υἱὸς ποιητὸς ἐπὶ τρίτῳ μέρει τῆς οὐσίας, § 6). Twelve years later (§ 7), Dicaeogenes III. alleged that this first will was invalid. Under a second will, he said, he was heir, not to a third only, but to the whole of the estate. He gained his cause. The sisters of the testator were deprived of their shares, and the whole was transferred to Dicaeogenes III. Ten years more elapsed (§ 35). Meanwhile the nephews of the testator had grown up. They now resolved to seek redress for their mothers and themselves. They began by bringing an action against one Lycon, who had been called by Dicaeogenes III. as a witness to the second will. Lycon was convicted of perjury. The state of things was now this: — Dicaeogenes III. had himself declared the first will — which gave him one-third — to be invalid. The judges of Lycon had declared the second will — which gave him all — to be false. Accordingly, the nephews (with the exception of Menexenus II., who had deserted their cause) now sued Dicaeogenes III. for the whole estate. One Leochares interposed a protest (διαμαρτυρία) that their claim was inadmissible. They indicted Leochares for perjury. Leochares was certain to be convicted. Dicaeogenes III. therefore made a compromise. He was to keep his original onethird, and leave his adversaries in secure possession of the other two-thirds. Leochares and Mnesiptolemus became his sureties for the performance of this engagement. In § 26 according to the vulgate, Dicaeogenes III. betroths to Protarchides τὴν ἀδελφὴν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ. The context favours the emendation of H. Weissenborn, adopted by Scheibe, τὴν ἀδελφιδῆν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ: but this cannot have been the speaker's sister. — Reiske proposed τὴν ἀδελφὴν τὴν ἐμαυτοῦ: Schömann, τὴν ἀδελφὴν τὴν τούτου (Cephisodotus) or τὴν τοῦ — , supposing the brother's name lost. — For a complete table of the house of Menexenus I. see Schäfer, Demosthenes und seine Zeit, III. Part 2, p. 212. Leochares is now sued (by an ἐγγύης δίκη) to discharge his liability as surety, since his principal Dicaeogenes III. has made default. The speaker, son of Polyaratus (§ 5), is one of the nephews of the testator, and is supported by his first-cousin Cephisodotus (§ 2). — Attic Orators, II. 349. The date is probably 390 B.C., — the sea-fight off Cnidus mentioned in §§ 6, 42 being that of 412 B.C. (Thuc. VIII. 42), not the more famous battle of 394 B.C. This question has been fully examined in the Attic Orators, II. 350 f. The speaker first defines his case by quoting his own affidavit (ἀντωμοσία, § 1). He then refers to a register (ἀπογραφή) of the property left by his uncle, to prove that Dicaeogenes III. has not refunded the due amount, and that Leochares has therefore not discharged his suretyship (τὴν ἐξεγγύην οὐκ ἀπέδωκεν), §§ 1 — 4. The facts, of which an outline has been given above, are then narrated in the following passage, §§ 7 — 24.
ἐπειδὴ ἐνείμαντο, κ.τ.λ. ‘When they had divided the estate, after taking oaths not to transgress the terms of the agreement, each party remained for twelve years in possession of the share assigned to him’. This refers to the first will (412 B.C.), under which Dicaeogenes III., as adopted son of the testator, Dicaeogenes II., received one third of the estate. The other two thirds were shared between the four sisters of the testator, represented by their respective husbands, — viz. Polyaratus (father of the speaker), Democles, Cephisophon, Theopompus. — ἐνείμαντο: cp. Lysias Pro Mantith. § 10, p. 59, πρὸς τὸν ἀδελφὸν δ᾽ οὕτως ἐνειμάμην. οὐσῶν δικῶν ‘though the law-courts sat’: i.e. in the course of the years 412 — 400 B.C., though there were short periods during which the sittings of the law-courts were suspended by war or internal trouble, yet there were also longer periods during which an action might have been brought. Cp. Thuc. VI. 91, where Alcibiades, urging the Spartans to occupy Deceleia, predicts that one of the results will be to stop the Athenian revenue from the law-courts (ὅσα ἀπὸ δικαστηρίων νῦν ὠφελοῦνται, — alluding to court-fees, πρυτανεῖα, and to fines or confiscations). The prediction was fulfilled, since, as Thuc. VII. 28 says, all the citizens were required for military duty. This interruption fell within the period referred to here (412 — 400 B.C.). Cp. [Dem.] or. XLV. In Stephan. I. § 3 (about 351 B.C.), δίκην μὲν οὐχ οἷός τ᾽ ἦν ἰδίαν λαχεῖν: οὐ γὰρ ἦσαν ἐν τῷ τότε καιρῷ δίκαι, ἀλλ̓ ἀνεβάλλεσθε ὑμεῖς διὰ τὸν πόλεμον [the Social War, 357 — 355 B.C.]. δυστυχησάσης, κ.τ.λ. ‘Athens having suffered disaster [the defeat at Aegospotami, 405 B.C.], followed by the troubles of faction [στάσεως, the oligarchical movement supported by Sparta, see Lys. In Agorat. §§ 6 ff., p. 78], and civil strife’ [ἀγῶνος, the struggle which ended in the overthrow of the Tyrants and the restoration of the Democracy, 403 B.C.]. For ἀγῶνος, cp. Isocr. Epist. III. § 2, p. 163, τὸν ἀγῶνα τὸν γεγενημένον, a euphemism for the struggle ended by the battle of Chaeroneia. οὑτοσί — ἡμῖν — τοῦ θείου] οὑτοσί, Dicaeogenes III.: ἡμῖν, the representatives of the four sisters, — viz. their sons (the speaker and his first-cousins): τοῦ θείου, their uncle Dicaeogenes II., the testator. φάσκων ἐφ̓ ὅλῃ, κ.τ.λ. ‘alleging that he had been adopted by our uncle as his sole heir’ (and not heir to one-third only). ἐφ᾽ ὅλῃ, sc. τῇ οὐσίᾳ. § 12, ποιηθῆναι...υἱὸν ἐπὶ παντὶ τῷ κλήρῳ. A childless Athenian citizen could, either during his life or by testament, adopt any Athenian citizen as his son and heir. Permission to execute a will is said to have been first given to Athenian citizens by the laws of Solon, but it was expressly restricted to those citizens who had no direct male descendants. The faculty of adoption was the germ of testamentary power, and was intended primarily to meet a case in which the head of a house left behind him, at his decease, no one duly qualified by nearness of blood to offer the sacrifices at the hearth and the grave. In the Hindoo system of succession the religious aspect of adoption is still the foremost one: (see the Tagore Law Lectures for 1870, Lect. IX. On the Rite of Adoption, pp. 208 f., by Mr Herbert Cowell). The Roman will of Cicero's time was already a true testament. The Athenian διαθήκη belongs to an intermediate stage. While the religious continuity of the family is still nominally the first principle, the main object in practice is to enlarge the childless testator's choice of heirs. — Cp. Maine, Ancient Law, ch. VI. on ‘The Early History of Testamentary Succession’. Attic Orators, II. 315 f.
