This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
παραπετάσματι sc. προφάσει (46 § 9 πρόφασιν. τὴν πρόκλησιν), προσχήματι (5 § 6), as a ‘cloak,’ or ‘pretext,’ lit. a ‘screen’ or ‘curtain.’ Plat. Protag. 316 E ταῖς τέχναις ταύταις παραπετάσμασιϝ ἐχρήσαντο, immediately after προσχῆμα ποιεῖσθαι καὶ προκαλύπτεσθαι. ὡς ἂν μάλισθ᾽ οἱ μὲν δικασταὶ ..ἐπίστευσαν. ἐγὼ δὲ ἀπεκλείσθην ... οὗτοι δὲ φωραθεῖεν ...] This sentence, as it stands in the MSS, can only mean ‘The present witnesses (Stephanus, &c.) used the challenge as a pretext for giving evidence of a will, in the very way in which the court would have believed that the will was my father's, and I should have been debarred from getting a hearing, and in which my opponents would now be palpably convicted of giving false evidence.’ This makes nonsense, as the jury in the former trial did believe the witnesses, and Apollodorus was debarred from speaking. ἂν is quite out of place with ἐπίστευσαν and ἀπεκλείσθην, but not so with φωραθεῖεν (which cannot here be taken as a simple optative expressing a wish). It thus appears that we should (with G. H. Schaefer) remove ἂν from the aorist indicative and place it with the aor. optative, and read as follows: ὡς (or ὥσθ᾽) οἱ δικασταὶ ..ἐπίστευσαν, ἐγὼ δὲ ἀπεκλείσθην...οὗτοι δ᾽ ἂν μάλιστα φωραθεῖεν. The sense thus gained is fairly satisfactory: ‘the witnesses combined the attestation of a challenge with the attestation of a will (made the former a pretext for the latter). The immediate result was that the jury in the previous trial believed the will was really my father's and therefore decided against me without giving me a hearing on my present wrongs. The ultimate result was that by that very means my opponents would be clearly convicted of having given false evidence.’ Hermann attempts to explain the passage by the following translation: ‘Illi vero, provocationis praetextu usi, de testamento testati sunt eo modo, quo facillime judices hoc patris testamentum esse crederent, ego autem ab oranda causa mea excludi debebam[?], ipsi vero—falsa testati esse deprehenderentur; atqui contrarium sperabant. Illa enim οὗτοι δέ (hic voce paullum subsistit orator) φωραθεῖεν τὰ ψευδῆ μεμαρτυρηκότες, ironice dicta esse patet’ (Opuscula IV 27, de particula ἂν I 7). Dobree says: ‘Sensus est: ita rem administrarunt, ut tunc quidem judices deciperent; postea autem hoc palam fieret, quamvis id non praeviderent.— Qu. de modorum permutatione. Similis locus F. Leg. 424. 16’ τοσοῦτ ἀπέχουσι τοῦ τοιοῦτόν τι ποιεῖν, ὤστε θαυμάζουσι καὶ ζηλοῦσι καὶ βούλοιντ᾽ ἂν αὐτὸς ἕκαστος τοιοῦτος εἶναι. [I suggest ὡς ἂν εἰ μάλισθ᾽ οἱ δικασταί, and perhaps οὗτοί γε infra (though οὗτοι δὲ might mean ‘yet these’ &c.). ‘They gave their evidence so, that if the dicasts were ever so much persuaded, and I was stopped from further proceedings then, yet they will be detected in having lied.’ ὡς ἂν φωραθεῖεν is a virtual synonym of ὥστε φωραθῆναι. Cf. Plat. Phaedr. p. 230 B καὶ ὡς ἀκμὴν ἔχει τῆς ἄνθης, ὡς ἂν εὐωδέστατον παρέχοι τὸν τόπον, ‘see how this willow is in full blossom, so as to fill the place with fragrance!’ Symp. p. 187 D τοῖς μὲν κοσμίοις τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ ὡς ἂν κοσμιώτεροι γίγνοιντο οἱ μήπω ὄντες, δεῖ χαρίζεσθαι. For the use of δὲ in apodosis, cf. Or. 21 (Mid.) p. 547 § 100 εἰ δέ τις πένης μηδὲν ἠδικηκὼς ταῖς ἐσχάταις συμφοραῖς ἀδίκως ὑπὸ τούτου περιπέπτωκε, τούτῳδ᾽ οὐδὲ συνοργισθήσεσθε: P.] ‘ἃν et ad ἐπίστευσαν et ad φωραθεῖεν pertinet, verbis ἐγὼ —ἀδικοῦμαι interpositis: ea ratione testati sunt, qua maxime iudices crederent,—ego autem impeditus sum, ne causam meam dicerem,—isti autem falsi testimonii coarguantur’ (Huettner). §§ 19—23. To prove this, take the evidence of Cephisophon. He deposes to a document having been left him by my father, inscribed ‘Pasion's Will’; thinking that to depose to this only was a mere trifle, and that he could not safely go so far as to add (what in itself would have been a simple matter) ‘that this was the document produced by the deponent,’—Now, had Phormion's name appeared outside, the deponent might reasonably have kept the document for Phormion; further, had it really been endorsed ‘Pasion's Will,’ it would have belonged to me by inheritance like the rest of my father's property, and I should of course have recovered it, feeling that, with a lawsuit before me, the will, if its terms were those alleged, would be rather detrimental to my interests. The fact that, in spite of the alleged endorsement, it has been produced to Phormion, not to myself, and been let alone by me, proves the forgery of the will and the falsehood of the deposition of Cephisophon. However, I dismiss him for the present, especially as he has given no evidence on the contents of the will, which by the way is a strong proof of the falsehood of the deposition of Stephanus and his friends. Cephisophon, the very person who deposes to having the document, did not dare to depose to its identity with that produced by Phormion; and yet the present witnesses (Stephanus and his friends) have declared that it is a copy of the other, though they cannot claim to have been present when the will was drawn up, never saw it opened before the arbitrator, and indeed have deposed that I refused to open it. If so, have they not clearly charged themselves with having given false evidence? Μαρτυρία The wording of this deposition is identical with that of the speech itself (§§ 18 and 20), with the exception of the clause ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς (naturally suggested by καταλειφθῆναι), and the description of the witness as Κεφάλωνος (or Κεφαλίωνος) Ἀφιδναῖος. Κεφάλων is a parallel form of Κεφαλίων and is found elsewhere (Plut. Arat. 52). One Κηφισοφῶν Ἀφιδναῖος is mentioned in inscriptions as trierarch and commander of the fleet, and it has been proposed to identify him with the witness in this case, though the name of the trierarch's father is not given (Boeckh, Seewesen p. 442). The composer of the deposition may have been led to assign Cephisophon to Aphidna by a passage in Or. 59 κατὰ Νεαίρας §§ 9—10, where a person of that name bribes one Stephanus of Eroeadae to charge Apollodorus with causing the death of a woman at Aphidna. (A. Westermann u.s. pp. 108—9, cf. § 8 supra.) The authenticity of the document is, however, confirmed by the fact that an inscription of the year 343 B.C. mentions Κηφισοφῶν Κεφαλίωνος Ἀφιδναῖος (C. I. A. II 1, 114 C 6 quoted by Kirchner p. 28).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.