« PreviousContinue »
On the authorship of the Two Speeches against Stephanus.
We have seen that the authorship of the speech pro Phormione is undisputed; it is doubtless the genuine work of the great orator himself. Whether he is also the writer of both, or at any rate the first, of the two speeches against. Stephanus, and of the others delivered by Apollodorus, which have come down to us among the works of Demosthenes?, is a vexed question, an exhaustive treatment of which would demand an elaborate treatise beyond the compass of the present introduction. All that can here be offered is a brief discussion keeping in view, and where necessary correcting and supplementing, the arguments suggested by pre. vious writers on the subject, and tested by the results of an independent investigation.
In the speech pro Phormione the case is supported by two im. portant documents; (1) the lease granted to Phormio, (2) the Will left by Pasion. In both the speeches against Stephanus (a witness, it will be remembered, in the former trial), the lease and the will are denounced as a fabrication and a fraud; more than this, while in the previous oration a warm eulogy is passed on the career of Phormio as a blameless man of business and as a generous citizen of irreproachable character, in the two latter the speaker avails himself of all the artifices of subtle insinuation, all the vehemence of unscrupulous invective, to paint his opponent's character in the darkest colours. The question arises whether the two latter speeches, or either of them, could have been written by the same person as the former.
Narrowing the enquiry for our present purpose to those speeches alone which Apollodorus delivered against Stephanus, we may in the first instance examine the external evidence (whether con. temporary with Demosthenes or not) which may be adduced in support of the genuineness of the two speeches in question. In
i The speeches by Apollo. about B. C. 351; Or. 59 kara dorus (with the dates assigned Neaipas, after B. C. 343 ;-Or. to them by A. Schaefer) are 47, κατ' Ενέργου και Μνησιβούλου Οr. 52 προς Κάλλιππον, B.C. 369 was delivered after B.C. 356, but
-8; Οr. 53 προς Νικόστρατον, not by Apollodorus, though it after B. C. 368; Or. 49 mpos was probably written by the Τιμόθεον υπέρ χρέους, Β. C. 362; same orator as most, if not all of Οr. 50, προς Πολυκλέα περί του the above-mentioned speeches, él tpinpapxhuatos, about 1.c. and possibly by Apollodorus 357; Or. 45 and 46, kata Ete- himself. φάνου ψευδομαρτυριών α' and β',
the first place we must set a passage in Aeschines in which he denounces the orator as a traitor, charges him with writing for & pecuniary consideration a speech for Phormio the banker and with shewing this speech to Apollodorus, who was then prosecuting Phormio on a charge imperilling his status as a free man'. Here it will be remarked that the description of the trial is vague, and the penalty, to which Phormio would have been liable, much exaggerated; but it is more important to notice that Aeschines says nothing of Demosthenes writing a speech for Apollodorus either in the lawsuit with Phormio, or in his subsequent suit against Stephanus; if Aeschines is speaking the truth, then at the worst all that he says is, that, in his opinion, Demosthenes acted in bad faith by betraying his client's interests and allowing his opponent to become informed of the arguments which would be brought against him. But it may be noticed that this course is not necessarily inconsistent with good faith on the part of Phormio's friend, as the orator may have seen no reason for concealing his client's case from his opponent,—especially as the speech on that client's behalf would be the opening speech, and the case would be in no danger of being damaged by any previous attack on the part of the plaintiff. Demosthenes may have been anxious to reconcile the parties and, if possible, to put an end to a quarrel which was threatening the disruption of Pasion's family; and so strong was his client's position, that to inform Apollodorus of the case against him and even to shew him the very manuscript itself with the friendly advice to drop the lawsuit, would have been no detriment to Phormio's interests,
Considering all the calumnies raked up by Aeschines against his great rival in the two orations de falsa legatione and contra
1 Aeschines, de falsa legatione 8 165, τον δ' αγαθόν σύμβουλoν τί χρή ποιείν ; ου τη πόλει προς το παρόν τα βέλτιστα συμβουλεύειν; τον δε πονηρόν κατήγορον τι χρή λέγειν; ού τους καιρούς αποκρυπτόμενος της πράξεως κατηγορείν και τον δε εκ φύσεως προδότην πώς χρή θεωρεϊν; αρά γε ως συ τοίς εντυγχάνουσι και πιστεύσασι κέχρησαι, λόγους εις δικαστήρια γράφοντα μισθού τούτους έκφέρειν τοις αντιδίκοις ; . γραψας λόγον Φορμίωνι το τρα
P. S. D. ΙΙ.
πεζίτη χρήματα λαβών τούτον εξήνεγκας Απολλοδώρω τώ περί του σώματος κρίναντι Φορμίωνα. Ib. contra Ctesiphontem § 173, περί δε την καθ' ημέραν δίαιταν τις έστιν; έκ τριηράρχου λογογράφος ανεφάνη, τα πατρώα καταγελάστως πρoέμενος" άπιστος δε και περί ταύτα δόξας είναι και τους λόγους εκφέρων τους αντιδίκοις ανεπήδησεν επί το βήμα.
