The read-
ings are the same as those of our ordinary mes.
ings are the same as those of our ordinary mes.
Demosthenese - First Philippic and the Olynthiacs
0r.
1 is much more energetic in its tone respecting
Olynthus. The main topic is now :--' Protect the
Olynthians, save their confederate cities ; think what
will happen if they are ruined; there is nothing
to hinder Philip in that case from marching into
Attica. ' The views of Demosthenes have changed
from the offensive to the defensive. The way in
which the festival-fund is dealt with must also be
taken into account. In 01'. 2 nothing is said about.
it; in Or. 1 it is distinctly adverted to; in Or. 3
the question is forcibly and repeatedly pressed. This
consideration is at any rate conclusive in favour
of placing 01'. 3 last. Or. 3 was clearly delivered
after Athens had sent some succours to Olynthus,
whereas 01'. 1 and Or. 2 had been spoken before
anything at all had yet been done. The successes
of mercenaries reported at Athens (3 ? 35) must
have been successes of mercenaries commissioned
by her; and the triumphant hopes noticed by
Demosthenes as actually prevalent are more natur-
ally explained by supposing such news to have
arrived. 1
The order of the M88 (Or. 1, 0r. 2, Or. 3)
0111,01} 2, cm is, however, preferred by the great
Asgff'ff'gg'swen majority of critics. It was accepted,
and Blass- among the ancients, by Caecilius of
Calacte, a contemporary of Dionysius ;2 among the
1 The order 2, 1, 3 is also adopted by Stiive (Osnabriick
1830 and 1833), Whiston (ed. 1859), Purgaj (Marburg in St.
1874), HMWilkins (ed. 1860), and Unger Sitzungber. d.
Munchener Akad. 1880 pp. 273 ff).
2 Dem. Schol. p. 713 Dind.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:09 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? s____ >__. .
THE CLOSE OF THE OLYNTHIAN [VAR lxvii
moderns, by ASchaefer, Weil and Blass. 1 What-
ever uncertainty there may be as to the relative
positions of 01'. 1 and Or. 2, Or. 3 is clearly the last.
All the three speeches were delivered within a short
time of one another, and apparently all of them as
the result of the first embassy of the Olynthians.
Their alliance has already been accepted: the de-
liberations turn entirely on the consequent sending
of succours.
VII The close of the Olynthian war
Great efforts were made by Athens for the support
of Olynthus. Athens was further embarrassed by
the revolt of Euboea, and found herself compelled
to send forces to Euboea as well as to Olynthus?
The cost of these two expeditions was considerable;
and for-some time there was not enough money in
the treasury to pay the ordinary expenses of the
1 The order 1, 2, 3 is also retained by AGBecker (Ucbere.
1824), Rappel (Landshut 1825), Westermann (Q. Dem. pars 1,
1830), Jacobs ( Uebe'rs. ed. 1832 pp. 159 f), Briickner(Schweidnitz
1833), Petrenz (Gumbinnen 1833--4), Bbhnecke (Forsehungen
1843 p. 151), Sch'dning (Gettingen 1853, who holds that the
speeches were delivered on three successive days), Wolf (Czer-
nowitz 1862), vKlebelsberg (Triest 1865), EMiiller (ed. 7 of
Westermann), WHartel (Dem. Antrz'ige and Dem. Studien
1877), and ABaran (Wiener Studien vii 190 11', who places 1
and 2 before the first embassy from Olynthus, and assigns 3
to the deliberations arising out of the second embassy).
2 The Euboic war was assigned to 350 13. 0. by ASchaefer,
Rehdantz and EMnller; and the Euboic and Olynthian wars
are both placed in 850 by Hartel. Weil, followed by Blass,
places the Euboic expedition in Feb. 348. Unger assumes two
Olynthian wars, (1) in 3152--1 connected with OZ. 2 and 0l. 1,
and (2) in 349 connected with OZ. 3. Unger is refuted by
Baran who places the outbreak of the Euboic war early in 349,
and before the Olynthian war. Cp. Rehdantz-Blass p. 443, and
Grote c. 88 viii 87, 92.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:09 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? lxviii THE FALL 0F 0L YNTHUS
law-courts (39 ? 17). To meet these difficulties
Apollodorus, who was a member of the Council,
proposed in that body that the Assembly should
vote whether the surplus of revenue over and above
the ordinary peace-establishment of the city should
be paid to the festival-fund, or should be devoted to
the pay, outfit and transport of soldiers for the
actual war. The motion was approved by the
Council, and the Assembly passed a unanimous
decree. Nevertheless Apollodorus was impeached
for making this proposal, was found guilty, and was
condemned to pay a fine of one talent (59 3--8).
The operations of Philip were in no way remitted.
