f 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 

 » 
 
 1 x&m 
 
 
 \ 
 
 I 
 

 
 
 
 
 i 
 
DEMOSTHENES 
 
 ON THE CROWN 
 
SLonfcon: C. J. CLAY and SONS, 
 CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, 
 AVE MARIA LANE. 
 
 ©lasgoto: 50 , WELLINGTON STREET. 
 
 Eeipjtg: F. A. BROCKHAUS. 
 iJleto or ft: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. 
 33ombag: E. SEYMOUR HALE. 
 
ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 DEMOSTHENES 
 
 ON THE CROWN 
 
 WITH CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES 
 AN HISTORICAL SKETCH 
 AND ESSAYS 
 
 • BY 
 
 WILLIAM WATSON GOODWIN 
 
 Hon. LL.D. and D.C.L. 
 
 ELIOT PROFESSOR OF GREEK LITERATURE IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY 
 
 EDITED FOR THE SYNDICS OF THE UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 BOSTOW COLLEGE LIBRARY 
 CHESTNUT HILL, MASS, 
 
 CAMBRIDGE 
 
 AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 1901 
 
 [All Rights reserved ] 
 
Cambridge: 
 
 PRINTED BY J. AND C. 
 
 F. CLAY, 
 
 AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
Y/O>c\b0 
 
 CL k Grip 
 
 4 ^ 
 
 TO 
 
 HENRY JACKSON 
 
 IN TOKEN OF 
 
 A FRIENDSHIP OF MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Ix this edition of Demosthenes on the Crown I have 
 attempted to supply students with what I deem most essential 
 to a thorough understanding of this masterpiece of oratory. 
 No mere commentary, however learned and lucid, can make 
 a speech like this intelligible to those who have not a full and 
 accurate knowledge of the events which are discussed, and of 
 their relation to other events. No adequate treatment of 
 historical points is possible in scattered notes, and references to 
 a general history (even to Grote or Curtius) are not sufficient. 
 The student of Demosthenes needs a connected narrative, in 
 which he will find a detailed account of the events which 
 especially concern him, with copious references to the authorities, 
 without being distracted by other details in which he has no 
 immediate interest. To meet this want, I have given a large 
 space to an “ Historical Sketch ” of the period from the acces¬ 
 sion of Philip to the battle of Chaeronea, in which I have en¬ 
 larged disproportionately on the events and questions discussed 
 in the orations of Demosthenes and Aeschines on the Crown 
 and on the Kmbassy, and have alluded slightly (or perhaps 
 not at all) to many important matters which are not essential 
 to the study of these speeches. 1 his would be unpardonable 
 in a history : but this sketch assumes a general knowledge of 
 the history of the period which it covers, and makes no pretence 
 to being such a history in itself. With this view, I have given 
 what may seem undue prominence to the negotiations which 
 led to the Peace of Philocrates ; for a minute knowledge of these 
 is absolutely necessary to a correct understanding of the brief 
 
Vlll 
 
 PREFA CE. 
 
 but cogent argument of Demosthenes in Cor. §§ 17—52, and to 
 a fair judgment of the whole political course of both Demos¬ 
 thenes and Aeschines at this decisive crisis in the history of 
 Athens. Much new light has been thrown upon the whole 
 period which I have treated from inscriptions recently dis¬ 
 covered by the French explorers at Delphi and from the Corpus 
 Inscriptionum Atticarum . In preparing this sketch I have made 
 constant use of Grote and of Schaefer’s Demosthenes mid Seine 
 Zeit , as my references will show. 
 
 In revising the text I have in most cases followed the 
 authority of the Codex Σ, especially when it is supported by 
 its companion L 1 . See Essay VII. In preparing the com¬ 
 mentary I have been constantly aided by the long line of 
 editors, whose names are too familiar to need mention. I must, 
 however, express my great obligation to Westermann and Blass, 
 especially for references to parallel passages and to other illus¬ 
 trations. I have found it impossible to give credit for every 
 remark and reference which may be borrowed from these or 
 other recent editors : many of these are found in the notes of 
 Dissen and the older editors, and many have long been in my 
 own collection of notes. Nothing is harder to trace than old 
 references, and most of those relating to Demosthenes on the 
 Crown may now be assumed to be common property. 
 
 I take great pleasure in expressing (not for the first time) 
 my deep indebtedness to Dr Henry Jackson of Trinity College, 
 Cambridge. He has done me the inestimable service of reading 
 and revising my proofs and giving me the benefit of his wide 
 experience. There are few pages in this book which have not 
 had the benefit of his criticism. 
 
 Notwithstanding the size of this volume, I have omitted the 
 discussion of many interesting questions, especially some which 
 belong to the whole subject of Attic oratory rather than to the 
 study of a single oration. One of these relates to the rhythmical 
 character of the language of Demosthenes, which could not be 
 treated briefly or incidentally. I must refer those who are 
 interested in this to Blass, Attische Beredsamkeit , III. 1, pp. 105 
 —141, with the Anhang. 
 
 I have avoided many discussions of grammatical points in 
 
PREFACE . 
 
 IX 
 
 the notes by references to my Syntax of the Greek Moods and 
 Tenses (Μ. T.), and I have occasionally referred to my Greek 
 Grammar (G.). The references to Grote IX.—XII. are made to 
 the first edition ; those to earlier volumes to the second edition. 
 Those to Schaefer’s DemostJienes are to the second edition ; and 
 those to Boeckh’s Staatshaushaltung der Athener to the third 
 edition by Frankel (1886). 
 
 I have made no attempt to be neutral on the question of the 
 patriotism and the statesmanship of Demosthenes in his policy 
 of uncompromising resistance to Philip. It seems to me that 
 the time for such neutrality is past. I cannot conceive how any 
 one who knows and respects the traditions of Athens, and all 
 that she represents in the long contest of free institutions against 
 tyranny, can read the final attack of Aeschines and the reply of 
 Demosthenes without feeling that Demosthenes always stands 
 forth as a true patriot and statesman, who has the best interests 
 of his country at heart and upholds her noblest traditions, while 
 Aeschines appears first as a trimmer and later as an intentional 
 (if not a corrupt) ally of Philip in his contest with Athens. 
 That the policy of resistance to Philip’s aggressions failed at last 
 is no discredit to the patriotism or the statesmanship of Demos¬ 
 thenes. Can any one, even at this day, read the pathetic and 
 eloquent appeal of Demosthenes to posterity in Cor. §§ 199— 
 208, and not feel that Athens would have been unworthy of her 
 glorious past if she had submitted to Philip without a struggle 
 for liberty, even if Chaeronea and all its consequences· had been 
 seen by her in advance? Her course was plain: that of De¬ 
 mosthenes was even plainer. 
 
 W. YV. GOODWIN. 
 
 Harvard University, 
 Cambridge, Mass., 
 November 15 , 1900 . 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 m m ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > : νΗϋ 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 I . "--Warn· 
 
 I 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 W&M 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 CONTENTS. 
 
 Hypotheses 
 
 . 
 
 Oration on the Crown 
 
 • · · 
 
 Historical Sketch :— 
 
 I· Fiom the Accession of Philip to 352 b.c. 
 
 II. Early Life of Demosthenes.—Events from to 
 34 S B.c. 
 
 III. The Peace of Philocrates . 
 
 IV. Six years of nominal Peace, 346—340 b.c. 
 
 V. The War with Philip, from 340 b.c. to the Battle of 
 
 Chaeronea in 338 B.c. . 
 
 * * · · · 
 
 Table of Dates 
 The Attic Year 
 
 iSSAY I. Argument of the Oration, with remarks on SS ,20 
 121 . 55 ’ 
 
 ^SSAY II. The -γραφή παρανόμων . 
 
 SSAY III. The Suit against Ctesiphon . 
 
 LSSAY IV. Trials of Aeschines and Philocrates in 343 b.c. . 
 
 iSSAY V. Constitution of the Amphictyonic Council 
 
 -SSAY VI. The Hero Physician and the Hero Καλαμίτηί 
 
 •SSAY VII. Manuscripts of the Oration on the Crown 
 
 •SSAY VIII. Stichometry in the Manuscripts of Demos- 
 thenes . 
 
 ■ 
 
 mdexes 
 
 3 
 
 7 
 
 229 
 
 234- 
 
 242- 
 
 268- 
 
 285- 
 
 300- 
 
 305- 
 
 308- 
 
 316- 
 
 327- 
 
 33 ' 2 - 
 
 33S- 
 
 339- 
 
 343- 
 
 350- 
 357— 
 
 PACKS 
 —6 
 
 —227 
 
 —234 
 
 —242 
 
 -268 
 
 —285 
 
 -299 
 
 -305 
 
 -307 
 
 -316 
 
 -327 
 
 -332 
 
 -337 
 
 -339 
 
 -342 
 
 -350 
 
 -355 
 
 368 
 
errata. 
 
 Page 148, Notes, col. 1, 1 . 2, 
 
 „ 15°’ ” ” 1- 
 
 read Vesp. 957. 
 ,, Philoch. 
 
ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
ΛΙΒΑΝΙΟΤ ΤΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ 
 
 ΤΕΙΧΟΣ μεν 6 ρητωρ ύπερ Αθηναίων προύβάΧετο των συνή¬ 
 θων τούτων καί χειροποίητων άρραγεστερόν τε καί βεΧτιον, την τε 
 εις την πόΧιν έννοιαν και περί Χόλους δεινότητα, ως αυτός εϊρηκεν 
 “ ού Χίθοις και πΧίνθοις τα?. Ά θηνας ώχύρωσα, άλλα με^άΧαις 
 δυνάμεσι και ποΧΧη τινι συμμαχία, τη μεν εκ y ής , τη δε εκ 
 θαΧάττης ·” ού μην άλλα και εις τον χειροποίητον περίβοΧον ού 
 τ μικρά τη πόΧει συνεβάΧετο. πεπονηκότος yap κατά ποΧΧα μέρη 
 τού τείχους τοΐς ' Αθηναίο ις, επειδή εδοζεν άνορθούν αύτό,ηρεθησαν 
 επί τό epyov άνδρες δέκα, φυΧης εκάστης εις , ούς εδει την επιμε- 
 Χειαν παρεχεσθαι -φιΧην τό yap άνάΧωμα δημόσιον, εις τοίνυν 2 
 τούτων καί ο ρητωρ yεvόμεvoς ούχ ομοίως τοΐς αΧΧοις την επιμε- 
 Χειαν μόνην είσηvεyκε τη χρεία, άλλα τό μεν 0 pyov άμεμπτως 
 απετεΧεσε, τα δε χρήματα εδωκεν οϊκοθεν τη πόΧει. * επήνεσεν 
 αύτού την εύνοιαν ταύτην η βουΧη, καί την προθυμίαν ημείφ'ατο 
 στεφάνω χρυσω· έτοιμοι yap ’Αθηναίοι προς τας χάριτας των εύ 
 ποιούντων. Κτ^σίφωζ; δε ην ό την yvωμηv είπων ως δει στεφανωσαι 3 
 τον Δημοσθενην, εν μεν καιρω τοΐς Διονυσίοις, εν δε τό πω τω τού 
 Διονύσου θεάτρω , εν δε θεαταΐς πάσι τοΐς ' ΚΧΧησιν, ούς η πανη- 
 yvpw συvηyayε ^ καί τούτων εναντίον άνειπεΐν τον κηρυκα οτι 
 στέφανοι Δημοσθενην Δημοσθενους ΐίαιανιεα η πόΧις αρετής 
 συμπάσης ενεκα καί εύνοιας της προς αύτην. ην ούν πανταχόθεν 
 η τιμή θαυμαστή, διό καί φθόνος αύτης ηψατο, καί τού ψηφί- 4 
 σματος άπηνεχθη παρανόμων ypaφ 7 / ]. Αισχίνης yap εχθρός ών 
 τού Δημοσθενους ayoova παρανόμων επηyyειXε Κ τησιφώντι, Χ^ων 
 άρχοντα yεyονότα τον Δημοσθένην καί μη δόντα Xoyov υπεύθυνον 
 είναι, νόμον δε κεΧεύειν τούς υπευθύνους μη στεφανούν, καί παΧιν 
 
 ι —2 
 
4 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 νόμον παρεχόμένος τον κεΑευοντα, εάν μεν τίνα ο δήμος ο Αθηναίων 
 στέφανοί, ευ rfj έκκΑησία τον στέφανον άναγορεύεσθαί, eav δε η 
 
 5 βουΑη, ev τω βουΑευτηρίω, άΑΑαχόθί δε μη εζεΐναί. φησι δε καί 222 
 τούς επαίνους είναι τους επί τω Αημοσθένεί ψευδείς" μη γάρ 
 πεποΑίτεύσθαί καΑώς τον ρήτορα, αΑΑα καί δωροδοκον είναι καί 
 
 7 τοΑΑών κακών αίτιον τη πόΑεί. καί τάζει γε ταυτη της κατη¬ 
 γορίας Αισχίνης κέχρηταί, πρώτον είπών περί του των ύπευθυνων 
 νόμου καί δεύτερον περί του των κηρυγμάτων καί τρίτον περί της 
 ποΑίτείας · ηξίωσε δε καί τον Αημοσθένην την αυτήν τάξίν ποιη- 
 
 6 σασθαί. ό δε ρητωρ καί από της ποΑίτείας την αρχήν εποίησατο 
 καί πάΑίν εις ταύτην τον λόγου κατέστρεψε, τεχνίκώς ποίών δει 
 yap άρχεσθαί τε από των Ισχυροτέρων καί Αηγείν εις ταύτα · 
 μέσα δε τέθείκε τα περί των νόμων, καί τω μεν περί των υπευ¬ 
 θύνων άντίτίθησι δίανοίας, τω δε περί των κηρυγμάτων νόμον 
 ετερον ητοί νόμου μέρος, ως φησίν αυτός, εν ω συγκεχώρηται 
 καί εν τω θεάτρω κηρύττειν εάν ό δήμος η η βουΑη τούτο 
 ψηφίσηταί. 
 
 ΕΤΕΡΑ ΤΠΟΘΕΣΙ 2 
 
 ’Αθηναίοι καί Θηβαίοι ποΑεμούντες προς Φιλίππου ev Xcu- 
 ρωνεία, πόΑεί της Β οίωτίας, ηττηθησαν. επίκρατησας ούν ό 
 ΑΙακεδών φρουράν μεν εις τάς ®ηβας ενέβαΑε, καί εϊχεν υπό χεΐρα 
 δουΑεύουσαν. έΑπίσαντες ούν τό αυτό παθεΐν ’Αθηναίοι καί όσον 
 ουδέ πω κατ αυτών ηξείν προσδοκώντες τον τύραννον, εσκέψαντο 
 τά πεπονηκότα μέρη τω χρόνω τού τείχους επανορθώσασθαί, καί 
 δη άφ ’ έκάστης φυΑης τείχοποωί προεβΑηθησαν. τοωνδε καί η 
 Τίανδωνίς εζ έαυτης εΐΑετο προς την χρείαν τον ρήτορα, της τοίνυν 
 εργασίας εν χερσίν ούσης, προσδεηθείς ετί χρημάτων μετά τά δεδο¬ 
 μένα υπό της πόΑεως, ό ρητωρ εκ τών ίδιων έδαπάνησε, καί ούκ 
 2 έΑογίσατο αυτά τη πόΑεί, άΑΑά κατεχαρίσατο 1 . ταύτην αφορμήν ό 
 Κ τησίφών, εις τών ποΑίτευομένων, δεξάμενος είσηνεγκε γνώμην εν τη 
 βουΑη περί αυτού τοίαύτην, “ επειδή δίατεΑεΐ Αημοσθένης ό Αημο- 
 σθένους παρ' οΑον τον βίον εύνοιαν εις την πόΑιν επίδείκνύ μένος, καί 
 νύν δε τείχοποώς ών καί προσδεηθείς χρημάτων οϊκοθεν παρέσχε 
 καί εχαρίσατο, διά τούτο δεδόχθαί τη βουΑη καί τω δημω στεφανού- 
 σθαί αυτόν χρυσέω στεφάνω εν τω θεάτρω, τραγωδιών άγομένων 
 
 221 
 
 V 
 
 1 MSS. καί έχαρίσατο. “ Malim κατεχαρίσατο.” G. Η. Schaefer. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 καινών ί' ίσως οτε πΧήθη συντρέχει επιθυμούντα καινα δραματα 
 βΧεπειν. είσαγομενου τοίνυν καϊ εις τόν δήμον του προβουΧευ- 3 
 ματος, εφίσταται του Κ τησιφώντος κατήγορος Αισχίνης, εκ τής 
 ποΧιτείας υπάρχων εχθρός, παράνομον είναι φάσκων προς τρεΐς 
 νόμους το ψ?]φισμα, ενα μεν τον κεΧεύοντα τον υπευθυνον μη 
 στεφανούσθαι πρϊν άν δω τάς εύθύνας’ ούπω δε ταυτας, φησίν, ο 
 Δημοσθένης εδεδώκει καϊ τά θεωρυκά διοικων και τειχοποιων, και 
 εδει άναμεΐναί καϊ επισχεΐν τό γέρας εως άν όφθή καθαρός εξε- 
 τασθείς. δεύτερον δε άναγινώσκει νόμον τον κεΧεύοντα εν Τίυκνι 4 
 στεφανούσθαι εν τη εκκΧησία, διαβαΧΧων τους ποΧιτας τους 
 24 δεξαμενους εν τω θεάτρω άναγορευθήναι του Αημοσθενους τον 
 στέφανον, ό δε τρίτος νομος εις την οΧην ορα του βίου και τής 
 ποΧιτείας εξετασιν κεΧεύει γάρ μηδέποτε ψευδή γραμματα εις το 
 Χίητρωον είσάγειν, ένθα εστϊν δΧα τά δημοσία γραμματα. εψευ- 
 σατο δε, φησίν, εύνοιαν καϊ σπουδήν μαρτυρησας τω Αημοσθενεί’ 
 κακόνους γάρ μάΧΧον καϊ ποΧεμιος ευρισκεται τή πατρίδι. τουτου 5 
 του νόμου χρησίμου τυγχάνοντος, του τρίτου, αντιΧαβομενος ώσπερ 
 τίνος άγκυρας ό ρήτωρ κατεπάΧαισε τον αντιδικον, μεθοδω δεινό¬ 
 τατη και σοφωτάτη τή περί του κατηγόρου χρησάμενος · εκεΐθεν 
 γάρ εσχε Χαβήν εΧεΐν καϊ καταγωνίσασθαι τον ποΧεμιον. τους 
 μεν γάρ αΧΧους δύο νόμους, τόν τε των υπευθύνων καϊ τον τού 
 κηρύγματος, εις το μέσον τού Χόγου άπερριψε, στρατηγικως 
 “ κακούς ες μεσσον εΧάσσας V’ τω δε ίσχυροτατω εις τα ακρα 
 προσκεχρηται , το σαθρόν των αΧΧων εξ εκατερου ρωννύς. εοικε δε 6 
 καϊ διοικεΐν προς τό συμφέρον τόν Χόγον, και ου σφόδρα αναιδως 
 την τέχνην επιδεικνύμένος, δοκών γαρ εν πρωτοις υπερβαινειν το 
 νόμιμον, ετερω τρόπω τω νομίμω προσκεχρηται ■ καϊ γαρ νομον 
 άνεγνω Αισχίνης τόν περί των στεφάνων 1 2 ψευδή , προς όν ό ρήτωρ 
 άποκρινόμενος εύρε καιρόν εις μέσον αγαγεΐν τα εαυτού ποΧιτευ- 
 ματα, ώ? νομίμω μαχόμένος. και ή μεν διοίκησις τού Χογου 
 τοιαύτη, κεφάΧαιον δε ισχυρόν τω μεν Αισχίνη το νόμιμόν, τω δε 
 ρήτορι τό δίκαιον, κοινόν δε από τού ίσου το συμφέρον, ουκ εχον 
 225 φανεράν την εξετασιν. ή στάσις έγγραφος πραγματική' περί 
 ρητού γάρ τό ψήφισμα. 
 
 Ύής δε γραφής ετι ΦιΧίππου ζώντος αποτεθεισης, επι ΑΧε- 7 
 ξάνδρου διαδεξαμενου την αρχήν ό Χογος εστι και η κρισις. ως γαρ 
 άπεθανε ΦίΧιππος καϊ την φρουράν οι Θηβαίοι τεθαρσηκοτες 
 
 1 II. ιν. ? 99 · See G. Η. Schaefer’s note. 
 
 2 MSS. στεφάνων. Weil έττίφεράντων. Blass “/ραφύντων. 
 
6 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 εξέβαλον, δ μεν 'Αλέξανδρος ως καταφρονηθεϊς τάς Θήβας κατέ- 
 σκαψεν, elra μεταηνούς εττϊ τω πεπ pay μένω έξεχωρησε της Έλλά- 
 δος αίσ'χυνόμένος καί κατά των βαρβάρων έστράτευσεν, οί δε 
 Αθηναίου καιρόν εγειν ενόμισαν κρίσει ηταραδονναι τούς ητροδότας 
 τούς την Έλλαδα. άδίκήσαντας, καί οντω συνεκροτήθη το δικα¬ 
 στή ριον. 
 
ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 ΠΡΏΤΟΝ /lev, ώ avSpes ’Αθηναίοι, τοΓς θεοΐς ευγομαι 
 πάσι καί παεταις, όσην evvoLav έχων εγώ διατελώ τη τε 
 
 Critical Notes. Title: Δημοσθένους υπέρ τοΰ Στεφάνου Σ; but at the end of 
 the oration υπέρ του Κτησιφώντος περί του Στεφάνου. 
 
 Text. § 1. Line 2. διατελώ om. V6. τε above line L. 
 
 Prooemium: §§ 1 — 8 . The solemn 
 earnestness with which Demosthenes 
 undertook this vindication of his whole 
 political life is shown by the unusual and 
 impressive prayer with which he begins, 
 and still more by its repetition. He shows 
 the same spirit in the appeal to the Gods 
 in § 141, with which he introduces his 
 account of the fatal events which led to 
 Chaeronea, and in his peroration (§ 324). 
 His earnest appeal to the judges to grant 
 him an impartial hearing, which struck 
 Cicero by its humility (summissius a 
 primo, Orat. 26) and Quintilian by its 
 timidity (timid0 summissoque principio , 
 xi. 3), was no mere rhetorical device 
 or captatio benevolentiae , but chiefly an 
 honest recognition of his position as an 
 advocate, who was no party to the suit, 
 and so in many respects at the mercy of 
 the court. This prooemium was fre¬ 
 quently quoted with laudation by the 
 ancient rhetoricians. Dionysius dwells 
 on the rhythm of the periods; and he thus 
 divides the first clause, πρώτον μέν.,.πά- 
 
 σαις, into feet: άρχει βακχείος ρυθμός, 
 h Γειθ’ έπεται σπονδείος, είτα ανάπαιστος, 
 καί μετά τούτο έτερος σπονδείος, είθ ’ έξης 
 κρητικοϊ τρεις, σπονδείος δε δ τελευταίος. 
 
 'This is - —I -| ~ | | 
 
 — ~ - j - >— I — ■— I —; and he com¬ 
 pares the last four feet with the verse 
 K ρησίοις έν ρυθμοΐς παΐδα μέλφωμεν. 
 
 § 1. I. tois 0€ois ττάσ-ι καί iratrais, to 
 all the Gods and Goddesses. Geos is Goddess 
 as well as God, θεά being poetic; thus 
 η θεός is the common title of Athena. 
 A slight extension of the solemn formula 
 πάσι και πάσαις becomes absurdly comic 
 in Ar. Av. 866 εϋχεσθε δρνισιν Όλυμπίοις 
 και Όλυμπίησι πάσι καί πάσησιν. Cf. 
 Thesm. 33 1 —334· The scholiast on Ar. 
 Eq. 765 thinks that Demosthenes was 
 helped here by the mock invocation of 
 Cleon in Eq. 763—768! 
 
 2. £χων διατίλώ: άντί τοΰ άεί έχω, 
 Άττικώς. Schol. (See Μ.Τ. 879·) The 
 words έχων διατελεΐ with εύνοια probably 
 occurred in Ctesiphon’s decree: in the 
 spurious document in § 118 we have ης 
 
δ 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 πόλει καί πάσιν υμΐν, τοσαυτην υπάρζαι μοι παρ’ υμών εις 
 τουτονί τον αγώνα, επειθ’ οπερ εστί μάλισθ ’ νπερ νμων καί 
 5 της ύμετερας εύσεβείας τε καί 8όζης, τούτο παραστησαι 
 τους θεούς ύμΐν, μη τον άντίόικον σύμβουλον ποιησασθαι 
 περί του πως άκουειν υμάς εμού 8εΐ ( σγετλιον yap αν είη 
 2 τούτο γε), αλλά τους νόμους καί τον όρκον , εν ω προς άπασι 
 τοΐς άλλοι? δίκαιοι? καί τούτο γεγραπται, το ομοίως άμφοΐν 
 ακροάσασθαί. τούτο δ’ εστίν ου μόνον το μη προκατεγνω- 
 κεν αι μη8εν ου8ε τό την εύνοιαν ισην άπο8ουν αι, άλλα τδ 
 5 καί τη τάζει καί τη απολογία, ως βεβουληται καί προηρηται 
 των άγωνιζομενων έκαστος, ούτως εάσαι γ^ρησασθαι. 
 
 § 2 . 3 · ακροάσασθαί Σ, Β; άκροάσθαι L, vulg. ; άκροάσεσθαι Spengel, Β 1 . 
 
 4· Ίσην άμφοτέροις Σ (γ ρ), L 2 , vulg.; άμφοτ. om. Σ, L 1 , Α2. άλλα τό καί 
 
 Σ, L, As; άλλα καί το vulg. 5· Ka ' L τ ° T V άπολοχίμ Υ ; καϊ τή αυτή άπολ. Α2. 
 
 6. χρήσθαι Αι, above χρήσασθαι L (γ ρ). 
 
 €χων διατελεΐ. Aeschines (hi. 49) quotes 
 from the decree δτι διατελεΐ καί λέχων κα'ι 
 πράττων: see the spurious indictment 
 (below) § 54 9 , and § 57 1 ’ 2 . For εύνοια see 
 §§ no, 321, 322. 
 
 3. ύττάρξαι μοι, be granted me {be made 
 • available to me). The fundamental idea 
 
 of υπάρχω in this sense is best seen in τά 
 υπάρχοντα, the resources or the existing 
 conditions , i.e. what is available, what one 
 has to depend on : see note on ύπάρχειν 
 § 95 4 , and βέλτιστον υπάρχει, IX. 5 . 
 
 4. αγώνα: see note on άγ ωνίζομαι, 
 § 3°· — £τταθ\ secondly : simple ’έπειτα 
 (without δέ) is the regular rhetorical for¬ 
 mula after πρώτον μέν (see §§ 8, 18, 177, 
 2 35 > 248 > c f· '267). Thucydides generally 
 has this, but often ^7rei τα δέ. — όττ€ρ 4<ττΙ: 
 εύχομαι, δηλονότι (Schol.), referring to the 
 whole sentence δπερ .. .άκροάσασθαι. The 
 relation of οπερ to τούτο here is clearly 
 that of ό' τι (§ 8 6 ) to the following τούτο; 
 otherwise we might be inclined to take 
 οπερ here as = zaT quod, explained by 
 τούτο...άκροάσασθαι. — «ττΐ μά\ισ-θ’ ύ-ιτέρ 
 υμών, concerns you especially (more than 
 myself). 
 
 5. cvo-epeias: referring to the oath 
 (§ 2). Greek ευσέβεια reached a lower 
 level than our piety, including negative 
 
 abstinence from impiety, so that one who 
 does not break his oath is so far ευσεβής. 
 — τούτο τταραστηοΓαι ίιμίν, may put this 
 into your hearts : τούτο refers back em¬ 
 phatically to the omitted antecedent of 
 οπερ, as ούτως (§ 2 6 ) to that of ώ$, and is 
 explained by μή τον άντίδικον κ.τ.λ. 
 
 7· irills... δει: explained by τό και... 
 χρήσασθαι (end of § 2): cf. περί.,.έρχά- 
 σεται, Hdt. VIII. 79» and περί του δντινα 
 τρόπον χρή ζήν, Plat. Rep. 35 2 D · 
 
 § 2. ι. τον δρκον : the Heliastic oath, 
 which each judge had sworn. The docu¬ 
 ment in xxiv. 149—151 purporting to be 
 this famous oath (hardly authentic) has 
 this clause: και άκροάσομαι του κατηχόρου 
 και τού άπολοχουμένου ομοίως άμφοΐν. For 
 the connection of the laws with the oath, 
 see note on § 6 5 . 
 
 2. δικαίου, just provisions, perhaps 
 provisions of law. West, cites for the 
 latter meaning xx. 94, τοσούτων δντων 
 δικαίων ; but two lines above δίκαια has 
 clearly its ordinary force of just, applied 
 to provisions of law. 
 
 3. άκροάσ-ασ-θαι: this or άκροάσθαι 
 is far preferable to the emendation 
 άκροάσεσθαί. The infm. with τό here 
 denotes simply the provision for hearing 
 both sides impartially. This infin. is 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 9 
 
 Πολλά μεν ονν εγωγ' ελαττονμαι κατά τοντονι τον άγωνα 3 
 Αισχινον, ονο ο , ω ανορες A υηναιοι, καί μεγάλο., εν μεν 
 
 οτι ού περί των Ισων αγωνίζομαι * ον γάρ εστιν Ισον νυν 
 εμοί τής παρ υμών εύνοιας διαμαρτείν καί τοντω μή ελεΐν 
 την γραφήν, άλλ’ εμοί μεν—ού βούλομαι δυσχερές είπεΐν 5 
 ούδεν αρχόμενος τού λόγον, οντος δ* εκ περιουσίας μου 
 
 § 3 . 2. ώ om. L. 4· έννοιας διαπεσεΐν V6. μηλεΐν (w. e over η) Σ ; 
 
 λαβεΐν (over ελεΐν) Β. 5 · β*· 0 (f° r ^μοί) Β ("TP) » Υ ( 7 Ρ)· ού βούλομαι δέ 
 
 L, vulg. ; δέ om. Σ 1 , above line Σ 2 , Β (γρ)· δυσχερές ούδέν είπεΐν L, Αι, V6. 
 
 commonly a verbal noun without tempo¬ 
 ral force, and is generally present or 
 aorist (M.T. 96). The perfect is some¬ 
 times needed to express completion (as 
 προκατε'γνωκέναι, below) and the future 
 
 may emphasize futurity, as without the 
 article. The infin. with τό is occasion¬ 
 ally found in or. obi., with its tense fully 
 preserved, or with dv. (See Birklein, 
 Substant. Infin., p. 94; and M.T. -109, 
 
 113, 212, 794.)— τό μή προκατεγνωκε'ναι : 
 not having decided against (κατά) either 
 party in advance: τό μη προκατα-γνώναι 
 would be timeless, like τδ άκμοάσασθαι 
 (above) and τό άποδουνα l and τό έάσαι 
 (below). 
 
 4. ουδέ (sc. μόνον), nor only (cf. 
 § 93 1 ’ 2 5 )· 
 
 5. καί τή τάξει...χρήσασ-θαι, i.e. to 
 adopt not only (καί) that order of argument 
 but also (καί) that general plan of defence 
 which etc.—i0s...^Ka<TTos: for the rhe¬ 
 torical amplification see note on § 4 6 . 
 έκαστος is made subject of the relative 
 clause, as this precedes; we reverse the 
 order, and translate it with χρήσασθαι . — 
 απολογία refers strictly to the defence, 
 which alone remained. 
 
 6. των άγωνιζομε'νων ^Kacrros (not 
 έκάτερος), acc. to Weil, is ‘‘tout homme 
 qui plaide sa cause,” a general expres¬ 
 sion. He remarks that αγωνίζομαι ap¬ 
 plies especially to the defendant, citing 
 xix. 214 (end), xxi. 7, 90, xxm. 100, 
 
 xxiv. 28, 131, [xxvi.] 20. 
 
 This is a dignified appeal against the 
 
 offensive demand of Aeschines (in. 202), 
 that the court should either refuse to hear 
 
 Demosthenes or (at least) compel him to 
 
 follow his adversary’s order of argument. 
 Spengel (see Dindorf’s note) calls this ar¬ 
 gument “sophistical,” since granting free¬ 
 dom of arrangement is not fairly included 
 in τό ομοίως άμφοϊν άκροάσασθαι. But 
 both parties could not be heard imparti¬ 
 ally if one were compelled by the court 
 itself to present his case in the most 
 damaging order at his opponent’s dic¬ 
 tation. 
 
 § 3 . 1. πολλά: sc. ελαττώματα. 
 
 3· αγωνίζομαι, like άγων, used of 
 contests of all kinds, here of a lawsuit. 
 See the pun on the two meanings of 
 ά-γωνίσασθαι περί θανάτου in IV. 47. 
 
 4. διαμαρτεΐν, to forfeit: cf. άποστε- 
 ρεϊσθαι , § 5 4 , and the following words.— 
 μή έλείν την γραφήν, not to gain his case·. 
 cf. ’Ολυμπία νικάν, Tliuc. I. 126; ψήφισμα 
 viKq., Aesch. III. 68; πολλάς.,.Ύραφάς 
 διώξας ούδεμίαν εΐλεν, Ant. 2, Α α , 5· ελεϊν 
 'γραφήν (or δίκην) may also have a direct 
 accusative, as δίκας εΐλεν E ϋπολιν δύο, 
 Isae. vii. 10: these expressions are used 
 only of the plaintiff; a victorious defend¬ 
 ant is said γραφήν (δίκην) άποφυ-γεΐν , a 
 defeated defendant 'γραφήν (δίκην) όφλεΐν. 
 
 5· άλλ* εμοί μεν: a familiar άποσιώ- 
 πησις, often quoted by the rhetoricians. 
 What is plainly meant would sound un¬ 
 pleasant (δυσχερές) and suggest disaster 
 in the opening of his speech. Aquila 
 Rom. (de fig. 5) translates: sed mihi qui- 
 dem—nolo quicquam initio dicendi omi- 
 nosius proloqui. See Quint, ix. 2, 54, 
 who quotes “quos ego—sed motos prae- 
 stat componere fluctus,” Aen. 1. 135. 
 Cf. εΐ τ’ ώ — , § 22 5 * ; τότε δ '—, § 195 10 · 
 
 6. εκ περιουσία$, at an advantage, lit. 
 
ΙΟ 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 κατηγορεί, ετερον δ\ ο φύσει πάσιν άνθρώποις υπάρχει, 
 των μεν λοιδοριών καί των κατηγοριών άκονειν ήδβως, τοίς 
 
 4 επαινοΰσι δ’ α ντους άχθεσθαι · τούτων τοίνυν δ μεν εστι 
 προς ηδονήν τουτω δεδοται, ο δε πάσιν ως έπος ειπείν 
 ενοχλεί λοιπδν εμοί. καν μεν^ευλαβουμένος τούτο μη λέγω 
 τα πεπραγμένα εμαυτω, ούκ ε,χειν άπολύσασθαι τά κατη- 
 
 5 γορημενα δδ^ω οδδ’ εφί οΐς άξιώ τιμάσθαι δεικνυναι' εάν 
 δ’ εφί ά και πεποίηκα και πεπολίτευμαι βαδίζω, πολλάκις 
 λεγειν άναγκασθήσομαι περί εμαυτου. πειράσομαι μεν ουν 
 
 8. των (before κατ.) om. Ο. άκούειν above line Σ, L 2 , om. L 1 . 
 Σ; δ’ αυτούς L, vulg. ; τούς δ’ έπαιν. εαυτούς Ο (corr. from δ’ αυτούς). 
 
 § 4 . 4· κατηγορούμενα Ο. 5 · 2 , L, Αί, V6 ; άν vulg. 
 
 9. δεάυτους 
 6 . δ’ om. Φ. 
 
 from an abundance, like a rich man who 
 stakes little compared with his wealth. 
 In Luke xxi. 4, the rich cast into the 
 treasury “of their abundance” or “super¬ 
 fluity,” εκ του περισσεύοντος αύτοΐς. See 
 Dem. XLV. 67, where 01 εκ περιουσίας 
 πονηροί is equivalent to oi μετ ευπορίας 
 πονηροί and opposed to οί μετ' ένδειας 
 (πονηροί); Plat. Theaet. 154 D, εκ περι¬ 
 ουσίας άλλήλων αποπειρώμενοι , trying one 
 another (with arguments) wantonly or 
 for mere pastime (see Campbell’s note); 
 Thuc. V. 103, τούς απο περιουσίας χρωμέ- 
 νους αυτή (έλπίδι), those who indulge hope 
 when they have abundant resources , and 
 VI. 55, πολλιρ τιρ περιόντι του ασφαλούς 
 κατεκράτησε. Harpocration (under έκ 
 περιουσίας) thus explains our passage: έ~γώ 
 μεν περ'ι των εσχάτων κινδυνεύω , οΰτος δ’ έκ 
 πολλου του περιόντος μου κατηγορεί. 
 
 7· <ίτ€ρον δ’ (sc. έλάττωμα) corresponds 
 to έν μέν in 2, and keeps up the construc¬ 
 tion of 7τολλά έλαττουμαι in 1. West, 
 makes ετερον nom. (sc. έστίν).— δ...ύττάρ- 
 \€L, which is a natural disposition of the 
 whole human race: πάσιν άνθρώποις sug¬ 
 gests the subject of άκούειν and άχθεσθαι, 
 which are in apposition to έτερον (M.T. 
 745 )' 
 
 § 4 . 1. 4(TTi irpos ηδονήν, makes for 
 
 pleasure (έστίν ήδύ, Schol.): cf. Aeschyl. 
 Pr. 494, αν εϊη δαίμοσιν πρδς ηδονήν. 
 
 2. ώδ £rros eirrciv (Μ. Τ. 777 ) modifies 
 πάσιν. Aeschines (in. 241) had warned 
 the court against the self-glorification of 
 Demosthenes. 
 
 4. άττολυσασθαι : see § 50 5 and note. 
 
 6. καί ΊΓετΓοίηκα καί 'ΠΈττοΧίτευμαι : a 
 
 familiar form of rhetorical amplification 
 (opposed to modern ideas of style), for 
 which ordinary speech would use πεπολί- 
 τευμαι alone. Other instances are βεβού- 
 ληται καί προήρηται (§ 2 5 ), πεπραγμένων 
 καί πεπολιτευμενών and κατεφεύδου καί 
 διέβαλλες (§ ιι 2,δ ), έτρα-γιρδει καί διεξήει 
 (§ 13 β )» διέβαλλε καί διεξήει (§ Ι4 1 )» έδί- 
 δαξας καί διεξήλθες (§ 22 9 ), πολεμεΐν καί 
 διαφέρεσθαι (§ 3* 4 )· I n these cases one 
 verb is generic and the other specific; 
 but sometimes two verbs of nearly or 
 quite the same meaning are used together 
 for a similar rhetorical effect, as πράττειν 
 καί ποιεΐν (§ 62), ζώντων καί δντων (§ 72). 
 —βαδίζω, proceed, more formal than come 
 or go. τινές έμέμφαντο ώ$ τροπικήν έν 
 προοιμίοις ου καλώς κειμένην την λέξιν. 
 Schol. The Scholia to Aesch. in. · 1 
 censure “metaphor in the prooemium,” 
 calling παράταξιν ‘ τρα-χικωτέραν' , but 
 σπουδή καί παρα·γΎελία in Dem. XIX. 1 
 ‘7Γ ολιτικώτερον'. Blass says of βαδίζω: 
 “doch ist βαδίζω nicht gleich ϊω, sondern 
 bedeutet ‘geradeswegs (frisch, ohne Be- 
 denken) eingehen auf,’” and he refers to 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 11 
 
 ως μετριωτατ a τούτο ποιεΐν ο τι δ’ άν το πράγμα αυτό 
 άναγκάζη, τούτον την αιτίαν ούτός εστι δίκαιος €χ€(,ρ ό 
 
 τοιούτον αγώνα ενστησάμενος _ j 
 
 Οιμαι δ’ υμάς πάντας, ώ άνδρες * Αθηναίοι, αν όμολο- 5 
 γησαι κοινόν είναι τουτονί τον άγων εμοί καί Κ τησιφωντι 
 καί ούδεν ελάττονος άζιον σπουδής εμοί · πάντων μεν γάρ 
 άποστερείσθ αι λυπηρόν εστι καί χαλεπόν, άλλως τε καν υπ ’ 
 εχθρού τω τούτο συμβαίνη, μάλιστα δε της παρ’ υμών εύνοιας 5 
 και ψιΚανυρωπιας, οσωπερ και το τυχειν τούτων μεγιστον 
 εστιν. περί τούτων δ * όντος τουτουί τού άγωνος, άζιω καί 
 δέομαι πάντων ομοίως υμών άκούσαί μου περί των κατηγο- 
 ρημενων απολογούμενου δικαίως, ώσπερ οί νόμοι κελεύουσιν, 
 
 8. τούτο είπεΐν Α2. 
 
 § 5 . 1. 'Αθην., άν όμολ. Σ, L; πάντας άν ομο\. vulg. 'Αθηναίοι Σ, L, Ο; 
 
 δικασται vulg.; ώ 'Αθην. Αΐ ; West. ora. ώ άνδ.’Αθην. 2. έμοϊ Σ 1 , Β 1 : έμοί τβ 
 
 Σ 2 , L, vulg. 3 · om. V6. 4· άποστερεϊσθαι Σ (yp), L, vulg.; άπορεΐσθαι Σ; 
 
 άποστερησθαι Ο. 5· τούτω Ο 1 . συμβαίη Αι, V6. εύνοιας τε και φιλ. 
 
 Αι, V6, Υ. 
 
 § 6 . ι. π epl πάντων V6. όντως Ο 1 . 2. κaτηyopovμέvωv V6, Ο. 
 
 βαδιουμαι in the same sense in §§ 58, 
 263. See other examples in the Index 
 Demosth. of Preuss. 
 
 8. <as μ.€τριώτατα : cf. the full form ci>s 
 αν δύνωμαι μετριώτατα, § 256 s .—S τι... 
 άναγκάζη, whatever the case itself may 
 require of me (lit. compel me) : with avay- 
 κάζω without an infin. cf. Quint. XI. 1, 
 22, qui hoc se coegisset. 
 
 9. δίκαιοξ fyitv: the common per¬ 
 sonal construction (Μ. T. 762). The apo- 
 dosis is future in sense, after the future 
 3 τι av avayKafy. 
 
 10. τοιοΰτον αγώνα, a suit of this 
 kind, i.e. in which Ctesiphon is indicted 
 and Demosthenes accused: cf. §§ 12—16. 
 
 §5. 1. αν όμ,ολογήσ-αι : West, omits 
 
 ώ άνδρες ’Αθηναίοι, probably to avoid av 
 after a comma, as Σ and L give it. But 
 this position, though unusual, is not ob¬ 
 jectionable when words belonging to the 
 clause with av (as here ύμάς πάντας) pre¬ 
 cede the inserted clause. (Μ. T. 222.) 
 See Ar. Pac. 137, άλλ’, ω μέλ’, αν μοι 
 σιτίων διπλών έδει, and Aeschyl. Ag. 251, 
 το μέλλον, έπεί ykvon’ , άν κλΰοις (or with¬ 
 
 out commas). On the contrary, τί ouv 
 άν τις ε’ιποι, Dem. I. 19, and a few simi¬ 
 lar expressions, in which probably little 
 or no pause was felt, are irregular. In 
 I. 14 we must read tis άν εϊποι with Σ. 
 
 3. ούδέν ΙΧάττονοδ, quite as great .— 
 πάντων άττοσ-τίρεΐσ-θαι, to be deprived of 
 anything', cf. πανταχου, anywhere, § 81 5 . 
 
 6. οσ-ωττίρ, (by so much) as: the im¬ 
 plied τοσούτιρ is felt as limiting μάλιστα 
 (sc. λυπηρόν και χαλεπόν). — καί before τό 
 τυχεΐν expresses the parallelism (so to 
 speak) between losing and gaming the 
 privileges: see d και διεκωλύθη, § 6o 4 , 
 and note. Such a καί can seldom be 
 expressed in English, except by emphasis. 
 
 §6. 1. άξιώ καί δέομαι : see note on 
 
 § 4 6 · 
 
 3. δικαίωξ belongs to άκουσαι, from 
 which it is separated partly for emphasis, 
 and partly to bring it directly before 
 ώσπερ. It cannot be taken with άπολο- 
 y ουμένου, as the laws referred to have no 
 reference to άπoλoyίa, but require the 
 judges to hear both sides impartially 
 (§ 2 2 )· 
 
12 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 ους 6 τιθείς εζ αρχής Σόλων, ευνους ων υμΊν καί δημοτικός, 
 ον μόνον τω γράφαι κυρίους ωετο δεΐν είναι άλλα και τω 
 7 τους δικάζοντας όμωμοκεναι, ουκ άπιστων υμΐν, ως y εμοί 
 φαίνεται, άλλ 5 όρων ότι τάς αίτιας καί τάς διαβολάς, αις εκ 
 του πρότερος λεγειν ό διωκων ισχύει, ουκ ενι τω φευγοντι 
 παρελθεΐν, εί μη των δικαζόντων έκαστος υμών την προς 
 5 τους θεούς ευσεβειαν φυλάττων καί τα του λεγοντος υστέρου 
 δίκαι εύνοίκως προσδεζεται, καί παρασχων εαυτόν Ισον καί 
 κοινόν άμφοτεροις άκροατην ουτω την διάγνωσιν ποιησεται 
 
 περί απάντων. 
 
 6 . δικάζοντας Σ, L, Α2, Β, F ; δικ. υμάς vulg. 
 
 § 7. ι. υμών Ο 1 . ως y' έμοι Σ, L, F, Φ, Υ, Ο; as ye μοι vulg. 3· πρότερον 
 Αι 1 , V 6 . 5 · φνλάττων Σ , L 1 , Αί ; διαφυλ. vulg. υστέρου Σ 1 , L 2 , Αι, 
 
 V 6 , Υ; ύστερον Σ' 2 , L 1 5 * * * 4 , Β, vulg. 7· πεποίηται Α 2 . 8 . απάντων Σ, L, 
 
 Αι. 2, V 6 ; πάντων vulg. 
 
 4. ό Ti0€is εξ ίίρχήδ, i.e. the original 
 maker : ό νόμον τιθείς is used like νομο- 
 θέτης, for the lawgiver, whose title is 
 perpetual. In b νόμον θείς the participial 
 force appears with its designation of time. 
 In XXIII. 25 we have ό θείς τον νόμον, 
 and in 27 ό τον νόμον τιθείς, both referring 
 to the same lawgiver and the same law 
 (from different points of view).— δημοτι- 
 kos, a friend of the people or of popular 
 government·, see Ar. Nub. 1187, ό Σόλων 
 ό παλαιός ην φιλόδημος την φύσιν. Aeschi¬ 
 nes (ιπ. 168—170) gives five marks of a 
 δημοτικός, which Demosthenes ridicules in 
 § 122. Aesch. opposes the όλ^αρχικός 
 to the δημοτικός. 
 
 5. ου μόνον. . .όμωμοκεναι : i.e. Solon 
 thought that these provisions for an im¬ 
 partial hearing should have not merely 
 the ordinary sanction which all law’s have 
 by enactment (τφ ypάφaι), but the further 
 security which they gained by the judges 
 swearing to uphold them. This double 
 sanction was secured by enacting that 
 these provisions should be a part of the 
 Heliastic oath. We do not know w’hether 
 they w'ere also enacted in a distinct law', 
 apart from the oath, y ράφω, besides 
 meaning to propose a laxu or decree, often 
 refers to the enactment as a whole, as 
 here. 
 
 § 7 . 2. ras aiTias καί ras διαβολάξ, 
 
 here used like λοιδορία τε καί αίτια in XXII. 
 21, 22. There αιτία is thus defined, as 
 opposed to έλeyχoς: αιτία μεν yap έστιν 
 όταν τις φιλφ χρησάμενος λόyιρ μη παρά- 
 σχηται πίστιν ών λέyει, ^ey χος δέ όταν 
 ων αν εΐπη τις και τάληθές όμοΰ δείξη. 
 Commonly, αιτία refers to an accusation, 
 w’hether true or false: cf. § 12 6 ( εΐπερ 
 ησαν αληθείς). 
 
 3· του irpoTipos λίγειν : in public suits 
 (7 ραφαί) in the Fleliastic courts, each 
 side spoke once (though the time might 
 be divided among several speakers), the 
 plaintiff first; in private suits, and in the 
 Areopagus, each side w r as allowed a 
 second argument. 
 
 4. τταρελθεϊν, to escape (get by) : ως 
 επί δρομέων. Schol. 
 
 5. του λε'γοντοδ ύστε'ρου, the second 
 [later) speaker, i.e. the defendant (roO 
 φeύyovτoς) : see Ar. Vesp. 15, σύ λέξον 
 πρότερος, Hyper. Eux. § 15, ό πρότερος 
 έμοΰ λέyωv. Cf. Dem. I. 16, τούς υστά¬ 
 τους...είπόντα ς. (West.) 
 
 6. δίκαι’, pleadings , the statement of 
 his rights : cf. § 9 7 (see West.).— ιτροσ-δε'ξε- 
 ται, shall receive kindly, take under his 
 protection .< 
 
 7. ουτω repeats with emphasis the 
 idea of παρασχων ...άκροατην. 
 
✓ 
 
 ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 13 
 
 Μέλλω*' δε τού τε ίδιου βίου παντός, ως εοικε, λόγον 8 
 διδόναι τημερον και των κοινή πειτολιτευμενων, βούλομαι 
 πάλιν τους θεούς παρακαλεσαι, και εναντίον υμών εύχομαι 
 πρώτον μεν, όσην εύνοιαν εχων εγω διατελω τη πόλει καί 
 28 πάσιν ύμΐν, τοσαυτήν ύπάρζαι μοι εις τουτονι τον αγώνα, 5 
 επειθ * ο τι μελλει συνοίσειν καί προς εύδοζίαν κοινή καί 
 προς εύσεβειαν εκάστω, τούτο παραστησαι πάσιν ύμίν περί 
 ταυτησί της γραφής γνωναι. 
 
 Ει μεν ουν περί ων εδίωκε μόνον κατηγόρησεν Αισχίνης, 9 
 κάγω περί αυτού τού προβουλεύματος ευθύς αν άπελογούμην' 
 επειοη ο ουκ ελαττω Κογον ταλλα οιεςιων ανηΚωκε και τα 
 • πλείστα κατεφεύσατό μου, αναγκαίου είναι νομίζω καί δίκαιον 
 άμα βραχέα, ώ άνδρες * Αθηναίοι, περί τούτων είπεΐν πρώτον, 5 
 
 § 8. ι. βίου om. Αι 1 , Ο. ι. βούλομαι καθάπερ έν αρχή vulg., om. V6 ; καθ. 
 
 .εν αρχή οηι. Σ, L 1 , Αι. 2. .biavvitriu 4· εγώ om · Υ· T V ττύλει Σ 1 , L; 
 
 ττ7 re 7r0Xet vulg. 5. Ί λ0ί 2 1 , L 1 , A2 ; μοι παρ’ υμών vulg. 6 . μέλλοι \ τ 6, Ο 
 
 (corr.). 7 · παραστησαι MSS. ; παραστήναι Bk., Bl. roi)s θεού? (after παραστησαι) 
 vulg. ; om. Σ, L 1 , Α2. 
 
 § 9 . 3· λόγων Ο 1 . άνάλωκε Β 2 . 4· πλείω Α2. 5 · είπεΐν πρώ¬ 
 
 τον Σ 1 , L, A 2 ; πρώτον είπεΐν Σ (corr.), vulg. 
 
 § 8. r. λόγον διδόναι, to render an 
 
 account , used often of the formal accounts 
 which all officers of state rendered at the 
 εϋθυναι: see Aesch. ill. 1 r, 12, and cf. 
 § 02 4 (below), \ 6 ·γον...λαβεΐν. 
 
 6 . ο τι...4κά<Γτω: see note on οπερ... 
 δόξη?, § ι 4 . 
 
 7. τταρασ-τήσαι : sc. rovs θεού? (subj.), 
 as in § i 5 .— τούτο γνώναι, to give that 
 judgment. 
 
 In §§ 9—52 the orator replies to 
 charges which are foreign to the indict¬ 
 ment (££ω τη? -γραφή?). We have (1) an 
 introduction in § 9 ; then (2) he speaks of 
 his private-life in §§ 10, 11 ; then (3) of 
 his public policy in §§ 12—52. 
 
 Under (3) we have an introduction 
 (§§ 12—16), and the defence of his policy 
 concerning the Peace of Philocrates (§§ 17 
 —52). The last contains an introduction 
 (§ 17), the narration (§§ r8—49), and the 
 conclusion (§§ 50—52). 
 
 § 9 . 1. €ΐ...κατηγόρησ-εν, i.e. if he 
 
 had confined his accusation (in his speech) 
 to the charges in his indictment (7 ραφή) : 
 see the same distinction between κατη¬ 
 γορεί and κρίνει in § 15 4 . 
 
 2. ττροβουλεύματο5 : the strict name 
 of a bill which had passed only the 
 Senate, though the less exact ψήφισμα was 
 often applied to it: see § 56 1 .—€00vs άν 
 άττελογουμην, I should at once proceed (lit. 
 be now proceeding) to my defence , etc. Cf. 
 § 34 4 · 
 
 3. οΰκ ελάττω, quite as much (as in 
 his proper accusation).— τάλλα διεξιών 
 belongs to both άνήλωκε and κατεφεύσατό. 
 — τά -π-λεΐσ-τα : the antithesis to the comp. 
 οΰκ έλάττω seems to show that the superl. 
 is to be taken literally. The statements 
 repudiated by Demosthenes about his 
 private life and the Peace of Philocrates 
 can well be said to outnumber all the 
 others. 
 

 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 uva /XT /δεις νμων τους εζωθεν λόγους ηγμενος άλλοτρυωτερον 
 των νπερ της γραφής 8υκαυων άκονη μον. $ 
 
 10 ΤίερΙ μεν 8η των 18ίων όσα λου8ορόνμενος βεβλασφημηκε 
 περί εμον, θεάσασθε ως απλά καί 8υκαυα λέγω, ευ μεν υστς 
 με τουοντον olov οντος ητυάτο (ον γαρ αλλοθυ πον βεβίωκα 
 η παρ' νμΐν), μη8ε φωνήν άνάσχησθε, μη8 ’ ευ πάντα τα 
 5 κουνά νπερεν πεπολυτενμαυ, άλλ’ άναστάντες καταφηφυσασθε 
 j]8 η· ευ 8ε πολλω βελτυω τούτον καυ εκ βελτυόνων, καυ 
 μη8ενός των μέτριων, υνα μη8εν επαχθες λέγω, χευρονα καυ 
 εμε καυ τονς εμονς νπευληφατε καυ γυγνωσκετε, τοντω μεν 
 μη8 ’ νπερ των άλλων πυστενετε ( 8ηλον γάρ ώ$ ομοίως άπαντ 
 ίο επλάττετο), εμοί 8\ ην παρά πάντα τον χρόνον εννουαν 
 εν8ε8ευχθε επί πολλών άγωνων των πρότερον, καί νννί παρά- 
 
 6. tols £ξω Υ. 
 
 § ΙΟ. ι. δη om. Φ. 3 · αΰτόί Ο. 4· Ka ' L Α 2 . φωνήν μου L 
 
 (7ρ). πάντα κοίν’ Ο 1 . 5· ΰπερευ Σ. καταφηφίσασθαι Σ, Ο 1 . q. Ka ' L 
 
 om. V6. 8. τούτο) μεν δή Υ. II. των πρότερον Σ, L 1 , Αΐ. 2 , V6 ; των πρότ. 
 
 Ύ€~/€νημένων Αι (mg.). 2 (mg.), Β, vulg. 
 
 6. άλλοτριώτ€ρον, less kindly ( with 
 greater alienation). 
 
 7. των...δικαίων : like δίκαια, § 7 6 . 
 Two genitives with ακούω are rare, though 
 either alone is common.—tnrip : in the 
 same sense as περί, as often in the orators, 
 who, however, often observe the common 
 distinction. Cf. § i 4 and § 11 2 & 5 , and xxm. 
 
 19, τού s περί των νόμων ^ 
 
 The reply in §§ IO, 11 to the charges 
 against his private life and character 
 amounts merely to a scornful refusal to 
 discuss them, and an appeal to the judges 
 to decide the case at once against him if 
 they believe them. 
 
 § IO. 1. ΤΓίρΙ των ιδίων: with οσα 
 βεβλασφήμηκε (not with λέγω), the omitted 
 antec. of the cognate οσα being under¬ 
 stood as limiting θεάσασθε...\έ~/ω, as re¬ 
 gards all the calumnies which he has 
 abusively uttered about my private life. 
 The whole sentence περί μεν.,.λέ^ω is 
 parallel to ύπύρ μύν.,.έξετάσω in § 11 5 . 
 (West., Bl.) —XoiSopovptvos βίβλασφή- 
 μηκ€ : for the relation of λοιδορία and 
 βλασφημία to κατηγορία see § 123 2 . Cf. 
 Cic. Cael. 3, 6 : accusatio crimen de- 
 
 siderat, rem ut definiat, hominem ut 
 notet, argumento probet, teste confirmet; 
 maledictio autem nihil habet propositi 
 praeter contumeliam. βλαφημία is slan¬ 
 der, a special form of λοιδορία, abuse in 
 general. Our word blasphemy (like many 
 others) never goes beyond the special 
 meaning which it derives from the ecclesi¬ 
 astic al Gree^:. cf. angel, apostle , hypocrite, 
 liturgy, etc. 
 
 3. τοιοΰτον: sc. 'όντα (Μ. T. 911). 
 
 So χείρονα ( 1 . 7). 
 
 4· μηδέ φωνήν <χνά<Γχη<τθ€ = μηδέ 
 φθεΎχόμενόν με άνάσχησθε, i.e. stop my 
 speech at once. — πάντα τά κοινά: i.e. they 
 may settle the case without reference to 
 his public acts. 
 
 6 . βίλτίω και £Κ β€λτιονων, better and 
 better born , a common expression : cf. 
 XXII. 63, 68 ; and ris ων καί τίνων, § 126 5 
 (below). See Terent. Ph. i. 2, 65, bonam 
 bonis prognatam. 
 
 7. μηδίνόβ των μίτρίων χαρονα, i.e. 
 
 quite as good as any of our respectable 
 citizens : this moderate expression is made 
 more effective by ϊνα...λέ~γω : see § 126 7 . 
 
 11. eirl πολλών αγώνων: see §§ 249, 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 15 
 
 \Φ σγρεσθε. κακοήθης δ' ων, Αίσγίνη, τούτο παντελώς ενηθες 11 
 ωήθης, τους περί των πεπραγμενών καί πεπολιτενμένων 
 λόγους αφεντα με προς τας λοιδορίας τας παρά σου τρεφε- 
 529 σθαι. ου δή ποιήσω τούτο · ουχ ουτω τετυφωμ ar άλλ’ 
 υπέρ μεν των πεπολίτευμενων α κατεφευδου καί διεβαλλες 5 
 εξετάσω, τής δε πομπείας ταύτης τής άνεδην γεγενημενης 
 ύστερον, αν βουλομενοις άκουειν ή τουτοισΊ, μνησθήσομαι. 
 
 § 11 . 2 . τούς (corr. fr. του) Σ. 3 · τρέφασθαι Αι. 5 · διέβαΧες Υ, V6. 
 
 6. εξετάσω Σ, L, Β, F, Φ, Υ, V6 ; αύτίκα έξετ. vulg. άνέδην L, Α2, V6 ; άνάιδην 
 [ε over at) Σ ; άναίδην Αι, Β, vulg., Prise. II. 18 r . ούτωσί '■γβ^€νημ.ένη$ vulg. ; 
 
 ούτωσί οιη. Σ, L 1 , Αι. 2, V6. 7 · βουΧομένοις άκούειν Σ, L, Β (mg·), Αι. 2, V6 ; * 
 
 βουΧ. τούτοις άκούειν vulg. ; ακούειν ora. Β, F, Υ, Β 1 . τουτοισί Σ , L (γρ), Αι, Β,|ρ 
 
 F, Φ, Υ, V6; τούτοις Αι, F (mg.), vulg.; ταντησί L. 
 
 
 
 
 250, where he speaks of being brought 
 to trial “daily” after the battle of 
 Chaeronea. 
 
 §11. I. κακοήθη9...€υηθ€ς ωήθης : 
 
 an untranslateable παρονομασία , the sar¬ 
 castic effect of which, as pronounced by 
 Demosthenes, can easily be imagined. 
 κακοήθης, ill-natured, malicious, is in 
 antithesis to εϋηθες, good-natured (in the 
 double sense of our simple). The idea 
 (imperfectly expressed) is : malicious [ill- 
 natured) fellow though you are, you con¬ 
 ceived this perfectly simple [silly] notion. 
 Demosthenes seldom uses this figure; 
 but in xxi. 207 we have a play on the 
 name of Eubulus: άλλ ’ el κακώς εμέ 
 βούΧει 7 τοιείν, Ε ϋβουΧε. 
 
 2. 'ΠΈ-ττραγμίνων και-πΈίΓολιτίυμ^νων : 
 see note on § 4 6 · These words are re¬ 
 peated in sense in πεποΧιτευμένων (5), but 
 the same figure immediately follows in 
 κατεφεύδου καί διέβαΧΧες. 
 
 4 · τ€τυφωμαι: cf. τετυφώσθαι, IX. 20. 
 See Harpocr. : αντί του έμβεβρόντημαι, 
 έξω των (ρρενών ylyova, ήτοι, από τής 
 βροντής, ή άπδ των επί τον Τυφώνα άνα- 
 φερομένων σκηπτών, ή άπδ των Τ υφωνικών 
 καΧουμένων πνευμάτων, ά δή καί αυτά έξί- 
 στησιν άθροως Karappaylvra. ΆΧκαΐος, 
 “ πάμπαν δέ Τ υφώς έκ σ’ έΧετο φρέναςΥ 
 Δημοσθ. υπέρ Κ τησ. If τυφόω is thus 
 connected with Τ υφών or Τ υφώς, τετύ- 
 φωμαι must mean _ / am distracted or 
 crazed, like εμβρόντητος (§ 243 7 ). If it is 
 
 derived from τύφος, mist or smoke (see 
 Lidd. & S ο.),τετύφωμαι means lam stupe¬ 
 fied, befogged or wrapt in smoke. 
 
 6 . ττομττίίας, ribaldry [procession-talk). 
 See Harpocr.: πομπείας καί π ομπ εύειν 
 αντί τού Χοίδορίας καί Χοιδορεΐν. μετα¬ 
 φέρει δέ άπδ των εν ταΐς Αιυνυσιακαΐς πομ- 
 7 rat's επί των αμαξών Χοιδορουμένων άΧΧή- 
 Χοις. Μένανδρος ΙΙερινθίφ, “ επί των 
 αμαξών είσι πομπεΐαί τινες σφόδρα Χοί- 
 δοροι .” The Scholia have: πομπείας, 
 Χοίδορίας, ύβρεως' εν ταΊς πομπαΐς προσ¬ 
 ωπεία τινες φορούντες άπέσκωπτον τούς 
 άΧΧους, ώε έν εορτή παίζοντες, επί αμαξών 
 φερόμενοι. See εξ άμάξης, § ΐ22 6 ', and 
 Suidas quoted in note; and πομπεύειν, 
 § i24 a . The chorus of mystae in the 
 Frogs (416—430) gives a vile specimen, 
 which probably exaggerates the genuine 
 πομπεία. — ά νέδην, loosely, without check : 
 cf. άνίτημι and άνεσις. The Scholia recog¬ 
 nize the false reading άναίδην (διά τής 
 διφθόyyoυ) as equivalent to άναισχύντως. 
 
 η. άν...τουτοισ -l : if these (judges) 
 shall wish to hear it. See Thuc. VI. 46, 
 τψ Ν ικία προσδεχομένψ ήν, and other 
 examples in Μ. T. 900. Whiston com¬ 
 pares Liv. xxi. 50, quibusdam volentibus 
 novas res fore. 
 
 §§ 12 — 16 . After thus dismissing the 
 private charges as unworthy of a reply, 
 he comes to the charges against his con¬ 
 duct with regard to the Peace of Philo- 
 crates in 346 B.C. In this introduction 
 
ι6 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 Τά μεν ονν κατηγορημενα πολλά, και περί ών ενίων 
 ρεγάλας καί τάς εσγάτας οι νόμοι διδόασι τιμωρίας * τον 
 δε παρόντος άγώνος η προαίρεσις αυτή* εχθρού μεν επήρειαν 
 εχει καί νβριν καί λοιδορίαν καί προπηλακισμον όμον καί 
 πάντα τά τοιαντα · των μεντοι κατηγοριών καί των αίτιων 
 των είρημενων, είπερ ήεταν άληθεΐς, ονκ ενι τη πόλει δίκην 
 αξίαν λαβεΐν, ονδ ’ εγγύς, ον γάρ άφαιρεΐετθαι το προσελ- 
 
 § 12. ι. πολλά Σ, L 1 , Αι. 2, V6 ; πολλά καί δεινά vulg. 2. διδόασι Σ, L, 
 Α2, Φ (yp), Β (yp ) ; τάττουσι L (yp), vulg. 3· άυτη’ (thus) Σ ; αυτή Φ ; αυτή’ L; 
 αυτή Αι, V6, Β, Υ. επήρειαν Σ (yp), L 2 , vulg. ; προαίρεσιν Σ ; «προαίρεσή L 1 . 
 
 4· δμου Σ (not εμοΰ as stated), L, vulg. 6. 'ένι Σ (yp), L 2 , Αι ; έστί and ένί Αι 
 
 |(corr.); έχει Σ, L 1 , Α2 ; έπί L (corr.), Y, V6. 
 
 § 13 . ι. άφαιρεΐσθαι Σ (with later δει crowded into the line); άφαιρεΐσθαι δει 
 vulg. 
 
 he dwells on the outrage of bringing such 
 grave charges against a statesman in a 
 way which neither allows the accused a 
 fair opportunity to defend himself, nor 
 gives the state any adequate remedy 
 against him if he is guilty, while it may 
 entail grave consequences on an innocent 
 person. 
 
 § 12. 1. ir€pt ών «νίων, about which 
 
 in some cases : ένίων qualifies ών (West.). 
 Cf. III. it , robs περί των στρατ. ένίους, 
 and XXVII. 23, καί οσα 'ένια\ also Thuc. I. 
 6 , ev tols βαρβάροΐ -s 'έστιν ols. 
 
 3. η irpoaipeo-is αυτή* (so 2): αυτή' 
 is much more expressive than αυτή (with 
 no stop), pointing vividly to the follow¬ 
 ing statement of the true purpose of 
 Aeschines. It also gives των μέντοι 
 Ka^yopL(2v κ.τ.λ. (5) its proper relation 
 to εχθρού μεν. The Schol. charges this 
 passage with ασάφεια πολλή. The thought 
 is as follows :—The charges include 
 some of the gravest known to the law, 
 which provides the severest penalties for 
 the offences ; but this suit was never 
 brought to punish anybody for these. I 
 will tell you what its object is (αυτή) : it 
 is to give a personal enemy an oppor¬ 
 tunity to vent his spite and malice, while 
 it gives the state no means of properly 
 punishing my crimes if I am guilty. 
 The first clause, τά μέν...τιμωρίας (ι, 2), 
 states the gravity of the actual charges, 
 and is opposed to the following του δέ... 
 
 αυτή. The latter introduces the double 
 construction, (a) εχθρού μέν .. ,τοιαυτα and 
 (b) των μέντοι.,.οΰδ’ iyybs, in which the 
 motive of Aeschines and the inadequacy 
 of this suit to deal with the alleged 
 crimes are declared. The last two 
 clauses are confirmed, (a) by ού yap... 
 δίκαιόν έστιν (% 13 1-4 ), (b) by άλλ’ έφ’ οΐ s 
 ...7 ραφόμενον (§ I3 4-10 ). Finally, ού yap 
 δήπου.,.έχράφατο (§ 13 10-12 ) shows that 
 Aeschines, by his present action, virtually 
 admits that the course just pointed out 
 (έφ’ oh...y ραφόμενον) is the only consistent 
 one.— έπηρίΐαν, malice (cf. § 13 2 ) : see 
 επηρεάζω, maliciously insult, §§ 138 4 , 
 
 320 6 . 
 
 4 - *x«s involves, contains. — όμου : this 
 (not εμού) is the only reading of Σ. 
 
 6 . it'irep ήσαν <x\q0eis, si verae erant 
 (not essent), a simple supposition, with 
 nothing implied as to its truth : there is 
 no need of reading οϋκ ένήν in the apo- 
 dosis.— οΰκ ifvt, it is not possible, i.e. by 
 this suit, οΰκ ϊχει (Σ, L 1 ) would be in 
 strong antithesis to ?χει (4) with the 
 same subject, ό παρών αχών : West, 
 translates this bietet sie nicht die Λ /bglich- 
 keit. But is 0 άyώv ούκ ΐΐχει τή πόλει 
 δίκην λαβεΐν a possible construction in 
 this sense ? 
 
 7. οΰδ’ eyyiis (sc. αξίαν), nor anything 
 like it. 
 
 § 13 . Here the orator gives the most 
 striking proof of his adversary’s malicious 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 17 
 
 θεΐν τώ δήμω καί λόγον τνχεΐν — ovS * επήρειας τάξει καί 
 
 φθόνον τοντο ποιείν—οντε μα τους θεονς όρθώς εγον οντε 
 πολιτικόν οντε οικαιον εστιν, ω ανορες Ασηναιοι· αλλ εψ 
 οΐς άΒικονντα μ εώρα την πόλιν, ονσί γε τηλικοντοις ηλίκα 5 
 ννν ετραγωόει και όιεζηει, ταΐς εκ των νόμων τιμωρίαις παρ' 
 αντα τάόικηματα γ^ρησθαι, ει μεν εισαγγελίας αζια πράττονθ' 
 εώρα, εισαγγελλοντα καί τοντον τον τρόπον εις κρίσιν καθι- 
 
 χρήσασθαι L, vulg. 
 
 πράττοντα Σ, L 1 ; πράττοντά με vulg. 
 
 purpose ( έχθρου έτηίρειαν), viz. his bring¬ 
 ing a form of suit by which he hoped to 
 deprive Demosth. of the power to defend 
 himself (λ07ου τυχεΐν). It must be re¬ 
 membered that Aesch. had not merely 
 prosecuted Ctesiphon instead of Demosth., 
 but had also (200—202) besought the 
 judges most earnestly to refuse Demosth. 
 permission to speak as Ctesiphon’s advo- 
 .cate. 
 
 1. ού γάρ άφαιρεΐσθαι κ.τ.λ. : if we 
 omit δει after άφαιρεΐσθαι (see crit. note), 
 άφαιρεΐσθαι and τοντο ποιείν with their 
 adjuncts are subjects of οΰτε.,.έχον ούτε 
 πολιτικόν ούτε δίκαιόν έστιν , the negation 
 of ού and ούδ ’ being thrice repeated in 
 ούτε. As we naturally omit ού in transla¬ 
 tion (that we may translate ούτε), we can 
 give the emphatic ούδ ’ (2) the force of 
 still more (dazu , Bl.), and translate, for 
 to try to take away my right to come before 
 the people and be heard—still more to do 
 this by way of malice and spite—is neither 
 right nor patriotic (see note on 4) nor 
 just, άφαιρεΐσθαι is conative (cf. § 207 4 ). 
 For άφαιρεΐσθα t as subject (where we 
 might expect τό άφαιρεΐσθαι, were it not 
 for the following τό προσελθε tv), see 
 Thuc. III. 38, άμύνασθαι δέ, τιρ παθεΐν ό'τι 
 eyy υτάτω κείμενον, άντίπαλον ον μάλιστα 
 την τιμωρίαν άναλαμβάνει, and II. 87? 
 veptytyveTat. .,ναυμαχεΐν . —τό ττροοτελθείν 
 ...τυχεΐν here is the right of every accused 
 citizen to be heard before the popular 
 court, which is here called δήμος, as when 
 it is addressed άνδρες ’ Αθηναίοι . 
 
 2. εν iirqpeias τάξει, by way of (vent¬ 
 ing) malice·, cf. § 63 s , έν τή...τάξει, and 
 XX. 81, έν εχθρού μέρει. Similar is III. 31, 
 
 εν υπηρέτου καί προσθήκης μέρει. 
 
 3· οΰτε.,.οΰτε... οΰτε after 01): see 
 Eur. frag. 322 (N.), ούκ έστιν ούτε τείχος 
 ούτε χρήματα ούτ 7 άλλο δνσφύλακτον ούδέν 
 ywrf. — 0 p 0 < 5 s 2χον: stronger than 
 ορθόν. 
 
 4· πολιτικόν, properly belonging to 
 the state (see § 246 s ), here due to the state 
 from a citizen : cf. X. 74, ούκ Ίσως ούδέ 
 πολιτικως. Such conduct, it is meant, is 
 not fair to the state. In IX. 48, πολιτικως 
 refers to the simple old-fashioned Spartan 
 style of warfare.— εφ' οΐς.,.έώρα: the 
 condensed form for έπί τοΐς άδικήμασιν ά 
 άδικούντά με εώρα: cf. § 14 1 · 
 
 5. οΰσι τηλικουτοι? ( = εί ήν τηλι- 
 καΰτα), supposing them to have been so 
 great. 
 
 6 . έτραγωδει καί διεξηει (see note on 
 § 4 e ), set forth in his tragic style (i.e. 
 pompously ), referring to the theatrical 
 days of Aeschines, like υποκρίνεται, § 15 4 . 
 Cf. XIX. 189, ταύτα τpayιρδεΐ. —Trap’, at 
 the time of. 
 
 7. χρή<τθαι (sc. δίκαιον ήν, supplied 
 from δίκαιόν έστιν in 1. 4), he ought to 
 have employed. 
 
 8. είσ-αγγε'λλοντα and γραφόμενον 
 
 (io) express the manner of χρήσθαι, and 
 with it make the apodoses to the condi¬ 
 tions εί.,.έώρα and εί...παράνομα (sc. 
 εώρα): cf. έφ ’ οΐς εώρα ( 4). eίσayyέλλω is 
 to indict by είσayyελίa, as y ράφομαι is 
 (properly) to indict by ordinary yρaφή. 
 Notice the distinction between yράφovτa 
 παράνομα , proposing illegal measures , and 
 παρανόμων ypaφόμεvov, indicting for illegal 
 proposals. For the double meaning of 
 the passive of yράφω see note on § 56 4 . 
 
 G. D. 
 
 
ι8 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 στάντα παρ' νμΐν, ε'ι 8ε γράφοντα παράνομα, παρανόμων 
 ίο γραφόμενον ’ ον γάρ 8ηπον Κτησιφωντα μεν 8νναται 8ιωκειν 
 ι εμε, εμε ο, ειπερ εςεΧεγςειν ενομιΐ^εν, αντον ονκ αν 
 
 14 εγράφατο. καί μην εί τι των άΧΧων ών vvvl 8ιεβαΧΧε και 
 8ιεζηει η καί άΧΧ' ότιονν ά8ικονντά με υμάς εωρα, είσϊ νόμοι 
 περί πάντων καί τιμωρίαι, και αγώνες και κρίσεις πικρά και 
 μεγάΧα εγονσαι τάπιτίμια, καί τοντοις εςην άπασιν γρησθαι- 
 
 5 και όπηνίκ εφαίνετο ταντα πεποιηκως καί τούτον τον τρόπον 230 
 κεγρημενος τοΐς πρός με, ωμοΧογεΐτ αν η κατηγορία τοΐς 
 
 15 εργοις αντον. ννν 8' εκστάς της ορθής καί 8ικαίας 68ον καί 
 φνγων τονς παρ' αντά τα πράγματα εΧεγχονς, τοσοντοις 
 
 11. έξελέχ &lv Αι, V6 ; έξελέχχειν L, vulg., Σ 1 {ξ over χ). 
 
 § 14 . 3 · Ka ' L τιμωρίαι after κρίσεις Αι, V6. 3 » 4· πικρά...επιτίμια vulg., Σ 
 
 (only mg. w. ^Xd). 4. έχονσαι vulg.; ’έχοντες Σ (mg.), L 1 , Φ (yp). έξην αύτφ 
 
 πάσι Αι, V6. χρησθαι Σ, L 1 , Β, F, Υ, Φ, Ο ; χρησθαι κατ' έμοΰ Αι, λ τ 6. 6. πρός 
 με Σ ; προς έμέ L, vulg. 
 
 § 15 . 2. τά om. Ο 1 , with έλέχχονς...σκώμματα. 
 
 ίο. ού ·γάρ... 4 γράψατο : ού yap δήπου 
 belongs to both clauses K τησ. μεν and 
 έμε δ’ κ.τ.λ.: for it surely cannot be that 
 he is prosecuting Ctesiphon on my account, 
 and yet wotild not have indicted me if 
 etc. Without words like μέν and δε to 
 mark the two antithetical clauses, which 
 are negatived jointly, but not severally, 
 this common rhetorical figure would be 
 impossible. The Latin uses quidem and 
 sed in such expressions for μέν and δέ, 
 but with less effect: see note on § 179 3 . 
 
 11. δι’ Ιμ€, tpe δ’ : emphatic repeti¬ 
 tion. 
 
 § 14 . ι. €Ϊ τι.,.έώρα: if he ever 
 saw me etc., a simple supposition, to 
 which είσϊ νόμοι and έξην are a natural 
 apodosis ; έξην, he might , implies no un¬ 
 real condition. Cf. έφ ’ οϊς έώρα, § 13 4 .— 
 ών.,.διόβαλλε καί Sieijijii, i.e. which he 
 slanderously related: cf. § 13 6 . 
 
 2—4. νόμοι... τάττιτί μια : there is no 
 tautology here. He first mentions laws 
 and their prescribed penalties {τιμωρίαι), 
 which would be used in άχωνες ατίμητοι ; 
 then processes and (special) suits, in which 
 heavy penalties could be inflicted by vote 
 of the court {άχωνες τιμητοί). έπιτίμια, 
 like τιμήματα, are especially penalties 
 
 which the judges assess {τιμώσή. (See 
 Meier and Schomann, Att. Proc., pp. 
 208—211, 956.) 
 
 5. όττηνίκ’ Ιφαίνίτο is so nearly 
 equivalent to ε’ί ποτέ έφαίνετο (Μ. Τ. 528), 
 that if he had ever been seen best translates 
 it. It is often impossible to express an 
 unreal condition in English by a relative 
 sentence : here \whenever he had been seen 
 would not be clear. 
 
 6 . κεχρημόνοξ tois irpos μ€, to have 
 
 dealt with me {managed his relations to 
 me) : den Streit gegen mich so geftihrt 
 (Bl.). West, strangely renders rots πρός 
 με die auf mich anwendbaren Rechts- 
 mittel, referring to νόμοι, άχωνες, etc. (so 
 Weil).— ώμολογίΐτ’ αν, would have been 
 consistent, the impf. referring to the 
 various occasions of κεχρημένος. If he 
 had brought the proper suits {άχωνες και 
 κρίσεις) against me personally at the time 
 of each offence, his style of accusation 
 {κατηχορία) before the court would have 
 been consistent with his conduct; where¬ 
 as now κατηχορεΐ μέν έμοΰ, κρίνει δέ τού¬ 
 τον ί (§ ΐ5 4 ), the latter being his present 
 έρχον. 
 
 § 15 . 2. TOCTOVTOIS V«TT€pOV Xpovois: 
 
 the Peace of Philocrates (of which he is 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 19 
 
 ύστερον χρόνοις αίτιας καί σκώμματα καί λοιδορίας συμ- 
 φορησας υποκρίνεται' είτα κατηγορεί μεν εμού, κρίνει δε 
 τοντονί, καί τον μεν άγώνος δλον την προς εμ εχθραν 5 
 προίσταται, ουδαμου δ’ επί ταυτήν άπηντηκώς εμοί την 
 ετερου ζητών επιτιμίαν αφελεσθαι φαίνεται. καίτοι προς 16 
 απασιν, ώ ανδρες Αθηναίοι, τοΐς αλλοις οίς αν είπείν τις 
 υπέρ Κ τησιφώντος εχοι, καί τουτ εμοιγε δοκεΐ καί μαλ 
 εικότως αν λεγειν, ότι της ημετερας εχθρας ημάς εφί ημών 
 αυτών δίκαιον ην τον εζετασμον ποιείσθαι, ου το μεν προς 5 
 άλληλους άγωνίζεσθαι παραλείπειν, Ιτερω δ’ δτω κακόν τε 
 δωσ°α|4' ζητείν' υπερβολή γαρ αδικίας τουτό ye. J 
 
 Παντα μεν τοινυν τα κατηγορημεν ομοίως εκ τούτων αν 17 
 
 3, 4· avvayayuv over σνμφορήσας L. 
 
 § 16. 2. on τασιν.,.έχοι Σ, L, Α2; rots &XXois δικαίου Σ (y ρ), Β, vulg. ; 
 δικαίοις over ols L’ 2 ; άπασι τ. άλλ., ώ &ν. ’Αθ., oh άν ns είττεΐν...'έχοι δικαίου Αι, V6. 
 3· τοντό γ’ έμοί Αι, V6. δοκοΐ Β". καί μάλιστα (end) Φ. 5 · ο,υτων V6. 
 
 έξητασμόν (e over η) Σ. 6. τταραΧειττεΐν ( ι over ist et) Σ ; τταραΧειττεΐν (yp. nr 
 
 over eiv) L ; τταραΧιπεΐν Αί, Φ. 
 
 § 17. ι. τά om. ΙΛ 
 
 I 
 
 especially speaking) was ten years old 
 when Aesch. first brought his suit (336 
 B.C.). 
 
 4. υ7Γθκρίν€ται, he plays his part : cf. 
 eTpay^ei in § 13 6 . The word implies 
 not only pomposity but dissimulation, 
 though far less of this than our hypocrisy 
 and hypocrite. (See note on io 1 .)— κατη- 
 ■γορ€ί...κρίν€ΐ: see note on § 14 6 . 
 
 5. του aycSvos ολου ττροΐσ-ταται, he 
 puts foremost in (at the head of) his whole 
 suit. 
 
 6. ούδαμοΰ, nowhere, i.e. never : cf. 
 oD in § 125 1 with following ενταύθα . —eirl 
 ταύτην, upon this ground (that of our 
 enmity), keeping the figure of άπψτηκώς 
 έμοί , —or with a view to this , i.e. to fight 
 it out (West., Weil, Bl.): cf. ένταυθ' 
 άπήντηκας, § 125 6 . 
 
 7· eiriTiptav άφίλί'σ-θαι, i.e. to inflict 
 ατιμία, which Ctesiphon would incur as a 
 public debtor if he were unable to pay his 
 fine if convicted. The spurious indict¬ 
 ment in § 55 sets this at fifty talents (see 
 note on Hist. § 8). 
 
 § 16 . 3. δοκίϊ, personal, sc. 71s (from 
 
 2): we translate it seems that one might 
 say, because we must use a finite verb to 
 express av Xlyeiv (Μ. T. 754). 
 
 5. δίκαιον ήν, we ought (Μ. T. 416): 
 here of present time.— τον ίξετασ-μόν 
 ττοιεΐο-θαι, to settle up. “ έ&τασμδϊ in 
 der klass. Literatur nur hier : sonst έξέ- 
 Taais .” Bl. Bekk. Anecd. 93, 20, says of 
 its use here, oil φμσι δόκιμον είναι οντω 
 τιθέμενον .' Cf. έξέτασιν ττοιήσειν, § 220 6 . 
 
 6. ίτ^ρω οτω...ζητ€Ϊν, to seek what 
 other man we can harm, έτέρψ standing 
 emphatically before the indirect interrog. 
 δτιρ : the direct question would be έτέριρ 
 τίνι.,.δώσομεν ; Weil, who makes δτιρ a 
 common relative, with έτέριρ assimilated, 
 quotes Aen. 1. 573, urbem quam statuo 
 vestra est. But we hardly expect this 
 “inverted assimilation” (G. 1035) in the 
 language of this speech. 
 
 For the argument of §§ 17—52 on 
 the Peace of Philocrates, with its three 
 divisions, see note before § 9. 
 
 § 17. i. opoitos with 7 τάντα, all 
 alike. 
 
 2 —2 
 
»✓ 
 
 20 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 Τΐς ίδθΙ ούτε δικαίως οντ επ' αλήθειας ουδεμιάς είρημεν α* 
 βούλομαι δε και καθ' εν έκαστον αυτών εζετάσαι, καί μάλισθ' 
 όσα υπέρ της ε'ιρηνης καί της πρεσβείας κατεφευσατό μου, 
 
 5 τα πεπραγμεν εαυτω μετά Φ ιλοκράτους ανατιθείς εμοί. εστι 
 δ' άναγκαΐον, ώ ανδρες 'Αθηναίοι, καί προσηκον ίσως, ώς 
 κατ εκείνους τους χρόνους είχε τα πράγματ άναμνησαι, 
 ϊνα προς τον υπάρχοντα καιρόν εκαστα θεωρητε. 
 
 Του yap Φ ωκικου συστάντος πολέμου, ου δι εμε (ου yap 
 εγωγε επολιτευόμην πω τότε), πρώτον μεν υμείς ουτω διε- 
 κεισθε ώστε Φωκεας μεν βουλεσθαι σωθηναι, καίπερ ου 2 
 δίκαια ποιουντας όρώντες, %ηβαίοις δ' ότιουν αν εφησθηναι 
 
 3· και (bef. καθ') om. V6. καθ’ £ν έκαστον vulg. ; καθ' £ν έκαστ' Σ; καθ' 
 
 έκαστον Αχ, \ τ 6 ; καθ' 'έκαστ ’ Β 1 . 4· ό'σα ye Ο. 6. ώ om. Φ. η. άνα- 
 
 μνησαι Σ, L, Α2 ; άναμνησαι ημάς Ο ; άναμ. ύμάs vulg. 8. 0 eupeire (η over ei) V6. 
 
 § 18 . ι. πολέμου συστάντος Al. ον yap Σ, L, Al. 2, V6 ; ov yap δη B, 
 
 vulg. 2. 7rore (from τότε) Σ (yp), B 1 , F, Φ, O 1 . 3. έβούλεσθβ Y. 4. ότι- 
 
 ουν eav V6. 
 
 2. err’ άληθείαδ ovSejitas, with no re¬ 
 gard to truth. — «ίρημ-ενα : or. obi. with 
 ΐδοι αν. Bl. puts a comma after ΐδοι. 
 
 3· καθ’ £v, singly : θαρρουντός έστιν 
 ayav τό βούλεσθαι και κατά μέρος έξβτάξ'βιν 
 τα πpάyμaτa. Schol. — 'έκαστον: obj. of 
 έξετάσαι (West.) : cf. καθ' eva έκαστον 
 ημών άποστβρεΐν , XXI. 142. Bl. omits ev 
 and reads 'έκαστ' (Σ). But it may be right 
 to read καθ' έν 'έκαστ' αυτών έξβτάσαι : cf. 
 χωρίς 'έκαστα σκοπουντες, XXIII. 2 1. 
 
 4· ύττφ (like περί),: see note on § 9"· 
 
 5. ανατιθείς εμοί, putting upon me. 
 Originally Aeschines prided himself on 
 his close connection with Philocrates in 
 making the peace: see I. ιη^,την ειρήνην 
 την δι έμου και Φ ιλοκράτονς yεyεvημέvηv. 
 (See Hist. § 31·) 
 
 6. καί ττροσ-ήκόν ’ίσως, and becoming 
 as well (as necessary): ϊσ ως, ομοίως 
 (Schol.). 
 
 7. αναμνήσαι: sc. υμάς, which is 
 added in most MSS. Cf. XX. 76, ταΰθ' 
 υπομνήσαι πειράσομαι. 
 
 8 . ττρός...καιρόν, with reference to its 
 special occasion (that which belonged to it). 
 
 § 18 . 1. Φωκικοΰ ττολε'μου: the 
 
 ' Sacred or Phocian War began-in 356— 
 355 and ended in 346 b.c. Demosthenes 
 
 made his first speech in the Assembly 
 (on the Symmories) in 354 B.C. (See 
 Hist. §§ 4, 11.) 
 
 2. οΰτω διε'κεισθε: when we com¬ 
 pare this judicious account of the feelings 
 of the Athenians towards the Phocians 
 and Thebans in 346 b.c. and earlier with 
 the impassioned language of the speech 
 on the Embassy and of the Second and 
 Third Philippics, we see the sobering 
 effect of time and of recent events. When 
 the Thebans were exulting in the devasta¬ 
 tion of Phocis by Philip, and the political 
 interests of Athens demanded that the 
 Phocians should be protected as allies, 
 Demosthenes seemed to overlook their 
 sacrilegious plundering of Delphi, which 
 he now acknowledges. Again, the inti¬ 
 mate alliance of Thebes and Athens in 
 339 b. c., and still more the destruction of 
 Thebes by Alexander in 335, had changed 
 the Athenians’ bitter hatred to the deepest 
 sympathy. Still the orator cannot deny 
 the old hostility against Thebes, nor the 
 chief ground for it. 
 
 4. (ώστε) ότιονν αν εφησθηναι ττα- 
 θοΰσιν: see Μ. Τ. 59 2 anc ^ 211. It is 
 often hard to express in English* the 
 fundamental distinction between the infin. 
 
 3 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 21 
 
 παθουσιν, ονκ άλόγως ούδ’ αδίκως α ντοΐς όργιζόμενοΓ οΐς 5 
 yap εντνχηκβσαν εν Λενκτροις ον μέτριων εκεχρηντο- επειθ ’ 
 η ΤΙελοπόννησος άπασα διειστηκει, καί ουθ * οί μισονντες 
 Λακεδαιμονίους όντως ισχνόν ώστε άνελεΐν α ντους, ουθ ’ οί 
 πρότερον 8ι εκείνων άρχοντες κύριοι των πόλεων ήσαν, αλλά 
 τις rjv άκριτος καί παρά τοντοις καί παρά τοΐς άλλοις άπασιν ίο 
 ερις καί ταραχή, ταντα δ' όρων ό Φίλιππος (ον γάρ ήν 19 
 αφανή ) τοΐς παρ εκάστοις προδόταις χρήματα άναλίσκων 
 
 6 . εύτετυχήκεσαν V6. ίο. παρά rots άλλου Σ, L, Αι. 2, V6 ; παρά om. Β, 
 
 vulg. άπασιν Σ 1 ("Ελλησιν above), Β; άπασιν "Ελλησιν L, Αι, V 6, F (yp), Φ 
 
 (7Ρ), ο. 
 
 and the finite moods with ώστε , and often 
 impossible when the infin. has av and 
 must therefore be translated by a finite 
 verb. We should generally translate 
 here, you were so disposed that you 
 wished...and would have been pleased etc., 
 as if we had ώστε εβούλεσθε.,.έφήσθητε 
 άν, whereas the thought is, you were (so) 
 disposed (as) to wish...and to feel that 
 you would be pleased etc., which is not 
 the same (M.T. 584). See Gildersleeve 
 in Amer. Jour, of Philol. vii. 161 —175. 
 έφησθήναι av with its protasis πα θούσιν, 
 in its general sense, represents έφησθεΐμεν 
 άν el πάθοιεν. The position of Φ ωκέας 
 μϊν and Θηβαίοις δ’ shows their strong 
 antithesis. 
 
 5. 6 . ots εντν\τ]κεσ·αν, their successes: 
 sc. τοΐς εύτυχήμασιν (obj. of έκέχρηντο). 
 Cf. περί ών ^νωμονήκεσα v, § 94 s .— εν 
 AevKTpois: for the battle of Leuctra in 
 371 B.C. see Grote X. Ch. 78. Bl. quotes 
 Isoc. Phil. 53 on the effect of Leuctra 
 upon the arrogance of Thebes. See xx. 
 109, showing the bitter feeling of De- 
 mosth. himself in 355 B.C. : μεΐξον Θη¬ 
 βαίοι φρονουσιν επ’ ώμότητι καί πονηρί ρ 
 η υμείς επί φιλανθρωπία καί τιρ τα δίκαια 
 βούλεσθαι. Cf. Diod. XVI. 58, τα Λ ευκ- 
 τρικά φρονήματα (Leuctric insolence) συ- 
 στεΐλαι των Β οιωτών. See note on § 98 s . 
 
 6. ?*τ€ΐθ’, after πρώτον μεν: see note 
 on § i 4 . 
 
 7. δΐίΐστήκίΐ, was in dissension (dis¬ 
 tracted). — οί μιατοΰντίξ: these were espe¬ 
 cially the Messenians and Arcadians, with 
 
 their new cities Messene and Megalopo¬ 
 lis, established by Epaminondas, and the 
 Argives. See V. 18: εί yap Άpyεΐoι μεν 
 καί Μεσσήνιοι καί ^ίεyaλoπoλΐτaι καί 
 τινες των λοιπών ΤΙελοποννησίων οσοι 
 ταντα τοντοις φρονουσιν διά την προς Αα- 
 κεδαιμονίους ήμΐν έπικηρυκείαν έχθρώς 
 σχήσονσι, κ.τ.λ. ; and Xen. Hellen. in. 
 5, 11 : τις yap ήδη καταλείπεται αύτοΐς 
 (λακ.) ευμενής; ούκ , Apyεΐoι μέν αεί ποτέ 
 δυσμενείς αύτοΐς ύπάρχουσιν ; 
 
 8. οί ττρότίρον apxovres are not the 
 άρμοσταί and δεκαρχίαι of Lysander (§ 
 96 s ), but oligarchies which were main¬ 
 tained by Sparta in Peloponnesus before 
 Leuctra and were overthrown by the 
 later revolutions. For example, Phlius 
 was captured by Agesilaus in 380 B.C., 
 and a council of One Plundred was esta¬ 
 blished there in the Spartan interest : in 
 366 Phlius and Corinth made a treaty 
 with Thebes which recognized their inde¬ 
 pendence. (See Xen. Hellen. v. 3, 25; 
 vii. 4, 10.) Mantinea was captured by 
 Agesipolis in 385, and divided into five 
 villages; in 371 the city was reestablished 
 and was independent of Sparta (ibid. v. 
 2, 1—7; vi. 5, 3—5). For the revolt of 
 Tegea from Sparta see ibid. vii. 5, 6—9. 
 
 10. aKpiTOS 2pis καί ταραχή, hopeless 
 strife and confusion, άκριτος is not ad¬ 
 mitting of settlement ( κρίσις ). See Hellen. 
 VII. 5, 27: ακρισία δε καί ταραχή ότι πλείων 
 μετά την μάχην (of Mantinea) iy ενετό ή 
 πρόσθεν εν τή' Ελλάδι. (Β 1 .) 
 
 § 19 . 2. TrpoSoTais: for the names 
 
22 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 ? > 
 
 παντας σννεκρονε και προς αντονς εταραττεν ειτ εν οις 
 ημάρτανον άλλου καί κακώς εφρόνονν, αυτός παρεετκενάζετο 
 5 και κατά πάντων εφνετο. ως δε ταλαιπωρούμενοι τω μηκει 
 τον πόλεμόν οι τότε μεν βαρείς ννν δ’ ατυχείς Θηβαίοι 
 φανεροί πάσιν ησαν άναγκασθησόμενοι καταφενγειν εφ * 
 υμάς, Φίλιππος, Ινα μη τούτο γενοιτο μηδε σννελθοιεν αι 
 πόλεις, νμΐν μεν είρηνην εκείνους δε βοήθειαν επηγγείλατο. 
 20 τι ονν συνηγωνίσατ αντω προς το λαβεΐν^^ λίγον δεΐν νμάς 
 ■ 4 V εκόντας εζαπατωμένους; η των άλλων Ελλήνων, είτε χρη 
 κακίαν είτ άγνοιαν είτε και άμφότερα ταντ είπειν, οι 
 πόλεμον συνεχή καί μακρον πολεμονντων υμών, καί τούτον 
 5 νπερ των πάσι ετνμφερόντων, ως εργω φανερόν γεγονεν, ούτε 
 
 § 19 . 3 · πάντα Αι, V 6 . αυτούς Σ, L 1 ; άλλήλους L 2 , Αι, V 6 ; εαυτούς 
 
 vulg. 4 · άλλοι Σ (— above), L, Α2 ; ol άλλοι vulg. 6. νυνϊ δ’ Αι ; νννϊ 
 
 V 6 . 8. Φίλιππος Σ 1 (ό corr.), ό Φίλ. L, vulg. 7 ένοιτο Σ (corr. ?), L, vulg. ; 
 
 Ύβνηται. Αι, V 6 , Β (ol ο above) ; yevy το Ο. C). V d LV V 6 . 
 
 § 20 . 2. έκόντας ύμάς Ar, V6: see Vomel’s note. 5· T & v πάσι Σ, L 1 , Α2 ; 
 
 των κοινή πάσι vulg. 
 
 of some of these see § 48; a long black 
 list is given in § 295: cf. xix. 259, 
 νόσημα δεινόν έμπέπτωκεν εις την 'Ελλάδα, 
 κ.τ.λ. 
 
 3· σ-υνε'κρουε, brought into collision 
 (knocked together ): cf. συνέκρουον, 163 s , 
 and £ vyupoveiv, Thuc. I. 44. — kv ols 
 ή (χάρτα vo v άλλοι, in others ’ blunders, 
 cf. oh εύτυχηκεσαν, § i8 5 . έν oh here 
 is often taken as — έν oh χρόνοις, %vhile\ 
 but cf. εν oh έιπστεύθητε in § 100 5 , έν oh 
 είσηyy ελλά μην in § 25ο 1 , έν oh σεμνύ¬ 
 νομαι in § 258 s , έν oh έπταισεν in § 286 s , 
 έν oh εύτύχησεν in § 323 s , έν αυτοί s oh 
 χαρίζονται in IX. 63. 
 
 5. κατά πάντων εφνετο, he was grow¬ 
 ing above all their heads , i.e. so as to 
 threaten them all.— τω μήκει: cf. δεκέτης 
 yεy ονώς, Aesch. III. 148. 
 
 6. βαρεϊξ, overbearitig, offensive .— νυν 
 δ’ άτυχείδ: after 335 B.C. See Schol., 
 and notes on §§ 18 3 and 35 s ’. 
 
 7. άναγκασ-θησ-όμενοι : in or. obi. with 
 the personal φανεροί ησαν (Μ. T. 907)·— 
 καταφενγειν εφ* νμά$: no such possi¬ 
 bility is suggested by the language of 
 
 Demosthenes at the time of the peace; 
 but times had changed. 
 
 § 20. 1. ολίγου δεΐν, full form of 
 
 ολίγου (Μ. T. 779), qualifies εκόντας 
 έξαπατ., almost willing dupes’, cf. μικρού, 
 
 S T - T a 
 
 S I ? 1 · 
 
 2. ή...Ελλήνων: the actual subject 
 
 appears in the alternative εϊτε...εϊτε. See 
 § 270 6 , and XXIII. 156: ή ύμετέρα, ώ &νδ. 
 Άθ., είτε χρη φιλανθρωπίαν λέχειν εϊθ' 
 ο τι δήποτε. In Isocr. XV. 50 the original 
 case is retained with εΐτε.,.εΐτε: περί της 
 έμης εϊτε βούλεσθε καλεΐν δυνάμεως εϊτε 
 φιλοσοφίας, κ.τ.λ. 
 
 3· κακίαν, baseness, here in the sense 
 of worthlessness. Bl. cites for this milder 
 sense §§ 68 s , 297 s ; and for that of posi¬ 
 tive wickedness ( πονηριά ) §§ 93 r> , 2797, 
 303 8 . But in § 297 s κακία is applied to 
 the whole list of traitors, though πονηριά 
 is added as a stronger and more correct 
 term. · 
 
 4. πόλεμον μακρον : the so-called 
 Amphipolitan War with Philip (357— 
 346 B.C.), which ended with the .Sacred 
 War. See Hist. § 3. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 23 
 
 χρημασιν ούτε σώμασιν οντ άλλω ού&ενί των απάντων 
 συνελάμβανον νμίν οίς καί δικαίως και προσηκόντων όργι- 
 ζόμενοι ετοίμων υπηκουσατε τω Φιλίππω. η μεν ουν τότε 
 συγχωρηθείσα είρηνη διά ταυτ, ον 8ι εμε, ώς ουτον όιεβαλ- 
 λεν, επράχθη · τα δε τούτων αδικήματα καί δωροδοκήματ εν ίο 
 αυτή των νυνί παρόντων πραγμάτων, αν τις εζετάζη δικαίων, 
 αϊτι ενρήσε ι. καί ταντί πάνθ ’ νπερ την αλήθειαν άκριβολο- 21 
 γονμ αι καί διεζερχομαι . εί yap είναι τι δοκοίη τα μάλιστ 
 εν τοντοιν αδίκημα, ουδεν εστι δήπου πρόν εμε ' άλλ’ ό /χεζ/ 
 πρώτον ειπων και μνησθείν νπερ την ειρήνην *Αριστόδημον 
 ήν 6 υποκριτήν, ό δ’ εκδεζάμενον καί ypaxfjav καί εαυτόν $ 
 μετά τούτον μίσθωσαν επί ταυτα Φιλοκράτ^ς 6 * Αγνούσιον, 
 
 6 σόν, Αισχίνη, κοινωνόν, ουχ 6 εμόν, οάδ’ αν συ διαρραγήν 
 
 6 · ούδ' άλλιρ Υ, Φ. απάντων Σ, L ; πάντων vulg. ; ’όντων V 6 . 7· crwe- 
 
 λαμβάνοντο Σ (yp), Φ. καί (after ois) om. Ο. 8 . τω om. Αι, V 6 . 
 
 9 · ειρήνη τιρ Φιλίππω L 2 . ίο. καί δωροδ. om. Ο 1 . ix. εάν λ Γ 6 . 
 
 12. αίτια L, vulg. ; αίτια Σ 1 ; αιτιαι Σ 2 . 
 
 § 21 . ι. ταυτα Αι, V 6 . 2, 3 * τινα.,.άδικήματα for τι..Αδίκημα L 2 , vulg. 
 
 3 . τούτων (for δήπου) Αι, V 6 . 4 · 7Γ€ ΡΪ (for uxrep) Αι, V 6 , F, Υ ; 7 re over υπέρ 
 
 Σ ; περί (over ΰι rep) L 2 (yp). 5 . έκδεξάμενος (λ over δ) L (yp). 6. μίσθωσα s 
 
 μετά τούτου \ r 6. '^νούσιοτ Β ; '.^νούσιοΐ vulg. ; ayvoύσιos Σ. 7· ούχ δ 
 
 έμός Σ, L; ούκ έμδς vulg. ονδ’ εάν Φ. διaρpayeίηs L 2 (yp), Αι, V 6 , Ο. 
 
 6. σωμασ-ιν, lives·, cf. § 66 s . 
 
 9. (τυγχωρηθίΐσ-α, conceded, acquiesced 
 in’. Athens showed no alacrity in making 
 the peace, though she was deceived as to 
 the main point.— διεβαλλεν, slandei'ously 
 declared·, see Aesch. 57 (end), 60. 
 
 11. των νυνΙ...€υρησ·€ΐ (sc. rts): the 
 firm foothold in Greece which Philip 
 secured by the peace, especially his in¬ 
 fluence in the Amphictyonic Council, it 
 is implied, made him at last the victor of 
 Chaeronea. 
 
 § 21. 1. ύττέρ τηΞ αλήθειας, from 
 
 regard for (in the interest of) truth .— 
 
 άκριβοΧογοΰμαι καί διεξερχομαι : see 
 
 note on § 4 6 . 
 
 2. τά μάλιοττ, most clearly, with 
 δοκοίη : cf. § 95 s . 
 
 3. ουδεν... Trpos «με, it is no concern of 
 mine·, cf. §§ 44 7 , 60 2 . This may be an 
 emphatic present apodosis, referring to 
 the present condition implied in el ..δο¬ 
 κοίη, if it shoidd appear that there is 
 
 (είναι) any fault·, or it may be an em¬ 
 phatic future expression, as in Pind. Isth. 
 IV. (v.) 14, πάντ ’ £χεις, εΐ σε τούτων μοΐρ' 
 έφίκοιτο καλών, you have the whole, should 
 a share of these glories fall to you : so 
 Pyth. 1. 81. 
 
 4. Άρΐ(Γτδδημο8: a tragic actor of 
 good repute, one of the company in which 
 Aeschines once served (xix. 246). For 
 his informal mission to Philip in 348— 
 347 b.C. see Grote xi. 517, 518, Schaefer 
 II. 192. See Hist. § 19. Aeschines (11. 
 15, 16) calls this mission a πρεσβεία. 
 
 5· ό εκδεξάμενοδ, his successor (he who 
 took the business from him). — γράψας : 
 sc. τήν ειρήνην: the peace was named 
 from this motion of Philocrates. 
 
 7. ούδ’ άν crv διαρρα/γτ}?, not even if 
 you split: cf. the common imprecation 
 διapρayeίηs (Ar. Av. 2). Aeschines is 
 now as eager to repudiate Philocrates as 
 he was in 345 b.c. to claim him as an 
 associate: see note on § 17 5 . 
 
24 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 φευ86μένος, οι δβ συνειπόντες οτου 8ήποτε ενεκα [εω γαρ 
 τουτό y εν τω παρόντι) Ε ϋβουλος καί Κ ηφισοφών εγω δ* 
 
 22 ού8εν ου8αμου. άλλ’ όμως, τούτων τοιουτων οντων και επ 
 αυτής της αλήθειας ουτω 8εικνυμενών, εις τουθ ’ ήκεν άναι- 
 8είας ωστ ετόλμα λεγειν ως άρ * εγω προς τω της ειρήνης 
 αίτιος γεγενήσθαι και κεκωλυκως είην την πόλιν μετά κοινού 
 
 5 συνε8ρίου των 'Έίλλήνων ταυτην ποιήσασθαι. ειτ ώ—τί αν 
 ειπων σε τις ορθως προσείποι; εστιν οπού συ παρών 
 τηλικαύτην πραζιν καί συμμαγίαν ήλικην νυνί 8ιεξήεις ορών 
 άφαιρούμενόν με της πόλεως, ήγανάκτησας, η παρελθων 
 
 23 ταυτα α νυν κατηγορείς ε8ί8αζας καί 8ιεζήλθες; καί μην ει 
 το κωλυσαι την των 'Ελλήνων κοινωνίαν επεπρακειν εγω 
 
 § 22 . 3· ώστε έτόλμα Αι ; ωστ€ τολμάν V6 ; ωστεετολμα (2nd ε erased) Σ ; ώστε 
 τολμά vulg: 4· ^ TL K0LL vulg.; ετι om. Σ, L 1 , Ai, V6, F, Φ. 5. ταύτην Σ, 
 
 L; αύτη v vulg. 7. vvvi Σ, L; νυν L (7 p), vulg. δίεξτ/ει. s Σ, L, A2 ; έτρα^φ- 
 
 δβυ καί δίεξ. L (7 ρ), vulg. ; 5 terpa 7 · καί διεξ. Β, Υ. g. νυν Σ 1 (corr. vvvi ) ; νυνϊ 
 
 L; νυν vulg. κατ^ορεΐς Σ, vulg. ; κατη~/όρεις Vom., West., Β 1 . καί (η 
 
 above) Σ ; καί L, Αι, V6 ; ή' vulg. 
 
 § 23 . 1, 2. εί το Σ (no τω visible). 2. ε~γω~γε Αι. 
 
 8. οτου δηττοτ€ ^ν«κα, for lohatever 
 reason (it may have been)', δήποτε, like 
 οΰν, makes δστι s indefinite. This is as 
 strong language as Demosthenes wishes to 
 use of Eubulus, the conservative states¬ 
 man, universally respected, and perfectly 
 honest, but a strong advocate of “peace 
 at any price.” For Eubulus see Grote 
 xi. 386, 387; Schaefer 1. 186—188. Of 
 Cephisophon’s connection with the peace 
 nothing further is known : he is probably 
 the Paeanian mentioned in § 75, in xix. 
 293, and in Aesch. 11. 73. Droysen, 
 Vomel, Westermann, and others think 
 Κτησίφών should be read here: cf. xix. 
 
 12, 18, 97, 315. 
 
 10. ούδαμοΰ: cf. § 15 6 , and Ζστιν οποί»; 
 § 22 6 . Demosth. is fully justified in this 
 strong denial. 
 
 § 22 . 1, 2. οντων, δ€ΐκνυμ€νων : ad¬ 
 
 versative (Μ. T. 842). 
 
 4. ·γ€·γ€νήσ-θαι, κίκωλυκώ? €Ϊην : for 
 
 the perfects see M.T. 103, 109. The 
 whole sentence (3—5) ώ* άρ'...ποιήσα- 
 σθαι refers to the elaborate charge of 
 Aeschines (58—64), that Demosthenes 
 
 pressed the negotiations for peace with 
 indecent haste and thereby excluded other 
 Greek states from the benefits of the 
 treaty. The answer in § 23 is perfectly 
 satisfactory. (See Hist. §§21, 32.) 
 
 5. σ-υν€δρίου: a special meeting of 
 delegates summoned by Athens from vari¬ 
 ous Greek states, which never met; not 
 the regular synod of the allies of Athens, 
 which was in session when the peace was 
 made (Aesch. III. 69, 70).— ώ, τι άν... 
 ττροσ'ίί'π-οι; άποσιώπησις and δίαπόρησις 
 combined (Bl.) : for the regular position 
 of άν before είττών, see Μ. T. 224. Cf. 
 ω τί σ’ εϊττω; Ar. Nub. 1378. 
 
 6 . &Γτιν οπού : temporal, like ούδαμοΰ 
 in §§ 15 6 * and 21 10 .— τταρών belongs to 
 ορών...ή'/ανάκτησαζ, ή., .διεξήλθες ; (as a 
 whole): the meaning is, were you ever 
 present when you saw me, etc. ? 
 
 7. ττράξιν καί σ-υμμαχίαν : the general 
 before the particular. In § 191 8 the order 
 is reversed. 
 
 § 23 . 2. iireTTpctKeiv: even the best 
 
 mss. of Demosth. give this form of the 
 plupf., while those of Plato generally 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 25 
 
 Φιλίππω, c rot το μη σιγησαι λοιπόν ην, άλλα βοάν καί 
 διαμαρτυρεσθαι καί δηλουν τουτοισί. ον τοίνυν εποίησας 
 233 ούδαμου τούτο, ουδ' ηκουσε σου ταυτήν την φωνήν ούδείς’ 5 
 ούτε yap ην πρεσβεία προς ουδεν απεσταλμένη τότε των 
 Ελλήνων , αλλά πάλαι πάντες ήσαν εζεληλεγμενοι, ουθ * 
 οι/τος υγιές περί τούτων είρηκεν ουδεν. χωρίς δε τούτων 24 
 /cat διαβάλλει την πόλιν τα μέγιστα εν οίς ψεύδεται- ει yap 
 υμείς άμα τους μεν 'Ελληνας ει? πόλεμον παρεκαλεΐτε, αυτοί 
 δό προς Φίλιπποί περί της ειρηνης πρέσβεις επεμπετε, 
 Ευρυβάτου πράγμα , ου πόλεως εργον ουδέ γρηστων άνθρώ- 5 
 πων διεπράττεσθε. άλλ’ ούκ εστι ταύτα, ούκ εστί' τί γάρ 
 
 διαμαρτύρασθαι Ar ; -εσθαι (a over e) L. 5. μηδαμού Ae. ούδείς’ 
 
 εικότως. Ai, V6 ; εικότως, cm. 21 , vulg. 6. ουδένα Σ, L, vulg.; ούδένας Ο 1 , Y6, 
 
 Cob., Dind. 7. τότε (for πάλαι) B (πάλαι mg.) ; τότε πάλαι LA 
 
 §" 24 . 3. τούς μεν άλλους'Έλλ. L, vulg.; άλλου? om. Σ, Ai. 2, V6. 4. της 
 
 ειρήνης Σ ; ειρήνης L, vulg. 6. * διεπράττεσθε (θε corr. from θαι) Σ. 
 
 have the older Attic form in - η (for -εα), 
 as εωράκη in Rep. 336 D. 
 
 3. το μη (τι-γήσ-αι: West, says that 
 this argument recurs in various forms 
 72 times, citing §§ 13, 117, 124, 188 if., 
 196, 222, 239, 243, 273.—crol λοιττόν ην, 
 it remained for you , after εί επεπράκειν, 
 supposing that I had sold (a simple suppo¬ 
 sition). If εί έπεπρ. were made an un¬ 
 real condition (on the ground of ού... 
 τούτο in 4, 5), λοιπόν ήν would be classed 
 with όδει, δίκαιον ήν, etc. (Μ. T. 4 Ι 0 > 
 and imply you ought to have kept silence. 
 But see note on § 63 1 .— βοάν might refer 
 to the loud voice of Aesch., like πεφω- 
 νασκηκώς, § 308 9 ; but Demosth. uses it 
 also of himself (§ J43 5 ), and it is probably 
 no more than our cry out. 
 
 6. ούτε ήν ... άιτεσ-ταλμε'νη τότε: 
 Holmes calls this an “audacious asser¬ 
 tion.” It must be remembered that ήν 
 άπεσταλμένη is not an ordinary plupf. like 
 άπέσταλτο (Μ. T. 45), which would have 
 meant that no embassy had ever been sent : 
 the compound form means that there was 
 no embassy then out on its mission. The 
 embassies were probably informal in 
 most cases, and no definite report was 
 
 expected from them in case of failure. 
 (See Hist. § 32.) The next sentence 
 tells the whole truth, πάλαι.,.ε^εληλε^μό¬ 
 νοι, i.e. all had long before this been 
 thoroughly canvassed (and found wanting). 
 Cf. 20 5-7 , οντε.,.ύμΐν. Even Aeschines 
 (11. 79) took the same view fourteen 
 years earlier: ούδενός δ ’ άνθρώ πων επι- 
 κονροΰντος τή πόλει, άλλα των μεν περι- 
 ορώντων 6 τι σνμβήσεται, των δε συνεπι- 
 στρατευόντων. 
 
 § 24 . 2. εν οΐ$ ψεύδεται: cf. § 19 3 · 
 
 The argument of 2—6 is that the nego¬ 
 tiations for peace show that Athens could 
 not have been expecting such envoys at 
 this time. 
 
 5. Ενρυβάτου πράγμα: Eurybatus 
 was a proverbial scoundrel, said to have 
 been an Ephesian who was hired by 
 Croesus to raise an army and gave the 
 money to Cyrus. See Harpocr. under 
 Έΐύρύβατον ; Aesch. in. 137; and Paroem. 
 Gr., Diogen. IV. 76, under εύρνβατεύεσθαι, 
 with note.— ττόΧεα^ 2ργον, an act fit for a 
 state. 
 
 6. ούκ &ΓΤΙ...&ΓΤΙ: see the same repe¬ 
 tition before the oath in § 208 1 . 
 
20 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 και βουλόμενοι μετεηεμηεσθ’ αν αντους iv τούτω τώ καιρώ; 
 ini την ειρήνην; άλλ’ ύηήρχεν άηαετιν. άλλ’ ini τον 
 ηόλεμον; άλλ’ αυτοί nepl ειρήνης εβουλεύεσθε. ούκούν 
 ίο οντε τής εξ αρχής ειρήνης ήγεμών ούδ’ αίτιος ων εγώ φαίνο¬ 
 μαι, ούτε των άλλων ών κατεφεύσατό μου ούδεν αληθές ον 
 δείκνυται. 
 
 25 Επειδή τοίννν εηοιήσατο την ειρήνην ή ηόλις, ενταύθα 
 ηάλιν σκεφασθε τι ήμών εκάτερος ηροείλετο ηράττειν· καί 
 yap εκ τούτων εΐσεσθε τις ήν 6 Φιλιππω ηάντα συναγωνιζό- 
 μενος, καί τις 6 ηράττων ύηερ υμών καί το τή πδλει συμ- 
 
 5 φερον ζητών, εγώ μεν τοίνυν έγραφα βουλεύων άηοηλεΐν 
 την ταχίστην τούς ηρεσβεις ini τούς τόηους εν οίς αν όντα 
 Φίλιηηον ηυνθάνωνται, καί τούς όρκους άηολαμβάνειν ούτοι 
 
 26 δε ουδέ γράφαντος εμού ταύτα ηοιεϊν ήθελησαν. τί δέ τούτ 
 ήδύνατο, ώ ανδρες ’Αθηναίοι; εγώ διδάξω. Φιλιππω μεν 
 ήν συμφέρον ώς ηλεΐεττον τον μεταξύ χρόνον γενεσθαι τών 
 
 9· οϋκουν Σ, Υ, V6; ούκουν L, vulg. ιι. ουδέν before ων Ο 1 . μου οηι. Υ. 
 12. φαίνεται V6. 
 
 § 25 . 2. σκέφασθαιΣ. έκαστος V6. 3 · όφεσθε τις Al, V6. Φιλ. 
 
 πάντα συνα-γωνίζ. Σ (y ρ), L 2 , vulg.; Φιλ. τε την ειρήνην away. Σ 1 , L 1 ; Φιλ. την είρ. 
 άyωvL'ζ. Α2. 4· τ ύ om · Ο 1 . 6. επί τούς τόπους L, vulg.; οηι. Σ 1 (in mg. 
 
 with */.); επί τούς τόποις Αι, V6. 7· τον Φίλ. Αι. 2, V6. πυνθάνονταί V6. 
 
 ορκους την ταχίστην L 2 , Αι, \6. 8. ούδέ vulg.; όυ Σ 1 (δ£ above). 
 
 § 26 . 2. εδύνατο Α2. ώ om. Β, Φ, Ο, λ Γ 6. 3 · τον om · F, Φ, Υ. 
 
 μετε-π-εμ-π-εσ-θ' αν, would you have 
 been sending? 
 
 8. ύττήρχεν άιτασ-ιν, i.e. peace was 
 open to them all : see note on § i 3 . 
 
 io. τής €ξ οίρχής εΙρήνης, i.e. the 
 
 earlier stages of the peace. But την προ - 
 τέραν ειρήνην in Aesch. ill. 58 is the 
 Peace of Philocrates, opposed to that of 
 Demades (338 B.C.). 
 
 § 25. 1. επειδή: see note on § 42 s , 
 
 — ενταύθα, here (temporal): cf. ούδαμου, 
 § x 5 6 · 
 
 2. τί προείλετο ττράττειν; what was 
 his προαίρεσις ( purpose or policy ) ? 
 
 5. βουλεύων : Demosth. was one of the 
 Senate of 500 in 347—346 B.C., and he 
 presided, as επιστάτης των προέδρων, in 
 the Assembly of the 25th of Elaphebolion 
 (Aesch. hi. 62, 73—74). See Hist. §38. 
 
 — άττοπλεΐν, with ’bypapa, proposed. The 
 bill was passed on the third of Munychi- 
 on (April 29) : see Aesch. 11. 92, and Hist. 
 § 39. No concurrent vote of the As¬ 
 sembly was needed here, την βουλήν 
 ποιήσαντος του δήμου κυρίαν, XIX. 154· 
 
 6. εν ots αν ττυνθάνωνται (Μ. Τ. 694^ 
 cf. §§ 26 s , 27 s , 29 9 1 ΧΙΧ · *54· 
 
 7· τούς ορκους οΐττολαμβάνειν, to ad¬ 
 minister the oaths (i.e. io receive them): 
 ορκους άποδιδόναι is to take the oaths (i.e. 
 to give them). See § 26 9 , and XIX. 318. 
 
 8 . ουδέ γράψαντος, not even after / 
 had proposed the bill (its passage is 
 implied). 
 
 § 26 . r. τί... ή δυνατό; what did this 
 ( 5 — 8 ) signify? Cf. VIII. 57, XXI. 3 r. 
 
 3. τον μεταξύ χρόνον των όρκων, the 
 intervening time (after making the peace) 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 2 7 
 
 όρκων, υμίν δ’ ώ? ελάχιστον, διά τί; ότι υμείς μεν ούκ άφ * 
 
 34 η<$ ώμόεταθ * ημέρας μόνον, άλλ’ άψ’ ηλπίσατε την ειρηνην 5 
 εσεσθαι, πάσας εζελυσατε τάς παρασκευάς τάς τον πολέμου ' 
 ό δε tout* e/c παντός του χρόνου μάλιστ επραγματευετο, 
 νομίζων, όπερ ήν αληθές, όσα της πόλεως προλάβοι προ του 
 τους όρκους άποόουναι, πάντα ταυτα βεβαίως εζειν · ουόενα 
 yap Την ειρηνην λυσειν τούτων ενεκα. άγω προορώμενος, 27 
 άνόρες ’ Αθηναίοι, καί λογιζόμενος τό φηφισμα τούτο γράφω, 
 πλειν επί τους τόπους εν οίς αν η Φίλιππος καί τους όρκους 
 την ταχίστην άπολαμβάνειν, ιν εχόντων των Θρακών, των 
 υμετερων συμμάχων, ταυτα τα χωρία ά νυν ουτος διεσυρε, 5 
 τό Σερριον καί τό Μνρτηνόν καί την 'Ί^ργίσκην, ουτω 
 
 5· ημέρας μόνον Σ, L, Ar. 2 ; μόνον ήμ. Β, vulg. τήν om. Β, Φ, Υ. 6. έξεΧύ- 
 σατε Σ, L, vulg. ; έξεΧύσασθε Β. τάς (bef. του) om. V6. έξεΧύσατε τάς του 
 
 πολέμου ΙΑ 7 * τούτον (ν erased) Σ. g. ταυτα πάντα Ατ. ίο. 'ένεκεν Αι. 
 
 § 27. 2 . ώ άνδρες vulg.; ώ om. Σ, L, Υ, Ο. τούτο τό ψήφισμα Αι. 5 · 
 
 τέρων Αι. ταυτα τά χωρία Σ, L; τα χωρ. ταυθ ’ vulg. 6. Σέρρι,ον Σ, L 2 
 
 ( yp), vulg. ; Σέρρειον L 1 , Υ. Μ υρτηνόν Αι; "Μυρτηνον (|Ύ over τ) Σ ; Μ ύρτινον 
 
 V6; Μ ύρτίν (των over τιν) L; Μυρτην L (yp) ; Μ ύρτυον Ο ; 3 Ιύρτι,ον vulg. 
 
 before he (Philip) should take the oath, 
 όρκων refers to Philip’s oath, not to the 
 oaths of the two parties. See Shilleto’s 
 note on xix. 164 (p. 393 R.), τό ώς πΧεΐ- 
 στον τον μεταξύ χρόνον δίατριφθήναι προ 
 του τούς όρκους άπολαβεΐν (Φιλ.): he quotes 
 Ar. Αν. 187 tv μέσιρ αήρ έστι ^ής, between 
 earth (and heaven); Ach. 433, κείται 
 δ’ άνωθεν των θυεστείων ρακών, μεταξύ 
 των ’Ij^oDs, i.e. between these rags and 
 those of hio\ Thuc. ill. 51 es τό μεταξύ 
 τής νήσου, into the passage betiveen the 
 island (and the mainland). 
 
 6 . εξελνσατε, you broke off (stopped ): 
 the active, though somewhat less expres¬ 
 sive than the middle, conveys the whole 
 idea, and has the best MS. authority. 
 
 7. toOt , his own plan, to prolong the 
 time when Athens must be quiet while he 
 could act, referring to 3, 4.—€K ttcivtos 
 του χρόνου, i.e. from Philip’s first sug¬ 
 gestions of peace (see § 21 4 ). 
 
 8. όσ-α προλάβοι, all that he might 
 secure from the city: we might have oV 
 άνπρολάβτ] in the same sense (cf. § 25°). 
 
 9. οϋδ€να...\υσ·€ΐν continues the or. 
 obi. from έξειν. Even an optative is 
 sometimes thus continued, as in I. 22, 
 Sloe διοίκεΐν (Μ. T. 675). 
 
 § 27 . 2. ψη'φισ·μα γράφω irXeiv: 
 
 cf. φγραψα άποπΧείν (§ 25 s ).— τοΰτο, i.e. 
 the decree just mentioned. 
 
 5. διόσ-υρί, ridiculed (tore in pieces), 
 refers to Aesch. ill. 82, where he charges 
 Demosth. with making trouble, after the 
 peace was concluded, by mentioning all 
 the insignificant places captured by Philip: 
 οΰτός έστιν ό πρώτος έξευρών Σέρρων τείχος 
 καί Αορίσκον καί 'Έιρχίσκην καί Μυρτίσκην 
 καί Γάνοϊ καί Γανιάδα, χωρία ών ουδέ 
 τά ονόματα ήδεμεν πρότερον. Plerodotus 
 mentions Doriscus seven times; Demosth. 
 (vm. 64, ix. 15) mentions Doriscus and 
 Serrion as captured by Philip in time of 
 peace. *Μυρτίσκη (or MopyiaKrj) is pro¬ 
 bably ^ίυρτηνός jocosely assimilated to 
 Έρχίσκη. See Hist. § 39. 
 
 6. ουτω, under these circumstances 
 (hardly translatable), sums up the pre¬ 
 ceding εχόντων .. .Έρχίσκην . 
 
28 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 γίγνοινθ ’ οι όρκοι, καί μη προλαβών εκείνος τους επικαίρους 
 Των τόπων κύριος της Θράκης κατασταίη, μη$ε πολλών μεν 
 χρημάτων πολλών δε στρατιωτών ευπορησας εκ τούτων 
 28 ραόίως τοΐς λοιποίς επιχειροίη πράγμασιν. J ειτα τούτο μεν 
 ούχί λεγει το ψήφισμα ούδ’ αναγιγνώσκει· ει δε βονλενων 
 εγώ προσάγειν τους πρέσβεις ωμήν $εϊν, τουτό μου όιαβάλ- 
 λει. άλλα τι όχρην με ποιείν; μη προσάγειν γράφαι τους 
 5 επί τουθ * ηκοντας, ιν ύμΐν όιαλεχθώσιν; η θεάν μη κατα- 
 
 7· yiyvoivd’ (2nd ν, end of line, later?) Σ. g. εύπορίσας V6. 
 
 § 28 . 3. φμην προσά -yeLv V6. 
 
 7. eiriKaipovs, seasonable, here ad¬ 
 vantageous for attacking the Athenian 
 possessions, especially the Chersonese. 
 
 8. κατασ-ταίη and ετπχειροίη (ro) 
 continue the final clause with Iva (4).— 
 ιτολλών χρημάτων: from the rich Thra¬ 
 cian gold mines. Dissen refers to Diod. 
 xvi. 8, where it is said that Philip had a 
 revenue of a thousand talents (.£200,000) 
 from his mines at Crenides (Philippi). 
 
 10. Tots Xourois (cf. § 95 10 ), what 
 remained to be done. 
 
 § 28 . 2. λέγει — αναγιγνώσκει, re¬ 
 
 cites—has it read (by the clerk). \bye, 
 properly recite, repeat, is the term most 
 commonly used for read in addressing the 
 clerk. In § 305 we have \bye και άνά- 
 yv(j)0i λαβών, probably in the same sense 
 as the same verbs here. We find λέγε 
 λαβών, avayv<j)di λαβών, λαβέ, λαβε καί 
 λ^ε, φέρε καί λέyε, and 60 s used in the 
 same way. 
 
 3. ττροσάγειν tovs Ίτρεσβείξ (sc. ets 
 τψ εκκλησίαν) : these were the ambassa¬ 
 dors sent by Philip to negotiate the peace. 
 Foreign embassies first presented them¬ 
 selves to the Senate, which by a decree 
 provided for their introduction to the 
 Assembly: see Aesch. 11. 58, rais δε 
 ξενι,καΐς πρεσβείαιϊ η βονλη τα s εΙ$ τόν 
 δήμον προσόδους προβουλεύεί. See C. I. 
 Att. ιι. No. 5 1 > 12 —15: Tpoaayayeiv 
 δέ τούς πρέσβεις εις τόν δήμον εις την πρώ- 
 την εκκλησίαν, of an embassy from the 
 tyrant Dionysius (369—368 b.c.). Such a 
 προβούλευμα was proposed by Demosth. 
 
 in the Senate before the arrival of the 
 ambassadors, appointing a special meeting 
 of the Assembly to receive them on the 
 eighth of Elaphebolion: afterwards the 
 discussion of the peace was postponed 
 to the eighteenth and nineteenth. (See 
 Hermann, Staatsalt. § 85 s ; Headlam, 
 Election by Lot, 66—68.)— τουτό μου: 
 μου is possessive. West, quotes 6 v σύ 
 μου διέσυρες, § 299 s , and ταύτην διαβεβλή- 
 κασ'ι μου, LVII. 30; and Β 1 . πολλαΌμηρου 
 έπαινουντες, Plat. Rep. 383 Α · 
 
 5· θεαν.,.κελεΰσαι; (sc. έχρην) ought 
 I not to have ordered the architect (of the 
 theatre) to assign them seats (as I did)? 
 θέαν, place to see·, cf. έθεώρουν (7): this 
 would be the προεδρία (Aesch. III. 76). 
 The stone Dionysiac theatre was at this 
 time building under the direction of 
 Lycurgus; and the lessee was called 
 άρχιτέκτων, as an important part of his 
 duties was the superintendence of the 
 work of building. This name still re¬ 
 mained in use in much later times. See 
 C. I. Att. 11. No. 164 (probably about 
 325 B.C.), in which the άρχιτέκτων is 
 directed to provide seats for some public 
 guests. A much later inscription, No. 
 335, in honour of certain σιτώναι, pro¬ 
 vides είναι αυτούς προεδρίαν έμ πάσι τούς 
 άγώσι...και τόν αρχιτέκτονα τόν άεί καθι- 
 στάμενον κατανέμειν αυτούς την θέαν. 
 Other names of the lessee of the theatre 
 were θεατροπώλης and θεατρώνης. See 
 Boeckh, Staatsh. d. Athener 1. 278. See 
 Dorpfeld and Reisch, Griech. Theater, 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 29 
 
 νεΊμαι τον αρχιτέκτονα αυτούς κελεύσαι; άλλ’ εν τοιν δυοιν 
 οβολοΐν εθεώρουν αν, εί μη τοντ εγράφη'. τα μικρά συμ¬ 
 φέροντα της πόλεως έδει με φυλάττειν, τα δ’ δλα, ώσπερ 
 ουτοι, πεπρακέναι; ον δηπου. λέγε τοίννν μοι το φηφισμα 
 τοντί λαβών, ο σαφώς οντος είδώς παρέβη. 
 
 ίο 
 
 35 
 
 ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΤΞ. 
 
 29 
 
 [ΈπΙ άρχοντος Μ νησιφίΧου, έκατομβαιώνος έ'νη και νέα, 
 φυΧής πρυτανευούσης ΤΙανδιονίδος, Δημοσθένης Δημοσθένους 
 Τίαιανιεύς είπεν, επειδή ΦίΧιππος άποστείΧας πρέσβεις περί της 
 είρηνης ομοΧο^ουμένας πεποίηται συνθηκας, δεδόχθαι τη βουΧη 5 
 και τω δημω τω Αθηναίων, όπως αν η είρηνη έπιτεΧεσθη η επι- 
 χειροτονηθείσα εν τη πρώτη έκκΧησία, πρέσβεις έΧέσθαι εκ 
 πάντων Αθηναίων ηδη πέντε, τους δε χειροτονηθέντας άποδημεΐν 
 μηδεμίαν υπερβοΧην ποιονμένους, οπού άν οντα πυνθάνωνται τον 
 ΦίΧιππον, καί τούς όρκους Χάβειν τε παρ' αυτού καί δούναι την ίο 
 ταχίστην επί ταϊς ώμοΧογημέναις συνθηκαις αύτω προς τον 
 Αθηναίων δήμον , συμπεριΧαμβάνοντας καί τούς έκατέρων συμ- 
 
 7· μικρά L 2 , vulg., om. Σ 1 ; σμικρά Σ 2 (above line), L 1 , Α2. 8. μη (for με 
 
 Αι ; μέν Α2; om. V6. 9· πεπρακέναι Σ, L, Α2, Φ, Υ, Β; πεπρ. Φιλίππιρ Αι, 
 
 vulg -· 10. είδώς οδτοϊ Αι ; α’δώϊ Σ 2 (partly erased), om. Σ 1 . Xeye (after 
 
 παρέβη.) vulg. 
 
 \ 
 
 36—40, where the building of the theatre 
 is assigned to about 350—325 B.c. It 
 appears that a part of the stone seats were 
 in place in 340. Aeschines (61, 76) 
 makes this official politeness of Demo¬ 
 sthenes one ground of his grotesque charge 
 of flattering Philip! To this Demosth. 
 alludes in § 294 s , 6s yap έμοί Φιλιππισμδν, 
 κ.τ.λ. Aesch., however, mentions only 
 the introduction to the theatre. 
 
 6. 4 v τοΐν δυοΐν οβολοΐν, in the two- 
 obol seats , the three-penny seats of the 
 ordinary citizens. The διωβελία, which 
 was then given from the theoric fund as 
 festival money to every citizen who asked 
 for it, paid the entrance fee to the theatre. 
 It is implied that the distinguished 
 strangers could have been admitted, like 
 other people, to the common seats by 
 merely paying their two obols. With ev 
 τοΐν δυοίίν οβολοΐν cf. ev rots Ιχθνσιν, Ar. 
 
 Vesp. 789 (see Ran. 1068), in the fish- 
 market, ev τιρ μνριρ, Eq. 1375. 
 
 7. τά μικρά οπυμφί'ροντα: it is jo¬ 
 cosely assumed that Aesch. objected to 
 the higher price which the state probably 
 paid to the lessee for the front seats, or 
 perhaps to the state paying at all for the 
 seats of the ambassadors. 
 
 8, 9. Ttjs -rroXicos : cf. τη πόλει , §§ 30 1 , 
 and 226".— φυλάττίΐν, τΓ€ 7 τρακ€ναι: the 
 change of tense may perhaps be seen in 
 a paraphrase; was it my duty to watch 
 the petty interests of the state , after I had 
 sold her highest interests like these men 1 
 With ολα, whole, entire , cf. των όλων τι, 
 § 278 7 . 
 
 § 29 . This decree is a good specimen 
 of ignorant forgery. The Archon’s name 
 and the date are both wrong; it is called 
 a decree of the Senate and the People, 
 when it was passed by the Senate alone; 
 
 
30 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 ΐ5 
 
 30 
 
 ίο 
 
 31 
 
 μάχους. πρέσβεις ηρεθησαν ΕνβονΧος Α ναφΧυστιος, Αισχίνης 
 Κοθωκίδης, Κ ηφισοφών 'Εαμνοΰσιος, Δημοκράτης ΦΧυευς, ΕΧεων 
 Εοθωκίδης.] 
 
 Ύαντα γράφαντος εμον τότε καί το τη πόλει συμφέρον 
 ον το Φιλιππω ζητονντος, βραχύ φροντίσαντες οί χρηστοί 
 πρέσβεις οντοι καθηντ εν Μακεδονία τρεις δλονς μήνας, εως 
 ήλθε Φίλιππος εκ Θράκης πάντα καταστρεφάμενος, εξόν 
 ήμερων δέκα, ομοίως δε τριών η τεττάρων, εις τον Ελλήσπον¬ 
 τον άφΐχθαι καί τα χωρία σωσαι, λαβόντας τους δρκονς 
 πρίν εκείνον έξελείν αυτά · ον yap αν ηφατ αντων παρόντων 
 ημών, η ονκ αν ωρκίζομεν αντον, ώστε της είρηνης αν 
 διημαρτηκει και ονκ αν άμφότερ ’ άιχε, καί την ειρηνην 23 
 καί τα χωρία. 
 
 Το μεν τοίννν εν τη πρεσβεία πρώτον κλέμμα μεν 
 Φίλιππον δωροδόκημα δε των άδικων τούτων ανθρώπων 
 
 § 30 . I. τό της πόλεως Ο. 2. ού το Φιλίππιρ Σ, L, Β, F ; ού τό του Φιλίππου 
 
 Αΐ ; ού τφ Φιλίππιρ vulg. 4· καταστρεφάμενος Σ ; καταστρ. τάκεΐ vulg. ; τα 
 
 έκεΐ καταστρ. Σ 2 , L, Αι. 2. 5 * ομοίως Σ, L 1 , Αι. 2 ; μάλλον Σ (yp, late), L 2 . 
 
 ~ 7 · έζέλεΐν αύτόν V6. 8. ύμων Σ ; ημών vulg.; L has both. ωρκιζωμεν (2nd ω 
 
 corr. from ο) Σ. 
 
 § 31 . 2 . ανθρώπων Σ, L 1 , Αι.2 ; [ άνθρώπων ] Β 1 . ανθρώπων καί θεοΐς 
 
 εχθρών vulg. ; om. Hermog. 
 
 it provides for the appointment of five 
 envoys when there were ten, and these 
 had been appointed long before; it pro¬ 
 vides for the oaths to be taken by Athens 
 and her allies, when these had already 
 been taken; and most of the five names 
 of the envoys are wrong. 
 
 § 30 . τό τη iroXei συμφέρον: cf. 28 7 , 
 where τα συμφέροντα is a pure substan¬ 
 tive. 
 
 3. Tptis oXovs μήναδ: “sat still in 
 Macedonia three whole months” is of 
 course a rhetorical exaggeration, which is 
 corrected by Demosth. himself. In xix. 
 57 he says άπεδημησαμεν τρεις μήνας 
 δλους (cf. 158), somewhat less incorrectly; 
 but in 58—60 he gives the exact dates, 
 by which we see that the embassy was 
 absent from Athens only about ten weeks. 
 See Hist. §§ 40, 43. 
 
 4. ττάντα καταστρεψάμενοδ : see § 27. 
 
 — εξόν...άφΐχθαι...σώσαι: έξόν represents 
 έξην, and άφΐχθαι is a proper perfect (M. 
 T. 109); lit. it was in our power to have 
 (already) arrived and to save the towns , 
 i.e. we might have done both of these. 
 
 5. όμοίωδ, qtiite as well (as in ten 
 days): the common reading μάλλον would 
 mean rather. 
 
 7. παρόντων = εί παρημεν, if we had 
 been there. For the various past tenses 
 with av, all of which are in 7—9, see 
 Μ. T. 413: thus της είρ. άν διημαρτηκει 
 is he would have failed to secure the peace 
 (which he had already secured by our 
 absence), and ούκ άν άμφότερ ’ είχε is he 
 would not have had both (as he did 
 have). 
 
 § 31 . 1. κλε'μμα μέν : cf. μη κλέπτε 
 
 νόιρ, II. ι. 132. The position of μέν 
 shows that the seven words before κλέμμα 
 belong to both κλέμμα and δωροδόκημα. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 3ΐ 
 
 τοιοντον iyevero · νπβρ ον καί τότε καί νυν καί αεί ομολογώ 
 καί πόλεμεΐν και διαφερεσθαι τοντοις. ετερον δ’ ευθυς 
 έφΐξης ετι τούτον μεΐζον κακούργημα θεάσασθε. επειδή 3 
 γόιρ ώμολόγησε την είρηνην 6 Φίλιππος προλαβών την 
 Θράκην διά τουτονς ονγί πεισθεντας τω εμω φηφίσματι, 
 πάλιν ώνεΐται παρ' αυτών όπως μη άπιμεν εκ Μακεδονίας 
 εως τα της στρατείας της επί τους Φωκεας εύτρεπη ποιη- 5 
 σαιτο, ΐνα μη, δενρ ’ άπαγγειλάντων ημών ότι μελλει καί 
 παρασκευάζεται πορευεσθαι, εζελθοιτε υμείς καί περιπλευ- 
 εταντες ταίς τριηρεσιν εις Πάλα? ώσπερ πρότερον κλείσαιτε 
 τον τόπον, άλλ’ άμ άκουοιτε ταυτ άπαγγελλόντων ημών 
 κάκεΐνος εντός είη Μυλών καί μηδέν εγοιθ * υμείς ποιησαι. ι 
 
 καί (bef. πολεμεΐν) Σ, L 1 , Α2; om. vulg. τουτοισί Αι. 5 · θεάσασθε 
 
 before μεΐζον L. 
 
 § 32. 2. ώμολόγησε Σ, L, Β, vrtlg. ; ώμοσε L (mg.), Αι, B.(yp). 6 om. 
 
 Αι. έξειν (after Φί\.) L-, Β, vulg.; om. Σ, L, Αι. ί. προσλαβών Υ, V6, (Αι?). 
 3· τούτον* τούς Αι. 4· α-πιμεν Bk. Anec. ρ. 129 4 , Cob., Vom., West., Lips., Bl. ; 
 άπίωμεν Σ, L, Αι; άπίωμεν (ot over ιω, i.e. άποιμεν for άπιμεν , Vom.) Β; άπίωμεν 
 (σιν over μεν) F ; άπίωσιν vulg. 5. εως Σ, L, A2 ; εως dv L (7 p), vulg. στρα¬ 
 τιάς L (7 ρ), Αι. άτρεπη A2. 6. ημών Σ, L, Al, B (7 p), F (yp), Φ (yp); 
 
 αυτών L (7 ρ), B, vulg. 7. έξέλθητε (w. κλείσητε, άκούητε, έχητε, 8, g, 10), V6. 
 
 8. κλείσαιτε Σ, L; κλείσητε L (7 ρ), Αι. 2 ; κλείσετε Φ, Β (αι over 1st ε) ; κλείσοιτε 
 vulg. 9· τόπον Σ, L, Αι. 2, Β (yp), F (7 ρ), Φ (yp) ; πορθμόν L (yp), Β, vulg. 
 
 ημών, Σ, L, Αι ; υμών (η over ύ) V6; ύμΐν τούτων L 2 (yp), Β, vulg. 
 
 4. ΊΓθ\€[ΐ€ίν καί διαφί'ρεσ-θαι: these 
 represent (in or. obi.) the past, the present, 
 and the emphatic future indicated by τότε, 
 νυν, and αεί (Μ. T. 32, 119)- 
 
 § 32 . 3 · διά τοΰτουδ ούχΐ ττεκτθίντας 
 (without τούς) is, because of their disobedi¬ 
 ence, like μετά Συρακούσας οίκισθείσας, 
 Thuc. vi. 3» and post urbem conditam. 
 This is rare in Greek, where we should 
 expect Sid TO μη πεισθηναι (Μ. T. 82 9 b ) · 
 See § 42 6 , with των...μισθωσάντων. 
 
 4· ών€ΐται...δτΓωδ μή άττιμίν, he bribes 
 the?n (to effect) that we shall not depart 
 (Μ. T. 339): άπιμεν (as fut., Μ. T. 29) 
 is more regular after ώνεΐται than άπί¬ 
 ωμεν, and has commended itself to nearly 
 all recent editors, though it rests only on 
 a grammarian’s authority. It is difficult 
 to decide between the two readings. We 
 
 might have had άπίοιμεν, corresponding 
 to ποιήσαιτο (5). 
 
 5· £ω$...'ΐτοιήσ-αιτο, after the historic 
 present ώνεΐται. The clause with 'έως has 
 a final force (Μ. T. 614), the idea being 
 that he bribed them to wait long enough 
 for him to get his army ready. 
 
 6 . ίνα μιρ-.-π-οιήσ-αι (ίο): the purpose 
 of ώνεΐται. 
 
 7· ei;€\0oiT€ refers only to the land 
 force.—7r€piTrX€v(ravT€s ώσπερ πρότερον 
 refers to the famous expedition in 352 B.C., 
 when Athens stopped Philip at Thermo¬ 
 pylae. See iv. 17; xix. 84, 319; Grote 
 XI. 403—405; and Hist. § 7. 
 
 8. κλ.€£<ταιτ€ τον τόπον, i.e. make 
 Thermopylae impassable. 
 
 9. απαγγελλόντων : present to άκούοιτε, 
 as άπayyειλάvτωv in 6 is past to έξέλθοιτε. 
 
32 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 33 οντω δ’ ην 6 Φίλιππος εν φόβω καί πολλή αγωνία, μη καί 
 ταντα προειληφότος αυτόν, εί προ τον τονς Φωκέας άπο- 
 λέσθαι φηφισαισθε βοηθέ ιν, έκφνγοι τα π pay ματ αντον, 
 ώστε μισθονται τον κατάπτνστον τοντονί, ονκέτι κοινή μετά 
 
 5 των άλλων πρέσβεων, άλλ' ίδια καθ' αντον, τοιαντα προς 
 
 34 νμάς είπεΐν καί άπαγγεϊλαι δι ών άπαντ άπωλετο. άξιω 
 δέ, ώ άνδρες * Αθηναίοι, καί δέομαι τοντο μεμνησθαι παρ' 
 δλον τον αγώνα, δτι μη κατηγορησαντος Αίσγίνον μηδέν 
 έξω της γραφής ονδ * αν εγω λόγον ονδέν εποιονμην έτερον 237 
 
 5 πάσαις δ’ αιτίαις καί βλασφημίαις άμα τοντον κεγ^ρημένον 
 ανάγκη κάμοί προς έκαστα των κατηγορημένων μίκρ * άπο- 
 
 35 κρίνασθαι. τίνες ονν ήσαν οί παρά τοντον λόγοι τότε 
 ρηνεντες, και οι ονς απαντ άπωλετο; ως ον οει σορνρεισσαι 
 
 § 33 . ι. καί πολλή αγωνία Σ, L, Α2, F (mg.), Φ (mg.), vulg. ; om. Αι, Β, F, 
 Φ, Υ. 2. el προ του Σ (νν. έκφύ·γοι in 3)» Pal. 2 ; προ του (νν. καί έκφυλοι, in 3) L, 
 
 vulg. άπολεσθαι Σ, L, Αι; άπολ. άκούσαντες L 2 , vulg. 3· φηφισαισθε 
 
 vulg.; φηφίσησθε Σ, Αι. 2, Φ; φηφίσεσθε Ven. βοηθέ ΐν Β, F, Υ, Φ ; τοΐς Φωκεΰ- 
 
 σιν βοηθείν Σ, L ; βοηθεΐν αύτοϊς vulg. έκφύ^γοι (w. ει in 2) Σ ; καί έκφύΎΟί L, vulg. 
 4. ώστε πάλιν vulg. ; πάλιν οηι. Σ, L 1 , Β 1 . 5 · ΐδίςι καί καθ' εαυτόν V6. 
 
 § 34 . ι, 2. άξιώ δε υμάς Αι ; άμα? om. Σ, L, Α2 ; μεμνησθαι υμάς vulg. 
 3. αγώνα (y chg’d from t, late 00 after ay, and ωνα in next, line) Σ. 4. έποιούμην 
 ούδένα V6. 5. πάσαις Σ, L 1 ; άπάσαις vulg. τ’ αυτού Σ 1 (τούτου mg.) ; τ' 
 
 άυτ' (ον above) L 1 (yp τούτου) ; ταύτου Α2. 6. κάμε L (yp), Al. κaτηyopη· 
 
 μενών vulg.; κaτηyopoυμέvωv (η over ου) L; κaτηyop'Sμέvωv (8 corr. for?) Σ; είρη- 
 μένων Σ (yp), F (mg.), Φ (mg.). άκοκρίνασθαι Σ, L, Αι ; άποκρίνεσθαι Β, vulg. ; 
 
 άπoλoyεΐσθaι Σ (yp) ; άπολογησασθαι F (yp), Φ (yp) ; άπολούσασθαι (γή over υ) L (yp). 
 
 § 35 . 2. καί om. Lips. 
 
 § 33 . ι. οϋτω: antecedent of ώστε 
 (4).— αγωνία, conflict (of mind): Vomel 
 refers Hesych. εν αγωνία, εν μερίμνη, 
 to this passage. 
 
 2. el ττρό του : the older editions 
 with nearly all MSS. omit et and read 
 καί έκφύyoι in 3, making φηφίσαισθε de¬ 
 pend on μη . — προ τοΰ...άττολε'σ-θαι, i.e. 
 before he could have time to lay Phocis 
 waste: cf. xix. 123. 
 
 4. ώσ-τε μισθοΰται : a clear case of 
 ώστε requiring the indicative (Μ. T. 582, 
 583).— ούκε'τι κοινή: Aeschines alone 
 was indicted for παραπρεσβεία. See § 41 2 . 
 
 6. St’ ών here and δι' oi>? in § 35 s 
 approach each other very closely, both 
 referring to the same thing: “beides 
 
 gleich sinngemass” (Bl.). For άπωλετο 
 see vi. 35 (end). 
 
 § 34 . 1, 2. άξιώ, I ask of you (as 
 
 something άξιον) ; δέομαι, I entreat. See 
 § 6 1 , and note on § 4 e . 
 
 4. 2 ξω Ttjs γραφτή: he has already 
 (§ 9) justified the discussion of the peace; 
 and he repeats his apology now, as West, 
 remarks, merely to call special attention 
 to what follows.— ε-ττοιούμην dv refers to 
 his present argument (cf. § 9 2 ).— 'ετερον, 
 like άλλότριον : cf. έτερος λόγο? ουτος, § 44®. 
 
 § 35 . ι. οι...ρηθε'ντε5: see the fuller 
 account of this speech in xix. 20—22. 
 Aeschines said that the Thebans had set 
 a price on his head for his anti-Theban 
 advice to Philip. See Hist. § 44. 
 
 
 
 I t 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 33 
 
 τω παρεληλυθεναί Φίλιππον εΐσω Πυλωρ* εσταί yap άπανθ ’ 
 ο<χα ρουλεσσ υμείς, αν εχησ ησυχίαν, καί ακουσεσοε όνοίν 
 η τριών ήμερων, οΐς μεν εχθρός ηκεί, φίλον αυτόν γεγενη- 5 
 μενον, οίς 8ε φίλος, τουναντίον εχθρόν, ου yap τα ρήματα 
 τας οικειότητας εφη βεβαίουν, μάλα σεμνως όνομάζων, άλλα 
 το ταύτά συμφερείν συμφερείν 8ε Φίλίππω καί Φωκευσί 
 καί υμΐν ομοίως άπασί της αναλγησίας καί της βαρυτητος 
 άπαλλαγηναί της των Θηβαίων, ταΰτα δ’ ασμένως τίνες 36 
 ηκουον αυτοί) διά την τόθ ’ ύπουσαν άπεχθείαν προς τους 
 Θηβαίους, τι ουν συνέβη μετά ταυτ εύθυς, ουκ εις μακράν; 
 
 4· αν Σ, L ; έάν vulg. eav άχητε Αΐ·. 5 · αυτόν om. Υ6. 6. έχθρόν 
 
 Σ, L, Αΐ. 2, F, Φ, Ο ; αύτόν εχθρόν vulg. 8. συμφέρει δε Σ ; συμφέρει, δε L, vulg. 
 
 § 36 . 2. τόθ ’ ύπάρχουσαν Αι. 3 · μετά τοΰτ ’ Υ. 
 
 3· τω τταρεληλυθεναι: he begged the 
 people not to be disturbed by news that 
 Ph. had already passed Thermopylae. 
 
 4. δυοϊν ή τριών ήμερων: so XIX. 
 
 / 4 ' 
 
 5. 6. ols μέν, the Phocians; cds δε, 
 the Thebans. 
 
 6. ρήματα: e.g. the Thebans’ title of 
 allies of Philip (cf. § 213 2 ). 
 
 7. μάλα σ-εμνά^ όνομάζων, using very 
 solemn expressions. He often jokes about 
 the σεμνότη s of Aesch. Bl. quotes §§ 130, 
 133, 25S, and XIX. 23, κατέβη μάλα 
 σεμνώϊ. 
 
 8. συμφε'ρειν' αυμφε'ρειν: a striking 
 αναστροφή. 
 
 9· άναλγησ -ias, ivant of feeling , ex¬ 
 plained by the Schol. as άναισθησία$. 
 There can be little doubt that this word, 
 like αναίσθητοι in § 43 1 , refers to the 
 dulness and lack of keen perception for 
 which the Thebans were proverbial. See 
 West, on xx. 109, and his references: 
 Nep. Epam. 5, 2, namque illi genti plus 
 virium quam ingenii, and Alcib. 11, 3, 
 oranes enim Boeotii magis firmitati cor¬ 
 poris quam ingenii acumini inserviunt; 
 Cic. de Fato iv. 7, Athenis tenue caelum, 
 ex quo acutiores putantur Attici; cras- 
 sum Thebis, itaque pingues Thebani et 
 valentes; Hor. Epist. 11. 1, 244, Boeo- 
 tum in crasso aere natum. This dulness, 
 and the consequent illiteracy of Thebes 
 
 compared with Athens, gave rise to the 
 proverb Βοιωτίαν vv, Bind. 01 . VI. 90 : 
 see the Schol., τό άρχαίον όνειδος , τουτ- 
 έστι την τταλαιάν διαβολην την έττι τη 
 άμουσία. The άναλχησία and άναισθησί a 
 of the Thebans were said to make them 
 also unfeeling towards enemies, and this 
 appears in the terms ώμότης and πονηριά 
 which Demosth. applied to them in 
 355 B.C. (XX. 109). Cf. άναλγήτως, Soph. 
 Aj. 1333. Now he prefers the milder 
 terms βαρύτης , overbearingness (see § 19 6 ) 
 and άναλχησία. Aristotle, Eth. ill. 7, 7 > 
 says of a man lacking in φόβος, εϊη δ’ άν 
 τις μαινόμενος η άνάλχητος, εί μηδέν 
 φοβοΐτο, μήτε σεισμόν μήτε κύματα, 
 and in ill. n, 7, of those insensible to 
 pleasure, ελλείποντες δε τα περί τάς 
 ήδονάς καί ηττον η δει χαίροντες ού πάνυ 
 χίνονται' ού χάρ άνθρωπικη έστιν η τοιαύτη 
 άναισθησία. Aristotle here means stu¬ 
 pidity and slowness, not moral obliquity, 
 by both άνάλχητος and αναίσθητος. 
 
 § 36 . 2. την τόθ’ ίιττοΐσαν (cf. ί;7Γ- 
 
 § 315 2 ) : a way of speaking of 
 the enmity against Thebes in 346 B.C. 
 See notes on §§ 18, 19. 
 
 3. ούκ εί$ μακράν (sc. οδόν), not much 
 later, not a long way off, i.e. from Sciro- 
 phorion 16 to 27 : εις of looking forward 
 to an end, as in § 151 7 , εις πυλαίαν. So 
 Ar. Vesp. 454. 
 
 G. D. 
 
 3 
 
34 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 τούς μέν Φωκέας άπολέσθαι καί κατασκαφήναι τάς πόλεις 
 5 αυτών, υμάς δ’ ησυχίαν άγαγόντας και τούτω πεισθέντας 
 μικρόν ύστερον σκευαγωγείν εκ των αγρών, τούτον δε 
 χρυσίον λαβεΐν, και ετι προς τούτοις την μεν απείθειαν την 
 προς Θηβαίους καί Θετταλούς τη πόλει γενέσθαι, την δε 
 37 χάριν την υπέρ των πεπραγμένων Φιλίππω. ότι δ’ ούτω 
 ταύτ έχει, λέγε μοι τό τε τού Κα λλισθένονς ψήφισμα και 
 την επιστολήν τού Φιλίππου, ε£ ών άμφοτερων ταύθ απανθ 
 ύμίν έσται φανερά, λέγε. 
 
 5 ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ. 
 
 [ΈπΙ Μ νησιφίΧου άρχοντος , συγκΧήτου έκκΧησίας υπό στρα¬ 
 τηγών καί πρύτανεων, [/cat] βουΧής γνώμη, μαιμακτηριώνος δέκατη 
 άιπόντος, Κ αΧΧισθενης Έτεονίκου ΦαΧηρεύς είπε μηδένα 'Αθη¬ 
 ναίων μηδεμια παρενρέσει εν τή χώρα κοιταΐον γίγνεσθαι, άΧΧ ’ 
 ίο εν άστει και Τίειραιεϊ, οσοι μη εν τοΐς φρουρίοις είσ'ιν άποτεταγ- 
 μένοι’ τούτων δ’ έκαστους ήν παρεΧαβον τάξιν διατηρεϊν μήτε 
 38 έιφημερεύοντας μήτε άποκοιτούντας. ός δ’ αν άπειθήση τωδε 
 τώ ήτηφίσματι, ένοχος έστω τοΐς τής προδοσίας έπιτιμίοις, εάν 
 μή τι αδύνατον έπιδεικνύη περί εαυτόν ον περί δε τον αδυνάτου 
 επικρινέτω ό επί των οπΧων στρατηγός καί ο επί τής διοικ7]σεως 
 5 καί 6 γραμματεύς τής βουΧής. κατακομίζειν δε καί τα εκ των 
 αγρών πάντα την ταχίστην, τα μεν εντός σταδίων εκατόν εϊκοσιν 
 εις άστυ καί ΤΙειραιά, τα δε εκτός σταδίων εκατόν εϊκοσιν εις 
 ’ΈίΧευσΐνα καί ΦυΧήν καί ’Άφιδναν καί 'Ραμνούντα καί Έ,οννιον.] 
 
 4· Φω /f^as Σ ; ταλαίπωρους Φ ωκ. L, vulg. 5* ayayovras Σ, L ; ayovras vulg. 
 8 . προς τούς θηβ. Β, Φ, Υ, Ο. yeyevrjaOai Αι. g. υπό Ο 1 . των πρατμά- 
 των Α 2 . 
 
 § 37. 3 · T V τ °ν Φιλ. vulg. ; την ora. Σ, L, Ο, Α2. 3 » 4· ταυθ’...έσται Σ, 
 
 L ; απ. ταΰτα έσται ύμΐν Αι ; άπ. ύμ. ταύτ' ’έσται As; ύμ. άπ. ταύτ' έσται Β, vulg. 
 
 4. tovs μέν...εκ των αγρών (6): eleven 
 days after the report of the second embassy 
 to the Assembly, the alarming news of 
 the surrender of the Phocians at Thermo¬ 
 pylae arrived. See Hist. § 47. 
 
 6. σκευαγωγείν : as ordered by the 
 decree of Callisthenes (§ 37). 
 
 7. χρυσίον λαβεΐν : in malicious con¬ 
 
 trast to σκeυayωyeΐv. — την μέν άττε'χθειαν 
 ...Φιλίππω: i.e. Athens by her vacillat¬ 
 ing course got nothing but the ill will of 
 Philip’s Greek friends, who believed that 
 she would have protected the Phocians if 
 she had dared to; while Philip had all 
 the credit for ending the Sacred War and 
 punishing the sacrilegious Phocians. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 35 
 
 i Ap i επί ταύταις ταΐς ελπίσι την ειρηνην εποιεΐσθε, 
 η ταντ επηγγεΧΧεσ υμιν ουτος ο μισυωτος; ίο 
 
 Λ εγε 8η την επιστολήν ην επεμφε Φίλιππος μετά ταυτα. 39 
 
 ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ. 
 
 [Βασιλεύς· Μακεδόνων ΦίΧιππος ’Αθηναίων τη βουΧη και τω 
 δήμιο χαίρειν. ΐστε ημάς παρεΧηΧυθότας εΐσω Πυλώζ' και τα 
 κατά την Φωκίδα ύφ' εαυτούς πειτοιημενους, και όσα μεν εκουσίως 5 
 39 7 τροσετίθετο των ποΧισμάτων, φρουράς εισα^ηοχότας, τα δε μη 
 ύπακοΰοντα κατα κράτος Χαβόντες καί εζανδραποδισάμενοι κατε- 
 σκά-φαμεν. άκοΰων δε καί υμάς παρασκευάζεσθαι βοηθειν αύτοΐς 
 ηεηραφα ύμΐν, ινα μη επί πΧεον ενογΧησθε περί τούτων τοΐς μεν 
 <yap οΧοις ούδεν μετριόν μοι δοκεΐτε ποιεΐν, την ειρηνην συνθεμενοι ισ 
 καί ομοίως άντιπαρεξά^οντες, καί ταύτα ουδέ συμπεριειΧημμενων 
 των Φωκεων εν ταΐς κοιναΐς ημών συνθηκαις. ώστε εάν μη εμ~ 
 μενητε τοΐς ώμοΧοηημενοις, ουδεν προτερησετε εξω τού εφθακεναι 
 άδικούντεςύ] 
 
 * Ακούετε ώς σαφώς δηλοΐ καί διορίζεται εν τη προς 40 
 υμάς επιστολή προς τούς εαυτού συμμάχους, οτι εγώ πε- 
 πο ίη κ a ταύτ* ά κοντών * Αθηναίων καί λυπου μενών, 
 ώστ\ εΐπερ ευ φρονείτε, ώ Θηβαίοι καί Θετταλοί, τού- 
 
 § 38 . 9 · T V V ειρήνην εποιεΐσθε Σ, L 1 , Α2, Β, F, Ο (ή for εΐ) ; τ. dp. έποιήσασθε 
 
 L 2 {yp), A ι ; έποιεΐσθε τ. είρ. vulg. 
 
 § 39 . ι. δή την Σ, L, A 2 , B, F, Φ ; δ’ αυτήν V6 ; δ’ αυτήν την Αΐ ; δ’ αυ την vulg. 
 Ζπεμψε Σ, L 1 , Αϊ ; δευρ' Ζπεμψε vulg. 
 
 § 40 . 2. ΰμας (ή over ύ) L; ηϋμας V6. 2, 3· έ'/ώ πεποίηκα ταΰτα Σ 1 , L; 
 
 eyu> ταυτα πεποί. Σ 2 ; ταυτα eyCj πεπ. vulg. ; πεποίηκα ακοντων Oxyrh. papyrus begins. 
 
 § 38 . ίο. ταΰτ’ ΙττηγγΑλίθ’; i.e. 
 
 how does the decree just read to you 
 agree with the report of Aeschines 
 
 (fas)? 
 
 § 39 . This letter has few of the marks 
 by which its genuineness can be abso¬ 
 lutely denied or established. It must be 
 remembered that there is (since Bentley) 
 a general presumption against the genuine¬ 
 ness of ancient epistles; and this is in 
 very bad company. The genuine letter, 
 it would seem, should have more definite 
 allusions to the dissatisfaction of Athens 
 
 with what Philip had done for the Thebans 
 and Thessalians, to justify what is said of 
 it in § 40. Grote remarks that Demosth. 
 would have spoken much more severely 
 of a letter so insolent as this one. Still 
 Westermann says: “ es ist moglich dass 
 es echt ist.” It is safest to class it with 
 the other documents as a forgery. 
 
 § 40 . 2. irpos συμμάχου, with δη¬ 
 
 λοΐ καί διορίζεται. The letter, though 
 addressed to the Athenians, was really 
 written for Philip’s allies.— οτι before 
 the direct quotation (M.T. 711). 
 
 3—2 
 
36 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 5 τους μεν εχθρούς ύποληφεσθε εμοί δε πι στεύσετε ,— 
 ον τούτοις τοίς ρημασι γράφας, ταντα δε βουλόμενος δεικνύ- 
 vcu. τοιγαρούν εκ τούτων ωχετ εκείνους λαβών εις το μηδ ’ 
 δτιούν προοράν των μετά ταντα μηδ ’ αισθάνεσθαι, άλλ’ 
 ι εάσαι πάντα τα πράγματα εκείνον ύφ' εαντω ποιησασθαι * 
 ίο ών ταίς παρούσαις συμφοραίς οί ταλαίπωρου κέχρηνται. 
 
 41 δ δε ταύτης της πίστεως αντω σννεργδς καί συναγωνιστής, 
 καί δ δενρ ’ άπαγγείλας τα ψευδή καί φενακίσας υμάς, ουτός 
 εστιν δ τα Θηβαίων δδυρόμενος νυν πάθη καί διεζιών ως 
 οίκτρά, καί τούτων καί των εν Φωκεύσι κακών καί δσ άλλα 
 5 πεπόνθασιν οί ''Βλληνες απάντων αύτδς ών αίτιος. δηλον 
 γάρ δτι σύ μεν άλγείς επί τοίς συμβεβηκόσιν, Αισχίνη, 
 καί τούς Θηβαίους ελεείς, κτημ * εχων εν τη Βοιωτία καί 
 γεωργών τα εκείνων, εγώ δε χαίρω, δς ευθύς εζητούμην 
 ύπδ τού ταύτα πράζαντος. 
 
 5· υττολήμψεσθεΣ. 7 · es Oxyrh. 8. ττροοραν after ταντα Αι. ίο. ταλαί¬ 
 
 πωροι Σ; ταλαί. Θηβαίοι L, Β, vulg. ; ταλ. κέχρ. θηβ. Αι ; κεχρ. οι ταλαι. Θηβαίοι 
 Oxyrh. 
 
 § 41 . 2 , 3· οΰτός εστιν L, vulg.; όυτεστι (os over re) Σ. 3 · ν ^ ν δδυρόμενος 
 
 Αι ; νυν om. V 6 . 4· KaL (bef. τούτων ) om. Α2. 7· κτημ έχων Σ ; κτήματ 
 
 έχων L, vulg. 8. εξητούμην Σ. 
 
 7· ωχ €τ> «Keivovs λαβών, he carried 
 them (his allies) away (M.T. 895); the 
 figure is continued in είς τό with the 
 infinitives. 
 
 10. οί ταλαίπωροι: Θηβαίοι is added 
 in all mss. except Σ. Of course the 
 destruction of Thebes by Alexander is 
 chiefly meant, and this suggests the di¬ 
 gression in § 41 ; but the condition of 
 Thessaly after the peace, which had been 
 in Philip’s power since 352 b.c., may well 
 be included. See IX. 26 : θετταλία ττώς 
 έχει; ούχί τας πολιτείας καί τας πόλεις 
 αυτών παρήρηται καί τετραρχίας κατέ- 
 στησεν, ΐνα μη μόνον κατά πόλεις άλλα 
 καί κατ ’έθνη δουλεύωσιν ; See also VII. 
 32 ; χιχ. 260. 
 
 § 41 . ι. ό ST.-crwepyos, i.e. he who 
 helped him thus to persuade his allies : 
 with πίστεως cf. πιστεύσετε, § 40 5 . 
 
 2. άτταγγείλαδ τα \|/€υδή : see § 35· 
 In XIX. 4, Demosth. puts ών άπή^^ειλε, 
 
 his report , first among the things for, 
 which an ambassador should render an 
 account. 
 
 3. oSupopevos: see the solemn and 
 eloquent invocation of Aesch. in III. 133, 
 θήβαι δε, θήβαι, πόλις άστυγείτων, κ.τ.λ., 
 
 with 156, 157- 
 
 7. κτημ.’ £χων: Aesch. is charged 
 with holding a confiscated Theban estate 
 (κτήμα, so Σ alone) by the gift of Alex¬ 
 ander; as in xix. 145 Philocrates and 
 Aeschines are charged with having κτή¬ 
 ματα καί ‘χεωρ^ίαι παμπληθείς in Phocis 
 by gift of Philip. We have no inde¬ 
 pendent evidence on either of these 
 charges. 
 
 8. ίξητοΰρ,ην : Demosth. was among 
 the eight or ten Attic orators who were 
 demanded by Alexander after his destruc¬ 
 tion of Thebes in 335 B.C.; Aeschines 
 was not. See Grote xn. 59—62. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 37 
 
 ’Αλλά γάρ εμπεπτωκα εις λόγους, ούς αύτίκα μάλλον 42 
 Ισως αρμόσει λεγειν. επάνειμι 8η πάλιν επί τάς αποδείξεις 
 ώς τα τούτων άόικηματα των vvvl παρόντων πραγμάτων 
 γεγονεν αίτια. 
 
 Επειδή γάρ εζηπάτησθε μεν υμείς υπό τοΐ) Φιλίππου ζ 
 διά τούτων των εν ταϊς πρεσβείαις μισθωσάντων εαυτούς 
 και ού8εν αληθές ύμίν άπαγγειλάντων, εζηπάτηντο δε οί 
 ταλαίπωροι Φωκεΐς και άνηρηντο αί πόλεις αυτών, τι εγενετο; 
 οί μεν κατάπτυστοι Θετταλοί καί αναίσθητοι Θηβαίοι φίλον, 43 
 εύεργετην, σωτηρα τον Φίλιπποί ηγούντο · πάντ εκείνος 
 ην αυτοΐς' ουδέ φωνήν ηκουον εί τις άλλο τι βουλοιτο 
 λεγειν. υμείς δ* ύφορωμενοι τα πεπραγμένα καί δυ<χχε- 
 ραίνοντες ηγετε την είρηνην όμως · ου γάρ ην ό τι αν 5 
 εποιεΐτε. καί οί άλλοι δ’ 'Ελληνες, ομοίως ύμίν πεφενα- 
 κισμενοι καί 8ιημαρτηκότες ών ηλπισαν, ήγον την είρηνην 
 
 § 42 . ι. αύτίκα μάλα Αι, Hermog. (\ν. ύστερον for ίσως). 2. ίσως αρμόσει 
 
 λεγειν Σ, L, A 2 , Β, Ο ; αρμόσει λεγειν ΐσως vulg. ; Ϊσως om. V6 and Oxyrh. δέ (for 
 δη) V6, Oxyrh. (by corr.). ν[υν 7ra]\tv (?) Oxyrh. εΐ? (for επί) V6. 3. αδικήματα 
 
 Σ, L 1 , Oxyrh.; άδικ. καί δωροδοκήματα Σ (γρ), Αι; δωροδ. καί άδικ. L 2 , Β, vulg. 
 4. αιτία Αι. 6. εαυτοί)? Αι ; εαυτούς τφ Φίλί7Γ7τω Σ, L, vulg., εαυτους [εκει]νω 
 
 Oxyrh. Perhaps τιρ Φιλίππω here, omitting υπό τού Φιλ. in 5» > s correct. 
 8 · ταλαίπωροι om. V6. τί καί εγενετο; Αί. εγενετο over γεγονεν V6. 
 
 § 43 . 2. Φίλιππον Oxyrh. 3· °*)δ£ Σ, Αι. ί; καί ούδέ L (corr.), vulg. 
 
 ή τις A ι. 6. εποιεΐτε Σ, Αι, Oxyrh.; εποιεΐτε μόνοι L, Β, vulg.; έποιήτε μόνοι Ο. 
 
 §§ 42 — 49 . After the digression in 
 § 41, the orator here speaks of the 
 disastrous consequences which have come 
 from the peace and from the corruption 
 by which it was made, and of the miser¬ 
 able fate of most of the traitors in Greece 
 who aided Philip in his schemes. 
 
 § 42 . 5. επειδή here has three plu¬ 
 
 perfects, while commonly it has the less 
 precise aorist, as in §§ 25 1 , 32 ] (M.T. 59). 
 So in Latin postquam venit is more 
 common than postqiiam verier at. Both 
 επειδή and postquam contain the idea of 
 after that, which the plpf. only empha¬ 
 sizes. 
 
 6 . διά τούτων των . μισθωσάντων 
 
 (i.e. οΐ έμίσθωσαν) : contrast διά τούτους 
 ούχί πεισθέντας, § $2 3 , and see note. 
 
 § 43 . ι. αναίσθητοι: see note on 
 § 35 9 · 
 
 2. -ιτάντ’ €K€ivos ην : cf. 7 τάντ’ ήν 
 Αλέξανδρος, XXIII. 120; E ϋβοια αύτοΐς 
 πάντα ήν, Thuc. viil. 95 5 Demetrius iis 
 unus omnia est, Liv. XL. 1 r. (See West.) 
 
 3. ούδέ...β°ύλ.οιτο (M.T. 462): ήκονον 
 is strongly frequentative, like ηγούντο (ί), 
 and άλλο τι is anything opposed to φίλον, 
 ευεργέτην, σωτηρα. 
 
 4> υφορωμενοι, vieiuing with suspicion 
 (υπό like sub in suspicio). 
 
 5. ού...έ·τΓοιεΐτε: most MSS. add μόνοι. 
 This passage represents the state of mind 
 in which Demosthenes delivered his 
 speech on the Peace (v.) in 346 B.c. See 
 Hist. § 50. 
 
38 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 [ασμενοι, /cat] a ντοί τρόπον τιν εκ πολλον πολεμονμενοι. 
 
 44 οτ€ yap περιιων Φίλιππος ’I λλνριονς /cat Τ/η/3αλλους, τιράς 
 δε /cat τώι> Έλλτ^'ωΐ' κατεστρεφετο, /cat δυνάμεις πολλάς 
 /cat ρεγάλας εποιείθ' νφ’ εαντω, καί τινες των εκ των πόλεων 
 επί τη της ειρηνης εξουσία βαδίζοντες εκείσε διεφθείροντο, 
 
 5 ών εις οντος ήν, τότε πάντες εφ * ονς ταντα παρεσκενάζετ 
 εκείνος επολεμονντο. ει δε μη ησθάνοντο, ετερος λόγος 
 
 45 οντος, ον προς εμε. εγω μεν γάρ προνλεγον καί διεμαρτν- 
 ρόμην καί παρ’ νμίν αεί καί όπο t πεμφθείην at δε πόλεις 
 
 8 . άσμενοι, καί vulg., Vom., West., Bl. ; om. Σ, Oxyrh., Bk. πολλον χρονου 
 Oxyrh. 
 
 § 44 . i. Φίλιππος Σ, Ai, Oxyrh.; ό Φίλ. L, B, vulg. I, 2 . και τινας των 
 
 ελληνων Oxyrh. 3· νψ’ έαυτψ έποιεΐτο Ο. και rives ck των πολ€ων Oxyrh. 
 
 5. παρεσκευάζεθ Σ. 6. ’έτερος ό \ 0 yos (ό erased) Σ; έτερος λόγο* L, vulg. 
 
 § 45 . ι. διεμαρτνράμην Ai. 2. αίεί Σ, L. 
 
 8. [άσμίνοι, και] : I have bracketed 
 these words, since the authority of the 
 Oxyrhynchus papyrus is now (Nov. 1899) 
 added to that of Σ for omitting 
 them.— αύτο1...ιτο\€μοΰμ€νοι, thoiigh they 
 themselves in a certain way had been 
 warred against for a long time: πολεμού- 
 μενοι (impf.) is past to 777 ov, which covers 
 the whole time of the peace to 340 B.c. 
 See έπολεμονντο, § 44 s . 
 
 § 44 . 1. Ίλλυριούς και Τριβαλλού$ : 
 Diodorus (xvi. 69) mentions a victorious 
 inroad of Philip into Illyria in 344 b.c., 
 and Porphyrius Tyr. (Muller, Hist. Gr. 
 III. p. 691) says of Philip, obros τούς 
 7 τερί την χώραν άπαντας έδουλώσατο πολε- 
 μίους, βουληθείς καί αυτούς 'Έλληνας ύπό 
 χέΐρα ποιησασθαι, με^άλην κτησάμενος 
 δύναμιν , καί Τ ριβαλλούς νποτάξας. 
 See Schaefer 11. 346· 
 
 2. Ελλήνων: see Grote χι. 6ΐ2— 
 614, and Hist. §§ 31, 58—61.—δυνοίμ€ΐ$, 
 like our forces , but including money as 
 well as troops: see § 233 s with Bl.’s 
 note. 
 
 3. των €Κ των πόλεων: cf. § 145 6 . 
 He counts Aesch. as one of those who 
 took advantage of the peace to visit 
 Macedonia, implying that the process of 
 corruption was still going on. In xix. 
 13 he says he first discovered the corrup¬ 
 
 tion of Aesch. on the return of the first 
 embassy in the spring of 346 b.c. 
 
 6 . Erepos Xoyos ovros, this is another 
 j/iatter : cf. άλλος άν εϊη λόγο* οντος, 
 IX. 1 6 ; άλλος άν ην λόγο*, [χιιι.] 7. In 
 all these άλλος (erepos) λόγο* is predicate. 
 In Plat. Leg. 634 D, ό λόγο* άν erepos εϊη, 
 the construction is different. 
 
 § 45 . 1. διεμαρτυρόμην, protested 
 
 (called Gods and men to witness): cf. 
 obtestor. See § 199 6 and VI. 29. 
 
 2. τταρ’ νμϊν probably refers to ora¬ 
 tions VI., VIII. and IX.— δττοι ττίμφθίίην, 
 whithersoever I was sent, referring to the 
 various embassies mentioned in vi. 19, 
 ix. 72, in § 244 (below), and probably to 
 others. In § 244 4 we have οποί έπέμφθην, 
 referring to some of the same embassies 
 as οποί πεμφθείην here. But there the 
 negative form of the leading clause, ούδα- 
 μου.,.άπηλθον, makes it particular, not 
 general; and its verb is aorist, not im¬ 
 perfect (as here); the relative clause is 
 therefore particular and has the indicative 
 regularly (M.T. 536). If he had said 
 / always came off superior in § 244*, 
 we should have οποί πεμφθείην there: 
 see εν οΐς κρατηθεΐεν ... κατεστρέφετο, 
 § 2 44 9 . West, says of § 244 : “ έπέμφθην , 
 objectiv gefasst, dagegen § 45 ό'τ roi πεμ¬ 
 φθείην , (?) 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 39 
 
 ενόσουν, τών μεν εν τω πολιτευεσθαι καί πράττειν δωρο- 
 δοκούντων καί δια φθειρόμενων επί χρημασι, των δ’ Ιδιωτών 
 καί πολλών τα μεν ον προορωμένων, τα δε τη καθ' ημέραν ζ 
 ραστώνη καί σχολή δελεαζόμενων, καί τοιοντονί τι πάθος 
 πεπονθότων απάντων, πλην ούκ εφ ’ εα ντους εκάστων οίο- 
 μενων το δεινόν ηξειν καί διά τών ετέρων κίνδυνων τα εαυτών 
 ασφαλώς σχησειν όταν βουλωνται^ είτ οιμαι συμβέβηκε 46 
 τοΐς μεν πληθεσιν αντί της πολλής και άκαίρου ραθυμίας 
 την ελευθερίαν άπολωλεκέναι, τοίς δε προεστηκόσι καί 
 τάλλα πλην εαντους οίομένοις πωλειν πρώτους εαντους πε- 
 πρακόσιν αίσθέσθαΐ' αντί γάρ φίλων καί ξένων, ά τότε 5 
 ώνομάζοντο ηνίκα έδωροδόκουν, νυν κόλακες καί θεοίς εχθροί 
 καί τάλλ' ά προσηκει πάντ άκουουσιν. ' ούδείς γάρ, άνδρες 47 
 * Αθηναίοι, το του προδιδόντος συμφέρον ζητών χρηματ 
 αναλίσκει, ουδ ’ επειδάν . ών αν πρίηται κύριος γένηται τω 
 
 6 . τοιουτονει Σ; τοιουτονί Αι; τοιούτον L, Β, vulg. 7· Εκάστων οίομένων 
 
 Σ, L, Αι; οίομ. εκ. vulg. 8 . και διά Σ, L 1 , Αι, Υ; άλλα διά L 2 , vulg. 
 
 9· σχησειν Σ, L 1 ; σχησειν ύπολαμβανόντων L'·, vulg. 
 
 § 46 . 4· πλην εαυτούς Σ (ε erased), L, vulg. ; πλην άλλους F (7 p). 5. άισθε- 
 
 σθαι Σ (η over ι st at), L ( η over ist at and e); αίσθέσθαι Αί ; ησθησθαι vulg., Oxyrh. 
 ά om. Σ 1 . 6. θεοισιν corr. to θεοις Oxyrh. 7. πάντα άκούουσιν’ εικότως 
 
 vulg.; εικότως om. Σ, L, B, F, Ο 1 . 
 
 § 47 . ι. άνδρες Σ, L; ω άνδρες vulg. 2. προδόντος Φ. 3 · & ν πρίηται 
 
 Αι; πριηται αει (?) Oxyrh. : “the word following πρίηται is neither κύριος nor -γένη· 
 ται ” (Kenyon). 
 
 3. «νοσούν : Demosth. is especially 
 fond of this figure of a diseased state: 
 see 11. 21; ix. 12, 39, 50; xix. 259 
 (West.). — τών.,.ιτράττίΐν (one substan¬ 
 tive) : cf. § 11 2 and note on § 4®. 
 
 4. 4 irl χρημάσι, for ( with a view to) 
 money, not by money, like υπό χρημάτων. 
 Vomel explains, “ corrumpi sub pecunia 
 promissa, non data nisi post perpetratam 
 proditionem.”— ιδιωτών: here opposed to 
 των...πράττειν (3), private citizens', gene¬ 
 rally, any men who are not of a given 
 class, as not senators, XIX. 18; cf. ιατρός 
 
 και ιδιώτης, Thuc. II. 48. 
 
 6. δ«λ«αζομ«'νων, caught, as by a bait 
 (δέλεαρ). — τοιουτονί .. .ττίττονθότων is ex¬ 
 plained by έκαστων οίομένων κ.τ.λ. 
 
 7· Ίτλήν ούκ 4 φ’ «αυτούς, upon all but 
 themselves. 
 
 8. τών «τ«'ρων κινδύνων, others' (not 
 other) dangers. 
 
 § 46 . 2. τοΐς μ«ν ιτλήθίσ-ιν, the 
 
 common people (cf. τών πολλών, § 45 s ) 
 in various states: cf. τών μέν.,.τών δέ in 
 
 § 45 3 ’ 4 * 6 · 
 
 3, 4. άττολωλίκίναι (M.T. 109): i.e. 
 the result has been that they have lost 
 their liberty; the idea of the perfect in 
 the next clause appears more naturally in 
 πεπρακόσιν than in αίσθέσθαι, to find out 
 that they have sold themselves first (M.T. 
 904). For the case of πεπρακόσιν see G. 
 928 1 . 
 
 7. άκούουσιν, audiunt, they hear them¬ 
 selves called : cf. Hor. Ep. 1. 16, 17, si 
 curas esse quod audis. 
 
 § 47 . 3. €7Γ€ΐδάν...γ€νηται, after he 
 
 has become master of what he has bought : 
 
40 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 προδότη σνμβονλω περί των λουπών ετι χρηται · ονδεν yap αν 
 5 ήν ενδαιμονεστερον προδότου, άλλ’ ούκ εστι ταντα · πόθεν; 
 πολλον γε καί δει. άλλ’ επείδαν των πραγμάτων εγκρατής 
 ό ζητών άρχειν καταστη, καί των ταντα αποδομένων δε¬ 
 σπότη ε<ττΙ, την Se πονηριάν ειδως τότε δη, τότε καί μισεί 
 48 και απιστεί και προπηλακίζει. σκοπείτε δε* καί γάρ εί 
 παρεληλνθεν ό των πραγμάτων καιρός, 6 τον γ ειδεναι τα 
 τοιαντα καιρός αεί πάρεστι τοΐς εν φρονονσι. μέχρι τοντον 
 Αασθενης φίλος ώνομάζετο, εως προνδωκεν *Ολννθον μέχρι 
 5 τοντον Ύιμόλας, εως άπώλεσε Θήβας · μέχρι τοντον Ε νδικος 
 καί Σιμός ό Ααρισαϊος, εως θετταλίαν νπό Φιλίππω εποίη- 
 
 5 · yv Σ ; άν yv L, vulg. εύτυχέστερον Β 1 . ούκ έστιν ταντα Σ, Α2 ; ούκ 
 
 έστιν repeated after ταύτα vulg. (cf. § S' 21 )· πόθεν; ora. Β. η. a:rodedo- 
 
 μένων A 2 ; άποδιδομ. Y. 8 . rore μισεί Al. . 
 
 § 48 . ι. δη (for δε) Αι. 4. φίλος ώνομάζετο Σ, Υ ; Φίλιππο: added Σ ( yp ), 
 Φιλίππου L, vulg. 5· Τ ιμόλαος MSS. ; see § 295 12 · τούτου (bef. Εϋδ.) L, vulg. ; 
 later τον over του Σ. 6 . δ Ααρισαϊος Σ; οι Ααρισαΐοι Β, Αι; ό Ααρισσαΐος L; οι 
 
 Α αρισσ. L 2 , vulg. 
 
 the rel. past time comes entirely from the 
 force of έπειδάν , postquam (M.T. 90). 
 For the assimilation of ών άν πρίηται, 
 which really conditions κύριος yivyrai, 
 see M.T. 563: in such a dependent 
 general condition the indie, also is al¬ 
 lowed. 
 
 4. ουδέν.. . προδότου, for (otherwise) 
 nothing would be happier than a traitor. 
 To omit άν here (with Σ and a few other 
 MSS.) would be against all usage: in xxi. 
 120, ού yap yv βιωτόν, cited by Vomel, 
 there is a potential force in yv βιωτόν, 
 I could not have lived. 
 
 5. 'ΤΓ 0 θ€ν;...δεΐ : cf. §§ 52 1 , 140 8 , and 
 πώς yap; § 3I2 6 . 
 
 7. καί, also, with των αποδομένων. 
 
 § 48 . 3· μί'χρι τοΰτου with έως, 
 
 twice repeated. West, refers to a similar 
 αναφορά of πολλά in § 81 1-3 , of ούχ 6 in 
 § 250 9 ’ 10 , and of ούκ in § 322 1-4 . Ex¬ 
 pressions like this show the relative 
 character of έως and other particles mean¬ 
 ing until. (M.T. 611, 612.) 
 
 4. Λασ-θ€νη5 : Lasthenes and Euthy- 
 crates are often mentioned as traitors 
 who betrayed Olynthus to Philip: see 
 
 viii. 40; ix. 66; xix. 265, 342; Diod. 
 xvi. 53. Cf. Plut. M01*. p. 178 Β: των 
 δέ περί Aaadlvyv τον Όλύνθιον iy κα- 
 λούντων και άyavaκτoύvτωv οτι προδότας 
 αύτονς ένιοι των περί τον Φίλιππον άπο- 
 καλοΰσι, σκαιούς έφι ] (sc. Φίλιππος) φύσει 
 καί άypoίκoυς είναι ίΜακεδόνας καί την 
 σκαφών σκαφην λέ^/οντας, i.e. they called 
 a spade a spade. 
 
 5. Ti-p-oXas : Timolaus was a Theban, 
 who was probably active in causing the 
 surrender of Thebes to Philip after Chae- 
 ronea. Dinarchus (Dem. 74) calls him 
 a friend of Demosthenes ! Theopompus 
 (Athen. x. 436 b) calls him the greatest 
 voluptuary who was ever engaged in 
 state affairs. See note on § 295 s , with 
 the quotation from Polybius. 
 
 6. Σίμος : Simus (acc. to Harpocr.) 
 belonged to the Thessalian house of the 
 Aleuadae at Larissa, who called in Philip 
 against the tyrants of Pherae in 352 B.c. 
 with the usual result (Diod. xvi. 14 and 
 35). See Hist. § 6.— ό Aapurcuos (so 
 Σ, L) belongs only to Σιμός, who is called 
 a Larissaean in [lix.] 108, and ό θετταλός 
 in 24. Aristotle (Pol. viii. (v.) 6, 13), 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 4ΐ 
 
 σαν. ειτ ελαυνομενων καί υβριζομενων καί τί κακόν ούγί 
 242 πασγόντων πάσα η οικουμένη μεστή γεγονεν. τί S’ *Α ρί- 
 στρατος εν %ικυωνι , κα\ τί ΥΙεριλλος εν Μεγάροις; ούκ 
 άπερριμμενοι; εζ ών καί σαφεστατ αν τις ϊδοι ότι 6 μα- 49 
 λίστα φυλάττων την εαυτόν πατρίδα καί πλείστ αντιλόγων 
 τουτοις, οΰτος ύμϊν, Α ισγίνη, τοΐς προδιδουσι καί μισθαρ- 
 νουσι τδ όχειν εφί ότω δωροδοκήσετε περιποιεϊ, καί δια τους 
 πολλούς τοντωνί καί τους άνθισταμενους τοίς υμετεροις 5 
 βουλημασιν υμείς εστε σώοι καί έμμισθοι, επεί διά γε υμάς 
 α ντους πάλαι αν άπωλωλειτε. 
 
 Καί περί μεν των τότε πραχθεντων εχων ετι πολλά 50 
 λεγειν, καί ταυτα ηγούμαι πλείω των ικανών είρησθαι. 
 αίτιος δ’ οΰτος, ώσπερ εωλοκρασίαν τινά μου της πονηριάς 
 
 καί νβριζ. om. Α2. 8. yeyovev Σ; yeyove προδοτών Σ (y ρ), L, vulg. 
 
