Jackson, Rowe, Demosthenes 1915-1965, Lustrum 14

/XVWUXPLQWHUQDWLRQDOH)RUVFKXQJVEHULFKWHDXVGHP%HUHLFKGHVNODVVLVFKHQ
$OWHUWXPV
%G
*|WWLQJHQ
=
XUQQEQGHEYEEVE
'LH3')'DWHLNDQQHOHNWURQLVFKGXUFKVXFKWZHUGHQ
LUSTRUM
INTERNATIONALE
FORSCHUNGSBERICHTE
AUS DEM B E R E I C H D E S K L A S S I S C H E N ALTERTUMS
Mit Untersttzung der UNESCO

im Auftrage eines Internationalen Kuratoriums
dem angehren
H.F.Cherniss-Princeton M.Durry-Paris H.J.Mette-Hamburg
D.Norberg-Stockholm E. Paratore-Rom Br. Snell-Hamburg
A.Thierfelder-Mainz J.H.Wasziak-Leiden T.B.L.Webster-Stanford
Fr.Wehrli-Zrich
herausgegeben von
HANS JOACHIM
METTE
und
ANDREAS T H I E R F E L D E R
Jahrgang 1969 Band 14
G T T I N G E N V A N D E N H O E C K & R U P R E C H T 1971
Klei \-)A f%*}0(.
Gedruckt mit Untersttzung der UNESCO auf Grund einer

Empfehlung des CIPSH. () Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in
Gttingen 1971. Printed in Germany. Ohne ausdrckliche Genehmigung des Verlages ist es nicht gestattet, das
Buch oder Teile daraus auf foto- oder akusto-mechaniachem
Wege zu vervielfltigen. Gesamtherstellung: Hubert & Co.,
Gttin-en
INHALT
Demosthenes 19151965 (D. F. Jackson/G. 0 . Rowe)
Demosthenes 19151965
By
Donald F. Jackson and Galen 0. Rowe
in Iowa City/USA
Our survey of scholarship is based o n J . M a r o u z e a u , Dix annees
de bibliograpbie classique and l'Annee philologique, and the Bibliotheca philologica classica (Supplements in JAW 18741938). General
histories of Greece and other studies, in which Demosthenes' writings
figure primarily as sources for other areas of inquiry and are not themselves the subject of discussion, have been omitted. Likewise we have
confined our attention as much as possible to the subject of Demosthenes and bis works, and have not attempted to include the many
books and articles dealing with fourth Century Greek affairs in which
Demosthenes is not the authors' special concern. Studies devoted to
Philip II and Alexander, for example, are mostly not included. Item
1 in the first section is recommended to those who desire additional
bibliography on fourth Century history. Demosthenes' Speeches are
cited by small Roman numerals (e.g., i, v, ix) or by fll title italicized.
The abbreviations of periodicals are those of l'Annee philologique.
References to Blass and Schaefer are to be understood as Die attische Beredsamkeit, III 1, Leipzig 1893 and Demosthenes und seine
Zeit, 3 vols., Leipzig 1885 (2nd rev. ed.) respectively. An asterisk indicates a work which we have not seen at all or only briefly or which
we know from reviews. Mr. J a c k s o n is responsable for items concerned
with history of the text, editions, commentaries, and translations;
Mr. Rowe is responsible for the rest.
The authors herewith express their gratitude to the Department of
Classics, the University of Iowa, for supporting their research and to
the University of Pittsburgh for permitting Mr. Rowe to spend the
year in residence as an Andrew Mellon Postdoctoral Fellow.
Table of Contents
I. Bibliography
I I . General Studies
7
8
III 1. Texts and Textual Criticism, General Works
16
III 2. Texts and Textual Criticism, Individual Orations
23
IV. Demosthenes' Early Life and Education

V. Portrait
VI. Early Private Speeches
V I I . Political Speeches u p to the Peace of Philocrates
V I I I . Political Speeches after the Peace of Philocrates
I X . The Letters
X . Late Private Speeches
X I . Style
X I I . Argumentation
46
48
49
54
65
79
82
87
93
X I I I . Demosthenes' Influence
95
XIV. Special Problems

A. Panhellenism
B. Tho Thooric Fund
98
98
99
XV. Appreciation and Evaluation

Register
101
104
I. Bibliography
Previous Bursian reports: 18741875: 3, 482; 18751877: 9, 270;
18771879: 21,190; 18801881: 30,238 (Blass). 18821885:
50,187 ( H t t n e r ) . 18871914: 166,69 ( E m m i n g e r ) .
The last report ( E m m i n g e r ) actually begins with Demosthenesliterature in 1886, contrary to the initial date given in the title of the
article. Because his studies were intemipted by military service (he
was killed in action in 1916), E m m i n g e r was able to provide a
critical review for only the first part of his reporton the tradition
of texts and on editions. Our survey does not attempt to supply this
deficiency; however, articles and books which antedate 1915 are
reviewed by us whenever they appear to have exercised a strong influence on the period of scholarship with which we are properly concerned.
1. J. v a n O o t e g h e m , Bibliotheca Graeca, LEC 6, 1937, 257-265.
Supplement by P. C l o c h e , ibid. 9, 1940, 294-297.
2. H. H u d s o n - W i l l i a m s , Greek orators and rhetoric, in: Fifty
years of classical scholarship, ed. M. Platnauer, Oxford 1954, 192-213.
CT. rev. of G. K e n n e d y in: CW49, 1956, 148-149.
3. A. L e s k y , Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, Munich 1963,
643-657.
II. General Studies

4. C. A d a m s , Demosthenes and his influence (Our debt to Greece
and Rome series), London 1927. Rev.: P i c k a r d - C a m b r i d g e , CR,
1927, 239; T r a c y , CJ 1928, 551-553.
6. *N. B a s i l o p o u l o s , ATIÔITS-IVTI?<t>ikiTCTtoq, Y) ETCO^?) TCOV xat v)
7roXtTtxT). Ewaycoy"') <TTO<; OiXiTnuxo? X6you?, r) S-qf/oxpaTixT] <\>vxh <*VT'"
(xeTW7TY) <TTO Suvapuxo 7rve[i.a, Athens 1949. Rev.: K a l a m a t i a n o s
Pla'ton, 1949, 304-306.
6. A. B r i n k , De demokratie bij Demosthenes, Groningen 1939.
Rev.: Cary, CR 1940, 57; P a r i b e n i , Aevum 1940, 146; M a t h i e u ,
REG 1940, 246; Z w a e n e p o e l , AC 1941, 174-175; M a t h i e u , RPh
1941, 65; V l a c h o s , CW 1940, 283; Cloche, RH 1944, 279; C a t a u d e l l a , BFC 1940, 99.
7. G. Clemenceau, Demosthene, Paris 1924. Rev.: H e r r l e , LZB
1926, 1825. German trans, by A. B a u e r , Basel, 1926. Rev.: R u e g e r ,
PhW 1927, 899-908; R u p p e r t , LZB 1926, 1521. English trans. by
C . T h o m p s o n , New York 1926.
8. P. Cloche, Demosthenes et la fin de la democratie athenienne.
Paris 1937; 2nd ed. 1957. Rev.: V e l l a y , Acr 1935, 132; C a r y , CR
1937,177; Van O o t e g h e m , LEC 1937, 654-655; R a d e t , REA 1937,
273-274; P u e c h , JS 1937, 273; T r e v e s , Athenaeum 1937, 313-315;
Cessi, BFC 1937, 271-274; De B r o u w e r , RB 1937, 399; P i c a r d ,
RA 1938, 292; Lewis, CW 1938, 90-91; JHS 1938, 118; R u e g e r ,
PhW 1938, 630-645 and 674-683; A y m a r d , RH 1938, 75-79;
C a l h o u n , AJPh 1938, 97-99; B r o u w e r s , AC 1938, 115-117; BCH
1938, 205; V i s c o n t i , Sc 1938, 240; M o m i g l i a n o , RFIC 1938, 102;
v o n F r i t z , AHR 1938, 576-587; W a l t z , RU 1938, 244-246;
Peremans, RBPh 1938, 963-965; S o k o l o w s k i , Przeglad Klasyczny
1938, 188-190; D u m o r t i e r , EChr 1938, 182-183; M a t h i e u , RPh
1939, 80-81; D u n k e l , CPh 1939, 282. For changes made on the 2nd
ed. see P. Cloche, Envue de la nouvelle edition d'un ouvrage sur
Demosthene, REA 1949, 339-144.
9. E. D r e r u p , Aus einer alten Advokatenrepublik (Demosthenes
und seine Zeit), Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums 8,
Paderborn 1916. Rev.: A m m o n , BPhW 1917, 805-815; v o n S t e r n ,
LZB 1917, 121; P h i l i p p , MHL 1917, 247; C a u e r , WKPh 1918,
General Studies
73-79; L e n s c h a u , ZG 1917, 131. See also K. Seeliger, Sind die

Staatsreden des Demosthenes aus dem Lesestoff des griechischen
Unterrichts zu streichen, HG 29, 1918, 132-146.
10. M. F. G a l i a n o , Demostenes, Clsicos Labor 6, Barcelona 1947.
Rev.: F e r r a r i s , AFC 1947-1949, 383-385.
11. W. J a e g e r , Demosthenes, Der Staatsmann und sein Werden,
Berlin 1939. Rev.: K a z a r o x , BIAB 1939, 345; Del R e a l , Emerita
1939, 179-180; K r t e , DLZ 1940, 224-230; B e r v e , GGA 1940,
464-471; R u e g e r , PhW 1941, 6-9; T a e g e r , Gn 1941, 364-368;
R u d b e r g , Lychnos 1940, 394-396; Critica 1940, 235-237; D o r j a h n ,
CW 1940, 283. English trans. by E. R o b i n s o n (Sather Cl. Lectures
13), Berkeley 1938. Rev.: Cary, CR 1938, 233-234; H a m m o n d ,
JHS 1938, 263-264; Lewis, CW 1938, 90-91; R u e g e r , PhW 1939,
177-190 and 225-234; Cronin, CJ 1939, 549-551; von F r i t z , AHR
1939,582-584; G i u s t i , MC 1941,145-147; L a i s t n e r , PhR 1940,580.
Italian trans. Turin 1942. Rev.: Van O o t e g h e m , LEC 1944, 378.
Spanish trans. by E. Nicol, Mexico 1945. See also P. T r e v e s ,
Demosthene d'apres M. Werner Jaeger, LEC 1940, 270-293.
12. J. L u c c i o n i , Demosthene et le panhellenisme, Paris 1961.
Rev.: W a n k e n n e , LEC 1962, 361; S a l m o n , AC 1962, 334-335;
B o u r r i o t , REA 1962, 429-432; Weil, RPh 1963, 131-133; S c h i n d e l , Gn 1963, 151-156; Rossi, P& I 1963, 247; Will, RH 1963,
516-517.
13. G. M a t h i e u , Demosthene, l'homme et l'oeuvre, Paris 1948.
Rev.: G u g l i e l m i , AFC 1947-1949, 385-388; Cadiou, REG 1949,
258-259; H i n n i s d a e l s , RBPh 1949, 450; D e p a r i s , IL 1949, 117;
Cloche, LEC 1949, 302; L e r o y - M o l i n g h e n , AC 1950, 202.
14. A. W. P i c k a r d - C a m b r i d g e , Demosthenes and the last days
of Greek freedom, London 1914. Rev.: JHS 1914, 332; R i s c h b i e t h ,
CR 1915, 204; A d a m s , CW 1915, 218-221.
15. A. P u e c h , Les Philippiques de Demosthene: fitude et analyse,
Paris 1939. Rev.: R e n a u l d , RU 1929,152; E r n o u t , RPh 1930, 284;
T o m s i n , BMB 1930, 21-22.
16. P. T r e v e s , Demostene e la libert greca, Bari 1933. Rev.:
L e n s c h a u , PhW 1933, 1025-1029; P i c k a r d - C a m b r i d g e , CR
1933, 149; Cione, NRS 1933, 557-559; Vellay, Acr 1933, 182;
R a d e t , REA 1934, 259-260; P u e c h , RPh 1934, 416; H a m p l , Gn
1934, 384-386; T a c c o n e , MC 1934, 218; Caioli, Leonardo 1934, 369;
Cessi, Conv 1933, 639; Crit 1933, 305-306; P u e c h , JS 1934, 181.
10
General Studies
The little volume of C. D. A d a m s (4), designed as an elementary

introduction to Demosthenic studies, summarizes every area of interest
that the orator and his works might present to modern studentsa
history of Demosthenes' activity in Athenian poHtics, a useful discussion of Demosthenes' effectiveness as an orator (perhaps the best
part of the book for the new student), and the influence of Demosthenes
in classical antiquity and then in modern times. Although the work
does not attempt to deal with the various technical problems of its subject, the author's considerable reputation in the field of Attic oratory
is borne out by the accuracy of his Statements and by his ability to
extract from a vast amount of primary and secondary literature the
most essential Information. An undisguised admirer of Demosthenes,
A d a m s views the orator as the supreme Athenian patriot, admitting
only to such flaws of personality as censoriousness and lack of pity for
his adversaries. The book will provide a useful orientation to the
beginner, but it conveys in several passages a sense of finality about
the subject that will discourage, rather than stimulate, further thought.
M a t h i e u ' s introduction to Demosthenes (13), though confined
mainly to the orator's works, has the virtue of specificity. The reader
is given a definite idea about the Demosthenic corpushow many of
the Speeches, for example, are undisputably authentic, what were the
circumstances surrounding them, and what are the problems they
present to modern scholarship. M a t h i e u has met the need for an
adequate description of Demosthenes' early life and training and for
an aceount of his work as a logographer. Also the early public orations
are given a fair amount of attention. Although he does not claim coraplete consistency or infallibility of judgment for Demosthenes,
M a t h i e u nevertheless insists on the sincerity and effectiveness of his
efforts as a politician. The brief treatment of style suggests possibilities
for further study; but, as is the case with most general studies on
Demosthenes, one is disappointed that the orator's literary significance,
which is as important as his historical significance, is not given the
attention that it deserves.
An especially authoritative, though sadly neglected, introduction is
the book of P i c k a r d - C a m b r i d g e (14). In many respects it is similar
to the much later published study of Paul Cloche (8); for it works
from original sources, understands the necessity of weighing carefully
their contradictions, and stresses the historical milieu of Demosthenes'
career. Students desiring an acquaintance with Athens' rle in Greek
history during the first half of the fourth Century, will be pleased to
read chapters two and three. The generous supply of details in
P i c k a r d - C a m b r i d g e ' s aceount is sometimes a hindrance rather
than a help; but to compensate for the occasional lapses of continuity
General Studies
11
a useful chronological table (404-322 B.C.) has been included. The

book is to be categorized as an introduction in the sense that it does
not present any radically new interpretation, but it is at the same
time a critical introduction in so far as most of the major historical
problems receive the author's careful attention. The book is sound and
reliable. P i c k a r d - C a m b r i d g e is obviously in favor of the cause
which Demosthenes espoused and the grandeur of spirit with which he
carried it through; but he is not blind to the orator's failings. For
example, he severely eriticizes Demosthenes' part in the destruction of
Phocis, whereas he believes that Aeschines had at least attempted to
intercede on its Citizens' behalf.
C l o c h e ' s book (8) pays slight attention to the early youth and
training of Demosthenes and, like most of the general studies in our
Century, is disappointingly brief on the early political Speeches. On the
other hand, his intimate understanding of fourth Century history is
put to good advantage in suggesting the complexity of circumstances
with which Demosthenes and other contemporary Athenian statesmen
had to contend. The dissolution of the second maritime confederaey,
Athens' involvement in the Sacred War, the threat of Persian aggression, the continuing decline of Spartan influence in the Peloponnese,
the political instability of the Euboean cities, the precarious balance
of power in the Chersonesethese and other problems are presented
in sufficient detail to make one realize that the proper Solutions were
by no means as easy to arrive at as we are sometimes led to believe.
Thus Cloche can admit that Demosthenes' proposals, for example on
the Megapolitan question, were not always the most expedient and
that, conversely, the measures proposed by Eubulus and his party
were intended to serve the interest of Athens rather than those of
Macedonia. The superiority of Demosthenes, however, is not doubted.
Motivated by concern for the Spiritual as well as the economical welfare of his State, Demosthenes, in contrast to bis political opponents,
urged a policy of personal exertion and sacrifice. Cloche presents not
an idealized portrait of the orator but one which the realists of our day
might aeeeptsympathetic, even admiring, but not uneritieal. The
second edition incorporates many important changes.
A distinet type of introduction attempts to make the orator and his
works as immediate to the reader as possible by containing large
sections of the speeches in translation or paraphrase. Such is the book
of G a l i a n o (10), which we have been able to examine only briefly. It
includes, in addition to introduetions and commentaries on the passages
quoted, a survey of critical opinion on Demosthenes' life and work.
G a l i a n o espouses the favorable opinion held by Werner J a e g e r (11).
P u e c h ' s book (15) includes only the pubbe speechesand these
12
General Studies
mainly the Olynthiacs and Phippicsthrough the Fourth Philippic

with some discussion of the Letter of Philip and the Reply. The introductory material is concerned with special as well as general matters,
and one will find that P u e c h deals competently with such problems
as the date of the First Philippic, the time intervals between the
Olynthiacs, the circumstances of the Second Philippic, and the double
redaction of the Third Philippic. The book discusses the stylistic
aspects of the orations but usually in general terms or random observations.
The most radical Interpretation of Demosthenes and his times was
written by Engelbert D r e r u p (9) during the First World War, which
the author, borrowing an interpretation from the " Klnische Zeitung",
viewed as essentially a struggle between monarchical governments
(i.e., Germany) and the parliamentary or, as he prefers to call them,
"advocate" regimes of the western powers. Deeply concerned with the
troubles and upheavals of his country at that time, D r e r u p was
induced to see the struggle of Philip and Athens as a paradigm by
which unscrupulous advocates, or lawyer-politicians, the foremost of
whom was Demosthenes, for selfish motives perverted freedom of
speech to precipitate a futile and disastrous resistance to the champion
of Greek unificationPhilip II of Macedon. The book begins by
tracing the development of advocate tactics in Athens from Antiphon,
Andocides, and Lysias (Pericles, Cleon, Cleophon, Alcibiades, Theramenes and Critias are exempted from the charge!) to the formation of
an actual advocate party controlled by Demosthenes. Lust for power,
lack of scruples, a blind fanaticism that could tolerate no contradictionthese characteristics, rather than disinterested patriotism,
guided the orator's political action. And so the book continues, attributing to Demosthenes' career every pejorative interpretation that
can be found among the ancient witnesses or conjured up by the modern
anti-Demosthenic trend of scholarship prevailing at the turn of the
Century. D r e r u p concludes that Demosthenes should be abolished
from the schools' curriculum. Surprisingly, D r e r u p ' s Kriegsbuch is
fascinating even to those who may not share his political views or
believe in the legitimacy of his thesis. Footnotes and other scholarly
apparatus are sparse, but the author's intimate knowledge of his subject is everywhere apparent. The discussion of the early political
speeches is especially commendable, and D r e r u p ' s thesis that Demosthenes at first had supported the policies of Eubulus has been accepted
by many subsequent scholars.
C l e m e n c e a u ' s book (7) may be out of place in this section of our
report. For it is mainly concerned with eulogizing Demosthenes as the
last great champion of Hellas and rarely touches down on the still
General Studies
13
disputed particulars of ancient evidence. However, it follows Demosthenes' career, on a somewhat exalted level, over much the same
ground as the other general accounts. Despite the book's obvious
factual shortcomings, it provides a salutary antidote to the thesis of
D r e r u p by reminding the reader of the spiritual values at stake in
Athens' struggle with Philip. C l e m e n c e a u ' s experience as a distinguished politician and statesman may be as valuable for an understanding of Demosthenes as the special training and emdition of
scholars.
Almost every book written about Demosthenes has for its ultimate
aim to evaluate him, which is not always the same thing as to understand bim, in moral terms. The better works proceed slowly, if inexorably, to this aim, building on a careful investigation of whatevidence
exists about Demosthenes and his time. In this class belong P i c k a r d C a m b r i d g e , M a t h i e u , and Cloch6. Other studies, pre-eminently
that of C l e m e n c e a u , avoid specific testimony, while still others
(e.g., D r e r u p ) seem to select only that testimony which supports a
preconceived evaluation. Brink (6), who has studied these various
approaches and their various results, has concluded that the critic's
opinion of Demosthenes is generally determined by his own political
creed. In an attempt to gain an objective conception Brink has first
analyzed the meaning of democracy in recent times (chiefly in the
Netherlands and in the United States) and in ancient Athens. A second
part of the book examines the political ideas of Demosthenes in the
public speeches from Against Leptines to On the Crown. The spurious
speeches, contemporary witnesses, and the first three letters are also
examined. The author, though a pupil of D r e r u p ' s , believes that the
evidence, as he has investigated it, reveals Demosthenes as the Champion of democracy, a great patriot who gave fll expression to the
democratic ideas and demands of the city State.
Demosthenes as the advocate of Panhellenism is the central concern
of J a e g e r (11) and L u c c i o n i (12), butin the process of exploring this
idea both authors impart a great deal of useful knowledge and ideas
about other topics. J a e g e r , disclaiming any intention of writing a
"life and times" of Demosthenes, seeks to reinterpret the orator's
political thought and action from his orations. The book, nevertheless,
follows a chronological order from a historical sketch of the first half
of the fourth Century to the death of Demosthenes after the Harpalus
affair. Within the framework, however, an imbalance is all-too-noticeable. Few modern accounts of Demosthenes' entrance into politics, as
represented by the speeches against Androtion, Timocrates, and
Leptines and On the Symmories can rival the excellence o f J a e g e r ' s
penetrating analysis. On the other hand, one will be keenly dis-
14
General Studies
appointed by the second half of the book, in which scholarly analysis

too often gives way to unrestrained adulation for Demosthenes.
J a e g e r seems to accept at face value Demosthenes' Version of the
embassy afFair and the resultant destruction of the Phocians. One is
betteradvisedonthis matter by C1 o c h e (8) andespecially by PickardC a m b r i d g e (14). Still the book has undeniable importance. As the
foremost historian of ideas in his time, J a e g e r awakens us to the
intense interest at Athens in political renewal, which doubtlessly had
an effect on Demosthenes. That the orator had gradually formulated a
significant concept of Panhellenism is open to question. J a e g e r ' s
scintillating enthusiasm, which is aptly conveyed by the English
translation, will provoke further thought. There are suggestions for
further study, such as the problem of doublets in Demosthenes'
Speeches, which the student of Attic oratory will do well to heed.
L u c c i o n i (12) discusses the career of Demosthenes with specific
reference to Panhellenism. In his first chapter he analyzes some of the
literary sources of the idea that may have exercised an influence; in the
second chapter he examines Demosthenes' use of the idea in the
struggle with Macedonia; in the third he attempts to show that Demosthenes' policies toward Persia did not contradict his advocacy of
Panhellenism; in the fourth chapter L u c c i o n i relates the idea of Panhellenism to the Athenian hegemony at which Demosthenes obviously
had aimed. There follow chapters on the justification for Demosthenes'
policies and a comparison of his position with those of his opponents
chiof ly Philip, Isocratcs, and Acschines. Despite its topical rather than
chronological format, the book Covers most of Demosthenes' activity
except for his early life and career as a logographer. To the student
who has read several of the more comprehensive introductions on our
list, L u c c i o n i ' s book will provide little that is new. It is nonetheless
interesting for its different approach. The author's conclusions about
Panhellenism will be discussed below.
To many students of the fourth Century the aftermath of Chaeronea
presents a regrettable anti-climax to one of history's greatesttragedies.
J a e g e r , who admits that "the fates that we encounter in real life
often run their course more slowly than those of the theater", nevertheless summarizes this entire period in less than a page. Without
denying the importance of the events between Chaeronea and CTannon, many would be inclined to analyse them from the viewpoint of
Macedonia rather than from that of Athens on the assumption t h a t the
tide of political history had turned when Philip first establishedl his
rule over Greece. It was for the purpose of challenging this assump.tion
that Piero T r e v e s has written his erudite essay (16). Specificially,
T r e v e s is eoncerned to refute the notion that Demosthenes in the last
General Studies
15
sixteen years of his life had been reduced to acting as an agent for the
Persian king and to reveal instead that the orator's activities represent
a continuous effort to throw off the Macedonian yoke and to reassert
the Athenian hegemony of Greece. The apogee of Demosthenes'
political career, according to T r e v e s , was not his heroic resistance to
Philip but his masterly direction of events that culminated in the
Lamian war. The book renders a special Service by elucidating this
all-to-often neglected phase; but it also provides some interesting
retrospective glimpses of Demosthenes' earlier days. While T r e v e s
favors the policies of Demosthenes, he can also sympathize with the
motives of Aeschines. T r e v e s writes in a forceful style. A minor flaw
in his narrative is the tendency to make rather facile analogies (e.g.,
the battles of Granicus and Gaugamela are compared to Marengo and
Austerlitz, Demosthenes to Mazzini) and to adopt titles (quartier
generale, homo novus) that, strictly speaking, are not appropriate to
the individuals they are meant to describe.
I I I . 1. Texts and Textual Criticism, General Works
A. History ot the text

17. B. H a u s m a n n , Demosthenis fragmenta in papyris et membranis servata, Diss. Leipzig 1921.
18. G. P a s q u a l i , Storia della tradizione e critica del teste-, Florence
1962 2 . See p p . 269-294.
19. *L. G i a b b a n i , Testi letterari greci di provenienza egiziana
(1920-1945), Florence 1946.
20. R. P a c k , T h e Greek a n d L a t i n Literary T e x t s from GrecoR o m a n E g y p t , A n n Ar bor 1965 2 .
21. P. J . S i j p e a t e i j n , Les parchemins et les papyrus de Demosthene trouves en figypte, Chronique d'figypte 38, 1963, 297-305.
22. E. D r e r u p , Palographisches z u m Auetor epi uôuc;, zu
Piaton u n d Demosthenes, Mnemosyne 3, 1935-1936, 70-72.
23. N. W i l s o n , S o m e P a l a e o g r a p h i c a l Notes, CQ 10, 1960, 200-202.
24. J . M a y , Kritische Bemerkungen zu den R e d e n des Demosthenes, Beilage zu dem Jahresbericht des groh. Gymnasiums in Durlach,
Nr. 880, 1913-1914, 2 2 - 2 3 .
25. K. M a c k , Der numerus oratorius
Staatsgym. V I I I Bez., Vienna 1914.
26. C . D . A d a m s ,
1917, 271-294.
bei Demosthenes,
Progr.
Demosthenes' Avoidance of Breves, CPh 12,
27. K. F u h r , Demosthenes in Olympiodors Phaidon-Kommentar,

B P h W 34, 1914, 29.
28. , Demosthenes- u n d Aischineshypothesen bei Gregor von
Korinth, B P h W 36, 1916, 797-799.
Nothing like a complete t e x t history of t h e Demosthenic corpus has
ever been done. Present editions are ultimately based on two studies
of E. D r e r u p 1 who established t h a t t h e r e are four manuscript
1
Antike Demosthenesausgaben, Philologus, Suppl. 7, 1899, 531-588
and Sitzungsber. d. philos.-philol. Klasse der Kgl. Bayer. Akad. d. Wies.
1902, I I I .
Texts and Textual Criticism, General Works
17
famies, S A F Y . T h e S family is headed b y Parisinus gr. 2934, A b y

Monacensis gr. 485, F by Marcianus gr. 416 a n d Y b y Parisinus gr.
2935. Codex S is t h e best of the four. It is characterized by a lack of
superfluous words a n d by a better order of words. It is, however, prone
to error a n d m u s t be corrected b y A F Y which, although t h e y suffer
from pleonasm a n d obvious interpolations, a t times retain correct
readings not found in S. These four t e n t h a n d eleventh Century
manuscripts h a v e received most of t h e a t t e n t i o n of editors a n d little
or no investigation of later Codices has been done. Another lack exists
in the proper designation of scribal hands in these manuscripts.
Although they h a v e been collated over a n d over again, seldom is any
p a r t of their t e x t properly identified with the several scribes who
worked in each, a fact lamented by D r e r u p himself (22). Since contamination between the famies is common, it is essential t o know
whether particular readings can be a t t r i b u t e d t o a first h a n d , t o correctors, t o hands from later centuries, to interlinear or marginal additions.
Another weakness in t h e s t u d y of t h e Demosthenic tradition lies in
a general failure to evaluate substantial finds of papyri. Although most
editors have collated and included testimony from e x t a n t finds in their
publications, a general evaluation of this testimony has not occurred.
B. H a u s m a n n (17) a t t e m p t e d to do this when the number of fragments totalled only fifty. He collated each, compared t h e m orthographically against the manuscripts a n d t h e editions of B l a s s and
F u h r , transcribed each a n d commented on his findings. He corrected
a conception, still current generally, t h a t all of our manuscripts derive
from a Single n i n t h Century archetype. He was able t o show t h a t the
familial variations actuaUy go back into a n t i q u i t y . His findings remain
largely unknown, since his dissertation was never published and
exists in a single handwritten copy in Leipzig 2 .
H a u s m a n n feit t h a t t h e manuscripts derived from a single archetype, but t h a t it was earlier t h a n previously estimated. G. P a s q u a l i
(18), in a n excellent essay which clearly shows the present State of
Demosthenic t e x t u a l studies, points out t h a t , in addition t o containing several of the conflicting readings found in the manuscripts,
some papyri are equipped with documents and others merely designate
where documents would occur. Some p a p y r i are pleonastic, others
contain the precise style of S. He determines, therefore, t h a t the
2
One previously unedited papyrus appeared in H a u s m a n n ' s dissertation and has been ignored along with the rest of his work. P. Berol. 13276
is a parchment fragment of the third Century A. D. and contains In Mid.
11-13. What H a u s m a n n , as F u h r before him, calls P . Oxy. 129 is an
Oxyrhynchus papyrus published as PSI 2.129.
2 Lustrum 14
18
Texte and Textual Criticism, General Works
Demosthenic corpus cannot be forced into a stemnia of the Lachmannian type. We must realize t h a t widely different exemplars, probably
of individual Speeches, existed in Alexandrian times and likely existed
in Demosthenes' own time.
The number of Demosthenic papyri has grown through the years,
as reported by G i a b b a n i (19) and P a c k (20). The latter's second
edition lists ninety-seven. However, P a c k numbers 270, 271 and 273
are in reality fragments of the same parchment codex 3 . They were
originally catalogued P . Berol. 13274, b u t are now in Cairo. P a c k ' s
erroneous identification of number 273 as P. Berol. 13264 is based on a
m i s p r i n t i n S c h u b a r t , Einfhrung, p. 475. Also, number 285 (P.Oslo,
inv. 30 and P. Harris 45), according to P a c k , was recognized b y
T u r n e r to be two fragments from the same papyrus. Since there is a n
overlap of eight Oxford lines between P. Oslo (De corona 201-204) a n d
P. Harris (De corona 203-205), this is a difficult identification t o
accept. If we add H a u s m a n n ' s new papyrus and other recent
publications to P a c k ' s list 4 , the total of Demosthenic p a p y r i surpasses one hundred. Another work along the lines of H a u s m a n n ' s
dissertation is certainly in order, now t h a t so many more d a t a are
available.
S i j p e s t e i j n (21) has indicated t h a t most of the extant p a p y r i date
to t h e second Century A. D. and come from Oxyrhynchus a n d F a y u m .
T h e Speeches On the Crown and on the Embassy are best represented.
To show t h a t something new can be found even in areas which have
received concentrated attention, N. W i l s o n (23) recently recognized
among the three scribal hands responsible for Parisinus gr. 2935 t w o
which are represented elsewhere. Folios 1 r - 8 v are by t h e same h a n d as
the Sophocles and Apollonius Rhodius of Laurentianus 32.9. Folios
27 v -end are by the same hand as Vaticanus gr. 1. Parisinus gr. 2935,
3
We owe this important information to Prof. Aubrey D i l l e r of
Indiana University and Dr. Herwig M a e h l e r of Berlin. The former communicated to us the kind and thorough findings of Dr. M a e h l e r when he
heard of the preparation of this bibliography. Dr. M a e h l e r also pointed
out t h a t P. Berol. 13283 ( P a c k 222), 13233 and 21168 all come from the
same papyrus codex. The last two contain In Timocralem 83-84, 86-87, 89
and 91-92.
4
From recent volumes of Aegyptus we have found three papyri which
fall into our period of study:
1. P. Sorb. I, 6 Philippica 1.4-7 (c. 200 A. D.)

