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 Demosthenes1, 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 previous writers on the subject, and tested by the results of an independent investigation.

In the speech pro Phormione the case is supported by two important 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 contemporary with Demosthenes or not) which may be adduced in support of the genuineness of the two speeches in question. In

1 The speeches by Apollodorus (with the dates assigned to them by A. Schaefer) are Οr. 52 πρὸς Κάλλιππον, Β.C. 369 —8; Οr. 53 πρὸς Νικόστρατον, after B. c. 368; Or. 49 Tрòs Τιμόθεον ὑπὲρ χρέους, Β. C. 362; Οr. 50, πρὸς Πολυκλέα περὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ τριηραρχήματος, about B.C. 357; Or. 45 and 46, κатa ΣTEφάνου ψευδομαρτυριῶν a' and β',

about B. C. 351; Or. 59 καTа Neaipas, after B. c. 343;—Or. 47, κατ' Ευέργου καὶ Μνησιβούλου was delivered after B.C. 356, but not by Apollodorus, though it was probably written by the same orator as most, if not all of the above-mentioned speeches, and possibly by Apollodorus himself.

the first place we must set a passage in Aeschines in which he denounces the orator as a traitor, charges him with writing for a 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 man1. 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 § 165, τὸν δ ̓ ἀγαθὸν σύμβουλον τί χρὴ ποιεῖν ; οὐ τῇ πόλει πρὸς τὸ παρὸν τὰ βέλτιστα συμβουλεύειν; τὸν δὲ πονηρὸν κατήγορον τί χρὴ λέγειν; οὐ τοὺς καιροὺς ἀποκρυπτόμενον τῆς πράξε έως κατηγορείν ; τὸν δὲ ἐκ φύσεως προδότην πῶς χρὴ θεωρεῖν; ἆρά γε ὡς σὺ τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσι καὶ πιστεύσασι κέχρησαι, λόγους εἰς δικαστήρια γράφοντα μισθοῦ τού τους ἐκφέρειν τοῖς ἀντιδίκοις; Eγραψας λόγον Φορμίωνι τῷ τρα

P. S. D. II.

πεζίτῃ χρήματα λαβὼν τοῦτον ἐξήνεγκας ̓Απολλοδώρῳ τῷ περὶ τοῦ σώματος κρίναντι Φορμίωνα. Ib. contra Ctesiphontem § 173, περὶ δὲ τὴν καθ ̓ ἡμέραν δίαιταν τίς ἐστιν; ἐκ τριηράρχου λογογράφος ἀνεφάνη, τὰ πατρῶα κατα γελάστως προέμενος· ἄπιστος δὲ καὶ περὶ ταῦτα δόξας εἶναι καὶ τοὺς λόγους ἐκφέρων τοῖς ἀντιδίκοις ἀνεπήδησεν ἐπὶ τὸ βῆμα.

2 A. Schaefer, u. s., III. 2 p. 178, and Rehdantz there referred to,

d

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 Phormio1.

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. § 111 p. 108, εὑρήσετε...τοῦτον ἀντὶ λογογράφου καὶ μισθοῦ τὰς δίκας λέγοντος ὑπὲρ Κτησίππου καὶ Φορμίωνος καὶ ἑτέρων πολλῶν πλουσιώτατον ὄντα τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει. A recent editor of Deinarchus, Dr F. Blass, writes to me suggesting that the passage is interpolated. Deinarchus, he conjectures, wrote only καὶ μισο θοῦ τὰς δίκας λέγοντος; had he wanted to enter into detail, he must have added 'Phormio the banker' and 'Ctesippus the son of Chabrias,' because these cases were by that time probably forgotten. The bare addition ὑπὲρ Κτησίππου καὶ Φορμί ωνος καὶ ἑτέρων πολλῶν is, he says, exactly what a grammarian would insert to remind his pupils of the speeches they

had read in the course of their studies.

