« PreviousContinue »
On passing to the question of the degree of mastery over the subject-matter and the general argument displayed in the various speeches, a distinction may be drawn between the earlier speeches on the one hand (e.g. those against Polycles and Timotheus) where the narrative is monotonous and tedious, and the conclusion somewhat lame and feeble; and the two speeches against Stephanus, which shew signs of an improvement which Schaefer ascribes to the prolonged experience in litigation which the speaker had enjoyed since his earlier efforts. The general style of all these orations, differing as it does from that of Demosthenes, and bearing marks of a kind of consistency of its own, points (so Schaefer suggests) to one person as the writer of them all, and that person in all probability Apollodorus himself. He often appeared before the law-courts not only in private suits on his own account, but also in public causes ; and, when he was a member of the Council, he made important proposals, and brought them before the general assembly of the people. Even assuming that he resorted to others for assistance in his private lawsuits, yet, as soon as he appeared in a more public character, he would find it necessary to speak for himself, and without some oratorical ability he could hardly have undertaken so many public causes. In the second speech against Stephanus we find him pluming himself on his cleverness?; and in that against Neaera he is called upon to address the court on behalf of a younger and less ex. perienced speaker. Apollodorus obviously laid himself out for attempting to play a prominent part at Athens; in the pro Phormione tbe jury are specially warned against his loud and im. pudent self-assertion?, and elsewhere we even find him apolo, gising for his loudness of voice (as well as his hurried gait and ill-favoured countenance), as his misfortune and not hiş fault
Such then is the general drift of the arguments, to which a brief sketch can only do imperfect justice, which lead Schaefer to the conclusion that the speeches against Callippus, Nicostratus, Timotheus, Polycles, Euergus and Mnesibulus; both of those in prosecution of Stephanus; and lastly, that in accusation of Neaera; which were delivered in the above chronological order between the years B.C. 369 and 343, were all composed by one person, who had a distinctive style of his own, and that person probably Apollodorus himself, with whose transactions no less than seven of these speeches are concerned.
The above conclusion is however open to criticism on the ground that it gives no adequate account of the incomparable superiority of the first speech against Stephanus, not only to the others delivered by Apollodorus, but in particular to the second speech in the very same trial. It is marked by a closeness of argument, and a forcibleness of invective, worthy of a far abler, writer than the composer of the other speeches. It seems futile to explain this superiority by ascribing it to a gradual improvement in the speaker's rhetorical ability brought about by time and experience, when the second speech is so meagre and lifeless, and when the last of the series, namely that in Neaeram, instead of shewing any advance as compared with the first speech against Stephanus is certainly inferior to it, and is characterized by a diffuseness and laxity of style, and by other faults besides. And again, the explanation that the second speech is only a deutepologla, and therefore inferior to the first, is hardly adequate. Hence, while we would ascribe the second to Apollodorus him. self, and find in its constant quotations from the Athenian code of law a characteristic touch, reminding us of his legal learning as attested in the oration in Neaeram”, we are driven to the conclusion that in the first he had recourse to the assistance
träges Schrittes und schwachstimmig.' This misses the sense; the words when taken correctly as in the text, confirm the quotation from Or. 36, and do not appear even remotely to contradict it. Cf. Lysias Or. 16 &$ 18, 19.
1 A. Schaefer, u. 8., p. 191. Prof. Schaefer, in a kind communication received since I wrote the above, endeavours to
account for the greater polish of style shewn in Or. 45 by the fact that Apollodorus had the strongest motives for doing his very best in his opening speech.
2 8 14, έμπειροτέρως έχει των νόμων, and 8 15 υπέρ των θεών και των νόμων και του δικαίου και υμών αυτών, compared with Οr. 46 8 29 υπέρ υμών αυτών και έμου και του δικαίου και των νόμων. .
of an abler rhetorician than himself. There is scarcely sufficient proof that that rhetorician was Demosthenes, though it must be candidly admitted that of all the speeches delivered by Apollodorus, the one that on personal grounds is least likely to have been written by the composer of the oration for Apollodorus' opponent Phormio, is less far removed from the style of Demos. thenes than any of the remainder, though again and again we have words never used by the orator himself in his undisputed writings 1. In one passage indeed ($ 77) we have a close parallel with the Pantaenetus (8 55), which seems to point to a common authorship, and if the latter speech is rightly assigned to the year 346 or thereabout, in other words, is placed after the speeches now under consideration, we can hardly explain the parallel except by the hypothesis of a common source, or else by the less probable assumption that Demosthenes, who was almost certainly the writer of the Pantaenetus, having heard or read the first speech against Stephanus, a speech directed virtually against his own client Phormio, borrowed from the phraseology of the latter oration, with which he was thus familiar. The Attio Orator, Hyperides, is known to have written one speech at least against Pasicles3, who, though a brother of Apollodorus, took the side of his opponent Phormio, and a conjecture has been half hazarded that it was for Apollodorus that those speeches were composed“; but there is no adequate reason for assigning the first speech against Stephanus to that orator, and a comparison with his four extant orations has led me to notice only one important coincidence of expression 5.
