« PreviousContinue »
ταύτης τῆς καλῆς ἐργασίας; ἀλλὰ νὴ τὸν Δία καὶ τοὺς 15 θεοὺς ὀκνῶ μὴ περὶ σοῦ τὰ προσήκοντα λέγων αὐτὸς οὐ προσήκοντας ἐμαυτῷ δόξω προγρῆσθαι λόγους. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἐάσω, ἀπ' αὐτῶν δὲ ὧν αὐτὸς βεβίωκεν ἄρξομαι· οὐδὲ γὰρ ὧν ἔτυχεν ἦν, ἀλλ ̓ οἷς ὁ δῆμος καταρᾶται. ὀψὲ 166 γάρ ποτε, ὀψὲ λέγω; χθὲς μὲν οὖν καὶ πρῴην ἅμ ̓ 20 Αθηναῖος καὶ ῥήτωρ γέγονε, καὶ δύο συλλαβὰς προσθεὶς τὸν μὲν πατέρα ἀντὶ Τρόμητος ἐποίησεν ̓Ατρόμητον, τὴν δὲ μητέρα σεμνῶς πάνυ Γλαυκοθέαν ὠνόμασεν, ἣν Εμπουσαν ἅπαντες ἴσασι καλουμένην, ἐκ τοῦ πάντα ποιεῖν καὶ πάσχειν δηλονότι ταύτης τῆς ἐπωνυμίας τυχοῦσαν 25 167 πόθεν γὰρ ἄλλοθεν; ἀλλ ̓ ὅμως οὕτως ἀχάριστος εἶ καὶ
πονηρὸς φύσει ὥστ ̓ ἐλεύθερος ἐκ δούλου καὶ πλούσιος ἐκ 271 πτωχοῦ διὰ τουτουσί γεγονώς οὐχ ὅπως χάριν αὐτοῖς
οὐδὲ γὰρ ὧν ἔτυχεν ἦν] If the right collocation is given in the text, I understand here & βεβίωκεν. For neither were the actions of his life of an ordinary kind, but such as the people execrates. The paragraph can have no other meaning if we read: ἀπ' αὐτῶν δὲ ὧν αὐτὸς βεβίωκεν ἄρξομαι οὐδὲ γὰρ ὧν ἔτυχεν ἦν. The last clause cannot in such a sequence mean that Aeschines was not sprung from common parents. It must refer to his actions. But the reading of Schäfer and Jacobs, as exhibited in the Codex S, is ̓Αλλὰ . . . ὀκνῶ μὴ περὶ σοῦ τὰ προσήκοντα λέγων αὐτὸς οὐ προσήκοντας ἐμαυτῷ δόξω προῃρῆσθαι λόγους· οὐδὲ γὰρ ὧν ἔτυχεν ἦν, ἀλλ ̓ οἷς ὁ δῆμος καταρᾶται. Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἐάσω, ἀπ' αὐτῶν δ ̓ ὧν αὐτὸς βεβίωκεν ἄρξομαι κ.τ.λ. To this however there is, I think, an insuperable objection in the abrupt change from the second person (περὶ σοῦ) to the third in οὐδὲ γὰρ ὧν ἔτυχεν ἦν, if as is supposed the subject of hy is Aeschines.
χθὲς μὲν οὖν καὶ πρῴην] ‘nay rather, only yesterday or the day before.' In this phrase he corrects the ὀψὲ γάρ ποτε, 'lately and at last.' Apollonius (Aeschin. vit. p. 247) says: μητρὸς δὲ ἦν ὁ Αἰσχίνης Γλαυκοθέας, ἢ ὡς ἔνιοι Γλαυκίδος. According to Aeschines (F. L. § 82) her father's name was Glaucus: ὁ τῆς μητρὸς τῆς ἡμετέρας ἀδελφὸς ὁ Γλαύκου τοῦ ̓Αχαρνέως υἱὸς, κ.τ.λ. Probably then her real name was Glaucis, metamorphosed into Glaucothea.
