previous next

§ 41-46 Of the present state of affairs you need no proof: to shew how different things were in the past I will cite an inscription deposited in the Acropolis (41), which declares Arthmius of Zelea an outlaw because he brought Persian gold into the Peloponnese (42). Why did Athens take so strong a step in a case so little connected with her (43)? Common outlawry would have been no great hardship. But the special nature of this outlawry appears from the homicide laws; it meant that he might be put to death with impunity (44). This severe measure is proof of our ancestors' determination to uphold the common prosperity of Greece. And so Greece was then formidable to her foes (45). But what is the case now (46)?

ταῦτα, ‘what I have described,’ to which τὰ μὲν νῦν and τὰ δ᾽ ἐν τοῖς . χ. stand in apposition. Blass is perhaps right in wishing to omit ἐμοῦ, on the ground that an orator produces witnesses but would not act as one.

ἄνωθεν, ‘in earlier times’; the idiomatic use of the form in -θεν arose from the same idea as the use of ἐκ noted in Phil. 1. 1.

τἀναντία, accusative used in place of the customary adverb with εἶχεν (a very uncommon form).

λέγων governs γράμματα by a slight zeugma.

εἰς ἀκρόπολιν, without τὴν, the word being almost a proper noun. Similarly πόλις, ἄστυ, ἀγορά. For the whole passage compare Dem. 19. 271 sq., Aeschin. 3. 258, Dinarchus 2. 24. Names of public benefactors and sometimes of public enemies were often recorded in this way.

αὐτοῖς, emphatic, ‘themselves.’

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: