ψαντος ἐμοῦ πρέσβεις ἀπὸ τῆς συμμαχίας πάσης, ἵν ̓ ὦσι μάρτυρες, καὶ βουλομένου ποιήσασθαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς δικαίας ὁμολογίας ὑπὲρ τῶν Ἑλλήνων, οὐδὲ τοὺς περὶ τούτων 25 λόγους ἐδέξασθε παρὰ τῶν πρεσβευόντων, ἐξὸν ὑμῖν ἢ τῶν κινδύνων ἀπαλλάξαι τοὺς δυσχερὲς ὑποπτεύοντάς τι καθ' 164 ἡμῶν, ἡ φανερῶς ἐξελέγξαι με φαυλότατον ὄντα τῶν ἁπάν 21 των. τῷ μὲν οὖν δήμῳ ταῦτα συνέφερε, τοῖς δὲ λέγουσιν οὐκ ἐλυσιτέλει. φασὶ γὰρ οἱ τῆς πολιτείας τῆς παρ' ὑμῖν ἔμπειροι τὴν μὲν εἰρήνην πόλεμον αὐτοῖς εἶναι, τὸν δὲ 5 πόλεμον εἰρήνην· ἡ γὰρ συναγωνιζομένους τοῖς στρατηγοῖς ἢ συκοφαντοῦντας ἀεί τι λαμβάνειν παρ' αὐτῶν, ἔτι δὲ τῶν πολιτῶν τοῖς γνωριμωτάτοις καὶ τῶν ἔξωθεν τοῖς ἐνδοξο τάτοις λοιδορουμένους ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος περιποιεῖσθαι παρὰ τοῦ πλήθους δόξαν ὡς εἰσὶ δημοτικοί. 10 22 Ρᾴδιον μὲν οὖν ἐστί μοι παῦσαι τῆς βλασφημίας αὐτοὺς μικρὰ πάνυ προεμένῳ, καὶ ποιῆσαι λέγειν ἐπαίνους ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. ἀλλ ̓ αἰσχυνοίμην ἂν, εἰ τὴν πρὸς ἡμᾶς εὔνοιαν παρὰ τούτων φαινοίμην ὠνούμενος, οἳ πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις εἰς τοῦτο τόλμης ἤκουσιν ὥστε καὶ περὶ ̓Αμφι- 15 πόλεως πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἀμφισβητεῖν ἐπιχειροῦσιν, ὑπὲρ ἧς τῶν ἀντιποιουμένων αὐτῆς οἶμαι πολὺ δικαιότερα λέγειν αὐτός. 23 εἴτε γὰρ τῶν ἐξ ἀρχῆς κρατησάντων γίγνεται, πῶς οὐ δικαίως ἡμεῖς αὐτὴν ἔχομεν, ̓Αλεξάνδρου τοῦ προγόνου uses it, and therefore an indication that the writer was later than the time of Demosthenes. πρέσβεις ἀπὸ τῆς συμμαχίας] ambas. sadors from all the confederates,' i. e. of the Amphictyonic union. The embassy in question is generally supposed to be that which led to the Second Philippic in B.c. 344. Libanius indeed states in his Argument to that Oration, that it was suggested by the arrival of ambassadors from Philip. Mr. Grote (xi. 615) on the other hand says: "I cannot bring myself to believe, on the authority of Libanius, that there were any envoys present from Philip. The tenour of the discourse appears to contradict that supposition." τοὺς δυσχερὲς ὑποπτεύοντάς τι] ‘those who entertain any unpleasant suspicions against me.' δημοτικοί] 'friends of the democracy.' μικρὰ πάνυ προεμένῳ] ' at a very small expense.' Considering that Demosthenes was constantly asserting that Philip had bribed some of the orators at Athens, this was a strange admission to make. ̓Αλεξάνδρου τοῦ προγόνου] This was the Alexander who for some time served with Xerxes on his invasion of Greece, and was employed by him to make a very tempting offer to the Athenians, if they would desert the common cause of Greece (Herod. viii. 140). But the assertions of the text are not confirmed by any historical record that has come down to us, nor by the probabilities of the case. Herodotus (viii. 121) does indeed testify to the existence of a golden statue at Delphi, offered from the åkpolívia of the spoils of the defeated Persians, but he does not πρώτου κατασχόντος τὸν τόπον, ὅθεν καὶ τῶν αἰχμαλώτων 20 Μήδων ἀπαρχὴν ἀνδριάντα χρυσοῦν ἀνέστησεν εἰς Δελφούς ; εἴτε τούτων μὲν ἀμφισβητήσειέ τις, ἀξιοῖ δὲ γίγνεσθαι τῶν ὕστερον γενομένων κυρίων, ὑπάρχει μοι καὶ τοῦτο τὸ δίκαιον· ἐκπολιορκήσας γὰρ τοὺς ὑμᾶς μὲν ἐκβαλόντας, ὑπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων δὲ κατοικισθέντας ἔλαβον τὸ 25 24 χωρίον. καίτοι πάντες οἰκοῦμεν τὰς πόλεις ἢ τῶν προγόνων παραδόντων ἢ κατὰ πόλεμον κύριοι καταστάντες. ὑμεῖς δὲ οὔτε πρῶτοι λαβόντες οὔτε νῦν ἔχοντες, ἐλάχιστον δὲ χρόνον ἐν τοῖς τόποις ἐμμείναντες ἀντιποιεῖσθε τῆς 165 πόλεως, καὶ ταῦτα πίστιν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν αὐτοὶ βεβαιοτάτην ἐπιθέντες· πολλάκις γὰρ ἐμοῦ γράφοντος ἐν ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς ἐγνώκατε δικαίως ἔχειν ἡμᾶς, τότε μὲν ποιησάμενοι τὴν εἰρήνην ἔχοντος ἐμοῦ τὴν πόλιν, κατα κ 25 συμμαχίαν ἐπὶ ταῖς αὐταῖς ὁμολογίαις. καίτοι πῶς ἂν ἑτέρα γένοιτο βεβαιοτέρα ταύτης κτῆσις, τῆς τὸ μὲν ἐξ ἀρχῆς καταλειφθείσης ἡμῖν ὑπὸ τῶν προγόνων, πάλιν δὲ κατὰ πόλεμον ἐμῆς γεγενημένης, τρίτον δὲ συγχωρηθείσης ὑφ ̓ ὑμῶν τῶν εἰθισμένων ἀμφισβητεῖν καὶ τῶν οὐδὲν ὑμῖν 10 προσηκόντων ; even allude to the alleged victory gained over them at Amphipolis, a circumstance which, if true, must have been known to, and would scarcely have been omitted by him. Moreover, Amphipolis did not as such exist at that time, for it was not founded till forty-three years afterwards by Hagnon with a colony from Athens. Its original name was Εννέα ὁδοί. Thucyd. i. 100, and iv. 102. Possibly the writer followed some Macedonian traditions on the subject unknown to the rest of Greece, though the alleged fact is appealed to as well known to the Athenians, and of indisputable authority. Jacobs remarks that " Philip appears to have taken advantage of the remoteness of the times (die Entfernung der Zeiten) to bring forward a very doubtful if not untrue statement.” Herodotus (ix. 89) asserts that the retreating Persians were cut up not by the Macedonians but by the Thracians. Comp. c. Aristoc. § 239, and Mr. Blakesley's note on Herod. 1. c. quoted on the Περὶ Συντάξεως, § 27. ὑπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων κατοικισθέντας] This again is scarcely a true representation of πίστιν . . . ἐπιθέντες] ‘when you have eival is not, I think, often (if indeed it is ever) used in Attic Greek in the sense which it bears here, and perhaps not in any other. Comp. ἀνάγκας ἐπιθείς, § 3. ἐπὶ ταῖς αὐταῖς ὁμολογίαις] ‘on the same terms,' that is, of my keeping it. πῶς ἂν ἑτέρα . . . κτῆσις;] ' how could any other acquisition have a stronger title than this?' 26 Α μὲν οὖν ἐγκαλῶ, ταῦτ ̓ ἐστίν· ὡς δὲ προϋπαρχόντων καὶ διὰ τὴν ἐμὴν εὐλάβειαν μᾶλλον ἤδη τοῖς πράγμασιν ἐπιτιθεμένων καὶ καθ ̓ ὅσον ἂν δύνησθε κακοποιούντων, ὑμᾶς ἀμυνοῦμαι μετὰ τοῦ δικαίου, καὶ μάρτυρας τοὺς 15 θεοὺς ποιησάμενος διαλήψομαι περὶ τῶν καθ ̓ ὑμᾶς. ὡς δὲ προϋπαρχόντων] ‘but as you are the aggressors, and are by reason of my forbearance now making still further encroachments.' διαλήψομαι] ‘I will have a decision about my differences with you. Here again we have a phrase by no means customary in ordinary Greek, and such as an Athenian would probably not have used. ON THE REGULATION OF THE STATE. THERE is no satisfaction in the attempt to illustrate or explain a speech like the Пepì Zvvráέews, for we cannot determine whether it was an oration made by an actor in real life, or merely a μeλérnua, i. e. a kind of scholastic exercise by some sophist or rhetorician. The received opinion is, that Demosthenes was not the author of it, and though Mr. Grote (xi. 498) "alludes with confidence to it and the fourth Philippic as Demosthenic compositions," still the impression, produced by a careful perusal, is certainly not in favour of the supposition