« PreviousContinue »
§ 27. inißolàs inéßahλe, “inflicted penalties." Rather imposed fines, for the most part of trifling amount. Comp. Platner, Process u. Klagen der Attiker, I. 309. Eschines de fals. leg. says that Demosthenes incurred an epibole from the Areopagus for dropping the prosecution of his cousin Demomeles. (§ 93. Comp. § 51 of the present oration).
§ 27. Mr. Champlin here proposes a solution of certain chronological problems which have occupied much attention. We are tempted to enter into this matter somewhat at length, although we are far from hoping to clear the subject from all its perplexities, and are well aware that a thorough discussion of the subject would demand a large treatise. The words of Æschines on which the discussion hangs are, when literally translated, as follows. "In the archonship of Chaerondas on the last day but one of Thargelion, at an assembly of the people Demosthenes proposed a resolution to hold a meeting of the tribes [i. e. of each separate tribe] on the second and third days of Skirrhophorion," (i. e. on the third and fourth days after the passage of the resolution, which had respect to the appointment of inspectors of the walls, of whom Demosthenes was chosen one.) It will be convenient now to insert certain dates, that the whole subject may lie in a brief form before the eyes of our readers.
In Olymp. 110. 2 = summer of 339 B. C.
Elaphebolion 6 March 26, 339. Date of the roa¶y napavóμav brought by Eschines, according to record in
Demosth. de cor. § 119.
June 16, 339. Date of resolution of
Demosthenes to appoint inspectors of the walls. Skirrhophorion 2 or 3 June 19 or 20, 339. Demosthenes appointed inspector of the walls. For conduct during that office a crown is proposed to be given him by Ctesiphon. This proposition is attacked by Æschines as illegal three months before Demosthenes was invested with the office.1
This glaring absurdity of bringing an action several months before the illegality on which it was grounded could have been committed is removed in several different ways. And first, attempts have been made to remove it on the supposition that the record in Demosthenes is genuine, and has the true date. We know of three such attempts, Mr. Clinton's, Mr. Champlin's and Boeckh's. Mr. Clinton's solution (Fas
1 We have reduced the dates according to Ideler's tables (Handbuch d. Chronol. 1. 383 et seq.)
ti Hellenici, p. 363, note f.) is that the reference in Eschines is merely to the fact that Demosthenes was in office, and not to the time of his appointment. This solution is justly rejected by Mr. Champlin, and indeed is unworthy of mention: how it fell from its author is wonderful. Mr. Champlin's solution is that Eschines suffered a lapse of memory: the appointment took place the month and day named in the year before, and the phrase ἐπὶ Χαιρώνδου instead of ἐπὶ Λυσιμαχίdov, "was used unconsciously by way of anticipation, with reference to the time of his holding his office, and not to the time of his appointment." That Eschines might forget dates cannot indeed be pronounced impossible. And yet he certainly knew when the battle of Chaeronea took place if he knew any thing, and must have had a distinct recollection of the time, relative to that event, when his foe received his appointment. Nor is it credible that such a blunder, if he had fallen into it, could have failed of being discovered by him or his friends before he gave the last touches to his oration. We cannot think, therefore, that Mr. Champlin will be thought to have solved the riddle successfully. Finally Boeckh's solution, at the close of his treatise de Archontibus Atticis Pseudonymis, (Berlin Transactions for 1827,) is none other than that the text of Æschines is corrupt. The orator wrote πρὸ Χαιρώνδου meaning in the year before that archon ; and used that form because every body knew what important events fell within that year, while the mention of his predecessor Lysimachides would have awakened no definite recollection of the times. But this being an unusual form of speech was altered by a scribe into ἐπὶ Χαιρώνδου. This conjecture of so very eminent a man carries great weight with it, and has been to some extent adopted. It derived its strength no doubt in the author's mind, from a conviction, that the repairs of the walls must have been undertaken before the battle of Chaeronea and in preparation for a possible attack of Philip during the war. But when it is considered that that persuasion may be shown to be not well founded, that the solution is a violent surgical process, and that the phrase πρότινος ἄρχοντος, with the sense in the year before, is a phrase of questionable authority, it will not be thought strange if this theory be entirely discarded.