? A. Schaefer, u. 8., III. 2 p. 178, and Rehdantz there referred to,
Ctesiphontem, we venture to think that, if he had had any ground whatever for asserting that Demosthenes actually wrote a speech for Apollodorus, and virtually against Phormio, though nominally against one of his witnesses only, he would certainly have seized his opportunity and made the very most of so damaging a fact. But he says no such thing; and even Deinarchus, another strong opponent of Demosthenes, makes no such charge against him, though he has an opening for so doing in a passage in which he refers to the orator's delivering a speech for Phormiol.
Later writers, however, though less likely to be familiar with the facts, are bolder in their denunciations; in Plutarch’s life of Demosthenes, we read that the orator is said to have written for Apollodorus his speeches against Phormio and Stephanus, for which he justly fell into disrepute, as he also wrote a speech for Phormio in his lawsuit against Apollodorus.' He adds, with a reminiscence perhaps of the trade of the orator's father, it was as bad as selling swords to both sides from the same manufactory'2.
The insertion of the speeches against Stephanus among the works of Demosthenes may perhaps be accounted for by the conjecture that Callimachus, who, as head of the Alexandrine library, undertook the prodigious task of settling the canon
1 Deinarchus contra Demosth. had read in the course of their 8 111 p. 108, εύρήσετε...τούτον studies. αντί λογογράφου και μισθού τας 2 Plutarch, Dem. chap. 15, λέδίκας λέγοντος υπέρ Κτησίππου γεται δε και τον κατά Τιμοθέου του και Φορμίωνος και ετέρων πολ. στρατηγού λόγον, ώ χρησάμενος λών πλουσιώτατον όντα των εν τη 'Απολλόδωρος ειλε τον άνδρα του πόλει. A recent editor of Dei- οφλήματος, Δημοσθένης γράψαι narchus, Dr F. Blass, writes to το 'Απολλοδώρω, καθάπερ και me suggesting that the passage τους προς Φορμίωνα και Στέφανον, is interpolated. Deinarchus, he εφ' οίς είκότως ήδόξησε. και γαρ conjectures, wrote only και μισ- ο Φορμίων ηγωνίζετο λόγω Δημοθού τάς δίκας λέγοντος; had he σθένους προς τον 'Απολλόδωρον, wanted to enter into detail, he ατεχνώς καθάπερ εξ ενός μαχαιmust have added ·Phormio the ροπωλίου τα κατ' άλλήλων εγχει. banker' and 'Ctesippus the ρίδια πωλούντος αυτού τους αντιson of Chabrias,' because these δίκους. (Cf. chap. 4, Δημοσθένης cases were by that time pro- ο πατήρ... επεκαλείτο μαχαιροbably forgotten. The bare ad. ποιός.) Comp. Dem. et Cic. c. 3, dition υπέρ Κτησίππου και Φορμί- χρηματίσασθαι από του λόγου ωνος και ετέρων πολλών is, he Δημοσθένης επιψόγως λέγεται, says, exactly what a gram- λογογραφών κρύφα τους περί marian would insert to remind Φορμίωνα και 'Απολλόδωρον αντιhis pupils of the speeches they δίκοις.
of the Attic Orators?, may have been misled either by the passage of Aeschines above quoted, or by the partial resem. blance of the first speech to the style of the orator, into supposing that Demosthenes himself was the writer; or again may have included them among his orations as illustrative of his genuine works. That there was once a time when Apollodorus himself was regarded as the writer of the orations spoken by him which have been handed down to us among the works of Demosthenes, may perhaps be fairly concluded from a scholium on the passage of Aeschines above referred to, noting from this it is clear that the speeches referring to the estate of Apollodorus are not written by him, but by Demosthenes". Thus, Plutarch's story of the duplicity of Demosthenes, which with slight variations is repeated by still later writers3, may have originated in a misunderstanding of the language of his enemy's accusation; the phraseology used by one of them in particular (Zosimus by name, a grammarian who, if we credit the conjecture attributing to him part of the scholia on Aeschines, may have actually written the scholium in question,) shews how easily, even before his time, Callimachus and Plutarch may have been misled by a careless expansion of the language of the orator's rivallanguage which we have little hesitation in regarding as the original source of the subsequent tradition 4.
