« PreviousContinue »
repetition of pronouns such as oüros and aúrós'; we observe a disproportionate number of harsh constructions, and it is curious to notice that a phrase occurring in this speech, which is unexampled in the undisputed writings of Demosthenes, finds its nearest parallels in speeches delivered like the present by Apollodorus'. We may also trace a general resemblance to the style of that against Neaera, the greater part of which was delivered by the same person, a speech which it is impossible to attribute to the authorship of Demosthenes *; and, lastly, there is a certain want of warmth in the peroration, unlike the vigorous style of the great orator himself.
On the whole, without entering into minuter detail, we may consider the internal evidence is such as to throw grave doubts on this speech being the genuine work of Demosthenes, and we are not surprised to find its genuineness called in question by the lexicographer of the Attic Orators, Harpocration", though Plutarch refers it without suspicion to the authorship of Demosthenes, and fancifully contrasts the literary fame of the orator with
18 6 αd init. αυτόν...τούτου... general style, may be quoted αυτώ...αυτός. Also, ad fη. τούτου Οr. 59 8 16 α μεν ήδικημένος, ώ ...τούτου...αυτός... τούτον τούτου άνδρες Αθηναίοι, υπό Στεφάνου... ...αυτη...αυτόν. Cf. S8 4 and 8. ως δ' έστι...τούτο υμίν βούλομαι 2 See 88 11, 12, 24, 29. σαφώς επιδείξαι compared with
8 15, εβάδιζον επί τον κλη- Οr. 53 (Nicostr.) 8 19 4 μεν τήρα τον ομολογούντα κεκλητευ- τοίνυν αδικούμενος, ώ άνδρες δικέναι ... της ψευδοκλητείας Com- κασται, υπ' αυτών...ως δ' έστιν... pared with Or. 49 8 56, μή... επιδείξω υμϊν (noticed by Reh. επί τόνδε κακοτεχνιών έλθοιμι ; dantz, vit. Iphicr. p. 194). Add and esp. Οr. 52 8 32, επί τον Or. 59 § 14. Also the tedious Κηφισιάδην βαδίζειν τον ομολο- references to the plea of revenge, γούντα κεκομίσθαι και έχειν το Οr. 59 8 1 ώστ' ουχ υπάρχων αργύριον.
αλλά τιμωρούμενος κ.τ.λ. and 4 Οr. 59 (κατά Νεαίρας) 18 cf. 8 18 εκ μικρών παιδίων with condemned by ancient critics Οr. 53 8 19, εκ μικρού παιδαρίου, (ύπτιον όντα και πολλαχή της while παιδάριον μικρόν, though του ρήτορος δυνάμεως ενδεέστερον common enough in itself, also Arg.). Among modern critics, happens to occur in Or. 59 g 50. Reiske is its sole supporter. 5 ει γνήσιος 8. ν. απογραφή, Among the minor points of quoted in note on § 1, p. 134. resemblance, apart from the
the military reputation of the general of that name in the Peloponnesian War',
We have now to consider the data for arriving at the time when the speech was delivered. In 89, Apollodorus describes himself as short of money, owing to differences between himself and Phormio, who was keeping him out of the property left him by his father Pasion, who, it will be remembered, died in B.C. 370. Again, in § 14 we are told, that at the time of the events there related, Apollodorus had not yet brought to a preliminary hearing the suits he had instituted against his relatives (Phormio and others). The suit against Phormio respecting the banking capital (Or. 36) was brought on about B.C. 350. But a much more direct indication is given by a reference in § 5, to a trierarchy involving the speaker's absence from Athens; and it was shortly after his return that the events described in the context occurred. He had to sail round the south of the Peloponnesus, and after touching there to take certain ambassadors to Sicily. It seems probable that we should identify this trierarchy with that mentioned in Or. 45 $ 3, which belongs either to B.C. 369 or B.C. 368. The latter date is more pro.
