....
᾿Αρτεμιδώραν τὴν βασιλικὰν παιδίσκαν, ib. n. 848 (Delphi), 4 ἀνατίθησι...
Evπоρíaν την avтоû пaιdíσкην. Dobree (Adv. I. p. 304) thinks that a meretrix
is meant. Schoemann here and in his note on Plut. Cleom. 29 seeks to
distinguish θεράπαινα and παιδίσκη : uidentur omnino παιδίσκαι elegantiores
ac delicatiores fuisse, uiliorum officiorum immunes. But the παιδίσκη in
Lys. 1. 12 seems to be identical with ἡ θεράπαινα ἡ εἰς ἀγορὰν βαδίζουσα
(ib. 11, 16), as Reiske observes. The real difference is that in Attic Tαidíσkη
expresses youth, depáraiva does not.
αιν
7 rút. Cp. VI. 33. 6 1.
τριῶν καὶ δέκα.
π
K
8 тριŵν Kal Séka. I follow Blass (Blass-Kühner, Gr. Gramm. I. p. 626
n. 1) in rejecting the form тpoкaideka. In Attic inscriptions of the 5th and
4th century τpeîs kaì déka is always declined. The indeclinable тρetσкaideka
appears at the beginning of the 3rd century, but тρiσkaideka is never found.
See Meisterhans, Gramm. d. att. Inschr³ § 62, 10, p. 160, Crönert, Memoria
Graeca Herculanensis p. 199.
‰σa þavepà ĥv. Here, as in § 37. 2, the 'visible property' is opposed
to the money lent at interest (daveioμara), and includes the slaves and
furniture. Reiske and Schoemann accepting Harpocration's definition of
ἀφανὴς οὐσία καὶ φανερά (VI. 30. 3 n.) consider that the slaves and furniture
are excluded, and that the right reading in 1. 4 is dioxidías, the land and
houses alone being reckoned at 93 m.
36. 3 ἐκείνην μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἐξεδίδου κ.τ.λ. This is not a plausible story.
Ciron married Diocles' sister when the speaker's mother was 3 or 4 years
old, i.e. hardly less than 36 years ago (§ 7). When, then, did Ciron's two
sons die? All that we are told is that they were brought up with the
speaker's mother and were alive at the time of her first marriage (§ 8). On
the assumption that the boys died before or soon after the birth of the
speaker, the 'plot' must have been going on for something like 20 years.
Again, the orator suggests that on the death of Ciron's sons it was the duty
of Diocles to marry his sister to a younger man. But how could he do this,
if Ciron objected and desired to keep her? In II. 7 sqq. the divorce of the
old husband and young wife takes place by mutual consent; Menecles
requests his wife's brothers to find her another husband and on his part
OR. VIII.
617
COMMENTARY
undertakes to persuade her to agree to the separation. I cannot believe that
in the circumstances supposed Diocles' sister had a legal right to demand a
divorce, and with Thalheim (Zu den griech. Rechtsaltert. II. p. 10) I re-
pudiate the theory of Hruza (I. p. 70) and Beauchet (1. p. 388) that at Athens
the kúpɩos who gave a woman in marriage had also the power to revoke his
gift and to compel a husband to relinquish his wife.
5 Bovλevσaito, sc. Ciron. The change of subject causes no obscurity;
see V. 3. 7, 8 n.
6 κυείν. For kvéw (not kúw) see Schanz, Prolegg. ad Plat. Symp. p. vi,
and Lobeck on Soph. Ai. 239 (ed. 3, p. 151 sqq.).
7 διαφθείρειν, scil. τὸ ἔμβρυον, de abortu, unde etiam διαφθορή eodem
sensu apud Hippocratem Epidem. VII. 48 p. 869 ed. I. A. v. d. Linden.
Frequentius tamen apud hunc est àñoþ¤eípe‹ Epidem. IV. 2. 5 p. 743, IV. 12.
13 p. 751, unde àπоþéорý ib. III. 2. 10 p. 719 et årólapµa ib. II. 2. 33 p. 691
extr. In aliis autem Hippocratis libris éкTITpóσкew potius dicitur' (Schoe-
mann). See also S. I. G.² nn. 567, 12 (åπò þlopeiwv), 633, 8 (ảπò ploρâs).
T
δ, 9 μηδέτερον ἡμῶν εἰσποιήσαιτο υόν. Why should Ciron desire to adopt
either of them, if they were his only lawful heirs? See §§ 30-34 analysis
p. 609. I have found only three certain instances of the adoption of a
grandson by a grandfather. The first is given by [Plut.] Vit. X. Or. 843 A.
Lycophron, son of the orator Lycurgus of Bate, had an only daughter
Callisto. She was first married to Cleombrotus son of Deinocrates of
Acharnae, and bore a son Lycophron, who was adopted by his grandfather
(τοῦτον δ᾽ ὁ πάππος εἰσεποιήσατο Λυκόφρων), and died without issue. After
the death of Lycophron Socrates married Callisto and had a son Symmachus?
It is not clear from these words whether Callisto's second marriage took
place after the death of her father or after the death of her son. If the
former alternative is taken, it is tempting to conjecture that Lycophron II
died before Lycophron I, and that, when her father died, Callisto was
claimed by a relative as an éπíkλnрos. The second is mentioned in [Dem.]
ἐπίκληρος.
42. 21, 27. Philostratus the orator, son of Dionysius of the deme Colonus
(Dem. 21. 64, [Dem.] 59. 23, C. I. A. II. 803 f 36), adopted Phaenippus son
of his daughter Aristonoe, who was married to Callippus. The adoption
seems to have taken place after the death of Callippus, since Phaenippus
inherited the estate of his natural father (ó púσeι πατǹρ) as well as that of his
adoptive father. The third example occurs in a deposition preserved in
[Dem.] 43. 37 μαρτυρεῖ πάππον εἶναι ἑαυτοῦ ᾿Αρχίμαχον καὶ ποιήσασθαι ἑαυτὸν
vióv; no doubt the witness was son of Archimachus' daughter. I believe
that a fourth case is concealed in X. 4. 5, 6. It is obvious that by adopting a
daughter's son a man could guard against the troubles caused by contentions
for the hand of an éπíkλŋpos and defeat the designs of rapacious relatives.
37. 2 και <τούς τόκους. In defence of the MS. reading Lincke, De
elocutione Isaei p. 12, refers to Rehdantz, Demosth. Index II s.v. Artikel. But
the passages collected by Rehdantz (Thuc. I. 54. I, 143. 5, Plat. Gorg. 469 E,
Rep. 577 C, 586 E, Dem. 2. 9, 19. 309, 23. 70, Lyc. 30, 141), merely prove what
no one would deny, viz. that Isaeus might have written тà xρéα Kai TоKOUS.
No account is taken of the effect on the construction of interposing after xpéa
the words πάντα ὅσα ὠφείλετο αὐτῷ.
618
OR. VIII.
ISAEUS
ÉTTELOε...... Buermann (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 331) shows that the insertion
of πρáέαoαι would give a satisfactory sense. If the loans were called in,
Diocles could easily appropriate the money on the death of Ciron. ·
2, 3 τά τε φανερὰ δι' αὑτοῦ ποιεῖσθαι, ' to put into his hands the visible pro-
perty,' i.e. the land, houses, and slaves, and in particular the ȧvdρáπoda μio0o-
popoûvτa, who would need some supervision. This is manifestly the sense
demanded by the context, as Sauppe saw (Ep. Crit. ad G. Hermannum
p. 106=Ausgew. Schr. p. 148), adducing in support of his translation (ut res
immobiles omnes suo arbitrio committeret) Dem. 51. 22 mávтa di avтôv
πoшûντaɩ, which, however, means 'they get everything into their own hands.'
Herwerden (Mnem. N.S. 9, 1881, p. 393) thinks Toleio@ai untenable, and
despairs of restoring the sentence. The expression is justified by some
passages which Blass cites in support of the reading of Σ in Dem. 19. 76 ïva
μὴ δι᾽ ὑμῶν αὐτοὺς αὑτοὺς Blass) οἱ Φωκείς ποιήσωνται (ὑποποιήσωνται uolg.),
viz. Aristid. Ι. (Dind.) pp. 580, 14 οὐδείς ἐστιν ὅστις οὐ διὰ Λακεδαιμονίων τὰ
ἑαυτοῦ ποιήσεται, 689, 8 οἰκειώσασθαι τοὺς ἄνδρας καὶ ἐφ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἀγαγεῖν καὶ δι᾿
ἡμῶν ποιήσασθαι, 737, 2 τὴν δὲ τῶν Θηβαίων πόλιν...παρὰ φαῦλον ἡγεῖτο δι᾽
αὑτοῦ ποιήσασθαι καὶ κατασχεῖν. Add [Dem.] 1ο. 5 οἱ δι᾽ ἐκείνου τὰς πολιτείας
Toιοúμevoι, 'those who put their governments under the control of Philip,'
not 'those that hold the government through Philip' (C. R. Kennedy), nor
'qui illa ratione et consilio agunt in re publica administranda' (Rehdantz),
nor 'qui per illud studium praesunt oppidis' (Voemel).
6 +ὁπότε ὁ πάππος ἐτελεύτησεν t. Scaliger proposed τελευτήσειεν, and the
conjecture has been repeated by Dobree, Adv. 1. p. 304, and Emper, Opusc.
p. 316. The alteration is against grammar, which requires óÓTÓTAV...TEλEUTĤon,
and does not square with кataλɩπeiv in l. 12. If the text be sound, the
speaker must have in view not Diocles' calculations before the death of Ciron,
but his action after that event (§ 21 sqq.). But óñóтe ó máñños ÉteλEÚTNσev
here should not be confused with ὅτε ὁ πάππος ἐτελεύτησεν (§ 21. 2).
Dareste is guilty of a solecism when he gives as his version ‘aussi lorsque
mon grand-père mourut il ne m'empêcha pas d'entrer dans la maison. In
the orators oπóтe with the Indicative has causal force and is never purely
temporal, except (1) in indirect questions (Aesch. 1. 80, 3. 99, [Dem.] 49. 46,
50. 16) and (2) in connexion with an unrealised condition (§ 31. 6 22.). For
Isaeus' use see II. 39, III. 12, 41, IV. 14, XI. 29, 30, and for the position of the
causal clause, which generally stands at the beginning of a sentence, com-
pare [Lys.] 6. 23 καὶ τίνα αὐτὸν δοκεῖτε ψυχὴν ἔχειν, ὁπότε τὰ μὲν ἔσχατα καὶ τὰ
αἴσχιστα ἐποίει μηνύων κατὰ τῶν αὑτοῦ φίλων, ἡ δὲ σωτηρία ἀφανὴς <ἦν > αὐτῷ;
Lys. 12. 34 θαυμάζω δὲ τί ἄν ποτ᾽ ἐποίησας συνειπών, ὁπότε ἀντειπεῖν φάσκων
átékteivas Hoλéµapxov, 12. 88, 22. 16, [Dem.] 46. 9. The sense then will be
ἀπέκτεινας
this: Diocles knew that I (with emphasis) should seek to be owner (eivai
kúpios) of all this property, since (as) my grandfather (the former owner) had
died. In this sentence I find evaι kúpios, on which no one comments, more
puzzling than the use of óróтe; why has Isaeus avoided the natural ex-
pression yevéσðaι kúpios? Thus, according to the speaker, Diocles allowed
γενέσθαι κύριος
him to enter the house and attend to Ciron's corpse (eражEvεLV Éкeivov),
fearing to exasperate him (δεδιώς μὴ τραχυνθεὶς εἰς ὀργὴν κατασταίην πρὸς
aúróv), but at the same time, knowing that he was Ciron's heir and was sure
1
OR. VIII.
619
COMMENTARY
to assert his rights in the embezzled property, set to work behind his back to
suborn a rival claimant who was told that Ciron had left nothing. The
argument is feeble. Was Diocles, the man of violence, the murderer and
adulterer (§ 40 sqq.), likely to fear the wrath of an utterly inexperienced (§ 5)
opponent? Would not so practised a villain have made a bargain with his
tool before Ciron's death? These difficulties can be mitigated by reading
ὁπόταν ὁ πάππος τελευτήσῃ here, κατασταίη in l. 8, and καταλείπειν in l. 12, and
by supposing with Reiske and Sir W. Jones that the words θεραπεύειν ἐκεῖνον
καὶ συνδιατρίβειν refer to visits paid to Ciron in his old age, when under the
thumb of Diocles. But correcting the MS. in order to strengthen Isaeus'
reasoning is perilous work. His client may be a rogue and impostor, the
weakness of whose case could not be entirely concealed by his advocate.
For example, it is conceivable that Ciron did leave nothing worth speaking
of, and that Diocles had no occasion to screen himself by putting up a
claimant.
8 παρεσκεύαζε. Cp. § 3. 4 n.
9 μέρος πολλοστὸν μεταδιδοὺς εἰ κατορθώσειεν. According to § 34. 4, 5
Diocles had given the nephew 2 m.
38. 7 τούτου, i.e. Diocles (Dareste). The ordinary view is that Ciron's
nephew is meant; hence the conjecture of Herwerden (Mnem. N.S. 9, 1881,
p. 394) καίπερ (or καὶ τοῦτ᾽ οὐδὲν φάσκοντος καταλελοιπέναι.
IO, II
τῶν φίλων μοι ταῦτα συγγιγνωσκόντων. Cp. Thuc. 7. 73. 2 οἱ δὲ
ξυνεγίγνωσκον μὲν καὶ αὐτοὶ οὐχ ἧσσον ταῦτα ἐκείνου, Xen. Cyr. 7. 2. 27 ἣν
ἄλλοι τε μακαριωτάτην ἐνόμιζον εἶναι βιοτὴν καὶ ἐγὼ συνεγίγνωσκον αὐτοῖς, ἐδ.
7. 5. 50 καὶ ἐγώ σοι συνεγίγνωσκον. The reading of Al appears to me more
idiomatic than the reading which Buermann elicits from Apr. (τῶν φίλων μοι
ταὐτὰ γιγνωσκόντων).
2
39. 4 τὸν ἐξηγητὴν ἐρόμενος. Cp. Plat. Euthyphr. 4 C πέμπει δεῦρο (ἐκ
τῆς Νάξου) ἄνδρα πευσόμενον τοῦ ἐξηγητοῦ ὅ τι χρὴ ποιεῖν (a case of murder),
[Dem.] 47. 68 ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν ἐτελεύτησεν ἡ ἄνθρωπος), ἦλθον ὡς τοὺς ἐξηγητάς,
ἵνα εἰδείην ὅ τι με χρὴ ποιεῖν περὶ τούτων, Poll. 8. 124 ἐξηγηταὶ δ᾽ ἐκαλοῦντο οἱ
τὰ περὶ τῶν διοσημιῶν καὶ τὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἱερῶν διδάσκοντες, Harp. s.v. Ισαῖος ἐν
τῷ περὶ τοῦ Κίρωνος (σκίρωνος, σκύρωνος libri: corr. Valesius) κλήρου . ὁ ἐξηγού
μενος τὰ ἱερά. ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἃ (ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὰ Hemsterhuys) πρὸς τοὺς κατοιχο-
μένους νομιζόμενα (ὀνομαζόμενα libri: corr. Valesius) ἐξηγοῦντο τοῖς δεομένοις,
Bekk. An. Gr. I. p. 252, 4 (=Et. Mag. s.v. ¿έnynraí), ib. p. 187, 10(=Suid.
s.v. ἐξηγηταί, first article). Athenian inscriptions mention three kinds of
official ἐξηγηταί : (1) ἐξηγηταὶ ἐξ Εὐμολπιδών (C. I.A. II. 834 b 1, 41 = S. I. G. n.
587, Michel n. 581, ἀπὸ τούτου τάδε ἀνήλωται: ἐξηγηταῖς Εὐμολπιδῶν εἰς ζεύγη
μυστηρίοις, C.I.A. III. 720= Ἐφ. Αρχ. 1887, p. 110 ᾿Απολλώνιον ᾿Αγήνορο[s
᾿Αχαρνέα τὸν] ἐξηγητὴν ἐξ Εὐμο[λπιδῶν], Ἐφ. Αρχ. 1887, p. 111 η. 32 Μήδειον
Μηδείου Πειραιέα τὸν ἐξηγητὴν ἐκ τοῦ γένους τῶν Εὐμολπιδών, [Plut.] Vit. X. Or.
843 Β Μήδειος ὁ καὶ ἐξηγητὴς ἐξ Ευμολπιδῶν γενόμενος, Kirchner, Prosopo-
graphia Attica II. p. 52), (2) πυθόχρηστος ἐξηγητὴς (C.I.A. III. 241 (on a seat
in the theatre of Dionysus) πυθοχρήστου ἐξηγητοῦ, Ἐφ. Αρχ. 1883, p. 44
Αἰλίου Ζήνωνος τοῦ πυθοχρήστου ἐξηγητοῦ υἱός), (3) ἐξηγητὴς ἐξ Ευπατριδών
χειροτονητὸς ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου διὰ βίου (C. I. A. III. 267, on a seat in the theatre of
Dionysus); that the Ευπατρίδαι, from whom this official was elected, were
620
OR. VIII.
ISAEUS
다
​་
πατ
the members of a particular gens is proved by an inscription belonging to
the beginning of the 1st century B.C., which was discovered at Delphi
(S. I. G.² 22. 611, Nikitsky, Hermes 28, 1893, p. 621): IIvdaïoraì è§`Evπar[pı-
δῶν·] Αβρων Καλλίου, Καλλίας Εὐκτήμον[ος], Τιμοκράτης Τιμοκρ...., Θεαῖος
Λέοντος, μάντις Χαρμύλος [Χ]αρμύλου, ἐκ Πυρρακιδῶν· Αἰνείας Ηρακλείδου, ἐκ
Κηρύκων· Θεμιστοκλῆς Θεοφράστου κ.τ.λ.; compare Steph. Βyz. s.v. Βατή:
δῆμος τῆς Αἰγηίδος φυλῆς, ὅθεν ἦν Αβρων ὁ Καλλίου, ἐξηγητής, περὶ ἑορτῶν καὶ
θυσιῶν γεγραφώς, and Ath. 9. 41ο Α παρέθετο ταῦτα καὶ Δωρόθεος φάσκων καὶ
ἐν τοῖς τῶν Εὐπατριδῶν (θυγατριδῶν libri: corr. Ο. Müller) πατρίοις τάδε
γεγράφθαι περὶ τῆς τῶν ἱκετῶν καθάρσεως. The majority of modern scholars
accept the statement of Timaeus, Lex. Plat. s.v.: ¿§nуntai Tрeîs yívovтai πvĐÓ-
χρηστοι, οἷς μέλει καθαίρειν τοὺς ἄγει ἐνισχεθέντας. We are not able to deter-
mine the sphere of any of these officers. The ἐξηγηταὶ ἐξ Εὐμολπιδών were
presumably depositaries and interpreters of the sacred lore of the mysteries.
Plato considers Apollo of Delphi the authoritative source of laws concerning
'the graves of the dead and all the observances which we must adopt in
order to propitiate the inhabitants of the other world' (Rep. 4. 427 B; cp.
Laws 759 C sqq., 865 D, 958 D). It is probable, then, that the speaker sought
the counsel of the #ʊðóxρηøτos éέnynτýs. See Toepffer, Attische Genealogie
πυθόχρηστος ἐξηγητής.
pp. 68 sqq., 175 sqq., Gilbert, Beiträge zur Entwickelungsgeschichte des
griech. Rechtes, Jahrbb. f. cl. Philol. Supplementbd 23, 1896, p. 507.
5, 6 τὰ ἔνατα ἐπήνεγκα. Cp. II. 36. 6 n.
6,7 ἵνα αὐτῶν ἐκκόψαιμι ταύτην τὴν ἱεροσυλίαν. Cp. Lys. 28. 6 ἵνα αὐτῶν
ἐκκόψῃς, ἔφη, τὰς συκοφαντίας, Din. 2. 4 ἀποκτείνατε τοῦτον...καὶ τὰς προφάσεις
καὶ τοὺς φενακισμοὺς ἐκκόψατε αὐτοῦ. The metaphor has a colloquial ring,
but its origin is not clear; Jebb renders the verb by 'knock out of its course'
and so 'baffle, disconcert, Schoemann by discutere, eludere, vereiteln,'
Liddell and Scott by 'exscindere, make an end of May the idea be that of
striking a weapon out of the hand? The 'sacrilegious crime' (iepoovλía) is
the attempt to rob both grandfather and grandson of religious rights.
40-46 When you know the character of Diocles, you will believe
everything that I have said. The wealth which supports his magnificence is
not his own. It is the inheritance of his half-sisters, whom he has despoiled
by forgery, conspiracy, assassination, and terrorism. Witnesses. Emboldened
by impunity he is now seeking to rob us not only of our grandfather's property
but also of our fatherland. If our mother was not a citizen, as he falsely
asserts, neither are we; for we were born after the archonship of Euclid. So
long as our father and our grandfather lived, our birth was never called in
question. Henceforth, even if we win now, we shall be exposed to taunts-
thanks to this accursed Orestes, a convicted adulterer, who notwithstanding
persists in profligacy. But you will hear more about his character when we
bring our action against him. Now I beg and supplicate you to shield me
from robbery and insult. Proofs have been given that we are children of
Ciron's legitimate daughter, and that we have a better claim to his property
than our opponents. Remember your oaths and our arguments and the laws,
and vote in accordance with justice. I have nothing more to say. Read,
clerk, to the judges the deposition testifying that Diocles was taken in
adultery. Deposition.
OR. VIII.
621
COMMENTARY
40. 5 ἀφ' ἧς νῦν ἐστι λαμπρός, which keeps him in his present
splendour,' ‘qui le fait briller aujourd'hui (Dareste); compare Dem. 21. 174
ó λаμπρòs κаì πλoúσios oûтos, 'the magnificent and wealthy Midias,' 18. 313,
19. 235, Din. I. III. The epithet suggests that Diocles had distinguished
himself by discharging in brilliant style his λŋrovpyíaı (Dem. 21. 153, 158,
45. 78, Lyc. 139, Ant. Tetr. I. ß. 12).
6 ἀδελφῶν τριῶν ὁμομητρίων ἐπικλήρων κ.τ.λ. It is implied that Diocles'
mother was twice married, Diocles being the issue of the first union, his
three half-sisters (ådeλþaì óµoµntpíaɩ) of the second. The charge seems to
be that on the death of his mother's second husband Diocles got possession
of all his estate, to which the three daughters were heiresses (éπíkλŋpoɩ), by
forging a will in which he was adopted by his step-father. In the circum-
stances, if they are truthfully stated, this usurpation required no slight
hardihood. Diocles was the one man in the world whom his step-father was
precluded by law from adopting. A father of daughters could only adopt a
son by will on condition of his marrying one of them (III. 42, 68, x. 13), and
it is commonly believed that the same restriction applied to adoption inter
uiuos (Dem. 41. 3). We do not know what a father could lawfully do, if, his
daughters being already married, he wished to adopt a man who was not a
son-in-law. Now, under Athenian law, a brother was not allowed to marry a
uterine sister (ådeλøǹ óµoµntpía), though he might take as wife a half-sister,
who had the same father but a different mother (ådeλøǹ óµожатрía): see
Beauchet I. p. 166 sqq. Note that the orator mentions the husbands of two
of the sisters, but is silent concerning the fate of the third. Was she the
wife of Ciron (Sauppe, Or. Att. 11. p. 230)? Or had Diocles married her in
defiance of the law? If he did, it is surprising that incest does not figure in
the list of his crimes.
7
5, 6 n.
avròv eioπoińσas. Cp. III. 60. 8, 9 n., IV. 10. 3, 4 n., VI. 22.
κα
41. 3, 4
κατοικοδομήσας καὶ ἐπιβουλεύσας ἠτίμωσε. No satisfactory
explanation of this passage has been discovered. The soundness of KaTolko-
doμnoas, for which Emper, Opusc. p. 316, proposes кaтоιкоplоpýσas, is
guaranteed by Harp. s.v. κατῳκοδόμησεν: ἀντὶ τοῦ κατέκλεισεν εἰς οἴκημα καὶ
ἀπέκτεινεν Ἰσαῖος ἐν τῷ κατὰ Διοκλέους πολλάκις, and s.v. ἐκπλινθεύσας: ἀντὶ
τοῦ διαλύσας καὶ ἐξελὼν τὰς πλίνθους Ἰσαῖος ἐν τῷ κατὰ Διοκλέους; the full title
of the speech was κατὰ Διοκλέους ὕβρεως (Harp. s.v. καταδικασάμενος, Poll. 7ο
151, Sauppe, Or. Att. II. p. 230). The analogy of Teрioiкodoµnlévтes (Thuc.
3. 81. 5) makes it possible that kaтоikodoµw тiva may mean 'I imprison
a man by walling him up.' Such a procedure, hard as it is to understand,
might well produce a prosecution for ßpus. But Harpocration says that the
prisoner was killed; it is not natural to interpret åtékтeivev as a conative
imperfect, ‘tried to kill' (Sauppe, l.c.). Why should a murderer be sued for
ßpis? The statement, however, in this speech is that Diocles' ' plot' (èπɩ-
Bovλevoas) led to the disfranchisement of his brother-in-law (ʼnτiμwσe). This
result of detention in a building is unintelligible without further information.
We might conjecture that the captive was under an obligation to take his
place in the army or to pay a debt to the state, and was disfranchised for
failing to appear at the appointed time, but guesses are idle. The emenda-
622
OR. VIII.
ISAEUS
tions (ήτίμασε Schoemann, ἐπήρωσε Herwerden, Mnem. N. S. 9, 1881, p. 394)
are not happy.
4, 5 γραφὴν ὕβρεως γραφεὶς οὐδέπω τούτων δίκην δέδωκε. Apparently the
action was still pending. It is possible that the speaker was prosecutor
(§ 44. 10 n.); it would have been injudicious to say so here.
Isaeus com-
posed for the trial the speech entitled κατά Διοκλέους ὕβρεως. For attempts
to define ὕβρις see Att. Proc. pp. 392 sqq., 647 sqq., Hitzig, Beiträge zur
Geschichte der Iniuria im griech. u. röm. Recht p. 35 sqq.
6, 7 ἐκεῖνον μὲν ἐξέπεμψε. Cp. [Dem.] 33. 9 ἐπιβουλεύει οὑτοσὶ τοὺς παῖδας
ἐκπέμψαι Αθήνηθεν.
42. 2 προσαφῄρηται. For the force of the compound see note on
προσαπολωλεκώς (V. 24. 4).
1,
3 ἐπιτροπεύσας. Was Diocles tutor legitimus (I. 9. I n., V. IO. I,
2 n.)?
It does not seem likely that he would have been appointed
guardian by a man who was seeking to recover property from him
(§ 41. 1, 2).
καὶ κατέχει τὸν ἀγρόν. Some light is thrown on this charge by Sauppe's
interpretation (Or. Att. II. l.c.) of a fragment of Isaeus preserved by Suidas,
s.v. πατρῴων : Ισαῖος· ἀποφανῶ γὰρ ὑμῖν ὡς οὐκ ἔστι τῆς ἐπικλήρου τὸ χωρίον
τοῦτο οὐδ᾽ ἐγένετο πώποτε, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἦν πατρῷον Λυσιμένει τῷ πατρὶ <τῷ>
Μενεκράτους· ὁ δὲ Λυσιμένης ἔσχε τὰ πατρῷα πάντα. This extract comes from
a speech προς Διοκλέα (Phot. s.v. πατρῴων), probably that which Pollux
(IO. II) calls πρὸς Διοκλέα περὶ χωρίου. Lysimenes was the husband of the
second sister, Menecrates was the son, who became Diocles' ward on the
death of his father. Diocles during the guardianship appropriated some
land on the plea that it was part of the estate of his adoptive father, which
in some way unexplained had come into the possession of his half-sister,
Lysimenes' wife (ἡ ἐπίκληρος). The friends of Menecrates resisted the claim,
and maintained that the property in question had been inherited by Lysimenes
from his father and had never belonged to Lysimenes' wife.
4 φελλέα δὲ [χωρία ἄττα] ἐκείνῳ δέδωκε. Cp. Harp. s.v. φελλέα: Ισαῖος ἐν
τῷ περὶ τοῦ Κίρωνος (κήρωνος libri: corr. Blancardus) κλήρου. τὰ πετρώδη καὶ
αἰγίβοτα χωρία φελλέας ἐκάλουν· Κρατίνος Ωραις, Αριστοφάνης Νεφέλαις (11. 71/2
ὅταν μὲν οὖν τὰς αἶγας ἐκ τοῦ φελλέως, ὥσπερ ὁ πατήρ σου, διφθέραν ἐνημμένος).
Other examples of φελλούς in Attic are Ar. Ach. 272/3 κλέπτουσαν εὑρόνθ᾽
ὡρικὴν ὑληφόρον | τὴν Στρυμοδώρου Θρᾷτταν ἐκ τοῦ φελλέως, Plat. Crit. III C καὶ
τὰ φελλέας (Φελλέως libri: corr. Saupp.) νῦν ὀνομασθέντα πεδία πλήρη γῆς
πιείρας ἐκέκτητο. That the word φελλεὺς is a general term for thin stony soil,
not the name of a mountain or district in Attica, is proved by Sauppe after
an exhaustive examination of the scholia and the articles of the lexico-
graphers (Ep. Crit. ad G. Hermannum p. 59 sqq.=Ausgew. Schrift. p. 117
sqq.). We also find the forms φελλών (Arrian, de uenat. 17. 4), Φελλίον
(Xen. Cyneg. 5. 18), Φελλίς (Poll. I. 227 γῆ φελλίς); but in C.I.A. II. 1055
(S.I.G. n. 535, Michel n. 1354), I, 32, 33 τὴν Φιλλεῖδα and της Φιλλεῖδος
should be preferred to τὴν Φ[ε]λλεῖδα and τῆς Φ[ε]λλεῖδος, which Koehler
prints apparently in deference to Boeckh (C. I. G. 1 n. 214, p. 345).
43. 3 αὐτῶν. For the vague use of the pronoun cp. III. 48. 4 κ.
4, 5 δύο μνᾶς δεδωκώς, not perfectly consistent with § 37. 9, 1ο μέρος
OR. VIII.
623
COMMENTARY
πολλοστὸν τούτῳ μεταδιδοὺς εἰ κατορθώσειεν ; for δεδωκώς cannot mean, as
Schoemann thinks, daturum se pollicitus est.
او
त
8,9 μετ' Ευκλείδην γὰρ ἄρχοντα γεγόναμεν. Cp. VI. 47. 2, 3 7., Dem. 57. 30
τοῖς χρόνοις τοίνυν οὕτω φαίνεται γεγονὼς (ὁ πατήρ), ὥστ᾽ εἰ καὶ κατὰ θάτερ᾽
ἀστὸς ἦν, εἶναι πολίτην προσήκειν αὐτόν· γέγονεν γὰρ πρὸ Εὐκλείδου. We
possess two statements about the legislation of 403 B.C. concerning the
citizenship, viz. (1) Ath. 13. 577 BC 'Apioтopŵv ♪ ó pýrwp (Dem. 18. 162, 20.
148, 57. 32, Aesch. 3. 139, Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica 1. p. 144) ó TòV
νόμον εἰσενεγκὼν ἐπ᾽ Εὐκλείδου ἄρχοντος, ὃς ἂν μὴ ἐξ ἀστῆς γένηται νόθον εἶναι,
αὐτὸς ἀπεδείχθη ὑπὸ Καλλιάδου τοῦ κωμικοῦ ἐκ Χορηγίδος τῆς ἑταίρας παιδοποιη-
σάμενος, ὡς ὁ αὐτὸς ἱστορεῖ Καρύστιος ἐν τρίτῳ ὑπομνημάτων (F.H.G. IV.
p. 358), (2) Schol. Aesch. I. 39 Εὔμηλος ὁ περιπατητικὸς ἐν τῷ τρίτῳ περὶ τῆς
ἀρχαίας κωμῳδίας φησὶ Νικομένη τινὰ (Lys. 13. 23) ψήφισμα θέσθαι μηδένα τῶν
μετ᾿ Ευκλείδην ἄρχοντα μετέχειν τῆς πόλεως, ἂν μὴ ἄμφω τοὺς γονέας ἀστοὺς
ἐπιδείξηται, τοὺς δὲ πρὸ Εὐκλείδου ἀνεξετάστους ἀφεῖσθαι. In recent years
these passages have provoked an amount of controversy and specula-
tion which appears out of proportion to the importance of the subject;
to the references in Thumser-Hermann, Gr. Staatsaltert. pp. 446/7, add
Hruza, II. p. 125, and Müller, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte d. att. Bürger-
und Eherechts p. 788 sqq. Three questions have been vigorously debated.
(1) Wilamowitz (Antigonos von Karystos p. 185 m.) and C. Schaefer (Philol.
Anz. 1887, p. 409) seem to me right in deciding that it is idle to pretend to
fix the exact relation of the law of Aristophon to the decree (výpoμa) of
Nicomenes. The form of the law, as reported in Athenaeus, excites sus-
picion. It merely affirms the illegitimacy of children of an Athenian father
and a foreign mother. Affirmation of illegitimacy probably implies denial of
citizenship (111. Introd. p. 280 sqq.), but in a law we look for a fuller and
clearer statement. Why is vóľov, not §évov, used? Why is no account
taken of children of an åσrǹ and έévos? A. Schaefer (Philol. 1, 1846, p. 190,
Demosthenes u. s. Zeit² 1. p. 139) supposes that the decree of Nicomenes was
an amendment of the law of Aristophon, which had retrospective force, and
consequently deprived of the franchise a large number of men whose fathers
had been settled abroad before the collapse of the Athenian empire and had
married foreign wives. A. Schaefer's view is adopted by Philippi (Beiträge
zu einer Geschichte d. att. Bürgerrechts p. 41) and Thumser (l.c.). (2) Müller
(l.c.) contends that the law of Pericles ('Αθ. Πολ. 26 μὴ μετέχειν τῆς πόλεως, ὃς
ἂν μὴ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ἀστοῖν ᾖ γεγονὼς) was formally repealed some time after the
failure of the Sicilian expedition (111. Introd. p. 279 sqq., VI. 47. 2, 3 n.). In
the absence of any evidence of repeal it seems safer to hold by the old
explanation, that in the course of the Peloponnesian war Pericles' law had
not been strictly enforced (Isocr. 8. 88). (3) The saving clause in the decree
of Nicomenes (τοὺς δὲ πρὸ Εὐκλείδου ἀνεξετάστους ἀφεῖσθαι) benefited the
children of a foreign father and an Athenian mother as well as the children
of an Athenian father and a foreign mother. This conclusion has been
assailed by many scholars (e.g. Philippi .c., Thumser .c., Müller, op. cit.
p. 790) and is certainly hard to prove. But with van den Es, De iure famili-
arum apud Athenienses p. 75, Zimmermann, De nothorum Athenis con-
dicione, 1886, p. 49, Hruza l.c., I consider it the only natural inference from
624
OR. VIII.
ISAEUS
the words εἰ καὶ κατὰ θάτερα ἀστὸς ἦν in the passage of Demosthenes cited
above.
η.
ΙΟ κατεσκεύακε. Cp. IV. 6. 4 n., VI. 35. 3 n.
44. 5 ήμφεσβητήθημεν. An unusual construction.
Contrast [Dem.]
33. 21 ὁ δὲ οὐ μόνον ἀμφισβητηθείς, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπορρηθὲν αὐτῷ, οὐδὲν ἧττον τὴν
ἀπόφασιν ἐποιήσατο with Dem. 57. 27 τὸν τελευτήσαντα πρὶν ἀμφισβητηθῆναι
τοῦ γένους αὐτῷ.
Ορέστην. See § 3. 3, 4 n.
6,7 παθὼν ὅ τι προσήκει. Cp. Schol. Ar. Nub. 1083, Plut. 168, Suid. s.v.
papavìs with Küster's note in Bernhardy's edition, Att. Proc.² p. 404,
Thonissen, Droit Pénal de la République Athénienne p. 313.
1ο ὅταν κατ' αὐτοῦ τὴν δίκην εἰσίωμεν. Reiske and Schoemann think that
the reference is to the indictment (γραφή) for ὕβρις mentioned in § 41. 4, 5.
This conjecture is not disproved by the use of τὴν δίκην here (III. 46. 4 n.)
nor by the suppression in § 41 of the fact that the indictment was instituted
by the speaker. Sauppe (Or. Att. II. p. 230) dissents, and prefers to suppose
that the speaker is expressing his intention to sue Diocles for malpractices
in connexion with the estate of Ciron. For the rhetorical artifice compare
Dem. 45. 41 τοῦτο τοίνυν ἐγὼ μὲν οἶδα ψεῦδος ὄν, καὶ ἐλέγξω δ᾽, ὅταν εἰσίω πρὸς
τοὺς ταῦτα μεμαρτυρηκότας.
45.4 ἔχετε δὲ πίστεις ἱκανὰς κ.τ.λ., imitated in Dem. 28. 23 πίστεις δ᾽
ἔχεθ᾽ ἱκανὰς ἐκ μαρτύρων, ἐκ τεκμηρίων, ἐκ τῶν εἰκότων.
5 ἐκ βασάνων. In reality the 'proof' is deduced from the refusal of the
opponent to submit Ciron's slaves to examination by torture (§ 1o sqq.).
5, 6 ὅτι τε...καὶ ὅτι. Cp. III.
46. 4 οὐκ οἶδ' ὅ τι δεῖ κ.τ.λ.
5 λαβὲ δ᾽ αὐτοῖς τὴν μαρτυρίαν.
15. 3 κ.
For the formula see VII. 45. 9, 10 n.
Cp. the ending of or. III. (§ 80. 8 n.).
IX
ON THE ESTATE OF ASTYPHILUS.
THE HALF-BROTHER OF ASTYPHILUS AGAINST
THE SON OF CLEON.
CLAIM TO AN INHERITANCE.

Thudippus
-
Euthycrates sister of Hierocles Theophrastus

Cleon
son, said to
have been adopted
by Astyphilus
Anaxippus
(C. I. A. II. 803
c 159, 1010)
Astyphilus daughter claimant and
speaker
Astyphilus, son of Euthycrates, of the deme Araphen (§§ 18, 21), a
roving soldier, who had fought in many wars (§ 14), joined as a volunteer
(§ 15) an Athenian expedition to Mytilene, in which he died; the manner of
his death is not stated (§ 4. I n.). As soon as the news came to Athens,
a first cousin on the father's side, Cleon son of Thudippus, at once took
formal possession (éveßárevσe § 3) of the dead man's landed property in the
name of his own son, a minor (§§ 3, 4), who-so Cleon alleged—had been
adopted by Astyphilus in a will made in view of his departure for Mytilene
and entrusted to the care of Hierocles, Astyphilus' maternal uncle. But it
was not long before Cleon's pretensions were challenged. Euthycrates had
died when his son Astyphilus was a little child, and his widow, Hierocles'
sister, had married a second husband Theophrastus, by whom she had a son.
This son, who was abroad on military service (§ 3) when Astyphilus met his
end, on returning to Athens put in a claim to his half-brother's estate, and
employed Isaeus to compose for him this speech, in which he attempts to
convince the judges that the will is a forgery, and that he has a legal and
moral right to succeed to the property of Astyphilus.
W. I.
40
626
OR. IX.
ISAEUS
The attack on the will fills a modern reader with amazement. The
document was duly attested, and was produced by a relative, who did not
benefit by its provisions. Isaeus makes no effort to destroy the credibility
of the witnesses by scrutinising their antecedents and public reputation.
His skill is devoted to fencing with probabilities. Astyphilus would have
invited other persons to be his witnesses, if he had desired to make a will
adopting a son (§§ 7—13). He had never made a will before his previous
campaigns; why then should he have made one when setting out for Myti-
lene (S$ 14, 15)? He had an irreconcilable family quarrel with Cleon; is
it likely that he selected for adoption the son of an enemy (§§ 16-21)? As
in the preceding speech, a conspirator is revealed standing behind the
nominal opponent. The claimant, who leaves the witnesses unmolested,
turns savagely upon his own mother's brother, the pretended depositary
of the will. Hierocles is the true author of the unnatural plot; he went
round Astyphilus' acquaintances offering to produce a will, if any one would
go shares with him in Astyphilus' estate, and at last succeeded in striking a
bargain with Cleon (§§ 22—26).
The proof that the uterine brother is in this case heir ab intestato is stated
very briefly. Athenian law called to the succession kinsfolk of the deceased on
the father's side down to first cousins once removed (VII. 22. 5 22.) before
admitting any relation on the mother's side. It was true that Cleon was the
son of Thudippus, paternal uncle of Astyphilus. But Thudippus had passed
by adoption into another family, so that in the eyes of the law his descendants
had forfeited their natural kinship with Astyphilus. Athenian judges
however could enforce their own conception of equity, and the tie of blood
between Cleon and Astyphilus was something real and undeniable. Isaeus
is anxious to set up a moral as well as a legal claim. He dwells on the great
services which had been rendered to Astyphilus by Theophrastus his step-
father, and on the bonds of habit and affection, which attached him to his
'brother,' the companion of his childhood and youth (§§ 27-33). Asty-
philus, it is insinuated, was not the man to forget his obligations and make
a will setting aside the son of his benefactor, his rightful heir. The advocate
does not explain why Astyphilus, animated by these sentiments, had not
thought of adopting his half-brother in his lifetime. Pathos on the subject
of Astyphilus' desire for a son to continue his house was the adversary's
appropriate topic (§ 7. 6 n.). Moreover Euthycrates left a daughter, who,
if alive, ranked before Astyphilus' uterine brother; it is remarkable that
we hear nothing about her or her children (§ 29. 3, 4 12.).
The speech is well constructed. Beginning with bald and business-like
simplicity, it is gradually infused with sentiment and indignation, and ends
on a note of pathos. There is no formal exordium, but the plain and
apparently ingenuous statement of the facts of the case obeys the rules of the
exordium, being designed to instil prejudice against the opponents (§§ 1—6).
The central mass, in which narrative and argument are welded together, is
divided into two unequal parts. The first and longer part (§§ 7—26) is
occupied by the direct assault on the will, with the exposure of the turpitude
of Hierocles as conclusion and climax. The second (§§ 27—33) contains the
account of the relations of Astyphilus with Theophrastus and Theophrastus'
OR. IX.
627
INTRODUCTION
son, which form the proof of the speaker's superior right, and a new reason
for rejecting the will. The peroration (§§ 34--37) is conventional, a sum-
mary melting into urgent supplication.
αντ
The date cannot be fixed. Cleon, 'son of Thudippus, of the deme
Araphen,' was one of the Treasurers of the Goddess in 377/6 B.C. (C. I. A. II.
670, 671). Myronides his son was a member of the Council ‘about the
middle of the 4th century' (C. I. A. II. 870 B 13). We possess an inscription,
probably of the year 378/7 B.C., in which a man named Astyphilus moves
a decree admitting Methymna into the new Athenian confederation (C. I. A.
IV. 2. 18 b, Michel n. 88, S. I. G.² n. 82). The proposer may be the As-
typhilus of this speech. We are told that before his last expedition to
Mytilene Astyphilus had served through 'the whole Theban war' (Tòv
Onßaïkòv tóλeµov åπаνта § 14), and the 'Theban war' is now generally
identified with the war of 378-371 B.C., in which Athens joined Thebes in
resisting Sparta. Literature contains no notice of the despatch of Athenian
troops to Mytilene in the period that follows the peace of 371 B.C.
The only
expedition mentioned in the inscriptions is too late. In 347/6 B.C. an
Athenian force under Phaedrus was present in Mytilene (C. I. A. II. 109,
S. I. G.² n. 125), which seems to have helped the citizens in deposing the
tyrant Kammys ([Dem.] 40. 37) and restoring the democracy. In 369/8 B.C.
the orator Callistratus moved a resolution thanking the people of Mytilene
for their cooperation in 'the past war,' and conveying the answer of the
Athenians to a Mytilenaean embassy (C.I.A. 11. 52 c 37 sqq., Michel n. 89,
S.I.G.2 n. 9I ἐπαινέσαι μὲν τὸν δῆμον τὸμ Μυτ[ιληναίω]ν, ὅτι καλῶς καὶ προθύ-
μως συνεπολέμη]σαν τόμ πόλεμον τὸν παρελθόντα, ἀποκρίνασθαι δὲ τοῖς
dè
πрéσßeσw). The 'past war' is commonly supposed to mean the conflict
with Sparta terminated in 371 B.C. Judeich, Kleinasiatische Studien pp. 271/2,
conjectures on insufficient grounds that it was an Athenian campaign against
Persian satraps in Samos. The end of the inscription is hopelessly mutilated,
so that neither the proposals of the Mytilenaean envoys nor the reply of the
Athenians can be discovered. Mytilene was one of the first adherents of
the second Athenian league, and in accordance with the terms of the alliance
(C. I. A. II. 17, 47 sqq., Michel n. 86, S. I. G.² n. 80) had a right to demand
assistance from Athens against an assailant. It is possible that in 369/8 B.C.
the Mytilenaeans were embroiled with the Samians, who stood aloof from
the Athenian league, or with the Persians on the mainland, where Mytilene
once had possessions. Little is known of the fortunes of the city between
369/8 B.C. and 347/6 B.C. It is not mentioned among the allies who revolted
in 357 B.C., but in 353 B.C. the democracy had been overthrown, and an
oligarchy was in power, which is not likely to have favoured the Athenian
democracy (Dem. 15. 19, [Dem.] 13. 8); see Judeich op. cit. pp. 278, 294 sqq.
Weissenborn (Ersch und Gruber, Realencycl. vol. 24, p. 300) puts the speech
about 369 B.C.; Blass (Att. Ber.² 11. p. 561) more prudently says 'at the
earliest some time after 371 B.C.'
If Cleon was acting on behalf of his son Myronides, he lost his case
; for
'about the middle of the 4th century' Myronides is still described as the son
of Cleon (C. I. A. II. 870). But Cleon may have had more sons than one.
Thudippus of Araphen, who was a trierarch in 324/3 or 323/2 (C. I. A. II.
40-2
628
OR. IX.
ISAEUS
811 c 224, d 117, 120, e 6), is probably the Thudippus satirised by Timocles.
(Ath. 9. 407 F, Kock, Com. Att. Fr. II. p. 459 n. 16, 2) and executed in
317 B.C. in company with Phocion (Plut. Phoc. 35, 36). There is nothing to
show whether he was a descendant of Cleon or of Cleon's brother Anaxippus,
who was a Superintendent of the Dockyards (vewpíwv ètiµeλntǹs) in 356/5 B.C.
(C. I. A. II. 803 c 159) and a member of the Council' about the middle of the
4th century' (C. I. A. II. 1010).
HYPOTHESIS.
5 OTÁσIS OTоXаσμós. Сp. I. hyp. 9 n., II. hyp. 8 n.
1–6 Astyphilus, judges, was my uterine brother, and died in the
expedition to Mytilene. I propose to demonstrate that he adopted no son and
left no will, and that I alone am his rightful heir. Cleon, who is foisting
his son upon the deceased, is Astyphilus first cousin on the father's side, but he
and his son belong now to another family, into which Cleon's father passed
by adoption. Having thus forfeited any title as a relative Cleon has concocted
a forged will in order to rob me of my brother's property. When the news of
Astyphilus' death came to Athens, he took advantage of my father's illness
and my absence abroad on military duties and had the audacity to make entry
on the estate without waiting for your sanction. When, however, the bones
of my brother were brought home, the pretended adopted son paid no funeral
honours to the dead, but Astyphilus was left to be buried by his friends and
fellow-soldiers. Witnesses. On my return I discovered Cleon and his son
enjoying Astyphilus' wealth. Cleon pretended that his son had been adopted
by Astyphilus, and that the will had been deposited with Hierocles. On
hearing this I went to Hierocles and was astonished to find that, though uncle
of Astyphilus and myself, he dared to confirm Cleon's story. Astyphilus, he
said, had left the will with him, when he was on the point of sailing for
Mytilene.
For the absence of a formal exordium compare orr. III, XI, Max. Plan.
Rh. Gr. 5. 382, 14 Walz (Or. Att. II. p. 211 Sauрре) πрoоiμaσóµeða dè éviore
μὲν συνεστραμμένως καὶ πικρῶς, εἴτουν περιοδικῶς· τίς δὲ περίοδος, λεχθήσεται·
ἐνίοτε δὲ διηγηματικῶς ὡς Λυσίας· ἀδελφιδοῦς μοί ἐστιν, ὦ ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι, Dem.
41. 1 ἀδελφὰς ἔχομεν ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταὶ γυναῖκας ἐγὼ καὶ Σπουδίας ουτοσί,
ПIOλVEÚKTOV Ovуaтépas K.T.λ. Schoemann quotes Quint. 4. 1. 72 haec de
Πολυεύκτου θυγατέρας
prooemio, quotiens erit eius usus, non semper autem est; nam et super-
uacuum aliquando est, si sit praeparatus satis etiam sine hoc iudex, aut
si res praeparatione non egeat. Aristoteles quidem in totum id necessa-
rium apud bonos iudices negat. aliquando tamen uti nec si uelimus eo licet,
cum iudex occupatus, cum angusta sunt tempora, cum maior potestas ab
ipsa re cogit incipere. contra quae est interim prooemii uis etiam non
in exordio.
1.4 ἀντώμοσα. Cp. III. 6. 8 n.
4, 5 οὔτε ἐποιήσατο ἐκεῖνος ὑὸν ἑαυτῷ, οὔτ᾽ ἔδωκε τὰ ἑαυτοῦ, οὔτε διαθήκας
κατέλιπεν. The orator does not intend to prove three distinct propositions,
but one, that the will, in which Cleon's son was adopted by Astyphilus,
was a forgery. The expansion is rhetorical; there is no question of adoption
OR. IX.
629
COMMENTARY
or donation inter uiuos. For the relation of δοῦναι to διαθέσθαι see III. 42.
2, 3 n., 60. 3 n.
2.2 εἰσποιεῖ. Cp. III. 60. 8, 9 n., IV. IO. 3, 4η.
ἀνεψιαδούς. Cp. VII. 22. 5 n. (pp. 566/7).
3 εἰσποίητος. Thalheim's suggestion, ἐκποίητος, is probable (Crit. Introd.
p. xlvi, VI. 44. 4π.).
4 ἔτι εἰσὶν ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ οἴκῳ. Isaeus adds ἔτι, because under certain
conditions return was possible (§ 33. 4, 5 22.). The adoption had transferred
Cleon's father to another φρατρία (§ 33. 5 κ.), but not to another deme
(§§ 18, 21).
7 κατεσκεύασαν καὶ ζητοῦσιν. A2 added καί. Thalheim prefers to
change κατεσκεύασαν to κατασκευάσαντες; cp. XI. 35. 6. For the use of
κατασκευάζειν see VI. 35. 3η.
3. 3 ἢ αὐτόν, denounced by Naber; but see Isocr. 18. 15 θαυμάζω δ᾽ εἰ
αὑτὸν μὲν ἱκανὸν γνῶναι νομίζει...ἐμὲ δ᾽ οὐκ ἂν οἴεται τοῦτ᾽ ἐξευρεῖν, Dem. 6. 18
ἀμφότερ᾽ οὖν οἶδε, καὶ αὑτὸν ὑμῖν ἐπιβουλεύοντα καὶ ὑμᾶς αἰσθανομένους, 24. 8
βουλοίμην δ᾽ ἂν ἐμέ τε τυχεῖν ὧν βούλομαι, τοῦτόν τε παθεῖν ὧν ἄξιός ἐστι, 39. ΙΟ
οὐκοῦν ὁ μὲν αὑτόν, ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἐμαυτὸν φήσω τὸν εἰληχότ᾽ εἶναι. Dyroff, Geschichte
des Pronomen Reflexivum p. 388, refers to Rehdantz on Xen. An. 3. 1. 17
ἡμᾶς δὲ...τί ἂν οιόμεθα παθεῖν;
6 εἰς τὸ χωρίον ἐνεβάτευσε. Cp. III. 62. 4 7.
7, 8 πρίν τι ὑμᾶς ψηφίσασθαι. Cp. III. 60. 2 n.
4. I ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἐκομίσθη τὰ ὀστᾶ. It was customary to bring home the
ashes and bones of those who died abroad; see IV. 19. 4 N., 26. 5 n., [Lys.]
14. 27 ὁ δὲ πατὴρ αὐτὸν οὕτως ἐμίσει σφόδρα, ὥστ᾽ οὐδ᾽ <ἂν> ἀποθανόντος
ἔφασκε τὰ ὀστᾶ κομίσασθαι. Was Astyphilus killed in action? No conclusion
can be drawn from the circumstance that the funeral seems to have been
private, for we do not know whether at this period soldiers who fell in battle
were buried by the state in the public sepulchres (Thuc. 2. 34). But if
Astyphilus had 'died for his country,' I should have expected some allusion
to his patriotism (VI. 9, Χ. 22).
• I, 2 ὁ προσποιούμενος πάλαι ὑὸς εἰσπεποιήσθαι. An exaggeration; the
interval between the making of the will (§ 14) and the arrival of Astyphilus'
bones cannot have been very great. But Isaeus is capable of lax writing
(III. 70. 5 22., IV. 3. 2 n.), and may mean 'the person who now pretends that
he has been long adopted,' not 'the person who then pretended that he had
been long adopted.'
2, 3 οὐ προύθετο οὐδ᾽ ἔθαψεν. Athenian litigants, when it suits their case,
make much of the sacred duty of burying the dead (IV. 19, 26). Unfortu-
nately the body was sometimes in the possession of an adversary (VIII. 21—27
analysis). In the present suit the adopted son seems to have been a minor,
so that the responsibility for neglect, if neglect there was, rested upon Cleon
(§ 5 ὅτι οὐκ ἔθαψε Κλέων ᾿Αστύφιλον). For the 'laying out' (πρόθεσις) see
Blümner-Hermann, Gr. Privataltert. p. 363 sqq.
5, 6 πάντα τὰ νομιζόμενα ἐποίησαν. Cp. II. 4. 5 1.
7 ἀσπάζοιτο represents ήσπάζετο, not ἀσπάζεται (VI. 12. 4n., Goodwin
M. & T. § 673, Gildersleeve, Greek Syntax § 312): Astyphilus' friends
knew that in his lifetime he was fond of the speaker's father. For this sense
630
OR. IX.
ISAEUS
οἱ ἀσπάζεσθαι see § 30. 9, [Dem.] 52. 23 ήσπάζετο μὲν τοῦτον καὶ οἰκείως
eixev, [Lys.] 2. 75, Xen. Cyr. I. 4. 1, 26, 5. 5. 30, Oec. 10. 4.
The current
version is 'well aware that his presence would be welcomed by Astyphilus,'
but no editor or translator has proposed to read ἀσπάζοιτο <ἂν> αὐτόν.
9 TŵV TαρÓVтWv, an imperfect, 'those who were present at the funeral'
(VIII. 14. I, 2 n.). Isaeus would have expressed his meaning better if he
had written τῶν τότε παρόντων (V. 6), which is demanded by Albrecht
(Hermes 18, 1883, p. 378) or тŵν паρаɣevoµévwv (II. 33, VI. 37). Huettner
with the approval of Blass would cut out тŵv πаρóvтшv, because in such
formulae Isaeus elsewhere puts aρéέoμaι at the end of the sentence (v. 13,
18, 24, 27, 33, IX. 9, 19, 20, 25).
π
5. 1,2 οὐδ᾽ <ἂν> αὐτὸς ἔξαρνος γένοιτο μεμαρτύρηταί τε ὑμῖν. In view of
Isaeus' freedom in the use of re solitarium (III. 80. 1 n.) Bekker's proposal to
change oỷd to our' is unnecessary.
3 Tȧ ÉKEĺVOU,... 'Post тà ékeívov est lacuna. [adii Cleonem, qui dixit]
suum filium ab Astyphilo adoptatum esse.' (Dobree, Adv. I. p. 305.)
Dobree did not know that the gap was noted by A¹ (Crit. Introd. p. xxxvi),
and that in l. 5 somebody has erased 8' after ȧkovoas (Crit. Introd. p. xxxiii,
Hermes 19, 1884, p. 326).
5 Ιφιστιάδῃ. The vulgar form Ηφαιστιάδαι, the product of popular
etymology (Meisterhans, Gramm. d. att. Inschr.³ § 46, 12, p. 117), first
appears in the lists of piáλai é§eλevßepikaì (C. I. A. II. 772 B, II. 2. 772b, 775 b
¿v 'Hpaioriadŵv), which Koehler assigns to the last decades of the 4th
century and to the first years of the next century. But in the lapidary style
it never expelled the ancient and proper name; even in the Imperial age
'Ipioriádai held its ground (see C.I.A. III. index). The deme belonged to
the inland trittys of the tribe Acamantis (Milchhoefer, Untersuchungen über
die Demenordnung des Kleisthenes p. 24), and lay on the left bank of the
Cephisus (Diog. Laert. III. I. 41); the site has been sought at the village
Arákli, the modern name being supposed to preserve the memory of tò
Ἡράκλειον τὸ ἐν Ἰφιστιαδῶν (Diog. Laert. l.c.).
6.2,3 θεῖον ὄντα καὶ ἐμοῦ καὶ ἐκείνου. Hierocles' sister was mother both
of Astyphilus and the speaker (§§ 23, 27).
He
7-13 The will is forged; so much can be proved from the story of
my adversaries. Astyphilus presumably desired that his dispositions should
take effect, and that his adopted son should have the property, attend the
family altars, and render funeral rites to himself and his ancestors.
knew, it may be imagined, that the best way of securing all these ends and
exposing false claims was to summon as witnesses to the testament in the first
place relations, then members of his parpia and deme, then as many of his
acquaintances as he could get. Now at the making of the alleged will Asty-
philus called none of these. I will produce their evidence. Witnesses. Cleon
perhaps will say that you ought not to argue from the testimony of these
witnesses, who merely depose that they have no knowledge of the making of this
will. But in my opinion, when the question is about a will and an adoption,
the evidence of the connexions of the deceased that they were not present on
so important an occasion, is far weightier than the evidence of persons un-
connected with the deceased, who depose to being present. Moreover, when
OR. IX.
631
COMMENTARY
Astyphilus was adopting his son, Cleon himself, who does not pass for a
simpleton, ought to have invited any relation whom he knew to be in the
country, and almost everybody whom he knew to be acquainted with Asty-
philus. Nobody could have prevented Astyphilus from leaving his estate
to any one he chose, and that the will was not made in secret would have
been strong testimony for Cleon. Further, if Astyphilus wished no one to
know that he was adopting Cleon's son, the name of no other witness
ought to stand in the document. But when it appears that he made the
will in the presence of witnesses, but of witnesses who were chance comers,
not his most intimate friends, is it likely that the will is genuine? I do
not believe that any one adopting a son would have ventured to summon
to the ceremony any persons except those to whom he was going to leave
in place of himself a new associate in religious and civil rights. No one
ought to be ashamed to get together the largest possible number of witnesses
to such a will, when the law permits a man to bequeath his estate to any one
he pleases.
The treatment of wills by Athenian pleaders and Athenian tribunals has
been explained in the commentary on IV. II—20. The argument here is of
characteristic tenuity. The hostile testimony is almost ignored as a thing of
no importance (IV. 12). Isaeus does not take the trouble to investigate the
characters and past of the witnesses against him. He does not even tell the
judges their names and their number; they are vaguely described as 'persons
not connected with Astyphilus' and 'chance comers' (oi évtuxóvtes). The
charge of corruption is packed away in a parenthetical saving clause (§ 9 eỉ µn
τις ἄρα ὑπὸ τούτων πέπεισται ὁμολογεῖν παρεῖναι). The advocate is conscious of
the difficulty of his position. He cannot prove that the witnesses to the will
are liars, he can only prove what his opponents allow, viz. that certain other
persons have no knowledge of the making of a will. The 'exposure' (ëλeyxos)
from internal evidence may be reduced to the bare assertion, that if Asty-
philus had made a will, he would have called relations and friends as
witnesses, but the speaker more than once comes perilously near to the
proposition that the will was not made, because it was made in the presence
of strangers. Now in general the object of a testator in Athens was to dis-
inherit somebody (III. 72. 7 n., IV. 26. 4 n.), and in this case ex hypothesi
Astyphilus was disappointing the hopes of the next-of-kin. Probabilities are
double-edged tools. A rival speechmaker might have speciously replied
that Astyphilus had excellent reasons for not taking the whole world into
his confidence; he did not want angry scenes with jealous relatives (III. 73.
4 n.), and he had enough experience of life to know that, take what pre-
cautions he might, it was not in his power to prevent his heirs-at-law from
making an effort to upset a will, which deprived them of a fortune.
7. Ι étteidý Tolvuv K.T.λ. The causal clause is irrelevant. What bearing
have the two reasons alleged on the conclusion? The first can be made to
yield some sense: 'I am obliged to trust to circumstantial evidence, because
I cannot furnish any testimony that my brother at the moment of death said
he had not made a will.' But I cannot discover any force in the speaker's
statement that he was not in Athens when the bones arrived.
ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν κ.τ.λ.
5 [ás éπTOLýσaTo], an intolerable reading, for the speaker denies that
632
OR. IX.
ISAEUS
Astyphilus made a will. The emendations are not successful, the last being
Thalheim's ἂς ἀποφαίνει. Herwerden cuts out the words (Mnem. N.S. 9,
1881, p. 394 numquam uidi insulsius emblema). Buermann adds a theory to
explain the corruption (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 358). Apr. wrote ἃς ἐποιήσατο
γὰρ, Al corrected this into ἃς ἐποίησα εἰκ γὰρ (Crit. Introd. p. xvii). Buermann
ΤΟ ό
ἐποιήσατο
conjectures that the copyist had before him ἃς εἰκὸς γὰρ and mistook ἐποιήσατο
for a correction of εἰκός, whereas in reality the reading was corrupt, as being
a repetition of the last syllable of διαθήκας and ἐποιήσατο an interpolation,
added to bring sense into the dittography.
6 οὐ μόνον ἐπιθυμεῖν ὑὸν ποιησάμενον καταλιπεῖν. Cp. VII. 30 δι᾿ ὃ κἂν
ἄπαιδες τελευτήσωσιν, ἀλλ᾽ οὖν ποιησάμενοι κατελείπουσι. The adversaries will
quote the commonplaces in favour of adoption (II. 23 sqq.).
9 ἐπὶ τοὺς βωμοὺς τοὺς πατρῴους. Cp. II. 46. 4 n.
IO, II
τὰ νομιζόμενα ποιήσει. Cp. II. 4. 5 7.
8. 1, 2 μάλιστ᾽ ἂν εἰδέναι ὅτι γένοιτο. Cp. ΧΙ. 44 οὐ γὰρ ἂν οἶδ' ὅτι πλέον
εὕροι τούτου, Gerth-Kühner, Gr. Gramm. I. § 398 π. 4, p. 246, Gildersleeve,
Greek Syntax § 465. Everywhere else the phrase is either οὐκ ἂν οἶδα or
οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ἄν. Here Apr. had μάλιστα οἶδα with ἐμαυτοῦ in 1. 2. A2 restored
εἰδέναι and ἑαυτοῦ, Bekker inserted ἄν. Thalheim prefers μάλιστ᾽ ἂν ᾔδει.