μαίνεσθαι...τῇ λήξει, κ.τ.λ. ‘we thought that he was mad in bringing the action’. τῇ λήξει causal dat.,=ὅτι ἔλαχε τὴν δίκην. Cp. Antiph. De Caed. Her. § 3, τοῖς ἀληθέσιν, note, p. 209. — ἡγούμεθα, imperf.: cp. the imperf. διισχυριζόμεθα, § 23. οὐκ ἂν οἰόμενοι...δόξαι,=οὐκ οἰόμενοι ἂν δόξαι (=ὅτι δόξειεν ἄν). For the sake of emphasis, early in the sentence, on a condition or a possibility, ἄν may be separated from its verb by (e.g.) οἴομαι, οἶδα, δοκῶ, φημί: Xen. Cyr. VIII. 7. 25, καὶ νῦν ἡδέως ἄν μοι δοκῶ κοινωνῆσαι. Goodwin § 42. πολλῷ πλείω, κ.τ.λ. ‘though we had far the best of the argument, we were cheated of our verdict — not by the judges, but by Melas’. πολλῷ πλείω καὶ δικαιότερα, lit. ‘a far greater number of just pleas’, comparative of πολλὰ καὶ δίκαια, like πολλὰ καὶ ἀγαθά (Ar. Thesm. 351), etc. — Schömann cp. [Dem.] or. LIX. In Neaer. § 5, τῷ οὖν ἐξαπατήσαντι τῷ λόγῳ τοὺς δικαστὰς δίκαιον ὀργίζεσθαι, οὐ τοῖς ἐξαπατηθεῖσι.
ὁ πατήρ The speaker's father Polyaratus, who had married one (apparently the eldest) of the four sisters of Dicaeogenes II.: § 5. ἐπεξελθεῖν...ἐπεσκήψατο ‘before he had brought the action against those witnesses whom he had indicted for perjury’: μαρτύρων, the witnesses brought by Dicaeogenes III. to prove the validity of the will under which he claimed the whole of the estate. ἐπεξελθεῖν: cp. § 12, ἐπεξῄει τοῖς καταμαρτυρήσασιν. — ἐπεσκήψατο, sc. ψευδομαρτυριῶν, which is often omitted in this phrase: cp. § 17, ἐπισκηψαμένων δ᾽ ἡμῶν...ἡ...τῶν ψευδομαρτυριῶν δίκη εἰσῄει. Κηφισοφῶντος Cephisophon had married one of the four sisters of the testator Dicaeogenes II. His daughter was therefore niece (ἀδελφιδῆ) of the latter, first-cousin to the speaker, and first-cousin once removed to Dicaeogenes III. τὴν Δημοκ. γεν. γυναῖκα ‘her who had become the wife of Democles’. — ἀδελφὸς ὤν, her own brother; whereas Dicaeogenes III. was only first-cousin, ἀνεψιός, of the testator. Κηφισοδότου Cephisodotus was present, supporting his first-cousin, the speaker, who appeals to him at the beginning of the speech (§ 2) as being able to vouch for the truth of the affidavit (ἀντωμοσία).
καὶ γὰρ τούτων γε...ἀντίδικος ‘For of these [τούτων γε — Cephisodotus, his mother, and her other child or children, as opp. to the testator's other sisters and their children] he was at the same time guardian (ἐπίτροπος), legal representative (κύριος), and legal adversary (ἀντίδικος）’: i.e. Dicaeogenes III. was the protector and representative before the law (κύριος), as her nearest male relative for this purpose, of the mother of Cephisodotus (since a son could not be the κύριος of his mother). He was also guardian, ἐπίτροπος, of Cephisodotus, who had a brother or brothers, a sister or sisters, as appears from ὀρφανοί here, αὐτοῖς ἔδωκεν below, and παίδων ὄντων τούτων in § 11. Every ἐπίτροπος (guardian of a minor) was also κύριος of his ward, but every κύριος was not ἐπίτροπος. The term κύριος denotes esp. the legal control of a citizen over an unmarried woman or a widow, either as her nearest male relative or by delegation from the natural κύριος: [Dem.] or. XLVI. In Stephan. II. § 18, ἐὰν δὲ μηδεὶς ᾖ τούτων (i.e. if she has neither father, brother, nor paternal grandfather living) ἐὰν μὲν ἐπίκληρός τις ᾖ (if she be an heiress) τὸν κύριον ἔχειν (her nearest male kinsman shall marry her), ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ᾖ, ὅτῳ ἂν ἐπιτρέψῃ, τοῦτον κύριον εἶναι, but if she be not, then her natural κύριος may delegate the duty to another. The κύριος of a married woman was her husband: see Isae. or. III. De Pyrrh. Hered. § 2. The vulg. καὶ τούτων τε can be defended if τε is connected with the καὶ before οὐδὲ κατὰ τὸ ἐλάχιστον μέρος, κ.τ.λ.: he was both their guardian, etc., and unkind. But I feel sure that Dobree's γε (better than Scheibe's τοι) is right: we want just this emphasis on τούτων. οὐδὲ κατὰ τὸ ἐλάχιστον μέρος ‘not the smallest fraction of their claim on his kindness or compassion was allowed by him’: lit. ‘not even in respect to the smallest part of the ties between them (οἰκειότης — the double tie of kinsman and guardian) did they obtain pity’. ἃ δὲ ὁ πρὸς μητρὸς...δίκης ‘and what their maternal uncle [the testator] and their grandfather [Menexenus I., their mother's father, see stemma] had given to them [to Cephisodotus and the other child or children], he [Dicaeogenes III.] took away on his own authority (αὐτός), before the case had been tried’.
