F. A. Paley, Select Private Orations of Demosthenes

---

§§ 14, 15. "Though Lampis was present when I served Phormion with a summons, he never said, as he would have done had the story been true, that Phormion had already paid the money to him." A negative argument ἐκ τῶν εἰκότων, as the rhetoricians called it. It was not likely that Lampis would be silent. “Between τεκμήρια and εἰκότα there is strictly this difference: the former are the evidentiary facts, the latter the results which are obtained by combining such facts together and reasoning upon them.” Kennedy, Append. VI to Vol. IV of Demosth. p. 369. So Or. 30 § 10 δῆλον δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῶν εἰκότων ὅτι τούτων ἕνεχ᾽ ὧν εἰρηκα ὀφείλειν εἵλοντο.

καὶ ὁ Λάμπις here (as in § 18) καὶ is loosely used, with καὶ in the previous sentence.]

εἰπεῖν Thrice in same §. Cf. εἱπεῖν.. εἶπεν in § 15. Similarly εἰκὸς ἦν recurs in §§ 15, 40; also found in 56 § 11.]

μὴ ὅτι Both this and οὐχ ὅτι are used in the sense of non modo or non modo non. In the former case there is an ellipse of λέγειν, in the latter of λέγω. Translate, ‘Not only did Lampis not utter a word, but not even Phormion himself thought fit to say he had paid it, though Lampis was actually standing by, to whom he now says he paid the money.’ [Cf. Or. 27 § 7; 36 § 39; 43 § 9; 56 § 30. Madvig's Gk. Syntax § 212; Goodwin's Moods and Tenses § 707, ed. 1889.]