Although deɩ is nearer to the ductus litterarum than the emendation of A²,
the infinitive helps to excuse the curious construction of the clause oûтw yàp
κ.τ.λ. (§ 8. 5, 6).
3 πρῶτον μὲν συγγενεῖς παρακαλέσας. Cp. IV. 12. 9, 23. 2.
5 ὅσους δύναιτο πλείστους. The philosopher Lycon (Diog. Laert. 5. 74)
was content with three witnesses. One copy of the will of Theophrastus had
four witnesses, another had five (ib. 5. 57).
α
5, 6 οὕτω γὰρ ῥᾳδίως ἂν ἐλέγχοιτο ψευδόμενος. Since the speaker is
describing the imaginary forecast of Astyphilus before making his will (‘if I
take these precautions, false claimants will be easily refuted'), we expect either
ῥᾳδίως ἂν ἐλέγχεσθαι ψευδόμενον οι ῥᾳδίως ἐλεγχθήσοιτο ψευδόμενος (VIII. 22.7 2.,
[Dem.] 50. 44). Isaeus might also have taken another point of view and
written ῥᾳδίως ἔμελλεν ἐλέγχεσθαι ψευδόμενος. For transitions from Oratio
Obliqua to Oratio Recta cp. Dem. 18. 35 τίνες οὖν ἦσαν οἱ παρὰ τούτου λόγοι
τότε ῥηθέντες; ὡς οὐ δεῖ θορυβεῖσθαι... ἔσται γὰρ ἅπανθ' ὅσα βούλεσθ᾽ ὑμεῖς,
23. 92, IIO, Isocr. 15. 1o5, Hyp. 3. 25 (προσήκεν liber, προσήκειν Cobet). An
exact analogue is found in Xen. An. 6. 2. II εἰ οὖν σωφρονοῖεν, αὐτοὶ συστάντες
καὶ στρατηγοὺς ἑλόμενοι ἑαυτῶν καθ᾿ ἑαυτοὺς ἂν τὴν πορείαν ποιοῖντο καὶ πειρῷντο
ἀγαθόν τι λαμβάνειν (end of a discussion reported in Oratio Obliqua). The
long period reflects the embarrassment of the composer conscious of the
crudeness of the reasoning. Put plainly the argument is this. 'A man who
thinks of making a will, aware that it is certain to be disputed by the next-of-
kin, seeks to baffle their pretensions by inviting as witnesses his relations
and friends, and in fact as many acquaintances as he can get together.
Astyphilus took no such precautions against me. Therefore he did not
make a will.'
9. 2, 3 ὅτε διέθετο ἃ οὗτοί φασιν. A dangerous expression for an advo-
cate, who asserts that Astyphilus made no will; see §§ 11. 3, 12. 5.
OR. IX.
633
COMMENTARY
3 εἰ μή τις ἄρα κ.τ.λ. Cp. IV. 29 εἰσφορὰν οὐδεμίαν εἰσενήνοχε, πλὴν εἴ τι
ἄρα ἐξ ὅτου τῶν Νικοστράτου ἠμφεσβήτησεν. It may be concluded from this
admission that some at any rate of the witnesses to the will were either
relations or friends of Astyphilus. The logic of the afterthought is peculiar :
'Astyphilus, it appears, procured the attendance of none of these persons
when he made the alleged will, with the exception of such as have been
induced by my opponents to agree that they were present.'
4 παρεῖναι, an imperfect (IV. 3. 2 n.); a more fastidious writer would
have put παραγενέσθαι (III. 56). Compare §§ 1o. 7, 8, 37. 3, Χ. 15. I.
10.2 τεκμηρίοις χρήσασθαι τούτοις τοῖς μάρτυσιν κ.τ.λ. Cp. Lys. 31. 34 οὐ
γὰρ ἄλλοις τισὶν ὑμᾶς δεῖ τεκμηρίοις χρῆσθαι ἢ ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς, ὁποῖοί τινες ὄντες αὐτοὶ
περὶ τὴν πόλιν ἐδοκιμάσθητε.
3 μαρτυροῦσι μὴ εἰδέναι Αστύφιλον ταῦτα διατιθέμενον. For the device of
calling a string of witnesses to depose that they are not aware of a fact, see VI.
II. 6 n. Scheibe's correction διαθέμενον (Comm. Crit. p. II) is unnecessary ;
εἰδέναι is a present, διατιθέμενον an imperfect, as in [Dem.] 43. 35 μαρτυροῦσι
δημόται εἶναι Φιλάγρῳ καὶ εἰδέναι Φυλομάχην τὴν μητέρα τὴν Εὐβουλίδου νομι-
ζομένην ἀδελφὴν εἶναι Πολέμωνος, Dem. 29. 38 πάντας ἐγώ φημι τοὺς οἰκέτας
εἰδέναι τοῦτον πωλοῦντα. Compare VIII. 14. 1, 2 7.
>
··
N.
>
5 περὶ τοῦ ποιηθῆναί τινα ὑὸν ᾿Αστυφίλῳ. The ordinary construction
would be ὑπ᾽ Αστυφίλου (§ 5. 4, II. I, V. 7, 12, VII. 17, 43), but the dative comes
from the common phrase, ποιοῦμαι τινα ὑὸν ἐμαυτῷ, and is above suspicion ;
see III. 4I. 3 n., Clem. Αl. Strom. 6. 2. 26 τὸν Κώκαλον τὸν ποιηθέντα Αραρότι
τῷ ᾿Αριστοφάνους υἱῷ υἱὸν ?) Φιλήμων ὁ κωμικὸς ὑπαλλάξας ἐν Υποβολιμαίῳ
ἐκωμώδησεν (Rock, Com. Att. Fr. II. p. 502). Naber (Mnem. N. S. 5, 1877,
p. 415) demands εἰσποιηθῆναι, and Buermann (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 343)
supports this change by the observation that in the next line eis has been
erased before ñv, his theory being that the scribe found is between the lines
in the MS. he was copying and erroneously inserted it in the lower line. For
this theory cp. Crit. Introd. p. xxxviii; I conjecture that the appearance of
eis is due to the difficult construction of v. Naber's correction alters the
sense of the passage. With the MS. reading the meaning is 'the question
being whether any one was adopted as son to Astyphilus, with εἰσποιη-
Onvaι we ought to render 'the question being whether any one is to be made
(by the decision of the judges) Astyphilus' adopted son'; cp. § 34 μὴ τοίνυν
εἰσποιήσητε ὑὸν ᾿Αστυφίλῳ, ὃν οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸς ζῶν ἐποιήσατο.
11. 1, 2
καὶ ἐχρῆν δέ. The combination, καὶ... δέ, is used freely by De-
mosthenes (3. 15; 9. 70; 18. 43, 215; 21. 26, 126, 189; 22. 33; 23. 51; 24.
140; 28. 12; 29. 4; 45. 41; 57. 4), and appears occasionally in other orators
(Isocr. 7. 49, Lys. 19. 5, fr. 1. 2 Saupp., [Lys.] 8. 8, Lyc. 28, 117, Aesch. 1. 18,
3. 8, [Dem.] 7. 5, 42. 1, 47. 5, 52. 11, 59. 126), and in Athenian inscriptions
(C. I. A. II. 240 (307/6 B.C.), 21, 24, ib. 331 (c. 270 B.C.), 53); see Weber on
Dem. 23. 51, Frohberger on Lys. 19. 5 Anhang p. 188, Rehdantz, Demosth.
Index II. s.v. καὶ γάρ. A comparison of Dem. 18. 215, 24. 14ο (Σ), 57. 4,
[Dem.] 52. 11 shows that Thalheim's emendation in III. 80. 1, καὶ ἐν δὲ τῷ
δήμῳ, is against Attic usage, which requires καὶ ἐν τῷ δήμῳ δέ ; cp. VII. 24.
4 n., 29. 3, 4 n.
2 καὶ αὐτὸν Κλέωνα κ.τ.λ. What right had Cleon to invite anyone to
witness another man's will?
634
OR. IX.
ISAEUS
5 ὅτῳ περ ἔμβραχυ ᾔδει κ.τ.λ. For the use of ἔμβραχυ see Heindorf on
Plat. Gorg. 457 A (orationi modeste restringendae inseruit), Cobet, V.L.
p. 208, Gebauer on Lys. 13. 92 Anhang p. 464. In meaning it is hardly
distinguishable from is éros einreiv, but in the classical age only qualifies
relatives (ὅστις, ὅστις ἄν, ὅστις περ, ὅπου περ, and the like) and is never attached
to πâs and ovdeís. It may be placed (1) after the relative (Lys. 13. 92, Hyp.
fr. 41 Blass, Ar. Thesm. 390), (2) before the relative (Plat. Gorg. 457 A, Symp.
217 A, Hipp. Min. 365 D, Ar. Vesp. 1120), (3) after the verb of the relative
clause ([Plat.] Theag. 127 C, Kock, Com. Att. Fr. I. p. 90, Cratin. n. 254
ἔδει παρέχειν (παρασχεῖν Cobet, σε παρέχειν Elmsley) ὅ τι τις εὔξαιτ᾽ ἔμβραχυ).
6,7 οὐδεὶς ἂν αὐτὸν ἐδύνατο. No one would have been able to prevent
him etc.' (Lys. 3. 33). Scheibe's criticism (Comm. Crit. p. II èdúvaro non
habet subiectam condicionem) is an arbitrary assertion. The fact that av
was added by Al does not prove it an interpolation (Crit. Introd.
p. xxix sqq.).
12.2 ei
εἰ μηδένα ἐβούλετο εἰδέναι. A more reasonable hypothesis would
have been εἰ μηδένα τῶν οἰκείων ἐβούλετο εἰδέναι. In IV. 13 Isaeus says that
in general witnesses were not told the contents of the will.
πατι
3 ὅτι...ἐποιεῖτο μηδ' ὅτι...καταλίποι. For the capricious variation of moods
compare And. 1. 61 (aorist indic. and aorist opt.), Dem. 27. 49 (perfect indic.
and aorist opt.), [Dem.] 34. 17 (aorist indic. and aorist opt.). But passages
like [Dem.] 47. 68 (εἶχον and τελευτήσειεν), 59. 81 (λέγων ὅτι οὐκ ᾔδει...ἀλλ᾽
égatarŋlein) belong to a different category, since the absence of an im-
perfect optative explains the frequent retention of the imperfect of direct
discourse in Oratio Obliqua after a past tense (Goodwin, M. & T. § 672,
Gildersleeve, Greek Syntax §§ 311, 312). Kayser quoted by Thalheim
demands καταλείποι. But the hypothetical past thought which the orator
reproduces may be 'I do not wish any one to know that I am adopting
Cleon's son, nor that I have left (karéλɩπоv) a will.'
4 εἰκὸς ἦν μηδὲ ἄλλον μηδένα ἐγγεγράφθαι. The bearing of ἄλλον is not
obvious. Some translators (Reiske, Sir W. Jones, Caillemer) evade the
difficulty by omitting the word. Although in § 20 the orator asserts that
Astyphilus never spoke to Cleon in his life, his meaning here may be 'no
one else but Cleon'; in general a minor would not be adopted without the
approval and cooperation of his father. Note that there is an erasure in the
MS. before undè large enough to contain Kλéwva, as the word would have
been written by the scribe, i.e. with a superscribed and ← attached to w.
Thalheim thinks that d' originally stood before ĥv, avτòv before µŋdé. Many
modern scholars (Caillemer in a note to his translation of this speech,
Annuaire de l'association pour l'encouragement des études Grecques p. 173
Schulin, Das griechische Testament p. 7, Lipsius in Att. Proc.² p. 595 n. 299,
Beauchet III. p. 658) repose such confidence in the integrity of Isaeus as to
deduce from this passage that in law the presence of witnesses was not a
necessary condition of the validity of a testament. Beauchet, it is true, has
qualms and wisely adds that the testator's right of dispensing with witnesses
'must have been rarely exercised.' Our knowledge of Athenian law is
exceedingly scanty, but from this and other speeches we can form a lively
picture of the reception which Athenians would have given to a document
professing to be a will but authenticated by no witnesses.
A
OR. IX.
635
COMMENTARY
}
4, 5 ἐν τῷ γραμματείῳ μάρτυρα. The wills of Theophrastus (Diog. Laert.
5. 57) and of Lycon (ib. 5. 74) end with the names of the witnesses; the con-
clusion of the first document is worth quoting: αἱ διαθῆκαι κεῖνται ἀντίγραφα
τῷ Θεοφράστου δακτυλίῳ σεσημασμέναι, μία μὲν παρὰ Ηγησίᾳ Ιππάρχου· μάρ-
τυρες Κάλλιππος Παλληνεύς, Φιλόμηλος Εὐωνυμεύς, Λύσανδρος Ὑβάδης, Φίλων
᾿Αλωπεκῆθεν. τὴν δ᾽ ἑτέραν ἔχει Ολυμπιόδωρος· μάρτυρες δ᾽ οἱ αὐτοί. τὴν δ᾽
ἑτέραν ἔλαβεν Αδείμαντος, ἀπήνεγκεν δὲ ᾿Ανδροσθένης ὁ υἱός· μάρτυρες ᾿Αρί-
μνηστος Κλεοβούλου, Λυσίστρατος Φείδωνος Θάσιος (Θάσιοι?), Στράτων ᾿Αρκεσιλάου
Λαμψακηνός, Θήσιππος Θησίππου ἐκ Κεραμέων, Διοσκουρίδης Διονυσίου Επικη
φίσιος. It is commonly supposed on the strength of iv. 13 that at Athens
the witnesses did not sign, their names being entered by the testator or by
some one acting on his instructions (Beauchet III. p. 659).
>
5,6 φαίνεται διαθέμενος, sc. τῷ τούτων λόγῳ (§ 14. 4).
13.1 οὐ γὰρ <ἂν> ἡγοῦμαι οὐδένα κ.τ.λ. The expression is general,
but the speaker is thinking of the particular instance of Astyphilus, as the
past tense (ἔμελλε) shows: no one, I think, when adopting a son, would have
ventured to act in this way. Buermann's proposal (οὐδένα <πώποτε>) is in
every way inferior; for the omission of av after yàp see III. 50. 5, 6 n., 54. I N.
3 iepŵv kal doíwv. Cp. VI. 47. 2, 3 n. Here the reference is primarily to
the religious and civil rights transmitted by admission to the parpía and
deme of the adoptive father.
6 ὅτῳ βούλοιτο. We expect ὅτῳ βούλεται oι ὅτῳ ἂν βούληται (Χ. 2. 8 ὅτῳ
ἂν ἐθέλῃ). But νόμου γε ὄντος may include a reference to the past; compare
Dem. 22. 11 τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον ὁ νόμος, ἵνα μηδὲ πεισθῆναι μηδ᾽ ἐξαπατη-
θῆναι γένοιτ' ἐπὶ τῷ δήμῳ, Goodwin, Μ. & Γ. § 323.
14, 15 Consider also the date assigned to the will. Astyphilus is
said to have made it, when he was on the point of starting on the expedition
to Mytilene. He must then (according to my opponents) have been gifted with
foreknowledge of the future. He had gone before on many a campaign, in
which he knew that his life would be imperilled, and had never made a will
before leaving home. On this occasion—when he was a volunteer and had
the best expectations of a safe return-he left a will and perished! Is this
credible?
The value of the argument depends on the truth of a proposition, which
the orator cannot and does not prove, viz. that Astyphilus had never made
a will before. For testaments made before departure on military service see
VI. 5, VII. 9, XI. 8.
14. 5 προειδώς, an imperfect; on their showing it is plain that As-
typhilus knew the future' (VIII. 14. 1, 2 N.).
5, 6 εἰς Κόρινθον. Cp. VII. 9. 2, 3 κ.
6 εἰς Θετταλίαν. Extant authorities contain no record of war in Thes-
saly between 390 B.C. and 378 B.C., the date of the outbreak of 'the Theban
War.' Jason, a great employer of mercenaries, was tyrant of Pherae as early
as 379 B.C. (Breitenbach on Xen. Hell. 6. 1. 4); it is not known when he
first turned his arms against the other Thessalian cities. But Thessaly
was a country often disturbed by conflicts between the great aristocratic
houses. Astyphilus may have served in some petty raid under Aleuadae or
Scopadae.
636
OR. IX.
ISAEUS
6, 7 Tòv Onßaïkòv tóλepov. See Introd. p. 627.
8,9 καὶ οὐδ᾽ ἐν μιᾷ τούτων κ.τ.λ. The retort is furnished by Isaeus
himself (VI. 53, 54 οὐ γὰρ δὴ τοῦτό γε ἐρεῖ, καίπερ ἀναίσχυντος ὤν, ὡς ἅπασι
παρεγένετο καὶ πάντ᾽ οἶδεν ὅσα Φιλοκτήμων ἐν τῷ βίῳ διεπράξατο).
15. I τῷ οὖν ἂν ὑμῶν φανείη πιστόν. Cp. Lys. 3. 32 ὥστε τῷ ὑμῶν
πιστόν, ὡς κ.τ.λ., Dem. 30. 20 καίτοι τῷ τοῦθ᾽ ὑμῶν πιστόν, ὡς κ.τ.λ., ib. 33
καίτοι τῷ πιστόν, ὡς κ.τ.λ.
6,7 µádioтa èλπílovтa owłńocolaι, because, being a volunteer, he could
not be compelled to expose himself to danger (Reiske). Or does the orator
mean that an Athenian was not likely to volunteer for a very perilous
expedition?
7, 8 πŴS TOÛTO TισTÒν dη; I prefer Buermann's reading (Hermes 19,
1884, p. 367), because it has the advantage of making ồn ('after what has
been said ') more effective. Thalheim retains the vulgate (πŵs тоÛтоν TLOTÒV
ἤδη τὰς διαθήκας τότε καταλιπεῖν καὶ ἐκπλεύσαντα τελευτῆσαι;), and Gebauer
defends the anacoluthon by comparing II. 42, Xen. Cyr. 4. 2. 46, Oec. 8. 17,
Mem. 2. 1. 8.
16-21 I will produce still stronger proofs that the story of my
adversaries is entirely untrue. Astyphilus was a bitter enemy of Cleon. His
hatred was so deep and so just, that he would never have adopted Cleon's son.
In a dispute about the partition of their inheritance Euthycrates, father of
Astyphilus, was so cruelly beaten by Thudippus, father of Cleon, that he died
within a few days. The assault was seen by Hierocles, but of course he will
refuse to give evidence opposed to the will which he produces. Still I will
have him called that he may either depose before the court or deny on oath all
knowledge of the circumstance. Denial of Hierocles. I felt perfectly sure that
this would be his answer. He is consistent in perjury, denying the truth and
ready to swear to falsehood. I will call the husband of Astyphilus' aunt to
testify that Euthycrates on his deathbed gave solemn injunctions that no
descendant of Thudippus should be allowed to approach his tomb. Witness.
Astyphilus, who as a child heard the story from the last witness and from his
other relations, never spoke to Cleon after reaching years of intelligence.
Thudippus being charged with so grave a crime against his father, he thought
it impiety to have converse with Thudippus' son. I will put in evidence that
he was always at feud with Cleon. Witnesses.
Witnesses. It might have been expected
that Astyphilus, whenever he was at home, would attend the public sacrifices
and festivals in company with Cleon, who belonged to the same deme, who
was his first cousin, whose son he was going to adopt. This he never did, as
will be shown by testimony of members of the deme. Witnesses.
This part of the speech makes a bad impression. The basis of the
argument is a very grave charge, in support of which not a shred of evidence
is produced. Thudippus, if the accusation is true, was liable to a prosecution
for involuntary homicide and a sentence of temporary exile (Thonissen, Droit
pénal de la république Athénienne p. 250, Att. Proc.² p. 379). If Euthycrates
had not forgiven the author of his death (Dem. 37. 59), his kinsmen were
probably under a religious obligation to institute proceedings against the
'homicide' (avdpopóvos) in order to remove the stain of bloodshed and to
pacify the wrathful spirit of the slain (Plat. Laws 865 D, 866 B). To call
OR. IX.
637
COMMENTARY
even a dead man ' ἀνδροφόνος' was an actionable offence under the Athenian
law of slander (κακηγορία, Thonissen, op. cit. p. 278 sqq., Att. Proc
p. 628 sqq.).
16.4 πολὺ ἂν θᾶττον: πολὺ δὴ θᾶττον Α. For the confusion of ἂν and
on see Crit. Introd. p. xlvi, Dobree, Adv. I. p. 509, 11. p. 303, Voemel on
Dem. 8. 43, 18. 108, [Dem.] 10. 12.
5 διαθέμενον, attracted into the participial construction of the principal
clause. For the participle after ὥστε cp. Dem. 3. 1, 45. 83, [Dem.] 6. 40, 26.
22, 61. 3, Isocr. 4. 64, 65, [And.] 4. 20, Plat. Rep. 7. 519 A, Xen. Cyr. 7. 5. 46,
Madvig, Adv. Crit. I. p. 456, Gildersleeve, A. J. Ph. 7, 1886, p. 172; Madvig
proposes to restore the construction in Dem. 6. 2 ὥστε...χαλεπώτερον <ὄν>.
17. 4, 5 ἐν τῇ νεμή- -. τοῦ χωρίου, 'at the partition of their land, i.e. of
the estate left by their father. The division of their patrimony was a
proverbial source of strife among brothers (Plut. De fraterno amore c. II,
483 c sqq., Lys. 16. 10). It is implied that the adoption of Thudippus
(§§ 2, 33) took place after his father's death.
6 οὐ πολλαῖς, a case of ‘adherescent οὐ' (Gildersleeve, A. J. Ph. 7, 1886,
p. 174): the negative belongs to πολλαῖς, not to the predicate (Isocr. 8. 107,
Lys. 13. 62).
18.2 Αραφηνίων. The deme Araphen, of which the two brothers
were members, belonged to the maritime trittys of the tribe Aegeis. It was
on the eastern side of Attica, and probably was placed on the banks of the
stream now called Raphina, some little distance from the sea (Milchhoefer,
Untersuchungen über die Demenordnung des Kleisthenes p. 15, Hanriot,
Recherches sur la topographie des dèmes de l'Attique p. 187 sqq.).
3 διαρρήδην δέ, sc. μαρτυροῦντας, which must be supplied from μαρτυρή-
σειαν in the preceding clause (Aesch. I. 71 ἀξιώσουσι δέ με μάρτυρας παρα-
σχέσθαι διαρρήδην μαρτυροῦντας, ib. 87 ἠξίουν διαρρήδην τινὰ μαρτυρεῖν περὶ τῆς
αἰτίας ἢ τοὺς δικαστὰς μὴ πιστεύειν). Reiske and Herwerden (Mnem. N. S.
9, 1881, p. 395) consider the construction too harsh, Dobree disagrees (Adv.
I. p. 3c6). The reluctance of the neighbours to be mixed up in a charge of
homicide (περί τηλικούτου πράγματος) is intelligible. But why does not the
speaker summon them to the bar, as he summons Hierocles?
8, 9 ἵνα ἐναντίον τούτων μαρτυρήσῃ ἢ ἐξομόσηται, ' that in the presence of
the judges he may either depose or take the oath of disclaimer': see Poll. 8.
37 τὸν δ᾽ οὐ βουλόμενον μαρτυρεῖν ἐκλήτευον ἀνάγκην τοῦ μαρτυρεῖν προστιθέντες·
ἔδει δὲ αὐτὸν ἢ μαρτυρεῖν ἢ ἐξομόσασθαι ὡς οὐκ εἰδείη ἢ μὴ παρείη ή χιλίας
ἀποτίνειν. κλητεύεσθαι μὲν οὖν ἐστὶ τὸ καλεῖσθαι εἰς μαρτυρίαν, ἐκκλητεύεσθαι
δὲ τὸ δίκην ὀφείλειν ἐπὶ τῷ τὰς χιλίας καταβαλεῖν, ib. 55 ἐξώμνυντο δὲ καὶ οἱ
κληθέντες μάρτυρες εἰ φάσκοιεν μὴ ἐπίστασθαι ἐφ᾽ ἃ ἐκαλοῦντο, Harp. s.v.
κλητῆρες καὶ κλητεύειν...λέγεται δὲ κλητεύεσθαι καὶ ἐκκλητεύεσθαι ἐπὶ τῶν
μαρτύρων, ὅταν μὴ ὑπακούωσι πρὸς τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἐν τοῖς δικαστηρίοις, καὶ ἔστιν
ἐπιτίμιον κατ᾿ αὐτῶν δραχμαὶ χιλίαι, ὡς Ισαῖος ἐν τῷ ὑπὲρ Πύθωνος ἀποστασίου,
II. 33. 5, 6 n., Dem. 19. 176, 29. 20, 45. 58 sqq., 57. 59, [Dem.] 32. 30,
49. 20, 58. 7, 59. 28, Aesch. I. 46–50, 67 sqq., 2. 67, Lyc. 20, Plat. Laws
936 E, Att. Proc.² p. 881. Depositions at Athens were presented and put
into writing in the course of the preliminary proceedings, and it was not
lawful to produce new evidence at the trial. If however persons refused to
'
638
OR. IX.
ISAEUS
appear as witnesses at the ảváκpiois before the magistrate, they might be
summoned by either of the litigants to attend in court on the day of hearing.
At the pleasure of the pleader they could be called up to the platform (βήμα),
and required either to testify to the truth of a written statement drawn up by
the litigant (Aesch. 1. 45, 47, 67, Dem. 45. 60) and read out by the clerk, or to
take a solemn oath (λαβόντας τὰ ἱερά, Lyc. 20) that they had no personal
knowledge of the facts recited in the document. Failure to appear after due
notice given was punishable by a fine of 1000 dr. (Aesch. 1. 46), but the pro-
cedure is not accurately known, the meaning of κλητεύειν and ἐκκλητεύειν in
this connexion being obscure (Att. Proc.² pp. 496 sqq., 882). We also hear
(in a suit before an arbitrator, [Dein.] 49. 20) of a private action for damages
(βλάβη). The system was liable to great abuses. The deposition pre-
sented to the witness might be so skilful an admixture of truth and falsehood
as to cause serious embarrassment to a conscientious citizen. The trick of
compelling a man to come forward to the bar and of proceeding to denounce
him as a perjurer, if he affirmed his ignorance under oath (Dem. 19. 176, 45.
61, Aesch. 1. 47, 69), should be compared with the device for 'slipping in'
evidence (κλέπτειν τὴν μαρτυρίαν) recommended by the author of the Rhet.
ad Alex. c. 15, Rh. Gr. 1. p. 49, 20 sqq. (Hammer).
Α
<
ΙΟ ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ. <ΕΞΩΜΟΣΙΑ>. The deposition' is the statement
which the speaker asks Hierocles to make: see Dem. 45. 6ο λέγε τὴν
μαρτυρίαν, εἶτα τὴν πρόκλησιν ταύτην. ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ. Μαρτυροῦσι φίλοι εἶναι
κ.τ.λ. Ἢ μαρτυρεῖτ᾽ ἢ ἐξομόσασθε. ΕΞΩΜΟΣΙΑ. Οὐκ ἄδηλον ἦν, ὦ ἄνδρες
δικασταί, ὅτι τοῦτ᾽ ἔμελλον ποιήσειν, προθύμως ἐξομεῖσθαι. On the other hand
the reading of the MS. of Isaeus agrees with the text of Aesch. 1. 67 sqq•
κάλει μοι τὸν Ηγήσανδρον. ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ. οὐκ ἠγνόουν ὅτι ὑπερόψεται τὸν ὅρκον,
ὦ ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι, ἀλλὰ καὶ προεῖπον ὑμῖν.
19. I, 2
ἃ μὲν οἶδεν, ἐξόμνυσθαι. The faulty antithesis is inevitable ;
Hierocles swore that he had no personal knowledge of the assault upon
Euthycrates (ἢ μὴν μὴ εἰδέναι, Plat. Laws 936 E), he did not swear that the
assault had not taken place.
2, 3 τῶν δὲ μὴ γενομένων πίστιν ἐθέλειν ἐπιθεῖναι κ.τ.λ. Cp. § 24 δοκεῖ δέ
μοι κἂν ομόσαι ἄσμενος, εἴ τις αὐτῷ ὅρκον διδοίη, VII. 16 ἐπιτιθέναι πίστιν κατὰ
τῶν ἱερῶν ἢ μὴν ἐξ ἀστῆς εἰσάγειν καὶ γεγονότα ὀρθῶς.
20. 3, 4 ἀλλὰ πρότερον ἐτελεύτησεν. The illogicality of the expression
shocks Dutch critics. Naber (Mnem. N. S. 5, 1877, p. 416) deletes the whole
phrase: sciolus, opinor, in uitioso codice inuenerat διηλλάχθη et putauit addi
debere causam cur reconciliata gratia numquam fuisset. Herwerden (¿b. 9,
1881, p. 396) is content to insert ἂν before ἐτελεύτησεν. Compare §§ 32.
4, 5 1., 36. 7 n., Plat. Lach. 18ο Ε ἀεὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ σὸς πατὴρ ἑταίρω τε καὶ
φίλω ἦμεν, καὶ πρότερον ἐκεῖνος ἐτελεύτησε πρίν τι ἐμοὶ διενεχθῆναι.
21. 2 δημότην ὄντα. Cf. fr. 15 Saupp. (Dion. Hal. De Isaeo c. 10,
p. 603 R., 105, 11 Usener and Radermacher) ἀδικοῦμαι γὰρ ὑπὸ τῶν δημοτῶν
...μεθ᾽ ὧν ἀνάγκη καὶ <συνθύειν καὶ> συνουσίας κοινὰς ποιεῖσθαι, Dem. 57. 47,
C. I. A. II. 570, 35 τὰ ἱερὰ τὰ κοινὰ ἐν ὅσοισιν ἑστιῶνται Πλωθῆς, ib. II. 582, 12,
589, 11 (quoted on § 33. 7 n.).
ע:
4 ὁπότε περ ἐπιδημοίη, added in view of the objection, that a man con-
stantly serving abroad (§ 14) had no opportunity to attend festivals at Athens.
OR. IX.
639
COMMENTARY
!
with the man, whose
But what shall I say
22-26 Such were the relations of Cleon
property he has the boldness to claim for his son.
of the audacity of Hierocles? The return he makes for the many benefits
which he received from Astyphilus and my father is to keep me, his own
nephew, out of the succession which the law has given me, to slander the
memory of Astyphilus, and, as far as he can prevail, to make Astyphilus'
deadly enemies heirs of his estate. Before application was made for the
inheritance, he approached in turn all the acquaintances of Astyphilus,
inciting strangers to put forward a claim, and promising to produce a will,
if any one would go shares with him. Now, having come to an under-
standing with Cleon, and obtained a portion of my brother's property, he will
expect you to put faith in his statements, and will, I daresay, be glad to take
an oath. He refuses to testify to the truth at the request of his kinsman, but
cooperates with a stranger in lies and forgery, putting money above the tie
of blood.
That he went round offering to produce a will, if given a share
of the fortune, I will prove by calling persons whom he approached.
Witnesses. What name should be given to a man who, for his own profit,
will recklessly slander the dead? The deposition you have now heard shows
that he has been paid by Cleon to produce the will. Such are the arts which
these two conspirators practise against me.
For the difficulties in this story see the note on § 24. I.
22. I
οὕτως διακείμενος τῷ τετελευτηκότι, being on such terms with the
deceased,' not 'being so disposed towards the deceased.' G. A. Hirschig
(Philol. 5, 1850, p. 324) demands #ρòs тòv TeTeλeutŋkóta as in §§ 30. 7, 32. 3,
I. 49. 4 22. Scheibe (Comm. Crit. p. 12) in support of the dative cites among
other passages Dem. 8. 4ο σκεψάσθων Εὐθυκράτη καὶ Λασθένη τοὺς Ολυνθίους,
οἱ δοκοῦντες οἰκειότατ᾽ αὐτῷ διακεῖσθαι, ἐπειδὴ τὴν πόλιν προὔδοσαν, πάντων
κάκιστ᾽ ἀπολώλασιν, Thuc. 8. 68 ὑπόπτως τῷ πλήθει διὰ δόξαν δεινότητος
diaкeiμevos (Thuc. seems always to use diakeîodai of a passive condition;
cp. 1. 71. 1,' Goodhart ad loc.), Xen. An. 2. 5. 27 dîλos v пávu piλik@s
οἰόμενος διακεῖσθαι τῷ Τισσαφέρνει.
23. 3 χεῖρον ἔπραττες ἢ νυνί. 'Postrema duo uocabula non possunt
seruari, nam Hierocles eo tempore non какÔя ÉπρаттEv' (Naber, Mnem.
N.S. 5, 1877, p. 417). This remark betrays ignorance of one of the common
idioms of Greek, and indeed of most languages. For the various forms of
'adversative comparison,' in which the comparative is contrasted with the
negation of the same conception, see the subtle and learned work of Schwab,
Syntax der griech. Comparation p. 53 sqq., and compare § 35. 7 n., VII. 9.
I n. The proposition ἡ δύναμις αὐτοῦ μείζων ἐγίγνετο ἢ πρότερον is in itself
ambiguous, since we may supply in thought either ὅτε μικρὰ ἦν οι ὅτε μεγάλη
v. Had Isaeus wished to assert that at the time of the speech Hierocles
was in sorry circumstances, he would have written ἔτι χεῖρον ἔπραττες ἢ νυνί.
5 σαυτοῦ. Αpr. must have written ἑαυτοῦ. For the confusion of σαυτὸν
and έavròv cp. Isocr. 2. 24, 5. 36, Aesch. 3. 163, 176, 240, Din. 1. 8, 70, Hyp.
3. 19, Rh. Gr. (Hammer) I. pp. 53, 25, 67, 22, 78, 23, 94, 10, 226, 7, Dyroff,
Geschichte des Pronomen Reflexivum pp. 384, 401, 403, 404, 532.
5, 6 ἀποστερεῖς ἅ μοι οἱ νόμοι ἔδοσαν. Cp. IV. 21 τουτουσὶ δὲ συγγενεῖς
ὄντας ἐκείνου, ἃ οἱ νόμοι ἔδοσαν αὐτοῖς, ἀποστερῆσαι.
640
OR. IX.
ISAEUS
6 τεθνεώτος καταψεύδει. Cp. IV. II οὐδ᾽ ἂν τῶν τεθνεώτων οὐδεὶς κατε-
ψεύδετο.
(
24. 1 πρὶν μὲν ληχθῆναι τοῦ κλήρου. The use of the passive here is a
bit of hocus-pocus. The reader naturally asks, Whose application to the
Archon (nis)? Cleon's or the half-brother's? Now this is exactly the
question which Isaeus is unwilling to answer. According to § 3 Cleon
'made entry' (évéßarevσe) on the estate in the name of his son ‘as soon as
news came of Astyphilus' death' and before the arrival of his bones; and the
orator uses language ($$ 3, 5, 32) calculated to leave in the minds of his
hearers an idea that Cleon simply ignored the rules of law and hoped to
hold the property without any judicial authorisation whatsoever.
If at any
time Cleon came before the proper magistrate in due course, and stated that
his son's title was a will in the charge of Hierocles, the fact has hitherto
been sedulously suppressed. On the other hand the application of the
speaker was made, when he returned from foreign service, some time after
Astyphilus' death-how long, is nowhere indicated-and was the cause of
the present trial. But after what has preceded, could there be anything
feebler than the remark Before I instituted the proceedings preliminary to
this trial, Hicrocles went round hawking a will; now that he has found
a customer in Cleon, he will expect you to believe him?? According to $5
the speaker learned as soon as he got back that Cleon rested the claims.
of his son on a testament which Astyphilus was said to have deposited with
Hierocles, and it was in consequence of this information that he took action.
At what point, then, in the history did Cleon and Hierocles join hands? If
we believed in the honesty of Isaeus' narrative, we should be driven to
suppose that no sooner did Cleon hear of his cousin's death than he laid
hands on his property out of sheer rapacity and lawlessness, without troubling
to make any declaration of his son's title, and that some time afterwards,
hearing of Hierocles' eagerness to participate in the fruits of forgery, or
being visited by him in the course of his rounds, he perceived the utility
of supporting his son's pretensions by a will. Further, we might have to
add that the two conspirators came to terms in the interval between the
reception of the tidings of Astyphilus' death and the arrival of his bones in
Attica, since in § 4 the speaker complains that 'when the bones were brought
back, the person who pretended (ó рooтоloúμeros) to have been adopted
long before as Astyphilus' son, neither laid them out nor buried them,'
implying in these words that Cleon had already taken his stand on a will
containing an adoption. But this inference cannot be pressed owing to
a doubt about the time indicated by the participle #pooToLovμeros; see note
ad loc. The plain truth is that Isaeus has failed to present a consistent and
clear account of the alleged fraud. The rôle assigned to Hierocles is simple,
to depose falsely that a certain document was left in his keeping by Asty-
philus. But who undertook the more difficult and dangerous part of the
business? Who wrote the document and counterfeited the seal or seals
(IV. 13. 2, 3 ».)? Who procured and paid the witnesses to the will? These
not unimportant details are left to the imagination of the judges.
Π
2, 3 οὐδενὶ ἄλλῳ γίγνοιτο τὰ ᾿Αστυφίλου. Cp. v. 44. 5 ».
9 κäv óμóσaι doμevos. Cp. XI. 6, XII. 9, 10, Dem. 29. 26, 33, 52, 54
OR. IX.
641
COMMENTARY
55. 27, Att. Proc. p. 898 sqq. Perhaps at the preliminary investigation the
speaker had been challenged by his opponent to allow Hierocles to take an
oath, and had refused the proposal.
συλλαμβάνει.
25. 2, 3 TOÚtų тà Yeudŷ ovλλaµßável. For the construction see VII. 4
βοηθεῖν μοι τὰ δίκαια, Ar. Eccl. 861 τὰ δυνατὰ γὰρ δεῖ τῇ πόλει ξυλλαμβάνειν
| τοὺς εὖ φρονοῦντας, Lys. 540 χἠμεῖς τι ταῖς φίλαισι συλλάβωμεν, Χen. Cyr.
7. 5. 49 εἰ ταῦτα προθύμως σοι συλλάβοιμι, Oc. 13. 10 τάδε συλλαμβάνω αὐτοῖς.
I do not understand why Weber prefers to supply ToÚTwv in Dem. 23. 137
τίνος εἵνεκα...ἃ βούλεται διαπράξασθαι συλλάβωμεν αὐτῷ, καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν
ὄντα ;
I
6 Teρuov. For the form Tepiòv in MSS. see n. cr. and Dem. 4. 10, 48;
21. 36, 104, 123, 198; 23. So; 57. 33, 64, [Dem.] 58. 63, 'AÐ. Hoλ. 53. 1,
Thuc. 1. 30. 3, Plat. Rep. 568 c, 600 D, Xen. Hell. 3. 2. 25, Rh. Gr. (Hammer)
I. p. 261, 1 περιϊόντα Β, περιόντα A. That the pronunciation περιὼν existed
in the classical age is proved by the evidence of comedy (Porson's
Aristophanica, Vesp. 1020, Addend. p. 135, Kock, Com. Att. Fr. 1. p. 200,
Pherecr. κ. 186 τὰς βαλάνους καὶ τὰς ἀκύλους καὶ τὰς ἀχράδας περιόντας, ib. I.
p. 371, Phrynich. n. 3, 4 εἶθ᾽ ἡδυλογοῦσιν ἅπασιν ἀεὶ κατὰ τὴν ἀγορὰν περιόντες,
20. I. p. 655, Plat. κ. 193 καὶ περιιών (περιών Meineke) ἅμα | τιλτὸν τάριχος
ἐπριάμην τοῖς οἰκέταις, ib. II. p. 125, Antiph. n. 279 νῦν δεῖ περιιόντα (περιόντα
Dindorf) πέπερι καὶ καρπὸν βλίτου | ζητεῖν).
26. 4, 5 avrη μaprupía, the joint deposition (III. 56. 5 .) of the
witnesses called at the end of $ 25.
I was
27-33 Even if I were not related to Astyphilus, I have a better
right to his property than my opponents. When his mother married again
he was a little child, and came with her to live in our house. My father
brought him up with me and sent us to the same schools. Witnesses. My
father planted and cultivated Astyphilus' paternal estate, doubling its value.
Witnesses. When my brother came of age, all his property was delivered
to him correctly and honestly, and he never made any complaint against my
father. Such was his confidence in my father's goodwill that he permitted
him to manage the betrothal and marriage of his sister. Witnesses.
When
Astyphilus was a child, my father used to take him together with me to all
sacred ceremonies. He also procured him admission into the diagos of
Heracles. Witnesses. Consider my relations with my brother.
brought up with him from infancy. There was never any difference
between us. His fondness for me is known to all our connexions and
friends. Witnesses. Would Astyphilus ever have adopted the son of an
enemy, cutting off benefactors and kinsfolk? To me it is incredible, even
if ten wills are produced by Hierocles; I, his brother and his intimate, have
far greater claims than Cleon's son. My opponents ought to be ashamed
even to put forward pretensions to Astyphilus' property, when they were on
such terms with him, when they did not bury his bones, but invaded his
possessions before rendering him funeral honours. And after this they will
ask to inherit his estate, contrasting their relationship with mine, Cleon
being his first cousin on the father's side! No man adopted into another
house has rights of succession in his original family, unless he returns in due
form of law. Often as Cleon's son has presented himself before Astyphilus'
W. I.
41
642
OR. IX.
ISAEUS
φρατρία, the members have never allowed him to share in the flesh of the
victim, not admitting the adoption.
27.3 ei kal. Cp. V. 25. 8 n.
6 παρὰ Ἱεροκλέους. Hierocles was κύριος of his sister on her husband's
death (III. 2. 3 n.), and, as such, betrothed her to Theophrastus (II. 3, 9,
VIII. 36). Her father must have been dead.
6,7 ἦλθε καὶ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον ἔχουσα. So Apollodorus came with his mother
to the house of her second husband Archedamus (vII. 7), and was not
brought up by his guardian Eupolis. As Theophrastus managed the paternal
estate of Astyphilus (§§ 28, 29), it has been supposed (Att. Proc.² p. 505 n. 75,
Schulthess, Vormundschaft nach attischem Recht pp. 69, 118) that he was
guardian of the boy as well as step-father. Isaeus' silence concerning this
detail should cause no surprise, for if Theophrastus was Astyphilus' guardian,
he must have been appointed to the office either by Euthycrates in a will or
by the Archon, and was discharging a legal obligation. But, as Schoemann
observes, it is also possible that he had taken a lease of the orphan's estate
(II. 9, 27, VI. 36 sqq.). In this case his solicitude in planting and improving
the land (§ 28) was not purely disinterested. Note that Thudippus, Cleon's
father, was Astyphilus'' tutor legitimus' (1. 9. 1 N., V. IO. 1, 2 N., VIII. 42. 3 n.),
if at the time of Euthycrates' death he had not passed by adoption into
another family (§ 17. 4, 5 κ.).
28. 3 ὅποι. Buermann and Thalheim prefer on; see IV. 27. 5 n.,
V. 35. IO 22., VI. 41. 7 n.
7 ἀνάβητέ μοι καὶ τούτων μάρτυρες, a formula common in Lysias (I. 29, 42;
12.47; 13.64; 16. 8, 13, 14, 17; 20. 29; 32. 18), but not found in any other orator
but Isaeus. For the βῆμα mounted by witnesses see V. 25. 5, 67., VII. 1o. 6 κ.
29.1 ἐδοκιμάσθη, sc. ἀνὴρ εἶναι (Dem. 27. 5, 30. 6, Lys. 26. 21). A young
Athenian came of age in the course of his nineteenth year, as soon as his
name was entered in the register of his deme (τὸ ληξιαρχικὸν γραμματεῖον);
the proceedings at the δοκιμασία τῶν ἐφήβων are described in 'Αθ. Πολ. 42. 1, 2
(cp. III. Introd. p. 281).
el
1, 2 ἀπέλαβε πάντα ὀρθῶς καὶ δικαίως. Cp. Dem. 27. 63 εἰ κατελείφθην
μὲν ἐνιαύσιος, ἓξ ἔτη δὲ προσεπετροπεύθην ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν, οὐδ᾽ ἂν τὰ μικρὰ ταῦτα
παρ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀπέλαβον. The speaker's language certainly suggests a ward's
approval of the account of his guardianship (ὁ λόγος τῆς ἐπιτροπῆς, Dem.
27. 39, 36. 20, 38. 14, 15; cp. C. I. A. II. 611, 9 τοὺς λογισμοὺς ἀπέδωκεν ὀρθῶς
καὶ δικαίως, Lys. fr. 124 Saupp. καταλειφθεὶς ἐπίτροπος τῶν Ἱπποκράτους
χρημάτων καὶ διαχειρίσας ὀρθῶς καὶ δικαίως τὴν οὐσίαν καὶ παραδοὺς τοῖς ὑοῖς
δοκιμασθεῖσι τὰ χρήματα), but it might also be applied to the delivery of
property held by a lessee (II. 28 ἐπειδὴ ἔδει τῷ ὀρφανῷ τὰ χρήματα ἀποδιδόναι,
fr. 66 Saupp. ἐνεφάνισε τὰ χρήματα ἃ ἦν μοι παρ᾽ αὐτῷ καὶ ἀπέδωκε πάντα
ὀρθῶς καὶ δικαίως, Dem. 27. 27 τῷ Μοιριάδῃ πεντακοσίας δραχμὰς ἐδάνεισεν, ἃς
ὀρθῶς καὶ δικαίως παρ᾽ ἐκείνου κεκομίσθαι ὡμολόγηκεν, [Dem.] 34. 29 τί οὐκ ἂν
πράξειεν ὁ τοιοῦτος, ὅστις γράμματα λαβὼν μὴ ἀπέδωκεν ὀρθῶς καὶ δικαίως ;).
The combination, ὀρθῶς καὶ δικαίως, is official; see C. I. A. IV. 2. 614 b
(290/89 B.C.), 47 οἰκονομήσασιν ὀρθῶς καὶ δικαίως ἅπαντα καὶ ἀποδοῦσι τὰς
εὐθύνας, [Dem.] 42. 18 προσομνύειν τόνδε τὸν ὅρκον “ ἀποφανῶ τὴν οὐσίαν τὴν
ἐμαυτοῦ ὀρθῶς καὶ δικαίως.
OR. IX.
643
COMMENTARY
3, 4 τὴν ἀδελφὴν τὴν ἐκείνου ὁμοπατρίαν ἠγγύησεν. The appearance of
this sister is unexpected. If she was alive or had left children, the speaker
was not, as he pretends, heir ab intestato (XI. 2). But perhaps she had died
without issue, or did not come forward as a claimant because she believed in
the genuineness of the will; see Isaeus' argument in VII. 18—26. Since she
is not called óμoñaтpia kaì óµoµnтpía (VII. 5), Meier (Att. Proc.² p. 505 n. 75)
concludes that she was only Astyphilus' half-sister, offspring of an earlier
marriage of Euthycrates. Schoemann points out the unsoundness of this
inference. The orator, who makes a point of styling himself 'Astyphilus'
brother' (§§ 4, 7, 24, 29, 30, 31, 34, 37) without any qualification, may only
desire to distinguish a sister of Astyphilus whose father was Euthycrates
from a sister whose father was Theophrastus, assuming the mother to be the
same in both cases. The betrothal seems to have taken place after Astyphilus
came of age (µetà dè taûta). So long as he was a minor, his guardian—
whoever he was-had power to act in the matter without his assent and
confirmation (Lys. 32. 2, 10). But on attaining his majority he became
kúptos of his sister (111. 2. 3 n.), and was under a moral obligation to find her
a suitable husband. So great was the confidence he reposed in the affection
of his step-father that he left this important duty entirely in the hands of
Theophrastus, and was content to ratify his arrangements.
30. 3 εἰς τοὺς θιασώτας τοὺς Ηρακλέους. The MS. reading (εἰς τοὺς
Diáσovs Toùs 'Hpakλéovs) has been justly criticised by Sauppe (ind. schol. hibern.
Gotting. 1886, p. 8=Ausgew. Schr. p. 788). In Attica, which abounded in
shrines of Heracles (Harp. s.v. 'Hpákλeia), there may well have been many
societies, which combined the worship of the jovial demigod with feasting
and merriment, clubs like in kind to the famous Sixty, who met in the
'Hpákλelov of the deme Diomeia, and whose jokes were sent to King Philip
(Athen. 6. 260 B, 14. 614 D), but it is hard to believe that Theophrastus
belonged to all or even several of them. Further, the words "va µetéxoi tŷs
kowvwvías, which point to a private association, are fatal to the explanation of
Bergk, Lüders, and Kock (Com. Att. Fr. I. p. 438), that Isaeus is here
alluding to the banquets of the rapáσiro of Heracles, Athenian citizens
of substance and good repute chosen by the King, twelve from each deme,
to take part in a public festival (Cleidemus, F. H. G. 1. p. 361, Philochorus,
ib. 1. p. 410, and Diodorus the comedian, Kock, op. cit. II. p. 420, all quoted
in Athen. 6. 235 A D, 239 B). Of Sauppe's two suggestions, els tòv bíaσov TÒV
Ἡρακλέους and εἰς τοὺς θιασώτας τοὺς Ἡρακλέους, the latter is nearer the
ductus litterarum, and has some support from inscriptions; see C.I.A. IV. 2.
611 b (302/0 B.C.)= S.I.G.² 11. 726, Michel n. 975 'Appodíτns oi bɩaoŵrai, Ath.
Mitteil. 21, 1896, p. 299=S.I.G.2 n. 725, Michel n. 966 (2nd half of 4th c. B.C.)
τῶν ὀργεώνων τοῦ ᾿Αμύνου καὶ τοῦ ᾿Ασκληπιοῦ καὶ τοῦ Δεξίωνος, Ath. Mitteil. 21,
p. 93 οἱ θιασῶται οἱ Τυννάρου, but note that it is not clear whether Τυννάρου
oi oi
in the last inscription is the name of some foreign deity or of the man who
founded the society (C. I. A. II. 986 Αντιφάνος θίασος, ῾Αγνοθέου θίασος,
Διογένος θίασος, ib. II. 573 b ὅπως ἂν μηδείς...θιάσους συνάγει μηδὲ ἱερὰ ἐνι-
δρύωνται). The history and organisation of θίασοι, ὀργεώνων κοινά, ἔρανοι,
and other religious and quasi-religious unions, have heen treated in two
valuable monographs, Foucart, Des associations religieuses chez les Grecs,
41 2
644
OR. IX.
ISAEUS
Paris, 1873, and Ziebarth, Das griechische Vereinswesen, Leipzig, 1896. The
members often assumed a title formed from the name of their patron god or
goddess; thus at Athens there flourished at various periods 'Apreμioiaorai
(C. I. A. IV. 2. 1334 b), 'Ασκληπιασταί (ib. II. 617 b), Διονυσιασταί (ib. IV. 2.
623 d, e), Σαβαζιασταί (ib. IV. 2. 626 b), Σαραπιασταί (ib. II. 617), Σωτηριασταί
(ib. IV. 2. 630 b). In general such decrees of Athenian Oíaooi as have survived
do not mention either the name of the deity worshipped or the particular
appellation of the brethren. At Athens we have not yet discovered ‘Hpakλe-
ïoraí (Pagae, I.G. Sept. n. 192, Rhodes, S.I.G.² n. 742), but we possess an altar
bearing the inscription Σίμωνος Κυδαθηναιῶς ἱερέως Ηρακλέους καὶ κοινοῦ
Oiaσwrôv together with a list of 15 members (C.I.A. 11. 986 b, beginning of
4th c.). Clerc (Les Métèques Athéniens p. 136), following in the steps of
Foucart, op. cit. p. 103 sqq., argues that this association was composed
of devotees of Melkarth, the Phoenician Heracles. The hypothesis is
possible, but unproved; and we must be on our guard against the idea that
at Athens the term Oiavos implied necessarily and in all circumstances
a non-Hellenic or alien cult (II. 14. 7 22.). Isaeus would not, I think, have
described the introduction of Astyphilus into the community of Heracles
as a privilege and favour, if the name of Heracles disguised a Semitic
god.
ÉKEîVOV [aÚTÓV]. For the origin of the corruption see Crit. Introd. p. xxxiii.
In [Dem.] 49. 65, where ἠξίου καὶ αὐτὸς is in A, ἠξίου οὗτος καὶ αὐτὸς in Σ,
ἠξίου καὶ αὐτὸς οὗτος in FQ, Blass reads ἠξίου καὶ αὐτός, observing 'patet in
OUTOS
archetype fuisse καιαυτος.
31. 5 ei kal, ‘even if'; cp. V. 25. 8 n. For ἐγὼ μὲν οὐκ ἂν οἴομαι
Schoemann compares Lys. 26. 7 τί προσδοκῆσαι δεῖ δοκιμασθέντα αὐτὸν
ποιήσειν...; ἆρ᾽ ἂν ὀλίγα τοιαῦτα ἐν τῷ ἐνιαυτῷ διαπράξασθαι; ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ
οὐκ ἂν οἶμαι.
7, 8 μᾶλλον προσήκειν ἐμοὶ ἢ τῷ Κλέωνος ὑεῖ. Reiske conjectured that
τῶν ἐκείνου had fallen out after either ἐμοὶ or ὑεῖ. It should be
remembered that in § 32. 2 he had in his text r 'Aσrupiλw, not Tŵv
Αστυφίλου.
32.2 προσποιήσασθαι τῶν ᾿Αστυφίλου. Cp. III. I. 5 n.
4
ἐπὶ τὴν οὐσίαν ἦλθον. Cp. IV. 25. 6, 7 κ.
αι
4, 5 πρὶν τὰ νομιζόμενα ποιῆσαι. For τὰ νομιζόμενα see § 4. 5, 6, II. 4. 5 ..
The infinitive with pìv not infrequently states an ideal limit, something
which did not or could not happen; compare § 36. 7, V. 44, VIII. 8. Gebauer
on Lys. 12. 17 (παρήγγειλαν...πιεῖν κώνειον πρὶν τὴν αἰτίαν εἰπεῖν δι
žvtiv' éµedλov åñoðavéîoðai) Anhang p. 216 cites in illustration of the idiom
Lys. 19. 7, 30. 3, Isocr. 8. 120, Dem. 20. 145, 24. 109, Aesch. 3. 235, Hdt. 4.
117, Thuc. 2. 12. 2, 4. 83. 6, 125. 1, Xen. An. 1. 10. 9, 4. I. 7, 3. 12, Cyr. 2. 2.
10, 5. 2. 9, 7. 5. 39, 8. 4. 11, Plat. Lach. 180 E (cited on § 20. 3, 4). In many
of these examples the action expressed in the principal clause is of such
a nature that the occurrence of the event described by the temporal
clause is impossible, in others the proposition is ambiguous, if separated
from the context. Latin in such cases uses the subjunctive with antequam
and priusquam; compare Cic. Phil. 5. 17. 47 saepe magna indoles uirtutis
OR. IX.
645
COMMENTARY
}
priusquam rei publicae prodesse potuisset exstincta est, Sall. Cat. 13. 3
dormire priusquam somni cupido esset, Liv. I. 14 haerens in tergo Romanus
priusquam fores portarum obicerentur, uelut agmine uno irrumpit, 22. 29. 4
priusquam ad coniectum teli ueniret aut manum consereret, et suos a fuga
effusa et ab nimis feroci pugna hostes continuit.
5 ἔπειτα. Cp. IV. 29. 6 n.
6,7 Tò уévos Tаратilévтes, 'contrasting their relationship,' setting it by
the side of mine (Dem. 20. 73), not 'adducing their relationship' (Liddell
and Scott), laying it before you.
This latter sense is not supported by good
evidence, for in Χen. Cyr. 1. 6. 14 καὶ σὺ γελάσας διῆλθές μοι παρατιθεὶς ἕκαστον,
where the traditional version is 'in medium proferens,' the idea of comparison
For
is equally appropriate. The use of the middle is a different matter.
yévos, gradus propinquitatis, see IV. 16. 2 n.
33. 4, 5 ἐὰν μὴ ἐπανέλθῃ κατὰ τὸν νόμον. Cp. VI. 44. 4, 5 n., X. II, Harp.
s.v. ὅτι: ὅτι οἱ ποιητοὶ παῖδες ἐπανελθεῖν εἰς τὸν πατρῷον οἶκον οὐκ ἦσαν κύριοι,
εἰ μὴ παῖδας γνησίους καταλίποιεν ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ τοῦ ποιησαμένου, ᾿Αντιφῶν ἐπιτρο-
πικῷ κατὰ Καλλιστράτου καὶ Σόλων ἐν κα' Νόμων. The curious results which
flowed from this law may be seen in [Dem.] 44. 21 sqq., 46 sqq. Leocrates I
the adoptive son of Archiades returned to his natural family, leaving his
son Leostratus in his place as son of Archiades. Leostratus in due time
returned to the family of his father Leocrates I, and left his son Leocrates II
as son of Archiades. Thus Archiades had in succession three adoptive sons,
and, so far as the law was concerned, apparently might have had an
indefinite number but for the death of Leocrates II without a son who could
serve as his substitute. Whether at the date of this speech Cleon retained
the right of going back to the original house of his father Thudippus, seems
to be dubious; he was in a different position from Leostratus in [Dem.] 44,
inasmuch as he had not been transformed into the son of the adoptive father
of his natural father. According to Isaeus (X. 11) a man who had changed
his family by adoption had not the option of restoring the line of his natural
father by putting back one of his sons; he was obliged to return himself.
I
5...OÛToι μÉVTOL K.T.λ. The lacuna was first pointed out by Dobree
(Adv. I. p. 306). Since Cleon and Astyphilus belonged to the same deme
Araphen (§ 21), ouro can only mean the members of Astyphilus' parpía,
from which Cleon's father had been removed by his adoption. Cleon, it
seems, had sought to entrap the parpía into recognising his son as heir of
Astyphilus before the adoption was confirmed by a court, intending to argue
before the judges that a body of men intimately connected with Astyphilus
were convinced of the genuineness of the will. But the society was not to
be caught; they very properly declined to anticipate the issue of the trial and
persisted in treating Cleon's son as still a member of another Oparpía, who
was not entitled to participate in their sacrificial banquets. Cleon had over-
reached himself. The miscarriage of his scheme put a new weapon into the
hands of Isaeus, who discovers in the incident a proof that the parpía 'well
knew' the will to be a forgery. The truth was that the opinion of the
pparpía, whether hostile or friendly, proved nothing.
7 κεκρανομήκασι. See [Dem.] 43. 82 τὴν μερίδα τῶν κρεῶν ᾤχετο λαβὼν
ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι φράτορες, Harp. s.v. μεῖον... Απολλόδωρος ἐν τοῖς περὶ θεῶν
646
OR. IX.
ISAEUS
* οἱ φράτερές φησιν ‘ἵνα μείζονας νέμωνται μερίδας, ἐφώνουν ἑστῶτες ἱστάνειν
deiv, peiov yáp éσti,' C.I.A. IV. 2. 597 b 10=S.I.G.² n. 651, Michel n. 963
νέμειν δὲ αὐτῶι καὶ μερίδα ἐγ μυστηρίων τῶν μεγάλων καὶ τῶν πρὸς ῎Αγραν
ὅσημπερ Εὐμολπιδῶν ἑκάστωι, ib. II. 589, II sqq.=S.I.G. n. 430, Michel n.
145 καὶ ὅταν θύωσι Πειραιεῖς ἐν τοῖς κοινοῖς ἱεροῖς, νέμειν καὶ Καλλιδάμαντι
μερίδα, καθάπερ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις Πειραιεῦσιν, καὶ συνεστιᾶσθαι Καλλιδάμαντα
μετὰ Πειραιέων ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἱεροῖς, πλὴν εἴ που αὐτοῖς Πειραιεῦσιν νόμιμόν
ἐστιν εἰσιέναι, ἄλλωι δὲ μή, ib. II. 582, 12 sqq. καὶ νέμειν αὐτῶι κρέα ἐν τοῖς
ἱεροῖς οἷς ἂν θύωσιν οἱ δημόται Λαμπτρ[ᾶσι, καθ]άπερ Λαμπτρ[εῦσι, ib. II. 578,
32 sqq. = Michel n. 150 θυέτω τὴν πληροσίαν ὁ δήμαρχος τῶι Διὶ…..καὶ νεμέτω τὰ
κρέα τει ἑβδόμει ἱσταμένου τοῖς [παροῦσιν, ib. II. 602 (decree of the Μεσόγειοι in
honour of their Archon Polyeuctus, c. 270 B.C.), 4 sqq. ἐπεμελήθη δὲ καὶ τῆς
κρεανομίας καὶ τῆς ἐπικοσμήσεως τῆς τραπέζης, ib. IV. I. 35 b (5th c., law con-
cerning the festival of Hephaestus), 17 οἱ ἱεροποιοὶ νεμόντων αὐτοῖς ὠμὰ τὰ
κpéa, ib. 11. 163 (decree concerning the annual Panathenaea, S.I.G.² n. 634,
Michel n. 679), 11 sqq. νείμαντ[ας τοῖς πρυτάν]εσιν πέντε μερίδας καὶ τοῖς ἐννέα
ἄρ[χουσιν..] καὶ ταμίαις τῆς θεοῦ μίαν καὶ τοῖς ἱερ[οποιοῖς μίαν] καὶ τοῖς στρατη
γοῖς καὶ τοῖς ταξιάρχ[οις...καὶ τ]οῖς πομπεῦσιν τοῖς ᾽Αθηναίοις καὶ ταῖς κανη-
φόροι]ς κατὰ τὰ εἰω[θότα]· τὰ δὲ ἄλλα κρέα ᾿Αθηναίο[ις μερίζειν, 24 sqq. νεμόντων
τὰ κρέα τῶι δήμωι τῶι Αθηναίων ἐν [Κεραμεικῶ]ι καθάπερ ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις κρεανο-
μίαις. ἀ[ποδοῦναι δὲ] τὰς μερίδας εἰς τὸν δῆμον κατὰ [τοὺς πέμπον]τας ὁπόσους
ἂν παρέχῃ ὁ δῆμος ἕκαστος, ib. IV. 2. 385 d (decree in honour of οἱ ἐπιμεληταὶ
τῶν µvorηpiwv, between 215 B.C. and 201 B.C., S. I. G.² n. 650, Michel n. 132),
24, 25 ἀπέστειλαν δὲ καὶ εἰς τὰ Ἐλευσίνια θῦμα ταῦρον, ἐκρεανόμησαν δὲ καὶ τει
βουλει τοῖς ἑξακοσίοις καὶ πεντήκοντα, Stengel, Gr. Sakralaltert. § 67, Lipsius-
Schoemann, Gr. Altert. II. p. 247.
Εν
34-37 Examine the declarations of both parties before you decide.
Do not thrust upon Astyphilus a son whom he did not choose. Enforce your
own laws and make me heir of my brother's substance. Let not Cleon's
superior eloquence prevail against law and justice; you meet here that
effrontery may not have the best of it, that the weak may maintain their
rights. If you are persuaded by Cleon, you will send to the tomb of Asty-
philus those whom he most hated, you will overrule the dying injunctions of
Euthycrates, Astyphilus' father, you will convict Astyphilus himself—now
in the grave-of insanity, you will allow me, Astyphilus' brother and the
companion of his childhood, to be robbed of Astyphilus' estate by Cleon.
