« PreviousContinue »
foreign woman had the rights of citizenship. Now as Demosthenes was born in or before B. C. 381, his grandfather Gylon most probably allied himself to the Scythia lady before 403, so that her children must have been legitimate Athenians. Eschines here and elsewhere carries the effect of a law of his own time further back than the time of its enactment.
§ 172. rv novηgíar," in his vicious pronunciation." We wonder at this singular translation, particularly when the plain sense that the rascality of Demosthenes is not of native growth so readily strikes the eye.
§ 173. τοὺς λόγους . . . ἀντιδίκοις, “ producing the speeches for the opposing parties i. e. for both the parties in a suit, as in the case of Phormio, and Apollodorus. See Plutarch's life of Demosthenes." We think that exqέoor will not take the sense of producing, or composing, as a literary composition. It can only mean publishing, disclosing. The orator wishes to say that Demosthenes, being thought to be unworthy of confidence in this trade of writing speeches, (nɛgì ravTα) and being used to make known the contents of the speeches to the opposite party in suits, pushed himself all at once into politics. The phrase exqéger λóyovs is used in the same sense in the oration of Demosthenes against Nicostratus g 14: ἔπειτ ̓ ἀγώνων μοι συνεστηκότων πρὸς αὐτοὺς τοὺς τε λόγους ἐκφέρει εὖ εἰδώς, κ. τ. λ. It is quite probable that the plurals which Æschines uses,—λόγους and ἀντίδικοις-loosely refer to one particular affair; and that affair without doubt must be the same to which Eschines alludes in the or. de fals. leg. § 165. He there says "wherein shall we perceive the innate traitor? Shall we not in his using as you have done those who have intercourse with him and have trusted him ;— in his writing speeches for pay to be delivered in the courts, and then divulging them to the opposite party. (λόγους γράφοντα μισθοῦ τούτους ἐκφέρειν τοὺς ἀντιδίκοις.) You wrote a speech for Phormio the banker and took money for it. This speech you divulged (communicated veyxas,) to Apollodorus who was plaintiff in a capital suit against Phormio." (z negì rov gwμaτος κρίνοντι Φορμίωνα, i. e. in a suit affecting the civil status of Phormio.) It is quite probable that this charge is entirely unfounded. Plutarch, who refers twice to the transaction, (in the life of Demosthenes, and in the parallel between him and Cicero,) in all probability knows nothing of it which we do not learn from Æschines and from the orations themselves which have come down to us; and also blunders in saying what Eschines does not affirm, that the orator wrote for both parties to a suit. The facts, as far as we can gather them 1 Comp. K. F. Hermann u. s. § 118. 10.
Remarks on the Notes.
from the orations for Phormio and against Stephanus are these, that in the first instance Demosthenes wrote a speech for Phormio when sued by Apollodorus for capital lying in his hands. The speech is a plea against the admissibility of the action, as being already decided by selected arbitrators. The speech for Apollodorus on the other hand was written for a subsequent plea, on an action of false witness (which was a private action at Athens,) against one Stephanus a witness for Phormio. It is indeed possible that in the first action what Æschines mentions may have occurred; and it is possible also that some other quarrel arose between these men of which we know nothing; but in the general looseness of the Attic orators as to facts, it is pretty safe to conclude that Eschines had no more ground for his charge than that Demosthenes wrote a speech first for Phormio and then in a new suit arising out of the same affair for his adversary. We have dwelt the longer on this passage because we have found little help for the understanding of it in the commentators whom we have consulted.
§ 211. κάθαρμα ζηλοτυποῦν ἀρετήν, “ wretch hating virtue.” We prefer the other meaning which can be assigned to Chorvпovv, affect ing, pretending to. This, which Bremi rejects, is almost required by the contrast. Such things would a man say who had really lived virtuously; but what you will say, a wretch would say who pretended to (wished the reputation of) virtue.