 9. Π epiXXos Phot., Harp., Suid. ; HepiXaos Σ, L, vulg. (see Vom. and § 295 1 ' 2 ). 
 
 § 49 . 1. ό above line Σ. 3. ημΐν Αι. ώ Αισχίνη Ο. 5· του- 
 
 τωνί Σ, L, Α2; τούτων vulg. rots άνθισταμένοι s Σ 1 (each οι changed to ου), 
 Β, F. 6 , 7 · νμα$ αυτούς Σ. ’j. άπο\ώ\6ΐτ€ Σ, vulg.; ca τωλώλατε L, 
 
 Bekk. An. ρ. \ι 6 , 33· 
 
 § 50 . 3· ούτοσί Β. 
 
 after speaking of two factions calling in 
 mercenaries, and an arbiter who some¬ 
 times gets the mastery of both, adds: 
 or ep συνέβη ev Ααρίση έπί της των Άλβυα- 
 δων αρχής των nepl Σιμόν. Eudicus is not 
 otherwise known. 
 
 7. τί κακόν ούχΐ ττασ-χόντων] —οΰδέν 
 κακόν ούχί (i.e. πάντα κακά) πασχόντων. 
 προδοτών follows 7 ^ 7 0,/e in all mss. but Σ: 
 it is easilv understood. 
 
 J 
 
 8. ττά<Γα ή οίκουμίνη is properly the 
 whole habitable world , i.e. the Greek 
 world ; as in Ev. Luc. ii. 1 it is the whole 
 Roman world. But here it is merely a 
 loose expression with no special limit. 
 We should say, “ all the world is full of 
 these wretches.”— ‘Αρίσ-τρατοδ, a tyrant 
 of Sicyon : see the account of his portrait 
 by Melanthus and Apelles, destroyed by 
 order of Aratus, in Plut. Arat. 13. 
 
 9. IlepiXXos, of Megara: see xix. 
 295. Perillus and Aristratus are in the 
 “black-list” of Cor. § 295. For Philip’s 
 intrigues in Megara see Grote xi. 613, 621. 
 See Hist. § 52 (end). 
 
 § 49 . 4. to ^\etv...'iripL7rot€i, secures 
 
 for you your opportunities for being bribed 
 (the wherewithal to be bribed). 
 
 6. tone σώοι καί έμμισθοι, i.e. you 
 survive to be venal. — διά... αυτούς, if you 
 were left to yourselves (M.T. 472). The 
 orator surprises his audience by this 
 original reason why the Athenian traitors 
 have been saved from the fate of traitors 
 in other states, i.e. the honest citizens 
 thwart their schemes and thus save them 
 from the ruin of success. This brilliant 
 attack is followed up sharply in what 
 follows. 
 
 §§ 50 — 52 : the peroration to the 
 argument on the Peace of Philocrates. 
 
 § 50 . I. των τότ€ ττραχθεντων, i.e. 
 the transactions concerning the peace. 
 The suggestion in the first sentence that 
 he will drop this subject makes this sud¬ 
 den recurrence to the charge of venality 
 all the more effective. 
 
 3. αίτιος, i-e. of my speaking 7 τλείω 
 των ικανών . — ώσπερ, as it were (M.T. 867), 
 with έωλοκρασίαν, not with κατασκοδάσας. 
 
42 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 της εαυτοί) [/cat των αδικημάτων] κατασκεδάσας, ην άναγκαΐον 
 5 ην προς τους νεωτερους των πεπραγμενών άπολύσασθαι. 
 παρηνώγλησθε δ’ ίσως οι και πρίν εμε είπεχν δτιουν εί δότες 
 
 51 την τούτον τότε μισθαρνίαν. καίτοι φιλίαν γε καί ξενίαν 
 αυτήν ονομάζει, και νυν είπε που λεγων 6 την ’ Αλεξάν¬ 
 δρου ξενίαν όνειδίζων εμοί* εγώ σοι ξενίαν * Αλεξάν¬ 
 δρου; πόθεν λαβόντι η πως αξιωθείπι; ούτε Φιλίππου ξένον 
 
 5 ουτ ’Αλεξάνδρου φίλον είποιμ αν εγω σε, ουχ οϋτω μαί¬ 
 νομαι, εί μη καί τους θεριστάς καί τους άλλο τι μισθοί) 
 πράττοντας φίλους καί ξένους δει καλεΐν των μισθωσαμενων. 
 
 52 άλλ’ ουκ εστι ταυτα' πόθεν; πολλοί) γε καί δει. άλλα 
 
 4· και τών αδικημάτων mss. ; om. Hermog., Harp., Zonar., Suid.; in [ ] West., 
 Lips. 6. 7 ταρηνωχλησθαι Σ. δέ Ίσως Σ, L 1 ; δ' υμείς ίσως Αι ; δε και υμείς 
 
 ϊσως L 2 , Β, vulg. είπείν δτιουν Σ, L, Αι ; ότ. είττ. Β, vulg. 7· τότε την Ο. 
 
 § 51 . ι. χε 2 , L, Β, Αι. 2 ; τε vulg. 2. και ει νυν Α2. 3 · φιλίαν 
 
 όνειδίζων V 6. 
 
 § 52 . ι. ούκ ’έστι repeated after ταυτα Αι (see § 47 5 )· 
 
 —Ιωλοκρασίαν, a mixture of stale dregs, 
 lit. a mixtiire of the refuse (esp. heel-taps ) 
 of last night's feast ( έωλα , hesterna). The 
 Scholia say : 5 χθες και πρφην έκέρασε 
 
 πράχμα τήμερδν μου καταχέει, και εμέ 
 πράξαί φησι τα κακώς αύτφ οίκονομηθέντα. 
 So Didymus, quoted by Harpocr. See 
 Bekk. An. p. 258: ή κατάχυσις των ζω¬ 
 μών των εώλων δείπνων έττί τους κοιμω- 
 μένους των συμπινόντων . λαμβάνεται δε 
 και έττί τη κατηχορία αρχαίων πραχμάτων. 
 This burst of indignation refers especially 
 to the audacious conduct of Aeschines 
 (57) in charging Demosthenes with the 
 same cooperation with Philocrates in 
 making the peace which he had once 
 claimed for himself as a merit (1. 174). 
 See § 17 5 (above). Demosthenes calls 
 this treatment “ deluging me with the 
 stale refuse of his own villainy.” In 
 xxi. 112 old offences are spoken of as 
 τάδικήμαθ ’ έωλα και ψυχρά. For έωλο- 
 κρασία, see Plut. Mor. p. 148 A, ένίοις εις 
 άπαντα τδν βίον εμμένει το πρδς άλληλους 
 δυσάρεστον, ώσπερ έωλοκρασία τις ϋβρεως 
 τ) όρχης εν οϊνιρ χενομένης, and Lucian, 
 Conv. 3» πολλην την έωλοκρασίαν κατα- 
 σκεδάσας άνδρών φιλοσόφων. 
 
 4· West, brackets και των αδικημάτων : 
 see critical note. 
 
 5. viompous: the youngest judges 
 present might have been only fourteen 
 years old in 346 B.C.— άττολύσ-ασ-θαι, to 
 clear myself of·, there is no need of 
 the emendation άπολούσασθαι or άποκλυ- 
 σασθαι. See Thuc. VIII. 87, άπολΰεσθαι 
 προς αύτους τάς διαβολάς. 
 
 6 . τΓαρηνώχλησ-θ*: addressed to the 
 older judges (cf. ενοχλεί, § 4 3 ). 
 
 § 51 . 1. φιλίαν, £eviav, properly friend¬ 
 ship and guest friendship, here seem to 
 be used \vith little thought of the dis¬ 
 tinction. Cf. ξενίαν Αλεξάνδρου (3) and 
 οϋτε Φιλ. ξένον οϋτε Άλεξ. φίλον (below). 
 See Vomel’s notes. 
 
 2. €Ϊίγ£ λ€γων : cf. είπε φωνών, Aeschyl. 
 Ag. 205, “ spake, saying." 
 
 3. όνίΐδίζων: Aesch. had said (66), ό 
 την ξενίαν έμοί προφέρων την 'Αλεξ¬ 
 άνδρου. 
 
 4· ΊΓ0θ€ν...άξιωθ€ντι; with dramatic 
 energy for πόθεν...έλαβες η πώς ηξιώθης; 
 cf. § Τ28 3 . 
 
 6. Gepurras, reapers, properly extra 
 farm-hands, called in at the harvest 
 (Bl.). 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 43 
 
 μισθωτόν εγώ σε Φιλίππου πρότερον και νυν ’Αλεξάνδρου 
 καλώ, και ουτοι πάντες. ε’ι δ’ απιστείς, ερώτησον αντους' 
 μάλλον δ’ εγώ τουθ’ υπέρ σου ποιήσω, πότερον υμίν, 
 ώ άνδρες ’Αθηναίοι, δοκεί μισθωτός Αισχίνης η ξένος είναι 5 
 ’Αλεξάνδρου; ακούεις ά λέγουσιν. 
 
 Βούλομαι τοίνυν ηδη καί περί της γραφής αυτής άπο- 53 
 λογησασθαι καί διεξελθείν τα πεπραγμέν εμαυτω, ίνα 
 καίπερ ε’ιδως Αισχίνης όμως άκουση δι ά φημι καί τούτων 
 τά)ν προβεβουλευμένων καί πολλω μειζόνων έτι τούτων 
 δωρεάίν δίκαιος είναι τυγχάνειν. καί μ οι λέγε την γραφήν 5 
 αυτήν λαβών. 
 
 ΓΡΑΦΗ. 54 
 
 [Έπί, Ιλαιρώνδου άρχοντος, έλαφηβοΧιώνος έκτη ίσταμενου, 
 Αισχίνης ’Ατρόμητου Κοθωκίδης απηνέςκε προς τον άρχοντα 
 παρανόμων κατά ΙΑτησιφωντος τον Αεωσθενους Άναφλυστίου , 
 
 2 . πρότερον Φιλ. Ar. ή νυν V6. 4· πρότερον (ist ρ erased) Σ. 5 · ω 
 
 om. F, Ο, V6. μισθωτός Β, V6 (L, Αι) : so Vomel; μισθωτός most MSS., Σ 
 
 (changed from -τό$). 
 
 § 53 . ι. ηδη om. Αι. 4. των over erased και L 1 . πολλών F, Φ. 
 
 5. δίκαιον O. 6 . αυτήν Σ, L 1 , vulg. ; ταύτην L 2 , Al. 
 
 § 52 . 3. οΰτοητάντίξ probably included 
 both court and audience. 
 
 5. μ«τθωτό$: most MSS. (Σ only by 
 correction) read μισθωτός , following the 
 absurd story of Ulpian (see Schol.), that 
 Demosth. pronounced this word μισθωτός 
 to make the judges correct his accent by 
 shouting out the very word μισθωτός which 
 he wanted to hear. It is much more 
 likely—indeed, it is certain—that he saw 
 by the faces of his hearers that it was 
 
 §§ 53 — 125 . Having finished his 
 reply to the charges foreign to the indict¬ 
 ment, he now proceeds to the indictment 
 itself. We have (1) an introduction 
 (§§ 53— 59)» (2) a discussion of his public 
 life (§§ 60—109), (3) a reply to the charge 
 that the orator was υπεύθυνος when it was 
 proposed to crown him (§§ no—119), 
 (4) a defence of the proposal to crown 
 him in the theatre (§§ 120, 121), and (5) a 
 conclusion (§§ 122—125). 
 
 §§ 5 3 — 59 . Introduction, including 
 
 safe for him to put this question boldly, 
 and he was probably greeted by an over¬ 
 whelming shout of μισθωτός, μισθωτός, 
 from both court and audience. The 
 judges, more than four-fifths of whom 
 voted in a few hours to acquit Ctesiphon 
 and to condemn Aeschines to a fine and 
 ατιμία, were by this time ready to re¬ 
 spond to such a sudden appeal, after 
 listening to this most conclusive argu¬ 
 ment with its brilliant close. 
 
 the reading of the indictment. 
 
 § 53 . 4. των ττροβίβουΧίυμίνων (pass.), 
 strictly accurate for the provisions of the 
 προβούλευμα of Ctesiphon, which had 
 passed only the Senate. The correspond¬ 
 ing phrase for the items of a ψήφισμα 
 would be των εφηφισμένων. Cf. των 
 ξεγραμμένων, § $6 4 . 
 
 5. δίκαιος «ΐναι, that I desei~ve: per¬ 
 sonal use of δίκαιος (Μ. T. 762). 
 
 §§ 54 , 55 . This spurious document 
 once passed for the “ single undoubtedly 
 
44 
 
 ΔΚΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 5 οτι ε^ραψε παράνομον ψήφισμα, ως άρα Βει στ εφανώσαι Δη- 
 μοσθενην Δημοσθενους Τίαιανιεα χρυσω στεφάνω, καί άναηο- 
 ρεύσαι εν τω θεάτρω Διονυσίοις τοΐς μεγάλος, τραγωδού? καινοις, 
 ότι στέφανοί 6 Βήμος Δη μοσθενην Δημοσθενους Τίαιανιεα χρυσω 
 στεφάνω αρετής ενεκα, και εύνοιας ής εχων Βιατελεΐ είς τε τους 
 ιο'Έ λληνας άπαντας και τον Βήμον τον ’ Αθηναίων, και άνΒρα ι γαθίας, 
 και Βιότι Βιατελεΐ ττράττων και λε^ων τα βέλτιστα τω Βημω και 
 
 55 πρόθυμός εστι ποιειν ο τι άν Βΰνηται αγαθόν, πάντα ταύτα ψενΒη 
 <γράψας και παράνομα, των νόμων ούκ εωντων πρώτον μεν ψευΒεΐς 
 ηραφάς εις τα Βημόσια γράμματα καταβάλλεσθαι, ειτα τον υπεύ¬ 
 θυνον στεφανούν {εστι Βε Δημοσθένης τειχοποιός και επι τω 
 
 5 θεωρικω τεταημενος), ετι Βε μη άνα^ορεΰειν τον στέφανον εν τω 
 θεάτρω Διονυσίοις τρα^ωΒών τη καινή, άλλ εάν μεν η βουλή 
 στέφανοι, εν τώ βουλευτηρίω άνειπεΐν, εάν Βε η πόλις, εν ΪΙυκνι εν 
 τη εκκλησία, τίμημα τάλαντα πεντηκοντα. κλητήρες ίΤηφισοφών 
 Κηφισοφώντος Ταμνονσ ιος , Κλεω^ ΚλεωΐΌ9 ΚοθωκίΒης.] 
 
 56 λ Α μεν διώκει τού ψηφίσματος, ώ άνδρες 9 Αθηναίοι, 
 ταντ εστιν. εγώ δ’ απ’ αυτών τούτων πρώτον οιμαι δι ήλον 
 ύμΐν ποιησειν οτι πάντα δικαίως άπολογησομαι · την γάρ 
 
 § 56 . ι. οΐομαι erased in Σ before διώκει. 
 
 2. οΐομαι Αι, vulg. 
 
 genuine Athenian indictment.” Chaeron- 
 das was archon in 338—337 b.c. ; but 
 the indictment was brought in the spring 
 of 336. The y ραφή παρανόμων came be¬ 
 fore the θεσμοθέται, not before the Chief 
 Archon. 
 
 The expression rpaycpdois καιν oh, § 54/, 
 on the day of the new tragedians, i.e. 
 when new tragedies were performed, is 
 confirmed by roh rpayipdoh, Aesch. III. 
 45, τρα^/ΐρδών yιyvoμέvωv καινών, 34, and 
 rpaycpdoh ev τφ θεάτριρ, 36. In § 55 s 
 τpayωδώv ry καινρ is doubtful and per¬ 
 haps corrupt: there is another reading, 
 τpay(pδώv καινών (sc. ^ωνιζομένων). But 
 with T-rj καιν -rj we might perhaps under¬ 
 stand είσόδιρ with Wolf, or aywviq. with 
 others. Boeckh, Corp. Ins. Gr. 11. p. 
 459, gives a decree of Calymna with 
 κύκλιων ry πpώτy (sc. 7 ταρόδιρ or είσόδιρ). 
 In C. I. Att. II. No. 331 is τραγωδών τφ 
 ay(hvi τφ καινφ, and in Nos. 300 and 311 
 
 τpayιρδώv τφ ayu>vi. 
 
 See note on the spurious προβούλευμα 
 of Ctesiphon in § 118. 
 
 § 56 . 1. "A |A€v δίωκα: the passages of 
 the decree quoted in the indictment are 
 all that are accused of illegality. 
 
 3. πάντα δικαίω$ άττολογήσ-ομαι : 
 this is a sarcastic allusion to the demand 
 of Aesch. (-202) that the court compel 
 Demosth., if he is allowed to speak at 
 all, to follow his opponent’s order of 
 argument: αξιώσατε τον Αημοσθένην τον 
 αυτόν τρόπον άπoλoyεΐσθaι ονπερ Kayio 
 KaTyyopyKa. See note on § 2°. It so 
 happens that Aesch. has stated the 
 charges in the indictment in the order in 
 which Demosth. wishes to reply to them, 
 just the order which Aesch. is anxious 
 to prevent him from following: in his 
 speech he has followed an entirely differ¬ 
 ent order. See Essay 1. § 4. 
 
 244 
 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 45 
 
 αυτήν τοντω ποιησάμενος των γεγραμμενων τάξιν, περί 
 πάντων ερω καθ' έκαστον εφεξής καί ούδεν εκων παραλείφω. 5 
 τον μεν ουν γράφαι πράττοντα καί λεγοντα τά βέλτιστα με 57 
 
 τω ότίαω διατελεΐν καί πρόθυμον είναι ποιεΐν ο τι δύναμαι 
 
 ν 4 ΑΤ9 υ ^ r / Γ / , 
 
 αγαθόν, καιΑεπαινεΐν επι τούτοις, εν τοΐς πεπολιτευμενοις την 
 
 κρίσιν είναι νομίζω · από γάρ τούτων εξεταζόμενων εύρεθη- 
 
 σεται ειτ άληθη περί εμού γεγραφε Κτησιφων ταντα καί 5 
 
 προσήκοντα είτε καί φευδη- το δε μη προσγράφαντα 58 
 
 επ είδαν τάς εύθύνας δω στεφανουν καί άνειπεΐν εν τω 
 
 θεάτρω τον στέφανον κελεύσαι, κοινωνείν μεν ηγούμαι 
 
 καί τούτο τοΐς πεπολιτευμενοις, ειτ’ άξιός είμι του στεφάνου 
 
 § 57 . ι. το (for του) Αι. y ράφαι om. Αι. βέλτιστα με Σ, L, Β, F, Ο ; 
 πράττοντα ιε vulg. ; λέyovτά με Αι. 2. 6 τι δύναμαι Σ, L 1 (L 2 6 τι αν); ο τι αν 
 
 δννωμαι vulg. 4· είναι μοι L·' 2 , Αι. ενρήσετε Al, L 2 (γρ). 5 · € ’^ Te 
 
 Kr. yeypaipe ταντα περί έμον (so Vom.) V6. 6. είτε φενδη O. 
 
 § 58 . 3. τον στέφανον κελενσαι Σ, L, Αι, Υ ; κελ. τον στέφανον Β, vulg. 
 
 4. είμι άξιος Υ. τον om. Υ6. 
 
 4· των γεγραμμενων (pass.), of the 
 items of the indictment·, cf. § 53 4 . yέypaμ- 
 μαι and έτράφτην may be used as passives 
 of both ypάφω, propose (a bill), and ypa- 
 φομαι, indict', see δικαίως yey ραμμένα, 
 XXIII. ιοί, φ yέy ραπται, ibid. 18; τά 
 ypaφέvτa, the proposed measures, Cor. 
 § 86 4 ; ούδέ y ραφέντα, not even indicted, 
 § 222T But yέypaμμaι is generally 
 middle (seldom passive) of 7 ράφομαι, in¬ 
 dict ; as below, § 59 4 , yey ραμμένος ταντα: 
 cf. ylypaxf/ai, § 119 1 . 
 
 5. καθ’ έκαστον εφεξήδ: by taking up 
 each point in the order of the indictment, 
 he will ensure completeness in his de¬ 
 fence. The same sarcasm is kept up. 
 
 § 57 . 1. τοΰγράψαι.,.καί ειταινείν (sc. 
 Κτησιφώντα) depends on την κρίσιν (4). 
 πράττοντα... ayadbv (1—3) is in substance 
 quoted from the decree : cf. §§ 59 s , 86 2 , 
 88 6 . Aesch. (III. 49) professes to quote 
 the exact words, on διατελεΐ και \έyωv 
 καί πράττων τά άριστα τφ δημιρ: cf. other 
 references in Aesch. 101, 237. 
 
 3. €TT£uv€iv: see § 113 3 and note. 
 
 5. αληθή, ττροσ-ηκοντά, and ψευδή (6) 
 are predicates to ταντα. 
 
 6. είτε καί ψευδή: καί expresses paral¬ 
 
 lelism with άληθη : cf. εϊτε καί μη, § 58 s . 
 See note on καί before διεκωλύθη § 6o 4 . 
 
 § 58 . 1. τό...κίλεϋσ -ai (3), the bidding 
 me (in his decree) to be crowned...and the 
 crown to be proclaimed in the theatre 
 (στεφανονν and άνειπεΐν in the usual 
 active form): this clause is repeated in 
 τοντο as subject of κοινωνεΐν . — μή ττροσ-- 
 γράψαντα... δω : Aesch. makes it a 
 special act of shamelessness in Ctesiphon 
 (see 11, 12) to omit this saving clause. 
 It was frequently added in such decrees: 
 see C. I. Att. II. Nos. 114 (343 b.c.), 
 στεφανώσαι χρνσφ στεφάνιρ άπδ χ. δραχ¬ 
 μών έπειδάν τάς ενθννας δφ, and 190. 
 This proviso, according to Aesch. (12), 
 did not make the decree legal, though 
 it showed a sense of shame in the 
 mover. 
 
 3. κοινωνεΐν... 7Γ€ΤΓθλιτ€υμε'νοι$, είτ’... 
 
 καί μή (5), lit. I think this too is concerned 
 with my public acts (namely with the 
 question) whether I deserve the crown etc. 
 or not. The loose relation of etV άξιός 
 είμι κ.τ.λ. to τοΐς πεπολιτενμένοις, which 
 it explains, is permissible after the full 
 form in § 57 s-6 ; without this it would be 
 obscure. 
 
φ 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 5 καί της άναρρησεως της εν τουτοις είτε και μη’ ετι μεντοι 
 καί τους νόμους δεικτεον ειναί μοι δοκεΐ καθ' ους ταντα 
 γράφειν έξην τουτω. ουτωσί μεν, ώ άνδρες 'Αθηναίου, δι¬ 
 καίως καί άπ\ως την απολογίαν εγνωκα ποιείσθαι, βαδιου- 
 
 59 μαι δ' επ' αυτά α πεπρακταί μοι. \ καί με μηδείς υπολάβη 
 απαρταν τον λόγον της γραφής, εαν εις *Έλληνικας πράξεις 
 καί λόγους εμπεσω · ό γάρ διωκων του φηφίσματος το λεγειν 
 καί πράττειν τα άριστά με καί γεγραμμενος ταυτα ώς ουκ 245 
 
 5 άληθη, οΰτός εστιν ό τους περί απάντων των εμοί πεπολιτευ- 
 μενων λόγους οικείους καί αναγκαίους τη γραφή πεποιηκως. 
 είτα καί πολλών προαιρέσεων ουσων της πολιτείας την περί 
 τάς Έλλτ -]νικάς πράξεις είλόμην εγω, ώστε καί τάς αποδείξεις 
 εκ τούτων δίκαιός ε'ιμι ποιεΐσθαι. 
 
 60 "'Α μεν ουν προ του πολιτεύεσθαι καί δημηγορεΐν εμε 
 
 5· της εν τούτοι om. Υ, Φ (yp ) ; της έν om. Β. καί (bef. μη) om. Αι, Υ, Φ {yp)- 
 8. π οιεΐσθε Σ. 
 
 § 59 . ι. μοί (for με) Ο. 5· πάντων Αι. ττεττολιτευμένων Σ, L 1 , Α2, Ο 1 ; 
 7Γβ7τολ. καί ττεττ pay μενών Αι, Β, vulg. 7· Ka ' L om · "V6. 
 
 5· €ν tovtois: i.e. before the people 
 (in the theatre). 
 
 6 . tous νόμουδ: the arguments are 
 given in §§ no—121. 
 
 § 59 . 2. Έλληνικάδ.. Χόγουδ, i.e. a 
 
 discussion of our foreign policy, i.e. our 
 relations to other Greek states. Athens 
 could not be said to have a “policy” 
 with barbarians, though her relations to 
 them could be expressed by ξενικά: see 
 note on οικείων, Ελληνικών, and ξενικών, 
 § 3i i 4 . Demosthenes selected foreign 
 affairs as his special department: see 
 § 62 s . 
 
 3. του ψηφισ-ματοδ, depending on τό 
 λ^ειν.,.με, i.e. the clause declaring etc. 
 
 4. γίγραμμί'νοδ (middle): see note on 
 
 § 5 ^ 4 . 
 
 7. Ίτροοαρέσ-ίων τήδ ττολιτίίαδ, depart¬ 
 ments of the government (open to choice). 
 
 §§ 60 — 109 . In this general defence of 
 his public policy, (1) he defends his fixed 
 principle of opposition to Philip’s aggres¬ 
 
 sions (§§ 60—72); (2) he speaks of the 
 events which immediately preceded the 
 outbreak of war with Philip in 340 B.C. 
 (§§ 7.3 — ioe), avoiding all mention of the 
 later Amphissian war and the other 
 events which led to the battle of Chaero- 
 nea; (3) he defends his trierarchic law 
 (§§ 102—109). 
 
 See Fox’s elaborate analysis of this 
 argument, Ivranzrede, pp. 86—108. 
 
 § 60. 1. ττρο τοΰ -jroXiT€V€or0(u : the 
 
 public life of Demosth. properly began 
 with his speech on the Symmories in 
 354 b.c. (see Hist. § 11); but his re¬ 
 sponsibility for the foreign policy of 
 Athens began after the peace of 346. 
 Still, his fixed policy of opposing Philip, 
 though unsuccessful at first, goes back at 
 least to the First Philippic in 351; and 
 he is here (§§ 60—72) defending generally 
 his public life as a whole, seldom men¬ 
 tioning his special acts. He reserves 
 these for a later part of his argument 
 (§§ 79—94» and after § 159). 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 47 
 
 προνλαβε καί κατεσχε Φίλιππος, εάσω- ονδεν yap ηγούμαι 
 τούτων είναι προς εμέ' α δ’ άφί ής ημέρας επί ταντα 
 επεστην εγώ καί διεκωλύθη, ταντα άναμνησω καί τούτων 
 νφεξω λόγον, τοετούτον νπειπών. πλεονέκτημα, άνδρες 5 
 5 Αθηναίοι, μεγ ’ νπηρζε Φιλίππω. παρά γαρ τοίς ν Ελλησιν, 61 
 ον τισίν, άλλ’ απασιν ομοίως, φοράν προδοτών καί δωρο- 
 δόκων καί θεοίς εχθρών ανθρώπων σννεβη γενεσθαι τοσαύτην 
 όσην ονδείς πω πρότερον μεμνηται γεγοννΐαν ονς σνναγω- 
 νιστάς καί σννεργούς λαβών καί πρότερον κακώς τούς 5 
 
 ''Ελληνας έχοντας προς εαντονς καί στασιαστικώς ετι χείρον 
 διεθηκε, τούς μεν εζαπατων, τοίς δε διδούς, τούς sa πάντα 
 τρόπον δια φθειρών, καί διεστησεν^ειςμέρη πολλά ενός τον 
 σνμφεροντος απασιν όντος, κωλνειν εκείνον μεγαν γίγνεσθαι, 
 εν τοιαύτη δε καταστάσει καί ετ άγνοια τον σννισταμενον 62 
 καί φνομενον κακόν των . απάντων 'Ελλήνων όντων, δει 
 
 § 60 . 2. κατασχε Σ. 4· Ka ' L διεκωλΰθη Σ, L (-υον over -ύθη); καί om. 
 
 Αι. 2, Β, vulg. 5 · ω άνδρες vulg. ; ώ om. Σ. 
 
 § 61 . 2. άλλ’ απασιν Σ, L; άλλα πάσιν vulg. 5 · λαβών Σ, L, vulg. ; λαβών 
 
 ό Φίλιππος Αι, Β, F, Φ, Ο (mg.). 
 
 § 62 . 2. φυο μενού Σ 2 (from φυρομένου ?). πάντων (om. των ) λ τ 6. 
 
 2. ττροΰλαβί and κατ&τχβ combined 
 have the idea of securing by being before¬ 
 hand : see note on § 4 6 . 
 
 4. ά και Βΐίκωλύθη : see note on 
 § 57 6 . και expresses parallelism with 
 προϋλαβε και κατέσχε , and strengthens 
 the antithesis between what Philip did 
 before Dem. appeared and what he was 
 prevented from doing afterwards, ά διεκω- 
 λύθη represents an active form ά αύτόν 
 διεκώλυσα: no infinitive is understood. 
 
 5. τοσ-οΰτον νττεΐΊτών, after premising 
 the following. Demosth. has no prefer¬ 
 ence for the forms in (e.g. τοσόνδε) in 
 referring to what is to follow. 
 
 6. νιτηρξί : see note on ύπάρξαι μοι, 
 
 § I 3 · 
 
 § 61 . 2. φοράν, a crop : see the list 
 
 of this crop of traitors in § 295. 
 
 5. καί ιτρότίρον ... έχοντας = of και 
 
 πρότερον κακώς εΐχον, impf. partic. Cf. 
 
 νοσουντας εν αύτοΐς, IX. 5 °* and κακώς 
 διεκείμεθα, IX. 28. See §§ 45— 49 * Blass 
 notices the coincidence in rhythm in καί 
 πρότερον κακώς and καί στασιαστικώς. 
 
 8. δΐ€<ττησ€ν... πολλά : cf. [χ.] 5 2 > 
 χεχόνασι καθ' αυτούς έκαστοι, Άρχεΐοι, 
 Θηβαίοι, Λακεδαιμόνιοι, Κ ορίνθιοι, ’Αρκά¬ 
 δες, ημείς. (Β 1 .) 
 
 9« κώλυαν: in apposition with ενός 
 του συμφέροντος. An appositive infinitive 
 generally has the article in the fully 
 developed language; but not necessarily, 
 for the construction is even Homeric, as 
 εις οιωνός άριστος, άμύνεσθαι περί πάτρης, 
 II. XII. 243· 
 
 § 62 . ι. ’έτ ’ άγνοία (sc. έν)...οντων 
 = έτ' άχνοούντων, έτ' belonging to άχνοίμ. 
 Vomel: quum adhuc ignorarent etc.— 
 οτυνισ-ταμ€νου : cf. VI. 35, 'έως.,.συνίστα- 
 ται τά πράχματ a. 
 
 -γ. 
 
A - 
 
 48 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 c τκοπείν υμάς, d ’νδρες 'Αθηναίοι, τί προσηκον ην ελεσθαι 
 7 τράττειν και ποιείν την πόλιν, καί τούτων λόγον παρ' εμού 
 5 λαβεΐν’ ό γάρ ενταύθ' εαυτόν τάξας της πολιτείας είμ' εγώ. 
 
 63 πότερον αυτήν έχρην, Αισχίνη, το φρόνημα άφείσαν και την 246 
 αξίαν την αυτής εν τη Θετταλών καί Αολόπων τάξει συγκατα- 
 κτάσθαι Φιλίππω την των 'Έύλληνων αρχήν καί τα των 
 προγόνων καλά καί δίκαια άναιρείν ; η τούτο μεν μη ποιείν, 
 
 ^δεινόν γάρ ως αληθώς,ρμ δ’ εώρα συμβησόμενα εί μηδείς 
 
 3· ώ άνδρες vulg. ; 
 
 £ etrt „ V 
 
 ♦ V 
 
 κακά (for καλά) Φ. 
 
 3· προσηκον ήν : see note on § 63 1 . 
 
 4. πράτταν και ποιείν : see § 4®. 
 
 When these words do not have their 
 proper distinction of do and make, they 
 sometimes have no apparent distinction : 
 see § 246 4 ’ 10 , and IV. 5, ουδέν αν ών νννϊ 
 πεποίηκεν έπραξεν. 
 
 g. €νταΰθ’...τη$ πολιτείαδ : partitive. 
 
 Cf ' § 59? ’ 
 
 § 63 . 1. πότερον αύτην εχρήν. . .άναι- 
 ρεΐν; should she...have helped Philip io 
 gain his dominion over the Greeks, and 
 {so) have set at naught the glorious and 
 just deeds of our ancestors ? Here, and. 
 in μή ποιείν and 7 τεριιδεϊν (also depend¬ 
 ing on έχρήν), in προσήκε ποιείν and. 
 εδει λε~γειν η 'γράφει in § 66 2> 4 , in έχρήν 
 ποιείν in § 69 s ? and. φανήναι έχρήν in 
 § 7! 10 » we have (I think) simply the 
 ordinary use of the infinitive depending 
 on a past verb expressing duty or pro¬ 
 priety, with none of the idiomatic force 
 by which (for example) εδει σε έλθεΐν 
 often means you ought to have gone ( but 
 did not go). These expressions are all 
 repetitions or enlargements of τί προσ¬ 
 ηκον ην in § 62 s , which obviously asks 
 only what tvas it right for Athens to do ? 
 with no implied idea that she did or did 
 not do the right thing. So in § 63 1 the 
 question is simply was it right for her to 
 help Philip etc.? See M.T. 417, and 
 pp. 403, 404. In such cases the idio¬ 
 matic use is often forced upon the ex¬ 
 pressions, and έχρην συγκατακτάσθαι is 
 
 -y 
 
 thought to mean ought she to have helped 
 him to acquire etc. (which she did not do) ? 
 But here μη ποιείν in § 63 4 and φανήναι 
 in § 71 10 refer to what actually happened. 
 The consideration of these examples has 
 convinced me that we are often wrong in 
 assuming the idiomatic use where it does 
 not exist. See notes on §§ 190 9 , 239 s . 
 It is sometimes uncertain in which sense 
 we are to take such expressions. But 
 when (with the present infinitive) they 
 refer to present time, as τούσδε μη ζην 
 εδει, these ought not to he alive, Soph. 
 Phil. 418, the use is always idiomatic. 
 
 The reiteration of the question, noticed 
 above, was called επιμονή. See Her- 
 mogenes (ill. pp. 266, 267 W.): ταΐς 
 επίμονα is έφ' ών ίσχύομεν πραγμάτων 
 χρώμεθα, ώς ό ρήτωρ έν τφ περί στεφάνου, 
 πότερον, φησι, την πόλιν έχρην...τήν 
 έ αν τη < 5 , και τά έξής. ταύτη -γάρ τή έννοίςι 
 πλέον ή τετράκις έν ταύτφ τόπιρ κέχρηται, 
 και το μέ-γιστον διά του αύτου σχήματος, 
 λέ~γω του κατ' έρώτησιν έξ αποστροφής, διά 
 'γάρ το ένδοξον τής έννοιας έ π ιμεν ει καί 
 δεινώς έπίκειται τφ έχθρφ, ταΐς συνεχέσιν 
 έρωτήσεσιν ούδ' άναπνεΐν έών .—τό φρό¬ 
 νημα και την αξίαν, her spirit and her 
 dignity. 
 
 2. έν...τάξει implies a descent to their 
 
 level. The Thessalians helped Philip in 
 the Amphissian war; the Dolopians are 
 probably mentioned only to disparage the 
 Thessalians further. 
 
 5. συμβησόμενα cl μηδειδ κωλύσει : 
 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 49 
 
 κωλυσει, καί προησθάνεθ' ώ? εοικεν εκ πολλοί), ταντα περιι- 
 δείν γιγνόμενα ; άλλα νυν εγωγε τον μάλιστ επιτιμώντα 64 
 τοις πεπραγμένους ηδεως αν εροίμην, της ποιας μερίδος 
 γενεσθαι την πόλιν εβούλετ αν, πότερον της συναιτίας των 
 συμβεβηκότων τοις 'ΐ&λλησι κακών και αισχρών, ής αν 
 Θεττα λους και τους μετά τούτων εΐποι τις, η της περιεορα- 5 
 κνίας ταντα γιγνόμενα επί τη της Ιδιας πλεονεξίας ελπίδι, 
 ης αν ’Αρκάδας καί Μεσσηνίους καί Άργείους θείημεν. 
 άλλα καί τούτων πολλοί, μάλλον δε πάντες, χείρον ημών 65 
 άπηλλάχασιν. καί yap εί μεν ως εκράτησε Φίλιππος ώχετ 
 ευθέως απιών καί μετά ταυτ ηγεν ησυχίαν, μήτε τών αυτοί) 
 συμμάχων μήτε τών άλλων *Ελλήνων μηδενα μηδέν λυπησας, 
 ην αν τις κατά τών εναντιωθέντων οίς επραττεν εκείνος 5 
 μεμψις καί κατηγορία * εί δε ομοίως απάντων το αξίωμα, την 
 ηγεμονίαν, την ελευθερίαν . περιείλετο, μάλλον δε καί τάς 
 
 § 64 . 3· την πόλιν y ενέσθαίΥ. βούλετ’ Α ι ; βούλαιτ' (ε over ac) V6. 5 · περι- 
 
 Ιωρακυίας Σ; περιεωρακυίας L, vulg., Bk.; πεοιεορακυίας Dind., Vom., West., Lips., 
 jWeil, Bl. 7. av 
 
 § 65 . 2. yap om 
 
 ιύτοϋ L; αυτού vulg. 5. ην cLv Σ, L l * 3 * 5 , A2; όμως ην civ vulg. 
 
 (the common older reading) Y (mg.), O (mg.); other MSS. om. ούκ. 
 
 anas L·, vulg., iik.; πειηεορακυι.ας Uina. 
 
 ' (" by corr.) Σ. \\X\ 
 
 l. Ai. 3. εύθεως Σ,* L, A2; εύθύ 
 
 ευθύς vulg. αυτόν Σ; 
 
 των ούκ έναντ. 
 
 cf. Aesch. in. c;o, δ πρόδηλον ην εσό- 
 μενον εί μη κωλύσετε. In both we might 
 have the future optative. 
 
 6. ταΰτα ττεριιδεΐν γιγνόμενα, to allow 
 these acts to go on ; περιιδεΐν yεvόμεva 
 would be to allow them to happen (M.T. 
 148 and 903 6 , with the discussion of 
 7Γ εραδεΐν τμηθεΐσαν and περιιδεΐν τμηθηναι 
 in Thuc. II. 18, 20). 
 
 § 64 . 1. νυν, no~w, when the fight 
 
 for liberty is ended: rots πεπpayμέvoιs 
 refers to the fight itself.— τον μάλιστ’ 
 έτπτιμώντα, i.e. the severest critic. 
 
 3. γενεσθαι, to join (not to belong 
 
 to). 
 
 5. ΊΓεριεορακυία$ : I have adopted this 
 form on the almost unanimous authority 
 of modern scholars, even against the mss. 
 See Blass-Kiihner, §§ 198 6 , 343. 
 
 6. γιγνόμενα : cf. note on § 6 ?j. 
 
 7. ’ApKaSas κ.τ.λ.: see Polyb. XVII. 
 14 (quoted in note on § 295 s ) for a defence 
 of these neutrals. 
 
 § 65 . 2. cos εκράτησε : i.e. at Chae- 
 
 ronea. Philip treated Athens with great 
 co nsideratio n after the battle, restoring 
 her 2000 prisoners witho ut ransom ; but 
 wreaked his vengeance pn Thebes (as a 
 former ally) and invaded Peloponnesus. 
 (Grote XI. 699—705.)— ωχετ’ αιτιών: for 
 this and similar expressions see M.T. 
 
 895 ‘ 
 
 5. ην d'v tis... κατηγορία, there might 
 perhaps be some ground for blame and 
 accusation etc. : the older editions have 
 δμωςην αν tis and κατα των ούκ έναντιω- 
 θέντων, with an entirely different meaning. 
 (See critical note.) 
 
 6. αξίωμα ... ηγεμονίαν ... ελευθερίαν : 
 
 see XIX. 260, τούτο τό πραγμα (the cor¬ 
 ruption of leading men by Philip) θεττα- 
 λων μεν...την rjy εμονίαν καί τό κοινόν 
 αξίωμα άπωλωλέκει, νυν δ' -ήδη καί την 
 ελευθερίαν παραιρεΐται ' ras yap άκρο- 
 πόλεις αύτων ένίων 3 ίακεδόνες φρουρούσιν. 
 For Euboea see § 71 (below). 
 
 G. D. 
 
 4 
 
50 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 πολιτείας, όσων εδυνατο , πως ούχ άπαντοη^νδοζότατα υμείς 
 εβουλευσασθε εμοί πεισθέντες; 
 
 66 I Αλλ εκείσ επανέρχομαι. τί την πόλιν, Αισχίνη, 
 προσηκε ποιείν αρχήν καί τυραννίδα των Ελλήνων δρωσαν 
 εαυτω κατασκευαζόμενον Φίλιπποί; η τί τον σύμβουλον 
 έδει λέγειν η γράφειν τον *Αθηνησιν [καί yap τούτο 
 
 5 πλείστον διαφέρει), ος συνηδειν μεν εκ παντός του χρόνου 
 μέχρι της ημέρας αφ ’ ης αυτός επί το βήμα ανέβην, αεί 
 περί πρωτείων καί τιμής καί δόξης άγωνιζομένην την 
 πατρίδα, καί πλείω καί χρήματα καί σώματα ανηλωκυίαν 
 υπέρ φιλοτιμίας καί των πασι συμφερόντων η των άλλων 
 
 67 'Έ,λλήνων υπέρ αυτών άνηλώκασιν έκαστοι, εώρων δ’ αυτόν 
 
 8 . ’όσον Αί, Β 1 ; ό'σω Υ, Β 2 , F (yp·)· 
 
 § 66 . I. καΙτΙ\ τ 6 . 2. όρώσαν των Έλλ. Αι. 3· των συμβούλων 
 
 (-ων twice over -ον) LA 4 · 7 ράφ· V λ^7· Υ. Άθήν. εμέ vulg. ; έμέ om. Σ, 
 
 L 1 . 4> 5· καί...διαφέρει om. V6. 5 · συνηδειν μέν Σ, L, Αι. 2 ', μέν after 
 
 παντός Β, vulg. 6. της ημέρας Σ, L 1 , Αί; τησδε της ημ. Αι; της ημ. εκείνης 
 
 Β, vulg. 7· τιμής δόξης Ο (cf. § 67 s )· 4. 8 · πλείω...σώματα Σ, L; πλ. και 
 
 σώμ. και χρημ. Αι. 2; πλ. σώμ. και χρήμ. vulg. ανηλωκυΐαν (and άνηλώκασιν in 
 
 1. 10 ) Σ, L; άναλωκ. (in both) vulg. 9 · τάσι Σ, L 1 , Αι. 2; άπασι τοΐς "Έλλησι 
 
 Β, vulg. 10 . οΐ τα υπέρ Β, vulg. οΐ τα om. Σ, L, Αι. 2 . ύπέρ αυτ (οο over 
 
 τ) Σ. 
 
 8. iroXtTiias, free governments. See 
 Arist. Pol. VI. (iv.) 8, 3, ’έστι yap ή 
 πολιτεία cos απλώς είπείν μίξις όλ^αρχίας 
 καί δημοκρατίας, είώθασι δε καλεΐν τάς μέν 
 άποκλινούσας cos προς την δημοκρατίαν 
 πολιτείας, τάς δέ πρός την όλ^αρχίαν 
 μάλλον αριστοκρατίας διά τό μάλλον άκο- 
 λουθεΐν παιδείαν καί εύyέvειav τοΐς εύπο- 
 ρωτέροις. See Dem. VIII. 43 » Εχθρόν 
 ύπειληφέναι της πολιτείας καί της δημο¬ 
 κρατίας αδιάλλακτον έκεΐνον, and VI. 21, 
 ού yάp άσφαλεΐς ταΐς πολιτείαις αί πρός 
 τους τυράννους αΰται λίαν όμιλίαι. Aris¬ 
 totle uses πολιτεία in a special sense 
 (Pol. ill. 7, 3) for his third form of good 
 government, opposed to δημοκρατία, its 
 παρέκβασις . — απάντων : partitive with 
 ενδοξότατα. So εύφημότατ άνθρώπων in 
 XIX. 50, άναισχυντότατ άνθρώπων in XXVII. 
 18, δικαιότατ άνθρώπων in XXIX. 28. 
 
 § 66. ι. cKeicr’ έιτανόρχομαι, I re¬ 
 turn to my question , i.e. after the digres¬ 
 
 sion in § 65. 
 
 2. ΐΓρο<τήκ€ iroieiv: see note on 
 
 § 63b 
 
 5. os σ-υνηδίΐν : the antecedent, τόν 
 σύμβουλον , refers to the speaker, and 
 most MSS. insert έμέ after ' Αθηνησιν . — 
 €κ... χρόνου: see § 203 3 . 
 
 6. άφ’ rjs, when (on which), strictly 
 beginning with which, counting from 
 which (as a date). 
 
 7. άγωνιζομόνην : or. obi. after συνή- 
 δειν, like άνηλωκυΐαν (8); cf. four parti¬ 
 ciples after εώρων, § 67 1 . 
 
 8 . χρήματα καί σ-ώματα, money and 
 lives. With the lordly boast of this pas¬ 
 sage compare the allusion to Salamis in 
 § 238. 
 
 9. φι\οτιμία$, her honour', properly 
 love of honour, but often used like τιμή : 
 cf. 11. 3, 16. 
 
 § 67 . 1. έώρων continues the con¬ 
 
 struction of συνηδειν (§ 66 5 ). 
 
<> 
 
 \' 
 
 ΠΕΡΙ TOY ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 cor 
 
 51 
 
 τον Φίλιππον, προς ον ήν ήμΐν 6 άγων, νπβρ αργής καί 
 δυναστείας τον οφθαλμόν εκκεκομμενον, την κλείν κατεα- 
 γότα, την γεΐρα, το σκέλος πεπηρωμενον, παν ο τι βονληθείη 
 μέρος η τυγη τον σώματος παρελεσθαι, τούτο προϊεμενον, 5 
 ώστε τω λοιπω μετά τιμής καί δόξης ζην; καί μην ουδέ 68 
 τοντό y ονδείς αν είπείν τολμησαι, ως τω μεν εν ΤΙελλη 
 τραφεντι, γωρίω άδόξω τότε y όντι καί μικρω, τοσαντην 
 μεγαλοφνγίαν προσηκεν εγγενεσθαι ώστε της των 'Ελλήνων 
 άργής επιθνμήσαι καί τοντ εις τον νουν εμβαλεσθαι, νμίν 5 
 
 § 67 . 2. ην om. Ο, V6. ΰμΐν Aj. 4· 0 TL αν βουληθείη Αΐ ; 6 τι αν 
 
 βουληθη Gell. 5 * τούτον Φ. τούτο προϋμενον Σ, L 1 , Gell. ; τοΰτο ετοίμως 
 
 προϊέμ. Σ {yp), Αι; τοΰτο ρρδίως καί ετοίμως προϊέμ. Β, vulg. 6. τό λοιπόν 
 
 L, Αι. 
 
 § 68 . 2. τολμησαι Σ\ τολμησαι (-ειεν over -αι) L; τολμήσειεν vulg. 4· π-ροσ- 
 
 ηκε yεvέσθaι Αι. 5 · eis τ ^ ν νο ^’ ν L, Αι; τόν om. vulg. ήμΐν V 6 . 
 
 2 . ντΓέρ...δυνασ -Tiias, contrasted with 
 ΰπερ...συμφερόντων in § 66 9 . δυναστεία 
 is properly a government of force, not 
 based on the popular will; see § 270 4 . 
 Arist. Pol. vi. (iv.) 5, 2, speaking of 
 the extreme oligarchy, όταν αρχή μη ό 
 νόμος άλλ' οί άρχοντες, says, καί έστιν 
 αντίστροφος αΰτη εν ταΐς όληαρχίαις ώσ¬ 
 περ η τυραννίς iv ταΐς μοναρχίαις καί περί 
 ης τελευταίας εϊπαμεν δημοκρατίας iv ταΐς 
 δημοκρατίαις (unbridled unconstitutional 
 democracy), καί καλοΰσιν δη την τοιαΰτην 
 όλιγ αρχίαν δυναστείαν. But Demosth. 
 uses δυναστείας in § 32 2 7 * of the power of 
 Athens. It is generally, however, an 
 odious term. 
 
 3. τόν οφθαλμόν εκκεκομμε'νον, had had 
 
 his eye knocked out , passive of the active 
 form εκκόπτει τις αύτφ τόν όφθαλμόν, re¬ 
 
 taining the accus. of the thing. The 
 following κατεαγότα is passive in sense, 
 and has the same construction. Cf. άπο- 
 τμηθέντες τάς κεφάλας, Xen. An. II. 6, 1, 
 representing άπέτεμον αυτοίς τάς κεφαλάς. 
 
 For other examples see Thuc. 1. 126 34 , 
 
 140 27 ; Ar. Nub. 72 ; Plato, Men. 87 C ; es¬ 
 
 pecially Thuc. I. 73, εί καί δι' όχλου μάλλον 
 έσται αεί προβαλλομένοις (sc. τα Μηδικά), 
 representing προβάλλομεν ύμΐν τά Μηδικά, 
 as is obscurely suggested by Kruger. Of 
 
 Philip’s wounds the Scholiast says, -ήδη 
 έyvωμεv δ'τι τόν όφθαλμόν επλ^η εν τη 
 
 Μεθώνη, την δέ κλεΐν εν Ίλλυριοΐς, τό δέ 
 σκέλος καί την χεΐρα εν Σκύθαις. For 
 Methone, captured by Philip in 353 I 3 .c., 
 see Hist. § 3 (end). For the Illyrians 
 see Cor. § 44, and for the Scythian cam¬ 
 paign of Philip in 339, see Ilist. § 69. 
 
 5. ττροϊε'μενον, i.e. always ready to 
 sacrifice, followed by ό' τι βουληθείη. 
 
 § 68. 2. τολμησαι: I have retained 
 
 this form, with most recent editors, on 
 the authority of Σ, though the form in 
 -ειε is far more common in Demosthenes 
 and in other Attic prose. See Blass- 
 Kiihner II. p. 74; on the other side 
 Rutherford’s New Phrynichus, pp. 433 — 
 438. Aristotle has the form -at quite as 
 often as -ειε. — εν ΙΙε'λλη τραφε'ντι : cf. 
 Plegesippus [Dem. vn.] 7, πρός τόν εκ 
 ΙΙέλλης όρμώμενον, with the same sarcasm. 
 Pella was a small place until Philip en¬ 
 larged and adorned it. See Strab. vn. 
 fr. 23: την ΙΙέλλαν ουσαν μικράν πρότερον 
 Φίλιππος εις μήκος ηϋξησε τραφείς εν 
 αύτη. 
 
 4· μεγαλοψυχίαν, lofty aspirations. 
 Aristotle (Eth. IV. 3, 3) says of the μεya- 
 λόφυχος, the great-souled or high-minded 
 man, δοκεΐ είναι ό μεyάλωv εαυτόν άξιων 
 άξιος ών. Cf. § 209 2 3 4 * * · 
 
 5· εΐξ τόν νουν εμβαλεσθαι: cf. our 
 phrase take it i)ito his head. 
 
 4—2 
 

 52 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 δ # ονσυν "Αθηναίους καί κατά την ημέραν εκάστην εν πασυ 
 καί λόγους καί θεωρημασυ της των προγόνων αρετής νπο- 
 μνημαθ" όρωσυ τοσαντην κακίαν νπάρξαυ ώστε της ελενθερυ ας 
 αντεπαγγέλτονς εθελοντας παραχωρησαυ Φυλυπ πω^ ονδ 
 
 69 αν εις ταντα φησευεν. λουπον τοίννν ην καί άναγκαυον αμα 
 πάσυν ους εκείνος έπραττεν άδυκων νμας εναντυονσθαυ 
 δυκαίως. τοϊτ επουείτε μεν νμείς εξ αρχής εικότως καί 
 προσηκόντως, εγραφον δε καί σννεβονλενον^ καί έγω^ καθ' 248 
 
 5 ονς επολυτενόμην χρονονς. ομολογώ, αλλα τυ εχρην με 
 τ τουευν; ηδη γάρ σ ερωτω, πάντα τάλλ" άφείς, Α μφυπολυν, 
 Τίνδναν, ΐίοτείδαυαν, 'Αλόννησον ονδ ενός τούτων μεμνημαι^Ι 
 
 70 2 έρρυον δε καί Αορίσκον καί την ΤΙεπαρηθον πόρθησυν καυ 
 όσ" άλλα η πόλυς ηδυκεΐτο, ονδ ευ γεγονεν ουδα. καυτου σν 
 
 6 . κατά την ημέραν έκάστψ Σ, L 1 , Αΐ ; καθ' ήμ.έκ. L 2 3 ( 7 Ρ). B >, vul g·, 7 ; J 0iS 
 (for tvs) V6. υπόμνημα θεωρουσι Σ (ω over ον), L 1 , Μ; υττομνημαθ ορωσιν 
 
 Σ iyp), vulg. 8. τψ έλευθ. Σ, L 1 , Α2; τψ των Ελλήνων έλευθ. vulg. 
 
 ο. εθeλovτas Σ; έθέλοντ as L, Αι. ίο. φήσειεν Σ, V6; φήσεπ L, vulg. 
 
 § 69 . 2. έναντιοΰσθε Σ. 3 · ^ ά ΡΧ^ 2, L, Β, Αι; έξ άρχ. ύμ. vulg. 
 
 4. και (before εγώ) om. Αι. 
 
 § 70 . I. την om. V6. 2. 6 σ' άλλα Σ, L\ Αί; ό'σα άλλα τοιαυτα vulg. 
 
 ήδικεΐτο Σ, L, Φ; ήδίκητο vulg. 
 
 6. εν ΐΓά<π...θεωρήμα<Γΐ, i.e. in all 
 
 that you hear and see: θεώρημα is very 
 rare for θέαμα. 
 
 7« •υίΓομνήμαθ’ όρώσι, beholding me¬ 
 morials ; όρώσι by a slight zeugma in¬ 
 cluding λόyoιs: cf. Aeschyl. Prom. 21 
 οϋτε φωνήν οϋτε του μορφήν βροτών 'όφει. 
 
 8. κακίαν: see note on § 2θ -1 .—ύ-ττάρ- 
 ξαι and e’77 ενέσθαι (4) depend on προσ- 
 ήκεν. 
 
 q. αύτειταγγελτο^ εθελοντάδ, as self- 
 offeredvolunteers’, cf. § 99 s .— ουδ’ av ets: 
 see Μ. T. 219: ούδ’ eis (separated) = ne 
 units quidem, not a man. 
 
 § 69 . 1. άναγκαΐον άμα: cf. ava- 
 
 7 καΐον και δίκαιον άμα, § 9 4 · 
 
 2. ^ττραττίν αδικών, in strong anti¬ 
 thesis to έναντιουσθαι SiAratws. 
 
 3. e£ άρχήδ: this refers’strictly only 
 to the time of his own leadership ( καθ ’ 
 ο'ύ s έπολιτευόμην xpovovs). But he modest¬ 
 ly and speciously appears to represent 
 his own vigorous policy as a continuation 
 
 of earlier energy. When Philip was cap¬ 
 
 turing Amphipolis, Pydna, and Potidaea, 
 Athens was supinely inactive; but De¬ 
 mosthenes was not yet a responsible 
 adviser. In §§ 18 and 60 he expressly 
 disclaims all responsibility for these earlier 
 times. 
 
 5. τί έχρήν με ιτοιεΐν ; see note on 
 
 § 63 1 . 
 
 6. ήδη σ’ ερωτώ : the third time of 
 asking. See note on § 63 1 and the quo¬ 
 tation from Hermogenes.— άφεΐδ, leaving 
 out of account : for Amphipolis, Pydna, 
 and Potidaea, see Hist. § 3; for Halon- 
 nesus, Hist. §§ 55, 56, 57. 
 
 § 70 . r. For Serrhium and Doriscus 
 see note on § 27 s . For the sacking of 
 Peparethus (in 341—340 b.c.) see Plist. 
 
 § 66. ταύτην έπόρθησεν ’Άλκιμos vavapgos 
 του Φιλίππου, Schol. The people of Pe¬ 
 parethus, an ally of Athens, had taken 
 Halonnesus from Philip and captured his 
 garrison. 
 
 2 . ούδ’ εί γε'γονεν οΐδα : cf. XXI. 78» 
 
 τούτον ούδ' ei γέγονεν είδώs, not being , 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 53 
 
 y εφησθά με ταντα λεγοντα εις εχθραν εμβαλεϊν τουτουετι, 
 Εύβονλον κα\ ' Αριστοφωντος καί Αιοπείθονς των περί 
 τούτων ψηφισμάτων οντων, ονκ εμων, ώ Χεγων ενχερως ο τι ζ 
 άν βονΧηθης. ουδέ νυν περί τούτων ερω. άλλ’ ό την 71 
 Εύβοιαν εκείνος σφετεριζδμενος καί κατασκευάζων επιτεί- 
 χισμ επί. την ’ Αττικήν, καί Μεγάροις επιχείρων, και κατα- 
 
 4· ’ Αριστοφωντος Σ (mg.), L, vulg. ; Κτησιφωντος Σ 1 * * 4 * 6 (clots beneath), Α2. 
 
 5. δντων ψηφ. Αι. ( ν above line) Σ. 6. ' ούδέν νυν Ar. 
 
 § 71 . 2. έπιτειχίσματα Ο. 
 
 aware even of his existence. — συ y 2 φησθα: 
 
 see Aesch. III. 82, άρχάς αύτοΐς ένεδίδου 
 πολέμου καϊ ταραχής. 
 
 3· ταΰτα λέγοντα (not επτδντα), i.e. by 
 everlastingly talking abont these. 
 
 4. Εΰβοΰλου καί ’Αριστοφωντος : in 
 
 replying to Aeschines (as quoted above) 
 he is glad to be able to refer to decrees of 
 his political opponents while there were 
 none of his own. Eubulus, though he 
 was the leader of the peace party and 
 always friendly to Philip, might have 
 proposed decrees directing negotiations 
 with Philip about the towns captured by 
 Philip or the later affair of Peparethus; and 
 he might have proposed one remonstrat¬ 
 ing against the seizure of Athenian ships 
 (§73), like the spurious one in §§ 73, 74. 
 The decrees of Eubulus and Aristophon 
 read to the court (§§ 73—75) may have 
 referred to any of these subjects. As 
 Aristophon lived to near the age of a 
 hundred, he may have proposed bills 
 from 346 to 340 B.C., though he was 
 born before the Peloponnesian War. See 
 Schaefer I. 138, 183.—Diopithes is prob¬ 
 ably not the general, but the Sphettian, 
 of whom Hyperides (Eux. xxxix. 29) 
 says, 6 s δεινότατος εδόκει είναι των εν τή 
 πόλει. 
 
 6 . ούδ^...€ρώ: the third παράλειφις 
 
 ( cf . §§ 09 7 , 7° 2 * * )> i n which a fact is im¬ 
 
 pressively stated by declaring that it shall 
 
 not be mentioned. 
 
 § 71 . 2 . €K€ivos: this position is 
 
 allowed the demonstrative when another 
 qualifying word follows the article: cf. 
 ή στενή αυτή οδός, Xen. An. IV. 2 , 6. 
 
 But even then, the regular order may be 
 kept (Madvig, Synt. § n).— σφ€Τ€ριξό- 
 |i€Vos (from σφετερος), appropriating, 
 making his own, of unlawful or unjust 
 appropriation: cf. XXXII. 2, σφετερίσα- 
 σθαι, and Aeschyl. Suppl. 39, λέκτρων 
 σφετεριξάμενον έπιβήναι. For the active 
 έσφετέρίσαν see Plat. Leg. 715 a. I am 
 indebted to Dr Murray of Oxford for an 
 example of the English verb spheterize , 
 in a letter of Sir Wm Jones in S. Parr’s 
 Works (1828), 1. 109, “Remember to 
 reserve for me a copy of your book. I 
 am resolved to spheterize some passages 
 of it.” The dictionaries often refer to 
 Burke for this word.— €-π·ιτ€ίχισρ.α «irl 
 την ’Αττικήν, as a fortress commanding 
 Attica. An έπιτείχισμα is properly a 
 fortress in an enemy’s country, used as 
 a military basis, like the Spartan fort at 
 Decelea in the Peloponnesian War. Here 
 Euboea in Philip’s hands is figuratively 
 described as such a fortress commanding 
 Attica; and the sight of its high moun¬ 
 tains across the narrow strait made the' 
 figure especially vivid to dwellers in the 
 east of Attica: see § 87** and note. See 
 vili. 36, of the tyrants in Eretria and 
 Oreus, δύο έν E ύβοίμ κατέστησε τυράννους, 
 τον μέν άπαντίκρύ τής ’Αττικής ότιταχί- 
 σας, τόν δ’ έπϊ Σκιάθον. Cf. Thuc. I. 
 I. 142 11 , vi. 91 24 ’ 31 , vii. i8 e . This pas¬ 
 sage relates to Philip’s operations in 
 Euboea in 343—342 k.c. See § 79” 
 with note, and Hist. § 58. 
 
 3. Meyapois επιχείρων: in 344—343 
 B.c. Philip attempted to get possession of 
 Megara, with the help of his friends in 
 
54 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 λαμβάνων Είρεόν, καί κατασκάπτων ΥΙορθμόν, καί καθιστάς 
 5 iv μεν Ώρεω Φιλιστίδην τύραννον εν δ’ Ερέτρια ΚΧείταργον, 
 και τον Ελλήσποντον ύφ * εαυτω ποιούμενος, καί Βυζάντιον 
 πολιορκων, καί πόλεις Ελληνίδας ας μεν άναιρων εις ας δε 
 τους φυγάδας κατάγων, πότερον ταυτα πάντα ποιων ηδίκει 
 καί παρεσπόνδει και ελυε την ειρηνην η ον; και πότερον 
 ίο φανήναι τινα των Ελλήνων τον ταυτα κωλνσοντα ποιεϊν 
 72 αυτόν έχρήν η μη; εί μεν yap μη iyprjv, άλλα την Μυσων 
 λείαν καλουμενην την Ελλάδα ουσαν οφθηναι ζώντων καί 
 όντων ’ Αθηναίων, περιείργασμαι μεν εγω περί τούτων είπων, 
 περιείργασται δ 5 η πόλις η πεισθείσ εμοί, έστω δε άδικη- 
 5 ματα πάντ ά πεπρακται καί άμαρτηματ εμά. εί δ’ εδει 
 
 4, 5· ωραίοι and ωραιωι Σ. 6. το ’Βυζάντιον Αι (cf. § 8ο 2 ). 7 · 2 , 
 
 L, Αί, Β; τά$ μέν Αι, Υ, vulg. εις άς δέ Σ, L, Αι. 2, Β; εις τάς δέ Ο 1 (τ? erased). 
 Older editions have τινάς.,.τινάς or ras...ras: see Reiske and Dobson. 8. πάντα 
 ταυτα F; πάντα om. L. 9. τη v elp. ελυε L. 
 
 § 72 . 2. λείαν (ei fr. ι) Σ. ζώντ.Άθ. και όντ. vulg. 5. πάντα Σ, L, 
 
 Α2, Β, Υ, Φ; πάντα ταυτα vulg. 
 
 - J 
 
 the city. See § 48 s and Hist. § 52. 
 Megara is mentioned here with Euboea 
 because its close proximity to Athens 
 would have made it, in Philip’s hands, 
 another ei τιτείχισμα έπϊ την Αττικήν. 
 
 6. τον Έλλησ-ττοντον: for Philip’s 
 operations in the Hellespont and at By¬ 
 zantium, see §§ 87—89, and 244. 
 
 7. as μεν... eis as 8e: very rare for 
 τάς μέν.,.είς ras δέ : in XLI. 11 we have 
 ά μέν (cod. A τα μέν)...των δέ.,.τά δέ. 
 See Philem. frag. 99 (Kock) ων μέν διά 
 τύχην, ών δε δι’ εαυτούς. (See Vdmel.) 
 
 8. tovs φυγάδα$ κατάγων: i.e. re- 
 storing his own exiled partizans. 
 
 9. ή οΰ: sc. ήδίκει κ.τ.λ.; but (in 11) 
 ή μη : SC. φανήναι. 
 
 ίο. τον ταυτα κωλύσ-οντα = δς τ. κω- 
 
 λύσει (final); in § 7 2<5 is the simple 
 κωλυτήν; both predicates with φανήναι. 
 
 n. €\ρήν ή μή : the question is here 
 put for the fourth time: see note on 
 § 63 1 . 
 
 § 72 . 1. cl μέν γάρ μή έχρήν : the 
 
 alternative is εί δ’ έδει ($). —την Μυστών 
 Xefav, Mysian booty, i.e. like the Mysians, 
 
 a prey to everybody, παροιμία * τάττεται 
 δε επί των μάτην και άναιτίως άπολλυμέ- 
 νων (Schol.). παροιμία, ήν φησι Αήμων 
 την αρχήν λαβεΐν από των καταδραμόντων 
 άστυΎειτόνων τε και ληστών την Μυσίαν 
 κατά την Τ ηλεφου του βασιλεως αποδημίαν, 
 Harpocr. This refers to the wanderings 
 of Telephus, disguised as a beggar, in 
 quest of Achilles, who had wounded him 
 and alone could cure his wound. This 
 was the plot of the much-ridiculed Tele¬ 
 phus of Euripides: see Plat. Gorg. 521 b; 
 Arist. Rhet. I. 12, 20. 
 
 2. όφθήναι: sc. έχρήν (without μή ). — 
 ζώντων καί όντων: see note on § 4 e . 
 See Plat. Rep. 369 D, του είναι τε και 
 
 3· -πΈριείργασ-μαι, I have done a useless 
 (superfluous) work : περιττως και ούκ άνα- 
 -γκα'ιως παρήνεσά τε έ~γω και ή πόλις ή 
 πεισθεΐσα μάτην έπείσθη (Schol.). 
 
 4. &ττω...€μά: αδικήματα καί άμαρτή- 
 
 ματα εμά is predicate to έστω. See 
 αδίκημα, crime, and άμάμτημα, blunder, 
 distinguished in § 274. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 55 
 
 >49 
 
 τινα τούτων κωλυτήν φανήναι, τίν άλλον ή τον *Αθηναίων 
 δήμον προσήκεν γενεσθαι ; ταυτα τοίνυν επολιτευόμην εγώ, 
 καί ορών καταδουλουμενον πάντας ανθρώπους εκείνον ήναν- 
 τιουμην, καί προλόγων καί διδάσκων μή προιεσθαι διετελουν. 
 
 Καί μην την ειρήνην y εκείνος ελυσε τά πλοία λαβών, 73 
 ούχ ή πόλις, Αισχίνη. 
 
 Φόρε δ’ αυτά τά ψηφίσματα και την επιστολήν την του 
 Φιλίππου, και λόγε εφεξής· από yap τούτων τις τίνος αίτιός 
 εστι γενήσεται φανερόν. 5 
 
 ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ. 
 
 [Έττί άρχοντος Ν εοκλεους, μηνδς βοηδρομιώνος, εκκλησίας 
 συγκλήτου υπο στρατηγών, Ε ΰβουλος Αίνησιθεου Κόπρειος έίπεν, 
 επειδή προσήγγειλαν οί στρατηγοί εν τή εκκλησία ώς άρα Αεω- 
 δάμαντα τον ναύαρχον και τά μετ αυτού άποσταλεντα σκάφη ίο 
 
 6 . τούτων τινα κωΧύτην Ο; τούτων κωΧυτήν (without τινα) vulg. ; tlvcl τούτων κωΧ. 
 Σ ( τούτων corr. from τούτον ?) L; τούτων κωΧ. φαν. Αι (mg.)· μάΧΧον (for &ΧΧον ) 
 
 Αι. 7 · δήμον'Αθην. L. προσήκεν Σ; προσήκε L, Ar, F, Φ; προσήκει vulg. 
 έποΧιτευόμ·ην τότ ’ vulg.; τότ’ om. Σ, L, Αι. 2. 9· ττροΐεσθαι Σ, L, Α2 ; 
 
 προΐεσθαί ταυτα ΦιΧίππφ vulg.; προέσθαι Αι, Ο. δίετέΧουν Σ, L 1 , Αι. 2, Φ; 
 
 om. F, Υ. 
 
 § 73 . 3 · δέ Σ, V6; δ’ L, Αι ; δή vulg. ταυτα Α2. την του om. Ar. 
 
 4. τούτων Σ ι , L 1 , Α2; τούτων εξετασμένων Σ (late mg.), L 2 (mg.), vulg. 5. Χέ"γε. 
 (at end) vulg.; om. Σ, L, F, Y. 
 
 9. μή Ίτροΐίσ-θαι, not to make sur¬ 
 renders (not to give up your own), προΐ¬ 
 εσθαί is here absolute, as in Arist. Eth. 
 III. 5, 14: τότε μέν οΐιν έξην αύτιρ μή 
 νοσεΐν , προεμένψ δ' ούκέτι, i.e. after he 
 has sacrificed his health. 
 
 § 73 . 1. καί μην...λαβών : this seizure 
 of merchant ships by Philip’s cruisers, of 
 which we have no other knowledge, was 
 the overt act which Athens made the 
 occasion of her declaration of war. It 
 perhaps hastened this declaration by a 
 few weeks; but after the letter of Philip 
 (§ 70 » which was practically a declaration 
 of war on his part, only one course was 
 open to Athens. For the formalities with 
 which Athens declared war and j-emoved 
 the column on which the peace of Philo- 
 crateswas inscribed, see Hist. § 68, with 
 the notes. This probably took place in 
 
 the autumn of 340 B.c. 
 
 3. φέρε : see note on § 28 2 .— την έΐτι- 
 σ-τοΧήν: this was a detailed statement 
 of Philip’s grievances, with a defence of 
 his own conduct towards Athens, ending 
 with a formal declaration of war. The 
 document numbered XII. among the ora¬ 
 tions of Demosthenes purports to be this 
 letter; and it is accepted as genuine 
 (at least in substance) by most modern 
 scholars, including Grote (XI. 630). See 
 Hist. § 68. The letter contained in 
 §§ 77» 78 is of course spurious. 
 
 4. tis tCvos: such double interroga- 
 tives are common in Greek, but colloquial 
 or comic in English, as who's who? An 
 increase of the number becomes comicjn 
 Greek; as in IV. 36, rts χορηΎδς...ποτε 
 καί παρα του καί τί Χαβόντα τί δει ποίεΐν. 
 
ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 56 
 
 βίκοσιν in τϊ την τού σίτου παραπομπήν εις 'Ελλήσποντον 6 παρα 
 Φίλιππου στρατηγός Άμύντας καταγήοχεν εις Μακεδονίαν καί εν 
 φυλακή εχει, in τιμεληθήναι τούς πρύτανεις και τους στρατηγούς 
 όπως η βουλή συν άχθη καί αίρεθωσι πρέσβεις προς Φίλιππον, 
 
 74 οΐτινες παράξενο μεν οι διαλέξονται προς αυτόν περί του άφεθήναι 
 τον ναύαρχον και τα πλοία και τους στρατιωτας. και ει μεν δι 
 άγνοιαν ταύτα πεποίηκεν ο Αμυντας, οτι ου μεμψίμοιρε! ο δήμος 
 ούδέν αύτω · ει δε τι πλημμελούντα παρα τα επεσταλμενα λαβών, 
 
 5 δτι επισκεψάμενοι Αθηναίοι επιτιμήσουσι κατα την της ολιγωρίας 
 αξίαν, ει δε μηδετερον τούτων εστίν, άλλ' Ιδία άγνωμονούσιν η 250 
 ό άποστείλας η 6 απεσταλμένος, και τούτο λεγειν, ινα αισθανόμενος 
 ο δήμος βουλεύσηται τί δει ποιείν .] 
 
 75 Τούτο μεν τοίνυν το ψήφισμα Ε ύβονλος εγραψεν, ονκ 
 εγω, το δ* εφεξής * Αριστοφων, ειθ ΕΕγησιππος, ειτ Αριστο- 
 φων πάλιν, ειτα Φιλοκρατης, ειτα Κτ ηφισοφων, ειτα παντες’ 
 εγω δ’ ούδέν περί τούτων, λεγε. 
 
 5 ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ. 
 
 [Έπι Ν εοκλέους άρχοντος, βοηδρομιωνος ενη και νεα, βουλής 
 γνώμη, πρύτανεις καί στρατηγοί εχρηματισαν τα εκ της εκκλησίας 
 ανενεγκοντές, ότι εδοξε τω δήμω πρέσβεις ελεσθαι προς Φίλιππον 
 περί της των πλοίων ανακομιδής και εντολας δούναι κατα τα εκ 
 ίο της έκκλησιας ψηφίσματα, και ειλοντο τουσδε, }ζ.ηφισοφωντα 
 Κ .λέωνος Άναφλύστιον, Δημόκριτον Αημοφώντος Άναγυράσιον, 
 ΤΥολύκριτον ’Απημάντου Κ οθωκιδην. πρυτανεία φυλής \ππο- 
 θωντίδος, ’Αριστοφών Κολλυτευς πρόεδρός ειπενή 
 
 76 'Ωσπερ τοίννν εγω ταντα δεικννω τα ψηφίσματα, οντω 
 καί σν δείξον, Αισχίνη, οποίον εγω γραψας ψήφισμα αίτιος 
 
 § 75 . 3 · πάντε s Σ, L 1 , Α2 ; πάι >res οί άλλοι vulg. 4· λέ·γε. Σ; λέ -ye το 
 
 ■ψήφισμα. L, vulg. 
 
 § 76 . 7. καί om. Σ 1 . οποίον Σ, L, Αί; ποιον vulg. 
 
 § 75 . 4· °νδέν irepl τούτων: 
 
 this with § 76 s is a positive denial of the 
 statement of Aeschines (in. 55) that the 
 decree declaring war was proposed by 
 Demosthenes. The authority of Philo- 
 chorus, claimed for this statement, is based 
 on an unnecessary emendation {ψήφισμα 
 
 'γράψαντος for ψηφίσματα y ράψαντοί) : see 
 Hist. § 68, note. Though Demosthenes 
 was constantly proposing decrees at this 
 time, he cannot have proposed the one 
 which formally declared war or any on the 
 matters mentioned in § 70 or about the 
 seizure of ships (i.e. περί τούτων). 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 57 
 
 
 ειμι τού πολέμου. άλλ’ ούκ αν Ιχοις* el yap είχες, ούδεν 
 αν αυτόν πρότερον νυνί παρεσχου. καί μην ούδ’ 6 Φίλιππος 
 ούδεν αιτιάται εμ υπέρ του πολέμου, ετεροις εγκαλών. 5 
 λεγε δ’ αυτήν την επιστολήν την του Φίλιππου. 
 
 ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ. £ 
 
 [Βασιλεύς Μα^εδόΐ'ωΐ' Φίλιππος Αθηναίων τη βουλή και τω 77 
 δήμω χαίρειν. παρα^βνόμενοι προς εμέ οι παρ' υμών πρεσβευτα'ι, 
 
 Κ ηφισοφών καί Δημόκριτος και ΥΙολΰκριτος, SieXeyovro περί της 
 των πλοίων άφεσεως ών εναυάρχει Λεωδαμας. καθ' ολου μεν 
 οΰν εμοιγε φαίνεσθε εν μεγάλη εύηθεία εσεσθαι , εί οίεσθ ’ εμε 5 
 λανθάνειν ότι εζαπεστάλη ταυτα τα πλοία πρόφασιν μεν ώς τον 
 σίτον παραπεμφοντα εκ τού 'Έύλλησπόντου εις Δήμνον, βοηθή- 
 σοντα δε Σηλυβριανοίς τοίς ύπ' εμού μεν πολιορκουμενοις, ου 
 συμπεριειλημμενοις δε εν ταίς της φιλίας κοινή κειμεναις ημίν 
 συνθήκαις. και ταύτα συνετάχθη τω ναυάρχω ανευ μεν τού δήμου 78 
 τού ’ Αθηναίων , υπό δε τινων αρχόντων και ετερων ιδιωτών μεν νύν 
 οντων, εκ παντός δε τρόπου βουλομενων τον δήμον αντί της νύν 
 ύπαρχούσης προς εμε φιλίας τον πόλεμον αναλαβείν, πολλω 
 μάλλον φιλότιμου μενών τούτο συντ ετελεσθαι η τοίς 'βηλυβριανοίς g 
 βοηθησαι. και ύπολαμβάνουσιν αύτοίς τό τοιούτο πρόσοδον 
 εσεσθαι' ού μεντοι μοι δοκεί τούτο χρήσιμον ύπάρχειν ονθ' ύμίν 
 ούτ εμοί. διόπερ τιί τε νύν καταχθέντα πλοία προς ημάς άφίημι 
 ύμίν, και τού λοιπού, εάν βούλησθε μη επιτρεπειν τοίς προεστη- 
 κόσιν υμών κακοηθως πολιτευεσθαι, αλλ* επιτιμάτε, πειράσομαι ίο 
 Kayco διαφυλάττειν την ειρήνην, ευτυχείτε .] 
 
 'Έινταύθ’ ούδαμού Δημοσθενην γεγραφεν, ούδ’ αιτίαν 79 
 ούδεμίαν κατ εμού, τι ποτ ούν τοΐς αλλοις εγκαλών των 
 εμοί πεπραγμενών ούχί μεμνηται; ότι των αδικημάτων αν 
 εμεμνητο των αυτού, εί τι περί εμού γ* εγραφεν' τούτων 
 
 3· εΐχεσ (σ from τ’?) Σ. g. εμέ Σ, L, Β; με vulg. 6. την τον Σ, F, Υ, 
 Αι; την om. L, vulg. 
 
 § 79. 4 · εαυτόν Ο, V6. ~/ε~/ραφεν Σ; yty ραφε L, vulg.; y' 2y ραφεν 
 
 Droysen (1839); eyεyράφει Devarius, Dind. 
 
 § 76. 6. €τη<ττολήν : see note on 
 
 § 73 s · 
 
 § 79. 3. on... των αύτοΰ : this im¬ 
 
 plies that Philip could not speak of any 
 
 recent case in which Demosth. had op¬ 
 posed him, without alluding to some 
 disgraceful act of his own. 
 
 4 . ei. γ* ϊγραφίν : this absolutely 
 
ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 58 
 
 5 γάρ είχόμην εγω καί τούτοις ηναντιούμην. καί πρώτον μεν 25 
 την εις ΐίελοπόννησον πρεσβείαν έγραφα, οτε πρώτον εκείνος 
 είς ΐίελοπόννησον παρεδυετο, ειτα την εις Βυβοιαν, ηνικ 
 Εύβοιας ηπτετο, ειτα την επ Ωρεον εξοδον, ουκετι πρέσβευαν, 
 καί την εις Ερέτριαν, επειδή τυράννους εκείνος εν ταυταις 
 80 ταΐς πόλεσι κατέστησ εν. | μετά ταυτα δε τους αποστόλους 
 » άπαντας άπεστειλα, καθ' ους Χερρόνησος^ εσωθη καί το 
 Βυζάντιον καί πάντες οί σύμμαχοι. εξ ών ύμιν μεν τα 
 κάλλιστα, έπαινοι, δόξαι, τιμαί, στέφανοι, χάριτες παρά 
 5 των ευ πεπονθότων ύπηρχον' των δ αδικούμενων τοϊς μεν 
 ύμίν τότε πεισθείσιν η σωτήρια περιεγενετο, τοϊς δ ολιγω - 
 ρησασι το πολλακις ων υμείς προειπατε μεμνησθαι και 
 νομίζειν υμάς μη μόνον ευνους εαυτούς αλλα και φρονίμους^ 
 ανθρώπους και μάντεις είναι * παντα yap εκβεβηκεν a 
 
 8 . Ώρεφ Αι. 
 
 80 . ι. μετά δ£ ταυτα Σ 
 
 •yl 
 
 Αι. 
 
 5 · ύπηρχον 
 8 . έαυτοΐς 
 
 το 
 
 ν 
 
 A 2 ; μετά ταυτα δε Σ (corr.), vulg. 
 
 Buf. Σ, L, A 2 (cf. § 7 1 * * * * 5 6 7 8 ); T ° om * vul S* 3 · 
 
 L 1 , Ar; iyiy νοντο L 2 (over ύπηρχον), vulg. 
 
 (line through e), L, Ai. 2; αύτοΑ B, vulg. 
 
 2. πάντας 
 phv ύμΐν V 6 . 
 6 . ημϊν V 6 . 
 
 certain but long neglected correction of 
 Droysen (1839), hardly an emendation, 
 is now generally adopted for the im¬ 
 
 possible γβγ ραφεν or 7 έγραφε of the 
 
 MSS. Others read έ^ε^ράφει : see G. H. 
 
 Schaefer’s note (Appar. Grit, et Exeg.). 
 
 5. είχόμην, clung to, followed up 
 closely. 
 
 6. els Πελοιτόννησ-ον : probably the 
 embassy of 344» on which Demosth. made 
 the speech to the Messenians and Argives 
 which he quotes in the Second Philippic, 
 20 —25. This agrees better with ore 
 πρώτον παρεδύετο than the later embassy 
 mentioned in the Third Philippic 72. 
 See Isoc. v. 74, and Hist. §§51, 52. 
 
 7. irapeSveTO, was working his way, 
 stealing in’, cf. παρέδν, XXII. 48.— την 
 els Εύβοιαν (sc. πρεσβείαν) : this was 
 sent in 343—342 B.C., when Philip was 
 establishing the tyrannies at Eretria and 
 Oreus (§ 71). 
 
 8. την cir* Ώρεόν...Έρετρ£αν : these 
 are the two military expeditions to Eu¬ 
 
 boea in 341 B.C., by which the two 
 tyrannies in Oreus and Eretria were 
 suppressed, the tyrants Philistides and 
 Clitarchus were killed, and the whole 
 island was left free from Philip’s influence. 
 See Hist. § 64. 
 
 § 80 . 1. airoo-ToXovs: the orators use 
 άπδστολος, properly a messenger (N. Test. 
 apostle), for a naval armament’, cf. ούτε 
 ναυσί κρατήσαϊ ηΧθεν αν ποτέ στοΧιρ, ούτε 
 πεξ’η κ.τ.Χ., VI. 36. 
 
 2. άττειττειΧα: properly used with 
 άπoστ 6 Xoυs, I sent out (by my decrees): 
 cf. πρεσβείαν Hypaxf/a , § 79*’.— Χερρονησοε 
 ...σύμμαχοι : see §§ 87—89, 240, 241. 
 
 4. £π·αινοι...χάριτ6$: the decrees con¬ 
 ferring these grateful rewards on Athens 
 were read after § 89. 
 
 6. tois δ’ όλιγωρήσασι : this refers 
 to the Peloponnesians who neglected the 
 advice of Demosthenes in 344 B.c. (§ 79 s ) 
 and later (ix. 27, 34), and to the early 
 refusal of Oreus and Eretria to listen to 
 Athens (ix. 37 * 66, 68). 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 59 
 
 253 
 
 προείπατε. καί μην ότι πολλά μεν αν χρηματ εδωκε 81 
 Φιλί στίδης ώστ όχειν Ώρεον, πολλά δε Κλείταρχος ώστ 
 όχειν Ερέτριαν, πολλά δ’ αυτός 6 Φίλιππος ώστε ταύθ '* 
 ύπαρχειν εφί υμάς αύτω καί περί των άλλων μηδέν εζελεγ- 
 χεσθαι μηδ' α ποιων ηδίκει μηδέν εζετάζειν πανταχού, 5 
 ουδείς αγνοεί, και πάντων ήκιστα σύ · οι γάρ παρά τού 82 
 Κλει τάρχον και τον Φιλίστίδου τότε πρέσβεις δεύρ’ άφικνού- 
 μενοι παρά σοι κατελυον, Αισχίνη, καί σύ προύζενε ις αυτών * 
 ούς η μεν πόλις ως εχθρούς καί ούτε δίκαια ούτε συμφέροντα 
 λέγοντας άπηλασεν, σοί δ’ ησαν φίλοι, ού τοίνυν επράχθη 5 
 τούτων ούδεν, ώ βλάσφημων περί εμού καί λεγων ώς σιωπώ 
 μεν λαβών βοώ δ’ άναλώσας. άλλ’ ού σύ, αλλά βοας μεν 
 εχων, παυσει δε ούδεποτ εάν μη σε ούτοι παύσωσιν άτιμώ- 
 
 ιο. προείπατε Σ, L 1 ; προείπατε αντοΐς L 2 , vulg. 
 
 § 81 . ι. άν om. Al. 2. ώραιον (e over at) Σ (cf. § 71 4 · 5 6 * 8 ). 
 
 Σ; αντφ L, vulg.; αύτιρ Bk. eXtyxeadcu Ai, Y. 
 
 § 82 . 2. άφίκόμενοι Al. 3. Αισχίνη om. Y. 5. 
 
 •σε L, vulg.; απήλασαν V6. 7. σύ Σ; σύ ye L, vulg. 8. 
 
 παύση vulg.; παύη V6. άτιμάσαντες O 1 (a corr. to ώ, yp). 
 
 αντωι 
 
 άπηλασεν Σ, 
 παύση Σ, L ; 
 
 § βΐ. 3 · ώστε ταΰθ’ υπάρχαν, that 
 he might have these (the two towns under 
 the two tyrants) to depend on, i.e. as επι- 
 τειχίσματα έπΐ την Άττίκην (§ 7 1 )· 
 
 4· μηδέν ίξίλδ'γχίσ-θαι, (sc. subj. αυ¬ 
 τόν) : cf. the active constr. in Plat. Ap. 
 23 A, ά αν άλλον εξελίξω. 
 
 5· ττανταχοΰ, anywhere’, cf. πάντων , 
 
 § 5 3 · 
 
 6. πάντων ήκισ-τα σ-ύ: a sudden out¬ 
 burst of personality. 
 
 § 82 . 2. άφικνούμδνοι ... κατέλυον : 
 
 the tenses imply that such envoys of the 
 tyrants were regular guests of Aeschines. 
 These visits were probably connected 
 with the embassy sent by Cal lias of 
 Chalcis to Athens in 343—342 lt.c. to 
 negotiate a treaty (Aesch. ill. 91), which 
 alarmed the tyrants. See Hist. § 58, and 
 Schaefer 11. 420, 421. 
 
 3. κατέλυον, lodged (as we say put up), 
 lit. let down, originally unharnessed ; cf. 
 Od. IV. 28, καταλύσομεν ώκεας 'ίππους . — 
 Ίτρούξέν€ΐ$ αυτών, you were their πρόξενος : 
 
 this might be metaphorical; but there is 
 good reason for thinking that Aeschines 
 was the official representative at Athens 
 of Oreus, if not of Eretria. See Hist. 
 
 § 39, note on Aesch. Π. 89, προξενιάς 
 κατασ κεναζόμενοι. 
 
 άττηλα<Γ€ν, rejected (i.e. their pro¬ 
 
 posals). Cf. 11. 6, ix. 66.— ού τοίνυν... 
 ούδέν: i.e. nothing of the kind was ez’er 
 successful with me, referring to 7τολλά μεν 
 
 άν χρήματα Ζδωκε κ.τ.λ. in § 8ΐ. 
 
 6. ώς σ-ιωττώ.άναλώσ -as : quoted 
 
 from memory from the speech of Aesch. 
 (218), σύ δ' οίμαι λαβών μεν σεσίyηκaς, 
 άναλώσας δε κέκραyaς. 
 
 7· poas «χων, you keep on shouting'. 
 cf. Ar. Nub. =509, τί κυπτάζης Ζχων ; 
 
 (M.T. 837). 
 
 8. τταύ(Γ€ΐ.. .iravcrcoo't.v, you will not 
 stop unless these judges stop you .— άτιμώ- 
 σ-αντ€5, i.e. by not giving you a fifth of 
 their votes, the result of which would be 
 the partial άτιμία of losing the right to 
 bring a similar suit hereafter, with a fine 
 
6o 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 83 <Τ<ΧΖ'"Γ €9 TTj fxzpov. crT€(f)0LVQ)O'CLVT(0l' TOiVVV νμων εμ €7 TL TOV~ 
 TOL$ TOT€, KOLL y pCLXpCLVTOS Κρίστονίκον TCL? CLVTCLS σνλλαβας 
 άσπερ οντοσΐ Κ,τησίφων vvv γεγραφεν, καί αναρρηθεντος 
 lv τω θεάτρω τον στεφάνου,—καί δεύτερον κηρύγματος 
 
 5 ηδη μ οι τούτον γίγνομενον, —οντ αντειττεν Αίσγμνης παρών 
 οντε τον είπόντ εγραφατο.' καί μοί λεγε καί τοντο το 
 φηφίσμα λαβών. s' 
 
 ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ. 
 
 84 [ΈττΙ ΙΧαίρώνδου 'Ηγημονος άργοντος, γαμηΧιώνος έκτη απίον- 
 το?, φυΧης 7 τρντανευονσης Αεοντίδος, Α ρίστονικος Φ ρεαρρως είπεν, 
 επειδή Αημοσθενης Αημοσθενους ΥΙαίανίεύς ποΧΧας καί μεγαΧας 
 γρείας παρεσ^ηταί τω δημω τω Αθηναίων και ποΧΧοίς των 
 
 5 σνμμάγων καί προτερον, καί εν τω παροντί καιρω βεβοηθηκε δία 
 των ψηφισμάτων, καί τίνας των εν τη Ε υβοία πτόΧεων ηΧευθερωκε, 
 καί δίατεΧεϊ εΰνονς ών τω δημω τω Αθηναίων, καί Χεγεί καί πράττει 
 ο τί άν δΰνηταί αγαθόν υπέρ τε αυτών Αθηναίων καί των αΧΧων 
 'ΈΑΧήνων, δεδόγθαί τη βουΧη καί τω δι^μω τω Αθηναίων επαί- 
 ιο νεσαί Αημοσθενην Αημοσθενους ΤΙαίανίεα καί στεφανώσαί γρυσω 
 
 9· τήμερον περί τό βήμα Ο. 
 
 § 83 . 3 · ytypacpe νυν Αι. 4· τετάρτου (for δευτέρου) Spengel. 5 · ywo- 
 
 μένου Αι. άνεΐπεν Σ 1 (τ above the line). 6. τον αντ * ειποντα , αντα¬ 
 πάντα L, F ( yp ), Φ ( yp ) ; αντί πάντα Αι. καί (bef. τούτο) om. Αι, Β. 
 
 corr. for τούτον Σ. 
 
 of ιοοο drachmas. This was actually the 
 result of this trial. 
 
 § 83 . 2. γράψαντο8...·γ€ , ·γραφ€ν : i.e. 
 
 the two decrees were essentially identical 
 in form. In § 223 he says of a later 
 decree, τάς αύτάς συ\\αβά$ καί ταύτά 
 ρ-ήματα £χα. Even this does not include 
 such details as dates, names, etc. 
 
 4. lv τω θεάτρω: this anticipates the 
 argument on the place of proclamation 
 (§§ 120, 121), and gives a precedent for 
 Ctesiphon’s proposal.— δεύτερον. . .τούτου 
 ·γι·γνομ.ενου : τούτου is here ambiguous, 
 and West, and Bl. think it is corrupt. 
 If we refer the words to Ctesiphon’s 
 decree (with Blass, who omits τούτου), 
 assuming that the crown proposed by 
 Demomeles and Hyperides in 338 was 
 never proclaimed on account of the battle 
 of Chaeronea, we cannot explain τό 7τολ- 
 
 λά /as αυτός στεφανωσθαι. in § 12ο 2 . We 
 must therefore refer τούτου to the proposal 
 of Aristonicus, and understand the clause 
 δευτέρου .. ^^νομένον to mean that one 
 crown had been given to Demosth. in 
 the theatre before that of Aristonicus. 
 yιyvoμέvoυ is imperfect, and we might 
 have had δεύτερον κήρυ yμa ήδη μοι τούτο 
 eyiyveTo, the imperf. implying that he 
 was then receiving the distinction for the 
 second time. In the Lives of the Ten 
 Orators (Demosth., end) Aristonicus is 
 said to have been the first to propose to 
 crown the orator: but the writer may 
 have interpreted τούτου in our passage 
 wrongly. No solution of the difficulty is 
 perfectly satisfactory: Spengel proposes 
 to emend δευτέρου to τετάρτου (i.e. δ'). 
 
 g. τταρών, though present. 
 
 6. έγράψατο : sc. παρανόμων. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 61 
 
 στεφάνω , καί άναγορεΰσαι τον στέφανον εν τώ θεέιτρω Αιονυσίοις, 
 τραγωδοΐς καινοΐς, τί}ς δβ άναγορενσεως του στεφάνου επομεληθήναι 
 54 την πρυτανεΰουσαν φυλήν καί τον αγωνοθέτην, είπεν ' Α,ριστόνικο ? 
 ό Φ ρεάρριοςί] 
 
 ν Ε στιν ουν όστις υμών οι8έ τινα αισχύνην τη πόλει 85 
 συμβάσαν διά τούτο το φηφισμα η 'χλευασμόν η γέλωτα, 
 ά νυν οΰτος έφη συμβησεσθαι αν εγώ στεφανώμαι; καί 
 μην όταν η νέα καί γνώριμα ττάσι τα πράγματα, εάν τε 
 καλώς έχη, χάριτος τυγχάνει, εάν θ' ώς ετέρως, τιμωρίας. 5 
 φαίνομαι τοίνυν εγώ χάριτος τετυχηκώς τότε, καί ου μέμφεως 
 ού8έ τιμωρίας. - 
 
 Ούκουν μέχρι μέν των χρόνων εκείνων εν οΐς ταυτ 86 
 επράχθη, πάντ άνωμολόγημαι τα άριστα πράττειν τη πόλει, 
 τω νικάν ότ εβουλευεσθέ λέγων καί γράφων, τω καταπρα- 
 
 § 85. 1. τη πόλει συμβάσαν Σ, L, Αι, Y; συμβ- τη ττόλ. B, vulg. 3. η a 
 
 Ο 1 . άν Σ, L, V6; εάν vulg. 6. τότε (corr. for ?) Σ. 
 
 § 86 . 2. πάντας άνωμολ. τούς χρόνους Σ ( yp ), L, vulg.; τούς χρόνους om. Σ; 
 πάντ’ (for πάντας) West., Lips., πάντως Dobr., Vom. πράττειν καί \0ye'.v 
 
 2 (yp), φ (yp)· 
 
 § 85. 2. σ~υμβάσ·αν = 6tl συνέβη : 
 
 cf. φαίνομαι τετυχηκώς (6). 
 
 3· £φη σ-υμβησ-εσ-θαι: see Aesch. -23 1 > 
 όταν τον τοιουτον άνθρωπον στεφανωτέ, 
 ούκ οΐεσθε έν ταΐς των 'Ελλήνων δόξαις 
 συρίττεσθαι; 
 
 5· ώ$ έτερος, otherwise, in the other 
 why (opposed to καλώς), used to avoid 
 κακώς. This is the adverb of τό έτερον, 
 as ωσαύτως (ως αϋτως) of τό αυτό, and ώ$ 
 αληθώς of τό αληθές. We find also ώς 
 έτΰμως, Aeschyl. Eum. 534 » ws έτητΰμως, 
 Soph. El. 1452; and ώϊ παραπλησίως, 
 Hdt. vii. 119 1 . This is the explanation 
 of Fox, Kranzrede, pp. 298, 299, in 
 which West, and Bl. concur. See xxii. 
 12, aya 0 a ή θάτερα, ϊνα μηδέν εΐπω 
 φλαϋρον, which shows the euphemistic 
 character of ώς ετέρως here. 
 
 § 86 . 2. -ττάντ* ...ιτραττειν, that I 
 
 did everything that was best. It is diffi¬ 
 cult to choose even the most probable 
 reading here. Both πάντας (Σ) and 
 πάντας τούς χρόνους are objectionable, 
 
 and we seem compelled to decide be¬ 
 tween the conjectures πάντ’ and πάντως. 
 We have πάντως έξετάζειν in § 256 1 , acc. 
 to Preuss (Index) the only case of πάντως 
 in Demosth. This would connect τφ 
 νικάν etc. more closely with άνωμολό- 
 yημaι ; but πάντα τά άριστα makes a 
 most natural object to πράττειν . — ττράτ- 
 T€iv is imperfect (for ’έπραττον). On the 
 contrary, νικάν, καταπραχθηναι, and ye- 
 νέσθαι are distinguished only like ordinary 
 present and aorist infinitives (M.T. 87, 
 96). This is always the case with these 
 tenses of the infinitive with the article, 
 except in occasional examples of oratio 
 obliqua (M.T. 794). Madvig’srule (Synt. 
 § 172 b), that the aor. infin. with both 
 the article and a subject is always past 
 except in purpose clauses, cannot be 
 maintained. It fails in § 33 s , πρό του 
 τούς Φωκέας άπολέσθαι, and in Thuc. VII. 
 68 l -’ - 15 (τό άπελθεΐν and τό κολασθηναι). 
 πεποιησθαι (6) is the regular perfect (M.T. 
 102, 109). 
 
 t 
 
62 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 χθηναι τά γραφεντα και στέφανους ε^ αυτών τη t Γ ολει και 
 5 ifiol KOLL TTOLCTLV yeV€<J0CLl, τω θυσίας T019 θεΟίς KCLj> TTpOCToSoVS 
 ώς αγαθών τούτων οντων υμάς πεποιησθαι. y 
 87 ’Επειδή τοίνυν e/e τής^Ενβοίας 6 Φίλιππος νφ* υμών 
 ε^ηΧάθη, —τοις μεν οπΧοις, τη δε πολιτεία και τοις φηφι- 
 σμασι, καν διαρραγώσί τινες τούτων, νπ εμού,—ετερον 
 κατά της πόΧεως επιτειχισμον εζητε ι. όρωρ δ ότι σίτω 
 5 πάντων ανθρώπων πΧειστω χρωμεθ επεισακτω, βουΧομενος 
 της σιτοπομπίας κύριος χενεσθαι, παρεΧθων επι Θράκης 
 Βυζαντίους, συμμάχους όντας αυτω, το μεν πρώτον ηζιου 
 
 5· πασιν Σ, L', As ; πασιν υμιν vulg. γίνεσθαι Αι. τοιϊ θεοίς after προσό¬ 
 δους Αι. 6. ώ? om. L 1 . 
 
 § 87 . I. ύ0’ ήμ,ών (corr. for υμών, Vom.) έξηΧάθη τοΐς μεν οπΧοις (ΰφ υμών 
 added later over δττλοι$) Σ (ΰφ’ ημών dotted for erasure); άφ' υμών έξηΧ. τοις 
 /a. οπΧοις L, same w. ΰ0’ υμών As, in both ΰ0’ υμών added after άπλοι?; υ0 υμών 
 μεν έξηΧ. τ. οπλ. Υ ; έξηΧ. τοίς μέν οπ\. ΰφί υμών Αι, Β, vulg. 6. σιτοπομπίας 
 
 Σ, L, Υ, F, Φ, Αι. s; σιτοπομπείας vulg. 7 * ’όντας συμμ. V6. αΰτιρ L, 
 
 vulg. ; αυτωι Σ, αΰτ 0 Bk. 
 
 4. τά ·γραφ€ντα = ά typaxpa; see note 
 on § 50 4 5 . — και ejxol καί ττάσ-ιν repeats the 
 idea of τη πόΧει. 
 
 5. προσόδους, processions : cf. § si6 9 . 
 
 § 87 . 2. Tots pev oirXois, / mean, by 
 
 arms, added, as if by afterthought, to 
 limit ΰφ’ υμών, as ποΧιτεία and φηφίσμασι 
 limit ύπ έμου. The interruption is col¬ 
 loquial and designedly spontaneous. See 
 note on § 121 6 , των δ’ άφαιρών μέρη. 
 
 3· καν διαρραγώσί: see § si 7 * . 
 
 4. Ι-ΐΓίτίίχισ-μδν, i.e. Byzantium, as a 
 point from which to threaten Athens: 
 see note on § 71 2 .— σίτω έπίΐσάκτω : the 
 same words are found in xx. 31, where 
 it is said that the grain from the Euxine 
 was about half of the ndiole amount im¬ 
 ported by Athens. See Sandys’s notes 
 on xx. 31—33. The thin soil of Attica 
 (τό Χεπτό"γεων, Thuc. I. s) could not 
 supply grain enough for the population, 
 even in the best seasons, and the fruitful 
 shores of the Euxine were the most im¬ 
 portant sources of supply. Hence it 
 would have been fatal to Athens to have 
 the Hellespont and the Bosporus in 
 hostile hands (cf. §§ 241, 301). Boeckh 
 estimates the grain annually consumed 
 
 in Attica at about 3,400,000 μέδιμνοι 
 (5,100,000 bushels), of which only 
 2,400,000 μέδιμνοι could be raised at 
 home. See Staatsh. d. Ath. Book 1. Ch. 
 15. Strabo (p. 311) says that in the 
 Tauric Chersonese (the Crimea) the seed 
 produced thirty-fold. See Hdt. vii. 147 
 for the characteristic story of Xerxes 
 complacently viewing the ships loaded 
 with grain sailing by Abydos to Aegina 
 and Peloponnesus to supply his army. 
 
 6. τταρ€λθών iiri Θράκης : this prob¬ 
 ably refers to the advance of Philip to 
 the siege of Perinthus in 340, n’hen he 
 protected his fleet in its passage through 
 the Hellespont by marching an army 
 through the Chersonese. The appeal to 
 Byzantium, as an ally, to help him in his 
 coming war with Athens was perhaps 
 sent from Perinthus, which he besieged 
 unsuccessfully before he attacked Byzan¬ 
 tium. See Hist. §§ 66, 67. Threats of 
 hostilities against Byzantium by Philip 
 are mentioned a year earlier (see VIII. 66, 
 ix. 35); but the present passage must 
 refer to the time immediately before the 
 war with Athens. 
 
 7. Βυζαντίου? : with both ήξίου and 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 63 
 
 συμπολεμείν τον προς υμάς πόλεμον, ως δ’ ούκ ηθελον ούδ’ 
 επί τούτους εφασαν την συμμαχίαν πεπουησθαυ, λεγοντες 
 άληθη, χάρακα βαλόμενος προς τη πόλευ καί μηχανηματ ίο 
 επυστησας επολυόρκει. τούτων 8ε γυγνομενων ό τι μεν 88 
 προσηκε πουεΐν υμάς, ονκ επερωτησω’ όηλον yap εστιν 
 55 άπασιν. /άλλα τις ήν 6 βοηθησας τουφ^Βυζαντίους και 
 σωσας αυτούς; τις 6 κωλύσας τον *Ελλήσποντον άλλοτρυω- 
 θηναι κατ εκείνους τούς χρόνους; υμείς, άνόρες *Αθηναίου. 5 
 το ο νμευς όταν Κεγω, την ποΚυν Κεγω. τυς ο ο τη πολευ 
 λεγων καί γραφών καί πράττων καί απλώς εαυτόν ευς τα 
 πράγματ άφευόώς 8υδούς; εγώ. άλλα μην ηλίκα ταύτ 89 
 
 ωφεΚησεν απαντας, ουκετ εκ του λ ογου οευ μαυευν, αλλ 
 έργω πίπύρασθί · ό γαρ Tore eve ττας πολί/χος dvtv τον 
 
 Mrt 
 
 4Λ5 
 
 ίο. χάρακα Σ, L 1 , Harpocr. ; χαράκωμα Σ (yp), Αι ; χαρακώματα L 2 * * * (with άτ-), 
 vulg. βαΧόμενοζ Σ, L, vulg. ; βαΧΧόμενος Σ (yp ) ; βονλόμβνος Αι. ιγ. έπιστήσαι 
 (CM for cac) V 6 . 
 
 § 88. 2. 7τ ροσήκε vulg.; προσήκει Σ, L. ύμα$ Σ, L, Αι,Φ; ήμα$ vulg. 
 
 ονκ έττερωτήσω Σ, L, Α2, Φ (yp) ; ούκέτ ’ έρωτήσω vulg. 4· άτταΧΧοτριωθήναι Αι. 
 
 5 · ώ άνδρε% vulg.; ώ ora. Σ, L. 6 . όταν Xtyu Σ, L; όταν εΐπω vulg. 7· α-ύτον 
 V 6 . 8 . δού* Σ, L, vulg., Bk.; διδούς Αι, most edd. 
 
 § 89 . 2. ούκέτ ’ Σ, L, Αι; ονκ vulg. τού λόγοι» Σ, L, Α2; λόγοι» vulg. 
 
 δει om. Ο. μαθέΐν υμάς Αι. 
 
 έττοΧιόρκει (ιι).—<τυ|λμάχου$: after By¬ 
 
 zantium left the Athenian alliance in the 
 
 Social war, she became an ally of Philip 
 
 (xv. 3, ix. 35). But now she had been 
 
 brought into friendship and alliance with 
 
 Athens by the skilful diplomacy of De¬ 
 
 mosthenes before Philip’s appeal to her 
 for help (Hist. § 63). 
 
 8. οΰκ ήθίλον ούδ’ £φα<ταν, refused 
 
 and denied. 
 
 10. χάρακα, here a palisade , generally 
 a pale or pole: see Harpocr. χάρακα · 
 Δημοσθένης τό χαράκωμα 5 ττεριεβάΧ- 
 Χοντδ τινες στρατοπέδφ έττί σωτηρίςι. See 
 VI. 23, χαρακώματα καί τείχη καί τάφροι. 
 —Ρ·ηχ αν ήρ> ατ ’ errumjtras : cf. IX. 17, 
 50. The siege of Byzantium marks an 
 epoch in engines of war: see Schaefer 11. 
 500. 
 
 §88. 1. ό τι ττροσ-ήκί : the question 
 
 already asked in §§ 63, 66, 69, 71. 
 
 2. οΰκ έττίρωτησ-ω, I will not repeat 
 
 the question : the common reading ούκέτ 
 έρωτήσω gives nearly the same sense. 
 
 3. t£s ην ό βοηθήσ -as; like who was 
 the one who did it ? (M.T. 41). 
 
 7. λίγων ... 8i8ovs; these participles 
 are imperfect, and so contrasted with the 
 preceding βοηθήσας etc. Few editors 
 venture to accept 0ovs for διδονς, though 
 it is supported by Σ and L. Vomel says: 
 “ Nec puto Demosthenis aures tolerasse 
 continuatas syllabas— δώς δούς. Sed in 
 talibus nihil affirmarim.” The aorist 
 δον s after the preceding imperfects would 
 doubtless add force, like 6 s έδωκε for 6s 
 έδίδον. But how about the sound ? 
 
 § 89 . 2. ίκ τοϋ λόγου, in the familiar 
 antithesis to ’Ipyip. 
 
 3. ό «verms, which broke out (0s ένέ· 
 στη): cf. ένειστήκει, was ^ιpon us, § 139 6 * 8 * 10 . 
 — άνίυ, besides (without reckoning): cf. 
 [XIII.] 7, άνεν τον σνμφέρειν, and XXIII. 
 112, άνεν τούτου. 
 
ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 64 
 
 1 
 
 καλήν So^av ενεγκεϊν εν ttolctl τοΐς κατα τον βυον αφθονωτε- 
 5 ρους καί ενωνοτέροις Si ηγεν νμας της νυν ευρηνης, ην οντοι 
 κατα της ττατρίδος τηρονσυν ol χρηστοί εττί ταϊς μελλονσαυς 
 ελττί (TLV, ών $ιαρ,άρτοιεν, και μετασ^ουεν ων νμεΐς ol τα 
 βέλτιστα βονλόμενοί τονς θεονς αιτείτε, μη μετα$οϊεν νμϊν 
 ών αντοϊ ττροηρηνται. λεγε S αντους καί τονς των Ί^νζαντιων 
 ίο στεφάνονς καί τονς των ΤΙερινθιων, ους εεττεφανονν εκ τονΤων 
 την ττόλυν. 
 
 5· καί εύων. om. Α2. Sirjyev 2 , L; dijyayev vulg. υμάς vulg.; ημάς Al. 
 6. μέλλονσιν (αις over ιν) 2 . 7· Kai μετάσχοιεν 2 , L; καί μή μετάσχοιεν vulg. 
 
 8. μή μεταδοΐεν 2 ; μηδέ μεταδοΐεν L, vulg. υμιν 2 , L (η over v) ημΐν B, F (υ 
 
 over ή). 9, 10. τούς των Buf. 2, L, Y, Ai. 2; τούς των Περ. same, with F, Φ; 
 
 των (in both) om. vulg. 
 
 4. 4v Ίτάσι .. . διήγεν vp.as, saw you 
 
 supplied (carried you through) with all 
 the necessaries of life in greater abundance 
 and cheaper. 
 
 5. tt]s νυν είρήνηξ: τής επί ’Αλεξάν¬ 
 δρου (Schol.), the peace of Demades, 
 under which Athens had been living since 
 Chaeronea.— ήν...τηρούσαν : the Mace¬ 
 donian party had been strong enough to 
 prevent Athens from openly helping 
 Thebes in her revolt in 335 b.c., or the 
 Peloponnesians under Agis in 330. See 
 Grote xii. 44 , 59 ; 380—383. 
 
 6. χρηστοί: cf. the sarcastic χρηστέ, 
 § 318 4 5 6 7 .—eirl... 4 X'iricriv, in (with a view 
 to) their hopes of future gain : έλπί'ξουσι 
 yap έπανελθόντα τον ’Αλέξανδρον αϊτό των 
 Π ερσων μεyάλa αύτοΐς χαρίζεσθαι ώς ττρο- 
 δόταις (Schol.). 
 
 7. 8. καί μ.€τά(τχοΐ€ν...μ.ή μεταδοΐεν: 
 
 this reading of 2 gives an entirely different 
 sense from that of the common text, καί 
 μη μετάσχοιεν ...μηδέ μεταδοΐεν. The 
 meaning is, May they fail in these their 
 hopes; and may they rather be allowed to 
 share with you patriots in the blessings 
 for which you pray, that they may not 
 involve you in the calamities which would 
 result from their policy. It is impossible, 
 I think, to take μη μεταδοΐεν as a mere 
 continuation of the wish of μετάσχοιεν : 
 the asyndeton would be too harsh. Μη 
 μεταδοΐεν must be a final clause, assimi¬ 
 lated to the optative μετάσχοιεν (M.T. 
 182), as in ’έλθοι όπως yevoiTo λυτήριος, 
 
 Aeschyl. Eum. 297, and ylvoiTO.. Xv ai 
 Μ νκηναι yvoTuv, Soph. Phil. 324. For 
 12 final optatives and 10 subjunctives 
 after wishing optatives (all poetic) see 
 M.T. 181. I know no other case in 
 prose ; but I know no other final clause 
 (of any kind) depending on a wishing 
 optative in prose, which is hardly strange. 
 But an optative in a condition is as good 
 for our purpose as one in a wish ; and we 
 have in Plato Rep. 370 D, εί βουκόλους 
 7 τροσθεΐμεν, ινα.. Χχοιεν βοΰς, and Xen. 
 Cyr. I. 6, 22, εί πείσαις έπαινεΐν σε πολ¬ 
 λούς, όπως δόξαν λάβοις : see other cases 
 in M.T. i8o b . Μη introducing a pure 
 final clause is a gradually disappearing 
 construction. In epic and lyric poetry 
 the proportion of this to that of the final 
 particles with μή is 131 : 50; in tragedy 
 it is 76 : 59; and in Attic prose it is 
 almost wholly confined to Plato (24) and 
 Xenophon (12). In the Attic orators 
 there are only four cases of simple μή, 
 two of which (not counting the present 
 one) are in Demosthenes: see xix. 225, 
 μή τις ΐδη, and XXXVIII. 26, μή με φώσιν. 
 See Weber, Absichtssatze, pp. 184, 221, 
 245—247. Those who are not satisfied 
 with μή μεταδοΐεν in this sense must re¬ 
 turn to μηδέ μεταδοΐεν as a wish. 
 
 9. ών αυτοί ττροηρηνται, i.e. their 
 προαίρεσις : τής δουλείας δηλονότι (Schol.). 
 —τού$...Περινθίων, i.e. the crowns voted 
 by these towns and sent to Athens as 
 marks of honour. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 65 
 
 ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΩΝ. 
 
 [Έπί ίερομνήμονος Βοσττορίχω Ααμή^ητος εν τα άΧία εΧεξεν, 90 
 εκ τα? βωΧας Χαβών ρήτραν, εττειδή δ δάμος δ Άθαναίων εν τ€ 
 τοΐς 7 τρο Γ γε < γεναμενοις καιροϊς εύνοεων διατεΧεει Βυζαντίοις καί τοΐς 
 συμμάχου · ? καί avyyei >έσι ΥΙερινθίοις καί 7τολλα? καί μεηήΧας 
 χρείας τταρεσχηται, εν re τω τταρεστακότι καιρω ΦιΧιττττω τώ 5 
 ΜακεδδϊΌ? εττιστρατενσαντος ειτί τ αν χωράν καί ταν ττόΧιν €7 τ’ 
 
 256 αναστάσει Βυζαντίων καί Τίερινθίων καί ταν χώραν δαίοντος καί 
 δενδροκοττεοντος, βοηθήσας ττΧοίοις εκατόν καί είκοσι καί σίτω καί 
 βεΧεσι καί όττΧίταις εξειΧετο αμε εκ των μεηάΧων κινδύνων καί 
 αττοκατεστασε ταν ττάτριον ί τοΧιτείαν καί τώς νόμως καί τώς ίο 
 τάφως, δεδόχθαι τω δάμω τω Βυζαντίων καί Π ερινθίων Άθαναίοις 91 
 δόμεν επιγαμίαν, ιτοΧιτείαν; ε^κτασιν γα? καί οικίαν, ττροεδρίαν εν 
 τοΐς ά<γώσι, ττόθοδον ττοτί ταν βωΧαν καί τον δαμον ί τράτοις μετά 
 τα ιερά, καί τοΐς κατοικεειν εθεΧουσι ταν ττόΧιν αΧειτουρηητοις 
 ή μεν ττασάν ταν Χειτουρ^ιάν στασαι δε καί εικόνας τρεις εκκαιδε- 5 
 καττάχεις εν τω Βοσττορείω, στέφανονμενον τον δαμον τον 'Αθαναίων 
 υττό τώ δάμω τώ Βυζαντίων καί Τίερινθίων άττοστεΐΧαι δε καί 
 θεωρίας ες τ ας εν τα Ελλάδα ττανα^ύριας, Ίσθμια καί Νεμεα καί 
 ΌΧύμττια καί ΐίύθια , καί άνακαρύξαι τώς στεφάνως οϊς εστεφάνω- 
 ται 6 δαμος ό Άθαναίων ύφ' ημών, οττως επιστέωνται οί'ΈίΧΧανες ίο 
 ταν τε Άθαναίων αρετήν καί ταν Βυζαντίων καί Τίερινθίων €υχα- 
 ριστίαν.\ 
 
 Λ eye καί τους παρά των iv Χερρονησω στεφάνους. 
 
 92 
 
 ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ ΧΕΡΡΟΝΗ2ΙΤΩΝ. 
 
 [Χερρονησιτών οί κατοικουντες 'βηστόν, 'ΒΧεουντα, Μ άδυτον, 
 ΆΧωπεκόννησον, στεφανοΰσιν ’Αθηναίων την βουΧην καί τον 
 δήμον χρυσω στεφάνω από ταΧήντων εξήκοντα, καί χαριτυς βωμόν 5 
 ιδρύονται καί δήμου Αθηναίων, ότι ττάντων μεγίστου αγαθών 
 τταραίτιος γεγονε Χερρονησίταις, εξεΧομενος εκ τής ΦιΧίτττΓου καί 
 αποδούς τας ττατρίδας, τούς νόμους, την εΧευθεριαν, τα ιερά, καί 
 εν τω μετά ταύτα αίώνι παντί ούκ εΧΧείλΙτει ευχαριστών καί ποιών 
 ο τι αν δυνηται αγαθόν, ταύτα ε^ηφίσαντο εν τω κοινω βου- ίο 
 Χευτηρίωί] 
 
 §92. ι. \eye... στεφάνους om. Ο. 
 
 G. D. 
 
66 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 93 Ονκονν ον μόνον το Ιλ,ερρονησον και Βυζάντιον σωσαι, 
 ουδέ το κωλνσαι τον 'Ελλήσποντον νπο Φιλίππω γενεσθαι 
 τότε, ουδέ το τιμάσθαι την πόλιν εκ τοντω ν η προαιρεσις γη 
 εμή καί ή πολιτεία διεπ ραξατο, αλλα και πασιν εδειξεν 
 
 5 ανθρώπους την τε τής πόλεως καλοκαγαθιαν και την Φίλιππον 
 κακίαν. 6 μεν γάρ σύμμαχος ών τοΐς Βνζαντιοις πολιορκών 
 αντονς εωρατο νπο πάντων, ον τι γενοιτ αν αισχιον ή 
 
 94 μιαρώτερον; νμεΐς δ’, οι καί μεμφαμενοι πολλά καί δυκαι 
 αν εκείνους εικότως περί ών ήγνωμονήκεσαν εις υμάς εν 
 τοΐς έμπροσθεν χρόνους, ον μονον ον μνη συ κακόν ντες ονδε 
 προυεμενοι τονς αδυκονμενονς αλλα και σωζοντες εφαινεσθε , 
 
 5 εξ ών δόξαν, έννοιαν παρά πάντων εκτάσθε. καί μην ότι 
 μεν πολλούς εστεφανώκατ ήδη των πολιτενομενων άπαντες 
 ϊσασί' δυ όντινα δ άλλον η πολύς εστεφανωται, σνμβονφον 
 λέγω καί ρήτορα, πλην δυ εμε, ονδ αν εις ειπειν εχρι. 
 
 § 93. 4’ 5 · άνθρ. Σ, L, Αι, Υ, Φ; άνθρ. έδειξε vulg. ^ 6 . μεν yap 
 
 Σ, L 1 , Α2, Β (7 ρ) ; φ ye Σ {yp), L 2 , vulg. σύμμαχος ών Σ, L 1 , Α-; ΦιΧμπγο και 
 
 over σύμμαχος L 2 ; φίλος και σύμμαχος ών Σ (yp), vulg.; φίλος ών και σύμμαχος 
 Ατ. 7 * και (for η) Ac, V6. 
 
 § 94. 5 · δόξαν εύνοιαν vulg., Lips., Bl.; (with comma) Vom., West.; δόξαν καί 
 
 εύνοιαν only η, Bk.; δόξαν εύνοιαν τιμήν Ar. 6. μεν πολλούς Σ, L, Αι; ττολλ. 
 
 μέν vulg. πολιτευόμενων Σ, L, Β, vulg.; πεπόλιτευμένων F. απαντες add. 
 
 over line Σ. 8. λέyω om. Υ 1 . 
 
 § 93 . ι. ούκοΰν introduces the con¬ 
 clusion to which the decrees point. 
 
 2. ουδέ (sc. μόνον): cf. ούδέ, § 2 4 . 
 
 3. ή Trpoaip€<ris και ή πολιτίία : cf. 
 §§ 292^ 317 2 . In § 192 s we have την 
 
 προαίρεσιν της πολιτείας in nearly the 
 
 same sense. 
 
 6. σύμμαχος ών : cf. § 87 7 · 
 
 § 94. 1. οί μ€μψάμ€νοι αν = οΐ εμέμ- 
 
 φασθε dv. —πολλά καί δίκαι’ έκίίνοις: 
 
 cf. Ar. Plut. 8, Αοξίρ μέμφιν δικαίαν 
 μέμφομαι ταΰτην. 
 
 2. ών ή-γνωμονήκίσαν tls υμάς : cf. 
 
 01s εύτυχηκεσαν, § ιδ 0 . This refers to 
 the conduct of Byzantium in the Social 
 war: see note on § 87 7 , and Hist. §§ 2, 
 
 63· 
 
 3. μνησικακοΰντίς : remembering old 
 gmdges (maliciously): cf. § 99L See μη 
 
 μνησικακησειν in the oath of oblivion 
 after the restoration in 403 B.C., Xen. 
 Hell. 11. 4, 43. 
 
 5. δόξαν, «ΰνοιαν: the asyndeton is 
 more emphatic than δόξαν καί εύνοιαν : 
 see §§ 96 4 > 5 6 , 234 s , and xix. 190 and 220. 
 (See West.) 
 
 6 . των πολιτ€υόμ€νων, your public 
 men : the other reading των πεπολιτευ- 
 μενων might be neut. pass, (as in §§ 8 2 , 
 n 2 ’ 5 ) and causal. 
 
 7. σύμβουλον...ρήτορα : Phocion as 
 general was probably one of the excep¬ 
 tions here implied (West.); see xxii. 72, 
 for the inscription on a crown at Athens, 
 Έύβοεΐς έλευθερωθέντες έστεφάνωσαν τον 
 δήμον, which Blass refers to the famous 
 expedition to Euboea under Timotheus 
 in 357 B.C. See § 99 s . 
 

 ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 67 
 
 _ *1να τοίνυν καί τάς βλασφημίας ας κατά των Βυβοέων 95 
 
 και των Βυζαντίων εποιησατο, el τι δυσχερές αυτοίς επε- 
 [ πρακτο προς υμάς υπομιμνησκων, συκοφαντίας οϋσας 
 ί-επιδείζω μη μόνον τω φευδεΐς είναι (τούτο μεν yap ύπάρχειν 
 υμάς είδότας ηγούμαι), άλλα καί τω, εί τα μάλιστ ησαν 5 
 αληθείς, ο ύτως ως έγω κεχρημαι τοίς πράγμασι συμφέρειν 
 χρησασθαι, εν η δυο βούλομαι των καθ' υμάς πεπραγμένων 
 58 καλών τη πόλει διεζελθείν, καί ταυτ εν βραχέσι · καί γάρ 
 άνδρα ιδία καί πόλιν κοινή προς τα κάλλιστα των υπαρ¬ 
 χόντων αεί δεί πειράσθαι τα λοιπά πράττειν. υμείς τοίνυν, 96 
 άνδρες * Αθηναίοι, Λακεδαιμονίων γης καί θαλάττης αρχόντων 
 
 § 95 . 5 · είδέναι (dotted for erasure) under ηχούμαι Σ, same (είδέναι erased) L. 
 
 6. συμφέρει W 6 . 7. χρήσθαι Αι, Ο. ίο. πειράσθαι τα λοιπά Σ, L; τα 
 
 λοιπά πειρ. vulg. 
 
 § 96 . 2. άνδρες Σ, L; ω άνδρες vulg. 
 
 §§ 95 —ΙΟΙ. Historical parallels are 
 cited to show that the considerate treat¬ 
 ment of Euboea and Byzantium was in 
 accordance with the traditional policy of 
 Athens. 
 
 § 95 . 1. Tas βλασφημίαν refers to 
 
 the long tirade of Aeschines (ill. 85—93) 
 against the proceedings in Euboea in 
 341—340. There is nothing in the speech 
 of Aesch., as it now stands, relating to 
 the help sent to Byzantium. 
 
 2. δυσχερή, unpleasant , is a euphem¬ 
 
 ism adapted to the changed state of 
 feeling towards Euboea and Byzantium 
 since 343. 
 
 4. ύιτάρχίΐν υμάς clSoTas, that you 
 may be presumed to know. cf. § 22 8 * 2 . 
 This is not a mere expanded είδέναι (as 
 if είναι were used), but we have the 
 fundamental idea of υπάρχω added: see 
 note on § i 3 4 5 . In line 9, των υπαρχόντων 
 applies to the glories of our ancestors as 
 material stored up for us to emulate. 
 
 5. τω... συμφερειν, like τφ ψευδείς 
 
 είναι, expresses means.— εί.,.ήσαν, si 
 erant (not essent ): cf. § 12 6 . For τά 
 μάλιστα see § 21 2 . 
 
 7. χρη'σασθαι, deal with , manage .— 
 
 των καθ’ ύμα5, of the events of your time , 
 
 beginning with the Corinthian war of 
 
 395 b.c. This war was now 65 years 
 old; but there were probably old men in 
 the immense audience who distinctly re¬ 
 membered it and who would be pleased to 
 have it spoken of as in their day. Still, 
 he feels that these earlier events hardly 
 fall within his limit of καθ' υμάς, for he 
 says των τότε ’Αθηναίων in § 90 7 * * , directly 
 after έζήλθετε εις Άλίαρτον, and οι υμέ- 
 τεροι πρόχονοι, followed by υμείς οι πρεσ- 
 βύτεροι, in § 98 s . 
 
 9. άνδρα Ιδία...τΓράττ€ΐν : this belongs 
 (acc. to Bl.) to the class of ~γνωμαι discuss¬ 
 ed by Aristotle, Rhet. 11. 21, 15: έχουσι 
 δ’ (·γνωμαι) εις τούς λόχους βοήθειαν μεχά- 
 λην, μίαν μέν διά τήν φορτικότητα των 
 ακροατών χαίρουσι χάρ εάν τις καθόλου 
 λέχων έπιτύχη των δόξων ας εκείνοι κατά 
 μέρος έχουσιν. — irpos, with reference (or 
 regard ) to : cf. τό πρός τι, Aristotle’s 
 category of relation. 
 
 10. τά λοιττά (cf. § '27 10 ), opposed to 
 των υπαρχόντων. 
 
 §96. 2. Λακεδαιμονίων. . .αρχόντων : 
 
 after the Peloponnesian War, Lysander 
 established in most of the conquered 
 towns, and even in some which were 
 previously friendly to Sparta, a Spartan 
 governor ( άρμοστής ) with a military force 
 (φρουρά), and a board of ten citizens of 
 
 5~2 
 
68 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 καί τά κύκλω της Αττικής κατεχόντων αρμοσταΐς και 
 φρουραΊς, Ε υβοιαν, Ύαναγραν, την Βοιωτίαν απασαν, Me- 
 5 γαρα, Αίγιναν, Κεών, τας άλλας νήσους, ου ναυς ου τείχη 
 της πόλεως τότε κτησαμενης, εξηλθετε εις Αλιαρτον και 
 πάλιν ου πολλαΐς ημεραις ύστερον εις Κόρινθόν, των τότε 
 
 καί (before τά) om. Ae. 5 · κ<? ων, τά * άλλαϊ Dobree; Ινλεωνά?, άλλα? 1 ; 
 
 ΚΧεωνάς, τάς ctXXas L, vulg. ού ναύς ού τείχη vulg. ; ου.,.οϋτε Σ, L. 0 . κτη- 
 σαμένης Σ 1 , L, A 2; κεκτημένης Σ 2 3 4 (over κτησαμένης), vulg. 
 
 the subject state (δεκαδαρχί a), who were 
 partizans of Sparta. See Plutarch, Ly- 
 sand. 13: καταΧύων δε τους δήμους καί τας 
 άΧΧας ποΧιτείας, ένα μέν αρμοστήν έκαστη 
 Αακεδαιμόνιον κατέΧιπε, δέκα δ’ άρχοντας 
 έκ των ύπ ’ αύτοϋ συχκεκροτημένων κατά 
 πόΧιν εταιρειών * καί ταυτα πράττων ομοίως 
 'έν τε ταΐς ποΧεμίαις καί rats συμμάχοις 
 •χεχενημέναις 7 τόΧεσι, παρεπΧει σχοΧαιως. 
 
 See Grote ix. « 55 · 
 
 3. τά κύκλω τήξ 1 Αττική s : more 
 rhetorical than τα περί την Αττικήν, 
 κύκΧιρ having the adverbial sense of 
 around. See IV. 4 5 , €Ϊχομεν πάντα τον 
 τόπον οίκεϊον κύκΧιρ, and XIX. 1 55 > ^ 7Γ0 " 
 ρενοντο κύκΧω, they travelled ?‘ound. 
 
 4. Εύβοιαν...Αίγιναν: Euboea and 
 Megara had been in the hands of the 
 Spartans before the end of the Pelopon¬ 
 nesian war. Tanagra was held by fiiends 
 of Sparta in 377 B.c. (Xen. Hell. v. 4, 49), 
 and we see here that it was Spartan in 395 · 
 Aegina, which Athens had settled with 
 her own people in 431, after expelling 
 the native population, was restored to its 
 former owners (so far as this was possible) 
 by Lysander in 405, as he was on his 
 way to attack Athens (Thuc. II. 27; Xen. 
 Hell. 11. 2,9). Boeotia as a whole was 
 nominally allied with Sparta; but Thebes 
 and other towns became disgusted with 
 Sparta’s tyrannical conduct soon after the 
 end of the war, and though Thebes had 
 been the greatest enemy of Athens when 
 the peace was made, she harboured I hra- 
 sybulus and his fellow exiles before they 
 attacked the Thirty in 403. This dis¬ 
 affection ended in the Boeotian war in 
 
 395, in which Athens aided Thebes (see 
 below); in the battle of Haliartus the 
 
 allies gained a doubtful victory over 
 Sparta, which was made decisive by the 
 death of Lysander on the field. (See 
 Grote ix. 409.) The invasion of Boeotia 
 by Lysander and his Spartan army justi¬ 
 fies τήν Βοιωτίαν απασαν from the Athe¬ 
 nian point of view. It must not be 
 thought that old Spartan allies like 
 Megara were subjected to Lysander’s 
 harmosts and garrisons, notwithstanding 
 Plutarch’s remark quoted above. 
 
 5. KeW, Tas aXXas νήσ -ovs, i.e. Ceos 
 and the adjacent islands, Tenos, Andros, 
 Cythnus, Melos, etc. Melos is mentioned 
 as restored to its old inhabitants by Ly¬ 
 sander (Plut. Lys. 14). The emendation 
 Κεών, τά s άΧΧας νήσους for KXecWs, 
 άΧΧας νήσους (Σ) removes the difficulty 
 caused by the mention (for no apparent 
 reason) of Cleonae, a town between 
 Corinth and Argos, under τά κύκΧιρ τής 
 Αττικής. If Cleonae were named, it 
 would naturally precede Aegina and 
 follow Megara. Cf. A iyivav και Κεω και 
 ” Ανδρον , Xen. Hell. V. 4» 61.— ού vavs ού 
 τ€ΐχ_η τότε KTTjo"ap.€VT]s · Athens was re¬ 
 quired by Sparta to demolish her Long 
 Walls and the walls of the Piraeus, not those 
 of the άστυ ; and she was allowed to keep 
 twelve war-ships: see Xen. Hell. II. 2, 20. 
 Here τότε κτησαμένης (not κεκτημένης) 
 means that she had not yet acquired any 
 ships or walls beyond what were left her 
 at the end of the war. West, thinks that 
 άνακτησαμένης (the strictly correct word) 
 was avoided as suggestive of previous loss. 
 
 6. eis' Αλίαρτον : see note on 1 . 4. 
 
 7. ού iroXXais ήμεραΐξ: according to 
 the accepted chronology, the battle of 
 Haliartus was in the autumn of 395 B.c., 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 69 
 
 * Αθηναίων πδλλ’ αν βρόντων μνησικακησαι και Κ ορινθίοις 
 καί Θηβαίοις των περί τον Δεκελεικόν πόλεμον πραγθεντων * 
 άλλ’ ονκ εποίονν τούτο, ovS 3 εγγύς. καίτοι τότε ταντα 97 
 άμφότερα, Α ίσγίνη, ονθ 3 νπερ ευεργετών εποίονν οντ ακίν- 
 όυν εωρων. άλλ’ ον διά ταντα προίεντο τονς καταφενγοντας 
 εψ εαντονς, αλλ νπερ ενοοςιας καί τιμής ηνελον τους οεινοις · 
 αντονς διόόναι, όρθως καί καλώς βονλενόμενοι. πέρας μεν s 
 γαρ απασιν άνθρωποις εστί τον βίον θάνατος^κανίν οίκίσκω 
 τις αντον καοειρςας τηρη · οει οε τονς αγασονς ανορας 
 εγγειρείν μεν απασιν αεί τοϊς καλοϊς, την αγαθήν προβαλλο- 
 μενονς ελπίδα, φερειν δ 5 αν 6 θεός δίδω γενναίως. ταντ 98 
 
 8. έχ. eyraXecv καί θηβ. καί Κ op. V6. g. ΑεκεΧεικόν L, Αι, Β, Etym. Magn. 
 ρ. 30, ι (see Vomel); ΑεκεΧικδν Σ (but ΑεκεΧεικον in XXII. 15). 
 
 § 97. ι. τότε om. Ai. 3. προΐεντο Σ, L 1 , A2 ; 7 τροεΐντο L 2 , Αι, B, O; 
 
 7 τρόειντο vulg. 4. e<f> αυτούς B, O; ew’ αυτούς Αι. 6. θάνατο s Σ, L, 
 
 Ai. 2, B, Y, O; 6 θάνατος vulg. 9. φέρει,ν δ’ αν 6 6 0 eos διδφ Σ; φέρειν δ' δ τι 
 
 άν θεός δίδφ Σ {yp}, vulg.; δ αν Stob. ; ά άν δίδω Schol. II. ν. 233; & ν Vom., later edcl. 
 
 and that of Corinth in the summer of 394, 
 in the year of Eubulides (see the inscrip¬ 
 tion below). The Corinthian war was 
 the result of a combination of Athenians, 
 Corinthians, Boeotians, Euboeans, Ar- 
 gives, and others against Sparta. In the 
 battle of Corinth, called η μεyάXη μάχη 
 in xx. 52, the Spartans were victorious. 
 See Grote ix. 426—429. The beautiful 
 monument, representing a young warrior 
 on horseback, now standing near the 
 Dipylon gate of Athens, was erected in 
 honour of Dexileos, one of the Athenian 
 horsemen slain in this battle. The inscrip¬ 
 tion is: ΑεξίΧεως Ανσανίον θορίκως. | iyb- 
 vero έπί Τεισάι >δρου άρχοντος, \ άπέθανε έπ' 
 Ε ΰβουΧίδου | ey Κ ορίνθίρ των πέντε Ιππέων. 
 See C. I. Att. 11. 3> Nos. 2084 and 1673; 
 also in Hicks, Gr. Inscr., Nos. 69 and 
 68. Nos. 65, 66 and 67 in Hicks refer 
 to the relations of Athens to the Boeo¬ 
 tian and Corinthian wars. 
 
 8 . ττολλ’ άν Ιχόντων {ποΧΧ' άν εΐχον), 
 i.e. they might have done so, potuissenl. 
 Μ. T. 214. 
 
 9. AeKtXeiKov ‘ττόλίμον, a name often 
 given to the last years of the Pelopon¬ 
 nesian war (413—404 li.c.) when the 
 
 Spartans held the fortress of Decelea in 
 Attica. 
 
 10. οΰδ’ eyyvs : cf. § 12 7 . 
 
 § 97. 5. irepas μέν.,.τηρτ] : this 
 
 was celebrated as a gnomic saying in 
 various forms: see Dindorfs note. In 
 Lucian, Dem. Encom. 5, it is compared 
 with II. xii. 322—328; and the following 
 words, δεΐ.,.έΧπίδα, with XII. 243, els 
 οιωνός άρίστος. Dissen quotes Propert. 
 IV. (in.) 18, 25. The meaning is not 
 the flat truism, “death is the end of all 
 men’s lives,” but att men's lives have 
 a fixed limit in death , and this is made 
 a ground for devoting our lives to noble 
 ends, for which it is worthy to die. 
 
 6. tv οίκίσ-κω, in a chamber', άντί 
 του μικρψ tlvl οίκήματι, Harpocration, 
 who refers to an erroneous attempt of 
 Didymus to explain οίκίσκιρ here by a 
 comic use of the word for όρνι,θοτροφεϊον, 
 bird-cage , or dovecote. The same error 
 appears in the Scholia to Demosthenes. 
 
 8. ττροβαλλομ^νους έΧττίδα, protecting 
 themselves by hope (holding it before thgm , 
 like a shield). Dissen quotes Menander, 
 frag. 572 (Kock); όταν tl πράττης όσων, 
 aya 0 y\v έΧπίδα \ πρόβαΧΧε σαυτέρ, τούτο 
 
 
70 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 εποίονν οι νμετεροι πρόγονοι, τανθ νμείς οι πρεετβντεροι, 
 ot, Αακεδαιμονίονς ον φίλονς όντας ονδ ενεργετας, αλλα 
 πολλά την πόλιν ημών ηδικηκότας και μεγάλα, επειδή 
 5 Θηβαίοι κρατησαντες εν Αεύκτροις ανελεϊν επεγειρονν, διε- 
 κωλύσατε, ον φοβηθεντες την τότε Θηβαίοις ρώμην και 2 
 δό^αν νπάργονσαν, ονδ * νπερ οία πεποιηκοτων ανθρώπων 
 99 κινδννενσετε διαλογισάμενοί' καί γάρ τοι πάσι τοΐς Ελληετιν 
 εδείζατε εκ τούτων ότι, καν ότιονν τις εις νμάς εζαμαρτη, 
 τούτων την οργήν εις τάλλ’ εγετε, εαν δ νπερ σωτήριας η 
 ελενθερίας κίνδννός τις αντονς καταλαμβάνη, ούτε μνησικα- 
 5 κησετε ονθ ’ νπολογιείετθε. καί ονκ επι τούτων μονον όντως 
 
 § 98 . 7. ύμέτεροί Σ, L, vulg. ; ημέτεροι Αι; ύμετ. (η over υ) V 6 . τόθ ’ (for 
 
 ταΰθ’) Α- 2 . ύμεΐς Σ; υμών Σ (yp), L, A 2 ; ύμΐν Αι; ημιν V 6 . 
 
 § 99 . 7. OTL om. V 6 . tls om. A1 . 3· τούτων Σ; τούτιρ Σ (yp), L, 
 
 vulg. eav Σ, L; αν vulg. 4· eXevdepias η σωτηρίας Αι. 5 · μύνον Σ, 
 
 vulg.; μόνων L, Αι. 7 , Dind., Β 1 . 
 
 yLyv&awv otl \ τόλμη δίκαια καί θεός συλ¬ 
 λαμβάνει . Cf. τιρ ττροβάλλεσθαι, § 1 95 11 · 
 
 § 98 . 7 . πρόγονοι: see note on § 95 7 · 
 — vp.€ts : cf. 7rap’ ύμων των πρεσβυτέρων, 
 
 χχ. 52 · 
 
 3· Λακεδαιμονίουβ, obj. of άνελεΐν, 
 δίεκωλύσατε having τούς Θηβαίους, or per¬ 
 haps simply τό π pay μα, understood as its 
 object. From the position of Αακ. we 
 should expect it to belong to the leading 
 verb. 
 
 5. Kpa,TT)VavT€S «ν Λευκτροις : the 
 
 “ Leuctric insolence ” of Thebes (Diod.xvi. 
 58), which made her rather than Sparta 
 the natural enemy of Athens from 371 to 
 339 B.C., was notorious. See §§ 18 6 and 
 3b 2 . In 370, a year after Leuctra, Epa- 
 minondas with a Theban army invaded 
 Laconia and marched up to the city 
 of Sparta itself; but he did not venture 
 to enter the unwalled city and withdrew 
 into Arcadia. At this time he established 
 the new cities of Messene and Megalo¬ 
 polis, to hold Sparta in check. In this 
 trying emergency, Sparta humiliated her¬ 
 self so far as to ask help from her old 
 enemy, Athens. Her request was granted, 
 and Iphicrates was sent into Peloponne¬ 
 sus to the aid of Sparta with 12,000 
 Athenians in the spring of 369 13 .c. This 
 
 saved Sparta from another invasion at 
 this time. See Xen. Hell. vi. 5, 33—52, 
 and Grote x. 320—326. The alliance 
 then formed remained unbroken, though 
 sometimes strained, until after the battle 
 of Mantinea in 362 B.C., in which Athens 
 fought on the side of Sparta. Nations 
 seldom go to war from the pure sense of 
 justice which Demosthenes here attributes 
 to Athens; of course fear of the growing 
 power of Thebes under Epaminondas, 
 as well as political sagacity, had great 
 influence on her policy towards Sparta. 
 
 § 99 . 3. τούτων, for this, referring 
 
 to otlovv, as οστις can always have a 
 plural antecedent. 
 
 4. μνησικακήσ·€Τ€...ύ'π·ο\ογΐ 6 ίσ·θε: μνη- 
 
 σίκακεΊν, though usually intransitive (cf. 
 § 101 5 ), may have an accusative, as μνη· 
 σίκακησαί την ηλικίαν, Ar. Nub. 999· 
 Thus both verbs may here have the same 
 object, suggested by ότίούν. 
 
 εττί τούτων μόνον: cf. XV. 15, τφ 
 "Ροδίων δήμιρ μόνον, and IX. 57 » παρά 
 τούτοίς μόνον. In these cases μόνον modi¬ 
 fies the whole sentence as an adverb, 
 where we should expect the adjective 
 μόνων or μόνιρ with the noun. We are 
 often careless about the position of only; 
 as “he only went to London once.” 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 71 
 
 όσχηκατε, άλλα πάλιν σφετεριζομενών Θηβαίων την Έ^νβοιαν 
 ον περιείδετε, ουδ’ ών υπό Θεμίσωνος και Θεόδωρόν περί 
 ’Ωρωπόν ηδίκησθε άνεμνηιτθητε, άλλ 5 εβοηθησατε καί 
 τοντοις, των εθελοντών τότε τριηράρχων πρώτον γενομενων 
 τη πόλει, ών εις ην εγώ. άλλ’ ονπω περί τούτων. καί 100 
 καλόν μεν εποιησατε καί το ετώεται την νήσον, πολλω δ’ ετι 
 τούτον κάλλιον το καταστάντες κύριοι καί των σωμάτων καί 
 των πόλεων άποδονναι ταντα δικαίως αντοΐς τοϊς εζημαρτη- 
 κόσιν εις υμάς, μηδέν ών ηδίκησθε εν οΐς επιστενθητε 5 
 νπολογισάμενοι. μνρία τοίννν ετερ * είπεΐν εχων παραλείπω, 
 
 9· έθελοντων Β; έθελόντων Σ, L, vulg. (see § 68 6 7 * 9 ). τότε τριηράρχων L; 
 
 τριηράρχων τότε Β; τότε τριήραρχων Σ, A 2; τριήραρχων τότε vulg. 
 
 § ΙΟΟ. I. και Σ, Φ; καίτοι L, vulg. 5· έν oh (έφ' oh V6) έπιστεύ- 
 
 θητε Σ (yp), L 2 , Dind. and later edd.; om. Σ, L 1 , A2. 6. ετερα om. Ai. 
 
 6. σφετεριξομένων την Εύβοιαν: cf. 
 
 71 s . Euboea had been under the control 
 of Thebes since the battle of Leuctra, but 
 in 357 b.C. a Theban army was sent to 
 quiet some disturbances in the island. The 
 Eretrians called on Athens for help against 
 her local enemies, who were supported 
 by the Thebans; and the Athenians with 
 great energy sent an army to Euboea, 
 which drove the whole Theban force from 
 the island in thirty days. This is the 
 famous expedition to which the orators 
 always referred with pride. See Dem. 
 viii. 74, 75, iv. 17; Aesch. 111. 85, 11. 
 164; Diod. xvi. 7; Grote xi. Ch. 86, 
 pp. 306—309. 
 
 7. οΰ περιείδετε : cf. διεκωλύσατε, 
 
 § 98 s .— 0 €|ucr(<)vos: a tyrant of Eretria, 
 
 who in 366 b.c. took from Athens the 
 frontier town of Oropus and gave it to 
 Thebes. Theodorus, another Euboean, 
 was concerned in this seizure. (Grote, 
 X. Ch. 79, p. 392.) Oropus had long 
 been a bone of contention between Athens 
 and Thebes. It was stipulated that 
 Thebes should now hold the town only 
 until the right to it could be settled by 
 arbitration {μέχρι δίκης, Xen. Hell. vil. 
 4, 1). The “case of Oropus” was a 
 protracted one; and it is said that Demo¬ 
 sthenes as a boy was first inspired with 
 a passion for oratory by hearing an elo¬ 
 
 quent plea of Callistratus in defence of 
 the rights of Athens (Plut. Dem. 5). 
 
 9. tovtois: the Euboeans.— των εθε¬ 
 λοντών...τη πόλει, i.e. the state then for 
 the first time obtained the services of 
 volunteer trierarchs {των, because these 
 became an institution: see Boeckh, 
 Staatsh. d. Ath. 1. 638, 657, 686. Most 
 MSS. have έθελόντων for the noun εθελον¬ 
 τών (see § 68 9 ). See xxi. 161: έyέvovτo 
 εις Εύβοιαν επιδόσεις παρ’ ύμΐν πρωται ' 
 τούτων ούκ ην Μειδιάς, άλλ’ εγώ, καί 
 συντριήραρχος ην μοι Φαλΐνος. See XXII. 
 14. Demosthenes therefore was joint 
 trierarch with Phalinus for the expedition 
 to Euboea. 
 
 10. άλλ* οΰπω περί τοΰτων : this may 
 look forward to the orator’s account of 
 his public services in § 267, or possibly 
 to the discussion of his trierarchic reform 
 in §§ 102—109. οϋπω: sc. λέξω, but in 
 XIX. 200, μηπω ταΰτα : sc. εΐπωμεν. 
 
 § ΙΟΟ. 1. καί τό σ-ώσ-αι την νήσον, 
 even saving the island, i.e. this by itself, 
 opposed to πολλφ δ’...κάλλιον, sc. έποιη- 
 σατε. 
 
 5· μηδέν.νπολογισάμενοι: μηδέν 
 
 shows that the participial clause is closely 
 connected with τό άποδοΰναι, not with 
 εποιησατε (understood). The meaning is 
 without taking into account, rather than 
 not taking into account. This use of μή 
 
72 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 101 
 
 5 
 
 ναυμαχίας, εξόδους πβζάς, στρατβίας και παλαι yeyovvi ας 
 και νυν i<f) ημών αυτών, ας άπαιτας η πόλις τής των άλλων 
 'Ελλήνων ελευθερίας καί σωτηρίας πεποιηται. είτ εγω 
 τεθεωρηκως εν τοσούτοις καί τοιουτοις την πολιν υττερ των 
 τοις αλλοις συμφερόντων εθελουσαν άγωνιζεσθαι, υπέρ 
 αυτής τρόπον τινα της βουλής ουσης τι εμελλον κελευσειν 
 η τι συμβουλευσειν αυτή ποιείν; μνησικακείν νη Δια προς · ■’ 
 τους βουλομενους σωζεσθαι, καί προφάσεις ζητείν δι ας 
 απαντα προησόμεθα. καί τις ουκ αν άπεκτεινε με δικαίως, 260 
 ei τι των υπαρχόντων τη πόλει καλών Xoyco μονον καταισ^υ- 
 νειν επεγείρησ αν; επεί τό ye epyov ουκ αν εποιησαθ 
 
 7, 8. ναυμαχίας...ημών αυτών Σ, L; εξόδους, πεζάς στρατείας, καί vulg. ; στρατιάς 
 Σ, V6. 3. ημών Σ, L, Αι, Β, F, Φ; υμών vulg. άλλων om. Αΐ. 9· ^ ν€ Χ' 
 
 Ελλήνων L 2 , Β, vulg.; Ελλήνων ένεκ Αι; Ελλήνων om. V6; 'ένεκα om. Σ, L (cf. 
 XIX. 76). 
 
 § ΙΟΙ. 2. τεθαρρηκώς L 1 . 4· συμβουλής F. ήμελΧον Αι. 5* <^νμ- 
 
 βουλεύειν Αι. μνησικακείν L, Β 2 , V6; μνησικακήσειν Σ, Β 1 , vulg.; μνησικακήσαι 
 
 Η. Wolf. 6. as by corr. Σ. 7· προησόμεθα Σ, L, Αι. 2, Β, F, Φ; προησ. 
 
 τα συμφέροντα vulg.; προηχησόμεθα Ο 1 . 8. μόνων V6. αίσχύνειν Αι. 
 
 9· έττεχείρησ’ άν Σ, L; έττεχείρησα άν Α2, F 1 , Β 1 , Φ; άν om. Αι, Β 2 , vulg., Plut. 
 τότε (for τό ye) Αι. εποιήσασθ' Αι. 
 
 shows the distinction between το... air ο¬ 
 δουν αι and δτι.,.άπέδοτε, the giving up 
 and (the fact ) that you gave up, though 
 we often have to translate both by the 
 same or equivalent expressions: cf. the 
 distinction between ώστε ουκ άπεδότε and 
 
 ώστε μη άποδοΰναι υμάς, which is often 
 very hard to express (see M.T. 582, 583), 
 
 and has often been overlooked.—4v ols 
 
 €τησ-τ€ύθητ€ (for εν έκείνοις a), represent¬ 
 
 ing the active πιστεύειν ταΰτα ΰμΐν, as ών 
 ήδίκησθε represents άδικεΐν ταΰτα ύμάς: 
 
 cf. §§ 18 5 * 7 8 and 19 3 . 
 
 7. εξόδους Trends, land expeditions 
 (after ναυμαχίας) ; στρατείας, campaigns. 
 
 8. T-rjs... σωτηρίαδ, rare genitive of 
 purpose or motive, generally found with 
 'ένεκα, which is added here in most MSS. 
 So XIX. 76, πάσ απάτη καί τέχνη συνε- 
 σκευάσθη του περί Φωκέας ολέθρου, with 
 similar variety of reading. (See G. 1127.) 
 The infinitive with του is common in this 
 construction, especially in Thucydides 
 (M.T. 798): an example occurs in § 107 2 , 
 του μη ποιεΐν. 
 
 § ΙΟΙ. 3· υπέρ airrrjs...oi5<rr)S, when 
 the question in a manner concerned her¬ 
 self 
 
 5. νή Δία, in bitter irony: cf. XX. 
 161. 
 
 6. δι’ as ττροησόμίθα ( excuses ) for 
 sacrificing (final). 
 
 8. υπαρχόντων (cf. § 95 4 ): the glories 
 (καλά) are viewed as a public possession. 
 
 9. €ΤΓ€χ€ίρησ·’ αν: I follow this reading 
 of the best mss. with little hesitation, 
 chiefly because I cannot see how such a 
 change could creep into the best mss. 
 by corruption, if the genuine reading 
 were simply et έπεχείρησα, if I had under¬ 
 taken, which would be perfectly clear. 
 There is no objection to et έπεχείρησ' άν, 
 as to either grammar or sense. It is 
 amply justified by XIX. 172, where there 
 are no various readings and nobody 
 doubts the text: et μή διά τό τούτους 
 βούλεσθαι σώσαι, έξώλης άπολοίμην καί 
 προώλης et προσλαβών y άν άρχύριον 
 πάνυ πολύ μετά τούτων έπρέσβευσα. 
 There εί έπρέσβευσα άν is if I would have 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 73 
 
 e * » r\ λ 'j'OJ 3 / 3 \ 3 η /\ n /'Ts O/ 
 
 υμβις, ακριβώς οιο βγω · ei ya /3 βρουλβσσβ, tl 77 ^ βμποόων ; ίο 
 ού /c i£rjv; ονχ υπηργον οι ταυτ βρουντβς ουτοί; \ 
 
 Βούλομαι τοίνυν βπανβλθβΐν βφ 3 α τούτωνΎζης βπολιτβυό- 102 
 μην' καί σκοπβϊτβ βν τουτοις πάλιν αν τι το τη πόλβι 
 ββλτιστον ην. ορών γάρ, ώ άνδρβς 3 Αθηναίοι, το ναυτικόν 
 υμών καταλυόμβνον, καί τους μβν πλουσίους άτβλβΐς άπο 
 μικρών άναλωμάτων γιγνομβνους τους δε μβτρι η μικρά 5 
 κβκτημβνους των πολιτών τα οντ άπολλυοντας, βτι δ’ υστβ- 
 
 ιο. ακριβώς om. Αι. ιι. ούκ ύπηρχον Σ. 
 
 § 102 . ι. έπελθειν Ο. 2 . τό οηι. Ο. 3· συμφέρον ην λ 7 6 . 5· 7 evo ~ 
 
 μένους Φ; γινομένους V6. και (for η) Αι. 6. των πολιτών om. Αι. τα 
 
 οντ om. Σ 1 ; τα om. Ο 1 . άπολλύοντας Σ, L 1 , Αί, Φ; (w. υδ, L 2 ) ; άττολλό ντας F ; 
 άπολλύντας vulg. 
 
 gone on the embassy , as εί επεχείρησα-άν 
 here is if I would have undertaken (for 
 any consideration). See M.T. 506. Is 
 there not a justification of έπεχείρησ' άν 
 in the following τό y' ’Ipyov ούκ 'άν 
 έποιησαθ' ΰμεΐς, you would not have done 
 the thing in reality (Zpyip), opposed to 
 the preceding supposition, if / had been 
 capable of tindertaking it even in word 
 (λόγ ιρ) ? 
 
 11. οΰχ ·ύττήρχον...οΰτοι, ; were not 
 
 these men here ready to tell you this ? 
 ταυτα refers to μνησικακείν...προησόμεθα 
 
 (ΰ —7)· 
 
 §§ 102—109. The orator defends his 
 Trierarchic Law (340 B.c.) against the 
 attacks of Aeschines. 
 
 § 102 . 1 . €iraveX0€iv: after the di¬ 
 
 gression in §§ 95—101, he now returns to 
 his own political acts. Next in order to 
 his rescue of Byzantium and the Helles¬ 
 pont ( τούτων έξης) he speaks of his reform 
 of the trierarchy at Athens. This im¬ 
 portant measure was carried in 340 b.c., 
 at about the time of the outbreak of the 
 war with Philip (see § 107 5 ). See note 
 on § 103 3 . For an account of the law of 
 Demosthenes and of the various systems of 
 trierarchy which preceded it, see Boeckh’s 
 Staatsh. d. Ath. 1. Bk 4, Ch. 11—16. 
 
 4. κατα\υόμ.€νον, breaking up : notice 
 the following descriptive present parti¬ 
 ciples.—( xtcXcis ... γιγνομ€νους, becoming 
 exempt (from all ‘ liturgies ’) by small pay¬ 
 
 ments. As all the members of a συντέλεια 
 (under the former system) were assessed 
 equally for the support of their ship, the 
 richer συντελείς might satisfy the law (as in 
 the case supposed in § 104) by paying X V 
 of the expense of one ship; and as no one 
 could be required to take more than one 
 ‘ liturgy’ in the same year, they would thus 
 be exempt from all other services. But the 
 richest of all, the leaders of the symmo- 
 ries (§ 103 3 ), sometimes ingeniously used 
 their legal duty of advancing the money 
 for the trierarchy in case of special neces¬ 
 sity as a means of avoiding even their 
 own legal share of the expense. They 
 could bargain with a contractor to do all 
 the work for a fixed sum (e.g. a talent), 
 which they advanced, afterwards assess¬ 
 ing this whole sum, or an unfair part 
 of it, on their poorer colleagues. See 
 Dem. XXI. 155 : οτε πρώτον μέν διακοσίους 
 και χιλίους πεποιήκατε συντελείς ύμεΐς, 
 παρ’ ών είσπραττδμενοι τάλαντον τα¬ 
 λάντου μισθοΰσι τάς τριηραρχίας ουτοι 
 (i.e. rich men like Midias), ...ώ'στ’ αύτών 
 ένίοις τη άληθεία τό μηδέν άναλώσαι καί 
 δοκεΐν λελητουργηκέναι καί των άλλων 
 λητου pyiQv άτελέσι yεyενησθαι περί- 
 εστιν. 
 
 6 . τα οντ’ άττολλύονταε: a strong 
 expression of the injustice to which the 
 poorer συντελείς were liable.— ύσ-τίρί- 
 ζουοταν...τών καιρών, as we say, behind 
 time. 
 
74 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 ρίζουσαν εκ τούτων την πόλιν των καιρών, εθηκα νομονκαθ 
 ον τους μεν τα δίκαια ποιεΐν ηνάγκασα, [τους πλουσίους^,] 
 τούς δε πενητας επαυσ αδικούμενους, τη πόλει δ όπερ ήν 
 ίο χρησιμωτατον, εν καιρω γίγνεσθαι τας παρασκευας εποιησα. 
 103 καί γραφείς τον αγώνα τούτον εις υμάς εισηλθον και απεφυ- 
 γον, καί το μέρος των φηφων δ διωκων ουκ ελαβεν. καιτοι 
 πόσα χρήματα τους ηγεμόνας των συμμοριών η τους δευτέρους 
 καί τρίτους οίεσθε μοι διδοναι ώστε μαλιστα μεν μη θειναι 
 5 του νόμον τούτον, ει δε μη, καταβαλλοντ εαν εν υπωμοσια , 
 
 7 . β* τούτων ύστερίξ. Υ. 7> 8. καθ’ δν Tobs μεν L , vulg. ; 
 
 8. toi)s πλουσίου* om. West., in [ ] Lips. ίο. ναυτικα* (for rets) Σ (yp), B (mg.), 
 
 Φ (mg.), Reislce. . . . f 
 
 § 103 . i. y ραφεί* els Ai; κατη^ορηθεΐ* L 2 ; ypaφεls παρανόμων Σ (mg·), mg· 
 
 B, F, and Φ ; τούτον παρανόμων vulg.; παρανόμων om. Σ, L, A.2, F. 2. το μ pos 
 
 Σ, L 1 * , F, Φ; το πέμπτον μέρο$ Ai, B, vulg. (cf. §§ 222, 250, 266). 3· ’ 
 
 η Ί εμ.) om. O 1 . 4· θεΐναί ^ vul S-i ^ om * 2 ’ L ’ Al .· 2 ’ B> ^ 5 Τ · Λ α τ Τα ^ αλ Β O 
 
 2, L 1 , Φ, Y; καταβαλόντα vulg. μβ after καταβ. vulg.; om. Σ, L, Ai. 2, ΰ, u. 
 
 8. [rovs irkouctovs]: I bracket these 
 words (which West, omits), as an ex¬ 
 planation of tovs μεν, which needs no 
 such note, not venturing to read καθ' δν 
 μεν (without tovs) with Σ. The reading 
 is very doubtful, though the sense is clear. 
 
 § 103 . 1. γραφείς*, sc. παρανόμων. 
 
 — τον αγώνα τούτον.. .εισηλθον, i.e. I stood 
 (entered on) my trial on this issue before 
 you , et’s vμάs implying coming into court, 
 τούτον refers to ypaφείs, meaning the trial 
 which followed his being indicted. Cf. 
 εισηλθον την y ραφήν, § 105 2 . 
 
 ί. to μεροδ (sc. πέμπτον) : cf. § 266 s . 
 See note on § 82 s . 
 
 3. ήγεμόναδ των συμμοριών, leaders 
 of the symmories, here probably the 
 symmories of the trierarchy, though the 
 term commonly refers to the 300 richest 
 citizens ( oi τριακόσιοι, § 17 15 )? who were 
 leaders of the symmories of the property- 
 tax [εισφορά). Under the system which 
 prevailed from 357 to 340 B.C., the 1200 
 richest citizens, who alone were liable to 
 
 the duty of the trierarchy, were divided 
 
 into 20 symmories, regularly of 60 men 
 
 each. To each of these symmories was 
 
 assigned a number of triremes to be fitted 
 
 out in each year, regulated by the needs 
 
 of the state. The symmory divided itself 
 
 into smaller bodies (συντελεί ai), each of 
 which equipped a single ship. The 
 expense was borne equally by all the 
 members, without regard to their wealth. 
 Each symmory probably had a single 
 leader, and the 20 leaders, with the two 
 classes called δεύτεροι and τρίτοι (who are 
 not mentioned elsewhere), evidently be¬ 
 longed to the τριακόσιοι, perhaps including 
 all of that class in the symmories (15 in 
 each). The new law of Demosthenes 
 imposed the burden of the trierarchy on 
 the members of each symmory according 
 to their property, thus greatly increasing 
 the assessment of the richer and diminish¬ 
 ing that of the poorer members. Of this 
 a striking case is given in § ioq 5 * 6 * * . This 
 is all the certain knowledge that we have 
 of this important law. The details often 
 quoted from § 106 are untrustworthy. 
 
 4. διδόναι, offered, representing έδί- 
 δοσαν, which appears in § 104 9 .— μάλιστα 
 μ«ν, above all things, opposed to εί δέ 
 μη (5), otherwise, if not (M.T. 478). μη 
 θείναι, not to enact, i.e. not to bring the 
 new law before the νομοθέτα i. 
 
 5. καταβαλλοντ’ εάν εν υιτωμοσί^., to 
 drop it and let it lie under notice of indict¬ 
 ment (lit. under the prosecutor's oath to 
 bring an indictment). Whenever anyone 
 

 ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 75 
 
 το(ταυτ\ ώ άνδρες Αθηναίοι, δσα όκνησαιμ αν προς υμάς 
 είπεΐν. καί ταντ εικότως επραττον εκείνοι. ήν yap αύτοϊς 104 
 εκ μεν των προτερων νόμων συνεκκαίδεκα Χητουργεϊν, αύτοΐς 
 μεν μικρά καί ούδεν άναΧίσκουσι, τους δ' απόρους των 
 20ι ποΧιτων επιτρίβουσιν, εκ δε τον εμού νόμον το γιγνόμενον 
 κατά την ουσίαν έκαστον τιθεναι, και δνοΐν εφάνη τριήραρχος s 
 6 της μιας έκτος καί δέκατος πρότερον σνντεΧης · ονδε yap 
 τριηράρχους ετ ώνόμαζον εαντους, άλλα συντεΧείς. ώστε 
 δη ταντα Χυθηναι και μη τα δίκαια ποιείν άναγκασθηναι, 
 ουκ εσθ' ο τι ούκ εδίδοσαν. καί μοι Χεγε πρώτον μεν 105 
 το φηφισμα καθ' δ εισηΧθον την γραφήν, ειτα τούς 
 
 6 . Άν είπεΐν έγώ προς υμάς Αι, Φ (y ρ), Υ. 
 
 § 104 . 2. πρότ.ερον Αι. σύν έκκαίδεκα Ο. 6. δέκατος ών L, vulg. ; ών 
 
 om. Σ 1 , Αι, Β, F, Φ. πρότεροςΆι. 7 · % Τί ώνάμαζον Σ, L, Αι. 2 \ έτνωνό- 
 
 μαζον Β, vulg. αυτούς V6. ώστε ύττερ τον ταΰτα Σ (yp). 8 . καί μη... 
 
 avayKaadr/va ι om. L 1 . 9 · °^ κ % crTLJ/ V6. 
 
 § 105 . 2 . τούς \όyoυς Υ. 
 
 formally declared his intention of bringing 
 a 7 ραφή παρανόμων against a law or 
 decree, he was required to bind himself 
 by an oath, called ύπωμοσία, to prosecute 
 the case. This had the effect of suspend¬ 
 ing the law or decree if it was already 
 finally passed, or of stopping a decree 
 which had passed only the Senate (i.e. a 
 προβούλευμα) from being voted on by the 
 Assembly, until the y ραφή παρανόμων 
 could be tried. (For an account of this 
 process see Essay II.) The meaning here 
 is that Demosthenes was offered large 
 sums if he would either decline to bring 
 his new law before the νομοθέται (μη 
 θεΐναί) or else let it quietly drop (eaf') 
 when a y ραφή παρανόμων was brought 
 against it after it was passed. This pas¬ 
 sage shows that dropping a law under 
 indictment was not illegal. 
 
 § 104 . i. ήν.,.λητουργίϊν, i.e. they 
 might perform the service (of the trierarchy) 
 in bodies of sixteen : this is probably stated 
 as an extreme case under the old law, in 
 contrast with an equally extreme case of 
 a man with two whole triremes to support 
 under the new law. 
 
 2. avTots jx€v, thcynselves (ipsis ), op¬ 
 posed to τούς δ' απόρους (3). 
 
 3· μικρά καί ούδέν: see note on 
 § 102 4 . 
 
 4. Ιττιτριβουσ-ιν, distressing (grind¬ 
 ing). — τό “γιγνόμενον τιθεναι, to pay their 
 quota (what fell to each) : cf. τιθεναι τας 
 εισφοράς, XXII. 42. 
 
 5· κατά την ούοτίαν, according to his 
 property : κατά τό τίμημα, according to his 
 valuation, would be more strictly accu¬ 
 rate, as the τίμημα, or taxable property, 
 in different classes bore a differing pro¬ 
 portion to the ουσία . — δυοΐν...σ-υντε\ή§ : 
 it was a possible case that a man who 
 had been assessed (as supposed above) 
 for only one-sixteenth part of the expense 
 of one ship might be compelled to pay 
 for two whole ships under the new law. 
 τριήραρχος suggests τριήροιν and τριήρου s 
 for δυοΐν and μιας. 
 
 7· (τυντελεϊδ, as members of a συντέ¬ 
 λεια (see note on § 103 3 ): sixteen trier- 
 archs of a single ship, of whom perhaps 
 no one even saw the ship, were absurd ! 
 
 9. εδίδοσαν, offered', cf. διδόναι as 
 imperfect in § 103 4 . 
 
 § 105 . 2. ψήφισμα: this cannot be 
 
 the trierarchic law itself, which was no 
 φήφισμα', but a decree passed after the 
 ύπωμοσία, which (as West, explains it) 
 
7 6 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 καταλόγους, τόν τ έκ του ττροτέρου νόμου καί τον κατα τον 
 εμόν. Χεγε. 
 
 ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ. 
 
 [ΈπΙ άρχοντος Πολυέλεους, μηνός βοηδρομιώνο ς έκτη επι βί 
 δέκα, φυΧης πρυτανευούσης Ίπποθωντίδος, Δημοσθένης Αημο- 
 σθένους Ώαιανιεί,ς είσηνεγκε νόμον τριηραρχικόν αντί του τ τροτερου, 
 καθ' ον αί συντέΧειαι ησαν των τριηράρχων και επεχει ροτονησ εν 
 η βουΧη καί 6 δήμον καί άπηνεγκε παρανόμων Αημοσθενει 
 ΥίατροκΧης Φλυευς, και τό μέρος των ψήφων ον Χάβων άπετισε 
 τάς πεντακοσίας δραχμαςό] 
 
 Φάρε δη και τον καΧον καταΧογον. 
 
 ΚΑΤΑΛΟΓΟΣ. 
 
 [Τους τριηράρχους καΧεΐσθαι επί την τριηρη > συνεκκαίδεκα εκ 
 των εν τοΐς Χοχοις συντεΧειών, αϊτό είκοσι καί πέντε ετών εις 
 5 τετταράκοντα, επί ίσον τη χορηγία χρωμένους .] 
 
 φ άρε δη παρά τούτον τον εκ τον εμον νομον καταΧογον. 
 
 ΚΑΤΑΛΟΓΟΣ. 
 
 [Τους τριηράρχούς αίρείσθαι επί την τριηρη από της ουσίας 
 κατά τίμησιν, άπό ταΧάντων δέκα * έάν δέ πΧειόνων^η ουσία 
 ίο άποτετιμημενη η χρημάτων,κατα τον αναΧογισμον^ εως τριών πΧοιων 
 καί υπηρετικοί, η Χειτουργία έστω, κατά την αυτήν δε άναΧογιαν 
 άστω καί οΐς εΧάττων ουσία έστί τών δέκα ταΧάντων, εις συντεΧειαν 
 συναγομένοις εις τα δέκα τάΧανταό\ 
 
 202 
 
 3· τύν (after και) om. Υ. 
 
 § 106 . ι. και om. Αι. ί. ΚΑΤΑΛΟΓΟΣ Σ. 
 
 η. ΚΑΤΑΑΟΤΟΤ Σ, Φ. 
 
 ordered the suspension of the law, or 
 (as Blass suggests) pi-ovided for the trial 
 of the case.— καθ’ o — secundum quod , ex 
 quo, not propter quod (West.). 
 
 τού? καταλόγου? : the stupidity of the 
 interpolator of the false documents never 
 shows to greater advantage than in the 
 two fragments of a pretended decree 
 given as κατάλογοι in § 106. lhe real 
 
 documents were two lists of citizens of 
 various degrees of wealth, with state¬ 
 ments of their assessments for the trier- 
 archy under the old law and under the 
 law of Demosthenes. The contrast be¬ 
 tween the two called forth the question 
 with which § 107 begins, lhe docu¬ 
 ment in § 105 is not a decree, but a 
 memorandum. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 77 
 
 Άρα μικρά βοηθησαι τοΐς πενησιν υμών δοκω , η μίκρ ’ 107 
 άναλωσαι αν του μη τα δίκαια ποιείν εθελειν οι πλούσιοι ; 
 ου τοίνυν μόνον τω μη καθυφεΐναι ταυτα σεμνύνομαι, ουδέ 
 τω γραφείς άποφυγεΐν, αλλά και τω συμφέροντα θεΐναι τον 
 νόμον και τω πείραν εργω δεδωκεν αι. πάντα γάρ τον s 
 
 πόλεμον των αποστόλων γιγνομενων κατά τον νόμον τον 
 εμόν, ούχ ικετηρίαν εθηκε τριηραργος ούδεις πωποθ' ως 
 αδικούμενος παρ’ ύμϊν, ούκ εν Μουνιχία εκαθεζετο, ουχ υπό 
 
 § 107. ι. αρά ye L, vulg.; ye om. Σ 1 , Φ. νμων Σ, L, vulg. ; ύμΖν V6. 
 
 και (over η) Σ 2 . 2. άναλώσειαν αν F (yp) ; άναλωσαι αν αντί Α2. τι του L 1 . 
 
 τον L 2 , vulg. έθέλειν om. Ar. 2. 4· ypcupvs F, Φ. a-iro(pe 0 ye?v (sic) 
 
 Σ ; airo(pevyeZv L 1 ; ano<pvyeiv vulg. τον om. V6. 5. π eipaieZ (for πείραν) 
 
 V6. 7. ibs om. Σ 1 . 8. Μουνυχία MSS.; Μοννιχία. Kirchhoff, Attic in¬ 
 
 scriptions. 
 
 § 107. 1. μικρ’ άναλωσαι άν...εθε'- 
 
 λειν, does it seem likely that the rich 
 would have been willing to spend (only) 
 a little to escape doing justice? With ol 
 πλούσιοι supply δοκοΰσιν. άναλωσαι de¬ 
 pends on edeXeiv av, which represents 
 ηθβλον αν. του μη πο^Ζν is genitive of 
 purpose. Many editors omit eSlXeiv, 
 and take av with άναλωσαι ( = άνήλω - 
 σαν av), depending directly on δοκοΰσιν 
 understood. But tdeXeiv is in the best 
 mss., though it must be confessed that 
 the sentence would be simpler without it. 
 
 3. καθυφβΐναι, dropping : cf. κατα- 
 βάΧΧοντα, § I03 5 .— ουδέ: sc. μόνον. 
 
 4· συμφέροντα θείναι τον νόμον: cf. 
 πτηνάς διώκβις τάς έλπίδας, Eur. frag. 273· 
 
 5. τω πείραν δεδωκε'ναι, either on my 
 having given a test of it (sc. έμέ) or 
 on the law having given a test of itself 
 (sc. τδν νόμον). It is much more natural 
 to continue the subject έμέ from καθυ- 
 (peZvai, anroipvyeiv, and Oeivai, but usage 
 favours the ellipsis of the reflexive. See 
 § 195 10 , a ye μηδέ πέιραν έδωκε, which 
 did not even give us a test of themselves ; 
 XXIV. 24, πείραν αύτών πολλά /as δeδώ- 
 κασιν (sc. ol νόμοι) οτι συμφέροντ€ς ύμΖν 
 βισι (with αύτών expressed); Thuc. 1. 
 138 9 (of Themistocles), άπό του πείραν 
 διδούς ξυveτός φαίν€σθαι , i.e. on trial (sc. 
 έαντον). Demosthenes, however, is eager 
 to make his own agency prominent. 
 
 Compare the perfect δεδωκένα i with the 
 timeless aorists which precede (Μ. T. 
 109, 96). 
 
 6. αποστόλων: see § 80 1 ; and cf. iv. 
 35, τούς δ' αποστόλους πάντας ύμίν ύστερί- 
 £eiv των καιρών. 
 
 7· ικετηρίαν (sc. ράβδον), suppliant’s 
 bough, generally of olive, bound with 
 wool, which a suppliant laid on the altar 
 of a divinity whose succour he invoked. 
 See Schol. on Ar. Plut. 383, ίκετηρία 
 έστι κλάδος έλαίας έρίιρ πεπλεγ μένος, and 
 Hermann, Gottesdienstl. Alt. § 24, 14. 
 Here παρ’ ύμΖν shows that it was the 
 altar in the Pnyx where the helpless 
 trierarch sought the protection of the 
 Assembly. Aristotle (Pol. Ath. 43), in 
 describing the regular meetings of the 
 Assembly, says: έτέραν δέ ταΖς ίκ€τηρίαις, 
 έν η θ€ΐς ό β oiAopevos ικετηρίαν (ύπέρ) 
 ών άν βούληται και Ιδίων καί δημοσίων 
 διαλέ&ται προς τον δήμον. Cf. Poll, 
 νιιι. 9 6. 
 
 8. εν Μουνιχία: ένθα έστίν iepov Μον- 
 νυχίας Άρτέμιδος ’ κάκ€ΐ 0 (peoyov οίτιν€ς 
 των τριηράρχων ηδικοΰντο, η ναΰται η τινες 
 των έξ€ταξΌμένων έν τφ Πειραιεί (Schol.). 
 See Lys. ΧΙΙΙ. 24> καθίζουσιν έπι τον 
 βωμόν Μοννι χίασιν. The form Μουνιχία 
 is found almost exclusively in inscriptions 
 of the best period. See Meisterhans, 
 Gr. d. Gr. Inschr. § 13, 8. 
 
ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 78 
 
 των αποστολέων εδεθη, ον τριηρης οϋτ εξω καταλειφθεισ 
 ίο άπωλετο τη πόλει, οντ αύτου άπελείφθη ον δνναμενη άνα- 
 
 108 γεσθαι. καίτοι κατά τονς προτερονς νόμονς άπαντα ταντα 
 εγίγνετο. το δ’ αίτιον , εν τοΐς πενησιν ην το λητονργειν ^■ 
 πολλά δη τάδννατα σννεβαινεν. εγώ δ’ εκ των απόρων εις 
 τονς ενπόρονς μετηνεγκα τάς τριηραρχίας' πάντ ονν τα 
 
 5 δέοντα εγίγνετο. και μην καί κατ αντό τοΰτο άξιός είμι 
 έπαινον τνχεϊν, ότι πάντα τα τοιαντα προηρονμην πολιτεν- 
 ματα άψ’ ων άμα δόξαι και τιμαι και δνναμεις σννεβαινον 
 τη πόλεΐ' βάσκανον δε καί πικρόν καί κακοήθες ονδεν εστι 2 
 πολίτενμα εμον, ονδε ταπεινόν, ονδε της πόλεως αναξιον. 
 
 109 ταύτδ τοίννν ήθος εχων εν τε τοις κατα την πολιν πολιτενμασι 
 
 έδεηθη Φ. καταλειφθεΐσα Σ, L, vulg. ; καταληφθεΐσα 
 
 ίο. άπεληφθη Σ 1 ; άπελείφθη Σ 2 , L, vulg. άπά^εσθαι 
 
 9· αποστολών Ο. 
 
 V6 and some others. 
 
 (ν over π) Β. 
 
 δ 108 . 2. ην τφ Α2. λειτουρΎεΐν Σ, L, Φ; λειτουρ^ειν μη δυνασθαι Σ (ΥΡ), 
 
 vulg.; λητουρ-νεΐν Β 1 ., Att. inscriptions: “λειτ. only after 300 B.C.,” Meisterhans, Or. 
 d. Gr. Inschr. § 15, 3. 3· δ ν ™ Y, O (corr.). 4. ras om. O. 5 · * ατα 
 
 τούτο Ai, Y. 7. καί (before τιμά i) om. V6. 8. δέ πικρόν (om. και) U. 
 
 9. άττοαττολύων : see Bekk. Anecd. 
 435, 29: άποστολεΐς ' δέκα τον αριθμόν 
 άρχοντες ησαν, οι έπϊ της εκπομπής των 
 πλεουσων τριήρων και των άπα~/ομενων 
 στόλων αποδεδειγμένοι. They were chosen 
 for each occasion, and had charge of sup¬ 
 plying the trierarchs with rigging and 
 other material for the triremes from the 
 public stores, and of seeing that these 
 were properly restored at the end of the 
 voyage. Boeckh’s Att. Seewesen, Urk. 
 No. x., shows how many and serious were 
 the complaints against trierarchs in regard 
 to these supplies; cf. No. xiv. p. 466, 
 20 —25, where the άποστολεΐς are men¬ 
 tioned. These documents and the pre¬ 
 sent passage show that the symmories 
 contained many men of very narrow 
 means. 
 
 9, 10. ’έξω καταλίίφθίΐσ·’, abandoned 
 at sea’, αύτου άττίλείφθη, left behind in 
 port. We have to decide between these 
 forms and καταληφθεΊσα and άπεληφθη. 
 But καταληφθεΐσα (which has little MS. au¬ 
 thority) would rather denote that the ship 
 
 was caught or detained by an enemy, 
 whereas the meaning obviously is that 
 she was unseaworthy. See Plat. Rep. 
 496 Β, υπό φυ~/ής καταληφθέν, of a noble 
 character detained and held fast for phi¬ 
 losophy by exile. And άπεληφθη is still 
 less suited to the case of a ship too badly 
 fitted out to leave the harbour.— αύτου, 
 on the spot, i.e. in port, where she was 
 lying: εν τιρ λιμένι ανεπισκευαστος (Schol.)· 
 See Plat. Rep. 371 C, αύτου μένοντας περί 
 την ά~γοράν. 
 
 § 108 . 2. το δ’ αίτιον, without οτι, 
 
 like σημεΐον δέ and τεκμήριον δέ: cf. 
 VIII. 32 . 
 
 3· αδύνατα, cases of impossibility. 
 
 6. ττροτ]ρούμην: cf. προαίρεσις, § 93 3 > 
 and often. 
 
 7. δυνάμ€ΐ5, power (of various kinds): 
 cf. §§ 44', 233 s , 237 s . 
 
 8. βάσ-κανον, malicious’, see Harpocr., 
 άντί του φιλαίτιον καί συκοφαντικόν .— 
 κακόηθίξ: see ήθος, § 109 1 · 
 
 § 109 . ι. ήθο %, principles (of action), 
 political character’, see note on § 114‘k 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 79 
 
 
 καί εν τοίς ^ΧλτηνικοΊς φανησομαί' ούτε γαρ εν τη πόλει 
 τας παρα τών πλουσίων γάριτας μάλλον η τα των πολλών 
 δίκαια είλόμην, οϋτ 3 iv τοίς *Έ>λληνικοΐς τα Φιλίππου δώρα 
 καί την ξενίαν ηγάπησα αντί των κοινή πασι τοίς 'Ελλησι 5 
 συμφερόντων. 
 
 *Ηγούμαι τοίνυν λοιπόν είναι μοι περί του κηρύγματος 
 είπειν καί των ευθυνών' το γαρ ως ταριστά τ επραττον και 
 δια παντός εύνους είμί καί πρόθυμος ευ ποιείν υμάς, ίκανώς 
 εκ των είρημενων δεδηλώσθαί μοι νομίζω, καίτοι τα μέγιστα 
 γε των πεπολιτευμενων καί πεπραγμενών εμαυτω παραλείπω, 5 ν Γ. 
 ύπολαμβάνων πρώτον μεν εφεξής τούς περί αυτού τού παρα¬ 
 νόμου λόγους άποδούναί με δεΐν, είτα, καν μηδέν είπω περί 
 
 
 § 109 . 2 . ev tols om. Υ. 4 · τ< * ° 111 · Αι. 
 
 § HO. ι. μοι om. Υ. 2 . ώ$ άριστα Αι, Β. ye (for τ’) Β. \. καί 
 μοι (for καίτοι) Αι. §. τε (for 7ε) Ο. πολιτευομένων Ο. 
 
 ν ΊΟ 
 Ύ 
 
 2. εν τοις Έλληνικοϊς, opposed to ev 
 
 Toh κατά την ττόλιν : see 59 s · 
 
 5. αντί, rather than, like μάλλον η (3). 
 
 §§ HO—121 contain the reply to the 
 first two arguments of Aeschines, that on 
 the responsibility of Demosthenes as an 
 άρχων at the time when Ctesiphon pro¬ 
 posed his decree (§§ hi— 119), and that 
 on the place of proclamation (§§ 120, 121). 
 § no is introductory. §§ 122—125 are a 
 peroration to the division of the argument 
 beginning with § 53. 
 
 § 110 . 1 . ττερίτοΰ κηρύγματος, i .q. about 
 the place of proclamation, this being the 
 only point in dispute under this head. 
 
 2. των ευθυνών: this concerns only 
 the question whether Demosthenes was a 
 “ responsible magistrate” when Ctesiphon 
 proposed to crown him.— το γάρ.,.ύμάς, 
 i.e. the statement in Ctesiphon’s decree 
 that I did etc., subj. of δεδηλώσθαί: with 
 this reference to the words of the decree 
 cf. 57 1 . ^ 
 
 4. τα μέγιστα refers especially to his 
 important public services in the year 
 before Chaeronea (339—338), the ac¬ 
 count of which is reserved to the later 
 
 division of his argument, where it comes 
 in with far greater effect. 
 
 5. ΐΓαραΧείττω, I leave aside (not ne¬ 
 cessarily I omit). This whole passage, 
 with the implied doubt about any future 
 mention of these “greatest acts,” is full 
 of rhetorical art. He has no intention 
 whatever of omitting these acts or abridg¬ 
 ing his account of them ; but he skilfully 
 implies that his eaidier acts, already 
 related, are ample for the legal justifi¬ 
 cation of Ctesiphon, so that he could 
 afford to leave his greatest achievements 
 unmentioned. He also diverts attention 
 from one of his main objects, that of 
 concealing the weakness of his argument 
 on the evdvvai by placing it between two 
 most effective political harangues. 
 
 6. εφεξής, in due order : cf. § 56 5 . 
 In § 56 ουδόν έκών 7 παραλείπω is said 
 with no reference to this passage, but it 
 simply states his general purpose of giving 
 a full account of his public life.— αΰτοΰ 
 τού παρανόμου, the strict question of 
 illegality , with which alone the ypaipp 
 παρανόμων is properly concerned. 
 
 7. άττοδοΰναι : see note on § 114 10 . 
 
 
8o 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 των λοιπών πολιτευμάτων, ομοίως παρ υμών έκαστοι το 
 συνειδός υπάρχειν μοι. 
 
 111 Ύων μεν ονν λόγων, ους οΰτος άνω και κάτω διακυκων 
 έλεγε περί των παραγεγραμμένων νόμων, ούτε μά τους θεούς 
 οΐμαι υμάς μανθάνειν ούτ αυτός εδυνάμην, συνεΐναι τους 
 πολλούς · άπλως δε την ορθήν περί των δικαίων διαλεξομαι. 
 5 τοσοντω γάρ δέω λεγειν ώ, ούκ είμϊ υπεύθυνος, δ νύν ούτος 
 διέβαλλε καί διωρίζετο, ωσθ' άπαντα τον βίον υπεύθυνος 
 είναι όμολογά ων η διακεχείρικα η πεπολίτευμαι παρ υμιν. 
 
 8. έκάστω Σ, L, Αΐ. 2 ; έκαστου Β, vulg. 9 * Υπάρχει Ο 1 , F. 
 
 s ill. I. ouros om. V6. κυκων Αι, Υ; κύκλων Αϊ ; διακυκλ{ων^ above) L. 
 Ο των om. Αι. πεπραγμένων Σ, L, Αί', π αραχεχ ραμμένων Σ {yp); ycypafi- 
 
 Αων V ( mg .), Αι , Ο . 3 · °^ W * s - F ' φ ' ?ν 7 S f ! L ’ 
 
 τ> λανθάνειν Β. συνιέναι Α2. 4 · αυτων ( after πολλοι /s) L (mg·), Α-, 
 
 jr* (yp) Φ {yp), Y, o. tV ορθήν Σ, L, F, Φ; τήν ορθήν οδόν vulg.; οδον after 
 
 A τ im! ) Λ 7 = τοσούτω Σ, L (ν over ω), Φ; τοσουτου vulg. ouros 
 
 ΙΤΓκ^ IS’ite vufg. 7· *& U A.. *«**<« 2, ο (, over 
 
 last t); διακεχείρηκα L, X , V6. 
 
 8. ομοίως, λ// the same. —imp’ υμών. .. 
 ύττάρχειν μοι, that I may rely on a con¬ 
 sciousness of them in each of your minds. 
 cf. § 95 4 and note. 
 
 § 111. i. των λόγων, depending on 
 τούς πολλούς. — άνω και κάτω διακυκών, 
 
 mixing them in utter confusion. See ix. 
 36, άνω καϊ κάτω πεποίηκε, and without 
 καί II. 16, στρατείαις ταΐς άνω κάτω, and 
 IV. 41, συμπαραθεΐτε άνω κάτω, up and 
 down. 
 
 ί. -τταραγεγραμμενων : the laws which 
 the indicted decree (τό φεύχον ψήφισμα) 
 was charged with violating were written 
 on a tablet {σανίδων) by its side, and this 
 was posted in the court-room. See 
 Aesch. III. 200: έν ταϊς χραφαϊς των 
 παρανόμων παράκειται κανών του δίκαιου 
 τουτ'ι τό σανίδιον και τό ψιρφισμα και οι 
 πapayεyραμμένοι νόμοι. 
 
 4· την ορθήν (sc. οδόν), as we say, 
 straightforivard : see Ar. Av. 1, όρθην 
 κελεύεις ; — των δίκαιων, the rights of the 
 case, opposed to των λόγων (ι). 
 
 c, τοσούτω δεω λεγειν, I am so far 
 from saying: τοσούτψ with δεω as with 
 comparatives: so in IX. 17· Most MSS. 
 have τοσούτου in both passages, and all 
 have it in vm. 7°· 
 
 6. διεβαλλε και διωρίζετο : see § 4 6 . 
 
 7. ών.. .ΊτείΓολίτευμαι, i.e. either for 
 money that I have handled or for public 
 acts that I have done. 
 
 § 112 . The sophistical character of 
 the argument of §§ 112—119 explains the 
 anxiety of the orator to cover its weak¬ 
 ness by its position in the oration (see 
 note on § 110 5 ). The reply of Aeschines 
 (ill. 17 ff.) to this άφυκτον λόχον, 0 v φησι 
 Αημοσθένης, probably written or greatly 
 modified after hearing this passage, is 
 conclusive. The law quoted by Aesch. 
 