I beg and supplicate you to vote for me.
Ι
34. I ἀντωμόσαμεν. Cp. III. 6. 8 π.
2, 3 τὸν ὑὸν τὸν ἑαυτοῦ ᾿Αστυφίλῳ εἰσποιηθῆναι. The translators from
Reiske to Caccialanza with one accord take this phrase to be the passive of
τὸν ὑὸν ᾿Αστύφιλος εἰσεποιήσατο (§ 7, VIII. 36), and render Cleon asserts that
his son was adopted by Astyphilus.' If this was Isaeus' meaning, he ought
to have written ὑπ᾽ Αστυφίλου εἰσποιηθῆναι ([Dem.] 44. 19 ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου ζῶντος
ἔτι εἰσποιηθείς, ib. 50 φαίνεται οὐκ εἰσποιηθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ τετελευτηκότος αὐτοῦ).
The construction of $ 1o. 5 (περὶ τοῦ ποιηθῆναί τινα ὑὸν ᾿Αστυφίλῳ) is not
parallel. Here the combination Αστυφίλῳ εἰσποιηθῆναι cannot fail to
suggest that Cleon is the agent, ὃς τὸν ὑὸν τὸν ἑαυτοῦ ᾿Αστυφίλῳ εἰσεποίησε ;
compare § 2 ὁ ὑὸς ὁ τούτου, ὃν εἰσποιεῖ ἐκείνῳ, ΧΙ. 49 ἐπείσθην ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνης
ó
>
OR. IX.
647
COMMENTARY
εἰσποιῆσαι Μακαρτάτῳ τὸν ἕτερον τῶν παίδων, VII. 31, 44, [Dem.] 44. 48. But
what is the object of making Cleon assert 'that his son was (has been)
transferred into the family of Astyphilus, and that this was the purport of
Astyphilus' will'; Cleon did not transfer his son, when the will was made,
but consented to a prospective transference to take place after Astyphilus'
death. Legally the change of family could not be effected before the con-
firmation of the will, and the preceding section shows that as yet Cleon's son
had not been received into Astyphilus φρατρία. Either δεῖν has dropped
out before εἰσποιηθῆναι or Isaeus wishes to excite odium against Cleon by
putting in his mouth arrogant language which ignores the authority of the
judges. For the difference between εἰσποιεῖν and εἰσποιεῖσθαι see III. 60. 8,
9 n., IV. 10. 3, 4 N., VI. 22. 5, 6 n.
7 οὓς ὑμεῖς ἔθεσθε. Cp. IV. 17. 5 n.
35.5 βραβευτάς, arbiters, umpires, a metaphor from the games: see
Ar. Rhet. 1. 15. 1376 b 19 εἶτα ὅτι τοῦ δικαίου ἐστὶ βραβευτὴς ὁ δικαστής· οὔκουν
τοῦτο (the letter of the contract) σκεπτέον ἀλλ᾽ ὡς δικαιότερον, [Dem.] 12. 17
πότερον κάλλιόν ἐστιν ὅπλοις ἢ λόγοις διακρίνεσθαι, καὶ πότερον αὐτοὺς εἶναι
βραβευτὰς ἢ πεῖσαί τινας ἑτέρους, Plat. Prot. 338 Β εἶπον ὅτι αἰσχρὸν εἴη βρα-
βευτὴν ἑλέσθαι τῶν λόγων, Dem. 51. II ποῦ τὸ πάντας ἔχειν ἴσον καὶ δημο-
κρατεῖσθαι φαίνεται, τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ὑμῶν ταῦτα βραβευόντων; 3. 27 ἐξὸν
ἡμῖν τὰ τῶν ἄλλων δίκαια βραβεύειν, Isocr. 5. 70, 7. 23.
7 οἱ ἀδυνατώτεροι, not those who are rather weak, but those who are
weak in comparison with others.' Compare for this application of the com-
parative § 23. 3 N., VII. 9. I N., and the examples in Schwab, Syntax der
griech. Comparation p. 115 sqq., who adduces inter alia οἱ κρείττονες (opposed
to οἱ χείρονες), οἱ τὰ ἀμείνω φρονέοντες (opposed to οἱ κακὰ βουλεύοντες), οἱ
πλουσιώτεροι (opposed to ὁ δῆμος, Xen. Hell. 4. 8. 20) and the common use
οἱ ἐνδεέστερος, ὑποδεέστερος, etc. in preference to ἐνδεής, etc. (Hdt. 2. 75. 6
σωροὶ καὶ μεγάλοι καὶ ὑποδεέστεροι, Aesch. 3. 231 ἔνδοξα καὶ λαμπρὰ) (ταπεινὰ
καὶ καταδεέστερα, 3. 26ο καλῶς καὶ ἀξίως) (ἐνδεεστέρως).
36.4 ἐπὶ τὰ μνήματα ἰέναι. Cp. VI. 51, 64, 65.
4, 5 καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ ἱερὰ <τὰ> ἐκείνου. Cp. II. 46. 4 n.
,
7 ἃς αὐτὸς πρότερον ἀπέθανεν ἢ παραβῆναι. Cp. §§ 20. 3, 4 κ., 32. 4, 5 7.
The MS. has πρότερον ἢ ἀπέθανε παραβῆναι, a clear case of transposition
(Crit. Introd. p. xxxvii). Scheibe (Comm. Crit. p. 12) proposes to read πpó-
τερον ἂν ἀπέθανεν ἢ παραβῆναι, being apparently unaware that this correction
belongs to Stephanus ; compare Dem. 57. 7ο πρότερον γὰρ ἢ προλιπεῖν τούτους,
εἰ μὴ δυνατὸν ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν εἴη σωθῆναι, ἀποκτείναιμ᾽ ἂν ἐμαυτόν, ὥστ᾽ ἐν τῇ πατρίδι
γ᾽ ὑπὸ τούτων ταφῆναι, Xen. An. 2. 1. 10 ἀπεκρίνατο Κλεάνωρ ὅτι πρόσθεν ἂν
ἀποθάνοιεν ἢ τὰ ὅπλα παραδοῖεν, Plat. Menex. 246 D ἐξὸν ζῆν μὴ καλῶς, καλῶς
αἱρούμεθα μᾶλλον τελευτᾶν, πρὶν ὑμᾶς τε καὶ τοὺς ἔπειτα εἰς ὀνείδη καταστῆσαι
καὶ πρὶν τοὺς ἡμετέρους πατέρας καὶ πᾶν τὸ πρόσθεν γένος αἰσχύναι. Bekker's
restoration is better. The clause is only a rhetorical way of stating the fact
that Astyphilus observed the spirit of his father's injunctions throughout his
life (§§ 19, 20). Thalheim expresses a preference for πρότερον ἢ παραβῆναι
ἀπέθανεν.
8 παρανοίας αἱρήσετε. Cp. I. 50 παράνοιαν Κλεωνύμου καταγιγνώσκειν.
The verb aipeîv is unexpected, being generally applied only to the
648
OR. IX.
ISAEUS
prosecutor, but it is addressed to the judges in a similar appeal in
Aesch. 3. 156 μηδ' αἱρεῖτε παρανοίας ἐναντίον τῶν Ἑλλήνων τὸν δῆμον τὸν
Αθηναίων.
37. 2 πολεμιώτατος. Cp. I. 15. 2 κ.
ἔχθιστος (§ 36. 4).
Isaeus did not wish to repeat
3, 4 παρανοεῖν ἢ ὑπὸ φαρμάκων διεφθάρθαι. Cp. for the tense § 9. 4, IV. 3.
2 n. ; the judgment of hearers will be that he was mad. Ὑπὸ φαρμάκων is an
allusion to the terms of Solon's law of testament ([Dem.] 46. 14 ἂν μὴ μανιῶν
ἢ γήρως η φαρμάκων ἢ νόσου ἕνεκα, η γυναικὶ πιθόμενος, ὑπὸ τούτων του
παρανοῶν).
X
ON THE ESTATE OF ARISTARCHUS.
THE GRANDSON OF ARISTARCHUS AGAINST
XENAENETUS.
CLAIM TO AN INHERITANCE.
Aristomenes
Xenaenetus I

Aristarchus I=daughter

Apollodorus
-
daughter Cyronides
Demochares
daughter daughter
Aristarchus II
Xenaenetus II
claimant and
speaker
Aristarchus I of Sypalettus married a daughter of Xenaenetus I of
Acharnae, who bore him two sons and two daughters. The eldest son
Cyronides was adopted during his father's lifetime by his maternal
grandfather (§ 4. 5, 6 n.). Consequently at the death of Aristarchus I his
whole estate devolved on his second son Demochares, a minor, who was
placed under the guardianship of his paternal uncle Aristomenes. Demo-
chares died before attaining his majority. One of his sisters had died
before him. Thus the surviving sister was left heiress of the property.
At this point a legal difficulty arises. Did the law regard the sister as
heiress of her brother Demochares or as heiress of her father Aristarchus I?
The former alternative appears to be more reasonable and more in keeping
with the alleged facts. Isaeus, however, for reasons which will appear,
prefers to style her an éπíкληpos, i.e. heiress of her father (§§ 4, 12, 16, 19, 21).
The distinction is not unimportant, since, if she was an éiкλŋpos, she was
also éπíðikos, and might have been claimed in marriage by the next-of-kin,
in the first place, by her uncle and guardian Aristomenes, and, failing him, by
her first cousin Apollodorus son of Aristomenes. Neither Aristomenes nor
650
OR. X.
ISAEUS
Apollodorus petitioned for her hand, but her guardian married her with
a dowry to a husband outside the family circle. This marriage, according
to Isaeus, was part of a scheme for embezzling the girl's patrimony;
Aristomenes had previously given his own daughter in marriage to the
heiress' brother Cyronides, and had at the same time made over to him
the estate of Aristarchus I, to which Cyronides had forfeited all rights by his
adoption into the house of Xenaenetus I. The issue of the union between
Cyronides and the daughter of Aristomenes was two sons, Xenaenetus II
named after Cyronides' adoptive father, and Aristarchus II named after
Cyronides' natural father. On the death of Cyronides the latter was
introduced into the parpía of Aristarchus I as his son and heir, and
enjoyed the property unmolested for the whole of his life. He was killed
in battle and left a will in which he appointed his brother Xenaenetus II
to be his heir; whether the testament prescribed adoption (VII. 6. 4 22.)
is not stated.
At Athens a will was thought fair game. When Xenaenetus II came
before the Archon and submitted his claim to the estate of his brother,
he was confronted by a competitor. The son of the daughter of Aristarchus I
came forward and disputed the validity of the bequest. It is generally
believed that the law of Athens refused the right of testament to adopted
sons ([Dem.] 44. 65, 67, 68, 46. 14, Beauchet 1. p. 61 sqq.). This however
was not the objection taken by the assailant. He attacked the legality of the
adoption itself, and maintained that the will was null and void because
Aristarchus II had been a wrongful usurper of the property which he had
bequeathed. All commentators appear to hold that the opponent of
Xenaenetus II, for whom Isaeus wrote this speech, was acting as kúpios
of his mother and claimed in her name. The use of the plural pronouns,
'we,''
''ours' (§§ 1, 21, 23), and the appearance of тaúrŋ in § 8 (rŷ ådeλÞŷ tŷ
ἑαυτοῦ ταύτῃ μητρὶ δὲ ἐμῇ) may be cited in favour of this view. Some scholars
(Hruza 1. p. 91 n. 7, Beauchet I. p. 466, Thalheim, Zu den griech. Rechtsaltert.
II. p. 16) even attempt to demonstrate that no other procedure was com-
patible with the contention of the speaker that his mother was a defrauded
ἐπίκληρος ; inasmuch as the son of an ἐπίκληρος, who had been married
by a man unconnected with her family, did not enjoy the privileges of the
son of an éπíkλnpos, who had been duly appropriated by the next-of-kin,
Isaeus' client could not plead that he was the rightful heir of his mother's
father, nor demand the estate for himself (VIII. 30—34 analysis). But his
language is so loose and vague that I feel no confidence that his mother was
still alive; and in some passages he certainly speaks as if he hoped to get
the property himself (e.g. §§ 21 δικαίως ἂν ἐμὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι ψηφίσαισθε, 23
εἰ μηδὲ τὸν τῆς μητρὸς κλῆρον λήψομαι, 25 ἀξιῶ τῶν τῆς μητρὸς πατρῴων μὴ
ἀποστερηθῆναι).
If Isaeus' narrative is true, the daughter of Aristarchus I was shamefully
betrayed by her natural protectors, her guardian and her brother, who
conspired to rob her of her patrimony. But at the time of this trial guardian
and brother were dead and could not vindicate themselves. About 37 years
(§ 18. 1 n.) had passed since the marriage of the so-called érikλnpos. How
was it that her husband and her son had taken no steps to right the wrong,
OR. X.
65I
INTRODUCTION
and, if Cyronides and Aristomenes could not be reached, at any rate to eject
Cyronides' son Aristarchus II from possessions which did not belong
to him? Athenian law provided many methods of assisting an oppressed
Éπíkληpos (III. 46 sqq.). The orator foresees the question, but makes a lame
answer. His father, he says, did broach the subject at his mother's request
(§ 19), and was warned by the next-of-kin (apparently by Aristomenes and
his son Apollodorus) that, if he did not keep quiet, they would exercise their
right of claiming the hand of his wife. 'Rather than be deprived of my
mother, my father would have allowed them to enjoy twice as much money'
(§ 19). This apology vanishes, if his mother was not properly an éπíkλŋpos
but only heiress of her brother Demochares. But the husband was now
dead (§ 25. 4, 5 22.). What colour does the son put upon his own inaction?
He has no better excuse to make than that during the Corinthian war
he was prevented from bringing a suit by the obligations of military service,
and that on the conclusion of peace he incurred a debt to the Treasury,
which temporarily deprived him of civic rights (§ 20). The man's character
is not above suspicion. Yet another damaging admission is made in the
speech. At the preliminary examination the orator (to use his own phrase)
was compelled' to describe his mother as sister of Aristarchus II (§ 2),
in other words, to admit before the magistrate just what he seeks to
disprove in his address to the judges, i.e. that Aristarchus II was by
adoption the lawful son of Aristarchus I. The nature of this 'compulsion'
needs some explanation. What means had the Archon-or anyone else—
of forcing him to give his mother a title inconsistent with her alleged rights
as an èπíkλŋpos? One is tempted to conclude that law or facts or both were
ἐπίκληρος?
against the speaker, that as grandson of Aristarchus I he had no standing
ground, and was only allowed to proceed on condition of amending his plea
and petitioning as nephew of Aristarchus II (§ 2. 1 22.).
The defence of Xenaenetus II may be guessed from the hint given
in § 15. The estate of Aristarchus I existed only in name. What he really
left to his children was a property overwhelmed by debt. Cyronides, who
by his adoption had escaped the misfortune of his family, established a moral,
if not a legal, title to this property by clearing off the encumbrances. The
posthumous adoption of Aristarchus II was an act of piety, not of greed and
fraud; the line of Aristarchus I was restored, when the family estate was set
free from embarrassments. The daughter of Aristarchus I, far from having
a grievance, owed a debt of gratitude to her relatives; the estate could not
furnish her with a dowry, and but for the generosity of her guardian and her
brother she might have had some difficulty in finding a husband; rís yàp äv
ποτε παρ᾽ ὀφείλοντος τῷ δημοσίῳ καὶ ἀποροῦντος ἔλαβεν ἄπροικον ([Dem.] 59. 8)?
This reconstruction of the case of the other side is of course conjectural,
but one fact stands out obvious and unmistakable. The assertion of
Xenaenetus II that Aristarchus I died in debt in consequence of a legal
judgment against him (§ 15) is something definite, and capable of proof
by testimony and records. His opponent's method of disproving the
statement is to enlarge into rhetorical antitheses the cynical generality
that no man would have been so silly as to discharge debts for which
he was not personally responsible (S$ 16, 17).
652
OR. X.
ISAEUS
The speech is short and bald and built on hackneyed lines. In the
exordium (§§ 1-3) the speaker contrasts the practised skill of the
adversaries with his own timidity and inexperience in speaking, defines
the true issue, and announces what he proposes to demonstrate. A short
narrative (§§ 4-7) conducts to the proof (§§ 8—14) that the adoption of
Aristarchus II was illegal. Next come a refutation (§§ 15-17) of the
statement that Cyronides had discharged a debt upon the estate, and an
attempt to explain (§§ 18-21) the long delay in making a claim. The
design of the peroration (§§ 22—26) is to anticipate appeals to pity on behalf
of the testator who had just died a soldier's death, to raise a prejudice against
the wealthy and vicious opponent, and to win sympathy for the claimant's
public and private virtues.
The date is between 378 B.C. and 371 B.C. Aristarchus II 'has fallen
in the war' (èv tậ modéµw téßvnкe § 22). The war, which is still going on,
must be the 'Theban war' (IX. 14), for the Corinthian war and the peace
which closed it are things of the past (§ 20).
5 KATÉλELVE.
10
HYPOTHESIS.
λείπω.
See Veitch, Greek Verbs s.v. λeiπw.
katà vóµov éπítρоπоs. For legitima tutela at Athens cp. I. 9. I N.
18 Ti dè άmais v. A has erɩ dè ñaîs wv; cp. § 26. 5. But Aristarchus II
was a mature man, who died in battle (§ 22). For the chronology see § 18.
I 22. I think with Fuhr (Animaduersiones in oratores Atticos p. 61) that the
author of the hypothesis could not have been guilty of so egregious a blunder.
The MSS. of [Dem.] 44. 15 have raidòs in place of raidos (Jerome Wolf).
20, 21 κρατοῦντος Ξεναινέτου τὴν ᾿Αριστάρχου οὐσίαν. That Xenaenetus II
is not in possession appears from §§ 23, 25. The mistake is adopted by
Schoemann, who supposes that Aristarchus II died in the Corinthian war,
say in 388 B.C., and that the action was brought within 5 years of his death,
not later than 384 B.C.
26 BETÓν. Cp. III. 69. 5 22.
28 ý äλλn Ovyárηp. See I hyp. 10 n., Moulton, Grammatical notes from
the Papyri, Class. Rev. 15, 1901, p. 440.
او
35 ἡ στάσις δὲ πραγματικὴ ἔγγραφος. Cp. I hyp. 97. The classification
is a good example of the perverse technicalities of writers on rhetoric. The
στάσις πραγματική, constitutio negotialis, is a branch of the στάσις λογική,
which again is a subdivision of the status qualitatis, πoιóτηs (VIII. hyp. 9, 102.).
The definition is best given in the words of Hermogenes (Rhet. Gr. II. p. 139
Spengel): κἂν ᾖ περὶ ῥητόν, νομικὴν ποιεῖ τὴν στάσιν, ἐὰν δὲ περὶ πρᾶγμα,
λογικήν. διαιρήσεις δὲ καὶ τοῦτο δίχα· ἢ γὰρ περὶ μέλλοντος πράγματος ἔχει τὴν
ζήτησιν ἢ περί τινος ἤδη γεγονότος, κἂν μὲν περὶ μέλλοντος, ἔσται πραγματική.
πραγματικὴ γάρ ἐστιν ἀμφισβήτησις περὶ πράγματος μέλλοντος, εἰ δεῖ γενέσθαι
τόδε τι ἢ μὴ γενέσθαι, δοῦναι ἢ μὴ δοῦναι. Thus the στάσις πραγματική looks to
the future, and is further qualified by the epithet eyypapos, when the subject
is a written document. All yраþaì паρavóμwv were forced under the category
οἱ στάσις πραγματικὴ ἔγγραφος; see the hypotheses to Demosthenes' speeches
اد
π
K
OR. X.
653
COMMENTARY
against Leptines, Androtion, Timocrates, and on the Crown, and the scholiast
on the speech against Androtion, Att. Or. II. p. 104 Sauppe: ǹ σtáσis toÛ
στάσις τοῦ
λόγου πραγματική. πᾶσα γὰρ κατηγορία νόμου ἢ ψηφίσματος ἤ τινος ἐγγράφου,
περὶ μελλόντων ἔχουσα τὴν σκέψιν, πραγματικὴν ποιεῖται τὴν στάσιν. In the
present case the writer conceives the matter of debate to be the future
validity of the will, a written document. Consult Volkmann, Rhetorik² p. 82
sqq., who points out that the issue in this trial would be more sensibly
described as avтíλnis (II. hyp. 8 n.), constitutio iuridicialis absoluta.
1-3 Would that I could tell the truth with the nerve and confidence
with which Xenaenetus tells lies! But alas! I am no match for adversaries
practised in oratory and cabals. Although at the preliminary enquiry I was
compelled to add to my petition that my mother was sister of Aristarchus,
you will find the issue easy to decide, if you look at law and justice. The
question is whether the property bequeathed by Aristarchus belonged to him.
I will show (1) that the estate originally was my mother's inheritance from
her father, (2) that Aristarchus has been in possession in defiance of
the laws.
1.1 ¿Bovλóµnv µév. Cp. Gerth-Kühner, Gr. Gramm. 1. § 391, 5, p. 205,
Goodwin, M. & T. § 425, Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New
Testament Greek § 33 (The reason for describing the desire as past is not
always that it has been put aside. Failure to realize the desire, or the
perception that it cannot be realized, or reluctance to express a positive and
deliberate choice may lead the speaker to use the Imperfect rather than the
Present). The development of the construction has been assisted by the
analogy of ἔδει, ἐχρῆν, etc. But the idiom is not common in Attic. Only
the following examples are cited: Isae. fr. 15 Saupp. (Dion. Hal. De Isaeo
c. 10, p. 603 R., 105, 7 Usener and Radermacher), fr. 29 Saupp. (Dion.
Hal. op. cit. c. 7, p. 598 R., 101, 23 Usener and Radermacher), Ant. 5. 1,
Aesch. 3. 2, Thrasymachus ap. Dion. Hal. De Demosthene c. 3, p. 959 R.,
132, 19 Usener and Radermacher, Ar. Ran. 866. Gebauer on Lys. 12. 22
Anhang p. 219 adds Plut. Caes. II. In Rh. Gr. I. p. 237, 12 (Hammer) the
MSS. vary between éßovλóµnv and eßovλóµŋv av. In Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom.
ἐβουλόμην ἐβουλόμην
5. 1ο Cobet corrects ἐβουλόμην μὲν δὴ το ἐβουλόμην μὲν ἄν. On the other
hand ẻẞovλóµŋv av, uellem, which Bekker would prefer here, is freely
employed by the orators; see Lys. 3. 21, 44; 4. 3; 12. 22, 86; Isocr. 8. 36;
15. 114; 18. 51; 19. 28; Ep. 2. 23, 4. 2; Dem. 4. 51; 54. 3; [Dem.] 40. 32;
47. 4; prooem. 16, 23, 32, 39, Aesch. 3. 115, Lyc. 3, Dinarch. fr. LXV Saupp.
(Dion. Hal. De Dinarcho c. 12, p. 664 R., 318, 18 Usener and Radermacher)
ἐβουλόμην ἄν, ὦ ἄνδρες, Antisth. Aiax 1.
2 ψευδή λέγειν. Schoemann prefers <τά> ψευδή λέγειν, utpote et
oratorum consuetudini et rei ipsi magis consentaneum, et quod commendetur
uel propter sequentia uerba τἀληθῆ εἰπεῖν δυνηθῆναι. As a matter of fact in
the orators eudñ λéyew (Isocr. 10. I, II. 33, 13. 1, 18. 13, 15, Dem. 19. 184,
Aesch. 3. 41, 53) is commoner than τὰ ψευδή λέγειν (Ant. I. 10 τοὺς τὰ ψευδῆ
παρεσκευασμένους λέγειν τἀληθῆ κατηγορεῖν ποιήσει, 5. 34 διαπειραθέντα δ᾽ αὐτὸν
τὰ ψευδῆ λέγειν, ὕστερον δὲ τἀληθῆ λέγοντα, Lys. fr. 269 Saupp. ἐπεὶ δὲ τὰ
ψευδῆ λέγειν δυνατόν ἐστι τοῖς κατηγορούσι). The singular is ψεῦδος λέγειν
(Ant. Tetr. II. d. 2, Isocr. 12. 89, Dem. 21. 114, 45. 18, 50. 65, Aesch. 2.
654
OR. X.
ISAEUS
46, 87). Grammarians who collect statistics may be interested to learn that
in the orators τὰ ψευδῆ μαρτυρείν occurs at least 67 times, whereas ψευδῆ
μaprvρeiv is found in 6 places only (VI. 10, Dem. 41. 16, 45. 41, [Dem.] 34. 21,
47. II, 79).
5 ἐπὶ τὸν κλῆρον ἥκομεν. Cp. IV. 25. 6, 7 n.
Táλaɩ, more than 37 years ago (§ 18. 1 n.).
7, 8 πаρaσkevάoaolaι. Cp. VIII. 3. 4 n.; a trite commonplace (VIII. 5,
Dem. 27. 2 οἶδα μὲν οὖν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ὅτι πρὸς ἄνδρας καὶ λέγειν ἱκανοὺς
καὶ παρασκευάσασθαι δυναμένους χαλεπόν ἐστιν εἰς ἀγῶνα καθίστασθαι).
1ο δίκην ἰδίαν. But he may have been engaged in a δίκη δημοσία (§ 20.
5 n.).
2. ι ἠνάγκασμαι κ.τ.λ. See Introd. p. 651. The compulsion was
probably exercised by the Archon (VI. 12), who was satisfied with the
soundness of the testator's title. The idea of Thalheim (Zu den griech.
Rechtsaltert. II. p. 16), that Aristarchus II may have acquired a prescriptive
right by lapse of time, is not in accordance with the Athenian law of
limitations (III. 58. I n.). Moy (Étude sur les plaidoyers d'Isée p. 251)
suggests that the constraint is a fiction, and that the speaker did not
originally question the justice of the adoption, but afterwards on the advice
of Isaeus shifted his ground. What is clear is that he is involved in a fatal
inconsistency and has no satisfactory explanation to offer; if his mother was
the sister of Aristarchus II, then Aristarchus II was the son of Aristarchus I
and, consequently, lawful owner of the estate. I have sometimes thought
that the claimant overreached himself, that his scheme was to make two
attempts on the property, first, to attack the adoption, then, if repulsed,
to bring a second action on the ground that an adopted son had not power
to make a will (Introd. p. 650). Observe that the policy of denying the
validity of the adoption exposes him to the criticisms urged against Phile
and her husband in III. 55 sqq.; the opponents can reply in the very words
of Isaeus: οὐκοῦν δυοῖν τὰ ἕτερα προσῆκε τῇ γυναικί, ἢ ζῶντι τῷ ᾿Αριστάρχῳ
ἀμφισβητῆσαι τῶν πατρῴων, ἢ ἐπειδὴ τετελευτηκὼς ἦν ὁ εἰσποίητος, τῶν τοῦ
ἀδελφοῦ τὴν ἐπιδικασίαν ἀξιοῦν ποιεῖσθαι (ib. 58). The difference is that in
this suit it is by no means certain that the speaker's mother, the pretended
Éπíkλnрos, was still alive (Introd. p. 650). If she was dead, her son's right
to the property of his maternal grandfather was highly problematical; see
VIII. $$ 30-34 analysis.
2, 3 ἐν τῇ ἀνακρίσει. The reading of the MS. πρὸς τῇ ἀνακρίσει cannot be
defended by πpòs тậ äрxovτi, etc. (VI. 12. 2, 3 n.), and there is no example of
áváκpiσis used in a concrete sense to signify the results of the examination
committed to writing, das Instructionsprotokoll (Schoemann), libellus interro-
gationum et responsionum (Dobree). The error was caused by anticipation
of the preposition in πpoσypávaoba (Crit. Introd. p. xxxviii, Hermes 19,
1884, p. 344). Kayser quoted by Thalheim prefers to excise πpòs Tŷ
ανακρίσει.
3 προσγράψασθαι, sc. τῇ λήξει, the written statement of the claim;
compare Lys. 13. 86 δοκοῦσι δ᾽ ἔμοιγε οἱ ἕνδεκα οἱ παραδεξάμενοι τὴν ἀπαγωγὴν
ταύτην...σφόδρα ὀρθῶς ποιῆσαι Διονύσιον τὴν ἀπαγωγὴν ἀπάγοντ᾽ ἀναγκάζοντες
προσγράψασθαι τό γ᾽ ἐπ᾿ αὐτοφώρῳ.
OR. Χ.
655
COMMENTARY
4 περὶ αὐτῶν. Cp. III. 48. 4 κ.
5 + ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῶν νόμων σκοποῦσιν. The construction is intolerable. The
writer of Mboldly changed σκοποῦσιν to σκοπῶμεν. Dobree (Adv. I. p. 307)
and Schoemann ease the sentence by casting out aλX'. But where did the
intruder come from? I have thought of <οὐδὲν > ἀλλ᾽ <ἢ> ἐκ τῶν νόμων
σκοποῦσιν εἰ κ.τ.λ. and of τἄμ' ἐκ τῶν νόμων σκοποῦσιν, εἰ κ.τ.λ. For the
confusion of u and λλ see Lys. 7. 3, 23, 13. 71, 24. 20, 28. 7, Dem. 19. 35,
37. 33, Voemel, Prolegg. Gramm. § 78, p. 228, Bast, Commentatio Palaeo-
graphica pp. 724, 919, Dobree, Adv. I. pp. 46, 161, 227, ΙΙ. p. 36.
8 ὅτῳ ἂν ἐθέλῃ. For Fuhr's correction, ὅπως ἂν ἐθέλῃ, see VII. I. 6 κ.
4-7 The orator's narrative down to the appointment of Aristarchus II
as son and heir of Aristarchus I has been reproduced with some comments
in the Introduction, pp. 649, 650.
>
4. 1 Αρίσταρχος γὰρ ἦν κ.τ.λ. Compare for the structure VII. 5, Lys. I.
22 Σώστρατος ἦν μοι ἐπιτήδειος καὶ φίλος. τούτῳ ἡλίου δεδυκότος ἰόντι ἐξ ἀγροῦ
ἀπήντησα, Dem. 41. 3 Πολύευκτος γὰρ ἦν τις Θριάσιος, ὃν ἴσως οὐδ᾽ ὑμῶν τινες
ἀγνοοῦσιν. οὗτος ὁ Πολύευκτος, ἐπειδὴ οὐκ ἦσαν αὐτῷ παῖδες ἄρρενες, ποιεῖται
Λεωκράτη, Lys. 13. 55, [Dem.] 48. 5, Aesch. I. 41, 54, 62, 102, 2. 154, 3. 162,
171, 183.
Συπαλήττιος. The deme Συπαληττός belonged to the inland trittys of
the tribe Cecropis. Its site is Kukuvaones, to the west of Marusi ("Αθμονον
VI. 33. 2) and to the east of Acharnae, from which it is separated by the
river Cephisus (Milchhoefer, Untersuchungen über die Demenordnung des
Kleisthenes p. 30).
2 'Axapvéws. Cp. II. 3. I n.
4 τοῦδε, Xenaenetus II; θατέρου, Aristarchus II.
I
5 ἔχοντος, an imperfect (VIII. 14. 1, 2 7.). This is an extreme case of
Isaeus' lax use of the participle (§ 23. 8 n., I. 22. 1 n., III. 70. 5 n.); in any
other orator I should not hesitate to accept the easy emendation σχόντος
(Dem. 15. 34 σχοίη uolg., ἔχοι Σ, 20. 92 σχεῖν Σ, ἔχειν F).
5, 6 ἐξεποιήθη εἰς ἕτερον οἶκον, sc. εἰς τὸν Ξεναινέτου οἶκον (S§ 7, 8, 11).
Probably Xenaenetus I adopted in his lifetime one of his daughter's sons
(VIII. 36. 8, 9 n.). The alternative, which seems less likely, is that Aristarchus I
claimed and married the daughter of Xenaenetus I as an ἐπίκληρος, and that
Cyronides, her eldest son, was transferred into her dead father's house
(III. 73. 9κ.). That the adoption took place before the death of Aristarchus I
is conveyed by implication only. It is strange that this important detail is
not brought out with greater distinctness. The speaker's case is terribly
damaged, if not destroyed, if Xenaenetus I adopted Cyronides after the
decease of his father.
IO, II
ἐπὶ παντὶ τῷ οἴκῳ ἐπίκληρος ἐγένετο. Cp. § 21 ἐπίκληρος ἦν ἐπὶ
τούτοις τοῖς χρήμασιν ἡ ἐμὴ μήτηρ. But we read in § 8 τοῦ δὲ πατρὸς Αριστάρχου
τῷ ὑεῖ Δημοχάρει καταλιπόντος, ἐκείνου δὲ τῇ ἀδελφῇ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ταύτῃ, μητρὶ δὲ ἐμῇ
and in § 14 τῆς ἐμῆς μητρὸς οὗτος ὁ κλῆρός ἐστι, τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτῇ τοῦ Δημοχάρους
καταλιπόντος. On the strength of this evidence Hafter (Die Erbtochter nach
attischem Recht p. 21 sqq.) concludes that a sister who succeeded to a dead
brother was an ἐπίκληρος. I am in entire agreement with those scholars
(Grasshoff, De successione ab intestato p. 79 n. 260, Hruza 1. p. 116 sqq.,
656
OR. Χ.
ISAEUS
1
Beauchet I. p. 420 sqq.), who confine the title, with the obligations which it
imports, to daughters. In this speech there is more reason than usual to
mistrust Isaeus. By calling his mother an erikλnpos the orator gained two
advantages. In the first place he branded his opponents with a more heinous
offence; an outrage upon an ἐπίκληρος was more likely to excite the indigna-
tion of the judges than neglect of a sister's right. Secondly, this way of
presenting the case enabled him to justify in some measure the singular
inactivity of his father (§ 19). Moreover in other speeches Isaeus speaks
of sisters inheriting the property of brothers without a hint that they were
ἐπίκληροι (e.g. VII. 31, 44, ΧΙ. 49).
5.4 ἀδελφὸς ὢν ἐκείνου τοῦ ᾿Αριστάρχου, and, as brother, guardian of
his children (Hyp. 10 κατὰ νόμον ἐπίτροπος, 1. 9. 1 η.).
5, 6 ἀμελήσας ἢ αὐτὸς αὐτὴν ἔχειν.
αὐτὸς αὐτὴν ἔχειν. Under no circumstances was a
relative obliged to marry an ἐπίκληρος. Το succeed to a rich heiress (Dem.
57. 41 ἐπικλήρου κληρονομεῖν εὐπόρου) was a coveted privilege. If on the
other hand the woman was poor, the next-of-kin could avoid the duty of
marriage by giving her a portion (§ 16. 5, 6 n.).
6 ἢ τῷ ὑεῖ μετὰ τοῦ κλήρου ἐπιδικάσασθαι. Cp. And. 1. 121 γνοὺς ταῦτα
Καλλίας λαγχάνει τῷ ὑεῖ τῷ ἑαυτοῦ τῆς ἐπικλήρου, τῇ δεκάτῃ ἱσταμένου, ἵνα μὴ
ἐπιδικάσωμαι εγώ, Ar. Pol. 8. 4. 1304 α 7 Τιμοφάνους γὰρ τῶν εὐπόρων τινὸς
καταλιπόντος δύο θυγατέρας ὁ περιωσθεὶς καὶ οὐ λαβὼν τοῖς υἱέσιν αὑτοῦ
Δέξανδρος ἦρξε τῆς στάσεως καὶ τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους παρώξυνε. The language does
not prove that Apollodorus son of Aristomenes was at the time a minor.
6, 7 τούτων μὲν οὐδὲν ἐποίησε, fat and feeble after ἀμελήσας ἢ αὐτὸς αὐτὴν
ἔχειν κ.τ.λ. Naber's οὐδέτερον (Mnem. N. S. 5, 1877, p. 418, Crit. Introd.
p. xlvi) makes the tautology more offensive. Herwerden (Mnem. N. S. 9,
1881, p. 396) cuts out the whole phrase, observing that, if the words were
genuine, Isaeus ought to have written δυνηθείς ἢ αὐτὸς αὐτὴν ἔχειν κ.τ.λ. or
ἐξὸν ἢ αὐτῷ αὐτὴν ἔχειν κ.τ.λ. But δυνηθεὶς or ἐξὸν would not have served
Isaeus' purpose, for he wishes to convey the notion that Aristomenes
neglected a duty (§§ 5. 2, 3 προσῆκον δ᾽ αὐτῇ. τῷ ἐγγύτατα γένους συνοικεῖν,
πάσχει δεινότατα, 12. 2 οὐδὲ ᾿Αριστομένει γε οὐδὲ ᾿Απολλοδώρῳ, οἷς προσῆκε τῆς
ἐμῆς μητρὸς ἐπιδικάσασθαι).
.. •
6. 3, 4 τὴν ἐμὴν μητέρα ἐκδίδωσι. He omits to state that she had a
dowry (§ 19).
4, 5 τὸν τοῦ Ξεναινέτου ἀδελφὸν εἰσάγουσιν ᾿Αριστάρχῳ ὑόν. The existence
of two persons called Aristarchus causes the writer some embarrassment.
Aristarchus I is ἐκεῖνος ὁ ᾿Αρίσταρχος (§ 5), Aristarchus II is ᾿Αρίσταρχος ὁ
τελευτήσας (ib.) or ὁ τεθνεώς (§ 22); compare v. 3. 7 n., [Dem.] 43. 23 ὁ ῾Αγνίας
ὁ ὕστερος (Haynias II), 25 Αγνίᾳ τῷ πρώτῳ ἐκείνῳ (Hagnias 1), 41 Φυλομάχη
ἡ νῦν ἔτι οὖσα (Phylomache II). The context generally dispels ambiguity,
but some doubt has been felt about the meaning of γεγένηται ἡ εἰσποίησις
Αριστάρχῳ in § 14. We are nowhere plainly told who managed the
enrolment of Aristarchus II in the φρατρία of Aristarchus I (§§ 8, 15); in
§ 13 the speaker points to Apollodorus. As members of the φρατρία,
Aristomenes and Apollodorus would naturally undertake the introduction
of their relative.
8-14 Aristarchus II was not the lawful owner of the estate and
OR. X.
657
COMMENTARY
had no right to dispose of it by will. His introduction into the parpía
of Aristarchus I was utterly illegal. The introduction of an adopted son
is always made in virtue of a will. Now Aristarchus I could not make
a will, for he had a legitimate son Demochares. After the death of
Aristarchus I Demochares could not make a will, for he was a minor.
Nor had Cyronides power to institute Aristarchus II as son of Aristarchus I;
he might have returned himself to his natural family, on condition of leaving
a son in the family of Xenaenetus I, but he could not transfer one of his sons
to the house of Aristarchus I. As to Aristomenes and his son Apollodorus,
even if either of them had claimed and married my mother, they would not
have become owners of her property; the estate of an éπíkλnpos does not
belong to her husband, but to her sons, when they come of age. After giving
her in marriage to a stranger, are they to be allowed to appoint a son to
take her property? That would be outrageous. Compel my opponents to
point out the person who instituted Aristarchus II son of Aristarchus I, and
the law under which he acted.
Since Aristarchus II was not made son of Aristarchus I till after the
death of Cyronides (§ 6), the alleged incapacity of Aristarchus I to make
a will seems beside the mark. I have stated in the Introduction what
I conjecture to have been the real situation. Cyronides obtained possession
of the estate of Aristarchus I by paying the debt upon it (§ 15). When
Cyronides died, the question arose whether this property should be merged
in the estate of Cyronides' adoptive father, Xenaenetus I. The decision
taken, probably in accordance with the desires of Cyronides, was to
reconstitute the house of Aristarchus I. To accomplish this end Apollodorus,
who was nephew of Aristarchus I and maternal uncle of Aristarchus II,
presented Aristarchus II to his parpía in the character of son of
Aristarchus I (§ 13. 6). The due formalities were observed, the vote of the
members was favourable, and the candidate was enrolled first in the book
of the parρía and subsequently in the register of the deme as Aristarchus
son of Aristarchus. If this guess is right, we are dealing with a difficult case
of what has been called posthumous adoption (Beauchet II. p. 24 sqq.) to
distinguish it from adoption inter uiuos and adoption prescribed by testament.
The rules regulating the practice, if rules existed, are not known, and such
evidence as we possess on the subject is very meagre. When the property
of Macartatus passed on his death to his sister, wife of Theopompus (XI. 49),
Theopompus instituted one of his two children as son of Macartatus, as he
says, at his wife's request, but, according to his enemies, to avoid discharging
public burdens. Thrasyllus (VII. 31, 44) holds up to opprobrium two sisters,
who inherited a fortune from their brother but appointed no son to continue
his house. Sositheus, who had claimed and married an éπíkλŋpos, daughter
of Eubulides ([Dem.] 43. 55), called his second son Eubulides, and many
years after the marriage, with a view to a law suit (III. 73. 9 n.), got him
introduced into the Oparpía of his maternal grandfather as Eubulides son of
Eubulides (¿b. 12 sqq., 81 sqq.). In these instances the son through his
mother had a right to part at any rate of the estate of his adoptive father,
and a 'posthumous adoption' may not have been strictly legal, if it failed to
satisfy this test. Thus in [Dem.] 44 Leostratus is denounced for introducing
W. I.
42
inst
658
OR. X.
ISAEUS
his son Leochares into the pparpía and deme of Archiades; his adversary
maintains that Leostratus, once the adopted son of Archiades, by returning
to his natural family had forfeited all rights in the property of his adoptive
father. Now with regard to the present dispute, what male could be
considered heir of Aristarchus I at the time of the death of Cyronides?
The choice lay between Apollodorus the nephew and the speaker the
grandson, if he was then alive, and, as appears from the discussion in VIII.
30-34, it must not be assumed that the nephew was out of court. If then
Apollodorus waived his own rights and prompted the appointment of
Aristarchus II, was the transaction valid? In any case, if strictly speaking
Aristarchus I had no estate, nobody was injured by the adoption.
8. 4,5 tỷ ádeλøân τaúτη. Schoemann concludes that the mother of the
speaker was present in court ([Dem.] 59. 114, 115). The inference is ques-
tionable; see Shilleto's critical note on Dem. 19. 213 (193 Ɛáruρov TOUTOVì
Σάτυρον τουτονὶ
TÒV KWμIKÒV VTокριτýν), Weber on Dem. 23. 13, 107, 127, Rehdantz, Demosth.
Index II. S.V. O&Tos. I think that the pronoun was added to distinguish
the speaker's mother from the other sister (§ 7 ǹ érépa àdeλþý).
9. 7 [δια]πράξαι. The active διαπράττω never occurs in Thucydides,
Plato, and the orators, but is found occasionally in Xenophon (Cyr. 1. 4. 13,
6. 19; 8. 2. 4, 3. 20, 8. 4, Mem. 2. 3. 13, Symp. 5. 9, Hier. 8. 7, Ag. 9. 2,
De rep. Lac. 2. 10), and three times in Aristophanes (Eq. 93, Plut. 217, 378).
It has been restored in C. I. A. I. 37 (425/4 Β.C.), 25, 26 ἐὰν δ[ὲ μ]ὴ ἐχσ[ενέγκ]ωσι
ἐς [τὸν δῆμ]ον ἢ [μή] δι[απράχσω]σι ἐπὶ σφῶν αὐτῶν, and is used in the
Respublica Atheniensium attributed to Xenophon, which is a 5th century
work (3. 3 πᾶσι διαπρᾶξαι ἡ πόλις τῶν δεομένων οὐχ ἱκανή). For the intrusion
of δια see VI. 28. 2 ἔπραττεν Α, διέπραττεν M, Ant. Tetr. I. α 1 διαγνωσθήναι
Apr., γνωσθῆναι Α' Ν, Dem. 23. 153 ἐγνωκὼς Σ, διεγνωκώς F, 28. 23 ψηφίσασθε
Turr., ψηφίσησθε Σ, διαψηφίσασθε uolg.
οὔτε ἐξὴν δοῦναι τὰ ἑαυτοῦ ἑτέρῳ. That fathers with legitimate sons could
and did make wills is shown in the notes on III. 42. 2, 3 and VI. 28. 4, 5.
Aristarchus I indubitably possessed the power of testation; the law
expressly authorised him to nominate an heir in the event of Demochares'
dying during his minority. The words of the statute are quoted in [Dem.]
46. 24 ὅ τι ἂν γνησίων ὄντων υἱέων ὁ πατὴρ διαθῆται, ἐὰν ἀποθάνωσιν οἱ υἱεῖς πρὶν
ἐπὶ διετὲς ἡβᾶν, τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς διαθήκην κυρίαν εἶναι. Compare Plat. Laws
II. 923 Ε ἐὰν δὲ υἱός τῳ τελευτήσῃ παῖς ὤν, πρὶν εἰς ἄνδρας δυνατὸς εἶναι τελεῖν,
εἴτε γεννητὸς ὢν εἴτε ποιητός, γραφέτω καὶ περὶ τῆς τοιαύτης τύχης ὁ τὴν διαθήκην
γράφων, τίνα χρὴ παῖδα αὑτῷ δεύτερον ἐπὶ τύχαις ἀμείνοσι γίγνεσθαι. But if the
speaker's narrative in § 5 is true, it is obvious that the opponents did not
rest the rights of Aristarchus II on a will made by Aristarchus I, for
Cyronides did not marry the mother of Aristarchus II till after the death
of Aristarchus I.
8 autóv, i.e. Aristarchus II.
10. 2 ó vóμos Kwλvel. Cobet's objection to the text is based on the
logical incompatibility of κωλύει and μὴ ἐξεῖναι, for which see II. 13. 3 n.
The application of kwλúew to legislative interdicts presents no difficulty; see
ΧΙ. 28. 1, 34. 2, [Dem.] 44. 55 ὁ δέ γε νόμος ἀκοὴν <πλὴν > τῶν τετελευτηκότων
κωλύει < μαρτυρεῖν >, Aesch. I. 139 ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τὸν ἐλεύθερον ἐκώλυσεν (ὁ νομοθέτης)
с
OR. X.
659
COMMENTARY
ἐρᾶν καὶ ἀκολουθεῖν, Plut. Sol. 21 Σόλωνος ὁ κωλύων νόμος τὸν τεθνηκότα κακῶς
ἀγορεύειν, Rhet. Gr. VIII. p. 388, 18 Walz νόμος ἐκώλυεν ὀνομαστὶ μὴ κωμῳδεῖν
тà проσшжа, Rh. Gr. Hammer I. pp. 90, 6, 93, 17, 95, 9, 221, 21, 273, 3, Iamblich.
Vit. Pythag. 126, S. I. G². n. 653, 25=Michel n. 694 (Andania) ầv dé tɩs äλλws
ἔχει τὸν εἱματισμὸν παρὰ τὸ διάγραμμα ἢ ἄλλο τι τῶν κεκωλυμένων, ib. n. 939
(Lycosura), 8 εἰ δ᾽ ἄν τις παρένθῃ ἔχων τι τῶν ἁ στάλα κωλύει. In Rhet. Gr.
I. p. 275, 5 Hammer ὁ νόμος κελεύει τὸν ἐξ ἑταίρας μὴ λέγειν, Bake proposes
κωλύει for κελεύει. It is surprising that no one has demanded κελεύει for
κωλύει in this passage.
اد
2, 3 παιδὶ μὴ ἐξεῖναι συμβάλλειν μηδὲ γυναικὶ πέρα μεδίμνου κριθῶν. Cp.
Harp. s.v. ὅτι παιδί (= Phot., Suid.): ότι παιδὶ καὶ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐξῆν συμβάλλειν
πέρα μεδίμνου κριθῶν Ἰσαῖος ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ ᾿Αριστάρχου ('Αλεξάνδρου libri: corr.
Valesius) κλήρου φησίν, Schol. Ar. Eccl. 1024 (ἀλλ᾽ οὐ κύριος | ὑπὲρ μέδιμνόν
ἐστ᾽ ἀνὴρ οὐδεὶς ἔτι) νόμος ἦν ταῖς γυμαιξὶ μὴ ἐξεῖναι ὑπὲρ μέδιμνόν τι συναλ-
λáoσew, Dio Chrys. or. 74 meρì ȧmioтías c. 9 (638 M, II. 258 D, II. 195 De
Arnim) τοῖς νεωτέροις τοσούτων ἐτῶν νόμος οὐκ ἐᾷ συμβάλλειν ὡς ἀπίστοις
οὖσιν, οὐδὲ γυναικὶ παρ' ᾿Αθηναίοις συναλλάσσειν πλὴν ἄχρι μεδίμνου κριθῶν,
διὰ τὸ τῆς γνώμης ἀσθενές. The general term συμβάλλειν covers every kind
of contract, purchase and sale, letting and hiring, lending and borrowing,
bailment (Tapaкатaðýкη, Isocr. 21. 2), exchange, partnership, suretyship, etc.
Isaeus does not mean to assert that making a will is a branch of rò σvµßáλλeiv
(IV. 12. 3, 4 N.). The argument is a fortiori; if an infant cannot contract,
much less is he able to devise his property by testament. In the time
of Solon a medimnus (1 bushel) of corn was worth i drachma (Plut. Sol. 23).
When Aristophanes' Ecclesiazusae was performed (392 B.C.?), a medimnus
of wheat cost 3 dr. In a period of scarcity between 330 B.C. and 326 B.C.
([Dem.] 34. 39), when the price had gone up to 16 dr., an orator mentions as
the normal rate (ʼn kabeσтηкvía тiµǹ) 5 dr. for a bushel of wheat, and an
inscription (C. I. A. iv. 2. 834 b 70 sqq., Michel n. 581, S. I. G.² n. 587) shows
that in 329/8 B.C. the state sold wheat at 6 dr. a medimnus, barley at 3 dr.
a medimnus. In the speech against Phaenippus ([Dem.] 42. 20, 31), which
certainly belongs to Alexander's age, we are told that barley was selling at
18 dr. a medimnus, which was 3 times its former value. See Boeckh,
Staatshaush.3 p. 117, Francotte, L'industrie dans la Grèce ancienne 1.
p. 332 sqq. Recent writers (Schulthess, Vormundschaft nach attischem
Recht p. 101 sqq., Thalheim-Hermann, Gr. Rechtsaltert. p. 8 n. 6, Beauchet II.
p. 208 sqq.) concur in the opinion that the condition πépa µedíµvov «piðŵv is
intended by Isaeus to apply only to women, not to the infant, and that
consequently Harpocration's statement of the law is due to a misinterpreta-
tion of his authority. Harpocration's view of the passage appears to me
tenable; we must not overlook the possibility that the order in which the
words stood in the law has been altered for the sake of rhetorical emphasis.
At the same time it should not be assumed that at Athens no distinction was
drawn between the incapacity of the minor and the incapacity of the female.
There is no trace of the Athenian guardian acting merely as auctor and
signifying his assent to a contract made by the ward. The engagement
seems to have been concluded by the éπíτроños as the representative of the
minor. On the other hand in many Greek states women were permitted to
4
K
42-2
660
OR. X.
ISAEUS
contract in their own names, the kúpos intervening as a consenting party;
ἀπέδοτο ἡ δεῖνα μετὰ κυρίου τοῦ δεῖνος is the legal formula. I am disposed to
believe that in this matter the rules of Athenian law were not exceptional,
though it must be granted that we possess at present no certain and
unambiguous case of an Athenian kúpos giving his auctoritas to a woman's
contract. See Beauchet II. pp. 211 sqq., 356 sqq.
11. 2 αὐτῷ μὲν ἐπανελθεῖν κ.τ.λ. Cp. ΙΧ. 33. 4, 5 κ.
Remember that
the introduction of Aristarchus II into the parpía of Aristarchus I is said
in § 6 to have taken place after the death of Cyranides. The opponents
cannot have asserted more than that it was the desire of Cyronides, perhaps
expressed in a testament, to restore one of his sons to the house of
Aristarchus I.
4 ἐξ αὑτοῦ δέ τιν᾿ ἀντεισαγαγεῖν. Apr. wrote ἐξ αὐτοῦ δὲ ἄντισ | ** αγαγεῖν.
Blass (Ant.2 praef. p. xiv), Buermann, and Thalheim agree that the two
letters scratched out were av. Thalheim puts in his text e§ avroû dè veîs
ảvayayeîv. Albrecht (Hermes 18, 1883, p. 379) thinks that riva is not needed,
appealing to vii. 31 ἐκείνῳ δ᾽ οὐκ εἰσποιούσας ὄντων αὐτοῖς παίδων, Isocr. 19. 9
ἔγημεν ἐκ Σερίφου παρ᾽ ἀνθρώπων πολὺ πλείονος ἀξίων. Dobree, who is of the
same opinion, refers to § 13. 6, where vòv is understood with eloayayóvtı.
OVK ÉσTI VÓμOS. I share Dobree's suspicion of this phrase here (Adv. I.
p. 308). In defence Albrecht Z.c. quotes 111. 76 O₺te yaµndíav eloŋveykev oŰte
οὔτε
τὴν θυγατέρα εἰσαγαγεῖν εἰς τοὺς φράτερας ηξίωσε, καὶ ταῦτα νόμου ὄντος αὐτοῖς,
ΙΧ. 13 νόμου γε ὄντος ἐξεῖναι ὅτῳ βούλοιτο δοῦναι τὰ ἑαυτοῦ.
αι
6 < εἰσ > ποιηθήναι. I accept the correction of Albrecht Z.c.; ποιηθῆναι
can only describe the action of the adoptive father (II. 1, 39, 44, V. 7, 8, 12,
VII. 2, 17, 43, IX. 5), whereas cloñoɩŋßñvaɩ may represent the passive both of
εἰσποιεῖν and εἰσποιεῖσθαι (III. 60. 8, 9 n., ΙΧ. 10. 5 κ.). The alternative is to
consider womenvaɩ here a synonym of paɣôîvaι and to supply a neuter
pronoun as subject of the infinitive.
πο
αι
12. 2, 3 οἷς προσῆκε τῆς ἐμῆς μητρὸς ἐπιδικάσασθαι. Cp. § 5. 5, 6 n.
As
3, 4 θαυμαστὸν γὰρ ἂν ἦν, εἰ κ.τ.λ. The structure of this artificial period
has given trouble. Naber (Mnem. N.S. 5, 1877, p. 408) objects to ei...ok àv
οἷόν τε ἦν, and calls for the expulsion of ἄν. The particle is indispensable,
since the speaker's mother was not married by her uncle or her cousin.
Schoemann points out, exovri stands for el eixev; the premiss of the argument.
is a hypothesis: it would not have been in the power either of Aristomenes or
of Apollodorus, if married to my mother, to become kúpios (an ambiguous
term, VIII. 31. 6 n.) of her estate. Reiske, boggling at ¿λλ' érépy in place of
érépų dé, desired to treat the second member as an independent question. In
long sentences an anacoluthon of this kind is intelligible and not uncommon
(1. 20, Lys. 12. 36, [Dem.] 59. 117, Plat. Apol. 37 C D, Laws 11. 931 C), but.
here the choice of aλλà is justified by the absence of μèv and the presence
of ouk in the first clause. A real difficulty is caused by v, for which
Gebauer (De arg. ex contr. formis p. 248) proposes ein. The optative
tallies with the next sentence, deivà µévt' àv yiyvoro, and is required by
logic. The future georaι refers to the coming judgment, and is rightly
explained by Schoemann as an equivalent of éxyevéσdai dó§ei, hoc illis licuisse
statuetur (VIII. II. I, 2 n.). The proposition then, if consistent, would have
OR. X.
661
COMMENTARY
been this: since it would not have been in the power etc., it will be an
amazing thing (Davμaσтòv av ein) if Aristomenes after marrying her to
another man shall be allowed the right to introduce a son into her property.
I have not ventured to change the text, because the confusion is not unlike
Isaeus' manner. After stating categorically in the preceding sentence
‘Neither Aristomenes nor Apollodorus possessed the right' (ovdè toútois
¿¿ñv) he proceeds with the reason 'It would have been an amazing thing'
(θαυμαστὸν γὰρ ἂν ἦν), apparently intending to continue with a protasis also
in past time, 'if...they had possessed the right' (eì…..¿§îv), but apprehensive of
an anti-climax, and unable to quote any law which applies to the case,
he closes the period with an appeal to the judges. For the various types of
bi-membral clauses dependent on dewòv ei, bavµaotòv ei etc. see I. 46. 3 12.9
VI. 2. 3 n.
5, 6 κατὰ τὸν νόμον κ.τ.λ. Cp. VIII. 31. 4, 5 κ.
7, 8 [κρατεῖν τῶν χρημάτων.] Quis monitus post ἀλλ᾽ ἢ patietur uocabula
κρατεῖν τῶν χρημάτων, quae primo addita ad κύριον εἶναι explicandum mox in
ipsam orationem migrarunt (van den Es, De iure familiarum apud Athenienses,
1864, p. 47 2. 3)? Herwerden (Mnem. N.S. 9, 1881, p. 397) and Albrecht
(Hermes 18, 1883, p. 373) have arrived independently at the same conclusion,
which is approved by Buermann (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 354). The author of
the gloss was a scholar who knew the terms of the law.
13. 3 ἄνευ ταύτης διαθέσθαι. Cp. III. 42. 2, 3 n., 68. I n.
•
6 ἀνεψιῷ εἰσαγαγόντι. Apparently Aristarchus II was introduced into
the parpía of Aristarchus I by Apollodorus. It is possible that the death of
Aristomenes (§ 25. 1, 2 n.) took place in the interval between the marriage of
the speaker's mother and the death of Cyronides.
6,7 ἔσται κυρίως πεπραγμένα, equivalent to κυρίως πεπραγμένα φανήσεται
ог кνрíшs пежрâɣ0ai dóέei; see Gebauer op. cit. pp. 245, 313.
Eπ
14. 3, 4 τῆς ἐμῆς μητρὸς οὗτος < ὁ > κλῆρός ἐστι. The present tense is not
an absolute proof that the speaker's mother is alive; compare VI. 56, IX. I,
[Dem.] 43. 40 ὁ Πολέμων οὐκ ἦν πατὴρ ῾Αγνίου, οὗ ἐστιν ὁ κλῆρος, ib. 20, 27, 32,
34, 63; 44.43, 61.
5 περὶ αὐτῶν. Cp. III. 48. 4 κ.
6,7 γεγένηται ἡ εἰσποίησις ᾿Αριστάρχῳ. Probably Aristarchus II is meant,
as Reiske and Schoemann think, the phrase being a periphrasis for elσñeñoíŋ-
Taι 'Apioτaрxos. The other view is taken by Dobree, Adv. I. p. 308, and
Dareste, Les Plaidoyers d'Isée p. 190: exigez qu'ils produisent la loi suivant
laquelle a eu lieu la création d'un enfant adoptif à Aristarque Ier.
15-17 My opponents themselves distrust their right. Not content
with arguing that Aristarchus was properly introduced into the parρía,
they shelter themselves behind a second plea, that Cyronides has paid a judg-
ment debt on the property. But if the estate had been encumbered, they would
never have paid money on it; the business was none of theirs, but concerned
the persons who had a claim to my mother's hand. Nor would they have
appointed a son to take an estate which was likely to bring loss, not profit.
People generally transfer their children to other families, when they have
money troubles, in order that the son may escape his father's disability. No,
the inheritance was free from debt, and belonged to my mother. All this tale
was concocted in order to despoil her.
662
OR. Χ.
ISAEUS
A shameless petitio principii; compare Introduction p. 651. I infer that
Xenaenetus II was able to prove (1) that Aristarchus I died in debt, (2) that
Cyronides discharged the encumbrance. He would produce witnesses of the
judgment (Dem. 28. 1 ὡς μὲν ὠφλεν ὁ πάππος, ἐνεβάλετο μαρτυρίαν, [Dem.] 59. 5
ἐπὶ διαβολῇ ψευδεῖς μάρτυρας παρασχόμενος, ὡς ὦφλε τῷ δημοσίῳ ἐκ πέντε καὶ
εἴκοσιν ἐτῶν), and require the speaker to show either that Aristarchus I was
not condemned or that he had paid the penalty ; compare Dem. 22. 34 ὡς οὖν
οὐκ ὦφλ᾽ ὁ πατήρ σου, τοῦτ᾽ ἐπίδειξον, ἢ ὡς οὐκ ἀποδρὰς ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ δεσμω
τηρίου, ἀλλὰ τὰ χρήματ᾽ ἐκτείσας, 28. 2 εὑρήσετε οὐχ ὡς ὀφείλει μεμαρτυρημένον,
ἀλλ' ὡς ὦφλεν....εἰ μὲν οὖν τότ᾽ ἐξεγένετο καὶ μὴ τῷ χρόνῳ τοῦτ᾽ ἐνηδρεύθημεν,
παρεσχόμεθ᾽ ἂν μάρτυρας, ὡς ἐξετείσθη τὰ χρήματα καὶ πάντ᾽ αὐτῷ διελέλυτο τὰ
πρὸς τὴν πόλιν.
15. I eîvai, an imperfect (IV. 3. 2 n., IX. 9. 4 n.); we find îv é§ ápxîs in
§§ 3, 8.
3 μεμαρτυρημένων. The only details attested by witnesses (7) are (1)
that Cyronides died in the house of Xenaenetus I, (2) that Aristarchus I died
before Demochares, (3) that Demochares together with 'the other sister' died
before coming of age. But these facts are susceptible of more than one
interpretation, and could be admitted by the adversaries without prejudice
to their case.
6, 7 ἐπὶ τῷ δικαίως εἰσαχθῆναι τὸν λόγον ποιοῦνται, argue on the strength
of the justice of the introduction,' 'rest their case on the justice of the adop-
tion'; a singular expression, to which I can find no perfect analogue. Lutz
(Die Praepositionen bei den attischen Rednern p. 111) compares Dem. 2. 51
ἐπὶ τῷ συνοίσειν ὑμῖν, ἂν πράξητε, ταῦτα πεπεῖσθαι λέγειν αἱροῦμαι, 22. 48 κατα-
λύσας κληρωτὴν ἀρχὴν ἐπὶ τῇ προφάσει ταύτῃ, [Dem.] Εp. 2. 7 πολλῶν ὄντων
καὶ μεγάλων ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐπέρχεταί μοι παρρησιάζεσθαι.
III
7, 8 δίκην ὑπὲρ τούτων τῶν χρημάτων ἐκτετεικέναι. Cp. Dem. 21. 44 τί γὰρ
δήποτ᾽, ἄν τις ὀφλὼν δίκην μὴ ἐκτίνῃ, οὐκέτ᾽ ἐποίησ᾽ ὁ νόμος τὴν ἐξούλην ἰδίαν,
ἀλλὰ προστιμᾶν ἐπέταξε τῷ δημοσίῳ; ib. 91 τὴν καταδίκην ἐκτέτεικε; οὐδὲ χαλκοῦν
οὐδέπω καὶ τήμερον, ἀλλὰ δίκην ἐξούλης ὑπομένει φεύγειν, [Dem.] 47. 65 τὴν δὲ
δίκην ἐξέτεισα, ὑπερήμερον γὰρ οὐκ ὤμην δεῖν ἐμαυτὸν εἶναι, ib. 66, 81. I think it
likely that Aristarchus I died in debt to the state (ὀφείλων τῷ δημοσίῳ, § 20.