On the whole, then, we may conclude that the second speech was not only delivered by Apollodorus, but probably composed by him, that the first was written for him, probably not by Demos. thenes, but by some rhetorician unknown to us, whose assistance he was led to secure either by the pressure of his other engagements, or by a consciousness of the difficulty of the task that was
8 14 παροξυσμός, 8 19 παρα- is more likely to be correct. πέτασμα, 8 70 άοίκητος (in sense κατα Πασικλέους and προς Πα. • houseless'), § 85 étlxaptos, σικλέα περί αντιδόσεως Fragm. . 863 and 8 65 ÚTOTITTELV TIVI (and 137–140, p. 88-9 ed. Blass. also in Or. 59 Neaer. § 43). 4 Hornbostel, Apoll. p. 35.
2 Or. 37 gs 52, 55 quoted in 5 Οr. 45 8 74 ανεκδότους ενnote on Or. 45 877. The note δον γηράσκειν, compared with involves an assumption that the Hyperides 111. 28. 4, ávé KDOTOV Pantaenetus was earlier than ένδον καταγηράσκειν and III. 27. the present speech; the reverse
22, άγαμον ένδον καταγηράσκειν.
before him, and a mistrust of his own unaided ability to com. pose more than the legal rejoinder to the defendant's reply.
Those who attribute the speeches against Stephanus, or at least the first of them, to the authorship of Demosthenes, are bound to supply some reasonable motive for his changing sides after taking the part of Phormio against Apollodorus. If such a desertion to the enemy's camp was due to his discovery that the documents relied on in the first trial were forgeries, and that the deponents called to prove them were guilty of false witness, we cannot but think that Demosthenes, if he had been the writer of a speech immediately arising out of the former trial, would have been prompted to stronger expressions of indignation against the fraud practised on the jury on the previous occasion.
While we dismiss as irrelevant any attempt to try the alleged duplicity of Demosthenes by the standard of the professional etiquette of the English bar, and refrain from entangling our discussion with parallels suggested by questions of modern forensic casuistry, we may at any rate remark that, though we have no sufficient warrant for assuming that the orator was above pecuniary considerations, a certain sense of honour would probably have kept him from accepting a fee to write down the very side which he had but lately written up; and we may fairly conclude that such conduct was held dishonourable from the fact that even for divulging Phormio's case to his opponent, Demosthenes is, whether truly or falsely, charged by Aeschines with playing a traitor's part.
Again, it is urged that the first speech against Stephanus was written for a different trial to that on behalf of Phormio. This can hardly be regarded as an extenuating fact in favour of Demosthenes as the writer of the leading speech in both trials, since the second cause arose immediately out of the first, and there can be no question about the irreconoileable difference between the facts of the case as stated in the two orations, and the terms used in the one and the other in describing the character of Phormio. Even apart from motives of honour, the lower ground of expediency would, we presume, have sufficed to prevent Demosthenes from writing to defame the oharacter of one who, by his opponent himself, was admitted to be a wealthy and prosperous man of business, and from supporting by preference the failing fortunes of an impoverished pettifogger.
Such, then, at the very strongest, are the principal arguments that may be adduced against the genuineness of the two speeches against Stephanus. In conclusion, it is only fair to submit the only hypothesis on which it is not impossible that Demosthenes may after all be the real author of, at any rate, the first oration.
We have already seen that it is highly probable that the speech against Phormio belongs to the latter part of the year B. c. 351 (p. xxvii) and that the speeches against Stephanus may be fairly placed in the year B.C. 350 1. It was a year in which the efforts of Athens to recover Euboea and to protect Olynthus placed her in & position of grave financial embarrassment. To meet this, Apollodorus, as a member of the senate, moved a decree that it should be submitted to the vote of the public assembly whether the surplus of the revenue should be paid to the Theoric fund for religious festivals, or applied to the expenses of the war. The proposal was approved by the senate and accepted by the public assembly; and the latter passed a decree appropriating the surplus to military purposes. Hereupon one Stephanus, who is not to be identified with the defendant in the speeches before us, impeached Apollodorus on the ground of his having brought forward an illegal decree; and he obtained a verdict, which led to the fine of one talent (£243) being inflicted on Apollodorus. In this impeach. ment, Stephanus was probably the tool of Eubulus and the peace. party, and although there is no proof that Apollodorus acted at the suggestion of Demosthenes and the opposite party, the proposal of Apollodorus would doubtless meet with the orator's approval, as is clear from the financial polioy cautiously propounded by the latter in the Olynthiao orations, and, when it was too late, carried to a suocessful issue twelve years afterwards in the autumn of 339, only one year before the catastrophe of Chaeroneia.
It may therefore be questioned whether political motives may 1 The archon eponymus of that Apoll. p. 39, 40; A. Schaefer, year [01. 107, 3) was one Apol. 0.8, ul. 2, p. 180 and (for the lodorus, probably not the son of chronology here followed) ib. p. Pasion.
330. Some (e.g. Weil, harangues 3 Or. 59 88 348, esp. § 4, de Dem. p. 163) would place the διαχειροτονήσαι τον δήμον είτε Euboean expedition in B.c. 348, δοκεί τα περιόντα χρήματα της and Dr Blass would therefore διοικήσεως στρατιωτικά είναι η place in that year the motion of Oewpirá; Grote, H. G., chap. Apollodorus and the delivery of 88; Curtius, H. G., vol. v, p. Or. 45. 269 (Eng. Transl.); Hornbostel, 3 Olynth, III, SS 10--13.