 (11) τούς υπευθύνους μή στεφανούν ceitainly 
 made no exception for those who gave 
 money to the state while in office. In¬ 
 deed, this very claim is one which needed 
 to be established by the εϋθυναι, in which 
 it might be disputed: see Aesch. 23, έασον 
 άμφισβητήσαί σοι τον βουλόμενον των 
 πολιτών ibs ούκ επέδωκας. The claim of 
 Demosthenes at least amounts to this, 
 that any officer who asserts that he has 
 expended more in the service of the state 
 than he received should be exempt from 
 the law τούς υπευθύνους μή στεφανούν. 
 The specious argument that a man cannot 
 fairly be called to account for the ex¬ 
 penditure of his own money on public 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 8ι 
 
 ών μεντοι y εκ της ίδιας ουσίας επαγγειλάμένος δεδωκα τω 112 
 δημω, ούδεμίαν ημέραν υπευθυνος είναι φημι (ακούεις 
 Αισχίνη;) ουο άλλον ονοενα , ουο αν των εννε αρχόντων 
 τις ών τύχη, τις γάρ εστι νόμος τοσαυτης αδικίας καί 
 μισανθρωπίας μεστός ώστε τον δόντα τι των ιδίων και s 
 ποιησαντα πράγμα φιλάνθρωπον και φιλόδωρον της χάριτος 
 μεν άποστερείν, εις τους σνκοφάντας δ’ άγειν, καί τουτονς 
 επι τας ενυννας ων εοωκεν εφισταναι; ονοε εις. ει οε φησιν 
 οντος , δειζάτω, κάγω στέ ρξ ω καί σιωπησομαι. άλλ’ ονκ 113 
 εστιν, άνδρες 5 Αθηναίοι, άλλ’ οντος συκοφαντών, ότι επί τω 
 θεωρικω τότε ων επεδωκα τα χρήματα, επηνεσεν αυτόν, 
 
 § 112 . 4· ό νόμος Α2. 7 · €LS δε toi)s σνκοφάντας δ , ayeiv Σ; εις τούς 
 
 συκοφ. δ’ dyeLV Αι, Υ; εις δε τούς σνκοφ. α~γειν L, Β, vulg. 8. δέδωκεν Αι; 
 
 εδωκαν L 2 (mg.). ουδέ εΐς Σ, Αϊ; ουδέ εις δήπου L, vulg. 
 
 works could not release Demosthenes 
 from εϋθυναι when he had obviously had 
 public money in his hands; and the 
 responsibility for this was the real obstacle 
 to his receiving a crown before his εϋ- 
 θυναι. 
 
 ι. ών με'ντοι y: yε emphasizes the 
 whole relative clause. We should gene¬ 
 rally have ων *γε, but μέντο i has naturally 
 the second place (see Bl.).— ετταγγειλα'- 
 pevos δε'δωκα, have offered and given, i.e. 
 have given by my free act, openly de¬ 
 clared. See C- I. Att. ii. No. 334, a 
 φήφισμα calling for voluntary contribu¬ 
 tions εις σωτηρίαν της ττόλεως and ordering 
 a publication of the donors’ names (which 
 follow). 
 
 3. των 4 we’ αρχόντων : the Archons, 
 as the chief magistrates and as candidates 
 for the Areopagus, would naturally be 
 subject to special scrutiny at their εν'- 
 θυναι. 
 
 5· μισανθρωττίας, misanthropy , op¬ 
 posed to φιλάνθρωπον (6). 
 
 7 < tls tovs συκοφάντας : ironical al¬ 
 lusion to εις τούς λο-γιστάς, as if the 
 sycophants were a board of officers (hence 
 τούς). — τουτουβ-.-εφισ-τάναι, to set them 
 to audit the accounts etc. 
 
 § 113. r. άλλ’ ουκ &ττιν (sc. νόμος 
 τοιοΰτος). 
 
 2. ειτι τω θεωρικω ών, treasurer of the 
 Theoric Fund : for the importance of this 
 office see Aesch. ill. 25, 26, ending with 
 Ίίτησιφων δέ Αημοσθένην τον συλλήβδην 
 άπάσας τάς Άθήνησιν άρχάς άρχοντα ούκ 
 ωκνησε "γράφαι στεφανουν. 
 
 3· εττε'δωκα, properly gave in addition 
 (to the public fund in his charge). Gifts 
 to the state were often called έπιδόσεις: 
 cf. § 171 7 .— ειτηνεσεν αυτόν (sc. Κτησι- 
 φων) = ’έ^ραφεν έπαινέσαι. All MSS. ex¬ 
 cept Σ insert η βουλή as subject of έπή- 
 νεσεν. The true subject appears in 1 . 10, 
 ταΟτ’ ’έ^ραφεν όδϊ περί εμοΰ. έπαινεΐν, 
 compliment by a vote of thanks , and στε¬ 
 φανουν are both used of the vote con¬ 
 ferring the crown, which included also a 
 vote of thanks: see §§ 57 s , 58 s , 85 s , 117 2 » 4 . 
 See Maximus (in Walz, Rhet. Gr. iv. 
 p. 587): ού δννάμενος yap άντιστήναι προς 
 τό οτι ούχ υπεύθυνον όντα Κτησιφων άνη- 
 yόpεvσεv, οπερ άντικρυς και διαρρήδην ό 
 νόμος άπayopεύει, ονόματος μεταθέσει την 
 μέθοδον παρέσχετο, αντί του άvηyόpευσεv 
 επηνεσεν είπών ,— which must refer to 
 this passage. 
 
 G. D. 
 
 6 
 
82 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 φησίν, υπεύθυνον οντα. ού περί τούτων γ ούΒενος ών 
 5 υπεύθυνος rjv , άλλ εφ οίς επεύωκα, ω συκοφαντα. αλλα 
 κ αί, τ € ιχο7Γ ο ιδ ς Ύ)σθα. kcll δια γε τουτ ορθως επτ)νουμτ]ν, 
 οτι τανηλωμεν εδωκα καί ουκ ελογίζομην. ο μεν γ&ρ 
 λογισμός ευθυνών καί των εξετασόντων προσ8εΐταί, η 8ε 
 δωρεά χάριτος και επαίνου δίκαια ε<ττι τυγγανειν * διοττερ 
 114 ταντ* εγραφεν όδι περί εμού · οτι δ ουτω ταύτ ου μονον εν 
 τοΐς νόμοίς άλλα καί εν τοΐς υμετεροίς Ύ)θεσίν ωρισται, εγω 
 ραδίως πολλαγόθεν δει^ω. πρώτον μεν y&p Ν avert κλτ}ς 
 
 § 113 . 4· φησίν, η βουλή L, Σ 2 , vulg. : ή βουλή om. Σ 4 * 1 , φησίν om. Αι (seeBl.). 
 
 ούδδν ώι/ Υ, Ο. 6. φησί (after ησθα) vulg.; om. Σ, Φ. διά ye τούτο Σ, L, 
 
 Β, F, Φ; δι’ αυτό 7^ τούτο L 2 (mg.), Αι. 2, vulg. 7 · τάναλωμένα Αι. 2, Β (τ; 
 
 over 2nd α). £δωκα Σ, L, Αι, Φ; έπεδωκα Β, vulg. (cf. §§ 112 8 , 114 > ΙΓ 7 )· 
 
 8. εξετασμένων Αι. 9 * Ka ' L om · 2 · * στ1ν τυ ΐχσνειν τύγχαναν έστι 
 
 Αι. 2, Υ. ΙΟ. οδι (ω over ο) Β; ό V6. 
 
 § 114 . ι. οϋτως Σ, L; οΰτω vulg. ταυτα (bef. οΰ) Σ, L, F, Φ, V6; ταυτα 
 
 e%ei, καί vulg. 2. ΰμ ετέροις Σ, L, Φ; ήιχετέροις vulg. έθεσιν Sopater, Dind. 
 
 3. δείξω ττολλαχ. Α2. yap om. V6. 
 
 4. ού irepl τούτων...ίττίδωκα : this 
 argument assumes that an ordinary υπεύ¬ 
 θυνος could be crowned, before passing 
 his εΰθυναι, for a gift to the state which 
 was not connected with his office. It is 
 conceivable, and even probable, that a 
 crown might be voted for such a gift to 
 an officer of state, even during his term 
 of office, by general consent, without 
 being thought illegal, though the letter of 
 the law made no exception for such a 
 case. And the cases cited as precedents 
 in § 114, so far as we know, may have 
 been of this nature (see § H7 ] > 2 ). But 
 this was not the case with the gifts of 
 Demosthenes. These were both closely 
 connected with the funds which he held 
 as an officer of state, and the argument of 
 Aeschines (23) applies to them in its full 
 force. Demosthenes says nothing which 
 shows that Ctesiphon did not violate the 
 letter and even the spirit of the law τούς 
 υπευθύνους μη στεφανουν. And yet it is 
 more than likely that the friends of 
 
 Demosthenes, in their eagerness to crown 
 him for his noble services, overlooked 
 
 the technical obstacle to their action; 
 
 and the court appears to have decided to 
 
 overlook their oversight. 
 
 6. T€i\oirotos, one of a board of com¬ 
 missioners appointed to superintend the 
 repairs of the city walls. The argument 
 seems to have been the same about both 
 of the offices which Demosthenes held in 
 337—336 B.c. The orator attempts no 
 such distinction as Aesch. predicts (28— 
 30), by excluding the office of τειχοποιός 
 from the άρχαί which require εΰθυναι. 
 
 8. των Ιξίτασόντων (= οΐ έξετάσουσ ι), 
 men to investigate : the present would be 
 simply investigators , with no temporal or 
 final force. 
 
 § 114. 2. ήθεσ-ιν, your moral feel¬ 
 
 ings , which impel you to act thus. Some 
 read έθεσιν with some rhetoricians here, 
 and by conjecture in § 2 75 3 . Aristotle 
 (Eth. 11. 1, 1) thus explains ηθική, moral·, 
 εξ έθους περ^ίνεται, δθεν καί τοΰνομα 
 ’έσχηκε μικρόν παρρεκλΐνον άπδ του ’έθους. 
 Cf. ηθικά, mores, morals. See note on 
 
 § 2 75 3 · 
 
 3. ττολΧαχόθίν δίίξω : Aeschines an¬ 
 ticipates or rather answers this argument 
 in 193: \eyei δέ ό φεύyωv.. .ούχ ώς έννομα 
 yέyρaφεv, άλλ’ ώς ηδη ποτέ και πρότερον 
 'έτερος τοιαντα ypάψaς άπέφυyεv. —Ναυ<τι- 
 κλήβ : the general who commanded the 
 well-known expedition which stopped 
 
 
 I 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 83 
 
 στρατηγών εφ’ οΐς από των Ιδίων προεΐτο πολλάκις εστεφά- 
 νωται υφ' υμών' εΤΘ* ότε τάς ασπίδας Διότιμος εδωκε καί s 
 παλιν Χαρίδημος, εστεφανουντο · είθ ’ ούτοσί Νεοπτόλεμος 
 πολλών έργων επιστάτης ων, εφ ’ οΐς επεδωκε τετίμηται. 
 σχετλιον γάρ αν εΐη τουτό γε , εί τω τιν αρχήν άρχοντι η 
 διδόναι τη πόλει τα εαυτοί) διά την άρχην μη εζεσται, 
 
 265 η των δοθεντων αντί τον κομίσασθαι χάριν εύθυνας υφεξει. ίο 
 ότι τοίνυν ταυτ άληθη λέγω, λεγε τα φηφίσματά μοι τα 115 
 τοντοις γεγενημενα αυτά λαβών, λεγε. 
 
 ΨΗΦΙ 2 ΜΑ. 
 
 [’Άρχων Δημόνικος ΦΧυεύς, βοηδρομιώνος έκτη μετ είκάδα, 
 ηνώμη βουΧής καί δήμου , Κ αΧΧίας Φ ρεάρριος είπεν ότι δοκεΐ τη 5 
 βουΧη καί τω δήμω στεφανώσαι Ν αυσικΧεα τον επί των οπΧων, 
 ότι 'Αθηναίων δπΧιτων δισχιΧίων όντων εν ’Ίμβρω καί βοηθούν- 
 των τοΐς κατοικουσιν Αθηναίων την νήσον, ον δυναμενου ΦίΧωνος 
 του επί τής διοικήσεως κεχειροτονημενού διά τους χειμώνας 
 7 τΧεΰσαι καί μισθοδοτήσαι τους όπΧιτας, εκ τής ιδίας ουσίας εδωκε ίο 
 
 5· ore Σ, L, Β, vulg.; ό'τι Αι, Ο. 6. έστεφανοΰτο Αι, Ο. ούτοσί Σ 
 
 (corr.), L, Αι. 2; οΰτο s Β, vulg. 8. εΐ τώ V 6 ; εϊ τφ Markland, Cobet. 
 
 9. τη.,.έαυτου Σ, L; τα έαυτοΰ τη πόλει vulg. ίο. ύφέξει. Σ, L, Αι. 2, vulg.; 
 
 ύφέξειν Β, F (ν over «). 
 
 § 115 . ι. λε7^ om. Υ. 2. αύτα λαβών om. Α2. λέγε. Σ, L 1 * * * 5 6 (mg.), 
 
 vulg. 
 
 Philip at Thermopylae in 352 B.C. Diod. 
 
 xvi. 37; Grote xi.414; Schaefer 1. 509. 
 
 See note on § 32 7 . Nausicles is men¬ 
 
 tioned by Aeschines (159) as the one in 
 whose name Demosthenes proposed his 
 decrees after the battle of Chaeronea. 
 
 5. Διότιμοδ: mentioned in xxi. 208 
 as a rich trierarch, included by Arrian 
 (1. 10, 4) among the generals whom Alex¬ 
 ander demanded after the destruction of 
 Thebes. 
 
 6. Χαρίδημοδ: of Oreus, an adopted 
 Athenian, the object of severe invective in 
 the oration against Aristocrates (352 b.c.). 
 
 He was first a guerilla leader in the ser¬ 
 vice of Athens, later one of the patriotic 
 party, and was demanded by Alexander in 
 335 ·— ούτοσ-Ι implies that Neoptolemus 
 was well known in Athens. 
 
 7. πολλών £ργων επισπάτηδ : pro¬ 
 bably one of those called δημοσίων tp -γων 
 έτηστάτα i by Aesch. (in. 29), specially 
 appointed to direct special works. In an 
 inscription (partly relaffng to 338 B.c.), 
 C. I. Att. 11. 2, Add. No. 741, crowns 
 are recorded as given by the people to 
 Neoptolemus, Charidemus, and Nausi¬ 
 cles and as afterwards dedicated by them 
 to Athena (see Aesch. in. 46). 
 
 8. οτχετλιον άν είη.,.ύφεξει: for the 
 peculiar form of conditional sentence see 
 Μ. T. 503, 407. 
 
 10. κομίσ-ασ-θαι implies that the re¬ 
 ceiver has a claim on the giver: cf. άπο· 
 δονναι, § ι ίο 7 , and Plat. Rep. 507 A, εμέ 
 re δύνασθαι αυτήν άποδουναί καί ύμας κομί- 
 σασθαι.. 
 
 6-2 
 
8 4 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 και ονκ είσεπραζε τον δήμον, και αναγορεύσαι τον στέφανον 
 Αιονυσίοις τραηωδοΐς καινοϊςί] 
 
 ΕΤΕΡΟΝ ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ. 
 
 [Είπε Καλλ^'α? Φ ρεάρριος, ττρντάνεων Χεηόντων βουΧης γνώμη, 
 επειδή Χαρίδημος 6 επί των δπΧιτών, αποσταΧεις εις ΑαΧαμΐνα, 
 και Αιδτιμος δ επι των ιππέων, εν τη επι τον ποταμού μάχη των 
 στρατιωτών τινων νπδ των ποΧεμιων σκυΧενθεντων, εκ των ίδιων 
 5 άναΧωμάτων καθώπΧισαν τους νεανίσκους ασπισιν οκτακοσιαις, 
 δεδόχθαι τη βονΧη καϊ τω δι^μω στεφανωσαι Ααριδημον και Αιοτιμον 
 χρυσω στεφάνω, και άναγορενσαι ΐΐαναθηναιοις τοΐς μεγαΧοις 
 εν τω γνμνικω άγώνι καϊ Αιονυσίοις τραγωδοΐς καινοΐς’ της οε 
 άναγορεύσεως επιμεΧηθηναι θεσμοθετας, πρύτανεις, άγωνοθετας.] 206 
 
 117 Ιόντων έκαστος, Αισχίνη, της μεν αρχής ης ηρχεν 
 υπεύθυνος ην, εφ> οις δ εστεφανούτο ουχ υπευθυνος. ουκουν 
 ούδ * * * 4 5 * 7 εγώ’ ταύτα yap δίκαι εστι μοι περί των αυτών τοΐς 
 άλλοις δηπου. επεδωκ α· επαινούμαι δια ταύτα, ούκ ών ών 
 5 εδωκα υπεύθυνος, ηρχον’ και δεδωκα γ ευθυνας εκείνων, 
 ούχ ών επεδωκα. νη Αθ, άλλ αδίκως ηρ^α’ ειτα παρών, 
 δτε μι εισηγον οι Χογισταί, ού κατηγορείς; 
 
 § 117 . ί. ουκουν Σ. 3 · ταύτα yap Ο. 4 · καί ^τταινοΟμαι Ο. 5 · ^ ω ' 
 κα Σ 1 , Φ; έπέδωκα Σ 2 , L, vulg. 7’ om · A?, λ . 6. ων έπέδωκα νη Δία· 
 
 άλλ’ Σ, L. 7 · δικασταί Ac. ού Σ, L, Αι; δίά τί ού Β, vulg. 
 
 § 117 . 2. 4 φ’ ols €<ττ€φανοΰτο: we 
 
 do not know whether there was any dis¬ 
 tinction between these decrees and that 
 of Ctesiphon like that mentioned in § 113. 
 
 As Demosthenes identifies his own case 
 absolutely with these, the question is of 
 little moment. 
 
 4. ί-τταινουμαι : cf. έπηνεσεν, § 113 s . 
 
 6. νή Δί’, άλλ* : a more emphatic 
 
 form in stating an objection than the 
 common άλλα, νη Δία: cf. χιχ. 272, XX.'' 
 58.— παρών: i.e. being present (as you 
 were). — 
 
 7. μ’ είσ-ήγον οί λογισ-τα!: see Aristot. 
 Pol. Ath. 54, καί (κληρούσι oi Άθ.) λο- 
 yLστάς δέκα καί συvηyόpoυs τούτοις δέκα, 
 προς ους άπαντας άνάγκη τούς τάς άρχας 
 άρξαντας \oyov aTeveyKeiv ’ ούτοι yap είσί 
 
 μονοί τοΐς ΰπευθύνοις \oyιζ'όμεvoι, καί τάς 
 εύθύνας εις το δίκαστηρων εlσάyovτες. Be¬ 
 fore this board of auditors every magis¬ 
 trate had to appear for his εϋθυναι at the 
 end of his term of office ; and they (gene¬ 
 rally as a matter of form) brought him 
 before a Heliastic court of 501 judges, in 
 which anyone might appear and accuse 
 him of any offence connected with his 
 office. His accounts of money expended 
 were audited at the same time. See 
 Aesch. ill. 17—23. The question τις 
 βούλεται, κaτηyopεΐv; (Aesch. 23) was 
 probably asked in presence of the court 
 at the εϋθυναί of Demosthenes ; and to 
 this Aeschines did not respond. But these 
 εϋθυναι, must have come several months 
 after Ctesiphon’s bill had passed the 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 85 
 
 'Ινα τοίνυν ιδηθ* οτι αυτός ούτός μοι μαρτυρεί έφ* οΐς 118 
 ουχ υπεύθυνος ην έστεφανώσθαι , λαβών ανάγνωθί το ψή¬ 
 φισμα ολον το γραφεν μοι. οίς yap ούκ εγράψατο τού 
 προβουλεύματος, τούτοις α διώκει συκοφαντών φανησεται. 
 λέγε. 5 · 
 
 ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ. 
 
 [ΈπΙ αργοντος Ε ύθυκΧεους, πυανεψιώνος ενάτη απιόντος, φυΧής 
 πρυτανευούσης Οίνηιδος , Κ τησιφών Α εωσθενους ΆναφΧυστιος 
 είπεν, επειδή Δημοσθένης Αημοσθενους ΤΙαιανιεύς γ ενόμενος επι- 
 μεΧητής της των τειγων ειτισκευης και προσαναΧώσας εις τα έργα ίο 
 απο τής ίδιας ουσίας τρία τάΧαντα επεδωκε ταύτα τω δήμω, καί 
 επί του θεωρικού κατασταθείς επεδωκε τοΐς εκ πασών των φυΧών 
 θεωροΐς εκατόν μνας εις θυσίας , δεδδγθαι τη βουΧή και τω δήμω τω 
 Αθηναίων επαινεσαι Αημοσθενην Αημοσθενους ΤΙαιανιεα αρετής 
 ενεκα και καΧοκαγαθίας ής εγων διατεΧεΐ εν π αντί καιρω εις τον 15 
 δήμον τον Αθηναίων, καί στεφανώσαι γρυσω στεφάνω, καί άνα- 
 67 γορεύσαι τον στέφανον εν τω θεάτρω Αιονυσίοις τραγωδοΐς καινοϊς· 
 τής δε αναγόρευσε ως έπιμεΧηθήναι τον άγωνοθέτην.\ 
 
 § 118. 
 
 ύττεύθ. Σ. 
 
 I. ϊνα εμοί νυν Α?. ΐδητε Σ 1 ; είδητε Σ 2 , L, vulg. 
 
 4. φανησεται συκοφ. Υ. 
 
 Ί. ουκ 
 
 Senate and had been indicted by Aeschi¬ 
 nes, so that accusation at the εϋθυναι was 
 superseded. 
 
 For another board of ten, chosen by the 
 Senate by lot from their own number, 
 also called λογισταί, and for the ten εϋ- 
 θυνοι with their twenty ττάρεδροι, see 
 Aristot. Pol. Ath. 48. 
 
 § 118. 2. έστεφανώσθαι (sc. εμέ), 
 
 i.e. that the proposal to crown me has 
 passed the Senate: cf. έπψεσεν in 
 
 § 113 3 · 
 
 3. γραφεν μοι, proposed in my honour'. 
 
 see note on § 50 4 .— του προβουλεύματος : 
 partitive after oh. The meaning is, that 
 he will use the omissions from the decree 
 in the indictment to show the malice of 
 Aeschines in prosecuting the clauses which 
 he includes. 
 
 4. ά διώκει συκοφαντών : see XXIII. 
 61, συκοφαντουμεν το τραύμα. 
 
 The orator now calls for the reading of 
 
 the bill of Ctesiphon, ostensibly to prove 
 the point just made, but perhaps chiefly 
 to recall to the minds of the judges Ctesi- 
 phon’s enumeration of his public services 
 which the Senate has approved. In the 
 following spurious decree the Archon’s 
 name is wrong and different from that in 
 the indictment (which is also wrong); 
 and the references to the words of the 
 decree made by the two orators do not 
 agree with this document. 
 
 § 119. Here the proof of the malice 
 of Aeschines, promised in § 118, is given 
 on the authority of the decree just read. 
 It is argued that Aeschines admits the 
 gifts and their legality by his silence 
 concerning them, while he brands as 
 illegal the proposal to return public 
 thanks for these gifts. As if the thanks 
 for a legal gift might not be given in an 
 illegal manner. 
 
86 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 119 
 
 • 5 
 
 120 
 
 Ονκονν ά μεν επεδωκα ταντ εστίν, ων ονδεν σν γεγρα- 
 ψαι* α δε φι ησιν η βουλή δείν αντί τούτων γενεσθαί μοι, 
 ταντ εσυ α όιωκείς. το λαρειν ονν τα ΟίΟομενα ομολογών 
 εννομον είναι, το χάριν τούτων άποδονναι παρανόμων γραφεί, 
 ό δε παμπόνηρος άνθρωπος καί θεοϊς εχθρός καί βάσκανος 
 όντως ποιος τις αν εΐη προς θεών; ονχ 6 τοιοντος; 
 
 Καί μην περί τον γ εν τω θεάτρω κηρύττεσθαι, το μεν 
 μυριάκις μνρίονς κεκηρνχθαι παραλείπω καί το πολλάκις 
 
 § 119 . 2. μοι yevea0cu Αι. 4* Ζννομον είναι ομο\(τγων Υ. y ράφτη Σ, L', 
 
 yράφη vulg., Bk., Β 1 -; ypάφH Dind., Vom., West., Lips. See § 121 5 , and note below. 
 
 § 120 . i. τον μεν (for rb μέν) Σ 1 . 
 
 4· παρανόμων γράφει : cf. note on 
 § 13 8 . See critical note. Here, and in 
 nine other places in this oration, all MSS. 
 have the ending -77 (or -77) in the second 
 person singular of the present or future 
 middle. See §§ 121 5 , 131 5 , 140 8 , 198°, 
 198 6 , 238 s , 239 1 , 283 1 , 313 5 (three of 
 these having χολιτεύη). In eight places 
 Σ has -ei, while most or all other MSS. 
 have -77 (or -77). See §§ 82 s , 162 5 , 245 s , 
 256 s , 283 2 , 284 s , 29ο 4 , 310 4 . In both 
 classes I have, not without hesitation, 
 given the form -ei in the text. In the 
 whole of Demosthenes, according to 
 Vomel, there are 38 cases of -ei and 30 
 of -77. The Greek grammarians are strong 
 in their statements, that “the Attic” or 
 “ the ancient Attic ” used the form in -ei, 
 except in tragedy, which had -77 ; and that 
 in βούλβί, ol€l, and o\pei there were no 
 forms in -77. See the quotations and the 
 statistics in Vomel, Demosth. Condones, 
 pp. 84—87. The writers of the fifth 
 century wrote EI for both 771 and ei of 
 the Ionic alphabet. The confusion in 
 Athens in the fourth century between -771 
 and -et, to which Blass calls attention, 
 probably prevented the establishment of 
 fixed usage in spelling the syllable in 
 question in the Ionic alphabet, and both 
 -771 and -ei were perhaps used indifferently. 
 Blass, after calling the introduction of -ei 
 into the tragedians, Aristophanes, or Thu¬ 
 cydides “widersinnig,” thus proceeds: 
 “ Bei Demosthenes ist es gleichgiiltig, 
 ob man so oder so schreibt, da der 
 
 Schriftsteller selbst beliebig bald 77, bald 
 ei geschrieben haben wird.” The MSS. 
 of Demosthenes certainly show great 
 confusion in the spelling, which may be 
 traditional. Thus in Cor. § 238 s all MSS. 
 have διάλέγη, while in xxxiv. 33 Σ has 
 SiaXey et and others δίαλέγη. See Blass- 
 Kiihner, §§ 43, 5, and 211, 3; Meister- 
 hans, Gramm, d. Gr. Inschr. §§ 10, 14, 
 and 15, 2 and 3. We can hardly believe 
 that Demosthenes himself wrote \e7771 
 and λόγει indifferently; but it is perhaps 
 impossible now to decide which he did 
 write. 
 
 § 120 . 2. μυριάκιβ μυρίουδ : this 
 
 means that 10,000 men had been crowned 
 on 10,000 occasions (not 10,000 times 
 10,000 men). This was justified rhetori¬ 
 cally by the great frequency of decrees 
 conferring crowns to be proclaimed in 
 the theatre: the number of these on 
 record shows that any law which may 
 have forbidden the proclamation of 
 crowns in the theatre was a dead letter. 
 Blass (Einl. p. 13) cites the following 
 decrees from the C. I. Att.: 1. No. 59 
 (410 B.C.); II. io b (393 B.C.), 251 (307 
 —300 b.c.), 300 (295 b.c.), 311, 312 
 (286 B.C.), 331, 341, 383, 402, 444, 445. 
 In all these we find essentially the same 
 language; e.g. in No. 300, [και aveLxe]iv 
 rbv στέφανον Αιονν[σίων των έν άστ]ει 
 Tpaycpdiov τφ άγών[ι].—τό πολΧάκιδ... 
 πρότερον : in the notes on § 83 4 (δευτέρου 
 ,.^^νομένου) I have given reasons for 
 thinking that the crown voted on the 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 87 
 
 αυτός έστεφανώσθαι πρότερον. άλλα προς θεών ουτω 
 σκαώς εΐ καί αναίσθητος, Αίσγίνη, ώστ ον δ υνασαι λογί- 
 σασθαι otl τω μεν στεφανουμένω τον αυτόν έγει ζήλον 6 5 
 στέφανος, οπού αν άναρρηθη, του δβ των στεφανουντων 
 είνεκα συμφέροντος έν τω θεάτρω γίγνεται το κήρυγμα; οι 
 γάρ άκουσαντες άπαντες είς το ποιεΐν εϋ την πόλιν προτρέ- 
 πονται, καί τους αποδίδοντας την γάριν μάλλον επαινουσι 
 του στέφανουμένου · Βιόπερ τον νόμον τούτον η πόλις γέγρα- ίο 
 φεν. Αέγε δ’ αυτόν μου τον νόμον λαβών. 
 
 Ν®Μ©2. 
 
 [Όσους στεφανουσί τινες των Βημων, τάς αναγορεύσεις των 
 στεφάνων ποιεισθαι εν αντοΐς έκαστους τοϊς ίΒίοις Βημοις, εάν μη 
 τινας 6 Βημος 6 των Αθηναίων η η βουΧη στέφανοί * τούτους δ’ ι 
 εξεΐναι εν τω θεάτρω Αιονυσίοις άναγορεύεσθαι .] 
 
 5 Ακούεις, Αίσγίνη , του νόμου λέγοντος σαφώς, πλην 1 
 
 3· έστεφανοΰσθα l Ο; στεφανοΰσθαι Spengel. 4· δύνασαι Σ, L, Αι. 2, Β 2 , Φ, Υ; 
 δύνασθαι F [σαι over σθαι), Β 1 , vulg. 6. οπού Σ, L, Α; οποί Β, vulg. ctv om. 
 Σ 1 , V6. 7 · εΐνεκα Σ, L. See note below. το κήρυ-γμα yiy νεται Αι. 
 
 9· έπαινουσι μάλλον V6. ίο. των στεφανουμένων (corrected to του στέφανου μένου) 
 V6. ιι. μοι om. Αι. 
 
 motion of Aristonicus in 340 B.C., and 
 
 proclaimed in the theatre, had been 
 preceded by another, also proclaimed in 
 
 the theatre, of which we have no other 
 account than the allusion in § 83. These 
 two, with the one voted on the motion of 
 Demomeles and Hyperides in 338 b.c. 
 (§§ 222, 223), if the latter was actually 
 proclaimed, justify the use of πολλάκις, 
 especially after μυριάκις μυρίους. 
 
 4· ώ<ττ’ ού δΰνασ*αι: see Μ.Τ. 6οι 
 and 584· The meaning is are yoti so 
 stupid that you are not able ? while with 
 ώστε μη δύνασθαι it would be are you 
 stupid enough not to be able ? 
 
 5. τον αυτόν ζήλον, i.e. the 
 
 receiver of the crown feels the same pride : 
 ζήλος is emulation, pride in excelling , 
 hence glorying (see §§ 217 3 * 5 * 7 , 273 s ). 
 
 7. €Ϊν€κα: this Ionic and poetic form 
 is often found in the best mss. of Demo¬ 
 
 sthenes. I have admitted it here and in 
 § 175 s on the authority of Σ and L, and 
 in § 144 2 on that of Σ and B. West, 
 and Bl. adopt εϊνεκα or εϊνεκ often with¬ 
 out ms. authority. See Sandys’s note on 
 Lept. i a . 
 
 8. «is το ττοΐίΐν « 5 : this motive is 
 strongly urged in many decrees conferring 
 crowns. See C. I. Att. II. No. 251: όπως 
 'άν είδωσι απαντες otl δ δήμος ό Αθηναίων 
 μέμνηται καί χάριν άποδίδωσιν ύφ' ων Ιχν 
 εΰ πάθει [πάθη) καί τιμά έν παντί καιρω 
 άξίως των εύεpyεσιωv. So C. I. Att. II. 
 No. 114, A, 13. 
 
 § 121 . This short but impassioned 
 outburst cannot be a reply to the long 
 and confused argument of Aeschines 
 (32—48). For an attempt to explain 
 the real state of the case, see Essay 
 1 , Remarks on §§ 120, 121. 
 
88 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 i(iv Τ LVa<S 6 &Ύ] 1 1X09 Tj Ύ] βθν\ Tj xfjrj Φ i CTYJT CL L’ TOVTOV 9 δ 208 
 avayo ρευετω ; tl ovv , ώ ταλαίπωρε, συκοφαντείς; τι 
 λόγους πλαττεις ; τι σαντον ονκ ελλεβοριζεις εττι τοντοις ; 
 
 5 άλλ’ ούδ’ αισγυνει φθόνον δίκην είσάγειν, ονκ αδικήματος 
 ούδενός, και νόμους μεταττοιων , τώρ δ αφαιρων μέρη, ονς 
 όλους δίκαιον ήν άναγιγνωσκεσθαι τοις γ ομωμοκοσι κατα 
 122 τους νόμους φηφιεϊσθαι. επειτα τοιαυτα ποιων λεγεις πόσα 
 
 § 121 . 2 . ψηφίσηται Σ, L, Αι. 2 , Β, F, Φ, Ο; στεφανώσηται Σ ( yp ), Β (mg.), 
 
 F (mg·), Φ (mg.), vulg. 5· σισχννη Σ; αισχύνη (or -νη) all other MSS. See 
 
 § 119 4 . eiaayeiv Σ, L, Φ ; daayojv vulg. 6. ούδενός ΧαβεΊν τιμωρίαν Αι. 2, 
 
 Ο. νόμον s Σ 1 ; νόμον s τον s μεν Σ' 2 * 4 5 , L, vulg. άφερών (at. over e) Σ. 8. ψη- 
 
 φιεσθε (εσ ch. to εΐσ ) Σ. 
 
 § 122 . ι. ’έπιτα (i ch. to ει) Σ; ’έπειτα σύ A2, Ο; εΐτα σύ Αι. Xέyει (later 
 
 σ added) Σ. προσά δει Σ; \ 0 yei.s προς α δει Β; Xέyεις ά δει vulg.; λε πρ α L 1 (w. 
 
 later yee over Xe, and 0 over ττρ ) ; Xέyεις πόσα δει Bl. 
 
 2. τουτους 8 ’ άνα*γορ€υ€τω (sc. ό κήρνξ): 
 the quoted passage πΧήν έάv...άvayopεvέτω 
 appears to be an addition to the law 
 quoted by Aeschines in 32, εάν μεν τινα 
 ή βονΧή στέφανοί, εν τφ βονΧεντηρίιρ 
 άνακηρύττεσθαι, εάν δέ ό δήμος, εν τή 
 εκκλησία, άλλοθι δέ μηδαμού. This would 
 mean that Aeschines read a mutilated 
 law to the court, which in full would 
 have told against him, and that Demo¬ 
 sthenes simply supplied the omitted words 
 and so ended the argument. This is 
 more than we can believe either of 
 Aeschines or of the court. Our trouble 
 is, that we do not know what law the 
 clerk read to the court at the end of 
 
 § 120, and therefore do not know in 
 what connection the words now quoted 
 by Demosthenes stood. 
 
 4. Ιλλεβορίξεις : see Ar. Vesp. 1489, 
 7 γΪΘ’ έΧΧέβορον, i.e. you are mad; Hor. 
 Sat. 11. 3, 166, naviget Anticyram ; 
 A. Poet. 300, tribus Anticyris caput in- 
 sanabile. 
 
 5. ούδ’ α’ισ-χυνει ... «ισάγειν : for cu- 
 
 σχύνει (mss. αισχύνη) see note on § 119 4 . 
 For the difference between αίσχύνομαι 
 είσάy ειν and αίσχύνομαι είσάyωv, which 
 in the negative form is not very important, 
 see M.T. 88 r, 903 1 . This appears clearly 
 in Xen. Cyr. v. 1, 21: τοντο μέν ονκ 
 αίσχύνομαι λ^ων ’ τό δέ ...αίσχννοίμην άν 
 
 Xey ειν. —φθόνου δίκην, a suit based merely 
 on φθόνοι, opposed to αδικήματος δίκην, 
 a suit (to get redress) for an offence 
 (cf. § 279 1 ). 
 
 6. των δ’ σφαιρών με'ρη, as if τούς μεν 
 μεταποιών had preceded, which is the 
 reading of all mss. except Σ. The use 
 of τούς δέ alone gives the clause the 
 appearance of a sudden after-thought; 
 and, so far from showing carelessness, 
 it may be a rhetorical device to give 
 emphasis. The same occurs in XIX. 180: 
 δσοι διά ταντ' άποΧώΧασι παρ' νμΐν, οι δε 
 χρήματα πάμποΧΧ ’ ώφΧήκασιν, and XXVII. 
 9: κατέΧιπε.,.μαχαιροποιούς μεν τριάκοντα 
 και δύο ή τρεΊς, άνά πέντε μνας και έξ, τούς 
 δ ’ ούκ έΧάσσονος ή τριών μνών άξίονς. See 
 West., and Kruger’s Gr. Spr. § 50, 1, 12. 
 
 7. όλους δίκαιον ήν άνα-γνγνώσ-κεοτθαι, 
 ought to be read entire. —rots ye όμωμο- 
 Kotri... ψηφιεΐσθαι : see Aesch. in. 6, 
 ό νομοθέτης τοντο πρώτον ’έταξεν έν τφ των 
 δικαστών ορκιρ, ψηφιον μαι κατά τούς 
 νόμονς. See Dem. ΧΙΧ. 179» όμωμόκατε 
 ψηφιείσθαι κατά τούς νόμονς και τά ψηφί¬ 
 σματα τά τον δήμον καί τής βονΧής τών 
 πεντακοσίων, which agrees essentially 
 with the first sentence of the document 
 purporting to be the Heliastic oath in 
 xxiv. 149, which is probably not genuine 
 as a whole (see Meier and Schomann, 
 pp. 152 — 155). 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 8 9 
 
 δει προσεΐναι τω δημοτικω, ώσπερ ανδριάντα εκδεδωκως 
 κατά συγγραφήν, είτ ουκ εγοντα ά προσηκεν εκ της συγ¬ 
 γραφής κομιζόμενος, η λόγω τους δημοτικούς, άλλ’ ου τοΐς 
 πράγμασι και τοΐς πολιτευμασι γιγνωσκομένους. καί βοας 5 
 ρητά καί άρρητα όνομάζων, ώσπερ εζ άμάζης, ά σοι και 
 τω σω γενει πρόσεστιν, ουκ εμοί. καίτοι καί τούτο, ώ 123 
 άνδρες ’ Αθηναίοι. εγω λοιδορίαν κατηγορίας τουτω δια- 
 φερειν ηγούμαι, τω την μεν κατηγορίαν άδικηματ εγειν, 
 ών εν τοΐς νόμοις είσίν αί τιμωρίαι, την δε λοιδορίαν 
 βλασφημίας, ας κατά την αυτών φυσιν τοΐς εγβροΐς περί s 
 άλληλων συμβαίνει λεγειν. οικοδομησαι δε τους προγόνους 
 ταυτί τά δικαστήρια υπείληφα ούχ ίνα συλλεζαντες υμάς εις 
 ταυτα από των ίδιων κακώς τάπόρρητα λεγωμεν άλληλους, 
 
 3 · έκ τής "γραφής V6. 
 
 § 123 . ι. καίτοι καί L, vulg. ; καί om. Σ 1 , Αι, Ο 1 . καίτοι τούτο) Ο 1 (ora. 
 
 τούτψ in 2). ώ om. Αι. 4· a ' L om · Υ> V6. 5 · om · Αι. 
 
 6 . προΎονους υμών Αι, Ο; vpoy. ημών Αί. 7 · ή^άς Αι. 
 
 §§ 122—125 are a peroration to the 
 division §§ 53—125. 
 
 § 122 . 1. irocra: so Blass for 7 τροσά 
 (Σ) · 
 
 2. τω δημοτικω : referring to Aesch. 
 168—170.— ώσπερ... συγγραφήν: we find 
 it convenient to translate, as if yoil had 
 put out a statue to be. made by contract', 
 but the participle with ώσπερ (without av 
 or 8 lv ei) is not conditional, as appears by 
 its having οΰ (not μή) for its negative 
 (M.T. 867). ώσπερ is simply as, or as it 
 were , but we can seldom translate it with 
 a participle without an if. 
 
 5. γιγνωσκομένους (with ώσπερ) : ac- 
 cus. abs. (M.T. 853): cf. ώς.,.εχοντα, 
 § 270 4 ’ 6 . 
 
 6 . ρητά καί άρρητα, dicenda, tacenda 
 
 (sc. όνόματα), with όνομάζων . — ώσπερ εξ 
 άμάξηξ : see note on πομπείας, § u 6 ; 
 and Suid. under τά έκ των αμαξών 
 σκώμματα' έπΐ των άπαρακαλύπτως 
 σκωπτόντων’ ' Αθήνησι yap εν τή των Χοών 
 εορτή οί κωμάζοντες επί των αμαξών τούς 
 απαντώντας έσκωπτόν τε και έλοιδόρουν.... 
 οτι επί τής άμάξης όχούμεναι αί η γυναίκες 
 αί των ’Αθηναίων , έπάν εις τά Έίλευσίνια 
 
 έβάδιζον εις τά μεγάλα μυστήρια , έλοι- 
 δόρουν άλλήλας εν τή όδφ' τούτο yάp ήν 
 ’έθος αύταΐς. 
 
 § 123 . ι. καίτοι και τούτο: cf. IV. 
 
 12. 
 
 2. λοιδορίαν κατηγορίας: see note on 
 § ίο 1 . 
 
 5· κατά την αυτών φυσιν, opposed 
 to έν τοΐς νόμοις (4): the accident of 
 personal nature is expressed also in συμ¬ 
 βαίνει (6). See Bl. 
 
 7. ταυτι τά δικαστήρια : most of 
 these were in the αγορά, as is implied by 
 Lysias, xix. 55. 
 
 8. από των ιδίων, i.e. out of (our 
 
 stock of) private enmity. For the use 
 of άπό, cf. Thuc. I. 141, από τών αυτών 
 
 δαπανώντες. —κακώς.άλληλους, abuse 
 
 one another with lawless epithets: cf. 
 Ar. Ach. 503, την πόλιν κακώς λέγω, 
 and Dem. XIX. 220, πολλά και φιλάν- 
 θρωπα είπόντες Φίλιππον. απόρρητα were 
 epithets which it was unlawful to apply 
 to a citizen : cf. Lys. X. 6, έρεΐ ώς ουκ 
 έστι τών απορρήτων εάν τις ειπη τον 
 πατέρα άπεκτονέναι’ τόν γάρ νόμον ου 
 ταύτ άπayopεύειv ’ άλλ’ άν δ ρο φ όν ον 
 
90 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 άλλ’ ϊνα εξελεγχωμεν εάν τις ηδικηκώς τι τνγχάνη την 
 
 124 πόλιν. ταντα τοίννν ειδώς Α ιετχινης ονδεν ηττον εμον, 
 πο μπενειν αντί τον κατηγορειν ειΧετο. ον μην ονδ εντανθ 
 εΧαττον εχων δίκαιος εστιν απεΧθειν. ηδη δ εττι ταντα 
 πορενσομαι, τοετοντον αντον ερωτησας. ποτερον c re τις, 
 
 5 Αισχίνη, της πόΧεως εχθρόν η εμον είναι φη ; εμον δηΧον 
 δτι. είτα ον μεν ην παρ' εμον δίκην κατά τονς νόμονς νπερ 269 
 τοντων λαβείν, εϊπερ ηδίκονν, εξεΧειπες, εν ταίς ενθνναις, 
 
 125 εν ταίς γραφαΐς, εν ταίς άΧΧαις κρίσεσιν ον δ * εγώ μεν 
 αθώος άπασι, τοις νόμοις, τώ χρονω, τη προθεσμία, τώ 
 
 9· έξ€\€~γί;ωμεν Β. αν (for eav) λ 6. τι om. Ο 1 , F. 
 
 § 124 . 2. Xoi 0 ope?v (for πομπ.) Ο. 3 · Sbcafws (ο over ω) ΙΑ 5 · e V (for 
 
 φη) Αι. 7 · έξέλβιπβςΣ; έξέΧιπες L, vulg. 
 
 § 125 . 2. πασι Αι, Υ. τοΊς νόμοις Αι (mg. only). 
 
 ούκ eav Xlyeiv. This speech shows that 
 άνδροφόνος, ρίψασπις, πατραΧοίας, and μη- 
 τραΧοίας were απόρρητα, but the number 
 must have been much larger. See Meier 
 and Schomann, 628—632. The penalty 
 for using απόρρητα was a fine of 500 
 drachmas, which could be recovered by a 
 δίκη κακη^ορίας (Lys. X. 12 ; Isocr. XX. 3). 
 
 9. €αν...τυγχάνη. if it shall happen 
 that anyone has wronged : the perfect 
 participle is the common form for ex¬ 
 pressing past time with τυγχάνω etc.; eav 
 άδικήσας τύχη would mean if he shall 
 perchance wrong (M.T. 144, 147 1 ). 
 
 § 124. 1. Ιμοΰ : with ουδόν ηττον. 
 
 2. ττομτΓίΰίΐν (cf. πομπείας, § II 6 ): 
 referring to άμάξης, § I22 6 , and λοι¬ 
 δορίαν, § I 23 2 . 
 
 3· Ελαττον 2 χων άιτίΧθίΐν, to get off 
 
 with any less (than he has given): this 
 fatal principle of paying off vituperation 
 in the same base coin is the weak justifi¬ 
 cation of the scurrility which follows 
 (§§ 128—131) and elsewhere. Such pas¬ 
 sages remind us that we are dealing with 
 the customs of 2200 years ago. The 
 vituperation of Demosthenes has at least 
 one advantage over that of Aeschines, 
 in being free from much of the lowest 
 vulgarity and indecency of his opponent. 
 
 4. iroTipov.. .φη ; here φητις; hardly 
 
 differs from φωμεν ; the third person 
 
 without τις in these questions is rare 
 (Μ. T. 289). 
 
 6. ου, where , explained by έν.,.κρί- 
 σεσιν. — ύττέρ τούτων : the Athenians 
 present, as representing the whole. 
 
 7. li-eXei-Tres (impf. only Σ) expresses 
 habitual neglect.— eiQvvais: i.e. by bring¬ 
 ing a suit in connection with my εϋθυναι 
 (see note on § 117 7 ), like the 7 ραφή 
 παραπρβσββίας against Aeschines (xix.). 
 
 8. γραφαϊβ: here ordinary public suits, 
 not including eiaayyeX’ia, εϋθυναι, etc., 
 which come under 7 ραφαί in its wider 
 sense. See note on § 249 2 * 4 * . 
 
 § 125 . 1. ού δ\..αθωο$, but where I 
 
 am scot-free , opposed to οδ μϊν ην, § 124 s . 
 
 2. tois v 0 p.ois...irp 0 T€pov : these four 
 grounds of immunity (explaining απασιν) 
 do not all exclude each other, νόμοις in 
 fact including all the rest, and χρόνιρ 
 being in great part identical with προ- 
 θεσμίρ. See Weil’s note; and Arist. 
 Rhet. hi. 12, 3 and 4, where he discusses 
 ασύνδετα, which '‘'• make one thing many ” 
 (τό δν ποΧΧά), whereas a conjunction £v 
 ποιεΐ τα ποΧΧά. — τη irpo 0 €(rp.uj, the limi¬ 
 tations of time set by law to bringing 
 certain actions. Debts were outlawed in 
 five years, and this limitation applied to 
 many other cases. The mover of a law 
 was personally liable to the 7 ραφή παρα¬ 
 νόμων only one year. See Meier and 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 9ΐ 
 
 κεκρίσθαι περί πάντων πολλάκις πρότερον, τω μηδεπωποτε 
 εςελεγγυηναι μηδέν υμάς άδικων, τη πολει δ η πλέον η 
 ελαττον ανάγκη των γε δημοσία πεπραγμενών μετείναι της 5 
 δόζης, εντανθ’ άπηντηκας; ορα μη τούτων μεν εγθρος ης, 
 εμοί δε προσποιη. 
 
 ’Επειδή τοίννν η μεν ευσεβής καί δίκαια ψήφος άπασι 126 
 
 3· πάντων πολλάκις πρότερον Σ, L, Β; τούτων πολλάκις Αΐ; πάντ. πολλ. τούτων 
 πρότ. vulg. 4 · δη πλέον Σ 1 (corr. to δέ πλέον); δέ πλέον L, Φ; δ’ η πλέον vulg. 
 
 7· έμοί Σ, Β, F (corr. to έμος), Φ; έμδς L, Αι. 2, Ο. 
 
 § 126 . ι. ει μέν Σ 1 (η above line). 
 
 Schomann, 838—840. Of course in this 
 suit nothing could make Demosthenes 
 personally amenable to any law, as he 
 was only Ctesiphon’s advocate; but the 
 meaning of άθφος is that no suit could 
 now legally be brought against him per¬ 
 sonally for any of the offences with which 
 he is charged before the court. He 
 bitterly complains of the power given to 
 Aeschines by the form of this suit to 
 accuse him of crimes for which he could 
 not indict him: see §§ 9—16.— τω κίκρι- 
 (τθαι ττολλάκΐδ irpoTepov (sc. έμέ): pro¬ 
 bably referring to the cases mentioned in 
 §§ 83, 222—224, which covered import¬ 
 ant parts of the present case. He may also 
 refer to actual indictments against himself: 
 for the time since Chaeronea we have his 
 statement in §§ 249, 250, e.g. κατά την 
 
 §§ 126 — 226 . The next main divi¬ 
 sion of the argument is devoted chiefly to 
 the account of the means by which Aes¬ 
 chines gained for Philip an entrance into 
 Greece with his army, by getting up the 
 Amphissian war (§§ 139— 159), and of 
 the measures by which Demosthenes 
 opposed this joint plot of Aeschines 
 and Philip (as he represents it), espe¬ 
 cially his negotiations with Thebes in 
 339—338 B.C., which led to the alliance 
 of that city with Athens (§§ 160—226). 
 The orator introduces these accounts by 
 a general sketch of Aeschines’ life and 
 that of his parents, full of offensive scur¬ 
 rility (§§ 126—131), followed by a brief 
 account of some of the lesser political 
 offences of Aeschines (§§ 132— 138). 
 
 ημέραν έκάστην έκρινόμην. See note on 
 § 224“*. For the law forbidding new 
 trials of cases already decided, see xxiv. 
 55, ούκ ia περί ών αν άπαξ y νφ δικαστή - 
 ριον πάλιν χρηματίζειν. 
 
 4· ύμάϊ αδικών: υμάς shows that the 
 orator could address the audience in the 
 midst of a question addressed to Aeschines 
 personally. 
 
 6. Ινταΰθα, there , referring back em¬ 
 phatically to οΰ (i).—ainivTT]Kas; cf. 
 άπηντηκώ s, § 15°.—Spa μή...η5, see to it 
 that you do not prove to be their enemy : μή 
 with the subjunctive always implies the 
 future; φοβούμαι μη αληθές έστιν is I fear 
 that it is true (Μ. T. 369). 
 
 7. €μ.οΙ: the MSS. are divided between 
 έμοί and έμδς : we might have έμοΰ , cor¬ 
 responding to τούτων. 
 
 The orator’s account of his own politi¬ 
 cal acts in the eventful year before the 
 battle of Chaeronea, connected with his 
 vigorous defence of the policy of Athens 
 under his guidance in her last resistance 
 to the power of Philip, is the most elo¬ 
 quent passage in the oration. This is a 
 direct continuation of the story of his 
 political life which was interrupted by 
 skilful design in § no. 
 
 § 126 . r. €ττ€ΐδη τοίννν κ.τ.λ. Thisis 
 one of the few undoubted cases of ana- 
 coluthon in Demosthenes. The causal 
 sentence introduced by επειδή goes on 
 regularly through § 126, when the sudden 
 turn given by the question τις ούκ αν... 
 φθέyξaσθaι; causes the orator to burst 
 forth into the fierce invective which fol- 
 
92 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 όεόεικται, δει 8ε με , ώς εοικε, καιπερ ον φιλολοιόορον οντα, 
 διά τάς νπό τούτον βλαετφη μιας ειρημενας αντί πολλών και 
 φενόών αυτά τάναγκαιότατ ειπειν περί αυτόν, και δει£αι 
 5 τις ών καί τίνων ραόίως όντως αργεί τον κακώς λεγειν, και 
 
 λόγους τινάς δια σνρει, αυτός είρηκώς α τις ονκ αν ώκνησε 
 127 των μέτριων ανθρώπων φθεγζαετθαΐ ;— ei γαρ Αιακός η 
 'Ταόάμανθνς η Μίνως ην 6 κατήγορων, άλλα μη σπερμο- 
 λόγος, περίτριμμα αγοράς, όλεθρος γραμματενς, ονκ αν 
 
 2. ’όντα φύσει L, Αι, vulg.; φύσει om. Σ 1 (added above line), Β, F 1 , Φ 1 , Υ. 
 
 6. rivas Σ; nvas L, Β, vulg., West., Bl.; τίνα s Αι (Φ, V6, see Vomel), Dind., Bk. 
 διασύρειν Ai, 2. arts Σ, vulg.; axis L. av om. V6. 7. ανθρώπων om. A2. 
 
 § 127. 2. Μίνως ή Ραδάμ. A2. 
 
 lows, forgetting his leading sentence, the 
 apodosis to επειδή ... φθέχξασθαι. This 
 exclamatory diversion carries him to the 
 end of § 128, where we find in a changed 
 form (in § 129) what would be a natural 
 apodosis to § 126. Hermogenes, περί των 
 ιδεών (in. ρ. 342, W.), thus explains the 
 structure of the passage: ’έστι δε.,.έτέρα 
 τις μέθοδος ενδιαθέτου λόχου και μάλιστα 
 τού δοκοΰντος σύν όρχή προϊέναι, το μηδέ 
 τάς ακολουθίας σφζειν των τού λόγου σχη¬ 
 μάτων, άλλ’ οΐον έξίστασθαι δοκεΐν ύπό 
 τού πάθους, οΐόν έστι και το έπειδή τοίνυν 
 ...φιλολοίδορον οντα (§ 126), και τα έξης 
 πάντα μέχρι του ούκ άπορων δ’ δ τι 
 χρη.,.τού πρώτου μνησθώ (§ 129). 
 
 ούδαμοΰ yap άποδέδοται το ακόλουθον τέρ 
 σχήμα τι, άλλ’ επιπολύ τό οΐον άκρόχολον. 
 διό καί μάλλον εμφυχος καί αληθής 6 
 λόχος είναι δοκεΐ. This shows the futility 
 of attempts to restore grammatical se¬ 
 quence to the passage. The power and 
 passion of the invective in §§ 127, 128 is 
 certainly augmented by the sudden break 
 in the rather formal construction of § 126, 
 and we may well doubt whether the 
 orator ever thought of the beginning of 
 § 129 as a resumption of this broken 
 sentence.— ή €υσ€βή$...ψήφο$, i.e. the 
 vote which your oath and justice both 
 require of you. 
 
 4. αυτά τάναγκαιότατα, what is bare¬ 
 ly necessary (to satisfy the promise in 
 § 124 2 , 3 ). Cf. άναχκαιότατα § i68". See 
 Thuc. I. 90 ώστε άπομάχεσθαι εκ τού 
 
 άναχκαιοτάτου ύφους, i.e. to have the wall 
 just high enough to be defensible. 
 
 5. τίνων: sc. 7 ενόμενος. 
 
 6. \ 6 yovs Tivas διασ-υρα, ridicules 
 certain sayings of mine. It is hard to de¬ 
 cide between rivas and τίνα s. With τίνας 
 it is what sayings of mine he ridicules , i.e. 
 how he ridicules my sayings. The refer¬ 
 ence is to Aesch. III. 167, ταύτα τί έστιν, 
 ώ κίναιδος; ρήματα ή θαύματα; also to 
 72 and 209.—ά t£s.. .φθεγξασ-θαι; this 
 interrog. rel. sentence breaks the con¬ 
 struction. For μέτριων see § 10”. 
 
 § 127. 1. AiaK 0 s...M£vios: the three 
 judges of the dead in Plat. Gorg. 523 E. 
 
 2. ό κατήγορων is subject: Vomel 
 says, “Non dicit si Aeacus accusaret , sed 
 si accusator esset Aeacus .”— σπερμολόχος : 
 originally a little bird which picked up 
 seed from newly sown fields (Ar. Av. 232, 
 579); then a man who lives by picking 
 up what he can in the market and other 
 places of trade, a vagabond, and generally 
 a worthless fellow; sometimes one who 
 picks up and retails small scraps of 
 gossip, a babbler or prater, as applied to 
 St Paul in Acts xvii. 18. Either of the 
 last two meanings, or perhaps a combi¬ 
 nation of both, suits the present passage. 
 See Harpocr. s.v. ,and Eustath. in Odyss. 
 P- 1547 · 
 
 3. ττίρίτριμρα ayopas, a hack of the 
 market place’, see Arist. Nub. 447, περί- 
 τριμμα δικών, with the explanation in 
 Bekk. Anecd. p. 59, οΐον τετριμωένον ίκα- 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 93 
 
 αυτόν οίμαι ταυτ είπείν ουδ’ αν όντως επαχθείς λόγους 
 πορίσασθαι, ώσπερ εν τραγωδία βοωντα ώ γη καί ήλιε 5 
 καί αρετή καί τα τοιαυτα, καί πάλιν συνεσιν καί παιδείαν 
 επικαλούμενου, η τα καλά καί τα αισχρά διαγιγνώσκεται· 
 ταυτα γάρ δηπουθεν ηκούετ αυτου λεγοντος. σοί δε 128 
 αρετής, ώ κάθαρμα, η τοϊς σοίς τις μετουσία; η καλών 
 η μη τοιούτων τις διάγνωσις; πόθεν η πως άζιωθεντι; 
 που δε παιδείας σοι θεμις μνησθηναι, ής των μεν ώς αληθώς 
 2 jo τετυχηκότων ουδ ’ αν εις είποι περί αυτου τοιουτον ούδεν, 5 
 αλλά καν ετερου λεγοντος ερυθριάσειε, τοΐς δ’ άπολειφθείσι 
 μεν, ώσπερ συ, προσποιουμενοις δ’ ύπ ? αναισθησίας το τους 
 ακούοντας άλγεΐν ποιεϊν όταν λέγωσιν, ου το δοκεΐν τοι- 
 ουτοις είναι περίεστιν. 
 
 Ουκ άπορων δ* ο τι χρη περί σου καί των σων είπείν, 129 
 απορώ του πρώτου μνησθ'ώ- πότερ ’ ώς ό πατήρ σου Τ ρόμης 
 
 οΐομαι L. ταυτ' Σ, L, Β, F, Φ; τοιαύτ' Ar, vulg. 6. παιδίαν Αι 
 
 (cf. § 128 4 ); καί παιδείαν ora. Β. 7 · επικαλούμενος Αϊ. 8. ήκούσατ ’ Αι. 
 
 § 128 . 3 · πόθεν Σ 1 , Αι. 2, Β, vulg.; πόθεν λαβόντι Σ 2 , L, Β (yp), Φ (yp). 
 
 4· παιδείας Αι (cf. § 127 6 ), vulg.; παιδίας As. μεν ώς om. Ο. 5 · αύτοΰ 
 
 L. 8. τοιούτους Αι, Υ; τούτοις V6. 
 
 νως πpάyμaσιv. — oXtOpos γραμματίύβ, a 
 
 curse of a scribe·, see ix. 31, ολέθρου 
 Μ ακεδόνος (of Philip), and XXIII. 202, 
 ανθρώπους ουδ’ ελευθέρους, ολέθρους .— 
 οΰκ dv...eiir€tv (repr. εΐπεν αν): for the 
 common position of dv before words like 
 οίμαι , see Μ. Τ. 220 1 . 
 
 4. €7ra)(0ets, ponderous, offensively 
 pompous: cf. έπαχθές, offensive, § 10 7 . 
 See Ar. Ran. 940, οίδοΰσαν ύπό κομπα- 
 σμάτων και ρημάτων έπαχθών, of the Style 
 of Aeschylus. 
 
 5. 7 rop£<ra(T 0 cu, provide one's self with, 
 bring out: cf. XIX. 186, XXXV. 41.— 
 
 ώ(ΠΓ€ρ 4 v τραγωδίς. : see note on § 13 6 . — 
 ώ γή...άρ€τή: thus Aesch. begins his 
 peroration (260), adding και σύνεσις και 
 παιδεία, ή διayιyvώσκoμεv τα καλά και 
 αισχρά. 
 
 § 128 . ι. σοί άρ€τή$.. .Tts μετουσία ; 
 
 =τί σοι αρετής μέτεστιν; 
 
 2. κάθαρμα, properly filth , offscour¬ 
 ings. 
 
 3. ττό0€ν.. .άξιωθέντι; see note on 
 § 5 ! 4 · ^ 
 
 4. ήδ belongs to τετυχηκότων, άπολει- 
 φθεϊσι, and προσποιονμένοις: it has a parti¬ 
 tive force with προσποιουμένοις (7), as in 
 Ar. Eccl. 871, προσποιή των χρημάτων. 
 
 6 . κάν...€ρυθρι,ά<Γ€ΐ 6 : Μ. Τ. 224.— 
 ά·τΓθλ€ΐφθ€Ϊσ-ι: cf. § 257 s · 
 
 7. <xvaur0qcrias : see note on αναίσθη¬ 
 τοι, § 43 1 . 
 
 9· irepictTTiv, it remains for them: cf. 
 περιείναι χρήματα, of a balance of money 
 due , § 227 s . See II. 29, περίεστι ήμίν 
 έρίζειν. 
 
 § 129 . 2. του (= rtvos) Ή-ρώτου μνησ*θώ: 
 
 indirect question (Μ.Τ.677)·—° πατήρ... 
 Ιδούλ€υ€: it is a hard problem for histori¬ 
 cal criticism to evolve the real father of 
 Aeschines from this slave of a school¬ 
 master, seen with his feet in the stocks 
 or wearing a wooden collar for punish¬ 
 ment, and the patriotic citizen described 
 by his son (Aesch. 11. 147, ill. 191), who 
 
94 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 iSovXeve παρ' Έλπία τώ προς τω ( H )rjcrei(p διδα σκοντι γράμ¬ 
 ματα, γοίνικας παγζίας £γων και ζνΧον; η ως rj μτ]ΤΎ)ρ, 
 5 τοΐς μεθημερινοΊς γάμοις ev τω κ\€ΐσιω τω προς τω 
 καλαμίτΎ) τ/ρω γρωμενη, τον κα\ον avhpiavTa και τριτα- 
 
 § 129 . 3 · Έλττίςι vnlg. ; ελπίδαι (δ dotted w. θ above) Σ; Έιλπίδμ (δ eiased), 
 
 Α2, Ο 1 . * θησίιρ Αι. 4· σχοινικας (πεδας above) L. καί ξύλον Οίη. Λ 6. 
 
 μήτηρ Σ, L, Β, F, Φ; μήτηρ σου vulg. 5· κλεισίιρ L, Α2, θ'; κλείσειωι (w. 
 
 marks of correction) Σ; κλησίφ Αι, Ο 1 3 4 ; κλισείιρ Φ; κλισίω Β, vulg. ^ 
 vulg; om. Αι ; ήρωι (ώ above ρ) Σ (ήρώω?)’, cf. τ rpds τφ του Κ αλαμίτου ηρωιρ Apoll. 
 Vit. Aesch. 2. ανδριάντας L; άνδρειάντα Α2. 
 
 had died about twelve years before at the 
 age of ninety-five, who lived through the 
 Peloponnesian Avar, in which he lost his 
 property, was banished by the Thirty 
 Tyrants, served his country bravely in 
 
 Asia, was one of the restorers of the 
 democracy under Thrasybulus, and in 
 his old age discoursed learnedly and 
 wisely to his son on the early history of 
 the 'γραφή παρανόμων ! Fortunately De- 
 mosth. speaks of the same man thirteen 
 years before this, when he was still living 
 at the age of ninety-four, in xix. 281, 
 where he calls Aeschines τον 'Ατρόμητου 
 του Ύραμματιστου, sun oj Alrometus the 
 schoolmaster. From this respectable sta¬ 
 tion he has now descended to be the son 
 of Tromes, a schoolmaster’s slave (see 
 § i3° 5 )· 
 
 3. irpos τώ Θησεία» : in XIX. 249, 
 Atrometus is said to have kept school 
 πρός τφ του 'Ήρω του ιατρού, near the 
 shrine of the Hero Physician. We have 
 no means of knowing whether these refer 
 to the same locality. Archaeologists 
 are generally agreed that the temple now 
 called the Theseum is not the famous 
 building: under which the bones of 
 Theseus were buried; and the position 
 of the real temple is unknown. The place 
 of the shrine of the Hero Physician is 
 likewise unknown. For this hero, the 
 Scythian Toxaris, a friend of Anacharsis 
 and Solon, see Essay vi. Cf. note on καλα- 
 μίτης (line 5).— διδάατκοντι -γράμματα: the 
 7 ραμματιστής was a teacher of -γράμματα, 
 reading and writing , the earlier -γραμμα¬ 
 τική. 
 
 4. χοίνικαδ τταχίίαδ, crassas compedis 
 
 (Plaut. Capt. III. 5, 64), stocks or shackles 
 for the feet: see Ar. Plut. 275, at κνήμαι 
 δέ σου βοώσιν ιού ίου, τας χοίνικας και τάς 
 πέδας ποθουσαι. — ξύλον, a wooden collar , 
 worn on the neck for punishment: see 
 Ar. Nub. 592, ήν φιμώσητε τούτου V τφ 
 ξύλιρ τον αυχένα, and Lys. 681. It meant 
 also stocks for the feet, and the πεντεσύ - 
 piyyov ξύλον was an instrument with five 
 holes, for neck, arms, and legs. See 
 Lexicon, ξύλον. 
 
 5. rois μεθημίρινοϊδ -γάμοΐδ, a eu¬ 
 phemism for daylight prostitution ; the 
 stories of the mother of Aeschines are as 
 trustworthy as those of his father (see 
 §§ 258, 259).— κλίκτίω, a hut, opposed 
 to a house, as in Lys. XII. 18, τριών ήμΐν 
 οικιών ούσών, . .κλείσιον μισθωσάμενοι. In 
 Od. χχιν. 208 κλίσιον ( ΐσ) refers to slaves’ 
 dwellings built around the master’s house: 
 ένθα oi oikos έην, περί δέ κλίσιον θέε πάντη, 
 on which see Eustathius. Here κλεισίφ 
 may be euphemistic, like yάμoις .—irpos 
 τώ καλαμίτη ήρω, near the shrine (or 
 statue ) of the hero καλαμίτης. The mean¬ 
 ing of this name is very uncertain. Many 
 identify this hero with the ήρως ιατρός of 
 xix. 249, notwithstanding strong objec¬ 
 tions; among others, Westermann does 
 this “ ohne Zweifel.” If they are iden¬ 
 tical, we may explain καλαμίτης as archer 
 [bowman, or rather arrerw-man), deriving 
 it from κάλαμος , arrow , like οπλίτης from 
 δπλον. The Hero Physician, Toxaris, 
 was represented as a Scythian bowman 
 (Lucian, Scyth. 1). 
 
 6 . τον καλόν ανδριάντα, the pretty 
 doll’, see Bekk. Anecd. 394, 29 (quoted 
 by Dissen), ώς εν τή συνηθείμ λέyoυσιv αί 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 95 
 
 γωνιστην άκρον εζεθρεψε σε; άλλ’ ώς 6 τρίηραυλης 
 Φορμίων, 6 Αίωνος τον Φρεαρρίου δούλος, άνεστησεν αυτήν 
 άπο ταυτης της καλής εργασίας; άλλα νη τον Αία καί 
 θεούς όκνώ μη περί σου τα προσήκοντα λεγων αυτός ου ίο 
 προσηκοντας εμαυτω δόξω προηρησθαι λόγους, ταυτα μεν 130 
 ουν εασω, απ αυτών ο ων αυτός βεβιωκεν αρςομαι* ουοε 
 γάρ ων ετυχεν ήν, άλλ * οΐς 6 δήμος καταραται. όψε γάρ 
 ποτέ —, όψε λέγω; χθες μεν ουν καί πρώην άμ *Αθηναίος 
 καί ρητωρ γεγονεν · καί δυο συλλαβάς προσθείς τον μεν 5 
 πατέρα άντί Ύρόμητος εποίησεν * Ατρόμητον, την δε μητέρα 
 σεμνώς πάνν Τλαυκοθεαν, ην *Εμπουσαν άπαντες Ισασι 
 
 7 · σε om. Υ. After σε Αΐ, Ο add άλλα πάντες ισασι ταυτα , κ'άν εγώ μη \έ~γω: 
 om. Σ, L 1 , Α2, Β, vulg. η ώς L ( yp ), Β 2 . ίο. θεούς Σ, L; τούς θεούς vulg. 
 
 II. προηρησθαι (ei over η) Β. 
 
 § 130. 2. ουν Σ (mg.), om. Σ 1 . ά 7 τ’ αυτών L, vulg.; άίπαυτωΐ' (in 2 lines) 
 
 Σ (not ατταντων ); από δ' αυτών Σ (7ρ);„άλλ’ άπ αύτών Αι. αυτός om. Υ 1 . Σ (yp) 
 has: προηρησθαι λόγους, ούδέ yap ων έτυχεν ην, άλλ’ οΐς ό δήμος καταραται. ταυτα 
 μεν ούν παραλείψω’ από δ’αυτών ών βεβίωκεν άρξομαι. 4· έχάέϊ Φ. 5 · 7 ^' 
 
 yovεv Σ; om. Αι. 6 . ’ Ατρόμ. έποί. 0 · 7 · ώνόμασεν (after Γλαυκ.) vulg.; 
 
 om. Σ, ΙΑ ην απαντ.’Ύΐμπ. L. 
 
 μητέρες περί των υίών, “ ό καλός άνδριάς 
 μου.” — τριταγωνιστήν άκρον, a tip-top 
 third-part-actor : see §§ 262, 265, and 
 xix. 246, 247, 337. 
 
 7. άλλ’ cos: supply μνησθώ from line 2, 
 as a direct interrogative.— τριηραύλης, 
 galley-piper , who gave the stroke to the 
 rowers on a trireme. 
 
 8. Δίωνος : we find Αίων Αιαίτου 
 Φρεάρριος (?) as trierarch in C. I. Att. II. 
 No. 804 a, a 84: see also Index to Vol. 
 11. s.v. Δίων. — άνεστησ-εν : “ memineris 
 prostare in lupanari Graece dici καθη- 
 σθαι” (Dissen); there is also the idea of 
 raising her from a low occupation. Cf. 
 Aesch. 1. 41. 
 
 § 130. 2. ών αύτόξ βεβίωκεν, the 
 
 life he has himself led, — των αύτφ βεβιω- 
 μένων: cf. § 265 1 » XXII. 231 τα τοότιρ 
 βεβιωμένα, and XIX. 199» 200.—ουδέ ών 
 έτυχεν ήν, he was not even of ordinary 
 parents , i.e. not of any of whom he mere¬ 
 ly chanced to be. ών ’έτυχεν is nearly 
 equivalent to the common των τυχόντων , 
 ordinary people (οΐ ετυχον) , such as might 
 chance to fall in one’s way: cf. Isocr. x. 
 
 21, ei εις ην τών τυχόντων άλλα μη των 
 πολύ διεvεyκόvτωv. See West, for various 
 interpretations of this much disputed 
 passage. He quotes Rutilius Lupus, de 
 Fig. 1. 16 : parentes appellat quos scitis 
 non ignotos fuisse, sed huiusmodi ut 
 omnes hos exsecrarentur. After such a 
 statement we should naturally expect to 
 hear that he was of higher than ordinary 
 parentage; but here (παρα προσδοκίαν) 
 we have άλλ’ οΐς ό δήμος καταραται added. 
 In the religious ceremony before each 
 meeting of the Senate and Assembly, 
 a curse (άρά) was invoked against certain 
 classes of offensive people: see xxm. 97, 
 καταραται καθ’ έκάστην εκκλησίαν ό κηρυξ 
 ...ei' τις έξαπατφ. λέyωv r) βουλήν η δήμον 
 η την ηλιαίαν, with xix. 70. Aeschines 
 himself is elsewhere included among these 
 “deceivers”: see § 282 5-7 , καίτοι τις... 
 καταραται δικαίως; 
 
 5· δυο σ-υλλαβά$ 7 ΓροσθεΙ$: on the 
 
 contrary, Demosth. probably made Τρό- 
 μης (trembler) by cutting off two syllables 
 from Ατρόμητος (dauntless). 
 
 7. ’Έμπουοταν, hobgoblin. 
 
ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 96 
 
 καλουμένην, ΐκ του πάντα ποιειν καί πάσχαν και γίγνεσθαι 
 
 131 δηλονότι τ αυτής της επωνυμίας τυχούσαν πόθεν yap 
 άλλοθεν; άλλ' δμως ούτως αχάριστος εΐ καί πονηρός φύσει 
 ωστ ελεύθερος εκ δούλου και πλούσιος εκ πτωχού fia 2 7 i 
 τουτουσϊ γεγονως ούχ δπως χάριν αύτοΐς εχεις, αλλα 
 
 5 μισθωσας σαυτδν κατά τοντων'ι πολιτεύει. και περί ών 
 μεν εστι τις άμφισβητησις ώς άρα υπέρ της πόλεως 
 είρηκεν, εάσω- ά δ” υπέρ των εχθρών φανερως άπεδείχθη 
 πράττων, ταντ αναμνησω. 
 
 132 Τις γάρ νμων ονκ olSev τον άποψη φισθάντ ’ Αντιφωντα , 
 
 8. καί yiyveaOai Σ, L 1 ; om. vulg. 
 
 § 131 . 4· τούτους Υ. Ίχης Αι, Β; έχοις 
 
 5. αύτ'ον Α2. τουτωϊ {ν over ωι) Σ ; τούτων Αι. 
 
 in all MSS. 7 · «αθαρως (for φανερως) Α2, Φ. 
 
 S 132 . ι. υμών om. Αι. 
 
 Ο. άλλα καί Αί, Φ. 
 
 ποΧιτεύη Σ; -εύη or -ευη 
 επεδείχθη Αι ; έδείχθη Α2. 
 
 8. και ·γ£·γν€(τθαι: almost all editors 
 omit these words, which have the best 
 ms. authority and are especially appro¬ 
 priate to the description of Empusa. 
 See Ar. Ran. 289—293: Xan. δεινόν 
 παντοδαπδν yovv yiyv εται' τγοτ£ μέν ye 
 βοΰς, vvvl δ’ όρεύς, ποτέ δ’ αύ y υνή 
 ωραιότατη τις. Dion. Έιμττουσα τοίνυν 
 έστί. 
 
 § 131 . 4· τουτουσϊ: i.e. the Athe¬ 
 
 nians, as represented by the court.— ούχ 
 οττωδ-.-άΧλά : ούχ όπως and ούχ δτι came 
 originally from ού λέξω όπως (or οτι), 
 I will not speak op.\ I will not say that , etc., 
 while the nearly equivalent μη όπως (rare) 
 or μη οτι came from μη \lye όπως (or δτι), 
 do not mention that, etc. Usually not to 
 speak of is a good English equivalent; 
 but what is not to be spoken of may be 
 either affirmed or denied. Thus here ούχ 
 δπως χάριν έχεις, not to mention your being 
 grateful, means not only are you not grate¬ 
 ful; but in Lys. XIX. 31, ούχ δπως τά 
 σκεύη άπόδοσθε, not to speak of your 
 selling the furniture, means not only did 
 yo*i sell the furniture. These examples 
 show the absurdity of connecting this 
 construction with that of non modo for 
 non modo non, with which of course it is 
 not related inform. (See M.T. 707, 708.) 
 Like most elliptical idioms, this is very 
 
 often used where the ellipsis could not be 
 supplied grammatically, and even where 
 (as here) no definite ellipsis was in the 
 speaker’s mind. For the occasional use 
 of όπως like cjs in oratio oblicjua, see M.T . 
 706. 
 
 5. ττοΧιτ€υ€ΐ (mss. πολιτεύη): see note 
 on § 119 4 . 
 
 6 . άμφισβήτησίδ ws €Ϊρηκεν : άμφισ - 
 βητησις, like αμφισβητώ and Latin dis- 
 puto, refers to maintaining in a dispute. 
 See Plato Rep. 476 d , έάν άμφισβητχ, ώϊ 
 ούκ άληθη \ey ομεν, and Ter. Andr. Prol. 
 15, in eo disputant contaminari non decere 
 fabulas. 
 
 7. Ιάσω: “ Hier ist die πομπεία aus, 
 und der Redner wird ernst.” (Bl.) 
 
 §§ 132 — 138 . Here the orator alludes 
 briefly to some lesser offences of Aeschines, 
 which preceded the outbreak of the war 
 with Philip. In § 139 these are called 
 slight matters compared with his conduct 
 after the war began. 
 
 § 132 . 1. otScv, know of. — άποψη - 
 
 φισ0€ντ , rejected from the list of citizens. 
 In 346 — 5 B.C. (επ’ Άρχίου, Harpocr. 
 under διαφηφισις) a general revision of 
 the lists of citizens was ordered at Athens; 
 and the members of each deme went 
 through its own list (the yρaμμaτε:ov 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 97 
 
 δς επαγγειλάμενος Φιλίππω τα νεώρι εμπρησειν εις την 
 πόλιν ηλθεν; ον λαβόντος εμον κεκρυμμενον εν ΤΙειραιεΊ 
 καί καταστησαντος εις την εκκλησίαν, βοών ο βάσκανος 
 οντος καί κεκραγως ως εν δημοκρατία δείνα ττοιω τονς 5 
 ητν^ηκότας των πολιτών νβριζων και εττ οικίας βαδιζων 
 άνεν ψηφίσματος, άφεθηναι εποιησεν. και ει μη η βονλη 133 
 
 2. τα ύμέτερα (after εμπρήσειν) vulg. ; om. Σ, L, Β 1 , F 1 , Φ 1 . 3 · καταλαβόντος 
 
 V6. 5 · o6ros ΟΓΩ · Α ~· 6. ΰ βριζών om. V6. 
 
 ληξιαρχικόν) voting on each name which 
 was questioned. This process was called 
 διαφήφισις ( διαφηφίζομαι ), and the rejec¬ 
 tion of any person on the list was called 
 άποφήφισις (άποφηφίζομαι) . Demosthenes 
 wrote his oration against Eubulides (lvii.) 
 for a client who bad been thus rejected 
 and had appealed (as every such perSon 
 might) to a Heliastic court. (See Wester- 
 mann’s introduction to that oration.) 
 Antiphon was undoubtedly rejected at 
 the same διαφήφισις (see Dem. LVII. 2, 
 πολλών έξεληλαμένων δικαίως έκ πάντων 
 των δήμων), and afterwards offered his 
 services to Philip (έπαχχειλά μένος Φι¬ 
 λί ππιρ). 
 
 4· καταστησ -avTos els την εκκλησίαν: 
 
 it is hardly probable that Demosthenes 
 brought Antiphon before the Assembly 
 without some official authority. At the 
 time of the passage of his trierarchic law 
 (340 B.C.) he held the office of επιστάτης 
 τον ναυτικόν (Aesch. III. 222). Schaefer 
 (il. p. 370) thinks that he was ταμίας εις 
 τα νεώρια, an officer mentioned in C. I. 
 Att. 11. Nos. 803 d, 5 and 14; 811 d, 34. 
 See Boeckh, Urkunden iib. d. Att. 
 Seewesen, pp. 59, 62, and 535 127 . It is 
 doubtful by what process Antiphon was 
 thus summarily arrested : it was probably 
 by μήνυσις, denunciation to the people, 
 the process by which those charged with 
 mutilating the Hermae in 415 B.C. were 
 dealt with. (See Meier and Schomann, 
 PP· 33 °— 33 2 ·) Except in the rare cases 
 in which the Assembly itself undertook 
 the trial (as in the μήνυσις against Phidias, 
 Plut. Pericl. 31), the people either sent 
 the accused to a Heliastic court for trial 
 
 or discharged him. In the case of Anti¬ 
 phon, the appeals of men like Aeschines 
 moved the Assembly to discharge him; 
 but the Areopagus interposed, and ordered 
 (through the Assembly) that Antiphon be 
 tried before a court, which condemned 
 him to the rack and to death. See Hist. 
 § 53. Dinarchus (i. 63) says: έστρέ- 
 βλωσαν Άντιφώντα καί άπέκτειναν ουτοι 
 (the Heliasts) τη τής βουλής άποφάσει 
 πεισθέντες. See note on § 133*· Aeschines 
 naturally does not mention this affair. 
 
 6. ήτυχηκότας : referring to Anti¬ 
 phon’s “bad luck” (as Aesch. called it) 
 in losing his citizenship. 
 
 7. άνεν ψηφίσματοξ, i.e. without a 
 vote of the Assembly or Senate. An 
 Athenian citizen, like an Englishman,, 
 looked upon his house as his castle. See 
 XXII. 52, τότε τοίνυν (under the Thirty 
 Tyrants) ούδείς ’έστιν οστις άπεστερείτο 
 του σωθήναι οστις εαυτόν ο’ίκοι κρύφειεν, 
 άλλα τούτο κατηχορουμεν των τριάκοντα, 
 ότι τούς έκ τής ά·γοράς αδίκως άπήχον. 
 This is not strictly true of the Thirty, 
 according to Lys. XII. 8, διαλαβόντες δε 
 τάς οικίας έβάδιζον * καί εμέ μέν ξένους 
 εστιώντα κατέλαβον. In extraordinary 
 cases officers of the state with proper 
 authority could search private houses and 
 arrest persons concealed therein. See 
 [xlvii.] 38, 53, for houses entered by the 
 authority of the Senate. Pollux (vm. 50) 
 implies that an officer called in to effect 
 εφηΎησις could enter a house to make 
 the arrest. (See Meier and Schomann, 
 pp. 784, 785, with note 99.)— άφεθηναι: 
 Antiphon was at first discharged by the 
 Assembly without a trial. 
 
 G. D. 
 
 7 
 
98 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 rj ' Αρείον πάγον, το 7 τραγμα αιοτθομενη και την νμετεραν 
 
 άγνοιαν εν ον δεοντι ο~νμβεβηκνιαν ιδονετα, επεζ,ητηετε τον 
 άνθρωπον καί σ'νΧλ.αβονο'α επαντιγαγεν ως νμα'ζ, εξηρπαεττ 
 5 άν δ τοιοντος και το δίκην δονναι διαδνς εξεπεπεμπτ αν 
 νπο τον <τεμνο\ογον τοντονί’ ννν δ νμεις στρεβλωεταντες 
 !4 αντον άπεκτείνατε, ως εδει γε και τοντον. τοιγαρονν ειδνια 
 τανθ 5 η βονλη η εξ Άρείον πάγον τότε τοντω πεπραγμένα, 
 γειροτονησαντων αντον νμων ετννδικον νπερ τον ιερόν τον 
 
 §133. 2 . ημετέραν Σ 1 {η ch. to ύ). 5 · έξεπέμπετ’ αν MSS. , Bk. ; έξεπέ- 
 
 ττεμπτ' άν Cobet (conj.), Dind., Vom., West., Lips., Bl. (om. άν). 6. σεμνο- 
 
 λο~γουμένου Y, F (7 p). τούτον Al.2, A . 
 
 § 134. 2. τότε Σ, Β; τα τότε L, vulg. 3· ύ ^ ν T0Te V6 ‘ 
 
 § 133 . 3· * ν δ^οντι (neut.), un¬ 
 
 seasonably, just when it should not . of. 
 •άνηλώκαμεν εις ούδέν δέον, III. 28. συμ- 
 βίβηκυΐαν ίδοΰ<τα, seeing that it had 
 occurred {or. obi. M.T. 9°4)·— €ττ€ξητησ·€, 
 i.e. ordered a new {lie -) investigation of 
 the man's case. The Areopagus in these 
 later times seems occasionally to have 
 revived a part of its ancient powei of 
 directing the general welfare of the state. 
 It could act through a rescript {απόφασή) 
 addressed to the Assembly, either on its 
 own initiative {αυτήν προελομένην ) or by 
 special authority of the Assembly: see 
 Dinarch. I. 50, ανάγκη την βουλήν την έξ 
 Άρείου irdyov κατά δύο τρόπους ποιεισθαι 
 τα s αποφάσεις πάσας, τίνας τούτους; -ήτοι 
 αυτήν προελομένην , η ζητήσασαν του δήμου 
 προστάξαντος αυτή. Meier and Schomann 
 suggest that in this case the Areopagus 
 acted under its regular jurisdiction in 
 cases of incendiarism ( πυρκαϊά ). 
 
 4. συΧΧαβοΰσ-α shows that the Areo¬ 
 pagus itself ordered Antiphon’s arrest: 
 Plutarch (Dem. 14) says that Demosth. 
 arrested him and brought him before the 
 Areopagus.— ώς v|xas, i.e. before the 
 court, which passed the sentence of death 
 (6). But έπανή^α^εν implies that the 
 Areopagus brought him back to some 
 place, and this must be the Assembly. 
 See the Scholia: κυρίως είπε τό έπανή- 
 Ύα-γεν, εις τον αυτόν τόπον αΰθις κατέ- 
 στησεν αυτόν η βουλή εξ οΰ σέσωσται 
 πρότερον. He was probably sent back 
 
 to the Assembly with an άπόφασις, pro¬ 
 viding that he should be brought before 
 the court for trial. This is the view of 
 Meier and Schomann (p. 424, note) and 
 Westermann. 
 
 5. δίκην δούναι διαδύδ : all notice 
 the intentional alliteration.—cije'irc'Trefi'jrr : 
 this slight change from έξεπέμπετ gives 
 a form symmetrical with εξήρπαστ : άν 
 would generally be omitted here (M.T. 
 226). 
 
 6. σ^μνολόγου : see note on § 35C— 
 νυν, as it was. — σ-τρ€βλώ<Γαντ€δ : torture 
 {βάσανος) could not legally be inflicted on 
 an Athenian citizen; but Antiphon was 
 now disfranchised. On the liability of 
 others to the βάσανος, see. Meier and 
 Schomann, pp. 896—898. In Ar. Ran. 
 628, Dionysus, disguised as a slave, 
 claims exemption from examination under 
 torture as an immortal God: αγορεύω τινί 
 έμε μη βασανίξειν αθάνατον οντ . 
 
 η. ws {-δει ye καί τούτον (sc. άπο- 
 κτείναι), as you ought to have dealt with 
 this man (Aesch.). 
 
 § 134 . 3. σύνδικον...Δήλω : about 
 
 343 b.c. the Delians contested the ancient 
 right of Athens to administer the temple 
 of Apollo on their island. The case 
 came before the Amphictyonic Council, 
 probably in the spring of 343, when 
 Demosth. was one of the Athenian dele¬ 
 gates to Delphi (xix. 65). The As¬ 
 sembly chose Aeschines as their counsel; 
 but the Areopagus, to which the people 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 99 
 
 iv Αηλω από της αυτής άγνοιας ήσπερ πολλά προ'ιζσθε 
 των κοινών, ως προβίλβσθβ κάκείνην καί τον πράγματος s 
 κυρίαν έποιησατ€, τούτον μβν βύθυς απήλασαν ως προδότην, 
 ‘Υπερείδη λεγειν προσεταζε' καί ταυτ από του βωμού 
 272 φεροναα την φήφον επραζε, καί ουδεμία φηφος ηνεγθη 
 
 τω μιαρω τουτω. καί ότι ταυτ αληθή λέγω, κάλει τούτων 135 
 τους μάρτυρας. 
 
 ΜΑΡΤΤΡΕ2. 
 
 [Μαρτυροί/σα Αημοσθίνβι υπέρ απάντων οΐδβ, Κ αΧΧίας Χουνιεύς, 
 Ζήνων ΦΧυβύς, ΚΧεων Φ αΧηρεύς, Αημόνικος Μαραθώνιος, οτι του 5 
 δήμου ποτέ γ^ειροτονησαντος Αίσγίνην σΰνδικον ύπερ του ιερόν 
 του εν ΑήΧω εις τους Άμφικτύονας συνεδρεΰσαντες ημείς εκρίναμεν 
 'Ύπερείδην άξιον είναι μάΧΧον υπέρ τής πόΧβως Χεγειν, καί 
 άπεστάΧη 'Υπερείδης.] 
 
 Ονκουν ότε τουτου μελΧοντος λεγειν άπηλασεν η βουλή ίο 
 
 4· ay voids ήσπερ Σ, L, F, Φ; ayv. ήσπ. 'ένεκα Αι; ayv. άφ ’ ήσπερ Β, vulg. 
 προΐεσθε vulg.; προεΐσθε (over προΐεσθε) L (yp ) ; 7 τροεϊσθε Αι; πρόεισθε Aa; προϊστε Σ 
 (ει overt), Φ. 5· προείλεσθε MSS., West.; προσείλεσθε H.Wolf, Dind., Bk., Lips., Bl. 
 
 /cat (before του) om. Y. 7. 'Υπερείδη Σ, F, Αι ; 'Ύπερίδη L, A2, B 1 ; 'Ύπερίδην 
 vulg.; 'Ύπερείδην B (so Lips.). 8. έξηνέχθη Φ. 
 
 § 135. i. κάλει Σ, L, A2, Β, Y, Φ, Ο ; κάλει. μοι vulg. τούτων τούτων Σ. 
 
 ίο. μέλλοντος λέyεLv L, vulg.; μέλλοντος (corr. from λέyovτoς?) w. λέyείv added, Σ ; 
 λέyovτoς B, F, Φ, Dind. αυτόν (after άπηλασεν) vulg. ; om. Σ, L. 
 
 had given authority to revise the election, 
 rejected him and sent Hyperides in his 
 place. This showed that the tide had 
 turned against Macedon. Hyperides then 
 delivered his eloquent λόyoς Δηλιακός at 
 Delphi, and gained the case for Athens. 
 See Hist. § 54. 
 
 4. άιτό...ηοΓ7Γ€ρ (see G. 1025): cf. 
 XXI. 155, ore κατά ταύτην την ηλικίαν ην 
 ην (for καθ' ην) iyio νυν , and χχπ. 30, 
 περί του πpάyμaτoς αύτου ού (sc. περί) 
 τιθείη τόν νόμον. (West.) 
 
 5. ώδ TrpoeiXeorGe κάκ«ίνην, i.e. when 
 yon had previously associated it (the Are¬ 
 opagus) with yourselves in the case, i.e. 
 giving it the right to revise your choice 
 (lit. when you had previously chosen it 
 also , and given it power, etc.), καί in 
 κάκείνην, which seems awkward, must 
 refer to the association of the two bodies 
 
 in power: in H. Wolf’s emendation, προσ¬ 
 είλεσθε, προσ- would have the same force 
 as καί. The άπόφασις of the Areopagus 
 here was of the second kind mentioned 
 by Dinarchus (quoted in note on § 133 3 ), 
 του δήμου προστάξαντος αυτή. See άπέ- 
 φηνεν, § 135 12 · 
 
 7· Xe'yeiv προσ^τα^: i.e. as the σύνδι- 
 κος of Athens. —άττό του βωμού: the most 
 solemn form of voting, here on a religious 
 question. See XLiii. 14, λαβόντες την 
 ψήφον καιομένων των ιερείων, από του βω¬ 
 μού φέροντες του Αιός του φρατρίου. Cf. 
 Hdt. νιπ. 123; Plut. Them. 17; Cic. 
 pro Balbo v. 12. 
 
 8. ήνί'χθη : like φέρουσα (above). 
 
 9. τουτω : cf. έμοί την ψήφον ήvεyκav, 
 Isae. XI. 18. 
 
 § 135 . 10. τούτου μίλλοντοδ \iyeiv, 
 
 when he was to be the speaker, i.e. after 
 
 7—2 
 
100 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 καί προσεταξεν ετερω, Tore καί προδότην είναι και κα- 
 κόνονν νρίν άπεφηνεν. 
 
 6 *Εν μεν τοίννν τοντο τοιοντο πολιτενμα τον νεανιον 
 τούτον, όμοιον ye —ον yap ; οις εμού κατηγορεί ετερον 
 Se αναμψν^σκΐσθΐ. ore γάρ πύθωνα Φίλιππο? επβμψε τον 
 Ενζάντιον καί παρά των αντον σνμμάχων πάντων σννε- 
 5 πεμφε πρέσβεις, ως εν αισχύνη ποίησών την πόλιν και 
 δείζων αδικούσαν, τότ εγω μεν τω ΤΙνθωνι θρασννομενω 
 και πολλω ρεοντι καθ' νμων ονχ νπεχωρησα, άλλ ’ άναστάς 
 άντειπον και τα της πολεως δικαι ονχι προνδωκα, αλλ 
 άδικούντα Φίλιππον εξηλεγξα φανερώς ούτως ώστε τούς 
 ίο όκείνον σνμμαχονς αντονς ανισταμενονς ομολογειν οντος 
 §£ ετννηγωνιζ,ετο και ταναντια εμαρτνρει τη πατριδι, και 
 
 ταύτα φενδη. 
 
 \7 Και ονκ άπεχρη ταντα, άλλα πάλιν μετά ταύθ ’ ύστερον 
 
 αναμιμνησκεσθαι (αι corr. to e) ^ 
 πάντων 
 
 αυτου 
 
 v , L 1 , Ai ; απάντων L 2 , B, vulg. 
 
 11. είναι om. Φ. 
 
 § 136 . i. τοιουτο om. V6. 
 
 Σ; αύτοΰ L; αυτου most MSS. . --- ‘ T '-d * » v 
 
 5. αίσχινη Σ 1 (t ch. to υ), O 1 . 7 · 0V X νπεχωρησα L, B, F; ουκ υπεχ. Σ (ct. 
 
 §§ ιοί 11 , 1 18 2 * * * 6 7 * * 10 ); ούκ εΐξα ούδ’ ύπεχώρησα vulg. 
 
 § 137 . ι. άλλα Σ, L, Αι. 2, Β, F ; άλλα καί vulg. 
 
 liis election: τούτου λέχοντος would be 
 when he was the speaker {elect), but this 
 use of \έ^ω may well be questioned. 
 
 12. άπε'φηνεν, declared him to be 
 so by its άπόφασις. 
 
 § 136 . ι. νεανίου: this sometimes 
 (as here) expresses wantonness or inso¬ 
 lence, like νεανικός. See Eur. Ale. 679, 
 ayav υβρίζεις, και νεανίας λόyoυς ρίπτων 
 ές ημάς, κ.τ.λ. 
 
 2. ού γάρ; this sarcastic question 
 (after γε) implies a self-evident ab¬ 
 surdity, which is heightened by calling 
 this affair with Antiphon a πολίτευμα of 
 Aesch. and so comparing it with the πο¬ 
 λιτεύματα of Demosth. (see next note). 
 West, quotes xxi. 209, xxn. 73 » XXI11 · 
 162, 186.—ols «μου κατηγορεί: probably 
 = rots εμοΰ πολιτεύμασιν oh κατηχορεΐ. 
 
 3. Πύθωνα: this eloquent orator was 
 sent to Athens by Philip 343 B.C., to 
 
 quiet apprehension and to repeat as¬ 
 surances of the king’s friendly spirit. 
 
 Python was a scholar of Isocrates and an 
 accomplished writer: see Anon. Life of 
 
 Isocrates, p. 257·* (West.) and Aesch. 11. 
 
 125, επί τφ ypάφειv μέχα φρονών. See 
 
 Hist. §§ 55 — 57 - 
 
 6. θρασυνομενω, with his insolent 
 manner. 
 
 7. πολλω ρε'οντι καθ’ ύμών, rushing 
 upon you with a flood (of eloquence). 
 See Thuc. II. 5, ό ’Ασωπό? ποταμός έρρύη 
 μέχας, and Ar. Eq. 526 (of Cratinus), 
 5s πολλιρ ρεύσας ποτ’ έπαίνιρ διά των 
 αφελών πεδίων ίέρρει. All quote Ilor. Sat. 
 I. 7, 28, salso multoque fluenti, with the 
 preceding ruebat flumen ut hibernum. 
 
 See § 199 1 , πολύς ^κειται. — ονχ ύττεχώ- 
 
 ρησ-α, did nvt retreat (before the flood). 
 
 10. συμμάχου : i.e. the των συμμά¬ 
 χων πρέσβεις of 1. 5. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 ΙΟΙ 
 
 'Αναξίνω τω κατασκόπω συνιών εις την ®ράσωνος οικίαν 
 εληφθη. καίτοι όστις τω υπό των πολεμίων πεμφθεντι 
 μόνος μόνω συνηει καί εκοινολογείτο, οΰτος αυτός υπήρχε 
 τη φύσει κατάσκοπος καί πολέμιος τη πατρίδι. καί ότι 5 
 ταυτ άληθη λέγω, κάλει μοι τούτων τους μάρτυρας. 
 
 ΜΑΡΤΤΡΕ2. 
 
 [Τ εΑεδημος Κ Χεωνος, 'Υπερείδης Κ αΧλαίσχρου, Ν ικόμαχος 
 Αιοφάντου μαρτυρουσι Αημοσθενει καί επωμόσαντο επί των στρα¬ 
 τηγών είδεναι Αισχίνη ν ’Ατρόμητου Κ οθωκίδην συνερχόμενον ίο 
 νυκτδς εις την Θράσωνος οικίαν καί κοινοΧογονμενον ' Αναξίνω, δς 
 εκρίθη είναι κατάσκοπος παρά Φιλίππου. αΰται άπεδόθησαν αί 
 μαρτυρίαι επί Ν ικίου, εκατομβαιώνος τρίτη ίσταμενου.] 
 
 Μύρια τοίνυν ετερ ’ ειπεΐν εχων περί αυτόν παραλείπω, 
 καί γάρ οϋτω πως όχει. πολλ’ αν εγώ ετι τούτων εχοιμι 
 δεΐξαι, ών ουτος κατ εκείνους τους χρόνους τοΐς μεν εχθροίς 
 υπηρετών εμοί δ’ επηρεάζων ευρεθη. άλλ ’ ου τίθεται ταυτ a 
 παρ’ ύμίν εις ακριβή μνημην ουδ’ ην προσηκεν οργήν, άλλα 5 
 δ εδώ κατ εθει τινί φαύλω πολλην εξουσίαν τω βουλομενω 
 τον λεγοντά τι των υμΐν συμφερόντων υποσκελίζειν καί 
 συκοφαντεΐν, της επί ταΐς λοιδορίαις ηδονης καί χάριτος 
 
 2. άναξεινιρ Σ, L; Άξείνιρ Υ; ’ Αξίνιρ F and Φ (γρ) ; Άναξίνιρ all edd. 
 
 4· συνήει Σ. 6. αληθές L. 
 
 § 138 . ι. τοίνυν οιη. L. ετερ’...αύτοΰ om. Φ 1 . 2. εγώ νυν vulg. ; 
 
 νυν om. Σ, L. \. πείθεται [tl over 7ret) L. 7 · τί περί των Φ. 
 
 §137. 2. Άναξίνω : Aeschines (ΐII. 
 
 223, 224) charges Demosthenes with 
 causing the arrest and death of Anaxinus, 
 and even with twice torturing him with 
 his own hand, though he had once been 
 the man’s guest at Oreus. Aesch. reports 
 the oft-quoted reply of Demosth. to the 
 charge of violation of hospitality: έφησθα 
 yap τούς της πόλεως άλας περί πλείονος 
 ποιήσασθαι της ξενικής τραπέξης. Anaxi¬ 
 nus is said to have come to Athens (pro¬ 
 bably in 341—340) to make purchases 
 for Olympias, Philip’s queen. 
 
 4. αύτόβ υπήρχε... κατάσ-κο -jros, he 
 was to he assumed to have the nature of a 
 spy himself. See note on § 95b 
 
 § 138. 2. ουτω ιτω$, somewhat as 
 
 follozus, where earlier writers would use 
 ώδε. 
 
 3· ών : assimilated to τούτων from a, 
 cognate object of υπηρετών and έπηρεά- 
 ζων: for the latter see επήρειαν, § i2 3 . 
 
 5. ήν ΐΓροσ-ήκεν όργην (with εις) : 
 τίθεται εις opy -ην naturally follows the 
 familiar τίθεται εις μνήμην. 
 
 7· ύποσ-κελίξειν, trip up (cf. σκέλη). 
 
 8. τή$...ήδοντ]5 και χαριτοΞ: abusive 
 language ( λοιδορία) not only pleased the 
 populace, but also gratified their whims 
 and low tastes. A good example of 
 both ηδονή and χάρις is the scene in the 
 Assembly when the second embassy re- 
 
102 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 το της 7τολεω? συμφέρον άνταΧΧαττόμζνοί' 8 ίοπβρ ράον εστι 
 ίο καί άσφαΧέστερον αεί τοΐς εγθροΊς νπηρετονντα μισθαρνεΐν 
 η την υπέρ νμων εΧόμενον τάζυν ποΧιτενεσθαι. 
 
 139 Κα I το μεν $η προ τον ποΧεμεΐν φανερως σνναγωνι- 
 ζεσθαυ ΦιΧίππω 8 ευνον μεν, ώ γη καί Θεοί, —πω? γαρ ον ;— 
 κατά της πατρικός' δοτέ δ, ει βονΧεσθε, δοτ αντω τοντο. 2 
 αΧΧ * * * * 5 επειδή φανερως ηέ>η τα πΧοΐ εσεσνΧητο, Χερρο νήσος 
 5 επορθεΐτο, επί την *Αττικήν επορενεθ άνθρωπος, ονκετ εν 
 αμφυσβητησίμω τα πράγματ ην, αΧΧ ενειστηκει ποΧεμος, 
 ο τι μεν πωποτ έπραζεν νπερ νμων 6 βάσκανος οντος 
 
 9 · άντικαταλλαττόμενοι Αΐ, Υ, Φ ( yp )· ίο. αίει Σ, L. 
 
 § 139 . 4 · έσΰλητο V 6 . 5 · e 7 τορεΰεθ’ ανθρ. F, Φ; έπορευετό άνθρ. 
 
 67 rop. 6 άνος L·. 6 . ήν om. Υ. ένιστήκει (i.e. ενειστ.) V 6 . 7 · T V 
 
 ποτ' Αι. οΰτος Σ, L, Αι, Β; ούτοσΐ vulg. 
 
 ported in July 346 B.c., described in xix. 
 44—46. Demosthenes was insulted and 
 jeered at by Aeschines and Philocrates, 
 to the delight of the people: notice the 
 single sarcastic remark of Demosthenes 
 (46), καί υμείς ey ελάτε. 
 
 ιι. τήν...*τΓθ\ιτ€ΰ€σ-θαι is to serve the 
 state as a patriot , opposed to τοΐς έχθροίς 
 νπηρετοΰντα μισθαρνεΐν. 
 
 §§ 139 — 159 . Next follows the ac¬ 
 count of the conduct of Aeschines in 
 stirring up the Amphissian war in 339 
 b.c. (See note on §§ 126—226.) §§139— 
 144 are introductory, and §§ 158, 159 are 
 a peroration. 
 
 § 139 . The first sentence depreciates 
 the acts already mentioned, done in time 
 of nominal peace, to heighten the enor¬ 
 mity of helping Philip in time of war: 
 cf. δότε αύτω τούτο (3). 
 
 ι. ττρο τοΰ TToXipetv φανίρώξ: this 
 implies that the preceding peace was 
 really a state of war. See ix. 19, άφ ’ fjs 
 ημέρας άνεΐλε Φωκέας, από ταύτης ^γωγ’ 
 αύτόν πολεμεΐν ορίζομαι. Cf. φανερως in 
 
 1 . 4. 
 
 3. κατά τής iraTpiSos: not connected 
 in construction with δεινόν, but an inde¬ 
 pendent exclamation, justifying the asser¬ 
 tion in δεινόν μέν. 
 
 4. €ΐΓ€ΐδη.. .ΙίΓορθίΐτο, after your ships 
 
 had been openly seized (§ 73) and the 
 ravaging of the Chersonese was going on : 
 for έσεσύλητο see note on § 42°. The 
 ravaging of the Chersonese was the out¬ 
 rage of marching an army through the 
 Athenian territory there to enable his 
 fleet to pass the Hellespont for the siege 
 of Perinthus without molestation from 
 the Athenians on the shore. See Schae¬ 
 fer 11. 499, 500, and Hist. § 66 (end). 
 
 The passage may refer also to the attack 
 
 on the Chersonese after the siege of 
 
 Byzantium : Hist. § 67 (end). 
 
 5. tirl την’Αττικήν ίΤΓορίύίθ’ : Philip’s 
 action at the Hellespont, if it had not 
 been checked, would have opened the 
 way for him into Attica and the whole of 
 Greece. Demosth. had repeatedly warned 
 the people of this peril: even in the First 
 Philippic (351 B.C.) he had said (50), καν 
 μη νυν έθέλωμεν εκεί πολεμεΐν αύτφ, 
 εν θά δ' Ίσως άvayκaσθησόμεθa τούτο ποι- 
 εΐν. See especially VI. 35 (344 B.C.), 
 Πόλα$...ών καταστάς εκείνος κύριος της έπ'ι 
 την ’Αττικήν όδου και της εις Ώ,ελοπόννη- 
 σον κύριος yiy ονε, and further του πρός 
 την ’Αττικήν πολέμου, 6ς λυπήσει μεν έκα¬ 
 στον επειδάν παρή, yέyονε δ ’ εν εκείνη τή 
 ήμέρςι. See § 143 6 · 
 
 6 . €ν€ΐ<ττήκ€ΐ iroXipos: cf. ό ένστάς 
 
 πόλεμος, § 89 s . These words end the 
 clause with επειδή. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 103 
 
 Ιαμβευογράφος ουκ αν εγοι δεΐξαί, ουδ’ εστιν ούτε μείζον 
 ουτ ελαττον ψήφίετμ’ ουδεν Αισχίνη υπέρ των συμφερόντων 
 τη 7 τοΑει. ει οε φησι, νυν οειςατω εν τω εμω υοατι. αλλ 
 ουκ εστιν ουδεν. καίτοι δυοΐν αυτόν ανάγκη θάτερον, η 
 
 8. ίαμββ^ράφος Σ, Ο (corr.), vulg., Vom., West., Lips.; ίαμβ^ράφος Φ, V6; 
 Ιαμβογράφος Αι; ίαμβειοφαΎος Σ {yp), L (7 ράφος over φά -yos), Dind., Bk., Bl. For 
 ίαμβοφά^ο^ see Hermog. (in. pp. 241, 242, 344 W.), Etym. Magn. p. 463, Bekk. 
 Anec. p. 265 ; Ιαμβ^οφά^ο^ and ίαμββιομάχος B (7 p). See Vomel’s note. ούδ ’ 
 
 άν ϋχοι. Αι. 9. υπέρ Σ, L; Trepl vulg. 10. έν Ai, Dind., Bk., West., Bl.; 
 
 έπί Σ, L, B, F, A2, Φ, O, Vom. (see his note), Lips. 11. ανάγκη αύτόν Αι, Y. 
 
 8. ίαμβίιογράφοξ, writer of lampoons 
 {ίαμββΐα), probably refers to verses written 
 by Aeschines in his youth, to which he 
 perhaps alludes in I. 136, πβρί δβ των 
 ποιημάτων ών φασιν οΰτοί μβ πβποιηκέναι. 
 This reading was restored by Vomel (see 
 his elaborate note), on the best ms. au¬ 
 thority, in place of ίαμβ€ΐοφά-/ος, eater {ox 
 mouther ) of iambics, which was and is the 
 common reading. If we read ίαμβειοφάΎος, 
 we must refer it to the career of Aeschi¬ 
 nes as an actor, not to his λοιδορία, to 
 which the ancient interpreters generally 
 referred it. See Etym. Magn. Ίαμβο- 
 φάyoς, λοίδορος' έπβιδη Ίαμβοί ’έμμετρός 
 έστι λοιδορία . ό φα ywv οΰν, έν τιρ στόματι 
 δ έχων τούς ιάμβους, τουτέστιν δ ’έχων διά 
 στόματος την φιλολοιδορίαν ·.. .τάχα καί πα- 
 ραπαίζων εις τον Αίσχίνην, δτι τά ίαμββΐα 
 της Tpayip0iai έλ eyev υποκριτής ών. Cf. 
 Bekk. Anecd. ρ. 265 31 . Weil quotes the 
 Patmos Schol. : λ^ουσι τούς ασαφώς 
 avayiyvuaKovTai rpuyeiv τά λβyδμβva 
 {swallow their words). Bekk. Anecd. 
 ρ. 190 8 9 10 , ίaμβoφάyov τον πταίοντα λέ· 
 7 ουσιν, probably refers to bad delivery: 
 cf. § 267 s , ρήσεις as έλυμαίνου. West, 
 denies that any of these interpretations 
 of iaμβeιoφάyoς suits the present passage, 
 and finds support for ίαμββ^ράφος in the 
 following ούδ ' ’έστιν .. .συμφερόντων τη πό- 
 λβι (8). Much may be said for both read¬ 
 ings. The forms with ίαμββιο- and those 
 with ίαμβο - are equally good. 
 
 9. Αίσ-χίνη, dat. of possession: he 
 has none to show. 
 
 10. 4 v τω Ιμ.ω ΰδατι, in my time: this 
 general formula and έπί του έμού ύδατος 
 are often used when a speaker offers part 
 
 of his own time to his opponent to prove 
 something which he brieves cannot be 
 proved. It is a mere challenge, made 
 with no idea of its being accepted. For 
 the genitive with έπί see LVII. 61 (end). 
 The best MSS. have here έπί...ΰδατι, 
 which Vomel adopts. Shilleto (note on 
 xix. 57, p. 359 s ) says of this passage, 
 “read έν.” “έπί genitivum postularet,” 
 says Dindorf. The time allotted to each 
 speaker in most cases was measured by 
 the clepsydra or water-clock (Diet. Antiq. 
 under Horologium), a fixed number of 
 άμφορβΐς of water being poured in accord¬ 
 ing to the importance of the case. Thus 
 Aeschines (11. 126) says, προς 'ένδεκα yap 
 άμφορέας έν διαμβμβτρημένη τη ημέρα κρί- 
 νομαι, eleven άμφορβΐς (about 100 gallons), 
 allowed each speaker in cases of παρα- 
 πρβσββία, being the largest amount men¬ 
 tioned. In some cases, as the 7 ραφή or 
 δίκη κακώσβως, called δίκαι άνβυ ΰδατος, 
 no limit was set (see Harpocr. under 
 κακώσβως). The term διαμβμβτρημένη 
 ημέρα is explained in Aesch. in. 197. 
 In important public suits, like the ypaφη 
 παρανόμων, the day was divided into three 
 parts, and the clepsydra was filled three 
 times, the first measure of water being 
 given to the accuser, the second (of equal 
 amount) to the accused, and the third (in 
 ayQvei τιμητοί, if the accused was con¬ 
 victed), a smaller measure, to the τίμησις, 
 or consideration of the amount of the 
 penalty, δ τι χρη παθβΐν η άποτίσαι. 
 
 ιι. δυοΐν...θάτ€ρον: there is no infini¬ 
 tive or other verb to be supplied. See 
 Gerth-Kiihner, Ausf. Gram. § 406, Anm. 
 10. δυοΐν θάτβρον (or θάτβρα), άμφότβρον 
 
140 
 
 5 
 
 104 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 μη^εν τοΐς πραττομενοίς νπ εμον τότ εγοντ εγκαλεϊν μη 
 γράφείν παρα τανθ ετερα, η το των εχθρών σνμφερον 
 ζητονντα μη όερείν είζ μέσον τα. τοντων αμεινω. 
 
 τ Αρ’ ουν ούδ’ ελεγεν, ώσπερ ούδ’ εγραφεν, ηνίκ ερ- 
 γάσασθα ί τι δεοι κακόν; ον μεν ονν ειττειν ην ετερω. καί 
 τα μεν αλλα καί φερείν η^νναθ , ω9 εοίκεν, η ttoXls καί ποιων 
 ούτος Χανθάνείν · εν δ επεζείργασατο, ανΰρες Αθηναίοι, 
 τοίοντον ο ττασί τοϊς προτεροίς εττεθηκε τέλος* περί ον τονς 
 πολλονς άνηλωσε λόγονς, τα των Αμφίσσεων [των Αοκρων~\ 
 
 Ι4· τό μέσον Α2, Υ. 
 
 § 140. 2 . κακόν Σ, L, Β, F 1 , Φ 1 ; κακόν ύμας vulg. (ήμας Α 2 ). _ elireiv ην 
 
 Σ 1 , L; ην είττεΐν Σ' 2 , vulg.; είττεΐν om. Β. 3 · ήδύνασθ ’ Σ. ώς om. Σ 1 . 
 
 4 . και...λανθάνει Σ 1 ; ά.,.έλάνθανεν Σ 2 , L, vulg. i&ipy άσατο Α2. Άνδρες 
 
 Σ, L, Αι, F, Ο; ώ ανδρ. vulg. 6 . Άμφισέων Σ Jbut 'Αμφισσεΐς § 15ο 2 ). [των 
 Αοκρων ] so West., Lips., Bl.; om. Y; και Αοκρω v A2. 
 
 or άμφότερα, ουδέτερον, and similar expres¬ 
 sions, may stand emphatically, as ad¬ 
 verbial phrases, before η... η, και...και, 
 τε.,.τε, and in other cases where we 
 simply say either... or, both ...and, etc. 
 See Plat. Theaet. 187 Β, έαν οϋτω δρώ- 
 μεν, δυοΐν θάτερα, η ενρήσομεν έφ ’ δ έρχό- 
 μεθα, η ηττον οίησόμεθα είδέναι δ μηδαμη 
 ϊσμεν. So II. III. 179» αμφότερον, βα¬ 
 σιλεύς τ’ ayaffos κρατερός τ’ αίχμητής. Cf. 
 II. ιν. 145» Od. xv. 78; Aesch. in. 
 234; and below § 171 6 . In English 
 these expressions are usually included in 
 our either or both. In such cases we 
 must not ascribe to the unteinporal Greek 
 infinitives (here yράφειv and φέρειν) the 
 definite time which we are obliged to give 
 them when we translate them by finite 
 verbs. With άνάχκη supply ην, he was 
 obliged. 
 
 12 —14. μηδέν...έχοντ’ and τό.,.ξη- 
 τοΰντα are causal.— τταρά ταΰθ’ expresses 
 opposition, not mere addition. Fox (p. 
 149) thus states the dilemma: “Aeschines 
 konnte oder wollte mit keinem Eintrag 
 einkommen.” 
 
 § 140. άρ’ οΰν...έγραφεν ; ούδ’ ...ούδ' 
 correspond to καΐ.,.καί in positive expres¬ 
 sions of this kind (West.). We cannot 
 express such negatives: the meaning is, 
 as he proposed no measures, so did he also 
 abstain from talking (so neither did he 
 
 talk) ? The sins of omission just described 
 set these of commission in a stronger 
 light. 
 
 2. οΰ μέν...ετερω, why, nobody else 
 
 coidd get a chance to talk! 
 
 4. εττεξειργάσατο : the idea of addi¬ 
 tion, which 67 ri (like προς) expresses, is 
 further extended by 67 τέθηκε τέλος, capped 
 the climax. 
 
 5. Toils ttoWoiis λόγ ovs, his many 
 words, referring to the long and brilliant 
 passage (ill. 107—129) in wdiich Aeschines 
 describes his doings at Delphi when he 
 stirred up the fatal Amphissian war. Cf. 
 Aeschyl. Ag. 1456, μία τάς ττολλας, τας 
 7 rdvv ττολλας φυχάς όλέσασ . 
 
 6 . τά των ’Αμφισ-σ-έων δόγματα, the 
 decrees (of the Amphictyons) about the 
 Amphissians, like to Άίεyapέωv ψήφισμα, 
 the Megarian decree, Thuc. I. 140, called 
 in I. 139 τό ττερί M eyapeuv ψήφισμα. So 
 τούτων ψήφισμα, XX. 1 15.— [των Αοκρων] : 
 the forms oi Αοκροί oi ' Αμφισσεΐς (Aesch. 
 III. 113), oi 'Αμφισσεΐς Αοκροί (like oi 
 Όξ’όλαι οΰτοι Αοκροί, Thuc. III. 95), 
 and Αοκροί oi 'Αμφισσεΐς (like Αοκρων 
 των Όζολων, ibid.) are all justified (see 
 Vomel’s note). V. retains the MS. text 
 here, but explains it as the genitive of oi 
 ’ Αμφισσεΐς oi Αοκρων. Two MSS. omit 
 των Αοκρων, which West, brackets. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 105 
 
 διεζιων δόγματα, ώ$ διαστρέφων τάληθες. το δ’ ον τοι- 
 ούτόν εστι. πόθεν; ούδεποτ εκνίφει συ τάκεΐ πεπραγμένα 
 σαυτω · ούχ ούτω πολλ’ ερεις. 
 
 Καλώ δ’ εναντίον υμών, άνδρες Αθηναίοι, τους θεούς 141 
 άπαντας καί πάσας όσοι την χωράν όχου σι την * Αττικήν, 
 καί τον ’Απολλω τον Τίύθιον, δς πατρώος εστι τη πόλει, καί 
 επεύχομαι πάσι τούτοις, εί μεν άληθη προς υμάς είποιμι καί 
 
 είπον καί τότ 
 
 ευ 
 / 
 
 υθύς 
 
 εν τω δημω, ότε πρώτον ειδον τουτονι 5 
 τον μιαρόν τούτον τού πράγματος άπτόμενον (εγνων γάρ, 
 εύθεως εγνων), ευτυχίαν μοι δούναι καί σωτηρίαν, ει δε προς 
 εχθραν η φιλονεικίας ιδίας ενεκ αιτίαν επάγω τούτω ψευδή, 
 πάντων των αγαθών άνόνητόν με ποιησαι. 
 
 Ύι ούν ταύτ επηραμαι καί διετεινάμην ούτωσί σφοδρως; 142 
 
 7· διαστρέφων Ο 1 . 8. πολλον ye καί δει (after πόθβν;) Σ ( yp ), vulg. ; om. 
 
 Σ, L 1 , Αι, Β, F. έκνίψγι (or -η), mss. 
 
 § 141 . audpes Σ; ώ &νδρ. vulg. 2. πάντα? Υ. g. καί τότ ’ Σ, L, Φ; 
 
 καί vulg. τούτον Αι; τουτοί' (corr. to τουτονι) Σ. 7 · ενθνς Ο. 8. έίνβκα 
 L. 9 · άνόητον Α.2, Ο 1 . με yevkadai λ 7 8 6. 
 
 7. τό δ 1 , but in fact : this το δέ, with 
 no correlative τό μέν, is common in 
 Plato, introducing an adversative state¬ 
 ment. See Apol. 23 A, ο’ίονταί με.,.βΐναι. 
 σοφόν τό δέ κινδυνεύει. So Rep. 340 D 
 (end), 357 A. — ού τοιοΰτόν «ttl, i.e. this 
 cannot be done (the case is not of such a 
 nature , that etc.), referring to cos διαστρέ- 
 φων ταληθέϊ. 
 
 8. ιτόθίν; cf. § 47 5 ·—έκνίψίΐ: cf. Act. 
 Apost. xxii. 16, άπόλουσαι tcls αμαρτίας 
 σου, wash away thy sins. For the form 
 of έκνίφβι, see note on § 119 4 . 
 
 § 141 . The solemn invocation in this 
 chapter, resembling those which begin 
 and end the exordium (§§ 1, 8), calls 
 attention again to the gravity of the 
 charge about to be made, and to the 
 supreme importance of the events which 
 led to the fatal issue on the field of 
 Chaeronea. He defends his invocation 
 and his general earnestness in §§ 142— 
 Σ 44 · 
 
 3- iraTpuios : Apollo was the paternal 
 God of Athens, not only as the great 
 Ionic divinity, but as the father of Ion 
 
 (according to Athenian belief). See 
 Harpocr. under ’Απόλλων, and Schol. on 
 Ar. Av. 1527, πατρωον δε τιμωσιν ’Απόλ¬ 
 λωνα ’Αθηναίοι, έπεί ’Ίων, ό πολέμαρχος 
 ’ Αθηναίων, έξ ’Απόλλωνος καί Κ ρεούσης 
 της μ,ούθου eyeveTo. So in the Ion of 
 Euripides. 
 
 4. el αληθή είττοιμι καί elirov, lit. in 
 
 case I should speak the truth to you now 
 and did speak it then on the spot', a 
 double condition combining a future and 
 a past supposition (M.T. 509). We 
 
 should rather invert the order and say, 
 if I then spoke the truth and (shall) speak 
 it again now. 
 
 7. Trpos Εχθραν, with a view to enmity: 
 cf. δια,.,έχθραν in § 143 9 . 
 
 8. φιλονεικίας, contentiousness (against 
 an enemy). 
 
 9. άνόνητόν: cf. XIX. 315, ώστε άνό- 
 νητον εκείνον απάντων είναι των άγαμων. 
 
 § 142 . ι. €ττήρα|ΐαι: referring to the 
 whole invocation of § 141, but especially 
 to the Unprecation in the last clause, τί 
 ταΰτ επηραμαι; is why have I made this 
 imprecation ? while τί διετεινάμην ούτωσί 
 
ιοβ 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 ότι γράμματ εχων εν τω δημοσιω κείμενα, ων ταντ 
 επιδείζω σαφώς, καί νμας ειδως τα πεπραγμένα μνημονεν- 
 <τόντας, εκείνο φοβούμαι, μη των €ΐργα<τμενών αντω κακών 
 5 νιτοληφθη οντος ελαττων’ οπερ ττροτερον σννεβη, οτε τονς 
 ταλαίπωρους Φωκεας εποίησεν απολεσθαι τα φενδη δενρ 
 143 απαγγείλας. τον yap εν 5 Α μφίσση πόλεμον, δι ον είς 
 Έλατεια^ ήλθε Φίλιππος, και δι ον ηρεθη των Αμφικτνονων 
 ηγεμών δς απαντ ανετρεφε τα των Έιλληνων, οντος εστιν 
 6 σνγκατασκενάσας καί πάντων εις ανηρ μεγίστων αίτιος 
 5 κακών, καί τότ εύθυς εμού διαμαρτνρομενου καί βοώντος 
 εν τη εκκλησία πόλεμον εις την Αττικήν εισάγεις, 
 Αισχίνη, πόλεμον Άμφικτυονικόν, οι μεν εκ παρα- 
 κλησεως σνγκαθημενοι ονκ ειων με λεγειν, οι δ εθανμαζον 
 
 § 142 . 2. οτι Σ, L 1 , οτι και vulg. μνημονεύσονταϊ Σ, Φ; -εύοντας L. 
 
 4· εαντω (for αύτφ) Α ι. 5 · ύποληφθη ouros έλάττων Σ, L; οδτο$ έλάττων 
 
 ύποληφθη vulg.; ύπολειφθη V 6 . 
 
 § 143 . 2. Έ λατιαν (ι ch. to et) Σ. 6 Φίλ. Α 2 . δΓ ών Ο. 3 · τ< * Ελληνα»' 
 
 πράγματα Αι; τά των Ελλ. άνέτρέφε L. εστιν (after ouros) om. L. 4· κατα¬ 
 σκευάσου Αι. των μεγίστων vulg.; των om. Σ, L, B, F, Φ. 5 · κα,κων 
 
 - γετενημένος Αι. 2. διαμαρτυρουμένου Ο. 6 . άγεί$ Β, F, Φ, Ο; εισάγεις 
 
 after πόλεμον Α2. 
 
 σφόδρως; (aor.) is why did I express myself 
 with all this vehement earnestness ? (relat¬ 
 ing to the whole passage from § 140). 
 
 2. ev τω δημοσίω, in the public record- 
 office : this was in the Μητριοί' (see Aesch. 
 Hi. 187, Pans. 1. 3, 5). 
 
 4. μή...Ιλάττων, i.e. lest Aesch. may 
 be thought too small a man to work so 
 great mischief. 
 
 5. oirep ττρότερον συνέβη : this allusion 
 to a former time when Aesch. caused the 
 ruin of the Phocians by bringing home 
 false reports , can refer only to the return 
 of the second embassy in 346 b.C. (see 
 §§ 32—36). This distinct statement that 
 Aesch. was then thought “ too insignifi¬ 
 cant to do so much harm,” with the 
 apprehension that the court may make 
 the same mistake again in the present 
 case, is one of the strongest confirmations 
 of the opinion that the case against 
 Aeschines really came to trial, that the 
 speeches de Falsa Legatione were actually 
 spoken, and that Aeschines was acquitted 
 
 by a small majority. (See Essay iv.) 
 
 § 143 . I. τον €V Άμφίσση πόλε- 
 μον: for this and the seizure of Elatea, 
 see § 152 7 and note. The words τδν... 
 Έλάτειαν form a dactylic hexameter, 
 followed by part of another; but see 
 Blass’s note. 
 
 2. ηρεθη ηγεμών os, a man was chosen 
 leader, who etc. (i.e. Philip): so West. 
 Bl. brackets καί δι 6v ηρέθη. 
 
 6 . εν τη έκκλησή, i.e. in the meeting 
 in which Aesch. made his report of his 
 doings in the Amphictyonic Council 
 (Hist. § 74).—els την ’Αττικήν : Demosth. 
 saw at once the full meaning of the Am¬ 
 phictyonic war, and knew that it must 
 end in bringing Philip into Greece as 
 the Amphictyonic general (see note on 
 § I 39 5 )· 
 
 7. oi...o -υγκαθη'μενοι, those who sat 
 together by his summons , i.e. his παρά¬ 
 κλητοι, with whom he had packed the 
 meeting. 
 
 8. ούκ ε\!ων με λεγειν, i.e. would not 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 107 
 
 καί κενήν αιτίαν διά την ιοιαν 
 
 S \ \ ν β > / it 
 
 ία την ιοιαν εχνραν επαγειν μ νπε- 
 λάμβανον α ντο. ητις δ’ η φνσις, άνδρες ’ Αθηναίοι, γεγονεν 144 
 τούτων των πραγμάτων, και τίνος είνεκα ταντα σννεσκεν- 
 άσθη και πώς επράγθη, νυν υπακούσατε, επειδή τότ εκω- 
 λνθητε * καί γάρ εν πράγμα σνντεθεν δφεσθε, καί μεγάλ 5 
 ώφελησεσθε προς ιστορίαν των κοινών, καί οση δεινότης 5 
 
 ην εν τώ Φιλίππω θεάσεσθε. _ 
 
 Ονκ ην τον προς υμάς πολέμου πέρας ονδ * απαλλαγή 145 
 76 Φιλίππω, εί μη Θηβαίους καί Θετταλονς εχθρούς ποιησειε 
 
 9 · καινήν L. μ’ οηι. Σ 1 . 
 
 § 144. ι. άνδρες Σ, L, Αΐ, Ο; ώ άνδρ. vulg. 2. εϊνεκα Σ, Β (cf. §§ 12ο 7 , 
 
 τ 7 δ 5 )· 3 * νπακούσατε Σ, L, Β, Φ; ακούσατε Αι. 2, vulg. 4· °ηι. Υ. 
 
 6 . η (for ην) L 1 . θεάσεσθε L, Ο ; θεάσασθε Σ, vulg. Vom. 
 
 § 145. ι. ημά* A 1 . 
 
 let me go on speaking (after my warning). 
 — οι δ’ ίθαύμαζον : the ordinary citizens 
 were amazed at anyone who dared to 
 object to the pious and (apparently) 
 patriotic speech of Aeschines. The de¬ 
 cree of Demosthenes forbidding Athens 
 to take any part in the future action of the 
 Amphictyonic Council against Amphissa 
 (Aesch. 125—127) was passed at a later 
 meeting, after the people had opened 
 their eyes. 
 
 § 144. 2. «ϊνίκα : see note on 
 
 § 120". 
 
 3. υπακούσατε : most edd. reject this 
 reading of the best mss. for the vulg. 
 ακούσατε or Rauchenstein’s έττακούσατε, 
 on the ground that υπακούω means listen , 
 not hear attentively. But see Plat. Theaet. 
 162 A, πάντως καϊ νυν δη μάΧ έμμελως σοί 
 έφαίνετο ύπακούειν , and 162 D, reus ονν 
 δημη-γορίαις όξύως ύπακούεις. (See Vomel.) 
 The general meaning is, now take yozir 
 opportunity to listen to the story, since 
 you were kept from hearing it at the right 
 time. 
 
 4 . ευ πράγμα συντεθεν, that the plan 
 was well concocted. 
 
 5. πρόξ Ιστορίαν, for gaining a know¬ 
 ledge. The real history of these events 
 must be disentangled from the long story 
 of Aeschines (106—131), supplemented 
 
 and often corrected by the briefer account 
 of Demosthenes (145—159). See Hist. 
 §§ 7 °— 75 · Fox analyzes the argument 
 of Demosthenes skilfully in pp. 151—156, 
 pointing out that it has all the merits 
 which the ancient rules demand of a good 
 narration (δίη-γησίς) : it is brief (σύντομος), 
 perspicuous ( σαφηνής ), vivid (εναργής), 
 ethical (ηθική), i.e. showing the moral pur¬ 
 pose (προαίρεσις) of the actors (Aristot. 
 Rhet. in. 16, 8), and credible (πιθανή). 
 
 § 145. r. ούκ ην.,.εΐ μή ποιησειε: 
 see Μ.Τ. 696 and the examples. The 
 protasis depends on an apodosis implied 
 in ούκ ήν...ΦιΚίππιρ, the real meaning 
 being Philip felt that he could not end or 
 escape the war unless he should make the 
 Th. hostile to our city. This involves 
 indirect discourse; and we might there¬ 
 fore have had εάν μή ποιήση here for εί 
 μή ποιήσειε. See Thuc. VII. 59, τάλλα, 
 ήν ’έτι ναυμαχεΐν οι ’Αθηναίοι τολμήσωσι, 
 παρεσκευάζοντο, where the condition really 
 depends on the idea to be ready implied in 
 παρεσκευάζοντο, and εί...τό\μήσαιεν might 
 have been used. Compare Thuc. vi. 100, 
 προς την πόλιν, εί έπιβοηθοίεν, έχώρουν, 
 they marched towards the city, in case they 
 (the citizens) should rush out, i.e. to meet 
 them in that case; the thought being ήν 
 επιβοηθωσιν. 
 
ιο8 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 τη πόλευ- άλλα καίπερ άθλίως καί κακώς των στρατηγών 
 των νμετέρων πολεμονντων αντω, όμως νπ αντον τον 
 5 πολέμου καί των ληστών μνρι επασχε κακα. οντε yap 
 έξηγετο των εκ της χώρας γιγνομένων ονδεν οντ είσηγετο 
 146 ών εδεΐτ’ αντω' ην δ οντ εν τη θαλαττη τότε κρειττων 
 ΰ/χωζΛ οντ είς την ’Αττικήν ελθειν δυνατός μήτε Θετταλών 
 άκολονθονντων μήτε Θηβαίων δαέντων σννεβαινε δ’ αντω 
 τω πολεμώ κρατονντί τους δποιονσδηποθ ’ υμείς εξεπεμπετε 
 5 στρατηγούς (εω γαρ τοντο γώ) αντη τη φνσεί τον τοπον καί 
 
 5· χρηστών (for ληστών) V6. 6. έσηχετο 2. 
 
 § 146. ι. τότε κρειττων 2 , L, Αι; κρ. τότε vulg.; τότε om. Α2. 
 om. Υ. 3 · τε (for δε) Αι. 
 
 2. έλθεΐν 
 
 3· άθλίως.. ,ττολεμουντων : Chares and 
 Phocion were the Athenian commanders 
 at the beginning of the war, while Philip 
 was besieging Byzantium. Chares was 
 much censured for inefficiency: for the 
 conflicting opinions concerning his mili¬ 
 tary operations, see Hist. § 67, note 6. 
 
 For Phocion’s generalship there is only 
 praise. But the operations here men¬ 
 tioned are probably those of the later 
 part of 340—339, when Philip was in 
 
 Scythia (Hist. § 70), of which we have 
 little information. 
 
 4. ΰττ’ αΰτοΰ του ττολεμου, i.e. by the 
 
 mere state of war, as explained in lines 
 
 5 7 · 
 
 5. ληστών : a state of war naturally 
 encouraged pirates and plunderers. 
 
 6. των εκ της χώρας γιγνομένων : the 
 common πρόληψίϊ for των εν τη χώρςι 
 717V., caused by έξήχετο. See §§ 44 s , 
 213 10 . 
 
 7. αύτω, with είσήχετο. 
 
 §146. 2. μήτε...διιε'ντων, i.e. εΐ μήτε 
 θετταλοι άκολουθοΐεν μήτε Θηβαίοι διιεΐεν : 
 Philip depended on Thessalian troops to 
 fill his army, but he would have been 
 satisfied with Thebes (under the circum¬ 
 stances) if she had merely made no objection 
 to his marching through Boeotia to attack 
 Athens. There was probably a coolness 
 already between Thebes and Philip, 
 which appears later when Thebes refused 
 to attend the Amphictyonic meeting in 
 
 the autumn of 339 b.c. (See Aesch. ill. 
 128.) See Hist. § 70, for the relations of 
 Philip to Thessaly and Thebes. 
 
 4. ό^Γoιoυσ■δή^Γoθ , : here relative, while 
 generally relative forms with ovv and δή¬ 
 ποτε are indefinite. See toi>s όποιουσ- 
 τινασοΰν in VIII. 20, and δτον δήποτε 
 'ένεκα in § 21 * * * 4 5 6 7 8 (above). See Kruger, 
 
 § 50, 8, 16, for the article prefixed to 
 “relative clauses used adjectively,” as 
 here; cf. XIX. 254, τους oios οΰτος ανθρώ¬ 
 πους. 
 
 6 . των υπαρχόντων εκατε'ροις, of the 
 
 relative resources of each , i.e. of his own 
 inferiority in resources, especially in naval 
 power. For a similar use of this vague 
 expression in a definite sense, see Thuc. 
 1. 141 8 , where Pericles speaks of the 
 comparative resources of Athens and her 
 enemies: τα δ£ του πολέμου καϊ των 
 έκατέροις υπαρχόντων ώς ούκ ασθενέστερα 
 έξομεν. 
 
 § 147. This is closely connected in 
 thought with the beginning of § 145. 
 How, thought Philip, can I induce the 
 Thessalians and Thebans to join me ? 
 He remembered their zeal in the Phocian 
 war: see XIX. 50, Tots Άμφικτνοσι ’ ... 
 ποίοις; ού yap ήσαν αυτόθι πλήν Θηβαίοι 
 και θετταλοί. A new Sacred war, or any 
 war for the rights of the Amphictyonic 
 Council, would be sure to rouse their 
 interest again. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 109 
 
 των υπαρχόντων εκατεροις κακοπαθεΐν. ει μεν ονν της 
 Ιδίας ενεκ εχθρας η τους θετταλούς η τους Θηβαίους 
 συμπείθοι βαδίζειν εφ’ υμάς, ουδεν ηγείτο προσεζειν αυτω 
 τον νουν * εαν δέ τας εκείνων κουνάς προφάσεις λαβών 
 ηγεμων αιρεθη, ραον ηλπιζεν τα μεν παρακρουσεσθαυ τά 5 
 8έ πείσειν. τί ουν; επιχειρεί, θεάσασθ * ώς ευ, πόλεμον 
 ποιησαι τοίς Άμφικτυοετι και περί την ΤΙυλαίαν ταραχήν * 
 εις γάρ ταυτ εύθυς αύτους υπελάμβανεν αύτου δεησεσθαι. 
 
 § 147. 3 · συμπείθει Α2. ούδένα (without αν) L, At; ούδένάν Σ; ούδένα αν 
 
 Β, Α. 2 ; ούδέν' αν V 6 ; ούδέν αν vulg. ηχείτο om. Αι. προσέχει Αι. 
 
 αυτωι Σ ; αύτφ L, vulg. ; αΰτιρ Bk. 4· ^αν Σ, L; αν vulg. 5· ηρεθηι (at 
 
 over 7?) Σ; αίρεθη (over ηρέθη) Β. ηλπιζεν Σ, Vom., West., BL παρακρούσασθαι 
 V 6 . 8 . αυτού* om. Αι. αυτού Bk.; αυτού Σ; αυτού L, vulg. 
 
 1. εί μεν-.-σ-υμ-ιτείθοι, i.e. if he were 
 to join in a?i attempt to persuade them etc.: 
 συ μ- implies that he would depend greatly 
 on the influence of his friends in Thebes 
 and Thessaly. 
 
 3. οΰδε'ν’ ηγείτο irpocreijeiv: I omit av 
 before ηχείτο, with L, Ai, and most 
 recent editors, because its insertion is 
 accounted for by the v. 1. προσέχειν, 
 with which it would be required, 
 while προσέξειν &v would be a rare ex¬ 
 pression. (See M.T. 197, 208.) The 
 simple προσέξειν is also supported by the 
 following 7 ταρακρούσεσθαι and πείσειν and 
 by the infinitives in § 148. For the con¬ 
 ditional forms in this section and the 
 following, see note on § 148 4 . 
 
 4. εάν... αίρεθη, i.e. if he should adopt 
 (as his own) some grounds common to both 
 Thebans and Thessalians, on which he 
 might be chosen general. See τας ίδιας 
 προφάσεις, opposed to τας ’ Αμφικτυονικας 
 (the real κοινάς), in § 158 1 . The actual 
 result of the scheme is seen in §§ 151, 152. 
 
 5. τά μεν ... ττείσ-ειν, i.e. to succeed 
 sometimes by deception, sometimes by per¬ 
 suasion. For the tense of the infinitive 
 with ελπίζω, see M.T. 136. 
 
 6. θεάσ-ασ-θ’ cis εΰ, see how craftily. 
 cf. § 144 s .— πόλεμον ττοιήσ-αι (not ποιη- 
 σασθαι), to get tip a war, i.e. to get the 
 Amphictyons into a war. 
 
 7. τήν Πυλαίαν : the meeting of the 
 Amphictyonic Council was so called, 
 
 because twice in each year (in the spring 
 and the autumn) the Council met first at 
 Thermopylae in the sanctuary of Demeter 
 Amphictyonis at Anthela, and afterwards 
 proceeded to Delphi, where the regular 
 sessions were held. See Hyper. Epitaph. 
 §18, άφικνούμενοι yap δις τού ενιαυτού 
 εις την ΤΙυλαίαν, θεωροί χενήσονται των 
 ’έρχων κ.τ.λ., with Hdt. VII. 200, and 
 Harpocr. under Πύλαι: Aesch. in. 126, 
 7 τορεΰεσθαι εις IlilXas καί εις Αελφούς έν 
 τοΐς τετayμέvoLς χρόνοις, and Strab. ρ. 429 
 (of Thermopylae), Αήμητρος ιερόν, εν φ 
 κατα πασαν ΤΙυλαίαν θυσίαν έτέλουν οι 
 Άμφικτΰονες. Records of meetings at 
 Delphi in the spring as well as the 
 autumn are found in inscriptions: see 
 C. I. Att. II. No. 551, έν Αελφοΐς, πυλαίας 
 έαρινας, and Dittenberger, Syll- Inscr. Gr., 
 No. 185 1 , επί Στράτωνος, έν Αελφοΐς, πυ¬ 
 λαίας όπωρινης. See Essay V. 
 
 8. είε ταΰτ’...δεήσ-εσθαι, would need 
 him for these, especially for the war, as 
 the only available commander. 
 
 § 148. Having made up his mind 
 
 (1) that he must have the support of 
 Thebes and Thessaly (§§ 145, 146), and 
 
 (2) that he can secure this only by an 
 Amphictyonic war (§ 147), he now (3) 
 determines to find some Athenian to in¬ 
 stigate the war, to disarm all suspicion 
 in advance. For this important work he 
 hires Aeschines (§ 148). 
 
I ΙΟ 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 148 ει μζν τοίνυν τούτο η των παρ εαυτοί) πεμπομενων ιερομνη- 
 μόνων η των εκείνου συμμάχων εισηγοίτό τις, υπόφεσθαι το 
 ττράγμ ενόμιζε καί τους Θηβαίους καί τους Θετταλους καί 
 ττάντας φυλα^εσθαι, αν δ \θηναιος η και τταρ υμών των 
 
 5 ύπεναντίων ο τούτο 7 τοιων, ευπορως λησειν * οιτερ συνέβη. 
 
 149 πως ουν ταυτ εποίησεν; μισθουται τουτονί. ούδενος δε 
 προει8ότος, οιμαι, το πραγμ ου8ε φυλαττοντος, ώσπερ 
 εΐωθε τα τοιαυτα παρ' υμίν γίγνεσθαι, προβληθείς πυλά- 
 
 § 148 . ι. τούτο Σ, L, Αι, Ο; τούτον Β, vulg. έαυτοΰ Σ, vulg.; αύτοΰ Β; 
 άΰτου L. 2. βΐστ/γοΓτο Αι, F (corr.), Υ, most ed. ; elavyelro Σ, L, vulg., Vom. 
 
 4. άπαντας Αι, Β, Y. φυλάξεσθαι Σ, L, A2, F, Ο; φυλάξασθαι Αι, Y. 5. ev- 
 
 κόΧως A2. 
 
 § 149 . 1. μηδενός (om. δε) Ai. 3· τταρ’ υμών O, F. προβληθείς δέ Αί. 
 
 Trv\ayopos Σ 1 2 ; τ rvXayopas Σ (corr.), L, vulg. (see Vomel’s prolegomena, p. xvi.). 
 
 1. ίίρομνημόνων : these were the 
 regular members of the Amphictyonic 
 Council, two from each of the twelve 
 tribes. Other delegates, called TvXdyopoi, 
 who had the right to speak in the Council 
 but had no votes, were chosen by the 
 several states belonging to these tribes. 
 Thus Athens in the spring of 339 B.c. 
 sent her one Hieromnemon and three 
 Pylagori. See Hist. § 72, and Essay v. 
 
 2. Εκείνου, his, from the orator’s point 
 of view, just after έαυτοΰ, his own, from 
 Philip’s: cf. Xen. Mem. IV. 7, 1, την 
 έαυτοΰ yvώμηv άπεφαίνετο προς τούς όμι- 
 Χοΰντας αύτφ. 
 
 3· tovis ... 0€ttciXovs : subj. of ύπό- 
 φεσθαί. 
 
 4· άν δ’ Άθηναΐθ8 η : we have the 
 same antithesis here between 'άν.,.η and 
 the preceding εί...είσηy οΐτο which we had 
 in § 147 between έαν.,.αίρεθη (4) and εί 
 συμπείθοί (i). It is commonly assumed 
 that έάν with the subjunctive expresses 
 greater probability or likelihood that the 
 supposition may prove true than εί with 
 the optative; and this double antithesis 
 is often cited as a strong confirmation of 
 this view» It seems to be overlooked 
 that all four suppositions are in oratio 
 obliqua after past tenses, and (if we read 
 προσέξειν without &v in § 147 s ) would all 
 be expressed in the oratio recta (i.e. as 
 Philip conceived them) by subjunctives, 
 έαν συμπείθω, αίρεθώ, είσηyητa^, Αθηναίος 
 
 η, which would all be retained if the 
 leading verb were present or future. If 
 then these forms now show any inherent 
 distinction between subj. and opt. as 
 regards probability, this has been intro¬ 
 duced by the oratio obliqua after a past 
 tense. I have long maintained that in 
 such antitheses the subjunctive is a more 
 distinct and vivid form than the optative, 
 and is therefore chosen to express the 
 supposition which was uppermost in the 
 mind of the one who made it. Here 
 the two subjunctives express the plans 
 which Philip had most at heart, and the 
 two optatives express the opposite alter¬ 
 natives. If his plans had failed, we 
 cannot suppose that the moods would 
 have been interchanged. VVe have a 
 somewhat similar case below in § 176 1,7 , 
 where the more vivid εί προαιρησόμεθ’ 
 expresses the supposition against which 
 the speaker is especially eager to warn 
 his hearers, but which proved to be false, 
 while the weaker έαν πεισθητ έμοί is 
 made less emphatic, though it refers to 
 what is desired and what actually oc¬ 
 curred. See M.T. 447, 690; and note 
 on § 176 1 (below). I have nothing to 
 change in the views of these passages 
 expressed in the Trans, of the Am. 
 Philol. Assoc, for 1873, pp. 71, 72, and 
 the Engl. Journ. of Philol. vol. v. No. io, 
 p. 198. 
 
 § 149. 3. ττροβληθίΐ?, nominated'. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 111 
 
 γορος ούτος και τριών η τετταρων χειροτονησαντων αντον 
 άνερρηθη. ώς δε το της πόλεως αξίωμα λαβών άφίκετ 3 5 
 εις τους 3 Αμφικτυονας, πάντα τάλλ 3 άφείς και παριδών 
 επεραινεν εφ 3 οΐς εμισθώθη, καί λόγους ευπροσώπους και 
 μυθους, όθεν η Κιρραία χωρά καθιερώθη, ετυνθείς και 
 διεζελθών ανθρώπους άπειρους λόγων καί το μέλλον ου 
 προορωμενους, τους ιερομνημονας, πείθει φηφίσασθαι περί- 150 
 ελθείν την χωράν ην οι μεν 3 Αμφισσείς σφων αυτών οϋσαν 
 γεωργείν εφααταν, οΰτος δε της ίεράς χώρας ητιάτ είναι, 
 ουδεμίαν δίκην των Αοκρών επαγόντων ημΐν, ουδ 3 ά νυν 
 
 g. απείρους λόχους \ r 6. 
 § 150 . 2. αυτών V6. 
 
 4· ΰμΐν Α 2 . 
 
 the πυλάχοροί were chosen by hand vote 
 (χειροτονησαντων), while the ίερομνήμων , 
 the higher officer, was chosen annually 
 by lot (Χαχών, Ar. Nub. 623). 
 
 4. τριών ή τ€ττάρων : this small vote 
 shows how little the Assembly understood 
 the importance of the election. 
 
 5. αξίωμα, prestige , dignity (of a dele¬ 
 gate of Athens). 
 
 6. els rows ’AptjuKTvovas: this was 
 the meeting in the spring of 339 B.C., 
 described by Aeschines (ill. 115—124). 
 
 7. evirpocrou-rrous, plausible (fairfaced·, 
 cf. barefaced ). 
 
 8. μυθο^, tales , referring to the elo¬ 
 quent account of the first Sacred war in 
 the time of Solon (Aesch. ill. 107—112). 
 — οθ€ν...καθΐ€ρώθη, from the time when 
 the plain of Cirrha was consecrated : cf. 
 Aesch. III. 61, Χεξω οθεν μάλιστα παρα¬ 
 κολουθήσετε. We see by this passage 
 that Aeschines repeated to the Amphic- 
 tyons his story of the consecration of 
 the plain of Cirrha, with all the terrible 
 curses which were imprecated against those 
 who should cultivate the devoted land. 
 The consecration was made at the end 
 of the first Sacred war, about 586 B.C. 
 
 9. cnrtipovs λόγων: “to the com¬ 
 paratively rude men at Delphi, the 
 speech of a first-rate Athenian orator 
 was a rarity.” (Grote.) The Amphic- 
 tyonic Council was composed chiefly 
 
 of representatives of obscure and un¬ 
 cultivated states. It was, in fact, a mere 
 relic of antiquity, which had outlived its 
 right to exist; and in the time of Philip 
 it was merely galvanized into an un¬ 
 natural vitality, which proved fatal to 
 Greece and helpful only to the invader. 
 See Grote’s remarks at the beginning of 
 Chap. 87. 
 
 For the account of this Amphictyonic 
 meeting see Hist. §§ 72, 73. 
 
 § 150 . I. ιτίριελθείν την χώραν : to 
 make an inspection ( περίοδος ) of the land. 
 An inscription of 380 b.c. records an 
 order of the Amphictyons for official 
 περίοδοι of the consecrated land, and a 
 fine was to be imposed on any who 
 should be found encroaching on it ; 
 failure to pay the fine was to be punished 
 by exclusion from the temple and even 
 by war. See Blass, and C. I. Att. II. 
 No. 545, 15—18. 
 
 3. ητιάτ’, alleged (in his accusation). 
 
 4. ούδ€μίαν...€7ταγόντων: Aesch. (116) 
 says the Amphissians intended to propose 
 a decree in the Council (είσέφερον δόγμα) 
 fining Athens fifty talents for hanging 
 up on the temple walls some old shields, 
 relics of Plataea, with the restored inscrip¬ 
 tion, ’ Αθηναίοι άπό Μήδων καί Θηβαίων 
 δτε τάναντία τοΐς'Έλλησιν έμάχοντο. Re¬ 
 newing this taunting inscription (which 
 was natural and proper in 479 B.C.) after 
 
 t 
 
I 12 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 5 οντος προφασίζεται λεγων ονκ αληθη. γνωσεετθε δ 
 εκείθεν. ονκ ενην άνεν τον προσκαλεσασθαι δηπον τοίς 
 Αοκροϊς 'δίκην κατά της πόλεως τελεσασθαι. τίς ονν εκλη- 
 τενσεν ημάς; άπο ποιας αρχής; είπε τον ειδοτα, δειλόν. 
 
 άλλ’ ονκ αν εχοις, άλλα κενή προφάσει ταντη κατεχρώ 
 151 καί φενδεί. περιιόντων τοίννν την -χώραν των Άμφικτνονων 
 κατά την νφήγηετιν την τούτον, προσπεσόντες οι Αοκροι 
 μικρόν κατηκόντισαν άπαντας, τινάς δε καί σννηρπασαν 
 των ίερομνημόνων. ως δ ’ άπαξ εκ τοντων εγκλήματα και 
 5 πόλεμος προς τονς *Αμφισσεΐς εταράχθη, το μεν πρώτον 
 
 5· οΰτος προφ. λέχων Σ, L, A -2 ; προφ. ουτ. \ey. Ar; οΰτ. λέχ. π ροφ. Β, vulg. ; 
 οΰτος om. Υ. χνώσεσθαι Σ. 6. προκαλέσασθαι Αι, F, Ο, Β ( προσ over προ). 
 
 τελεσασθαι Σ, L, Αι; συντελ. Β, vulg. 8. -ημάς Σ , L, Αχ. 2, Β, Ο; υμάς vulg. 
 από Σ, L, Β, vulg.; επί Αι. 2, Ο (mg.). 9· Katv V προφ. Σ, Αι. 
 
 § 151 . 2 . ευφήχησιν (ev covr. to υ) Σ. 3 · μικρού Σ, L; μικρόν μέν vulg. 
 
 κατηκόντισαν άπαντας L, Ar, Σ (corr.); άπαντ. κατηκ. vulg. 5 · Άμφισσης 
 
 V6. ότάχθη Αι. 
 
 the lapse of 140 years was, to say the 
 least, not a friendly act, and it shows the 
 bitter enmity against Thebes which was 
 still felt by Athens. Demosthenes does 
 not seem to understand by δίκην έπα- 
 χόντων what Aeschines means by είσέ- 
 φερον δόγμα. An intention to introduce 
 a decree would not need a previous 
 summons, which δίκην επάχειν, and still 
 more δίκην τελέσασθαι , to make a suit 
 ready for trial , would require. It is 
 most likely that the cautious language 
 of Aeschines which now stands in his 
 speech (116) is not what he actually used 
 in court. And the further remark of 
 Demosthenes, ουδ' ά νυν ουτος προφασί¬ 
 ζεται, seems to imply that Aeschines had 
 told a different story about the intentions 
 of the Amphissians when he made his 
 report of the meeting at Delphi (125) 
 from that which he told in court. It is 
 therefore difficult to judge the argument 
 of Demosthenes about the want of a legal 
 summons. Certainly no summons was 
 thought necessary when the Council a 
 few hours later voted to make a raid 
 upon the new buildings of the Amphis¬ 
 sians at Cirrha; but here there was no 
 pretence of any judicial proceeding, but 
 
 only a περίοδος of the sacred land (§§ 150 1 , 
 151 1 ), which became a mob. 
 
 8 . αϊτό iroias ap^fjs; from what 
 authority did the summons come? West, 
 quotes with approval Weil’s interpreta¬ 
 tion of επί ποιας αρχής; “ devant quelle 
 autorite athenienne la citation fut-elle 
 notifiee?” Witnesses to a summons were 
 required at Athens when the defendant 
 was in Attica. These were called κλη¬ 
 τήρες, which same name was given to the 
 officers of the law who served a summons 
 on persons outside of Attica: see Ar. Av. 
 147, 1422. έκλήτευσεν (jj refers to the 
 act of such an Amphictyonic κλητή p. — 
 8ei£ov: cf. δεΐξον, χχιχ. 41. The comma 
 must follow είδότα. 
 
 g. άλλ’ ούκ άν £\ois: so § 76 s . 
 
 § 151 . 1. “ΠΈριιόντων : cf. περιελθείν, 
 
 § 150 1 . See Aesch. 122, 123. 
 
 3. μικρού (M.T. 779 b )> almost, be¬ 
 longs to κατηκόντισαν: cf. Aesch. 123, 
 el μη εξεφύχομεν, έ κινδυνέυσα μεν άπο- 
 λέσθαι. 
 
 4· Εγκλήματα... έταράχθη : we have 
 πόλεμον ταράσσειν, like proelia miscere or 
 confundere , Plat. Rep. 567 A, and εγκλή¬ 
 ματα ταράξειν, Plut. Them. 5 (Bl.). 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 11 3 
 
 6 Κ όττυφος αύτων των ’Α μφικτυόνων ηγαγε στρατιάν ως 
 oi μεν ovk ηλσον, οι ο ελσοντες ουοεν εποιουν, εις την 
 επιούσαν ΤΙυλαίαν επί τον Φίλιππον ευθύς ηγεμόν rjyov 
 οι κατεσκευασμενοι καί πάλαι πονηροί των Θετταλων καί 
 των εν ταΐς άλλαις πόλεσι. καί προφάσεις εύλογους 
 είληφεσαν · η yap αύτούς είσφερειν καί ξένους τρεφειν 
 7 δ εφασαν δείν καί ζημιούν τούς μη ταύτα ποιούντας, η ’κείνον 
 αιρεΐσθαι. τί 8εΐ τα πολλά λεγειν; ηρεθη yap εκ τούτων 
 ηγεμών. καί μετά ταύτ εύθεως δύναμιν συλλεξας καί 5 
 παρελθων ώ<? επί την Κ,ιρραίαν, ερρωσθαι φράσας πολλά 
 Κιρραίοις καί Αοκροΐς, την Έλάτει αν καταλαμβάνει, εί 
 
 η. οί δ’ έλθύντες om. Σ 1 (add. mg.), L 1 (add. mg.). 9. κατασκευασάμενοι V6. 
 
 § 152. 5. ΐύθέωϊ Σ, L, Αι. 2; ei;#i)s vulg. ; e ύθέω$ b Φίλιππος Ar. 2. 6. κφ- 
 
 pav Σ, L 1 ; κιρραίαν I, 2 ; Keppaiav V6. βρρωσθβ Σ. πολλά φράσας Ar. 7. καί 
 Κιρραίοις vulg. ; και om. Σ, L, Αι. 2. έπί την Ο 1 . 
 
 6. ΚόττυφοΞ: the president of the 
 Council, a Thessalian of Pharsalus 
 (Aesch. 128). 
 
 7. ούκ ήλθον : e.g. Thebans and 
 Athenians, and doubtless others.— ούδέν 
 €ττοίουν : see Aesch. 129.—tis την επι¬ 
 ούσαν ... ήγον (sc. τα πράγματα), took 
 measures at once., against the coming 
 meeting (autumn of 339), to put things 
 (i.e. the war) into the hands of Philip as 
 commander. See IX. 57, oi μβν έφ' ημάς 
 r/yov τα πράγματα, οι δ’ έπί Φίλιππον. 
 
 9· οί κατεσκευασμενοι (pass.), those 
 with whom arrangements had been made. 
 — πάλαι πονηροί : cf. § 1 58 7 , υπό πολλών 
 καί πονηρών. * 
 
 Demosthenes distinctly implies that 
 Cottyphus was made general at the 
 spring meeting, but that, after a mere 
 pretence of war, intrigues at once began 
 for superseding him by Philip at the 
 autumnal meeting (ets την έπιοΰσαν Πυ- 
 λαίαν). Aeschines, on the contrary, 
 whose whole object is to show that a 
 real Ainphictyonic war was intended, 
 with no help or thought of help from 
 Philip, and to represent Philip’s final 
 appointment as commander as a remote 
 afterthought, states that no action was 
 taken against the Amphissians in the 
 spring, but that a special meeting was 
 
 G. D. 
 
 called before the regular autumnal Πυ¬ 
 λαία, to take such action (124). At 
 this special meeting, which Athens and 
 Thebes refused to attend (Aesch. 126 
 —128), Cottyphus was chosen general 
 (according to Aesch.), while Philip was 
 “away off in Scythia”; and after a 
 successful campaign the Amphissians 
 were fined and their offending citizens 
 were banished. But they refused to 
 submit; and finally, “a long time after¬ 
 wards” (πολλψ χρόνιρ ύστερον), a second 
 expedition became necessary “after 
 Philip’s return from his Scythian expe¬ 
 dition ”:—he does not even then say 
 that Philip was actually made general! 
 See Hist. §§ 74—76. 
 
 § 15 2. 2. αυτού? είσφε'ρειν ... δεΐν, 
 
 they must themselves (ipsos) pay taxes, 
 etc. 
 
 3. ή ’κείνον αιρεΐσθαι: this alter¬ 
 native was one of the προφάσεις βΰ'λογοι 
 (§ 1 5 110 ) f° r choosing Philip. 
 
 6. παρελθων (sc. εϊσω Πυλώυ) : cf. 
 § 35 3 .— ερρωσθαι φράσα§ πολλά, bidding 
 many farewells (a long adieu ): so XIX. 
 248. Cf. ’έρρωσο, vale. 
 
 7. Έλάτειαν : when Philip had passed 
 Thermopylae, he hardly made a pretence 
 of entering into the war with Amphissa, 
 for which he was chosen commander; 
 
 8 
 
ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 114 
 
 μέν ουν μη μετέγνωσαν ευθέως, ως τουτ ει8ον, οι Θηβαίοι 
 καί μεθ * ημών εγένοντο, ώσπερ χείμαρρους αν απαν τούτο 
 το πράγμα είς την πολιν εισεπεσε’ νυν 8ε το y εζαιφνης 
 5 επέσχον αυτόν εκείνοι, μαλιστα μεν, ω αν8ρες Α,θηναιοι, 
 θεών τίνος εύνοια προς υμάς, ειτα μεντοι, και οσον καθ εν 
 avSpa, και Si εμέ. δδς 8έ μοι τα Soy ματα ταυτα και τους 
 χρόνους εν οΐς έκαστα πέπρακται, ιν ει8ητε ηλικα πραγμαθ 
 54 η μιαρα κεφαλή ταράξασ αυτή 8ίκην ουκ έ8ωκεν. λεγε 
 μοι τα 8όγματα. 
 
 § 153 . 2. ευθέως Σ, L, Αι ; ευθύς Β, vulg. ws tout’ εΐδον, οι Σ, L, Αι. 2, Φ 
 
 (γρ) ; om. Β, vulg. 3· Ka ' L (before με#’) om · Αι. 4· τ0 7 L 1 , ^ ( col ^ # 
 
 to τότ’); τότε Α2, Β, Υ; τότε γ’ vulg. ; τούτο γ’ Αι. 5 · αντον om. Αι, Β , Φ . 
 7· ταυτα τα δόyμaτa Α 2 . g. πράξασα L. 
 
 § 154. ι. καί μοι. \eye Αι. 
 
 and soon appeared at the Phocian town 
 of Elatea, which commanded the pass 
 into Boeotia and “the road to Athens.” 
 This move left no further doubt as to his 
 real intentions. In 344 B.C. there had 
 been a report that Philip was about to 
 seize and fortify Elatea, and thus threaten 
 Thebes : see vi. 14. Aeschines says (140) 
 of Philip’s sudden movement, τον πόλεμον 
 6 v πρότερον έξήλασεν έκ τής χώρας της 
 Βοιωτών (i.e. the Phocian war), τούτον 
 πάλιν τον αυτόν πόλεμον (i.e. a similar 
 sacred war) έπήyε διά της Φωκίδος έπ’ 
 αύτας τας Θήβας. As the spurious de¬ 
 cree of Demosthenes (§§ 181—187) no 
 longer disturbs the chronology, we see 
 that Philip must have been made general 
 in the early autumn of 339 b.c., and 
 probably seized Elatea in the late autumn 
 or early winter; so that the campaign 
 lasted about eight or nine months until 
 the battle of Chaeronea in August or 
 September 338. A “winter battle” is 
 naturally mentioned in § 216 6 . The 
 startling effect of the news from Elatea 
 at Athens is described in §§ 169 ff. 
 
 § 153 . 3. μεθ’ υμών εγε'νοντο, joined 
 
 you .— ώσπερ χείμαρρους, like a winter 
 torrent : most of the rivers of Greece are 
 nearly or quite dry the greater part of 
 the year, and in the winter and spring 
 are often filled by rushing torrents. 
 Many of these, when dry, still serve as 
 
 paths over the mountain passes. Similar 
 simple comparisons are ώσπερ νέφος , 
 
 § i88 5 * (cf. νυκτί έοικώς, II. I. 47 ) > ώσπερ 
 πνεύμα, § 308 9 * * * ; ώσπερ clv εΐ κατακλυσμόν, 
 
 § 2ΐ4 4 * ; ό συμβας σκηπτός, § 194 1 · (See 
 Β 1 .) — άπαν τούτο τό πράγμα : we might 
 say this whole thing, but with far less 
 dignity. 
 
 4. νυν, as it was , in fact , opposed to 
 
 εί μη μετέyvωσav (2): cf. § I33 6 * ·— τ ° Ύ 
 εξαίφνης, for the moment. 
 
 6 . εΐτα.-.δι/ εμε, lit. but besides , and 
 so far as depended on any one man, also 
 through me : the former και connects 
 όσον.,.άνδρα to ειτα. Dindorf, \^omel, 
 and Westermann understand μεντοι και, 
 οσον κ.τ.λ., making the first Kal = also, 
 which the second και merely repeats. 
 
 7. δός : see note on § 28 s .— δόγματα 
 ταυτα are Amphictyonic decrees about 
 the Amphissian affair.— τους χρόνους : 
 we see from § 1 55 13 that this was an 
 official statement from the records, show¬ 
 ing that these decrees were passed when 
 
 Aeschines was πυλάyoρoς. 
 
 9. ή μιαρά κεφαλή: cf. XXI. 11 7, καί 
 ταύτ , έλεyεv ή μιαρά και αναιδής αυτή 
 
 κεφαλή έξεληλυθώς κ.τ.λ., and XIX. 3 1 3· 
 — ταράξασ’ : we should naturally express 
 ταράξασα by the leading verb, and δίκην 
 
 οϋκ έδωκεν by without being punished. 
 
 With πράγματα ταράξασα cf. § 1 51 4 and 
 
 note. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 11 5 
 
 ΔΟΓΜΑ ΑΜΦΙΚΤΤΟΝΩΝ. 
 
 [ΈπΙ ίερέως Κλειναγόρου, εαρινής πυλαίας, εδοξε τοΐς πυλα- 
 >γόροις και τοΐς συνέδροις των Άμφικτυόνων και τω κοινω των 5 
 Άμφικτυόνων, επειδή Άμφισσεΐς επιβαίνουσιν επί την ίεράν 
 'χώραν και σπείρουσι και βοσκημασι κατανέμουσιν, έπελθεΐν τους 
 πυλαίο ρους και τους συνέδρους, και στηλαις διαλαβεΐν τους ορούς , 
 καί άπειπεΐν τοΐς Άμφισσεύσι τού λοιπού μη έπιβαίνειν .] 
 
 ΕΤΕΡΟΝ ΔΟΓΜΑ. 
 
 [ Επί ίερέως Κ λειναγόρου, εαρινής πυλαίας, εδοξε τοΐς πυλα- 155 
 79 γόροις και τοΐς συνέδροις των ’Αμφικτυόνων και τω κοινω των 
 Άμφικτυόνων, επειδή οί εξ Άμφίσσης την ίεράν χώραν κατανει- 
 μάμενοι γεωργούσι και βοσκήματα νέμουσι, και κωλυόμενοι τούτο 
 ποιεΐν, εν τοΐς οπλοις παραγενόμενοι, τό κοινόν των 'Ελλήνων 5 
 συνέδρων κεκωλύκασι μετά βίας, τινάς δε και τετραυματίκασι, τον 
 στρατηγόν τον ηρημένον των Άμφικτυόνων Κόττι >φον τον Άρκάδα 
 πρεσβεύσαι προς Φίλιππον τον Μ ακεδόνα, και αξιούν ΐνα βοηθηση 
 τω τε Απόλλωνι και τοΐς Άμφικτύοσιν, όπως μη περιίδη υπό των 
 ασεβών Άμφισσέων τον θεόν πλη μ μελού μεν ον · καί διότι αυτόν ίο 
 στρατηγόν αυτοκράτορα αίρούνται οί "Έλληνες οί μετέχοντες τού 
 συνεδρίου των Άμφικτυόνων.] 
 
 A eye δη καί τούς χρόνους εν οις ταύτ εγίγνετο · είσί 
 yap καθ’ οϋς επυλαγόρησεν ουτος. λεγε. 
 
 ΧΡΟΝΟΙ. 
 
 [Άρχων λίνησιθειδής, μηνός άνθεστηριώνος έκτη επί δέκα.] 
 
 Άος δη την επιστολήν ην, ώς ούχ ύπηκουον οί Θηβαίοι, 156 
 πεμπει προς τους εν Τίελοποννησω συμμάχους 6 Φίλιππος, 
 
 § 156. ι. δή μοι vulg. ; μοί om. Σ, L 1 , Αι. ύττηκου ον {-ον for -σαν?) Σ. 
 
 ol om. Ο. 2. ό om. Β. 
 
 § 156. ι. ούχ ύττηκουον: this must 
 refer to a refusal of the Thebans, before 
 the seizure of Elatea, to join Philip in 
 an expedition against the Amphissians. 
 When he entered Greece, he professed 
 to be marching against them : see § 152 2 * * * 6 , 
 u>s έττί την Κίρραίαν. 
 
 2. συμμάχου: i.e. the Arcadians, 
 
 Eleans, and Argives. See Isocr. v. 74, 
 
 ’Apyeloi de καί Μβσσήνιοί καί Μεγαλο- 
 
 πολΐται καί των άλλων πολλοί συμπολβμεΐν 
 
 (sc. νπάρχουσί σοι ’έτοιμοί), and Dem. IX. 
 27. See Hist. §§51, 52. 
 
 8—2 
 
ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 116 
 
 ιν είδητε καί εκ ταντης σαφώς οτι την μεν άληθη πρόφασιν 
 των πραγμάτων, το ταντ επί την Ελλάδα καί τους Θηβαίονς 
 
 δβ και τοΐς ’Αμ- 
 
 5 και νμας πραττειν, απεκρνπτετο, κοινά 
 φικτνοσι δδζαντα ποιεϊν προσεποιείτο’ 6 δε τάς άφορμας 
 ταντας καί τάς προφάσεις αντω παρασχων οντος ήν. λεγε. 
 
 ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ. 
 
 28 ο 
 
 157 [Βασιλεύ? Μ ακεδόνων Φίλιππος Τίελοποννησίων των εν τη 
 συμμαγία τοϊς δημιουργοΐς και τοΐς συνεδροις και τοΐς άλλοις 
 συμμάχοις 7 τάσι γαίρειν. επειδή Λ οκροι οι καλούμενοι Όζόλαι, 
 κατοικούντες εν Άμφίσση, πλημμελούσιν εις το ιερόν τον Άπόλ- 
 5 λωνος τού εν Αελφοΐς και την ίεράν χώραν ερχόμενοι μεθ' οπλών 
 λεηλατούσι, βούλομαι τώ θεω μεθ υμών βοηθεΐν καί άμύνασθαι 
 τούς παραβαίνοντάς τι των εν άνθρώποις ευσεβών · ώστε συναντάτε 
 μετά τών όπλων εις την Φωκίδα, εχοντες επισιτισμόν ημερών 
 τετταράκοντα, τού ενεστώτος μηνός λωου, ώς ημείς άγομεν, ώς δε 
 ΙΟ Αθηναίοι, βοηδρομιώνος, ώς δε Κ ορίνθιοι, πανημου. τοΐς δε μη 
 συναντησασι πανδημεί χρησόμεθα [τοί? δε συμβονλοις ημΐν 
 κειμενοις\ επιζημίοις. ευτυχείτε.] 
 
 ^ σ Γ/ / / ν > Ο / I / > θ\ \ 
 
 158 Οραο οτι φεύγει τας ιοιας προφάσεις, εις οε τας 
 ’Αμφικτνονικάς καταφεύγει, τις ονν ο ταντα σνμπαρα- 
 σκενάσας αντω; τις δ τάς προφάσεις ταντας ενδονς; τις 
 δ των κακών τών γεγενημενών μάλιστ αίτιος; ονχ οντος; 
 5 μη τοίννν Χεγετε, ώ άνδρες ’ Αθηναίοι, περιιόντες ώς νφ * 
 
 5· ήμαϊ Ο. τινα (for kolvo) As. 7· 7 τροφάσβις αύτφ παρασχων odros 
 
 : ήν L; 7 τρ. αύτιρ παρασχων Σ 1 ( odros ήν αύτιρ below the line), Φ (yp) ; πρ. παραδοντ 
 odros ήν αύτω Αχ. 2 ', πρ. παραδους adrtp odros ήν Β, vulg. 
 
 § 158. ι. μϊν after (pedyet. vulg.; om. Σ, L 1 , As. 2 . πapaσκeυάσas Ai ; 
 
 KaraaKevaaas A2. 5. \eyere om. Σ 1 (add. mg.)· πepLδvτεs O 1 . 
 
 5. κοινά : cf. Kowas προφάσεις, §§ 147 4 , 
 158 1-3 .—Tots Άμφικτύοσ-ι δόξαντα, Am- 
 phictyonic decrees, a roh Άμφ. Ζδοξεν. 
 Cf. III. 14, τό 7 roLeiv έθέλείν τά ye 
 δόξαντα. The older Athenian decrees 
 began with άδοξε rrj βουλή καί r(p δήμρ. 
 
 6. ©...τταρασ-χών : cf. § 158 s . 
 
 §158. 2 . Άμφικτυονικάς : see §§ 147, 
 
 156 s .— καταφ€υγ£ΐ, takes refuge, opposed 
 to φeύyeL (1), shuns: “ spielende Parono- 
 masie.” (Bl.) 
 
 3. -ιτροφάσ-ί^ evSovs : cf. Thuc. 11. 
 
 87 s3 , ούκ ενδώσομεν πρόφασιν ούδενϊ κακιρ 
 y ενέσθαι. 
 
 5 · μή λεχετε irepiiovTcs, do not go 
 abozit and tell .— ύφ’ evos άνθρώττου, i.e. 
 by Philip: cf. els άνήρ (of Philip), XIX. 
 64. Philip (he says) could never have 
 accomplished his purpose, had he not 
 had such accomplices as Aeschines. No¬ 
 tice the effective collocation in ή Έλλάϊ 
 ανθρώπου. (Bl.) 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 ιΐ7 
 
 ενός τοιαυτα πεπονθεν η Ελλάς άνθρωπον, ουχ νφ' ενός, 
 άλλ’ υπό πολλών καί πονηρών τών παρ εκάστοις, ώ γη 
 καί θεοί' ών εις οντοσί, ον, el μηόεν ενλαβηθεντα τάληθες 159 
 είπειν δεο ι, ονκ άν όκνησαιμ εγωγε κοινόν άλιτήριον τών 
 μετά ταντ απολωλότων απάντων είπειν, άνθρώπων, τόπων, 
 πόλεων · ό γάρ το σπέρμα παρασχών, οντος τών φόντων 
 8 ι κακών αίτιος, ον όπως ποτ [ονκ ενθυς ίόόντες άπεστρά- 5 
 φητε θαυμάζω. πλην πολν τι σκότος, ως εοικεν, εστίν παρ 5 
 νμΐν προ της άληθείας. 
 
 'ϊ,νμβεβηκε τοίνυν μοι τών κατά της πατρίόος τοντω 160 
 πεπραγμενών άφαμενω εις ά τοντοις έναντιονμενος αυτός 
 πεπολίτενμαι άφιγθαΐ' ά πολλών μεν ενεκ άν εικότως 
 
 
 
 
 7· τών om. Σ 1 (add. nig.). ώ y ή και άλλοι θεοί πάι ’res (??) late mg. Σ ; ώ yr) 
 
 καί θεοί Σ, vulg. 
 
 § 159 . ι. ούτοσί Σ, L 1 (έστιν^ add. L 2 ) ; οΰτός έστιν vulg. el om. V6. 
 
 2. άλιτήριον (ι corr. from 77?) Σ; άλητήριον Ο 1 ( φθορέα mg.); άλειτήριον West., Bl. 
 4. ouros ήν A2, U (mg.). φύντων κακών Σ, vulg., Vom., West.; κακών om. L 2 , 
 
 B, Y, O, Bk., Dind., Lips., Bl. 6. εστίν before cos Y. 
 
 § 160 . 1. τότε (for τούτιρ) V6. 3. άφιχθαι Σ (corr.). 'ενεκ ’ άν Σ, L; 
 
 'ένεκα vulg. 
 
 § 159 . ι. μηδέν ενλαβηθεντα, with¬ 
 out reserve. 
 
 2. κοινόν άλιτήριον, a common curse 
 and destroyer. An άλιτήριος is a man 
 who has sinned against the Gods and is 
 thereby under a curse, which curse he 
 transmits to others with whom he has to 
 do; also an avenging divinity: cf. Aen. 
 11. 573, Troiae et patriae communis 
 Erinnys (of Helen). See Andocides 1. 
 130, 131 : κλάδων... cm ' Ιππόνικος εν τή 
 οίκίη. άλιτήριον τρέφει, αύτοΰ τήν τράπε¬ 
 ζαν άνατρέπει,.,.οΐόμενος yap υιόν τρέφειν 
 άλιτήριον αΰτιρ έτρεφεν, 6s άνατέτροφεν 
 εκείνου τον πλούτον, τήν σωφροσύνην, τον 
 άλλον βίον άπαντα. Demosthenes has 
 the word also in XIX. 226, τοΐ s άλιτηρίοις 
 τοΰτοις (of Aeschines and his party), and 
 197, των θεοΐς εχθρών, τών άλιτηρίων 
 Όλυνθίων. ’Αλάστωρ is similarly used in 
 both senses: see below § 29b 4 , xix. 305 ; 
 see also Aeschyl. Eum. 236, δέχου δε 
 πρευμενώς άλάστορα lone who has already 
 been purified); Pers. 354, φανείς άλάστωρ 
 ή κακός δαίμων ποθέν. Aeschines twice 
 
 ( 1 3ϊ» ! 5 7 ) calls Demosthenes τής'Ελλάδος 
 ά λιτήριος (see Blass). 
 
 4. τών φύντων κακών, of the harvest 
 of woes : without κακών, which many 
 omit, we should have the common saying 
 about the harvest. Cic. Phil. 11. 22. 55 
 perhaps supports κακών : ut igitur in 
 seminibus est causa arborum et stirpium, 
 sic huius luctuosissimi belli semen tu 
 fuisti. 
 
 5. ov : object of both Ιδόντες and ά7τ- 
 εστράφητε: the latter becomes transitive 
 in the passive, like φοβέω, εκπλήσσω, etc. 
 
 7. 7 τρό τήβ άληθείαδ: i.e. so as to 
 conceal the truth from you. 
 
 §§ 160 — 226 . The orator now passes 
 to his own agency in opposing the joint 
 plot of Aeschines and Philip. See intro¬ 
 ductory note on §§ 126—226. After 
 speaking of the enmity between Athens 
 and Thebes, which men like Aeschines 
 had encouraged (§§ 160—163), he gives a 
 graphic account of the panic excited at 
 Athens by Philip’s seizure of Elatea, and 
 
1 18 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 άκουσαιτε μου, μάλιστα 8 3 on αισχρόν εστιν, ώ άν8ρες 
 5 ’ Αθηναίοι, ει εγω μεν τα έργα των υπέρ υμών πόνων 
 161 υπεμεινα, υμείς 8ε μη8ε τους λόγους αυτών ανε^εσθε. ορών 
 γάρ εγω Θηβαίους σχε8όν 8ε καί υμάς υπό των τα Φίλιππου 
 φρονουντων καί 8ιεφθαρμενων παρ εκατεροις, ο μεν ην 
 άμφοτεροις φοβερόν καί φυλακής πολλής 8εόμενον, το τον 
 5 Φίλιππον εάν αυζάνεσθαι, παρορωντας και ου8ε καθ εν 
 φυλαττ ο μένους, εις εχθραν 8ε καί το προσκρουειν αλληλοις 
 
 4 · άκούσαιτε Υ, Φ (corr.); ακούσετε Σ, L, Β, vulg. ; ακούσατε Αι. 2 ; ακούετε Ο. 
 (See note below.) 5· ημών Ο. 
 
 § 161 . 2 . ημάς Ο. τα του Φ. V 6 . 3 · φρονούντων Σ, L 1 , Al (corr.), 
 
 Α2, Ο (mg.), Φ (7ρ); 7 τραττοντων L' 2 , vulg. 4· ττολλ. φυλακ. V6. 5 · όράν 
 
 (for εάν) V6. 
 
 of the manner in which he took advantage 
 of this emergency to bring Athens and 
 Thebes to a better understanding and 
 even to an alliance against the common 
 enemy (§§ 168—226). Into this account 
 he introduces (§§ 189—210) a most elo¬ 
 quent and earnest defence of the whole 
 line of policy in opposition to Philip 
 which Athens had followed chiefly by 
 his advice. He pleads that Athens, with 
 her glorious traditions, could have taken 
 no other course, even if she had seen the 
 fatal defeat at Chaeronea in advance. 
 This is the most eloquent and impassioned 
 passage in the oration; and it is addressed 
 not merely to the court, but to the whole 
 people and to future ages. 
 
 § 160 . 4. άκούσαιτ€: this reading, 
 
 though it has slight MS. authority, is 
 necessary here, with ενεκ av in Σ and L, 
 unless we admit ακούσετε αν. Σ often 
 has e for αι or αι for e, from their identity 
 in later pronunciation: see §§ 58 s , 697 
 136 3 , 15ο 5 , 152 6 . 
 
 5, 6. τά 2 ρ·γα.. tovs Xoyovs. the actual 
 labours , contrasted with merely listening 
 to the account of them. Cf. Xoycp and τά 
 £pya, Thuc. I. 22. 
 
 The orator introduces this continuation 
 of his political history in an apologetic 
 way, as in § no he had left it doubtful 
 whether he should speak at all of these 
 later acts, τά μέyι.στa . πε^Γpayμέvωv. 
 
 This is a part of the skilful device by 
 which he divides the long account of his 
 public life, while at the same time he 
 reminds the, court that the brilliant pas¬ 
 sage which follows is over and above 
 what is needed to defend Ctesiphon (see 
 § 126 1 ), and asks their attention to it as a 
 personal favour to himself. 
 
 § 161 . The orator recurs to the criti¬ 
 cal moment in the relations of Athens 
 and Thebes, when both were astounded 
 by the sudden seizure of Elatea, and the 
 great question was whether Thebes should 
 join Philip against Athens or Athens 
 against the invader. 
 
 1. όρων: with παρορωντας (5), φυ- 
 λαττομενους, and έχοντας (Μ. Τ. 904)· 
 
 2. ύιτό των...διεφθαρμένων: express¬ 
 ing the agency by which the condition 
 described in παρορωντας etc. was effected, 
 as if the participles were passive. 
 
 3. τταρ’ €KaT€pois, i.e. in both Thebes 
 and Athens. For Athens the great danger 
 was that her old enmity against Thebes 
 might prevent her from taking the only 
 safe course, union with Thebes. For 
 Philip’s way of working, in such cases, 
 see § 61. Dissen contrasts παρ’ εκατέροις, 
 apud utrosque seorsim, in each city , with 
 άμφοτεροις (4), utrisque simul, both. 
 
 4. τό...αύξάν€(τθαι : appositive to the 
 omitted antecedent of 6 (3), which is the 
 object of παρορωντας etc. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 282 
 
 119 
 
 ετοίμως έχοντας, όπως τούτο μη γενοιτο παρατηρών διετε- 
 λονν, ονκ από της εμαντον γνώμης μόνον ταντα ετνμφερειν j 
 νπολαμβώνων, άλλ’ είόώς 3 Αριστοφώντα καί πάλιν Ε νβονλον 162 
 πάντα τον χρόνον βονλομενονς πράζαι ταντην την φιλίαν, 
 καί περί των άλλων πολλάκις αντιλέγοντας εαντοΐς τονθ ’ 
 όμογνωμονονντας αεί. ονς cri) ζώντας μεν, ώ κίναόος, 
 κολακενων παρηκολονθεις, τεθνεώτων δ’ ονκ αιετθάνει κατη- 5 
 γορών' ά γάρ περί Θηβαίων επιτιμας εμοί, εκείνων πολν 
 μάλλον η εμον κατηγορείς, των πρότερον η εγώ ταντην την 
 σνμμαχίαν όοκιμασάντων. άλλ’ εκεΐσ επάνειμι, ότι τον 163 
 εν *Αμφίοτετη πόλεμον τοντον μεν ποιησαντος, σνμπερανα- 
 μενων δε των άλλων των σννεργών αντω την προς θηβαίονς 
 εχθραν, σννεβη τον Φίλιππον ελθεΐν εφ’ ημάς, ονπερ ενεκα 
 
 μη τούτο Ο. y ένοιτο Σ, L 1 ; y ενήσηται. L 2 ; yevrjaeTaL vulg. 8. μόνον om. Α2. 
 § 162. 3· κα ' 1 - (before περί ) om. Α2. 7 τολλά /as om. V6. εαντοΐς om. Σ 1 ; 
 
 ecuiTois els Ar. 2. 4. όμo\oyoυvτas A2. ais (for ώ) Ar. Kivcudos Ai. 
 
 5. αίσθάνεί Σ ; αίσθάνη L ; αισχύνη vulg. 
 
 § 163. 2. τούτους (corr. to τούτου) Σ. 3. Θηβαίους Σ, L, Ai ; τούς θη. vulg. 
 
 4. ύμας V6. 
 
 7. 0Tra>s τούτο (τό προσκρούει) |χή 
 γίνοιτο: most MSS. have the more com¬ 
 mon yevi] σεται (Μ. T. 339, 340).— 7ταρα- 
 τηρών δΐ£Τ€λουν, I kept continual watch. 
 
 8. ταΰτα : the policy of friendship 
 with Thebes ( ταύτην την φιλίαν , § 162 2 ), 
 implied in όπως τούτο μη y ένοιτο. 
 
 § 162 . ι. Άρισ-τοφώντα (see § 70 4 ), 
 a leading statesman of the earlier period 
 and a strong friend of Thebes. Aesch. 
 says of him (ill. 139), πλεΐστον χρόνον 
 την του βοιωτιάζειν ύπομείνας αιτίαν .— 
 Είΐβουλον (§ 7ο 4 ) ■· see Hist. § 12; Grote 
 xi. 387; Schaefer 1. 186. 
 
 2. βουλομίνουΞ and όρογνωρονουνταδ 
 (4) are imperfect, past to είδώς and διε- 
 τέλουν ; but avTiKiyovTas (3), though they 
 opposed one another, is present to όμoyv., 
 to which it is subordinate. — ταύτην 
 την φιλίαν : the friendship for Thebes 
 during the oppressive Spartan supremacy, 
 which appeared in the aid privately sent 
 by Athens to Thebes when she expelled 
 the Spartan garrison from the Cadmea in 
 
 379 B.c. This friendship was broken after 
 Leuctra in 371. See § g 8 5 and note. 
 
 4. oils: object of κολακεύων. 
 
 5· τταρηκολούθαδ is more than you 
 were one of their followers', it means you 
 followed them round or hung on to them 
 in a servile way. Eubulus was one of 
 the oov-pyopoL who supported Aesch. at 
 his trial for παραπρεσβεία (see Aesch. 11. 
 184). The anonymous Life of Aeschines 
 makes him a clerk to both Eubulus and 
 Aristophon. 
 
 6. ά... 4 τπτιραδ : the charge of favour¬ 
 ing Thebes in the terms of the alliance in 
 339—338 B.c. (Aesch. 141—143). 
 
 § 163. 1. €Κ€Ϊσ-’, i.e. to the main 
 
 point. 
 
 2. ιτοιησαντοδ, <τυρ 7 Γ€ραναρ€νων : συμ- 
 implies that, while Aesch. got up the 
 Amphissian war by himself, he had active 
 helpers in stirring up enmity at Athens 
 against Thebes. When all was ready, 
 Philip appeared at Elatea (ελθεΐν έφ ’ 
 ή μας, 4) : cf. § 168 3 . 
 
120 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 5 τάς πόλεις οντοι σννέκρονον, και ει μη προεζανέστημεν 
 μικρόν, ουδ’ άναλαβεΐν αν ήδννηθημεν · οντω μέχρι* πόρρω 
 προηγαγον οντο ι. iv οίς δ’ tJt’ ηδη τα προς άλληλονς, 
 τούτωνI των ψηφισμάτων άκονσαντες και των αποκρίσεων 
 είσεσθε. καί μοι λέγε ταντα λαβών. 
 
 ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ. 
 
 164 [Έπι άρχοντος 'Η ροπύθου, μηνάς εΧαφηβοΧιώνος έκτη φθίνον- 
 τος, φυΧής πρυτανευονσης 'Κρεχθηιδος, βουΧης και στρατηγών 
 γνώμη, επειδή Φίλιππος ας μεν κατείΧηφε πόλεις τών άστυγειτάνων, 
 τινάς δό πορθεί, κεφαΧαίω δε ε’πι την Αττικήν παρασκευάζεται 
 5 παραγίγνεσθαι, παρ’ ούδέν ηγούμενος τάς ημετέρας συνθηκας, και 
 τούς όρκους Χυειν έπιβάΧΧεται καί την είρηνην, παραβαίνων τάς 
 κοινάς πιστεις, δεδοχθαι τη βουΧη και τω δημω πεμπειν προς 
 αυτόν πρέσβεις, οίτινες αύτω διαΧεζονται και παρακαΧεσουσιν 
 αυτόν μάΧιστα μεν την προς ημάς ομόνοιαν διατηρεΐν καί τάς 
 ίο συνθηκας, ει δε μη, προς τό βουΧεύσασθαι δούναι χρόνον τη πόΧει 
 και τάς άνοχάς ποιησασθαι μέχρι τού θαργηΧιώνος μηνάς, ηρέθη- 
 σαν εκ της βουΧης Ίόΐμος ’ Αναγυράσιος, Έιύθύδημος Φ υΧάσιος, 
 Β ουΧαγάρας Ά Χωπεκηθενύ] 
 
 5· προσεξανέστημεν ( προσ- corr. to προ-) Σ. 6. ονδ’ &ν F. &ν om. V6. 
 άναλαβεΐν Σ, L 1 , Αι ; άναλαβεΐν αυτούς (or αυτούς) vulg. 7* ούτοι. Σ (yp), Αι ; 
 ούτοι την έχθραν Σ, Α.2, Φ (yp), Β (yp) ; ούτοι τό πράχμα L 2 , Bk ; τον Φίλιππον δη 
 (λ over δη) L 1 , W. ούτοι in mg. In mg. Σ: “ yp οϋτω μέχρι πόρρω π por/yayov 
 ουτοι' ου πpoσypάφovτες την έχθραν, ώς είναι τό νόημα, πρόμαχόν ούτοι τον 
 Φίλιππον, άλλ’ ού την έχθραν cos η y ραφή αύτη ’έχει .” 8. τούτων V6. g. καί... 
 
 λαβών om. Αι ; λέχε (alone) V6. 
 
 For titles here and before § 165, Σ has ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑΤΑ and ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ; and before 
 §§ 166 and 167 ΑΠΟΚΡΙΣΕΙΣ twice (for ΑΙΙΟΚΡΙΣΙΣ). 
 
 5. el μ,ή... μικρόν, if we had not roused 
 ourselves a little too soon (for the success 
 of the plot): μικρόν chiefly affects προ-. 
 
 6. άναλαβεΐν, to recover (intrans.) : cf. 
 Plat. Rep. 467 Β, ποιησαι καί την άλλην 
 πόλιν αδύνατον άναλαβεΐν .—-οϋτω with 
 μέχρι πόρρω, so far. 
 
 7. προηγαγον, carried it, i.e. the 
 quarrel with Thebes. I follow Σ (yp) in 
 omitting την έχθραν, though for a different 
 reason (see critical note): τό π pay μα 
 would give the right sense, but no object 
 is needed. 
 