5 κ.) and consequently without civic rights (ἄτιμος). If this was the case,
the motive of Cyronides was not only to save the family estate from confis-
cation ([Dem.] 40. 22, 59. 7), but also to restore the privileges of a citizen to
the heir of Aristarchus I; for so long as any portion of the debt remained
unpaid the name of Aristarchus I would be kept on the list of state-debtors,
and his son would inherit the disabilities of his father (§ 17. 2, 3 n.).
9 κατ' ἐκεῖνον. Meutzner (Acta Societatis Graecae II. p. 133, Lipsiae,
1840) finds no difficulty in supplying τὸν λόγον. It is better to take the
pronoun as referring to Aristarchus II (Rauchenstein, Fahrbb. f. cl. Philol.
85, 1862, p. 678 'wegen des Aristarchos'). The alternative is to adopt Reiske's
correction κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνο.
ΙΟ εἰκότως προσήκοντ' αὐτοῖς φαίνηται, 'that the property (τὰ χρήματα, may
be made out to belong to them in equity'; Schoemann's objection to the
participle may be met by quoting IX. 12 εἰ δ᾽ ἐναντίον μαρτύρων φαίνεται
διαθέμενος, where the speaker does not admit that a will was made. Apr.
had προσήκον, which A2 changed to προσήκων. Scheibe, Buermann, and
OR. Χ.
663
COMMENTARY
Thalheim keep προσήκον, with which according to Scheibe ἔχειν must be
understood.
16. 3 ὑπέρχρεως. Α' corrected this to ὑπόχρεως, acting in the same
spirit as Dobree, who remarks on Dem. 27. 25 ‘Pro ὑπέρχρεως malim
ὑπόχρεως, ut Aristoph. Nub. 243 et Demosthenes alibi (Adv. I. p. 490).
4, 5 οὐ γὰρ προσῆκεν αὐτοῖς, sc. χρήματα ἐκτίνειν. Editors with one accord
support the reading of the MS. προσῆκον; cp. VI. 45. 2, 3 n., 50. 4 n.
5, 6 οἷς ἐγένετο ἡ ἐμὴ μήτηρ ἐπίδικος κ.τ.λ. What would have been the
position of an ἐπίκληρος, if the estate was overwhelmed by debt (ὑπέρχρεως)?
Would she not have been reckoned a θῆττα? If so, the next-of-kin (ὁ ἐγγύ-
τατα γένους) would have been required either to marry her or to furnish a
dowry on a scale fixed by law (I. 39. 6 22.). In the present case, then, on the
assumption that the speaker's mother was in the eyes of the law an ἐπίκληρος,
neither her uncle Aristomenes nor her cousin Apollodorus was under any ob-
ligation to pay the debts of Aristarchus I. Nor does Isaeus venture to assert
as much; he chooses a phrase that may mean nothing in particular, ὑπὲρ
αὐτῶν βουλεύσασθαι; sie mussten sehen, was dabei zu thun sey (Schoemann).
This passage does not prove that 'the husband of the ἐπίκληρος, in consider-
ation of the advantages he derived from the usufruct of the estate, was bound
to pay the debts on the succession received by his wife' (Beauchet I. p. 463).
P.
Nor can this conclusion be established from Dem. 28. 1, 2 sqq., where
Demosthenes seeks to refute the statement that Gylon, his mother's father,
died in debt to the state.
7 οὔτ᾽ ἂν εἰσεποίουν εἰς τοῦτον τὸν κλῆρον ὑὸν κ.τ.λ. The appointment of a
son took place after the death of Cyronides (§ 6), i.e. after the payment of
the debts, when the estate was clear of encumbrances.
17. ι ὅταν περὶ χρήματα δυστυχῶσι, an euphemism (§ 20. 5); compare
Bekk. An. Gr. I. p. 247, 1o s.v. ἐκποίητον γενέσθαι: πολλοὶ δὲ τοῦτο ποιοῦσι
τῶν πατέρων τοὺς παῖδας αὑτῶν, ὅταν ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς κλέψαντες ἐλπίσωσιν ἁλώ-
σεσθαι ἐν ταῖς εὐθύναις, Aesch. 3. 21 πάλιν ὑπεύθυνον οὐκ ἐᾷ (ὁ νομοθέτης) τὴν
οὐσίαν καθιεροῦν (IV. 9. 1 7.), οὐδὲ ἀνάθημα ἀναθεῖναι, οὐδ᾽ ἐκποίητον γενέσθαι,
οὐδὲ διαθέσθαι τὰ ἑαυτοῦ, οὐδ᾽ ἄλλα πολλά.
αν
2, 3 ἵνα μὴ μετάσχωσι τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς ἀτιμίας. The disabilities of a
debtor to the treasury were transmitted to his children and heirs; see [Dem.]
43. 58 (law) τοὺς δὲ μὴ ἀποδιδόντας τὰς μισθώσεις τῶν τεμενῶν τῶν τῆς θεοῦ καὶ
τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν καὶ τῶν ἐπωνύμων ἀτίμους εἶναι καὶ αὐτοὺς καὶ γένος καὶ κληρο-
νόμους τοὺς τούτων, ἕως ἂν ἀποδῶσιν, Dem. 22. 33, 34 ὠφληκότος αὐτοῦ τοῦ
πατρὸς τῷ δημοσίῳ χρήματα, καὶ οὐκ ἐκτετεικότος, οὐκ ἔξεστι λέγειν οὐδὲ γράφειν
τούτῳ ὡς οὖν οὐκ ὦφλ᾽ ὁ πατήρ σου, τοῦτ᾽ ἐπίδειξον, ἢ ὡς οὐκ ἀποδρὰς ἐξῆλθεν
ἐκ τοῦ δεσμωτηρίου, ἀλλὰ τὰ χρήματ᾽ ἐκτείσας, εἰ δὲ μὴ ταῦθ᾽ ἕξεις δεικνύναι, οὐκ
ἐξὸν γέγραφας· κληρονόμον γάρ σε καθίστησ᾽ ὁ νόμος τῆς ἀτιμίας τῆς τοῦ πατρός,
ὄντι δ᾽ ἀτίμῳ σοι λέγειν οὐ προσῆκ᾽ οὐδὲ γράφειν, 24. 200, 201 ὁ πατὴρ ὁ τούτου
τῷ δημοσίῳ ὀφείλει...καὶ οὗτος ὁ χρηστὸς περιορᾷ. καίτοι ὅστις μέλλων κληρονο-
μήσειν τῆς ἀτιμίας, ἂν ἐκεῖνός τι πάθῃ, μὴ οἴεται δεῖν ἐκτεῖσαι, ἀλλὰ κερδαίνειν, ὃν
ἐκεῖνος ζῇ χρόνον, ἀξιοῖ τοῦτο τὸ κέρδος, τίνος ὑμῖν ἂν ἀποσχέσθαι δοκεῖ; [Dem.]
58. 17, 19, 59. 6, 7, Att. Proc.2 p. 599.
3 οὗτοι δὲ ἄρα κ.τ.λ. Gebauer, De arg. ex contr. formis p. 323, points out
that in this form of argument apa is generally attached to the second member,
664
OR. X.
ISAEUS
and that the particle is rarely found in the first member as in Lys. 3. 30 kaì
τότε μὲν ἄρα, ἵνα μὴ περιβόητος εἴην, ἡσυχίαν ἦγον...ἐπειδὴ δὲ χρόνος διεγένετο,
πάλιν, ὡς οὗτός φησιν, ἐπεθύμησα περιβόητος γενέσθαι; Plat. Laws 8. 840 B, and
rarely repeated in both clauses as in Plat. Crito 50 E 51 Aǹ) πρòs µèv åρa σoɩ
τὸν πατέρα οὐκ ἐξ ἴσου ἦν τὸ δίκαιον καὶ πρὸς τὸν δεσπότην, εἴ σοι ὢν ἐτύγχανεν,
ὥστε κ.τ.λ.· πρὸς δὲ τὴν πατρίδα ἄρα καὶ τοὺς νόμους ἐξέσται σοι; Phaed. 97 A
θαυμάζω γάρ, εἰ, ὅτε μὲν ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν χωρὶς ἀλλήλων ἦν, ἓν ἄρ᾽ ἑκάτερον ἦν καὶ
οὐκ ἤστην τότε δύο, ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἐπλησίασαν ἀλλήλοις, αὕτη ἄρα αἰτία αὐτοῖς ἐγένετο
dvoîv yevéodai, Prot. 325 BC, Rep. 10. 600 CD.
dè
4 tkal olkodev.† Dobree (Adv. 1. p. 308) justly questions whether oűkoßev
can mean here ultro, sponte sua (Reiske). The best treatment of the difficulty
is Buermann's, to omit kai and transpose oiko@ev to the next line before vráρ-
With тà оikoðεv úπáрɣоνта ср. a passage attributed to Demosthenes
in Rh. Gr. I. p. 332, 6 Hammer καὶ πρότερον μὲν οἴκοθεν προεῖτο καὶ εἰς
αἰχμαλώτων λύσεις καὶ θυγατέρων ἐκδόσεις, S.I. G. n. 409 (165-169 A.D.), 7
ἀγωνοθετήσαντος Παναθηναίων οἴκοθεν (suis sumptibus).
χοντα.
5 προσαπολέσειαν. Cp. V. 24. 4 n.
6 ¿λεúðepos. Cp. v. hyp. 10, II N.
18-21 Some of you may be surprised that we have submitted so
long to this usurpation. The delay does not prejudice our right, but we can
explain the circumstance. My father could find no way of recovering the
estate from our adversaries. When he raised the question at the request of
my mother, they threatened that they would claim and marry his wife them-
selves, if he was unwilling to keep her with her dowry. Rather than be
deprived of my mother he would have allowed them to enjoy twice as much
money. Then came the Corinthian war, in which my father and I were
serving in the field, and could not have got satisfaction. On the conclusion
of peace I had a misfortune with the treasury, which made it difficult to con-
tend with them. But now the time has arrived, when justice requires that
they should declare who bequeathed the estate to Aristarchus II, in virtue of
what law he has been introduced into the pparpía, and for what reason my
mother was not an èííêλŋpos with rights in this property. These are the
issues which your vote has to decide, not whether we are late in demanding
what belongs to us. If they cannot answer, you ought in justice to award
the estate to me.
18. I
Tòv Xpóvov. The period is considerable. The speaker could not
have been younger than 20 when he was first sent on active service during
the Corinthian war, 395-387 B.C. Let us suppose that he completed his
20th year in 394 B.C. Aristarchus II was killed (§ 22) in the Theban war,
378-371 B.C. Let us suppose that he fell at the beginning of the struggle in
377 B.C.
Then the claimant is 37 years old, and his mother's marriage may
have taken place in the year when the Sicilian expedition left Athens. The
judges had good cause to wonder at the delay. It is difficult to resist the
impression that Aristarchus II was left in possession during his lifetime,
because his title was sound.
3 ᾖμεν ἐπ' αὐτά. Cp. IV. 25. 6, 7 κ.
4 oỷ Sĺkaιov elvaι K.T.λ. Sositheus in [Dem.] 43, who is in the same
dilemma as the speaker (XI. Introd. p. 674), gives a different turn to his
OR. X.
665
COMMENTARY
retort: τούτων οὐδὲν ἔμελε Θεοπόμπῳ οὐδὲ Μακαρτάτῳ τουτῳί, ἀλλὰ τούτου
μόνον, τὰ μὴ προσήκοντα ἑαυτοῖς ἔχειν, καὶ ἐγκαλεῖν ὅτι πολὺν χρόνον ἐχόντων
ἑαυτῶν τὸν κλῆρον νυνὶ ἀγωνίζονται. ἐγὼ δ᾽ ᾤμην ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταὶ προσήκειν
τὸν τἀλλότρια ἀδίκως ἔχοντα οὐκ ἐγκαλεῖν, εἰ πλείω χρόνον εἶχεν, ἀλλὰ χάριν
εἰδέναι, μὴ ἡμῖν, ἀλλὰ τῇ τύχῃ, ὅτι πολλαὶ καὶ ἀναγκαῖαι διατριβαὶ ἐγένοντο ἐν τῷ
μεταξὺ χρόνῳ, ὥστε νῦν περὶ τούτων ἀγωνίζεσθαι (§ 67). Sositheus had not
waited so long before bringing a suit, and he had a better case.
7 αἴτιον εἰπεῖν ἔχομεν. Naber suggests <τὸ> αἴτιον; see for the confusion
of altiov and raitiov Dobree on Dem. 9. 36 (Adv. 1. p. 373) and Blass on
[Dem.] 58. 42. But here I prefer airíav.
19. I èπì πρоɩкí. In § 6 Isaeus avoided all mention of the dowry.
ἐπὶ προικί
4 τῆς μητρὸς κελευούσης. The suggestion is that the husband was not
aware of the knavery of Aristomenes and Cyronides until his wife unfolded
to him her tale of wrong. The speaker is conscious that his story puts his
father in an equivocal position. Uncharitable hearers might ask how it came
about that he married an éríkλnpos, to whom he had no right, and what was
the amount of the dowry.
OÛTOL. According to §§ 5, 6 the property was in the hands of Cyronides,
son-in-law of Aristomenes, while the persons with a claim on the hand of the
alleged éñíkλŋpos were Aristomenes and his son Apollodorus. Isaeus lumps
together the two families (τούτων καρπουμένων, οὗτοι ἠπείλησαν) on the
assumption that they were acting in collusion. The motives of the guardian
Aristomenes are not clearly defined. Why should he have wished that the
estate of the éπíkληpos should descend to the heirs of his son-in-law rather
than to his own heirs or to the heirs of his son?
5 αὐτοὶ ἐπιδικασάμενοι αὐτὴν ἕξειν. Cp. III. 50. 6 n., 55. 6, 7 π., 64. 5, 6 π.
This passage contributes nothing to the settlement of the question, whether a
woman ceased to be subject to the liabilities of an érikλnpos after bearing a
legitimate male child. We are not informed when the menace was made,
whether before or after the birth of the speaker. But the present case should
be carefully separated from the case of a woman who after marriage was con-
stituted an éríkλŋpos by her father's death. Ex hypothesi the daughter of
Aristarchus I was an éπíkλŋpos at the time of her marriage to the speaker's
father. Clearly her guardian would have raised a hornet's nest about his ears,
if after formally betrothing her to a stranger and misappropriating her estate
he had come before a court and petitioned to be allowed to dissolve the
union he had promoted and to marry her himself; he would have confessed
himself guilty of the grave offence of maltreatment of an heiress (kákwσiS
èπɩкλýpov, III. 46 sqq.) and, if the Archon did not at once intervene, might
have been prosecuted by any citizen. His son Apollodorus would not have
laboured under the same disadvantage, since he was not the girl's guardian
('Αθ. Πολ. 56. 6 αὗται δέ (γραφαὶ ἐπικλήρου κακώσεως) εἰσι κατὰ τῶν ἐπιτρόπων
καὶ τῶν συνοικούντων), but it may be doubted whether he would have been
well advised in laying before Athenian judges the embarrassing history of
the first marriage.
20.4 οὐδετέρῳ ἂν ἡμῶν δίκην ἐξεγένετο λαβεῖν, neither of us would have been
able to get satisfaction' (§ 2. 2). Emper's proposal λaxeîv (Opusc. p. 316),
which Scheibe adopts, introduces a definiteness, which was far from the
666
OR. Χ.
ISAEUS
author's intention. Isaeus did not wish to tie himself down to the statement
that it was impossible for the speaker or his father to institute proceedings
(δίκην λαχειν) in consequence of the war (v. 7. 3 n.). The idea suggested
rather than expressed is that they did not begin an action because they were
afraid that their military duties might prevent them from bringing it to a
successful termination ([Dem.] 48. 25).
5 ἀτύχημα πρὸς τὸ δημόσιον. Cp. § 17. 1 n., [Dem.] 58. 1 τοῦ πατρὸς
ἡμῶν διὰ τουτονὶ Θεοκρίνην ἀτυχήσαντος πρὸς τὴν πόλιν (in consequence of a
γραφὴ παρανόμων) καὶ ὀφλόντος δέκα τάλαντα, καὶ τούτου διπλοῦ γεγενημένου,
ὥστε μηδ᾽ ἐλπίδ᾽ ἡμῖν εἶναι σωτηρίας μηδεμίαν, Lys. 25. II ὁσοι...ἄτιμοι ἦσαν
[εὐθύνας δεδωκότες] ἢ τῶν ὄντων ἀπεστερημένοι ἢ ἄλλῃ τινι συμφορᾷ τοιαύτῃ
κεχρημένοι, ib. 12 ἐμοὶ τοίνυν οὔτ᾽ ἰδίᾳ οὔτε δημοσίᾳ συμφορὰ ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ χρόνῳ
οὐδεμία πώποτε ἐγένετο. The principal ways in which a man became a state-
debtor are enumerated in And. I. 73 οἱ δὲ ἄτιμοι τίνες ἦσαν, καὶ τίνα τρόπον
ἕκαστοι;...οἱ μὲν ἀργύριον ὀφείλοντες τῷ δημοσίῳ, ὁπόσοι εὐθύνας ὦφλον ἄρξαντες
ἀρχάς, ἢ ἐξούλας ἢ γραφὰς ἢ ἐπιβολὰς ἄφλον, ἢ ἀνὰς πριάμενοι ἐκ τοῦ δημοσίου
μὴ κατέβαλον τὰ χρήματα, ἢ ἐγγύας ἠγγύησαντο πρὸς τὸ δημόσιον· τούτοις ἡ μὲν
ἔκτεισις ἦν ἐπὶ τῆς ἐνάτης πρυτανείας, εἰ δὲ μή, διπλάσιον ὀφείλειν καὶ τὰ κτήματα
αὐτῶν πεπρᾶσθαι; compare Boeckh, Staatshaush. I. p. 456 sqq., Att. Proc.
p. 960 sqq. The orator, who has figured in the exordium (§ 1) as an innocent
person with no experience of courts of law, naturally shrinks from furnishing
any particulars of the origin of his debt or of the length of the period during
which he was debarred by ȧriuía from vindicating his rights.
6, 7 οὐ μικρὰς ἔχομεν < εἰπεῖν > αἰτίας. Dobree inserted εἰπεῖν with the
pertinent remark 'Alias signif. non leuis accusatio in nos iacta est, quod
alienum' (Adv. I. p. 308). The appearance of eireiv in the next line (§ 21. 2)
is not a serious difficulty (111. 6. 2, 3 n.).
21. 2, 3 τίνος δόντος [ἔχει] τὸν κλῆρον. The reference is to the argument
of § 9 sqq. κατὰ διαθήκας αἱ εἰσαγωγαὶ τῶν εἰσποιήτων γίγνονται. The objection
to exe is that Aristarchus II is now dead. The present tense here is not
justified by the phrase οὗ ἐστιν ὁ κλῆρος, which is sometimes applied to
deceased owners (§ 14. 4 22.). In § 3. 6 ådɩkeî is in effect a perfect. I have
thought of reading ἔσχεν ; see 1. 18. 6 n., VIII. 40. 5 n. cr., Dem. 27. 17 (ἔχει
uolg., είχε Σ), 37. 7 (ἔχειν uolg., εἶχεν Σ), [Dem.] 49. 59 (ἔχει uolg., ἔχηι Σ,
εἶχε F).
6 χρόνῳ τι ὕστερον. Schwab (Syntax d. gr. Comparation pp. 312, 341
κ. 1) connects τι with ὕστερον ; it belongs to τῶν ἡμετέρων. For the phrase
χρόνῳ ὕστερον see VI. 27. 3 κ.
22-26 My adversaries will make a piteous appeal, enlarging on the
brave death of Aristarchus and the injustice of annulling his will. Wills, I
agree, ought to be enforced, but not when the testator bequeaths what is not
his own to give. Now this property belongs to us. If they bring testimony
that Aristarchus left a will, bid them show that he was the owner. It will
be very hard if Cyronides and his descendants are not only to have the estate
of Xenaenetus but to receive this into the bargain, while I am not to get even
my mother's heritage. As the holder of disputed land is bound to produce
the mortgagor or vendor or show the judgment under which he occupies, so
justice demands that they should exhibit their title. Xenaenetus, not content
.
OR. X.
667
COMMENTARY
with having dissipated in infamous debauchery the estate of Aristomenes,
now claims to treat this in the same way. I on the contrary in spite of
scanty means do my duty to my family and my country and ask not to be
deprived of my mother's patrimony. I have shown to you how the estate
devolved on her alone.
22. 3, 4 ὡς... καὶ ὅτι. Cp. v. 3. 4, 5 n.
23.4 ἐπιδεικνύναι κελεύετε καὶ ὡς τὰ ἑαυτοῦ. Apr. wrote δικαίως τὰ
ἑαυτοῦ, A2 inserted el above the line between κελεύετε and δικαίως, Sauppe
changed dikaiws to kaì ws. With Sauppe's emendation cp. Dem. 19. 90 â 8³
ἡμῖν δικαίως ἂν ὑπῆρχεν, where Weil restores καὶ ὡς with the approval of Blass
and Butcher.
7 ovσiv. Since the coming verdict will not affect in any way the tenure
of the estate of Xenaenetus I by Xenaenetus II, the son of Cyronides, strict
logic requires exovou, which Hertlein would restore. But here the inaccuracy
may be a rhetorical artifice. The instances in this form of argument of what
The
Gebauer calls 'attraction' are too numerous to be lightly set aside.
examples which he has collected (De arg. ex contr. formis pp. 159 sqq.,
195 sqq., 202 sqq.) are of two kinds. (1) An optative appears, where critics
of Cobet's school demand an indicative, as in Lys. 21. 22 µawoíµŋv yàp av, ei
τὴν μὲν πατρῴαν οὐσίαν φιλοτιμούμενος εἰς ὑμᾶς ἀναλίσκοιμι (ἀναλίσκω Hertlein),
ἐπὶ δὲ τῷ τῆς πόλεως κακῷ παρὰ τῶν ἄλλων δωροδοκοίην ; see 1. 38. I 7.
(2) A
future indicative appears, where a present indicative might be expected, as
in Thuc. 1. 35. 3 καὶ δεινὸν εἰ τοῖσδε μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐνσπόνδων ἔσται (ἔστι Cobet)
πληροῦν τὰς ναῦς...ἡμᾶς δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς προκειμένης ξυμμαχίας εἴρξουσι; compare
Thuc. 1. 121. 5, Lys. 18. 15, [Lys.] 6. 13, Isocr. 16. 50, 18. 24, Dem. 39. 33,
[Dem.] 25. 71, Plut. Tib. Gracch. 15. 3. An examination will show that in the
majority of these passages a reference to the future, whether expressed by an
optative or an indicative, is natural and intelligible.
8 Tηs μητρòs оvσns kuplas, 'my mother being rightful owner' (VI. 30. 3 n.,
XI. 2, 12). The present participle is ambiguous and may refer to the past
(§ 4. 5 n.); Dareste translates 'moi dont la mère était propriétaire de ces
biens,' Schoemann's version is 'ich, dessen Mutter die rechtmässige Erbin
dieses Vermögens ist. But the use of κupías here without anything to define
the application of the word is so strange that with Buermann (Hermes 19,
1884, p. 360) I suspect the text. Buermann proposes to change ovoŋs kupías
κυρίας
to ☎v kúpios (Crit. Introd. p. xl). The correction gives some concinnity to
the sentence, but is not without difficulties of its own. According to Buer-
mann the speaker means that he is kúptos of his mother, as the adult son of
an éπíkλŋpos, and, consequently, can claim for himself her inheritance (§ 12,
VIII. 31). But many scholars do not admit that the son of an éπiêλŋpos on
reaching his majority became kúptos of his mother, displacing his own father
(Beauchet I. p. 476 sqq.). Neither is it certain that the orator could pretend
to the privileges of the son of an érikλnpos, since his father was not related
to Aristarchus I (Introd. p. 650). It is simpler to suppose that, if he was
acting as kúpios of his mother, he owed this position to the death of his father
(§ 25. 4, 5 22.). There remains the question whether his mother was still alive.
9 καὶ ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν Κυρωνίδῃ γεγενημένος. Cp. VII. II. 5, 6 π.
The legal
tag is verbiage. What can be the bearing on the argument of the fact that
668
OR. X.
ISAEUS
the speaker was a grandson, Cyronides a son, of Aristarchus I? He does
not rest his case on his relationship to Cyronides. The judges have been
repeatedly told that Cyronides by his adoption passed out of the family of
Aristarchus I and had no rights in the estate of his natural father. The
faults of the period are rooted in the thought. The wealth of Xenaenetus II
inherited from his father Cyronides has nothing to do either with his claim
under the will of his brother Aristarchus II or with the alleged rights of the
speaker's mother. There is no logical nexus between the proposition 'it will
very hard if an estate belonging to my mother is awarded to some one who
has no right to it' and the proposition 'it will be very hard if Xenaenetus,
who already possesses a rich estate, gets another into the bargain. The effort
to combine them in order to play upon the jealousy of rich and poor is the
cause of the redundance and confusion of the sentence.
be
εἰ μηδέ.
For the repetition of εἰ compare Isoc. 16. 50 ἐπὶ τούτοις
ἀγανακτῶ…εἰ Τεισίας μὲν μηδὲν ἀγαθὸν ποιήσας τὴν πόλιν καὶ ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ
καὶ ἐν ὀλιγαρχίᾳ μέγα δυνήσεται, ἐγὼ δ᾽ εἰ μηδετέρους ἀδικήσας ὑπ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων
κακῶς πείσομαι, Lys. 3. 43, Plat. Prot. 325 Β.
II åveveykeîv : Éteveyкeiv A. Dobree's emendation (Adv. 1. p. 308) is
confirmed by Dem. 18. 224 τῷ μὲν γὰρ ἔστ᾽ ἀνενεγκεῖν ἐπ᾿ ἐκείνους, 28. 9 εἰς
ἀλλήλους ἀναφέρετε, [Dem.] 47. 31 εἰς ᾿Αφαρέα ἀνέφερε λόγῳ, ἔργῳ δὲ οὐκ
ἀπεγράψατο πρὸς αὐτὸν διαδικασίαν, Lys. 13. 55 ἀκούω δ᾽ αὐτὸν καὶ εἰς
Μενέστρατον ἀναφέρειν τι (τι del. Francken) περὶ τῶν ἀπογραφῶν τούτων; cp.
Dem. 45. 81 εἰ κλέπτην σ᾽ ἀπῆγον ὡς ἐπ᾿ αὐτοφώρῳ εἰληφώς, τὴν οὐσίαν ἣν
ἔχεις, εἴ πως οἷόν τ᾽ ἦν, ἐπιθείς σοι, εἶτά σ᾽ ἠξίουν, εἰ μὴ φῂς ὑφῃρημένος ταῦτ᾽
ἔχειν, ἀναγαγεῖν ὅθεν εἴληφας, εἰς τίν᾽ ἂν αὔτ᾽ ἀνήγαγες; In Lys. 7. 17 Thalheim
after Emper deletes ἵν᾽ εἴ τις αὐτοὺς ᾐτιᾶτο, εἶχον ἀνενεγκεῖν ὅτῳ παρέδοσαν.
The technical term (Dem. 24. 13 ὑμᾶς μὲν εἰσπράττειν τοὺς τριηράρχους,
ἐκείνοις δ᾽ εἶναι περὶ αὐτῶν εἰς τοὺς ἔχοντας ἀναφορὰν) prepares the way for
the comparison in the next sentence.
T
24.3 ἢ θέτην ἢ πρατῆρα παρέχεσθαι ἢ καταδεδικασμένον φαίνεσθαι. Here
θέτην is equivalent to τὸν θέντα (V. 21. 7 n., p. 432); see Harp. s.v. : μήποτε
θέτην λέγουσι τὸν ὑποθήκην τεθεικότα, οὐχ ὡς Δίδυμος τὸν εἰσποιησάμενον·
θετούς (ΙΙΙ. 69. 5 κ.) γὰρ ἔλεγον, φησί, τοὺς εἰσποιήτους. The word may also
designate ὁ θέμενος according to Photius s.v.: ὁ εἰσποιησάμενος θετούς τινας·
μήποτε δὲ θέτης ὁ εἰς ὑποθήκην λαβὼν ὁτιοῦν; compare Bekk. An. Gr. I.
p. 264, 3. Reiske considers καταδεδικασμένον to be a passive participle and
translates as follows: par est possessorem...demonstrare siue eum, a quo illos
oppigneratos habeat, siue eum, a quo emerit, aut, alterutrum ni fecerit, pati
fundos iudicum sententia sibi abiudicari, et causa cadere. This is a slip, as
Sir W. Jones and Schoemann observed, but in recent times Leist (Der
attische Eigentumsstreit p. 37) and Mitteis (Reichsrecht und Volksrecht
p. 502) have adopted the mistranslation and built upon it a theory of the
nature of a διαδικασία at Athens. Καταδεδικασμένον is middle; the possessor
is required to produce the mortgagor or vendor of the disputed land, or to
prove that it has been awarded to him by a judgment of a court; for κατα-
δικάζομαί τι, ‘I get something adjudged to me, see [Dem.] 47. 57 τὰ πρόβατα
ἔχετε πεντήκοντα καὶ τὸν παῖδα καὶ τὸν ποιμένα, πλείονος ἄξια ἢ κατεδικάσασθε,
Harp. s.v. οὐσίας δίκη· εἰ δὲ καὶ ἐξούλης ἁλοῖεν, οὐκέτι ἐξῆν ἐπικρατεῖν, ἀλλ᾽
OR. X.
669
COMMENTARY
ó
رد
ἐξίστασθαι ἔδει ἤδη τῶν κτημάτων τοῖς καταδικασαμένοις. Isaeus' enumeration
of good titles is not exhaustive. Lawful gift is mentioned by Plat. Laws
915 CD ἐὰν δὲ ὡς αὑτοῦ ἐφάπτηται ζῴου καὶ ὁτουοῦν ἤ τινος ἑτέρου τῶν αὑτοῦ
χρημάτων, ἀναγέτω (V. 22. 7 n.) μὲν ὁ ἔχων εἰς πρατῆρα ἢ τὸν δόντα ἀξιόχρεών τε
καὶ ἔνδικον ἤ τινι τρόπῳ παραδόντα ἄλλῳ κυρίως. Further we must bear in
mind the tenure of a legitimate son who needed no judicial authorisation
before entering upon the estate of his deceased father.
ý
4, 5 καθ᾽ ἕν τι τούτων ἀποφήναντας...ἐπιδικάζεσθαι. An amazing statement,
since the law only recognised two titles, kinship and testamentary bequest,
as grounds of an érıdıkaσía in the technical sense. Such plausibility as the
argument possesses is conveyed by careful confusion of times and persons.
By using the plural roúrovs Isaeus contrives to mix up the conduct of the late
occupants of the estate, Cyronides and his son Aristarchus II, with the con-
duct of the present claimant Xenaenetus II. The procedure of Xenaenetus II
was perfectly correct. He was claiming (éπedikáČETO) under a will, the
genuineness of which was not contested, and it was no business of his to
declare in his petition (ἀποφήναντα ἐπιδικάζεσθαι) the title by which the
testator held the property which was bequeathed, though it must not be
assumed that he had nothing to tell the judges on this head. Nor could
Xenaenetus II be accused of expelling the daughter of Aristarchus I from
her patrimony without a trial (πpò díkŋs, V. 10. 9 n.). We have been told that
this offence was the work of Aristomenes her guardian in league with her
brother Cyronides. Moreover according to the speaker neither Cyronides
nor his successor Aristarchus II possessed any title at all, so that in their
case an éidikaσia was out of the question. If neither Cyronides nor
Aristarchus II had been compelled to defend their tenure in a court of law,
the blame lay upon the husband and son of the daughter of Aristarchus I,
who in the course of 37 years or more found no opportunity of employing the
legal remedies against violent usurpation. It was not difficult at Athens to
force the possessor to disclose his title.
25. 1, 2
τὸν ᾿Αριστομένους οίκον. Apollodorus son of Aristomenes (§ 12)
must have died without issue. If he died before Aristomenes, the succession
of Xenaenetus II is an example of a man inheriting from his maternal grand-
father (VIII. 30—34 analysis). But the language does not preclude the
possibility that Xenaenetus II was heir, through his mother, of his uncle
Apollodorus (§ 13. 6 n.). Note that, if an adoption did not affect a man's
legal relations with his mother, as Isaeus asserts in VII. 24, 25, then
Xenaenetus II ought to have shared the estate with his brother Aristarchus II,
in which case Aristarchus II would have possessed property of which he could
certainly dispose by will (Introd. p. 650), and to which the speaker had no
right whatever.
KATATTETAISEPAOтηkévaι.
2 катаTEπаιdeρаσтηkévaι. For the compound see V. 43. 5 n., Aesch. 2. 131
κατεμισθοφόρησαν τὰ ὑπάρχοντα, Ant. Soph. fr. 12o Blass τὰ πράγματα τὰ
ἑαυτοῦ ἢ τὰ τῶν φίλων κατηρίστηκεν, Ar. Nub. 857 καταπεφρόντικα (θοιμάτιον),
Vesp. 911 TUρÒν TodÙV KATEσIKédiče, Kock, Com. Att. Fr. II. p. 116, Antiph.
η. 239 κατεμώρανεν (τὰ πατρῷα), ib. II. p. 182, Eubul. 7. 54 κατελήρησα τὴν
égwuída, Frohberger on Lys. 14. 27 Anhang p. 146, Blaydes on Ar. Eq. 1352.
4,5 ådeλpàs µèv é§édwка. A proof that his father was dead (§ 23. 8 n.).
π
670
OR. Χ.
ISAEUS
κόσμιον δ᾽ ἐμαυτὸν παρέχων καὶ ποιῶν τὰ προσταττόμενα. Cp. IV. 27.
8, 9 nn. Yet he had been disfranchised for not paying a debt due to the
state (§ 20).
6
5, 6
26. 5, 6 εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν μητέρα τὸν κλῆρον ἐπιγιγνόμενον. For γίγνεσθαι εἴς
τινα see V. 44. 5 η. If the text is sound, the force of the compound must be
devolving afterwards, in the next place, upon my mother'; cp. Dem. 36. 9
οὐδὲ τὰς ἐπιγιγνομένας μισθώσεις (the rents which fell due after the division)
ὡς οὐκ ἀπείληφεν ἔστ᾽ εἰπεῖν αὐτῷ, Ar. Pol. 3. 9. 1280 a 30 οὐ γὰρ εἶναι δίκαιον
ἴσον μετέχειν τῶν ἑκατὸν ταλάντων τὸν εἰσενεγκόντα μίαν μνᾶν τῷ δόντι τὸ
λοιπὸν πᾶν, οὔτε τῶν ἐξ ἀρχῆς οὔτε τῶν ἐπιγιγνομένων (the profits accruing).
But Reiske's emendation, περιγιγνόμενον, is attractive, since ἐπί and περί are
liable to confusion (III. 74. 6 n.).
I


Hagnias I
Eubulides I
Buselus of Oeum.
Stratius I
Cleocritus
Habron
864)
=
Glaucetes sister of Stratius II Polemon Phylomache I=Philagrus Callistratus Euctemon
of Oeum
(C. I. A. II.
married to a
grand-daughter
(θυγατριδή)
of Habron
Phanostratus (?)
Charidemus
Apolexis of Prospalta
daughter
Glaucon Glaucus Hagnias II daughter (?)
Eubulides II
daughter,
adopted by
Hagnias II
daughter,
married to
Sosias
wife of Stratius II
Polemon
Stratocles Theopompus daughter Macartatus I Chaereleos
Phyloma II
II =
Sositheus
sons son
A Δ A Macartatus II son
daughter
married to
Callistratus
son of
Eubulides I
To face p. 671
Eubulides III estheus Callistratus daughter
son
XI
ON THE ESTATE OF HAGNIAS.
THEOPOMPUS AGAINST THE GUARDIAN OF THE
SON OF STRATOCLES.
DEFENCE ON A DENUNCIATION FOR MALTREATMENT
OF AN ORPHAN.
The speech on the Estate of Hagnias is the defence of Theopompus, who
was one of the guardians of the children of his brother Stratocles, against a
denunciation for maltreatment of an orphan (εἰσαγγελία κακώσεως ὀρφανοῦ)
brought by a fellow-guardian. The specific charge was that Theopompus,
to whom the estate of Hagnias had recently been adjudged, had broken an
engagement to surrender a moiety to his nephew. The oration is of ex-.
ceptional interest and importance. It casts a strong light on the audacity
of Athenian litigants and the infirmities of popular tribunals. The com-
plicated law-suits set on foot by relatives, whose cupidity was inflamed by the
wealth of Hagnias, ended in a manifest miscarriage of justice. Theopompus
had no right to the estate, which the judges awarded to him. Further, this
is the only case managed by Isaeus, in which the critic can hear the other
side. In the contest against the son of Stratocles Theopompus gained
another victory, but 18 years or more afterwards, when he was dead and the
coveted estate was in the hands of his son Macartatus, the attack on his
title was renewed by one of his old adversaries, Sositheus, for whom was
composed the Pseudo-Demosthenic speech against Macartatus ([Dem.] 43),
a verbose, pompous, and ill-proportioned performance, which gives us an
idea of the standard reached by second-rate men in Isaeus' profession.
Hagnias II, son of Polemon and grandson of Hagnias I, of the deme
Oeum, was despatched from Athens on an important embassy, probably
during the Theban war, 378-371 B.C., and never returned; he and his
colleagues were captured and executed by the Lacedaemonians (§ 8. 4, 5 n.).
A testament was produced, in which in the first instance he adopted his
niece, who seems to have been a small child (§ 8. 7, 8 n.), and, in the event
of her death during minority, bequeathed his property to his uterine brother
Glaucon. Apparently the rest of the family acquiesced, and accepted the
672
OR. XI.
ISAEUS
niece as daughter and heiress (éπíkλnpos) of Hagnias II. Nothing is said
about a contest for her hand (étıdıkaσía, III. 40—44 analysis); perhaps her
husband was appointed in the will (VII. 9. 5, 6 n.). She died during her
minority, and by the will the inheritance fell to Glaucon. Whether he
actually got possession of the property for a time, is not clear (§ 9. 3 n.),
but there can be little doubt that the testament was speedily assailed. The
first claimant was Eubulides II (§ 9. 2 n., [Dem.] 43. 43—45). On his
father's side he had no title ab intestato, for he was only a second cousin of
Hagnias II, being a son of Philagrus, who was first cousin of Polemon
father of Hagnias II. But on the maternal side, according to the story of
his friends and supporters, he was first cousin (åveyiòs) of Hagnias II, since
his mother Phylomache I was the full sister (ἀδελφὴ ὁμοπατρία καὶ ὁμομητρία)
of Polemon and, consequently, paternal aunt of Hagnias II. Eubulides II
died before his petition was heard by a court, but the case was carried on in
the interest of his only daughter Phylomache II, who was put forward as the
child of a first cousin (aveû maîs) of Hagnias II, and, as such, within the
privileged group of paternal kindred marked out by law (VII. 22. 5 n.).
Phylomache II, being an éπíkλŋpos, was claimed and married by Sositheus,
son of a female 1st cousin of her father Eubulides II ([Dem.] 43. 13, 20, 55,
73, 111. 63–71 analysis). I think it probable that the marriage took place
immediately after her father's death, while the suit against Glaucon was still
pending (note Sositheus' language in [Dem.] 43. 32 évíknσe Þvλoµáxn...
ἐπιδειξάντων ἡμῶν ὅτι γένει ἐγγυτάτω ἦν ῾Αγνία), but we may feel sure that
she had not to wait long for a husband after the result of the trial, which
made her an heiress of unusual wealth (§ 44. 6). The court pronounced
against the will attributed to Hagnias II, and adjudged the estate to the
·claimant ab intestato. According to a document in [Dem.] 43. 31 this
decision was given when Nicophemus was Archon, i.e. in 361/0 B.C.
K
If Sositheus had married Phylomache II with an eye to her claims on
the fortune of Hagnias II, he was doomed to a woful disappointment. The
relatives of Hagnias II on the mother's side were not inclined to lay down
their arms after a single defeat, and, the will once set aside, new competitors
were encouraged to try their luck. Of one of these, Eupolemus ([Dem.]
43. 7), nothing is known. The others were recruited from the numerous second
cousins of Hagnias II, none of whom on a proper interpretation of the law
had any standing-ground. Isaeus says (§ 10) that as many as three of them
made preparations to contest the title of Phylomache II, viz. Theopompus
and his brother Stratocles, sons of Charidemus son of Stratius I, and their
first cousin Stratius II, son of Phanostratus son of Stratius I (§ 8. 2 n.), but
that Stratocles and Stratius II died before lodging their petitions, so that
Theopompus was the only 2nd cousin actually engaged in the final struggle.
Phylomache II was summoned by the claimants jointly or severally, and the
estate of Hagnias II was for a second time at the disposal of the judges.
The circumstances of the new trial are obscure. Isaeus mentions three
parties only, Phylomache II the tenant, Theopompus, and the mother of
Hagnias II (§§ 16-18). The latter was a sister of Stratius II and was
therefore second cousin of her own son, but according to Isaeus she petitioned
as mother of the deceased. The writer of [Dem.] 43 says that there were
OR. XI.
673
INTRODUCTION
five claimants and four voting urns (§§ 8-10); he mentions by name.
Phylomache II, Theopompus, Glaucon and his brother Glaucus, and
Eupolemus, but nowhere notices the mother of Hagnias II, and even sup-
presses the fact that Glaucon and Glaucus were uterine brothers of Hagnias II.
There can be no doubt that one urn was for Phylomache II, one for Theo-
pompus, and one for the two brothers, who put forward the same title.
For whom then was the fourth urn? For Eupolemus, we should reply
unhesitatingly, if we had no other evidence than the words of Pseudo-
Demosthenes. Was then Eupolemus managing the case of the mother of
Hagnias II (Isae. § 16. 7 n.)? If so, why did she compete against her own
sons, who were her heirs? What was Isaeus' motive in totally ignoring the
claims of Glaucon and Glaucus? Schoemann, whose opinion is adopted by
Moy (Étude sur les plaidoyers d'Isée p. 258), comes to the conclusion that
Eupolemus was only a witness or advocate, and that in reality the fourth urn
was set apart for the mother of Hagnias II, but he does not attempt to show
why our two authorities were both anxious to conceal the truth. Pseudo-
Demosthenes also asserts (§§ 7, 29, 38) that Theopompus and the other
opponents of Phylomache II were acting in collusion under a secret
covenant, and combined to mislead the judges by falsehoods about her
descent. Unsuccessful Athenian litigants are always victims of a conspiracy.
The verdict is explicable without this theory; five speeches in succession
packed with genealogical details and discussions on points of law might
bewilder hearers more acute and attentive than the men who generally sat
on an Athenian tribunal. The court deprived Phylomache II of the estate
and adjudged it to Theopompus. All critics are now of opinion that this
decision was a blunder. If Theopompus was right in contending ([Dem.]
43. 29, 39) that there never had been a full sister of Polemon father of
Hagnias II, Phylomache II had no rights in the estate. If Phylomache I
the paternal aunt of Hagnias II was a fiction, then Phylomache II ceased to
be the child of a first cousin (åveioû maîs) of Hagnias II, and became
merely the daughter of a second cousin of Hagnias II. But the defeat of
Phylomache II ought not to have entailed the triumph of Theopompus.
Theopompus was also indubitably outside the privileged circle. His father
Charidemus was first cousin not of Hagnias II but of Polemon the father of
Hagnias II. Theopompus therefore, failing nearer relatives in the paternal
line, was legal heir of Polemon, being the son of Polemon's first cousin
(ȧveчioû πaîs), but he had by law no title to the estate of Hagnias II, who was
his second cousin. If Glaucon and Glaucus claimed ab intestato as uterine
brothers of Hagnias II, they ought to have been preferred to Theopompus.
On this point the law is unmistakable: ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ὦσι πρὸς πατρὸς μέχρι
ἀνεψιῶν παίδων, τοὺς πρὸς μητρὸς τοῦ ἀνδρὸς κατὰ ταὐτὰ κυρίους εἶναι (VII. 22,
XI. 2, 12, [Dem.] 43. 51). The rights of the mother of Hagnias II, if, as
Isaeus implies, she claimed in her own name, cannot be stated with any con-
fidence. Isaeus denies that Athenian law permitted a mother to inherit from
her son (§ 17. 10, II n.), and many modern scholars believe him (Beauchet III.
p. 548 sqq.). Writers on law in their eagerness to reach facts and principles
are prone to overrate the authority of advocates, and to forget the difficulty
of discovering in Greek oratory the line between truth and falsehood. Thus
W. I.
¥3
674
OR. XI.
ISAEUS
The
they do not observe a curious detail in Isaeus' account of this business.
mother of Hagnias II, he says, was represented by her kúpɩoi (oi kúpioi, § 16.
7 n.). Does not this plural refer to her two sons, whose claims, as we have
seen, the orator does not notice? If this view be right, according to Isaeus
Glaucon and Glaucus, who on his own showing (§§ 2, 12) had an incontestable
title as uterine brothers of Hagnias II, chose to put forward their mother,
who 'by general consent' (óµoλoyovμévws § 17. 11) was excluded from the
succession. If they took this strange course, the friends of Phylomache II
might not unreasonably have suspected them of playing into the hands of
Theopompus. The truth is that Isaeus has suppressed facts indispensable
to a proper understanding of the situation.
Theopompus had to face two more trials before he was settled securely
in his new possessions. The first was the denunciation for maltreatment of
his ward, the son of Stratocles, which is the subject of the present speech.
The second was a prosecution of one or more of his witnesses (S$ 45, 46),
probably instituted by Sositheus the husband of Phylomache II ([Dem.]
43. I, 30). In both Theopompus won a favourable verdict, and kept a firm
grasp on his prize for the rest of his life. At his death the estate passed to
his son Macartatus. The accession of the new heir stimulated Sositheus to
make a last attempt to capture the fortune. All hope would be gone, if
Macartatus were left in occupation for 5 years, for he could then shield
himself behind the law of limitations (III. 58. I n.). Sositheus adopted an
ingenious policy. More than 18 years had elapsed since the death of
Eubulides II, and neither his daughter nor her husband, although they had
four sons, showed any solicitude to perpetuate his house, until their piety was
quickened by the disappearance of a redoubtable antagonist. Sositheus now
resolved to transfer his second son, Eubulides III, a minor, into the parρía
of his maternal grandfather and to enrol him as son of Eubulides II. His
aim was to bring the boy a degree nearer to Hagnias II, in order that a
claim to the estate might be presented in the name of a son of a first cousin
(áve¥ioû mais). Macartatus of course saw through the device, and urged the
members of the pparpía to refuse assent to the adoption ([Dem.] 43. 14).
But Sositheus had out-manoeuvred his adversary; it was impossible to deny
the legitimate son of an èñíîèŋpos the right of passing into the house of his
mother's father. Eubulides III was made with due formalities ([Dem.]
43. 14, 82) into the son of Eubulides II, and was placed under the guardian-
ship of his elder brother Sosias (ib. 15, 74), who lost no time in summoning
Macartatus to a διαδικασία. At the trial Sositheus, who spoke for the
claimant, revived the ancient controversy concerning the relationship of
Eubulides II and Hagnias II, and produced a mass of hearsay evidence
([Dem.] 43. 35-37, 42--46) to the effect that Phylomache I the mother of
Eubulides II was the full sister of Polemon father of Hagnias II. Knowing
that the lapse of years had materially increased the difficulty of proving a
negative, and that Macartatus would be driven to rely on the adverse
judgment of the former court, he explains that on the previous occasion,
having in his innocence omitted to call witnesses to ‘admitted facts' ([Dem.]
43. 38), he had been surprised and overwhelmed by a combination of calum-
niators. Risum teneatis, amici? Did not Phylomache II prove her descent
OR. XI.
675
INTRODUCTION
by testimony, when she defeated Glaucon and procured the revocation of
the will? The issue of the trial is not known. Sositheus, who at great
length and with preternatural solemnity invokes all the sanctions of law,
morality, and religion, leaves a more unfavourable impression even than
Theopompus, who at any rate is no Tartuffe. It may be fairly doubted
whether the title of Phylomache II was sounder than the title of Theopompus.
But the most interesting point in these proceedings is that Eubulides III was
allowed to prosecute his claim. He was unborn when the estate of Hagnias II
was awarded to Theopompus, and the rights he derived from adoption did
not come into existence till after the death of Theopompus and the unopposed
succession of Theopompus' son.
A denunciation for maltreatment of an orphan, as Theopompus complains
(§§ 13, 14, 32, 35), was a very serious charge ([Dem.] 58. 32). Owing to the
nature of the case the penalty could not be fixed by statute, but was left to
the discretion of the court, and might be exceedingly severe, carrying with it
disfranchisement of the defendant (§§ 13, 35); the plaint of an orphan
presented with rhetorical art and circumstances of pathos was sure to excite
a storm of indignation. Moreover the prosecutor enjoyed a peculiar ad-
vantage; being allowed as much time as he liked to develop his indictment
(Harp. s.v. κακώσεως· ἦν δὲ καὶ ἄνευ ὕδατος) he had unusual leisure for calum-
niatory digressions. Theopompus' fellow-guardian seems to have worked
the obvious topics in the approved style. He contrasted the poverty of the
ward with the opulence of his guardian, he complained that Theopompus
would not help to portion his brother's four daughters (§ 37), he accused him
—this was inevitable-of secreting his riches in order to shirk public burdens
(§ 49). These charges were beside the point, but the defendant could
not afford to pass them over in silence. Theopompus seeks to show by
inventories (§§ 40-49) that his brother was far wealthier than himself.
Defamation is met by counter-defamation. The wife of Stratocles had not
declared all the property of her husband (§§ 43, 44). The prosecution was
inspired by the greed and dishonesty of the guardian, who desired to free
himself from the embarrassing control of an upright and competent colleague
in order to plunder at pleasure the effects of the ward (§§ 14, 16, 31). These
recriminations tend to obscure the substantial grievance of the son of
Stratocles, which was that by a breach of faith he had been defrauded of
half the estate of Hagnias II. His champion maintained (1) that, before the
actions against Phylomache II were instituted, Theopompus and Stratocles
made a bargain to share the estate, (2) that after the death of Stratocles
Theopompus promised, if successful, to give a moiety to his nephew. The
existence of such a covenant is probable enough. Since the two brothers
were preparing to put forward claims, which they knew to be unfounded, it
was natural that they should come to some sort of agreement with regard to
their procedure and line of argument. By abstention or maladroitness or a
fit of virtue Stratocles might have wrecked his brother's plans. But the
prosecutor of Theopompus lacked the supreme effrontery of Callistratus the
prosecutor of Olympiodorus ([Dem.] 48), who, having been outwitted by a
rascal shrewder than himself, confesses to the judges the dishonesty of the
compact which he asks them to enforce. He not only allowed that
43-2
676
OR. XI.
ISAEUS
π
Theopompus and Stratocles had a right to the estate of Hagnias II, but
apparently (§§ 1, 24) urged that Stratocles had transmitted his right to his
son. Isaeus saw his opening, and furnished his client with one of those
'proofs of art' (évreɣvoi Tíσreis), which were the glory of Greek advocates.
(1) There could not have been a bargain with Stratocles (§§ 20-23). Such
a bargain was aimless and futile, for it would not have given the brothers
two chances instead of one, since they necessarily took their stand on the
same ground and were bound to win or lose together. (2) There could not
have been a promise to the son of Stratocles (§§ 24-35). Having first
established (§§ 1-14) with convincing clearness that the son of Stratocles
was excluded by law from the succession, Isaeus elaborates a dilemma. If
the boy had no legal right to the estate of Hagnias II, what conceivable
motive could there be for promising him half of it? If on the other hand he
had a legal right, the proper remedy was not a criminal action. Why did
he not make an application to the Archon claiming from Theopompus half
the property? Why did he not sue Theopompus for damages or for breach
of contract? The excuse that a ward might not bring a suit against his
guardian had not been proved and could not be proved. This is a pretty
piece of logic, but its effect on the reader is neutralised by his knowledge of
Theopompus' roguery. However, it satisfied the judges, and after all the
son of Stratocles had no more right to the estate than his uncle. That
Theopompus was acquitted is a legitimate inference from the silence of
Sositheus in [Dem.] 43, who would not have failed to expatiate on a public
verdict damaging to the reputation of his enemy.
In expression, arrangement of matter, and strenuous reasoning the 11th
speech displays a technical power comparable with the mature art of
Demosthenes. Fluent narrative, artless simplicity, appeals to sentiment
were not in keeping with the situation of the speaker and the tale he had
to unfold. Theopompus was able to undertake the rôle of the strong man
conscious of his strength, asking for no pity, but nerved to conquer a hostile
audience by sheer force of facts and logic. The opening is so unconventional
that some critics have suspected a lacuna in the MS. Disdaining an exordium
the orator begins abruptly by reading the law of succession. After pointing
out that the terms of the law do not admit the son of Stratocles, he calls up
the prosecutor for cross-examination and shows that he is unable to state in
what legal degree the boy is related to Hagnias II, and therefore at the
outset stands self-condemned as a false accuser (§§ 1-6). In a tone of
virtuous indignation the defendant announces that he will set forth his own
relationship to Hagnias II and demonstrate to the satisfaction of all his
absolute right to the inheritance and the groundlessness of the claims of all
his opponents (§ 7). The narrative (§§ 8—19) is a masterpiece of adroitness.
Theopompus is walking on quicksands, but by dexterous play with an
ambiguity of phrase, by economy of truth and suppression of genealogical
details, by sliding from exposition into renewed onslaughts (§§ 11-14) on
the bad title of his ward and the shamelessness of the prosecutor, he
contrives to cloak the fact that he was himself excluded by the very law
which he invokes against his opponent. This proof that the nephew was not
in the legal line and that his uncle was rightful heir, clears the ground for
OR. XI.
677
INTRODUCTION
the refutation (§§ 20—36) of the definite charges concerning the compact
with Stratocles and the promise to Stratocles' son. The remainder of the
speech (§§ 36-50) deals with invidious side-issues. To dispel the prejudices
excited by the accuser Theopompus engages to establish that compared with
his deceased brother he is a poor man, and that his good management as
guardian is increasing the wealth of his ward. The conclusion is lost, the
speech, as we have it, breaking off before the first of these two topics is
finished.
The date can be determined approximately from a deposition preserved
in [Dem.] 43. 31, which states that Phylomache won the estate of Hagnias
ἐπὶ Νικοφήμου ἄρχοντος, i.e. in 361/o B.C. Schoemann fixes on 360 B.C.,
allowing only one year for the events between the victory of Phylomache
and the denunciation of Theopompus. Blass (Att. Ber.² 11. p. 566) justly
considers a longer interval desirable, and would bring the speech down to
359 B.C. or 358 B.C. It was once the fashion among scholars to stamp
indiscriminately with the brand of forgery all documents inserted in the
works of the Attic orators, but after protracted controversy soberer views
seem now to be winning the day; see the careful and temperate discussion
of the subject by Drerup, Ueber die bei den attischen Rednern eingelegten
Urkunden, Jahrbb. f. cl. Philol. Supplementbd 24, 1898, p. 223–365. A.
Schaefer, who died before the reaction, used Isaeus to demonstrate the
spuriousness of the deposition in Pseudo-Demosthenes (Demosthenes u. s.
Zeit 111. Beilage p. 234/5). In the first place he asserted that the death of
Hagnias (§ 8) might have taken place in the last years of the Peloponnesian
war or in the Corinthian war 'but hardly in the times of the Boeotian war.'
Blass (Att. Ber.² 11. p. 566 n. 6) pertinently asks, Why not between 378 and
371 B.C.?
Hagnias' adopted daughter may have held the estate for 10 or 12
years. A second argument is drawn from Isaeus' account (§ 48) of the end
of Macartatus, brother-in-law of Theopompus. It was matter of notoriety,
we are told, that Macartatus sold his land, bought and equipped a trireme,
and sailed to Crete; his adventure threatened to involve Athens in war with
Sparta and was subject of discussion in the Assembly. Schaefer concludes
that this war in Crete, about which nothing is known, must fall in a period
when the Spartans were powerful at sea as well as on land, and consequently
before the Athenians recovered their naval supremacy, i.e. before 378 B.C.
Logically this conclusion is unsound, because Spartan ambassadors might
have complained of the depredations of an Athenian privateer (§ 48. 6 n.),
even if Sparta possessed no fleet at all. But Athens was at war with Sparta
from 378 B.C. to 371 B.C., and was allied with Sparta from 369 B.C. to 362 B.C.,
and it is improbable that during the duel with Thebes Sparta intervened in a
Cretan broil as she did soon after the end of the Sacred war in 346 B.C.
(Diod. 16. 62, Schaefer, op. cit. 11.² p. 362). Further, a speech Hepì ηµikλnpiov
τῶν Μακαρτάτου χρημάτων is attributed by Harpocration (s. vv. Προσπάλτιοι,
σɩñúa) to Lysias, none of whose unquestioned works is later than 380 B.C.
It is certainly impossible to prove that the Macartatus of Lysias' speech is
Macartatus son of Apolexis. of Prospalta, whose sister married Theopompus,
but I believe that Sauppe (Or. Att. II. p. 196) and Schaefer are right in
accepting the identification, first suggested by Hoelscher. This admission
σιπ
2
678
OR. XI.
ISAEUS
however does not dispose of the document in [Dem.] 43. 31. Again it may
be asked (Blass, Att. Ber.2 II. l. c.), Why cannot we suppose that the ex-
pedition of Macartatus took place 20 years before the present speech
(§ 49. 8, 9 n.)?
HYPOTHESIS.
I ȧveous Toλoús, an error; Eubulides II through his mother Phylo-
mache I claimed to be a first cousin (VII. 22. 5 N.) of Hagnias, but
Theopompus, Stratocles, and Stratius II made no pretensions to this
relationship.
3 θετήν. Cp. III. 69. 5 n.
6 ἐπὶ τούτοις αὐτοῦ τελευτήσαντος, cum obiisset his heredibus relictis
(Schoemann).
12, 13 Sử ÉTTɩTρóπoυ. The phrase does not exactly fit the facts; for the
guardian, though moving in the interest of the ward, brought the action in
his own name. In place of the Ms. reading πρὸς αὐτὸν δὲ ἐπιτρόπου τινὸς
υἱὸς Thalheim suggests μᾶλλον δὲ ἐπίτροπός τις τοῦ υἱέος.
I accept Schoe-
mann's explanation of the corruption: librarii, cum di' in dè mutassent
(Crit. Introd. p. xlvii), πpòs avròv autem, fortassis pro рòs тоÛтоν margini
adscriptum, inseruissent post dıkáčetai, viòs ipsi addiderunt ad explendam
scilicet orationem.
π
15 ή στάσις πραγματική. Cp. x. hyp. 35 n. The appropriateness of this
classification may be questioned.
1-7 I have had the laws read to you, because my adversary falsely
contends that by the first of them the boy has a right to a moiety of the estate.
The language of the legislator is concise, but his intention is plainly this: the
law calls to the succession first the brothers of the deceased by the same father
and the children of those brothers, secondly, on failure of such brothers, his
sisters by the same father and their children, thirdly, on failure of these also,
his cousins on the father's side and their children, finally, if these too fail, his
kindred on the mother's side, who inherit in the same order as his kindred on
the father's side. Now, if the prosecutor can prove that this boy is related to
Hagnias in any of the degrees mentioned, I willingly grant that half the
estate belongs to him. But, if he cannot prove it, will he not be clearly
convicted of caluminating me and seeking to delude you? I will therefore
bring him up to the bar, and interrogate him point by point, as the articles of
the law are read by the officer. Laws. Interrogatories. You observe, judges,
that he cannot give a plain and straightforward answer to any question.
The brazen-faced fellow has produced no witnesses, taken no oath, cited no
law, and expects you, who have sworn to decide according to the laws, to
condemn me against the laws. I will not imitate such conduct, but will state
my relationship and the grounds on which I have a right to the inheritance,
and will demonstrate to your satisfaction that both this boy and all the other
claimants who contended against me for the estate are outside the succession.
It is necessary to tell the story from the beginning.
The abrupt beginning led Taylor to conclude that something was lost,
and Reiske seems to share his suspicion. Schoemann aptly quotes Quint.
OR. XI.
679
COMMENTARY
2. 13. 5 prooemium necessarium an superuacuum...causae docebunt, and
remarks that Theopompus' opening suited the circumstances and was likely
to arrest the attention of the judges. Isaeus was a man of business, who
had no need of Quintilian's warnings against formalism (2. 13. 8 expedit
saepe mutare ex illo constituto traditoque ordine aliqua). It will be con-
venient to repeat here the law which Isaeus is interpreting to the court,
although the more important clauses have been already quoted and discussed;
see VI. 47. 2, 3 n., VII. 18—26 analysis, 20. 6, 7 n., 22. 5 n.; I follow as closely
as possible the MSS. Οστις ἂν μὴ διαθέμενος ἀποθάνῃ, ἐὰν μὲν παῖδας καταλίπῃ
θηλείας, σὺν ταύτῃσιν, ἐὰν δὲ μή, τούσδε κυρίους εἶναι τῶν χρημάτων· ἐὰν [δὲ]
ἀδελφοὶ ὦσιν ὁμοπάτορες· καὶ ἐὰν παῖδες ἐξ ἀδελφῶν γνήσιοι, τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς
μοῖραν λαγχάνειν· ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀδελφοὶ ὦσιν ἢ ἀδελφῶν παῖδες, < ἀδελφὰς
ὁμοπατρίας καὶ παῖδας > ἐξ αὐτῶν κατὰ ταὐτὰ λαγχάνειν· κρατεῖν δὲ τοὺς ἄρρενας
καὶ τοὺς ἐκ τῶν ἀρρένων, ἐὰν ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν ὦσι, καὶ ἐὰν γένει ἀπωτέρω· ἐὰν δὲ
μὴ ὦσι πρὸς πατρὸς μέχρι ἀνεψιῶν ἀνεψιαδῶν libri : corr. Wesseling) παίδων,
τοὺς πρὸς μητρὸς τοῦ ἀνδρὸς κατὰ ταὐτὰ κυρίους εἶναι· ἐὰν δὲ μηδετέρωθεν ᾖ (ἦν
libri : corr. Reiske) ἐντὸς τούτων, τὸν πρὸς πατρὸς ἐγγυτάτω κύριον εἶναι. νόθῳ
δὲ μηδὲ νόθῃ μὴ εἶναι ἀγχιστείαν μήθ᾽ ἱερῶν μήθ᾽ ὁσίων, ἀπ᾿ Εὐκλείδου ἄρχοντος
([Dem.] 43. 51). Useful summaries of the principal difficulties of this
valuable document will be found in Thalheim-Hermann, Gr. Rechtsaltert.*
p. 64, and Drerup, Ueber die bei den attischen Rednern eingelegten Urkunden,
Jahrbb. f. cl. Philol. Supplementbd 24, 1898, p. 280 sqq.
