previous next

§§ 53—57. But though (for the sake of argument) the speaker has pointed out the results which would ensue, if the defendant were condemned, he protests that he can see no ground for such condemnation. Plaintiff brings forward his charge ever so many years after the alleged offence, and meanwhile has found time for incessant litigation, especially in public causes where his personal interests were but partially affected. While prosecuting so many others, how came he to let Phormion alone? The presumption is that the plaintiff was neverreally wronged by him, and that the claim now put in, so long after the event, is utterly false and groundless.

To meet these charges, it will be much to the purpose to produce evidence of the bad character of the plaintiff, and also of the integrity and kindly feeling, the generosity and the public services of the defendant.

ἀλλ᾽...ἀλλ᾽...άλλὰ For this use of ἀλλὰ cf. Dem. 18 § 24 τίγὰρ καὶβουλόμενοι μετεπέμπεσθ᾽ ἂν αὐτοὺς ἐν τοσούτῳ τῷ καιρῷ; ἐπὶ τὴν εἰρήνην; άλλ᾽ ὑπῆρχεν ἄπασιν. ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τὸν πόλεμον; ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοὶ περὶ εἰρήνης ἐβουλεύεσθε (Huettner).

ἔτεσιν καὶ χρόνοις ὕστερον i.e. ‘years and ages later,’ ‘ever so many years after,’ ‘years and years later.’ χρόνῳ ὕστερον and ὕστερον χρόνῳ are frequently found (Wyse on Isaeus 6 § 27); but the phrase in the text is curious and is perhaps rightly suspected by Seager, who suggests the emendation ἔτεσι καὶ χρόνοις τοσούτοις ὕστερον (Classical Journal 1829, Vol. 30, No. 59, p. 109). Cf. Or. 59 § 98 ὕστερον δὲ ὡς πεντήκοντα ἔτεσιν. It is defended by G. H. Schaefer, who refers to Pausanias x 17 § 3 ἔτεσι δὲ ὕστερον μετὰ τοὺς Λιβύας ἀφίκοντο. We may compare Lysias 3 § 39 οἰ μὲν ἄλλοι...ὀργιζόμενοι παραχρῆμα τιμωρεῖσθαι ζητοῦσιν, οὗτος δὲ χρόνοις ὕστερον. But the two phrases ἔτεσιν ὕστερον and χρόνοις ὕστερον, however defensible in themselves separately, do not apparently occur in combination elsewhere; and it may therefore be worth while to suggest either ἀλλὰ τοσούτοις χρόνοις ὕστερον, or simply ἀλλὰ χρόνοις ὕστερον just as in the passage of Lysias above quoted. In the latter case ἔτεσι καὶ may be a corruption of ἔτεσι κ᾽ i.e. ‘twenty years,’ a marginal note explaining χρόνοις by referring to § 26, παρεληλυθότων ἐτῶν πλέον εἴκοσι, and § 38, ἐτῶν ἴσως εἴκοσι. (Shilleto suggests as a parallel to ἔτεσι καὶ χρόνοις, Cic. Verr. II 3 § 21 tot annis atque adeo saeculis tot.

ἀπράγμων Often used of quiet and easy-going people who shrink from litigation. Or. 40 § 32 ἀπράγμων καὶ οὐ φιλόδικος, 42 § 12. Cf. ἀπραγμοσύνη and its opposites, πολυπράγμων, πολυπραγμονεῖν, πολυπραγμοσύνη. So also, in the next line, πράγματα πράττων, as is clear from the rest of the sentence, refers to the plaintiff's incessant litigation. Or. 27 § 1 οὐδὲν ἂν ἔδει δικῶν οὐδὲ πραγμάτων. 54 § 24.

κρίνων τινάς The force of the sentence is much improved by Dobree's almost certain emendation κρίνων τίνας οὔ; οὐχὶ Τιμομάχου κατηγόρεις; where the loss of οὔ would be accounted for by οὐχὶ (or οὐ) following immediately after. Or. 37 § 14 πολλὰ δεηθέντος καὶ τί οὐ ποιήσαντος; 47 § 43 δεομένων ἁπάντων καὶ ἰκετευόντων καὶ τίνα οὐ προσπεμπόντων; Felicissime restituit, says Shilleto of Dobree (F. L. § 231).

