Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 1527515885, 9781527515888

Citation preview

eus’ On the Estate -hus (Oration 3) Rosalia Hatzilambrou

Isaeus’

On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3)

Isaeus’

On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) Edited with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary by Rosalia Hatzilambrou

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) Edited with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary

by Rosalia Hatzilambrou This book first published 2018

Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne,

NE6 2PA, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2018 by Rosalia Hatzilambrou Allrights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without

the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-1588-5 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-1588-8

To Γιάννης, Ἐλένη, and Γιώργος- Νικηφόρος

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments

ix

Introductory Note

x

Abbreviations a) Ancient authors and works

xi

b)

Modern publications

Introduction A. The orator a) Testimonia

b)

Summary of the information about Isaeus’ life

Β.

The trial

a)

The legal dispute

b) ο) d)

The people The verdict Dating

C.

The speech

a)

Structure

b) ο) d)

Argumentation Legal issues Style

D. a)

The transmission of the text Manuscript tradition

b) ο)

The corrections to A Indirect tradition

E.

Editions and translations of Isaeus’ third speech

Ε.

About this book

1

Text

56

Tabula notarum in apparatu critico adhibitarum Translation

79

Commentary

94

Glossary

224

Bibliography a) Editions of ancient authors and works

229

b)

Modern publications 262

Indices

a)

Passages cited

b)

General index

Stemma familiae Stemma codicum

48

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I owe my greatest debt of gratitude suggestions, encouragement, help, also read meticulously the whole comments. He saved me from many are entirely my own responsibility. I am sincerely indebted to Prof. support, and for reading the first

to Prof. Μ. J. Edwards, for his and generosity. Prof. Edwards last draft, and offered valuable errors, but such errors as remain A. Papathomas for his constant draft and offering stimulating

suggestions. My deep thanks go to Prof. N. Conomis and Prof. A. Kambylis, both Members of the Academy of Athens, for helping me with their guidance and valuable advice. Thanks are due to Dr K. Oikonomakos, Dr I. Amaoutoglou, Dr A. Bazou, and Dr D. Speranzi, who have discussed various sections of the book with me, and have offered useful criticism. I would like to express my thanks to Prof. C. Carey who read chapters of this book, and commented on them. I am deeply grateful to an anonymous reader at an earlier stage for suggesting numerous improvements on my manuscript. I owe particular thanks to Cambridge Scholars Publishing for their kind assistance in the publication of the book. Last, but certainly not least, | am grateful to my husband Γιάννης, and to my children, EAévy and Γιώργος-Νικηφόρος, who appeared in

my life at the same period as Isaeus. This book is dedicated to all three of them.

INTRODUCTORY

NOTE

Latinized forms are used for the names of Greek people and places; however, Anglicized forms are used for the names of classical authors and works most widely familiar to English readers, e.g. Aristotle, Plato, Apology. Individual Greek words and short phrases used in the Introduction and the Commentary are transliterated, unless the context makes Greek script more appropriate, for instance when discussing points of textual criticism, grammar, and syntax. “Cf §1n.” and “see §1n.” mean “cf the Commentary on §1” and “see the Commentary on §1” respectively. Words marked with an asterisk (*) refer the reader to the Glossary, which includes legal, rhetorical, and other technical termmology. Unless otherwise indicated, translations

are my own.

ABBREVIATIONS a) Ancient authors and works The abbreviations of Greek authors follow the system of LSJ, and of Latin of OLD. The few exceptions, e.g. “Dem.” for “Demosthenes”, are self-evident. The abbreviations of the periodicals follow L’Année Philologique. The symbol “Σ᾽ stands for the ancient scholia to a work.

b) Modern publications APF

FGrHist Harpocration On Line IG K-A Poetae Comici Graeci LGPN

LSI

Davies, John K. 1971. Athenian Propertied Families 600-300 B.C. Oxford: Oxford University Press Jacoby, Felix. 1926-1958. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Berlin and Leiden: Brill Sosin, Joshua et alii, “Harpocration on Line”: https://blogs. library.duke.edu/dcthree/2015/05/26/ harpokration-on-line Inscriptiones Graecae Kassel, Rudolf, and Colin Austin. 1983-2001. (ὃ vols. so far). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter Osborne, Michael J., and Sean G. Byrne. 1994. 4 Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, vol. II (Attica). Oxford: Oxford University Press Liddell, Henry G., Robert Scott, and Henry S.

Jones. 1996. A Greek-English Lexicon, 9" edition with Revised Supplement. Oxford: Oxford University Press

M-P°

OLD

Mertens-Pack? Online Database of Greek and Latin Literary Papyrt: http://c1p193.philo.ulg.ac.be/Cedopal/MP3/dbsearc h_en.aspx Glare, Peter G. W. 2012. Oxford Latin Dictionary (2 vols.), 2" edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press

PA

Kirchner, Johannes. 1901-1903. Prosopographia Attica (2 vols.). Berlin: G. Reimer

xii Abbreviations

PLP

Trapp, Erich and alii. 1976-1996.

Prosopographisches Lexicon der Palaiologenzeit (15 vols.). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft Gamillscheg, Ernst et alii. 1981-1994 Repertorium der griechischen Kopisten 800-1600 (3 vols.). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften

INTRODUCTION A. The orator

a) Testimonia 1. Dionysius Halicarnassensis, de Isaeo 1 (pp. 93.1-94.2) Ἰσαῖος δὲ ὁ Δημοσθένους καθηγησάμενος καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μάλιστα γενόμενος περιφανής, ὡς μέν τινες ἱστοροῦσιν, Ἀθηναῖος ἦν τὸ γένος, ὡς δ᾽ ἕτεροι γράφουσι, Χαλκιδεύς ἤκμασε δὲ μετὰ τὸν Πελοποννησιακὸν πόλεμον, ὡς ἐκ λόγων αὐτοῦ τεκμαίρομαι. καὶ μέχρι τῆς Φιλίππου δυναστείας παρεξέτεινεΕ. γενέσεως δὲ καὶ τελευτῆς τοῦ ῥήτορος ἀκριβῆ χρόνον εἰπεῖν οὐκ ἔχω οὐδὲ δὴ περὶ

τοῦ βίου τἀνδρός,

οἷός τις ἦν, οὐδὲ περὶ τῆς προαιρέσεως

τῶν

πολιτευμάτων οὐδέν, ἀρχὴν εἰ, προείλετό τινα ἢ πολιτείαν, οὐδ᾽ ὅλως περὶ τῶν τοιούτων οὐδενὸς διὰ τὸ μηδεμιᾷ τοιαύτῃ περιτυγχάνειν ἱστορίᾳ. οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁ τοὺς Ἰσοκράτους μαθητὰς ἀναγράψας Ἕρμιππος, ἀκριβὴς ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις γενόμενος, ὑπὲρ τοῦδε τοῦ ῥήτορος οὐδὲν εἴρηκεν ἔξω δυεῖν τούτων, ὄτι διήκουσε μὲν Ἰσοκράτους καθηγήσατο δὲ Δημοσθένους. [συνεγένετο δὲ τοῖς ἀρίστοις τῶν φιλοσόφων.] Ἰσαῖος ... Χαλκιδεύς: cf Harp. 121 sv. Ἰσαῖος ὁ Δημοσθένους καθηγησάμενος: cf Philostr. vit soph. 1.17. Liban. arg. or. Demosth.

7 (p. 602.18-19); Liban. deck XXTIL32 (p. 393.9-12); Su. A454 s.v. Δημοσθένης οὐδὲ ... Δημοσθένους: FGrHist 1026 T4a, 15a, F45b; Hermippus fr. 69; cf. [Plut.] vit X or. 837d; Phot. Bibl cod. 260

(487a) Isaeus, who was Demosthenes’ teacher and became famous mainly for that reason, was Athenian by birth according to some, but others write that he was from Chalcis. As 1 infer from his speeches, he was in his prime after the Peloponnesian War, and he lived until the reign of Philip. I am not able to state the exact date of the orator’s birth and death, nor indeed what type of life the man led, nor anything relating to his political preferences, such as whether autarchy or democracy was his preferred system of government, in general I can say nothing on such subjects, because I have not come across any information about them. Even Hermippus, who documented the students of Isocrates, cites detailed information about the others but makes only

2 Introduction

two observations about this orator, namely that he was a student of

Isocrates and that he taught Demosthenes. [He also associated with the best philosophers. | 2. [Plutarch] Vitae decem oratorum (= Moralia 839 e-f) Ἰσαῖος Χαλκιδεὺς μὲν ἦν τὸ γένος, παραγενόμενος δ᾽ εἰς Ἀθήνας Kai σχολάσας

«μὲν

Ἰσοκράτει

ὥς

now

Ἕρμιυτπος

μάλιστα

δ᾽

ἠκολούθει» Avoia κατά τε τὴν τῶν ὀνομάτων ἁρμονίαν καὶ ἐν τοῖς πράγμασι δεινότητα, ὥστ᾽ εἰ μή τις ἔμπειρος πάνυ τοῦ χαρακτῆρος

τῶν ἀνδρῶν εἴη, οὐκ ἂν διαγνοίη πολλοὺς τῶν λόγων ῥᾳδίως ὁποτέρου τῶν ῥητόρων εἰσίν. ἤκμασε δὲ μετὰ τὸν Πελοποννησιακὸν πόλεμον, ὡς ἔστι τεκμήρασθαι ἐκ λόγων αὐτοῦ, καὶ μέχρι τῆς Φιλίππου ἀρχῆς παρέτεινε. καθηγήσατο δὲ Δημοσθένους, ἀποστὰς τῆς σχολῆς, ἐπὶ δραχμαῖς μυρίαις διὸ καὶ μάλιστα ἐπιφανὴς ἐγένετο. αὐτὸς δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐπιτροπικοὺς λόγους συνέττατε τῷ Δημοσθένει, ὥς τινες εἶπον. καταλέλοιπε δὲ λόγους ἑξήκοντα τέσσαρας ὧν εἰσι γνήσιοι πεντήκοντα, καὶ ἰδίας τέχνας. πρῶτος δὲ καὶ σχηματίζειν ἤρξατο καὶ τρέπειν ἐπὶ τὸ πολιτικὸν τὴν διυανοίαν ὃ μάλιστα μεμίμηται Δημοσθένης. μνημονεύει δ᾽ αὐτοῦ Θεόπομπος ὁ κωμικὸς ἐν τῷ Θησεῖ. Ἰσαῖος ... Δημοσθένης: cf Phot. Bibl cod. 263 (490a) Ἰσαῖος ... σχολάσας: ch [Plut.] vit X or. 844b Λυσίᾳ ... εἰσίν: ef Dion. Hal. Isae. 2 (p. 94.6-10) ἥἤκμασε ... παρέτεινε: cf Dion. Hal. /sae. 1 (p. 93.4-7) καθηγήσατο ... Δημοσθένης: Caecil. Calact. fr. 125 et fr. 125a καθηγήσατο ... μυρίαις: cf Su. 1620 sv. Ἰσαῖος; [Plut.] vit, X or. 844c; Plut. Demosth. 5.6; Plut. de glor. Athen. 8 (350c) αὐτὸς ... εἶπον: cf Liban. arg. or. Demosth. 8 (pp. 602.22-603.12); Liban. arg. or. Demosth. c. Onet. Il 2 (p. 651.9-15); Zosim. vit. Demosth. 147 (p. 298.41-44) καὶ ἰδίας τέχνας: ef Dion. Hal. ep. ad Amm. 2 (p. 259.4-8) μνημονεύει ... Θησεῖ. fr. 19 (Theopompus, K-A VID Isaeus was a native of Chalcis, but when he came

to Athens

and

studied Lysias’ harmony of expression and forcefulness in arguing a case, so that unless someone is thoroughly acquainted with each man’s particular style, he would be unable in the case of many of the speeches to distinguish easily which orator was their author. He reached his prime after the Peloponnesian War, as one may infer from his speeches, and he lived until the reign of Philip. After leaving his school, he taught Demosthenes privately for the sum of

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 3

ten thousand drachmas, and became very famous as a result. In fact,

according to some, he himself composed the orations of Demosthenes against his guardians. He has left sixty-four speeches, fifty of which are genuine, as well as an art of rhetoric (tekhne) of his own. He was the first to start using figures and to express his thought using a common style,’ which has been imitated principally by Demosthenes. Theopompus the comic poet mentions him in the Theseus. 3. Anonymous, Genos Isaei (ed. Wyse [1904, 4-5]) Ἰσαῖος ὁ ῥήτωρ ἐγένετο κατὰ μέν τινας Ἀθηναῖος, κατὰ δέ τινὰς Χαλκιδεύς, πατρὸς δὲ Διαγόρου, μαθητὴς δὲ Ἰσοκράτους τοῦ ῥήτορος, διδάσκαλος δὲ Δημοσθένους ἤκμασε δὲ μετὰ τὸν Πελοποννησιακὸν πόλεμον, καὶ éxeBio μέχρι τῆς Φιλίππου ἀρχῆς, ὧς φησι Διονύσιος ὁ Ἁλικαρνασσεὺς ὁ κριτικός. Λέγεται δὲ μειράκιον μὲν ὧν ἡδοναῖς σχολάζειν καὶ πότοις, καὶ λεπτῆς ἐσθῆτος ἀντιποιεῖσθαι καὶ συνεχῶς ἐρᾶν, ἀνὴρ δὲ γενόμενος τοσοῦτον

μεταβεβληκέναι

τὴν

πολιτείαν

ὥσθ᾽

ἕτερον

ἐξ

ἑτέρου

δοκεῖν.

Ἄρδνος γοῦν ἐρωτήσαντος αὐτὸν εἰ ἡ δεῖνα καλὴ αὐτῷ φαίνεται. λέγεται εἰπεῖν “οὐκ οἶδα τοὺς γὰρ τοιούτους ἀφῃρέθην ὀφθαλμούς." Ταῦτα δέ φησι Φιλόστρατος ἐν τοῖς βίοις τῶν σοφιστῶν, οὐ πάντως περὶ τούτου λέγων Ἰσαίου ἀμέλει γοῦν καὶ Ἀσσύριον αὐτὸν καλεῖ. ἄδηλος δὲ ὁ ἀκριβὴς τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ χρόνος. χαρακτῆρα δὲ τὸν Λυσίου πάνυ ἀκριβῶς ἐζήλωσεν, ὥστε μηδὲ ῥάδιον εἶναι διελεῖν τοὺς λόγους. ἔστι δὲ αὐτοῖς ἡ κοινωνία κατά τε τὴν λέξιν καὶ τὰ ἐνθυμήματα, κατὰ μὲν τὴν λέξιν ὅτι ἡ μὲν Λυσίου ἐστὶ καθαρὰ καὶ ἀκριβὴς καὶ σαφὴς καὶ κυρία καὶ σύντομος, ἔοικε δὲ κατὰ ταῦτα πάντα ἡ Ἰσαίου σχεδόν. διαφέρει δὲ ὅτι -τῇ μὲν» πολὺ τὸ ἀφελὲς καὶ τὸ ἠθικόν, καὶ ἡ χάρις μεγάλη, ἡ δὲ Ἰσαίου τεχνικωτέρα δόξειεν ἂν εἶναι καὶ ἀκριβεστέρα καὶ σχηματισμοῖς διειλημμένη ποικίλοις ὅσον

δὲ

ἀπολείπεται

-τῆς

χάριτος»,

τοσοῦτον

ὑπερέχει

κατὰ

τὴν

δεινότητα. κατὰ μὲν οὖν τὴν λέξιν εὑρήσομεν τοιαύτην διαφοράν, κατὰ δὲ τὰ πράγματα ταύτην, ὅτι παρὰ Λυσίᾳ μὲν οὐ πολλὴν τὴν

τέχνην εὑρήσομεν οὔτε ἐν τοῖς μερισμοῖς τῶν πραγμάτων οὔτε ἐν τῇ ! On this meaning of τὸ πολιτικόν see LSJ s.v. V. There seems to be some dispute among translators as to what this passage means. Roisman, Worthington, and Waterfield (2015) render it as “to specialise in political oratory”, Fowler (1936) as “to tum his attention to the urbane style of the orator”, and Schamp (2000) “donner a sa pensée un tour oratoire”. See also Roisman, Worthington, and Waterfield (2015, 174 and 302).

4 Introduction

τάξει τῶν ἐνθυμημάτων, παρὰ δὲ Ἰσαίῳ πολλὴ τῆς τέχνης ἡ ἀκρίβεια. καὶ γὰρ προκατασκευσῖς χρῆται καὶ μερισμοῖς -τεχνικωτέροις», καὶ πρὸς μὲν τὸν ἀντίδικον διαπονηρεύεται, τοὺς

δὲ δικαστὰς καταστρυτηγεῖ.

πολὺς δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ δικανικῷ,

καὶ

σχεδὸν μόνον τοῦτο ἤσκησεν. ἀμέλει γοῦν πηγή τις τῆς τοῦ Δημοσθένους ἐκαλεῖτο δεινότητος. αὕτη δὲ ἦν ἡ διαφορὰ Λυσίου καὶ

Ἰσαίου, ὥστε Λυσίας μὲν καὶ ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων ἔπειθε λέγων, Ἰσαῖος δὲ

καὶ ὑπὲρ ἀγαθῶν λέγων ὕποπτος ἦν. Ἰσαῖος ... κριτικός (praeter πατρὸς δὲ Διαγόρου): cf Dion. Hal. Isae. 1 (p. 93.1-7) λέγεται... καλεῖ: cf Philostr. vit. soph. 1.20; Juv. 3.74; Phin. Ep. 113 ἄδηλος ... χρόνος: ef. Dion. Hal. sae. 1 (p. 93.7.9)

χαρακτῆρα δὲ ... ὕποπτος ἦν: cf Dion. Hal. Isae. 2-4 (pp. 94.3-97.9) According to some the orator Isaeus was Athenian, and according to others he was from Chalcis. His father’s name was Diagoras. He was a student of the orator Isocrates and a teacher of Demosthenes. He reached his prime after the Peloponnesian War and lived up until the reign of Philip, as the critic Dionysius of Halicarnassus says. It is said that as a youth he spent his time in diversion and drink, that he preferred clothing of delicate texture and was inclined to be amorous, but when he was a grown man he had so changed his way of life that he seemed to be a different person. Thus, when Ardys asked him whether a certain woman struck him as beautiful, it is said that he replied: “I don’t know; for I have lost the eyes with which to see such things.” So says Philostratus in his Lives of the Sophists, assuredly not referring to this Isaeus. Without doubt, for he even calls him Assyrian. The exact date of his death is unknown. He imitated the style of Lysias with great exactitude, to the extent that it is not easy to distinguish their speeches. They resemble each other both in language and in argumentation. As regards the language, in Lysias it is pure, precise, clear, literal and concise, and in all these respects Isaeus’ language is very similar. But it differs in that possesses great simplicity, moral gravity and much grace, Isaeus’ language appears to be more skilful in its technique, more precise and adorned with various figures; what it lacks it makes up for in forcefulness. This is the difference we observe as regards the language, as regards the treatment of the subject matter we observe the following: in Lysias we do not see much technique, either in the division of the topics or in the sequence of the arguments, whereas in Isaeus the technique is very precise. For he

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 5

uses anticipations of the arguments and more skilful division, and he

undermines his opponent and he wears down the dikasts with strategic tricks. He worked extensively on the forensic genre of oratory and he dealt in this almost exclusively. Naturally, he was regarded as the source of Demosthenes’ oratorical power. This then was the difference between Lysias and Isaeus, that Lysias could convince even when he defended injustice in his speech, while Isaeus aroused suspicions even when in his speech he was defending justice. 4. a) Harpocration 121 s.v. Ἰσαῖος

Ἰσαῖος:

εἷς

μέν

ἐστι

τῶν

δέκα

ῥητόρων

οὗτος,

μαθητὴς

δὲ

Ἰσοκράτους, διδάσκαλος δὲ Δημοσθένους, Ἀθηναῖος τὸ γένος, καθά φήσιν Ἕρμιππος ἐν β᾽ Περὶ τῶν Ἰσοκράτους μαθητῶν. Δημήτριος δ᾽

ἐν τοῖς Περὶ ὁμωνύμων ποιητῶν Καλκιδέα φησὶν αὐτὸν εἶναι. Ἰσαῖος Ἰσαῖος fr. 70

...

εἶναι: cf Phot. Lexicon 1201 s.v. Ἰσαῖος; Su 1620 sv. οὗτος ... μαθητῶν: FGrHist 1026 T15b, F45a,; Hermippus Δημήτριος ... εἶναι: Demetrius fr. 6a.

Isaeus: this is one of the ten orators, student of Isocrates and teacher of Demosthenes, an Athenian by birth, according to what Hermippus says in his second book On the Pupils of Isocrates. Demetrius however in his book On Homonymous Poets says that he was from Chalcıs. b) Suda 1620 s.v. Ἰσαῖος Ἰσαῖος: εἷς μέν ἐστι τῶν δέκα ῥητόρων, μαθητὴς δὲ Ἰσοκράτους, διδάσκαλος δὲ Δημοσθένους, Ἀθηναῖος τὸ γένος. Δημήτριος δὲ Χαλκιδέα φησὶν αὐτὸν εἶναι. οὗτος ἐπαινεῖται καὶ ὡς ῥήτωρ καὶ ὡς Δημοσθένην ἀμισθὶ προυγαγών. Isaeus: this is one of the ten orators, student of Isocrates and teacher of Demosthenes, Athenian by birth. Demetrius however says that he was from Chalcis. He 15 lauded both as an orator and because he

aided Demosthenes without payment. 5. Harpocration T2 s.v. γαμηλία

.. καὶ Δίδυμος ὁ γραμματικὸς ἐν μὲν τοῖς Ἰσαίου ὑπομνήμασι φησιν

εἶναι γαμηλίαν ...

6 Introduction

καὶ Δίδυμος πανδαισία

... γαμηλίαν:

Did.

pp.

315,

320;

ef

Harp.

ΠΟ

sv.

Didymus the grammaticus refers in his hypomnemata on Isaeus that

the gamélia’ is ... b) Summary of the information about Isaeus’ life From studying the sources relating to Isaeus’ life it is evident that almost nothing has been attested by a source in the orator’s own lifetime, apart from one reference to a mention of him by Theopompus the comic poet (see T2). The oldest known of his biographers is Hermippus of Smyrna (second half of the third century B.C.), of whom it is said that in the second book of his work On the Pupils of Isocrates he states that Isaeus was a student of Isocrates, the

teacher of Demosthenes, and Athenian by birth (see ΤΊ, T4.a and Ὁ). Demetrius of Magnesia, in the middle of the first century B.C., says only that he disagrees as to Isaeus’ birthplace; in his book On Homonymous Poets Demetrius designates Chalcis as the orator’s city of birth (see T4.a and b). Actually, the lack of Isaeus’ involvement in the public affairs of Athens favours the assumption that he was a metic®. The two most distinguished critics of the Augustan age studied the work of Isaeus, and they refer to the facts about the orator’s biography that were known to them. The first of these 15 Dionysius of Halicarnassus (T1), whose treatise on Isaeus survives and was partially copied by the writer of the Life of Isaeus wrongly

attributed to Plutarch (T2),* and by the writer of the Genos of Isaeus, which comes before the text of the orator’s speeches in the codices

(T3). The second important critic is Caecilius of Caleacte,° who among other things wrote On the Style of the Ten Orators and On Demosthenes, Which of his Orations are Genuine and Which are

? On the gamélia see §76n. 3 On

(1999).

Hermippus

of Smyrna

and his biographical

writings

see Bollansée

* On the pseudo-Plutarchean Lives of the Ten Orators see Roisman and Worthington (2015), and the interesting studies by Pitcher (2005, 217-234) and Martin (2014, 321-336). 5 For Caecilius see for instance Rhys Roberts (1897, 302-312), Ofenloch

(1967), Kennedy (1972, 364-369), Worthington (1994, 244-263).

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 7

Spurious,’

as well as Art of Rhetoric and On Figures.’ Caecilius’

views seem to be included in the pseudo-Plutarchean Life of Isaeus.* Finally, it is worth mentioning that Didymus Chalcenterus, who was a little older than Dionysius and Caecilius, wrote a hypomnema on Isaeus (see T5), in which he had probably also included information about the orator’s life, cf his Hypomnema on Antiphon (p. 310) and Life of Thucydides (pp. 321-334). An extensive commentary on the biographical information about Isaeus can be found in Blass 71892, 486-497) and Jebb (1893, 261271), which it would seem otiose to reproduce here. B. The trial

a) The legal dispute Pyrrhus, by testamentary adoption, adopted Endius, the son of his

sister. When Pyrrhus died, Endius inherited Pyrrhus’ estate without encountering any objection, and after he had been in possession of it for more than twenty years, he died without issue. Two days after his death Xenocles came forward and laid formal claim to Pyrrhus’ estate as the kyrios® of his wife Phile, on the grounds that she was Pyrrhus’ legitimate daughter. Furthermore, he attempted to occupy part of Pyrrhus’ estate (§22) but was not permitted to do so by the unnamed speaker, who denied Phile’s legitimacy and demanded possession of the estate on behalf of his mother, Pyrrhus’ sister. Xenocles objected as Phile’s kyrios* and submitted a diamartyria®,

that is, a formal declaration supported by a witness, in this case himself, that his wife was the legitimate daughter of Pyrrhus and the sister of Nicodemus. However, he was judged guilty of perjury at the trial which followed the lawsuit (dike ton pseudomartyrion*) brought against him by Endius’ brother. The sentence did not, however, signify the end of the dispute. Xenocles announced his intention to

proceed against the witnesses to Pyrrhus’ will (§56). Probably with the aim of preventing him from doing so, Endius’ brother brought a 6 See Su. K1165 s.v. Κεκίλιος. 7 See Ofenloch (1967, frs. 4-81). ® Although Ofenloch has been criticized for having included in his edition of the fragments of Caecilius many dubia (“fragments of doubtful authorship”), see for instance Kennedy (1972, 364 n.84) and Smith (1992, 170 n.25), I think that he correctly considered that part of the pseudo-Plutarchean Life of Isaeus was copied from the work of Caecilius.

8 Introduction

charge of perjury (diké tön pseudomartyriön”) against Xenocles’ main witness at the first trial, Nicodemus, who had stated that he had

given his sister, Phile’s mother, in marriage to Pyrrhus. The charge of perjury made against Nicodemus resulted in the court case in the course of which the plaintiff's speech On the Estate of Pyrrhus was delivered by Endius’ brother.

b) The people As with many of Isaeus’ speeches, very little information can be gleaned from the text of the speech about the people referred to in it. Because of the nature of the broader legal dispute, the facts relate mainly to the contested estate of Pyrrhus, valued at three talents (§2) according to the claimants Xenocles and Phile, and which included at least one factory (ergastérion) in the region of the Laurion mines (§22). Since this speech lacks a section on biographical proof (pistis ek biou), information about the life of the claimants 15 exceptionally limited: the near-sentence imposed in the past on Nicodemus, which he escaped by just a few votes, at a trial arising from a graphé xenias" which was brought against him by a member of his phratry* (837), Xenocles’ friendly relations with Athenian notables who are known from other sources, such as the politician and public speaker (rhetor) Diophantus of Sphettus and the wealthy Dorotheus of Eleusis (§22), and finally, there is some information (followed by deposition) about the life of Phile’s mother as a hetaira™ (§14). Apart from this information, the facts that are known from other sources about the main characters in the speech are confined to the possible connection of Pyrrhus with the Pyrrieion mine (see §22n.), while it is considered almost certain that Pyrrhus’ mother, Cleitarete, can be identified with the homonymous daughter of Scythes from the deme* Phrearrioi, who is mentioned in an inscription in the Agora dating from around 390 (see §30n.). The following is Pyrrhus’ family tree (stemma familiae).

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 9

Stemma familiae < Scythes >

Lysimenes

Chaeron

Pylades

Cleitarete

x

Nicodemus

9 =

F

{the defendant)

Xenocles

Pyrrhus

F

|

=

children

Phile

|

adoption

Endius

M (the speaker)

c) The verdict We do not know the outcome of the trial in question, in the course of which Isaeus’ third speech was delivered. I think it very likely that Isaeus’ client was the winner in the legal dispute that arose from the diké tön pseudomartyridn* against Nicodemus, since he had already successfully brought a similar case against another witness, Xenocles, in the context of the same legal dispute. Even though Athenian dikasts were not bound by the decisions of previous trials, nevertheless it would have been odd if they had not taken seriously into account the verdict of a recent trial, which had arisen from the

same type of proceedings between the same group of litigants. There is no indication that Isaeus composed the speech for the first perjury trial against Xenocles, but on his own admission he took much if not

all of his argumentation from that first trial, which of course had resulted in a successful outcome for his client (8811-12, 14, 17, 18).

Isaeus’ client clearly expected to win in court, which is why he initiated another diké tén pseudomartyrién™, with the aim of preventing further actions on the part of the main opposing party, Xenocles, who dispute (§56).

had announced his intention to continue the legal

10 Introduction

d) Dating There is no clear indication as to the precise date of the trial at which Isaeus’ third speech was delivered. Two witnesses, mentioned in §22,

Diophantus of Sphettus and Dorotheus of Eleusis, took part in public events from 368/367 to 343/342, and from 366/365 to 357 respectively (see §22n.), but this information does not help to establish a precise date for the trial. Wevers (1969), using statistical analysis based on the frequency of the appearance in Isaeus’ speeches of certain groups of syllables at the end of a sentence (clausulae), whose use in prose Aristotle deplored (RA. Π1.14 1408b 32-1409a 1), and taking as his starting point the four unequivocally dated speeches of Isaeus (V, VI, VIL ID, arrived at a chronological sequence in which the third speech is located among Isaeus’ early speeches; he suggests a date of composition somewhere around 389.° But as he himself concedes, it 15 not possible (and this continues to be the case in the absence of new information) to confirm the correctness of the dating. MacDowell is likewise mclined to accept that the third speech is probably one of the orator’s earlier works." Finally, a possible terminus ante quem for the composition of the speech could be the date when the law came into force forbidding the marriage of an Athenian citizen with an alien (non-Athenian) woman (xené), for I consider it possible that this law was not in force when the speech was delivered, see Introduction/Legal Issues, and 837n. The law is referred to in [Dem.] LIX.16 and 52, and was introduced between 403 and 340. Kapparis argues that the law was introduced

during the decade beginning in 380."! C. The speech a) Structure William Wyse in his monumental edition and commentary of Isaeus criticizes, as he does everything else, the structure of the third speech, as summed up in his view that “the composition (of the third speech) is crude, and the verbosity and repetitions offensive to a

° Wevers (1969, 21). 1° MacDowell (1971, 24-26). 11 Kapparis (1999, 198-202).

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrius (Oration 3) 11

reader.”'* However, a study of the construction of the speech shows

it to be subject to a strict logical order with clearly delineated sections. More precisely, with respect to classical rhetorical theory the following sections can be observed at the outset:! 1) 2) 3) 4)

Narrative (Diégésis/ephodos*) Prothesis* Argument (Apodeixis or Pistis) Epilogue (Epilogos)

881-6 87 888.76 8877-79 (80)

It is evident that the speech in question does not begin with a proem (prooimion) but goes directly into the narrative (diegesis), which I would define more specifically as an ephodos*, see 81. In this section (881-6), Isaeus refers to the previous history of the present dike ton pseudomartyriön*, which is the most recent stage in a legal dispute (see Introduction/Legal dispute). §7 follows with the prothesis* of the speech, which aims to prove that the defendant Nicodemus perjured himself when he testified that he gave his sister, Phile’s mother, in marriage to Pyrrhus. The aim of the long section of the argument (apodeixis: §§8—76) 15 to show convincingly that there was no marriage between Pyrrhus and Nicodemus’ sister, and that consequently Phile is at best an illegitimate child of Pyrrhus. The apodeixis is constructed as follows: I. 888-16: Phile’s mother was a heiaira®. 1) 8883-10: Questions about her dowry if any, the circumstances of her leaving the oikos* of her husband, the recovery of her dowry, the

marriages

contracted with other men

with whom

she consorted

before, after, and during her acquaintance with Pyrrhus. 1) 8811-16: The depositions relating to the life of Phile’s mother. Il. 8816-34: Refutation of the testimony about a formal marriage (engyé*) between Pyrrhus and Phile’s mother.

1) 8817-25: The absentee deposition (ekmartyria) of Pyretides. 11) 8826-27: The testimony of Pyrrhus’ uncles. 11) §§28-29: The lack of testimony for the (homologia) about the provision of a dowry.

formal

agreement

12 Wyse (1904, 276). 15 The structure of the speech presented here differs from the one observed

by Blass (71892, 538-540) and Wyse (1904, 288-366).

12 Introduction

iv) 8830-34: Drawing attention to the disparity regarding the name

of Pyrrhus’ “daughter” between the evidence presented by Pyrrhus’ uncles and the /éxis*, the formal written claim submitted by a claimant to an inheritance, submitted by Xenocles. II.

8835-76:

The behaviour

of all who

are involved in the legal

dispute demonstrates that Phile is the daughter of a hetaira*. 1) 8835-54: The behaviour of Nicodemus.

a) 8835-39: The non-contracting of a formal agreement (komologia) for providing a dowry at the time of the purported engye* of Phile’s mother. b) 8840-44: The absence of any objection to the epidikasia® of Pyrrhus’ estate to Endius. c) 8845-54: The absence of any objection to Phile’s engye* as daughter by a hetaira*® (ex hetairas ousés). ii) 8854-62: The behaviour of Xenocles. a) 8854-57: The absence of any objection to Endius’ possession of Pyrrhus’ estate for more than twenty years. b) 8858-62: The submission of an application to take possession of Pyrrhus’ estate instead of directly occupying it, as 1s appropriate for legitimate descendants. 11) 8863-71: The conduct of Pyrrhus’ uncles. a) 8863-67: The non-claim of Phile as epikléros* by any of them. b) 8868-69: Their lack of any objection to the epidikasia® of Pyrrhus’ estate by Endius without the legitimate daughter, as they maintain. c) 8870-71: Their lack of any objection to Phile’s engy2* as daughter

by a hetaira®. iv)

8872-76:

The

conduct

of Pyrrhus

himself:

why

he

adopted

Endius, why he did not introduce Phile to his phratry* in accordance with the rule, why he did not hold a wedding feast (gamelia) for the members of his phratry*. Finally, the epilogue (epilogos: 8877-79) contains a summing-up of some of the argumentation,” and the speech turns out to be “relentlessly argumentative to the last”,'” concluding with yet another argument, in the very last paragraph of the speech (880), that adduces the conduct of Pyrrhus in that he did not provide a meal for the wives

14 For this function of the epilogue see Martin (1974, 147-166). ' Usher (1999, 167).

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 13

of the citizens of his deme* during the Thesmophoria in honour of

his wife.

b) Argumentation The nature of the case in Isaeus’ third speech (as in all the extant complete speeches of Isaeus) did not afford the opportunity to the orator to include an extensive narrative account (diégésis). Instead, Isaeus breaks up the narrative of family history into small sections, which intermingle with his argumentation, and gradually provide details of the case, in a manner whereby a concrete story within the realm of Atheman law is formulated and becomes easily

comprehensible to the dikasts.'‘ The story Isaeus tells us in this speech is as follows. The daughter of a hetaira® (Phile) along with her husband and kyrios® (Xenocles), and using as their main witness her uncle, the brother and pimp of the hetaira® (Nicodemus), are attempting, by all possible means to seize the substantial estate of an Athenian, Pyrrhus, who once had an affair with her mother and has now been dead for more than twenty years. They claim that Phile, whose paternity is doubtful, 15 the legitimate daughter of Pyrrhus. They have also managed at some point to secure, for a consideration, the support of three of Pyrrhus’ uncles. On the other hand, Endius, Pyrrhus’ adopted son and brother of the speaker, who has recently died, cared for the bastard girl, Phile. He betrothed her to a citizen and provided her with the appropriate dowry for an illegitimate child. On Endius’ death, the opponents rushed to get hold of the property. The opponents, of course, had another story to tell the court. Their speech is not extant, but they presumably presented Phile as a disinherited orphan, who after the early death of her father was the victim of a family plot to deprive her of her substantial inheritance. Thus, not only had Isaeus (as every logographer) to present a plausible story, he also had to tell a more compelling story than the one told by the other side. In the present case, the argumentation of the opponents was mostly known, for this was the second round within the same legal dispute. Given that, Isaeus had the opportunity to support his story, the core of his strategic plan, with effective arguments from probability (eikota), which he founded on every possible relevant aspect of human behaviour, namely social 'S On the approach of storytelling in Athenian law, see Gagarin (2003, 197-

207).

14 Introduction

conventions, prejudices, statutes, profit, and emotion.

Isaeus backs

his choice by implicitly asserting that arguments from probability are more significant than witnesses, who could be bribed.’” Nevertheless,

the employment of this specific kind of argument in the present case is not disappointing or suspicious. In a society where birth and marriage certificates were not issued, these were the expected, if not the only, arguments one would employ to dispute someone’s legitimacy, and especially a woman’s, since women were not members of demes* and phratries*. The first half of the speech (to §39) is dominated by argumentation based on social practices, aimed at showing that the marriage between Pyrrhus and the mother of Phile did not take place. This would result in the condemnation for Nicodemus for perjury. The social conventions the orator is here exploiting are chiefly the giving of a dowry at a betrothal (888-9, 28-29, 35-39), the normal behaviour

of

a married

woman

(8810-16),

and

the

choice

of

witnesses (8818-27). The alleged marriage of Nicodemus’ sister without a dowry offers a fully developed argument from probability. Nicodemus presumably argued that he had not betrothed his sister dowerless (aproikos), but aneu homologias proikos (§§29, 35), that is, with a dowry which had not been subject to an official evaluation (afimetos). Such a dowry could not be claimed back in law after Pyrrhus’ death.'* For this reason, Isaeus accuses Nicodemus of lying. According to the orator no dowry was returned after Pyrrhus’ death, because there was no marriage. If a marriage had taken place, Nicodemus would have negotiated at least the agreement to a fictitious dowry, which would have benefited his sister 1f Pyrrhus had divorced her, or Nicodemus himself if his sister had died childless (836). Profit is clearly a motive used as the basis of arguments from probability in this speech,'” as well as emotion. Isaeus admits that Pyrrhus could have marned a hetaira® against all reason because of passion (di’ epithymian, 8817,

17 This strategy is outlined in Arist. Rh. 115 1376a 17-21). Bribery of Nicodemus is explicitly mentioned in §39, and is implied for the uncles in $33, and for the witnesses to Pyretides’ absentee deposition (ekmartyria) in

523. 1? See 833. The particular clause of the law was probably read in 838.

1? Also in 8839, 50, 65-66. On profit (kerdos) used to found arguments from probability, ef (Ὁ) Anaximen. RA. Af. 7.6 (1428b).

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 15

28). Thus, if passion had led him to marry such a woman, he would

also have agreed to a fictitious dowry for her.” It 15 noteworthy that Nicodemus wished to convince the court that he dowered his sister but in an informal agreement, while Isaeus with strong language disputes his justifications,’ and concludes that in the opponents’ story the mother of Phile was married dowerless (aproikos) (§§29, 38). The reason for the insistence on the issue of the dowry is that the provision of it was normally a significant parameter of the engye*. Although there is some testimony about women who were legally married dowerless, the provision of a dowry for sisters and daughters was a social necessity.” For this reason, if the Ayrios* of a woman failed to provide for her dowry because of poverty, wealthy relatives and friends often dowered her at their own expense. In this social context, the absence of a dowry provided a strong indication that there was no engye*, and that Phile’s mother lived with Pyrrhus as concubine (pallake) at the most. Isaeus cleverly raises doubts even about the status of concubine for the mother of Phile, when he compares Nicodemus’ alleged failure to reach a formal agreement about a dowry for his sister with the relevant behaviour of those who give their women to be concubines (§39). This comparison, tactically placed at the end of the first half of the speech, is equally effective in sketching the éhos* of Nicodemus, for it strongly implies that he was the procurer for his prostitute sister. And the worst kind of procurer in fact, for he did not look after her interests. The important probability-argument of the absence of a dowry is strengthened by the exploitation of another social convention, the expected behaviour of a married woman, which can be concisely expressed by the term söphrosyn@ (“prudence”). Phile’s mother

displayed an entirely different conduct, which is effectively described as aselgeia (“disorderly behaviour”, §13). She had various lovers before, but also during her “acquaintance” with Pyrrhus, and after his death (§10). She participated in symposia, and was the subject of 20 See also 8827, 49, 51-52, 71, 73 for emotion employed as a motive to found arguments from probability (eikota).

21 See 835: ὅστις γέ φησιν ἄνευ ὁμολογίας προικὸς τὴν ἀδελφὴν ἐγγυῆσαι, περιφανῶς ἀναίσχυντος dv ἐλέγχεται (“Undoubtedly someone who alleges that he married off his sister without making an agreement for her dowry is clearly proved to be shameless”). 22 See §8n.

16 Introduction

brawls (makhai) and serenades (kömoi), whenever she was present at

Pyrrhus’ house (8813-14). She was never betrothed to any other man (§16) and never bore the child of anybody else (§15). In short, she was available to everyone who wanted her (repeated in §§11, 13, 15, 16, and 77). The orator supports this description with extensive evidence, which included depositions by Pyrrhus’ neighbours (§14). Their testimony, actually gossip, was of great importance, because it was taken for granted that they knew everything about his life. Thus, they could speak from a position of secure knowledge about the woman’s conduct, when she was associating with Pyrrhus (§10). This fact raises strong suspicions about Phile’s paternity, for her mother “associated” with more than one man in the same period. A tactic of Isaeus in this speech is noteworthy. Although he only has to demonstrate Phile’s illegitimacy, he also expresses doubts about her paternity by Pyrrhus (§§30, 34) and even perhaps about the fact that she was the daughter of Pyrrhus’ mistress (§§15, 52, 73, 79). Further testimony is presented that Phile’s mother was a hetaira™, this time by people who had relations with her (§15). The truth of that evidence is demonstrated by the fact that the opponents never saw ΠῚ to contest it (8811-12, 14). The rhetorical weaponry of Isaeus also included arguments ad hominem (diabole)*”. Such an argument is directed against Nicodemus with respect to his prosecution for non-citizenship (xenia) by a member of the phratry* he said he belonged to. In the subsequent trial Nicodemus is reported to have been acquitted by

only four votes (§37). Prosecution for non-citizenship was shameful for an Athenian citizen, even if acquitted (cf Is. VIIL.44). The civic status of Nicodemus and his sister is still surrounded by suspicion, for she was proved to have been a hetaira*, and hetairai* were usually foreign women, freedwomen, and slaves. But this is not a

simple

diabolg*

against Nicodemus,

for Pyrrhus

probably

had

another strong reason for not marrying Nicodemus’ sister. Even if the

laws mentioned in [Dem.] LIX.16 and 52 were not yet in force, which prescribed a severe penalty against a family if there was proof that an Athenian citizen was legally married to a foreigner (xere), I assume that it was very unlikely that Pyrrhus, an Athenian citizen, would have married a woman who was suspected of being a foreigner, if the prosecution for non-citizenship preceded his affair

with Nicodemus’ sister.” 23 See $37n. and Introduction/Legal Issues.

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 17

The first half of the speech ends by leaving the impression that it

is very unlikely that Pyrrhus married Nicodemus’ sister. Different arguments from probability lead to the same end, without however being conclusive. What seems to be conclusive is that Nicodemus’ sister was a hetaira*?4 which is itself a first rank probabilityargument,” and strongly suggests that Nicodemus acted as her procurer. Isaeus ironically states in §10 that Nicodemus “has given his sister in marriage in the same way to everyone who has associated

with her”,

and

implies,

as I have

stated, Nicodemus’

“profession” in 839. Such a character was stereotypically portrayed to be avaricious, immoral,

and capable of base actions in order to

gain money.” This is specifically expressed, when Nicodemus is accused that “as eager to be dishonest in order to get a little money, which hopes to obtain by addressing you (in court)?” (839). This is actually the closing period of the first half of the speech, which the dikasts had in their ears before listening to the “legal” arguments,

adduced in the second half of it.” The most difficult issue Isaeus had to tackle in this speech was the presentation of witnesses by the opponents. They brought forward an absentee deposition (ekmartyria) by Pyretides, according *4 On the significance of the persuasive sketching of the portrait of the woman as a hetaira* for the successful outcome of the trial, see Glazebrook

(2005, 161-187, and 2006a, 125-138). 55 The importance of this argument is evident from the main question of the case, as expressed by Isaeus: πότερον ἐξ ἐγγυητῆς ἢ ἐξ ἑταίρας ἡ ἀμφισβητοῦσα τοῦ κλήρου τῷ θείῳ γυναικὸς εἴη (“whether the woman claiming the estate is the daughter of our uncle by ἃ lawful wife or by a hetaira®”’) in §6 and almost repeated in $24, and the answer offered by him in $11: καίτοι ὅπου κοινὴν αὐτοὶ ὡμολογήκασιν εἶναι τοῦ βουλομένου τὴν γυναῖκα, πῶς ἂν εἰκότως ἡ αὐτὴ γυνὴ ἐγγυητὴ δόξειεν εἶναι; (Ὑ εἴ, since they themselves have admitted that the woman was available to anyone who wanted her, how can the same woman be reasonably considered a lawful

wife?”) 26 See Davidson (1997, 94), Kapparis (1999, 229), Carey (2010, 178-183). 27 It is noteworthy that a strong negative remark on Nicodemus’ character, namely anaiskhyntotatos (“utterly shameless”), introduces the legal arguments in $40. In the first part of the speech, where the orator clearly aims at establishing the éthos* of the opponent, apart from ponéros (“dishonest”), Nicodemus is explicitly referred to as anaiskhyntotatos (“utterly shameless”) in $4, folmeros (“to have the audacity’’) in §4, anaides (“to have the effrontery” in §18), and again araiskhyntos (“shameless”) in

$35.