ἔχεις, ἀλλὰ μισθώσας σαυτὸν κατὰ τουτωνὶ πολιτεύῃ. καὶ περὶ ὧν μὲν ἐστί τις ἀμφισβήτησις, ὡς ἄρα ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως εἴρηκεν, ἐάσω· ἃ δ ̓ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐχθρῶν φανερῶς 5 ἀπεδείχθη πράττων, ταῦτα ἀναμνήσω. 168 Τίς γὰρ ὑμῶν οὐκ οἶδε τὸν ἀποψηφισθέντα ̓Αντιφῶντα, ὃς ἐπαγγειλάμενος Φιλίππῳ τὰ νεώρια ἐμπρήσειν εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἦλθεν ; ὃν λαβόντος ἐμοῦ κεκρυμμένον ἐν Πειραιεῖ καὶ καταστήσαντος εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν βοῶν ὁ βάσκανος 10 οὗτος καὶ κεκραγώς, ὡς ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ δεινὰ ποιῶ τοὺς ἠτυχηκότας τῶν πολιτῶν ὑβρίζων καὶ ἐπ ̓ οἰκίας βαδίζων 169 ἄνευ ψηφίσματος, ἀφεθῆναι ἐποίησεν. καὶ εἰ μὴ ἡ βουλὴ ἡ ἐξ ̓Αρείου πάγου τὸ πρᾶγμα αἰσθομένη καὶ τὴν ὑμετέραν ἄγνοιαν ἐν οὐ δέοντι συμβεβηκυῖαν ἰδοῦσα ἐπεζήτησε τὸν 15 ἄνθρωπον καὶ συλλαβοῦσα ἐπανήγαγεν ὡς ὑμᾶς, ἐξήρπαστ ̓ ἂν ὁ τοιοῦτος καὶ τὸ δίκην δοῦναι διαδὺς ἐξεπέμπετ ̓ ἂν ὑπὸ τοῦ σεμνολόγου τουτουί· νῦν δ ̓ ὑμεῖς στρεβλώ
man against them. On οὐχ ὅπως see note c. Phil. iv. § 46.
ὡς ἄρα] ' on the ground forsooth that." ἀποψηφισθέντα] disfranchised, struck off the register. The register of the members of each township was called ληξιαρχικὸν γραμματεῖον, because any person whose name was inscribed in it was qualified to enter upon an inheritance, or ἄρχειν τῆς λήξεως, λαγχάνειν κλῆρον being equivalent to the Roman phrase 'adire hereditatem.' Occasionally, and especially when it was suspected that any names had been improperly placed on it, 3 διαψήφισις or scrutiny was held, as in a registration court, when any member of the 'demus' might object to the qualification of any one on the register. This done, an inquiry was made into the case, and the votes of the demus taken upon it. If the result were unfavourable to the party objected against, he was struck of the register, ἀπεψηφίσθη. Antiphon it would seem had suffered this indignity, and in revenge entered into treasonable correspondence with Philip. He must not be confounded with Antiphon the orator. See Δήμοs and Διαψήφισις in Dict. of Ant.
ἐπ ̓ οἰκίας . . . ψηφίσματος] going to their houses without a vote of the people.' An Athenian's house, like an Englishman's, appears to have been his castle, which could not be entered without legal
warrant for that purpose, which Demosthenes did not in this case possess. Plutarch (in vita, c. 14) describes his conduct on this occasion not as arbitrary but aristocratical, σφοδρὰ ἀριστοκρατικὸν που λίτευμα, and states that after Antiphon had been acquitted by the Ecclesia, Dem mosthenes dragged him before the Areiopagus (ὃν ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀφεθέντα συλλαβὼν ἐπὶ τὴν ἐξ ̓Αρείου πάγου βουλὴν κατήγαγε). Deinarchus (c. Dem. § 64) did not fail to make it a ground of accusation against him. But if Antiphon was guilty, as he seems to have been, Demosthenes only acted like a man of spirit in apprehending a vindictive traitor caught flagrante delicto.