 8. ψηφισμάτων, αποκρίσεων : as 
 
 these documents were quoted to show 
 the enmity between Thebes and Athens 
 at the time of Philip’s invasion, the ψη¬ 
 φίσματα were probably Athenian decrees 
 enacting measures hostile to Thebes, and 
 the replies were remonstrances or retali¬ 
 atory measures on the part of Thebes. 
 Nothing could be more absurd than the 
 two decrees against Philip and the two 
 letters of Philip which appear in the text. 
 See § 168-, where Philip is said to have 
 been elated ( έπαρθείς ) by the decrees and 
 the replies, i.e. by the evidence of hostility 
 which they showed. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 1 2 1 
 
 ΕΤΕΡΟΝ ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ. 
 
 [ΈπΙ άρχοντος 'ϋροπύθου, μηνός μουνυχιώνος ενη καί νέα, 165 
 7 τοΧεμάρχου ηνώμη, επειδή ΦίΧιππος εις άΧΧοτριότητα Θηβαίους 
 7 τρός ημάς έιτιβάΧΧεται καταστήσαι, παρεσκεύασται δε καί παντί 
 τω στρατευματι πρός τούς έγγιστα της Αττικής παραηίηνεσθ αι 
 283 τόπους, παραβαίνων τας πρός ημάς ύπαρχονσας αύτω συνθήκας, 5 
 δεδόχθαι τη βουΧή καί τω δήμω πέμήται ττρος αυτόν κήρυκα καί 
 πρέσβεις, οίτινες άςιώσουσι καί παρακαΧεσουσιν αυτόν ποιήσασθαι 
 τας άνοιάς, όπως ενδεχομένως δ δήμος βουΧεύσητατ καί yap νυν 
 ου κέκρικε βοηθεϊν εν ουδενί των μέτριων, ήρέθησαν εκ τής βουΧής 
 Νέαρχος Έωσινόμου. ΤίοΧυκράτης Έπιφρονος, καί κήρυξ Ιόύνομος ίο 
 ΆναφΧυστιος εκ του δήμο ιλ] — 
 
 Aeye δή καί τας αποκρίσεις. 
 
 166 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΡΙ2Ι2 ΑΘΗΝΑΙΟΙ^. 
 
 [ΒασίΛευ? Μ ακεδόνων ΦίΧιππος ’Αθηναίων τή βουΧή καί τώ 
 δήμω χαίρειν. ήν μεν απ' αρχής εϊχετε προς ημάς αϊρεσιν, ούκ 
 ayvoo), καί τίνα σπουδήν ποιεισθε προσκαΧέσασθαι βουΧόμενοι 5 
 ΘετταΧούς καί Θηβαίους, ετι δε καί θ>οιωτούς' βεΧτιον δ’ αυτών 
 φρονούντων και μη βυυΧομένων εφ' ύμίν ποιησασθαι την εαυτών 
 αϊρεσιν, άΧΧα κατά το συμφέρον ίσταμένων, νυν εξ υποστροφής 
 άποστείΧαντες υμείς πρός με πρέσβεις καί κηρυκα συνθηκών 
 μνημονεύετε καί τας άνοχας αίτείσθε, κατ ούδέν ύφ' ημών πεπΧημ- ίο 
 μεΧημένοι. εγώ μέντοι ακούσας τών πρεσβευτών συyκατατίθεμαι 
 τοις παρακαΧουμένοις καί έτοιμός είμι ποιείσθαι τάς άνοχας, αν 
 περ τούς ούκ όρθώς συμβουλεύοντας ύμίν παραπεμήταντες τής 
 προσηκούσης ατιμίας αξίωσητε. έρρωσθεί] 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΡΙΣΗ ΘΗΒΑΙΟΙ^. 
 
 [Βα-σί,λευ? Μ ακεδόνων Φίλιππος Θηβαίων τή βουΧή καί τω 167 
 δήμω χαίρειν. εκομισάμην την παρ' υμών επιστολήν, δι ής μοι 
 284 την ομόνοιαν άνανεούσθε καί την ειρήνην όντως έμοί ποιείτε, 
 πυνθάνομαι μέντοι διότι πάσαν ύμίν Αθηναίοι προσφέρονται 
 φιΧοτιμίαν βουΧόμενοι υμάς συyκaτaίvoυς ηενέσθαι τοίς ύπ' αυτών 5 
 παρακαΧουμένοις. πρότερον μεν ούν υμών κaτεyίyvωσκov επί τω 
 μέΧΧειν πείθεσθαι ταίς εκείνων έΧπίσι καί έπακοΧουθεΐν αυτών τή 
 προαιρέσει. νυν δ’ έπ^νούς υμάς τά πρός ημάς εζητηκότας εχειν 
 ειρήνην μάΧΧον ή ταί< ετ έρων έπακοΧουθεΐν yvώμaις, ήσθην καί 
 
122 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 ίο μάΧλον υμάς επαινώ κατά ί τοΧλά, μάλ,ιστα δ’ επί τώ βουΚεύσασθαι 
 7τερϊ τούτων ασφαλέστερου καί τά προς ημάς εγειν iv έννοια · οπβρ 
 ον μικρήν ύμϊν οίσειν ελπίζω ροπήν, εάν nrep επί ταυτής μενητε 
 της προθεσεως. ερρωσθε .] 
 
 168 Ο ντω δια θείς 6 Φίλιππος τάς πόλεις προς άλληλας διά 
 τούτων, καί τούτοις επαρθείς τοίς φηφίσμ acre καί ταΐς άπο- 
 κρίσεσιν , ηκεν εγων την όνναμιν καί την Ελάτε Lav κατε- 
 λαβεν, ώς οΰδ’ αν εί τι γενοιτ ετι συμπνενσάντων αν ημών 
 5 καί των Θηβαίων. αλλά μην τον τότε συμβάντ εν τη 
 πόλει θόρυβον ιστέ μεν άπαντες' μικρά δ’ άκουσαθ ’ όμως 
 [αυτά τά] αναγκαιότατα. 
 
 *Εσπέρα μεν γάρ ήν, ήκε δ’ άγγελλων τις ώς τους 
 
 § 168 . ι. άΧΚήλους Υ. 4· συμπίνειπάντων all MSS.; συμπνενσάντων ElmsL, 
 Dind., Vom., West., Lips., Bl. (See note below.) υμών (w. ή over v) F, V6. 
 
 5. εν ora. Ai. 7. αύτά τά dvayK. vulg. ; αυτά τά om. Σ 1 , L 1 ; τά om. L 2 * . 
 
 § 169 . 1. άγγβλων Ο; απαγγελλων B. 
 
 § 168 . 1. ουτω: i.e. as the docu¬ 
 
 ments showed. 
 
 4. u>s ουδ’ άν...σ·υμ.τΓν£υ<τάντων άν, i.e. 
 
 feeling (u>s) that under no possible circum¬ 
 stances would the Thebans and ourselves 
 become harmonious·, συμπνενσάντων άν 
 represents συμπνεύσαιμεν άν. The MSS. 
 all have συμπνενσάντων άν, which Belcker 
 retains. There would be no more ob¬ 
 jection to the future participle with άν, 
 representing the fut. indie, with άν, 
 than to the latter, or to the fut. infin. 
 with άν. It is generally allowed to stand 
 in Plat. Apol. 30 e; Dem. ix. 70, and 
 xix. 342. But here it would represent 
 the future optative with άν, for which 
 there is no recognized authority. More¬ 
 over, the future of πνέω is not πνεύσω, 
 but πνεύσομαι or πνευσοΰμαι, and this 
 should be decisive (see Veitch). See 
 Μ. T. 216; and for the repetition of άν, 
 223. 
 
 6. μικρά αναγκαιότατα: see § 126 4 * 6 
 and note. Most MSS. give αυτά τά αναγ¬ 
 καιότατα here, perhaps correctly. 
 
 §§ 169 — 180 . Here follows the 
 famous description of the panic in Athens 
 when the news of the seizure of Elatea 
 
 arrived, and of the meeting of the As¬ 
 sembly which was suddenly called to con¬ 
 sider the alarming situation. This is a 
 celebrated example of διατύπωσιτ, vivid 
 delineation. 
 
 § 169 . 1. The succession of tenses, 
 
 ήν, ήκε ( had come), and κατείληπται (the 
 direct form for the indirect), makes the 
 narrative lively and picturesque at the 
 outset. Much would have been lost 
 if he had said ήλθε δ’ άγγελλων tis 
 ώϊ κατειλημμένη ειη . — tovs ττρυτά- 
 veis : the message came to the Prytanes, 
 the fifty senators of one of the ten tribes, 
 who for their term of one-tenth of the 
 year represented the authority of the 
 State. Their office was the ddXos or 
 σκιάς, a round building with a cupola in 
 the αγορά, adjoining the Senate house and 
 the μητρφυν with its record-office. There 
 the επιστάτη s of the Prytanes was ex¬ 
 pected to spenrl his whole day and night 
 of office, with a third of the Prytanes whom 
 he had selected (Arist. Pol. Ath. 44 s ), so 
 as to be accessible in emergencies like 
 the present; and there the State provided 
 meals for all the Prytanes. The θάλος is 
 distinct from the ancient Prytaneum or 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 123 
 
 πρύτανεις ώς ’Ελάτεια κατείληπται. καί μετά ταύτα οί μεν 
 ευθύς εξαναστάντες μεταξύ δειπνούντες τους τ εκ των σκηνών 
 των κατά την αγοράν εξεΐργον καί τά γερρα ενεπίμπρασαν, 
 οί δε τούς στρατηγούς μετεπεμποντο καί τον σαλπικτην 5 
 εκάλονν * καί θορύβου πληρης ην η πόλις. τη δ’ υστεραία 
 άμα τη ήμερα οί μεν πρύτανεις την βουλήν εκάλουν είς το 
 
 τούς om. Ο. 
 
 σαλπικτήν Σ, L 1 , F, Υ, Φ ; σαλπιγκτήν vulg. 
 
 City Hall, where certain privileged per¬ 
 sons ( αείσιτοι ) had their meals at a public 
 table, to which ambassadors and other 
 guests of the State were sometimes in¬ 
 vited. 
 
 3. tovs... σκηνών: cf. § 44 s . 
 
 4. τά yt'ppct, probably the wicker-work 
 with which the booths ( σκήναι :) in. the 
 market-place were covered. The word 
 can mean also anything made of twigs, 
 and is used of a wicker fence which en¬ 
 closed the εκκλησία (see Harpocr. under 
 yeppa, and Lix. 90). But the close con¬ 
 nection of the two clauses, drove out those 
 in the booths and burnt the γέρρα, shows 
 that the yeppa which were burnt were 
 taken from the booths. Otherwise there 
 is no reason for driving the poor hucksters 
 out at all. If it is said that this was 
 done to prepare for the “monster meet¬ 
 ing” the next morning, we must re¬ 
 member, first, that the Assembly was 
 held in the Pnyx, not in the αγορά; and, 
 secondly, that there was to be a meeting 
 of the Senate before that of the Assembly, 
 which would give time enough to make 
 all necessary preparations after daybreak. 
 To suppose, further, that the booths were 
 torn to pieces and burnt on the spot after 
 dark, merely to clear the ayopd, when 
 there was no pressure of time, even if 
 the place needed clearing at all, is to 
 impute to the Prytanes conduct little 
 short of madmen. Such a panic as this 
 senseless proceeding would have caused 
 was surely the last object which these 
 guardians of the State could have had, 
 when they left their supper unfinished and 
 hastened into the market-place. Their 
 
 first object certainly was to secure a full 
 meeting of the Assembly the next morn¬ 
 ing. It will be noticed that while some 
 (οί μεν) of the Prytanes were engaged in 
 clearing the booths, others (οί δέ ) were 
 summoning the ten Generals. The Gene¬ 
 rals and the Prytanes had the duty of 
 calling special meetings of the Assembly 
 (εκκλησίας συγκλήτους) : see Thuc. IV. 
 118 52 , εκκλησίαν δε ποιήσαντας τούς στρα¬ 
 τηγούς καί τούς πρύτανεις, and II. 59 11 (°f 
 Pericles), σύλλογον ποιήσας (£τι δ’ εστρα- 
 τήγει). There can, therefore, be hardly a 
 doubt that the two acts were connected 
 with summoning the Assembly. To do 
 this effectually it was necessary to alarm 
 the whole of Attica immediately; and the 
 natural method for this was to light bon¬ 
 fires on some of the hills near Athens, 
 which would be a signal to distant demes 
 to light fires on their own hills. A fire on 
 Lycabettus could thus give signals directly 
 and indirectly to the whole of Attica, and 
 probably this was understood as a call of 
 the citizens to a special Assembly. As 
 material for lighting signal fires might not 
 always be on hand, it is likely that the 
 dry covering of the booths struck the 
 eyes of the Prytanes as they came out of 
 their office, and that they took them in 
 their haste for this purpose. Their high au¬ 
 thority was needed to prevent resistance 
 on the part of the owners of the booths. 
 
 5. σαΧτπκτήν : to give signals with 
 his trumpet. 
 
 7. την βουλήν ίκάλουν : see Arist. 
 Pol. Ath. 44 7 , έπειδάν συναγάγωσιν οί 
 πρύτανεις την βουλήν ή τδν δήμον. 
 
124 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 βουλευτήριου, υμείς δ’ είς την εκκλησίαν επορευεσθε, καί 
 πρίν εκείνην χρηματίσαι καί προβουλευσαι πας 6 δήμος 
 
 170 άνω καθήτο. / καί μετά ταυτα ώς ήλθεν ή βουλή καί 
 απήγγειλαν οί πρύτανεις τα προσηγγελμεν εαυτοΐς καί τον 
 ή κοντά παρήγαγον κάκείνος ειπεν, ή ρώτα μεν δ κήρυξ τίς 
 άγ ο ρευειν βούλεται / παρήει δ’ ουδείς. ΐπολλάκις δε του 
 
 5 κήρυκος ερωτώντος ούδεν μάλλον ανίστατ ουδείς, άπαντων 
 μεν των στρατηγών παρόντων, άπαντων δε των ρητόρων, 
 κ αλουσης δε τή κοινή τής πατρίδος φωνή τον ερουνθ ’ υπέρ 
 σωτηρί ας^/ ήν γάρ 6 κήρυζ κατά τους νόμους φωνήν άφίησι, 
 
 171 ταυτην κοινήν τής πατρίδος δίκαιόν εστιν ήγείσθαι. καίτοι 
 εί μεν τους σωθήναι τήν πόλιν βουλομενους παρελθεΐν εδει, 
 7 τάντες αν υμείς καί οί άλλοι ’Αθηναίοι άναστάντες επί το 
 βήμ εβαδίζετε- πάντες γάρ οΐδ’ ότι σωθήναι αυτήν εβου- 
 
 8. έπορεύεσθε (αι over final e) Σ; έπορεύεσθαι Ο 1 . 9* 7r ^ s ό δήμος om. V6. 
 
 § 170 . ι. ήλθεν Σ, L, Φ, Αι. 2 ; είσήλθεν vulg. 2 . αύτοΐς Αι. 
 
 4 · ττολλάκί Υ. 6. απάντων om. Σ 1 . των om. Ο. 7 · καλουσης... 
 
 φωνή Αι. 2 ; καλ. δε τής κοινής πατρίδος φωνή Σ; τής κοινής τής πατρίδος φωνής L, 
 vulg. ; τής πατρίδος τή κοινή φωνή Σ (yp), Φ {yp), Bk., Bl. with τή κ. φωνή in f ]; τή 
 κοινή πατρίδος φωνή Vom. 8. κατά τούς νόμους om. V6. 9 · όστιν om. 
 
 F, Ο. 
 
 § 171. 4· °h5’ 6τι Σ; εΰ οΐδ ’ οτι L, vulg. ήβούλεσθε Ar, V6. 
 
 9* χρηματίοται καί ΊτροβουΧευσ-αι, 
 
 proceed ίο business and pass a vote ( προ¬ 
 βούλευμα ). 
 
 ίο. άνω καθήτο, i.e. the people in 
 their impatience were already seated in 
 the Pnyx : άνω shows that the Assembly 
 sat on a hill, probably, in the place 
 now known as the Pnyx. See xxv. 9 
 and 20, τον δήμον εις τήν εκκλησίαν άνα- 
 βαίνειν. For the identity of this famous 
 place, see Crow in Papers of the Ameri¬ 
 can School at Athens, iv. pp. 205—260. 
 
 § 170 . 1. ήλθίν ή βουλή, i.e. when, 
 
 after the adjournment of the Senate, 
 the senators entered the Assembly. The 
 common reading είσήλθεν wants the best 
 MS. authority. 
 
 2. άττήγγαλαν οι ττρυτάνίΐδ : the fifty 
 Prytanes were still the chief men in both 
 Senate and Assembly, though at this time 
 (certainly since 377 B.C ) the duty of 
 presiding in both bodies was given to nine 
 
 πρόεδροι, who were chosen by lot each 
 day from the senators of the other nine 
 tribes by the επιστάτης of the Prytanes 
 (Arist. Pol. Ath. 44 7-9 ). The πρόεδροι 
 had an επιστάτης of their own, called 
 ό επιστάτης των προέδρων (Aesch. III. 39). 
 This is the office held by Demosthenes in 
 the last meeting of the Assembly before 
 the departure of the second embassy in 
 346: see Aesch. 111. 74; Mist. § 38.— 
 τον ή κοντά, the messenger who had 
 brought the news: cf. § 28 s . 
 
 3. tis αγόρευαν βούλεται ; the regu¬ 
 lar formula for opening a debate: cf. §· 
 191 2 . Aeschines (ill. 2 and 4) laments 
 the omission of the additional words, των 
 ΐπέρ πεντήκοντα έτη yey ονότων και πάλιν 
 εν μέρει των άλλων Αθηναίων, the Solonic 
 form. 
 
 7. τον ερουνθ’ =δς έρεΐ, the man to 
 speak (Μ. T. 565): cf. § 285 s . 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 125 
 
 Xecr^e* εί Se τούς πλουσιωτάτους, ol τριακόσιοι' el δε τους 5 
 άμφότερα ταυτα, και ευνους τη πόλει και πλουσίους, οι μετά 
 ταυτα τας ρεγάλας επιδόσεις επιδόντες' καί γάρ ευνοία και 
 πλουτω τούτ’ εποίησαν. άλλ 5 ώς εοικεν, εκείνος ό καιρός 172 
 και η ήμερα 5 κείνη ου μόνον ευνουν και πλούσιον άνδρ 
 εκάλει, άλλα και παρηκολουθηκότα τοΐς πράγμασιν εξ αργής, 
 καί συλλελογισμενον όρθως τίνος ενεκα ταυτ επραττεν 6 
 Φίλιππος και τι βουλόμενος· 6 γάρ μη ταυτ ’ είδως μηδ ’ 5 
 εζητακως πόρρωθεν επιμελως, ουτ εί ευνους ην ουτ εί 
 πλούσιος, ουδέν μάλλον ημελλεν ο τι γρη ποιεΐν εΐσεσθ 
 ούδ’ ύμίν εζειν συ μ βουλευειν. εφάνην τοίνυν οΰτος εν εκείνη 173 
 286 τη ήμερα εγω, και παρελθων ειπον εις υμάς, ά μου δυοΐν 
 ενεκ ακούσατε προσσγόντες τον νουν, ενός μεν, ίν είδητε 
 ότι μόνος των λεγόντων καί πολιτευόμενων εγω την της 
 
 7· έπιδιδόντες Α·2. 8. ταΟτ’ V6. 
 
 § 172. 3 · έξ άρχης (repeated before όρθώς, 1 . 4) Σ, L; erased in 1 . 4 in Σ, in 1 . 3 
 
 in L. 5. μηδ’ Σ, L, Ar ; μητ vulg. 6. πόρρωθεν Σ 1 ; πόρρ. επιμελως Σ 2 , 
 
 L, vulg. el (before ευνους) om. B. 7. εϊσεσθε (at above) Σ ; 'έσεσθαι O. 
 
 § 173. 1 . ούτως L; om. O. 2. προς (above εις) B. ημάς Ο. άμα 
 
 (for ά μου) B. 3. προσσχόντες Φ, Bk., Dind., Lips., Bl.; προσχόντες Σ, L, 
 
 Vom., West.; προσέχοντες vulg. 
 
 § 171 . 5. οί τριακόσ-ιοι, the Three 
 
 Hundred’, see note on § 103 3 . 
 
 6. άμφότερα ταυτα : see note on 
 § 139 11 . 
 
 7. Tas μ€·γά\α8 έιτιδόσ-ει^, the large 
 
 contributions, made after the battle of 
 Chaeronea (Hist. § 80): μετά ταυτα refers 
 to the events which ended in that battle. 
 
 § 172. 3. τταρηκολουθηκότα, one 
 
 who had followed the track of events. 
 See xix. 257 (end), and Ev. Luc. i. 3 
 παρηκολουθηκότι άνωθεν πάσιν ακριβώς 
 (with άνωθεν here cf. πόρρωθεν in 1. 6, 
 below). 
 
 7. ούδεν...εί'σ-εσ·θαι, i.e. was none the 
 more likely to know. I retain ημελλεν 
 here and in § 192 4 , and Ζμελλον in § 101 4 , 
 with the best mss. and most editors. 
 Cf. XIX. 159, ου συστρατεύσειν Ζμελλον 
 (so the best MSS.), lit. they were not going 
 to join him (in that case): so hoc facturi 
 erant, nisi venisset (Μ. T. 428). 
 
 § 173. 1. o5tos, that man, whom 
 
 ό καιρός...εκάλει. (§ 172 1 ): cf. § 282 s , 06- 
 ros ευρέθης. 
 
 2. ά...άκοΰσ·ατ€ : relative as obj. of 
 imperative, as we say which do at your 
 peril. For this in οίσθ' δ δράσον; and 
 similar expressions, see Μ. T. 253, and 
 Postgate in Trans, of Cambr. Philol. Soc. 
 in. 1, pp. 50—55. 
 
 3. irpocrcr)( 0 vT€s τον νουν, attentively , 
 cf. animum advertere. 
 
 4. την. . .HXiTTOv, I did not desert my 
 post of devotion to the state, i. e. I was 
 never guilty of λιποταξία here. This 
 military figure was a favourite of De¬ 
 mosthenes. See III. 36, μη παραχωρείν 
 της τάξεως ην ύμΐν οι πρόγονοι της αρετής... 
 κατέλιπον (see Westermann’s note); XV. 
 32, 33 (with the figure often repeated); 
 XIX. 9, 29; XXI. 120, λελοιπέναι την του 
 δικαίου τάξιν. The same figure is seen in 
 έξηταξόμην (1. 6), in εξητασαι (§ 197 9 ), 
 έξητάζετο (§ 217 6 ), έξεταξ’ομένην υπέρ υμών 
 (§ 2 77 ΰ )> and i n έξέτασις, a mustering (as 
 
126 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 5 ευνοίας τάζιν εν τοΐς όεινοΐς ούκ εΧιπον, αΧΧα και Χεγων και 
 γραφών εξηταζόμην τα όεονθ' υπέρ υμών εν αυτοΐς τοΐς 
 φοβεροΐς, ετερου δε, ότι μικρόν άναΧώσαντες χρόνον ποΧΧω 
 προς τα Χοιπα της πάσης ποΧιτειας εσεσθ εμπειρότεροι. 
 Έίπον τοίννν ότι 
 
 “Τους μεν ώς υπαρχόντων Θηβαίων ΦιΧίππω Χίαν θορυ¬ 
 βούμενους άγνοεΐν τα παρόντα πράγμαθ * ηγούμαι * ευ γαρ 
 οίδ’ ότι, εί τουθ * ούτως ετυγχανεν όχον, ουκ αν αυτόν 
 5 ηκουομεν εν ’Ελατεια όντα, αΧΧ επι τοΐς ημετεροις οριοις. 
 ότι μεντοι ίν έτοιμα ποιησηται τα εν ®ηβαις ήκει, σαφώς 
 175 επίσταμαι. ως δ’ εχει ’ εφην “ ταυτα, ακούσατε μου. εκείνος 
 όσους η πεΐσαι χρημασι %ηβαίων η εζαπατησαι ενην, 
 απαντας ευτρεπισταί' τούς δ’ απ’ αρχής άνθεστηκότας αυτω 
 
 5· έξέλιπον V6. 6. ημών Ο. 8. της πάσης άλλης πολιτ. Αί; ττάσης της 
 
 7τολ. Φ; της 7τολ. V6. 
 
 § 174 . 2. των Θηβαίων A?, Β (corr.). φίλων Θηβαίων L; Φιλίππω φίλων Α\; 
 
 φίλων Φιλίππω vulg. ; φίλων om. Σ. 3 · (f° r 7<*ρ) V6. 5 · ^ )Ι/τα Αι. 
 
 6. 7τ οιησητε Σ (αι over e), L (re erased), Ο. τά ev θηβαις Σ, Ai, B (mg.) ; τά er 
 θηβαίοις vulg. ; θήκαις (for θηβαις) L 1 . 7. ταΟτα Σ; ταΟτα έφην vulg., Bl. 
 
 § 175 . 3. εύτρέπισται Σ, L 1 ; ηύτρέπισε O (mg.). 
 
 of troops), a call for(§§ 31ο 2 , 320 9 ). Here 
 there is always an idea of being counted 
 in on one side or the other of some con¬ 
 test. 
 
 See Jackson’s note on divot.a in Trans, 
 of Cambr. Philol. Soc. II. p. 115, where 
 he explains the word in Arist. Pol. 1. 6 
 (i255 a , 17) as “loyalty, i.e. the willing 
 obedience which an inferior renders to a 
 kind and considerate superior.” He re¬ 
 fers to Xen. Oec. vn. 37, ix. 5, 12, xn. 
 5—8, xv. 5, Hdt. v. 24, Polus Pythag. in 
 Stob. Flor. IX. 54 (Mein.), οίκετάν δέ ττοτί 
 δεσπότας εϋνοια, δεσττοτάν δέ ττοτί θερά- 
 7 τοντας καδεμονία, and other passages, 
 especially Arist. Eth. IX. 5, §§ 3, 4, δλως 
 δ’ εύνοια δι’ άρετην καί επιείκειάν τινα 
 "γίνεται, δταν τιρ φανη καλός τις η ανδρείος 
 η τι τοιοΰτον. These examples show that 
 εύνοια may mean devotion based on any 
 superiority or merit, including loyalty of 
 a subject to a prince or of a servant to his 
 master (even of a dog to his mistress), 
 devotion to a benefactor, and even en¬ 
 thusiasm for the success of a contestant 
 
 in the games (felt even by a stranger). 
 
 Above it means a good citizen’s loyal 
 devotion to the state. 
 
 3. λεγων. . ,ίξηταξόμην (see last note), 
 I was foziTid ready (at my post), when 
 the test came, speaking and proposing 
 fneastires. See West, and Bl. Fox 
 (p. 162) thinks that the military figure 
 may refer to the charge of λιποταξία 
 at Chaeronea, which Aeschines repeat¬ 
 edly makes against Demosthenes: see 
 Aesch. 152, 159, 175, 176, 244, 253. 
 
 7. ττοΧλω ... ep/impoTipoi, far more 
 experienced for the future■ in the whole 
 administration of the state ( πολιτείας ). 
 
 § 174. i. etirov on: introducing a 
 direct quotation (M.T. 711). 
 
 2. ώς. . .ΦολίτΓττω, in the belief {ως) 
 that Philip can depend on the Thebans'. 
 cf. §§ 95 4 * 6 * * , 2 28 2 . — θορυβούμενος, dis¬ 
 
 turbed: cf. θορύβου, § 169°. 
 
 6. ΐνα...· 7 Γθΐη<Γηται, i.e. to prepare 
 
 Thebes for his appearance there as a 
 
 friend : cf. εύτρέπισται (i.e. εύτρεπεΐς 
 
 πεποίηται), § ι 7 5 3 . 
 
ttfei tut 
 
 >ΜΜΆΟΙΜΙ§Κί 
 
 12 7 
 
 /cal εναντιουμένους ούδ αμώς πέίσαι Swaraj τί ow 
 
 βούλεται, καί τίνος είνεκα την Έλάτβ ιαν κατείληφεν ; πλησίον 
 δύναμιν δείξας καί παραστησας τα όπλα τους μεν εαυτόν 
 φίλους επάραι καί θρασείς ποιησαι, τους δ’ εναντίου μένους 
 καταπληξαι, ίν η συγχωρησωσι φοβηθέντες α νυν ούκ 
 εθέλουσιν, η βιασθω σιν.) εί μεν τοίνυν προαιρησόμεθ * 
 ημεΐς” έφην “εν τω παρόντι, εί τι δύσκολον πέπρακται 
 θηβαίοις προς ημάς, τούτου μεμνησθαι καί άπιστείν αύτοίς 
 ώς εν τη των εχθρών ούσ ι μερίδι, πρώτον μεν αν εύζαιτο 
 Φίλιππο? ποιησομεν, εΐτα φοβούμαι μη προσδεζαμένων των 
 287 νυν άνθεστηκότων αύτω καί μια γνώμη πάντων φιλιππι- 
 σάντων, εις την ’Αττικήν έλθωσιν άμφότε ροι .J αν μέντοι 
 πεισθητ έμοι και προς τω σκοπείν άλλα μη φιλονεικειν 
 περί ών αν λέγω γένησθε, οίμαι καί τα δέοντα λέγειν δόξειν 
 
 
 
 
 
 176 
 
 5· εϊνεκα Σ, L (cf. §§ 12ο * * * * * 7 , 144 2 )· ένα πλησίον Σ, L 1 , Φ, Vom.; ϊνα om. vulg. 
 6. αύτοΰ V6. 7· enapai Σ ; έπάραι (as opt. w. ϊνα) L; έπαραι vulg. ποιησαι 
 
 Σ, L, vulg.; έπ. και θρασ. π οι. Σ, L, Αι. 2; θρασ. ποι. και έπ. vulg. 8. κατα- 
 πληξαι om. Σ 1 (added below the line). 
 
 § 176. ι. τοίνυν Σ; ούν L, vulg. προαιρηθησόμεθα Ο, V6. 3· νμά$ V6. 
 
 4· α αν MSS. ; αν Vom., West., Β1. εϋξετο (αι over e) Σ. 6. αύτω 
 
 (-ον over -ιρ) Β. πάντων om. Α2. 8. πεισθητ’ έμοι L ; πεισθητεμοι Σ ; 
 
 πεισθητέ μοι vulg. φιλονικεΐν Ο. g. 7 ενήσεσθε Υ, Φ. τα (before δέοντα) om. L. 
 
 § 175. 5· ίΐνίκα: see note on § 12ο 7 . 
 
 —πλησίον δύναμιν 8ei|as, by making a 
 
 display of force in their neighbourhood , 
 
 Elatea being near enough to Thebes to 
 
 make Philip’s presence there alarming. 
 
 7. εττάραι (cf. έπ αρθείς , § i68 2 ), with 
 ποιησαι and καταπληξαι, depends on 
 βούλεται understood, this answering τί 
 βούλεται; as the following ϊν’ ...βιασθωσιν 
 answers τίνο$ ένεκα; 
 
 § 176. i. el μέν ... προαιρησόμεθ’ : 
 this most vivid form of future supposition 
 here expresses what the orator wishes 
 to make especially prominent by way 
 of warning and admonition, though it 
 happens that this is not w 7 hat he wishes 
 or what actually occurs. It is an ex¬ 
 cellent case of Gildersleeve’s “minatory 
 and monitory conditions” (see Trans, of 
 Amer. Philol. Assoc, for 1876, p. 13, and 
 
 M.T. 447, with footnote). On the other 
 hand, hv μέντοι πεισθητ’ έμοι (7) happens 
 to express what he most desires and what 
 actually occurs. This example shows the 
 mistake of supposing that the indicative 
 in protasis expresses more “reality” than 
 the subjunctive. Compare the antithesis 
 of subjunctive and optative in §§ 147, 148, 
 with notes. 
 
 2. δυσκολον, unpleasant , euphemistic: 
 cf. § 189 6 . 
 
 4. (os εν... μερίδι, looking at them (Cos) 
 in the light of enemies (M.T. 864): cf. 
 § 292 s and III. 31, έν υπηρέτου...μέρει. 
 
 6. μια γνώμη, uno consensu. 
 
 7 . άμφότεροι, Thebans and Philip. 
 
 8. Trpos τω σκοπείν... γενησθε, devote 
 yourselves to considering', cf. viii. 11, π pos 
 rols πρά'γμασι yiyvea0ai. 
 
 9. δό£ειν...διαλύσειν : sc. έμέ. 
 
£28 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 ^ ^ ^ / / / 9 
 
 177 καί τον εφεστηκοτα κίνδυνον τη 7 τόλει δίαλύσειν. τι οϋν 
 
 . \ ο, λ \ \ /» , (^ 5 ^-<ώΛ))/- 4 Λ 1 ' Γ) 'S' 
 
 , /r ,^ L φημι be ιν; πρώτον μεν τον παροντ επανειναι φοβον, ειτα 
 μεταθεσθαι καί φοβεΐσθαι πάντας ύπερ Θηβαίων πολύ yap 
 των δεινών είσιν ημών εγγυτερω, καί προτέροις αύτοΐς εστιν 
 5 ό κίνδυνος' επειτ εξελθόντας ’Έιλευσΐνάδε τους εν ηλικία 
 καί τους Ιππέας δεΐξαι πάσιν υμάς αυτούς εν τοΐς δπλοις 
 όντας, ίνα τοΐς εν Θηβαις φρονούσί τα υμετερ εξ ίσου 
 γενηταυ το παρρησιάζεσθαι περί των δικαίων, Ιδουσιν οτι, 
 ώσπερ τοΐς πώλου σι Φιλίππω την πατρίδα πάρεσθ' η βοη- 
 ιο θησουσα δύναμις εν Έλατβία, ουτω τοΐς υπέρ της ελευθερίας 
 άγωνίζεσθαι βουλομενρις ύπάργεθ ’ υμείς ετοίμου καί βοηθή- 
 
 178 (τετ εάν τις επ' αυτουςΎη . j μετά ταυτα γειροτονησαι κελεύω 
 δέκα πρέσβεις, καί ποιησαι τούτους^ κυρίους μετά των 
 
 ίο. τη πδλει κίνδυνον Β. 
 
 § 177 . ι. τί οΰν φημι.; δείν πρώτον vulg. 7 . δείν om. V6. 4. ημών Σ, 
 
 Φ {yp), Αι ; ύμων V6; om. L, vulg. έστιν Σ, Φ {yp); έσθ' Αι; om. L, vulg. 
 
 5. Έλε υσίναδε Σ; ΈλβυσΓ ναδε L 1 . 6. ημάς Α 2 . η. ήμέτερα Αι, Σ 
 
 (corr. from ύμ-?). 8. παρρησιάζεσθαι Σ, -αι by corr. from e (?), as in επανείναι (7) 
 
 and μεταθέσθαι (3). ιδουσιν Σ, L, V6; είδόσιν vulg.; είδουσιν Ar, Y, Φ. 
 
 9. παρέστη ή A7. II. βοηθησητεΣ; om. L. 12. εάν Σ, L; av vulg. 
 
 § 178. ι. κελεύω O (only in mg.). 2. κατά των V6. 
 
 10. τον...τη ττόλίΐ: for this order of 
 words see §§ 19ο 2 , 197 8 , 22ο 3 ; VIII. 21, 
 xxi. 63, xxv. 40 ; and for the common 
 order §§ 179 6 , 188 4 . See West., who 
 notices “ die so passend gewahlten Com- 
 posita,” έφ-εστηκότα and δια-λύσειν. 
 
 § 177. 3· [ΐεταθίσθαι, to turn about, 
 
 explained by φοβεΐσθαι ύπερ Θηβαίων. 
 
 4· ημών and Ιστιν are omitted by 
 West, and Bl., though they are found 
 in Σ. They are not needed. 
 
 5. Έλ€υσ-ΐνάδ€, to the plain of 
 Eleusis, “ but no further, lest a friendly 
 demonstration should pass for a menace 
 at Thebes” (Simcox). See note on 
 § 178 s . This was a convenient place 
 for the army to encamp, and they would 
 be within an easy march of Thebes. The 
 mountain road to Thebes by Phyle was 
 more direct, but rougher and with no 
 good camping place.— tovs 4 v ηλικία : 
 this term properly included all citizens 
 between 18 and 60: see Arist. Pol. Ath. 
 
 42, 4—6 and 34—37. But those between 
 18 and 20 always remained at home as 
 φρουροί ; while those between 50 and 60 
 were not regularly called into service 
 and served as διαιτηταί, or public arbiters 
 (Arist. Pol. Ath. 53, 20—37). Here the 
 1000 ιππείς are excluded from oi εν ήλικίςι. 
 See also Lycurg. 39: αί δ' ελπίδες της 
 σωτηρίας τφ δήμιρ εν τοίς υπέρ πεντηκοντα 
 ’έτη yεyovόσι καθειστήκεσαν, i.e. when the 
 news of the defeat at Chaeronea came, 
 showing that those above fifty were not 
 in the battle. 
 
 7. tf; ίσου, on an equality with Philip’s 
 friends. 
 
 9. TOis ττωλουσΊ, to those who would 
 sell (conative): M.T. 25. 
 
 11. ύττάρχίΟ’ έτοιμοι, you are ready 
 
 at hand. 
 
 § 178. 2. ΊΓΟίήσ-αι... στρατηγών, i.e. 
 
 to give the envoys (by decree) concurrent 
 authority with the board of generals. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 129 
 
 στρατηγών καί τον πότ€ δέί βαδίζβιν e/cetcre καί της έξόδου. 
 επειδά ν δ’ έλθωσιν οί πρέσβεις εις ®ήβας, πως χρησασθαι 
 τω πράγματι παραινώ ; τουτω πάνν μοι προσέχετε τον νουν. 5 
 μη δεΐσθαι Θηβαίων μηδέν (αισχρός γάρ δ καιρός ), άλλ’ 
 επαγγέλλεσθαι βοηθησειν αν κελενωσιν, ώ? εκείνων δντων 
 εν τοΐς εσχάτοις, ημών δ’ άμεινον η ’κείνοι προορωμένων 
 ιν εάν μεν δέζωνται ταντα καί πεισθωσιν ημΐν, καί ά 
 288 βονλόμεθ ’ ωμεν διωκημένοι καί μετά προσχήματος άξιου ίο 
 της πόλεως ταΰτα πράξωμεν, αν δ’ άρα μη συμβη κατατυχεΐν, 
 
 3 · δει βαδίζειν έκεΐσε Σ, L, Αι ; εκ. δει βαδ. Ο ; δει εκ. βαδ. vulg. 4· χρησασθαι 
 Σ, L, Αι ; χρήσεσθαι F, Ο ; χρήσεσθε vulg. 5* παραινώ· τούτφ Σ, L, Β, V6 ; τούτιρ 
 ■παραινώ ' πάνν vulg. προσέσχετε ( σ erased) Σ. 6. δεΐσθαι Σ (w. + over αι), 
 
 L, F, Φ, Ο ; δεΐσθε vulg. J. επα~γ*γέ\\εσθαι Σ, L, F, Φ ; επαΎ~γέ\λεσθε Αι ; 
 
 iwayy είλασθε vulg. αν Σ, L; εάν vulg. εκείνων μεν Αΐ; εκειν δντων L. 
 
 8. εσχάτοις Σ, L; εσχ. κινδύνοις vulg. κείνοι Σ, L 1 , Φ; εκείνοι Αι, Β 2 ; κείνων L 2 ; 
 έκείνων F, Β 1 . το μέλλον before προορωμένων L, vulg.; om. Σ; after προορ. Σ (y ρ). 
 ίο. βουλώμεθα Σ. σχήματος Αι. ιι. aV Σ, L; εάν vulg. κατά 
 
 3· ττότε. .. 6K€io"€ ; this question is made 
 a genitive with του. The subject of 
 βαδίζειν is υμάς, the Athenian army 
 (West, makes it πρέσβεις). The embassy 
 probably departed for Thebes at once, so 
 as to lose no time in securing the confidence 
 of the Thebans; but the army could not 
 march further than Eleusis until it was 
 invited by Thebes to cross her frontier. 
 This was done in due time (§ 215 1 ), after 
 negotiations at Thebes (§§ 21 1—214). 
 To facilitate this movement when the 
 summons should come, the people were 
 asked to empower the embassy at Thebes, 
 in concurrence with the generals at 
 Eleusis, to order a march to Thebes at 
 any moment, and to decide all questions 
 about the march itself (τής εξόδου) . 
 
 4· χρησαοτθαι τω -πράγματι, to manage 
 the (diplomatic) business. 
 
 5. τούτω.,.νοΰν : this special call for 
 close attention was made to excite the 
 audience with the expectation of hearing 
 just what the embassy was to ask of the 
 Thebans, and to impress them the more 
 by the unexpected answer, μή δεΐσθαι 
 Θηβαίων μηδέν. It was indeed an un¬ 
 heard of thing for an embassy to be 
 sent to a semi-hostile state in such an 
 emergency, with no demands or even 
 
 G. D. 
 
 requests, but with an unconditional offer 
 of military help whenever it might be 
 asked for. Aeschines does not fail to mis¬ 
 represent this noble act of Demosthenes, 
 and to criticise the course of the embassy: 
 see III. 145, τδ βουλευτήριον το τής πόλεως 
 και τήν δημοκρατίαν άρδην ’έλαθεν ΰφελό- 
 μενος , και μετήvεyκεv εις Θήβας εις τήν 
 Καδμείαν. 
 
 8. ημών...-προορωμένων (also with cos) , 
 on the ground that we foresee (the course 
 of events) better than they (το μέλλον is 
 omitted with Σ) : cf. τό μή δύνασθαι 
 προοράν, Plat. Theaet. 166 a. 
 
 9. ϊν’..,ώμεν διωκημενοι, that we may 
 (in that case) have accomplished what we 
 wish : the perfect subjunctive here and in 
 1. 13 (ή πεπpayμέvov) expresses future- 
 perfect time, in contrast to the simple 
 future time of πράξωμεν and έyκaλώσιv 
 (M.T. 103). 
 
 10. -προσ·χηματο8, ground of action : 
 πρόσχημα is what appears on the outside, 
 which may be either mere show or (as 
 here) an honest exhibition of the truth. 
 Cf. the double meaning of πρόφασις, 
 ground of action or pretext ; and see 
 πρόθυρα and σχήμα in Plat. Rep. 365 C. 
 
 11. κατατυχεΐν, to succeed(= έπιτυχεΐν, 
 Hesych.), acc. to Bl., is not elsewhere 
 
 9 
 
 I 
 
130 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 179 
 
 5 
 
 180 
 
 €Κ€ΐνοι μεν αύτοϊς εγκαλώσιν av τι νυν ε^αμαρτανωσιν, ημίν 
 δε μηδέν οίστρον μηδε ταπεινόν η πεπραγμενον.” 
 
 Ύαύτα καί παραπλήσια τούτοις είπων κατεβην. συνε- 
 παινεσάντων δε πάντων καί ούδενος είπδντος ενάντιον ούδεν, 
 ούκ εΐπον μεν ταντα ούκ έγραψα δε, ούδ ’ έγραψα μεν ούκ 
 επρεσβενσα δε, ούδ * επρεσβενσα μεν ονκ επεισα δε Θηβαίους, 
 άλλ’ από της αρχής άχρι της τελευτής διεξηλθον, καί εδωκ 
 εμαυτον ύμΐν απλώς εις τούς περιεστηκότας τη πόλει κίνδυ¬ 
 νους. καί jjoi^ ψερε το ψήφισμα το τότε γενόμενον. 
 
 Καίτοιτινα βούλει σε, Αισχίνη, καί τίνα εμαυτον εκείνην 
 
 τύχην Α·2, F; καί κατατυχεϊν Β (yp) ; κατατύχην L 1 (w. y ρ άτυχεΐν above), Β 1 ; 
 κατατυχεϊν LA 12. avrois 2, L; eavTOis vulg. εάν \'6. έζαμαρτανωσιν 2, L; 
 έξαμάρτωσιν vulg. ύμΐν Α2. Ι3· μηδε ταπεινόν om. V6. 
 
 * § 179 . 5· άρχν* 5ta πάντων L, vulg.; διά πάντων om. 2 1 . 6. ύμΐν 
 
 om. Αι. 
 
 § 180 . ι. σε L ; σε vulg. ώ Αίσχ. Αι. 
 
 found in classic writers; but κατατι/γχά- 
 νειν occurs in Arist. Pol. iv. (vn.) ii, i, 
 in a similar sense. 
 
 12. aviTois €γκα\ώ<τιν, may have them¬ 
 selves to blame. 
 
 13. η ττ€ΐτρα·γμ€νον : see note on 1. 9. 
 
 § 179. 1. καί τΓαραίΓλήσ-ι,α : we 
 
 have here only a single passage of what 
 must have been one of the most eloquent 
 speeches of Demosthenes. 
 
 3. ούκ ciirov μέν-.-Θηβαίουξ : a most 
 famous example of climax ( κλΐμαξ , ladder ), 
 in which the antitheses of μεν and δε give 
 a wonderful effect. Each of the three 
 leading negatives (ούκ, ούδ’, ούδ’) intro¬ 
 duces a pair of clauses of which the 
 second is negative, and which as a whole 
 it negatives. Thus the first oil/c negatives 
 the compound idea, I spoke, but proposed 
 no measures ; then the positive conclusion 
 thus attained, I did propose measures, is 
 taken as an assumption in the next step. 
 Without the help of μεν and δέ the mixture 
 of negatives would have made hopeless 
 confusion. Quintilian (ix. 3, 55) thus 
 translates the passage, skilfully using 
 quidem for μέν and sed for δέ : non enim 
 dixi quidem sed non scripsi, nec scripsi 
 quidem sed non obit legationem, nec obii 
 quidem sed non persuasi Thebanis. 
 
 6. airXtos, without reserve, absolutely. 
 —Tovs...Ktv8vvovs : for the order see note 
 on § 176 10 . 
 
 7. το ψήφισμα...γ£νόμ€νον: cf. Aesch. 
 III. 25, 7 rplv η τον Έίγήμονοϊ νόμον yεvέσθa^, 
 and II. 160, ποιον (νόμον) yεvέσθaι κωλύσας. 
 
 § 180 . While the clerk is preparing 
 to read the decree, the orator interrupts 
 his argument and (as frequently happens 
 in such cases) amuses the audience by a 
 few jokes at his opponent’s expense. 
 
 1. τίνα βοΰΧίΐ.,.θώ ; (M.T. 287), 2vhom 
 will you that I shall suppose you, and 
 whom 7 ?iyself, to have been on that day ? 
 είναι is imperfect infinitive ( = ησθα) with 
 θω, which in this sense takes the infinitive 
 of indirect discourse : cf. Aesch. III. 163, 
 βούλει σε θω φοβηθηναι ; We see from 
 Plat. Rep. 372 E, εί βούλεσθε και φλεχμαί- 
 νουσαν πόλιν θεωρτ/σωμεν, that βούλει or 
 βούλεσθε was the principal verb in this 
 construction, and not parenthetical (like 
 κελεύετε in εϊπω κελεύετε καί ούκ όpyιεΐσθε; 
 Dem. ιχ. 46), though it may have been 
 the reverse when such expressions were 
 first used. We have, in fact, a parataxis 
 of two independent sentences, not yet 
 quite developed into a leading and a 
 dependent sentence, like cave facias, 
 visne hoc videa?nus ? etc. So soon as the 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 Γ 3 1 
 
 την ημέραν είναι θώ; βουλει εμαυτον μεν , ον αν συ λοιδο- 
 ρουμενος καί διασυρων καλέσαις, Βάτταλορ, σε δε μηδ ’ ηρω 
 τον τυχόντα, άλλα τούτων τινά των από της σκηνης, Κ ρε- 
 σφόντην η Κρέοντα η ον εν Κ ολλυτω ποτ Οίνόμαον κακώς $ 
 επέτριφας; τότε τοίνυν κατ’ εκείνον τον καιρόν 6 ΤΙαιανιευς 
 εγω Β άτταλος Οινομάου του Κ,οθωκίδου σου πλείονος ά 
 ων εφάνην τη πατρίδι. συ μεν γε ούδέν ούδαμου χρήσιμος 
 
 2 . λυδορούμενος (οι over υ) Σ. 3· Β άτταλον Σ (but Βάταλο? 1. 7) > Βάταλον (ττ 
 by corr.) and Βάταλο? L; Βάτ. vulg. ηρώα (a erased) Σ; ηρω (α over ω) L; 
 
 ήροα Ο; ηρω Αι. 5· κακός κακώς Α2 ; καί κακώς Υ ; ύποκρινόμενος (after κακώς) 
 vulg·, om. Σ 1 . 7· ^7^ om · Α2. Β άτταλος, see 1. 3 · 8. σοι (for σι>) Αι. 
 
 language allowed a conjunction to connect 
 the subjunctive to βούλει (or θέλεις), we 
 find, for example, θέλετε εϊπω ; developed 
 into θέλετε ΐνα εϊπω ; as in the New 
 Testament: from this comes the modern 
 θέλετε να εϊττω; and perhaps the common 
 future θα ( = θέλετε vac) εϊττω, I shall 
 say. 
 
 2. βούλει έμαυτόν: sc. θω είναι ; — ον 
 ...καΧέοταις, i.e. as you would, call me, 
 etc. 
 
 3. ΒάτταΧον: this nickname of De¬ 
 mosthenes, which the orator said was 
 given him by his nurse (Aesch. 1. 126), 
 probably referred to his lean and sickly 
 look in childhood and youth; and the 
 attempts of Aeschines to give it an 
 opprobrious or even obscene meaning 
 (as in I. r31) are probably mere jibes. 
 See Plut. Dem. 4, which gives the most 
 •explicit account.— μηδ 5 ηρω τον τυχόντα, 
 not even a hero of the covimon kind : see 
 note on ων έτυχεν, § 130k * 
 
 4. άλλα ... σκηνήξ, but one of those 
 (great) heroes of the stage. — Κρεσ-φόντην, 
 in the Cresphontes of Euripides, in which 
 Merope has the chief part: cf. Arist. Eth. 
 hi. 1, 17. 
 
 5. Κρεοντα : Aeschines played Creon 
 in the Antigone of Sophocles as τριταγω¬ 
 νιστής·. see XIX. 247, εν απασι τοΐς δράμασι 
 rots τραχικοίις έζαίρετόν έστιν ωσττερ "γέρας 
 τοΐς τριτα"γωνισταΐς τδ τούς τυράννους και 
 τούς τα σκήπτρα ’έχοντας είσιέναι. — Οίνό¬ 
 
 μαον: i.e. this part in the Oenomaus of 
 Sophocles, which represented the chariot- 
 race of Pelops and Oenomaus, by which 
 Pelops won the hand of Hippodameia. 
 This was the subject of one of the pedi¬ 
 ment-groups of the temple of Zeus at 
 Olympia.— κακώ$ εττε'τριψας, you wretch¬ 
 edly murdered (as we say of a bad actor): 
 the object 6 v may be understood of either 
 Oenomaus himself or the part. The 
 anonymous life of Aeschines (7) gives a 
 story, told by Demochares, a nephew of 
 Demosthenes, that Aeschines fell on the 
 stage in acting this part: ύποκρινόμενον 
 Οίνόμαον διώκοντα ΙΙέλοπα αίσχρως πεσεϊν. 
 As Oenomaus was finally killed, there 
 is probably a double meaning in κακώς 
 έπέτριψας. See Hor. Sat. I. 10, 36: 
 turgidus Alpinus iugulat dum Memnona, 
 with Dissen’s note, “ cuius caedem ille 
 miseris versiculis narravit.” In the deme 
 of Collytus dramas were performed at the 
 Lesser (or country) Dionysia : εκ Κ ολλυτιρ 
 is an additional slur on the tragic perform¬ 
 ance of Aeschines. See Aesch. 1. 157, 
 πρώην εν τοΐς κατ’ άχρούς Διονυσίοις κω- 
 μιρδών δντων εν Κ ολλυτέρ. See ’Αρουραΐος 
 Οίνόμαος, § 24·2 5 . 
 
 6. τότε refers generally to time; κατ 
 εκείνον τον καιρόν to a critical moment. 
 
 7. Οινομάου του Κοθωκίδου : Aeschi¬ 
 nes was of the deme Κ οθωκίδαι. The 
 order is chiastic with ncucmevs Βάτταλο?. 
 
 9—2 
 
132 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 ήσθα · εγώ δε πάνθ' όσα προσήκε τον αγαθόν πολίτην 
 επραττον. λεγε το ψήφισμά μου. 
 
 ΨΉΦΙΣΜΑ ΔΗΜΟ 20 ΕΝΟΤ 2 . 
 
 [Έ7 τί άρχοντος Ν αυσικΧεους, φυΧής πρυτανευούσης ΑίαντίΒος, 
 σκιροφοριωνος έκτη επί Βεκα, Δημοσθένης Αημοσθενους ΤΙαιανιεύς 
 εϊπεν, επειΒή ΦίΧιππος 6 ΑΙακεΒόνων βασιΧεύς εν τε τω παρεΧη- 289 
 Χυθότι χρόνω ί ταραβαίνων φαίνεται τάς γεγενημενας αύτω συνθήκας 
 5 προς τον ’Αθηναίων Βήμον περί τής ειρήνης, ύπεριΒων τούς όρκους 
 καί τα παρά πάσι τοΐς'ΈίΧΧησι νομιζόμενα είναι Βίκαια, καί πόΧεις 
 παραιρεΐται ούΒεν αύτω προσήκουσας, τινάς Βε καί ’Αθηναίων 
 ούσας ΒοριαΧωτους πεποίηκεν ούΒεν προαΒικηθείς υπό τού Βήμου 
 τού ’ Αθηναίων, εν τε τω παρόντι επί ποΧύ προάγει τη τε βία καί 
 τή ωμότητι' καί jap 'ΈϊΧΧηνίΒας πόΧεις άς μεν εμφρούρους ποιεί 
 καί τάς πόΧιτείας καταΧυει, τινάς Βε καί εξανΒραποΒιζόμένος 
 κατασκάπτει, εις ενίας Βε καί αντί 'ΈίΧΧηνων βαρβάρους κατοικίζει 
 επί τά ιερά καί τούς τάφους επάγων, ούΒεν άΧΧότριον ποιων ούτε 
 5 τής εαυτού πατρίΒος ούτε τού τρόπου, καί τή νύν αύτω παρούση 
 τύχη κατακόρως χρώμενος, επιΧεΧησμενος εαυτού ότι εκ μικρού 
 και τού τυχόντος γεγονεν άνεΧπίστως μεγας. καί εως μεν πόΧεις 
 εώρα παραιρούμενον αυτόν βαρβάρους καί ΙΒίας, ύπέΧάμβανεν 
 εΧαττον είναι 6 Βήμος 6 Αθηναίων τό εις αυτόν πΧημμεΧεΐσθαΐ' 
 νύν Βε όρων 'ΈιΧΧηνίΒας πόΧεις τάς μεν ύβριζομενας, τάς δε άνα- 
 5 στάτους γιγνομενας, Βεινόν ηγείται είναι καί ανάξιον τής των 
 προγόνων Βόξης τό περιοράν τούς r/ ΈΑΧηνας καταΒουΧουμένους. 
 
 184 Βιό ΒεΒόχθαι τή βουΧή καί τω Βήμω τω Αθηναίων, ενξαμενους καί 
 θύσαντας τοϊς θεοϊς καί ήρωσι τοΐς κατεχουσι την πόΧιν καί την 
 
 9· δ’ ’άπαντα Αΐ. 
 om. vulg. 
 
 a (for ό'σα) Αι. 10. h τραττον om. Y. μοι Σ, L, Ai ; 
 
 §§ 181—187 contain the spurious “de¬ 
 cree of Demosthenes.” Its date, the 16th 
 of Scirophorion (June or July), brought 
 hopeless confusion into the chronology of 
 the campaign before Chaeronea. See 
 Clinton, Fast. Hellen. 11. under 338 B.C., 
 and his attempt to reconcile impossible 
 dates in Appendix xvi. The real decree 
 was passed in the autumn or early winter 
 of 339 — 338 B.C., the year of the Archon 
 Lysimachides. The style of the docu¬ 
 ment is a ridiculous parody of that of 
 
 Demosthenes (see § 182), and its length 
 was perhaps suggested by the remark of 
 Aeschines (ill. 100) on another decree of 
 Demosthenes, ψήφισμα μακρότερον τή s 
 Ίλιάδο*. Lord Brougham’s remarks on 
 this document, written of course in full 
 faith in its genuineness, are now interest¬ 
 ing. He says (p. 181): “The style of 
 this piece is full of dignity, and the diction 
 perfectly simple as well as chaste, with 
 the solemnity of a State paper, but with¬ 
 out the wordiness or technicality.” 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 1 33 
 
 χώραν την 'Αθηναίων, καί ενθυμηθεντας τής των προγόνων αρετής, 
 
 29° διότι περί ί τΧείονος εποιούντο την των ' \ύΧΧήνων εΧευθερίαν διατη- 
 ρεΐν ή την Ιδίαν ττατρίδα, διακοσίας ναύς καθεΧκειν εις την θάΧατταν 5 
 καί τον ναύαρχον άναττΧεϊν εντός ΤίυΧών, καί τον στρατηγόν καί 
 τον ίππαρχον τ ας πεζάς καί τας Ιττί τικάς δυνάμεις ’ ΚΧευσΐνάδε 
 εξάγειν, ιτεμψαι δε καί πρέσβεις προς τούς αΧΧους "ΚΧΧηνας, 
 πρώτον δε πάντων προς Θηβαίους διά τό εγγυτάτω είναι τον 
 ΦίΧιππον τής εκείνων χώρας, πα ρακαΧεϊν δε αυτούς μηδέν κατα- 185 
 7 τΧαγεντας τον ΦίΧιππον άντεχεσθαι τής εαυτών καί τής τών 
 αΧΧων 'ΚΧΧήνων εΧευθερίας, καί οτι ό Αθηναίων δήμος, ουδέν 
 μνησικακών εϊ τι πρότερον γεγονεν άΧΧότριον ταΐς πόΧεσι προς 
 άΧΧήΧας, βοηθήσει καί δυνάμεσι καί χρήμασι καί βεΧεσι καί 5 
 όπΧοις, είδώς ότι αύτοΐς μεν προς άΧΧηΧους διαμφισβητεΐν περί 
 τής ηγεμονίας ούσιν "ΈίΧΧησι καΧόν, υπό δε άΧΧοφυΧου ανθρώπου 
 άρχεσθαι καί τής ηγεμονίας άποστερεΐσθαι ανάξιον είναι καί τής 
 τών 'ΈΑΧήνων δόξης καί τής τών προγόνων αρετής, ετι δε ουδέ 186 
 άΧΧότριον ηγείται είναι ο ’Αθηναίων δήμος τον Θηβαίων δήμον 
 ούτε τή συγγένεια ούτε τω όμοφυΧω. άναμιμνήσκεται δε καί τάς 
 τών προγόνων τών εαυτού εις τούς Θηβαίων προγόνους ευεργεσίας · 
 καί γάρ τούς Ή ρακΧεους παϊδας αποστερούμενους υπό ΤίεΧοπον- 5 
 νησιών τής πατρώας αρχής κατήγαγον, τοΐς οπΧοις κρατήσαντες 
 τούς άντιβαίνειν πειρωμενους τοΐς ' ΗρακΧεους εκγόνοις, καί τον 
 Ο ίδίπουν καί τούς μετ εκείνου εκπεσόντας ύπεδεξάμεθα, καί ετερα 
 291 πολλά ήμϊν υπάρχει φίΧάνθρωπα καί ένδοξα προς Θηβαίους * 
 
 διόπερ ουδέ νυν άποστήσεται ό Αθηναίων δήμος τών Θηβαίοις τε 187 
 καί τοΐς άΧΧοις'ΈΧΧησι συμφερόντων, συνθεσθαι δε προς αυτούς 
 συμμαχίαν καί επιγαμίαν ποιήσασθαι καί όρκους δούναι καί Χαβεΐν. 
 πρέσβεις Δημοσθένης Δημοσθενους Τίαιανιεύς, 'Υπερείδης ΚΑεάν- 
 δρου Σφήττιος, Χίνησιθείδης Άντιφάνους Φ ρεάρριος, Δΐ)μοκράτης 5 
 ΔωφίΧου ΦΧυεύς, Κ άΧΧαισχρος Διοτίμου Κ οθωκίδης.] 
 
 Αυτή τών περί Θήβας εγίγνετο πραγμάτων αρχή καί(\88 
 άστασις πρώτη, , τά προ τούτων, εις εχθραν καί μίσος κα 
 
 /λ. 
 
 § 188 . 1. eyLyvero Υ, Φ; eyLvero Σ, L, Αι; eyivero vulg. 
 
 § 188 . 1. Αΰτη...ττρώτη, this was 
 
 the first step taken and the first settlement 
 effected in onr relations with Thebes : 
 eyLyvero, if we take this rather than the 
 Vulg. eyivero, refers to the progress of 
 
 the business in coming to a settlement. 
 See Weil’s note: “ κατάστασή est ici le 
 contraire de ταραχή." Cf. XX. 11, eTreidi] 
 5 ' ή 7τόλΐ5 eis lv ήλθε καί ra πpάyμaτ exeiva 
 κατέστη (after the rule of the Thirty), 
 
 
1 34 
 
 ΔΗΜ0ΣΘΕΝ0Υ3Ι 
 
 απιστίαν των πόλεων ύπηγμενων υπό τούτων, τούτο τό ) 
 ψήφισμα τον τότε τή πόλει περιστάντα kivSvvov παρελθεΐν 
 5 εποίησεν ώσπερ νέφος. ] ήν μεν τοίννν τον 8ικαίοτ)^ πολίτου 
 τότε όεΐξαι πασιν, ει τι τούτων είχεν αμεινον, μή νυν 
 9 επιτιμαν.^Ι ο yap σύμβουλος και 6 συκοφάντης, ον$ε των 
 άλλων ούόεν εοικότες, εν τοντω πλεΐστον άλλήλων 8ιαφε- 
 ρονσιν ο μεν γε προ των πραγμάτων γνώμην άποφαίνεται , 
 καί 8ί8ωσιν εαυτόν υπεύθυνον τοίίς πεισθείσι, τή τύχη, τω 
 
 4· τον τότε περιστάντα τη πόλει Β. 6. μη τοίννν Αΐ. 
 
 § 189. ι. ουδέ Σ, L (yp) ; ούδενί Σ {yp), Αι ; έν ούδενί L, vulg. 2. ούδέν 
 
 (before εοικότες) vulg., om. Ο ; ουδενι or ουδεν Σ 1 (now nearly obliterated). 3· 
 
 7β^Σ; μεν yap L, vulg. 4. εαυτόν Σ, L, Αι ; αυτόν vulg. τφ καιρφ Σ, L; 
 
 τοΐς καιροί s vulg. 
 
 and Ar. Ran. T003, ηνί κ’ άν τό πνεύμα 
 λεΐον και καθεστηκός λάβης. Hermogenes, 
 περί ιδεών ι. 9 (in. ρ. 247 W.), quotes 
 this passage and § 299^ ού λίθοις έτείχισα 
 κ.τ.λ., as instances of άπόστασις and άναί- 
 ρεσ is, with the remark, δλω s δδ τά άσυνδέ- 
 τως εiσayόμεva, ει μακρά εϊη τά κώλα, ποιεί 
 λαμπρόν τον λόyov, ταΐς έννοια is καν ακ¬ 
 μαίος η. 
 
 4 · τταρίλθδίν ώσ-ττίρ νίφος, to pass by 
 like a cloud , or to vanish like a passing 
 cloud. The simplicity of this similp was 
 much admired by the Greek rhetoricians, 
 who quote it nine times (see Spengel’s 
 index). See Longinus on the Sublime, 39, 
 4: υψηλόν ye τούτο δοκει νόημα , και 'έστι 
 τφ όντι θαυμάσιον, δ τφ ψηφίσματι ό Δη¬ 
 μοσθένης έπιφέρει.,.άλλ' αυτής της διανοίας 
 ούκ ’έλαττον τη αρμονία πεφώνηται. He 
 then discourses on the fatal effect which 
 would result from a change in the order 
 of the words, or from the omission or 
 addition of a single syllable (as cos νέφος 
 or ώσπερ εί νέφος), though the sense 
 would not be changed: τό αύτό σημαίνει, 
 ού τό αύτό δέ ’έτι σημαίνει. Hermogenes 
 περί ιδεών (ιπ. ρ. 367 W.) censures the 
 introduction of τά προ τούτων.. ,ύπό τούτων 
 between this clause and the preceding 
 αϋτη...πρώτη, which, he says, διέκοψε καί 
 ηττον έποίησεν αύτόν (i.e. τον λόyov) φανη- 
 ναι λαμπρόν. 
 
 6. τούτων, i.e. than my measures. 
 
 In the last sentence of § 188, the orator 
 
 suddenly breaks off his narrative of the 
 negotiation with Thebes, and digresses 
 into a most eloquent defence of the policy 
 of Athens in resisting Philip, and of his 
 own conduct as her responsible leader. 
 See note on §§ 160—226. 
 
 § 189. 1 . (τύμβουλοδ, statesman .— 
 
 σ-υκοφάντηζ: no modern word, least of 
 all the English sycophant, gives the full 
 meaning of this expressive term, though 
 the same combination of malicious in¬ 
 former, dirty pettifogger, common slan¬ 
 derer and backbiter, is unhappily still to 
 be seen. Plutarch (Dem. 14) quotes a 
 reply of Demosthenes to the people when 
 they urged him to undertake a certain 
 prosecution: υμείς έμοί.,.συμβούλιρ μέν 
 καν μη θέλητε χρήσεσθε, συκοφάντη δε 
 ούδ’ έάν θέλητε. The Vord must have 
 referred originally to, the petty form of 
 prosecution for violation of the revenue 
 laws known as φάσις, in which half of 
 the penalty went to the informer. See 
 Ar. Eq. 300: καί σε φαίνω τοΐς πρυτά- 
 νεσιν άδεκατεύτους τών θεών ιράς έχοντα 
 κοιλίας. The relation of the word to 
 σΰκον is very doubtful. Perhaps the in¬ 
 significance of a fig as the basis of a 
 process at law may have suggested συκο¬ 
 φάντης Ά^ — συκα φαίνων : see φήνας κυνίδιον 
 Σεριφίων, Ar. Ach. 54 2 · 
 
 4· ύιτ€ΰθυνον, responsible in the full 
 Attic sense, e.g. liable to the εϋθυναι and 
 to the ypaφη παρανόμων. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 135 
 
 καιρω, τω βονλομενω- 6 δε σιγησας ηνίκ εδει λεγειν, αν 5 
 τι δνσκολον ετνμβη, τοντο βασκαίνει. ην μεν ονν, όπερ 
 ειπον, εκείνος 6 καιρός τον γε φροντίζοντος ανδρός της 
 πόλεως καί των δίκαιων λόγων εγω δε τοσαντην υπερβολήν 
 ποιούμαι ώστε, αν νυν εχη τις δεΐζαί τι βελτιον, η όλως 
 ει tl αλλ’ ενην πλην ών εγω προειλόμην, αδικείν ομολογώ. 5 
 ει γαρ εσθ' ο τι τις νυν εόρακεν, δ σννηνεγκεν αν τότε 
 πραχσεν, τοντ εγω φημι δειν εμε μη Αασειν. ει δε μητ 
 εστι μητ ην μητ αν είπεΐν όχοι μηδείς μηδεπω καί τημερον, 
 
 9 2 τι τον σνμβονλον όχρην ποιεΐν; ον των φαινομένων καί 
 ενόντων τα κράτιστα ελεσθαι; τοντο τοίννν εποίησα, τον 
 κηρνκος ερωτώντος, Α ισχίνη, τις αγορενειν βούλεται; 
 ον τις αίτ ιασθαι περί των παρεληλνθότων; ονδε 
 τις εγγνασθαι τα μελλοντ εσεσθαι; σον δ’ άφωνου 
 κατ εκείνους τους χρόνους εν ταΐς εκκλησίαις καθημενον, 5 
 εγω παριων εΚεγον. επειδή δ ον τότε, αλλα ννν δειςον 
 
 § 190 . 2. του re Αι ; του τότε V6 ; του Ο. 4· δεΓ£αι τί L ; tl δε?£αι Φ ; 
 
 tl om. Αι. η (corr.) δλως Σ. tl om. Ar. 6. εστιν Αι. 6 tl tls Σ, 
 
 vulg.; o tl τις L; 6 tls Ο. έώρακβν all MSS., Bk.; έόρακβν later edd. (see note on 
 
 § 64 s ). 8. ?xol tls A2. 
 
 § 191 . 1 . έποίησα eyio Αι. 3. αΐτιά<τ0αι Σ, L, Αι ; αίτιάσασθαι vulg. 
 
 6. παριων Ai ; TrepLLihu L; πβριων (Ϊ above) Σ; παρΦλθων vulg. evei Ai. 
 
 6. δύσκολον: cf. § 176 2 .— βασ-καίνει: 
 
 Harpocr. αντί του clltl&tcll καί μέμφeτaL 
 καί συκοφαντεί’ Αημοσθ. έν τφ υπέρ Κ τη- 
 σιφώντος. 
 
 § 190 . I. ην μέν ουν resumes the 
 thought of the last sentence of § 188. 
 
 2. τοΰ.,.άνδρδξ: cf. LVII. 49. For 
 the order see note on § 176 10 . 
 
 3. των δικ. λόγων: with KaLpos (West., 
 Bl.), or with φροντίζοντος . — τοσ-αυτην 
 υπερβολήν ποιούμαι, i.e. I go so far 
 beyond what could be asked of me. 
 
 5. ενην : used personally with τι άλλο: 
 cf. δσα ένην, § 193 4 , and XXI. 41. So 
 ένόντων (10): such participles are very often 
 personal (Μ. T. 761).— ών εγώ προειλό- 
 μην : cf. § 192 5 , την προαίρεσίν μου της 
 πολιτείας .— άδικεΐν, in its so-called per¬ 
 fect sense (Μ. T. 27). 
 
 6. τότε πραχθέν = « τότ' επράχθη. 
 
 η. τοΰτ’.,.δειν εμέ μη λαθεϊν, / say 
 
 this ought not to have escaped me (at the 
 time): δεΐν.,.λαθεΐν represents e 5 ei έμε 
 μτ] λαθεϊν. 
 
 7,8. εί δέ... τημερον: for this compound 
 protasis with a present, a past, and a 
 potential optative united in one suppo¬ 
 sition, see Μ. T. 509: notice the three 
 negatives and the emphatic καί in μητ' 
 αν...τημερον. See § 141 4 .— μηδεπω κα! 
 τημερον, not yet , even at this day. 
 
 9. των φαινομένων καί ενόντων, of the 
 plans which offered themselves to us and 
 were feasible. 
 
 § 191 . 3. tis... παρεληλνθότων ; a 
 
 question to be addressed to a συκοφάντης , 
 not to a σύμβουλος (§ 189). 
 
 6. ού τότε: sc. έδειξας . — άλλα Vvv 
 (Μ. Τ. 5 ι 3 )· 
 
136 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 eune τίς η λόγος, οντιν όχρην ενπορεΐν, η καιρός συμφερων 
 υπ εμού παρελείφθη τη πόλεί; τίς δε συμμαχία, τις πράζίς, 
 έφ ην μάλλον εδεί μ άγαγεΐν τουτουσ ί; | / 
 
 Αλλα μην το μεν παρεληλυθός ά el παρά πάσιν άφεΐταί, 
 καί ουδείς περί τοντον προτίθησίν ουδ&μοΐ) βουλήν το Se 
 μέλλον η το παρόν την τον σύμβουλον τάζίν απαιτεί. τότε 
 τοίννν τα μεν ημελλεν, ώς εδόκεί, των δεινών, τα δ’ ηδη 
 5 παρην, εν οΐς την προαίρεσίν μου σκοπεί της πολιτείας, 
 μη τα συμβάντα συκοφαντεί, το μεν yap πέρας ώς αν 
 ο δαίμων βουληθη πάντων γίγνεταί’ η 8ε προαίρεσίς αυτή 
 την του σύμβουλον διάνοιαν δηλοΐ. μη δη τουθ * ώς άδίκημ 
 εμον θης, εΐ κρατησαί συνέβη Φίλίππω τη μάχη · εν yap 
 τω θεω το τούτον τέλος ήν, ούκ εμοί. άλλ’ ώ? ουχ άπαντα 
 οσα ενην κατ ανθρώπινον λογισμόν είλόμην, καί δικαίως 
 5 ταυτα καί επίμελώς επραζα καί φίλοπόνως υπέρ δυναμίν, 
 
 7 · εύπορεΐνΣ·, εύρεΐν vulg. 8 . ή τις πράξις A 2. 9· μάλλον om. Υ. 
 
 § 192 . r. παρ’ άπασιν Αι ; irepi πάσιν L. 2. ύπέρ τοντον V 6 . προστί- 
 
 θησιν V 6 ., το, τ€ μέλλον (δε over re) Σ. 3 · πράξιν Α2. 4· ήμάλλεν MSS. 
 
 6 . σνμβάντα Σ, L, Β 2 , Αι; σνμβαίνοντα vulg. 7* αϋτη Σ; αυτή vulg. 
 
 § 193 . 2. τή μάχη Σ, L, F, Β (corr.), Αι. 2', την μάχην vulg. 3· °^ κ 
 
 έμοί Σ, L; ούκ έν έμοί vulg. 
 
 8. τη πόλει: often taken with συμφέ- 
 ρων (see Bl.) ; better with παρελείφθη, as 
 in § 107 10 , άπώλετο τη πόλει. 
 
 9· μάλλον, rather than to my own. 
 
 § 192 . 1. άφεΐται (gnomic), is dis¬ 
 
 missed from consideration. 
 
 3. την. . .τάξιν, i.e. the statesman at 
 his post·, τάξιν keeps up the military 
 figure of § 173 4-6 .— τότε...τταρήν : appli¬ 
 cation of the general principle to the case 
 in hand; τά μέν ημελλεν referring to 
 Chaeronea and its results, τά δ’ -ήδη 
 παρήν to Philip’s presence at Elatea. 
 Though these are now past, they were 
 then future and present. 
 
 5. την...πολιτείας : see note on § 190 5 . 
 προαίρεσή implies the deliberate choice of 
 a policy which a statesman should make: 
 here and in τά συμβάντα συκοφαντεί we 
 have again the σύμβουλος and the συκο¬ 
 φάντης contrasted. For the precise mean¬ 
 
 ing of προαίρεσίς, see Arist. Eth. III. 2 
 (especially § 17): άλλ’ άρά *γε το προβε- 
 βονλευμένον (sc. τό προαιρετδν); ή yap 
 προαίρεσίς μετά λ 6 yoυ και διανοίας. ύπο- 
 σημαίνειν δ’ ’έοικε καί τοϋνομα ώ$ ον πρδ 
 ετέρου αιρετόν. Dissen quotes Diod. 
 χι. ιι on the heroes of Thermopylae: 
 χρή yap ούκ εκ των αποτελεσμάτων κρί· 
 νειν τούς ayadovs άνδρας άλλ’ έκ τής 
 προαιρέσεως' του μέν yap τύχη κυρία, του 
 δ’ ή προαίρεσίς δοκιμάζεται. 
 
 η. ό δαίμων : cf. τφ θεφ § 193 3 · 
 
 § 193 . 2. τη μάχη: Chaeronea. — 
 
 εν τω θεω...τε'λο$: cf. πέρας and δαίμων 
 in § 192 6 ’ 7 . See II. VII. ιοί, αύτάρ ϋπερ- 
 θεν νίκης πείρατ έχονται έν άθανάτοισι 
 θεοΐσιν. 
 
 3 · ούκ έμοί: many MSS. have έν έμοί. 
 5· φιλο-π-όνα^ ύττέρ δύναμιν, i.e. with 
 
 greater labour than my strength war¬ 
 ranted·. cf. §§ 160 5 , 218 8 . 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 137 
 
 η ώ? ον καλά και της πόλεως άζια πράγματα ενεστησάμην 
 καί αναγκαία , ταυτά μοί δει ζον, καί τότ ηόη κατηγορεί μου. 
 
 ( ει~Β’ 6 σνμβάς σληπτος γειμων ] μη μόνον ημών αλλά 194 
 
 293 και πάντων των άλλων Ελλήνων μείζων γεγονε, τί γρη 
 ποίεΐν; ώσπερ αν e i jris ναύκληρον πάντ επί σωτηρία 
 πράζαντα , και κατασκενάσαντα το πλοίου άφ> ών νπελάμβανε 
 σωθησεσθαι, είτα γειμωνί γρησάμενον καί πονησάντων 5 
 αντω των σκευών η καί σνντριβεντων δλως, της ναναγίας 
 αΐτιωτο. άλλ’ οντ εκυβερνων την νανν, φησειεν αν (ώσπερ 
 
 6. ώς om. Ο. 
 
 § 194. ι. ή χαμών mss., Vom., Bl. ; om. Bk., Dind., Lips., West. μόνων O. 
 υμών F. 2. ττάντων om. Αι. μέίζον Y. 4. και ττάσι vulg.; ττάσι om. Σ, L l . 
 5. χρησάμενον και φθαρεν Ο. 6. καί (after 77) om. V6. 
 
 6 . 4 ν€σ-τησ-άμην, undertook (instituted): 
 
 cf. § 4 10 · 
 
 7. καί αναγκαία, and necessary' too , 
 added after the verb for emphasis. Blass 
 
 I remarks that the orator has not yet at¬ 
 tained the height from which he speaks 
 in §§ 199 if. 
 
 § 194 . r. orKTprros [77 χειμών] : most 
 recent editors omit 77 χειμών on the ground 
 that the orator, after comparing the sud¬ 
 den raid of Philip to a thunderbolt, would 
 not weaken his figure by adding a com¬ 
 mon storm. This holds good even when 
 we admit that χειμών and σκητττός are 
 not the same thing; and this is plain from 
 Voemel’s note. Aristotle (de Mundo, 4, 
 19), after describing κεραυνό s, ττρηστήρ, 
 and τυφών, adds έκαστον δέ τούτων κατα- 
 σκήφαν εις την yrjv σκητττός ονομάζεται, 
 σκητττός, therefore, is not only a stroke of 
 lightning, but also a furious thunder¬ 
 storm ; while χειμών is winter, a winter- 
 storm , or a storm in general. Perhaps 
 77 χειμών here was originally a marginal 
 reference to χειμώνι χρησάμενον [fj. 
 
 2. τ£ χρή ττοΐίΐν (sc. ημάς), what ought 
 we to do? Blass and Westermann under¬ 
 stand, as the suppressed reply, “Nothing 
 at all: least of all blame our leaders.” 
 But I think a much more precise answer 
 is given in the two following sentences. 
 The sense is: “ What are we to do? 
 We are to do just what a ναύκληροι 
 would do if any one were to blame him, 
 
 etc. He would say ‘ I was not κυβερνή¬ 
 της,’ just as I can say ‘No more was 
 I στρατηγός.’ ” The apodosis to εί τι s... 
 αίτιφτο being suppressed (except av), 
 its subject ναύκληρος appears in the pro¬ 
 tasis as ναύκληρον, and the implied ώσττερ 
 άν ναύκληρος ττοιήσειεν appears in φήσειεν 
 av (7) with its quotation, άλλ’ οντ’ έκυβέρ- 
 νων.,.τών ττάντων. ημών (ι) and έχω (8) 
 show that the orator identifies the people 
 with himself in the comparison with ναύ¬ 
 κληρος. 
 
 3· ναύκληρον, properly a shipowner , 
 who sails in his own ship (as έμπορος), 
 but generally employs a κυβερνήτης or 
 sailing-master to navigate the ship. In 
 Plato’s famous figure of the ship of State 
 (Rep. VI. p. 488), the ναύκληρος is the 
 honest old man Αήμος Τίυκνίτης, who 
 knows little of navigation, and is not 
 skilful enough to keep a professional 
 sailing-master in authority, and soon lets 
 the command of the ship fall into the 
 hands of the most artful and unscrupulous 
 landsmen on board. 
 
 5. χ€ΐμ.ώνι χρηοτάμίνον: the ναύκλη¬ 
 ρος is said to have met with a storm .— 
 ττονησάντων σκίνων, when his tackling 
 laboured (as we speak of a ship as labour¬ 
 ing in a heavy sea). But Blass quotes 
 φιάλαι ττεττονηκόται{\) from a Delian 
 inscription (Dittenberger, Syll. No. 367, 
 207), in support of the meaning was 
 broken. 
 
ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 138 
 
 ούδ' εστρατηγουν εγώ), ούτε της τύχης κύριος ην, aXX y 
 195 εκείνη των πάντιον. άλλ’ εκείνο Χογίζου και όρα’ ει μετά 
 %ηβαίων ήμΐν άγωνιζομένοις όντως είμαρτο πράζαι, τί χρην 
 προσδοκάν ει μηδε τουτους έσχομεν συμμάχους άλλα Φι- 
 Χίππω προσέθεντο, υπέρ ου τότ εκείνος πάσας άφηκε 
 5 φωνάς; καί ει νυν τριών ημερών από της *Αττικής δδον της 
 μάχης γενομενης τοσουτος κίνδυνος καί φόβος περιεστη την 
 πόΧιν, τί αν, ει που της χώρας ταύτό τούτο πάθος συνέβη, 
 προσδοκησαι χρην; άρ * οισθ' ότι νυν μεν στην αι, συνεΧθεΐν, 
 
 8. ούδέ (for οϋτε) Υ. 
 
 § 195. 2. των Θηβαίων Υ. ΧΡΡ ν pi Markland (conj.); χρη Σ, L, vulg. 
 
 5. από της Άττ. οδόν Σ, Α2 ; οδόν από της ’Αττ. vulg. της μάχης om. V6. 
 
 6 . ~γενομένης Σ, L, Αι. 2 ; ^εχενημένης vulg. τοσουτο L 1 . περιέσχε 
 
 (στη over σχβ) Β. 7 · 7Γ01 ' πλησίον της χώρας Αι. πάθους Αι. 8 . οΐσθ' 
 
 L, V6 ; οΐσθα Αι; όίσθε Υ ; οϊεσθ ’ Σ, Ο, Φ ; οϊεσθε vulg. 
 
 § 195 . 2. τί χρην ιτροσδοκάν; this 
 
 apodosis (like the similar one in lines 7, 
 8) has two protases, one simply past, the 
 other past with the condition unfulfilled. 
 The apodosis in each case conforms to the 
 latter condition. But we have in line 2 
 τί χρην προσδοκάν (without av), but in 
 7 and 8 τί άν...προσδοκησαι. χρην, the 
 two sentences being in other respects 
 similar. We certainly should not notice 
 the difference in sense if the same form 
 (either with or without av) were used 
 in both. And yet the distinction be¬ 
 tween the two is one of principle, and 
 is generally obvious and important. In 
 the form without άν the infinitive is 
 the word on which the chief force falls, 
 while in the form with άν the chief 
 force falls on Ζδει, έξην, ένην, etc., to 
 which the άν belongs. Thus έξην σοι 
 έλθεΐν (in this sense) is yott might have 
 gone (but did not go), while έξην άν σοι 
 έλθεΐν is it would have been possible for 
 you to go in a certain case (but in fact it 
 was not possible). In many cases (as 
 here) it makes little difference to the 
 general sense whether the chief emphasis 
 falls on the infinitive or on the leading 
 verb; and in these the effect of adding or 
 omitting av is slight. In the present case 
 
 we may translate τί χρην προσδοκάν ; 
 what ought we to have expected (which we 
 did not find ourselves expecting)? and τί 
 άν προσδοκησαι χρην; what should we 
 then have had to expect (which in fact we 
 did not have to expect)? I have dis¬ 
 cussed this construction at some length in 
 Μ. T. App. v., and these two examples 
 in p. 409. La Roche denies the exist¬ 
 ence of χρην or έχρην with άν, proposing to 
 emend έχρην άν in Lys. XII. 48, but over¬ 
 looking the present case. 
 
 4. iracras άφήκί φωνάδ, i.e. used all 
 his eloquence·, cf. Eur. Hec. 337, πάσας 
 φθοράς ίεΐσα, and Plat. Rep. 475 A, πάσας 
 φωνάς άφίετε. See § 218 4 . 
 
 5. τριών ήμερων οδόν, three days' 
 journey, i.e. from Chaeronea (via Thebes) 
 to the Attic frontier at Eleutherae, about 
 450 stadia. It was about 250 stadia from 
 Eleutherae to Athens; and the whole 
 distance from Chaeronea to Athens is 
 given (§ 230 2 ) as 700 stadia, about 80 
 miles. (See Bl.) 
 
 8. vvv here and τότε in 1. 10 refer 
 only to opposite alternatives (a^ it zvas, 
 and in that case), but to the same time. 
 See § 200'. The άποσιώπησις after τότε δέ 
 is far more eloquent than any descrip¬ 
 tion. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 139 
 
 άναπνευσαι, πολλά μία ήμερα καί 8υο καί τρεις ε8οσαν των 
 εις σωτηρίαν τη πόλει; τότε 8ε—ονκ αζιον είπείν α γε ίο 
 μη8ε πείραν ε8ωκε θεών τίνος εύνοια καί τω προβάλλεσθαι 
 την πόλιν ταύτην την συμμαχίαν ης συ κατηγορε ίς. Jj i 
 
 ν Εστί 8ε ταυτί πάντα μοι τα πολλά προς υμάς, άν8ρες 196 
 8ικασταί, καί τους περιεστηκότας εξωθεν καί άκροωμενονς, 
 επεί πρός γε τούτον τον κατάπτνστον βραχύς καί σαφής 
 εξήρκει λόγος. 1 εί μεν γάρ ήν σοί πρό8ηλα τα μέλλοντα," 
 Αισχίνη, μόνω των άλλων, ότ εβονλευεθ ’ η πόλις περί 5 
 τούτων, τότ ε8ει 7 τρολεγειν/ εί 8ε μη προη8εις, της αυτής ψ°. 
 
 5 / e fckf IU * ■ 'S' V\ \ V / \ \ 3 r\ \ 
 
 αγνοιας υπευσυνος ει τοις αλΚοις, ώστε τι μαΚΚον εμού συ 
 
 ¥ 
 
 ταυτα κατηγορείς η εγω σου; τοσουτον γαρ αμεινων εγω 197 
 
 
 ίο. ών (fora) Ο (mg.). ιι. εύνοίρ Αι, F, Φ; εύνοια L (?), Ο; εϋνοια Σ, Β, 
 vulg. τ<ρ Σ, vulg. ; τό L. προβάλλεσθαι L, Φ ; προβαλλεσθαι Σ. 
 
 § 196. 3 · τούτον Σ , Φ (yp) ; τούτον αυτόν vulg. 4· ύξήρκεί μοι Αι. 2 . 
 
 6 . έδει σε Β (corr.). 7 τρο λεyειv (letter erased) Σ. 8 . iy ώ σου Σ. 
 
 § 197. ι. τοσούτιρ Αι ; τοσούτων Υ. iyio σου Σ; iydo σου vulg. 
 
 9. άναττνίΰσ-αι: cf. II. XI. 801, 0X1777 
 δέ τ' άνάπνευσις πολέμοιο. 
 
 ίο. ά γ€ μηδέ iretpav £δωκ€, which 
 never gave us even a trial (of their hor¬ 
 rors): εαυτών is omitted, leaving ττεΐραν 
 έδωκε absolute. See note on § 107 5 . 
 The negative is μηδέ because the ante¬ 
 cedent of ά is indefinite (Μ. T. 518). 
 
 II. τω ιτροβάλλίσ-θαι ... συμμαχίαν, 
 by the state having this alliance to shield 
 her (lit. holding it before herself ). The 
 present infin. emphasizes the continued 
 protection; προσβαλέσθαι would mean 
 putting it before herself', cf. § 300 2 , 
 ταύτα προύβαλύμην irpb τής Αττικής. 
 
 § 196. ι. Έ<ττι μοι irpos ύμάδ, i.e. 
 / intend it for you. — ταυτί ττάντα τά 
 πολλά, all this long argument (so West.): 
 τα 7 τολλά may, however, be adverbial, 
 for the most part, chiefly, the sense being 
 all this I intend chiefly for you. 
 
 2 . tovs ir€pi€crTT]K0Tas, the spectators , 
 of whom great crowds were present: see 
 Aesch. III. 56, εναντίον ...των άλλων πο¬ 
 λιτών 'όσοι δή έξωθεν περιεστάσι , και των 
 Ελλήνων δσοις επιμελές yly ονεν επακούειν 
 τήσδε τής κρίσεως ’ δρω δέ ούκ όλίyoυς 
 
 παρόντας, άλλ' όσους ουδέ ις πώποτε μέμνη- 
 ται πρός ay ώνα δημόσιον πapayεvoμέvoυς. 
 
 3· βραχύ? καί σαφή? λόγο?: this he 
 now puts into a dilemma, of which Her- 
 mogenes, de Invent, iv. 6 (p. 168 W.), 
 thus speaks : τό δέ διλήμ,ματόν έστι τοιού- 
 τον οΐον.. .ή δ εις τα μελλοντ α ’έσεσθαι 
 ή ούκ ήδεις; εάν τε yap εΐπη ήδειν, 
 άπαντμ τί οΰν ού πpoέλεyες; έάν τε 
 ειπη ούκ ήδειν, τί οΰν ήμων ώι είδό- 
 των KaTT\yo ρεΐς; εί μέν yap ήδεις, 
 προειπεΐν ώφειλες’ εί δέ ούκ ήδεις, τί 
 των άλλων ώς μή είδότων κaτηyo- 
 ρεΐς, τής άyvoίaς των μέλλον τ ων κοι¬ 
 νής οϋσης πρός άπαντας ανθρώπους; 
 
 Ιξήρκα, was'enough for hint', i.e. 
 this would be a sufficient reply for him. 
 έξήρκει sometimes has a force somewhat 
 like that of δίκαιον ήν, Ίσον ήν, καλόν ήν, 
 etc. .when they are classed with έδει, χρήν, 
 etc. (Μ. T. 416). So satis erat in Latin : 
 see Cic. Lael. xxvi. 96, satis erat re¬ 
 sponded Magnas : Ingentes inquit. See 
 Lane’s Latin Grammar, 1496, 1497. Cf. 
 θαυμαστόν ήν, § 248 s . 
 
 8. ταύτα : the charge of ignorance 
 which you bring against me. 
 
140 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 σου πολίτης γεγον εις αντα ταυθ a λέγω (/cat ουπω περί 
 των άλλων διαλέγομαι'), όσον εγω μεν εδωκ εμαυτον εις 
 τά πάσι δοκουντα ο"υμφερείν, ουδενα κίνδυνον οκνησας 
 5 Γδιορ ουδ’ υπολόγισα μένος, συ δ’ ονθ ’ ετερ είπες βελτιω 
 τούτων (ον yap άν τούτους εχρωντο), οντ είς ταυτα χρήσιμον 
 ουδέν σαυτον παρεσχες, οπερ δ’ άν 6 φαυλότατος καί 
 δυσμενέστατος άνθρωπος τη πόλει, τούτο πεποιηκως επί 
 τοΐς συμβάσιν εζητασαι, καί άμ Αριστρατος εν Να^ω /cat 
 ίο *Α ριστόλεως εν Θάσ-ω, οι καθάπαξ εχθροί της πόλεως, τους 
 3 Αθηναίων κρίνουσι φίλους καί ’Αθηνησιν Αισχίνης Αημο- 
 198 σθένους κατηγορεί, καίτοι ότω τά των *Ελλήνων άτυχη ματ 
 ενευδοκιμεΐν άπεκειτο, άπολωλεν at μάλλον ουτός εστι δίκαιος 
 η κατηγορείν ετερου' καί ότω συνενηνόχασιν οί αυτοί καιροί 
 καί τοϊς της πόλεως εχθροΐς, ουκ ενι τούτον ευνουν είναι τη 
 
 ί. ταΰτα (without ά) Σ 1 (corr. to ταύτα) ; ταΰτα Α2. 5 · ( corr · to οΰδ’) Σ. 
 
 σύ δ’ ουδέτερα Αι. 6. oύδ , eis Υ. 7 · <rcavrb ν Ο. 8. άνθρωπο s Σ, L 1 3 , Αι ; 
 ανθ. ποεησειε vulg. πεποίηκας Υ. ίο. Άριστόλεως L, Αι ; Α ριστόλεος Σ; 
 Άρίστύλαοϊ vulg. 
 
 § 197 . 2. ταΰθ’ ά λέγω, i.e. the 
 
 events which preceded Chaeronea. 
 
 3. των άλλων, doubtless later matters. 
 
 4. τά ττάσ-ι δοκουντα = ά πασιν έδόκει, 
 with reference to votes of the people: 
 cf. 274 s . 
 
 5. ίδιον, personal, e.g. the danger of 
 a 7 ραφή παρανόμων : cf. §§ 235 s , 249. 
 
 6. ού.,.Ιχρώντο : sc. εί ’έτερ ’ είπες 
 βελτιω. €ts ταΰτα, i.e. in support of my 
 measures. 
 
 7. oir€p δ’ άν : sc. ποεήσειεν or έποί- 
 τ]σεν. 
 
 8. ττ} ττόλίΐ: for the order see § 176 10 . 
 — 'ΠΈττοιηκώς. . .ίξητασαι, you are shown to 
 have done after the events', cf. Hdt. I. 170, 
 67 rl διεφθαρμένοισι’Ίωσι, and § 284 s . 
 
 9. ΆριοΓτρατοβ, Άρισ-τόλία^ : these 
 men and the condition of Naxos and 
 
 Thasos at this time are known to us only 
 from this passage. It appears that these 
 islands were in the power of Alexander, 
 and that the great success of his arms in 
 Asia was having the same effect in them 
 as in Athens, encouraging the Mace¬ 
 
 donian party to vex their opponents by 
 prosecutions. 
 
 10. καθάτταξ «χθροί, outright enemies. 
 
 it. καί ’ Αθηνη<Γΐν...κατηγορ€ΐ : this 
 brings out clearly the meaning of τούτο 
 πεποιηκως (8). 
 
 § 198. ι. δτω...άΐΓ€Κ€ΐτο, who found 
 matter for glorification in the calamities 
 of the Greeks : άπέκειτο, were laid up 
 (as material). 
 
 2. ενευδοκιμεΐν occurs only here in 
 classic Greek, acc. to Blass, who remarks 
 on the ease with which such compounds 
 with έν are made, to be used thus in the 
 infinitive: see Thuc. II. 44, ένενδαιμο- 
 νησαι and έντελεντησαι ; II. 20, ένστρα· 
 τοπεδευσαι ; Hdt. II. 178, ένοικησαι ; VI. 
 102, ένιππευσαι ; Plat. Phaedr. 228 E, 
 έμμελεταν . — Ελλήνων.. άίΓε'κειτο is a 
 dactylic hexameter. 
 
 3. οί αυτοί...έχθροΐδ, i.e. the same! 
 occasions in which also the enemies of the* 
 state have found their advantage. 
 
 4. εΰνουν, loyal : see note on § 173 4 5 6 7 8 9 . j 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 Hi 
 
 πατρίδι. 8ηλοίς δε καί ίζ ών ζης καί ποιείς και πολιτεύει 5 
 καί πάλιν ον πολ irevei. πράττεταί τι των νμίν δοκονντων 
 σνμφερβιν άφωνος Αισχίνης. άντεκρονσε τι καί γεγονεν f 
 οΐον ούκ εδει * πάρεστιν Αισχίνης. ώσπερ τα ρήγματα καί 
 τα σπάσριατα, όταν τι κακόν το σώμα λάβη, τότε κινείται. 
 
 Επειδή δε πολύς τοίς σνμβεβηκόσιν έγκειται, βούλομαι 199 
 τι καί παράόοζον είπείν. καί μον προς Αιός καί θεών 
 
 § 198 . 5 · δέ καί Σ, L, Αι. 2, Β ; δε vulg. 5» 6. πολιτεύη (bis) MSS., Bk., Bl. 
 
 6. ημΐν At. 7. συμφέρει om. A2. 
 
 5. εξ ών £rjs, by the life you live·, cf. 
 απ' αύτών ών βεβίωκεν, § I βο 2 . ζην is 
 the regular present to βεβιωκέναι, βιώ not 
 being in common use. (See Bl.) — ττολι- 
 τεύει (MSS. -εύη) : see note on § 119 4 . 
 
 6. , π·ράττ€ται...Αίσ·χίνη5 and άντε- 
 κρουσ€...Αίσ-χίνη8 (7, 8): two parata^tic 
 conditional expressions,— suppose some¬ 
 thing is done , etc. See § 274. Dissen 
 quotes Cicero’s imitation (Phil. 11. 22, 55): 
 Doletis tres exercitus populi Romani 
 interfectos : interfecit Antonius. Deside- 
 ratis clarissimos cives : eos quoque nobis 
 eripuit Antonius. Auctoritas huius ordinis 
 afflicta est: afflixit Antonius. 
 
 8 . ρήγματα καί επτάσ-ματα, ruphtres 
 and strains : ρήγμα is a rupture , either 
 of the flesh or of a vein; σπάσμα is 
 properly the state of tension which may 
 lead to a rupture, though the two terms 
 seem sometimes to be used in nearly or 
 quite the same sense. Hippocrates, de 
 Flat. 11 (Littre vi. p. 109), says of 
 ruptures of the flesh: τα δε ρήγματα 
 πάντα -γίνεται διά τάδε ' δκόταν υπό βίτ) 1 ; 
 διαστέωσιν αί σάρκες απ' άλλήλων, is δε 
 την διάσταση' ύποδράμη πνεύμα , τούτο τον 
 πόνον παρέχει. And de Morb. Τ. 20 
 (Litt. VI. ρ. 176), of the veins: δκόταν τι 
 των φλεβίων σπασθέν pay η, η σπασθη 
 μεν, payr, δε μη παντελώς, άλλα σπαδων 
 έν αΰτφ yivητaι ( σπαδών being the result 
 of σπάω, apparently what Demosth. calls 
 σπάσμα ): further, ένίοισι δε,δκόταν yivητaι 
 τα σπάσματα έν τησι σαρξιν η έν τησι 
 φλεφίν, ..γίνεται άλγηματα πολυχρόνια, 
 ά καί καλέουσι ρήγματα. Again in § 22 
 (ρ. 184) he speaks of ρήγματα πολλά τε 
 
 καί παντοΐα των φλεβών καί των σαρκών * 
 καί τούτων τα μεν παραυτίκα Ρκδηλα yive- 
 ται, τα δε ύστερον χρόνιρ αναφαίνεται. 
 
 Galen, de Meth. Medendi in. 1 (x. p. 
 160, Kiihn), distinguishes κάταγμα, frac¬ 
 ture of a bone , ρήγμα, rupture of the flesh, 
 and σπάσμα, rupture of sineios. See also 
 de Morb. Differ. 11 (vi. p. 872, Kiihn): 
 το δε ρήγμα καί τδ σπάσμα του μεν αυτού 
 γ ένους έστί. συνίσταται δέ το μέν έν 
 σαρκώδει, τδ δ’ έν νευρώδει μορίιρ, των εν 
 αυτούς ίνών διασπασθέντων ύπδ βιαίας τινδς 
 θλάσεως. 
 
 § 199 . ι. ττολύδ έγκειται, is severe 
 ( presses hard) upon·, cf. Thuc. IV. 22, 
 Hdt. VII. 158, and note on πολλφ ρέοντι 
 on § 136 7 (above). 
 
 2. τι καί παράδοξον: the orator now 
 rises to a new height. Heretofore he has 
 maintained vigorously (as in § 194) that 
 the policy of Athens in opposing Philip 
 under his lead was sound and hopeful, 
 and that he cannot justly be censured 
 now, even if events have shown the 
 “ mistake ” of waging war against the 
 Macedonian power. He now suddenly 
 changes his ground, and declares that 
 there has been no “mistake,” that no 
 other policy was possible for Athens 
 with her glorious antecedents, even if the 
 whole future, with Chaeronea and its 
 baneful consequences, had been foreseen 
 from the beginning. This is the final 
 answer to the petty criticisms of Aeschines 
 “after the events” (επί τούς συμβάσιν, 
 § 197 8 ). Fox (Kranzrede, p. 172) says: 
 “ Niemand soli ihm irgend welche Ver- 
 legenheit anmerken, deshalb gesteht er 
 
142 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 [χηδεις την νιτερβολην θανμαση, αλλα μετ έννοιας ο λέγω 
 θεωρησάτω. εί yap ην άπασι πρόδηλα τα μέλλοντα γενη- 
 5 σεσθαι, και προηδεσαν πάντες, καί σν προνλεγες, Αισχίνη, 
 καί διεμαρτνρον βοών καί κεκραγώς, δς ονδ ’ εφθεγξω, ονδ ’ 
 όντως άποστατεον τη πδλει τοντων ην, ειπερ η δοζης η 295 
 
 200 προγόνων η τον μέλλοντος αιώνος είχε λόγον, ννν μεν γ 
 άποτνχεΐν δοκεΐ των πραγμάτων, δ πάσι κοινόν εστιν 
 άνθρώποις όταν τω θεω ταντα δοκη' τότε δ αζιονετα 
 προεστάναι των άλλων, εΐτ άποστάσα τοντον, Φιλιππω 
 
 5 προδεδωκεναι πάντας αν εσχεν αιτίαν, εί γάρ ταντα προειτ 
 άκονιτί, περί ών ονδενα κινδννον οντιν ονχ νπεμειναν οι 
 πρόγονοι, τίς ονχί κατεπτνσεν αν g'ovj μη γάρ της πόλεώς 
 
 201 γε, μηδ * εμον. τίετι δ’ δφθαλμοΐς προς Αιος εωρώμεν αν 
 
 § 199 . 3· δ λέyω Α 2 . 4· ^ λλ · ^σθαι Αι. 5· πάντες Σ, L, Φ; 
 
 αιταντες vulg. Αισχίνη Σ, L, Φ 1 ; om. vulg. 6. διεμαρτύρω Ar. 7 · ^περ 
 
 καί Ο 1 . 
 
 § 200 . ι. μέν γ Σ, L 1 , Αι ; μεν yap vulg. 4· τώι/ 'Ελλήνων Σ (yp), 
 
 Ο (mg.), Φ, Dion. 6 . άκονειτι Σ ; άκονιτεί Β 1 . ούχ ένα Αι. ό'ντιν’ 
 
 ονχ Σ, L 1 , Αι ; όντινονν ονχ L 2 , vulg. 7· T ' L< > άν Αι (w. αν σον). άν σον MSS. 
 
 (άν σου Σ ); άν σον Bk. yap δη Αι. 
 
 nicht nur das Paradoxe seiner Behauptung 
 selbst zu, sondern macht auch die in der 
 Hypothesis εί yap ην άπασι πρόδηλα... 
 liegende Concession durch Haufung der 
 Ausdriicke so grossmiithig und riickhalts- 
 los, dass jedermann die Zuversicht und 
 Siegesgewissheit des Sprechers von vorn- 
 herein mitempfindet.” — καί μου.,.θαυ- 
 μάστ] : an instance of προδιόρθωσις, of 
 which another case is § 22 1 1 , έπεπείσμην 
 κ.τ.λ., both quoted as examples by Ti¬ 
 berius περί σχημάτων 8 (VIII. p. 535, 
 W.). 
 
 5. καί <τύ irpovXeyes: the figure of 
 Aeschines himself joining in the general 
 warning adds greatly to the picture. 
 
 6 . os ούδ’ Ιφθί'γξω, you who did not 
 even open yozir mouth .— ονδ’ οϋτωε, not 
 even then : όντως sums up in one word 
 the whole of the preceding condition 
 
 (4-6). 
 
 7. άιτοσ-τατ€ον ... ην = έδει την πάλιν 
 άποστηναι. 
 
 8. του (jleMovtos a’uovos, friture ages. 
 
 § 200 . ι. νυν μέν...τότ€ δ’ (3): see 
 
 note on § 195 8 · 
 
 2. άττοτυχίϊν, to have failed (in secur¬ 
 ing).— των πραγμάτων, mere material 
 objects, opposed to the high principles 
 which would have been sacrificed in the 
 other case {τότε). 
 
 3· άξιοΰσ-α (imperf.), while she had 
 claimed , followed by the aorist άποστάσα , 
 and then withdrew,' both past to έσχεν άν. 
 We might have had ήξίου and άπέστη : 
 cf. XV. 27, ών άπέστη. 
 
 6 . άκονιτί, without a struggle, sine 
 pulvere', cf. xix. 77.— ούδίνα οντιν’ ούχ, 
 emphatic equivalent of πάντα : the natural 
 nominative oiiSets δστις oil ( = 7 ras) is il- 
 logically declined. 
 
 7. σ-οΰ (accented), with special em¬ 
 phasis.— μή γάρ (sc. είπέ), don't say the 
 state, nor me\ πόλεων and έμου continue 
 the case of σου. 
 
 § 201 . ι. τίσι δ’...«ωρώμίν άν ; i.e. 
 
 how should we now (dare to) look in the 
 face , etc. ? 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 Η3 
 
 τούς εις την πόλιν ανθρώπους άφικνουμενους, ει τα μεν 
 πράγματ εις οπερ νυνί περιεστη ηγεμων δε και κύριος 
 ηρεθη Φίλιππος απάντων, τον δ’ ύπερ τού μη γενεσθαι ταύτ 
 αγώνα ετεροι χωρίς ημών ήσαν πεποιημενοι, και ταύτα 5 
 μηδεπώποτε της πόλεως εν τοΐς εμπροσθε χρόνοις ασφάλειαν 
 άδοζον μάλλον η τον ύπερ των καλών κίνδυνον ηρημενης. 
 τις γάρ ούκ οιδεν Ελλήνων, τις δε βαρβάρων, οτι καί παρά 202 
 Θηβαίων καί παρά των ετι τούτων πρότερον ισχυρών γενο 
 μενών Λακεδαιμονίων καί παρά τού ΐίερσων βασιλεως μετά 
 πολλής χάριτος τούτ αν ασμένως εδόθη τη πόλει, ο τι 
 βούλεται λαβούση καί τά εαυτης εχούση το κελευόμενον 5 
 ποιεΐν καί εάν ετερον των 'Έιλληνων προεστάναι. άλλ’ ούκ 203 
 
 § 201 . 2. μδν om. Ο 1 . 3 ’ περιέστηκεν Αι. 5 · ημών vulg., Bk., 
 
 Dind., Bl.; υμών Σ, L, Vom., West. 7. ηρημένης Σ 2 ; αίραμενης?? (cf. § 208 3 ) Σ 1 
 (ρ μενης alone legible). 
 
 § 202 . 2. καί παρά των δτι.,.Αακ. om. Α2. Ύεγεν-ημένων At. 3· τταρ’ 
 
 αύτου του Α2. 6. μη εάν V6 (yp mg.). 
 
 2—7· €ι τ °> μ^ν.. .ηρημενηξ: this elabo¬ 
 rate protasis has three divisions; (1) el τά 
 μδν...απάντων, (2) τον δε...πεποιημενοι, 
 (3) και ταυτα...ηρημενης. The clause 
 ήρεμων δε ...απάντων belongs closely with 
 the preceding d μεν περιεστη, and τον δ’ 
 (not ήρεμων δέ) corresponds to τά μεν. 
 The first division, el... απάντων, contains 
 no unreal condition, except in combina¬ 
 tion with the second; but the protasis as 
 a whole does express an unreal condition: 
 see M.T. 511. 
 
 3. €is orrep vvvl, to the present state, 
 explained by the following clause. 
 
 4. τον...αγώνα, the fight to prevent 
 this. 
 
 5. έτεροι χωρίς ημών: this pathetic 
 picture of Athens sitting still and seeing 
 others fight the battle for Grecian liberty 
 becomes more effective when we re¬ 
 member (what Demosthenes never forgot) 
 that Greece at this crisis had no state 
 except Athens able or willing to take the 
 lead, or any important part, in such a 
 struggle. See §§ 304, 305, where the 
 orator speaks freely and openly on this 
 point. 
 
 5. καί ταΰτα, and this too, introducing 
 the participial clause which completes the 
 supposition. 
 
 § 202 . r. τίς. . βαρβάρων: cf. XIX. 
 312.— Ίταρά Θηβαίων: in the time of 
 Epaminondas. 
 
 2. 7ταρά... Λακεδαιμονίων : after the 
 Peloponnesian war, and before Leuctra. 
 
 3. 'π·αρά...βαοηλε'ω$, from Xerxes: see 
 the order given to Mardonius before the 
 battle of Plataea, reported to Athens by 
 Alexander, king of Macedonia (Hdt. vm. 
 140): τούτο μεν ττ)ν yijv σφι άποδος, τούτο 
 δε άλλην προς ταύτη ελέσθων αυτοί, ήν- 
 τινα αν έθέλωσι, εόντες αυτόνομοί. Cf. 
 Hdt. ix. 4> 5 1 Dem. νι. ιι. 
 
 4· δ τι βούλεται...ττροεσ-τάναι: i.e. 
 to keep her ow?i and receive anything she 
 wanted, on condition of being subject to 
 Persia. Logically the participles and in¬ 
 finitives would be interchanged, as τούτο, 
 the subject of εδόθη, is not ποιεΐν and εάν, 
 but λαβούση and εχούση. But the present 
 form gives greater emphasis to the dis¬ 
 graceful part of the proposition, which is 
 in the infinitives. 
 
 
144 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 rjp τανθ\ ως εοικε, τοϊς ’Αθηναίους πάτρια ονδ * ανεκτά ονδ ’ 
 εμφντα, ονδ ’ εδννηθη πωποτε την πόλυν ονδείς εκ παντός 
 τον χρόνον πείσαι τους ίσχνονσι μεν μη δίκαια δε πράττονσυ 
 5 προσθεμενην άσφαΧως δονΧενειν, αΧΧ αγωνιζομενη περί 
 πρωτείων καί τιμής καί δόξης κινδννενονσα παντα τον 
 204 αιώνα διατετεΧεκε. καί τανθ * οντω σεμνά καί προσήκοντα 296 
 τους νμετεροις ηθεσιν νμεΐς νποΧαμβάνετ είναι ώστε και 
 των προγόνων τονς ταντα πράζαντας μάΧιστ επαινείτε, 
 εικότως * τις γάρ ονκ αν άγάσαιτο των άνδρων εκείνων της 
 
 5 αρετής, οι καί την χωράν καί την πόΧιν εκΧιπείν νπεμειναν 
 εις τάς τριηρεις εμβάντες νπερ τον μη το κεΧενόμενον 
 ποιησαι, τον μεν ταντα σνμβονΧενσαντα ΘεμιστοκΧεα 
 στρατηγόν εΧόμενοι, τον δ * νπακονειν άποφηνάμενον τους 
 
 § 203 . 2. τοΐς τότε Άθ. Αι; τότε tols L 1 ; τότε over tols Σ 2 (cf. § 205 2 4 ) ; ταντα 
 
 tols Άθ. tols τότε, los £ou<e Α.2. 6. δ 6 ζηs καί A ι. 2, Ο (corr.). 
 
 § 204 . 2 . νμετέροίϊ Σ, L, Αι. 2; ήμετ. vulg. ’έθεσιν Ο. υπολαμβάνετε 
 
 Σ, L, Β 2 ; ύπελαμβάνετε Αι, Β 1 , vulg. 4· ά"γασθείη Cob. (conj.). 
 
 άpετάs (late corr. of τη s άρετψ) Σ. 6. έκβάντες V6. 7 · ^ ν 7<*Ρ A 2. 
 
 σνμβουλεύοντα Α2. 8. άπο^. to?s επιταττ. Σ, L, Αι; τοΑ επιτ. άποφ. vulg.; 
 
 to?s επιτ. om. Harpocr. (under K υρσίλον), Bl. 
 
 § 203 . 2. ώς έοικε, spoken with 
 
 sarcasm: cf. § 212 5 (BL).— πάτρια, i.e. 
 inherited from their ancestors .— οΰδ’ ανε¬ 
 κτά implies that they revolted morally 
 against the idea; ουδ’ έμφυτα that it was 
 against their nature as Athenians. 
 
 3. εκ iravTos του χρόνου, from the 
 beginning of time, a rhetorical υπερβολή, 
 as in § 66 5 ; in § 20 7 it means from the 
 beginning of the transaction in question. 
 
 4. μή δίκαια : μή, not 01), as we should 
 say οϊ μή δίκαια πράττουσίν (G. 1612). 
 
 5. προσθεμενην, taking the side of, 
 attaching herself to: cf. § 227 s .— άσ-φαλώς 
 δουλευειν : the same idea of security in 
 slavery is found in the speech of Pericles, 
 Thuc. II. 63 (end).— άγωνιξομε'νη, as 
 partic. of manner, modifies κι,νδννεύουσα 
 διατετέλεκε. 
 
 6 . πρωτείων, τιμηΞ, δό|η8: cf. § 66 7 . 
 
 § 204 . 2. ήθεσ-ιν, 7 noral feelings : 
 
 see note on § 114 2 . 
 
 4. άγάσαιτο : Blass accounts for this 
 epic aorist by the rhythms of άλλ’ άyωvLξo- 
 
 μένη (§ 2θ3 5 ), ώστε καί των προγόνων, and 
 t'ls yap ού kcLv aydaaLfo), —"' l — — . 
 
 Cobet emends it to άyaσθείη. 
 
 5. πόλιν εκλιπεϊν refers to the time 
 before the battle of Salamis when, by 
 the advice of Themistocles, Athens was 
 abandoned to Xerxes, and all was staked 
 on a sea-fight: so VI. 11. See Cicero, 
 Offic. hi. ii, 48: Cyrsilum quendam, 
 suadentem ut in urbe manerent Xerxem- 
 que reciperent, lapidibus obruerunt. 
 Herodotus, ix. 5, tells a similar story of 
 the stoning of a senator named Lycidas, 
 with his wife and children, before the 
 battle of Plataea, when Mardonius sent 
 his second message to Athens (for the 
 earlier message see note on § 202 3 ). 
 
 6. υπέρ του μή...ποιησαι : νπερ with 
 the gen. of the infin. for a final clause, as 
 in § 205 8 , and in Aesch. ill. 1, ΰπδρ του... 
 μή yίyvεσθaL. 
 
 8. τον ύπακούειν άποφηνάμενον, who 
 
 declared himself for obedience', generally 
 yvώμηv άποφαίνεσθαι, see § 189 3 . 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 Η5 
 
 επιταττομένοις Κυρσίλον καταλιθωσαντες, ον μόνον αυτόν, 
 άλλα καί αί γυναίκες αί ύμέτεραι την γυναΐκ αύτου. ου 205 
 γάρ εζητουν οι τότ ’Αθηναίοι ούτε ρήτορα ούτε στρατηγόν 
 ι οτου ΟουΚευσουσιν ευτυχώς, αλλ ουοε ζην ηςιουν ει μη 
 μετ ελευθερίας εζέσται τούτο ποιέίν. ηγείτο γάρ αυτών 
 έκαστος ουχί τω πατρί καί τη μητρί μόνον γεγενησθαι, 5 
 αλλα και τη πατριοί. οιαφερει οε τι; οτι ο μεν τοις 
 γονευσι μόνον γεγενησθαι νομίζων τον της ειμαρμένης καί - 
 τον αυτόματον θάνατον περιμένει, ό δε καί τη πατρίδι υπέρ 
 του μη ταυτην επιδείν δουλευουσαν άποθνησκειν έθελησει, 
 καί φοβερωτέρας ηγησεται τάς ύβρεις καί τάς ατιμίας, ας ίο 
 εν δουλευουση τη πόλει φέρειν ανάγκη, του θανάτου. 
 
 9· Κ υρσίλον L, vulg. ; Κύρσιλον Σ. 
 
 § 205 . 3 · δουλεύσωσιν V6; δουλεύουσιν Ο. 
 
 Dind., West., Bl. ; om. Σ, L 1 , Bk., Vom., Lips. 
 
 om. Σ, L. 
 
 αυτών Σ. 
 
 7 ενέσθαι V6 1 . 
 
 ευτυχώς (after δούλεύσ.) vulg., 
 4. αύτοϊς (before έξόσται) vulg.; 
 6. otl om. A2. 11. του 
 
 θανάτου Σ, L, F (γρ), Φ (7 p), vulg.; om. O. 
 
 : acc. to Bl., the 
 of καταλιθόω for 
 
 10. at γυναΐκ€5...αύτου : the vividness 
 of the picture in the easy flowing narrative 
 is heightened by the irregular insertion of 
 a new subject, al γυναίκες, as if xvithout 
 premeditation. Aristides (46, p. 287) 
 tells the story more grammatically, but 
 far less forcibly: συλλε^έντες πάντες κατέ- 
 λευσαν αυτοί μόν αυτόν, αί δέ '■γυναίκες την 
 ’γυναίκα αύτοΰ. 
 
 With this and § 205 compare the speech 
 of the Athenian envoy at Sparta more 
 than a century earlier, Thuc. 1. 73—75. 
 
 § 205 . 3. δι’ οτου δουΧεύσουσιν : 
 
 final relatix'e. With δουλεύσουσιν εύτυχώς 
 (sarcastic) cf. ασφαλώς δουλεύειν, § 203 5 . 
 —el μη e^eVrai, if they could not (were 
 not to be able): εί μη έξέσοιτο might be 
 used (M.T. 694, 695). 
 
 5. ούχ 1 ...γ€γ€νήσ-θαι : cf. Plat. Crit. 
 50 D —51 B; and Arist. Eth. I. 7, 6, τό δ’ 
 αϋταρκες λέ^ομεν ούκ αύτφ μόνιρ τφ ζώντι 
 βίον μονωτήν, άλλα (sc. τφ ζώντι) καί 
 Ύονεΰσι καί τέκνοις κ.τ.λ., where αύτφ 
 μόνιρ and “γονεύσι both depend on ζώντι 
 [living for himself alone, and living also 
 for parents etc.), as ττατρί, μητρί, and 
 ■γονευσι in Demosthenes depend on -γε- 
 
 καταλιθώσ -avTes 
 
 .·■ ■*·. - 
 
 Lttic .example 
 καταλεύω. 
 
 Ύενήσθαι. The passage of Aristotle is 
 sometimes called ungrammatical! 
 
 7. τον τήξ είμαρμί'νηξ θάνατον, the 
 death of Fate, i.e. death at an appointed 
 time, opposed to voluntary death, as 
 when one gives his life for his country 
 (cf. άποθνησκειν έθελήσει, f): τον αυτό¬ 
 ματον θάν. is natural (opposed to violent) 
 death. The two are really the same, 
 from different points of view (see West.). 
 Aldus Gellius (xm. 1) discusses the say¬ 
 ing of Cicero (Phil. 1. 4, 10), multa autem 
 impendere videntur praetcr naturam etiam 
 praeterque fatum, and decides that Cicero 
 means the same by naturam and fatum, 
 both being opposed to violentam et inopi- 
 natam mortem. After quoting the present 
 passage of Demosthenes, Gellius thus 
 concludes: Quod Cicero fatum atque 
 naturam videtur dixisse, id multo ante 
 Demosthenes την πεττρωμένην et τον αυτό¬ 
 ματον θάνατον appellavit. Αυτόματος enim 
 θάνατος, quasi naturalis et fatalis, nulla 
 extrinsecus vi coactus venit. (See Dissen’s 
 note.) 
 
 8. καί ττ) -ττατρίδι: sc. Ύε~γενησθαι 
 νομίζων .— inrep τοΰ.,.ί'ΐτιδείν: cf. § 204 6 · 
 
 9. δουλίυουσ-αν: see Μ.Τ. 885. With 
 the pres, partic. cf. μή μ' ίδεϊν θανόνθ\ 
 not to see 7 ne killed, Eur. Orest. 746. 
 
 G. D. 
 
 IO 
 
ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 146 
 
 Ει μεν τοίννν τοντ επεχειρονν λεγειν, ως εγω π porjyayov 
 νμας άζια των 7 τ ρογονων φρονειν, ονκ ε<τθ οεττις ονκ αν 
 εικότως επιτιμτ^ετειε μοι. ννν δ εγω μεν νμετερας τ ας 
 τοιαντας ττροαιρέετεις αποφαινω, καί $εικννμι οτι και ττρο 
 5 εμον τοντ 5 είχε τδ φρονΎΐμ Ύ] πόλις, ττ^ς μεντοι διακονίας 
 τής εφ’ εκάεττοις τωΒ πεπραγμενών και εμαντω μετειναι 
 φημι, οντος δε τωζ^ δλω^ κατήγορων, καί κελεύων υμάς εμοι 297 
 πικρως εχειν ως φόβων και κιν^ννων αιτιω ttj πολεί, ttjs 
 μεν εις το παρόν τιμής εμ άποστερησαι γλίχεται, τα δ’ εις 
 άπαντα τον λοιπον χρονον εγκωμι νμων αφαιρειται. ει 
 
 § 206 
 
 oans ούκ αν 
 
 I. ώί αρα Αι. 2. προσηχαχον Ο 1 . 
 
 2. Σ, L ; ϊσπ,ν vulg. 
 
 είΚΟΤως 
 
 / ill · i* · <1 I I j vv l ■ 
 
 (<yp ) 5 vulg. ; δτισανόυ κανεικοτως (w. erasure after < 5 u), 
 
 οστι ς 
 
 ULf / O uea LVK vwvv# WJ y l \ J 7 o 7 ------ \ 
 
 &1/ oik αν L; ό'στ. άν oik εικότως Ο ; oans oik αν oik ei/c. F, Υ, Φ. 
 Αι, Υ, Β (over έπιτιμήσειε), Dion., Β 1 . ; έπιτιμήσειε Σ, vulg. 
 προαιρέσεις L. προς έιιοΰ Ο 1 . 
 
 § 207 . 2. yeyev 7 )ix€VLp (after πόλει) vulg. ; om. 2 , L , A . 
 
 χρόνων (o over each ω) Β. 
 
 έπ ετίμησε 
 άποφαίνω 
 
 4· των Χοιπων 
 
 §§ 206—210 conclude the digres¬ 
 sion which begins in § 188. The orator 
 here appeals to the judges not to convict 
 Ctesiphon, as this will be a condemnation 
 of the people of Athens for maintaining 
 the ancient glories of the state, the glories 
 of Marathon and Salamis. 
 
 § 206 . i. €i. . ,ειτεχείρουν. . ,εττιτιμή- 
 <T€i€ μοι : this combination of a present 
 unreal condition, if I were undertaking , 
 with a future conclusion, everybody would 
 justly censure vie , is rare, and perhaps 
 strictly illogical. Several good MSS. and 
 Dionysius (p. 1054) have έπετίμησε, which 
 Blass adopts. But this past apodosis 
 would compel us to make εί έπεχείρουν 
 past also, if I had been undertaking , 
 which would greatly weaken the whole 
 sentence. We should expect an imperfect 
 with άν in the apodosis; and this is im¬ 
 plied, though not expressed, in the some¬ 
 what condensed form which we have. 
 The real meaning is, if I were (now) 
 undertaking to tell you this, the result 
 would be that all would justly censure me. 
 This could have been rather pedantically 
 expressed by ούκ αν ην οστις, but ουκ ’έσθ ’ 
 οστις is much smoother and more natural. 
 
 Our ambiguous would only conceals the 
 difficulty. (M.T. 504.) 
 
 5. διακονίας, i.e. what he terms the 
 menial service is all that he claims for 
 himself. This is in striking contrast with 
 his claim for full recognition of his public 
 services elsewhere : cf. §§ 297—300. But 
 in this grand glorification of Athens and 
 her noble services to freedom, the more 
 he depreciates himself and exalts the 
 state, the stronger does he make his argu¬ 
 ment that the condemnation of Ctesiphon 
 now would be a condemnation of Athens 
 herself and of all her glorious history. 
 
 Notice the antitheses in this passage:— 
 first, the main one, εί μεν and νυν δέ : 
 then, within the latter, ey<b μέν and o 5 tos 
 δέ (§ 2θ7 1 )» νμετέρας and και εμαυτφ, 
 προαιρέσεις and διακονίας. 
 
 § 207 . ι. των δλων: opposed to της 
 έφ' έκάστοις (διακονίας), § 2θό 6 . 
 
 2. τής είς τό τταρον τιμής: i.e. the 
 crown. 
 
 3. τά...εγκώμι’ : i.e. your glories of 
 the past will be lost for all future time 
 if they are condemned by your vote to¬ 
 day. 
 
 4. αφαιρειται is conative: cf. § 13 1 . 
 
147 
 
 ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 γάρ ώς ον τα βέλτιστα έμου πολιτζυσαμενου του81 κατα- 5 
 ψηφιβΐσθζ, ημαρτηκέναι Sofere, ον τη της τυγης αγνωμοσύνη 
 τα συμβάντα παθείν ·| αλλ’ ούκ έστιν, ούκ έστιν όπως 208 
 ημάρτετε, άν&ρες ’ Αθηναίοι, τον υπέρ της απάντων ελευθερίας 
 και σωτηρίας κίνδυνον άράμενοι, μά τους Μαραθώνι προκιν- 
 όυνεύσαντας των προγόνων καί τους εν ΤΙλαταιαίς παρατα- 
 
 5· ού om. Ο 1 . καταψηφίξεσθε Α?. 6. τ ή om. Ο. Two letters erased 
 
 before αγνωμοσύνη (·νη for -νηι) Σ. 
 
 § 208 . 2. ήμαρτήκατε Αΐ. 2. ούδ ’ οΧως ήμαρτήκατε, ώ Άθ. V6. 3* δρώ¬ 
 μενοι Σ (cf. § 2οι 7 ). μα Σ; ού μα L, vulg. Μαραθώνι Σ; εν Map. L, vulg. 
 
 4· IlXaretaiS (ats corn, and ai over et) Σ; Πλαταιαι Ai. 
 
 5. τουδί, Ctesiphon, like τουτονί in 
 
 § I5 5 · 
 
 6. αγνωμοσύνη, harshness (want of 
 feeling) : cf. § 25 2 1 . ά·γνωμονώ may mean 
 to be thoughtless or inconsiderate : cf. §§ 94 s , 
 248 s . 
 
 7. τά συμβάντα, what befell you, 
 including Chaeronea. 
 
 § 208 . The famous oath by the 
 heroes of Marathon, Plataea, Salamis, 
 and Artemisium here follows. The 
 grandeur of this solemn invocation of the 
 shades of the mighty dead, to support 
 the orator in his last and noblest assertion 
 of the true spirit of Athenian liberty, will 
 
 Ϊ strike the most indifferent reader. XVe 
 do not envy one who is strong enough to 
 read this passage without emotion. Lord 
 Brougham says: “The whole passage, 
 which ends here, and begins εί yap ταΰτα 
 προεΐτο άκονιτί (§ 200), is deserving of 
 close study, being one of the greatest 
 pieces of declamation on record in any 
 tongue.” See Longinus on the Sublime 
 16: άπόδειξιν b Αημοσθένης υπέρ των 
 π εποΧιτ ευμενών εισφέρει ·...“ οι’χ ημάρτετε, 
 ώ τον ΰπϊρ της 'ΈιΧΧήνων έΧευθερίας αγώνα 
 άράμενοι.' 'έχετε δέ οικεία τούτου παρα¬ 
 δείγματα - ούδέ yap oi έν Μαραθώνι ήμαρτον 
 οι)δ’ oi εν ΣαΧαμίνι κ.τ.Χ.” άλλ 5 επειδή, 
 καθάπερ έμπνευσθεις έξαίφνης ύπό θεού 
 καί οίονεϊ φοιβόΧηπτος yεvόμεvoς. τόν των 
 άριστέων της Ελλάδοϊ ορκον έξεφώνησεν, 
 “ ούκ έστιν όπως ημάρτετε, μά τούς εν 
 Μαραθώνι προκινδυνεύσαντας,” φαίνεται δι’ 
 ενός του όμοτικοΰ σχήματος, οπερ ένθάδε 
 αποστροφήν iyu> καλώ, τούς μέν πpoyόvoυς 
 
 άττοθεώσας, ότι δει τούς οϋτω άττοθανόντας 
 ώς θεούς όμνύναι τταριστάνων, τοΐς δέ κρί- 
 νουσι το των εκεί προκινδυνευσάντων έν- 
 τιθε'ις φρόνημα, την δε τής άποδείξεως 
 φύσιν μεθεστακώς εις ύπερβάΧΧον ύφος καί 
 βάθος. Hermogenes περί ιδεών I. g 
 (ill. ρρ. 246, 247 W.) : έτι μεθόδου Χαμ- 
 ττράς καί τό τά ένδοξα ένδοξοτέρως Xέyειv 
 (gloriosa etiam glot'iosius extulit, Dissen), 
 ώσπερ εκείνο ε’ίρηται τό ού μά τούς έν 
 Μα ραθώνι κ.τ.Χ. Among the noted 
 expressions of admiration in ancient 
 writers cited by Reiske and other older 
 editors are Aristid. Art. Rhet. I. 1, 7 
 (ix. pp. 344, 345 W.), Clem. Alex. Strom, 
 vi. 2, 20, Quint, xi. 3, 168. 
 
 Ί. ούκ ’έστιν... ημάρτετε, it cannot be 
 that ye erred', ούκ έστιν όπως = ούδαμώς . 
 See critical notes on §§ 47 s and 52 1 . 
 
 3. άράμενοι : cf. πόΧεμον άρασθαι, 
 V. 5 · — μά tovs : most MSS. prefix ού, 
 which Σ omits, μά generally implying a 
 negation.— tovs... προγόνων (those of) our 
 ancestors who bore the brunt of battle at 
 Marathon : προκινδυνεύω is here stand 
 forward (as πρόμαχος) to face the foe; 
 from its idea of contending it may take 
 a dative like μάχομαι, as in Thuc. 1. 73, 
 φαμέν yάp Μαραθώνι μόνοι προκινδυνευσαι 
 τψ βαρβάριρ, a passage which may have 
 suggested προκινδυνεύσαντας to Demo¬ 
 sthenes here. Further, προκινδυνεύω, like 
 προμάχομαι and προμαχέω, may mean 
 incur danger (or contend) for (προ-) any¬ 
 one, as Xen. Hier. X. 8, προνοοΰσι καί 
 προκινδυνεύουσι τών ποΧιτών; [Andoc.] 
 IV. ι, προκινδυνεύειν του πΧήθους ; Simon. 
 
 ΙΟ-2 
 
ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 . V .. 
 
 148 
 
 5 Καμένους και tovs εν ^αλαμινι ναυμαχησαντας και τους επ 
 
 * Αρτεμίσίω KCLL πολλούς ετερους TO L»9 €.V ΤΟίς ΒημοσίΟΙ 9 
 μνημασι κείμενους, αγαθούς αν$ρας, ον 9 απαντας ομοίως 
 η πολΐ9 της αυτής άξιωσασα τιμής εθαφεν, Α ίσχίνη, ουχι 
 τους κατορθώσαντας αυτών ουδέ τους κρατησαντας μονούς. 
 
 ίο δικαίω^ο μεν yap ην άντρων αγαθών εργον, άπασι πεπρα- 
 κταί' τη τύχη δ ην ο δαίμων ενειμεν εκαστοις, ταντη 
 209 κεχρηνται. επειτ , ω κατάρατε καί γραμματοκύφων, συ 
 μεν της παρά τουτωνί τιμής καί φιλανθρωπιας εμ αποστε- 
 
 * ' ' f ν/ νχ /sv» 
 
 ρησαι βονλομενος τρόπαια και μαχας και παλαι εργ 
 ελεγες, ων τίνος προσεΰεΐθ' 6 παρών άγων ούτοσί; εμε δε, 
 5 ω τριταγωνιστά, τον περί των πρωτείων σύμβουλον τη πολει 
 
 8. ή τι-όλΐϊ ομοίως Αΐ. τιμής έθαύμασεν F (γρ). g. αυτών vulg. ; αυτούς Σ, 
 L 1 , Lips. ίο. dy αθων dvbp&v V6. ιΐ· kveifiev 2 , L, Αι; direveiffev vulg. 
 
 12. κέχρηται \ 6 . . 
 
 § 209 . ι. 'γραμματοκυφών Σ. 2. τούτων V6 ; τούτοις Α. 2 . 5 · τον οηΊ · ^· 2 ’ 
 
 τών om. A ι. 
 
 91 (Bergk), "Ελλήνων ττρομαχοΰντες ; Ar. 
 Vesp. 987, σου ττρομάχεται. But the fre¬ 
 quent use of U 7 repwith such genitives makes 
 plain the other force of προ- ; as Isoc. 
 IV. 75, τούς tols σώμασιν υπέρ τής Έλλάδο$ 
 
 7 τροκινδυνεύσαντας, and Lys. XVIII. 27, 
 τών ύττερ τής ελευθερίας ττροκεκινδυνευκο- 
 των, where the meaning is the same as 
 in the present passage. See also II. XI. 
 217, ’έθελεν δε πολ ύ προμάχεσθαι αττάντων , 
 to fight far in the front of all, and XVII. 
 358, ιτρομάχεσθαι Αχαιών ΐζοχον άλλων 
 (cf. vss. 357—359)» with the same force 
 of προ-. In our passage ττρο κινδυνεύω is 
 used absolutely.— Μαραθώνι : as the name 
 of an Attic deme, this is usually a locative 
 dative; but here all MSS. except Σ, and 
 most quotations, prefix εν. 
 
 5. 4 v Σαλαμίνι : this battle was fought 
 at Salamis; the other sea-fight was off 
 (έιτή Artemisium. The two land-battles 
 are mentioned first, and then the two sea- 
 fights in the order of importance. 
 
 6. δημοσ -iois μνημασι : the public 
 tombs were in the outer Ceramicus, on 
 the road leading to the Academy : see 
 Paus. 1. 29, Thuc. II. 34. Those who 
 
 fell at Marathon were buried on the 
 battlefield, as a special honour. 
 
 7. ayaGovs avSpas, in apposition with 
 the preceding accusatives: this was by 
 no means a weak term of praise with 
 Demosthenes : cf. 1 . 10.— όμοιας and 
 T-rjs avrqs mutually strengthen each 
 other. 
 
 9. αυτών : I adopt this partitive gen. 
 rather than αυτούς (found in Σ, L 1 ), as I 
 am not convinced that αυτούς can have 
 the force of especially (<distinguished from 
 others ), ipsos solos (Rauchenstein): see 
 Vomel’s note. In. defence of English, 
 we may note that this renowned passage, 
 perhaps the most effective ever spoken by 
 an orator, has no less than fifty sigmas in 
 sixty-seven words. 
 
 § 209 . The descent from the im¬ 
 passioned patriotic eloquence of the 
 preceding passage to the personal vitu¬ 
 peration of this is depressing. 
 
 1. γραμματοκνφων: αντί του -γραμ· 
 ματέως, οτι oi -γραμματείς ιτροκεκνφότες 
 Ύράφουσιν (Etym. Magn.). Cf. § 261 3 . 
 
 3. τρόπαια... ^Xeyts: see Aesch. 181. 
 
 5. τριταγωνιστά: effectively chosen 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 149 
 
 παριόντα, το τίνος φρόνημα λαβόντ άναβαίνειν επί το βημ' 
 έδει; το τον τούτων ανάζι έρονντος; δικαίως μένταν από- 2 
 gS θανον. επεί ούδ' νμας, ανδρες * Αθηναίοι, από της αντης 
 διάνοιας δει τάς τ ιδίας δίκας και τας δημοσίας κρίνειν, 
 αλλά τα μεν τον καθ' ημέραν βίον σνμβόλαια επί των Ιδίων 
 νόμων καί έργων σκοπονντας, τας δε κοινας προαιρέσεις εις 5 
 τα των προγόνων αζιώματ αποβλέποντας. καί παραλαμ- 
 βάνειν γ αμα τη βακτηρία καί τω σνμβόλω το φρόνημα το 
 της πόλεως νομίζειν έκαστον νμων δει, δτα^ τα δημόσι 
 
 6. άναλαβόντα Αι. η. του om. L 2 , F, Υ, Φ. το τού\τόΰ των (in 2 lines) Σ. 
 § 210. 2. έπε'ι Σ, L 1 ; 'έπειτα L (mg.), vulg. ω άνδρε s Ο ; ω ’Αθηναίοι Ar. 
 
 5. (?py. και νόμων Ο. 8. δει om. Ο. 
 
 with reference to πρωτείων, which refers 
 to Athens as competitor for the first 
 prize in the political ayiov, in which 
 Demosthenes is her adviser. 
 
 6 . το τίνος φρόνημα λαβόντ’, in¬ 
 spired by whose spirit? Our language 
 generally refuses to translate an interro¬ 
 gative or relative with a participle or 
 infinitive: we may say with whose spirit 
 should I have been inspired when etc.? 
 
 § 210 . 1. δικαίως μόντάν άιτίθανον, 
 
 but (in that case) I should have deserved to 
 die. μένταν by crasis for μέντοι αν: τοι 
 dv becomes τάν, but whether μέν- should 
 retain its accent is doubtful. 
 
 3. διανοίας, spii'it (way of thinking). 
 — ιδίας, δημοσίας : this has no reference 
 to the ordinary distinction of ypapai and 
 δίκαι, public and private suits, which 
 correspond generally to our criminal and 
 civil processes. Here δίκη has its widest 
 legal sense of lawsuit in general, in¬ 
 cluding both y ραφή and δίκη (in its 
 narrower sense), ϊδιαι δίκαι are those 
 which concern individuals and their ordi¬ 
 nary business relations ( συμβόλαια ), which 
 of course must be judged with reference to 
 special statutes (έπί ιδίων νόμων, cf. έπ’ 
 άληθείας, § 22 1 ), which may change from 
 year to year, and to special facts ( ιδίων 
 έpyωv), without regard to the general 
 policy or the traditions of the state: even 
 criminal suits (7 ραφαί) which involve 
 nothing more than the rights or acts of 
 
 individuals would be included here. But 
 δημόσιαι δίκαι are suits like the present 
 one, which involve a judgment on the 
 general policy of statesmen (κοιν as προαι- 
 ρέσει$), whose acts are not prescribed by 
 special statutes, but must be governed to 
 a great extent by general principles and 
 traditions of state: these, the orator says, 
 must be judged by reference to the glorious 
 deeds of the past. Demosthenes insists 
 here, as elsewhere, that the only real 
 question involved in this case is that of 
 his own statesmanship and his fidelity 
 to the best traditions of Athens, while 
 Aeschines constantly urges the court to 
 treat it as a common ιδία δίκη and settle 
 it by reference to ordinary facts and petty 
 details. (See Aesch. 199, 200.) Aeschi¬ 
 nes saw that here lay his only chance of 
 success in his suit. 
 
 7. τή βακτηρία καί τω συμβόλω, 
 
 his staff and his ticket·, each judge, who 
 was appointed to sit in any court for the 
 day, received in the morning a staff painted 
 with the same colour as the lintel (σφη- 
 νίσκος) of the court house in which he 
 was to sit; after entering the court, he 
 gave up his staff to an officer, who gave 
 him a ticket ( σύμβολον ), which entitled 
 him to receive his fee of three obols (δι¬ 
 καστικόν) after his day’s service. See 
 Arist. Pol. Ath. 03 7 and col. 32 3-15 , with 
 Sandys’s notes; Meier and Schomann, 
 pp. 160—162.— φρονη'μα: see § 209 6 . 
 
ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 ΐ5ο 
 
 είσίητε κρινουντες, είπερ άζι εκείνων πραττειν οιεσθε 
 ΙΟ XprjvaiJI 
 
 211 ’Αλλά yap εμπεσων εις τα πεπραγμένα τοίς προγόνους 
 υμών εστιν α των ψηφισμάτων παρεβην καί των πραχθεντων. 
 επανελθεΐν ονν όπόθεν εντανθ ’ εζεβην βούλομαι. 
 
 'ίΐς γάρ άφικόμεθ ’ εις τάς Θήβας, κατελαμβάνομεν Φι- 
 5 λίππον καί Θετταλων καί των άλλων συμμάχων παρόντας 
 πρέσβεις, καί τους μεν ήμετερους φίλους εν φόβω, τους δ’ 
 εκείνου θρασείς, ότι δ’ ου νυν ταυτα λέγω του συμφέροντος 
 εν εκ εμαυτω, λεγε μοι την επιστολήν ήν τότ επεμφαμεν 
 
 212 ευθυς οί πρέσβεις, καίτοι τοσαυτή y υπερβολή συκοφαντίας 
 ουτος κεχρηται ωστ, εί μεν τι των δεόντων επράχθη, τον 
 καιρόν, ούκ εμε φησιν αίτιον γεγενήσθαι, των δ ώς ετερως 
 συμβάντων απάντων εμε καί την εμήν τύχην αιτίαν είναι · 
 
 5 καί, ως εοικεν, ό σύμβουλος καί ρήτωρ εγω των μεν εκ λογου 
 καί του βουλευσασθαι πραχθεντων ουδεν αύτω συναίτιος 
 είναι δοκω, των δ’ εν τοίς όπλοις καί κατά την στρατηγίαν 
 
 9 · εισιήτε Αι. οϊεσθαι Σ. 
 
 § 211 . ι. έκπεσων Αί. 3 · όπόθεν Σ, Σ ( yp ), L; δθεν vulg. ένταυθ ’ Σ, L; 
 a’s ταυτα Σ {yp), vulg. 4· κατελαμβάνομεν Σ, L, Αι ; καταλαμβ. vulg. 6. μεν 
 om. V6.. υμετ. V6. 7 · εκείνων Αί. θαρσεϊς Ο. 
 
 § 212 . 2 . ουτοσί Ο; om. V6. 3· yεyεvήσθaι {w. \ζΧζ +)Σ. ζ. ό ρήτωρ Ο 1 . 
 
 6 . βουλεύεσθαι Υ. ούδέν Σ ; ούδενός L, vulg. 7 · και (before κατά) om. L. 
 
 § 211 . He now returns to the ac¬ 
 count of the embassy to Thebes, from 
 which he digressed in § 188. 
 
 4. άφικόμ€0’ : i.e. the ambassadors.— 
 ΦιλίΐΓπ·ου...ΐΓρ€σβ€ΐ 5 : see Plut. Dem. 18, 
 ’έπεμφε δέ (sc. els Θήβας) καί Φίλιππος, 
 ώς Μαρσι /as φησίν, ’ Αμύνταν μεν καί 
 Κλέαρχον Μακεδόνας, Αάοχον δέ θετταλόν 
 καί θρασυδαων, άντεροΰντας (sc. Αημο- 
 σθένει). 
 
 5 · συμμάχων, see Philocth. frag. 135» 
 Φιλίππου δέ καταλαβόντος 'Κλάτειαν καί 
 Κυτίνιον, καί πρέσβεις πέμφαντος εις Θήβας 
 θετταλων, ΑΙνιανών, Α ίτωλων, Αολόπων, 
 Φθιωτων' ’Αθηναίων δέ κατά τον αυτόν 
 χρόνον πρέσβεις άποστειλάντων τους περί 
 
 Αημοσθένη, τούτοις συμμαχειν έφηφίσαντο. 
 
 8. ήν τότ 4 τΓ€μψα·μ€ν : opposed to 
 νυν λέyω (7). 
 
 § 212 . These words were spoken 
 while the clerk was preparing to read the 
 letter: cf. § 180. 
 
 2. τον καιρόν: see Aesch. 137— 141 
 and 237—239; esp. ό δ’ είσάyωv ήν ύμας 
 εις τας Θήβας καιρός καί φόβος, καί χρεία 
 σνμμαχίας, άλλ’ οΰ Αημοσθένης (141)· 
 
 3· tis €T€pios: see note on § 85 s · 
 
 4. τύχην: see Aesch. 157. 
 
 6. (τνναίτιος, partner, opposed to μόνος 
 αίτιος (8). 
 
 7. των ... άτυχηθί'ντων = ά ήτυχήσα· 
 
 μεν. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 ΐ5ΐ 
 
 άτυχηθεντων μόνος αίτιος είναι. πως αν ωμότερος συκο¬ 
 φάντης γενοιτ η καταρατότερος; λεγε την επιστολήν. 
 
 299 
 
 ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ. 
 
 Επειδή τοίνυν εποιησαντο την εκκλησίαν, προσηγον ^13 
 εκείνους προτερους διά το την των συμμάχων τάζιν εκείνους 
 εχε lv. καί παρελθόντες εόημηγόρουν πολλά μεν Φίλιπποί 
 εγκωμιάζοντες, πολλά δ’ υμών κατηγορούντες, πάνθ ’ δοτά 
 πωποτ εναντί ’ επράζατε Θηβαίους άναμιμνησ κοντές. το ζ 
 ουν κεφάλαυον, ηζίουν ων μεν ευ πεπόνθεσαν υπό Φίλιππου 
 χάριν αυτούς άποόουν αι, ών δ’ υφ * υμών ηόίκηντο δι κην 
 λαβεϊν, όποτερως βούλονται, η όιεντας αυτούς εφ * υμάς η 
 συνεμβαλόντας είς την ' Αττικην\ και εόείκνυσαν, ώς ωοντο, 
 εκ μεν ων αυτοί συνεβούλευον τάκ της *Αττικής βοσκήματα το 
 
 g. γένοιτο Σ, L; χένοιτ άν vulg. καταρατώτερος Αι, Ο. τούτου (after καταρ.) 
 vulg. ; om. Σ, L, Αι. 
 
 § 213 . 2. το om. Υ. 3 · ^ (for μέν) Α2. \. πάνθ ’ Σ, L, Αι ; 
 
 άπανθ’ vulg. 5· πράξαντες Υ. 6 . βδ πεπόνθασιν Αι ; έυπεπονθεσαν Σ ; 
 
 εΰπεπόνθ. L. 7 · αδτοΓ? Αι, F. άποδιδόναι Β. δφ’ om. Ο. ήμαΦ Α2. 
 ηδίκηντο L ; ηδίκηνται Σ 2 (at corr.), vulg. δίκην above line, nearly obliterated, Σ. 
 
 8 . βούλεται Αι. διέντα s Σ, L, Y, V6, F, Φ, B 1 ; διιέντα s vulg. αυτούς L, 
 
 vulg.; αυτούς Σ ; αυτούς Bk. ημάς Φ, Αι. 9. συν Εμβάλλοντας F 1 ; συμβαλ- 
 
 λόντας Ο ; συμβαλόντας Α2. ίο. έκ om. Α2. αύτοϊς F, (corr. to αυτοί) Β. 
 
 § 213 . ι. την Εκκλησίαν: i.e. at 
 Thebes. The narrative is continued from 
 § 2 11 · 
 
 2. των συμμάχων : i.e. of Thebes. 
 
 5. το ««φάλαιον, adverbial, in short. 
 
 6 . ών μ.€ν €υ 'Jr€ir0v0€<rav, for the 
 benefits they had received , εύ πάσχαν 
 being the passive of ed ποιεΐν. this cor¬ 
 responds to ών δ’ ηδίκηντο (y). 
 
 7. αύτούβ: the Thebans, while αυτούς 
 in 8 refers to the Macedonians. 
 
 8. oiroTtpcos βούλονται, in -whichever 
 way they pleased , in the mood and tense 
 of the direct form, the exhortation being 
 take vengeance in whichever way you 
 please, όποτέρως βούλοιντο might have 
 been used: but this might stand for 07 το- 
 τέρως άν βούλησθε (future). —δΐ€ντα$ αύ- 
 rovs, i.e. by letting them pass through 
 Boeotia into Attica. The aorists διέντας 
 and συνεμβαλόντας have the better au¬ 
 thority here: when an aor. partic. denotes 
 
 that in which the action of a verb (usually 
 aorist) consists, so that they really de¬ 
 signate one act, the two may coincide in 
 time, as in Plat. Phaed. 60 C, εύ 7’ 
 έποίησας άναμνήσας με, you did well 
 to remind me. (See M.T. 150, with 
 the examples.) One of the arguments 
 used to persuade the Thebans is given 
 by Aristotle (Rhet. Π. 23®): καί πάλιν 
 προς τούς Θηβαίους διειναι Φίλιππον είς 
 την Αττικήν, δτι “et πριν βοηθησαι είς 
 Φωκεΐς ήξίου, ύπέσχοντο άν ’ άτοπον ούν εί 
 διότι προεΐτο καί έπίστευσε μη διησουσιν’’: 
 i.e. if Philip had asked for a passage 
 through Boeotia before he helped the 
 Thebans against the Phocians (in 346 
 B.C.), they would have granted it; it 
 would be absurd now for them to refuse 
 it because he had thrown away that 
 opportunity, trusting in their good faith 
 (for the future). (See Cope’s note.) 
 
 10. €Κ μ.€ν...<τυνεβούλ€υον, as a con- 
 
152 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 καί ανδράποδα και τάλλ’ αγαθά εις την Βοιωτίαν ηζοντα, εκ 
 δ’ ών ημάς ερε'ίν εφασαν ταν τη Βοιωτία διαρπασθησόμεν* 
 νπο τον πολέμου. και αλλα πολλά προς τούτους, είς ταντα 
 οε παντα σνντεινοντ, ελεγον. α ο ημείς προς ταντα, τα 
 f- /xe^ κα#’ εκαστα εγω μεν αντί παντός αν τιμησαίμην ειπείν 
 τον βίον, νμας δε δεδοικα, μη παρεληλνθότων των καιρών, 
 
 ώσπερ αν ει και κατακλυσμόν γεγενησθαι των πραγμάτων 
 5 ηγούμενοι, μάταιον δγλον τους περί τούτων λόγους νομίσητε * 
 
 Ι3· 7τολλά 7Γολλα Σ. ταυτα Σ; ταντα L, vulg. ; ταντα Αί, V 6 , Bk. 
 
 § 214 . I. ταντα Σ 1 , εϊπομεν (above line) Σ 2 ; ταντα εϊπομεν Αΐ ; ταντα άντείπομεν 
 vulg., τ. άντείπαμεν F, Υ, Ο ; άντείπομεν προς ταντα L. 2. αν τιμησαίμην Σ, L, 
 
 vulg. ; τιμησαίμην Β\ τιμ. αν Β 2 . 4· e ’ L καί 2 ; εί L, vulg. κατακλεισ μόν Ο. 
 
 5· ηγούμενοι before γεγενησθαι Α2. 
 
 sequence of following their advice, opposed 
 to εκ δ’ ών ήμάς ερεΐν έφασαν. The argu¬ 
 ments here given are of the gross material 
 kind which were generally supposed to 
 have weight at Thebes. Demosthenes 
 (§ 214) seems to imply that his own argu¬ 
 ments were of a higher character. 
 
 § 214. 1. α δ’ ήμ.€Ϊ$ : sc. έλέγομεν 
 
 (see crit. note).— τά μ«ν καθ’ ^καοττα, 
 the details, with the subordinate εγώ μεν 
 and ΰμάϊ δέ, is in antithesis to ο τι δ’ ον v 
 έπείσαμεν (i.e. the sum of what we ac¬ 
 complished) in 1. 6. 
 
 2. αντί...του βίου, as we might say, 1 
 would give my life : cf. τιμάν and τιμασθαι 
 used of estimating the penalty in a law¬ 
 suit; and I. 1, αντί πολλών αν χρημάτων 
 ελέσθαι. It is not hard to see why Demos¬ 
 thenes should be unwilling to repeat any 
 part of this brilliant speech. The hope 
 of brilliant successes of the allies against 
 Philip, which he probably held out, had 
 been disappointed by the crushing defeat 
 at Chaeronea; and the destruction of 
 Thebes three years later must have made 
 the whole tone of this speech now sadly 
 untimely. Plutarch (Deni. 18) gives a 
 graphic account of the Theban assembly 
 and of the address, which was probably 
 one of the orator’s greatest efforts: τό μεν 
 ovv σνμφέρον ον διέφευγε τούς των Θηβαίων 
 
 λογισμούς, άλλ’ εν ομμασιν 'έκαστος εΐχε τά 
 τον πόλεμόν δεινά, ίτι των Φωκικών τραυ¬ 
 μάτων νεαρών παραμενόντων ’ η δέ τον 
 ρήτορος δνναμις, ως φησι Θεόπομπος, έκρι- 
 πίζονσα τον θυμόν αντών και διακαίονσα 
 την φιλοτιμίαν έπεσκότησε τοΐς άλλοις 
 άπασιν, ώστε και φόβον και λογισμόν και 
 χάριν εκβαλεΐν αύτούς ένθονσιώντ as νπό 
 τον λόγου προς τό καλόν, οντω δέ μέγα 
 και λαμπρόν έφάνη τό τον ρήτορος ’έργον 
 ώστε τον μεν Φίλιππον εύθύς έπικηρνκεν- 
 εσθαι δεόμενον ειρήνης. (The last sentence 
 refers to the proposals for peace of which 
 Aeschines speaks in ill. 148—151.) 
 
 4 . cotnrcp άν el... ηγούμενοι, as (you 
 would think, ένομίζετε άν) if you believed 
 (εί ήγεΐσθε), etc. (M.T. 227, 868). Strictly 
 we should have either ώσπερ άν εί ήγεΐσθε 
 (impf.) or ώσπερ άν ηγούμενοι (~εί ήγ¬ 
 εΐσθε), since a conditional participle is not 
 regularly preceded by εί (M.T. 472). 
 But it would seem that the colloquial use 
 of ώσπερ άν εί (or ώσπερανεί), quasi, some¬ 
 times caused the true ellipsis to be over¬ 
 looked and the εί to be irregularly added. 
 Somewhat analogous is the use of οννεκα 
 (ον ένεκα) as a preposition for ένεκα . — καί 
 κατακλυσμόν ; i.e. also a deluge, as well 
 as the lapse of opportunity (παρεληλνθότων 
 των καιρών) : see West.— των πραγμάτων, 
 objective genitive after κατακλνσμόν. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 153 
 
 ο τι δ’ ουν επείσαμεν ημείς καί ημΐν άπεκρίναντο, ακούσατε, 
 λέγε ταυτί λαβών. 
 
 ΑΠΟΚΡΙ2ΕΙ2 ΘΗΒΑΙΩΝ. 
 
 Mera ταντα τοίνυν εκάλονν υμάς καί μετειτέμποντο. 215 
 έζητε, έβοηθεΐτε, ΐνα ταν μέσω παραλείπω, όντως οίκείως 
 3 θο υμάς εδέγοντο, ώστ έζω των οπλιτών καί των ιππέων οντων 
 εις τας οικίας καί το αστν δέχεσθαι την στρατιάν επί παίδας 
 καί γνναΐκας καί τα τιμιώτατα. καίτοι τρ'ι εν εκείνη τη s 
 
 6. οτι Σ, L (yp mg·); ά L, vulg. και ά ημΐν L, vulg. (V6 ύμΐν ); ά om. 2. 
 
 7· ταυτί Σ, L, Φ, V6 ; ταΰτα Αι ; τουτί vulg. 
 
 § 215 . ι. ημάς V6. 2. έξίητε Σ, 
 
 vulg. ; ταμ F. Β 1 .; τα Υ. παραλίπω L, 
 
 6. ο τι...άττ6κρίναντο (omitting ά with 
 Σ): ο τι επείσαμεν and δ τι άπεκρίναντο 
 are the same thing. 
 
 § 215 . ι. Ικάλουν νμάδ : this is what 
 Demosthenes provided for in § 178^ 3 (see 
 notes), w'hen he proposed to give the 
 embassy concurrent power with the 
 generals over the movements of the army. 
 This march to Thebes, after the answer 
 of the Thebans had been sent to Athens 
 (μετά ταΰτα), is commonly thought to 
 be directly opposed to the account of 
 Aeschines in 111. 140 : Dissen exclaims in¬ 
 dignantly, “Haeccine manifesta mendacia 
 potuisse coram judicibus did!” But 
 Aeschines says only that the march to 
 Thebes took place πριν περί συμμαχίας 
 μίαν μόνην συλλαβήν χράψαι Αημοσθένην. 
 Now that the decree of Demosthenes 
 (i8r —187), which provided for συμμαχίαν 
 και επ^αμίαν (!), is known to be a forgery, 
 we have no reason for thinking that any 
 formal treaty of alliance preceded the 
 invitation of the Athenian army to Thebes. 
 Certainly the reply (άπόκρισις) just men¬ 
 tioned implied no such treaty, which 
 Demosthenes could have proposed only 
 after his return to Athens. It appears 
 from the criticisms of Aeschines on the 
 terms of the treaty (141—144) that it was 
 an elaborate document; and it is pro¬ 
 bable that it was not made and ratified 
 until some time after the march to Thebes, 
 which required no further legislation than 
 
 L, F, Φ, V6, Ο 1 ; έξήειτε Ai. 2. τάν Σ, 
 F, Φ, Y. 3. ήμας V6. 
 
 the decree appointing the ambassadors 
 (§ 188). It must be remembered that 
 Demosthenes (§ 178) proposed that the 
 embassy should simply offer the Athenian 
 army to Thebes without insisting on any 
 formal terms, έπayyέλλεσθaι βοηθήσειν αν 
 κελεύωσιν. 
 
 3· £ξω...οντων: this is commonly re¬ 
 
 ferred to the Athenian army, who are 
 supposed to have first encamped outside 
 the city and afterwards to have been 
 invited to enter Thebes and occupy the 
 houses. It is surely far more natural and 
 agrees better with the context to under¬ 
 stand that, while the Theban infantry 
 and cavalry (i.e. the whole army) were 
 encamped outside the walls, ready for a 
 march, the Athenian army was quartered 
 in the town. The lack of a pronoun to 
 designate which army is meant is felt in 
 both interpretations ; but as the subject is 
 the Thebans, it is more natural to refer 
 the absolute clause to them. Again, the 
 emphasis given twice to παΐδας και χυναΐ- 
 κα s (4 and 11) implies that the men were 
 absent; and έφ’ ύμΐν ποιήσαντεζ (12), as 
 a testimony to the σωφροσύνη of the 
 Athenians, implies this still more strongly. 
 And yet the w r ords in dispute are the only 
 possible reference to this absence in the 
 whole passage. Indeed, rather than refer 
 'έξω...οντων to the Athenians, we should 
 almost feel justified in supplying some 
 word like εαυτών or Θηβαίων (in 3). 
 
154 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 ήμερα πασιν άνθρώποις εδειξαν εγκώμια Θηβαίοι καθ' νμών 
 τα κάλλιστα, εν μεν ανδρείας, ετερον δε δικαιοσύνης, τρίτον 
 δε σωφροσύνης. καί γάρ τον αγώνα μεθ ’ νμών μάλλον η 
 προς νμας ελόμενοι ποιησασθαι, και αμείνονς είναι και 
 δικαιότερ άζιονν νμας έκριναν Φίλιππον καί τα παρ 
 αντοίς καί παρά πασι δ ’ εν πλείστη φνλακη, παίδας και 
 γνναικας, εφ * νμίν ποιησαντες, σωφροσύνης πίστιν περί 
 νμών εγοντες εδειξαν. εν οίς πασιν, ανδρες * Αθηναίοι, κατά 
 γ νμας δρθώς εφάνησαν εγνωκότες. ούτε γάρ εις την πόλιν 
 είσελθόντος τον στρατοπεδον ονδείς ονδεν ονδ ’ αδίκως νμΖν 
 ενεκάλεσεν’ οντω σώφρονας παρεσγεθ * νμας αντούς * δις 
 5 τε σνμπαραταξάμενοι τάς π ρωτάς, την τ επί τον ποταμού 
 
 6 . περί υμών Αι. 2 ; περί ημών V6. 8. μάλλον μεθ' υμών (i.e. μάλλον to follow 
 
 μεθ' υμών) Σ. ίο. Φ ιλίππου Σ, L, Αι. 2, Β ; η Φίλιππον vulg. II. αντοΐί Σ; 
 αύτοΐί L, vulg.; αυτοίί Ω ; αυτοίί Bk. αύτοΐί δε καί τα παρά πασιν έν Αι (see Lips.); 
 αυτοίί /cat τά παρά παπί δε εν Ο ; avrois καί παρά πάσι δε εν Σ. 
 
 § 216 . ι. πασιν Σ, L, Αι. 2; άπασιν vulg. 3 - τ °ΰ στρατ. L, vulg., 
 
 Bk. Anecd. ιβο, Bk., Dind., West., Lips.; του om. Σ, Vom., Bl. 4. εκάλεσεν O. 
 παρέσχετε Σ, L, Αι ; παρέσχεσθε vulg. ύμάί άυτόυ s Σ, V 6 (also in line 6 ). 
 
 5. τάί πρώταί μάχαί vulg. ; μάχas om. Σ. την τ’ Σ, L, Αι ; τ’ om. vulg. 
 
 6. καθ’ υμών, upon you , as in VI. 9, 
 καθ' υμών έΎκώμιον, not in its common 
 hostile sense. See Arist. Pol. in. 13, 14, 
 κατά δέ τοιούτων ούκ εστι νομοί, αυτοί yap 
 είσι νομοί, in respect to (?) such men there 
 is no /aw, for they are a law unto 
 themselves. In the parallel passage of 
 St Paul, Gal. v. 23, κατά των τοιούτων is 
 translated against such, adversus (Vul¬ 
 gate), -wider solche (Luther), perhaps 
 wrongly. See Rom. ii. 14, έαυτοίί είσι 
 νομοί, where we have the rest of the 
 passage of Aristotle. 
 
 10. δικαιότερ’ άξιο vv, that you made 
 juster claims on them. 
 
 ri. και -παρά -πάσα S’, and indeed 
 (καί) with all mankind, parenthetically 
 after παρ' αύτοΐί. 
 
 Σ 3· ^XOVTis (representing έχομεν) : or. 
 obi. with έδειξαν. 
 
 § 216 . 2. όρθώς εφάνησαν εγνω- 
 
 κότεΞ, it appeared (later) that they had 
 judged rightly (έχνώκασιν) : cf. § 215 13 .— 
 οΰτε,.,οΰδείβ οΰδέν ούδ’ : a remarkable 
 
 accumulation of emphatic negatives : ούτε 
 corresponds to τε (5). 
 
 3. οΰδ’ άδίκωζ (not) even unjustly. 
 
 4. Sis τε ... πρώταβ, when you twice 
 stood in line with them in the earliest 
 encounters : some cognate object is im¬ 
 plied in συμπαραταξάμενοι : cf. §§ 208 4 , 
 287L All mss. except Σ add μάχαί, as 
 if μαχεσάμενοι had preceded. The natural 
 accus. would be παρατάξεΐί, following the 
 meaning of συμπαραταξάμενοι and so signi¬ 
 fying battle array or battles. See Aesch. 
 III. 1 5 1 , επί την παράταξιν ωρμησαν. 
 West, and Bl. follow Rehdantz, and take 
 παρατάξεΐί (implied) in the sense of 
 military manoeuvres or arrangements of 
 ti-oops, by which Philip’s advance into 
 Boeotia was checked without pitched 
 battles. But it is unlikely that thanks¬ 
 givings would follow such manoeuvres, 
 unless some victory resulted. (See §§217, 
 218.) 
 
 5. την τ ετΊ του -ποταμού, the river 
 battle, probably fought on the upper 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 155 
 
 καί την χειμερινήν, ούκ άμεμπτους μόνον υμάς αντους αλλά 
 καί θαυμαστούς ε8είζατε τω κόσμω, ταΐς παρασκευαΐς, τη 
 προθυμία. εφ ’ οίς παρά μεν των άλλων ύμΐν εγίγνοντ 
 έπαινοι, παρά δ’ υμών θυσίαι και πομπαί τοΐς θεοΐς. κ 
 εγωγ η8εως αν εροίμην Αίσχίνην, ότε ταυτ επράττετο και 
 ζήλου και χαράς καί επαίνων η πόλις ην μεστή, πότερον 
 συνεθυε και συνευφραίνετο τοΐς πολλοΐς, η λυπουμενος καί 
 στενών καί 8υσμεναίνων τοΐς κοινοΐς άγαθοΐς οίκοι καθητο. 
 λει μεν γάρ παρην καί μετά των άλλων εζητάζετο, πως ου 
 όεινά ποιεί, μάλλον δ’ οάδ’ όσια, εί ών ως αρίστων αυτός 
 τους θεούς εποιησατο μάρτυρας, ταυθ ’ ώ? ούκ ά ριστα νυν 
 3 οι υμάς άζιοΐ φηφίσασθαι τους όμωμοκότας τους θεούς II εί 8ε 
 μη παρην, πως ούκ άπολωλεναι πολλάκις εστί 8ικαιος, εί 
 
 5- 
 
 10 
 
 9· ^μων Υ. 
 
 § 217 . 2. έπράττβτε Αι. 3 · ζήλων V6. ή ttoXls ήν Σ, L, Αι ; ήν ή 
 
 7τόλΐϊ vulg. 4· Ka ' L σννβυφραίνβτο om. Α2. “ Laur S folium hoc (incipiens 
 
 per καί στένων) 150 b alio atramento et fortasse alia manu scriptum est.” Vomel. 
 5. eiri tols vulg. ; eiri om. Σ, L 1 , Ar. 7. ws om. Ο 1 . άριστων οντων Αι. 
 
 αύτόϊ Σ, L, Ar, B; αύτούς vulg. 8. ούκ αξία Ar. 9. ώμομοκότας V6. 
 
 Cephisus, M^hich flows through Phocis 
 before it enters Boeotia near Chaeronea. 
 
 6. την χίΐμίρινήν, the “ winter battle,” 
 probably fought on some wintry day in 
 the hilly parts of Phocis. Many editors 
 still find chronological difficulties in this 
 winter campaign, forgetting that the only 
 trouble arose from the spurious decree 
 in §§ r8i —187, dated in midsummer. See 
 Hist. § 78. This reference to two definite 
 encounters seems to make the common 
 interpretation of τά s πρώτας (5) certain. 
 
 8. τταρά μέν των άλλων ύμΐν is in 
 strong (double) antithesis to παρά δ , υμών 
 tols OeoLs. 
 
 § 217. 3. ζήλου, pride , glory', see 
 
 note on § r2o 5 . 
 
 6. μ«τά ... Ιζίτάζίτο, was counted in 
 with the rest , the same military figure 
 which is common in this speech : see 
 note on § 173 4 . 
 
 7. οΰδ’ ocrua, even i?npious. 
 
 7, 8. <«s αρίστων ... ώδ ούκ apurra: 
 
 with reference to the words of Ctesi- 
 phon’s decree, otl διατβλβΐ καί \έ~/ων καί 
 πράττων τά άριστα τφ δήμφ (Aescli. 49)· 
 
 If Aeschines joined in the thanksgivings, 
 he declared before the Gods that the 
 policy of Demosthenes was good : but he 
 now asks the court to declare this not 
 good by condemning Ctesiphon. 
 
 9. όμωμοκόταδ: of the Pleliastic oath. 
 
 ro. άιτολωλδναι ττολλάκΐδ: cf. XIX. 
 110 , Tpis ούχ άπαξ αιτο\ω\έναι δίκaL 0 S. 
 
 See Lord Brougham’s note on this 
 argument (p. 153). After speaking of 
 “the beauty of the passage,” and “the 
 exquisite diction—the majesty of the 
 rhythm—the skilful collocation—the pic¬ 
 turesque description of Aeschines’ dismay 
 and skulking from the public rejoicings,” 
 he says of the argument : “ It is not 
 a complete dilemma : a retort is obvious. 
 Aeschines has only to embrace the second 
 alternative — the second horn—and it 
 could never have transfixed him. ‘I did 
 remain at home, not mourning over the 
 success of your measures, but their wicked¬ 
 ness, etc.’ Nevertheless, there are but 
 very few complete dilemmas, and the one 
 under consideration is quite good enough 
 to pass with an audience in a speech. 
 
ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 156 
 
 > » Ϊ -? ν f \ Λ > »\ '"/Ί» * Λ \ / 5' ' 
 
 εφ ους εγαυρον ου άλλοι, ταυτ ekvireiu ορών; keye οη καυ 
 ταυτα τα ψηφίσματα μου. 
 
 ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑΤΑ ΘΤ 2 ΙΩΝ. 
 
 218 Ούκουν ημείς μεν εν θυσίαυς ήμεν τότε, Θηβαίοι δ’ εν 
 τω δυ ημάς σεσώσθαυ νομίζευν, καί περυευστηκευ τοις 
 βοήθειας δεησεσθαυ δοκουσυν άφ ’ ών έπραττον ουτου, αντους 
 βοησευν ετεροις ες ων επευσυητ εμοι. akka μην οι ας τοτ 
 
 5 ηφίευ φωνάς 6 Φίλιππος καί εν οίαυς ην ταραγαυς επί 
 τούτους, εκ των επιστολών των εκείνου μαθησεσθε ών είς 
 ΐίελοπόννησον έπεμπεν. καί μου λέγε ταντας λαβών, ίν 
 ευδητε η εμη σννέγευα καί πλάνου καί ταλαυπωρίαυ καί τα 
 πολλά ψηφίσματα, ά νυν ουτος 8υέσυρε, τί άπευργάσατο 
 
 219 Κα ίτου πολλοί παρ' υμΊν, άν8ρες ’ Αθηναίου, γεγόνασυ 
 ρήτορες ένδοξου καί μεγάλου προ εμού, Καλλίστ ρατος εκείνος, 
 
 12 . μοι om. Α2. 
 
 § 218 . 2 . τής βοήθειας V 6 , Β ( τούς over τής). 3 · νομίζουσιν (for δοκουσιν 
 
 vulg.) Σ, L (νν. δοκουσιν above). αυτούς Σ, L, Αι. 2 ; αυτούς vulg. 4· έπείσθητ’ 
 έμοί L; έπείσθητέ έμοί Σ; έπείσθητέ μοι vulg. 5· (?) f° r οΐαις L 1 (see Vom.). 
 
 7. ’έπεμπεν (op corr. to ev) Σ; ’έπεμπεν (before εις Π.) L; ’έπεμφε L 2 3 , vulg. 8. είδήτε 
 ότι vulg.; ότι om. Σ 1 , L, Αι. συνέχεια και om. A2. πλάνοι Σ, L, Αι, B 2 ; 
 
 ■ πλάνη vulg. 9. άπειρχάσατο (et corr. from 17?) Σ. 
 
 § 219 . 1. ήμΐν Y (ύ over ή) F. ώ ανδ. ' Αθ. A2 ; ώ Ά 0 . Αι. 
 
 The whole passage would be of certain 
 success in our Parliament.” (This quota¬ 
 tion is much abridged.) 
 
 § 218 . 1. ev τω...νομίζ€ΐν, in the 
 
 belief, corresponding to εν θυσίαις, both 
 denoting what occupied their minds. 
 
 2. τοϊς... δοκουσιν (impf.), to those 
 who had seemed likely to need help, i.e. 
 ourselves. 
 
 3. άφ’ ών Εττραττον, in antithesis to 
 ών έπείσθητ’ έμοί: cf. § 213 10-12 .— 
 
 αυτούς, ipsos, i.e. ourselves: for the accus. 
 see Xen. Oec. 11, 23, συμφέρει αυτούς 
 φίλους είναι,, where φίλοις would be more 
 ’common (G. 928 1 ). 
 
 4. βοηθίίν eTe'pois: subj. of περιει- 
 
 στήκει, it had come about. —ol'as ήφίίΐ 
 φωνάς: cf. § 195 4 . 
 
 6. «πιστολών : for an earlier letter of 
 Philip to Peloponnesus asking for help, 
 
 see § 156. 
 
 8. πλάνοι refers especially to his 
 frequent journeys to Thebes while the 
 negotiations were going on, and also to 
 his other embassies (cf. § 244). 
 
 9. δι«συρ« : see the general ridicule 
 of his decrees in Aesch. ill. ioo 1-3 . This 
 remark may perhaps refer to the fierce 
 criticism of the terms of the alliance with 
 Thebes (ill. 141 —143).— τί άπβιργά- 
 σατο : the position of τί is emphatic: 
 cf. σκέφασθε πώς, § 235 4 * 6 . We should 
 expect συνέχεια etc. to be in the accus. 
 by the usual attraction; but they are far 
 more expressive as they stand. 
 
 §§ 219—221 were spoken while the 
 clerk was preparing to read the letters of 
 Philip. 
 
 § 219 . 2. Καλλίστρατος : the famous 
 orator whose eloquence is said to have 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 157 
 
 *Α ριστοφών, Κεφαλος, Θρασύβουλος, ετεροι μυρίοι · άλλ’ 
 όμως ουδείς πώποτε τούτων διά παντός εδωκεν εαυτόν εις 
 ούδεν τη πόλει, άλλ’ 6 μεν γραφών ουκ αν επρεσβευσεν, 
 6 δε 7 τρεσβεύων ουκ αν εγραφεν. ύπελειπε γαρ αυτών 
 έκαστος εαυτω άμα μεν ραστώνην, άμα δ’ εί τι γενοιτ 
 αναφοράν, τί ούν; είποι τις αν, συ τοσουτον υπερηρας 
 ρώμη καί τόλμη ώστε πάντα ποιειν αυτός; ου ταυτα λέγω, 
 άλλ’ ούτως επεπείσμην μεγαν είναι τον κατειληφότα κίνόυνον 
 την πόλιν ώστ ουκ εδόκει μοι γωραν ουδέ πρόνοιαν ουδεμίαν 
 302 της ίδιας ασφαλείας διδόναι, άλλ’ αγαπητόν είναι ει μηδέν 
 παραλείπων τις ά δει πράζειεν. επεπείσμην δ’ υπέρ εμαυτου, 
 
 4· πώποτε τούτων Σ, L, Αΐ ; τούτ. πώπ. vulg. δέδωκεν Ο. 6 . ύπέλειπε 
 
 Σ, L 1 ; ύπελείπετο L 2 (mg·), vulg. 7 · ^ένοίτ Σ, L, Αι; yiyvono vulg. 
 
 § 220. 2. tovs άλλους after τόλμη L 2 , vulg., before ρώμτ] Ai ; om. Σ, L 1 . 
 
 ταυτα Xeyu Σ, L; Xέyω ταυτα vulg. 3. κίνδ. τον /caret λ. Ο. 4. tt? πόλει Β. 
 
 ώραν (for χώραν) Αι. 2 ; όραν (for ώραν?) Σ (yp). ούδενίάν Φ (yp). 6. παρα- 
 
 λιπών Αι, Υ. 
 
 § 221. ι, 2. έπεπείσμην.. ,ομώς δ’ om. Ο 1 , u. 
 
 first inspired Demosthenes (as a boy) to 
 devote himself to oratory: see note on 
 
 § 99 7 · f 
 
 3. Άριστοφών : see note on § 70 4 .— 
 Κε'φαλος : see § 251.— Θρασύβουλος, of 
 
 Collytus, who served under his distin¬ 
 guished namesake in the Restoration of 
 403 B.C. (xxiv. 134). He was afterwards 
 a warm friend of Thebes: see Aesch. 
 III. 138, άνηρ εν θηβαις πιστενθείς us 
 ούδεις 'έτερος. Cf. also Lys. xxvi. 21— 
 24; Xen. Hell. v. 1, 26. (West.) 
 
 4. διαπαντός, throughout ; like airXCos, 
 
 §§ 88 ^, lJ9 e m 
 
 5. ούκ άν εττρε'σβευσεν ... ^γραψεν : 
 
 both iterative (M.T. 162): we often use 
 would in such iterative expressions, with 
 no potential force; as he would often tell 
 me stories (see M.T. 249). 
 
 7. ραστώνην, enjoyment of ease. — εΐ 
 τι γενοιτ αναφοράν, i.e. some retreat 
 in case of accident : εΐ τι yevoiTo depends 
 on an apodosis implied in αναφοράν, 
 something to which he could retreat·, 
 cf. Aeschyl. Sept. 1015, ώ* οντ ’ άνα- 
 στατηρα.,.εί μη θεών tis έμποδών ’έστη 
 δορί (Μ.Τ. 480). The direct form, εάν τι 
 
 ^ y^Tai, might have been used : see 
 Aesch. II. 104, αύτοΐς κατέλιπον την είs 
 
 τό αφανές αναφοράν άν μη ττείθωμεν. The 
 meaning comes from the middle άναφέ- 
 ρεσθαι, to carry oneself back. But see 
 Harpocr. αναφοράν, with reference to 
 this passage: τό άναφέρειν την αιτίαν των 
 άμαρτηθέντων επ' άλλους. 
 
 §220. ι. ύπερήρας; did you excel? 
 absolutely, or possibly sc. τούτους. 
 
 2. ρώμη : i.e. so as to need no άνα- 
 φορά (§ 2 19 8 ). 
 
 3. ού'τως επεπείσμην, I had so thorough¬ 
 ly convinced myself. If ούτως is taken 
 with geyav (Bl.), ώστ ούκ εδόκει (4) seems 
 out of place. 
 
 4. εδόκει is first personal (sc. ό κίν¬ 
 δυνος) ; then (without ούκ) understood as 
 impersonal with άyaπητbv είναι. 
 
 5. αγαπητό v... πράξειεν : in the direct 
 form, άyaπητδv έστιν εάν τις...ά δει πράξη, 
 we must be content (impers.) if we (shall) 
 do our duty , omitting nothing, εάν tis 
 πράξη might have been retained (see note 
 on § 219 7 ). 
 
 6. ά δει = τά δέοντα, our duty: a is 
 here felt as a definite relative; but 
 with a slight change in the view it might 
 have been ά άν δέη or ά δέοι (Dobree’s 
 conjecture), with conditional force. A 
 present indicative is seldom changed to 
 
 5 
 
 220 
 
 5 
 
 221 
 
158 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 τυγόν μεν αναίσθητων, όμως δ’ επεπείσμην, μήτε γράφοντ 
 αν εμού γράφαί βελτιον μηδενα μήτε πράττοντα πραζαι, 
 μήτε πρεσβεύοντα πρεσβεύσαι προθυμότερον μηδε δικαιό- 
 5 τερον. δυα ταύτ εν πασιν εμαυτόν εταττον. λεγε τας 
 €7 τίστολας τας του Φιλίππου. 
 
 ΕΠΙ^ΤΟΛΑΙ. 
 
 222 Εις ταυτα κατέστησε Φίλιππον η εμη πολιτεία, Αίσγίνη · 
 ταύτην την φωνήν εκείνος αφηκε, πολλούς καί θρασείς τα 
 προ τούτων τη πόλει επαιρόμενος λόγους, ανθ * ών δικαίως 
 εστεφανούμην υπό τουτωνί, καί συ παρών ούκ άντελεγες, 
 5 6 δε γραφόμενος Δίώνδας το μέρος των φηφων ούκ ελαβεν. 
 Και μοί λαβεταύτα τα φηφίσματα τα τότε μεν άποπεφευγότα, 
 υπό τούτου δ’ ουδέ γραφεντα. 
 
 2. άναισθητων (-ον over -ων) L; αναίσθητων u, some other MSS. (see Vom.), Thom. 
 Mag., most edd.; άναίσθητον (adv.) Σ, vulg., Bl. 3. άνευ έμοΰ Φ, B (av in mg.); 
 έμοΰ μη Y, Ο. πράττοντά τι Ο, F. 4· 7 τρεσβεύοντα om. Ο. μηδέ (before 
 
 δικ.) Σ, L; μήτε vulg. 5· πάσιν Σ, L, V6; αιτασιν vulg. \eye δη Φ. 
 
 6. Tas του Σ, L, Φ, Αι. 2 ; om. Β, vulg.; τα% Ο. 
 
 § 222 . 2. άφηκε δι ’ έμέ vulg. ; δι’ εμέ om. Σ, L 1 . 3 · T V ’τόλ. έτταιρ. λόγ. 
 
 Σ, L, vulg. ; τη 7τόλ. λόγ. έτταιρ. Αι ; λόγ. τη 7τόλ. έτταιρ. Α?. 5 · Διώδα? Αι. 
 
 το μέρος Σ, L ; το ττέμτττον μέρος vulg. (See § 103' 2 ·) 6· λαβε Σ ; Χάβε L 1 ; 
 
 λεγε L' 2 , vulg. τα τότε μεν Σ (by corr.), L, vulg., om. Σ 1 . 7. ού A2. 
 
 the optative in such definite relative 
 clauses, as ά δέοι would naturally suggest 
 ά άι^ δέη here as the direct form; but 
 when no ambiguity can arise, the optative 
 is sometimes found, as in Xen. Hell. V. 
 4, 8 , εΐττεν δτι άνδρα ay οι 8v εϊρζαι δέοι, 
 where the antecedent of 8v is definite. 
 
 § 221 . 1, 2. €ΊΓ€ττ€ίσ·μην (repeated): 
 
 see note on § 199 2 (end). 
 
 2. τυχόν, perhaps, accus. absol. (M.T. 
 851).— αναίσθητων: I follow Vomel, 
 Bekk., and West, in this reading, though 
 άναισθητόν (adv.) has better MS. authority. 
 — όμως, nevertheless, with reference to 
 άναισθητων. — μήτε ... γράψαι : the direct 
 form would be οϋτ 'άν εμοΰ ypάφειε 
 βέΧτιον ούδε'ις: for μη thus used with the 
 infin. in or. obi., see M.T. 685. See Plat. 
 Ap. 37 a, and Liddell and Scott, art. μή, 
 B. 5, c. av belongs to y ράφαι, ττράξαι, 
 and ττρεσβενσαι, and βέλτιον to both 
 γ ράφαι and ττράξαι. 
 
 § 222 . 3* ε-τταιρόμενοβ : Harpocr. : 
 
 άντι του έπ αν ατειν όμεν ος, Δημοσθένης 
 έν τω ύττέρ Κ τησιφωντος. Cf. XIX. 153» 
 ονδέν 'άν ΰμΐν εΐχεν άνατείνασθαι φοβερόν 
 (of threats of Philip); and Eur. Iph. T. 
 1484, 7 ταύσω δέ λόγχην ην έτταίρομαι 
 
 ξένοις (of a spear uplifted to strike). (Bl.) 
 έτταιρόμενος is imperfect, as is shown by 
 τα 7 τρό τούτων. 
 
 4· τταρών, though present', see §§ 83 s 
 and 117 6 . 
 
 5. Διώνδας: mentioned with contempt 
 in § 249L He is said (Vit. X. Orat., 
 Dem. 72) to have indicted also the decree 
 of Aristonicus (§§ 83, 223).— to pepos : 
 see notes on §§ 103 2 , 266 s . 
 
 6. ψηφίσματα : for the plural see note 
 on § 223 s .— άιτοττίφευγότα, acquitted (on 
 the γ ραφή -παρανόμων) : τό φευ yov φήφισμα, 
 xxiii. 58, is the decree on trial. 
 
 7. γραφεντα, indicted : cf. γ ραφέντα, 
 proposed, § 86 4 . See note on § 50 4 . 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 159 
 
 ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑΤΑ. 
 
 ΎαντΙ τα φηφίσματ , ανδρες ’Αθηναίοι, τας αυτας συλ- 223 
 λαβας καίταυτα ρήμα τ’ εγευ απερ πρότερον μεν ’ Αριστόνίκος 
 νυν δε Κ τησίφών γεγραφεν ούτοσί. καί ταυτ Αισγίνης 
 οντ εδίωζεν αυτός ούτε τω γραφαμενω συγκατηγόρησεν. 
 καίτοι τότε τον Δημομελη τον ταντα γράφοντα καί τον 5 
 'Ύπερείδην, επτερ αληθή μου νυν κατηγορεί, μάλλον αν 
 είκότως ή τόνδ’ εδίωκεν. δία τι; ότι τωδε μεν εστ άνενεγ- 224 
 κεΐν επ εκείνους καί τάς των δικαστηρίων γνώσεις καί το 
 3°3 τούτον αυτόν εκείνων μη κατηγορηκεναι ταύτα γραφάντων — 
 
 απερ ουτος νυν, καί το τους νόμους μηκετ εαν περί των 
 οϋτω πραγθεντων κατηγορείν, καί πόλλ’ ετερα· τότε δ’ 5 
 αυτό το πραγμ αν εκρίνετ εφ’ αυτού, πριν τι τούτων 
 
 § 223 . ι. ω δίνδρ. vulg. ; ώ om. Σ, L. 5 · ΑημομέΧη Σ, F, Υ, Φ, Ο, Β' 2 ; 
 
 Αημομβλνν L, vulg. 6. Ύπβρίδην L. νυν om. L. 
 
 § 224 . ι. otl τωδε Σ, L; ort τώ vulg.; τούτιρ μεν yap εστιν (without δία τί;) Αι. 
 έvεyκεΐv (αν- in mg.) Αι. 2. ΰπ’’ (for επ') Ο. 3 · ταύτα Σ, L; ταύτα vulg. 
 
 4. νυν Σ, L, Αι; vvvl vulg. 6. αν εκρίνετο Σ, L, V6 ; άνεκρίνετο Αι, vulg. 
 
 § 223 . 1— 3 · Fo r the questions 
 concerning the decree of Aristonicus and 
 δεύτερον κηpύyμaτos in § 83 4 , see notes on 
 that passage and on § 12ο 2 . 
 
 4. συγκατηγόρησ-€ν, aided in the accu¬ 
 sation (as avvriyopoi). 
 
 5. Δημομελη .. .'Υ-π^ρείδην : the two 
 names probably indicate a decree moved 
 by Demomeles (cousin of Demosthenes) 
 and amended or enlarged by Hyperides. 
 Such double or treble bills were common 
 (see C. I. Att. 11. Nos. 469 and 1 b); 
 whence τα ψηφίσματα in § 222°. 
 
 6. ei-irep.. νυν κατηγορεί: the simple 
 present condition is correct here, and 
 more effective than G. H. Schaefer’s 
 κaτηyόpεί. The following μαΧΧον civ 
 έδίωκεν implies its own unreal condition, 
 εί έδίωκεν, within itself. The meaning is, 
 if he is now accusing me honestly, he 
 would have had more reason for prosecut¬ 
 ing D. and H. then than he has for 
 prosecuting Ctes. now. The distinction 
 of κατηγορώ and διώκω here and in 1. 4 is 
 the same as in § 9 1 : cf. notes on §§ 14 6 , 15 4 . 
 
 § 224 . 1. τωδε, like τόνδε in § 22 
 
 is Ctesiphon, who is called odros in 4 ; 
 while Aeschines is τούτον αυτόν in 3. 
 
 4. μηκετ’ εάν...κατηγορεΐν : the prin¬ 
 ciple that “no man can be twice put in 
 jeopardy for the same offence” is distinctly 
 stated in the Attic law: see XX. 147, oi 
 νόμοι δ' ούκ έώσί δίς 7 rpos τον αυτόν περί 
 των αυτών ούτε δίκας οντ ’ εύθύνας οϋτε 
 διαδικασίαν οϋτ αΧΧο τοίοΰτον ουδέν είναι, 
 and also xxiv. 55· This could here be 
 urged by Ctesiphon as a moral, not as a 
 legal, argument. Aeschines is prosecuting 
 him now on the ground of charges against 
 Demosthenes which were declared false 
 by the acquittal of Hyperides eight years 
 before,—charges for which he did not 
 similarly prosecute H. then and for which 
 he could not legally prosecute Dem. now. 
 This is all an answer to διά τί; (which 
 refers to § 223 (end)).— των ουτω ττραχθε'ν- 
 των, i.e. matters so settled (as these charges 
 against Dem.): see XXXVI. 60, δικάξεσθαί 
 των οϋτω πραχθέντων. 
 
 6 . εφ’ αυτου, on its own merits, i.e. 
 before any judgment of the court had been 
 passed upon the case. 
 
ιόο 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 225 προλαβεΐν. άλλ’ ούκ ήν, οΤμαι, τότε δ νυνι ποιείν, εκ 
 παλαιών χρόνων καί ψηφισμάτων πολλών εκλέζαντα ά μήτε 
 προηδει μηδείς μητ αν ωηθη τημερον ρηθηναι, διαβάλλειν, 
 και μετενεγκόντα τούς χρόνους καί προφάσεις αντί των 
 
 5 αληθών ψευδείς μεταθεντα /τοΐς πεπραγμενοις δοκεΐν τι 
 
 226 λεγειν. ούκ ην τότε ταύτα, άλλ’ επι της αλήθειας, εγγύς 
 των έργων, ετι μεμνημενων υμών καί μόνον ούκ εν ταΐς 
 χερσίν εκαστ εχόντων, πάντες εγίγνοντ αν οι λόγοι, 
 διόπερ τούς παρ' αυτά τα πράγματ ελέγχους φυγών νυν 
 
 5 ηκει, ρητόρων αγώνα νομίζων, ως γ εμοι δοκει, καί ούχΐ των 
 πεπολιτευμενών εζετασιν ποιησειν υμάς, και λόγου κρίσιν<$ 
 ούχΐ τού τη πόλει συμφέροντος εσεσθαι. 
 
