At the suggestion of the Syndics of the University Press the same general plan has been adopted, with some modifications, as in the Select Private Orations of Messrs Paley and Sandys. This has involved the selection of Dindorf's text in the Teubner series, taken from his third and latest edition (1855). Those teachers who may wish to place the text only in the hands of their class will thus be enabled to do so at a trifling cost'. The editions of which the various readings are given, are (1) the Zurich edition of Baiter and Sauppe, 1850, (2) Bekker's last or stereotype edition, 1854, and (3) that of Benseler, 1861. Within the limits of these texts the true reading, it is believed, will (except in the few corrupt passages where the MSS. fail us) generally be found. Benseler himself gives in his foot-notes a collation of the Zurich text (for which his symbol is BS = Baiter and Sauppe, in this edition Z), Bekker's Berlin edition of 1824 (B), his stereotyped text of 1854 (b), and Dindorf (D). These foot-notes have proved of material aid in the preparation of the list of various readings here given, but have not been implicitly followed : the Zurich text, which also notes its own variations from Bekker's Berlin edition, has been collated independently. It has not been thought necessary to go thirty years further back, and give the readings of either of Bekker's early editions, Oxford, 1822, and

1 The Teubner text of Demosthenes and the other orators may be obtained in parts as well as volumes. The Androtion is in Vol. II. pt. 1., the Timocrates in part II. of the same volume.

Berlin, 1824. As a textual critic, Bekker deserves especially to be judged by his latest and best work. Those who are familiar with his text of Plato, which he never revised, will know how much he left to be done by later editors in the way of selections from his own vast apparatus of various readings, and discriminating deference to the best MSS.: other authors, such as Thucydides and Demosthenes, he went on polishing and improving until he had arrived at his final results, and then stereotyped them. It is not denied that Bekker, in the text as here exhibited, is too often carried away by excessive admiration for the Parisian MS. Σ (or S); several instances are pointed out in the notes; but he is at least more independent than the Zurich editors; and the best corrective of the occasional vagaries of both texts is, in my opinion, the judgment of Dindorf, more robust and self-reliant still'. Apart, therefore, from the convenience of the Teubner series for general use, Dindorf's edition, though not, as Messrs Paley and Sandys point out, claiming the authority of a textus receptus, is perhaps the nearest approach to it. Benseler's text is a curiosity, but it has nevertheless been thought worth

1 Instances of Dindorf's happy audacity occur T. 31, where he alone retains ἄδειαν τοῦ μή τι παθεῖν in place of the tasteless τοῦ τι παθεῖν: Τ. 141 πλεῖν : Τ. 152 ταύτῃ: Τ. 156 δὴ for ἄν. In one or two places regard for Attic usage has compelled me to protest against the reading of all four editors: e.g. åvéoxeo0e A. 68 for the véσx€σ0€ of old edd., including the Oxford Bekker, and all MSS. except Σ.

2 The new edition by H. Weil unfortunately stops, at present, just short of these speeches: the two volumes published extend as far as Or. XXI.

preserving. After the humorous protest of Shilleto's preface to the de Falsa Legatione, it might be thought that the Zurich editors could hardly be outdone in devotion to MS. Σ: but Benseler has accomplished this feat. Of his few notes, no small proportion is occupied in finding reasons, more or less ingenious, for following when it leads him like an ignis fatuus into a quagmire1.

In two passages there has seemed to be sufficient reason for departing from Dindorf's text. One of these is in T. § 59, where Dindorf has omitted the concluding words of the "law" which, like other recent scholars, he brackets as an interpolation. The more closely I examine these inserted documents, the less reason I see either to correct their Greek or to bring their statements into harmony with what we learn from other sources. It may be doubted whether some Germans have not gone too far in acknowledging even a partial admixture of genuine material independently of the speech itself. It seems best, therefore, to let the text stand for what it is worth, as it appears in the MSS. and all other editions. The other passage, T. § 195, is one of thirteen in which Dindorf has followed Σ, sometimes with the support of other MSS., in reading αἰσχροκερδίαν for αἰσχροκέρδειαν. It is of course possible that Demosthenes may have used, for reasons known to himself, a form so contrary to analogy, and that may here represent a genuine tradition: but the editors most devoted

1 Examples of this occur A. 70, 78, T. 9, 110.

to have shrunk from this conclusion, and Dindorf again stands alone.

In the Notes my object, like that of my predecessors, has been to afford full help without unduly encouraging "the less industrious sort." With this view some pains have been taken in so arranging the matter that the commentary may be read through and not merely referred to. The intention, at least, has been to give an explanation of every real difficulty, in one way or another but not always in the same way, to those who will be at the trouble of looking for it. The abstracts at the beginning of each paragraph have, as in the Select Private Orations, been utilised for this purpose: and a hint thus conveyed has often been substituted for more literal renderings in the There is still, I believe, in some quarters a prejudice against full explanatory notes, under the idea that the student should be left as much as possible to quarry his own materials. The Germans, who cannot be suspected of wishing to encourage slovenly methods of study, have lately in their school and college editions set us the example of liberal help in the vernacular': while both the English Universities have of late given full sanction to this treatment of ancient authors. The chief and, I hold, amply sufficient reason for thus facilitating the acquirement of scholarship is the immense pressure of modern subjects and consequent limitation of the time which can be devoted to classics.

notes.

1 As e.g. Stein's Herodotus and Classen's Thucydides.

In

the days of a narrower curriculum, lads of the right sort might safely be encouraged to bestow long hours on the Latin writings of the great critics, or on notes so framed as merely to excite curiosity without satisfying it. If the amount of quartz to be crushed was large in proportion to the gold to be extracted, the exercise itself was healthy and bracing. Such studies are now unavoidably relegated to the time— if that time ever arrives-when the work of the specialist has succeeded that of general education.

For the same reason, the old prejudice against the use of translations has become considerably modified of late, especially in the case of authors read only by the more advanced students. It has been assumed, therefore, that the excellent translation of the late Charles Rann Kennedy will be in the hands of many, if not most, of the readers of this book and it has been thought possible occasionally to improve upon his renderings. His version is indeed nearly perfect of its kind, as Mr Sandys has called it: but it is the work of a most consummate scholar, as well as of a very able lawyer, produced under great pressure of time and consequent liability to oversights'. It has been compared throughout with Benseler's translation, to

1 Besides the valuable appendixes to Mr Kennedy's complete translation in five vols., his earlier volume of Select Speeches (the five Guardian Speeches), 1841, contains an important series of notes on Attic law, not reprinted in the collective edition, and dating from a time when aids to this study were almost nonexistent in England.