2. P . Oxy. 31.2548 In Timoc. (2 n d A. D.)
3. P. Oxy. 31.2549 Epistula I (2 nd A. D.)
In addition, P. Beinecke 4 contains Fals. Leg. 101-103, 109-111 and
113-114 and dates to the late first Century A . D . (BASP 2, 1964, 33-40).
19
folios 1-8 and Laurentianus 32.9 apparently share the same origin as
Ravennas 137-4-A, Laurentianus 59.9 and Leiden BPG 60A.
Three articles dealing with a subject of little interest at present
should perhaps be mentioned here. The edition of Demosthenes which
was best known previous to the years covered by this study was that
of F. Blass. He made violent alterations in the text of the Speeches
based largely on his belief that Demosthenes avoided three short
syllables in a row, nearly without exeeption, that he also assiduously
avoided hiatus and that he was deeply influenced by considerations of
prose rhythm. This encouraged equally violent "corrections" by
May (24) and Mack (25). C. D. Adams (26) led the return to a saner
policy on "breves".
K. F u h r (27 and 28) has found testimonia to Demosthenes in the
works of Olympiodorus and Gregory of Corinth which the editors of
these authors have missed.
B. Editions and commentaries
29. W. R e n n i e , Orationes, Voll. II 2 & III, Oxford 1921&1931.
30. C. F u h r , Orationes, Vol. I, Leipzig 1914.
31. I. S y k u t r i s , Orationes, Vol. II 1, Leipzig 1937.
32. M. Croiset, Harangues, VoU. I &II, Paris 1924 & 1925.
33. G. M a t h i e u , Plaidoyers PoHtiques, VoU. III &IV, Paris 1946,
1947, 19562, 19582.
34. O. N a v a r r e & P. Orsini, Plaidoyers Politiques, Vol. I, Paris
1954.
35. J. H u m b e r t & L. G e r n e t ,
Paris 1959.
Plaidoyers
PoHtiques,
Vol. II,
36. L. G e r n e t , Plaidoyers Civils, VoU. M V , Paris 1954, 1957,

1959, 1960.
37. C. A. & J. H. Vince, De Corona and De Falsa Legatione, Loeb
1926.
38. J. H. Vince, Olynthiacs, Phippics, Minor PubUc Speeches,
Speech against Leptines, Loeb 1930.
, Against Meidias, Androtion, Aristocrates, Timocrates,
Aristogeiton, Loeb 1935.
39. A. T. M u r r a y , Private Orations, VoU. I-III, Loeb 1936, 1939,
1939.
2*
20
40. N. W . & N. J . d e W i t t , Funeral Speech, Erotic Essay (LX,

L X I ) , Exordia and Letters, Loeb 1949.
41. *J. P e t i t , Arengues, Voll. IIII, Barcelona 1932, 1950, 1951.
42. F . C. D o h e r t y , Three Private Speeches: p6<; Oopfitava, Hpbc,
Boicax6v, Ka-ra Kovwvoi;, Oxford 1927.
43. * D . M a y o r , Seis Filipicas, Santander, Aldecoa 1944, 1950 2 .
44.
A. G e e r e b a e r t , Vier redevoeringen, Antwerpen 1955.
45. *K. W o t k e , Ausgewhlte Reden fr den Schulgebrauch, Vienna

1919.
46. *M. S t e h l e , Auswahl, Paderborn 1954.
47. *A. I. d' A c c i n i , Antologia delle orazioni, Rome 1957.
T h e only satisfactory critical edition of the complete Demosthenic
corpus pubbshed during our period is the Oxford Classical T e x t begun
b y S . H. B u t c h e r (1903) a n d c o m p l e t e d b y W . R e n n i e ( 2 9 ) . T h e t e x t
is based on S which R e n n i e collated on film. He also collated A, but
relied on D r e r u p for F readings. AFY are judiciously employed. The
OCT is much more conservative t h a n B l a s s ' edition, a tendency already begun in Germany by C. F u h r in the first volume of his Teubner
edition (30). F u h r slightly altered tradition when he united F Y into a
Single family. He collated these, as well as A and the manuscript
which remains his basic witness, S. F u h r ' s apparatus criticus is much
more complete and careful t h a n B u t c h e r - R e n n i e but, unfortunately, t h e editor died before the t e x t could be carried beyond oration xix.
A later a t t e m p t was made to complete the work (31), b u t before publication of the second volume I. S y k u t r i s , who h a d taken up the work,
also perished. H. S a c h s e n w e g e r stepped in a n d s a w o r a t i o n s x x - x x v i
t h r o u g h the press. Since the second volume has no prefatory critical
exposition, we can only assume t h a t S y k u t r i s a n d S a c h s e n w e g e r
followed F u h r ' s principles, eariier enunciated.
There are a few more collections which contain the complete Demosthenic corpus and are presently available. Each also features a facing
translation. The French Bude edition appeared first i n M . C r o i s e t ' s
(32) two volumes of orations i-xvii. Little original textual work was
entailed here. S was again the basis with some A readings introduced
from R e i s k e ' s edition (1770-1775). C r o i s e t relied heavily on
F u h r ' s apparatus, using W e i l & B u t c h e r in addition. As in other
Bude texts, the strength of the series rests in the translation a n d t h e
informative historical-political introduction. The next installment of
this series was G. M a t h i e u ' s (33) two volumes containing orations
xviii-xix and xxv-xxvi. Again, no new work in collation was intro-
21
duced. The political Speeches were concluded by 0 . N a v a r r e P. O r s i n i (34) and J . H u m b e r t - L. G e r n e t (35). The most impressive p a r t of the Bude Demosthenes series is L. G e r n e t ' s four
volumes of private orations (36). He considered the text of codex A
the best for this p a r t of the corpus and accordingly based his t e x t on it.
He also employed D, to which R e n n i e had earlier called attention.
G e r n e t ' s is therefore a good and innovative critical edition.
The second series provided with a translation is the seven volume
Loeb edition. Orations xviii and xix appeared first, edited by C. A. a n d
J . H. V i n c e (37). The editors based their t e x t on D i n d o r f ' s Leipzig
and S h i l l e t o ' s Cambridge edition. It is therefore a throwback to
nineteenth Century editions, although more notice was taken of S t h a n
was earlier common. J . H. V i n c e (38) alone edited orations i-xvii a n d
x x - x x v i , again based on D i n d o r f . With A. T. M u r r a y (39) a little
updating occurred, but only to the point of using B l a s s as a basis.
Orations xxvii-lix in this series are therefore widely interpolated. The
same is true of the series' final volume, edited by N. W. D e W i t t (40).
J . P e t i t (41) brought out the first of a three volume set of Demosthenic orations in 1932. It contained orations i-iv and xi-xvi faced
with a Catalan translation. In 1950 and 1951 the second a n d t h i r d
volumes appeared. We have been unable to ascertain the basis of the
text.
Among editions of more modest proportions, we can point t o
F . C. D o h e r t y ' s (42) volume containing three private speeches
based on B l a s s & R e n n i e , D. M a y o r ' s "six Philippics" (43), including Olynthiacs 1&3, On the Chersonesus, and Philippics 1-3, a n d
A. G e e r e b a e r t ' s (44) Dutch work. Numbers (42) and (43) contain
excellent commentaries intended for school use.
Three editions of selections from Demosthenic works have appeared. We have not seen them and therefore only list them here.
The editors are K. W o t k e (45), M. S t e h l e (46), and A. I. D ' A c c i n i
(47).
C. Translations
48. C. R. K e n n e d y , Demosthenes' Orations, London 1954.
49. A . W . P i c k a r d - C a m b r i d g e , The Public Orations of Demosthenes, Everyman's Library 1963.
50. M. F e r n n d e z G a l i a n o , Biografia y Antologia, Barcelona
1947.
Only three publications of multiple orations of Demosthenes in
translation from our period have come to OUT attention. K e n n e d y ' s
22
volume (48) actually antedates the period, appearing first in 1911 and
then being reissued in 1954. Fifteen orations are included. The translation of orations 1-6, 8, 9, 14-16 and 18-19 by A. W. P i c k a r d C a m b r i d g e (49) appeared only a year after K e n n e d y ' s first edition
and was reissued in 1963. The only "new" translation of several
Speeches in one volume, therefore, is found in the publication of
F e r n a n d e z Galiano (50). These are not complete translations, but
in the course of a volume-long introduction to Athens at the time of
Demosthenes, the editor inserts pertinent excerpts from the more important orations. We will not attempt to enumerate his choices, since
no List is provided in the Spanish text and any attempt of ours at
enumeration would necessarily be incomplete.
III 2. Texts and Textual Criticism, Individual Orations
A. The Olynthiacs (iiii)

1. E d i t i o n s a n d C o m m e n t a r i e s
61. *A. A n n a r a t o n e , La prima Olintiaca, Livorno 1921.
62. *G. C a m m e l l i , La prima Olintiaca, Milan 1935.
53. *A. de L o r e n z i , Olintiaca I, Naples 1935.
54. *G. R e v e l , La prima Olintiaca, Turin 1937, 19382.
55. *N. S a l a n i t r o , La prima Olintiaca, Messina 1959.
56. *A. M a i s t o , La prima Olintiaca, Milan 1934.
, La seconda Olintiaca, Milan 1935.
57. *G. A. R i z z o , La secunda Olintiaca, Milan 1938.
58. *E. B o l i s a n i , La terza Olintiaca, Milan 1929.
59. *D. B a s s i , Le Olintiache e le Fippiche, Milan 1921, 19242.
, Orazioni Olintiache, Milan 1926.
60. *I. B a s s i , Le Olintiache, Turin 1933.
61. *A. G o n n e l l a , La prima Olintiaca, Naples 1930.
, La prima Olintiaca, La seconda Olintiaca, Naples 1931.
62. *G. M a s e r a , La seconda Olintiaca, ibid. 1945.
, La terza Olintiaca, Turin 1945.
, La prima Olintiaca, Turin 1946.
63. *G. M a z z o n i , La prima Olintiaca, Rome 1925, 19332.
, La seconda Olintiaca, Rome 1927.
, La terza Olintiaca, Rome 1927.
64. *V. Milio, La prima Olintiaca, Turin 1939.
, Le orazioni Olintiache, ibid. 1942.
65. *D. B a r r e s i , La prima orazione Olintiaca, Calabria 1950.
66. *A. Lo J a c o n o , La prima orazione Olintiaca, Palermo 1945.
, La seconda orazione Olintiaca, Palermo 1945.
, La terza orazione Olintiaca, ibid. 1946.
24
Texts and Textual Criticism, Individual Orations
67. J . E. S a n d y s , The First Philippic a n d the Olynthiacs of Demosthenes, London 1897, 1910 2 .
68. J . M. M a c G r e g o r , T h e Olynthiac Speeches of Demosthenes,
Cambridge 1915.
69. G. C o t t o n , Troisieme Olynthienne, Liege 1937.
70. *G. J a n s s e n s , Premiere Olynthienne, Liege 1926.
71. *K. K o s m a s , OL Tpet? 'OXuv&tocxoi, Athens 1920.
, 'OXuviaxo<; A', Athens 1952.
72. *N. V a s i l o p o u l o s , 'OXuviaxi? A', Athens 1946.
73. *C. W o y t e , Olynthysche Reden u n d Rede ber den Frieden,
Leipzig 1930.
74. *P. M. B a l a g u e , L a s t r e s Olintiacas, Barcelona 1950.
75. *N. M a j n a i c , Prvi olintski govor, Zagreb 1950.
In the Olynthiacs, as in nearly all the orations, the Italians have
published more commented editions t h a n anyone eise. Most of these
are annotated editions intended for the schools. There is therefore
nothing new done in the establishment of the text. The value of the
publications rests in helpful comments on grammatical, historical,
political a n d rhetorical points which might otherwise prove difficult to
young readers. A n n a r a t o n e (51), C a m m e l l i (52), d e L o r e n z i (53),
R e v e l (54) a n d S a l a n i t r o (55) all produced editions of the first
Olynthiac in this catogory. M a i s t o (56) cditcd both the first and
second Olynthiacs, while R i z z o (57) provided a sound, though
elementary, commentary to the second, the t e x t being based generally
on F u h r ' s . T h e Signorelli Publishing house's third Olynthiac, t o
which the editions of C a m m e l l i a n d M a i s t o belong, had already
been published in 1929 (58). D. B a s s i (59), I. B a s s i (60), G o n e l l a
(61), M a s e r a ( 6 2 ) , M a z z o n i ( 6 3 ) a n d M i l i o (64) all published complete
editions of t h e Olynthiacs intended for school use. B a r r e s i ' s edition
(65) contains a n interlinear translation. We have not found any Information on those of L o J a c o n o (66), b u t assume they are also
school editions.
Two English editions of the Olynthiacs appeared during our period.
S a n d y s ' (67) first appeared in 1897, but a second edition appeared in
1910 and was reissued in 1924. The t e x t is basically t h a t of D i n d o r f B l a s s (1885). S a n d y s added a good historical introduction a n d notes
for students. M a c G r e g o r (68) followed the same format a n d also
based his t e x t on t h a t of B l a s s , although he altered it to more closely
adhere to the manuscripts in m a t t e r s of elision, hiatus and breves. His
t e x t therefore closely resembles B u t c h e r ' s OCT.
25
An outstanding school edition based on earlier commentators is the

French edition of G. C o t t o n (69). W e h a v e been unable t o learn anything a b o u t J a n s s e n ' s work (70).
Two modern Greek editions of t h e Olynthiacs can be listed. T h a t of
K o s m a s (71) had gone through a t least eight editions by 1931. It was
intended for upper level high school students. He published the first
Olynthiac alone in a new edition in 1952. V a s i l o p o u l o s ' edition (72)
of the first Olynthiac was not available to us. Another work we have
been unable t o acquaint ourselves with is t h a t of C. W o y t e , the only
German edition of the Olynthiacs published during our period (73).
Two Spanish editions of the Olynthiacs appeared. M a y o r ' s work
listed earlier (43) contains the first a n d the third. The scope of B a l a g u e ' s edition (74) i s u n k n o w n t o us. M a j n a i c ' s volume (75) contains
the text of a n d a Croatian commentary t o the first Olynthiac.
2. T r a n s l a t i o n s
76. *C. d e R o s s i , L a prima Olintica, Palermo 1944.
77. *G. B u s c e m a , La prima orazione Olintica, Milan 1939.
, La seconda orazione Olintica, Milan 1939.
78. *C. V e r l a t o , L a terza Olintiaca, Milan 1929.
79. * F . B i a n c h i , La prima Filippica e le tre Olintiache, Lucca 1917.
80. * P . T r e v e s , Le t r e orazione Olintiache, Modena 1938. See also
65.
Five translations have appeared dealing with the Olynthiacs and all
are I t a h a n . D e R o s s i (76) translated the first Olynthiac, B u s c e m a
(77) the first and second, V e r l a t o (78) the third, while B i a n c h i (79)
and T r e v e s (80) translated all three.
3. T e x t H i s t o r y
81. H. H u n g e r , Zwei u n b e k a n n t e Libanioshandschriften der
sterreichischen Nationalbibliothek, Scriptorium 6, 1952, 26-32.
82. A. T r a v e r s a , II codex graecus Taurinensis B-II-11 (C-IV-13),
A t t i dello V I I I C o n g r . intern, de Studi Byz., 1951, 215-231.
As was stated earlier, little work has been done on t h e later manuscripts of Demosthenes. Two articles are cited here, however, which
shed some light on two of t h e later witnesses. H. H u n g e r (81), while
bringing to the public eye two manuscripts of Libanius, indicates t h a t
26
Vindob. phil. gr. 168, a composite manuscript of the fifteenth Century,

contains the first two Olynthiacs, as well (f. 35 r ^42 v ). A. T r a v e r s a
(82) has called attention to a n interesting codex in Turin. The manuscript contains the three Olynthiacs (f. 1-70), parts of Isocrates,
Ad Demon. a n d the second book of the Iliad. This codex is also a
composite, having been originally solely oratorical. The interesting
features are t h a t the text occurs only on rectos, faced with a comment a r y of which T r a v e r s a gives examples. Notes on the verso of folio 71
indicate t h a t the Olynthiacs were originally followed by On the Croivn.
The codex dates to the second half of the sixteenth Century.
4. C r i t i c a l S t u d i e s
83. H. R i c h a r d s , Notes on Greek Orators, CR 29, 1915, 100-103.
84. J . E. P o w e l l , Demosthenes Ol. 1.21, CR 51, 1937, 167-168.
Because the extant manuscript witnesses present such connicting
testimony about the text of Demosthenes' Speeches, scholars have long
been encouraged to suggest emendations which would present a more
readable, understandable a n d "Demosthenic" form. The fact t h a t
none of these are supported by recent papyrus finds will not, of course,
deter future emendators. It is easy to propose t h a t the t e x t might have
suffered extensive corruption in the Hellenistic period, previous to the
period whieh the papyri represent. It would be beyond our capabilities
and purpose to pass judgement on all the emendations which will be
listed, but it seems proper to comment (whenever an emendation
occurs in a passage found on papyrus) whether they are supported b y
ancient witnesses or not.
H. R i c h a r d s (83) commented on several speeches of Demosthenes.
All of his emendations are based on better sense t h a n is found in the
manuscripts. He feit t h a t an infinitive is missing in Ol. 2.2 and suggested inserting fxeXeiv or oXiycopeiv after 7rpote[jivou<;. He also suggested
reading TO cwvxjxcpoTepov for TOTO ouvajxcpoTepov a t 2.14, Tot.au*)-' a for
Ta&' a a t 2.15 and, following Lambinus, 6[uv for fxwv before s-juTaTTeiv
a t 2.30. The only passage found on papyri is t h a t a t 2.15 where
P. Tancock ( P a c k 257) reads TaTa a.
P o w e l l (84) dealt with a passage which h a d earlier troubled editors,
XX' >c, 7r!.cov in Ol. 1.21. F u h r adopted F o x ' s emendation to eu&eco;
ETUwv, but P o w e l l rejected it as improbable. He preferred to change
XX' <!><; to XXot XXGX; but, because the expression is unparalleled in
Demosthenes, feit t h a t reading XX' -n\<; emcbv was the best Suggestion. No papyrus testimony can be brought to bear here.
27
B. The Philippics (iv, vi, ix, x)

85. *A. di P r i m a , La prima Filippica, Florence 1951.
86. *G. C a s t e l l o , La prima Filippica, Milan 1931.
87. *U. E. P a o l i , La prima Filippica, Milan 1939.
88. *V. P e l l e g r i n o , La prima Filippica, Milan 1939.
89. *L. P r e v i a l e , Filippica I, Naples 1933.
90. *A. R o n c o n i , La prima Filippica, Florence 1934.
91. *L. Cognasso, Seconda Filippica, Turin 1933.
92. *V. de F a l c o , La seconda Filippica, Naples 1934.
93. *C. R i c c o b o n , Filippica II, Naples 1935.
94. *P. T r e v e s , Filippica III, Naples 1936.
, Filippica II, Naples 1937.
95. *A. M a n z o n i , La seconda Filippica, Milan 1933.
, La terza Filippica, Milan 1933.
96. *S. Rossi, La prima orazione contro Filippo, Livorno 1918.
, La seconda orazione contro Filippo, Livorno 1918.
, La terza orazione contro Filippo, Livorno 1921.
97. *G. Mazzoni, La prima orazione contro Filippo, Rome 1929.
, La seconda orazione Filippica, Rome 1930.
, La terza orazione contro Filippo, Rome 1934.
98. *G. B e r t o l o t t o and D. Bassi, Le tre orazioni contro Filippo,
Turin 1921.
99. *D. Bassi, Filippiche 1-3, Milan 1921.
100. H. Weil, La premiere Philippique, Paris 1915.
101. P. Collin, Premiere Philippique, Liege 19462.
102. P. T r e v e s , La troisieme Philippique, Liege 1938.
103. *G. C o t t o n , Troisieme Philippique, Liege 1943.
, Premiere Philippique, Liege 1935.
104. *R. F l e u r y , Les Philippiques, Paris 1962.
105. *L. A p a r i c i o , La primera filipica, Cadiz 1943.
106.*D. Garcia H u g h e s , Filipica primera y Discurso acerca de la
paz, Burgos 1943.
28
Texte and Textual Criticism, Individual Orations

107.
*P. M. B a l a g u e , Las tres Fipicas, Barcelona 1948.
108. *G. A. D a v i e s , Philippics IIII, Cambridge Univ. Press 1934.

109. *A. B r a n d m a i r , Dritte Rede gegen Philipp, Bamberg 1956.
110. *K. K o s m a s , ' O A ' Korri DIXITHTOU, Athens 1922 3 .
, ' 0 Ilepl elpv)VY)<; xal 6 B ' Ka-ra fciXtincau, Athens 1922 3 .
I n the Phippics, as in the Olynthiacs, Italian production of ann o t a t e d texts matches the total production of the rest of Europe and
America. They are again largely directed toward the high school and
university Student. The editions of the first Phippic by d i P r i m a (85)
a n d C a s t e l l o (86) appear to be relatively undistinguished, while t h a t
of P a o l i (87), a n expert in Attic law, contains a helpful and informative commentary accompanying a sane text in accord with the manuscripts. The editions of P e l l e g r i n o (88), P r e v i a l e (89) and R o n c o n i
(90) are also undistinguished school texts. The last named went
through three editions by 1956.
C o g n a s s o (91), d e F a l c o (92) and R i c c o b o n (93) published
school editions of the second Phippic alone. One of the few Italian
editors to gain acclaim for his work beyond his national borders was
P. T r e v e s (94). His editions of the second and third Philippics have
been generally admired for their sound historical a n d legal commentaries. A French edition of the third Phippic (102) appeared in 1938
upon an invitation from his former colleagues in France. M a n z o n i ' s
(95) editions of the same two orations aro less pretcntious.
R o s s i (96) and M a z z o n i (97) each edited annotated texts of the
first three Philippics. D. B a s s i has already been mentioned in conjunction with the Olynthiacs (59). In the same year t h a t this edition
appeared, he also thoroughly revised G. B e r t o l o t t o ' s a n n o t a t e d
edition (1886) of the Philippics, basing the text on W e s t e r m a n n R o s e n b e r g , B u t c h e r a n d F u h r (98). Each of these Philippics was
reissued separately in 1917. B a s s i brought out his own edition of the
Philippics (99) also in 1921.
H. W e i l ' s fine annotated edition of the first Phippic (1912) was
reedited by G. D a l m e y d a during our period (100). P . C o l l i n produced an immensely populr commentary on the same oration (101).
By 1968 it had gone through its sixth edition. We have been unable to
ascertain when it first appeared.
T h e French edition of the third Phippic by the Italian P . T r e v e s
mentioned earlier (102) contains no explicit information on t h e basis
of t h e text but, since W e i l and C r o i s e t are frequently cited in the
notes, it seems safe to assume t h a t they are its foundation. G. C o t t o n
(103) published a simplified Version of T r e v e s ' more scholarly edition.
29
He had earlier completed an annotated school edition of the first

Philippic. R. F l e u r y ' s work (104) is a series of annotated extracts.
One Portuguese and three Spanish school editions of the Philippics
have appearedrecently. A p a r i c i o (105) presents B u t c h e r 's O C T t e x t
unchanged, following a historical introduction. D. G a r c i a H u g h e s
(106) also edited and commented the first Philippic for the schools.
We can say nothing about P . M . B a l a g u e ' s edition (107) of the first
three Philippics. M a y o r ' s "Six Philippics", mentioned earlier in connection with the Olynthiacs, should be recalled here.
The only two English editions of the Philippics to appear since 1914
are both reissues. S a n d y s ' first Philippic was mentioned earlier (67).
G. A. D a v i e s ' Philippics IIII (108) is a reissue of his 1907 edition.
We have been unable to inspect B r a n d m a i r ' s third Philippic (109).
K o s m a s ' modern Greek school edition of the first Philippic appeared
in its third edition in 1922, but we have not discovered the dates of its
earlier appearances (110).
111. *C. V e r l a t o , La prima Filippica, Milan 1941.
112. *G. C a l z a v a r a , Le Filippiche, Milan 1933.
113. *R. F l e u r y , Les Philippiques, Paris 1961.
114. *D. P h o t i a d i s , Kaxa iHXhnrou f
Athens 1940.
xat llpbt; T/)V E7uaToXr)v,
Three Italian translations of Philippics appeared during our period.

T h a t o f F . B i a n c h i has already been mentioned (79) in the section on
the Olynthiacs. C. V e r l a t o , who was also listed there, some years later
published a translation of the first Philippic (111). G. C a l z a v a r a (112)
translated the first three in 1933 and a reissue appeared in 1939. In
France, R. F l e u r y (113) published a translation of extracts from the
Philippics. D . P h o t i a d i s (114) earlier brought out a modern Greek
translation of the third Philippic.
115. H. R i c h a r d s , Varia, CR 29, 1915, 11-12.
116. H. M u s u r i l l o , A Critical Note on Demosthenes' First Philippic, C Q 51, 1957, 86-88.
R i c h a r d s (116) suggested reading AsyoiT' &V for yivoii:' &v a t
Phil. 1.10 to achieve better sense. In another article which we cited
earlier (83), he pointed to the unpleasant presence of the verb uroxpxei
30
a t the beginning and the end of a sentence in Phil. 1.32. He feit t h a t

another verb should replace one of these forms, but did not hazard
a guess as to what it might be. At 1.48, a section suspected by R e i s k e ,
R i c h a r d s suggested inserting kizpouc, before exaoro^. At 1.51 he
preferred emending hm TO to Sia TO. Neither this nor the former emendations can be compared with papyrus testimony.
In two other passages for which we have no papyrus testimony he
also offered emendations. At Phil. 2.25 we should read TxTtjc, for
TaTr) and a t 2.37 xal CqfxEat; TTJV Sixrjv. At 3.30 R i c h a r d s feit t h a t
yvTjo-icov with a genitive was not natural and suggested a change t o
"p/rjaiw?. P. Mich. 918 of the fourth Century has yvâicov. In a Philippic
with scant papyrus representation, the fourth, R i c h a r d s feit t h a t a
past tense with Ssov was wrong and t h a t [i$ TOTO 7re7ronr)XEvau a t 4.19
should either be changed to TOTO 7re7roirjxevat or, if fxa<; is to be retained along with an infinitive, a verbal, such as XEXTSOV or VOJUO-TEOV
should be added. To provide a usual construction for cp&ovw a t 4.39
we should read i % . . . orj&etai; ysy^vuiai;. To supply the negative
which R e i s k e feit was missing a t 4.52, R i c h a r d s suggested changing
otxstcoi; to ox oixetcoc; or avoixsfaji;.
H. M u s u r i l l o (116) believes t h a t the transition from paragraph
twelve to thirteen in the first Philippic is rough and indicates a passage
of time (perhaps for a vote), a lacuna, or hasty revision. No papyri cast
light on this problem. He also feels t h a t a better transition from 1.32
to 1.33 is gained if 7tcxpxei . . . crcu is transposed so as t o reply t o the
unanswercd question of 1.44. P. Oxy. 15.1810, however, retains the
traditional order. At 1.37-38, S ' . . . xoueiv should either be excised
or transposed to 1.43 after TO <J>IXI7I7TOU, according to M u s u r i l l o who
also feels t h a t xaxopyou . . . -oXejzioi,; of 1.47 is a gloss on the ironic
quip in the previous sentence. Again, P. Oxy. 15.1810 shows t h a t both
passages were part of the tradition and were in the same position as t h e
manuscripts now have them early in the second Century A. D.
C. On the Peace, Halonesus and Chersonesus (v, vii, viii)

1. E d i t i o n s a n d
Commentaries
117. *A. G o n e l l a , L'orazione per la pace, Naples 1928.

118. *A. A b r u z z e s e , Per la Pace, Naples 1933.
119. *V. P e l l e g r i n o , L'orazione per la pace, Milan 1934.
120. *V. C o s t a , Per la pace, Syracuse 1959.
121. *A. L o J a c o n o , L'orazione per la pace, Palermo 1947.
31
122. *D. B a r r e s i , Per la pace, Calabria 1947.