 V 
 
 αύτοΰ Σ, L ; εαυτοί) vulg. πριν τι τούτου προσλαβεΐν Σ 1 , τούτων and προλαβεΐν by 
 
 corr. ; προσλαβεΐν L 1 , Αι ; προλαβεΐν L 2 , vulg. (See Vomel.) 
 
 § 225 . ι. δ Σ, L, Al ; ά vulg. ποιείν Σ; ποιεί L, vulg. 2. πολλών 
 
 om. Aa. 5 · δοκεί τι (ν over τι) Σ. 
 
 § 226 . ι. επι τής Σ, Αι, Φ (γρ) ; επ’ αυτής vulg. eyyus Σ, Αι ; eyyos 
 
 οϋσης L, vulg. 2. μονονουχΐ L 2 . 3 · πάντες om. V6. 4· ν ^ ν Σ, L 1 , Αι ; 
 
 νυν ύστερον vulg. 5· ώ? γ’ ^μοι Σ, I.; ώ? ye μοί vulg. ; ώς έμο'ι Αι. 6 · ύπο- 
 
 λαμβάνων after υμάς vulg.; om. Σ, L 1 , Αχ. 7 · °^X L L; ου vulg. 
 
 § 225 . r. δ νυνι ποιείν: all MSS. 
 except Σ have ποιεί for ποιείς. Either 
 can well be understood; but here the 
 appositives διαβάλλειν and δοκείν favour 
 ποιείς. 
 
 2. παλαιών χρόνων: i.e. the time of 
 the peace of Philocrates, in regard to 
 which Aeschines introduced many decrees 
 which had no real bearing on the argu¬ 
 ment (see ill. 58—78). 
 
 3. μητ’ αν...ρηθηναι , or thought το otild 
 be mentioned to-day (ρηθηναι αν=ρηθείη 
 άν) : see M.T. 220 1 . The negatives μήτε 
 etc. show that the antecedent of ά is 
 indefinite.— διαβάλλειν, to misrepresent 
 (cast reproach upon) the case. 
 
 4. προφάσεΐξ, grounds for action, 
 whether true or false. See note on § 178 10 . 
 
 Demosthenes still clings to his plea 
 that the story of the peace is ancient 
 history. See Essay I. § 4. 
 
 § 226 . 1. επί rrjs άληθεία$ : cf. 
 
 2. εν ταίδ χερσιν : for the figure West, 
 compares mani-festus. 
 
 3. ττάντεδ οί λόγοι, i.e. the whole 
 
 discussion. 
 
 4. tovs.. .φυγών : cf. § 15 2 . 
 
 5. ρητόρων αγώνα: cf. Thuc. III. 67 s8 , 
 ποιήσατε δέ τοΐς Έλλησι παράδειγμα ού 
 λόγων τούς αγώνα? προθήσοντες άλλ’ ’έpyωv. 
 Weil quotes XIX. 217: ουδδ yap ρητόρων 
 ουδέ λόγων κρίσιν ύμάς τήμερον...προσήκει 
 ποιεΐν, άλλ’ υπέρ πραγμάτων αίσχρως καί 
 δεινώς απολωλότων την ΰπάρχουσαν αισχύ¬ 
 νην εις τούς αίτιους άπώσασθαι. 
 
 6. λόγου...σ-υμφε'ροντοδ : λόγου κρίσιν 
 is a trial of eloquence. Cf. the verbal 
 forms λόγον κρίνειν and τδ τή πόλει 
 συμφέρον κρίνειν. 
 
 With § 226 the orator ends his grand 
 comparison (begun in § 139) between the 
 part played by Aeschines in rousing the 
 Amphissian war and his own part in 
 uniting Athens and Thebes against 
 Philip. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ ι6ι 
 
 Είτα σοφίζεται, καί φησί προσήκειν ής μεν οικοθεν ^ 
 ήκετ εχοντες δόξης περί ημών άμελήσαι, ώσπερ δ’, δταν 
 οίόμενοί περιείναι χρήματά τω λογίζησθε,βάν καθαιρωσιν 
 αι φήφοι καί μηδέν περί ή, σνγχωρείτε, οντω και νυν τοίς εκ 
 τον λόγου φαινομενοις προσθεσθαι. θεάσασθε τοίννν ώς 5 
 σαθρόν, ώς εοικεν, εστί φνσει παν ό τι αν μη δικαίως ή 
 πεπραγμενον. εκ γάρ αντον τον σοφού τούτον παρα- 228 
 
 § 227 . 3 · λογίζεσθε Υ, V 6 , Σ 1 (η in mg.). άν Σ, Αι ; καν L (or κ$ν), vulg. 
 
 καθαιρωσιν Σ 1 (αι over ώ) ; καθαραϊ ωσιν L, vulg. 5· προφαιν. V 6 . πρόσ- 
 
 θεσθε Αι ; προθέσθαι Ο 1 . 6 . 6 τι μη δικαίως αν η V 6 . 
 
 §§ 227 — 296 . At § 226 the proper 
 defence ends, with the account of the 
 alliance with Thebes. The remainder of 
 the speech, before the epilogue, is de¬ 
 voted to replies to three arguments of 
 Aeschines, one comparing the trial of the 
 case to an investigation of an account 
 (§ 227—251), a second charging Demo¬ 
 sthenes with being ill-starred (§§ 252— 
 275), and a third charging him with being 
 a crafty rhetorician (§§ 276—296). 
 
 In §§ 227—25r the orator refers to the 
 exhortation of Aeschines to the judges 
 (59—61) to cast aside any prejudices in 
 favour of Demosthenes which they may 
 have, and to proceed as they would if 
 they were examining a long account, 
 prepared to accept any result which the 
 reckoning may bring out. Aeschines 
 refers here only to the facts concerning the 
 peace of Philocrates ; but Demosthenes 
 chooses to apply the remarks to his whole 
 political life. While Aeschines referred 
 only to the debit side of the account, 
 Demosthenes speaks of both sides, and 
 especially of what stands on the credit 
 side of his own account with the state, 
 including credit for preventing calamities 
 by his judicious policy. lie ends (§ 251) 
 by turning against Aeschines the case of 
 Cephalus, which had been brought up 
 against himself. 
 
 § 227 . 1. εΐτα σοφίζεται, then he 
 
 puts on airs of wisdom, or becomes very 
 subtle , with the same sarcasm as in σοφού 
 παραδε'^ματος, § 2 28 1 . 
 
 2. άμελήσαι : Aeschines (in. 60) says, 
 μήτ’’ άπο^νώτω μηδέν μήτε κατα~γνώτω πριν 
 άκονση. 
 
 3· ττεριειναι χρήματά τω, that one has 
 a balance in his favour .— Χογίζησθε: cf. 
 Aesch. III. 59, καθεζωμεθα έπι τούς λο- 
 Ύΐσμούς. —άν καθαιρώσιν-.-ττεριή, if the 
 counters are decisive and there is no 
 balance remaining. With most recent 
 editors, I follow Σ ] and read καθαιρωσιν, 
 the common text having καθαραι ωσιν, 
 which was referred to the counters being 
 cleared off from the abacus (άβαξ or 
 άβάκιον) : cf. § 231 2 . This was a reckon¬ 
 ing-board, on which counters (originally 
 ψήφοι, pebbles) represented units, tens, etc. 
 according to their position. See the 
 article Abacus in Smith’s Diet, of Ant. 
 Aeschines says (59), έπινεύσας αληθές εΐναι 
 ο τι 'άν αύτός 6 λογισμός aiprj, whatever 
 the account proves (cf. αιρεΊν τινα κλέ- 
 πτοντα), and there is a strong presumption 
 that Demosthenes uses a similar expres¬ 
 sion in his reply. Blass adopts καθαιρώ - 
 σιν in the sense of αιρώσιν ( erzueisen ) but 
 knows no other example. Kochly quotes 
 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. vn. 36, δ τι δ ’ 'άν 
 αι πλείους ψήφοι καθαιρώσι, τούτο ποιεΐν 
 (and again, slightly changed, in 39): here 
 the meaning determine is beyond ques¬ 
 tion. 
 
 5/ ττροσθεσθαι, acquiesce in : cf. προσ- 
 θεμένην, § 203 5 . 
 
 6. ή ττεττραγμενον : see § 178 13 , and 
 note on § 178 9 . 
 
 I I 
 
 % 
 
 G. D. 
 
102 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 δείγματος ώμολόγηκε νυν γ ημάς υπάρχείν εγνωσμένους 
 εμε μεν λεγειν υπέρ της ττατρίδος, αυτόν δ’ υπέρ Φιλίππου * 
 χΑο 0 * 4- ου γαρ αν μεταπείθειν υμάς εζήτεί μη τοιαύτης ουσης της 3° 
 
 229 υπαρχουσης υπολήφεως περί εκατερου. καί μην οτι γ ου 
 δίκαια λεγεί μεταθέσθαί ταυτην την δόξαν άξιων, εγώ 
 διδάξω ραδίως, ου τίθείς ψήφους (ου γαρ εστιν ο των 
 πραγμάτων ούτος λογισμός ), άλλ’ άναμιμνησκων εκαστ 
 
 5 εν βραχεσί, λογισταίς άμα καί μάρτυσι τοίς άκούουσιν 
 ύμίν χρά)μένος, ή γαρ εμή πολιτεία, ής ουτος κατηγορεί, 
 αντί μεν του Θηβαίους μετά Φιλίππου συνεμβαλεϊν εις την 
 χώραν, δ πάντες ωοντο, μεθ ’ ημών παραταξαμενους εκείνον 
 
 230 κωλυείν εποίησεν' αντί δε του εν τή *Αττική τον πόλεμόν 
 είναι επτακόσια στάδια από τής πόλεως επί τοΐς Βοιωτώζ' 
 όρίοίς γενεσθαί · αντί δε του τους ληστάς ημάς φερείν καί 
 
 § 228 . 2. νυν γ Σ, L ; νυν Ο; νυνί vulg. ; om. Αι. ημάς Σ, L ; ηύμάς 
 V6 ; υμάς vulg. 4· οϋσης της om. Oxyrh. pap. 
 
 § 229 . x. 7’ ούκΐ Oxyrh. pap. 2. την om. Σ 1 , over ταύτην Σ 2 . υμάς 
 
 (after άξιων) vulg.; om. Σ, L 1 4 , Ai. 5. rots άκούουσιν om. Αι. 7 - ( νννεισ- 
 
 βαλεΐν Ai. 2. 8. έσεσθαι (after ωοντο) vulg.; om. Σ, L 1 , Αχ. υμών A2. 
 
 συμπαραταξαμένους Αι. 
 
 § 230 . i. τον om. L 1 , O. 3. 5 e above line Σ. ημών (as above) O. 
 
 § 228 . 2. qp.as (so Σ) ... εγνωσμ,ε'- 
 
 vovs, that it is assumed that zve (Aesch. 
 and myself) have been thus judged (have 
 this reputation): in the direct form ύττάρ- 
 χομεν εγνωσμένοι. See note on § 95b It 
 appears that έ-γνωσμαι is always passive 
 (see Veitch): cf. Eur. H. F. 1287, ύττο- 
 βλεττώμεθ ’ ώς εγνωσμένοι, and Thuc. III. 
 38 12 , ως ούκ έ~γνωσται. For the active see 
 Dem. IV. 29, ούκ δρθως έ^/νωκεν. Baiter 
 (see Dissen) translates thus: confitetur 
 nunc nos esse cognitos (h. e. de nobis 
 constare) me quidem verba facere pro 
 patria, ipsum vero pro Philippo. The 
 personal construction is like that of Ar. 
 
 Nub. 918, 'γνωσθήσει τοί ττοτ Αθηναίοι 
 οΐα διδάσκεις τούς άνοητους, you shall be 
 shozvn (for it shall be shown). 
 
 4. μ/η TOicun-qs <Mrqs = et μη τοιαύτη 
 ην. The unique reading of the Oxyrh. 
 papyrus, μη τοιαύτης ύτταρχούσης, is sug¬ 
 gestive. 
 
 § 229. 3. ού TtGels ψήφου$ (con¬ 
 
 tinuing the figure of § 227), i.e. not by 
 
 mere arithmetic or book-keeping.— ού 
 γαρ...λογισμό?, for that is not the way to 
 reckon affairs of state. 
 
 4. άναμιμνησκων ίκαστ* : he renders 
 his account, not by setting his services 
 against his sins, but by setting the posi¬ 
 tive gain from his public policy against 
 the calamities which would have resulted 
 from the opposite policy. 
 
 5. Xo-yicrTcus: in the double sense of 
 computers and comptrollers of accounts : 
 see note on § 1177. — tois άκούουσιν: 
 addressed equally to the court and the 
 spectators. 
 
 7. μετά and συν- emphasize one 
 another. 
 
 9. κωλύειν: present, of the whole 
 business of checking Philip; the aor. 
 συνεμβαλεΐν (7) of an incursion. 
 
 § 230 . 2. επτακόσια στάδια, about 
 
 80 miles : see note on § 195 5 . 
 
 3. γενεσθαί: sc. έττοίησε. By δρίοις 
 he means Wit. further confines of Boeotia. 
 — ληστάβ: see note on § 145 5 , and for 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 163 
 
 άγειν εκ της Εύβοιας εν ειρηνη την ’Αττικήν εκ Θαλάττης 
 είναι πάντα τον πόλεμον αντί δε τον τον 'Ελλήσποντον 5 
 εχειν Φίλιππον, λαβόντα Βυζάντιον, συμπολεμείν τους Βυ¬ 
 ζαντίους μεθ ’ ημών προς εκείνον. άρά σοι φηφοις όμοιος 231 
 6 των έργων λογισμός φαίνεται; η δειν άντανελειν ταυτα, 
 άλλ, ούχ όπως τον άπαντα γρόνον μνημονευθησεται σκε- 
 φασθαι; καί ονκετι προστίθημι ότι της μεν ωμότητος, ην 
 εν οίς καθάπαζ τινων κύριος κατέστη Φίλιππος εστιν ίδειν, 5 
 ετεροις πειραθηναι συνέβη , της 8ε φιλανθρωπίας, ην τα 
 λοιπά των πραγμάτων εκείνος περιβαλλόμενος επλάττετο, 
 υμείς καλώς ποιουντες τους καρπούς κεκόμισθε. άλλ * εω 
 
 ταυτα. 
 
 Καί μην ουδέ ταυτ είπειν όκνησω, ότι ό τον ρήτορα 232 
 βουλόμενος δικαίως εζετάζειν καί μη συκοφαντείν ουκ αν - 
 
 4· ayeiu (ά by corr. ?) Σ. άπδ ττ)% Σύβ. Α2. 5 · πάντα above the line Υ. 
 
 6 . τον Φίλ. Ζχ€ίν Αι. tovs om. Αι. 7 * έκέινον έποίησεν Αι. 
 
 § 231. 2 . ό έμο$ V6. 7 · επλάττετο Σ, L 1 * * 4 5 6 ; 7rpos υμάϊ επλάττετο vulg. 
 
 § 232. ι. ταυτ ’ Σ, L, Φ ; τουτ ’ vulg. 
 
 pirates in general [vil.] 3, 4, 14, 15. 
 
 The rescue of Oreus and Eretria from 
 
 Philip (§§ 79, 87) prevented Euboea from 
 being a nest for plunderers.—4>cpeiv καί 
 άγίΐν : the common term for general 
 plundering. 
 
 4. Ik θαλάττηδ, on the side of the sea , 
 
 with reference to εκ τής Εύβοιας. 
 
 5· τον ' Ελλησ -rro ντο v : for the Helles¬ 
 pont and Byzantium in 340 B.C. see 
 §§ 80, 87, 88, 93, 94, and Hist. §§ 66—68. 
 
 § 231 . 1. ψηφοιδ ομοιοδ : cf. κόμαί 
 
 Χαρίτεσσι,ν όμοΐαί, II. XVII. 51 · 
 
 2. άντανίλίϊν ταυτα, to strike this off 
 (the services of § 230) in balancing the 
 account, as ψήφοι WOuld be removed from 
 the αβάκων. 
 
 4· ούκΙτι ιτροστίθημι, / do not go on 
 
 (ϊτι) to add, i.e. to the credit side of the 
 account. 
 
 5. Iv οΐδ.,.κατίσ-τη : as in the cases of 
 Olynthus, Thessaly, and Phocis. 
 
 6. φιλανθρωττίαδ : especially Philip’s 
 easy terms with Athens after Chaeronea, 
 which were the indirect result of the firm 
 
 and dignified attitude of Demosthenes 
 and his friends. See Hist. § 81. 
 
 7. ΊΓίριβαλλόμενοδ : the common figure 
 of investing oneself with anything (like a 
 garment), hence acquiring. 
 
 8. καλώς ττοιουντίδ, by the blessing of 
 Heaven : cf. I. 28, ών καλώς ποιουντες 
 έχουσι, and καλώς ποιοΰσι , XXI. 212. 
 This phrase sometimes means fortunately 
 (as here), approaching in sense the more 
 common εΰ πράσσειν, to be prosperoits : 
 sometimes doing as one shojild, as in 
 XXI. 2, Kaf ως και τα δίκαια ποιων δ δήμος 
 ούτως ώρ"γίσθη, and LVII. 6, καλώς ποι- 
 οΰντες τούς ηδικημένους σεσώκατε. Το 
 show the distinction between καλώς ποιων 
 and ευ πράσσων, Dissen quotes XX. no, 
 οτε δ’ ύμεΐς καλώς ποιουντες ...άμεινον 
 εκείνων πράττετε. The active expressions 
 ev ποιεΐν and κακώς ποιεΐν are entirely 
 distinct from καλώς ποιεΐν. 
 
 §§ 232—241. We have here an 
 account of the power of Athens under 
 the leadership of Demosthenes, compared 
 with her earlier resources. 
 
 11 —2 
 
ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 164 
 
 οΐα συ νυν ελεγες τοιαυτα κατηγορεί, παραδείγματα πλάττων 305 
 καί ρήματα καί σχήματα μιμούμενος (πανυ γαρ παρα τούτο 
 ^ —ουχ ορας;~—γεγονε τα των Ελλήνων, ει tovtl το ρήμα 
 άλλα μη τοντί διελε'χθην εγώ, ή δενρΐ την χάίρα άλλα μη 
 δευρί παρήνεγκα), αλλ επ αυτών των έργων αν εσκοπει 
 τίνας εΐχεν άφορμάς ή πόλις καί τίνας δυνάμεις, οτ εις τα 
 πράγματ είσηειν, και τινας συνηγαγον αυτή μετά ταυτ 
 επιστάς εγω, καί πως εΐχε τα των εναντίων. είτ εί μεν 
 5 ελάττους εποίησα τάς δυνάμεις, παρ' εμοί τάδίκημ αν 
 εδείκνυεν όν, εί δε πολλω μειζους, ουκ αν εσυκοφαντει. 
 επειδή δε συ τούτο πεφευγας, εγω ποιήσω· καί σκοπείτε 
 εί δικαίως χρήσομαι τω λόγω. 
 
 234 Αυναμιν μεν τοίνυν άιχεν ή πόλις τους νησιώτας, ούχ 
 
 5. ούχοράς Σ (ώ over ρα). πράγματα after ' Ελλήνων vulg. ; om. Σ, L 1 , A r. 
 
 6, 7 · δευρί (ι changed to ei) ...δευρί Σ. την χείρα...δευρί om. F (text), add. mg. 
 
 § 233. 1. άν σκόπει A2. 3. είσήειν Σ, vulg.; είσήα B 1 (ut videtur, Lips.); 
 
 βίσήει F, Y. συνήγον A2. 5· τάδικήματα V6. avom. V6; ov (for άν) A2. 
 
 6. * έδείκνυες Y, O 1 , F (corr.). δντα (for ov) V6. έσυκοφάντεις Ο, Y, Φ, F (corr.). 
 
 7. τούτο σύ Αί. 
 
 § 234. ι. η πόλις είχεν Y. 
 
 § 232 . 3. τοιαυτα : cognate (sc. 
 
 κατηγορήματα). — παραδείγματα, like the 
 illustration just discussed : cf. παραδείγ¬ 
 
 ματος in § 228 1 . 
 
 4. ρήματα... μιμούμενο5 : besides the 
 expressions ( ρήματα ) repeated by Aeschines 
 (probably with no little exaggeration) in 
 III. 166, of which he asks (167), ταυτα 
 δε τί έστιν, ώ κίναδος ; ρήματα ή θαύματα; 
 we have in 209, 7rot φύγω, άνδρες ’Αθη¬ 
 ναίοι.; περιγράφατέ με’ ούκ 'έστιν οποί 
 άναπτήσομαι, quoted from Demosthenes. 
 See other quotations in 71 and 72, 
 especially άπορρήξαι τής ειρήνης την συμ- 
 μαχίαν. Imitations of gestures ( σχήματα ) 
 are, of course, harder to detect; but there 
 is a plain one in 167, κύκλιρ περιδινών 
 σεαυτδν έλεγες .—παρά τούτο γεγονε, de¬ 
 pend on this. Dissen quotes Cic. Orat. 
 8, 27 : itaque se purgans iocatur Demo¬ 
 sthenes : negat in eo positas esse fortunas 
 Graeciae, hoc an. illo verbo usus sit, et hue 
 an illuc manum porrexerit. 
 
 5. ούχ opas ; cf. § 206 6 . 
 
 6. μή τουτί : in the second member 
 
 of an alternative indirect question, μή can 
 be used as well as ού. 
 
 § 233 . ι. επ’.,.^ργων; cf. έπ i τής 
 αλήθειας, § 2 20k 
 
 2. άφορμάδ, means (for war): αφορμή 
 is properly a starting-point, or something 
 to set out from ( αφ ’ ών τις δρμαται ), as in 
 Thuc. I. 90, τήν τε Ιίελοπόννησον πάσιν 
 έφασαν ικανήν είναι άναχώρησίν τε καί 
 αφορμήν. —δυνάμεις: here in the same 
 general sense as δύναμιν in § 234 1 (see 
 note).— οτ ...είσ-ήειν : before the renewal 
 of the war in 340 b.c. Cf. § 60 3 . 
 
 8. εί.,.λόγω: cf. § 252 s , and xxiii. 
 24, ώς απλώς καί δικαίως χρήσομαι τφ 
 λόγιρ. 
 
 § 234 . ι. δύναμιν here refers to 
 sources of military power, like allies, even 
 when no actual troops are included: see 
 οπλίτην δ’, ιππέα ούδένα (5). Both δυνά¬ 
 μεις and δύναμις, however, may denote 
 troops: cf. § 237 s , των πολιτικών δυνά¬ 
 μεων, and 247 4 5 ; so Xen. An. 1. 3, 12, 
 έχει δύναμιν καί πεζήν καί Ιππικήν καί 
 ναυτικήν. Cf. δυνάμεις § 233 2 · 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 ί05 
 
 
 άπαντας , αλλά τούς ασθενέστατους· ούτε yap Χίος ούτε 
 'Ρδδος οντε Κέρκυρα μεθ * ημών ην· χρημάτων δε σύνταξίν 
 εις ττεντε καί τετταράκοντα τάλαντα, και ταύτ ήν προεξει- 
 λεγμενα· οπλίτην δ’, ιππέα πλην των οικείων ού$ενα. δ δε 5 
 πάντων καί φοβερωτατον καί μάλισθ * ύπερ των εχθρών, 
 ουτοι παρεσκευάκεσαν τούς περιχώρους πάντας εχθρας η 
 φιλίας εγγυτερω, Μεγαρεας, Θηβαίους, Κύβοεας. τα μεν 235 
 της πόλεως ούτως ύπηρχεν εχοντα, καί ού$είς αν ύχοι παρά 
 
 3· ύμων Ο. 4· ττροεξη\€·γμένα Ο. 5 · δ’ ή ιππέα vulg. ; ή om. Σ, 
 
 L, Ο, F, Φ, Vom., West., Lips. Cf. § 94 s . 6. και (after πάντων) om. Ai. 2. 
 
 7. παρεσκευάκεσαν Ai ; -άκεισαν Σ, L, vulg., Bk., Dind.; παρασκεύασαν A2, V6. 
 άπαντας Ai. 8. Meyapefc all MSS., Bk. (see § 237 3 ). Έύβοέας Σ, L, vulg.; 
 
 ευβοας O 1 . 
 
 § 235 . i. καί τα μέν Ai. 2. 
 
 2. οΰτ€...ην: this refers to the early 
 part of 340 B.C., when Chios and Rhodes 
 were independent of Athens as the result 
 of the Social War (357—355 B.C.), but 
 Byzantium, which then followed Chios 
 and Rhodes, had already renewed her 
 friendship (§ 230 6 ): see Hist. §§ 2, 63. 
 Corcyra, the old friend and ally of 
 Athens, had become hostile to her be¬ 
 fore 353 b.c. (see xxiv. 202; Diod. xv. 
 95)· 
 
 3. χρημάτων σύνταξιν: Harpocr. 
 says, ZXeyov δέ και τούς φόρους συντάξεις, 
 επειδή χαλεπως έφερον οι'Έλληνες το των 
 φόρων όνομα, Κ αλλιστράτου οϋτω καλέ- 
 σαντος, ως φησι Θεόπομπος. (See Thuc. 
 I. 96; Arist. Pol. Ath. 23 20 ; Aesch. ill. 
 258.) The payment of the original assess¬ 
 ment made on the Delian confederacy by 
 Aristides in 478—477 b.c. was first called 
 φόρος from φέρω, as Thucydides explains 
 it, οϋτω yap ωνομάσθη των χρημάτων η 
 φορά. The First Athenian Empire made 
 the name odious, so that, when the new 
 federation was formed in 378, the term 
 σύνταξις, agreemetit, was adopted for the 
 annual payment. 
 
 4. ττεντε καί τ€τταράκοντα τάλαντα : 
 
 this sorry amount of 45 talents shows the 
 decline of the power of Athens after the 
 Social War. The tribute of 460 talents 
 of the time of Aristides was raised to 600 
 under Pericles (Thuc. 11. 13 23 ), and (if we 
 
 may trust Aesch. 11. 175 and Plut. Arist. 
 24) to 1200 or 1300 after the Peace of 
 Nicias, in large part by the allies com¬ 
 muting personal service for payments of 
 money (Thuc. 1. 99). The 45 talents 
 mentioned here must be the minimum. 
 We have uncertain accounts of the later 
 increase. In [Dem.] x. 37, 38, the in¬ 
 come of Athens is stated at 130 talents, 
 which was afterwards increased to 400: 
 Boeckh thinks that this may have referred 
 to the annual tribute. Demosthenes is 
 said (Vit. x. Orat. 851 B, decree) to have 
 persuaded the allies to give a σύνταξιν 
 χρημάτων of more than 500 talents. (See 
 Boeckh, Staatsh. d. Ath. 1. Bk 3, §§ 17, 
 19.) For the Second Athenian Con¬ 
 federacy see Grote x. ch. 77.— ττροίξίΐ- 
 Xeypeva, collected in advance, probably 
 by generals to pay their mercenaries. 
 Aeschines (il. 71) speaks of τούς περί το 
 βήμα και την εκκλησίαν μισθοφόρους, ot 
 τούς μεν ταλαίπωρους νησιώτας καθ' έκα¬ 
 στον ενιαυτόν εξήκοντα τάλαντα είσέπρατ- 
 τον σύνταξιν. See Isoc. IV. 132. 
 
 5. όιτΧίτην δ’, ίτπτία: for the asynde¬ 
 ton cf. § 94 5 : most MSS. have ή ιππέα. 
 
 7· ούτοι : Aeschines and his party.— 
 τταρίσκίυάκίσαν ... «γγυτέρω : cf. τούς 
 θεούς ϊλεως αϋτφ παρασκευάξειν. Plat. 
 Leg. 803 Ε. 
 
 § 235. 2. οΰτωδ ύττήρχίν Εχοντα, 
 
 i.e. this is what we had to depend on. 
 
ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 166 
 
 ταύτ είπεΐν άλλ’ ούδεν τα & του Φιλίππου, προς ον ην 
 ημΐν 6 άγων, σκεφασθε πώς. πρώτον μεν ήρχε τών άκολου- 
 5 θούντων αυτός αύτοκράτωρ, ο τών εις τον πόλεμόν μεγιεττον 
 εστιν απάντων · εϊθ ’ ούτοι τα οπλ ειχον εν ταΐς χερσιν αει· 
 επειτα χρημάτων ευπορεί, καί επραττεν ά δόξειεν αύτω , ου 3° 6 
 προλόγων εν τοΐς ψηφίο'μασιν, ούδ εν τω φανερω βουλευο- 
 μενος, ούδ ’ άπδ τω^ συκοφαντούντων κρινόμενος , ουδέ γραφάς 
 ίο φεύγων παρανόμων, ούδ’ υπεύθυνος ών ουδενι, αλλ απλώς 
 
 236 αύτός δεσπότης, ηγεμών, κύριος πάντων. εγώ δ ο προς 
 τούτον άντιτεταγ μόνος (καί γάρ τούτ εξετάσαι δίκαιον ) 
 τίνος κύριος ην; ούδενός * αύτό yap το δημηγορειν πρώτον, 
 ου μόνου μετείχον εγώ, εξ ίσου προύτιθεθ υμείς τοΐς παρ 
 
 5 εκείνου μισθαρνούσι καί εμοί, καί οσ ούτοι περιγενοιντ 
 εμού (πολλά δ* εγίγνετο ταύτα, δι ην έκαστον τύχοι πρό- 
 
 237 φασιν ), ταύθ’ ύπερ τών εχθρών άπητε βεβουλευμενοι. άλλ 
 όμως εκ τοιούτων ελαττωμάτων εγώ συμμάχους μεν υμΐν 
 εποίησα Ε ύβοόας, ’Αχαιούς, Κορινθίους, Θηβαίους, Μεγαρεας, 
 
 3 · ήν ο ill. Α2. 4· σκέψεσθε Ο. υπήρχε V 6 . ακολούθων V 6 . 
 
 5· αύτοκράτωρ ών vulg. ; ών οηι. Σ, L, F, Φ, Β, Υ. δ τών...πόλεμον Σ, L, F, Φ; 
 τών...πόλεμον, δ Υ. 6 . εν ταΐς χερσιν εΐχον Αι; εΐχον εν ταΐν χεροΐν Αί. 
 
 9· ούδ’ ύπό.,.κρινόμενος Σ (7p), vulg., V0111. , West., Lips., Bl.; 01η. Σ 1 . ιι. απάν¬ 
 των Αι. 
 
 § 236. μόνου Σ, L, Αι, Β; μόνον vulg. προύτιθεθ ’ L, V6 ; προύτίθεσθ' 
 
 Σ, Φ; προύτίθετε vulg. 6. ταυτα Σ, Φ; τοιαύτα L, vulg. ’έκαστον (α over 
 
 ον) Α2. 7 · άπήτε Σ ; άπήειτε (or 77) L, Ο, vulg. 
 
 § 237. 2. yttev ήμΐν συμμάχους Ο. 3 · Meyapeas MSS. 
 
 7. ού ττρολ.€·γων...βουλ6υόμΐ6νο9: two 
 
 important advantages of a despotism in 
 war. Athens is not the last free state 
 which has suffered from the opposite 
 evils. See Isoc. ill. 18, 19. 
 
 9. oi 58 ’...Kpiv 0 [jievos was wanting in 
 the original text of Σ, and possibly is a 
 reading which Demosthenes himself re¬ 
 
 placed by the following ουδέ...παρανόμων. 
 
 With the whole passage compare § 249 
 and 1. 4. 
 
 § 236 . 3. ττρώτον, to begin with'. 
 
 cf. XX. 54, ό X07os πρώτον αισχρός. 
 
 4· |ΐ€τ-€Ϊχον : μετ- implies the sharing 
 of the right which the preceding clause 
 states.— ττροότίθέθ’ : cf. IV. 1, εί προύτί- 
 
 θετο λέ·ρει.ν. 
 
 5« δσ-\. .ΐΓερι-γενοιντ «μου, i.e. as often 
 
 as they got the better of me. The omitted 
 antecedent of δσ is seen in ταύθ' (y). 
 
 6 . τύχοι (M.T. 532) : sc. 7 ενόμενον. 
 y. ταΰθ\..β€βουλ€υμ€νοι, i.e. just so 
 often had you taken counsel in the enemy's 
 interest when you left the Assembly : ταύθ ’ 
 (cognate with βεβουλευμενοι.) are the βου¬ 
 λεύματα in which περι^ένοινΑ εμού, and 
 these counsels you always took in the 
 enemy’s interest. Cf. Andoc. in. 29, 
 έν βούλευμα τοιοΰτον εβουλευσάμεθα; and 
 Thuc. II. 44 7 * 9 * * * * * 15 , ίσον τι ή δίκαιον (sc. βού¬ 
 λευμα) βουλεύεσθαι. 
 
 § 237 . 2. 4 κ τοιούτων «Χαττωμάτων, 
 i.e. with such disadvantages at the out¬ 
 set.— σ-υμμάχου5 ...Ι'ίΓοίηιτα: this refers 
 
 - 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 167 
 
 Αευκαδίους, Κερκυραίους, άφ ’ ών μυριοι pei' καί πεντακισχί- 
 \ιοι ζενοι, δισχίλιοι δ’ ιππείς άνβυ των πολίτικων δυνάμεων 5 
 συνηχθησαν · χρημάτων δ’ όσων εδυνηθην εγω πλείστην 
 συντέλειαν εποίησα. ει δε λεγεις η τα προς Θηβαίους 238 
 δίκαια, Αισχίνη, η τα προς Βυζαντίους η τα προς Ε υβοεας, 
 η περί των ίσων νυνί διαλέγει, πρώτον μεν αγνοείς δτι καί 
 πρότερον των υπέρ των 'Έιλληνων εκείνων άγωνισαμενων 
 τριηρων, τριακοσίων ούσων των πασών, τάς διακοσίας η 5 
 πόλις παρεσχετο, καί ούκ ελαττουσθαι νομίζουσα ουδέ κρί- 
 νουσα τους ταΰτα συμβουλευσαντας ούδ ’ άγανακτουσ επί 
 τουτοις εωράτο (αισχρόν γάρ), άλλα τοΐς θεοΐς εχουσα 
 χάριν, εί κοινού κίνδυνου τοΐς 'Έιλλησι περιστάντος αυτή 
 διπλάσια των άλλων εις την απάντων σωτηρίαν παρεσχετο. ίο 
 307 εΐτα κενάς χαρίζει χάριτας τουτοισί συκοφαντών εμε. τι 239 
 γάρ νυν λεγεις oV εχρην πράττειν, άλλ’ ου τότ ων εν τη 
 
 § 238. ι. η προς Ο 1 . 3 · τ< ^ ν νήσων (for των ϊσων) Β (yp), Reiske. diaXeyri 
 
 all MSS., Bk., Bl.; cf. xxxiv. 33, 8ia\eyei Σ; διαλέγω vulg. 5. t<xs om. Y. 
 
 10. τταράσχοιτο V 6 . 
 
 § 239. I. Kcuvas Φ; κενά s ye Ai; ye om. Σ, L, vulg. χαρίζη or -ίζη all 
 
 MSS., Bk., Bl. 2. οϊ as (for oV) O. 
 
 to the grand league against Philip, formed 
 early in 340 b.c. by Demosthenes and 
 Callias of Chalcis. See Hist. § 63 (end), 
 with notes. For the Euboeans see § 79 
 (above): for the Euboeans, Peloponne¬ 
 sians, and Acarnanians see Aesch. ill. 
 
 95 — 97 - ' 
 
 4. μυριοι και ττίντακισ-χίλιοι : this 
 includes the Theban forces, which were 
 added a year after the league was formed. 
 
 7. συντ€λ€ΐαν: this term was applied 
 to the contributions of the new league, 
 rather than σύνταξις (§ 2 34 3 ): Aesch. (97) 
 calls them σύνταγμα. 
 
 § 238. The orator here exposes with 
 great effect one of the most unlucky 
 blunders of Aeschines (143), that of 
 charging him with imposing two-thirds 
 of the expense of the war on Athens, and 
 only one-third on Thebes. Aeschines 
 had forgotten the fleet at Salamis, of 
 which Athens furnished two-thirds ! 
 
 3. καί ττρότ€ρον, once also in former 
 days. 
 
 5. τριακοσ-ίων...διακοσ -ias: the num¬ 
 bers of the ships at Salamis are variously 
 given; but nearly all agree in making the 
 Athenian fleet about two-thirds of the 
 whole. Aeschylus, who was in the battle, 
 is our best authority when (Pers. 339) he 
 gives the total as 310, and Demosthenes 
 nearly agrees with him. Herodotus (vm. 
 1, 44, 48, 61) gives the total as 378 (the 
 items giving 366), the Athenians having 
 200, of which they lent 20 to the Chal- 
 cidians. The Athenian orator in Thu¬ 
 cydides (1. 74 6 ) gives the total as 400 
 and the Athenian ships as nearly two- 
 thirds. The text of Xiv. 29, which 
 makes the total 200 and the Athenian 
 ships 100, must be corrupt. 
 
 8. αισχρόν: sc. αν ην. — Αχούσα goes 
 with έωράτο like the preceding νομίζουσα, 
 κρίνουσα, and άγανακτουσ \ 
 
 
ι68 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 πόλει καί παρών ταύτ εγραφες, εΐπερ ενεόεχετο παρα τούς 
 παρόντας καιρούς, εν οίς ούχ όσ ήβουλομεθα αλλ ο<τα 
 5 8 οίη τα π pay ματ εόει όεχεσθαι- 6 γαρ άντωνούμενος καί 
 ταχύ τους παρ ημών απελαυνόμενους προσόεζόμενος καί 
 χρήματα προσθήσων ύπήρχεν έτοιμος. 
 
 ’Αλλ’ ει νυν επί τοΐς πεπραγμενοις κατηγορίας έχω, τι 
 αν οίεσθε , εΐ τότ εμού περί τούτων άκριβολογουμενου 
 άπήλθον αί πόλεις καί προσεθεντο Φιλίππω, καί αμ Εύβοιας 
 καί %ηβων καί Βυζαντίου κύριος κατέστη, τί ποιείν αν ή τί 
 λεγειν τούς ασεβείς ανθρώπους τουτουσί; ούχ ως εζεόόθη- 
 σαν; ούχ ώ<? απηλάθησαν βουλόμενοι μεθ ’ υμών είναι; ειτα 
 τού μεν *Ελλησπόντου διά Βυζαντίων εγκρατής καθεστηκε, 
 καί τής σιτοπομπίας τής των 'Ελλήνων κύριος, πόλεμος δ* 
 5 όμορος καί βαρύς εις την *Αττικήν διά Θηβαίων κεκόμισται, 
 απλούς δ* ή θάλαττα ύπό των εκ τής Βύβοιας ορμωμενων 
 
 4· παρόντα (<τ above) Σ. όσα ηβουλόμβθα Σ, όσα έβουλόμβθα Αι. 2, Φ; οσα αν 
 βουλώμεθα L, vulg. 6. υμών V6. προσδεχόμενο! Ο. 
 
 § 240 . 2. εί τότ’ εμού Σ, Αί. 2, Β (mg·); d πότ εμού L; d ποτ ’ έμοΰ vulg. 
 
 περί τούτου Σ, L, F 1 ; περί τούτων vulg., edd. 4· Β υζαντίων V 6 . 5 · ^.tyeiv 
 
 ο’ίεσθε Αί; τουτουσί οίεσθε Β (y ρ), Υ, Ο (mg.); οίεσθε (here) om. Σ, L, Ο 1 , Φ, F . 
 
 § 241 . 2. ούχ ώ? άπηΧάθησαν vulg.; ούχ ώ? om. Σ 1 (added above the line), Bl. 
 
 υμών Σ, L; ημών vulg. 3. Βυζάντιον A2, Reiske. κατέστη Αί, Υ, Φ (yp), 
 
 Β (yp) ; καθέστηκε Σ, L, vulg. ; Φίλιππο? add. L, Φ (yp), Β (yp), om. Σ 1 (added at end of 
 line), vulg. 4. κύρως yeyove L (above line), vulg.; yeyove om. Σ, Ai. 6. έκ 
 om. Σ, L 1 (added by 1st hand). 
 
 § 239. 3. παρών, i.e. in the As¬ 
 
 sembly, as Aesch. regularly was: see 
 §273*.— εϊττερ ενεδεχετο: sc. ταυτα y ράφειν. 
 — παρά... Karpovs, in the crises through 
 which we were then living. 
 
 4 . ονχ ocr .. .πράγματ’, not all that 
 we wanted (continuously), but all that 
 circumstances (on each occasion) alloived 
 us (M.T. 532). ούχ οσα βουΧοίμεθα would 
 have meant not all that we wanted in 
 each case. 
 
 5. άντωνούμενοβ (conative), bidding 
 against us (trying to buy). 
 
 6 . προσ-δεξόμενο 8 ...προσ-θησ-ων, ready 
 to receive them and to pay them too (προσ-) 
 for coming. 
 
 § 240. 1. νΰν : opposed to d τότ’... 
 
 άπηΧθον. — επί rors πεπραγμε'νο^, i-e. 
 
 for ivhat I actually did, opposed to the 
 
 following supposition (2) that I did 
 nothing. — τ C άν οΐεσθε: ποιεΐν would 
 naturally follow here, av having its com¬ 
 mon place before οίεσθε (M.T. 220 1 ): cf. 
 § 225 s . But the long protasis εί τότ’... 
 κατέστη causes τί and av to be repeated 
 with ποιείν (4); cf. IX. 35, τί οίεσθε, 
 επείδάν ,.^ένηται, τί ποίησαν; 
 
 2. άκρφολογουμε'νου, quibbling , split¬ 
 ting hairs , part of the unreal condition. 
 
 4. τί iroieiv άν ή τί \iyav represents 
 τί έποίουν άν η έXεyον; cf. § 24Ι 7 · 
 
 § 241. 1 . ονχ: sc. έλeyov άν. 
 
 3—7* τον μέν...λτ]σ-τών γε'γονεν; this 
 seems to be a continuation of the indirect 
 quotation, with ούκ av έ\eyov cvs under¬ 
 stood. But there may be a change to a 
 direct quotation after είτα, without ώ?, as 
 Vom. and West, take it. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 i6g 
 
 Χωστών yeyovev ; ούκ άν ταντ eXeyov, καί πολλά ye προς 
 τούτους erepa ; πονηρόν, άνδρβς * Αθηναίοι, πονηρόν 6 σύκο- 242 
 φάντης a el καί πανταχόθβν βάσκανον καί φιΧαίτιον · τούτο 
 δέ καί φυσβυ κίναδος τάνθρώπιόν ec ττιν, ουδέν έζ αρχής 
 νγυές πeπoιηκbς ούδ’ έΧβυθβρον, αυτοτραγικός πίθηκος, 
 άρουραΐος Οίνόμαος, παράσημος ρήτωρ. τί yap ή σή 5 
 δeivότης eίς δνησιν ήκει τή πατρίδι; νυν ήμϊν Xeye υς πepl 243 
 των πapeXηXυθ 6 τωv; ώσπερ αν el τυς ιατρός άσθενουσι μέν 
 308 τοΐς κάμνουσιν είσιων μη Xeyoi μηδέ δεικνυοι δί ών αποφεύ¬ 
 γονται την νόσον, iπeLδή δέ τεΧευτήσειέ τις αυτών καί τα 
 
 7· £\eyev Α2 ; ούκ.,.ελεγον Ο (mg.). 
 
 § 242 . ι. ώ (before άνδρες) vulg.; ora. Σ, L 1 2 . 2. first καϊ ora. Φ. 3. κίναιδος 
 
 Al 1 , vulg. 4. vyus έξ άρχ. πεπ. Ar; έξ άρχ. πεπ. vy. Α2. 6. τη Σ (mg.), 
 
 Υ (mg.), vulg.; om Σ 1 . 
 
 § 243 . 1. ύπερ Φ. 3. είσιών om. Φ. Xeyoi μηδε δεικνύη Σ ; Xlyy μ. ' 
 
 δεικνύη Α2 ; Xeyei μ. δεικνύει. V6; two opt. vulg. 4· έπειδάν At. 
 
 § 242. 2. ΊΓανταχόθέν, in every xuay 
 
 {from every side). — φιλαίτιον : cf. LVii. 
 34 (end). 
 
 3. και φύσα κίναδο$,»ίΖ beast by his 
 very nature', κίναδος nascitur, συκοφάν¬ 
 της fit.— τάνθρώιτιον, homunculus , refers 
 to mental not to bodily stature. 
 
 4. 4 λ.€υθ€ρον, i.e. worthy of a free-born 
 Athenian: cf. μηδέν ελεύθερον φρονών, 
 Soph. Phil. 1006.— αύτοτραγικόδίτίθηκί^, 
 a natural tragic ape\ Schol. οΐκοθεν καί 
 άφ ' εαυτοί) έχει το πιθηκίζεσθαι. αυτό- 
 seems to have the same force as φύσει in 
 3 (West.). Harpocr. under τpayικbς 
 πίθηκος has: έοικε λέyειv τούτο b ρήτωρ 
 ώς και περί την ΰττόκρισιν άτυχούντος τού 
 Α ίσχίνου, καί μιμουμένου μάλλον Tpayipbobs 
 ή Tpayipbeiv δυναμένον. Paroem. Gr. I. 
 ρ. 375· tiri των παρ' αξίαν σεμνυνομένων. 
 These describe both the imitative and the 
 boastful ape. Cf. § 3 r 3 s , τραγί κος θεοκρίνης. 
 
 5· apoupaios Olvopaos: see § i8o 5,(J 
 and note. Aeschines is called rustic , pro¬ 
 bably because he “murdered Oenomaus” 
 at the country Dionysia (rois κατ' ay ρους), 
 which were sometimes celebrated by 
 performances in the theatre of Collytus 
 (Aesch. 1. 157), though this was a city 
 deme. (See Blass.) See Hesych. under 
 άρουραΐος Οίνομαος : Δημοσθένης Ai- 
 
 σχίνην ούτω έφη, έπεί κατά την χώραν 
 περινοστών ύ πεκρίνετο Σοφοκλέους τον 01 - 
 νόμαον. Westermann sees in άρουραΐος 
 an allusion to Aeschines as σύκα ..συλλέ- 
 yωv (§ 202 3 4 ), as the mother of Euripides 
 was called άρον ραία θεός (Ar. Ran. 840) 
 as a vender of vegetables. But the mean¬ 
 ing of § 262 is too doubtful to build upon. 
 — τταράσημοξ, counterfeit : Harpocr. has 
 εκ μεταφοράς εϊρηται άπο των νομισμάτων , 
 κ.τ.λ. See χχΐΥ. 2Γ3> and Ar. Ach. 518. 
 
 § 243 . ι. νυν ήμϊν Xeyiis : νύν has 
 great emphasis, and is repeated in 7: 
 is this the time you take to talk to us of 
 the past? 
 
 2. ώσττίρ άν (sc. ποιοίη) cl: i.e. in 
 talking to us of the past now you act as 
 a physician [would act) if he etc. If 
 ποιοίη had been expressed with άν, ιατρός 
 would be its subject. 
 
 3. tois κάμνουσιν: the general term 
 for patients, not merely while they are 
 ill ( άσθενοΰσι ) but also after they are dead 
 {επειδή τελευτήσειέ τις). —eltruov, i.e. in his 
 visits. — δι’ ών άττοφεύξονται : final. 
 
 4. έττειδή.,.φίροιτο, but when one of 
 them had died and his relatives were 
 carrying offerings to his tomb (all part of 
 the supposition), depending on εί.,.διεξίοι 
 (M.T. 177, 558, 560): cf. Plat. Phaed. 
 
ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 170 
 
 5 νομίζόμεν αύτώ φεροιτο, ακολουθών επί το μνήμα δίεζίΟί 
 
 θρ 
 
 ωπο ς οντοσυ, ονκ 
 
 * 
 αν 
 
 ε l το καί το εποιησεν αν 
 άπεθανεν. εμβρόντητε, είτα νυν λεγεις; 
 
 244 Ού τοίννν ουδέ την ήτταν , εΐ ταντη γαυριας εφ * ή 
 στενειν σε, ω κατάρατε, προσήκεν, εν ουδενΐ των τταρ εμο ι 
 γεγονυϊαν εύρήσετε τή ττόλεί. ούτωσι δε λογίζεσθε. ουδαμου 
 πώποθ\ όττοι πρεσβευτής επεμφθην ύφ * υμών εγώ, ήττηθεις 
 
 g. φαίνοιτο 2 , Φ. δίεζήει V6. 6. άνθρωπος MSS. ; άνθ. Bk. ovtos \ ; 
 
 ούτωσΐ Ο 1 , civ om. Υ. 
 
 § 244 . ι— 3 · τοίννν...ούτωσί: Oxyrh. pap. (as in Σ). ι. ήτταν αυτήν 
 
 Αι, Reiske. 2. εμού Αι. 2. 3 · ενρήσητε Ο. ούτ. δέ \oyi£. om. V6. 
 
 4. οπού Β 1 . έξεπέμφθην Αι. 2 . παρ’ υμών Α2. 
 
 72 C, επειδή δε άποθάνοι, μένοι. τα νομι- 
 ζόμενα are the customary offerings to the 
 dead (ivay ίσματα), brought on the third 
 and ninth days after death: τα κατα 
 νόμους φερόμενα τοΐς νεκροΊς (Schol.). For 
 views of such offerings see Smith’s Diet. 
 Antiq. I. p. 888, and Gardner and Jevons’s 
 Greek Antiq. p. 367. Aeschines (225) 
 predicts that Demosthenes will use this 
 illustration, and (189) that he will allude 
 to Philammon the boxer (which he does 
 in § 319); both predictions were of course 
 inserted after the trial. Aeschines says, 
 τε\ευττ]σαντος δε έΧθων εις τα ’ένατα 
 δι,εξίοι., and Demosthenes probably refers 
 to these ninth-day offerings, τα νομι- 
 ζόμενα φέροι,το is often referred to the 
 funeral itself; but it is difficult to explain 
 φέροιτο in this sense, even if we suppose 
 an allusion to the εκφορά. 
 
 g. το μνήμα, the tomb, built above 
 ground, which may at the same time be 
 a monument: cf. μνήμασι, § 2θ8 7 . In 
 the same double sense we must take 
 τάφος in the famous passage, Thuc. II. 
 43 18 , άνδρων yap επιφανών πάσα yr} 
 τάφος. 
 
 6 . το καί τό, this and that , one of the 
 few colloquial relics of the pronominal 
 article: see IX. 68, έδει yap τό καί τό 
 ποίήσαι. καί τό μη ποιησαι .—άνθρωπος 
 ούτοσ-1: so all the mss., while recent 
 editors adopt Bekker’s άνθρωπος. But 
 the article may be omitted with demon¬ 
 stratives when the pronoun emphatically 
 
 points out a present person or thing; as 
 Plat. Gorg. 489 Β, ούτοσί άνηρ ού παύσεται 
 φλύαρων , and gog C, οϋτος άνηρ ούχ υπο¬ 
 μένει ωφελούμενος: see Thuc. I. 5 1 νηες 
 έκεΐναι. έπι,πλέουσι, yonder are ships sail¬ 
 ing up. See Gerth’s Kiihner, 11. 1, 
 p. 629 d. 
 
 7. εμβρο'ντητί, thunderstruck, stupefied 
 by βροντή: cf. έμβεβροντήσθαι, XIX. 231. 
 For the relation of these words to τετύ- 
 φωμα ι see note on § 11 4 .— €Ϊτα νυν Xeyeis; 
 see note on 1. Many editors take έμβρόν- 
 τητε...λέyεt.ς; as addressed to the physician 
 by one of the relatives. It seems to me 
 that it is addressed directly to Aeschines, 
 as a question which would apply also to 
 the physician with whom he is compared: 
 cf. νυν ήμϊν λέyεις; (ι). 
 
 § 244 . 1. την ήτταν: still having 
 
 in mind the figure of the reckoning 
 (§ 227), he now argues that the chief 
 item which his enemies place on the 
 debit side, the defeat of Chaeronea, can¬ 
 not justly be charged to him (cf. Xoyi- 
 ζ’εσθε in 3). 
 
 2. των παρ’ έμοί, of what I was 
 
 responsible for. 
 
 4. οποί έττεμφθην: for the difference 
 in construction between this and οποί 
 πεμφθείην in § 45 (referring to the same 
 thing), and for έν οΐς κρατηθεΐεν (8), see 
 note on § 45 s . Little is known of any 
 of these embassies of Demosthenes except 
 those to Byzantium (§§ 87—89) and 
 Thebes (§211 fif.). In IX. 72 there is a 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 \7i 
 
 άπηλθον των παρά Φίλιππον πρέσβεων, ούκ εκ Θετταλίας 
 ούΒ' εζ 'Αμβρακίας, ονκ εζ 'Ιλλυριών ονδε παρα των Θρακών 
 βασιλέων, ούκ εκ Βυ£α ντίον, ονκ αλλοθεν ονδαμόθεν, ον τα 
 τελενται' εκ Θηβών, άλλ' εν οΐς κράτη θεΐεν οι πρέσβεις 
 αυτού τω λόγω, ταύτα τοΐς οπλοις επιων κατεστρέφετο. ταντ 
 ονν απαιτείς παρ' εμού, καί ονκ αίσγύνει τον αντον εις τε 
 μαλακίαν σκώπτων και της Φίλιππου δυνάμεως άζιων εν' 
 οντα κρείττω γενέσθαι; και ταντα τοΐς λόγοις; τίνος yap 
 
 5 
 
 άλλον κύριος ήν εγώ; ον yap της γε έκαστον ψυγης, ονδε 5 
 
 της τύχης των παραταζαμένων, ονδε της στρατηγίας, ής έμ' 
 απαιτείς ενθννας · οντω σκαιος εί. άλλα μην ών γ αν 6 
 ρητωρ υπεύθυνος εΐη, πάσαν έζέτασιν λαμβάνετε' ον παραι¬ 
 τούμαι. τίνα ονν εστι ταύτα; ^ά&εΐν τα πράγματα άρχόμενα 
 καί προαισθέσθαι καί προειπεΐν τοΐς άλλοις. | ταύτα πέπρα- 
 κταί μοι. καί έτι τάς εκασταγού βραδύτητας, οκνονς, 5 
 
 5, 6. ούκ eκ...oύδ , έξ.,.ούκ έξ.,.ούδβ παρά Σ, L, rst three vulg. (for ist ουδ’, ονκ 
 Ai; for last ονδε, vulg. of). 6. παρά om. Σ 1 (added in mg.). 7. τα τελευταία 
 
 Σ, L; τά τελευταία πρώην L 2 , Β (corr.), vulg.; τά τελ. νυν Αι. 2. 
 
 § 245. 2. αίσχύνεε Σ; αισχύνη (or -νη) L, vulg. 3· T V s τ °ν Υ· 
 
 4· yεyεvησθaι Αι. yap over δη V 6 . 5 · ο ύδέ τύχης V 6 . 
 
 § 246. ι. y ’ om. Υ. 2. λαμβάνετε Σ, L; λάμβανε vulg. 4· ττρο- 
 
 αίσθεσθα l Σ, V 6 . 5 * ώκνουν V 6 . 
 
 reference to his recent embassies into 
 Peloponnesus, which kept Philip from 
 conquering Ambracia (cf. ix. 27, 34); 
 and in [xil.] 8—10 (Philip’s letter) to 
 one to the “kings of Thrace,” Teres and 
 Cersobleptes, which was probably con¬ 
 temporary with that to Byzantium. See 
 Hist. §§ 59, 63. 
 
 9. SttXois κατ€<Γτρ€φ€το, i.e. he de¬ 
 cided these cases by throwing his sword 
 into the scale. Of course this has no 
 reference to the embassies to Byzantium, 
 Thebes, and Peloponnesus above men¬ 
 tioned. 
 
 § 245. 1. ταΰτ’ amuTiis, you call 
 
 me to account for these (§ 244°). 
 
 2. els μαλακίαν : West, cites Aesch. 
 Hi. 148, 152, 155, and 175. In these 
 Demosthenes is ridiculed for having run 
 away at Chaeronea, when the whole 
 allied army was put to flight. Aeschines 
 
 is never charged with this; but he was 
 probably not in the battle at all, being 
 over fifty years old. Probably Demo¬ 
 sthenes refers also to the nickname 
 BarraXos: see note on § 180 3 . 
 
 5. τής ψυχής, the life. 
 
 6 . των ·π·αρατα£αμ€νων, the combatants: 
 §§ 208 4 , 216 5 . 
 
 7. «ΰθύνας : used metaphorically.— 
 σκαιος, awkward (mentally): cf. § 120 4 . 
 
 § 246. 2. λαμβάν€Τ€: plural, as he 
 
 turns suddenly from Aeschines to the 
 whole assembly. 
 
 3. ίδ€ϊν...άρχόμ.6να κ.τ.λ . : no one can 
 read the earlier orations of Demosthenes 
 in the light of later events without feeling 
 the justice of this claim to sagacity which 
 he puts forward. He, indeed, of all 
 the statesmen of Athens, saw things in 
 their beginnings, and steadily warned 
 the people of the coming danger. 
 
172 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 άγνοιας, φιλονεικίας, α πολίτικα τάις πόλεσι προσεστιν 3°9 
 άπάσαις καί αναγκαία αμαρτήματα, τανθ * ώς εις ελάχιστα 
 συστεϊλαι, και τουναντίον εις ομόνοιαν καί φιλίαν και του 
 τά δέοντα ποιειν ορμτ/ν προτρεφαι. και ταυτα μ οι παντα 
 πει ToirjTai, και ούδεις μηποθ tvpj] κατ εμε ουδεν ελλει- 
 φθεν. εί τοίνυν τις εροιθ οντινουν τισι τα πλειστα Φιλ.ΐ7Γ7το5 
 ων κατεπραξε διωκήσατο, πάντες αν εϊποιεν τω στρατόπεδα) 
 καί τω διδόναι καί διαφθείρειν τους επί των πραγμάτων, 
 ουκουν των μεν δυνάμεων ούτε κύριος ουθ ηγεμων ήν εγω, 
 
 5 ώστε ούδ 5 ό λόγος των κατα ταυτα πραχθεντων προς εμε. 
 καί μήν τω διαφθαρήναι χρτ]μασιν ύ) μη κεκρατηκα Φι- 
 
 6. πηλίκα (for πολίτικα) Αι. καί (for reus) Ο. 7 · ω? εί Ο; εις om. L, V6. 
 
 έλάχιστα Σ, L; έλάχιστον vulg. 8. συνστείλαι (ν with .) Σ; συστήναι V6. 
 
 φιλίαν άχαχείν Αι. 2. την over του Σ; την του L, Lips. 9 · τρέφαι Φ. 
 
 πάντα μοι Υ.' ίο. μήποτε ανθρώπων vulg.; άνθρ. om. Σ, L 1 , Αι. 2 . ενΡΌ 
 
 L, vulg.; εΰροι F. το κατ' εμε vulg.; το om. Σ, L 1 . έλλειφθέν (one λ above) Σ. 
 
 § 247 . ι. ’έροιτο οντινουν Σ, L, Αι; οντ. ’έρ. vulg. 4· δυναμενων Αι. 
 
 5· ei’s εμέ F, Φ. 6. τφ διαφθ. χρ. η μη Σ, L 1 , Υ, Φ {yp), Αΐ; τφ μη διαφθ.χΡ· 
 
 L (corr.), Β, Ο 1 ; τφ φθαρηναι χρ. η μη Α2; τφ διαφθ. χρ. Φ; το διαφθ. χρ. η μη 
 West.; του yε διαφθ. χρ. Β 1 . έκράτηκα Α 2 . Φίλιππον Σ; Φιλίππου L, vulg. 
 
 6. ττολιτικά tcus ττόλίο-ι, inherent in 
 {free) governments : a striking case of a 
 favourite Greek form of emphasis, which 
 repeats the idea of a noun in an adjective. 
 Here the whole idea could have been 
 expressed either by πολιτικά or by οικεία 
 rais πόλεσι ; but it is made doubly strong 
 by πολιτικά ταί$ πόλεσι. The Greek 
 constantly emphasizes by what we should 
 call tautology, as in the repetition of 
 negatives. In Aeschyl. Ag. 56, οιωνό - 
 θροον y όον όξυβόαν, we have a remarkable 
 case of emphatic repetition, where the 
 whole idea could have been expressed by 
 οιωνών y 0 ov οζύν, shrill cry of birds , but 
 the idea of cry is added in both adjectives. 
 πόλεσι here has the same reference to free 
 governments which is usually implied in 
 πολιτεία (see note on § 65 s ): cf. Soph. 
 Ant. 737, πόλι$ yap ούκ ’έσθ 1 ητι% άνδρό s 
 έσθ' ένό?. With the whole passage cf. 
 §§235,236. 
 
 7. ios belongs to ei’s έλάχιστα, into the 
 smallest possible compass: see § 288 4 . 
 
 8. <τυ<ΓΤ€ΐλαι, to contract·, συστέλλω 
 
 sometimes means to shorten sail, as in 
 Ar. Ran. 999 ; cf. Eq. 432, συστείλας του s 
 άλλάvτas. 
 
 10. ττίττοίηται : in the same sense as 
 πέπρακται (4) : see note on § 4 ΰ . —ovSels 
 μήιτοθ’...ονδ€ν : it may be noticed that 
 ου δεν (not μηδέν) is the object of ού μη 
 εύρη ; cf. IV. 44, ούδέποτ' ουδέν ημίν ού 
 μη yέvητaι των δεόντων. This seems to 
 show that ού was felt as the leading 
 negative in these expressions.— κατ’ ίμέ : 
 most MSS. have τό κατ' έμέ, as in § 247 9 . 
 
 § 247 . 3. τω διδόναι, by making 
 
 gifts. 
 
 4. δυνάμεων, referring to στρατο- 
 πέδιρ (2): see note on § 234 1 . καί μην 
 τφ διαφθαρήναι κ.τ.λ. (6) corresponds to 
 των μεν δυνάμεων, in place of a clause 
 with δέ. 
 
 5· ταυτα (i.e. δυνάμεις): cf. κατά την 
 στρατηχίαν (§ 2 12')· 
 
 6. τω διαφθαρήναι ή μή, in the matter 
 of being corrupted or not, far more expres¬ 
 sive than τφ μη διαφθαρήναι. Cf. XIX. 4 > 
 7, υπέρ χε του προίκα η μή. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 173 
 
 λιππον' ώσπερ yap 6 ώνουμένος νενίκηκε τον λαβόντα εάν 
 πρίηται, ούτως 6 μη λαβών καί διαφθαρείς νενίκηκε τον 
 ώνουμενον. ώστε αήττητος η πόλις τό κατ εμε. 
 
 *Α μεν τοίνυν εγω παρεσγόμην εις το δικαίως τοιαυτα 248 
 γράφειν τούτον περί εμού, προς πολλοΐς ετεροις ταυτα καί 
 παραπλήσια τούτους εστίν ά δ’ οι πάντες υμείς, ταντ ηδη 
 λεξω. μετά γάρ την μάγιαν ευθνς 6 δήμος, ειδως καί 
 εορακως πάνθ ’ όσ επραττον εγω, εν αυτοΐς τοΐς δεινοις καί 5 
 φοβεροΐς εμβεβηκως, ηνίκ ονδ * άγνωμονησαί τι θαυμαστόν 
 ην τους πολλούς προς εμε, πρώτον μεν περί σωτηρίας της 
 πόλεως τάς εμάς γνώμας εγειροτόνει, καί πάνθ ’ όσα της 
 φυλακής ενεκ επράττετο, η διάταζις των φυλάκων, αί 
 
 8. καί δίαφθαρείς 2 , L 1 ; μηδέ διαφθ. 2 (yp), L 2 , vulg. 
 
 § 248 . 2. τοντονί Αι, F. 3· 0L om · B 1 » Αϊ. 
 
 ϊστβ vulg. 5. έωρακως MSS.; eop. Dind., later edd. (cf. § 6 η 5 . 
 dewois Y. 8. βουλευόμοΌς (aft§r πόλεως) 2 2 (above line). 
 
 t r* ' ν' T 1 ? ^ 
 
 υμείς 2, L· 1 ; υμείς 
 6. φοβεροΐς καί 
 g. φυλάκων 2. 
 
 7· ό (ovov|jl€vos : conative, he who 
 would buy. 
 
 8. ό μή λαβών και Βιαφθαρί'ι^ ( = 6s 
 
 μη Ζλαβε καί διεφθάρη), better than μηδε 
 δίαφθαρείς, as it more closely unites the 
 corruption with taking the bribe, he who 
 refused to take the bribe and be corrupted. 
 
 § 248 . 1. ds τό...τούτον, i.e. to 
 
 justify Ctesiphon’s language in his decree : 
 see § 57 1 . 
 
 3. ot TrctVTiS vfjitis : sc. παρέσχεσθε. 
 
 6. Ιμβεβηκί^, standing amid, sur¬ 
 rounded by: βέβηκα, stand , is related to 
 'ίσταμαι as ylyova to είμί and κέκτημαί to 
 .— ήνίκ 1 ov8 , ... , irp0s tpe, when most 
 men might have shown some want of 
 feeling towards me without surprising 
 anyone : this rather awkward translation 
 shows the force of the construction of 
 θαυμαστόν ην (without αν) and the infini¬ 
 tive, where the chief potential force falls 
 on the infinitive. (See M.T. 415, 416, 
 and Appendix v. p. 406.) We naturally 
 (but incorrectly) translate when it would 
 have been no wonder, throwing the chief 
 force on θαυμαστόν ην, so that av seems 
 necessary: Blass reads οΰδ ’ άν. The 
 principle is the same as in the more 
 common είκός ην σε τούτο ποιησαί, you 
 
 would properly have done this, which by 
 a slight change of emphasis might be 
 είκός άν ην σε τούτο ποιησαί, it would 
 have been proper for you to do this. The 
 same is seen in Eur. Med. 490, εί yap 
 ησθ ’ άπαίς, aoyyv ω στον ην crot τουδ’ 
 ερασθηναι λέχους, i.e. in that case you 
 might pardonably have been enamoured: 
 see M.T. 422 1 (last example), while with 
 άν it would mean it would have been 
 pardonable hi you to be enamoured (with 
 a slight change in the emphasis). 
 
 8. Tas €p.ds γνώμας, my proposals of 
 public measures: this and the following 
 πάνθ ’ οσα...επράττετο do not include such 
 general measures for the public safety as 
 the famous decree of Hyperides for the 
 enfranchisement of slaves, the recall of 
 exiles, and similar extreme provisions 
 (see Hist. § 80). An earlier decree passed 
 after Chaeronea, which may have been 
 proposed by Demosthenes, provided for 
 the removal of women and children from 
 the country into fortified places, and 
 directed the generals to garrison all the 
 forts on the frontier with Athenians or 
 metics: see Lycurg. Leocr. 16. 
 
 9. ή διάταξις των φυλάκων : see Thuc. 
 II. 24, φύλακας κατεστήσαντο κατά yr\v 
 
174 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 ΙΟ τάφρου, τά ευς τά τείχη χρήματα, δυά των εμών ψηφισμάτων 3 
 εγίγνετο · επευθ ’ αυρουμενος συτώνην εκ πάντων εμ εχευρο- 
 249 τόνησεν 6 δήμος. καί μετά ταντα σνστάντων ους ήν 
 επυμελες κακώς εμε πουεϊν, καί γραφάς, ενθννας, εισαγγελίας, 
 πάντα ταντ επαγόντων μου, ον δυ εαυτών τό γε πρώτον, 
 άλλα δυ ων μάλυσθ ’ νπελάμβανον άγνοήσεσθαι (ίστε γάρ 
 5 δήπον καί μεμνησθ* ότυ τους πρώτους χρόνους κατά την 
 ημέραν εκάστην εκρινόμην εγώ, καί ουτ άπόνοια Σωσικλεους 
 ούτε συκοφαντία Φ υλοκράτους ούτε Δι ώνδου καί Μελάντου 
 μανία ουτ άλλ ’ ούδεν άπείρατον ήν τούτους κατ εμού), εν 
 
 II. έκ πάντων om. V6; έκ πάντων γ’ Α2. 
 
 § 249. 1. ην om. Α2. 4 · άγνοήσεσ^αι Σ, L ( θη over ησ ); ayvor\e7)awea.i 
 
 vulg. 5· κατά την ημέραν έκάστην Σ, Αι (σχεδόν before κατά); κατά ημέραν 
 
 εκάστην L; καθ' έκ. σχ. ημ. Α2 ; καθ' έκ. ημ. vulg. 6. οΰδ’ (for οΰτ) Υ. 
 
 7· ουδέ (for 1st οϋτε ) Υ. Μβλάρτου Σ, L 1 , Αι. 2; Μελάτου vulg. 8. tols 
 
 (for to0tols) Φ. 
 
 καί κατά θάλασσαν, ώσπερ δη έμέλλον διά 
 7 ravTos του πολέμου φυλάξειν. 
 
 ίο. τάφροι...τείχη : this sudden re¬ 
 pairing of the fortifications in the panic 
 after the battle has nothing to do with 
 the more elaborate work on the walls 
 undertaken in the following year, when 
 Demosthenes was τειχοποώ$ (§ 113 6 )· 
 Lycurgus (44) thus describes the general 
 enthusiasm : ούκ έστιν ήτις ηλικία ου 
 παρέσχετο εαυτην εί$ την τη$ πόλεωs 
 σωτηρίαν, οτε ή μεν χώρα τά δένδρα συνε- 
 βάλλετο, οί δε τετελευτηκότες τά s θήκας, 
 οι δε νεφ τά όπλα. The same excitement 
 prevailed when the walls of Athens were 
 hastily rebuilt after the battle of Plataea, 
 while Themistocles kept the Spartans 
 quiet by diplomacy: see Time. 1. 90—93. 
 On both occasions tombstones were used 
 in building the Avails, and some of these 
 may now be seen in a piece of the 
 wall of Themistocles near the Dipylon 
 gate. Demosthenes gave a talent to the 
 state after the battle of Chaeronea (Vit. x. 
 Orat. p. 851 a). 
 
 11. σιτωνην, an extraordinary official 
 appointed in special times of distress to 
 regulate the trade in grain and to guard 
 against scarcity. The grain trade was 
 ordinarily in the charge of 35 σιτοφύλακες 
 (2o in the city, 15 in the Piraeus): see 
 
 Arist. Pol. Ath. 51 8 . See Dinarch. 1. 
 78—-82. 
 
 § 249. I. μετά ταΰτα, i.e. after the 
 first excitement, when Philip’s party 
 gained courage at Athens.— συστάντων : 
 gen. absol. with the implied antecedent 
 of oh. 
 
 2. ypcuf>as : here in the most restricted 
 sense of ordinary public suits, excluding 
 εισαγγελία, εϋθυναι, etc. The chief form 
 of υ ραφή here would be the y ραφή παρα¬ 
 νόμων (§ 25ο 4 ). 
 
 3· ττάντα ταΰτ’: emphatic apposition, 
 all these , I say.— ού δι’ εαυτών, not in 
 their own names: at first the leading 
 philippizers kept in the background, and 
 put forward such obscure men as those 
 mentioned below. 
 
 6—8. άιτόνοια, μανία: “ the first is the 
 deliberate desperation of a man with 
 nothing to lose, the last the desperation 
 of blind passion” (Simcox).— ΣωσικΧε'ου? 
 ...Μελάντου: Sosicles and Melantus are 
 otherwise unknown; for Diondas see 
 § 2 2 2 5 ; Philocrates is not the notorious 
 Hagnusian who gave his name to the 
 peace of 346 B.c. (he disappears after he 
 was condemned on the εισαγγελία brought 
 by Plyperides, xix. 116), but an Eleu- 
 sinian (xxv. 44). The imitation of this 
 passage by Cicero (Cat. III. 7) is familiar: 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 175 
 
 A. 
 
 τοίνυν τουτοις πασι μάλιστα μεν διά τους θεούς, δεύτερον 
 8 έ he υμάς καί τους άλλους ’Αθηναίους εσωζόμην. δικαίως' 
 τούτο γάρ και αληθές εστι καί υπέρ των δμωμοκότων καί 
 γνόντων τα εύορκα δικαστών, ούκουν εν μεν οΐς είσηγγελ- 
 λόμην, δτ άπεψηφίζεσθε μου καί το μέρος των ψήφων τοΐς 
 διωκουσιν ου μετεδί δοτέ, τότ εψηφίζεσθε τάριστά με 
 πράττειν · εν οις δε τάς γραφάς άπεφευγον, εννομα καί 
 γράφειν καί λεγειν άπεδεικνυμην' εν οις δε τάς εύθυνας 
 επεσημαίνεσθε, δικαίως καί άδωροδοκήτως πάντα πεπράγθαί 
 μοι πρόσω μολογ είτε, τούτων ουν ούτως εχόντων, τι προσήκον 
 ή τι δίκαιον ήν τοΐς υπ * εμού πεπραγμένοις θεσθαι τον 
 
 ίο. άλλους Σ, L 1 , Αΐ; άλλους άπαντας vulg. έσιρζόμην εγώ V 6. ιι. όμω- 
 μωκότων Ο ; ώμομοκ. V6 (so § 25ο 10 ). 12. υπέρ των τά εύορκα yvovrwv vulg.; 
 
 yvovruv τά εύορκα Σ, L, Αΐ (εγ νωκότων V6). 
 
 § 250. 2. τό πέμπτον μέρος vulg.; πέμπτον om. Σ, L 1 ; cf. § 103 2 . 3· τ “ 
 
 &ρ. Υ. 4· διaypάς (!) for ypaφάς Α2. άπέφεvyov Σ, L, F, Αι; άπέφυyov 
 
 vulg. 5· λεγ. κεώ ypάφ■ Β. . δό και Ο. 6. μοι πεπράχθαι Α2. 
 
 7· πpoσoμoλoyεΐτε Ο. προσήκον Σ, L, vulg.; προσήκεν Αι. 
 
 hoc providebam animo,...nec mihi P. 
 Lentuli somnum, nec L. Cassii adipes, nec 
 Cethegi furiosam temeritatem pertime- 
 scendam. 
 
 10. δι υμάς, i.e. through the courts. 
 
 11. αληθές, in accordance with truth. 
 — ύττερ... δικαστών, to the credit of judges, 
 etc. 
 
 12. γνόντων τά εύορκα, xvho (not only 
 had sworn, but) gave judgment in accord¬ 
 ance with their oaths. 
 
 § 250. 1. εν οΐς είσηγγελλόμην : cf. 
 
 έν οΐς ήμάρτανον, § 19 3 . 
 
 2. τό με'ρος των ψη'φων : cf. §§ 103 2 , 
 266 6 · Here, as in § 103, nearly all mss. 
 (except Σ) add πέμπτον. The mention of 
 this here is interesting, as it implies that 
 at this time some penalty, either partial 
 ατιμία or the fine of 1000 drachmas, was 
 inflicted on the prosecutor who failed to 
 get one-fifth of the votes in an εισαγγελία. 
 As this was partly a state prosecution, 
 it was right that the individual prosecutor 
 should be better protected against personal 
 risk than the ordinary ypaφ 6 μεvoς. A 
 comparison of Hyperides (Lycoph. 8), 
 διά τό άκίνδυνον αύτοΐς είναι τον αγώνα, 
 
 with Lycurgus (Leocr. 3), τον ιδία κινδυ- 
 νεύοντα, and Pollux (VIII. 52 , 53 )> shows 
 that in earlier times no penalty was in¬ 
 flicted on the είσayyέλλωv who failed to 
 get one-fifth of the votes, but that after¬ 
 wards he was subject to the fine without 
 the ατιμία. See Essay iv. 4 
 
 3. τάριστά με ττράττειν: i.e. the 
 judgment of the court justified this clause 
 of Ctesiphon’s decree (§ 57 1 ). 
 
 4. Εννομα γράφειν: opposed to παρά¬ 
 νομα yράφειv : see notes on ypaφάς, 
 
 § 2 49 2 · λ 
 
 τάς εύθυνας εττεσημαίνεσθε, put 
 
 your seal on my accounts : this probably 
 refers to the official seal of the δικαστήριον 
 before which Demosth. appeared to ren¬ 
 der his accounts (εϋθνναι) at the end of 
 each term of office. We now know from 
 Aristotle (Pol. Ath. 48 18 , 54 0 ) that this 
 reference to the court as taking an im¬ 
 portant part in the εϋθνναι was not a mere 
 form, of words. See Dem. xix. 211, 
 προσελθών τοΐς λoyιστaΐς...άπηyόpευε μή 
 καλεΐν έμέ εις τό δικαστήριον ώί δεδω- 
 κότα εύθύνας καί ούκ όντα υπεύθυνον. 
 
 ΙΟ 
 
 250 
 
 5 
 
ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 176 
 
 Κτησιφώντα ονομα; ον χ ο τον δήμον εωρα τιθεμενον, ουχ 
 δ τονς όμωμοκότας δικαεττας, ονχ ο την αλήθειαν τταρα 
 ττασι βέβαιον σαν; 
 
 Ναι, φηετίν, άλλα το τον Κεφάλου καΧον, το μηδεμιαν 
 y ραφήν φενγειν. και νη Δι ενδαιμον yε. αλλα τι μαΧΧον 
 δ 7 τοΧΧάκις μεν φνγών μηδεπώποτέ δ’ εξεΧεγχθεϊς αδικών 3 11 
 εν εγκΧηματι yiyvoiT αν δια τοντο δικακοζ; καιτοι ιτρος yε 
 5 τοντον, ανδρες Αθηναίοι, καί το τον Κεφάλου καΧον είπεΐν 
 
 ο. ονομα τόν Kr. Υ, Α 2 . ίο. τταρα om. Α2. ^ Λ . 
 
 § 251 . ι. του om. V6. 2. φενγειν Σ, Φ, Αι; φευχεΐν Β; (pvyeiv Σ (γρ)> 
 
 vulg. 3· <(>vywv Σ , L, vulg. ; φε νγων Αι. 
 
 g. τόν δήμον τιθεήιενον: this repeated 
 approval of the people refers to the votes 
 mentioned in § 248. 
 
 10. δικασ-τάδ : sc. τιθέμενους. The 
 present judges are addressed above as if 
 they had themselves judged the previous 
 cases.— την αλήθειαν : with special em¬ 
 phasis, after τον δήμον and τούς δικαστάς. 
 
 This passage is a dignified and fitting 
 conclusion to the line of argument be¬ 
 ginning with § 227 concerning the orator’s 
 account (λογισμό?) with the state. His 
 eloquent reply to the appeal of Aeschines 
 to the judges to act as accountants 
 naturally led to a statement of the items 
 which stood to his credit, giving him a 
 new opportunity to enlarge on his services 
 to Athens ; and the allusion to euflvvai at 
 the close gives a unity to the whole. Now, 
 after a brief allusion (§251) to the case 
 of Cephalus, to which Aeschines had 
 appealed, he passes to another matter. 
 
 § 251 . ι. το του Κεφάλου καλόν 
 may be exclamatory, there is the glory of 
 Cephalus ; cf. 1 . 5. But καλόν is generally 
 taken here as predicate to τό του Κεφάλου 
 (sc. έστί). (See Aesch. ill. 194.) This 
 Cephalus is mentioned above, § 219 s , with 
 Callistratus, Aristophon, and Thrasybulus 
 of Collytus, as if he were their con¬ 
 temporary. He therefore cannot be the 
 father of Lysias, Polemarchus, and Eu- 
 thydemus, who opens the dialogue of 
 Plato’s Republic with Socrates, and was 
 
 67ri yrjpaos οΰδφίη the lifetime of Socrates; 
 but a later statesman, who with Thrasybulus 
 of Collytus was a leader of the Theban 
 party in Athens, and highly respected. 
 Dinarchus (1. 76) speaks of the people of 
 Athens as στρατηγών μόν τοιούτων τετυχη- 
 κως οΐων είττον άρτίως, συμβούλους δ’ <?χων 
 ’Αρχΐνον καί Κ έφαλον τον Κολλυτεα. The 
 generals mentioned were Conon, I phi- 
 crates, Chabrias, and Timotheus; and 
 Archinos was one of the restorers of the 
 democracy with the great Thrasybulus 
 in 403 (Aesch. 11. 176, HI. 187, 195). 
 For Cephalus see Schaefer 1. 143, 144.— 
 τό...φεύγειν, the (glory of) never being 
 tender indictment : φεύ γειν has the best 
 MS. authority, and the continuity of a 
 legal process justifies the tense; τό.,.φυ- 
 γειν would mean simply never being 
 brought to trial (equally good). Aeschines 
 (194), after mentioning the boast of Ari¬ 
 stophon that he had been acquitted [από- 
 φυ γεν) seventy-five times on the γ ραφή 
 7 ταρανόμων, compares this with the higher 
 boast of Cephalus, that he had proposed 
 more decrees than any other man, and yet 
 had never once been indicted by the 
 γραφή παρανόμων. Demosthenes does 
 not mention this special suit, but he evi¬ 
 dently has it in mind here, as in § 249 s . 
 
 4. irpos γε τούτον, so far as this man 
 is concerned ; i.e. Aeschines has done 
 nothing to prevent me from making the 
 boast of Cephalus. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 177 
 
 εστι μοι. ονδεμίαν yap πωποτ εγράφατό με ούδ’ εδίωζε 
 γραφήν, ώστε υπό σου γ ωμολόγημαι μηδέν είναι τον 
 Κ εφάλον χείρων πολίτης. 
 
 ΤΙανταχόθεν μεν τοίνυν αν τις ϊδοι την αγνωμοσύνην! 252 
 αυτόν καί την βασκανίαν, ούχ ήκιστα δ* άψ’ ών περί της 
 
 / Ο \ / /Λ Τ"^ 3 \ Ο» '/\ \ V V /] * 
 
 τύχης οιελεχυη. \ εγω ο ολως μεν, ο στις ανυρωπος ων 
 
 άνθρώπω τύχην προφέρει, άνόητον ηγούμ αι ην γαρ δ 
 βέλτιστα πράττειν νομίζων καί άρίστην έχειν οίόμενος ούκ 5 
 οίδεν εί μενεΐ τοιαντη μέχρι της εσπέρας, πως χρη περί 
 ταύτης λέγειν η πως δνειδίζειν ετέρω; επειδή δ’ ουτος προς 
 7 τολλοΐς άλλοις καί περί τούτων ύπερηφάνως χρηται τω λόγω, 
 σκέφασθ’, ω άνδρες * Αθηναίοι, καί θεωρησαθ * όσω καί 
 άληθέστερον καί άνθρωπινώτερον εγω περί της τύχης τούτου ίο 
 διαλεχθησομαι. εγω την της πόλεως τύχην αγαθήν 253 
 
 6. έστιν έμοί Υ. 
 
 § 252 . ι. ττανταχόθεν Σ, L; πολλαχόθεν vulg. 3· διειλέχθη Φ, Β 1 (ε 
 
 over ει), L 1 (?); διελ. περί τ. τύχης Υ ; δ<.ελέ~/χθη (7 erased) Σ. 4· παντελώς 
 
 άνόητον vulg. ; παντ. om. Σ, L, F, Β 1 . ηγούμαι και άπαίδευτον, Αι. 2. 5 · τα 
 
 βέλτ. L, vulg.; τά om. Σ 1 , Φ. ε^χειν om. V6. 6. μένει Σ (accent by corr.); 
 
 μένει L (accent on e erased). τοιαύτη μενεΐ Αι. 2. μόχρι και A2. 
 
 8. ύπερηφάνως Σ, L, Φ (yp), Αι. 2; ύπερηφάνιρ vulg. χρηται Σ, L, Φ (yp); 
 
 κέχρηται vulg. τω om. Υ. ίο. δικαιότερον (for και άληθ.) Αι. ιι. δια¬ 
 λύομαι Υ, Φ (yp), Β 2 . 
 
 § 253 . ι. την της Σ, L, F, Β 1 , Αι ; την μέν της vulg. 
 
 6. έδιωξε γραφήν, prosecuted an in¬ 
 dictment , cognate accusative, as in iypd- 
 φατο γραφήν. Our translation obscures 
 the construction. 
 
 7. μηδέν είναι: see Μ. T. 685. 
 
 §§ 252 — 275 . Here Demosthenes re¬ 
 plies at great length to scattered remarks 
 of Aeschines about his “bad fortune,” 
 which involved in calamity every person, 
 state, or thing which he touched. Though 
 Aeschines refers only to his general for¬ 
 tune , Demosthenes chooses to speak 
 chiefly of his fortunes in life, which he 
 compares with those of his opponent. 
 He concludes (§§ 270—275) with some 
 forcible remarks on his fortune in the 
 other sense. 
 
 § 252 . 1. αγνωμοσύνην (cf. §§ 94 s , 
 
 207 6 ), want of feeling. 
 
 2. ττερι τήξ τύχηξ : see Aesch. ill. 
 114, 157, 158, with 135, 136; cf. §212 
 (above). 
 
 3. o\o)S μεν is opposed to the special 
 exception, επειδή δ’ ouros (7). 
 
 4. ήν, after suggesting the object of 
 έχειν, is the object of οΐδεν. 
 
 5· βε'λτιστα ττράττειν: superlative of 
 εΰ ττράττειν. See Soph. O. C. 567 : έξοιδ ’ 
 άνηρ ων χωτι της ές αύριον ούδέν ττλέον μοι 
 σου μέτεστιν ημέρας (Weil). 
 
 8. ύττερηφάνα^ : opposed to άνθρω- 
 πινώτερον, more humanly , i.e. more as one 
 man should speak of another: cf. οστις... 
 προφέρει (3).— χρηται τω λόγω : cf. εί 
 δικαίως χρήσομαι τιρ \ 6 yip, § 2 33 s · 
 
 § 253 . 1. την...τύχην: the general 
 
 good fortune of Athens, as it is here 
 understood, is not mere chance or luck 
 (as in §§ 207 6 and 306 6 ), but the result of 
 
 G. D. 
 
 12 
 
ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 ι;8 
 
 ηγούμαι, και τανθ * δρω καί τον Αία τον Αωδωναΐον υμϊν 
 μαντβνόμβνον, την μβντοι των πάντων ανθρώπων, η νυν 
 έπάχει, χαλεπήν καί δεινήν τις γάρ 'Ελλήνων η τις βαρβάρων 
 54 ον πολλών κακών εν τω παρόντι πεπείραται; το μεν τοίννν 
 προελεσθαι τα κάλλιστα, καί το των οιηθεντων 'Ελλήνων 
 εί πρόοινθ' ημάς εν ευδαιμονία διάζειν αυτών άμεινον 
 7 τράττειν, της αγαθής τύχης της πόλεως είναι τίθημι * το δε 
 5 προσκρουσαι καί μη πάνθ '* ώ? ηβουλόμεθ ’ ημΐν συμβηναι 3 
 
 2. ηΎοΰμαι om. Φ. ταυθ' Σ, L, F, Φ, Αι; τοΰθ ’ vulg. ύμΐν Σ, L, vulg. ; ημΐν 
 Β (corr.), F 2 3 4 , Φ, Α2, V6. καί τον Άπολλω (Απόλλων Ar) τόν Ώ,ύθιον after ύμΐν Σ 
 
 {mg.), L (corr.), Αι (mg.), Β (yp) without /cat. 3. απάντων Y. 5 · παρόντι 
 
 και.ρφ vulg. ; καιρμ om. Σ, L 1 , F, Φ, Αι. 
 
 § 254 . 3 · 7τ ροοιντο Σ; πρόοιντο L, Αι, Β 1 , vulg.; προεΐντο Ο, Β 2 . υμάς F. 
 
 αν (for έν) Α2 ; αν έν Φ. αυτών Σ, Φ; αυτούς Σ (yp) ; αυτών (ούς over ων) F ; 
 
 τούτων αυτών Αι. 2; αυτών εκείνων vulg. 5 · δ'σα (f° r ws) Δΐ. 2, Υ, F (yp), 
 
 Φ {yp). έβουλόμεθ' Α2. ύμϊν F. 
 
 divine protection and the care of the 
 Gods. See the poem of Solon, quoted in 
 xix. 255, which begins 
 'Η μετέρα δε πόλις κατά μέν Αιός ούποτ ’ 
 όλεΐται 
 
 αϊσαν και μακάρων θεών φρένας αθανάτων ’ 
 τοίη yap μeyάθυμoς επίσκοπος όβριμοπάτρη 
 
 ΙΙαλλάς Άθηναίη χέΐρας ϋπερθεν έχει * 
 with the orator’s comment (256), €70; δ’ 
 αεί μεν αληθή τον Xoyov τούτον ήyoΰμaι 
 και βούλομαι , ως άρ' οί θεοί σιρζουσιν ημών 
 τήν πόλιν. (See notes of Dissen and 
 Blass.) So IV. 12 : (τής τύχης) ήπερ άε'ι 
 βέλτιον ή ημείς ημών αυτών επιμελούμεθα. 
 
 2. τόν.,.Δωδωναΐον: cf. II. XVI. 233, 
 ZeO άνα Αωδωναϊε, HeXaayiKt τηλόθι 
 ναίων, in the prayer of Achilles. Oracles 
 sent from Dodona to Athens are quoted 
 by Demosthenes, xxi. 53 ; cf. xix. 299, 
 ό Ζευς, ή Αιώνη (the Queen of Zeus at 
 Dodona), πάντες oi θεοί. At this time 
 Dodona was probably more revered at 
 Athens because of the Macedonian in¬ 
 fluence at Delphi : cf. Aesch. in. 130, 
 Αημοσθένης δε άvτέλεyε, φιλιππίζειν τήν 
 ΙΙυθίαν φάσκων , απαίδευτος ών κ.τ.λ. 
 
 3· των πάντων ανθρώπων, mankind 
 in general, as opposed to Athens alone. 
 
 5. πολλών κακών: witness the de¬ 
 struction of Thebes by Alexander; and 
 the overthrow of the Persian Empire, 
 which was then going on. See Aesch. 
 
 in. 132, 133; in 134 he includes Athens 
 in the general bad fortune which she 
 owes to the baneful influence of Demos¬ 
 thenes. 
 
 § 254 . 1. το προελεσθαι τα κάλλιστα, 
 
 our choice of the most glorious course : the 
 whole sentence through άμεινον πράττειν is 
 the subject of είναι (4), i.e. he includes all 
 this in the special good fortune of Athens. 
 
 2. ο’ιηθε'ντων introduces εί πρόοινθ ' ... 
 διάξειν in or. obi. : πρόοιντο has the best 
 MS. authority here, and in V. 15 and XXI. 
 212 ; but Σ 1 has πρόεισθε in VI. 8. 
 
 3. αυτών: intensive with τών Ελλή¬ 
 νων, than those very Greeks’, almost 
 reiterative.— άμεινον πράττειν: cf. βέλ¬ 
 τιστα πράττειν, § 252 s . He compares the 
 fate of Athens under the Macedonian 
 supremacy with that of the Peloponne¬ 
 sians who remained neutral in the late 
 war and the Thessalians who sided with 
 Philip : see §§ 64, 65. 
 
 4. τήδ tvxijs with είναι τίθημι : see 
 I. 10, τό μεν yap πολλά άπολωλεκέναι .. .τής 
 ήμετέρας άμελείας αν τις θείη δικαίως (with 
 the following τό δέ.,.θείην), where είναι is 
 omitted, τίθημι in this sense takes the 
 infinitive regularly in or. obi. : see Aesch. 
 III. 163, βούλει σε θώ φοβηθήναι και χρή- 
 σασθαι τω σαυτοΰ τρόπιρ ;—τό δε προσ- 
 κρουσαι και μή... συμβηναι, i.e. our 
 disaster (euphemistically called collision) 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 179 
 
 ik 
 
 τής των άλλων ανθρώπων τύχης το επιβάλλον εφί ήμάς 
 μέρος μετειληφεν at νομίζω την πόλιν. την δ’ iSiav τύχην 255 
 την εμήν καί την ενός ημών έκαστον εν τοΐς ίδίοις εξετάζειν 
 δίκαιον είναι νομίζω. εγώ μεν ούτωσί περί τής τύχης άξιώ, 
 όρθώς καί δικαίως, ως εμαντώ δοκώ, νομίζω δε καί νμΐν 
 δ δέ την ιδίαν τύχην την εμήν τής κοινής τής πόλεως κνριω- 5 
 τέραν είναι φησι, την μικραν καί φανλην τής αγαθής καί 
 μεγάλης. καί πώς ενι τοντο γενεσθαι; 
 
 Καί, μην εί γε την εμήν τύχην πάντως εξετάζειν, Αισχίνη, 256 
 προαιρεΐ, προς την σαντου σκοπεί, καν ενρης την εμήν 
 βελτίω τής σής, πανσαι λοιδορονμενος αυτή, σκόπει τοίννν 
 ενθνς εξ αρχής, καί μου προς Αιός μηδεμίαν φυχρότητα 
 καταγνω μηδείς. εγώ γάρ οντ εί τις πενίαν προπηλακίζει, s 
 νουν εχειν ήγουμαι, οντ εί τις εν άφθόνοις τραφείς επί τοντω 
 σεμνννεταί' άλλ 9 νπο τής τοντονί τον χαλεπόν βλασφημίας 
 καί συκοφαντίας εις τοιοντονς λόγους εμπίπτειν αναγκάζομαι, 
 οίς εκ τών ενόντων ώς αν δννωμαι μετριώτατα χρήσομαι. 
 
 6 . ύμάς V6. 7 · μέρος οιη. Αι. 
 
 § 255 . 7 . ύμων Αΐ, Υ, Φ. 3 · νομίζω είναι V6. μεν ουν vulg. ; οΰν 
 
 om. Σ, L 1 , Αι. άξιώ Σ, Αι; εξετάζειν άξιώ L, vulg. \. ΰμιν Σ, L, Αι; 
 
 ύμϊν συνδοκεΐν vulg. 5* T V V ιδίαν...της ττό (i.e. one line) om. Ai (-Xews remaining 
 at beginning of next line), added in mg. 
 
 § 256 . 7. προαιρεΐ Σ; προαιρη L, vulg. σεαυτού Σ, L, V6, West., Lips. ; 
 
 σαυτοΰ vulg., Bk., Vom., Bl. 4. Aios Σ, L 1 ; Aids καί θεών vulg. 5. προ¬ 
 
 πηλάκιζα, v ου εχειν (~ over 0, and v added above οι») Σ, making προπηλακίζει, νουν. 
 7· τούτου V6. 9. μετριώτατα [not -ητα) Σ. 
 
 and our not having everything done as we 
 wished', this is the object of μετειληφέναι, 
 with το... μέρος as appositive, this I believe 
 that our city has received as the share of 
 the general {bad) fortune of the rest of 
 mankind which falls to our lot. 
 
 6. τό €ΐτιβάλλον |xspos: cf. τό yiyvb- 
 μενον, the quota , § 104 4 . West, quotes 
 Hdt. IV. 115, άπολαχδντες των κτημά¬ 
 των το inr φαλλόν, and Diod. I. 1, to 
 έπιβάλλον έκάστοις εκ της πεπρωμένης 
 μερίζουσα. Cf. επιβάλλει, § 2 >] 7 λ . 
 
 § 255 . 7. €V rois ISiois: Aesch. had 
 sought for the fortune of Demosth. έν 
 τοΐς δημοσίοις, as in III. 114, συμβέβηκεν 
 αύτφ οτου άν προσάψηται... τούτων έκαστους 
 άνιάτοις συμφοραΐς περιβάλλειν. In 135 
 
 Aesch. quotes Hesiod (Works and Days 
 240 fif.) against Demosthenes. 
 
 3. άξιώ, judge : “eine seltene Bedeut- 
 ung (Hdt. VI. 87, άξιουντες άδικέεσθαι),” 
 Bl. But here άξιώ is not equivalent to 
 νομίζω, but ούτωσί άξιώ = τοΰτο άξιον είναι 
 νομίζω. 
 
 4 · νομίζω ύμϊν: SC. δοκεΐν. 
 
 § 25 6. 4 · ψυχρότητα, coldness, want 
 
 of feeling', cf. τό ψυχρόν τούτο όνομα, XIX. 
 187, with Shilleto’s note. 
 
 7. χαλίττοΰ, harsh, unfeeling, stronger 
 than ψυχρού. 
 
 q. ε κ τών...μ«τριώτατα, as moderately 
 as the state of the case (τά ένόντα) will 
 per 7 nit. The δύναμαι which is commonly 
 omitted with ws and the superlative is 
 
 12 - 2 
 
ι8ο 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 ’EjL101 με V TOLVVV VTTY)p^€V, A ίσχίνη , 7 ΤΟ,ΐδΐ TCL TTpOCTYjKOVTCl 
 
 διδασκαλεία, και έχεινσσοΓχρη τον μηδέν αισχρόν ποιησοντα 
 δι ένδειαν, ε^εΧθόντι δ εκ παιδων ακοΧονθα τοντοις π ραττειν, 
 χορηγέΐν, τριηραρχεΐν, ειετφερειν, μηδεμιας φιΧοτιμιας μητ 
 ίδιας μήτε δημοσίας άποΧειπεσθαι, αλλα και τη ποΧει και 
 τοΐς φίΧοις χρήσιμον είναι · ^επειδή δε προς τα κοινά προσ- Λ 
 ελθεΐν έδοξέ μοι, τοιαντα ποΧιτευμαθ '* Λ εΧέσθαί ^ ώστε και ■ 
 νπο της πατρίδος και νπ αΧΧων ΈιΧΧηνων ποΧΧων ποΧΧακις 
 εστεφανωσθαι, καί μηδε τους έχθρονς νμας ως ον καλα γ 
 
 § 257 . ι. παιδί Σ, L 1 ; παιδί μέν οντι φοιτάν εις Σ (mg. not yp), L (7 p), vulg. 
 2. καί ’έχειν... δι ’ ένδειαν om. Αΐ. 3 · παιδιών Αΐ. ^ τακόΧουθα Α.2, Β 
 
 (mg.), Υ. 6 . προσήΧθον L (corr.), Φ, Ο. 8. νπ ’ άλλων Ελλ. ποΧΧων Σ, L; 
 νπδ των άλλων 'Ελλ. vulg. 9· έστεφανοΰσθαι Ο. καί μη Αι. όυκαΧ- 
 
 Xayrjvai προειΧόμην Σ, ού καΧα ye ήν ά προειΧόμην Σ (yp). 
 
 oftener expressed in the subjunctive (as 
 here) or the optative than in the indica¬ 
 tive. Its frequent insertion shows that 
 it was always felt. See especially such 
 complicated expressions as Plat. Rep. 
 385 C, καθ' όσον άνθρώπιρ επί πΧεϊστον οΐδν 
 τε, to the greatest extent possible for man, 
 which without άνθρώπιρ would be about 
 equivalent to ως έπί πΧεΊστον : άνθρώπιρ is 
 added, limiting olbv re ( = δυνατόν), as έκ 
 των ένόντων here limits δύνωμαι. We have 
 again an apology, perhaps an honest one, 
 for the personal vituperation which fol¬ 
 lows, §§ 257—262. 
 
 §257. 1 . ύττήρξεν : the subjects are 
 
 διδασκαΧεΐα and the infinitives έχειν and 
 πράττειν, with εΧέσθαι (7). Most MSS. 
 insert μέν οντι φοιτάν eis after παιδί . — 
 προσήκοντα, i.e. such as children of 
 the better classes attended: one of the 
 charges against his guardian Aphobus 
 ( XXVII . 46) is tovs διδασκάΧους τούς μι¬ 
 σθούς άπεστερηκε. 
 
 2 . τον...ποιησοντα = 6 s ποιήσει , he 
 who is to do etc. (M.T. 527, 530).— 
 αΙσχρόν, i.e. άνεΧεύθερον : this idea of the 
 ignobility of toil is a commonplace with 
 the Greeks, as a slave-holding people. 
 Cf. Ar. Av. 1432, τί yap πάθω; σκάπτειν 
 yap ούκ έπίσταμαι. 
 
 3* ακόλουθα πράττ€ΐν is explained by 
 the rest of the clause, xopyjyeiv.. .χρήσιμον 
 εΐναι. 
 
 4· χορηγεΐν, τριηραρχ€ίν: testimony 
 
 about all his XyTovpyiai is given in § 267. 
 He was xop^yos in 350 B.C., when he 
 was assaulted by Midias (XXI. 13 fif-); for 
 his numerous trierarchies see XXI. 78, 
 154, Aesch. hi. 51, 52, and cf. § 99 s 
 (above).— «ίσφ€ρ€ΐν, to pay the εισφορά , 
 or property-tax', this was assessed “pro¬ 
 gressively,” the richer being taxed on a 
 larger proportion (τίμημα) of their actual 
 property than the poorer. (See Eisphora 
 in Smith’s Diet. Antiq.) The guardians 
 of Demosthenes, to conceal their pecu¬ 
 lations, continued to enroll their ward in 
 the highest class, so that he paid taxes on 
 a τίμημα of one-fifth of his property (ουσία), 
 whereas he should have been placed in a 
 much Lower class after the inroads upon 
 the estate. See xxvii. 7, eis yap την 
 συμμορίαν υπέρ έμου σννετάξαντο κατά 
 τάς πέντε καί είκοσι μνας πεντακοσίας δραχ- 
 μάς είσφερειν, όσον περ.,.οί τα μέyιστα 
 κεκτημένοι τιμήματα είσεφερον, i.e. they 
 had me so enrolled that I should be 
 assessed on a τίμημα of 500 drachmas 
 (i.e. 5 minae) for every 25 minae of my 
 estate: in xxvm. 4 this is said to have 
 made him a leader of the symmory 
 (ήyεμώv τής συμμορίας) : see also XXIX. 59, 
 and Boeckh, Staatsh. I. p. 599. See note 
 on § 103 3 . 
 
 7. ώσ·τ€, with perfect and present in¬ 
 finitive: M.T. 590, 109. 
 
 9. έστίφανώσθαι : see §§ 83, 120, 
 
 222, 223. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ ι8ι 
 
 rjv a προειλόμην επιχειρείν λεγειν. j εγω μεν δη τοιαύτη 258 
 συμβεβίωκα τύχη, καί πολλ’ αν εχων ετερ είπεΐν περί 
 αυτής παραλείπω, φυλαττόμενος το λυπησαί τιν εν οίς 
 σεμνύνομαι, συ δ’ 6 σεμνός άνηρ καί δια πτυων τους άλλους 
 σκοπεί προς ταύτην ποια tlvl κεχρησαι τύχη, δι rjv παΐς ζ 
 μεν ών μετά πολλής της ενδείας ετράφης, άμα τω πατρί προς 
 τω διδασκαλείω προσεδρεύων, το μελαν τριβών καί τα βάθρα 
 σπογγίζων καί το παιδαγωγεΐον κορών, οίκετου τάζιν ουκ 
 ελεύθερου παιδδς εχων, άνηρ δε γενόμενος τη μητρί τελούση 259 
 
 § 258 . ι. δη om. Ο. 2. 7 τερί αυτής om. V6. 3 · τινας (for το/’) Αί. 
 
 4· σεμνός vulg., most rec. edd. ; σεμνυνόμενος Σ, L, Vom. 5. ταύτη Y, F (yp), 
 
 Φ {yp), B 2 ; αυτήν Ο; ταυτϊ Ο ( yp ). ποίμ Σ ; οποία. Φ, Αι; ποίφ δή Ο. τινί 
 
 Σ ; τίνι vulg. ; τοίνυν corr. to tlvl L 1 ; τινα Ο. 6 . τής om. vulg. ; την ενδείας Σ ; 
 
 τής ενδείας L : see Yomel. 
 
 § 259. ι. και τή Αΐ. 
 
 ίο. ά ττροειλόμην, i.e. την εμήν προαί¬ 
 ρεσή : cf. § ι go 5 . 
 
 § 258 . 2. συμβεβίωκα^ειιτεΐν: an 
 
 accidental dactylic hexameter.— πάλλ’ dv 
 i\ωv=πό\λ , av έχοιμι , though I might 
 etc. : cf. § 138 1 ’ 2 . 
 
 3. φυλαττόμενοδ τό λυπήσαι (M.T. 
 374): the object infinitive takes the place 
 of μη λυπήσω, which in use had become 
 an object clause (M.T. 303 c). 
 
 6. -irpos τω διδασκαλεία) : see notes on 
 § 129 2 - 4 . 
 
 7. προσεΰρενων .attending (asa servant). 
 — τό μελαν τριβών: the ink was probably 
 rubbed from a cake (like India ink) and 
 mixed with water. 
 
 8. τταιδαγω-γεϊον, probably a room in 
 which the πaιδayωyoί, slaves who brought 
 the boys to and from school, waited for 
 these to be ready to go home : later it 
 was used like διδασκαλεΐον for a school¬ 
 room.— οΐκέτου.,.^χων : the mention of 
 these menial duties implies the same 
 condition of father and son as appears in 
 § 129: but see Blass. 
 
 § 259 . In this section and § 260 we 
 have a lively comic description, highly 
 caricatured, of some Asiatic ceremonies 
 of initiation, in which the mother of 
 Aeschines is said to have taken part. 
 This was some form of Bacchic worship, 
 
 with perhaps a mixture of Orphic mys¬ 
 teries. It seems there was a written 
 service (τάς βίβλους) which Aeschines 
 read like a clerk while his mother 
 officiated as priestess. The initiation of 
 Strepsiades into the Socratic mysteries 
 (Ar. Nub. 255—262) probably carica¬ 
 tures some similar worship. Plato, Rep. 
 364 e, says of books of Musaeus and 
 Orpheus, βίβλων δε όμαδον παρέχονται 
 Μουσαίου καί Όρ 0 εω$,...κα 0 ’ as θυηπο- 
 λοΰσι, πείθοντες ού μόνον ίδιώτας αλλά καί 
 πόλεες, ως άρα λύσεις τε καί καθαρμοί 
 αδικημάτων διά θυσιών καί παιδιάς ηδονών 
 είσί μέν ’έτιζώσιν, είσί δε καί τελευτήσασιν, 
 ...αϊ των εκεί κακών άπολύουσιν ημάς. 
 
 See J. Η. Wright in Harvard Studies 
 in Class. Philol. vi. pp. 67, 68. He 
 makes Glaucothea represent a female 
 μητpayύρτης, or priestess of Cybele, the 
 Great Mother {μήτηρ θεών), and Aeschines 
 a μηvayύpτης, or priest of Men (Sabazius). 
 Strabo, p. 471, says that the scene in De¬ 
 mosthenes contains Σαβάζια καί Μητρφα. 
 
 I. τή μητρί τελουση: see XIX. 281, 
 Τλαυκοθέας τής τούς θιάσους συvayoύσης, 
 έφ' οΐς έτέρα τέθνηκεν ιέρεια, and cf. 249- 
 In XIX. 199 we have ras βίβλους ava- 
 yiyviha κοντά σε τή μητρί τελούση, καί παΐδ’ 
 6 ντ έν θιάσοις καί μεθύουσιν άνθρώποις 
 καλινδούμενον. 
 
 
1 82 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 τας βίβλους άνεγίγνωσκες καί ταλλα συνεετκευωρου, την 
 μεν νύκτα νεβρίζων καί κρατηρίζων καί καθαίρων τους 
 τελούμενους καί άπομάττων τω τηηλω καί τοΐς πιτύροις, καί 
 5 ανιεττας άττο τον καθαρμοί) κελεύων λεγειν εφνγον κακόν, 
 ενρον α με Lvov, επί τω μηδένα πώποτε τηλίκοντ όλολύξαι 
 
 2. συνεσκευώρου Σ, L 1 , vulg. καί την Φ. άπομμάτων Αι. 
 
 5· άνιστάς Σ, L, Αι. 2, Β; άναστάς vulg. κελεύων Σ, Αι, Β; καί κελεύων L, vulg. 
 6. τηλικοΰτ’ Σ, L; τηλικοΰτον vulg. 
 
 2. τάλλα σ·υν€<τκ€υωροΰ, you helped to 
 conduct the rest of the ceremony : σκευω- 
 ρουμαι is properly look after σκεύη (of any 
 kind), and generally manage, direct, 
 devise, concoct (often in a bad sense): 
 cf. IX. 17, τά εν ΤΙελοποννήσω σκευωροΰ- 
 μενον (of Philip). See σκευωρία and 
 σκευωρώ. 
 
 3· νίβριξων and κρατηρίζων are pro¬ 
 bably transitive and govern τούς τελου- 
 μένους, like καθαίρων, άττομάττων, and 
 dvLaras, i.e. dressing them in fawnskins 
 and drenching them with wine. See Eur. 
 Bacch. 24, νεβρίδ’ έξάφας χροός, and 
 Sandys’ note. They are sometimes taken 
 as neuter, meaning dressing yourself in 
 a fawnskin and pouring out wine. Har- 
 pocration has, οί μέν ώ$ του τελοΟντος 
 νεβρίδα ένημμένου η και τούς τελουμένους 
 διαξωννΰντος νεβρίσιν " οί δέ έπί του νεβρούς 
 διασπάν κατά τινα άρρητον \o~yov (i.e. as 
 symbolic of the sufferings of Dionysus). 
 Photius explains κρατηρίζων by οίνον... 
 από κρατήρων εν τοΐς μυστηρίοις σπένδων. 
 Dissen quotes the passive έκρατηρίσθη- 
 μεν = έμεθύσθημεν from Hesychius. 
 
 4. άττομάττων: Harpocration says: 
 οί μέν άπλοϊκώτερον άκούουσιν άντί του 
 άποφων καί λυμαινόμενος' άλλοι δε περιερ- 
 Ύότερον, οϊον περιπλάττων τον πηλόν καί 
 τά πίτυρα τοΐς τελουμένοις, ώ$ λέχομεν 
 άπομάττεσθαι τον ανδριάντα πηλφ * ήλειφον 
 yap τιρ πηλφ καί τφ πιτύριρ τούς μυομένους, 
 έκμιμούμενοι τά μυθoλoyoύμεva παρ’ ένίοις, 
 ώ? άρα οί Τιτάνες τόν Αιόνυσον έλυμήναντο 
 yijxf /ιρ καταπλασάμενοι επί τφ μη y νώριμοι 
 y ενεσθαι. Dissen quotes Wyttenbach’s 
 note on Plut. Mor. p. 166 a: “ Lustra- 
 tionis pars erat ut corpus lustrandum 
 circumlineretur et quasi circumpinseretur 
 
 imprimis luto, πηλφ, turn abstergeretur, 
 quorum illud est περιμάττειν, hoc άπο- 
 μάττειν, sed utrumque promiscue de tota 
 lustratione dicitur.” The whole expres¬ 
 sion then seems to mean plastering them 
 over with the clay and then rubbing them 
 clean with the bran. 
 
 5. άνιστάδ: the victim is supposed 
 to be sitting during the operation, like 
 Strepsiades (Nub. 256).— καθαρμού: for 
 the full force of this word see the 
 passages above quoted under 1. 4; the 
 process was a purification and also a 
 charm.— κελεύων, subordinate to άνιστάς : 
 i.e. making him get up as he bids him 
 say, etc .— £φυγον κακόν, evpov άμεινον : 
 this formula was borrowed from initia¬ 
 tions and other ceremonies of a higher 
 character, meaning that a new life had 
 opened as the result of the ceremony just 
 ended. Suidas gives (under ecpoyov... 
 άμεινον ) : τάττεται επί των άπό κακού εις 
 κρέΐττον έλθοντων. έθος y άρ Άθηνησιν έν 
 yάμoις στέφεσθαι άμφιθαλη παΐδα άκάνθας 
 μετά δρύινων καρπών καί φέροντα λίκνον 
 πλήρες άρτων λέyειv τό προκείμενον, αί- 
 νισσδμενον την επί τό κρέΐττον μεταβολήν . 
 τό y άρ εκ των δρυων καί άκανθων στέμμα 
 κακόν ZXeyov. See Eustath. ρ. 1726, and 
 [Plut.] Prov. Alex. xvi. The saying 
 (Eustathius calls it a παροιμία) originally 
 referred to the change from the acorns 
 and thistles of primitive life to the more 
 civilized bread, but was used at weddings 
 and in other ceremonies. The words 
 form a paroemiac, and probably belonged 
 to some metrical formula. 
 
 6. όλολύξαι., used especially of cries 
 or shouts in religious worship or prayers: 
 see Od. IV. 767, ws είποΰσ’ όλόλυξε (after 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 ι83 
 
 σβμνυνόμενος (/cat lycoye νομίζω' μη γάρ οιεσθ ’ αυτόν 
 φθύγγβσθαί μβν ούτω μύγα, ολολύζβιν δ’ ούγ υπέρλαμπρου), 
 iv δε ταΐς ημεραις τους καλούς θιάσους άγων διά των οδών, 260 
 τους εστεφανωμενους τω μαραθώ καί τη λεύκη, τους οφευς 
 τους παρείας θλίβων καί υπέρ της κεφαλής αίωρών, καί βοών 
 ευοϊ σαβοι, καί εποργούμενος ύης άττης άττης ύης, 
 εζαργος καί προηγεμων καί κιττοφόρος καί λικνοφόρος καί 5 
 
 § 260 . 2. μαράθιρ Σ, L, vulg. ; μαράθριρ V6. 3 · τταρίας Αι, Β 1 . 
 
 4· e υσαβοί (οι over υσ) Σ; ευ σαβοι (οι over eu) F; εΰ οί σαβοι Β; εΰ οΐ σάβοι L; 
 eioi Σαβοΐ Harpocr., vulg. (See Vomel.) ύης άττης αττης υης Σ; ύης Β 1 .; vis 
 
 άττις &ttl ς υ'Α L; ϋης άττης [άττης] ϋης Strab. ρ. 47 χ · 5 · κιττοφόρος all MSS. 
 
 (See Vomel.) λυκνοφόρος A2. 
 
 a prayer); Aeschyl. Eum. 1043, ολολύ¬ 
 ζατε νυν επί μολπαΐς: Eur. Baceh. 689, 
 ώλόλυξεν iv μέσαις σταθεΐσα Βάκχαΐϊ. 
 
 8. φθεγγεσ-θαι με'γα: the strong voice 
 of Aeschines is often mentioned by 
 Demosthenes; see below, §§ 280, 285 s , 
 291 6 , 313 7 , and especially xix. 206—208, 
 216, 337 — 340; in xix. 216 he says, μηδέ 
 ye el καλόν καί μ^α οϋτος φθ^ζεται, μηδ ’ 
 el φαΰλον eyiv, alluding to his own weak¬ 
 ness of voice. See Dissen’s notes on the 
 whole of this section. 
 
 § 260 . 1. εν δε ταΐς ήμε'ραις implies 
 
 that the ceremonies just described were 
 performed by night.— θιάσους, used espe¬ 
 cially of Bacchanals ; see Eur. Bacch. 680, 
 δρω δε θιάσους τρεις y υναικείων χορών. 
 
 2. τω μαραθώ και τη λεύκη : see 
 Photius, ταΰτα φυτά μυστικά εστί’ και 
 ή μεν μάραθος άyωyδς εστιν όφεων, και 
 έπ' αυτής το y ηρας ( their old hides ) απο¬ 
 δίδονται - η δέ λεύκη οτι Ηρακλής άνελθών 
 εστέψατο τούτιρ. Harpocr. (under λεύκη), 
 after quoting this passage, says, οί τα 
 Βακχικά τελούμενοι τη λεύκη στέφονται 
 τφ χθόνιον μέν είναι το φυτόν, χθόνιον 
 δε καί τον της Τίερσεφόνης Διόνυσον, την 
 δε λεύκην πεφυκέναι φασ'ι προς τφ Άχέ- 
 ροντι, δθεν και άχερωίδα καλεΐσθαι παρ’ 
 Όμηριρ· 1 -ήρίπε δ , ώ$ 6τε τις δρυς -ήριπεν 
 η άχερωίς ’ (II. χπι. 389)· (For Dionysus, 
 Persephone’s son, the Orphic Zagreus, 
 see Gerhard, Mythol. §§ 419, 429, 438.) 
 From μάραθον , fennel , Marathon is said 
 to have been named (cf. Strab. p. 160): 
 for the fondness of serpents for it, see 
 
 Ael. Hist. Animal, ix. 16. For serpents 
 in the Bacchic worship, see Eur. Bacch. 
 102, 697. The white poplar, λεύκη, 
 populus alba, is mentioned in Ar. Nub. 
 1007. See Bekk. Anecd. p. 279: η δε 
 λεύκη τό μέν των φύλλων έχει λευκόν τό δ ’ 
 έτερον μέλαν, σύμβολόν τι του βίου καί 
 του θανάτου. 
 
 3· τούς τταρείας : see Harpocr., παρεΐα ι 
 ονομάζονται τινες οφεις παρά τό παρείας 
 μείζους έχειν, and Ael. Hist. An. VIII. 12, 
 ό παρείας η παρούας πυρρός την χρόαν, 
 εύωπός τό δμμα, πλατύς τό στόμα, δακεΐν 
 ου σφαλερός άλλα πρφος. ένθεν τοι και τφ 
 θεών φιλανθρωποτάτιρ ιερόν ανήκαν αυτόν, 
 καί επεφημισαν ’Ασκληπιού θεράποντα είναι 
 οί πρώτοι ταΰτα άνιχνεύσαντες. These 
 harmless snakes were thus sacred to 
 Aesculapius, and were named παρεΐαι 
 from their fat cheeks. 
 
 4. εύοΐ <ταβοϊ : as εύοΐ, evoe, was 
 the cry used in the regular Bacchic 
 worship, so σαβοΐ was used in invoking 
 Σαβάζιος, the Phrygian Bacchus. All 
 points to some Asiatic worship, more or 
 less caricatured.— ύης άττης άττης ύης: 
 these mystic words stand as a cognate ac¬ 
 cusative with επορχούμενος ; this is what 
 he danced. See Lobeck, Aglaophamus, 
 pp. 652, 1041—46, who quotes Bekk. 
 Anecd. p. 207: άτης ϋης’ τό μέν ϋης 
 υιός, τό δέ άτης θεός Σαβάζιος. άλλοι δε 
 ϋην τον Διόνυσον. 
 
 5· ^ξα-ρχ,ος κα ^ ιτροηγεμών designates 
 Aeschines as leader of the song or dance 
 or both : cf. Eur. Bacch. 141, ό δ’ έξαρχος 
 
ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 184 
 
 tolclvO 5 νπο των y ραδίων προσαγορβνορ.€νος, μισθόν Χαμ- 3 
 βάνων τοντων £νθ ρνπτα και στρεπτούς και verjXara, εφ οις 
 τις ονκ αν ώ? αΧτ^θως αντον βνδαιμονισβιβ kcll την αντον 
 261 τύχην ; επειδή δ εις τονς δημοτας ενεγραφης οπωσδήποτε 
 (εω yap τούτο )—επειδή y ενεγραφης, ενθεως το καΧΧιστον 
 εξεΧεξω των έργων, γραμματενειν και νπηρετειν τοΐς άρχι- 
 
 6. τοιαυτα Σ, L; τά τοιαυτα vulg. Ύραϊδίων Σ; ypg -δίων L. 8. τις Σ. 
 
 αυτόν (w. both ’ and' ) Σ; αυτόν L; αυτόν vulg.; “εύδαιμονήσειεν αυτόν ? pr. Laur. S, 
 nunc αντον ” (Vomel). αυτοΰ (w. and ) Σ ; αυτοΰ L, vulg. . ? 
 
 § 261 . 2. τοΰτό ye Αι. επειδή y’ Σ, L 1 , vulg.; επειδή δ’ Ο; επειδή δ' ούν 
 
 A 2 ; 67Γ. y' ivtypa(pT)s om. Αι. 3 · ypap.p.aTevei.v Σ, L, Αι, Φ; υπoypaμμ. 
 
 L 2 , vulg. άρχιδίοις Σ, L, vulg.; άρχείοις Σ (γρ), Φ (τΜ Αι, Β (yp); 
 
 άρχαίοις Αί. 
 
 Βρόμιος, εύοΐ. —κιττοφόροδ, ivy-bearer , the 
 ivy being sacred to Bacchus. For the 
 reading ιαστοφόρο s (against all MSS.) see 
 Vomel’s note. See Harpocr. under κιτ- 
 to φόρος: ’ένιοι μετά του <r ypάφoυσι 
 κιστοφόρος’ τάς yap \εyoμέvas κίστας 
 ίεράς εΐναί όλε-γεν του Αιονύσου και ταΐν 
 θεαΐν. —λικνοφόροδ, bearer of the win- 
 nowing-fan, λίκνον, the mystica vannus 
 Iacchi. See Verg. Georg, i. 166, and 
 Varro quoted by Servius on the passage: 
 ideo ait quod Liberi patris sacra ad 
 purgationem animae pertinebant; et sic 
 homines eius mysteriis purgabantur sicut 
 vannis frumenta purgantur.— καί τοιαΰ- 
 τα, i.e. these [ήξαρχος κ.τ.λ.) and similar 
 names. 
 
 7. ^νθρυιττα, trTpiirrovs, sops, twists : 
 for ’ένθρυτττα see the Schol., ψωμο'ι οϊνιρ 
 βεβpεyμέvoι ; στρεπτούς , πλακοΰντος είδος 
 (Harpocr.), evidently from στρέφω .— 
 νίήλατα : κατ' όλλειφιν άντϊ του νεήλατα 
 άλφιτα, τά νεωστ'ι άληλεσμένα, ά δη μέλιτι 
 άναδεύοντες, άσταφίδας τε και χλωρούς 
 ερεβίνθους έπεμβάλλοντες, τοΐς τά ιερά 
 τελουσιν ’ένεμον (Harpocr.), i.e. barley 
 buns, made of newly-ground (roasted) 
 barley, soaked in honey and covered 
 with plums and chick-peas. But Blass 
 is right in connecting νε-ήλατα not with 
 άλ^ω but with ελαύνω : cf. έλατήρ, a flat 
 cake (Ar. Ach. 246, Eq. 1182); acc. to 
 Suidas, παρά τό ταΐς χερσίν έλαύνεσθαι εις 
 πλάτος. See Bl. and West, on this section. 
 § 261 . 1. els tovs δημόταδ έν^γράφηδ : 
 
 each deme was responsible for the correct¬ 
 ness of its ληξιαρχικόν ypaμμaτεΐov, or list 
 of citizens. Aristotle’s Constitution of 
 Athens now gives us clear information 
 on the whole subject of the enrolment 
 of new citizens. See 42 s : μετέχουσιν 
 μεν τής πολιτείας οί εξ άμφοτέρων yεyo- 
 νότες αστών, ty χράφονται δ’ εις τούς 
 δημότας όκτωκαίδεκα ετη yεyονότες’ όταν 
 δ’ ^χράφωνται, διαψηφίζονται περί αύτων 
 όμόσαντες οί δημόται, πρώτον μέν εί δο- 
 κοΰσι yεyονέναι την ηλικίαν την εκ του 
 νόμου, ...δεύτερον δ’ εί ελεύθερός έστι καί 
 yly ονε κατά τούς νόμους—μετά δε ταυτα 
 δοκιμάζει τούς eyy ραφεντας ή βουλή.... 
 φρουρούσι δέ τά δύο ότη (previously de¬ 
 scribed), χλαμύδας όχοντες, καί άτελεις 
 είσι πάντων....διεξελθόντων δέ των δυεϊν 
 έτων, ήδη μετά των άλλων είσίν. (See 
 the whole chapter.)— οίΓωσδήττοτί, some¬ 
 how, with επειδή y’ εvεy ράφης, refers to 
 the story that his father was a slave, in 
 which case it would have been impossible 
 for the son to be legally enrolled as a 
 citizen without an affirmative vote of 
 6000 in the Assembly; while the safe¬ 
 guards against illegal enrolment (see 
 Aristotle, above) would have made this 
 almost impossible. 
 
 3. γραμματίΰίΐν : see §§ 162 5 , 209 1 . 
 The occupation of a paid private clerk 
 (not that of a clerk of the Senate or 
 Assembly) was despised at Athens: see 
 § 127 3 , όλεθρος ypaμμaτεύς .— άρχιδίοΐδ, 
 petty officers: άρχίδιον is here diminutive 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 ι8 5 
 
 δίους. ώς δ’ άπηλλάγης ποτέ καί τούτον, πάνθ ’ α των άλλων 
 κατηγορείς αυτός πουησας, ον κατησγννας μα Αυ ονδεν των 5 
 προνπηργμενων τω μετά ταντα βίω, άλλα μυσθώσας σαντον 262 
 τοίς βαρνστόνους επικαλούμενους εκείνους νποκρυταίς, %υμνκκα 
 καί Σωκράτευ, ετρυταγωνίστευς, σνκα καί βότρνς καί ελάας 
 συλλόγων ώσπερ δπωρώνης εκ των άλλοτρυων χωρίων, 
 πλείω λαμβάνων άπδ τούτων η των αγώνων, ονς υμείς περί $ 
 της ψυχής ηγωνίζεσθε' ήν γάρ άσπονδος καί ακήρυκτος 
 υμίν προς τους θεατάς πόλεμος, νφί ών πολλά τρανματ 
 
 \. πάντα (for πάνθ ’ ά) Αι. 5 · κατηγορείς Αι. κατήσχυνας Σ. 
 
 6. όπηργμένων Υ; προϋπαργμένων Ο; προϋπαργμένων Σ. 
 
 § 262 . ι. μισθωσας αυτόν Σ, V6. 2. έκείνοις έπικαλ. Αι ; έκείνοις καλου- 
 
 μένοις V6; έπικαλ. έκείν. vulg. Σιμύκκαι Σ, Φ; Σιμμύκκ (α above) L; Σιμίκκα Ο 1 , Β 1 
 (Σιμμύκαν τον υποκριτήν, Athen. νιπ. ρ. 348 Α ); Σιμύλιρ Σ (γρ), Αι. 2, vulg.; 
 Σιμΰδιρ Υ. β· έλάας Σ, Αι; έλαίας vulg. 4· όπωρώνης έκεΐνος Α2. 
 
 5· τούτων τραύματα L, vulg.; τραύματα οηι. Σ. 7 · προς Σ, L; ό προς vulg. 
 
 έξ ών Β (mg.). τα πολλά Ο. 
 
 of άρχ-ή in the sense of αρχών. See 
 Aesch. III. 21, αρχήν υπεύθυνον μη άπο- 
 δημεΐν. 
 
 6. των ‘ϊΓροϋ'ΐτηρ-γμ.βνων, of your ante¬ 
 cedents. 
 
 § 262 . 2. tois βαρυστόνοι$, the 
 
 heavy groaners. — Σιμίκκα (so Σ): Theo¬ 
 phrastus (Athen. vm. 348 a) mentions 
 Σιμμύκαν τόν υποκριτήν (perhaps the same 
 man), to whom Stratonicus the harper 
 applied the proverb μέγας ούδεις σαπρός 
 Ιχθύς, dividing the words μέγας, ούδεις, 
 σαπρός, ιχθύς (ιχθύς δέ διά την αφωνίαν). 
 
 3· €τριταγων£σ·τ€ΐ8: a company of 
 strolling actors, such as performed at the 
 country festivals, was probably composed 
 of two men, who played the first and 
 second parts and hired another to play the 
 third parts. The description which follows 
 (σύκα κ.τ.λ.) can hardly apply to the 
 μικρά Αιονύσια, τά έν άγροΊς, which came 
 in winter (see Bl.).— σ-ΰκα.. .χωρίων : the 
 meaning of these much disputed words 
 seems to be, that the band of players sub¬ 
 sisted chiefly on the fruit which Aeschines, 
 as their hired servant, collected from the 
 neighbouring farms by begging, stealing, 
 or buying, as he found most convenient. 
 He is compared to a small fruiterer 
 (όπωρώνης), who each morning collects 
 
 his load of-fruit from farms which he 
 has hired, or wherever else he can get 
 it cheapest. Pollux (vi. 128) includes 
 όπωρώνης (with πορνοβοσκός and άλλαντο- 
 πώλης) in his long list of βίοι έφ> οΐς αν 
 τις όνειδισ θείη. See [Dem.] LIII. 21. 
 
 5. TrXcia).. .αγώνων, getting more (profit) 
 from these than from your plays (contests). 
 —ovs (cogn. acc.)...'»i‘ya)v£t€<r0€, which you 
 played at the risk of your lives (or in which 
 you fought for your lives), with a pun on 
 the two meanings of αγών and αγωνίζομαι, 
 fight and play : see IV. 47 των στρατηγών 
 έκαστος δίς και τρις κρίνεται παρ' ύμΐν περί 
 θανάτου, προς δέ τούς εχθρούς ούδεις ούδέ 
 άπαξ αυτών άγωνίσασθαι περί θανάτου 
 τολμφ, where there is a similar pun on 
 being tried for their lives in court and in 
 battle. 
 
 6. άσ-Ίτονδοδ και άκήρυκτο$, xvithout 
 truce or herald, i.e. implacable, without 
 even the common decencies of civilized 
 warfare. See Thuc. I. 146, παρ' άλληλους 
 έφοίτων άκηρύκτως μέν άνυπόπτως δέ οϋ 
 (before the actual war), and 11. 1, ούτε 
 έπεμίγνυντο έτι άκηρυκτεί (after the war 
 began): here heralds are a sign of actual 
 warfare. 
 
 7. τραύματ «ίληφα^: see XIX.337, δτε 
 μέν τά θυέστου καί τών επί Τ poiq. κακά ηγω- 
 
ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 186 
 
 βίληφώς εικότως τούς απείρους τών τοιοντων κίνδυνων ως 
 
 263 δειλούς σκώπτεις. | άλλα yap πάρεις ών την πενίαν αιτιασαιτ 
 αν τις, προς αύτά τα τού τρόπον crov βαόιονμαι κατηγορή¬ 
 ματα. τοιαντην yap ειλον πολιτείαν, επειδή ποτέ και τουτ 
 επηλθε σοι ποιησαι, δά t?V εντυγονσης μεν της πατρώος 
 
 5 λαγώ βίο^ εζτ?ς δεδιώς και τρεμων και άει πληγησεσθατ 
 προσδοκώ^ εφ ’ οις σαντα σννηόεις όώικονντι, εν οίς δ 
 
 264 ητνγτ)σαν οί άλλοι, θρασύς ών νφ απαντων ωφαι. καιτοι 
 όστις γριλίων πολιτών άποθανόντων εθάρρησε, τι ούτος 
 
 8. κινδύνων om. Αι. 
 
 § 263 . ι. ών Σ, L, Ο 1 * * * 5 * 7 , Αι, F 1 , Φ 1 ; ών vulgp την om. Ο. 
 ώίΓου (for τρόπου σου) Αί. 3 · τούτων (for τούτ ) Α2. 4 · 
 
 5· λαγώ Σ, vulg. ; λαγώ' L; λαγών Αι (ν erased). έζεις V6. 
 
 (τι above, ω ch. to ον) L. 7. ύπο πάντων Αι. 
 
 § 264 . 2. έθάρσησε Αι. 
 
 2. προσ- 
 ήλθέ σοι V6. 
 6. άδικων 
 
 νίζετο, έξεβάλλετε αυτόν και έξεσυρίττετε 
 εκ των θεάτρων, και μόνον ού κατελεύετε 
 ούτως ώστε τελευτώντα τού τριταγωνιστεΐν 
 άποστήναι. This account of the πόλεμος 
 makes τραύματ ’ here perfectly intelligible; 
 but the reading κλείω...τραύματα in 5 
 (which all mss. except Σ have) makes 
 endless difficulty and confusion. If τραύ¬ 
 ματα in 5 is referred to wounds received 
 in stealing fruit, compared with those 
 received on the stage or after the play, 
 there is a strange repetition of the latter ; 
 if there is a reference (as Westermann 
 suggests) to fruit used in pelting the actors, 
 it is hard to see how figs, grapes, and 
 olives could endanger the lives of the 
 “heavy groaners.” 
 
 8. <os SeiXovs (TKio-n-Ttis: see § 245 s 
 and note. 
 
 Demosthenes (xix. 246, 247) says that 
 Aeschines was a τριταγωνιστής also to 
 actors of high repute, as Theodorus and 
 Aristodemus; and he reminds him of the 
 time when he used to play the part of 
 Creon in the Antigone with these actors. 
 He adds the following: εν άπασι τοΐς 
 δράμασι τοΐς τραγικούς έξαίρετόν εστιν ώσπερ 
 *γέρας τοΐς τριταγωνισταΐς το τούς τυράννους 
 και τούς τα σκήπτρ ’ έχοντας είσιέναι. This 
 is mentioned to explain why so important 
 a part was given to Aeschines. 
 
 § 263 . 3. και emphasizes the rest of 
 
 the clause, τουτ\..ποιήσαι , i.e. when at 
 
 last you took it into your head to try 
 
 this. 
 
 5. λαγώ βίον cf. Dion. Chrys. 
 
 lxvi. p. 357 R. Weil quotes Trag. frag, 
 incert. 373 (Ν.), λαγώ βίον ζής, ό πριν 
 άτρομος λέων. “ Dicuntur leporis vitam 
 vivere qui semper anxii trepidique vivunt ; 
 nam ut est apud Herod. III. 108, ό λάγος 
 ύπο παντός θηρεύεται θηρίου και δρνιθος και 
 ανθρώπου, ac ne somnum quidem capit 
 nisi oculis apertis ” (Dissen). 
 
 7. θραιτύδ ών...ώι|/αι (Μ. T. 884)· 
 personal passive construction. Cf. §§ 282, 
 284, 286. 
 
 § 264 . ι. χιλίων άιτοθανόντων : see 
 
 Diod. XVI. 86, των δ’ Αθηναίων έπεσον 
 μεν έν τή μάχη πλείους των χιλίων, ήλωσαν 
 δε ούκ έλάττους των δισχιλίων. See Ly- 
 curg. Leocr. 142, χίλιοι των ύμετέρων 
 πολιτών έν Χαιρωνείφ έτελεύτησαν, και 
 δημοσία αύτούς ή πόλις έθαψαν. Diod. 
 χνι. 88 quotes an eloquent passage of the 
 speech of Lycurgus at the trial of Lysicles, 
 one of the Athenian commanders at 
 Chaeronea, who was condemned to death: 
 έστρατήγεις, ώ Αύσικλες, καί χιλίων μέν 
 πολιτών τετελευτηκότων δισχιλίων δ’ αιχ¬ 
 μαλώτων -γεγονότων, τροπαίου δέ κατά τής 
 πόλεως έστηκότος , τής δ’ Ελλάδοϊ άπάσης 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 187 
 
 παθεΐν νπο των ζώντων δίκαιός εστιν; πολλά τοίννν ετερ 
 315 είπεΐν εγων περί αυτόν παραλείψω· ον yap όσ αν δείζαιμι 
 προσόντ αισγρά τοντω καί ονείδη, πάντ οιμαι δείν ενγερώς 5 
 λεγειν, άλλ’ ο<χα μηδέν αισχρόν εστιν είπείν εμοί. 
 
 *Έιξετασον τοίννν παρ’ αλληλα τα σοί κάμοί βεβιωμενα, 265 
 πράως, μη πικρώς, Αίσγίνη· είτ ερώτησον τοντονετί την 
 ποτερον τυγρην αν ελοιθ ’ έκαστος αντων. εδίδασκες γράμ¬ 
 ματα, εγώ δ’ εφοίτων. ετελεις, εγώ δ * ετελονμην. εγραμ- 
 μάτενες, εγώ δ * ηκκλησίαζον. ετριτ αγωνιστείς, εγώ δ * 5 
 
 εθεώρονν εζεπιπτες, εγώ δ’ εσνριττον. νπερ των εγθρών 
 πεπολίτενσαι πάντα, εγώ δ’ νπερ της πατρίδος. εώ τάλλα, 266 
 άλλα vvvl τημερον εγώ μεν νπερ τον στεφανωθηναι δοκιμά- 
 
 παραλείπω Αι. ό'<τ’ άναδείξαιμι Φ. 
 
 § 265 . ι. καιμοί Σ; καμοί or κφμοί L, Αι. 2. πράως Σ 1 ; ττράως (or 
 
 π· ρφως) καί Σ 2 , L, vulg. 3· ποτάρου Σ 1 , L, Αι ; όποτάρου Σ (corr.), vulg. 
 
 4. εχόρευες, έ-γώ δ ’ εχορ^ουν. (after έτελούμην) vulg., om. Σ, L 1 . 
 
 δουλευούσης, καί τούτων απάντων ^ε^ενη- 
 μένων σου τ)~γουμένου και στρατηχουντος , 
 τολμα,ς ζην και τδ του ήλιου φως δράν ; 
 
 5 · irpotrovr’ αίσ-χρά τοΰτω : cf. §276 5 . 
 — €V)(€pa>s Xeyeiv, Λ? be ready to tell : cf. 
 
 § To 5 . 
 
 § 265 . In §§ 265, 266 the orator sums 
 up vigorously the substance of §§ 257— 
 264. Westerinann points out that each 
 of the five stages of the life of Aeschines 
 is mentioned in order, when he was 
 
 (1) a schoolmaster’s assistant (§ 258), 
 
 (2) initiator (§§ 259,260), (3) scribe (§ 261), 
 (4) actor (§262), (5) politician (§§ 263, 264). 
 The words commonly read in 1 . 4, έχόρευες, 
 έχω δ’ έχορήγουν, correspond to nothing 
 that precedes, and are rightly omitted on 
 MS. authority. Many ancient rhetoricians 
 quote these famous antitheses with ap¬ 
 proval and admiration ; but Demetrius 
 (περί άρμην. 250, p. 105 W.) disapproves of 
 them on rhetorical grounds, saying κακοτε- 
 χνουντι yap άοικε διά την άνταττόδοσιν, 
 μάλλον δε παίζοντι, ούκ ay ανακτοΰντι. 
 We are again shocked by the open avowal 
 of the disgrace of earning an honest living; 
 the ancients were certainly more honest 
 than many of our generation in expressing 
 this. 
 
 1. τά.,.βίβιωμένα : passive of ά.,.βε- 
 βιώκαμεν (cf. § 130 2 ). 
 
 2. 'irpaojs: Spengfel quotes Rhet. ad 
 Alex. 38, δει δέ ττικρφ τιρ ηθει μη άξετάζειν 
 άλλα ττραεΐ’ τούτον yap τον τρόπον οι 
 Xoyoi yιyvόμεvoι ιτιθανώτεροι φανησονται 
 τοΐ s άκούουσιν, οι δε λέyovτεs αυτούς ήκιστα 
 διαβαλουσιν, as referring to this passage, 
 and urges on this ground the omission of 
 εξέππττες, 0 yo) δ' εσύριττον. (See Spengel, 
 Preface to Rhet. Gr. 11. p. xviii.) Blass, 
 however, doubts the reference, and ex¬ 
 plains ττράως as a sarcastic allusion to the 
 bitterness of Aeschines. We could wish 
 for some sufficient reason for discrediting 
 the words in question, chiefly out of regard 
 for Demosthenes. 
 
 4. Ιφοίτων, went to school·, cf. Ar. 
 Nub. 916, διά σε δά φοιτάν ούδείς έθάλει 
 των μειράκιων. —Ιτίλούμην, probably into 
 the Eleusinian mysteries. 
 
 6. €|€irnrr€s : έκπίπτειν, exigi, is used 
 as a passive to εκβάλλειν ; cf. XIX. 337, 
 άξεβάλλετε αυτόν καί έξεσυρίττετε εκ των 
 θεάτρων. See Arist. Poet. 17 2 , ι8 15 . 
 
 § 266 . 2. ύττ€ρ...δοκιμάζομαι: δο¬ 
 
 κιμασία is any investigation to test the 
 fitness or competency of a person for any¬ 
 thing, as for office (its ordinary meaning) 
 
ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 188 
 
 ζοραι, το Si fJiiijS οτιονν aS lkelp αρωροΧογηραυ, ctol Se 
 (τνκοφάνττ) flip Εΐραι Sokelp νπαρ^Εΐ, kipSvpeve^ Se elte Sel 
 5 c r ETi τοντο ττοιεΊρ, elt t fSrj ττΕττανο'θαι pi 7 ρΕταΧαβορτα το 
 πίρπτορ ρΕρος τωρ φηφωρ. αγαθή y ° V X °Ρ> TV XV 
 σνρβΕβιωκως της Ερης κατηγορΕΪς. 
 
 267 Φ EpE Srj καί τας τωρ Χητονργιωρ ραρτνριας ώρ ΧΕΧητονρ- 
 γηκα νρΐρ άραγρω. παρ' ας παραραγρωθι και c τν ρου τας 
 ρησΕίς ας έΧυραίρου, 
 
 ηκω νεκρών κενθρώνα καί σκότου πύ\ας, 
 
 5 καί 
 
 Kcucayye\elv μεν ισθί μη θεΧοντα με, 
 
 § 266 . 3· σύ (for σοί) V6. 4· «τ’ ’έτι δεΊ σε τούτο Υ, Α2. ^ 5· τ ° 
 
 πέμπτον μέρος MSS. ; πέμπτον om. Dind. (cf. § 103“)· 6. dyady y 2 , Ai. 2 ; 
 
 ay. δ’ L, vulg. 7. συμβεβηκώς 2 (η ch’gd to ω or ιω), A2; συμβεβιωκώς O 1 . 
 
 έμης 2, L 1 ; έμης clis φαύλης vulg. , } 
 
 § 267 . 1. XtLTOvpyuiv (1 over 7 ώ) 2 . 2. avayvQ, πάρ’άς 2 , L, Φ; 
 
 avayvw ττάσας vulg. π apavdy νωθι 2, L, F ; παρανα 7. δη Ο (tj/xcv in mg.), Ai. 2, 
 
 B; vapavay. o' ήμΐν vulg. μοι om. vulg. 3· £ λυμηνω Ai, - ανω A2. 
 
 4. νεκρώ v (ΑΙΠ over εκρ) 2 ; ηκω λιπών L, vulg.; λοιπόν V6. 6. naKayyeXeiv 
 
 B, Y; κακ’ dyy0XXeiv 2 , Ai (corr.) ; KanayyeXXeiv L, Φ, Ai 1 , V6; κάκ ayyeXeiv vulg. 
 
 or for citizenship; and δοκιμάζομαι here 
 implies that this trial is to test his fitness 
 for the crown. 
 
 3. to _ άδικίΐν άνωμολόγημαι : cf. 
 
 § 86 2 , άvωμoλόyημaι τα άριστα πράττειν. 
 The articular infinitive in or. obi. is rare 
 (Μ. T. 794, 743).—crol ύ-π-άρχίΐ, it is in 
 store for yon. 
 
 4. Kiv8vv€v€ts corresponds to δοκιμάζο¬ 
 μαι (2): the meaning is, the question with 
 you is. 
 
 5. τοϋτο iroiiiv, i.e. to go on being a 
 συκοφάντης. — ττ€7Γαΰσ·θαι, to be stopped 
 (once for all), i.e. by άτιμία (cf. § 82 s ).— 
 το' ΊΓ€|ΠΓτον μ«ρο$ : Dindorf omits πέμπτον 
 because it is omitted in §§ 103, 222, 250, 
 whereas it appears in other speeches fre¬ 
 quently (e.g. XXII. 3). What modern 
 orator or writer would submit to such 
 rules of consistency as critics impose on 
 the ancients? 
 
 6. οΰχ opas; cf. 232 s , 281 5 . 
 
 § 267 . 1. φ€ρ€...άναγνώ (Μ. T. 
 
 257): the orator does not read the tes¬ 
 timony himself; cf. λέyε (9). So φέρε... 
 
 εϊπω, XIX. 169, followed by λέye. — Χτ|- 
 τουργιών: this includes the public services 
 mentioned in χoρηyeϊv and τριηραρχεΐν in 
 § 257^ but not είσφέρειν, as the property 
 tax was not a λητονρτ/Ια. 
 
 3. Ιλυμαίνου, used to outrage : cf. έπέ- 
 τριφας, § ι8ο 6 . 
 
 4. ήκω. ..iruXas : the Hecuba of Euri¬ 
 pides begins, 
 
 ηκω νεκρών κβυθμώνα καί σκότου πύλας 
 λιπών , ΐν’ "λιδης χωρίς φκισται θεών, 
 
 ΙΊ ολύδωρος, Εκάβης παΐς. 
 
 All MSS. except 2 have λιπών for νεκρών, 
 making the sense of the quotation com¬ 
 plete. But such a change is unlikely in 
 so familiar a verse. 
 
 6. κακαγγ€\€ΐν...μ€: this verse is other¬ 
 wise unknown : κaκayyελεΐv must be pres, 
 infin. of κaκayyελέω (otherwise unknown), 
 depending on θέλοντα. The readings of 
 the best MSS., κaκayyέλλειv or κάκ ’ ά77Α- 
 λειν ( 2 ), are plainly impossible. Weil 
 refers to Eur. Tro. 705, ούχ έκών yap 
 άyyελώ κ.τ.λ. 
 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 189 
 
 καί κακόν κακώς σε μάλιστα μεν οί θεοί επευθ* ουτοι 
 πάντες άπολεσειαν, πονηρού οντα καί πολίτην καί τριτα¬ 
 γωνιστήν. λεγε τάς μαρτυρίας. 
 
 ΜΑΡΤΤΡΙΑΙ. 
 
 Έγ μεν τοίννν τοΐς προς την πόλιν τοιοντος · εν δε τοΐς 
 6 ίδίοίς εί μη πάντες ιστέ ότι κοινός καί φιλάνθρωπος καί τοΐς 
 δεομενοις επαρκών, σιωπώ καί ουδεν αν εΐποιμι ουδέ παρα- 
 σχοίμην περί τούτων ούδεμίαν μαρτυρίαν , ουτ εΐ τινας εκ 
 των πολεμίων ελυσάμην, ουτ εϊ τισι θυγατέρας συνεζεδωκα, 5 
 ούτε των τοιουτων ούδεν. καί γάρ ουτω πως ύπείληφα. 
 εγώ νομίζω τον μεν ευ παθόντα δεΐν μεμνησθαι πάντα τον 
 χρόνον, τον δε ποιησαντ ευθύς επιλελησθαι, εί δεΐ τον μεν 
 
 8. 7 τάντες άπολέσειαν οΰτοι Αι. καί 
 
 καί προδότην (after πολίτην) vulg. ; om. 
 
 τινας 
 
 7. έπειτα δε vulg.; δό om. Σ, L, Αι. 
 πολίτην Σ 1 , L, F, Φ; καί om. vulg. 
 
 Σ, L, Φ. Β 1 , Αι. 
 
 § 268 . 3 · παρασχοίμην αν vulg.; άν om. Σ, L, Β, F, Φ 
 
 om. Ο 1 . 
 
 § 269 . 2. μεν om. V6. πάντα τον χρόνον Σ, L, Φ, Β, Αι. 2; τόν πάντα χρ 
 
 vulg. 3· τ ^ ν δ’ εδ ποίησαντα Αι ; εΰ om. Σ, L, vulg. ; εΰ above line Β. 
 
 αυτόν (after ευθύς) Υ, Β (yp), Ο (mg.); αύτων Φ (yp), F {yp), Α2 (after επιλ.). 
 
 7· The words κακόν κακώς cr€...curo- 
 
 XeVtiav are probably an adaptation of a 
 verse quoted from Lynceus by Athenaeus, 
 IV. 150 C, κακόν κακώς σέ <y > άπολέσειαν 
 oi θεοί, or both may go back to the source 
 of Ar. Eq. 2, 3, κακώς Tla^^ayova.. ,άπο- 
 λέσείαν οί θεοί. See Blass. 
 
 8. πονηρόν: with both πολίτην and 
 τ ριτ ay ωνιστήν. 
 
 § 268 . 2. κοινός, in public relations, 
 public spirited, in private matters (as here), 
 devoted, at the service of all·, cf. Isoc. 1. 
 10, τοΐς φίλοις κοινός. 
 
 3· ούδέν αν εϊποιμι, I had rather not 
 mention anything. 
 
 4. «ί τινας έλυσα'μην : these were 
 Athenians captured by Philip at Olynthus 
 in 348 B.C., whom Demosthenes ransomed 
 in 346, when he was in Pella on the 
 second embassy (Hist. § 40). See xix. 
 166—170. Dem. lent various sums to these 
 prisoners, which they paid for their ran¬ 
 soms; when afterwards Philip set all the 
 other prisoners free without ransom, he 
 forgave the first their debts to him (Ζδωκα 
 
 δωρεάν τά λύτρα), which otherwise they 
 would have been strictly required by law 
 topay(xix. 170). See [liii.] ii, οί νόμοι 
 κελεύουσι του λυσαμένου εκ τών πολεμίων 
 είναι τόν λυθέντα εάν μη άποδιδφ τά λύτρα : 
 but this is hardly sufficient authority for the 
 severity of the penalty, personal slavery. 
 
 5. συνεξέδωκα, i.e. helped poor citizens 
 to endow their daughters : giving a dowry 
 was an important part of giving a daughter 
 in marriage: see Meier and Schomann, 
 pp. 513 ff. 
 
 6. ούτε. . ,ουδέν, nor anything else of 
 the kind. These words are rather loosely 
 connected with the preceding clauses with 
 ούτε : in all three ούτε repeats the negative 
 of ούδεν άν εΐποιμι κ.τ.λ., so that the con¬ 
 struction here is ούτε άν εΐποιμι τών τοιού- 
 των ούδέν. 
 
 § 269 . ι. ύπείληφα: cf. ύπείλημμαι 
 
 ( 7 ). 
 
 2. i -γώ...δεΐν: an iambic trimeter. 
 
 3. ποιησαντ’: sc. εΰ.—επιλελησθαι: 
 
 cf. πεπαυσθαι, § 206 5 . 
 
190 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 χρηστοί) τον δε μη μικρόψυχου ποιειν εργον ανθρωπου. 
 5 τδ δε τάς ιδίας ευεργεσίας υπομιμνήσκει καί λεγειν μικρού 
 δειν όμοιόν εστι τω ονειδιζειν. ου δη ποιήσω τοιουτον 
 ούδεν, ουδέ προαχθήσομαι, άλλ’ δπως ποθ ’ ύπείλημμαι περί 
 
 τούτων, αρκεί μομ 
 
 270 Βούλομαι δε των ιδίων απαλλαγείς ετι μικρά προς υμάς 
 είπείν περί των κοινών, ει μεν γαρ εχεις, Αισχίνη, των υπο 
 τούτον τον ήλιον ειπειν ανθρωπων οστις αθώος της Φίλιππου 
 πρότερον καί νυν της Αλεξάνδρου δυναστείας γεγονεν, η 
 5 των 'Ελλήνων ή των βαρβάρων, έστω, συγχωρω την εμήν — 
 είτε τύχην είτε δυστυχίαν ονομαί,ειν βουλει—πάντων γεγενη- 
 
 4 . μικροψύχρον ( ρ erased) Σ. η. προσαχθησομαι Α2. ό ttws L. 
 
 § 270 . 2 . epeiv Α2. 3· τούτον Σ, L; τουτονϊ vulg. 5· συχχωρώ σοι 
 
 vulg. ; σοι οηι. Σ, L 1 , Αι. 6 . πάντων αιτίαν L, vulg.; αιτίαν οηι. Σ 1 , Vom., Β 1 . 
 
 4. μικρόψυχου: see note on § 279 s · 
 
 5. ύττομιμνήσ-κίΐν, i.e. to be always 
 calling to mind. — μικρού Seiv, the full 
 form of μικρού, almost (Μ. T. 779 )· c ^· 
 
 § 151 3 · West, quotes Cic. Lael. xx. 71, 
 odiosum sane genus hominum officia ex- 
 probrantium; quae meminisse debet is in 
 quem collata sunt, non commemorare qui 
 contulit; and Sen. Benef. Π. 10, haec 
 enim beneficii inter duos lex est: alter 
 statim oblivisci debet dati, alter accepti 
 nunquam; lacerat animum et premit fre- 
 quens meritorum commemoratio. Pericles 
 (Thuc. II. 40) looks at the matter from a 
 different point of view: ov yap πάσχοντβς 
 ed άλλα δρωντβς κτώμβθα τούς φίλους ’ 
 κ.τ.λ. See the opposite view of Aris- 
 totle’s strange μεγ αλόφυχος (Eth. IV. 3, 
 25) ; δοκοΰσι δέ καί μνημονβύειν οϋς άν 
 ποιήσωσιν ed, ών δ’ άν ττάθωσιν οΰ. Τ. here 
 is a New England saying, “If a man 
 does you a favour, he follows you with a 
 tomahawk all your lifetime.” 
 
 7. ττροαχθήσομαι : cf. ττροηχθην (sc. 
 τάξαι), VIII. 71.—o-irios ύττείλημμαι, as I 
 have been understood, i.e. the general 
 opinion which has been formed of me. 
 
 8. άρκ€ΐ μοι : sc. ούτως ύπειληφθαι. 
 
 §§ 270 — 275 . We have here a sort 
 of peroration to the discourse on Fortune 
 
 (§§ 252—275), in which the orator comes 
 at last to the precise point of his oppo¬ 
 nent’s remark, that Demosthenes has 
 brought ill-luck upon every person or 
 state with which he had to do (Aesch. 
 in. 114). Hitherto Demosthenes has 
 spoken far more of his “fortunes” than 
 of his “ fortune.” See remarks before 
 notes on § 252. 
 
 § 270 . 2. vi τδ τούτον τον ήλιον, as 
 
 we say, under the Sim : “ klingt fast 
 poetisch ” (Bl.). See II. v. 267, δσσοι 
 Ίασιν ύττ' 1 ηω τ’ ηέλιδν re: Od. XV. 349 ’ 
 ζώουσιν ύι τ’ αΰ^άς ήβλίοιο. In prose 
 υπο with the accus. generally implies ex¬ 
 tension towards something, an idea which 
 we miss here. 
 
 3. άθωος, unharmed·, cf. § 125 2 , where 
 we have the original meaning, free from 
 θωή, penalty, as in ΧΧΙΙΙ. 78, ταύτης μέν 
 (δίκης) άθφος άφίεται, he is acquitted. 
 
 4. 8wao-T€ias : see §§ 67 3 , 322 7 . 
 
 6. πάντων ·γ€·γ€νήσ-θαι, has fallen to 
 the lot of us all·, the subject is την έμην 
 ...δυστυχίαν, and πάντων refers to all the 
 Athenians (cf. § 2 72 4 ) opposed to των 
 μηδβπώποτ ίδδντων έμέ in § 27 1 1 . He 
 would admit (he implies) that his own 
 fortune had extended to Athens, were it 
 not that foreign states had suffered the 
 same ill fortune. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 1 9 ι 
 
 σθαι. ει δέ καί των μηδεπώποτ ιδόντων εμε μηδε φωνήν 271 
 ακηκοοτων εμον πολλοί πολλά καί δείνα πεπόνθασι, μη 
 μόνον κατ άνδρα, άλλα καί πόλεις όλαι και έθνη, πόσω 
 δικαιότερον καί άληθεστερον την απάντων, ώ$ εοικεν, άνθρώ- 
 ττων τνχην κοινήν και φοράν τινα πραγμάτων χαλεπήν καί 5 
 ονχ οιαν εδει τούτων αιτίαν ηγεΐσθαι. ετύ τοίννν ταντ 272 
 άφείς εμε τον παρά τοντοιετί πεπολιτενμενον αίτια, καί ταντ 
 7 ειδως ότι, καί ει μη το όλον, μέρος γ επιβάλλει της βλασφη¬ 
 μίας άπασι, καί μάλιστα σοί. ει μεν γάρ εγω κατ εμαντον 
 αυτοκράτωρ περί των πραγμάτων εβονλενόμην, ην αν τοΐς 5 
 άλλοις ρητορσιν νμΐν εμ αιτιάσθαι · ει δε παρητε μεν εν 273 
 ταις εκκλησίαις άπάσαις, αεί δ’ εν κοινω το συμφέρον η 
 πόλις 7 τροντίθει σκοπείν, πάσι δε ταντ εδόκει τότ άριστ 
 είναι, και μαλιστα σοι (ον γαρ επ έννοια γ εμοί παρεχώρεις 
 ελπίδων και ζήλον καί τιμών, ά πάντα προσην τοΐς τότε 5 
 πραττομενοις νπ εμον, άλλα της αλήθειας ηττωμενος δηλον¬ 
 ότι καί τω μηδέν εχειν ειπεϊν βελτιον), πως ονκ αδικείς καί 
 
 § 271 . ι. ϊδότων (ν above line) Σ. εμέ om. Α2. 3· μόνον om. Α2. 
 
 άνδρας V 6 . 4· KaL άληθ. om. Α2. 5· καινήν F. 
 
 § 272 . ι. σύ οΰν Αΐ. 2. τουτουσί L. πολιγευόμενον Ο. 3 · 
 
 μη και Αι. 2 . 5 · αυτοκράτωρ ών vulg.; ών om. Σ, L 1 , Αι. 6 . έμέ om. Ο 1 . 
 
 § 273 . 2 . απασαις, αεί δ έν κοινιρ 2 , L ; άπάσαις άει, έν κοινφ δέ vulg. 
 
 3. ταυτά Υ. τότ’ έδόκει ταΰτ V6. 4· 7 ^ μ οί Αι. 7· τ ό (for τ^)Φ; των Ο 1 . 
 
 § 271 . 3· κατ’ άν8ρα, i.e. individuals, 
 as opposed to πόλεις and ’έθνη. 
 
 5· φοράν τινα πραγμάτων, a rush of 
 events : φορά in this sense ( impetus) 
 belongs to φέρομαι, used as in /Sip φέρε¬ 
 ται, Plat. Phaedr. 254 A, and φερόμενος, 
 with a rush (M.T. 837): φοράν, crop, in 
 .§ 61 2 , belongs to φέρω, bear, produce. 
 
 6. ουχ οϊαν £δα, not what it should be 
 (present in time, M.T. 417); έδει here 
 is ought to be (but is not), whereas δει 
 would be simply ought to be (implying 
 nothing). 
 
 § 272 . 3. €τπβάλ\€ΐ: see liote on 
 
 τό έπιβάλλον μέρος, § 254°. 
 
 4· άτταοτι: sc. rots ’ Αθηναίοι s (cf. 
 ■πάντων, § 27ο 6 ).—€ΐ μέν ...ίβουλίυόμην 
 is past, while ην άν, its apodosis, is 
 present. 
 
 κατ’ Ιμαυτόν αυτοκράτωρ, an ab¬ 
 solute autocrat : cf. αΰτος αυτοκράτωρ, 
 § ^ 35 5 . 
 
 § 273 . 2. «ν κοινω...ττρούτίθίΐ <τκο- 
 
 ττίΐν, put forwardfor public consideration: 
 cf. IV. 1, εί περί καινού τίνος πράΎματος 
 προύτίθετο λόγειν. See § 192 2 , προτίθησι 
 βουλήν, and § 23b 4 , έξ Ίσου προύτίθετε. 
 •γνώμας προτιθέναι often means to open 
 a debate·, cf. Thuc. I. 139 18 , and ill. 38 2 , 
 των προθέντων αΰθις \lyeiv, where λέ~γειν 
 is like σκοπείν here. 
 
 4. err* ewoia, out of devotion, cor¬ 
 responds to άλλα ηττωμενος (6).— €μοί is 
 dative of advantage with παρεχώρεις, but 
 is also felt with επ’ εΰνοίφ. 
 
 5· ζήλου, pride·, see §§ 120 5 (with 
 note), 217 3 . 
 
ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 192 
 
 δεινά ποιεΐί τούτοις νυν εγκαλών ών τότ ονκ είχες λεγειν 
 274ι/3 ελτίω; παρά μεν τοίνυν τοΐς άλλοις εγωγ ορω πάσιν 
 άνθρώποις Σκαρισμένα και τεταγμένα πως τα τοιαντα., αδι-, 
 κεΐ τις εκών οργήν και τιμωρίαν κατά τούτον, εξημαρτε 
 τις άκων' συγγνώμην αντί της τιμωρίας τοντω. οντ αδικών 
 5 ns οντ εξαμαρτάνων, εις τα πάσι δοκοΰντα συμφέρει εαυτόν 
 8ους οϋ κατώρθωσε μεθ' απάντων ονκ ονειδίζειν ον8ε λοιδο- 
 275 ρέισθαι τω τοιοντω δίκαιον, άλλα σνναχθεσθαι. φανησεται 
 
 συγμ-ώμψ U) 2, Αι ; ipyi, τιμωρία, σντ,νώμ, , vulg.; 
 " 3 . η .Λ....ι κατά τούτου Σ, L, Υ, Φ, Αι ; κατα τοι» V6 rar 
 
 4. άκων (corr. from έκών) L. αυτιρ (for 
 
 . φέρειν (συμ- in mg.) Σ. αυτόν \6. 
 
 Ο. 7· τ $ ΤΟίθύτ ν L» vulg. 5 τοιούτιρ 
 
 opyrjv, τιμωρίαν, συγνώμη L. 
 αύτου vulg. έξήμαρται L. 
 
 τούτιρ ) Α2. 5· έξαμαρτων Ar 
 
 6· μετά πάντων Αι, F, Υ. ουκ om 
 
 Σ 1 (τω in mg.). 
 
 § 275 . ι. φανησται (e above) Σ; 
 
 φανήσεται L φανήσεται τοίνυν vulg. 
 
 8. ών : with βελτίω. 
 
 Westermann thinks the argument of 
 this section not quite fair (“ nicht ganz 
 ehrlich ”), as it is not to be assumed that 
 Aeschines assented to all which he did 
 not oppose. But, apart from the obvious 
 irony of parts of the argument (as in ου 
 yap επ' εύνοια. κ.τ.\·), it was surely not 
 too much to expect of the acknowledged 
 “leader of the opposition” in such a- 
 desperate crisis, that he should at least 
 protest strongly against measures of such 
 vital importance as those which he cen¬ 
 sures afterwards, even if he could not 
 propose any positive measures himself. 
 Now it is an important part of the argu¬ 
 ment of Demosthenes, that Aeschines 
 said nothing whatever on such occasions 
 as the sudden seizure of Elatea by Philip. 
 See § 191 4 , σου δ’ άφωνου...καθημενου : 
 see the whole passage, §§ 188—191. The 
 only ground on which such neglect can 
 be excused is the one here assumed, that 
 the opposition had no better plan to 
 propose. Even this inability is not made 
 a direct charge against Aeschines ; it is 
 merely used as a defence against his 
 unqualified condemnation of the course 
 taken by the state. The plain truth is, 
 of course, that Aeschines really wished 
 to let Philip have his own way at this 
 time. 
 
 § 274 . 1. παρά...ανθρώπου: see two 
 
 similar cases of παρά in § 297^ 5 · tols 
 άλλο is πάσιν, i.e. all except Aesch.: cf. 
 άπαντας ανθρώπους , § 2 75 4 . 
 
 ■2. τά τοιαΰτα, i.e. such (principles) 
 as the following, explained by the state¬ 
 ments in 2—7·— αδικεί tis εκων, a man 
 (let us suppose) is guilty of voluntary 
 injustice. We have three such supposi¬ 
 tions in independent sentences, with 
 paratactic replies or apodoses. For a 
 similar arrangement see § 117» επεδωκα , 
 ήρχον, αδίκως ήρζα, with the replies. See 
 also § 198. 
 
 3· οργήν και τιμωρίαν: sc. δότε, or 
 
 διωρισμένην όρώ. 
 
 4 . οΰτ’ αδικών tis οντ’ εξαμαρτάνων, 
 
 i.e. one. who neither is guilty of injustice 
 nor errs (sc. άκών). 
 
 6. μεθ’ απάντων, i.e. in common with 
 
 everybody. 
 
 On the distinction of αδικήματα, αμαρ¬ 
 τήματα, and ατυχήματα here recognized, 
 Dissen quotes Arist. Rhet. I. 13, 16: «V 
 oh re yap δεΐ συyyvώμηv έχειν, επιεική 
 ταΰτα, και το τά αμαρτήματα και τά αδι¬ 
 κήματα μή του Ίσου αξιοΰν (sc. επιεικές 
 έστΐ), μηδε δε άμαρτήματα και τά άτυχή·, 
 ματα’ ’έστι δ’ ατυχήματα μεν οσα παράλογα 
 και μή άπό μοχθηρίας, άμαρτηματα δέ όσα 
 μή πapά\oya καί μή άπό πονηριάς, αδική¬ 
 ματα δέ οσα μήτε παράλογα από πονηριάς 
 7-’ έστίν’ τά y άρ δι επιθυμίαν από πο 
 νηρίας. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 193 
 
 ταυτα πάνθ ’ ούτως ον μόνον τοΐς νόμους, αλλά καί η φνσυς 
 α ύτη τοΐς άγραφους νομίμους καί τους ανθρωπίνους ηθεσυ 
 όυωρυκβν. Αίσχίνης τοίννν τοσουτον νπερβόβληκεν άπαντας 
 ανθρώπους ώμότητυ καί συκοφαντία ώστε καί ών αυτός ως 5 
 
 ατυχημάτων εμεμνητο, καί ταυτ εμοΐ) κατηγορεί. _ 
 
 Και προς τοΐς άλλους, ώσπερ αυτός απλώς καί μετ 276 
 
 2. έν τοΐς L, vulg. ; έν om. Σ, Αι. νόμοις MSS.; νομίμου Dind. 3· νομίμου 
 Σ, vulg.; νόμοις L, Ο (corn), Dind. ήθεσι L, vulg.; om. Σ ; έθεσι Dind. 4. ούτως 
 (for τοσοντον) V6. ύπερβέβηκεν Ο. 6. καί om. Υ. κατηγορεί. Αι. 
 
 § 276 . ι. αυτός om. Αι. 
 
 § 275 . 2. Tois vopois (without ev), 
 
 by the laws: cf. § ii8 4 , and xx. 57, ταντα 
 και νόμοις τισ'ι και δόξαις διώρισται. 
 
 3 · tois οόγράφοίδ vop.ip.tHS, by the prin¬ 
 ciples of unwritten law, further explained 
 by tois ανθρώπινοι s ήθεσι : cf. § 114 2 . The 
 unwritten law is known as the law of 
 Nature, the moral law, the divine law, 
 or the higher law, the law which is not 
 alia lex Romae, alia Athenis. See Plat. 
 Leg. 793 A, ταντ' έστι πάντα τα καλούμενα 
 υπό των πολλών ay ραφα νόμιμα · και ούς 
 πατρίον$ νόμους έπονομάζουσιν, ούκ άλλα 
 έστιν ή τά τοιαντα ξύμπαντα—δεσμοί yap 
 ουτοι πάσης είσ'ι πολιτείας, μεταξύ πάντων 
 6ντε s των έν y ράμμασι τεθέντων τε και κει¬ 
 μένων και των έτι τεθησομένων. Aristotle 
 distinguishes two kinds of unwritten law, 
 one the κοινό s νόμος, ό κατά φύσιν, the 
 universal law of Nature, the other a 
 branch of the special law of particular 
 States, by which the defects of the written 
 law may be remedied, that is, τό επιεικές, 
 equity. See Rhet. I. 13, §§ 1, 2: λέyω 
 δέ νόμον τον μεν ίδιον τον δε κοινόν, Ίδιον 
 μεν τον έκάστοις ώρισμένον προς αυτούς, 
 και τούτον τον μέν άypaφov τον δέ yey ραμ- 
 μένον, κοινόν δέ τον κατά φύσιν. έστι y άρ, 
 δ μαντεύονται τι πάντες, φύσει κοινόν 
 δίκαιον και άδικον, κ'άν μηδεμία κοινωνία 
 προς άλλήλους τ) συνθήκη, όίον και 
 
 ή Σοφοκλέους Άντ^όνη φαίνεται λέyουσα, 
 οτι δίκαιον άπειρημένον θάψαι τον ΙΙολυ- 
 νείκη, cos φύσει ον τούτο δίκαιον. He then 
 quotes Antig. 456, 457, ού yap τι...εξ οτου 
 ’φάνη, and the verses of Empedocles: 
 αλλά τό μέν πάντων νόμιμον διά τ' 
 εύρυμέδοντος 
 
 αίθέρος ήνεκέως τέταται διά τ’ άπλέτου 
 αν yrjs. 
 
 In I. r 3 > §§ 11 j 12 Aristotle more distinctly 
 states the distinction of this “ universal 
 law” and τό επιεικές, equity: των δ’ άypά- 
 φων δύο έστιν είδη’ ταντα δ’ έστι τά μέν 
 καθ' υπερβολήν αρετής και κακίας ( above the 
 legal standard, Cope) ,.,.τάδέ τού ίδιον νόμου 
 και yεypaμμέvoυ έλλειμμα, τό yhp επιεικές 
 δοκεΐ δίκαιον είναι, έστι δέ επιεικές τό παρά 
 ( beyond ) τον yey ραμμένοι 1 νόμον δίκαιον. 
 
 5 · ώμότητι: cf. ωμότερος, § 2Ι2 8 .—ώδ 
 άτυχη[χάτων»: see Aesch. III. 57? T & v δέ 
 άτυχημάτων άπάντων Αημοσθένην αίτιον 
 yey ενημένον. 
 
 §§ 276 — 296 . Here Demosthenes 
 begins by alluding to the attempt of 
 Aeschines to represent him as a skilful 
 sophist and rhetorician, who will impose 
 on the judges by his wily arts. He retorts 
 by showing that his own oratorical power 
 has always been exerted in behalf of 
 Athens, while that of Aeschines has been 
 used to help her enemies or to gratify 
 personal malice. He refers to the testi¬ 
 mony of the citizens in choosing him to 
 deliver the eulogy on those who fell at 
 Chaeronea, as a proof of his patriotism. 
 Finally, he declares that the present 
 calamities of Greece have been caused 
 by men of the stamp of Aeschines in 
 various Greek States; and he gives a black 
 list of these traitors who have betrayed 
 their countries to the common enemy. 
 
 § 276 . ι. ώ<ητ£ρ. . .€ίρηκώδ, i.e. posing 
 as one who had always spoken his own 
 thoughts honestly and loyally : we gene¬ 
 rally translate (for convenience) as if he 
 
ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 194 
 
 ν. εύνοιας πάντας ε'ιρηκως τούς λόγους, φυλάττειν εμε και 
 τηρείν εκελενεν, όπως μη παρακρούσομαι μηδ' εξαπατησω, 3 ι8 
 δεινόν καί γόητα καί σοφιστήν καί τα τοιαντ' όνομάζων, ως 
 5 εαν 7 τρότερός τις είπη τα προσόνθ' εαυτω περί άλλον, καί δη 
 τανθ' όντως εχοντα, καί ούκέτι τούς ακούοντας σκεφομενονς 
 τις ποτ αυτός εστιν ό ταντα λεγων. εγω δ’ οιδ' ότι γιγνώ- 
 σκετε τούτον άπαντες, καί πολύ τοντω μάλλον η εμοί νομίζετε 
 277 ταντα προσείναι. κάκείν εν οιδ' ότι την εμην δεινότητα 
 ^J /στω γάρ. ' καίτοι εγωγ' όρω της των λεγόντων δννάμεως 
 τούς ακούοντας το πλείστον κυρίους- £ώς γάρ αν νμεΐς 
 άποδεξησθε καί προς έκαστον εχητ εύνοιας, ούτως ό λεγων 
 5 εδοξε φρονεύν^ εί δ’ ονν εστι καί παρ' εμοί τις εμπειρία 
 τοιαύτη, ταύτην μεν ενρησετε πάντες εν τοΐς κοινοις εξεταζο- 
 μενην νπερ νμων αεί καί ούδαμον καθ' νμων ούδ' ίδια, την 
 δε τούτον τούναντίον ού μόνον τω λεγειν νπερ των εχθρών, 
 
 2. εκέλευσεν Α2. παρακρούσομαι Σ; παρακρούσωμαι L, vulg. 4 · 0ΓΏ · 
 
 Α2. 5· w Α2 · €Ϊ7Γ01 Υ · * * * 4 * 6 * 8 · ούκ * στί ( for ούκέτ ύ ν6 · 7· TL ( for 
 
 τις) V6. 9· τοίαΰτα V6. 
 
 § 277 . ι. και έκείνο δ’ vulg.; δ’ om. Σ, L, Αι. 3 · τό Μιστόν vulg. ; 
 M< ipos om. Σ, L 1 . κυρίους Σ, L; xuptous tfvras vulg. 4· ^X otr ’ °* 6 * έτ1 
 
 (for εν) Υ. 7· άει ΰπέρ Ο. ίδιαν Αι. 
 
 had spoken {quasi vero dixisset , West.), 
 though there is nothing conditional in 
 the participle with ώσπερ (without &v), 
 which merely expresses comparison (M.T. 
 867) : having , as it were , spoken·, would be 
 more correct, though less clear. See ώσ¬ 
 περ ούχ, § 323 6 , and note on ώς (4). 
 
 3· €Κ€λίυ€ν : sc. υμάς — οττως μή τταρα- 
 κρούσομαι: an object clause after φυλάτ- 
 τειν and τηρείν, though its subject appears 
 by attraction {εμέ) in the leading clause 
 (M.T. 304 2 ). This is a reply to Aesch. 
 16, 174, 206, 207, and other passages. 
 
 4—6. ώς...ούτως ϊχοντα (accus. abs.), 
 
 i.e. assuming that this must needs be so. 
 cbs has no more conditional force than 
 ώσπερ (i), though we find it convenient 
 to use as if in translation (M.T. 864): 
 notice ούκέτι with σκεψομένους, showing 
 that there is nothing conditional in the 
 expression.— ούκ 4 τι σ-κ€\|/ομ 4 νους, will not 
 further consider : cf. καί δη (5), implying 
 without further thought, alsbald (Bl.); so 
 XX. 65, και δη λελυμένας. 
 
 § 277 . 2. Κσ-τω γάρ, well I grant 
 
 that I have it. Having broken his sen¬ 
 tence, he proceeds to say that the hearers 
 have it in their power to neutralize the 
 highest gifts of eloquence by refusing to 
 listen. See xix. 340, at μεν τοίνυν Άλλαι 
 δυνάμεις επιεικώς είσιν αύτάρκεις, ή δε του 
 λεΊειν, άν τά παρ’ υμών των άκουόντων 
 άντιστη, διακόπτεται. 
 
 3 · ώς av.-.-n-pos έκαστον 2χητ evvoias, 
 
 i.e. according to your good-will towards 
 each , εύνοιας being partitive with ώς, as 
 in εις τούτο εύνοιας. 
 
 4. ούτως φρονίίν, i.e. ευ or κακώς 
 φρονειν. 
 
 5· epnmpia, substituted modestly for 
 the stronger δεινότητα of 1. 1, the original 
 construction being resumed byraur??^ (6). 
 
 6. 4ξ€ταζο|ΐ€νην inr«p υμών, marshalled 
 on your side , the familiar military figure: 
 see note on § 173 4 , and έξηταζόμην in 
 
 § I 73 6 · 
 
 8. τούναντίον (adv.): sc. έξεταξ’ομένην 
 εύρήσετε. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 
 ο ^ 
 
 Λ ν 
 
 -Ο , 
 
 195 
 
 άλλα και ει τις ελνπησε τι τούτον η προσεκρονσε π ον, κατά 
 τούτων, ον yap αντη δικαίως, ονδ ’ εφί α σνμφερει τη ίο 
 πόλει, χρηται. οντε yap την οργήν οντε την εγθραν οντ 278 
 άλλ’ ονδεν των τοιοντων τον καλόν καγαθον πολίτην δει 
 τονς νπερ των κοινών είσεληλνθότας δικαστάς αζιονν αντω 
 βεβαιονν, ονδ ’ νπερ τοντων εις νμάς είσιεναι, άλλα μάλιστα 
 μεν μη efifiiv ταντ εν τη φνσει, εί δ’ άρ ανάγκη, πράως και 5 
 μετρίως διακείμεν εγειν. εν τίσιν ονν σφοδρον είναι τον 
 πολιτενόμενον καί τον ρήτορα δεΐ; εν οΐς των όλων τι 
 κινδννενεται τη πόλει, καί εν οΐς προς τονς ενο,ντίονς εστί 
 τω δημω, εν τοντοις· ταντα γάρ γένναίον καί άγαθον πολίτον. 
 
 3 Τ 9 μηδενος δ’ άδικηματος πωποτε δημόσιόν—προσθησω δε μηδ * 279 
 ίδιον—δίκην άζιώσαντα λαβεΐν παρ εμον, μηθ ’ νπερ της 
 πόλεως μηθ ’ νπερ αντον, στέφανον καί έπαινον κατηγορίαν 
 
 χο. αυτή Ο. 
 
 § 278 . 3 · δικαστάς είσελ. Αι. άυτιρ Σ; αύτφ L, vulg. 5· αν over 
 
 άνάγ κη Σ. 6. διακείμεν Σ, L, Αι; διακείμενον vulg. 7· TL L. 8 . εστί τι 
 vulg.; τι om. Σ, L, Ai. 2. 9. yap έστι Ai. 
 
 § 279 . 1. δ’ om. O 1 . 2. δίκης Y; δίκην c Σ. άξιώσοντα L 1 . 
 
 3. a υτούτστεφάνου Σ 1 , ου over second τ Σ 2 ; αύτου του L; του om. vulg.; ύπερ του 
 στεφάνου ( αΰτοΰ om.) V6. νυν κατηγ. Αι; κατη y. νυν vulg.; νυν om. Σ, L. 
 
 9· κατά τούτων (sc. τω Xeyecv), op¬ 
 posed to ύττερ των έχθρων. τούτων refers 
 to rts, by a carelessness or indifference not 
 uncommon: see § 99 s and 11. 18, εΐτις... 
 τούτους. We are all familiar with anybody 
 becoming the?n in conversation. The 
 whole expression d' tl ς έλύπησέ τι...κατά 
 τούτων is opposed to ούδ ’ ιδία (7), as ύπερ 
 των εχθρών is opposed to ύπερ ύμων (7). 
 West, thinks that there is an allusion to 
 Tiinarchus here and in § 307 6 . 
 
 § 278 . 3. ύπερ των κοινών, with 
 
 είσεληλυθότας, i.e. to give judgment for the 
 good of the State, opposed to opyr]v..fe- 
 βαιούν . — άξιοΰν αύτω βεβαιοΰν, to ask 
 (them) to confirm for him , i.e. by con¬ 
 demning his opponent. 
 
 4. νπτέρ τοντων, for these ends , i.e. to 
 gratify his οργή or εχθρα. — μάλιστα μεν, 
 best of all. 
 
 5. εί 8’ άρ’ ανάγκη, i.e. but if after all 
 he must have these feelings. 
 
 6. εν τίσιν.,.δεϊ; i.e. when should an 
 orator use all his powers ? 
 
 7. των όλων τι, any of the supreme 
 ( entire) interests of the State·, cf. §§ 28 s , 
 
 3°3 9 · 
 
 8. εστί τω δήμω, the people have to do 
 etc. 
 
 9. εν tovtois: with strongest emphasis, 
 in reply to εν τίσιν; (6). 
 
 § 279 . Still answering the question εν 
 τίσιν...δεΐ; (§ 278 6 ), he describes the 
 present suit as one which does not justify 
 vehemence in an orator. 
 
 1. μηδ’ ίδιου (sc. άδικήματοϊ) continues ; 
 the construction of δημοσίου : cf. VIII. 39, 
 40, εχθρός δλη τή πόλει.. .προσθησω δέ καί 
 τοΐς εν τή πό\εL πάσιν άνθρώποις. 
 
 3· στεφάνου...κατηγορίαν, an accu- 
 sation against a crown and a vote of thanks 
 (i.e. against a proposition to confer these): 
 nearly all decrees conferring a crown had 
 the words επαινέσαι καί στεφάνωσα ι. 
 
 13 — 2 
 
ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 196 
 
 ηκειν συνεσκευασμενον καί τοσουτουσι λογονς ανηλωκεναι 
 S ιδίας εχθρας καί φθόνου καί μικροψυχίας εστί σημείου, 
 οόδενός χρήστου, το δε δη καί τους προς εμ αυτόν αγώνας^ 
 
 280 εάσαντα νυν επί τόνδ ’ ηκειν καί πασαν εχει κακίαν, και 
 μοι δοκεΐς εκ τούτων, Αισχίνη, λόγων επιδειξιν τινα καί 
 φωνασκίας βουλόμενος ποιησασθαι τούτον προελεσθμι τον 
 
 αγώνα, ούκ αδάματος ούδενός f<U L f 
 
 5 ούχ 6 λόγος του ρητορος, Αίσχίνψ τίμιοι?, ουό ο τονος της 
 φωνής, άλλα το ταΰτά προαιρεΐσθαι τοΐς πολλοί? καί το τους 
 
 281 αυτούς μισεΐν και φιλείν οΰσπερ αν η πατρις. ο γαρ ούτως 
 εχων την φυχην, οΰτος επ’ έννοια ττάντ ερεί- 6 δ' άφ’ ων η 
 πόλις προοράται κίνδυνόν τιν εαυτη, τούτους θεραπεύων ουκ 
 επι της αυτής ορμεί τοίς πολλοϊς, ούκουν ουδέ της ασφαλείας 
 
 ζτην αυτήν εχει προσδοκίαν. άλλ — δρας; εγω· ταντα 
 
 . τοσούτον, Αι. 6. καί ούδο> 1 >ι V6. έμΐ αύτον 2, L, vulg. ; εμαντον Αι. 
 
 7 νυν δ’ έττϊ F. καί Αι ; om. L, vulg.; ’έχειν L; καί -πασαν έχει κακίαν om. Σ. 
 
 8 280 . I. καί μοι Σ, L, Ο, Β, Αι; κάμοί Vom., West.; καί frotye Υ. 
 2 . λόγων έπίδ. τινα καϊ φωνασκία* Σ, L, F, Φ; των λόγων, ετ τίδ. τινα φωνασκία* vulg.; 
 έκ των λόγων τούτων, Αίσχ. V6. 3 · ττ ροσελέσθαι Υ. _ 5 · Σ > L ’ T ^ t0S 
 
 vulg. 6. ταυτα Αι. rovs αυτόν* καί Α2 ; rous εχθρού* V6. 
 
 S 281 οϋτωϊ L. 3· κίνδυνόν τινα Σ 1 , L; τινα κίνδυνον Σ (corr.), vulg. 
 
 4 . S 0 Lt° Β, V6 ; Μ τ* «ir* Ο 1 , «Μ)> Ο (mg.). ** V6. Μ»·» 
 
 Σ, L ; ούκουν Αι. 5 · ταντα Αι, Ο. 
 
 4· συνεσκευασμενον, having trumped 
 
 up. 
 
 5. μικροψυχία?, littleness of soul , op¬ 
 posed to μεγαλοψυχία, § 68 * 4 : cf. § 209 4 . 
 
 6. ovSevos χρήστου: neuter, cf. πάν¬ 
 τα τα χρηστά, XX. 165. —tovs... αγώνα? 
 εάσαντα with επί τόνδ’ ηκειν recurs to the 
 idea of § 16. 
 
 7. και strengthens πάσαν, the very 
 depth of baseness', πάσαν ’έχει κακίαν, 
 
 _w — —' ' — β 
 
 § 280 . 3· φωνασκία?, declamation 
 
 {practice of voice) : cf. § 308 9 , and φωνα- 
 σκήσα* and πεφωνασκηκώ* in XIX. 255, 
 
 33 ^ ft . . 
 
 6. ταΰτά ττροαιρεΐσθαι τοι? πολλοί?: 
 
 •cf. §§ 28 1 5 , 292 4 . 
 
 § 281 . 3· τοΰτου? renews emphati¬ 
 
 cally the antecedent implied in άφ : ων. — 
 ούκ...όρμεϊ (sc. άγ κύρα*), does not ride at 
 the same anchor, an oft-quoted saying. 
 See Harpocr. under ούκ επί τη* κ.τ.λ., 
 
 and Apostolius XIII. 55 (Paroem. Gr. 11. 
 p. 591) : both note the ellipsis of αγκύρα*. 
 Another expression was έπί δνοΐν όρμεΐ 
 (sc. άγ κύραιν), έπί των άστεμφω* έχόντων 
 (Apostol. νιι. 61), to which Solon refers 
 in his comparison of Athens with her two 
 senates to a ship with two anchors: Plut. 
 Sol. 19, οίόμενο* επί δυσί βουλαΐ* ώσπερ 
 ά^κύραι* όρμουσαν ηττον έν σάλιρ την πάλιν 
 ’έσεσθαι. See the singular turn given to 
 the proverb in lvi. 44. Cf. Soph. Ant. 
 188 —190, quoted in XIX. 247. 
 
 4. οΰκουν ουδέ : the two negatives 
 unite their force, and that of ovv, there¬ 
 fore, remains: ούκουν ουδέ would give es¬ 
 sentially the same sense. 
 
 5. όρά?; see ονχ opq.*; §§ 232 s , 206 6 7 * , 
 and ov yap; § 136 2 .— εγώ: the ellipsis 
 may be supplied from οϋτω* 'έχων την 
 φυχην (ι), with the preceding το ταΰτά... 
 φιλεΐν. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 197 
 
 yap συμφόρονθ * ευλόμην τουτουσυ, καί ουδέν εξαίρετου ούδ* 
 υδυου πεποίημαυ. άρ ον ν ουδέ συ; καί πώ ΤΤ 1. 09 εύθεως 282 
 μετά την μάχην πρεσβευτής επορευου προς Φίλιππον, ος 
 ην των εκείνους τοΐς χρόνους συμφορών αυτυος τη πατρίου, 
 καυ ταντ άρνουμενος πάντα τον εμπροσθε χρόνον ταυτην 
 την χρείαν, ως πάντες υσασυν. καίτου τις 6 την πόλυν ζ 
 εξαπατων; ούχ 6 μη λεγων ά φρονευ; τω δ’ 6 κηρυξ 
 καταράταυ δυκαίως; ου τω τουούτω; τί δε μεΐζον όχου τυς — 
 αν ευπευν αδίκημα κατ άνδρός ρητορος η ευ μη ταυτά φρονευ 
 καυ λεγευ; συ τοίνυν ουτος ευρεθης. ευτα σι) φθεγγευ καί 283 
 
 6 . τοντουσί L. 
 
 § 282 . 2. μάχην ευθέως V6. πρεσβ. om. Α2. 3· * ν έκείνοίς L, vulg. ; 
 
 εν om. Σ, Ο. 4· χρόνον ταύτης Β. 5· Tts W -Α· 2 · 7 · κα θ' έκάστην 
 
 έκκλησίαν (after καταράται ) Σ (yp), F (yp), Φ (yp)· 8. η εί Σ, L, Ο, Β; η om. F, 
 
 Αι. ταυτα φρονεί και λεyεί Σ 1 (?) ; ταυτ ά φρονεί" καί \έyεί Σ (corr.) ; ταυθ' ά φρονεί 
 καί \έyεί L (ταυτα ά Αι); ταυτά καί φρονεί F. g. ουτος Σ, L, Ο 1 , Β 1 , Αι ; τοιοΰ- 
 
 τος vulg. 
 
 § 283. 1 . φθέ yyy MSS. 
 
 6. είλ,όμην, in the sense of προαίρεΐσθαί 
 
 (§ 2 8ο 6 ). 
 
 § 282 . ι. άρ 5 ουν ούδε <τύ ; can the 
 
 same be said also of you ? i.e. οΰδέν... 
 πεποίησαι. 
 
 2. πρεσβευτής προς Φίλιππον : Ae¬ 
 schines (III. 227) says of this, της μάχης 
 έπίyεvoμέvης.. .υπέρ τής σωτηρίας τής πόλεως 
 έπρεσβεύομεν. Aeschines, Demades (from 
 whom the peace was named, § 285 s ), and 
 probably Phocion, went to Philip to ne¬ 
 gotiate a peace after Chaeronea. As 
 Blass remarks, it was very important that 
 personae gratae should be sent on this 
 critical mission; 'and Aeschines was well 
 qualified. See Hist. § 81. 
 
 4. ταυτην την χρείαν : this, taken with 
 τον ’έμπροσθε χρόνον, refers to earlier per¬ 
 sonal intercourse with Philip. Aeschines 
 is now less anxious to repudiate this 
 charge, in the day of Alexander’s great 
 success in Asia: see ill. 66, 6 yap μίσα- 
 λέξανδρος νυνί φάσκων είναι καί τότε μίσο- 
 φίλίππος Δημοσθένης, ό την ξενίαν έμοί 
 7 τροφέρων την Αλεξάνδρου, and cf. §§ 5 1 > 
 52 (above). 
 
 7. καταράται: a most comprehensive 
 curse (άρά) was a part of the religious 
 
 ceremony at the opening of each meeting 
 of the Senate and Assembly. See xxiii. 
 97 : δίόττερ καταράται καθ’ έκάστην εκκλη¬ 
 σίαν ό κήρυξ.,.εϊ τις έξαπατφ λέyωv ή 
 βουλήν ή δήμον ή την ηλιαίαν. Add to 
 this XIX. 70: ταυθ' υπέρ υμών καθ' έκάστην 
 την εκκλησίαν ό κήρυξ εύχεται νόμιρ προσ- 
 τετayμέva, καί όταν ή βουλή καθήταί, παρ’ 
 έκείν ύ] πάλιν. (It is added that Aeschines, 
 as ύπoypaμμaτεύωv ύμΐν καί υπηρετών τή 
 βουλή, had the duty of dictating this curse 
 to the herald.) Blass quotes Dinarch. 1. 47 
 (of Demosth.), κατάρατος δέ καθ' έκάστην 
 εκκλησίαν yίvόμεvoς, έξεληλεyμένος δώρα 
 κατά τής πόλεως είληφώς, έξηπατηκώς δέ 
 καί τον δήμον καί τήν βουλήν παρά την 
 άράν, καί ετερα μέν λέyωv έτερα δέ 
 φρονών, which shows that ό μή λέyωv ά 
 φρονεί (6) was included in the same curse. 
 See also Dinarch. Π. 16, άράς ποιούμενοι 
 εΐ τις δώρα λαμβάνων μετά ταυτα (Blass 
 μή ταυτά) λέyεί καί yιyvώσκεί περί τών 
 πpayμάτωv, έξώλη τούτον εΐναί. See note 
 on § 130 2 . 
 
 9· ουτος: cf. έφάνην ουτος έyώ, § x 73 1 * 
 
 § 283 . ι. φθε'γγει (mss. φθέ yyv): 
 see note on § 119 4 , and cf. ήyεΐ (2). 
 
198 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 βλέπειν εις τα τούτων πρόσωπα τολμάς; πότερ ουχ ήγεΐ 
 γιγνωετκειν αντους όστις εΧ; ή τοσουτον ύπνον καί λήθην 
 άπαντας έχειν ωστ ον μεμνήσθαι τους λόγους οϋς έδημη- 
 5 γόρεις εν τω πολεμώ, καταρωμενος καί διομνυμενος μηδέν 
 είναι σοί καί Φιλίππω πράγμα, άλλ’ εμε την αιτίαν σοι 
 ταυτην επάγειν τής ίδιας ένεκ έχθρας, ουκ ούσαν αληθή. 
 
 14 ως δ’ άπηγγελθη τάχισθ * ή μάχη, ουδέν τούτων φροντίσας 
 ευθέως ωμολόγεις καί προσεποιου φιλίαν καί ξενίαν είναι 
 σοι προς αυτόν, τή μισθαρνία ταυτα μετατιθέμενος τα 
 ονόματα * εκ ποιας γάρ ίσης ή δικαίας προφάσεως Αίετχίνη 
 5 τω Τλαυκοθέας τής τυμπανιστρίας ξένος ή φίλος ή γνώριμος 
 ην Φίλιππος; εγω μεν ουχ ορω, αλλ εμισσωσης επι τω τα 
 τουτωνί συμφέροντα διαφθείρειν. άλλ * όμως, ουτω φανερως 
 αυτός ειλημμένος προδότης καί κατά σαυτου μηνυτής επί 
 
 2 . τούτων Σ, Υ; τουτωνί L, vulg. ήyεΐ Σ; L; τμγή vulg. 3· €L V" τοσοντον Σ· 
 5 · πολέμω Σ (Δη over πολ), L (δήμψ over πολεμιρ), Αΐ ; δήμιρ vulg. 
 
 § 284 . 2. ευθέως Σ 1 (ευθύς corr.) ; ευθύ L, vulg. 4· Αισχίνη Σ, L, Ο, Υ, Φ; 
 
 Αισχίνη vulg. 5· Ύ λυκοθέας Σ. 8 . αυτός Σ, L, Ο, Αι. 2, Β; αύτοΐς vulg. 
 
 3. οστις εΐ, who you are’, “nicht quis 
 sis , sondern qui sis” (Westermann). 
 
 4. ώστ ού μεμνήσθαι, (so) that they do 
 not remember , not (so) as not to remember : 
 this is a regular case of ώστε ού with the 
 infinitive in indirect discourse, where the 
 direct form would have been τοσοντον 
 ύπνον ...έχουσιν ωστ ’ ού μέμνηνται (Μ. Τ. 
 594 )· See Shilleto, Append. Β. to Dem. 
 de Falsa Leg., pp. 279—284, who dis¬ 
 cusses this passage; Madvig, Synt. § 205, 
 Anm. 3; Gildersleeve, Am. Jour, of 
 Philol. vii. p. 174 (whose whole article 
 deserves careful study). A few exceptional 
 cases of ώστε ού with the infinitive, no¬ 
 ticed by Shilleto, p. 283, have never been 
 satisfactorily explained (Μ. T. 598). 
 
 5. εν τω πολεμώ: opposed to μετά την 
 μάχην (§ 282 s ) when Aeschines went on 
 his embassy to Philip.— καταρώμενος και 
 διομνυμενος, cursing (i.e. protesting, with 
 
 curses on himself if he was false) and 
 
 swearing ; like Matth. Evang. xxvi. 74, 
 
 τότε ήρξατο (Πέτρος) καταθεμάτιζε lv καί 
 όμνύειν, then began he to curse and to 
 swear. 
 
 6 . τήν αιτίαν ταυτην : i.e. the charge 
 of intimate relations with Philip. 
 
 § 284 . 2. ώμολόγειβ : i.e. your friend¬ 
 ship with Philip.— φιλίαν καί ξενίαν: see 
 
 §§ 5 1 » 5 2 · 
 
 3. μετατιθε'μενος, substituting (apply¬ 
 ing by exchange ). 
 
 5. τυμπανιστρίας, timbrel-beater : the 
 τύμπανον, kettle-drum , was a favourite 
 instrument in the Asiatic ceremonies 
 described in §§ 259, 260. See Eur. 
 Bacch. 58 (Dionysus speaks), αίρεσθε 
 τάπιχώρι’ έν πόλει Φ pvyuiv τύμπανα, Ρέας 
 τε μητρός έμά θ’ ευρήματα, with 123— 
 125 ; Hel. 1346 ff-j χαλκού δ ’ αύδάν 
 χθονίαν τύττανά τ’ έλαβε βνρσοτενή κ.τ.λ. ; 
 and Ar. Lys. 388, χώ τυμπανισμός χοί 
 πυκνοί σαβάζιοι. (See Β 1 .)—ή γνώριμος 
 (after ξένος ή φίλος), or even an acquaint¬ 
 ance. 
 
 8. κατά σαυτου...συμβάσι, an in¬ 
 former against yourself after the facts, 
 whereas παρά τά συμβάντα (cf. § 285 3 4 ) he 
 had denied everything which told against 
 him (§ 283 5 * * ). See § 197 8 and note. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 199 
 
 τοΐς συμβάσι γεγονώς, εμοί λοιδορεί καί ονειδίζεις ταυτα, 
 ών πάντας μάλλον αίτιους ευρησεις. ίο 
 
 Πολλά και καλά καί μεγάλα η πόλις, Α ίσγίνη, και 285 
 προειλετο καί κατώρθωσε δι εμού, ών ονκ ημνημόνησεν. 
 σημείον δ£;ί\ γειροτονών γάρ 6 δήμος τον ερονντ επί τοίς 
 τετελευτηκόσι παρ' αυτά τα συμβάντα ου σε εγειροτόνησεν 
 προβληθεντα, καίπερ ευφωνον όντα , ουδέ Δημάδην, άρτι 5 
 πεποιηκότα την είρηνην, ούδ ’ * ΐίγημονα, ουδ’ άλλον υμών 
 ουδενα, άλλ’ εμε. καί παρελθόντος σου καί ΤΙυθοκλεους 
 
 9· λοιδορε ΐ Σ; λοιδορείς Υ ; λοιδορη vulg. ίο. μάλλον αίτιας Ο; αιτίους μάλλον 
 Υ, Αι. εύρήσεις η εμέ vulg.; η εμέ om. Σ, L 1 . 
 
 § 285 . ι. πολλά καλά Ο. 2. κατόρθωσε, έμνημόνησεν Ο. 4· τελευτηκόσι 
 
 Ο. σε vulg., Bk., Dind., West., Lips.; σ’ έχειροτόνησεν Σ, Vom., Bl. (see Schaef. 
 App.). 6. Ή,χεμόνα L, Ar. 
 
 ίο. ττάντας μάλλον, i.e. any rather 
 than myself·, most MSS. add the implied 
 V έμε. 
 
 § 285. ι. πολλά καί καλά κ.τ.λ .: 
 
 these accusatives are direct objects of 
 π ροείλετο, but probably cognate with 
 κατώρθωσε. Demosth. invariably uses 
 κατορθω in its neuter sense of succeed , 
 as in II. 20, έττισκοτεΖ τοντοις το κατορθοΰν, 
 and Cor. § 274 s , ού κατώρθωσε. If an 
 object is added, as in xxi. 106, εί yap iv 
 ών έττεβούλενσε κατώρθωσεν, it is cognate : 
 see xxiv. 7, xxxvn. 2. So in Cor. § 290 3 , 
 τον κατορθοΰν τούς άyωvιζoμέvoυς is not 
 causing the combatants to succeed (as L. 
 and S. give it), but the success of the 
 combatants, as in πάντα κατορθοΰν, to 
 succeed in all things , just preceding. The 
 active use of κατορθω elsewhere is well 
 known, as in Soph. El. 416, κατώρθωσαν 
 βροτούς. 
 
 3· τον φοΰντ’, i.e. the orator for the 
 public funeral. The funeral eulogy on 
 those who fell in battle was first intro¬ 
 duced (acc. to Diod. xi. 33) in the 
 Persian wars. We have one genuine 
 επιτάφιος λόγο?, that of Hyperides in 
 honour of those who fell in the Lamian 
 war (322 B.C.); the famous eulogy of 
 Pericles in 430 B.C., given in the words 
 of Thucydides (11. 35—46), with one 
 in Plat. Menex. (236—249), sportively 
 ascribed to Aspasia by Socrates. The 
 
 one ascribed to Lysias (11.) is of doubtful 
 authenticity, and that found among the 
 speeches of Demosthenes (lx.) is certainly 
 spurious. 
 
 4. παρ’ αυτά τά συμβάντα : i.e. when 
 there might have been a strong public 
 prejudice against him, as a leader who 
 had failed (cf. § 248 s ). 
 
 5. ττροβληθδ'ντα, nominated : cf. § 149 3 . 
 Demosth. here agrees with Thuc. II. 34 17 , 
 77/077 μένος ύπο της πόλεως, in making the 
 people elect the orator; but Plat. Menex. 
 234 b represents the Senate as the elect¬ 
 ing body, which perhaps refers only to a 
 nomination by the Senate of several 
 candidates from whom the Assembly 
 chose one.— Δημάδην: see note on § 282 s 
 and Hist. § 81. 
 
 6. Ήγημονα, mentioned by Aeschines 
 (hi. 25) : he belonged to the Macedonian 
 party at Athens with Demades and Py- 
 thocles. Phocion, Hegemon, Pythocles, 
 and others were put to death by vote of 
 the Athenian Assembly in 317 B.c. (Plut. 
 Phoc. 33—35). See Grote xii. Ch. 96, 
 p. 479. For the partizanship of Pythocles 
 with Philip in 343 b.c. see xix. 225, 314 
 (ΐσα βαίνων ΐίνθοκλεΐ) : see Schaefer II. 
 3 χ 2· 
 
 7· -τταρίλθόντοβ before σοΰ καί Πυθο- 
 κλέους, but κaτηyopoύvτωv after these 
 words. 
 
200 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 ώμως καί άναιδως, ώ Ζευ καί θεοί, καί κατηγορουντων εμού 321 
 ταυθ * α καί ετυ νυνί καί λοιδορου μενών, ετ άμεινον εγειρο- 
 
 286 τόνησεν με. το δ’ αιπον ούκ αγνοείς μεν, όμως δε φράσω 
 c rot κάγώ. άμφότερ * ηδεεταν αυτοί, την τ εμην έννοιαν καί 
 προθυμίαν μεθ * ης τα πράγματ επραττον, καί την υμετεραν 
 αδικίαν ά γάρ εύθενουντων των πραγμάτων ηρνεισθε διο- 
 
 5 μνυμενοι, ταυτ εν οΐς επταισεν η πόλις ωμολογησατε. τους 
 ουν επί τοΐς κοινοΐς άτυγρημασιν ών εφρόνουν λαβόντας 
 άδειαν εγθρους μεν πάλαι, φανερούς δε τόθ ’ ηγησαντο αυτοίς 
 
 287 γεγενησθαι- ειτα καί προσηκειν [ ύπολαμβάνοντες ] τον 
 ερουντ επί τοΐς τετελευτηκόσι καί την εκείνων αρετήν κοσ- 
 μησοντα μηθ ’ όμωρόφιον μηθ ’ όμόσπονδον γεγενημενον 
 είναι τοίς προς εκείνους παραταζαμένοις, μηδ' εκεί μεν 
 
 8. όμως V6. Q. ταΰτα Σ, L, vulg. ; ταύτα Β 2 (see Schaef. Αρρ.), Bk., Dind., 
 Lips.; ταϋθ ’ West., Bl. καί (before σύ) om. V6. 10. με Σ, L; εμε vulg. 
 
 § 286 . 2. καί έ~/ώ Σ, L. ovtol Ar. 2 . 4. ει ’ιθυνόντων Ο; ευρεθέντων V6. 
 
 7. avroLS Σ ; αύτοΐς L, vulg. 
 
 § 287 . I. ύπολαμβάνοντες Σ, L, F, Φ, in [ ] Bl.; ύπελάμβανον vulg.; ύπέλαβον 
 Y, A2. 2. ερουντα Σ, L, Ar. 2 ; έρουντα tot vulg. 3. μηδ’ (for 1st μήθ’) 
 
 Ar. δμωρόρων L 1 . 4. παραταξαμ (0 vs above) L 2 . 
 
 9. ci καί <rv νυνί, i.e. which you again 
 ( και ) now charge me with. — '{τ άμιεινον, all 
 the more eagerly : acc. to Bl. not elsewhere 
 found in this sense. 
 
 § 286. 2. αυτοί, of themselves (with¬ 
 
 out being told). 
 
 4. ά γάρ...ώμ.ο\ο·γήσ-ατε repeats for 
 the whole Macedonian party what was 
 said of Aeschines in §§ 282, 283. For 
 διομνύμενοί see § 283 s . 
 
 5. τουΞ-.-λαβόνταδ άδειαν, i.e. those 
 who gained license to speak their minds 
 with impunity, etc. See §§ r98, 203 7 . 
 άδεια is now used in Athens for an 
 ordinary permit, e.g. to visit the Acro¬ 
 polis by moonlight. 
 
 § 287. r. εΐτα καί ττροσ-ηκειν: sc. 
 
 ■ηγησαντο (from § 28b 7 ). I bracket ϋπο- 
 λαμβάνοντες with Blass: a mere careless¬ 
 ness in style, aiming at no rhetorical 
 effect, seems inadmissible in this oration : 
 see note on § 317 6 . See critical note 
 (above). 
 
 3. όμωρόφιον : to be under the same 
 
 roof with anyone had a peculiar signifi¬ 
 cance to the Greeks. Trials for homicide 
 were held in the open air that neither 
 the judges nor the prosecutor (usually 
 a relative) might be under the same roof 
 with the accused. See Ant. V. n; and 
 cf. Them. xx. 158, and Plat. Rep. 417 a, 
 where the ruling class are forbidden to 
 go under the same roof with gold or 
 silver.— γε-γενημενον είναι, not a mere 
 pleonasm for Ύε^ενησθαί, but expressing 
 more forcibly the combination of past and 
 future which is often seen in yeyevyjodai 
 (Μ. T. 102, 109), i.e. they thought he 
 should not be one zuho had been under the 
 same roof, etc. 
 
 4. -τταραταξαμε'νοΐδ : see § 208 4 , and 
 note on συμπαραταξάμενοί, § 2ΐό 4 . — εκεί 
 κωμάζειν : the revelling in Philip’s camp 
 after the victory at Chaeronea was no¬ 
 torious. See Plut. Dem. 20, where the 
 story is told of the drunken Philip rushing 
 out among the slain and chanting the 
 introductory words of the decrees of 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 201 
 
 κωμάζειν καί παιωνίζειν έπί ταϊς των "Ελλήνων σνμφοραΐς 5 
 μετά των αυτογείρων τον φόνον, δενρο δ’ ελθόντα τιμάσθαι, 
 μηδέ τη φωνή δακρνειν νποκρινόμενον την εκείνων τνχην, 
 άλλα τη φνγτ} σνναλγείν. τοντο δ’ εώρων παρ’ εαντοϊς καί 
 τταρ εμοί, παρά δ* νμΐν ον. διά ταντ εμ εγειροτόνησαν 
 καί ούχ νμάς. καί ουχ 6 μεν δήμος όντως, οί δε των 288 
 τετελεντηκοτών πατέρες καί αδελφοί οί νπο τον δήμον τόθ ’ 
 αίρεθέντες επί τάς ταφάς άλλως πως ■ άλλα δέον ποιείν 
 αντονς το περίδειπνον ώς παρ οίκειοτάτω των τετελεντηκότων, 
 
 5 · 7 ταίωνίζειν Σ, L, F, Υ, Αι ; 7 ταίανίζείν vulg. 6. δεύρο δ' L, Σ 2 , vulg., δ’ 
 
 om. V 6 ; δεύρ' Σ 1 , Vom. έλθόντα Σ, L 1 (?) , Αι. 2; έλθόντας vulg. (see 7)· 
 
 7. μηδέ Σ, L 1 , Αι. 2, Β; καί μηδέ vulg. ύποκρίνόμενον Αι ; ύποκρίνομένους Σ, L, 
 Vom. (cf. 6). 8. καί παρ' έαυτόΐς Ο. Q. παρ' ύμΐν δ’ οϋ Α2. 
 
 § 288 . 2. τελευτηκότων Ο. οί (before ύπδ) Σ, L; om. vulg. τόθ' om. V6. 
 
 4. οίκωτάτιρ (ε over ι) Σ; οίκείοτάτων Y 1 . των om. Ο, Υ. τετελευκότων Ο. 
 
 Demosthenes, which make an iambic 
 
 * 
 
 tetrameter: παραυτίκα.,.έπί Trj νίκη δία 
 την χαράν εξύβρισας, καί κωμάσας επί 
 τούς νεκρούς μεθύων, ήδε την αρχήν του 
 Αημοσθένους ψηφίσματος προς πόδα δίαιρών 
 καί ύποκρούων, Αημοσθένης Αη μοσ θ έ- 
 νςυς Παιανιεύς τάδ’ εΐπεν. Theo- 
 pompus, frag. 262, relates that Philip 
 invited the Athenian envoys to supper, 
 and after they had withdrawn spent 
 the night in a drunken revel with com¬ 
 panions of both sexes until daybreak, 
 when he dismissed these and rushed in 
 upon the Athenians in their lodgings 
 (εκώμαξ’εν ώς τούς πρέσβεις). Schaefer, 
 III. 25, quotes an anonymous address to 
 Demades in Herodian. σχημ. (VIII. 602 
 W.): σύ μέν yap έλαβες , Αηαάδη , δώρα παρά 
 Φιλίππου, εγώ δε ούκ έλαβον ’ καί σύ μέν 
 συνέπίνες αύτφ κατα της πόλεως εύωχου- 
 μένω, βγω δε ού συνέπίνον' καί σύ μέν συνη- 
 νέχθης τοΐς εκείνου πρέσβεσί συνομνύμενος 
 (Sauppe σεμνυνόμενος), εγώ δε ού συνη- 
 νέχθην. See χΐχ. 128, where Aeschines 
 is charged with joining familiarly in the 
 festivities held by Philip after the destruc¬ 
 tion of the Phocians (see Hist. § 48). It 
 is fair to give Plutarch’s addition to his 
 account in Dem. 20 (quoted above): 
 έκνήψας δε καί το μέyέθος του περίστάντος 
 αυτόν άχωνος εν νιρ λαβών, έφριττε την 
 δεινότητα καί την δύναμιν του ρήτορας, έν 
 
 μέρεί μίκρφ μίας ημέρας τον υπέρ τής 
 ήyεμονίας καί του σώματος άναρρίφαί κίν¬ 
 δυνον avay κασθείς ύπ' αύτοΰ. 
 
 6 . των αύτοχείρων: αύτόχείρ is pro¬ 
 perly one who commits any deed by his 
 own hands or by his own act, as in XXI. 
 60, τής άσελy είας ταύτης αύτόχείρ, and 
 Soph. Ant. 306, τον αύτόχείρα τοΰδε του 
 τάφου. It also, when φόνου is easily 
 understood, means a murderer, as in 
 XXI. 11 6, τον αύτόχείρα έχοντες, like 
 αύθέντης, cf. Eur. H. F. 1359, παίδων 
 αύθέντην έμών. 
 
 7· τη φωνή δακρύειν : a strong meta¬ 
 phor, opposed to τή ψυχή aovaXydiv (8). 
 — ύττοκρινόμενον, like a play-actor', cf. 
 υποκρίνεται, he plays his part, § 15 4 .— 
 την τύχην : object of δακρύειν. Bl. takes 
 it with ύποκρίνόμενον, as in xix. 246, 
 , Avτίyόvηv ύποκέκρίταί. 
 
 ίο. ύμά$, i.e. any one of you: cf. 
 υμών, § 285^· 
 
 § 288 . r. ονχ, negativing the two 
 clauses with μέν and δε : cf. § 13 10 , and 
 the grand climax in § 179, with notes. 
 
 2. ττατε'ρεδ καί αδελφοί : the public 
 funeral was in charge of a committee of 
 relatives of those who had fallen, chosen 
 by the people. 
 
 4. το ττερίδεπτνον, thefuneral banquet : 
 see Hermann (Bltimner), Gr. Priv. Ant. 
 § 39 (p· 371); Smith, Diet. Ant. under 
 
ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 r 
 
 2 Q 2 
 
 5 ώσπερ τάλλ' είωθε γίγνεσθαι, τουτ εποίησαν παρ' εμοί. 
 
 εικότως'£γενει μεν γαρ έκαστος εκάστω μάλλον οικείος ην 
 — εμού, κοινή 8ε πάσιν ου8είς εγγντερω^] ω γαρ εκείνους 
 σωθηναι καί κατορθωσαι μάλιστα 8ιεφερεν, οντος και 322 
 παθόντων ά μηποτ ωφελον της υπέρ απάντων λύπης πλείστον 
 ίο μετείχεν. 
 
 :9 Αεγε δ’ αύτω τοντι το επίγραμμα, ό 8ημοσία προείλεθ ’ 
 η πόλις αντοϊς επιγράφαι, ϊν ει8ης, Αισχίνη, και εν αυτω 
 τουτω σαυτόν άγνώμονα και συκοφάντην όντα καί μιαρόν, 
 λεγε. 
 
 5· είώθει Υ. 7 · yap το vulg. ; το om. Σ, L, Β. g. των παθόντων Υ6. 
 
 § 289 . ι. αυτό (for αύτφ) Αί. τοντι Σ, L, Β, Αΐ. 2; τούτο vulg. 2. η 
 
 7 r6\is προείλετο V6 (mg·)· ’ISrjs V6 (nig.). 3. αότόν (for σαυτόν) Υ. όντα 
 
 και συκοφ. όντα Υ. οντα μιαρόν Ο. (δ δημοσί^...\έ^ε, lines 1—4’ omitted 
 
 in V6, added in mg.) 
 
 The Epigram is omitted in Σ, Ai, V6; also in text of L, added in margin. 
 
 Funus’, Cic. Leg. 11. 25.—iisTrap’ οίκ€ΐο- 
 
 τάτω, at the house of him who stood in the 
 closest possible relation to the deceased, as 
 at private funerals the nearest relative. 
 ci>s belongs to οίκειοτάτιρ, in the usual in¬ 
 tensive sense: cf. § 24b 7 , <l>s ds ελάχιστα. 
 
 5· ώσ-πΈρ... γίγνεσθαι, i.e. as is the 
 custom at private funerals, referring to ώ$ 
 παρ’ οίκειοτάτιρ (West.)— έττοίησαν : like 
 7 roieiv in 3. 
 
 7. ω. . .δΐίφ€ρ€ν, i.e. who had most at 
 stake , i.e. in their success. 
 
 8. και (end), likewise, with παθόντων 
 ...ωφελον. 
 
 g. ά μήττοτ’ ωφελον (sc. παθεΐν), lit. 
 
 which would they had never suffered : this 
 rather poetic form of an unattained wish 
 is used here for animation, and again in 
 § 320 6 . See Μ. T. 734, 736. 
 
 § 289 . 1. δημοσία, with επιγράφαι. 
 
 — τΓροίίλεθ’ ή ttoXis, more formal than 
 the usual εδοξε rfj πόλει, perhaps implying 
 (as H. Jackson suggests) a choice from a 
 number of epigrams sent in by competing 
 poets. 
 
 2. IV είδτ^. . .μιαρόν : explained in 
 § 290. 
 
 Epigram. This cannot be the genuine 
 epitaph inscribed on the public monu¬ 
 ment of the heroes of Chaeronea. This 
 
 monument was standing on the road to 
 the Academy in the time of Pausanias 
 (i. 29, 13), and it is to be hoped that 
 excavations may bring the real inscription 
 to light. The present epigram, as most 
 scholars have seen, has too little poetic 
 merit and too slovenly a style to be ac¬ 
 cepted as genuine. The spurious decrees 
 and other documents in this oration, more¬ 
 over, establish a presumption against any 
 document which professes to have been 
 read by the clerk and not by the orator. 
 This epigram is not in the older MSS., 
 and it appears in the Anthol. Graeca, III. 
 p. 314 (de Bosch), iv. p. 249 (Jacobs). 
 We can be sure of one genuine verse (9), 
 which is quoted by Demosthenes in § 290 1 
 (see note on this verse). A small frag¬ 
 ment of an inscription has been found 
 near the Olympieum at Athens, cut (acc. 
 to Kohler) between 350 and 300 B.C., 
 which contains parts of six words of an 
 epigram in the Anthol. Pal. vn. 245 : this 
 epigram was evidently inscribed to the 
 heroes of Chaeronea. See C. I. Att. II. 
 3, No. 1680. The full epigram is as 
 follows, the letters found in the inscription 
 being printed in heavy type :— 
 
 χρόνε, τταντοίων θνητοΓϊ πανεπίσκοπε 
 δαΐμον, 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 203 
 
 ΕΠΙΓΡΑΜΜΑ. 
 
 [ΟΓδβ 7 τάτρας eve/ca σφβτέρας els 8ηριν eSevro 
 όπλα, καί αντίπαλων ΰβριν άποσκ&ασαν. 
 μαρνάμενοι δ’ aperrjs /cal δβιματο? ov/c Ισάωσαν 
 ψυχας άλλ' Ά'ί'δην κοινον Wei πο βραβη, 
 ovve/cev 'Έΐλληνων, ώ? μη ζυ'γον avyevi Sevres (5) 
 
 ΰουλοσύνης arwyepav άμφίς βγωσιν ΰβριν. 
 
 <γ ala Se πατρϊς eyei κόλπος των πλβΐστα καμόντων 
 σωματ, έπβΐ θνητοΐς i/c Alos v$e /cplais’ 
 μηόεν άμαρτβίν εστι θεών /cal πάντα /car ορθοΰν 
 
 εν βιοτη· μοίραν δ’ ον τι φνγεΐν επορεν .] ( 10 ) 
 
 Epigram, v. 4· βράβην mss., Bk.; βραβη Schneider. 9. θεών mss. (see 
 
 § 29ο 2 ). κατορθουν ‘ L. 10. φε byeiv L, F, Φ, Y. ’έπορεν L, vulg.; άπορον O. 
 
 "A77eXos ήμίτόρων iracri χενοΰ πάθεων 
 Ώί ίεραν σψζειν πειρώμενοι Ελλάδα χώραν 
 
 Β οιωτών κλεινοίς θνήσκομεν εν δαπέδοις. 
 This, though genuine, cannot, of course, 
 be the inscription quoted by Demosthenes, 
 as it does not have the verse μηδέν... 
 κατορθουν : but there were undoubtedly 
 many epigrams commemorating the men 
 of Chaeronea (cf. note on § 289 1 ). 
 
 v. 1. <-0€vto οττλα, arrayed themselves 
 
 (lit. placed their arms ): cf. Plat. Rep. 
 440 E, τίθεσθαι τα οττλα προς του λογι¬ 
 στικού (of the θυμός), arrays itself on the 
 side of the reason ; and Arist. Pol. Ath. 
 8 29 , 6s 'άν στασιαζούσης της πύλεως μη θηται 
 τα οττλα μηδέ μεθ ’ ετέρων , i.e. zuho takes 
 sides with neither party. These examples 
 are enough to show, if proof were still 
 needed, that the old interpretation of 
 τίθεσθαι οττλα (as in Thuc. II. 2, twice), 
 to pile and stack arms (see Arnold’s note), 
 is untenable, though it still lingers (see 
 Lidd. and Scott). 
 
 v. 2. άττίσ-Κίδασαν, scattered , brought 
 to nought', a patriotic exaggeration as ap¬ 
 plied to Chaeronea, perhaps referring to 
 some special exploits of the Athenians. 
 Diod. (xvi. 86) says, μέχρι μέν τίνος ό 
 ay ών άμφιδοξουμένας είχε τα s έλττίδας της 
 νίκης. Cf. Lycurgus (Leoc. 49)» €L ^ 
 δεΐ καί 7 ταραδοξότατον μέν είττεΐν άληθές δέ, 
 έκεΐνοι νικώντες άττέθανον. 
 
 ν. 3· άρίτήδ καί δίίματ -os must depend 
 on βραβη, by an hyperbaton which would 
 
 be incredible in the genuine epitaph; ουκ 
 έσάωσαν φυχάς άλλ’ being introduced in 
 place of a participial clause like ούσώσαντες 
 φυχάς. The meaning evidently is, in the 
 battle, zuhile they sacrificed their lives , they 
 left to the God of Death to judge whether 
 they shozued courage or fear. There is a 
 similar hyperbaton in Xen. Hell. VII. 3, 
 7: υμείς τούς περί’Αρχίαν καί'Υπάτην,... 
 ού φηφον άνεμείνατε, άλλ’ οπότε πρώτον 
 έδυνάσθητε έτιμωρησασθε (West.). 
 
 ν. 5· ουν€κεν Ελλήνων belongs to 
 νν. 3, 4·—ζυγόν αυχόα Oc'vtcs, a strange 
 expression for classical times, but com¬ 
 mon in later poetry, as in the Anthology 
 (Blass). 
 
 v. 6. ap.(|>ls ^χωσιν (with μη), have 
 about them, like a yoke: cf. Od. III. 486, 
 σεϊον ξνγόν άμφίς έχοντες. 
 
 ν. 7 · των ττλ€Ϊ(Γτα καμόντων, of men 
 who most grievously laboured , referring to 
 the defeat; to these words έπεί (v. 8) 
 refers back. 
 
 vv. 9, 10. μηδέν... 4 v βιοτη, it is the 
 gift of the Gods (for men) never to fail 
 and always to succeed in life, i.e. this is a 
 miraculous exception in mortal life; op¬ 
 posed to which is the fixed rule that death 
 is appointed for all, μοίραν ...'έπ op εν (sc. 
 Ζευς βροτοίς). The two verses contain 
 the εκ Αιός κρίσις; but the change of con¬ 
 struction in μοίραν... έπορεν is awkward, 
 and έν βιοτη is always felt to be an un¬ 
 natural addition to v. 9. It is now known 
 
204 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 290 ’Ακούεις, Αισχίνη, καί έν αντώ τοντω μηδέν άμαρτεϊν 
 icrTL θεών καί πάντα κατορθουν; ον τω σνμβονλω την 
 τον κατορθουν τους άγωιαζομένους άνέθηκε δυναμιν, άλλα 
 τοΐς θεοΐς. τι ονν, ώ κατάρατ, εμοί περί τούτων λοιδορεί, 
 
 5 καί λέγεις a croi καί τοΐς ετοΐς οι θεοί τρέφειαν εις κεφαλήν; 
 
 291 Πολλά τοίννν, ώ άνδρες ’ Αθηναίοι, καί άλλα κατηγορη- 
 κότος αντον καί κατ εφ ευ σ μεν ου, μάλιστ έθαυμασα πάντων 
 οτε των συμβεβηκότων τότε τη πόλει μνησθείς ούχ ως αν 
 
 § 290 . ι. ώς το (after τούτιρ) L, vulg. ; om. Σ (erasure above the line), Ai. 
 έξαμαρτεΐν B. 2. θεόν (not θεού), changed to θεών, Σ; θεών vulg.; θεού Y, Ar. 
 
 κατορθών Ar. ού τφ συμβ. την του κατ. Σ (mg.), om. Σ 1 . 4· ^ 0ΓΩ · Φ· 
 
 λοιδορεί Σ ; λοιδορή L, vulg. 5· °' L @ eo ' L om. L. εις την κεφ. B. 
 
 § 291 . 1. κατηγοροΰντος V6. 2. καταφευσαμένου O, V6. μάλιστ Σ, 
 
 Ai; £v μάλιστα L, vulg. πάντων Σ, Ai ; απάντων L, vulg. 3. 6're Σ, Ai; 8ti 
 
 vulg.; δτι (e over 1) L. μνησθεϊς Σ, L, Ai, B; άναμνησθεις vulg. 
 
 that the words μηδέν άμαρτεΐν έστι θεού 
 (or θεών) και πάντα κατορθουν are a verse 
 of the epigram of Simonides on the heroes 
 of Marathon, of which two other lines are 
 preserved : 
 
 Ελλήνων προμαχονντεϊ ’ Αθηναίοι Μ αρα- 
 θωνι 
 
 χρυσοφόρων Μήδων έστόρεσαν δύνα- 
 μιν. 
 
 See Kirchhofif (Hermes vr. 487—489) 
 who quotes a MS. scholium on Gregory 
 Nanzianz. Or. in Julian. 11. p. 169 d: to 
 άναμάρτητον , φησϊν, υπέρ ήμάϊ τού$ άνθρώ- 
 πovs‘ το δέ μικρόν τι πταίσανταϊ έπανά-γεσθαί 
 τε καί διορθουσθαι ανθρώπων έστίν καλών τε 
 κάχαθών. λέγει δέ Σιμωνίδης (εις δ’ οΰτος 
 των θ' λυρικών) έν έπιγράμματι ρηθέντι 
 αύτφ επί τοΐς λίαραθώνι πεσοΰσιν ’Αθη¬ 
 ναίων τον στίχον τούτον, λίηδέν άμαρτεΐν 
 έστι θεού καί παντά κατορθουν. See 
 Bergk, Poet. Lyr., Simon, fr. 82, with 
 the note. See Themist. Or. xxii. p. 276 R, 
 έπεί δέ to μηδέν άμαρτάνειν ’έξω τής φύσεως 
 κεΐται τής άνθρωπίνης, ...το επίγραμμα άλη- 
 θέστερον δ ’ Αθήνησιν έπιγέγραπται έν τφ 
 τάφιρ τφ δημοσία)’ καί γάρ τοΐς θεοίς μόνοις 
 το πάντα κατ ο ρθ ουν άπονέμει. These 
 two quotations refer beyond doubt to a 
 verse in which “never to fail and always 
 to succeed” is called a divine preroga¬ 
 
 tive ; while it is also certain that in the 
 same words in the inscription quoted by 
 Demosthenes these are called a privilege 
 sometimes granted by the Gods to favour¬ 
 ed mortals (see § 290). The original verse 
 of Simonides, μηδέν ...κατορθουν (with¬ 
 out έν βιοτή), was probably used 152 years 
 after the battle of Marathon, as a well- 
 known verse, in the genuine epigram 
 on those who fell at Chaeronea, still 
 without έν βιοτή, but with a different 
 meaning; and in this new sense it was 
 quoted by Demosthenes in § 290. The 
 writer of the spurious epigram in § 289 
 borrowed the genuine line (perhaps from 
 the text of Demosthenes), and added the 
 whole of v. 10. In v. 9, as in § 290 2 , 
 θεών has the best authority (see critical 
 note). In the scholium on Greg. Nanz. 
 we have θεού, which Bergk thinks may 
 be a Christian substitution for θεών. See 
 notes of West, and Bl. 
 
 § 290 . 1. μηδέν...κατορθουν: see 
 
 note on § 289, vv. 9, 10. 
 
 3. άνέθηκί: the epigram or its com¬ 
 poser, or perhaps ή πόλις, is the subject. 
 
 5. a... els κίφαλη'ν: cf. XIX. 130, ct νυν 
 
 εις κεφαλήν υμάς αΰτφ δει τρέφαι. 
 
 § 291 . 3 · «s άν: sc. ’έσχε or σχοίη : 
 
 cf. § 197 7 · 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 205 
 
 εννονς καί δίκαιος πολίτης ειτχε την γνώμην, ονδ * εδάκρνσεν, 
 ονδ' επαθε τοιοντον ονδεν τη φνχη, άλλ' επάρας την φωνήν 5 
 323 καί γεγηθώς καί λαρνγγίζων ωετο μεν εμον κατηγορεΐν 
 δηλονότι, δείγμα δ' εξεφερε καθ' εαυτόν ότι τοΐς γεγενημενοις 
 άνιαροϊς ονδεν ομοίως όσγε τοΐς άλλοι?. καίτοι τον των 292 
 νόμων καί της πολιτεία? φάσκοντα φροντίζειν, ώσπερ οντος 
 νννί, καί εί μηδέν άλλο, τοντό γ όχειν δει, ταντα λνπεΐσθαι 
 καί ταντα χαίρειν τοΐς πολλοί?, καί μη τη προαιρεσει των 
 κοινών εν τω των εναντίων μερει τετάχθαι · δ σν νννί 5 
 πεποιηκώς ει φανερός, εμε πάντων αίτιον καί δι εμε εις 
 πράγματα φάσκων εμπεσεΐν την πόλιν, ονκ από της εμης 
 πολιτείας ονδε προαιρεσεως άρζαμενων υμών τοΐς 'Ελλησι 
 ροησειν επει εμοιγ ει τοντο οοσειη παρ νμων, οι εμε νμας 293 
 ηναντιώσθαι τη κατά των Έλλ ηνων άρχη πραττομενη, 
 
 4· καί Σ, L, Αι. 2; ουδέ vulg. . 5· τοιοντον ούδέν Σ, L, Αι; ονδ. roc. vulg. ; 
 
 ονδέν om. Α2. 6. και (before γεγ.) om. Ο. 7. δείγμα (ϊ over ec) Σ. 
 
 § 292 . 3 · γ’ om. Αι. τό ταύτά L, vulg.; το om. Σ, Αι. 3 » 4* ταντα... 
 
 ταντα. Αι. 5· τετάχθαι μέρει Α·2. ό'σ (for δ συ) Υ 1 . νυν Ο. 
 
 6. φανερως L 1 , Ο. 
 
 § 293 . ι. δοθεί η δωρεά Α-2. τοσαυτα δι! εμέ vulg.; τοσαΰτα om. Σ, L 1 , 
 
 Αι. 2, Υ. νμων έναντυωσθαι Α2. 
 
 4· εΰνουδ : see note on § 173 4 ·—^X € 
 την γνώμην, was disposed. 
 
 6 . λαρυγγίζων: see Iiarpocr., τό 
 πλατννειν την φωνήν καϊ μη κατά φύσιν 
 φθέyyεσθaι, άΧΧ 1 έπιτηδεύειν πεpιεpyότεpov 
 τιρ \apvyyc χρήσθαι oϋτωs έ\έyετo. Cf. 
 Ar. Eq. 35^, λαρυγγιώ tovs prjropas, I 
 will screech down the orators. 
 
 7. δείγμα εξε'φερε, he was making an 
 exhibition, giving a specimen : cf. XIX. 12. 
 — oti...tois aXXois: depending on the 
 verbal force of δείγμα. A bazaar in the 
 Piraeus, where samples of goods (δείγ¬ 
 ματα) were exhibited, was called the 
 Δείγμα: see Harpocr.— tois γεγεν. <χνια- 
 pois : causal dative with έσχε, was affected : 
 cf. έσχε την γνώμην (4). 
 
 8 . TcnsaXXois: with ομοίως. 
 
 § 292 , ι. των νόμων: Aeschines 
 began his speech (1—8) with a grand 
 glorification of the laws, and of the yρaφή 
 παρανόμων as the great bulwark of the 
 
 constitution. 
 
 3. ταύτά . ..tois 7 toXXols : cf. § 280 6 , 
 τό ταντά προαιρεϊσθαι κ.τ.Χ. 
 
 4· τη ττροαιρε'σει των κοινών: cf. 
 
 § 192 5 and 1. 8 (below); see §§ 93 s , 
 3 i 7 2 · 
 
 5. τετάχθαι, to be found {posted). 
 
 7. πράγματα, troubles : cf. Ar. Ach. 
 310, άπάντων airiovs των πραγμάτων. 
 See Aesch. III. 57, των δέ ατυχημάτων 
 άπάντων Αημοσθένην αίτιον γεγενημενον. 
 —ούκ.,.βοηθεΐν: this suggests forcibly 
 that the policy of Demosthenes of helping 
 friendly states against Philip has followed 
 the traditional policy of Athens : see §§ 95 
 —100. Demosth. here only denies that 
 he began this policy {ονκ άρξαμένων). 
 
 § 293. 2. τή...πραττομενη, the do¬ 
 
 minion which was growing up\ cf. § 62 1 ’ 2 , 
 and XXIII. 11 , ό K ερσοβλέπτη πράττων 
 την αρχήν, the active form of η πραττο- 
 μένη αρχή. 
 
206 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 μείζων άν δοθείη δωρεά σνμπασων ων τοΐς άλλους δεδωκατε. 
 άλλ’ οντ άν εγω ταυτα φησαιμι (άδικοίην yap αν υμάς), 
 
 5 οντ άν νμεις εν οίδ otl σνγγωρησαιτε’ οντος τ ευ δίκαια 
 εποίει, ονκ άν ενεκα της ττρος εμε εγθρας τα μέγιστα των 
 νμετερων καλών εβλαπτε και διεβαλλεν. 
 
 294 ’Αλλά τί ταντ επιτιμώ, πολλω σγετλιώτερ αλλα κατη- 
 γορηκότος αντον καί κατεφενσμενον; δς yap εμον φιλιπ- 
 πισμόν, ω γη καί θεοί, κατηγορεί, τί οντος ονκ άν ειποι; 
 καίτοι νη τον ' Ή.ρακλεα καί πάντας θεονς, εΐ γ επ αλήθειας 
 
 5 δεοι σκοπεισθαι, το καταφενδεσθαι καί δι εγθραν τι λέγειν 
 άνελόντας εκ μέσον, τίνες ως αληθώς είσιν οίς άν εικότως 
 καί δικαίως την των γεγενημενων αιτίαν επί την κεφαλήν 
 άναθεΊεν άπαντες, τονς ομοιονς τοντω παρ έκαστη των 324 
 
 295 πόλεων ενροιτ άν, ον τονς εμοί · ot, οτ ην ασθενή τα 
 Φίλιππον πράγματα καί κομιδη μικρά, πολλακις προλεγον- 
 των ημών καί παρακαλονντων και διδασκόντων τα βέλτιστα, 
 της ιδίας ενεκ αισγ^ροκερδίας τα κοινή σνμφεροντα προϊεντο, 
 
 3 · μ^ΐζον L. έμοί over άν Β. άπασων Α2. τοΐς om. Α2. 4· ταυτα 
 
 ora. Α2. άν (after yap) om. O. 5. <rvyx<^ ρησετε Ai ; συγχωρήσγτ’ εΰ οΐδ δτι 
 
 A2. τα δίκαια At. 2. 6 . 7 τρός με Ai. 
 
 § 294 . 1. iiri τιμώ Σ 1 , έπειτιμα Σ“. 2 . καταψευσαμένου V6. ^ 4 * KaL 
 
 (for καί τοι) Φ. πάντας Σ, L, Υ, Αι ; πάντας τούς vulg. 5· κατεψευσθαι Ah 
 
 6. άνελόντες V6. g. εϋροιτ 'άν Σ, Υ, F (yp), Ai ; εϋροι τις άν L, Β, vulg. ου 
 Σ, Υ, Αι. 2; ούχί L, vulg. τοΐς έμοί Φ. 
 
 § 295 . 4 · 'ένεκεν L. αίσχροκερδίας Σ, L; -etas vulg. 
 
 5. ευ οΐδ’ δτι, as usual, parenthetic : 
 
 οΐδ’ δτι can be thus used even with a 
 participle, as in ix. 1, xix. 9. 
 
 7. έβλαπτε καί διεβαλλεν (with άν ) : 
 conative. 
 
 In §§ 294—296 Demosthenes gives 
 a “black list” of the traitors who have 
 helped Philip or Alexander in subjugating 
 Greek states, and declares that Aeschines 
 is the representative of this pestilent class 
 in Athens. Saving his own country from 
 the disgrace of joining or abetting this 
 foul plot against liberty is the great service 
 for which he claims the name of patriot. 
 
 § 294 . 2. εμού φιλπτπ-ισμόν : the 
 
 pronoun is emphatic, me, of all nien. The 
 word Philippic in all languages is a stand¬ 
 
 ing answer to the charge of Aeschines. 
 
 6. άνελόντας 4 κ μέσου, discarding'. 
 Cf. XLV. 84. 
 
 8. άναθεΐεν: cf. § 290 5 * 7 . 
 
 9. ευροιτ’ (εϋροιτ ε) άν, you would find, 
 appealing suddenly to the court or the 
 audience: we must understand υμάς with 
 άνελόντας (6). The other reading, εϋροι 
 τις άν, would involve a change from the 
 plural άνελόντας (sc. τινά s) to the more 
 explicit singular with τις. 
 
 § 295 . i. δτ’ ήν ασθενή, i.e. in the 
 state described in 11. 14— 21. — τά Φ. 
 πράγματα, i.e. his condition. 
 
 2. ττρο\εγόντων...τά βε'λτιστα, as in 
 the Olynthiacs and the First Philippic. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 207 
 
 τούς υπάρχοντας έκαστοι πολίτας εζαπατωντες καί διαφθεί- 5 
 ροντες, εως δούλους εποίησαν ,—Θετταλους Αάοχος, Κινέας, 
 θρασύδαος · *Αρκάδας Κερκίδάς, ' Ιερώνυμος, Εύκαμπίδας- — 
 
 *Αργείους Μ ύρτις, Ύελέδαμος, Μνασεας· ’Η λείους Ε υξιθεος, 
 
 Κ λεότιμος, ’ Αρίσταιχμος- Μεσσηνίους οι Φ ιλιάδου του 
 θεοίς εχθρού παϊδες Κεών και θρασύλοχος · 2 ικυωνίους ίο 
 
 5 Αρίστρατος, 'Επιχάρης- Κορινθίους Αείναρχος, Αημάρετος · 
 Meyapea? Πτοιοδω^οος, *Ελι£ο$, Πε/οιλλος· Θηβαίους Ύιμόλας, 
 θεογείτων, * Ανεμοίτας· Εύβοέας 'Ιππαρχος, Κλείταρχος, 
 Σωσίστρατος. επιλείφει με λεγονθ ’ ή ημέρα τα των προ¬ 
 δοτών ονόματα . ουτοι πάντες εισιν, άνδρες * Αθηναίοι, των 
 
 7· θρασύδαος Σ, L, Αι 1 ; θρασύδαιος vulg. ; θρασύλαος Υ, F (γρ), Αι (corn). 
 Kep /αδα? vulg., Polyb. ; Kep/aSas Σ; Κ ερκίδας L 1 , Φ, Αι ; Κερκίδάς L 2 . Εΰκαμ,ττίδα? 
 Σ, L, Αι, Υ; om. V6; EtkaX7rt5as vulg. ιι. Δ ίναρχος Σ 1 . 12. UepiaXos 
 
 Σ, L; IHptXXos Υ, F (yp), Phot.; IlepiXXos Harpocr., Suid.; IleptXXaos Ai; om. A2. 
 (See § 48 s .) Τιμόλας Σ, L, Polyb.; Τιμόλαο? vulg. (See § 48 s .) 13. KXei- 
 
 ταρχος om. A2. 
 
 § 296. 1. έπϊλίφει (i changed to ei) Σ; έπιλε'ιφαι Ai. 2. ω άνδρες V6. 
 
 5 . tovs virap^ovTas n-oXeras, their 
 
 own fellow-citizens, those with whom 
 each was concerned or had to deal: see 
 note on § i 3 . Most of the traitors in the 
 following list have been rewarded by de¬ 
 served obscurity; those who would rescue 
 them from this may consult Dissen’s, 
 Westermann’s, and Blass’s collections of 
 the scanty knowledge of them found else¬ 
 where. I give a few references. Daochus 
 and Thrasydaus were the Thessalian 
 ambassadors sent by Philip to Thebes 
 in 339 b.c. (see note on § 211 5 ). See 
 Plut. Dem. 18. Theopompus (Athen. vi. 
 p. 249 C) calls Thrasydaus μικρόν μεν 
 την -γνώμην, κόλακα δέ με"γιστον. Hiero¬ 
 nymus is mentioned in XIX. r 1; and in 
 the Scholia as a pupil of Isocrates. The 
 sons of Philiades are mentioned in [xvn.] 
 4—7, as restored to power in Messene by 
 Alexander after they had. been expelled 
 by a popular revolution. Perillus and 
 Ptoeodorus are mentioned in xix. 295 ; 
 and Perillus, Timolaus, and Aristratus in 
 § 48 (above). Hipparchus and Clitarchus 
 were set up as tyrants in Eretria by Philip 
 about 343 B.c.: see ix. 57, 58, and §§71, 
 
 80, and 81 (above). Many of the names 
 are found in Harpocration and Suidas. 
 With this whole passage compare §§ 45—- 
 49,and Polyb. xvn. 14. Polybius censures 
 Demosthenes for calling some of these 
 men traitors, especially the Arcadians 
 and Messenians, maintaining that they 
 did what they believed to be for the best 
 interest of their own states. He says: 
 εί δέ τηρούντες τα προς τάς πατρίδας δίκαια 
 κρίσει πραγμάτων διεφέροντο, νομίξοντες ού 
 ταύτό συμφέρον Άθηναίοις είναι καί reus 
 εαυτών πόλεσιν, ού δη που δια τούτο καλεΐ- 
 σθαι προδότας έχρην υπό Αημοσθένους. See 
 the whole essay on traitors, Polyb. xvn. 
 13—15. Demosthenes, looking back on 
 his long struggle with Philip, felt that 
 this selfish regard for the temporary 
 interests of special cities, which always 
 proved fatal to Hellenic unity, and this 
 utter disregard of the good of Greece as 
 a whole, really amounted to treachery. 
 
 § 296. 1. cmXtixJ/et... ονόματα : em¬ 
 
 phatic asyjideton. Cf. the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, xi. 32, έπιλείφει με 6 χρόνος, 
 and Cic. Nat. Deor. ill. 32 (81), dies, 
 deficiat si velim numerare. 
 
208 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 αυτών βουλευμάτων εν ταΐς αυτών πατρίσιν ωνπερ ουτοι 
 Trap υμΐν, άνθρωποι μιαροί καί κόλακες καί άλάστορες, 
 5 ηκρωτηριασμενοι τάς εαυτών έκαστοι πατρίδας, την ελευ¬ 
 θερίαν προπεπωκότες πρότερον μεν Φιλίππω νυν δ’ ’ Αλεξ¬ 
 άνδρα), τη γαστρί μετρουντες καί τοΐς αισχίστοις την 
 ευδαιμονίαν, την δ’ ελευθερίαν καί το μηδέν εχειν δεσπότην 
 αυτών, ά τοϊς προτεροις 'Ελλησιν όροι των αγαθών ή σαν 
 ίο καί κανόνες, άνατετροφότες. 
 
 3· rats αυτών V6 ; ταΐς αυτών Σ, L, vulg. g. αυτών L, vulg. ; αυτών Σ. 
 
 πρότερον Ar. ίο. άνατετροφότες vulg.; άνατετραφότε ς Σ, Bk. ; both -τρα- 
 
 and -τρο- L. 
 
 2. των αυτών βουλευμάτων, (men) of 
 the same purposes : this genitive of quality 
 is as rare in Greek as it is common in 
 Latin. See Aesch. III. 168, θεωρήσατ ’ 
 αύτόν, μη όποτέρου του λόγου άλλ’ 07 τό¬ 
 τε ρου του βίου έστίν , and Thuc. III. 45 29 > 
 απλώς τε αδύνατον καί πολλής εύηθειας. 
 Kruger (Spr. 47» 6 , ΙΟ ) an d West, call 
 these possessive genitives; and Weil 
 quotes IX. 56, rives μεν Φιλίππου... rives 
 δε του βέλτιστου, which, however, is not 
 the same thing. 
 
 4. άλάστορεξ, accursed wretches (ap¬ 
 plied to Philip in xix. 305); properly 
 victims of divine vengeance, as in Soph. 
 Aj. 374, μεθήκα τούς άλάστορας, the 
 primary meaning (probably) being a 
 divine avenger, as in Aeschyl- Pers. 354, 
 φανείς άλάστωρ ή κακός δαίμων. 
 
 5· ηκρωτηριαιτμε'νοι, who have out¬ 
 raged (lit. mutilated): see Harpocr., άντί 
 του λελυμα σμένοι’ οί yap λυμαινόμενοί 
 τισιν ειώθασί περικόπτειν αυτών τα άκρα. 
 In Aeschyl. Cho. 439 an ^ Soph. El. 445 
 there is the same idea in έμασχαλίσθη, 
 μασχαλίξω being to mutilate a dead body 
 by cutting off the extremities {τα άκρα) 
 and putting them under the ar?npits 
 (μασχάλαι) : see Ivittredge on Armpitting 
 a?nong the Greeks, Am. Journ. of Philol. 
 vi. pp. 151— 169. Perhaps such strong 
 metaphors as this suggested to Aeschines 
 the absurd expressions which he pretends 
 to quote from Demosthenes in ill. 166, 
 άμπελουρχουσί τινες την πόλιν, άνατετμή- 
 
 κασί τινες τα κλήματα τά του δήμου, 
 and others. See Dem. ill. 31, υμείς 
 έκνενευρισμένοι καί περιηρημένοι χρήματα 
 κ.τ.λ.— την ελευθερίαν 'ΓΓροττειτωκότες : for 
 the successive steps by which προπίνω 
 comes to mean recklessly sacrifice, see 
 Lidd. and Scott: cf. HI. 22. An inter¬ 
 mediate meaning, present a cup (or other 
 gift) after drinking one's health , is seen 
 in XIX. 139, πίνων καί φιλάνθρωπευόμενος 
 προς αύτούς 6 Φίλιππος άλλα τε δή πολλά, 
 οΐον αιχμάλωτα καί τά τοιαύτα, καί τελευ¬ 
 τών έκπώματ' άρχυρά καί χρυσά πρυϋπινεν 
 αύτοίς, i.e. in drinking their health, he 
 gave them these various gifts. See also 
 Pind. 01 . VII. i — 6, φιάλαν ώς εϊ τις 
 άφνειάς άπό χειρός ελών ένδον αμπέλου 
 καχλάζοισαν δρόσιρ δω ρήσεται νεανίςι 
 χαμβρφ προπίν ων οϊκοθεν οϊκαδε, κ.τ.λ., 
 and the Schol. on v. 5, προπίνειν έστί 
 κυρίως το άμα τώ κράματι το άχχεΐον χαρί- 
 ζεσθαι.,,.καί Δημοσθένης τούς προδιδόντας 
 τάς πατρίδας τούς εχθρούς προπίνειν ’έφη. 
 
 7· τή γασ-τρί μετροΰντες : see note on 
 § 48 s (on Τιμόλα?). See Cic. Nat. Deor. 
 1. 40 (113), quod dubitet omnia quae ad 
 beatam vitam pertineant ventre metiri. 
 
 9. οροί καί κανόνεξ, bounds and 
 rules, i.e. they applied these as tests to 
 whatever was presented to them as a 
 public good.— ήσαν : plural,agreeing with 
 όροι and κανόνες. 
 
 ίο. άνατετροφότε?, having overturned 
 (i.e. reversed) these tests. 
 
 Longinus on the Sublime, 32, refers to 
 
trplL o^Ug, 
 
 «- - — 1 11 
 
 ΠΕΡΙ TOY ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 209 
 
 Ύαυτής τουνυν της όντως αυσχράς καί περυβοητου συστά- 297 
 325 σεως καί κακίας, μάλλον δ', ώ άνδρες 'Αθηναίου, προδοσίας , 
 el δει μη ληρευν, της των 'Ελλήνων ελευθερίας, η τε πόλυς 
 παρά πάσυν ανθρώπους άναίτυος γεγονεν εκ των εμων πολυ- 
 τενμάτων καί εγω παρ' νμυν. ευτά μ' έρωτας αντί ποιας 5 
 αρετής άξυω τυμάσθαυ; εγω δε σου λέγω δτυ, των πολυτενο- 
 μενων παρα τους 'Έιλλησυ δυαφθαρεντων απάντων, άρξαμενων 
 από σου, πρότερον μεν υπό Φ υλίππον νυν δ’ νπ' Αλεξάνδρου, 
 εμε ούτε καυρός ούτε φυλανθρωπία λόγων ουτ επαγγελυων 298 
 μεγευος οντ ελπυς ούτε φορος ουτ α λλ ουοεν επηρεν ουοε 
 προηγάγετο ων εκρυνα δυκαίων καί συμφερόντων τη πατρίδυ - 
 ουδέ ν προδουναυ, ουδ', όσα συμβεβουλευκα πωποτε τοντουσί, 
 ομοίως νμυν ώσπερ αν τρυτάνη ρεπών επί το λήμμα συμβε- 5 
 
 § 297 . 2. ω οηι. Αι. 3 · δή (for δει) Ο. 4· 7 Γα Ρ ’ άπασιν V 6 . 
 
 6 . Σ, L ; δή vulg. 
 
 § 298 . 2. οϋτε φόβος ούτε χάρις L, vulg.; οϋτε χάρις om. Σ 1 (added above), Ο. 
 4 · τούτοις Ar ; τουτοισίν Α 2 , Β. 5 · ώσπερ ’άν τρυτάνη F, Υ ; ώσπερ άν τρυτανηι 
 
 (later εί εν over αν τρ, έ in εν now erased) Σ; ώσπερ άν εί εν τρυτάνη L, Β, Ο 1 , vulg. ; 
 ώσπερ εν τρυτάνη Ar. 2. 
 
 this passage (4—10) as a proper exception 
 to the rule (of which Demosthenes was a 
 δρος) allowing only two or at most three 
 metaphors on one point (επί ταύτου). He 
 says: δ της χρείας δέ καιρός, ’ένθα τα πάθη 
 χειμάρρου δίκην ελαύνεται, καί την πο\υ- 
 
 The Epilogue, §§ 297— 3 2 3 · Here 
 we have the four characteristics of the 
 έπίλοχος, as Aristotle gives them (Rhet. 
 III. 19, 1): arguments which will dispose 
 the hearers favourably to the speaker and 
 unfavourably to his opponent, amplifica¬ 
 tion and depreciation, excitement of emo¬ 
 tions, and recapitulation. He begins by 
 claiming for himself the credit of keeping 
 Athens free from the notorious conspiracy 
 against Grecian liberty which he has 
 just mentioned; and he charges Aeschines 
 with failing in all the characteristics of 
 a patriotic citizen which his own course 
 exemplifies (§§ 297 —300). He recapitu¬ 
 lates some of his chief services in pro¬ 
 viding Athens with means of defence, and 
 asks what similar claims Aeschines has to 
 
 π\ηθειαν αυτών ως avayKaiav ενταύθα 
 σννεφέλκεται. Then, after a quotation 
 of this passage, he adds, ενταύθα τιρ 
 πλήθει των τροπικών 6 κατά των προδοτών 
 επιπροσθεΐ του ρήτορος θυμός. 
 
 the public gratitude (§§ 3 or —3 I 3)· He 
 objects to being compared with the great 
 men of former times, though he declares 
 that he can bear such a comparison far 
 better than.his opponent (§§ 314—323). 
 
 § 297 . 1. ττίριβοήτου, notorious. 
 
 3. el Set μή ληρ€Ϊν, i.e. to call things 
 by their right names, referring to προδο¬ 
 σίας. 
 
 4· παρά πάσιν άνθρώποΐδ, i.e. in the 
 minds of all men ; but παρά τοΐς "Ελλησι 
 (7), among the Greeks', in § 274 1 both 
 ideas are combined. 
 
 5. €pa)Tas; see Aesch. 236. 
 
 7. απάντων : exaggeration; but see 
 § 304.— άρ|αμ€νων άπό σου, yourself first 
 and foremost. 
 
 § 298 . 4. ούδ\..όμοιας ύμίν.,.συμ- 
 
 14 
 
 G. D, 
 
210 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 βουλευκα, άλλ’ ά π ορθής καί δικαίας καί άδια φθόρον της 
 ψυχής- καί μεγίστων δή πραγμάτων των κατ εμαυτον 
 ανθρώπων προστάς πάντα τανθ * υγιώς καί δικαίως πεπο\ί~ 
 299 τευμαι. διά ταντ άζίώ τιμάσθαι. τον δε τειχυσμον τούτον, 
 ον συ μου δι έσυρες, καί τήν ταφρείαν άζια μεν χάριτος καί 
 επαίνου κρίνω, πως γάρ ου; πόρρω μεντοι που των εμαυτω 
 πεπολίτευμενων τίθεμαι, ου \ίθοις ετείχισα τήν πόλυν ουδέ 
 5 πλίνθοις εγώ, οάδ’ επί τούτοις μεγιστον των εμαυτου φρονώ * 
 
 7· πάντα μοι πέπρακται (after ψυχής) L 2 (mg.), vulg. ; om. Σ, L\ Αι; μοι ora. Φ. 
 των (before κατ') om. Σ 1 (added above, now nearly erased). 8. προστ with as 
 
 added Σ. ταΰθ ' om. Ar. δικαίων καί απλώς Ai. 2. 
 
 § 299 . 2. ταφρίαν Ai ; φατρίαν (\) V6. 3. πον om. Ai. 4. ού λίθοις 
 
 Σ, L 1 , F, Φ, A1; ού yap λίθ. B, vulg. 
 
 * 
 
 βεβούλευκα (5), nor have I given my 
 advice , like you , inclining towards gain 
 like a balance, i.e. as a balance would 
 incline if a weight were put into one of 
 the scales : ώσπερ αν (sc. ρέποι). This is 
 illustrated by a striking passage in V. 12 : 
 προίκα τα πpάyμaτa κρίνω και \oy ίζομαι, 
 καί ούδέν λημμ ’ άν ούδείς ’έχοι προς oh εγώ 
 πεπολίτενμαι καί λέyω δεΐξαι προσηρτημέ- 
 νον. ορθόν ούν, 6 tl άν ποτ απ' αυτών 
 ΰπάρχτ) των πpayμάτωv, τό συμφέρον φαί¬ 
 νεται μοί. όταν δ' επί θάτερα ώσπερ εις 
 τρυτάνην apybpiov πpoσεvέyκΎ)s, οϊχεταί φέ- 
 ρον καί καθείλκυκε τον λoyLσμόv έφ' αυτό, 
 καί ούκ άν ’έτ όρθώς ούδ' 0yt,Qs ό τούτο 
 ποίήσας περί ούδενός XoyiaaLTo. (See notes 
 of Westermann and Dindorf on this pas¬ 
 sage.) See also Lucian, Amor. 4, έyώ 
 μεν yap 0 πληyεis έκατεριρ καθάπερ ακρι¬ 
 βής τρυτάνη ταΐς επ' άμφότερα πλάστLyξLV 
 ίσορρόπως ταλαντεύομαι. 
 
 7· μεγίσ-των ... άνθρώ-ττων, lit. the 
 weightiest concerns of {all) the men of my 
 ti?ne (partitive). 
 
 § 299 . 1. τειχισ-μον, the repairing 
 
 of the walls of Athens in 337—336 B.C., 
 for which Demosthenes was τειχοποώς. 
 For the decree providing for the appoint¬ 
 ment of τειχοποιοί by the tribes in 337 B.c. 
 and its exact date, see Aesch. ill. 27. 
 Demosthenes was then appointed τειχο- 
 ποιός by his tribe, the Πα νδιονίς, and 
 received from the treasury (according to 
 
 Aesch. 31) nearly ten talents for the ex¬ 
 penses (see § 113'’ and note). 
 
 2. δν <rv μου διεσ*υρες : cf. τουτό μου 
 διαβάλλει § 28 3 . 
 
 3· -ττόρρω, \.e..far belozv. 
 
 4. ού Xi0ots ετείχκτα την ττόλιν: a 
 famous passage, often quoted by the 
 rhetoricians. See the beginning of the 
 ύπόθεσις of Libanius. Plutarch (Lycurg. 
 19 ; Lac. Apophth., Lyc. 28) quotes a 
 saying of Lycurgus the law-giver, ούκ άν 
 εϊη ατείχιστος πόλις άτις άνδράσι καί ού 
 πλίνθοις εστεφάνωται. Lord Brougham is 
 eloquent on this passage (see p. 200). 
 Whiston refers to Sir Wm Jones’s ode, 
 “What constitutes a State?” However 
 familiar the idea may have been, the pas¬ 
 sage is a most effective answer to the 
 taunts of Aeschines (236) about the walls 
 and ditches. 
 
 5. irXivGois : not “ tiled-roofs ” (as 
 Lord Brougham strangely translates), but 
 sun-dried bricks , of which no small part 
 of the walls of Athens and of the Long 
 Walls to the Piraeus were built. The 
 brick wall was built on a solid foundation 
 of stone, the height and thickness of 
 which differed according to the import¬ 
 ance of the position. Dorpfeld (in Schuch- 
 hardt, Schliemann’s Excavations, p. 342, 
 Engl. Tr.), in describing the walls of the 
 Second City on the hill of Troy, says : 
 “ Such walls of defence, built of brick 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 21 I 
 
 άλλ’ έάν τον έμον τειχισμόν βουλή δικαίως σκοπέίν, βύρήσεις 
 δπλα καί πόλεις καί τόπους καί λιμένας καί νανς καί 
 [πολλούς] ίππους καί τους ύπβρ τούτων άμυνομένους. ταυτα 300 
 προυβαλόμην έγω προ της ’ Αττικής, όσον ην άνθρωπίνω 
 λογισμω δυνατόν, καί τούτοις ere ίχισα την χωράν, ούχί τον 
 326 κύκλον τού Πειραιώς ούδε τού μστβως. ουδέ y ηττηθην 
 
 > \ λ \ > \ / ^ Λ ^ < ° \ V ^ 5 θ\ Λ 
 
 βγω τοις Κογισμοις Φίλιππου, πολλου ye και δει, ουόε ταις 5 
 παρασκβυαΐς, άλλ’ οι τώυ συμμάχων στρατηγοί καί αί 
 
 6 . βούλη (ει over η) Υ. δικαίως om. V6. 7 · Ka ' L πόλεις οηι. Αι. 
 
 8. πολλούς mss., Vom., Bl. ; in [ ] Reiske, Bk. ; om. West., Lips. άμυνο¬ 
 
 μένους Σ, L, vulg.; άμυνουμένους B. 
 
 § 300. 2. προύβαλλόμην Y, V6. Άτικης (τ above) Σ. οσα Υ. 
 
 3· πόλιν (for χώραν) Α2 (with χώραν in mg.). τον om. Ο. 4· κύκλον μόνον 
 
 vulg.; μόνον om. Σ, L 1 , Αί. άστεως Σ; άστεος L, vulg. 5· Τ °Α τ °θ 
 
 λογ· V6. 
 
 with a low substructure of stone, were in 
 use at every period of antiquity, as we 
 see in the brick walls of Eleusis, which 
 are still well preserved, and in the town 
 walls of Athens, of which some fragments 
 are still to be seen.” See Vitruvius, 11. 
 8, 9: nonnullis civitatibus et publica 
 opera et privata, domos etiam regias e 
 latere structas licet videre, et primum 
 Athenis murum qui spectat Hymettum 
 montem et Pentelensem : cf. Plin. N. H. 
 xxxv. 14, 172. See C. I. Att. 11., No. 
 167 (334—3 2 6 B.C.), lines 55, 58, 75. See 
 Thuc. I. 93, oi θεμέλιοι παντοίων λίθων 
 ύπόκεινται (of the walls of Athens). The 
 stone walls of Mantinea, which are still 
 standing almost complete, have at most 
 only four courses of stone, which were once 
 surmounted by a wall of brick : Pausanias 
 describes this wall as ώαής ιρκοδομημένον 
 της πλίνθου, built of raw (i.e. unbaked) 
 bricks (viii. 8, 7). See Curtius, Pelo- 
 ponnesos, I. p. 236. The common use of 
 unbaked bricks explains the mystery of 
 the disappearance of so many miles of 
 wall between Athens and the Piraeus, 
 and around these towns themselves. 
 
 7. tottovs, countries , Euboea, Boeotia, 
 the Chersonese, as opposed to cities. 
 
 8. I have bracketed πολλούδ, to avoid 
 the difficulty of taking it with both ίππους 
 and τούς αμυνόμενους or changing its posi¬ 
 
 tion to another unsatisfactory one. Vomel, 
 who retains it, refers to § 237 s , δισχίλιοι 
 ιππείς . — τούδ υπέρ τούτων άμυνομένουδ, 
 the defenders of these (our fellow-citizens); 
 τούτων for τουτωνί, “ wegen des Hiatus” 
 (BL). The present άμυνομένους is amply 
 justified by Isoc. VIII. 139, πολλούς εξο- 
 μεν τούς έτοίμως και προθύμως συναγωνισ¬ 
 μένους ημίν, and Lycurg. Leocr. 54 » 
 ελάχιστους efere τούς υπέρ υμών αυτών 
 κινδυνεύοντας. (West.) 
 
 § 300. 2. προΰβαλόμην: cf. §§ 97 8 
 
 and 3° ι3 ·—άνθρωπίνω λογισμω: cf. 
 
 § Ι93 4 · 
 
 3. τόν κύκλον του Πίΐραιώδ: the 
 
 circuit of the Piraeus was assigned to the 
 tribe Pandionis, to which Demosthenes 
 belonged. See the decree in Plut. Mor. 
 p. 851 A, δύο τάφρους περί τον ΤΙειραιά 
 τάφρεύσας (of Demosthenes). 
 
 5. λογισμοίδ may refer to the en¬ 
 counter with Python (§ 136) and also to 
 the embassies mentioned in § 244.— 
 Φιλίππου : with ηττηθην. 
 
 6 . οί τών συμμάχων στρατηγοί : the 
 only generals of the allies of whom we 
 hear are the two Thebans, Proxenus, who 
 commanded the mercenary force which 
 was beaten and destroyed by Philip at 
 Amphissa (see Hist. § 78), and Theagenes, 
 who led a phalanx at Chaeronea : of 
 these Dinarchus (1. 74) says, επί δέ τοΐς 
 
212 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 δυνάμεις τη τύχη. τίνες αι τούτων αποδείξεις; εναργείς 
 καί φανεραί. σκοπείτε δε J 
 
 Τι χρην τον εϋνουν πολίτην ποιεϊν, τί τον μετά πάσης 
 προνοίας καί προθυμίας καί δικαιοσύνης ύπερ της πατρίδος 
 ' 'πολιτευόμενον; ούκ εκ μεν θαλάττης την Εύβοιαν προβα- 
 λεσθαι προ της ’ Αττικής, εκ δε της μεσόγειας την Βοιωτίαν, 
 5 εκ δε των προς ΤΙελοπόννησον τόπων τούς ομόρους ταύτη; 
 ου την σιτοπομπίαν, δπως παρά πάσαν φιλίαν άχρι του 
 ΐίειραιως κομισθησεται, προϊδεσθαι; καί τά μεν σωσαι των 
 υπαρχόντων εκπεμποντα βοήθειας καί λεγοντα καί γράφοντα 
 τοιαυτα, την ΤΙροκόννησον, την 'Κερρόνη,σον, την Τ ενεδον, 
 
 V CO </ 5 Λ \ / 5 ί '> / ip ' r> \ Τ) Υ f 
 
 τα ο όπως οικεία και συμμαχ υπαρςει πραςαι, το Βυί,αν- 
 5 τιον, την ν Αβυδον, την Βύβοιαν; καί των μεν τοίς εχθροίς 
 
 § 301. ι. χρη Αι. 2 . 2 . φιλοτιμίας (for ττροθ.) Φ (yp). 5* π Ρ°* added 
 
 in mg. Σ. 6. σιτοπομπίαν Σ, L, vulg. (see § 87 6 )· 7· Π«ραιω? Σ 2 (by corr. fr. 
 
 Ileipews) ; Ππραιόωϊ L. περιιδέσθαι Y. 
 
 § 302. 3· ΙΙροκόννησον Σ, vulg.; ΐίροικόννησον L; Τίροικόνησον Α2, Β. 
 
 4· υπάρξει Σ, L, Αι, Φ; ύπαρξη vulg. 5· άβυδον Σ (' later). 
 
 ξένοις τοΐς εις ’Άμφισσαν avWeyeiai Πρό- 
 ξενος δ προδότης βένετο, ηχεμών δε της 
 φdλayyoς κατέστη θεαχένης, άνθρωπος άτυ¬ 
 χης και δωροδόκος ώσπερ ούτος (Demo¬ 
 sthenes). Plutarch (Mor. 259 D ) describes 
 Theagenes as having the same public 
 spirit as Epaminondas and Pelopidas. 
 See notes on §§ 264 and 303 7 . 
 
 In §§ 301—313 the orator recapitu¬ 
 lates his own chief services, with which he 
 compares the public career of Aeschines. 
 
 § 301. 1. τί χρήν κ.τ.λ., what was 
 
 his duty ? — ποιεΐν, of a course of action, 
 to be explained by several aorists, each of 
 a special act. In the following series of 
 questions, all introduced by χρην , the 
 orator states the various problems which 
 faced the Athenian statesman of that day 
 and the obvious solutions of them. 
 
 3. Ik θαλάττηδ : cf. § 230 4 .— πρόβα 
 λ«τθαι : cf. προυβαλόμην , § 300 2 . With 
 this figure of throwing up Euboea as a 
 wall of defence to Attica, compare that in 
 § 71 2 (see note). See Aesch. in. 84, vdi , 
 άλλα χοώλκοίς καί άδαμαντίνοις τείχεσιν, tbs 
 αυτός φησι, την χώραν ημών έτείχισε, τη 
 των Ε ϋβοεων καί Θηβαίων συμμαχίςι, per¬ 
 
 haps added later, as a sarcastic allusion 
 to this passage. 
 
 5. tovs όμόρουξ ταΰττ], our neigh¬ 
 bours on this side , as Megara and Corinth 
 (cf· § 237).^ 
 
 6. παρά πάσαν φιλίαν (sc. 7 ην) : i.e. 
 
 that the corn-trade should pass along an 
 entirely friendly coast (cf. § δ; 6 ). For 
 the subject of §§301, 302, see §§71, 79— 
 82, 87—89, 240, 241, and Hist. §§ 58, 63, 
 64, 67, 68. 
 
 § 302. 1. The measures mentioned 
 
 in τά p.ev σώσαι and τά δ’...πράξαι (4) 
 
 were designed to secure a friendly coast 
 for the corn-trade (§ 3οι 6 ).-—των υπαρ¬ 
 χόντων belongs strictly only to τά μέν, 
 potentially also to τά δέ, i.e. places which 
 we depended on securing (cf. πράξαι όπως 
 υπάρξει). 
 
 2. γράφοντα τοιαυτα, by proposing 
 
 measures accordingly. 
 
 5. ’Άβυδον : see Hist. § 63.— Εύ¬ 
 βοιαν : Weil proposes Σηλυμβρίαν, as 
 Euboea has been just mentioned ; but 
 Euboea, with its long coasts, was always 
 essential to the safety of the corn trade. 
 

 ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 V 
 
 213 
 
 327 
 
 νπαρχουσων δυνάμεων τάς μεγίστας άφελεΐν, ών δ’ ενελειπε 
 τη πόλει, ταντα προσθεΐναι; ταντα τοίννν άπαντα πεπρακται 
 τοΐς εμοΐς φηφίσμασι καί τοΐς εμοΐς πολιτενμασιν, α κα 
 βεβονλενμενα, ώ άν 8 ρες ’Αθηναΐοι, εάν άνεν φθόνου τις 
 βονληται σκοπεΐν, όρθως ενρησει καί πεπραγμένα πάση 
 δικαιοσύνη, καί τον έκαστον καιρόν ον παρεθέντα ονδ * 
 
 5 /}/ » ν /) / e>>^ v<y>j e \ 
 
 αγνοησεντα ονοε προευεντα νπ εμον, και οσ εις ενός 5 
 άνδρός δνναμιν καί λογισμόν ηκεν, ονδεν ελλειφθεν. \ εί^ 
 δε η δα [μονός τίνος η τύχης ίσχνς η στρατηγών φανλότης^ό 
 η των προδιδόντων τάς πόλεις νμων κακία η πάντα ταντρ 
 ελνμαίνέτο τοΐς όλοις εως άνετρεφεν, τι Δημοσθένης αδικεί; j 
 εί δ’ οιος εγω παρ νμΐν κατά την εμαντον τάζιν, εΐς εν 304 
 έκαστη των 'Ελλτ^ιδωρ πόλεων άνηρ εγενετο, μάλλον δ* ει 
 
 ν ι ν & / ^ \ / \«/>vcvs>. ο / j\ 
 
 εν ανορα μονον Ηετταλια και εν ανορ Αρκαοια ταντα 
 
 6 . ένέΧειπε Σ, L, Αι, Υ ; ένέΧιπε- vulg. 7· τοίννν νμΐν L, vulg. ; νμΐν om. Σ, Αι. 
 § 303. 3· βούΧηταί tis Αι. 4> 5· ούδ’ α^νοηθέντα ονδέ προδοθέντα vulg., 0111. 
 
 L 1 , add. mg. 5· προεθέντα (for προδοθ.) Σ, Υ, Αι ; παρεθέντα F. ένός άνδρόϊ 
 Σ, L, Υ, V 6 ; άνδρός evos vulg. 6 . σύνεσιν (for δύναμιν) Aa. έΧΧειφθέν 
 
 L, vulg., (late Η over ei) Σ. 7· tlvos after τνχης Aa. των στρατη¬ 
 γών Φ. 8. η (before πάντα) om. Αι ; η καί Σ (yp), Φ ( yp ). πάντα 
 
 ταντα Σ, L, vulg. ; ταντα πάντα Αι. άμα (after ταντα) Σ (p/p), vulg. ; om. Σ, L, V 6 . 
 9· έΧνμαίνετο Σ, L, Υ, Ο (corr.) ; έΧνμηνατο vulg. άνέτρεφε vulg. ; άι'έτρεφαν 
 
 Σ, L, Υ, Φ; άνέτρεφε (α over final e) Β; άνέστρεφε V 6 . 
 
 § 304. ι. ei δ’ οΐος L; el οσ Σ 1 (corr. to el δ’ οΐος ); el δ olos ήν vulg.; ην om. 
 Σ, L, Υ, Αι. 2. άνηρ om. A2. 3. άνδρα μόνον Σ, L, vulg.; μόνον άνδ. Α2. 
 
 6. τάδ μεγίσταδ : especially Thebes in 
 339 B - c · — « ν «νε'λει-ϊτε τη ιτόλει, what the 
 city lacked : έΧΧείπει is sometimes im¬ 
 personal, like ενδεΐ , as here ; so Plat. 
 Leg. 844 H, el τίσί τό π ois... έΧΧείπει των 
 avayKa^v πωμάτων, and 740 C. 
 
 § 303. 2. βεβουλευμε'να όρθώς εύρη- 
 
 <τει (or. obi.) refers chiefly to ποΧιτεύματα. 
 
 4· ού ΊΓαρεθε'ντα...τΓροεθε'ντα, opportu- 
 nitatem cuiusque rei non per negligentia?n 
 praetermissam nec ignoratam nec prodi- 
 tani (Dissen). παρεθέντα implies careless¬ 
 ness (cf. VIII. 34), 7 τροεθέντα wilfulness 
 (cf. VIII. 56). 
 
 5. o<r’ implies τοσοντων, depending 
 on ονδέν. 
 
 7· δαίμονοδ ή τύχηδ: cf. τόν δαίμονα 
 καί την τύχην, Aesch. ill. 115, r 57 - The 
 strength (Ισχύς) of the superhuman powers 
 
 is opposed to the weakness and incapacity 
 (φανΧότης) or the treachery of men. One 
 of the Athenian generals at Chaeronea, 
 Lvsicles, was accused of treachery by Ly- 
 curgus and condemned to death (Diod. 
 xvi. 88): see note on §§ 264 1 and 300 6 . 
 
 9. toIs oXots: see note on § 2'jS 7 .— 
 άνε'τρεψεν, overset , the familiar figure of 
 the ship of state: the better mss. have 
 άνέτρεφαν, which West, defends on the 
 ground that oi προδιδόντες is the logical 
 subject; but this should affect έΧνμαίνετο 
 also.— αδικεί, not is doing wrong, but is 
 to blame for a past wrong (Μ. T. 27). 
 
 § 304. 3. Θετταλία...’Αρκαδία : see 
 §§ 63, 64. “Philip’s party in the one 
 opened Northern Greece to him, and in 
 the other neutralized the Peloponnesus’’ 
 (Simcox). 
 
214 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 φρονουντ εσγεν εμοί, ουδείς ούτε των εζω Πυλω^ 'Ελλήνων 
 ούτε των εισω τοίς παρουσι κακοΐς εκεγρητ αν, άλλα 
 πάντες αν όντες ελεύθεροι καί αυτόνομοι μετά πάσης άδειας 
 ασφαλώς εν ευδαιμονία τάς εαυτών ωκουν πατρίδας, τούτων 
 τοσουτων και τοιούτων αγαθών ύμίν καί τοΐς αλλοις 9 ΑΘύ]- 
 5 ναιοις εγοντες γάριν δι εμε. ίνα δ’ είδητε ότι πολλω τοίς 
 λόγοις ελάττοσι γρωμαι των έργων, ευλαβούμενος τον φθόνον, 
 λεγε μοι ταυτι καί άνάγνωθι λαβών τον αριθμόν των βοηθειών 
 κατά τα εμα ψηφίσματα. 
 
 ΑΡΙΘΜ02 ΒΟΗΘΕΙΩΝ. 
 
 Ύαυτα καί τοιαυτα πράττειν, Αίσγίνη , τον καλόν καγαθόν 
 πολίτην δεί, ων κατορθουμενων μεν μεγίστοις άναμφισβη- 
 
 4· εσχεν Σ, L, Αι ; έσχον vulg. ούδένε s (for ουδείς) Cobet, Vom. 5. έκέχρητ' 
 
 άν vulg.; έκέχρηντ ’ άν Σ, L, Cob., Vom. 
 
 § 305. 3. τούτων Σ, L 1 ; των vulg. 7. λαβέ (for λέγε) Al. , 
 
 Σ and L end the text with ανά^νωθι λαβών followed (in Σ) by ΑΡΙΘΜΟΣ 
 
 ΒΟΗΘΕΙΩΝ I ΚΑΤΑ ΤΑ ΕΜΑ ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑΤΑ (in two lines). (See Vomel’s 
 note.) . 
 
 § 306. 1 . ταΰτα καί τα τοιαυτα vulg. ; τα om. Σ, Ο, F, Φ, V6 ; αυτά καί τά 
 
 τοιαυτα L. 2. ώ yrj καί θεοί (after μεν) L· 2 , vulg.; om. Σ, L 1 , Υ. έν μέγιστοι? 
 
 vulg. ; έν om. Σ, L, Β, Αι. 2. 
 
 4· ούδ€ΐ9...€Κ€χρητ άν: Cobet reads 
 by conjecture ούδενες (as Σ has έκέχρηντ ’ 
 άν), referring to v. 5 and xix. 66. See 
 § 2 3 6 , 7Γ ρδς ουδέν’, where Cobet and 
 Dindorf read ούδένας with several MSS. 
 
 § 305 . 2. άν is repeated with ιρκουν, 
 
 contrary to general usage, because of the 
 change of time from would have fallen 
 into (έκέχρητ’ άν) to would now be dwell¬ 
 ing in. This mention of Thessaly and 
 Arcadia has special reference to the final 
 struggle with Philip (Bl.). 
 
 7. λέχε καί άνάγνωθι: cf. XIX. 70, 
 and note on § 28^.— βοηθειών: forces 
 sent out for special purposes, like those 
 mentioned in § 302 2 : see IV. 32, μη βοή¬ 
 θειαν ττολεμεΐν ( ΰστεριοΰμεν yap απάντων) 
 άλλα παρασκευή συνεχεΐ καί δυνάμει , and 
 cf. IV. 41· The famous expedition which 
 checked Philip at Thermopylae in 352 n.c. 
 (iv. 17) is called a βοήθεια in XIX. 84. 
 Often βοήθεια means a mere raid. 
 
 § 306 . 1. ταΰτα...-π-ράττειν...δει sums 
 up the reply to the question τί χρήν... 
 ποιεΐν ; in § 301 1 , but with a change in 
 tense. He asked what was the dtity etc., 
 with special reference to the case in hand; 
 and he replies in general terms this is the 
 duty, ποιεΐν and πράττειν have here the 
 same sense, as have χρή (in χρήν) and δει. 
 Spengel and West, changed δει here to 
 έδει to complete the correspondence with 
 § 301 1 . But if we read έδει here, we 
 must supply δει with the infinitives in 
 § 307 ; see άν.,.λνπήση (§ 307 6 ). 
 
 2. κατορθουμ,ί'νων = εί κατωρθοΰτο , if 
 they had been successful (as they were not), 
 to which the apodosis is ΰπήρχεν είναι, it 
 belonged to us to be, i.e. we should properly 
 have been : ύπήρχεν may be used with 
 the infinitive like έδει and χρήν.— μεγί¬ 
 στου (sc. ήμΐν)...και τό δικαίωδ ιτροσήν, 
 i.e. indisputably, and (/ might add) 
 iustly, greatest : δικαίως stands as a mere 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 215 
 
 τητως V7 τηρχεν είναι, καί τό δικαίως πρ^&ην, ώς ετερως δε 
 συμβάντων το γουν ευδόκιμείν ττερίεστι καί το μηδένα 
 μεμφεσθαι την πόλιν μηδε την προαίρεσιν αυτής, αλλά την 5 
 τύχην κακίζειν την ουτω τα πράγματα κρίνασαν, ου μά ΔΓ 307 
 ουκ αποσταντα των συμφερόντων τη πόλει μισθώσαντα δ’ 
 αυτόν τοίς εναντίοις, τους υπέρ των εχθρών καιρούς αντί 
 των της πατρίδος θ εραπευει ν, ουδέ τον μεν πράγματ άξια 
 της πολεως υποστάντα λεγειν καί γράφειν καί μενειν επί 5 
 τούτων βασκαίνειν, αν Se τις ιδία τι λύπηση, τούτο μεμνη- 
 σθαι καί τηρεΐν, ουδέ γ ησυχίαν άγειν άδικον καί υπουλον, 
 
 328 δ σι) ποιείς πολλάκις. εστι γάρ, εστιν ησυχία δίκαια καί 308 
 συμφερουσα τη πόλει, ην οι πολλοί των πολιτών υμείς 
 απλώς άγετε, άλλ’ ου ταυτην ουτος άγει την ησυχίαν, 
 πολλου γε καί δεΐ, άλλ’ άποστάς όταν αύτω δόξη της 
 
 3· ύπάρχειν Φ, Β, corr. to ύπηρχεν F. 5 · πολιν καί V6. 6. τούτω 
 
 changed to οϋτω Σ. κρίνουσαν Αι. 2. 
 
 § 307 . 2. ούκ om. F. 4· τ< ^ ν ι^7 τέρ της Φ, Α2. e,· μένειν καί Ο (corr.). 
 
 6. τούτων προελόμενον Α2 ; τούτοι προελ. L ; τούτον προελ. Αι ; προελόμενον om. Σ, 
 vulg. άν Σ, L, V6 ; εάν vulg. τι om. Α2. λυπηισηι Σ. η. ουδέ y ’ 
 
 Σ, L, Υ, V6 ; γ om. vulg. 8. δ Σ, L, Αι; <is vulg. 
 
 § 308 . 2. υμείς απλώς Σ , L, vulg.; άττλώ? υμείς Αι. 4· δοκη (ο£ over οκ) F. 
 
 word with the article; and προσην is be¬ 
 longed there, i.e. might properly be added. 
 
 3. ώς ετερως, otherwise’, see note on 
 
 § 85 s . 
 
 4. συμβάντων, not conditional (like 
 κατορθουμένων), but simply temporal, now, 
 when they (have) resulted otherwise .— 
 περίεσ-τι, there is left to us : the subject is 
 το εύδοκιμεΐν καί τό μηδένα...κρίνασαν (6). 
 
 6. κακίζ€ΐ.ν: the subject is πάντας, to 
 be supplied from the preceding subject 
 μηδένα. The same carelessness of ex¬ 
 pression is still common; a famous case 
 is the clause of the United States Con¬ 
 stitution concerning fugitive slaves: “No 
 person held to service or labor in one 
 state, under the laws thereof, escaping 
 into another, shall...be discharged from 
 said service or labor, but shall be de¬ 
 livered up etc.” 
 
 § 307 . 1. οΰ μά ΔΓ ούκ : emphatic 
 
 repetition, not a double negative: δεΐ is 
 understood here from § 306 2 , and on 
 it depend the infinitives θεραπεύει etc. 
 through ayeiv (7). 
 
 2. άττοστάντα : strongly opposed to 
 θεραπεύειν (4) and υποστάντα (5). 
 
 4· των τής ττατρίδος (sc. καιρών), 
 instead of the fuller form with υπέρ (as in 
 3).— τον ύττοστάντα, the man who has 
 bound himself (undertaken ), object of 
 βασκαίνειν. 
 
 y. ύττουλον, lit. festering within, of 
 the quiet of Aesch., false, hollow : see 
 Thuc. VIII. 64 (end), την από των Αθη¬ 
 ναίων υπουλον αυτονομίαν (Β 1 ·). 
 
 § 308. 2. οί ττοΧλοΙ, here simply 
 
 the majority. 
 
 3. απλώς, in honest simplicity, with¬ 
 out pretence, opposed to ύπουλος ησυχία 
 (3°7 7 ).—01) ταυτην : cf. Aesch. ill. 215, 
 216. 
 
216 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 5 πολιτείας (πολλάκις δε δοκεί) φυλάττει πηνίκ εσεσθε μεστοί 
 τον συνεχώς λεγοντος η παρά της τύχης τι συμβεβηκεν 
 "εναντίωμα η άλλο τι δυσκολον γεγονε (πολλά δε τάνθρώ- 
 πινα )· elr’ eVt τουτω τω καιρω ρητωρ εζαίφνης εκ της 
 ησυχίας ώσπερ πνευμ εφάνη, καί πεφωνασκηκως καί συνει- 
 ιο λοχως ρήματα καί λόγους συνεύρει τουτους σαφώς καί 
 άπνευστεί, όνησιν μεν ούδεμίαν φέροντας ούδ ’ αγαθοί) κτησιν 
 ούδενος, συμφοράν δε τω τυχόντι των πολιτών καί κοινήν 
 309 αισχύνην. καίτοι ταυτης της μελετης καί της επιμελείας, 
 Αισχίνη, είπερ εκ φυχης δικαίας εγίγνετο καί τα της πατρί- 
 δος συμφέροντα προηρημενης, τους καρπούς εδει γενναίους 
 καί καλούς καί πασιν ωφελίμους είναι, συμμαχίας πόλεων, 
 5 πόρους χρημάτων, εμπορίου κατασκευήν, νόμων συμφερόντων 
 
 
 5· φυλάττειν V6. πηνίκ' Σ, L; όπηνίκα (or /c’) vulg. ; όπηνίχ υμείς Αι.2. 
 
 έσεσθαι [ε over αι, now erased) Σ; έστέ L, vulg. 6. η om. Σ (add. mg.). 
 
 7. yap (for δέ) V6. 9. άνεφάνη Αι. συνειλοχώς vulg.; συνειλεχως Σ, B 1 , Φ, Bk.; 
 
 συνειληχώς Y, B 2 , F (yp), O 2 : in XXI. 23, συνείλοχα Σ. ίο. συνείρει B l , Phot.; 
 
 συντηρεί Σ, B 2 ; συνηιρει Y. 11. άπνευστεί Σ. 
 
 § 309 . 2. Αισχίνη after μελέτης (1) Ai, om. V6. 3, 4. καλούς καί yεv- 
 
 ναίους Φ, Αι. g. παρασκευήν Α 2 . 
 
 5· φυλάττει ιτηνίκ’ &τεσθε μαστοί, he 
 
 watches (to see) when you will be sated, 
 an indirect question where we might ex¬ 
 pect a temporal clause: δπηνίκα is the 
 common reading. 
 
 6. του συνεχά^ XryovTos, with your 
 regular speaker, i.e. the one who is con¬ 
 tinually advising you: see Plut. Cim. 5, 
 ό δήμος...μεστός ών του Θεμιστοκλέους. 
 
 7· τάνθρώττινα: sc. εναντιώματα. 
 
 8. ρήτωρ, as an orator, predicate to 
 εφάνη (gnomic). 
 
 9. ώσπερ πνευμ’, with έξαίφνης. — 
 πεφωνασκηκα^ : cf. § 28ο 3 .—συνείλοχα^, 
 
 the only proper perf. act. of συλλέyω, 
 though here Σ has συνειλεχως. Σ has 
 συνείλοχα in XXI. 23. Cf. συμφορησας, 
 § I5 3 · 
 
 10. ρήματα : cf. § 232“*.— συνείρει, 
 
 reels ojff [strings together). 
 
 11. άπνευστεί , all in one breath ["with¬ 
 out taking breath). 
 
 12. τώ τυχόντι, cuivis, to any one who 
 happens to hear them : see note on § 130 2 · 3 . 
 
 — κοινήν, piiblic, opposed to τφ τυχόντι. 
 
 13. αισχύνην: Bl. refers this to the 
 speech described in § 35. 
 
 § 309 . I. μελε'τηδ, έπιμελεία$,// αί·- 
 tice, study, referring to § 30s 9-11 . 
 
 2. τά...προηρημε'νη$, one which had 
 made the interests of the fatherland its 
 choice [προαίρεσιν), connected by καί to 
 δικαίας. 
 
 3· έ'δει είναι, ought to have been, im¬ 
 plying that in the case of Aeschines they 
 were not so.— γενναίουξ : often used 
 literally of fruits, as in Plat. Leg. 844 E, 
 την yevvaiav νυν λεyoμέvηv σταφυλην η τα 
 yevvaia σύκα επονομαζόμενα (Bl.) : see 
 also Plat. Rep. 372 B, μάζας yεvvaίaς καί 
 άρτους. 
 
 g. εμπορίου κατασκευήν: i.e. securing 
 new commercial rights for Athens in 
 some foreign seaport: see XX. 33, κατα- 
 σκευάσας έμπόριον θεοδοσίαν, with Sandys’s 
 note. Weil quotes Dinarch. I. 96, τί 
 κατεσκεύακεν οικοδόμημα Δημοσθένης έν τφ 
 έμπορίιρ τφ ύμετέρψ; 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 217 
 
 Secret?, τοΐς άποόειχθεΐσιν έχθροΐς εναντιωματα. τούτων 310 
 yap απάντων ήν εν τοΐς άνω χρόνους εξετασις, καί εόωκεν 
 ό παρελθων χρόνος πολλάς αποδείξεις άνόρί καλώ τε κάγαθω, 
 iv οίς ονόαμον σν φανήσει γβγονως, ον πρώτος, ον δεύτερος, 
 
 ον τρίτος, ον τέταρτος, ον πέμπτος, ονχ έκτος, ονχ οποστοσ- 5 
 ονν, ονκονν επί y οις ή πα τρις ηνξάνετο. τις yap σνμ- 311 
 μαχία σον πράζαντος γεγονε τίη πδλει; τις δε βοήθεια ή 
 κτήσις έννοιας ή όόξης; τις δε πρεσβεία , τις όιακονία δι’ 
 
 3 2 9 'ήν ή πόλις εντιμότερα; τι των οικείων ή των 'Ελληνικών 
 καί ξενικών οίς επεστης επηνωρθωται; ποΐαι τριήρεις; ποια 5 
 βέλη ; ποιοι νεώσοικοι; τις επισκευή τειχών; ποιον ιππικόν; 
 τι των απάντων συ χρήσιμος εί; τις η τοΐς ενπόροις η τοΐς 
 
 § 310. 2 . ην και έν Αί. έδωκεν twice in Σ. 3· T€ om · Ο. 4 · Φ α ' 
 
 νήσο. Σ ; φανησ y vulg. 6 . έπί y’ oh Σ, L, Αι; eirei ye και vulg.; έπεί oh Y, F ( yp ); 
 4 iri oh ye καί O. 
 
 § 311. i. yap om. A2. 4. έντιμοτερα yeyove vulg.; yey. om. Σ, L l . 
 
 5. oh vulg.; ah O ; as Σ ; as L; έφ ’ a Ai ; oh επέστης om. F. έπηνώρθ. διά σε 
 
 vulg.; διά σέ om. Σ, L 1 . 7. yeyovas (for el) Ai. 2. 
 
 § 310. 1 . τούτων ήν iijiTcuris : εξέ- 
 
 τασις is again a military term, as in § 320 9 , 
 where it means a mustering or review 
 of hirelings etc., in which they were called 
 forth to show themselves. Here, with 
 a genitive denoting public services, it 
 means likewise calling out and arraying 
 such services to a man’s credit. (See note 
 on § 173 4 .) 
 
 2. 28 a)K€v...a?ro 8 €i£iis, i.e. the past 
 
 gave many opportunities for showing such 
 services, as it were, arraying them for 
 a review. 
 
 4. €V ots, in which class (the καλοί re 
 KayaOoi), as if άνδράσι had preceded.— 
 οΰδαμοΰ: cf. § 320 5 . 
 
 5. ούχ όττοστοσούν (cf. όστισονν), not 
 in any rank whatsoever. Dissen thinks 
 this alludes to a Delphic oracle given to 
 the Megarians, quoted in the Scholia to 
 Theoc. xiv. 48, 49, of which the last two 
 verses are : 
 
 υμείς δ’ ώ M eyapeh οντε τρίτοι οντε τέ¬ 
 ταρτοι 
 
 ούτε δνωδέκατοι, our’ ev Xoyip οντ ’ έν 
 άριθμφ. 
 
 For the whole oracle (8 vss.) see the 
 
 Scholia in Ahrens’s Bucol. Gr. 11., p. 381 : 
 see also Menander, frag. 154 (Ivock). 
 
 6. ούκουν eiri y' ots, at all events , not 
 in matters in which, etc. 
 
 § 311. These questions are argu¬ 
 ments for the judgment just pronounced 
 upon Aeschines. After the third ques¬ 
 tion, the conjunctions are omitted in the 
 speaker’s vehemence. With the whole 
 passage compare xix. 282. 
 
 4. των Ελληνικών, opposed to των 
 οικείων, is the so-called foreign policy of 
 Athens, i.e. her policy with other Greek 
 states : see note on § 59 s . Here των 
 ^νικών is added to include her relations 
 to other than Greek states, both being 
 opposed to των οικείων , her domestic 
 policy. 
 
 5. ττοΐαι τριήρίΐς ; sc. yeyovaai τη 
 πόλει. 
 
 •j. τ i ... χρήσιμο? ct; what in the 
 world (των απάντων) ARE you good for l — 
 ti's ή...χρημάτων; what pid)lic financial 
 aid has ever come from yon to either rich 
 or poor ? This is commonly referred to 
 an equalization of the public burdens, by 
 which both rich and poor would be bene- 
 
 
2l8 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 ^ _ _ ? ^ ^ 
 
 / 7 τώποτ έφθβγξαντ ini του βήματος εις σωτηρίαν έπβδίδοσαν, 
 
 N o Τ' K al το τελευταίου ’Χριστόνικος το συνειλεγμενον εις την 
 
 TiPAAfS . » / )Ρ>\ μ ν Λ \Ζ) vjj/o j £ \ 5 
 
 1 icn 5 επιτίμίαν, ουοε τοτ ούτε παρηλσες ουτ επεοωκας ονοεν, ονκ 
 
 άττόροίς πολιτική και κοινή βοήθεια -χρημάτων; ονόΐμία. 
 312 άλλ’ ώ ταν, εί μηδευ τούτων, εύνοιά γε καί προθυμία · που; 
 
 >Ρι / 5 0.5 7/1J 7 V 
 
 αόίκωτατε, ουο οσ απαντες οσο ι 
 
 ποτέ 
 
 ο στις, ω πάντων 
 
 8. [χρημάτων] Weil, Β 1 . 7ταρά σου (after χρημάτων) vulg., om. Σ, Αι (add. 
 
 mg.). ούδεμία περί σου V6. 
 
 § 312 . ι. δ ταν Σ. μηδέν πάντων Αι. εύνοιά τις καί Ο. προθυμία’ 
 
 οτου ποτέ Σ, L (γέ που ποτέ mg.). 2. ότ απαντες (ότ corr. to 6 τε) Σ. 3 · έπεδίδ. 
 
 εις σωτηρίαν Αι. 4· ei ' s τ ^ ,/ έπιτιμίαν αργύρων Αι ; apybpiov εις την έπιτιμίαν L 2 , 
 
 vulg.; apybpiov om. Σ, L. 5 * °^ Τ€ (after τότ’) om. F, Φ, Α2. οΰδ£ (for οϋτ’) Φ. 
 
 fitted. But Demosth. has always prided 
 himself on transferring such burdens 
 from the poor to the rich (see §§ 102, 103). 
 It must be that “to either rich or poor” 
 means to anybody at all .— πολιτική και 
 κοινή is a rhetorical amplification, like 
 the cases in the note to § 4® : see xxv. 
 22, έρανος γάρ έστι πολιτικός καί κοινός 
 πάνθ ’ οσα, ταλάντων των νόμων, έκαστος 
 ημών ποιεί. 
 
 Dinarchus seems to have learnt a 
 lesson from this passage, when in his 
 speech against Demosthenes (q6) he says, 
 ποίαι yap τριήρεις είσί κατεσκευασμέναι διά 
 τούτον, ώσπερ επί Ε ύβούλου, τη πόλει; η 
 ποιοι νεώσοικοι τούτου πολιτευόμενου yεyό- 
 νασι; πότε ουτος η διά ψηφίσματος η 
 νόμου έπηνώρθωσε τό ιππικόν; κ.τ.λ. In 
 the decree in Plut. Mor., p. 852 c, it is 
 said of the financier Lycurgus, χειρο¬ 
 τονηθείς δ’ επί τής του πολέμου παρα¬ 
 σκευής, όπλα μεν πολλά καί βελών μυριάδας 
 πέντε άvήvεyκεν εις την άκρόπολιν, τετρα- 
 κοσίας τριήρεις πλωίμους κατεσκεύασε, τάς 
 μέν έπισκευάσας, τάς δ’ εξ άρχής ναυ- 
 πηyησάμεvoς ’ προς δε τούτοις ήμίεpya 
 παραλαβών τούς τε νεώσοικους καί την 
 σκευοθήκην καί τό θέατρον τό Διονυσιακόν 
 i^ipyaaaTO καί έπετέλεσε, τό τε στάδιον 
 τό ΤΙαναθηναϊκόν καί τό yυμvάσιov τό κατά 
 Α ύκειον κατεσκεύασε, καί άλλαις πολλά is 
 κατασκευαΐς έκόσμησε την πόλιν. This 
 enumeration shows the standard of com¬ 
 parison which Demosthenes had in mind, 
 though he never professed to come up to 
 
 it himself in his public improvements. 
 
 § 312 . 1. ώ τάν, a familiar form of 
 
 address, found in three other passages of 
 Demosthenes, 1. 26, ill. 29, xxv. 78 ; in 
 all introducing an imaginary retort of an 
 opponent. 
 
 3. Ιφθ^γξαντ’ : cf. § 199 6 , ουδ’ 
 έφθέyξω .—els σωτηρίαν Ιττίδίδοσαν, i.e. 
 
 made contributions (επιδόσεις, § 171 7 ) for 
 the safety of the state. Such were made 
 after Chaeronea, and again before the 
 destruction of Thebes by Alexander : for 
 the latter see XXXIV. 38, δ'τβ μέν ’Αλέξ¬ 
 ανδρος εις Θήβας παρήει, έπεδώκαμεν ΰμίν 
 τάλαντον αργυρίου. 
 
 4· τό συν«ιλ€γρ€νον (sc. apybpiov), i.e. 
 
 money contributed to pay some debt to 
 the state which made him άτιμος, and 
 thus to make him again επίτιμος. Every 
 defaulting public debtor was ipso facto 
 άτιμος. From this allusion to Aristonicus 
 (who is probably the one mentioned in 
 §§ 83, 223), Schaefer (in. p. 136) ai-gues 
 that Demosthenes refers only to the 
 contributions of 335 B.C., since after 
 Chaeronea the decree of Hyperides re¬ 
 stored all public debtors to έπιτίμια. The 
 suggestion of Blass, that Aristonicus gave 
 the money contributed for his επιτίμια to 
 the state after his ατιμία had been legally 
 removed, instead of returning it to the 
 donors, does not make his generosity so 
 extraordinary as to deserve such public 
 notice. 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 219 
 
 άπορων, πως γάρ; ός γε κεκΧηρονόμηκας μεν των ΦίΧωνος 
 τον κηδεστον χρημάτων πΧειόνων η πεντεταΧάντων, διτά- 
 Χαντον δ’ elyes έρανον δωρεάν παρά των ηγεμόνων των 
 συμμοριών εφ * οΐς εΧνμηνω τον τριηραρχικόν νόμον, j άλλ’ 313 
 ϊνα μη Χόγον εκ Χόγου Χεγων τον παρόντος εμαντον εκ- 
 κρονσω, παραΧείφω ταντα. άλλ’ ότι γ ονχΐ δι ενδειαν ονκ 
 επεδωκας , εκ τούτων δηΧον, αλλά φνΧάττων το μηδέν εναντίον 
 γενεσθαι παρά σον τοντοις, οίς άπαντα ιτοΧιτενει. εν τίσιν 5 
 ονν ο~ν νεανίας καί πηνίκα Χαμπρός; ηνίκ αν κατά τούτων 
 τι Sey, εν τοντοις λα μπροφωνότατος, μνημονικώτατος , υπο¬ 
 κριτής άριστος, τραγικός ®εοκρίνης. 
 
 6 . ye κεκληρονόμηκας MSS. ; γ’ Ικ^κληρονομήκεις A. Schaefer (Dem. III. 125)» Bl. 
 7. 7 τέντεταλάντων (as one word, ετ united) Σ; πέντε ταλάντων L, vulg. 8 . δωρεάν 
 
 om. Ai (add. mg.). 
 
 § 313 . 4. άπέδωκας O. 5. σου above line Σ. πολιτεύη MSS., Bk., Bl. 
 
 6 . ηνίκ ’ άν.,.δέη Σ 1 ; 'άν είπείν τι (bef. κατά) vulg.; τούτων είπείν tl Σ 2 , L, Ai ; είπείν 
 om. Σ 1 . δέοι B 2 , Ο, Y, F, Φ. 
 
 6. των Φίλωνοξ-.-^ντίταλάντων, the 
 
 estate of your brother-in-law Philo , which 
 was {sc. δντων) more than five talents. 
 
 7. διτοίλαντον έρανον, a contribution 
 of tzuo talents. There is probably a sar¬ 
 castic reference to the common meaning 
 of έρανος. 
 
 8. ήγίμόνων : see note on § 103 3 . 
 
 9. €<f>* ols Ιλυμηνω, for the damage 
 
 you did: of? for a cognate a, as in § 1 8 δ . 
 This attack of Aeschines on the trier- 
 archic law was not made when the law 
 was enacted in 340 B.C., but probably after 
 Chaeronea. Demosthenes says (§ 107 5 ) 
 that through the whole war (i.e. 340— 
 338 B.c.) the naval armaments were fitted 
 out under his law; and the statement of 
 Aeschines (ill. 222), έξηλέχχθης ΰπ' έμου 
 εξήκοντα καί πέντε νέων ταχνναντουσών 
 τριηράρχους ύφηρημένος, shows that evi¬ 
 dence as to the working of the new law 
 in details was derived from actual experi¬ 
 ence. See Boeckh, Staatsh. 1. p. 668, 
 note b : Schaefer II. 527. 
 
 § 313. 2. λόγον ΐκ λόγου λόγων, 
 
 by saying one thing after another. — του 
 irapovTos (sc. λόγου) «μαυτόν όκκρουσω, 
 cut myself off from (discussing properly) 
 the subject immediately before us. 
 
 tf ) ) \ c * « C » » / 
 
 3 . on y ουχι οι tvo€iav ουκ €ΐτ€- 
 δωκας, that it was not through poverty 
 that you did not contribute ; each negative 
 having its own force, as the second is not 
 a compound (G. 1618 ). 
 
 4 . άλλα connects φνλάττω v to δι' 
 ένδειαν, both being causal.— φυλάττων to 
 ...γίνόσθαι: see Μ. T. 374 ; and note on 
 § 25 s 3 . 
 
 5 . totjtois, ols: not simply to those 
 for whom (which would hardly be του - 
 rot?), but to these persons (§ 312 *), for whom 
 {in whose interest) etc. 
 
 6 . veavtas, often used in the sense of 
 vigorous, lively , like the adjective νεανι¬ 
 κός : it occurs only twice in Demosthenes, 
 here and § 136 k— ηνίκ’ άν.,.τι δόη : 
 supply είπεΐν, which most MSS. insert 
 either before or after κατά τούτων. 
 
 8. τραγικός Θίοκρίνης: see Harpocr., 
 τόν yoOv πάλαι μεν υποκριτήν τραχικον 
 ύστερον δε συκοφάντην εικότως ώνόμασε 
 τ pay ι κόν θεοκ ρίνην. Theocrines is 
 the one accused in Or. lviii. (Bl.). Cf. 
 § 242 4 ' 5 . 
 
 In §§ 314—323 the orator complains 
 of the unfairness of judging him, as 
 Aeschines has done ( 178 — 190 ), by com¬ 
 parison with the great men of ancient 
 
220 
 
 w , - (V©* 4 · , , , * - , 
 
 314 Ειτα τωι^ προτερον γεγενημενών αγαυων ανορων με- 
 μνησαα^ καί καλώς ποιείς. ου μεντου δίκαιόν εστυν, άνδρες 
 Αθηναίου, την προς τους τετελεντηκότας έννοιαν υπαρχουσαν 
 προλαβόντα παρ' υμών προς εκείνους εζετάζειν καί παρα- 33° 
 
 315 βάλλείν εμε τον νυν ζωντα μεθ ’ υμών. f τίς yap ουκ οίδε 
 των πάντων ότι τοίς μεν ζωσί πάσυν ύπεστί τυς η πλείων 
 η ελάττων φθόνος, τους τεθνεωτας δ’ ουδέ των εχθρών ούδείς 
 ετί μισεί; /ούτως ουν εχόντων τούτων τη φύσει, προς τούς 
 
 5 προ εμαυτού νυν εγω κρίνωμ αι καί θεωρώμαί; 1 μηδαμώς' 
 ούτε yap δίκαιον ούτ ίσον, Αίσχίνη, άλλα προς σε καί 
 άλλον εί τίνα βούλεί των ταύτά σου προηρημενων καί 
 
 § 314. ι. aya0<2v άνδρων 2 , L, Υ, Φ, V6; άνδ. ay. vulg. 2. ώ άνδρες vulg. ; 
 ώ om. 2 , L, Ο, Β. 3· τελεντηκότος Ο. 4· πρόλαβόντα 2 , Ο, Αι ; προσλαβόντα 
 L, vulg. 5 · τ ° ν ν ^ ν ζ^ντα 2 , L, Ο, Υ ; τόν συζωντα vulg. 
 
 § 315 . 2. απάντων V6, Stob. 3· τούς δέ τεθν. Α2. 4· °^ ν om · 0 · 
 
 τούτων έχόντ. V6. 5· πρό om. Αι. κρίνωμαι 2, Β ; κρίνομαι L, vulg. 
 
 θεωρωμαι 2, Ο 1 , Υ, Φ, Β ; θεωρούμαι L, vulg. 6. Ίσον εστιν Φ, Α2. L has πρσ 
 
 (ό e above) for πρός σε. ’j. οντινα (for εΐ τινα ) Ar. 2. βούλη 2. ταυτασόι 2 ; 
 σοι om. V6. προηρημενων 2. 
 
 times. But he shrinks from no compari¬ 
 son with his contemporaries. In §§ 321 
 —323 he states two points, which he 
 claims for himself, in the character of the 
 μέτριος πολίτης. 
 
 § 314. ι. των ττρότίρον γ€γ€νημ.€- 
 νων: in in. 181 Aeschines calls on the 
 court directly to compare Demosthenes 
 with Themistocles, Miltiades, the heroes 
 of Phyle, and Aristides; and he does this 
 very effectively. 
 
 3. την ... ύττάρχουςταν, the devotion 
 which it is to be assumed you feel towards 
 the dead. 
 
 4 . ττρολαβόντα, securing for himself 
 in advance, taking advantage of. Bl. 
 refers to XIX. 277, τό πιστευθηναι προλα¬ 
 βόντα παρ' υμών εις τό μείζω δύνασθαι 
 κaκoυpyεΐv καταχρησθαι. 
 
 Dissen quotes [Cic.] in Salust. 11. 5: 
 Quare mihi noli antiquos viros obiectare. 
 ...Neque me cum iis conferri decet qui 
 iam decesserunt omnique odio carent et 
 invidia, sed cum iis qui mecum una in 
 re publica versati sunt. See Hor. Od. in. 
 
 24, 31, Virtutem incolumem odimus, 
 Sublatam ex oculis quaerimus invidi. 
 
 § 315. 2. TOIS pev £c5<ri...<j)00vos, 
 
 κ.τ.λ . : cf. Thuc. II. 45, φθόνος yap τοΐς 
 ξωσι προς τό αντίπαλον, τό δέ μη έμποδών 
 άναvτayωvίστιρ εύνοίςι τετίμηται.—νι Γ€<γτι, 
 implying more or less concealment', cf. 
 § 30 2 . West, quotes Tac. Orat. 18; Veil. 
 11. 92. 
 
 5. κρίνωμαι; am I to be judged? With 
 the answer, μηδαμώς, we must under¬ 
 stand κρίνωμαι in the sense, let me not be 
 judged (M.T. 257): cf. Plat. Rep. 527 c, 
 τιθωμεν; with answer τιθωμεν. If the 
 deliberative subjunctive is the interro¬ 
 gative of the hortatory subjunctive, so 
 that έλθωμεν; shall we go? is the interro¬ 
 gative of έλθωμεν , let us go, the common 
 connection of the two (as here) is most 
 natural (M.T. 291). 
 
 6—8. Here -Trpos cr€ and ξώντων were 
 pronounced with special emphasis. Sup¬ 
 ply εμέ κρίνεσθαι. With προηρημένων 
 cf. § 309 3 . 
 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 221 
 
 ζώντων. /j / κάκεΐνο σκόπει. πότερον κάλλιον καί αμεινον 316- 
 
 τη πόλει διά τας των πρότερον ενεργεσίας, ονσας νπερμεγε- 
 
 θεις,—ον μεν ονν εΐποι π? αν ηλίκας,—τας επί τον παρόντα 
 
 η , , , Α/?η rdoe ν /Mamie .Tfem-neftr \ 
 
 ριον γιγνομενας εις αχαριστίαν καί προπηλακισμον αγειν, 
 
 η πασιν όσοι τι μετ έννοιας πράττονσι της τοντων τιμής 5 
 
 και φιλανθρωπίας μετεΐναι; καί μην εί και τοντ αρα δει /χ’ 317 
 
 είπεΐν, η μεν εμη πολιτεία και προαίρεσις, αν τις σκοπη, 
 
 ταΐς των τότ επαινονμενων άντρων όμοια και ταντα βονλο- 
 
 μενη φανησεται, η δε ση ταΐς των τονς τοιοντονς τότε 
 
 σνκοφαντονντων όηλον yap ότι καί κατ εκείνονς ησάν $ 
 
 τινες, οΐ δια σνροντες τονς όντας τότε τονς [δε] πρότερον γε- 
 
 γεντ)μενονς επηνονν, βάσκανον πραγμα καί ταντό ποιονντες 
 
 l_)dj Τ \ / « ' 5 5 ' 5/ \ _ 
 
 σοι. ειτα Κεχεις ως ονοεν ομοιος ειμι εκεινοις εγω; σν 318 
 ο ομοιος, Αισχίνη; ο Ο αδελφός ο σος; άλλος οε τις των 
 J M' f αΛ/Α^ Λ - 
 
 § 316. ι. αμεινον, Αισχίνη V6. 2. πρότερον Σ, L, Ο, Αι, Β; προτέρων 
 
 vulg. ονσας om. L. 3. ούδε μεν (i.e. ου μεν) Σ, Υ. 3· περί (for έπί) F, Lips. 
 
 4. αχρηστίαν Υ. 5 · T V s om · " (γρ). παρα τούτων Σ (γ ρ), L, vulg. ; παρά. 
 
 om. Σ, V. 
 
 § 317 . ι. καί (after βΐ) om. Αι. 2. όρθως σκοπη L, vulg.; όρθως om. Σ. 
 
 3· άνδρων om. Υ. ταΰτα Ο. βουλευομένη V6. 4· Σ (7 ρ) has η δε 
 
 ση · τις · τών.,.συκοφ.; των τούς άλλου s συκ. Αι. 6. τούς χρόνους after τινες L 2 , 
 
 vulg.; before ησαν (5) Φ, Αι (mg.), V6; om. Σ, L 1 , Υ, Αι. οί διασύροντες Σ, L (οΐ), 
 Β, vulg. ; οΐ διέσυρον μεν Αι, οΐ διέσυρον τούς όντας μεν Α2 ; μεν om. Σ, L, Ο, F, 
 V6 ; οΐ διασύροντες τ. όντ. τότε τούς προτ. γεγ. έπήνουν (om. δε), Reiske, Weil. 
 7. ετταινουντες Α2. καί ταύτον V6 ; καταυτο Φ, F (γρ), Β 1 ; καί ταύτο vulg. 
 
 § 318 . 2. ό αδελφός Σ. 
 
 § 316 . 3 · ού... ηλίκας, no man can 
 
 tell how great’, οΰ μέν ούν, as usual, is 
 emphatic and corrective.— επί τον παρ- 
 όντα βίον γι-γνομε'νας (sc. ευεργεσίας), 
 shown to the present generation. 
 
 4. els αχαριστίαν αγειν: cf. § It2 7 . 
 
 5. τιμής και φιλανθρωπίας: cf. § 209 2 . 
 
 § 317 . i. cl... είπειν : he makes this 
 
 slight apology for asserting even the fol¬ 
 lowing claim to be compared with the 
 great men of old, after disclaiming all 
 comparison with them. 
 
 2. πολιτεία καί προαίρεσις : cf- §§ 93 s » 
 192 5 . 
 
 3. επαινουμε'νων : imperfect, like συ- 
 κοφαντούντων (5), as is shown by τότε. 
 
 6. διασύροντες. . ,επήνουν : 1 keep the 
 reading of Σ, but omit δε after τούς. The 
 
 reading διασίφοντες with τούς δε is too 
 ungrammatical and needlessly awkward 
 for this oration: διέσυρον μεν seems an 
 obvious attempt to correct this corrupt 
 combination. διασύρω, ridicule, is a 
 favourite word with Demosthenes : it 
 occurs elsewhere in this speech in §§ 27^, 
 126 6 , i8o :i , 218 9 , 299 2 , 323 s , always in the 
 same sense. 
 
 § 318 . 2. ό δ’ αδελφός ό σός: 
 
 Aeschines had two brothers, Philochares, 
 older than himself, and Aphobetus, the 
 youngest of the family. He describes 
 Philochares (11. 149) as a distinguished 
 military man, who was chosen general in 
 three successive years; and Aphobetus 
 as holding a high position in the revenue 
 department, and going as ambassador to 
 
222 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 ννν ρητόρων; εγώ ρεν y&p ουΒενα φηρι. αλλα προς τους 
 ζώντας, ώ ρηόεν αλλ ειπω, τον ζωντα ε^εταζε 
 
 5 καί τους καθ' αυτόν, ώσπ^ερ ταλλα τταντα, τους ποιητας, τους 33 
 
 319 γορους, τους άγωνιστάς. I ο Φιλαρρων ουχ, ότι I λα υκου του 
 Κα ρυστίου καί τινων ετέρων πρότερον γεγενηρένων αθλητών 
 ασθενέστερος ην, αστεφάνωτος εκ της Ολυρπιας απηει, 
 άλλ’ ότι των εισελθόντων προς αυτόν αριστ εραχετο, 
 
 5 εστεφανουτο καί νικών ανηγορευετο. και συ προς τους 
 νυν όρα ρε ρήτορας, προς σαυτόν , προς όντινα βουλει των 
 
 320 απάντων ουόεν εζισταραι. ων, οτε ρεν τη πολει τα 
 
 3 · yap om. Α2. 5· καθ ' αντ ^ ν Σ; κατ ' α ντόν Φ; καθ' αυτόν Ο; κατά σαυτόν 
 
 ^ X ^ 
 
 § 319 . 2. έτέρων οιτι. Αι. 4· αυτόν Σ', αυτόν L, vulg. ; om. Α2. 
 
 7. ούδένα Σ, Υ ; ούδένα (δενί over δένα) L ; ούδενί Σ (γρ), vulg. 
 
 the king of Persia. Demosthenes (xix. 
 
 237, 249) has no praise for them, but 
 casts no reproach upon either. It is 
 
 generally thought that Aphobetus is here 
 meant: see Schaefer I. 231. 
 
 4. ώ χρηστέ, my good man, ironical: 
 cf. §§ 30", 89®.— ϊνα...€Ϊπω: this is gene¬ 
 rally understood to refer to the gentle 
 style of address in χρηστό, to call you 
 nothing more : see West, and Bl. But 
 it may refer to πρός τούς ζώντας (3), and 
 imply that he will not press the slight 
 claim to a comparison with the men of 
 old which he makes in § 317: it will 
 then mean, to claim no more than this. 
 
 5. tous καθ’ αυτόν : with προς (3).— 
 ώ<τ irep ταλλα πάντα, i.e. as in other cases, 
 less exact than τούς άλλους πάντας. — tovs 
 ττοιητάδ. . .ayoovKTTas, i.e. as in dramatic 
 and other contests of that nature, and in 
 the public games. See § 319. 
 
 319 . 1. ΦιΧάμμων is chosen as an 
 
 Athenian who had recently returned as 
 an Olympic victor. See the verse in 
 Arist. Rhet. III. 11, 13, ώσπερ Φιλάμμων 
 ξυχομαχων τιρ κωρΰκιρ. Glaucus, on the 
 contrary, was one of the most famous 
 boxers of the time of the Persian wars, 
 who, besides gaining a victory at Olympia, 
 gained two Pythian, eight Nemean, and 
 eight Isthmian prizes. Pausanias (vi. 
 
 10, 1—3) saw his statue at Olympia. See 
 the fragment of the ode of Simonides in 
 his honour (fr. 8, Bergk): οΰδέ ΙΙολν- 
 δεΰκεος βία χεύρας άντείναίτ άν εναντίον 
 αύτιρ, ουδέ σιδάρεον Άλκμάνας τόκος. Aes¬ 
 chines (ΐπ. 189) refers to this compari¬ 
 son as one which he “heard that 
 Demosthenes would make.” This is evi¬ 
 dently a bold addition which Aeschines 
 made to his speech after it was spoken. 
 If Demosthenes had heard this antici¬ 
 pation of his effective allusion, with the 
 weak answer of Aeschines, he would 
 certainly have replied to both in his own 
 speech. The point of the comparison is 
 slightly changed by Aeschines, perhaps 
 to conceal its origin. 
 
 4. ίίοτίλθόντων : cf. Soph. El. 7°°; 
 Xen. An. VI. 1, 9. 
 
 6. opa pe: cf. θεωρώμαι,; (§ 315 5 ) and 
 εξέταζε (§ 318 * * * 4 5 ). 
 
 7. οΰδεν’ ίξί(τταρ.αι, I shrink from no 
 one : this reading of the best mss. agrees 
 with Lobeck’s rule (note on Soph. Aj. 
 82), that έξίσταμαι, declinare, takes the 
 accusative, but in the sense of cedere, the 
 dative. But here Lobeck would read 
 ούδενί and Shilleto agrees with him (note 
 on xix. 225), remarking “obviously the 
 sense is I yield to no one, as Aj. 672.” 
 Recent editors are undoubtedly right in 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 223 
 
 βελτισθ’ ελεσθαι παρην, εφάμιλλου της εις την πατριέ 
 έννοιας εν κοινω πάσι κείμενης, εγω κράτιστα λεγων εφαινό- 
 μην, καί τοϊς εμοϊς και φηφίσμασι καί νόμοις και πρεσβείαις 
 άπαντα διωκειτο, υμών δ’ ούδείς ήν ούδαμού, πλην ει τούτοις 5 
 επηρεάσαι τι δεο ΐ' επειδή δ’ α μηποτ ωφελεν συνέβη, καί 
 ούκετι συμβούλων , άλλα των τοΐς επιταττομενοις ύπηρετούν- 
 των καί των κατά της πατρίδος μισθαρνειν έτοιμων καί των 
 κολακεύειν ετερον βουλομενων εζετασις , τηνικαύτα σύ και 
 τούτων έκαστος εν τάζει καί μεγας καί λαμπρός ιπποτρόφος, ΙΟ 
 εγω δ’ ασθενής , ομολογώ, άλλ’ εύνους μάλλον υμών τουτοισι. 
 
 § 320 . 2 . αιρείσθαι παρήν A 2 . 3· ^ 7 ^ κράτιστα 2 , L, vulg. ; iy ω τά 
 
 βέλτιστα Αι. 2. 4· κα ' 1 (after έμοΐς) 2 , L, Ο, Φ; om. vulg. 5· V v om · F, Φ. 
 
 τούτους Φ. 6 . ώφβλβν 2 . 8 . μισθανβΐν (p above the line) 2 . έτοιμων 
 
 δντων A2. 9. 'έτερον 2 , L, Y ; ετέρου s vulg. έξέτασις ήν vulg.; ήν om. 2 , L. 
 
 11. τούτοις B, Φ. 
 
 preferring ούδένα (as above). For the 
 dative see Soph. Phil. 1053, νυν δε σοί 7’ 
 έκών έκστήσομαι. 
 
 § 320 . ι. ών, partitive with κρά¬ 
 τιστα λέyωv (3). 
 
 2. €φαμ.ί\λου...Κ6ΐμ€νη$: the figure 
 of a public contest is kept up, the privi¬ 
 lege of showing devotion to the state 
 being a prize open to general competi¬ 
 tion ( εφάμιλλου ). There is an active use 
 of εφάμιλλος : see Xen. Mem. in. 3, 12, 
 ούδείς ( χορος ) τοΰτιρ εφάμιλλος yiy νεται, 
 entering into competition. See also Plat. 
 Rep. 433 D, ούκουν δικαιοσύνην το ye τού- 
 τοις ένάμιλλον αν εις αρετήν ττόλεως θείης; 
 
 5· ήν ούδαμοΐ: cf. § 3 r ° 4 ·· —€Ϊ...τι 
 8eoi : the optative implies frequent oc¬ 
 casions for insulting the people. 
 
 6. ά μή-ιτοτ ώφίλίν (sc. συμβήναι), i.e. 
 the defeat: see 288 s , and note ούκέτι, op¬ 
 posed to δτε...τταρήν (i). 
 
 9. ^Tepov: this is the vague term by 
 which Demosthenes often alludes to 
 Alexander: see § 323 1 ’ 8 .— 4 £€Tacris: the 
 familiar military figure recurs, i.e. a call 
 for these, as for a review; and this is 
 carried out in έν τάξει : see note on § 173 4 . 
 
 10. ίτπΓθτρόφο 5 : the keeping of horses 
 was a sign of wealth, and the word im¬ 
 
 plies that Aeschines had become a richer 
 and more powerful man at Athens since 
 the complete establishment of Alex¬ 
 ander’s supremacy. Cf. Ar. Nub. 15. 
 There is also an allusion to the military 
 review implied in έξέτασις and έν τάξει, 
 in which Aeschines appears in splendour 
 as one of the ιππείς. 
 
 ir. a^ 0 €vi)s: Aeschines (159) speaks 
 of Dem. at this time as ύπότρομος, παριων 
 ήμιθνής επί το βήμα. Westermann thinks 
 this passage alludes to the time when 
 Philip was made a citizen of Athens and 
 his statue was erected in the city (Plut. 
 Dem. 22; Paus. I. 9, 4 ). It more pro¬ 
 bably refers to the recent honours paid to 
 Alexander: see C. I. Att. 11. no. 741, 
 dated by Kohler in 331 B.C., fragm. f,g, 
 στεφάνων δυοίν, of? ό δήμος ο ’Αθηναίων 
 έστεφάνωσε Άλέξα[νδρον]. Kohler thinks 
 two crowns were voted to Alexander, to 
 elude a law forbidding the value of any 
 crown voted by the people to exceed 
 1000 drachmas. These two gold crowns 
 weighed 97 staters and one drachma 
 (i| lbs. avoir.) and were worth about 
 1950 Attic drachmas (silver). See Hist. 
 § 8, note 2. 
 
224 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 321 Svo δ’, ανδρες Αθηναίοι, τον φύσει μετριον πολίτην, εχειν 
 δει (οντω γάρ μοι περί εμαντον λέγοντι άνεπιφθονώτατον 
 είπεΐν), εν μεν ταϊς εξουσίαν την τον γενναίου και του 
 πρωτείου τη πόλει προαίρεσιν διαφνλάττειν, εν παντί δε 
 5 καιρω καί πράξει την έννοιαν τούτον γαρ ή φνσις κυρία , 
 
 β τοΰ δύνασθαι δε και ίσχυειν ετερα. ταύτηνντοίνυν παρ 
 εμοί μεμενηκνϊαν ενρηετεθ απλώς, ορατέ δε. £ον κ επαίτου 
 μένος, ονκ εις Άμφικτυονας δίκας επαγόντων, ονκ απει- 
 λουντων, ονκ Απαγγελλόμενων, ονχι τους καταρατονς τοντονς 33 * 2 
 ώσπερ θηρία μοι προσβαλλόντωνί^όνδαμως εγω προδεδωκα 
 
 8 321 . ι. <3 UrSpe; vulg. ; <5 om. Σ, L, F, V 6 . raOra rbv vulg.^; τα,ΰτα 
 
 om. Σ, ΙΛ 3 - yevaiov (v above the line) Σ. κοι τι)κ Tou irp. L , vu g., 
 
 r j,„om. Σ, L 1 , Al, Ο; roO om. O, V 6 . 6 . rod Si δύνασθαι Ai, O. ere pa i, L, 
 
 vulg.; έτέρα V6: “sc. η Τύχη” (H. Wolf). , , , τ ,.ΐρ. 
 
 8 322 . 2. ούκ εις αμφικτυονας δίκας Σ; ουκ Αμφικτυονικας δ has , 
 
 ewayovrevv μοι L, vulg. ; μοι om. Σ, Ο, Αι. ονκ ατ'ϋιαύ,τψ L, vulg.; om. Σ 
 
 (added above the line). 3. iirayycKop^vw L. ονχι Σ, L· , vulg., 0 . ·, 
 
 οίχ in L (corr.), Φ, B. 4· προσβα\\όντων (ττροσ by corr.) Σ. iyec προδίδνκα 
 
 2 , L, Ο, Ai ; προδ. eyih vulg. 
 
 § 321 . μετριον : see § io 7 . 
 
 2. ούτω (with είπεΐν) : he uses μέτριος 
 here modestly, as he is speaking of him¬ 
 self ; but he means the man called καλός 
 Kayados πολίτης in § 278“ and 3 °^ 1 ( see 
 
 Bh). 
 
 3. εν Tats 4 |ovtriais, i.e. ore .. ,ελέσθαι 
 παρην, 320 1 , in time of power, την... 
 ττροαίρ€(Γΐν, the policy which aims at 
 nobility andpre-eminence ; and τη τ-όλει 
 διαφυλάττειν, to guard this always for 
 the state. For του πρωτείου see § 66 7 . 
 
 5. ιτράξει (sc. έν πάση) may mean 
 in every act (of the statesman). But 
 Blass is probably right in taking it in the 
 sense of fortune , like εΰ and κακώς πράτ¬ 
 τει: see Aeschyl. Prom. 695, πραξιν 
 ’IoOs; Hdt. III. 65 (end), άπέκλαιε πασαν 
 την έωυτοΰ πραξιν; and Soph. Tr. 294» 
 ευτυχή κλύουσα πραξιν τήνδε .—εύνοιαν, 
 loyal devotion to the state: so in § 322 5 . 
 See note on § 173 4 .— τούτου, i.e. την 
 εύνοιαν διαφυλάττειν. 
 
 6 . <(τερα, other things, as chance or 
 Fortune, which he cannot control. FI. 
 Wolf read έτέρα, another power (i.e. 
 Fortune), which he thus explained: η 
 Τύχη, εταίρα οΰσα και Σειρην καί δραπέτις. 
 
 So Blass : “verdeckter Ausdruck fiir η 
 Τύχη.” — ταύτην : i.e. την εύνοιαν. 
 
 η. άττΧώς, absolutely, without excep¬ 
 tion. 
 
 § 322 . r. έ£αιτούμενο$, i.e. by Alex¬ 
 ander; see the next note and note on 
 
 § 4 l8 · 
 
 2. els ’A^tKTVovas, before the Am- 
 phictyonic Council: cf. έν Αμφικτυοσιν, 
 xix. i 8 i (also without the article). When 
 Alexander demanded the orators of 
 Athens in 335 B.C., he doubtless intended 
 to have them tried by the Amphictyonic 
 Council: see Aesch. III. 16 1 , κ ai τό πάντων 
 δεινότατον, ύμεΐς μέν τούτον ου προυδοτε, 
 ούδ’ είάσατε κριθηναι έν τφ των "Ελλήνων 
 (τννεδρίιρ· Notice the spirit of this sentence. 
 What a trial this would have been for 
 Demosthenes, Hyperides, and Lycurgus! 
 — StKas ειταγόντων, bringing suits (against 
 me): see § 249*. 
 
 3. είΓαγγελλορενων : cf. έπayy ελιών 
 gbyedos, § 298 1 .—tovs καταράτου$ τού- 
 
 tous, the whole pack of sycophants men¬ 
 tioned in § 249, Sosicles, Diondas, Me- 
 lantus, etc. 
 
 4. ιτροσβαλλόντων, setting them on 
 
 (as θηρία) ; cf. προαβάλλεαθαι, to atlaik. 
 
225 
 
 £ 
 
 ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 την εις υμάς εύνοιαν. jro yap εξ αρχής ευθύς ορθήν καί 5 
 δικαίαν την δδδν τής πολιτείας είλόμην, τας τιμάς, τας 
 δυναστείας, τας ευδοξίας τας τής πατρίδος θεραπεύειν, ταυτας 
 αύξειν, μετά τούτων είναΐ^ ούκ επί μεν τοϊς ετερων ευτυχή- 323 
 μασι φαιδρός εγω καί γεγηθως κατα την αγοραν περιέρχομαι, 
 την δεξιάν προτείνων καί εύαγγελιζόμένος τούτοις ούς αν 
 εκεί σε άπαγγελλειν οΐωμαι, των δε τής πόλεως αγαθών 
 
 5· ev 0 ds om. Β 1 * 3 , V6. 6 . την om. Ο, Φ, Α2, V6. τής πο\. την οδόν L. 
 
 7· τάς (before της) om. Υ, F. 
 
 § 323 . 4· eirayy 4 \\€iv Β. 
 
 5· ορθήν...άλόμην : cf. § 321 ' ό ,την... 
 προαίρεσιν. 
 
 7· δυνασ -rgias: cf. §§ 67^, 27ο 4 . δυνα¬ 
 στεία means lordly power ; and when it 
 refers to a ruler, it often means absolute 
 power or despotis 77 i. But it can also 
 mean (as here), in a good sense, the 
 lordly power which Athens once exercised 
 over her dependent states, and which she 
 always aspired to exercise.—Oepa-rriveiv, 
 αυξ€ΐν, «Ιναι explain ορθήν οδόν. 
 
 8. |ΐ€τά τούτων ctvai, to be faithful to 
 these (ras τιμάς...τας της πατρίδος), lit. to 
 be 07 i their side : see Ar. Ach. 661, to yap 
 ev μ er’ εμοΰ καί τό δίκαιον ξύμμαχον έσται. 
 
 § 323 . ι. Ιτ€ρων, i.e. the Mace¬ 
 donians; as ’έτερος (8) and έτερον (§ 32ο 9 ) 
 refer to Alexander.— €ύτυχήμα<π : the 
 victories of Alexander at the Granicus 
 (334 B.C.), at Issus (333 B.C.), and at 
 Arbela (331 b.c. ), were still fresh in recol¬ 
 lection, the last not yet a year old. 
 
 3. €ύαγγ€\ιζόμ€νο$, properly aimoim- 
 
 cing good tidings (cf. εύayyέ\ιov, Gospel, 
 
 but here C 07 ig 7 'at 7 ilatmg 071 good 7 iews, 
 
 e.g. saying “ This is a great victory." It 
 
 cannot mean actually i 7 ifo 7 ' 77 ii 7 ig. — τού- 
 tois oils άν.,.οί'ωμαι : the apparently 
 
 definite antecedent is peculiar before the 
 conditional relative clause. He means 
 a 7 iy of those 77 ien (a well-known class) who 
 (on any occasion) / think are likely to re¬ 
 port thither (to Macedonia) such an event 
 as my congratulating them on a Mace¬ 
 donian victory. Cf. § 313 5 * * * , τούτοις, οΐς, 
 where, however, the relative is not con¬ 
 ditional. It has, I believe, never been 
 
 asked who these men were. There were, 
 of course, many Macedonians in Athens at 
 this time, and there were many Athenians 
 who would welcome news of Macedonian 
 victories. But we must remember that 
 the greatest Macedonian who ever lived, 
 the philosopher Aristotle, was then a 
 resident in Athens at the head of the 
 Lyceum. His relations with the Court 
 of Pella and with Alexander were most 
 intimate. Who would be more likely to 
 report to Pella, or even to Alexander 
 himself, that Demosthenes had congratu¬ 
 lated him on the victory at Arbela, if he 
 had any such pleasant fact to report ? It 
 would be interesting, though not quite 
 pleasant, to find an allusion to the great 
 philosopher in this striking passage. 
 
 4. των ... αγαθών : these advantages 
 gained by Athens may refer to the early 
 successes of the Spartan king Agis in his 
 revolt against Macedonia in the spring 
 of 330 b.c. (Diod. xvii. 63). Though 
 Diodorus says that Athens did not join 
 in this insurrection, yet Aeschines (167) 
 quotes Demosthenes as saying, ώς άντι- 
 πράττων Άλεξάνδριρ, “ όμo\oyώ τα Αακω- 
 νικά σνστησαι ‘ όμo\oyώ θετταλονς και 
 Τίερραιβούς άφιστάναι ,” which shows that 
 Demosthenes at least claimed some share 
 in this Spartan movement, as well as in 
 the Thracian rebellion which occurred 
 at the same time (Diod. xvii. 62). See 
 Grote xii., Ch. 95. The words των... 
 dyaduv might also refer to the interest of 
 Athens in the reverses of Alexander, 
 which were occasionally reported from 
 
 15 
 
 G. D. 
 
220 
 
 ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΟΥΣ 
 
 5 πεφρικως άκονω καί στενών και κυπτων εις την γην, ώσπερ 
 οί 8νσσεβείς ουτοι, οΐ την μεν πόλιν δια σνρονσιν, ώσπερ 
 ονχ αντους όιασνροντες όταν τούτο ποιώσιν, εξω δε βλεπονσι, 
 καί εν οΐς άτνχησάντων των 'Κλλήνων εντνχησεν ετερος, 
 ταυτ επαινουσι καί όπως τον άπαντα χρόνον μενεΐ φασί 
 ίο 8εΐν τηρεΐν. 
 
 324 Μη 8ήτ, ω πάντες θεοί, μηδείς τανθ 9 νμων επινενσειεν, 
 άλλα μάλιστα μεν καί τούτους βελτίω τινά νονν καί φρενας 
 ενθείητε, ει δ’ άρ εχονσιν άνιάτως, τοντονς μεν α ντους καθ' 
 εαντους εξωλεις καί προωλεις εν γη καί θαλάττη ποιήσατε, 
 
 5 · άκούων Φ, Β. σθένων Ο. 6. δυσεβεΐς Ο. καί ώσπερ V6. η. εαυτούς Ο. 
 βλέπωσιν (ου over ω) L. 8. ευτύχησαν έτερος Σ, L, vulg. ; έτ. εύτύχ. Ο, Αι ; 
 
 ετ. ηύτ. V6. 9 * μεΐ'βι Σ; μένει Αι ; διαμένει L, vulg. ; διαμένη A? ; διαμένει Φ. 
 
 § 324 . r. υμών ταΰτ' Ο, Αι. έπαινέσειεν Αί. 3 · οίίτα» άνιάτωϊ vulg. ; 
 
 outcjs om. Σ, L, Ο, Υ, Αι. 3 » 4· αυτούς Ο. 4· και προώλεις om. Αι. 
 
 ποιήσατε Σ, V6 ; ποιήσοιτε L ; ποιήσαι τε vulg. 
 
 Asia: Aeschines (164) describes Demo¬ 
 sthenes on one such occasion as έπι- 
 δεικνύων τισ'ι το έμδν πρδσωπον ibs έκπε- 
 πλη^μένου και άθυμοΰντος, και χρυσόκερων 
 άποκαλών και κατεστέφθαι φάσκων εΐ τι 
 πταίσμα συμβήσεται ’Αλεξάνδρα). This 
 was when it was reported that Alexander 
 was shut up in Cilicia, and αύτίκα μάλα 
 έμελλε συμπατηθήσεσθαι ύπδ της ΙΙερσικης 
 'ίππου. But it seems less likely that Demo¬ 
 sthenes would refer to such rumours in 
 the present passage. The story shows, 
 however, that the mere report of a dis¬ 
 
 aster to Alexander roused the spirit of 
 
 liberty at Athens, even in her deep 
 
 humil iation. 
 
 5. κύτττων cis την γην : cf. Caes. 
 B. G. 1. 32, 2, tristes capite demisso 
 terram intueri. 
 
 6. διασύρουσιν : cf. § 317 e .— ώσ -ircp 
 ούχ with the participle shows that there 
 is nothing conditional in the expression : 
 see note on § 276 1 * . 
 
 7. 4 ξω βλίττουσα : cf. Plut. Arat. 15, 
 ταίς έλπίσιν έξω βλέπων. 
 
 8. 4 ν οΐς (cf. § 19 3 * 5 6 7 8 ) belongs equally to 
 άτυχησάντων and εύτύχησεν. 
 
 C). ταΰτ’, this state of things (εν οΐς... 
 έτερος), understood also as subject of 
 μενεϊ. 
 
 § 324. The Peroration is confined to 
 this single impressive sentence. As he 
 began his oration by beseeching the Gods 
 to put it into the hearts of the judges to 
 hear him impartially, so now he implores 
 them to change the hearts of the traitors 
 within the State, or, if it is too late for 
 this, to annihilate them utterly as the 
 only hope of safety to honest men. See 
 Lord Brougham’s remarks on the perora¬ 
 tion. 
 
 2. μάλιστα pcv, if possible, best of 
 all. 
 
 3. 4 v 0 €U]T€, may you inspire in them : 
 this combines the wish with an exhorta¬ 
 tion, which the optative sometimes ex¬ 
 presses in poetry (Μ. T. 725). In the 
 clause with δε we have the imperatives 
 ποιήσατε and δότε : see critical note.—cl δ’ 
 άρ’ , but if as may be,—but if after all .— 
 αυτούς καθ’ Ιαυτούς : the strongest ex¬ 
 pression for by themselves. 
 
 4. cijoAcis καί 7τροώλ€ΐς ττοιησατί, 
 cause them to be destroyed utterly and before 
 their time : see Shilleto’s note on XIX. 
 172, εξώλης άπολοίμην και προώλης. The 
 Scholia have : έξώλης δ άξιος απώλειας, 
 προώλης δέ ό προ του καιρού του θανεΐν 
 αύτόν φθαρείς. Westermann quotes an 
 inscription of Halicarnassus from Keil, 
 
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ 
 
 227 
 
 ημΐν δε τοΐς λοίποϊς την ταγίστην απαλλαγήν των έπηρτη- 5 
 μόνων φόβων δδτε καί σωτηρίαν ασφαλή | 
 
 δότε vulg. ; δόιτε ( η over ι) Σ ; δότε over δοιητε L. 
 ee Essay vin. § ι. 
 
 ασφαλή’ + Σ. 
 
 Sched. Epigr., ρ. 36 : έξώλης καί πανώλης 
 ’έστω καί yevos έκ y 0 vovs, καί μήτε yij βατή 
 αύτφ μήτε θάλασσα πλωτή .—εν γη καί 
 θαλάττη, i.e. everywhere, in all their 
 ways. 
 
 5. € 7 τηρτημενών, impending', for the 
 passive of έπαρτώ see XXIII. 140, τοσου- 
 τος επήρτηταί φόβος. Cf. Aesch. I. 175, 
 φόβους έπήρτησα τοΐς άκροωμένοις, i.e. / 
 caused terrors to hang over them (im- 
 pendere). (See Blass.) 
 
 6. σωτηρίαν ασφαλή, safety which 
 cannot be shaken. 
 
 With these solemn but hopeful words 
 of good cheer, Demosthenes leaves his 
 case and his reputation with perfect con¬ 
 fidence in the hands of the judges. Since 
 the success of his burst of eloquence in 
 §§ 5 X > 52, he has felt no anxiety about 
 the judgment, and his courage has in¬ 
 creased steadily in every stage of his 
 argument. 
 
 1 5 —’ 2 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
HISTORICAL SKETCH 
 
 FROM THE ACCESSION OF PHILIP OF MACEDON TO THE 
 
 BATTLE OF CHAERONEA. 
 
 I. From the Accession of Philip in 359 to 352 b.c. 
 
 1. The battle of Mantinea and the death of Epaminondas in 
 362 b.c. mark the beginning of a new era in Greek history. The 
 brilliant statesmanship and military genius of Epaminondas had raised 
 Thebes to the highest position as a military power, and had reduced 
 Sparta from her leadership of Greece to a condition of extreme danger. 
 Sparta was held in check by the new hostile towns of Megalopolis and 
 Messene, and she had suffered for the first time "the humiliation of 
 seeing an invading army within her streets. Athens, alarmed by the 
 aggressive power of Thebes, thought it expedient to forget her ancient 
 enmity and even her recent wrongs, and to make common cause 
 with her old rival: at Mantinea Athens and Sparta fought side by 
 side against Thebes. The death ‘ of Epaminondas at the moment of 
 victory broke the spirit and the power of Thebes; Athens was suddenly 
 relieved of her great alarm, and now no longer feared the removal 
 of her Propylaea to the Cadmea of Thebes. Greece was left without 
 a head, and Athens was encouraged to hope for a recovery of the 
 leadership which she had lost by the Peloponnesian War. 
 
 2. During the five succeeding years Athens devoted herself to 
 establishing her power in the North, especially in her old dominion, the 
 Thracian Chersonese, which, after a long struggle and many reverses, 
 came anew into her possession in 357 b.c. Earlier in the same year she 
 had made her famous expedition for the liberation of Euboea, of which 
 Demosthenes often speaks with pride 1 , when she cleared the whole 
 island of Thebans in thirty days and wrested it permanently from 
 
 1 Dem. Cor. 99. 
 
23° 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH. 
 
 [359- 
 
 Thebes, which had held it since the battle of Leuctra in 371 b.c. In 
 357 b.c. the new Athenian confederacy reached its greatest power and 
 extent. It included a large part of the islands of the Aegean, Byzantium, 
 the Chersonese and the south of Thrace, Potidaea, Methone, and Pydna, 
 with much of the coast of the Thermaic Gulf 1 . But in the autumn of 
 that year the hopes of Athens were violently shattered by the outbreak 
 of the Social War, in which Chios, Cos, Rhodes, and Byzantium, 
 encouraged by Mausolus of Caria, suddenly revolted and weakened 
 her power at its most vital points. This disastrous war ended in the 
 spring of 355, when Athens was compelled to acknowledge the inde¬ 
 pendence of the four seceding states 2 . Thus crippled she found herself 
 in the face of a new and more dangerous enemy. 
 
 3. In 359 b.c. Philip II. succeeded to the throne of Macedonia at 
 the age of twenty-three. Macedonia had hitherto filled only a small place 
 in Greek politics : there was no quarter which threatened less danger 
 to Grecian liberty 3 . Under Philip this was suddenly changed. This 
 crafty king lost no time in laying his plans for his great object, the 
 extension of his power and influence over the states of Greece. His 
 regular policy, which he never deserted and which seldom deserted him, 
 was to interfere in a friendly way in the quarrels of Greek states in the 
 hope of getting one or both of the parties into his own power. He 
 began in the year of his accession by offering help to Athens in her 
 dispute about the possession of her old colony Amphipolis. He pro¬ 
 posed a treaty of peace with Athens, with the understanding that he 
 would secure Amphipolis for her and receive Pydna (on his own coast) 
 in exchange. These negotiations, though known to the Senate, were 
 kept secret from the people of Athens 4 ; but great hopes were based on 
 Philip’s friendship, and Athens not only neglected to take Amphipolis 
 when it was left ungarrisoned by Philip, but refused to help the town 
 afterwards when Philip was besieging it and her aid was asked 5 . But 
 
 1 Dem. IV. 4 refers to this time : εΐχομέν ποθ ’ ημεΐ$ Ιίύόναν καί Π οτείδαιαν καί 
 Μεθώνην καί πάντα τον τόπον τούτον οίκεΐον κνκλιρ. 
 
 2 See Grote χι. Ch. 86, ρρ. 310, 3 2 5 ί Schaefer, Demosth. u. seine Zeit, 1. pp. 166 
 —172. 
 
 3 See Grote xi. p. 279: “Among the hopes and fears of most Grecian cities, 
 Macedonia then passed wholly unnoticed : in Athens, Olynthus, Thasus, Thessaly, 
 and a few others, it formed an item not without moment, yet by no means of first- 
 rate magnitude.” 
 
 4 See Theopompus, frag. 189 (Muller); Schaefer 11. p. 20. This state secret 
 was the θρυλούμενον απόρρητον mentioned in Dem. II. 6 (see the Schol.). 
 
 5 Dem. 1. 8. 
 
353 b.c.] ACCESSION OF PHILIP.—PHOCIAN WAP. 231 
 
 when Philip captured the place in 357 he refused to give it to her, though 
 he had again promised to do so during the siege 1 . This soon led to a 
 war between Philip and Athens, called the Amphipolitan War, which 
 continued about eleven years, until it was ended in 346 by the Peace of 
 Philocrates. One of Philip’s first acts in this war was the seizure of 
 Pydna, which was to have been the price of Amphipolis. He soon 
 afterwards captured Potidaea, a colony of Corinth, then subject to 
 Athens, and gave it to Olynthus, with which he was then forming an 
 alliance. Soon after the capture of Potidaea (356) three messages came 
 to Philip at the same time, one announcing a victory of Parmenio over 
 the Illyrians, another a victory of his horse in the Olympic races, and a 
 third the birth of his son Alexander 2 . In the same year he founded 
 Philippi, near Mt Pangaeus in Thrace, on the site of the Thracian town 
 Crenides, to enable him to work the gold-mines of that region, from 
 which he soon derived a revenue of over a thousand talents yearly 3 . In 
 353 he besieged and captured the Athenian possession Methone 4 . 
 r 4. He now entered upon a grander scheme of intervention, of 
 which perhaps he hardly suspected the issue. This was to end, after 
 
 many years of unremitting exertion, in the bitter humiliation of Athens, 
 
 ----— 
 
 the annihilation of an ancient Greek race, and his own instalment as 
 a member (and the leading member) of the venerable Amphictyonic 
 Council. About 356 b.c. the disastrous Phocian War between the 
 Amphictyonic Council and Phocis had begun. It resulted from a 
 quarrel between Phocis and Thebes about military service, in the 
 course of which the Thebans and Thessalians induced the Council to 
 fine the Phocians for some act of real or constructive sacrilege 5 . They 
 refused to pay the fine, and the Council voted to treat them as it 
 had treated the sacrilegious Cirrhaeans in the time of Solon 6 , by seizing 
 their land and consecrating it to the Delphian Apollo, and putting the 
 whole Phocian race under a terrible curse. The Phocians, under their 
 
 1 Dem. XXIII. 116: Φίλιππος, 6're μεν Άμφίπολιν έπολιόρκει, ϊν' ύμΐν παραδφ 
 πολιορκεΐν ΐίφη, έπειδη δ’ έλαβε, και II οτείδαιαν προσαφείλετο. Cf. [V 1 1.] 27. 
 
 2 Alexander was bom (Plut. Alex. 3) on the 6th of Hecatombaeon (July 21), 356 B.c. 
 
 3 Diod. xvi. 8: see below § 8, n. 2. 
 
 4 For Philip’s successive aggressions on Athens from 357 to 353 B.c. see Grote xi. 
 331—336; Schaefer 11. 21—31 ; and Dem. 1. 12, Cor. 69. 
 
 5 See Paus. X. 2, 1 : κατέλαβαν αυτούς (the Phocians) ζημιωθηναι χρημασιν ύπδ 
 Άμφικτυόνων ’ ονδ' έχω του λόγου το άληθές έξευρεΐν, είτε άδικησασιν έπεβληθη σφίσιν, 
 είτε θεσσαλο'ι κατά τό έκ παλαιού μίσος y ενέσθαι την ζημίαν τοΐς Φ ωκεύσιν ησαν οι 
 πράξαντες. Schaefer I. 488— 49 °· 
 
 6 See below, § 72 (end). 
 
232 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH. 
 
 [356- 
 
 leader Philomelus, decided to resist; and they revived an old claim to 
 the management of the temple of Delphi, which had caused a short 
 Sacred War in 448 b.c. At that time the Phocians, under the protection 
 of Athens, had seized the temple and expelled the Delphians; the 
 Spartans sent an army which restored the temple to the Delphians, soon 
 after which the Athenians sent another army which placed the Phocians 
 again in possession 1 . Athens was thus committed by her action ninety 
 years before to the Phocian side of the question ; Sparta was herself 
 already under the Delphic ban by her refusal to pay a fine imposed on 
 her for seizing the Cadmea of Thebes in 382 b.c. 
 
 5. Under these circumstances Philomelus with a body of Phocians 
 seized the temple. The loyal Amphictyons, now chiefly Thebans, 
 Thessalians, and Locrians, raised a large army to attack them, and they 
 in turn raised a large mercenary force to defend the temple. After 
 many promises to respect the sacred treasures, Philomelus was soon 
 reduced to the necessity of using these to pay his soldiers; and in a 
 few years the costly offerings of gold and silver, with which the religious 
 pride of Greece and the munificence of strangers like Croesus had stored 
 this venerable temple, had been melted down to supply the needs of 
 the Phocian mercenaries. Philomelus was killed in a skirmish in 354 b.c., 
 and was succeeded by Onomarchus, who continued the spoliation of the 
 temple with still greater energy. He even used the bronze and iron 
 relics to make arms for his troops. He and his successors gave the most 
 precious relics, as the necklaces of Helen and of Harmonia (daughter 
 of Ares and Aphrodite, and wife of Cadmus), to their wives or mistresses 
 to wear; and Diodorus piously relates the sad fates which befel these 
 unfortunate women 2 . This state of things caused a scandal throughout 
 Greece, which was easily magnified by the enemies of the Phocians, 
 and obliged even their traditional friends, like the Athenians, to be 
 cautious in expressing their sympathies byword or deed 3 . The religious 
 excitement also made it easy and attractive for an unscrupulous out¬ 
 sider like Philip to intervene on the side of piety, and thus to pose as 
 the champion of the God of Delphi. This Philip did at the earliest 
 opportunity. 
 
 1 Thuc. 1. 112. After the decline of the Athenian power the Phocians lost their 
 control of the temple, and the Peace of Nicias (421 B.c.) recognized the Delphians as 
 managers. 
 
 2 Athen. vi. p. 232 e; Diod. xvi. 64. 
 
 3 See the cautious words of Demosthenes (Cor. 18) on the feeling and the policy 
 of Athens concerning the Phocians. For the earlier account of the Phocian War see 
 Grote xi. Ch. 87, Schaefer 1. 488—507. 
 
352 b . c .] PHILIP CHECKED AT THERMOPYLAE. 
 
 2 33 
 
 6. He had already interfered in the affairs of Thessaly by aiding 
 the Aleuadae of Larissa in their contest against Lycophron, despot of 
 Pherae. In 353—352 b.c., soon after his capture of Methone, he 
 attacked Lycophron with such vigour that the despot invoked the aid of 
 Onomarchus and his Phocian army. The Phocians had now become 
 so powerful with their ill-gotten wealth that they had marched forth 
 from Delphi and were practically masters of Boeotia and of the whole 
 region south of Thermopylae. A force of Phocians under Phayllus, 
 the brother and afterwards the successor of Onomarchus, who marched 
 to the aid of Lycophron, was defeated by Philip, and compelled to 
 retreat beyond Thermopylae. Onomarchus then entered Thessaly with 
 his whole army, and defeated Philip in two battles. But Philip soon 
 returned with a new army, and defeated the Phocians completely. 
 Onomarchus, it was said, was slain in the retreat by some of his 
 own men. Lycophron was obliged to abandon Pherae, which was 
 taken by Philip, who also captured the important seaport of Pagasae, 
 which gave him control of the whole Pagasaean Gulf. The Phocian 
 army was annihilated; but Phayllus took his brother’s command, and 
 easily raised another mercenary force by offering double pay, which the 
 sacred treasures still provided 1 . 
 
 7. While this new force was collecting, the road through Ther¬ 
 mopylae lay open to Philip; but he delayed his march southward until 
 he could settle the affairs of southern Thessaly. Since his defeat 
 of the Phocians he was hailed as a protector by their enemies, and he 
 was already recognized as the avenger of Apollo, who was to restore the 
 holy temple to its rightful lord; and it was confidently expected that 
 he would pass Thermopylae with his army and become a power in 
 Central Greece. But at this momentous crisis Athens became fully 
 alive to the danger which threatened Greece and especially herself. 
 With an energy which was unusual at this period and recalled the most 
 glorious of her older days, she sent a force by sea to Thermopylae, which 
 was sufficient to prevent Philip from even attempting to force the pass, 
 and which (strange to say) arrived in time. Demosthenes often alludes 
 with pride to this exploit of Athens, and compares it with her many 
 expeditions which were sent too late 2 . This took place shortly before 
 midsummer,. 352 b.q 3 Though Philip received a temporary check at 
 this time, he was now recognized as a power to be reckoned with in the 
 
 1 See Grote xi. 408—418; Schaefer 1. 505—510, n. 31—32. 
 
 2 See Dem. Cor. 32, iv. 17, 35, xix. 84 (cf. 322). 
 
 3 See Grote xi. 415 ; Schaefer 1. 510. 
 
234 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH. 
 
 [384- 
 
 settlement of the Sacred War; and he used this position with great skill, 
 until six years later he was enabled to end the war on his own terms, 
 to humiliate Athens, and by a single blow to make himself a recognized 
 partner in Greek affairs. 
 
 II. Early Life of Demosthenes.—Events from 352 to 
 
 348 B.C. 
 
 8. In 354 b.c., two years before Philip was repulsed at Ther¬ 
 mopylae byTAthens, a statesman appeared in the Athenian Assembly 
 who was to be his most able and persistent opponent, and to whom 
 it was chiefly due that his plans for the subjugation of Greece were 
 delayed more than fifteen years. Demosthenes, son of Demosthenes, 
 was born at Athens, according to the date now generally accepted, 
 in 384—383 b.c., the year in which probably Aristotle was born at 
 Stageiros 1 . The father of Demosthenes died in 376—375, leaving his 
 son in his eighth year and a daughter in her fifth. He left an estate of 
 about fifteen talents (^3000 or $i5ooo) 2 , to be managed during the 
 
 1 We have the most conflicting statements of the year in which the orator was 
 born. The date 384 — 383 agrees with what Demosthenes says in xxx. 15, that 
 Aphobus was married in the last month of the archonship of Polyzelus (i.e. mid¬ 
 summer 366 B.c.), and that immediately afterwards he himself became of age (18) and 
 passed his δοκιμασία. It also agrees generally with his statements in XXVII. 4, 17, 
 and 29, that he was seven years old (επτ’ ετών ’όντα), i.e. in his eighth year, at his 
 father’s death, and that he was under guardianship ten years (before 366)· It is 
 confirmed by Hyperides (in Dem., Col. xxn. 5), who refers to Demosthenes (in 324 
 —323 B.c.). as “over sixty years old.” It is directly opposed to Dem. xxi. 154, 
 where the orator says that he is thirty-two years old (in 349 — 348) : there is probably 
 an error in the text here: and this is repeated by Dion. Hal. (Amm. p. 724), who 
 gives 381 — 380 for the birth of Demosthenes. See Schaefer 1. 269, with Beilage 11. 
 (1st ed.); Blass, Chron. Dem. (in Teubner ed.), p. 5. 
 
 The lives of Demosthenes and Aristotle coincide almost exactly, as Aristotle died 
 at Chalcis in the autumn of 322 B.c., a few weeks before the death of Demosthenes at 
 Calauria. 
 
 For another opinion on these dates, by which Demosthenes was born in 383 and 
 the Midiana is dated in 350, when he was 32 years and 11 months old, see Unger in 
 the Berichte of the Munich Academy, 1879, II. p. 173. 
 
 2 I give the modern value of the weight of pure silver which made the Solonic 
 talent (57! lbs. avoir.) at ^200 or $1000, this being the average value for many years 
 before the recent decline in the value of silver (see Lidd. and Scott under τάλαντον). 
 This assumes a value of 57 pence per ounce Troy of pure silver, and 52/5 pence per 
 ounce of English standard silver (-925 fine). If standard silver were to fall to 
 265/5 pence per ounce (Oct. 6, 1899, it was 20f), the actual value of a talent weight of 
 silver would be ^100. 
 
364 b.c.] BIRTH AND YOUTH OF DEMOSTHENES. 235 
 
 son’s minority by three guardians, Aphobus, Demophon, and Therip- 
 pides. These faithless trustees mismanaged the property ten years in 
 the most dishonest manner, so that the estate had nearly vanished when 
 their ward attained his majority in 366 at the age of eighteen. Demo¬ 
 sthenes immediately began legal proceedings against his guardians, from 
 each of whom he claimed ten talents; but he brought only one suit to 
 trial, that against Aphobus, the chief guardian and the chief offender. 
 During two years he attempted to bring his guardians to terms by private 
 negotiations; and the young man hesitated long and anxiously before 
 appearing in the courts against men of wealth and influence, with whom 
 he must contend at a great disadvantage with his inexperience and his 
 broken fortunes. All this time and even earlier he was preparing for 
 the great contest. He secured the services of Isaeus, a jurist of great 
 experience in the courts, who was deeply learned in the Attic law, 
 especially in that relating to inheritance and the management of estates. 
 According to one account Isaeus lived in the house of Demosthenes 
 four years as his adviser 1 . 
 
 9. At length, in 364 b.c., .the suit against Aphobus was ready for 
 trial in the Archon’s court. But four or five days before the day of trial 
 Aphobus tried a last desperate trick to compel Demosthenes to abandon 
 his suit. Thrasylochus, a friend of Aphobus, on whom the duty of 
 the trierarchy had regularly been imposed, came with his brother, 
 the rich and powerful Midias 2 , to Demosthenes, and demanded that 
 he should either take the trierarchy or accept άι/τιδοσι$. This meant 
 that Demosthenes must either assume the trierarchy without further 
 question, as if it were legally imposed on him, or else submit to a 
 διαδικασία before the board of Generals to decide whether he was bound 
 to bear the expense rather than Thrasylochus, regard being had to their 
 respective wealth and to the time since either had borne the burden. 
 If this decision went against him, he must either assume the trierarchy 
 or exchange property with Thrasylochus. The first step in the process 
 called αντιδοσις was an official sealing of both estates to prevent dimi¬ 
 nution, and the suspensio?i of all lawsuits the issue of which might 
 impair the value of either property. This last was the real object of the 
 whole trick, as it was assumed that Demosthenes in his poverty could 
 not take the trierarchy, and that the time was too short for a διαδικασία. 
 Demosthenes at first accepted the άντί&οσις, i.e. he refused to take the 
 trierarchy thus fraudulently tendered, and decided to submit his case to 
 
 1 See Plut. Dem. 5; Vit. x. Orat. p. 844 C. 
 
 2 See § 15, below. 
 
236 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH 
 
 [364- 
 
 the regular διαδικασία, in which he felt sure of obtaining justice. But 
 the time proved to be too short for this \ and he therefore was com¬ 
 pelled to take the trierarchy, as the only means of bringing his suit 
 to trial 1 . He paid twenty minae (one-third of a talent), the sum for 
 which Thrasylochus had already hired a contractor to perform the duties 
 of the trierarchy, which was a σνντριηραρχία 2 . 
 
 Though the estate of Demosthenes had been so grossly squandered, 
 the crafty guardians had allowed their ward to be assessed for the 
 property tax in the highest class, as one of the “ leaders of Symmories.” 
 This obliged him to bear all the special burdens of the richest citizens, 
 including the trierarchy 3 . 
 
 10. As was the rule in private suits 4 , the case came first before a 
 public arbiter (διαιτ^τ^ς), who condemned Aphobus. In the Heliastic 
 court, to which he appealed, the result was the same, and Demosthenes 
 was awarded his full damages, ten talents. In this trial he delivered his 
 two orations against Aphobus (xxvn. and xxvm.). But he found it im¬ 
 possible to obtain either his estate or his damages from his wily opponent. 
 In attempting to seize a piece of land belonging to Aphobus he was 
 met by Onetor, brother-in-law of Aphobus, who asserted that the land 
 was his own, having been taken by him as security for the dowry of his 
 sister, whom Aphobus had married and divorced. Demosthenes now 
 brought a δί κη έξονλης, or suit of ejectment, against Onetor, charging 
 him with “ ejecting ” him illegally from land to which he had a legal 
 claim 5 . In this case he delivered his two orations against Onetor (xxx. 
 
 1 See Dem. XXVIII. 17: άντίδοσιν επ’ εμέ παρεσκεύασαν, ΐν , εί μεν άντιδοίην, μη 
 έξείη μοι προς αυτούς άντιδικεΐν ci>s και τών δικών τούτων του άντιδιδόντος "γι^νομένων, εί 
 δε μηδέν τούτων ποιοίην, Ϊν ’ εκ βραχείας ουσίας λητουρχών παντάπασιν άναιρεθείην — 
 άντέδωκα μεν, απέκλεισα δέ ώ$ διαδικασίας τευξόμενος * ου τυχών δε ταύτης, των χρόνων 
 ύττοΎύων δντων, ϊνα μη στερηθώ τών δικών, άπέτισα την λητουρ·γίαν ύττοθείς την οικίαν 
 και τάμαυτοΰ πάντα. Dem. accepted the άντίδοσις (άντέδωκα μέν), but with the 
 common proviso (απέκλεισα δε) that a διαδικασία should finally settle the case; but 
 Thrasylochus had skilfully left no time for this. See also xxi. 78. For άντίδοσις, as 
 applicable to all forms of λητουρχία, see Boeckh, Staatsh. d. Ath. 1. pp. 673 ff. (esp. 
 677), with Frankel’s note 883 (il. p. 130*). 
 
 2 Dem. xxi. 80, 154. The whole trierarchy, of which Thrasylochus had one half 
 imposed on him, cost forty minae. See Boeckh, Staatsh. d. Ath. 1. 642, 671. 
 
 3 Dem. Cor. T03 3 and note, XXVII. 7, 9; Boeckh, ibid. pp. 599—601, 613. 
 
 4 Arist. Pol. Ath. 53, a passage which finally settles a disputed question. 
 
 5 The δίκη έξούλης has many points in common with the old action of ejectment, 
 on which see Encyclop. Britann. under Ejectment. See hypothesis to Dem. XXX.: 
 διόπερ έξούλης αύτφ δικάζεται ό Δημοσθένης, ως εκ τών ’Αφοβου πρότερον, νυν δέ 
 έαυτιρ ·γε~/ενημένων, έξεληλαμένος—το δέ τής έξούλης όνομα Αττικόν έξέλλειν yap 
 
35 2 B*C·] 
 
 DEMOSTHENES AS OR A TOE. 
 
 237 
 
 and xxxi.), probably in 362—361. The issue of this second suit is not 
 known. It is certain that Isaeus advised and supported the young 
 orator in all these suits, and he probably composed many passages in 
 the speeches themselves 1 . 
 
 11. The training in law and rhetoric which Demosthenes gained in 
 preparing for this early contest, and his long experience in the various 
 processes of the courts, were by no means lost. He found himself, at 
 the age of twenty-three, mainly dependent on himself for support; and 
 he adopted the profession of λογογράφος or legal adviser, the duties of 
 which included writing speeches for clients to deliver in court (whence 
 the name). In the period from 360 to 356 b.c. he composed for clients 
 the private orations numbered xli., li., and lv . 2 It is very plain, 
 however, that Demosthenes soon aimed at something much higher than 
 writing speeches and giving advice in private lawsuits. Before he was 
 thirty years old he had distinguished himself as an advocate in cases 
 of important public interest, in which the constitutionality of laws or 
 decrees was judicially tested 3 . His arguments in such cases of γραφή 
 παρανόμων (of which more will be said elsewhere) are those against 
 Androtion (xxn., 355—354 b.c.), against Leptines (xx., same year), 
 against Timocrates (xxiv., 353—352), and against Aristocrates (xxiii., 
 352—351). But he had already twice appeared as a speaker in the 
 Athenian Assembly, once in 354—353, when he delivered his speech on 
 the Symmories (xiv.), proposing a reform in the system of assessing taxes 
 and equipping the navy, and once again in 353—352, when he defended 
 the rights of Megalopolis (xvi.) against Spartan aggression. In neither 
 of these public speeches is there anything which shows that the orator 
 was seriously anxious about the dangers which already threatened 
 Athens from the north. It is impossible that less than a year before the 
 First Philippic none of the forebodings which there appear should have 
 been felt; but probably Demosthenes thought that the moment for open 
 and energetic speech and action on his part against Philip had not yet 
 come. 
 
 ZXeyov τό εξωθεΐν καί εκβάλλει.ν βία. έξούλης is therefore the act of ejectment, which is 
 charged as an offence, used like κλοπής in δίκη κλοπής. See Harpocr. s.v. έξούλης; 
 Smith, Diet. Ant. Exoules Dike\ Meier and Schomann 665—668. 
 
 1 For example, a long passage in xxx. 37, which approves the examination of 
 slaves under torture and has often been quoted as a reproach against Demosthenes, is 
 found almost verbatim in Isaeus vm. 12. 
 
 2 For the dates of these and other early speeches see Blass, Chron. Dem. 
 
 pp. 18 ff. 
 
 3 For the 7 ραφή παρανόμων see Essay II. 
 
238 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH 
 
 [352- 
 
 12. Probably the sudden panic about midsummer 352, which 
 roused Athens to her energetic movement to Thermopylae (§ 7), gave 
 the question of checking Philip’s aggressions a new and serious import¬ 
 ance 1 . A few months later (Nov. 352) the alarming news came that 
 Philip was besieging Heraion Teichos, a fortified post neai the I hracian 
 Chersonese 2 . Again Athens acted with energy, and voted to equip 
 forty triremes, to be manned by Athenians, and to levy a tax of sixty 
 talents. But a report that Philip was ill, followed by another that he 
 was dead 3 , stopped these preparations, and nothing was done. Philip’s 
 cruisers committed some daring aggressions on the coasts of Euboea 
 and even of Attica. In the spring of 351 the Athenian Assembly met 
 to consider his hostile behaviour, which was now a familiar subject. 
 Demosthenes was the first to speak, and he spoke with no uncertain 
 sound. This earliest of his speeches against Philip, the First Philippic 4 , 
 is an earnest and solemn appeal to the people to take decisive steps 
 against an enemy who is every day becoming more dangerous. De¬ 
 mosthenes is now thoroughly aroused, and henceforth the single object 
 of his political life is to excite the Athenians to effective action against 
 Philip. He now proposes a new plan for a permanent military and 
 naval force, to supersede the spasmodic efforts of the past, which 
 had generally failed of their purpose. In this speech he established 
 his claim to statesmanship, on the ground of “seeing things in their 
 beginning and proclaiming them to others ’ \ and in his final review of 
 his political life twenty-one years later he appeals to this with honest 
 pride 5 . So far as we know, this great speech produced no effect 6 . The 
 dull honest conservatism of Eubulus, who held the attention and con¬ 
 trolled the votes of the Assembly, lulled the people into a dream of false 
 security and prevented immediate action on each emergency. The 
 policy of Eubulus was that of “ peace at any price,” at this critical time 
 a most disastrous one, of which he failed to see the danger. 
 
 13. A few months after the First Philippic, probably in the autumn 
 of 351, Demosthenes made his speech in the Assembly for the Freedom 
 
 1 The opening of the First Philippic shows that, though Philip’s encroachments 
 had been often discussed, no serious action had ever been proposed. 
 
 2 See III. 4: μέμνησθε or’ άπηγχέΧθη ΦίΧιτι ros ύμΐν εν θρψκη τρίτον η τέταρτον 
 £tos τουτί 'Hpouov τείχος ττοΧιορκων. τότε τοίννν μην μεν ην ΧΙαιμακτηριων. 1 his was 
 in Nov. 352, more than three years before the Third Olynthiac (349—348). 
 
 3 See IV. 11 : τέθνηκε Φίλιππο?; ού μα Δι’. άλλ’ ασθενεί; τί δ’ ύμΐν διαφέρει; 
 
 4 See Schaefer 11. 73 » Grote XI. 43 1 · 
 
 5 ίδεΐν τα πράγματα άρχόμεν α κ.τ.Χ. Cor. § 246. See Grote XI. 44 2 · 
 
 6 But see Schaefer 11. 76. 
 
34 8 b.c.] EUBOEA.—DEMOSTHENES AND M/D/AS. 239 
 
 of the Rhodians (xv.) 1 . The now penitent Rhodian democracy, four 
 years after the Social War, sought help from Athens against the oligarchy 
 which had been supported by Mausolus, who had recently died. The 
 Athenians, however, could not so soon forget their grievances, and 
 refused their help. 
 
 14. Philip’s intrigues in Euboea soon made new troubles. Since 
 the victorious expedition in 357 (§ 2) Euboea had been nominally in 
 friendship with Athens. But after Philip gained control of southern 
 Thessaly in 353—352 (§ 6), he constantly used his influence to alienate 
 the island from Athens. In the First Philippic letters were read from 
 Philip to Euboeans, showing hostility to iVthens; and we hear of his 
 cruisers off Geraestus 2 . Early in 350 the Athenians were asked for help 
 by Plutarchus, a sort of despot in Eretria, who was hard pressed by his 
 enemies and professed to be a friend of Athens. Against the strong 
 opposition of Demosthenes, it was voted to send an army to Euboea to 
 help him, under the command of Phocion. This expedition had various 
 fortunes in a few weeks. Plutarchus proved treacherous, and the 
 Athenians were for a time in great danger; but Phocion gained a 
 decisive victory at Tamynae, the news of which was brought to Athens 
 by Aeschines just before the Great Dionysia (end of March) 3 . Later 
 Phocion returned to Athens with most of his army, leaving a garrison in 
 Euboea to be captured by the enemy and ransomed. Affairs remained 
 in this position two years, until a peace was made in 348, in which the 
 independence of Euboea was recognized. Athens and Euboea remained 
 unfriendly, until the intrigues of Philip in 343—342 (§ 58, below) again 
 brought them into amicable relations 4 . 
 
 15. The Great Dionysiac festival of 350 was important for the 
 fortunes of Demosthenes. His tribe, the Pandionis, chose no choregus 
 for this year, and he volunteered to take the duties and bear the 
 expense of the χορη-γία. While he was sitting in the orchestra of the 
 theatre at the festival, amid all the pomp and state of the ceremony, being 
 a sacred as well as a public official, wearing his crown of office, his old 
 enemy, the wealthy Midias (§ 9), came forward and struck him several 
 
 1 Schaefer 1. 473—487. 
 
 2 Dem. iv. 34, 37. 
 
 3 Aesch. 11. 169—171; Dem. xxi. 163. The chronology of this period is very 
 uncertain: I follow Dion. Hal., and Schaefer n. 79. 
 
 4 In xix. 75 (earlier in 343 b.c.) Demosthenes speaks of τούς καταράτους Εΰ /Was: 
 cf. Cor. § 234 s . For the judgment of Demosthenes on the Euboean War of 350—348 
 see v. 5. For the campaign see Grote xi. 473—481; Schaefer 11. 78—86. 
 
240 HISTORICAL SKETCH [ 350 - 
 
 times in the face with his clenched fist 1 . This was not merely a personal 
 outrage, but an insult to the state and to a great religious festival; and 
 it could be dealt with only by the most public legal process. T his was 
 the προβολή , in which the case first came before the Assembly for its 
 preliminary judgment, and afterward, if the decision was adverse to 
 the accused, could be tried before an ordinary popular court. The 
 Assembly, at a special meeting in the Dionysiac Theatre, unanimously 
 condemned Midias. I his adverse vote (καταχειροτοΐ'ΐα) of the people 
 was not a judicial condemnation; it merely sent the case to the court, 
 if the accuser saw fit to bring it there, with a praejudicium against the 
 defendant, which would stand for what it was worth with the judges. A 
 man of influence and wealth, like Midias, might easily, after the lapse of 
 many months, put obstacles in the way of a judgment by the Heliastic 
 Court, which would not be available in the public Assembly, held 
 immediately after the outrage. It is not surprising, therefore, that the 
 young orator, after his decisive victory over Midias in the unanimous 
 popular vote, yielded to the advice of judicious friends and avoided a 
 further contest with a powerful man, who could always give him trouble 
 in his public career. He compromised the case, and received a sum of 
 money as damages 2 . 1 he existing oration against Midias (xxi.), which 
 appears to have been carefully composed for delivery in court, was of 
 course never spoken: its professed date (according to the chronology 
 here followed) is 349—348 b.c. 3 
 
 16. A year later (in 349) Philip took a most important step in his 
 grand plan by attacking the Olynthiac confederacy of thirty-two free 
 Greek towns in the Chalcidic peninsula. In less than a year he had 
 captured and destroyed all these, including Stageiros, the birth-place of 
 Aristotle, and sold the inhabitants into slavery 4 . Olynthus, the head of 
 this confederacy, had long been an important and flourishing city, 
 generally hostile to Athens, and before 352 friendly to Philip. He 
 
 1 ϊ or the affair of Midias and its consequences, see Dem. xxi., the speech against 
 Midias; Schaefer 11. 94—101; Grote xi. 478, 479. 
 
 Aeschines (in. 52) speaks of this compromise as a disgraceful proceeding: 
 άπέδοτο τριάκοντα μνων (half a talent) άμα την re els αυτόν ϋβριν και την του δήμου 
 καταχειροτονίαν. He is of course no authority for the price. 
 
 See xxi. 13, where he mentions midsummer 351 «ts τρίτον ctos τουτί , as if he 
 
 were speaking in 349—348. 
 
 Dem. IX. 26 : Ολυνθον μέν δη και Μ,εθώνην καί ’Απολλωνίαν καί δύο καί τριάκοντα 
 7 r 0 \ets επί Θράκης εώ, as άπάσas oiirws ώ /uDs άνηρηκεν ώστε μηδ’ εί πώποτ ’ φκήθησαν 
 προσελθόντ είναι ράδιον είπεΐν. Cf. XIX. 2 66 : πριν έξελθεΐν ενιαυτόν του πολέμου ras 
 πολεπ άι rdaas άπολωλέκεσαν ras εν τη Χαλκιδική οί πpoδιδόvτεs. 
 
348 B.C.] 
 
 OLYNTHIAN WAR. 
 
 241 
 
 encouraged her in her enmity to Athens by giving her Potidaea, which 
 he took from Athens in 356, having already given her the Macedonian 
 Anthemus. But the rapid advance of Philip’s power in 353—352, 
 which brought him to Thermopylae and almost carried him further* 
 alarmed the enterprising city, and in the autumn of 352 she was in friend¬ 
 ship, if not in alliance, with Athens 1 . In the autumn of 349 an embassy 
 from Olynthus came to Athens, asking help against an attack from 
 Philip, and proposing a formal alliance 2 3 . Athens accepted the alliance; 
 but nothing was done with sufficient energy to save Olynthus or any 
 of her confederate towns. Three embassies came from Olynthus to 
 Athens, and three fleets were sent by Athens to Olynthus ; the last fleet 
 was still at sea when Olynthus fell. The city was captured, after a brave 
 defence, by the help of traitors within the walls, probably in the early 
 autumn of 348 s . Many Athenian citizens were captured with the city 4 . 
 With or before Olynthus fell the other Chalcidic towns, and the 
 destruction was complete and terrible. Seldom had anything shocked 
 the feelings of the Grecian world like this. Travellers in Peloponnesus 
 (Aeschines among others) saw bn the roads troops of Olynthian captives 
 driven off to slavery 5 . 
 
 17. During the Olynthian war Demosthenes delivered his three 
 Olynthiacs, masterpieces of eloquence, full of earnest appeals to the 
 patriotism and public spirit of the Athenians and to their sense of duty 
 and honour 6 . The wise prediction of the First Philippic, “if we do not 
 now fight Philip there (in the north), we shall perhaps be compelled to 
 fight him here 7 ,” is now repeated in fresh words and with redoubled 
 force. No more powerful arguments were ever addressed to any people; 
 
 1 Dem. XXIII. 109, εϊτ Όλύνθωι μεν ΐσασι τό μέλλον προοραν, κ.τ.λ. Liban. ΰποθ. 
 to Dem. I. (§ 2), άποδημουντα δε τηρησαντες αυτ'ον ( Φίλιππον Όλύνθωι) πέμφαντες 
 πρέσβεις πρός Αθηναίους κατελύσαντο τόν προς αύτους πόλεμον. Schaefer II. 121 refers 
 to these negotiations with Athens; also to C. I. Att. 11. no. 105, of 351 B.C., which is 
 too mutilated to count as historical authority for an alliance. 
 
 2 Dem. 1. 2, 7. 
 
 3 Diod. XVI. 53, φθείρας χρήμασι. . .Εύθυκράτην τε και Αασθένην, κ.τ.λ. See Dem. 
 νιΐΐ. 40, ix. 56, 66, xix. 265. For the details of the Olynthian war, see Schaefer 11. 
 124 ff., for the dates 156 — 159; Grote XI. 454 ff. 
 
 4 See § 19. 
 
 5 See the account given by Aeschines of his meeting the Arcadian Atrestidas 
 returning home with thirty Olynthian women and children, Dem. xix. 305, 306. See 
 Grote xi. 505, 510. 
 
 6 The traditional order of the Olynthiacs is defended by Schaefer 11. 159—165; 
 for other opinions see Grote xi. 499—504. 
 
 7 IV. 50. 
 
 G. D. 
 
 16 
 
242 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH 
 
 [ 348 - 
 
 and yet the quieting influence of Eubulus and his party prevented all 
 efficient and timely action. The Third Olynthiac has a forcible appeal 
 to the Athenians to use the Theoric (or festival) fund for military pur¬ 
 poses 1 , a measure which was never passed until shortly before the battle 
 of Chaeronea. At the end of the Olynthiac war (348) Demosthenes was 
 probably in his thirty-sixth year. All the public speeches made by him 
 before the events of 346 have already been mentioned. 
 
 III. The Peace of Philocrates. 
 
 347—346 B.C. 
 
 18. When Philip had destroyed Olynthus and the thirty-two Greek 
 towns of Chalcidice, he naturally turned his eyes southward and be¬ 
 thought himself of the land of his hopes beyond Thermopylae. Ex¬ 
 perience had shown him that while he was at open war with Athens he 
 could hardly hope to pass Thermopylae without a desperate struggle; 
 and for this he hardly felt prepared. Whether he had already planned 
 the artful scheme by which two years later he entered Greece, hailed 
 with acclamation as the champion of Apollo and the protector of 
 Delphi, or whether he had some less pretentious plan in view, he now 
 saw that at least a temporary peace with Athens was absolutely necessary. 
 Even before the capture of Olynthus, envoys from Euboea had brought 
 to Athens a pleasant message from Philip that he wished for peace. 
 Soon after this, Phrynon of Rhamnus was captured by one of Philip’s 
 cruisers, as he claimed, during the Olympic truce (i.e. about mid¬ 
 summer 348). He was released on payment of a ransom; and he 
 persuaded the Athenians to send a public envoy with him to ask Philip 
 to restore his ransom money. Ctesiphon (not the defendant in the suit 
 on the Crown) was sent on this mission 2 . Philip received both 
 Ctesiphon and Phrynon with great kindness and granted their request. 
 Ctesiphon reported that Philip wished to make peace as soon as 
 possible 3 . The Athenians were delighted; and it was unanimously 
 voted, on the motion of Philocrates, that Philip might send a herald 
 and envoys to Athens to treat for peace. A certain Lycinus brought 
 a γραφή παρανόμων against this decree, with a penalty of a hundred 
 talents, on what ground we are not directly informed. Demosthenes 
 
 1 hi. 18—20. See Grote xi. 491—499. 
 
 2 For this and the following events of §§ 18 and 19, see Aesch. 11. 12—19. 
 
 3 Aesch. 11. 12, 13. 
 
347 b.c.] PROPOSALS POP PEACE.—AR 1 ST 0 DEMUS. 243 
 
 appeared as the advocate of Philocrates, and Lycinus failed to get a 
 fifth of the votes of the court 1 . 
 
 19. At about this time Olynthus was captured 2 . The consternation 
 caused by this event did much to cause the almost universal desire for 
 peace at Athens. Among the Athenians captured at Olynthus were 
 Iatrocles and Eueratus, whose relatives appeared in the Assembly with 
 suppliant olive branches and besought the people to rescue their kins¬ 
 men. Their entreaty was supported by Demosthenes and Philocrates, 
 but not by Aeschines 3 . The people were deeply moved by this solemn 
 supplication, and voted to send the actor Aristodemus, who was pro¬ 
 fessionally intimate at the Macedonian court, to intercede with Philip 
 for the two prisoners 4 . This mission also was perfectly successful. 
 Iatrocles soon returned to Athens, released by Philip without ransom. 
 Afterwards Aristodemus, who was probably detained by professional 
 engagements, appeared after a summons from the Senate, and reported 
 that Philip was full of kindness and wished both peace and alliance 
 with Athens. Aristodemus was complimented by a crown, on the 
 motion of Demosthenes 5 . The return of Aristodemus to Athens took 
 place after the beginning of the year 347—346, the archonship of 
 Themistocles, in which Demosthenes was for the second time a 
 senator, the year of the peace of Philocrates 6 . 
 