1. 2 ἀνέγνων. It must not be supposed either that Theopompus had
encroached on the duties of the clerk and actually read the laws himself, or
that αναγιγνώσκω can mean I get read. The expression is inaccurate, but
intelligible and not uncommon; compare VIII. 34. 6, Dem. 18. 267 φέρε δὴ καὶ
τὰς τῶν λῃτουργιῶν μαρτυρίας ὑμῖν ἀναγνῶ...Λέγε τὰς μαρτυρίας, 21. 1ο βούλομαι
τοίνυν ὑμῖν καὶ τὸν ἑξῆς ἀναγνῶναι νόμον. Λέγε τὸν νόμον, 19. 187, 297, 21. 130,
23. 115, 24. 27, 48, 45. 34, 42, [Dem.] 47. 82, 48. 11, And. 1. 25, 47. Contrast
[Dem.] 50. 57 βούλομαι δ᾽ ὑμῖν καὶ τὸν νόμον ἀναγνωσθῆναι, Dem. 24. 51 περὶ
τοῦδ᾽ ὃν νῦν ἀνέγνω, [Dem.] 59. 53 τὸν μὲν τοίνυν νόμον ἀνέγνω ὑμῖν. In
Aesch. I. 22 MSS. vary between ἀνέγνω and ἀνέγνων, in Dein. 20. 27 αναγνώ‐
σεται is corrected in t to ἀναγνώσομαι, in [Dem.] 47. 73 Bekker reads
ἀναγνώσομαι after Σ, Blass αναγνώσεται after Q.
2, 3 κατὰ τὸν πρῶτον αὐτῶν. The reference is to the clauses ἐὰν ἀδελφοὶ
ὦσιν ὁμοπάτορες· καὶ ἐὰν παῖδες ἐξ ἀδελφῶν γνήσιοι, τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς μοῖραν
λαγχάνειν. The prosecutor must have divorced these sentences from their
context, and argued that the moiety of the estate (τὸ ἡμικλήριον) was the
share of the boy's father (ἡ τοῦ πατρὸς μοῖρα). But it is plainly not the
intention of the statute to extend the principle of representation to all
descendants of first cousins, whatever reasons may be urged against the
equity of such an interpretation. The son of a first cousin of the deceased
does not transmit his rights to his children (VII. 22. 5 12.).
4 nîv, 'to my brother and myself'; cp. VII. 37. 3 N., XII. I. I N.
7 <Tò> Yévos, not 'degree' but 'stock'; cp. IV. 16. 2 n., Plat. Laws
924 Ε ὡσαύτως δὲ τὸ γένος ἀεὶ πορευέσθω κατ᾽ ἀγχιστείαν, ἐάν τις παῖδας θηλείας
καταλίπῃ, δι᾿ ἀδελφῶν τε καὶ ἀδελφιδῶν ἐπανιόν, ἔμπροσθε μὲν τῶν ἀρρένων,
ὕστερον δὲ θηλειῶν <ἐν> ἑνὶ γένει.
680
OR. XI.
ISAEUS
K
2. 2, 3 τρίτῳ γένει δίδωσι τὴν ἀγχιστείαν, ἀνεψιοῖς πρὸς πατρὸς κ.τ.λ.
Unfortunately at this critical point there is a lacuna in the document
preserved in [Dem.] 43. If any confidence could be placed in the good
faith of Isaeus, we should of course accept in substance the supplement
proposed in 1813 by Bunsen, De hereditario iure Atheniensium p. 29 n. 65:
ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀδελφοὶ ὦσιν ἢ ἀδελφῶν παῖδες, <ἀδελφὰς καὶ παῖδας ἐξ αὐτῶν
λαγχάνειν· ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀδελφαὶ ὦσιν ἢ παῖδες ἐξ αὐτῶν, ἀνεψιοὺς καὶ παῖδας> ἐξ
αὐτῶν κατὰ ταὐτὰ λαγχάνειν. According to this restoration the paternal uncles
and aunts of the deceased were excluded by their own children and grand-
children. But elsewhere Isaeus uses arguments which are not consistent
with such a rule. In I. 45 it is implied that maternal uncles of the deceased
had a right of succession, and in 111. 63–71 he actually contends that a
brother of Pyrrhus' mother could have lawfully claimed the hand of Pyrrhus'
daughter and heiress (éπíkλnpos). Plato, a better authority, in regulating the
devolution of an èñíkλŋpos (Laws 924 E) puts in the 4th place the paternal
uncle of the deceased, in the 5th the son of the paternal uncle of the
deceased, in the 6th a male descendant (exyovos) of the paternal aunt of
the deceased. It is therefore now generally believed that paternal uncles
and aunts of the deceased ranked before first cousins and children of first
cousins. Were they also mentioned by name in the law? Lipsius (Att.
Proc.² p. 584 n. 273) answers in the affirmative, and offers the following
reconstruction: ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀδελφοὶ ὦσιν ἢ ἀδελφῶν παῖδες, < ἀδελφὰς ὁμοπατρίας
καὶ παῖδας ἐξ αὐτῶν λαγχάνειν· ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀδελφαὶ ὦσιν ἢ παῖδες ἐξ αὐτῶν,
ἀδελφοὺς τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ἀδελφὰς καὶ παῖδας> ἐξ αὐτῶν κατὰ ταὐτὰ λαγχάνειν.
He considers that in this passage Isaeus was not aiming at an exhaustive
enumeration: die Nichterwähnung (des Oheims) in Isaios Paraphrase des
Gesetzes kann man damit rechtfertigen, dass es dem Redner nicht auf
Vollständigkeit in der Aufzählung ankam. Other scholars (VII. 22. 5 n.
maintain that the rights of paternal uncles and aunts and the rights of first
cousins and the children of first cousins were not recognised in express
terms, but only implied in the statement of the limit of the paternal line: éàv
δὲ μὴ ὦσι πρὸς πατρὸς μέχρι ἀνεψιῶν παίδων. Drerup, the most recent
adherent of this opinion, relies on two arguments. (1) To read ådeλpovs
τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ἀδελφὰς καὶ παῖδας ἐξ αὐτῶν κατὰ ταὐτὰ λαγχάνειν is to put
paternal uncles and aunts with their descendants on precisely the same
footing as brothers and sisters of the deceased on the father's side with their
descendants, whereas the principle of representation in infinitum applied to
the second class, but not to the first. I do not feel confident that the law
sanctioned unlimited representation in the case of descendants of brothers
and sisters of the deceased on the father's side (see Beauchet III. p. 503 sqq.).
But, however this may be, the words that follow, µéxpi åveyiŵv maidwv, make
it plain that representation in infinitum was not permitted in the line of
descendants of the paternal grandfather of the deceased (VII. 22. 5 N.).
(2) If after mentioning brothers and sisters of the deceased on the father's
side the law went on to specify brothers and sisters of the father of the
deceased with their children, what motive had Isaeus for describing the
'3rd stock' as 'cousins and children of cousins'? The answer is simple.
Here, as in § 11. 5, he was afraid of injuring his case. Theopompus and
OR. XI.
681
COMMENTARY
Stratocles were second cousins of the deceased, descendants, not of Hagnias I
the grandfather of Hagnias II, but of Buselus the great-grandfather of
Hagnias II, while their rival Phylomache II claimed to be the grand-
daughter of Phylomache I, full sister of Polemon father of Hagnias II.
These are facts which Isaeus wished to keep out of sight. I am therefore
disposed to concur with Lipsius' treatment of this delicate question.
T
4 [εἰς] τὸ γένος, πάλιν ἐπανέρχεται. I agree with Schoemann that no
tolerable sense can be extracted from the reading and punctuation of the
MS., and have adopted his remedy. The alternative is Reiske's eis Tò
<πрŵтоν> yévos, approved by Sir W. Jones ('The law returns to the first
degree'); when represented by ā, πрŵτоv was liable to omission; see
Crit. Introd. p. xlvi, vIII. 6. 8, Dobree, Adv. 1. p. 419, II. p. 285, Bast,
Commentatio palaeographica p. 850. Grasshoff (De successione ab intestato
p. 10 n. 31) imagines that he has cleared up the difficulty by giving the
following translation: si etiam tertia linea propinquitatis defecerit, ad lineam
directam lex redit et ad hereditatem uocat cognatos a matre. He explains
'linea directa' by 'Hauptlinie, Stammlinie' (VII. 33) i.e. ascendants and
descendants, and apparently has in mind the mother herself, of whose right
of succession he is a champion (ib. p. 79). The Zürich editors, Scheibe,
Buermann, Thalheim follow the MS. but do not explain their text.
Ὁ αὐτῶν, i.e. τῶν χρημάτων ; see III. 48. 4 n.
3. I, 2
ταύτας ποιεῖ τὰς ἀγχιστείας μόνας. Seeliger, who attacks the law
in [Dem.] 43. 51 as a forgery (Rhein. Mus. 31, 1876, p. 176—182), fastens
on the word μóvas, which he considers evidence of the spuriousness of the
clause ἐὰν δὲ μηδετέρωθεν ᾗ ἐντὸς τούτων, τὸν πρὸς πατρὸς ἐγγυτάτω κύριον
eivai. An answer will be found in Drerup, op. cit. p. 284 sqq.; cp. also VII.
22.7 n.
2 συντομωτέρως τοῖς ῥήμασιν ἢ ἐγὼ φράζω. Reiske and Naber (Mnem.
N. S. 5, 1877, p. 419) prefer opálov. But see Schwab, Syntax d. gr. Com-
paration p. 247. For the comparative consult Blass-Kühner, Gr. Gramm. 1.
§ 158 n. 1, p. 577, Schmid, Der Atticismus I. p. 275, II. p. 129, IV. p. 194,
Crönert, Memoria Graeca Herculanensis p. 193. Isocrates is rich in these
forms, showing ἀθυμοτέρως (4. 116), ἀπειροτέρως (12. 37), ἀπορωτέρως (4. 109),
βεβαιοτέρως (8. 60), ἐνδεεστέρως (16. 35), ερρωμενεστέρως (2. 14, 4. 163, 172,
15. 278), εὐλογωτέρως (6. 28), εὐμενεστέρως (4. 43), καταδεεστέρως (12. 37),
κομψοτέρως (15. 195), μειζόνως (9. 21, ΙΙ. 24), νεαρωτέρως (12. 229), περιττο-
τέρως (3. 44), φιλοτιμοτέρως (13. 15), φρονιμωτέρως (13. 15). They are
sparingly used by other orators; Antiphon has aπорwтéρws (Tetr. II. B. 1),
κρεισσόνως (Tetr. III. δ. 6), σαφεστέρως (Tetr. II. β. 5), ὑποδεεστέρως (Tetr. III.
8. 6), Pseudo-Andocides apavoµwтépws (4. 22 ex emend. Reisk.), Demosthenes
ἐχθροτέρως (5. 18), εὐνοϊκωτέρως (51. 2), Pseudo-Demosthenes ἐνδεεστέρως
(12. 12), Isaeus álvµotépws (Poll. 2. 230), πраotépws ( fr. 133 Saupp.), Aeschines
ἐμπειροτέρως (Ι. 82), ἐνδεεστέρως (3. 260). In Andocides, Lysias, Lycurgus,
Hypereides, Dinarchus I have noted no examples. Kohm proposes kooμiw-
τέρως for κοσμιωτέρους in [Lys.] 15. 9 (ὑπὲρ τῶν παρεληλυθότων ὀλίγους
τιμωρησάμενοι πολλοὺς ποιήσετε κοσμιωτέρους ἐν τοῖς μέλλουσι κινδυνεύειν).
In Isocr. 3. 18 (ἢν καὶ τὴν φύσιν καταδεεστέραν ἔχωσιν) Cobet demands
KaTadEEσTÉρws. In Anaximenes, Ars Rhet. c. 36 (Rh. Gr. I. p. 86, 5 Hammer),
682
OR. XI.
ISAEUS
where the MSS. have εἴ που τῶν ἀντιδίκων καταδεεστέρους (καταδὲ ἑτέρους Μ)
ἔχει, the third Basel edition of Aristotle (1550) restored the adverb.
5 ἔξω τῆς συγγενείας ἐστίν, a loose use of words, for συγγένεια is a wider
term than άyxioreía and embraces relations outside the privileged circles.
Schoemann suggests a transposition (προσήκει τῇ συγγενείᾳ as in § 1o. 8, and
ἔξω τῆς ἀγχιστείας as in §§ 7, 9, 30). Buermann would read ἔξω <ταύτης>
τῆς συγγενείας (VII. 20. 3, 4). The same laxity appears in Plat. Laws 925 Β
τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει ὄντων ἔξω τῆς συγγενείας, where the reference is not to persons
unconnected with the family, but to relations who have no legal right to the
hand of an ἐπίκληρος.
4. 3, 4 ἀναβιβασάμενος οὖν αὐτὸν ἐναντίον ὑμῶν ἐρωτήσω. The law allowed
a speaker to cross-question his opponent ([Dem.] 46. 1ο NOΜΟΣ. τοῖν ἀντι-
δίκοιν ἐπάναγκες εἶναι ἀποκρίνασθαι ἀλλήλοις τὸ ἐρωτώμενον, μαρτυρεῖν δὲ μή,
Ar. Ach. 687/8 κατ᾽ ἀνελκύσας ἐρωτᾷ, σκανδάληθρ᾽ ἱστὰς ἐπῶν, | ἄνδρα Τιθωνὸν
σπαράττων καὶ ταράττων καὶ κυκῶν, Aesch. Εum. 589 ἔπος δ᾽ ἀμείβου πρὸς ἔπος
ἐν μέρει τιθείς). Examples of these interrogations, which do not seem a very
formidable ordeal, are found in Lys. 12. 24 sqq., 22. 5. In Lys. 13. 30, 32 the
questions and answers are not preserved, and the lemma ΕΡΩΤΗΣΙΣ was first
inserted by the writer of C, in And. 1. 101, Din. 1. 83, Plat. Apol. 24 C sqq.
they are a rhetorical device and do not represent a real examination. How
much more searching and elaborate were the interrogatio testium and the
altercatio of Roman procedure, may be gathered from the precepts of
Quintilian (5. 7. 26 sqq., 6. 4). See Volkmann, Rhetorik2 p. 189 sqq.
7 ἀνάβηθι δεύρο. Cp. VII. 1ο. 6 n., Hyp. fr. 115 Blass ἀπόκριναί μοι,
Ερμεία, ὥσπερ κάθη.
5. 3 πρὸς μητρὸς ἢ πρὸς πατρός, probably meant to qualify every term of
relationship mentioned in the sentence.
4, 5 καὶ ὅπως μὴ...ἐρεῖς. For the range of this construction in the orators
see Goodwin M. & T. § 271 sqq., and Sandys on Dem. 4. 20, 8. 38. Pro-
hibitions in the 2nd person are found in Dem. 19. 46, 92, 21. 216, exhortations
in the 2nd person in Dem. 19. 45, 21. 216, 41. 17, prohibitions in the 3rd
person in Lys. I. 21, 12. 50, [Dem.] 13. 14, Ep. 1. 14, an exhortation in the
3rd person in Dem. 8. 38. The idiom is colloquial; there are more examples
in Aristophanes than in the whole body of Attic prose.
1ο τῆς ἀγχιστείας, ὅ τι ὁ παῖς ῾Αγνίᾳ προσήκει, το γένος εἰπεῖν. What is
the construction ? In the opinion of Dobree (Adv. I. p. 309), who is
following Reiske's hints, the right analysis is either δεῖ σε τὸ γένος εἰπεῖν,
ὅ τι τῆς ἀγχιστείας ὁ παῖς ῾Αγνίᾳ προσήκει, οι δεῖ σε εἰπεῖν ὅ τι τῆς ἀγχιστείας
ὁ παῖς ῾Αγνίᾳ προσήκει (κατὰ) τὸ γένος. I do not believe that an Attic orator
would have said ὅ τι τῆς ἀγχιστείας ὁ παῖς προσήκει, a phrase much harsher
than ὅ τι προσήκει τουτωνὶ τῶν εἰρημένων (§ 3); compare §§ 3 οὐδὲ καθ᾽ ἓν
τούτων τῶν ὀνομάτων ῾Αγνίᾳ προσήκει τῇ ἀγχιστείᾳ, 19 ὅ τι ὁ παῖς ῾Αγνίᾳ
προσήκει κατ᾿ ἀγχιστείαν, 25 εἰ δὲ μὴ προσῆκεν αὐτοῖς τῆς ἀγχιστείας μηδέν.
The singularity of the combination τὸ γένος τῆς ἀγχιστείας (cp. I. 37 εἴτε διὰ
τὴν τοῦ γένους ἀγχιστείαν δεῖ γενέσθαι τινὰς κληρονόμους, [Dem.] 44. 11 ἡ τοῦ
γένους ἀγχιστεία τοῦ ἡμετέρου, ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ὁ κλῆρος), at which Reiske and Dobree
took offence, vanishes in the ordinary translations (gradus cognationis, Grad
der Verwandtschaft, degré de proximité, grado di parentela, degree of relation-
ע:
OR. XI.
683
COMMENTARY
ship). I suspect the text, and suggest τîj ảyxioteiḍ (tîi ȧyxioteíaɩ, VIII. 30. 3,
4n.), and <καὶ> τὸ γένος κ.τ.λ.
Cp. IX. 24. 9 n.
6. 4, 5 διόμνυσθαι.
Schoemann (Att. Proc.² p. 825
n. 178) argues that Theopompus is alluding to the ordinary åvτwµoơía
(IX. 34. I n.), the gist of his complaint being that a precise statement of
the relationship of the boy to Hagnias II was not incorporated in the charge
to which the prosecutor was required to swear at the preliminary proceedings.
Ott, Beiträge zur Kenntniss des griechischen Eides pp. 85/6, disagrees and
says that what is meant is not the avτwμooia but the oath as a means of
proof (XII. 9. 3, 4 n.).
7, 8 δέδωκεν...παρέσχετο...ὤμοσεν... ἀνέγνωκεν. The interchange of aorist
and perfect is due to a desire for variety. By introducing edwkev and ȧvéyvw
For this
Naber (Mnem. N. S. 5, 1877, p. 419) wipes out a touch of art.
combination of tenses Weber on Dem. 23. 178 quotes Dem. 9. 26, 71; 19. 18,
72, 206, 260; 20. 3; 21. 126, 192; 23. 181; [Dem.] 7. 29, Isocr. 8. 19, 18. 20,
Lys. 25. 12 (where Scheibe and Thalheim restore uniformity by changing
Étpinpάpxnσa to teтpiŋpáρxnka); add Aesch. 1. 20, Din. I. 9, 24, 96, 104, 111,
II. 20, Dobree, Adv. I. p. 177.
1ο τὴν εἰσαγγελίαν. Cp. § 15 οὗτος ὁ νῦν ἐμὲ εἰσαγγέλλων. In §§ 28, 31,
32, 35 γραφή is used. See Harp. s.v. εἰσαγγελία· Ισαῖος μέντοι περὶ τοῦ ῾Αγνίου
(αὐτοῦ libri: corr. Valesius) κλήρου τὸ αὐτὸ πρᾶγμα εἰσαγγελίαν καὶ γραφὴν
ὠνόμασεν, [Dem.] 58. 32 προσκαλεσάμενος τὸν Πολύευκτον ἀποφέρει γραφὴν κατ'
αὐτοῦ κακώσεως πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα, ᾿Αθ. Πολ. 56. 6 γραφαὶ δὲ καὶ δίκαι λαγχά
νονται πρὸς αὐτὸν τὸν ἄρχοντα)...γονέων κακώσεως... ὀρφανῶν κακώσεως...
ἐπικλήρου κακώσεως...οἴκου ὀρφανικοῦ κακώσεως.
>
8-14 I and Hagnias and Eubulides and Stratocles and Stratius the
brother of Hagnias mother were sprung from cousins. Hagnias before
sailing on a mission in the interests of his country made a will adopting a
niece and, in the event of her death, bequeathing his effects to Glaucon,
a uterine brother. Time passed, Eubulides and Hagnias adopted daughter
died, and Glaucon took the estate in virtue of the will. We respected
Hagnias' wishes and did not contest the testament, but the daughter of
Eubulides and her confederates claimed the estate and defeated the claimants
under the will; she was not in the legal line of succession, but apparently
hoped that we should not oppose her because we had not disputed the testa-
ment. Thereupon, since the inheritance was now open to the next-of-kin, we,
i.e. Stratius, Stratocles, and myself, all prepared to claim, but before our
suits were brought, Stratius and Stratocles died, leaving me the only cousin's
child on the father's side and the only lawful heir, after the failure of all
those in the same degree as myself. To prove that I alone was entitled to the
property and that the issue of Stratocles and Stratius was excluded, it will
suffice to read the law. Law. You hear, judges, that after us the law does
not give the inheritance to our children, but to the kindred on the mother's
side. Thus this boy has not the shadow of a title. Is not then my opponent
an iniquitous calumniator? Instead of joining issue with me, when I insti-
tuted my suit for the estate, he now harasses me in the boy's name and brings
me into the greatest peril! He does not accuse me of misappropriating any
of the property which admittedly belongs to my ward, but impudently trumps
684
OR. XI.
ISAEUS
up a serious prosecution in respect of property which you have voted to be
mine!
The prevarications and false colouring of this story are examined in
detail in the notes.
8.2 Στρατίος ὁ τῆς ῾Αγνίου μητρὸς ἀδελφός. With the majority of critics
I regard Stratius II as the son of Phanostratus and Phanostratus as the son
of Stratius I, accepting in [Dem.] 43. 22 the reading of A Pavóσrpatos—Σ and
the rest have Davoσtpárη—and in [Dem.] 43. 42 the emendation Pavóσтpatov
τὸν Στρατίου πατέρα in place of Φανοστράτην τὴν Στρατίου θυγατέρα, which is
in all the MSS. The arguments for this view are stated in Schoemann's
commentary, p. 448 n. 2, and by Drerup, op. cit. pp. 330/1. The other side
is championed by Thalheim, Hermes 38, 1903, p. 465, who defends the
feminine name in both passages, and in the pedigree given in his edition
(p. xxxvii) treats the father of Stratius II as unknown. The name indicates
that ‘the brother of the mother of Hagnias' was a grandson of Stratius I.
4 ἀνεψιοὶ ἐκ πατραδέλφων. Cp. IV. 23. 7 π.
4, 5 ὅτε ἐκπλεῖν παρεσκευάζετο πρεσβεύσων. Cp. Introd. p. 677. All that
is known of this mission is contained in an article of Harpocration s.v. ´Ayvías ·
Ἰσαῖος ἐν τῷ πρὸς Εὐκλείδην περὶ χωρίου. τοῦτον καὶ τοὺς συμπρεσβευτὰς αὐτοῦ
φησὶν Ανδροτίων ἐν έ' τῆς ᾿Ατθίδος καὶ Φιλόχορος ὡς ἑάλωσάν τε καὶ ἀπέθανον ὑπὸ
Aakedaiμovíwv. Since the embassy seems to have been sent in the closing
years of the Theban war (378-371 B.C.), I venture to suggest that its object
may have been to detach Dionysius I from the Lacedaemonians (VI. I. 4,
5 12.). The allusion to Hagnias' capture and execution in the words at Ty
πόλει (but not to Hagnias himself) συμφερόντως εἶχον (ἔσχον would not
escape contemporaries familiar with the whole story.
•
6 eixov. Dobree's emendation eoxov, quae bene illo gerente uerterunt
(Adv. I. p. 309), is very probable; cp. C.I.A. 11. 85, 7 sqq. (as restored by
Larfeld, Handbuch d. gr. Epigraphik 11. p. 937) őtɩ 'Ettiké]pdns ó Kvpnvaî[os
ἐποίησεν ἃ συνήνε]γκεν ᾿Αθηναίοις. For the confusion of εἶχον and ἔσχον see
I. 18. 6 12., Aesch. 1. 54, 64, Rh. Gr. 1. p. 256, 4 Hammer, Dem. 57. 25
(παρείχετο Α, παρέσχετο Σ).
7, 8 ἐποιήσατο θυγατέρα αὑτοῦ ἀδελφιδῆν. For θυγατροποιΐα see VII. 9.
5, 6 n. It is generally supposed that the niece was the only daughter of a
full sister of Hagnias II. In this case she was heir ab intestato, apart from
adoption, and even Eubulides II, if really, as he pretended, a first cousin of
Hagnias II-to say nothing of the 2nd cousins Theopompus, Stratocles, and
Stratius II- was not the nearest relative of Hagnias II and would not have
inherited his property, if he had left no will. But the niece may have been
the child of a half-sister or even of one of the half-brothers Glaucon or
Glaucus (Grasshoff, De successione ab intestato p. 39 n. 133); compare the
use of ådeàpidoûs in VII. 4, 35, 43, 45, and remember that it is Theopompus'
cue to keep in the background the rights of the maternal kindred of
Hagnias II. I acquiesce in the ordinary view that the niece was adopted
by will, not inter uiuos, but it should be observed that Isaeus' language is
equivocal, since ταῦτ᾽ ἐν διαθήκαις ἐνέγραψε may refer only to the bequest to
Glaucon. If the will of Hagnias II merely provided for the contingency of
the death of his adopted daughter before coming of age and marrying (III.
OR. XI.
685
COMMENTARY
40-44 analysis, [Dem.] 46. 24), it may not have been necessary to submit
it to a court when he died, so that, when the contingency arose, Eubulides II
(see § 9. 2 n.) could not be pressed by the question why he was now attacking
a testament, which had been sanctioned by judges 11 or 12 years before, and
which he himself had not ventured to challenge when it was first produced.
On the other hand, if the child was adopted inter uiuos, she was an éπíkλŋpos.
Was there an éidikaσía? If so, who were the competitors? Or did the
will specify who was to marry her, and who were to be her guardians
9 Γλαύκωνι τὰ ὄντα ἐδίδου. For didóval of testamentary gifts see III. 42.
2, 3 n., 60. 3 n. The account of Sositheus in [Dem.] 43, though very elastic,
cannot be stretched to correspond with the account of Theopompus. The
adopted daughter is not mentioned at all. In § 4 Sositheus says that the
daughter of Eubulides II was opposed by ‘Glaucus of Oeum and his brother
Glaucon,' who with the cooperation of Theopompus tried to palm off on the
judges a forged will, in § 7 he describes Glaucus as the principal party
(Γλαύκων καὶ Γλαῦκος ὁ ἡττηθεὶς τὸ πρότερον). The deposition in [Dem.]
43. 31 affirms that Phylomache the daughter of Eubulides defeated 'all her
opponents' (ἐνίκησε...τοῦ κλήρου τοῦ ῾Αγνίου τοὺς ἀμφισβητοῦντας αὐτῇ πάντας),
and Theopompus himself in §§ 9, 18 speaks of the claimants under the
will (τοὺς κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην ἀμφισβητήσαντας). Unluckily there is a cor-
ruption in the document preserved in [Dem.] 43. 43 ὁπότε (ὅτε ?) ἡ ἐπιδικασία
ἦν τοῦ κλήρου τοῦ ῾Αγνίου Εὐβουλίδῃ προσκλαίουσα. Schoemann pronounces
in favour of the definite assertion of Isaeus and restores πρὸς Γλαύκωνα.
9. 1 χρόνων δὲ διαγενομένων. Cp. 11. 10. 2 (χρόνου διαγενομένου), VI. 27.
3 n.
The interval between the first success of Phylomache II (in 361/0 B.C.
according to [Dem.] 43. 31) and the death of Hagnias II was more than
Io years, since Hagnias met his end before the peace concluded between
Athens and Sparta in 371 B.C. The plural xpóvwv may have been selected
to mark the succession of intervals between the several events recorded
(Plat. Tim. 22 D dià µakρŵv xpóvwv), but in prose, and especially in Demo-
sthenes, it is often hard to discover any difference of sense between xpóvos
and χρόνοι ; note Lys. 3. 39 χρόνοις ὕστερον, Dem. 36. 53 ἔτεσι καὶ χρόνοις
ὕστερον, 18. 15 τοσούτοις ὕστερον χρόνοις, 23. 94 εἰ τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ἄκυρον τοῖς
χρόνοις, 23. 173 ἐκπεπλευκότων δὲ τῶν πρέσβεων συμβαίνει τοῖς χρόνοις εἰς τοῦθ᾽
ὑπηγμένα ἤδη τὰ πράγματα, 9. 71, 23. 93, 36. 2, 37. 2, Aesch. 3. 221 χρόνων
ἐγγεγενημένων, Plut. Phoc. 3 ἡ Κάτωνος ἀρχαιοτροπία διὰ πολλῶν χρόνων ἐπιγε-
dià
νομένη, Per. 37 ἀκμάζων ἐν τῇ πολιτείᾳ πρὸ πάνυ πολλῶν χρόνων καὶ παῖδας ἔχων.
In many places the writer's choice seems to have been guided by a desire to
avoid hiatus, or even by an objection to a sequence of short syllables.
2 τελευτᾷ μὲν Εὐβουλίδης. The audience would inevitably infer from this
sentence that Eubulides II died before the adopted daughter of Hagnias II.
Sositheus does not give the date of the death of his father-in-law ([Dem.]
43. 55), but three of his witnesses (§§ 43—45) mention the fact that Eubulides
claimed the estate of Hagnias as next-of-kin (Kaтà yévos), and that no other
person at that time put forward a claim on this ground. Any one who is
anxious to whitewash Isaeus may contend either that the depositions in
[Dem.] 43 are forgeries, or that Eubulides II unsuccessfully assailed the
testament immediately after the decease of Hagnias II, the corruption
686
OR. XI.
ISAEUS
προσκλαίουσα in [Dem.] 43. 43 concealing the name of the adopted daughter.
I prefer the commonplace solution of the difficulty; see Introd. p. 672.
3 λαμβάνει δὲ τὸν κλῆρον Γλαύκων. If the will of Hagnias II had been
approved by the judges immediately after the testator's decease, it is con-
ceivable that on the death of the adopted daughter Glaucon at once entered
into occupation of the property without going again before a court, and was
then summoned by Eubulides II to disclose and defend his title. This is
the conclusion suggested by the words of Theopompus. The narrative of
Sositheus, though vague, leaves on my mind a different impression, that the
estate became vacant (ἔρημος, III. 61), and was claimed by the parties under
the ordinary rules; observe [Dem.] 43. 5 επιδημῶν τότε Θεόπομπος, τοῦ
κήρυκος κηρύττοντος, εἴ τις ἀμφισβητεῖν ἢ παρακαταβάλλειν βούλεται τοῦ κλήρου
τοῦ ῾Αγνίου ἢ κατὰ γένος ἢ κατὰ διαθήκας, οὐκ ἐτόλμησε παρακαταβαλεῖν, ἀλλ᾽
αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ ἐδίκασεν ὅτι οὐδαμόθεν αὐτῷ προσῆκεν τοῦ κλήρου τοῦ ῾Αγνίου.
4, 5 οὐδεπώποτ' ἠξιώσαμεν ἀμφισβητῆσαι πρὸς τὰς ἐκείνου διαθήκας κ.τ.λ.
The comments of Sositheus are not flattering to Theopompus. He declares
(§ 4) that Theopompus assisted Glaucus and Glaucon in hatching their
conspiracy (συγκατεσκεύαζεν ἅπαντα ταῦτα) and was their principal witness
(ἐμαρτύρει τὰς πλείστας μαρτυρίας), and argues that at the time he was afraid
to claim, because he had no legal right to the property. I believe Sositheus'
statement that Theopompus appeared as a witness on the side of Glaucon
and Glaucus. The circumstance clears up the mystery of his silence with
regard to their claims in §§ 16, 17. Isaeus despaired of dressing up a
passable explanation of Theopompus' change of front; it was indecent of
him to come forward at the second trial in opposition to men whom a short
time before he had assisted by his testimony.
7, 8 μετὰ τῶν αὐτῇ συμπραττόντων, without rhetoric μετὰ κυρίου τοῦ ἀνδρός
(§ 16. 5, 6 n.).
9, 10 ἔξω μὲν οὖσα τῆς ἀγχιστείας κ.τ.λ. If the contention of Phylomache II
was sound, she was nearest to Hagnias II in the legal line, and had no
occasion to fear the competition of second cousins such as Stratius II,
Theopompus, and his brother, for she claimed to be the child of a first
cousin of Hagnias II on the father's side (ἀνεψιοῦ παῖς ῾Αγνίου πρὸς πατρός,
[Dem.] 43. 26, 29, 32, 34, 49, 55, 61, 63); see § 17. 3, 4, and Introd. p. 672.
10. 3 παρεσκευαζόμεθα ἅπαντες λαγχάνειν. Drerup (op. cit. p. 329) is
sceptical with regard to the intentions of Stratius II and Stratocles, and it
is certain that Isaeus can lie here without risk of exposure and has a motive
for so doing. One of the points which Sositheus makes against Theopompus
is that he was the only second cousin of Hagnias II who put in a claim
([Dem.] 43. 20 ὄντες γὰρ ἐν ταὐτῷ γένει Θεοπόμπῳ καὶ προσήκοντες ὁμοίως
῾Αγνίᾳ, οὗ ἐστιν ὁ κλῆρος, οὐδεὶς αὐτῶν οὔτε πρότερον πώποτ᾽ οὔτε νῦν ἠνώχλησεν
ἡμῖν οὐδ᾽ ἐμφεσβήτησεν οὔτε τοῦ κλήρου τοῦ ῾Αγνίου οὔτε τῆς γυναικὸς τῆς
ἐπικλήρου, ἣν ἐγὼ ἔχω ἐπιδικασάμενος, ἡγούμενοι οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν προσήκειν ἑαυτοῖς
οὐδενὸς τῶν ῾Αγνίου).
3, 4 πρὶν γενέσθαι τὰς λήξεις τῶν δικῶν ἡμῖν. Compare for the dative
§ 22. 3, ΙΙΙ. 56. 2 n., for λαγχάνειν τὴν δίκην τοῦ κλήρου VII. 21. 2 n.
5, 6 μόνος τῶν πρὸς πατρὸς ὢν ἀνεψιοῦ παῖς. Here we have at last the
piece of jugglery with which Isaeus practised on the simplicity of a popular
OR. XI.
687
COMMENTARY
tribunal. Undoubtedly Hagnias II and Theopompus were children of first
cousins (§ 8. 3 é§ åveyiôv éoµev yeyovótes), but Theopompus was not the son
of the first cousin of Hagnias II (ἀνεψιοῦ παῖς ῾Αγνίου πρὸς πατρός), but the
son of the first cousin of the father of Hagnias II, and consequently had
no right to the privileges conceded by the law to ȧveiŵv maîdes. It is
astonishing that such a quibble should have won a man a fortune.
6 ἐγίγνετο. Cp. v. 44. 5 π.
7 távtwv tŵv äddwv ékdedolπótwv. Consult the pedigree p. 671. Hagnias I,
grandfather of Hagnias II, had four brothers, viz. Eubulides I, Stratius I,
Habron, and Cleocritus. Whether Cleocritus had descendants is not known.
The mother of the witness who deposes in [Dem.] 43. 37 may have been
daughter of a son of his. Habron had a grand-daughter (@vyatpidî), who
married Callistratus brother of Philagrus ([Dem.] 43. 73). The grand-
children of Stratius I were Stratius II and his sister the mother of Hagnias II
(§ 8. 2 n.), and on the other side Theopompus and his brother Stratocles.
Eubulides I had three sons, Philagrus the father of Eubulides II, Callistratus,
whose daughter married Sosias the father of Sositheus ([Dem.] 43. 74), and
Euctemon who attained to the office of King (Ευκτήμων ὁ βασιλεύσας,
depositions in [Dem.] 43. 42, 43). Now, when Eubulides II claimed the
estate of Hagnias II, Euctemon was still alive, but did not compete against
his nephew, who traced his rights not to Philagrus his father but to
Phylomache I his mother (ib.). Further, Philagrus married twice, first
Phylomache I mother of Eubulides II, secondly Telesippe, who bore him
a son, Menestheus. Menestheus also was alive, when Eubulides II claimed
the estate of Hagnias II, but, recognising that through his father Philagrus
he was only a second cousin of Hagnias II, he did not attempt to contest
the superior title of his half-brother Eubulides II (depositions in [Dem.] 43.
44, 45), who claimed to be a first cousin of Hagnias II. If, then, Theopompus
is speaking the truth, we must conclude that in the interval between the
two trials both Euctemon and Menestheus had died, and that Euctemon
had left no sons. Observe that in § 8 Menestheus is not mentioned by
Isaeus.
A.
11.2 ἀγχιστεία <ἦν >; ἀγχιστεύειν Α. I reject ἀγχιστεύειν not because it
is a åñaέ λeyóµevov (Scheibe, Comm. Crit. pp. 41/2), but in view of the sense
of the passage. The verb ἀγχιστεύω ought to mean ‘I am an ἀγχιστεύς
(Blass-Kühner, Gr. Gramm. II. p. 261, Rutherford, New Phrynichus p. 61).
What is the point of saying 'it was possible for me to be an ȧyxiσтeús'
instead of 'I was an ȧyxiσTEús'? I also agree with Gebauer (De arg. ex
contr. formis p. 135) that ἐμοὶ μὲν ἀγχιστεύειν (or ἀγχιστεία) without ἦν is
contrary to the usage of the orators.
3 ἐν οἷς οὗτος ὁ παῖς, «οὐκ > ἦν. The objection to the vulgate ἐν οἷς
oûтos ó πaîs ηv is the application of the past tense to the son of Stratocles, in
whose interest the present action is brought.
4, 5 εἶναι τὴν ἀγχιστείαν ἀνεψιοῖς πρὸς πατρὸς κ.τ.λ. For the provisions of
the law see § 2. 32. Why Isaeus here ignores the paternal uncles and aunts
of the deceased is manifest; the clause supplied by Lipsius (ådeλpovS TOÛ
toû
πατρὸς καὶ ἀδελφὰς καὶ παῖδας ἐξ αὐτῶν κ.τ.λ.) instantly exposes the fallacy of
the preceding section.
688
OR. XI.
ISAEUS
6 μεθ' ἡμᾶς. Theopompus quietly identifies his rights with those of the
ἀνεψιῶν παῖδες designated in the law.
7 τὸν νόμον. The law which follows in the Ms. has been constructed
from § 12 (Buermann, Rhein. Mus. 32, 1877, p. 364); the genuine form is
given in [Dem.] 43. 51 ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ὦσι πρὸς πατρὸς μέχρι ἀνεψιῶν (ἀνεψιαδῶν libri:
corr. Wesseling) παίδων, τοὺς πρὸς μητρὸς τοῦ ἀνδρὸς κατὰ ταὐτὰ κυρίους εἶναι.
12.3 ávejíadŵv. Cp. VII. 22. 5 n.
8 μηδ' εἰ καὶ τετελευτηκὼς ἦν ἐγώ. The combination μηδ᾽ εἰ καί is singular
and suspect; we expect μηδ' εἰ κἀγώ, ‘not even if I too were dead, like
Stratocles, Stratius II, and Eubulides II. Thalheim reads after Scheibe and
Sauppe μηδ' ἐὰν τετελευτηκότες ὦσιν οἷος ἐγώ.
9 ἐμοῦ τε ζώντος κ.τ.λ. The position of τε, which is condemned by
Dobree (Adv. I. p. 309), Schoemann (on VI. 2. 4), and Buermann (Hermes
19, 1884, p. 345), is defensible; misplacement by a copyist is not so likely
here as in II. I. 8, VI. 2. 4, VIII. I. 7. That the particle re is subject to
hyperbaton, cannot be denied, but there is no accepted criterion by which
mistakes of a MS. can be distinguished from anacolutha and irregularities of
expression. Gebauer (De arg. ex contr. formis p. 356 sqq.) is too conservative
and indiscriminate, but after sifting his collection we are left with a number
of examples of trajection of re, which resemble the present case, and are
generally allowed by editors; compare Plat. Prot. 325 B C ἐφ᾽ ὧν ἥ τε ζημία
θάνατος αὐτῶν τοῖς παισὶ καὶ φυγαὶ μὴ μαθοῦσι, καὶ πρὸς τῷ θανάτῳ χρημάτων τε
δημεύσεις καὶ τῶν οἴκων ἀνατροπαί, ib. 336C ἐπίστασθαι λόγον τε δοῦναι καὶ
δέξασθαι, Crito 43 Β ἐν τοσαύτῃ τε ἀγρυπνίᾳ καὶ λύπῃ εἶναι, Thuc. 6. 100. 1
ἐπειδὴ ἀρκούντως ἐδόκει ἔχειν ὅσα τε ἐσταυρώθη καὶ ᾠκοδομήθη τοῦ ὑποτειχίσματος
(see Goodhart on 8. 4. 1), Lyc. 56 εἰ μὴ κατεγνώκει τε αὑτοῦ (μὴ κατεγνωκόθ᾽
ἑαυτοῦ ? Blass) προδεδωκέναι τὴν πατρίδα καὶ μεγάλα πάντας ἠδικηκέναι.
ΙΟ
οἷόν τε: οἴονται A. This confusion is common; see IV. 4. 5 οἷόν τε Α,
οἴονται M, Dem. 27. 54 οἴονται pr. Σ, οἷόν τε corr. Σ, uolg., [Dem.] 10. 55 οἷόν τε
pr. ΣF, οἴονται uolg., Lys. 19. 35 οἷόν τε pr. X, οἴονται corr. Χ. Dobree's
emendation has been spurned by all editors, perhaps owing to an objection.
to αὐτοῖς, in place of which we expect τούτοις (ΙΙΙ. 48. 4n.).
13. 3, 4 ὁμοίως ἦν ἐκείνοις συγγενής, was related (to Hagnias) in the
same degree as they were,' i.e. in the same degree as the dead fathers of the
hypothetical claimants described in the previous clause. Apparently Isaeus.
wished to avoid writing καὶ γὰρ ὁ τούτου πατὴρ ταὐτὸν ἐμοὶ προσῆκεν or καὶ
γὰρ ὁ τούτου πατὴρ ἐμὸς ἦν ἀδελφός. The clumsiness of ἐκείνοις led Dobree
(Adv. I. p. 31o) to suspect a lacuna before ἀλλὰ μὴν εἰ τούτοις μὴ μέτεστιν, ὧν
οἱ πατέρες κ.τ.λ., in which the children of Stratius II were mentioned by
name. But to justify the plural οἱ πατέρες an additional reference to the
daughter of Eubulides II would be required. The source of the verbosity is
the rottenness of Theopompus' case.
7 διαγωνίσασθαι μὲν κ.τ.λ. The prosecutor has a good reply to this
complaint; he did not fight, because Theopompus promised to give half
the property to the ward (§ 27. 3, 4 nn.).
8 παρακαταβάλλειν. Cp. IV. 4. 8 n.
I I περὶ τῶν μεγίστων εἰς κίνδυνον καθιστάναι. Cp. § 35. 3 κινδυνεύειν περὶ
τοῦ σώματος, ΙΙΙ. 47. 6 π., 62. 8 n.
OR. XI.
689
COMMENTARY
14. 3 εἴ τι αὐτῶν κακῶς διώκουν ὥσπερ οὗτος. Cp. §§ 16 οὐδ᾽ ἂν οὗτος νῦν
ἐμοὶ πράγματα παρεῖχεν, εἰ τὰ τοῦ παιδὸς εἴων ἁρπάζειν καὶ μὴ ἠναντιούμην αὐτῷ,
31 τὰ τοῦ παιδὸς ἀδεῶς ἤδη διαφορήσει.
4 ἃ δ᾽ ὑμεῖς ἐμὰ εἶναι ἐψηφίσασθε. The appeal to the chose jugée comes
again in § 26 ἀπέδοτε δ᾽ ὑμεῖς ἐπιδικάσαντές μοι τοῦτον τὸν κλῆρον ; compare
§ 33 κἂν ὑμεῖς ψηφίσησθε, λαβέτω.
4, 5 τῷ βουλομένῳ δόντες ἐξουσίαν ἀμφισβητείν. Cp. § 25. 4, IV. II. 7 n.
6 παρασκευάζειν, in a bad sense; see § 31 ταύταις ταῖς παρασκευαῖς, IV. 5.
2 N., VIII. 3. 4 n.
15-19 You begin to understand, I think, from what has been already
said that I have done the boy no wrong, and that I am entirely innocent of
the charges brought against me, but you will see the truth with still greater
distinctness after hearing the circumstances of my claim to the estate. When
I brought my suit, I was not opposed either by the prosecutor on behalf of the
boy nor by the children of Stratius, who are related to Hagnias in the same
degree as my ward; they knew that they were not in the legal line. My
adversaries were the daughter of Eubulides, who was in possession, and the
mother of Hagnias. The supporters of the former told a falsehood about her
descent, which I easily exposed. The mother of Hagnias, as sister of Stratius,
was related to the deceased in the same degree as myself, but was excluded by
the law which gives a preference to males. Her representatives therefore
claimed for her as mother of the deceased, although by universal consent a
mother has no right of succession. I described myself as a cousin's son,
confuted the pretensions of the two women, and convinced the judges that
I was the only lawful heir. After this need I say anything more to sensible
men?
These sections are a remarkable instance of the boldness with which
Isaeus will pervert the truth. If the speech of Sositheus had not been
preserved, who would have divined from this narrative that Theopompus
opposed and defeated Glaucon and Glaucus his late allies? See Introd.
p. 673.
15. 1, 2 yɩyvóσkeodai úµîv, 'it is becoming known to you'; not an
example of the 'dative of the agent' (III. 41. 32.); compare [Dem.] 35. 7
ὁπόθεν δήποτε ἐγνωρισμένοι τούτῳ.
5 τὴν ἐμὴν ἐπιδικασίαν, ὡς γέγονεν, probably how I sued for the estate
rather than 'how I won my suit'; see III. 41. 2, 4 nn.
5,6 πepì aútŵv, with µadŋoeodaɩ; a very flat ending. For the vagueness
of the phrase cp. III. 48. 42.
16. 5, 6 οἱ δ᾽ ὑπὲρ τῆς Εὐβουλίδου θυγατρὸς πράττοντες, i.e. her husband
Sositheus ($9. 7, 8).
6 τῆς τὸ αὐτὸ † δικαίως τῷ Στρατίου παιδὶ + προσηκούσης. Dobree (Adv. I.
p. 310) first took offence at dikaίws. Reiske and Schoemann omit the word
in their translations. Dareste's rendering is 'légalement. Jebb thinks that
it can mean 'properly' (as opposed to her allegation). That rộ Erpariov
παιδι is corrupt no one doubts. Before dikaiws there is an erasure of two or
three letters, in which I can see . The best emendation is Buermann's,
which Thalheim accepts, τῆς τὸ αὐτὸ τῷ παιδὶ καὶ τοῖς Στρατίου παισὶ προσ-
ηκούσης.
W. I.
44
690
OR. XI.
ISAEUS
π
7 οἱ κύριοι τῆς ῾Αγνίου μητρός. I conclude that the mother of Hagnias II
was in the tutela of her two sons Glaucon and Glaucus. Glaucus son of
Glaucetes of Oeum is mentioned in a list of рутáveis of the tribe Leontis
assigned to the beginning of the 4th century (C. I. A. II. 864, Michel n. 645).
Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica I. p. 194, infers that Glaucetes was the first
husband, Polemon the second. At any rate if Glaucetes was the second
husband, he was dead, for, if alive, he would have been kúpios of his wife
(III. 2. 3 n.), and no rhetorical freedom can justify the use of oi kúpɩɩ in place
of ó kúpios; the description of the husband of Phylomache II by the para-
phrase οἱ ὑπὲρ τῆς Εὐβουλίδου θυγατρὸς πράττοντες is a license of an entirely
different kind. Isaeus is too wary to betray that the names of the kúpio were
Glaucon and Glaucus. Neither does he affirm explicitly that the kúpio did
not put in a claim on their own account, though he undoubtedly desired his
hearers to combine this sentence (οἱ κύριοι...ἦσαν οἷοι πρὸς ἐμὲ ἀντιδικεῖν)
with what follows (οἱ δ᾽ ὑπὲρ τῆς ῾Αγνίου μητρός κ.τ.λ.), and to arrive at the
conclusion that the kúpio intervened in the case only in the interests of the
woman in their tutela. His words do not exclude the possibility that at
the trial Eupolemus, mentioned in [Dem.] 43. 7, spoke on behalf of the mother
of Hagnias II; see Introd. p. 673. On the other hand the aim of Pseudo-
Demosthenes is to keep the mother of Hagnias II out of sight, in order that
the audience may not discover that Glaucon and Glaucus were closely
connected by blood with Hagnias II. By this shuffling and mystification
the two advocates have succeeded in completely concealing the true relation
of the claim of the mother to the claim of her two sons. If she had trusted
to the same trick as Theopompus, and had pretended to be an aveчioû maîs,
her candidature would have been intelligible, because it would have given
her sons a second chance. But Isaeus declares that her representatives
described her as mother of the deceased (§§ 17, 18). If, then, the title
pleaded by Glaucon and Glaucus was their relationship to Hagnias II
through their mother-and it seems unlikely that they ventured to stand
on the will condemned in the recent trial-what was their motive in putting
forward their mother to compete against themselves? In § 30 Isaeus allows
that Glaucon's rights ranked before those of his mother.
7, 8 ἦσαν οἷοί [τε] πρὸς ἐμὲ ἀντιδικεῖν. If the MS. had οἷοί τε ἦσαν, I should
unhesitatingly restore olo ĥoav 'were disposed, ready, to contest my claim'
(VIII. 21. 6, 7 n.). But in this idiom the copula always follows ofos, and it is
an error to assume that ἦσαν οἷοι is identical with οἷοι ἦσαν. Schoemann and
Jebb uphold oav oioi te K.T.λ., which they render 'were capable of opposing,'
étóλµŋoav, non dubitauerunt. But it is very unusual for the copula to pre-
cede olós re; according to Schulze (Quaestiunculae grammaticae ad oratores
Atticos, Bautzen, 1889, p. 15) the only examples in oratorical prose are
Isocr. 4. 130 ἔστι δ᾽ οὐχ οἷόν τ᾽ ἀποτρέπειν τῶν ἀδικημάτων and Gorg.
Palam. 23 σοὶ μὲν οὖν ἦν οἷόν <τε> μόνῳ; the other instances cited are
Dem. 21. 47 (law) oтav πрôтov oîóv тe, Plat. Phaed. 76 B poßoûμai µǹ aŭρiov
τηνικάδε οὐκέτι ᾖ ἀνθρώπων οὐδεὶς ἀξίως οἷός τε τοῦτο ποιῆσαι, Eur. Med. 1977
οὐκέτ᾽ εἰμὶ προσβλέπειν οἷα τ᾽ ἐς ὑμᾶς (corrupt; see Verrall ad loc.). This
circumstance turns the scale in favour of Dobree's correction; in support of
transposition I can only quote Dem. 19. 173 oîá τ'ĥv uolg., ĥv oîá te pr. P,
όταν
OR. XI.
691
COMMENTARY
τ
τε
Rhet. Gr. I. p. 227, 11 Hammer oîós r' hv A, ĥv oiós Te B. Jebb objects that
this reading is unsuitable, because it would merely mean 'they were the kind
of men likely to contend with me.' The objection cannot be sustained. No
doubt the words state no more than 'they were of such a character as to
oppose me,' but the fact that they actually opposed is implied in the context.
A parallel is found in Ant. Soph. fr. 128 Blass ἰδὼν ἀνὴρ ἄνδρα ἕτερον ἀργύριον
ἀναιρούμενον πολὺ ἐδεῖτο οἱ δανεῖσαι ἐπὶ τόκῳ, ὁ δ᾽ οὐκ ἠθέλησεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἦν οἷος
ἀπιστεῖν τε καὶ μὴ ὠφελεῖν μηδένα, φέρων δ᾽ ἀπέθετο ὅποι δή.
ἀπέθετο ὅποι δή. The following
instances of the construction are also worth study: Dem. 2. 19, 25. 2, 40,
Plat. Gorg. 487 D, Rep. I. 334 D, Phaed. 80 A, Xen. Hell. 4. 3. 13, 6. 3. 3,
Cyr. 2. 2. 23, Oec. 15. 13, Mem. 1. 4. 6, 12, De Vect. 1. 2, Hipparch. 5. 7.
17.2 ὅ τι αντιγράψωνται. Cp. vi. 52. 5 n.
3, 4 τὸ περὶ αὐτῆς γένος. Cp. I. 36. 1 n. (τὸ περὶ ἡμῶν δίκαιον). For the
contention of Phylomache II see § 9. 9, 10 n.
ó
4, 5 ῥᾳδίως ὑπ᾿ ἐμοῦ τότε ἐξηλέγχθησαν. According to the version of
Sositheus in [Dem.] 43. 7 sqq. Theopompus, Glaucon and Glaucus, and
Eupolemus entered into a secret alliance, reduced to writing and ratified by
oaths, to eject Phylomache II from the property which the court had awarded
her. At the trial the confederates, who had at their disposal four-fifths of the
time assigned for the speeches, combined to slander her and her husband,
and give a lying account of her descent: καὶ τὸ σόφισμα ἦν τοῦτο, αὐτοὺς μὲν
ἑαυτοῖς συναγωνίζεσθαι καὶ ὁμολογεῖν ἅπαντα, περὶ ἡμῶν δὲ λέγειν τὰ οὐδεπώποτε
γενόμενα (§ 10; cp. §§ 30, 38). This need not be considered anything more
than an oratorical way of stating the fact that the opponents of Phylomache II
all denied her title. But in $ 29 sqq. Sositheus makes a definite charge
against Theopompus in particular: Θεόπομπος δ᾽ ἐψεύσατο πρὸς τοὺς δικαστὰς
ὑπερμέγεθες ψεῦδος περὶ τῆς Φυλομάχης τῆς τοῦ Πολέμωνος ἀδελφῆς, τηθίδος
δ᾽ Αγνίου, ὅτι οὐκ εἴη τῷ Πολέμωνι τῷ τοῦ ῾Αγνίου υἱεῖ ὁμοπατρία καὶ ὁμομητρία
ἀδελφή...ταῦτα δὲ πάντ᾽ ἀδεῶς ἔλεγεν ὁ Θεόπομπος, μάρτυρα μὲν οὐδένα παρα-
σχόμενος, ὅστις ἔμελλεν ὑπεύθυνος ἡμῖν ἔσεσθαι, συνομολογοῦντας δ᾽ ἑαυτῷ ἔχων
τοὺς κοινωνούς, οἱ ἦσαν ἀλλήλοις συναγωνισταὶ καὶ ἅπαντα ἔπραττον κοινῇ, ὅπως
ἀφέλωνται τὴν γυναῖκα τὸν κλῆρον, ὃν ὑμεῖς αὐτῇ ἐψηφίσασθε. It is probable,
then, that the action for perjury, which was pending at the time of this
speech (§§ 45, 46), was brought by Sositheus, and was directed against one
or more of Theopompus' witnesses, who had testified that Polemon the father
of Hagnias II had no full sister, thereby destroying the pretensions of
Phylomache II. Before the failure of this prosecution the victory of Theo-
pompus over Phylomache II was not assured. If, as Sositheus asserts,
Glaucon and Glaucus had a private arrangement with Theopompus, they
were ultimately outwitted by their partner; it is clear from [Dem.] 43 that
Theopompus held fast to his plunder. But I am inclined to suspect that
the annoyance of the two uterine brothers of Hagnias II at the claim
of Theopompus was not less than the indignation of the husband of
Phylomache II.
5 οὐκ ἀληθές τι γράψαι. Dobree (Adv. I. p. 31ο) conjectures ἀληθῆ,
supposing that, ἀληθές having been written by an error, the correction η,
placed above the last syllable, was afterwards mistaken for Tɩ (Crit. Introd.
p. xlvii, Aesch. I. 5 τι λέγοντας Α, ἢ λέγοντας cett.). If the verb had been
او
44-2
692
OR. XI.
ISAEUS
λέγειν, I should have accepted the conjecture, for ἀληθῆ λέγειν was a stereo-
typed phrase see [Dem.] 7. 43 καὶ τοῦτό γ' ἀληθῆ ἀληθῆ ΣΙ, ἀληθὲς uolg.,
ἀληθῶς FB) λέγουσιν, 50. 2 ὅ τι ἂν μὴ φῇ με ἀληθῆ ἀληθῆ Σ, ἀληθὲς uolg.)
λέγειν, Plat. Men. 98 Β καὶ τοῦτο δοκεῖς μοι ἀληθῆ λέγειν, Lach. 186 Α τοῦτο μὲν
ἀληθῆ λέγεις, Soph. 226 A ὁρᾷς οὖν ὡς ἀληθῆ λέγεται τὸ ποικίλον εἶναι τοῦτο τὸ
θηρίον. In Hyp. 3. 14 τοῦτ᾽ εἰ μὲν ὑπελάμβανες ἀληθὲς εἶναι the scribe of the
papyrus first wrote aλŋen, which Schneidewin prefers.
7, 8 νόμῳ ἀποκλῃομένης, ὃς κελεύει κρατεῖν τοὺς ἄρρενας. For the law see
VII. 18—26 analysis, 20. 6, 7 n. Assuming for the sake of argument that the
sister of Stratius II was, as Theopompus pretends (yével µèv éµoì taỶTÒ
προσηκούσης), ἀνεψιοῦ παῖς to her own son, I think it doubtful whether the
law required her to give place to Theopompus. If she had been, as Sir W.
Jones and Dobree supposed, a sister of Theopompus also, she would certainly
have been excluded by the male, but in view of the principle of representation
it must not be assumed that the son of one male first cousin of the deceased
was preferred by the law to the daughter of another male first cousin of the
deceased. In all probability (§ 8. 2 n.) the father of Stratius II and of the
mother of Hagnias II and the father of Theopompus were brothers. Observe
that Theopompus does not appeal to this law against Phylomache II. Yet
he might have consistently argued that, even if Phylomache II were, as she
said, an avevo mais, she was excluded by a male of the same degree.
Isaeus perceived the danger of such an argument, which might have led to
the betrayal of the secret that Phylomache II claimed to be the daughter
of a first cousin of Hagnias II, and that first cousins and second cousins were
not on the same footing.
8, 9 οἰόμενοι δ' ἐμοῦ πλεονεκτήσειν μητέρα εἶναι ἔγραψαν. Another interpre-
tation is possible. The persons acting on behalf of the mother of Hagnias II
may have recognised that she had no right of succession as second cousin of
the deceased.
ΙΟ ὁ συγγενέστατον μὲν ἦν τῇ φύσει πάντων. The translators from Reiske
to Caccialanza render the imperfect by a present. Schoemann classes it with
the imperfects used by historians in description of scenery, e.g. Xen. Hell. 2.
1. 31 ἔπλευσαν εἰς Αἰγὸς ποταμοὺς ἀντίον τῆς Λαμψάκου· διεῖχε (διέχει Schneider)
δὲ ὁ ῾Ελλήσποντος ταύτῃ σταδίους ὡς πεντεκαίδεκα; cp. Gerth-Kühner, Gr.
The difficulty
Gramm. 1. § 383, 5, p. 145, Gildersleeve, Greek Syntax § 217.
lies in the coordination of u in one clause with orɩ in the other; in Thuc.
1. 63. 2 Hude rightly reads ἀπέχει (ἀπέχει C, ἀπεῖχε ABEFM) δὲ ἑξήκοντα
μάλιστα σταδίους καὶ ἔστι καταφανές. Probably most modern critics would
have acquiesced in the text, had Isaeus written 'they described her as mother
of the deceased, a relationship which was the closest of all by nature, but
which was not recognised among the legal degrees of succession.' Jebb
falls back on the use of the imperfect to express something which is the
result of a previous discussion (Gildersleeve, op. cit. § 218, Goodwin,
M. & T. § 40) and translates is, as I granted.' When and where did
Theopompus make this concession? The point has not been settled in the
previous argument. Naber (Mnem. N.S. 5, 1877, p. 419) curtly dismisses
as 'absurd,' and deletes the word.
IO, II
dè taîs
ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἀγχιστείαις ὁμολογουμένως οὐκ ἔστιν. If this utterance
OR. XI.
693
COMMENTARY
П
stood alone, there would have been no controversy about a mother's right of
inheritance from her son (Beauchet III. p. 548 sqq.). But in a later passage
(§ 30) Isaeus seems to admit that under certain conditions a mother might
succeed. If, says Theopompus, the ward had won from me a moiety of the
estate, he would speedily have been deprived of it by the next-of-kin, since
the maternal kindred of the deceased (οἱ πρὸς μητρὸς τοῦ τελευτήσαντος)
inherit after children of cousins: ἧκεν ἂν οὖν ἐπ᾿ αὐτὰ τοῦτο μὲν ὁ Γλαύκων
ὁ τοῦ ῾Αγνίου ἀδελφός, πρὸς ὃν μὴ ὅτι γένος εἶχον ἄμεινον εἰπεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἔξω
τῆς ἀγχιστείας ἐφαίνοντ᾽ ἂν ὄντες, τοῦτο δ᾽, εἰ μὴ ἐβούλετο οὗτος, ἡ ῾Αγνίου
κἀκείνου μήτηρ, προσῆκον καὶ αὐτῇ τῆς ἀγχιστείας τοῦ αὐτῆς ὑέος, ὥσθ', ὁπότ᾽
ἠγωνίζετο πρὸς τοὺς μηδὲν γένει προσήκοντας, φανερῶς ἂν ἔλαβε τὸ ἡμικλήριον
παρ᾽ ὑμῶν, τοῦτο τοῦ δικαίου καὶ τῶν νόμων αὐτῇ δεδωκότων. This argument
has greatly perplexed students of Greek law. Apparently Theopompus
ranks the mother among the relations on the mother's side (oi πрòs μптрós),
and at the same time affirms that her sons, the uterine brothers of the
deceased, had a prior right. Now, if the mother succeeded at all, one would
have expected her to come before her children. Further, curiosity is at once
roused about her relation to her daughters. Did they also have precedence?
Schoemann and others try to save Isaeus' consistency by supposing that
Theopompus here really has in mind her rights as cousin on the father's
side, not as mother. The defence makes confusion worse confounded. If
Isaeus wished to suggest such an idea, he has expressed himself with singular
infelicity, for the controverted sentences are introduced by these words:
the law does not give the succession to our children after us (i.e. after children
of first cousins on the father's side) but to the relations on the mother's side.
Further, if the mother of Hagnias II was, as Theopompus pretends, an ave↓ioû
πаîs πроs паτρós in the sense contemplated by the law, she came before all
the maternal kindred. Why, then, is her intervention made conditional on
her son's relinquishment of his claim (ei µǹ éßoúλeto oûtos)? The only reply
made is that for the moment Isaeus is thinking of her true relationship, and
treating her as a second cousin of Hagnias II on the father's side. But if,
as is probable, the succession of second cousins on the father's side was
sanctioned by the clause ἐὰν δὲ μηδετέρωθεν ᾖ ἐντὸς τούτων, τὸν πρὸς πατρὸς
ἐγγυτάτω κύριον εἶναι, we must not forget that the maternal kindred included
not only uterine brothers and sisters of the deceased with their children, but
maternal uncles with their children and grandchildren. Now Stratius II, the
maternal uncle of Hagnias II, had left children, who barred the way of any
second cousin on the father's side. It is impossible to explain away the
contradiction between § 30 and § 17 of this speech, and vain to search for
the truth in unsupported statements of Isaeus. The only source of informa-
tion left is the text of the law. My own opinion is that the legislator did not
contemplate the 'melancholy succession,' as it has been called, of parents to
the possessions. of their deceased children. It may be that in the age of
Isaeus the law was interpreted to contain an implicit recognition of the
rights of the mother. But the only evidence pointing in this direction is an
illustration in a rhetorician of the second century A.D., Theon, Progymn.
c. 13 § 10 (Rhet. Gr. I. p. 256, 18 sqq. Walz, II. p. 130 Spengel) neρì πλeovao-
μὸν δὲ γίνεται ἀσάφεια, ὅταν δυνατὸν ᾖ πλέον τι τοῦ γεγραμμένου συλλογίζεσθαι,
694
OR. XI.