123. *G. B. B o n n e l l i , Orazione per la pace, Turin 1940.
124. *V. Milio, Per la pace, Messina 1943.
125. *T. T o m a s e t t i G u s m a n o , Per Alonneso, Florence 1950.
, Per gli affari del Chersoneso, Florence 1949.
126. *D. Bassi, L'orazione su gli affari del Chersoneso, Milan 1932.
127. *V. Milio, L'orazione per gli affari del Chersoneso, Messina
1937.
128. *L. A n n i b a l e t t o , L'orazione "Per gli affari del Chersoneso",
Man 1939.
129. *A. M o r p u r g o , Orazione per gli affari di Chersoneso, Florence
1956.
130. *P. Collin, Discours sur la Chersonese, Liege 1938.
The three speeches traditionally placed between the first and second
and second and third Philippics have been well represented in recent editions. Again, however, the majority are Italian school editions which
offer little original scholarship and are not useful for most of us. Of the
three earliest editions of orations listedhere,A.Gonella (117), A.Abruzzese (118) and V. P e l l e g r i n o (119), only the last named presented a
better than average Italian Introduction and commentary. His text is
basically C r o i s e t ' s , with attention to that of F u h r and Weil. We
have bcen unable to inspect the edition of V. Costa (120) and A.
L o J a c o n o (121), as well as that of D. B a r r e s i (122) which may, as
that mentioned above (65), be another interlinear translation. The
editions of G. B. Bonnelli (123) and V. Milio (124) are undistinguished school editions.
Only three editions of oration v from other countries have come to
our attention, one German, one Greek and one Spanish. All three have
already been listed, as they contain Olynthiacs or Philippics as well (see
nos. 73,106,110).
Orations vii and viii have appeared in seven editionssix Itahan.
T. T o m a s e t t i G u s m a n o ' s (125) is the only edition of On the Halonesus to appear. Although her arguments for the authenticity of the
work have not been generally accepted, her introduction and notes
have been praised by foreign scholars.
She earlier did an edition of oration viii for the same collection.
D. Bassi (126) probably should be credited with the best of the four
32
remaining Italian school editions of On the Chersonesus (see nos. 127,

128, and 129). C o l l i n ' s i s a careful school edition which reappeared in
1940 and 1964.
2.
Translations
131. *V. D o l c i , L'orazione per la pace, Palermo 1936.

132. *L. A n n i b a l e t t o , L'orazione " P e r la p a c e " , Milan 1939.
133. *G. M u n n o , L'orazione per la pace, R o m e 1947.
Of the three speeches now being considered, only On the Peace
appeared in individual translation, three times by Italian translators.
3. C r i t i c a l
Studies
The only suggested changes in the t e x t of orations v, vii and viii

which came t o our a t t e n t i o n are included in the article b y H . R i c h a r d s
already cited (83). At 5.11 he preferred SITE . . . etxe t o OUTE . . . oxe,
a t 7.13 he suggested inserting v before ficpLa'rj'rijaai, a t 8.14, following a n earlier Suggestion, he would read -Sjcntep vv for wcrerep vv and a t
8.75, against B l a s s and S a n d y s , R i c h a r d s preferred retention of
e7u<TTr|fi.r) Xeyetv or adoption of a mild emendation to s7UCTTa|i.evov.
P a p y r u s testimony is lacking here.
D. On Philip' Epistle, the Organization, the Symmorles (xi, xiii. xiv)

1.
Editions, Commentaries and
Translations
134. *G. A m m e n d o l a , Sull'organizzazione, Naples 1933.

135. *M. R a v a , Per le simmorie, Florence 1932.
136.
*G. C a m m e l l i , Delle simmorie, Milan 1935.
137. *R. P o n t o r n o , Delle simmorie, Palermo 1957.

, Delle simmorie, Per i Megalopolitani, Per la libert dei
Rodii, Tre orazione per la difesa del popolo, Palermo 1957.
The modern Greek translation of Demosthenes' answer to Philip's
epistle by D. P h o t i a d i s w a s m e n t i o n e d earlier in connection with the
t h i r d Phippic (114). This was the only work dealing with oration xi
to appear during our period. Similarly, the only critical edition of
oration xiii to appear was an a n n o t a t e d school edition b y G. A m m e n d o l a (134). The speech On the Symmories is b e t t e r represented.
M. R a v a (135) a n d G. C a m m e l l i (136) published editions with com-
33
mentaries for s t u d e n t s , while R. P o n t o r n o produced a n a n n o t a t e d

translation, which appeared simultaneously with another commented
translation of orations x v - x v i (137).
2. C r i t i c a l
Studies
138. C. R u e g e r , Z u Demosthenes' Rede X I I I , Ilepi ouvTa^scx;,

P h W 4 1 , 1921, 284-286.
Those who believe oration xiii t o be spurious point t o non-Demosthenic phraseology in the speech. An example is exxX-rjatav a7roStS6vai,
used twice in t h e t h i r d paragraph, b u t found nowhere eise in the
corpus and only once in Aeschines. R u e g e r (138) n o t e d t h a t codex S
carries as a variant o n omiSsiâ exxXrjatav a t 24.25 7re8<oxav exxXTjaEav.
He added t h a t B l a s s noted a similar expression used by Hyperides.
The phrase need not, therefore, be considered a late Greek idiom. On
the other hand, t h e immediate juxtaposition of TE xal which is avoided
b y Demosthenes, according to F u h r , a n d which is t h o u g h t to be
absent from this speech occurs as a variant in F Y O a t 13.6 (fv TE
xdxeivot?). A t 13.5 R u e g e r would like to insert Eva after XXd to piek
u p the thought introduced b y another Eva in t h e t h i r d paragraph.
At 13.10 R u e g e r agreed with B l a s s in deletion of TOxvTwv a n d in
making no sense of [XETOC TOTWV. This too should be deleted or ÊTO
could be changed t o fxsydXa. Contrary to B l a s s , F u h r a n d codex S,
R u e g e r wanted t o keep Moy.iaix.vrsc, after slvai a t 13.11 a n d pointed out
parallels to support the retention. He also defended s6cov (13.14) with
S c h a e f e r against B l a s s , F u h r a n d S.
In the following paragraph R u e g e r supported D o b r e e in reading
(ol) TOXXOL He was surprised t h a tTOXCTETSof S, which accords so well
with other verbs in t h e paragraph, has not been accepted. He feit
B l a s s and V o e m e l were right in changing 6 to i.
At 13.16 R u e g e r preferred xoivd of the manuscripts to M a d w i g ' s
xpia. He cited a similar usage of <piXav&pcdT:ou<; a t 25.81 t o support
t h a t of 13.17, objected to b y D o b r e e . A t e x t problem occurs a t 13.18.
Codex S has a-uxv EÊI which B l a s s a n d F u h r printed. Codex A has
l^si with a marginal Soxw for insertion between axo a n d TOTO. Codices
F Y h a v e IJCSIV SOXC. R u e g e r favored retention of Soxw a n d emendation of ex ' v * Xeystv. B l a s s , following C o b e t , bracketed TWV 7rpayfjidTUV a t 13.26, words omitted by F Y . The same manuscripts omit
W xocTavTs? a n d read sXTtou? for xpeiTTou? of SA. C o b e t rejected
both adjectives. R u e g e r agreed with F u h r in retaining manuscript
readings. Unfortunately, no papyrus of oration xiii exists against
which we might compare these suggestions.
3 Lustrum 14
34
In an article cited above (115), H. R i c h a r d s suggested emending

7tpxetv to 7rap5etv at 14.24. This emendation also cannot be compared with papyrus witnesses.
E. For (ho Liberty o( the Rbodlans, the Megalopolitans,
On the Covenant wlth Alexander (xv, xvi, xvii)
139. *G. A m m e n d o l a , Per la libert dei Rodii, Naples 1932.
, Per i Megalopolitani, Naples 1932.
140. *U. C a p i t a n i o , Per la libert dei Rodii, Milan 1935.
141. *A. T o d e s c o , L'orazione per i Megalopolitani, Milan 1936.
142. *L. P r e v i a l e , Per i Megalopolitani, Florence 1938.
143. *A. Neppi M o d o n a , Per Megalopoli, Florence 1950.
144. *T. T o m a s e t t i G u s m a n o , Per la Ubert dei Rodiesi, Florence 1952.
, Per i Megalopolitani, Florence 1953.
145. *G. Mazzoni, Per la libert dei Rodii, Palermo 1953.
All nine editions listed here, four of oration xv and five of oration
xvi, were compiled by Italian scholars for school use. Each is provided
with toxt, notes, and an introductory lecture. Those of T. T o m a s e t t i
G u s m a n o (144) seem to have been best received. C a p i t a n i o ' s
earlier edition of oration xv (140) has a sound, comprehensive commentary.
146. *R. P o n t o r n o , Per la libert dei Rodii, Palermo 1957.
, Per i Megalopolitani, Palermo 1957.
Only R. P o n t o r n o ' s translations of orations xv and xvi appeared
during our period. Each was published separately and then in a composite edition which included oration xiv and was mentioned earlier
(137). All are provided with a commentary.
In his already mentioned article (83), H. R i c h a r d s suggested that
avoidance of hiatus at 16.11 could be better attained by reading
'DpcOTv xofxiaaafl-oa than by accepting B e n s e l e r ' s insertion of an
35
article to read xo[ztaaa&ai xv 'Qpw7t6v. At 17.16 he suggests we read

xt for TO. Neither passage is found on papyrus.
F. On the Crown and On the False Embassy (xviil-xix)
147. W. W. G o o d w i n , On the Crown, Cambridge 1953.
148. M. W. H u m p h r e y s , On the Crown, Chicago 1913.
149. E. A b b o t and P. E. M a t h e s o n , Speech on the Crown, Oxford
1926.
150. F. P. S i m p s o n and F. P. D o n n e l l y , The Oration of Demosthenes on the Crown, New York 1941.
151. *A. A d e r e r , Discours sur la couronne, Paris 1933.
152. *R. F l e u r y , Discours de la couronne, Paris 1958.
153. *P. T r e v e s , L'orazione per la corona, Milan 1933.
154. *G. C a p o v i l l a , Per la corona, Milan 1937.
155. *R. S c h n e e , Rede vom Kranze fr den Schulgebrauch erklrt,
Gotha 1913.
156. *N. G. K a s i m a k o s , 'Ynhp KTr)o-L<pcvTO(;, Ilepl xo ateyvov,
Athens 1956.
157. *D. Mayor, Por la corona, Santander 1943.
158. *S. S i n a n o g l u , Celenk hakkinda, Tercme 1960.
159. *C. Cessi, Sulla condotta sleale della seconda ambasceria,
Man 1937.
The speech On the Crown has proved to be the Single most populr
oration of Demosthenes throughout Europe and America during the
period of our study. Notable also is that Italian editions no longer
predominate here. Two of the four English editions listed aetually
antedate 1914. An abridgement (147) of G o o d w i n ' s 1901 edition of
the speech appeared in 1953. Goodwin had based the earlier text on
the editions of Voemel, L i p s i u s and Blass, but also consulted the
Photographie reproduetion of codex S published by H. Omont.
H u m p h r e y s also collated none of the manuscripts (148). He consulted the critical apparatus of Goodwin and profited from the
commentaries of Goodwin and W e s t e r m a n n - R o s e n b e r g . Both
G o o d w i n and H u m p h r e y s intended their editions to be helpful to
undergraduate students of Demosthenes. E. A b b o t a n d P. E. Mathel
36
Texts and Textual Criticism, Individual Orationa
s o n (149) published another text of the speech for students, but one
which was more modest in scope than the two previous. In 1941
F. P. D o n n e l l y reproduced the text, translation and notes of F. P.
S i m p s o n (Oxford 1882) while adding a rhetorically oriented commentary which had previously been lacking in English (150). The
commentary was his main concern and collation of manuscripts, as
well as papyrus testimony, was ignored.
Two French works appeared dealing with oration xviii. A reissue of
A. A d e r e r ' s nineteenth Century edition of the text was published in
1933 (151). R. F l e u r y (152) published some annotated extracts
corresponding to his excerpta Phippica mentioned earlier (104).
P. T r e v e s edition of the Crown speech (153) was hailed by his
countrymen as a new direction away from the former mediocrity of
Italian editors, but it failed to achieve the respect in other countries
which his Philippics did. His text is basically that of F u h r and
Croiset. His strong historical commentary is weak in the areas of
linguistics and grammar. The only other Italian edition of the speech
to come to our attention is that of C a p o v i l l a (154).
R. S c h n e e ' s German edition of the Kranzrede (155) is a fairly
modest endeavor intended for the schools. Textual matters are briefly
handled, though the findings of Blass and F u h r are considered. His
notes are very elementary. We have been unable to consult the editions
of K a s i m a k o s (156) and S i n a n o g l u (158). M a y o r ' s edition is a
Spanish school text (157).
The only annotated edition of the Embassy speech which has come
to our attention is that of C. Cessi (159). It is, like the other publications of the Signorelli press, provided with a short introduction and
notes to assist youthful readers in the schools.
160. G. T u r t u r r o , L'orazione per la Corona, Rome 1924.
161. *0. A n t o n i a z z i , L'orazione per la Corona, Milan 1943.
162. *E. L a p i e c e r e l l a , L'orazione per la Corona, Turin 1944.
163. *0. L. H o l l a n d , The Speech on the Crown, Bournesmouth
1926.
164. *J. D. N. R u f f i n , The Celebrated Crown Trial, London 1933.
165. *H. v a n L o o y , Kransrede, Antwerp 1950.
166. *J. G u i l l o n , Sur la couronne, Paris 1962.
37
167. *A. B. D r a c h m a n n , Aeschines og Demosthenes, Raekkeq

1917.
168. *P. M. B a l a g u e , Por la Corona, Barcelona 1950.
The popularity of the Crown speech is seen even more clearly in
translations than in the list of critical editions. Translations into six
languages have come to our attention. Annotated translations into
Italian were published by T u r t u r r o (160), A n t o n i a z z i (161) and
L a p i c c i r e l l a (162). An English translation was published by 0. L.
H o l l a n d (163) and another is contained on pp. 2148 of J. D. N.
R u f f i n ' s work (164) which is a study of the confrontation of Demosthenes and Aeschines.
The first Dutch translation of the speech was done b y H . v a n L o o y
(165). A recent French translation of the speech was done by J. Guillon (166). A Danish translation of oration xviii is contained in A. B.
D r a c h m a n n ' s 1917 work on Aeschines and Demosthenes (167).
Finally, P. M. B a l a g u e translated the speech to complement earlier
translations of the Olynthiacs and Phippics (168). No translations of
oration xix have appeared.
169. W. F o x , Zu Demosthenes' Kranzrede, PhW 37,1917, 794-797.
830-832. 1599-1605 and 40, 1920, 833-835.
170. U. von W i l a m o w i t z - M o e l l e n d o r f f , Lesefrchte, Hermes
54, 1919, 66-68 (18, 198) = Kl. Sehr. 4, 1962, 305f.
171. T. S t a n g l , Zu Demosthenes, WKPh 34, 1914, 421^22.
172. W. Schmid, Zu Demosthenes de Corona 256, WKPh 37, 1917,
898-899.
173. D. Mayor, Sobre la critica de textos: Uno eulminante de
Demosthenes, Humanidades 1, 1949, 95-104.
174. J. J. H a r t m a n , Ad Demosthenis De falsa legatione p. 403A,
Mnemosyne 46, 1917-1918, 336.
H. R i c h a r d s (83), without conviction, suggested reading 7roXoaacr&ai for 7toXu<xaa$-ai at 18.50. P. Antin. 1.27 agrees with the manuscript reading. He suspected the infinitives at 19.16 and suggested
changing them to {Mjaei. xal ypaêt. He inserted T6 before TO rrepl
<J)oxla<; at 19.76 and preferred to place the first xal at 19.89 before
38
S7tXcov, perhaps by reading 87iXtov x<xTa<7xeuo<;. To gain proper form for

an exclamation at 19.200, we should read SrJTa for Srj TOC. Also, at
19.209, more usual form demands we read TIOXXGW xat [iaxptv for
(xaxpwv xal TOXXWV.
In his other article (115), R i c h a r d s suggested, after accepting

W e i l ' s roxxpa? (xev ex? cêTepac; with B l a s s , transposing the second
a n d third Couplets of the poem a t 18.289 t o achieve a better progression of ideas. He also asks whether ^Seiv might not be preferable to
elSev a t 19.284.
W . F o x (169) presented a series of very sane and laudable articles
on speech xviii. His moderation and respect for the received t e x t is
exemplary and should be a model for the editors of Demosthenes. His
general conclusion is t h a t conjecture in Demosthenes is seldom necessary. Among his comments, he points out that the deletion of xal TYJ
a7roXoy[a a t 18.2, attributed t o him, is based on a misunderstanding
of a n earlier Suggestion. It should be retained and t a k e n t o refer to
b o t h the prosecution and defense.
Many of F o x ' s comments are grammatical and seek to promote
understanding of misunderstood and sometimes " e m e n d e d " passages.
He feit t h a t S i t z l e r ' s change of ^trav to eiaiv at 18.12 is unnecessary
a n d t h a t ox &xei of S a t 18.12 is preferable to ox EVI. At 18.13 S before
correction omitted Sei. F o x , with S p e n g e l , feltit is the best reading.
In t h e same paragraph, D i n d o r f and others read Sv for l a w . Others
prefer disconnecting o8' ev . . . TOTD TTOIEIV and connecting it with
OTE . . . S<mv. F o x feit the phrase needed no correction. He also called
W i l a m o w i t z - M o e l l e n d o r f f ' s (170) change of o yap ep. to o yap
atp. inadmissable. The general failure of the papyri to support frequently volunteered Demosthenic emendations certainly tends to support
F o x ' view t h a t the t e x t of the orations is not as corrupt as m a n y would
h a v e us believe.
T. S t a n g l (171) sought a rhythmically equivalent, yet more forceful, replacement for 7tapeuxtv a t 18.198. He found it inroxpEt.o-i.vequivalent to vaodvei, in the sense of "rising to make a speech". W.
S c h m i d (172) agreed with G o o d w i n in feeling t h a t xXe7To a t 18.256
should be a stronger rendition of the earlier insulting <|n>Xp&Ci which it
cannot literally mean. He suggested, therefore, emending it to lotXefxou
t o achieve the correspondence.
Much in the spirit of F o x is the contention of M a y o r (173) t h a t
aTo? of SL 1 a t 18.208 is preferable to OWTCV of G o o d w i n . In t h e only
t e x t change offered for oration xix, J . J . H a r t m a n (171) suggested
emending fjuxpcv (19.197) to 7uxp>v. Except for R i c h a r d s ' emendation a t 18.50, the papyri offer no help in determining t h e efflcacy of
these corrections.
Texte and Textual Criticism, Individual Orations
39
G. Against Leptines and Midias (xx, xxl)

Commentaries
175. *C. C e s s i , L'orazione contro la legge per la soppressione

delT i m m u n i t a proposta da Leptine, Milan 1935.
176. J . R. K i n g , Speech against Meidias, Oxford 1901.
177. * D . B a s s i , L'orazione contro Midia, Milan 1935.
178. *C. T. A r a p o p o u l o s , Ka-r MeiSlou A', Athens 1961.
Of the four editions listed above, the first three are good, annotated
school editions. We know nothing about the fourth. K i n g ' s edition
(176) has a t e x t revised by B u t c h e r before his OCT appeared. No
translations of these Speeches have come to our attention.
179. R. J . S h a c k l e , Demosthenes, Leptines 7 and 139, CR 28,
1914, 49-50.
180. J . E. S a n d y s , Demosthenes, Leptines 139, CR 28, 1914, 128.
181. R. C a h e n , Remarques sur quelques passages du discours de
Demosthene contre Leptine, R P h 41, 1917, 234-242.
182. A. N. O i k o n o m i d e s , Ax-rixal lmypa.fa.1, Polemon 5, 19521955, 145-146.
R. J . S h a c k l e (179) found xo? after xaTa|ae(x<p6|aevov a t 20.7
troublesome. Neither could he accept riva; which is a marginal reading
in S and a superscription in L. He suggested reading xou? (xal TO;):.
At 20.139 he defended GKOTZ Se xa TOTO often bracketed by editors,
and suggested changing sxelvou to exeivco, thus creating a parenthesis
directed t o w a r d Leptines. He was answered almost immediately by
J . A. S a n d y s (180) who pointed out t h a t the axora . . . phrase and
xal fi.T)v . . . clause are mutually exclusive. If either must be deleted, it
is better t h a t the first be bracketed. He also noted t h a t xal frrjv should
never be t r e a t e d as a parenthesis, since it always begins a sentence
and marks emphatic transition to a new argument.
R. C a h e n (181), while commenting on grammatical and syntactical
points in 20.91-92, 95-97, 101, 115, 118 and 130, made some textual
observations. He defended -rifiv at 20.15, finding the apparent conflict
with Ti.fx?) unfounded. He supposed a participle was lost after ava^twv
a t 20.47 a n d pointed to the strnge lack of a form of eijxi in the relative
clause a t 20.55.
40
H. R i c h a r d s (115) would have us read 8ov)v for 8<TT]? a t 20.36. He

also suggested, without conviction, inserting âvrjjxcv after TTOIOVTE;
(20.55) and reading TravoupyoTaTOv for xaxoupYoxocTov (20.125).
A. N. O i k o n o m i d e s (182) has published an interesting fragment
of a fourth Century B.C. stele. His reconstruction of the epitaph reads
na(A[x[vr)s] na(xpi.[vou? joptxtoc;. At paragraph 22 of In Midiam t h e
manuscripts read afi-fiev/n; na[Z[xevou<;. Codex S then has ropôi; a n d
the others roxpxo?. Both B l a s s and B u t t m a n tried t o alter this
reading to derive a deme name ('Ep/ie; and 'Ep/ie?). O i k o n o m i d e s
feit t h a t the proper form could now be seen in optxioc; which has been
badly mutilated in transmission. Unfortunately, neither this emendation, nor any of the others offered for Speeches xx and xxi can be
checked against papyrus testimony.
H. Against Androtlon, Aristocrates, Tiinocrates and Aphobug

(xxli, xxiii, xxiv, xxvii, xxviii, xxix)
1. E d i t i o n s , C o m m e n t a r i e s a n d
Translations
183. *M. F a g g e l l a , Orazione contro Androzione, Milan 1937.

184. *L. V o l p i s , L'orazione contro Aristocrate, Milan 1936, 1940.
185. *C. T. A r a p o p o u l o s , K a r a Tifwxpaxou?, Kar' 'Av8poxicovo<;,
Athens 1961.
, Aoyoi fcrevrpomxot, Kax' 'A96ou III, np6<; "A<poov, Athens
1955.
The two Italian editions listed above are sound annotated school
texts. Our meagre Information on V o l p i s ' 1940 edition indicates t h a t
it includes a translation. As with his works listed earlier, we have seen
neither of A r a p o p o u l o s ' editions included here.
I. Against Zenothemis and Phormio, For Phormio, Against Nausicles and

Boeotus (xxxii, xxxiv, xxxvi, xxxviii, xxxix)
Commentaries
186. *A. C. C o s m a n , Rede tegen Zenothemis, Diss. Leiden 1939.

187. E. Z i e b a r t h , Eine Handelsrede aus der Zeit des Demosthenes,
die Rede X X X I V gegen Phormion, Heidelberg 1936.
188. *I. C. S a b b a d i n i , La prima orazione contro Beoto, Florence
1949.
41
The most outstanding of the three volumes listed above is the

dissertation of A. C. C o s r a a n (186). He convincingly argued for the
genuineness of the work and added to the text, which is based on
R e n n i e ' s , a sound Introduction and commentary. Z i e b a r t h (187)
apparently also based his t e x t on t h a t o f R e n n i e . His Introduction
is oriented, as his title implies, toward an explanation of Attic trade
and law. S a b b a d i n i ' s edition of oration xxxix (188) is evidently an
undistinguished annotated school text.
189. C. R u e g e r , Zur pseudodemosthenischen Rede gegen Phormio
(34), P h W 43, 1923, 549-552.
190. D. S. R o b e r t s o n , Notes on Demosthenes and the Younger
Pliny, C R 37, 1923, 152-153.
191. K. M n s c h e r , Zu Demosthenes, Hermes 54, 1919, 32-27.
192. T . T h a l h e i m ,
443^45.
Zu
Demosthenes,
Hermes 54, 1919, 108.
193. G. M. C a l h o u n , Demosthenes Against Boeotus I ( X X X I X )

37-38, CPh 16, 1921, 287-288.
194. C. R u e g e r , Zu Demosthenes Rede gegen Boiotus I, P h W 38,
1918, 309-311.
C. R u e g e r (189) has come to much the same conclusion as G e r n e t
(36), namely t h a t codex A has much to offer in the private Speeches.
He gave a long list of A readings which he considered superior to those
offered by the other manuscripts. At 34.25 he suggested bracketing
Tp(.oxtXia<; evootOCTtat; etxocji as a gloss on TO 8E o-ufi.7rav . . . T6<JOV.
R o b e r t s o n (190) suggested changing <xv-u|i.ot.pei of S F Q a t 36.8,
a unique form, to vTijioip' elvx, a form found once in Aeschylus. He
feit t h a t xa? vTifjtotpiai; of A could then be a gloss on <xvTt[j.oipa.
At 38.12 T. T h a l h e i m (192) wished to alter oY eocuxo, where a
reflexive is not needed, to oY cxetvou, thereby providing a reference to a
middle man. K. M n s c h e r (191) objected t h a t the demonstrative
would be ambiguous, since two other men are introduced between the
earlier reference to the middleman and this phrase. He also pointed to
the fact t h a t B l a s s a n d R e i s k e considered SV axuro ingenious.
M n s c h e r agreed with T h a l h e i m , however, in judging 38.20-22
a badly integrated rehashing of the conclusion to oration xxxvii. He
did not accept T h a l h e i m ' s Suggestion of transposition after paragraph 24, beHeving the whole speech was incomplete a t Demosthenes'
death and was published in the imperfect form posthumously. In con-
42
Texts and Textual Criticism, Individua. Orations
clusion, M n s c h e r pointed out, as did F o x (169), t h a t critics of t h e

Demosthenic text should realize t h a t conjectures are seldom worthwhile a n d t h a t windfalls are few. He also suggested t h a t t h e y look p a s t
B l a s s to the older editions of V o e m e l and S a u p p e where many of
their "ingenious criticisms" are anticipated.
This reaction to B l a s s ' contempt for the received t e x t was cont i n u e d i n some observations on oration xxxix by G. M. C a l h o u n (193).
He stated t h a t 39.37-38 are not interpolated passages, b u t t h a t a misunderstanding of Attic law led B l a s s to suspect them. He also contended t h a t paragraph 39 is not stylistically preferable if placed
immediately after 36.
C. R u e g e r (194), in commenting on these paragraphs, pointed out
t h a t reference is made to t h e m a t 39.41. If B l a s s would strike out
37-38, he would also have t o bracket 4 1 . R u e g e r did feel t h a t
vaYvtoiH . . . e'&exo at 39.36 is strnge and probably only a marginal
note which has crept into t h e text. At 39.9 he suggested omitting $j
after 7rw7toxe and changing the preceding xal to 8. Otherwise he
followed M n s c h e r and F o x in defending manuscript readings,
spurning B l a s s ' emendation of XOETE TWV [xapxupwv (39.6) a n d his
deletion of Y) SIXTJ (39.8). P. Oxy 8.1093 supports R u e g e r ' s judgement
in the latter case.
K. Agbiust Phaenippus, Macartatug, Leochures, Stephanus I, and Erergos

(xlii, xliii, xliv, \!v. xlvii)
195.
K. M n s c h e r , Zu Demosthenes, Hermes 57, 1922, 465-471.
196. C. R u e g e r , Zur pseudodemosthenischen Rede gegen Euergos

u n d Mnesibulos (47), P h W 40, 1920, 117-120.
197. U. A l b i n i ,
309-311.
Demosthenes 42.28-29, Philologus
103, 1959,
None of orations xl-xlix appeared in individual editions during our

period. Some work was done, however, with the text. T . T h a l h e i m
(192) suggested adding cpS-wovc-cx; after ixTfl a t 42.1 t o m a k e it
accord with the same phrase a t 42.12. M n s c h e r (191) p o i n t e d
out t h a t V o e m e l had made the same Suggestion in 1843. H e feit
t h a t it would be better placed after (J.T)VO<;. T h a l h e i m also w a n t e d
to read oS' vsij;i6? for TO vs^w a t 43.41 to correct t h e relationship
between Philagrus and Hagnias. M n s c h e r agreed t h a t T h a l h e i m
had correctly seen the family ties, b u t did not realize t h a t S a u p p e
43
had already deleted the phrase here and at 43.49, while V o e m e l sought
to avoid the problem by inserting xo 7iaxpo<; after aveîo. Again,
dependence on B l a s s a n d ignorance of former editors led a corrector
into already trodden paths. The same Situation occurs a t 44.13 where
T h a l h e i m bracketed 7ip<; 8e xod . . . o5xoi, as D o b r e e had earlier.
M n s c h e r favored an Interpretation of S c h w e b s c h which T h a l h e i m h a d rejected, b u t pointed out t h a t an unfinished draft of an
unknown orator should not be pressed too far for good sense.
R u e g e r (196) preferred 7r<xpa86vxoc<; of S a t 47.7 to 7tapa86vxo<; of
F Q D , B l a s s a n d S c h a e f e r . He also deleted (XT) before Sta Xywv at
47.9, approved of W o l f s 7rpo<ne[xevcov at 47.10, rejected B e k k e r ' s
and B l a s s ' bracketing of xal x&v S9j(xov a t 47.33, and suggested bracketing oSevi and changing 8e8pax6at. 8e to SeSpoocoai xe a t 47.69.
A l b i n i ' s short article (197) attempted to "balance the books" in
the case against Phaenippus. R i c h a r d s (115) suggested inserting
xeXeueiv after yuvoctxa a t 47.73. No papyrus testimony relevant to any
of these passages is available.
L. Against Polycles, Conon, Callicrates, Eubulides, Theocrines and Neaera

(1, liv, 1T, lvii, lviii, liv)
Commentaries
198. *A. C o s a t t i n i , L'orazione contro Conone, Milan 1936.