ἡ βουλὴ . . . πάγου] The Council of Areiopagus seems to have adopted this course in virtue of their extraordinary functions as conservators of the public welfare. The apprehension here spoken of was doubtless supported by an inquiry into the subject, and a report (ἀπόφασις) made thereupon to the ἐκκλησία. In fact Deinarchus (c. Dem. § 64) expressly says 30: ἐστρέβλωσαν ̓Αντιφῶντα καὶ ἀπέκε τειναν οὗτοι τῇ τῆς βουλῆς ἀποφάσει πεισθέντες.
τὴν ὑμετέραν . . . συμβεβηκυίαν] and seen how ill-timed was your mistake.'
τοῦ σεμνολόγου τουτουί] • this grand talker here.'
170 σαντες αὐτὸν ἀπεκτείνατε, ὡς ἔδει γε καὶ τοῦτον. οὖν εἰδυῖα ταῦτα ἡ βουλὴ ἡ ἐξ ̓Αρείου πάγου τότε τούτῳ 20 πεπραγμένα, χειροτονησάντων αὐτὸν ὑμῶν σύνδικον ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τοῦ ἐν Δήλῳ ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς ἀγνοίας ἀφ ̓ ἧσπερ πολλὰ προΐεσθε τῶν κοινῶν, ὡς προείλεσθε κἀκείνην καὶ τοῦ πράγματος κυρίαν ἐποιήσατε, τοῦτον μὲν εὐθὺς ἀπήλασεν ὡς προδότην, Ὑπερίδῃ δὲ λέγειν προσέταξε· καὶ 25 ταῦτα ἀπὸ τοῦ βωμοῦ φέρουσα τὴν ψῆφον ἔπραξε, καὶ 272 οὐδεμία ψῆφος ἀνέχθη τῷ μιαρῷ τούτῳ. Καὶ ὅτι ταῦτ ̓ ἀληθῆ λέγω, κάλει μοι τούτων τοὺς μάρτυρας.
στρεβλώσαντες] as it was, you tortured and executed him.' The reader may notice the use of 'torture' in the criminal proceedings of a community so civilized as that of Athens. But it does not appear whether in this case it was applied as a punishment or to extort a confession. Generally speaking, at Athens slaves only were tortured (βασανίζειν) to elicit evi. dence (c. Onetor. i. § 40), but possibly after Antiphon was struck off the register, he might not have been regarded as a free citizen. Even in England within the last 100 years the peine forte et dure was provided by law, if a man would not plead to an indictment for felony, and in Dec. 1858, in London, a jury was locked up without food or fire for a whole night, as a means of bringing them to a righteous judgment on a doubtful point. Comp. Isaeus, Or. viii. § 15.
ὑπὲρ τοῦ . . . Δήλῳ] For a long time the Athenians had been at issue with the Delians about the guardianship of the temple of Apollo at Delos, both claiming it. Accordingly, in B.c. 345, they agreed to refer the question to the Amphictyonic Council, when it appears that Aeschines was selected by the Athenians to be their advocate, σύνδικος or συνήγορος. But the influence of Philip was then becoming so powerful, that it was in the highest degree necessary for the advocate of Athens to be an able orator, and opposed to the Macedonian interest. Aeschines, however, by his proceedings in the case of Antiphon, had given proof to the contrary, and accordingly the Areiopagus, in the exercise of the authority delegated to it, rescinded his appointment, and substituted Hyperides, an orator whose anti-Macedonian principles were well known. Some frag
ὡς . . . κἀκείνην] inasmuch as you had selected' (i. e. delegated) 'this body to act, and given it full powers in the business.' Of course the Areiopagus could not have rescinded an act of the sovereign power in the state, unless previously authorized to do so as in this particular case. As for προείλεσθε, it has been, and I think well, explained by εἵλεσθε αὐτὴν πρὸ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν, you selected it to act for, or in preference to yourselves.'