ISAEUS
ὡς καὶ αὐτὸ δυνάμει δηλούμενον· οἷον εἴ τις νομοθετήσειε κληρονομεῖν καὶ
τοὺς πρὸς μητρός· ἀμφισβητήσειε γὰρ ἂν καὶ ἡ μήτηρ, ὡς εἰ τοὺς πρὸς μητρὸς
νόμος κληρονομεῖν καλεῖ, πολὺ πρότερον ἂν αὐτὴν τὴν μητέρα καλοίη. See also
another example of ἀσάφεια quoted by the same authority ib. § 8 περὶ δὲ τὴν
σύνταξιν. οἷον ἐπειδάν φησι Πιττακὸς νέμεσθαι πατέρα καὶ μητέρα τὴν ἴσην.
ἀμφιβάλλει γὰρ καὶ ἥδε ἡ λέξις. ἆρα γὰρ τοὺς παῖδας λέγει νέμεσθαι τὰ τῶν
γονέων ἢ τοὺς γονεῖς τὰ τῶν παίδων;
18. I, 2
εἶτα γράψας ἀνεψιοῦ παῖς εἶναι κἀκείνας ἐξελέγξας κ.τ.λ. The MS.
has παῖδας and ἐξήλεγξα. The conjectures of Reiske (εξελέγξας) and Emper
(πaîs, Opusc. p. 316) furnish a satisfactory restoration. Theopompus' re-
statement of his own title (γράψας ἀνεψιοῦ παῖς εἶναι) helps the judges to
understand his case. Schoemann is content to alter maîdas to maîda, reading
as follows: 'then having described her as a cousin's child I proved that
they too (i.e. daughters of cousins) were not in the succession (being
excluded by cousins' sons).' Jebb rejects the reading adopted in the text
on the ground that Theopompus had no occasion to describe himself anew
as åve↓ioù maîs, since that was the qualtity in which he had claimed from
the first. He proposes γραψάσης...παιδὸς in place of γράψας...παῖδας and
translates thus: 'Next, when she described herself as the daughter of a first
cousin (and no longer mother of Hagnias), I proved that daughters of first
cousins, too, were not in the succession' (since a first cousin's son existed).
But the remark that follows οὐκ ἴσχυσέ τι...οὔτε τῇ ἑτέρᾳ τὸ τὴν μητέρα εἶναι
τοῦ τὸν κλῆρον καταλιπόντος is enough to prove that the supporters of the
mother of Hagnias II did not alter in the course of the proceedings the title
under which their client claimed; see also § 21.
3 éπedikaoáµny, 'I won my suit, established my claim' (§ 19. 6, III.
41. 2 n.).
19. 3 T Taidí, 'on behalf of the boy' (III. 32. 4 n.).
6 Tepì avtŵv, i.e. tŵv xpnµátwv; for the use of the pronoun see §§ 2. 6,
15. 6, 21. 10, III. 48. 4 2.
ποθεῖτε.
9 η<Tl> Todeîтe. For the similarity of ŋ, τ, and π consult § 17. 5 n.,
III. 56. 2 n., Crit. Introd. p. xlvii, Lys. 9. 16 (πâv X, rí d ầv Sauppe), Dem.
25. 71 (τι αν Σ, for πᾶν), [Dem.] 43. 20 (παν Σ, for τί ἄν).
20–26 Among other falsehoods this calumniator avers that before
the action Stratocles and I agreed to go shares. Now we were the only
competitors among the claimants, who could not make a compact with each
other. The daughter of Eubulides and the mother of Hagnias, who claimed
by two distinct titles, might have covenanted that the successful party should
resign a share to the other. But, as our title was precisely the same, there
would have been only one urn for the two. The risk was the same for both;
we stood to win or lose together. The impossibility of any bargain between
us is shown by the law which regulates the course of procedure. Law. The
prosecutor also asserts that I engaged to give the boy a moiety of the estate,
if I defeated those who were in possession of it. But if, as my opponent
contends, the ward had a legal right to such a portion, what need had his
friends to get a promise from me? They could have claimed at law on his
behalf. If on the other hand he had no kind of title as next-of-kin, what
could have induced me to enter into such an engagement, when the law gave
OR. XI.
695
COMMENTARY
me the whole estate? I did not require their consent before bringing my suit,
and they did not possess evidence without which I could not get a verdict.
Reviewing these facts how can you give credit to their allegations?
A secret
Isaeus here has completely out-generalled his adversary.
arrangement between Theopompus on the one side and his brother and
his brother's family on the other was a natural precaution, inasmuch as
second cousins were excluded from the succession. But the prosecutor
did not venture to explain to the court that the purpose of the bargain
was to further a fraud (Introd. p. 675).
20. 2 τὴν αὑτοῦ πονηρίαν οὐδεμίαν ζημίαν εἶναι νομίζων. Cp. VII. 23. 3 n.
3, 4 ποιήσομαι τοὺς λόγους τάχα. Buermann Hermes 19, 1884, p. 333)
attacks the reading of A¹ on the ground that the use of raya in the sense of
' presently, forthwith' is doubtful in the orators and is not found elsewhere
in Isaeus. The meaning 'perhaps' of course predominates, but the other
sense is sufficiently proved by And. 2. 2 τοὺς μὲν ἤδη πράττοντας, τοὺς δὲ τάχα
μέλλοντας, Dem. 24. 1 ὅσα λυμανεῖται...τάχα δὴ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ἀκούοντες ἐμοῦ
μαθήσεσθε. I do not understand Buermann's emendation, <καὶ> τάχα καὶ
νυνὶ λέγει κ.τ.λ. The prosecutor has spoken. What is the point of remarking
'and perhaps he now asserts etc.'? Reiske, who was the first to tamper
with this passage, proposed τάχα δὲ καὶ νυνὶ λέξει, fortassis uero etiam nunc
dicet; he perceived that ráxa and λéyeɩ were irreconcilable.
•
6 μόνοις ἡμῖν οὐκ ἐνῆν. This is not true. Glaucon and Glaucus, if
they claimed as uterine brothers of Hagnias II, were in exactly the same
position as Theopompus and Stratocles.
21. 1, 2 τῇ μὲν γὰρ Εὐβουλίδου θυγατρὶ κ.τ.λ. Phylomache II, who was
not a claimant but a tenant defending her possession, would have been very
foolish if she had made a bargain with the mother of Hagnias II or any
other of her assailants. So far her husband ([Dem.] 43. 7) is right; if there
was a corrupt understanding at the trial, it was on the part of her opponents.
4, 5 καδίσκος γὰρ ἔμελλεν ἑκατέρᾳ τεθήσεσθαι. Cp. [Dem.] 43. 10 καὶ
τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἐπιβουλευσάντων καὶ συναγωνιζομένων ἀλλήλοις ἐφ᾿ ἡμᾶς,
καδίσκων τεττάρων τεθέντων κατὰ τὸν νόμον, εἰκότως οἶμαι οἱ δικασταὶ ἐξηπα-
τήθησαν καὶ ἐστασίασαν ἀλλήλοις καὶ παρακρουσθέντες ὑπὸ τῆς παρασκευῆς
ἐψηφίζοντο ὅ τι ἔτυχεν ἕκαστος. καὶ αἱ ψῆφοι ὀλίγαις πάνυ ἐγένοντο πλείους,
ἢ τρίσιν ἢ τέτταρσιν, ἐν τῷ Θεοπόμπου καδίσκῳ ἢ ἐν τῷ τῆς γυναικός. The
method of voting must have differed from the system described in ᾿Αθ. Πολ.
col. 34, 27 sqq. (see v. 17. 6, 7 n.). Probably each judge had only one
ψῆφος, which he placed in the urn of the party whose claim he approved
(Gilbert, Gr. Staatsaltert.² 1. p. 464, E.T. p. 413, Att. Proc.² p. 942). For the
word καδίσκος see Harp. s.v. : Ισαῖος ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ ῾Αγνίου κλήρου. ἀγγεῖον
τι εἰς ὃ ἐψηφοφόρουν οἱ δικασταὶ οὕτως ἔλεγον. Φρύνιχος Μούσαις· ἰδού, δέχου
τὴν ψῆφον. ὁ καδίσκος δέ σοι | ὁ μὲν ἀπολύων οὗτος, ὁ δ᾽ ἀπολλὺς ὁδί, Bekk.
An. Gr. I. p. 275, 28 καδίσκοι : υδρίαι χαλκαῖ, εἰς ἃς καθίεντο αἱ ψῆφοι τῶν
δικαζομένων (sic), Lys. 13. 37, Lyc. 149, Ar. Vesp. 321, 854. The term used
in Aristotle Z.c. is ἀμφορεύς.
6 Tò yévos, 'relationship' (IV. 16. 2 n.).
10 περὶ αὐτῶν. Cp. § 19. 6 η.
22. 6 εἰ νικήσαιμι τοὺς ἔχοντας. Albrecht (Hermes 18, 1883, p. 373)
696
OR. XI.
ISAEUS
ejects el viкýσaiμi тoùs exovтas as a gloss taken from § 24, on the following
grounds. (1) The conditional clause is not consistent with the apodosis
ἐγίγνετο εἰς ἐμὲ ἡ κληρονομία κατ᾿ ἀγχιστείαν πάντων, which means the
succession devolved on me by right' (III. 36, 38, IV. 15, IX. 24, X. 26, XI. 10).
The right was independent of success in the suit (Offenbar meint der Sprecher,
dass ihm die Erbschaft rechtmässig zukam, auch wenn er den Process nicht
gewann). (2) The conditional clause is not consistent with rót hồn tλáttel
Taûra kaì µŋxavârai. 'It can hardly be doubted' that the assertions of the
adversary were made after Theopompus was in possession of the estate.
For if there was no truth in the story, as Theopompus here maintains, why
did the prosecutor take the trouble to concoct it before the hearing of the
suit for the estate, at a time when it was still open to him to put in a claim
for half the estate in the name of the son of Stratocles? If on the other
hand there really was an agreement, and Theopompus showed signs of a
desire to ignore it, the prosecutor would certainly have protested in good
time against Theopompus' claims to the whole estate. The answer to the
first objection is simple. Theopompus was not lawful heir until the pre-
tensions of the tenant had been set aside; nowhere does he dare to contend
that he ranked before Phylomache II, if she was the grand-daughter of
Phylomache I, paternal aunt of Hagnias II. Huettner (Bursians Jahresb. 46,
1886, p. 46) seeks to remove Albrecht's difficulty by drawing a distinction
between ἐγίγνετο εἰς ἐμὲ ἡ κληρονομία, ' die Erbschaft fel mir zu, and ἐγίγνετό
µoi ǹ kλnpovoµía, 'die Erbschaft kam mir rechtmässig zu? The second
objection hardly needs a reply. The prosecutor appears to have told the
judges that after Stratocles' death he reminded Theopompus of the compact,
and that Theopomus promised, if successful, to give the boy his father's
share, i.e. a moiety of the estate. There is nothing prima facie improbable
or inconsistent in such a story, and in the absence of the prosecutor's speech,
who presumably gave details and may even have called witnesses, nobody
has a right to call it false. But it should be noted that the present tenses in
τότ᾽ ἤδη πλάττει ταῦτα καὶ μηχανᾶται ft ill with the protasis and especially
with the imperfects v and èyíyvero. 'Such a compact was an impossibility ;
but when Stratocles died before either of us claimed his moiety, and a share
in the estate no longer fell to Stratocles-nor to his son, by reason of the
law-but the whole inheritance devolved on me if I defeated the parties in
possession, then and not till then he fabricates these fictions hoping to
delude you by his stories.' The governing idea of this loosely-jointed period
seems to be that the story of the compact was invented after Stratocles'
death, because his son had no legal title. Theopompus does not aim at
defining the precise point of time, when the falsehood was first mentioned,
and, in particular, does not affirm that nobody heard anything about the
agreement until he was successful in the suit.
>
23. 1 ó vóμos. Of the terms of this law nothing is known.
2 ei kaí, ‘even if' (v. 25. 8 n.).
24. 3 ᾧ προσέχετε τὸν νοῦν. For the imperative after a relative Gebauer
on Lys. 12. 60 (ois vµeîs dŋλwσate K.T.λ.) Anhang p. 258 quotes from the
orators Lys. 19. 61, Dem. 1. 20, 18. 173, 192, Aesch. 3. 244, Hyp. 2. 15.
25.2 πάντων αὐτῶν. Cp. § 22. 5 ἡ κληρονομία πάντων, 21. 10 περὶ αὐτῶν.
OR. XI.
697
COMMENTARY
6 εἰ μὴ ἐμαρτύρουν, οὐκ ἔμελλον ἐπιδικάσεσθαι. We expect μαρτυροῖεν ;
for Theopompus' hypothetical calculation before the trial must have been eàv
μὴ μαρτυρῶσι, οὐκ ἐπιδικάσομαι. Cp. 11. 3, 4 πότερον οὐκ ἦν μοι λαχεῖν, εἰ μὴ
Tεíσαμι TоÚTоus; What one would like to know is whether the adversary
did assist Theopompus by evidence. If connexions of Stratocles cooperated
in the attack on Phylomache II, the appearance of the imperfect indicative
is intelligible.
iva
8 ovdèv édeι μаprúpov. The same sophism occurs in IV. 15, 17. Contrast
§ 6 (προσῆκε) καὶ διόμνυσθαι καὶ τοῦ γένους παρέχεσθαι μάρτυρας, ἵνα μᾶλλον
ἐπιστεύετο ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν. Theopompus had not only to prove his own relationship,
but to disprove the relationship of Phylomache II.
26.5 µýte ‹λaxov Tŵv avtŵv, ‘i.e. si sanus locus, did not put in a claim
to an equal share with me' (Dobree, Adv. 1. p. 310). Schoemann would
prefer to omit τôv.
27-35 Perceiving that you will naturally wonder why he did not
make a claim at the previous trial, the prosecutor pretends that then my
promise of a share prevented him from competing with the other claimants,
and that now he is unable to claim against me, because the laws do not
permit wards to proceed against their guardians. Both these statements are
false. He cannot point to any law which debars him from instituting a
private suit against me on behalf of the ward. He did not compete, because
the ward had no rights in the estate. Even if at the trial I had allowed
the boy to get a moiety from me, he would have been speedily deprived of it
by Glaucon the brother of Hagnias, or, failing him, by the mother of Hagnias.
The prosecutor's one aim is to discover pretexts under cover of which, without
running any risk, he may bring a public action against me, remove me from
my office as guardian, and plunder with impunity the child's property. You,
judges, ought not to listen to him, nor countenance the practice of bringing
public actions, where private actions are provided by the laws. The rights
of the matter are perfectly simple and intelligible. I will briefly state them
before proceeding to the rest of my defence. If my opponent asserts that the
boy, as next-of-kin, has a right to a moiety of the estate of Hagnias, let him
lodge an application with the Archon and get a judgment from you. If he
asserts that I promised to give the boy a moiety, let him sue me for breach of
promise. If he asserts that a ward cannot proceed against his guardian, let
him produce the law forbidding this, and he shall have the moiety. If he
asserts that the property already belongs to the ward, let him enter it in the
lease of the ward's effects, and the lessee will recover from me. This is the
just and legal procedure, not to bring a public action against me and imperil
my existence, because I decline to give the boy a share of my property-
property which was awarded me by the vote of a court. The present action
would have been proper only if I misapplied property which admittedly
belongs to the ward.
27. 3 Toû µèv µǹj λaxeîv πpòs ékeίvovs. Dobree, Dareste, and Caccialanza
think that the pronoun refers to Phylomache II and her party. This view,
as Dobree saw, involves the change of auroîs in 1. 5 to auroús, since the
tenant cannot be reckoned among οἱ παρακαταβάλλοντες. If we keep αὐτοῖς,
we must interpret ékeîvo as the mother of Hagnias II and her sons, who
698
OR. XI.
ISAEUS
were claimants to the estate together with Theopompus (πaρakaтéßadλov
Θεοπόμπῳ). In any case the language is misleading ; truth demands πρὸς
ἐμὲ rather than πρὸς ἐκείνους. What the guardian said was ‘I did not
contest the claim of Theopompus, because he gave me a promise that the
ward should not suffer.'
4, 5 ὥστε διὰ τοῦτ᾽ οὐ παρακαταβάλλειν αὐτοῖς. See for the negative III. 39.
2 12., for паракaтaßáλλew IV. 4. 8 n. Contrast the different turn in § 13
διαγωνίσασθαι μέν, ἡνίκ᾽ ἐγὼ τοῦ κλήρου τὴν δίκην ἐλάγχανον, μὴ οἴεσθαι δεῖν,
μηδὲ παρακαταβάλλειν, and in $ 15 ἐμοὶ γὰρ λαχόντι τοῦ κλήρου τὴν δίκην οὔτε
οὗτος ὁ νῦν ἐμὲ εἰσαγγέλλων ᾠήθη δεῖν παρακαταβάλλειν ὑπὲρ τοῦ παιδὸς κ.τ.λ.
The line of argument hitherto has been that the ward had no right to half
the estate, because (among other reasons) his guardian did not oppose
Theopompus' claim to the whole. Now, to meet the retort of the guardian
that Theopompus induced him to abstain by promising to surrender half
the estate to the ward, Isaeus shifts his ground and declares that the
guardian did not compete, because his ward had no rights. This explana-
tion is unsatisfactory. Theopompus also was without a legal title.
5 τῆς δὲ πρὸς ἐμὲ λήξεως ἐμποδὼν εἶναι τοὺς νόμους κ.τ.λ. The reference is
not to the suit against Phylomache II, but to an attack upon Theopompus
after his success; compare § 33 εἰ μὲν κατ᾽ ἀγχιστείαν τῶν ῾Αγνίου μετεῖναί
φησι τῷ παιδί, τοῦ ἡμικληρίου λαχέτω πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα κ.τ.λ. In the legal
argument there is some quibbling. The prosecutor must be right in the
general proposition that an orphan could not bring an action against his
guardian. A minor could only sue and be sued through his guardian, and a
guardian could not be at the same time prosecutor and defendant. At Rome,
when the necessity arose for an action between tutor and pupillus, a prae-
torius tutor (Gai. 1. 184), or in later times a curator (Just. 1. 21. 3), was
appointed, by whose intervention the suit was carried on, and whose powers
ceased on its conclusion. There is no trace at Athens of a guardian ad hoc
nominated by the Archon. But in this dispute the ward had two guardians,
so that the real problem is the division between them of authority and
responsibility. Was the consent of both guardians necessary, before legal
proceedings could be instituted in the name of the ward? This difficulty is
shirked by Isaeus. The prosecutor,' Theopompus says, 'cannot produce a
law which prevents him from getting satisfaction from me (dí«ŋv λaßeîv tap'
éμov) on behalf of the ward. There is no law against this, but as the law has
granted public actions against me, so it has established private suits between
me and the ward' (§ 28). This comparison puts on the same level two
utterly distinct procedures. Of course the guardian could 'get satisfaction
from Theopompus on behalf of the ward'; a complete stranger was com-
petent to bring a public action against a guardian for injury to the orphan or
to the orphan's estate (ὀρφανῶν κακώσεως and οἴκου ὀρφανικοῦ κακώσεως, ᾿Αθ.
Пoλ. 56.6). The ward in such a case was not dominus litis. Similarly at
Rome the crimen suspecti tutoris, the object of which was to remove the
tutor from office, was open to all, even to women (Just. I. 26. 3), and a
contutor was bound to bring an action against a tutor guilty of mismanage-
ment of the property assigned to him for administration (Dig. 26. 10. 3 pr.),
but persons under puberty could not themselves accuse their tutores on
6
OR. XI.
699
COMMENTARY
suspicion (Just. 1. 26. 4). What Theopompus ought to show is that the
ward acting through one guardian could summon (§ 33. 3, 4 n.) the other
guardian to prove his title to an estate which he was holding, or could sue
him for breach of contract (§ 33). The question is not settled by Theopompus'
challenge to the prosecutor to quote a law forbidding private suits between a
ward and a guardian (§ 34). The disability may have existed in the absence
of a specific prohibition, being a consequence of the joint-liability of the
guardians and the legal incapacity of a minor. A suit for breach of contract
brought by a ward against a guardian raises some troublesome questions.
For example, could an Athenian guardian make a valid contract with his
ward? If so, what were the conditions? If there were several guardians,
was the authority of one of them sufficient to create an obligation for the
minor? These are points on which we have no knowledge, and it would be
rash to found any conjectures on the assertion of Theopompus that his
fellow-guardian was able to sue him in the name of the ward for breaking
an engagement. The one thing clear to me is that, granted his case, the
procedure by public action selected by the prosecutor was in accordance
with the spirit of the laws, and was a most effective way of redressing the
injury which had been inflicted on the ward. But Schulthess (Vormundschaft
nach attischem Recht p. 112) and Beauchet (11. p. 216) are in entire agreement
with Theopompus.
27.6 ovdétepa. For the plural see I. 22. 4, 5 1.
28. 3 ἐστιν ἐναντιούμενος. Cp. VII. 19. 4η.
П
π
5, 6 ἐκείνοις τοῖς προσήκουσι τὸν κλῆρον† οὐκ ἐλάγχανον. Scaliger's
emendation, тoû kλýpov, has been approved by Reiske, Bekker, Schoemann,
the Zürich editors, Scheibe, and Thalheim. Buermann (Hermes 19, 1884,
p. 340) objects with justice that тоîs πроσýkovσι becomes an otiose addition
to ἐκείνοις, and is in favour of a transposition, τοῖς ἥκουσι πρὸς τὸν κλῆρον.
But, as he admits, the usage of Isaeus demands éπí, not рós (§ 30. 1, 2,
IV. 25. 6, 7 n.), and his reference to Dem. 41. 7 πрòs TOÛTO Tò díkαLOV KEL
ἀμφισβητήσων is not pertinent. Dobree would read τοῖς ἔχουσι for τοῖς
πрoσýkovσɩ, quoting §§ 12. 10, 17. 3, 22. 6, 24. 5, 35. 5, and suggesting that
πрoσýkovσι is due to 'anticipation' of πроσnкev in l. 8 (Crit. Introd. p. xxxviii).
This is the best treatment of the difficulty; the action lay against the tenant
of the estate, Phylomache II. Photiades ('A¤ŋvâ 12, 1890, p. 454) proposes
τοῖς προέχουσι, which, he says, means τοῖς πρότερον ἔχουσι. For this sense
of πρоéɣew he appeals to Aristotle, but produces no example from good Attic
prose. Albrecht (Hermes 18, 1883, p. 374) seeks to show that the words
ἐκείνοις τοῖς προσήκουσι τὸν κλῆρον are an interpolation. For the dative after
ròv
λayɣável cp. II. 29. 5, XII. 11. 4, Dem. 29. 6.
29. I, 2 < οὐδ᾽ > εἰ συνεχώρουν τῷ παιδὶ λαβεῖν ἐπιδικασαμένῳ παρ᾿ ἐμοῦ
Tò ημɩkλńρɩov, in plainer language 'if I had been willing to agree (V. 18. 1 22.)
not to expose at the trial the baselessness of my ward's claim, but to suffer
him to rank with me and get from me half the estate.' Theopompus does
not mean to imply that in point of fact he had used his power as guardian to
prevent his ward from putting in a claim. The sequence of thought is this.
'They did not claim because the ward had no title. Even if I had been
ready to agree that the ward should put forward the same title as myself, in
700
OR. XI.
ISAEUS
which case he would have got from me half the estate, his friends would not
have dared to compete, knowing that afterwards he would have been turned
out by relations with a better right.' Reiske's paraphrase is wrong (si uel
maxime ueniam huic puero dedissem hereditatis semissem a me in iure
petendi atque, ubi eam a iudicibus sibi adiudicatam impetrasset, exigendi).
Thalheim prints ἐπιδικασαμένου for reasons expounded in Hermes 38, 1903,
pp. 466/7. The emendation ruins the argument. If Theopompus after a
victory in court had ceded half the estate to his ward, the representatives of
the boy would have had nothing to fear from Glaucon and the mother of
Hagnias II, because they could have put forward as his title Theopompus' act
of cession and ignored the child's relationship to Hagnias II.
3 < ὅτι, > ὁπότε. Cp. [Dem.] 56. 13 ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἂν ἔφαμεν συγχωρῆσαι οὐδὲν
τούτων, λογιζόμενοι ὅτι, ὁπότε τοῦτο πράξομεν, ὁμολογοῦμεν καὶ αὐτοὶ εἰς Ῥόδον
σεσιτηγηκέναι. Thalheim prefers Bekker's correction ὅτι, ὅτε. For the causal
sense of ὁπότε with an indicative see VIII. 37. 6 n. ; here and in § 30. 6 the
conditional force of the principal sentence (τοῦτ᾽ ἂν ἀφηρέθησαν) pervades the
subordinate clause, which may be translated 'as they would have been in
possession etc. In fact ὁπότε, when, takes over the construction of el, as
ὁπηνίκα does in Dem. 18. 14 ὁπηνίκ᾽ ἐφαίνετο ταῦτα πεποιηκώς, καὶ τοῦτον τὸν
τρόπον κεχρημένος τοῖς πρός με, ὁμολογεῖτ᾽ ἂν ἡ κατηγορία τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ;
contrast Dem. 21. 42 ἀλλὰ μὴν ὁπηνίκα καὶ πεποιηκὼς ἃ κατηγορῶ καὶ ὕβρει
πεποιηκὼς φαίνεται, τοὺς νόμους ἤδη δεῖ σκοπεῖν.
C
30. 2, 4 τοῦτο μὲν τοῦτο δέ. Cp. III. 28. 3 n.
4, 5 εἰ μὴ ἐβούλετο οὗτος, ἡ ῾Αγνίου κἀκείνου μήτηρ. For the legal problem
see § 17. 10, II N.
31.5 χρήματα λήψεσθαι, to get money by robbing the ward, not il
espère recueillir les biens' (Dareste), which would require rà xpýµara. Reiske
thinks that the allusion is to the levying of blackmail from Theopompus.
7 παρασκευαῖς, in malam partem ; see IV. 5. 2 π.
7,8 μὴ κατορθώσας μὲν οὐδὲν ἀπολεῖ τῶν αὑτοῦ. Cp. III. 46, 47.
32. 2
οὐδ᾽ ἐπιτρέπειν, οὐδ᾽ ἐθίζειν εἶναι γραφάς. The omission of an object
and the 'fatness of ἐθίζειν induce Albrecht (Hermes 18, 1883, p. 380) to
conjecture οὐδ᾽ ἐπιτρέπειν οὐδενὶ νομίζειν εἶναι γραφάς.
اد
33. 3, 4 τοῦ ἡμικληρίου λαχέτω πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα. The first step to be
taken was to summon Theopompus; the law is preserved in [Dem.] 43. 16
ἐὰν δ᾽ ἐπιδεδικασμένου ἀμφισβητῇ τοῦ κλήρου ἢ τῆς ἐπικλήρου, προσκαλείσθω
τὸν ἐπιδεδικασμένον πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων δικῶν· παρα-
καταβολὰς δ᾽ εἶναι τῷ ἀμφισβητοῦντι. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ προσκαλεσάμενος ἐπιδικάσηται,
ἀτελὴς ἔσται ἡ ἐπιδικασία τοῦ κλήρου.
7 δικασάσθω. The action would be for breach of contract (συνθηκών
παράβασις, Poll. 8. 31) or perhaps for unfulflled agreement (ἀτελὴς ὁμολογία,
Plat. Laws 920D ὅσα τις ἂν ὁμολογῶν ξυνθέσθαι μὴ ποιῇ κατὰ τὰς ὁμολογίας,
πλὴν ὧν ἂν νόμοι ἀπείργωσιν ἢ ψήφισμα, ἤ τινος ὑπὸ ἀδίκου βιασθεὶς ἀνάγκης
ὁμολογήσῃ, καὶ ἐὰν ὑπὸ τύχης ἀπροσδοκήτου τις ἄκων κωλυθῇ, δίκας εἶναι τῶν
ἄλλων ἀτελοῦς ὁμολογίας ἐν ταῖς φυλετικαῖσι δίκαις). The terms of the Athenian
law of contract have to be reconstructed from the passages cited in the note
on III. 27. 4; whether the presence of a witness or witnesses was laid down
as a necessary condition of a valid agreement, is matter of controversy
OR. XI.
7ΟΙ
COMMENTARY
(Beauchet IV. p. 18 sqq.), but it is clear that in the age of the orators it was
the practice to call witnesses, and that oral contracts were exceedingly rare.
A contract made for a causa turpis was probably void (Beauchet, op. cit.
P. 38 sqq.). The prosecutor would have been ill-advised if he had proceeded
against Theopompus under the law of contract.
I
34. 1 μήτε πρὸς ἐμὲ μήτε κατ᾿ ἐμοῦ δίκην εἶναι. The claim for a moiety
of the inheritance was a δίκη πρὸς Θεόπομπον, the suit for breach of promise
was κατὰ Θεοπόμπου. The Roman actiones in personam, in which a breach
of duty was alleged against a specific individual, would have been considered
at Athens δίκαι κατά τινος, the actiones in rem, in which the plaintiff asserted
that a corporeal thing was his own or claimed to avail himself of some right,
would have ranked as δίκαι πρός τινα. But the point of view is not the same;
the Athenian classification is based on the presence or absence of punish-
ment, and is not limited to private suits. Thus Leptines was prosecuted for
an illegal proposal, i.e. for a crime, not a civil wrong, but Demosthenes'
speech against him is entitled πρὸς Λεπτίνην, not κατὰ Λεπτίνου, because
through lapse of time he had ceased to be personally responsible. See Att.
Proc.2 p. 202 sqq.
4 μήτε μοι δικάσασθαι: μήτε μὴ δικάσασθαι Apr., μήτε μὴν δικάσασθαι
A2. The emendation proposed by Blass (μήτε μοι οι μήτ' ἐμοί, Ant.2 1881,
praef. p. xiv) is manifestly superior to that of A2; cp. Crit. Introd. p. xlii,
Rh. Gr. I. p. 66, 22 Hammer πολλάκις μὴ πεισθέντες P, Aldus, πολλάκις μοι
πεισθέντες cett. Thalheim prints μήτ' ἐμοὶ in his text, claiming the correction
as his own (Hermes 38, 1903, p. 467). In an orator μήτε μήν is unique.
Isaeus has ἀλλὰ μήν, ἢ μήν, καὶ μήν, οὐ μήν ; other orators use in addition
οὐ μὴν ἀλλά, οὐ μὴν οὐδέ. Antiphon alone has οὐδὲ μήν (Tetr. I. a. 4 οὐ μὴν
οὐδὲ παροινήσας οὐδεὶς διέφθειρεν αὐτόν...οὐδὲ μὴν οὐδ᾽ ἐκ λοιδορίας...οὐδὲ μὴν
ἄλλου στοχαζόμενος ἔτυχε τούτου, ib. γ. 5 οὐδὲ μὴν ἀπογενέσθαι ἢ παραγενέσθαι
εἰκότερον αὐτόν ἐστιν), which is also found in Plato (Rep. 3. 395 A, Phaed. 93 A)
and Xenophon (An. 2. 4. 20 oùk...oùdè µýv, Oec. 12. 14, An. 7. 6. 22 oűte...
οὔτε.. οὐδὲ μήν, Cyr. 2. 2. 15, 4. 5. 27 οὔτε...οὐδὲ μήν). Xenophon uses οὔτε
μήν; see Symp. Ι. 15 οὔτε γὰρ ἔγωγε σπουδάσαι ἂν δυναίμην μᾶλλον ἤπερ
ἀθάνατος γενέσθαι, οὔτε μὴν ὡς ἀντικληθησόμενος καλεῖ μέ τις, Cyr. 4. 3. 12 οὔτε
γὰρ τοξεύειν ἡμῖν μαθητέον...οὔτε μὴν ἀκοντίζειν...ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ μήν, 5. 4. ΙΙ. The
combination was known to later Greek, οὔτε (μήτε) μήν occurring in Philo-
demus, Lucian, Aristides, Aelian, Philostratus (Schmid, Der Atticismus I.
p. 427, II. p. 308, III. p. 342, IV. p. 558).
5 ἀλλ᾽ ἤδη είναι ταῦτα τοῦ παιδός. Cp. § 5 νῦν δὲ φὴς τῶν ῾Αγνίου χρημάτων
τὸ ἡμικλήριον εἶναι τοῦ παιδός.
5, 6 ἀπογραψάσθω πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα εἰς τὴν μίσθωσιν κ.τ.λ., let him
register the property with the Archon in the lease of the orphan's estate';
compare for μίσθωσις in the sense of terms, articles, of a lease Dem. 37. 5
τιθέμεθα συνθήκας ἐν αἷς ἥ τε μίσθωσις ἦν γεγραμμένη καὶ λύσις τούτῳ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν
év tivi ρntô xpóvą, 27. 59, C.I.A. II. 1055, 20 sqq. (S.I.G.² n. 535, Michel
η. 1354) τὴν δὲ μίσθωσιν ἀναγράψαντας εἰστήλας λιθίνας τοὺς ταμίας τοὺς ἐπὶ
Δημοσθένους δημάρχου στῆσαι τὴν μὲν ἐν τῶν ἱερῶι τῆς Ἥβης ἔνδον, τὴν δ᾽ ἐν τει
λέσχει, for εἰς Plut. Nic. 14 σανίδας, εἰς ἃς ἀπεγράφοντο κατὰ φυλὰς αὑτοὺς οἱ
Συρακούσιοι, for the use of ἀπογράφεσθαι Lys. fr. 27 Saupp. νῦν δὲ πρὸς τοὺς
702
OR. XI.
ISAEUS
ἐκλογέας του φόρου ἅπαντα ἀπογραφόμεθα, Dem. 30. 17 τὴν ἀπόλειψιν πρὸς τὸν
ἄρχοντ᾽ ἀπεγράψαντο, [Dem.] 42. 16 ἀπεγραψάμην πρὸς τοὺς στρατηγοὺς ταυτηνὶ
τὴν ἀπογραφήν, Revenue Laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus, col. 49, 10 sqq. παρ'
οἷς δὲ προϋπάρχει τούτων τι, ἀπογραφέσθωσαν πρὸς τὸν τὴν ὠνὴν διοικοῦντα...
ἐν ἡμέραις τριάκοντα καὶ ἐπιδεικνύτωσαν τούς τε ὅλμους καὶ τὰ ἐπωτήρια. Taken
by themselves the words might mean 'let him give in his name to the Archon
(register himself) with a view to the lease of the orphan's estate' (C.I.A. II.
334, 18=S.I.G.² n. 232, Michel n. 608, Xen. Hell. 2. 4. 8, 7. 4. 4, Lys. 25. 9,
᾿Αθ. Πολ. 39. 5), but the context is against this interpretation; Theopompus
would not invite his fellow-guardian to become a lessee of the ward's property.
If my version is right, the language implies that steps had already been taken
(by the prosecutor ?) to get the orphan's estate leased. The charges in § 31,
where the prosecutor is accused of a design to assume undivided control and
plunder the property, should be read in the light of this revelation. Perhaps
since the death of Stratocles, which was recent, if it happened after the first
success of Phylomache II (§ 10), the administration had been in the hands
of Theopompus, as brother of the deceased (§§ 39 ἐπιμελοῦμαι τοῦτον τὸν
τρόπον ὥστε καὶ πολλῷ πλείω γενέσθαι τὴν οὐσίαν, 40 ὡς διοικεῖν ἀξιῶ τὰ τοῦ
παιδός). If guardians were quarrelling about the management of an estate,
it would be natural to appeal to the Archon to grant a lease. In his
commentary Schoemann seems to take a different view of the passage
(indicem bonorum, quae pupilli esse contendit, conficiat tradatque archonti,
petatque ab hoc, ut bona illa elocentur). His German translation is 'so gebe
er es bei'm Archon als einen Theil des zu verpachtenden Vermögens seines
Mündels an? Dareste renders thus: alors, qu'il s'adresse à l'archonte,
en désignant les biens de mineur susceptibles d'être affermés. The perplexing
subject of μίσθωσις ὀρφανικοῦ οἴκου has been touched on in the commentary
on II. 9, 27, 28, VI. 36.
35. 2
οὐ μὰ Δία οὐ γραφὰς ἐμὲ φεύγειν. For the repetition of οὐ cp.
§ 35. 8, Dem. 18. 307, 19. 212, 285, 21. 25, 22. 33, 24. 28, 157, 29. 59,
[Dem.] 43. 52, 52. 14, prooem. 35. 3, Hyp. 3. 4, Blass and Voemel on Dem.
8. 19, 28.
3 κινδυνεύειν περὶ τοῦ σώματος. Cp. § 13. 11 περὶ τῶν μεγίστων εἰς κίνδυνον
καθιστάναι.
5, 6 εἴ τι τῶν ὁμολογουμένων εἶναι τοῦ παιδὸς εἶχον καὶ κακῶς διέθηκα.
A added καί. Thalheim (Hermes 38, 1903, p. 467) would rather change
εἶχον to ἔχων ; cp. IX. 2. 7 n. Buermann (Hermes 19, 1884, p. 352) wishes
to delete κακώς διέθηκα, thinking that the words can well be spared and may
have arisen from κακῶς διώκουν in § 14. Schulthess (Vormundschaft nach
attischem Recht p. 203 n. 1) supports Buermann, and contends that the
words blunt the edge of the contrast between the property of Theopompus
and the property which admittedly belonged to the ward, and that the aorist
διέθηκα is incompatible with the imperfect εἶχον. The twist in the sentence
is not unlike Isaeus. For a guardian to be in possession of property belong-
ing to his ward after the termination of his office is an offence (Dem. 27. 12 å µèv
οὖν Δημοφῶν ἢ Θηριππίδης ἔχουσι τῶν ἐμῶν, τότ᾽ ἐξαρκέσει περὶ αὐτῶν εἰπεῖν,
ὅταν κατ᾿ αὐτῶν τὰς γραφὰς ἀπενέγκωμεν· ἃ δὲ τοῦτον ἔχοντ᾽ ἐξελέγχουσιν
ἐκεῖνοι καὶ ἔγωγ᾽ οἶδ᾽ αὐτὸν εἰληφότα, περὶ τούτων ἤδη ποιήσομαι τοὺς λόγους
1
OR. XI.
703
COMMENTARY
πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ib. 52 ἐγὼ γὰρ ὥσπερ καὶ τοῦτον τοσαῦτ᾽ ἔχοντ᾽ ἐξήλεγξα, οὕτως
κἀκείνων ἑκάτερον οὐκ ἐλάττω τούτων ἔχοντ᾽ ἐπιδείξω). During office it is his
duty to hold it, and use reasonable care and diligence in its administration.
Εἶχον is not identical with εἰλήφη (§ 14 μηδ᾽ ὥς τι εἴληφα ἔχειν εἰπεῖν) or
ἀπεστέρουν (Dem. 27. 12). Even in view of an impending μίσθωσις οἴκου
Theopompus could not plausibly argue 'I ought to be prosecuted for injuring
an orphan (ópþavoû kakwσews), only if I were (now) in possession of anything
admittedly belonging to the ward.' On the other hand the antithesis, such
as it is, would have been ruined, if he had said 'I ought to be prosecuted in
this way, only if I had mismanaged (in the past) anything belonging to the
ward, so as to cause him injury.' The confusion, which results from mixing
together misappropriation and culpable mismanagement, was part of the
writer's design. Isaeus was well aware that the form of procedure chosen
by the prosecutor was the legitimate and proper means of redressing the.
alleged injury. If to defraud a ward of his share in an inheritance was not
'maltreatment' (kákwσis), what was? It should be noted that nothing is
known of the distinction between the action for káκwois oppavoû and the
parallel action for κάκωσις ὀρφανικοῦ οἴκου ('Αθ. Πολ. 56. 6); some scholars
(Thalheim-Hermann, Gr. Rechtsaltert.¹ p. 16 n. 4, Beauchet II. p. 294 sqq.)
identify the latter with proceedings by way of páris to enforce a lease of the
estate (vπèρ μodwσews oíkov); see VI. 36. 7, 8 n.
T
36-50 You all understand, I think, that the prosecutor has respected
neither truth nor justice, but has concocted all his calumnies from motives of
self-interest, wresting the laws from their sense and endeavouring to circum-
vent both you and me. But one matter remains about which I have still
something to say. He has dilated on my riches and the ward's poverty and
charged me with basely refusing to contribute to the dowries of Stratocles'
four daughters. I must give an accurate statement of the facts to convince
you that he lies on this subject as on all others. If Stratocles left his children
a fortune ampler and more secure than mine, large enough to settle his
daughters handsomely and to leave the boy still rich, and if I manage their
affairs with such diligence as to increase greatly their estate, I ought not to
incur censure for not giving my own property to swell theirs; on the con-
trary, I deserve commendation for preserving and augmenting what they
possess. I will state, first, the particulars of the property, then, how I think
fit to administer their estate. The patrimony of Stratocles and myself was
enough for our needs, but not sufficient for the discharge of public burdens.
But Stratocles happened to receive an accession of more than 2 talents.
Theophon, his wife's brother, adopted one of his daughters and bequeathed to
her his property, which Stratocles controlled for 9 whole years and died worth
5 talents. Assets of Stratocles. Witnesses. My estate amounts to only
3 talents 40 minae, and I reckon in this total the property of my son, who
has passed by adoption into another family, and the inheritance of Hagnias,
which is not yet assured to me, since suits for false witness are pending,
and the case may be reopened. Witnesses. Is not my fortune as nothing in
comparison with that of the children of Stratocles? My opponent alleges
that I secrete my wealth in order that you may get as little benefit as possible
from it. Men who have no case on the facts are obliged to invent calumnies
704
OR. XI.
ISAEUS
of this sort in order to get the better of their adversaries. You can all testify
for me that Chaereleos and Macartatus, my wife's brothers, were men of small
means. Macartatus sold his land, bought and equipped a trireme, and sailed
to Crete, where he lost in the war life, ship, everything. · Chaereleos, who
died before Macartatus, left a farm not worth more than 30 minae. This
came to my wife, who persuaded me to institute one of my two children as
son and heir of Macartatus. My object in doing this was not to evade public
burdens, for after the adoption I was none the less liable. I will sum up the
whole matter in a proposal. I offer to merge my estate with that of my
ward, and then let each of us fairly take one half of the aggregate value.
But he will never consent. Conclusion wanting.
36. 3, 4 τοὺς νόμους παράγων. Cp. § 4 δεινὸς εἶ διαβάλλειν καὶ τοὺς
νόμους διαστρέφειν, Plat. Rep. 8. 550 D δαπάνας αὑτοῖς ἐξευρίσκουσι καὶ τοὺς
νόμους ἐπὶ τοῦτο παράγουσιν, ἀπειθοῦντες αὐτοί τε καὶ γυναῖκες αὐτῶν, Dem. 30.
26 σαφῶς ᾔδειν ὅτι λόγος ταῦτα καὶ παραγωγὴ τοῦ πράγματός ἐστι. Παράγειν in
this sense with an accusative of a thing is rare; the object is generally a
person (VIII. 37, And. 1. 113, Dem. 19. 228, 20. 98, 132, 23. 191, 215, 45. 87,
[Dem.] 35. 41, 46. I, Lyc. 32, 92 τῶν πονηρῶν ἀνθρώπων τὴν διάνοιαν). Editors
are not agreed about the analysis of the construction in Dem. 22. 4 πλάττων
καὶ παράγων πρὸς ἕκαστα τούτων κακούργους λόγους, ib. 34 ἄν τι φενακίζειν
ἐγχειρῇ καὶ παράγειν οὗτος, 38. 9 τοῦτο γὰρ πλάττουσιν οὗτοι καὶ παράγουσιν.
37. 4 περὶ δ᾽ ἐμὲ πλοῦτόν τινα τῷ λόγῳ κατασκευάσαντα. For the envy
and malice with which the popular tribunals regarded wealthy men see VI.
59. 7, 8 n.
6 τολμώ. Cp. I. 31. 8 n.
6, 7 συνευπορήσαι προικός, ‘to assist (none of themn) by contributing
towards a dowry,' lit. ' to supply part of a dowry in conjunction with others'
(VII. 8. 9, 10 n., Dem. 8. 19 καὶ συνευποροῦντας ἐκείνῳ χρημάτων καὶ τἄλλ᾽
οἰκείως συναγωνιζομένους, [Dem.] 59. 72 συμπαραγενόμενος αὐτῷ δοκιμαζομένῳ καὶ
συνευπορήσας ἀναλωμάτων). As the 'partitive genitive is necessary in these
passages, so sense demands the accusative in [Dem.] 33. 6 ἀπορουμένῳ δ᾽
αὐτῷ μνᾶς μὲν δέκα ὁ Παρμένων ὡμολόγησε δώσειν, τριάκοντα δὲ μνᾶς ἐδεῖτό μου
οὗτος συνευπορῆσαι.
38.2 ἐμοὶ μέν τινα φθόνον γενήσεσθαι κ.τ.λ. Cp. Dem. 29. 2 ἡγούμενος
διὰ τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ τιμήματος τῆς δίκης, ἣν ὠφλεν, ἐμοὶ μὲν ἂν γενέσθαι τινὰ
φθόνον, αὑτῷ δ᾽ ἔλεον.
4 παρ' ὑμῖν...δόξωσιν. Cp. VII. 5. 3, 4 κ.
39. 6, 7 εἰκότως μὲν...σῴζων δὲ κ.τ.λ. Examples of chiasmus in Attic
prose are collected and classified by Gebauer, De arg. ex contr. formis
p. 346 sqq. See also I. 10. 6, 7 n., Rehdantz, Demosth. Index I s.v. Stellung.
40. 2, 3 ὡς καὶ διοικεῖν ἀξιῶ τὰ τοῦ παιδός. This part of the speech is lost.
5, 6 λῃτουργεῖν δὲ οὐκ ἄξια. Cp. VII. 5 τούτοις οὐσίαν ὁ πατὴρ κατέλιπε
πολλήν, ὥστε καὶ λῃτουργεῖν ἕκαστον ἀξιοῦσθαι παρ' ὑμῖν, fr. 29. I Saupp.
κύριον τῆς πατρῴας οὐσίας, οὐ μικρᾶς, ἀλλ᾽ ἱκανῆς ὥστε καὶ λῃτουργεῖν. The
exact amount of property that made a man liable to λητουργίαι is not
known; some scholars say more than 2 t. (Thumser, De ciuium Atheniensium
muneribus p. 54), others 3 t. (Fränkel in Boeckh's Staatshaush.³ 11. p. 111* n.
756), others more than 3 t. (Lipsius-Schoemann, Gr. Altert. I. p. 502).
OR. XI.
705
COMMENTARY
6,7 τεκμήριον δέ· εἴκοσι μνᾶς ἑκάτερος ἡμῶν προῖκα ἔλαβε. This argument
must not be taken too seriously; rich men sometimes married poor girls
(II. 5. 2 n.). Theopompus is reluctant to give a brief inventory of the
estate of his father Charidemus. If he had adopted this simple and straight-
forward course, his hearers could have distinguished the inherited property
of Stratocles from his acquisitions, and it would have been necessary to
explain with more clearness the way in which Stratocles was enriched by
the adoption of his daughter. Moreover Theopompus was accused of
making his wealth invisible' (§ 47), i.e. of converting real estate into
money (v. 43. 3 n., [Dem.] 43. 69 sqq.). After τεκμήριον δέ, σημεῖον δέ,
μαρτύριον δέ, Attic prose writers generally use γάρ in the explanatory clause.
Exceptions are found in Dem. 21. 35, 23. 207, Thuc. 2. 50. 2, Plat. Laws 7.
821 E, Xen. An. 1. 9. 29. Here and in the two passages from Demosthenes
Cobet demands the addition of the particle (Gebauer on Lys. 13. 20 An-
hang p. 337).
41. 4 ἐποιήσατο τῶν θυγατέρων αὐτοῦ μίαν. For adoption of daughters
see VII. 9. 5, 6 n.
τὰ ὄνθ᾽ αὑτοῦ : τόν θ᾽ αὑτοῦ A. Reiske conjectured τῶν αὑτοῦ, de bonis
suis. Thalheim prints τῶν ἑαυτοῦ. The correction proposed by Blass (Att.
Ber.2 II. p. 516) is nearer to the ductus litterarum. For the unusual position
of αὑτοῦ cp. Kock, Com. Att. Fr. 1. p. 149, Pherecr. n. 13 νύκτωρ περιτρώγειν
αὑτῶν τοὺς δακτύλους, C.I.A. II. 613, II (298/7 Β.C.) ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ἑαυτοῦ
προσανήλωσεν ἀργύριον ἀπροφασίστως εἰς τὸ ἱερόν.
5 dypòv 'Edevoîvɩ. Cp. VI. 33. 2 N., V. 42. 6 n.
Π
6 ἵππον λαμπρὸν ἐφ᾽ οὗ ἐφυλάρχησε. Cp. V. 43. 5 n. The 'splendid
horse' (ἵππος λαμπρός) is a charger for parades and processions (Lys. 19. 63
αὐτίκα ὅτε ἵππευεν, οὐ μόνον ἵππους ἐκτήσατο λαμπροὺς ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀθλητάς, οἷς
ἐνίκησε Ισθμοῖ καὶ Νεμέα, Xen. De Re Eg. II. I ἢν δέ τις ἄρα βουληθῇ καὶ
πομπικῷ καὶ μετεώρῳ καὶ λαμπρῷ ἵππῳ χρήσασθαι, 11. 10 ἤν γε μήν ποτε συμβῇ
τινι τῶν τοιοῦτον ἵππον κεκτημένων ἢ φυλαρχῆσαι ἢ ἱππαρχῆσαι, οὐ δεῖ αὐτὸν
τοῦτο σπουδάζειν ὅπως αὐτὸς μόνος λαμπρὸς ἔσται, ἀλλὰ πολὺ μᾶλλον ὅπως ὅλον
τὸ ἑπόμενον ἀξιοθέατον φανεῖται, C.I.A. II. 444, 88 = Michel n. 884 (list of victors
at the Thesea, 164/3 B.C.) ἵππωι λαμπρῶι, Λύανδρος Νικογένου Αἰγεῖδος φυλῆς).
The grace and fire of this rare creature, his arching neck and tossing head
and prancing paces, are described with enthusiasm by Xenophon, op. cit. 11 ;
I quote an extract from Mr Dakyn's spirited translation: Such are the
horses on which gods and heroes ride, as represented by the artist. The
majesty of men themselves is best discovered in the graceful handling of
such animals. A horse so prancing (μετεωρίζων αὑτόν) is indeed a thing of
beauty, a wonder and a marvel; riveting the gaze of all who see him, young
alike and greybeards. They will never turn their backs, I venture to predict,
or weary of their gazing so long as he continues to display his splendid
action” (ἔστ᾽ ἄν περ ἐπιδεικνύηται τὴν λαμπρότητα). Modern authorities on
the horse write in a cooler strain; 'Stonehenge' classifies this animal
as 'a cobby but spirited and corky horse, with a light and somewhat
peculiar carriage of the head, just as we see represented on the Elgin
marbles' (Morgan, Xenophon's Art of Horsemanship p. 89). For the
ten φύλαρχοι see ᾿Αθ. Πολ. 61. 5 χειροτονοῦσι δὲ καὶ φυλάρχους <δέκα»,
W. I.
45
706
OR. XI.
ISAEUS
ἕνα τῆς φυλῆς, τὸν ἡγησόμενον <τῶν ἱππέων>, ὥσπερ οἱ ταξίαρχοι τῶν
ὁπλιτῶν.
42. 1, 2 ἧς κύριος γενόμενος ἐννέα ἔτη ὅλα κατέλιπε πέντε ταλάντων οὐσίαν
καὶ τρισχιλίων δραχμών. Theopompus appears to mean that Stratocles had
complete control for 9 years of the property bequeathed to his daughter by
Theophon, and increased his fortune by investing the income for his own
benefit. One would like to know more about this business, which looks very
like a fraud. Let us suppose that the girl was an infant when adopted, and
had not reached her 14th year (111. 40—44 analysis) when Stratocles died,
and that Theophon appointed Stratocles to be her guardian. On coming of
age her hand and her money would be demanded either by the husband
nominated in Theophon's will (VII. 9. 5, 6 n.) or by one of Theophon's
relatives. Whoever he was, the husband would be likely to ask for an
account of her guardianship. If then Theophon's will had not expressly
granted to Stratocles the usufruct of the estate during the minority,
Stratocles' heirs ran the risk of being compelled to refund the revenues
with interest. The profits, which Stratocles is supposed to have made,
appear large to a modern reader. The estate of the adopted daughter is
valued at 21 t. (§ 45. 3). According to Theopompus, Stratocles left 5½ t.,
exclusive of the estate bequeathed to his daughter, and did not inherit from
his father Charidemus enough to make him liable to λŋroupyiai (§ 40. 5, 6).
If his patrimony was less than 3 t., more than 2½ t. has to be accounted for.
Theopompus' explanation is that this sum was accumulated by his brother
We have no
in the nine years during which he controlled an estate of 2½ t.
means of calculating whether the explanation is plausible. Did Stratocles
let the land at Eleusis worth 2 t. or work it himself? Theopompus does not
say, nor does he explain what was done with the revenues. Money invested
in land and houses, according to Theopompus' statements in this section,
might bring in 8 p.c. and 8 p.c. Interest on loans ranged from 12 p.c., the
average rate when security was good (Billeter, Geschichte des Zinsfusses
p. 10 sqq.), to 333 p.c. asked in the hazardous speculations of shipmasters
and freightowners. Demosthenes (27. 58, 64) asserts that in the hands of a
lessee the property of a minor named Antidorus grew in 6 years from
3 t. 30 m. to 'more than 6 t.,' and that wards' estates had been doubled
and trebled by being leased.
3 σὺν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ πατρῴοις, his patrimony included (VI. 33. 6 n.).
4, 5 dypòv µèv Opidol. The deme Thria belonged to the maritime
trittys of the tribe Oeneis. The site is at Kalyvia north-east of Eleusis
(Milchhoefer Untersuchungen über die Demenordnung des Kleisthenes p. 28,
Frazer's Pausanias vol. II. p. 498). For the form Opiâơi cp. Blass-Kühner,
Gr. Gramm. II. § 337 n. 1, p. 309, Meisterhans, Gramm. d. att. Inschr.3
§ 59, 3, p. 146, who quotes C.I.A. I. 277, 1, 2 (415 B.C.) èπiкаρπiα Opiαι, and
C.I.A. IV. 2. 834 b I, 32 (329 B.C.) παρὰ ᾿Αρτέμωνος Θριῶθεν. Θριῶσι seems to
rest on the authority of Herodian (1. 505).
5 evρlσкovта <äv>. Dobree's emendation (Adv. I. p. 311) is in my
opinion right (VIII. 35. 4 n.).
οἰκίαν δὲ Μελίτῃ. Melite belonged to the urban trittys of the tribe
Cecropis and lay on the south-west side of Athens, partly within, partly
OR. XI.
707
COMMENTARY
without the city (Dem. 54. 7, Milchhoefer, op. cit. p. 29, Frazer's Pausanias,
vol. II. p. 125 sqq.). We expect év (éµ) Meλity as in the inscriptions (C.I.A.
IV. I. 321 col. 11. 16 ᾿Αχσιοπείθει ἐμ Μελίτηι οἰκοῦντι, ΙΙ. 772 Β 14 ᾿Αντιγένης
Επιγένους ἐν Μελίτηι οἰκῶν, S.I.G.2 n. 587, 12ο Νίκωνι Ἐλευσῖνι οἰκοῦντι,
Σωτίωνι ἐν Μελίτει οἰκοῦντι, 180 Λεπτίνηι ἐμ Μελίτει οἰκοῦντι), but easy as the
correction is, it cannot be considered compulsory in view of 'Emiкnpioiâi
οἰκοῦσα (C.I.A. 11. 773 A II. 26) by the side of ἐγ Κηφισιᾶι) οἰκοῦσα (C.I.A.
11, 772 b B 26); cp. Meisterhans, op. cit. § 84, 23, p. 208.
7 ἐδάφη μὲν ταῦτα. Cp. C.I.A. II. 779, 1, 2 (c. 300 B.C.) τάδ' ἐπράθη
ἐδ[άφη ?] ἀτίμητα ὄντα (unassessed for taxation through the fraud of the
owners and therefore confiscated), I.G. Sept. I. n. 2808, 28=S.I.G.2 n. 740
(Hyettus, 3rd c. A.D.) ἀπὸ δὲ ἄρκτου κενὸν ἐδάφιον τὸ καλούμενον ἅ[λως] Αρεος.
7,8 ǹ μíodwois toû µèv dypoû Súdeка µvаî. The rent is 8 p.c. on 2 t., the
selling value of the land according to Theopompus. We possess a contract
of 300/299 B.C. (C.I.A. II. 600-Michel n. 1357) in which the officials of a
φρατρία (τὸ κοινὸν Δυαλέων) lease a farm at Myrrhinus (τὸ χωρίον τὸ Μυρ-
ρινοῦντι...τὴν Σάκκνην καλουμένην) to Diodorus of Myrrhinus for io years at
an annual rent of 600 dr., and give him the option of purchasing within the
Io years at the price of 5000 dr. Here the ratio of rent to purchase money
is 12 p.c. For the interpretation of this inscription see Billeter, Geschichte
des Zinsfusses p. 17 n. 3.
8, 9 τῶν δὲ οἰκιῶν τριακόσιαι, <&> πεντεκαίδεκα μναῖ συναμφότερα γίγνονται.
Apr. wrote трiakóσial, which A² altered to тpeis aï. The correction suggested
by Blass (Ant.² 1881, praef. p. xiv.) is neater and takes account of ovvaµpóтEρа,
which Reiske wished to change to σvvaµþóтepai. Cp. V. 47. 5, [Dem.] 49.
63 τὴν τιμὴν αὐτῶν ὀφείλων, ὃ ἀπετείσθη τῶν φιαλών. Anyone who may think
that Spaxuai ought to have been added, should examine Dem. 27. 10, 11, 36;
28.4; 31.6; 41. 22, 29, [Dem.] 34. 6, 24, 25; 40. 52. The two houses are
said to have been bought for 3500 dr., so that the rent is 8 p.c. on the
purchase money. An inscription found near Zea and assigned to the 2nd
half of the 4th century (C.I.A. II. 1058=S.I.G.2 n. 834, Michel n. 1355, Inscr.
Jurid. Gr. 1. p. 240 n. XIII ter) records a lease in perpetuity (els тòv äπaνта
Xpóvov) for a yearly rent of 54 dr. of a workshop in the Peiraeus with a house
attached (τὸ ἐργαστήριον τὸ ἐν Πειραεῖ καὶ τὴν οἴκησιν τὴν προσοῦσαν αὐτῶι καὶ
τὸ οἰκημάτιον τὸ ἐπὶ τοῦ κοπρῶνος), the property being assessed for the εισφορὰ
at 7 m. (εἰσφέρειν Εὐκράτην κατὰ τὸ τίμημα καθ᾽ ἑπτὰ μνᾶς). The ratio of the
rent to the assessment is 7 p.c.
ΙΟ
ἐπ' ἐννέα ὀβολοῖς, at 18 p.c. (Aesch. 1. 107 δανεισάμενος ἐπ᾿ ἐννέα ὀβολοῖς
Tηv µvâv). For rates of interest at Athens see Billeter, op. cit. p. 18 sqq.
43. 4, 5 ἐξ ἐράνων ὀφλήματα εἰσπεπραγμένα, ex eranis redacta debita
(Reiske), ‘Eranistenvorschüsse, die wieder eingezogen waren' (Schoemann),
'des créances qui ont été recouvrées sur des éranes' (Dareste). For epavos in
the sense not of a religious association but of a joint-loan of money got
together to relieve the necessities of a friend, bearing no interest but
recoverable at law, see Att. Proc.² p. 639 sqq., Thalheim-Hermann, Gr.
Rechtsaltert.ª p. 74, Ziebarth, Das griechische Vereinswesen p. 15, Beauchet
IV. p. 258 sqq. The current translations conceal the difficulty of the passage.
In the first place the phrase ỏ¤λýµaтa eloπeñ payµéva is singular in this con-
TE
45-2
708
OR. XI.
ISAEUS
nexion. There are situations in which εισπράττειν τὸ ἔφλημα is as natural
and intelligible as ἐκτίνειν τὸ ἔφλημα, which is common (Dem. 39. 15, [Dem.]
40. 22, 53. 15, 29, 58. 51, 59. 7), i.e. in describing the recovery of a penalty
imposed by a court (Dem. 29. 2 τὰ παρ᾽ ὑμῖν γνωσθέντα πραττόμενος αὐτόν,
S.I.G.2 n. 928 (Magnesia ad Maeandrum, 2nd c. A.D.), 78 ἤτοι εἰσ[πραχθείσης
τ]ῆς καταδίκης ἢ ἀφέσεως γενομένης). But a contributor to an ἔρανοs is a kind
of creditor, and what a creditor recovers or seeks to recover (εἰσπράττει),
with or without legal process, is the sum owing to him (τὸ ὀφείλημα). Nor-
mally the court has not power to modify the amount, the suit being a díkŋ
ἀτίμητος, and the utility of a judgment against a debtor is that it assists
recovery by authorising summary means of execution ([Dem.] 35. 12 (a
contract) ἔστω ἡ πρᾶξις τοῖς δανείσασι καὶ ἐκ τῶν τούτων ἁπάντων, καὶ ἐγγείων
καὶ ναυτικῶν, πανταχοῦ ὅπου ἂν ὦσι, καθάπερ δίκην ὠφληκότων καὶ ὑπερημέρων
ὄντων, Beauchet IV. pp. 238, 430 sqq.). Thus in the special case under
consideration ὁ ἐρανίζων εἰσπράττει τὸν ἔρανον παρὰ τοῦ ἐρανιζομένου (S. I. G.
n. 817, 9, 10= Michel κ. 1350 (Myconus) ὡμολόγησαν δὲ Σώστρατος καὶ
᾿Αριστοκράτης Επαρχίδει συνεισπράξειν τὸν ἔρανον τοῦτον, καὶ ἐάν τινα τῶν
ἐσφορῶν μὴ δύνηται εἰσπρᾶξαι Επαρχίδης, συμπροσθήσειν Σώστρατος καὶ ᾿Αριστο-
κράτης). This may be the reason why some scholars (Thalheim-Hermann,
Gr. Rechtsaltert. p. 74 n. 3) deny that ὀφλήματα here implies a legal sentence.