199. *R. N u t i , In Cononem, Florence 1959.
The only editions of orations 1-lix to appear separately during our
period are two school texts of number liv by Itahan editors.
200. T. T h a l h e i m , Zu Demosthenes, Hermes 56, 1921, 4 3 2 ^ 3 4 .
201. J . H. K e i l s , Demosthenes 55.21, C R 6 4 , 1950, 46-51.
202. Th. S. T z a n n e t a t o s , To lv8exaovxa<; ev xw Kax 0eoxpivoi>
X6yw, Piaton 4, 1952, 313-320.
203. J . J. H a r t m a n , Ad pseudo-Demosthenis orationem
Neapa<; p . 1362, Mn 44, 1916, 372.
Kaxa
T. T h a l h e i m (200), u n h a p p y with B l a s s ' acceptance of a xc for

xcv a t 50.14, preferred rather to retain the reading of the majority
44
of manuscripts, thereby gaining a contrast with w h a t precedes.

D. S. R o b e r t s o n (190) would have us read aSoxi^' <&v> a t 50.36 and,
in order to legitimize Ctesias a n d clarify a troublesome passage 6 , read
xod TOTO for TOTO xal a t 54.26.
In an extensive commentary on the elHpsis in the phrase el xai [rrfibi

&XXo (55.21), J . H. K e i l s presented other examples of the phenomenon
and accepted the passage as it Stands in the manuscripts (201).
In the speech against Eubulides T h a l h e i m (192) found t h a t TOTO
8' 9jv in paragraph 9 was inappropriate and suggested t h a t it be
emended to TOTO 8' 9jyev b y analogy with elprjvyjv, 7i6Xejiov, EopTvjv Syetv.
M n s c h e r (195) admitted t h a t T h a l h e i m had uncovered a damaged
section, b u t rejected his remedy as unparalleled in Demosthenes. He
noted t h a t npaTTEiv is most common with ex or dato aTOjxTou a n d
therefore suggested emending to ETrpaêv.
T h a l h e i m also offered several emendations for the speech against
Theocrines. He would read 7tpoo-Y)XE'. for 7rpocr5ixev a t 58.10, expand the
phraseology of the law at 58.21 to agree with t h a t of 58.49, delete TV
Stxatcx; . . . E7U(isX7)a6fxevov at 58.29 as an intrusive gloss, and a t 58.56
he would change (x? to fzeic;, adopt the vulgate reading of O-ETS a n d
place the variant addition (SFA) TOUTOUCTI after puapou? to achieve good
sense. M n s c h e r accepted the changes a t 58.9 and 21, b u t was less
approving of those a t 58.29 and 56, attributing the latter to t h e
characteristic obscurities of this non-Demosthenic speech. R i c h a r d s
(83) suggested inserting TCV rorjO-OjiEvwv <xtz6 after to-xei a t 58.59.
In a later article, T h a l h e i m (200) presented a few emendations for
the t e x t of the oration against Neaera. He feit t h a t veoTspa a t 59.22
could more easily be a corruption of dtwpoTspa t h a n B l a s s ' a9<xveo-TEpa.
He rejected B l a s s ' deletion of TpdbiEsav 7tapafteji.Evoi. a t 59.33 as a
misunderstanding on the earlier editor's part and suggested reading
r.xpx Nsatpav, rather t h a n 7cp6<; Ne. a t 59.34 to continue the misunderstood thought. T h a l h e i m also defended the manuscript reading a t
59.124, rejecting ox inserted by V o e m e l , S t a e k e r , B l a s s a n d
D r e r u p . J . J . H a r t m a n (203) believed a verb of imitation, not
seeking, is needed at 59.50 and suggested changing E^VJTEI to IZy-fkou.
At 58.40 the manuscripts have o-uvEvSsxaTôvTa? (A) or EvSixaôvTa;
(S rell.). Harpocration cites this speech for the use of svSsxaôvTa?
here. Older editors accepted his reading, but more recent ones have
not. T z a n n e t a t o s (202) defended Harpocration's reading on paleographic and linguistic grounds as the best offered.
* * *
6
This passage is apparently carried in Pack no. 331, but we do not have
accoss to the publication of the Rainer papyri.
45
Having listed the emendations made to the t e x t of Demosthenes

during our period, it is proper to make a few observations concerning
them. First, the need for widespread correction of the corpus has been
based on an often difficult text transmitted by four old manuscripts
which differ widely between one another. Add t o this a millenium
separating author's original from the archetype of the tradition, and
we have a n attractive ground for hunters of error to work in. Even so,
however, the received t e x t has had its Champions who have pointed out
the inappropriateness of certain emendations and who have preferred
manuscript readings t o corrections 6 . Papyrus testimony now establishes t h a t the four manuscript families are not middle Byzantine, but
ancient recensions. Since the Demosthenic text of the early years of
our era was very similar to t h a t of the manuscripts, we can place more
confidence in the Codices and a t t e m p t to explicate rather t h a n emend
their difficulties. Literary critical energies could t h e n be channeled
into new and badly needed annotated editions of individual Speeches.
With a firmer foundation upon which to build, text critics could then
t u r n to collation of slighted Codices, compilation of a complete text
history of Demosthenes' Speeches, and completion of the Teubner
series, or a new one which would present a necessarily a b u n d a n t and
painstaking apparatus criticus.
* Papyrus evidence exists for seven passages in which critics have made
corrections. We have been unable to check one. In the other six, the papyri
support the Codices. Errors could certaimy have crept into the text during
the Hellenistic period, so these six passages are therefore not sufficient
to condemn the emendations completely. They do prove, however, that
the manuscripts are more faithful to the text as it existed in antiquity
than was formerly suspected. We can now reduee the period of supposed
corruption to the few hundred years preceding the writing of the papyri
and hopefully decrease the belief in a need for widespread emendation.
IV. Demosthenes' Early Life and Education

204. S. A c c a m e , Demosthene e l'insegnamento di Piatone, Milan
1947. Rev.: U n t e r s t e i n e r , RSF 1948, 171-172.
205. K. Kalbfleisch, Plato und Demosthenes, RhM 92. 1943,
190-191.
206. D. R o b i n s o n , Two new grave stelae from the deme of Demosthenes, AJA 51, 1947, 366-369.
207. R. Sealey, On Coming of age in Athens, CR 7, 1957, 195-197.
208. R. Weil, Quelques nouveautes en philologie classique: autour
de Piaton et de Demosthene, IL 13, 1961, 104-108.
See also Nos.: 13,14,15,224.
Despite an unusual abundance of detailed Information on Demosthenes' early life, very little has been added to the minutely detailed
studies of Schaefer and Blass in the nineteenth Century. The date
of the orator's birth (381/0), postulated by Dionysius and his authorities, has been generally rejected. Demosthenes, therefore, was born
either in 385/4 or 384/3. Greater precision than this is niade difficult by
a conflict in the sources. The Athenian Constitution states that young
men were not registered in their demes until their eighteenth birthday,
whereas in the Guardian Speeches Demosthenes has clearly reckoned
inclusively (207), when he states that he was undcr his guardians' care
for ten years. Accordingly he would have been 17 at the time of his
registration. P h o t i a d e s (224), relying on the testimony of the
Athenian Constitution, has thus arrived at 385/4 as the date of Demosthenes' birth. Sealey (207), however, prefers the testimony of Demosthenes and thus adopts any time in 384/3, except for the first two
months, as the correct date.
R o b i n s o n (206) has turned up a grave stele from Liopesi in
Mesogaea, the location of ancient Paeania, which contains the name
of Philodemus, to whom Demosthenes, as Aeschines alleges (ii.150),
owed his enrollment in the deme.
Some interest has been shown in the influence of leading philosophers and rhetoricians in Demosthenes' education, but nothing conclusive has come of it. The stories about Demosthenes as an errant
pupil of Plato, found in the scholia to Galen and the commentary of
Olympiodorus on Gorgias, as well as the accounts of more direct sour-
Demosthenes' Early Life and Education
47
ces (e.g., Hermippus in Gellius, Plutarch, et al.), are mostly recognized

as apocryphal (cf. 14), although some scholars are inclined to see a
grain of truth in them. In the absence of concrete evidence, Weil (208)
and Accame (204) believe that Plato's influence on Demothenes can
be deduced from the latter's political Speeches. According to Weil,
Demosthenes' method of oratorical disposition fulfills the requirements of Socrates in the Phaedrus that the speech avoid the artiflcial
divisions taught by the rhetoricians and adopt instead a plan, a psychological plan, that best conforms to the subject under discussion.
Accame, on the other hand, claims to have detected the impress of
Plato's political beliefs on the orator. Neither of the two opinions is
likely to win acceptance. P u e c h (15) refuses to entertain the idea of
Plato's influence; P i c k a r d - C a m b r i d g e (14), more cautiously, discounts the possibility of direct influence. The tendency to associate
Demosthenes with Plato has been attributed by T r e v e s (282) to late
commentators who took their cue from Cicero's insistence on a philosophical education for the ideal orator.
V. Portraits
209. *V. B l a v a c k i j and S. I s l a m i , The excavations of Apollonia,
SA 4, 1959, 166-201.
210. S. Casson, A new copy of a portrait of Demosthenes, JHS 46,
1926, 72-79.
211. J. Crome, Polyeuktos, AA 1942, 47-48.
212. *D. F a c c e n n a , Rinvenimento di un gruppo di sculture,
NSA 5, 1951,55-75.
213. *H. Koch, Zur Statue des Demosthenes, Festschrift Zucker,
Berlin, 1954, 219-225.
214. F. P o u l s e n , A propos d'une tte de Demosthene, RA 2, 1917,
328-338.
215. G. S a n g i o r g i , Der Demosthenes des Dioscurides, Pantheon
10, 1937, 144-145.
216. C. Weller, A new restoration of the statue of Demosthenes,
Art and Archaeology 1, 1914, 47-50.
217. G. L i p p o l d , Polyeuktos, R-E I 21.2, 1629-1630.
Casson (210) reports the acquisition by the Ashmolean Museum of
an excellent, heretofore unknown, marble head of Demosthenes, which
probably dates within a hundred years frcm the time of Polycuctus'
famous bronze. Readers lacking ready access to B e r n o u l l i (Griechische Ikonographie II) will find Casson's Classification of known
portraits a useful means of orientation. S a n g i o r g i ' s description (215)
of the Piombino Amethyst concerns itself more with the art of gern
ingraving in the period of Augustus than with the portrait of Demosthenes.
Restorations of three of the best marble copies of the Polyeuctus
bronze, the head at Ny Carlsberg and the two best-known fll length
statues at the Vatican and at Knole Hall, are discussed by P o u l s e n
(214) and Weller (216). But who was Polyeuctus? Crome (211) argues
that there was no artist by that name. The frequent occurrence of
Polyeuctus, the friend and fellow statesman of Demosthenes, in the
account of Ps. Plutarch (vitaX orat.) led to a scribal error; a name,
such as Polycles, should be read in place of Polyeuctus. L i p p o l d (217)
rightly refuses to entertain the suspicion of Crome. There was an
artist named Polyeuctus who created a bronze portrait of Demosthenes based on another portrait from the orator's lifetime; but he is
not to be confused either with Demosthenes' friend or with an archon
of the third Century.
VI. Early Private Speeches

A. Guardian Speeches (xxvii, xxviii. xxix, xxx, xxxi)
218. G. C a l h o u n , A problem of authenticity (Demosthenes 29),
TAPA 65, 1934, 80-102.
219. M. F i n l e y , Studies in land and credit in ancient Athens,
New Brunswick, N.J., 1951, 257, 299ff.
220. L. G e r n e t , Sur les parents de Demosthene, REG 31, 1918,
185-196.
221. J. Korver, Demosthenes gegen Aphobos, Mn 10, 1941, 8-22.
222. A. Momigliano, La eiatpopdc e la sostanza di Demostene,
Athenaeum 9, 1930, 377-396.
223. F. O e r t e l , Zur Frage der attischen Groindustrie, RhM 79,
1930, 230-252.
224. P. P h o t i a d e s , 'Ep^veta
38, 1926, 44-48.
OXSTIXO AY)(JLOOIVOU<;
/coptou, Athena
225. G. Ste.-Croix, Demosthenes' TLjnôc and the Athenian eiscpopdc in the fourth Century B.C., C&M 14, 1953, 30-70.
226. W. S c h w a h n , Demosthenes gegen Aphobos: Ein Beitrag zur
Geschichte der griechischen Wirtschaft, Leipzig 1929. Rev.: LZB1929,
1406; Cary, CR 1929,179; O e r t e l , DLZ 1930, 1020; R u e g e r , PhW
1930, 257-262; C a l h o u n , CP 1930, 86-89; S e u r e , RPh 1930, 279;
L a t t e , Gn 1930, 618; REG 1930, 447.
227. , Die attische Eisphora, RhM 82, 1933, 247-284.
228. A. T r a m o n t a n o , Gli e7UTpomxo Demostenici, SIFC 25,
1951, 169-187.
See also Nos.: 9, 36, 247, 252.
The third speech against Aphobus (xxix) offers problems which to
many scholars of the nineteenth Century, Blass excluded, were
sufficient to vitiate its claim to authenticity. Calhoun (218), having
re-examined the evidence, finds no single, decisive argument against
Demosthenic authorship. The validity of the legal information imparted by the speech has been variously appraised. S c h w a h n (226),
who regards the speech as spurious, nevertheless finds the legal matter
4 Lustrum 14
50
Early Private Speeches
compatible with fourth Century practice. F i n l e y (219), however,

doubts both the speech's authenticity and the reliability of its legal
Information. If Calhoun (218) and Momigliano (222) are inclined to
accept the speech as authentic, real difficulties remain. For example,
how does Demon come to be called a synepitropos, or how to reconcile
Aphobus' having established residence in Megara with his subsequent
appearanee in Athenian courts? G e r n e t (36) notes new information in
the third speech which properly would have belonged in the first two,
a formula for introducing testimony in xxix that is noticeably different
from that employed in the other Guardian Speeches, and, finally, the
length of the speech which exceeds the normal extent of a deuterology.
On the basis of these objections he theorizes that the third speech
against Aphobus is the work of a redactor who edited into a single
oration numerous fragments that Demosthenes had prepared in anticipation of his opponents' defense but had not used before the court.
G e r n e t ' s theory requires the support of thorough analysis, which it
has not yet received. The idea has merit and should be accepted in
preferance to D r e r u p ' s notion (9) that the speech was an exercise
assigned to his pupils by Demosthenes in his early days as professor
of eloquence.
The Speeches against Aphobus (xxvii, xxviii, xxix) are of special
interest to the study of fourth Century business practices and taxation.
Because information in both of these areas remains fragmentary, the
tendency to read into it modern methods and concepts has been almost
irresistible. Such has been the inclination of Schwahn (226), whose
study, though for the most part accepted by G e r n e t (36) has encountered serious disagreement from Oertel (223), K o r v e r (221), and
F i n l e y (219); however, the dissenters are likewise in disagreement
with one another. S c h w a h n (226) takes exception to the traditionally
regarded division of Demosthenes' accounts into "working" and "idle"
capital, because certain sums mentioned in the latter category were
lent out to individuals or deposited in banks, where one would
normally expect earnings to accrue on the principal. He therefore
decides that the two categories represent not "working" and "idle"
capital but something like growing capital (Arbeitskapital, Werteschaffendes Kapital), whose value increases, and unproductive capital,
whose value does not appreciate, although it may bring in income.
Thus in the second category S c h w a h n insists that moneys deposited
in the banks or lent to individuals earned interestand that at 12 %
although no evidence in the Speeches supports the idea. K o r v e r ' s
study (221) attempts to prove by various explanations that the "idle"
sums were indeed idle, that is, bringing in no income; and this is
perhaps the safest view. For if we accept S c h w a h n ' s basic contention,
51
we are obbged to follow it with various conjectures about

interest rates, value of slaves, stock inventories, volume of
business, accounts receivable, and so onfor which the text gives not
the slightest proof. O e r t e l (223) is likewise critical of S c h w a h n ' s
conclusions, but bis own suggestions partake of the same quality of
conjecture.
It seems unnecessary to regard in xxx.15 (isx yajxou? as a scribal
error for xaxa vfiou?, as P h o t i a d e s (224) suggests, or merely as an
interpolation, which is G e r n e t ' s bebef (36). In the same passage
Demosthenes states that he did not initiate formal proceedings until
two years after bis registration, which was the earhest possible time,
according to law, that he could have taken up his suit in court. For
additional comment on the passage see Sealey (247).
Interpretations of xxviii.ll, xxvii.29, and other "problem passages"
in the Speeches against Aphobus are crucial to a correct understanding
of the eisphora. The passages estabbsh a 1:5 ratio; but whether this
ratio represents the amount of eisphora actually paid by Demosthenes'
guardians on his behalf and his assessment (timema) or his assessment
and his total property has been for a long time disputed. Adopting the
latter theory, Momigliano (222) argues that Demosthenes represents
his assessment at three talents in order to create the impression that
the total worth of his property was fifteen talents, whereas in fact the
1 : 5 ratio actually refers to a surtax paid only by the liehest Athenians
at the rate of five minae on every twenty-five minae of basic eisphora.
M o m i g l i a n o ' s supposition has been rejeeted by Ste.-Croix (225),
who points out that such an attempt at misrepresentation could
hardly have escaped the attention of the Jury. Ste.-Croix (225) offers
the Solution that the leaders of a symmory, of whom Demosthenes was
one, were obhgated to underwrite a proeisphora up to a certain Proportion of their assessments, which was, in the highest class, a proportion of five minae on every twenty-five calculated by stages.
Despite the cogency of this explanation to problems of the symmory
System in general, many difficulties remain; and Ste.-Croix is
cautious enough to acknowledge them. It seems reasonably certain,
however, that the 1 : 5 ratio represents neither a proportion of eisphora
to assessment nor taxable assessment to real value. G e r n e t (220)
believes that if Demosthenes' maternal grandfather, Gylon, had died
in debt to the State, Demosthenes would have been obligated to
assume the debt, since the estate of persons without male issue is
passed on to the daughter's son.
T r a m o n t a n o (228) discusses, in general terms, the stylistic traits
of the five guardian Speeches. The influence of the school is noticeable
in the orator's orthodox approach. His expression, which is here in4
52
clined towards tumidity, shows promise of becoming sharpened to the

passionate character of the later Speeches. The influence of Isaeus is
most perceptible in argumentation.
B. Ou the Trierarchic Crown (li), Against Spudias (xli),
Against Callicles (lx)
229. P. H a l i s t e , Die Servitut der Wasserleitung in Piatons Gesetzen, Eranos 48, 1950, 142-149.
230. A. Gomme, Two old jokes, CQ 48, 1954, 46-52.
231. J. Miles, On Demosthenes, Contra Spudiam, Hermathena 85,
1955, 45-49.
232. R. R u e h l i n g , Der junge Demosthenes als Verfasser der Rede
gegen Spudias, Hermes 71, 1936, 441-451.
233. H. Wolff, The 8bo) XaY); in Demosthenes, Or., LV, AJP64,
1943, 316-324.
See also No. 36.
The legality of accepting or containing water flowing down from a
neighbor's property has been the central interest of Against Callicles
(lv). H a i l i s t e (229) argues that statutory regulations did not exist for
the question of the case; the settlement was obtained through arbitration. Gomme (230), on the other hand, believes that a misunderstanding of the text has led scholars to argue about something that is
not germane to the case. The question is not about the laws of easements but whether the natural course of the water was a line through
Tesias' son's property or the road which separated his land from that
of Callicles. Gomme is probably right; but there is one slight discrepancy in his argument. When he insists that a xP*8pa was a
natural, not an artiflcial, watercourse, what then is the meaning of
jâpSpav hizoirioi TI? (lx.16-17)?
Wolff (233) explains that the fine of 1000 drachmas was a normal
part of the dike blabes. If the defendant lost his suit, his property, from
which damage was alleged to have originated, was forfeited to the
plaintiff but could be ransomed by the defendant for 1000 drachmas.
G e r n e t (36), who apparently did not see this explanation, anticipates
it by rejecting the notion that damage had already been assessed a
1000 drachmas by a public arbitrator.
There seems to be little reason to question the authenticity of
Against Spudias (xli). G e r n e t (36) recognizes it as genuine, and
53
R u e h l i n g (232) attempts, rather ineffectually, to support this view

on stylistic grounds. According to Miles (231) the legal category of the
case is neither dike proikos nor dike blabes, but diadikasia tou klerou.
The estate of Polyeuctos was passed to his daughters as epikleroi, who
are represented by their respective husbands as kurioi. G e r n e t (36)
admits that some of the demands of the plaintiff can not easily be
associated with the idea of damage; however, he is inclined to accept
dike blabes as the general category of the suit.
VII. Political Speeches up to the Peace of Philocrates (346 B.C.)

A. Problems of Dating
234. G. Cawkwell, Notes on the Social War, C&M 23,1962,34^19.
235. P. Cloche, Etde chronologique sur la troisieme guerre sacree
(356-346 av. J.-C), Paris 1915.
236. , La Chronologie de la troisieme guerre sacree jusqu'en 352
avant J.-C, LEC 8, 1939, 161-204.
237. F. F o c k e , Demosthenesstudien, Stuttgart. 1929. Rev.: LZB
1930, 318.
238. H. F r a n c o t t e , Etudes sur Demosthene, MB 17, 1913, 69-90.
237-288; ibid. 18, 1914 (1920), 157-188.
239. N. H a m m o n d , Diodorus'narrativeof the Sacred War and the
chronological problems of 357-352 B.C., JHS 57, 1937, 44-78.
240. G. J a c h m a n n , Geflschte Daten, Klio 17, 1942, 60-88.
241. U. K a h r s t e d t , Forschungen zur Geschichte des ausgehenden
fnften und des vierten Jahrhunderts, Berlin 1910.
242. D. Lewis, Notes on Attic inscriptions, ABSA 49, 1954, 17-50.
243. E. P o k o r n y , Studien zur griechischen Geschichte im sechsten
und fnften Jahrzehnt des vierten Jahrhunderts, Greifswald 1913.
244. A. R e h m , Zur Chronologie demosthenischer Staatsreden,
Silvae Monacenses, Munich 1926, 61-63.
245. E. S c h w e i g e r t , Greek inscriptions, Hesperia 8, 1939, 1^8,
esp. 12-17.
246. R. Sealey, Athens after the Social War, JHS 75, 1955, 74-81.
247. , Dionysius of Halicarnassus and some Demosthenic dates,
REG 68, 1955, 77-120.
The proper dating of the Speeches of Demosthenes within this period
depends, at least in part, on the Solution of problems in the chronologies of Diodorus and the dates given by Dionysius of Halicarnassus.
Two areas, in particular, have long been subject to controversythe
dates of the Social War and those of the Third Sacred War. The date
of 358/7 as the outbreak of the Social War, postulated by Diodorus,
Political Speeches up to the Peace of Philocrates (346 B.C.)
55
was rejected b y F r a n c o t t e (238) who followed Dionysius in assigning

the war t o 357/6-355/4. Subsequently S c h w e i g e r t (245) has produced
grounds to support the dates of Diodorus and received concurrence
from S e a l e y (246,247) and L e w i s (242). But S c h w e i g e r t ' s dating
of the b a t t l e of Chios in 358/7 has been subjected to intensive scrutiny
by C a w k w e l l (234) who Claims t h a t the main prop in S c h w e i g e r t ' s
theory, the fragment of Isaeus quoted by Dionysius, involves a textual
corruption, whose correction would completely eliminate this source
as evidence on the Social War. The slight discrepancy between Diodorus a n d Dionysius has been explained by S e a l e y (247): If Dionysius
dates the Social War in 357/6-355/4, it is because the major fighting
occurred during this time. In fact the war began in 358/7.
The chronology of Diodorus, particularly t h a t for the Third Sacred
War, is especially important for dating orations previous to the First
Philippic. Assaults on the competence of Diodorus have continued
since S c h a e f e r , following whose Suggestion such scholars as K a h r s t e d t (241), P o k o r n y (243), and C l o c h e (235,236) claim to have
found a doublet in Diodorus' record of events which, if their assumption is correct, would necessitate the removal of one year. H a m m o n d
(239) has provided sound reasons for defending the reliability of Diodorus, and despite the astute counter-rebuttal of C l o c h e (236) the
brden of proof may be regarded as having shifted to the "doublists".
The general direction of scholarship toward the end of our period
(1937-1965) has been away from the earlier scepticism and toward a
readiness to acknowledge the credibility of both Diodorus and Dionysius. S e a l e y (247) finds the Dionysian dates for Speeches i, ii, iii, v, vii,
viii, ix, xvi, xviii, and xxiii correct; those for vi, xiv, xv, xix, xx, xxii
and xxiv acceptable. Of course, the problems of dating remain complicated. F o c k e (237) and others have shown t h a t in many Speeches an
a t t e m p t a t dating must take into consideration the changes t h a t may
h a v e occurred between the time of their oral delivery before a law
court or an assembly and the time of their publication as literature.
B. Against Androtion (xxii), Against Leptines (xx),
Against Timocrates (xxiv)
248. D. A s h e r i , Gli impegni politici nel giuramento degli eliasti
ateniesi, R A L 19, 1964, 281-293.
249. G. M a r i d a k i s , Demosthene, theorician du droit, R I D A 5,
1950, 155-181.
250. 0 . N a v a r r e , Le style oratoire de Demosthene dans ses trois
plus anciens plaidoyers politiques, AC 8, 1939, 5-13.
See also No. 34.
56
Political Speeches up to the Paece of Philocrates (346 B.C.)
Dionysius' date (355/4) for Against Androtion (xxii) was seriously

questioned by L e w i s (242), who instanced especially the oration's
silence about the Battle of Chios and the d a t a from the navy list as
indications of an earlier date. S e a l e y (246, 247) and C a w k w e l l (234)
have attempted to explain away these objections; however, S e a l e y ' s
argument t h a t the Athenians did not like to be reminded of their
misfortunes in the Battle of Chios and C a w k w e H ' s explanation of
the navy list are not decisive. Still, the evidence which S e a l e y (247)
has produced in support of the Dionysian date carries more weight
t h a n the objections of L e w i s (242).
The so-ealled "oath of the Heliasts", inserted in the speech against
Timocrates (xxiv), has been regarded with suspicion because of the
wide rnge of competence t h a t it attributes to heliasts. A s h e r i (248)
explains how the heliasts could be expected to exercise such competence in trials of eisangelia or graphe paranomon. M a r i d a k i s (249)
has discussed the speech with reference to Demosthenes' contributions
as a theorist of law. N a v a r r e ' s examination (250) of Demosthenes'
style in xxii, xx, xxiv is supposed to reveal the orator in fll possession
of the stylistic characteristics t h a t are most often ascribed to the later
Speeches.
C. On the Symmories (xiv), For the Megalopolitans (xvi), For the Freedom
of the Rhodians (xv), On Financial Organization (xiii), Against ATistocrates
(xxiii)
251. P. C l o c h e , La politique de Demosthenes de 354 a 346 a v a n t
J.-C., BCH 47, 1923, 97-162.
252. A. J o n e s , The Athens of Demosthenes, Cambridge 1952.
253. F . L e v y , De Demosthenis epl auvTaêtdi; oratione, Berlin
1919. Rev.: R u e g e r , B P h W 1920, 145.
254. E . L i n k , Untersuchungen zur Symmorienrede (XIV) des
Demosthenes, Frankfurt 1940. R e v . : S e i d l , HZ 1941, 408; M i l t n e r ,
Klio 1942, 148; K r t e , Gn 1943, 34-10; C l o c h e , R H 1944, 153.
255. A. M o m i g l i a n o , Contributi alla caratteristica di Demostene,
C & M 3 , 1931,711-744.
256. , Chiarimento
975-976.
alla
caractteristica
di
Demostene,
ibid.,
257. E. S k a r d , Zur rhodischen Rede des Demosthenes, Serta Rudbergiana, Oslo 1931, 57-59.
258. L. V o r n d r a n , Die Aristocratea des Demosthenes als Advokatenrede und ihre politische Tendenz, Rhetorische Studien 11,
57
Paderborn 1922. Rev.: R u e g e r , PhW 1922, 1153-1161; P h i l i p p ,

LZB 1923, 190; Willem, BMB 1924, 6.
259. P. T r e v e s , Per uno studio su Demostene, RFIC 60, 1932,
68-74.
See also Nos.: 34, 238, 237, 247, 241, 243, 246, 9,11,14.
The problems of dating are especially delicate for two speeches in
this groupFor the Freedom of the Rhodians (xv) and On Financial
Organization (xiii). The latter speech, despite the strong reservations
raised by Blass in the nineteenth Century, has been regarded as
genuine by many scholars in our period. Levy (253) has pointed out
parallels between xiii and the Olynthiacs, and accordingly placed the
speech immediately after the Third Olynthiac at the end of 349/8.
F r a n c o t t e (238) and Focke (237), on the other hand, have emphasized that the temporal references in the speech point to a date
between 352 and 350. F r a n c o t t e puts it in 352 and Focke assigns it
to 351. Few scholars have been completely satisfied with Dionysius'
date (351/0) for the Rhodian speech (xv). If F o c k e ' s date of 351 for
On Financial Organization (xiii) is accepted, section 8 of that oration
argues strongly for the priority of the Rhodian speech, hence in the
second half of 352. This date, however, demands a reinterpretation of
Diodorus' account of the Persian expeditions against Egypt; and
F o c k e (237), it would appear, has provided such a reinterpretation.
The early political speeches of Demosthenes have been subjected to
numerous attempts, continuing from the nineteenth Century, to define
Demosthenes' political allegiances. A populr, overall view, advanced
by S c h w a r t z and supported by D r e r u p (9) and J a e g e r (11), has
been that Demosthenes in his early career contributed his oratorical
talent to Eubulus and the so-called peace party. Thus J a e g e r (11)
believes to see in these early speeches a systematic attempt on Demosthenes' part to alleviate the burdens of the rieh, who constituted the
majority in Eubulus' party. This view has been questioned by Cloche
(251) who does not see a preferential treatment of the rieh in Demosthenes' speeches and who attributes greater independence of thought
and judgement to his policies. An important testing ground for the
assertion of Demosthenes' allegiance to Eubulus is the speech On the
Symmories (xiv). According to J a e g e r (11) the proposal for naval
reform, made in the speech, was a scare tactic calculated to dampen
the bellicose enthusiasm of the adherents of Aristophon. Cloche (251),
Momigliano (255, 256), and L i n k (254), to name only three scholars,
are opposed to this Interpretation and believe that Demosthenes was
sincere in advocating naval reform, which he demanded not in anticipation of an eventual Showdown with Persia but with regard to the
58
growing threat from Macedonia. A supposition that is basic to the

issue is the existence in Athens of two clearly distinct partiesone,
that of Eubulus, dedicated to internal, economic recovery and the
other, that of Aristophon's followers, anxious to regain Athens' lost
prestige abroad through an imperialistic policy. Sealey (246), however, believes that there were at least three political parties active in
Athens and that furthermore these parties may not have been at odds
with one another at all times on political principles.
How consistent are Demosthenes' policies in the early state speeches
with those enunciated so unequivocally in the Philippics?. Drerup(9),
who depicts Demosthenes as a political Opportunist biding his time
with Eubulus, asserts that Demosthenes did not break with his patron
until the speech On the Financial Organization, pronounced after the
discourse On the Freedom of the Rhodians but beforc the Third Olynthiac. This theory would persuade us to accept the First Philippic
and the three Olynthiacs as spoken with the approval and in the spirit
of Eubulus ! J a e g e r ( l l ) , o n the other hand, traces a subtle line of divergence that has its faint beginnings in the speech For theMegalopolitans
(353/2), becomes more pronounced in the Rhodian speech, which he
dates with F o c k e (237) in 352, and finally reaches a definitive break
with Eubulus with Against Aristocrates. This last speech has thus been
subjected to three distinct interpretations. The first is that of Kahrs t e d t (241), who fits the speech into his radical interpretation that
Demosthenes' foreign policies were designed to serve the intere3t3 of
Persiaan interpretation attacked by almost every succeeding
scholar. The second interpretation, suggested by P o k o r n y (243) and
advanced in great detail by D r e r u p (9) and his Student, Liborius
V o r n d r a n (258), identifies Demosthenes' policies in the Aristocratea
with the party of Eubulus; however, Cloch6 (251) and J a e g e r (11)
have shown that this interpretation breaks down in the light of the
attacks made by Demosthenes against the leading politicians, among
whom Eubulus must have figured. It seems best, therefore to follow
the view of J a e g e r t h a t Demosthenes was not serving the interest
of any particular party or foreign government in his speech Against
Aristocrates; rather, he was promoting, independently, those policies
which he thought to be in the best interests of Athens.
A final consideration of the broad implications of the early public
speeches has to do with the quality and efficacy of their ideas. Scholars
have been led into this area of analysis primarily by Demosthenes'
negligible success in the initial stages of his career. J a e g e r (11)
regularly deplores the fact, attributing it to the storied inertia of the
Athenians, whereas P i c k a r d - C a m b r i d g e (14), J o n e s (252), and
Cloche (251) can find some justification for it, particularly in the posi-
59
tions t a k e n by Demosthenes on the Arcadian and Rhodian questions.