ἀπὸ τοῦ βωμοῦ . ψῆφον] ' giving the
GR. Per Venerem hanc jurandum est
In Mr. Kennedy's Demosthenes, note 17,
[Μαρτυροῦσι Δημοσθένει ὑπὲρ ἁπάντων οἶδε, Καλλίας Σουνιες, Ζήνων Φλυεὺς, Κλέων Φαληρεύς, Δημόνικος Μαραθώνιος, ὅτι τοῦ δήμου ποτὲ χειροτονήσαντος Αἰσχίνην σύνδικον ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τοῦ ἐν Δήλῳ εἰς τοὺς Αμφικτύονας συνεδρεύσαντες ἡμεῖς ἐκρίναμεν Ὑπερίδην ἄξιον εἶναι μᾶλλον ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως λέγειν, καὶ ἀπεστάλη Υπερίδης.]
Οὐκοῦν ὅτε τούτου μέλλοντος λέγειν ἀπήλασεν ἡ βουλὴ καὶ προσέταξεν ἑτέρῳ, τότε καὶ προδότην εἶναι καὶ και 5 κόνουν ὑμῖν ἀπέφηνεν.
Εν μὲν τοίνυν τοῦτο τοιοῦτο πολίτευμα τοῦ νεανίου τούτου, ὅμοιόν γε, οὐ γάρ; οἷς ἐμοῦ κατηγορεῖ· ἕτερον δὲ 173 ἀναμιμνήσκεσθε. ὅτε γὰρ Πύθωνα Φίλιππος ἔπεμψε τὸν Βυζάντιον καὶ παρὰ τῶν αὑτοῦ συμμάχων πάντων συν- 10 έπεμψε πρέσβεις, ὡς ἐν αἰσχύνῃ ποιήσων τὴν πόλιν καὶ δείξων ἀδικοῦσαν, τότε ἐγὼ μὲν τῷ Πύθωνι θρασυνομένῳ καὶ πολλῷ ῥέοντι καθ ̓ ὑμῶν οὐχ ὑπεχώρησα, ἀλλ ̓ ἀναστὰς ἀντεῖπον καὶ τὰ τῆς πόλεως δίκαια οὐχὶ προὔδωκα, ἀλλ ̓ ἀδικοῦντα Φίλιππον ἐξήλεγξα φανερῶς οὕτως ὥστε 15 τοὺς ἐκείνου συμμάχους αὐτοὺς ἀνισταμένους ὁμολογεῖν· οὗτος δὲ συνηγωνίζετο καὶ τἀναντία εμαρτύρει τῇ πατρίδι, καὶ ταῦτα ψευδή.
Καὶ οὐκ ἀπέχρη ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ πάλιν μετὰ ταῦθ ̓ ὕστερον ̓Αναξίνῳ τῷ κατασκόπῳ συνιὼν εἰς τὴν Θράσωνος οἰκίαν 20 ἐλήφθη. καίτοι ὅστις τῷ ὑπὸ τῶν πολεμίων πεμφθέντι
Ἐν μὲν . . . τοῦ νεανίου] ‘here then is one and such a political act, of this fine fellow, very like indeed, is it not, what he charges me with?' Aeschines was then forty years of age, “ ein starker Vierziger," and therefore would not be a νεανίας in the common acceptation of the word. Its meaning here is illustrated in a note, p. 65. Olyn. iii. § 37. Mr. Kennedy translates : ' such is one of this boy's political acts.'
ὅτε γὰρ Πύθωνα] The date of this mission cannot be determined with certainty, but it probably occurred in B.c. 344 (comp. Winiewski, p. 347). For we know (de Halon. § 21) that in this year Python, an orator of some celebrity (evδοκίμησεν ἐν δημηγορία) was sent to Athens on an embassy by Philip. Diodorus, on
the other hand (xvi. 85), supposes it to have taken place shortly before the battle of Chaeroneia, and that the two orators confronted each other at Thebes, not at Athens. He expressly refers the boast of Demosthenes to such an occasion.