During the years 349 and 348 be pressed the
Chalcidians more and more closely. A mercenary
force was sent to their aid, under Chares ; and a
similar force under Charidemus. But all that we
learn of Chares and Charidemus relates to acts of
extortion and insolence rather than of military
success. Afterwards, in response to a final and more
urgent appeal from Olynthus, a citizen-force was sent
under the command of Chares. The efforts made
by Athens in the latter part of the Olynthian war
must have been considerable. We are told by
Demosthenes (19 ? 266) that Athens had sent to
the aid of Olynthus 4000 citizens, 10,000 mercen-
aries, and 50 triremes.
After capturing and devastating the 32 cities
of the Chalcidic confederation, Philip marched
against Olynthus itself. On arriving within 40
furlongs of the city he sent a summons intimating
that either the inhabitants must evacuate the city or
he must leave Macedonia (9 ? 11). They resolved
on defending themselves to the last. Many of the
Athenian citizens of the latest reinforcement were
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:09 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? THE EVIDENGE' FOR THE TEXT lxix
still within their walls (Aeschin. 2 ? 15) ; but Athens
sent no further aid. At length the partisans of
Philip brought about the banishment of their principal
opponent, Apollonides, and treasonably surrendered
the city. In an engagement near the walls one of
these partisans betrayed his force of 500 horsemen
into the hands of the invaders (9 ? 56; 19 ? 267).
In the latter part of 348, all the Olynthians,
men, women and children, were sold into slavery.
The city was destroyed, together with the 32
Chalcidic towns including Apollonia and Stageira:
five years afterwards their very sites were scarcely
discernible (9 26). Grants of productive and
valuable farms are said to have been afterwards
made by Philip to Athenian partisans, such as
Aeschines and Philocrates (19 ? 145); but the
traitors who had sold Olynthus were dismissed with
dishonour and contempt. At Dium, in Pieria, which
had been the scene of splendid festivals since the
days of Archelaus, Philip commemorated his con-
quests by a festival in honour of the Olympian Zeus,
with prizes for athletic or poetic distinction. The
legendary home of the Muses, and the earliest of
all the conquests of Macedonia, thus witnessed the
celebration of the fall of Olynthus and the failure
of the cause which had inspired the eloquence of
Demosthenes.
VIII On the evidence for the Text
For the text of Demosthenes our primary authori-
ties are the MSS. Of these there are as many as
170 in existence; but, for the Speeches included in
this volume, the most important are those denoted
by the symbols S, A, Y, O, P and B.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:09 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? lxx THE PRINCIPAL MANUSCRIPTS
S (or 2) holds the first place among these. It is
a MB of the tenth century, now in the Bibliothe? que
Nationale, Paris (no. 2934 of the Greek MSS). It once
belonged to a monastery of ' Sosandrian' monks, so named
from a Galatian martyr, Sosander; it is accordingly
known by the initial letter of its former owners. The
first page of the Leptines is reproduced in my edition of
that Speech (1890); and a facsimile of the whole us
has since been published (Paris, Leroux, 1893). The
general excellence of this Ms is admitted on all hands.
Its readings are often accepted in Bekker's editions
(1823 etc), and still more frequently in that of Baiter
and Sauppe (1841). Its value is estimated with greater
discrimination by Cobet (Novae Lectiones p. 515) and
Sliilleto (preface to de Falsa, Legatiom).
A, or Aug 1, the codex Augustanus primus, formerly
at Augsburg (Augusta Vindelicorum), now in the
Konigliche Hof- und Staatsb'ibliothek at Munich (no. 485),
belongs to century XI, and ranks next to S in importance.
(The Laurentian MS L, end of century XIII, comes next to
S for 01'. 6--11 and Or. 18--24, but does not include Or.
1--5. ) In Or. 1--4 A is much mutilated, containing only
1 ? ? 8--14, 2 ? ? 16--24, 3 ? 244 ? 3 (=p. 111. 12--
p. 13 1. 16, p. 22 1. 22-1). 25 1. 6, p. 35 1. 12--1).
41 l. 1 Reiske). It is only from 4 ? 28 onwards that
it is complete. The missing portions are supplied by
ten leaves of far later date containing 1 ? 11--4 ? 28 (p
12 l. 15--p. 48 l. 1 Reiske), known as Supplementum
Augustom'i primal or A supp].
(Aug 2 and 3 in the same library belong to century xv. )
Y, or T, codex Parisinus 2935, probably belongs to
century in.
O, or Q, codex Bruxellens'is, formerly at Antwerp,
carried off to Paris, restored in 1815, and now in the
Bibliotheca, Burg'zmdica at Brussels. Its date is early in
century XIV.
I', codex Venetus, no. 416 in the Biblioteca. Marciana,
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:09 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? THE PRINCIPAL MANUSCRIPTS 1m
Venice; assigned to century x1. It is the best ms of
Dindorf's ' second Glass,' but is closely followed by B.
B, codex Bavaricus, no. 85 in the above-mentioned
library at Munich ; century x111.
(Pal I and 2,formerly in the Palatine Library at Heidel-
berg, now in the Vatican, are inferior mss of cent. xv. )
In Drerup's view L, O and B have no independent value.
The early papym' found during the last few years in
Egypt include two small scraps of the Second Olynthiae,
from 10, 15 (see Classical Rem'ew vi 430).
The read-
ings are the same as those of our ordinary mes.
The lexicon to the Attic Orators compiled by
Harpocration in the second century A. D. contains
many references to the earliest commentator on
Demosthenes, the industrious Alexandrina gramma-
rian Didymus, who belongs to the age of Augustus. 1
It also mentions, in only five passages, the readings
of an important recension of MSS known as 'A-r-rt-
Kumi, apparently transcribed by one Atticus, who is
identified with the copyist of that name in Lucian
Adversus Indoctum 2, 24. Of the readings so
quoted from Demosthenes, one (e'moqufiam for e? K-
aroAquaat in 1 ? 7 and 3 ? 7) is found in S alone,
another in all our MSS (Navxpun-rmd 24 ? 11), and
one of two alternatives, s. v. dvekofiaa 22 11, in
none. The MSS B and 1' have a note at the end of
01'. 11 stating that that speech had been revised (in-b
Sta-'A-rnmeve? iv, but there is nothing to connect the
'A-r-rmmwi with any of our existing MSS, the earliest
of which was transcribed at least eight centuries
later than the time of Lucian. 2
Next in importance to the evidence of our MSS is
1 Didymi de Demosthene (01'. 10--13) commenta, ed. Diels
and Schubert, 1904.
2 Blass Praefatio to Teubner text I xiv, xv, Drerup Antike
Demosthemsausgaben 1899, p. 15 (Philol. Suppl. vii 545).
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:09 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? lxxii E VI DENGE FROJII CI TA TIONS, E T 0'.
the evidence of citations in rhetoricians, such as
Dionysius of Halicarnassus (ii. 30 13. 0. ), Aristeides
and Hermogenes (both belonging to the second
centi1ry), and the still later Rhetores Graeci. Re-
miniscences and imitations of Demosthenes have
been also traced in writers such as Dio Cassius (about
155--229 A. D. ), Lucian (H. 160 A. D. ), Libanius (fi.
350 A. D. ), Julian (331-363 A. D. ), Chrysostom (347--
407 A. D. ), Isidore of Pelusium (about 370-450 A. D. ),
and Choricius of Gaza (fi. 520 A. D. ) The evidence
derived from citations and imitations appears to be
far too highly estimated in the Teubner text as edited
by Blass. The MSS of the above authors are certainly
no better than those of Demosthenes; the same
passage of Demosthenes is sometimes cited differently
by different authors, and even by the same author.
Thus what, at first sight, appears to be a direct
citation, sometimes proves on examination to be
little better than a general reminiscence. As such it
is of little value as evidence on the text, though it
possesses a certain degree of literary interest as
testimony to the abiding influence of the study of
Demosthenes.
In settling the text certain laws of composition
have also to be considered. It is observed by
Dionysius that while Demosthenes has more sense
of euphony than Thucydides, he has not the uniform
smoothness of Isocrates, but that on rhythm he
nevertheless bestows the utmost pains (dc 'Dem.
43--52). It is also noticed by Cicero that, in com-
parison with Isocrates, Demosthenes to a great extent
regards the concourse of vowels as a fault, and avoids
it accordingly (Oratorg 151). In the more highly
finished speeches of Demosthenes, when the choice
lies between a reading involving a hiatus and a
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:09 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? LA Ws 0F COMPOSITION lxxiii
reading not involving it, other considerations being
about equally balanced, the latter is more likely to
represent the original text. The extent to which
hiatus may be removed, either by transposition or
by conjectural emendation, is a point on which
editors differ. Blass goes further than others in
this respect. 1
Again, by a law of composition discovered by Blass,
Demosthenes, so far as possible, avoids the consecu-
tive use of three or more short syllables, except where
the three syllables are included in the same word, or
in combinations virtually equivalent to a single word.
It is to the observance of this rule that we may
ascribe the steady and stately march of the prose
of Demosthenes as compared with that of Plato.
The question arises how far we are justified in
removing exceptions to this rule by resorting to
conjectural emendation ; and here, again, the dis-
coverer of the rule is apt to go further than other
scholars. 2 The same holds good of various minutiae
of rhythmical correspondence between consecutive
clauses or sentences. 3 Different editors may well
assign different degrees of weight to such considera-
tions 5 and even the same editor may hold different
opinions at different times. Thus, on all the points
above mentioned, on rhythmical correspondences, on
the avoidance of hiatus and consecutive short syllables,
and on the exact degree of importance to be assigned
to reminiscences in later writers, we have to dis-
tinguish between the first thoughts of Blass, as
represented in the first volume of the Teubner text
(B11), the 8561-epai qbpovrtSes as revealed in the
Addenda to the remaining volumes (B12), and the
1 Alt. Ber. III i 100--52. 9 ib. 105--122. 3 ib. 127 f".
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:09 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? lxxiv SELECT LIST OF EDITIONS, ETC-
Tpt'rat ? povrides in his editions of the Philippic Orations
and the speech 0n the Crown (1313). 1 These repeated
confessions of changes of opinion reflect the highest
credit on the candour of the eminent scholar in
question. They are apt, however, to create mis-
givings as to the wisdom of setting aside the
evidence of the M88, and putting in its place what
' after all can only be regarded as uncertain inferences
from vague reminiscences, or as unduly strict applica-
tions of theoretical rules of composition which may
perhaps hold good as a whole, but which Demo-
sthenes, as a practical orator, may possibly have
followed without absolutely rigid uniformity. The
text of the present volume, though founded mainly
on that of the Teubner edition, not unfrequently
departs from it, not only in cases where Blass him-
self has changed his mind, but also in others, where
the evidence of the M58 seems too strong to be
overruled.
IX Select List of Editions, Dissertations, and
Books of Reference
TEXT
(1) JGBaiter and HSauppe Oratores Attici, Ziirich 1850.
(2) IBekker Demosthenis Orationes, stereotyped ed. , Leipzig
1854. (3) JTVoemel Dem. Contiones, Halle 1857. (4)
WDindorf Dem. Orationes [Leipzig 1825, Oxford 1846], ed.
tertia correctior (Teubner), Leipzig 1855 ; ed. quarta carreetior,
edidit PBlass, 1885-9. (5) Thalheim neun Philippische Reden
(Teubner), Leipzig 1897'. (6) SHButcher Dem. Orationes I
(01'. 1-19), Oxford 1903.
1 On the general questions of textual criticism suggested by
the latter edition, I may refer to Professor Butcher's admirable
article in the Classical Review v 309-15.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:09 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? L
Sfl E0 T LIST OF EDITIONS, ETC'. lxxv
COMMENTARIES
GENERAL
(1) GHSchaef? r Apparatus criticus ad Dem, London (vol. i)
1824. (2) WDmdorf (vol. v) Ainwtatimws Interpretum ad
Or. 1-19, Oxlord 1849; (vol. viii) Scholta Greece, 1851.
SPECIAL
,(1) VLucchesini 01'. 1--6 etc. , cum n-otis. . historicis, Rome
1712. (2) RMounteney 01'. 1-4, Cambridge 1731; ed. 13,
1820. (3) CARiidiger 07'. 1--5, Leipzig 1818; ed. 2, 1829.
(4) JHBremi 01". 1--4 etc. , Goths. 1829. (5) JTVoemel 01'.
1--5, Frankfurt 1829. (6) FFranke 01'. 1-6, Leipzig 1842; ed.
3, 1871. (7) HSauppe 0r. 1-4, Gotha 1845. (8) AWester-
mann 0r. 1--6, 8, 9, Berlin 1851; ed. 10 (Rosenberg), 1902.
(9) RWhiston 01'. 1--18, London 1859. (10) HMWilkins
Olynthiacs, 01'. 1--3, London 1860 (out of print). (11)
CRehdantz 01'. 1--4, Leipzig 1860 ; ed. 8 (FBlass), 1893. 1 (12)
GHHeslop Olymhiacs and Philippics, 01'. 1--4, 6, 9, [10], London
1868. (13) CSchmelzer on 01'. 1-3 in Studien zm' Redekunst
i, Guben 1869. (14) HWeil les meng'ues de De? mosthe'ne, 0r.
1--[17], Paris 1873; ed. 2, 1881 ; also Sept Philippiques,
school ed. 1896. (15) TGwatkin First Philippic, 01'. 4, edited
after Rehdantz (Macmillan), London 1883. (16) JSZSrgel Or.
1~4 (for beginners), Gotha 1883; ed. 8 (ADeuerling), 1907.
(17) EAbbott and PEMatheson 01*. 1-4, Oxford 1887. (18)
ABaran Schiller-Cmnmentar zu Dem. acht Staatsreden, 01*. 1-6,
8, 9 (for beginners), Vienna, ed. 2, 1894. (19) 03111011 Sept
Philippiques, school ed. , Paris 1894. (20) FBTaIbell Philippics,
0r. 4, 6, 9, Boston, U. S. A. [1880], 1896. (The editions by
Brauning, Hanover 1891, Regan, Paris 1893, and Windel.
Bielefeld 1896, are quite elementary. ) (21) TRGlover Olynthians,
Cambridge 1897. (22) GADavies Philippics, Cambridge 1907.
1 ed. 9(KFuhr),1909.
LEXIGOGRAPHY, TEXTUAL CRITICISM etc.
(1) Harpooration. ed. Dindorf, Oxford 1853. (2) Rhetores
Graeci, ed. Walz, 1832--6. (3) CRehdantz Indices, Ted. 4
(FBlass), Leipzig 1886. (4) SPreuss Index Demosthenicus,
Leipzig 1895.
(1) PPDobree Adoersaria (ed.
1 is much more energetic in its tone respecting
Olynthus. The main topic is now :--' Protect the
Olynthians, save their confederate cities ; think what
will happen if they are ruined; there is nothing
to hinder Philip in that case from marching into
Attica. ' The views of Demosthenes have changed
from the offensive to the defensive. The way in
which the festival-fund is dealt with must also be
taken into account. In 01'. 2 nothing is said about.
it; in Or. 1 it is distinctly adverted to; in Or. 3
the question is forcibly and repeatedly pressed. This
consideration is at any rate conclusive in favour
of placing 01'. 3 last. Or. 3 was clearly delivered
after Athens had sent some succours to Olynthus,
whereas 01'. 1 and Or. 2 had been spoken before
anything at all had yet been done. The successes
of mercenaries reported at Athens (3 ? 35) must
have been successes of mercenaries commissioned
by her; and the triumphant hopes noticed by
Demosthenes as actually prevalent are more natur-
ally explained by supposing such news to have
arrived. 1
The order of the M88 (Or. 1, 0r. 2, Or. 3)
0111,01} 2, cm is, however, preferred by the great
Asgff'ff'gg'swen majority of critics. It was accepted,
and Blass- among the ancients, by Caecilius of
Calacte, a contemporary of Dionysius ;2 among the
1 The order 2, 1, 3 is also adopted by Stiive (Osnabriick
1830 and 1833), Whiston (ed. 1859), Purgaj (Marburg in St.
1874), HMWilkins (ed. 1860), and Unger Sitzungber. d.
Munchener Akad. 1880 pp. 273 ff).
2 Dem. Schol. p. 713 Dind.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:09 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? s____ >__. .
THE CLOSE OF THE OLYNTHIAN [VAR lxvii
moderns, by ASchaefer, Weil and Blass. 1 What-
ever uncertainty there may be as to the relative
positions of 01'. 1 and Or. 2, Or. 3 is clearly the last.
All the three speeches were delivered within a short
time of one another, and apparently all of them as
the result of the first embassy of the Olynthians.
Their alliance has already been accepted: the de-
liberations turn entirely on the consequent sending
of succours.
VII The close of the Olynthian war
Great efforts were made by Athens for the support
of Olynthus. Athens was further embarrassed by
the revolt of Euboea, and found herself compelled
to send forces to Euboea as well as to Olynthus?
The cost of these two expeditions was considerable;
and for-some time there was not enough money in
the treasury to pay the ordinary expenses of the
1 The order 1, 2, 3 is also retained by AGBecker (Ucbere.
1824), Rappel (Landshut 1825), Westermann (Q. Dem. pars 1,
1830), Jacobs ( Uebe'rs. ed. 1832 pp. 159 f), Briickner(Schweidnitz
1833), Petrenz (Gumbinnen 1833--4), Bbhnecke (Forsehungen
1843 p. 151), Sch'dning (Gettingen 1853, who holds that the
speeches were delivered on three successive days), Wolf (Czer-
nowitz 1862), vKlebelsberg (Triest 1865), EMiiller (ed. 7 of
Westermann), WHartel (Dem. Antrz'ige and Dem. Studien
1877), and ABaran (Wiener Studien vii 190 11', who places 1
and 2 before the first embassy from Olynthus, and assigns 3
to the deliberations arising out of the second embassy).
2 The Euboic war was assigned to 350 13. 0. by ASchaefer,
Rehdantz and EMnller; and the Euboic and Olynthian wars
are both placed in 850 by Hartel. Weil, followed by Blass,
places the Euboic expedition in Feb. 348. Unger assumes two
Olynthian wars, (1) in 3152--1 connected with OZ. 2 and 0l. 1,
and (2) in 349 connected with OZ. 3. Unger is refuted by
Baran who places the outbreak of the Euboic war early in 349,
and before the Olynthian war. Cp. Rehdantz-Blass p. 443, and
Grote c. 88 viii 87, 92.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:09 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? lxviii THE FALL 0F 0L YNTHUS
law-courts (39 ? 17). To meet these difficulties
Apollodorus, who was a member of the Council,
proposed in that body that the Assembly should
vote whether the surplus of revenue over and above
the ordinary peace-establishment of the city should
be paid to the festival-fund, or should be devoted to
the pay, outfit and transport of soldiers for the
actual war. The motion was approved by the
Council, and the Assembly passed a unanimous
decree. Nevertheless Apollodorus was impeached
for making this proposal, was found guilty, and was
condemned to pay a fine of one talent (59 3--8).
The operations of Philip were in no way remitted.
During the years 349 and 348 be pressed the
Chalcidians more and more closely. A mercenary
force was sent to their aid, under Chares ; and a
similar force under Charidemus. But all that we
learn of Chares and Charidemus relates to acts of
extortion and insolence rather than of military
success. Afterwards, in response to a final and more
urgent appeal from Olynthus, a citizen-force was sent
under the command of Chares. The efforts made
by Athens in the latter part of the Olynthian war
must have been considerable. We are told by
Demosthenes (19 ? 266) that Athens had sent to
the aid of Olynthus 4000 citizens, 10,000 mercen-
aries, and 50 triremes.
After capturing and devastating the 32 cities
of the Chalcidic confederation, Philip marched
against Olynthus itself. On arriving within 40
furlongs of the city he sent a summons intimating
that either the inhabitants must evacuate the city or
he must leave Macedonia (9 ? 11). They resolved
on defending themselves to the last. Many of the
Athenian citizens of the latest reinforcement were
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:09 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? THE EVIDENGE' FOR THE TEXT lxix
still within their walls (Aeschin. 2 ? 15) ; but Athens
sent no further aid. At length the partisans of
Philip brought about the banishment of their principal
opponent, Apollonides, and treasonably surrendered
the city. In an engagement near the walls one of
these partisans betrayed his force of 500 horsemen
into the hands of the invaders (9 ? 56; 19 ? 267).
In the latter part of 348, all the Olynthians,
men, women and children, were sold into slavery.
The city was destroyed, together with the 32
Chalcidic towns including Apollonia and Stageira:
five years afterwards their very sites were scarcely
discernible (9 26). Grants of productive and
valuable farms are said to have been afterwards
made by Philip to Athenian partisans, such as
Aeschines and Philocrates (19 ? 145); but the
traitors who had sold Olynthus were dismissed with
dishonour and contempt. At Dium, in Pieria, which
had been the scene of splendid festivals since the
days of Archelaus, Philip commemorated his con-
quests by a festival in honour of the Olympian Zeus,
with prizes for athletic or poetic distinction. The
legendary home of the Muses, and the earliest of
all the conquests of Macedonia, thus witnessed the
celebration of the fall of Olynthus and the failure
of the cause which had inspired the eloquence of
Demosthenes.
VIII On the evidence for the Text
For the text of Demosthenes our primary authori-
ties are the MSS. Of these there are as many as
170 in existence; but, for the Speeches included in
this volume, the most important are those denoted
by the symbols S, A, Y, O, P and B.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:09 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? lxx THE PRINCIPAL MANUSCRIPTS
S (or 2) holds the first place among these. It is
a MB of the tenth century, now in the Bibliothe? que
Nationale, Paris (no. 2934 of the Greek MSS). It once
belonged to a monastery of ' Sosandrian' monks, so named
from a Galatian martyr, Sosander; it is accordingly
known by the initial letter of its former owners. The
first page of the Leptines is reproduced in my edition of
that Speech (1890); and a facsimile of the whole us
has since been published (Paris, Leroux, 1893). The
general excellence of this Ms is admitted on all hands.
Its readings are often accepted in Bekker's editions
(1823 etc), and still more frequently in that of Baiter
and Sauppe (1841). Its value is estimated with greater
discrimination by Cobet (Novae Lectiones p. 515) and
Sliilleto (preface to de Falsa, Legatiom).
A, or Aug 1, the codex Augustanus primus, formerly
at Augsburg (Augusta Vindelicorum), now in the
Konigliche Hof- und Staatsb'ibliothek at Munich (no. 485),
belongs to century XI, and ranks next to S in importance.
(The Laurentian MS L, end of century XIII, comes next to
S for 01'. 6--11 and Or. 18--24, but does not include Or.
1--5. ) In Or. 1--4 A is much mutilated, containing only
1 ? ? 8--14, 2 ? ? 16--24, 3 ? 244 ? 3 (=p. 111. 12--
p. 13 1. 16, p. 22 1. 22-1). 25 1. 6, p. 35 1. 12--1).
41 l. 1 Reiske). It is only from 4 ? 28 onwards that
it is complete. The missing portions are supplied by
ten leaves of far later date containing 1 ? 11--4 ? 28 (p
12 l. 15--p. 48 l. 1 Reiske), known as Supplementum
Augustom'i primal or A supp].
(Aug 2 and 3 in the same library belong to century xv. )
Y, or T, codex Parisinus 2935, probably belongs to
century in.
O, or Q, codex Bruxellens'is, formerly at Antwerp,
carried off to Paris, restored in 1815, and now in the
Bibliotheca, Burg'zmdica at Brussels. Its date is early in
century XIV.
I', codex Venetus, no. 416 in the Biblioteca. Marciana,
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:09 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? THE PRINCIPAL MANUSCRIPTS 1m
Venice; assigned to century x1. It is the best ms of
Dindorf's ' second Glass,' but is closely followed by B.
B, codex Bavaricus, no. 85 in the above-mentioned
library at Munich ; century x111.
(Pal I and 2,formerly in the Palatine Library at Heidel-
berg, now in the Vatican, are inferior mss of cent. xv. )
In Drerup's view L, O and B have no independent value.
The early papym' found during the last few years in
Egypt include two small scraps of the Second Olynthiae,
from 10, 15 (see Classical Rem'ew vi 430).
The read-
ings are the same as those of our ordinary mes.
The lexicon to the Attic Orators compiled by
Harpocration in the second century A. D. contains
many references to the earliest commentator on
Demosthenes, the industrious Alexandrina gramma-
rian Didymus, who belongs to the age of Augustus. 1
It also mentions, in only five passages, the readings
of an important recension of MSS known as 'A-r-rt-
Kumi, apparently transcribed by one Atticus, who is
identified with the copyist of that name in Lucian
Adversus Indoctum 2, 24. Of the readings so
quoted from Demosthenes, one (e'moqufiam for e? K-
aroAquaat in 1 ? 7 and 3 ? 7) is found in S alone,
another in all our MSS (Navxpun-rmd 24 ? 11), and
one of two alternatives, s. v. dvekofiaa 22 11, in
none. The MSS B and 1' have a note at the end of
01'. 11 stating that that speech had been revised (in-b
Sta-'A-rnmeve? iv, but there is nothing to connect the
'A-r-rmmwi with any of our existing MSS, the earliest
of which was transcribed at least eight centuries
later than the time of Lucian. 2
Next in importance to the evidence of our MSS is
1 Didymi de Demosthene (01'. 10--13) commenta, ed. Diels
and Schubert, 1904.
2 Blass Praefatio to Teubner text I xiv, xv, Drerup Antike
Demosthemsausgaben 1899, p. 15 (Philol. Suppl. vii 545).
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:09 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? lxxii E VI DENGE FROJII CI TA TIONS, E T 0'.
the evidence of citations in rhetoricians, such as
Dionysius of Halicarnassus (ii. 30 13. 0. ), Aristeides
and Hermogenes (both belonging to the second
centi1ry), and the still later Rhetores Graeci. Re-
miniscences and imitations of Demosthenes have
been also traced in writers such as Dio Cassius (about
155--229 A. D. ), Lucian (H. 160 A. D. ), Libanius (fi.
350 A. D. ), Julian (331-363 A. D. ), Chrysostom (347--
407 A. D. ), Isidore of Pelusium (about 370-450 A. D. ),
and Choricius of Gaza (fi. 520 A. D. ) The evidence
derived from citations and imitations appears to be
far too highly estimated in the Teubner text as edited
by Blass. The MSS of the above authors are certainly
no better than those of Demosthenes; the same
passage of Demosthenes is sometimes cited differently
by different authors, and even by the same author.
Thus what, at first sight, appears to be a direct
citation, sometimes proves on examination to be
little better than a general reminiscence. As such it
is of little value as evidence on the text, though it
possesses a certain degree of literary interest as
testimony to the abiding influence of the study of
Demosthenes.
In settling the text certain laws of composition
have also to be considered. It is observed by
Dionysius that while Demosthenes has more sense
of euphony than Thucydides, he has not the uniform
smoothness of Isocrates, but that on rhythm he
nevertheless bestows the utmost pains (dc 'Dem.
43--52). It is also noticed by Cicero that, in com-
parison with Isocrates, Demosthenes to a great extent
regards the concourse of vowels as a fault, and avoids
it accordingly (Oratorg 151). In the more highly
finished speeches of Demosthenes, when the choice
lies between a reading involving a hiatus and a
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:09 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? LA Ws 0F COMPOSITION lxxiii
reading not involving it, other considerations being
about equally balanced, the latter is more likely to
represent the original text. The extent to which
hiatus may be removed, either by transposition or
by conjectural emendation, is a point on which
editors differ. Blass goes further than others in
this respect. 1
Again, by a law of composition discovered by Blass,
Demosthenes, so far as possible, avoids the consecu-
tive use of three or more short syllables, except where
the three syllables are included in the same word, or
in combinations virtually equivalent to a single word.
It is to the observance of this rule that we may
ascribe the steady and stately march of the prose
of Demosthenes as compared with that of Plato.
