Page images

older by the greater abundance of such phrases; and it may be a valid proof of the recency of a document, that in ten lines it has five modern phrases. In such a case, it is a most insufficient reply to adduce, by laborious searching of indices, similar expressions out of old writers. The question is one of degree, and that is wholly evaded by Voemel's method of reply. When to this we add, that in extreme cases he cuts the knot either by altering the text arbitrarily (as, for evdexouévws, 1. p. 14, he conjectures, È twv ¿vdexoμévwv), or by ruling, we cannot tell why, that the objection goes for nothing (as when he confesses (IV. p. 12) that μeufμopeiv is not current earlier than Polybius), it appears that Droysen had no chance of proving any thing, even had the case been stronger in his favour. Nevertheless, having said thus much, I will not shrink from adding, if it concern any one to know, that Droysen appears to me to have grasped at too much, and weakened his cause by overstating his objections. But I am aware how easily, under the circumstances, I may misconceive the relative stress which he intended to be laid on his arguments.

But we have not yet got to the end of the arbitrary inventions required by Boeckh's and Voemel's hypothesis. "Five documents," according to the latter, "are attached to a wrong place, four are full of gaps, one perhaps imperfect, and one forged." Such is his final summary. But, as he states five to be out of place, it is his business to assign their right place. Accordingly, he ascribes those which bear the name of Mnesiphilus to Olymp. 110, 2, and 109, 2; i. e. to the years B.C. 338 and 342. Yet even on this he has not made up his mind, for he adds (III. p. 9): " Or else, both belonged to the same year, Olymp. 110, 2; then this is one more example that one man might be several times in the year notary of the Prytaneum." (If I rightly understand, this means that the notary did not change every month.) It is surprising that Professor Voemel should be so confident that the document is not forged, when he is doubtful what is its real date. He may seem to forget that as, by his own shewing, it has not a particle of external support, it can only stand by strong internal proofs of congruity. To doubt about the date, is to doubt whether it is a mere fabrication or not. But let this pass, for more is to We know from Demosthenes the extreme anxiety he felt in the year B.C. 346, concerning the oaths of peace, which


Philip had not yet taken, and how he despatched an embassy to get them. Now, in order to sustain the credit of the document (p. 235, Reiske), iπl aρxovroç Munoipidov, we are required by Boeckh and Voemel to believe that the same thing happened a second time in B.C. 338, or else in B.C. 342-in which year uncertain; but that it was in one or other, they request that we will not doubt. We will here transcribe the pith of the decree :


"Demosthenes, &c. spoke. Since Philip, having sent ambassadors about peace, has made with the Athenian people a treaty which has been approved, it is decreed, in order that the peace may be accomplished which was voted in the first assembly, to choose instantly five ambassadors; and that those who are elected should go abroad without any delay, wherever they may hear Philip to be, &c. &c."

It will be observed, that all the circumstances are precisely the same as in the year B.C. 346, except that five ambassadors are found for ten, and that "the first assembly" should be (apparently)" the former assembly." Such a recurrence of events would be like a dream. The same trick played by Philip a second time would inevitably have been commented on by Demosthenes. Voemel, however, is so unmerciful towards incredulous minds, as to lay on us the new burden of believing that the events of the second decree, ἐπὶ Μνησιφίλου also came twice over. The circumstances of this were likewise peculiar, and are known also from the oration περὶ Παραπρεσβείας (p. 368, Reiske.) Callisthenes passed the decree to bring the whole country population into the city, on the sudden panic which seized the Athenians when Philip began to raze the Phocian cities to the ground. It would be strange if, in the year B.C. 342, Callisthenes had proposed a similar decree in a similar panic. Such a thing is possible, no doubt. If we had valid testimony to the fact, we might suppose Callisthenes to be an alarmist, ready to take the lead on such occasions. But more words are not wanting, to insist on the inadmissibility of these coincidences on mere arbitrary conjecture; and if even one duplicate event is improbable, the combination of the two duplicates cannot be received by any cool and impartial mind. To admit, with Voemel and Boeckh, that these documents, headed with the name Mnesiphilus, do not belong to the events of the speech to which they are annexed, is virtually to admit

that they were forgeries. Nor do we here need to go back to the topic, that they are over and above burdened with the false archon's name.

In a like spirit Voemel confesses that the decrees which bear the name of Heropythes (p. 283, Reiske), and another to which he refers as in § 29,-which I cannot be sure of, by reason of the different divisions of different editions,—are interpolated in wrong places (1. p. 10). That of § 29 he places, with Boeckh, in Olymp. 110, 2 (or в.c. 338); but the two others somewhat earlier, "perhaps when Philip was making attempts on Megara." What has been already said will again, in part, apply. Not that the facts alluded to in the decrees ἐπὶ Ἡροπύθου occurred at the time to which they are referred in the speech; but this does not relieve the difficulties. Philip is in them said to have taken certain cities ȧorvysírovaç to Athens, to have plundered others, and to be preparing to invade Attica. To imagine that Philip did all this before the war of Byzantium, and before he was called in against the Amphissians and seized Elatea, appears to me in flat contradiction to the notorious facts of the history. In the earlier period, he intrigued and did many things by his partisans, but he did not head a great army in his own name on the confines of Attica. In the Phocian war he was ostensibly acting for the confederates and in the sacred cause of the temple; and we have every reason to feel assured that that was the only occasion, previous to his seizure of Elatea, on which he came with an army south of Thermopylæ. Besides, the second decree complains, that Philip is intending to alienate the Thebans from Athens; while, if there is a word of truth in Demosthenes's statements, the Athenians and Thebans were in mutual enmity all along, down to the time when, after Philip had seized Elatea, Demosthenes performed the eminent service of reconciling the two cities. Without pursuing the subject any farther, enough has been said to shew the difficulties in which the hypothesis of Boeckh, which Voemel has so learnedly and zealously defended, is involved.