§ 214. ¿μnλnšíav. "Dicitur de iis qui tonitru tanguntur. Hinc tropice de iis qui non sunt sanae mentis." Bremi. Like έμπληκτος in many passages the word here has the specific sense of fickleness, changeableness. This indeed is shown by the sense, and derives some support from the circumstance that one article suffices for this word and for delíav. As fickleness and cowardice are closely connected qualities, the orator binds them together by one article. Another abstract noun of unlike nature he would have been apt to keep more distinct by using two articles.
§ 240. "Did not the mercenary soldiers deliver up the citadel to the Thebans for five talents?" The sense is just the reverse. The first où, affecting the whole interrogative sentence, requires an affirmative answer; while the second où denies nagédoσav. Did not the merce
If the words Teρì тov σwμatos kрívоvтi be not a gross exaggeration, and really refer to the suit against Stephanus, to which Phormio was no immediate party, they must be understood of the danger which Phormio would incur, if his witness should be convicted of falsehood. There would then lie a suit of KaKoTεXVIÊN against him which probably, like a δίκη ψευδομαρτυρίας was an ἀγὼν τιμητός, so that the damages could involve even loss of life, at the pleasure of the plaintiff' and of the judges.
naries fail of delivering up the Cadmea? The events here referred to are dwelt on more at large by another enemy of Demosthenes, Dinarchus, (or. in Demosth. § 18 Bekker) and derive illustration from Arrian. (Anab. I. 7, and I. 10.) While the citadel of Thebes was occupied by a garrison in the Macedonian pay, the city revolted, and the Arcadians who had started from home for the aid of Thebes, on learning that it was taken and sacked by Alexander, turned back and punished the instigators of their expedition with death. Dinarchus says that Astylus, their general, demanded ten talents, as his price for aiding Thebes; and that ambassadors came in vain to implore Demosthenes to furnish that sum of money; while an agent of the opposite party paid the Arcadians the same sum for going back.
§ 242. The date here assigned by Mr. Champlin to the death of Alexander king of Epirus is, we believe, the correct one. It excites some surprise, when we find in the Dictionary of Biog. and Mythol., under Alexander I. of Epirus, another date for his death, viz., the year 326. The authorities to which the author of that article refers suffice for his confutation. Livy (VIII. 24) says that Alexandria was founded and this Alexander slain in the same year; and although the Roman year to which these events are assigned, does not synchronize with the veritable Olympian year, yet this is too common a thing in earlier Roman history to trouble any one, while the concurrence of two such events, as the abovementioned, upon the same year, is likely to be a positive fact; and may serve to rectify chronology. Now the time of the foundation of Alexandria is well ascertained to belong to the end of 332 B. C., or to the beginning of 331. And again Justin says, that about the time of the death of Darius (dum haec aguntur XII. 1.) Alexander received letters from Antipater informing him of the defeat and death of Agis III, king of Sparta in Greece, and of the death of his own brother-in-law, Alexander of Epirus, in Italy, (cognitis mortibus duorum aemulorum regum. ibid.) Now the date of no event of antiquity is more certain than that of the death of Darius. It occurred according to one of the most cautious of ancient historians— Arrian - in the first Attic month of the archon Aristophon, which month commenced July 1, 330 B. C. If now we would allow for the time necessary to transmit news from Italy and to forward messengers to Alexander, we must assign the death of Alexander of Epirus to the end of 331 or the beginning of 330.
§ 243. διὰ τὸν περίπλουν τὸν εἰς Κέρκυραν. “ On account of the circuitous voyage to Corcyra. He went first to Thrace after vessels and then south round the Peloponnesus to Corcyra, etc." word neginλovs denotes not a circuitous voyage, but a voyage around
Pythian Games in the Autumn.
any point or peninsula. The necessary circumnavigation of peninsular Greece gave rise to the word, and not that Timotheus did not take the direct route.
§ 254. Æschines here says that, in a few days the Pythian games were to be held, and the Amphictyonic council was to meet. On this passage Mr. C. quotes from Bremi that these games were not celebrated in the same month of different years, but that for the most part they took place in the month Elaphebolion or March. We believe that this information is erroneous in more than one respect, and beg leave to make a few remarks upon the point on account of its historical importance.
