- Source
- Polybius. Vols. 1-4. Büttner-Wobst, Theodor, editor. Leipzig: Teubner, 1893.
- Translation
- AI-generated (gemini-3.5-flash) — machine translation; may contain errors
- Languages
- 日本語 · English · 简体中文 · 한국어
- CTS URN
- urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0543.tlg001.humanitext-grc2:18.14.1-18.14.15
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-09
Polybius criticizes Demosthenes for indiscriminately labeling prominent Greeks as traitors, arguing that their alliances with Macedonia were actually motivated by the defense and prosperity of their respective countries.
ἧι1 καὶ Δημοσθένην κατὰ πολλά τις ἂν ἐπαινέσας ἐν τούτῳ μέμψαιτο,2 διότι πικρότατον ὄνειδος τοῖς ἐπιφανεστάτοις τῶν Ἑλλήνων εἰκῇ καὶ ἀκρίτως προσέρριψε, φήσας ἐν μὲν Ἀρκαδίᾳ τοὺς περὶ Κερκιδᾶν καὶ Ἱερώνυμον καὶ Εὐκαμπίδαν προδότας γενέσθαι τῆς Ἑλλάδος, ὅτι Φιλίππῳ συνεμάχουν, ἐν δὲ Μεσσήνῃ τοὺς Φιλιάδου παῖδας Νέωνα καὶ Θρασύλοχον, ἐν Ἄργει δὲ τοὺς περὶ Μύρτιν καὶ Τελέδαμον καὶ Μνασέαν, παραπλησίως ἐν Θετταλίᾳ μὲν τοὺς περὶ Δάοχον καὶ Κινέαν, παρὰ δὲ Βοιωτοῖς τοὺς περὶ Θεογείτονα καὶ Τιμόλαν·
In which respect one who would praise Demosthenes in many other things might blame him in this, because he cast a most bitter reproach upon the most illustrious of the Greeks rashly and indiscriminately, by asserting that in Arcadia Cercidas, Hieronymus, and Eucampidas with their followers became traitors to Greece, because they allied themselves with Philip, and in Messene Neon and Thrasylochus, the sons of Philiades, and in Argos Myrtis, Teledamus, and Mnaseas with their followers, and similarly in Thessaly Daochus and Cineas with their followers, and among the Boeotians Theogeiton and Timolas with their followers.
σὺν δὲ τούτοις καὶ πλείους ἑτέρους ἐξηρίθμηται, κατὰ πόλιν ὀνομάζων, καίτοι γε πάντων μὲν τῶν προειρημένων ἀνδρῶν πολὺν ἐχόντων λόγον3 καὶ φαινόμενον ὑπὲρ τῶν καθʼ αὑτοὺς δικαίων, πλεῖστον δὲ τῶν ἐξ Ἀρκαδίας καὶ Μεσσήνης.
And in addition to these he has enumerated many others, naming them city by city, although indeed all the aforementioned men had a strong and manifest defense for their own rights, and most of all those from Arcadia and Messene.
οὗτοι γὰρ ἐπισπασάμενοι Φίλιππον εἰς Πελοπόννησον καὶ ταπεινώσαντες Λακεδαιμονίους πρῶτον μὲν ἐποίησαν ἀναπνεῦσαι καὶ λαβεῖν ἐλευθερίας ἔννοιαν πάντας τοὺς τὴν Πελοπόννησον κατοικοῦντας, ἔπειτα δὲ τὴν χώραν ἀνακομισάμενοι καὶ τὰς πόλεις, ἃς παρῄρηντο Λακεδαιμόνιοι κατὰ τὴν εὐκαιρίαν Μεσσηνίων, Μεγαλοπολιτῶν, Τεγεατῶν, Ἀργείων, ηὔξησαν τὰς ἑαυτῶν πατρίδας ὁμολογουμένως·
For these, by drawing Philip into the Peloponnese and humbling the Lacedaemonians, first made all the inhabitants of the Peloponnese draw breath and grasp the concept of liberty, and secondly, by recovering the territory and the cities which the Lacedaemonians had seized from the Messenians, Megalopolitans, Tegeans, and Argives as opportunity offered, they by common consent aggrandized their own countries.
ἀνθʼ ὧν οὐ πολεμεῖν ὤφειλον Φιλίππῳ καὶ Μακεδόσιν, ἀλλὰ πάντα κατὰ δύναμιν ἐνεργεῖν ὅσα πρὸς δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν ἀνῆκεν.
In return for which they ought not to have made war on Philip and the Macedonians, but to have done everything in their power that contributed to his glory and honor.
εἰ μὲν οὖν ταῦτʼ ἔπραττον ἢ φρουρὰν παρὰ Φιλίππου δεχόμενοι ταῖς πατρίσιν ἢ καταλύοντες τοὺς νόμους ἀφῃροῦντο τὴν ἐλευθερίαν καὶ παρρησίαν τῶν πολιτῶν χάριν τῆς ἰδίας πλεονεξίας ἢ δυναστείας, ἄξιοι τῆς προσηγορίας ἦσαν4 ταύτης·
If, therefore, they had done these things either by receiving a garrison from Philip into their countries, or by overthrowing the laws and depriving the citizens of their liberty and freedom of speech for the sake of their own greed or power, they would have been worthy of this appellation.