πριάμενος καὶ κατασκάψας For the aor. part. πριάμενος, cp. Andoc. De Pace § 37, p. 47, πείσαντες — λαθόντες — πριάμενοι — βιασάμενοι. τὸν κῆπον ἐποιήσατο Dobree would omit τόν: rather transpose it, reading κῆπ. ἐποιής. τὸν πρὸς τῇ αὑτοῦ οἰκίᾳ: or, retaining it here, repeat it before πρός. ἐν ἄστει in Athens: the art. omitted as usu.: cp. Isocr. Antid. § 299, note, p. 307. So below, § 22, ἔξω τείχους — ἐν Πεδίῳ, note. καὶ λαμβάνων μίσθωσιν ‘And though he was receiving 80 minas [about £330] in rent from our uncle's property, he sent the latter's nephew to Corinth in the quality of servant to his brother Harmodius’: εἰς Κόρινθον, i.e. on military service during the Corinthian War, which began in 394 B.C. (the date of the speech is 390 B.C.). In § 37 there is a reference to the capture of Lechaeum, the w. port of Corinth, by the Spartans in 393 B.C. — ἀκόλουθος here=the Attic hoplite's servant, (usu. ὑπηρέτης, Thuc. III. 17,) the Spartan θεράπων: Thuc. VII. 75, ἔφερον καὶ οἱ ὁπλῖται καὶ οἱ ἱππῆς παρὰ τὸ εἰωθὸς αὐτοὶ τὰ σφέτερα αὐτῶν σιτία ὑπὸ τοῖς ὅπλοις, οἱ μὲν ἀπορίᾳ ἀκολούθων, οἱ δὲ ἀπιστίᾳ (distrust of their servants). ἐμβάδας καὶ τριβώνια ‘brogues and frieze’. The ἐμβάς was a sort of thick shoe (in Xen. Hipp. XII. § 10 ἐμβάτης is a half-boot), worn by people who had rough out-door work to do, — the ordinary ὑπόδημα being merely a sandal bound under the foot; the σανδάλιον had an upper leather across the toe; the κρηπίς was a half-shoe. Cp. Becker Charicl. Exc. XI. The τρίβων was a short mantle of coarse stuff. Dem. or. LIV. In Conon. § 34, ‘men who are of a gloomy countenance, who affect the Spartan, who wear coarse cloaks (τρίβωνας) and single-soled sandals’ (ἁπλᾶς ὑποδέδενται). The Acharnian rustics wear the τρίβων (Ar. Ach. 184), which seems to have been the ordinary dress of poor men. Socrates sometimes alludes to his ‘poor cloak’ (τρίβων οὑτοσί, Protag. 335 D). Being the ordinary dress of philosophers, it afterwards came to be regarded, like the cowl, as a badge of austere life. (From my note on Theophrast. Char. XXII.=XXV. p. 255.) Scheibe reads τρίβωνα with Cobet N. Lect. p. 155; but cp. Lysias or. XXXII. In Diogitona, § 16, — where the question is of similar harshness towards poor relations — ἐκβαλεῖν τούτους ἠξίωσας θυγατριδοῦς ὄντας ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας τῆς αὐτῶν ἐν τριβωνίοις, ἀνυποδήτους, οὐ μετὰ ἀκολούθου, οὐ μετὰ στρωμάτων, οὐ μετὰ ἱματίων (the ordinary woollen cloak).
ὅθεν ἀπέλιπον=ἐκεῖθεν ὅπου, ‘from the point at which I digressed’: i.e. from the end of § 9, when Dicaeogenes III. had seized the whole estate. Cp. Plat. Phaedo 78 B, ὅθεν ἀπελίπομεν ἀναλάβωμεν αὖθις. ἐπεξῄει ‘proceeded to prosecute’, Attic imperf. of ἐπεξέρχομαι, as the Att. fut. is ἐπεξιέναι. Cp. § 9, ἐπεξελθεῖν. — τοῖς καταμαρτυρής., ‘those who had borne false testimony against us [against the speaker and Cephisodotus], and against him’ [Menexenus, their cousin]: cp. § 9. ὅνπερ...τοῦτον] τοῦτον, not, as usu., ‘the defendant here’, but emphatic after ὅνπερ πρῶτον, as if Λύκωνα had not preceded: ‘convicted the very first man they brought before the court — Lycon’. ποιηθῆναι, κ.τ.λ. See on § 7.
τὸν...πράττοντα ‘who was acting’,=ὃς ἔπραττε, in the prosecution of the witnesses. τί ποιῆσαι; κ.τ.λ. ‘persuades him — to do what? to take for himself such a share of the estate as fell to him, and to throw over us for whom he was acting’. ὅ τι ἐγίγνετο: such a fraction as was due to him (imperf.), on the supposition that two-thirds of the whole estate belonged to the sisters and their children. Cp. § 6, υἱὸς ἐγίγνετο ποιητός, (under the will) he was to become adopted son, i.e. it directed that he should do so; and § 15. So § 16, ἀκύροιν γιγνομέναιν,=ἐπειδὴ ἐγίγνοντο, as (by a logical necessity) both the wills now became, now must be, invalid: § 44, ἐκείνων ἐγίγνετο, ‘were due to them’. ἀφεῖναι ‘to withdraw his charges against the witnesses who had not yet been convicted’: ἀφεῖναι, here, not of the jury who acquit the accused, but of the prosecutor who absolves him by allowing the proceedings to drop. Cp. § 1 of this speech, ἀφήκαμεν ἀλλήλους τῶν ἐγκλημάτων. [Dem.] or. XLV. In Stephan. I. § 40, ὡς ἀφέντος ἐμοῦ τῶν ἐγκλημάτων αὐτόν. Harpocr. s.v. ἀφείς contrasts ἀφεῖναι, ‘to let off’ an accused person by withdrawing a charge, with ἀπαλλάξαι, ‘to get rid’ of an accuser by persuading him to do so: cp. § 28 of this speech, οὐ δύναται ἀπαλλάσσειν τοὺς χρήστας, he cannot pay off his creditors.