Another theory framed with a view to explain this chronological discrepance proceeds on the supposition that the decree in Demosthenes is a genuine document, but the name of the archon incorrectly given. It is well known that Boeckh's theory in which he is followed by Winiewski and others, is that these documents were inserted into the oration on the Crown by a later editor; that he extracted them from some collection of public acts derived from marbles and from the
Third Theory in regard to the Records.
records of the Metroum; that these records, arranged in pigeon-holes according to the series of archons, had in the course of time lost the names of these magistrates; and that the name of the scribe, (the γραμματεὺς κατὰ πρυτανείαν) which was attached to the decrees was by some great blunder supposed to be the name of the archon Eponymus.1 The editor who inserted these documents into the first half of the oration committed a still greater blunder: he put them into the wrong place, and thus entirely falsified history, so as to involve in a perfect fog all the older enquirers from Corsini down to Clinton, and to force Boeckh and succeeding writers, particularly Böhneke to the most laborious researches as to the true historical niche which the records are to fill. If such a date could be satisfactorily assigned, if history opened its arms to receive these documents or even did not reject them, it would be strong testimony in favor of their genuineness that they even conformed to known events. But this is not the case. Thus Boeckh and Winiewski assume a peace between the Athenians and Philip in Olymp. 110. 2. B. C. 339., to which the documents in §§ 29, 37, of the oration on the Crown is supposed to relate. But Böhneke has shown to our satisfaction that no such peace existed. And the same diversity of opinion extends to several other documents. The most skilful historical enquirers find no hole where they exactly fit.
The decree for crowning Demosthenes (§119 or. de cor.) has confessedly a wrong date, as there was no archon Euthycles. The copy of the graphe in § 54, Böeckh thinks to have a correct date: but Böhneke, with reason, dissents from him, and shows by arguments, which our limits will not allow us to detail, that the whole affair from its very commencement was posterior to the fight at Chaeronea; that the date in Eschines, the passage before us, is right; and that for the archonship of Chaerondas we must read the archonship of Phrynichus, his next successor. And surely, if no urgent reasons required us to adhere to the date of this record as a true one, the lie or mistake which so many of its brethren carry on their faces, is a strong presumption against it.
A third theory still disposes more summarily of this whole tribe of records, as being forgeries; or at least as a mixed mass of true copies of letters picked out of Theopompus (or some other historian) in company with documents wholly or in part false. We must confess that
1 The document in § 54 of the or. de cor. Boeckh regards as the only one having the name of a true archon affixed to it.
These documents are inserted in the oration on the Crown, as relating to the peace of Philocrates in B. C. 346. Böhneke refers them to a peace which he assigns to B. C. 336, just before Philip's death. VOL. VII. No. 27.
after no little study formerly given to this difficult matter, we incline to this view, and we find ourselves in the honorable company of one of the first Greek scholars now living, not to mention others, K. F. Hermann, who in his work on the political antiquities of Greece, (Third ed. § 138, note 5.) thus expresses himself," am wahrscheinlichsten bleibt mir die gänzliche unächtheit der urkunden bei Demosth. de Corona."