εἰ δὲ τηροῦντες τὰ πρὸς τὰς πατρίδας δίκαια κρίσει πραγμάτων διεφέροντο, νομίζοντες οὐ ταὐτὸ συμφέρον Ἀθηναίοις εἶναι καὶ ταῖς ἑαυτῶν πόλεσιν, οὐ δήπου διὰ τοῦτο καλεῖσθαι προδότας ἐχρῆν αὐτοὺς ὑπὸ Δημοσθένους.
But if, while guarding their duties toward their countries, they differed in their judgment of affairs, believing that the interest of the Athenians was not the same as that of their own cities, they surely ought not on this account to have been called traitors by Demosthenes.
ὁ δὲ πάντα μετρῶν πρὸς τὸ τῆς ἰδίας πατρίδος συμφέρον, καὶ πάντας ἡγούμενος δεῖν τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἀποβλέπειν πρὸς Ἀθηναίους, εἰ δὲ μή, προδότας ἀποκαλῶν, ἀγνοεῖν μοι δοκεῖ καὶ πολὺ παραπαίειν τῆς ἀληθείας [ὃ πεποίηκε Δημοσθένης],5 ἄλλως τε δὴ καὶ τῶν συμβάντων τότε τοῖς Ἕλλησιν οὐ Δημοσθένει μεμαρτυρηκότων ὅτι καλῶς προυνοήθη τοῦ μέλλοντος, ἀλλʼ Εὐκαμπίδᾳ καὶ Ἱερωνύμῳ καὶ Κερκιδᾷ καὶ τοῖς Φιλιάδου παισίν.
But he, measuring everything by the interest of his own country, and thinking that all the Greeks ought to look to the Athenians, or else calling them traitors, seems to me to be ignorant and to deviate far from the truth [which Demosthenes has done], especially since the events which then befell the Greeks did not bear witness to Demosthenes that he had well foreseen the future, but to Eucampidas, Hieronymus, Cercidas, and the sons of Philiades.
Ἀθηναίοις μὲν γὰρ τῆς πρὸς Φίλιππον ἀντιπαραγωγῆς τὸ τέλος ἀπέβη τὸ πεῖραν λαβεῖν τῶν μεγίστων συμπτωμάτων πταίσασι τῇ μάχῃ τῇ περὶ Χαιρώνειαν·
For to the Athenians the result of their opposition to Philip turned out to be the experience of the greatest disasters, after they were defeated in the battle of Chaeronea;
εἰ δὲ μὴ διὰ τὴν τοῦ βασιλέως μεγαλοψυχίαν καὶ φιλοδοξίαν, καὶ πορρωτέρω τὰ τῆς ἀτυχίας ἂν αὐτοῖς προύβη6 διὰ τὴν Δημοσθένους πολιτείαν.
and had it not been for the king’s magnanimity and love of honor, their misfortunes would have proceeded even further because of Demosthenes’ policy.
διὰ δὲ τοὺς προειρημένους ἄνδρας κοινῇ μὲν Ἀρκάσι καὶ Μεσσηνίοις ἀπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων ἀσφάλεια καὶ ῥᾳστώνη παρεσκευάσθη, κατʼ ἰδίαν δὲ ταῖς αὐτῶν πατρίσι πολλὰ καὶ λυσιτελῆ συνεξηκολούθησε.
But through the aforementioned men, safety and ease from the Lacedaemonians were secured for the Arcadians and Messenians in common, and many beneficial results followed individually for their own countries.
- 18.14.1ἧι
Feminine singular dative of the relative pronoun ὅς, used adverbially to mean 'wherefore' or 'for which reason', connecting the discussion to the general principles established in the preceding section.
- 18.14.1ἂν ἐπαινέσας ἐν τούτῳ μέμψαιτο
A participial construction functioning conditionally. The participle ἐπαινέσας is accompanied by the particle ἄν, which, in coordination with the optative verb μέμψαιτο in the main clause, expresses a potential or conditional nuance ('even one who would praise him otherwise would blame him in this').
- 18.14.5καίτοι γε πάντων μὲν τῶν προειρημένων ἀνδρῶν πολὺν ἐχόντων λόγον
A genitive absolute construction introduced by the conjunction καίτοι, meaning 'although indeed all the aforementioned men had a strong defense'. The subsequent clause πλεῖστον δὲ τῶν ἐξ Ἀρκαδίας elliptically implies the same structure with the participle ἐχόντων understood.
- 18.14.9εἰ μὲν οὖν ταῦτʼ ἔπραττον ... ἦσαν
A conditional sentence contrary to fact in the past. The protasis uses the imperfect indicative (ἔπραττον), and the apodosis contains the imperfect indicative ἦσαν without ἄν. This is a standard construction with adjectives of worth or obligation (such as ἄξιοι) to express what would have been a natural consequence.
- 18.14.11ὃ πεποίηκε Δημοσθένης
Commonly bracketed in modern critical editions. It functions parenthetically as 'which is exactly what Demosthenes has done' and is highly likely to be a later marginal gloss that crept into the main text.
- 18.14.14εἰ δὲ μὴ διὰ τὴν τοῦ βασιλέως ... ἂν ... προύβη
A past contrary-to-fact conditional sentence. The protasis is elliptically represented by εἰ δὲ μὴ ('had it not been for [the king's magnanimity]'), and the apodosis features ἄν with the aorist indicative (προύβη), expressing what would have occurred in the past.