1 Plut. de gloria Atheniensium chap. 8.
2 Droysen (Zeitschrift für d. Alterthumswissenschaft 1839 p. 929) places the speech in 01. 107, 1 [= B. C. 352—1], and Böhnecke (Forschungen p. 675) in 01. 107, 2 [ =B. C. 351–350]. They connect the Sicilian trierarchy of Apollodorus (1) with the despatch sent to Athens in 01. 106, 3 [=B.C. 354–3] by a leading man in Syracuse, Callippus by name; and (2) with a request for assistance on the part of the Messenians, recorded by Pausanias (Iv. 28. 2). Arnold Schaefer, however, points out
that we have no authority for stating that the Athenians sent any reply to the overtures of Callippus by sending a special embassy to Sicily, and Apollodorus would have been the last man in the world to have anything to do with Callippus, who was his personal enemy (see note on Or. 36 g 53). Besides, Apollodoruswould then be in the 40th year of his age, and would have had considerable experience of business, whereas when heundertook this trierarchy, and when he shortly after assisted Nicostratus, he was quite a young man and inexperienced
bable, not only for the reason given in the note on that passage,
but also because at this period no one was required to be trierarch oftener than once in three years, and we know that Apollodorus was so employed in B. C. 362; hence he may have been trierarch in B.C. 365 and B.C. 368, and probably not in B.C. 369'. Thus if we allow a fair interval of time, for the events mentioned in the speech subsequent to the trierarchy, we may fix on B.C. 366 as the probable date of its delivery. Now, if Demosthenes was born in B.C. 381, he was still a minor in B.C. 366 and too young to have been the writer of the speech; if, as is more probable, his birth was in B.C. 384, he was only just of age when the speech was delivered, and had enough to do in looking after his own affairs, and preparing, under the guidance of Isaeus, to join issue with his guardians, without writing speeches for other people. Consequently, the probable date of the speech, coinciding as it does with the internal evidence and with the doubts
in the ways of the world (S$ 12 -13). As Rehdantz, who places the speech in B. C. 368, has seen (Jahn's Neue Jahrbücher LXX. 505), we must not refer the allusions in SS 9 and 14 to the lawsuit of Apollodorus against Phormio which was met by the latter's special plea (Or. 36), but to the threatened litigation of the first few years after his father's death. Now, after the summer of 369 the Athenians, in consequence of help sent by Dionysius I. to his allies the Spartans, were engaged in negociations with that tyrant which led to the conclusion of a peace and alliance. With these negociations we may connect the Sicilian trierarchy of Apollodorus. The ambassadors whom he had on board could not confer with the Spartans
without landing at Gytheion, as the Peloponnesus was for the most part in arms on the side of the Thebans. (Abridgeil from A. Schaefer, u. s., p. 145 –6.)
i Cf. Sigg, Apoll. p. 404, who (with Lortzing) also draws attention to the indication of time in 8 4 επειδή ετελεύτησεν ο πατήρ...χρόνου δε προβαίνοντος. But it is fair to remark that the subsequent expression (whenever I was abroad, either on public service as trierarch, or on my own account on some other business,' while it is not necessarily inconsistent with a single voyage as trierarch, which is all we can assume if we place the period in B.C. 366, is better suited to a date which would allow of more than one absence on public service.
P. S. D. II.
of Harpocration, makes it almost impossible to ascribe it to the authorship of Demosthenes.
But whether written by Demosthenes, or, as is much more probable, by another, most likely by Apollodorus himself, there can be no reasonable doubt that the speech was actually delivered before an Athenian tribunal. As a study of character, the narrative of the relations between the speaker and his opponents is not without an interest of its own; and the moralist may there find a fresh exemplification of the wise saw of Polonius,
Never a borrower or a lender be,
For loan oft loses both itself and friend. The speech includes several passages of peculiar intricacy, in which the language of Athenian lawcourts and the vocabulary of Attic horticulture will demand special illustration in the course of the commentary'. The knotty points of legal terminology, which may embarrass the beginner, may prove attractive to experts,
qui iuris nodos et legum aenigmata solvunt; though others perhaps will be better pleased to dwell on the details of the speaker's country-home, and will not be sorry to leave for a while the lawcourts of Athens, for the vineyards and orchards, the olives and roses of Attica.
ΚΑΤΑ ΚΟΝΩΝΟΣ ΑΙΚΙΑΣ.
This is a speech for the plaintiff in an action for assault and battery, which arose as follows. One evening the plaintiff, a young Athenian named Ariston, accompanied by a friend, was taking his usual stroll in the market-place of Athens, when he was attacked by the defendant Conon, and his son Ctesias and four others. One of these last fell upon Ariston's friend and held him fast, while Conon and the rest made an onslaught on Ariston, stripped him of his cloak which they carried off with them, threw him violently into the mud, and assaulted him with such brutality that he was for some time confined to his bed and his life despaired of (SS 7–12).
Ariston, on his recovery, had more than one legal course open to him (SS 1 and 24). Conon had, in the first instance, rendered himself liable to summary arrest for stripping off his cloak, and he was still amenable either to a public indictment for criminal outrage (üßpews ypaon) or to a private suit for assault and battery (aiklas dikn). To take the former of these last two courses would have proved a task too arduous for so youthful a prosecutor as Ariston, and he accordingly followed the advice of his friends and adopted the safer and less ambitious plan of bringing an action for