18 Introduction

to which he was present at the engyé*

of Nicodemus’

sister with

Pyrrhus. The ekmartyria was confirmed by two Athenians. Moreover, three uncles of Pyrrhus (and of the mother of the speaker) testified in support of Xenocles and Phile. It certainly gave the impression that Nicodemus was supported by both relatives (the three uncles) and non-relatives (Pyretides and the witnesses of the latter’s absentee deposition), and that the uncles were against their niece (the mother of the speaker) and backed up the claims of Phile. Isaeus places his counter-arguments on this issue just after the effective argumentation that Phile’s mother was a hetaira*. He also chooses a relatively early point in the speech for disputing, the testimony of the opponent’s witnesses. What follows in the second part of the speech is therefore more persuasive and could carry a retrospective force. The evidence of Pyretides was, in my opinion, more difficult to overturn. At the beginning of this section Isaeus emphatically states that Pyretides has disavowed his deposition and that he does not even admit that he has ever given one (§18). However, Isaeus cannot provide concrete proof to support this assertion, e.g. an exömosia” by Pyretides,”* thus he uses an argument from probability, which is intentionally long-winded (8819-27). Nicodemus claimed that he invited only a single witness, Pyretides, to a family event of such significance (and open to social suspicion because of the “profession” of his sister) as the betrothal of his poor (and prostitute) sister to a rich Athenian, although more witnesses would have been expected. Pyretides is not referred to as kin to Nicodemus. The same also holds for Dionysius of Erchia and Aristolochus of Aethalidae, the reported witnesses of Pyretides’ absentee deposition (823). The latter are emphatically defined as totally untrustworthy, but again no proof is offered to support this comment. Instead, Isaeus manages to

advance a clever probability-argument. Common that absentee depositions (ekmartyriai), which events,

are taken

in front of many

practice dictates are prearranged

and reputable

citizens.

It 15

suspicious that the opponents against social convention invited only two, dishonest people to witness the absentee deposition by Pyretides within the city, although other conduct displayed by them suggests that they also observed the common practice. To the eviction (exagöge) at Pyrrhus’ factory at the mine works in Besa, a place about 55.5 km out from the city-centre, the opponents called as witnesses many Athenians, apparently friends of Xenocles, among

28 See §18n.

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 19

whom

the

three

named,

Diophantus

of

Sphettus,

Dorotheus

of

Eleusis, and his brother Philochares were all well-known (§22). Since Xenocles had used such people as witnesses in the past, why did he not summon the same ones or others of the same social status and number to confirm the deposition about the event that lay at the heart of this legal dispute, the betrothal of his wife’s mother? Because, according to the speaker, Pyretides never testified. In this trial the orator also had the task of attacking evidence given unanimously by three of Pyrrhus’ uncles, the presentation of which was the most successful strategy of the opponents, but of course had failed before. According to the latter, they had been invited to Pyrrhus’ betrothal to the dowerless sister of Nicodemus (826), and to the tenth day ceremony (dekate) of his daughter (830). Additionally, they reported that before dying Pyrrhus had solemnly charged them to take care of his daughter (§71, episkeptein). Isaeus employs various tactics against their evidence. Firstly, the relation of the uncles to the speaker’s mother is carefully kept in the background, since they are consistently defined only as Pyrrhus’ uncles. In this way, the relation of the speaker himself to them is never mentioned. Legal dispute within a family aroused negative feelings among dikasts,”” which might be mostly directed towards the younger litigant, who in this case could be the speaker, Isaeus’ client.°° An argument from probability is again called for: given that Phile’s mother was a hetaira*, it is highly unlikely that Pyrrhus would have invited relatives to attend an event so shameful for the family (827). Isaeus also takes advantage of the inconsistency

regarding the name of the girl, in order to argue against the presence of the uncles at the naming ceremony (8830-34). That is, the uncles asserted that they had attended the tenth day ceremony (dekate) of Pyrrhus’ daughter, when Pyrrhus had given her the name of his mother, Cleitarete, although on the formal claim of Pyrrhus’

estate

the name of the girl 15 stated to be Phile. This argument is not as superficial as Wyse (1904, 309-310) thought. I do not believe that a change of name of a woman, and indeed of an aristocratic one which connected her to the paternal oikos*, was usual, hence Isaeus’

2° On the litigation between relatives see Wyse (1904, 186-187), Carey (1994, 28). 3° Cf for instance another prejudice of the dikasts against young people, namely the display by them of excessive legal expertise or ambition, on which see Carey (1994, 28-29).

20 Introduction

insistence upon this argument.

It is expected that Xenocles would

have mentioned it upon the formal claim of the paternal estate. Apart from undermining the uncles’ credibility, this argument has a second goal. The fact that change of name for women is attested for hetairai* and for daughters of hetairai*, strengthens the suspicions about Phile’s illegitimacy." Finally, as promised (end of 834), the uncles’ credibility is further attacked later in the speech (8863-71) through their earlier behaviour towards Phile, which implies their participation for a consideration in the plot organised by Xenocles and Nicodemus to seize Pyrrhus’ estate. Isaeus’ most effective tactic, used throughout almost the entire second half of the speech, is to check the conduct of his opponents towards Phile in the context of the law “on wills”, and especially against the stipulation which deals with the daughters of the testator. He aims to demonstrate that the opponents themselves, assuming that they acted in accordance with the law, treated Phile over a long period as illegitimate. The law “on wills” is referred to in §42, is

subsequently read by the clerk and is quoted by the speaker again in 868. The repetition of the law 1s not pleonastic. Isaeus mentions it tactically, firstly when he examines the misconduct of Nicodemus (his opponent in this legal dispute) and then, again, that of Pyrrhus’ uncles (the opponent’s main witnesses) towards Phile. The particular stipulation of the law appears to be accurately quoted by the speaker in 868, where immediately after the quotation, Isaeus offers his interpretation (“consequently, only together with his daughters can someone give away and dispose of his property. Without including

his legitimate daughters, a man can neither adopt nor leave to anyone any of his property”). In 842 the interpretation alone is given by the

speaker, presumably because the law is then officially read by the clerk. Isaeus manages to base the strongest argument of this speech on

two words of the law “on wills”, namely on the “with them” (syn tautais). He exploits the concise and general phrasing of the law,” or 31 See $30n. 32 The law “on inheritance and epikléroi*” was exemplified in the Athenaiön Politeia (9.2) as the law μὴ ἁπλῶς μηδὲ σαφῶς γεγραμμένος: ἔτι δὲ καὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ γεγράφθ[αι το]ὺς νόμους ἁπλῶς μηδὲ σαφῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ὁ περὶ τῶν κλήρων καὶ ἐπικλήρων, ἀνάγκη [πο]λλὰς ἀμφισβητήσεις γίγνεσθαι καὶ πάντα βραβεύειν καὶ τὰ κοινὰ καὶ τὰ ἴδια τὸ δικαστήριον (“In addition, because his laws were not written simply and clearly, but were like the law

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 21

in other words its “open texture,”” in order to prove the deceit of the

opponents. Specifically, Isaeus argues that the law obliged fathers with a daughter, when adopting a son, to stipulate that the latter marry the daughter, otherwise the adoption is invalid. The orator leaves no doubt about the correctness of his interpretation. The adverb “clearly” (diarrhédén) which introduces the law in §68, adds a tone of finality to the whole argument. The content of the semiperiod that follows the quotation of the law (“consequently, only together with his daughters can someone give away and dispose of his property”) sounds totally acceptable, for it appears to be a mere repetition of the stipulation supplemented appropriately, in order to build an independent and comprehensible clause. However, the subsequent negative semi-period is not exactly synonymous, although presented by Isaeus as such, for it emphatically (notice the sequence of negatives) conveys a more absolute interpretation of the

law (“without including his legitimate daughters, a man can neither adopt nor leave to anyone any of his property”). The latter intentionally replaces in the argumentation of Isaeus the actual stipulation of the law, and is even introduced instead of it ın 842. Isaeus is our only source for this specific part of the law,™ therefore ıt cannot be checked whether his interpretation was the standard one. My feeling is that it was, urged by social practice, hence the air of confidence in Isaeus’ argumentation. However, there

on inheritance and heiresses, it was inevitable that many disputes should arise and that the jury-court should decide all things both public and private”). Of course the view that Solon intentionally made the laws ambiguous is immediately dismissed by the author in the Arhenaiön Politeia, who stated that obscurities in the legislation are extant, because it is difficult to make general rules about human conduct. Translations of the Athénaion Politeia are from Rhodes (1984). On the concise and general tone of the legal stipulations, see Todd (2000a, 26-27). 33 Coined as such by Hart (1961). For examples of the way litigants in Athens approached issues posed by the “open texture” of the law, see Harris

(2013a, 175-212, and 2013a, 213-245).

* Also in Is. X.13: καὶ τῷ μὲν πατρὶ αὐτῆς, εἰ noldeg ἄρρενες μὴ ἐγένοντο, οὐκ ἂν ἐξῆν ἄνευ ταύτης διαθέσθαι κελεύει γὰρ ὁ νόμος σὺν ταύταις κύριον εἶναι δοῦναι, ἐάν τῷ βούληται, τὰ ἑαυτοῦ (“Again, her own father, if he had no male children, would not have been allowed to dispose of the estate without her: the law prescribes that he has the power to leave his property with his daughters to whomever he wishes”). Translations of the speeches of Isaeus apart from the third one are from Edwards (2007).

22 Introduction

is some

indication that in the case of the adoption inter vivos, the

adoptee was not obliged to marry the daughter of the adopter, on the condition that she is somehow included in the depositions, for instance through provision for her dowry, and indeed a generous one. If this also held for testamentary adoption, Phile would not be epikléros*/epidikos* after the adoption of Endius, thus she and her kyrios® could only have appealed to the court to dispute the size of the dowry provided.’ But this is not an argument Isaeus would put forward. He argues strongly that according to the story of the opponents, Phile is an epikléros*, whose maltreatment by her father’s adopted son was, most suspiciously, never contested in law by any of her relatives who now stand in opposition to Isaeus’ client. This argument is strengthened through the discussion of the particulars of the specific suit for the maltreatment (kakösis) of the epikleros*. The provisions of the law with respect to this suit are firstly mentioned and explained by Isaeus in §§46-47, while the actual laws are read in §53, at the end of the examination of Nicodemus’ behaviour towards Phile. The suit, as described by Isaeus, 15 tried by the procedure of impeachment (eisangelia™) before the arkhön*, 1s open to anyone who wishes (ho boulomenos), 1s free of cost and risk for the prosecutor (akindynos) but could bring the severest punishment to the convicted. However, the opponents/relatives of Phile did not take advantage of this legal procedure, so favourable to the prosecutor, in order to protect the interests of the epiklzros*. A clever tactic by Isaeus is to keep in the background as much as possible the key role of Endius in the betrothal and dowering of

Phile. Attention to the acts of Endius could turn out to be dangerous, for it could reveal inconsistencies, which would create sympathy for the opponents.

On

the other hand,

an omission

of any particular

reference to him would be suspicious, for Endius as kyrios* of Pyrrhus’ oikos* for more than twenty years had administered all its matters, including Phile’s marriage. The orator, who checks the behaviour of all parties involved in the case (Nicodemus, Xenocles,

the uncles of Pyrrhus, Pyrrhus himself), could not pass over his role in silence. For this reason, Isaeus compresses a brief discussion of Endius’ relevant acts into the section on the misconduct of Nicodemus towards Phile (8850-51). Endius is never said there to have acted illegally, not even in a rhetorical hypothesis, which would

55 See §68n.

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 23

easily be refuted. He would have been naive and negligent of the

laws on epikleroi* (but not unlawful), if he had not himself married the legitimate daughter of his adopter, because he would have had to hand over the valuable property he had inherited to the children born of her. The worst remark Isaeus expresses about Endius 1s placed in a rhetorical question, which is equivalent to a strong negation. Endius would not have been such a shameless or brazen adopted son (again, “unlawful” is not employed) as to give a legitimate daughter in marriage with a dowry amounting to not even a tenth of her patrimony. The blame for the alleged maltreatment of Phile is immediately shifted onto Nicodemus. Isaeus amply comments (8851-54) that it is Nicodemus who transgressed the laws of the city (read at 853) regarding the protection of the epiklgros*, if Phile, as Nicodemus has testified, is the legitimate daughter of Pyrrhus. Isaeus’

next

target

is Xenocles’

acts

regarding

the

claim

to

Pyrrhus’ estate, which in the light of Athenian law appear contradictory (§§54-62). These inconsistencies were probably heard at the trial against Xenocles. Although Xenocles claimed that Phile was Pyrrhus’ legitimate daughter and formally denied the testamentary adoption of Endius by Pyrrhus, he did not claim the estate of Pyrrhus from Endius while the latter was still alive, even after Xenocles had children by Phile, who stood to inherit Pyrrhus’ estate upon maturity. The existence of children in Xenocles’ family would likely avert the danger of aphairesis® of his wife, Phile, from him and her epidikasia* to her next of kin, Endius. On the contrary, Xenocles and Phile let Endius enjoy Pyrrhus’ property undisputed for many years, but rushed to claim it immediately after Endius’ death,

although the law allowed five years’ time after the heir’s death for claims of property. Additionally, although Phile, if legitimate, had the right to enter directly into possession of the paternal estate, she preferred to claim it by epidikasia®, that is through the procedure one had to follow when claiming the estate of a brother. So, in fact, did

the mother of the speaker who claimed in this “normal” way the estate of her brother, Pyrrhus. To those who would object that Xenocles did attempt to enter into part (the most valuable part?) of the estate (cf. §22), Isaeus has the answer ready. If Phile and her kyrios® believed that they had been illegally hindered from entering into Pyrrhus’ estate, they could have applied to the law and have the wrongdoer prosecuted (e.g. by a diké exoulés*), who would then have been subject to the most severe punishment.

24 Introduction

In short, the suspicious inconsistency observed in the behaviour

of Xenocles and Phile is as follows. Although they claimed they had an exclusive legal right to inherit the paternal estate of Pyrrhus because of Phile’s legitimacy and the invalidity of Endius’ adoption, the time and the procedure they chose to make their claim suggest that they applied for a brother’s property. This contradiction is rhetorically enhanced through the presentation of two alternatives regarding the time and procedure available to Phile. Namely, she could either claim the estate of Pyrrhus while Endius was still alive, or she could make a claim to her adopted brother’s estate after the latter’s death. I do not believe that Isaeus seriously means that Phile now had to claim the property of Endius as his sister. He was too competent a speechwriter and too much of an expert on the inheritance law to advance an argument which lacked legal weight” and undermined his clients’ interests, who also claim Pyrrhus’ estate (and not Endius’).”’ By this argument I understand that Isaeus just wishes to point to inconsistencies on the part of the opponents, which silently suggest that there was no truth in their allegations. Irony is often found in this speech,”* as here at the justification of the second alternative: Phile should have claimed by epidikasia® the estate of Endius, “especially since, as alleged by the opponents, Endius had betrothed her to Xenocles as though she were his legitimate sister” (§58). In the context of the information that Endius had dowered Phile with less than one tenth of the paternal estate (§51), which (coincidentally?) was equal to the biggest possible attested amount given to illegitimate children from their patrimony (fa notheia,

§49),*° and in juxtaposition to the constant repetition that Phile was married as if she were the child of a hetaira*”, it certainly conveys irony to hear that the opponents believed that Endius had betrothed

Phile as if she were his legitimate sister. Isaeus’ criticism of Pyrrhus’ three uncles regarding their lack of reaction to the maltreatment of Phile has been treated above, together

with the similar conduct of Nicodemus. Additionally, Isaeus argues that the uncles, to the benefit of their interests, would have claimed 3° The law, which prohibited the adopted son to dispose of the property of his adoptive father, is attested in [Dem.] XLIV.67-68.

37 CF 883,5. 38 See Introduction/Style.

3° See $49n. #° Explicit in $$45, 48, 52, 55, 70, 71.

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 25

the epikiéros*

along with the large estate of Pyrrhus by right of

kinship, when they realised that neither Endius nor his brother(s) intended to marry her (8863-66). The particular stipulation of the law on the aphairesis® of an epikléros* allowed them to have claimed her even after her marriage to Xenocles, a man totally out of the ankhisteia*. The law prescribes that even women given in marriage by their father, “by law”, “necessarily” become epidikoi* to their next of kin, when they acquire the status of epikléros*® after their father’s death. To the objection of the uncles that Phile was not epidikos* because of the adoption of Endius, Isaeus calls again upon the law “on wills”, which in his interpretation leaves no doubt (“one can very clearly learn from the laws”) that Phile became epidikos*, when Endius succeeded to Pyrrhus’ property without her. In order to injure the credibility of the uncles even more extensively, Isaeus holds them co-responsible for the inconsistencies observed in the acts of Xenocles (8866-67). The orator pushes this rhetorical tactic further, aiming at pathos* and éthos*,"' for this time he describes such conduct not only as contradictory, hence suspicious, but as defiant to the law (867 “illegally”). Isaeus leaves to the end the examination of the acts of Pyrrhus (8872-76), who, according to the uncles’ testimony (§71), cared for his putatively legitimate daughter and named her after his mother. However, his own deeds indicate that Phile was not legitimate. The conclusions drawn from his conduct are effectively equal to an absentee deposition (ekmartyria) of the dead father. His testimony 1s

superior to the absentee deposition by Pyretides, whose truth was of course disputed by Isaeus, and to the testimony of the uncles. Isaeus argues that Pyrrhus would have had no reason to adopt Endius if he

had had a legitimate daughter, for Endius in any case had the right of kinship to claim the epikléros* and the estate. Additionally, Pyrrhus did not introduce his daughter to his phratry*, although it had such a rule (defined as “law” [nomos] in 876). Pyrrhus also failed to offer the usual wedding feast to his phratry* (§76) and to perform the regular marital celebrations in his deme* (§80). In between these two

arguments from probability, which are supported by evidence, Isaeus places the recapitulation of the probability-arguments expressed in the first half of the speech (888-10, 15). In the light of the “legal” argumentation and of the two last “social” arguments regarding the

4! Explicit at 867: ταῦτα πρὸς τὴν ἀναίδειαν αὐτῶν πυνθάνεσθε (“Find out about these facts to counter their impudence.”)

26 Introduction

non-performance of marital celebrations by Pyrrhus in phratry* and

deme*, these first arguments now gain much in credibility. By strictly legal standards, both ancient and modern, Isaeus’ argumentation in this speech is inconclusive. Wyse and other scholars have expressed reasonable counter arguments. ” An account of the most significant is indicative. To begin with, even if Nicodemus’ sister was a hetaira®, this fact does not preclude her marriage to Pyrrhus. The absence of dowry was not proof that a marriage did not take place. The opponents did present witnesses to the betrothal of Pyrrhus with the sister of Nicodemus and to the naming ceremony of Phile. Nicodemus may have had no reason to oppose the succession of Endius upon Pyrrhus’ death, if the latter had included in his will the condition that the adopted Endius had to marry Phile, when she came of age. As for the absence of reaction by Nicodemus to the marriage of Phile to Xenocles, one could perhaps argue that the law did not strictly oblige the adopted son to marry the legitimate daughter of his adoptive father. Or, in fact, Endius may have come to an arrangement with Nicodemus, that because of his age and also for the benefit of the girl and the oikos* of Pyrrhus, he would not marry the girl himself but somebody who could provide an heir. Phile would, however, be able to claim her father’s estate, which would remain intact, after Endius’ death. Even if Nicodemus is presented as having neglected the interest of his niece for all sorts of reasons, he is shown to have been a bad uncle, but not proved to be a perjurer.

Xenocles may also have explained his long inactivity regarding the estate of Pyrrhus by his fear of losing his wife to Endius by right of kinship. Or Xenocles may also have been bound by an agreement

between Endius and Nicodemus. Such a deal would perhaps also justify the behaviour of the uncles. Additionally, the age of Phile or their own family life could give reasons for the uncles’ decision not to have claimed Phile themselves by right of kinship. The age of Phile or the condition of Pyrrhus’ health might be blamed for the nonintroduction of Phile to her father’s phratry*. One could argue that Pyrrhus’ care for his legitimate baby daughter had urged him to adopt Endius, in order to secure for her a protector. Finally, the omission of holding wedding feasts does not establish proof that there was no marriage between Pyrrhus and Phile’s mother. However, as far as plausibility is concerned, the argumentation of the opponents did present weaknesses, traced by the competent orator

#2 See for instance Carey (72012, 100-116), Edwards (2007, 44-46).

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 27

and emphatically demonstrated to the dikasts.

The most serious of

them appears to be the absence of convincing justification for the long inactivity of the opponents regarding the succession of Endius to Pyrrhus’ estate without marrying Phile, and her betrothal by Endius to the out of the ankhisteia® Xenocles along with a small dowry. Their behaviour calls for an explanation, especially since Xenocles disputed the validity of Endius’ adoption, and is demonstrated as contradictory through the authoritative interpretation of the laws “on wills” and “on epikléroi”*. A possible deal between Nicodemus and Endius would explain the inconsistencies, but could not be presented in court. Isaeus would be fully aware of this. Thus, the discrepancies remained, are emphatically demonstrated, and certainly undermined the opponents’ story.

On the other hand, Isaeus competently manages to present plausible, entirely relevant and well-structured argumentation, from which a reasonable story clearly emerges. His arguments are mostly

arguments from probability (eikota). Before launching them the orator prepares his audience. He proves that Phile’s mother was a hetaira* and strongly indicates that her brother, the defendant in this case, was her pimp. This invokes certain social expectations about the behaviour of such a person, certainly negative, and serves as an implicit Zthos*-argument. Additionally, the fact that Nicodemus’ sister was a hetaira” consists of a first rank probability-argument: 1s it likely that Pyrrhus married such a woman? However for the sake of argument, Isaeus acknowledges that Pyrrhus could have married a hetaira® because of passion, and he starts checking the validity of this working hypothesis against his probabılity-arguments (eikota), relevant, as we have seen, to many aspects of human behaviour, custom, law, profit, and emotion. The weakest among them are placed

fairly early in the speech (i.e. the disputing of the evidence presented by the opponents) and are preceded and followed by stronger or the strongest ones in the speech (ie. the “legal” arguments). The

arguments advanced by Isaeus refer to the behaviour of aff people involved in the case, namely Nicodemus, Xenocles, Endius, Pyrrhus’

uncles, and most importantly Pyrrhus himself. In the end, Isaeus succeeds in presenting a speech rich in sufficiently justified arguments from probability coming from all different angles, which all lead to the same conclusion, the one that favours his client. And this is very effective. To conclude, the third speech of Isaeus displays qualities which rendered it persuasive at least to its primary audience,

28 Introduction

the Athenian dikasts, and probably secured success for the client of

the orator in the trial.”

c) Legal issues On the Estate of Pyrrhus is an exceedingly important source of information about Attic inheritance law in the fourth century, and particularly for legislation on the epiklzros®. In Attic law, a man whose only legitimate offspring was a daughter, or daughters, could dispose of his property only with her or with them (syn taute or syn tautais, §§42, 68). Consequently, according to Isaeus’ interpretation, the adopted son, independently of the mode of adoption (inter vivos, testamentary, or posthumous), was obliged to marry the epiklzros*, thereby acquiring the use of the estate of his adoptive father until the coming-of-age of the children born of his marriage to the legitimate daughter, who would then become the heirs to the whole of their grandfather’s estate (§50). The married woman who became the epikléros® on the death of her father was obliged by law to become epidikos*® to her nearest relative in the ankhisteia® (§64). Lastly, the law had a mechanism in place for the protection of the epiklzros*. Any injustice perpetrated against her could have a lawsuit brought against ıt by the volunteer prosecutor (ho boulomenos) through the procedure of eisangelia® before the arkhon™, a process which had no risk (akindynos) for the plaintiff even if it failed to get any votes at all from the dikasts (8846-47, 53). Since, however, the information about these legal provisions comes in an oratorical text, in which the logographer makes selective use of passages of the law and goes on to interpret these to his client’s advantage, it is not certain that the issues concerning the epikléros*, and in general all the issues dealt with by the laws referred to in oratorical texts, were actually defined in law precisely as the orator makes it appear.” In this particular speech, the questions that arise regarding Attic legislation on epikléroi* are not

45 The reading of the third speech attempted by Wohl (2010, 278-285) is certainly interesting. However, I express doubts about intentions attributed to the text which Wohl founds on superficial correlation of words, as for instance the bowlomenos, that is the volunteer prosecutor, with the boulomenos in the phrase koinén tou boulomenou einai (“available to anybody who wanted her”).

* Illustrative on this issue with reference to Isaeus is the work of Edwards (2009,41 54).

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 29

easy to answer, because they refer to a case where the son adopted by

testament has proceeded to the epidikasia® of the estate without having married the (allegedly) legitimate daughter of his adoptive father, whom he gave in marriage to someone outside the ankhisteia®. No other testimony is available regarding the case in question, and even if such a thing were permitted according to a particular interpretation of the law, it would certainly be highly unusual in Athenian society. Isaeus sticks to a rigid interpretation of the clauses of the relevant law, ie. that the adopted son was not permitted in law to inherit the estate if he did not marry the epikleros*, and his basic contention that Phile was illegitimate rests on this interpretation. Yet was the law as inflexible as Isaeus would have us believe? Perhaps the syn tautais (“with them”) of the law merely defines the obligation of the testator to provide for his epiklgros* daughter, without necessarily citing the obligation of his adopted son to marry her. Perhaps the adopted son had a legal right, possibly declaring it to be in the best interests of the daughter, to give her in marriage to someone else after giving her a dowry. And if this legal possibility existed, did the adopted son have absolute freedom in the choice of husband and in the apportioning of the dowry? Did the mode of his adoption make any difference? And what would the status be then of the legitimate daughter? I believe that she would no longer be the epikléros* after her father had adopted a son, but she could become

epikléros* again after the death of her adopted brother. Isaeus invokes the binding

force of another law,

according to

which the married woman who became the epikleros® after her father’s death was removed from her husband and given in marriage to her nearest relative in the ankhisteia®. The orator does not leave any room

for the existence of reasonable exceptions, such as when

the woman who became the epikleros® was married to someone who was not her closest relation and was already the mother of a child or children. An oratorical text does not usually provide accurate definitions of the legal terminology it employs. Thus, to give an example of some of the problematic terms which occur in the third speech, it is not made clear what the legal implication is of the term diatithesthai/diathesthai (“to make a will”) in relation to the terms didonai/dounai (“to bequeath”) and eispoieisthai (“to adopt”),” nor

* See $42n.

30 Introduction

what

the

legal

aspect

is,

if

any,

of

to

synoikein

(“the

co-

habitation”). Lastly, one more provision of substantive law referred to in Isaeus’ third speech concerns the refusal of the right to appeal, in the event of the marriage terminating, for the return of a dowry which has not been valued (8835-38). Furthermore, On the Estate of Pyrrhus is an important source of information on procedural law. It contains a good deal of information about claiming an estate through diadikasia* and about dike ton pseudomartyriön*, since the speech was delivered in the course of a legal battle which was initiated by precisely that type of lawsuit. However, the third speech does not give us to understand that the verdict of the trial summoned by dike tan pseudomartyriön* automatically settled the question of the adjudication of the claim on the estate. Moreover, Isaeus’ third speech presents the only testimony we possess regarding the exact deadline for submitting a claim on an estate after the death of its legatee, which was set at five years (§58). Further, it alludes to apoleipsis, the procedure of applying for divorce on the part of the woman (§§8, 78). As I said above, Isaeus’ third speech describes the process of eisangelia® before the arkhan* for the protection of the epikléros* and declares it to be without risk (akindynos) for the plaintiff (8846-47, 53). Lastly, this particular

speech does not contain the information necessary to answer the question of whether the epidikasia* of the epikleros” came under the sole jurisdiction of the arkhör* or whether it was necessary for there to be a court ruling following a diadikasia*, and whether any distinction was made between a case involving only one claimant and

when there was more than one.” Isaeus’ third speech 15 pivotal for students of Attic law who are searching for an answer to the question as to whether, at the time of the orators in the fourth century,

the illegitimate children of two

Athenian citizens had the right to Athenian citizenship. This 1s an important question, the answer to which will cast light on a more general theme, which is whether the right to Athenian citizenship was defined by marriage or descent. This question has not yet found a

46 See $16n. #7 See Harrison (1968, 10

75 76). 48 See Just (1989, 55).

11), Karabelias (2002,

119

128), Cudjoe (2006,

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrius (Oration 3) 31

final answer, for as Hansen says, “the evidence is inconclusive”. It

continues to be inconclusive to this day, for as far as I am aware no new information has come to light which would clinch the matter. A great many students of Attic law believe that at the time of the orators, children who were illegitimate, even if both parents were Athenian citizens, were excluded from Athenian citizenship (metekhein tes poleös),” and their political status was probably equivalent to that of metics*.” In the best-case scenario, since they were not foreigners (xenoi), they enjoyed (unofficially) an intermediate status between citizen and metic*.*’ Other scholars believe that since engyé* between two Athenian citizens is not explicitly said to be a necessary precondition for conferring Athenian citizenship on their descendants, consequently the illegitimate children of Athenian citizens were Athenian citizens in their turn.” The arguments on both sides are plentiful and contributions to the debate are listed in the bibliography. Here, I will examine those elements in Isaeus’ third speech which may possibly help to answer our question. In this speech Isaeus argues that Phile is the illegitimate (for the term, see §41n.) daughter of a Aetaira®, which is why she has no right of inheritance to Pyrrhus’ estate. If she were a legitimate child of Pyrrhus, she would be epikigros*. The orator shows that Phile never had the status of epikleros*, a fact which, he says, is particularly obvious from the manner in which she was given in marriage as daughter by a hetaira™ (ex hetairas ousés). Nevertheless, his speech contains no reference to the illegality or even inappropriateness of the marriage between Xenocles, a citizen of the deme* of Coprus, and the illegitimate Phile, nor, consequently, about

the status of their children. However, since from probably the first decades of the fourth century, marriage and co-habitation as spouses (to synoikein) between a citizen and a non-Athenian woman (asté*)

4° Hansen (1986, 75). °° See Ledl (1908, 230), Gomme (1937, 75), Wolff (1944, 76 82), Humphreys (1974, 88 95), Davies (1977 1978, 105), Rhodes (1978, 89 92), Patterson (1981, 31), (1990, 39 73), Lotze (1981, 159 178), Hansen (1985, 73 76), Just (1989, 55 60), Maffi (1989, 177 214), Mosse (1991, 275). >! See Humphreys (1974, 94), Rhodes (1978, 91), Ogden (1996, 156, 164). 2 See Wolff (1944, 83), Patterson (1990, 45, 70). 53 Erdmann (1934, 377 383), Latte (1936, col. 1072), Hignett (1952, 343 345), Harrison (1968, 63 65), Vatin (1970, 118 120), MacDowell (1976b, 88 91), Walters (1983, 317 320), Leduc (1990, 277), Cantarella (1997, 97 111), Avramovic (1997, 262).

32 Introduction

was not permitted (see the laws in [Dem.] LIX.16 and 52), the fact

that an illegitimate woman could be given in marriage as a lawful wife to an Athenian citizen can be taken as a strong indication that illegitimate children were entitled to hold Athenian citizenship. This observation, first formulated by MacDowell, underpins the argument of those scholars who maintain that the illegitimate children of Athenian citizens were not debarred from holding Athenian citizenship. Even though scholars on the other side of the debate acknowledge to some extent the plausibility of this argument,“ they have reservations about it, countering with the argument that Isaeus’ third speech makes no mention of the validity of the marriage between Xenocles and Phile, because the speaker would then be exposing his own brother, Endius, who gave Phile as a lawful bride to Xenocles.’

Also, it is possible that the provision of the law set out in [Dem.] LIX.16 and 52 may not apply exactly to Phile’s status, as it forbids

marriage

and

co-habitation

between

Athenians

(astos/aste”)

and

foreigners (xenos/xene). Phile, however, could not literally be defined as foreigner (xene), even if, being illegitimate, she belonged officially to the same category as the metics®, so, taking advantage of a possible legal loophole, she might have been able to marry an Athenian citizen without any problem. Indeed, a woman who was the illegitimate daughter of two Athenian citizens, especially if she grew up in her father’s oikos*, could marry as asté*, since there was no need for any official public recognition of her political status (for example, registration in the phratry* and the deme*, exercise of

political rights), as there was in the case of a man.” It has also been maintained,

on the basis principally of Phile’s

case, that the illegitimate daughters of Athenian parents were not themselves astai*, but that they could Zegally marry Athenian citizens and that their children would then be legitimate Athenian citizens.”’ However, this hypothesis, especially its second assumption (that their children would be Athenian citizens) contradicts Pericles’

law: καὶ τρίτῳ μετὰ τοῦτον ἐπὶ Ἀντιδότου διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν πολιτῶν Περικλέους εἰπόντος ἔγνωσαν, μὴ μετέχειν τῆς πόλεως ὃς ἂν μὴ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν

ἀστοῖν

ἢ

γεγονώς

(“In

the

third

year

after

that,

under

> See for instance Rhodes (1978, 91). 75 This argument was first stated by Wyse (1904, 279).

°° See Rhodes (1978, 91), Ogden (1996, 164 165). 57 See Wolff (1944, 82 84), Bickermann (1975, 1 28), Hansen (1986, 75).

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 33

Antidotus, on account of the large number of citizens it was decided

on the proposal of Pericles that a man should not be a member of a citizen body unless both his parents were Athenians”).** It is more likely that in the (rare) case of a marriage between an illegitimate girl who was the daughter of Athenian citizens, and an Athenian citizen,

it was accepted not according to the law, but because it would not be widely known that the bride was illegitimate. However that may be, the case of Phile in Isaeus’ third speech cannot be used as evidence (especially as principal or sole evidence) for any of the above views. Only a few thoughts on the matter may be put forward for consideration here. It is certainly striking that the orator omits any reference to illegality regarding the marriage of Phile. But this does not necessarily imply that illegitimate children of Athenian parents had the right to Athenian citizenship. The omission may be due to the fact that the law forbidding marriage between a citizen and a non-asté* was not yet in force. According to current

scholarly opinion, the laws set out in [Dem.] LIX.16 and 52 could have been established at any time between 403 and 340; in fact Kapparis thinks it likely that ıt was introduced into Athenian law during the decade of the 380s. Isaeus’ third speech is considered to be one of his earliest (see Introduction/Dating), indeed Wevers dates it to 389. If we further take into account that Phile’s ekdosis* took place about eight years before the court case during which this speech was delivered, then it is quite possible that at the time of the engye* between Xenocles and Phile, the law was not in force.” I do not consider that the absence of a reference to it on the speaker’s part can be explained as an attempt to cover up the responsibilities of his brother and prevent a posthumous charge against Endius for breaking

°® [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 26.4. Also, in Plu. Per. 37.2 5, Ael. V. H. 6.10 and 13.24, Suda A451 sv. δημοποίητος. The law was introduced by Pericles himself in 451/450 and provided a definition of citizen status. It stated that henceforth citizenship would be conferred only on children whose father and mother were both Athenians. The law was not strictly enforced in the last years of the Peloponnesian War but was re-enacted by the restored democracy after 403/402. See inter alia Patterson (1981, and 2005, 277 285), Walters (1983, 314 336), Boegehold (1994, 57 66), Ogden

(1996, 59 72), Blok (2009, 141

170).

75 Kapparis (1999, 198-202). ®° To the best of my knowledge no other scholar apart from Lotze (1981, 173) has questioned the enactment of the law at the time of the ekdosis* of Phile.

34 Introduction

the law. The speaker himself alludes to the part played by Endius as

the man who gave Phile in marriage. If the law had been in force, the responsibilities of Endius would be obvious regardless of his brother’s concealment of them. Moreover, they would constitute a powerful counter-argument for the other side, who would reasonably retort that if Phile was accused of being illegitimate, then Endius should have been prosecuted while alive first for marrying her to an Athenian citizen. However,

I do not consider that in this case the

legal responsibilities of the deceased Endius according to the law would be transferred to his family. Further, if the law had been in force, Endius would have run the risk in his lifetime of suffering the harsh consequences that the law imposed on anyone who gave a nonasté* in marriage to an Athenian citizen. I think it likely, therefore, that the strict laws mentioned in [Dem. | LIX.16 and 52 were not in force at the time of Phile’s ekdasis* to Xenocles. Or if they were in force, they would not apply to the case

of Phile and Endius. That is, since Phile was not a foreigner (xené) pretending to live as an asté*-spouse of an Athenian citizen, the law would not prosecute her and the man who gave her in marriage. If the hypotheses put forward above are correct, they would explain the lack of reference to the illegality of the marriage between Xenocles and Phile by the speaker, who maintains that Phile is illegitimate. They do not of course resolve the question of the status of Phile herself. What does seem mexplicable is the motive which drove Xenocles to contract a lawful marrage with an illegitimate girl, as Isaeus’ client alleges, tf m fact illegitimate children were debarred from becoming Athenian citizens. In the case under discussion, the children of Xenocles and Phile would not only be

debarred from inheriting Pyrrhus’ considerable estate but also from acquiring Athenian citizenship. We have no information about the financial and social position of Xenocles, beyond the fact that he had friends who were prominent in political, economic, and social circles, and who volunteered to speak in his defence as advocates in the

previous trial, which might help us to understand the motives which made him marry Phile. It seems reasonable to conclude, however, that it would be unlikely for an Athenian citizen to agree to marry a woman (and in addition with such a small dowry) if by so doing their children would be debarred from acquiring Athenian citizenship and the privileges that went with it. Consequently, I think that Xenocles married Phile convinced that there was no legal obstacle regarding her right to Athenian citizenship, either because he knew beyond

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 35

doubt

(or had

been

so persuaded)

that Phile

was

the

legitimate

daughter of two Athenian citizens, or because he knew that despite being illegitimate his wife was not legally debarred from holding Athenian citizenship. If such a law had been in force, I think that any sensible man would have taken care to check on the status of the woman he proposed to marry, especially if it was rumoured that her mother was a hetaira” and if, although she had no legitimate siblings, she was not being married as the epikléros* but on the contrary out of the ankhisteia*, and with a small dowry of equal value with the biggest possible attested amount given to illegitimate children from their patrimony (ta notheia, see §49n.) out of an inheritance which was, additionally, so great. I do not, therefore, think that the information

in Isaeus’

third

speech helps us materially in deciding whether the illegitimate children of two Athenian citizens were able to claim Athenian citizenship.” d) Style Isaeus’ work has been studied by the two outstanding ancient critics of Attic oratory. He was included in the Canon of the Ten Aitic Orators which does not survive, and was most likely compiled by Caecilius of Caleacte, while, as mentioned above, Dionysus of Halicarnassus wrote an essay specifically about him and his work, something he did not do, for example, in the case of Antiphon, Andocides, and Lycurgus. It is clear from Dionysus’ surviving essay that Isaeus’ rhetorical technique and style, which were considered “the real spring from which the rhetorical power of Demosthenes flows” (pégé tis ontas tes Démosthenous dynameés)™, undoubtedly contributed decisively to his decision to study this orator’s work. Dionysius’ critical opinions of Isaeus were usually voiced in the context of comparison with Lysias. Dionysius declares that in the

‘1 The legal issues of the third speech are treated in more detail in the Commentary. Some of them are mentioned by Avramovic (1997, 77 96,

255 275). ® On its compilation by Caecilius see Worthington (1994, 244 263). For a different opinion see for instance Douglas (1956, 30 40) and Smith (1995,

66 79). * DP. H. Is. 3 (p. 95.11-12). The translations of passages of Dionysius of Halicarnassus in this chapter (“Style”) are from the Loeb edition by Usher

(1974).

36 Introduction

comparison Lysias fares better, because “the language of Lysias is

plainer and has a stronger moral flavour; its composition is more natural and the figures which it contains are simpler, and it is generously endowed with grace and charm” (D. H. Js. 3 [p. 95.4-7]). Similarly, on ethical grounds the differences between the two orators are ranked in their “treatment of subject-matter” (en tois pragmasi), that is “in the division of topics” (en tois merismois tan pragmaton), “the arrangement of arguments” (en ἐξὶ taxei ton enthymematon) and “in their development” (en tais exergasiais auton), and on these grounds Dionysius prefers Lysias’ oratory. When it comes to rhetoric, however, Dionysius praises Isaeus. In general, the rhetorical art of Isaeus compared with that of Lysias regarding the different compositional elements of a speech is “with more technical skill” (tekhnikötera), “with more elaborate structure” (tén synthesin periergotera), “more precision” (akribestera), “more force”

(deinotera),

and

is

only

inferior

“in

the

simple

and

straightforward style” (apheleia kai eleutheria) and “charm” (charis). The worth of Isaeus as an orator is enhanced by the frequent references to how much Demosthenes owes to him, whose rhetorical merit is beyond doubt.“ Isaeus’ writing, was studied and admired in the second century by Hermogenes® for its “rapidity” (gorgotés), “abundance” (peribole), “srandeur” (megethos), “florescence” (akmé). Hermogenes considers Isaeus, along with Lysias and Hypereides, to have been “most persuasive practical orators” (malista pithanoi politikoi rhétores). Isaeus 1s considered inferior to Demosthenes, the writer,

according to Hermogenes, of “the most beautiful style that one finds in practical oratory” (kallistos politikos logos), as regards the above types of style (idea), but he is greatly superior to Lysias, who only surpasses Isaeus in “force” (deinotés).”

6% See for instance D. H. Is. 3 (p. 95.11 12), 7 (p. 101.8 9), 13 (p. 109.5 6), 14 (p. 111.12 13), 16 (p. 115.3 4). On the admiration of the ancient critics for the style of Demosthenes, see for instance Wooten (1989, 576 588).

5 Hermog. Id. B11 (411). 6° On the theory of ideas of Hermogenes and its terminology, see Wooten (1987), and Patillon (1988, 212 278). English translations of Hermogenes’ passages are by Wooten (1987). 57 Of course this is not in accord with Dionysius’ judgement; on this see Edwards (2013, 43 49). It is interesting that apart from Dionysius and Hermogenes there are no references to the style of Isaeus by ancient critics. Cicero ignored Isaeus, because he was interested in the study of style which

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 37

Leaving

aside the details of the comparisons,

from

the above

Judgements of the ancient critics and his inclusion in the Canon it appears that Isaeus was rated an outstanding speech-writer, worthy to be compared with Lysias and Demosthenes, with an identifiable style and technique. And he was rightly so rated: the speeches of Isaeus that have survived contain elements that fully bear out such an evaluation. Isaeus’ third speech is an excellent example of his rhetorical art, which is characterised by the development of exhaustive argumentation.“ In the third speech particularly probabilityargument (eikos) is employed.” The presentation, documentation, and order of the argument rests on the measured use of figures of speech, figures of thought, and tropes sometimes in combination,” as for instance parison” (860), anastrophe* (§42), parekhesis® (882, 12, 59), polysyndeton® (886, 22, 31, 47, 51, 52), hyperbaton” (86), paronomasia®

(888,

49,

51,

60,

67),

anaphora®

(8810,

67,

75),

antistrophe* (8855, 67), proparaskeue* (§16), kat’ arsin kai thesin*® (8813, 21), spnkhéresis® (8817, 73), apostrophe* (8840, 45, 46, 48, 49, 69, 70), prolépsis/prokatalgpsis® (8845, 48, 66, 70), anakoinasis® (811). chiasmus® (§§59, 67, 75), pleonasm* (887, 48), metonym* (§5), euphemism (§10). However, the typical stylistic features of the third speech are question, irony, and repetition. Isaeus was the first orator to make such extensive and intensive use of the question as an element of style. Indeed, as regards this particular stylistic feature of his art, Dionysius compares Isaeus with Demosthenes

rather than with Lysias.”

Furthermore,

the extensive

use of questions serves the idea of gorgotes (“rapidity”), for which Isaeus, as I said above, 15 commended by Hermogenes.

Questions

constitute the stylistic feature par excellence of the third speech. Of all Isaeus’ works, the third speech contains the greatest number of questions, thirty-nine in all, and the greatest proportion of questions

suits an orator/politician, see Laughton (1961, 27 49). once by Quintilian (mst. XII.10.22) along with other other orators that he regards as belonging stylistically to 6 Aptly expressed by Robinson (1901, 35): “In Or. 3 all

Isaeus is mentioned Attic orators, that is the Attic school. is argument”.

© See Introduction/Argumentation, and Hatzilambrou (2010a, 19 35). Τὸ For definitions and the types of tropes, figures of speech, and figures of thought, see for instance Volkmann (1885, 415 505), Lausberg (1998,

242 411 [$§532 910]), Porter (1997, 124 150).

"DH 15 13(p. 109.4 6).

38 Introduction

relative

to

its

length:

one

question

for

every

two

and

a half

paragraphs.” They are all rhetorical questions, since they are not being asked in order to glean information but to serve a rhetorical purpose; this is why there is no expectation of a reply, even if a reply is quite often provided (see below). The questions confidently convey the arguments that they put forward while concealing any possible weaknesses, they give an impression of the speaker’s superiority over his opponent, and of course they stimulate the interest of the dikasts with their dramatic effect. Needless to say, all these effects are intensified when the questions are asked in mounting succession, e.g. in 8836-37, 39-41, 43, 45-46, 48-51. It is

no accident, I believe, that there 15 a build-up of questions when the behaviour of the other party, Nicodemus, is being scrutinised (8835-54), while the main witnesses for the other side, Pyrrhus’ uncles, are likewise “hammered” with various questions. Further, the

combination of questions with other figures of thought, such as hypophora* (872), apostrophe* (8841, 45, 46, 48, 49, 69, 70), and irony (see below), amounts to a highly impressive rhetorical means of reinforcing the argument in the third speech. For the sake of emphasis, the rhetorical question is frequently followed by a rhetorical answer, either affirmative (§§25, 39, 49) or negative (§§37, 51, 65).” Lastly, a stylistic feature in Isaeus worth mentioning is the

use of the rhetorical question after the law and the testimony have

been read out (8839, 43, 54, 77). Isaeus

1s

also

the

first

orator

to

use

irony

so

extensively,

particularly in the second, third, and fifth speeches. In the third speech the irony 1s easy to detect in §§8, 10, 11, 14, 24, 27, 31, 32,

” See Edwards (2006, 71). 15 Repetition also characterises the rhetorical answers: ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ ob νομίζω (“I for my part certainly do not think so”, in $$37, 51), μὴ νομίσητε ὑμεῖς, & ἄνδρες (“Do not believe it, gentlemen” in 865), vai μὰ Δία, ὡς ἔγωγε ᾧμην «ἄν», ef ye ἦν ἀληθὲς τὸ πρᾶγμα (“Yes by Zeus, that is what I would have thought, if what was being claimed were true” in §25), vat μὰ Δία, ὡς ἔγωγ᾽ οἶμαι (“Yes, by Zeus he would in my opinion” in §39), ναὶ μὰ Δία, εἴ γ᾽ἦν ἀληθὲς τὸ πρᾶγμα (“Yes by Zeus he would, if what he alleges were true” in §49). The frequent use of rhetorical answer 15 a stylistic feature of the works of Isaeus in comparison with its use by earlier orators. * On the question as stylistic feature of Isaeus’ works see Robinson (1901, 32 40), Baden (1906, 26 31), Denomme (1974, 138 144). Additionally, see

Martin (1974, 284 286) and Lausberg (1998, 340 341 [$$767 770]) for the references to question as a stylistic element in the works of the rhetoricians.

