Notes on the current edition
The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeos
1.
De Lys. c. 17.
2.
Even including doubtful speeches, as Blass observes,
Att. Bereds. p. 344.
3.
The impeachment of Eratosthenes.
4.
Lysias and Sokrates.
5.
Diog. Laert. II. 40: [Plut.]
Vit. Lys:
Cic.
de Orat. I. 54 § 231
: Quint. II. 15 § 30, XI. 1 § 9: Valer. Max. VI. 4. 2: Stob.
Flor. VII. 56.
6.
The
κατηγορία Σωκράτους of Polykrates is mcntioned by Suidas s. v.
Πολυκράτης: Isokr.
Bus. §§ 3, 5, and auctor | Argum.: Aelian
V. H. XI. 10: Quint. II. 17, ef. III. 1: Diog. Laert. II. 38. Diogenes notices, from Favorinus, that Polykrates had referred to the rebuilding of the walls by Konon: therefore, as Bentley first pointed out (
de Epist. Socr. § 6, p. 51), the speech cannot have been written before 392 B.C.
7.
Schol. ad Aristid. p. 113. 16 (vol. III. p. 480 Dind.),
οἶδε τὸν Σωκράτην πρὸς τοὺς νέους ἀεὶ τὸν Ὀδυσσέα θαυμάζοντα...ὡς Πολυκράτης ἐν τῷ κατ’ αὐτοῦ λόγῳ φησὶ καὶ Λυσίας ἐν τῷ πρὸς Πολυκράτην ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ. The title of the speech probably was
Ὑπὲρ Σωκράτους πρὸς Πολυκράτην.
8.
Dr L. Hölscher (
Quaestiunculae Lysiacae, Herford, 1857, pp. 4 ff.) defends the ordinary account, believing that Lysias really composed a defence which Sokrates declined to use. He thinks that the
ἀπολογία Σωκράτους mentioned among the works of Lysias by Phot.
Cod. 262, Antiatt. in Bekker
Anecd. p. 115. 8, Schol. ad Plat.
Gorg. p. 331 B, and [Plut.]
Vit. Lys, was distinct from the speech
ὑπὲρ Σωκράτους written in reply to Polykrates, and cited by the scholiast on Aristides. He remarks that in the Plutarchic life the Apologia is described as
ἐστοχασμένη τῶν δικαστῶν—which is meant, he thinks, to mark that it was more practical, more forcnsic, than Plato's Apologia Socratis. He observes also that the scholiast on the
Gorgias (l. c.) notices the speech of Lysias as having contained matter about Anytos and Melêtos. But neither of these references affords any good ground for assuming that there was an
Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους by Lysias distinct from his reply to Polykrates. The latter had been read by the scholiast on Aristides. Sauppe shows that the supposed Apologia was at all events not extant in antiquity (
O. A. II. p. 203).
9.
Lysias at Olympia.
10.
Lys.
de bonis Aristoph. § 19,
βουλομένου Κόνωνος πέμπειν τινὰ εἰς Σικελίαν [Ἀριστοφάνης] ᾤχετο ὑποστὰς μετὰ Εὐνόμου καὶ Λυσίου, φίλου ὄντος καὶ ξένου, τὸ πλῆθος τὸ ὑμέτερον πλεῖστα ἀγαθὰ πεποιηκότος, κ.τ.λ. Sauppe substitutes
Διονυσίου for the words
καὶ Λυσίου. Obviously the words
φίλου ὄντος καὶ ξένου require to be defined by the mention of the person whose friend he was. Kayser proposed to insert
Διονυσίῳ between
Λυσίου and
φίλου. Sauppe's remedy is, as Blass says, simpler and better.
11.
Dionys.
Lys. c. 29: Diod. XIV. 109.