They give no translation, but I conjecture them to mean that the word is
used improperly in the sense of ' payments that have fallen due.' The second
difficulty is more serious. Theopompus seems to reckon the sooo dr., which
constituted ἐξ ἐράνων ὀφλήματα εἰσπεπραγμένα, as part of his dead brother's
estate, and yet it appears that the money was not in possession of the
widow, because it is distinguished from the cash in the house. Schoemann's
explanation, approved by Dareste, is that the contributions had been repaid
by the recipients, but had not yet reached the several contributors, of whom
Stratocles was one. Where, then, was the money? In the chest of the
épavos, is his answer (Schoemann's German translation p. 220), i.e. he seems
to suppose that the subscribers to an epavos formed an association which was
not dissolved until the whole sum subscribed was repaid, and that the several
instalments were paid to the treasurer of the association, not directly to the
contributors. In favour of this hypothesis we may quote Hyp. 5. 11 καὶ τῶν
ἐράνων εἷς μέν, οὗ (?) Δικαιοκράτης ἐνεγέγραπτο, οὗ ἦσαν λοιπαὶ τρεῖς φοραί, οὗτος
μὲν ἐπὶ τοῦ Δικαιοκράτους ὀνόματος ἦν γεγραμμένος, S. D. I. II. n. 1754 (Delphi,
170–157/6 B.C.), 5 sqq. κατενεγκάτω δὲ ᾿Αριστὼ ἢ Πλειστὸς ὑπὲρ ᾿Αριστὼ ἐν
τὸν ἔρανον τὸν Βακχίου ἐπὶ τὸ Καλλικλέος ὄνομα ἀργυρίου τρία ἡμιμναῖα ἐν ἐτέοις
τρίοις· ἄρχει ὁ καταβολὰ ἐν τῶι Ηρακλείωι μηνὶ τῶι ἐπὶ ᾿Ανδρονίκου. The
theory may easily be fitted to the cases in which the epavos is got up by a
person other than the recipient of the money (S. D. I. 11. nn. 1772, 17, 1791,
8, 1878, 10, 1908, 8, 2317, 7). Sometimes however the epavos is designated
by the name of the beneficiary (S. D. I. II. n. 1804, 3 τὸν ἔρανον τὸν Βρομίου
οὗ ἐγγνεύει Ἰατάδας, Ι. G. Sept. 1. n. 3376 (Chaeronea) τὸν ἔρανον ὃν συνάγαγε
Θέων); when a man went round his acquaintances and collected subscriptions
for himself (Ant. Tetr. I. a 9 ἔρανον παρὰ τῶν φίλων συλλέξας), can we believe
that he organised the subscribers into a society with a treasurer? A different
solution of the puzzle seems to me possible. As an epavos was sometimes
Π
OR. XI.
709
COMMENTARY
repaid by instalments (popai, Lys. fr. 1, 3 Saupp., Hyp. 5. 11) spread over a
term of years, what we expect to find in an account of the estate of a deceased
contributor is a list of the amounts which had not been paid because they
were not due. This I conjecture to have been the purport of the schedule
In this docu-
(ἀπογραφὴ) drawn up before witnesses by Stratocles widow.
ment she determined the amounts still due by proving that certain sums had
been already received. The original contribution of Stratocles in each case
could be easily settled, because equality of contribution seems to have been
one of the principles of an ἔρανος, so that ὁ ἔρανος ὁ πεντακοσιόδραχμος in
S. I. G.2 n. 817, 5 means not that the total collected was 500 dr., but that
each subscriber gave 500 dr. Why then did not Isaeus put down the debts
which bore no interest immediately after the χρέα ἐπὶ τόκοις ὀφειλόμενα
(§ 42. 9)? Because it did not suit his purpose, which was to magnify
Stratocles' wealth. The form of statement chosen enables him, first, to suggest
to the judges that Stratocles was a man who in his lifetime had at disposal
indefinitely large sums of ready money, which was scarce even among well-
to-do Athenians (Ant. Tetr. Ι. β 12 πολλοῖς δὲ ἐρανίζοντα, μεγάλας δὲ ὑπὲρ
πολλῶν ἐγγύας ἀποτίνοντα), and, secondly, to count the same items twice, the
amounts already repaid either having been spent or forming part of the
investments and the cash in the house. Probably the sums outstanding
were less than the instalments that had been got in. With regard to the
usus uerborum I believe that in Attic prose opλnua always refers to the
judgment of a tribunal. But emendation is to be deprecated. Concerning
δίκαι ερανικαὶ at Athens we know little more than the name ('Αθ. Πολ. 52. 2,
Ziebarth, op. cit. p. 179). A Delphic inscription (S. D. I. II. 22. 1804) mentions
a surety (ἐγγυητής) responsible for the punctual payment of the instalments
of an epavos, and a sentence awarded in a suit against a defaulting surety
might well be called an ὄφλημα.
6 ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ, τοῦ παιδός. Cp. VI. 20. 6, VII. 23. 2, V. hyp. 3, X. hyp. 30,
XI. hyp. 8, Ant. 5. 21 οὗ τὸ πλοῖον ὥρμει τοῦτο εἰς ὃ μετεκβάντα φασὶν ἀποθανεῖν
αὐτόν, τὸν Ἡρῴδην (τὸν Ἡρῴδην del. Reiske), ib. 77 οὐκ ἔστιν ὅ τι ὕστερον αὐτῷ
ἡμάρτηται, τῷ ἐμῷ πατρί (τῷ ἐμῷ πατρί del. Dobree), Lys. 13. 54 καὶ Ἱππίας
μὲν ὁ Θάσιος καὶ Ξενοφῶν ὁ Καριδεύς, οἳ ἐπὶ τῇ αὐτῇ αἰτίᾳ τούτῳ ὑπὸ τῆς βουλῆς
μετεπέμφθησαν, οὗτοι μὲν ἀπέθανον, ὁ μὲν στρεβλωθείς, Ξενοφῶν, ὁ δ᾽ Ιππίας
οὕτω, Dem. 18. 102 τοὺς μὲν τὰ δίκαια ποιεῖν ἠνάγκασα, τοὺς πλουσίους (τους
πλουσίους del. Cobet), τοὺς δὲ πένητας ἔπαυσ᾿ ἀδικουμένους. In this sentence
the excision of τοῦ παιδὸς would cause obscurity.
C
7, 8 ἃ κατελείφθη μὲν οὗτοι δ᾽ οὐκ ἀποφαίνουσιν. This category (§ 44. 2
τὰ παρακλεπτόμενα ὑπὸ τούτων) amounts to no less than 37 m., for the items
enumerated in §§ 42, 43, including the 1ooo dr. from ἔρανοι, only come to
4 t. 53 m., and Theopompus contends that his brother left an estate
of 5, t.
44. 2, 3 ἀλλ᾽ ὕστερον...ποιήσομαι τοὺς λόγους. This exposition may
have come in the last part of the speech, which is lost. But we must bear
in mind Anaximenes advice to an orator: ὅσα δ᾽ ἂν λίαν ἄπιστα συμβαίνῃ,
δεῖ παραλείπειν. ἐὰν δὲ ἀναγκαῖον ᾖ λέγειν, εἰδότα δεῖ φαίνεσθαι καὶ ἐπιπλέξαντα
αὐτὰ τῷ τῆς παραλείψεως σχήματι ὑπερβάλλεσθαι καὶ προϊόντος τοῦ λόγου ἐπιδείξειν
ἀληθῆ ὑπισχνεῖσθαι προφασισάμενον, ὅτι τὰ προειρημένα πρῶτον βούλει ἀποδεῖξαι
710
OR. XI.
ISAEUS
ἀληθῆ ὄντα καὶ δίκαια ἤ τι τῶν τοιούτων. καὶ τοῦτον μὲν τὸν τρόπον τὰς ἀπιστίας
ἰασόμεθα (c. 30, Rh. Gr. I. p. 73, 2 sqq. Hammer).
3,4 χωρίον ἐν Οἰνόῃ. There were two demes called Οινόη, one belonging
to the tribe Hippothontis, a strongly-fortified post in the north-west corner
of Attica (Hdt. 5. 74 οἱ Βοιωτοὶ Οἰνόην αἱρέουσι καὶ Ὑσιάς, δήμους τοὺς ἐσχάτους
τῆς ᾿Αττικῆς) at the foot of Cithaeron on the Boeotian border (Milchhoefer,
Untersuchungen über die Demenordnung des Kleisthenes p. 32, Frazer's
Pausanias, vol. v. p. 538), the other belonging to the maritime trittys of the
tribe Aeantis, in the north-east of Attica not far from Marathon, and now
identified with Ninói on the river Charadra (Milchhoefer, op. cit. p. 35,
Frazer, op. cit. vol. II. p. 439). The form Οἰνοῆσιν occurs in inscriptions
(Meisterhans, Gramm. d. att. Inschr³ § 59, 3, p. 146).
4 Προσπαλτοί. Prospalta belonged to the tribe Acamantis, and is placed
by Milchhoefer in the maritime trittys to the north-west of Κεφαλή (II. 31. 21.)
near Kalyvia (op. cit. p. 25). For the form cp. VI. 33. 2 n., [Dem.] 43. 64
(Προσπαλτόθεν).
6, 7 où yàp äv oîd' ötɩ tλéov evρol. Cp. IX. 8. 1, 2 22., VIII. 35. 4 22.
45. I, 2 τὰ τοῦ ὑέος τοῦ ἐκποιηθέντος, i.e. τὸ Προσπαλτοῖ χωρίον, ὃ πλέον
οὐκ ἂν εὕροι τριάκοντα μνῶν (§ 49).
Ο
7 δίκαι γὰρ ἐνεστήκασι ψευδομαρτυρίων. The plural, δίκαι, probably means
that at the trial the veracity of more than one of Theopompus' witnesses had
been challenged by means of an ἐπίσκηψις (ΙΙΙ. 3. 5 π.). But notices of a
prosecution for false witness may have been given by more than one of the
parties to the suit. Theopompus' witness or witnesses must have been
attacked by the representatives of Phylomache II. He had disposed of
the rights of the tenant of the estate, who derived her title from a paternal
aunt of Hagnias II, by maintaining that the father of Hagnias II had no full
sister ([Dem.] 43. 29). Note the language of Sositheus (ib. 30): Taûta dè
πάντ᾽ ἀδεῶς ἔλεγεν ὁ Θεόπομπος, μάρτυρα μὲν οὐδένα παρασχόμενος, ὅστις
ἔμελλεν ὑπεύθυνος ἡμῖν ἔσεσθαι, συνομολογοῦντας δ᾽ ἑαυτῷ ἔχων τοὺς κοινωνούς.
These words should not be interpreted to mean that no witness was at-
tacked; they are a Greek advocate's way of admitting that all attacks failed.
46. I, 2
ἐὰν ἁλῷ τις τῶν ψευδομαρτυρίων, πάλιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς κ.τ.λ. It is rash
to deduce from this passage that at Athens a judgment was nullified by the
conviction of a single witness; see Att. Proc. p. 982 n. 614. Plato's regula-
tions on the subject are given in Laws 937 CD: ὁπόσων δ᾽ ἂν μαρτυρίαι ἁλῶσι
δίκῃ ψευδῆ δοξάντων μαρτυρεῖν καὶ τὴν νίκην τῷ ἑλόντι πεποιηκέναι, ἐὰν τῶν
τοιούτων ὑπὲρ ἥμισυ μαρτυριῶν καταδικασθῶσί τινες, τὴν κατὰ ταύτας ἁλοῦσαν
δίκην ἀνάδικον γίγνεσθαι, ἀμφισβήτησιν δ᾽ εἶναι καὶ διαδικασίαν εἴτε κατὰ ταύτας
εἴτε μὴ ἡ δίκη ἐκρίθη, ὁποτέρως δ᾽ ἂν κριθῇ, ταύτῃ γιγνέσθω τὸ τέλος τῶν ἔμ-
προσθεν δικῶν. The scholiast ad loc. seens to identify Plato's law with that
of Athens: ἀνάδικος κρίσις· εἰ ἑάλωσαν πάντες οἱ μάρτυρες ψευδομαρτυρίων ἢ
ὑπερημίσεις, ἐκρίνετο ἄνωθεν ἡ δίκη. οὐκ ἐπὶ πάντων δὲ τῶν ἀγώνων ἐγίγνοντο
ἀνάδικοι αἱ κρίσεις, ἀλλ᾿ ὥς φησι Θεόφραστος ἐν ἑπτανόμῳ ἑβδόμῳ νόμων, Att.
Proc. p. 979), ἐπὶ μόνης ξενίας καὶ ψευδομαρτυρίων καὶ κλήρων.
4 σὺν τοῖς τοῦ ἐκποιήτου. For the use of the preposition cp. VI. 33. 6 π.
47. 2, 3 ὥστε <τὴν ἐμὴν> μηδεμίαν γενέσθαι παρὰ τοὺς Στρατοκλέους
παῖδας. I regret that I followed Roeder (Beiträge p. 78) and Buermann
OR. XI.
711
COMMENTARY
and inserted in the text rv éμnv. Goelkel's suggestion (Blätter f. d. bayr.
Gymnasial-Schulwesen 18, 1882, p. 459) to supply époì is better, except that
it should be placed before, not after, undeµíav, the probable stages of cor-
ruption having been ὥστ᾽ ἐμοὶ μηδεμίαν, ὥστ᾽ ἐμὴ μηδεμίαν, ὥστε μὴ μηδεμίαν ;
cp. § 34. 4 22. The weakness of Roeder's emendation is not the comparatio
compendiaria, for which see Schwab, Syntax d. gr. Comparation p. 144 sqq.,
but the use of μηδεμίαν as a predicate in the sense of nullius pretii, μηδενὸς
ağíav. Hitzig, Fahrbb. f. cl. Philol. 123, 1881, p. 110, appeals to Hdt. 7. 20
στόλων γάρ, τῶν ἡμεῖς ἴδμεν, πολλῷ δὴ μέγιστος οὗτος ἐγένετο ὥστε μήτε τὸν
Δαρείου τὸν ἐπὶ Σκύθας παρὰ τοῦτον μηδένα φαίνεσθαι μήτε τὸν Σκυθικὸν κ.τ.λ.
The reading of the Aldine, µŋdév, discarded by all modern editors (Stein,
Kallenberg, Holder), is in my opinion right. When the subject is a man
or men, ovdeis or ovdéves in the predicate stands as little in need of ex-
planation as 'nobody' or 'nobodies' discharging a like function in English,
though it should be noted that the usage is tragic (Eur. Ion 594, Andr. 700,
I. A. 371, Antiope, fr. 196 Dind., Belleroph. fr. 285, 15 Dind., Ar. Eq. 158)
and Herodotean (7. 14, 9. 58), but only found once, so far as I am aware, in
Attic prose, viz. in Plat. Theaetet. 175 E evýðeɩ dokeîv kaì ovdevì eivai, where
Cobet would read οὐδὲν εἶναι. Plato certainly shows a plain preference for
ovdév even with a personal subject in the plural (Plat. Ap. 41 E, Rep. 1,
341 C, 8. 556 D, 562 D); contrast Eur. El. 939 ηὔχεις τις εἶναι, τοῖσι χρήμασι
σθένων, Dem. 21. 213 πλούσιοι τὸ δοκεῖν τινες εἶναι δι᾽ εὐπορίαν προσειληφότες,
[Dem.] 10. 7ι ὡς σὲ μὲν ἐν τῇ πόλει δεῖ τινὰ φαίνεσθαι, τὴν πόλιν δ᾽ ἐν τοῖς
"Eλλnoi µndevòs áέíav eivai, Kock, Com. Att. Fr. III. p. 46, Menandr. n. 1.56
ἐφ᾽ ᾧ φρονεῖς μέγιστον ἀπολεῖ τοῦτό σε, τὸ δοκεῖν τιν (τι Β) εἶναι, with Plat.
Lach. 200 Β ἀνδρὶ οἰομένῳ τι εἶναι, Euthyd. 303 C τῶν σεμνῶν δὴ καὶ δοκούντων
τι εἶναι, Phaedr. 242 Ε σεμνύνεσθαι ὥς τι ὄντε. But the conditions are
changed when the subject is a thing or an action; here the neuter predicate
seems required by logic and is certainly normal in all styles (Eur. fr. 95
Nauck oudev ŋvyéveɩa πpòs тà xpημara, Meineke, Fr. Com. Gr. v. monost. 557
ὡς οὐδὲν ἡ μάθησις, ἂν μὴ νοῦς παρῇ).
C
ע:
>
A has Tepi. Reiske's emendation, πpós, adopted by Buermann and
Thalheim, makes good Attic. But mapá is not inferior (Dem. 19. 174, Plat.
Rep. 5. 468 C, Xen. Mem. 1. 4. 14), and is often confounded with Tepi in MSS.
(Dem. 8. 14, 14. 28, 21. 4, [Dem.] 34. 52, Aesch. 1. 127, 174, Rh. Gr. (Hammer) I.
pp. 28, 18, 224, 6, 265, 11, 287, 13, 321, 20, 323, 20, 324, 13, 338, 8, Bast,
Commentatio palaeographica p. 830, Dobree, Adv. 1. pp. 91, 106, 156, II.
pp. 152, 174).
7, 8 ἀφανίζω τὴν οὐσίαν. Cp. v. 43. 3 7., VII. 35. 3 7.
10, II
τοιούτους λόγους, ἐξ ὧν [ἂν]...δυνήσονται. Both ἄν and ή are out
of place in 'a consecutive relative clause, in which the relative with the
future indicative denotes a result which is aimed at' (Goodwin, M. & T.
$ 576). Probably av was added by some one who had before him duvýowvTaι
(see n. cr.), which he took to be a first aorist subjunctive.
oi The
48. 2, 3 οἱ τῆς ἐμῆς γυναικὸς ἀδελφοί, Χαιρέλεως καὶ Μακάρτατος.
father was Apolexis of Prospalta ([Dem.] 43. 48).
5,6 τριήρη πριάμενος καὶ ταύτην πληρωσάμενος. The cost of the hull of
an Athenian trireme is not known. It was more than 50 m., for trierarchs
712
OR. XI.
ISAEUS
condemned in court to furnish the state with a new warship (kaιǹv åπodidóvai)
could meet their obligation by giving back the old ship and paying in
addition 50 m. (Boeckh, Staatshaush.3 I. p. 141 with Fränkel's note). Boeckh
calculates that the cost of the tackle and fittings (σkeúŋ) of a quadrireme was
over I t., and thinks that it cannot have been much less in the case of a
trireme. Thus, if Macartatus defrayed all the expenses of the trireme out
of his own pocket, his fortune must have been larger than that of his brother
Chaereleos. But he may have been the head of a company formed for
privateering, éì λeíav oixóμevo (Att. Proc. p. 734 n. 735, Thalheim-Hermann,
ἐπὶ λείαν
Gr. Rechtsaltert.ª p. 112 n. 3, Beauchet IV. p. 364 sqq.).
6 εἰς Κρήτην ἐξέπλευσεν. Macartatus seems to have assisted some Cretan
city or cities at war with the Lacedaemonians, who in consequence accused
the Athenians of neglecting the obligations of a neutral state. The answer
of the Athenian government is not stated. If they repudiated Macartatus as
a pirate and sent a detachment of their fleet with orders to capture or sink
the privateer, Theopompus' silence is explicable. Nothing is known con-
cerning this war in Crete (Introd. p. 677).
49. 7 γιγνομένου τῆς ἐκείνων ἀδελφῆς. The participle represents an
imperfect, κατελείφθη τὸ Προσπαλτοῖ χωρίον καὶ ἐγίγνετο τῆς ἐκείνων ἀδελφῆς
('was by right the property of their sister'); for the use of yiyveolaι cp. v.
44. 5 n. The estate of Macartatus was disputed in the law courts and was
the subject of a speech by Lysias (lxxxvi, frr. 164, 165 Saupp.), but the
competitors are unknown.
8,9
ἐπείσθην ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνης εἰσποιῆσαι Μακαρτάτῳ τὸν ἕτερον τῶν παίδων.
This son is the Macartatus, who was attacked by Sositheus, husband of
Phylomache II, about 17 years after this suit, the Pseudo-Demosthenic
speech against Macartatus (or. 43) being assigned to 342 or 341 B.C. (Blass,
Att. Ber.2 III. 1. pp. 551/2). In the interval he had returned to the house of
his natural father, leaving behind him a son in the house of his adoptive
father (VI. 44. 4, 5 n., IX. 33. 4, 5 n.), and had inherited the estate of
Theopompus. It follows that Theopompus' second son died before his father.
Isaeus insinuates that the sister of Macartatus, unlike the sisters of Apollo-
dorus denounced in or. VII, was anxious that her dead brother should enjoy
the consolation of possessing a son, and that his house should not be
extinguished. We should be able to judge her motives better, if we knew
when the transfer took place. If, as seems probable (Introd. p. 677), her
brother perished before 378 B.C., and if the adoption was recent, we cannot
wonder that Theopompus' assailant offered a different explanation of an act
of piety deferred for so many years.
µý
50. 1, 2 ὁμοίως γὰρ καὶ [μή] εἰσποιήσαντος τοῦτό γ᾽ ὑπῆρχεν. For the
transposition of µn see Crit. Introd. p. xxxix. Theopompus has said in § 40
that the property he inherited from his father did not render him liable to
λŋroupyíaɩ, and in § 44 has reckoned the value of his land and house at
I t. 10 m., an amount which is universally considered less than the minimum
census for these public burdens. What then can he mean by saying 'even
without the estate of Macartatus, transferred to my son, I still had to perform
public services (τοῦτό γ' ὑπῆρχεν sc. λητουργεῖν)? Schoemann meets the
difficulty by adding in the estate of Hagnias II, said in § 44 not to be worth
OR. XI.
713
COMMENTARY
more than 2 t., thus bringing up the property of Theopompus to a sum
which certainly constituted an οὐσία λητουργοῦσα (§ 40. 5, 6 n.). But the
estate of Hagnias II is a recent acquisition, and, as Theopompus says
($45), 'not yet secure.' Moreover, if the son was not transferred to the
house of Macartatus till after the victory over Phylomache II, even charitable
observers might have regarded the transference with some suspicion. The
fact is that Isaeus is fudging. He goes on to say οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐλῃτούργουν διὰ
τοῦτό γ᾽ οὐδὲν ἧττον ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν εἰσφερόντων ἦν καὶ τῶν τὰ προσταττόμενα ὑμῖν
ἅπαντα ποιούντων. This is nothing but a lusus uerborum (V. 37. 4 n.). Pay-
ment of the war-tax (εἰσφορά) may be called performance of a public duty
(λῃτουργεῖν), but it was not a λητουργία in the technical sense, which the
argument requires; men who by reason of their limited means were exempt
from the τριηραρχία and χορηγία were not therefore exempt from the εἰσφορά
(Dem. 20. 28 οἱ μὲν ἐλάττω κεκτημένοι τοῦ τριηραρχίας ἄξι᾽ ἔχειν, ἐν ταῖς εἰσφοραῖς
συντελοῦσιν εἰς τὸν πόλεμον). The verb λῃτουργεῖν is sometimes applied
rhetorically even to military service, which was the duty of every able-
bodied male citizen (Lys. 31. 15 ὑπολείπεται τοίνυν αὐτῷ λέγειν ὡς τῷ μὲν
σώματι δι᾽ ἀσθένειάν τινα γενομένην ἀδύνατος κατέστη βοηθῆσαι εἰς τὸν Πειραιά,
ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων ἐπαγγειλάμενος αὐτὸς ἢ χρήματ᾽ εἰσενεγκεῖν εἰς τὸ πλῆθος
τὸ ὑμέτερον ἢ ὁπλίσαι τινὰς τῶν ἑαυτοῦ δημοτῶν, ὥσπερ καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ τῶν
πολιτῶν αὐτοὶ οὐ δυνάμενοι λῃτουργεῖν τοῖς σώμασιν), and it is probable that
here the swelling phrase τῶν τὰ προσταττόμενα (IV. 27. 8 n.) ὑμῖν ἅπαντα
ποιούντων merely signifies τῶν τὰς στρατείας, ὅσαι ἂν προσταχθῶσι, στρατευο-
μένων.
5 περὶ ἀχρήστου μὲν πλουσίου δέ. Cp. IV. 27. 6, 7 η.
7 δόξει δίκαιον. In the oratorical style the absence of εἶναι is very
unusual. In Isaeus there is no other example, and none in Antiphon,
Andocides, Dinarchus, Hypereides, Aeschines. Fuhr on Lys. 19. 8 (αθλιώ-
τεροι δοκοῦσί μοι οἱ παῖδες, where εἶναι is inserted by Franz after δοκοῦσι, by
Fuhr after μοι) cites Lys. 3. 29, 19. 44 (εἶναι add. Reiske), 32. 21. Add
Lyc. 125, [And.] 4. 24, and see Krüger, Gr. Sprachlehre § 55. 4, 4, Gerth-
Kühner, Gr. Gramm. I. § 354 22. 2, p. 42.
IO, II
πλέον ἔχῃ ἕτερος τοῦ ἑτέρου τοῦ προσήκοντος. Her werden would
cut out τοῦ προσήκοντος, Thalheim (Hermes 38, 1903, p. 467) τοῦ ἑτέρου.
The text is rightly defended by Schwab, Syntax d. gr. Comparation p. 142.
Theopompus' complaint is that his brother's estate is too much larger than
his own; a difference of a few minae might not have mattered, but a balance
of lio to the advantage of the ward (§ 44) was more than fitting (πλέον
τοῦ προσήκοντος). Probably the passage would not have been attacked if
Isaeus had written ἢ προσήκει.
110
XII
ON BEHALF OF EUPHILETUS.
THE BROTHER OF EUPHILETUS AGAINST THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEME ERCHIA.
APPEAL FROM A VOTE WHICH HAD REMOVED EUPHILETUS'
NAME FROM THE ROLL OF THE DEME.
THE 12th speech, a fragment quoted by Dionysius of Halicarnassus
(De Isaeo c. 17, p. 618-624 R., 116-120 Usener and Radermacher), is
outside the scope of this edition. I have included it partly out of deference
to custom, partly because it raises a chronological question and a legal
question, both of some interest.
The speech was composed for a client, Euphiletus, whose name had been
struck off the roll of the deme Erchia (III. 23. 4 n.) by a vote of the members
met in assembly, and who, availing himself of his right of appeal to the courts,
had brought an action against the deme represented by the demarch (§ 11).
The grounds on which the assembly of the deme had condemned him are not
recorded by Dionysius. The fragment itself shows that, while the citizenship
of his alleged father, Hegesippus, and of Hegesippus' wife was not contested,
Euphiletus was said to be an alien (έévos, § 6. 5) and not the son of Hegesippus.
Further, his assailants appear to have allowed that Hegesippus' wife was his
mother. The exact nature of the charge against him cannot be fixed,
especially as it is not Isaeus' way to state candidly and honestly the position.
of an adversary. Blass (Att. Ber.² II. p. 571) thinks that Euphiletus was
described as the offspring of a previous union of Hegesippus' wife with a
foreigner. Other possibilities might be suggested (see the argument of
Hyp. or. 2), but with the material before us speculation is vain.
Dionysius in his introductory remarks says that the case arose out of
a law passed by the Athenians (ἐγράφη γὰρ δή τις ὑπὸ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων νόμος) to
the effect that there should be an examination of the citizens deme by deme
(ἐξέτασιν γενέσθαι τῶν πολιτῶν κατὰ δήμους), and that the persons rejected by
the vote of their demes should lose their citizenship, but be allowed an appeal
to the courts, subject to the penalty of confiscation of property and of being sold
OR. XII.
715
INTRODUCTION
as slaves, if the judges decided against the appellants. There is some confusion
here. In the archonship of Archias, 346/5 B.C., the Athenian Assembly on the
motion of Demophilus passed a decree (výpoμa) ordering a general revision
of the roll of citizens by means of a vote in each deme (διαψηφίσεις ἐν τοῖς
dýμois), a measure which made a great commotion and led to many law
suits (Aesch. 1. 77 with schol., 86, 114, 2. 182, Harp. s.v. dianpiois, Dion.
Hal. De Dinarcho c. 11, p. 655 R., 313 Usener and Radermacher). But the
right of appeal from the vote of a deme and the punishment of the defeated
appellant existed before the decree of Demophilus. It is probable that both
were recognised in 445/4 B.C., when according to Philochorus (Schol. Ar.
Vesp. 718; cp. Plut. Per. 37, 'AÐ. Пoλ. 13. 5, 26, 4) 4760 persons were dis-
covered to be fraudulently enrolled (Tapéуypapo), it is certain that at the
annual registration of ephebi a candidate rejected by the assembly of the
deme had the option of appealing to the courts, with the risk of being sold if
he lost his case ('A8. Ioλ. 42. 1, 59. 4), and that confiscation of property and
enslavement were the penalties fixed by law for the offence of usurping civic
rights (111. 37. 5 n.). The common opinion is that Dionysius is reproducing
the terms of the decree of 346/5 B.C. His failure to distinguish between an
exceptional administrative measure and the permanent law of which it was
only an application, need cause no surprise. In the hypothesis to Demo-
sthenes' speech Against Ẹubulides (or. 57), which undoubtedly refers to a
general revision prescribed by a decree (§§ 2, 7), and is generally assigned
to the year 345 B.C. (Blass, Att. Ber.2 III. 1. p. 487), Libanius uses language
very similar to that of Dionysius: γράφεται νόμος παρ' Αθηναίοις γενέσθαι
ζήτησιν πάντων τῶν ἐγγεγραμμένων τοῖς ληξιαρχικοῖς γραμματείοις κ.τ.λ. κατὰ
τοῦτον τὸν νόμον τοῦ ῾Αλιμουσίων δήμου διαψηφιζομένου αποψηφίζεται Εὐξίθεός
τις κ.τ.λ.
TIS K.T.λ. The only difficulty is chronological; the speech on behalf of
Euphiletus cannot have been delivered before 344/3 B.C., since the affair was
in the hands of arbitrators for two years (§ 11). This is a late date for a
work by Isaeus. By 344/3 B.C. Demosthenes' activity as a λoyoypáþos was
probably ended (Blass, op. cit. 111. 1. pp. 30, 457), and Dinarchus, the last
of the orators, had entered the field by 336/5 B.C. (Blass op. cit. 111. 2. p. 294).
Dionysius (De Isaeo c. 1, p. 586 R., 92 Usener and Radermacher) does not
know the year of the birth or death of Isaeus, and can deduce from the
speeches nothing more precise than that 'he flourished after the Pelo-
ponnesian war καὶ μέχρι τῆς Φιλίππου δυναστείας παρεξέτεινε.” The 5th
speech (v. Introd. p. 405) was spoken about 389 B.C., the earliest possible
date for the 7th is Ol. 106. 3, 354/3 B.C. (VII. Introd. p. 550), though
nothing in it excludes Ol. 107. 3, 350/49 B.C.; the fragment of Didymus'
Commentary on Demosthenes recently published by Diels and Schubart
shows that the Lacrateides mentioned in 8 9 (Λακρατείδῃ τῷ νῦν ἱεροφάντῃ
yeyevŋuévw) was alive and prominent in 350/49 B.C. (Philochorus in col. 13,
52, Androtion in col. 14, 42). A clue given by the 12 sections of or. XII is
the notice of arbitrators, which appears to me to confirm Dionysius' account
of a revision of the register in all the demes. The only general revision in
the fourth century mentioned in extant authorities is that of 346/5 B.C. Thus
the chronological question resolves itself into a choice between alternatives,
(1) that Isaeus was still writing in 344/3 B.C. twenty years after he had
716
OR. XII.
ISAEUS
started the youthful Demosthenes on his career, (2) that some time before
346/5 B.C. the Athenian Assembly ordered a general revision, all record of
which has perished. I prefer the first.
The legal problem is the appearance of arbitrators. The orator says
that two arbitrators had heard the case, and that both had given sentence
against the deme (§ 11). The existence of two awards can be explained.
Schoemann suggests that the first arbitrator acquitted Euphiletus in the
absence of his opponent through sickness; we are told (ib.) that the demarch
against whom the action was brought is now dead. In such circumstances
the litigant condemned could obtain another hearing by means of the pro-
cedure called ἀντίληξις τῆς μὴ οὔσης, for which see Poll. 8. 6ο ἡ δὲ μὴ οὖσα
δίκη οὕτως ὠνομάζετο· ὁπόταν τις παρὰ διαιτηταῖς παραγραψάμενος ἢ ὑπομοσά-
μενος νόσον ἢ ἀποδημίαν εἰς τὴν κυρίαν μὴ ἀπαντήσας ἐρήμην ἔφλῃ, ἐξῆν ἐντὸς
δέκα ἡμερῶν τὴν μὴ οὖσαν ἀντιλαχεῖν, καὶ ἡ ἐρήμη ἐλύετο, ὡς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ
διαιτητήν. εἰ δὲ μὴ ἕλοι τὴν μὴ οὖσαν ὀμόσας μὴ ἑκὼν ἐκλιπεῖν τὴν δίαιταν,
κύρια τὰ διαιτηθέντα ἐγίνετο· ὅθεν ἐγγυητὰς καθίστασαν τοῦ ἐκτίσματος, Phot.
S.V. μn ovora díkη, Dem. 21. 90, 39. 38, Att. Proc. p. 974 sqq., Hubert, De
arbitris Atticis et priuatis et publicis p. 48 sqq. Schoemann's hypothesis
will also explain the delay of two years mentioned in § 11; see notes ad loc.
What is really perplexing is that a case which involved an issue so serious
should be taken before an arbitrator. According to the account in 'Aß. IIoλ.
53 the public arbitrators, men in their 60th year (ois ầv éέnkootòv étos }),
heard suits allotted to them by the Forty, who received only private actions;
and they had authority to propose a compromise (ἐὰν μὴ δύνωνται διαλῦσαι,
yiyvwokovσi). Schoemann's conclusion, approved by Blass (Att. Ber.² III.
1. p. 487), was that these appeals, in which the appellant ran a terrible risk,
while his opponent not only spoke first (Dem. 57. 1) but, if defeated, suffered
no penalty, were notwithstanding considered by the Athenians private suits
(Comm. p. 479 nam ipsi qui eiecti essent in ius uocabant paganos a quibus
sibi iniuriam factam esse contenderent, eaque iniuria priuata haud dubie
erat neque ad rem publicam pertinebat). It is true that Dionysius (Dem.
c. 13, p. 993 R., 156 Usener and Radermacher) enumerates the speech
Against Eubulides among ιδιωτικοὶ λόγοι, but Libanius classifies it as δημόσιος
(Blass, op. cit. III. 1. pp. 51, 487), and Dionysius in his treatise on Dinarchus
(c. 11, p. 655 R., 313 Usener and Radermacher) puts under the heading of
ψευδεπίγραφοι δημόσιοι a speech Against Moschion, one of the victims of
the dianpiois in 346/5 B.C. Schoemann's theory may be set aside now that
we know on good authority that in ordinary circumstances the appeals of
men rejected by the vote of a deme were treated like indictments for alienage
(ypapai έevías), in so far as they were received and brought into court by the
Thesmothetae ('Αθ. Πολ. 59. 4 εἰσάγουσιν δὲ καὶ τὰς δοκιμασίας ταῖς ἀρχαῖς
ἁπάσαις, καὶ τοὺς ἀπεψηφισμένους ὑπὸ τῶν δημοτῶν, καὶ τὰς καταγνώσεις τὰς ἐκ
τῆς βουλῆς. εἰσάγουσι δὲ καὶ δίκας ἰδίας, ἐμπορικὰς κ.τ.λ.). I conjecture that,
when a general revision of the roll of citizens was ordered, special measures
were taken in order to assist the Thesmothetae in dealing with the sudden
increase of their work. Thus, while the summons probably was, as usual,
before the Thesmothetae, these magistrates might have been empowered by
the decree ordering the revision to commit the preparation of the case to
OR. XII.
717
COMMENTARY
a public arbitrator, instead of conducting the examination (áváкpiois) them-
selves and managing all the preliminaries of a trial. No weight can be laid
on the absence of any notice of an arbitrator in Dem. 57. If the arbitration
had gone against him, Euxitheus the speaker had a good reason for silence.
The defence of Euphiletus was committed to a σvvýyopos, his half-brother,
son of Hegesippus by a former wife. The advocate has told part of his
story and produced the depositions of witnesses (his father, himself, his
brothers-in-law, his maternal uncle, and three other relatives). In the
sections preserved he first (§§ 1-9) seeks to confirm their evidence by
arguing that none of them had any motive to bear false witness. It would
have been more to the point if he had shown what means some of them
possessed of knowing whether Euphiletus was son of Hegesippus. In the
next place (§§ 9, 10) he insists on the readiness of Hegesippus' wife, He-
gesippus, and himself to swear to the paternity of Euphiletus. Lastly
(§§ 11, 12) it is pointed out that at the arbitrations the opponents had brought
no testimony that anyone else was Euphiletus' father, and that consequently
both arbitrators had decided against the deme. What followed was pro-
bably another piece of narrative. The fragment ends with a formula of
transition, and Dionysius in another place (De Isaeo c. 14, p. 612 R., 112
Usener and Radermacher) says that in this speech (ἡ ὑπὲρ Εὐφιλήτου πρὸς
τὸν Ἐρχιέων δῆμον ἔφεσις) Isaeus broke up the narrative into sections, to each
of which were appended depositions and other proofs.
HYPOTHESIS.
1.1 ἀδελφὸς ἡμῖν. Cp. §§ 2 ἡμεῖς δύο ὑεῖς, 4 ἀδελφὸς ἡμέτερος, 8 καὶ ἐμοὶ
καὶ τῷ ἀδελφῷ, 12 ἀδελφὸς ἡμῶν, VII. 37. 3 n., XI. I. 4 η.
2
οὑτοσὶ Εὐφίλητος. Cp. II. 36. 3 π.
4 ἕνεκ᾽ ἄν: ἕνεκεν ἂν MSS. The form eveкEV, which does not invade the
official style of Athenian inscriptions until the 3rd century B.C. (Meisterhans,
Gramm. d. att. Inschr.³ § 85, 25, p. 216), crops up here and there even in first
rate MSS. of the orators (Isocr. 12. 4, 17. 34, [Isocr.] 1. 28, 47, Dem. 5. 6, 41. 5,
45. II (eïvekev), 57. 64). See Benseler on Isocr. Areop. p. 351 sqq., Voemel,
Prolegg. Gramm. § 116, Blass-Kühner, Gr. Gramm. 11. § 325, 10, p. 251,
Crönert, Memoria Graeca Herculanensis p. 114.
5
Π
εἰσεποιεῖτο.
elσetroleîto. Reiske's reading elσnowîro has no MS. authority. Schoe-
mann gives the following explanation of the Optative: elσπоlîто. H. e.
eiσtoiéîodai Cntoin, id quod fecit quidem iam dudum, sed nunc quoque cum
maxime facit, dum Euphiletum filium suum esse pertendit....Conf. et § 6
(eioπocoûµev). Roeder (Beiträge p. 42), asserting that av cannot be carried
on from a verb in the Optative (yeúdoтo) to a verb in the Indicative
(eiσeπoceîto), maintains that eloоlîтo is 'the only right reading' and quotes
the sentence as an example of the use of the Optative with av to express
'the Potential of the Past,' for which see II. 22. 4, 5 n. The sentence is
confused in expression. The accusers assert that Euphiletus is not the son
of Hegesippus, but an alien (§évos), whom Hegesippus has adopted into his
family (eiσeñoinσaro). Hegesippus has deposed that Euphiletus is his son,
(εἰσεποιήσατο).
which is equivalent to saying that there was no eloπoinois. No difficulties
718
OR. XII.
ISAEUS
would have been raised, if Isaeus had written 'Consider with what motive our
father would tell a falsehood (in his deposition) and would have adopted
Euphiletus into his family, if he had been an alien.' The imperfect,
εἰσεποιεῖτο,
elσeñoɩeîto, is used because the 'adoption' was not completed in a single
ceremony, but included many acts spread over a long period. The substitu-
tion of 'if he had not been his son,' i.e. of a reference to the terms of the
deposition, has led to the false conclusion that elσñoieîσdai may signify the
recognition by a father of a legitimate child. It seems to be thought that
the phrase 'why would he have adopted him, if he was not his son?' implies
not only that Euphiletus was Hegesippus' son but also that Hegesippus did
as a matter of fact 'adopt him into his family.' Thus Müller, Untersuchungen
zur Geschichte des attischen Bürger- und Eherechts p. 712, deduces from
this and other passages in the orators ([Dem.] 40. 26, 29, 59. 56, And. 1. 124)
that the proper meaning of viòv toîσbai is 'to recognise some one as son,'
so that the adopted son is only κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν ποιητός. The phrase ποιητὸς
πаτηρ (Lys. 13. 91) is enough to upset this theory. The passages cited are
only examples of oratorical venom and misuse of language. Mantitheus,
the speaker of Dem. 39 and [Dem.] 40, always uses the insulting word
Toiéîobaι, 'adopt,' to describe the 'recognition' of Boeotus and Pamphilus
by his father Mantias (Dem. 39. 4, 6, 18, 20, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, [Dem.]
40. 2, 27, 28, 54), because he denies that Mantias ever believed them to
be his sons. The same spiteful spirit animated Andocides (1. 124) and
Apollodorus in [Dem.] 59. 56.
T
>
2. 3, 4 διὰ πενίαν ἀναγκαζομένους ξένους ἀνθρώπους εἰσποιεῖσθαι. Cp. Dem.
57. 25 εἰ μὲν τοίνυν εὔπορος ὢν ὁ πατὴρ χρήματα δοὺς τούτοις εφαίνετο πείσας
συγγενεῖς αὐτοὺς ἑαυτοῦ φάσκειν εἶναι, λόγον εἶχεν ὑποψίαν ἄν τιν᾽ ἔχειν ὡς οὐκ
ἦν ἀστός, ib. 52 ἔτι τοίνυν ὀρφανὸς κατελείφθην, καὶ φασί μ' εὔπορον εἶναι, καὶ
τῶν μαρτύρων ἐνίους ὠφελουμένους μοι μαρτυρεῖν συγγενεῖς εἶναι.
7 οὐκ ἂν διά γ᾽ ἐρημίαν: οὐκ ἄν γε δι᾽ ἐρημίαν MSS. and all editors.
Dobree's emendation (Adv. 1. p. 311) is required by Attic idiom; see III.
40. 2, 3 n., and Neil on Ar. Eq. Appendix I. p. 197.
3. 3 dσкŵv. Cp. VII. 14. 2 n.
5 ὥστε τόν [τε] πατέρα ἡμῶν. I now think Thalheim right in adopting
Bekker's ye. Radermacher upholds Te. In oratorical prose of the middle
of the fourth century such an anacoluthon is most improbable.
·
...
I
Δεν 6,7 τήν <ἐμὴν> φωνὴν ἀνάσχοιτ᾽ ἂν ἀκούων. Cp. Isocr. 15. 22 τῶν
δὲ τούτους ἐξελέγχειν πειρωμένων ἐνίοτε μηδὲ τὴν φωνὴν ἀκούοντας ἀνέχεσθαι,
19. 28 οἶμαι γὰρ οὐδ᾽ ἂν τὴν φωνὴν ὑμᾶς ἀνασχέσθαι τῶν ἀντιδίκων, Aesch. 2.
παρακελεύσασθαι τὴν (om. ekl Flor., Weidner, Blass) τοῦ κινδυνεύοντος
φωνὴν μὴ ὑπομένειν. The commoner phrase is οὐδὲ φωνὴν ἀνέχομαί τινος,
ákovel éléλw Tivòs (Dem. 18. 10, 43, 271, 19. 15, 35, 20. 62, 24. 175, Gebauer,
De arg. ex contr. formis pp. 89/90, who suggests here the omission of the
article).
7 ὑπόδικον ἐμαυτὸν καθιστάς. Α witness was liable to a prosecution,
if his evidence was false; see V. 17. 8 n. But it was not likely that the
deme, if successful in the appeal, would go to the trouble and expense of
prosecuting the supporters of Euphiletus.
7, 8 <εί> νῦν μὲν μαρτυρῶ...ὕστερον δὲ φαινοίμην. Cp. 1. 38. I n.
OR. XII.
719
COMMENTARY
5. 8, 9 καὶ οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ ἡμετέρου πατρός. The phrase is parenthical and the
negative extra structuram. Gebauer (Lys. 13. 62 Anhang p. 415, De arg.
ex contr. formis p. 366) compares Dem. 21. 134 εἰ δὲ μὴ ποιοῦντός σου
κατεσκεύαζόν τινες καταψευδόμενοί σου, οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ τῶν στρατιωτῶν οὐκ ἐκείνοις
ἐπετίμων ἀλλὰ σοὶ ἐπέχαιρον, δῆλον ὅτι ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων ὧν ἔζης ἄξιος αὐτοῖς
ἐδόκεις εἶναι τοῦ τοιαῦτ᾽ ἀκούειν. His examples from Aeschines (2. 87, 3. 250,
258) belong to a different category. For other cases of où in a protasis cp.
Krüger, Gr. Sprachlehre $ 67, 4, 1, Kühner, Gr. Gramm. 11. § 513, 4, 5,
p. 748, Goodwin, M. & Τ. §§ 384-387.
10, 11 [εἴασαν καὶ] ἐπέτρεψαν. In F εἴασαν καὶ was added in an erasure.
Radermacher thinks that the original reading was ἑκουσίως. Fuhr quoted
by Thalheim proposes τὰ ψευδή. Thalheim defends εἴασαν καί by an appeal
to Lincke, De elocutione Isaei p. 25, who quotes from Isaeus some examples
of the conjunction of synonyms, which seem to me in no way parallel. The
invasion of the text of Demosthenes by synonyms is demonstrated by a
comparison of Σ with inferior MSS. (2. 14, 20; 8. 17; 9. 18, 50; 16. 31;
18. 22, 59, 67, 93, 136, 267, 303). Even Σ itself is not free from this form
of corruption (18. 194 σκηπτός [ἢ χειμών], 54. 21 ἡλικίαν [ἢ νεότητα], ib. 32
τί γὰρ ἂν [ἢ διὰ τί]). Aeschines has certainly suffered from the same cause
(1. 5, 2. 22, 23, 35, 3. 46, 76, 83, 118, 235, 252). In the minor orators, who
were less studied than Demosthenes and Aeschines, and with whom we are
confined to the tradition of one MS., it is difficult to find examples that
command universal acceptance, but see Crit. Introd. p. xl, Ant. Tetr. II.
γ. 6 ὃς ὑπεδέχετο τοῖς ἀκοντίζουσι τὰ ἀκόντια [ἀναιρεῖσθαι], Lyc. 85 κατα-
κλῃσθέντες [ἐπολιορκοῦντο καὶ] διεκαρτέρουν εἰς τὴν πατρίδα, 141 ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς
ὄντες [καὶ ὁρώμενοι], Lys. 13. 23 ἀφῃροῦντο δὲ καὶ ἠγγυῶντο [καὶ ὡμολόγουν]
παρέξειν εἰς τὴν βουλήν, 16. 2 εἴ τις πρός με τυγχάνει ἀηδῶς [ἢ κακῶς] διακείμενος.
Two good cases are furnished by the Ars Rhetorica attributed to Anaximenes
(Hammer, Rh. Gr. 1. 21, 2 ἥτις ἂν ἔχῃ πρὸς μὲν τοὺς θεοὺς ὁσίως [καὶ θείως],
πρὸς δὲ τὰς δαπάνας μετρίως, 68, 20 δεῖ δὲ καὶ ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι [καὶ ὑπισχνεῖσθαι
add. F2 Ο b] δίκαια καὶ συμφέροντα ἐπιδείξειν).
7.2
τῶν ἀντιδικούντων. In the appeal of Euxitheus (Dem. 57) the
deme of Halimus was represented at the trial by the demarch Eubulides.
When a candidate rejected at the annual δοκιμασία τῶν ἐφήβων appealed
to the courts, the assembly of the deme elected five 'prosecutors ('Αθ. Πολ.
42 ἔπειτ᾽ ἂν ἀποψηφίσωνται μὴ εἶναι ἐλεύθερον (III. Introd. p. 281), ὁ μὲν
ἐφίησιν εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον, οἱ δὲ δημόται κατηγόρους αἱροῦνται πέντε ἄνδρας ἐξ
αὑτῶν); cp. C.I.A. IV. 2. 583 b (4th c. B.c., decree of the deme Epicephisia)
ἐπειδὴ οἱ αἱρεθέντες ὑπὸ τῶν δημοτῶν κατήγοροι Νεοκλέους καλῶς καὶ δικαίως
ἐπεμελήθησαν τοῦ ἀγῶνος καὶ εἷλον αὐτὸν ἐν τῶι δικαστηρίωι, δεδόχθαι τοῖς
δημόταις· ἐπαινέσαι αὐ[τοὺς ἀρετῆς] ἕνεκα καὶ δικα[ιοσύνης.
8. 5 ἀξιώσουσιν. Since the accusers' (οἱ κατήγοροι) have already
spoken (Dem. 57. 1), the future must be explained in the same way as in
VIII. II. I, 2 12.
9. 3, 4 ὅρκον ὀμόσαι ἐπὶ τοῦ διαιτητοῦ. At Gortyn proof by oath was
distinct from proof by witness (Inscr. Jurid. Gr. I. p. 433). The law in
certain cases lays down which of the two parties shall be ὁρκιώτερος (11. 15),
i.e. whose oath is to be accepted, if both are willing to swear, in others
4
720
OR. XII.
ISAEUS
رد
اد
imposes an oath on one of the litigants (III. 7, IX. 54). The oath was
decisive and bound the judge (XI. 26 sqq. τὸν δικαστάν, ὅ τι μὲν κατὰ μαιτύρανς
ἔγρατται δικάδδεν ἢ ἀπόμοτον, δικάδδεν ἇι ἔγρατται, τῶν δ᾽ ἄλλον ὀμνύντα κρίνεν
ñoρtì tà µodióµeva). Something similar existed in the laws of Solon (Bekk.
An. Gr. I. p. 242, 19 δοξασταί· κριταί εἰσιν οἱ διαγινώσκοντες πότερος εὐορκεῖ
τῶν κρινομένων· κελεύει γὰρ Σόλων τὸν ἐγκαλούμενον, ἐπειδὰν μήτε συμβόλαια
ἔχῃ μήτε μάρτυρας, ὀμνύναι, καὶ τὸν εὐθύνοντα δὲ ὁμοίως). In the age of the
orators this form of trial was entirely obsolete. The Athenians did not
impanel courts of 200 or 500 paid judges to do nothing more than listen
to oaths. In the procedure before arbitrators, public and private, a caricature
of the old order survived in the 'challenges to an oath' (πpokλýσeis eis
öркоv, Att. Proc.2 p. 898 sqq.), which had degenerated into manœuvres
designed to drive the adversary into a position which might damage his
credit with the judges. Challenge was met by counter-challenge; and when
the suit came into court, the opponent was described either as a notorious
perjurer, if he was willing to swear, or as conscious of guilt, if he refused.
One cause célèbre is on record which was settled by an oath before an
arbitrator. Mantias of Thoricus, a well-known public man (Dem. 39. 3,
C.I.A. II. 791, 10, 46, ib. 803 d 4), being prosecuted shortly before his death
in 357 B.C. by Boeotus and Pamphilus who claimed to be his legitimate sons,
challenged their mother Plango to swear that they were his children. She
took the oath, and the arbitrator pronounced against Mantias (Dem. 39. 3, 4,
[Dem.] 40. 10, 11). The explanation of his father's 'simplicity' (Dem. 39. 25
τὴν τοῦ δόντος ἐκείνῃ τὸν ὅρκον ευήθειαν) given by Mantitheus, a son by
another wife, is illuminative. Before challenging Plango Mantias, he says,
had made a secret compact with her, guaranteed by a most solemn oath,
that for a consideration in money she would refuse the challenge; but when
she came before the arbitrator, the faithless woman broke the agreement,
accepted the challenge, and saddled Mantias with two sons who did not
belong to him. But public opinion was on the side of Plango (Ar. Rhet. II.
23. 1398 a 32 sqq. ἄλλος ἐξ ἐπαγωγῆς, οἷον ἐκ τῆς Πεπαρηθίας, ὅτι περὶ τῶν
τέκνων αἱ γυναῖκες πανταχοῦ διορίζουσι τἀληθές· τοῦτο μὲν γὰρ ᾿Αθήνησι Μαντίᾳ
τῷ ῥήτορι ἀμφισβητοῦντι πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν ἡ μήτηρ ἀπέφηνεν, τοῦτο δὲ Θήβησιν
Ἰσμηνίου καὶ Στίλβωνος ἀμφισβητούντων ἡ Δωδωνὶς ἀπέδειξεν Ἰσμηνίου τὸν υἱόν,
καὶ διὰ τοῦτο Θετταλίσκον Ἰσμηνίου ἐνόμιζον). Mantias was defendant in a
dià
private action.
In the present case the representatives of the deme, who in
substance were conducting a prosecution for alienage (§evía), would have
been guilty of a breach of trust, if they had staked the public interests
entrusted to them on the oaths of Euphiletus' mother and supporters.
4 éπì Aeλpivių. The site of the Delphinium, the sanctuary of Apollo
Delphinius, is not known. It is conjectured to have been somewhere
to the east of the Olympieum (Frazer on Paus. 1. 19. 1). The court
which tried cases of justifiable homicide met in its precincts (Tò dika-
στήριον τὸ ἐπὶ Δελφινίῳ, Dem. 23. 74, Αθ. Πολ. 57. 3). Plango's famous
oath was taken év tậ Aeλowią ([Dem.] 40. 11). It is impossible to settle
whether the arbitrators in the cases of Mantias and Euphiletus were
sitting in or near the Delphinium, or whether an adjournment was made
to the temple for the purpose of taking oaths (Att. Proc.² p. 173 n. 63). The
OR. XII.
721
COMMENTARY
generalisation of Pollux (8. 126 diýtwv d' év iepoîs) is false. We read of
public arbitrators hearing suits in the Heliaea ([Dem.] 47. 12 ǹ µèv yàp
δίαιτα ἐν τῇ ἡλιαίᾳ ἦν· οἱ γὰρ τὴν Οἰνῇδα καὶ τὴν Ἐρεχθῇδα διαιτῶντες ἐνταῦθα
κáðŋvтαι) and in the Stoa Poecile (Dem.. 45. 17). They swore to their
awards on the stone in the Agora ('Αθ. Πολ. 55. 5 δοκιμασθέντες δὲ τοῦτον
τὸν τρόπον (οἱ ἐννέα ἄρχοντες) βαδίζουσιν πρὸς τὸν λίθον ἐφ᾽ οὗ τὰ τόμι᾽ ἐστίν,
ἐφ᾽ οὗ καὶ οἱ διαιτηταὶ ὀμόσαντες ἀποφαίνονται τὰς διαίτας καὶ οἱ μάρτυρες
¿§óµvvvтai Tàs µaprúpías), and Ariston in Dem. 54. 26 complains that Conon
and his fashionable young Mohocks protracted proceedings before the
arbitrator till 'past midnight' by various kinds of insolent obstruction, and
in particular by taking Ariston's supporters to 'the stone' one by one and
swearing them (τῶν παρόντων ἡμῖν καθ᾽ ἕν᾿ οὗτωσὶ πρὸς τὸν λίθον ἄγοντες καὶ
¿έOPKOÛVTES). It might be suggested that the legendary connexion of the
Delphinium with Aegeus and Theseus made it a fit place for oaths of
affiliation.
10. 3 τρεισκαιδεκαετής : τρισκαιδεκαετὴς MSS. Cp. VIII. 35. 8 n.
10. 4 X has τρισκαιδεκέτης.
8 περὶ αὐτοῦ θέλομεν.
Thalheim prints 'éλoμev; cp. VIII. II. 3 n.
9 τῶν τούτου διαφόρων. Cp. I. 9. 2 1.
In Lys.
11. 3-5 ἐπειδὴ ἔλαχεν τὴν δίκην τὴν προτέραν τῷ κοινῷ τῶν δημοτών.
Hubert, De arbitris Atticis et priuatis et publicis p. 49, accepting Schoemann's
hypothesis of an ȧvríλnģis tŷs µǹ ovoŋs (Introd. p. 716), concludes from these
words that when the award of an arbitrator was finally set aside on the
ground that the non-appearance of the party condemned was justifiable, the
prosecutor had to begin again the whole action ab initio. Thus in the
present case Euphiletus was obliged to summon the authorities of the deme
a second time. This conclusion has a bearing on Dem. 39. 37, 38. The
tone of the speaker, Mantitheus, indicates that the defendant, Boeotus, was
successful with his avriλngis. The arbitrator mentioned in § 22 is probably
the arbitrator who was appointed when Mantitheus brought his charge
before the Forty a second time, and I believe that the second arbitrator
pronounced in favour of Boeotus, and that Mantitheus was the appellant.
5, 6 δύο ἔτη τοῦ διαιτητοῦ τὴν δίαιταν ἔχοντος, although the case has
been in the hands of an arbitrator for two years since the bringing of the
former action.' The speaker for rhetorical purposes takes the two extreme
points, the institution of the first suit and the second award, from which the
deme appealed. How long each of the two arbitrators sat we cannot tell;
after the deme had sustained its objection against the first award, there may
have been an interval before Euphiletus resumed the suit. The accepted
interpretation is that given by Dareste: lorsqu'Euphilétos intenta sa
première action contre le corps des membres du dème et le démarque alors
en exercice, aujourd'hui décédé, pendant deux ans que l'affaire resta pendante
devant l'arbitre. It is commonly supposed that the first arbitrator kept the
case for two years. But an Athenian citizen was liable to service as a
public arbitrator only during one year ('A. Пoλ. 53), and the law required
him 'to conduct to a conclusion the arbitrations allotted to him' (åvaykaîov
ἃς ἂν ἕκαστος λάχῃ διαίτας ἐκδιαιτᾶν), i.e. to finish his business within the
year. A penalty was provided for wilful delay. The arbitrators for any
W. I.
46
722
OR. XII.
ISAEUS
given year formed a kind of 'college,' which passed resolutions (C. I. A. II.
941—944, IC14) and sat in judgment on complaints brought against any
member ('Αθ. Πολ. l.c. ἔστιν δὲ καὶ εἰσαγγέλλειν εἰς τοὺς διαιτητάς, ἐάν τις
ἀδικηθῇ ὑπὸ τοῦ διαιτητοῦ, κἄν τινος καταγνῶσιν, ἀτιμοῦσθαι κελεύουσιν οἱ νόμοι,
Poll. 8. 126 ἀτιμία ἀφώριστο τῷ μὴ διαιτήσαντι τὴν ἐπικληρωθεῖσαν δίαιταν,
Dem. 21. 86 φυλάξας τὴν τελευταίαν ἡμέραν τῶν διαιτητῶν [τὴν τοῦ θαργηλιώνος
ἢ τοῦ σκιροφοριῶνος γιγνομένην], εἰς ἣν ὁ μὲν ἦλθε τῶν διαιτητῶν, ὁ δ᾽ οὐκ ἦλθε,
πείσας τὸν πρυτανεύοντα δοῦναι τὴν ψῆφον παρὰ πάντας τοὺς νόμους, κλητῆρ᾽
οὐδ᾽ ὁντινοῦν ἐπιγραψάμενος, κατηγορῶν ἔρημον, οὐδενὸς παρόντος, ἐκβάλλει καὶ
ἀτιμοῖ τὸν διαιτητήν). The account in The Constitution of Athens lends
no support to the theory proposed by Schoemann (Comm. p. 481) and
endorsed by Hubert (De arbitris Atticis et priuatis et publicis p. 46) that
the first arbitrator was reappointed (extra ordinem refectus) for another year
because he had not been able to finish the case of Euphiletus within his year
of office. If it be asked what happened if a suit was allotted to an arbi-
trator so late in the year that it could not be completed in the prescribed
time, the answer is that we do not know that the contingency was allowed
to arise.
If however a litigant would not or could not appear, the arbitrator
had a means of self-defence; he could fix a day for the final decision, pro-
nounce against the defaulter in contumaciam, and leave him to upset the
award by the procedure of àvríλNģis tŷs µǹ ovons (Introd. p. 716). Further,
the ordinary version interrupts the flow of the argument. 'We on our side
brought witnesses before the arbitrators (§ 11. 2 éπì Tŵv diairηtŵv). Our
opponents, though the first arbitrator held the case for two years, were not
able to find any testimony. This was proof to the arbitrators (§ 11. 8 TOîs
diairwσi) that the accusation was false, and they both gave sentence against
our opponents.' Is it not plain that the two years are the whole period
during which the representatives of the deme failed to put in evidence, and
include the sittings of both arbitrators? The speaker cannot wish to imply
that testimony of the kind he desiderates was produced before the second
arbitrator. Substitute 'although the case was before arbitrators for two
years,' and everything runs smoothly. But Hudtwalcker's emendation, Tŵv
διαιτητῶν τὴν δίαιταν ἐχόντων, is wrong, because it makes the clause ἐπειδὴ
λaɣev K.T.λ. superfluous and misleading. The stage of arbitration, before
the matter came before judges, is said loosely to have lasted two years from
the bringing of the first suit, but two arbitrators were not sitting all this
time, but first one and then, after an interval and another summons, a second.
The first arbitration is really irrelevant, if the award had been pronounced
null and void. The judges had before them only the depositions and other
proofs that had been laid before the second arbitrator ('AÐ. Ioλ. 53. 3 oùK
ἔξεστι δὲ οὔτε νόμοις οὔτε προκλήσεσι οὔτε μαρτυρίαις ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ταῖς παρὰ τοῦ
διαιτητοῦ χρῆσθαι ταῖς εἰς τοὺς ἐχίνους ἐμβεβλημέναις).
او
7, 8 ὡς ἄλλου τινὸς πατρός ἐστιν ἢ τοῦ ἡμετέρου. The representatives of
Erchia were under no obligation to discover who was the father of Euphiletus.
The vote of the deme was justified if he was not the son of Hegesippus.
12. I καὶ τότε ὦφλον τὴν δίαιταν. The language (καὶ τότε) shows that
in an earlier part of the speech the orator had proved that the second
arbitration went against the deme.
OR. XII.
723
COMMENTARY
2, 3 ὥσπερ οὗτοι μέγα τοῦτ᾽ ἂν ἔφασαν κ.τ.λ. For the form of the fictum
epichirema Gebauer, De arg. ex contr. formis pp. 255, 369, compares And. 1.
24 ὥσπερ οὖν, εἰ ἀληθῆ ἦν ταῦτα ἅ μου κατηγόρησαν, ἐμοὶ ἂν ὠργίζεσθε καὶ
ἠξιοῦτε δίκην τὴν μεγίστην ἐπιτιθέναι, οὕτως ἀξιῶ ὑμᾶς, γιγνώσκοντας ὅτι ψεύ-
δονται, πονηρούς τε αὐτοὺς νομίζειν, χρῆσθαί τε τεκμηρίῳ κ.τ.λ., Lys. 4. 12
ἀξιῶ δ᾽ ὅσον ἂν ἐγένετο σημεῖον τούτῳ πρὸς τὸ δοκεῖν ἀληθῆ λέγειν φυγόντος
ἐμοῦ τὴν βάσανον, τοσοῦτον ἐμοὶ τεκμήριον γενέσθαι ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι, διότι οὗτος
οὐκ ἠθέλησεν ἐκ τῆς ἀνθρώπου ποιήσασθαι τὸν ἔλεγχον, Isocr. 18. 15 ἀξιῶ δ᾽,
ὅσονπερ ἂν τούτῳ σημεῖον ἦν ὡς ἡ δίαιτα οὐ γέγονεν, ἑλόντι τὰ διαμαρτυρηθέντα,
τοσοῦτον ἐμοὶ γενέσθαι τεκμήριον ὡς ἀληθῆ λέγω περὶ αὐτῆς, ἐπειδὴ τῷ μάρτυρι
φανερός ἐστιν οὐδ᾽ ἐπεξελθεῖν ἀξιώσας. The last two passages suggest that in
1. 4 we might read τοσοῦτον in place of τοιοῦτον (Crit. Introd. p. xlvii).