καθηγούμενοι Elsewhere in classical Greek καθηγεῖσθαι is usually to ‘show the way’, ‘set an example’, ‘teach’: here Dobree conj. ἡμεῖς δ᾽ οὐκέθ᾽ ἡγούμενοι προσήκειν. Baiter, ἡμεῖς δὲ ἅθ᾽ ἡγούμενοι, Sauppe ἡμεῖς δ᾽ , ὦ ἄνδρες, ἡγούμενοι. I believe that καθηγούμενοι, though unattested in this sense, is right,=‘inferring’, (κατά implying an unfavourable inference:) cp. Her. III. 27, πάγχυ σφέας καταδόξας ἑωυτοῦ κακῶς πρήξαντος χαρμόσυνα ταῦτα ποιέειν. κατ᾽ ἀγχιστείαν ‘we claim the whole estate [οἴκου=κλήρου] from him on the ground of affinity’ — and no longer κατὰ διαθήκην, on the ground of the testament under which they had originally claimed two-thirds. ἀγχιστεία, in the legal sense, was a degree of affinity (including, for legal purposes, consanguinity, συγγένεια) recognised by the law as constituting a claim to an inheritance in the absence of a special bequest which could legally divert it. To claim an estate under testamentary disposition was ἀμφισβητεῖν κατὰ διαθήκην, or κατὰ δόσιν. (Schömann, Isae. p. 250, regards διδόναι, δόσις as the general terms for a bequest: διατίθεσθαι, διαθήκη as terms strictly applicable only when the legatee was at the same time adopted as son by the testator. But in Isae. or. I. § 41 the defendants claim κατὰ διαθήκην, and it nowhere appears that they had been adopted. I believe rather that δόσις denoted the act, and διαθήκη the instrument.) To claim on the ground of affinity (in the absence of a will) was ἀμφισβητεῖν κατ᾽ ἀγχιστείαν, or κατὰ γένος, or. IV. § 15. For the distinction between ἀγχιστεία and συγγένεια, cp. Isae. or. XI. § 17, ὃ (the relationship of son to mother) συγγενέστατον μὲν ἦν τῇ φύσει πάντων, ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἀγχιστείαις ὁμολογουμένως οὐκ ἔστιν: meaning that a mother could not inherit from her son, — although, by Attic law, an inheritance could ascend collaterally, as by an uncle inheriting. ὀρθῶς ἐγνώκαμεν ‘have decided rightly’ (to sue D. for the whole estate): the perf., because the resolve still exists, since the case has not been finally settled. The argument is briefly this. Dicaeogenes III. received one-third of the estate under the will. He has set that will aside, and has taken the whole estate under another alleged will. We have shown that this alleged will is false. Therefore there is no will. And therefore the next of kin inherit.
ἡ μὲν πάλαι πολλῷ, ἡ δ᾽ ὕστερον If πάλαι πολλῷ stood alone, it certainly could not mean ‘very long ago’: that would be πάνυ πάλαι, as in Isae. or. VI. § 14, οὔτε ἀνέκδοτον καὶ ἄπαιδα εἶναι, ἀλλὰ πάνυ πάλαι συνοικεῖν (has long been married). But where πάλαι and ὕστερον are contrasted in the same clause, πολλῷ may stand with πάλαι in the sense, ‘old by a long interval as compared with the later date’. I therefore hesitate to adopt the obvious transposition, ἡ μὲν πάλαι, ἡ δ᾽ ὕστερον πολλῷ. Πρόξενος Proxenus, father of Dicaeogenes III., had produced the will under which his son inherited one-third of the estate of Dicaeogenes II.: § 6, διαθήκην ἀπέφηνε Πρόξενος. See the stemma. ἐγίγνετο Cp. § 13, note on τί ποιῆσαι;...ὄ τι ἐγίγνετο. αὐτήν redundant after ἥν: cp. § 12, Λύκωνα...τοῦτον, note.
ἀκύροιν γιγνομέναιν ‘were by inference invalid’, ἄκυροι ἐγίγνοντο; § 13, note. κατὰ δόσιν...κατ᾽ ἀγχιστ.] Cp. § 14, κατ᾽ ἀγχιστείαν, note. διὰ δὲ ταῦτα If δέ is right, it has a resumptive force: ‘for these reasons, I say’: but διὰ δὴ ταῦτα seems needed. λαχεῖν τοῦ κλήρου — ἀντόμνυσθαι] λαχεῖν τοῦ κλήρου, sc. δίκην, ‘to claim the estate’, to obtain a hearing of one's legal claim: but λαχεῖν κλῆρον, ‘to obtain the estate’: § 7, ἐκέκτητο...ἕκαστος ἃ ἔλαχε. — ἀντόμνυσθαι, ‘when we were about to make our affidavit’ (ἀντωμοσία), in the preliminary proceedings (ἀνάκρισις) before the archon. διεμαρτύρησε...μὴ ἐπίδικον εἶναι τὸν κλῆρον ‘entered a protest (διαμαρτυρία) to the effect that our claim was inadmissible’: i.e. that a διαθήκη existed giving it to Dicaeogenes. Cp. Isae. or. VII. § 3, εἰ μὲν ἑώρων ὑμᾶς μᾶλλον ἀποδεχομένους τὰς διαμαρτυρίας ἢ τὰς εὐθυδικίας, κἂν μάρτυρας προὐβαλόμην μὴ ἐπίδικον εἶναι τὸν κλῆρον: where a protest barring the claim is contrasted with a direct trial of the claim. Cp. § 6, ἑκάστη τὸ μέρος ἐπεδικάσατο (sc. τοῦ κλήρου), each claimed the estate in her due share.
ἐπισκηψαμένων...εἰσῄει ‘We indicted Leochares; the action in claim of the estate was cancelled, and the charge of perjury came before the court’. ἐπισκηψαμένων, sc. ψευδομαρτυρῶν: cp. § 9. — λῆξις, sc. τῆς δίκης, τοῦ κλήρου, for claiming the estate. — διεγράφη: Ar. Nub. 773, οἴμ᾽ ὡς ἥδομαι | ὅτι πεντετά- λαντος διαγέγραπταί μοι δίκη, ‘a suit in which I might have lost five talents is quashed’. ἐξαιρεθεισῶν out of the two καδίσκοι, one for condemnation, the other for acquittal: cp. Lys. In Agor. § 37, note, p. 267. Dobree ingeniously but needlessly, ἐξερασθεισῶν, ‘tumbled out’ (Ar. Ach. 341, τοὺς λίθους...ἐξεράσατε). ἃ μὲν τῶν δικαστῶν...λέγειν ‘as to the entreaties which L. addressed to the judges and to us, and the penalties which we were entitled to obtain, I hardly know that I need speak’ (i.e. you can imagine them). Leochares having been convicted of perjury (ψευδομαρτυριῶν), the accusers might have claimed any penalty up to ἀτιμία, disfranchisement (cp. § 19, ἐγγενόμενον ἡμῖν αὐτόν, ἐπειδὴ εἵλομεν ψευδομαρτυριῶν, ἀτιμῶσαι), since it was a τιμητὴ δίκη, that is, one in which the accuser could τιμᾶσθαι, assess the penalty. — ἐξεγένετο, with pluperf. force, not, ‘was in our power’, but, ‘had (by the verdict) come into our power’. — διαπράξασθαι, not ‘exact’, but ‘obtain’ παρὰ τῶν δικαστῶν.
