Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Lysias or. 1.23-24 and 41-42
Taran, Leonardo
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1996; 37, 2; ProQuest
pg. 145

Lysias Or. 1.23-24 and 41-42 

Leonardo T ardn 

USIAS COMPOSED this speech for Euphiletus, accused by rela­
tives of a young man,1 Eratosthenes, of having murdered 

him on the pretext that he had caught him with his wife. 
Euphiletus is eager to show that he neither enticed nor com­
pelled Eratosthenes to come into his house, but that he came in 
of his own free will, and that he, Euphiletus, reacted at that 
point, not having made preparations in advance. It is therefore 
intelligible that both in the narrative (ihi)YTIcrtC;) and in the rebut­
tal (which forms part of the 7tlO'tEtC;) Euphiletus deals with the 
same events. A transcription follows of the two passages with 
which this paper is concerned and of their respective contexts: 

(, OE 'Epo:too9EVll';, co UVOPE';, elOEPXEtat, Kat Tt 9Epa1tatVa 
E1tqElpaoa f.lE Eu9u.; cppaCEt on £vOOV EO'tl. Kayw el1tWV 
EKElVn E1ttf.lEAW9at 't11'; 9upa.;, Ka'taPa.:; OtW1tn E~EpXOf.lat, Kat 
acptKVoUf.lat 0><; 'tOY Kal. 'tOY, Kat 'tau,> UEV £vOOV Ka'tEAa~ov, 
'tou.; OE OUK bnOllf.l0uv'ta.; llt>POV. 1tapaAaPWV 0' 00':; o1ov 'tE ~V 
1tAetO'tOU':; EK 'trov 1tapov'tcov EpaOtCOV (1.23f). 

E7tEt'ta, W UVOPE':;, OUK UV OOKro UJllV 'tOt':; E1tt't1l0etOt.:; JlE9' 
Ttf.lEpav 1tapaYYEtAat, Kat KEAEUOat au'tou.:; OUAAqflvat el':; 
oiKlav 'trov <PlAcov 'tl]v EYYU'ta'tco, JliiAAOV 11 E1tEtOl] 'taxto'ta 
U090JlllV tTl.:; VUK'tO':; 1tEPt'tPEXEtV, OUK doW<; ov'ttva olKOt Ka'ta­
ATj\jlOJlat Kat ov'ttva £~co; Kat 0><; 'ApJloihov JlEV Kat 'tOY Of tva 
~A90v OUK f1nOnuouv'tU'> (OU yap nOn) ftEPOUC OE OUK EvOov 
oV'ta" Ka'tD"a~ov, ou.:; 0' 010':; 'tf ~ Aapwv EpaOtCov. KaltOt yf 
fi 1tpOnOll, OUK UV OOKro Uf.llV Kal. 9fpa1tOv'ta.; 1tapao­
Kfuaoao9at Kat 'tOt':; cplAot.:; 1tapanftAat, 'tv' 00'; ao<paAEO­
'tU'tU JlEV au't0S elOna ('tl yap nOll fl n KaKftVOS rIXE 
atoTjptoV;), 00':; f.lEta 1tAflO'tcov OE Jlap'tupcov 'tl]V nfl-COplav 
E1tOtOUfl-llV; vuv O· OUOEV fiow<; 'trov EOOJlEVCOV EKflvn 'tn VUK'tl, 
ou.:; 016.:; 'tf ~ 1tapEAapOV (1.41 f) 

For both passages, I have printed the underlined words as they 
have been transmitted in the manuscripts, and there are editors 

1 Cf. 1.37: 'tOY VWyl(JK:OY. There is therefore no reason to follow some 
scholars in identifying this Eratosthenes with the infamous figure of Or. 12. 