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 39

34, 37, 39, 66, 70, 71, 72-73. It adds emphasis to arguments which

expose contradictions (to the point of axymöron”) in the behaviour and statements of the other party. It is often expressed through the use of rhetorical questions (§§11, 32, 37, 39, 65, 70, 71), A4ypophora™

(8824, 72-73), gname* (866), also, as “something said pretending to say the opposite” (logos prospoioumenos to enantion legein)” irony is concentrated in specific words with a positive (§70: ἀλλ᾽ ὦ ἀγαθέ [“but, my dear fellow”], §71: ἐπεμελήθητε [“did you look after her”]) as well as a negative meaning (§24: πάρεργον καὶ φαῦλον [“trivial

and insignificant” ]).”° Lastly, a particular stylistic feature in Isaeus is repetition, which forms part of his strategy regarding the structure and advancing of his argument. Palau Cataldi (1976) has pointed out what she calls the psychological function of repetition as a persuasive weapon in the work of Isaeus, especially in the third speech. All the basic arguments, especially the “legal” ones, are repeated whenever any new evidence for them is introduced, e.g. §§41, 43, 45, 48, 49, 51, 52. There may be some truth in the assessment of Robinson (1901, 6), who says that by repeating his arguments Isaeus is attempting to deceive the dikasts into believing that he has a great many such at his disposal. Some arguments are formulated all over again, because they apply both to the behaviour of the defendant, Nicodemus, and of Pyrrhus’ uncles, for one of the orator’s principal intentions is to scrutinise the behaviour of all those involved which, he says, leads to the same conclusion: that Phile was the daughter of a hetaira”, not of

a lawful wife. In setting out the key arguments, the same or almost the same words, expressions and syntactic structures are employed, typical cases being the repetition of the expressions koin&/hetaira®

tou boulomenou/toi boulomenöi with reference to Phile’s mother in 8811, 13, 15, 16, and again at the end of the speech at 877 (koinen

* Alex. Num. Fig. III 22.30 31. Also (?) Anaximen. Rh. Al. 21.1 (1434a): εἰρωνεία δ᾽ ἐστὶ λέγειν τι μὴ λέγειν προσποιούμενον ἢ [ἐν] τοῖς ἐναντίοις ὀνόμασι τὰ πράγματα προσαγορεύειν (“Irony is to say something while pretending not to say it or to address matters with the opposite words”, translation from the Loeb edition by Mirhady [2011]). 16 On irony as a figure of speech and a figure of thought, see Volkmann

(1885, 432 434), Martin (1974, 263 264), Lausberg (1998, 266 268 [$$582 585], 403 407 [$§902 904], 689 690 [$1244]), Porter (1997, 128

129). On irony specifically in the works of Isaeus, see Robinson (1901,

50 51), Baden (1909, 35), Denomme (1974, 130

135).

40 Introduction

tois boulomenois), and hés ex hetairas* ousan ın §§45, 48, 52, 55

(twice) 70, 71 with justified, because characterisations is of great significance

reference to Phile. Isaeus’ persistence is totally the dikasts’ belief in the validity of these the end (telos) of the speech in question.” Also is the repetition of the same questions in 888-10

and 78—79, and of the law in §§42 and 68, for the function of which

see the Introduction/Argumentation.* Finally, the use of Aiatus*, that is the clashing of final with initial vowels, is interesting in the third speech, which is one of the speeches of Isaeus which make the most frequent use of it.” Research has not been able to explain the distinction between the avoidance or non-avoidance of hiatus* in Isaeus’ speeches (e.g. the almost total avoidance of it in speeches I, VII, VIII, XI, which is not

the

case

with

the

others).

The

earlier

or

later

date

of their

composition would not appear to play any part, as Benseler maintains

(1841, 192) but Wyse rightly does not accept (1904, 178-179). The latter, of course, went as far as suggesting that as a professional logographer, Isaeus would charge more for the speeches without hiatus”, and that this difference between speeches with and without hiatus® was directly linked to the fee and the time that the orator had at his disposal. Needless to say, this hypothesis cannot be verified and is based, in my opinion, on the mistaken principle that a text which does not have any Aiatus* is stylistically superior. This principle does not seem to be shared, either, by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the only critic of ancient times who concerned himself with the subject (Dem. 38 [pp. 210.9-211.16]), and who did not maintain that the style of a composition using Aiatus* was inferior, noting only that it is a feature

of “the austere old-fashioned style of composition, which aims at dignity rather than elegance” (τῆς μὲν οὖν αὐστηρᾶς Kai φιλαρχαίου Kai μὴ τὸ κομψὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ σεμνὸν ἐπιτηδευούσης ἁρμονίας). © Moreover, hiatus® 1s used a good deal by Demosthenes in the

77 Some figures of speech that Isaeus used are based on repetition, e.g. anaphora*. Robinson (1901, 5 10) actually lists them as “figures of repetition”. 78 On repetition in the works of Isaeus, see also Albrecht (1883, 368 370), Miller (1936, 442 444), Denomme (1974, 168 179), Palau Cataldı (1976, 137 141,139 140 on repetition in the third speech), Carey (2005, 20 21).

79 For a list see Benseler (1841, 188). 80 ἢ) H. Dem. 38 (pp. 210.9 211.5).

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrius (Oration 3) 41

speeches that he himself delivered.*' Modern scholarship accepts that

hiatus” was a stylistic method whereby the orator could slow up the delivery, so as to aid correct enunciation, e.g. before polysyllabic words, and chiefly to add emphasis and possibly a note of gravity to certain sections of the oratorical text.” I concur with this view as regards the function of certain notable instances of hiatus* in the third speech, especially when they occur in succession,

see for example

§§1n.,

12n., and

18n. Finally, the

presence of so many instances of Aiatus* in the third speech, as compared with Isaeus’ other speeches, may have been a matter of choice on the orator’s part which had to do with the personality and rhetorical gifts of his client. However, the presence of more instances of hiatus* in the first part of the speech than the second is interesting and may have a connection with the argument itself. Regarding the presentation of Aiatus*, elision, and movable nu, I have decided to keep the relevant readings in my edition as they have been transmitted by A, as is the common editorial practice when the edition of the text is based on one manuscript. I should, however, warn readers that the codex is inconsistent, as is generally the case with all manuscripts which are witnesses for prose texts, as to whether or not the rules of elision etc. were applied for the removal of hiatus*. Of course, as is well known, in some cases (e.g. with γέ, δέ, οὐδέ, ἀλλά, τε, etc.) Aiatus™ is only superficial, because it seems to have been removed from the spoken word, even if it was not written down. Also, common hiatus*, for example

after καί, ὅτι, and

the

delivery

definite

article,

could

be

avoided

during

by

the

introduction of a transitory semi-vowel.” Obviously, these unavoidable types of Aiatus* do not amount to a stylistic feature and play no part in my rhetorical and stylistic analysis of the speech. In conclusion, I consider that the study of the style of Isaeus’ third speech confirms Usher’s view (1999, 169-170) that Isaeus “in

rhetorical usage [... ] 1s not so much an innovator as an elaborator”.

51 See Pearson (1975, 138 159). 82 See Pearson (1975, 138 139, and 1978, 131 145). ®3 See Pearson (1978, 131 132).

42 Introduction

D. The transmission of the text

a) Manuscript tradition The edition of the text parchment codex Burney is held in the British Constantinople during the

of Isaeus’ third speech is based on the 95 (A), known as the Crippsianus, which Library in London. It was written ın first quarter of the fourteenth century” by

the so-called Metochitesschreiber,”

who

has now

been

identified

with the imperial scribe Mikhael Klostomalles (PLP 11867). The manuscript ended up in the library of Vatopedi Monastery on Mount Athos, probably as part of the donation of the emperor Ioannes VI

Kantakouzenos between 1347 and 1354.°° It was discovered there by Janus Lascaris, who arranged for it to be copied.** The more recent history of the codex begins around 1802, when it was sent by the Phanariot prince Alexander Bano Handzerli to J. M. Cripps in Great Britain. In 1808 the manuscript was auctioned and passed into the possession of C. Bumey, whose entire collection of manuscripts and books was bought in 1818 by the British Museum after his death.” The codex consists of 174 folia and constitutes the chief witness of the text of the so-called minor orators: Andocides, Antiphon, Isaeus, Lycurgus, and Dinarchus.” The third speech of Isaeus occupies ff. 34v—Alv.

* The dating of the codex to the beginning of the fourteenth century (instead of the dating to the thirteenth century) had been already suggested by Wilson (1960, 202) on the grounds of similarity between the hand (seriptio) of A and

that of two chrysobulls from the chancery

of the Paleologoi emperors

Andronikos II and Andronikos III.

85 For description of his hand see Hunger (1991, 154 156), Prato (1994, 123

131).

°° The identification was made by Lamberz;

see Lamberz (2000,

155

159)

and (2006, 44 48).

#7 See Lamberz (1998, 571). #° Lascaris visited Mount Athos in 1491 during his second mission to Greece for the discovery of manuscripts on behalf of Lorenzo dei Medici. On Mount Athos Lascaris’ search for manuscripts was focused on the libraries of the monasteries of Megiste Laura and Vatopedi. When he returned to Florence in 1492, he brought with him about 200 manuscripts from the libraries of Mount Athos. See Speake (1993, 325 330). 89 For more on the recent history of A see Wyse (1904, viii xii).

°° See Pattie and McKendrick (1999, 58 59).

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 43

The paper codex Plut. IV, 11 (B), which is held in the Medicea

Laurenziana Library in Florence, is the result of the above-mentioned copying of A in Vatopedi Monastery. Janus Lascaris brought the manuscript to Florence, and between 1492 and 1494/5 scholarly copyists in Lascaris’ circle in Florence produced the codices Bibl. Naz. Marc. gr. app. VIII, 6 (L), Burney 96 (M), Bibl. Ambros. A 99 sup. (P), and Vat. Chig. Gr. 34 (V) (see below).*' Codex B consists of 120 folia; Isaeus’ third speech takes up ff. 31-36. The parchment codex Bibl. Nazionale Marciana gr. app. VIII,

6 (L) was written by Aristoboulos Apostoles (RGK I 27, II 38, II 46),* who was in Florence around 1492 and became a member of Lascaris’ circle. It consists of 140 folia, with Isaeus’ third speech on ff. 31-37. The paper codex Burney 96 (M) in the British Library was written by Markos Mousouros (RGK I 65, II 359, ΠῚ 433) with corrections and additions that are attributed to Aristoboulos Apostoles and Kaisar Strategos (RGK II 292, III 348eb).” It consists of 206 folia. Isaeus’ third speech is on ff. 31-37. The paper codex Bibl. Ambrosiana A 99 sup. (P) was written by

Mikhael Souliardos (RGK I 286, II 392, III 468) The codex

consists of 270 folia. Isaeus’ third speech 15 on ff. 28-34. The parchment codex Chig. gr. 34 (= Vat. Chig. R.V1.42) (V) is in the Apostolica Vaticana Library. This too was written by Aristoboulos Apostoles. The codex has 93 folia. Isaeus’ third speech is on ff. 31-37v. The paper codex Magdal. 1069 (Z) is in the Library of the

University of Wroclaw (BU Oddzial Reckopisow). It was written by

Manuel Gregoropoulos (RGK I 249, II 342, III 411)” at the end of the fifteenth century or the beginning of the sixteenth.

The

codex

consists of 216 folıa. Isaeus’ third speech is on ff. 28v-34. >! See Speranzi (2010a, 351 374). ?2 See Speranzi (2010a, 351 353,359 361). ” See Speranzi (2010a, 359 361, and 2010b, 190 192). On the text of Isaeus’ third speech I have noticed interventions only by the hand of Kaisar Strategos. Namely, I have spotted marginal notes by him in ff. 31v, 33v, and interlinear corrections in ff. 33v (tod κλήρου, μαρτυρίας), 35v (τολμη-}), 36ν (γνησίων). See note on 216 of the codex. Folia 228 (line 7) 231 (line 8) were written by Ioannes Moskhos (RGK I 203, II 279, III 336). See Speranzi

(2010a, 363 366). * The scribe was identified by Harlfinger (1971, 412).

44 Introduction

The history of the manuscripts discourages any attempt to portray

the relationship between the codices made as copies of B by the construction of a stemma, because of the chronological proximity of the writing of L, M, P, and V in the same city, Florence, by copyists who belonged to the same circle, that of Lascaris, and also because of

the identification of one of M’s correctors as the scribe of L and V.” However, the collation of the text of Isaeus’ third speech in all the manuscripts that transmit it, which I myself have undertaken, proves that the relationships between the surviving manuscripts are as follows and can be illustrated stemmatically. Codex B is confirmed as being a direct copy of A, as we know from the manuscript history. It contains all the errors in A and in addition has some of its own, mainly omissions, misreadings of letters, and wrong interpretations of contractions. The remaining manuscripts (LMPVZ) reproduce the errors of B as well as containing a great number of others, as indicated below. The following are some examples: 85 κατέστη A : κατέστεν B : κατέστενε LMPVZ 826 τῇ ante ἐγγύῃ om. BLMPVZ §29 ὀλίγα A : ὁ λόγος BLMPVZ 856 ὡς δ᾽ oby : ὡς δι᾽ οὐχ BLMPVZ 866 ἀνθρώπων... ἀλλοτρίους om. BLMPVZ 870 ἀδελφιδοῦ A : ἀδελφοῦ BLMPVZ 870 ὑμετέρου A: ἡμετέρου BLMPVZ, 874 viv om. BLMPVZ 875 ἐκ δὲ τοῦ τοῦτον μὲν A: ἐκ δὲ τούτου τὸν μὲν BV

: ἐκ δὲ

τούτου, τὸν μὲν LM'P : ἐκ δὲ τούτου, τὴν μὲν ΜΖ In a very few cases, the manuscripts made by copying B give the correct reading, probably because the copyist of L (see below) has

corrected the errors of B, as 15 clear from the following examples: §28 ἕξειν ALPV : ἕξιν BMZ 830 τῆς γυναικὸς ALMPYVZ : τοῖς γυναικὸς B 836 ἔμελλεν ALPVM : ἔμελεν Β : ἔλεγεν M'Z

°° See Speranzi (2010a, 370 373).

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 45

The manuscripts MPV are apographa® of L. They transmit almost all

the errors of L,°’ while Lastly codex Z has been contains a great many manuscripts LMPVZ can

containing errors peculiar to themselves. copied from M. It has the errors of M, and more as well. The relationships of the be discerned in the following examples:

Shared errors LMPVZ:

812 ἐπεσκημμένοι AB : ἐσκεμμένοι LMIPVZ 818 Iluperiönv AB : Πυθετίδην LMPVZ 821 ἐκμαρτυρήσαντι AB : μαρτυρήσαντι LMPVZ

828 ei post δ᾽ om. LMPVZ 833 λήξεως AB : λέξεως LMPVZ 836 ὄφελος om. LMPVZ

840 ὥστε οὐκ ἀπορῶ.... 843 852 867 860 873 876 §78 §80

περὶ αὐτοῦ om. LMPVZ

Ἔνδιος AB : Ἔνδικος LMP VZ κλήρου om. LMPVZ κλήρου om. LMPVZ καὶ ante ἐμαρτυρήσατε om. LMPVZ ἔδει οι. LMPVZ, tod ante νόμου add. LMPVZ τῷ Πύρρῳ AB : τοῦ Πύρρου LMPVZ κεκτημένος A : κεκτημένοι Β : κεκτημένη LMPVZ

Distinguishing errors P: 81 μητρὸς τῆς om. P (added Μ' above the line) §50 εἰσποιήτων om. P

853 ἀνάγνωθι δὴ ABLMVZ : ἀνάγνωθι δὲ P 876 μαρτυρία ABLV

; om. ΜΖ : μαρτυρία φρατόρων P

Distinguishing errors V: 81 τῆς ante μητρὸς om. V 81 πλείω ἔτη ἢ εἴκοσι ABLMPZ : ἔτη πλείῳ ἢ εἴκοσι V 810 τοὺς ante προστυχόντας om. V 822 Σφήττιον ABLMPZ : Σφήτιον V 51 Exceptions consist of a few passages where apographa* of L transmit the correct readings, because the copyists of the particular codices apparently corrected the errors of their exemplar, e.g. in 842 πρότερον ABMZ : πότερον LPV, in $56 παρεσκευασμένος AMZ : παρασκεβασμένος B παρασκευασμένος LPV, in 865 νομίσητε AM'PZ : νομίσιτε B : νομίσηται

LMV.

46 Introduction

842 6 ante ποιησάμενος om. V 843 ὥς ye ABLMPZ : 6c ye V 857 ἤδη om. V

858 τῷ Ἐνδίῳ ABLMPZ : τῶν Ἐνδίῳ V 870 εἰσὶ παῖδες αὐτῇ ABLMPZ : παῖδες εἰσὶ παρ᾽ αὐτῇ V The MZ manuscripts have many common errors which distinguish them from the others. The following are some examples: Hypothesis*® υἱῶν ABLPV : υἱὸν MZ 88 ἀδελφὴν ABLPV : προῖκα ΜΖ 80 δικάσασθαι ABLPV : διαδικάσασθαι MZ 812 Μαρτῃρίαι om. ΜΖ 817 καὶ ἀκρατῶς ἔχοντες αὑτῶν om. ΜΖ

824 καὶ ante νὴ Δία add. ΜΖ, 826 τὴν τοιαύτην om. ΜΖ 828 ἐκείνου ABLPV : τούτου ΜΖ

828 ὁ ἐγγυῶν ABLPV : ὁμολογῶν ΜΖ 830 τοῦ Πύρρου θεῖοι ABLPV : τοῦ θείου Πύρροι ΜΖ

834 οἱ δ᾽ ABLPV : εἰ δ᾽ MZ 836 830 843 850 850 852 856

αὐτῷ om. ΜΖ ναὶ μὰ Δία ABLPV : καὶ μὰ Δία ΜΖ τῆς ἀδελφιδῆς ABLPV : τῆς ἀδελφῆς MZ τῶν νόμων ABLPYV : τοῦ νόμου ΜΖ δοῦναι ABLPY : δοθῆναι ΜΖ, ἀδελφιδῆν ABLPV ; ἀδελφὴν ΜΖ γενέσθαι ABLPV : γεγονέναι MZ

857 τετελεύτηκεν ABLPV : ἐτελεύτησεν ΜΖ 857 λῆξιν ABLPV : λέξιν ΜΖ 857 Μετυγειτνιῶνος ABLPV

; Μεταγειτνιῶντος MZ,

858 γνησίαν ABLPV : ἰδίαν ΜΖ 859 ὑμεῖς ABLPV

: ἡμεῖς ΜΖ

860 ἐπιδικάζεσθαι ABLPV : ἐπιδικάσασθαι ΜΖ 873 καταφανῷς ABLPV

: καταφανὲς ΜΖ

873 ἀπέχθεσθαι ABLP: ἀπέχεσθαι MVZ Z, however, has following list.

many

errors

Distinguishing errors Z: 815 Μαρτυρία ABLMPV

of its own,

: Μάρτυρες Z

as

is clear

from

the

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 47

819 οἰκειοτάτους ABLMPYV : οἰκτροτάτους Z

823 αἰθαλίδην ABLPVM : αἰθαλιότην Z 829 ἀδελφιδῷ ABLMPV : ἀδελφῷ Z 832 837 844 855

ἕνεκα ABLMPV : ὄνομα Ζ τούτου ABLMPV : τούτους Ζ καταλειφθῆναι ABLMPY : καταληφθῆναι Ζ μεμαρτύρηκε ABLMPV : μεμαρτυρηκώς Z

864 ἐγγύτατα ΑΒΤΙΜΡΥ : ἐγγύτητα Ζ 869 ἀδελφιδοῦς ABLMPV

: ἀδελφὸς Ζ

877 εἶναι οι. Ζ 880 γαμετῆς om. Z Thus, even though, in order to come to definite conclusions, collation is needed of all the texts included in these codices,

a a

collation of the text of Isaeus’ third speech shows that the relationships between the manuscripts that witness it are as follows:

48 Introduction Stemma codicum XIV in.

A

1491

B

L

—

—

1492 - 1495

XV ex. ἐΧΥῚ in.

u

M

P

ν

Ζ

Finally, even though it has been demonstrated how difficult it is to determine which manuscript or manuscripts was'were used for the Aldine editions,” in this cage the collation

* See Sicherl (1997, passim).

of the text of the codices

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 49

with the text of the Aldine edition (editio princeps)” suggests that

the Marcian codex L was the manuscript used as exemplar (antibolon) for printing the first edition. The Aldine edition reproduces the errors of L and does not contain the distinguishing errors of MPVZ. b) The corrections to A The text of codex A has numerous corrections, discernible from the colour of the ink as having been made by two correctors. The first (A?) is the actual scribe of the codex, who corrected the text while writing (inter scribendum) and/or during the final checking, comparing the copied text with the original of A. I make out a total of 59 corrections by A! in the text of Isaeus’ third speech, of which only two (in §§75 and 78) are not adopted in my edition. I should point out that many errors which remained in A after the corrections made to it by A’ are most probably not due to the scribe of A, but to the previous manuscript tradition. Klostomalles, who came from the imperial chancery, is known to have been a careful and unhurried copyist, who checked over what he wrote but did not fully understand the meaning of the texts he copied. Undoubtedly, some of the errors common in the codices, e.g. anagrammatisms, haplography*, dittography,* etc., which are found in A, were made by Klostomalles. Nevertheless, we can be practically certain that he was not prone to paraphrases, metathesis, or missing out long

sections of text.’ The corrections of the second corrector (A?) are distinguishable by the perceptibly lighter, yellow colour of the ink. Isaeus’ third speech is the first text in A where they occur. I have made out 27 interventions by A? (without taking into account the frequent additions of accent and punctuation), of which 25 are adopted as

99. Aldus Manutius et Andrea Torresano, Aéyot τουτωνὶ τῶν ῥητόρων. (D Αἰσχίνου. Λυσίου. Ἀλκιδάμαντος. Ἀντισθένους. Δημάδου. (ID Ἀνδοκίδου. Ἰσαίου. Δεινάρχου. Ἀντιφῶντος. Λυκούργου. Γοργίου. Λεσβώνακτος. Ἡρώδου. Ἔτι Αἰσχίνου βίος. Λυσίου βίος. Venetiis 1513. 100 Speranzi (2010, 373 374) does not name the codex on which the Aldine edition was based, because both Aristoboulos Apostoles, the scribe of L, and in particular Markos Mousouros, the scribe of M, were collaborators of Manutius in general, see for instance Sicherl (1997, 14, 103, and Register), and specifically in the project of editing the Attic orators.

101 See $12 (and 12n.), 76. Also, MacDowell (1961, 113 120).

50 Introduction

better readings (lectiones meliores), the exceptions are the two corrections in §§12 and 20. The corrections by A? were made before

B was copied from A, since B contains them. Regarding the source of these corrections, scholars are undecided whether they came from comparison (antibolé) with another manuscript or if they are due to the corrector’s own learnedness (ex ingenio).!” From the study of these corrections in the text of Isaeus’ third speech, there is nothing to rule out the latter possibility, namely that the corrections were simply a result of the learning possessed by a scholar, which gave him a thorough understanding of the content of the texts and caused him to make interventions accordingly, see for example §§43 and 54 (ἀδελφῆς corrected by A? to ἀδελφιδῆς), 70 (συνίστασθαι corrected by A’ to συνεστιᾶσθαν. Even though the corrections by A’ are not extensive and consist of a few syllables at most, nevertheless I have observed that the copyist’s hand bears an astonishing similarity to the corresponding writing of the main scribe of B.'” In other words, if the scribe of B is in fact identified as the second corrector of A, then A was being corrected in the monastery of Vatopedi shortly before the copying of B was made. The identity of the scribe of B is not known. Speranzi (2010a, 347) believes that Lascaris in the course of his first journey to Mount Athos assigned the task of copying A to two copyists either found in Athos or, more probably, two anonymous people accompanying him in that part of his journey. Study of the errors made by the scribe of B while copying A! makes me reluctant to ascribe the authorship of A’’s corrections to him, only the writing of them. Might the corrections have stemmed

from the work of Janus Lascaris himself?!” 102 Thalheim (1903, vi) and Wyse (1904, xxxiv xxxvi) support the second option. Conomis (1970, xii xiii) believes that the corrections of A? came partly from another manuscript and partly ex ingenio. Buermann (1882, 391 400, and 1885, 392) claimed that the corrections of both A! and A? stem from the variant reading (veria lectic) in the archetype*. For criticism of Buermann’s theory on the double recension in o (archetype*), see Wyse (1904, xxix XXxvVi).

103 Lines 17 30 in f. 34v are written by a different hand. See Speranzi (2010a, 346 347).

10 See for instance κατέστεν (κατέστη A) in 85, 6 λόγος (ὀλίγα A) in 829, attépac (αιταίρας BP : ἑταίρας A) in $48, ἀδελφοῦ (ἀδελφιδοῦ A) in $70.

105 Tasearis’ hand (RGK II 197, III 245) cannot be identified with that of the scribes of B and A’, cf. for instance the plates in Mondrain (2000 [Tav.], 241 243) and Speranzi (2010a, Tav. Ia and b). Moreover, Lascaris does not

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrius (Oration 3) 51

ο) Indirect Tradition Very few citations from Isaeus’ third speech are transmitted by Harpocration in his Lexicon of the Ten Orators (Λέξεις τῶν δέκα ῥητόρων). Specifically, the lemma προσεποιήσατο (11102) contains a quotation from 81: οὐδεὶς nHxote προσεποιήσαντο (instead of -aro) οὐδ᾽ ἠμφισβήτησε τῆς κληρονομίας ἐκείνων (instead of -v@). The two errors are transmitted unanimously by the witnesses of Harpocration’s text. Reference to Isaeus’ third speech is made in the lemma παράστασις (1131) which occurs in 847. Finally, there is a general reference in the entry for γαμηλία (T2), an observation is made that it also occurs in the writings of Isaeus, as 1s in fact the case

in 8876 and 79 of this speech.' E. Editions and translations of Isaeus’ third speech The text of Isaeus’ third speech was included in the second volume of the 1513 Aldine edition of the Greek orators, which was based on codex L. Subsequently, it was included in the edition of the speeches “of the ancient orators” (τῶν παλαιῶν ῥητόρων) by Stephanus in 1575, which was essentially a considerably improved edition of the Aldine text. A re-edition of Stephanus’ text accompanied by a Latin translation came out under the name of Miniatus in 1619. Isaeus’ text

was

further

corrected

thanks

to the

learning

of Reiske,

who

reconstructed many passages (without knowing about A) in his 1773 edition of the orators, in which the text 1s accompanied by commentary and a Latin translation. In 1813, Neophytos Doukas’

Aöyoı τῶν Ἀττικῶν Ῥητόρων was published in Vienna, the ninth volume of which includes Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus. This is a reprint of the text of Reiske’s edition with notes m Greek. Reiske’s text (without commentary) was reprinted in the editions of Mai

appear to have practised the art of copying manuscripts; he merely wrote short codices for personal use, while his hand is recognized in notes and corrections in codices he checked, see again Mondrain (2000, 417 426) and Speranzi (2010a, 345). If the assumption that the paternity of the corrections of A? could belong to Lascaris has any chance of being correct, in that case he would not have employed another manuscript, since Lascaris nowhere mentioned (e.g. in Vat. Gr. 1412, see Speranzi [2010a, 342 3447} that he had found another manuscript which witnesses the text of the minor Attic orators. 108 Gamélia could refer also to Is. VIII.18 and 20.

52 Introduction

(1820) and the series Bibliotheca Classica Scriptorum Prosaicorum

Graecorum in 1822. The third volume of Bekker’s Oratores attici (1823) constitutes a landmark in the history of the edition of Isaeus’ text. Bekker is the first editor to collate A and to use this codex as the basis of his edition.

Next,

Isaeus’

text was

included

in the fourth volume

of

Dobson’s 1828 edition of the Attic orators, which is accompanied by footnotes in Latin. However, a more extended commentary on Isaeus’ speeches, essentially the only one for about seventy years, until the appearance of Wyse’s book in 1904, was written by Schémann and included in his 1831 edition. Isaeus’ text was further reconstructed in the nineteenth century in the editions of Baiter and Sauppe (1839-1843), Scheibe (Teubneriana 1860), and Buermann (1883). The twentieth century started off with a flourish for Isaeus, with a second edition of the text published by Teubner in 1903, prepared by

Thalheim, and the publication a year later of the monumental work by Wyse, still the most extensive critical annotated edition of all Isaeus’ speeches. This was followed by the two accessible editions of Isaeus in the series Les Belles Lettres and Loeb, accompanied by brief footnotes and, of course, French and English translations, by Roussel in 1922 and by Forster in 1927 respectively. Also, during the approximately five hundred years of editorial work on Isaeus’ speeches, many suggestions have been made regarding the reconstruction of the text of the third speech in works

other than those already mentioned.

In the present work I have

adopted a total of 92 suggestions of scholars for the reconstruction of

passages of the third speech, and I have referenced the most valuable of the remaining in the apparatus crificus. The text of On the Estate of Pyrrhus has been translated several times. Apart from the translations I have mentioned, which

accompany the editions, Isaeus’ third speech has been translated into Latin by Muller (1877), into French by Auger (1783) and by Dareste and Haussoulier (1898), into German by Schémann (1830) and Münscher (1919), into Italian by Spezi (1844), Caccialanza (1901) and Cobetto Ghiggia (2012), into Catalan by Vergés (1930), into Spanish by Jiménez Lopez (1996), into Polish by Rominkiewicz (2013), and lastly into English by Jones (1779) and more recently by Carey (1997 = 72012) and Edwards (2007). This last is produced by the scholar who is preparing a critical edition of Isaeus’ speeches for the Oxford Classical Texts series. Isaeus’ third speech has been

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 53

translated into Modern Greek by two legal historians, Mikhaelides

Nouaros (1939) and Dimakis (1994). For the sake of completeness I should mention that Modern Greek translations of Isaeus’ speeches have also been published by the publishing houses Georgiades (see Manta) and Kaktos. Wyse’s monograph remains the most systematic and extensive, albeit largely dated, commentary on Isaeus’ third speech. Commentary in the form of footnotes is contained in most of the translations mentioned, while commentary exclusively on the text of On the Estate of Pyrrhus has been published by Paoli in 1935, also in the form of footnotes, many of which are Italian translations of the ancient text. F. About this book This book consists of a critical edition and a commentary of Isaeus’ third speech. My principal aim has been to provide an edition which is “self-contained”, with a properly reconstructed text, an English translation, an extensive informative introduction, and detailed

commentary: extent of the

one which will serve to demonstrate the power and oratorical skill possessed by

this under-appreciated

orator, and which will also cast light on some exceedingly interesting aspects of Attic law (especially mheritance law) and Athenian society

in the fourth century B.C. For the first time ever, the edition is based on a full collation,

undertaken by myself, of the text of the third speech in all the codices in which it is attested (ABLMPVZ). This has enabled the correction of errors in the apparatus criticus of the editions of Thalheim and Wyse, regarding the use to be made of the copies of A, especially BLMPV, copied by prominent scholars of the fifteenth century, in reconstructing the text of Isaeus’ third speech, see §§12, 23, 34, 48, 51, 56, 61, 65, 70, 72, 79. It may be worth pointing out that codex V had been ignored by the editors of the orators. I believe that compared with the editions of Thalheim and Wyse, the present edition of the text of Isaeus’ third speech provides a better reading at thirteen places, either through new suggestions of my own or with the adoption of emendations suggested by other scholars, see §§6, 7, 21, 23, 33, 48, 50 (two places), 59, 60, 72 (two places), 74, and Hatzilambrou (2010b, 39-45). The basic principle I have followed in compiling this edition is that “no emendation, however attractive,

54 Introduction

should be admitted to the text unless the reading of the manuscript

cannot be explained”.’”’ In accordance with this line of reasoning, many of the emendations suggested by scholars, especially in the 19% century, have not been adopted. The apparatus criticus is basically positive, that is it includes the reading of the text. It contains an analytical record of the interventions on the text of codex A (corrections, supplements etc.), which are of use in trying to trace readings (lectiones) of the original of A, and it lists the most important suggestions for improving the text, made over five hundred years of the still ongoing editorial work on Isaeus’ third speech. The text is accompanied by a fairly literal English translation, which observes, as far as is possible, the orator’s choice of style. My edition of the text is supplemented by a detailed commentary on the textual, linguistic, legal, rhetorical, stylistic, and other issues

encountered in the third speech, taking into account the research that has been done up to the present. I should like in particular to draw attention to the evidence substantiating the readings I have adopted of all the contested points of the text. Wyse’s 1904 commentary, which even today is the main reference for Isaeus’ works, 1s now obsolete (which is only to be expected) in respect to his comments on topics of Attic law and Athenian society and institutions. Another major drawback of his edition 15 the lack of any systematic rhetorical and stylistic analysis of the speech. Further, Wyse’s commentary 1s outdated owing to its writer’s prejudices, which find their way into his comments on all aspects of Isaeus’ work. Wyse, influenced by the moral principles of the Victorian age, embarks on his study of Isaeus’

speeches with an already jaundiced view of them as the works of a logographer who openly lies and tries to deceive the dikasts in every possible way. Hence, my book also sets out to refute Wyse’s view of this orator, offering substantiated evidence that Isaeus was an

exceedingly skilled logographer, supremely well-versed both in the art of rhetoric and in Attic law. From the study of his work it emerges

that he was an underestimated but very important writer of the classical era, whose repute has suffered owing to the fact that as a metic* (in all probability), even if he wished to he could not come to prominence in Athenian public life; to his expertise (as shown in the speeches and titles of works that have been preserved) in a specific genre of forensic oratory dealing mainly with issues of inheritance 107 In MacDowell’s words, see MacDowell (1962, 29).

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 55

law and the contestation of the rights of Athenian citizenship; and to

the moralistic views of him, irrelevant in the case of a logographer (a “lawyer”), expressed in part by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (see Introduction/Style) but above all by William Wyse.

TEXT

Tabula notarum in apparatu critico adhibitarum A Burneianus 95 (Crippsianus), 5. XIV in. B

Laurentianus Plut. IV, 11, s. XV ex.

L

Marcianus gr. app. VIII, 6, s. XV ex.

M

Burneianus 96, 5. XV ex.

P Vv

Ambrosianus A 99 sup., s. XV ex. Vaticanus Chigi gr. 34 (R. VI. 42), s. XV ex.

Αἱ A

A post correctionem a primaria manu A post correctionem a secunda manu

Harp.

Harpocration (ed. Keaney)

Editores et emendatores Albrecht (1883) Aldus (ed princeps, 1513) Baiter (Baiter & Sauppe [1839-1843]) Bekker (1823) Boekmeijer (apud Wyse [1904]) Brulart (vide Wyse [1904, liv-Iv]) Buermann (1883) vel (1884, notatur) Cobet (1858) vel (1860) vel (1862) Dobree (1831) Dobson (1828) Edwards (2008a) Emper (1847)

Fuhr (1877) Gebauer (1877) Halbertsma (apud Wyse [1904]) Hertlein (1878) Herwerden (1881) Hirschig (1858)

Hitzig (1883) Jenicke (1838) Katabaines (apud Thalheim [1903a]) Kayser (1862)

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 57

Meier (apud Thalheim [1903a])

Meutzer (1840) Muret (vide Wyse [1904, liv—lv]) Naber (1877) vel (1852, notatur) Paoli (1961) Papabasileiou (1899) Petit (1742) Photiades (1923) Platner (apud Schömann [1831 ]) Radermacher (apud Thalheim [1903a]) Reichenstein (1862) Reiske (1773) Renehan (1980) Richards (1906) Roeder (1880) Rosenberg (1874) Roussel (1922) Sauppe (1841) Scaliger (vide Wyse [1904, lii—liv]) Scheibe (1860) vel (1859, notatur) Schömann (1831) Stephanus (1575) Taylor (vide Wyse [1904, lv1i]) Thalheim (1903a) vel (1903b, notatur) Turicenses (Baiter and Sauppe [1839-1843]) Vollert (1885) Wyse (1904)

Cetera

add. cf. cont. corr. del. ed. edd. fort. 1.1. litt. mal.

= = = = = = = = = = =

addidit confer coniecit, coniecerunt correxit delevit, deleverunt editio Isaei editores fortasse in linea littera, litterae, litteris malit, malint

= in margine

= = = = = = = = =

omisit pagina in rasura seclusit supra lineam suspicatus est titulus transposuit littera erasa vel oblitterata

Ἰσαίου

Περὶ τοῦ Πύρρου κλήρου [Steph. p. 38]

Ὑπόθεσις Πύρρον τὸν ἕτερον «τῶν» τῆς ἀδελφῆς υἱῶν υἱοποιησαμένου Ἔνδιον, καὶ τούτου πλέον ἢ εἴκοσιν ἔτη τὸν κλῆρον κατασχόντος, εἶτα ἀποθανόντος, Ξενοκλῆς λαχὼν τῶν χρημάτων ὑπὲρ Φίλης, τῆς ἑαυτοῦ γυναικός, διεμαρτύρησεν εἶναι αὐτὴν γνησίαν Πύρρου θυγατέρα, ἀμφισβητούσης τοῦ κλήρου τῆς Ἐνδίου μητρός καὶ ἑάλῳ ψευδομαρτυριῶν, Νικοδήμου καὶ αὐτοῦ μαρτυρήσαντος ἐγγυῆσαι Πύρρῳ τὴν ἀδελφὴν κατὰ τοὺς νόμους, ἐξ ἧς γεγονέναι τὴν Φίλην. ὁ Ἐνδίου δὲ ἀδελφὸς νόθην εἶναί φησιν, ἐξ ἑταίρας Πύρρῳ γενομένην, καὶ οὕτως ὑπὸ Ἐνδίου ἐκδοθῆναι Ξενοκλεῖ. Ἢ στάσις στοχασμός, τὸ δὲ ἔγκλημα ψευδομαρτυριῶν κατὰ τοῦ Νικοδήμου.

[1] Ἄνδρες δικασταί, ὁ ἀδελφὸς τῆς μητρὸς τῆς ἐμῆς Πύρρος, ἄπαις Ov γνησίων παίδων, ἐποιήσατο Ἔνδιον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τὸν ἐμὸν ὑὸν ἑαυτῷ ὃς κληρονόμος ὧν τῶν ἐκείνου ἐπεβίῳ πλείω ἔτη ἢ εἴκοσι, καὶ ἐν χρόνῳ τοσούτῳ ἔχοντος ἐκείνου τὸν κλῆρον οὐδεὶς πώποτε προσεποιήσατο οὐδ᾽ ἠμφεσβήτησε τῆς κληρονομίας ἐκείνῳ. [2] τελευτήσαντος δὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ πέρυσιν, ὑπερβᾶσα τὸν τελευταῖον Titulus περὶ τοῦ Πύρρου κλήρου : τοῦ Πόρρου κλήρου κατὰ ποίησιν πρὸς τὸ γένος διαμαρτυρία post argumentum superscriptum est : κατὰ Νικοδήμου Harp. T1102 sed περὶ τοῦ Πύρρου κλήρου Harp. Π3] Hypothesis Πύρρου A’: ΠύρροΞ τὸν ἕτερον Α΄: τὸν τον τῶν add. Aldus (mg) υἱῶν : υἱν Μ τὸν κλῆρον Aldus : τοῦ κλήρου διεμαρτύρησεν A! : διεξαρτύρησεν καὶ αὐτοῦ : δὲ αὐτῷ deleto δὲ post Ἔνδίου Dobree, mal. Wyse : θείου αὐτοῦ coni. Bekker ante τὴν Φίλην erasum καὶ φήσιν Al: p*ow [1] ὑὸν ἑαυτῷ del. Naber ἐπεβίω Naber (1852, 357) : éBiw πλείω ἔτη ἢ εἴκοσι : πλείω (vel πλεῖν) ἢ εἴκοσιν ἔτη Herwerden προσεποιήσατο ! προσεποιήσαντο Harp. 11102 ἐκείνῳ : ἐκείνων Harp. IT102

60 Text

κληρονόμον, γνησία θυγάτηρ τοῦ ἡμετέρου θείου ἥκει φάσκουσα εἶναι Φίλη, καὶ κύριος Ξενοκλῆς Κόπρειος τοῦ Πύρρου κλήρου λαχεῖν τὴν λῆξιν ἠξίωσεν, ὃς τετελεύτηκε πλείω ἢ εἴκοσιν ἔτη, τρία τάλαντα τίμημα τῷ κλήρῳ ἐπιγραψάμενος. [3] ἀμφισβητούσης δὲ τῆς μητρὸς τῆς ἡμετέρας, ἀδελφῆς δὲ τοῦ Πύρρου, ὁ κύριος τῆς εἰληχυίας τοῦ κλήρου γυναικὸς ἐτόλμησε διαμαρτυρῆσαι μὴ ἐπίδικον τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ μητρὶ τὸν τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ κλῆρον εἶναι, ὡς οὔσης γνησίας

θυγατρὸς Πύρρῳ, οὗ ἦν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὁ κλῆρος. ἐπισκηψάμενοι δὲ ἡμεῖς, καὶ εἰς ὑμᾶς εἰσαγαγόντες τὸν διαμαρτυρῆσαι τολμήσαντα κατὰ ταῦτα, [4] ἐκεῖνόν τε ἐξελέγξαντες περιφανῶς τὰ ψευδῆ μεμαρτυρηκότα τὴν τῶν ψευδομαρτυρίων δίκην εἵλομεν παρ᾽ ὑμῖν, καὶ τουτονὶ Νικόδημον παραχρῆμα ἐξηλέγξαμεν ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς δικασταῖς ἀναισχυντότατον τῇ μαρτυρίᾳ ὄντα ταύτῃ, ὅς γε ἐτόλμησε μαρτυρῆσαι ἐγγυῆσαι τῷ θείῳ τῷ ἡμετέρῳ τὴν ἀδελφὴν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα εἶναι κατὰ τοὺς νόμους. [5] ὅτι μὲν οὖν καὶ ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ δίκῃ ἡ τούτου μαρτυρία ψευδὴς ἔδοξεν εἶναι, ὁ τόθ᾽ ἑαλωκὼς μάρτυς σαφέστατα τοῦτον ἐξελέγχει. εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἐδόκει οὗτος τὰ ψευδῆ τότε μαρτυρῆσαι, δῆλον ὅτι ἐκεῖνός τ᾽ ἂν ἀποφυγὼν τὴν διαμαρτυρίαν ἀπῆλθε, καὶ κληρονόμος ἂν τῶν τοῦ θείου ἡ διαμαρτυρηθεῖσα γνησία θυγάτηρ εἶναι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἂν ἡ ἡμετέρα κατέστη μήτηρ. [6] ἁλόντος δὲ τοῦ μάρτυρος καὶ ἀποστάσης τοῦ κλήρου τῆς ἀμφισβητούσης γνησίας θυγατρὸς Πύρρῳ εἶναι, μεγάλη ἀνάγκη ἅμα

[2] κληρονόμον A’ : κλέρονόμον (erat fort. κλο-} A ἥκει del. Dobree καὶ Φίλη ante καὶ κύριος add. Wyse Κόπρειος Wyse : Κύπριος : Κόπριος Meier ἠξίωσεν A? : ἠξίωσἣν (erat fort. -oav) : ἠξίωσαν Wyse ὃς -ἔτη susp. Dobree τετελεύτηκε Baiter : TETEAEUTIIKEL ἐπιγραψάμενος : ἐπιγραψάμενοι Wyse [3] ἐπισκηψάμενοι Taylor : ἐπισκεψάμενοι τολμήσαντα κατὰ ταῦτα, ἐκεῖνον : κατὰ aut delendum aut in μετὰ corrigendum Reiske : τολμήσαντα, κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἐκεῖνον mal. Baiter [4] μεμαρτυρηκότα : καταμεμαρτυρηκότα coni. Buermann (1884, 342) κατὰ e 83 transposito ψευδομαρτυρίων Wyse : ψευδομαρτύρων ψευδομαρτυριῶν Reiske τὴν τῶν ψευδομαρτυρίων δίκην del. Herwerden τὸν ante Νικόδημον add. Muret Νικόδημον del. Naber τῇ μαρτυρίᾳ et ταύτῃ del. Herwerden [5] τοῦτον : τοῦτο mal. Reiske μήτηρ add. A! [6] ἃ in ἁλόντος corr. A! (erat fort. £) ἀμφισβητούσης : ἀποφανθείσης Hitzig γνησίας θυγατρὸς Πύρρῳ εἶναι del. Herwerden φασκούσης post Πύρρῳ mal. Reiske

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrius (Oration 3) 61

καὶ τὴν τούτου μαρτυρίαν ἑαλωκέναι περὶ yap αὐτοῦ τούτου -ὁ» διαμαρτυρήσας τὴν τῶν ψευδομαρτυρίων δίκην ἠγωνίζετο, πότερον ἐξ ἐγγυητῆς ἢ ἐξ ἑταίρας ἡ ἀμφισβητοῦσα τοῦ κλήρου τῷ θείῳ γυναικὸς ein γνώσεσθε -ὃ» ἀκούσαντες καὶ ὑμεῖς τῆς τε ἀντωμοσίας τῆς ἡμετέρας καὶ τῆς τούτου μαρτυρίας καὶ τῆς ἁλούσης διαμαρτυρίας. [7] Ἀναγίγνωσκε λαβὼν τασδὶ αὐτοῖς. Ἀντωμοσία. Μαρτυρία. Διαμαρτυρία. Ὡς