θρασυνομένῳ . . . ῥέοντι] blustering, and running in full stream against you,' or, as we say, 'with a torrent of invective.' Comp. Hor. Sat. i. 7. 28: “ Tum Praenestinus salso multoque fluenti." So also Eurip. Hipp. 443: Κύπρις γὰρ οὐ φορητόν, ἢν πολλὴ ῥυῇ. And Thucyd. iv. 22: πολὺς ἐνέκειτο.
τὰ τῆς πόλεως δίκαια] ‘I did not betray the rights of the city.'
καίτοι ὅστις ... ἐκοινολογεῖτο] and yet the man who kept up a secret intercourse and communication with an emis
μόνος μόνῳ συνῄει καὶ ἐκοινολογεῖτο, οὗτος αὐτὸς ὑπῆρχε 273 τῇ φύσει κατάσκοπος καὶ πολέμιος τῇ πατρίδι. Καὶ ὅτι ταῦτ ̓ ἀληθῆ λέγω, κάλει μοι τούτων τοὺς μάρτυρας.
[Τελέδημος Κλέωνος, Υπερίδης Καλλαίσχρον, Νικόμαχος Διοφάντου μαρτυροῦσι Δημοσθένει καὶ ἐπωμόσαντο ἐπὶ τῶν στρατηγῶν εἰδέναι Αἰσχίνην ̓Ατρομήτου Κοθωκίδην συνερχόμενον νυκτὸς εἰς τὴν Θράσωνος οἰκίαν καὶ κοινολογούμενον ̓Αναξίνῳ, ὃς ἐκρίθη εἶναι κατάσκοπος παρὰ Φιλίππου. αὗται ἀπεδόθησαν αἱ μαρτυρίαι ἐπὶ Νικίου, ἑκατομβαιώνος τρίτῃ ἱσταμένου.]
176 Μυρία τοίνυν ἕτερ ̓ εἰπεῖν ἔχων περὶ αὐτοῦ παραλείπω. καὶ γὰρ οὕτω πως ἔχει. πολλὰ ἂν ἐγὼ ἔτι τούτων ἔχοιμι 5 δεῖξαι, ὧν οὗτος κατ ̓ ἐκείνους τοὺς χρόνους τοῖς μὲν ἐχθροῖς ὑπηρετῶν, ἐμοὶ δ ̓ ἐπηρεάζων εὑρέθη. ἀλλ ̓ οὐ τίθεται ταῦτα παρ' ὑμῖν εἰς ἀκριβῆ μνήμην οὐδ ̓ ἣν προσῆκεν ὀργὴν, ἀλλὰ δεδώκατε ἔθει τινὶ φαύλῳ πολλὴν ἐξουσίαν τῷ βουλομένῳ τὸν λέγοντά τι τῶν ὑμῖν συμφε- 10 ρόντων ὑποσκελίζειν καὶ συκοφαντεῖν, τῆς ἐπὶ ταῖς λοιδο
sary of our enemies, alone with him. This Anaxinus was a native of Oreus in Euboea, whose hospitality Demosthenes had enjoyed there, and who really or ostensibly was employed by Olympias, Philip's queen, to purchase at Athens the articles of her toilette (τοῦ τὰ ἀγοράσματα Ολυμπιάδι ἀγοράζοντος. Aesch. c. Ctes. § 224). Winiewski (p. 351) conjectures that this person was sent by Philip to Athens for the purpose of collecting intelligence when the Athenians were meditating the expulsion of the tyrants from Eretria (§ 99) and Oreus. (B.c. 341.) From what Aeschines says (1. c.), this supposition is not improbable, for according to his statement, the affair in question must have happened about the same time. He speaks of it as the last of several incidents which he enumerates, and declares that the proceedings of Demosthenes against Anaxinus was an artifice by which (εἰσαγγέλλεσθαι μέλλων ὑπ' ἐμοῦ) he hoped to anticipate a public accusation by himself. He further reproaches him with having caused the infliction of tortures and death on a man at whose table he had eaten and drunk, and says that for this he was called a 'host-slayer' by the people. Kal TOUTOV