μὴ συναριθμεῖν, κ.τ.λ. ‘not to count the votes, but to cancel the conviction’; i.e. when the votes were taken out, there was an evident majority against Leochares; but the accusers consented to refrain from registering the result, and to admit L. to a compromise before sentence was passed. συναριθμεῖν to compare the number of votes for him with that against him: συγχέαι, to mix up all the votes in a heap. ἀφίστατο...μέρη ‘Dicaeogenes (III.) offered [imperf.] to resign two-thirds of the estate to the sisters of Dicaeogenes (II.), and to agree that he should place these two-thirds in our hands without litigation’: ἀναμφισβήτητα, i.e. he promised that they should not be required ἀμφισβητεῖν, to bring a law-suit, in order formally to establish their claim. In the sequel, however, they were obliged to do so, since D. had already transferred the ownership to others. καὶ ταῦτα ἠγγυᾶτο, κ.τ.λ. ‘And in all this Leochares the defendant offered [imperf.] to be his surety, and to undertake that he (Dicaeogenes) should fulfil his agreement, — Mnesiptolemus of Plōtheia [a deme of the Aegeid tribe] being his colleague in the suretyship’. — ἠγγυᾶτο, not ἐνεγυᾶτο, in Attic, as Scheibe shows, Isae. praef. crit. IX. — καὶ ὡμολόγει ποιήσειν: better ὡς ὡμολόγει καὶ ποιήσειν, ‘pledged himself that Dicaeogenes would do as he (D.) had agreed’. Cp. § 20, ἠγγυᾶτο αὐτὸν ἃ ὡμολόγησε καὶ ποιήσειν: § 22, οὐ πιστεύοντες αὐτῷ ἃ ὡμολόγησε [καὶ Reiske] ποιήσειν.
ἐγγενόμενον...ἀτιμῶσαι ‘when it had come into our power...to disfranchise him’: § 17, note. For the accus. absol. cp. Antiph. Tetr. B. β. § 7, note, p. 205.
καίτοι εἰ μὴ...οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅ τι ‘If, however, in the face of the judges, five hundred in number, and of the bystanders, he had not offered [imperf.] to become surety, I do not know what he could have done’: i.e. there was no other hope for him: he would then and there have been disfranchised. εἰ μὴ ἠγγυᾶτο, not ἠγγυήσατο, because the promise had never been fulfilled. — πεντακοσίων, the normal number of a δικαστήριον, — the 5000 ἡλιασταί (exclusive of the reserved 1000) being divided into 10 such panels: cp. Isocr. Areopagit. § 54, note, p. 349.
εἰ γὰρ ἀπέστη μόνον...εἶχεν ‘For if (as he alleges) he merely withdrew his claim to the two-thirds, but did not covenant to place them in our hands without litigation, what loss was he incurring by resigning property of which he already had the equivalent in money?’ i.e. he had already transferred to others the ownership of the property which he was resigning. It was his duty to see that we got it without having to go to law (ἀμφισβητεῖν) with these other persons, from whom he had received the value (τιμή) of it. τί ἐζημιοῦτο; i.e. we were in a position to claim a concession, since we had convicted his witness of perjury. But this would have been no concession. Therefore his compact cannot have meant this. οὐδὲ γὰρ πρὶν ἡττηθῆναι...θέμενοι ‘for even before he had been worsted in the law-suit [by the conviction of his witness Leochares], the property which we claim had passed from him to the purchasers and mortgagees’. οἱ πριάμενοι — those who had bought from him outright: οἱ θέμενοι, ‘the mortgagees’ — those who lent him money on the security of property which he placed in their hands. Plato, Legg. 820 E, κείσθω μέντοι καθάπερ ἐνέχυρα λύσιμα ἐκ τῆς ἄλλης πολιτείας, ἐὰν ἢ τοὺς θέντας ἡμᾶς ἢ τοὺς θεμένους ὑμᾶς μηδαμῶς φιλοφρονῆται, ‘let these (studies) rest, however, as pledges which can be redeemed by provisions in other parts of our commonwealth, in case they prove utterly unsatisfactory to us who have given the pledges’ (θέντας, the mortgagers), ‘or to you who have accepted them’ (θεμένους, the mortgagees). So ὑποτιθέναι (opponere) οἰκίαν, to pledge or mortgage a house: ὑποτίθεσθαι οἰκίαν, to accept the house as security for a loan.
ἐν Πεδίῳ in the Attic plain (τὸ πεδίον, Thuc. II. 65), from which the party led by Lycurgus were called οἱ ἐκ τοῦ πεδίου, πεδιακοί or πεδιεῖς, as opp. to the πάραλοι led by Megacles and the διάκριοι led by Peisistratus, Her. I. 59. The art. omitted, as with τεῖχος, ἄστυ, § 11. — ἑξήκοντα πλέθρων, ‘covering 60 plethra’. The πλέθρον was the ordinary Greek unit of land-measurement,=10,000 square feet, nearly=Roman actus, or half iugerum. — κεκομίσμεθα, ‘have recovered’: cp. § 13, κομισάμενον. ἡμεῖς δ᾽ οὐκ ἐξάγομεν ‘And we refrain from ejecting’ [τοὺς πριαμένους καὶ θεμένους, those to whom D. has transferred the property], ‘for we are afraid of incurring penalties at law’: δίκας, sc. ἐξούλης, actions for forcible ejectment. καὶ φάσκοντος μὴ βεβαιώσειν ‘For by ejecting Micion from the ownership of the bath-house, at the instance of D., and on his assurance that he would not confirm the other's title, we incurred a fine of 40 minae — thanks to Dicaeogenes, judges’. μὴ βεβαιώσειν: i.e. Dicaeogenes promised to admit that Micion had bought the βαλανεῖον with a bad title, since he, Dicaeogenes, was not its legal owner when he sold it.