The forgery in the particular case of the document in § 118, the decree to crown Demosthenes, comes out to the light, unless something can be said in its favor. For while Eschines jeers in his oration at the ardoayavía of Demosthenes, there we find mention of his καλοκαγάθια; while Æschines quotes διατελεῖ πράττων καὶ λέγων ὅ τι ἂν δύνηται ἀγαθόν, of all this there is not a word in the decree; and while Eschines mentions as in the said document the good will which Demosthenes continually showed towards the Greeks, this too has given way in favor of a new expression ἀρετῆς ἑνέκα καὶ καλοκαγαθίας ἧς ἔχων διατελεῖ ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ εἰς τὸν δῆμον τὸν Ἀθηναίων. But for all these differences Winiewski and Böhneke have a ready answer. The document is not as Ctesiphon originally wrote it, but was altered after the cause was tried; because the question on the decree could be carried in a modified shape to suit the times the better. But as Demosthenes, on this supposition, had just gained a brilliant victory in the court, which assured him of a large majority in the assembly on his side, how can he be supposed to have consented to such an alteration of the decree as καλοκαγαθία for ἀνδραγαθία, which looks like a tacit admission of his cowardice, or to modifications which decidedly lower the tone of eulogy. The supposition seems to us a very unnatural one.1
The ditches too may ha been mentioned in the genuine decree, as they are in the indictment, § 54. If it be said that a forger having the knowledge of Attic usages which these records show, would have done his work better than to be guilty of such an inconsistency with Æschines, we need only reply, that one, who by the confession of all scholars made such gross historical blunders as he makes, could have been guilty of another piece of carelessness not grosser.
Speaking of carelessness let us be allowed this opportunity of rebuking the author of the article schines in the Dictionary of Mythology and Biography. After mentioning the first embassy to Philip on which both Eschines and Demosthenes went, he goes on to say that another embassy was sent to Philip to receive his oaths, consisting of five persons, one of whom was schines, while Demosthenes staid at home. And the authority for this is the document in § 29 de corona. Surely the author ought to have been aware that the orations of the two orators, especially those de falsi legatione, make known to us, beyond the possibility of question, that there were ten embassadors in the second embassy, as well as in the first, and that Demosthenes was a member of both. He tells why he went the second time, and we have the names of all or nearly all his ten colleagues.
$30. There were twelve 70ITzves, founded probably upon the four original tribes at Athens, [in Attica.] This division was for financial purposes." Rather this division, about which next to nothing is known, was probably retained for financial and administrative purposes.
§ 31. "The Great Dionysia in March." Rather in March or April. When the Attic year began at the earliest date possible, that is on the 25th of June, the first of Elaphebolion answered to the 17th of March. In this case the Great Dionysia, which fell about the middle of that month, ended just about the beginning of our April. In all other cases, in fifteen years out of the cycle of nineteen, they must have been included within our April.
§ 33. ἐπιγράψαντας νομοθέτας, “having inscribed upon the call (i. e. assigned) nomothetae. That is the interpretation of F. A. Wolf, which seems to me much better than that of Schömann (assemb. Ath., p. 249,) which makes these words merely indicate the general subject to be attended to at the meeting ('having added': i. e. as the subject of the meeting, 'nomothetae.') The nomothetae seem to have been appointed by the prytanes, (see Dem. contr. Timoc., § 27)." Wolf's words are "iniyoúáger, ut ánodidóra est attribuere ἐπιγράφειν, ἀποδιδόναι designare, constituere, quod populi fuit proprie, non Prytanum, sed his, tanquam ecclesiam habentibus, id commode tribui potest." (Proleg. to Dem. or. Leptin. ad fin.) That is, schines speaks of the Prytanes as appointing the nomothetae, because they presided over the meeting where that business was performed by the people. To which Schömann replies with reason, that the word iniyoάeir can have no such meaning, and, if it could, that the participle should be in the future and not in the aorist. Mr. Champlin seems to have supposed Wolf to mean that the prytanes were to hold an assembly' [viz. of a special kind at which only the nomothetae were present,] "having previously inscribed upon the whitened board of advertisement the persons who should be nomothetae." It is evident that Wolf can have had no such assembly in his view. Still if, as Mr. C. seems to suppose, for we do not entirely get possession of his opinion, — noteîv έxxλɛoíav denotes to hold an assembly of the nomothetae, so called because they were a large committee of the people; and if, as he thinks, the same body is afterwards spoken of as the duos ; some difficulties which attend the interpretation of this passage will be removed. As for the appointment of the nomothetae coming from the prytanes, it is not to be thought of, as will presently appear.
We beg leave to trespass upon the patience of our readers, with some further remarks upon this place, of which we can say with