seems to indicate some uneasy feeling as to the interpretation likely to be put on his conduct in the Corinthian war.

150-1. ÊK TÔ TOLOÚTWY 'on considerations such as these.' 115 roljø 'shows unusual courage.' [An ingenious emendation kouậ has been made,- —a word applied to the knights, see Ar. Eq. 580, un pooveîd' ņuiv kouwol 'dandified ;'—but it is not necessary.]

155. år' opews ‘from looks.' Cf. Dem. (?) 1403, kállos επί της όψεως, σωφροσύνην δ' επί της ψυχάς, άνδρείαν δ' επ' αμφοτέρων τούτων .. έχοντας.

157-8. Mirpov, Slaleyóuevo! ‘speaking in modest terms.' κοσμίως περιερχόμενοι “behaving about town in a quiet and unobtrusive manner.' The speaker seems to have been accused of swaggering and making a great to do about his valour.

163. νεώτερος ών. . An ephebus could not speak or vote in 116 the εκκλησία. . But after his two years as ephebus, i.e. about twenty, any citizen could do so. The exercise of this privilege, however, seems to have been modified by public opinion.

166-7. και.. δέοντος “I seem even to myself to be somewhat more ambitiously disposed than I ought to be.' For datedîvai, cf. iii. 1. 102. Pilotipótepov is an adverb. But if it be a sin to covet honour, I am the most offending soul alive.'

170. roútovs 'persons of that sort,' i.e. who take part in public affairs (at pátrovOL Tà Trólews). For the discredit attaching to indifference to public business, see on iv. 1. 70.

174-5. oủ ydp . . Úpeis ‘The whole matter is in your hands, i.e. you can elect to power, or reject the advice of, such men at your discretion, and therefore you need not be annoyed at individuals who come forward with advice, etc.

ORATION IX. [17.) [This is a speech on the trial of a disputed claim on property (διαδικασία).

The speaker's grandfather had lert Eraton two talents. On Eraton's death his property was divided between his three sons, Erasiphon, Eraton, and Erasistratus, who failed to pay the interest on this inherited debt. The speaker's father could not recover at first owing to there being no courts sitting the year of

the Thirty ; but in B.C. 401-400 did succeed in getting a verdict for the whole debt (i.e. principal and interest) against Erasistratus, the only one of the three brothers then in Athens. He then appears to have died, and the speaker as his heir obtained possession of some property of Erasistratus' at Sphettus, and was engaged in an action for the recovery of some more at Kikynna, when the whole aspect of the case was changed by a confiscation (we do not know for what reason) of the entire estate of Eraton.

Up to that time two distinct steps had been taken by the speaker to obtain this property at Kikynna, in which he was resisted by the relations of Erasiphon. He first obtained leave (flaxev) to bring in his suit before an ordinary court. This, however, was quashed by Erasiphon's relations demurring that they being Žurropol the suit should lie before the Nautodicæ. The speaker accordingly went again before the Nautodicæ and obtained leave to bring his suit before their court; but for some reason it was either not tried or at any rate not decided.

The estate having been meanwhile confiscated, even that part of it of which he had been in actual possession, the speaker commences a suit against the State to assert his claim. He only asks for a third, though he professes that the whole was equitably his.

The case is heard before an ordinary Court, and the fiscal commissioners (o úv dikol) either preside or are present in Court.

§ 10. The date of the speech may be within a little decided from indications in it. The speaker's father won his suit in B.C. 401400 (33): the speaker then succeeded his father, and at the time of speaking had been in possession of the property thus obtained nearly three years (8 5). This brings us to 398-7 B.C., unless a longer interval intervened between his father's successful action and death. We may see also that the trial, if in the year 398-7, was after the winter months (8 5).

The speech is rendered somewhat difficult by the technical language and arguments, and at least in one passage (8 4) by some confusion in the text. It is without rhetorical flourish or artifices, and rests solely on plain statement supported by evidence. The speaker even abstains from all appeal to the feelings or generosity of the judges, unless indeed we consider that the abruptness of the concluding paragraph is to be accounted for by a loss of some text. ]

1-2. Sid To . . elval because it is my wish to be a good 117 citizen.' Lit. 'worth something,' ¿.e. to the State.

4. των μη προσηκόντων “ things not immediately concerning myself.'

7. pèy oův however.' The indicates some clause sup

[ocr errors]


pressed. “I think I can do so much, but anything more I fear I could not do.'

8. τα πεπραγμένα ημίν προς Εράτωνα “the transaction between me and Eraton.

10. διαδικασία properly means a trial on rival claims made by two or more persons to the same property. Here the two parties concerned are the speaker on the one side and the State on the other. Almost any civil action could be therefore described by this name; but it was especially used of lawsuits with the State in regard to confiscated property, as here. In 1. 81 we have olaðikao ua for the claim itself,' whereas diaOlkagia is the trial of such claim.

12-15. έδανείσατο Saveioai "borrowed' 'to lend. The middle means to get lent for oneself, i.e. to borrow.

16. 6oa spel non 'how much he made by it.' He infers that he was employing the money in some business.

17. παραγεγενημένοι οίς.. έπραττε “were cognisant of his business transactions.'

21. και τάλλα τα συγκείμενα “ and all other details of the 118 bargain.' What these were beyond payments of the interest we cannot guess. For the amount of interest usual in Attica, see Boeckh, pp. 123-126. He says the lowest was 10 per cent, the highest 36 per cent.