145 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

146 LYSIAS OR. 1.23-24 AND 41-42 

who still adopt these texts.z It ought to be obvious, however, 
that to do so would ruin Euphiletus' argument: he cannot say in 
the narrative that some friends he caught at home ('tOue; ~£V 
Ev80v lCo:rEAaJ30v) and in the rebuttal, referring to the same 
group of friends, that he did not catch them at home (E-rEpOUe; 8£ 
OUlC Ev80v oV'tae; lCa'tEAa~ov). This was seen long ago by 
Reiske, who proposed to insert a negative before Ev80v at 1.23 
and to change the following negative (OUlC) into OU8E.3 Reiske 
did not offer any arguments in favor of his emendation; never­
theless, his solution has found acceptance among editors of 
Lysias,4 though none of them has given any argument to sup­
port it. The main point in its favor would be that scribes more 
often omit a negative than add one. Still one must analyze the 
context and determine whether the proposed solution is 
satisfactory or not. I submit that it is not, and that the evidence 
cries out for the very opposite to Reiske's suggestion: that is, 
that we must excise the OUlC before Ev80v at 1.41 as a scribe's 
interpolation. 

The difficulty is apparent in Reiske's own interpretation of his 
emendation at 1.23: "alios quidem, cum urbem non excessis­
sent, tamen domi suae non reperiebam. alios audiebam ne in 
urbe quidem esse." For who then are those who were present 
(1tapaAa~wv 8' we; otav 'tf ~v 1tAE1<J'tOUe; ElC 'tmv 1tapav'twv 
E~a81~ov)? The Greek suggests that they must have been 
mentioned in what precedes, but the reading, 'toue; ~fV (OUlC) 
Ev80v lCa'tEAa~OV, 'toue; 8£ ou8' E1t181l~ouv'tae; llUPOV, leaves no 
room for this possiblity. Moreover, it is, I believe, highly 
improbable that (after 'toue; ~£V ... 'tOue; 8£ ... ) ElC 'tmv 1tapav'twv 
could by itself indicate a third group among Euphiletus' friends, 
or that Lysias intended us mentally to supply a third group, i.e., 

2 Cf e.g. W. R. M. Lamb (Loeb) and L. Gernet and M. Bizos (Bude). 
J Cf r. I. Reiske, Oratorum Graecorum Volumen Quintum, Lysiae 

Primum, Graecam Orationem, Taylori et Marklandi Annotationibus 
Explanatam Complectens, Quibus Suas Aliaque Addidit (Leipzig 1772) 27 
with nn.61-62. I have not discussed Reiske's proposal to change olne to CUO' in 
1.23 because it depends on his proposal to insert ol)Je before EVOOV in the same 
passage, which I reject. 

4 Cf e.g. H. Frohberger, Ausgewahlte Reden des Lysias II (Leipzig 1868) 
121; C. Hude, Lysiae Orationes (OCT: Oxford 1912); T. Thalheim, Lysiae 
Orationes2 (editio maior: Leipzig 1913) 7; C. Carey, Lysias, Selected Speeches 
(Cambridge 1989) 20. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

LEONARDO TARAN 147 

another tou<; D', who were at home. 5. In any case, these two pos­
sibilities are incompatible with the wording of the second text, 
where the same events are narrated (i.e. 1,41): Kat w<; 'Ap!lODtov 
!lEV Kat tOY Dflva ~A,eOV OUK bttDll!louvta<; (ou yap i1Dll) , 
" s:: ' , "S::" "l An. "D'''' , '1 A, 13' ftEPO'\)<; uE O'\)K EVuOV OVta<; KatEl'.apvV, O'\)~ Oto~ tE na rov 
E13<iDtCov. Here the relative ou<; must designate either both, or 
one of the two groups into which Euphiletus' friends have been 
divided, for there is no possibility of supplying a third group of 
friends. Yet if at 1,41 we keep the transmitted text, none of the 
friends Euphiletus says he collected was at home. And so, even 
apart from the evidence of 1.23, the very wording of the second 
passage (1,41) suggests that the correct solution of the problem 
lies in excising ou K before EvDov at 1,41. In this way, the two 
passages say the same thing: that is, from those of his friends 
whom he found at their respective homes Euphiletus took with 
him as many as possible. 6 

Let us look briefly at the lines in 1,41 immediately preceding 
the passage transcribed in the previous paragraph; this will both 
confirm the interpretation given above and at the same time 
furnish a plausible reason for the wrong insertion of OUK before 
EvDov: 

5 Here, O\l1( evoov (and its equivalent e~(I), which is ambiguous, might 
mean outside their houses, i.e., in the street just outside their houses. This 
meaning, however, would not fit the context. If many of his friends were thus 
found late at night, it would create a strong impression in the jury that 
Euphiletus had warned them in advance, something that he emphatically 
denies. 