μὲν

ἔδοξε

παραχρῆμα

εὐθὺς

τότε

τὰ

ψευδῆ

μαρτυρῆσαι

Νικόδημος, ἐπιδέδεικται [τότε] πᾶσι προσήκει δὲ καὶ παρ᾽ ὑμῖν τοῖς περὶ αὐτοῦ τούτου τὴν τούτου μαρτυρίαν. [8] πυθέσθαι, ἥντινά ποτε μεμαρτυρηκὼς τῷ τὸν ἐγγυητὴ γυνὴ ἀπέλιπε αὐτοῦ, καὶ παρ᾽ ὅτου

δίκην μέλλουσι ψηφιεῖσθαι ἐξελεγχθῆναι τὴν ἐπιθυμῷ δὲ πρῶτον μὲν “περὶ αὐτοῦ τούτου προῖκά φησιν ἐπιδοὺς ἐκδοῦναι τὴν ἀδελφὴν ὁ τριτάλαντον οἶκον κεκτημένῳ, εἶτα πότερον ἡ τὸν ἄνδρα ζῶντα ἢ τελευτήσαντος τὸν οἶκον ἐκομίσατο τὴν τῆς ἀδελφῆς προῖκα οὗτος,

ἐπειδὴ τετελευτηκὼς ἦν ᾧ μεμαρτύρηκεν οὗτος αὐτὴν ἐγγυῆσαι, [9] ἢ εἰ μὴ ἐκομίζετο, ὁποίαν δίκην σίτου ἢ τῆς προικὸς αὐτῆς ἐν εἴκοσιν ἔτεσι τῷ ἔχοντι τὸν κλῆρον δικάσασθαι ἠξίωσεν, ἢ εἴ του ἀνθρώπων

ὁ add. Reiske ψευδομαρτυρίων Wyse : ψευδομαρτυριῶν (ut semper praeter 84 πότερον ἐξ ἐγγυητῆς ἢ ἐξ ἑταίρας γυναικὸς : γυναικὸς 5601. Wyse : γυναικὸς aut tollendum aut ın γυνὴ corrigendum censet Bekker : ἑταίρας et ἐγγυητῆς inter se commutavit Thalheim (1903b, 458) : γυναικὸς aut delendum aut post ἐγγυητῆς transponendum Dobree n"ötepov (erat fort. p) ἐγγυητῆς Al (spiritum add. A?) : εγκυητῆς δ᾽ add. Aldus [7] oı in αὐτοῖς ras. (erat fort. nc) titulus marginem superat οὖν post μὲν add. Dobree εὐθὺς del. Brulart, Cobet (1858, 731; 1860, 440) πᾶσι ante τὰ ψευδῆ add. Roussel μαρτυρῆσαι Reiske : διαμαρτυρῆσαι ἐπιδέδεικται : ἐπιδέδεικτο mal. Reiske τότε seclusi ut e linea antecedente irrepsum : τότε πᾶσι del. Buermann (1884, 357) : τοῦθ᾽ ἅπασι coni. Wyse περὶ αὐτοῦ τούτου : περὶ τούτου vel περὶ αὐτοῦ Dobree [8] περὶ αὐτοῦ τούτου 560]. Forster, susp. Wyse : παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ τούτου Taylor : παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦτο Naber : τούτου vel περὶ τούτου Dobree ὁ μεμαρτυρηκὼς aut delendum aut in ὡς μεμαρτυρήκε corrigendum Dobree πότερον ἀπέλιπε Al: *oréhine (erat fort. κατέλιπε) τὸν οἶκον mg. A! [9] ἠξίωσεν Reiske : ἠξίωσαν

62 Text

ἐναντίον προσῆλθεν ἐγκαλῶν τῷ κληρονόμῳ περὶ τῆς προικὸς τῆς ἀδελφῆς ἐν χρόνῳ τοσούτῳ. περί τε οὖν τούτων ἡδέως ἂν πυθοίμην, 6 τί ποτ᾽ ἦν τὸ αἴτιον τοῦ μηδὲν τούτων γεγενῆσθαι περὶ τῆς ἐγγυητῆς, ὡς μεμαρτύρηκεν οὗτος, γυναικός, [10] καὶ πρὸς τούτοις εἴ τις ἄλλος ἐγγυητὴν ἔσχε τὴν τούτου ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα, ἢ τῶν πρότερον χρησαμένων πρὶν γνῶναι τὸν ἡμέτερον θεῖον αὐτήν, ἢ ὅσοι ἐκείνου γιγνώσκοντος ἐπλησίαζον αὐτῇ, ἢ ὅσοι ὕστερον ἐπλησίαζον τετελευτηκότος ἐκείνου δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτὴν ἅπασι τοῖς πλησιάζουσιν ἐκδέδωκεν. [11] περὶ ὧν εἰ δεήσειε καθ᾽ ἕκαστον διελθεῖν, οὐκ ἂν πάνυ μικρὸν ἔργον γένοιτο. ἐὰν μὲν οὖν ὑμεῖς κελεύητε, περὶ ἐνίων μνησθείην ἂν αὐτῶν εἰ δέ τισιν ὑμῶν

ἀηδὲς ἀκούειν ἐστίν, ὥσπερ ἐμοὶ λέγειν τι περὶ τούτων, αὐτὰς τὰς μαρτυρίας ὑμῖν παρέξομαι τὰς μαρτυρηθείσας ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ δίκῃ, ὧν οὐδεμιᾷ ἐπισκήψασθαι ἠξίωσαν οὗτοι. καίτοι ὅπου κοινὴν αὐτοὶ ὡμολογήκασιν εἶναι τοῦ βουλομένου τὴν γυναῖκα, πῶς ἂν εἰκότως ἡ αὐτὴ γυνὴ ἐγγυητὴ δόξειεν εἶναι; [12] ἀλλὰ μὴν ὁπότε μὴ ἐπεσκημμένοι εἰσὶ ταῖς περὶ αὐτοῦ τούτου μαρτυρίαις, ὡμολογηκότες εἰσὶ ταῦτα. ἀκούσαντες δὲ καὶ ὑμεῖς αὐτῶν τῶν μαρτυριῶν, γνῴσεσθε ὡς οὗτός τε περιφανῶς τὰ ψευδῆ μεμαρτύρηκε, καὶ ὀρθῶς καὶ κατὰ τοὺς νόμους οἱ δικάσαντες τὴν δίκην ἔγνωσαν τὴν κληρονομίαν μὴ προσήκειν τῇ μὴ ὀρθῶς + γεγενημένῃ γυναικί. Ἀναγίγνωσκε ob δ᾽ ἐπίλαβε τὸ ὕδωρ. Μαρτυρία» [13] Ὡς μὲν ἑταίρα ἦν τῷ βουλομένῳ καὶ οὐ γυνὴ τοῦ ἡμετέρου

[10] ἐπλησίαζον (post ὕστερον) del. Muret ὅτι 5. 1. add A’ ὁ1:1. add. A’ ἐκδέδωκεν post Reiske Buermann (1884, 362) : ἐδεδῴκει : ἐκδεδώκει Bekker [117] καὶ ante guoiadd. Reiske tut e proximo znatum del. Reiske τούτων : τοιούτων mal. Rosenberg αὐτοὶ Schömann : αὐτὴν : vel αὐτὴν vel τὴν γυναῖκα del. Dobree ὡμολογήκασιν A! : ὁμολογήκασιν τὴν γυναῖκα del. Halbertsma, Boekmeijer, Papabasileiou ἡ αὐτὴ : ἡ τοιαύτη mal. Reiske [12] ἐπεσκημμένοι A’ : én**coxnppevor v post prius v in γεγενημένη 5. 1. add A? γυναικί del. Dobree ἐπίλαβε Scaliger : ἐπίβαλλε tit. μαρτυρίαι V Reiske : μαρτυρία [13] οὖν post μὲν add. Reiske τῷ βουλομένῳ : τοῦ βουλομένου Hirschig

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 63

θείου, ἣν οὗτος ἐγγυῆσαι ἐκείνῳ μεμαρτύρηκεν, ὑπὸ τῶν ἄλλων οἰκείων καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν γειτόνων τῶν ἐκείνου μεμαρτύρηται πρὸς ὑμᾶς οἵ μάχας καὶ κώμους καὶ ἀσέλγειαν πολλήν, ὁπότε ἡ τούτου ἀδελφὴ εἴη παρ᾽ αὑτῷ, μεμαρτυρήκασιν γίγνεσθαι περὶ αὐτῆς. [14] καίτοι οὐ δή πού γε ἐπὶ γαμετὰς γυναῖκας οὐδεὶς ἂν κωμάζειν τολμήσειεν οὐδὲ αἱ γαμεταὶ γυναῖκες ἔρχονται μετὰ τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐπὶ τὰ δεῖπνα, οὐδὲ

συνδειπνεῖν ἀξιοῦσι μετὰ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων, καὶ ταῦτα μετὰ τῶν ἐπιτυχόντων. ἀλλὰ μὴν τῷ γε μεμαρτυρηκότι οὐδ᾽ ἐπισκήψασθαι οὗτοι ἠξίωσαν. καὶ ὡς ἀληθῆ λέγω, ἀναγίγνωσκε πάλιν αὐτοῖς τὴν μαρτυρίαν. Μαρτυρία [15] Ἀνάγνωθι δὴ καὶ τὰς περὶ τῶν πλησιασάντων αὐτῇ μαρτυρίας, ἵνα εἰδῶσιν ὅτι ἑταίρα τε ἦν τοῦ βουλομένου, καὶ ὅτι οὐδ᾽ ἐξ ἑνὸς ἄλλου φαίνεται τεκοῦσα. Ἀναγίγνωσκε αὐτοῖς. Μαρτυρία»

[16] Ὡς μὲν τοίνυν ἦν κοινὴ τῷ βουλομένῳ, ἣν οὗτος ἐγγυῆσαι τῷ ἡμετέρῳ θείῳ μεμαρτύρηκε, μνημονεύειν χρὴ ὑφ᾽ ὅσων ὑμῖν μεμαρτύρηται, καὶ ὅτι οὐδενὶ ἄλλῳ ἐγγυηθεῖσα οὐδὲ συνοικήσασα φαίνεται. σκεψώμεθα δὲ καὶ ἐξ ὧν ἄν τις ὑπονοήσειεν ἐγγύην γενέσθαι τοιαύτης γυναικός, εἰ ἄρα καὶ τῷ ἡμετέρῳ θείῳ τοιοῦτόν τι συμβέβηκεν. [17] ἤδη γάρ τινες νέοι ἄνθρωποι ἐπιθυμήσαντες τοιούτων γυναικῶν καὶ ἀκρατῶς ἔχοντες αὑτῶν, ἐπείσθησαν ὑπ᾽

ἀνοίας

εἰς

αὑτοὺς

τοιοῦτόν

τι ἐξαμαρτεῖν.

πόθεν

οὖν

ἄν

τις

σαφέστερον γνοίη περὶ τούτων ἢ Ek τε τῶν μαρτυριῶν τῶν τούτοις

μεμαρτυρημένων ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ δίκῃ καὶ ἐκ τῶν εἰκότων τῶν περὶ αὐτὸ τὸ πρᾶγμα σκεψάμενος,

[18] ἐνθυμεῖσθε δὲ τὴν ἀναίδειαν ὧν

λέγουσιν ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἐγγυᾶν μέλλων εἰς τὸν τριτάλαντον οἶκον, ὥς φησι, τὴν ἀδελφήν, διαπραττόμενος τηλικαῦτα ἕνα μάρτυρα παρεῖναι

αὑτῷ Πυρετίδην προσεποιήσυτο, καὶ τούτου ἐκμαρτυρίαν ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνῃ

οὗτος Α΄ : οὕτως olA!:** περὶ αὐτῆς del. Herwerden [14] τῷ γε μεμαρτυρηκότι οὐδ᾽ : τῶν γε μεμαρτυρηκότων οὐδενὶ οὐδ᾽ mal. Reiske : τῶν γε μεμαρτυρηκότων οὐδενὶ mal. Dobree : τοῖς ye μεμαρτυρηκόσιν οὐδ᾽ mal. Buermann [15] μαρτυρίαι Aldus : μαρτυρία [17] αὑτοὺς Reiske : αὐτὰς τούτοις del. Dobree [18] τηλικαῦτα Taylor : τηνικαῦτα

64 Text

τῇ δίκῃ παρέσχοντο οὗτοι ἣν Πυρετίδης οὐκ ἀναδέδεκται αὐτοῖς, οὐδὲ ὁμολογεῖ μαρτυρῆσαι οὐδὲ εἰδέναι τούτων ἀληθὲς ὃν οὐδέν. [19] μέγα δὲ τεκμήριον ὡς περιφανῶς ψευδῆ τὴν μαρτυρίαν οὗτοι

παρέσχοντο ταύτην᾽ ἴστε γὰρ πάντες ὡς ὅταν μὲν [ὡς] ἐπὶ προδήλους πράξεις ἴωμεν, ἃς δεῖ μετὰ μαρτύρων γενέσθαι, τοὺς οἰκειοτάτους καὶ οἷς ἂν τυγχάνωμεν χρώμενοι μάλιστα, τούτους παραλαμβάνειν εἰώθαμεν ἐπὶ τὰς πράξεις τὰς τοιαύτας, τῶν δὲ ἀδήλων καὶ ἐξαίφνης γιγνομένων τοὺς προστυχόντας ἕκαστοι μάρτυρας ποιούμεθα. [20] καὶ ἐπὶ μὲν ταῖς μαρτυρίαις αὐταῖς τοῖς παραγενομένοις αὐτοῖς, ὁποῖοί τινες ἂν ὦσι, τούτοις μάρτυσιν χρῆσθαι ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν ἡμῖν παρὰ δὲ τῶν ἀσθενούντων ἢ τῶν ἀποδημεῖν μελλόντων ὅταν τις ἐκμαρτυρίαν ποιῆται, τοὺς ἐπιεικεστάτους τῶν πολιτῶν καὶ τοὺς ὑμῖν γνωριμωτάτους ἕκαστος ἡμῶν παρακαλεῖ μάλιστα, [21] καὶ οὐ μεθ᾽ ἑνὸς οὐδὲ μετὰ δυοῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἂν μετὰ πλείστων δυνώμεθα τὰς ἐκμαρτυρίας πάντες ποιούμεθα, ἵνα τῷ τε ἐκμαρτυρήσαντι μὴ ἐξείη ὕστερον ἐξάρνῳ γενέσθαι τὴν μαρτυρίαν, ὑμεῖς τε πολλοῖς καὶ καλοῖς κἀγαθοῖς ταὐτὰ μαρτυροῦσι πιστεύοιτε μᾶλλον. [22] Ξενοκλῆς τοίνυν Βήσαζε μὲν ἰὼν εἰς τὸ ἐργαστήριον τὸ ἡμέτερον εἰς τὰ ἔργα, οὐχ ἡγήσατο δεῖν τοῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτομάτου ἐκεῖ ἐντυχοῦσι μάρτυσι χρῆσθαι περὶ τῆς ἐξαγωγῆς, ἀλλ᾽ ἧκεν ἔχων ἐνθένδε Διόφαντον τὸν Σφήττιον μεθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, ὃς ἔλεγε τὴν δίκην ὑπὲρ τούτου, καὶ Δωρόθεον τὸν Ἐλευσίνιον καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ Proyépy καὶ ἄλλους πολλοὺς μάρτυρας, παρακεκληκῶῷς ἐνθένδε σταδίους ἐγγὺς τριακοσίους ἐκεῖσε [23] περὶ δὲ τῆς ἐγγύης τῆς τήθης

τῶν

παίδων

ποιούμενος,

φαίνεται, Αἰθαλίδην.

τῶν τῶν

ἑαυτοῦ μὲν

Διονύσιον

ἐν

οἰκείων

δὲ

τῷ

ἄστει

οὐδένα

τῶν

Ἐρχιέα

ἐκμαρτυρίαν, ἑαυτοῦ

καὶ

ὥς

no,

παρακεκληκὼς

Ἀριστόλοχον

τὸν

μετὰ δυοῖν τούτοιν ἐν τῷ ἄστει αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐκμαρτυρίαν

[19] ὡς del. Aldus ain ἃς corr. A! (erat fort. 0) ἐπὶ τὰς πράξεις τὰς τοιαύτας del. Herwerden προστυχόντας AU: προστυχ ἴτας ἕκαστοι : ἑκάστοις com. Schömann : ἑκάστοτε coni. Naber [20] ἡμῖν AP: ὑμῖν ὑμῖν : ἡμῖν A? ἡμῶν Αὖ: ὑμῶν [21] οὐ Bekker : οὐδὲ ἐξείη : ἐξῇ Dobree ταὐτὰ mg. add Aldus : ταῦτα πιστεύοιτε : πιστεύητε Dobree [22] οὐχ A’ : ob* (erat fort. οὐκ) ἐνθένδε Bekker : ἔνθεν τούτου A’ : τούτο" (erat fort. τοῦτον) ἐγγὺς Dobree : εὐθὺς : εὐθὺ Photiades [23] φησι eraso v : φησιν Β rtövadd. Dobree τὸν (ante Αἰθαλίδην) del. Scheibe μετὰ δυοῖν τούτοιν-τοιαῦτα μὲν τὰ τούτων del. Naber αὐτοῦ : αὐτὸν Brulart

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 65

ποιήσασθαί φασιν οὗτοι, τοιαῦτα μετὰ τούτων, οἷς οὐδ᾽ ἂν περὶ ὁτουοῦν πιστεύσειεν ὅλως οὐδείς. [24] ἴσως γὰρ ἦν νὴ Δία πάρεργον καὶ φαῦλον, περὶ οὗ τὴν ἐκμαρτυρίαν παρὰ τοῦ Πυρετίδου φασὶ

ποιήσασθαι οὗτοι, ὥστε οὐδὲν θαυμαστὸν ὀλιγωρηθῆναι ἦν τὸ πρᾶγμα. καὶ πῶς; οἷς γε περὶ αὐτοῦ τούτου ὁ ἀγὼν ἦν ὁ τῶν ψευδομαρτυρίων, ὃν Ξενοκλῆς ἔφευγεν, ἢ ἐξ ἑταίρας ἢ ἐξ ἐγγυητῆς

τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα εἶναι. εἶτα ἐπὶ ταύτην ἂν τὴν μαρτυρίαν, εἰ ἦν ἀληθής, οὐκ ἂν ἅπαντας τοὺς οἰκείους τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ παρακαλεῖν ἐκεῖνος ἠξίωσε; [25] ναὶ μὰ Δία, ὡς ἔγωγε ᾧμην «ἄν», εἴ γε ἦν ἀληθὲς τὸ πρᾶγμα. οὐ τοίνυν φαίνεται, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ μὲν Ξενοκλῆς πρὸς τοὺς ἐπιτυχόντας δύο ἐκμαρτυρησάμενος τὴν μαρτυρίαν ταύτην, Νικόδημος δὲ οὑτοσὶ ἕνα μόνον μάρτυρα παρακαλέσας μεθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ τῷ τὸν τριτάλαντον οἶκον κεκτημένῳ ἐγγυῆσαί φησι τὴν ἀδελφήν. [26] καὶ οὗτος μὲν τὸν Πυρετίδην μόνον, οὐχ ὁμολογοῦντα, προσεποιήσατο μεθ᾽ αὑτοῦ παραγενέσθαι ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦ ἐγγυήσεσθαι μέλλοντος τὴν τοιαύτην Λυσιμένης καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ, Χαίρων καὶ Πυλάδης, φασὶ παρακληθέντες τῇ ἐγγύῃ παραγενέσθαι, καὶ ταῦτα θεῖοι ὄντες τῷ ἐγγυωμένῳ. [27] ὑμέτερον οὖν ἔργον σκέψασθαι νῦν, εἰ δοκεῖ πιστὸν εἶναι τὸ πρᾶγμα. ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ νομίζω, ἐκ τῶν εἰκότων σκοπούμενος, πολὺ ἂν μᾶλλον τὸν Πύρρον πάντας ἂν τοὺς οἰκείους βούλεσθαι λεληθέναι. εἴ τι παρεσκευάζετο

τοιαῦτα μετὰ τούτων Buermann (1884, 348-349), μετὰ 1am Dobree, qui post οὗτοι lacunam statuerat : τοιαῦτα μὲν τὰ τούτων : τοιαύτην μετὰ τούτων Thalheim (1903a; 1903}, 458-459) : καὶ ταῦτα μετὰ τοιούτων Wyse ὅλως Photiades : ἄλλος : ἄλλου 1, : ἄλλον ΜΡ:

ἄλλως Scheibe

[24] ἦν del. Brulart

οἷς ye Meutzner : ὥστε : ᾧ

ye Reiske : εἴ ye vir doctus apud Scheibe (praefatio p. xx) : ὅτε Stephanus : ὁπότε Gebauer : od post ὥστε cum interrogatione add. Photiades ὁ tiv—&pevyev del. Naber ψευδομαρτυρίων Wyse : ψευδομαρτυριῶν ὃν Al: Ἐν Ξενοκλῆς del. Kayser τὴν ἑαυτοῦ A! : τοιαυτοῦ : τὴν τούτου coni. Buermann : τὴν ἐκείνου coni. Thalheim [25] ἂν in textu addidi, ἂν addendum vel ᾧμην in οἶμαι corrigendum (cf. 839) coni. Wyse ἐκμαρτυρησάμενος : ἐκμαρτυρήσασθαι coni. Buermann (1884, 360-361) οὑτοσὶ ἕνα

Dobree : οὗτος ἦν ἕνα : οὗτος ἕνα Aldus transposito ἦν post ταύτην : οὗτος ἕνα Reiske deleto ἦν μεθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ del. Fuhr [26] μετὰ αὑτοῦ (μεθ᾽ αὑτοῦ) com. Baiter : ner’ αὐτοῦ

(1860, 397-398) : ἐγγυήσασθαι παρακλη

έντες

οἱ A? : ἡ

ἐγγυήσεσθαι Cobet

παρακληθέντες Αὖ:

66 Text

ὁμολογεῖν ἢ πράττειν ἀνάξιον τῶν αὑτοῦ, ἢ παρακαλέσαι μάρτυρας τοὺς θείους τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ ἐπὶ ἁμάρτημα τηλικοῦτον. [28] Ἔτι δὲ καὶ περὶ ἐκείνου θαυμάζω, ci μηδεμίαν προῖκα μήθ᾽ ὁ διδοὺς μήθ᾽ ὁ λαμβάνων διωμολογήσαντο ἕξειν ἐπὶ τῇ γυναικί. τοῦτο

μὲν

γὰρ

εἴ τινα

ἐδίδου,

εἰκὸς

ἦν

καὶ τὴν

δοθεῖσαν

ὑπὸ

τῶν

παραγενέσθαι φασκόντων μαρτυρεῖσθαι τοῦτο δ᾽ εἰ δι᾽ ἐπιθυμίαν τὴν ἐγγύην ὁ θεῖος ἡμῶν ἐποιεῖτο τῆς τοιαύτης γυναικός, δῆλον ὅτι κἂν

ἀργύριον πολλῷ μᾶλλον [ἢ] ὁ ἐγγυῶν διωμολογήσατο ἔχειν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τῇ γυναικί, ἵνα μὴ én” ἐκείνῳ γένοιτο ῥᾳδίως ἀπαλλάττεσθαι, ὁπότε βούλοιτο, τῆς γυναικός. [29] καὶ μάρτυράς γε πολλῷ πλείους «εἰκὸς: ἦν τὸν ἐγγυῶντα παρακυλεῖν ἢ τὸν ἐγγυώμενον τὴν τοιαύτην οὐδεὶς γὰρ ὑμῶν ἀγνοεῖ ὅτι ὀλίγα διαμένειν εἴωθε τῶν τοιούτων. ὁ μὲν τοίνυν ἐγγυῆσαι φάσκων μετὰ ἑνὸς μάρτυρος καὶ ἄνευ ὁμολογίας προικὸς εἰς τὸν τριτάλαντον οἶκον ἐγγυῆσαί φησι τὴν ἀδελιρήν οἱ δὲ θεῖοι τῷ ἀδελφιδῷ ἄπροικον τὴν τοιαύτην ἐγγυωμένῳ μεμαρτυρήκασι παραγενέσθοι. [30] Καὶ οἱ αὐτοὶ θεῖοι οὗτοι ἐν τῇ δεκάτῃ τῆς θυγατρὸς ἀποφανθείσης εἶναι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀδελφιδοῦ κληθέντες μεμαρτυρήκασι παραγενέσθαι. ἐφ᾽ ᾧ δὴ καὶ δεινῶς ἀγανακτῷ, ὅτι ὁ μὲν ἀνὴρ λαγχάνων ὑπὲρ τῆς γυναικὸς τῆς αὑτοῦ τοῦ κλήρου τοῦ πατρῴου Φίλην ὄνομα εἶναι ἐπεγράψατο τῇ γυναικί, οἱ δὲ τοῦ Πύρρου θεῖοι ἐν τῇ δεκάτῃ φάσκοντες παραγενέσθαι τὸ τῆς τήθης ὄνομα Κλειταρέτην τὸν πατέρα ἐμαρτύρησαν θέσθαι αὐτῇ. [31] θαυμάζω οὖν εἰ ὁ ἀνὴρ ὁ συνοικῶν πλείῳ ἢ ὀκτὼ ἔτη ἤδη μὴ ἤδει τοὔνομα τῆς ἑαυτοῦ γυναικός. εἶτα οὐδὲ παρὰ τῶν αὑτοῦ μαρτύρων πρότερον ἐδυνήθη

πυθέσθαι, οὐδ᾽ ἡ μήτηρ τῆς γυναικὸς τὸ τῆς θυγατρὸς ὄνομα τῆς αὑτῆς ἐν χρόνῳ τοσούτῳ ἔφρασεν αὐτῷ, οὐδ᾽ ὁ θεῖος αὐτός, Νικόδημος, [32] ἀλλ᾽ ἀντὶ τοῦ τῆς τήθης ὀνόματος, εἴ τις ἤδει τοῦθ᾽ ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς κείμενον ταύτῃ. Φίλην ὁ ἀνὴρ ὄνομα ἐπεγράψατο εἶναι αὐτῇ, καὶ ταῦτα λαγχάνων αὐτῇ τοῦ κλήρου τοῦ πατρῴου. τίνος ἕνεκα; ἢ ἵνα καὶ τοῦ τῆς τήθης ὀνόματος τοῦ ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς

[27] ὁμολογεῖν : λέγειν Dobree ἀνάξιον τῶν αὐτοῦ : ἀνάξιον αὑτοῦ mal. Rosenberg [28] ἕξειν del. Herwerden ἢ del. Stephanus ἔχειν : ἕξειν Herwerden [29] εἰκὸς add. Reiske ἦν A’ (ἣν A): del Brulart : ἐχρῆν coni. Bekker ἐγγυῆσαι φάσκων del. Vollert [30] θεῖοι del. Herwerden ἐπεγράψατο Dobree : ἐγράψατο τὸ τῆς τήθης Al: τῇ τῆς Mec κλειταρέτην A’ : κλυταρέτην [31] αὐτὸς : αὐτῆς mal. Reiske [32] ἤδει Al: H8* ταύτῃ Bekker : ταύτην : αὐτῇ Reiske ὑπὸ τοῦ A! : ἜΡΙΟΝ τοῦ (erat fort. παρὰ τοῦ)

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 67

τεθέντος ἄκληρον ὁ ἀνὴρ καταστήσειεν

εἶναι τὴν αὑτοῦ γυναῖκα;

[33] ἀρά γε οὐχὶ δῆλον, ὦ ἄνδρες, ὅτι ἃ πάλαι οὗτοι μαρτυροῦσι γενέσθαι, πολλῷ πλέοντ τῆς λήξεως τοῦ κλήρου σύγκειται αὐτοῖς; οὗ γὰρ ἄν ποτε οἱ μὲν εἰς τὴν δεκάτην, ὥς φασι, κληθέντες τῆς τοῦ Πύρρου θυγατρός, ἀδελφιδῆς δὲ τούτου, ἐξ ἐκείνης τῆς ἡμέρας, ἥτις

ἦν

ποτε,

ἀκριβῶς

εἰς

τὸ

δικαστήριον

ἧκον

μεμνημένοι

ὅτι

Κλειταρέτην ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῇ δεκάτῃ ὠνόμηνεν, [34] οἱ δ᾽ οἰκειότατοι τῶν ἁπάντων, ὁ ἀνὴρ καὶ ὁ θεῖος καὶ ἡ μήτηρ οὐκ ἂν ἤδει τὸ ὄνομα τῆς θυγατρός, ὥς φασι, τῆς αὐτοῦ. πολύ γε μάλιστ᾽ ἄν, εἰ ἦν ἀληθὲς τὸ πρᾶγμα. ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τούτων καὶ ὕστερον ἐγχωρήσει εἰπεῖν. [35] Περὶ δὲ τῆς τούτου μαρτυρίας οὐ χαλεπὸν καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν νόμων ἐστὶ γνῶναι ὅτι φαίνεται περιφανῶς τὰ ψευδῆ μεμαρτυρηκὼς οὗτος. ὅπου γάρ, ἐάν τίς τι ἀτίμητον δῷ, ἕνεκα τοῦ νόμου, ἐὰν

ἀπολίπῃ ἡ γυνὴ τὸν ἄνδρα ἢ ἐὰν ὁ ἀνὴρ ἐκπέμψῃ τὴν γυναῖκα, οὐκ ἔξεστι. πράξασθαι τῷ δόντι ὃ μὴ ἐν προικὶ τιμήσας ἔδωκεν, ἦ που ὅστις γέ φησιν ἄνευ ὁμολογίας προικὸς τὴν ἀδελφὴν ἐγγυῆσαι, περιφανῶς ἀναίσχυντος ὧν ἐλέγχεται. [36] ti γὰρ ἔμελλεν ὄφελος εἶναι αὐτῷ τῆς ἐγγύης, εἰ ἐπὶ τῷ ἐγγυησαμένῳ ἐκπέμψαι ὁπότε

βούλοιτο τὴν γυναῖκα ἦν; ἦν δ᾽ ἂν én’ ἐκείνῳ, ὦ ἄνδρες, δῆλον ὅτι, εἰ μηδεμίαν προῖκα διωμολογήσατο ἕξειν én’ αὐτῇ. εἶτ᾽ ἐπὶ τούτοις ἂν Νικόδημος ἠγγύησε τῷ ἡμετέρῳ θείῳ τὴν ἀδελφήν; καὶ ταῦτα εἰδὼς τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον ἄτοκον οὖσαν αὐτήν, καὶ τῆς ὁμολογηθείσης προικὸς ἐκ τῶν νόμων γιγνομένης εἰς αὐτόν, εἴ τι

ἔπαθεν ἡ γυνὴ πρὶν γενέσθαι παῖδας αὐτῇ; [37] dp’ οὖν δοκεῖ τῷ ὑμῶν ὀλιγώρως οὕτως ἔχειν χρημάτων Νικόδημος, ὥστε παραλιπεῖν

εἶναι del. Dobree [33] μαρτυροῦσι γενέσθαι (inducto atoic) A’ : LaptupoD*** ξνέσθαι αὐτοῖς πολλῷ πλέον A, defendit Jenicke : πολλῷ ὕστερον Reiske : οὗ πολλῷ ὕστερον malim : πολλῷ πλέον μετὰ Roussel γενομένης ἤδη vel πρότερον οὐ post κλήρου coni. Buermann (1884, 327) : ἕνεκα post κλήρου coni. Wyse σύγκειται Al: οὐκεθ᾽ οἱ Aldus : εἰ [34] ἀνὴρ Dobree : πατὴρ = der: ἤδεσαν mal. Reiske τὸ ὄνομα -τῆς αὐτοῦ del. Buermann (1884, 350) φασι: φήσι, τῆς αὐτοῦ : τῆς αὑτῆς Sauppe : τῆς αὑτῶν mal. Reiske [35] ἐάν τίς -δῷ del. Albrecht ἕνεκα tod νόμου del. Buermann (1884, 353) : ἕνεκα τοῦ γάμου Reiske ἀπολίπει A! :

ἀπολείπει

ἦ που A*:

εἴ που

[36] ἦν (post γυναῖκα) om. Aldus :

add. post εἰ Muret : add. post ἐγγυησαμένῳ Scaliger : transp. post εἰ Rosenberg ἔπαθεν : πάθοι mal. Wyse [37] ὀλιγώρως οὕτως : οὕτως ὀλιγώρως Edwards

68 Text

ἄν τι τῶν τοιούτων; ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ οὐ νομίζω. εἶτα παρὰ τούτου ὁ ἡμέτερος θεῖος ἠξίωσεν ἂν ἐγγυήσασθαι τὴν ἀδελφήν, ὃς αὐτὸς ξενίας φεύγων ὑπὸ ἑνὸς τῶν φρατέρων ὧν φησιν αὑτοῦ εἶναι, παρὰ τέτταρας ψήφους μετέσχε τῆς πόλεως, Καὶ ὡς ἀληθῆ λέγω, ἀναγίγνωσκε τὴν μαρτυρίαν. Μαρτυρία [38] Οὗτος τοίνυν τῷ ἡμετέρῳ θείῳ ἄπροικον τὴν ἀδελφὴν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ μεμαρτύρηκεν ἐγγυῆσαι, καὶ ταῦτα τῆς προικὸς εἰς αὐτὸν γιγνομένης, εἴ τι ἔπαθεν ἡ γυνὴ πρὶν γενέσθαι παῖδας αὐτῇ. Λαβὲ δὴ καὶ ἀνάγνωθι τοὺς νόμους τουσδὶ αὐτοῖς. Νόμοι [39] Δοκεῖ ἂν ὑμῖν οὕτως ὀλιγώρως ἔχειν χρημάτων Νικόδημος, ὥστε, εἰ ἦν ἀληθὲς τὸ πρᾶγμα, οὐκ ἂν σφόδρα διακριβώσασθαι περὶ τῶν ἑαυτῷ συμφερόντων; ναὶ μὰ Δία, ὡς ἔγωγ᾽ οἶμαι, ἐπεὶ καὶ οἱ ἐπὶ παλλακίᾳ διδόντες τὰς ἑαυτῶν πάντες πρότερον διομολογοῦνται περὶ τῶν δοθησομένων ταῖς παλλακαῖς Νικόδημος δὲ ἐγγυᾶν μέλλων, κῷς» φησι, τὴν ἀδελφὴν τὴν αὑτοῦ μόνον τὸ κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ἐγγυῆσαι διεπράξατο; ὃς ἐπ᾽ ὀλίγῳ ἀργυρίῳ, od ἐπιθυμῶν λέγει πρὸς ὑμᾶς, σφόδρα βούλεται πονηρὸς εἶναι; [40] Περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς τούτου πονηρίας καὶ σιωπῶντος ἐμοῦ οἱ

πολλοὶ γιγνώσκουσιν ὑμῶν, ὥστε οὐκ ἀπορῷ γε μαρτύρων, ὅταν τι λέγω περὶ αὐτοῦ βούλομαι δὲ πρῶτον ἐκ τῶν τοιῶνδε ἐξελέγξαι τοῦτον ἀναισχυντότατον τῇ μαρτυρίᾳ ὄντα ταύτῃ. φέρε yap, ᾧ

Νικόδημε, εἰ ἦσθα ἠγγυηκὼς τῷ Πύρρῳ τὴν ἀδελφὴν Kai εἰ ἤδεις ἐξ αὐτῆς θυγατέρα γνησίαν καταλειπομένην, [41] πῶς ἐπέτρεψας τῷ ἡμετέρῳ ἀδελφῷ ἐπιδικάσασθαι τοῦ κλήρου ἄνευ τῆς γνησίας

τοιούτων A? : το ούτων (erat fort. τοσούτων) ὑπὸ ἑνὸς : ὑπό τινος Cobet (1862, 115) ὧν Reiske : dv [38] γιγνομένης : ἂν γενομένης Hertlein ἔπαθεν : πάθοι mal. Wyse [39] δοκεῖ ἂν : δοκεῖ οὖν Naber ναὶ μὰ : οὐ μὰ mal. Reiske παλλακίᾳ Bekker : παλλακίδι ταῖς παλλακαῖς del. Dobree (apud Dobson) ὡς add. Reiske οὕτω ante σφόδρα add. Naber [40] τούτου Sauppe : τούτων σιωπῶντος A? : σιωποῦντος γε susp. Wyse et ᾿γὼ coni. αὐτοῦ A’: αὐτῶν τοιῶνδε A! : τοιοῦνδε

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 69

θυγατρός, ἣν φὴς TH ἡμετέρῳ θείῳ καταλειφθῆναι; ἢ οὐκ ἤδεις ἐν τῇ ἐπιδικασίᾳ τοῦ κλήρου νόθην καθισταμένην τὴν ἀδελφιδῆν τὴν σαυτοῦ; ὁπότε γάρ τις ἐπεδικάξζετο τοῦ κλήρου, νόθην τὴν θυγατέρα τοῦ καταλιπόντος τὸν κλῆρον καθίστη. [42] ἔτι δὲ πρότερον ὁ

Πύρρος ὁ ποιησάμενος τὸν ἀδελφὸν τὸν ἐμὸν ὑὸν αὑτῷ οὔτε γὰρ διαθέσθαι οὔτε δοῦναι οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν ἔξεστι τῶν ἑαυτοῦ ἄνευ τῶν θυγατέρων, ἐάν τις καταλιπὼν γνησίας τελευτᾷ. γνώσεσθε δὲ αὐτῶν ἀκούσαντες τῶν νόμων ἀναγιγνωσκομένων. Ἀναγίγνωσκε τούσδε αὐτοῖς. Νόμοι [43] Δοκεῖ ἂν ὑμῖν ὁ μεμαρτυρηκὼς ἐγγυῆσαι ἐπιτρέψαι ἄν τι τούτων γίγνεσθαι, καὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐπὶ τοῦ κλήρου τῇ λήξει, ἣν ὁ Ἔνδιος λαχὼν ἐπεδικάζετο, ἀμφισβητῆσαι ἂν ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀδελφιδῆς τῆς ἑαυτοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἂν διαμαρτυρῆσαι μὴ ἐπίδικον τῷ Ἐνδίῳ τὸν ἐκείνης πατρῷον κλῆρον εἶναι; ἀλλὰ μὴν ὥς γε ἐπεδικάσατο ὁ ἡμέτερος ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κλήρου καὶ οὐκ ἠμφεσβήτησεν οὐδεὶς ἐκείνῳ, ἀναγίγνωσκε τὴν μαρτυρίαν. Μαρτυρία [44] Γενομένης τοίνυν τῆς ἐπιδικασίας ταύτης οὐκ ἐτόλμησεν ἀμφισβητῆσαι. τοῦ κλήρου Νικόδημος, οὐδὲ διαμαρτυρῆσαι τὴν ἀδελφιδῆν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γνησίαν θυγατέρα Πύρρῳ καταλειφθῆναι. [45] Περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς ἐπιδικασίας ἔχοι ἄν τις ψεῦδος προφασίσασθαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἢ γὰρ λαθεῖν σφᾶς προσποιήσαιτ᾽ ἂν οὗτος, ἢ καὶ ψεύδεσθαι. αἰτιῷτ᾽ ἂν ἡμᾶς. τοῦτο μὲν οὖν παρῶμεν ἐπειδὴ δὲ τῷ ΞἘενοκλεῖ ἠγγύα ὁ Ἔνδιος τὴν ἀδελφιδῆν σου, ἐπέτρεψας, ὦ Νικόδημε, τὴν ἐκ τῆς ἐγγυητῆς τῷ Πύρρῳ γεγενημένην

[41] ἐν abesse mal. Baiter καθιστα μένην AU: καθισταμμένην ὁπότε- καθίστη del. Naber τις 560]. Reiske κοαταλἠηπόντος Al: fort. καταλείποντος [43] δοκεῖ A’: δοκῆ δοκεῖ ἂν : δοκεῖ οὖν Naber γίγνεσθαι A! : fort. γενέσθαι ἢν- ἐπεδικάξετο del. Naber ἀδελφιδῆς Αὖ : ἀδελφῆς μὴ Schömann : οὐκ τῷ Ἐνδίῳ del. Naber [45] ἐπιδικασίας Reiske : διαδικασίας σφᾶς Bekker : ἡμᾶς : αὑτὸν malim ἑαυτὸν ἐπιδικαζομένους ante ἡμᾶς add. Reiske ἐπέτρεψας : ἐπέτρεψας ἂν Aldus : πῶς ante ἐπέτρεψας add. Photiades

70 Text

ὡς ἐξ ἑταίρας ἐκείνῳ οὖσαν ἐγγυᾶσθαι; [46] καὶ οὐκ [ἂν] εἰσήγγειλας πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα κακοῦσθαι τὴν ἐπίκληρον ὑπὸ τοῦ εἰσποιήτου οὕτως ὑβριζομένην Koi ἄκληρον τῶν ἑαυτῆς πατρῴων καθισταμένην, ἄλλως τε καὶ μόνων τούτων τῶν δικῶν ἀκινδύνων τοῖς διώκουσιν οὐσῶν καὶ ἐξὸν τῷ βουλομένῳ βοηθεῖν ταῖς ἐπικλήροις, [47] οὔτε γὰρ ἐπιτίμιον ταῖς πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα εἰσαγγελίαις ἔπεστιν, οὐδὲ ἐὰν μηδεμίαν τῶν ψήφων οἱ εἰσαγγείλαντες μεταλάβωσιν, οὔτε πρυτανεῖα οὔτε παράστασις οὐδεμιᾷ τίθεται τῶν εἰσαγγελιῶν ἀλλὰ τοῖς μὲν διώκουσιν ἀκινδύνως εἰσαγγέλλειν ἔξεστι, τῷ βουλομένῳ, τοῖς δ᾽ ἁλισκομένοις ἔσχαται τιμωρίαι ἐπὶ ταῖς εἰσαγγελίαις ἔπεισιν. [48] ἔπειτα εἰ ἦν ἐξ

ἐγγυητῆς

ἡ

τούτου

ἀδελφιδῆ

τῷ

ἡμετέρῳ

θείῳ

γεγενημένη,

ἐπέτρεψεν ἂν Νικόδημος ὡς ἐξ ἑταίρας οὖσαν αὐτὴν ἐγγυᾶσθαι; καὶ γενομένων αὐτῶν οὐκ ἂν εἰσήγγειλε πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα ὑβρίζεσθαι τὴν ἐπίκληρον ὑπὸ τοῦ οὕτως ἐγγυήσαντος αὐτήν; καὶ εἰ ἦν ἀληθῆ ἃ νυνὶ τετόλμηκας μαρτυρῆσαι, παραχρῆμα εὐθὺς τότε ἐτιμωρήσω ἂν τὸν ἀδικοῦντα ἢ καὶ ταῦτα λαθεῖν σεαυτὸν προσποιήσει; [49] ἔπειτ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἐκ τῆς ἐπιδοθείσης αὐτῇ προικὸς ἤσθου; ὥστε καὶ δι᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἀγανακτήσαντι δήπου σοι εἰσαγγεῖλαι τὸν Ἔνδιον προσῆκεν, εἰ αὐτὸς μὲν τριτάλαντον οἶκον ἔχειν ἠξίου ὡς προσῆκον αὐτῷ, τῇ δὲ γνησίᾳ θυγατρὶ χιλίας δραχμὰς προῖκα ἐπιδοὺς ἐκδοῦναι ἠξίωσεν ἄλλῳ. εἶτ᾽ ἐπὶ τούτοις οὐκ ἀγανακτήσυς εἰσήγγειλεν ἂν τὸν Ἔνδιον

οὗτος; ναὶ μὰ Aja, εἴ, γ᾽ ἦν ἀληθὲς τὸ πρᾶγμα. [50] οἶμαι δὲ οὐδ᾽ ἂν τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐκεῖνον οὐδ᾽ ἄλλον [δὲ] τῶν εἰσποιήτων οὐδένα οὕτως εὐήθη οὐδ᾽ αὖ ὀλίγωρον τῷν νόμων τῶν κειμένων γίγνεσθαι, ὥσθ᾽

ἐκείνῳ οὖσαν : οὖσαν ἐκείνῳ Fuhr εἰσήγγειλας Schömann : εἰσήγγελλες

[46] ἂν del. Buermann βοηθεῖν ταῖς A’ : Bondo**

ἐπὶ κλήροις [47] ἔπεστιν Reiske : ἔνεστι μηδεμίαν Bekker : οὐδεμίαν οὐδεμιᾷ Photiades : οὐδεμία τῷ βουλομένῳ del. Kayser αἱ add. Schömann [48] ἔπειτα -αὐτήν 560]. Reiske ἐξ 5.1. εὐ. Α'ὀ εἰσήγγειλε M Schömann : εἰσήγγελλε καὶ : an καὶ yap? : vai Wyse : νὴ Δία Sauppe : ναὶ μὰ Δία Albrecht : ναὶ μὰ Δία, καὶ Buermann : ἀλλ᾽ Thalheim τετόλμηκας Reiske : τετολμήκασι οὐ ante παραχρῆμα cum interrogatione add. Naber [49] προσῆκεν εἰ αὐτὸς A? : προσήκει αὐτὸς τῇ δὲ : ταύτῃ δὲ mal. Rosenberg θυγατρὶ χιλίας Roeder : οὔσῃ τρισχιλίας : οὔσῃ θυγατρὶ, χιλίας Rauchenstein : οὔσῃ χιλίας Petit (p. 550), Reiske : οὔσῃ δισχιλίας Sauppe [50] δὲ del. Buermann : ye Scheibe : δὴ Sauppe

αὖ Bekker: ἂν

ὥσθ᾽ A’: ὥστ᾽

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 71

ὑπαρχούσης γνησίας θυγατρὸς τῷ τὸν κλῆρον καταλιπόντι ἑτέρῳ δοῦναι ταύτην ἀνθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ. ἀκριβῶς γὰρ ἤδει διότι τοῖς γε ἐκ τῆς γνησίας θυγατρὸς παισὶ γεγονόσιν ἁπάντων τῶν παππῴων «ἡ» κληρονομία προσήκει. εἶτα εἰδὼς ἄν τις ταῦτα ἑτέρῳ παραδοίη τὰ αὑτοῦ, καὶ ταῦτα τηλικαῦτα ὄντα ὅσων ἠμφεσβήτησαν οὗτοι, [51] δοκεῖ δ᾽ ἄν τις ὑμῖν οὕτως ἀναιδὴς ἢ τολμηρὸς εἰσποίητος γενέσθαι, ὥστε μηδὲ τὸ δέκατον μέρος ἐπιδοὺς ἐκδοῦναι τῇ γνησίᾳ θυγατρὶ τῶν πατρῴων; γενομένων δὲ τούτων δοκεῖ ἂν ὑμῖν ὁ θεῖος ἐπιτρέψαι,

ὁ ἐγγυῆσαι

μεμαρτυρηκὼς

αὐτῆς τὴν

μητέρα;

ἐγὼ

μὲν γὰρ

οὐ

νομίζω, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἠμφεσβήτησεν ἂν τοῦ κλήρου καὶ διεμαρτύρησε καὶ εἰσήγγειλεν ἂν πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα, καὶ ἄλλο εἴ τι ἦν ἰσχυρότερον τούτων, ἅπαντ᾽ ἂν διεπράξατο. [52] ὁ μὲν τοίνυν Ἔνδιος ὡς ἐξ ἑταίρας οὖσαν ἠγγύησεν, ἦν φησιν ἀδελφιδῆν Νικόδημος εἶναι αὐτῷ οὗτος δὲ οὔτε τῷ Ἐνδίῳ τοῦ Πύρρου κλήρου ἀμφισβητῆσαι ἠξίωσεν, οὔτ᾽ ἐγγυήσαντα τὴν ἀδελφιδῆν οὖσαν ἐξ ἑταίρας εἰσαγγεῖλαι πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα [ἠξίωσεν], οὔτ᾽ ἐπὶ τῇ δοθείσῃ προικὶ αὐτῇ ἠγανάκτησεν οὐδέν, ἀλλὰ πάντα ταῦτα εἴασε γενέσθαι. οἱ δὲ νόμοι περὶ ἁπάντων διορίζουσι τούτων. [53] ἀναγνώσεται οὖν πρῶτον ὑμῖν τὴν περὶ τῆς ἐπιδικασίας τοῦ κλήρου μαρτυρίαν πάλιν, ἔπειτα τὴν περὶ τῆς ἐγγυήσεως τῆς γυναικός. Ἀναγίγνωσκε αὐτοῖς. Μαρτυρία» Ἀνάγνωθι δὴ καὶ τοὺς νόμους. Νόμοι Λαβὲ δὴ καὶ τὴν τούτου μαρτυρίαν. Μαυρτυρία

ἤδει : ἂν ἤδει Wyse διότι : örımg. add. Aldus τοῖς γε Α΄: τῆς γε ἡ ante κληρονομία add. Photiades : κληρονομεῖν Katabaines [51] δέκατον : δίκαιον Paoli ἐπιδοὺς ἐκδοῦναι : ἐπιδοῦναι Naber δοκεῖ A? : δοκῆ εἰσήγγειλεν M Aldus : εἰσήγγελλεν ἄλλο εἴ τι

ἦν : εἴ τι ἄλλο ἦν Muret

[52] ἐγγυήσαντα Δ΄ : ἐγγυήσαντι

ὡς

add. Reiske εἰσαγγεῖλαι : εἰσήγγειλεν Kayser ἠξίωσεν del. Scheibe δοθείσῃ : ἐπιδοθείσῃ mal. Scheibe [53] Μαρτυρίαι Reiske : μαρτυρία λαβὲ δὴ--Μαρτυρία del. Albrecht

72 Text

[54] Πῶς οὖν -ἄν» τις σαφέστερον ἐξελέγχοι ψευδομαρτυρίων διώκων ἢ ἔκ τε τῶν πεπραγμένων αὐτοῖς τούτοις ἐπιδεικνύων Kai ἐκ τῶν νόμων ἁπάντων τῶν ὑμετέρων; Περὶ μὲν οὖν τούτου σχεδὸν εἴρηται τὰ πολλά σκέψασθε δὲ καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἔχοντος τὴν ἀδελφιδῆν τὴν τούτου γυναῖκα, ἐὰν ἄρα τι γένηται καὶ ἐκ τούτου τεκμήριον ὡς ἔστι ψευδῆ τὰ μεμαρτυρημένα

Νικοδήμῳ.