ἡγούμενοι γὰρ...καθειστήκεσαν ἡμῖν ‘For, believing that he [αὐτόν, Dicaeogenes] would not confirm another claim to any part of the property which he had resigned in our favour before the law-court, we insisted on this point [διισχυριζόμεθα, imperf.] against Micion before the judges, offering to suffer what they pleased if D. confirmed M.'s title to the tenement, — never dreaming that he [D.] would violate his agreement, — though our only ground for such a faith was the fact that sureties had been given to us’. ἂν βεβαιώσειν: as in Thuc. II. 8 the mss. give ἂν προσχωρήσειν, v. 82 ἂν ὠφελήσειν, v. 66 ἂν λυπήσειν, VIII. 25 ἂν προσχωρήσειν, VIII. 71 ἂν ἡσυχάσειν. In VI. 66 the corr. ἂν λυπήσειαν is probable: in the other places Classen (rightly, I think) keeps ἄν, with Herbst, instead of omitting it with Stahl. Cp. Goodwin § 41. 4. — οὐκ ἂν...οἰόμενοι ...πρᾶξαι, cp. § 8, note. — οὐ δι᾽ ἄλλ᾽ οὐδέν: i.e. the character of D. himself was no guarantee, but we believed that he would not expose his surety to an ἐγγύης δίκη (like the present).
§§ 39 — 47.οὕτω καὶ τοσαῦτα ‘in this manner and measure’ i.e. so badly and so little: referring to § 36, τῇ μὲν φυλῇ εἰς Διονύσια χορηγήσας τέταρτος ἐγένετο, τραγωδοῖς δὲ καὶ πυρριχισταῖς ὕστατος: i.e. he won only the fourth prize when he produced a chorus [probably of αὐληταί, flute-players] at the great Dionysia, — and was last when he produced a tragic chorus and a chorus of Pyrrhic dancers (perhaps at the Λήναια). He had also failed to contribute when εἰσφοραί, special war-taxes, were being levied. Once, indeed, he had promised an ἐπίδοσις or voluntary subscription, which however he had not paid, and had therefore been ‘posted’ as a defaulter at the statues of the Twelve Heroes [in the Agora], § 38: καὶ τοῦτο ἐπέδωκεν, οὐκ εἰσήνεγκεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπ̓ αἰσχίστῳ ἐπιγράμματι [‘with a most disgraceful qualification’ — that which follows] ἐξετέθη αὐτοῦ τοὔνομα ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἐπωνύμων, ὅτι οἵδε εἰς σωτηρίαν τῆς πόλεως ὑποσχόμενοι τῷ δήμῳ εἰσοίσειν χρήματα ἐθελονταὶ οὐκ εἰσήνεγκαν. — εἰς τὴν πόλιν, (spent) on the city: so § 43, ποῖ ἀναλώσας; οὔτε γὰρ εἰς τὴν πόλιν οὔτε εἰς τοὺς φίλους φανερὸς εἶ δαπανηθεὶς οὐδέν. ὅτι μεῖζον ἐδυνήθη Schömann suggests ὅτε, but with this we should expect ἠδύνατο: and ὅτι, ‘(merely) because’, condemns the act more strongly. εἰς τοὺς μισθωτοὺς ἰόντας ‘and allowed others [of his relatives] to be reduced to the rank of hired labourers, for want of a bare livelihood’. Cp. [Dem.] or. XLIX. Adv. Timoth. § 51, τίνες ἦσαν οἱ ἐνέγκαντες τὸν χαλκὸν ὡς τὸν πατέρα τὸν ἐμόν; μισθωτοὶ ἢ οἰκέται; ‘hirelings or slaves?’ Theophr. Charact. IV. καὶ τοῖς παρ᾽ αὐτῷ ἐργαζομένοις μισθωτοῖς ἐν ἀγρῷ πάντα τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας διηγεῖσθαι, ‘he will recount all the news from the Ecclesia to the hired labourers working on his land’. ‘Slavery did not altogether swamp the labour-market. Even men, chiefly foreigners, found employment as artisans, farm-labourers or domestics: see Plat. Rep. 371. Lysis, in Plato's dialogue, says that his father's chariot was driven at the games by a hired charioteer (Lys. p. 203 E), while the groom mentioned in the same passage is a slave. The shrine of Eurysaces in the market-place is mentioned as the place at which ‘those who ply for hire used to congregate’ (from my note on Theophr. l.c., p. 221). ἐν τῷ τῆς Εἰλειθυίας ἱερῷ καθημένην, as a suppliant, — in appeal to the goddess against an unnatural son. Pausanias I. 18. § 5, πλησίον δὲ (near the temple of Sarapis, s.w. of the Acropolis) ᾠκοδόμητο ναὸς Εἰλειθυίας, ἣν ἐλθοῦσαν ἐξ Ὑπερβορέων εἰς Δῆλον γενέσθαι βοηθὸν ταῖς Λητοῦς ὠδῖσι, τοὺς δὲ ἄλλους παρ᾽ αὐτῶν φασι τῆς Εἰλειθυίας μαθεῖν τὸ ὄνομα: καὶ θύουσί τε Εἰλειθυίᾳ Δήλιοι καὶ ὕμνον ᾁδουσιν Ὠλῆνος.
Μέλανα ‘As to his intimate associates [in distinction from τοὺς προσήκοντας, his relatives, § 39], he has robbed Melas, his friend from boyhood, of the money which he received from him, and is now his bitter enemy’: Μέλανα, not Μέλανι, because the emphasis is more on the act (ἀποστερήσας) which led to the feud than on the feud itself (ἔχθιστός ἐστι). εἰ ἐπιδικάσαιτο τοῦ κλήρου ‘if he should claim the estate’: cp. § 16, ἐπίδικον, note. He said, δώσω, ἐὰν ἐπιδικάσωμαι.
