42

Timokles

εύτυχής δ’ ό λαμβάνων The form of the speech might echo a marriage con-
text, where the giver (διδούς) is the father- in- law and the receiver (λαμβάνων)
is the son-in-law; cf. Posidipp. fr. 28.20 ό διδούς έπιφανής, έπιφανής ό λαμβάνων
“the giver is illustrious, the receiver is illustrious too” and Meineke IV (1841) 523
(following Casaubon) ad loc.: “ό διδούς socer, ό λαμβάνων gener”; cf. Men. fr.
802.3 αύτόν δίδωσιν, ούκ έκείνην λαμβάνει “he gives himself, he does not receive
her”. If the same adjective μακάριος was used in the marriage context, i. e. μακάριος
ό διδούς, μακάριος ό λαμβάνων, then the replacement of the first typical μακάριος
by άνόητος would produce a comic effect.
5 Δήμων He is probably the Δήμων Δημομέλους Παιανιεύς (PAA 322735;
APF 116-8), who brought a counter indictment (παραγραφή) against a certain
Zenothemis (D. 32; on this speech see MacDowell 2004, 84-94) about 340 BC,
concerning a forensic dispute on a bottomry loan (he speaks of Demosthenes
as οικείος γένει “a relative of mine”, D. 32.31;). He is identified by Plutarch as an
άνεψιός of Demosthenes, who had proposed the motion for Demosthenes’ recall
in 323 BC (Dem. 27.6; cf. [Plu.] Vit. dec. or. 846d). He was apparently the same
Demon whose extradition Alexander demanded in 335 BC (Plu. Dem. 23.4); see
above, under “Interpretation”.
Καλλισθένης (PAA 559815). He was an active politician, mentioned as a
grain official (σιτώνης) in 357 BC (D. 20.33) and as the proposer of a decree in 346
BC forbidding citizens who were not manning armed outposts to remain outside
the city (D. 18.37; 19.86). His anti-Macedonian stand is well demonstrated in a
decree proposing alliance with Thracian kings in order to stop Philip’s advance in
356 BC (IGII2,127, line 7= Tod no. 157). He was one of the politicians demanded
by Alexander after the destruction of Thebes (Plu. Dem. 23.3), along with Demon
and Moerocles. He is also a komoidoumenos in Antiph. fr. 27.10-11 (cf. the next
line).
6 πένητες Most probably a comic antiphrasis, since both Demon and
Callisthenes were quite wealthy; cf. in Timocl. fr. 12 the description of Demos-
thenes as a false Briareos. Konstantakos 2000, 80-81 alternatively suggests that
Callisthenes might be described as a πένης, because he spent his money on fish and
courtesans; cf. Antiph. 27.10-11 (from Halieuomene), where the allusion is made
that because of his love-affair with the courtesan Trigle he lost his property. For the
assumption that poverty was a potential cause of wrongdoing, cf. on Timocl. fr. 30.
συγγνώμην έχω The forgiving of Demon and Callisthenes due to their sup-
posed poverty is based on a common understanding; cf. Lys. 31.11 καθέστηκε
δέ τι έθος δίκαιον πάσιν άνθρώποις των αυτών άδικημάτων μάλιστα όργίζεσθαι
τοϊς μάλιστα δυναμένοις μή άδικεΐν, τοΐς δέ πένησιν ή άδυνάτοις τω σώματι
συγγνώμην έχειν διά τό ήγεΐσθαι άκοντας αυτούς άμαρτάνειν “a custom that has
been accepted as just among all mankind, is that concerning the same offences, we
should be angriest at those who are most able to avoid doing wrong, but should
forgive those who are poor or weak in body, because of the presumption that they
are committing crimes unwillingly”.