§§ 83—84. Oh, but my brother Pasicles takes no part with me in these claims against Phormion!
As for Pasicles (craving your forgiveness for being provoked into uttering what I am about to say), while I acknowledge him as my mother's son, yet, judging from his taking Phormion's side against me, I have my fears that his father was another. Say no more, then, of Pasicles! call him your son, Phormion, and not your master; my opponent (as he is bent upon it）—not my brother.
τούτῳ. Depending on ἐγκαλεῖ, not on τῶν αὐτῶν.
ὑβρισθεὶς This reading makes it necessary to take ὤστε with οὐ δύναμαι κατασχεῖν and at first sight leaves εἰ without a verb. To remove the supposed difficulty, Dobree proposed ὑβρίσθαι. placing παραιτησάμενος—κατασχεῖν in a parenthesis. But the emendation is at once unnecessary and inadequate, and we prefer accepting the arrangement suggested by Shilleto, who was the first to explain the manuscript reading correctly. Interpunctionis egebat locus, non coniecturae. The passageshould run as follows: ἐγὼ δ᾽ ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι καὶ περὶ Πασικλέους, (παραιτησάμενος καὶ δεηθεὶς ὑμῶν συγγνώμην ἔχειν, εἰ προεληλυθὼς εἰς τοῦθ᾽ ὥσθ᾽ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμαυτοῦ δούλων ὑβρισθεὶς οὐ δύναμαι κατασχεῖν, ἂ τέως οὐδὲ τῶν ἄλλων λεγόντων ἀκούειν ἐδόκουν ἐρῶ καὶ οὐ σιωπήσομαι) ἐγὼ γὰρ...νομίζω. ‘γὰρ post parenthesin saepe fraudi fuit criticis’ (Fals. Leg. § 107 not. crit.).
[The passage is slightly ἀνακόλουθον, but it can hardly be doubted that we must construe προεληλυθὼς εἰς τοῦθ᾽ ὤστε— ὑβρισθεὶς οὐ δύναμαι κατασχεῖν, ‘having reached such a point that—I am unable to restrain (my feelings),’ and συγγνώμην ἔχειν (ἐμοὶ) εἰ——ἐρῶ καὶ οὐ σιωπήσομαι. The ἐγὼ δ᾽ at the beginning is resumed at ἐγὼ γὰρ ὁμομήτριον. There is no great difficulty in the passage; certainly it is not made clearer by any proposed alteration. He was going to say ἐγὼ καὶ περὶ Πασικλέους—ἐρῶ, but he lost himself, as it were, in the maze of the intervening clauses. P.]