6 The wrong insertion of a negative is not unusual, ef e.g. lL 9.453, where 'tU 
was changed to 'tU au by Sosiphanes and Aristodemus (see T. W. Allen's 
editio maior II 257), and Soph. OC 1677, where the scribes have wrongly 
inserted OUI( before the second ea'ttv in the line (ef G. Hermann, Sophoehs 
Oedipus Cowneus [Leipzig 1825] 322f). These examples are cited by M. L. 
West, Hesiod, Works and Days (Oxford 1978) 202f ad 192. His proposal, 
however, to change OUI( ea'tUl to Eaafl'tat at 193 is not persuasive. For more 
complicated examples ef Parmenides 28B8, 12, where the manuscripts' fiT] 
(E6v'to<;) must be changed to'tOu (E6v'tO<;): ef L. Taran, Parmenides (Princeton 
1965) 82, 95-102; and PI. Prm. 162A8-B2, where it is necessary to insert (fiT]) in 
A8 and to excise it in B2. This twofold mistake is undoubtedly due to scribal 
misunderstanding. The emendation was first proposed by P. Shorey, "On 
Parmenides 162 A. B.," AlP 12 (1891) 349-53 (=Seleeted Papers I [New York 
1980] 492-96), and was adopted by J. Burnet in his edition of Plato. Cf also 
H. Cherniss, "Timaeus 38A8-B5," lHS 77 (1957) 19 n.15 (=Seleeted Papers 
[Lc iden 1977] 341 n.15). 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

148 LYSIAS OR. 1.23-24 AND 41-42 

E1t El'ta. , 6> aVOpEe;, Ot)k: UV OOKro U~tV 'tOte; E1tt't1l0EiOte; ~Ee' 
1]~tpav 1tapaYYEtAat, Kat KEAEUOat au'tOue; OUAAEyllvat de; 
oiKiav 'trov <IliAo>v 'tl]V Eyyu'tU'tCll, ~aAAOV i1 E1tElOl] 'tuxto'ta 
noe6~~v 'tlle; VU,K;,Oe; 1tE~,l'tptXElV, OUK doro~ Qv'tlva OlKOt 
Ka'taA:nWOM-at Kat OV'tlva E~ro; 

There are here only two possibilities: Euphiletus did not know 
(a) whom he would catch at home (alKoL) and (b) who would 
not be at home (ESW). And it is these two possibilities that he 
then handles in chiastic order; first (b): he found that Har­
modios and others were not in town, though he went to their 
house (n.b. the parenthetical ou ya.p 11S,,); then (a) those who 
were at home, of whom he took with himself as many as 
possible. That is to say, EVSOV here corresponds to those who 
were alKOL; otherwise this alternative would simply be ignored 
by Euphiletus, unless we postulated here a lacuna (after KU'tf­
AU~OV), surely an unwarranted hypothesis and a much more 
radical remedy than excising aUK. Moreover, one would need 
to postulate a similar lacuna at 1.23. We can now see the 
probable reason why a scribe (earlier than the archetype of the 
extant manuscripts) inserted aUK: he wrongly connected the 
two possibilites (a) OlKOl and (b) ESW with the two that follow in 
the next sentence: first, not in town; second, not at home, as he 
thought that "not at home" here must answer ESW in the 
previous sentence. Yet, as we saw, (a) and (b) are answered in 
the next sentence in chiastic arrangement, so that EVSOV 
corresponds to OlKOl. 

In short, as 1.23 and 1.41 report the same events, they must 
say the same thing. The most probable solution, given the 
context and wording of the two passages, is to excise the 
negative before EVSOV at 1.41, for it was wrongly interpolated 
into the text. 

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 

February, 1997