This text is part of:
ἐξ αὐτῆς ex ipsa, perhaps, rather than ex ea.—On ἐπίλαβε τὸ ὕδωρ cf. note on Or. 54 § 36. Στέφανος Μενεκλέους κ.τ.λ. Like many, if not most of the documents inserted in the speeches of the Attic Orators, this deposition has been regarded as spurious. Its purport is to be found in §§ 9—26 and in Or. 46 § 5. The names of Teisias, Cephisophon and Amphias are given in §§ 10, 17, and Or. 46 § 5. Stephanus and Teisias, as well as Pasion and Apollodorus, are assigned to the deme Acharnae in the documents only (§§ 28, 46), not in the speech itself. Στέφανος Ἀχαρνεὺς appears in an inscription as trierarch in B.C. 322, but this (it has been suggested) is not likely to be the defendant in the present action, for at that date the latter, if (as is not improbable) he was about the same age as Apollodorus, would be about seventy; and we can hardly suppose that one who was so poor a patriot as not to have undertaken any public services up to the age of 47 or thereabouts (§ 66), would have embarked on a trierarchy at so advanced an age. But the name was far from uncommon, and the deme may (it is thought) have been assigned at random by the writer of the document. The name Ἔνδιος Ἐπιγένους Λαμπτρεὺς (of the deme of Lamptra) is given in one MS only (Q). An inscription, however, of B.C. 325 gives the name Κριτόδημος Ἐνδίου Λαμπτρεὺς whose father may be the Ἔνδιος of the text, though the name is not a rare one. Lastly, Σκύθης is naturally an uncommon name for an Athenian, tbough found as such in an inscription. The name of his father, Ἁρματεὺς, does not occur elsewhere, except in Stephanus of Byzantium, who makes it mean ‘an inhabitant of Harma’ which he wiongly supposes to be a deme of Attica, wheieas it was really the name of a part of the range of Parnes. (Abridged from A. Westermann's Untersuchungen über die in die Attischen Redner eingelegten Urkunden, pp. 105—8.) Blass, however, sees no ground for rejecting the documents in this speech; the names of, the witnesses, as Westermann himself admits, are supported by the evidence of inscriptions (Blass Att. Ber. III 409). Their genuineness has been maintained in a dissertation by Kirchner, 1883; and attacked by Schucht, De documentis oratoribus Atti<*>is insertis, 1892. προὐκαλεῖτο ἀνοίγειν ‘Challenged him (in the event of his denying that the document Phormion put into the box was a copy of Pasion's will), to open the will of Pasion which &c.’ On ἐχῖνον see note on Or. 54 § 27. εἶναι τάδ᾽ ἀντίγραφα κ.τ.λ.] τὰ ἀντίγραφα τῶν διαθηκῶν cannot be construed as the subject, and unless we accept either τάδ᾽ or ταῦτ᾽ for τὰ we must rather awkwardly get the predicate out of τὰ ἀντίγραφα. The speaker himself expresses the sense better in §§ 10, 23 (Westermann, u. s. p. 108).
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.