24-5. év .. Tŷ Troléuq i.e. in the year of the Revolution, B.C. 404-3. ουκ ήσαν δίκαι “ there were no courts sitting for private suits.' At the Restoration such confusion as to the laws was found to exist, and so many were involved in breaches of them, that a commission of revisers was appointed, and an interim decree passed that until this revision was completed the old laws of Draco and Solon were to be held as sufficient. Andoc. 1, 82-4.

27-8. ότε περ.. εδικάζοντο as soon as home suits were being heard.' 'dikai dotikai seem to mean suits between citizens and on matters which affected the home business or trade, as opposed to čutropikal dikal, i.e. relating to foreign trade. Hesychius has, αστικοί νόμοι οι κατά την Αθηναίων πόλιν, ήσαν gdp kai dutopiko, i.e. some laws concerned home matters, others foreign trade.

28-31. λαχών .. 'Ερασιστράτη having obtained leave to

bring a suit into Court against E. for the whole debt, że. in the preliminary trial or åvákplois before a magistrate : the successful suitor was said λαγχάνειν δίκην, the magistrate was said cloáyelv dikny. See Dicty. of Ant. s. v. elo aywyeús. For grußodalov, see on i. l. 6. κατεδικάσατο “he obtained a verdict against him.' ŠT. . ápxovtos in the archonship of Xenænetus, i.e. B.C. 401-400.

35-6. årroypaçã "the official schedules.' See ii. 1. 10 ; iii. 1. 16. τρείς γαρ .. απογεγράφασι “for three or four persons entered the items.' Does he mean that three or four distinct officers entered the items, or only that it was done three or four times ? An årroypaon was under the jurisdiction of the Eleven or of the oúvdikoi (viii. l. 44); and in this case the latter seem to have been acting, see infra, 1. 85. He probably means that three or four lists had been made at different times either by, or by the order of, these oúvdikol.

36-40. Now one thing at least must be clear to every one, 'they would not, when making a schedule of Eraton's entire property, have passed by anything else of Eraton's that it was possible to confiscate,—not even that part of it of which I have for some time past been in actual possession.'

The point of this passage (of which the text is in great confusion) seems to be this: the speaker wishes to show that the whole of the original property of Eraton is in the droypapń, though he is credited with having a third of it. He tries to prove this by saying that the syndics had to make a complete schedule, which they did with unusual care, and must have included even the third part, which he had taken possession of; for in the eye of the law that was liable as part of Eraton's property. He wishes to show this, lest the judges, thinking he had already got his third of the property, should be inclined to decide that he had enough and need not receive any more ; whereas he maintains that he has none, and now can get none, for the State has it all.

41. oủ8' frépwdev 'not from the other side either,' i.e. if you 119 confiscate the property scheduled, there will be nothing left for me to recover my debt from ; my only hope therefore is in you; from the other side (i.e. the property of Eraton) I can get nothing.

43-4. s . . åkóvoare 'but now let me show you, besides, in what a different spirit I make my claim against you from that in which I made it against private persons.

48-52. αντιδικών.. ηττήθη pleaded as defendant in a suit, and

was defeated. See on ii. 1. 89. τα .. Σφηττού .. μεμίσθωκα 'I have let the property at Sphettus for the last three years, i.e. I have been in actual possession, and behaved as the owner, of this part of the property, which is now included in the schedule of confiscation. Sphettus was a deme of the tribe Acamantis. των δε Κικυνού. exovol 'and I was engaged in a lawsuit with the occupiers of the property at Kikyna and the house there.' Kikyna or Kikynna was another deme of the same tribe. It was the deme of Strepsiades in Arist. Nub. 210. Skáceolat takes the genitive of the thing which is the subject of the suit, on the analogy of verbs of claiming. Goodwin, $ 173, 2.

51-4. 'Last year, however, they got the suit quashed by alleging that they were merchants.' The demurrer rested on the fact that as έμποροι they could only be sued on a δίκη εμπορική to be tried before the ναυτοδίκαι. . We have seen before, vide 1. 27, the distinction between δικαι αστικαι and εμπορικαί. This distinction was only one instance of the system in Athenian law of having cases affecting particular interests tried by persons especially conversant in those matters. Thus military offences were tried before a jury of soldiers (as in Orat. vii.), profanations of mysteries before initiated persons; and, as here, cases in which čutropol were affected could only be tried before the Nautodicæ, who were elected to preside over trials concerning commerce and navigation. Only it appears that though the subject of dispute did not directly concern those matters, either party might Claim to have their suit heard in this court of the Nautodice by showing that they were έμποροι. Even a γραφή čevlas could be brought before it if it affected such persons. See Hermann, 8 146 ; Boeckh, pp. 49-50. Taunc@vi (20th Nov, to 19th Dec.) The Nautodicæ sat in the winter months, when sailing was not possible, so that the merchants and shipmasters whose suits came before them might not be impeded in their profession. laxóvtos though I got leave to bring in my suit' (see l. 28), i.e. the magistrates, before whom the åváxplois was, introduced it (εισάγειν) into the court of the ναυτοδίκαι. ουκ égeSlxacav, sc. dixny, the court of the Nautodicæ did not decide the suit. Cf. Arist. Equ. 50, Û Aîque loño al apÔTOV εκδικάσας μίαν. διεγράψαντο got it quashed, lit. cancelled by having a line drawn across it. So Strepsiades, after his notable invention of using a burning glass to melt the wax on the table containing the indictment, exclaims oίμ' ώς ήδομαι | ότι πενmetálavros diayéypantal mol olan (Arist. Nub. 773). Harpocr. explains the word by ανελέσθαι το έγκλημα. .

55. Tà Súo pépn'two thirds,'—what had belonged to the other

« ForrigeFortsett »