S k a r d ' s explanation (257) of the failure of Demosthenes' proposals
in the Rhodian speech is plausible and interesting. The Athenians,
according t o S k a r d , were fearful of Persia and cherished a grudge
against the Rhodians for their secession from the maritime league in
the Social War. But the overriding consideration, which Demosthenes
failed t o consider, was an economic factor. Egypt was the key; whoever eontrolled Egypt also controlled Rhodes, since the latter depended on the former for her flourishing trade. Shrewd business heads
a t Athens were content to see Rhodes involved in a serious internal
struggle and anxious to promote the Egyptian rebellion, hoping
thereby to eliminate Rhodes as a commercial rival. Demosthenes is
here charged with cherishing a dreamy kind of good-will politics along
the lines of Isocrates.
D. First Philippic (iv)

260. J . G i l o t , Le plan de la l r e Philippique de Demosthene, Bull,
du Cercle Pedag. de l'Univ. Cath. de Louvain 1950, 11-16.
261. H. K e s t e r s , D e m o s t h e n e s ' e e r s t e Philippische Rede, N & V ( B )
1932, 455-464.
262. , Demosthenes' voorstellen in de eerst Philippische rede,
N & V ( B ) 1932,29-39.
263. *A. R a b e , Demosthenica, I I : Analyse der Staatsreden des
Demosthenes: Abhandlung ber die Einheit der ersten Phippischen
Rede, Ms. located at Preu. Staatsbibl., Berlin 1928.
264. H. d e R a e d t , Plan psychologique de la premiere philippique
de Demosthene, LEC 19, 1951, 226-229.
265. J . S a m p a i x , Quelques notes pour l'etude litteraire de la I r e
Philippique de Demosthene, N & V ( B ) 1937, 23-30.
266. , Le comique, l'ironie dans la l r e Philippique de Demosthene: essais de traductions, commentaires, notes, ibid., 309-323.
See also Nos.: 237, 241, 243, 244, 247, 268.
Perhaps the most controversial of Dionysius' dates is t h a t of the
First Philippic (352/1). It was questioned seriously b y S c h w a r t z in
1893; and, although the new date (349) offered by S c h w a r t z has now
been generally rejected (cf. 268), the effect of his study was to cast
considerable doubt on the Dionysian date a n d to prompt further
a t t e m p t s at revision. The main support for S c h w a r t z ' s date of 349
was the reference in the speech to Philip's attack on Olynthus. F o c k e
60
(237) believed that the reference is not to be construed as a direct

attack on Olynthus herseif but on Stageira, a member of the Olynthian
Confederacy, which attack took place a year or two before the siege of
Olynthus. He also examined the campaigns of Philip in the years
352-350 and concluded that the Dionysian date would necessitate a
"mrderisches Tempo" of activity for Philip, and argues for inserting
another year between Philip's withdrawal from Thermopyle in the fall
of 352 and the delivery of the First Philippichence October of 350.
J a e g e r (11), on the other hand, considers the reference to Olynthus
as a late insertion made by Demosthenes shortly before the speech was
published and regards Philip's siege of Heraeum Teichos as the occasion of the speech. This construction of the background of the speech
would move it back to the Dionysian date. Further confirmation for
the Dionysian date has been attempted by Sealey (247) and Cawkwell (268).
The First Philippic has been the object of much literary analysis.
It is the first of the great state orations that have been regarded by
many as the quintessence of Demosthenes' virtuosity. As such, it
reveals subtle harmonies of ideas and images which are both natural
and get extremely difficult to define. We are instructed by K e s t e r s
(261, 262) that Demosthenes followed the conventional scheme of the
symbouleutic oration, such as one might find in the Rhetorica ad
Alexandrum of Anaximenes, but we are also shown how Demosthenes
became the master of his education rather than its slave. Other articles
reflect an increasing desire to understand the First Philippic without
reference to ancient rhetorical theory. S a m p a i x (265) is concerned
with the seemingly improvisatory character of the oration, which is
suggested by the alternation of the speech between segments of narrative and argumentation, by the lack of a strictly logical connection
between successive parts of the speech, and by the interspersing of
personal reflexions which lend a sense of immediacy and spontaneity.
These characteristics of the oration tend to run counter to the rhetoricians' insistence on logical coherence, but they are justified by psychological considerations. Demosthenes' primary task had been to overcome a pervasive mood of apathy on the part of his listeners, and for
that purpose his "psychological" approach was admirably suited. The
word "psychology" has been used (and quite often abused) to describe
Demosthenes' art. The article o f H . d e R a e d t (264), however, goes
beyond the bounds of constructive literary criticism when it attempts
to describe the "plan psychologique" in terms of a four-round boxing
match! Other, more thoughtful, attempts to trace a psychological
arrangement are to be commended for their recognition of the complexity of Demosthenes' speech rather than for the meaningfulness of
Politioal Speeches up to the Peace of Philocrates (346 B.C.)
61
their conclusions. Gilot (260) has constructed a graph on which he

attempts to represent by various Symbols the principal themes of the
oration and the frequency of their repetition. The weakness of the
method is blatantly obvious, when one glances at G i l o t ' s chart and
attempts to read the substance of an idea into a plus or minus sign.
Worse yet, the method seems to assume that Demosthenes' ideas are
reiterated in monotonous fashion and undergo little, if any, change in
nuance and color. The term "psychology", which its users seldom
bother to dehne in a meaningful way, has not proved to be a helpful
term. One of the better critical studies of the First Philippic has been
made by S a m p a i x (266), who has called attention to the comic and
ironic elements in the speech. The article, however, fails to do justice
to the importance of these elements in establishing a unified mode of
expression. The term "comic"is admitted to be imprecise by S a m p a i x
himself, when he wams us that Demosthenes' use of comic elements
had been determined by highly serious intentions. Would "satiric"
have been a more appropriate designation?
E. Olynthiacs (i, ii, iii)
267. N. B a s i l o p o u l o s , 'Eppjveu-uxa, Piaton 3, 1951, 67-76.
268. G. Cawkwell.ThedefenceofOlynthus.CQ 13,1962,122-140.
269. T. C o l a r d e a u , Interpretation d'un passage de Demosthene,
AUG 1914, 157-171.
270. H. E r b s e , Zu den olynthischen Reden des Demosthenes,
RhM 99, 1956, 364-380.
271. D. G u i l b e r t , Salluste Oratio Lepidi Consulis et la II e Olynthienne, LEC 25, 1957, 296-299.
272. G. Ste.-Croix, The alleged secret pact between Athens and
Philip II concerning Amphipos and Pydna, CQ 13, 1963, 110-119.
273. A. S t a i n i e r , La deuxieme Olynthienne, N&V(B)15, 1933,
225-245.
274. P. T r e v e s , Le Olintiache di Demostene, NRS 16, 1938, 1-19.
See also Nos.: 11,237.
The attempt of Dionysius to assign each of the expeditions to Olynthus, as mentioned by Philochorus, as the consequence of each Olynthiac has been generally rejected (cf. 11). Nor does it seem likely that
Dionysius' order of the speeches (ii, iii, i) has merit. Focke (237) and
J a e g e r (11) have demonstrated that the traditional arrangement of
the corpus best corresponds to the growing crisis. F o c k e believes that
the three speeches were delivered in close succession. The difficulty in
assigning a specific date and occasion for the Olynthiacs may stem
62
from their having been published as political tracts. The pamphlet

theory, about which more will be said below, has been thought to have
special bearing on the Second and Third Olynthiacs, where reference to
a specific proposition does not seem to be made, and whose Contents,
therefore, must have been aimed at the general public. But E r b s e
(270) has advanced the ingenious theory t h a t all three speeches were
delivered in the same assembly a n d t h a t Ol. ii and iii were m e a n t to
support the propositions of Ol. i. Demosthenes' strategy called for
three Speakers, rising in succession, to deliver the respective parts of
what, in effect, constituted a single oration.
According to T r e v e s (274) the Olynthiacs, of all the symbouleutic
orations, provide t h e best opportunity t o understand Demosthenes'
Personality and thought. By his passionate adherence to the polis and
its achievements Demosthenes revealed truly humanistic concerns
t h a t transcended the immediate problems of Realpolitik. The tragic
defeat, to which the program of the Olynthiacs was t o lead, was rieh in
meaning to civilized man, whereas the conquest of Philip, inevitable
as it was, possessed no comparable significance. Written in T r e v e s '
typically sweeping style, the article describes with considerable insight, if also in general terms, Demosthenes' oratorical style. C a w k w e l l (268), however, is not so overcome by the nobility of Demosthenes' sentiments t h a t he can aeeept the orator's proposals in the
Olynthiacs as the most expedient course for Athens to pursue. He
believes t h a t Eubulus was justified in attempting to frustrate the
program of Demosthenes.
Some questions of Interpretation in Ol. i and iii have been discussed.
Section 1 of Ol. i, ei Tt %fifynyj&i eaxe|j.p:evo? r\y.zi TU;, according to
B a s i l i p o u l o s (267), refers to the Opposition and its habit of avoiding
action through prolonged debate, whereas uoXXa TCV SEOVTCOV ex TO
7rapaxp?j(Aa evioi? av eraXfreiv si7teTv refers to Demosthenes. In section 18
an apparent syntactical anomaly is explained b y B a s i l o p o u l o s on
rhetorical grounds. C o l a r d e a u (269) argues against some editors t h a t
in 0^. iii. 19 Si07rep should not be given the force of SIOTL. The consequential, rather than the purely causal, force must be maintained.
S t a i n i e r ' s article (273) is an introduetory lecture to Ol. ii, discussing
the plan of the speech, the historical Information t h a t it provides, the
program of Demosthenes, sentiments and stylistic character.
F. Prooemia
275. A. R u p p r e c h t , Die demosthenische
Philologus 82, 1927, 365-432.
See also No. 237.
Prooemiensammlung,
63
The collection of prooemia affords an unusual opportunity to observe the Speaker in preparation either for the delivery of his speeches
before the assembly or for their eventual publication as literary
documents. Scholars, however, have been hesitant to exploit this
opportunity to the fllest. In our period of scholarship two studies
have been made which suggest some interesting possibilities of the
collection's usefulness. R u p p r e c h t (275) has established the respectability of the collection and suggested some aspects of its historical
and literary value. Allowing for a few interpolations, he beHeves that
the collection is the work of Demosthenes but would prefer to have it
called a collection of fragments, since not all of the pieces can readily
be identified as prooemia. The old view of thir purpose as rhetorical
exercises has been successfully refuted by R u p p r e c h t , who points
out that many of the pieces in the collection presuppose specific political and military situations that could hardly be conjured up by some
one engaged in fabricating an exercise. On the basis of this historical
specificity R u p p r e c h t has attempted to identify as many prooemia
as possible with definite situations. Thus Pr. 3, 30, 53, and 39 are
related to the Olynthiacs; Pr. 27, 24, 2, 2a, 42, 22, 37, 16, 46, and 23
to the Rhodian question. Where the parallels between a prooemium
in the collection and a passage in a speech are close, there is little
difficulty in accepting R u p p r e c h t ' s designation; but in other cases
he seems to have overstrained data that is too obviously insufficient
for his purpose. R u p p r e c h t regards the prooemia as sketches and
drafts of various sections of Demosthenes' speeches, not always
prooemia. Most of these sketches or drafts were made before the speech
was delivered and in all probability represent substantially what was
spoken. The prooemia in the orations, on the other hand, are the final,
literary versions designed for the reading public, who were chiefly the
upper classes of Athenian society.
Shortly after R u p p r e c h t ' s study had appeared, F o c k e (237)
incorporated in his Studies a lengthy section on the Prooemia, which
take issue with R u p p r e c h t ' s article on two important points. First,
Focke did not accept the various stylistic arguments adduced by
R u p p r e c h t and some of his predecessors to prove the authenticity of
most of the pieces in the collection. Secondly, he disagreed with
R u p p r e c h t ' s belief in the heterogeneous nature of the collection;
to F o c k e all the pieces either were, or were meant to be, prooemia to
speeches. They were compiled from Demosthenes' papers sometime
around 300 by a schoolmaster of mediocre talents, who also added
some pieces of his own. In fact, a considerable portion (24 pieces) of
the collection must be assigned to this redactor. Having admitted
about 30 prooemia as worthy to be considered Demosthenic, Focke
64
next compares them with the prooemia of the published Speeches and,
like R u p p r e c h t , concludes that the prooemia are first drafts. In a
few instances more than one prooemium was drafted for a given
speech, as for example in the First Philippic to which Pr. 1 and 21
must be assigned. Focke explains that Demosthenes had need to
provide himself with alternative versions in order to meet the variety
of situations that might occur at the time a speech was to be presented.
Some of these situations he attempts to fit to the prooemia in the collection, as R u p p r e c h t did, but not with greater success. Although
many of the conclusions of R u p p r e c h t and F o c k e justify serious
consideration, few of them can be regarded as definitive. Both scholars,
however, have made valuable contributions in suggesting the direction
that future work can take on the historical and literary aspects of the
Prooemia Collection.
G. Against Meidias (xxi)
276. H. E r b s e , ber die Midiana des Demosthenes, Hermes 84,
1956, 135-151.
See also No. 247.
Sealey (247), who has rejected the Dionysian date (349/8) for the
speech against Meidias, maintains that parts of it were composed at
different datesone part as early as 352/1 and other3 in 347/6.
Dionysius may have inferred his date for the speech from the orator's
statement that he was thirty-two years old; but his date for Demosthenes' birth (381/0) is clearly wrong. S e a l e y ' s theory relies heavy on
the assumption that Against Meidias was neither delivered nor
published. Erbse (276), however, has challenged this evidence, which
includes the testimony of Aeschines and the fragmentary, unfinished
appearance of the speech. He argues that the trial took place and that
Meidias was pronounced guilty but that Demosthenes, after the
verdict had been pronounced but before the sentence was delivered,
accepted thirty minas in compensation for damages and dropped his
demand for a more severe penalty. This would explain the testimony
of Aeschines. The allegedly unfinished appearance of the speech is also
contested by E r b s e , who uses various arguments to prove that the
speech is a highly unified work of art. Like Sealey (247), he rejects the
Dionysian date and posits 347; but he believes that the passage
(xxi.154) in which the orator claims to be thirty-two years of age involves a corruption.
VIII. Political Speeches after the Peace of Philocrates

A. On the Peace (T)
277. G. Griffith, The so-called koine eirene of 346 B.C., JHS 59,
1939, 71-79.
278. F. W s t , Philipp II von Makedonien und Griechenland in den
Jahren 346 bis 338, Munich 1938. Rev.: Cloche, LEC 1939, 307;
B i c k e r m a n , RPh 1939, 243; P e r e m a n s , AC 1939, 280-282;
Gianelli,BFC1939,247-249;Roussel,REG1939,209;Lenschau,
PhW 1939, 491-494.
Griffith (277) argues against W s t (278) that On the Peace provides
convincing evidence that the so-called Peace of Philocrates was not a
Common Peace.
B. Second Phllippic (vi)
279. G. C a l h o u n , Demosthenes' Second Philippic, TAPA 64,1933,
1-17.
280. G. Cawkwell, Demosthenes' policy after the Peace of Philocrates, CQ 13, 1963, 120-138.
281. E. Meyer, Isokrates' zweiter Brief an Philipp und Demosthenes' zweite Philippika, Kleine Schriften II, Halle 1924.
282. P. T r e v e s , La politica di Demostene e la seconda orazione
philippica, Civilt Moderna 1935, 497-520.
See also Nos.: 8,15,14, 9.
The occasion and significance of the Second Philippic have remained
an open question since ancient times. Dionysius, who dates the speech
in 344/3, vaguely states that it was delivered to the embassies from the
Peloponnese; and Libanius, though obviously conjecturing, believes
that three embassies were presentthose from Argos, Messene, and
Macedonia. Recent theories, with the exception of thatof P i c k a r d C a m b r i d g e (14), have rejected the Interpretation of Libanius either
in toto or in part. Thus P u e c h (15) and Cloch6 (8) think that the
speech is concerned only with a formal remonstrance made by Philip
against anti-Macedonian sentiments of certain Athenian orators.
Meyer (281) seeks to show through a comparative analysis that the
5 Lustrum 14
66
Political Speeches after the Peace of Philocrates
speech was a reply to Isocrates' Second Letter to Philip. D r e r u p (9),

on the other hand, seeing no particular occasion for the speech, thinks
that Demosthenes was conducting an aimless tirade, on false premises,
against Philip. All the foregoing theories have been rejected by Calh o u n (279), whose clear and incisive judgment on Demosthenic problems is always worthy of consideration. According to Calhoun the
content of the Second Phippic does indeed indicate a specific occasion
under deliberation by the assembly. This occasion was the threat of a
Macedonian attack in concert with Argos and Messene against Sparta.
In all probability the envoys, who the speech implies were present at
the assembly, had been sent by Sparta. Cawkwell (280) believes that
it was the embassy of Python in 344/3 to which the Second Phippic
was addressed. T r e v e s (282) discusses the broader context and
significance of the oration. The Second Phippic was pronounced in
anticipation of the trial on the embassy and, as such, reveals Demosthenes' concern to repudiate the Peace of Philocrates together with
the mentality that had brought it about.
C. On the Fraudulent Embassy (xix)
283. G. Cawkwell, Aeschines and the ruin of Phocis, REG 75,
1962, 453^59.
284. E. Des P l a c e s , Citations et paraphrases de poetes chez Demosthene et Piaton, Melanges Navarre, Toulouse 1935.
285. R. F l a c e l i e r e , Le bonnet de Solon, REA 49, 1947, 235-247.
286. W. J a e g e r , Solons Eunomie, SPA 1926, 69-85.
287. J. P a p a s t a v r u , To sv 'AfripKxic, <juv8piov TV ou|j.jxaxwv xaxa
TO TO<; 370, HeUenika 10, 1937-1938, 53-67.
288. *A. R a b e , Lysiana, Aeschinea, Demosthenica: Analyse ausgewhlter Reden des Lysias, die Entstehung der Reden des Demosthenes und Aeschines ber die Truggesandtschaft, Ms. located at
Preu. Staatsbibl, Berlin 1928.
289. P. R o u s s e l , Athenes et l'amphictyonie delphique en 346,
REA 42, 1940, 330-339.
Because of Aeschines' extant reply on the same issues, the oration
On the Fraudulent Embassy is unusually important for its historical
Information; and, viewed stylistically, it offers the opportunity to
observe Demosthenes experimenting with new modes of argumentation and expression. P i c k a r d - C a m b r i d g e (14), Cloche (8), and,
most recently, Cawkwell (283), who have examined closely the two
67
accounts of Demosthenes and of Aeschines, have shown that Demosthenes' attempt to brden bis adversary with the entire responsibility for the destruction of Phocis greatly misrepresents the facts.
Both P i c k a r d - C a m b r i d g e and Cloche discount Demosthenes'
claim to have supported the dogma of the synedrion of the allies in
346, which would have brought Phocis out of danger as a party to a
common peace. Cawkwell (283) regards as suspicious the allegation
that the probouleuma of the Council on the thirteenth of Scirophorion,
requiring Proxenus to go to the aid of Phocis and ordering a Citizen
army to follow, was not read before the assembly on the sixteenth
because of the interference of Aeschines and Philocrates. A more
likely explanation, according to Cawkwell, is that by the sixteenth
it was obvious that a relief expedition would have been futile or even
disastrous and so the probouleuma was cancelled in a second session
of the Council before the assembly took place. In the total absence of
evidence for such a second Council meeting Cawkwell's explanation
encounters difficulties. One would certainly expect Aeschines to mention it in his speech.
The third embassy, in which Demosthenes and, at first, Aeschines
did not participate, has received attention from W s t (278) and
R o u s s e l (289). Demosthenes calls it an embassy to Philip, whereas
Aeschines refers three times to an embassy to the Amphictyons. W s t
believes that the mission to the Amphictyons was a fourth embassy;
but R o u s s e l explains that the expression used by Aeschines reflects
the change of the embassy's mission after the destruction of Phocis
became known. Although the Athenian ambassadors were not official
delegates to the Amphictyonic Council and accordingly possessed no
power to vote or to present resolutions, they were instructed to intercede in an unofficial capacity for the welfare of the vanquished
Phocians.
P a p a s t a v r u (287) cites xix.253 as testimony on a congress of allies in
Athens in 370 B.C.
References to Solon are conspicuous in xix. In fact it is due to the
Embassy speech that one of Solon's finest extant poems, the Eunomia
Elegy, has survived. J a e g e r (286) believes that the poem, with the
exception of a few short lacunae, is complete as it appears in the
speech; however, he thinks that Demosthenes' intention had been
to have only the first sixteen of its approximately forty lines recited.
An interesting study of how Demosthenes adapts the context of his
oration to the language of the poem has been made by D e s P l a c e s
(284). He points out that the orator employs, immediately before and
after the quotation, words and metaphors that subtly reflect its language and imagery. To what kind of cap does mXtiov (xix.255) refer?
r>*
68
It might be a normal traveler's cap or part of the Standard costume

of a herald; but F l a c e l i e r e (285) concludes from Demosthenes'
remarks that a nightcap or sickbed cap is to be understood.
II. On Halonnesus (vii)
290. A. H a r r i s o n , [Demosthenes] De Halonneso 13, CQ 10, 1960,
248-252.
The speech is almost certainly to be assigned to the authorship of
Hegesippus. H a r r i s o n (290) believes that section 13 ofthat speech
does not imply a treaty establishing the principle of forum rei. In the
absence of a treaty forum concursus applied. The treaty proposed
would probably set up new law in order to supply deficiencies in the
law of either or both of the contracting parties.
E. On the Chersonese (vlii) and Fourth Philipplc (x)
291. C . A d a m s , Speeches viii and x of the Demosthenic corpus,
CP 33, 1938, 129-144.
292. S. D a i t z , The De Chersoneso and the Philippica Quarta of
Demosthenes, The texts and their relationship, HSPh61, 1953,
154-169.
293. , The Relationship of the De Chersoneso and the Philippica
Quarta of Demosthenes, CP 52, 1957, 145-162.
294. P. F o u c a r t , Etde sur Didyme, Mem. de l'Ac. des Inscr. 38.1,
1909,27-118.
295. A. K r t e , Zu Didymos' Demosthenes-Commentar, RhM 60,
1905, 388-416.
2%. M. MacGregor, Four passages in Demosthenes' De Chersoneso, CR 41, 1927, 116-119.
297. E. Macher, Die Hermiasepisode im Demostheneskommentar
des Didymos, Lundenburg 1914. Rev.: Mesk, ZoeG 1916, 470.
298. M. Sordi, La cronologia delle vittorie persiane e la caduta di
Ermia di Atarneo in Diodoro Siculo, Kokalos 5, 1959, 107-118.
See also Nos.: 280, 278, 436, 303.
One area of marked progress in Demosthenic studies is the relationship between the Chersonese speech (viii) and the Fourth Philippic (x).
In the nineteenth Century the question was confined mainly to the
authenticity of the Fourth Philippic which was disputed on the follow-
69
ing grounds: (a) The speech contains two long passages that are found
almost verbatim in xiii; (b) the traditional date assigned by Dionysius
(341/0) does not Square with the historical allusions made by the
speech; (c) the speech contains a defense of the theoric fund (x. 35^46)
which appears to be in direct contradiction with the views expressed
in Ol. in. 1-3, 10-13; and (d) it includes a violent personal attack
against a certain Aristomedes, which does not accord with Demosthenes' regulr practice in his symbouleutic orations. Early in the
twentieth Century new evidence in favour of authenticity was discovered by Krte (295) and F o u c a r t (294) in a papyrus fragment of
Didymus' Commentary. The problem of dating was met by rejecting
the Dionysian date and positing 342/1 as the time when the oration
had been delivereda change which Krte (295) justified on the basis
of the Information provided by Didymus about the arrest of Hermeias.
Cawkwell (280), however, has recently argued against rejecting the
Dionysian date. Glotz (436) has explained Demosthenes' defence of
the theoric fund by means of an inscription indicating the existence
of a military fund as early as 349/8; the fund, moreover, was probably
of sufficient size and importance in 342/1 as to enable the Athenians
to pay war expenses without using the theoric money. With two major
objections to authenticity out of the way, the investigation has concentrated on the literary parallels between the Fourth Philippic and
the Chersonese speech. Krte (295) concludes that the Fourth Philippic is not a "speech" but a political pamphlet; but this conclusion, as
A d a m s points out (291), has to live with the fact of two pamphlets
(viii and x) containing a great block of common matter, one of which
was in very rough form. D r e r u p (9) holds that both Speeches were
delivered by Demosthenes but that only the Chersonese speech had
been intended for publication. He does not believe that the long
repetitions in one speech from the other would have been noticed by
the orator's audience, whom he regards as on the whole uneducated
and lacking in Literary sensitivity. A d a m s (291) avoids the difficulties
of earlier theories by stipulating these hypotheses: (a) Demosthenes
in the spring of 341 delivered the speech on affairs in the Chersonese
without the matter common to a later version and the Fourth Philippic ; (b) before June of 341, when Demosthenes was led to believe that
Persian help would be offered to Athens against Philip, the Fourth
Philippic was delivered but never published thereafter; (c) some time
later, perhaps after Chaeronea, Demosthenes inserted various parts of
the unpublished Fourth Philippic into his manuscript of the speech
On the Chersonese and published the resultant amalgamated version;
(d) after the orator's death the unpublished Fourth Philippic was
found among his papers and published by a literary executor. The
70
argument based on the violent attack against Aristomedes thus falls

to the ground when it is assumed that the Fourth Philippic was never
intended for publication. T r e v e s (303) does not believe that A d a m s '
theory is tenable because of the post-Chaeronea date assigned to the
published speech On the Chersonese; however, the objection to this
date, valid though it may be, is not sufficient reason to abolish
A d a m s ' theory in Mo. D a i t z (292, 293) fixes the date of the revised
Chersonese speech sometime in the summer of 340 after Philip's siege
of Perinthos had begun; but in other respects he has gone to great
lengths to support the ideas of A d a m s . Both in his dissertation and in
his articles (292, 293) one will find an exhaustive history and description
of the problem and a thorough analysis of the parallel passages.
F. Third Philippic (ix)

