previous next

§§ 37—39. Phormion attempts to prove the existence of the ‘will,’ by going about saying that Nicocles gave evidence to having been guardian, and Pasicles to having been in wardship, under the will. Why then were not the terms of the will deposed to by Nicocles and Pasicles, instead of by Stephanus and his friends? Was it because the former did not know the terms? If not, much less could the latter. How then came the latter witnesses to depose to one set of facts, the former to another? It's the old story; they divided the responsibility of the wrong; the guardian and ward deposed to the guardianship as being under the will, and the other witnesses, under cloak of a challenge, deposed to the contents —the scandalous contents—of the ‘will.’

Νικοκλῆς Possibly the same as N. the Anagyrasian, son of Hegesippus, mentioned in C.I.G. I no. 408 (A. Schaefer, Dcm. III 2, 133). The evidence of Nicocles is not expressly mentioned in Or. 36; that of Pasicles is referred to in § 22 of that speech.

κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην Or. 36 § 8 Φορμίων τὴν μὲν γυναῖκα λαμβάνει κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην, τὸν δὲ παῖδα ἐπετρόπευεν.

καθ᾽ ὁποίας ἂν εἰδείη ‘would know the purport of (the terms of) such will.’ [The repetition of the clause δῆλονείδείη seems needless, and perhaps is due to a copyist. P.]

Creative Commons License
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.

hide References (1 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (1):
    • Demosthenes, For Phormio, 8
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: