γένηται τῷ Θηβαίους γενέσθαι μικροὺς, τὰς μὲν Θεσπιὰς καὶ τὸν Ορχομενὸν καὶ τὰς Πλαταιὰς κατοικίζεσθαι φῶμεν δεῖν καὶ συμπράττωμεν αὐτοῖς καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀξιῶμεν (ταῦτα γὰρ καὶ καλὰ καὶ δίκαια μὴ περιορᾶν πόλεις ἀρχαίας ἐξανεστώσας), τὴν δὲ Μεγάλην πόλιν καὶ τὴν 20 Μεσσήνην μὴ προώμεθα τοῖς ἀδικοῦσι, μηδ' ἐπὶ τῇ προφάσει τῇ Πλαταιῶν καὶ Θεσπιῶν τὰς οὖσας καὶ κατοικουμένας πόλεις ἀναιρεθείσας περιίδωμεν. κἂν ᾖ πρόδηλα 30 ταῦτα, οὐδεὶς ὅστις οὐ βουλήσεται παύσασθαι Θηβαίους ἔχοντας τὴν ἀλλοτρίαν· εἰ δὲ μὴ, πρῶτον μὲν ἐναντίους 25 ἕξομεν πρὸς ἐκεῖνα τούτους εἰκότως, ὅταν ἡγῶνται τὴν ἐκείνων κατοίκισιν αὑτοῖς ὄλεθρον φέρειν, εἶτ ̓ ἀνήνυτα 209 πράγματα ἕξομεν αὐτοί· τί γὰρ ὡς ἀληθῶς ἔσται πέρας, ὅταν ἀεὶ τὰς μὲν οὖσας πόλεις ἐῶμεν ἀναιρεῖν, τὰς δ' ἀνῃρημένας ἀξιῶμεν οἰκίζειν ;

31

Λέγουσι τοίνυν οἱ μάλιστα δοκοῦντες δίκαια λέγειν ὡς 5 δεῖ τὰς στήλας καθελεῖν αὐτοὺς τὰς πρὸς Θηβαίους, εἴπερ ἡμέτεροι βεβαίως ἔσονται σύμμαχοι. οἱ δὲ φασὶ μὲν αὐτοῖς οὐκ εἶναι στήλας, ἀλλὰ τὸ συμφέρον εἶναι τὸ

us assert the obligation (φῶμεν δεῖν) of restoring the Boeotian towns of Thespiae, Orchomenus, and Plataeae, at the same time that we uphold the independence of Megalopolis and Messene.' On the other hand, the inconsistency of the Thebans is thus complained of in Isocrates (Orat. vi. § 29) by Archidamus: Θεσπιὰς μὲν καὶ Πλαταιὰς ἐχθὲς καὶ πρώην ἀναστάτους πεποιήκασι, Μεσσήνην δὲ διὰ τετρακοσίων ἐτῶν μέλλουσι κατοικίζειν. By aurois are meant the old inhabitants.

τὸν Ορχομενόν] The Scholiast on Thucyd. (i. 113) quotes this clause, to show that in Demosthenes Ορχομενός is used ἀρσενικῶς, instead of θηλυκώς, as in Thucydides.

ἐπὶ τῇ προφάσει] The Lacedaemonians had announced the principle of the restoration of ancient rights, which involved the re-establishment of Plataeae and Thespiae, a scheme sure to be popular at Athens. But it also was meant to include the resumption of the rights of Sparta over Messenia, and the destruction of Megalopolis,—results manifestly injurious to Athens. Demosthenes therefore warned his countrymen not to let the

pretext of Plataeae and Thespiae blind
them to the real objects of her ancient
rival.

κἂν ᾖ πρόδηλα ταῦτα] ‘and if this be
declared as your policy.'

πρὸς ἐκεῖνα] hostile to those other objects,' i. e. the restoration of the towns of Boeotia. By τούτους the Arcadians are meant.

ἀνήνυτα πράγματα] interminable troubles.'

τὰς στήλας] It was customary amongst the ancient Greeks to inscribe their treaties on plates and slabs of brass or stone, which so long as the treaties remained in force were carefully preserved in the national temples or other public places. (Thucyd. v. 47. 56) A treaty between the Thebans and the Megalopolitans appears to have been thus recorded, and the opponents of Demosthenes argued that the monuments on which it was inscribed ought to be taken down before Athens entered into alliance with Megalopolis.

αὐτοῖς οὐκ εἶναι] Το the demand for removing the monuments, the Megalopolitans replied that with them it is not monuments, but it is interest that makes

ποιοῦν τὴν φιλίαν, τοὺς δὲ βοηθοῦντας ἑαυτοῖς, τούτους 32 νομίζειν εἶναι συμμάχους. ἐγὼ δ ̓, εἰ τὰ μάλιστ ̓ εἰσὶ 10 τοιοῦτοι, ὡδί πως ἔχω. φημὶ δεῖν ἅμα τούτους ἀξιοῦν καθαιρεῖν τὰς στήλας καὶ Λακεδαιμονίους ἄγειν εἰρήνην, ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἐθέλωσι ποιεῖν ὁπότεροι ταῦτα, τότ ̓ ἤδη μετὰ 33 τῶν ἐθελόντων ἡμᾶς γίγνεσθαι. εἴτε γὰρ εἰρήνης γιγνομένης αὐτοῖς οἱ Μεγαλοπολῖται ἔτι τῆς Θηβαίων συμμαχίας 15 ἕξονται, φανεροὶ δήπου πᾶσιν ἔσονται τὴν πλεονεξίαν τὴν Θηβαίων, οὐ τὸ δίκαιον αἱρούμενοι· εἴτε συμμάχους ἡμᾶς ἀδόλως τῶν Μεγαλοπολιτῶν ποιουμένων μὴ ἐθελήσουσιν ἄγειν εἰρήνην οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι, δῆλοι δήπου πᾶσιν ἔσονται οὐχ ἵνα Θεσπιαὶ κατοικισθῶσι μόνον ποιούμενοι τὴν 20 σπουδὴν, ἀλλ ̓ ἵνα τοῦ πολέμου περιεστηκότος Θηβαίοις 34 τὴν Πελοπόννησον ὑφ ̓ αὑτοῖς ποιήσωνται. θαυμάζω δ' ἐνίων, εἰ τὸ μὲν Θηβαίων συμμάχους εἶναι τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίων ἐχθροὺς φοβοῦνται, εἰ δὲ καταστρέψονται Λακεδαιμόνιοι τούτους, μηδὲν ἡγοῦνται φοβερὸν, καὶ ταῦτ ̓ ἔργῳ 25 πεῖραν ἡμῖν δεδωκότος τοῦ χρόνου ὅτι Θηβαῖοι μὲν τούτοις συμμάχοις ἐπὶ Λακεδαιμονίους ἀεὶ χρῶνται, Λακεδαι- 210 μόνιοι δ ̓ ὅτ ̓ εἶχον αὐτοὺς, ἐφ' ἡμᾶς ἐχρῶντο.

35

Οἶμαι τοίνυν ἔγωγε κἀκεῖνο ἐνθυμεῖσθαι δεῖν, ὅτι μὴ προσδεξαμένων μὲν ὑμῶν τοὺς Μεγαλοπολίτας, ἐὰν μὲν ἀναιρεθῶσι καὶ διοικισθώσιν, ἰσχυροῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις 5 ἔστιν εὐθὺς εἶναι, ἐὰν δὲ σωθῶσιν ἄρα, ὡς ἤδη τι καὶ παρ' ἐλπίδας ἐξέβη, βέβαιοι σύμμαχοι Θηβαίων δικαίως

friendship. "In this clause," says Mr.
Kennedy, "lay the emphasis on ok and on
στήλας, and then the reading will express
the true sense." This will also at once show
the laborious trifling of the commentators
upon it.
Dobree observes, "olim correxi
φασὶν οὐ στήλας ἀλλὰ — deleto scholio,
quod agnoscit scholiastes, ut ex verbis
ejus apparet φησὶ γὰρ μὴ ὑπάρχειν
στήλας.” On which Dindorf remarks,
"aptissimum est quod Dobraeus conjecit."
To me it seems altogether uncalled for.

ἐγὼ δ'] • but granting they are in every respect such as they say (or that such are their views) I am yet of this opinion.'

τότ ̓ ἤδη | “ that then we should forthwith side with those who will. On ὁπότεροι Schafer says " vertendum utri

cunque : ut sit ὁποτεροιοῦν.”

εἴτε γάρ] for on the one hand, if though peace be secured to them the Megalopolitans shall still cling to the alliance of the Thebans.' A proof of this would be their refusal to pull down the monument recording the treaty.

θαυμάζω δ ̓ ἐνίων] • but I wonder at this in certain men, that they fear the enemies of the Lacedaemonians being allies of the Thebans, while they think there is nothing to fear should the Lacedaemonians subdue them.

ἐὰν μέν] in the event of their being overthrown and broken up into villages.' ὡς ἤδη τι] as indeed before this unhoped for events have happened.