οἱ ἡμέτεροι πρόγονοι i.e. the testator, Dicaeo genes II., his father Menexenus, and his grandfather, Dicaeogenes I. — οἱ ταῦτα κτησάμενοι, who acquired the property now under dispute. πάσας...χορηγ. ἐχορήγ.] ‘discharged the office of choregus in all its forms’, for τραγικοί, κωμικοί, and μουσικοὶ ἀγῶνες. — εἰσήνεγκαν, i.e. by way of εἰσφοραί: cp. on § 39. — τριηραρχοῦντες: see on Isocr. De Pace § 128, τὰς συμμορίας, p. 336. — διέλιπον: Isocr. Aeginet. § 27, note, p. 356. ἀναθήματα ‘votive offerings’, a general term for gifts (buildings, statues, tripods, etc.) dedicated to a god; ἀνάθημα ἀνατιθέναι, Her. II. 182. — ἐκ τῶν περιόντων, not, ‘from their abundance’, but, ‘from what remained’ after these costly λειτουργίαι had been discharged. τρίποδας A bronze tripod was awarded to a successful choregus, who usu. dedicated it in the temple of Dionysus. Plutarch says that Nicias had presented to the temple a shrine (νεώς) on which these tripods were set (Nic. 3). In the course of the 4th century B.C. a fashion arose of placing the prizetripod in a small shrine built especially for it, either in the precincts of the Theatre or in the ‘Street of the Tripods’ (Paus. I. 20) on the E. side of the Acropolis. The existing monument of Lysicrates (choregus 335 B.C.) was such a shrine: and the site of another, dedicated in 320 B.C. by the choregus Thrasyllus (Paus. I. 21), is still marked by a cave on the s. side of the Acropolis. (See my note on Theophr. Char. XXII.=XXV., p. 251.) Cp. Plat. Gorg. 472 A, Νικίας καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί, ὧν οἱ τρίποδες οἱ ἐφεξῆς ἑστῶτές εἰσιν ἐν τῷ Διονυσίῳ. ἐν Πυθίου i.e. ἐν τῷ Ἀπόλλωνος Πυθίου ἱερῷ. In May, 1877, the site of the Πύθιον was identified by the discovery of an inscribed altar-stone on the right bank of the Ilissus, N. W. of the temple of Zeus Olympius. This stone belonged to the altar erected by Peisistratus (grandson of the tyrant), and mentioned by Thuc. (VI. 54) as bearing in letters which even then were ‘faint’, ἀμυδροῖς γράμμασι, the couplet: — μνῆμα τόδ᾽ ἧς ἀρχῆς Πεισίστρατος Ἱππίου υἱὸς θῆκεν Ἀπόλλωνος Πυθίου ἐν τεμένει.
ἀπαρχὰς...τὸ ἱερόν ‘On the Acropolis, again, [as well as in the Διονύσιον and the Πύθιον] ‘they have dedicated tributes (ἀπαρχάς) from their substance, and have adorned the temple [τὸ ἱερόν=τὸν Παρθενῶνα] with images (ἀγάλμασι) in bronze and stone, — considerable in number, if it be remembered that the donors were private persons’. — ἀπαρχάς, firstfruits, [in Thuc. VI. 20 tithes paid by occupiers to landlords,] then ‘tributes’: cp. Eur. Androm. 150, where Hermione speaks of her robes and golden ornaments as ἀπαρχαί, ‘offerings’ made to her, as a bride, by her father. — πολλοῖς closely with ὡς ἀπὸ ἰδίας κτήσεως: Thuc. VI. 20, πόλεις...μεγάλας,...τό τε πλῆθος, ὡς ἐν μιᾷ νήσῳ, πολλὰς τὰς Ἑλληνίδας: Soph. Phil. 584, δρῶν ἀντιπάσχω χρηστά γ᾽ , οἰ̔̂ ἀνὴρ πένης. — ἀγάλμασι, not=ἀναθήμασι (§ 41), but ‘images’ or ‘statues’ of gods, as opp. to ἀνδριάντες, portrait-statues of men. Δικαιογένης i.e. Dicaeogenes I.: see stemma. ἡ ἐν *Ἁλιεῦσι μάχη Having made a descent on the coast of Argolis, the Athenians were defeated by the Corinthians and Epidaurians at Halieis, Ol. 80. 4, 457 B.C.: Thuc. I. 104. (Attic Orators, II. 353.) — Ἁλιεῦσι is due to Dobree. The traditional reading is ἡ ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι μάχη, which has been referred (1) by Palmer ap. Schöm. 342 to Ol. 80. 4, 457 B.C., when there were hostilities in the Megarid between the Athenians and the Corinthians: (2) by Reiske to Ol. 83. 4, 445 B.C., when the Lacedaemonians, invading Attica under Pleistoanax, advanced to Eleusis; Thuc. I. 114. But on neither occasion is a battle at Eleusis recorded. φυλαρχῶν τῆς *Ὀλυνθίας ἐν Σπαρτώλῳ ‘when commanding the cavalry of his tribe at Spartolus in the territory of Olynthus’: in Ol. 87. 4, 429 B.C., when the Athenians were defeated by the Chalcidians at Spartolus on the Chalcidic peninsula: Thuc. II. 79. — Scheibe rightly follows Palmer in reading Ὀλυνθίας for the vulg. Ὀλυσίας, which Dobree took as formed from Ὄλυνθος (‘ut Τρικορύσιος a Τρικόρυνθος Arist. Lys. 1034’), while Sir W. Jones actually explained it, ‘of the destructive cohort’. Reiske conj. Ὀδρυσίας or Ὀδυσσείας (the latter as the name of a cohort). — In 429 B.C. Spartolus belonged to the Βοττιαῖοι (Thuc. l.c.), but it had now come under the control of Olynthus: cp. Xen. Hellen. v. 2. 11 (Attic Orators, II. 354). Δικαιογένης i.e. the testator, Dicaeog. II. — ἐν Κνίδῳ: in 412 B.C., when an Athenian force of less than 20 sail was defeated, with the loss of six ships, by the Lacedaemonian fleet under Astyochus, Thuc. VIII. 42. The Paralos is mentioned soon afterwards as being with the Athenian army at Samos, Thuc. VIII. 74 (411 B.C.).