Τιμομάχου κ.τ.λ. All these prosecutions are almost certainly connected with the naval operations extending over the plaintiff's protracted trierarchy of seventeen months in the Thracian waters (in B.C. 362— 361). In his speech against Poly cles (Or. 50) Autocles, Meno, and Timomachus are mentioned as successive commanders of the fleet (§§ 12—14 and Or. 23 § 104—5); and, while he there speaks in general terms of the maladministration of all the commanders (§ 15 τὰ τῶν στρατηγῶν ἄπιστα), he uses the strongest language against Timomachus, mainly for his treasonable collusion with an exiled relative, Callistratus. (See next note.) Timomachus was condemned, and put to death (Schol. on Aeschin. 1 § 56).

Καλλίππον τοῦ νῦν ἐν Σικελίᾳ The context shows that this Callippus (who must not be confounded with the plaintiff in the speech of Apollodorus πρὸς Κάλλιππον Or. 52) can be none other than ‘the son of Philon, of the deme Aexone,’ who, at the request of Timomachus, conveyed Callistratus on board an Athenian trireme to Thasos from his place of exile in Macedonia, after Apollodorus had stoutly refused to allow his own vessel to be used for so unlawful a purpose (Or. 50 §§ 46—52). He may, with great probability, be identified with Plato's pupil of that name, with whom another of Plato's disciples, the well-known Dion of Syracuse, lived on friendly terms at Athens on his banishment from Sicily in B.C. 366. In August 357, Dion, with a small force, started from the island of Zacynthus, and during the absence of Dionysius the younger, made a triumphal entry into Syracuse, attended by his friend Callippus, who was one of his captains, and is described by Plutarch as λαμπρὸς ἐν τοῖς ἀγῶσι καὶ διάσημος. Ultimately, in the spring or summer of 353, Dion was assassinated by Callippus, who after usurping the government for thirteen months, was defeated in battle by a brother of the younger Dionysius, and after wandering about in Sicily and establishing himself in Southern Italy, at Rhegium, was shortly after (probably in B.C. 350) himself killed by his friends, with the very sword (as the story runs) with which he murdered Dion. (Plutarch, Dion, 17, 28— 58; Plato, Ep. vii; Diodorus, xvi passim.

In the present passage Apollodorus is stated to have prosecuted Callippus τοῦ νῦν ὄντος έν Σικελίᾳ. The Athenian fleet (with Callippus) reached Athens from the Thracian coasts in Feb. 360, and Callippus started for Syracuse from Zacynthus in Aug. 357, so that the plaintiff's prosecution of him cannot well be placed later than the spring of 357, though it may have been two years earlier in 359, and in any case about the same time as his prosecutions of Timomachus, Meno and Autocles. (A. Schaefer, Dem. u. s. Zeit, III 2, 158—161.)

If the present speech is as late as 350 B.C., Callippus was still alive; at any rate, the news of his death cannot have reached Athens. Introd. p. xxix.

οὑ Τιμοθέου;] The charge against Timotheus, the celebrated Athenian general, may have been connected with his defeat at Amphipolis, B.C. 360. At first sight the allusion might be explamed of the plaintiff's private suit (Or. 49) against the general for sums borrowed from Pasion (cf. above § 36 n.); but the context appears to point expressly to public indictments (δημοσίᾳ in the previous sentence and τῶν κοινῶν in the next); though this reason is not conclusive, as the first part of the previous sentence refers to δίκαι ἴδιαι.

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 (5 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (5):
    • Demosthenes, Against Aristocrates, 104
    • Demosthenes, Against Aphobus 1, 1
    • Demosthenes, Against Pantaenetus, 14
    • Demosthenes, Against Boeotus 2, 32
    • Demosthenes, Against Neaera, 98
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: