The
statements
in the Orators (e.
Demosthenese - First Philippic and the Olynthiacs
v
Mi'ywplq e? 'lroioiJi/To. '
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? I ? ? 16? 19 FIRST 0L YNTHIAO' 143
152. , o-xomiw: Prooem. 23 p. 1434 01': pflv at I. Seiv,
11611711 17)" ? 1hav0pw1rlav 51mm, Xe? 'yew 1ra. p' 8. a'vpitlxixiv 1':in
, fiyoiipat. Cp. Kiihner ii ? 476, 3, Rehdantz Index 2 oteaOar.
u-Korrofiv'ra, if retained, may be regarded as stated generally,
though meant to refer to the speaker, whose personality comes
to the front again in iryofiaat. For tree-retkwkt, and the
general sense, ep. 4 ? 51, also Isocr. 8 ? ? 38, 39.
? 17 l. 153. 4mm. Sfi : used (as often) to introduce the
speaker's own proposals, 2 ? 27. Boqo'q-rlov: here followed
by two different Datives, cp. 4 ? 32 ; Goodwin MT. ? 923.
154. rots wpdypao-w, 'the interests at stake,' i. e. those of
Olynthus and Athens combined. 'rds mikes ; the Chalcidian
towns allied with Olynthus, 9 ? 26.
158. e? re? pots: emphatic, 'a second land-force. ' cl. .
67ttywpfive-re, 'if (in the future) you neglect'; ? 12 el 7rpo-
nob/1. 600. .
159. pirates : Adj. of two terminations, as in 9 ? 69.
fipiv: Dal. incmnmodi.
? 181. 159. a! " yep x'rh. : a somewhat condensed sentence,
which may be expanded thus :--
' If you attack Philip's territory alone, he will disregard your attack,
and, after reducin 0. , march easily to the defence of his own territory.
If, again, you sen succonrs to 0. only, he will have no anxiety about his
own territory, but will keep up a close and vigilant blockade and ultimately
capture the town. '
161. wapaa-Tfio-e-rat, 'will reduce. ' Thuc. i 29 'r'hv 'E1rl-
dapvou rohzopxoiivras napao'rfia'aiflat opohiryla ('compel t0 sur-
render'), ib. 98, iv 79 'Appifiafov rapaa-rfia-aa-Qm. ('win over').
164. wpowxadeSei'ral. Kai wpovefipeta'u ink, 'will vigorously
blockade and besiege the position. ' The two synonyms denote
the persistency of Philip's siege. 5 ? 15 10? : 5' 6. 711002: e? ? -
efipeliwv 316,00: 101065621111, Aeschin. 3? 206 e? 'yKaBfipzvoc Kai e'v-
efipeliovres.
165. wepte? o-rai. implies continued and repeated success.
? 191. 169. 1repl Be? . . , 'but as to,' ? 11, [7] ? ? 14, 18; 8 ? 75.
? o~rw : repeated for emphasis, 2 ? 10.
170. xpfipafi'a): on the revenues of Athens see Boeckh Publ.
Econ. iii 0. 19. 0980': 18 ? 23 rpeafleia 1rpos ofide? va
(mide? vas Cobet and Dindorf) drsarahae? v'r/ 161's 1'ch 'Ehhfivwv,
2 ? 7,3 ? 27,4 ? 29,5 ? ? 14,17; 9 ? 34,19? 50. Insuch
passages 0666! : may be understood as the negation of a unity
consisting of many individuals, nfifie? ves as the negation of a
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 144 ' FIRST OLYNTHIAO' I ? 19
plurality forming a single unity (Funkhiinel, quoted by
Westermann).
171. [Mparwrrmd], if genuine, must be regarded as pur-
posely separated from Xpfipa'ra, and placed for additional
emphasis at the end of the sentence : 'you have a larger
military fund than any other people. ' The reference is to the
surplus of the public revenue, which, according to the old
laws, had to be used for military purposes, at any rate in the
time of war, [59] ? 4 Keheue? v'rwu . . n5>> ve? hwv, draw wohsllos '5, Ta)
wepuiv'ra xpn/La-ra 7? ]: Blair/Jo'st o'rpa-rlw'rlxd elual. These laws
were, however, neglected while Eubulus was in power (354
-338 11. 0. ) Even in the time of war the surpluses continued to
be distributed in the form of a. festival fund (flewpme? v) to meet
the cost of providing the poorer citizens with seats in the
theatre at all festivals involving dramatic entertainments.
Any proposal to apply the festival fund to military purposes
was fraught with peril to the proposer (3 ? 12). Accordingly,
instead of saying bluntly, 'this fund you squander on your
own amusements,' Demosthenes continues, 'this fund you
receive in such a form as you please. ' He then dispassionately
presents them with two alternatives : 'if you pay this fund to
your troops, you will require no further supply; if not, you
will require a further supply ; indeed, you will have no supply
at all. ' It will be observed that Demosthenes avoids all direct
mention of the Hewpme? v. In the Third Olynthiac, ? 11, he
attacks the question with far greater boldness. On the
Oewpme? v see Boeckh Publ. Econ. ii c. 13, Scho'mann Ant. of
Greece pp. 438 f Engl. ed. , Gilbert Gk. C'onst. Ant. i 272--42:
245 f Engl. ed. , art. by Mr. FTRichards in Smith's Diet. of
Ant. ed. 3, and especially Grote, latter part of c. 88 viii
98-103, and Helm iii c. 15 n. 5.
' Delendum puto a'rpwriu'rmd, nondum enim orator cr'rpa'rtw'rlkli haee
esse dicit, sed tantum affirmat universe pccuniae copiam esse (cf. 14 $25);
ea nunc populum alio modo uti fruique' (Manvm). 'Miror unde perin-
eptum et cum loci sententia pugnans (rrpa-nw'rma' irrepscrit: magis etium
miror quo pacto Editores id ferre tamdiu et concoquere potuerint. Erant
enim Atheniensibus illo tempore eprtkli, non erant irrpmnmnmi. Cautis-
sime et formidolose Demosthenes eivibus auctnr est ut Bewpuw'. quae essent
("pa-nu>>an faciant: ei ne? v 06v rail-re. 7on o'rparevons'voiq dwodu'm's'rs (id est
nliis verbis al 7191a. :r-rparlwnxd. woir'lrre're), 055m; 13va wpomSei mipov.
Sentit autem in quanta pericqu versetur et statim addit: n' adv; [iv 11:
siwoi] 01': ypaidmrs 1min" clmu arpanw'rixa' ; p. 15. Ai' 05x Eymye' (COBET, followed
by Weil and Rosenberg).
Mr. LWhibley, writing to me in Nov. 1896, observes that ' it is a neral
assumption that under the administration of Eubulus "the surplus nds "
of Athens were spent in theoric distributions; but no one explains exactly
what these surplus funds were.
The statements in the Orators (e. g. Dem.
3 ? 88 mi; mpmmn'aic mi; 01401, [59] ? 4) are generally vague; Aesehin.
8 5 251 To wepie? v-ra. veinu'pevos, and Aristot. Pol. 1320 a 89 1'6. wepuivr
vinovaw, do not refer to any particqu date or policy; and the accounts
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? I ? 19 FIRST 0L YNTHIAC' 145
of the scholiasts are confused and exaggerated (e. g. ? 5 of Arg. to OZ. 1
anBS 1rdv'ra. rd. 81"]. 60'10. xpfipa-ra. Steve'pov'ro). The modern idea Of a
surplus is the yearly balance of revenue over expenditure; but there is
no trace of any yearly budget at Athens, nor evidence of any actual dis-
tribution of a surplus. At all times there were the ordinary expenses to
be met, the yearly charges for the necessary outlay on the peace administra-
tion, the maintenance of the defences of Attica, and (in case of war) the
expenses of war. Besides this, there was at all times a certain expenditure
on public amusements. The amount so spent must have been only a
question of degree. The general consensus of ancient authorities seems
to justify the belief that Eubulus did increase the extent and amount
of these public distributions; at the same time, there is ample evidence
that he did not stint the other branches of the administration. He was
opposed to an aggressive war-policy; but, during a great part of his tenure
of office, Athens was at war, and expeditious were sent to Thermopylae
(352 13. 0. ) and Euboea; the fleet was kept up, new triremes, dockyards and
arsenals were built (19 ? 89, Dinarch. 1 ? 96, CIA. ii 795", Philochorus
Frag. 135), and, in particular, works of peace, such as the repair of roads
and the supply of water, were promoted (3 ? 29). It would even appear
that surplus funds were allowed to accumulate (19 ? 89 xprjnofl' My
nepte'o'nv Kat nepte'a'rat 81d Thu eipfivnv). SO that, however considerable
the theoric distributions may have been, Eubulus did not starve the needs
of the state, but confessedly spent large sums on public works, whether
for peace or for war. But we have no means of judging what proportion
was set aside for theoric purposes. Boeckh Publ. Econ. bk. ii c. 13 assumes
"a yearly expenditure of 25 to 30 t, which in good times may have been two
or three times as much. " An expenditure of even 100t would not have
been a very heavy charge; and the saving would not have enabled the
Athenians to prosecute a very vigorous war-policy.
' Apart from the "distribution of 115. Bear met," there are many passages
referring to the question whether funds shou d be Gewpuui 0r arpanwrmd :--
[59]-? 4, 19 ? 291, 3 ? ? 11, 19 and the text; also schol. on Aeschin. 3 ? 24
rd. 8% xpfiua'ra. rd 0cm txd sis o'rpa'rturrtxd neraBoiAAew e? 'n-ew'e updrro: Anno-
aOe? vng (339--8 B. c. ) Tliis need not mean that funds hitherto nt on theoric
purposes were now applied to purposes of war. Comparing Philochorus
Frag. 135 1d 8e xpfina'r' e? ipn? iaavro 1ro'w-r' elvat arpanwrtno't, Annoa'ae'vovc
ypdipawog, we may conclude that both the schol. and Philochorus are
referring to all the funds of the state. Oewpme? v refers sometimes to a
particular distribution (3 ? 31, [44] ? 37), but 1'2) 0. more often means "the
theoric fund " (or treasury? ) as in the ordinary title oi. e? n't Tb 0. (cp. 18
? 113). ' Mr. Whibley suggests that Oswptxa'. might ' similarly mean (1) money
actually spent in theoric distributions, (2) money that went into the theoric
treasury. If 12) 0. were, under Eubulus, the state-treasury for all receipts
and expenses (which would be a natural interpretation of Aeschin. 3 ? 25),
'rd 0. would clearly include all the expenditure of the state, for whatever
purpose. From this fund special grants would be made for purposes of war
(these would be 161 o'rpa'rtw'rtxd xp 'nwra, inscr. of 347-6 13. 0. , Hicks no. 111,
Dem. [49] ? 12, [50] ? 10). Eubu us, as the ruling spirit of oi. e'rr't 76 0. ,
had the disposal of these funds; he used them (as we have seen) for the
general purposes of the administration, as well as for theoric distributions;
the proposal to make them 0-1- anwnxo't would have involved the transfer
of the state-revenues to anot er treasury, and would so have deprived
Eubulus and his party of the control of finance. (Thus in 339-8 8. 0. a
mutate rdw O'Tpa'rtw'rtxdw was apparently appointed to give effect to the
policy of Demosthenes. )
'On this interpretation the question involved was one of financial
administration, carrying with it, however, important issues of policy and
of persons. ' The conclusion suggested by Mr. Whibley is that ' while the
funds of the state went into a theoric treasury, they were under the control
of Eubulus and his party, and used to a considerable extent for theoric
L
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 146 FIRST 0L YNTHIAC I ? 19, 20
purposes; when transferred to a military treasury, they were more easily
applied to purposes of war, and passed into other bands; but, in either
case, the ordinary expenses of war or peace administration had to be met.
' Further difficulties are raised by [59] ? ? 4, 5. The speaker asserts that,
at the time of the expedition to Euboea, the laws provided that, in time of
war, 18. reptowo. xp 'para . . crrpa-rmnxd ell/at. This is in flat contradic-
tion to everything t iat is assumed about Eubulus; and the statement is
supposed to refer to a time when his policy was in force. In 3 ? 11 the
statement is exactly the opposite. Is there anything to show at what date
Eubulus first carried his policy into effect? Supposing that he had get
control of the state in 354 5. 0. , might he not, after the proposal of
Apollodorus and before the third Olynthiac, have passed a law changing
the financial system, which would have involved the penalties implied in
3 Q 13? (the latter passage would be consistent with a recent change of law). '
The expedition to Euboea is placed by ASchaefer in 850 3. 0. , or before
the Olynthiacs; by Weil and Blass in 348 9. 0. , or after the Olynthiacs.
It is placed by Baran in 349 5. 0. , after the first, but before the third
Olynthiac, This last view would harmonise with Mr. Whibley's sugges-
tion that it was before the third Olynthiac, and after the proposal of
Apollodorus (and his punishment for the same), that Eubulus carried a
measure which (until repealed) would prevent any one else from making
any similar proposal for the future.
etirus its fioi'vkeo'ee Mpfie? ve're : a vaguer and therefore
milder form of expression than that in ? 20 06110 mus dvev
rpayadrwv--eis rd: e? oprds.
173. 6. 108601" implies the payment of a debt actually due,
2? 30, 5? 10,6? ? 22, so; 8? 65.
174. wpocBei--e? v'dei, 'so far from its being merely a fresh
source of revenue that is needed, you have no revenue at all. '
175. 11v ns strrot: ? 14 l. 123. 'ype? cbets lei-k, 'Do you
propose (or more) that this money should be (really) a military
fund? Verily, not I. My own opinion indeed is that soldiers
must be raised [and that this should be a military fund indeed],
and that there should be one and the same rule for receiving
payment and for doing one's duty (i. e. that only those should
receive military money who actually perform military service) ;
whereas your opinion is that you should simply without any
trouble receive (this fund) for the festivals. ' [Kai rafrr'
elvcu o-rparmrmd] is retained by OMeiser in Neue Jahrb.
no. 109 (1874), 706.
? 20 l. 179. ptav o'i'rv'rogw . . 'rfiv m'rrfiv: 3 ? 34, 14 ? 23
[110. mil/rafts.
180. fipeis 8' (h-yeTaOe 6621') . . hapfidvcw. 061-0: was,
'just as you do,' I won't say how; a formula for declining
to go into particulars. In 8 ? 74 'to the following efl'ect';
0p. 18 ? 138, 269, and 21 ? 7; 16 ? 27, 22 ? 40, 23 ? 193 did!
mar, 27 ? 30 raparrhr'la'id mar, 20 ? 82 ,Beflalws mos, Xen.
Anab. vi 1, 5 rexvmibs mus. dhhws mas and s!
Mi'ywplq e? 'lroioiJi/To. '
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? I ? ? 16? 19 FIRST 0L YNTHIAO' 143
152. , o-xomiw: Prooem. 23 p. 1434 01': pflv at I. Seiv,
11611711 17)" ? 1hav0pw1rlav 51mm, Xe? 'yew 1ra. p' 8. a'vpitlxixiv 1':in
, fiyoiipat. Cp. Kiihner ii ? 476, 3, Rehdantz Index 2 oteaOar.
u-Korrofiv'ra, if retained, may be regarded as stated generally,
though meant to refer to the speaker, whose personality comes
to the front again in iryofiaat. For tree-retkwkt, and the
general sense, ep. 4 ? 51, also Isocr. 8 ? ? 38, 39.
? 17 l. 153. 4mm. Sfi : used (as often) to introduce the
speaker's own proposals, 2 ? 27. Boqo'q-rlov: here followed
by two different Datives, cp. 4 ? 32 ; Goodwin MT. ? 923.
154. rots wpdypao-w, 'the interests at stake,' i. e. those of
Olynthus and Athens combined. 'rds mikes ; the Chalcidian
towns allied with Olynthus, 9 ? 26.
158. e? re? pots: emphatic, 'a second land-force. ' cl. .
67ttywpfive-re, 'if (in the future) you neglect'; ? 12 el 7rpo-
nob/1. 600. .
159. pirates : Adj. of two terminations, as in 9 ? 69.
fipiv: Dal. incmnmodi.
? 181. 159. a! " yep x'rh. : a somewhat condensed sentence,
which may be expanded thus :--
' If you attack Philip's territory alone, he will disregard your attack,
and, after reducin 0. , march easily to the defence of his own territory.
If, again, you sen succonrs to 0. only, he will have no anxiety about his
own territory, but will keep up a close and vigilant blockade and ultimately
capture the town. '
161. wapaa-Tfio-e-rat, 'will reduce. ' Thuc. i 29 'r'hv 'E1rl-
dapvou rohzopxoiivras napao'rfia'aiflat opohiryla ('compel t0 sur-
render'), ib. 98, iv 79 'Appifiafov rapaa-rfia-aa-Qm. ('win over').
164. wpowxadeSei'ral. Kai wpovefipeta'u ink, 'will vigorously
blockade and besiege the position. ' The two synonyms denote
the persistency of Philip's siege. 5 ? 15 10? : 5' 6. 711002: e? ? -
efipeliwv 316,00: 101065621111, Aeschin. 3? 206 e? 'yKaBfipzvoc Kai e'v-
efipeliovres.
165. wepte? o-rai. implies continued and repeated success.
? 191. 169. 1repl Be? . . , 'but as to,' ? 11, [7] ? ? 14, 18; 8 ? 75.
? o~rw : repeated for emphasis, 2 ? 10.
170. xpfipafi'a): on the revenues of Athens see Boeckh Publ.
Econ. iii 0. 19. 0980': 18 ? 23 rpeafleia 1rpos ofide? va
(mide? vas Cobet and Dindorf) drsarahae? v'r/ 161's 1'ch 'Ehhfivwv,
2 ? 7,3 ? 27,4 ? 29,5 ? ? 14,17; 9 ? 34,19? 50. Insuch
passages 0666! : may be understood as the negation of a unity
consisting of many individuals, nfifie? ves as the negation of a
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 144 ' FIRST OLYNTHIAO' I ? 19
plurality forming a single unity (Funkhiinel, quoted by
Westermann).
171. [Mparwrrmd], if genuine, must be regarded as pur-
posely separated from Xpfipa'ra, and placed for additional
emphasis at the end of the sentence : 'you have a larger
military fund than any other people. ' The reference is to the
surplus of the public revenue, which, according to the old
laws, had to be used for military purposes, at any rate in the
time of war, [59] ? 4 Keheue? v'rwu . . n5>> ve? hwv, draw wohsllos '5, Ta)
wepuiv'ra xpn/La-ra 7? ]: Blair/Jo'st o'rpa-rlw'rlxd elual. These laws
were, however, neglected while Eubulus was in power (354
-338 11. 0. ) Even in the time of war the surpluses continued to
be distributed in the form of a. festival fund (flewpme? v) to meet
the cost of providing the poorer citizens with seats in the
theatre at all festivals involving dramatic entertainments.
Any proposal to apply the festival fund to military purposes
was fraught with peril to the proposer (3 ? 12). Accordingly,
instead of saying bluntly, 'this fund you squander on your
own amusements,' Demosthenes continues, 'this fund you
receive in such a form as you please. ' He then dispassionately
presents them with two alternatives : 'if you pay this fund to
your troops, you will require no further supply; if not, you
will require a further supply ; indeed, you will have no supply
at all. ' It will be observed that Demosthenes avoids all direct
mention of the Hewpme? v. In the Third Olynthiac, ? 11, he
attacks the question with far greater boldness. On the
Oewpme? v see Boeckh Publ. Econ. ii c. 13, Scho'mann Ant. of
Greece pp. 438 f Engl. ed. , Gilbert Gk. C'onst. Ant. i 272--42:
245 f Engl. ed. , art. by Mr. FTRichards in Smith's Diet. of
Ant. ed. 3, and especially Grote, latter part of c. 88 viii
98-103, and Helm iii c. 15 n. 5.
' Delendum puto a'rpwriu'rmd, nondum enim orator cr'rpa'rtw'rlkli haee
esse dicit, sed tantum affirmat universe pccuniae copiam esse (cf. 14 $25);
ea nunc populum alio modo uti fruique' (Manvm). 'Miror unde perin-
eptum et cum loci sententia pugnans (rrpa-nw'rma' irrepscrit: magis etium
miror quo pacto Editores id ferre tamdiu et concoquere potuerint. Erant
enim Atheniensibus illo tempore eprtkli, non erant irrpmnmnmi. Cautis-
sime et formidolose Demosthenes eivibus auctnr est ut Bewpuw'. quae essent
("pa-nu>>an faciant: ei ne? v 06v rail-re. 7on o'rparevons'voiq dwodu'm's'rs (id est
nliis verbis al 7191a. :r-rparlwnxd. woir'lrre're), 055m; 13va wpomSei mipov.
Sentit autem in quanta pericqu versetur et statim addit: n' adv; [iv 11:
siwoi] 01': ypaidmrs 1min" clmu arpanw'rixa' ; p. 15. Ai' 05x Eymye' (COBET, followed
by Weil and Rosenberg).
Mr. LWhibley, writing to me in Nov. 1896, observes that ' it is a neral
assumption that under the administration of Eubulus "the surplus nds "
of Athens were spent in theoric distributions; but no one explains exactly
what these surplus funds were.
The statements in the Orators (e. g. Dem.
3 ? 88 mi; mpmmn'aic mi; 01401, [59] ? 4) are generally vague; Aesehin.
8 5 251 To wepie? v-ra. veinu'pevos, and Aristot. Pol. 1320 a 89 1'6. wepuivr
vinovaw, do not refer to any particqu date or policy; and the accounts
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? I ? 19 FIRST 0L YNTHIAC' 145
of the scholiasts are confused and exaggerated (e. g. ? 5 of Arg. to OZ. 1
anBS 1rdv'ra. rd. 81"]. 60'10. xpfipa-ra. Steve'pov'ro). The modern idea Of a
surplus is the yearly balance of revenue over expenditure; but there is
no trace of any yearly budget at Athens, nor evidence of any actual dis-
tribution of a surplus. At all times there were the ordinary expenses to
be met, the yearly charges for the necessary outlay on the peace administra-
tion, the maintenance of the defences of Attica, and (in case of war) the
expenses of war. Besides this, there was at all times a certain expenditure
on public amusements. The amount so spent must have been only a
question of degree. The general consensus of ancient authorities seems
to justify the belief that Eubulus did increase the extent and amount
of these public distributions; at the same time, there is ample evidence
that he did not stint the other branches of the administration. He was
opposed to an aggressive war-policy; but, during a great part of his tenure
of office, Athens was at war, and expeditious were sent to Thermopylae
(352 13. 0. ) and Euboea; the fleet was kept up, new triremes, dockyards and
arsenals were built (19 ? 89, Dinarch. 1 ? 96, CIA. ii 795", Philochorus
Frag. 135), and, in particular, works of peace, such as the repair of roads
and the supply of water, were promoted (3 ? 29). It would even appear
that surplus funds were allowed to accumulate (19 ? 89 xprjnofl' My
nepte'o'nv Kat nepte'a'rat 81d Thu eipfivnv). SO that, however considerable
the theoric distributions may have been, Eubulus did not starve the needs
of the state, but confessedly spent large sums on public works, whether
for peace or for war. But we have no means of judging what proportion
was set aside for theoric purposes. Boeckh Publ. Econ. bk. ii c. 13 assumes
"a yearly expenditure of 25 to 30 t, which in good times may have been two
or three times as much. " An expenditure of even 100t would not have
been a very heavy charge; and the saving would not have enabled the
Athenians to prosecute a very vigorous war-policy.
' Apart from the "distribution of 115. Bear met," there are many passages
referring to the question whether funds shou d be Gewpuui 0r arpanwrmd :--
[59]-? 4, 19 ? 291, 3 ? ? 11, 19 and the text; also schol. on Aeschin. 3 ? 24
rd. 8% xpfiua'ra. rd 0cm txd sis o'rpa'rturrtxd neraBoiAAew e? 'n-ew'e updrro: Anno-
aOe? vng (339--8 B. c. ) Tliis need not mean that funds hitherto nt on theoric
purposes were now applied to purposes of war. Comparing Philochorus
Frag. 135 1d 8e xpfina'r' e? ipn? iaavro 1ro'w-r' elvat arpanwrtno't, Annoa'ae'vovc
ypdipawog, we may conclude that both the schol. and Philochorus are
referring to all the funds of the state. Oewpme? v refers sometimes to a
particular distribution (3 ? 31, [44] ? 37), but 1'2) 0. more often means "the
theoric fund " (or treasury? ) as in the ordinary title oi. e? n't Tb 0. (cp. 18
? 113). ' Mr. Whibley suggests that Oswptxa'. might ' similarly mean (1) money
actually spent in theoric distributions, (2) money that went into the theoric
treasury. If 12) 0. were, under Eubulus, the state-treasury for all receipts
and expenses (which would be a natural interpretation of Aeschin. 3 ? 25),
'rd 0. would clearly include all the expenditure of the state, for whatever
purpose. From this fund special grants would be made for purposes of war
(these would be 161 o'rpa'rtw'rtxd xp 'nwra, inscr. of 347-6 13. 0. , Hicks no. 111,
Dem. [49] ? 12, [50] ? 10). Eubu us, as the ruling spirit of oi. e'rr't 76 0. ,
had the disposal of these funds; he used them (as we have seen) for the
general purposes of the administration, as well as for theoric distributions;
the proposal to make them 0-1- anwnxo't would have involved the transfer
of the state-revenues to anot er treasury, and would so have deprived
Eubulus and his party of the control of finance. (Thus in 339-8 8. 0. a
mutate rdw O'Tpa'rtw'rtxdw was apparently appointed to give effect to the
policy of Demosthenes. )
'On this interpretation the question involved was one of financial
administration, carrying with it, however, important issues of policy and
of persons. ' The conclusion suggested by Mr. Whibley is that ' while the
funds of the state went into a theoric treasury, they were under the control
of Eubulus and his party, and used to a considerable extent for theoric
L
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:10 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 146 FIRST 0L YNTHIAC I ? 19, 20
purposes; when transferred to a military treasury, they were more easily
applied to purposes of war, and passed into other bands; but, in either
case, the ordinary expenses of war or peace administration had to be met.