ἐξαργυρισάμενος ‘having converted it’ (τὸν οἶκον=τὸν κλῆρον, the estate) ‘into money, you now bewail your poverty; but on what have you spent the money?’ ἐξαργυρις., because he had sold or mortgaged the houses and lands (cp. § 21, οἱ παρὰ τούτου πριάμενοι καὶ θέμενοι). In Thuc. VIII. 81, ἢν δέῃ τελευτῶντα τὴν ἑαυτοῦ στρωμνὴν ἐξαργυρίσαι (convert into money), ἐξαργυρῶσαι is a v. l., wh. Classen adopts, following Etym. M. 246. 55, ἐξαργυρῶσαι, οὐκ ἐξαργυρίσαι, Θουκυδίδης. Her. VI. 86, ἐξαργυρώσαντα. In Dem. De Pace § 8, ἣν...ἐκέκτητο φανερὰν οὐσίαν (real property), ταύτην ἐξαργυρίσας, the form is less doubtful. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ καθιπποτρόφηκας ‘But again, neither have you squandered it on keeping horses’. The keeping of horses, esp. for the great contests, was regarded as in some sort a duty incumbent on the rich, for the credit of the state, — horses being in a special sense at Athens ἄγαλμα τῆς ὑπερπλούτου χλιδῆς (Aesch. P.V. 474). [Dem.] or. XLII. Adv. Phaen. § 14: ‘In one thing only can the defendant be proved to have shown public spirit towards you (πεφιλοτιμημένον εἰς ὑμᾶς), judges: his munificence takes the form of keeping fine horses’ (ἱπποτρόφος ἀγαθός ἐστι καὶ φιλότιμος). Xen. Hipparch. I. 12, ‘(you may win over parents) by explaining this to them, — that their sons will be forced to keep horses, if not by you, by their fortune, but that...you will deter them from giving extravagant or mad (μανικῶν) prices for horses’ (note on Theophr. Char. XXIII.= VI. p. 197). Cp. Lysias or. XIX. § 63, ὅτε ἵππευεν, οὐ μόνον ἵππους ἐκτήσατο λαμπροὺς ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀθλητάς, καὶ ἐνίκησεν Ἰσθμοῖ καὶ Νεμέᾳ, κ.τ.λ. πλείονος ἄξιον ἢ τριῶν μνῶν=about £12. The κοππατίας of Pheidippides (Ar. Clouds 23) cost about 12 minas, or £48; and the same is the value of a horse in [Lysias] or. VIII. § 10. οὐδὲ ζεῦγος ἐκτήσω, κ.τ.λ. ‘You have never set up so much as a pair of mules [ὀρικόν from ὄρευς=ἡμίονος] on the strength of (ἐπί) your large estates and wealth. Nor, again, have you ransomed any one from the enemy’. Cp. Lys. In Eratosth. § 20, πολλοὺς δ᾽ Ἀθηναίων ἐκ τῶν πολεμίων λυσαμένους, note, p. 253.
τὰ ἀναθήματα...κυλινδεῖται ‘Nor, again, have you duly placed on the acropolis [τὴν πόλιν] the votive offerings which Menexenus had caused to be made, and which death prevented him from dedicating, but they are still knocking about in the stone cutters' shops’. — πόλιν=ἀκρόπολιν, Thuc. II. 15, καλεῖται δὲ διὰ τὴν παλαιὰν ταύτῃ κατοίκησιν καὶ ἡ ἀκρόπολις μέχρι τοῦδε ἔτι ὑπ᾽ Ἀθηναίων πόλις. — κεκόμικας, not merely ‘carried’, but taken to their proper place. — κυλινδεῖται should, I think, be read here: Attic writers seem to use κυλινδεῖσθαι in the literal sense, καλινδεῖσθαι in the figurative; cp. Isocr. Adv. Sophist. § 20, τῶν περὶ τὰς ἔριδας καλινδουμένων, note, p. 298. ἐκείνων ἐγίγνετο ‘were due to them’, ‘came to them by right’: see § 13, note, p. 369. ἀγάλματα in the proper sense, statues of gods as opp. to ἀνδριάντες, cp. § 42.
λειτουργίας...τριηραρχῶν On the distinction between the ordinary λειτουργίαι and the τριηραρχία, cp. Isocr. De Pace, § 128, note, p. 335.
πολέμου...Ὀλύνθιοι...νησιῶται The Corinthian War (394 — 387 B.C.), of which this (390) was the 5th year. Olynthus, as well as the insular allies, had doubtless furnished troops to Athens in the course of the war. If the year 372 B.C. were taken as the date of the speech, the notice might be referred to the Olynthian War of 382 — 379 B.C., — when the Olynthians were, in a sense, fighting the battle of Athens. The mention of νησιῶται might then be explained by the fact that, when war was renewed between Athens and Sparta in 374 B.C., Corcyra became a centre of hostilities. But τοσούτου and τοιούτου πολέμου in § 46 can mean nothing but the Corinthian War; it could not, without straining, be applied to the whole intermittent struggle against Sparta. — See Attic Orators, II. 351. τὸν τύραννον Hipparchus. Cp. Thuc. I. 20, Ἀθηναίων γοῦν τὸ πλῆθος Ἵππαρχον οἴονται ὑφ᾽ Ἁρμοδίου καὶ Ἀριστογείτονος τύραννον ὄντα ἀποθανεῖν, καὶ οὐκ ἴσασιν ὅτι Ἱππίας μὲν πρεσβύτατος ὢν ἦρχε τῶν Πεισιστράτου υἱέων, Ἵππαρχος δὲ καὶ Θεσσαλὸς ἀδελφοὶ ἦσαν αὐτοῦ. Herod. (v. 55) does not make this error. Nor need we suppose it here, since τὸν τύραννον implies merely a member of the ruling house; cp. Andoc. De Myst. § 106, νικήσαντες τοὺς τυράννους [=τοὺς Πεισιστρατίδας] ἐπὶ Παλληνίῳ.
τὴν ἐν Πρυτανείῳ σίτησιν, κ.τ.λ. Cp. Andoc. De Myst. § 45, note on ἐδείπνει, p. 226. — προεδριῶν, ‘places of honour’ at festivals, etc.: ἀτελειῶν, exemptions from taxation. — Ἀριστογείτων...καὶ Ἁρμόδιος: cp. Dem. F. L. § 280, ὑπομενεῖτε ...τὸν ἀφ᾽ Ἁρμοδίου καὶ τῶν τὰ μέγιστ᾽ ἀγαθὰ ὑμᾶς εἰργασμένων, οὓς νόμῳ διὰ τὰς εὐεργεσίας...ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἱεροῖς ἐπὶ ταῖς θυσίαις σπονδῶν καὶ κρατήρων κοινωνοὺς πεποίησθε καὶ ᾁδετε καὶ τιμᾶτε ἐξ ἴσου τοῖς ἥρωσι καὶ τοῖς θεοῖς...τὴν ἐκ τῶν νόμων δίκην ὑπεσχηκέναι, ..., τὸν δὲ Ἀτρομήτου ἀφήσετε; Deinarchus In Demosth. § 63, ἐδέθη τῶν ἀφ᾽ Ἁρμοδίου γεγονότων εἷς κατὰ τὸ σὸν πρόσταγμα, was imprisoned by your injunction. For ἐκεῖνος=ille, ‘the famous’, cp. Ar. Eq. 786, μῶν ἔκγονος εἶ τῶν Ἁρμοδίου τις ἐκείνων;