| 858. Oration against Demosthenes
Find an explanation of the colors displayed in the Greek text here. |
|
|---|---|
| Fr. (b) 18 x 7.7 cm. | Late second or early third century |
| Two fragments of an oration attacking Demosthenes, written on the verso of a second-century cursive document of which only a few letters from the ends and beginnings of lines are preserved. The exact position of Fr. (a), containing parts of six lines from the top of a column, in relation to Fr. (b) is not certain, but that the two fragments belong to the same column is most likely. If so Fr. (a) must on account of the recto be placed above the right side of Fr. (b) and comes from near the ends of the lines, but there is nothing to indicate how near l. 1 of Fr. (b) is to the top of the column. The script of the oration is a sloping uncial bearing a strong resemblance to the hand of 853, with which it may be regarded as contemporary. The ends of lines are lost throughout, and the margin is also broken at the beginnings, being only visible at l. 29, where ται seems to be the beginning of a line, though even that is not quite certain; in ll. 26-36 however, where the restorations hardly admit of doubt, it is clear that the interval between the end of one line and the beginning of the next does not exceed four or five letters. No lection-marks occur except a doubtful accent in l. 4, but there are several corrections (some due to the original scribe, others in a second hand), the text being very faulty. Where the fragment first becomes intelligible at l. 13, an unfavourable comparison is being instituted between Demosthenes and another orator, whose identity is uncertain, the point of the contrast being that Demosthenes had never himself taken part in active service. In l. 25 the subject changes, and the speaker criticizes Demosthenes for his behaviour when the news of the capture of Elatea reached Athens; this passage is clearly borrowed from the famous description of that crisis in De. Cor. 169 sqq., several of the phrases which Demosthenes there used being here actually placed in his mouth (ll. 25-9). The oration to which the fragment belonged therefore presupposes the existence of the De Corona which was composed after B.C. 330, but on the other hand the general situation impliedby our author seems to be the period between the capture of Elatea in 339 and the battle of Chaeronea in September 338, for since Demosthenes took part in the engagement the reproaches addressed to him in ll. 24-5 and 29-30 would be inapplicable at a later date. This inconsistency at once gives rise to the suspicion that our fragment belongs to a rhetorical exercise, not to a genuine oration whether of Demades or another philo-Macedonian orator, and several other considerations combine to leave no room for doubt as to the real character of the composition. The florid, jerky style, the use of δημηγόρος, a term foreign to Attic oratory, the exaggerated description of Demosthenes in l. 19 as holding a shield in one hand and a psephisma in the other, and still more the serious blunder with regard to Attic law which has crept into another passage (ll. 34-5) borrowed from the De Corona, are all quite incompatible with a contemporary of Demosthenes, and indicate that the oration is, like 216, a work of the Alexandrian school of rhetoric, and probably not earlier than the Christian era. We are indebted to Prof. U. von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff for several suggestions in the restoration and interpretation of this fragment. |
|
Fr. (b) |
Fr. (a) ]αν φων . [ ]οσου συμ[ ]υς τελ[ ]τουτον[ ]ον καθα[ ]τοισ . η[ ]ρι[ . . . . . |
| 13-38. 'Yet when he exhorted them to come to Thebes, he did not dispatch the rest and himself remain at home, but . . . he was the first to go out to fight. Let the same man be both orator and general, and let Demosthenes harangue with a shield in his hands as well as a decree. If Themistocles is the orator I will embark; let Pericles lead an expedition to Samos and I will sail; I will follow Tomides across the Peloponnese, if he marches through it; but how can I listen to Demosthenes, who has no breastplate, no spear, no sword, not even one inherited from his father? "Elatea has been captured," he said, "the prytaneis have broken off their meal; the owner of tents have left the market-place; some one is fetching the trumpeter." That was what we heard him say. Although Demosthenes had never yet heard the sound of a trumpet he was nevertheless terrifying you by these words and his description. The demos was seated on the hill, the boule had not yet deliberated about the crisis, and although the boule had not yet decided that Demosthenes should speak, when the herald made the proclamation and no one came forward he nevertheless (in violation of?) the laws said: "Do you not think that a loyal and a careful follower of events (is needed)?"' | |
13-4.The identity of this commander who marched to Thebes is obscure; there is no need for him to have been a contemporary of Demosthenes, for ll. 20-3 are quite general. Timotheus, as Wilamowitz remarks, would be a most suitable person to mention in this context, but he did not command at Thebes in B.C. 378, though as he was strategus at the time he may have been credited with having done so by the author of this oration. θ of θηβ[ας] has been corrected from β. 14.[του]τοκς: or perhaps [αυ]τοκς, in which case [επ]εμπεν must be read in l. 15. The initial lacuna throughout ll. 14-22 would be expected to extend to three letters. 18-21.The restorations are chiefly due to Wilamowitz, who also suggested π[εισομαι in l. 23 and φησι in l. 25. 22-3.For the references to Tolmides cf. Aeschin. ii. 75 Τολμίδου . . . ὃς χιλίους ἐπιλέκτους ἔχων 24-5. το π[αρα του] πατρος: Demosthenes' father was a sword-manufacturer; cf. Dem. xxvii. 9. 25-9.Cf. De Cor. 169 ἑσπέρα μὲν γὰρ ἦν ἧκε δ᾿ ἀγγέλλων τις ὡς τοὺς πρυτάνεις ὡς Ἐλάτεια κατείληπται. 31-6.Cf. De Cor. ibid. τῇ δ᾿ ὑστεραίᾳ ἅμα τῇ ἡμέρᾳ οἱ μὲν πρυτάνεις τὴν βουλὴν ἐκάλουν εἰς τὸ βουλευτήριον, 33. περι is corrected from παρα. 34. The dots above μεν indicate that the word was to be omitted; cf. l. 37. The implication that the speakers at the ἐκκλησία were fixed by the βουλή betrays ignorance of Attic law on the subject; cf. introd. 36. νομους παρ[αβαινων, as Wilamowitz suggests, is the natural restoration, but there is hardly room for so broad a letter as π, and it is not even certain that any letter stood between νομους and αρ[. 37-42. Cf. De Cor. 171 καίτοι εἰ μὲν τοὺς σωθῆναι τὴν πόλιν βουλομένους παρελθεῖν ἔδει, πάντες ἂν ὑμεῖς καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι Ἀθηναῖοι ἀναστάντες ἐπὶ τὸ βῆμ᾿ ἐβαδίζετε· πάντες γὰρ οἶδ᾿ ὅτι σωθῆναι αὐτὴν ἐβούλεσθε· εἰ δὲ τοὺς πλουσιωτάτους, οἱ τριακόσιοι· εἰ δὲ τοὺς ἀμφότερα ταῦτα, καὶ εὔνους τῇ πόλει καὶ πλουσίους οἱ μετὰ ταῦτα τὰς μεγάλας ἐπιδόσεις ἐπιδόντες· καὶ γὰρ εὐνοίᾳ καὶ πλούτῳ τοῦτ᾿ἐποίησαν. ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἔοικεν ὁ καιρὸς καὶ ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη οὐ μόνον εὔνουν καὶ πλούσιον ἄνδρ᾿ ἐκάλει, ἀλλὰ καὶ παρηκολουθηκότα τοῖς πράγμασιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς, καὶ συλλελογισμένον ὀρθῶς . . . At the end of l. 37 some such infinitive as ἁρμόσαι is required, but ευνο[υν (?) has apparently been corrected, and what exactly was written is very uncertain. |
|