The question arises how far we are justified in
removing exceptions to this rule by resorting to
conjectural emendation ; and here, again, the dis-
coverer of the rule is apt to go further than other
scholars. 2 The same holds good of various minutiae
of rhythmical correspondence between consecutive
clauses or sentences. 3 Different editors may well
assign different degrees of weight to such considera-
tions 5 and even the same editor may hold different
opinions at different times. Thus, on all the points
above mentioned, on rhythmical correspondences, on
the avoidance of hiatus and consecutive short syllables,
and on the exact degree of importance to be assigned
to reminiscences in later writers, we have to dis-
tinguish between the first thoughts of Blass, as
represented in the first volume of the Teubner text
(B11), the 8561-epai qbpovrtSes as revealed in the
Addenda to the remaining volumes (B12), and the
1 Alt. Ber. III i 100--52. 9 ib. 105--122. 3 ib. 127 f".
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:09 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? lxxiv SELECT LIST OF EDITIONS, ETC-
Tpt'rat ? povrides in his editions of the Philippic Orations
and the speech 0n the Crown (1313). 1 These repeated
confessions of changes of opinion reflect the highest
credit on the candour of the eminent scholar in
question. They are apt, however, to create mis-
givings as to the wisdom of setting aside the
evidence of the M88, and putting in its place what
' after all can only be regarded as uncertain inferences
from vague reminiscences, or as unduly strict applica-
tions of theoretical rules of composition which may
perhaps hold good as a whole, but which Demo-
sthenes, as a practical orator, may possibly have
followed without absolutely rigid uniformity. The
text of the present volume, though founded mainly
on that of the Teubner edition, not unfrequently
departs from it, not only in cases where Blass him-
self has changed his mind, but also in others, where
the evidence of the M58 seems too strong to be
overruled.
IX Select List of Editions, Dissertations, and
Books of Reference
TEXT
(1) JGBaiter and HSauppe Oratores Attici, Ziirich 1850.
(2) IBekker Demosthenis Orationes, stereotyped ed. , Leipzig
1854. (3) JTVoemel Dem. Contiones, Halle 1857. (4)
WDindorf Dem. Orationes [Leipzig 1825, Oxford 1846], ed.
tertia correctior (Teubner), Leipzig 1855 ; ed. quarta carreetior,
edidit PBlass, 1885-9. (5) Thalheim neun Philippische Reden
(Teubner), Leipzig 1897'. (6) SHButcher Dem. Orationes I
(01'. 1-19), Oxford 1903.
1 On the general questions of textual criticism suggested by
the latter edition, I may refer to Professor Butcher's admirable
article in the Classical Review v 309-15.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-27 05:09 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. 31175009758841 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? L
Sfl E0 T LIST OF EDITIONS, ETC'. lxxv
COMMENTARIES
GENERAL
(1) GHSchaef? r Apparatus criticus ad Dem, London (vol. i)
1824. (2) WDmdorf (vol. v) Ainwtatimws Interpretum ad
Or. 1-19, Oxlord 1849; (vol. viii) Scholta Greece, 1851.
SPECIAL
,(1) VLucchesini 01'. 1--6 etc. , cum n-otis. . historicis, Rome
1712. (2) RMounteney 01'. 1-4, Cambridge 1731; ed. 13,
1820. (3) CARiidiger 07'. 1--5, Leipzig 1818; ed. 2, 1829.
(4) JHBremi 01". 1--4 etc. , Goths. 1829. (5) JTVoemel 01'.
1--5, Frankfurt 1829. (6) FFranke 01'. 1-6, Leipzig 1842; ed.
3, 1871. (7) HSauppe 0r. 1-4, Gotha 1845. (8) AWester-
mann 0r. 1--6, 8, 9, Berlin 1851; ed. 10 (Rosenberg), 1902.
(9) RWhiston 01'. 1--18, London 1859. (10) HMWilkins
Olynthiacs, 01'. 1--3, London 1860 (out of print). (11)
CRehdantz 01'. 1--4, Leipzig 1860 ; ed. 8 (FBlass), 1893. 1 (12)
GHHeslop Olymhiacs and Philippics, 01'. 1--4, 6, 9, [10], London
1868. (13) CSchmelzer on 01'. 1-3 in Studien zm' Redekunst
i, Guben 1869. (14) HWeil les meng'ues de De? mosthe'ne, 0r.
1--[17], Paris 1873; ed. 2, 1881 ; also Sept Philippiques,
school ed. 1896. (15) TGwatkin First Philippic, 01'. 4, edited
after Rehdantz (Macmillan), London 1883. (16) JSZSrgel Or.
1~4 (for beginners), Gotha 1883; ed. 8 (ADeuerling), 1907.
(17) EAbbott and PEMatheson 01*. 1-4, Oxford 1887. (18)
ABaran Schiller-Cmnmentar zu Dem. acht Staatsreden, 01*. 1-6,
8, 9 (for beginners), Vienna, ed. 2, 1894. (19) 03111011 Sept
Philippiques, school ed. , Paris 1894. (20) FBTaIbell Philippics,
0r. 4, 6, 9, Boston, U. S. A. [1880], 1896. (The editions by
Brauning, Hanover 1891, Regan, Paris 1893, and Windel.
Bielefeld 1896, are quite elementary. ) (21) TRGlover Olynthians,
Cambridge 1897. (22) GADavies Philippics, Cambridge 1907.
1 ed. 9(KFuhr),1909.
LEXIGOGRAPHY, TEXTUAL CRITICISM etc.
(1) Harpooration. ed. Dindorf, Oxford 1853. (2) Rhetores
Graeci, ed. Walz, 1832--6. (3) CRehdantz Indices, Ted. 4
(FBlass), Leipzig 1886. (4) SPreuss Index Demosthenicus,
Leipzig 1895.
(1) PPDobree Adoersaria (ed.