The death of Darius then as we have seen occurred in July 330, during the first month of the archon Aristophon at Athens, and the rival orations of Æschines and Demosthenes are assigned on the authority of Dionysius of Halicarnassus to the same year. Alexander would without fail send speedy news to Greece of the death of the Persian king. But he is spoken of as alive by Eschines in § 132, where he says "Is not the king of the Persians... now contending not for mastery over others but for the safety of his person?" These orations then were delivered during that archonship before the news of the death of Darius could reach Greece; that is we may say, without being venturesome-before the first three months of the year had run out. The Pythia and the meeting of the council then fell upon the early part of the autumn.
The force of this argument—which in the words of Eschines we may call an aquxτos λóyos1is sought to be turned aside in a very strange and unsatisfactory way by Boeckh in his notes on the Amphictyonic marble. (Corp. Inscr. Vol. I. No. 1688.) He says: this could have been said even if the death of Darius were known. Nay, we it so known, so much the more weight does the sentence have, in which Eschines lays before the minds of the Athenians a very sad event lately announced, and in gentle words expresses his pity. All that Æschines says could be retained although something relating to the death of Darius be added. He might have written after this manner: νῦν οὐ περὶ τοῦ κύριος ἑτέρων εἶναι διαγωνίζεται, ἀλλ ̓ ἤδη περὶ τῆς τοῦ σώματος σωτηρίας· ὃν ἔναγχος ἠκούσατε ἀπεσφάχθαι: but he does not add this last clause, because all knew of the fact." Moreover, continues Boeckh, the passage where Eschines (§ 165) speaks of Alexander, as (too τns άoxzov etc.) beyond the north and almost
This is only one argument out of many in favor of assigning the Pythia to the autumn.
outside of the world, must refer to his northern expedition after the death of Darius. With regard to the first of these arguments, it is enough to say that if Æschines had written, as this eminent scholar says he might have done, he would have written absurdly even if Darius had left a successor; how much more when his empire fell with him. With regard to the second, we affirm that the words of Æschines are hyperbolic, and what renders it certain that they cannot have the reference which Boeckh seeks in them is, that they are connected in time by the orator with the warlike movements in Peloponnesus, on the part of the Lacedaemonians and others, in 331 B. C. "The Lacedaemonians and mercenaries met in battle and crushed the troops with Corragus -and all Arcadia had gone over except Megalopolis, and that was under siege and daily its capture expected, while Alexander had retired beyond the north, etc. and Antipater was a long time collecting an army, and the issue was uncertain." Can anything be clearer than that none of these circumstances is of later date than the death of Darius, unless they all are?
Boeckh entertained the opinion that the Pythia were held in the spring; but nearly everybody who has expressed himself on this subject of late has looked for them on the opposite side of the year, in the autumn, although the exact time cannot be ascertained. The important marble, to which reference was made above, informs us that they were to be celebrated in the Delphic month Bucatius. Without entering into the question in what part of the year that month fell, we can only say here, that K. F. Hermann regards it as made out and settled that it fell within the autumn, and he synchronizes it with the Attic month Baedromion. The evidence as to the time of the Pythia may be found in Clinton's Fasti Hellenici, Appendix I., and in Böhneke's Forschungen, Vol. I. p. 307. See also K. F. Hermann de anno Delphico, (Götting. 1844), his Griechische monatskunde (Götting. 1844.), p. 50, and his Religious Antiquities of Greece, § 49, note 12.
As the Amphictyonic Council met at Delphi in the autumn, their spring session was at Thermopylae. Hence the Documents in Demosthenes de Cor. (§§ 154, 155), which speak of a spring session at Delphi, on the occasion of which Eschines discourses at length (§ 115 -125), are likely to prove forgeries. We know that their character has been defended by Schömann (Antiq. jur. publ. Graec. p. 391), who accepts an hypothesis once started by Heeren, that the deputies always met spring and autumn, first at Thermopylae, and then, after some sacred rites were performed, adjourned to Delphi. But Æschines again oversets this theory; for the only meeting at the former place, of which we know anything, was, according to his statement (§ 128),