299. W . A l e x a n d e r , Conclusion of Demosthenes' Philippica 3,
CB 36, 1960, 68-69.
300. G. Colin, La deformation d'un document historique dans un
argumentation d'orateur, RPh 7, 1933, 237-260.
301. C. Miller, Note on Demosthenes' Philippica 3, CB 36, 1960,
43-44.
302. P. 0 s t b y e , Drei Textstelien, Serta Rudbergiana, Oslo 1931,
81-83.
303. P. T r e v e s , La composition de la Troisieme Philippique, REA
42, 1940, 354-364.
See also Nos.: 9,381.
It is generally agreed that both versions of the Third Philippic, the
shorter version, found in S and L, and the longer, conveyed by the
vulgate, are to be ascribed to Demosthenes. The question that has
continued to be discussed is which version came first, i.e., was written
and delivered before the assembly. T r e v e s (303) is certainly in error
when he represents the majority view as that which believes in the
primacy of the shorter version; and D r e r u p (9), whom T r e v e s incorrectly cites (instead of p. 115 n. 116, read p. 113 n. 115) is recommended for an introduction to the history of the problem. D r e r u p (9),
for philological reasons, has decided that the longer version corresponds to the speech as it was delivered; the shorter version is the
published pamphlet. T r e v e s (303) has expressed the same view but
bases it on political considerations. In the delivered version he sees an
71
Athenian coloration, whereas in the shorter, published Version he

finds a Panhellenic tone.
Colin (300) thinks that Demosthenes has misrepresented the judgment against Arthmius recounted in ix.41-46, which reads Ttô? ICTTCO
xocl Tzoîiiioc; xo Srjjxou. Of the two terms, Demosthenes especially
emphasizes the first and insists on attributing to it not the current
meaning of a man penalized by degradation of political status but
another, much more serious meaning, pointing back to archaic usage,
of a man placed outside the protection of the law. The date of the inscription is not 480, as Demosthenes would have one beheve, but 457
or 456.
While many scholars have praised the Third Philippic for its lofty,
Panhellenic expression, very little has been said that is specifically
helpful for an understanding of Demosthenes' style. Noting the simple,
subdued tone of the conclusion of the speech, Miller (301) concludes
that Demosthenes had deliberately sought to effect a contrast with the
lofty tone of the preceding expression so that his hearers might be
moved by the simplicity of his final words to take action. A l e x a n d e r
(299), on the other hand, believes that the concluding sentences are
essentially formulaic and signal the moment for a formal vote of the
assembly. 0 s t b y e (302) argues that the aorists in ix.18 have ingressive
rather than the preteritive force given to them by some translators.
G. PhUip's Letter (xii) and Reply to Philip's Letter (xi)
304. A. Momigliano, Due problemi storiografici, RIL 65, 1932
569-578.
305. M. P o h l e n z , Der Ausbruch des zweiten Krieges zwischen
Philipp und Athen, NGG 1924, 38-42.
306. , Philipps Schreiben an Athen, Hermes 64, 1929, 41-62.
Pohlenz (305,306) argues that the hypothesis to the Reply (xi),
which regards the seizure of Athenian ships as the final cause for the
renewal of hostilities between Athens and Philip, is accurate and cannot be placed in doubt by the testimony of the scholia to the Crown
speech (xviii.76). The Reply (xi) itself is regarded by Pohlenz as the
redaction of Anaximenes; however, the Letter (xii) is an authentic
document of PhUip's. Momigliano (304), however, maintains that
the Letter, Like the Reply, betrays the philo-Macedonian tendencies of
Anaximenes and that, furthermore, it follows other philo-Macedonian
witnesses in representing the siege of Byzantium, not the capture of
the Athenian merchant vessels, as the cause of the war.
72

H. Funeral Oration (lx)
307. L. A l f o n s i , Su une tema del Somnium Scipionis, Latomus 9,

1950, 149-156.
308. G. C o l i n , L'oraison funebre d'Hyperide; ses rapports avec les
autres oraisons funebres atheniennes, R E G 51,1938,209-266,305-394.
309. A. D a i n , Une traduction latine de l'Oraison Funebre de Demosthene, R E L 11, 1933, 324.
310. S. K o r r e , Ol emxa<pioi Xoyoi, Piaton 5, 1953, 120-125.
311. C. L e c r i v a i n , L'epitaphiosde Demosthene, Mem. de l'Acad.
des Sc., Inscr., et Beiles-Lettres de Toulouse 13, 1942, 1-26.
312. P . M a a s , Zitate aus Demosthenes' Epitaphios bei Lykurgos>
Nachtrag zu dem Aufsatz von J . Sykutris, Hermes 63, 1928, 258-260313. M. P o h l e n z , Zu den attischen Epitaphien, SO 26, 1948,46-74.
314. J . S y k u t r i s , Der Demosthenische
1928, 241-258.
Epitaphios, Hermes 63,
315. , Kai 7iaXiv 6 e7UTdccp(.o; xo AY]fxoa9ivou<;, Athena 43, 1931,

114-147.
316. S. T r a c h i l i s , 'O emxaipios xo Ar)[iotj&evou?, Athena 42, 1930,
197-216.
317. , ' E7uXsY6fji.eva elc, xv AY](i.oa#vou!; Imxcptov xal e:u[ZExpov
(Siop&coaei; de, axov), Athena 44, 1933, 77-106.
318. P. T r e v e s , Apocrifi Demostenici, Athenaeum 14, 1936, 153174. 233-258.
Until S y k u t r i s (314) and M a a s (312) published their articles in
Hermes, scholarly opinion mostly was content to support the judgm e n t of Dionysius against the authenticity of the Epitaphios. Dionysius' judgment, however, had been based upon the weakest of argum e n t s t h a t of style. S y k u t r i s re-opened the question by adducing
several arguments in favour of authenticity. He begins with the two
undisputed facts t h a t Demosthenes did deliver the funeral oration for
Athenians who died a t Chaeronea and t h a t a speech exists in the
Demosthenic corpus whose historical allusions can only be referred to
t h a t occasion. He finds the d a t a of the speech, both historical and
mythological, aecurate or at least acceptable and shows t h a t many
of the views expressed in the Epitaphios about the significance of
Chaeronea are in aecord with Statements made by Demosthenes in
other Speeches. If the personality and style of the orator are not as
pronounced in the Epitaphios as in other Speeches, this is due to the
delicate nature of the occasion, which called for discretion and
restraint, and to the highly conventional form of the epideictic genre.
73
The remainder of the article is devoted to an analysis of style, in which

S y k u t r i s finds many Demosthenic expressions and stylistic peculiarities, such as the avoidance of breves and the frequent use of the
articular infinitive. Maas (312) added an interesting appendix to the
article of S y k u t r i s in which he points out some parallel passages of
the Epitaphios and Lycurgus' speech Against Leocrates and concludes
that since Lycurgus had borrowed these passages from Demosthenes,
the Epitaphios must be regarded as genuine. Korre (310), however,
shows parallels in the Epitaphios with the writings of Thucydides,
Isocrates, and Lysias, and concludes that the speech is a forger's cento.
There followed an acrimonious exchange between T r a c h i l i s (316, 317)
and S y k u t r i s (315). T r a c h i l i s , who obviously failed to understand
many of the arguments in S y k u t r i s ' German article, attempted to
establish the Epitaphios as a purely literary exercise not intended to
be delivered on the occasion. He argues that Demosthenes would have
had no reason to publish a funeral speech and that the stylistic traits,
which S y k u t r i s had found to be Demosthenic, were common to
Attic oratory in general. A more successful effort than T r a c h i l i s ' to
refute the conclusions of S y k u t r i s was made by T r e v e s (318), who
first emphasizes the lack of ancient testimony to support the authenticity of the Epitaphios. Especially noticeable is the silence of Plutarch,
who otherwise attaches much importance to the fact that Demosthenes
had been selected to deliver the funeral oration and who paraphrases
extensively from the oration On the Croum but not from the Epitaphios.
Furthermore, T r e v e s instances the funeral oration of Hyperides to
prove that the epideictic genre does not impose such extreme restrictions on personal expression as S y k u t r i s would suppose. T r e v e s '
chief reason, however, for rejecting the Epitaphios is that it does not
accord with the animus of Demosthenes at the time of Chaeronea.
One would hardly expect Demosthenes to call Philip 91X0?, as he is
made to do in the Epitaphios. These objections of T r a c h i l i s (316, 317)
and of Treves (318) have been answered in detail by Pohlenz (313),
who supports the views of S y k u t r i s (314, 315). Colin (308) has also
accepted the conclusions of S y k u t r i s ; and L e c r i v a i n (311), in a
preface to a translation of the Epitaphios, concurs while allowing that
Demosthenes lacked a talent for epideictic oratory. It now appears
that the strong case made for authenticity by S y k u t r i s has not been
decisively rebutted; however, scholars accustomed to the magnificence
of the Philippics and On the Crown will find it difficult to attribute the
oration to the Demosthenes they admire.
A1 f o n s i (307) cites the Epitaphios as e vidence for the influence of Greek
thought on Cicero 's ideas in the Somnium Scipionis. D a i n (309) has found
a Latin translation of it by John Sophianus in the fifteenth Century.
74

I. Against Aristogeiton 1 and 2 (xxv, xxvi)
319. C. K r a m e r , Depriore Demosthenisadversus Aristogeitonemoratione, Leipzig 1930. Rev.: Rueger, PhW 1931,929-934; LZB1931,611.
320. M. P o h l e n z , Anonymus Ilepl vofxeov, NGG 1924, 19-37.
321. G. R o u x , Pausanias, le "contre Aristogiton" et les "enigmes
de marmaria" Delphes, REA 67, 1965, 37-53.
See also Nos.: 318, 349.
While the second speech against Aristogeiton (xxvi) continues to be
regarded as spurious, the same ambivalence toward the origin of the
first speech that characterizes ancient scholarship has remained in the
twentieth Century. The chief obstacles to accepting the first speech are
(a) the rejection of Dionysius, (b) the extreme vitriol and personal tone
of the remarks directed against Aristogeiton, (c) stylistic traits not
otherwise found in Demosthenes' speeches, and (d) alleged inaccuracies about fourth Century Athenian political and juridical technicalities. K r a m e r ' s dissertation (319) seeks to resolve the difficulties in
each area with a view to establishing the Demosthenic authorship.
K r a m e r is most successful in categories (b) and (c); but he has failed
to resolve many of the technical problems in the final category.
P o h l e n z (320) is in favor of the Demosthenic authorship but regards
the discussions on the laws and on debtors to the State in sections
15-35 and 85-91 as late insertions excerpted from a phosophical
treatise, Hepl VOJIWV, of unknown authorship. T r e v e s (318) believes
to have detected a contradiction between the attitude expressed by
Demosthenes in On the Crown and the remarks made on the same subject in the first speech against Aristogeiton. Likewise thought to be
contradictory by T r e v e s is the ridicule heaped upon Aeschines' participation in the Mysteries in On the Crown and On the Fraudvlent
Embassy as opposed to the respectful treatment the Mysteries receive
in Aristogeiton 1. These objections, however, have been adequately
answered by M a t h i e u (349), who rightly points out that changed
circumstances can easily explain the change in Demosthenes' treatment of this topic.
R o u x (321) cites Aristogeiton 1.34 as evidence that the archaic
temple of Athena at Delphi was not destroyed in 373 but was still
flourishing in 325 when the oration was pronounced.
K. On the Crown (xviii)
322. R. Chevallier, L'art oratoire de D6mosthene dans le discours
Sur la Couronne, BAGB 1960, 200-216.
323. H. Couch, Fooling the audience, CJ 40, 1944, 172-174.
75
324. F. D o n n e l l y , The argument used seventy-two times in the

Crown speech of Demosthenes, CW 28, 1935, 153-156.
325. A. D o r j a h n , Demosthenes' reply to the Charge of cowardice,
PQ 19, 1940, 337-342.
326. J. E q u i l l o r , La causa "Por la Corona", Humanidades 1,
1949, 105-118.
327. E. F r a e n k e l , Zu Aeschylus' Septem 4-8, MH 18, 1961, 37.
328. W. G w a t k i n , Jr., The legal arguments in Aeschines' Against
Ktesiphon and Demosthenes' On theCrown, Hesperia 26,1957,129-141.
329. J. L u n a k , Zu Demosthenes xviii.130, PhW 53,1933, 812-813.
330. J. Mesk, Demosthenes als Teichopoios, PhW 59, 1939, 12661268.
331. D. Mosley, An Athenianlawonambassadors?, PACA 5,1962,
26-27.
332. F. R e b e l o G o n c a l v e s , Critica s traducoes de um passo da
Oraco de Coroa (315), Euphrosyne 2, 1959, 2 9 ^ 0 .
333. J. de R o m i l l y , Eunoiain Isocratesor the politicalimportance
of creating good will, JHS 78, 1958, 92-101.
334. W. S c h m i d , Das Prooemium der demosthenischen Kranzrede
in religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung, ARW 19, 1919, 273-280.
335. , Die rednerische Bedeutung und Wirkung der Urkunden in
der demosthenischen Kranzrede nebst Bemerkungen ber die Bewertung des Demosthenes als Menschen, Politikers und Schulschriftstellers, WKPh 1917, 215-232.
336. P. S c h l a e p f e r , Untersuchungen zu den attischen Staatsurkunden und den Amphiktyonenbeschlssen der demosthenischen
Kranzrede, Rhetorische Studien 21, Paderborn 1939. Rev.: M a t h i e u ,
REG 1939, 641-642; R u e g e r , PhW 1940, 289-302; Griffith, CR
1940, 174; Cosman, MPh 1940, 261; P a r i b e n i , Aevum 1941, 183;
Treves, LEC 1940, 91-92; R u d b e r g , Lychnos 1940, 396; G e r n e t ,
AC 1940, 130; P l u m p e , CW 1940-1941, 92; D u n k e l , CPh 1943, 155;
Cloche, RH 1944, 287; G i a n n e l l i , MC 1942, 104-105; G i a n n e l l i ,
BFC 1941-1942, 12.
337. 0. T o d d , TpiTaytoviCT-ry]?: A reconsideration, CQ 32, 1938,
30-38.
76
338, P. T r e v e s , Les documents apocryphes du "Pro Corona",

LEC 9, 1940, 138-174.
339. J. T r i a n t a p h y l l o p o u l o s , rpatpr) 7rapav6(j.&)v, Neon Dikaion
(Athens) 16, 1960, 229-233.
Since the first half of the nineteenth Century scholars, with few
exceptions, have regarded the documents inserted in the oration
On the Crown (vxiii) as apocryphal. Yet in the twentieth Century
interest in these inserts has remained strong with efforts being directed
toward determining their date, sources, and authorship. It is now
almost certain that the documents first appeared in editions of Demosthenes around the end of the second Century B. C. or the beginning of
the first and not, as was believed earlier, in the second Century A. D.
The most exhaustive study on the subject, that by S c h l a e p f e r (336),
has shown that most of the documents are outright fabrications of a
forger's imagination or paraphrases of Demosthenes' Statements in
the text proper. Some few documents, however, would indicate that
the forger has derived their content and style from actual decrees.
In language and style they are somewhat uniforma fact which leads
S c h m i d (335) to conclude that they are all from the same hand.
T r e v e s (338), however, and Schlaepfer (336) believe that the uniformity is only superficial and thus conclude that the inserts stem
from several hands, who, according to S c h l a e p f e r , worked concurrently on fcheir fabrications. The place where the documents were
composed is still not agreed upon. Schmid and T r e v e s , who find
their legal Jargon similar to the language employed by oriental monarchies and their style on the whole Asian rather than Attic, would favor
Hellenistic Asia Minor. S c h l a e p f e r , on the other hand, argues that
the place of origin is most probably Athens, where two rhetoricians
especially devoted to Demosthenes, Pammenes and Menedemos,
maintained a school.
It has been generally recognized that the technical, legal arguments
employed against Ctesiphon in the Crown case were over whelmingly
in Aeschines' favor. Why then did Aeschines suffer an ignominious
defeat? Cloche (8), whose analysis of the accusations and counteraccusations is among the best that have been written on the subject,
accepts the traditional explanation that the technical points of the case
were of secondary importance to all concernedto the Jury, to
Aeschines, and to Demosthenes, and that the real issue was the
political course adopted by each of the two opponents. On this issue
the Athenians had preferred Demosthenes' case. G w a t k i n (328), however, reminds us of the importance of the legal issuesthey were more
than a mere pretext for a Showdown between Demosthenes and
77
Aeschines. His careful analysis shows t h a t many of Demosthenes'

rebuttals were, superficially a t least, highly effective, whereas Aeschines' attacks, though legally correct, were weakened by their technicaty. Others, such as S c h m i d (335), attribute Demosthenes' success
to his skillful disposition of arguments, by which he was able to
minimize the weaknesses and accentuate the strengths of his case.
D o n n e l l y (324) notices t h a t a favorite argument in On the Crown
Demosthenes employs it seventy-two timesis the "flaw in t h e
i n d i c t m e n t " (Greek t e r m s : metalepsis, metastasis, methodos, paragraphike). This argument passes over the question of the t r u t h of the
charge a n d maintains instead t h a t the charge should be transferred to
another person, place, time, manner, deed, and the like. D o n n e l l y ' s
article is especially commendable for demonstrating how style a n d
argument interact. E q u i l l o r ' s article (326) provides outlines of
Aeschines' and Demosthenes' Speeches.
After the disaster of Chaeronea Demosthenes contributed a sum out
of his own purse towards the construction of the fortifications.
Aeschines and a passage in pseudo-Plutarch (vit.X oral. 845 D) fix the
sum a t one hundred minae, whereas one of the documents in the
Crown speech (xviii.118) and a second passage in pseudo-Plutarch
(851A) set the contribution at three talents. The contradiction is explained by M e s k (330) as resulting from a corruption in the mss. of t h e
second group of testimony. The amount of Demosthenes' contribution
was, as Aeschines asserts, only one hundred minae.
Although much has been said in general terms about the sentiment
and style of On the Crown, little has been done t h a t could be considered
as serious analysis into this facet of Demosthenes' greatest speech.
S c h m i d (334) has effectively countered objections to the unity of the
prooemium (sections 1-8) and demonstrated t h a t the repetitions, to
which earlier commentators had voiced objection, are an integral p a r t
of the religious sentiment which Demosthenes wished to convey.
According to L u n a k (329), the relative pronouns in section 130
(ouSe y*p v rruxev vjv, XX' l? 6 SVJJXO? xaiapxai.) refer not to the
parents of Aeschines but to two classes of peoplepatriotic Citizens
on the one hand (uv) and traitors of the state (ol?) on the other.
F r a e n k e l (327) has observed a parallel thought to Aeschylus' Seven
Against Thebes in xviii.212. Strictly speaking, the word xpiTaycoviaTTj;,
Demosthenes' epithet for Aeschines, is, according to T o d d (337),
derogatory in force and should not be used to define the normal p a r t s
t h a t a "third actor" played in Greek drama. C o u c h (323) discounts
Ulpian's story t h a t Demosthenes had elicited a response from t h e
audience by mispronouncing the word (XKT^WTO? in xviii.52. M o s l e y
(331) does not believe t h a t xviii.219 Supports the idea t h a t at Athens
78
a law existed which forbade a man both to be the proposer of an

embassy and to serve on it.
L. On the Treaty with Alexander (xvii)
340. I. Calabi, Nota a Ps. Demostene, xvii.15, Acme 5, 1952,
479-484.
341. G. Cawkwell, A note on Ps. Demosthenes xvii.20, Phoenix 15,
1961, 74-78.
Calabi (340) explains the "Commanders of the common guard",
referred to in xvii.15 and maintains that the common guard in the
years 338-323 was commanded by Greeks, not by Macedonians.
Cawkwell (341) dates the oration around 331 and argues that the
orator has misrepresented the facts.
IX. The Letters

342. *E. B i c k e r m a n , Lettres de Demosthene, RPh 10, 1937.
343. G. Colin, Demosthene et l'affaire d'Harpale, REG 28, 1925,
306-350; ibid. 29, 1926, 31-88.
344. M. F e r n n d e z G a l i a n o , Los problemas de autenticidad en
la literatura griega, Rev. de la Univ. de Madrid 1, 1952, 213-238.
345. C. F o u c a r t , La VI e lettre attribuee a Demosthene, JS 10,
1912, 49-55.
346. J. G o l d s t e i n , The Letters of Demosthenes, Diss. Columbia
Univ. 1959.
347. A. K r t e , Der harpalische Proze, NJA 1924, 217-231.
348. E. L e p o r e , Leostene e le origini della guerra Lamiaca, PP 42,
1955, 161-185.
349. G. M a t h i e u , Quelques remarques sur Demosthene, REA 39,
1937, 375-380.
350. *E. M a s t r o i a n n i , Sll' autenticita e la composizione delle
epistole demosteniche 2 e 4, Feola 1938.
351. W. N i t s c h e , Demosthenes and Anaximenes, Berlin 1906.
352. H . S a c h s e n w e g e r , De Demosthenis epistulis, Leipzig 1935.
Rev.: B i c k e r m a n , RPh 1937, 52-61; R u e g e r , PhW 1936, 289-293;
T r e v e s , RFIC 1936, 73-75.
353. P. T r e v e s , Epimetron arpalico-demostenico, Athenaeum 14,
1936, 258-266.
In the nineteenth Century the authenticity of the six letters attributed to Demosthenes was disputed with equal authority by Schaefer and his followers, who denied it, and by Blass, who upheld it.
The same balance of opinion has remained in the twentieth Century.
Usually the issue has been confined to Epp. 1-4 on the assumption
that Epp. 5 and 6 differ from the others in style and in the history of
their transmission. F o u c a r t (345) finds the historical details of suffl-
80
The Letters
cient exactitude to have been written by Demosthenes but tbinks

that that letter, as it now Stands, is a re-written version made by
Anaximenes. N i t s c h e (351), who would like to assign all six letters
to Anaximenes has not received much support. D r e r u p (9) accepts
Epp. 1-4 as genuine, mainly because their querulous tone aecords with
his coneeption of Demosthenes' temper during the exile. A strong case
for the authenticity of Epp. 2 and 3 has been made by Sachsenweger (352), whose dissertation answers some of the material objeetions (e.g., that Demosthenes' Letters would not have received a
hearing from the assembly; that Demosthenes could not have stayed
at Calauria as Ep. 2 alleges; that Demosthenes indicates that all the
defendants in the Harpalus case, except for hinseif, had been acquitted;
that Ep. 3 is in error in what it states about Philocles) but concentrates on proving that the style of Epp. 2 and 3 can be aeeepted as
Demosthenic. One of the most penetrating attempts to disprove the
authenticity of the Letters has been made by T r e v e s (318,353), whose
main arguments are (a) that the chronology presupposed by Epp. 1-4
is impossible and (b) that the implication in Ep. 3.31 that Philocles had
been convicted of bribe-taking in the Harpalus case is contradicted by
an ephebic inscription from Oropus showing Philocles in a public
office during the year when he was supposed to have been convicted.
Further incongruities noted by T r e v e s are the description of Pytheas
as a pro-Macedonian in Ep. 3.29, when other sources would suggest for
him the opposite affiliation, and the personal invective (usually absent
from Demosthenes' symbouleutic oratory) against Moeroules in
Ep. 3.16-18, and the fact that Ep. 3 Claims to have been written in the
Temple of Poseidon in Calauria, which has the suspicious ring of a
vaticinium ex eventu. T r e v e s concludes that the Letters ( 1 ^ ) are
posthumous propaganda written to defend the orator's career and
published at the time when Demochares had sueeeeded in passing
honorary decrees for Lycurgus and Demosthenes in 280-279 B.C.
B i c k e r m a n (342), whose article I have not seen, likewise investigates
the Letters primarily from an historical viewpoint but inclines to
aeeept Epp. 1-4 as authentic. M a t h i e u (349), in reply to T r e v e s
(353, 318), does not believe that the presence of passages in the Letters
that are paralleled in other works of Demosthenes indicate a forger's
pastiche and argues that the apparently inconsistent facts of Philocles'
arraignment and his office as kosmetes in the same year can be reconciled on the grounds that Philocles had been acquitted. The latter
explanation, however, does not very well suit the Statement in Ep.3.31,
7ipoCT7J<7$e . . . OiXoxXea xai iy.. By far the most exhaustive study of the
problem, analyzing every conceivable consideration on the arguments,
pro and con, of authenticity, is the dissertation of G o l d s t e i n (346).
The Letters
81
He demonstrates that some of the chronological difficulties instanced

by T r e v e s (363, 318) can be overcome if the traditional order of the
Letters is abandoned. Accordingly he believes that the first letter
written by Demosthenes, which is now lost, was followed by Ep. 3,
then 2 and 4 (or 4 and 2), and finally Ep. 1. Against the notion that the
Letters are rhetorical fabrications, G o l d s t e i n argues that their format corresponds to the deliberate genus of oratory, whereas the usual
form in antiquity for an apology, real or fictitious was the forensic
genus. G o l d s t e i n ' s dissertation also contains a new translation and
commentary of Epp. \-A.
6 Lustrum 14
X. Laie Private Speeches

A. Against Conon (UT)
354. E. F o r s t e r , Guilty or not guilty? Four Athenian trials, G& R
12, 1943, 21-27.
355. B. F o w l e r , Demosthenes 54, a topographical note, CP 53,
1958, 174-175.
356. D. v a n L e n n e p , Atheense nozems, Hermeneus 33, 1962,
186-197.
357. E. Mensching, Zu Demosthenes' 54. Rede, RhM 106, 1963,
307-312.
358. U. P a o l i , Die Geschichte der Neaira und andere Begebenheiten aus der alten Welt, trans. E. Schneider, Bern 1953.
F o r s t e r ' s article (354) describes four trials in ancient Athens which
deal with much the same problems as arise in our own times. The
speech against Conon (liv) is instanced as an example of assault and
battery. Two inonumcnts mcntioncd in that trial, tho Leocorion and
the Pherephattion, have been tentatively located by Mrs. F o w l e r
(355) as a result of recent excavations in the Agora. L e n n e p ' s article
(356) is a provocative discussion of the characters mentioned in the
speech and of how Demosthenes' artistry brings them to life. Two
attempts to reconstruct the events that culminated in the trial, those
of Paoli (358) and of Mensching (357), point out various weaknesses
in Ariston's case.
B. For Phormio (xxxvi)
359. F. S a n m a r t i B o n c o m p t e , 'Emcnaîev/ y SiaTi&ea&at., Studi
in onore di U. E. Paoli, Florence 1955, 629-642.
S a n m a r t i B o n c o m p t e cites For Phormio 32 as proof of the
existence in Athenian law of an act of last will, represented by the
word tmmefpcm*, as distinct from the normal act of the testament by
adoption, represented by Soaxifteaâi and dating from Solonian legislation.
Late Private Speeches
83
C. Against Stephanus (xlv)

360. G. C a l h o u n , The will of Pasion and its seals (Dem. 45. 17),
CP 10, 1915, 75-76.
361. H. S c h u c h t , ber die Echtheit attischer Rednerurkunden,
B P h W 3 9 , 1919, 1120-1128. 1143-1151.
C a l h o u n (360) argues t h a t the plurality of seals on Pasion's will
originated a t the time of the will's execution and is not the result of
the will's having been opened and resealed. S c h u c h t (361) maintains
t h a t the documents in the speeches against Stephanus (xlv, xlvi) are
forgeries. He points out t h a t the close correspondence between the
language of the documents and the follow-up remarks in the speeches
proper makes the documents appear superfluous and suggests t h a t
the forger h a d fabricated the documents from the orator's remarks.
Schucht also notes discrepancies among the lemmata as they are
reported b y various manuscripts.
D. Against Boeotus 1 and 2 (xxix, xl)

362. O. D a m s t e , De matrimonio Atheniensi, Mn 55, 1927, 3 6 5 369.
363. B. v a n G r o n i n g e n , Mantithee contre Mantith6e, Symbolae
J . C. van Oven, Leiden 1946, 92-110.
364. J . M i l e s , The marriage of Plangon (Dolly), Hermathena 78,
1951, 38-46.
365. P . P h o t i a d e s , 'H rcoxr]pu5i.<; ev TW eXXirjvtxw Stxaiw, Athens
1925.
366. *K. P h o u r k i o t i s , Ayjfjtoa-evoui; 7rp6<; Botcorov (TCpl TO 6v6(j.aTO?). EufxoXr) et? TTJV 7tpoo-Taaav TO vojxaxo?, Athens 1962. R e v . :
G e o r g o u l i s , Piaton 1961, 373-376.
367. J . R u d h a r t , La reconnaissance de la paternite: sa nature et
sa portee dans la societe athenienne, MH 19, 1962, 39-64.
368. H. W o l f f , Marriage law and family Organization in ancient
Athens, Traditio 2, 1944, 43-95.
One of t h e most intriguing civil cases dealt with by the Demosthenic
speeches is the contest between Mantitheus and Mantitheusalias
Boeotus (xxix and xl). Solution of the problem of Plangon's marital
status has been regarded as the key t o m a n y of the other problems
raised b y the speeches; however, little, if any, progress has been made
on it. The possibilities t h a t Plangon might have been a legally recognized concubine of Mantias or even a second wife in bigamous relation6
84
s h i p h a v e been diseussed by D a m s t e (362) and W o l f f (368). G r o n i n g e n (363) believes t h a t Mantias contracted three marriageswith
Plangon, with the widow of Cleonymus, and again with Plangon.
M i l e s ' Suggestion (364) is t h a t the defendants, Manthitheus-Boeotus
a n d Pamphilus, were the legitimate issue of the marriage of Mantias
and Plangon, whereas the plaintiff Mantitheus was illegitimate.
P h o t i a d e s (365) and G e r n e t (36), with various modifications, agree
t h a t Plangon was the first wife of Mantias but was subsequently
divorced and t h a t the two sons, Mantitheus-Boeotus and Pamphilus,
were renounced by Mantias when he suspected their paternity.
R u d h a r d t (367), however, does not believe t h a t the formality of
renunciation (apokeryxis) can be made applicable t o the case; instead
he argues t h a t Mantias, after the christening ceremony (dekate), when
he h a d divorced Plangon, h a d merely neglected the succeeding formalities and rituals t h a t would ensure the legitimacy of his first-born,
Mantitheus-Boeotus, and t h a t the son of the second-marriage, Mantitheus, supplanted the first-born in his prerogatives.
E. Against Pantaenetus (xxxvii)

369. J . M i l e s , Some observations on Demosthenes' speech against
Pantaenetus, Hermathena 78, 1951, 50-66.
M i l e s ' observations point u p the value of juridical oratory to our
knowlcdgo of ovcryday lifo in anciont Athens a n d admonish us t h a t
the private speeches of Demosthenes have not received the attention
they deserve. He concludes t h a t Demosthenes has exploited every
possible point in favor of his client's very weak case.
F. Against Zenothemls (xxxii')
370. *P. P h o t i a d e s , Nofxoa] ep|xr)VEia r?j? Ay)fj.oa#evou? 7rp<; Zrjvo&e|xivTOxpaypatprj?,Athena 26, 1923, 109-132.
371. *P. V i n o g r a d o f f , The legal background of Demosthenes'
speech in Zenothemis v. Demon, Tidschr. v. Rechtsgesch. 3, 1921,
164-174.
See also No. 36.
6. Against Macartatus (xlili)
372. J . M i l e s , The Attic law of intestate succession, Hermathena
75, 1950, 69-77.
86
Miles concludes that to determine relationship one must consider

the relation of the de cuius and the claimant to the common ancestor,
and if they are both within four degrees with the common ancestor, the
claimant can inherit.
H. Agalnst Olympiodorus (xlviii |
373. G. C a l h o u n , The Status of Callistratus in the litigation over
the estate of Conon (Dem. 48. 31, 34ff.), CP 13, 1918, 410-412.
According to Calhoun the Status of Callistratus in the litigation
over the estate of Conon was ostensibly independent; that is, both
Callistratus and Olympiodorus filed separate Claims. Callistratus, however, could only hope for a moiety, whereas Olympiodorus, if successful, would receive the entire estate. The two claimants, therefore,
agreed not to contest each other's claim and to share equally the success of whichever one of them should win. Callistratus denies, not that
he had addressed the court in due form as a separate claimant, but
that he had contested the claims of Olympiodorus during the latter's
speech.
I. Agalnst Lacritus (xxxv)