 1 Aesch. ir. 14. In hi. 62 Aeschines uses this support of Philocrates by Demosthenes 
 as evidence of an early collusion between the two. But Demosthenes might con¬ 
 sistently help to remove a mere technical obstruction to this preliminary step towards 
 peace. Even a vote forbidding negotiations for peace with Philip, such as Aeschines 
 obscurely hints at (11. 13), could not have been a νόμος, which alone could justify the 
 7 ραφή παρανόμων. The whole process of Lycinus looks like a mere political trick. 
 Moreover, Philocrates was not yet discredited as a minion of Philip. 
 
 2 Aesch. 11. 15. 
 
 3 Ibid, συνηγορούν Φι,λοκράτης καί Δημοσθένης, άλλ’ ούκ Αισχίνης. This is said 
 after the condemnation of Philocrates. 
 
 4 See Grote xi. 516, 517: he compares this with the memorable scene in the 
 Assembly in 406 b.c., when the relatives of the men who had been left on the wrecks 
 to perish after the victory at Arginusae came before the people, dressed in black and 
 with shaven heads to excite sympathy. 
 
 5 Aesch. 11. 15—17. Demosthenes twice (xix. 12, 315) speaks of the actor 
 Neoptolemus, in connection with Aristodemus and Ctesiphon, as bringing deceitful 
 messages from Philip. Grote (xi. 517) thinks that he was one of the envoys to Philip. 
 But his may have been private messages, sent informally at about the same time with 
 the others. 
 
 6 Though Aeschines (11. 14, 15) puts the first proposal of Philocrates for peace and 
 his indictment (§ 18, above) at about the time of the capture of Olynthus (autumn 
 of 348), he distinctly puts the return of Aristodemus from Macedonia in the next 
 
 16—2 
 
244 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH 
 
 [348 
 
 20. In the previous year, after the fall of Olynthus, a significant 
 movement against Philip was made by Eubulus, with the active aid of 
 Aeschines, of whom we then hear for the first time in political life. 
 The famous rival of Demosthenes was the son of respectable parents, 
 who had been reduced to poverty in the Peloponnesian War. We 
 cannot accept as historical either of the two accounts of his parentage 
 and his youth which are given by Demosthenes 1 . Neither orator is 
 authority for the life or personal character of the other. Like De¬ 
 mosthenes, he was left to his own resources to earn his living; but he 
 was less favoured by genius and by fortune than his rival. As a young 
 man he was a play-actor and took many important parts, as that of 
 Creon in the Antigone and that of Oenomaus in the tragedy of 
 Sophocles of that name 2 . He also did service as a clerk, publicly 
 in the Senate and Assembly, and privately in the employ of Aristophon 
 and Eubulus 3 . His friendly relations with Eubulus were often of great 
 service to him in his public life. He was strong and vigorous, had a 
 powerful voice, and was a ready speaker. In all these respects Nature 
 had given him a great advantage over Demosthenes; but he lacked the 
 steady rhetorical training by which his rival, even as a young man, made 
 himself an accomplished orator 4 . Though he was about six years older 
 than Demosthenes, he appeared in public life much later. He served 
 in various campaigns, in Euboea in 357 and 350, and at Mantinea in 
 362. 
 
 21. On the occasion referred to (§ 20), probably in the winter or 
 spring of 348—347, Eubulus addressed the Assembly against Philip, 
 calling him the common enemy of the Greeks and swearing by his 
 children that he wished that Philip were dead 5 . He proposed a decree 
 for sending embassies to the Peloponnesus and all other parts of Greece 
 —Demosthenes says, “all but to the Red Sea”—to summon an 
 Hellenic synod at Athens and inaugurate a general Greek war against 
 
 Attic year, 347—346 (11. 16, 17). Aristodemus must have gone to Macedonia early 
 in 347; and έπψί χρόνος (Aesch. ill. 62) covers nearly a year after the acquittal of 
 Philocrates. The new movement of Eubulus and Aeschines (§ 21, below) probably 
 diverted the minds of the people from peace at this time (see Dem. xix. 12). 
 
 1 Cf. xix. 249, 250; Cor. 129, 130. 
 
 2 Dem. xix. 246, 247; Cor. 180. 
 
 3 Dem. xix. 70; cf. Cor. 162 ; Anon. Vit. Aesch. § 3, οντα δε λαμπρόφωνον y ραμ - 
 ματευσαι Άριστοφώντι. καί μετά τούτον Έιύβονλιρ, κ.τ.λ. 
 
 4 See Cic. de Orat. in. 28: suavitatem Isocrates, subtilitatem Lysias, acumen 
 Hyperides, sonitum Aeschines, vim Demosthenes habuit. 
 
 5 Dem. xix. 292. 
 
347 B.C.] 
 
 EUBULUS AND AESCHINES. 
 
 245 
 
 Philip. This measure was eloquently supported by Aeschines and was 
 adopted with enthusiasm. Aeschines brought before the Senate and 
 Assembly an actor, Ischander, with whom he had once played, and who 
 professed to bring reports from friends of Athens in Arcadia. De¬ 
 mosthenes says that Aeschines then professed to be the first Athenian 
 who had discovered that Philip was plotting against the Greeks and 
 corrupting leading men in Arcadia 1 . Aeschines was one of the envoys 
 sent out; and on his return from Arcadia he repeated the many fine 
 speeches which he had made in behalf of Athens before the great 
 Arcadian assembly called the Ten Thousand (oi μυριοι) at Megalopolis 2 , 
 where he attacked Hieronymus, a partizan of Philip, a reputed scholar 
 of Isocrates, who opposed him 3 . Demosthenes appears to have taken 
 no interest in these embassies, of which he speaks in a disparaging tone. 
 He probably distrusted any movement in which men like Eubulus were 
 the leaders, and experience had shown him that the grand plan of 
 uniting all Greece in a war against Philip would end in failure and 
 give Philip fresh encouragement for conquest. The event proved 
 Demosthenes right. No Hellenic synod met in Athens, and within a 
 year Eubulus and Aeschines were both playing into Philip’s hands. It 
 must be remembered that the “ still absent envoys,” who play so im¬ 
 portant a part in the story of the peace (as told by Aeschines in 330 b.c.), 
 for whose return Demosthenes is said to have refused to delay the 
 negotiations for peace , are these very messengers of war 4 . 
 
 22. But whatever the Athenians may have thought of the jingoism 
 of Aeschines and Eubulus at this time, there can be no doubt that a year 
 later (347—346) the prospect of an honourable peace with Philip was 
 extremely welcome to all sober-minded men at Athens. Her recent 
 losses and disasters secured a favourable hearing for the friendly 
 messages from Pella. There can be no doubt that Demosthenes then 
 felt strongly inclined to peace, as a matter of policy; and it is hardly 
 
 1 Dem. xix. 10, 303, 304. For Ischander see Harpocr., and Schaefer 1. 246—248. 
 
 2 Doubtless in the Thersilion, the great hall in which the Arcadian Assembly met, 
 adjoining the theatre of Megalopolis, excavated by the British School at Athens in 
 1890—91. See Supplem. Papers of the Hellenic Society 1., with plates. 
 
 3 Dem. xix. 11, with Schol. (p. 344, 8); Aesch. 11. 157. See Schaefer 11. 169— 
 172; Grote XI. 508—511. It was on this mission to Arcadia that Aeschines met 
 Atrestidas with his Olympian captives (§ 16, above). 
 
 4 See § 32 (below) ; Aesch. II. 57, iva κοινή καί πολβμοΐβν, ei δέοι, Φ ιλίππιρ μετ' 
 
 ’ Αθηναίων , και της βίρήνης, el τούτο εΐναι δοκοίη συμφέρον, μβτέχοιεν. Cf. Aesch. III. 
 58, 64, 68: though he now always includes eventual peace as one of the objects, yet 
 7Γ αρακαλουντες έπι Φίλιππον (68) still emphasizes the hostile character of the missions. 
 
246 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH 
 
 [Feb., 
 
 possible that he had yet begun to suspect the crafty scheme by which 
 peace with Philip would be turned to the disgrace of Athens and the 
 triumph of her bitterest foes 1 . And yet it seems hardly possible that 
 the terrible spectre of the Sacred War, just beyond their borders, 
 should not have filled all sober Athenians with alarm, especially when 
 they remembered Philip’s march to Thermopylae five years before. 
 Philip, himself, we may be sure, never lost sight of the prize which 
 had once seemed within his grasp. 
 
 r 23. Since Philip’s repulse from Thermopylae in 352, the Sacred 
 War had been waged with increasing bitterness, but with no prospect of 
 a conclusion. In 351 the death of Phayllus left the leadership to 
 Phalaecus, son of Onomarchus (§ 6), a mere boy, who at first had a 
 guardian and military adviser, appointed by his uncle Phayllus. The 
 Thebans were now the chief opponents of the Phocians, and Boeotia 
 became the chief seat of war. Neither side gained any decisive 
 advantage. At one time the Phocians held three fortresses in Boeotia, 
 Orchomenus (the ancient Minyan stronghold), Coronea, and Corsiae. 
 But the resources of both parties were now exhausted. The Thebans 
 called on Philip for help; but he sent only a few soldiers, wishing to 
 check their “ Leuctric pride 2 .” The Great King sent them 300 talents 
 of silver. The Phocians had come to the end of the Delphic treasures, 
 after robbing the temple of gold and silver of the value of about 
 10,000 talents. They received help from various Greek states, including 
 1000 men from Sparta and 2000 from Achaea. It is probable that their 
 army never fell below ιο,οοο 3 . 
 
 24. The Phocians were now anxious lest a new invasion from 
 Thessaly with help from Philip might suddenly end their power. Their 
 army was mutinous from lack of pay, and the authority over it which re¬ 
 mained was divided. Envoys were sent to Athens asking help, and offering 
 the Athenians the towns commanding the pass of Thermopylae,—Alponus, 
 Thronium, and Nicaea. This offer pleased the Athenians greatly ; and 
 they ordered Proxenus to take possession of the three towns, and voted 
 
 1 A few years later Demosth. admits that the Athenians (doubtless including 
 himself) were deceived by Philip’s friendly messages: cf. XIX. 12, των έκβΐθεν 
 άπα-γΎβλλόντων οΰδ ’ όπουν vyies. There is no inconsistency between this judgment 
 after the facts and his proposing a crown for Aristodemus when he brought back one 
 of these very messages (Aesch. 11. 17). 
 
 2 Diod. xvi. 58. 
 
 3 The Phocian force which surrendered to Philip in 346 numbered over 10,000: 
 see Dem. xix. 230. For the events of the Phocian war above briefly mentioned, see 
 Schaefer 11. 180—192 ; Grote xi. 519—521, with the authorities cited. 
 
34 6b.c.] FIRST EMBASSY SENT TO PHILIP. 
 
 247 
 
 to call out the citizen soldiers up to the age of thirty and to man fifty 
 triremes. But Proxenus now found men in authority at Thermopylae who 
 repudiated the message sent to Athens, and the envoys themselves were 
 in prison for making the offer. Proxenus was dismissed with insult, and 
 the fleet and army were never sent. The Phocians remained in pos¬ 
 session of Thermopylae, confident of their ability to hold it. A friendly 
 offer of Sparta to garrison the pass was also rejected with insult 1 . In 
 spite of her discouraging repulse, Athens felt that the fate of Greece 
 depended on having Thermopylae held secure against any invasion 
 from the North. Notwithstanding the sacrilegious plundering of Delphi, 
 which no one ventured to approve openly, Athens had the strongest 
 political reasons, which were easily reinforced by moral motives, for 
 protecting the Phocians, especially against Philip 2 . A formal alliance 
 had existed for many years between Athens and Phocis 3 , and it was 
 naturally assumed at Athens (except by Philip’s friends) that peace with 
 Philip would protect the Phocians against all danger from him. Prox¬ 
 enus was all this time with his fleet north of Euboea. It was probably 
 in this spirit that Athens received the friendly propositions which 
 Aristodemus brought from Philip 4 . 
 
 25. Soon after the cordial reception of Aristodemus (§ 19), Philocrates, 
 supported by Eubulus and Cephisophon, proposed a decree for sending 
 ten ambassadors to Philip, to discuss terms of peace and to ask him 
 to send ambassadors to Athens with full powers to negotiate 5 . The 
 following were sent : Philocrates (the mover), Demosthenes, Aeschines, 
 Ctesiphon (the former envoy to Philip), Phrynon, Iatrocles, Aristo¬ 
 demus, Nausicles, Cimon, Dercylus 6 . To these Aglaocreon of Tenedos 
 was afterwards added by the Assembly as a representative of the allies. 
 The embassy was appointed and sent in February, 346 b.c. 7 It is 
 difficult and often impossible to give a trustworthy account of the events 
 from the sending of the first embassy to the return of the second in 
 
 1 See Aesch. 11. 132—134. 
 
 2 The mixed feelings of Athens are well described by Demosthenes, Cor. i8 2-4 . 
 
 3 Dem. xix. 61, 62: cf. Aesch. in. 118. 
 
 4 See § 19 (end). 
 
 5 Dem. Cor. xix. 95. 
 
 6 The ten names are given in the second virSdeaLs to Dem. xix. p. 336 1 . All 
 except Nausicles are mentioned in Aesch. 11. 8, 19, 20, 21, 42, 47; for Nausicles see 
 II. 18, for Aglaocreon II. 20. 
 
 7 This date is fixed by the return of the embassy about the first of Elaphebolion 
 (March 28): we may allow from 30 to 50 days for the time of absence. The second 
 embassy, which Demosthenes charges with criminal waste of time, was absent less 
 than 70 days. See Schaefer 11. 194, n. 3. 
 
248 HISTORICAL SKETCH [March, 
 
 July. We generally have to depend on the testimony of either Demos¬ 
 thenes or Aeschines, or on the contradictory statements of both ; and 
 these are given in the arguments of the lawsuits of 343 and 330 b.c., in 
 which the two witnesses are the opposing speakers. Demosthenes is, 
 however, fairly entitled to greater credence; for there is no fact stated 
 by him which can be proved to be positively and intentionally false by 
 other evidence, while several of the strongest statements of Aeschines 
 are proved to be absolutely false by his own previous or later accounts 
 of the same transactions. 
 
 I 
 
 26. We depend chiefly on Aeschines for the account of the first 
 embassy ; and t*here is little doubt that, due allowance being made for 
 e x aggerations and prejudiced views of the behaviour of Demosthenes, 
 this is in general substantially correct. According to this, on the 
 journey to Pella Demosthenes made himself disagreeable to his col¬ 
 leagues, and boasted loudly of the way in which he meant to stop 
 Philip’s mouth 2 . The envoys went by land to Oreus, in the north of 
 Euboea, and thence by sea to Halus, on the south side of the Gulf of 
 Pagasae, a town claimed by Athens as an ally 3 . Parmenio, Philip’s 
 general, was then besieging Halus, which Philip wanted to give to his 
 friends the Pharsalians. The embassy passed through the Macedonian 
 camp to Pagasae, Larissa, and Pella 4 . On arriving at Pella, the envoys 
 were courteously received by Philip at a formal interview, in which they 
 addressed the king in the order of their ages, Demosthenes speaking 
 last, directly after Aeschines. Aeschines says nothing of the speeches 
 which preceded his ) but he devotes the greater part of his story to his 
 own eloquent argument, in which (as he says) he made a powerful 
 appeal to Philip in defence of the right of Athens to Amphipolis, 
 reminding him of the early history of the town, and going back to the 
 children of Theseus. He spoke of the appointment of Iphicrates as 
 the Athenian commander there, and reminded Philip of the occasion 
 
 1 See Aesch. 11. 20—43. The account of the two embassies to Philip and of the 
 negotiations for peace is given in Grote xi. Ch. 89, and Schaefer 11. Buch 3, Ch. 5, 
 Buch 4, Ch. i ; and no further general references to these will be necessary. As the 
 first embassy had no power to negotiate, the details of its conduct are less important. 
 
 Aesch. II. 21 : ώστε άπορράψειν το Φίλιππου στόμα όλοσχοίνφ άβρόχφ, he would 
 sew up his mouth with an unsoaked rush, i.e. with no great trouble. 
 
 1 Philip thought it necessary to specify in his proposed terms of peace that Halus 
 should be excluded from the allies of Athens: see Dem. xix. 159, 174, and § 33 
 (below). 
 
 1 Strabo, p. 433; Dem. XIX. 163: άπηραν δια του πολεμίου στρατεύματος. This 
 siege of Halus, after negotiations for peace were begun, illustrates Dem. Cor. 26. 
 
346 B.C.] 
 
 RETURN OF FIRST EMBASSY. 
 
 249 
 
 when his mother, Eurydice, placed him with his brother Perdiccas (both 
 children) on the knees of Iphicrates, and begged the general to treat her 
 two boys with brotherly affection, as their father Amyntas had adopted 
 him as a son. This harangue about a matter which had been settled 
 more than ten years shows how Aeschines failed to see the real questions 
 at issue, or possibly how he carefully avoided all questions which it 
 would be unpleasant to Philip to discuss, i.e. all real questions. He 
 could hardly have imagined that Philip would allow his title to Amphipolis 
 to be called in question at this time. 
 
 27. Aeschines then describes the appearance of Demosthenes before 
 Philip. He was (we are told) so embarrassed that he could hardly utter 
 a word; and after a few vain attempts to speak, he became silent. 
 Philip encouraged him and tried to relieve his embarrassment, but all in 
 vain. He remained speechless, and the herald conducted the embassy 
 from the royal presence. This account is probably much exaggerated; 
 but it is hardly possible that the whole story is an invention. Grote is 
 probably right in thinking that Demosthenes was taken with a kind of 
 “stage fright’’ when he suddenly found himself formally addressing the 
 king whom he had so often denounced, and when he was probably 
 insulted by the officers of Philip who were in attendance at the palace 
 on this ceremonious occasion, so that he may well have been physically 
 unable to speak 1 . It is significant that Demosthenes does not mention 
 his own speech or that of Aeschines. Philip soon recalled the embassy, 
 and replied to their arguments, especially those of Aeschines, but made 
 no allusion to Demosthenes 2 . He ended his address with the usual 
 assurances of friendship. Most of the envoys were struck by the dignity, 
 wit, and gracious manners of Philip, and by his skill in replying to what 
 had just been said to him 3 . 
 
 28. The returning envoys arrived in Athens about the first of 
 Elaphebolion (March 28) 346 b.c. 4 They made their regular reports 
 
 1 Grote XI. 530. .Schaefer (11. 202—205) has little faith in the whole tale of 
 Aeschines about the interview with Philip. Strangely enough Demosthenes (xix. 253) 
 reports Aeschines as telling the Assembly (apparently on his return from the first 
 embassy) that he said nothing to Philip about Amphipolis, but left the subject to 
 Demosthenes. It seems incredible that Aeschines could have repudiated a speech 
 just made, which a few years later he reports at length, partly verbatim ; and equally 
 incredible that Demosthenes could forget or overlook such an occasion as his first 
 interview with Philip. The evidence here is conflicting, but unimportant. 
 
 2 Plutarch (Dem. 16) says that Philip replied to Demosthenes μετά ττΧείστ^ 
 έιημεΧείας ! 
 
 3 Aesch. π. 41—43: cf. 51, 52. 
 
 4 See § 25 (above), n. 7, and § 29 (below). 
 
250 HISTORICAL SKETCH. [April, 
 
 to the Senate and the Assembly; and they received the regular com¬ 
 plimentary votes and the invitation to dinner in the Prytaneum, on the 
 motion of Demosthenes as senator. They brought home a letter from 
 Philip, expressing great friendship and his hope of both peace and 
 alliance 1 . There can be no doubt that Demosthenes returned fully 
 persuaded that some peace should be made as soon as possible, to settle 
 the important questions which the war kept open 2 . Down to this time 
 —in fact, until the nineteenth of Elaphebolion—he had no suspicion of 
 the loyalty and political honesty of Aeschines 3 . There can be little 
 
 doubt that Philocrates was already secured for Philip’s interest; and it 
 
 \ — -—' 
 
 was not long before Aeschines (perhaps honestly at first) was acting 
 with him to gain Philip’s ends. 
 
 29. Immediately after the return of the embassy, Demosthenes 
 proposed two decrees in the Senate to secure peace at the earliest 
 moment. The Great Dionysiac festival was approaching, during which 
 all public business would be suspended. These decrees enacted that 
 safe-conduct should be granted to Philip’s envoys and herald, who were 
 now on their way to Athens, and that the Prytanes should call a special 
 meeting of the Assembly, to be held on the eighth of Elaphebolion 
 (April 5) if Philip’s embassy should then have arrived, to discuss terms 
 of peace. The envoys came too late for this day; but after their arrival 
 Demosthenes proposed another decree appointing the eighteenth and 
 nineteenth of Elaphebolion (April 15 and 16) for two meetings, in which 
 both peace and alliance with Philip should be considered. It was further 
 voted that the first meeting should be given to debate, and that in the 
 second the votes should be taken without discussion 4 . The usual result 
 followed, and speeches were made in both meetings. 
 
 30. The two meetings were held on the appointed days, after the 
 Dionysia. The Macedonian envoys, Antipater, Parmenio, and probably 
 Eurylochus, were present during a part of the sessions 5 . Demosthenes, 
 
 1 Aesch. 11. 45, 46, 50; Dem. xix. 40, 41. 
 
 ~ Aesch. III. 63: κάκεΐθε v έπανήκων έπαινέτης ήν τής ειρήνης, κ.τ.λ. 
 
 3 Dem. XIX. 13: κα'ι μέχρι, του δεΰρ 1 * * έπανε\θεΐν από τής πρώτης πρεσβείας εμέ... 
 διεφθαρμένος καί πεπρακώς εαυτόν έλάνθανεν. The remainder of XIX. 12—16 shows his 
 opinion after his eyes were opened. 
 
 4 Aesch. in. 63, 66—68: cf. 11. 54, 65, 109. See § 36, below. 
 
 5 Dem. xix. 69 gives Antipater and Parmenio: the 2nd Argument to xix. 
 
 (Ρ· 336 10 ) adds Eurylochus. It is hardly possible that the foreign envoys were 
 
 present during the discussion of the terms of peace: this is shown by καλέσαι τούς 
 
 πρέσβεις, XIX. 144. 
 
34 6b.c.] TWO MEETINGS OF ASSEMBLY ,i 
 
 25 1 
 
 as senator, showed the distinguished envoys all proper courtesies, in¬ 
 viting them to a grand private entertainment and proposing decrees to 
 admit them to the Assembly and to make them guests of honour at the 
 Dionysia. He personally escorted them to the theatre, where curtains 
 had been provided to shield them from the early morning air and 
 cushions to cover the stone seats. And when they departed for 
 home, he hired three yokes of mules for them and escorted them on 
 horseback to Thebes 1 . 
 
 3T. One of the strangest charges made by Aeschines against 
 Demosthenes is that of corrupt collusion with Philocrates in making 
 the peace. Philocrates went into exile as a convicted criminal early in 
 343 b.c., fleeing from Athens to escape the sentence of death which was 
 soon passed upon him for treachery and bribery in making the peace 
 which is a reproach to his name 2 . Aeschines can henceforth think of no 
 graver charge than this, with which he introduces his accusation of 
 Demosthenes with regard to the peace: “Now I return to the peace 
 which you and Philocrates proposed 3 .” Can if be believed that this is 
 the same Aeschines who fifteen years before had described this same 
 peace as “the peace made by me and Philocrates 4 ”! His chief 
 argument for the collusion is that Demosthenes caused the peace to be 
 made in such unseemly haste that the Greek states which had been 
 invited by Athens to an Hellenic council for mutual defence could not 
 be represented in the negotiations. He constantly alludes to “ the still 
 absent embassies, which you sent to the Greeks.” 
 
 32. These are the “roving envoys,” which were sent out on the 
 motion of Eubulus, more than a year before, to unite the Greeks in a 
 common cause against Philip. Aeschines himself says that, when 
 Philip’s envoys came to Athens, the Athenian envoys were still absent, 
 “summoning the Greeks against Philip 5 .” All these Greeks, it must 
 be remembered, were already at peace with him 6 . On what possible 
 
 1 Dem. xix. 235; Aesch. 11. 55, no, hi, hi. 76. See the reply of Deni. (Cor. 28) 
 about the invitation to the theatre. 
 
 2 See Essay IV. § 4. 
 
 3 Aesch. III. 57 : καί δη βιτανά^ω εμαντόν επί την ειρήνην ήν σύ και Φιλοκράτης 
 iypaxf/are. Cf. II. 56. See the reply to this in Dem. Cor. 21. 
 
 4 Aesch. I. 174: την ειρήνην την δι ’ έμοΰ και Φιλοκράτους y ε^ενημένην. 
 
 5 See § 21, note 4» with references. See Aesch. III. 65, όρωντες ύμας αύτούς μεν 
 παρακαλοΰντας επί τόν πόλεμον, and 68, άπεδήμονν παρακαλουντες τούς Έλληνας επί 
 Φίλιππον. 
 
 6 Dem. Cor. 24 s - 
 
252 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH 
 
 [April, 
 
 ground now could Aeschines, who had been one of the embassy which 
 invited Philip’s envoys to Athens to negotiate a peace, demand after 
 their arrival that all negotiations should be suspended until the return of 
 envoys who had been absent more than a year stirring up hostility against 
 Philip, and had shown no signs of returning or reporting ? These “absent 
 envoys ” were pure inventions. Aeschines declares positively that not 
 one of them had returned when the peace was made, and Demosthenes 
 that there was no embassy then out 1 . This contradiction can be 
 reconciled only by the explanation given by Demosthenes, that all the 
 Greeks had long ago been tried and found wanting,—in fact, that Athens 
 could find no states ready to join her in resisting Philip 2 . Aeschines 
 expressed the same opinion in 343 b.c. 3 It is evident that Aeschines 
 uses the word πρέσβη in a very wide sense : his envoys were probably 
 in great part not ambassadors with regular commissions, who were 
 expected to report formally to the Senate and Assembly, but informal 
 messengers, who were asked to sound public opinion in various states, 
 to which many of them may have been going on business of their own, 
 with the understanding that no reports were expected unless they had 
 some message of importance to give. It is most probable that no 
 reports had been made simply because there were no favourable re¬ 
 sponses to report, and that no delay of the peace would have changed 
 this result. At the same time, it is not surprising that the assembled 
 allies, who knew little of the facts, were made to believe (as their vote 
 shows) that delay might bring some new states to join in the peace 4 . 
 
 33. We have the most contradictory accounts from the two orators 
 
 1 Aesch. 11. 58, 59; Dem. Cor. 23 6 ’ 7 . See note on the last passage, and the 
 whole of Cor. 20 and 24. It is said in Dem. xix. 16, to which Aesch. 11. 58, 59 
 is a reply, that Aeschines spoke on the 19th of Elaphebolion in the presence of 
 envoys (πρέσβεων) οΐ /s άπό των 'Ελλήνων μετεπέμψασθε ύπό τούτου πεισθέντες. This 
 seems to show that some states had sent envoys in response to the invitations of the 
 previous year, who were actually present when the peace was made. But it is hardly 
 credible that any state could have been so far influenced by the Athenian embassies, 
 which Demosthenes (Cor. 23) says were all failures, as actually to send envoys to the 
 proposed Hellenic synod at Athens, which never had even a prospect of meeting. 
 Schaefer (11. 215) suggests with great probability that these “envoys” were θεωροί 
 sent by certain states to the Dionysiac festival, who remained in Athens to watch the 
 negotiations for peace. Such visitors might have brought informal messages from 
 home in response to the Athenian proposals of the previous year. In this case 
 Demosthenes uses πρέσβεις in as misleading a sense as Aeschines. 
 
 2 Dem. Cor. 23. 
 
 3 Aesch. 11. 79. 
 
 4 Ibid. 11. 60. 
 
346b.c.] DISCUSSION OF TERMS OF PEACE. 
 
 2 53 
 
 of the proceedings in the two meetings of the Assembly. In the first, 
 on the eighteenth of Elaphebolion (April 15), the Macedonian envoys 
 appeared before the people and stated plainly and firmly the terms on 
 which Philip would make peace. These were, in general, ϊκατέρονς a 
 εχονσιν Ζχαν, idi possidetis; that is, no questions were to be raised as to 
 Philip’s right to any of the places which he had taken from Athens and 
 still held, of course including Amphipolis 1 . It was also stated that 
 Philip would not recognize as allies of Athens either the Halians 
 (whom he was besieging) or the Phocians 2 . In conformity with these 
 announcements, probably after Philip’s ambassadors had withdrawn, 
 Philocrates, who was now acting in harmony with them, proposed a 
 formal decree, establishing peace and alliance between Philip and his 
 allies and Athens and her allies, excepting the Halians and Phocians 3 . 
 It is evident that the clause excluding the Halians and Phocians was 
 heard by most of the Athenians with surprise and alarm. It signified 
 plainly that Philip would do, in spite of the peace, the very thing which 
 it was supposed the peace would prevent, that is, pass Thermopylae and 
 overwhelm the Phocians with, the help of the Thebans, while Athens 
 would have her hands tied by the peace. Demosthenes now had his 
 eyes thoroughly opened. Though he had favoured and even urged 
 peace, as preferable to disastrous war, he was no advocate of “ peace at 
 any price,” and he now saw that the price was to be too high 4 . He 
 strongly opposed the motion of Philocrates, and advocated “ the reso¬ 
 lution of the allies,” which was, according to Aeschines, favoured by 
 himself and all the other speakers in the first assembly 5 . From 
 Aeschines, who appears to be not yet in the complete confidence of 
 Philocrates and the Macedonian envoys, we have a final burst of exalted 
 patriotism. As Demosthenes reports him, he declared that, though he 
 thought a peace should be made, he would never advise Athens to 
 make the peace proposed by Philocrates so long as a single Athenian 
 
 1 [Dem.] VII. 26: φησϊ δ’ (sc. Φίλιππος) Άμφίπολιν έαυτου είναι ‘ ύμάς yap 
 φηφίσασθαι έκείνου είναι δτ' έφηφίσασθε 'έχειν αυτόν ά εΐχεν. See Schol. on VII. 18 
 (ρ. 81 4 ): ό Φ ιλοκράτης εν τφ φηφίσματι yty ραφεν έκατέρους α εχουσιν εχειν, χαρισάμενος 
 Φιλίππω’ πολλά yap άλλότρια ήρπάκει . 
 
 2 Schaefer II. 225· Cf. Just. νιη. 
 
 2 Dem. χΐχ. 159 and 3 21 (quoted § 35, note 1), with 278. The motion of 
 Philocrates in the Assembly presupposes some previous authority granted by the Senate : 
 see Schaefer 11. 225, n. 2. 
 
 4 Dem. XIX. 96: βουλευομένων υμών ου περί του ει ποιητέον ειρήνην η μή ( έδεδοκτο 
 yap -ήδη του τό yε), άλλ’ ΰπερ του ποιαν τινά. 
 
 5 Aesch. in. 71. 
 
254 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH 
 
 [April, 
 
 was left alive 1 . Finally, on the motion of Demosthenes, the Assembly 
 rejected the proposition of Philocrates and adopted what was called the 
 resolution of the allies, whose regular synod (aweS/otov) was then in 
 session at Athens. The Macedonian envoys were then recalled and 
 informed of this action 2 . 
 
 z 34. It is somewhat uncertain what is here meant by “the resolution 
 of the allies ” (τό των συμμάχων δογ/χα). We have two accounts of this 
 from Aeschines 3 . In one he mentions only a clause recommending a 
 postponement of the discussion about peace until the return of the 
 “absent envoys”; but the fact that the discussion was going on by 
 general consent makes it impossible that this clause was advocated by 
 “all the speakers in the former Assembly.” In the other he mentions a 
 recommendation that only peace, and not alliance, should be discussed ; 
 but this he deduces from the entire omission of the word “alliance” in 
 the resolution, and it is obvious that neither Demosthenes nor all the 
 other speakers could have opposed alliance 4 . He there mentions also 
 the proposed provision that three months should be allowed, after the 
 making of the peace, in which any Greek state might claim the ad¬ 
 vantages of the peace and be recorded on the same column with Athens 
 and her allies 5 . This is the only part of the resolution which had any 
 significance whatever on that day; and it must be this, and this alone , 
 which was adopted by the Assembly. This provision, if it were granted 
 by Philip, would ensure the safety of the Phocians ; for they could then 
 have claimed the protection of the peace as Greeks, without being 
 recognized by Philip as allies of Athens. This important provision, 
 supported, as it appears, by the authority of the synod of allies, was 
 advocated by Demosthenes, as the only substitute for the fatal pro¬ 
 position of Philocrates which was at all likely to be accepted by the 
 Assembly 6 . Aeschines says that the general opinion, when the first 
 
 1 Dem. xix. 13 — 16. 
 
 2 Ibid. 144: κρατοΰντος έμοΰ την προτέραν ημέραν, καί π€π€ΐκότος υμάς τό των 
 συμμάχων δόχμα κυρώσαι καί καλέσαι τούς πρέσββις τούς του Φιλίππου. 
 
 3 Aesch. 11. 60 and in. 69, 7 °· 
 
 4 Aesch. in. 68, 71. 
 
 5 Aesch. III. 70: έζεΐναι τ<ρ βουλομένιρ των 'Ελλήνων ev τρισί μησίν els την αυτήν 
 στήλην avayeypd(p 0 ai μετ’ Αθηναίων και μετέχειν των όρκων και των συνθηκών. A 
 decree of 378 —377 B * c · 1 ° C. I. Att. 11. no. 17 provides for a similar inscription upon 
 a στήλη (11. 69—72): els δέ την στήλην ταύτην avaypacpeiv των τε ούσ[ω]ν πόλεων 
 συμμαχίδων τά ονόματα καί [ή]τις 'άν άλλη σύμμαχος Ύί[Ύ]νηται. 
 
 6 See Dem. xix. 144 (quoted above, note 2). The skill of Demosthenes in 
 persuading the Assembly to adopt this proposition, which completely nullified the 
 proposition of Philocrates, even if this passed with the excluding clause, is hardly 
 
2 55 
 
 346B.C.] SECOND MEETING OF ASSEMBLY. 
 
 Assembly adjourned, was that there would be peace, but that alliance 
 would be made (if at all) later, in conjunction with all the Greeks. 
 
 35. The following night brought about a great and sudden change 
 in the whole situation. Philocrates had been too bold in pressing on 
 the Assembly the plan of the Macedonian envoys. The sudden dis¬ 
 closure of Philip’s designs against the Phocians and of his determination 
 to use the peace for their destruction had caused so great excitement 
 and roused so much opposition, that it was hopeless to attempt to pass 
 the original excluding clause. At the same time it was seen to be fatal 
 to all Philip’s plans to allow the proposition of the allies to be finally 
 adopted. Philocrates was therefore compelled to amend his decree 
 during the night, probably in consultation with Antipater and Parmenio. 
 He brought it before the Assembly the next day without the excluding 
 clause, reading simply “the Athenians and their allies 1 .” This change, 
 which after the statements of the previous day meant nothing, appears 
 to have allayed the excitement in great measure, and the decree .in this 
 form was finally passed without much opposition. This could not have 
 been effected until the public, apprehensions about the Phocians had 
 been quieted by diplomatic promises, like those which were so effectual 
 after the return of the second embassy a few months later. Antipater 
 and Parmenio simply maintained their ground, that Philip could not 
 admit the Phocians as parties to the peace; but their friends in the 
 Assembly (Philocrates and perhaps Aeschines) assured the people “ on 
 authority” that, though Philip could not offend the Thebans and 
 
 appreciated by Grote, who condemns Demosthenes for not opposing Philocrates with 
 greater energy. He was doubtless taken by surprise by the excluding clause, and it 
 was a triumph to cause its rejection and the adoption of an effective substitute. That 
 Philip’s envoys were able to cajole the Assembly the next day by plausible promises 
 into adopting the amended form of the decree of Philocrates, which then seemed 
 innocent to the majority, is not surprising, nor a reproach to Demosthenes. 
 
 1 Dem. XIX. 159: τή v re yap ειρήνην ούχί δυνηθέντων ώς έπεχείρησαν ούτοι, πλήν 
 'Αλεωΐ' καί Φωκέων, ypdxjsai, άλλ' avaynaaOwTos ύφ' ύμων τού Φιλοκράτους ταύτα μεν 
 άιταλεύφαι, 7 ράφαι δ' άντικρυς ’Αθηναίους καί τούς Αθηναίων συμμάχους. See 
 also 3 21 : εντεύθεν οί μεν παρ' εκείνου πρέσβεις πpoϋλεyov ύμΐν οτι Φωκέας ού προσ- 
 δέχεται Φίλιππος συμμάχους’ ούτοι δ' έκδεχόμενοι τοιαύτ' έδημηyόρoυv, ώς φανερως μέν 
 ούχί καλώς έχει, τφ Φιλίππω προσδέξασθαι τούς Φωκέας συμμάχους διά τούς Θηβαίους 
 καί τούς θετταλούς, άν δέ y ένηται των πpayμάτωv κύριος καί τής ειρήνης τύχη , άπερ άν 
 συνθέσθαι νυν άξιώσαιμεν αυτόν, ταυτα ποιήσει τότε. See further 220: μεμονα ή 
 κατ' Άμφίπολιν ευ ποιήσειν υμάς εάν τύχη τής ειρήνης, Εύβοιαν Ώρωπόν άποδώσειν, κ.τ.λ. 
 Demosthenes says (xix. 15» 16) that he still opposed Philocrates, and advocated 
 the resolution of the allies, adopted the day before, while Aeschines made the abomin¬ 
 able speech which he quotes (see below, §§ 36, 37). It would be interesting to know 
 how Aeschines spent the night before the second meeting. 
 
256 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH 
 
 [April, 
 
 Thessalians by publicly recognizing the Phocians, he would still, when 
 the peace gave him greater freedom of action, do all that Athens could 
 ask of him 5 . 
 
 36. It is impossible to determine precisely what was said or done 
 by Aeschines and Demosthenes in the second meeting of the Assembly, 
 in which the peace was actually voted. Nowhere are our two witnesses 
 more hopelessly at odds. Demosthenes says that Aeschines, after his 
 eloquent speech the day before, protesting vehemently against the 
 motion of Philocrates, now told the people not to remember their 
 ancestors nor to listen to stories of ancient sea-fights and trophies, but 
 to enact that they would not help any one who had not previously 
 helped Athens (meaning the Phocians) 1 2 . Instead of simply denying 
 that he made such a speech and proving his denial by witnesses, 
 Aeschines undertakes to show that he could not have spoken at all on 
 the second day because by the decree of Demosthenes no speeches 
 were to be made on that day! 3 But this argument (in 343 b.c.) is 
 answered by his own account thirteen years later of a speech made by 
 Demosthenes in that very meeting. He repeats what he calls a “ dis¬ 
 agreeable metaphor” then used by Demosthenes, that we must not 
 wrench off (απορρήζ at) alliance from peace. Demosthenes (he says) then 
 called on Antipater formally to answer a question, doubtless concerning 
 Philip’s unwillingness to make peace without alliance, which Antipater 
 answered, probably reaffirming Philip’s refusal 4 5 . Aeschines calls this 
 “collusion with Philocrates.” 
 
 37. Though Aeschines denies so stoutly that no one could have 
 spoken in the second meeting, he further recounts a speech of his own, 
 which must have been the one to which Demosthenes alludes, in which 
 he says he advised the people to remember the glorious deeds of their 
 ancestors, but to forget their mistakes, like the Sicilian expedition and 
 the delay in ending the Peloponnesian war 5 . But he maintains that 
 this speech was made in the first meeting, and that he made but one 
 speech in the discussion, which Demosthenes has divided. When we 
 consider that our testimony comes from the two opposing orators at the 
 trial of Aeschines, and make all possible allowance for exaggeration and 
 
 1 See quotations in the preceding note. 
 
 2 Dem. xix. 16. 
 
 3 Aesch. 11. 63—66: see end of § 29 (above). 
 
 4 Aesch. hi. 71, 72. 
 
 5 See Aesch. 11. 74—77, where the substance of the speech is given. An historical 
 mistake is made in 76, where he says that the Sicilian expedition was sent after the 
 fortification of Decelea by the Spartans ! 
 
34 6 b.c.] SECOND EMBASSY SENT TO PHILIP. 
 
 257 
 
 misrepresentation, we must admit that Aeschines reports his speech 
 more fairly than Demosthenes. But when we weigh the testimony as to 
 the date of the speech which Aeschines reports, we must decide that it 
 was delivered on the second day, as Demosthenes declares. Eubulus 
 finally threw the weight of his dignity and influence into the scale, and 
 told the people plainly that they must either accept the terms proposed 
 by Philocrates and advocated by Aeschines or man their fleet, levy a 
 war tax, and use their festival fund to pay soldiers 1 . We have no state¬ 
 ment of the final position of Demosthenes except his assurance that at 
 the second meeting he opposed Philocrates (whom the people at first 
 refused to hear) and tried to amend his proposition for the peace 2 , still 
 advocating the resolution of the allies adopted the day before. He put 
 no trust in the flattering assurances of Athenians like Philocrates, who 
 professed to speak for the absent Philip while his own ambassadors were 
 silent. But he was probably made more hopeful by the refusal of the 
 people to exclude the Phocians by name, which left Athens free to act; 
 and he perhaps trusted in the power of Athens to stop Philip again at 
 Thermopylae if he should attempt to force the pass after the ratification 
 of the peace 3 . There is no reason to doubt that he did his best, fighting 
 almost single-handed in a desperate strait. 
 
 38. The peace of Philocrates, thus voted by the Athenian Assembly 
 on the nineteenth of Elaphebolion (April 16), 346 b.c., ended the 
 Amphipolitan War, which was begun in 357. A few weeks later, the 
 aged Isocrates sent to Philip his address called Φίλιππος, in which he 
 expressed his joy at the peace and his hopes of much good to result 
 from Philip’s leadership. 
 
 A few days after the peace was voted, the same ten ambassadors, 
 with Aglaocreon as representative of the allies' 1 , were appointed to 
 return to Macedonia and receive the oaths of Philip and his allies to 
 the peace and alliance. In an Assembly held on the twenty-fifth of 
 Elaphebolion, in which Demosthenes presided 5 , it was voted that the 
 
 1 Dem. xix. 291. 
 
 2 Ibid. 15: έμοΰ τφ των συμμάχων συνι lyopovvros δόχματι καί την ειρήνην όπως 
 ΐση καί δίκαια χένηται πράττοντος. Cf. 292 : αίσχράν άντ ’ ίσης συνέβη -γενέσθαι την 
 ειρήνην. 
 
 3 The rather mixed feelings of Demosthenes at this time appear in xix. 150: 
 μέχρι τούτου χε (the departure of Philip’s envoys) ούδέν άνήκεστον ήν των πεπραγμένων, 
 άλλ’ αισχρά μέν ή ειρήνη καί άναξία τη s πόλεως, αντί δέ τούτων δη τα θαυμάσια ά*γαθά 
 ήράν έμεΧΧεν έσεσθαι. 
 
 4 Dem. xix. 163—165; Aesch. 11. 97 » Ι2 ^· See Schaefer 11. 240. 
 
 8 Demosthenes was still senator; and he was the one of the nine πρόεδροι (chosen 
 each morning by the επιστάτης of the Prytanes from the senators of the nine other 
 
 Π 
 
 G. D. 
 
258 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH 
 
 [Apr.—June, 
 
 representatives of the allies of Athens then present in the synod should 
 take the oath on that day before the Macedonian envoys in the name of 
 their respective states 1 . The Phocians were probably not represented 
 in the synod : otherwise the whole question of their admission to the 
 oaths would have been raised and finally decided at this time. Whether 
 Cersobleptes, the Thracian king, whose friendship Athens valued, was 
 represented in the oath-taking or not, cannot be determined. In either 
 case, he was excluded from the treaty by Philip, and his country in 
 Thrace had been occupied by Philip’s troops on the day before the 
 oaths were taken at Athens 2 . 
 
 39. As Aeschines gives us our chief account of the first embassy, so 
 Demosthenes tells the story of the second 3 . When the oaths had been 
 taken, Demosthenes urged his colleagues on the embassy to set out with 
 3II ^ppfid to administer the oaths to Philip, knowing well that every day 
 might be of the greatest importance to Athens. Philip was all this time 
 vigorously pressing his conquests in Ihrace, after Athens had tied her 
 hands by making the peace. As his entreaties availed nothing, he 
 procured (3rd of Munychion, April 29) a decree of the Senate (which the 
 people had empowered to act until the next Assembly), directing the 
 embassy to depart at once, and ordering Proxenus, who still kept his 
 fleet north of Euboea, to convey them to Philip, wherever he might be 4 . 
 In defiance of this vote, the embassy first waited a long time at Oreus 
 in Euboea 5 ; and then, instead of sailing with Proxenus, travelled by a 
 
 tribes) to whom it came by lot to preside in the Senate or the Assembly, as έτηστάτης 
 των προέδρων. See Aesch. II. 82, ill. 73 ’ 7 +· 
 
 1 Aesch. 11. 82—85. 
 
 2 See Dem. xix. 174; Aesch. II. 90. Aeschines tells us (in ill. 73, 74 and 
 11. 83, 84) two directly opposite stories of the exclusion of Cersobleptes from the 
 oaths; one, that he had no delegate in the synod and therefore was excluded ; the 
 other that a person claiming to be his representative was admitted on a motion put to 
 vote by the other πρόεδροί after Demosthenes had refused (as έπιστάτηή to take the vote. 
 The spelling Υ^ερσεβ\έπτΎΐ$ occurs in a newly found Delphic inscription of about 35® ® # C· 
 See Bull, de Corresp. Hellen. 1896, pp. 466—496. See also C. I. Att. iv. 2, no. 65, b. 
 
 3 We have in Dem. xix. a clear and full account of the second embassy and 
 its disastrous results, generally in the following order: 150—D3> I 7 — 66 ; and in 
 Cor. —27, 30—36, a brief but graphic resume of the same events, somewhat 
 modified by the changes of the past thirteen years. Though Aeschines denies some 
 of the details, he says nothing which breaks the force of the clear and straightforward 
 statements of Demosthenes. 
 
 4 Dem. xix. 154. 
 
 5 Demosthenes is said by Aeschines (il. 89) to have charged him with waiting in 
 Oreus to secure appointments as πρόξενοί for himself and some of his colleagues, 
 προξενιάς κατασκεναζόμενοί (■γινόμενοί πρόξενοί, Schol.). This is confirmed by Dem. 
 
34 6 b.c.] SECOND EMBASSY IN MACEDONIA. 
 
 2 59 
 
 circuitous land route to Pella, where they arrived twenty-three days 
 after leaving Athens. There they waited twenty-seven days for Philip’s 
 return from his conquests in Thrace 1 . In the time thus gained he had 
 captured several Thracian towns, (among others) Doriscus, Serrhium, 
 and 'lepov opos, in which Cersobleptes was taken prisoner. Demos¬ 
 thenes constantly protested against this delay in the most vigorous 
 terms 2 . 
 
 40. The Athenians found at Pella envoys from Thebes, Thessaly, 
 Sparta, and other Greek states, awaiting Philip’s return 3 . There were 
 also envoys from Phocis, anxiously waiting to learn their fate 4 . Philip 
 received the Athenians in the presence of the other envoys, and sur¬ 
 rounded by his army, which was ready for his march to Thermopylae 5 . 
 Demosthenes says nothing of the speeches at this interview; but 
 Aeschines says that Demosthenes abused his colleagues and flattered 
 Philip, recounting his services in supporting Philocrates and hastening 
 the peace. Aeschines then made his own speech, in which he exhorted 
 Philip to enter Greece as the friend of the Phocians and the enemy of 
 the Thebans, intimating to him quite plainly that, though the Phocians 
 by the fortunes of war succeeded in seizing the temple of Delphi, the 
 Thebans intended to seize it and were therefore no less guilty than the 
 Phocians* 5 . The result of this speech, when it was repeated in much 
 plainer language at Athens after the return of the embassy (see §§ 44, 
 45), in preventing the Athenians from doing anything to protect the 
 Phocians, shows that Philip had as yet given no public indication of his 
 real intentions to either side. 
 
 While the envoys were at Pella, Philip sent them large presents of 
 gold, of which Demosthenes refused to accept his share 7 . He devoted 
 
 Cor. 82 s (see note), where Aeschines is said to have entertained the envoys of the 
 tyrants of Oreus and Eretria in 343—342 as their irpo^evos. See Schaefer 11. 249, n. 2. 
 
 1 Dem. xix. 154, 155; Cor. 25—27. In Cor. 30 Demosthenes says that the 
 embassy “ sat three whole months in Macedonia ” before Philip returned. Of 
 course there is no attempt to deceive in this rhetorical exaggeration, as it is from 
 Demosthenes himself (xix. 155) that we know the exact time (50 days), including the 
 journey from Athens. In xix. 158, just after giving this exact time, he says the 
 embassy was absent “ three whole months.” 
 
 2 Dem. viii. 64, ix. 15, Cor. 27, xix. 156: cf. Aesch. hi. 82. 
 
 3 Aesch. 11. ro8, 112, 136; Dem. xix. 139. 
 
 4 Justin viii. 4; Dem. ix. 11. 
 
 5 Aesch. 11. 103, 132. 
 
 6 For the two speeches see Aesch. 11. 108—112, 113—117; and Dem. xix. 20, 
 21, for the report made by Aeschines in Athens of his address to Philip. 
 
 7 Dem. xix. 166—168. 
 
 17—2 
 
200 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH 
 
 [June, July, 
 
 much of his time to procuring the release of the Athenian captives who 
 were still in Philip’s hands. He lent several of these the money needed 
 for their ransom, which he later refused to receive back when Philip 
 released the other prisoners without ransom 1 . 
 
 41. When the time came for Philip to swear to the peace, the 
 majority of the embassy supported Philocrates and Aeschines in allowing 
 him formally to exclude the Phocians, the Halians, and Cersobleptes 
 from the recognized allies of Athens. In the same way the Cardians 
 were later accepted as allies of Philip 2 . In fact, Demosthenes was 
 generally outvoted in the deliberations of the embassy 3 . The embassy 
 refused by vote to send to Athens a letter written by Demosthenes, and 
 sent one of their own with a different account of their doings 4 . Demos¬ 
 thenes hired a vessel to take him home alone; but Philip forbade him 
 to depart 5 . In this state of things we can easily believe what Aeschines 
 says, that no one would willingly mess with Demosthenes or lodge at 
 the same inn with him 6 . 
 
 42. After Philip had sworn to the peace, the embassy had no 
 further pretext for wasting time at Pella. They had been instructed also 
 to administer the oaths to Philip’s allies in their respective cities; but 
 nothing like this had yet been done 7 . Here Demosthenes makes a 
 downright charge of corruption against Philip, that of bribing the 
 embassy to wait until his army was ready to march to Thermopylae 8 . 
 All was now ready. Then followed a most disgraceful and humiliating 
 spectacle. Philip marched forth from his capital with his army for the 
 invasion of Greece, the result of which—whether he favoured the Thebans 
 or the Phocians—must be the humiliation of a proud people ; and in his 
 train followed meekly (with one exception) an Athenian embassy which 
 had basely betrayed the interests of Athens. There followed also a 
 band of Phocian suppliants, who must now have known that the down¬ 
 fall of their race was impending. When they arrived at Pherae, the 
 
 1 Dem. xix. 169, 170. 
 
 2 Ibid. 44: έκτου, ore to vs όρκους ήμελλε Φίλιππος όμνύναι τούς περί της ειρήνης, 
 έκσπόνδονς άποφανθήναι τούς Φωκέας ύπό τούτων. Cf. 278 : οΰ το μεν ψήφισμα. 
 Άθηναίοις καί τοΐς ’Αθηναίων συμμάχοις, οϋτοι δέ Φωκέας έκσπόνδονς άπέφηναν; 
 and 174 · For the Cardians see v. 25, vni. 66; and § 6x (below). For the ψήφισμα 
 see § 35 (above), and Dem. xix. 159. 
 
 3 Dem. xix. 173. 4 Ibid. 174. 
 
 5 Ibid. 51, 323. 6 Aesch. II. 97. 
 
 7 Dem. XIX. 278: ον τό μέν ψήφισμα τούς άρχοντας όρκούν τούς έν ταΐς πόλεσιν, 
 
 ούτοι δέ οϋς Φίλιππος αντοΐς προσέπεμψε, τούτους ώρκισαν; 
 
 8 I)em. Cor. 32 : ώνεΐται παρ' αυτών 'όπως μη άπιμεν. 
 
34 6 b.c.] RETURN OF THE SECOND EMBASSY. 
 
 261 
 
 long-neglected duty of administering the oath to Philip’s allies—or 
 rather to those whom Philip saw fit to summon as their representatives— 
 was performed in a tavern, “ in a manner which was disgraceful and 
 unworthy of Athens,” as Demosthenes adds 1 . 
 
 * 43. After this ceremony the embassy returned to Athens without 
 more delay, arriving on the thirteenth of Scirophorion (July 7), after 
 an absence of about ten weeks. When they arrived, Philip was already 
 at Thermopylae, negotiating with the Phocians for a peaceable surrender 
 of the pass 2 . This was just what Philip had planned: the Athenians 
 had now little time to consider whether they should send a fleet to 
 defend Thermopylae, and he trusted to the quieting reports of his friends 
 on the embassy to prevent any hostile action. The scheme worked 
 perfectly. A temporary obstruction was caused by the report of Demos¬ 
 thenes to the Senate. There he told the plain truth, that Philip was at 
 the gates of Hellas, ready to attack the Phocians; and he urged that 
 an expedition should even then be sent to Thermopylae with the fifty 
 triremes which were kept ready for such an emergency. The Senate 
 believed Demosthenes, and passed a vote expressing their approval 
 of his conduct. 'They insulted the embassy in an unprecedented manner, 
 by omitting the customary vote of thanks and the invitation to dine in 
 the Prytaneum 3 . 
 
 44. But Philocrates and Aeschines had planned their scheme too 
 artfully to be thus thwarted ; and in the Assembly of the sixteenth of Sci¬ 
 rophorion, probably held the day after the meeting of the Senate, all was 
 changed. Here Demosthenes found a body of his enemies, who would 
 not permit him to be heard or the vote of the Senate to be read 4 . 
 Aeschines at once took the platform, and easily carried the meeting 
 with him by disclosing the private information about Philip’s real plans 
 which (he said) Philip had confided to him at Pella. He admitted that 
 Philip was at Thermopylae with his army; but he assured the people 
 that, if they would stay at home quietly two or three days, they would 
 hear that Philip was besieging Thebes, restoring the smaller Boeotian 
 towns to independence, and compelling the Thebans (not the Phocians) 
 to pay for the treasure stolen from Delphi. He repeated the advice 
 
 1 Dem. xix. 158. 
 
 2 Ibid. 58. From the 3rd of Munychion, when the Senate directed the embassy 
 to depart (see § 39), to the 13th of Scirophorion is 69 days. We do not know how 
 soon the order of the Senate was obeyed. 
 
 3 Ibid. 18, 31, 32 ; and 322, την δε βοήθειαν Ζδει κωλυσαι την els ras Πιίλαϊ, εφ’ ήν 
 αί πεντήκοντα τριήρεις όμως εφώρμονν. See Cor. 3'2 7-9 . 
 
 4 Dem. xix. 23, 35· 
 
202 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH. 
 
 [July, 
 
 which (he said) he had given to Philip, for which a price had been set 
 on his head at Thebes. He also implied that Euboea was to be given 
 to Athens as a recompense for Amphipolis, and hinted obscurely at a 
 restitution of Oropus to Athens 1 . Then Philip’s letter was read, full 
 of general friendliness, but containing absolutely nothing about the 
 Phocians and no promises of any kind. Demosthenes charges Aeschines 
 with being the writer of this letter 2 . After the astounding disclosures 
 made by Aeschines, it is not strange that Demosthenes could gain no 
 hearing, and that the people felt hopeful and happy, proud of the 
 diplomatic triumph of Aeschines and convinced that Demosthenes was 
 a hopeless grumbler 3 . 
 
 45. In this temper the Assembly was ready to vote almost any¬ 
 thing which would make it easy for Philip to carry out his beneficent 
 plan. A decree was passed, on the motion of Philocrates, publicly 
 thanking Philip for his friendly promises, extending the peace and 
 alliance to posterity, and (what was more important) enacting that, if 
 the Phocians still refused to surrender the temple “to the Amphictyons,” 
 the Athenians would compel them to do so by force 4 . They then 
 appointed ten ambassadors, chiefly members of the previous embassies, 
 to report these proceedings to Philip at Thermopylae. Demosthenes at 
 once refused to go on this embassy. Aeschines made no objection at 
 the time; but afterwards, when it was thought that his presence in 
 Athens would be important at the coming crisis, he excused himself on 
 the ground of illness, and his brother, probably Aphobetus, went in his 
 place 5 . 
 
 Soon afterwards came two letters from Philip, inviting the Athenians 
 to send a force to join him at Thermopylae 6 . As Demosthenes shows, 
 
 1 Dem. XIX. 19—22, 35, 74, 220, 324—327 ; Cor. 35 ; v. 9, 10; vi. 30; cf. Aesch. 
 II. 136. The obscure language of Aeschines (11. 121) ovk εν τφ φηφίσματι μόνοι > ημάς 
 επήνει is rightly explained by Schaefer (11. 269 n.) as meaning that it was not by a 
 mere decree (as after the first embassy) that Demosthenes expressed his approval of us. 
 This “approval” consisted in a sarcastic remark, ονκ ’έφη με, ώσπερ εκεί εΐπον , οϋτω s 
 εν τφ παρόντι \ly ειν, άλλ’ έκεΐ διπλασίως άμεινον (122), i.e. Demosthenes implied that 
 Aeschines’s address to Philip far outdid (in enormity) his account of it to the 
 Assembly. 
 
 2 Dem. xix. 36—41. 
 
 a Ibid. 23, 24. 
 
 4 Ibid. 48—50 : here it is said of the so-called Amphictyons, 7 roiois; ού yap ησαν 
 αυτόθι πλην Θηβαίοι και θετταλοί. 
 
 5 Ibid. 121 —124 (see § 47, below). 
 
 6 Ibid. 51, 52 : 67 τιστολάϊ δύο καλούσας υμάς, ονχ ΐν’ εξέλθοιτε. See Aesch. II. 137 : 
 ύμΐν δ£ ούκ £ιτεμφεν επιστολήν ό Φίλιπποί εξιΐναι πάση τη δυνάμει βοηθήσοντας τοΐί 
 δίκαιο is ; to help the cause of justice ! 
 
346 B.C.] 
 
 THIRD EMBASSY. 
 
 263 
 
 these were really sent to prevent them from marching out, as Philip 
 thought this cordial invitation would quiet their alarm, and so he the 
 surest means of keeping them at home. We hear of no appeals from 
 Aeschines or his friends urging the acceptance of the invitation. Indeed, 
 public opinion at Athens was changing, so that perhaps there was danger 
 of the invitation being accepted in a different spirit 1 . Aeschines even 
 says that some of the party of Demosthenes prevented its acceptance, 
 professing to fear that the Athenian force might be held as hostages by 
 Philip 2 . 
 
 46. There were Phocian envoys at Athens on the return of the 
 embassy from Pella, and they remained until after the assembly of the 
 sixteenth of Scirophorion. The action then taken showed them that 
 they had nothing to hope from Athens, and they returned home with 
 this unwelcome news. With the help of Athens by land and sea, 
 Phalaecus and his army of 10,000 infantry and 1000 cavalry might 
 still have held Thermopylae against Philip. But without help this was 
 impossible 3 . The Lacedaemonians had already deserted them 4 , and 
 now nothing was left but to surrender on the best terms which could 
 be made. Demosthenes declares that the action of the Assembly on 
 the 16th was the direct cause of the surrender of the Phocians on 
 the 23rd 5 . 
 
 47. The third Athenian embassy set out for Thermopylae about 
 the 21 st of Scirophorion (July 15). When they came to Chalcis, they 
 heard that the Phocians had surrendered, while Philip had openly 
 declared himself for the Thebans, and all the hopes in which Athens 
 had indulged were at an end. As the envoys had no instructions to 
 meet this emergency, they returned to Athens at once. One of them, 
 Dercylus, who was in advance of the rest, came directly into a meeting 
 of the Assembly in the Piraeus (on the 27th) and reported his alarming 
 news from Thermopylae 6 . The people were struck with panic at the 
 
 1 Dem. xix. 122 (end). 
 
 2 Aesch. 11. 137. 
 
 3 Dem. xix. 58, 123. 
 
 4 Ibid. 73, 76, 77. 
 
 5 See the calculation in Dem. xix. 58, 59. Allowing four days for the news of 
 the 16th to reach the Phocians and three days more for making terms, he puts the 
 surrender on the 23rd (July 17). Four days later (on the τετράς φθίνοντος , the 27th) 
 the news came to the Assembly in the Piraeus. Usener (Rhein. Mus. xxxiv. 440), 
 who omits the ένατη φθίνοντος (though it is expressly mentioned in the text of 
 Demosthenes), places the surrender a day earlier. See Schaefer 11. 282, note 1. If 
 we assume that Scirophorion this year had 30 days, there is no day to be omitted. 
 
 6 Dem. xix. 60, 1» : cf. Aesch. 11. 94, 95. 
 
204 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH 
 
 [346 
 
 tidings, and voted, on the motion of Callisthenes, to remove the women 
 and children from the country into protected towns or fortresses, to put 
 the Piraeus and the forts in a state of defence, and to hold the coming 
 festival of the Heraclea, usually held in the country, within the city 
 walls 1 . Such a panic had not been known in Athens since the last days 
 of the Peloponnesian War. They also voted to send to Philip the same 
 embassy which had returned from Chalcis, with instructions to watch 
 the proceedings of the Amphictyonic Council, which Philip was ex¬ 
 pected to summon at once 2 . The Athenians were not only in great 
 alarm, but in absolute uncertainty about Philip’s next step. He might 
 even join the Thebans in a march upon Athens; and the road was 
 open. Even Aeschines admits the bitter disappointment at Athens and 
 the bitter feeling against the ambassadors 3 . 
 
 Soon after the surrender of the Phocians, Philip addressed a diplo¬ 
 matic letter to the Athenians, evidently in an apologetic tone, deprecating 
 their indignation at his unexpected course, and trying to conciliate them 
 by assurances of his continued friendship. As Demosthenes says, it was 
 written really to inform the Thebans and Thessalians that he was acting 
 directly against the wishes and the hopes of Athens 4 . 
 
 48. I he embassy soon departed on its new mission by way of 
 Thebes. Aeschines had now no fear of the Thebans or of the price 
 they had set upon his head 5 . They arrived at Philip’s camp just in time 
 to be present at the festivities with which he and the Thebans were 
 celebrating the joyous conclusion of the war and their triumph over the 
 sacrilegious Phocians; and they appear to have had no scruples against 
 
 1 Dem. xix. 86, Cor. 36; Aesch. III. 80. Aesch. 11. 139 says έσκευα~γώ~γησαν εκ 
 των ά-γρών, πρεσβεύοντοτ εμού την τρίτην ήδη πρεσβείαν, from which Schaefer (il. 293» 
 η. 3) infers that the decree was not passed until after the next departure of the 
 embassy (§ 48). But Dem. xix. 125 implies clearly that the decree was passed either 
 at the meeting in the Piraeus or immediately afterwards; and the words of Aesch. 
 state only that the execution (not the passage) of the decree followed his departure. 
 
 Aesch. II. 95 : ττροσαν ay κάζοντ os του δήμου μηδέν ήττογ πρεσβεύει ήμας. This 
 seems to imply a reappointment of the embassy, and this agrees with Dem. xix. 172, 
 έττϊ την τρίτην πρεσβείαν δίς με χει,ροτονησάντων υμών εξωμοσάμην. In XIX. 126 
 Demosthenes charges Aeschines with going on this embassy without any authority 
 at all. 
 
 3 Dem. XIX. 328: ‘γέ'/ονε τα πρά-γματα πάνθ ’ ώσπερ αϊνι-γμα τή πολεί. Aesch. 
 III. 80. 
 
 4 See Dem. Cor. 39, 40, with notes. 
 
 Dem. xix. 21, 127. We have only the repeated authority of Demosthenes 
 (see § 44, above) for the reported statement of Aeschines on this point. 
 
B.C.] 
 
 PUNISHMENT OF THE PHO CIA NS. 
 
 265 
 
 joining in the celebration 1 . Philip had himself accepted the surrender 
 of the Phocians on condition that Phalaecus with his 8000 mercenaries 
 should be allowed to depart whithersoever they pleased; and they with¬ 
 drew to Peloponnesus 2 . But the Phocian people were handed over to a 
 far less merciful power. Philip had entered Phocis as the champion of 
 Apollo, whose violated temple he was to restore to its rightful guardians, 
 the Amphictyonic Council. He therefore lost no time in calling a 
 meeting of this venerable body, or rather what he chose to call by this 
 distinguished name 3 . The Council voted to expel the Phocians, and to 
 give their two votes to Philip, thus putting a foreign king in the place of 
 one of the original Amphictyonic tribes. The Phocian towns, except 
 Abae with its ancient temple of Apollo, twenty in number, were to be 
 destroyed, and the people to be divided into villages of not more than 
 fifty houses; their horses were to be sold for the benefit of the temple, 
 and their arms thrown down precipices; and they were to pay sixty 
 talents yearly to the temple until the stolen treasure should be made 
 good 4 . We have records of payments made by the Phocians on this 
 account from 344 to 337 b.c. 5 Any Phocian who was personally guilty 
 of plundering the temple was declared accursed and outlawed 6 . This 
 
 1 Dem.xix. 128, 130, Cor. 287. See the lame defence of Aeschines, who does not 
 deny that he took part in these festivities, Π. 162, 163: έκληθην επί ξένια μετά των 
 σνμττρέσβεων, κ.τ.λ. He seems to think that the number of guests, about 200, and 
 the fact that he only joined in the chorus as a common singer, excused him. See 
 Essay IV. § 6. 
 
 2 See § 52, below. 
 
 * Demosthenes (v. 14) calls this assembly τούς συνεληλυθότας τούτους καί φάσκοντας 
 ’ Αμφικτύονας νυν είναι. See ΧΙΧ. 50: ούδενός δ , άλλου παρόντος των ’Α μφικτυόνων πλην 
 θετταλων καί Θηβαίων. Cf. ΧΙΧ. 327· Athens had no part in the Ionian representa¬ 
 tion, nor Sparta in the Dorian ; the Phocians were gone; Boeotia was only Thebes; 
 the Locrians were present; six of the other Amphictyonic tribes (Aesch. 11. 116) were 
 Thessalian. 
 
 4 Diod. xvi. 60; Paus. x. 3, 3; Dem. xix. 81, 141, Cor. 36, 42, ix. 19, 26. Cf. 
 Aesch. 11. 9, hi. 80. 
 
 5 The French explorers at Delphi have found an interesting inscription recording 
 several payments madexby the Phocians, published by Emile Bourguet in the Bull, de 
 Corresp. Hellen. 1897, pp. 321—344. By comparison of this with another inscription 
 containing temple records (ibid. pp. 477—496), Bourguet shows with great probability 
 that the Phocians made eight semi-annual payments of thirty talents each in 344— 
 340 B.C., two annual payments of thirty talents in 339 and 338, one of ten talents in 
 337, and an “eighteenth” of ten talents in a later year, which assumes six intermediate 
 payments. The reduction to ten talents followed the battle of Chaeronea. These 
 talents were probably of the Aeginetan standard, about Anr heavier than the Attic 
 (see above, § 8, note 2). See American Journal of Archaeology, 1899, p. 306. 
 
 6 Diod. xvi. 60. 
 
266 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH. 
 
 [346 
 
 terrible sentence was executed with more than strict exactness, with the 
 Thebans for executioners 1 . When Demosthenes went to Delphi more 
 than two years later, he witnessed the pitiable condition of Phocis and 
 its wretched people, with walls and houses destroyed, and nobody to 
 be seen except old women and little children and miserable old men 2 . 
 A harder fate still befell Orchomenus, Coronea, and probably Corsiae in 
 Boeotia, for their adherence to the Phocians. Their walls were razed 
 and the inhabitants sold into slavery. Boeotia, with a substantial piece 
 of Phocis 3 , was then brought under the dominion of Thebes. Sparta, 
 for assisting the Phocians, was excluded from the Delphic temple. The 
 προμαντζία, precedence in consulting the oracle, which the Phocians had 
 granted to Athens in the time of Pericles for her help in the short 
 Sacred War of 448 b.c., was taken from her and given to Philip 4 . Still, 
 it was the decided policy of Philip to have no open breach with Athens 
 at this time 5 . 
 
 1 Dem. XIX. 325 : τά Φωκίων τείχη κατεσκάπτετο * Θηβαίοι δ’ ησαν οΐ κατασκάπτοντες. 
 
 Ibid. 64 — 66. Demosthenes saw good reason for exclaiming τούτων δεινότερα 
 ου "/ε-γονεν ουδέ μειζω πραχματ’ εφ’ ημών εν τοΐς "Έιλλησιν, οΐμαι δ’ oύδ , εν τιρ πρόσθεν 
 χρόνιρ. For a graphic account of the state of Phocis at this time, see Justin, VIII. 5. 
 
 3 Dem. XIX. 112, 127, 3 2 5 5 VIII. 65, ούκ ην εν θήβαις ασφαλές (\ί~/ειν τά Φιλίππου ), 
 πριν την Βοιωτίαν άττέδωκε και τούς Φώκιας άνεΐλεν. XIX. 141, Όρχομενδς, Κορώνεια, 
 Κ ορσιαί, το Τ ιΧφωσσαΐον, της των Φωκίων χώρας δπόσην βούλονται. 
 
 4 Plut. Per. 21 ; Dem. ιχ. 32 (one of the doubtful passages), xix. 327 (end). 
 For Sparta see Paus. X. 8, 2 . 
 
 5 Among the most interesting inscriptions recently found at Delphi are two of the 
 fourth century B.c. containing business accounts of the Amphictyonic Council and 
 especially of the board of ναοποιοί , Temple-builders, who probably had charge of build¬ 
 ing the still unfinished temple (see § 72, p. 287, note 3). See Bull, de Corresp. Hellen. 
 1896, pp. 197 — 241, 1898, pp. 303 — 328. During the time from 353 to 346 B.C. only 
 two of the semi-annual meetings of this board are mentioned, one with four members 
 present, and one in the spring of 348 with ten (a Delphian, an Athenian, two Locrians, 
 a Megarian, an Epidaurian, a Lacedaemonian, two Corinthians, and a Phocian). 
 Four times the omission of the meeting is noted, ού συνηΧθον. This was during the 
 hardest stress of the Phocian War. But in the archonship of Damoxenus, which 
 Bourguet identifies with great certainty as 346—345 B.C., we find this entry: Έπΐ 
 Ααμοξίνου άρχοντος, όπωρινάς πυλαίας, επεί α είρήνα ί^ίνετο, ναοποιοί συνηΧθον. 
 Now there were present 36 members, including nine Thessalians and three Thebans 
 (long strangers to Delphi), two Athenians, three Spartans, and one Delphian. No 
 Phocians are present; but in their place is the ominous entry, Φίλιππος Μ ακεδών, 
 Ύιμανορίδας Μακεδών (Philip’s name standing thus, the tenth in the list). This was at 
 the meeting of the Council called by Philip in the autumn of 346, after the surrender 
 of the Phocians (see above, § 48). The ναοποιοί, being a permanent board, had not yet 
 been reconstituted, except that Philip and another Macedonian had quietly stepped 
 into the places of the absent Phocians. 
 
b.c.] PYTHIAN GAMES.—SPEECH ON THE PEACE. 267 
 
 49. The Pythian games were celebrated at Delphi at their regular 
 time, in September 346 b.c. 1 Philip was empowered by the Am- 
 phictyonic Council to hold the festival with the Boeotians (i.e. the 
 Thebans) and the Thessalians 2 . The games were celebrated by Philip 
 with unusual splendour, but with no delegates present from either 
 Athens or Sparta. For 240 years Athens had sent her deputation to 
 these games with great pomp and ceremony over the Sacred Way, which 
 Apollo had once trodden on his progress from Delos to Delphi; and her 
 absence now was an historic event 3 . Thus was Philip formally installed 
 in his long-coveted position as a power in Greece, representing in his 
 own person one of the original Greek peoples which had in immemorial 
 antiquity established the Amphictyonic union. 
 
 Thus ended the disastrous Sacred War, after a duration of more than 
 ten years, with the exaltation of Philip and the humiliation of Athens, 
 though neither was a party to the war or was even interested in it when 
 it began. 
 
 50. Before returning home after the Pythian games, Philip deter¬ 
 mined to secure from Athens at least a formal recognition of his new 
 position as an Amphictyonic power. He therefore sent thither a 
 deputation of his own with Thessalian envoys (probably Amphictyons), 
 to ask for a confirmation of his election to the Council 4 . The con¬ 
 spicuous absence of Athens from both Council and games embarrassed 
 and annoyed Philip greatly. Athens also was in a delicate position. 
 Philip still had his powerful army with him, and he could summon 
 Thebans, Locrians, and Thessalians to support him in an Amphictyonic 
 war, if Athens should refuse his request. It would have been simple 
 madness for Athens, in her isolation and humiliation, to defy him by a 
 downright refusal. But the people were in no mood to assent to what 
 they deemed a disgrace to Greece and an insult to themselves. When 
 
 1 The Pythian games were celebrated in the third year of each Olympiad, near the 
 end of the Delphic month Βουκάτιος, which corresponds generally to the second Attic 
 month, Metageitnion. The year 346—345 B.c. began July 25. See Essay III. § 3, 
 p. 329, η. 2. Pausanias X. 7, 8 refers to this Pythian festival as ττρώτιη Π υθιάδι επί 
 ταΐς εξήκοντα, καί Ίολαιδας ενικά Θηβαίος, i.e. the 6ist, counting from 586 B.C. 
 
 2 Diod. xvi. 60. 
 
 3 Dem. XIX. 128, ώστε μήτε τούς εκ τής βουλής θεωρούς μήτε τούς θεσμοθέτας εις τα 
 ΊΙύθια πέμψαι. See Aeschyl. Eumen. 9—16. 
 
 4 Dem. xix. hi— 113: this describes the exciting scene in the Assembly, ending 
 with the sarcastic remark of Aeschines before Philip’s envoys (113), πολλούς τούς 
 θορυβοΰντας είναι, όλί-γους δέ τούς στρατευομένους δταν δέη. Demosthenes makes no 
 allusion to his own speech. 
 
268 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH. 
 
 [346- 
 
 Aeschines came forward alone to urge compliance, he was hooted and 
 could get no hearing. Demosthenes was perhaps the only man in 
 Athens who could persuade the Assembly to take the humiliating course 
 
 which prudence now made necessary. This he did in his speech 
 
 1 
 
 On the Peace (v.), in which, while he makes no attempt to conceal 
 the false position in which Athens had ignorantly allowed herself to be 
 placed, he yet advises her not to court further calamity by a vain 
 resistance to an accomplished fact 1 . We do not know what reply he 
 proposed to the Amphictyonic message; but we may be sure that it 
 conceded nothing in principle, while it formally declined to oppose the 
 will of the Amphictyons in electing Philip to their Council. 
 
 IV. Six Years of nominal Peace. 
 
 346 —340 b.c. 
 
 51. The peace of Philocrates lasted, at least in name, until the 
 formal renewal of the war with Philip in 340 b.c. But all this time 
 Philip was busy in extending his power, especially to the detriment of 
 Athens. In 344 we find him subjugating Illyrians and Triballi 2 , and 
 soon afterwards breaking up free governments in Thessaly, putting 
 garrisons into the citadels, seizing the revenues of the ports, and estab¬ 
 lishing a decadarchy 3 . He interfered in the disputes of Sparta with 
 Argos, Messene, and Megalopolis, sending help to the latter. Athens, 
 on the motion of Demosthenes, voted to send envoys to Peloponnesus 
 to counteract this dangerous influence, and of these Demosthenes was 
 chief. In the Second Philippic he repeats parts of his speech to the 
 Messenians, in which he warned them of the fate of Olynthus and 
 exhorted them to repel Philip’s friendly advances 4 . But Philip’s 
 promises were more powerful than the eloquence of Demosthenes, 
 and we soon find Argos and Messene (instigated by Philip) sending 
 envoys to Athens, complaining that she supported Sparta in preventing 
 
 1 See the whole speech On the Peace. For remarks on this speech, the genuineness 
 of which has often been doubted, see Schaefer 11. 295—303. The striking contrast 
 between this and the Second and Third Philippics is to be explained by the difference 
 in circumstances, which made the former a political necessity. 
 
 2 Dem. Cor. 44 1 (see note). 
 
 3 Dem. vi. 22, ix. i2, [vn.] 32 ; cf. Cor. 64, 65. For the later tetrarchies in 
 Thessaly, see ix. 26. 
 
 4 See vi. 9, 13, 15, 20—25. 
 
344 B.c.] SECOND PHILIPPIC OF DEMOSTHENES . 269 
 
 them from gaining their freedom. With these came envoys from Philip, 
 complaining that Athens had charged their master with breaking his 
 promises 1 . 
 
 52. In the assembly which discussed the reply to be given to these 
 embassies (late in 344 b.c.), Demosthenes delivered his Second Phi¬ 
 lippic 2 . This gives a statesmanlike review of Philip’s conduct towards 
 Athens since the peace, showing that he had been constantly aggressive 
 and deceitful, while Athens had been kept quiet by his partisans in the 
 Assembly, who assured her of his goodwill and friendly intentions. He 
 proposed a definite answer to the embassies, of which we can judge 
 only by the firm character of the speech itself. We hear of no positive 
 results of this mission, but we hear no more of the disputes in Pelo¬ 
 ponnesus which caused it. Still, Philip continued to acquire influence 
 there, and the governments leaned on him for support and became more 
 and more subservient to his wishes. Many Arcadian towns erected 
 statues to him, and offered to open their gates to him if he would visit 
 them : the Argives were of the same mind 3 . The Eleans were also 
 under his spell; and the party*in power, supported by Philip, murdered 
 in cold blood the last remnant of the Phocian mercenaries, who were 
 captured in the service of the opposite party 4 . At about the same time 
 (344—343) Philip made an unsuccessful attempt to get possession of 
 Megara by the help of his friends Perillus and Ptoeodorus; but the 
 scheme failed, and Megara remained independent, probably by the help 
 of Athens 5 . 
 
 53. In the same year there occurred the summary arrest and 
 condemnation of Antiphon, a disfranchised citizen, who offered his 
 services to Philip to burn the dockyards at the Piraeus. He was arrested 
 by the authority of Demosthenes, who was probably Ιπιστάτης τον 
 
 1 Libanius, Hypoth. to Dem. vi. 
 
 2 Grote (xi. 615) doubts the presence of envoys from Philip on this occasion, and 
 Dion. Hal. (ad Amm. p. 737) speaks only of those from Peloponnesus. Schaefer 
 (π. 355) points out that the statement of Libanius is supported by the tone of vi. 28 
 —37, which seems to be a reply to some complaints on the part of Philip. 
 
 3 Dem. xix. 261. 
 
 4 Diod. xvi. 63 ; Dem. xix. 260. For this relic of the Phocian army see § 48 
 (above). It is probable that the three Elean traitors named in Dem. Cor. 295 belong 
 to this time. For Aristratus, tyrant of Sicyon in Philip’s time (Cor. 48, 295), see 
 Plut. Arat. 13. 
 
 5 Dem. Cor. 71 3 , xix. 294, 295: cf. 87, 204, 326, 334, ix. 17, 27, [x.] 9. Schaefer 
 (11. 366) refers the expedition of Phocion to the aid of Megara (Plut. Phoc. 15) 
 to this time. Megara appears to be in friendly relation with Athens in 341—340: 
 see Dem. ix. 74. 
 
270 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH 
 
 [ 344 - 
 
 volvtlkov or invested with some other magisterial power, and brought 
 before the Assembly; but was released on the protest of Aeschines. 
 He was again arrested by the intervention of the Areopagus, brought to 
 trial and condemned to the rack and to death 1 . 
 
 54. Not much later 2 occurred an important trial before the 
 Amphictyonic Council, in which the ancient right of Athens to control 
 the temple of Delos was contested by the Delians. The Athenians 
 chose Aeschines as their counsel in this case; but the Areopagus, to 
 which the people had by special vote given the right to revise the 
 election, rejected him and chose Hyperides in his place. The election 
 was made in the most formal and solemn manner, each senator taking 
 his ballot from the altar 3 . At the trial Hyperides delivered his famous 
 Delian oration, in which he defended the cause of Athens so eloquently 
 that her rights in the Delian temple remained undisturbed 4 . The cause 
 of Delos was argued by Euthycrates, the traitor who betrayed Olynthus 
 to Philip 5 . Demosthenes attributes the rejection of Aeschines as counsel 
 to the effect on the Areopagus of the recent affair of Antiphon : but this 
 probably had only intensified the increasing indignation against the 
 partisans of Philip, which had recently expressed itself in the con¬ 
 demnation of Philocrates 6 . 
 
 55. A little later in 343 b.c. (probably before midsummer) Philip 
 sent Python of Byzantium to Athens, to tell the old story of his un¬ 
 alterable friendship and of his grief on hearing the calumnies which his 
 enemies reported in the Assembly and the Athenians believed. He 
 assured the people that he was ready to revise the peace if there was 
 anything amiss in it, and begged them not to believe the orators who 
 misrepresented him and his intentions 7 . Python was an eloquent orator, 
 
 1 See Dem. Cor. 132, 133, with notes. 
 
 2 Schaefer (11. 372—374) with great probability places the Delian contest in the 
 spring of 343 B.c., when Demosthenes went to the Amphictyonic Council as vvXdyopos 
 of Athens. See Dem. XIX. 65 : ore νυν επορευόμεθα ds Δελφούς (said later in 343), 
 and Aesch. hi. 113, 114. 
 
 3 Dem. Cor. 134, 135. 
 
 4 Some passages of this oration are to be found in the fragments of Hyperides, 
 67-75 (B 1 -). 
 
 5 See frag. 76 of Hyperides: οτι άντέπραξε rrj πόλει περί του Ιερού του Δηλίων. It 
 appears from Apsines (ix. p. 547 W.) that this refers to Euthycrates. 
 
 6 See Essay IV. § 4. 
 
 7 Dem. Cor. 136. For the date of Python’s visit, see Schaefer 11. 377, 378. He 
 identifies this Python with great probability with one of the brothers, Python and 
 Heraclides, of Aenos, who murdered Cotys and were afterwards received with honour 
 at Athens: see Dem. xxm. 118, 119. 
 
342 B.C.] CASE OF DELOS.—MISSION OF PYTHON. 271 
 
 a pupil of Isocrates, and his statement of Philip’s grievances moved 
 the Assembly greatly 1 . He was accompanied by envoys from all 
 Philip’s allies, and he was supported by Aeschines 2 . But his “tide of 
 eloquence” was stemmed by Demosthenes, who replied to Philip’s 
 complaints so effectively that the feeling of the Assembly was soon 
 turned against Python. He was followed by Hegesippus, another 
 patriotic Athenian, who professed to accept Philip’s offer to revise the 
 peace and made two propositions to this end 3 . He proposed (1) that 
 the clause which provided that each should keep what they had , ίκατίρονς 
 c^cu/ a εχουσιν, utipossidetis, should be changed to each should have their 
 owii (ϊκατίρονς e^eiv τα εαυτών) ; (2) that the freedom of all Greek states 
 not included in the treaty should be recognized by both parties to the 
 peace, who should agree to defend them if they were attacked. A 
 decree was passed with these two provisions; and Hegesippus was sent 
 with other envoys to Philip to ask his approval of these terms, and 
 further to ask for the return to Athens of the island Halonnesus, 
 which Philip then held, and for the surrender of the towns in Thrace 
 (Serrhium, Doriscus, etc.) which he had taken after the peace was made 4 . 
 This embassy was rudely received by Philip, who ignored all his promises 
 about a revision of the peace, and it returned to Athens with nothing 
 accomplished. Philip even banished an Athenian poet, Xenoclides, for 
 the offence of entertaining the embassy in Macedonia 5 . 
 
 56. Eight or nine months later (early in 342 b.c.) Philip sent a 
 letter to the Athenians, in which he once more deplored the odium into 
 which the misrepresentations of hostile orators had brought him at 
 Athens, and gave a tardy reply to some of the demands of Athens 6 * * . 
 We have the speech of Hegesippus (as we may now safely call it) in the 
 
 1 Aesch. 11. 125, with the Schol. (p. 65, 25). 
 
 2 Dem. Cor. 136 10 ; Epist. Phil. [Dem. xn.] 18. 
 
 3 Heges. (Dem. vn.) 18, 25, 30, 31. For the authorship of this speech see p. 272, 
 note 1. Dem. XIX. 181, έπανορθώσασθαι την ειρήνην, refers to this proposed revision 
 of the peace. 
 
 4 Heges. 2, ore προς αυτόν έπρεσβεύσαμεν , with 36, 37 · 
 
 5 Dem. χιχ. 331. If we can trust a story told by Seneca (de Ira, in. 23, 2), 
 which is referred to this occasion by Schaefer, of the insolence of Demochares, one of 
 the embassy, we can easily pardon Philip for his rude treatment of the whole party. 
 According to this, when Philip politely asked the embassy what he could do for them, 
 Demochares replied, “ Hang yourself.” 
 
 6 This letter, which is now lost, was read to both Senate and Assembly. It must 
 
 not be confused with the later letter of Philip (written in 340 B.c.) of which document 
 
 No. xii. among the speeches of Demosthenes purports to be a copy. (See § 68.) 
 
HISTORICAL SKETCH. 
 
 272 
 
 Assembly, in which this letter is discussed 1 . Philip made the following 
 answers :— 
 
 (1) As to Halonnesus he repeated his former answer to the embassy, 
 that he had taken the island from a nest of pirates, not from Athens. 
 Still, he would give it to Athens if she would take it as a gift from him. 
 He further offered to submit the whole question to arbitration 2 . 
 
 (2) He proposed a treaty with Athens (σύμβολα) providing for the 
 trial of lawsuits between Macedonians and Athenians, claiming, however, 
 that the final ratification of such a treaty should be left to himself 3 . 
 
 (3) He claimed the right to cruise about the Aegean at pleasure, 
 and to aid Athens in suppressing piracy—a claim which might embarrass 
 Athens in many ways 4 . 
 
 (4) He denied that he had ever agreed to modify the peace so 
 as to allow each party “to hold what belonged to them.” He held 
 Amphipolis, for example, by the terms of the peace 5 and he could not 
 allow his right to be questioned 5 . 
 
 (5) He agreed that the freedom and independence of the Greeks 
 who were not parties to the peace should be recognized and defended, 
 as Athens proposed 6 . 
 
 (6) He denied absolutely that he had ever broken any of his 
 promises to Athens : indeed, he declared that he had never made any. 
 He maintained that he had released all Athenian prisoners of war 7 . 
 
 (7) He offered to submit to arbitration all questions about places 
 alleged to have been captured by him after the peace was made, including 
 the dispute about Halonnesus and the quarrel with Cardia : indeed, he 
 offered to compel the Cardians to submit to arbitration if they refused 6 . 
 
 57. Hegesippus in his replies 9 objects to receiving Halonnesus 
 as a gift from Philip while the right of Athens to the island is denied. 
 He sees in the offer of σνμβολα to settle lawsuits only a device of Philip 
 to secure himself (by some provision of the treaty) against suits for recom- 
 
 1 This (No. vii. in editions of Demosthenes) is now universally recognized as a 
 speech of Hegesippus: see Schaefer 11. 44.0, 441 with n. 1. It professes to be made by 
 the mover of the two proposals sent to Philip, who was also one of the embassy (2). 
 
 2 Heges. 2—8: see § 66 (below). 
 
 3 Ibid. 9—13: see p. 273, n. 2. 
 
 4 Ibid. 14—16. 
 
 6 Ibid. 18—29. 
 
 6 Ibid. 30—32. 
 
 7 Ibid· 33 — 35 » 3 8 · 
 
 8 Ibid. 36, 37, 39 — 44 · 
 
 9 He gives the replies in connection with the statements of Philip’s demands. 
 
PHILIPS LETTER.—HEGESIPPUS. 
 
 2 73 
 
 B.C.] 
 
 jffense for confiscated property brought by Athenians who were settled in 
 Potidaea at the time of its capture; these settlers having had a special 
 treaty of alliance with Philip, so that they could not legally be treated as 
 enemies 1 . He also repudiates with indignation Philip’s claim to the 
 right to ratify (i.e. to revise or reject) the treaty after it had been properly 
 made and had been ratified by the Heliastic Court at Athens 2 . He 
 ridicules the idea that Athens needs Philip’s help in suppressing piracy. 
 He calls on the people to remember the offers to revise the peace which 
 Python made to them in Philip’s name. He repeats the old charge 
 of breaking promises, and denies that Philip has liberated all his 
 Athenian captives. He spurns the proposal of arbitration concern¬ 
 ing the towns captured by Philip after the peace was made, saying 
 that this is a question of time to be settled by the calendar, not one 
 for arbitration. 
 
 Demosthenes also discussed Philip’s letter, objecting to receiving 
 Halonnesus as a gift from Philip, and to allowing arbitration as to 
 certain claims of Athens. It is probably this speech to which Aeschines 
 alludes when he ridicules DemQSthenes for “quarrelling about syllables 3 .” 
 So far as we know, no result followed these negotiations with Philip, 
 except a stronger conviction at Athens of the insincerity of Philip’s 
 
 1 Heges. 9, 10 : ούκ ovtos αύτοϊς πολέμου προς Φίλιππον άλλα συμμαχίας, καί όρκων 
 όμωμοσμένων οϋς Φίλΐ 7 Γ 7 Γ 05 rots οίκοΰσιν έν II οτειδαία (sc. ' Αθηναίοις) ώμοσεν. As it was 
 generally established that restitution should be made for property confiscated in time 
 of peace, Philip naturally desired some special security on this point. It was 
 generally provided in σύμβολα that suits should be brought in the defendant’s court 
 (forum ret), so that suits of this nature would be tried in Macedonia, where Philip 
 would have ample opportunity to take advantage of any ambiguous provisions in the 
 treaty, such as he might easily smuggle in at a final revision. 
 
 2 By the Attic law, such σύμβολα, after they were made by negotiation, like other 
 treaties, must be ratified by the Heliastic Court under the presidency of the θεσμοθέται. 
 See Heges. 9: ταΰτα δε κύρια ’έσεσθαι ούκ έπειδάν έν τφ δικαστηρίιρ τφ παρ' ύμΐν 
 κυρωθη, ώσπερ 6 νόμος κελεύει, άλλ’ έπειδάν ώ* εαυτόν έπανενεχθη. Aristotle (Pol. 
 Ath. 59 16 ) sa y s °f tke θεσμοθέται, καί τα σύμβολα τα προς τας πόλεις οΰτοι κυροΰσι, καί 
 τάς δίκας τάς από των συμβόλων είσά^ουσι, which may refer to a later law, or may 
 (as Meier and Schomann explain it, Att. Proc. p. 999) mean the θεσμοθέται presiding 
 over a court. Pollux (vui. 88) repeats Aristotle. The passage of Aristotle, interpreted 
 in either way, with its distinction of σύμβολα and δίκαι από των συμβόλων, now makes 
 untenable the view of Reiske, which I once followed (Am. Journ. of Philol. 1. 10—12), 
 that ταΰτα in the speech on Halonnesus (above quoted) refers to the δίκαι and not to 
 the σύμβολα. See Att. Proc. 1001. It seems that Philip and Athens both claimed the 
 right of final ratification, of course with the option of rejecting the treaty altogether. 
 
 3 Aesch. III. 83 : 'Αλόννησον έδίδου 1 ό δ’ άπη^όρευε μη λαμβάνειν εί δίδωσιν άλλα 
 μη άποδίδωσι, περί συλλαβών διαφερόμενος. 
 
 G. D. 
 
 ΐ8 
 
274 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH. 
 
 [343- 
 
 professions of friendship and of the necessity of ultimately meeting his 
 aggressions by force of arms. 
 
 5S. Ί he account of the transactions which followed the mission 
 of Python has brought us down to the time before midsummer 
 342 b.c., when Hegesippus delivered his oration on Halonnesus 1 . 
 
 We must now recur to events in Euboea which began in the previous 
 year. 
 
 The formal peace which Athens made with the towns of Euboea in 
 348 b.c. recognized the independence of the island 2 . Philip saw more 
 and moie plainly the importance of Euboea as a basis of operations 
 against Athens 3 , and he never lost an opportunity of establishing his 
 influence there. In 343—342 he supported Clitarchus, who had made 
 himself tyrant of Eretria, and he sent troops to expel the popular party. 
 An embassy sent by Athens on the motion of Demosthenes to counteract 
 the intrigues of Philip was refused a hearing at Eretria, and the town fell 
 into Philip s power 4 . 1 he banished democracy took possession of 
 Porthmus, a harbour of Eretria, and Philip sent against them 1000 soldiers 
 and destroyed the walls of Porthmus 5 . He also sent troops to Oreus, 
 to establish there the tyrant Philistides; and under the Macedonian 
 influence the popular leader, Euphraeus, was sent to prison, where he 
 slew himself to escape the vengeance of his enemies 6 . Athens, by the 
 help of Demosthenes, was more fortunate in establishing her influence 
 at Chalcis, where two brothers, Callias and Taurosthenes, who had once 
 acted in Philip’s interest, were now firm friends of the Athenians. 
 Callias sent an embassy to Athens, and a treaty of alliance was made, 
 providing for mutual defence 7 . The brothers were intimate with Demos¬ 
 thenes, who caused them to be made citizens of Athens. Aeschines 
 
 In the late summer or autumn of 343 Aeschines was brought to trial on the 
 charge of παραττρεσββία, and acquitted by a small vote. See Essay IV. § 7. 
 
 2 See § 14, above. 
 
 3 As an έπιτάχισμα eirl τήν ’Αττικήν, Cor. 71 2 . 
 
 Dem. ix. 57, 58, 66, Cor. 7179'; cf. Cor. 295 13 . 
 
 Dem. ix. 12, 58; cf. vm. 59. 
 
 Dem. ix. 59 62, 66, Cor. 81. The somewhat earlier attempt of Philip to secure 
 
 Megara (§ 52) is sometimes connected with his intrigues in Euboea. Both had the 
 same object, to weaken Athens. The two are often mentioned together, as in Dem. 
 Cor. 71, xix. 87, 334. For the final overthrow of the despotisms in Euboea by the 
 help of Athens in 341—340, see § 64, and note on Dem. Cor. 79 s . 
 
 7 Aesch. hi. 91—93. We do not know whether the Athenian embassy which was 
 rejected at Eretria about this time (see note 5, above) was sent also to negotiate 
 with Chalcis; but this is highly probable. This embassy is the one mentioned in 
 Dem. Cor. 7 9 7 » Ee/ 3 oias m rrero. 
 
342 B.C.] EUBOEAN AFFAIRS.—PHILIP IN EPIRUS. 275 
 
 violently attacks Callias as a friend of Demosthenes and an enemy of 
 
 Athens 1 . ' === ^ ςρ ^ 
 
 59. In the winter of 343—342 Philip with a motley force marched 
 over the mountains into Epirus, to place Alexander, brother of his 
 queen Olympias, on the throne. Neoptolemus, Alexander’s father, 
 had reigned there jointly with his brother Arybbas, in whose house 
 Alexander and Olympias had been brought up. After his brother’s 
 death Arybbas reigned alone. Philip soon expelled his uncle-in-law 
 from his throne, and made Alexander king 2 . He thus made the settle¬ 
 ment of a family quarrel the means of extending his own influence to the 
 Ionian Sea. He captured three Elean towns in Cassopia, in the south 
 of Epirus, and gave them to Alexander 3 . He was now on the borders 
 of Ambracia, and he also threatened to attack Leucadia and to cross 
 into Peloponnesus. He made a treaty with the Aetolians, in which he 
 agreed to restore to them Naupactus, which the Achaeans then held. 
 In these later schemes he was foiled by Athens, which sent Demosthenes 
 and other envoys to urge Corinth and Achaea to defend their rights 4 . 
 She also sent troops to Acarnania 5 . Athens received the dethroned 
 Arybbas with great honour, but nothing appears to have been done to 
 restore him to his dominions 6 . 
 
 60. On his return from Epirus, Philip entered Thessaly, where he 
 had previously established a decadarchy (see § 51). He now appointed 
 tetrarchs, one for each of the original districts of Thessaly,—Thessaliotis, 
 Phthiotis, Pelasgiotis, Hestiaeotis 7 . This completed the subjugation of 
 Thessaly, which had been one of his main objects since his attack on 
 the despots of Pherae in 353—352 s . At about this time (342) Philip 
 sent for Aristotle and made him the tutor of his son Alexander, who was 
 
 1 Hyper, in Dem., Col. XX.: τούτους yap eypa\J/e Δημοσθένης ’ Αθηναίους είναι καί 
 χρήται τούτοις πάντων μάλιστα. So Dinarch. I. 44 5 Aesch. III. 85—97. Demosthenes 
 makes no formal reply to these charges. 
 
 2 See Paus. I. n 3-5 , giving many details of the family history; Just. vn. 6, 
 vni. 6. 1. 
 
 3 Heges. 32: see Schaefer 11. 426 (notes). 
 
 4 Dem. ix. 27, 34, 72: both Leucadia and Ambracia were Corinthian colonies. 
 For Naupactus see § 78 (below), p. 294, with n. 3. 
 
 5 Dem. xlviii. 24 (343—342 b.c.; see ό άρχων Πι ιθόδοτος in 26). 
 
 (i See decree in his honour in C. I. Att. II. no. 115. 
 
 7 Dem. IX. 26: θετταλία πως έχει; οΰχί τάς πολιτείας καί τάς πόλεις αυτών 
 παρήρηται καί τετραρχιας κατέστησεν, ϊ'να μη μόνον κατά πόλεις άλλα καί κατ' έθνη 
 δουλεύωσιν ; cf. Cor. 48, 295· 
 
 s See § 6 (above). 
 
 18—2 
 
276 HISTORICAL SKETCH. [342- 
 
 now fourteen years old 1 2 3 . In this year he gave great offence to Greece 
 by sending a deputy to hold the Pythian games in his name 8 . 
 
 61. Early in 342 b.c. Philip undertook to complete his conquest of 
 Thrace, and especially to wrest from Athens her control of the Thracian 
 Chersonese. This ancient possession of Athens was equally important 
 to her as a protection to her trade with the Euxine, and to Philip as a 
 point of departure for invading Asia. Soon after the peace, Athens had 
 sent a body of settlers to the Chersonese under Diopithes :! , an able and 
 enterprising general, who was determined to defend the rights of Athens 
 to the last extremity and to brook no interference from Philip. The 
 Cardians, who had been admitted to the peace in 346 as Philip’s allies 
 by the consent of the Athenian embassy, annoyed the Athenian settlers 
 in every possible way. Philip sent troops to aid the Cardians, and 
 Diopithes raised an army in Thrace to attack them. With this force he 
 invaded Philip’s territory beyond Cardia 4 . Against this Philip protested 
 vehemently in a letter to the Athenians 5 , and a meeting of the Assembly 
 was held to consider the question. In this Demosthenes delivered his 
 eloquent oration on the Affairs of the Chersonese. He admits that the 
 action of Diopithes has not been precisely peaceful, but maintains that 
 Philip has broken all the terms of the peace and that Athens is really 
 at war with him by his own act. He stoutly objects to making any con¬ 
 cessions to Philip at this crisis, and above all he protests against recalling 
 Diopithes or passing any vote which might discredit him or his conduct 
 in Thrace. 
 
 62. Soon after this speech, certainly before midsummer 341, De¬ 
 mosthenes delivered his Third Philippic. This powerful argument deals 
 with the whole history of Philip’s aggressions since the peace was made, 
 and enforces the argument of the speech on the Chersonese. He 
 declares that Athens has been actually at war with Philip for a long 
 time, indeed ever since the destruction of the Phocians 6 * . He earnestly 
 
 1 Plut. Alex. 7 ; Diog. Laert. v. 1, 7, επί Π υθοδότον (343—342). Alexander was 
 born July 21, 356 (see § 3). 
 
 2 To this refers the indignant remark in Dem. IX. 32, τούς δούλους ά-γωνοθετήσοντας 
 πέμπει. 
 
 3 Dem. νιιι. 6, ix. 15 : see Schaefer 11. 451, notes. 
 
 4 For a full discussion of these important events, which led directly to the renewal 
 of the war with Philip, see the two orations of Demosthenes On the Chersonese (vm.) 
 and the Third Philippic (ix.). See Grote XI. 623—625 ; Schaefer 11. 450—455. 
 
 5 Dem. vm. 16, ix. 16, 27; Hypoth. to vm. p. 89 s . 
 
 (> Dem. IX. 19: άφ ’ ης ημέρας άνεΐλε Φωκέας, άπό ταύτης βγω*/ αυτόν πολεμεΐν 
 
 ορίζομαι. See also ix. g, 15—18, and many similar passages in this speech. 
 
34ib.c.] DEM. ON CHERSONESE.—THIRD PHILIPPIC. 277 
 
 beseeches the people to recognize this fact and to prepare for active 
 warfare 1 . He makes no attempt to justify the recent proceedings of 
 Athens in the Chersonese, except as measures of defensive war, to which 
 Philip’s offensive acts of war have driven her. It would be madness, he 
 urges, for the Athenians to allow Philip to wage war on them and not to 
 defend themselves by arms. 
 
 The whole tone of the Third Philippic shows that Demosthenes 
 had no longer the least expectation of maintaining even a nominal 
 peace; while the increasing boldness of Philip’s aggressions shows that 
 he merely aimed at securing all possible advantages before the inevitable 
 declaration of war 2 . 
 
 63. We have only meagre and scattered accounts of the events of 
 the year 341—340, before the outbreak of the war. One important 
 result of the discussions in the Assembly and the powerful arguments 
 of Demosthenes was that Athens now universally recognized his leader¬ 
 ship and gave him almost complete control of her foreign affairs. For 
 this department, from this time until the battle of Chaeronea, he declares 
 himself responsible in the fullest sense 3 . One of his wisest strokes of 
 policy was his forestalling of Philip’s designs on Byzantium by his embassy 
 thither, probably in the early summer of 341. He thus secured for 
 Athens the friendship and alliance of that important city, the control of 
 the Hellespont, and the protection of her trade with the Euxine. Athens 
 and Byzantium had had so many grounds of enmity, especially since 
 the Social War, that it now required no ordinary diplomatic skill to 
 bring them into friendship 4 . About the same time he negotiated an 
 alliance with Abydos, an old enemy of Athens, and visited the “ kings 
 
 1 See ix. 70—end. 
 
 2 There is an interesting decree of 341—340 B.C. concerning Elaeus, a town on the 
 southern point of the Chersonese, in C. I. Att. II. no. 116: είναι και τοΐς Έλαιουσίοις 
 τά αυτά, ai r[ep] ό δήμος έφήφισται τοΐς ~Κερρ[ονη]σίταις' τον δέ στρατηγόν ~Κά[ρητα ] 
 έπιμεληθήναι αυτών εν τφ [τρόπ]ιρ τφ αύτφ όπως άν έχοντ[ες Έλα]4θάσιοι τά αυτών όρθώς 
 /c[ai 5 i/c]cu'ws οίκώσιν μετά Άθψαί[ων εν Χ]ερρονήσιρ, καϊ καλέσαι ro[t)s ’EXapoucricm επί 
 δεΐπνον et[s το πρυ^τανεΐον εις αϋριον. In no. 7 01 Elaeus and other towns in the 
 Chersonese are recorded as offering crowns to the people of Athens in 347—346. See 
 C. Curtius in Hermes iv. 407. Cf. Dem. xxm. 158. Schaefer (11. 482) refers 
 C. I. Att. nos. 136 and 137 to this time. 
 
 3 Dem. Cor. 59, 88, 218, 298 {μεγίστων...ττροστάς) : in Cor. 320 he compares his 
 power at this period with his humble position after Chaeronea, when Aeschines and 
 his party again became powerful and insolent. Aeschines (in. 130) alludes to 
 Demosthenes before Chaeronea as έμπιμπλάμενος τής δεδομένης ύφ' υμών αύτφ 
 εξουσίας. 
 
 4 Dem. Cor. 88 , 94» -44 5 Aesch. πι. 256. 
 
278 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH 
 
 [ 341 - 
 
 of Thrace,” probably Cersobleptes and Teres, who were soon after¬ 
 wards dethroned by Philip 1 . Later in 341—340 an embassy was sent 
 to the King of Persia, perhaps on the suggestion of Demosthenes, asking 
 for help against Philip ; but this was not well received by the King, who 
 sent back to Athens a very insulting letter, refusing his assistance 2 . 
 Embassies were sent also to Rhodes, under Hyperides, and probably to 
 Chios, the effects of which were seen in the help sent to Byzantium 
 when she was besieged by Philip 3 . 
 
 Even more important were the embassies to Peloponnesus which 
 were undertaken by Demosthenes with Callias of Chalcis. These 
 resulted in the formation of a powerful league against Philip, which, 
 according to Aeschines, proposed to raise 100 talents, and to equip 
 100 ships of war, 10,000 foot soldiers, and 1000 horsemen, besides 
 2000 militia from Peloponnesus and 2000 from Acarnania. The leader¬ 
 ship of the league was given to Athens, and a formal meeting of the 
 allies at Athens was appointed for the 16th of Anthesterion (March 9) 
 340 b.c. 4 We have no further mention of this synod, and we may fairly 
 assume that it was never held. But the proposed forces appear to have 
 been actually raised, as Demosthenes gives the number of the allies in 
 the field as 15,000 mercenaries and 2000 cavalry, besides the militia 5 . 
 
 1 Dem. Cor. 302 5 ; XXIII. 158, Άβνδου της τον όίπανθ ’ ύμΐν χρόνον έχθρας. For 
 the Kings of Thrace see Epist. Phil. 8—10. 
 
 2 See Epist. Phil. 6: this shows that the result of the Persian mission was not yet 
 known. See below, § 67, n. 2. Aeschines (hi. 238) probably refers to the 
 King’s reply: iyu> ύμΐν χρυσίον ού δώσω * μη με αιτείτε’ ού yap λήψεσθε. On the 
 contrary, in Vit. x. Orat. 847 F, 848 e, the King is said to have sent 3000 darics to 
 Demosthenes, and also a gift to Hyperides. (A daric, or gold stater, by weight of 
 gold, would be about Ii. 2s. 10 d.) Aristotle (Rhet. 11. 8, 11) mentions money sent 
 by the King to Diopithes, which came after his death. See Schaefer 11. 483. It is 
 hard to see why, on the eve of a war with Philip, there was any crime in receiving 
 money or other help from Persia, to be used against a common enemy. “ Persian 
 gold” was still a phrase for demagogues to conjure by, a century and a half after the 
 term had any real meaning, as “ British gold ” still is in certain quarters in the United 
 States. 
 
 3 Dem. IX. 71: έκπέμπωμεν πρέσβεις [ πανταχοΐ , εις \\ε\οπόννησον, εις 'Ρόδον, 
 εις Χίον, ως βασιλέα λόγω]· Vit. X. Orat. (Hyper.), ρ. 850 Α: έπρέσβευσε δέ και πρδς 
 'Ροδίους. A λόyoς 'Ροδιακός and probably a Χιακός of Hyperides are mentioned: see 
 frag, ιόι and 194 (Bl.), and Bohnecke, Forschungen 1. p. 461 (with note, p. 657). 
 Diod. xvi. 77 mentions help sent to Byzantium by Chios, Cos, and Rhodes, the three 
 islands which had joined her in the Social War. See Schaefer 11. 484, n. 2. 
 
 4 Aesch. hi. 94—98; Schaefer 11. 486—489. 
 
 ,J Dem. Cor. 237, where he includes the later Theban allies. He also includes the 
 Leucadians and Corcyraeans, and omits the Arabraciots. For the Acarnanians see 
 
34 ob.c.] CALLIAS.—LIBERATION OF EUBOEA. 
 
 279 
 
 64. These vigorous preparations, which preceded the open outbreak 
 of the war, amply justify the boasts of Demosthenes about the allies and 
 the revenues which were raised for Athens by his influence 1 . One of 
 the most important results of the close union between Demosthenes and 
 Callias was the formal alliance of Athens and the cities of Euboea, 
 which grew out of the treaty for mutual defence made two years before 2 . 
 This alliance was made on a new basis. Instead of bringing back the 
 Euboeans to the Athenian confederacy as tributaries, the wise policy of 
 Demosthenes established a new Euboean confederacy, with Chalcis at 
 its head, as an independent ally of Athens. Aeschines represents this 
 as a corrupt bargain, by which Demosthenes, for a bribe of three talents, 
 cheated Athens out of ten talents of revenue which she ought to have 
 received from Eretria and Oreus 3 . This alliance was closely connected 
 with the expulsion of the two tyrants whom Philip had supported at 
 Oreus and Eretria. In the summer of 341, on the motion of Demo¬ 
 sthenes, an expedition was sent to Euboea, which with help from Chalcis 
 and Megara freed Oreus from the tyrant Philistides, who was put to 
 
 Aesch. in. 256. The ’Αριθμός βοηθειών (Dem. Cor. 305) probably contained all the 
 forces raised directly or indirectly by Demosthenes. See Cor. 301, 302 ; and Vit. x. 
 Orat. pp. 845 a, 851 a (decree). 
 
 1 Dem. Cor. 234—237. 
 
 2 See § 58. 
 
 3 Aesch. hi. 94, 100. The nature of the alliance is shown by the criticisms 
 of Aeschines. He sarcastically speaks of the embassy to Eretria, proposed by 
 Demosthenes in his decree “longer than the Iliad,” as sent to beg the Eretrians 
 to pay their assessment (σύνταξιν) not to Athens, but to Callias. This signifies that 
 Clitarchus was making a last effort to maintain himself by contributing to the new 
 Euboean confederation. Aeschines offers, as proof of a bribe of a talent promised (but 
 not paid) by Oreus to Demosthenes, a decree of that city pledging him the public 
 revenues for the payment of that sum with twelve per cent, interest (104). That the 
 payment of a bribe should be secured in this public manner is too absurd a story to 
 be seriously discussed. Schaefer (11. 491, 492) finds a most probable explanation of 
 the decree of Oreus in two Attic inscriptions. In C. I. Att. 11. no. 804 B a (334— 
 333 B.C.), twenty-three Athenians, among them Demosthenes, are named as εγγυηταΐ. 
 Kohler says of the mutilated introduction, θεο,.^υηται r, “ suspiceris scriptum fuisse 
 επί θεοφράστου άρχοντος' εΊ^νηται τούτων κ.τ.λ .” This is made almost certain by 
 no. 809 c, 42 (325 — 324 B.C.), where payments are recorded from 15 of the same men, 
 including Demosthenes, τταρα των iyy υητών των τριηρων ών οι Χαλκιδη s Σλάβον 
 άττελάβομεν. These men evidently had given security for money advanced by Athens 
 to Chalcis, in 340—339 B.C., to enable her to supply her quota of ships to the new 
 confederacy; and it is probable that Demosthenes was likewise security for a talent 
 lent to Oreus for the same purpose, and that the town gave him security for the 
 principal and interest. We may well say, with Aeschines (in. 75), καλόν, καλόν η των 
 δημοσίων y ραμμάτων φυλακή. 
 
28ο 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH. 
 
 [341- 
 
 death 1 . Several months later a more decisive expedition was sent 
 under Phocion. On a report that Philip was about to invade Euboea 
 with his fleet, Hyperides raised a fleet of forty ships for Athens by 
 voluntary contributions. He gave two triremes, one for himself and 
 one for his son 2 . Though Philip made no attack on Euboea, this fleet 
 was sent under Phocion, on the motion of Demosthenes, to liberate 
 Eretria from Philip’s tyrant Clitarchus. This was soon effected, and 
 Clitarchus was put to death 3 . This completed the liberation of Euboea 
 from despotism and from Philip’s influence, and made the island a 
 firm friend and supporter of Athens. The Athenians expressed their 
 gratitude to Demosthenes for these successful labours by the gift of 
 a crown of gold, which was conferred in the theatre, at the Great 
 Dionysia of 340, in the very terms which were subsequently used by 
 Ctesiphon in his own decree 4 . 
 
 65. About this time, a man from Oreus, Anaxinus, who came to 
 Athens ostensibly to make purchases for Queen Olympias, was arrested 
 as a spy and examined under torture through the action of Demosthenes, 
 who also moved his condemnation to death. Aeschines mentions this 
 proceeding as an outrage upon an innocent visitor, whose hospitality 
 Demosthenes had once enjoyed at Oreus; and he implies that the affair 
 
 1 Dem. Cor. 79 s , την επ’ Ώρεό v ’έξοδον: cf. 87. Charax fr. 31 (Mull. in. 643): 
 Αθηναίοι άμα ϋαΧκιδεΰσι.,.καί Μεγαρευσι στρατεύσαντες εις Ώρεόν ΦιΧιστίδην τον 
 τύραννον άπέκτειναν και Ώρείτας ήΧευθέρωσαν. Schaefer π. 49Ε η · C quotes the new 
 scholia on Aesch. ill. 85 (Jahrb. fur Philol. 1866, p. 28), assigning June 341 as the 
 date of this event. In Dem. ix. 66 (before midsummer 341) we find Philistides in full 
 power at Oreus. 
 
 \ it. X. Orat. 850 Λ (Hyper. 24): Φιλίππου δε πΧεΐν επ’ Εύβοιας τταρεσκενασμένον, 
 και των Αθηναίων ευΧαβώς εξάντων, τεσσαράκοντα τριήρεις ήθροισεν εξ επιδόσεων, και 
 πρώτος υπέρ αύτου και του παιδός έπέδωκε δύο τριήρεις. In the next year (340—339) 
 we find Hyperides an appointed trierarch in command of an έπιδόσιμος τριήρης, named 
 ’ Ανδρεία : see C. I. Att. II. no. 809 d, 236 (also 808 c, 98), των μετά Φ ωκίωνος και 
 Κηφισοφώντος πΧευσασών έπιδόσιμος τριήρης Ανδρεία’ τριήραρχος Υπερείδης, with 
 λ it. X. Orat. 848 Ε (Hyperides, 5)9 τριήραρχός τε αίρεθείς οτε Βυζάντιον έποΧιόρκει 
 Φ ίΧιππος, βοηθός Βυζαντίοις εκπεμφθείς κ.τ.Χ. Hyperides probably commanded at 
 Byzantium one of the triremes which he had given for Euboea the year before. 
 
 3 Diod. XVI. 74 (under 341—340 B.C.) : Φωκίων μεν κατεποΧέμνσε K Χείταρχον τόν 
 ’Ερέτριας τύραννον καθεσταμένον υπό Φιλίππου. See new schol. to Aesch. III. 103 
 (note 1, above): επ άρχοντος Νικομάχου (341— 34θ), Φιλίππου βασιΧεύοντος έτος κ, 
 Αθηναίοι στρατεύσαντες εις Εύβοιαν Φ ωκίωνος στρατη“γουντος τόν τε τύραννον των 
 Έρετριεων Κ Χείταρχον άπέκτειναν και την πόΧιν τοΐς Έρετριεΰσι παρέδωκαν και δημο¬ 
 κρατίαν κατέστησαν. (See Schaefer 11. 495 > η · 3 ·) Eretria was probably freed in the 
 spring of .340 b.c. 
 
 4 See Dem. Cor. 83 2-4 , with note. 
 
340 e.c.] ANAXINUS.—SIEGE OF PERINTHUS. 
 
 281 
 
 interfered in some way with an εισαγγελία which he was about to bring 
 against Demosthenes. Demosthenes alludes to the case chiefly to 
 mention that Aeschines was detected in a private interview with Anaxinus 
 in the house of one Thrason : and the suspicion thus cast on the 
 patriotism of Aeschines may have caused him prudently to abandon 
 his prosecution of Demosthenes. Schaefer is probably right in con¬ 
 necting this affair with the efforts of Philip to maintain his ascendency 
 in Euboea 1 . 
 
 66. The dispute between Athens and Philip about Halonnesus in 
 343 — 34 2 left the island in Philip’s hands, as Athens refused to take it 
 as a gift from him, while he refused to “ restore ” it. At last, probably 
 in 341—340, the people of Peparethus seized Halonnesus and made 
 the Macedonian garrison prisoners. Philip soon avenged this act by 
 sending a fleet to ravage Peparethus. Athens then directed her com¬ 
 manders to make reprisals upon Philip. This shortly preceded the 
 outbreak of the war 2 . 
 
 Before midsummer 340 it was generally recognized throughout 
 Greece that war was inevitable. At the Olympic games of this year, 
 it is said, the name of Philip was received with hisses and other insults 3 . 
 Philip was then engaged in the conquest of Thrace, and had come to 
 the point where the possession of Byzantium was indispensable to him 
 if he was to invade Persia and secure a safe passage for his army into 
 Asia Minor and a safe return. It was also of the utmost importance 
 for him to become master of the grain traffic of the Euxine. He now 
 called on the Byzantines, as his friends and former allies, to promise 
 him their aid in his pending war with Athens. But here his way was 
 blocked by the alliance already made by Demosthenes with Byzantium, 
 and she refused to join him 4 . Upon this he resolved to secure her by 
 force; and he began by attacking the neighbouring city of Perinthus on 
 the Propontis. To this end he sent his fleet through the Hellespont, 
 and he guarded it against attack during its passage by marching an 
 
 1 Aesch. in. 223, 224; Dem. Cor. 137. Demosthenes must have acted here in 
 some official capacity, as in the case of Antiphon in 344 (see § 53, above). Demosthenes 
 was probably a guest of Anaxinus on some official visit to Oreus, perhaps on one of 
 the embassies of 346 (see Dem. xix. 155, 163), when Anaxinus may have been the 
 πρόξενος of Athens. The reply of Demosthenes to Aeschines with regard to the 
 violation of hospitality is thus given (Aesch. in. 224): εφησθα τούς της πόλεως 
 άλας περί πλείονος ποιήσασθαι της ξενικής τραπέξης. 
 
 - Dem. Cor. 70 1 : see the Schol. (p. 248 s ) ; Epist. Phil. [Dem. xn.] 12, 13. 
 
 3 Plut. Moral, p. 457 F, Phil. Apophth. (26), p. 179 a. 
 
 4 See § 63 (above); Dem. Cor. 87. 
 
HISTORICAL SKETCH. 
 
 282 
 
 army through the Chersonese to keep the Athenians well employed on 
 shore 1 . 
 
 67. Perinthus was attacked vigorously (probably late in the summer 
 of 340) by land and by sea, but it was also vigorously defended. 
 Though Philip brought to the siege an army of 30,000 men, besides 
 his large fleet, and employed the most improved engines of war and 
 towers two hundred feet high, the defenders were finally successful. 
 They were constantly aided by their neighbours of Byzantium, and at 
 last by a force sent by the King of Persia 2 ; though no help came from 
 Athens or any other Greek city. Philip at length decided to abandon 
 the siege. But he still hoped to surprise Byzantium, which was his real 
 object, by a sudden attack. The better and larger part of the Byzantine 
 army was at Perinthus, and the people who were left at home were 
 little to be feared. He therefore left about half his army at Perinthus, 
 under his best commander, to make a show of continuing the siege, 
 while he hastened with the rest to Byzantium and began to besiege it 
 (in the autumn of 340) with all his skill. The Byzantines were at first 
 greatly alarmed; but timely help came to them from a powerful friend. 
 Athens was now openly at war with Philip, and her naval power soon 
 came to the help of her new ally. A fleet under Chares, which was 
 previously cruising in the northern Aegean, was sent to Byzantium, and 
 was followed by another under Phocion, which was more powerful and 
 more efficient. Chios, Cos, and Rhodes also sent their help. Byzantium 
 was rescued, and Philip wisely abandoned this second siege 3 . By some 
 
 1 Cor. 139 4 · $ ee Epist. Phil. 16: -ηνα^κάσθην αύτάς παραπέμψαι διά Χερρονήσου 
 τη στρατιά. 
 
 2 Whether this efficient help to Perinthus was the result of the Athenian embassy 
 which Ochus repulsed a year earlier (see § 63) is not known. The King now seems to 
 take great personal interest in checking Philip. See Diod. xvi. 73: 0 βασιλεύς... 
 &ypa\f/e προς τούς επί θαλάττη σατράπας βοηθεΐν ΙΙερινθίοις παντί σθένει. Cf. Paus. I. 
 29, 10. In Alexander’s letter, Arrian 11. 14, 5, Ochus himself is said to have sent a 
 force distinct from that sent by his satraps: ΙΙερινθίοις έβοηθησατε, οΐ τον εμδν πατέρα 
 ήδίκονν, καί εις Θράκην, ής ημείς ηρχομεν, δύναμιν έπεμψεν ^Ιϊχος. 
 
 3 For the details of the sieges of Perinthus and Byzantium, of which only the 
 latter is mentioned by Demosthenes (Cor. 71, 87), and for Philip’s improved engines 
 
 of Avar, see Schaefer 11. 502, 503, 507—513, with the authorities cited. The in¬ 
 scriptions in C. I. Att. 11. nos. 808 c , 82, and 809 d, 220 and 236—238 (also in 
 Boeckh, Seewesen, pp. 442, 498) show that Chares was in command of a fleet 
 in 341—340, and Phocion in 340—339. As Ave know that Chares Avas present 
 at the siege of Byzantium, which began in 340—339, it appears that his command 
 extended into this year. See Porphyr. Tyr. (Muller in. p. 692): σνμμαχούντων 
 δέ Βυζαντίοις ’ Αθηναίων διά Χάρητος aTpa^yov, άποτνχών ό Φίλιππος έπί Χερρόνησον 
 
B.C.] 
 
 PHILIP AND ATHENS AT WAR. 
 
 283 
 
 skilful device his fleet eluded the Athenian ships in the Bosporus and 
 escaped into the Aegean 1 . He left the greater part of his army for a 
 time before Byzantium, and went with the rest to the Chersonese, partly 
 to harass the Athenian settlers there and partly to protect his fleet in its 
 passage through the Hellespont 2 . 
 
 68 . The peril of Perinthus and Byzantium had probably hastened 
 the formal acknowledgment by Athens of the actual state of war between 
 herself and Philip. In the late summer or early autumn of 340, probably 
 after the siege of Perinthus was begun, Philip sent to the Athenians a 
 long letter, full of complaints of their aggressions and justifications of his 
 own 3 . To this communication, which ended in a declaration of war 4 , 
 Athens replied only by her own declaration of war and a vote to remove 
 the column on which the treaty of 346 b.c. was inscribed 5 . The special 
 
 χωρεΐ, καί ταύτην λαβών έπανήλθε. See note 2 (below). See also Hesych. Miles, 
 frag. 28 (Muller iv. p. 151). Plutarch (Phoc. 14) speaks of Chares as inefficient and as 
 despised by the enemy; but other (later) authorities take a different view. Hesych. 
 Miles, (above cited), of the sixth century, represents Chares as holding the headland 
 between Chrysopolis and Chalcedon (now Scutari), opposite the Golden Horn, and 
 thus commanding the entrance to Byzantium. On this headland Damalis, the wife of 
 Chares, was buried; and her monument, with a heifer ( δάμαλις) on an altar, was seen 
 by Hesychius. Chares is said to have driven the Macedonian fleet into the Euxine. 
 For the siege of Byzantium, and the help brought by Phocion, see Plut. Phoc. 14. 
 Demosthenes always speaks with great pride of this relief of Byzantium, which he had 
 effected: Cor. 80, 87, 88, 93, 302. He himself gave a trireme to the fleet sent 
 to Byzantium: see Vit. X. Orat. 851 A (decree). 
 
 1 See Schaefer n. 514, with explanation of Polyaenus (iv. 2, 21). 
 
 2 See Porph. Tyr., quoted in n. 3, p. 282, and Justin ix. 1 : profectus cum fortis- 
 simis multas Chersonensi urbes expugnat. 
 
 3 A document purporting to be this letter appears as no. xn. among the orations 
 of Demosthenes. This is accepted as genuine, at least in substance, by Grote, Weil, 
 and Blass, though not by Schaefer, who thinks it is the work of a rhetorician, 
 though based on good materials. Of course the document found in Cor. 77, 78 is 
 spurious. 
 
 4 See the last sentence, υμάς άμννοΰμαι μετά του δίκαιον κ.τ.λ. (this declaration 
 is without qualification). 
 
 See Philochorus in Dion. Hal. ad Amm. 1. pp. 740, 741 (frag. 135, Muller 1. 
 p. 406): θεόφραστος Άλλαιεό?* έττί τούτου (i.e. 340—339 B.C.) Φίλιππο? το μεν πρώτον 
 άναπλεύσας ΪΙερίνθιρ προσέβαλεν, άποτυχών δ’ εντεύθεν Βυζάντιον έπολιόρκει, καί 
 μηχανήματα προσή-γεν. Dion. Hal. proceeds : ’Έπειτα διεξελθών δσα τοΐς 'Αθηναίοι 
 δ Φίλιππο? ένεκάλε ι διά τής επιστολής, καί Αημοσθένους παρακαλέσαντος αύτονς προς τον 
 πόλεμον καί ψηφίσματα y ράψαντος, έχειροτόνησε την μεν στήλην καθελεΊν την περί 
 τής πρός Φίλιππον ειρήνης καί συμμαχίας σταθείσαν , ναυς δε πληρούν καί τα άλλα 
 εvερyείv τα του πολέμου. In this valuable fragment it is obvious that there is 
 some corruption or omission in the words Αημοσθένους .. .έχειροτόνησε. ψηφίσματα is 
 commonly changed to ψήφισμα , thus making the passage confirm the statement 
 
2δ 4 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH 
 
 occasion alleged by Demosthenes for the declaration of war was the 
 capture of some, Athenian merchant ships by Philip’s cruisers in the 
 Hellespont 1 ; but war had been an avowed fact on both sides many 
 weeks before it was declared. 
 
 When the Byzantine war was ended by the help of Athens and the 
 wise counsels of Demosthenes, the gratitude of Perinthus, Byzantium, 
 and the towns in the Chersonese was expressed to Athens as their 
 deliverer by votes of thanks and crowns 2 . 
 
 69. When Philip returned from his expedition to the Chersonese 
 to his camp before Byzantium, he withdrew his army from that neigh¬ 
 bourhood. We have very scanty accounts of his movements from this* 
 time (probably early in 339 b.c.) until we find him the next summer 
 fighting with the Scythians and the Triballi. We can only conjecture 
 why, just at the beginning of a war with Athens on the success of which 
 everything was staked, and after suffering two mortifying repulses, Philip 
 
 of Aeschines (in. 55) that Demosthenes proposed the declaration of war ( 2 ~/ραψε τον 
 πόλεμον). But Demosthenes (Cor. 76) most emphatically denies this, though he 
 claims the authorship of the chief measures which really led to the war. This is 
 consistent with ψηφίσματα -γράψαντος, referring generally to war measures; but it is 
 incredible that war was actually declared on his motion, as this would be a notorious 
 matter of record which he could not deny and had no motive for denying. Further, 
 έχειροτόνησε (sc. ό δήμος) may be the beginning of a new quotation from Philochorus, 
 so that no emendations are needed, though the preceding sentence is incomplete. 
 The στήλη on which the treaty of 346 was inscribed is mentioned in Dem. vm. 
 5 (end) and Epist. Phil. 8. 
 
 1 Dem. Cor. 73 ; Diod. xvi. 77 : επί δε τούτων (340—339 B.c.) ΦΑ£·7Γ7του Βυζάντιον 
 πολιορκουντος Αθηναίοι μεν έκριναν τον Φίλιππον λελυκέναι την προς αυτούς συντεθεΐσαν 
 ειρήνην , ευθύς δε και δύναμιν ναυτικήν άξιόλο·γον έξέπεμψαν τοΐς Βυζαντίοις. Diodorus 
 thus puts the declaration of war while the siege of Byzantium was going on. This 
 agrees with the facts that Athens sent no help to Perinthus, but when Byzantium was 
 attacked she immediately sent her fleet under Chares to defend it. It is true that 
 Philip’s letter does not mention the siege of Perinthus ; but it does mention (16) the 
 passage of Philip’s army through the Chersonese “ to escort his fleet,” which w r as on 
 its way to attack Perinthus. This shows (so far as the document is authority) that the 
 letter was probably written during the siege of Perinthus, so that the response of 
 Athens, the most important part of which was the immediate sending (Diod.) of her 
 fleet to Byzantium, was probably made when the news of its siege first came to Athens 
 (in the autumn of 340). Again, the allusion in the letter (6, 7) to the appeal of Athens 
 to the King of Persia for help, without mentioning the efficient aid sent by him to 
 Perinthus (see 67), shows that the letter was written before the siege was raised. We 
 can thus reduce the date of the letter and of the declaration of war which followed it 
 to very narrow limits. Although the quotations from Philochorus (in note 5, p. 283) 
 mention the letter and the declaration of war after both sieges, there is nothing to 
 show that he placed the events themselves in this order. 
 
 2 Dem. Cor. 89—93. The votes were read to the court. 
 
339 B.c.] 
 
 TRIERARCHIC REFORM. 
 
 285 
 
 should have undertaken an expedition against these outside barbarians, 
 leaving Athens and Demosthenes to enjoy the fruits of their diplomatic 
 successes. He may have felt the necessity of protecting his possessions 
 in Thrace, or even Macedonia itself, against a possible invasion from 
 the north; or he may have merely wished to give his defeated troops a 
 taste of easy victory and rich booty. An unimportant quarrel with Ateas, 
 a Scythian king, gave him a ground for invading his dominions; and 
 the king himself—according to one account, nearly ninety years old— 
 was defeated on the Danube and killed. Philip carried off as booty 
 20,000 boys and women, much cattle, and 20,000 breeding mares. On 
 his return from Scythia, he passed through the country of the Triballi, 
 with whom he had previously been in conflict 1 . These warlike moun¬ 
 taineers attacked him furiously; and in the battle he was severely 
 wounded, his horse was killed under him, and he was thought to be 
 dead. In the panic which followed, the Triballi took possession of the 
 precious booty from Scythia. “Thus again humiliated, Philip returned 
 to Macedonia in the course of the summer of 339 2 . 
 
 About the time of the renewal of war with Philip, Demosthenes 
 proposed and carried his important trierarchic reform, by which the 
 navy of Athens was put on a new footing and many old abuses were 
 corrected. It was under this new system of trierarchy that all the fleets 
 were fitted out during the war, and its success in removing grievances 
 is described by Demosthenes with glowing pride and satisfaction 3 . 
 
 V. The War with Philip, from 340 b.c. to the Battle 
 
 of Chaeronea in 338. 
 
 70. When Philip returned from Scythia in the summer of 339 b.c., 
 he found that the war had been waged on both sides for nearly a year 
 without decisive results. Though the Athenians had generally been 
 
 1 See Dem. Cor. 44 1 with note, and § 51 (above). 
 
 2 Our only account of this Scythian expedition, except a few incidental allusions, 
 is found in Justin IX. 2 and prologue to ix. See also Lucian, Macrob. 11: ’Areas δε 
 Σκυθων βασιλεύς μαχόμενος προς Φίλιππον περί τον ’Ίστρον ποταμόν επεσεν, υπέρ τά 
 ενενήκοντα ετη Ύε~/ονώ$. The brief story is confirmed by Aeschines (ill. 128), when 
 he says of Philip in the summer of 339, ούκ έπιδημοΰντος εν Μακεδονία. Φίλιππον, άλλ’ 
 ούδ’ εν τρ 'Ελλάδι παρόντος , άλλ’ εν Σκΰθαις οϋτω μακραν άπόντος. Not much later, 
 at the time of the regular meeting of the Amphictyonic Council (Aug. or Sept.), he 
 had already returned, and he was then made general of the Amphictyons (Dem. Cor. 
 152 ; Aesch. ill. 129). 
 
 3 Cor. 102—108 : see note on 103 3 . 
 
286 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH. 
 
 [Spring of 
 
 defeated in such land battles as had occurred, yet the Macedonians felt 
 severely their naval weakness, by which they suffered a constant blockade 
 of their coast without being able to retaliate by attacking Athens by 
 sea 1 . It was obviously impossible for Philip to invade Attica by land 
 without the cooperation of both Thessaly and Thebes, and his relations 
 with them did not warrant even a proposal to this end. Thessaly had 
 been alienated by the abolition of her free governments and the establish¬ 
 ment of a decadarchy and tetrarchies 2 ; and Thebes, though she had 
 gained the lion’s share of the spoils at the end of the Sacred War, was 
 deeply offended by the loss of Nicaea in the pass of Thermopylae, which 
 Philip gave to Thessaly, and of her own colony Echinus, which Philip 
 had taken for himself 3 . Without the consent of Thessaly he could not 
 command the pass of Thermopylae ; and without Thebes he could not 
 use the fertile plain of Boeotia for military operations and for the support 
 of his army on his way to or from Attica. He needed therefore some 
 device for securing the active aid of both. Some undertaking which 
 would unite the two in a common interest with himself seemed indis¬ 
 pensable 4 . Such was Philip’s perplexity when he found himself again at 
 war with Athens after six years of nominal peace. When he departed 
 for Scythia (§ 69) this problem was still unsolved, though possibly he 
 may already have confided to Aeschines directly or indirectly some 
 practical hints for its solution. However this may have been, it so 
 happened that before Philip’s return Aeschines had suddenly stirred up 
 an Amphictyonic war, which delivered him from all his difficulties and 
 opened the way for himself and his army into the very heart of Greece 5 . 
 He had passed Thermopylae in triumph in 346 as the champion of the 
 God of Delphi; he was now to enter Greece a second time clothed with 
 the same sacred authority, to aid the Amphictyonic Council in punishing 
 new offenders who were openly defying their commands. 
 
 71. We are here reduced to the alternative of believing either 
 that Aeschines deliberately devised this Amphictyonic war in order to 
 give Philip a free passage into Greece, or at least took advantage of 
 a slight incident at Delphi to excite a general conflict, or else that he 
 ignorantly and recklessly roused a war which could have no other end 
 than bringing Philip into Greece at the head of an army. The latter 
 alternative is generally rejected ; and indeed it attributes to Aeschines 
 
 1 See Cor. 145, 146. 
 
 2 See above §§51, 60. 
 
 3 See ix. 34 (w. Schol.); Aesch. in. 140; Schaefer 11. 538, 539. 
 
 4 Cor. 147. 
 
 5 Cor. 149. 
 
339 B.C.] 
 
 AESCHINES AT DELPHI. 
 
 287 
 
 a reckless ignorance of Greek politics with which we have no right to 
 charge him. We are almost wholly dependent on his own graphic 
 narrative for the facts as to the origin of this baneful war, and he must 
 be condemned, if at all, on his own testimony 1 . And this evidence, in my 
 opinion, strongly confirms the view of Demosthenes, that Philip saw that 
 his appointment as commander in an Amphictyonic war was the surest 
 way in which he could march an army into Greece without the opposition 
 of Thessaly or Thebes; that such a war would be useless to him if it 
 were stirred up by any of his own delegates or friends ; and that he must 
 employ an Athenian to devise a scheme which should secure this end 
 without exciting suspicion in the Amphictyonic Council. At all events, 
 AeschipesLwas ready at Delphi to do him this very service. 
 
 72. In the archonship of Theophrastus (340— 339), the Athenian 
 delegation to the spring meeting of the Amphictyonic Council consisted 
 of Diognetus, the Hieromnemon of the year, and three Pylagori, Midias, 
 the old enemy of Demosthenes, Thrasycles, and Aeschines 2 . These 
 four were present at the meeting in Delphi, when Diognetus and Midias 
 were attacked by fever and Aeschines suddenly found himself in a 
 position of great importance. The Athenian delegates had been 
 privately informed that the Locrians of Amphissa intended to propose a 
 vote in the Council to fine Athens fifty talents because she had re-gilded 
 and affixed to the newly-built temple of Delphi 3 some shields, probably 
 
 1 Aeschines tells how he stirred up the Amphictyons to war in ill. 107—124; and 
 he slurs over the highly important matter of the appointment of Philip as commander 
 in 128, 129, without expressly mentioning the appointment. Demosthenes, Cor. 
 149—152, alludes briefly to the Amphictyonic meeting at Delphi, being in essential 
 agreement with Aeschines as to the main facts, and to Philip’s appointment; in 163— 
 179 and 211—218 he gives the subsequent events which led to the alliance of Athens 
 and Thebes and those which followed that alliance. 
 
 2 For the constitution of the Amphictyonic Council and the distinction of the 
 two classes of delegates, Hieromnemons and Pylagori, see Essay V. Athens was 
 represented as the most important member of the Ionic race. Among the inscriptions 
 recently found at Delphi is a fragment, assigned to 341—340 B.C., containing the 
 letters ΙΩΝΩΝΔΙΟΓΝ...ΝΑΙΟΤ, obviously 'Ιώνων, Αω-γνΙητον ’ Αθη]ναίον. Can this 
 be the same Diognetus who was the Hieromnemon of Athens at Delphi in the spring 
 of 339B.C.? Bourguet, the editor, hesitates about the Delphic date. See Bull, de 
 Corresp. Hellen. 1896, p. 238. 
 
 3 See Aesch. III. 116, ό'τι χρυσάς άσπίδας άνβθίμεν irpos τον καινόν νβών ττρίν 
 έζαρέσασθαι. This “ new temple ” was not the temple built by the Alcmaeonidae 
 two centuries before, nor any addition to that building made after the Phocian War. 
 The temple built by the Alcmaeonidae was destroyed early in the fourth century b.c. 
 In 371 B.C., just before the battle of Leuctra, the Spartans were advised to ask for 
 contributions for rebuilding the temple, Tept.ayyei.\avTas ταΐς 7 τόλεσι σνμβαλέσθαι. el s 
 
288 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH. 
 
 [Spring of 
 
 relics of the battle of Plataea, and had renewed the old inscription, 
 
 ’ Αθηναίοι από Μ^'δωι/ καί Θηβαίων, ore ταναντία τοΐς Έλλησιν i μαχοντο. 
 
 This renewal of the ancient disgrace of 1 hebes in fighting on the side 
 
 of the Persians at Plataea was, it must be confessed, neither a friendly 
 
 nor a politic act of Athens; it shows the exasperation between Thebes 
 
 and Athens which followed the victory of Leuctra. But this was of 
 
 little consequence now. The Hieromnemon sent for Aeschines, and 
 
 asked him to attend the Amphictyonic meeting on that day in his place, 
 
 as if he were a delegate with full powers, and defend Athens against the 
 
 Locrian accusation. Aeschines was therefore present at the meeting by 
 
 special authority. As he began to speak, apparently referring in some 
 
 excitement to the threatened charge against Athens, he was rudely 
 
 c 
 
 interrupted by an Amphissian, who protested against the very mention 
 of the Athenians, declaring that they should be shut out of the temple as 
 accursed because of their alliance with the Phocians. Aeschines replied 
 in great anger; and among other retorts “it occurred to him” to 
 mention the impiety of the Amphissians in encroaching on the sacred 
 
 τον ναόν του ’Απόλλων os οποπον βουλοιτο έκαστη πόλις. Sec Ken. Hell. Λ I· 4? 
 
 In an Attic decree of 369—368 (C. I. Att. 11. no. 51), relating to the tyrant Dionysius, 
 it was voted, 7 τερϊ μεν των "γραμμάτων ών επεμφεν Δ ιονυσιος, τής οίκοδομιας τον νεω 
 καί τής ειρήνης τους συμμάχους δό^μα είσενεχκεΐν εις τον δήμον. See Kohlei, Hermes 
 χχνι. ρ. 45 (note), who refers to a Delphic inscription in the Mittheil. d. deutsch. 
 Instit. (Athen), 1880, p. 203, relating to the restoration of the temple : Kohler thinks 
 this inscription cannot be much later than the beginning of the 4th cent. me. In the 
 Bulletin de Corresp. Hellen. for 1896, Homolle gives a history of the various temples 
 of Delphi, based on the latest discoveries of the French: see pp. 677—701, Le καινό s 
 νεώς (built in the fourth century B.c.). He publishes the inscription above mentioned 
 and discusses it at length. His conclusions are generally confirmatory of what was 
 already known: (1) the old temple was destroyed about 373 37- B-C. by an eaith- 
 
 quake (not by fire, as had been assumed); (2) a general subscription was opened in 
 371 for rebuilding the temple; (3) in 351—347 the building was erected as fai as the 
 epistyles (see below); (4) in 339 the new temple, not yet dedicated, was in a condition 
 to receive the shields which the Athenians affixed to its architraves; (5) the temple 
 was finished in 330—329. Two inscriptions are published in the same volume of the 
 Bulletin: see 1. 28, 29, τριγλύφων δυώδεκα and επιστυλίων έ'ξ, on which Bourguet 
 (p. 217) remarks, On sait que l’edifice auquel etaient destinees ces pieces d archi¬ 
 tecture est le temple lui-meme. Onze de ces ti’iglyphes et cinq de ces epistyles 
 etaient ceux de fronton Ouest; le douzieme triglyphe et le sixieme epistyle, ceux du 
 retour d’angle S. O. 
 
 The disputed expression (Aesch. in. 116), άνεθεμεν προς τόν καινόν νέων πριν 
 έξαρέσασθαι (the reading now generally adopted), is referred by Kohler to some 
 religious ceremony of dedication: see θυσαι δε τ<β θεφ αρεστήριον in C. I. Att. II. 
 no. 403» 45 > a * so Add. 405 16. For είσέφερον δόχμα (Aesch. III. 116) and δίκην 
 
 έπα-γόντων (Dem. Cor. 150 4 ) see note on the latter passage. 
 
339 B.C.] 
 
 AMPHISSIAN WAR. 
 
 289 
 
 and accursed plains of Cirrha, which had been solemnly devoted to 
 everlasting sterility and desolation by the Amphictyonic Council about 
 250 years before, on the motion of Solon 1 , at the end of the first 
 Sacred War. 
 
 73. Cirrha was the ancient seaport of Delphi on the Gulf of Corinth, 
 while Crissa (often confounded with it) was a town on the height above 
 the river Pleistus, on the road to Delphi (near the modern Χρυσό) 2 . 
 The broad plain of Cirrha, one of the most fertile in Greece, lay between 
 the foot of Parnassus and the coast, and was called by both names 
 Cirrhaean and Crissaean. In obedience to the Amphictyonic curse, 
 Cirrha with its harbour was destroyed, and the plain had remained un¬ 
 cultivated until recently, when the Amphissians had re-established the 
 ancient port as a convenient landing-place for visitors to Delphi, and 
 levied tolls on those who used it. They had also cultivated a part of 
 the accursed plain and erected buildings upon it. The Amphictyons 
 seem to have quietly acquiesced in this violation of the sacred edict, 
 doubtless seeing the advantage of the newly opened port to themselves 
 and others, and thinking little of the almost forgotten curse. But they 
 were not proof against the arts and eloquence of an accomplished 
 Athenian orator, who ingeniously presented the case in impassioned 
 language and with powerful appeals to the prejudices and the bigotry 
 of an antiquated religious assembly, with which a venerable curse had 
 greater weight than the strongest political motives or the abstract idea 
 of Hellenic unity. From the hill near Delphi where the Amphictyonic 
 Council sat under the open sky, there is a magnificent view of the sacred 
 plain, extending to the gulf of Corinth. Here Aeschines stood in the 
 excited assembly, and showed them the plantations and buildings of the 
 Amphissians on the forbidden land; and he caused the terrific impre¬ 
 cations of the ancient curse to be repeated, which declared any man, 
 city, or state, which should cultivate or occupy the plain of Cirrha, 
 accursed of Apollo, Artemis, Leto, and Athena, and devoted to utter 
 destruction with their houses and their race. He reminded them that 
 
 1 Aesch. ill. 115—118. The destruction of Cirrha and the consecration of its 
 plain took place in 586 B.c., at the end of the ten years’ Sacred War. (See Clinton, 
 Fasti Hellen.) 
 
 2 The walls of Crissa, enclosing a large space on the brink of the cliff, are still to 
 be seen, though buried and overgrown so as often to escape observation. They are 
 an excellent example of the wall-building with which Thucydides (1. 93) contrasts the 
 walls of Themistocles, consisting of two thin shells of stone, with rubble and clay 
 between them. Apparent remains of the moles of the accursed harbour of Cirrha are 
 also to be seen on the shore of the gulf. 
 
 G. D. 
 
 19 
 
290 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH 
 
 [339 
 
 the same curse was invoked on all who should permit others to violate 
 the sacred edict. We cannot wonder that the whole assemblage was 
 fired with fierce enthusiasm to avenge the wrongs of Apollo upon the 
 sacrilegious Amphissians. When Aeschines had finished his speech, as 
 he tells the court, the question of the Athenian shields was wholly 
 forgotten, and the only thought was of the punishment of the Amphis¬ 
 sians. The flame had now been kindled, which was to end in the 
 conflagration that Philip was eager to see. An Amphictyonic war was 
 begun, which could be ended only by the intervention of Philip and his 
 army. Thebes and Thessaly could now be united in a common cause 
 with Philip 1 2 . 
 
 74. Late in the day the meeting adjourned; and a herald was ordered 
 to proclaim that all Delphians, freemen and slaves, above the age of 
 eighteen, should meet the next morning at daybreak with spades and 
 picks, ready for serious work; that all the Amphictyonic delegates (of 
 both classes) should convene at the same place, “to aid the God and 
 the sacred land”; and that any state which failed to obey should be 
 accursed and excluded from the temple. This Amphictyonic mob 
 assembled and descended to the plain, where they burned the houses 
 and destroyed the moles which enclosed the harbour. On their way 
 back to Delphi, they were attacked by a crowd from Amphissa, which 
 lay about seven miles west of Delphi, and barely escaped with their 
 lives : some of the Council were captured. The next day an Amphicty¬ 
 onic Assembly (εκκλησία) was summoned, consisting of the delegates 
 and all other citizens of Amphictyonic states who happened to be at 
 Delphi. This body voted that the Hieromnemons, after consulting 
 their respective states, should meet at Thermopylae at some time before 
 the regular autumnal meeting of the Council, prepared to take some 
 definite action concerning the Amphissians". When this vote was first 
 reported at Athens by her delegates, the people “took the pious side 
 (as Aeschines calls it); but a few days later, after a little consideration 
 and when the influence of Demosthenes had prevailed, it was voted that 
 the Athenian delegates “ should proceed to Thermopylae and Delphi at 
 the times appointed by our ancestors,” and further that no Athenian 
 delegates should take any part in the irregular meeting at Thermopylae, 
 “ either in speech or in action.” This wise step precluded Athens in the 
 most public manner from taking any part in the mad Sacred War which 
 
 1 Aesch. in. 119—122. 
 
 2 This seems to be the meaning of the obscure words (Aesch. 124), Ζχοντας 
 δόγμα (?) καθ' 6 τι δί /cas δώσονσιν ol ΆμφισσβΊς. 
 
B.C.] 
 
 PHILIP AMPHICTYONIC GENERAL. 
 
 291 
 
 Aeschines had stirred up : in his own words, “ it forbids you to remember 
 the oaths which your ancestors swore, or the curse, or the oracle of the 
 God 1 .” 
 
 75. The appointed meeting was held at Thermopylae, with no 
 representatives from Athens, and (what was more ominous for Philip’s 
 designs) with none from Thebes. It was voted to make war upon the 
 Amphissians, and Cottyphus, the president of the Council, was made 
 commander. The Amphissians at first yielded, and were fined and 
 ordered to banish the leading rebels. But they paid no fine, and soon 
 restored their exiles, and banished again “ the pious ” whom the Am- 
 phictyons had restored. The regular autumnal meeting of the Council 
 found things in this condition ; and it is hard to believe that the leaders 
 in this miserable business expected any other issue. As Grote says of 
 Cottyphus, he “could not do anything—probably did not wish to do 
 anything—without the intervention of Philip.” The Council was told 
 plainly and with truth, that they must either raise a mercenary army and 
 levy a tax on their states to pay for it, fining all who refused to do their 
 part, or else make Philip the Amphictyonic general. It is not surprising 
 that Philip was at once elected 2 . We are now just beyond the point at 
 which Aeschines thought it wise to stop in his exciting narrative. When 
 he told of the first expedition against Amphissa under the command of 
 Cottyphus, he added that Philip was then “ away off in Scythia,” so that 
 of course he was in nobody’s mind. After this, he could not talk of 
 Philip’s election a few weeks later without an absurd anti-climax, which 
 would be all the more ridiculous when he was compelled to add that the 
 first act of the new Amphictyonic general in this pious war was one of 
 open hostility to Athens and Thebes. Accordingly he does not mention 
 in this narrative either the appointment of Philip or the seizure of 
 Elatea which immediately followed his appointment. Instead of stating 
 these important facts, the direct results of his own deliberate action, he 
 bursts forth with a new flood of eloquence and dilates on the terrible 
 omens and the more terrible calamities which followed the refusal of 
 Athens to take the leadership in the holy war against Amphissa, to which 
 she was divinely called by the voice of Heaven; and he once alludes to 
 Elatea in the vaguest manner, without hinting that its seizure by Philip 
 was an event for which he was himself even in the slightest degree 
 responsible 3 . 
 
 1 Aesch. hi. 122—127. 
 
 2 Dem. Cor. 152: see the whole description 149—153. 
 
 3 See the end of 129, with its mysterious and obscure language, and the preceding 
 narrative. For the allusion to Elatea see 140. 
 
 19 —2 
 
292 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH 
 
 [ 339 - 
 
 76. Demosthenes, as we have seen, describes the action of Aeschines 
 in stirring up the new Sacred War very briefly, representing it as a 
 deliberate plot, devised by Philip and executed by Aeschines, for securing 
 Philip and his army free admission into Greece to attack Athens. He 
 mentions the choice of Philip as general after the failure of the first 
 campaign against Amphissa, and adds that Philip immediately collected 
 an army and entered Greece, professedly bound for the plain of Cirrha; 
 but that he suddenly bade the Cirrhaeans and Locrians a long farewell, 
 and seized and fortified Elatea. This old Phocian town, which had 
 been dismantled in 346 b.c., held a military position of the greatest 
 importance for Philip’s plans. It stood at the outlet of one of the chief 
 passes leading from Thermopylae, and it commanded the broad plain 
 through which the Cephisus flows on its way to Boeotia. It was also 
 the key to the rough roads leading westward to Doris and Amphissa. 
 From this point Philip threatened both Athens and Thebes so directly 
 as to leave no doubt of his purpose in entering Greece. He hoped that 
 the traditional feud between Athens and Thebes would bring Thebes 
 into his alliance; but he trusted to his commanding position on the 
 frontier of Boeotia to convince her that her only hope of safety lay in 
 his friendship. The prospect of Boeotia being the seat of war was an 
 alarming one, from which a united invasion of Attica by Thebes and 
 Philip was the only sure escape 1 2 . Demosthenes states that the Mace¬ 
 donian party in both Athens and Thebes had long been fomenting 
 discord between the two cities, which were now so estranged that Philip 
 felt that there was no possibility of their uniting against him. The 
 public documents quoted as proof of this enmity are unfortunately 
 lost". 
 
 At the same time with his seizure of Elatea (in the late autumn 
 of 339) Philip took possession of Cytinium, one of the towns of the 
 ancient Dorian Tetrapolis near Parnassus 3 . 
 
 77. We are almost wholly dependent on Demosthenes for what we 
 know of the skilful diplomacy by which Thebes was secured as an ally 
 of Athens against Philip 4 . This was the crowning achievement of the 
 political life of Demosthenes, and he always alludes to it with honest 
 pride. We have his own graphic story of the wild excitement at Athens 
 
 1 Dem. Cor. 213. 
 
 2 Ibid. 163—168. 
 
 3 See Philoch. frag. 135, under Ανσιμαχίδη s (archon 339—338): eiri τούτον... 
 Φιλίππου καταλαβόντος Έλάτειαν καί Κυτίνιον καί πρέσβεις πέμψαντος εις Θήβας. For 
 the Dorian Tetrapolis see Grote II. 387, 388. 
 
 4 See Dem. Cor. 169—188, 211—216. 
 
 
 
33 $ b.c.] ALLIANCE OF ATHENS AND THEBES. 
 
 293 
 
 when a messenger at evening brought the news from Elatea, and of the 
 solemn meeting of the people the next morning when he made his 
 speech, full of dignified eloquence, by which he laid the foundation for 
 a right understanding with Thebes and secured the appointment of a 
 friendly embassy, of which he was himself the leader. He then de¬ 
 scribes briefly but clearly the critical negotiations with Thebes, which 
 ended in a treaty of alliance. We are not informed of the details of 
 this treaty; but the carping criticisms of Aeschines indicate that the 
 liberal spirit towards Thebes which inspired Demosthenes in his first 
 proposals was felt in all the negotiations. Aeschines gives one important 
 item, designed to protect the alliance against the defection of any 
 Boeotian cities to Philip. This provided that in case of any such defec¬ 
 tion “Athens would stand by the Boeotians at Thebes 1 2 .” Demosthenes 
 brings forward a letter addressed by Philip to his former friends in Pelo¬ 
 ponnesus when the Thebans deserted him, in which he solicits their help 
 on the ground that he is waging an Amphictyonic Avar in a holy cause 3 . 
 During the campaign which followed, Demosthenes appears to have 
 had equal influence at Athens and at Thebes. Theopompus says that 
 the generals at Athens and the Boeotarchs at Thebes were equally 
 obedient to his commands, and that the public assembly of Thebes was 
 ruled by him as absolutely as that of Athens 3 . 
 
 78. Of the campaign itself very little is known. We hear of one 
 “winter battle” and one “battle by the river,” in which the allies were 
 victorious 4 . These victories were celebrated by festivals and thanks¬ 
 givings ; and they caused Philip to renew his solicitations for help in 
 letters to the Peloponnesians 5 . The alliance with Thebes was so 
 popular in Athens, that Demosthenes, as its author, was publicly crowned 
 at the Great Dionysia in the spring of 338 6 . The allies suffered one 
 serious defeat near Amphissa, which Philip—perhaps for the sake of 
 
 1 Aesch. hi. 142. 
 
 2 Dem. Cor. 156, 158. 
 
 3 Theopomp. fr. 239: see Plut. Dem. 18: υπηρετεί» δέ μη μόνον τούς στρατηγούς 
 τφ Δημοσθένει ποιουντας το προσταττόμενον άλλα καί τούς βοιωτάρχας, δωίκεΐσθαι δε 
 τάς εκκλησίας άπάσας ούδύν ηττον ύπ’ εκείνου τότε τας Θηβαίων η τάς Αθηναίων. 
 Theopompus adds αδίκως and παρ’ αξίαν , which Plutarch corrects to καί πάνυ προσ- 
 ηκόντως. This is a continuation of the passage quoted in § 78, n. 4, p. 294. 
 
 4 Dem. Cor. 216, 217. See inscriptions in which Athenians are honoured for 
 bravery in battles in this year, C. I. Att. II. no. 562, with Kohler’s remarks. See 
 Schaefer 11. 556. 
 
 5 Dem. Cor. 218, 222. 
 
 6 Ibid. 222, 223. 
 
HISTORICAL SKETCH. 
 
 [Aug. or Sept. 
 
 294 
 
 appearances—finally attacked. By a cunning stratagem, Philip caused 
 the Greeks to withdraw from the passes leading to Amphissa, while he 
 marched through them and destroyed the allied army which met him on 
 the other side. This consisted of a Theban force under Proxenus, and 
 10,000 mercenaries under Chares whom Athens had sent to protect 
 Amphissa. Philip attacked these two forces separately and destroyed 
 them easily 1 . He then took Amphissa and destroyed it 2 . He also 
 captured Naupactus, put to death the Achaean garrison with its com¬ 
 mander Pausanias, and gave the town to the Aetolians, thus fulfilling 
 a promise which he had made four years before 3 . At some time during 
 this campaign, perhaps after his victory at Amphissa, he sent a herald 
 with proposals of peace to Thebes and Athens, which, it appears, 
 the Boeotajichs were at first inclined to entertain. Even at Athens a 
 peace-party appeared, with Phocion as its advocate 4 . Aeschines relates 
 that Demosthenes was so disturbed by the peace-movement at Thebes, 
 that he threatened to propose a bill to send an embassy to Thebes to 
 ask for the Athenian army a free passage through Boeotia to attack 
 Philip 5 . We hear no more of this movement, and a visit of Demosthenes 
 to Thebes probably brought it to an end. 
 
 79. Our accounts of the battle of Chaeronea are as meagre as 
 those of the preceding campaign. We depend chiefly on Diodorus, 
 who devotes the greater part of his short account to the exploits of the 
 young Alexander, then eighteen years old, to whom his father gave the 
 command of one wing, “supported by his most distinguished generals 6 .” 
 This decisive battle was fought on the seventh of Metageitnion, the 
 
 1 Polyaen. iv. 2, 8. 
 
 2 Ibid, (end); Strab. 427, κατέσπασαν δ’ αυτήν oi Άμφικτύονες. See Aesch. 
 III. 147. 
 
 3 See Schaefer 11. 559, with n. 2. He thus restores (from Suid., φρουρήσεις εν 
 Να υπάκτιρ, and Zenobius, Paroem. Gr. VI. 33) Theopomp. frag. 46: Φίλιππο* ελών 
 Ναύπακτον 'Αχαιών τούς φρουρούς άπέσφαξε και ΙΙανσανίαν τον άρχοντα τής φρουράς 
 άπέκτεινεν. (See Jahrb. d. Philol. 1859, Ρ· 4 ^ 3 ·) Strab. 427, έστι δε νυν Αίτωλών 
 ( Ναύπακτος ) Φιλίππου προσκρίναντος. Dem. IX. 34» °^ κ 'Αχαιών Ναύπακτον όμώμοκεν 
 Αίτωλοΐς παραδώσειν ; See § 59 ' Ρ· 2 75 > η · 4 (above). 
 
 4 Plut. Phoc. 16; Schaefer 11. 559, 560. Phocion is probably the general against 
 whom Demosthenes made his famous threat (Aesch. 146), εί δέ τις αύτιρ τών στρατηγών 
 άντείποι,. ..διαδικασίαν ’έφη -γράψειν τφ βήματι προς το στρατή^ιον . See Plut. Dem. 18 
 (Theopomp.) : ούτω δε μέ~γα και λαμπρόν έφάνη το του ρήτορος 'έρηον ώστε τόν μεν 
 Φίλιππον ευθύς επικήρυκεύεσθαι δεόμενον ειρήνης , ορθήν δε την Ελλάδα -γενέσθαι και 
 συνεξαναστήναι προς το μέλλον. See § 77 » η · 3 ' Ρ· 2 93 · 
 
 5 Aesch. ιιι. 148—151· 
 
 6 Diod. χνι. 86. 
 
338 B.C.] 
 
 BATTLE OF CHAERONEA. 
 
 295 
 
 second month of the Attic year 1 . By a stratagem Philip had drawn the 
 Greek army from its advantageous position in the hills into the plain 
 of Chaeronea, where he could use his cavalry with the best effect. At 
 first the battle was rather favourable to the allies; but soon the superior 
 discipline of the Macedonians prevailed, and the Greeks were driven 
 back on both wings. A general flight ensued, after which the Greeks 
 were scattered, so that there was no longer any military force between 
 Philip’s camp and Thebes or Athens. These cities lay at his mercy; their 
 armies were disbanded, and neither could help the other. A thousand 
 Athenians were killed, and about two thousand were taken prisoners. 
 The Boeotian loss was also great, and the famous Sacred Band of three 
 hundred Thebans perished to a man 2 . Diodorus states that Philip’s 
 army consisted of 30,000 foot and not less than 2,000 horse, adding 
 that Philip had the advantage in numbers and strategy, but that the 
 two armies were equally matched in courage and spirit. Justin, on the 
 contrary, states that the Greeks far exceeded the enemy in numbers 3 . 
 The general results, the utter annihilation of the Greek army, the 
 breaking-up of the Hellenic confederation which Demosthenes had 
 brought together against Philip, and the decisive establishment of Mace¬ 
 donian supremacy over the whole of Greece, are beyond question. 
 
 80. The panic and despair in Athens when the first tidings of 
 the defeat arrived were most pitiable. No one knew how soon the 
 victorious army might follow in the steps of the messengers who brought 
 the terrible news 4 . But the leaders of the people who were at home, 
 especially Lycurgus and Hyperides, and Demosthenes after his return 
 from the battlefield, did all that was possible to restore courage, and the 
 panic soon gave way to a resolute determination to save the city from 
 destruction or capture. Hyperides, who was one of the Senate of Five 
 Hundred (regularly exempt from military service), immediately proposed 
 a bill ordering the Senate to go to the Piraeus under arms and there 
 to hold a meeting to provide for the safety of the port; and further pro- 
 
 1 According to Boeckh, Mondcyclen, p. 29, the Attic year 338—337 ( 01 . no, 3) 
 began July 27, the preceding year being a leap year of 384 days. This would make 
 the seventh of Metageitnion our first of September. Boeckh afterwards expressed 
 doubts as to the beginning of 338—337, thinking it possible that 339—338 had only 
 354 days: this would make the battle fall on our second of August. See Schaefer II. 
 561, 562 (note); and Curtins, Griech. Gesch., Book VII. note 96. 
 
 2 For the iepd s λόχο? and their fate see Plut. Pelop. 18. 
 
 :: Justin IX. 3 : cum Athenienses longe maiore militum numero praestarent, assiduis 
 bellis indurata virtute Macedonum vincuntur. 
 
 4 See Lycurg. Leoc. 39, 40. 
 
296 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH 
 
 [ 33 ^- 
 
 viding that all slaves in the mines and the country districts who would 
 enlist should be free, and that exiles should be recalled, public debtors 
 and other ατψο i should be restored to their rights, and metics should 
 be made citizens, on the same condition. It was hoped that these last 
 measures might furnish a force of 150,000 men for immediate defence 1 . 
 It was also voted to bring the women and children and such sacred 
 property as was movable from unprotected places into the Piraeus 2 . 
 Lycurgus, who had charge of the finances, did wonders in replenishing 
 the empty treasury, and in providing arms and ships for the emergency 3 . 
 Large sums of money were raised by private contributions, the /χεγάλαι 
 επιδόσεις of Cor. § 171, Demosthenes giving one talent. Demosthenes 
 devoted himself especially to preparing the city for immediate defence, 
 especially by repairing the dilapidated walls and other defences and by 
 raising money for this object 4 . In adopting all these energetic measures 
 the people showed that the spirit of Marathon and Salamis was not 
 wholly extinct at Athens 5 . 
 
 81. When Philip heard of these preparations for receiving him, he 
 naturally thought seriously of his next steps. He seems to have felt no 
 doubt about the treatment of Thebes. As a former ally, who had 
 deliberately turned against him at a critical moment, she could expect 
 only severe punishment. Accordingly, he compelled her to ransom her 
 prisoners and even to pay for the right to bury her dead at Chaeronea 6 ; 
 he broke up the Boeotian confederacy and made all the other towns 
 independent of Thebes; he placed a Macedonian garrison in the 
 Cadmea; and he recalled the exiles who were opposed to the Athe¬ 
 nian alliance, and established from these a judicial council of three 
 hundred. Some of the old leaders were exiled, and others put to death ; 
 and their estates were confiscated 7 . Philip’s knowledge of the position 
 
 1 Lycurg. Leoc. 37, 41 ; Hyper, fr. 29 (Bl.). When Hyperides was indicted by 
 ypa -φή παρανόμων for the illegality of some of these measures, he replied: επεσκότει 
 μοι τα Μ ακεδόνων όπλα· ονκ ey<b το ψήφισμα typaxpa, ή δ ’ εν Χαιρωνείμ μάχη. 
 
 2 See Vit. χ. Orat. 849 Α lor this, and for the quotation in the preceding note. 
 
 3 Ibid. 852 c; Paus. 1. 29, 16. 
 
 4 See Cor. 248 10 and note; Lycurg. Leoc. 44. Aeschines, hi . 236, casts a slur 
 upon the patriotic fervour with which this work was done: ov yap περιχαρακώσαντα 
 χρη τα τείχη ουδέ τάφους δημοσίους ανελόντα τόν όρθως πεπολιτευμένον δωρεάς 
 αίτεΐν. 
 
 On the behaviour of Athens after Chaeronea see, in general, Schaefer ill. 4— 16, 
 with the references. 
 
 6 Justin ix. 4 6 : Ihebanorum porro non modo captivos verum etiam interfectorum 
 sepulturam vendidit. 
 
 7 Diod. xvi. 87; Paus. ix. 1, 8; Justin ix. 4. 
 
337 B.C.] 
 
 PEACE OF ΡΕΜΑ EES. 
 
 297 
 
 of Athens in Greece probably convinced him that it would be the worst 
 possible policy for him to treat her in this way. After the active 
 measures taken by the Athenians their city could not be taken without 
 a siege, which might be protracted into the winter; and such treatment 
 would unite Athens against him in hopeless enmity. He fortunately 
 had a good, though unprincipled, adviser at hand, the Athenian 
 Demades. He was taken prisoner at Chaeronea, but had ingratiated 
 himself with Philip by his manners and his good advice, so that he was 
 released and remained as a friend in the king’s camp. He had doubtless 
 confirmed Philip’s opinion about the best policy to be pursued with 
 Athens, by reminding him of the large and influential Macedonian party 
 there, which was then out of favour but might be restored to influence 
 by gentle treatment and friendly words at the present crisis. Philip 
 accordingly sent him as a messenger to Athens 1 . He must have sent 
 assurances of his friendly disposition and of his willingness to grant 
 her any reasonable requests; .and the Athenians replied by sending 
 Demades, Aeschines, and probably Phocion as envoys to Philip, to ask 
 for a release of the Athenian captives 2 . Philip received this embassy 
 with great cordiality and immediately invited them to his table 3 . He 
 released all the prisoners without ransom, and promised to return the 
 ashes of those who had fallen. He sent these remains to Athens in 
 charge of no less a person than Antipater, with whom Alexander him¬ 
 self went as a special messenger with offers of peace and friendship 4 . 
 The result was the treaty of peace, known as the Peace of Demades, by 
 which both peace and alliance were again established between Philip 
 and Athens. The Athenians were to remain free and independent, and 
 Philip probably agreed never to send ships of war into the Piraeus 5 . 
 
 1 Diod. XVI. 87, where the reproach of Demades to the drunken Philip im¬ 
 mediately after the battle is given: βασιλεύ, της τύχης σοι περιθείσης πρόσωπον 
 ’ Ar /αμέμνονος, αύτός ούκ αισχύνη πράττων ’tpya Θερσίτου; 
 
 2 Suid. under Αημάδης (3); Aesch. III. 227; Dem. Cor. 282, 284. For Phocion 
 see Schaefer in. 25, n. 1. 
 
 3 See note on Cor. 287 4 , with the references. 
 
 4 See Polyb. V. to: χωρίς λύτρων άποστείλας τους αιχμαλώτους καί κηδεύσας 
 ’Αθηναίων τούς τετελευτηκότας, ’έτι δε συνθείς ’Αντιπάτρω τα τούτων οστά καί των άπαλ- 
 λαττομένων τούς πλεί'.στους άμφιέσας, κ.τ.λ. Justin IX. 4 s · super haec Alexandrum filium 
 cum amico Antipatro, qui pacem cum his amicitiamque iungeret. Diod. XVI. 87. 
 
 3 Paus. VII. 10, 5 : Αθηναίοι yap μετά τό ατύχημα το εν Boiwrois ούκ iy ένοντο 
 Φιλίππου κατήκοοι. That Philip must have bound himself neither to enter Attica with 
 an army nor the Piraeus with warships, Schaefer, m. 27, 28, argues from [Dem.] xvn. 
 26, 28, τό δέ ύβριστικώτατον .. .των Μ ακεδόνων.,.τδ τολμησαι είσπλεύσαι εις τον II ειραια 
 παρα τας κοινας ήμΐν προς αυτούς συνθήκας. But this has no reference to the land. 
 
HISTORICAL SKETCH. 
 
 [337- 
 
 298 
 
 Oropus, which had been taken from T. hebes, was now at length restored 
 to Athens 1 . This settlement of an ancient dispute, though it was in 
 favour of Athens, must have been an unwelcome concession at this 
 moment, especially to those who had recently welcomed Thebes as a 
 friend and ally. Athens was to hold certain islands, among which were 
 Salamis, Samos, and Delos 2 ; but all trace of her recent alliance and 
 all thought of maritime empire had disappeared for ever 3 . Philip 
 left it open to her to join the general Greek League which he 
 proposed to form, and of which he was to be the head. This step 
 would sacrifice the independence of Athens in many points, and we 
 do not know what arguments were used to induce her to become a 
 member. But in the absence of Demosthenes, and in spite of 
 scruples of Phocion, who asked for more time to consider the 
 question, the Assembly adopted the proposals of Demades in full, 
 and these made Athens a member of the League 4 . By this step, 
 which was probably a necessary one under the circumstances, Athens 
 ceased to have any independent political existence; and the peace 
 of Demades ends her history as a free state and as a power in the 
 Hellenic world. 
 
 82. The feeling of Demosthenes about this peace after eight years’ 
 experience is seen in Cor. § 89. While he doubtless acquiesced quietly 
 in it at the beginning 5 , he never forgot the bitter humiliation. Under 
 the influence of this quiet submission to Philip’s authority, cloaked 
 under the name of independence, the Macedonian party, with Aeschines 
 
 1 See Schol. to Dem. Cor. 99 (p. 259, 10). Demades frag. 1. 9 (Didot): ’έγραψα 
 καί ΦιΧίππιρ τιμάς' ούκ άρνου /L ιαι. δισχιΧίους yap αίχμαΧώτους άνευ Χυτρών και χίΧια 
 ποΧιτών σώματα χωρίς κήρυκος καί τον ’Ώρωπδν άνευ πρεσβείας Χαβων υμΐν ταύτ 
 typa\pa. This seems to imply that Philip included the transfer of Oropus in his 
 original message sent by Demades (see Schaefer ill. 27). 
 
 2 For the islands left to Athens see Schaefer in. 28, n. 1. 
 
 3 Paus. I. 25, 3: to yap ατύχημα τό έν Χαιρωνείμ άπασι τοΐς ΈΧΧησιν ηρξε κακού'... 
 Άθηναίοις δέ Xoycp συνθέμενος (sc. Φίλιππο*) έργφ σφάς μάΧιστα εκάκωσε, νήσους τε 
 άφεΧόμενος καί τής ες τα ναυτικά παύσας αρχής. Of course Athens now lost her control 
 of the Hellespont, with the Chersonese and Byzantium. 
 
 4 Pint. Phoc. 16: ό δε (sc. Φωκίων) την μέν άΧΧην του ΦιΧίππου ποΧιτείαν καί 
 φιΧανθρωπείαν φετο δεΐν προσδεχεσθαι' Αημάδου δέ ypάφavτoς δπως ή πδΧις μετέχοι 
 τής κοινής ειρήνης καί του συνεδρίου τοΐς "ΈιΧΧησιν, ούκ εΐα προ του yvuvai τίνα ΦίΧιππος 
 αύτφ yεvέσθaι παρά των ΈιΧΧήνων αξιώσει. See [Dem.] XVII. 3 ο: ττpoσyέyραπται ταΐς 
 συνθήκαις, εάν βουΧώμεθα τής κοινής ειρήνης μετέχειν, which Schaefer (ill. 29, η. 3) 
 refers to this question : cf. Suidas, Demades (3) έ'γ ράψε δέ καί ψήφισμα τψ ΦιΧΙππιρ 
 τούς "ΕΧΧηνας ύπακούειν. 
 
 5 Demosthenes, Cor. 231, refers to the good fortune of Athens in escaping the 
 fate of Thebes. 
 
PEACE OF ΡΕΜΑ EES. 
 
 2 99 
 
 330 B.C.] 
 
 at its head, again became powerful at Athens 1 . It was then that it was 
 safe for the whole herd of the enemies of Demosthenes to persecute him 
 with every form of process which was known to the Attic law, when 
 (as he says) he was “ brought to trial every day.” But he mentions 
 this only to testify to the affection of his fellow citizens, who always 
 acquitted him in the popular courts, and thus justified his conduct in the 
 most effective manner 2 . Indeed, though the party of Aeschines then 
 had the courage to speak its sentiments more freely than ever before 3 , 
 and in so doing gained the favour of Philip and his partizans, the sober 
 sense of the people always recognized the services of men like Demos¬ 
 thenes in better times and expressed itself whenever an occasion offered. 
 There was no testimony of the public esteem and affection which De¬ 
 mosthenes valued more highly than the choice of the people in making 
 him their orator to deliver the eulogy on the heroes of Chaeronea 4 . Here 
 the genuine feeling of patriotic gratitude to the man who had fought the 
 battle of Grecian liberty almost single-handed impelled the citizens to 
 reject all candidates who were in sympathy with Philip or his cause, 
 including Aeschines and even Demades, and to choose the man who was 
 most heartily identified with the lost cause for which these heroes had 
 died. And the same public respect for Demosthenes and for his honest 
 and unswerving devotion to what was now seen more clearly than ever 
 to have been the cause of Grecian liberty, the cause which had made 
 their ancestors glorious, was shown in the overwhelming vote by which 
 the popular court acquitted Ctesiphon and condemned Aeschines, at the 
 very moment when such a judgment might have been deemed a public 
 defiance of Alexander’s authority, when the whole Greek world was 
 ringing with the news of the victory of Arbela. 
 
 1 Dem. Cor. 320. 
 J Ibid. 286 6 . 
 
 2 Ibid. 248—250. 
 4 Ibid. 285. 
 
3 °° 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH. 
 
 B.C. 
 
 3 ^ 4 — 3 8 3 · 
 382—381. 
 
 379 — 37 8 - 
 378 — 377 · 
 
 376 — 375 · 
 
 371 — 37 °· 
 
 366—365. 
 
 364—363. 
 
 362—361. 
 
 35 8 — 357 · 
 
 [ 357 — 356 . 
 
 [ 356 — 355 ·- 
 
 355 — 354 - 
 
 1 
 
 TABLE OF DATES. 
 
 Birth of Demosthenes and (probably) Aristotle (§ 8)‘. 
 
 Birth of Philip of Macedon (§ 3). 
 
 Spartan garrison expelled from Theban Cadmea. 
 
 Formation of new maritime confederacy of Athens. 
 
 Financial reforms of Nausinicus. Introduction of sym- 
 mories for the property tax. 
 
 Death of Demosthenes, father of the orator. Guardians 
 appointed for the son. (§ 8.) 
 
 Battle of Naxos (Sept. 376). 
 
 Battle of Leuctra (July 371). 
 
 Demosthenes comes of age at 18 : devotes two years to 
 preparation for the lawsuit against his guardians, under 
 legal advice of Isaeus (§ 8). 
 
 Trial of suit against Aphobus (§§ 9, 10). 
 
 Battle of Mantinea and death of Epaminondas (§ 1). 
 
 Suit of Demosthenes against Onetor (§ 10). 
 
 Accession of Philip of Macedon (§ 3). 
 
 Artaxerxes III. (Ochus) becomes king of Persia. 
 
 Establishment of symmories for the trierarchy by law of 
 Periander. 
 
 Athenian expedition to Euboea and freedom of the island 
 from the Thebans (§ 2). Outbreak of Social War 
 (autumn of 357) (§ 2). Philip c aptures A mphipolis, 
 which leads to war with Athens (§ 3). He takes Pydna 
 and Potidaea from Athens, gives Potidaea to Olynthus, 
 and founds Philippi (§ 3). 
 
 -Birth of Alexander the Great, July 21, 356 (§ 3). 
 
 Beginning of Sacred (Phocian) War: seizure of temple of 
 Delphi by Philomelus (§§ 4, 'ζγ. ' 
 
 End of Social War, spring of 355 (§ 2). 
 
 Speeches of Demosthenes against Androtion and against 
 Leptines (§ 11). 
 
 1 The references in ( ) are made to sections of the Historical Sketch. 
 
TABLE OF BATES. 
 
 3 01 
 
 354 — 353 - 
 
 353 — 35 2 · 
 
 35 2 35 1 · 
 
 35 1 — 35 °· 
 
 349 — 348 . 
 
 347—346 *· 
 
 Eubulus takes direction of finances of Athens. 
 
 Speech of Demosthenes on the Symmories (§ 11). 
 Philomelus killed. Sacred War continued by Onomarchus. 
 
 Spoliation of temple of Delphi. (§ 5.) 
 
 Philip takes Methone from Athens (§ 3). 
 
 He attacks and defeats Lycophron of Pherae; has battles 
 with Phayllus and Onomarchus, and finally defeats 
 Onomarchus, who is slain. Philip secures control of 
 Gulf of Pagasae. (§ 6.) 
 
 Speeches of Demosthenes against Timocrates and for the 
 Megalopolitans (§ n). 
 
 Athens sends force to Thermopylae and closes the pass 
 to Philip, before midsummer 352 (§ 7). 
 
 Philip besieges Heraion Teichos in Thrace, Nov. 352 (§ 12). 
 First Philippic of Demosthenes, spring of 351 (§ 12). 
 Speech of Demosthenes for the Rhodians (§ 13). 
 
 Athens sends Phocion with an army to help Plutarchus 
 in Euboea (Feb. 350). Battle of Tamynae (March). 
 
 (§ i4 ·) 
 
 Midias assaults Demosthenes at the Great Dionysia (March 
 350), and is condemned by vote of the Assembly (§ 15). 
 Demosthenes Senator (Schaefer 11. 116). He writes speech 
 against Midias, not delivered (§ 15). 
 
 Philip attacks the Olynthian confederation and besieges 
 Olynthus. Alliance of Olynthus with Athens (§ 16). 
 Demosthenes delivers his three Olynthiacs (§ 17). Philip 
 sends peaceful messages to Athens and releases Phrynon 
 
 (§ i8 )· 
 
 Philocrates prop oses negotiations for peace with Philip, is 
 indicted therefor and acquitted (§ 18). 
 
 Olynthus captured by Philip, with all its confederate towns 
 (early autumn of 348): consternation throughout Greece 
 (i 1 6 , 19). 
 
 Mission of Aristodemus to Philip (§ 19). 
 
 Movement of Eubulus and Aeschines against Philip, and 
 embassies to Greek states (§§ 20, 21). 
 
 Themistocles Archon at Athens. Demosthenes again 
 Senator (§§ 19, 38). 
 
 1 For the division of months in 347—346 B.C., and the dates according to our 
 Calendar, see pp. 306, 307. 
 
302 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH. 
 
 (347 —346. Aristodemus returns with friendly messages from Philip, 
 and is crowned on motion of Demosthenes (§ 19). 
 Thebans and Phocians both exhausted by Sacred War. 
 Phocians ask aid from Athens (early in 346), but reject 
 it when sent. (§§ 23, 24.) 
 
 On motion of Philocrates (Feb. 346), ten envoys are sent 
 to Philip to propose negotiations for peace (First 
 Embassy). Envoys return end of March. (§§ 25—28.) 
 Two meetings of Assembly, to discuss terms of peace with 
 Philip’s envoys, 18th and 19th of Elaphebolion (April 
 15, 16), 346 : peace formally voted on second day. 
 
 (§§ 29 — 37 ·) " 
 
 Same envoys sent again to Philip, to ratify the peace 
 
 (Second Embassy) (§ 38). 
 
 " 5 t . 
 
 Meeting of Assembly on 25th of Elaphebolion (April 22), 
 Demosthenes presiding (§ 38). 
 
 Address of Isocrates to Philip (Φίλιππο?). 
 
 Decree of Senate ordering the departure of the Embassy, 
 3rd of Munychion (April 29) (§ 39). 
 
 Return of Embassy to Athens, 13th of Scirophorion (July 7). 
 Reports to Senate and Assembly. Philip already at 
 Thermopylae. Assembly votes (16th of Scir., July 10) 
 to compel the Phocians to deliver the temple of Delphi 
 to “ the Amphictyons.” (§§ 43—45.) 
 
 Ten envoys (Third Embassy) sent by Athens to Thermo¬ 
 pylae, to report the action of the Assembly to Philip: 
 they depart about the 21st of Scirophorion (July 15). 
 (§§ 45 ? 47 ·) 
 
 Phalaecus surrenders Thermopylae to Philip 23rd of Sciroph. 
 (July 17). The Athenian envoys hear this news at 
 Chalcis and return. Meeting of Assembly in Piraeus 
 (27th of Scir., July 21). Embassy ordered to proceed 
 to Thermopylae, and departs at once. (§§ 46—48.) 
 
 End of Sacred War. 
 
 Demosthenes and Timarchus begin proceedings against 
 Aeschines for παραπρ€σ/?€ΐα. 
 
 346—345- Archias Archon. Philip summons Amphictyonic Council, 
 which expels the Phocians and gives their two votes to 
 Philip. Terrible punishment of the Phocians. (§ 48.) 
 Philip celebrates the Pythian games (Sept. 346). Am- 
 
TABLE OF FATES. 
 
 3°3 
 
 346 — 345 · 
 345 — 344 · 
 
 344 — 343 · 
 
 343 — 342 . 
 
 342—341. 
 
 341—340. 
 
 phictyonic deputation sent to Athens to demand 
 recognition of Philip’s position in the Council. Speech 
 of Demosthenes on the Peace. (§§ 49, 50.) 
 
 Prosecution (by επαγγελία δοκιμασίας) of Timarchus by 
 Aeschines (winter). See Essay IV. § 2. 
 
 Philip establishes a decadarchy in Thessaly. He inter¬ 
 feres in disputes in Peloponnesus: Demosthenes sent as 
 envoy to counteract his influence. (§ 51.) 
 
 Second Philippic of Demosthenes (late in 344). Con¬ 
 tinued influence of Philip in Peloponnesus : attack on 
 Megara. (§52.) 
 
 Trial and condemnation of Antiphon (§ 53). 
 
 Prosecution of Philocrates on εΙσαγγελία by Hyperides and 
 his exile (before midsummer 343). See Essay IV. § 4. 
 
 Case of temple of Delos before Amphictyonic Council: 
 Hyperides advocate of Athens (§ 54). 
 
 Mission of Python to Athens (before midsummer 343). 
 Discussion of the peace and of the claim of Athens to 
 Halonnesus. (§ 55.) 
 
 Philip’s intrigues in Euboea: he supports tyrants at 
 Eretria and Oreus. Chalcis, under lead of Callias and 
 Taurosthenes, friendly to Athens. (§ 58.) 
 
 Trial and acquittal of Aeschines on charge of τταραττρίσβ^Ια 
 (late summer of 343). See Essay IV. 
 
 Philip invades Epirus (winter), and threatens Ambracia 
 and Acarnania. On his return he establishes tetrarchs 
 in Thessaly. (§§ 59, 60.) 
 
 Philip’s letter to Athens about Halonnesus and modi¬ 
 fications of the peace. Speech of Hegesippus on Halon¬ 
 nesus (Dem. vii.). (§§ 56, 57.) 
 
 Aristotle made tutor of Alexander (§ 60). 
 
 Philip extends his power in the Thracian Chersonese, and 
 comes into conflict with the Athenian general, Diopithes. 
 Speech on the Chersonese and Third Philippic of Demos¬ 
 thenes (before midsummer 341). (§§ 61, 62.) 
 
 Mission of Demosthenes to Byzantium (summer): alliance 
 of Athens and Byzantium. Embassies to Persia, Rhodes, 
 and Peloponnesus. (§ 63.) 
 
 Expeditions of Athens to Euboea, which overthrow tyrants 
 in Oreus and (later) in Eretria (§ 64). 
 
304 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH . 
 
 341 — 340 . 
 
 340 — 339 · 
 
 339 — 338 · 
 
 337 — 33 6 · 
 
 Anaxinus of Oreus executed as a spy at Athens (§ 65). 
 
 League against Philip formed by Demosthenes and 
 Callias of Chalcis (§§ 63, 64). 
 
 Demosthenes crowned at the Great Dionysia for his 
 success in liberating Euboea (§ 64). 
 
 The people of Peparethus seize Halonnesus and make the 
 Macedonian garrison prisoners. Philip in return ravages 
 Peparethus. (§ 66.) (Date ?) 
 
 Theophrastus Archon. Philip besieges Perinthus by land 
 and sea (late summer of 340): in the autumn he raises 
 this siege and attacks Byzantium. (§67.) He writes to 
 the Athenians (before the attack on Byzantium), and 
 makes an open declaration of war, which Athens at 
 once accepts (§ 68). Two fleets sent by Athens to 
 relieve Byzantium: siege raised by Philip (§ 67). Athe¬ 
 nian merchant ships captured by Philip (§ 68): nominal 
 ground for declaring war. 
 
 Philip attacks the Thracian Chersonese, and then (winter) 
 invades Scythia. Returning with large booty, he is 
 attacked by the Triballi and wounded. (§§ 67, 69.) 
 
 Speech of Aeschines at Delphi (spring of 339), which stirs 
 up the Amphissian War (§ 72). 
 
 Amphictyonic Council (early autumn of 339) chooses 
 Philip general for the Amphissian War (§ 75). Shortly 
 afterwards Philip passes Thermopylae and seizes Elatea 
 
 (§ 76)· 
 
 Negotiations between Athens and Thebes, ending in 
 alliance against Philip (§ 77). 
 
 Campaign (winter and spring): allies victorious in “ winter 
 battle” and “river battle.” Capture of mercenaries and 
 destruction of Amphissa by Philip. (§ 78.) 
 
 Battle of Chaeronea, 7th Metageitnion 338 (August 2 or 
 September 1): fitter defeat of the allies (§§ 79, 80). 
 
 Peace of Demades (§ 81). 
 
 Demosthenes delivers the eulogy on those who fell in the 
 battle (§ 82). 
 
 Demosthenes director of the Theoric Fund and ταχο- 
 
 7τοιός. 
 
 Ctesiphon proposes to crown Demosthenes at the Great 
 Dionysia (spring of 336). Aeschines brings a γραφή 
 
THE ATTIC YEAR . 
 
 3 ° 5 
 
 337 — 336 . 
 
 335 — 334 · 
 
 7 n T 
 
 00 1 
 
 - 33 °· 
 
 33°—3 2 9 * 
 
 324—323. 
 
 323—322. 
 
 322. 
 
 παρανόμων against Ctesiphon. (The case came to trial 
 six years later.) 
 
 Philip assassinated, summer of 336. Alexander succeeds 
 him. 
 
 Rebellion of Thebes. Alexander captures and destroys 
 the city (autumn of 335). 
 
 Alexander demands the delivery of Demosthenes, Lycurgus, 
 Hyperides, and other Athenian orators. 
 
 Aristotle returns to Athens and teaches in the Lyceum. 
 
 Alexander’s victory at Arbela (Oct. 1, 331). 
 
 Rebellion of Spartan King Agis (early in 330), crushed 
 by Antipater. 
 
 Aristophon Archon. Trial of suit of Aeschines against 
 Ctesiphon (August 330). Ctesiphon acquitted by more 
 than four-fifths of the votes. 
 
 Demosthenes condemned to a fine of 50 talents for com¬ 
 plicity in the affair of Harpalus. Unable to pay the 
 fine, he went to prison, and afterwards into exile. 
 
 Death of Alexander the Great (May, 323) at Babylon. 
 
 Triumphant recall of Demosthenes from exile. 
 
 Death of Aristotle at Chalcis, autumn of 322. 
 
 Death of Hyperides October 5, and of Demosthenes 
 October 12, 322. 
 
 The Attic Year. 
 