' Further difficulties are raised by [59] ? ? 4, 5. The speaker asserts that,
at the time of the expedition to Euboea, the laws provided that, in time of
war, 18. reptowo. xp 'para . . crrpa-rmnxd ell/at. This is in flat contradic-
tion to everything t iat is assumed about Eubulus; and the statement is
supposed to refer to a time when his policy was in force. In 3 ? 11 the
statement is exactly the opposite. Is there anything to show at what date
Eubulus first carried his policy into effect? Supposing that he had get
control of the state in 354 5. 0. , might he not, after the proposal of
Apollodorus and before the third Olynthiac, have passed a law changing
the financial system, which would have involved the penalties implied in
3 Q 13? (the latter passage would be consistent with a recent change of law). '
The expedition to Euboea is placed by ASchaefer in 850 3. 0. , or before
the Olynthiacs; by Weil and Blass in 348 9. 0. , or after the Olynthiacs.
It is placed by Baran in 349 5. 0. , after the first, but before the third
Olynthiac, This last view would harmonise with Mr. Whibley's sugges-
tion that it was before the third Olynthiac, and after the proposal of
Apollodorus (and his punishment for the same), that Eubulus carried a
measure which (until repealed) would prevent any one else from making
any similar proposal for the future.
etirus its fioi'vkeo'ee Mpfie? ve're : a vaguer and therefore
milder form of expression than that in ? 20 06110 mus dvev
rpayadrwv--eis rd: e? oprds.
173. 6. 108601" implies the payment of a debt actually due,
2? 30, 5? 10,6? ? 22, so; 8? 65.
174. wpocBei--e? v'dei, 'so far from its being merely a fresh
source of revenue that is needed, you have no revenue at all. '
175. 11v ns strrot: ? 14 l. 123. 'ype? cbets lei-k, 'Do you
propose (or more) that this money should be (really) a military
fund? Verily, not I. My own opinion indeed is that soldiers
must be raised [and that this should be a military fund indeed],
and that there should be one and the same rule for receiving
payment and for doing one's duty (i. e. that only those should
receive military money who actually perform military service) ;
whereas your opinion is that you should simply without any
trouble receive (this fund) for the festivals. ' [Kai rafrr'
elvcu o-rparmrmd] is retained by OMeiser in Neue Jahrb.
no. 109 (1874), 706.
? 20 l. 179. ptav o'i'rv'rogw . . 'rfiv m'rrfiv: 3 ? 34, 14 ? 23
[110. mil/rafts.
180. fipeis 8' (h-yeTaOe 6621') . . hapfidvcw. 061-0: was,
'just as you do,' I won't say how; a formula for declining
to go into particulars. In 8 ? 74 'to the following efl'ect';
0p. 18 ? 138, 269, and 21 ? 7; 16 ? 27, 22 ? 40, 23 ? 193 did!
mar, 27 ? 30 raparrhr'la'id mar, 20 ? 82 ,Beflalws mos, Xen.
Anab. vi 1, 5 rexvmibs mus. dhhws mas and s!