[55] ὡς μὲν οὖν ἠγγυήσατο καὶ ἔλαβεν ὡς οὖσαν ἐξ

ἑταίρας τὴν γυναῖκα, ἐπιδέδεικται καὶ μεμαρτύρηται ὡς δ᾽ ἀληθὴς ἡ μαρτυρία ἐστὶν αὕτη,

ὁ Ξενοκλῆς αὐτὸς ἔργῳ οὐκ ὀλίγον χρόνον ἤδη

ἀληθῆ ταῦτα μεμαρτύρηκε. δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι εἰ μὴ ἠγγύητο παρὰ τοῦ Ἐνδίου ὡς ἐξ ἑταίρας οὖσαν τὴν γυναῖκα, ὄντων αὐτῷ παίδων ἤδη τηλικούτων ἐκ τῆς γυναικός, ζῶντι ἂν τῷ Ἐνδίῳ ἠμφεσβήτησεν ὑπὲρ τῆς γνησίας θυγατρὸς τῶν πατρῴων, [56] ὄλλως τε καὶ παρεσκευασμένος μὴ ὁμολογεῖν τὴν tod Ἔνδίου ποίησιν τῷ Πύρρῳ

γενέσθαι.

τς

δ᾽

oby

ὁμολογῶν

πῶς"

ἐπεσκήπτετο

τοῖς

μεμαρτυρηκόσιν ἐπὶ τῇ διαθήκῃ τοῦ Πύρρου παραγενέσθαι. καὶ ὡς ἀληθῆ λέγω, ἀναγνώσεται ὑμῖν τὴν μαρτυρίαν τὴν μαρτυρηθεῖσαν. Ἀναγίγνωσκε αὐτοῖς. Μαρτυρία [57] Ἀλλὰ μὴν κἀκεῖνό γε δηλοῖ Oc οὐχ ὁμολογοῦσι τὴν τοῦ Ἐνδίου ποίησιν ὑπὸ τοῦ Πύρρου γενέσθαι. οὐ γὰρ ἂν ὑπερβάντες τὸν τελευταῖον τοῦ οἴκου γεγενημένον κληρονόμον ὑπὲρ τῆς γυναικὸς τοῦ Πύρρου κλήρου λαχεῖν τὴν λῆξιν ἠξίωσαν οὗτοι. ὁ μὲν γὰρ Πύρρος πλείω ἢ εἴκοσιν ἔτη τετελεύτηκεν ἤδη, ὁ δὲ Ἔνδιος τοῦ

[54] πῶς οὖν ἄν τις Dobree : πῶς οὖν τις (τις 5. 1. add. A’) : πῶς ἄν τις Gebauer ἐξελέγχοι Aldus : ἐξελέγχει : ἐξελέγξει Bekker ὑμετέρων Sauppe : ἡμετέρων περὶ μὲν Al: PRY ἀδελφιδῆν A? : ἀδελφὴν [55] ἀληθῆ ταῦτα 560]. Reiske -σεν ὑπὲρ Bekker : τσὲ περὶ [56] τῷ Πύρρῳ : ὑπὸ τοῦ Πύρρου Naber ὡς δ᾽ οὐχ ὁμολογῶν πὼς locus nondum sanatus : ὡς δὴ οὐχ ὁμολογῶν πὼς Aldus : ὡς δὴ οὐχ ὁμολογῶν πῶς, πῶς 560]. Reiske : καὶ δὴ ὡς οὐχ ὁμολογῶν Naber : πῶς γὰρ τοῦθ᾽ ὁμολογῶν requirit Buermann : ὡς γὰρ οὐχ ὁμολογῶν Wyse : ὡς δ᾽ οὐχ ὡμολόγηκε τεκμήριον τὴν γὰρ ποίησιν ὁμολογῶν πῶς Radermacher ἐπεσκήπτετο Reiske : ἐπέσκηπτε ὑμῖν , : ἡμῖν tit. mg. [57] κἀκεῖνό γε δηλοῖ Schémann : κἀκεῖνό γε δῆλον : κἀκείνως δῆλον Wyse : κἀκείνῳ γε δῆλον mal. Reiske : κἀκεῖνοι γε δῆλοι Photiades

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 73

Μεταγειτνιῶνος μηνὸς πέρυσιν, ἐν ᾧ ἔλαχον τοῦ κλήρου τὴν λῆξιν τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ εὐθέως οὗτοι. [58] ὁ δὲ νόμος πέντε ἐτῶν κελεύει δικάσασθαι τοῦ κλήρου, ἐπειδὰν τελευτήσῃ ὁ κληρονόμος. οὐκοῦν δυοῖν τὰ ἕτερα προσῆκε τῇ γυναικί, ἢ ζῶντι τῷ Ἐνδίῳ ἀμφισβητῆσαι τῶν πατρῴων, ἢ ἐπειδὴ τετελευτηκὼς ἦν ὁ εἰσποίητος, τῶν τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ τὴν ἐπιδικασίαν ἀξιοῦν ποιεῖσθαι, ἄλλως τε καὶ εἰ, ὥς φασιν

οὗτοι, ἠγγυήκει αὐτὴν τῷ Ξενοκλεῖ ὡς γνησίαν ἀδελφὴν οὖσαν αὑτοῦ. [59] ἀκριβῶς γὰρ ἐπιστάμεθα πάντες ὅτι ἀδελφῶν μὲν κλήρων ἐπιδικασία πᾶσίν ἐστιν ἡμῖν, ὅτῳ δὲ γόνῳ γεγόνασι γνήσιοι παῖδες, οὐδενὶ ἐπιδικάζεσθαι τῶν πατρῴων προσήκει. καὶ περὶ τούτων οὐδένα λόγον λεχθῆναι δεῖ ἅπαντες γάρ, ὑμεῖς καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι πολῖται, ἀνεπίδικα ἔχουσι τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστοι πατρῷα. [60] οὗτοι τοίνυν εἰς τοῦτο τόλμης ἀφιγμένοι εἰσίν, ὥστε τῷ μὲν εἰσποιήτῳ οὐκ ἔφασαν ἐπιδικάσασθαι προσήκειν τῶν δοθέντων, τῇ δὲ Φίλῃ, ἥν φασι θυγατέρα γνησίαν τῷ Πύρρῳ καταλελεῖφθαι, λαχεῖν τοῦ κλήρου τοῦ πατρῴου τὴν λῆξιν ἠξίωσαν. καίτοι, ὅπερ εἶπον καὶ πρότερον, ὅσοι μὲν -ἂν» καταλίπωσι γνησίους παῖδας ἐξ αὑτῶν, οὐ προσήκει τοῖς παισὶν ἐπιδικάσασθαι τῶν πατρῴων ὅσοι δὲ διαθήκαις αὑτοῖς εἰσποιοῦνται, τούτοις ἐπιδικάζεσθαι προσήκει τῶν δοθέντων. [61] τοῖς μὲν γάρ, ὅτι γόνῳ γεγόνασιν, οὐδεὶς ἂν δήπου ἀμφισβητήσειε περὶ τῶν πατρῴων πρὸς δὲ τοὺς εἰσποιήτους ἅπαντες οἱ κατὰ γένος προσήκοντες ἀμφισβητεῖν ἀξιοῦσιν. ἵνα οὖν μὴ παρὰ τοῦ ἐντυχόντος

[58] δικάσασθαι : ἐπιδικάσασθαι Herwerden ἐπειδὰν τελευτήσῃ ὁ κληρονόμος del. Dobree ὁ εἰσποίητος del. Dobree [59] ἀδελφῶν μὲν κλήρων A’: ἀδελφὸν μὲν κλῆρον καὶ ante ὑμεῖς add. Buermann (1884, 327-328) ἔχουσι τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστοι : ἔχετε τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστος coni. Herwerden [60] λῆξιν Al: λῆξιν εἶπον Αὖ εἶχον üvadd. Dobree καταλίπωσι : καταλείπουσι (sine ἂν) mal. Vollert αὑτοῖς Dobree : αὐτοὶ : αὑτοῖς Scheibe et in sequenti versu τούτοις in τοῖς υἱοῖς corr. : αὐτοῖς Buermann quod post εἰσποιοῦνται transp. : υἱοὶ Emper : υἱοὺς Scheibe (1859, 29) [61] γεγόνασιν A? : γεγονόσιν περὶ susp. Herwerden μὴ : καὶ Schömann : μόνον Wyse παρὰ τοῦ ἐντυχόντος : καὶ τοῖς ἐντυχοῦσι-τοῖς ἀμφισβητεῖν βουλομένοι:ςὨ νὰ] παρὰ τοῦ ἐντυχόντος -τοῦ ἀμφισβητεῖν βουλομένου Schömann : πρὸς τοὺς ἐντυχόντας Sauppe : παρὰ τοὐντυχὸν vel ὥσπερ τοῦ ἐπιτυχόντος Emper : παρὰ τὸ προσῆκον Rauchenstein : παρὰ τοῦ ἐπιτυχόντος Scheibe : παρὰ τοὺς τυχόντας Buermann : παρὰ τοῦ ἔχοντος Wyse

74 Text

τῶν κλήρων αἱ λήξεις [τοῖς ἀμφισβητεῖν βουλομένοις] γίγνωνται, καὶ μὴ ὡς ἐρήμων τῶν κλήρων ἐπιδικάξεσθαί, τίνες τολμῶσι, τούτου ἕνεκα τὰς ἐπιδικασίας οἱ εἰσποίητοι πάντες ποιοῦνται. [62] μηδεὶς

οὖν ὑμῶν ἡγείσθω, εἰ ἐνόμιζε γνησίαν εἶναι τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα Ξενοκλῆς, λαχεῖν ἂν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς τὴν λῆξιν τοῦ κλήρου τοῦ πατρῴου, ἀλλ᾽ ἐβάδιζεν ἂν ἡ γνησία εἰς τὰ ἑαυτῆς πατρῷα, καὶ εἴ τις αὐτὴν

ἀφῃρεῖτο ἢ ἐβιάζετο, ἐξῆγεν ἂν ἐκ τῶν πατρῴων, καὶ οὐκ ἂν ἰδίας μόνον δίκας ἔφευγεν ὁ βιαζόμενος, ἀλλὰ καὶ δημοσίᾳ εἰσαγγελθεὶς πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα ἐκινδύνευεν ἂν περὶ τοῦ σώματος καὶ τῆς οὐσίας

ἁπάσης τῆς ἑαυτοῦ. [63] Ἔτι δ᾽ ἂν πρότερον [tod Ξενοκλέους] οἱ τοῦ Πύρρου θεῖοι, εἰ ἤδεσαν γνησίαν θυγατέρα τῷ ἑαυτῶν ἀδελφιδῷ καταλειπομένην καὶ ἡμῶν μηδένα λαμβάνειν ἐθέλοντα αὐτήν, οὐκ ἄν ποτε ἐπέτρεψαν Ξενοκλέα, τὸν μηδαμόθεν μηδὲν γένει προσήκοντα Πύρρῳ, λαβόντα ἔχειν τὴν κατὰ γένος προσήκουσαν αὐτοῖς γυναῖκα. ἢ δεινόν γ᾽ ἂν εἴη. [64] τὰς μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν πατέρων ἐκδοθείσας καὶ συνοικούσας ἀνδράσι γυναῖκας (περὶ ὧν τίς ἂν ἄμεινον ἢ ὁ πατὴρ βουλεύσαιτο!) καὶ τὰς οὕτω δοθείσας, ἂν ὁ πατὴρ αὐτῶν τελευτήσῃ μὴ καταλιπὼν αὐταῖς γνησίους ἀδελφούς, τοῖς ἐγγύτατα γένους ἐπιδίκους ὁ νόμος εἶναι κελεύει, καὶ πολλοὶ συνοικοῦντες ἤδη ἀφήρηνται τὰς ἑαυτῶν γυναῖκας. [65] εἶτα τὰς μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν πατέρων ἐκδοθείσας διὰ τὸν νόμον ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἐπιδίκους εἶναι προσήκει Ξενοκλεῖ δὲ ἄν τις τόδ᾽ ἐπέτρεψε τῶν τοῦ Πύρρου θείων, εἰ ἦν γνησία θυγάτηρ ἐκείνῳ καταλειπομένη. λαβόντα ἔχειν τὴν κατὰ γένος προσήκουσαν αὐτοῖς

τῶν κλήρων : τὸν κλῆρον Μ ἀλλὰ δηΐς τοῖς ἀμφισβητεῖν βουλομένοις add. Photiades τοῖς ἀμφισβητεῖν βουλομένοις del. Platner (apud Schömann p. 261) γίγνωνται : κωλύωνται Meier : ἀναιρῶνται Thalheim τινες A’: τος ἵνα οὖν- πάντες ποιοῦνται del. Vollert [62] ἀφῃρεῖτο ἢ susp. Buermann (1884, 356) πρὸς Reiske : εἰς εἰς τὸν ἄρχοντα abesse mal. Baiter [63] πρότερον : πρότεροι vel πρότεροι ὄντες Reiske τοῦ Ξενοκλέους del. Buermann (1884, 353) καταλειπομένην Stephanus καταλ ᾿ἸΊπομένην αὐτοῖς : αὐτοῖς Schömann [64] εἴη. τὰς : εἴη, εἰ τὰς coni. Stephanus καὶ τὰς οὕτω δοθείσας del. Naber : καὶ τὰς οὕπω ἐκδοθείσας mal. Reiske [65] θυγάτηρ A’ : ****np (supra ἢ rasura) καταλειπομένη V Stephanus : καταλ᾿ Ἰπομένη

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 75

γυναῖκα, ἑαυτῶν; μισεῖ τὸ ποιεῖται ἐπίδικον

καὶ τοσαύτης οὐσίας τοῦτον καταστῆναι κληρονόμον ἀνθ᾽ μὴ νομίσητε ὑμεῖς, ὦ ἄνδρες [66] οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀνθρώπων λυσιτελοῦν, οὐδὲ περὶ πλείονος τοὺς ἀλλοτρίους ἑαυτοῦ ἐὰν οὖν προφασίζωνται διὰ τὴν τοῦ Ἐνδίου ποίησιν μὴ εἶναι τὴν γυναῖκα, καὶ διὰ ταῦτα μὴ φῶσιν ἀμφισβητῆσαι

αὐτῆς, πρῶτον μὲν ἐκεῖνα αὐτοὺς ἐρέσθαι χρή, εἰ ὁμολογοῦντες τὴν τοῦ Ἐνδίου ποίησιν ὑπὸ τοῦ Πύρρου γενέσθαι ἐπεσκημμένοι εἰσὶ τοῖς μεμαρτυρηκόσι ταῦτα, [67] εἶτα παρελθόντες τὸν τελευταῖον τοῦ οἴκου γεγενημένον κληρονόμον τοῦ Πύρρου κλήρου τὴν λῆξιν λαχεῖν ἠξίωσαν παρὰ τὸν νόμον. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἐκεῖνο

αὐτοὺς ἔρεσθε, εἴ τις τῶν γνησίων -τῶν» αὑτοῦ ἐπιδικάζεσθαι ἀξιοῖ. ταῦτα πρὸς τὴν ἀναίδειαν αὐτῶν πυνθάνεσθε. ὡς δ᾽ ἦν ἐπίδικος ἡ γυνή, εἴ περ γνησία κατελείφθη, ἐκ τῶν νόμων σαφέστατα μαθεῖν ἔστι τοῦτο. [68] ὁ γὰρ νόμος διαρρήδην λέγει ἐξεῖναι διαθέσθαι ὅπως ἂν ἐθέλῃ τις τὰ αὑτοῦ, ἐὰν μὴ παῖδας γνησίους καταλίπῃ ἄρρενας ἂν δὲ θηλείας καταλίπῃ, σὺν ταύταις. οὐκοῦν μετὰ τῶν θυγατέρων ἔστι δοῦναι καὶ διαθέσθαι τὰ αὑτοῦ ἄνευ δὲ τῶν γνησίων θυγατέρων οὐχ οἷόν τε οὔτε ποιήσασθαι οὔτε δοῦναι οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν τῶν ἑαυτοῦ. [69] οὐκοῦν εἰ μὲν ἄνευ τῆς γνησίας θυγατρὸς τὸν Ἔνδιον Πύρρος ἐποιεῖτο ὑὸν αὑτῷ, ἄκυρος ἂν ἦν αὐτοῦ ἡ ποίησις κατὰ τὸν νόμον ᾽ εἰ δὲ τὴν θυγατέρα ἐδίδου καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ ποιησάμενος κατέλιπε, πῶς ἂν ὑμεῖς ἐπετρέψατε ἐπιδικάζεσθαι, οἱ τοῦ Πύρρου θεῖοι, τὸν Ἔνδιον τοῦ Πύρρου κλήρου ἄνευ τῆς γνησίας θυγατρός, εἰ ἦν ἐκείνῳ, ἄλλως τε εἰ καὶ ἐμαρτυρήσατε ὡς ἐπέσκηψεν ὑμῖν ὁ ἀδελφιδοῦς

καταστῆναι Reiske [66] ei: ti Naber

: καταστῆσαι ἑαυτῶν : ἑαυτοῦ mal. Reiske μὴ ante ὁμολογοῦντες add. Photiades ὑπὸ τοῦ

Πύρρου γενέσθαι ras., totidem litt. A’

ἐπεσκημμένοι Al

ἐπησκημμένοι [67] εἰ vel potius τί add. Reiske τις τῶν γνησίων τῶν αὑτοῦ Reiske : τις τῶν γνησίων αὑτοῦ : τις ὧν γνήσιος τῶν αὑτοῦ Dobree : τις τῶν πατρῴων τῶν αὑτοῦ Sauppe ὡς δ᾽ ἦν ἐπίδικος : ὡς δ᾽ οὐκ ἦν ἐπίδικος Taylor : ὡς δ᾽ ἦν ἀνεπίδικος Herwerden κατελείφθη Aldus : καταλειφθείη [68] καταλίπῃ (post θηλείας) [69] ἄκυρος Α΄ : ἀκυροῦξ αὐτοῦ Al: αὐτῶ: αὐτῷ Buermann οἱ τοῦ Πύρρου θεῖοι, τὸν Ἔνδιον Buermann : τῷ τοῦ Πύρρου θείω τὸν Ἔνδιον : τῷ τοῦ Πύρρου θετῷ, τῷ Ἐνδίῳ Meier : τὸν τοῦ Πύρρου θετὸν υἱὸν Ἔνδιον Sauppe : τῷ τοῦ Πύρρου θετῷ (omissis τὸν Ἔνδιον) Scheibe εἰ καὶ ἐμαρτυρήσατε ὡς : καὶ εἰ, ὡς ἐμαρτυρήσατε Naber : kai ci ἐμαρτυρήσατε ὡς Reiske : καὶ μαρτυρήσαντες, ὡς (εἰ deleto) Hirschig

76 Text

ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τούτου τοῦ παιδίου; [70] ἀλλ᾽ ὦ ἀγαθέ, τοῦτο μὲν Kai λαθεῖν φήσαιτ᾽ ἂν ὑμᾶς ὅτε δ᾽ ἠγγύα καὶ ἐξεδίδου ὁ Ἔνδιος τὴν γυναῖκα, ἐπετρέπετε ὑμεῖς οἱ θεῖοι τὴν τοῦ ἀδελφιδοῦ τοῦ ὑμετέρου αὐτῶν ὡς ἐξ ἑταίρας οὖσαν ἐκείνῳ ἐγγυᾶσθαι, ἄλλως τε καὶ παραγενέσθαι φάσκοντες, ὅτε ὁ ἀδελφιδοῦς ὑμῶν ἠγγυᾶτο τὴν μητέρα τὴν ταύτης κατὰ νόμους ἕξειν γυναῖκα, ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἐν τῇ δεκάτῃ τῇ ταύτης κληθέντες συνεστιᾶσθαι; [71] πρὸς δὲ τούτοις (τουτὶ γὰρ τὸ δεινόν ἐστιν) ἐπισκῆψαι φάσκοντες ὑμῖν τὸν

ἀδελφιδοῦν ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τούτου τοῦ παιδίου, οὕτως ἐπεμελήθητε ὥστ᾽ ἐᾶσαι ὡς ἐξ ἑταίρας οὖσαν αὐτὴν ἐγγυᾶσθαι, ἄλλως τε καὶ ἔχουσαν τοὔνομα τῆς ὑμετέρας αὐτῶν ἀδελφῆς, ὡς ἐμαρτυρεῖτε; [72] Ἔκ τοίνυν τούτων, ὦ ἄνδρες, καὶ ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ πράγματος ῥάδιόν ἐστι γνῶναι ὅσῳ ἀναισχυντότατοι ἀνθρώπων εἰσὶν οὗτοι. τίνος γὰρ ἕνεκα, εἰ ἦν γνησία θυγάτηρ τῷ ἡμετέρῳ θείῳ καταλειπομένη, ποιησάμενος ὁ θεῖος κατέλιπε τὸν ἐμὸν ἀδελφὸν ὑὸν ἑαυτῷ; πότερον ὅτι προσήκοντες αὐτῷ ἐγγυτέρω γένους ἡμῶν ἦσαν ἄλλοι, οὖς βουλόμενος τὴν ἐπιδικασίαν τῆς θυγατρὸς ἀποστερῆσαι ἐποιεῖτο τὸν ἀδελφὸν ὑὸν αὑτῷ; ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε ἐγένετο οὔτ᾽ ἔστι, μὴ γενομένων δὲ παίδων γνησίων ἐκείνῳ, ἐγγυτέρω ἡμῶν οὐδὲ εἷς ἀδελφὸς μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἦν αὐτῷ οὐδ᾽ ἀδελφοῦ παῖδες, ἐκ δὲ τῆς ἀδελφῆς ἡμεῖς ἦμεν αὐτῷ. [73] ἀλλὰ νὴ Aia ἄλλον τινὰ ποιησάμενος τῶν συγγενῶν ἔδωκεν ἂν ἔχειν τὸν κλῆρον καὶ τὴν θυγατέρα τὴν ἑαυτοῦ. καὶ τί αὐτὸν ἔδει καταφανῶς καὶ ὁτῳοῦν ἀπεχθέσθαι τῶν οἰκείων, ἐξόν, εἴπερ ἦν ἠγγυημένος τὴν ἀδελφὴν τὴν Νικοδήμου, τὴν θυγατέρα τὴν ἐκ ταύτης ἀποφανθεῖσαν εἶναι εἰς τοὺς φράτερας εἰσαγαγόντι ὡς οὖσαν γνησίαν ἑαυτῷ, ἐπὶ ἅπαντι τῷ κλήρῳ ἐπίδικον

[70] ὦ ἀγαθέ : ὦ ᾽γαθέ 1, : ᾧ ᾽γαθοί Sauppe

ὑμεῖς post καὶ add.

Buermann τὴν γυναῖκα Taylor : τῇ γυναικὶ πῶς ante ἐπετρέπετε add. Photiades τοὺς add. Schömann ἕξειν : ἔχειν mal. Wyse

συνεστιᾶσθαι A? : συνίστασθαι [71] τούτου τα5. add. A! οὕτως A’: τως ἐπεμελήθητε A’ : ἐπιμελήθητε [72] τούτων A! : τούτου ὅσῳ mal. Richards : ὅσον : ὡς mal. Wyse πάντων ante ἀνθρώπων add. Renehan καταλειπομένη Stephanus KatoA*iopévy ἡμῶν A? : ὑμῶν ἐμὸν ante ἀδελφὸν add. Stephanus μὴ γενομένων- ἐκείνῳ del. Dobree δὲ : ye Dobree : δὴ Sauppe : del. Buermann οὐδὲ εἷς A : οὐδε εἰς A’ : οὐδεὶς B [73] Δία A’: δί᾽ ἄλ fort. ante ἔχειν litt. erasa ἑαυτοῦ. Gebauer : ἑαυτοῦ; ἀπεχθέσθαι Bekker : ἀπέχθεσθαι

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 77

καταλιπεῖν αὐτὴν καὶ ἐπισκῆψαι τῶν γιγνομένων «ἐκ τῆς θυγατρὸς παίδων εἰσαγαγεῖν ὑὸν ἑαυτῷ; [74] δῆλον [μὲν] γὰρ ὅτι ἐπίκληρον μὲν καταλιπὼν ἀκριβῶς ἂν ἤδει ὅτι δυοῖν θάτερον ἔμελλεν ὑπάρχειν αὐτῇ ἢ γὰρ ἡμῶν τινὰ τῶν ἐγγύτατα γένους ἐπιδικασάμενον ἕξειν γυναῖκα, ἢ εἰ μηδεὶς ἡμῶν ἐβούλετο λαμβάνειν, τῶν θείων τινὰ τούτων τῶν νῦν μαρτυρούντων, εἰ δὲ μή, τῶν ἄλλων τινὰ συγγενῶν τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ οὐσίᾳ ἐπιδικασάμενον κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ἕξειν ταύτην γυναῖκα. [75] οὐκοῦν ἐκ μὲν τοῦ τὴν θυγατέρα εἰς τοὺς φράτερας εἰσαγαγεῖν καὶ μὴ ποιήσασθαι τὸν ἐμὸν ἀδελφὸν ὑὸν αὐτῷ ταῦτ᾽ ἂν διεπράξατο᾽ ἐκ δὲ τοῦ τοῦτον μὲν ποιήσαθαι τὴν δὲ μὴ εἰσαγαγεῖν τὴν μὲν νόθην, ὥσπερ αὐτῷ προσῆκε, καὶ ἄκληρον κατέστησε, τὸν δὲ κληρονόμον κατέλιπεν τῶν ἑαυτοῦ. [76] ἀλλὰ μὴν ὥς γε οὔτε γαμηλίαν εἰσήνεγκεν ὁ θεῖος ἡμῶν, οὔτε τὴν θυγατέρα, ἥν φασι γνησίαν αὐτοῦ εἶναι οὗτοι, εἰσαγαγεῖν εἰς τοὺς φράτερας ἠξίωσε, καὶ ταῦτα νόμου ὄντος αὐτοῖς, ἀναγνώσεται [δὲ] ὑμῖν τὴν τῶν φρατέρων τῶν ἐκείνου μαρτυρίαν. Ἀναγίγνωσκε σὺ δ᾽ ἐπίλαβε τὸ ὕδωρ. Μαρτυρία Λαβὲ δὲ καὶ ὡς ἐποιήσατο τὸν ἐμὸν ἀδελφὸν ὑὸν αὐτῷ. Μαρτυρία

ante τῶν erasae duae litt. ἐκ ante τῆς add. Reiske υἱὸν 1. 1. add. Αἱ [74] per μὲν γὰρ usque ad paginae marginem transcurrit duplex linea inducta μὲν post δῆλον del. Buermann (1884, 348) μὲν post ἐπίκληρον mg. add. A’: del. Bekker ante ἤδει litt. erasa ὑπάρχειν : ὑπάρξειν malim γένους ἐπιδικασάμενον ras. add. A’ τούτων ras. add. A! ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ οὐσίᾳ Wyse : περὶ πάσης τῆς οὐσίας : πάσης τῆς οὐσίας, περὶ deleto Dobree : μετὰ πάσης τῆς οὐσίας Schömann ἕξειν Reiske : ἔχειν [75] αὑτῷ Aldus : ἑαυτῷ A: αὐτῷ At ταῦτ᾽ ἂν Aldus: ταῦτα τοῦτον μὲν : τὸν μὲν Aldus αὐτῷ : αὐτῇ mal. Thalheim κατέλτιπεν [76] ὥς γε Aldus: ὥστε γαμηλίαν αὐτοῦ 5. Ladd. Ab: αὐτῷ, ἠξίωσε A’: ἠξίωσαν δὲ del. Dobree : servant Reiske et Emper, ut αὐτοῖς Reiske in αὐτοὶ μεμαρτυρήκασιν et Emper in αὐτοὶ, ἴστε corrigant ἐπίλαβε Stephanus : ἐπίβαλλε τὴν ante ὡς ἐποιήσατο coni. Reiske

78 Text

[77] Εἶτα ὑμεῖς τὴν Νικοδήμου μαρτυρίαν τῶν αὐτοῦ τοῦ θείου ἐκμαρτυριῶν πιστοτέραν ἡγήσεσθε εἶναι, καὶ τὴν οὕτω κοινὴν τοῖς βουλομένοις γεγενημένην, ταύτην ἐπιχειρήσει τις ὑμᾶς πείθειν ὅτι

ἐγγυητὴν γυναῖκα ὁ ἡμέτερος θεῖος ἔσχεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑμεῖς, ὡς ἔγωγ᾽

οἶμαι, οὐ πιστεύσετε, ἐὰν μὴ ἀποφαίνῃ ὑμῖν, ὅπερ ἀρχόμενος εἶπον τοῦ λόγου, [78] πρῶτον μὲν ἐπὶ τίνι προικὶ οὗτος ἐγγυῆσαι τῷ Πύρρῳ φησὶ τὴν ἀδελφήν, ἔπειτα πρὸς ὁποῖον ἄρχοντα ἡ ἐγγυητὴ

γυνὴ ἀπέλιπε τὸν ἄνδρα ἢ τὸν οἶκον [τὸν] αὐτοῦ, εἶτα παρ᾽ ὅτου ἐκομίσατο τὴν προῖκα αὐτῆς, ἐπειδὴ τετελευτηκὼς ἦν ᾧ φησιν αὐτὴν

ἐγγυῆσαι ἢ εἰ ἀπαιτῶν μὴ ἐδύνατο κομίσασθαι ἐν εἴκοσιν ἕτεσιν, ὁποίαν δίκην σίτου ἢ τῆς προικὸς αὐτῆς ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐγγυητῆς γυναικὸς ἐδικάσατο τῷ ἔχοντι τὸν Πύρρου κλῆρον οὗτος. [79] ἔτι δὲ πρὸς τούτοις ἐπιδειξάτω ὅτῳ πρότερον ἢ ὕστερον ἠγγύησεν οὗτος τὴν ἀδελφήν, ἢ εἰ ἐξ ἄλλου τινὸς γεγενημένοι εἰσὶ παῖδες αὐτῇ. ταῦτα οὖν ἀξιοῦτε πυνθάνεσθαι παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ, καὶ περὶ τῆς τοῖς φράτερσι γαμηλίας μὴ ἀμνημονεῖτε. οὐ γὰρ τῶν ἐλαχίστων πρὸς τὴν τούτου μαρτυρίαν τεκμήριόν ἐστι τοῦτο. δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι, εἰ ἐπείσθη

ἐγγυήσασθαι, ἐπείσθη ἂν καὶ γαμηλίαν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς τοῖς φράτερσιν εἰσενεγκεῖν καὶ εἰσαγαγεῖν τὴν ἐκ ταύτης ἀποφανθεῖσαν θυγατέρα ὡς γνησίαν οὖσαν αὐτῷ. [80] [καὶ] ἔν te τῷ δήμῳ

κεκτημένος τὸν τριτάλαντον οἶκον, εἰ ἦν γεγαμηκώς, ἠναγκάζετο ἂν ὑπὲρ τῆς γαμετῆς γυναικὸς καὶ θεσμοφόρια ἑστιᾶν τὰς γυναῖκας, καὶ τἄλλα ὅσα προσῆκε λειτουργεῖν ἐν τῷ δήμῳ ὑπὲρ τῆς γυναικὸς ἀπό γε οὐσίας τηλικαύτης. οὐ τοίνυν φανεῖται οὐδὲν τούτων γεγενημένον οὐδεπώποτε. οἱ μὲν οὖν φράτερες μεμαρτυρήκασιν ὑμῖν λαβὲ δὲ καὶ τὴν τῶν δημοτῶν τῶν ἐκείνου μαρτυρίαν. «Μυρτυρία»

[77] πιστεύσετε Stephanus : πιστεύετε [78] τὸν del. Turicenses αὐτῆς : αὐτὸς Al : οὗτος coni. Wyse οὗτος vel ante τὴν vel post αὐτῆς add. Scheibe ὦ A?:6 φησιν Α΄: g*ow αὐτὴν A’: αὐτῆς [79] τῆς τοῖς φράτερσι : τῆς εἰσενεχθείσης τοῖς φράτερσι Scheibe : τῆς ἐν τοῖς φράτερσι Rauchenstein ἀμνημονεῖτε Al: ἀμνημονεῖτο τούτου Β : τούτων εἶναι add. Scheibe [80] ἐν τε τῷ δήμῳ Fuhr καὶ deleto : καὶ ἐν τῷ δήμῳ Turicenses : καὶ ἐν δὲ τῷ δήμῳ Thalheim : καὶ ἐν ye τῷ δήμῳ Scheibe : ἐν te τῷ δήμῳ del. Reiske post ἦν duae litt. erasae δ᾽ ante ἂν add. Reiske δὲ Bekker : δὴ tit. add. Reiske

TRANSLATION Isaeus’

On the Estate of Pyrrhus Hypothesis* Pyrrhus had adopted Endius, one of his sister’s two sons, and for over twenty years Endius remained in possession of the estate he inherited. Subsequently, after his death, Xenocles filed a claim to take possession of the property on behalf of Phile, his wife, and formally declared that she was Pyrrhus’ legitimate daughter, while Endius’ mother was putting forward a claim to the estate. Xenocles was convicted of perjury, even though Nicodemus himself testified that he gave away his sister in marriage to Pyrrhus according to the laws, who later gave birth to Phile. However, Endius’ brother alleges that she is illegitimate, born to Pyrrhus by a hetaira®, and that it was as such that she was given in marriage to Xenocles by Endius. The issue 15. one of fact and the action a charge of perjury against Nicodemus. [1] Gentlemen dikasts, my mother’s brother Pyrrhus had no legitimate children, and he therefore adopted my brother Endius as

his son. The latter lived former’s property, and estate he had inherited, right to the inheritance.

for more than twenty years as the heir to the during this long period of time he held the no one ever laid claim to it or disputed his [2] However, when my brother died last year,

Phile came forward in disregard of the last heir claiming that she was the legitimate daughter of our uncle, and her Ayrias* Xenocles from Coprus, saw fit to demand legal possession of Pyrrhus’ estate, who died over twenty years ago, and he set the value of the estate at three talents. [3] Then, when our mother, Pyrrhus’ sister, disputed their right to claim, the kyrios* of the woman who had entered a claim to the estate had the audacity to formally declare that her brother’s estate could not be adjudicated to our mother, because Pyrrhus, the original owner of the estate, had a legitimate daughter. After we had formally contested the declaration and brought before you the man who had the audacity to submit it with these argumentations, [4] and by proving that his testimony was clearly false we obtained from you a conviction for perjury, while at the same time we proved the

80 Translation

present defendant Nicodemus to have been totally shameless before

the same dikasts with the testimony he gave, since he had the audacity to testify that he had given his sister in marriage to our uncle according to the laws. [5] That in the previous trial, too, his testimony was considered to be false, is plainly proved by the witness who has been convicted at the time. For if the present defendant had not been thought to be bearing false witness, then obviously the other man, Xenocles, would have gone away acquitted in the suit occasioned by the formal declaration, and the woman who was declared to be our uncle’s legitimate daughter would have been established as the heiress to his estate instead of our mother. [6] Thus, since the witness was convicted and the woman who claimed

to be acknowledged as Pyrrhus’ legitimate daughter dropped claim to the estate, it must follow that Nicodemus’ testimony has been condemned. For the man who made the formal declaration eventually tried in court for perjury concerning this very matter,

her also was that

is, whether the woman claiming the estate is the daughter of our uncle by a lawful wife or by a hetaira®. It will be clear to you too, when you hear our preliminary sworn declaration and the defendant’ 5 deposition and the formal declaration which was thrown out. [7] Take these and read them to the dikasts. Preliminary sworn declaration. Deposition. Formal declaration.

It has

been

immediately

shown

without

to

everyone

hesitation

thought

that Nicodemus to have

was

testified

Nevertheless, it 1s right that his testimony should be the presence of yourselves, who will be reaching to same matter. [8] So first I would like to learn +in this same issue+, what the dowry was that this

then

falsely.

proved false in a verdict on the connection with man alleges he

provided, who has testified that he gave his sister in legal marriage to the man who owned an estate valued at three talents; next, whether

the lawful wife left her husband while he was alive or whether she left his house

after his death; and from whom

did the defendant

recover his sister’s dowry, since the man to whom he has testified that he betrothed her had died, [9] or, if he did not recover it, what lawsuit for her maintenance or for the dowry itself, in the period of twenty years, did he consider it appropriate to bring against the man who was in possession of the inherited estate, or whether in all that time he proceeded to make a claim against the heir about his sister’s dowry in the presence of any man. In connection with these matters,

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrius (Oration 3) 81

therefore,

I would be glad to learn why none of the above has been

performed for the lawful, as the defendant has testified, wife, [10] and in addition whether anyone else took the defendant’s sister as a lawful wife, either of the men who had relations with her earlier, before our uncle knew her, or of those who associated with her when he knew her, or those who associated with her later after his death.

For it 15 clear that her brother has given her in marriage in the same way to everyone who has associated with her. [11] If I had to speak separately about each one of them, it would be no brief task. But if you require me to do so, I can call several of them to mind. If, again, some of you find it distasteful to hear, as it is to me to speak about these things, I will lay before you the same depositions that were given at the previous trial, none of which our opponents saw fit to contest formally. Yet, since they themselves have admitted that the woman was available to anyone who wanted her, how can the same woman be reasonably considered a lawful wife? [12] In fact, since

they have never formally contested the depositions concerning this very point, they have accepted it as being true. And when you have heard the depositions themselves, you will realize that the defendant has manifestly borne false witness and that those who judged the case rightly and in accordance with the laws ruled that the inheritance does not belong to the woman who was born irregularly. Read; and you, stop the water. Depositions [13]

It has thus been testified in your presence

by the other

acquaintances and neighbours of Pyrrhus that the woman whom the defendant has deposed that he gave as a lawful wife to our uncle, was a hetaira® available to anyone who wanted her, and that she was not his wife. These people have testified that quarrels broke out over her

and serenades and a great deal of disorderly behaviour took place every time his sister was in Pyrrhus’ house. [14] And of course no one would dare to serenade married women. Nor do married women accompany their husbands to dinners, nor do they consider it seemly to dine with strangers, let alone with chance visitors. Despite this, the opponents did not think it appropriate to formally contest the witness. And to prove that I am telling the truth, read out the deposition once more to the dikasts. Deposition

82 Translation

[15] Read out the depositions, too, about those who associated

with her, so they may know that she was a detaira® available to anyone who wanted her, and that evidently she did not have a child by anyone else. Read to the dikasts. Depositions [16] You should remember how many people have testified to you that she was available to anyone who wanted her, this woman whom the defendant has deposed that he gave in legal marriage to our uncle, and who was clearly not given to anyone else nor lived with anyone else as a lawful spouse. Let us also consider the reasons why anyone would assume that such a woman was legally married, just in case something of the sort actually occurred in the case of our uncle. [17] Truly before now young men have desired such women and, unable to restrain themselves, have been swept away by their folly to ruin themselves like this. So how would one find out more precisely about this matter than by examining the depositions of the witnesses in favour of the opponents in the previous tral and the probabilities suggested by the case itself? [18] Consider the effrontery of their assertions. The man who, as he says, was about to give his sister ın marriage into a three-talent household alleged that, when he was arranging a matter of such importance, there was only one witness present on his behalf, Pyretides, and the opponents produced an absentee deposition from him at the previous trial. A deposition

which,

unfortunately

for

them,

Pyretides

has

not

acknowledged, nor does he admit to having made it or that he knows that any of it is true. [19] So here we have a serious proof that this deposition that the opponents produced was manifestly false. For you

all know that when we engage in calculated acts for which it is necessary to have witnesses, the people we usually take with us in acts of this sort are those closest to us and those with whom we are most intimate, whereas if something is unforeseen and sudden all of

us take as a witness the chance comer. [20] For actual depositions we are obliged to use as witnesses the people who were present at the events, no matter who they are. However, when someone obtains an absentee deposition from people who are ill or who are going to be away from the city, all of us call on the most honourable citizens and those who are best known to you. [21] And we all obtain absentee depositions in the presence not of one or two people but of as many as possible, so that the man submitting an absentee deposition will

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 83

not be able subsequently to deny the testimony, and so that you can

repose greater trust in the many honest people who are giving the same evidence. [22] Thus Xenocles, when he came to Besa to our factory at the mines, did not consider it appropriate to employ people who happened to be there as witnesses for the eviction, but arrived from here accompanied by Diophantus from Sphettus, who spoke for him at the former trial, and Dorotheus from Eleusis and his brother

Philochares and many other witnesses, having asked them to travel a distance of almost three hundred stades from here to there. [23] Yet when, as he alleges, he was obtaining an absentee deposition in the city about the betrothal of his children’s grandmother, he had apparently not invited any of his intimates, but Dionysius from Erchia and Aristolochus from the deme* of Aethalidae. In the presence of these two in the city our opponents allege that they received the absentee deposition. They did things of this degree of importance in the company of these people whom no one would ever believe in any way on any matter. [24] Of course, perhaps by Zeus the matter about which the opponents say that they received an absentee testimony from Pyretides was imdeed trivial and insignificant, and thus it was not at all surprising that it was overlooked. Yet how is that possible? Seeing that the trial for perjury, in which Xenocles was defendant, was concerned with precisely this question, that 15, whether his wife was the daughter of a hetaira® or of a lawfully married woman. And anyway, in order to confirm the truth of the deposition in question, would he not have thought it worth summoning all his intimates? [25] Yes by Zeus, that ıs what I

would have thought,

if what was being claimed were true. Yet

apparently he did not do so, in fact Xenocles obtained the absentee

deposition in the presence of two chance witnesses, and Nicodemus the present defendant alleges that he called only one witness to be

with him when he betrothed his sister to a man who possessed an estate worth three talents. [26] And the defendant pretended that only Pyretides,

who

denies

it, was

present as a witness.

