This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
§§ 59—61. The evidence of Timocrates has been adduced to prove that my father acknowledged Boeotus as his son when an infant ten days old! Why, Timocrates was then only of that age himself; and his evidence is all one-sided. Who then will believe him when he says he knows that Criton bought the house? After all, it is not the house, but the dower, that is contested. I have shown that my mother brought a dower, that it has not been paid, and that the house was charged with the payment of it: it is for him to show the contrary. But don't accept mere talk or vague complaints in place of proofs. As a matter of justice, it is more reasonable that I should have the dower, than that a son of my father's mistress should be allowed to deprive me of it. πολλῶν scil. ὄντων, cum magnus sit numerus, G. H. Schaefer. ὤσπερ ἀπὸ μηχανῆς Like a deus ex machina, a familiar phrase borrowed from the stage. [We can only approximate to the sense by rendering ‘like a friend in need’ or ‘by a special providence,’ or (with Prof. Kennedy) ‘like a good angel.’ S.] ἃ δὴ Quae quidem, ironically. But μαρτυρεῖ should perhaps be ἐμαρτύρει. For this evidence was given when the adoption of Boeotus took place (sup. 28, and 39 § 22); and it should be contrasted with μαρτυρεῖ δὲ νυνὶ just below. It is clear that in both clauses μόνος means ‘he is the sole witness.’ Kennedy wrongly renders it in the latter, ‘Timocrates now declares, that he alone was with Criton when he purchased the house from me.’ πότερα—ἢ μὴ More correctly, perhaps, ἢ οὐ, since it is a direct question of fact. The use of μὴ is rather irregular: perhaps we may say that πότερα —ἢ μὴ is equivalent to εἴτε—ἢ, μή. ἐνεγκαμένης § 26 ἠνέγκατο προῖκα.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.