§§ 30—33. He thereupon put in false evidence, alleging that certain witnesses, boon companions of his own, deposed that they found the defendant's son and myself fighting in the market-place and that the defendant did not strike me. On my own part, I produce the evidence of strangers who came up by accident, attesting that they saw me struck by the defendant. What motive could these strangers have had for giving ‘false evidence’ on my side?
ὧν ἕνεκ᾽ ἐκκρούων ταῦτ᾽ ἐποίει As delay and evasion were the object (ὧν ἕνεκα) of the defendant's conduct (§ 27 ἐπὶ διακρούσει and § 29 διακρούσεως ἕνεκα), we mav at first sight suspect (with Westermann) that ἐκκρούων is an interpolation; it may, however, he defended on the ground that it enables the speaker to reiterate emphatically the real motive of his opponent,—‘his purpose, his evasive purpose, in so doing.’ In this view, we may, if we please, punctuate the passage thus: ὧν ἕνεκα, ἐκκρούων, ταῦτ᾽ ἐποίει. Cf. Fals. Leg. § 144 ἐκκρούσας εἰς τὴν ὑστεραίαν, and see Or. 36 § 2; 45 § 4; 40 §§ 44, 45.
ἀξιώσας sc. τὸ δίκαιον γενέσθαι, ‘to have claimed to have this plea allowed him,’ i.e. the plea founded on his appeal to the evidence of his slaves.
ἠλέγχεθ᾽ The construction is οὗτος ἠλέγχετο ταῦτα πάντα πρὸς τῷ διαιτητῇ ἅπερ (accusative) νῦν παρ᾽ ὑμῖν ἐλέγχεται. Thus the nominative to ἠλἐγχετο is the same as that of ἐδείκνυτο in the next clause, and no change of construction is requisite.
πᾶσιν not masc., but to be taken with τοῖς ἐγκεκλημένοις.