Furthermore,

Lysimenes and his brothers, Chaeron and Pylades, allege that they were invited by the man who was about to take a woman of that sort as his lawful wife and that they were present at the betrothal, even though they were the bridegroom’s uncles. [27] It is now your task to decide whether this story appears credible. For I think, judging from probabilities, that Pyrrhus would far rather have avoided the attention of all his intimates, if he was about to enter into some agreement or

84 Translation

action unworthy of his family, instead of inviting his own uncles to

witness such an enormous mistake. [28] Another thing which surprises me is that he who gave and he who received the woman in lawful marriage did not agree on the provision of a dowry for her. For on the one hand, if Nicodemus gave a dowry of some sort, it is probable that this would be mentioned in the deposition of those who claim to have been present; on the other hand, if our uncle took as his lawful wife

a woman of such morals

because of passion, it is obvious that the man who was giving her in marriage would be even more keen to make the bridegroom agree that he had received money along with the woman, so that he would not easily be able to get rid of his wife whenever he wished. [29] And of course it is probable that the man who gave such a woman in marriage would have invited many more witnesses than the man who was taking her. For you all know that few unions of this nature are usually lasting. So, the man who states that he gave her in marriage is alleging that he married his sister to a man whose estate is valued at three talents in the presence of a single witness and without any agreement on a dowry, while the uncles have given evidence that that they were present as witnesses for their nephew when he was taking as his lawful wife a woman of this sort without a dowry. [30] In fact, these same uncles have testified that they were present, at their nephew’s invitation, at the tenth day ceremony for the child who was presented to be his daughter. This is a fact I find utterly outrageous, because when the husband filed a claim on the paternal estate on behalf of his wife, he entered his wite’s name as

“Phile”, whereas Pyrrhus’ uncles who state that they were present at the tenth day ceremony have testified that her father gave her the

name

of her grandmother,

Cleitarete.

[31] I am amazed that the

husband did not know the name of the wife he had already lived with

for over eight years. So he could not learn beforehand what it was from his own witnesses, neither did his wife’s mother in all that time tell him her own daughter’s name, and nor did the uncle himself,

Nicodemus, [32] but instead of her grandmother’s name, if anyone genuinely knew that this was the name given to her by her father, her husband inscribed her name as Phile, just at the time when he was claiming her father’s estate on her behalf. What was the reason? Was it perhaps to deprive his wife of her right to bear the name of her grandmother which was bestowed on her by her father? [33] Thus is it not evident, gentlemen, that everything that the opponents depose to have happened in the past, they in fact invented shortly after

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 85

entering the claim for the estate?!” Because those who were invited,

as they say, to the tenth-day niece of the defendant would memory of the day, whenever tenth-day ceremony gave her

ceremony of Pyrrhus’ daughter and never appear in court with a clear that day was, when her father at the the name Cleitarete, [34] while her

closest relatives of all, her husband, her uncle, and even her mother,

would be unaware of the name of the child they say is his daughter. Of course they would know it, if what is being claimed were true. But I will have the opportunity later on as well to speak about Pyrrhus’ uncles. [35] As far as the testimony of the defendant, Nicodemus, is concerned, it is not hard (for you) to decide from the laws themselves that the defendant has manifestly given blatant false evidence. For in every

case where

someone

gives something

without

its monetary

value having been assessed, according to the law, if the woman leaves her husband or the husband divorces his wife, the person who gave the dowry is unable to claim back anything he had failed to assess, given as part of the dowry. Undoubtedly someone who alleges that he married off his sister without making an agreement for her dowry is clearly proved to be shameless. [36] For how would the marriage benefit him, if the bridegroom could send his wife away any time he wanted? And of course, gentlemen, it would be possible for him to do so if 1t were not set down in a formal agreement that he would get a dowry with her. And in any case, would Nicodemus have

given his sister in marriage to our uncle on these terms? Especially when he knew that up until then she had been childless and that by law the agreed dowry would come to him, if something happened to the woman before she had children? [37] Does any of you really think that Nicodemus is so indifferent to money that he would

overlook such a matter? I for my part certainly do not think so. Again, would our uncle consider it right to accept as a lawful wife the sister of a man accused of usurping citizen’s rights, an accusation brought by a member of the phratry* to which he says he belongs, and who obtained his citizen’s rights only by a majority of four votes? And to prove that I am telling the truth, read the deposition. Deposition

1% Translated according to my suggestion (ob πολλῷ ὕστερον).

86 Translation

[38] So the defendant has testified that he betrothed his sister to

our uncle without a dowry, despite the fact that the dowry would revert to him if anything happened to the woman before having children. Now take these laws and read them to the dikasts. Laws

[39] Does it appear to you that Nicodemus might be so indifferent to money

that, if there was truth in the assertions, he would not

consult his own interests with scrupulous care? Yes, by Zeus he would in my opinion, given that all who hand over the women under their control as concubines agree from the start on what the concubines are to receive, whereas Nicodemus, when handing over

his own sister as a lawful wife, as he alleges, only arranged the requirements of the betrothal according to the laws? The man who is eager to be dishonest in order to get a little money, which hopes to obtain by addressing you (in court)? [40] Even if I keep silent on the dishonesty of the defendant, the majority of you are aware of it, so that 1 really do not lack witnesses when I say something about him. But first I want to prove with what follows that as far as his testimony is concerned he is utterly shameless. Tell us, Nicodemus, if you had betrothed your sister to Pyrrhus and knew that he was leaving a legitimate daughter by her, [41] how did you allow our brother to claim by adjudication the estate without the legitimate daughter whom you assert that our uncle left behind? Or did you not know that once the property was claimed by adjudication ıt rendered your own niece illegitimate? For when someone claimed an estate by adjudication, he made illegitimate the daughter of the man who left the estate. [42] And Pyrrhus declared

her ıllegitimate even earlier, by adopting my brother. For anyone who dies leaving behind legitimate daughters 1s not entitled to make a will or to bequeath anyone any part of his estate without including his daughters in it. You will understand this when you hear the actual laws read out. Read these laws to the dikasts. Laws

[43] Do would have objected on adjudication

you think that the man who has testified to the betrothal allowed any of this to happen? And would he not have behalf of his own niece to the claim filed by Endius for of the estate and wouldn’t he have submitted a formal

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 87

declaration that her father’s estate was not adjudicable to Endius?

But of course, to prove that our brother did claim the estate by adjudication and that no one contested his claim, read out the deposition. Deposition [44] And when the claim for the adjudication had been lodged, Nicodemus did not dare to contest Endius’ claim to the estate or to file a formal declaration to the effect that his niece was a legitimate daughter left by Pyrrhus. [45] So as regards the claim by adjudication one could present you with false justifications: the defendant could either pretend that it had escaped their attention or he even could accuse us of lying. Still, let us ignore this. However, when Endius betrothed your niece to Xenocles, did you, Nicodemus, permit the daughter that Pyrrhus had by his lawful wife to be betrothed as though she was his daughter by a hetaira®? [46] And did you not bring an impeachment before the arkhön” for the maltreatment of the epikleros® by the adopted son when she was abused in such a way and deprived of her patrimony, even though such actions are the only ones which involve no risk for the prosecutors and are open to the volunteer who wishes to protect the epikleroi*? [47] For no fine 1s imposed on those who bring impeachments before the arkhon™, even if they don’t win a single vote, nor are there deposits or court fees to pay for any impeachments. Instead those who bring the impeachments are given

the possibility to do so without putting themselves at risk, anyone who

wants to that is, whereas

on those who

are convicted in the

impeachments are imposed the most severe penalties. [48] Therefore, if his niece was our uncle’s daughter by a lawful wife, would Nicodemus have allowed her to be betrothed as if she was the daughter of a hetaira*? And when these things took place, would he not have brought an impeachment before the arkhon* that the man who betrothed the epikléros* in this way was abusing her? And if those things were true that you now have the audacity to testify to, you would immediately then have had the man responsible for the abuse punished. Or are you going to pretend that these things too escaped your attention? [49] In any case, did you not get any suspicion from the dowry that was given to her? That in itself should have angered you and made you impeach Endius, if he himself thought that he had the right to possess an estate worth three talents,

88 Translation

while

seeing

fit to give

the

legitimate

daughter

in marriage

to

someone else with a dowry of one thousand drachmas. Would these not have outraged the defendant and made him impeach Endius? Yes by Zeus he would, if what he alleges were true. [50] I think in the first place that neither Endius nor any other adopted son can be so naive or so indifferent towards the established laws that although a legitimate daughter exists of the man who left the estate, he would give her off to someone else instead of himself. For he was perfectly aware that the inheritance of their grandfather’s estate goes to the children born to the legitimate daughter in its entirety. So would someone knowing this hand over his fortune to someone else, especially when it was as substantial as the opponents claimed? [51] Does it seem likely to you that an adopted son would be so insolent or so shameless as to marry off the legitimate daughter without giving her as a dowry even one tenth of her patrimony? And if this did happen, do you think that her uncle would have permitted it, the very man who has testified that he betrothed her mother? I for my part do not think so, but rather he would have claimed the estate and he would have filed a formal declaration and he would have brought an impeachment before the arkhon* and, if there were actions more effective than these, he would have done them all. [52] So Endius betrothed the woman whom Nicodemus alleges 15 his niece as though

she were the daughter of a hetaira*. And the defendant did not see fit either to dispute the claim to Pyrrhus’ estate with Endius, nor to bring an impeachment before the arkhon™* against Endius for betrothing his

niece as though she were a hetaira’s* daughter, nor did he express any outrage about the dowry that was bestowed on her, but allowed

all these things to take place. But the laws are precise on all these matters. [53] The clerk will once more read out to you, first, the deposition concerning the claim by adjudication to the estate, and next the deposition about the woman’s betrothal. Read them out to the dikasts. Depositions Now read the laws also. Laws

Now take the deposition of the defendant.

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 89

Deposition

[54] How could someone, when bringing a charge of perjury, prove it more conclusively than by presenting evidence of the actions of the opponents themselves and of all your laws? I have said nearly all I have to say about the defendant. In addition, consider the conduct of the husband

of the niece of the

defendant, as it too may provide some proof that Nicodemus’ testimony is false. [55] The fact that he agreed and received the woman as his lawful wife as though she were a hetaira’s* daughter has been proved with arguments and testimony. The truth of the deposition has in practice been confirmed over a long period by Xenocles himself. For obviously, if he had not received the woman in marriage from Endius as the daughter of a hetaira*, since he already had children of that age by her he would have claimed on behalf of the legitimate daughter her patrimony against Endius while the latter was still alive, [56] especially as he was prepared to deny the fact of Endius’ adoption by Pyrrhus. For, because he refused to accept it, he proceeded formally to contest the evidence of those who have testified that they were present when Pyrrhus drew up his will. And to prove that what I am saying 15 true, the clerk will read to you the deposition that was made. Read it out to the dikasts. Deposition

deny

[57] But of course there is something else that shows that they that Endius’ adoption by Pyrrhus took place, in that the

opponents would not have ignored the last heir to Pyrrhus’ oikos* and thought right to claim

legal possession of Pyrrhus’

estate on

behalf of the woman. For Pyrrhus died over twenty years ago now, whereas Endius died last year in the month of Metageitnion, whereupon the opponents promptly entered, two days after his death, a claim for possession of the estate. [58] The law prescribes that claims for an estate must be made within five years after the heir’s death. Thus, the woman necessarily had two alternatives: she could either claim her patrimony against Endius in his lifetime, or after the death of the adopted son she could think right to claim her brother’s estate by adjudication, especially since, as alleged by the opponents, he had betrothed her to Xenocles as though she were his legitimate sister. [59] For we all know well that we all have the right to claim the estates of our brothers by adjudication, but no natural legitimate

90 Translation

children

are

required

to

initiate

the

process

of

claiming

their

patrimony. It is unnecessary to say anything about this, because all own their patrimony without having to claim it first by adjudication, you and every other citizen. [60] Our opponents have had such audacity that they denied that the adopted son is required to claim by adjudication what was bequeathed to him, but they were content for Phile, the legitimate daughter they allege that Pyrrhus had left, to file a claim to her patrimony. Yet, as I said previously, if men leave legitimate natural children, the latter are not required to claim their patrimony by adjudication. But if men adopt children by testament, the latter must go through the procedure of claiming by adjudication what was bequeathed to them. [61] Because, since the former are the natural offspring, obviously no one can dispute their right to inherit their patrimony. On the other hand, all blood relations think it their right to dispute the claim to the estate by those who have been adopted. Thus, in order to prevent any chance person making claims for possession of estates, and so as to stop people from daring to claim estates on the basis that they are vacant, all who have been adopted go through the procedure of claimmg the estate by adjudication. [62] Therefore, let none of you think that if Xenocles thought his wife was Pyrrhus’ legitimate offspring, he would have filed a claim on her behalf for lawful possession of her patrimony, but the legitimate daughter would have entered directly into possession of her patrimony. And if anyone had attempted to deprive her of anything or had resorted to violence, he would have been ejecting her from her patrimony, and if someone used violence he

would not only be subject to private prosecution, but would also be publicly impeached

before the arkhön*,

and his life would be in

danger as well as his entire property. [63] But even before, if Pyrrhus’ uncles knew that their nephew had left a legitimate daughter and that none of us wanted to marry her, they would never have allowed Xenocles, who was not related to

Pyrrhus in any way at all, to marry her and to have as his wife a woman related to them by blood. In fact, it would have been extraordinary. [64] As for women who have been given in marriage by their fathers and live with their husbands (and who better than a father to judge what is in their best interests?), even in the case of those who have been married in this way, if their father dies without leaving them legitimate brothers, the law decrees they should become adjudicable to their next of kin. In fact many married men before now have been separated from their wives for this reason. [65] Thus,

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrius (Oration 3) 91

women

who

have

been

given

in marriage

by

their fathers must

necessarily by law become adjudicable. If Phile was the legitimate offspring left by Pyrrhus, would one of Pyrrhus’ uncles have allowed Xenocles to marry and keep the wife related to them by blood and make him the heir in their place to such a large property? Do not believe it, gentlemen. [66] For no one hates his own interests or is more concerned about other people than about himself. So if they allege that owing to Endius’ adoption the woman was not adjudicable and if they say that they did not dispute the claim to her for that reason, you must ask them the following questions: firstly, why, if they accept that Endius was adopted by Pyrrhus, have they formally contested the evidence of the witnesses to the adoption, [67] and next, why did they think it nght illegally to claim possession of Pyrrhus’ estate, disregarding the last heir to his oikos*. Ask them also whether a legitimate child ever feels the need to make an official claim to his own estate. Find out about these facts to counter their impudence. That the woman was adjudicable, if she really was a legitimate daughter left by the deceased, one can very clearly learn from the laws. [68] For the law clearly states that if someone does not leave any legitimate male children, he can dispose of his property as he pleases. But if he leaves daughters, he can dispose of his property with them included. Consequently, only together with his daughters can someone give away and dispose of his property. Without including his legitimate daughters, a man can neither adopt nor leave to anyone any of his property. [69] Therefore, if Pyrrhus

had adopted Endius without providing for his legitimate daughter, the adoption

would

be

invalid

according

to the

law.

If, however,

he

intended to marry off his daughter to Endius and left her after adopting him on that condition, how would you, Pyrrhus’ uncles, have allowed Endius to claim by adjudication Pyrrhus’ estate without the legitimate, if he ever had one, daughter, especially as you

testified that your nephew formally requested you to look after this child? [70] But, my dear fellow, you would say that even this matter had escaped your attention. Yet, when Endius betrothed and gave the woman in marriage, did you his uncles permit your own nephew’s daughter to be betrothed as though he had had her by a hetaira*, even though you claim you were present when your nephew formally apreed to take as his wife the woman’s mother according to the laws, and also that you were invited to and attended a common meal at the girl’s tenth-day ceremony? [71] Furthermore, and this is appalling, although you state that your nephew formally requested you to look

92 Translation

after this child, did your look after her so well that you let her be

betrothed as though she were the daughter of a hetaira*, and that despite the fact that according to your testimony she bore the name of your own sister? [72] So, gentlemen, from these facts and the events themselves one can easily understand the extent to which these people surpass all others in shamelessness. For, if our uncle had left a legitimate daughter, why then did he adopt my brother and leave him as his son? Did he perhaps adopt my brother because he had other relatives, closer to him than us, whom he wished to deprive of the possibility of claiming his daughter by adjudication as their wife? But if Pyrrhus did not have legitimate sons, there was and is no single relation closer to him than we are. For he had no brother nor any sons of a brother and we were the sons of his sister. [73] But, by Zeus, he could have adopted any other relative and given him possession of his estate and his daughter. And what need did he have openly to provoke the hostility of any of his relatives, when, if he really had married Nicodemus’ sister, he could have introduced the daughter who was presented as his child by her to the members of his phratry* as his own legitimate child, leave her adjudicable along with his entire estate, and formally request that one of his daughter’s male children be introduced as his son? [74] For obviously, if he left an epikléros*, he would know perfectly well that one of two things would happen to her: either one of us, his closest relatives, would claim her by adjudication

and take her as his wife, or, if none of us

wanted to have her, one of these uncles who are now testifying would have her, or if not they, one of the other relatives would similarly

claim her by adjudication along with the entire property and would have her as his wife according to the laws. [75] So he would have achieved all this by introducing his daughter to the members of his

phratry* without adopting my brother as his son. But in adopting brother without introducing her to the members of his phratry*, rightly pronounced her illegitimate and disinherited her, and left brother heir to his property. [76] But to prove that my uncle, course, did not hold a wedding feast nor see fit to present to members girl whom clerk will Read, and

my he my of the

of his phratry*, even though this is the rule with them, the the opponents allege that was his legitimate daughter, the read to you the deposition of the members of his phratry*. you, stop the water. Deposition

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 93

Now take the deposition brother as his son.

demonstrating

that he

adopted

my

Deposition [77] After this, will Nicodemus’ testimony seem to you more credible than the absentee depositions of our uncle himself, and will anyone try to convince you that our uncle had as his lawful wife a woman who was in this way available to anyone who wanted her? I think, however, that you will not be convinced if he fails to provide an explanation about the matters I mentioned at the beginning of my speech: [78] firstly, with what dowry does the defendant allege that he betrothed his sister to Pyrrhus, next, before which arkhen* did this

lawful wife appear when she left her husband or his house, next, from whom did he obtain her dowry, when the man died to whom he alleges that he betrothed her, or, if he requested the dowry and was unable to obtain it in a period of twenty years, what action for maintenance or for the dowry itself did he bring on behalf of the lawfully wedded wife against the man who was in possession of Pyrrhus’ estate? [79] In addition, let the defendant show us to whom before or after Pyrrhus he betrothed his sister, or whether she has had children by another man. Compel him to give you answers to these questions, and do not forget about the wedding feast for the members of the phratry*, because this 1s one of the strongest proofs against the defendant’s testimony. For clearly, if Pyrrhus had been induced to marry her, he would also have been persuaded to give a wedding

feast in her honour to the members of his phratry* and to mtroduce to them as legitimate the girl who was presented as his own daughter by that woman. [80] And in his deme*, as the possessor of property worth three talents, if he had married, he would have been obliged to

give a meal Thesmophoria services in the large property.

in honour of his wife to and to carry out all the deme* in her honour because But it will be clear that none

the women during the other obligatory public he was the owner of so of these things was ever

performed at any point. The members of his phratry* have given you their deposition. Now take the deposition of his fellow demesmen as well.

COMMENTARY Title Περὶ τοῦ Πύρρου κλήρου (“On the Estate of Pyrrhus”): This is the established title of the speech, as attested in the register of speeches in codex A (index orationum) and by Harpocration s.v. παράστασις (1131), similar to the attested titles of the rest of Isaeus’ speeches concerning inheritance cases (I-XI) with the exception of the fifth (V), see Cobetto Ghiggia (2002, 17-18). However, Harpocration himself s.v. προσεποιήσατο (11102) gives the title as Κατὰ Νικοδήμου (vevsonaptupiiv) (“Against Nicodemus for Perjury”), ef τὸ δὲ ἔγκλημα ψευδομαρτυριῶν κατὰ τοῦ Νικοδήμου (“the action

is a charge of perjury against Nicodemus”) in the Aypothesis* (see the following section), which is an accurate description of the subject of the speech. But, as Wyse rightly points out (1904, 273), the established title Περὶ τοῦ Πύρρου κλήρου corresponds more broadly to the content of the speech, since the speaker frequently invokes the pre-history of the case in question. The inscription tod Πύρρου κλήρου κατὰ ποίησιν πρὸς τὸ γένος διαμαρτυρία Cdiamartyria® concerning the estate of Pyrrhus as regards adoption in the family”), which is attested after the Aypothesis*, is misplaced. It refers to the process which in the past gave mse to the lengthy legal dispute, whose final stage is the legal contest which provides the context for this speech. Πύρρου (“of Pyrrhus”): PA 12506, LGPN II sv. 8, Traill

(1994-2012, no. 796540). Apart from the information contained in this speech, nothing else is known about him. The same is true of the other main characters mentioned in the speech: Nicodemus (PA

10854, LGPN IL s.v. 7, Traill [1994-2012, no. 714085]), Endius (PA 4702, LGPN IL s.v. 1, Traill [1994-2012, no. 387865]), Phile (PA 14259, LGPN II sv. 3, Traill [1994-2012, no. 924990]), and Xenocles

(PA

11225,

LGPN

U

sv.

57,

Traill

[1994-2012,

no.

732240)). κλήρου (“estate”): In this context the exact meaning of the word is “heritable estate”. See Harrison (1968, 124-130) and Ferrucci

(1998, 69-73). Hypothesis * This is a brief summary of the substance of the speech, ending with a rhetorical comment. Hypotheseis* to all the surviving speeches of

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 95

Isaeus (but not to every speech in the manuscript) come before the

text of the speech in A and in the apographa*. The author is unknown. However, it is clear that the same person wrote the hypotheseis*® to all the speeches by Isaeus (I—XI). I argue elsewhere that these hypotheseis* were composed in late antiquity, probably in the fifth or even in the sixth century. A text by Dionysius of Halicamassus (/s. 16 [pp. 115.6-116.14]), different in style from the other Aypotheseis* to Isaeus’ speeches, in a way constitutes a hypothesis® to speech XII of Isaeus and as such is included in the editions. Questions of Attic law, for example regarding adoption, marriage, and procedures for claiming inheritance, which are referred to in the Aypothesis*, are discussed in the commentary on the relevant passages in the text of the speech. τὸν ἕτερον -τῶν» τῆς ἀδελφῆς υἱῶν (“one of his sister’s two sons”): The addition is plausible. Buermann (1884, 333) suggested that A’s original had in the text (ir textu) τὸν τῶν, while τὸν ἕτερον was written over τῶν (superscriptum). τὸν κλῆρον (“of the estate”): The reading in the codex (τοῦ κλήρου) was derived from a mistaken linking of it to καὶ τούτου (“the latter”). The syntax of katekhein with the genitive has a different meaning (“to gain possession of, to be master of”) from that implied by the rest of the sentence, that is, “to enjoy possession of”, see LSJ s.v. Νικοδήμου καὶ αὐτοῦ μαρτυρήσαντος (“even though Nicodemus himself testified”): The syntax 1s not satisfactory, which is why a number of corrections have been suggested. However, as it is not possible to judge if the construction is due to corruption or to

the ignorance of the writer of the Aypothesis*, ıt remains in my text as attested in the codex. For the corrections that have been suggested, see the apparatus criticus. ὁ Ἐνδίου δὲ ἀδελφὸς (“However, Endius’ brother”): legitimacy of the position of δὲ, see Denniston (71954, 186).

For the

ἡ στάσις στοχασμός (“the issue is one of fact”): Stasis “issue” means the main question that the dikasts are invited to ask, which pinpoints the object of legal dispute. Stasis is divided into four categories, the first of which is called stokhasmos (“of fact”). In this category the main question formulated by the dikasts is of the an fecerit type, that is, “is there an act to be considered?”. The aim of 19 Ina forthcoming orators”.

article entitled “The

hypotheses

to the minor Attic

96 Commentary

this question is to obtain proof of the action backed up by clear

evidence. In On the Estate of Pyrrhus the basic question is whether the woman claiming the estate is the daughter of Pyrrhus by a lawful wife or by a hetaira® (πότερον ἐξ ἐγγυητῆς ἢ ἐξ ἑταίρας ἡ ἀμφισβητοῦσα τοῦ κλήρου τῷ Πύρρῳ εἴη). see 86. Stokhasmos is defined by Hermogenes (On staseis 2 [11]} and by Quintilian (ast. 11.6.5). See also Volkmann (71885, 38-68), Martin (1974, 28-32), Lausberg (1998, 42-49 [88 80-103]), Russell (1983, 44-51), Calbolt Montefusco (1986, 60-77), Heath (1995). τὸ ἔγκλημα (“the action”): The technical meaning of the term refers to the preliminary proceedings of the lawsuit after the summons (prosklesis), and before the preliminary hearing (anakrisis) by the relevant public functionary, in this case the arkhan*, who would preside over the court. It is the charge brought by the plaintiff before the arkhön” and in the presence of the defendant only in private cases. The charge was read out and recorded by a court employee at least up to and during the early part of the fourth century, when the submission of a charge in writing became the norm (probably in 378/7), and was in all probability placed in the earthenware pot (the ekhinos) in which were sealed all the documents produced by the litigants at a preliminary hearing. See Lipstus

(1905-1915, 817), Calhoun (1919, 177-193), Harrison (1971, 88),

Mirhady (1991, 10-11), and chiefly Harris (2013b, 156-175).

881-6 (Diögösis/Ephodos*) The third speech of Isaeus does not have a formal proem (procimion), likewise speeches Is. V, IX, and XL I believe this to be a tactic on the orator’s part, which he employed particularly in his early speeches, cf V, IX; on the dating of Isaeus’ speeches see Introduction/Dating. The speech begins forcefully, with a brief natrative (diégésis) of the events and legal proceedings which had preceded the dik2 1ön pseudomartyriön” against Nicodemus, the last stage (at least, up to that time) of the litigation concerning the estate of Pyrrhus. More specifically, I would agree with Usher (1999, 163-164) and, borrowing a later term coined by the rhetoricians (see

Bower [1958, 224-230]), Lausberg [1998, 132-133 (88280-281)]), I would characterise the beginning of the third speech (and the first) as examples of ephodos*, since in them the orator chooses to embark on the subject of litigation immediately but obliquely. Dionysius of

Halicarnassus was the first to observe that Isaeus “uses insinuations and anticipations” (ἐφόδοις χρῆται καὶ προκατασκευαῖς) (Is. 3 [p.

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 97

95.19-20], tr. by Usher [1974]). Even though the beginning of the

third speech is not a formal proem, it nevertheless satisfies the requirements of Aristotle for the proem of a forensic speech (RA. 1Π.14 1415a 12-13): “the exordia [proems] provide a sample of the subject, in order that the hearers may know beforehand what it is about, and that the mind may not be kept in suspense” (δεῖγμά ἐστι

τοῦ λόγου, ἵνα προειδῶσι περὶ od [A] ὁ λόγος καὶ μὴ κρέμηται ἡ διάνοια), and again (RA. Π1.14 1415a 21-23): “so then the most essential and special function of the exordium [proem] is to make clear what is the end or purpose of the speech” (τὸ μὲν οὖν ἀναγκαιότατον ἔργον τοῦ προοιμίου Kai ἴδιον τοῦτο δηλῶσαι τί ἐστι τὸ τέλος οὗ ἕνεκα ὁ λόγος, tr. by Freese [1926]). Moreover, it

justifies the view of Dionysius of Halicarnassus regarding Isaeus’ proems (7s. 9 [p. 103.12-14]), that in comparison with the proems of Lysias “they have been rhetorically composed and elegantly phrased in a grander manner” (πεποιῆσθαι ῥητορικῶς καὶ κεκαλλιλογῆσθαι σεμνότερον, tr. by Usher [1974]). On the proems to Isaeus’ speeches,

see also Moy (1876, 24-36). 81 Ἄνδρες δικασταί (Gentlemen dikasts”): The speech begins with an immediate address to the dikasts, and the same occurs in fragment XVI (‘On Behalf of Eumathes, in Vindication of his Freedom”) of Isaeus. In the other surviving speeches by Isaeus (with the exception of speech XD, the dikasts as a rule are addressed in the first sentence of the proem, but not in its opening words. Addressing the dikasts at the beginning of a speech is regular practice in forensic oratory. In the corpus of Isaeus’ speeches the most common form of address (143 times) to the dikasts is “gentlemen” (ὦ ἄνδρες), attested in the third speech in §§33, 36, 65, and 72, though often (22 times) we find “gentlemen dikasts” (ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί), whereas only at the start of III and fragment XVI does δ (ὦ) not come before andres

dikastai. In other writers also the 6 is missing in front of the word andres when introducing a sentence, see Dickey (1996, 202). For the use of the different methods of addressing the dikasts in Attic oratory, see Dickey (1996, 177-180), Todd (2007, 88-89), Serafim (2017b, 26-30), and Martin (2006, 75-88). The latter argues fairly convincingly that in the forensic speeches of Demosthenes the form of address “gentlemen dikasts” ([(&)] ἄνδρες δικασταὶ) or “gentlemen of Athens” ([ὦ] ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι) is selected according to whether it is in the orator’s interest to address his hearers in their capacity as dikasts or as Athenian citizens. Often in oratory the

98 Commentary

addresses

to the

dikasts

differentiate

the various

sections

of the

speech, cf for example Isaeus VIII (see Ferrucci [2005, 129]), so they most likely fulfil a mnemonic function for the speaker, and they always add emphasis and drama to particular points with the aim of attracting the attention of the dikasts. The frequency of addresses to the dikasts in the third speech 15 the lowest in all Isaeus’ surviving speeches, with just five addresses in 80 paragraphs, cf. for example the 22 addresses in the 26 paragraphs of the tenth speech. The infrequency of addresses to the dikasts is in keeping with the pragmatic, minimally emotional, and fully self-confident style adopted by the speaker in this speech. For this reason the use of the address lent particular emphasis to certain arguments of this speech, which the orator wanted the dikasts to remember. δικασταί (“dikasts”): It should be noted that a dikast in classical Athens combined the functions of a present-day magistrate and a present-day juror, a fact which cannot be conveyed in translation. For

the proper translation of dikastes see Todd (1993, 82-89), but also Harris (2010, 1-2). τῆς μητρὸς τῆς ἐμῆς (my mother’s brother”): The close ties of ankhisteiad® between the testator and the speaker's mother, as between the speaker and Endius in the parallel phrase fon adelphon ton emon (“my brother”) immediately below, are deliberately emphasised. 4nkhisteia® was the group of relatives of the deceased, apart from his ancestors and descendants, who in a legally defined sequence of priority had the right to claim, through a process known as epidikasia®™, the estate of the deceased, the epikléros* included, if of course the latter had no legitimate sons or descendants thereof. See Is. XL11, [Dem.] XLIIL51 and the detailed analysis of the sequence of succession in Harrison (1968, 143-149). A marred woman retained inheritance rights to her paternal oikos*, see in particular Hunter (1993, 101-103). The name of the speaker’s mother is not

mentioned anywhere in the speech, whereas reference is made by name to Phile (§§2, 30, 32, 60), who 15 not only the other party but

also, according to the speaker, the daughter of a hetaira®. On the avoidance of referring by name in public, especially in court, to a woman who was an Athenian (asté*) while she was alive, and whose identity could be sufficiently established by declaring her kinship with a man belonging to the same oikoas*, see Schaps (1977,

323-330),

Bremmer

(1981,

425-426),

Just

(1989,

27-28).

Sommerstein (1980, 393-418) notes that the same convention is observed in both Greek and Roman comedy. In the third speech of

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 99

Isaeus the name of Cleitarete, Pyrrhus’ mother, has to be mentioned

(§§30, 33), because she is involved in the dispute about the name of Pyrrhus’ daughter, her granddaughter (8830-34). It should be noted that of course the elder Cleitarete was presumably not alive when the speech was delivered. ἄπαις Gv γνησίων παίδων (“[since Pyrrhus] had no legitimate children”): Immediately after the address, the orator, making use of the rhetorical figure of paronomasia”, sets out, as if it were fact, the

issue which needs to be established by the speech (petitio principii*): that Pyrrhus did not have legitimate children. On this tactic of Isaeus, cf Is. 1.1, and see Usher (1999, 129, 163). The possible existence of illegitimate children does not concern the court, since they do not have inheritance rights. Precisely because Isaeus’ intention is to draw attention from the start to the lack of legitimate children in Pyrrhus’ oikos*, I believe that paidon refers to children and not specifically to sons. If paidon were limited to male children, it would imply that at least one legitimate daughter might exist as an epikléros*, a hypothesis that the speaker forcibly rejects. γνησίων παίδων (“legitimate children”): According to Attic law, a child was legitimate if the parents had entered into marriage with engye® (or epidikasia® if the mother was epikléros*), see [Dem.]

XLIV.49, XLVL18, Hyp. V.16. See also Wolff (1944, 75-76),

Harrison (1968, 61-62), MacDowell (1978, 91), Ogden (1996, 37-38). At this point in the text, the gnésios (“legitimate child”) is

opposed to both the nothos (“the illegitimate child”) and the poiétos (“the adopted child”). See Ogden (1996, 17-18), Cobetto Ghiggia (1999, 64 n.13). The repetition of gnésios 34 times in the 80

paragraphs of the speech indicates the importance of the theme of Phile’s legitimacy in the legal dispute, and is an example of Isaeus’ technique, see Edwards (2010, 168). ἐποιήσατο ... ἑαυτῷ (“adopted my brother Endius as his son”):

The reason why people paidon) were impelled ὅπως μὴ ἐξερημώσουσι their families without

with no legitimate children (apaides gnésion to adopt is explained by Isaeus in VII.30: τοὺς σφετέρους αὐτῶν οἴκους (“not to leave heirs”, tr. by Edwards [2007]). See also

Rubinstein (1993, 62-86). The use of poieisthai in contexts of adoption is so common that it can be used for this purpose without necessarily being accompanied by hyon (“son”). For the terminology of adoption see Harrison (1968, 83-84), Cobetto Ghiggia (1999, 63-70). There is no reason to adopt Naber’s suggestion to delete ὑὸν ἑαυτῷ, which anyway destroys the emphasis which the speaker wants

100 Commentary

to lay on the fact that his brother was adopted by Pyrrhus. Cf also

842. Wyse (1904, 283) notes that, probably deliberately, the orator makes no mention of the fact that Endius’ adoption was testamentary, because this mode of adoption could more easily be disputed, cf Is. 11.14. Indeed, Xenocles in the previous trial had declared his intention to bring charges against the witnesses to Pyrrhus’ will (§56). However, it should be noted that even if the adoption of Endius could be disputed, since according to the verdict of the previous trial it had not been proved that Pyrrhus had legitimate offspring, Pyrrhus’ estate would still come to his sister and her children, that is, his nearest ankhisteis*. On the preferred adoption of the offspring of a female relative, usually a sister, see Gernet (1955, 129-131) and Rubinstein (1993, 117-125). The adoption of Endius by Pyrrhus is one of the six examples known to us from the Attic orators.

üöv (“son”): In the fourth century B.C. the 1 vanishes from the diphthong vi, and is gradually restored after the middle of the first century B.C., see Meisterhans (1900, 144), Threatte (1980, 338-344). The spelling of the fourth century 15 of course not attested in the manuscripts. ὃς κληρονόμος ... τῆς κληρονομίας ἐκείνῳ (“the latter lived for more than twenty years as the heir to the former’s estate, and during this long period of time he held the estate he had inherited, no one ever laid claim to it or disputed his right to the inheritance”): The argument citing the passage of a long period of time without any objection being registered by the adversaries 1s one of the fopoi enthymematon® of Arıstotle (Rh. II. 23 1400a 15-16): τὸ τὰ

ἀνομολογούμενα σκοπεῖν, εἴ τι ἀνομολογούμενον ἐκ πάντων καὶ χρόνων καὶ πράξεων καὶ λόγων (examining contradictories, whether in dates, actions or words”, tr. by Freese [1926]). See also Palmer (1934, 57-59, 68-72). τῶν ἐκείνου (“to the former’s”): sc. χρημάτων (“property”). This use of the pronoun is justified, since it refers to the deceased Pyrrhus. ἐπεβίω (lived for”): Naber’s correction is right, cf Is. Π.15, Dem. XL1.18, and Dem. LV.4. πλείω ἔτη ἢ εἴκοσι (“more than twenty years”): The usual sequence is πλείῳ ἢ εἴκοσιν ἔτη, cf Is. 1.2, 31, 57, and VI.14, which Herwerden suggested should be adopted as the correct reading, while the only parallel I can cite occurs in Isoc. VIL1: οὐ πλείους μὲν τριήρεις ἢ διακοσίας κεκτημένης (“if it did not possess more than two hundred triremes’, tr. by Too [2000]). It is likely that in referring

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3)

101

for the first time to the long period during which Endius was allowed

to enjoy Pyrrhus’ estate in peace, Isaeus wishes to add emphasis to his statement, an emphasis provided by the particular sequence of words and the pronounced diatus* which is created. It is perhaps not accidental that the parallel in Isocrates occurs at the beginning of the Areopagiticus (Or. VID. The suggestion of the Neoatticists Cobet (71873, 237) and Herwerden that the reading should be πλεῖν instead of πλείῳ in accordance with the rules laid down by the Atticist Moeris (II8) cannot be adopted, because it is not confirmed by the inscriptions of the classical period, see Meisterhans (1900, 152), Threatte (1996, 732). See also Wyse (1904, 283-284), Carey (1989, 124). προσεποιήσατο (“laid claim to”): According to Paoli (1935, 35) this is a general legal term, which means “to lay claim to an estate”. Cf Is. IV.3, 7, IX.32, Aeschin. 1Π.167, Ar. Eccl. 871. More often, as

Harpocration

also

notes

(11102),

one

finds

the

synonym

antipoieisthai in the texts (though in Isaeus only in VIIL4). ἠμφεσβήτησς (disputed his right to”): For the double augment of the verb see Threatte (1996, 496). This is a legal term meaning “to dispute the right to inherit an estate”. The law concerning the claiming of an estate that has been adjudicated (amphisbetesis epidedikasmenou klerou) 1s attested in lex ap. [Dem.] XLIIL16. According to this law, the procedure of claiming a kleros”® or an epikléros*® started with a summons (prosklésis) before the arkhan™® of the person to whom the inheritance had been adjudicated, where the

claimant

defended

his

rights

of

inheritance.

Submission

of

amphisbetésis® and of diamartyria® was accompanied by payment of

special court fees (parakatabole, see §2n.). On amphisbétésis™ see Paoli (1935, 35), Harrison (1968, 215), Biscardi (1982, Karabélias (2002, 128-134).

212),

and

82 πέρυσιν (“last year”): in the month of Metageitnion, see 857. ὑπερβᾶσα τὸν τελευταῖον κληρονόμον (“in disregard of the last heir”): Cf

κληρονόμον

857: ὑπερβάντες τὸν τελευταῖον τοῦ οἴκου γεγενημένον

(“ignoring

the

last heir to the

ofkos*”),

and

867:

παρελθόντες τὸν τελευταῖον τοῦ οἴκου γεγενημένον κληρονόμον (“disregarding the last heir to the oikos*”). Here the speaker makes a brief reference to an argument which he will develop at length in §57 onwards, that Phile with her kyrios* should have claimed lawful possession of Endius’ estate if she acknowledged his adoption by Pyrrhus, whereas if she did not consider the adoption legal, she

102 Commentary

should, without previous application to the arkhén*, have proceeded

ipso jure to seizure (embateusis”) of her father’s property, as Pyrrhus’ legitimate daughter (as she declared herself to be). Regardless, however, of any action taken by Phile, the fact of the matter was that after the death of the adopted Endius, who had no legitimate issue and thus had not succeeded in continuing the oikos* of Pyrrhus, the estate of Pyrrhus in any case became subject to claim, since his own oikos* was in danger of dying out. The speaker’s mother, who is also filing a claim to the estate, does so as the heir of

her brother Pyrrhus, cf 83: μὴ ἐπίδικον τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ μητρὶ τὸν τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ κλῆρον εἶναι (“her brother’s estate could not be adjudicated to our mother”), and 85, and not as the heir of her son Endius, that is,

even the side represented by the speaker, on its own admission ignores the last heir to the oikos*. On this controversial argument of Isaeus, see Introduction/Argum entation. τοῦ ἡμετέρου θείου (“of our uncle”): Pyrrhus, the testator, is 13 times referred to in this speech in this way (§§2, 4, 10, 13, 16 (bis), 36, 37, 38, 41, 48, 72, 77), which stresses the close ties of kinship between Pyrrhus, Endius, and the speaker. Cf also §1n. odoKovgs (“claiming”): Likewise at §§29, 30, 70, 71. In this linguistic context phaskein alludes to formal statements, which are usually supported by testimony. See also Cobetto Ghiggia (2002, 147

n.107).

κύριος (Ckyrios®”’): On the dependence of an Athenian woman on her Ayrios®, and on his role in general, but also specifically as her representative in legal procedures, and especially in matters involving claims on property, see Harrıson (1968, 302-303),

MacDowell 149-152),

(1978,

84-86), Hunter (1994,

Johnstone (2003, 267-271).

9-42), Foxhall (1996,

See also Omitowoju (2002,

117-122). Kéapews (“from Coprus”): The manuscript reading Κύπριος is corrupt, for an alien man (xenos) was not permitted to be the kyrios*

of an Athenian woman, and has rightly been corrected by Meier. The corruption resulted from ignorance of the local adjective and was possibly influenced by ‘yrios*. The reading Κύπριος probably indicates the reading Κόπριος in A’s original, but Kémpeioc is the orthographically correct reading, cf Ar. Eg. 899, Eccl 317, and see Meisterhans (1900, 43, 51), Threatte (1980, 315). On the small coastal (paralios) deme* Coprus between Eleusis and Thria of the Hippothontis tribe, see Traill (1986, 138), Whitehead (1986, 334,

372).

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3)

τοῦ

Πύρρου

κλήρου

λυχεῖν

τὴν

λῆξιν

(“to

demand

103

legal

possession of Pyrrhus’ estate”): cf 843. Linguistically, lankhanein ten lécin ought to mean “to obtain by lot something that is allotted to you”, which suggests the meaning “to get a date fixed”. tou klerou lankhanein ten léxin, or tou klerou lankhanein is a legal expression indicating submission of a written (in practice) application (féxis*) to the arkhon™ for a claim to the estate of an Athenian citizen. This application had to be submitted by any claimant to a property, except the legitimate or inter vivos adopted descendant of the deceased, in any month except the month of Skirophorion, the last of the official Attic year: see the lex ap. [Dem.] XL VI.22. The application had to be published, and this was probably achieved by being hung on the notice board of the arkhén*, by being read out at the next main assembly (kyria ekklesia, see [Arist.]| 4th. Pol. 43.4), and after a certain period of time by being announced by the herald (keryx), so that anyone who might wish to dispute the inheritance rights of the applicant and claim the property himself would be in possession of the information. This procedure for claiming the property was called epidikasia®. The application to claim the property had to be accompanied by payment of special court fees (parakatabole), see Wyse (1904, 374-375), Harrison (1968, 156-158, 1971, 128-131, 179-183), which are reported to have been the equivalent of onetenth of the value of the inheritance being claimed (Poll. VIIL39). The adjudication of an estate was decided by the dikasts. In the case of there being only one claimant to the estate (or more than one but with the same interests, e.g. two brothers), the epidikasia® was

simplified, since the court formally adjudicated the property to the claimant. If, however, more claimants appeared, a diadikasia® had to take place, that is, a tnal during which the claimants had equal

standing, without being divided into plaintiffs and defendants. They had to set out their claims before the dikasts, whose verdict on the case was decisive. The court fees (parakataboié) paid by the

unsuccessful claimant to the property were handed over to the state. See Paoli (1933,

153-158), Harrison (1968,

156-162), MacDowell

(1978, 102-103), Karabélias (1978, 201-222). ἠξίωσεν and ἐπιγραψάμενος (“he saw fit to” and “he set”): Wyse preferred A’s initial reading (ἠξίωσαν), ef §§11, 14, and especially 57, 60, 67, where the same phrase (λαχεῖν τὴν λῆξιν τοῦ κλήρου) referring to Phile and her kyrios® is given with the verb ἠξίωσαν. Accepting the reading of the codex prior to correction, Wyse added καὶ Φίλη before καὶ κύριος and corrected

104 Commentary

ἐπιγραψάμενος

to read ἐπιγραψάμενοι.

Even

if corruption

of the

tradition cannot be ruled out, which might have started with a copyist missing out καὶ Φίλη, nevertheless Wyse’s suggestions are not adopted in this edition, because they involve multiple interventions in the text. τετελεύτηκε (“died”): The correction stands, based on 857: ὁ μὲν γὰρ Πύρρος

πλείω ἢ εἴκοσιν ἔτη τετελεύτηκεν ἤδη

(“For Pyrrhus

died over twenty years now”). The reading τετελευτήκει in the manuscript most probably resulted from a corruption of τετελεύτηκεν in A’s original. See Wyse (1904, 287). τρία τάλαντα ... ἐπιγραψάμενος (“he set the value of the estate at three talents”): On the considerable value of such a property, see Davies (1984, 34-37), the value of the property was emphasised by means of parekhesis*, tria talanta timema. Wyse (1904, 287) correctly pointed out that the /avis* submitted by Phile and Xenocles must have ended with a similar formula. However, it does not mean that the value of Pyrrhus’ property really was, or continued to be, three talents. 83 ἀμφισβητούσης δὲ τῆς μητρὸς τῆς ἡμετέρας (“when our mother disputed their right to claim”): Through her fyrios*, of course, who is her son and the speaker. The speaker’s mother was probably a widow. On the position of a widowed mother who was no longer of child-bearing age, and thus no longer marriageable, and was under the protection of a son, see Isager (1981-1982, 85-86), Hunter (1989a, esp. 300-303), Günther (1993, 308-325), Cudjoe (2010, 55-85). See also Hunter (1989b, 39-42) for a sketch of the

interesting relationship of a powerful widowed mother (Cleoboule) with her son and kyrios* (Demosthenes).

hémeteras (“our”) again

draws attention to the close relationship of ankhisteia® between the members of the side represented by the speaker. ἀδελφῆς δὲ τοῦ Πύρρου (“Pyrrhus’ sister”): For the possibility in law for a sister to become her brother’s heir through intestate succession because there are no children or male siblings, see lex ap. [Dem.] XLIIL51 (according to the supplement, since there is a gap [facuna] in the text of the law), and Is. XI.1-2.