that Demosthenes composed and delivered it in the shape in which it has come down to us, if indeed he was in any sense its author. It does not profess to have been occasioned by any particular incident in Athenian or Hellenic history, and though it refers to many historic, and, as it would seem, almost contemporary events, yet it does not even once refer to Philip,-an omission which would be unaccountable in a state speech of Demosthenes. It purports indeed, in the opening, to have been delivered before the Athenians when assembled on a question of finance, but in such vague and general terms as a speech-maker might have used on an imaginary occasion, and with no real or practical object in view. The sentiments expressed in it are, it is true, quite Demosthenic in character, but they are such as might readily have been adopted by a reader of the preceding orations, and they are certainly not enforced with any of the freshness and vigour which stamp and identify the productions of the great orator of Athens. The style also is for the most part easy and flowing, but it is tame and spiritless, and the 'argumentandi tenue filum,' though certainly in a tenuis causa' (Cicero, Orat. i. 36), and so far appropriate, confirms the conclusion suggested by other considerations. Of these, one is derived from the fact that Dionysius Halicarnassus makes no allusion to the speech in his letter to Ammaeus. As for the subject-matter, Libanius observes, that the speech is no longer Φιλιππικός, but simply συμβουλευτικός, and the advice which it gives is merely a repetition of the recommendations in the first and third Olynthiacs, for a reform in the Theoric distributions, and a practical recognition of the principle, that all payments from the state should be for some service rendered to it. The title IIepi Evvrásews has been variously rendered, the word Ouvragis sometimes meaning a regulated tax or contribution, such as the confederate Greeks arranged to pay after their defeat of the Persians, as a defence fund against further hostilities from them. Thus in Isocrates (Areop. p. 140) we find ouvrágeis væотeλoûνтas, and in the De Chers. § 22, ràs σvvrážeis Aioπeíbei didoμev, the same word meaning in one passage contributions according to agreement, and in the other, pay according to contract. But here it is used in a wider sense to signify a projected arrangement of public services and payments, by which one was to be made a fair equivalent for, and accompaniment of the other, and which was to secure to the state from every citizen the discharge of some public duty consistent with his ability and circumstances. Hence, says Mr. Kennedy, the word bears a meaning similar to Shakspeare's "Act of order," Henry V., Act i. sc. 2, and he adopts as a title, "The Oration on the Duties of the State." H. Wolf, who is followed by Schäfer and Dindorf, styles it "De ordinanda Republica;" Auger, "Sur le Gouvernement de la République," a translation quite inaccurate; Pabst "Ueber die Einrichtung des Staats;" and Leland, "The Oration on the Regulation of the State," which I think satisfactory and adopt. As it is not certain that the Oration was ever delivered in public, I have not prefixed any date to it, but from § 9, where mention is made of the overthrow of the Rhodian Democracy, it is evident that it must have been written after that event, and therefore not before B. C. 351. |