374. C. P r a u x , De la Grece classique l'Egypte hell6nistique:
Note sur les contrats clause executoire, CE 33, 1958, 102-112.
As an example of the continuity between classical Greece and
hellenistic Egypt, Pr6aux instances the clause of execution of contracts witnessed by Against Lacritus (xxxv) and Papyrus Elephantina 1.
K. Agalnst Leochares (xliv)

375. J. Miles, The case of Leochares (Demosthenes, Oration 44),
Hermathena 80, 1952, 48-57.
The speech, regarded generally as spurious, would be accepted by
Miles as authentic. He reminds us that the argument on style is
seldom a decisive test for authenticity, especially in instances of logography. He also notes that the writer, in typically Demosthenic
fashion, makes the utmost advantage of a superior moral position and
manages to establish an acceptable legal case.
86

L. Against Apaturius (xxxiii)
376. U. P a o l i , Messa a punto su Demosthene "in C. Apat.", 23,

J u r a 7, 1956, 118-120.
P a o l i rejects the view t h a t commercial trials occurred in Athens
from September-October to April-May and suggests t h a t the reading
of the mss. in Against Apaturius 23 had inverted the proper order of
t h e months. G e r n e t (36) has adopted P a o l i ' s emendation.
M. Against Phormio (xxxiv)

377. J . L o f b e r g , T h e Speakers in the caseof Chrysippus v. Phormio,
CP 27, 1932, 329-335.
L o f b e r g argues against the theory t h a t two Speakers delivered the
speech. Chrysippus was the only Speaker. The troublesome use of the
demonstratives can be explained as a dramatic de vice.
N. The Apollodorus Speeches: Against Callippus (lii), Against Nicostratus

(liii), Against Timotheus (xlix), Against Polycles (I), Against Stephanus 2
(xlvl), Against Neaera (lix)
378. A. F l o r o s , Ar)}io<ja)-evou<; 7tp<; Tiô&eov 7rp yphtc,, yvnm&rrfi
xal xp&vo? awYYPa9^?i Piaton 12, 1960, 230-238.
379. G. M a c C u r d y , Apollodorus and the speech against Neaera,
C P 6 3 , 1942,257-271.
380. L. P e a r s o n , "Apollodorus, the eleventh Attic orator", Studies
in honor of H. Caplan, Ithaca, N . Y . , 1966, 347-359.
See also No. 36.
The speeches written for Apollodorus, with the exception of xlv
(Against St&phanus 1) have been regarded as spurious. A maladroit
technique, a pedantic tone, and a predominantly ordinary a n d even
careless style lead G e r n e t (36) to believe t h a t they are all of the same
author, perhaps of Apollodorus himself. Likewise P e a r s o n (380) is in
favor of the authorship of Apollodorus. F l o r o s (387) has a t t e m p t e d
t o retrieve one speech of the group, Against Timotheus (xlix), as
Demosthenic; but his arguments are on the whole weak and add little
t h a t is new for consideration. M a c C u r d y (379) claims t h a t the speech
against Neaera had a political purpose rather t h a n the " s p i t e " motive
alleged by the two Speakers. Demosthenes was the promoter of t h e
suit, and his motive had been to deter Stephanus from active resistance
to his policies.
XI. Style
381. C. A d a m s , Are the political Speeches of Demosthenes to be
regarded as political pamphlets?, TAPA 43, 1912, 5-22.
382. V. d ' A g o s t i n o , Gli esercizi giovanili di Demostene, RSC 4,
1956, 145-150.
383. *G. B a r t h o l d , Studien zum Vokabular der politischen Propaganda bei Demosthenes, Diss. Tbingen 1962.
384. R. B o n n e r , Wit and humor in Athenian courts, CP 17,1922,
97-103.
385. M. D e l a u n o i s , Du plan logique au plan psychologique chez
Demosthene, LEC 19, 1951, 177-189.
386. , Le plan rhetorique dans l'eloquence grecque d'Homere
Demosthene, LEC 23, 1955, 267-287.
387. , Le plan rhetorique dans l'eloquence grecque d'Homere
Demosthene, Mem. Acad. de Belgique Cl. des Lettres 2 e Ser. XII 2,
Brssels 1959. Rev.: L a v e n c y , LEC 1960, 335; B r u n e i , REA i960,
469^70; Cousin, RBPh 1961, 1299-1300; H u d s o n - W i l l i a m s , CR
1961, 288-289; S c h r e i n e r , Mn 1961, 333; O r t e g a , Helmantica 1960,
548-549; B u c h h e i t , Gn 1962, 518-519.
388. A. D o r j a h n , On Demosthenes' ability to speak extemporaneously, TAPA 78, 1947, 69-76.
389. , Extemporaneous elements in certain orations and the
Prooemia of Demosthenes, AJP 78, 1957, 287-296.
390. , A further study on Demosthenes' ability to speak extemporaneously, TAPA 81, 1950, 9-15.
391. , A third study on Demosthenes' ability to speak extemporaneously, TAPA 83, 1952, 164-171.
392. , A fourth study on Demosthenes' ability to speak extemporaneously, CP 50, 1955, 191-193.
393. , Bowra on Demosthenes, CP 58, 1963, 109-111.
394. J. G a v i g a n , Classical abuse, CW 37, 1943-1944, 140-141.
395. B. Gaya Nufio, Sobre un giro de la lengua de Demstenes,
Madrid, 1959. Rev.: Mayor, Humanidades 1959, 266; H u m b e r t ,
88
Style
Gn 1960, 573; Aisina, EClas 1960, 390; Schick, RFIC 1960, 432434; B r u n e i , REA 1960, 470^72; Weil, REG 1960, 293-294;
G u i r a u d , RPh 1961, 144-145; G s c h n i t z e r , AAHG i960, 235;
Keils, JHS 1961, 171-172; D o v e r , CR 1961, 289; F o e r s t e l , IF
1961, 314-318; P a c h e c o , Humanitas 1961-1962, 464-465; L e r o y ,
AC 1962, 420.
396. H.Goffinet, Demosthene orateur et ses rivaux Francais,
Revue Generale 1926, 240-247.
397. H. Holst, Demosthenes' speech-impediment, SO 4, 1926,
11-25.
398. D. K r g e r ,
Gttingen 1959.
Die Bildersprache des Demosthenes,
Diss.
399. A. K r u m b a c h e r , Die Stimmbildung der Redner im Altertum,

Rhetorische Studien 9, Paderborn 1920.
400. K. L a n g , Das oxw- xax' pcnv xal &eat,v bei Demosthenes,
Diss. Erlangen 1925.
401. B. L e b b e , L'enchainement des parties dans les discours de
Demosthene, N & V (B) 1921, 46-50. 290-398. 412-421; 1922, 275-291.
402. S. Lisiecki, Demosthenes orationes suas salibusne condiverit,
Eos 30, 1927, 93-100.
403. P. Orsini, Demosthene et l'ideal oratoire du IVe siecle, Mel.
Soc. Toulousaine d'Etudes class. I, Toulouse 1946, 71-85.
404. L. P e a r s o n , The development of Demosthenes as a political
orator, Phoenix 18, 1964, 95-108.
405. A. R o m e , La vitesse de parole des orateurs antiques, BAB 38,
1952, 596-609.
406. G. R o n n e t , Etde sur le style de Demosthene dans les discours politiques, Paris 1951. Rev.: D e l a u n o i s , LEC 1952, 442:
de R o m i l l y , IL 1952, 200; W e i d a u e r , Gn 1953, 422^24; H e n r y ,
AC 1953, 163-165; H u d s o n - W i l l i a m s , CR 1953, 161-163; Harm a n d , IH 1953, 71; V i n c e n t , RSR 1953, 202; Cloche, RH 1954,
412; L o u i s , RPh 1954, 109; W h a t m o u g h , Erasmus 1955, 298-300;
N i s h i z a w a , JCS 1957, 164-168.
407. F. Vogel, Die Krzenmeidung in der griechischen Prosa des
IV. Jahrhunderts, Hermes 58, 1923, 87-108.
408. H . S t r o h m , Eine Demosthenes-Interpretation, Gymnasium
69, 1962, 326-335.
Style
89
The most exhaustive examination of Demosthenes' style is the

book of R o n n e t (406), which nevertheless is confined to the political
orations. R o n n e t is primarily concerned with tracing the stages by
which Demosthenes' style was formed and the corresponding stages in
the development of his outlook and character. She attempts to determine these stages through a Statistical tabulation of stylistic phenomena grouped in five classesvocabulary and syntax, word-order and
verbal repetition, sentence structures, thought figures, and finally
metaphor and simile. Her conclusions are those which one might have
expected without bothering to extricate from their contexts numerous
bits and pieces of expression and then grouping them into their various
classesnamely that On the Symmories and For the Megcdopolitans
reveal the immature Demosthenes, that in the speeeh For the Freedom,
of the Rhodians Demosthenes is seen to be groping to find the mean
between an artistically polished form of expression and a natural
spontaneity, which he achieves with the First Philippic and ultimately
perfects with the Oralion On the Crown.
K r g e r ' s dissertation (398), though concerned only with the
imagery of Demosthenes' orations, follows the same vexatious method
of extraction. Demosthenes' similes and metaphors are removed from
their contexts and grouped aecording to subjeet (e.g., atmospheric
phenomena, animal life, sickness). Very little is said about the significance of the images to the orations in which they appear. Krger also
spends an undue amount of Space in attempting to define simile and
metaphor. The study may be of value to those wishing a catalog of
Demosthenes' metaphors and similes.
After Blass had formulated his discovery of the "law of breves", he
went on to apply it to textual criticism by emending the text or
preferring inferior readings to those of the better mss. whenever such
changes might avoid a contradiction of the "law". This procedure
offended many scholars, particularly textual critics, and caused Blass'
law to fall into disrepute. A d a m s ' article (26) attempts to restore its
validity by modifying some of Blass' conclusions and by demonstrating their application in the Crown speeeh. Vogel (407) has applied the
law of breves to writings of Demosthenes' contemporaries, showing
that while Demosthenes' avoidance of shorts is more noticeable than
that of the other orators, the distinetion is not as great as Blass had
claimed for it. All in all, the "law of breves" has survived the attacks
of critics but only because of modifications; and what had been at first
optimistically heralded as a decisive test of authenticity must now be
regarded as possessing only ancillary force. The quest for the magic
touchstone was carried on by Gaya Nuiio whose posthumously published book (395) focuses on Demosthenes' use of a verb followed by a
90
Style
dependent complementary infinitive which itself is accompanied by a

dependent complementary infinitive. G a y a believed that Demosthenes' arrangement of this type of construction differed considerably
from that of his contemporaries, and he attempted to formulate the
differences. The severe criticisms of F o e r s t e l in his review (cf. 395)
make it obvious that G a y a ' s theory requires much revision and
further testing before it can be made applicable.
L a n g ' s dissertation (400) deals with another common trait of
Demosthenes' style, the figure xar' &patv xal aw, but does not attempt to claim for it any value as a test of authenticity. The study, an
extraction-method again, is a conscientious effort to arrive at conclusions about Demosthenes' use of the figure, which, according to
L a n g , passes from a stage of directness and simplicity to a second
stage (primarily a symbouleutic stage) of great variety and interaction
with other figures. In the third stage, consisting mainly of private
speeches, the figure is employed sparingly and without pathos.
An aspect of Demosthenes writings that has often been suggested
as a fruitful area of study is the relationship between the orally
delivered speech and its written, published version. The articles of
R u p p r e c h t (275) and Focke (237) have made it clear that the
Prooemia must figure prominently in such a study. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries it was fashionable to consider
the political works of Demosthenes not as speeches but as political
pamphlets. A d a m s ' penetrating examination (26) provide3 nearly
decisive arguments against the pamphlet theory. Likewise D r e r u p (9)
points out that one has only to examine writings known to be pamphlets, such as the works of Isocrates, to realize that the speeches of
Demosthenes, as they have come down to us, do not differ radically
from the same speeches that were presented in the courts and assemblies. D o r j a h n ' s articles (389, 390, 391, 392, 393) attempt to demonstrate from Demosthenes' speeches that the orator could speak extemporaneously.
Four items in our bibliography are concerned with Demosthenes'
preparation and training as a public Speaker and with the difficulties
that he overcome in this regard. Holst (397) regards as trustworthy
the traditional accounts of Demosthenes' speech impediment and
explains that it consisted of a combination of battarismus (French
bredouillement) and stammering (French begaiement). Demosthenes'
nickname, BiraXoi;, signified both afflictions. A g o s t i n o (382) describes, on the basis of ancient testimonia, the exercises which Demosthenes pursued to overcome his handicap. K r u m b a c h e r (399)
investigates voice training as a part of the rhetorical techne and finds
that in Demosthenes' time a new emphasis on the vocal technique of
Style
91
orators was necessitated by the advances made in this area by actors.

He seems to accept uncritically the stories of Demosthenes' dealings
with Andronicus and Neoptolemus.
Scholars have found that the traditional arrangement of the major
parts of an oration (e.g., introduction, narration, proof, etc.), as taught
by the rhetorical handbooks, does not adequately account for the
various plans or dispositions of the Demosthenic speeches. A remarkable trait of Demosthenes is his ability to maintain certain arguments
and ideas throughout a speech in such a way that they establish a kind
of concatenation or, as Lebbe (401) describes it, an enchainement des
parties. This characteristic was especially noticeable to a Belgian
teacher, J. Gilot (260), who in an attempt to demonstrate to his pupils
the continuity of the plan of the First Philippic, constructed a chart on
which were plotted the recurrences of major arguments and ideas.
G i l o t ' s method was promptly taken up by D e l a u n o i s who applied
it first to Demosthenes' speeches and then to Greek eloquence in generalfrom Homer to Demosthenes. In the former study (385) D e l a u n o i s
concludes that Demosthenes at first adhered to the traditional,
"logical" arrangement taught by the schools but later, in the Philippics, developed a more spontaneous, "psychological" plan. In the
latter study (387) he attempts to show that the two types of plan,
"logical" and "psychological", existed contemporaneously since
Homer but that it was due to Demosthenes' genius that they were
combined to produce the culmination of artistic and effective arrangement. Some of the reviews of D e l a u n o i s ' study, notably those of
H u d s o n - W i l l i a m s and B u c h h e i t (cf. 387), have been less than
enthusiastic. They have pointed out the ambiguous use of the word
psychologique and doubted the overall validity of the graphic method;
however, granting these objections, we owe to D e l a u n o i s and his
predecessors some measure of respect for examining elements of style
and argument as they apply to a given oration and for thus making
us aware of the oration as a single artistic entity. P e a r s o n (404)
analyzes Demosthenes' development as a political orator on the basis
of his arrangement of arguments and the balance that he achieves
between narrative and argument. In contrast to D e l a u n o i s (perhaps
the contrast is only apparent) he finds that Demosthenes' arrangements of argument and narrative gradually improve as they become
more coherent and logical in the later speeches than in the earlier
speeches.
The impression of himself that Demosthenes has left with posterity
is that of a consistently serious person who resorted to wit and humor
only as instruments of attack. Lisiecki (402) upholds this impression
in his analysis of examples of Demosthenes' wit, such as irony and
92
Style
parody, and determines that Demosthenes, unlike Cicero, did not

indulge in wit for the sake of gracious levity. G a v i g a n ' s article (394)
highlights some instances of Demosthenes' assassination of Aeschines'
character. It is quite possible that this emphasis on the seriousness of
Demosthenes' wit has gone too far. B o n n e r (384) reminds us that
Demosthenes could teil a humorous story and that he is credited by
Plutarch with a bit of effective repartee.
Two articles deal with Demosthenes' Status as an orator. Orsini
(403) notes that Hyperides, not Demosthenes, was the ideal orator of
the fourth Century. Demosthenes' daring genuis too often led him to
experiment and thereby to overstrain conventional tastes and sensitivities. Goffinet (396) compares Demosthenes with modern French
orators to the detriment of the latter.
Rome (405) has calculated that Demosthenes spoke at the rate of
150 words per minute in the speech On the Fraudulent Embassy and
that the entire oration, including interruptions, required 156 minutes.
Demosthenes thus spoke more rapidly than Aeschines, whom R o m e
has timed at 128.5 words per minute.
It might be objected that S t r o h m ' s article (408) does not belong
in a discussion of the work on style, since it appears to be concerned
primarily with the judgement of posterity on Demosthenes' significance as a statesman; but S t r o h m ' s unique importance is to have
pointed out that the judgement of anti-Demosthenicscholarswho view
Demosthenes a3 a constant prevaricator of political realitias is as
simplistic as that of the pro-Demosthenic group which accepts as
gospel every word the orator ever uttered. It is absolutely essential to
take into account Demosthenes the artist, who interpreted and
formulated reality in such a way that it became meaningful also on an
ideal level of thought and action. The analyses of Ol. i.21, Phil. 1.2,
and De cor. 62 provide an effective demonstration of S t r o h m ' s thesis.
XII. Argumentation
409. K. J o s t , Das Beispiel und Vorbild der Vorfahren bei den
attischen Rednern und Geschichtsschreibern bis Demosthenes, Rhetorische Studien 19, Paderborn 1936.
410. G. K e n n e d y , Focusing of Arguments in Greek Deliberative
Oratory, TAPA 90, 1959, 131-138.
411. 0 . N a v a r r e , La technique de l'invention oratoire chez Demosthene, Melanges Desrousseaux, Paris 1937, 335-342.
412. H. N o r t h , The use of poetry in the training of the ancient
orator, Traditio 8, 1-33.
413. L. P e a r s o n , Historical allusions in the Attic orators, CP 36,
1941, 209-229.
414. S. P e r l m a n , Quotations from poetry in Attic orators of the
fourth Century B.C., AJP 85, 1964, 155-172.
415. M. S c h o e n f e l d , Argumentation et presentation des faits chez
D6mosthene, AC 38, 1959, 201-213.
J o s t ' s study (409) on historical examples is one of the most comprehensive treatments of an aspect of argumentation that have been
written. It begins with the rhetorical basis of the historical example,
differentiating, or at least attempting to differentiate, cr^ji.e'ov, xexpi.Tjptov, and 7ttxpa8et.Y(ia; then proceeds to examine their use in the oldest
orators (chap. 2), the earlier historians (chap. 3), Lysias and Isokrates
(chap. 4), and finally (chap. 5) Demosthenes. The final, lengthy chapter contains numerous facts and conclusions about Demosthenes' use
of examples. In contrast to his predecessors, Demosthenes regularly
idealizes the past, particularly that which is concerned with Athens'
rle in the Persian wars. Only in rare instances does he draw his
examples from mythology. For the most part the examples are briefly
stated and employed, usually in the form of enthymemes, for the
purposes of clarification, testimony, Instruction, or justification.
P e a r s o n (413) likewise investigates the use of historical examples and
allusions in the orators but with a view to determining the degree of
historical Information that an orator might expect of his audience.
Closely related to the historical examples are the quotations from
poetry found in various speeches of the fourth Century. Two articles,
those of N o r t h (412) and of P e r l m a n (414), deal with much the same
94
Argumentation
questions on this topic, although N o r t h ' s study encompasses the

entirety of ancient oratory, whereas P e r l m a n is concerned only with
fourth Century Attic orators. Both pay considerable attention to the
poetic quotations found in the orations of Aeschines and Demosthenes
on the Embassy and Crown cases, and conclude that Demosthenes' use
of poetry is more sophisticated and effective than that of Aeschines.
N a v a r r e (411) has criticized Demosthenes' method of invention as
it is represented in the orations against Androtion, Leptines, and
Timocrates, on the grounds that it too scrupulously follows, and is
thus sometimes led astray by, the accepted topoi and techniques of the
fourth Century schools of rhetoric. Schoenfeld (415) compares
Demosthenes' description and argument of the same event in three
Speeches (xix, v, vi), namely his humiliation by Philocrates and
Aeschines; he explains the differences by changes of occasion and
public opinion. The lively description of the episode in the speech
On the Fravdule.nl Embassy can be attributed to the demands of the
forensic genre for greater detail than is required by the symbouleutic
genre. In the oration On the Peace Demosthenes was defending an
unpopulr measure and thus recalled his humiliation at the hands of
Philocrates and Aeschines to remind the assembly of his anti-Macedonian policies. In the Second Philippic Demosthenes repeated the story to diseredit his political opponents. K e n n e d y (410) believes to have
traced Demosthenes' method of deliberative argumentation through
three phases. In the earlicst speeche3 the orator combines topoi (e.g.,
the expedient, the honorable, and the just); in the First Philippic and
the First Olynthiac he concentrates almost exclusively on the argument of expediency; finally, in the Second and Third Philippics Demosthenes gives primary emphasis to expediency but also relates it to
the just and the honorable.
Xm. Demosthenes' Influence

416. I. Cazzaniga, Dai papiri dell'Universit di Milano, Acme 8,
1955, 67-71.
417. P. Cloche, propos d'un chapitre de Polybe, AC 8, 1939,
361-370.
418. E. D r e r u p , Demosthenes im Urteile des Altertums (von
Theopomp bis Tzetzes: Geschichte, Roman, Legende), Wrzburg 1923.
Rev.: C. W., HJ 1924, 298; A m m o n , Ph W 1924, 12-1-1209;
D e S a n c t i s , RF 1924, 256-266; R e n n i e , CR 1926, 66.
419. F. G e b h a r d , Das Demosthenesproblem, BBG 1925, 34-39.
420. M. G i g a n t e , II saggio critico di Teodoro Metochites su Demostene e Aristide, PP 20, 1965, 51-72.
421. M. L o s s a u , Untersuchungen zur antiken Demosthenesexegese, Palingenesia 2, Bad Homburg 1964. Rev.: R u s s e l l , CR
1966, 243; D o u g l a s , JHS 1966, 190-191; Weil, RPh 1966, 317-318;
B h l e r , Gn 1967, 545-547; S p o e r r i , MH 1967, 243.
422. M. Maykowska,
184-186.
Demostenes-Cycero,
Meander 3, 1948,
423. J. Meerwaldt, De comicorum quibusdem locis ad ludendum

Demosthenem pertinentibus, Mn 55, 1927, 287-303.
424. , De Aristotelis erga Demosthenem animo, Mn 54, 1926,
348-369.
425. H. R a h n , Demosthenes und Cicero, Atti i congr. Studi
Ciceron. I, Rome 1961, 256-282.
426. U. Schindel, Demosthenes im 18. Jahrhundert (Zehn Kapitel
zum Nachleben des Demosthenes in Deutschland, Frankreich,
England), Munich 1963. Rev.: L l o y d - J o n e s , Gn 1963, 831-832;
W e h r l i , MH 1963, 258; L e v e q u e , AC 1963, 627; McDowell, CR
1964, 37-38; K e n n e d y , CW 1964, 358; Orsini, REA 1964, 168-170;
Des P l a c e s , RecSr 1964, 477; Mn 1964, 458; S c h u l z - F a l k e n t h a l ,
DLZ 1965, 500-502; Weil, RPh 1965,128;Treves, Athenaeum 1965,
250-254.
427. P. Shorey, Bacon and Demosthenes, CP 25, 1930, 190 and
282.
See also Nos.: 4, 6,10.
96
Demosthenes' Influence
After D r e r u p had published his highly controversial book, Aus

einer alten Advokatenrepublik (9), he went on to demonstrate, or to
attempt to demonstrate, in a book on Demosthenes-testimonia (418)
that his own highly unfavorable portrait of the orator as a cowardly
and venal political Opportunist was in harmony with the judgment of
Demosthenes' contemporaries and with much subsequent ancient
writing. A thoughtful review of fourth and third Century witnesses,
however, proves that they are almost entirely from the camp of
Demosthenes' personal and political enemies; and against their vociferous attacks must be weighed the numerous honors and marks of
respect accorded to the orator by the assembly even after the disaster
at Chaeronea. Likewise the hostility of third Century rhetoric toward
Demosthenes might be traced to Aristotle's pro-Macedonian sympathies; however, it must be remembered that at least one notable
rhetorician from the Peripatetic school, Hieronymos of Rhodes,
valued the stylistic and political abilities of Demosthenes higher than
those of Isocrates. D r e r u p points out that the Demosthenes-legend,
which the orator's nephew, Demochares, had been instrumental in
establishing around 281, was not consistently adhered to by subsequent writers. Neither Polybius nor Diodorus had much use for
Demosthenes. In instances of favorable testimony, such as that of
Plutarch, D r e r u p attempts to undermine the writer's authority or
to attribute his admiration for Demosthenes to the intoxicating effect
of the orators' Speeches, which were all the more potent for having
been freed from the extenuating circuinstances of fourth Century
history. The obvious defects of the author's book, which stem from
undisguised prejudice, are nevertheless slight compared to the value
of his exhaustive and scholarly arrayed collection of testimonia.
A second, lengthy study on Demosthenes' influence has been recently written by S c h i n d e l (426) but confined to three countries, Germany, France, and England, in the eighteenth Century. Each of the
countries represents a major section wherein one chapter is devoted
to editions and translations, another to the influence of Demosthenes
on the theory and practice of rhetoric, and a third to the judgment of
historians. S c h i n d e l makes an adequate case for his selection of the
eighteenth Centuryas a time of enlightenment it brought forth new
modes of criticism to supplant respect for ancient authority; it was
almost the last moment when Europe could be regarded as an intellectual unity; and the appreciation of Demosthenes was not confined so
much to scholarship as it was to become in the nineteenth Century.
These reasons, however, are themselves rather general and might be
advanced for the study of any ancient author's influence; and, as it
turns out, the eighteenth Century was, compared to the nineteenth,
Demosthenes' Influence
97
a dull age for the study of Demosthenes. The book is nonetheless a

welcome addition to the history of Demosthenic scholarship.
C a z z a n i g a (416) has reported and described a papyrus fragment
of the seventh Century A.D. containing remarks on Demosthenes' use
of amphibolia and hapaz eiremena. The writer was probably a grammarian.
G i g a n t e ' s article (420) pro vi des an appreciation and analysis of
the critical essay by the Byzantine humanist, Theodorus Metochites,
on Demosthenes and Aristides. It is a not unsuceessful attempt to
achieve recognition for Theodorus as a literary critic.
An interesting, though highly speculative, study of contemporary
criticism of Demosthenes in the comic fragments has been written by
M e e r w a l d t (423). He identifies certain allusions of the comedians
with specific passages in Demosthenes' Speeches. The famous story,
reported by Pseudo-Plutarch, in which the orator was asked the three
most essential duties in rhetoric and replied "action, action, and
action", Meerwaldt believes to have originated in comedy and was
intended to ridicule Demosthenes' ineptness in gesture and poise.
R a h n (425) has studied the influence of Demosthenes on Cicero and
concluded that for the Roman, the Greek orator represented the
prototype of his ideal of the philosophically-trained political orator.
On the other hand, Demosthenes' reputation as a great Athenian
patriot results from his later, posthumous association with Cicero.
Cloche (417) argues that Polybius' criticisms (xvi.14) of Demosthenes are not borne out by the facts. That the Peloponnesian states
did not regard Philip as their liberator, at least for very long, is proved
by a succession of attempts to shake off the Macedonian yoke. These
attempts, analogous to those of Athens, show that indeed the Peloponnesian states had more in common with Athens than with Macedonia.
In aecordance with the view that Aristotle 's Rhetoric had been composed over an extended period of time, M e e r w a l d t (424) has examined the philosopher's remarks on Demosthenes, which are found in
three passages of the work. He concludes that Aristotle, in the course
of writing the treatise, had been at first an enemy of Demosthenes but
later, after he had become disillusioned by Philip, had become the
orator's friend.
Shorey (427) reminds us that Bacon's familiarity with Demosthenes is noticeable in expressions which he borrowed from the
Philippics, Olynthiacs, and On the Crown.
7 Liistnim 14
XIV. Special Problems