See also Harrison

(1968, 14-39), Schaps (1975, 53-57), MacDowell (1978, 98-99), Hunter (1993, 103). ἐτόλμησε (“had the audacity”): The positive or negative meaning of tolman is defined by the context. In the texts of forensic oratory it usually refers to the opposing litigant and has a negative implication

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3)

(“he

has the nerve”),

meaning

of the

verb

cf

Is. IIL3

is stressed

(below),

through

4 where

the

105

the negative

homoioteleuton®

martyresai .. . engyesai, 14, 44, 48, 51, 60. The use of the verb is

likely to have been reinforced by the speaker’s delivery (Aypokrisis), see Serafim (2017a, 115-116). διαμαρτυρῆσαι μὴ ἐπίδικον ... κλῆρον εἶναι (“to formally declare that her brother’s estate could not be adjudicated to our mother”): In cases of inheritance law the submission of diamartyria® consists of a statement supported by a witness that the deceased has existing legitimate descendants, and consequently his estate could not be claimed and be epidikos* to others. See Leisi (1908, 28-34), Paoli (1933, 143-153), Gernet (1955, 83-102), Harrison (1968, 156-158, and 1971, 124-131), MacDowell (1978, 212-219, 217-218 on the fourth century). The expression me epidikon ton kleron einai had probably become established in the wording of the diamartyria®, cf 15.11.43, V.16, V1.4, VI.59, [Dem.] XLIV.46. ἐπισκηψόμενοι (“after we had formally contested”): Taylor is right to restore the legal term, cf Is. V.17, VL.13. Episképsis is the official publication of a person’s intention in a court case, before the dikasts have voted, to bring an action against one of the witnesses on the opposing side for false witness. Cf Pl. Lg. 937b, see [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 68.4, Leisi (1908, 125-128), Calhoun (1916, 365-384), Gernet

(1955, 87-89), Harrison (1971, 192-193), Rhodes (1981, 732). The

announcement of episképsis was possibly the most important criterion, on the basis of which the dikasts could formulate an opinion about the trustworthiness of the testimony.

In my opinion, it would be more natural for §4 to start here, as in Schémann’s and Paoli’s editions. However, for practical reasons 1 have decided to retain the separation of the paragraphs as established in the editions of Thalheim and Wyse. εἰς ὑμᾶς

(“before you”): Cf

84: map’ ὑμῖν (“from you”). It is

certain that the preceding dike ton pseudomartyrion® against Xenocles was not adjudicated in the presence of the same dikasts, οὗ §7, and see Harrison (1971, 46), but the speaker 1s probably referring to the institution of the same court. A common rhetorical fopos* is being used here, based on the perception of the Athenians that the court with a jury was representative of the sovereign people (kyrios démos). Thus, any decision taken by any court with a jury can be attributed to the dikasts who are adjudicating the matter in question. See Wolpert (2003, 540-541).

106 Commentary

εἰσαγαγόντες (“after we had brought”): eisagein is literally true for the arkhontes*, who introduce a case to be tried in court. For

citizens who bring a case against a fellow-citizen in court the approved verb is eisienai. Nevertheless the distinction is not always strictly observed. See Harrison (1971, 21), Kapparis (1999, 191-192). κατὰ ταῦτα (“with these argumentations”): In my opinion the text does not need amending at this point, and kata has to remain. It means “in accordance with these arguments”, “based on these arguments”, that is, ὡς οὔσης γνησίας θυγατρὸς Πύρρῳ (“because Pyrrhus had a legitimate daughter”). Cf Is. ΓΧ.2: ἐπειδὴ δὲ κατὰ ταῦτα οὐκ ἦν ἀμφισβήτησις (“since they had no claim on these grounds”, tr. by Edwards [2007]), and see Kühner-Gerth I (1898, 478-479 [8433]). 84 ἐκεῖνόν ... νόμους

(“and by proving that his testimony was

clearly false we obtained from you a conviction for perjury, while at the same time we proved the present defendant Nicodemus to have been totally shameless before the same dikasts with the testimony he gave, since he had the audacity to testify that he had given his sister in marriage to our uncle according to the laws”): At this point it is abundantly clear that pathos* 1s what Isaeus is aiming at here. The testimony of Nicodemus, like the diamartyria® of Xenocles previously, is characterised as impudence (efolmése). The falsehood of the diamartyria® is emphasised by the use of periphanös (“clearly”), and the repetitions pseude memartyrekota ... ten ton pseudomartyrion diken. Furthermore, for his impudence, which is underlined by the homoioteleuton™ martyresai . . . engyésai,

Nicodemus

is

shameless”),

a

characterised term

of

as

considerable

anaiskhyntotatos obloquy.

Finally,

(“totally telling

reference is made to the fact that by lymg, as Isaeus maintains, Nicodemus makes a mockery of the very laws of the city that he has invoked. In 884-7, the allusions to the verdict of the dikasts who

Judged the previous diké ton pseudomartyrion® are classified as belonging to the Aristotelian topos* ἐκ κρίσεως (from a previous

judgement”,

tr. by Freese

[1926]); see Arist. Rh.

11.23

1398b

19-1399a 6, and Palmer (1934, 39-43). ἐκεῖνον ... παρ᾽ ὑμῖν (“and by proving that his testimony clearly false we obtained from you a conviction for perjury”): Cf When a judicial decision was taken against someone in a diké pseudomartyriön”, as a legal response to diamartyria® which

was 85. tön the

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3)

latter had defended

in his capacity

as a witness,

107

the side whose

witness had been convicted was forbidden henceforth to use the same grounds for filing a claim to an estate, and a diadikasia® probably had to take place subsequently in order to reach a settlement with the litigants, see Is. XT.45-46: δίκαι yap ἐνεστήκασι ψευδομαρτυρίων, κελεύει δ᾽ ὁ νόμος, ἐὰν GAG τις τῶν ψευδομαρτυρίων, πάλιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς εἶναι περὶ αὐτῶν τὰς λήξεις (“actions for false witness are pending, and the law prescribes that if anybody is convicted of false witness, the claims for an estate are to be heard again from the beginning”, tr. by Edwards [2007]). After a verdict of guilty was pronounced against the person accused of bearing false witness in private cases, the court imposed a monetary fine, which was most likely handed over to the wronged party. A person who was three times convicted of false witness faced a punishment of disenfranchisement (atimia®). For all the above, see Leisi (1908, 130-136), Calhoun (1916, 386-394), Harrison (1971, 128-131), Rubinstein (2000, 69). In [Dem.] XL VII.1, XLIX.56, see also [Dem.] XLVL]10, it is stated that the plaintiff who had invited the witness who was found guilty of false witness, could be charged with dike kakotekhnion, a private legal action for subornation of perjury. See

Lipsius (1905-1915, 783, 877-878), Leisi (1908, 139-141), Plescia (1970, 90), Harrison (1971, 78, 138).

ἐξελέγξαντες (“by proving’): Cf 885, 7, 35, 54. exelenkhein means “to prove someone guilty of something”. See also Todd (2007, 395-396) for the meaning of the simple elenkhein in Attic oratory. περιφανῶς (clearly, manifestly”): This might refer either to ἐξελέγξαντες (“by proving”) or to ψευδῆ μεμαρτυρηκότα (“that his

testimony was false”). The second of these 15 preferable, in line with 812: οὗτός te περιφανῷς τὰ ψευδῆ μεμαρτύρηκε (“the defendant has manifestly borne false witness”), 819: ὡς περιφανῶς ψευδῆ τὴν μαρτυρίαν οὗτοι παρέσχοντο ταύτην (“that this deposition that the

opponents

produced

περιφανῶς manifestly

τὰ ψευδῆ μεμαρτυρηκὼς οὗτος (“the defendant has given blatant false evidence”), cf however 835:

was

manifestly

περιφανῷς

ἀναίσχυντος

ὧν

ἐλέγχεται

false”), Cis

and

835:

φαίνεται

clearly proved

to be

shameless”). τὰ ψευδῆ μεμαρτυρηκότα (“that his testimony was false”): Cf §§5, 7, 12, 35. Ta pseudé martyrein is a standard expression, frequent in oratory. See Wankel (1991, 31-33). The use of the article is obligatory.

108 Commentary

μεμαρτυρηκότα

(lit.

“he

has

testified”):

The

reference

is to

Xenocles, since it was Phile who essentially submitted the diamartyria®, through her kyrios* and husband Xenocles of course, who in his capacity as witness defended the diamartyria® presented. This is a special case, in which the witness to the diamartyria® is also the kyrios*® of the woman who submits it. τὴν τῶν ψευδομαρτυρίων δίκην (“the lawsuit for perjury”): Cf 824. Wyse’s correction, which was a further improvement on the correction (ψευδομαρτυριῶν) that Reiske made to A’s reading (ψευδομαρτύρων), is based on the fact that no confirmed Attic evidence exists for ἡ ψευδομαρτυρία, whereas for τὸ ψευδομαρτύριον cf Pl. Tht 1480, [Arist.] 4%. Pol. 59.6, and see Wyse (1904, 288-289). For the use of the article τῶν before the charge (in genitive) in the dike*/graphé* phrase see Schömann (1831: 231-232). On dike ton pseudomartyrién* as a response to diamartyria® and as a means of proving/defending a person’s membership of the ankhisteia® while claiming inheritance, see

Scafuro (1994, 170-178). The observations made by Todd as to the meanıng of this type of action (1990, 36-38) are very apposite. See also Lipsius (1905-1915, 778-779), Leisi (1908, 120-139), Harrison (1971, 127-131, 192-199). εἴλομεν (“we obtained a conviction”): A legal term signifying “to succeed in getting a person convicted”, τουτονὶ Νικόδημον (“the present defendant Nicodemus”): Cf also §25. Usually, the emphatic form of the demonstrative pronoun is

placed after the main noun, a fact which induced Naber to delete Νικόδημον. However, the position of the pronoun before the noun is widely attested, see Wyse (1904: 263). On the use of the demonstrative suffix -ἰ as an element of the spoken language in

writings of the classical period, see Dover (1997, 63-64). The use of this form

of the pronoun

is employed here for the accused,

as is

usually the case (although not invariably, cf the third and sixth speeches of Isaeus, where the emphatic forms of the pronoun refer to the persons being defended by the speaker/advocate); it indicates, of course, that Nicodemus is present in court, and will have been accompanied by a gesture from the speaker, probably implying contempt, which possibly worked as a mode of attack. See Hall (1995, 49), Boegehold (1999, 85), and Serafim (201 7a, 120-121). ἀναισχυντότατον (‘totally shameless”): Also in 8835, 40, 72. anaiskhyntos (“shameless”) and its superlative occur frequently as epithets of opprobrium in Isaeus (16 times in all). Before Isaeus,

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3)

anaiskhyntos,

anaiskhyntia

(“shamelessness”),

anaiskhyntein

109

(“to

behave shamelessly”) are found in oratory only in And. II.4, [And.] IV.17 and [Lys.] VL33, Lys. XXTV.13, XXXIL20. τῇ μαρτυρίᾳ (“with the testimony”): Nicodemus was a witness for the side of Phile and Xenocles in the trial which resulted from the dike tan pseudomartyrion® which the speaker brought against Xenocles. On the organisation of the testimony and the role of the witnesses in the Athenian courts, a role which was mainly supportive, in private suits at any rate, see Bonner (1905), Todd (1990, 19-39), Scafuro (1997, 42-50), Rubinstein (2005, 99-120), Thür (2005, 146-169). τῇ μαρτυρίᾳ (“with the testimony”) and tatty (“this”, 55 > ee, “the one he gave”): These are datives of cause. Herwerden rejects them, because he considers that they have slipped in from 840: ἀναισχυντότατον τῇ μαρτυρίᾳ ὄντα ταύτῃ (“as far as his testimony is concerned he is utterly shameless”). But in this he is wrong. They have to remain, since this is their first appearance and they define (particularly ταύτῃ) the object of the diké ton pseudomartyriön” in question. ἐγγυῆσαι (“that he had given in marriage”): On the meaning of engye™, the private agreement between a woman’s Ayrios® and her future husband which ensured the legal validity of the marriage, see Wolff (1944, 51-53), Harrison (1968, 1-9), MacDowell (1978, 86-89), Patterson (1991b, 48-71). Part of the spoken formula of engy&® is preserved in Menander’s Dyscolus 842-844 (see also Samia 726-728, Periceiromene 1013-1015): ἀλλ᾽ ἐγγυῷ παίδων En’ ἀρότῳ γνησίων / τὴν θυγατέρ᾽ ἤδη μειράκιόν σοι προῖκα te / δίδωμ᾽ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῇ τρία τάλαντα (well, I betroth my daughter, now, Young man, to you, to harvest lawful children. I add three talents dowry”, tr.

by Arnott [1979]). 85 ὁ τόθ᾽ ἑσλωκὼς μάρτυς σσαφέστατα τοῦτον ἐξελέγχει (15 plainly proved by the witness who has been convicted at the time”):

The correction of τοῦτον to τοῦτο suggested by Reiske is not necessary. The syntax of the verb is correct, cf Is. IV.6: οὐκ ἂν εἶχον ἐξελέγξαι τούσδε ὡς οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐκείνῳ ἀνεψιοί (“they wouldn’t be able to prove that my friends are not his cousins”, tr. by Edwards [2007]). The use of saphés and its comparatives with verbs denoting knowledge is common in oratorical works. Cf Is. Π1.17: ἄν τις σαφέστερον γνοίη (“would one find out more precisely”), 54: τις σαφέστερον ἐξελέγχοι (“could one prove it more conclusively”),

110 Commentary

67: σαφέστατα μαθεῖν ἔστι (“one can very clearly learn”), VI.46: οὐ

σαφῷς ἐξελέγχει αὐτὸς αὑτὸν (“does he not clearly convict himself”, tr. by Edwards [2007]), VIII.28: ἄν τις σαφέστερον ἐπιδείξειε (“how then could anybody prove more clearly”, tr. by Edwards [2007]). Usually they are included in questions which are formulated at the beginning or the end of a section substantiating arguments from probability, for which they provide support insofar as “clear knowledge is certain knowledge”, as Gagarin phrases it (1997, 110). See also Ferrucci (2005, 188-189). ἂν ἀποφυγὼν τὴν διαμαρτυρίαν ἀπῆλθε (“would have gone away acquitted in the suit occasioned by the formal declaration”): Metonym* is used in the cause-effect relationship, see for example Lausberg (1998, 258-259 [88568.1c.3]). By the use of this trope the speaker wishes to draw attention to the fact that Xenocles would have been found innocent (apopheugein is a technical term) in the case which he himself caused to be brought by submitting the diamartyria® as Phile’s kyrios*, had it been concluded that Nicodemus was telling the truth (fa alethe). ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ὃν ἡ ἡμετέρα κατέστη μήτηρ (“our mother wouldn’t have been established”): A’s initial text did not have μήτηρ, which was added by A! who changed the final ἡ of κατέστη to u, also writing the ἡ above the line (supra lineam). katest@ makes it clear that the speaker’s mother was declared the heir of Pyrrhus by court ruling. §6 ἀποστάσης τοῦ κλήρου (“since [she] dropped her claim to the

estate”): After Endius’ death the estate of Pyrrhus had probably gone to Endius’ mother and her kyrios*, ef 823. Thus, apostasés tou klerou means that after the sentencing of Xenocles for peryury, Phile’s side had to abandon their claim on Pyrrhus’ property (and not possession of the estate), at least for the present and on those grounds, seeing that in §56 we are told that Xenocles has expressed his intention to contest

the legality of Pyrrhus’ will by bringing a suit against the witnesses to it. The verb aphistasthai is used with the same meaning by Isaeus in IV.8: Δημοσθένης μέν ye ἀδελφιδοῦς ἔφη αὐτῷ εἶναι, ἐπειδὴ δ᾽ ἐξηλέγχθη ὑπὸ τούτων, ἀπέστη (sc. τῶν Νικοστράτου) (“Demosthenes said he was his nephew but relinquished his claim when he was proved a liar by my friends”), and 24: od γὰρ εἰς τοῦτό ye ἀνοίας ἥκουσιν ὥστε πιστεύσαντες ταῖς διαθήκαις οὕτως ῥαδίως τοσούτων χρημάτων ἀφίστανται (“surely they are not so mad as to have complete confidence in the will and relinquish so much money

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3)

111

so readily!”, tr. by Edwards [2007]), while in Is. V.2, 18, 20, 21, 29 it

means “to give up possession of an estate”. τῆς

ἀμφισβητούσης

γνησίας

θυγατρὸς

Πύρρῳ

εἶναι

(“the

woman who claimed to be acknowledged as Pyrrhus’ legitimate daughter”): The unusual infinitive construction of ἀμφισβητεῖν coming immediately after κλήρου and very close to ἡ ἀμφισβητοῦσα τοῦ κλήρου, where it is used as a legal term (see §1), appears awkward and makes one suspect that the text is corrupt. Perhaps the phrase γνησίας θυγατρὸς Πύρρῳ εἶναι was inserted into the text from 85: ἡ διαμαρτυρηθεῖσα γνησία θυγάτηρ εἶναι (“the woman who was declared to be our uncle’s legitimate daughter”). On the syntax of amphisbétein, and the suggestions of earlier scholars on this point, see Wyse (1904, 293). μεγάλη ἀνάγκη ἄμα καὶ τὴν τούτου μαρτυρίαν ἑαλωκέναι (“it

must follow that Nicodemus’ testimony has also been condemned”): The use of the perfect tense emphasises the finality of the decision of this court against Nicodemus, based on the verdict against Xenocles in the previous trial, cf 85: ὁ τόθ᾽ ἑαλωκὼς μάρτυς (“the witness who has been convicted”). The argument illustrates the Aristotelian topos® ἐκ κρίσεως (“from a previous judgement”, tr. by Freese [1926]), see Arist. Rh. 11.23 1398b 19-1399a 6, and Palmer (1934, 12). However, it should be noted that the verdict of the previous trial was not binding according to Attic law. Nor were the legal precedents, that is, those which were not decisions in a legal dispute between the same litigants, binding for the verdict of the dikasts in the Athenian courts, see for example Lanni (2004, 159-171) and Rubinstein (2007, esp. 367-368), although, as Harms has shown (2013a, 246-273), they were taken seriously by the dikasts. πὸ» διαμαρτυρήσας (“the man who made the formal declaration”): That is, Xenocles. The addition of the article 1s essential, since without it the subject of the participle would be

Nicodemus, which is wrong. ἠγωνίζετο (“was tried in court”): The verb agonizesthai is used

with the metaphorical meaning, frequent in forensic oratory, “to be Judged in a contest (= trial)”, see LS/ sv. Au. ἐξ ἑταίρας (“by a hetaira®’): This speech by Isaeus gives considerable information about the behaviour of a hetaira*, which was not permitted for a married woman (engyété gyné*). See for example the passages κοινὴν tod βουλομένου (“available to anyone who wanted her”) at §11, ef §§10, 13, 15, 77, μάχας Kai κώμους Kai ἀσέλγειαν πολλὴν γίγνεσθαι περὶ αὐτῆς (“quarrels broke out over her

112 Commentary

and serenades and a great deal of disorderly behaviour took place”) at

813, and ef 814: ἐπὶ γαμετὰς γυναῖκας ... μετὰ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων (“no one would dare to serenade married women. Nor do married women accompany their husbands to dinners, nor do they consider it seemly to dine with strangers, let alone with chance visitors”), and Cantarella (1981, 48-50}, Just (1989, 52-55), Cox (1998, 170-189), Kapparis (1999, 4-10 and 422-424). The hetaira* was a prostitute, but the term is usually used in contrast to a common porné ( Hirschig, Guillaume A. 1858. “Coniectanea critica. Isaeus.’ Philologus 5: 322-325. Hitzig, Hermann. 1883. Studien zu Isaeus. Beilage zum Jahresbericht des städtischen Gymnasiums in Bern. Bern Stämpflische Buchdruckerei.

246 Bibliography

Hollingsworth, John E. 1913. Antithesis in the Attic orators from

Antiphon to Isaeus. Menasha: G. Banta Publishing Company. Hopper, Robert J. 1953. “The Attic Silver Mines in the Fourth Century B.C.” ABSA 48: 200-254. — 1961. “The Mines and Miners of Ancient Athens.” G&R 8: 138-151. Hruza, Ernst. 1894 Beiträge zur Geschichte des griechischen und römischen Familienrechtes IL, Erlangen and Leipzig: Deichert. Hultsch,

Friedrich

©.

71882.

Griechische

und

Römische

Metrologie. Berlin: Weidmann. Humphreys, Sarah. C. 1974. “The Nothoi of Kynosarges.” JHS 94: 88-95. — 1985. “Social Relations on Stage: Witnesses in Classical Athens.” History and Anthropology 1: 313-369.

— 1986. “Kinship Patterns in the Athenian Courts.” GRBS 27: 57-91. — 2002. “Solon on Adoption and Wills.” ZRG (Rom. Abt.) 119:

340-347. Hunger, Herbert. 1991. “Die byzantinische Minuskel des 14. Jahrhunderts zwischen Tradition und Neuerung.” In Palaeografia e codicologia greca. Atti del II Colloquio internazionale, Berlino — Wolfenbüttel 1983, edited by Dieter Harlfinger, and Giancarlo Prato, 151-161. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. Hunter,

Richard.

1999.

Theocritus,

a

Selection.

Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. Hunter,

Virginia J. 1989a.

“The Athenian Widow

and her Kin.”

Journal of Family History 14: 291-311. — 1989b. “Women’s Authority in Classical Athens: the Example of Kleobule and her Son (Dem. 27—29).” EMC 8: 39-48. — 1990. “Gossip and the Politics of Reputation in Classical Athens.” Phoenix 44: 299-325. — 1993. “Agnatic Kinship in Atheman Law and Athenian Family Practice: its Implications for Women.” In Law, Politics and Society in the Ancient Mediterranean World, edited by Baruch Halpern, and Deborah W. Hobson, 100-121. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. — 1994. Policing Athens. Social Control in the Attic Lawsuits, 420-320 B.C. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Isager, Signe, and Hansen Mogens H. 1975. Aspects of Athenian Society in the Fourth Century B. C. Odense: Odense Universitetsforlag.

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 247

Isager,

Signe.

1981-1982.

“The

Marriage

Pattern in Classical

Athens. Men and Women in Isaios.” C&M 33: 81-96. Jebb, Richard C. 1893. The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeus II. London: Macmillan. Jenicke, Eduard. 1838. Observationes in Isaeum. Leipzig: Melzer. Jiménez Lopez, Maria D. 1996. Iseo. Discursos. Madrid: Biblioteca Gredos. Johnstone, Steven. 1999. Disputes and Democracy: the Consequences of Litigation in Ancient Athens. Austin: University of Texas Press.

— 2003. “Women, Property, and Surveillance ın Classical Athens.” ClAnt 22: 247-274. Jones, William. 1779. The Speeches of Isaeus in Causes Concerning the Law of Succession to Property at Athens. London: ]. Nichols. Just, Roger. 1989. Women in Athenian Law and Life. London and

New York: Routledge. Kapparis, Konstantinos A. 1999. Apollodoros “Against Neaira” [D. 59]. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. — 2005. “Immigration and Citizenship Procedures in Athenian Law.” RIDA 52: 71-113. Karabélias, Evangélos. 1978. “Contribution a l’etude de Pépidicasie attique.” In Symposion 1974. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte, edited by Arnaldo Biscardi,

201-222. Cologne: Böhlau. — 1984. “Le contenu de l’oikoc en droit grec ancient.” In μνήμη Γρωργίου A. Πετροπούλου |, edited by Panayotis Dimakis, 443-454.

Athens: Ekdoseis A. Sakkoulas. — 2002. L ‘épiclérat attique. Athens: Academy of Athens. — 2005. Etudes d’histoire juridique et sociale de la Grece ancienne. Athens: Academy of Athens. Kaser, Max 1944. “Der altgriechische Eigentumsschutz.” ZRG

(Rom. Abt.) 64: 134-205. Kayser, Karl L. 1862. “Review of the edition of Isaeus by Karl F. Scheibe.” Heidelberger Jahrbücher der Literatur 13: 193-212. Kennedy, George A. 1972. The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kränzlein, Amold. 1963. Eigentum und Besitz im griechischen Recht des fünften und vierten Jahrhunderts v.Chr. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

248 Bibliography

Kühner,

Raphael,

and

Friedrich

Blass.

1890.

Ausführliche

Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. 1. Teil: Elementar- und Formenlehre I. Hannover and Leipzig: Hahnsche Buchhandlung. Kühner, Raphael, and Bernhardt Gerth. 1898. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. 2. Teil: Satzlehre I. Hannover and Leipzig: Hahnsche Buchhandlung. — 1904. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. 2. Teil: Satzlehre II. Hannover and Leipzig: Hahnsche Buchhandlung. Kurke,

Leslie.

1997.

“Inventing the Hetaira:

Sex, Politics, and

Discursive Conflict in Archaic Greece.” ClAnt 16: 106-150. Kurtz,

Donna

C.,

and

John

Boardman.

1971.

Greek

Burial

Customs. London: Thames & Hudson. Lacey, Walter K. 1968. The Family in Classical Greece. London: Thames & Hudson. Laird, Arthur G. 1922. “When is generic μή particular?” A/Ph 43: 124-145. Lalonde, Gerald V. 1991. “Horoi.” Athenian Agora XIX: 1-52. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Lambert, Stephen. D. 71998. The Phratries of Attica. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Lamberz, Erich. 1998. “The library of Vatopaidi and its Manuscripts.” In The Holy and Great Monastery of Vatopaidi. Tradition — History — Art II, edited by loakeim Papangelos, and Panayotis Gravvalos, 562-574, 672-677. Mount Athos: Athonite Centre of Orthodox Culture. — 2000. “Das Geschenk des Kaisers Manuel II. an das Kloster

Saint-Dennis und der ‘Metochitesschreiber’ Michael Klostomalles.” In “ιθόστρωτον. Studien zur byzantinischen Kunst und Geschichte. Festschrift für

Marcell

Restle,

edited

by

Birgitt

Borkopp,

and

Thomas Steppan, 155-165. Stuttgart: A. Hiersemann. — 2006. “Georgios Bullotes, Michael Klostomalles und die Byzantinische Kaiserkanzlei unter Andronikos Il. und Andronikos ΠῚ. in den Jahren 1298-1328.” In Lire et éerire a Byzance, edited by

Brigitte Mondrain, 33-64. Paris: Association des amis du Centre d’histoire et civilization de Byzance. Lamer, Hans 1922. “Komos.” RE XI.2: cols. 1286-1304.

Langdon, Merle K. 1991. “Poletai Records.” Athenian Agora XIX: 53-143. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Lanni, Adnaan. 2004. “Arguing from ‘Precedent’: Modern Perspectives on Athenian Practice.” In The Law and the Courts in

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 249

Ancient Greece, edited by Edward M. Harris, and Lene Rubinstein,

159-171. London: Duckworth. Latte, Kurt. 1936. “Nothoi.”RE XVIL1: cols. 1066-1074. Laughton, Eric. 1961. “Cicero and the Greek Orators.” AJPh 82: 27-49. Lausberg, Heinrich. 1998. Handbook of Literary Rhetoric. Translated by Matthew T. Bliss, Annemiek Orton. Leiden, Boston, and Cologne: Brill.

Jansen,

and David E.

Lavency, Marius. 1964. Aspects de la logographie judiciaire attique. Louvain: Presses Universitaires Ledl, Artur. 1908. “Das attische Bürgerrecht und die Frauen.” WSt 30: 1-46, 173-230. Leduc, Claidine. 1990. “Come darla in matrimonio? La sposa nel mondo greco, secoli IX-IV a.C.” In Storia delle donne in Occidente I, edited by Georges Duby, Michelle Perrot, and Pauline SchmittPantel, 246-314. Rome: Editori Laterza. Lehmann-Haupt, Karl. F. 1929. “Stadion.” RE IIL1: cols. 1930-

1973. Leisi, Emst. 1908. Der Zeuge im attischen Recht. Frauenfeld: Buchdruckerei Huber. Lepri Sorge, Luisa. 1990. “Per una mprova storica dell’ ἀφαίρεσις τῆς ἐπικλήρου." In Symposion 1988. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte, edited by Giuseppe Nenci, and Gerhard Thür, 37-39. Cologne and Vienna: Böhlau. Lewis, Naphtalı.

175-184. — 1982. Symposion

1960. “Leitourgia and Related Terms.” GRBS 3:

“Aphairesis 1977.

Vorträge

in

Athenian

Law

zur griechischen

Rechtsgeschichte, edited by Josef M. Liebs, 161-178. Cologne: Böhlau.

and und

Custom.”

In

hellenistischen

Modrzejewski,

and Detlef

Lewis, Sıan. 1996. News and Society in the Greek Polis. London:

Duckworth. Lipsius, Justus H. 1905-1915. Das attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren mit Benutzung des attischen Processes [-Π|.Ψ Leipzig: Reisland. Littman, Robert J. 1979. “Kinship in Athens.” AneSoc 10: 5-39. Lonis, Raoul. 1983. “4stu et Polis.” Ktema 8: 95-109. Lotze, Detlef. 1981. “Zwischen Politen und Metöken: Passivbürger ım klassischen Athen?” Klio 63: 159-178.

250 Bibliography

McAdon,

Brad.

2003.

“Probabilities,

Signs,

Necessary

Signs,

Idia, and Topoi: the Confusing Discussion of Materials for Enthymemes in the Rhetoric.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 36: 223-248. McClure,

Laura.

K.

2003.

Courtesans

at Table:

Gender

and

Greek Literary Culture in Athenaeus. London and New York: Routledge. MacDonald, C. 1961. “The Ancient Mine-workings of Laureion.” G&R 8: 19-21. MacDowell,

Douglas

M.

1961.

“Gorgias,

Alkidamas,

and the

Cripps and Palatine Manuscripts.” CQ 11: 113-124. — 1962. Andokides. On the Mysteries. Oxford: University Press. — 1971. “Dating by Rhythms.” CR 21: 24-26.

Oxford

— 1976a. “Hybris in Athens.” G&R 23: 14-31.

— 1976b. “Bastards as Athenian Citizens.” CO 70: 88-96. — 1978. The Law in Classical Athens. London: Thomas

&

Hudson. — 1982. “Love Versus the Law: an Essay on Menander’s ‘Aspis.”"” G&R 29: 42-52. — 1985. “The Length of the Speeches on the Assessment of the Penalty in Athenian Courts.” (Ὁ 35: 525-526. — 1989. “The Oikos in Athenian Law.” CQ 39: 10-21. — 1990. Demosthenes Against Meidias. Oxford: Oxford University Press. — 2000. Demosthenes On the False Embassy (Oration 19). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Maffi, Alberto. 1989. “Matrimonio, concubinato e filiazione illegitima nell’ Atene degli orator.” In Symposion 1985. Vorträge zur

griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte, edited by Gerhard Thür, 177-214. Cologne and Vienna: Böhlau.

— 1990. “E' esistita l’aferesı dell’epikleros?” In Symposion 1988. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte, edited by Giuseppe Nenci, and Gerhard Thür, 21-36. Cologne and

Vienna: Böhlau. — 1991. “Adozione

e strateghie

succesorie

a Gortina

e ad

Atene.” In Symposion 1990. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte, edited by Michael Gagarin, 205238. Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau. Mai, Angelo. 1820. Isaei orationes quae vulgo in editionibus leguntur ad optimum librorum editae. Leipzig: K. Tauchnitz.

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 251

Manta,

Sophia. without date.

Ἰσαίου λόγοι

1. Athens:

Ekdoseis

Georgiades. Manutius,

Aldus,

and Andrea

Torresano.

1513.

τῶν ῥητόρων. (D Αἰσχίνου, Avoiov, Ἀλκιδάμαντος, Δημάδου. (ID Ἀνδοκίδου, Ἰσαίου, Δεινάρχου, Λυκούργου,

Γοργίου,

Λεσβώνακτος,

Ἡρῴδου.

Λόγοι τουτωνὶ

Ἀντισθένους, Ἀντιφῶντος,

Ἔτι Αἰσχίνου

βίος,

Λυσίου βίος. Venetiis: apud Aldum & Andream Socerum. Marchant, Edgar C. 1889. “The Agent in the Attic Orators II.” CR 3: 436-439. — 71968. Xenophon. Scripta minora. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press. Martin, Gunther. 2006. “Forms of Address in Athenian Courts.”

MH 63: 75-88. — 2008. “The Witness’s Exomosia in Athens.” CQ 58: 56-68. — 2014. “Interpreting Instability: Considerations on the Lives of the Ten Orators.” CQ 64: 321-336. Martin, Josef. 1974. Antike Rhetorik. Munich: Beck. Masson, Olivier. 1990. “Remarques sur les noms de femmes en grec.” MH 47: 129-138. Meisterhans, Konrad. ”1900. Grammatik der attischen Inschriften (rev. Eduard Schwytzer). Berlin: Weidmann. Meutzner, Karl F. G. 1840. “Disputatio de locıs nonnullis Isaeı.” In Acta Societatis Graecae Il, edited by Anton Westermann, and Karl H. Funkhaenel, 99-142. Leipzig: Koehler. Mikalson, Jon. D. 1977. “Religion in the Attic Demes.” A/Ph 98: 424. 425. Mikhaelides Nouaros, Mikhael G. 1939. Ἰσαῖος. Δόγοι A’.

Athens: I. Zakharopoulos. Miller, Harold W. 1936. “Isaeus’ Vocabulary.” C/ 31: 442-444. Miller, Stephen G. 1972. “Mortgage Horoi from the Athenian Agora.” Hesperia 41: 274-281. Miner, Jess 2003. “Courtesan, Concubine, Whore: Apollodorus’

Deliberate Use of Terms for Prostitutes.” AJPh 124: 19-37. Miniatus, Alphonsus 1619. Oratorum Greciae Praestantissimorum Antiphontis, Andocidis et Isaei Orationes XXX. Hanoviae: Typis Wechelianis. Mirhady, David C. 1991. “Non-technical pisteis in Aristotle and Anaxumenes.” AJPh 112: 5-28. — 1996. “Torture and Rhetoric in Athens.” JHS 116: 119-131.

252 Bibliography

—

2000.

“The

Athenian

Rationale

for Torture.”

In Law

and

Social Status in Classical Athens, edited by Virginia Hunter, and Jonathan Edmondson, 53-74. Oxford: Oxford University Press. — 2011. Rhetoric to Alexander. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press. Mondrain, Brigitte. 2000. “Janus Lascaris copiste et ses livres.” In 1 manoseritti greci tra riflessione e dibattito. Atti del V colloquio internazionale di palaeografia greca, edited by Giancarlo Prato, 417-426, 241-246 (Tav.). Florence: Gonnellı. Mossé, Claude. 1991. “La place de la pallaké dans la famille athenienne.” In Symposion 1990. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschicht, edited by Michael Gagarin, 273287. Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau.

Moy, Léon. 1876. Etude sur les plaidoyers d’Isee. Paris: Thorin. Muller, Karl. 1877. Oratores attici. Antiphon, Andocides, Lysias, Isocrates, Isaeus, Aeschines, Dinarchus, Demades declamationes Gorgiae et aliorum, graece cum translatione reficta a C. Mullero, 1.

Paris: Ambrosio Firmin Didot. Münscher, Karl. 1919. /saios. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke. Naber, Samuel A. 1852. “Untitled note on Isaeus 3.1.” Mnemosyne 1: 357. — 1877. “Adnotationes criticae ad Isaeı orationes.” Mnemosyne N.S. 5: 385-419. North, Helen F. 1977. “The Mare, the Vixen, and the Bee: sophrosyne as the Virtue of Women in Antiquity.” [CS 2: 35-48. Noy,

David.

2009.

“Neaira’s

Daughter:

a

Case

of

Athenian

O’Connell, Peter A. 2017. The Rhetoric of Seeing Forensic Oratory. Austin: University of Texas Press.

in Attic

Identity Theft?” (Ὁ 59: 398-410.

Ofenloch, Ernst. 1967. Caecilii Calactini fragmenta. Stuttgart: B.

G. Teubner Ogden,

Daniel.

1996. Greek Bastardy in the Classical and the

Hellenistic Periods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Olson, 5. Douglas. 2002. Aristophanes Achamians. Oxford University Press.

Oxford:

— 2010. Athenaeus. The Learned Banqueters. Books 12-13.594b. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press. Omitowoju, Rosanna. 2002. Rape and the Politics of Consent in Classical Athens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Osborne, Robin. 1985a. “Law in Action in Classical Athens.”

JHS 105: 40-58.

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 253

—

1985b. Demos: the Discovery of Classical Athens. Cambridge

and New York: Cambridge University Press. Palau Cataldi, Annaclara. 1976. “Ripetizioni come espediente oratorio in Iseo.” Aevum 50: 137-141. Palmer, Georgiana P. 1934, The τόποι of Aristotle’s Rhetoric as Exemplified in the Orators. Chicago: The University of Chicago Libraries. Paoh, Ugo. E. 1933. Studi sul processo attico. Padova: A. Milani. — 1935. Iseo, per l’ereditä di Pirro. Florence: Le Monnier. — 1961. “Note giuridiche sul AdoxoAog di Menandro.” MH 18: 53-62 (repr. in Paoli 1979: 559-570). — 1971. “Successioni.” NDI 13: 701-704. — 1979. Altri studi di diritto greco e romano. Milan: CisalpinoGoliardica. Papabasileiou, Georgios. 1899. “Κριτικαὶ παρατηρήσεις εἰς Ἰσαῖον καὶ Αἰσχίνην." A@yvé 11: 563-566.

Parke, Herbert. W.

1977. Festivals of the Athenians.

London:

Thames & Hudson. Parker, Robert C. T. 1987. “The Festivals ofthe Attic Demes.” In Gifts to the Gods: Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposion 1985, edited by Tullia Linders, and Gullog Nordquist, 137-147. Uppsala: Academia Ubsaliensis. Patillon, Michel. 1988. La theorie du discours chez Hermogene le Rheteur. Essai sur les structures linquistiques de la rhetorique ancienne. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Patterson, Cynthia. B. 1981. Pericles’ Citizenship Law of 451450 B.C. Salem: Ayer.

— 1990. “Those Athenian Bastards.” CiAnt 9: 40-73. — 199la. “Response to Claude Mosse.” In Symposion

1990.

Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte, edited by Michael Gagarin, 281-287. Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna:

Böhlau. — 1991b. “Marriage and the Married Woman in Athenian Law.” In

Women’s

Pomeroy,

History

48-72.

and Ancient

History,

Chapel Hill and London:

edited

by

University

Sarah.

B.

of North

Carolina Press. — 2005. “Athenian Citizenship Law.” In The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law, edited by Michael Gagarin, and David Cohen, 267-289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

254 Bibliography

Pattie,

Thomas.

S.,

and

Scot

McKendrick.

1999.

Summary

Catalogue of Greek Manuscripts in the British Library 1. London: British Library. Pearson, Lionel. 1975. “Hiatus and its Purposes in Attic Oratory.” AJPh 96: 138-159. — 1978. “Hiatus and its Effect in the Attic Speech-writers.” TAPhA 108: 131-145. Peschel, Ingeborg. 1987. Die Hetäre bei Symposion und Komos in der attischrotfigurigen Vasenmalerei des 6-4 Jahrh. v. Chr. Frankfurt am Main and New York: Peter Lang. Petit, Samuel. 1742. Leges Atticae. Leiden: J. & H. Verbeek. Photiades, Panayotis. 5. 1923. “Διορθωτικὰ εἰς Ἰσαῖον." ἀθηνᾶ 35: 54-66. Pitcher, Luke V. 2005. “Narrative Technique in the Lives of the Ten Orators.” CQ 55: 217-234. Plescia, Joseph. 1970. The Oath and Perjury in Ancient Greece. Tallahassee: Florida State University Press. Pomeroy, Sarah. B. 1994. Xenophon Oeconomicus: a Social and Historical Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. — 1997. Families in Classical and Hellenistic Greece: Representations and Realities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Porter, Stanley. E. 1997. Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C. — A.D. 400. Leiden, New York, and Cologne: Brill. Post, Levi A. 1940. “Woman’s Place in Menander’s Athens.” TAPhA 71: 420-459.

Prato, Giancarlo.

1994. Studi di Palaeografia Greca.

Spoleto:

Centro Italiano di Studi sull’ Alto Medioevo.

Rackham, Harris. 1926. Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics. New York and London: G. P. Putnam & W. Heinemann. Rademaker, Adriaan. 2005. Sophrosyne and the Rhetoric of Self-

restraint. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Rauchenstein,

Rudolf.

1862.

“Zur

Literatur

des

Isaios.”

Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 85: 673-679. Reinsberg, Carola. 1989. Ehe, Hetärentum und Knabenliebe im antiken Griechenland. Munich: C. H. Beck. Reiske,

Johann.

J.

1773.

Oratorum

Graecorum,

volumen

VII,

Isaei et Antiphontis reliquias tenens. Leipzig: W. G. Sommer. Renehan, Robert. 1980. “Notes and Discussions. Isocrates and Isaeus: Lesefriichte.” CPh 75: 242-253.

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 255

Rhodes, Peter. J. 1978. “Bastards as Athenian Citizens.” CO 28:

89-22. — 1981. 4 Commentary Oxford University Press. —

on the Athenaion Politeia.

Oxford:

1984. The Athenian Constitution. Harmondsworth, Middlesex,

and New York: Penguin. Rhys Roberts, William. 1897. “Caecilius of Calacte.” AJPh 18: 302-312. Richards, Herbert.

1906.

“Notes on the Attic Orators.” CR 20:

292-301. Risch, Ernst. 1944. “Betrachtungen zu den indogermanischen Verwandtschaftsnamen.” ΜΗ 1: 115-122. Rizzo, Rosagina, and Onofrio Vox. 1978. “Διαβολή." OS 8: 307321. Robertson, Noel. 1999. “The Sequence of Days at the Thesmophoria and at the Eleusinian Mysteries.” EMC 18: 1-33. Robinson, Charles A. 1901. The Tropes and Figures of Isaeus. Princeton: C. 5. Robinson & Co University Printers. Roeder, Willib. 1880. Beiträge zur Erklärung und Kritik des Isaios. Jena: E. Frommann. Roisman, Joseph, Ian Worthington, and Robin Waterfield. 2015. Lives of the Attic Orators: Texts from Pseudo-Plutarch, Photius,

and

the Suda. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Romilly, Jacqueline de. 1979. La douceur dans la pensée grecque. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Rominkiewicz, Jaroslaw. 2013. Isaeus. Wroclaw: Wydawn

Uniwersytetu Wroklawskiego. Rosenberg, Emil. 1874. “Altes und neues zur Kritik des Isios, Andokides und Lykurgos.” Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 109:

333-344. Rosivach, Vincent R. 1984. “Aphairesis and Apoleipsis.

A Study

of the Sources.” RIDA 31: 193-230. Roussel, Pierre. 1922. [sée. Discours. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

Roy, James. 1997. “An Alternative Sexual Morality for Classical Athens.” G &R 44: 11-22. — 1999. “Polis and Oikos in Classical Athens.” G & R 46: 1-18. Rubinstein, Lene. 1993. Adoption in IV. Century Athens. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. — 2000. Litigation and Cooperation. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

256 Bibliography

—

2003a. “Volunteer Prosecutors in the Classical World.” Dike

6: 87-113. — 2003b. “Synégoroi: their Place in our Reconstruction of the Athenian Legal Process.” In Symposion 1999. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte, edited by Gerhard Thür, and Francisco J. Fernandez Nieto, 193-207. Cologne, Weimar,

and Vienna: — 2005. Procedural griechischen Gagarin,

Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. “Main Litigants and Witnesses in the Athenian Courts: Variations.” In Symposion 2001. Vorträge zur und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte, edited by Michael

and

Robert

Wallace,

99-120.

Vienna:

Österreichische

Akademie der Wissenschaften. — 2007. “Arguments from Precedent in Attic Oratory.” In Oxford Readings in the Attic Orators, edited by Edwin Carawan, 359-371. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rudhardt, Jean R. 1962. “La reconnaissance de la paternité: sa nature et portse dans la société athenienne.” MH 19: 39-64. Ruschenbusch, Eberhard. 1962. “Διατίθεσθαι τὰ ἑαυτοῦ. Ein Beitrag zum sogennanten Testamentsgesetz des Solon.” ZRG (Rom. Abt.) 79: 307-311 (repr. in Ruschenbusch. 2005: 59-62). — 2005. Kleine Schriften zur griechischen Rechtsgeschichte. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Russell, Donald A. 1983. Greek Declamation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rutherford, William G. 1881. The New Phrynichus. London: Macmillan. Sanmarti Boncompte, Francisco. 1954. ces Ἐπισκήπτειν como acto

de ultima voluntad.” RIDA 1: 259-268. Sansone, David. 1984. “On Hendiadys ın Greek.” Glotta 62: 16-

25. Sauppe,

Hermann.

1841.

Epistola

critica

ad

Godofredum

“Witnessing

and

False

Witnessing:

Hermannum. Leipzig: Weidmann. Scafuro,

Adele

C.

1994.

Proving Citizenship and Kin Identity in Fourth-Century Athens.” In Athenian Identity and Civic Ideology, edited by Alan L. Boegehold, and Adele C. Scafuro, 156-198. Baltimore, London: The John Hopkins University Press. — 1997. The Forensic Stage: Seitling Disputes in Graeco-Roman New Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. — 2011. Demosthenes, Speeches 39-49. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 257

Schamp,

Jacques.

2000.

Les

Vies

des

dix

orateurs

attiques.