6,7 κυρίως πρῶτον ἐγγραφέντα. On reaching the age of 18 Euphiletus
had been entered on the register of the deme with the formalities described
in 'Αθ. Πολ. 42. The whole purpose of a διαψήφισις was to scrutinise the
legitimacy of the annual registrations; cp. Harp. s.v. Ποταμός· δῆμος τῆς
Λεοντίδος, οὗ ὁ δημότης Ποτάμιος, ἐκωμῳδοῦντο δὲ ὡς ῥᾳδίως δεχόμενοι τοὺς
παρεγγράπτους.
9 ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν τῷ δήμῳ συστάντων. Euxitheus also when rejected by the
assembly of his deme complains that he is the victim of a conspiracy of
private enemies (Dem. 57. 2 πολλῶν γὰρ ἐξεληλαμένων δικαίως ἐκ πάντων τῶν
δήμων, συγκεκοινωνήκαμεν τῆς δόξης ταύτης οἱ κατεστασιασμένοι, ib. 8, 13, 16,
63-65). The plausibility of such an excuse depends on the size of the
deme. Euxitheus says that the assembly of Halimus comprised only
73 voters (ib. 9). Milchhoefer (Untersuchungen über die Demendornung des
Kleisthenes p. 9) reckons Erchia among the largest demes of Attica. The
line taken by the prosecutors of Euphiletus may be guessed from Aesch. 1.
77, 78 γεγόνασι διαψηφίσεις ἐν τοῖς δήμοις, καὶ ἕκαστος ἡμῶν ψῆφον δέδωκε περὶ
τοῦ σώματος, ὅστις ᾿Αθηναῖος ὄντως ἐστὶ καὶ ὅστις μή. καὶ ἔγωγε, ἐπειδὰν
προσστῶ πρὸς τὸ δικαστήριον καὶ ἀκροάσωμαι τῶν ἀγωνιζομένων, ὁρῶ, ὅτι ἀεὶ
τὸ αὐτὸ παρ᾽ ὑμῖν ἰσχύει. ἐπειδὰν γὰρ εἴπῃ ὁ κατήγορος· ἄνδρες δικασταί, τουτουὶ
κατεψηφίσαντο οἱ δημόται ὀμόσαντες, οὐδενὸς ἀνθρώπων οὔτε κατηγορήσαντος
οὔτε καταμαρτυρήσαντος, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοὶ συνειδότες, εὐθὺς θορυβεῖτε ὑμεῖς ὡς οὐ μετὸν
τῷ κρινομένῳ τῆς πόλεως.
46-2
I. INDEX OF PROPER NAMES.
Αγνίας Πολέμωνος ἐξ Οἴου ΧΙ. I, passim
Αγνόθεος Θρασίππου IV. I, 24, 27
"Αγνων Θρασίππου IV. I, 24, 27
>
Αθηνα IV. 9
Αθήναζε IV. 29; ᾿Αθήνησι IV. 8
Αθμονοι VI. 33
Αἰγύπτιος (Μέλας) v. 7, 8, 40
ἐν "Αιδου ΙΙ. 47
Αιθαλίδης (Αριστόλοχος) ΙΙΙ. 23
Αἰσχίνης ὁ Λουσιεύς VII. 18
Aκη IV. 7
Αλκή VI. 19, 20, 55
Αμεινιάδης iv. 8
᾿Ανδροκλής VI. 4, passim
Αντίδωρος VI. 39, 47
Αντιφάνης VI. 33
>
Απολλόδωρος Αριστομένους Συπαλήττιος
X. 12
᾿Απολλόδωρος Εὐπόλιδος VII. 19, 24, 25,
31
Απολλόδωρος Θρασύλλου VII. 2, passim
Απόλλων VI. 61
Αραφήνιοι ΙΧ. 18
Αρίμνηστος ἄρχων VI. 14
Δελφίνιον ΧΙΙ. 9
Δημάρατος ν. 33; XII. 6
Δημοκλῆς ὁ Φρεάρριος V. 5, 9
Δημοκράτης ὁ ᾿Αφιδναῖος VI. 22
Δημοσθένης IV. 8
Δημοχάρης Αριστάρχου Συπαλήττιος Χ. 4,
7 sqq., 14, 26
Δικαιογένης Δικαιογένους γόνῳ δὲ Πρόξενου
Κυδαθηναιεύς v. I, passim
Δικαιογένης Κυδαθηναιεὺς στρατηγός V. 42
Δικαιογένης Μενεξένου Κυδαθηναιεύς V. 3,
passim
Διοκλής Ι. 14, 23
Διοκλῆς ὁ Πιθεύς VIII. 19
Διοκλῆς ὁ Φλυεύς, ὁ Ορέστης ἐπικαλούμενος
VIII. 3, passim
Διονύσια ν. 36; VIII. 15 (τὰ κατ' ἀγρούς)
Διονύσιον, τὸ ἐν Λίμναις VIII. 35
Διονύσιος ὁ Ἐρχιεύς III. 23
Διόνυσος Ι. 31; ἐν Διονύσου V. 41
Διοπείθης ν. 33
Διότιμος V. 32
Διόφαντος ὁ Σφήττιος ΙΙΙ. 22
Δίων VI. 20
Δωρόθεος ὁ Ἐλευσίνιος III. 22
Αρίσταρχος Συπαλήττιος maior x.
4,
passim
Αρίσταρχος Συπαλήττιος minor x.
2,
Ειλειθυία V. 39
passim
᾿Αριστογείτων V. 47
᾿Αριστόλοχος ὁ Αἰθαλίδης ΙΙΙ. 23
Αριστόλοχος VI. 33
Αριστομένης Συπαλήττιος Χ. 5, 12, 25
Αρμόδιος V. 47.
Αρμόδιος Προξένου ᾿Αφιδναῖος V. II
Αρχέδαμος VII. 7, 13
Αρχωνίδης Ι. 15 (?)
Αστύφιλος Εὐθυκράτους ᾿Αραφήνιος ΙΧ. 1,
passim
>
Αφιδναῖος (Δημοκράτης) VI. 22
•
Αχαρνεύς ΙΙ. 3, Χ. 4
Αφροδίτη ΙΙ. 31
Βήσαζε ΙΙΙ. 22
Βησαιεύς (Κτησίας) IV. 9
Γλαύκων Γλαυκέτου ἐξ Οἴου ΧΙ. 8, 9, 30
Δεινίας Ι. 9 sqq., 15, 20, 30
Ἐλευσῖνι ΧΙ. 41, 42; ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι? ν. 42
Ελευσίνιος (Δωρόθεος) ΙΙΙ. 22
Ἕλληνες ΙΙ. 24
Ενδιος ΙΙΙ. I, 43 sqq.
Επώνυμος ὁ ᾿Αχαρνεύς ΙΙ. 3
Εργαμένης Ευκτήμονος Κηφισιεύς VI. IO,
44
Ερχιεύς (Διονύσιος) III. 23; XII. hyp.
Εὐβουλίδης Φιλάγρου ἐξ Οἴου ΧΙ. 8, 9, 16,
21
Εὐθυκράτης ᾿Αραφήνιος ΙΧ. 17, 19, 36
Εὐκλείδης ἄρχων VIII. 43
Εὐκτήμων Κηφισιεύς VI. Io, passim
Εύπολις VII. 2, passin
Εὐφίλητος Ηγησίππου Ερχιεύς XII. I,
passim
Ζεὺς ὁ Κτήσιος VIII. 16
Ηγήμων (Ερχιεύς) XII. 6
Ηγήμων Ευκτήμονος Κηφισιεύς VI. IO, 44
726
ISAEUS
Ηγήσιππος Ερχιεύς XII. 12
Ἠλεῖος Σφήττιος ΙΙ. 9
Ηρακλέους θιασώται ΙΧ. 30
Θαργήλια VII. 15
Θεόπομπος V. 5, 1ο
Θεόφραστος ΙΧ. 23, 27
Θεοφῶν ΧΙ. 41, 42, 45
Θεσμοφόρια ΙII. 8ο; VIII. 19
Θετταλία ΙΧ. 14
Θηβαϊκός πόλεμος ΙΧ. 14
Θούδιππος 'Αραφήνιος ΙΧ. 17, 19
Θρᾴκη ΙΙ. 6
Θράσιππος IV. 27
Θρασύβουλος Αἰσχίνου Λουσιεύς VII. 18
sqq., 23, 26
Θράσυλλος VII. 5
Θράσυλλος ᾿Απολλοδώρου VII. 17, 27
Θρασύμαχος IV. 2 sqq., 25
Θριάσι ΧΙ. 42
Ιεροκλής Ιφιστιάδης ΙΧ. 5, passim
Ιππολοχίδης VII. 23
Ιφικράτης (ὁ στρατηγός) II. 6
Ιφιστιάδης ΙΧ. 5
Καλλίππη VI. 13, 14, 16
Κεραμεικός V. 26; VI. 20
Κεφαλήσιν ΙΙ. 31
Κηφίσανδρος I. 16, 28
Κηφισιεύς VI. 3, 10, 27
:
Κηφισόδοτος Θεοπόμπου V. 2, 5, 9, II,
I 2
Κηφισοφῶν ὁ Παιανιεύς v. 5, 9, 12
Κίρων VIII. I, passim
Κλειταρέτη ΙΙΙ. 30, 33
Κλέων Θονδίππου
passim
Λύκων V. 12
Λυσιμένης ΙΙΙ. 26
Μαιμακτηριών V. 31; VII. 14
Μακάρτατος Απολήξιδος Προσπάλτιος ΧΙ.
48, 49
Μειειάδης Κηφισιεύς VI. Ο
Μελάνωπος V. 32
Μέλας (Αἰγύπτιος) v. 7, 8, 40
Μελίτη ΧΙ. 42
Μενεκλής ΙΙ. I, passim
Μενέξενος Δικαιογένους Κυδαθηναιεύς ν.
3 sqq., 42, 44
Μενέξενος Κηφισοφῶντος Παιανιεύς V. 12
sqq.
Μεταγειτνιών ΙΙΙ. 57
Μικίων V. 22 sqq.
Μνησιπτόλεμος Πλωθειεύς V. 18, 33
Μνήσων VII. 5 sqq.
Μουνιχίασι VI. 27
Μυτιλήνη ΙΧ. 1, 6, 14
Ναυσιμένης Χολαργούς VIII. 8, 14
Νικίας ΙΙ. 9
Νικόδημος ΙΙI. 4, passim
Νικόστρατος Θρασυμάχου IV. I, passim
Νικόστρατος XII. 6
Ξεναίνετος ᾿Αχαρνεύς Χ. 4, 7, 8, ΙΙ, 23
Ξεναίνετος Κυρωνίδου Αχαρνεύς Χ. 1, 5, 6
Ξενοκλῆς Κόπρειος ΙΙΙ. 2, passim
Οινόη ΧΙ. 44
Ολύμπιοι θεοί VI. 58; VIII. 29
Ολυνθία (Ὀλυσία) V. 42
Ολύνθιοι V. 46
Αραφήνιος ΙΧ.
2,
Ορέστης VIII. 3, 44
Κλεώνυμος Πολυάρχου 1. 1, passim
Κλεώνυμος ὁ Κρής v. 37
Κνίδος V. 6, 42
Κόπρειος (Ξενοκλῆς) ΙΙΙ. 2
Κορινθιακός πόλεμος Χ. 20
Κόρινθος V. II; VII. 9; ΙΧ. 14
Κραναός Βησαιεύς IV. 9
Κρής V. 37
Κρήτη ΧΙ. 48
Κτησίας ὁ Βησαιεύς IV. 9
Κτήσιος Ζεύς VIII. 16
Κυρωνίδης Ξεναινέτου γόνῳ δὲ ᾿Αριστάρχου
Αχαρνεύς Χ. 4 sqq., II, 23, 26
Λακεδαιμόνιοι ΧΙ. 48
Λακρατείδης ὁ ἱεροφάντης VII. 9
Λαμπτρεύς (Πύρρος) IV. 9
Λευκόλοφος ΙΙ. 3
Λέχαιον ν. 37
Λεωχάρης V. I, passim
Λημνία VI. 13
Λίμναι VIII. 35
Λουσιεύς (Αἰσχίνης) VII. 18
Παιανιεύς (Κηφισοφῶν) v. 5, 9
Πάνορμος Ι. 31
Πάραλος v. 6, 42
Πεδίον V. 22
Πειραιεύς VI. 19
Πιθεύς ΙΙ. 29; VIII. 29
Πιστόξενος VI. 13
Πλωθειεύς (Μνησιπτόλεμος) V. 18
Πολυάρατος Χολαργούς V. 5
Πολύαρχος Ι. 4, 39
Ποσείδιππος I. 3, 14, 15, 23
Ποτάμιος (Πρωταρχίδης) ν. 26
Προμήθεια VII. 36
Προνάπης Αίξωνεύς VII. 18, 39, 43
Πρόξενος 'Αφιδναῖος v. 6, 15
Προσπαλτο ΧΙ. 44, 49
Πρυτανείον V. 47
Πρωταρχίδης ὁ Ποτάμιος v. 26, 27
Πυθιάς (θεωρία) VII. 27
ἐν Πυθίου V. 4I
Πυθόδωρος ὁ Κηφισιεύς VI. 27, 31, 32
Πυλάδης ΙΙΙ. 26
Πυρετίδης 111. 18, 24, 26
INDEX
727
Пúppos III. 1, passim
Πύρρος ὁ Λαμπτρεύς IV. 9
Σηράγγιον VI. 33
Zɩkeλía VI. I, 13, 14; VII. 5
Σικυών VI. 20
Σίμων Ι. 31, 32
Σμίκρος IV. 3, 4, 25
Σπάρτωλος V. 42
ZTpaTíos XI. 8, 10, 15 sqq., 19
Στρατοκλῆς Χαριδήμου ἐξ Οἴου ΧΙ. 8,
passim
Συπαλήττιος ('Αρίσταρχος) Χ. 4
Σφήττιος ΙΙ. 9; III. 22
Τήλεφος IV. 8
Τιμόθεος (ὁ στρατηγός) VI. 27
Φανόστρατος Κηφισιεύς VI. I, 6, 17, 27,
32, 60
Φερένικος Ι. 31, 45
Φίλη ΙΙΙ. 2, 30, 32, 60
Φίλιππος ὁ Πιθεύς ΙΙ. 29
Φιλοκτήμων Ευκτήμονος Κηφισιεύς VI. 3,
passim
Φιλόνικος V. 29
Φιλοχάρης ὁ Ἐλευσίνιος ΙΙΙ. 22
Φιλωνίδης ΙΙ. 18, 36
Φλνεύς (Διοκλής VIII. 3
Φλυήσι VIII. 35
Φρεάρριος (Δημοκλῆς) ν. 5
Xaipéas VI. 6, 7, 27, 29, 32, 51
Χαιρέλεως ΧΙ. 48
Χαιρέστρατος Φανοστράτου Κηφισιεύς VI.
1, 3, 5, 6, 53, 60
Χαίρων ΙΙΙ. 26
Xapiádŋs IV. 3, passim
Xíos VI. 27
Χολαργούς (Ναυσιμένης) VIII. 8
II.
INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
Accusative Case: acc. in apposition with
sentence IV. 18. 3; acc. de quo VI. 9.
8, 9; acc. absolute of the aorist parti-
ciple v. 19. 1, 2
Action ad exhibendum at Athens VI.
31. 3
Adjurations in the orators II. 47. 5, 6;
VI. 58. I, 2
Admission of children to φρατρία ΙΙΙ. 73.
6, 7; of wife III. 76. 1
Adopted daughters VII. 9. 5, 6; adopted
sons, their disabilities pp. 345, 650;
III. 60. 2; their power of returning to
their natural family VI. 44. 4, 5
Adoption, posthumous p. 657; renuncia-
tion of II. 41. 3, 4; of grandson by
grandfather VIII. 36. 8, 9
Adverbs, the comparative of, in
XI. 3. 2
- ως
Advocates for hire III. 39. 9; P. 370
Anacoluthon 1. 12. 1; III. 63. 1; IX. 15.
7,8
Anthesteria II. 46. 5; VIII. 35. 3, 4
Antichresis p. 430
Antitheses, faulty 1. 19. 2; 21. 5; II. 24.
5, 6; III. 20. I; VI. 52. 8; IX. 19. 1, 2
Aorist Tense: aor. indicative with av in
opposition to the present I. 34. 3; aor.
infinitive after μéλλew v. 5. 1, 2; after
μέλλειν
πроσdокâν VII. 32. 2; aor. participle
denoting coincident action 1. 3. 4, 5;
aor. and perfect interchanged XI. 6.
7, 8; aor. in -Ony with middle or active
sense V. 29. 7; aorist, second, ingres-
sive translations of 1. 18. 6
Arbitrators, private pp. 176, 447; II. 29.
9; V. 32. 2; public p. 716; v. 31. 2, 3;
XII. II. 5, 6
Arrangement of words III. 51. 2, 3; 69. 5;
IV. 21. 5, 6; V. 25. 2
Article wrongly repeated II. 47. 8, 9;
omitted in certain phrases (ew TEIXOUS,
εἰς πόλιν etc.) V. 22. 3; wrongly
omitted VIII. 37. 2
Attraction IV. 3. 3, 4
Bastards, their political status p. 278 sqq.;
their rights of inheritance VI. 47. 2, 3;
legitimation of p. 504
Betrothal in the ancient laws of Germany
and Scandinavia p. 293
Bifurcated protases after δεινόν, θαυμαστόν,
ἄτοπον κ.τ.λ. I. 38. I; VI. 2. 3
Breach of contract, action for XI. 33. 7
Brothers holding land in common II. 28.
7,8
Cavalry, service in p. 471
Challenges (poкλýσeis), abuse of p. 595;
witnesses to VI. 16. 7, 8
Change of name at adoption VII. 17. 6, 7
Chariot races p. 472
Chiasmus XI. 39. 6, 7
Children of an Athenian father and
foreign mother, their political status
VIII. 43. 8, 9
728
ISAEUS
Choregic monuments p. 455
Comparatio compendiaria XI. 47. 2, 3
Comparative, double IV. 14. 3; adversa-
tive use of IX. 23. 3
Compromises made in court V. 17. 7
Concubinage, Buermann's theory con-
cerning p. 277 sqq.
Concubines generally slaves, freedwomen,
and freewomen of foreign origin III.
39.5
Conditional sentences, irregularity of 1.
30. 3; XI. 25. 6
Construction, shifts of 1. 20. 5; II. 43. I;
IV. 26. 7, 8; VIII. 29. 5; X. 12. 3, 4
Court records not put in as evidence
III. 37. 7
Dative, causal II. 26. 2; of agent III.
41. 3; after nouns III. 79. 4, 5; after
γιγνώσκεσθαι ΧΙ. 15. I, 2; after
λayxável III. 32. 4; XI. 28. 5, 6;
with ὁμολογεῖσθαι V. 17. 9
Daughters' children, their rights of in-
heritance VI. 47. 4, 5; p. 608
Dedications subject to conditions p. 377
sqq.
Demes, festivals of II. 42. 5
Demoticum without article VI. 10. 9
Dionysius I, his relations with Athens VI.
I. 4, 5
Dithyrambic competitions p. 454 sqq.
Division of estates per stirpes V. 12. 4,
P. 444
Documents inserted in the Attic orators,
genuineness of p. 677; loss of II. 34. 1;
III. 53. 3; VI. II. 6
Double names VI. 47. 3.
Dowry, amount of II. 3. 6; absence of
II. 5. 2, p. 308; repayment of III. 9. 2;
succession of children to p. 313; con-
stituents of III. 35. 6; v. 26. 6
Dual number, form of Iv. 7. 4; V. 15. 6;
VI. 6. 6; VIII. 7. 7
Egyptians, ill repute of v. 7.
7. 6
Ejectment, action for III. 62. 6; v. 22. 5
Elections of a deme, date of p. 571
Endings, abrupt III. 80. 8
Epicheirema fictum XII. 12. 2, 3
Exegetae at Athens VIII. 39. 4
Extinction of a house, means of pre-
venting VII. 30. 8, 9
False witness, punishment for bearing
V. 17. 8
Funeral ceremonies, importance of II.
25. 4; expense of 11. 36. 5; funerals
on the third day after death III. 22.
3, 4
Furtorum quaestio cum lance et licio
P. 529
Future with av 1. 32. 3; approximating
to an imperative IV. 30. 5; rhetorical
use of VIII. II. I, 2
Genitives, awkward accumulation of IV.
3. 2, 3; 4. 7, 8; genitive of time
within which IV. 29. 1, 2
Guardians, appointment of I. 9. I; VI.
36. 3; suits of wards against XI. 26. 5;
were they allowed to purchase from
wards? V. II. 2, 3; to take a lease of
wards' estates? VI. 36. 7,8; marriage
of ward and guardian VI. 13. 9
Harmodius and Aristogeiton, privileges
of their descendants V. 47. 2, 3
Hearsay evidence, when admitted vI. 53. 6
Heiresses (èíк\ŋpoɩ), when married III.
31. 2; how treated during minority
P. 322; not betrothed by the Archon
VI. 14. 10; rights of sons of III. 65. 7;
p. 609; VIII. 31. 4, 5; III. 73. 9;
rights of next-of-kin to III. 50. 6;
P. 348 sqq.; III. 64. 5, 6; action for
maltreatment of III. 46. 1; who was
Kúpos of an heiress during minority?
VI. 32. 3
Hiatus p. 178; VIII. 30. 3, 4
Hierophant, his name not allowed to be
mentioned VI. 33. 5
History, oratorical treatment of v. 7. 5
House-rent, when paid VI. 21. 3
Hruza, his theory of ¿yyúnois III. 4. 6;
of ǹ yaµnλía III. 76. 1; 79. 7; of
polygamy at Athens p. 496
Husband kúpios of his wife III. 2. 3
Hypothec, law of V. 21. 7
Imperative after relative XI. 24. 3; forms
of V. 4. 3
Imperfect tense: imp. indicative of like-
lihood in past time I. 44. 5; used by
historians in description of scenery XI.
17. 10; imp. participle VIII. 14. I, 2;
imp. infinitive IV. 3. 2
Indicative and optative, interchange of
IX. 12. 3
Infinitive, with av after wore III. 37. 2;
with πpiv of an ideal limit IX. 32. 4, 5;
epexegetic without the article 1. 23. 2;
aorist after μéλλew V. 5. 1, 2; future
μέλλειν
after ὥστε Ι. 33. 3
Interest, rates of XI. 42. I, 2
Interrogation of an opponent XI. 4. 3, 4
Judges identified with sovereign people
IV. 17. 5; number of v. 20. 2
Law of testament II. 13. 2; III. 42. 2, 3;
68. 1; VI. 28. 4, 5; of intestate suc-
cession p. 562 sqq., 680
INDEX
729
Laws of Manu concerning an appointed
daughter' p. 361
Lechaeum, capture of v. 37. 6, 7
Legacy, special, to a son VI. 28. 4, 5
Liability of joint sureties v. I. 4
Limitation, statute of III. 58. I
Locatives ('Αθμονοί, Σφηττοῖ, etc.) VI.
33. 2
Lot used in dividing estates v. 7. I, 2
Lysias, imitation of v. 10. 2, 3
Males, preference of VII. 20. 6, 7
Manumisssion at Delphi p. 379
Marriage with half-sisters VIII. 40. 6;
with èraîpaι p. 274; III. 17. 4
Military roll II. 42. 7, 8
Minors, contracts of x. 1o. 2, 3
Mother's right of inheritance XI. 17.
IO, II
Naming of children II. 36. 3, 4; III. 30.
I, 7
Nebenehe, Müller's theory of p. 280 sqq.
Oath as means of proof XII. 9. 3, 4
Obscurity of Solon's laws III. 2. 3
Olynthus allied with Athens in 389 B.C.
v. 46. 3
Optative and Subjunctive confused III.
21. 3; opt. in continuation of oratio
obliqua VIII. 22. 7; opt. present repre-
senting an imperf. indic. VI. 12. 4
Ouster, rules of III. 22. 3, 4
Participle after woтe IX. 16. 5; part.
present, lax uses of I. 11. 3; 22. I;
III. 70. 5
Paternal uncles and aunts, their right of
succession XI. 2. 2, 3
Patrons of freedmen, rights of p. 379 sqq.
Perfect optative, unresolved forms of
VII. 27. 4
Peroration, absence of v. 47. 7
Plato's contempt of the speech-writers
PP. 299, 382
Play upon words IV. 12. 3, 4; V. 37. 4;
P. 475 XI. 50. I, 2
Pluralis magnificentiae VII. 40. 4, 5
Polygamy at Athens, Hruza's theory of
p. 496
Potential of the Past I. 24. 4; 27. 4;
II. 20. 5, 6; 22. 4, 5
Price of wheat and barley x. 10. 2, 3
Primogeniture, not recognised in Greece
VI. 25. 5
Privateers, Athenian XI. 48. 5, 6
Privileges of legitimate lineal male
descendants p. 232 sqq.
Puberty, legal age of VIII. 31. 4, 5
Public services (ANTоupyiai), forensic
(λῃτουργίαι),
treatment of p. 396
Pyrrhiche at the Panathenaea v. 36. 2, 3
Pythia, date of p. 570 sqq.
Questions, rhetorical v. 13. 5
Ransom of prisoners v. 43. 8, 9
Receipt, Greek formula of a III. 28. 7
Rent at Athens XI. 42. 7, 8
Repetitions, inelegant VIII. 7. 7
Sapindas and Samânodakas in Laws of
Manu p. 569
Ship-houses, remains of VI. 27. 6
Slaves' delicts, responsibility for VI. 20. 5
Sponsalia, Latin and Roman p. 290
State debtors, disabilities of x. 15. 7, 8
Synonyms, intrusion of XII. 5. 10, II
Terminations of aorist and perfect con-
fused vI. 6o. 7
Testaments without adoption pp. 176,
326; VII. 6. 4. See Wills, Law of
Testament
Thesmophoria III. 80. 3
Torture, commonplaces concerning VIII.
12. I
Transition from Oratio Obliqua to Oratio
Recta IX. 8. 5, 6
Trierarchs, appointment of v. 36. 5, 6;
expenses of v. 36. 7, 8
Trierarchy, its organisation VII. 38. 3
Trireme, cost of XI. 48. 5, 6
Variants introduced in MSS. by vI. 16.
2, 3
Voting of judges, mode of v. 17. 6, 7
Wages of day-labourers p. 465
Warranty of title in sales V. 22. 7
Widow, position of III. 8. 5, 6
Wife's right of divorce III. 8. 5
Wills, copies and seals of IV. 13. 2, 3;
witnesses to IX. 12. 4, 5; attacks on
pp. 177, 626, 631; III. 61. 2; when
made II. 14. 3; earlier made void by
later p. 208; codicils p. 208
Witnesses, not cross-examined in court
P. 512
Women, disabilities of x. 10. 2, 3; seclu-
sion of III. 14. 3; early marriage of
III. 31. 2
730
ISAEUS
III. INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
ἀγάλματα V. 42. 3
ἀγενής ΙΙ. 10. 3
ἀγχιστεία VIII. 30. 3, 4
ἀγχιστεύειν corrupt XI. II. 2
αἰκείας δίκη ΙΙΙ. 62. 6
αἱμακουρία ΙΙ. 46. 5
αἱρεῖν παρανοίας ΙΧ. 36. 8
αἰσχύνη ἡ παρ' ὑμῶν Ι. 39. 8
αἰτίας ἔχομεν Χ. 20. 6, 7
αἴτιον and ταἴτιον confused x. 18. 7
ἀκοὴ μαρτύρων VIII. 6. 2, 3; ἀκοὴν μαρ-
τυρεῖν VI. 53. 6
ἀκόλουθος V. II. 7
ἀλήθεια, ἡ τοῦ πράγματος I. 4I. 2
ἀληθὴς διαθήκη IV. 18. 4; ἀληθῆ λέγειν
XI. 17. 5
ἁλίσκεσθαι εἰς τοὺς πολεμίους VI. I. 7, 8
ἀλλά omitted I. 48. 4
ἀλλὰ νή Δία, legitimacy of a question
after III. 73. I, 2
ἀλλ᾽ ἤ IV. 4. 4
ἄλλος for ἕτερος I. hyp. 1o ; confused with
ἀλλότριος IV. 7. 1
ἄλλως τε εἰ και III. 69. 7
ἀλφάνειν VIII. 35. 4
ἅμα versus ὁμοῦ v. 38. 6
ἀμφισβητεῖν κατὰ δόσιν ΙΙΙ. 42. 2, 3;
constructions after ἀμφισβητεῖν ΙΙΙ. 6.
2, 3; ἀμφισβητοῦμαι VIII. 44. 5
ἄν accidentally omitted in MSS. III. 50.
5, 6; 54. I; confused with δή ΙΧ. 16. 4;
wrongly inserted v. 20. 3; with fut.
tense I. 32. 3; with optative in the
protasis of a conditional sentence v.
32. 2; position of 1. 46. 3; IX. 8. 1, 2;
understood from a previous clause XII.
I. 5
ἀναβολήν, ἀναβολάς, ποιεῖσθαι VI. 13. 3
ἀνάγειν εἰς πρατῆρα p. 436
ἀναγκαῖαι προφάσεις IV. 20. 4
ἀναδέχεσθαι ΙII. 18. 6
ἀναθήματα ν. 42. 2, 3, 44. Ι
ἀναίνεσθαι in prose II. 27. 4
ἀναιρεῖν, ἀναιρεῖσθαι, γραμματεῖον Ι. 25. 4;
VI. 31. 5 ; ἀναιρεῖσθαι νεκρόν IV. 19. 3
ἀνάκρισις VI. 12. 2
ἀναμφισβήτητα V. I. 5
ἀναφέρειν ἐπί τινα Χ. 23. II
ἀνδραγαθία ν. 47. 6, 7
ἀνδρογένεια p. 349
ἀνέπαφος v. hyp. io, II
ἀνεπίδικος ΙΙΙ. 59. 5; VIII. 34. 2, 3
ἀνέφαπτος in Delphian inscriptions v.
hyp. 10, II
ἀνεψιαδοῦς = consobrini filius p. 566
ἀνεψιὸς ἐκ πατραδέλφων IV. 23. 7; ἀνε
ψιῶν παῖδες VII. 22. 5
ἀνηλωμένον, not ἀναλωμένον V. 28. 3
ἀντιγράφεσθαι, ἀντιγραφή VI. 52. 5
ἀντίληξις τῆς μὴ οὔσης p. 716; XII. II.
4, 5
ἀντίληψις in rhetoric II. hyp. 8
ἀντομνύναι, ἀντωμοσία ΙΙΙ. 6. 8
άξαντες IV. 10. 2
ἀξιοῦν, subject of subordinate infinitive
omitted 1. 16. 3, 4
ἀπαγωγή IV. 28. 4
ἀπαλλαγή ΙΙ. 3Ι. 5
ἀπαλλάττειν χρήστας V. 28. 4; ἀπαλλάτε
τεσθαι γυναικός VI. 24. 4, 5
ἀπαρχαί V. 42. 2
ἀπελλαΐα at Delphi p. 364
ἁπλῶς )( ἀκριβέστερον VIII. 30. 3
ἀπογράφειν τινὰ εἰς τὴν βουλήν IV. 28. 7;
ἀπογράφεσθαι ΧΙ. 34· 5, 6
ἀποδιδόναι τὴν προίκα ΙΙ. 9. 4
ἀποκλῄειν τῇ θύρα VI. 40. 3
ἀπολαμβάνειν ὀρθῶς καὶ δικαίως ΙΧ. 29.
I, 2
ἀπόλειψις, technical sense of III. 8. 5
ἀπολύειν, ἀπολύεσθαι VI. 33. 5
ἀπορεῖσθαι medial I. 39. 3
ἀπορρήσεως δίκη ΙΙ. 29. 5
ἀποστερεῖν V. 40. 3; ἀποστερούμενον versus
ἀποστερόμενον VII. 7. 3
ἀποτίμημα ΙΙ. 9. 4, 5 ; VI. 36. 5, 6
ἀποτιμηταί VI. 36. 5, 6
ἀποφαίνειν διαθήκην IV. 13. 7, 8
αποφορά VIII. 35. 5, 6
ἄρα, place of X. 17. 3
ἀρραβών VIII. 23. 3
ἀρχαῖα, τά VI. 38. 4, 5
ἀρχαιρεσίαι p. 571
ἀρχή, ή, collective I. 3. 5
ἀσκεῖν VII. 14. 2
ἀσπάζεσθαι ΙΧ. 4. 7
ἀστρατείας γραφή v. 46. 1, 2
ἀτίμητος ΙΙΙ. 35. 3
ἀτύχημα πρὸς τὸ δημόσιον Χ. 20. 5
αὐτομαχείν Ρ. 436
αυτόν versus αὐτόν II. II. 3; 23. 2
aúrós transposed in MSS. VIII. 7. 2, 3
ἐπ' αὐτοφώρῳ IV. 28. 4, 5
ἀφαιρεῖσθαι, technical use of III. 62. 5
INDEX
731
ἀφανὴς οὐσία VI. 30. 3
ἀφανίζειν τὰ ὄντα VII. 35. 3
ἀφιέναι : ἀφήκαμεν, ἀφήκατε, etc. V. I.
5, 6
ἀφοσιοῦσθαι VII. 38. 5, 6
ἄχρηστος τῇ πόλει IV. 27. 6, η
βεβαιούν, constructions of v. 23. I
βεβαιώσεως δίκη p. 436
βεβαίως ἔχειν Ι. 22. 5, 6
βήμα in a law court v. 25. 59
6
βιοῦσα aorist, not present VI. 49. 5
βουλεύεσθαι ὀρθῶς Ι. 4Ι. 7, 8
βραβευτής ΙΧ. 35. 5
γάμελα at Delphi p. 364
γαμηλίαν εἰσφέρειν ΙΙΙ. 76. I
γε wrongly inserted III. 40. 2, 3; mis-
placed XII. 2. 7; after οὐδέ III. 50. 2
γεγενημένη = γεγονυία III. 12. 6
γενέσια ΙΙ. 46. 5
γένος = gradus propinquitatis IV. 16. 2;
opposed to συγγένεια VIII. 33. 6; γένη
IV. II. 4; 16. 2
γηροτροφεῖν Ι. 39. 5
γίγνεσθαι εἴς τινα III. 36. 8; γίγνεσθαί
τινι IV. 15. 8; γίγνεσθαί τινος V. 44. 5
γνήσιος in papyri III. 61. 2
γονεύς, strained use of VIIΙ. 32. 5
γόνῳ II. 18. 5
γράμματα of more than one document VII.
I. 6, 7
γραμματεῖα, τὰ κοινά VII. I. 4
γράφεσθαι of a private suit Vill. hyp. 4
γρύξαι VIII. 27. 5
γυμνασιαρχεῖν ἐν τῷ δήμῳ II. 42. 5;
λαμπάδι VI. 60. 6
δαπανηθείς versus δαπανήσας V. 43. 4
δαράται at Delphi p. 364
δέ interpolated III. 50. 2; repeated II.
42. 2, 3; confused with yáp III. 56. 2;
with και III. hyp. 6, 7
δεκάτη ΙΙΙ. 30. I
δευτερολογία not the same as ὁ ὕστερος
λόγος p. 369
δημιουργοί VI. 33. 8
διαγράφειν, διαγράφεσθαι, δίκην V. 17. 2
διακείσθαι πρός τινα 1. 49. 4; ΙΧ. 22. Ι
διαμαρτυρία p. 233 sqq.
διάνοια Ι. 43. 7
διαπράττειν not found in the orators X.
9. 7; διαπράττεσθαι, infinitive after III.
39.6
διαρρήδην μαρτυρεῖν ΙΧ. 18. 3
διατίθεσθαι, constructions of III. 42. 2, 3;
versus διδόναι ib.
δι' αὑτῶν εἶναι VI. 35. 6; δι' αὑτοῦ ποιεῖσθαι
VIII. 37. 2, 3
διαφέρεσθαι διά τι ΙΙ. 27. Ι
διαφέροντα, τα IV. 12. 7, 8
διαφθείρειν of abortion VIII. 36. η; διε-
φθάρθαι ὑπὸ φαρμάκων ΙΧ. 37. 3, 4
διάφορος, construction of I. 9. 2
διαψήφισις ἐν τοῖς δήμοις p. 714 sqq.
διδόναι : ἐδώκαμεν, ἐδώκατε, ἔδωκαν V.
28.3
δικαίως and καὶ ὡς confused X. 23. 4
δίκη in its widest sense III. 46. 4; δίκην
διδόναι iudicium subire VII. 3. 8; δικῶν
οὐσῶν ν. 7. 3; δίκαι πρός τινα and κατά
τινος ΧΙ. 34. Ι
διόμνυσθαι ΧΙ. 6. 4, 5
διότι in the orators III. 50. 5, 6; VII.
13. 4
δοκιμάζειν VII. 36. 5; δοκιμασθεὶς ἀνὴρ
είναι ΙΧ. 29. 1
δόξει δίκαιον without είναι ΧΙ. 50. 7
δόσις διὰ τῶν ἀρχόντων Ι. II. 2
ἐβουλόμην versus ἐβουλόμην ἄν Χ. I. I
ἐγγενόμενον versus εκγενόμενον V. 19. I, 2
ἐγγυᾶν, ἐγγυᾶσθαι, ἐγγύησις III. 4. 6;
70. 7
ἐγγυτάτω γένους, γένει VIII. 33. 3, 4
ἐγγυτέρω τῆς ἀγχιστείας suspectum VIII.
30. 3, 4; τοῦ γένους VIII. 33. 3, 4
ἐγώ unemphatic III. 40. 2, 3
ἔδαφος ΧΙ. 42. η
el repeated X. 23. 9; ei kaí in the orators
V. 25. 8
εἰκός ἐστι, constructions of IV. 18. 4
είλεν and είχεν confused I. 47. 6
είναι with participle as predicative
adjective VII. 19. 4
εἷς ὁ πρῶτος VIII. 33. I; εἷς versus τις
III. 37· 5
eis in application to time (εἰς ἕω, εἰς τὴν
ὑστεραίαν) Ι. 14. 6; εἰς ὑμᾶς εἰσελθεῖν
versus ὡς ὑμᾶς εἰσελθεῖν Ι.
3. I
εἰσαγγελία and γραφή interchanged XI.
6. 1ο; εἰσαγγελίαι πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα
III. 46. I
εἰσάγειν εἰς τοὺς φράτερας ΙΙI. 73. 6, 7
εἰσποιεῖν, εἰσποιεῖσθαι, ὑόν ΙΙΙ. 6ο. 8, 9;
XII. I. 5 ; εἰσποιεῖν, invidious use of
IV. 10. 3, 4
εἰσποίητος, ambiguity of vi. 36. 2, 3
εἰσφορά V. 37· 4
εἶτα IV. 29. 6
εἶχεν and ἔσχεν confused I. 18. 6
ἐκ μέρους VI. 46. 3, 4; ἐκ τοῦ λοιποῦ
χρόνου ΙΙ. 32. Ι; ἐξ ἡμῶν versus ὑφ'
ἡμῶν VI. 57. 2
ἕκαστοι ποιούμεθα = ἕκαστος ἡμῶν ποιεῖται
III. 19. 7
ἑκάτεροι 1. 3. Ι; ἑκατέρους ἡμᾶς Ι. 33. I
Ι
ἐκκόπτειν used metaphorically VIII. 39.
6, 7
ἐκλητουργεῖν suspectum VII. 40. 2
ἐκμαρτυρεῖν ΙII. 77. I, 2
ἐκμαρτυρία ΙΙΙ. 18. 5; 77. 1, 2
732
ISAEUS
ἐκπέμπειν γυναῖκα III. 35. 5
ἐκποίητος versus εἰσποίητος ΙΧ. 2. 3
ἐκφορεῖσθαι medial vi. 39. 6
ἐλευθερία = citizen birth p. 281
ἐλεύθερος, ' free of encumbrances v. hyp.
JO, II
ἐλπίζειν with present Infinitive VIII. I. 4
ἐλπίς ἐστι with Aorist Infinitive VII.
32. 2
ἐμβάδες v. II. 9, 10
ἐμβατεύειν ΙΙΙ. 62. 4
ἔμβραχυ ΙΧ. II. 5
ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἐπωνύμων V. 38. 3
ἐμφανῶν κατάστασις VI. 31. 3
ἐν : Ἐλευσῖνι preferred to ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι V.
42. 6; ἐν οἰκήματι καθῆσθαι VI. 19. 7;
èv in the orators I. 19. 4
Τ
ἐναγίζειν ΙΙ. 46. 5
ἔνατα, τά ΙΙ. 36. 6
ἕνεκα τοῦ νόμου, quantum ad legem
attinet III. 35. 3 ; ἕνεκα versus ἕνεκεν
XII. I. 4
Ι
ἔννοια Ι. 13. I
ἐνοίκιον VI. 2I. 3
ἐνταυθοί VI. 2I. 2
ἐντὸς ἀνεψιαδῶν p. 566
ἐξάγειν, ἐξάγεσθαι, εξαγωγή ΙΙΙ. 22. 3, 4
ἐξανέψιος p. 567
ἐξαργυρίζεσθαι V. 43. 3
εξεγγύη not identical with ἐγγύη V. 3. 4
ἕξειν and ἔχειν confused III. 70. 7
ἐξελευθερικα φιαλαί p. 465
ἐξεραθεισῶν, not ἐξαιρεθεισῶν, τῶν ψήφων
V. 17. 6, 7
ἐξηγητής VIII. 39. 4
ἐξόμνυσθαι ΙΧ. 18. 8, 9
ἐξούλης δίκη V. 22. 5; III. 62. 6
ἐπάγειν ἐπί τινα IV. 7. 2
ἔπειτα ΙΙΙ. 48. I
ἐπί and περί confused III. 74. 6; ἐπὶ
διετὲς ἡβῆσαι VIII. 3I. 4, 5; ἐπὶ τοῦ
δικαστηρίου V. I. 2; ἐπὶ μέρους VI. 46.
3, 4; ἐπὶ ῥητοῖς VI. 25. 4, 5; ἐπὶ τὴν
οὐσίαν ἰέναι ΙΧ. 32. 4; rare use of ἐπί
X. 15. 6, 7
ἐπιβιόντα ΙΙ. 45· 3
ἐπιγίγνεσθαι versus γίγνεσθαι Χ. 26. 5, 6
ἐπιγνῶναι ΙΙ. 19. 3
ἐπιγράφεσθαι IV. 2. 4, 5
ἐπιδικάζειν ΙII. 41. 2; ἐπιδικασθεῖσα VI.
14. IO
ἐπιδικάζεσθαι, meaning of tenses III. 41. 2 ;
genitive after v. 6. 8
ἐπιδικασία ΙΙΙ. 41. 4
ἐπιδόσεις V. 37· 7
ἐπίθημα II. 36. 6
ἐπίλογος = δευτερολογία p. 367
ἐπισκήπτειν ΙΙΙ. 69. 7; ἐπισκήπτεσθαι ΙΙΙ.
3. 5
ἐπιτρέπειν δίαιταν ΙΙ. 29. 9
ἐπίτροπος Ι. 10. 6, 7
ἐπιτυχόντες, οἱ III. 25. 3
επωβελία v. 22. 8
ἐπώνυμοι, οἱ v. 38. 3
ἔρανοι ΧΙ. 43. 4, 5
ἔργα, τά, of the silver mines III. 22. 2
ἐργαστήριον of a mine III. 22. I
ἔρημος κλῆρος III. 61. 4
ἐστί and ἔσται confused II. 47. 2
ἑστιᾶν θεσμοφόρια ΙΙΙ. 80. 3
εὖ νοῶν ΙΙ. Ι4· 4, 5; εὖ φρονῶν I. II. 7
εὐθυδικία VI. 3. 5
εὐθὺς παραχρήμα 1. II. 2
εὐμενής VII. 29. 3, 4
εὐπορεῖν with an Accusative VII. 8. 9,
ΙΟ
>
εὑρίσκειν, “fetch, bring in VIII. 35. 4;
εὑρίσκειν προφάσεις IV. 20. 4, 5
ἔχει and είχε confused X. 21. 2, 3
ἔχειν καὶ κρατεῖν VIII. 20. 3, 4
ews où not Attic vII. 8. 9
ζεῦγος ἀδήφαγον, πωλικόν p. 473; ὀρεικόν
P. 474
ζημίαν ἐργάζεσθαί= noxam facere VI. 20.
ζημιωθήσομαι, ζημιώσομαι Ι. 23. 3
η, τι, π confused XI. Io. 9
ἢ νή Δία VII. 33. 4, 5 ; ή and και con-
fused v. 5. 2
ἡγοῦνται and ὑφηγοῦνται confused IV.
22. 7
ἧκον, aoristic use of IV. 8. 5
ἡλίκα and ἡνίκα confused II. 20. 6
ἦλθον and ήκον confused IV. 8. 5
ἡμεῖς of one person VII. 37· 3
ἠργάσω V. 45. 5
θάτερα and θάτερον Ι. 22. 4, 5
θέλειν in the orators VIII. II. 3
θέτης Χ. 24. 3
θετός ΙΙΙ. 69. 5
θῆτται ἐπίκληροι Ι. 39. 6
θιασώται ΙΧ. 30. 3; in a φρατρία 11. 14. 7
i and y confused III. 2. 4; ι and s con-
fused I. 5. I; III. 74· 6
ιδιώτης Ι. 7. 3
ἱερὰ καὶ ὅσια VI. 47. 2, 3
ἱεροφάντης VI. 33. 5
ἵνα final, not used with Future Indicative
VIII. 13. 2
4
ἱππάδα τελεῖν VII. 39. 2, 3
ἵππος πολεμιστήριος p. 472; λαμπρός ΧΙ.
4I. 6
ἱπποτροφία p. 471 sqq.
καδίσκος ΧΙ. 21. 4, 5
καθαρός in papyri v. hyp. 10, ΙΙ
καθηγούμενοι corruptum v. 14. 5
καθ᾽ ἱερῶν ὀμόσαντες VII. 28. 4
καθιπποτροφείν V. 43· 5
INDEX
733
καθίστασθαι εἰς τὴν βουλήν VI. 32. 3
καί and ναi confused III. 48. 6; καί and
κἄν confused II. 25. Ι; και...δέ ΙΧ. ΙΙ.
I, 2
κακούργοι, technical use of IV. 28. 7
κακώς and καλῶς confused v. 36. 5
κάκωσις γονέων Ι. 39. 5 ; ἐπικλήρου ΙΙΙ.
46. 1 ; ὀρφανοῦ p. 675 ; ὀρφανικοῦ οἴκου
XI. 35. 5, 6
κάλει μάρτυρας I. 16. 6
καλινδεῖσθαι versus κυλινδείσθαι ν. 44. 3
κατὰ δύναμιν είναι II. 32. 5; κατὰ ταῦτα
disputed III. 3· 7
καταβαίνειν of speakers VII. 43. 3
καταγηρᾶν ΙΙ. 22. 2
καταδικάζομαί τι, ‘I get something ad-
judged to me X. 24. 3
καταζευγοτροφεῖν V. 43. 5
καταλεγεὶς τῶν τριηράρχων VII. 5. 7
καταπαιδεραστεῖν Χ. 25. 2
κατασκευάζειν in malam partem IV. 6. 4
κατατιθέναι of mortgages P. 432
καταφυγὴ τῆς ἐρημίας ΙΙ. 13. 5, 6
καταχρῆσθαι VI. 56. 2, 3
κατοικοδομεῖν VIII. 4I. 3, 4
κατοκώχιμον versus κατόχιμον ΙΙ. 28. 6
κελεύει ἐξεῖναι II. 13. 3
κέλης p. 472
κεφάλαια, τά, in rhetoric VIII. hyp. 19, 20
κῆπος V. II. 3, 4
κληρονόμος Ι. 44 5
κληρούχοι, status of VI. 13. 3
κομίζειν, κομίζεσθαι ν. 22. 4, 5; VIII.
21. 4
κόσμιος IV. 27. 8
κούρειον p. 358; VI. 22. 3
κρεανομεῖν ΙΧ. 33. 7
κνεῖν, not κύειν VIII: 36. 6
κύριον γίγνεσθαι Ι. 42. 4; κύριος τῶν
χρημάτων VI. 30. 3 ; μετὰ κυρίου τοῦ
ἀνδρός ΙΙΙ. 2. 3 ; κύριος an ambiguous
word VIII. 31. 6
κωλύει ὁ νόμος Χ. Ιο. 2
λαγχάνειν τὴν δίκην τοῦ κλήρου ΙΙΙ. 43.
2, 3
λαμπαδηφόροι VI. 6ο. 6
λαμπρός of a man who makes a show
VIII. 40. 5
"
I mean' II. 12. 6
λέγω, I mean
λῆξις κλήρον ΙΙΙ. 43. 2, 3
λῃτουργεῖν, ἐν τῷ δήμῳ ΙΙΙ. 80. 4; in-
accurate use of XI. 50. I, 2
λῃτουργίαι, census for XI. 40. 5, 6
λοιπός and επίλοιπος interchanged II.
32. 4, 5
μ and a confused X. 2. 5
μαρτυρεῖν, constructions of III. 55. 5
μαρτυρία of a joint deposition III. 14.
5, 6
μεῖον p. 359
μév solitarium I. I. 1; displaced 1. 48.
5; repeated II. 42. 2, 3; intrusum
III. 74. 1; μέν and μόνον confused
v. 36. 7
μέν γε IV. 8. Ι
μετὰ τῆς τούτου γνώμης ΙΙ. 8. 4
μεταγράφειν versus μετεγγράφειν IV.
13. 6
μή used abnormally v. 16. 1, 2
μήν in the orators XI. 34. 4
μισθοφοροῦντα ἀνδράποδα VIII. 35. 5, 6
μίσθωσις = rent V. II. 4, 5; μίσθωσις
οἴκου ΙΙ. 9. 4, 5
μισθωτοί ν. 39. 5
ναι μά Δία ΙΙΙ. 25. Ι; 48. 6
ναυκληρεῖν συνοικίαν VI. 19. 3, 4
νέμησις ΙΧ. Ι7. 4, 5
νομιζόμενα, τά ΙΙ. 4. 5
νόμος and ψήφισμα confused p. 715;
νόμος of a φρατρία III. 76. 4
νυνί and νῦν Ι. 30. 4
ξενίας γραφή III. 37. 5
ὅδε and οὗτος not used consistently IV.
3. 3
ὅθεν ἀπέλιπον V. 12. 2
ὀθνεῖος IV. 18. 5, 6
οἴκημα = cella meretricia VI. 19. 7
οἴκοθεν Χ. 17. 4
οίμαι, senses of II. 29.
οἴονται and οϊόν τε confused XI. 12. 10
οἷός είμι, εἰμὶ οἷος, with Infinitive VIII.
21. 6, 7; οἷός τέ εἰμι, εἰμὶ οιός τε ΧΙ.
16. 7, 8
ὁμολογεῖν of contracts III. 27. 4; with
accusative IV. 4. 5; with pres. and
fut. infin. vi. 32. 2; ὁμολογεῖσθαι Ι.
2. 2, 3; ὁμολογηθεῖσα προίξ ΙΙΙ.
36. 7
ὁμολογουμένως often corrupted vi. 49. 4
ὅποι versus ὅπῃ IV. 27. 5
οπότε causal VIII. 37. 6
ὅπως ἄν after ἐπιμελεῖσθαι VII. 3o. 8, 9 ;
ὅπως μὴ ἐρεῖς XI. 5. 5; οὐχ ὅπως, not
to speak of' VIII. 25. 6, 7
ὀργεῶνες ΙΙ. 14. 7
ὅρος ἁπλοῦς, διπλοῦς, in rhetoric I. hyp.
9; ὅρος τῶν δωρεῶν Ι. 24. 4, 5; ὅρους
τιθέναι VI. 36. 5, 6
ὅσον versus ὡς III. 72. 2
ὅτι repeated III. 15. 3
οὐ with infn. after ὥστε III. 39. 2; in
conditional protases VI. 2. 3 ; ad-
herescent IX. 17. 6; extra structuram
in a parenthesis XII. 5. 8, 9; οὐ μή
with fut. indic. VIII. 24. 4, 5
οὐ πάνυ IV. 12. 4
οὐδαμοῖ versus οὐδαμῇ IV. 27. 5
734
ISAEUS
οὐδέ resumed by οὐκ VII. 29. 4, 5; re-
peated I. 12. 4; οὐδὲ (οὐ) διελέγετο
I. 34. 7
ovdeís, 'a nobody' XI. 47. 2, 3; ovdéves
VIII. 4. 8; οὐδὲν δεῖσθαι II. 30. 3;
οὐδέν and οὐδὲ ἕν confused II. 39. 5
οὔκουν V. 34. I
οὖν and ἄν confused III. 54. Ι
οὗτος and ὁ υἱός confused II. Io. 8;
ουτοσί, position of II. 36. 3
οὕτως, position of I. I. 4
ὀφλήματα εἰσπεπραγμένα ΧΙ. 43. 4, 5
παγκτησία p. 431
παῖδες ύεῖς VIII. 13. 3
παιδια at Delphi p. 364
παιδικός χορός VII. 40. 4
παιδίσκη VI. 19. 4
παρὰ τέτταρας ψήφους ἀποφυγείν ΙΙΙ.
37. 6; παρά τινι ἀξιοῦσθαι VII. 5. 3,
4; παρά τινα καθῆσθαι VIII. 16. 1;
παρά τινα versus παρά τινι VIII. 16. 2
παράγειν ΧΙ. 36. 3, 4
παρακαταβάλλειν, παρακαταβολή IV. 4. 8
παραλύειν, metaphorical use of
Io. 8
παράνοια Ι. 19. 7
IV.
παρασκευάζεσθαι in malam partem VIII.
3. 4
παρασκευή in malam partem IV. 5. 2
παράστασις ΙΙΙ. 47. 4
παρατιθέναι ΙΧ. 32. 6, 7
παραφθέγγεσθαι VIII. 23. 6
παραχρήμα Ι. II. 2
πάρεδροι τοῦ ἄρχοντος VI. 32. 6
παρεκβάσεις VI. 59. 4, 5
παρίστασθαι medial I. 31. 6
πατράδελφος IV. hyp. 2
πατρόθεν IV. 4ο 2
πατρῷοι θεοί ΙΙ. I. 7; πατρῴα ἱερά ΙΙ.
46. 4
πεδίον, plain of Athens v. 22. 3
πέρα μεδίμνου κριθῶν Χ. 10. 2, 3
περί and παρά, περί and ὑπέρ confused
ΧΙ. 47. 2, 3; III. 55. 8; τὸ περὶ αὐτῆς
γένος ΧΙ. 17. 3, 4; τὸ περὶ ἡμῶν δί-
καιον I. 36. Ι
περιιών versus περιών ΙΧ. 25. 6
πιθόμενος and πειθόμενος confused II.
I. 4
πλέθρον V. 22. 3, 4
πλεῖν, πλείω, πλείους ΙΙΙ. I. 4; ὁ πλεί-
στος τοῦ λόγου II. 19. 3, 4
πλήν and πλὴν ὅτι 1. 9. 5
πληροῦν δικαστήρια VI. 37. I, 2
ποιεῖν τοῦτο Ι. 22. 6; ποιεῖν ὅπως ὑπο-
λείψει 1. 33· 3; ποιεῖσθαι, to get
made' v. 44. 2; ποιηθῆναι ὑόν τινι
ΙΧ. 10. 5
ποιότης in rhetoric II. hyp. 8; VIII. hyp.
9, 10
πολεμῶν of private hostility I. 15. 2
πόλις = ἀκροπόλις V. 44. 2
πρᾶσις ἐπὶ λύσει V. 21. η
πρατήρ Χ. 24. 3
πρὶν ἢ II. 19. 5
7
πρὸ δίκης indicta causa V. 1ο. 9; πρὸ
τούτων IV. II. 5
προαιρείσθαί τινός τι Ι. 47. 6.
προβάλλειν and προβάλλεσθαι confused
v. 32. 6
πρόδηλος ΙΙΙ. 19. 3
-
προεδρία V. 47. 2, 3
προεισφορά VI. 60. 7
πρόθεσις of the dead VIII. 21. 4; ΙΧ.
4. 2, 3
προικός δίκη ΙII. 9. 2
προκηρύττειν VI. 37. 2
προορᾶν VII. 31. 2
πρός, adverbial use of v. 24. 4; com-
pendia for VI. 46. 3, 4; πρὸς μέρος
VI. 46. 3, 4; πρὸς τῷ ἄρχοντι versus
παρὰ τῷ ἄρχοντι VI. 12. 2, 3
προσάγειν, limitation of its intransitive
use VIII. 33. I
προσγράφεσθαι Χ. 2. 3
προσδοκάν with Aorist Infinitive VII.
32. 2
προσήκει with Accusative and Infinitive
VIII. 6. 6 ; προσῆκον and προσήκεν
6;
confused vi. 50. 4; προσήκων ἦν Ι.
45. 6
προσποιείσθαι III. I. 5
προσταττόμενα, τα IV. 27. 8
προσταχθέν Ι. 22. 2
πρόφασις Ι. 9. 6
πρυτανεία ΙΙΙ. 47. 3
πυνθάνεσθαι, sciscitari, with Accusative
I. 32. I, 2
πυρριχισταῖς χορηγεῖν ν. 36. 2, 3
πρῶτον omitted in MSS. XI. 2. 4
ῥήτορες 1. 7. 3
σαυτόν and ἑαυτόν confused IX. 23. 5
σίτησις ἐν πρυτανείῳ V. 47. 2, 3
σίτου δίκη ΙII. 9. 2
στάσις I. hyp. 9; στάσις πραγματική
ἔγγραφος Χ. hyp. 35
στοχασμός in rhetoric II. hyp. 8
συγγένεια wider than ἀγχιστεία ΧΙ. 3. 5
συγγενείς = γεννήται VII. I. 3, 4
συγγιγνώσκειν VIII. 38. I, II
συγχέαι τὰς ψήφους p. 425
συγχωρεῖν, meanings of v. 18. 1
συλλαμβάνειν, construction of IX. 25.
2, 3
τοῦ συμβαίνοντός ἐστι IV. 13. 4
συμβάλλειν versus συμβάλλεσθαι V. 36.
7; of every kind of contract x. Io.
X.
2, 3
συμβόλαια, wide sense of IV. 12. 3, 4
INDEX
735
συμμορία VII. 38. 3
σύν, use of, in the orators VI. 33. 6
συναριθμείν p. 425
συνεπιτιθέναι at sacrifices VIII. 16. 6
συνευπορεῖν with Genitive and Accusa
tive XI. 37. 6, 7
συνιστάναι VIII. 23. 5, 6
συνωρίς . 474
opeîs, opâs, etc. in the orators III. 45. 2
σχεῖν and ἔχειν confused X. 4. 5
τἆλλα interpolated VIII. 34. 6, 7
ταῦτα and τἀναντία confused I. 48. 2
τάχα of time XI. 20. 3, 4
τε, use of, in the orators III. 80. Ι ;
τε-δέ IV. 4. 8; traiectum XI. 12. 9
τεκμήρια )( μάρτυρες IV. 12. 2, 3
τέλος, κατὰ τὸ τέλος, obscurity of IV.
ΙΙ. 2
τῇδέ ΙΙ. 42. 2
τήθη ΙΙΙ. 23. Ι
τηλικαῦτα and τηνικαῦτα confused II.
20. 6; III. 18. 4
τιθέναι, τίθεσθαι of mortgages p. 432
ages
τιμᾶν ἐν προικί III. 35. 6
τιμή= value p. 430
τίμημα ΙΙΙ. 2. 5
τοιοῦτος and τοσοῦτος confused I. 5. Ι;
τοιοῦτος ὅs in the orators VIII. 5. 7, 8
τολμάν with negative I. 31. 8
τοῦτο and ταὐτὸ confused IV. 1o. 5;
τοῦτο μέν—τοῦτο δέ III. 28. 3
τραγῳδοῖς χορηγεῖν v. 36. 2, 3
τριακόσιοι, οἱ VI. 60. 7
τρίβων, τριβώνιον V. II. 9, 10
τριετῆ (τρί᾽ ἔτη) γεγονότα IV. 8. 5, 6
τρίποδες χορηγικοί V. 4I. 7
τρισκαίδεκα not Attic VIII. 35. 8
τρίτα, τά ΙΙ. 36. 6
ὕβρεως γραφή VIII. 4I. 4, 5
νός, declension of II. 2. 3
ὑπακούειν IV. 28. 8
ὑπεῖναι Ι. 33. 6
ὑπέρχρεως versus ὑπόχρεως X. 16. 3
ὑπολείπειν λόγον Ι. 33. 3
ὑποπεπτωκώς τινι VI. 29. 2
φανερὰ οὐσία VI. 30. 3
φάσις ὀρφανικοῦ οἴκου VI. 36. 7, 8
φάσκοι, not φάσκει VI. 16. 5
φελλούς VIII. 42. 4
φέρειν μίσθωσιν V. 35. 8
φιλία πρός τινα Ι. 17. 3
φιλοτιμεῖσθαι ΙΙ. 42. 5
φόβος πρός τινα Ι. Ι7. 3
φυλαρχειν V. 42. 7, 8; XI. 41. 6
φύσει) ποιήσει II. II. 6
φωράν VI. 42. 3
χάριν δοῦναι ΙΙ. 8. 3
χιλίαι, αἱ ΙΙΙ. 47. Ι
χοαί ΙΙ. 46. 5
χορηγεῖν τῇ φυλῇ ν. 36. I, 2
χρήστων and χρηστῶν I. 12. 7
χρόνῳ ὕστερον VI. 27. 3; χρόνων δια-
γενομένων ΧΙ. 9. I
χρυσίδια ΙΙ. 9. 5, 6
ψευδή λέγειν Χ. Ι. 2
ψευδής διαθήκη Ι. 4Ι. 6; μαρτυρία ΙΙΙ.
19. I, 2
ψευδομαρτύρια, not ψευδομαρτυρία ΙΙΙ.
4. 2
ὦ ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι, δικασταί, compendia
for I. 47. I, 2
ws and
confused v. 45. 5; ws repeated VII.
ws, causal use of V. 45. 4;
4. 2; ὡς ἄλλως VII. 27. η
θεῖν
ὡς ὑμᾶς εἰσελθεῖν versus εἰς ὑμᾶς εἰσελ-
I. 3. 1; ὡς ἑαυτὸν κομισάμενος
VII. 7. 4, 5
ὥσπερ ἄν VI. 64. 2; ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ VI. 54· 4
ὠστολογεῖν IV. 19. 4
CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
21

THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

DATE DUE
DEC 1 5 1982
AUG
JUL 12
חרז
SEP 15 1986
E
APR 29.1988
FEB 22 1983
1991
SEP 1 0 1989
FEB 1 3 1992
3


f
t
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
OCT 3
3 9015 01047 3976
OF
·3.
1
!
}
JÁN KEY MAYİNƏ Fitte je
$