βέβαιοι σύμμαχοι] The result proved

"

ἔσονται· ἂν δὲ προσδέξησθε, τούτοις μὲν ὑπάρξει ἤδη σωθῆναι δι ̓ ὑμᾶς, τὸ δὲ συμβησόμενον καὶ τὸν τοῦ κινδύνου λογισμὸν μετενεγκόντες σκοπῶμεν ἐπὶ Θηβαίων και 10 36 Λακεδαιμονίων. ἐὰν μὲν τοίνυν καταπολεμηθῶσιν οἱ Θηβαῖοι, ὥσπερ αὐτοὺς δεῖ, οὐκ ἔσονται μείζους τοῦ δέοντος οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι τούτους ἔχοντες ἀντιπάλους τοὺς ̓Αρκάδας, ἐγγὺς οἰκοῦντας· ἐὰν δ ̓ ἀνενέγκωσιν ἄρα οἱ Θηβαῖοι καὶ σωθῶσιν, ἀλλ ̓ οὖν ἀσθενέστεροί γε ἔσονται ἡμῖν 15 συμμάχων γεγενημένων τῶνδε καὶ δι ̓ ἡμᾶς σεσωσμένων ὥστε πανταχῆ συμφέρει μήτε προέσθαι τοὺς ̓Αρκάδας μήτε δι' αὑτοὺς, ἂν ἄρα σωθῶσι, περιγεγονέναι δοκεῖν, μήτε δι' ἄλλους τινὰς, ἀλλὰ δι ̓ ὑμᾶς.

37

Ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν, ὦ ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι, μὰ τοὺς θεοὺς οὔτε 20 φιλῶν οὐδετέρους οὔτε μισῶν ἰδίᾳ εἴρηκα, ἀλλ ̓ ἃ νομίζω συμφέρειν ὑμῖν· καὶ παραινῶ μὴ προέσθαι Μεγαλοπο λίτας, μηδ' ἄλλον ἁπλῶς μηδένα τῶν ἐλαττόνων τῷ μείζονι.

the wisdom of this remark. From subsequent events it would seem that the Athenians declined to protect the Megalopolitans against Sparta. For we find that Archidamus actually invaded the Megalopolitan territory in B.c. 352-351, with the troops and allies of Sparta, whereupon the Thebans sent a large body of troops to oppose them. Several engagements followed with various and balanced successes, till at last the Lacedaemonians concluded a peace, in which the independence of Megalopolis was either formally recognized or tacitly acknowledged. (Diod. xvi. 37, 38, 39.) But the Arcadian confederacy was alienated from Athens, and when the Megalopolitans were again alarmed at the designs of Sparta, they applied not to Athens, but to Philip, and so afforded him a pretext

ON THE TREATY WITH ALEXANDER.

THIS oration, though published in most of the editions of Demosthenes, is almost universally admitted to be spurious, on the ground both of ancient testimony and internal evidence. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (De Adm. vi. Demosth. p. 1127) includes it among the Yevdeπiypapoɩ, and Libanius in his Argument observes that the style is more like that of Hyperides than Demosthenes. In support of this opinion he quotes the words νεόπλουτοι and βδελυρεύσεται, which are not found in any other oration. On the other hand the Scholiast known as Ulpian asserts that it was attributed to Hegesippus. The French translator, Auger, thus expresses himself on the subject: Quoique ce discours se trouve dans les oeuvres de Démosthène, tous les critiques s'accordent à dire qu'il n'est pas de Démosthène. Je suis très fort de leur avis. Je n'y trouve point cette véhémence et cette rapidité de style, cette netteté, cette clarté lumineuse, cette profondeur dans les idées, qui caractérisent Démosthène." The subject-matter of it is very simple. It purports to be an address to the Athenian people, exhorting them to renounce the supremacy of Alexander king of Macedon, and the treaty which they and the other states of Greece had recently entered into with him. The writer alleges that Alexander had in several instances which he specifies violated this treaty, and that consequently the Athenians were no longer bound by it, but rather were called upon to declare war against him. To us, knowing as we do from history the power and the genius of Alexander, such advice, if honestly given, seems little short of madness, and is utterly inconsistent with the prudence and foresight of Demosthenes as exhibited in more than one of his speeches. He did indeed persuade the Athenians (Diod. xvii. 8) to vote an alliance with Thebes when that city revolted from Macedonia not long after Alexander's accession to the throne, and when he was

reported to have been defeated and slain by the Triballi (Servia); but this futile attempt was immediately crushed, and Thebes itself razed to the ground by the conqueror (B.c. 335). It may also be observed that, if Demosthenes had really given such advice, we might have expected some allusion to it in the subsequent Speech on the Crown (B.c. 330), where, notwithstanding, there is not even a remark upon it. Mr. Grote (xii. 22) however thinks there is no reason for doubting that it is "a genuine oration of one of the contemporary orators," and he accordingly assumes that its statements are historically true, as indeed they seem to be. But whoever was the author, it cannot be supposed that any Athenian of note would have dared to make such a speech, either while Alexander was in Greece immediately after his destruction of Thebes, or after his successes in Asia. We must therefore infer that, if delivered at all, its date was early in B.C. 355, before the taking of Thebes, and not many months after the convention with Alexander. That he was not in Asia at the time, is implied by the words ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἔχων περιέρχεται, in § 20. (Böhnecke, Forschungen, p. 629.)