The argument from internal evidence is more intricate, and the style of all the orations delivered by Apollodorus has been disussed with much minuteness by several modern critics. Without entering, however, into undue detail on those speeches which
1 Rehdantz ap. A. Schaefer, U. s., p. 317–322.
2 Aesch. ed. Schultz, p. 311, εκ τούτου δήλον ότι και οι περί την οικίαν (ουσίαν coniecit A. Schaefer) 'Απολλοδώρου λόγοι ουκ 'Απολλοδώρου αλλά Δημοo Dévous. The rhetorician Tibe. rius, Tepi oxnuátwv C. 14 (referred to by A. Schaefer), quotes from Or. 45 g 83, and introduces his citation with the name not of Demosthenes but of Apollodorus, και πάλιν 'Απολ. λόδωρος “εγώ γάρ-ουκ οίδα, though he professes in c. 1 to confine himself to coa tapd
Δημοσθένει κατενοήσαμεν. Ιη ο. 31 he begins an extract from Or. 36 52 with the words, év το υπέρ Φορμίωνος προς τον 'Απολλόδωρον.
3 Anonym. p. 155, Suidas Dem. c. 3, referred to by Lortzing, Apoll. p. 23.
4 Zosimus vit. Dem. p. 149 R., λογογραφεϊν αρξάμενος και εις τα ιδιωτικά και εις τα δημόσια και πολλούς εκδούς λόγους προς εαυτούς ήλω αμφοτέροις λόγους εκδους κατ' άλλήλων. He lived in the time of the Emperor Anastasius, A.D. 491-518.
are not included in the present volume, we may briefly state certain peculiarities of diction to which Arnold Schaefer, who, in his admir. able work on the Life and Times of Demosthenes, was the first to treat the subject systematically, has specially drawn attention, as running through all the speeches delivered by Apollodorus, and distinguishing them from the genuine writings of Demosthenes1.
We find, then, a feebleness of expression shewing itself in repetitions of the same word within short intervals from one anothers, this clumsiness is most noticeable in the case of the pronouns oûtos and aúrósi. Again, clause after clause begins with the same relative pronoun, or the same hypothetical particle“. Such carelessness of expression is naturally attended by looseness of rhythm; thus, tested by the frequency of hiatus, the speeches delivered by Apollodorus are inferior in composition to the certainly genuine speeches of Demosthenes, though an exception must be made in favour of the first speech against Stephanush. Even this speech supplies instances of unrhythmi. cal construction, and examples of anacoluthon or bad writing; and in particular an awkward combination of participles may be noticed in the first as well as in the second oration?.
1 A. Schaefer Dem. U. 8. Zeit, 4 Or. 45 § 49 ous...ois § 81, III. 2. 184—199, Der Verfasser ei...el...elta...ei. Or. 46 § 23, der von Apollodor gehaltenen είπερ...είτε...είτε...εί μεν...είδε Reden 1858. Since then, the sub- ...είπερ. . Tolvur though comject has been elaborately dis- mon in the genuine orations cussed by F. Lortzing (1863) occurs 14 times at least in the and J. Sigg (1873). For the full 29 sections of Or. 46. Non titles of their treatises, see p. negari potest vividioribus transxvi.
grediendi figuris, quibus D. 2 Or. 45 § 4, yeyrouévov... excellit, carere nostras orationes' γίγνονται...εγίγνοντο, ιο. 8 63, Lortzing p. 33. συνέβαινεν βαίνων. - Or. 46 6 Benseler de hiatu p. 147, 8 28, διαθηκών...διαθηκών...δια- auctor alterius orationis (Or. τιθέμενοι ... διατίθενται. . Simi. 45) sermonem ita conformare larly in 8 2, διατιθεμένω τώ πατρί solebat, ut vocalium concursus is thrice repeated and ο πατήρ evitaretur et auctor alterius (Or. ScéDeto twice. For other repe- 46) ita ut hiatus non evitaretur. titions see $$ 3, 5, 8, 25.
6 The passage referred to is 3 Οr. 45 8 64, τούτω...τούτον in 8 68, εγώ γαρ-προσελθείν τούτου...τούτου, 8 86, εαυτον... Trpotov, but the object is perτούτου...εαυτόν...ταύθ'... τούτου, haps hypercritical. For anacoand similarly § 34, § 83.-Or. luthon, cf. Or. 45 $ 3; for bad 46 8 21, ούτος...αυτόν...αυτού writing, Or. 46 & 17. τούτου...αυτας...ταύτ', and 8 6. 7 Or. 45 g 83, Or. 46 § 13 But cf. Or. 36 SS 12 and 42. (Lortzing p. 88, 89).