 During the period with which we are here concerned, the Athenians 
 generally had a lunar year of 354 days, consisting of twelve months, 
 alternately of 30 and 29 days, equivalent to 12 lunar months of 
 29J days each. The longer months were called πλήρεις μήνες , the 
 shorter κοίλοι μήνες. This fell short of the solar year by 11^ days, the 
 difference in eight years amounting to 90 days. This was regulated by 
 the cumbrous device of making the third, fifth, and eighth year in each 
 cycle of eight years ( όκταετηρίς ) a leap year with 384 days, thus making 
 the number of days in each cycle correct. ( Thus (354 ><5) + (384 x 3) 
 = 2922 = 365 \ x 8.) The slight errors which remained were equated in 
 various ways. The natural beginning of the Attic year was the summer 
 solstice; but the great difference in the length of the years allowed the 
 beginning to vary from about June 16 to August 7. 
 
 The twelve months in the ordinary year were as follows: 1 Heca- 
 tombaeon, 2Metageitnion, 3Boedromion, 4Pyanepsion, 5 Maemacterion, 
 
 G. D. 
 
 20 
 
3°6 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH \ 
 
 6 Posideon, 7 Gamelion, 8 Anthesterion, 9 Elaphebolion, 10 Munychion, 
 11 Thargelion, 12 Scirophorion. In the leap years a month of thirty 
 days, Posideon II., was intercalated after Posideon. The same 
 months appear to have been πλήρεις and κοίλοι in different years. The 
 first day of every month was generally called νουμηνία , and the last day 
 ένη και νέα, old and new ; the latter name, which probably was first 
 applied to the full months, showing that the thirtieth day in these 
 months belonged equally to the old and the new month. The days 
 from the 2nd to the 9th were called δεύτερα, τρίτη, etc., sometimes with 
 Ισταμένον or άρχομένον (sc. μηνάς) added; the 10th was the δεκάς; those 
 from the nth to the 19th were called 7 τρωτή, δεύτερα, etc., with έπΐ δέκα 
 or μεσονντος added, though this could be omitted when it was obvious 
 that the middle of the month was meant. The 20th was the εΐκάς; and 
 the days from the 21st to the 29th in the full months were generally 
 counted backwards, δέκατη φθίνοντος (2ist), ένατη, δγδόη, etc. to δεντέρα 
 φθίνοντος (22nd, 23rd, etc. to 29th). It is generally thought that the 
 δεντέρα φθίνοντος was omitted in the “hollow” months; but Usener 
 thinks that the ένατη φθίνοντος dropped out 1 . 
 
 The following is a possible statement of the arrangement of the 
 thirteen months in 347 — 346 b.c., in which the peace of Philocrates was 
 made. This was a leap year of 384 days, beginning July 6 and ending 
 July 24. Other arrangements are possible and perhaps equally probable; 
 but these would not affect any of the dates by more than a single day 2 . 
 
 347—346 b.c. 
 
 (384 days.) 
 
 1. Hecatombaeon (30 days) begins July 6, 347 b.c. 
 
 2. Metageitnion (29 ,, ) „ August 5 „ 
 
 3. Boedromion (30 „ ) „ Sept. 3 
 
 1 See Rhein. Mus. xxxiv. 429 : see Hist. § 46, note 5. The above outline is based 
 on Boeckh’s elaborate investigation, Zur Geschichte der Mondcyclen der Hellenen, 
 in the Jahrbiicher fiir Class. Philol. (N. F.), Suppl. Bd 1., Heft 1 (1855). Though 
 many of the details of this system, as Boeckh stated it, have been disputed or cor¬ 
 rected, its general principle still remains the basis of our knowledge of this difficult 
 and complicated subject. 
 
 2 In this arrangement the system of equivalent days adopted by Schaefer has been 
 regarded, except in the dates after the 20th of Scirophorion, where he assumes that 
 this month has only 29 days, and follows Usener in omitting the ένατη φθίνοντος. But 
 Schaefer, who rightly makes the 26th of Sciroph. =July 20, should by his system 
 make the 29th of Sciroph. (which would be the last day of 347—346)= July 23, so 
 that the new year would begin July 24; whereas it began July 25, according to Boeckh, 
 p. 28, and also according to Schaefer, 11. p. 295, note 2. 
 

 307 
 
 THE ATTIC YEAR. 
 
 4 . 
 
 Pyanepsion 
 
 (29 days) begins 
 
 Oct. 
 
 3s 347 b»c. 
 
 5- 
 
 Maemacterion 
 
 ( 3 ° 
 
 33 ) 55 
 
 Nov. 
 
 i 
 
 6. 
 
 Posideon 
 
 (29 
 
 33 ) 33 
 
 Dec. 
 
 i 
 
 7 - 
 
 [Posideon II.] 
 
 ( 3 ° 
 
 33 ) 5) 
 
 33 
 
 3 ° 
 
 8. 
 
 Gatnelion 
 
 (29 
 
 33 ) 33 
 
 Jan. 
 
 29, 346 B.C. 
 
 9 · 
 
 Anthesterion 
 
 ( 3 ° 
 
 33 ) 5J 
 
 Feb. 
 
 27 
 
 10. 
 
 Elaphebolion 
 
 (29 
 
 J) ) 35 
 
 March 
 
 29 
 
 11. 
 
 Munychion 
 
 (30 
 
 33 ) 33 
 
 April 
 
 27 33 
 
 12. 
 
 Thargelion 
 
 (29 
 
 33 ) 33 
 
 May 
 
 27 33 
 
 13 · 
 
 Scirophorion 
 
 ( 3 ° 
 
 33 ) 33 
 
 June 
 
 25 33 
 
 Thus Elaphebolion 
 
 18, 
 
 19 = April 15 
 
 3 16; 
 
 
 
 Munychion 
 
 3 
 
 = April 29 
 
 
 
 
 Thargelion 
 
 22 
 
 = June 17 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 Scirophorion 
 
 13 
 
 — July 7 ; 
 
 
 
 
 5) 
 
 23 
 
 = 33 i 7 ; 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 33 
 
 27 
 
 = 33 21. 
 
 
 
 Hecatombaeon 346—345 begins July 25. 
 
 20—2 
 
ESSAYS. 
 
 ι. 
 
 The Argument of the Ovation , with Remarks on §§ 120 , 121 . 
 
 1. The argument of this Oration follows no recognized model, and 
 it cannot be brought under any rhetorical system of rules. The 
 occasion was unique ; and the orator treated it uniquely, and with a 
 masterly skill which is far beyond the art of a mere rhetorician. 
 Demosthenes is technically defending a client on a question of consti¬ 
 tutional law; he is really defending his own public life and his reputa¬ 
 tion as a patriot and a statesman against the unscrupulous charges 
 of a personal enemy. He feels sure that the large body of his fellow- 
 citizens who form the court will listen chiefly to his defence of himself 
 and of his public policy and will overlook the technical questions of 
 law; and he judges rightly. The skill, however, with which he keeps 
 these technical questions in the background, so that the judges shall 
 never lose sight of the higher questions of state policy, and the art by 
 which he conceals this art, are worthy of careful study. 
 
 2. The indictment (γραφή παρανόμων) brings three charges of 
 illegality ( παράνομα ) against Ctesiphon’s bill for conferring a crown on 
 Demosthenes: (1) the bill proposes to crown Demosthenes while he 
 is a responsible magistrate (άρχουν υπεύθυνος), which is forbidden by 
 law; (2) it proposes to proclaim the croAvn in the theatre at the 
 Great Dionysiac festival, whereas the law requires such a crown to be 
 proclaimed elsewhere; (3) it violates the law forbidding the insertion 
 of false statements into the public records, such false statements being 
 found in the clauses of the bill which praise Demosthenes, especially 
 the words αρετής ενεκα καί ανδραγαθίας,— -on διατελεΐ και λεγων και 
 πραττων τα άριστά τω δημω ,— and πρόθυμος εσπ ποιείν ο τι δνναταί άγαθόν\ 
 Aeschines, who must have felt the weakness of the vague charge of 
 illegality in the last count, dwells with great energy and with his 
 
 J See Aesch. ill. 49, 237, Dem. Cor. 57, where the decree professes to be 
 quoted. 
 
THE ARGUMENT OF THE ORATION 
 
 3°9 
 
 1·] 
 
 most powerful arguments on the first count, on which (so far as we can 
 see) his position was legally unassailable. He shows beyond question 
 that Demosthenes held two important offices at the time of Ctesiphon’s 
 proposal, for which he would still be responsible (υπευθυνος) when 
 the crown was proclaimed; and this would be illegal. He naturally 
 puts this strong argument in the front of his attack. On his second 
 point, the illegality of the proposed place of proclamation, he professes 
 to be equally strong; but here the actual state of the law is uncertain, 
 and we cannot judge of the strength of the argument. He then dis¬ 
 cusses the life and character of Demosthenes, to show that the state¬ 
 ments on which Ctesiphon justifies his proposal to crown him are false 
 and therefore illegal. After a few words of introduction, followed by a 
 short account of the private life of Demosthenes, he treats of his public 
 life at great length, under four heads: (1) the period at which the Peace 
 of Philocrates was made; (2) the time between the peace and the 
 renewal of the war with Philip*; (3) the war which ended in the battle 
 of Chaeronea ; (4) the time from Chaeronea to the trial of the case. He 
 occupies the remainder of his time in the discussion of various matters 
 which have a bearing on the patriotism or statesmanship of Demosthenes, 
 aiming in all to show the falseness of the terms used by Ctesiphon. In 
 several passages he urges the judges not to allow Ctesiphon to call on 
 Demosthenes to plead his cause; and, if they permit Demosthenes to 
 speak at all, to compel him to follow the same order of argument in the 
 defence which he has himself adopted in the attack. This last would 
 have compelled Demosthenes to reply in the beginning to the strong 
 argument of Aeschines on the illegality of crowning a responsible 
 magistrate; this Demosthenes has no idea of doing, as it would weaken 
 his whole position before the court. 
 
 3. The argument of Aeschines, briefly stated, is as follows : 
 
 I. Prooemium : §§ 1 —8. 
 
 II. Argument on the responsibility of magistrates : §§ 9 — 31 . 
 
 III. Argument on the place of proclamation : §§ 32 — 48 . 
 
 IV. Review of the Life of Demosthenes (§§ 49—167):— 
 
 1. Introduction : §§ 49 , 50 . 
 
 2. Private Life of Demosthenes : §§ 51 — 53 . 
 
 3. Four divisions of the Public Life of Demosthenes, §§ 54 — 
 
 57 , discussed as follows :— 
 
 (a) The Peace of Philocrates (346 b.c.): §§ 58 — 78 . 
 
 (b) The time of peace until the renewal of war with Philip 
 
 in 340 b.c. : §§ 79 — 105 . 
 
3 ίο 
 
 ESS A YS. 
 
 [i. 
 
 (c) The Amphissian War, and other events ending with the 
 
 Battle of Chaeronea in 338 b.c. : §§ 106 — 158 . 
 
 (d) The time from 338 to 330 b.c. (the year of the trial): 
 
 §§ 159 — 167 . 
 
 V. Discussion of various points in the life and character of 
 
 Demosthenes, and general arguments : §§ 168 — 259 . 
 
 VI. Peroration : § 260 . 
 
 4. It might seem natural, at first thought, for Demosthenes to 
 defend Ctesiphon against the three charges of the indictment in regular 
 succession. But this would have sacrificed the argumentative power of 
 his speech to mere simplicity of arrangement. If he had followed the 
 order of Aeschines (which Aeschines is urgent to have him do) and 
 dealt first with the question of his responsibility as a magistrate, he 
 would have begun his argument at its weakest point, on which he had 
 nothing to say which really answered the cogent legal argument of 
 Aeschines. Nothing could have been worse for his case than this. If, 
 on the other hand, he had introduced this matter after the discussion of 
 his public life, the weakness of his conclusion would have injured (per¬ 
 haps fatally) the effect which his argument had already made. It was 
 important, therefore, to bring in his weaker argument between two 
 divisions of his historical statement, and thus conceal its defects from 
 observation 1 . He could not make a single break in his narrative and 
 there introduce this foreign subject without making his design too 
 obvious and injuring his case. But he artfully divides his account of 
 his public life into three parts, for plausible reasons, which do not 
 suggest his real object. In § 9 he complains of the charges “ foreign 
 to the indictment ” (εξω της γραφής , § 34) which Aeschines has brought 
 against him; and to these he proposes to reply before he comes to the 
 charges which properly belong to the case. Under this head he puts 
 the charges relating to the Peace of Philocrates (346 b.c.), and he 
 pioceeds at once to deal with the negotiations which led to this event. 
 He would never have thought of omitting this important matter, in 
 which later events had triumphantly vindicated his own course of 
 action; and his indignation at Aeschines for bringing it into the case 
 
 1 Libanius saw this artful device: see his Hypothesis, § 6, ό δε ρήτωρ καί άττό τής 
 7 τολιτείας την αρχήν έποπήσατο καί πάλιν eis ταύτην τον \ 6 yov κατέστρεφε, τεχν ικώς 
 ποιων. See the Second Ilypoth. § 5, tovs μεν yap άλλον s δύο νόμους , τον τε των 
 ύπευθννων και τον του κηpυyμaτos, εις το μέσον τού λό~/ου άπέρριφε, στραττ^ικως 
 ko^kovs ές μεσσον έλάσσας, τιρ δε ίσχνροτάτιρ εις τα άκρα προσκέχρηται, το σαθρόν 
 των άλλων εξ εκατέρον ρωννύς. See also note on Cor. ^6 :{ . 
 
THE ARGUMENT OF THE ORATION 
 
 i·] 
 
 311 
 
 is all feigned. He is thus able to tell the story of this important period 
 in his public life before he begins the real argument (as he represents 
 it), even before the reading of the indictment. This has the effect of 
 securing the good-will of the court for himself and damaging the case of 
 Aeschines in advance, by an eloquent harangue on a subject which (as 
 he claims) has been unfairly brought into the case (§§ 17—52). 
 
 5. After the reading of the indictment and a few general remarks 
 upon this document, he proceeds (§§ 60—101) to a general defence of 
 his policy of opposition to Philip, and of the course taken by Athens 
 under his leadership before the renewal of the war with Philip in 340. 
 He then speaks of his own trierarchic reform (§§ 102—109), and now 
 (§ no) declares that he has brought forward sufficient evidence to justify 
 the language of Ctesiphon’s decree in his praise. He states that he is 
 here omitting the most important of his public acts (those concerning 
 the alliance with Thebes and the other events which preceded the 
 battle of Chaeronea), and he leaves it doubtful whether he will speak of 
 these hereafter. He omits them now, he says, chiefly because he will 
 not longer postpone the questions about the e^wat (i.e. his responsibility 
 as a magistrate) and the place of proclamation, but also because he can 
 assume that such recent events are well known to all the judges even if 
 he does not mention them. Demosthenes has not the slightest intention 
 of omitting these most important events, in which he gained the greatest 
 diplomatic triumph of his life; but he postpones them until he can 
 introduce them later as an offset to the acts of Aeschines done in Philip’s 
 interest, when the account of them forms the most eloquent passage in 
 the oration (§§ 160—226). By this skilful plan he gains two important 
 objects. First, he divides the account of his political life into three 
 parts, and avoids wearying the judges by telling the whole story (cover¬ 
 ing eight most eventful years) in one continuous narrative, in which it 
 would have been far less effective. Secondly, he succeeds in introducing 
 his replies to the arguments 7rep! τον παρανόμου (§ no) just after one 
 historic narrative and just before another, where they are least conspicu¬ 
 ous, and where the weakness of the reply on the ενθνναι is soon forgotten, 
 if it is noticed at all, amid the exciting events which led to Chaeronea. 
 The three courses of events thus divided are so naturally distinct, that 
 nothing is lost by their division to be compared with the double gain. 
 
 6. The following is the course of the argument in the oration on 
 the Crown 1 . 
 
 1 The subject of each division is stated in the notes with greater detail where the 
 division begins. See, for example, the remarks which precede the notes on §§ 1,9, 
 53, 126, 227, 297, and elsewhere. 
 
3 12 
 
 ESSA YS . 
 
 [i. 
 
 I. Prooemium : §§ 1 —8. 
 
 II. Reply to charges foreign to the indictment (§§ 9—52):— 
 
 1. Introduction : § 9 . 
 
 2. Charges against private life : §§ 10 , 11 . 
 
 3. Public policy (§§ 12—52):— 
 
 a. Introductory: §§ 12 — 16 . 
 
 b. Peace of Philocrates (§§ 17—52):— 
 
 (a) Introductory: § 17 . 
 
 (ό) Narrative : §§ 18 — 49 . 
 
 (c) Conclusion : §§ 50 — 52 . 
 
 III. Reply to the charges of the indictment (§§ 53—125):— 
 
 1. Introductory : §§ 53 —59. 
 
 2. Defence of his public policy (confined chiefly to the period 
 
 from 346 to 340 b.c.) and of his trierarchic law: §§ 60 — 
 
 109 . 
 
 3. Reply to charge of responsibility as a magistrate : §§ 110 — 
 
 119 . 
 
 4. Reply to argument about the place of proclamation : §§ 120 , 
 
 121. 
 
 5. Conclusion : §§ 122 — 125 . 
 
 IV. Life and character of Aeschines; and his public policy in 
 
 the interest of Philip, compared with his own agency in 
 negotiating an alliance with Thebes against Philip (§§ 126 
 —226):— 
 
 1. Parentage and life of Aeschines : §§ 126 — 131 . 
 
 2. Lesser political offences of Aeschines : §§ 132 — 138 . 
 
 3. The Amphissian War, stirred up by the speech of Aeschines 
 
 at Delphi (339 b.c.): §§ 139 — 159 . 
 
 4. Negotiation of Theban alliance by Demosthenes (339—338 
 
 b.c.),— continuation of narrative interrupted at § no. 
 Into this account is introduced (§§ 189—210) a defence 
 of the whole policy of Athens, under his leadership, in 
 opposition to Philip : §§ 160 — 226 . 
 
 With § 226 the defence of Ctesiphon, properly so called, is finished. The orator 
 has reviewed his whole political life and has justified the language of Ctesiphon’s 
 decree; and he has replied briefly to the other charges of illegality. In the time which 
 remains he discusses other matters suggested by the speech of Aeschines. 
 
 V. Replies to three arguments of Aeschines (§§ 227—295):— 
 
 1. Discussion of the comparison (Aeschines 59—61) of the 
 
THE ARGUMENT OF THE ORATION 
 
 3 T 3 
 
 i·] 
 
 case against Demosthenes to an account of money ex¬ 
 pended : §§ 227—251. 
 
 2 . Reply to the remarks of Aeschines upon his “bad fortune,” 
 
 and comparison of his own fortune with that of Aeschines : 
 §§ 252—275. 
 
 3 . Reply to the charge of being a crafty rhetorician : §§ 276—296. 
 
 VI. The Epilogue (επίλογος) follows, in which he compares himself 
 
 as a statesman with Aeschines, protesting against the 
 comparison of himself with the heroes of the past. There 
 is also a recapitulation of some matters already discussed': 
 §§ 297—323. 
 
 VII. The Peroration, in a single earnest sentence, is an appeal 
 
 to the Gods for help to Athens in her humiliation: § 324. 
 
 Remarks on the. Argument of §§ 120, ί 21. 
 
 ( 1 ) In these sections Demosthenes replies, with astonishing brevity 
 but with wrathful indignation, to the elaborate argument of Aeschines 
 ( 32 — 48 ) about the place of proclamation. He puts his whole argument 
 into a quotation from a law, which was read entire to the court, and 
 then bursts out in triumphant invective against Aeschines for his audacity 
 in suppressing the one important clause in this law in presenting it 
 before the court. Unfortunately we have only a fragment of the law 
 presented by Demosthenes; but this must be authentic: πλήν εάν τινας 
 6 8ήμος η ή βουλή ψηφίσηταί· τοντονς S' άναγορενετω. It must have been 
 one which did not make the passionate outbreak which followed appear 
 ridiculous to the court. On the other hand, we cannot for a moment 
 believe that Aeschines ( 32 ) produced a law requiring those who were 
 crowned by the Senate and by the Assembly to be crowned before those 
 bodies and noivhere else , and actually suppressed a clause of that very 
 law containing the words quoted by Demosthenes, which allowed either 
 Senate or Assembly to make an exception to the law at their pleasure. 
 When we remember that this mutilated law must have been quoted 
 
 1 Aristotle (Rhet. III. 19 1 ) thus states the proper substance of the Epilogue: ό δ’ 
 έπί\ο~γον σύ^κειταί έκ τεττάρων, έκ τε του πρόν εαυτόν κατασκευάσαί ευ τον ακροατήν καί 
 τον εναντίον φαύλων, καί εκ του αύξήσαί καί ταπείνώσαί, καί έκ του εί$ τα πάθη τον 
 ακροατήν καταστήσαι., καί έξ αναμνήσεων. These four points, — (ι) making the hearer 
 favourable to yourself and unfavourable to your opponent, (2) amplification and de¬ 
 preciation, (3) exciting the hearer’s emotions, (4) recapitulation,—seem more character¬ 
 istic of §§ 297 —323, to which Fox confines the epilogue, than of the longer passage, 
 §§ 252—323, to which Blass would extend it. 
 
314 
 
 ESS A YS. 
 
 [I· 
 
 in the indictment, read to the court by its clerk after being submitted 
 to the scrutiny of the presiding Thesmothetae at the anacrisis, and also 
 posted in the court-room (see note on § in 2 ), we cannot ascribe such 
 audacity even to Aeschines, or such careless indifference at once to six 
 archons, the court, and its officers. 
 
 (2) I think we must assume (a) that Aeschines quoted a law forbid¬ 
 ding the proclamation in the theatre, and that this law had no such 
 addition as Demosthenes appears to make to it, and ( b ) that Demos¬ 
 thenes quoted another law, which (as he claimed) applied to the same 
 cases but had the proviso εάν μη (or πλήν εάν) τινας δ Βή/χος ή ή βουλή 
 ψηφίσηται, etc. This supposes a conflict of laws, or at least two laws 
 which could be harmonized only by a forced interpretation. The elabo¬ 
 rate argument of Aeschines (37—39), to prove that no such conflict 
 could occur in the Athenian laws, at once makes us suspect that this is 
 the real solution of the difficulty. Even he admits that such conflicts 
 might sometimes occur, καν τι tolovtov ενρίσκωσιν (39). What now was 
 the law which Demosthenes brought before the court ? It must have 
 been the Dionysiac law, which Aeschines describes, but which, he 
 maintains, had nothing to do with crowns conferred by the Senate or 
 the Assembly, but concerned only those conferred upon Athenians by 
 foreign states. These last, he admits, might be proclaimed in the theatre 
 by special vote. 
 
 (3) Aeschines thus describes this law in 44 : διαρρήδην απαγορεύει 
 μητ οικετην απελενθερονν εν τω θεατρίο, μηθ νπδ των φνλετών ή δημοτών 
 άναγορενεσθαι στεφανονμενον μηθ ’ νπ’ άλλον (φησι) μηδενδς, ή άτιμον 
 είναι τον κήρνκα. He then argues, not in a very persuasive way 1 , that 
 
 the words μήθ' νπ άλλον μηδενός cannot reasonably apply to any except 
 foreign crowns, and then (47) adds : και δια τοντο προσεθηκεν δ νομοθετης 
 μη κηρνττεσθαι τον άλλότριον στέφανον εν τω θεάτρω εάν μη ψηφίσηταί 6 
 δήμος. It will be noticed that he does not quote the last clause (εαν... 
 δήμος) in connection with the law itself in 44, but only after his own 
 interpretation of the law in 47. This is of itself suspicious, as it con¬ 
 ceals the only important point, the exact relation of this clause to the 
 rest of the law. The clause which precedes εάν...δήμος in 47, μή 
 κηρνττεσθαι τον άλλοτριον στέφανον εν τω θεάτρω, is Certainly no part of 
 the law, for with this the law could need no interpretation. Further, the 
 
 1 His only argument (in 45) for what seems a very forced interpretation of these 
 words is that the law which he first read (in 32), a distinct one, excluded all crowns 
 conferred by the Senate or the Assembly. This assumes the impossibility of any 
 conflict of laws, the most important point in the discussion. 
 
REMARKS ON THE ARGUMENT. 
 
 315 
 
 1.] 
 
 words following ττλην εάν. . .φηφίσηται in Demosthenes (1 2 1), τοντονς δ’ άνα- 
 γορενετω, have no sense if added to these words in Aeschines (47). They 
 have, however, a very significant meaning if added to y άτιμον είναι τον 
 κηρνκα in Aeschines (44), supplying κηρνξ as the subject of the impera¬ 
 tive. Now the last part of Aeschines 44 and εάν μη φηφίσηται ο δήμος in 
 47 are the only real quotations from the Dionysiac law in Aeschines, and 
 7 Γ λην iav τινας . . .άγορενετω is evidently a quotation from the law read by 
 Demosthenes (121). If we fit these together, we have the most probable 
 reconstruction of the Dionysiac law as it was presented by Demos¬ 
 thenes, as follows :— μητ οικετην άπελενθερονν iv τω θεάτρω, μηθ' νπό των 
 φνλετων η δημοτών άναγορενεσθαι στέφανονμενον μηθ ’ νπ άλλον ( φησι ) 
 μηδενδς, η άτιμον είναι τον κηρνκα , ττλην εάν τινας δ δήμος y η βονλη 
 ψηφίσηται, τοντονς δ’ άναγορενετω. This might easily have been read to 
 the court in opposition to the other law read by order of Aeschines; 
 and, so far as we can see, Demosthenes was justified in assuming that 
 μηθ ’ V7r’ άλλου μηδενός referred to all who had crowns to confer, not 
 excluding the Senate and the Assembly. What he needed was some 
 law which allowed the proclamation in the theatre, and the court would 
 be little concerned whether this was consistent with the law read by 
 Aeschines. 
 
 (4) This explanation of the difficulty becomes much simpler if we 
 suppose that all the confused talk about the Dionysiac law in Aeschines 
 is an addition to his speech made after hearing the contemptuous reply 
 of Demosthenes to his simple argument in 32—34. If we admit that 
 Aeschines actually spoke the long passage about the Dionysiac law 
 (35—48) before the court, it seems incredible that Demosthenes 
 could ignore so elaborate an argument in his reply and merely quote 
 “the law” as if there were but one. The court would hardly have been 
 satisfied with so summary and contemptuous an answer, which took no 
 notice of the account of the nature and purpose of the Dionysiac law 
 which they had just heard. I confess the whole passage (35—48) in 
 the speech of Aeschines has often seemed to me (on other grounds) to 
 be an addition made after the trial. It is a piece of special pleading, 
 which greatly weakens the force of the argument, and it is clearly an 
 answer (and an unsatisfactory one) to the reply of Demosthenes. It 
 should be treated like other similar passages in Aeschines, for example, 
 the reply to the argument of Demosthenes about Philammon, the boxer, 
 in 189. 
 
 (5) One fact is now made certain by inscriptions : whatever may 
 have been the letter of the law against proclamation in the theatre, such 
 
3 l6 
 
 ESS A YS. 
 
 [n. 
 
 proclamations were very frequent at Athens in the fourth century b.c., 
 and earlier and later. The law was a dead letter, and Demosthenes was 
 justified in making light of this part of the accusation. See note on 
 Cor. § 12o'“, with the references to inscriptions. 
 
 II. 
 
 The γραφή παρανόμων. 
 
 i. The Athenian γραφή -παρανόμων , or indictment for proposing 
 illegal measures, could be brought by any citizen against one who 
 was charged with proposing a decree (ψήφισμα) which violated a law 
 (νόμος), or with causing the enactment of a law which was opposed to 
 an existing law without expressly providing for the repeal of the latter. 
 The laws (νόμοι) of Athens were a comparatively fixed code, ascribed 
 generally to Solon, but consisting of the original Solonic laws, enlarged 
 and otherwise modified by succeeding enactments. These always formed a 
 special code, which was superior to the enactments of the Senate and the 
 Assembly and was not subject to repeal or modification by these bodies. 
 An enactment of the Senate and Assembly, the ordinary legislative 
 bodies (in the modern sense of the term), was called a decree or ψήφισμα. 
 This could legally contain no provisions which were opposed to a νόμος, 
 and any such provision made it void. The γραφή παρανόμων was the 
 simple but efficient process provided by the Attic law for causing an 
 “illegal” decree or law to be annulled, and also for punishing the 
 proposer. The mover, however, could be held personally responsible 
 only for one year from the time of the proposal of a decree or the 
 enactment· of a law; after a year the decree or law could be attacked 
 and annulled by the same process, while the mover was exposed 
 to no risk. Whoever brought a -γραφή παρανόμων was required to 
 bind himself publicly by an oath (called νπωμοσία) to prosecute the 
 case; after this oath was taken, a decree or law was suspended if it 
 had already been enacted, and a decree which had passed only the 
 Senate (a προβονλενμ a) could not be brought before the Assembly for 
 action until the suit had been tried and settled in favour of the 
 defendant. (See note on Cor. § 103 5 .) It is probable that the γραφή 
 παρανόμων could be brought only after the actual enactment of a 
 νομος , while it could be brought against a ψήφισμα at any one of three 
 
»■] 
 
 THE "γραφή παρανόμων. 
 
 317 
 
 stages: (ι) after its acceptance by the Senate, (2) after passing the 
 Assembly, (3) after the lapse of a year from its proposal 1 . 
 
 2. The distinction between a νόμος and a ψήφισμα at Athens was 
 most important". A ψήφισμα was an enactment of the Senate and 
 Assembly (or of the Assembly alone when the Senate had given it autho¬ 
 rity to act by itself), which, if it was not in conflict with any higher 
 authority, had the full force of a law. A νόμος could be changed only by 
 an elaborate process, which was chiefly under the control of a body of 
 Heliastic judges, who acted as a court rather than as a legislative body. 
 In the first meeting of the Assembly in each year a general question was 
 put to the people, whether they would permit propositions to be made 
 for changes in the laws, those who had such propositions to make 
 having doubtless informed the Assembly what changes were to be 
 proposed. The people might refuse to allow such propositions to be 
 made, which ended the matter for that year. If they voted to permit 
 them, all who had such proposals to make were required to post written 
 notices of them before the statues of the Eponymi (the heroes from whom 
 the ten tribes were named) in the market-place, and also to give copies 
 of these to the clerk of the Assembly, who read the proposals to the 
 people in each of the two following meetings of the Assembly. In 
 the last of these meetings (the third one of the year), the people, if after 
 consideration they saw fit, voted to refer the proposed changes in the 
 laws to a special commission, called νομοθόται, chosen like an ordinary 
 court (όίκαστήρων) from those who were qualified to sit as judges for 
 that year and had taken the Heliastic oath. The whole proceeding 
 before this board was conducted according to the forms of law. The 
 proposer of the new law appeared as plaintiff and argued his case 
 against the old law and for his own proposal, while advocates appointed 
 by the state defended the existing law. The question of enacting the 
 new law or retaining the existing one was decided by a vote of the 
 νομοθόται, which, if favourable to the new law, made that one of the 
 fixed code of νόμοι. It was strictly commanded by the Solonic law, 
 that no new law should be enacted unless all laws opposed to it were 
 expressly repealed; and, further, that no law should be repealed unless 
 a new law were proposed, and accepted by the νομοθόται as suitable and 
 fitting (Ιπιτήόζιος) to take its place 3 . 
 
 1 For further details of the "γραφή παρανόμων see Meier and Schomann, Att. Proc. 
 pp. 428—437. 
 
 2 See Tarbell in Am. Journal of Philol. x. pp. 79—83. 
 
 3 See Schomann, Griech. Alterth. 1. pp. 411—414, English transl. 387—390; 
 Thumser-Hermann, Staatsalt. § 91, pp. 525—530. See § 10 (below). 
 
ESS A YS. 
 
 [n. 
 
 318 
 
 3. It was only natural, as the democracy increased in power, that 
 the distinction between decrees and laws should be neglected, and that 
 the sovereign people should pass decrees which usurped the functions of 
 laws and violated the spirit, if not the letter, of existing laws. We find 
 in the orators many intimations that this was a growing evil. Against 
 this dangerous tendency the -γραφή παρανόμων was the only legal 
 security. We cannot wonder, therefore, that this is extolled as the great 
 stronghold of constitutional liberty, the chief protection of free govern¬ 
 ment against lawless demagogues. Even Aeschines, who had done as 
 much as any man to degrade the process, speaks of it as we speak of 
 the habeas corpus\ It is a most significant fact that one of the first 
 steps taken by the oligarchs who were establishing the government of 
 Four Hundred in 411 b . c . was the suspension of the -γραφή παρανόμων 2 . 
 
 4. The principle upon which the -γραφή παρανόμων is based must 
 always be recognized wherever the legislative power is limited by a 
 superior code of laws or a written constitution to which all its enact¬ 
 ments must conform. In such a case the allegiance of every citizen is 
 due, first and foremost, to the superior law, as the supreme law of the 
 land, and he cannot legally be compelled to obey the lower enactment. 
 But as each citizen cannot be allowed to decide for himself whether an 
 act of the legislature is or is not in harmony with the superior law, the 
 decision must be entrusted to some tribunal which has authority to 
 prevent a citizen from suffering unjustly if he disobeys an illegal enact¬ 
 ment, and also to prevent the law from being disobeyed at the caprice 
 of individuals. 
 
 5. This principle was first recognized, so far as we know, in the 
 Athenian -γραφή παρανόμων. Precisely the same principle is at the basis 
 of what is now known as “ the American doctrine of Constitutional 
 Law,” under which the Supreme Court of the United States has the 
 power to declare acts of Congress or of the state legislatures unconstitu¬ 
 tional and to treat them as without authority". The Constitution of the 
 
 1 See Aesch. III. 3 — 8: iv υπολείπεται μέρος της πολιτείας, at των παρανόμων 
 7 ραφαί. εί δε ταντας καταλύσετε,...προλέγω ύμΐν οτι λήσετε κατά μικρόν της πολιτείας 
 τισί παραχωρήσαντες (5)· See the whole passage. 
 
 2 Thuc. VIII. 67: έσηνεχκαν άλλο μεν ουδέν, αυτό δε τούτο, έξεΐναι μεν ά'ζήμιον 
 είπεϊν -γνώμην ην αν τις βούληται ' ην δέ τις τόν είπόντα η -γράφηται παραν όμων 
 η άλλιρ τιρ τρόπιρ βλάψη, με-γάλας 'ζημίας επέθεσαν. So Aristot. Pol. Ath. ig 23 . 
 
 3 The Supreme Courts of the several states have the same right of declaring 
 unconstitutional and null acts of their own state legislatures, as conflicting with 
 either the state constitution or the U.S. constitution. There is an appeal to the 
 U.S. Supreme Court in the latter case, but only when the state court upholds the 
 state law. 
 

 II.] THE γραφή παραΐ'όμων. 3 J 9 
 
 United States, the solemn compact by which thirteen originally in¬ 
 dependent states were united in a single nation, is declared in one of 
 its own articles to be “ the supreme law of the land,” to which all 
 legislation of Congress or of the several states must conform 1 . An 
 amendment, ratified in 1791, provides that “the powers not delegated 
 to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the 
 states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” In the 
 working of this dual system of legislation and responsibility, questions 
 soon arose which called for the exercise of judicial authority to determine 
 whether an act of Congress or of a state legislature was in conflict with 
 the Federal Constitution, or whether an act of Congress usurped powers 
 which the Constitution reserved to the states. This authority was 
 plainly vested in the Federal courts, especially in the Supreme Court as 
 the highest court of appeal in the land. The power came by direct 
 descent from the colonial period, when royal charters, to which the 
 colonial legislation must conform, stood in the position of written 
 constitutions. The colonial courts could declare laws null which were 
 opposed to the superior authority, and in certain cases the King in 
 Council by decree exercised the same right 2 . After the revolution, 
 before the Constitution was ratified, several states adopted the old 
 charters as temporary constitutions, and the state courts sometimes 
 declared laws null which did not conform to these; this, however, was 
 not allowed without grave opposition 3 . 
 
 6. It is a mistake to suppose that the Supreme Court can declare 
 an act of Congress unconstitutional and void on its own motion. Not 
 only can it not do this, but it cannot declare an act unconstitutional 
 simply because it is asked to do so by petition. To enable it to act on 
 a constitutional question, a case must come before it in the ordinary 
 course of litigation, generally when a person who feels aggrieved by the 
 operation of a law which he believes to be unconstitutional appeals from 
 the decision of a lower court on this point and thus brings the constitu- 
 
 1 Const, of U.S. Art. 6: “This constitution, and the laws of the United States 
 made in pursuance thereof,...shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in 
 every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to 
 the contrary notwithstanding.” 
 
 2 A decree of the King in Council, annulling a provincial act of nearly thirty years’ 
 standing, issued Feb. 15, 1727-28, is given in the Massachusetts Hist. Collections, 
 Series vi. vol. 5, pp. 496—509. 
 
 3 For the whole subject of American Constitutional Law, see Bryce, Am. Common¬ 
 wealth 1. Chap. 23; and J. B. Thayer, Am. Doctrine of Constitutional Law, Boston, 
 
 1893. 
 
3 20 
 
 ESS A YS. 
 
 [n. 
 
 
 tional question directly before the Supreme Court in such a way that it 
 must be decided. The decision, though nominally affecting only the 
 legality of the appellant’s action in disobeying the law, really settles the 
 whole question of the validity of the law itself; and it stands as a valid 
 precedent, which all courts must recognize, unless it is reversed by a 
 different decision on another case 1 . It is, moreover, a recognized 
 principle in such cases, that a law is not to be declared unconstitutional 
 unless the judges are convinced that it is so beyond all reasonable 
 doubt. A Federal judge might with perfect consistency refuse to set 
 aside a law as unconstitutional when as a legislator he had voted against 
 it on this very ground 2 . 
 
 7. In the comparison which we are making, the decrees of the 
 Athenian Senate and Assembly correspond to the laws of the U.S. 
 Congress, and the Solonic laws of Athens to the U.S. Constitution. 
 The dangers of a democracy which is not kept in balance by the 
 constant pressure of a higher law, keeping the ordinary legislation in 
 check, were never stated more clearly than by Aristotle in his discussion 
 of constitutional and unconstitutional democracy 3 . His third and fourth 
 forms of democracy are those in which all citizens, or all who are 
 άννπενθννοι, can hold office, while law rules (άρχείν 8e τοι/ νόμον). The 
 fifth and lowest form is that in which, other conditions being the same, 
 “ the multitude and not the law is supreme; and this is when decrees 
 and not the law are supreme.” “ There,” he says, “ the people has 
 become a monarch, one composed of many; and it seeks to exercise 
 monarchical power because it is not ruled by law, and so becomes 
 despotic.” “Such a democracy,” he adds, “is related to other demo¬ 
 cracies as tyranny to other monarchies, both having the same character, 
 and both wielding a despotic power over the better part of the state; 
 its decrees are like the tyrant’s edicts 4 .” The former is a constitu- 
 
 1 A lower Federal Court can declare a law unconstitutional, and the decision 
 naturally stands as a precedent in the court which made it, and for other courts of 
 the same grade, as regards the case in question, unless it is reversed on appeal to the 
 Supreme Court. 
 
 2 See Thayer, ibid. pp. 13—26. 
 
 :} Aristot. Pol. vi. (iv.) 4, §§ 22 —28. 
 
 4 Aristot. ibid. §§ 24 — 28: κύριον δ’ είναι τό πλήθος καί μή τόν νόμον' τούτο δέ 
 yiverai όταν τα ψηφίσματα κυρία ή άλλα μή ό νόμος.... μόναρχος yap ό δήμος yiverai , 
 σύνθετος eh έκ πολλών....ό δ’ οΰν τοωΰτος δήμος , are μόναρχος ών , ζητεί μοναρχείν διά τό 
 μή άρχεσθα l υπό νόμου, καί yiverai δεσποτικός....καί εστιν ό τοωΰτος δήμος άvάλoyov των 
 μοναρχιών τή τνραννίδι. διό καί τό ήθος τό αυτό και αμφω δεσποτικά των βελτιόνων, 
 καί τα ψηφίσματα ώσπερ εκεΐ τά έπιτάyμaτa. Aristotle derives the government which 
 he calls δεσποτική αρχή from the slaveholder’s power over his slave: see Pol. III. 8, 2, 
 
THE γραφή παρανόμων. 
 
 3 21 
 
 π.] 
 
 tional democracy, with the power of the people to pass decrees limited 
 by a fixed code of laws; the latter is an unconstitutional democracy, 
 which gives the people full power to enact whatever they please, subject 
 to no restraint from any superior law which can enforce its authority 
 through the courts. The supremacy of constitutional law, as Aristotle 
 clearly saw, is the one great security which distinguishes a safe demo¬ 
 cracy from a dangerous one; and the United States have constant reason 
 to bless the foresight which provided them with this protection in their 
 original compact 1 . 
 
 8 . Though France, Germany, Switzerland, and other countries have 
 written constitutions, they make no use of the principle which we are 
 considering, except that in Germany and (under some limitations) 
 in Switzerland the Federal courts may declare a state or cantonal law 
 invalid if it conflicts with the Federal constitution. In England no 
 such constitutional questions can arise for the courts to consider, 
 because Parliament, the only legislative power, is absolute, and recog¬ 
 nizes no law superior to its own 2 . As Bryce says, “what are called in 
 England constitutional statutes, such as Magna Gharta, the Bill of 
 Rights, the Act of Settlement,...are merely ordinary laws which could 
 be repealed by Parliament at any moment in exactly the same way as it 
 •can repeal a highway act or lower the duty on tobacco.” Parliament, 
 he adds, “ can abolish when it pleases any institution of the country, the 
 Crown, the House of Lords, the Established Church, the House of 
 Commons, Parliament itself.” The γραφή παρανόμων , therefore, has no 
 .analogy in the English Constitution. It is obvious that England, with 
 her more conservative form of government, yet lacks one check upon 
 possible radical legislation, which has proved so effective, and yet so 
 simple, under a pure democracy in the United States. Congress could 
 not, except by an act of revolution, deprive the President of any of his 
 
 'έστι δέ τυραννίς μεν μοναρχία δεσποτική τής πολιτικής κοινωνίας, and 1. 7, 1, ού ταύτόν 
 έστι δεσποτεία καί πολιτική _ ή μεν yap ελευθέρων φύσει , ή δε δούλων έστίν. 
 
 1 There is no reason for thinking that the example of the ypaφή παρανόμων even 
 remotely suggested the U.S. system; and the analogy between the t\vo is not 
 mentioned, so far as I am aware, by any writer on the U.S. Constitution. The 
 earliest reference to the subject which I have seen in print is in an excellent article in 
 the Yale Review for May, 1893, on “An Athenian Parallel to a Function of our 
 Supreme Court,” by Professor T. D. Goodell of New Haven. The striking parallel 
 can, however, hardly have escaped the notice of American classical scholars ; and I 
 cannot have been alone in using it, as I have done for the past twenty years or more, 
 in explaining the 7 ραφή παρανόμων to college classes. 
 
 2 3 ee Bryce, Am. Commonwealth 1. 237, 238, 254, 272, 430; and Thayer, Am. 
 Doctr. of Const. Law, 4. 
 
3 22 
 
 ESS A YS. 
 
 [II. 
 
 prerogatives, or impair in the least the rights of its two houses, or 
 interfere with the power of the Supreme Court to annul unconstitutional 
 legislation when a case comes before it in the course of litigation. 
 
 9. The γραφή παρανόμων legally turned on the simple question of 
 the agreement or disagreement of a given law or decree with the existing 
 laws, and the court had strictly no legal right to consider the general 
 question of the expediency or even the justice of the enactment which 
 was on trial. Nevertheless, the arguments in such cases abound in 
 appeals to the court to reject a law because it is inexpedient or unjust; 
 and there can be no doubt that such questions were an important part 
 of the case which the judges considered. But such a natural extension 
 of a counsel’s privilege cannot weigh against definite statements on the 
 other side made by the orators 1 . It could not be expected that a 
 litigant or advocate in Athens, addressing a large body of judges, of 
 whom few could even understand a strictly legal argument, should not 
 try to impress them with a conviction that he had justice and expediency, 
 as well as law, on his side. We can easily pardon an Athenian orator 
 for availing himself of this aid, when such arguments are frequently 
 addressed to the U.S. Supreme Court by eager counsel on questions of 
 pure constitutional law, and when even the judges in giving their 
 decisions sometimes enforce their legal judgments by considerations of 
 expediency. 
 
 10. It has sometimes been thought that a decree or a law could 
 be indicted by the γραφή παρανόμων as inexpedient (ανεπιτηόειον) 2 . 
 But we now know from Aristotle’s Constitution of Athens that the 
 γραφή iav τις μη έπιτήόειον Θυ} νόμον was a distinct process from the 
 γραφή παρανόμων, and it is probably the one to which the doubtful law 
 quoted in Demosth. xxiv. 33 refers, by which any one who procured the 
 repeal of a law and neglected to substitute for it a new law which was 
 fitting (επιτήδειον) could be indicted by a special process 3 . 
 
 1 See Aesch. III. 199, 200: ώσπερ yap iv rrj τεκτονική, όταν είδέναι βουΧώμεθα το 
 ορθόν και τό μή, τον κανόνα προσφέρομεν..., ουτω καί εν ταΐς y ραφαίϊ Tais των παρανόμων 
 παράκειται κανών του δικαίου τοντί τό σανίδων, καί τό ψήφισμα καί οί πapayεypaμμέvoι 
 νόμοι, ταϋτα συμφωνοΰντα άΧΧήΧοις έπιδείξας κατάβαινε. Cf. 191» 192; Dem. XXIII. 
 ιοο, ιοί; and see Meier and Schomann 431 and notes; Gilbert, Gr. Staatsalt. 1. 
 p. 284, n. 1 ; Thumser-Hermann, Staatsalt. § 92, n. 2. 
 
 2 This view has been defended by such passages as Poll. vm. 56, ύπωμοσία δέ 
 έστιν όταν τ is ή ψήφισμα ή νόμον ypaφέvτa y ράψηται ώ$ άνεπιτήδειον, with VIII. 44» 
 and Lycurg. Leoc. 7. Meier and Schomann refer all these to the custom of introducing 
 extraneous matter into arguments on the y ραφή παρανόμων. 
 
 3 Aristot. Pol. Ath. (see Sandys’s note); Dem. XXIV. 33 (law), έαν δέ ns Χύσας 
 τινα των νόμων των κειμένων, 'έτερον άντιθή μή επιτήδειον τφ δήμιρ τφ Αθηναίων ή εναντίον 
 
II.] 
 
 THE -γραφή παρανόμων. 
 
 323 
 
 ιι. It may seem strange to compare the solemn action of the 
 U.S. Supreme Court in deciding a question of constitutional law with 
 the trial of a citizen at Athens, before a court consisting of 501, 1001, 
 or 1501 ordinary men, chosen by lot from the great body of citizens, 
 for proposing an unconstitutional decree or law. Both courts, however, 
 have the same solemn duty to perform, that of deciding whether a 
 given enactment is or is not in conflict with a superior code. Athens, 
 like the United States, assigned this duty to the highest court in her 
 judicial system (to which the Areopagus hardly belonged). When we 
 leave the fundamental principle and come to the details, the differences 
 are more striking. The most serious fault in the Athenian process was 
 its personal character as a criminal suit, which any citizen could bring 
 directly before the court, and the liability of the defendant to be 
 punished at the discretion of the court by a fine (sometimes set as high 
 as 100 talents) or even by death. This of course embittered the whole 
 process, which sometimes degenerated into a vituperative quarrel of 
 rival litigants. This evil was to a great extent removed after the expi¬ 
 ration of a year, when the process became a sober and dignified trial of 
 a legal question, the nominal defendant being now exposed to no 
 personal risk. We may fairly compare the arguments addressed to the 
 judges in such cases (as in that of Leptines), after making due allowance 
 for the composition of the court, with those addressed to modern judges 
 in similar cases. 
 
 12. Another important distinction came from the great number 
 and variety of the matters dealt with in the Solonic law, compared with 
 the few general principles laid down in the U.S. Constitution. This 
 multiplied the cases of conflict (real or supposed) of decrees with 
 laws, and made it more difficult to avoid conflicts in proposing decrees. 
 And many of these conflicts related far less to serious questions of law 
 than to petty details of legislation. The wide range of questions with 
 which the γραφή παρανόμων might be concerned, and the facility thus 
 afforded for finding legal flaws in almost any decree, tempted un¬ 
 principled men to use the process to vent their spite against personal 
 enemies, and to stop or retard legislation which they could not otherwise 
 check. We see, indeed, a decided degeneration in the conduct of this 
 process from the earlier to the later cases. A brief comparison of the 
 argument in these cases will illustrate this. In the years 355, 353, and 
 
 των κειμένων τφ, ras ypacpas είναι κατ' αύτου κατα τον νόμον 6 s κεΐται έάν τις μη 
 επιτήδειον θή νόμον. This law, like others in the Timocratea, is often quoted as 
 authentic, and is probably so in substance: see Thumser-Hermann, Staatsalt. § 91*’. 
 
 21—2 
 
ESS A YS. 
 
 3 2 4 
 
 352 b.c. Demosthenes, as counsel, composed four elaborate arguments 
 against the constitutionality of two laws and two decrees. 
 
 ( 1 ) In 356—355 b.c. Leptines carried a law providing that hereafter 
 no exemption (ατε'λεια) from any of the ordinary public burdens (εγκύκλιοι 
 XrjTovpyiai) should be allowed, except to the descendants of Harmodius 
 and Aristogiton. This law was indicted by the γραφή παρανόμων as 
 soon as it was enacted, and its operation was suspended. The chief 
 accuser Bathippus died, and the case went over into the folloAving 
 year (355—354), when Leptines was free from personal responsibility 1 . 
 There were now two prosecutors, Apsephion, son of Bathippus, and 
 Ctesippus, son of the general Chabrias. Demosthenes made his argu¬ 
 ment against the law as the representative (συνήγορος) of Ctesippus". 
 His speech is a δευτερολογια, Phormio, the advocate of Apsephion, as 
 the elder man (or the advocate of the elder prosecutor) having spoken 
 first: this accounts for the brevity with which Demosthenes speaks on 
 some legal points which Phormio had probably dwelt upon. Demos¬ 
 thenes urges the following legal points 3 :— 
 
 (a) The formalities for enacting a law required by the Solonic law 
 (§ 2 above) were not observed by Leptines. 
 
 (b) The Solonic law requires that all gifts made by the people shall 
 remain valid (τας δωρειάς όσας b δήμος εδωκε κυρίας είναι). 
 
 (c) The decree of Diophantus (passed in 411), which was solemnly 
 ratified by the oath of the people and inscribed on a column, provided 
 that all who should fall in defending the democratic government 
 against tyrants should receive, for themselves and their descendants, the 
 same honours which were given to Harmodius and Aristogiton. 
 
 (d) Many foreign benefactors of the state will be defrauded of their 
 promised rewards. 
 
 (e) While the law allows only one penalty to be imposed by a court 
 for a single offence, Leptines imposes two, and even three 4 . 
 
 ( 2 ) In 355 b.c., before the case of Leptines was tried, Demos¬ 
 thenes composed his speech against Androtion for a client, Diodorus, to 
 
 1 This appears in the title of the speech of Demosthenes, npos Αεπτίνην, not κατά 
 Αεπτίνου. See Meier and Schomann, p. 203. 
 
 2 For a discussion of this point see Sandys’s Leptines, pp. xxiv., xxviii. Cf. Dion. 
 
 Hal. ad Amm. I. 4, p. 724, 6 περί των άτελειών , abros διέθετο. 
 
 3 I confine myself to the chief legal arguments. 
 
 4 On the last argument see Sandys’s note on § 156, with the quotations from 
 Westermann and Dareste. Arguments (c) and (d) probably relate to the same law 
 with (/ή. 
 
II.] 
 
 THE γραφή παρανόμων. 
 
 3 2 5 
 
 deliver. Euctemon and Diodorus indicted as illegal a decree of the 
 people proposed by Androtion, by which the usual complimentary crown 
 was given to the Senate of the previous year. This speech also is a 
 StvrcpoXoy ία. The legal arguments are these : — 
 
 (a) The law allows the people to give the crown to the Senate only 
 when the Senate has voted to build a certain number of triremes during 
 
 the year; this has not been done by the Senate of the previous year. 
 
 • . 
 
 (, b ) The decree of Androtion is άπροβονλευτον, i.e. it has not passed 
 the Senate. To the natural reply, that the law permits the crown to be 
 given directly by the people without an express vote of the Senate, it is 
 rejoined, that the law in question permits the people to confer the crown 
 only on one condition, which has not been complied with; therefore the 
 decree of the people is doubly illegal. 
 
 (< c) Androtion is declared to be one of the class known to the law 
 as ot αίσ-χρώς βφιωκότν. », who are forbidden to speak in the Assembly; 
 therefore his decree is illegal. 
 
 (■ d) The father of Androtion is said to have died in debt to the 
 state, and therefore to have been άτιμος. This ατιμία descends to his son, 
 who, as the debt is not yet paid, has no right to speak in the Assembly. 
 
 ( 3 ) In the first Assembly of 353—352 b.c., when the regular 
 έπιχζιροτονία τών νόμων took place, it was voted that a special board of 
 νομοθόται should meet the next day to devise means for celebrating 
 the coming Panathenaic festival. Timocrates appeared before this 
 board and proposed a new law, enacting that if any public debtor has 
 beeii or shall hereafter be condemned to imprisonment as an additional 
 punishment ( προστίμημα ), he shall be released on giving security satis¬ 
 factory to the people for the payment of his debt. (The object of this 
 was to release Androtion and other friends from arrest.) The νομοθίται 
 approved this law, which was soon indicted by Diodorus, the former 
 opponent of Androtion, who delivered the speech written for him by 
 Demosthenes (xxiv., against Timocrates). The law was charged with 
 illegality, chiefly on the following grounds :— 
 
 (a) It was passed in defiance of all the prescribed forms. 
 
 (b) It was an ex post facto law, including persons already condemned 
 by the courts. 
 
 ( c) It violated a law which forbade any one even to propose to 
 relieve a public debtor or other άτιμος from his disabilities unless he 
 had permission granted him by at least 6000 affirmative votes in the 
 Assembly. 
 
3 2 6 
 
 ESSAYS. 
 
 [II. 
 
 (i d ) The law forbids any one to petition the Senate or the Assembly 
 to take action on any case which a court has decided; but Timocrates 
 proposes to require the Assembly to act in such cases even without 
 a petition. 
 
 (e) The law of Timocrates creates a privilegium, as it grants 
 privileges to some but excludes others, which the Solonic law forbids. 
 
 ( 4 ) In 352 b.c. Demosthenes wrote a speech for Euthycles, who 
 indicted a decree of Aristocrates, providing that any one who killed the 
 general of -mercenaries and freebooter, Charidemus, should be outlawed 
 (αγώγιμος) in all the dominions of Athens. The legal argument here 
 (18—94) is especially important. The orator quotes the greater part 
 of the Draconic law of homicide, expounding it carefully, and showing 
 how the bill of Aristocrates violates it in almost every particular. 
 We learn from this argument that the Draconic law dealt chiefly with 
 provisions for protecting the homicide from the earlier outlawry, which 
 Aristocrates now proposed to re-establish legally, and for bringing him 
 under the jurisdiction of courts and the protection of the law. 
 
 When we come from these legal arguments to the speech of 
 Aeschines against Ctesiphon, we are struck at once, in the greater part 
 of it, by the almost total absence of all that makes the ypa -φη παρανόμων 
 worthy of its name. Aeschines devotes less than a tenth of his speech 
 to a strictly legal argument, that on the responsibility of Demosthenes 
 as a magistrate; this is the strongest (though also the smallest) point in 
 his argument, and he elaborates it with great skill and cogent reasoning. 
 He also speaks more briefly of another legal point, the question of the 
 place of proclamation; but this concerns a law of which we have little 
 knowledge. The greater part of the speech is taken up with a most 
 absurd attempt to connect his general account of the public life and the 
 character of Demosthenes with his legal argument. He charges the 
 references to Demosthenes in Ctesiphon’s decree, in which he is said 
 to seek the best interests of Athens in all that he says and does, with 
 violating the law forbidding the falsificatio?i of the public records ! This 
 is his most elaborate argument, the one on which he most depends. 
 It is absurd to suppose that the law in question had any reference to a 
 case like this: this would have exposed every personal compliment in 
 a laudatory decree to public prosecution at any one’s will. It clearly 
 related to malicious and fraudulent falsification of the public records in 
 the Metroum by adding, erasing, or changing. And yet this is brought 
 forward soberly and earnestly by Aeschines as a legal argument in 
 support of his indictment. Of course Demosthenes, as the defendant’s 
 
III.] 
 
 THE SUIT AGAINST CTESIPHON. 
 
 3 2 7 
 
 advocate, was bound to reply to the plaintiff’s argument, so that we 
 cannot fairly compare his later with his earlier treatment of the γραφή 
 παρανόμων. But the case against Ctesiphon, as Aeschines presents it, is 
 in striking contrast to the cases against Leptines and others as Demos¬ 
 thenes presents them. 
 
 13. Finally, there was a law providing that any one who was 
 thrice condemned in the γραφή παρανόμων should forfeit the right to 
 propose measures in the Senate or Assembly. 
 
 III. 
 
 The Suit against Ctesiphon. 
 
 1. Late in the month Thargelion of the year of Chaerondas (June, 
 337 b.c.) Demosthenes proposed and carried a measure for permanent 
 repairs of the walls of Athens. The hasty work done under the excite¬ 
 ment of the defeat at Chaeronea earlier in the year had been only 
 temporary 1 . A commission of ten τείχοποωί, one to be appointed by 
 each tribe, was now established, to hold office during the following year, 
 that of Phrynichus, 337 — 336 b.c. Demosthenes was chosen by his 
 own tribe, the Pandionis, to be one of this commission. The fortifications 
 of the Piraeus were assigned him as his special charge, and he is said to 
 have received ten talents from the state to be used in the work. He 
 added to this sum a substantial amount on his own account, usually 
 stated as a hundred minas (if talents) 2 . He also held the important 
 office of superintendent of the Theoric Fund, which Aeschines says 
 at that time included “nearly the whole administration of the state 3 .” 
 
 1 Aesch. in. 27 : this shows that the ten τείχοποωί were to be chosen in the last 
 month of Chaerondas (338—337), to serve during the following year. As Ctesiphon s 
 bill proposed to crown Demosthenes during his year of office, and as the bill was 
 indicted shortly after it passed the Senate, the bill and the indictment belong to the 
 year of Phrynichus (337—336). This agrees with the statement of Aeschines (219) 
 that he brought the indictment before Philip’s death (summer of 336), and with other 
 data. See note 2, p. 329. The spurious indictment and decree (Deni. Cor. 54, 118) 
 give two wrong names for the archon. 
 
 2 Aesch. III. 17, 23, 31; Dem. Cor. 113, 300 (τον κύκλον του ΙΙειραίωή ; Vit. X. 
 Orat. 845 F ; and 851 A (decree), δύο τάφρου s περί τον Πειραια ταφρβύσας, but stating 
 the amount given as three talents. See a decree for repairing the walls, passed a few 
 years later, in C. I. Att. 11. no. 167. 
 
 3 Aesch. in. 25, 26. 
 
328 
 
 ESS A YS. 
 
 [hi. 
 
 It was gratitude for his great public services in these offices and for lis 
 generous gift, together with the increasing confidence in his statesmanship 
 and patriotism, which had recently been expressed in his appointment 
 to deliver the funeral oration on those who fell at Chaeronea 1 , that earned 
 his political friends to propose to crown him in the theatre at the Great 
 Dionysia in the spring of 336, as a mark of the public approbation of 
 his whole political life 2 . 
 
 2. Ctesiphon accordingly proposed a bill in the Senate to crown 
 Demosthenes with a golden crown for his services and generosity as 
 commissioner on the walls and for his life devoted to the interests of 
 Athens in speech and action. I he bill passed the Senate at once, and 
 there can be little doubt that it would have passed the Assembly with 
 equal alacrity if it could have been brought to a vote there. Before it 
 could be presented to the people, Aeschines brought a “γραφή παρανομούν 
 against Ctesiphon, charging his bill with illegality. This made it 
 impossible to carry the measure further until the lawsuit was settled 3 . 
 For reasons of which we are not directly informed, but in which 
 both Aeschines and Ctesiphon as well as Demosthenes must have 
 acquiesced the trial was postponed more than six years, until August 
 330. We can easily conjecture reasons for this long delay. Soon after 
 the suit was brought, Philip was assassinated, and Alexander came to 
 the throne. Uncertainty as to the effect of this sudden change, and 
 unwillingness to discuss publicly the relations between Philip and 
 Athens, probably made both parties not averse to remaining quiet. 
 
 1 he destruction of I hebes in the following year and the subsequent 
 harsh action of Alexander, especially his demand for the Athenian 
 oiators, tvhile they emboldened the Macedonian party at Athens, yet 
 made Demosthenes safer against an adverse judgment of his fellow 
 citizens than ever before. Aeschines doubtless felt that he had gained 
 a gieat point in preventing Demosthenes from being publicly crowned 
 before the assembled Greeks, and was willing to wait. 
 
 3. A year later Alexander began his invasion of the Persian 
 Empire. The absence from Greece of the man whom one party feared 
 and the other was eager to conciliate might seem favourable to a 
 
 1 Dem. Cor. 285. 
 
 As the bill of Ctesiphon was proposed in 337—336, we may assume that 
 Demosthenes was to be crowned at the Great Dionysia of that year. 
 
 Dem. [XXVI.] 8: όταν τις ψηφίσματος η νόμου γραφήν άττενέ^κη ττρός τούς θεσμό- 
 θέτας, ο μεν νόμος η τό ψήφισμα άκνρόν έστιν. See Poll. viii. 36. This applies even 
 more strongly to a προβούλευμα. 
 
III.] 
 
 THE SUIT AGAINST CTESTPHON 
 
 329 
 
 renewal of the contest; but a case already postponed two years needed 
 some special occasion to revive it. Such an occasion came, as 
 Aeschines probably thought, with the destruction of the Persian Empire 
 after the battle of Arbela (Oct. 1, 331 b.c.)', when Darius was a fugitive 
 and Alexander was at the summit of his glory. He must have felt that 
 no time could be more favourable fora judgment against Demosthenes; 
 while Demosthenes naturally felt that shrinking from the trial would 
 imply want of confidence in the good-will of his fellow citizens, of which 
 he was constantly receiving most flattering tokens. For these or other 
 reasons, this famous case came before the Heliastic court, under the 
 presidency of the six Thesmothetae, in the late summer, probably in 
 August, 330 b.c . 1 2 We do not know the number of the judges. A 
 δικαστηρίου commonly consisted of 501 ; but we hear of 1001, 1501, 
 and 2001, and in so important a case one of the larger courts would be 
 likely to be impanelled. 
 
 4. The προβονλενμα of the Senate concerning the crown had legally 
 expired at the end of the year 337—336 s . This was probably not 
 renewed until after the trial. The offence for which Ctesiphon was 
 indicted was committed when he proposed his bill in 336, and this 
 offence was in no way mitigated by the subsequent expiration of the act 
 of the Senate. A renewal of the same decree would probably have 
 been illegal while it was suspended under indictment; the proposal of 
 a new decree in a different form would have required a new indictment 
 
 1 Plutarch (Alex. 31) says that the battle of Arbela was fought eleven days after 
 an eclipse of the moon: this occurred Sept. 20, 331 B.c. See Boeckh, Mondcyclen, 
 pp. 41, 42. 
 
 2 We have several independent data which fix this time. (1) See Dion. Hal. ad 
 Amm. I. 12 (p. 746): ουτος (the speech on the Crown) yap μόνος εις δικαστήριον 
 εισελήλυθεν μετά τον πόλεμον (the campaign of Chaeronea), επ’ Άριστοφωντος άρχοντος 
 (S 3 ° — 3 2 9 )» ογδόφ μϊν ένιαυτφ μετά την εν Χαιρωνείμ μάχην (338)5 'έκτιρ δέ μετά την 
 Φίλιππου τελευτήν (336), κα θ' &ν χρόνον Αλέξανδρος την εν ’Αρβήλοις ενικά μάχην. 
 This places the date after midsummer 330 B.c. (See Schaefer ill. p. 224, note.) 
 (2) The year 330—329 began June 28 (Boeckh, Mondcyclen, p. 42). The death of 
 Darius occurred in Hecatombaeon (i.e. July) of this year: Arrian ill. 22 s . The news 
 of this had not come to Athens before the trial, as Aeschines (132) speaks of him 
 as a fugitive. This would not allow the trial to be later than August. (3) Again, 
 Aeschines (254) says, ήμερων μεν ολίγων μέλλει τά II ύθια yiyveaQai. The Pythian 
 games came in the third year of each Olympiad near the end of the Delphic 
 month B ουκάτιος, which corresponds to the second month of the Attic year (Meta- 
 geitnion). This would place the trial near the middle of August. See Unger, 
 Sitzungsberichte of the Munich Academy, 1879, II. p. 177; Kohler’s remarks on 
 C. I. Att. 11. nos. 545, 551. 
 
 0 Dem. XXIII. 92 : ό νόμος δ' έπέτεια κελεύει τά τής βουλής είναι ψηφίσματα. 
 
33° 
 
 ESS A VS. 
 
 [hi. 
 
 to prevent it from being carried to the Assembly and passed like any 
 other προβούλευμα. The long-delayed trial brought to Athens great 
 numbers of visitors from all parts of Greece, who were eager to witness 
 this final contest between the rival orators 1 . The audience of citizens 
 and strangers which surrounded the court probably differed little from 
 that which would have greeted Demosthenes in the Dionysiac theatre if 
 his crown had then been proclaimed. It can hardly be doubted that 
 the crowd of listeners were as deeply moved by the earnest eloquence 
 of Demosthenes as the judges, and that they would gladly have followed 
 the court in giving him more than four-fifths of their votes. 
 
 5. The day was divided into three parts, as was usual on the trial 
 of a γραφή παρανόμων, an equal amount of water being poured into the 
 clepsydra for the plaintiff and the defendant, and a third (a smaller 
 amount) in case of the conviction of the defendant, for the assessment 
 of the penalty (τίμησή) 2 . The largest amount of water which is men¬ 
 tioned is that assigned to each plea in the γραφή παραπρεσβείας (n 
 αμφορείς, about 100 gallons), and this is probably the maximum 3 . The 
 speech of Demosthenes against Aeschines in this suit (xix.) is the longest 
 that we have. That on the Crown is much shorter, but longer than any 
 of the others delivered in a γραφή παρανόμων : we may presume that the 
 orator here used all of his time. Aeschines, as plaintiff, spoke first; 
 after his argument, the court called on Ctesiphon, as defendant, to reply. 
 He probably repeated a short speech composed for him by Demos¬ 
 thenes, and then asked leave of the court to call on Demosthenes, as 
 his advocate, to finish his defence 4 . Strictly, each party to the suit was 
 required to plead his own cause; or, if he called in advocates, as 
 Aeschines summoned Eubulus, Phocion, and others to support him in 
 the suit for false legation, to do this at the end of an elaborate argument 
 of his own 5 6 . But here, as Demosthenes was the real defendant, it would 
 have been absurd to object to his arguing the case in full. That the 
 procedure was unusual is shown by the audacious attempt of Aeschines 
 to induce the court to refuse Demosthenes a hearing 0 ; and his argument 
 
 1 Aesch. III. 56 : εναντίον των δικαστών καί των άΧΧων ποΧιτών, καί των ΈΙΧΧηνων. 
 ...δρω δε ουκ oXiyovs παρόντα s, άλλ’ όσους ονδε'ις πώποτε μέμνηται προς aydva δημόσιον 
 παρα~γενομένους. 
 
 Id. 197» Harpocration under διαμεμετρημένη ήμερα. 
 
 3 Ρ1· II* 12 6: προς ένδεκα yap αμφορέας έν διαμεμετρημένη τη ημέρμ κρίνομαι. 
 
 4 Id· III. 201 : επειδαν προεΧθών εντανθόΐ Κτησιφών διεζέΧθη πρός ύμας τούτο δη τδ 
 σvvτετayμέvov αντιρ προοίμιον. 
 
 5 Id. II. 184. 
 
 6 Id. in. 202—20:;. 
 
III.] 
 
 THE SUIT AGAINST CTESIPHON 
 
 33 1 
 
 on this point shows that the court had a legal right to refuse to hear any 
 except the parties to the suit. But the great audience had not come to 
 hear Ctesiphon, and we hear of no further attempt to interfere with the 
 argument of Demosthenes. The orator probably delivered his famous 
 speech substantially in the form in which it has come down to us 1 . 
 
 6 . When the arguments were finished, the judges voted on the 
 question of convicting Ctesiphon; and the result was a triumphant 
 acquittal by more than four-fifths of the votes 2 . This subjected 
 Aeschines to the two penalties of malicious prosecution, a fine of a 
 thousand drachmas, and partial ατιμία, which deprived him of the right 
 to bring a similar suit hereafter 3 . This result mortified him so deeply 
 that he withdrew from Athens and spent the rest of his life chiefly in 
 
 I 
 
 1 The speech of Demosthenes is universally praised as a consummate work of art. 
 When we think of the tremendous stake which he had at risk in the case, and 
 remember that he had six years’ warning of the crisis which was sure to come sooner 
 or later, it seems incredible that he should have left the elaboration of his speech to 
 any extent to future revision. In the speech of Aeschines there are such definite 
 allusions to passages in the reply of Demosthenes, that we cannot escape the con¬ 
 clusion that they are later additions. There is nothing in the speech of Demosthenes 
 which is impossible or even strange in a reply. I have tried to show that what has 
 sometimes been mistaken for confusion in the narrative part of his speech is really the 
 result of the highest art in the arrangement of his argument (see Essay I. § 4, p. 310). 
 
 2 Plut. Dem. 24: οΰτω λαμπρώς απέλυσαν ώστε το πέμπτον μέρος των ψήφων 
 Αίσχίνην μή μεταλαβεΐν. Cf. Dem. Cor. 82, 266. 
 
 3 Harpocr. under εάν τις: έάν τις y ραψάμενος μή μεταλάβω το πέμπτον μέρος των 
 ψήφων , όφλισκάνει χιλίας και πρόσεστιν ατιμία τις. Theophrastus (in Schol. to Dem. 
 p. 593, 24 R.) adds to this (explaining ατιμία) olov το έξεΐναι μήτε "γράψασθαι παρα¬ 
 νόμων μήτε φαίνειν μήτε έφη-γεΐσθαι. Cf. Poll. VIII. 53· Philostr. Vit. Soph. I. 18, 3: 
 'Αθηνών δ’ ύπεξήλθεν (Αισχίνης) ονχί φεύ"γειν προσταχθείς , άλλ’ ατιμία έξιστάμενος, 
 ή νπή~γετο ύπό Αημοσθένει και Κτησιφώντι έκπεσών των ψήφων. The precise nature 
 of the partial ατιμία here mentioned is uncertain. The above quotation from 
 Theophrastus would seem to imply that it consisted in the loss of the right to bring 
 the special form of "γραφή in which he was defeated, as "γραφή παρανόμων, "γραφή 
 παραπρεσβείας, or any of the peculiar forms (like φάσις, είσα-γ-γελία, ’ένδειξις, etc.) 
 which are classed with "γραφαί (see Poll. vm. 40, 41). Put see Andoc. 1. 76, έτέροις 
 ούκ ήν "γράψασθαι, τοΐς δέ ένδεΐξαι, where "γράψασθαι would seem to include all "γραφαί. 
 The same view is supported by [Dem.] XXVI. 9, όταν τις έπεξιών μή μεταλάβη τό 
 πέμπτον μέρος των ψήφων, έφ ’ οις οι νόμοι κελεύουσι τό λοιπόν μή "γράφεσθαι μηδ ’ 
 απά"γειν μηδ ’ έφη·γεΐσθαι. On the whole, I am inclined to think that Theophrastus 
 is more exact in his expression "γράψασθαι παραν όμων, and that a similar qualification 
 is implied in the other passages, so that the άτιμος would forfeit his right to bring the 
 same form of "γραφή in which he was defeated. Otherwise a plaintiff who failed to 
 receive a fifth of the votes in the smallest kind of "γραφή would lose the right to bring 
 all "γραφαί, while one who lost an ένδειξις or an εισα-γ^ελία would lose only the right 
 to bring this unusual form of public suit. 
 
332 
 
 ESS A YS. 
 
 [IV. 
 
 Rhodes, where he is said to have been a teacher of rhetoric in his later 
 years'. After such a decisive vindication of Demosthenes, there can be 
 no doubt that his friends renewed in the Senate the bill for crowning 
 him, and that this was promptly passed in both Senate and Assembly 
 in time for the orator to receive his golden crown with enthusiastic 
 applause at the Great Dionysia of 329. 
 
 IV. 
 
 The trials of Aeschines and Philocrates for misconduct in 
 making the Peace of 346 B.C. 
 
 1. The trial of Aeschines in 343 b . c . 2 for his conduct on the Second 
 Embassy, which negotiated the peace with Philip in 346, and the speech 
 of Demosthenes as his accuser, have an important bearing on the dis¬ 
 cussions of the peace in the orations of Aeschines and Demosthenes 
 thirteen years later. The suit against Aeschines was technically called 
 ζνθνναι, i.e. a process arising from the ενθνναι or scrutiny which 
 Aeschines, like every other officer of state, was required to pass before 
 he could be relieved of his responsibility as an ambassador 3 . Within 
 
 1 Pint. Dem. ? 4 : ενθύς εκ της πόλεως ιρχετ’ άπιών, καί περί ’Ρόδον και 5 Ιωνίαν 
 σοφιστεύων κατεβίωσε. Vit. X. Orat. 840 D : άπάρας els την 'Ρόδον, ενταύθα σχολήν 
 καταστησάμενος έδίδασκεν. While teaching at Rhodes, Aeschines is said to have read 
 his speech against Ctesiphon to a Rhodian audience; and when all were astonished 
 that he was defeated after so eloquent a plea, he replied, ούκ αν έθανμάξετε, 'Ρόδιοι, εί 
 7 rpds ταυτα Δημοσθένονς XeyovTOS ηκούσατε. Vit. X. Orat. ibid. Other versions of the 
 stoiy give his answei, ει ηκονσατε τον θηριον εκείνον, ούκ αν νμΐν τοντο ηπόρητο. 
 See Phot. Bibl. No. 61. Roman writers, as Cicero (de Orat. in. 56), relate that 
 the Rhodians, after hearing the speech of Aeschines, asked to hear the reply of 
 Demosthenes: quam cum suavissima et maxima voce legisset, admirantibus omnibus, 
 “ Quanto,” inquit, “ magis miraremini'si audissetis ipsum !” 
 
 Dionys. ad Amm. 1. 10 (p. 737), under the archonship of Pythodotus (343—342): 
 καί τον κατ A ίσχίνον σννετάξατο λόγον, δτε τάς ενθύνα s έδίδον της δεντέρα s πρεσβείας 
 της επί τούς ορκονς. Hypoth. 2, § 11, to Dem. ΧΙΧ. : μαθόντες οί ’ Αθηναίοι την των 
 Φωκίων απώλειαν,.. .μετά τρία έτη εισηλθεν ο Δημοσθένης κaτηyopήσωv Αίσχίνον. See 
 Schaefer II. 3 ^ 3 · R has often been doubted wdiether the case ever came to trial, 
 chiefly because of a doubt of Plutarch (Dem. 15), ό δέ κατ' A Ισχίνον της παραπρεσβείας 
 άδηλον εί λελεκταί' καιτοι φησιν I δομενενς παρά τριάκοντα μόνας τόν Αίσχίνην άπο- 
 φvyεΐv. For Plutarch’s objection, that neither orator mentions the trial in the 
 speeches on the Crown, see note on Cor. 142 5 . See also note 6, § 7, p. 337. 
 
 F01 ενθνναι, as a form of legal process, see Meier and Schomann, pp. 257—269. 
 
IV.] TRIALS OF PHILOCRATES AND AESCHINES. 333 
 
 thirty days after the return of the second embassy to Athens (13 
 Scirophorion, 7 July, 346), Aeschines must have presented himself for 
 his cvOwaC. Before this, when Demosthenes offered himself for his 
 εϋθυναι, Aeschines had objected to the process, on the ground that the 
 second embassy was merely a continuation of the first, for which all the 
 envoys had already passed the scrutiny. Of course this was a mere trick 
 to escape passing his own ενθνναι for the second embassy, which he had 
 good reason to dread. This objection was overruled by the presiding 
 Logistae; and as Demosthenes was admitted to his ενθνναι, Aeschines 
 also was compelled to appear for his own 2 . 
 
 2. Demosthenes and Timarchus, with perhaps others, appeared 
 against Aeschines at his ενθνναι with a -γραφή παραπρεσβείας, an indict¬ 
 ment for misconduct on an embassy 3 . This was received by the presiding 
 Logistae, who had the presidency also in this suit; and the case would 
 naturally have been brought by them before a Heliastic court. But 
 before this could be done, Aeschines met the accusation by a most 
 effective αντιγραφή , in which he challenged the right of Timarchus to 
 appear as an accuser in the courts, on the ground that he had once led 
 a shameless life (α ίσχρως βεβιωκεν at). When next he saw Timarchus in 
 the Assembly, he served upon him publicly an eVa y -γελία δοκιμασίας, i.e. 
 a summons to appear at a δοκιμασία ρητόρων, an investigation of his 
 right to appear as a ρητωρ 4 . He charged him with έταίρησις and also 
 with squandering his paternal estate, both of which disqualified a man 
 from appearing as a speaker in either the Assembly or the courts of law. 
 This case came to trial early in 345 b.c. 5 , and the evidence against 
 
 Any suit which arose from charges made at the εϋθυναι was called εϋθυναι : see Dem. 
 XIX. 17, εκ τη s πρεσβεία* ταύτη s, ησπερ είσίν αί νυν εϋθυναι, and 82, 132, 256. .See 
 note on Cor. 249 s . 
 
 1 Harpocr. under \ο~γισταί. 
 
 2 Dem. xix. 211, 212. 
 
 3 Hypoth. 2, § 10, to Dem. XIX.: επέστη Ύίμαρχο s καί Δημοσθένη s κατη-γορησοντε s 
 τούτον. For the -γραφή παραπρεσβεία s, which was regularly brought only at the 
 εϋθυναι, see Meier and Schomann, pp. 459—461. 
 
 4 Aesch. I. 19, 20, 28—32 : τίνα s δ’ ούκ ιρετο δεΐν λέ-γειν; του s αίσχρώ s βεβιωκότα s’ 
 
 τούτου s ούκ έ$ δημηγορεΐν _ δοκιμασία ρητόρων, εάν ns λέ-γη έν τιρ δήμω τον πατέρα 
 
 τύπτων η την μητέρα...η πεπορνευμένο s η ηταιρηκω*,...η τα πατρψα κατεδηδοκώ s. 
 Cf. 154· Bor the έπα-γ-γελία δοκιμασία s see Meier and Schomann, pp. 249—252. 
 There were two kinds of δοκιμασία which might lead to a judicial process, which Avas 
 itself called δοκιμασία (cf. the parallel case of εϋθυναι in note 3, p. 332): these were 
 the δοκιμασία αρχόντων (M. and S. pp. 236—246), and the δοκιμασία ρητόρων, to which 
 Timarchus was subjected. 
 
 5 See Schaefer 11. 336, n. 5. 
 
334 
 
 ESS A YS. 
 
 [IV. 
 
 Timarchus was ample for his conviction. Aeschines then delivered the 
 first of his three orations, and it is doubtful whether any serious defence 
 was made. This had the result desired by him. It suspended the 
 case against himself for a time; and by disgracefully disqualifying one 
 of his accusers, discredited the case in the eyes of the people, who 
 would finally decide it in the popular court. It is hard to see why such 
 a man as Timarchus was allowed to be associated with Demosthenes in 
 so important a political case, and it soon appeared that this was a most 
 fatal mistake 1 . 
 
 3. This mortifying rebuff put off the trial more than two years. It 
 is easy to see why Demosthenes hesitated to renew the prosecution, and 
 Aeschines probably felt that time would be on his side. In the mean¬ 
 time Demosthenes lost no opportunity of discrediting the peace in the 
 Assembly and of declaring that Philip had deceived Athens by bribing 
 certain men who \vere well known in the city. The etiquette of the 
 Assembly forbade the mention of names; but no names could have 
 designated more clearly both Aeschines and Philocrates 2 . Such con¬ 
 stant reminders, confirmed by the later acts of Philip, must have 
 gradually brought the Athenians to a correct understanding of the 
 conduct of Aeschines. The friends of Demosthenes prepared the way 
 for a renewal of his suit against Aeschines, by a state prosecution of 
 Philocrates for treasonable conduct in negotiating the peace which bore 
 his name. 
 
 4. Early in 343 b.c. Hyperides brought before the Senate of Five 
 
 1 The insignificance of Timarchus will hardly account for his appearance as 
 prosecutor in this case 5 for Demosthenes would represent the suit publicly, whoever 
 were his associates. Timarchus had been a strong and active opponent of Philip. 
 As Senator in 347—346, he proposed a decree that any one who should be convicted 
 of carrying arms or naval implements to Philip should be punished by death (Dem. 
 xix. 286). It must also be remembered that the charges against Timarchus related 
 to his youth and were probably forgotten by most people. He was a Senator in 361, 
 and therefore at least thirty years old then, so that in 345 he was at least forty-six. 
 It is to be noticed that Aeschines makes the venality of the offence his sole ground for 
 his accusation of Timarchus: he even confesses that apart from this he has no 
 objection to the relation in question. See 1. 137, τό μέν άδίαφθόρω* έρασθαί φημι 
 καλόν είναι, τό δ’ έπαρθέντα μίσθιρ πεπορνευσθαί αισχρόν (cf. 136). The whole passage 
 1. 132—165 gives a striking view of what it was safe for an orator to say in public, 
 even in attacking a man like Timarchus. See Schaefer 11. 338—340, and Dem. 
 xix. 286. 
 
 See Dem. vi. 28—37, ix. 36—40; even in his speech on the Peace, v. 9, 10, 
 he shows plainly who are responsible for the present necessity of submitting to Philip’s 
 demands. See also xix. 134— 136, 207. 
 
IV.] TRIALS OF PHILOCRATES AND AESCHINES. 335 
 
 Hundred an εισαγγελία against Philocrates, charging him with serving 
 Philip for bribes to the detriment of Athens. The Senate accepted the 
 εισαγγελία, thus making the suit a public one. It went for trial to 
 a Heliastic court, and the state appointed advocates, among them 
 Demosthenes, to assist Hyperides in managing the case 1 . In his 
 indictment (called εισαγγελία) Hyperides quoted verbatim five or six 
 decrees of Philocrates in support of his charge 2 . There was no lack of 
 decisive evidence. Philocrates had made an open show of his newly 
 acquired wealth after the peace, by building houses, selling wheat, 
 transporting timber, changing foreign gold openly at the bankers’ 
 counters in Athens; and (according to Demosthenes) he had even con¬ 
 fessed that he received money from Philip 3 . He gave up his defence, and 
 left the court and Athens before the judgment was declared ; and in his 
 absence he was condemned to death, the penalty which Hyperides 
 proposed in his εισαγγελία. He passed the rest of his life in exile 4 . 
 This result shows how public opinion about the peace had changed in 
 three years, so that Philocrates, whose word was law when the peace 
 was made, was now left to his fate, friendless and helpless. No man of 
 influence, like Eubulus, attempted to save him; and we hear of no 
 
 1 For the state process called eiaayyeXia, see Meier and Schomann, pp. 312—332, 
 and for the νόμος eiaayyeXriKos, p. 316. This process was provided for the special 
 trial of (1) those charged with conspiracy against the democracy of Athens, (2) those 
 charged with betraying towns or military or naval forces to public enemies, or with 
 holding treasonable communication with these, (3) orators (ρήτορας) charged with 
 being bribed by public enemies to give evil advice to the people. See Hyper. Eux. 
 §§ 7, 8 (coll. 22, 23). It will be seen that eiaayyeXia, so far from being applicable 
 chiefly (or only) to crimes which were not provided for in the laws (as was once 
 believed), is definitely restricted to certain high offences, all of which, moreover, might 
 be dealt with by other processes, as is seen in the similar cases of Philocrates and 
 Aeschines. 
 
 2 Hyper. Eux. §§ 29, 30 (coll. 39, 40): τούτον (Φ ιΧοκράτη) eίσayyeί\aς iyio υπέρ ών 
 ΦιΧίππιρ υπηρέτει κατά της πόΧεως, βΐλον έν τφ δικαστηρίιρ, καί την daayyekiav £ypa\pa 
 δικαίαν καί ώσπερ ό νόμος κελεύει, ρήτορα δντα Xeyeiv μη τα άριστα τφ δήμιρ τφ 
 ’Αθηναίων χρήματα Χαμβάν οντα και δωρεάς παρά των ταναντία πραττόντων 
 τφ δήμιρ (quoting the law), και ούδ' ούτως άπέχρησέ μοι την eiaayyeXiav δούναι, 
 άλλ’ υποκάτω παρ^ραψα, τάδ ’ εΐπεν ού τά άριστα τφ δήμιρ, χρήματα Χαβών' 
 εϊτα το ψήφισμα αυτού ύπέypaψa' και πάΧιν τάδ ’ εΐπεν ού τά άριστα τφ δήμιρ, 
 χρή ματ α Χαβών, και το ψήφισμα πaρέypaφov. καί ’έστι μοι πεντάκις ή έξάκις τούτο 
 yεypaμμέvov. This will give some idea of the formalities observed in the είσayyεXίa. 
 
 3 Dem. XIX. 114: εί μη μόνον ώμoXόyει παρ ΰμϊν έν τφ δήμιρ ποΧΧάκις, άΧΧά καί 
 έδείκνυεν ύμΐν, πυροπωΧών, οικοδομών,.. .ξυXηyώv, τό χρυσίον καταΧΧαττόμένος φανερώς 
 επί ταΐς τραπέξαις. Gold coins in Athens were generally foreign. 
 
 4 Aesch. II. 6, III. 79, 81; Dinarch. 1. 28. 
 
ESSA YS. 
 
 336 
 
 anxiety lest his condemnation should cause enmity with Philip. Demos¬ 
 thenes, as prosecuting attorney for the state, complained that Philocrates 
 alone was selected for prosecution while others equally guilty were left 
 untouched. He then formally called on “any of the other ambassadors,” 
 who would declare before the court that he was not implicated in the 
 acts of Philocrates, to come forward and do so; and he promised to 
 absolve him from accusation. No one responded 1 . This was of course 
 an offer to Aeschines to abandon the suit against him if he would make 
 this declaration. Such challenges were very frequent in the courts of 
 Athens, chiefly because they were never meant to be accepted. 
 
 5. This triumphant success inspired Demosthenes with new hopes 
 for his suit against Aeschines. This came to trial after midsummer in 
 343 b.c. when Demosthenes and Aeschines delivered their speeches ^rtpl 
 τής παραπρεσβζίας. The court probably consisted of 1501 judges; and 
 the Logistae presided, as the case still belonged to the ευθυναι of the 
 second embassy, for which Aeschines was still νπενθννος. Demosthenes 
 brings his accusation under five heads, covering the five points on which 
 an ambassador should be called to account at his evOvvai. These are 
 (i) ών αττηγγ€ΐλ€, (2) ών έπεισε, (3) ων προσ€τά$€Τ€ α ντω, (q) των χρόνων, 
 (ζ) €ΐ άόωροδοκήτως ή ρή (or τον προίκα ?} μή). In his elaborate argument 
 he strives to prove that Aeschines (1) made a false report, (2) advocated 
 pernicious measures on the ground of his report, (3) disobeyed his 
 instructions, (4) wasted his time, (5) acted corruptly, being bribed by 
 Philip 2 . The argument on these five heads occupies §§ 17 — 178, the 
 remainder of the oration being chiefly given to general arguments tending 
 to show the corruption of Aeschines and his collusion with Philip. One 
 of the strongest general arguments is this. Events have proved that the 
 account given by Aeschines of Philip’s intentions, especially his report 
 that Philip would save the Phocians and attack the Thebans, was 
 absolutely false, and Athens has been disgraced by following his bad 
 advice. Now, if he thus reported and thus advised honestly, he must 
 feel that he was grossly betrayed by Philip. No words could express his 
 indignation at such base treatment. On the contrary, he still remains a 
 firm friend of Philip. His report and advice were therefore dishonest 
 and corrupt 3 . Aeschines makes no attempt to answer this argument 
 and many others equally cogent. 
 
 6. The reply of Aeschines, though eloquent and effective in certain 
 
 1 Dem. xix. r 16—118. 
 
 2 Ibid. 4—8, 177—179. 
 
 3 Ibid. 106—no. 
 
IV.] TRIALS OF PHILOCRATES AND AESCHINES. 337 
 
 It 
 
 passages, is weak and trifling as an answer to the powerful argument of 
 Demosthenes. Though he denies some of the special statements of his 
 opponent, perhaps successfully, he says nothing which breaks the force 
 of the main argument against himself. His long account of the first 
 embassy has nothing to do with the question before the court; many of 
 his strongest arguments relate to matters on which we have no other 
 knowledge; while, in cases in which we have other evidence, we 
 sometimes find his most solemn assertions false or misleading 1 . His 
 replies to the gravest charges are sometimes mere trifling. Thus he 
 answers the grave charge of falsely reporting Philip’s intentions by 
 saying that he “only made a report and promised nothing 2 .” He 
 replies to the charge of joining Philip in the paeans and other rejoicings 
 over the destruction of the Phocians by saying that, though he was 
 present, he was only one of two hundred, and that Demosthenes (who 
 was not present) has no evidence whether he sang or not! He then 
 says that the paean was sung in honour of Apollo, not to the dishonour 
 of Athens; and seems to imply that, if he only sang with the rest of the 
 company, he did merely an act of piety 3 ! 
 
 7. He brought before the court his aged father, his two little 
 children, and his two brothers, to excite pity 4 ; and he finally called on 
 Eubulus, Phocion, and other influential men to come forward as his 
 supporters 5 . Eubulus addressed the court in his behalf, and probably 
 urged prudential reasons for acquitting Aeschines. It might easily be 
 thought by cautious men that the recent sacrifice of Phiiocrates was as 
 much as it was safe to demand under the circumstances ; and this, added 
 to the presence of men like Eubulus and Phocion on the defendant’s 
 platform, probably saved Aeschines from conviction. We are told only 
 that he was acquitted by thirty votes 6 ’; and this was no triumph— 
 indeed, no justification—for a man in his position. 
 
 1 See Hist. §§ 36, 37. 
 
 2 Aesch. 11. 119. The best that Aeschines could say on this subject thirteen years 
 later is seen in III. 79—83. 
 
 3 Ibid. 162, 163: e.g. και rip ye 5 rj\os ήν, el μη ye ώσπερ ev Toh χοροΐς προήδον; 
 
 4 Ibid. 179, 180. 
 
 5 Ibid. 184. 
 
 6 Vit. X. Orat. 840 C: icp? ή (πρεσβείρ) κατ^ορηθεΐτ νπό Δτ ■)μοσθένουϊ,...συνειπόντο'> 
 αύτφ Ενβούλου, ...τριάκοντα ψήφοις ani(f>vyev, and 841 Α: κυρώσα s ορκοις την ειρήνην, 
 κριθει* fatcpvyev, ώς προείρηται. See ρ. 33 2 > note 2 · 
 
 G. D. 
 
 22 
 
33 8 
 
 ESS A YS. 
 
 [v. 
 
 V. 
 
 The Constitution of the Aniphictyonic Council. 
 
 1. Aeschines (n. 116) gives eleven of the twelve tribes which 
 formed the Amphictyonic Council, as follows : Thessalians, Boeotians 
 (“not merely Thebans”), Dorians, Ionians, Perrhaebians, Magnesians, 
 Locrians, Oetaeans, Phthiotians (i.e. the Achaeans of Phthiotis), Malians, 
 Phocians. He professes to give twelve names: κατηριθμησάμην Wv -η 
 δώδεκα τα μ^τέχοντα τον lepov. It is generally assumed that the 
 Dolopians are accidentally omitted in the text, and many editions insert 
 these. An important inscription recently discovered at Delphi by the 
 French explorers seems to me to show clearly that the Delphians are 
 the omitted people. See Bourguet, in the Bulletin de Correspondance 
 Hellenique, 1896, p. 241, who gives from this inscription a list of the 
 members of the Council at the time of Alexander the Great. This 
 contains the Thessalians, “ King Alexander,” Delphians, Dorians, 
 Ionians, Perrhaebians (with Dolopians), Boeotians, Locrians, Achaeans 
 (i.e. of Phthiotis), Magnesians, Aenianians, and Malians, each with 
 two delegates. Comparing this with the list of Aeschines, we find 
 King Alexander holding the two Phocian votes; the Aenianians repre¬ 
 sent the Oetaeans, of whom they were an important tribe; the 
 Dolopians are included with the Perrhaebians; and the Delphians, who 
 are constantly mentioned in the Delphic inscriptions relating to the 
 Council, are added. If we add the Delphians to the list of Aeschines, 
 the two lists substantially agree \ 
 
 2. Each of the twelve tribes had two votes in the Council, given 
 by delegates called ίερομνημονες, two of whom were sent by each 
 Amphictyonic tribe. But the Dorians, Ionians, and Locrians were 
 geographically divided, so that each of two divisions had a single Hiero- 
 mnemon with a single vote. Thus the two Dorian votes might be divided 
 between the Spartans (with other Dorians of Peloponnesus) and the 
 ancient Dorian Tetrapolis, near Parnassus; the Ionian votes between 
 
 1 On the Delphians see Foucart’s note in Bull, de Corresp. Hellen., 1883, p. 437. 
 Theopompus (frag. 80) gives the Dolopians and Achaeans, as independent of Perrhae¬ 
 bians and Phthiotians (who are also given); and he omits the Thessalians and Locrians. 
 Pausanias (x. 8, 2) gives only ten names, omitting the Delphians and Boeotians: he 
 gives the Phocians (and no Macedonians), otherwise agreeing essentially with the 
 Delphic inscription. 
 
ν·] 
 
 THE AMPHICTYONIC COUNCIL. 
 
 339 
 
 the Athenians and the other Ionians (in Euboea and Asia Minor); the 
 Locrian votes between the Eastern and Western Locrians. Aeschines 
 explains that each people had the same representation with two equal 
 votes, for example, τον ήκοντα εκ Αωρίον και Κυτινιου Ισον δννάμενον 
 Αακεΰαιμονίοις, δυο yap ψήφους έκαστον φέρει έθνος * πάλιν εκ των Ίωνων 
 τον Ερέτρια και Πριηνέα τοΐς ’ Αθηναίοις. This means that the whole 
 Dorian Tetrapolis might have one of the two Dorian votes (which could 
 be in the hands of a delegate from any one of the four towns), and this 
 was as good as the Spartan vote. We do not, however, find that the 
 Tetrapolis had one of the votes every year, but sometimes both 
 delegates came from Peloponnesus. So likewise one of the Ionian 
 votes, which might be given by a delegate from Euboea or one from 
 Priene (in different years), was as good as the other, which was always 
 given by Athens. The Hieromnemon of Athens was chosen each year 
 by lot: see Arist. Nub. 623, λαγών 'Υπέρβολος τήτες ιερομνημονεΐν. How 
 this officer was chosen when he represented several disconnected towns 
 is not known. 
 
 3. Besides the twenty-four Hieromnemons, certain towns sent 
 another class of delegates, called πvλάyopoι (later πνλαγόραι) or ayo- 
 ρατροί , who appear to have had the right to speak, but not to vote, in 
 certain meetings of the Council. Photius defines πνλάγορος as ό πεμπό- 
 μενος εις την Πυλαιαυ (?) εις την Άμφικτνονίαν ρήτωρ, ώστε εκεί άγορενσαι. 
 They represented the towns which sent them, not the tribe as a whole. 
 Athens sent three, chosen by the people apparently for each Amphicty- 
 onic meeting, while the Hieromnemon held his membership for a year. 
 We do not know the number or the manner of appointment or the 
 distribution of those sent by other towns. See Hermann’s Staatsalt. 
 §14. The meeting at which Aeschines made his inflammatory harangue, 
 which stirred up the Amphissian War, appears to have been one of the 
 ιερομνήμονες exclusively, which Aeschines, as a πνλάγορος , attended only 
 by special invitation of the Hieromnemon and as his representative, but 
 with all his rights. See Hist. § 72. 
 
 VI. 
 
 The Hero Physician and the Hero Καλαμίτης. 
 
 i. In Demosthenes xix. 249 the father of Aeschines is said to have 
 kept a school near the shrine of the Hero Physician (προς τω τον 'Ηρω τον 
 Ιατρόν); and in Cor. 129 his mother is said to have lived a shameful life 
 
 22—2 
 
340 
 
 ESS A YS. 
 
 [vi. 
 
 near the shrine of the Hero Κα Χαμίτης (προς τω Καλαμίττ) ηρωί), while 
 his father is said to have been the slave of a schoolmaster near the 
 Theseum ( προς τω &ησ^ίω $ίδάσκοντί -γράμματα). There is great doubt 
 about all these localities : the position of the real Theseum is not 
 exactly known ; that of the shrine of the Hero Physician is unknown, 
 except that it was iv αστα ; and the hero Καλαμίτης is not mentioned 
 elsewhere. Many scholars identify the two school-houses; others 
 identify the two shrines, making καλαμίτης equivalent to Ιατρός. 
 
 2. Reiske 1 recognized in the Hero Physician the Scythian Toxaris, 
 of whom Lucian gives a pleasant account in his 2 κνθης ή ΐΐρό&νος. 
 Toxaris, according to Lucian, came to Athens in the time of Solon, by 
 whom he was kindly received. He was a physician and a man of 
 general cultivation, though not of high rank at home. When his 
 countryman, Anacharsis, came to Athens, he was recognized and 
 welcomed by Toxaris, who introduced him to Solon. Toxaris died 
 and was buried in Athens. When the plague was raging in the Pelo¬ 
 ponnesian War, the wife of an Areopagite reported that Toxaris came 
 forth from his tomb and told her that the plague would cease if 
 the narrow streets of the city were freely sprinkled with wine. This 
 was done, and the plague disappeared. The lady pointed out the tomb 
 from which the Scythian came forth. This was examined, and the 
 remains of Toxaris were found within, which were identified by a 
 mutilated inscription, and also by the figure of a Scythian sculptured on 
 the gravestone, having in his left hand a strung bow and in his right 
 what appeared to be a book (βιβλίον, ως iSo k€l). Lucian says that more 
 than half of the figure was to be seen in his time, with the bow and the 
 book entire. The upper part of the stone with the face was gone. 
 The monument, he says, was not far from the gate Dipylum, on the 
 left of the road leading to the Academy: the stone was lying flat on 
 the ground. On account of his wonderful skill in stopping the horrors 
 of the plague, Toxaris was made a hero and worshipped as the “ Hero 
 Physician.” He had a shrine within the city walls; and his tomb was 
 always decked with wreaths, and miraculous cures were wrought there 2 . 
 
 3. It happens that in the excavations outside the Dipylum gate 
 
 1 See note on Demosth. F. Legat. p. 419, 22, with references to Lucian and to 
 Corsini, Fasti Att. (Florence 1742), II. p. 372, under T οξαρίδεια. Corsini refers to 
 Lucian’s Σκύθης, and to the residence and death of Toxaris in Athens and his deifica¬ 
 tion ; but he makes no allusion to Demosthenes. 
 
 2 Lucian, Scyth. 2. See C. I. Att. 11. nos. 403, 404, two inscriptions, probably 
 of the third and second centuries B.C., which show an active interest in the worship of 
 the Hero Physician, whose shrine is said to be iv άστει. 
 
. 
 
 VI.] THE HERO PHYSICIAN AND HERO Καλαμίτψ. 34 i 
 
 at Athens a figure was found which in many respects agrees wonderfully 
 with Lucian’s description. It represents a headless crouching Scythian, 
 in his native dress, who had once held a bow in his left hand (the opening 
 through which the bow passed still remaining), while under the left arm 
 and held by the right hand is what, when viewed in front, appears to be 
 a writing tablet, but from the side is seen to be a pointed quiver. The 
 
 chief point in which this figure fails to agree with Lucian’s description is 
 that Lucian calls the monument a στηλη, while this is a statue, entirely 
 free on all sides. This might be explained by the figure lying flat on the 
 ground, as Lucian describes it; and it must have been flat on its back, 
 or the pointed quiver could never have been mistaken for a book. 
 If it was so covered by earth that only the front and the two hands, 
 with the bow and the apparent book, were visible, it would have been a 
 natural mistake to call it a στηλη. Indeed, any further exposure of the 
 figure would at once have made the quiver visible. 
 
 4. I therefore think there is sufficient evidence to identify this figure 
 with the one seen by Lucian or his informant. Beyond a suggestion 
 of Salinas, in the Revue Archeol. for 1864, that the figure is a late 
 
 I 
 
342 
 
 ESSA YS. 
 
 [VI. 
 
 J 
 
 substitute for Lucian’s στηλη, I have not seen any notice of their 
 identity. The words βιβλίον, ως εδο'κει, which describe the quiver, seem 
 to be nearly decisive. The little figure stood for many years outside of 
 the Dipylum, near the spot where it was found ; and it may be seen 
 there in Curtius and Kaupert’s Atlas von Athen, Map IV., No. 7, 
 called “Torso eines kauernden Skythen, der nach seinem Kocher fasst.” 
 It now stands in the great Museum of Athens; but the catalogues have 
 no suggestion of its connection with Toxaris. 
 
 5. We have no means of judging whether Toxaris is an historic 
 character, or whether Lucian’s account of his life is as fabulous as his 
 story of the plague. It is equally hard to decide whether Demosthenes 
 referred to the same places in his different stories of the parents of 
 Aeschines; and this is of slight consequence, as probably the only 
 historic fact in them all is that Atrometus kept a school in Athens near 
 the Theseum. Apollonius, in his life of Aeschines (§ 2), says of his 
 father, πίδας εχοντα (φασϊ) δίδασκαν γράμματα προς τω ©ησείω και τω τον 
 Ιατρόν ηρωω, and of his mother, φασί την 7 τρωτήν ηλικίαν ηταιρηκίναί 
 καθεζομίνην iv οίκηματί προς τω τον Καλαμίτον ηρωω. This may be merely 
 borrowed from the tales of Demosthenes ; but Apollonius seems to 
 identify the two school-houses, and to make the shrine of Καλαμίτης a 
 distinct place. Photius seems to identify the two heroes (under ηρως), 
 
 ηρως Ιατρός, ον μίμνηται Δημοσθένης iv τώ περί τον στέφανου, unless he 
 carelessly refers to the wrong oration. In the note on Cor. § 129 5 I 
 have given my own suggestion as to the meaning of καλαμίτης (arrow- 
 man, equivalent to τοξότης, bowman ), on the supposition that the two 
 names refer to one hero. But there is little evidence of this identity, 
 though Westermann thinks it is “ohne Zweifel.” It would have been a 
 strange coincidence (to say the least) if Glaucothea had led a disreput¬ 
 able life near the school-house of Atrometus before her marriage; and 
 still stranger or rather impossible for her to do this after her marriage. 
 G. H. Schaefer (on Cor. p. 270, 10) explains καλαμίτης as the man of 
 the splints (or surgeon). Westermann explains it as 6 iv καλάμοις, sup¬ 
 posing that the hero’s statue or shrine stood in a moist place surrounded 
 with reeds; others suppose a malicious reference to a statue of 'Αφροδίτη 
 iv καλάμοις, erected at Samos in 440 b.c. by Athenian courtezans who 
 had followed Pericles thither. See the quotation from Alexis the Samian 
 in Athenaeus XIII. p. 572 F : την iv 'Ζάμω Άφροδίτην, ην οί μ\ν iv Καλα- 
 μοις καλονσιν, οί δε εν € λ ει, ’Αττικά! εταιραι ίδρνσαντο αΐ σννακολονθησασαι 
 Περικλεί δτε εττολιδρκει την %άμον, ipy ασαμ,εναι ίκανώς α7τδ της ώρας. Cf. 
 Thuc. ιι. 15, τό iv Αίμναις Διοννσου. See Dissen’s note on Cor. 129. 
 
VII.] MSS. OF THE ORATION ON THE CROWN 343 
 
 VII. 
 
 The Manuscripts of the Oration on tJie Crown . 
 
 The critical notes of this edition are, with a very few exceptions, 
 based on ten manuscripts, which represent different classes and show 
 different conditions of the text. Perhaps the chief use of giving the 
 readings of some even of these selected mss. is to show how little is to be 
 gained from the inferior mss. now that 2 is supported by its comrade L. 
 Vomel bases his critical edition of the oration on fifty mss., from most of 
 which he derives little or nothing of real value. I have made no new 
 collation of any manuscripts, except that I have constantly used the 
 facsimile of from which some useful gleanings were still to be made. 
 I have also some notes of my own, taken from the manuscript itself 
 in Paris before Vomel’s collation was made. For the readings of the 
 other mss. I am indebted chiefly to VdmePs notes, supplemented by 
 those of Lipsius and Blass. 
 
 1. 2 or S, of the tenth century, written on parchment, the chief of 
 
 all the mss. of Demosthenes, is No. 2934 of the Greek mss. of the 
 National Library of Paris. On its last leaf is written, in a hand of 
 a later period, ϋίβλίον μονής τών 2 ωσάν 8 ρων, showing that it once 
 belonged to a society of monks named after Sosander, who is not other¬ 
 wise known. Dindorf states decidedly that it belonged to a monastery 
 on Mount Athos; but he gives no authority for this, and no trace of a 
 Sosandrian monastery has yet been found on the Holy Mountain or 
 elsewhere. The manuscript first appears in Europe in the possession 
 of Janos Lascaris, a learned Greek, who left Constantinople after the 
 Turkish capture and was in high favour with Lorenzo de’ Medici at 
 Florence. Lascaris was twice sent by Lorenzo to Greece and the 
 neighbouring lands in search of manuscripts for the Medicean library. 
 On his second journey, begun in 1490 or 1491, he visited Constanti¬ 
 nople, Thessalonica, Corfu, Arta, Crete, several monasteries on Mount 
 Athos, and many other places. How rich a store he brought back to 
 Florence may be seen from the curious manuscript (or rather collec¬ 
 tion of manuscripts) now in the Vatican library, which was published 
 by K. K. Muller in the Centralblatt fiir Bibliothekswesen for 1884. This 
 contains a catalogue of the manuscripts in the library of Lorenzo; and 
 a wonderful list of 300 or 400 books which were “bought” for Lorenzo 
 
344 
 
 ESS A YS. 
 
 [vn. 
 
 by Lascaris, according to the later title, πίναξ βιβλίων ηγορασ μόνων νπο 
 Λασκαρεως εν δια φοροις πολεσιν νπ\ρ Λα νρζντίον των Μεδικων. Probably 
 many are here included which Lascaris saw on his Greek journey but 
 did not or could not buy. We doubtless have the truth in the preface 
 of Lascaris to the editio princeps of the Anthology (Florence 1494), 
 where he says of Lorenzo, “ducenta nuperrime antiquorum volumina e 
 Graecia et finitimis regionibus collecta in hanc praeclarissimam civitatem 
 magna diligentia et sumptibus transferenda curaverat.” In the same 
 Vatican manuscript is also a 7 τίναξ των βιβλίων τον Λασκαρ € ως, ατ rep l X ei 
 Trap’ ίαντον. Among these we find Δημοσθένης, περγαμηνόν (p. 407). 
 The same volume probably appears in a list of the books of Lascaris 
 (lista de’ libri che furon del S r Lascheri), made by another learned 
 Greek, Devaris, after the death of Lascaris at Rome in 1535, and now 
 in the Vatican library. Here we find Δη μοσ θ ένης, παλαιός, No. 34 
 (corrected to 35). Devaris was then employed by Cardinal Ridolfi, 
 nephew of Leo X., in collecting and arranging his library, and Ridolfi 
 is said to have acquired the books of Lascaris after the latter’s death. 
 In Ridolfi’s catalogue we find “35. Δημοσθένονς λόγοι £β',” evidently 
 the same book which was in the list of Lascaris. 
 
 The Greek table of contents still prefixed to 2 is said to be in the 
 writing of Lascans. Over the Latin table of contents on the next leaf 
 of 2 is written, Hie videtur esse codex indicatus in catalogo codicum 
 Graecorum Nicolai Rodulphi Cardinalis, classis oratoriae Nro. 35, 
 Δημοσθένονς λόγοι ξβ', quamquam hie continet lviii. orationes, epistolas, 
 et prooemia. 4 he Cardinal s manuscripts after his death came into 
 the possession of Queen Catherine de’ Medici. The title “Demos- 
 thenis Orationes etc. appears in a catalogue of the Queen’s library, in 
 the inventory of her goods after her death in 1589, and again in 1597 
 in the list of her books which had passed into the Royal library. The 
 Codex 5 still has a splendid binding of red leather, bearing the united 
 arms of France and Navarre and monograms of Henry IV. with the 
 date 1602. From this time it appears in the various inventories and 
 catalogues of the Royal library, until it was entered in the catalogue of 
 1740 with its present number 2934 1 . We are therefore safe in assum¬ 
 ing that 2 is one of the manuscripts which Lascaris, as the envoy of the 
 Medici, brought to Florence from Greek lands at about the time of 
 
 Aftei all the entries of this famous MS., from its first appearance as Αημοσθένης, 
 wepya μψόν, it is described as “chartaceus” in the catalogue of 1740, which wal 
 recently still in use. This remained uncorrected until 1854, "’hen I was permitted 
 to change “ chartaceus ” to “ membranaceus.” 
 
VII.] MSS. OF THE ORATION ON THE CROWN 345 
 
 Lorenzo’s death in 1492 1 ; and it may have come from Mount Athos, as 
 Dindorf asserted. 
 
 The manuscript is written with great care, in large square upright 
 minuscules, which mark the transition from the uncial to the cursive 
 text 2 . Occasionally a page or a passage is written in a similar but 
 smaller hand : compare fob 2 2 a (κα) with the preceding and following 
 pages. It is unquestionably by far the best manuscript of Demosthenes, 
 and with its recently discovered companion L (or Laur. S) it forms a 
 distinct class, which preserves a purer and older text than any others. It 
 is generally believed, and with good reason, to represent to a great extent 
 the celebrated manuscripts known as “ Atticiana,” copied and revised 
 under the direction of Atticus, whom Usener 3 identifies with T. Pom- 
 ponius Atticus, the friend of Cicero, though he is generally thought to 
 have been a professional maker and vender of books of a later date. It 
 must be confessed, the positive testimony connecting ^ with the text of 
 Atticus is not wholly consistent. Harpocration quotes four readings of 
 the ’Αττικιανα, —( 1 ) under €Κ7τολ€/χασαι, €Κ7Γθλ€μ.ήσαί for εκπολεμώσαι., 
 in 1. 7 and 111. 7, found only in 2 1 ; (2) under αΤελούσ-α, two readings in 
 xxii. 20, αντην and α ντΎ) (where we have only αντην or αύττβ, with 
 (3) another variant, λαβονσα «dvov before avrrj (which is not in any 
 ms.) ; and (4), under νανκραρικά (which he gives as the common reading), 
 Ναυκραητικά in xxiv. ii, which is the only reading in our mss. 
 Further, the scholia on xxi. 147 (p. 562, 16) quote the αρχαία (sc. 4'k- 
 δοσις) as having Upa for Upav Ισθητα, while the scholia on xxi. 133 
 (p. 558, 16) quote the δ^/χωδ^ς as having e£ Άργούρας της Εύβοιας for the 
 better reading αργυρας της εκ Εύβοιας. We find ίερα (corrected to lepav 
 Ισθητα ) in 3 1 alone ; and αργνρας only in 2$ and k (γρ). It is hardly to 
 be doubted that the αρχαία (εκδοσις) and the Άττικιαιαχ represent 
 essentially the same purer text, which was believed by scholars to have 
 the higher ancient authority, while the δ-^/χώδ^ς ( vulgata) represented the 
 more common text, which was less carefully guarded against corruptions 
 and interpolations. The latter is supposed to be represented by such 
 mss. as A 1, F, and B; while the position of higher and more ancient 
 authority is conceded to 5 by the almost unanimous judgment of 
 scholars. The passages are few in which 5 , supported by L 1 , is not 
 decisive against all other mss. : of such there are perhaps twenty in 
 
 1 For the authorities for this pedigree see the Centralblatt fur Bibliothekswesen, 
 1884, pp. 333—412, and Omont’s valuable preface to the facsimile of Σ (Paris, 1892), 
 
 PP· 4 > 5 · 
 
 2 See Vomel, Contiones, p. 219; Sandys, Introd. to Lept., p. xxxix. 
 
 3 Unser Platontext, in Gotting. Nachrichten, 1892, pp. 197—199· 
 
346 
 
 ASSAYS. 
 
 [νιι. 
 
 this edition of De Corona. Of course there are errors in 2, as there are 
 in most printed books; and occasionally a careless mistake in copying 
 has remained uncorrected, as in Cor. § 257 s όνκαλλαγτ,ναί for ον καλά 
 y ψ a (corrected in the margin), and in § 312 1 ο ταν for ώ τάν (un¬ 
 corrected). 
 
 The publication of a photographic facsimile 1 of 2 has brought this 
 precious document within the reach of scholars in all parts of the world. 
 This, with the facsimile reproductions of the Medicean Aeschylus, the 
 Laurentian Sophocles, and the Bodleian Plato, is a special boon to 
 American scholars. I have been constantly indebted to the facsimile 
 of 2 in the library of Harvard University : it has supplied what no 
 apparatus criticus could have given. 
 
 This manuscript was first carefully collated by Bekker for his 
 Oratores Attici, 1823 ; but it needed the study of the results of this 
 collation to convince even the editor of the great importance of his 
 work. This appears in Bekker’s stereotype edition of Demosthenes in 
 J ^55 (Berlin), which is based chiefly on the text of 2 . Vomel devoted 
 three months to the study of the ms. ; and the result of his labours and 
 those of other scholars was a most accurate collation, which has 
 appeared in his three volumes, Demosthenis Contiones (185 7) 2 , De 
 Corona et De Falsa Legatione (1862) 3 , and Oratio adversus Leptinem 
 (t866). 
 
 Besides the original text, the manuscript contains various corrections 
 and additions within the columns, some made by the original hand or 
 by one of the same period, others by later correctors. Some changes 
 are merely corrections of slips of the pen, not “ various readings.” 
 Other alterations and additions are made in the margin by the same 
 
 1 CEuvres completes de Demosthene. Fac-simile du manuscrit grec 2934 de la 
 Bibliotheque Nationale, publie par Henri Omont. 2 vols. Paris, 1892. 
 
 See the elaborate account of Σ, with a discussion of its virtues and its faults, in 
 Vomel s Introduction to the Contiones, pp. 219—243. This is reprinted in full in 
 Omont’s preface to the facsimile edition. 
 
 3 In the following places I have noted errors or omissions in Vomel’s citations 
 
 of Σ for the oration on the Crown. None of these, so far as I know, have been 
 
 corrected by later editors. I give only the readings of Σ. 
 
 § 12 4 * * , Σ has όμοΟ (not έμοΰ). § 23 s , τό (not τω) κωλυσαι Σ. § 44 s , 6 is erased 
 
 in Σ. § 46°, άισθβσθαι (η over at) Σ. § 52 s , μισθωτός (changed from -t 0 s) Σ.. § 68 9 , 
 
 εθβλοντας Σ. § 93®, ό μέν ye φίλος Σ (yp). § 174 8 , ποιήσητ€ (at over e) Σ. 
 
 § 200 7 , άν σου Σ. § 225 s , δο /cet τι (v over r) Σ. § 246· 1 , προαίσθβσθαι Σ. § 2ό6 9 , 
 μβτριώτατα (not -ητα) Σ. § 259* 2 , συνεσκβυώρου Σ. § 20 ο 8 , τις Σ. § 206 7 , συμ- 
 β(βηκως (η changed to ω or ιω) Σ. § 322'· 1 , ούκ άπειΧούντων, om. in Σ 1 , added 
 above the line, t urther examination would probably disclose other cases. 
 
VII.] MSS. OF THE ORATION ON THE CROWN 347 
 
 variety of hands. One of the latest of these correctors (probably of the 
 fifteenth century) used ink which has turned green, and his suggestions 
 are generally of little value. Besides these there are many various 
 readings marked y p (for -γράφεται or -γραπτεον ), which were evidently 
 copied from other manuscripts by revisers of different periods. I have 
 designated these last, in 2 as well as in other mss., by yp in the critical 
 notes, and other marginal readings by mg. Other corrections or ad¬ 
 ditions are generally cited as 3 2 . I have not given the reputed age of the 
 corrections, unless they are of real importance. It is generally believed 
 that all the accents and breathings in 2 are later additions. I have 
 often noted these, especially when there is any doubt concerning them, 
 but with the understanding that they are no authority for the original 
 text. The absence of a breathing in 2 is often of some negative value. 
 
 2. L (Vomel’s Laur. S), the new companion of %, is in the 
 Laurentian Library at Florence (lvi. 9, No. 136), and was first ex¬ 
 amined by F. Schultz, who* published a careful account of it in the 
 Jahresbericht of the Friedrichs-Gymnasium of Berlin in i860 1 . The 
 manuscript is written by various hands. It contains orations vi., vii., 
 viii., ix., x., xi., xxii., xxiv., all written in the 13th century (with some 
 parts of ix. and x. wanting), followed by xx., xviii., xix., in another 
 hand of the same century, and further by xxm. in another of the same 
 age, and by xn. in a later hand. Orations 1., 11., and hi., and the 
 missing parts of ix. and x., are added by a much later hand. The older 
 parts, as originally written, generally have the same purer form of the 
 text which is in %; but, though the two mss. have a common arche¬ 
 type, L was not copied from 2 or descended from it. Another hand 
 (L 2 ), apparently of the same period, wrote various readings, chiefly of 
 the vulgar text, in the margin or above the lines, “ ut uno conspectu et 
 textum ilium breviorem atque correctiorem et vulgatum intueri liceat, 
 cum secunda manus primam non deleverit 2 .” The second hand of L 
 generally agrees with the class represented by F and B. One interest¬ 
 ing bond of union between the first hands of 5 and L is that both 
 omit the same disputed passages in the Third Philippic (e.g. §§ 6, 7). 
 
 L was carefully collated by Rehdanz for Vomel’s edition of xviii. 
 and xix. (1862), and I have used Vomel’s citations in this edition. 
 
 3. A 1, Augustanus primus, formerly at Augsburg (whence its 
 name), now No. 485 in the Royal Library at Munich, on parchment, of 
 
 1 De codicibus quibusdam Demosthenicis ad orationem Phil. in. aondum ad- 
 hibitis. 
 
 2 Schultz, p. 16. 
 
348 
 
 ESS A YS. 
 
 [vii. 
 
 the nth century, is generally reckoned as next in rank to the two 
 leading mss., 5 and L. It is the chief basis of the text current before 
 Bekker’s study of 2 , the text as established by Reiske. It represents a 
 text far below that of 2 and L in purity, and much corrected by gram¬ 
 marians 1 . 
 
 4· A 2, Augustanus secundus, formerly at Augsburg, now No. 441 
 in the Munich Library, is a paper manuscript of the 15th century. It 
 has little distinctive character of its own; in the earlier part of the 
 oration on the Crown it agrees with 2 , and it very often agrees with A 1. 
 Reiske says of it: “ Est notae neque optimae neque pessimae, me certe 
 non poenituit eum contulisse.” 
 
 5 · V 6 (Vomers V 1) is one of the three parts (Vind. 1, Vind. 2, 
 Vind. 6) which are bound together and make No. 70 of the Greek mss. 
 in the library at Vienna. All three are on paper, and of the 15th 
 century. Each part is written by a different hand. V 6, which contains 
 the oration on the Crown, is chiefly remarkable for its constant agree¬ 
 ment with A 1 in the earlier part of this oration, though in the latter 
 part it often has peculiar readings of its own 2 . 
 
 6 , 7. F (or M) and Φ (or Q) are parchment mss. of the nth 
 century, Nos. 416 and 418 in St Mark’s library in Venice. They form, 
 with B, a class of mss. which originally represented the vulgate text but 
 were emended by the use of mss. of the better class. See under B (8). 
 
 8. B (or Bav.), Bavaricus, is a paper ms. of the 13th century, 
 No. 85 in the Munich library. It has often been thought to be a direct 
 copy of F, and its readings are often omitted by editors as being 
 identical with those of F. It is now known to be from the same source 
 as F, though not a copy or a descendant, the two mss. being related as 
 2 and L. This manuscript has been brought into notice recently by 
 Christ’s stichometric studies, of which it is the chief foundation 3 . 
 B and F are also remarkable for a memorandum which is found 
 in each at the end of Oration xi., which appears plainly in F, 
 8ιωρ#[ωται] iy δυο Άττικιανών, and in B with ay for iy (both = ck). 
 In two later places Δ is found, referring to the same διδρ^ωσις 4 . These 
 notes show that the archetype of F and B was revised and corrected by 
 the help of two mss. called Άτ τικιανά, which professed to represent the 
 
 1 See Vomel, Contiones, p. 194; Usener, Unser Platontext, p. 189. 
 
 2 1 llave cited V 6, when it agrees with A 1, only in §§ 1—25 ; after this only when 
 it differs from A 1. 
 
 3 See Essay vm. 
 
 4 See table L at the end of Vomel’s Contiones, and the table at the end of Christ’s 
 Atticusausgabe; Usener’s Platontext, p. 196, with n. 31. 
 
VII.] MSS. OF THE ORATION ON THE CROWN. 349 
 
 purer and older text. These little notes are the most important result 
 of this revision: as Usener says, “die Berichtigung ist nicht ernst zu 
 nehmen.” The use of two 'Αττικιανά indicates what we know from the 
 two readings ascribed to 'Αττικιανά in Harpocration, under άνζλονσα 
 (see p. 345, 1. 18), that these mss. had a variety of various readings, and 
 did not represent an absolutely fixed form of the text. 
 
 9, 10. Y and O, according to Vomel, are the leaders (duces) of a 
 “familia media et mixta,” and cannot be classified with any of the mss. 
 already mentioned. Usener makes Y the best representative of a class 
 which has the purer vulgar text, not yet revised and emended by 
 grammarians into the ordinary δημώδης 1 . It therefore stands nearer than 
 mss. like A 1 to the text of 2 and L. 
 
 Y is a parchment ms. of about the eleventh century (Dobree), 
 No. 2935 in the National Library of Paris. 
 
 O, a paper ms. of the fourteenth century, was formerly in Antwerp, 
 afterwards in Paris (where Bekker collated it), and was later discovered 
 by Vomel in Brussels. It has much in common with Y ; but in the 
 oration on the Crown it is noted chiefly for strange or careless readings, 
 as τελευτ^κόσι (§ 2δ5 4 ), Τίλ^ντηκότων (§ 288 2 ), τετεΧευκότων (§ 288 4 ), 
 τ ζλ^ντηκότος (§ 3 Σ 4 ΰ )· 
 
 The readings of these ten mss. (except those of V 6 mentioned in 
 note 2, p. 348) are given whenever they can be ascertained. Besides 
 these, the readings of six other mss. are cited, each in a single case in 
 which it has some special interest. 
 
 At the last moment the Oxyrhynchus papyri give us three fragments 
 of the oration on the Crown: (1) §§ 40 2 —47 s , of the 2nd cent. a.d.; 
 (2) §§ 227®—229b of the ist or 2nd cent.; (3) § 244 1-4 , probably of the 
 3rd cent. The last has no variations from 2 worth noting; the 
 variations of (1) and (2) are given in the critical notes. It is worth 
 noting that the papyrus agrees with IS alone in omitting άσμζνοι καί. 
 in § 43 s , on which authority I have bracketed these words; it agrees 
 with 2 and L 1 alone in omitting καί δωροδοκημ ατα in § 43 s , and with 2 S 
 and L alone in ημάς (vulg. νμας) in § 228 s , and with 2 and Ai in 
 omitting μόνοι after Ιποιάτζ in § 43^. It has also several unique read- 
 
 1 This appears in XXI. 133, where the scholia give the reading of the δημώδης r 
 ε£ ’Apyovpas της Εύβοιας (A r, B, etc.), as opposed to the better reading άρουρας της έξ 
 Εύβοιας (Σ). Here Υ has the unintelligible reading ’λρΎούρας της έξ Εύβοιας, with 
 άρουρας corrupted to Αρ^ονρας, but not yet emended by grammarians. Again, in 
 Cor. 87, Y has a reading ύ</>’ υμών μέν ύξηΧάθη τοΐς δττλοις, intermediate between ύφ' 
 υμών έξηΧάθη τοΐς μδν δττλοις (Σ) and έξηΧάθη τοΐς μέν οττΧοις ύφ ’ ύμών (the emended 
 δημώδης of A ι etc.). See Usener, Unser Platontext, pp. 188, 189. 
 
 ** 
 
35° 
 
 ESS A YS. 
 
 [vii. 
 
 ings : €K£tVo) for the troublesome τω Φιλίππω ( 2 , L, vulg.) after εαυτούς in 
 § 42"; καί TLV ας των Ελλήνων (for τινας δε καί των Έλλ.) in § 44 1,2 i 
 και τινες εκ (for και 7 τινες των ck) in § 44 Π I^V τοιαντης ντΓαρχονσης u7ro- 
 λ^ι/ζεαις (for /ut) τοιαυτης ονσης της νπαρχονσης νποληψεως) in § 2 2δ 4 . 
 These last are all worth considering. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Stichometry in the Manuscripts of Demosthenes. 
 
 1. It has long been known that several manuscripts of Demos¬ 
 thenes have numerical statements in Greek appended to many of the 
 speeches, which have naturally been supposed to give the number of the 
 lines according to some accepted standard. For example, at the end 
 of the oration on the Crown in 2 we have this statement, 
 
 ΔΗ 
 
 ΥΠΕΡ 
 
 ΠΕΡΙ 
 
 MO 
 
 KTHCI 
 
 TOY 
 
 ΞΘΕ 
 
 ΦΑΝ 
 
 £TE 
 
 NOY 
 
 £ 
 
 TO£ 
 
 0 
 
 ΦΑΝ 
 
 
 
 D 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 ΧΧΗΗΗΡΔΠΙΙΙ 
 
 (i.e. 2768). 
 
 A similar one follows almost all the speeches in 2 , the greater part 
 in Bav. and F, and some in A 1. The same notices have been found in 
 manuscripts of other authors; and we have the well-known statement of 
 Diogenes Laertius (v. 1, 27) that the writings of Aristotle, of which he 
 gives a catalogue, contain 445,270 στίχοι. None of these numbers 
 agree with the number of lines in the manuscripts in which they stand; 
 for example, the oration on the Crown fills 4963 lines of 2 . 
 
 2. The true explanation of these numbers was first given by 
 W. Christ 1 , who discovered in Codex Bav. in Munich, in the left margin 
 of various columns, a series of letters running from A to Ω, and some- 
 
 1 Christ, Die Atticusausgabe ties Demosthenes, Munich, 1882; also in Abhandl. 
 d. k. bayer. Akad. xvi. 3, p. 155. 
 
VIII.] STICHOMETRY IN MSS. OF DEMOSTHENES. 351 
 
 times beginning the alphabet again. Similar letters had been found in 
 the margin of the Cratylus and the Symposium of Plato in the Bodleian 
 ms. and in Ven. ΓΙ by Schanz, who had come to the conclusion that they 
 marked intervals of 100 lines according to some standard of measure¬ 
 ment, though no total number of lines was given at the end of the 
 dialogue \ Christ found that these letters of Cod. Bav. of Demosthenes, 
 on the assumption that they marked intervals of 100 lines, explained the 
 total numbers at the end of the various orations. Thus the letters in the 
 margin of the oration on the Crown, which (with several omissions) run 
 through the alphabet (A— Ω) with the addition of A, B, Γ, mark 2700 
 lines, ending at the line beginning rj πασιν οσοι in § 316 5 . This agrees 
 in general with the total of 2768 given in 2 (slightly corrupted in Bav. 
 and F by a mistake of ΔΗΙΙΙ at the end for ΔΠΙΙΙ). Further investiga¬ 
 tion soon showed that there were similar numbers at similar intervals in 
 the margin of several orations in 2, among them the oration on the 
 Crown. But while in Bav. we have for this oration all the letters of 
 the Ionic alphabet from A to Ω, except Z and I, with A and B added, 
 in 2 we find only Γ, Δ, E, Θ, I, Λ, Μ, P, B, Γ. It is evident that the 
 letters of the alphabet designate the numbers 1—24, as in numbering 
 the books of Homer; and it is made perfectly certain by Christ that 
 they mark 100 lines of text according to some generally accepted 
 standard, which can hardly have been any other than a standard text 
 of the Alexandrian Library. But his careful investigations show con¬ 
 clusively that the standard copies of different orations of Demosthenes 
 to which the numbers refer had lines of different length 2 , as will be 
 seen below in comparing the standard lines of the Third Philippic 
 with those of the orations on the Crown and against Aristocrates. 
 
 3. These investigations have supplied a new and most unexpected 
 argument against the authenticity of the public documents which are 
 found in our texts of the oration on the Crown and of some other orations 
 of Demosthenes. It is now universally admitted, on internal evidence, 
 that the documents in the speech on the Crown are most transparent 
 forgeries. As early as 1843, Ritschl announced, on Sauppe’s authority, 
 that the numbers subscribed to the orations in 2 (i.e. the totals) show 
 that the documents were wanting in the manuscript which was the 
 authority for these numbers 3 . This general conclusion has been most 
 
 1 Schanz in Hermes, i88r, pp. 309 ff. 
 
 2 See Christ, Atticusausgabe, etc., and Usener, Unser Platontext, in the Gotting. 
 Nachrichten, 1892, pp. 191, 192. 
 
 3 See Ritschl in the New Rhein. Mus. 11. p. 453, n. 8 ; and Sauppe in the Abhandl. 
 d. xxv. Philologenversammlung, 1867, pp. 81, 82. 
 
35 2 
 
 ESS A YS. 
 
 [vm. 
 
 completely confirmed by the calculations of Christ, Blass, and others, 
 who have made a comparison based on the proportion of the lines 
 in the Teubner text of Demosthenes to the στίχοι of the “standard” 
 manuscripts, both with and without the documents. This proportion 
 in the oration on the Crown is 103 to 100 with the documents in¬ 
 cluded, and 89-1 to 100 without the documents 1 . The comparison with 
 Teubner pages cannot be perfectly exact, as the documents are printed 
 in smaller type than the text of the orations. I have now made a 
 comparison between the actual lines of the Codex 2 and the standard 
 divisions (as marked by the letters in the ms.), both with and without 
 the documents, these being written in 2 in the same hand as the text 
 itself. I give only the intervals actually marked in 2 ; for example, 
 A— Γ contains 300 standard lines, P—B 900. The words added to the 
 numbers of the ordinary sections in column 2 are those with which 
 (or within which) the lines of 2 marked by the letters begin. 
 
 Standard 
 
 Divisions 
 
 Modern Sections 
 
 Lines 
 of Σ 
 
 Lines 
 of Doc. 
 
 Lines of 
 text of Σ 
 
 Av. lines 
 of text of 
 Σ in Div. 
 
 3. A— Γ 
 
 1 — 3 2 6 , ημών otl 
 
 494 
 
 28 
 
 466 
 
 r 55 
 
 1. Γ — Δ 
 
 3 26 — 45 6 ? ραστώνη 
 
 210 
 
 • 
 
 5 2 
 
 158 
 
 158 
 
 m 
 
 1 
 
 <1 
 
 45 6 — 59 7 , τη s πολιτείας 
 
 190 
 
 39 
 
 151 
 
 ! 5 Γ 
 
 3. E— Θ 
 
 59 7 — 99 h , Ee/ 3 oi\av 
 
 646 
 
 180 
 
 466 
 
 155 
 
 1. θ— I 2 
 
 99 6 —no 4 , τα μέγιστα 
 
 181 
 
 3 2 
 
 . 149 
 
 149 
 
 2. I—A 
 
 no 4 —134 3 , v\irep του 
 
 387 
 
 7 2 
 
 3*5 
 
 158 
 
 1. A—M 
 
 I34 3 —143 5 , διαμαρτυρομίνου 
 
 174 
 
 24 
 
 130 
 
 150 
 
 5. Μ— P 
 
 I43 5 — 2θ8 8 , άξίώΐσασα 
 
 1027 
 
 272 
 
 755 
 
 i 5 i 
 
 9. P—B 
 
 2θ8 8 —304 5 , οϋτβ των 
 
 1374 
 
 
 1374 
 
 1 53 
 
 1. B— Γ 
 
 304 5 — 3 1 6°, η 7 ra σιν 
 
 166 
 
 
 166 
 
 166 
 
 τοίγ P—end 
 
 
 114 
 
 
 114 
 
 
 2774 
 
 standard lines 
 
 
 4963 
 
 699 
 
 4264 
 
 1 53*7 
 
 1 Christ, Atticusausgabe, p. 41. 
 
 2 I add the interval marked by I, which I find in Σ, to the nine given by Christ 
 from Bav. 
 
VIII.] STICHOMETRY IN MSS. OF DEMOSTHENES. 353 
 
 4. It thus appears that the standard. 100 lines correspond to a 
 great variety of lines in 2 (215—165) with the documents included, while 
 they correspond to numbers varying little from the average of 1537 if 
 we exclude the documents. The large number 166 in the last division 
 (B— Γ) is strange, and it depends solely on 2 , this Γ being omitted 1 
 in Bav.; but a reduction of it would increase the number of 74 standard 
 lines which now represent the balance of 114 lines of 2, and this would 
 increase the total of standard lines. Possibly there may be an un¬ 
 suspected interpolation in §§ 304—316 of the oration. The total of 
 
 2774 standard lines x 100^, which we obtain by combining the 
 
 partial items and allowing the average proportion for the balance 
 of 114 lines of 2 which follow § 316 5 , exceeds the subscribed total 
 of 2768 by only six lines; and this is easily accounted for by supposing 
 that the titles of the documents (NOM 02 etc.) sometimes occupied a 
 separate line in the standard text and sometimes were added to the 
 previous line or above a full column, all of which varieties are found 
 in 2. 
 
 5. A similar study of the oration against Aristocrates leads to quite 
 different results. As the laws cited in this speech, chiefly Draconic, 
 are repeated in great part in the text in the orator’s comments, their 
 genuineness, so far as substance goes, is well assured. It might, how¬ 
 ever, be doubted whether the documents which we now find were a 
 constituent part of the speech as it was originally published, or were 
 made up from the orator’s remarks or taken from some authentic 
 copies at a later date. The total number of lines in this speech is not 
 given either in Bav. or in 2 ; but Bav. has 16 marginal letters, B— Δ, 
 Θ — Η, Π — Φ, which carry us to § 208 5 , within 3J pages of the end. 
 2 has A, B, Γ, Δ, including §§ 1—45 1 . The whole passage §§ 1—208 3 
 includes 2100 lines (A— Φ) of the standard text, and 3242 lines of 2 . 
 This would give an average of i54 ¥ 8 T lines of 2 to 100 standard lines. 
 As the documents fill about 55 lines of 2 , the omission of these would 
 reduce the average to 151^ lines. The following table will show that 
 this is not the correct method, and also that it is equally impossible to 
 suppose all the documents to have been included in the standard 
 text. I have given the standard pages marked A, B, Γ, and Δ 
 as they stand in 2 ; for the later divisions I follow Christ’s account 2 
 of Bav. 
 
 G. D. 
 
 1 See Christ, Atticusausgabe d. Demosthenes, p. 14. 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 15. 
 
 23 
 
354- ESS A YS . [vm. 
 
 i. A, §§ i — i 2 3 = J54 lines of 2 (no documents).154 
 
 1. B, 12 3 — 26 3 = i59 »» „ — 6 (doc.).153 
 
 1. Γ, 20 3 — 35 J = 161 „ „ — 9 ( „ ).152 
 
 r· Δ > 35 1 45 1 — 159 »» » — i2 ( „ ). i 4 7 
 
 5· Δ— b 45 1 — 9° 4= 7^3 ( av · i5 2 f) >> — 28 { „ ) = 735.av.147 
 
 12. I— Φ, 90 4 —2o8 5 =iS 46 ,, ,, (no documents). av. 153·^ 
 
 6. It thus appears that the two passages (A and I— Φ), which have 
 no documents, agree essentially in the number of lines of 2 which make 
 the standard 100 lines, and this agrees also with B and Γ if the docu¬ 
 ments are left out. This also agrees essentially with the average 
 number of lines (1537) of 2 in the oration on the Crown which 
 correspond to the standard 100 lines. But B and Γ with the documents 
 exceed these numbers. On the other hand, Δ is reduced from 159 
 to 147 by omitting the two laws in §§ 37 and 44; and Δ —I, which with 
 the 28 lines of documents in 2 give an average of 152A, by the omission 
 of these are reduced also to 147. Can it be that one of the laws in Δ 
 and all of those in Δ —I were in the standard text ? 
 
 The law in § 37 is believed by Kohler on strong grounds to have 
 formed part of the decree of 412 b.c. in C. I. Att. 1. No. 61, which 
 contains another law of Draco. It is true, only twelve letters are 
 legible in the three lines occupied by the law in question; but these 
 letters stand on the stone in precisely the places to which they would 
 belong if the law were inscribed there. Thus we have OPI -2 where 
 ζφορίας would stand, and ETA- at the end of a line for e^eVas. If we 
 add the seven lines occupied by this law in 2, we raise 147 to 154 in 
 division Δ, which agrees with the two divisions which have no docu¬ 
 ments. If we may further assume that all the laws in division Δ —I 
 (which are known to be essentially genuine) were included in the 
 standard text, we raise 147 here to 152A. We should thus have for the 
 six divisions, 154, 153, 152, 154, 152^, 153I-, in substantial agreement, 
 considering the slight uncertainty as to the beginning of the divisions. 
 
 7. The stichometry of the Third Philippic, to which we naturally 
 turn with interest, is strange and inconsistent. The total number of 
 standard lines is 580, and 2 has 842, giving an average of 145 J§ to the 
 standard 100. Five divisions are marked, but only in Bav. (so far as is 
 known); and these are as follows : 
 
 A to i2 fi =i4i lines of 2 A to 52 :! =i45 lines of 2 
 
 B ,, 24 5 =i4i ,, ,, E ,, 6$ 3 = 150 ,, ,, 
 
 Γ „ 36 s = 147 „ 
 
 If A and B alone were noted, we should have an irresistible ar¬ 
 gument against the genuineness of the doubtful passages, which are 
 
VIII.] STICHOMETRY IN MSS. OF DEMOSTHENES. 355 
 
 omitted in 2 1 and L 1 alone. About twenty-five 2 -lines of these are in 
 A, and only four or five in B; and yet both divisions were of the same 
 length in the standard text, and both now have 141 in 2 . Codex Bav., 
 which includes these passages, must have about twenty more lines in A 
 than in B. About 12 lines of Γ and about 25 of Δ are omitted in 2 , 
 which nevertheless has 147 and 145 lines in these divisions. In E there 
 are 150 lines in 2 , with only 4 or 5 omitted. It is obvious that the 
 standard lines were shorter in the Third Philippic than in the Crown 1 ; 
 but it is also obvious that stichometry does little to settle the question 
 of interpolations, unless we assume either that there are interpolated 
 passages, amounting to about 19 lines, in divisions Γ, Δ, and E, which 
 are not omitted in 2 1 or L 1 . On any other supposition, especially on 
 that of retaining all the suspected passages as they stand in the vulgate, 
 the stichometry of the speech on the basis of Codex Bav. is impossible 2 . 
 
 1 See p. 351, note 2. The Second Philippic has about 148 lines of Σ to the 
 standard 100, the First Philippic about 154, and the oration on the Chersonese about 
 152 (all without documents). 
 
 2 For a full discussion of the documents in the text of Demosthenes, see E. Drerup, 
 Jahrbiicher fur class. Philologie, 24th Suppl. Band, 1898, pp. 221—366. 
 
 23—2 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * * * 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 * . 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GREEK INDEX. 
 
 The references are made to pages, 
 
 A 
 
 αγαπητόν είναι 157 
 ay άσαιτο 144 
 άγνοίμ (ών έν ) 47 
 άγνωμοσ ύνη 66, 147» 177 
 άγραφα νόμιμα 193 
 
 αγών, lawsuit , 11-, 14, ι8. αγώνα είσ- 
 εΧθεΐν 74 
 αγωνία 32 
 
 ψωνίζομαι g, ig, 72, 128, 144, 185 
 άδειαν Χάβειν 200 
 
 αδίκημα, αμάρτημα, ατύχημα, distinguished 
 192 
 
 αδικώ as perfect 213 
 άθφος go, igo 
 αίτια 12 
 
 ακήρυκτοι πόΧεμος 185 
 άκονιτί 142 
 
 άκούονσιν, audiunt , 39 
 ακρωτηριάζω 2θ8 
 άΧάστωρ 2ο8 
 άΧιτηριος 117 
 άλλα νΟν 135 
 άμεινον πράττειν 178 
 ’Αμφικτύονες ill, 224· ’Αμφικτνοσι δό- 
 
 ξαντα ιι6 
 άμφιαβήτησ is ώϊ 96 
 Α μφισσέων δόγματα 104 
 άμφότερα ταυτα Ι03> 104. 125 
 αναγκαιότατα (αΰτά τά) 92, 122 
 αναισθησία, αναίσθητοι, 33» 37» 93 
 άναΧαβεΐν 120 
 
 άvaXyησίa, άvάXyήτοι, 33» 37 
 
 aW relate especially to the notes. 
 
 av after comma 11; ά'ν w. all past tenses 
 of indie. 30 
 άναπνεΟσαι 139 
 άνα φορά 157 
 άνέδην ι5 
 άνευ, besides, 63 
 άντανεΧείν 163 
 αντί, rather than, 79 
 άντίδοσις 235» 236 
 
 άντωνού μένος (conative), bidding, 168 
 
 άνω καθητο (in the Pnyx) 124 
 
 άνω καί κάτω διακυκών 8ο 
 
 άξιώ, judge, 1795 άξιώ καί δέομαι π, 32. 
 
 άξιοΰσα as impf. 142 
 αξίωμα 111 
 άπηντηκώς ig 
 άπΧώς 215 
 
 από βωμού φέρειν φηφον 99 
 άπο ποιας αρχής; ΙΙ2 
 άποΧύσασθαι 42 
 άποΧωΧέναι ποΧΧάκις 155 
 άπομάττων 182 
 άπόνοια and μανία 174 
 άποπεφεχτγότα 158 
 άπόρρητα 89, go 
 άποσιώπησις g, 24» 139 
 άποστοΧεΐς 78 
 
 άπόστοΧος and άποστεΧΧω 58, 77 
 
 άπόφασις (of Areopagus) 98, 99 » 100 
 
 άποφηφισις and άποφηφίζομαι g 6 , gy 
 
 άρονραΐος Ο ίνόμαος 169 
 
 άρρητα 8g, go 
 
 άρχη καί κατάστασις 133 
 
35 » 
 
 GREEK INDEX. 
 
 άρχιτέκτων (of theatre) 29 
 
 as μεν...άς δέ 54 
 
 ασφαΧώς δονΧενειν 144 
 
 άτιμώσαντες 59 
 
 άττης ύής 183 
 
 άτυχηθέντα 150, 151 
 
 avTeTrayye\Tov$ έθεΧοντάς §2 : cf. 7 1 
 
 αύτόματος θάνατο s 145 
 
 avTOTpayuios πίθηκος l6g 
 
 αυτόν, on the spot, 78 
 
 αύτόχειρ 201 
 
 άφαιρεΐσθαι (conative) 17, 146 
 άφορμάς 164 
 
 Β 
 
 βαδίζω ίο, 46, 186 
 
 βακτηρία 149 
 
 βαρείς 2 2 
 
 βάσανος 98 
 
 Β άτταΧος 131 
 
 βοάν 25. βοή,ς ’έχων 59 
 
 βέΧτιστα πράττειν 177 
 
 βεΧτίω καί έκ βεΧτιόνων 14 
 
 βΧασφημία and βΧασφημω 14, 67, 8g 
 
 βούΧει θώ; 130, 13 r 
 
 βουΧομένιρ τινί έστιν τ ς 
 
 Γ 
 
 yεyεvημένον εΐναι 200 
 7 ενόμενον νν. ψήφισμα 130 
 ytppa (τα) 123 
 
 yίyvεσθaι, genuine in § 13ο 8 , 96 
 yιyvόμεvov (το), quota, 75 
 7 ράμματα 94 
 
 7 ραμματείον Χηξιαρχικόν q 6 , 97 
 ypaμμaτεύειv 184 
 ypaμμaτoκύφωv 148 
 
 7 ραφήν (or δίκην) διώκειν 177· — έΧεΐν g. 
 
 ypaφή in narrower sense 174 
 7 ράφω, propose, enact, 12, 45, 212. ypd- 
 φομαι (mid.), indict, 18, 60, 86, 177. 
 yέypaμμaι and γραφήν pass, of both 
 7 ράφω and ypάφoμaι 45, 46, 62, 85, 
 86, 158. ^/ράφειν παράνομα and 7 ρά- 
 φεσθαι παρανόμων ι8, 86 
 
 Δ 
 
 δeΐyμa 205 
 δεΧεαξομένων 39 
 
 δευτέρου κηpύyμaτoς 6ο; cf. 86 
 
 δήμος used for Heliastic court 17 
 
 δημοτικός 12, 89 
 
 διά υμάς αυτούς (cond.) 41 
 
 διά τούτους ούχ'ι πεισθέντας 31 (cf. 37) 
 
 δι ών and δι' οϋς $2 
 
 διαδικασία 235 
 
 διαιτηταί 128 
 
 διακονία 146 
 
 διαμαρτύρομαι 38 
 
 δια με μετρημένη ημέρα 103 
 
 διασύρω 27, 9 2 » ι $6, 221, 226 
 
 διατεΧω w. participle 7» 119 
 
 διατύ πωσις 122 
 
 διαψήφισις and διαψηφίζομαι g 6, 97 
 διδάσκειν y ράμματα 94 
 διδόναι, έδίδοσαν, offered, 74> 75 
 δ^εν ύμάς 64 
 δίκαιον ήν, we ought, 19 
 δίκαιος εΐναι (personal), 11, 43· δίκαια 
 12 , ι 4 
 
 δικαιότερα άξιουν 154 
 
 δίκας έπάyειν m, ιΐ 2 , 174» 224 
 
 διωβεΧία 29 
 
 δοκιμασία 187, ι88 
 
 δόξαν, εύνοιαν 66 
 
 δύναμαι, ellipsis of w. cl>s and superb, 179, 
 180 
 
 δύναμις 38, 78 (w. refer.), δυνάμεις 164 
 
 δυναστεία 51, \go, 225 
 
 δνοΐν θάτερον (without verb) 103, 104 
 
 δνοΐν όβοΧοΐν (εν τοΐν) 2g 
 
 δύσκοΧον 127 
 
 Ε 
 
 έyyράφεσθαι (εις δημότας) 184 
 έyκXήμaτa έταράχθη H2 
 ey κώμια 146 · 
 
 ’έyvωσμaι always passive 162 
 έθεΧοντής 52, j ι 
 
 ει (or η) in 2nd pers. sing. mid. 86 
 (w. refer.) 
 
 εί w. εστι, ήν, and άν έχοι 135 
 εί w. fut. ind. and εάν w. subj. compared 
 127. εί w. opt. and εάν w. subj. com¬ 
 pared 109, JIO 
 
 et 7’ έy ραφεν (for εί yέy ραφεν) 57 
 εί δοκοίη.. .ούδέν έστι 23 
 
GREEK INDEX. 
 
 359 
 
 et εϊποιμι καί εΐπον 105 
 €t Επεχείρησ av 72 
 
 Επεχείρουν, ούκ αν έπιτιμήσειε 146 
 ειμαρμένης θάνατος 145 
 εϊνεκα 87, 107, 127 
 €t7re λέ~γων 42 
 
 €i’s την Επιούσαν Πι/λαίαχ/ 113 
 εις τον νουν Εμβάλλεσθαι 51 
 εις τούς συκοφάντας ά“γειν 8ι 
 εισαγγελία and είσα^έλλειν 17, 335 
 εισφορά 18ο 
 
 εϊτε...είτε (after article) 22 
 
 εκ παντός του χρόνου 2 7, 5°> 1 44 
 
 Εκνίφει 105 
 
 Εκπίπτειν 187 
 
 Έλευσίί/άδβ 128 
 
 ελλεβορίζεις 88 
 
 'Ελληνικά, οικεία, and ξενικά 217. Ελλτ;- 
 νικάς πράξεις 46 
 έμβεβηκώς 173 
 Εμβρόντητε 170 
 ’Έμπουσα 95 
 ei> μερίδι 127 
 «V οΰ δέοντι 98 
 ex' χερσιν Έχειν ι6ο 
 ενδοξότατα απάντων $ο 
 Ενειστήκει 102 
 ένην (personal) 135 
 Ένθρυπτα 184 
 ενόσουν (figurative) 39 
 ένστάς 6 3 
 
 ενταυθ' άπηντηκας; gi 
 έξ άμάξης 89 
 εξ ών ζής 141 
 
 έξαιτονμενος 224 ; έξητούμην %6 
 έξαίφνης (τό γ’) ΙΓ 4 
 
 Εξετάζεσθαι and Εξέτασις 125 and 126 (w. 
 
 references), 194* 217» 22 3 
 εξετασμός (rare) 19 
 Εξήρκει, satis erat , 139 
 έξίσταμαι w. acc. and dat. 222 
 εξόδους πεζάς 72 
 Εξούλης δίκη 2%6 
 Εξω δντων 153 
 έόρακα (not εώρ.) 49» 1 35 
 έξώλεις καί προώλεις 2 20 
 Επαγγειλάμενος 8ι 
 Επαχθείς 93 
 
 έπέδωκα 8ι 
 Επεζήτησε Cj8 
 
 επειδάν w. aor. subj. 39» 4 ° 
 
 Επειδή w. plupf. and aor. 26, 37 
 Έπειτα (without δέ) after πρώτον μεν 8, 
 21 
 
 Επεξειργάσατο 104 
 επερωτήσω 63 
 Επήνεσεν 8ι 
 Επήραμαι 105 
 
 Επήρεια and επηρεάζω 16, 17» tor, 223 
 
 επηρτημενών 22J 
 
 Επ’ άληθείας ούδεμιάς 20 
 
 επ' Ελπίσιν 64 
 
 Επί τής άληθείας ι6ο 
 
 Επί τοΐς συμβάσιν 140, 198, 199 
 
 Επί χρήμασι 39 
 
 Επιδόσεις 125 (cf. Επέδωκα) 
 
 Επιμονή (Hermog.) 48 
 Επιστάτης του ναυτικού 9 / 1 e '· τ ^ ν πρ^' 
 τάνεων 122; Ε. των προέδρων 257» 258 
 Επιτίμια 19. Επιτίμια (τά) ι8 
 Επιτείχισμα and Επιτειχισμός 53> 62 
 Ερρωσθαι φράσας 113 
 Έστιν οπού (temporal) 24 
 Εστί προς ηδονήν ίο 
 Έστω ~γάρ 194 
 
 Έτερος of Alexander —Έτεροι of the Mace¬ 
 donians 223, 225. Έτερον = άλλότριον 
 32. έτέμιρ δτιρ ig. Έτερος Xoyos ου- 
 τος 38 
 
 εϋθυναι 79» 8°—86, 90· εύθύνας Επεση- 
 μαίνεσθε 175 
 
 εύνοια 7, Ι3> Ι2 6 (see note), 191» 220, 
 224, 225 
 
 εϋνους 140, 205 
 εύοΐ σαβοΐ 183 
 ευπροσώπους 111 
 ευσέβεια 8 
 Εφ' αυτού 159 
 Εφάμιλλος 223 
 
 Εφεστηκότα ( κίνδυνον ) 128 (w. references) 
 Έφυ^γον κακόν, εύρον άμεινον 182 
 Εχρήν, Έδει, etc., not implying unreal 
 condition 48 (w. refer.) 
 εχων w. διατελώ 7 
 εωλοκρασία \2 
 Έως (final) 31 
 
360 
 
 GREEK INDEX . 
 
 Z 
 
 ^Xos 87, 155, r 9 r 
 ζώντω v καί δντων 54 
 
 Η 
 
 V (or et) in 2nd pers. sing. mid. 86 
 
 ήθος, ήθη 78, 82, ι 44 , 193 
 
 ηλικία, (οί έν) 128 
 
 ήμελλεν 125, 1 36 
 
 ήν...απεσταλμένη (not plupf.) 25 
 
 ην, ήκ€, κατείληττται (tenses) 122, 123 
 
 Θ 
 
 θέαν κατανεΐμαι 28, 2 9 
 
 θεατροπώλης and θεατρώνης 28 
 
 θεός masc. and fem. (ή θεός, for Athena) 7 
 
 θεριστάς 42 
 
 θιάσους 183 
 
 θεώρημα 52 
 
 θόλος 122 
 
 θρασυνομένιρ ιοο 
 
 I 
 
 ίαμβε^ράφος and iaμβειoφάyoς 103 
 ϊδιαι καί δημόσιαι δίκαι 149 
 ιδίων (άττό των) 89 
 ιδιωτών 39 
 
 ίερομνήμονες ι ίο, 287, 338 
 ικέτηρία (sc. ράβδος) 77 
 ϊνα w. perf. subj. 129, 130 
 ίτττΓοτρόφος 223 
 
 κ 
 
 καθ' υμών 154 
 καθαιρώσιν (άν φήφοι) ι6ΐ 
 κάθαρμα 93 
 καθυφεϊναι 77 
 
 καί expr. parallelism 11, 45, 47 
 κακα-γ-γελεϊν ι88 
 κακία 22 (w. refer.), 52, 209 
 κακοήθης 15 
 
 Καλαμίτης (ήρως) 9 4> Essay VI. 
 καλώς ττοιεΐν 163 
 κάμνοντες, patients , 169 
 κατακλυσμόν \ν. των ττραμμάτων 152 
 καταλιθώσαντες 145 
 καταλύω 59 
 κατατυχεΐν 129 
 καταχειροτονία 240 
 
 κατη-γορία and κατηγορώ 13, ι8, ι 9 , 89 
 
 κατορθώ w. accus. 199 
 
 Κ εφάλου (τό καλόν) 176 
 
 Κέων, τάς (for Κλβώι/α?) 68 
 
 κίναδος i 6 g 
 
 κιττοφόρος 183, 184 
 
 κλέμμα 30 
 
 κοινός 189 
 
 κομίσασθαι χάριν 83 
 
 κρατηρίζων 182 
 
 κύκλιρ (τα) 68 
 
 Λ 
 
 λαγώ βίος 186 
 λαρυ~^^ίζων 205 
 λέyει and άvayιyvώσκει 28 
 λεύκη 183 
 λησταί 162, 163 
 
 λητoυpyίa and λητoυpyώ 73, 75 ’ 188 
 λoyιστaί 84, 85, 162 
 λόyov διδόναι (or λαβεΐν ) 13, 48 
 λoyov έκ λόyoυ λέyωv 219 
 λόγοι» κρίσις ι6θ 
 
 λοιδορία and λοιδορεΐσθαι ΐ2, 14, 15, 19, 
 89, ιοί 
 λοινόν ήν 25 
 
 Μ 
 
 μακράν (εις) 33 
 μανία and άττόνοια 174 
 μάραθος, λεύκη 183 
 Μ αραθώνι, locative, 147 
 μασχαλίζω 2θ8 
 
 μεyaλoφυχίa and μεyaλόxf/υχoς 51 
 μεθημερινοί yάμoι 94 
 μέλλοντος λέyειv gg, 100 
 μέρει or μερίδι (εν) 127, 205 
 μέρος (τό, or τό πέμντον) των ψήφων 74, 
 r 58 , ΐ 75 > ι88 
 
 μεστοί του συνεχώς λέyovτoς 2ΐ6 
 
 μεταθέσθαι 128 
 
 μεταξύ (τον μ. χρόνον) 26, 27 
 
 μέτριος 14, gz 
 
 μέχρι...άφ' ής 50 
 
 μέχρι τούτου έως 40 
 
 μη μεταδοίεν (Σ) 64 
 
 μηδέν έξελέyχεσθaι $g 
 
 Μηι> ay ύρτης 181 
 
GREEK INDEX. 
 
 S 61 
 
 μήνυσις 97 
 
 μήτ" 1 άν ιρηθη ρηθήναι ΐόο 
 'Μητρα^ΰρτης ι8ι 
 Μ ητριρον ιο 6 
 
 μικρού, almost, 112. μικρού δεΐν ι go 
 μικροψυχία igo, 196 
 μισθωτός 43 
 
 μνησικακεΐν 66 ; as active 7° 
 
 Μυσών λεία 54 
 
 Ν 
 
 ναύκληρος, figure of, 137 
 νεανίας ιοο, 219 
 νεβρίδων 182 
 
 νομιξόμενα (τα) φέρειν 170 
 νυν, as it was, 114 
 
 νυν and τότε, not temporal, 138, 142, 168 
 
 Ο 
 
 Ο ινόμαος 131, 169 
 
 οϊχομαι νν. partic. 3 6 , 49 
 
 ό'λα (τα) 2g, 195» 21 5 
 
 όλεθρος 9- 5 93 
 
 ολίγου δεΐν 22 
 
 ομοίως , quite as zuell, 30 
 
 όμωρόφιον 200 
 
 07 τηνίκα w. unreal cond. 18 
 
 οπλίτην δ’ ιππέα 165 
 
 οπλοις (τοΐς μεν) 62 
 
 οπλοις κατεστρέφετο 171 
 
 οποί πεμφθείην and οποί έπέμφθην 38, 170 
 
 όποιουσδήποτε (rel.) 108 
 
 όποστοσονν 217 
 
 όρα μη ης 9 J 
 
 ορθήν (την) sc. οδόν 8ο 
 
 όρθώς ’έχον 17 
 
 όρκον άπολαμβάνειν and άποδοΰναι 26, 27 
 όρμεΐν έπι της αυτής (sc. άγκυρας) ig6 
 δς συνήδειν $ο 
 
 οτι before direct quotation 355 12 ^ 
 
 οτου δήποτε ένεκα 24 
 
 ότιρ άπέκειτο 140 
 
 ού ydp ; 100 
 
 ου...ένταυθα go, gi 
 
 oύδ , αν εΐς 5 2 
 
 ούδ ’ ίγγόϊ 16, 69 
 
 ουδ’ όσια 155 
 
 οΰδ’ ούτως \^2 
 
 ούδαμοΰ (temporal) 195 24 
 
 ουδέ (sc. μόνον) 8 , 66 , 77 
 
 ούδέν αν ήν (άν required) 40 
 
 ούκ άν έπρέσβευσαν (iter.) 157 
 
 ούκ ήν.,.εί μη ποιήσειε 107 
 
 οϋκουν έπί γ’ οΐς 217 
 
 οϋκουν ούδέ ig 6 
 
 ουσία and τίμημα 7 5 > J 8 o 
 
 οϋτε, οϋτε, οϋτε, after οΰ 17 
 
 οϋτω μέχρι πόρρω 120 
 
 ούχ όπως ..αλλά 96 
 
 ούχ όρας; and όρας; 164, 188, 196 
 
 οφθαλμόν έκκόπτεσθαι 50 
 
 Π 
 
 παιδαγωγεί^ 181 
 πάντα ήν (τινι) 37 
 πάντα τα πολλά 139 
 πανταχοΰ, anywhere, 59 
 πάντων, anything, 11 
 παρά τούτο y0yove 164 
 πapayεyραμμένοι νόμοι 8 ο 
 παράκλητοι ιο6 
 παραπρεσβεία 103, 333 
 παράσημος ι 6g 
 παραστήσαι 8, 1 3 
 παραταξάμενοι 14.J, Ι54> 200 
 παρεδΰετο 58 
 
 παρεθέντα and προεθέντα 213 
 παρεΐαι 183 
 
 παρελθεΐν ώσπερ νέφος 134 
 παρηκολονθεις 119* παρηκολουθηκότα 125 
 παρών 24, 6ο, 84, 158, 168 
 πάσα ή οικουμένη 41 
 7 τατριρος (Απόλλων) 105 
 πείραν διδόναι 77’ r 39 
 
 πέμπτον μέρος των ψήφων ι 88 (cf. μέρος) 
 
 πεπαυσθαι 188 
 
 περιβαλλόμενος 163 
 
 περίδειπνον 2οι 
 
 περιείρ·γασμαι 54 
 
 περιελθεΐν ιιι, ιΐ2 
 
 7 τερίεστιν 93· περιεΐναι χρήματά τιρ 161 
 περιιδεΐν w. pres, or aor. partic. or 
 infin. 49 
 περιουσίας (έκ) g 
 περίτριμμα ά-γοράς g2 
 πλησίον δείξας r 2 7 
 πλίνθοι 2ΐο 
 
3 6 2 
 
 GREEK INDEX. 
 
 πόθεν ; 40 (w. refer.), 42, 105. πόθεν... 
 
 άξιωθέντι; 42, 93 
 7 tolQ} and πράττω io, 48, 172 
 7 Γολιτεΐαι (Aristotle) 50 
 πολιτεύεσθαι io2 
 πολίτευμα ioo 
 πολίτικά ταΐς πόλεσι 172 
 πολίτικη καί κοινή 2ΐ8 
 πολιτικόν 17 
 πολλιρ ρεοντι ιοο 
 
 πομπεία and πομπεύειν 15, 89, 9 °* Cf. 
 έξ άμάξης 
 
 πονησάντων σκευών 137 
 πράξις, fortune, 224· πράξιν καί συμ- 
 μαχίαν 24 
 
 πράττω and ποιώ ίο, 48» ΐ7 2 
 7 Γ ρό τής αλήθειας 117 
 
 προαίρεσις and προαιρεΐσθαι ι6, 26, 46, 
 
 66, 78, 196, 197» 2 ° 2 , 2Ι 6> 221, 224· 
 
 προαίρεσις πολιτείας 136 
 προβάλλεσθαι ελπίδα, συμμαχίαν, etc. 69, 
 
 139, 2 ΐί, 2 ΐ 2 
 
 προβληθείς no, 199 
 προβολή 240 
 
 προβούλευμα (of Senate) 13 
 προβουλεύω 43» r2 + 
 πρόεδροι 124 
 
 προεθέντα and παρεθεντα 213 
 προείλεσθε 99 
 προεξειλε-γμενα 165 
 προθεσμία go, gi 
 προΐεσθαι 5Γ, 55* πρόοιντο 178 
 προκινδυνεύω 147 
 προπίνω 2ο8 
 προς ιστορίαν 107 
 προ? rm "γί“γνεσθαι 127 
 προσάχειν εις εκκλησίαν 28 
 προσελθεΐν τιρ δήμιρ 17 
 προσέχετε τον νουν 129. προσσχόντες τ. 
 νουν 125 
 
 προσθεμένην 144· προσθέσθαι ι6ι 
 
 πρόσχημα 129 
 
 προτιθέναι 191 
 
 προϋλαβε καί κατεσχε 47 
 
 πρόφασις ι6θ 
 
 προώλεις 226 
 
 τ τυλά-γοροι no, II ι, 339 
 
 Πυλαία 109 
 
 Ρ 
 
 ρεπών επί το λήμμα 2og, 210 
 ρήχματα καί σπάσματα 141 
 ρήματα μιμούμενος 164 
 ρητά καί άρρητα 8g 
 ρητόρων ά-γών ι6θ 
 
 Σ 
 
 σαλπικτής 123 
 σεμνολό^γου 98 
 σεμνότης (of Aesch.) 33 
 σεμνώς 33 (w. refer.), 130 
 σίτος επείσακτος 62 
 σίτωνης ι 74 
 σκαιός 171 
 σκευαχωχείν 34 
 σκηπτός 137 
 σοφίζεται 161 
 σπάσματα 141 
 σπερμολό"γος g2 
 στρεβλώσαντες g8 
 στρεπτούς 184 
 συ-γκαθήμενοι ιο6 
 συχκρούω 22, 120 
 συκοφάντης 134, 135 
 σύμβολον 149 
 
 συμπαραταγμένοι τάς πρώτας 154 
 
 συμπνευσάντων άν (not -σόντων) ι 
 
 σύνδικος gS 
 
 συνειλοχώς 2ΐ6 
 
 συνεξέδωκα 189 
 
 συντελής 75 
 
 συσκευωρουμαι 182 
 
 συστεΐλαι 172 
 
 σφετεριζό μένος 53, 7 1 
 
 σωτηρίας (gen. of purpose) 7 2 
 
 Τ 
 
 τά ολα 146 
 τα πρός με ι8 
 τάν, ώ 2ΐ8 
 
 τάξει (εν) 17, 48, 22 3 
 τάξιν έλιπον 125 
 ταράσσειν (active) 112, 114 
 τειχίζω and τειχισμός 2ΐο 
 τειχοποιοί, board of, 82, 3 2 7 
 τετύφωμαι 15 
 τι έδύνατο 26 
 τί κακόν ούχι; 41 
 
GREEK INDEX. 
 
 3 6 3 
 
 τίθημι 178; w. infin. in or. obi. 178. 
 
 νόμον τιθείς (or θείς) i2 
 τίμημα and ουσία 75, i8o 
 τιμησαίμην άν (w. gen.) 152 
 τίμησή 103 
 
 tls ay ορεύειν βούλεται; 124 
 tls ήν (w. aor. partic.) 63 
 rts τίνος; 55 
 
 τό 5 ’ αϊτών (without cm) 78 
 τό δέ (without τό μέν) io,s 
 τό και τό ι70 
 
 τό τη πόλει (or τής πόλεως) συμφέρον 30 
 τολμήσαι 5 ι 
 
 τοσούτιρ (or τοσούτου) δέω 8 ο 
 του πότε δει βαδίζειν 129 
 τούς πολλούς λόγους 104 
 τραγιρδία 93 
 
 τραγιρδοΐς καινούς (temporal) 44 ( Ύρα-φή) 
 
 τραγψδώ 17 
 
 τριακόσιοι, οί 74» Ι2 5 
 
 τριηραύλης 95 
 
 τριταγωνιστής 148, 185 
 
 τρυτάνη 209 
 
 τυγχάνω w. pf. partic. 90 
 τυμπανιστρία 198 
 τυχόν , perhaps, 158 
 τφ διαφθαρήναι ή μή 172 
 των δ’ (without μέν) 88 
 των καθ' υμάς 67 
 των φόντων κακών ιι7 
 
 Υ 
 
 ύδατι, εν τω εμιρ 103 
 νής άττης 183 
 υπακούσατε 107 
 
 υπάρχω 8, ίο, 26, 4 7» 59» 67, 7 2 » 73» 
 8ο, ιοί, 126, 128, 165, 188, 207. 
 των υπαρχόντων έκατέροις ιο 8 , 109· 
 ύπήρχεν w. infin. like £δβι etc. 214» 
 
 215 
 
 ύπείλημμαι 190 
 
 υπέρ and περί 14 (w. refer.), 20 
 
 υπέρ των εχθρών βεβουλευμένοι 166 
 
 υπέρ υμών κ.τ.λ. 8 
 
 ύπερηφάνως I’JJ 
 
 υπεύθυνος 134 
 
 ύποκρίνεσθαι 19, 201 
 
 ύπομνήμαθ' όράν $2 
 
 ύποσκελίξ'ειν ιοί 
 ύπουλος ησυχία 215 
 ύπωμοσίμ, εν 74» 75 
 ύφορώμενοι 37 
 
 Φ 
 
 φή τις; go 
 
 φθόνου δίκη 88 
 
 φιλιππισμός 206 
 
 φιλονεικία 105 
 
 φοιτάν 187 
 
 φορά πραγμάτων 191 
 
 φρουρά (Spartan) 67 
 
 φρουροί (Athenian) 128 
 
 φύεσθαι κατά πάντων 22 
 
 φυλαττόμενος τό λυπήσαι 181, 219 
 
 φωνάς, πάσας άφήκε 138 
 
 φωνή δακρύειν 201 
 
 X 
 
 χάρακα 63 
 
 χείμαρρους 114 
 
 χοίνικας και ξύλον 94 
 
 χρημάτων σύνταξις 165 
 
 χρήν προσδοκάν w. two protases 138. 
 
 χρήν and χρήν άν 138 
 χρηστέ (ironical) 222 
 χρήται τφ λόγιρ 177 
 
 Ψ 
 
 ψήφον από βωμού φέρειν gg 
 φυχρότης 179 
 
 Ω 
 
 ώμολογεΐτ ’ άν ι8 
 ών βεβίωκεν 95 
 ών ’έτυχεν 95 
 
 ώνεΐται όπως μή άπιμεν 31 
 ώνούμενος (conative) 173 
 ώς w. partic. (not cond.) 194 
 ώς άν ’έχητ ’ εύνοιας 194 
 ώς εις ελάχιστα 172 
 ώϊ ετέρως 6 1, 150, 215 
 ώσπερ (not conditional) 193» 194» ώσπερ 
 ούχ 2 26. ώσπερ άν εί ηγούμενοι 152 
 ώστε w. pres, and aor. infin. 51, 59; 
 w. perf. and pres, infin. 180; w. infin. 
 and άν 20, 21; w. indie. 32, 87. ώστε 
 ου w. infin. 198 
 
4 
 
 ENGLISH INDEX. 
 
 The references are made to pages. 
 
 A 
 
 j A by d os 212 
 Achaeans 166 
 
 Aeacus, Rhadamanthus, and Minos 92 
 Aegina 68 
 
 Aeschines: parentage and youth 93, 
 94 > 2 44 5 as clerk 184, 244; as actor 
 1 3 i 5 1 85, 244; opposes Philip w. 
 Eubulus 244, 245; at Megalopolis 
 245; envoy to Philip 247, 257, 264; 
 suit ag. Timarchus 333; rejected as 
 counsel in case of Delos 98, 99, 270; 
 supports Python 271 ; tried for τταρα- 
 ττρεσβεία and acquitted 336, 337; 
 speech at Delphi (339 b.c.) 287—290; 
 envoy (w. Demades) To Philip after 
 Chaeronea 297 ; indicts Ctesiphon 328, 
 trial of case 329, acquittal of Ctesi- 
 phon 331; voluntary exile 331; at 
 Rhodes 332 ; five periods of life (De- 
 mosth.) 187; his two brothers 221 
 
 Agesilaus 21 
 
 Aleuadae of Larissa, aided by Philip 40, 
 2 33 
 
 Alexander I. of Macedonia 143 
 
 Alexander the Great, born 231 ; at Chae¬ 
 ronea 294; destroys Thebes 36, 328; 
 demands Attic orators 36, 328; re¬ 
 ceives crowns from Athens 223 ; in¬ 
 vades Persia 328; dies at Babylon 305 
 
 Ambracia 171 
 
 Amphictyonic Council 109, hi, Essay 
 V. ; summoned by Philip in 346 B.c. 
 
 265; addressed by Aeschines 287— 
 290 
 
 Amphipolis 52, 230, 231, 248 
 Amphipolitan War 22, 231 
 Amphissa destroyed by Philip 294 
 Amphissian War stirred up by Aesch. 
 
 io 7 —117? Ir 9 > 287—290 
 Anacharsis 94, 340 
 Anacoluthon 91, 92 
 Anaxinus 101, 280 
 
 Antiphon condemned 96—98, 269, 270 
 Aphobetus, brother of Aesch. 221, 262 
 Aphobus 235, 236 
 Apollo, irarpipos of Athens 105 
 Arbela, battle of 225 
 Arbiters, public 128 
 Arcadians 21, 49 
 Areopagus 97, 98, 99, 270 
 Aristides 165 
 Aristodemus 23, 243 
 Aristoleos of Thasos 140 
 Aristonicus 60, 87, 159 
 Aristophon 53, 119, 157 
 Aristotle quoted 50, 51, 145, i 5 r, 193; 
 birth 234; tutor of Alexander 275; 
 in Athens in 330 b.c. 225 ; death 305 
 Aristratus, of Sicyon 41, 207; of Naxos 
 140 
 
 Armpitting, Ivittredge on 208 
 Artemisium 148 
 
 Assembly (Athenian), two meetings to 
 discuss peace in 346 b.c. 250—257 
 Athenian Confederacy (New) 230 
 
 l. 
 
 
ENGLISH INDEX. 
 
 365 
 
 Athens and Philip at war (340 B.c.) 
 282—284 
 
 Atrometus, father of Aesch. 93, 94, 95 
 Attic year 305—307 
 
 B 
 
 Boeotians, αναισθησία and άναΧ^ησία of 
 
 33 
 
 Byzantium 58, 62, 63, 64, 163, 230, 277, 
 282 
 
 c 
 
 Callias of Chalcis 59, 167, 274, 275, 278 ; 
 
 embassies to Pelopon. w. Demosth. 278 
 Callisthenes, decree of 34, 264 
 Callistratus, heard by Demosth. 71, 156 
 Cephalus 157, 176 
 Cephisophon 24, 56 
 Cersobleptes 171, 259, 278 
 Chaeronea, battle of 49, 170, 186, 294, 
 295 ; panic in Athens following 295 ; 
 measures of Hyperides, Lycurgus, and 
 Demosthenes after 295, 296; eulogy 
 of Dem. upon heroes of 199, 200, 299 
 Chares 108, 282, 283 
 Charidemus 83 
 
 Chersonese 58, 229 ; ravaging of 102 ; 
 
 Demosth. speech on 276 
 Chios 165, 230 
 Cirrha, plain of 1 r 1, 289 
 Clepsydra, 103 
 Climax, example of 130 
 Clitarchus of Eretria 274; killed 280 
 Collytus 131 
 Corcyra 165, 167 
 
 Corinthian War 67, 68, 69; battle of 
 Corinth 69 
 Corinthians 166 
 Cos 230 
 
 Cottyphus 113, 291 
 Cresphontes 131 
 
 Ctesiphon (envoy to Philip) 242, 247 
 Ctesiphon (defendant in case of the 
 Crown) 18, 45, 328 
 
 Curses in Senate and Assembly 95, 197 
 Cybele 18 r 
 Cyrsilus 144, 145 
 
 D 
 
 Decelean War 69 
 
 Delian contest at Delphi 90, 91, 98— 
 100 
 
 Delphi, temple of, pillaged by Phocians 
 232, 246; destroyed about 373 B.C., 
 rebuilt before 330 B.c. 287, 288. In¬ 
 scriptions recently found 265, 266, 287, 
 288. See Phocians 
 
 Demades, envoy to Philip 197, 199; 
 
 peace of 297, 298 
 
 Demomeles 159 
 
 Demosthenes : birth 234 ; father’s death 
 234; under guardians "235; consults 
 Isaeus 235 ; suit against Aphobus 235, 
 236; compelled to assume trierarchy 
 235, 2 36; suit ag. Onetor 236, 237; 
 voluntary trierarch 71 ; speeches ag. 
 Androtion, Leptines, Timocrates, and 
 Aristocrates 237, 324—326 ; on Sym- 
 mories and for Megalopolis 237; First 
 Philippic 46, 102, 206, 238, 241 ; 
 
 speech for Rhodians 238, 239 ; assault¬ 
 ed by Midias 239, 240, suit and speech 
 ag. Midias 240; Olynthiacs 241, 242; 
 twice Senator 26, 243, 257; envoy 
 to Philip 247; speech before Philip 
 249; 2nd embassy to Philip 257—261 ; 
 ransoms prisoners 259, 260; Second 
 Philippic 58, 102, 268, 269; arrests 
 Antiphon 269, 270; speech on the 
 Peace 267, 268 ; deputy to Amphict. 
 Council 270; opposes Python 270, 
 271; discusses Philip’s letter 273; in¬ 
 dicts Aeschines for παραπρβσββία Es¬ 
 say IV.; opposes Philip in Euboea 
 274; mission to Corinth and Achaea 
 275 ; speech on Chersonese 276; Third 
 Philippic 58, 276, 277 ; embassy to 
 Byzantium 277; embassies to Pelopon. 
 (w. Callias) and formation of league 
 ag. Philip 278, 279; frees Euboea 
 from tyrants 279, 280; arrests Ana- 
 xinus 280, 281 ; receives thanks and 
 crowns from Byzantium and Perinlhus 
 284 ; trierarchic reform 73—78, 285 ; 
 speech after seizure of Elatea 126— 
 
366 
 
 ENGLISH INDEX. 
 
 130, 292, 293 ; negotiations with Thebes 
 293 ; energy after Chaeronea 295, 296, 
 delivers eulogy on the fallen 199, 299 ; 
 speech on the Crown 299, Essays I. 
 and III. Later events (330—322 b.c.) 
 305. Death at Calauria 305 
 Dercylus 263 
 
 Dexileos, monument of, w. inscription 
 69 
 
 Diondas 158, 174 
 Dionysiac Theatre 28, 29 
 Diopithes 53 
 Diotimus 83 
 
 Documents in text of Dem. 351—355 
 Dodona, oracle of 178 
 Dorpfeld on brick walls of Troy, Athens, 
 etc. 210, 211 
 
 Dorpfeld and Reisch on Dionys. Theatre 
 28, 29 
 
 Doriscus 27, 52 
 
 E 
 
 Elatea, seizure of 106, 113, 114, 119, 
 122, 292 
 
 Eleusis, brick walls of 211 
 Embassies of Athens to Philip (346 b.c.): 
 First 248—250; Second 257—261; 
 Third (to Thermop.) 262, 263, returns 
 to Athens 263, sent again to Philip 
 264 
 
 Empusa 95, 96 
 Epaminondas 21, 70, 229 
 Epigram on heroes of Chaeronea (not 
 genuine) 202—204 
 Epilogue, Aristotle on 209, 313 
 Euboea 53, 54, 58, 68, 165, j 66, 212, 
 229, 239, 274, 279, 280 
 Eubulides, speech against 97 
 Eubulus 24, 53, 119, 238 ; w. Aeschines 
 against Philip 244, 245 
 Eudicus 40 
 Eueratus 243 
 Euphraeus 274 
 
 Euripides: Hec. 1—3 quoted 188; Te- 
 lephus 54 
 Eurybatus 23 
 
 Eurydice (Philip’s mother) 249 
 Euthycrates 40, 270 
 
 Foreign policy of Athens 46, 217 
 Fortune 147, 215; of Demosth. 190— 
 192 ; of Athens 177—179 
 
 G 
 
 Gildersleeve cited 21, 127 
 Glaucothea, mother of Aesch. 95, 18 τ 
 Glaucus 222 
 
 Grain imported by Athens 62 
 Greek League formed by Philip 298 
 
 H 
 
 Haliartus, battle of 68 
 Halonnesus 52, 271—273, 281 
 Halus and Halians 248, 253, 260 
 Harmosts and Decarchies of Lysander 
 67, 68 
 
 Hegemon 199 
 
 Hegesippus 271—273 
 
 Heliastic oath 8, 12, 88 
 
 Hellespont 54, 163, 168, 282—284 
 
 Hero Καλαμίτης and Hero Physician 94,. 
 
 Essay VI. 
 
 Hieronymus 245 
 
 Hyperides 60, 87, 99, 159, 173, 199,, 
 278, 280, 295 
 
 I 
 
 Iatrocles 243 
 Illyrians 38, 171 
 
 Infin. w. τό 8, 9, 61 ; in or. obi. 9 
 Ionic and Attic alphabets 86 
 Iphicrates 70, 248 
 Isaeus 235, 237 
 Ischander 245 
 
 K 
 
 Kings of Thrace 171, 277, 278 
 
 L 
 
 Lasthenes 40 
 Leucadians 167 
 
 Leuctra, battle of 21, 70. “Leuctric 
 insolence” of Thebes 21, 70 
 Long walls of Athens destroyed 68 
 Lycinus indicts Philocrates 242 
 Lycophron of Pherae 233 
 Lycurgus (Athens) 28, 295, 296 
 
ENGLISH INDEX. 
 
 367 
 
 Lynceus, verse of 189 
 Lysander’s governments 67, 68 
 Lysides condemned 186, 213 
 
 M 
 
 Mantinea 21 ; battle of 70, 229; walls 
 of 211 
 
 Manuscripts of oration on the Crown 
 Essay VII. ; stichometry in mss. of 
 Demosth. Essay VIII. 
 
 Marathon, heroes of 147 
 
 Mausolus of Caria 230 
 
 Megalopolis 21, 70, 229, 237, 245, 268 
 
 Megara 53, 54, 165, 166, 217, 269 
 
 Melantus 174 
 
 Messene 21, 70, 229, 268 
 
 Methone 51, 231 
 
 Midias 180, 235, 239, 240, 287 
 
 Munychia 77 
 
 Mysians 54 
 
 N 
 
 Nausicles 82, 83 
 Neoptolemus 83; the actor 243 
 
 o 
 
 Oath by the heroes of Marathon 147 
 Oenomaus 131. Oen. apovpaios 169 
 Olympias (Philip’s queen) 101, 275, 280 
 Olynthiacs of Demosth. 241, 242 
 Olynthus and Olynthiac confederacy 
 231, 240, 241. Olynthus captured by 
 Philip 243 
 Onetor 236, 237 
 Onomarchus 232, 233 
 Orators demanded by Alexander 36, 328 
 Oreus and Eretria freed 58, 279, 280 
 Oropus 71 
 
 P 
 
 Peace of Demades 64, 297, 298 
 Pella 51, 248, 259 
 Peparethus ravaged 52, 281 
 Perf. subj., opt., and infin. 24, 29, 30, 
 
 33 » 39 » I2 9 > * 3 ° 
 
 Perillus (of Megara) 41, 269 
 
 Perinthus besieged by Philip 62, 64, 281, 
 282 
 
 Peroration 226, 313 
 Phalaecus 246 
 Phalinus 71 
 Phayllus 233, 246 
 Philammon 222 
 
 Philip II. of Macedon: succeeds to the 
 throne 230; takes Amphipolis 231 ; 
 Amphipolitan War w. Athens 231 ; 
 founds Philippi, captures Pydna, Poti- 
 daea, and Methone 231; interferes in 
 Thessaly 233; aggressions upon Athens 
 238; intrigues in Euboea 239; attacks 
 Olynthiac confederation 240 ; takes 
 Olynthus 241, 243; proposes peace 
 w. Athens 242, 243; receives 1st em¬ 
 bassy 248, 249; sends embassy to 
 Athens 250; receives 2nd embassy 
 259, 260; march to Thermopylae 260, 
 261; surrender of Phocians to 263, 264 ; 
 celebrates victory in Sacred War 264, 
 265; summons Amphictyonic Council, 
 and is made a member 265 ; celebrates 
 Pythian games 267 ; asks recognition 
 of Athens as an Amphictyon 267; at 
 peace w. Athens (346—340 b.c.) 268; 
 intrigues in Peloponnesus 268, 269; 
 sends Python to Athens 270 ; sends 
 letter to Athens 271; supports tyrants 
 in Euboea 274; enters Epirus 275 ; sub¬ 
 jugates Thessaly 275; makes Aristotle 
 Alexander’s tutor 275 ; attacks Cher¬ 
 sonese 276; dispute about Halonnesus 
 271, 272, 273, 281; ravages Pepare¬ 
 thus 281 ; besieges Perinthus and By¬ 
 zantium 281, 282 ; letter to Athens, de¬ 
 claring war 283; Scythian expedition 
 284, 285; made general of Amphic- 
 tyons in Amphissian War 291, 292; 
 seizes Elatea 292 ; destroys Amphissa 
 293, 294 ; proposes peace w. Athens 
 294 ; victory at Chaeronea 295 ; 
 drunken revels after battle 200, 201, 
 297 ; sends Demades to Athens 297 ; 
 peace of Demades 297 ; assassinated 
 303» 3 28 
 
 Philistides at Oreus 274; killed 279 
 Philochares, brother of Aesch. 221 
 Philocrates, peace of 242—257 
 
3 68 
 
 ENGLISH INDEX. 
 
 Philomelus 232 
 Phlius 21 
 
 Phocian (Sacred) War 20, 22, 33, 231, 
 232, 267 
 
 Phocians plunder temple of Delphi 232, 
 246; send envoys to Philip 259; sur¬ 
 render Thermopylae to Philip 34, 263; 
 punishment of 265, 266; records of 
 payments of line 265 ; remnant of, mur¬ 
 dered at Elis 269 
 
 Phocion 108, 197, 199, 239, 282, 294, 
 297, 298 
 
 Phrynon of Rhamnus 242 
 Pindar quoted 208 
 Pluperfect in -eiv and -η 24, 25 
 Plutarchus of Eretria 239 
 Pnyx 124 
 
 Polybius 49, quoted 207 
 Porthmus destroyed 274 
 Potidaea 52, 231 
 
 Prisoners ransomed by Demosth. 189 
 
 Property tax r8o 
 
 Proxenus 246, 247, 258 
 
 Prytanes, Proedri, etc. 123, 124 
 
 Pydna 52, 230, 231 
 
 Pythian games in 346 B.c. 267 
 
 Pythocles 199 
 
 Python at Athens 100, 270, 271 
 
 R 
 
 Rhythm 7 
 
 River battle 154, 293 
 
 s 
 
 Salamis 148. Ships in battle of 167 
 Scythian exped. of Philip 284, 285 
 Senate and Assembly summoned by Pry¬ 
 tanes 123, 124 
 Serrhium etc. 27, 52, 259 
 Simonides, epigram on heroes of Mara¬ 
 thon 204 
 
 Simus of Larissa 40 
 Solon i2, 178 
 Sosicles 174 
 
 Sparta invaded by Epaminondas 229 
 Statesman and συκοφάντης compared 134, 
 135 
 
 Subj. and fut. indie, contrasted 127; 
 subj. and opt. no 
 
 Symmories, leaders of 74, 125, 180, 236 
 Symmories, speech on 20, 46, 237 
 Synod of allies of Athens 24; resolution 
 of 253. 254, 257 
 
 T 
 
 Talent (Attic), modern value of 234 
 Taurosthenes of Chalcis 274 
 Telephus 54 
 Theagenes 211, 212 
 rhebes after Leuctra 70; feeling of 
 Demosth. towards 20; coolness of 
 Thebes and Thessaly towards Philip 
 in 339 b.c. 108, 286. Thebes in 340 
 b.c. 165 ; allied w. Athens in 339 
 B.c. 292, 293; Athenian army in 153, 
 154; destroyed by Alexander 20, 36, 
 328 
 
 Themison of Eretria 71 
 Theoric fund 81 
 
 Thermopylae, Philip checked at 31, 82, 
 83» 214, 233, 238, 241 ; surrender of, 
 by Phocians 34, 263 
 Theseum 94 
 
 Thrace, kings of 1 71, 277, 278 
 Thracian gold mines 28 
 Thrasybulus of Collytus 157 
 Thrasylochus 235 
 Timarchus, trial of 333, 334 
 Timolaus 40 
 Toxaris 94, Essay VI. 
 
 Triballi 38, 284, 285 
 Tribute of Athens 16^ 
 
 Trierarchs 71, 73, 75. Trierarchic reform 
 of Dem. 73—79 
 Tromes (Atrometus) 95 
 Troy, brick walls of 210, 21 r 
 
 w 
 
 War between Philip and Athens 22, 
 231 ; renewed in 340 B.c. 55, 56, 
 
 283, 284, 285 
 
 Winter battle ( 339 —33^ B.C.) 114, 155, 
 293 
 
 CAMBRIDGE : PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
5 c i€ net 
 
 s v S’ C>?n Ca 
 T A - 
 
’’s·' .* 
 
 . 
 
7 
 
 Π/-?5 
 
 «■ 
 
 
 
 L 
 
 <■ -1 
 
 Boston College Library 
 
 Chestnut Hill 67, Mass. 
 
 Books may be kept for two weeks unless a shorter 
 time is specified. 
 
 Two cents a day is charged for each 2-week book 
 kept overtime; 25 cents a day for each overnight 
 book. 
 
 If you cannot find what you want, inquire at the 
 delivery desk for assistance.