A. Panhellenism
428. A. D a s k a l a k i s , ' 0 prjxcop paoiijjiaxo? 7replMaxeSvuv, Athena
56, 1952, 45-60.
429. , ' 0 A-y)fxocr9ivr)<; xal xa 7repl "apapiafjw" xcv MaxeSovcov,
Piaton 3, 1951, 188-211.
430. H. D u n k e l , Was Demosthenes a panhellenist?, CP 33, 1938,
291-305.
431. A. K e r a m o p o u l l o s , Ol apapoi MaxeSve? xo AY)fi.oa{>ivou<;,
Ei? |i.vr](xr)v Ynz. Aa}rrcpo, Athens 1935, 64-67.
432. B. S e r b o n i , Elleni e barbari nelle orazioni di Demostene,
A & R 8 , 1940, 117-132.
433. P. T r e v e s , Per uno studio su Demostene, RFIC 60, 1932,
68-74.
See also Nos.: 9,14, 241,11, 8,14, 255, 256, 259,12.
A useful bibliographical background and introduction to the
question of whether Demosthenes had sincerely advocated a policy of
Panhellenism can be found in D u n k e l ' s article (430). D u n k e l , however, did not include the brief exchange between Momigliano (255,
256) and T r e v e s (259). Momigliano had pointed out that Demosthenes was inconsistent, at one time arguing for an Athenian hegemony along the lines of the old Delian League and at other times
seeming to support the idea of a confederacy in which the autonomy
of each member wouldbe guaranteed. T r e v e s responded that what
M o m i g l i a n o had labelled an inconsistency was in fact a development
in the orator's political thinking; Demosthenes had begun as an
advocate of Athenian imperialism, but as the threat of Philip's
monarchical domination became increasingly apparent, had recognized
the necessity for championing the autonomy of Greek states. D u n k e l
(430) believes that Demosthenes merely employed Panhellenic sentiment whenever it might serve Athenian interests. He claims to miss
in the Speeches a broad sympathy and understanding of points of view
held by other Greek cities. The controversy seems to assume that
Demosthenes, in order to have been a sincere panhellenist, would have
preferred the interest of Greek states generally to that of Athens.
L u c c i o n i (12) has rightly imped that such an assumption is not
Special Problems
99
warranted. Demosthenes may be taken as sincere in bis expressed

recognition of Athens' Panhellenic responsibity. If at the same time
the orator reserved a leading position for Athens in a panhellenic
union, he may be condoned for admitting the superior resources and
Strategie importance of his country.
Is Demosthenes' appellation of Phip and the Macedonians as
barbarian to be taken bterally? D a s k a l a k i s (428, 429) does not
believe that the Macedonians were non-Greeks or so-regarded by the
Greeks of the fourth Century merely because Demosthenes makes this
reproach against Phip. S e r b o n i (432) thinks that the contrasting
terms, Greeks and barbarians, signify cultural and political, rather
than racial, distinetions. Perhaps the most sober discussion of the
racial affinity of Macedonians to the Greeks has been presented by
L u c c i o n i (12) who produces rather convincing evidence that the
Macedonians were not recognized as members of the Greek race.
K e r a m o p o u l l o s (431) beeves that the Macedonians were in fact
members of the Greek race.
B. The Theorie Fund
434. G. Cawkwell, Demosthenes and the stratiotic fund, Mn 15,
1962, 377-383.
435. , Eubulus, JHS 83, 1963, 47-67.
436. G. G l o t z , Demsthene et les finances atheniennes de 346 339,
RH 170, 285-397.
437. U. K a h r s t e d t , Demosthenes und die Theorika, NGG 1929,
156-163.
438. J. v a n O o t e g h e m , Demsthene et le theoricon, LEC 1, 1932,
388-^07.
439. W. S c h w a n n , Theoricon, R-E II 5, 2233-2237.
See also Nos.: 8,11,14.
The history and nature of the theoric fund has been recounted by
S c h w a h n (439) in his article in Pauly-Wissowa which appeared in
1934; but because he does not give a thorough airing to various controversies, one is advised to read also the introduetory paragraphs in
items 435, 437, and 438 above. For our purposes the major problem is
to determine the significance of the fund to Demosthenes' policies.
J a e g e r ' s discussion (11) is misleading; for he speaks in one place
(p. 142) of "doing away with the theater money", which is not a at
the intent of Demosthenes' attack. For clarification it is useful to quote
P i c k a r d - C a m b r i d g e (14), pp. 96-97: "The exaet place of theTheo7
100
Special Problems
ric Fund in relation to the general revenues of the State has been much
disputed. But it would appear that at the beginning of each year, the
Assembly passed a Budget, allocating to special purposes and to
particular funds as much as was required by each; and that the surplus
or unallocated revenues passed in time of war into the military ehest,
in time of peace into the Theorie Fund, and that from the latter they
were distributed to the Citizens." K a h r s t e d t (437) agrees with
P i c k a r d - C a m b r i d g e on most of these points; however, he does not
believe that the surplus of the budget in times of peace passed automatically into the theoric fund. He argues that Apollodorus, at Demosthenes' urging, had merely proposed before the assembly in 349/8
that it be determined whether the surplus should go to the theoric fund
or to the military fund. Apollodorus, to be sure, had been subsequently
tried for para nomon and fined a talent not because of the illegality of
bis proposal but because as a debtor to the State he was not qualified to
introduce proposals to the assembly. It is K a h r s t e d t ' s conclusion
that the importance of the theoric fund has been greatly exaggerated.
O o t e g h e m (438),however, decliing to aeeept K a h r s t e d t ' s Solution,
produces considerable evidence not only from scholia and commentators but also from Demosthenes' Speeches to prove that the issue over
the theoric and military money must have been a crucial one. And
what about Demades' description of the theoric fund as the "cement
of demoeraey" ? One will find it difficult to agree to the figures arrived
at by K a h r s t e d t on the total expense of the theoric fund.
Whatever the importance of the theoric fund may have been at the
time the Olynthiacs were pronounced, it subsequently ceases, so far as
Demosthenes' Speeches are concerned, to be an issue. The commonly
aeeepted explanation is that the surplus revenues were finally turned
over to the military fund when Lycurgus became chief financial director at Athens in 339. There is one slight indication that the issue may
have been resolved earlier; for in the Fourth Philippic, dated in 341,
Demosthenes' attitude toward the theoric fund is no longer hostile.
G l o t z (436) reasons that Demosthenes and his party must have found
a means of supporting Athens' military preparedness that by-passed
the issue over the theoric money and believes to have found epigraphic
evidence for the establishment of a stratiotic fund in 349. C a w k w e l l ' s
rebuttal (434) is particularly effective in pointing out that the stratiotic
fund is not necessarily to be regarded as a new creation in 349. He is
also justified in requiring more specific Information than G l o t z has
supplied about the stratiotic fund.
XV. Appreciation and Evaluation

440. K. B l u m e n s t o c k , Gedanken zu Demosthenes, Festschrift
Regenbogen, Heidelberg 1956, 148-157.
441. E. Chevalier, Realismes politiques, Lecons atheniennes, Les
Cahiers du Rhone, Serie bleue X Neuchtel Ed. de la Baconniere,
1943, 25-69.
442. W. C o u r t n e y , Demosthenes and the principle of patriotism,
Fortnightly Review 106, 1916, 78-88.
443. , Patriotism and oratory: Venizelos and Demosthenes, ibid.,
600-601.
444. F. E g e r m a n n , Vom attischen Menschenbild, Munich 1952.
445. V. E h r e n b e r g , Polypragmosyne: A study in Greek politics,
JHS 67, 1947, 46-67.
446. A . F r a n k l i n , Communism and dictatorship, CW 43, 1950
83-89.
447. P. H u b e r , Zur Wrdigung des Demosthenes, BBG 61, 1925,
361-375.
448. W. J a e g e r , Paideia: The idealsof Greek Culture, vol. III:The
conflict of cultural ideals in the age of Plato, trans. G. Highet, New York
1944.
449. J. K a l i t s o u n a k i s , 'H 7toXmxY) TO aaiXeco<; DiXtanrou x.a.1
PAA 22, 1947, 47-70.
AYIHOCTÊVY),;,
450. *K. K a s i m a k o s ,
Athens 1951.
'0
Ay)|xoa&vy]? cb<; av&ptdTrKrxwa) a[a,
451. J. Knipfing, German historians and Macedonian imperialism, Amer. Hist. Review 26, 1920, 657-671.
452. A. Massimi, Introduzione all' ellenismo II: La fine della pos
e la nuova societ, GIF 13, 1960, 114-133.
453. D. Mayor, "Humanismo" de Protgoras y "Deshumanismo"
de Demstene, Humanidades 9, 1959, 159-174.
454. J. van O o t e g h e m , La politique de Demosthene, RBPh 7,
1928, 913-955.
102
Appreciation and Evaluation
455. *J. S c h n a y d e r , Rehabilitacja Demostenesa w XX wieku,

Meander 5, 1950, 117-130.
456. H. S e d l m a y e r , Demosthenes der Kmpfer fr Griechenlands
Einheit und Freiheit, 40. Jahresbericht ber das k. k. Franz Joseph Realgymnasium in Wien, Vienna 1914, 1-17.
457. *H. W e l s c h i n g e r , Demosthene et les Atheniens, Acad. des
sc. mor. et polit., 1916.
The appreciations and evaluations written on Demosthenes as a
statesman and orator are by no means confined to the items listed
above. The studies listed in this section, however, are limited solely
to the purpose of evaluation, and that usually in general terms.
Scholarly depth and objectivity are scarcely to be expected on this
topic. The least offensive approach is the comparative one, although
one is likely to become annoyed by the tendency of this method to
resort to easy labeis. A case in point isthearticle of Massimi(452) in
which Demosthenes as the ideal of liberty is contrasted with Philip as
the reality of force. Likewise, C h e v a l i e r (441) views the conflict
between Aeschines and Demosthenes as the clash of two political
realismsthe realism of collaboration (Aeschines) vs. the realism of
national vocation (Demosthenes). Mayor (453) has selected Protagoras as a foil for Demosthenes (or vice versa). Accordingly, Protagoras,
with his alleged atheistic, positivistic, subjectivistic, amoralistic views,
is identified as a representative of humani3m; Demosthenes, on tho
other hand, with his concept of man as a free moral agent subject to
superhuman powers, Stands for a de-humanistic view. E g e r m a n n
(444) finds many parallels between Demosthenes' concept of the ideal
statesman and that of Plato, and insists in Opposition to D r e r u p (418)
that Demosthenes is important as a representative of Athenian
morality and culture. The article of K a l i t s o u n a k i s (449), notable for
its fairness, compares the activities and policies of Philip, Demosthenes, Aeschines, and, to a lesser degree, Isocrates. K a l i t s o u n a k i s
recognizes Aeschines as a sincere Athenian patriot but does not concede that history's verdict in favor of Aeschines' program gives cause
to invalidate the heroic efforts of Demosthenes in behalf of the polis.
Three evalutions of Demosthenes' statesmanship have focused on
the orator as a man of his time and both have concluded that Demosthenes was definitely out of tune with the prevailing intellectual and
spiritual attitudes of the fourth Century. O o t e g h e m (454) censures
Demosthenes' blindness to the spiritual enervation of Athens and the
other city states. He believes that Demosthenes should have pursued
a diplomatic, rather than a military, strategy in dealing with Philip.
E h r e n b u r g ' s study (445) traces the use of polypragmosyne and
Appreciation and Evaluation
103
apragmosyne in the fifth and fourth centuries. Thucydides had attributed Athenian imperialism in the fifth Century to polypragmosyne.
With the advent of Euripides, however, the ideal of the bios theoreiikos
has started on its career. Hence the public attitude toward polypragmosyne has become distinctly unfavorable in the fourth Century,
and Demosthenes' speeches betray an aversion for the term and a
qualified praise for apragmosyne despite the orator's fervent desire to
meet action by action. J a e g e r ' s essay on Demosthenes in Paideia
(448) admits that Demosthenes fought against his countrymen's
propensity toward inertia and fatalism but approves of the orator's
endeavors and attributes to them a large measure of success.
Finally, some evaluations of Demosthenes have been motivated by
ideological developments of the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. D r e r u p (9,418), perhaps the most outstanding example of
hostility toward Demosthenes, is nevertheless a late-comer to a trend
in Germany, particularly in Prussia, which can be traced as far back
as Droysen in the early nineteenth Century. For an interesting account of the motives, both philosophical and political, behind this
trend see the article of K n i p f i n g (451).
Register
R = Review
A b b o t , E. 149: 35f.
A b r u z z e s e , A. 118: 30f.
A c c a m e , S. 204: 46f.
A c c i n i , A. I. d' 47: 20f.
A d a m s , C. 4: 8. 10 R14: 9 26: 16.
19. 89 291: 68f. 381: 87
A d e r e r , A. 151: 35f.
A g o s t i n o , V. d' 382: 87. 90
A l b i n i , U. 197: 42f.
A l e x a n d e r , W. 299: 70f.
A l f o n s i , L. 307: 72f.
A i s i n a R395: 88
A m m e n d o l a , G. 134: 32 139: 34
A m n i o n R 9 : 9 R418: 95
A n n a r a t o n e , A. 51: 23f.
A n n i b a l e t t o , L. 128: 31f. 132: 32
A n t o n i a z z i , O. 161: 36f.
A p a r i c i o , L. 105: 27. 29
A r a p o p o u l o s , C. T. 178: 39 185:
40
A s h e r i , D. 248: 55f.
A y m a r d R8: 8
B a l a g u , P. M. 74: 24f. 107: 28f.
168: 37
B a r r e s i , D. 65: 23f. 122: 31
B a r t h o l d , G. 383: 87
B a s i l o p o u l o s , N. 5: 8 267: 61f.
B a s s i , D. 59: 23f. 98: 27 99: 27f.
126: 31 f. 177: 39
B a s s i , I. 60: 23f.
B e k k e r , I. 43
B e n s e i e r , G. E. 34
B e r t o l o t t o , G. 98: 27f.
Berve R H : 9
B i a n c h i , F. 79: 25. 29
B i c k e r m a n , E. R278: 65 342:
79f. R352: 79
B l a s s , F. 5. 7. 17. 19f. 21. 24. 32f.
35 f. 38. 40 f. 42 f. 44. 49. 57
B l a v a e k i j , V. 209: 48
B l u m e n s t o c k , K. 440: 101
B o l i s a n i , E. 58: 23
B o n c o m p t e , F . Sanmarti 359: 82
B o n n e l l i , G. B. 123: 31
B o n n e r , R. 384: 87. 92
B o u r r i o t R12: 9
B r a n d m a i r , A. 109: 28f.
B r i n k , A. 6: 8. 13
Brouwers R8: 8
B r u n e i R387: 87 R396: 88
B u c h h e i t R387: 87
B h l e r R421: 95
B u s c e m a , G. 77: 25
B u t c h e r , S. H. 20. 24. 28f. 39
B u t t m a n , P. 40
Cadiou R13: 9
C a h e n , R. 181: 39
C a i o l i R16: 9
C a l a b i , I. 340: 78
C a l h o u n , G. R 8 : 8 193: 41 f. 218:
49 f. 226: 49 279: 65f. 360: 83
373: 85
C a l z a v a r a , G. 112: 29
C a m m e l l i , G. 52: 23f. 186: 32
C a p i t a n i o , U. 140: 34
C a p o v i l l a , G. 154: 35f.
C a r y R 6 : 8 R 8 : 8 R H : 9 R226: 49
C a s s o n , S. 210: 48
C a s t e l l o , G. 86: 27f.
C a t a u d e l l a R6: 8
C a u e r R 9 : 8f.
C a w k w e l l , G. 234: 54f. 56 268:
59f. 61f. 280: 65f. 69 283: 66f.
341: 78 434: 99f. 435: 99
C a z z a n i g a , I. 416: 95. 97
C e s s i , C. RS: 8 R16: 9 159: 35f.
175: 39
C h e v a l i e r , E. 441: 101 f.
C h e v a l l i e r , R. 322: 74
C i o n e R16: 9
C l e m e n c e a u , G. 7: 8. 12f.
C l o c h e . P . R 6 : 8 8:8. lOf. 14.66f.
76 R13: 9 235: 54f. 236: 54f.
251: 56 f. 58 R254: 56 R277: 65
R336: 75 R406: 88 417: 95
C o b e t , C. G. 33
Register
C o g n a s s o , L. 9 1 : 27f.
C o l a r d e a u , T. 269: 61f.
C o l i n , G. 300: 70f. 308: 72f. 343:
79
C o l l i n , P. 101: 27f. 130: 31 f.
C o s a t t i n i , A. 198: 43
C o s m a n , A. C. 186: 40f. R336: 75
C o s t a , V. 120: 30f.
C o t t o n , G. 69: 24f. 103: 27f.
C o u c h , H. 323: 74. 77
C o u r t n e y , W. 442: 101 443: 101
C o u s i n R387: 87
C r o i s e t , M. 32: 19f. 28. 31. 36
C r o m e , J. 211: 48
Cronin R H : 9
D a i n , A. 309: 72f.
D a i t z , S. 292: 68. 70 293: 68. 70
D a l m e y d a , G. 28
D a m s t e , O. 362: 83f.
D a s k a l a k i s , A. 428: 98f. 429: 98f.
D a v i e s , G. A. 108: 28f.
De Brouwer R8: 8
D e l a u n o i s , M. 385: 87. 91 386: 87
387: 87. 91 R406: 88
D e p a r i s R13: 9
Del R e a l R H : 9
D e s P l a c e s , E. 284: 66f. R426: 95
D i l l e r , A. 18 n. 3
D i n d o r f , W. 21. 24. 38
D o b r e e , P. P. 33.43
D o h e r t y , F. C. 42: 20f.
D o l c i , V. 131: 32
D o n n e l l v , F . P. 150: 35f. 324: 75.
77
D o r j a h n , A. R H : 9 325: 75 888:
87 389: 87. 90 390: 87. 90 891:
87. 90 392: 87. 90 393: 87. 90
D o u g l a s R421: 95
D o v e r R395: 88
D r a c h m a n n , A . B . 167: 37
D r e r u p , E. 9: 8f. 12. 57f. 66. 69f.
80. 90. 96. 103 22: 16. n. 1. 17. 20.
44 418: 95f. 102f.
Dumortier R8: 8
D u n k e l , H. R 8 : 8 R836: 75 430:
98
E g e r m a n n , F. 444: lOlf.
E h r e n b e r g , V. 445: lOlf.
Emminger 7
E q u i l l o r , J. 826: 75. 77
105
E r b s e , H. 270: 61f. 276: 64

E r n o u t R16: 9
F a c c e n n a , D. 212: 48
F a g g e l l a , M. 183: 40
F a l c o , V. de 92: 27f.
F e r r a r i s RIO: 9
F i n l e y , M. 219: 49f.
F l a c e l i e r e , R. 285: 66. 68
F l e u r y , R. 104: 27. 29 113: 29
152: 35f.
F l o r o s , A. 378: 86
F o c k e , F. 237: 54f. 57f. 59f. 61.
63 f. 90
F o e r s t e l R395: 88
F o r s t e r , E. 354: 82
F o u c a r t , C. 345: 79f.
F o u c a r t , P. 294: 68f.
F o w l e r , B. 355: 82
F o x , W. 26 169: 37f. 42
F r a e n k e l , E. 327: 75. 77
F r a n c o t t e , H. 238: 54f. 57
F r a n k l i n , A. 446: 101
F r i t z von R8: 8 R H : 9
F u h r , K. 27: 16 28: 16f. 17 n. 2
30: 19f. 24. 26. 28. 31. 33. 36
G a l i a n o , M. F . 10: 9. 11.99 50:
21 f. 844: 79
G a v i g a n , J. 394: 87. 92
G e b h a r d , F . 419: 95
G e e r e b a e r t , A. 44: 20f.
G e r n e t , L. 35: 19 36: 19. 21. 41.
50f. 52f. 84. 86 220: 49. 51 R336:
75
G e s c h n i t z e r R395: 88
G i a b b a n i , L. 19: 16. 18
G i a n e l l i R278: 65
G i a n n e l l i R336: 75
G i g a n t e , M. 420: 95. 97
G i l o t , J. 260: 59. 61. 91
Giusti R H : 9
G l o t z , G. 436: 69. 99f.
G o f f i n e t , H. 396: 88. 92
G o l d s t e i n , J. 346: 79. 80f.
G o m m e , A. 230: 52
G o n c a l v e s , F. Rebelo 832: 75
G o n n e l l a , A. 61: 23f. 117: 30f.
G o o d w i n , W . W . 147: 35.38
G r i f f i t h , G. 277: 65 R386: 75
G r o n i n g e n , B. v a n 363: 83f.
G u g l i e l m i R18: 9
106
Register
Guilbert, D. 271: 61
Guillon, J. 166: 36f.
Guiraud R395: 88
Gusmano, T. 125: 31 144: 34
Gwatkin, Jr., W. 328: 75f.
H a l i s t e , P. 229: 52
Hammond, N. R H : 9 239: 54f.
Hampl R16: 9
H a r m a n d R406: 88
Harrison, A. 290: 68
H a r t m a n , J. J. 174: 37f. 203: 43f.
H a u s m a n n , B. 17: 16f. 17 n.2. 18
H e n r y R406: 88
Herrle R7: 8
Hinnisdaels R13: 9
Holland, O. L. 163: 36f.
H o l s t , H. 397: 88. 90
H u b e r , P. 447: 101
Hudson-Williams, H. 2: 7 R
387: 87 R406: 88
Hughes, D. Garcia 106: 27. 29. 31
H u m b e r t , J. 35: 19. 21 R395: 87f.
H u m p h r e y s , M. W. 148: 35
Hunger, H. 81: 25f.
Httner 7
I s l a m i , S. 209: 48
J a c h m a n n , G. 240: 54
J a e g e r , W. 11: 9. 11. 13f. 57f. 61
286: 66f. 448: 101. 103
Janasens, G. 70: 24f.
J o n e s , A. 252: 56. 58
J o s t , K. 409: 93
K a h r s t e d t , U. 241: 54f. 58 437:
99 f.
K a l a m a t i a n o s R5: 8
Kalbfleisch, K. 205: 46
K a l i t s o u n a k i s , J. 449: 101 f.
Kasimakos, K. 450: 101
Kasimakos, N. G. 156: 35f.
Kazarox R H : 9
Keils, J. H. 201: 43f. R395: 88
K e n n e d y , C R . 48: 21f.
Kennedy, G. R2: 7 410: 93f.
Kennedy R426: 95
Keramopoullos, A. 431: 98f.
K e s t e r s , H. 261: 59f. 262: 59f.
King, J. R. 176: 39
Knipfing, J. 451: 101. 103
Koch, H. 213: 48
Korre\ S. 310: 72f.
K r t e , A. R H : 9 R254: 56 296:
68 f. 347: 79
Korver, J. 221: 49f.
Kosmas, K. 71: 24f. 110: 28f. 31
Kramer, C. 319: 74
Krger, D. 398: 88f.
K r u m b a c h e r , A. 399: 88. 90f.
Laistner R H : 9
Lang, K. 400: 88. 90
Lapiccerella, E. 162: 36f.
L a t t e R226: 49
Lavency R387: 87
Lebbe, B. 401: 88. 91
Lcrivain, C. 311: 72f.
Lennep, D. van 356: 82
Lenschau R9: 9 R16: 9 R278: 65
Lepore, E. 348: 79
Leroy R395: 88
Leroy-Molinghen R13: 9
Lesky, A. 3: 7
Lveque R426: 95
Levy, F. 253: 56f.
Lewis R8: 8 R H : 9
Lewis, D. 242: 54f. 56
Link, E. 254: 56f.
Lippold, G. 217: 48
Lipsius, J. II. 35
Lisiecki, S. 402: 88. 91
L l o y d - J o n e s R426: 95
Lofberg, J. 377: 86
LoJacono, A. 66: 23f. 121: 30f.
Looy, H. van 165: 36f.
Lorenzi, A. de 53: 23f.
Lossau, M. 421: 95
Louis R406: 88
Luccioni, J. 12: 9. 13f. 98f.
Lunak, J. 329: 75. 77
Maas, P. 312: 72f.
MacCurdy, G. 379: 86
MacGregor, J. M. 68: 24
MacGregor, M. 296: 68
Macher, E. 297: 68
Mack, K. 25: 16. 19
Madvig, J. N. 33
Maehler, H. 18 n. 3
Maisto, A. 66: 23f.
Majnaic, N. 75: 24f.
Manzoni, A. 95: 27f.
Register
M a r o u z e a u , J. 5
M a r i d a k i s , G. 249: 55f.
M a s e r a , G. 62: 23f.
M a s s i m i , A. 462: lOlf.
M a s t r o i a n n i , E. 350: 79
M a t h e s o n , P . E . 149: 35f.
M a t h i e u , G. R6: 8 R 8 : 8 13: 9f.
33: 19f. 336: 75 349: 74. 79f.
M a y , J. 24: 16. 19
M a y k o w s k a , M. 422: 95
M a y o r , D. 43: 20f. 25. 29 167: 35f.
173: 37f. R395: 87 453: 101 f.
M a z z o n i , G. 63: 23f. 97: 27f. 145:
34
M o D o w e l l R426: 95
M e e r w a l d t , J. 423: 95. 97 424:
95. 97
M e n s o h i n g , E. 357: 82
M e s k , J. 330: 75. 77
M e y e r , E. 281: 65f.
M i l e s , J. 231: 52f. 364: 83f. 369:
84 372: 84f. 375: 85
M i l i o . V . 64:23f. 124:31 127: 31 f.
M i l l e r , C. 301: 70f.
M i l t n e r R254: 56
M o d o n a , A. Neppi 143: 34
M o m i g l i a n o , A. R 8 : 8 222: 49f.
51 255:56f. 98 256: 56f. 98304:71
M o r p u r g o , A. 129: 31f.
M o s l e y , D. 831: 75. 77f.
M u n n o , G. 133: 32
M n s c h e r , K. 191: 41f. 195: 42f.
44
M u r r a y , A. T. 39: 19. 21
M u s u r i l l o , H. 116: 29f.
N a v a r r e , O. 34: 19. 21 250: 55f.
411: 93f.
N i s h i z a w a R406: 88
N i t s o h e , W. 861: 79f.
N o r t h , H. 412: 93f.
Nufio, B. Gaya 395: 87f. 89f.
N u t i , R. 199: 43
O e r t e l , F. 223: 49.50.51 R226:
49
O i k o n o m i d e s , A.N. 182: 39f.
O m o n t , H. 35
O o t i g h e m , J. v a n 1: 7 R8 8 R H :
9 438: 99f. 464: 101 f.
O r s i n i , P. 34: 19. 21 403: 88
R426: 95
107
O r t e g a R387: 87
0 s t b y e , P. 302: 70f.
P a c h e c o R395: 88
P a c k , R. 20: 16. 18
P a o l i , U. 87: 27f. 358: 82 376: 86
P a p a s t a r r u , J. 287: 66f.
P a r i b e n i R 6 : 8 R336: 75
P a s q u a l i , G. 18: 16f. 18
P e a r s o n , L. 880: 86 404: 88.91
413: 93
P e l l e g r i n o , V. 88: 27f. 119: 30f.
P e r e m a n s R 8 : 8 R278: 65
P e r l m a n , S. 414: 93f.
P e t i t , J. 41: 20f.
P h i l i p p R 9 : 8 R258: 57
P h o t i a d e s , P. 224: 49.51 365:
83 f. 370: 84
P h o t i a d i s , D. 114: 29. 32
P h o u r k i o t i s , K. 366: 83
P i c a r d R8: 8
P i c k a r d - C a m b r i d g e , A. W. R 4 :
8 14: 9. lOf. 14. 47. 58. 66f. 99f.
R16: 9 49: 21 f.
P l u m p e R336: 75
P o h l e n z , M. 305: 71 306: 71 313:
72 f. 320: 74
P o k o r n y , E. 243: 54f. 58
P o n t o r n o , R. 137: 32f. 146: 34
P o u l s e n , F. 214: 48
P o w e l l , J. E. 84: 26
P r a u x , C. 374: 85
P r e v i a l e , L. 89: 27f. 142: 34
P r i m a di 85: 27f.
P u e c h , A. R 8 : 8 15: 9. llf. 47
R16: 9
R a b e , A. 263: 59 288: 66
R a d e t R 8 : 8 R16: 9
R a e d t , H. de 264: 59f.
R a h n , H. 425: 95. 97
R a v a , M. 135: 32
R e h m , A. 244: 54
R e i s k e , J. J. 20. 30. 41
R e n a u l d R15: 9
R e n n i e , W. 29: 19f. 21. 41 R418:
95
R e v e l , G. 54: 23f.
R i c c o b o n , C. 93: 27f.
R i c h a r d s , H. 83: 26 115: 25f. 32.
34 f. 37 f. 40. 43 f.
R i s c h b i e t h R14: 9

Jackson, Rowe, Demosthenes 1915-1965, Lustrum 14

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Jackson, Rowe, Demosthenes 1915-1965, Lustrum 14

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

/XVWUXPLQWHUQDWLRQDOH)RUVFKXQJVEHULFKWHDXVGHP%HUHLFKGHVNODVVLVFKHQ

AUS DEM B E R E I C H D E S K L A S S I S C H E N ALTERTUMS

Mit Untersttzung der UNESCO

Jahrgang 1969 Band 14

Klei \-)A f%*}0(.

Gedruckt mit Untersttzung der UNESCO auf Grund einer

III 1. Texts and Textual Criticism, General Works

III 2. Texts and Textual Criticism, Individual Orations

IV. Demosthenes' Early Life and Education

XIV. Special Problems

XV. Appreciation and Evaluation

II. General Studies

73-79; L e n s c h a u , ZG 1917, 131. See also K. Seeliger, Sind die

The little volume of C. D. A d a m s (4), designed as an elementary

a useful chronological table (404-322 B.C.) has been included. The

mainly the Olynthiacs and Phippicsthrough the Fourth Philippic

appointed by the second half of the book, in which scholarly analysis

I I I . 1. Texts and Textual Criticism, General Works

A. History ot the text

Demosthenes' Avoidance of Breves, CPh 12,

27. K. F u h r , Demosthenes in Olympiodors Phaidon-Kommentar,

Texts and Textual Criticism, General Works

famies, S A F Y . T h e S family is headed b y Parisinus gr. 2934, A b y

Texte and Textual Criticism, General Works

1. P. Sorb. I, 6 Philippica 1.4-7 (c. 200 A. D.)

Texts and Textual Criticism, General Works

36. L. G e r n e t , Plaidoyers Civils, VoU. M V , Paris 1954, 1957,

Texts and Textual Criticism, General Works

40. N. W . & N. J . d e W i t t , Funeral Speech, Erotic Essay (LX,

A. G e e r e b a e r t , Vier redevoeringen, Antwerpen 1955.

45. *K. W o t k e , Ausgewhlte Reden fr den Schulgebrauch, Vienna

Texts and Textual Criticism, General Works

Texts and Textual Criticism, General Works

III 2. Texts and Textual Criticism, Individual Orations

A. The Olynthiacs (iiii)

Texts and Textual Criticism, Individual Orations

Texts and Textual Criticism, Individual Orations

An outstanding school edition based on earlier commentators is the

Texts and Textual Criticism, Individual Orations

Vindob. phil. gr. 168, a composite manuscript of the fifteenth Century,

Texts and Textual Criticism, Individual Orations

B. The Philippics (iv, vi, ix, x)

Texte and Textual Criticism, Individual Orations

*P. M. B a l a g u e , Las tres Fipicas, Barcelona 1948.

108. *G. A. D a v i e s , Philippics IIII, Cambridge Univ. Press 1934.

Texts and Textual Criticism, Individual Orations

He had earlier completed an annotated school edition of the first

xat llpbt; T/)V E7uaToXr)v,

Three Italian translations of Philippics appeared during our period.

Texts and Textual Criticism, Individual Orations

a t the beginning and the end of a sentence in Phil. 1.32. He feit t h a t

C. On the Peace, Halonesus and Chersonesus (v, vii, viii)

117. *A. G o n e l l a , L'orazione per la pace, Naples 1928.

Texts and Textual Criticism, Individual Orations

122. *D. B a r r e s i , Per la pace, Calabria 1947.

Texts and Textual Criticism, Individual Orations

remaining Italian school editions of On the Chersonesus (see nos. 127,

131. *V. D o l c i , L'orazione per la pace, Palermo 1936.

The only suggested changes in the t e x t of orations v, vii and viii

D. On Philip' Epistle, the Organization, the Symmorles (xi, xiii. xiv)

Editions, Commentaries and

134. *G. A m m e n d o l a , Sull'organizzazione, Naples 1933.

*G. C a m m e l l i , Delle simmorie, Milan 1935.