Fribourg: Editions Universitaires. Schaps, David M. 1975. “Women in Greek Inheritance Law.” CO 25: 53-57. — 1977. “The Woman Least Mentioned: Etiquette and Women’s Names.” CQ 27: 323-330. — 1979. Economic Rights of Women in Ancient Greece. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Scheibe, Karl F. 1859. Commentatio critica de Isaei orationibus.

Dresden: E. Blochmann. — 1860. Isaei orationes cum aliquot deperditarum fragmentis. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. Schmitt Pantel, Pauline. 1997. La cité au banquet. Histoire des repas publics dans les cités grecques. Rome: Ecole Frangaise de Rome.

Schmitz, Thomas A. 2000. “Plausibility in the Greek Orators.” AJPh 121: 47-77. Schömann, Georg F. 1830. Isäus der Redner. Stuttgart: Metzler. — 1831. Isaei orationesXI cum aliquot deperditarum fragmentis. Greifswald: Luchtmann. Sealey, Raphael. 1984. “On Lawful Concubinage in Athens.” ClAnt3: 111-133. Seymour, Thomas D. 1901. “Hypophora in Isaeus.” CR 15: 108109. Serafim, Andreas. 2017a. Attic Oratory and Performance. London: Routledge. — 2017b. “‘Conventions’ in/as Performance: Addressing the

Audience

in Selected Public

Speeches of Demosthenes.”

In The

Theatre of Justice: Aspects of Performance in Greco-Roman Oratory

and Rhetoric, edited by Sophia Papaioannou, Andreas Serafim, and Beatrice da Vela, 26-31. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Sicherl, Martin. 1997. Griechische Erstausgaben

Manutius.

Druckvorlagen,

Stellenwert,

kultureller

des

Aldus

Hintergrund.

Paderborn, Munich, Vienna, and Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh.

Simon,

Erika.

1983.

Festivals

of Attica:

an Archaeological

Commentary. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Smith, Rebekah M. 1992. “Photius on the Ten Orators.” GRBS

33: 159-189. — 1995. “A New Look at the Canon of the Ten Attic Orators.” Mnemosyne (4® Series) 48: 66-79.

258 Bibliography

Sommerstein, Alan H. 1980. “The Naming of Women

in Greek

and Roman Comedy.” OS 11: 393-418. Sommerstein, Alan. H., and Andrew J. Bayliss. 2013. Oath and

State in Ancient Greece. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Speake, Graham. 1993. “Janus Lascaris’ Visit to Mount Athos in 1491.” GRBS 34: 325-330. Speranzi, David 2010a. “Giano Lascari e 1 suoi copisti. Gli oratori attici minori tra l’Athos e Firenze.” Medioevo e rinascimento 24: 337-377. — 2010b. “La scrittura di Marco Musuro. Problemi di varaibilita sincronica e diacronica.” In The Legacy of Bernard de Montfaucon: Three Hundred Years of Studies on Greek Handwriting, edited by Antonio Bravo Garcia, Inmaeulada Pérez Martin, and Juan Signes Codoner, 187-195, 775-779. Tumhout: Brepols Publishers.

Spezi, Giuseppe. 1844. Orazioni di Iseo. Rome: Tipografia delle Belle Arti. de Ste. Croix, Geoffrey E. M. 2004. Athenian Democratic Origins and Other Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stengel, Paul. 1894. “Amphidromia.” RE 1.2: cols. 1901-1902. Stephanus, Henricus. 1575. Τῶν παλαιῶν ῥητόρων λόγοι: Αἰσχίνου, Δεινάρχου, Λυσίου, Ἀντιφῶντος, Ἀνδοκίδου, Λυκούργου,

‘Ioaiov, Γοργίου, Ἡρῴδου

καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν. Paristis et Coloniae

Allobrogum: Excudit Henricus Stephanus. Sykoutris, loannes. 1956. Μελέται καὶ ἄρθρα. Athens: Ekdoseis tou Aigaiou. Tacon,

Judith.

2001.

“Ecclesiastic

Thorubos:

Interventions,

Interruptions, and Popular Involvement in the Athenian Assembly.”

G&R 48: 173-192. Taran, Sonya. L. 1979. The Art of Variation in the Hellenistic Epigram. Leiden: Brill. Thalheim,

Theodor.

1903a.

/saeus

Orationes.

Leipzig:

B.

6.

Teubner. — 1903b. “Zu Isaios.” Hermes 38: 456-467. Thomas, Rosalind.

1989. Oral Tradition and Written Record in

Classical Athens. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. — 1994. “Law and the Lawgiver in the Athenian Democracy.” In Ritual, Finance, Politics: Athenian Democratic Accounts Presented to David Lewis, edited by Robin G. Osborne, and Simon Hornblower, 119-133. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 259

Thompson, Wesley E. 1967. “The Marriage of First Cousins in

Athenian Society.” Phoenix 21: 273-282. — 1983. “Thucydides 8.20.1: Astyochos’ Office.” CQ 33: 293294. Threatte, Leslie. 1980. The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions I: Phonology. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. — 1996. The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions Il. Morphology. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. Thür, Gerhard 1977. Beweisführung vor den Schwurgerichtshöfen Athens. Die Proklesis zur Basanos. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. — 2005. “The Role of the Witness in Athenian Law.” In The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law, edited by Michael Gagarın, and David Cohen, 146-169. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. — 2006. “Antwort auf Michele Faraguna.” In Symposion 2003. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte, edited by Hans A. Rupprecht, 161-165. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Tindale, Christopher. W. 2010. Reason’s Dark Champions: Constructive Strategies of Sophistic Argument. Columbia: University

of South Carolina Press. Todd, Stephen C. 1990. “The Purpose of Evidence in Athenian Courts.” In Nomos: Essays in Athenian Law, Politics and Society, edited by Paul A. Cartledge, Paul Millett, and Stephen C. Todd, 1939. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. — 1993. The Shape of Athenian Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

— 2000a. “The Language of Law in Classical Athens.” In The Moral World of the Law, edited by Peter R. Coss, 17-36. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. — 2000b. Lysias. Austin: University of Texas Press. —

2007.

A Commentary

on

Lysias,

Speeches

1-11.

Oxford:

Oxford University Press. Too, Yun Lee, and David Mirhady. 2000. /socrates I. Austin: University of Texas Press. Traill, John 5. 1986. Demos and Trittys. Epigraphical and Topographical Studies in the Organization of Attica. Toronto: Athenians. — 1994-2012. Persons of Ancient Athens I-XX1. Toronto: Athenians.

260 Bibliography

Usher,

Stephen.

1974.

Dionysius

of Halicarnassus.

Critical

Essays I. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press. — 1999. Greek Oratory. Tradition and Originality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vatin, Claude. 1970. Recherches sur le marriage et la condition de la femme marriée a l’époque hellénistique. Paris: E. de Boccard. Vergés, Josep. 1930. Iseu. Discursos I. Barcelona: Fundaciö Bernat Metge. Vollert, Johannes. 1885. Adnotationes criticae ad Isaei orationes I, I, ΠῚ, Programm des Gymanasiums Schleiz. Schleiz: Hofbuchdruckerei, R. Rosenthal. Volkmann, Richard von. 71885. Die Rhetorik der Griechen und

Romerin systematischer Ubersicht. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. Walters, Kenneth. M. 1983. “Pericles’ Citizenship Law.” ClAnt2: 314-336. Wankel, Hermann. 1991. “ψευδῆλγεύδη." ZPE 85: 31-33.

Welsh, David. 1991. “Isaeus 9 and Astyphilus’ Last Expedition.” GRBS 32: 131-150. Wevers, Richard F. 1969. Isaeus: Chronology, Prosopography and Social History. The Hague and Paris: Mouton. Wilson, Nigel. 1960. “Some Palaeographical Notes.” CQ 10: 190. 204. Whitehead,

David.

1986.

The

Demes

B.C. Princeton: Princeton University Press. — 2000. Hypereides: the Forensic

of Attica,

Speeches:

508/7-ca.

250

Introduction,

Translation and Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wohl,

Victoria.

2010.

Law’s

Cosmos.

Judicial

Discourse

in

Athenian Forensic Oratory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wolff, Hans. J. 1944. “Marriage Law and Family Organization in Ancient Athens.” Traditio 2: 43-95. Wolpert, Andrew O. 2003. Orators.” AJPh 124: 537-555.

“Addresses to the Jury in the Attic

Wooten, Cecil. W. 1987. Hermogenes’ On Types of Style. Chapel Hill and London: The University of North Carolina Press. — 1989. “Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Hermogenes on the Style of Demosthenes.” AJPh 110: 576-588. Worthington, Ian. W. 1994. “The Canon of the Ten Attic Orators.” In Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in Action, edited by Ian W. Worthington, 244-263. London and New York: Routledge.

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 261

Worthington,

Ian W,

Craig R. Cooper,

2001. Dinarchus, Hyperides,

and Edward M. Harris.

and Lycurgus. Austin: University of

Texas Press.

Wyse, William. 1904. The Speeches Cambridge University Press. — 1924. “Some Emendations in Isaeus.” Young, Suzanne. 1939. “An Athenian 274-284. (without editor’s name, without date). Ekdoseis Kaktos.

of Isaeus.

Cambridge:

CR 38: 12-13. Clepsydra.” Hesperia 8: 7σαίου λόγοι 1. Athens:

INDICES a) Index of Passages Cited References are to the editions listed on pages 229-234. Aelian Varia Historia

6.10: 33 n. 58 13.24: 33 n. 58

Andocides

1.6: 177 151: 147 1.73: 199 II.4: 109

Aeschines

1.32: 177 1.37: 186 1.101: 138 1.105: 138 1.137: 126 11.19: 132 11.159: 177 11.30: 155 1Π.46: 155 1Π.167: 101

[Andocides] IV.14: 119 IV.17: 109 TV.26: 145 IV.37: 145 Anonymous Genoas Isaei: 3-4, 6

Antiphanes fr. 210 (K-A ID): 163

Σ 111.24: 141 Alexander Numenii

De figuris II 22.30-31: 39 n. 75

(?) Anaximenes Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 5.1-4 (1427b): 150 7.4 (1428a): 122 7.4-8.1 (1428a 27-1429a 20):

122 7.6 (1428b): 14 n. 19 9.1-10.3 (1430): 150 21.1 (1434a): 39 n. 75

Antiphon 1.14: 147 1.1.1: 145 11.1.4: 200 11.2.9: 200 V.6-7: 177 V.8: 200 V.81: 186 VII: 200 VL31: 186 VI34: 189 Aristophanes Acharnians

49: 142 Aves (Birds)

444: 166

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 263

494-495: 150 922: 150 923: 150 1665: 204 Ecclesiazusae 317: 102 371: 101 Equites (Knights) 899: 102

III. 14 1Π.14 1Π.14 1.14

Lysistrata

549: 142 Nubes (Clouds) 1036: 166 Vespae (Wasps) 538: 166 1381-1395: 126 Σ

Thesmophoriazusae

80a:

221 Σ Aves 16568: 182 Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics TV.1 1119b 26-27: 162

1408b 1415a 1415a 1415b

32-1409a 1: 10 12-13: 97 21-23: 97 9-15: 128

[Aristotle] Athenaiön Politeia 8.5: 161 9.1:177 9.2: 20 n. 32 26.4: 33 n. 58, 161 35.2: 171, 208 43.4: 103, 196 47.2: 138 52.2: 119 56.6: 174, 175 56.7; 153 59.3: 160 59.6: 108 66.2: 124 67.2: 124 67.3: 114 68.4: 105 68-69: 116

Rhetoric 1.2 1357b 1-9: 134

Athenaeus

1.15 11.23 111 11.23 11.23 11.23 11.23 182, 11.23 11.23 11.23 11.23 11.25 11.7 11.7

Deipnosophistae X11.535c: 163 X11.555a: 126 X11.571d: 112 X11.578b-d: 151 X11.583e: 163 X111.584e: 126 X11.587e: 151 XIIL.590d: 151 XII.591e: 151 X.593£: 151 XII.607d-e: 126

1376a 17-21: 14 n. 17 1398b 19-1399a 6: 106, 1399a 1399b 1399b 1399b 205 1400a 1400a 1400a 1400b 1402b 1408a 1408a

6-9: 116 4-13: 123 19-30: 165 30-1400a 5: 157, 14-22: 150, 210 15-16: 100 35-1400b 4: 130 8-16: 210 14-16: 122 17-18: 121 34-36: 166

Caecilius frs. 4-81:7n.

7

264 Indices fr. 125: 2

fr. 125a: 2 Demetrius

fr. 6a: 5, 6 Demosthenes

111.34: 136 XV1.23: 120 XVIIL155: 183 XVIL167: 183 ΧΙΧ δ6: 140 XTX.198: 141 ΧΙΧ 297: 140 XX.21: 222 XR.102: 171 XX1.36: 126 XXI.44: 199 XXLI.47: 176, 177 XXT.100: 179 XXLI.112: 165 XXT.167: 138 XXT.175: 177 XX1.223: 186 XXTII.146: 138 XXLV.63: 177 XXTV.131: 160 XXIV.197: 120 XXIV.201: 161 XXIV.204: 213 XXVL2: 161 XXVIL5: 170 XXVILI7: 119 XXVIL 42-46: 170 XX VIL 15-16: 170 XXIX: 123 XXX.2: 140 XXX.4: 119, 140 XXX.8: 140 XXX.12: 117 XXX.15: 118, 119

XOX. 17-18: 119 DOCK. 25-26; 119 DOK.29: 119 AXR.31:119 AXR.33: 119 AXXL13: 149 AXXVL34-35: 170 AXXVIL4: 138 XXXVILAS: 174 XXXVIL46: 174, 179, 180 XXXVIL9: 155 XXXIX.15: 199 XOXCXIX. 22: 150 XXXIX.27: 152 XL1.10: 186 XL1.18: 100 XLV.28: 170 LIV.14: 126 LV.4: 100 LV.5-7: 120 LVI.2: 148 LYI.10: 186 LVI.32: 120 LVII: 215, 219 LVIL14: 135 LVIIL.43: 161, 218 LVIL51: 161 LVIL54: 123 LVIL. 69: 218 LVI.76: 161 Epist. 111.29: 160 ZXXIV.131:

160

[Demosthenes] ΧΧν 56: 120 XXXIL.25: 120 XXXV.6: 140 XXXV.20: 132 XXXV.34: 132 ΧΧΧΝ 54: 186

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 265

ΧΙ,δ: 120 XL.25: 117 XL.27: 120 XL.28: 150, 222 XL.51: 130 XLIL3: 138 XLI.12: 148 XLI.17:138 XLI.18: 138 XLI.20: 138 XLI.21: 138 XL1.23: 138 XLI.31: 138 XLIOIL 12-14: 216 XLIIL 15-16: 196 XLII16: 101, 167, 185, 190 XLI.17:213 XLIL.51:98, 104, 170 XLIN.54: 185, 204, 209 XLII.62: 190 XLII.69: 167 XL.71: 178 XLIH.72: 186 XLII.74: 152 XLIIL75: 174, 176, 179, 185 XLIV.2: 198 XLIV.15: 186, 213 XLIV.16: 197 XLIV.19: 197 XLIV.25: 191 XLIV.26: 213 XLIV.31: 186 XLIV.32: 190 XLIV.32-34: 140 XLIV.34: 191 XLIV.36: 186 XLIV.46: 105 XLIV.49: 99 XLIV.49-51: 191 XLIV.64: 191 XLIV.67-68: 24 ἢ. 36, 171

ALVL7: 132, 133 XLVL10: 107 XLVL14: 170, 171, 207-208 XLVL18S: 99, 185 XLVL2O: 182, 185, 216 XLVL22: 103 XLVL26: 165 XLVIL1: 107 XLVI.57: 156 XLVIL77: 148 XLVIN.6: 190, 213 XLVII.29: 196 XLVII.56: 129 XLIX.20: 133 XLIX.56: 107 XLIX.68: 120 L.67: 120 LII.26: 186 LVII.42: 189 LIX: 162 LIX.16: 10, 16, 32, 33, 34, 159 LIX.24: 127 LIX.28: 161 LIX.33: 127, 222 LIX 34: 222 LIX.39: 141 LIX.48: 127 LIX.50: 151 LIX.52: 10, 16, 32, 33, 34, 119, 159, 177 LIX.53: 179 LIX.66: 177 LIX.67: 120 LIX.70: 182 LIX.73: 145 LIX.114: 126 LIX.121: 151 LX.4: 191 LXI.16: 165

266 Indices

Didymus p. 310: 7 p. 315: 6 p. 320: 6 pp. 321-334: 7 Dinarchus

1.71: 1.96: 1.111: 11.19: 1Π.4: IX.2:

123 186 141 166 148 132

Harpocration

sv. s.v. sv. sv. SY. sv. s.v. sv. SY. SY. sv. 59, SY.

Αἰθαλίδης (A51): 142-143 αἰκίας (A53): 199 ἀντωμοσία (A162): 113 γαμηλία (Γ2}: 5, 51, 218 εἰσαγγελία (E7): 173 ἐκμαρτυρία (E25): 132 ἐξούλης (E72): 198 Ἰσαῖος 121): 1, 5 νοθεῖα (N18): 182 πανδαισία (19): 6 παράστασις (1131): 51, 94 προσεποιήσατο

Dionysius Halicarnassensis de Demosthene

51,59, 94, 101

38 (pp. 210.9-211.5): 40 n. 80 38 (pp. 210.9-211.16): 40

Hermippus fr. 69: 1, 6 fr. 70: 5, 6

de Isaea

1 (pp. 93.1-94.2): 1, 6 1 (p. 93.1-7): 4 1 (p. 93.4.7): 2 1 (p. 93.7-9): 4 2 (p. 94.6-10): 2 2-4 (pp. 94.3-97.9): 4 3 (p. 95.4-7): 36 3 (p. 95.11-12): 35 n. 63, 36 n. 64

3 (p. 95. 19-20): 96-97 7 (p. 101.8-9): 36 n. 64 9 (p. 103.12-14): 97 13 (p. 109.46): 37 n. 71 13 (p. 109.5-6): 36 n. 64 14 (p. 111.12-13): 36 n. 64 16 (p. 115.3-4): 36 n. 64 16 (pp. 115.6-116.14): 95

Hermogenes On ideas (On types of style) B

11 (411): 36 n. 65 On staseis (On issues) 2 (11):

96 Herodotus

I1.93.4; 136 Hesychius

Sv. γαμηλία (118): 219 Homer

Iliad 1.516: 213 8.17: 213

Ad Ammaeum epistola

2 (p. 259 4-8): 2 Eubulus

fr. 2 (K-A V): 150

(11102):

Hypereides 11.1: 138 11.8: 177 11.12: 177

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 267

11.19: 186 V.13: 148 V.16: 99 v17:171 fr. VII.29: 138 fr. LXII: 182, 192, 216 Isaeus (not including the third speech) 1: 40, 94, 94-95 1.1: 99 1.2: 100 1.5: 194 1.11: 115 1.22: 191 1.23: 137 1.25: 201 1.31: 100

TV.26: 185 V: 10, 94, 94-95, 210 V.2:111 V.5: 147 V.6: 215, 216, 217 V.7: 190 V.8: 215, 216 V.10: 201 V.15: 215, 216 V.16: 105, 136, 172 V.17; 105 V.18: 111 V.20: 111 V.21:111 V.22: 140 V.2224: V.29: 111

1.36: 186, 1.39: 180 1.57: 100 II: 10, 94, 11.5: 117 11.9: 165 1{11: 19] 11.13: 171, 1.14: 100, 11.15: 100

V.35: 190 V.37: 201 V.41: 149 V.44: 158 VI: 10, 94, 94-95, 141 VL2: 135 VL3: 193 V1.4: 105, 172 V1.8: 115 VL9: 171, 208

201

94-95, 141

207 187

11.18: 191 11.20: 131 11.27: 201 11.34: 124 11.36: 152 11.38: 186 IV: 94, 94-95, 187 IV.3: 101 TV.6: 109 IV.7: 101 IV.8: 110 TV.16: 171, 208

VI.12: VI.13: VI.14: VLI7: V1.22: VI.24: VI.27: VL.28: VL30: V1.39: V1.46: V1.52:

186 105 100 121 151 149 172 191, 208 201 190 110 171

IV.24: 110

VI59: 105, 136, 172

96,

187,

268 Indices

VI.62: 171 VI.64; 222 VII: 10, 40, 94, 94-95, 210 VIL1:100, 171 VIL2: 187 VIL5: 201 VIL7: 201 VIL9: 171 VIL16: 123-124, 191 VIL18: 186, 201 VII.30: 99 VIL31: 135 VIL35: 183 VIL37: 167 VIL.43: 137, 193 VIII: 40, 94, 94-95, 98, 215, 219 VIIL.4: 101, 136 ΝΠΙ.7: 123 VIIL8: 182 VIIL.9: 222 VIIL.14: 186 VIIL18: 218, 219, 222 VIIL19: 222 VIIL20: 148, 218, 222 VIIL28: 110, 185 VIIL30: 155 VIIL31: 182, 216 VIIL33: 213 VIIL38: 137 VIIL.44: 16, 160 VIIL.45: 155, 184 IX: 94, 94-95, 96, 187 IX.1: 201 IX.2: 106, 120, 134 IX.3: 190 IX.5: 115 IX.7: 134 IX.8: 188 IX.11: 171, 201 IX.12: 145, 188

TX.13: 147, 208 TX.15: 185, 205 IX.24: 158 IX.31: 134, 185, 205 IX.32: 101 Χ 94, 94-95, 187, 210 X.2: 171, 208 X.4: 215, 217 xX.5:217 X.9: 171, 208 X.10: 184 X.12: 182, 216 X.13: 21 ἢ. 34, 183 X.15: 155 X.18: 185, 190 x.19: 202 X.23: 123 X.26: 158 ΧΙ: 40, 94, 94-95, 96, 97, 210 XL1-2: 104 X12: 137 X1.6: 120, 173, 176 X17: 183 XL11:98 X1.13: 180 ΧΙ.15: 173, 176 X122: 158, 171, 207 xX125: 147, 207 X1.28: 173, 176, 183 xX130: 149 X1L31: 173, 176 X1.32: 173, 176 X133: 148 X1.35: 173, 176, 180 XT.40: 185 X1.45-46: 107 X1.47: 136 XII: 95 XIL8: 161 fr. XVI: 97 fr. XX VI: 182, 216

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 269

Isocrates 1Π.1: 120 V.154: 136 V1.88: 120 VIL1:101 Χν 224: 120 ΧΙΧ 7: 149 ΧΙΧ 42: 186 XIX.43: 171 RR.1: 200 XX.15: 200 Juvenalis 3.74: 4 Lexicon Rhetoricum Cantabrigiense sv. ξενίας γραφὴ καὶ δωροξενίας: 160 Libanius Declamatio XXIII (Demosthenis apologia) 32 (VI, p. 393.9-12): 1 Argumenta orationum Demosthenicarum 7 (VUL p. 602.18-19): 1 ὃ (VII, pp. 602.22-603.12): 2 Argumentum orationis II contra Onetorem 2 (VII, p. 651.9-15): 2

Lysias 1.31: 126 1.50: 200 III.4: 130 111.5: 130 111.31: 130 111.39: 130 1.43: 126 IV: 126 IV.13: VIL18: 125 VIL.26: 200 X.9: 120 XUI91: 191 XIX.3: 177 XIX.15: 117 XIX.39-41: 170 XXIL22: 166 XXIV.13: 109 XXIX.11: 200 XXXIL.20: 109 fr LXXXII: 182 fr. CXL (299): 112-113, 163 [Lysias] V1.33: 109 VI.48: 161 Menander Aspis: 199, 209 349: 216

Dyscolus Lucian

209

Dialogi meretricii

738-739: 208

IX.5: 126 XV.1-2: 126

842-844: 109 Periceiromene 1013-1015: 109 Samia 346: 191 726-728: 109

Lycurgus 1.57: 120 1.138: 165

fr. 239 (K-A VII.2): 175

270 Indices Moeris

Pliny

TI8: 101

Epistolae 11.13: 4

Philostratus

Vitae sophistarum 1.171 1.20: 4

Moralia

Plutarch

De gloria Atheniensium 8 (3500): 2

Photius

Amaitorius

Biblioteca cod. 260 (487a): 1 cod. 263 (490a): 2

8 (7536): 126

Lexicon

Alcibiades 8.119 8.4: 163 Demosthenes 5.6: 2

s.v. Ἰσαῖος (1201): 5 Plato Apology 30a: 213 Leges (Laws) 868d: 149 920d: 148 927c-d: 176 932b: 130 937b: 105 937d: 114 959a: 190

Theaetetus 148b: 108

Vitae

Pericles 372-5: 33n.58 Solon 18.3: 177 21.3: 171

[Plutarch] Vitae decem oratorum 837d: 1 839e-f: 2, 6, 7 8440: 2 844c: 2

Plautus

Aulularia 238: 117 258: 117 480: 117 Menaechmi 37-44: 152 Stichus

562: 117 Trinummus

612: 117

Pollux Onomasticon

vVIU1.37: VIU.38: VIT.39: VII.53: VII.101: VID2.107:

133 178 103 174 119 219

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 271

Quintilian Institutio oratoria

1Π.6.5: 96 IX.1.14: 121 IX.2.65-66: 121 IX.2.76-80: 121 XII.10.22: 37 n. 67 Suda

s.v. ἀγχιστεύς (A407): 214 s.v. δεκάτην ἑστιάσαι (A186): 150-151 sv. δημοποίητος (A 451): 33 n. 58

s.v. Δημοσθένης (A454): 1 sv. ἐξούλης δίκη (E1817): 197 s.v. Ἰσαῖος (1620): 2, 5 s.v. Κεκίλιος (K1165): 7 n. 6 Terence

Adelphoe 650-659: 203 729: 117 Andria

Memorabilia 111.35: 130 II.v.2: 138 1Π.χ|.4: 163 Oeconomicus

VIL5: 153

Vectigatia (Poroi) IV.1: 138 IV.5: 138 IV.22: 138 IV.26: 138 IV.31: 128 IV.39: 128 IV.43-44: 137 IV.44: 128 Zosimus

Vita Demosthenis 147 (p. 298.4144): 2 Inscriptions Agora 19 H81: 147, 152 P3.63-64: 139 P10.4: 139

945: 117, 151

Theopompus fr. 19 (K-A VID: 2, 6

IG IP 106.6: 140 IG IE 107.8: 140 IG IE 1177: 222

Xenophon

IG IP 1609.[49]: 141 IG IE 1609.92: 141 IG IE 1611.344: 141

Anabasis ILiv.4: 136 Cyropaedia 11.1.11: 136

Papyri P. Oxy. Π 221 xiv 10-15: 199

272 Indices

b) General index absentee deposition: 11, 14n. 17, 17-18, 25, 131, 132-134, 135, 137, 143, 144, 145, 146, 220 adjudication: see epidikasia* adopted son: 13, 22-23, 24 n. 36, 26, 28-29, 102, 176, 182-183, 184, 191, 193, 205, 206, 208-210 adoption: 7, 25, 167 inter vivos: 21-22, 28, 103, 191, 193, 195-196, 197, 208-209, 214, 226 motives for: 26, 99 posthumous: 28, 191, 195, 214, 216 preference of adoptee: 100 terminology: 29, 99-100, 191 testamentary: 20, 23, 27, 28, 29, 100, 170-171, 187, 188, 193, 195, 209-210 advocate: 34, 108, 141, 143, 165 Aethalidae, deme*: 18, 142-143, 145, 146 agön atimétos/timétos: see penalties agonizesthai: 111 Aigeis, tribe: 142 Akamantis, tribe: 141 akindynos dike: see penalties alien: 10, 16, 31, 32, 34, 102, 159-160, 225, 227 allas te kai: 177 amphidromia: 150 see also dekate amphisbétein/amphisbétésis®: 101, 104, 111, 224 anagrammatism: 49, 124 anaideia/anaidés. 17 n. 27, 25, 131 anaiskhyntos: 17 τ. 27, 106, 108-109 anakoinésis*®: 37, 121, 224 anakolouthon: 125 anakrisis: see preliminary hearing before the arkhén* anaphora™. 37, 40 n. 77, 120, 193, 207, 217, 224 anastrophe®: 37, 171, 224 ankhisteid®/ankhisteus*®: 25, 27, 28, 29, 35, 98, 100, 102, 104, 108, 124, 129, 167, 168, 169, 176, 192, 201, 202-204, 205, 206, 213, 214, 224 antibolon: 49 anticipation (as scribal error): 136, 149, 172, 216

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 273

anticipation of opponent’s argument: 172, 187, 205, 211, 228

see also proparaskeue Antiokhis, tribe: 124, 138

antipoieisthai: see prospoieisthai antistrophé™: 37, 186, 207, 224

antithesis: 191, 193, 204, 207, 217 antomosia: 113

see also oath apallatesthai: 149-150 see also divorce aphairesis®: 23, 25, 202-204, 224

aphistasthai: 110-111 apoleipsis: see divorce apophainesthai: 151 apopheugein: 110 apographa”: 45 with ἢ. 97, 95, 143, 176, 211, 224 apostrophe: 37, 38, 166, 211, 224

archetype*: 50 η. 102, 115, 224 argumentum ad hominem’: 16, 143, 159, 224 argumentum a fortiori®. 137, 162, 201, 224 argumentum ex contrario®. 121, 155, 225 argument from probability: 13-14 with n. 19, 15 with n. 20, 17, 18, 19, 25, 27, 37, 110, 122-123, 130, 134, 136, 146, 156, 157, 159, 177, 200, 201, 205, 214 arkhan™. 21, 22, 28, 30, 96, 101, 102, 103, 113, 118, 167, 173, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 184, 185, 197, 199, 220, 225, 227 arkhontes*.

106, 160, 225

aselgeia: 15, 126 assimilation: 122, 145, 146, 212

asté*, 31-32, 34, 98, 159, 162-164, 169, 225 asyndeton”®: 114, 225 atimia: see penalties

azemios: see penalties basanos: see torture

Besa: 18, 137-138, 139, 197 boulesthai: 122 (ho) boulomenos: see volunteer prosecutor bribery: see profit Canon of the Ten Attic Orators: 35, 37

274 Indices

character assassination: see argumentum ad hominem* chiasmus*: 37, 207, 217-218, 225

child/children: see adoption, legitimacy/illegitimacy; naming; natural children; orphans citizenship: 30-35, 55, 159-161, 219, 225, 228 see also alien; aste*, graphé xenias*, Pericles’ law on citizenship elausulae: 10 clerk ofthe court: 20, 114, 124 coastal, deme*: 102, 137 co-habitation: 30, 31, 32, 117, 128

concubinage: 117, 162-164 concubine: 126, 149, 162-165,

168

Coprus, deme*: 31, 102

court fees: see parakatabole, parastasis, prytaneia deipnon/deipnein : 127 dekate: 19, 147, 150-151, 200, 222 demonstrative pronouns (emphatic forms of): 108 diabolé. see argumentum ad hominem™ diadikasia*®: 30, 103, 107, 225 diamartyria™: 7, 94, 101, 105, 106, 108, 110, 114, 197, 225

diarrheden: 21, 207 diatithesthai: 29, 211 see also wills didonat: 29 see also wills dikai emmenoi: 119 dikasts: 13, 17, 19 withn. 30, 40, 95, 98, 103, 105, 114, 121, 124, 128, 137, 155, 161, 166, 167, 196, 204, 206, 210, 214-215, 221

addresses to: 97--98, 105, 113, 121, 130, 224 attract the attention of: 38, 115, 117, 121, 128, 151, 171, 204-205 deception of: 5, 39, 54 previous decisions of: 9, 106, 100, 106, 111, 115, 123 votes/voting of: 28, 103, 105, 116, 161, 175, 178, 179, 224 see also thorybos diké (generic): 176-177 dike aikeias: 199 dike biaiön: 140 dike blabes: 133 dike exoules*: 23, 140, 197, 198-199, 225

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 275

diké idia/demosia: 175, 198

dike kakotekhniön: 107 diké proikos: 119 dike sitou: 119 dike ton pseudomartyriön*:. see witness testimony, false testimony diomologia: 162 Dionysius of Halicamassus on Isaeus: 6, 7, 35-36, 55 dittography*: 49, 181, 188, 226, 227

divorce: 14, 30, 116, 118-119, 128, 149, 156, 157, 165, 220 ta dothenta: see adoption, testamentary ta dothesomena: 164-165 see also concubine dowry: 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 35, 109, 116-117, 118, 119, 148-149, 150, 155-156, 157, 161, 163, 164-165, 170, 181-182, 184, 185, 208-210 eikos: see argument from probability eisagein: 106 eisangelia®: 22, 28, 30, 173-176, 177, 179, 197, 199, 225, 226 (eis)poieisthai/eis)poiétos: see adoption, terminology eita: 118, 180

ekdidonai/ekdosis*: 33 with n. 60, 34, 117, 120-121, 128, 162, 168,

204, 226

ekmartyria: see absentee deposition ekphora: 190 Eleusis: 8, 10, 19, 102, 141

elision: 41 embateuein/embateusis®. 102, 139, 140, 167, 197, 226

engyé™. see marriage, by engye* engyelé gyne™: see married woman engylata/engytato/engytero genous/genei: 202, 204, 213

see also ankhisteia"/ankhisteus* enklema: 94, 96 epeita: 118, 180 epestin: 178 ephados*: 11, 96-97, 226 epidikasia® of an estate: 12, 23, 24, 29, 30, 98, 99, 103, 128, 162,

167-168, 171, 173, 185, 191, 192, 195, 208, 214, 224, 226 see also marriage by epidikasia* epidikazein/epidikazesthai: 167-168

epidikas*®: 22, 25, 28, 105, 201, 202-204, 206, 215-216, 225, 226

276 Indices

epieikes: 135, 137 epiklerate/epikleros*: 20-22, 23, 25, 28-29, 35, 99, 128, 129, 130,

139, 155, 169-170, 173, 174, 177, 179-180, 182, 187, 192, 198, 199, 200, 201, 205, 208-210, 215, 216, 225, 226 see also aphairesis*, arkhon™, eisangelia®, maltreatment;

marriage by epidikasia*, thessa epikléros* episképsis/episkeptesthai: 19, 105, 133, 206 episkeptein: 211, 216 epithymein/epithymia: see passion epitimion: see penalties Erchia: 18, 142, 145, 146 eremos kleros: 99, 196

see also adoption, motives for (ta) erga: see mines/mining ergasterion: see factory

éthos™: 15, 17 withn. 27, 25, 157, 226, 228 euphemism: 37, 112, 120

eviction: 18, 137, 139-140, 141, 198 exagöge: see eviction exelenkhein: 107 exGmosia™: 18, 133, 226 see also oath ex hetairas™: see legitimacy/lllegitimacy; heiaira* factory: 8, 18, 138, 139, 140, 197 fines: see penalties gamelia: 6 with n. 2, 12, 25, 51 with n. 106, 218-220

gamelé gyné: see married woman genos. 195 gestures: 108

gignesthai eis tina: 158 gnesios: see legitimacy/illegitimacy gnome™: 39, 201-202, 205, 226 gossip: 16, 126 grammateus: see clerk of the court graphé xenias™: 8, 16, 160, 161, 182, 227 haplography*: 49, 140, 218, 226, 227 Hermogenes on Isaeus: 36, 37 hestian/hestiasis: 25, 222

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 277

see also liturgy

hen dia dyoin: 144 hetaira®: 8,11, 12, 13, 14-16, 17 n. 24, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 n. 43, 31, 35, 39-40, 96, 98, 111-112, 113, 116, 120, 122, 123, 125, 126-127, 128, 129, 130, 143, 151-152, 160, 162-163, 168, 169, 173, 180, 182, 186, 204, 218, 227 hiatus*. 40-41, 101, 123, 183, 191, 227 Hippothontis, tribe: 102 history of codex A: 42-44, 50 homoioteleuton*®: 105, 106, 227 hamologein/homologia: 11, 12, 14, 117, 148, 150

hopote/hopou: 121, 123 horismos: 177 horos: 181 hybris: 176 hyperbaton™: 37, 112, 113, 184, 227 hypokrisis: 105, 131, 172 hypophora™: 143-144, 172, 212, 227

hypostasis: 158 hypothesis®: 94-95, 210, 227 impeachment: see eisangelia®* improvisation: 121, 202 inconsistencies: 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 150, 177, 210 inland deme*: 141, 142, 143

irony: 24, 37, 38, 39 with nn. 75 and 76, 118, 127, 143, 146, 211 issue: see stasis theory kai ἰαμία: 127 kakosis: see maltreatment

kalos kagathos. 137 kataleipesthai: 166-167, 201 kat’ arsin kai thesin“: 37, 136, 227 katekhein: 95 kateste: 110 khresthai: 120 see also hetaira*® kindyneuein: see penalties kinship: see ankhisteia*/ankhisteus* klepsydra: see water-clock koiné tou boulomenoau/ töi boulomendt: see hetaira*

278 Indices kömoi: see serenades

klasthai: 118 kyrios* (of a woman): 7, 13, 15, 22, 23, 101, 102, 103, 104, 108, 109, 110, 113, 117, 118, 139, 148, 152, 156, 157, 173, 185, 189, 190, 199, 204, 226, 227 lack of legal reaction: 7, 12, 16, 22, 24, 26, 27, 100, 122 lankhanein tou klerou*!lankhanein ten lexin® tou klerou*: 103 see also lexis* Laurion: 8, 137, 138, 139, 197 law/laws (generic): 38, 55, 106, 161, 183, 186, 224 laws (specific): 10, 14 with ἢ. 18, 16, 20-22, 23, 24 n. 36, 25, 27, 2830, 32, 33, 34, 101, 103, 104, 107, 119, 132 ἡ. 110, 148, 159, 161, 169-171, 176, 182, 183, 185, 189-190, 202-204, 206, 207-208, 215, 219

lectio difficilior (potior)*: 136, 188, 213, 227 legitimacy/llegitimacy: 12, 14, 16, 20, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30-35, 99, 128, 130, 150, 152, 182, 218 terminology: 99, 123-124,

168-169, 173, 191-192

Leontis, tribe: 142 lacis®: 12, 103, 104, 119-120, litotés*®: 121, 227

154, 189, 195, 197, 227

liturgy: 222-223 makhai: see quarrels over hetairai™ maltreatment: 22, 23, 24, 173-176, 177, 179-180, 197, 199, 226 marriage

between citizen and non-Athenian: 159-160 between first cousins: 210 between uterine siblings: 209 by engye: 11, 12, 15, 18, 23, 31, 33, 99, 109, 117, 128, 131, 132, 147, 148, 149, 158, 162, 168, 173, 200, 220, 226 by epidikasia: 23, 30, 98, 99, 128, 167, 168, 185, 192, 224, 226 see also epikleros® virilocal: 118 married woman: 111, 112-113, 126, 128, 173, 226 see also marriage; s6phrosyné martyres/martyria: see witness testimony mellein/emellen: 147, 157, 217 μὲν solitarium™®. 116, 147, 217, 227 mesogeios, deme*: see inland deme*

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 279

Metageitnia: 189

Metageitnion: 101, 189 metekhein tés poleas: see citizenship metic*: 31, 32, 55, 227 metonym*: 37, 110, 227 metriotes: 129 meétroxenos. 169 see also alien mines/mining: ὃ, 18, 137-139 misein: 205

misreading of abbreviations: 124, 218 movable nu: 41 naming/non-naming of individuals: 12, 19-20, 25, 98-99, 151-152,

153, 154, 212 natural children: 167, 184, 191, 193, 197

negatives: 21, 124, 133, 162, 167, 170, 172, 201, 213 (ta) notheia: 24, 35, 182 see also legitimacy/illegitimacy nothos: see legitimacy/illegitimacy oath: 113, 133, 144, 180-181, 206, 226 see also antomosia, exömosia, synorkömosia oikeioi: 125, 145, 214 oikes™: 11, 19, 22, 26, 32, 98, 99, 102, 117-118, 119, 128, 130, 150, 157, 170, 176, 182, 184, 203, 204, 211, 216, 220, 227 “open texture” of the law: 21 with ἢ. 33 optative in final sentences depending from a verb in a primary tense:

136-137 orphans: 13, 174, 176, 180, 225, 226 oxymoron™, 39, 227

palai: 153 pallaké: see concubine pallakia: see concubinage parakatabole: 101, 103 paraklausithyra: see serenades paralios, deme*: see coastal, deme* parastasis: 51, 94, 160, 178-179

parékhésis®: 104, 123, 192, 227 parenthetical comments: 145, 202

280 Indices

parison*®: 37, 193, 225, 228 paronomasia™: 37, 99, 117, 184, 192, 193, 201, 207, 228 passion: 14-15, 27, 129, 130, 148

pathos*®: 25, 106, 151, 226, 228 patrimony: see (ta) patröia (ta) patroia: 23, 24, 35, 139, 140, 181, 182, 184, 191, 192, 193, 194, 198 patroiokos. 203 penalties: 22, 23, 28, 30, 107, 159-160, 163, 175, 177, 178, 179-180, 199-200, 224, 225 Pericles’ law on citizenship: 32-33 with ἢ. 58, 159, 161, 169

periphanös: 106, 107 petitio principii®: 99, 228 phasis. 178 phaskein: 102

phrater"/phratiy*: 8, 12, 14, 16, 25, 26, 32, 159, 160-161, 195, 215, 216, 217, 218-219, 222, 228 Phrearrioi, deme*: 8, 47 pistis ek biou: 8 pleiön with a numeral: 100, 153 pleonasm*: 37, 115, 156, 212, 221, 228 plesiazein: 120 see also euphemism; heiaira* poiétos: see adoption, terminology polétai: 138, 139

politikos/politikon: 36 polyptöton: 207 polysyndeton™. 37, 113, 153, 178, 184, 228

ponéria/ponéros: 17 n. 27, 165, 166 pome: 112

see also hetaira™ preliminary hearing before the arkhön*: 96, 113

probolé: 177 procurer: 15, 17, 27, 121, 141, 160, 164-165 prodélos: 135 prodiorthösis®. 121, 228 proem: 96, 97 profit: 13, 14 with nn. 17 prokatalépsis/prolépsis*™. proparaskeue*: 37, 128, prosklésis. see summons

and 19, 17, 20, 24, 27, 165 see anticipation of opponent’s argument 228 (before an arkhon*)

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 281

prospoieisthai: 51, 94, 101 prothesis®. 11, 114, 228 prytaneia: 178

Pyanepsion: 221, 222 Pyrrhieion (mine): 139 See also mines/mining quarrels (over hetairai*®): 16, question as a stylistic feature: 118, 143, 161-162, 206, 211, rhetorical question: 23, 38

111, 125, 126, 127, 129 11, 37-38 with ἢ. 74, 40, 110, 116, 220, 224 with n. 73, 39, 130, 144, 145

relatives litigation between: 19 with ἢ. 29 maternal uncle: 147 terminology: 214 as witnesses: see witnesses, relatives as see also ankhisteia*/ankhisteus*, engytata/engytato/engytero genous/genet, oikeiot, syngeneis repetition as a scribal error: 115, 135, 154, 184, 188, 207 as a stylistic feature: 10, 20, 21, 24, 37, 38 n. 73, 39. 40 with nn. 77 and 78, 99, 106, 123, 145, 148, 180, 186, 202, 220, 224, 227 rhetorical answer see question, rhetorical question rhetorical question: see question

saphös: 109-110 second person plural: 105, 113, 130 see also dıkasts, addresses to serenades:

16, 112, 125, 126, 127, 129

skeptesthai: 128, 186 Solon: 20-21 n. 32, 161, 169, 170, 171, 177, 189, 199, 204, 207-208, 228 see also law (generic); laws (specific) söphrosyne: 15, 126, 129 see also aselgeia;, metriotés “sowing of seed”: 128 Sphettus, deme: 8, 10, 19, 140, 141 Stadios/stadion: 142 Stasis theory: 95-96

282 Indices

stokhasmos: 95-96

storytelling in law: 13 with n. 16 summons (before an arkhön): 96, 101, 190 symposium:

15, 122, 126, 127

see also hetaira® synégoros: see advocate

syngeneis: 214

synkhoresis®: 37, 128-129, 214, 228 (to) synoikein: see co-habitation synorkömosia: 203 see also oath tekmerion: 134, 186, 219-220 tethe: 142, 152 Thesmophoria: 13, 221-222 Thesmophorion: 221 thesmothetai: 160, 225 see also arkhontes* théssa™ epikléros®. 185, 209 thorybos: 121, 221 Thria:

102

tolman/tolmeros: 17 n. 27, 104-105, 106 topos®: 105, 129, 137, 166, 177, 186, 228 topos enthymematon™. 100, 106, 111, 116, 123, 130, 150, 157, 165,

182, 205, 228

torture: 139 touto men... touto de: 149

transferring a woman to her husband: see ekdosis* trousseau: 156 see also dowry varia lectio: 50 τ. 102, 115 volunteer prosecutor: 22, 28 with n. 43, 177, 226 water-clock: 124 widow/widowhood: 104, 118, 119, 170, 203, 211 will(s): 7, 20-21, 25, 26, 27, 29, 100, 110, 134, 169-171, 187, 188, 208-210, 211, 220 see also adoption, testamentary witnesses: 26, 109, 120, 127, 206

chance witnesses: 145-146

Isaeus’ On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3) 283

criteria of their choice/status of: 18-19, 130, 131, 135-137, 140-

141, 143 formal agreement ın front of: see komologia lack of: 165-166 neighbours as: 16, 125-126 phratry members as: 160-161 presentation formula: 135, 151 relatives as: 18, 19-20, 38,

supporting a diamartyria® 7, 105, 108, 225 toa will: 7, 100, 188 witness testimony:

16, 17-20, 115, 155, 102, 109, 124, 185

absentee testimony: see ekmartyria change from oral to written: 114 formulae used: 38, 114

false testimony: 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 26, 30, 96, 105, 106-107, 108, 109, 110, 113, 114-115, 124, 133, 134, 141, 143, 154, 155, 160, 165, 206, 225 see also episkepsis/episkeptesthai women: see alien; asi2; citizenship; concubine; dowry; epiklerate/epikiéros*, hetaira™, legitimacy/illegitmacy; marriage; naming and non-naming; remarriage; widow/widowhood xen&kxenos: see alien

see also métroxenos youth: 19 n. 30, 129-130