I turn to a more grateful subject, that of using the learning of Professor Voemel to assist in replying to various questions which were proposed in the former article on these documents. It may be most convenient to the reader to be referred to the pages of the Classical Museum, Vol. 1.

P. 152, Κύπριος is corrected to Κύπριος by Boeckh, who (it

seems in his Seewesen, p. 384) has established that there was a δήμος called Κόπρος. No doubt, then, Κύπριος is the word which the first writer of the document intended.

In proof that the celebrated Eubulus was an Anaphlystian, Droysen refers to Plut. Polit. Præc. cap. 15. Whether this proves any thing is uncertain; for Voemel regards it as clear that Plutarch quotes our documents as genuine; and if so, he may be indebted to this spurious source for his information.

In p. 155 a difficulty is started, concerning the five hundred drachmas. Voemel's explanation is, that the people might at discretion lower the penalty of one thousand to five hundred. In proof that five hundred was a common fine to impose, he refers to Demosth. contra Mnes. § 43 (p. 1152,10), which certainly states that five hundred drachmas was the highest fine which the senate could impose at will on a man who had struck a public officer; also to Isocrat. contra Lochit. § 3 (p.398), which says, that a man who used against another scandalous terms of reviling (τι τῶν ἀποῤῥήτων) was liable to a fine of five hundred drachmas. These instances justify, in Voemel's opinion, the article Taç TEνTaкOσías, although the case before us, of Patrocles, was quite different from these.

On the question in p. 163 (C.M.), concerning Charidemus, who was ἀποσταλεὶς εἰς Σαλαμῖνα, and was concerned in the ἐπὶ τοῦ ποταμοῦ μάχη, Professor Voemel offers the following explanation (III. p. 18): “Charidemus, the Athenian, from the Attic Salamis, whither he was ordered, in conjunction with Diotimus, after the battle on the Cephisus against Philip (therefore Olymp. 110, 3), armed, from his private means, eight hundred men. It does not appear that any well-founded objection can be made against the possibility of this supposition." The reader must judge whether the Greek can bear this meaning.

In p. 166 it has been inquired, how old are the titles and the distribution of functions at Athens ; ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν ὅπλων, ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς διοικήσεως, ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν ἱππέων. In Voemel (r. p. 11) it is stated, that such phrases are found in the time of the Cæsars, and, to judge by Athenæus (Deipn. lib. v. p. 213, E), in that of Mithridates. Rather more to the purpose, in regard to chronology at least, is his reference to Dinarchus contra Philoclem (in initio), στρατηγὸς ὑφ ̓ ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τὴν Μουνυχίαν καὶ τὰ νεώρια κεχειροτονημένος.

In I.

p. 12, he adduces, with another object, an inscription, ἐπὶ Διοτίμου ἄρχοντος, which has the expression ἕκτῃ μετ ̓ εἰκάδας, instead of πέμπτῃ ἀπίοντος. The difference of εἰκάδας and sikáda perhaps is not to be pressed. If this Diotimus is the archon of B.C. 354, the antiquity of the expression is established. Voemel's reference is to Hall. Archæol. Blätt. 1836, No. 43. He adds, that Meier, the editor, refers the inscription to the year B.C. 286 or 285, which certainly might affect its value for our present purpose.

In p. 168, the phrases ἐνθυμηθῆναι διότι and ἀντιβαίνειν are remarked on. I have since observed Stórt for öri in Aristot. Nic. Eth. vi. 9. 5; and in 1. 13. 16, he says, ivavтiοúμevov T dóyų kaì ávrißaïvov, without, it seems, intending to be poetical. Voemel quotes dióri for ori, from Crito Comicus, apud Athen. iv. p. 173, C.

The plural ρEσCEural has crossed my path in Demosth. in Timocr. 703, §. It is not in the index, and I cannot find it again.

To justify the phrase, àži iva Bon@non, to which Droysen also has objected, Voemel quotes from Thucyd. v. 36, idéovтo ὅπως παραδώσουσι.

It must finally be stated, that in taking his leave of Droysen, Professor Voemel is careful to express himself in terms of much honour towards his learned opponent. I wish it had been possible for me here to lay Voemel's own dissertation more completely before the reader; but as it consists of details, there was no choice but to translate it entire, or to comment on it as I have done.


« PreviousContinue »