2 Plutarch, Dem. chap. 15, λέγεται δὲ καὶ τὸν κατὰ Τιμοθέου τοῦ στρατηγοῦ λόγον, ᾧ χρησάμενος Απολλόδωρος είλε τὸν ἄνδρα τοῦ ὀφλήματος, Δημοσθένης γράψαι τῷ ̓Απολλοδώρῳ, καθάπερ καὶ τοὺς πρὸς Φορμίωνα καὶ Στέφανον, ἐφ ̓ οἷς εἰκότως ἠδόξησε. καὶ γὰρ ὁ Φορμίων ἠγωνίζετο λόγῳ Δημοσθένους πρὸς τὸν ̓Απολλόδωρον, ἀτεχνῶς καθάπερ ἐξ ἑνὸς μαχαι ροπωλίου τὰ κατ ̓ ἀλλήλων ἐγχει· ρίδια πωλοῦντος αὐτοῦ τοῖς ἀντιδίκοις. (Cf. chap. 4, Δημοσθένης ὁ πατὴρ ἐπεκαλεῖτο μαχαιροποιός.) Comp. Dem. et Cic. c. 3, χρηματίσασθαι ἀπὸ τοῦ λόγου Δημοσθένης ἐπιψόγως λέγεται, λογογραφών κρύφα τοῖς περὶ Φορμίωνα καὶ ̓Απολλόδωρον ἀντιδίκοις.

of the Attic Orators1, may have been misled either by the passage of Aeschines above quoted, or by the partial resemblance 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 Apollo-> dorus 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 "2. 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 rival— language which we have little hesitation in regarding as the original source of the subsequent tradition1.

The argument from internal evidence is more intricate, and the style of all the orations delivered by Apollodorus has been discussed 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, ἐκ τούτου δῆλον ὅτι καὶ οἱ περὶ τὴν οἰκίαν (οὐσίαν coniecit A. Schaefer) Απολλοδώρου λόγοι οὐκ ̓Απολλοδώρου ἀλλὰ Δημοσ0évous. The rhetorician Tiberius, περὶ σχημάτων c. 14 (referred to by A. Schaefer), quotes from Or. 45 § 83, and introduces his citation with the name not of Demosthenes but of Apollodorus, καὶ πάλιν ̓Απολλόδωρος ' ἐγὼ γὰρ οὐκ οἶδα, though he professes in c. 1 to confne himself to ὅσα παρὰ

are not included in the present volume, we may briefly state certain peculiarities of diction to which Arnold Schaefer, who, in his admirable 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 another; this clumsiness is most noticeable in the case of the pronouns outos and aúrós3. 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 Stephanus. Even this speech supplies instances of unrhythmical 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. s. Zeit, III. 2. 184-199, Der Verfasser der von Apollodor gehaltenen Reden 1858. Since then, the subject has been elaborately discussed by F. Lortzing (1863) and J. Sigg (1873). For the full titles of their treatises, see p. xvi.

...

2 Or. 45 8 4, γιγνομένου... γίγνονται...ἐγίγνοντο, ib. § 63, συνέβαινεν βαίνων. — Οr. 46 § 28, διαθηκών... διαθηκῶν....διατιθέμενοι ... διατίθενται. Similarly in § 2, διατιθεμένῳ τῷ πατρὶ is thrice repeated and ὁ πατὴρ διέθετο twice. For other repetitions see §§ 3, 5, 8, 25.

3 Or. 45 § 64, τούτῳ...τοῦτον τούτου...τούτου, § 86, ἑαυτὸν... τούτου. ἑαυτὸν ταῦθ'. τούτου, and similarly § 34, § 83.-Or. 46 § 21, OUTOS...AUTÒV...AÚTOÛ TOUTOU...AUTAS...TaûT', and § 6. But cf. Or. 36 §§ 12 and 42.

4 Or. 45 § 49 ous...ous § 81, el...el...elta...El. Or. 46 § 23, EiπEρ...EÏTE...Elte...ei pèv...eidè ..εἴπερ. τοίνυν though common in the genuine orations occurs 14 times at least in the 29 sections of Or. 46. 'Non negari potest vividioribus transgrediendi figuris, quibus D. excellit, carere nostras orationes' Lortzing p. 33.

5 Benseler de hiatu p. 147, auctor alterius orationis (Or. 45) sermonem ita conformare solebat, ut vocalium concursus evitaretur et auctor alterius (Or. 46) ita ut hiatus non evitaretur.

6 The passage referred to is in § 68, ἐγὼ γὰρ—προσελθεῖν Tрŵтоv, but the object is perhaps hypercritical. For anacoluthon, cf. Or. 45 § 3; for bad writing, Or. 46 § 17.

7 Or. 45 § 83, Or. 46 § 13 (Lortzing p. 88, 89).