The Classical Journal

HOWEVER great the services may be which criticism has rendered to classical literature, by clearing the works of the ancients from the adulterated additions intruded on them in the times of the decay of letters, and also from the dross and tarnish imparted to them in the times of ignorance and barbarity, yet it has frequently become a knife which has gone to the quick, and which has not rarely cut away whole vital parts. This remark may be applied to the first Philippic of Demosthenes. Leland, in his Biography of Philip, was the first who divided this oration into two parts, and thus made it deformed and lifeless. He was followed by Gillies, and the authority of this famous historian caused considerable credit to be given to that opinion; it was more fully developed by the renowned philologist Jacobs at Gotha, in his translation of the political orations of Demosthenes, and carried on to that degree of perfection of which it was susceptible, by Rüdiger in his edition of some orations of Demosthenes. (Demosthenis Philippica prima, Olynthiacæ tres, et de Pace, &c. ed. C. A. Rüdiger. Lipsiæ, 1818.) It is to be feared, that this opinion will prevail with that great part of the philologists, who attach more importance to authorities than to their own examination. We have pronounced our opinion on this hypothesis; we think that it disgraces one of the finest works of the immortal orator, and converts a production, which is extremely powerful and full of life, into two poor and VOL. XXXII. CI. JI. NO. LXIII. A

helpless cripples. We shall first examine and refute the reasoning on which this hypothesis is built; we shall then propose our counter arguments. We, of course, take the hypothesis in its improved shape.

I. Refutation of the arguments.

The above-mentioned critics contend, "that the first Philippic is composed of two distinct orations; the former terminating with Topou anódeikis, p. 48. (ed. Reiske); the latter commencing, of course, with ἃ μὴν ἡμεῖς, ὦ ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι, κ. τ. λ. each referring to different times and objects; the first to the intended surprisal of Thermopyla by Philip; the subject of the second is probably, the security of the isles and towns of the Hellespont."

"In the first part," say these critics, "Demosthenes speaks of raising an army, furnishing the provisions, and pointing out the funds, but he speaks at a time when war had not yet com→ menced; in the second part, on the contrary, he speaks of a period when war had actually commenced on the part of the Athenians, and when the disasters occasioned thereby were the cause of the orator's exhortations to carry it on more successfully." This argument is quite immaterial. The circumstance of Demosthenes speaking in the first part of armaments against Philip, but in the second of disgrace already suffered by the Athenians, proves nothing; for it may be answered, that the orator has rejected these considerations in the second part from oratorical reasons. Only the following question is here of great moment whether hostilities had taken place between Philip and the Athenians, before the march of the former to Thermopyle? We may, we think, dispense with proving the fact of these previous hostilities, related by Justin, Diodorus, and so frequently alluded to by Demosthenes and Æschines. What avails it, therefore, to add further: "that in the first part no mention is made of the idle and fruitless decrees of the Athenians against Philip, but only in the second;" since, in fact, all these decrees occur in a period previous to the events at Thermopyla? (Cf. concerning these decrees, Olynth. 1. Olynth. 11. Phil. 11.) What imports it to add, "that in the second part, where the orator speaks of the misfortunes caused by the mercenary troops, and of the injustice to the commanders, he probably hinted at recent events subsequent to the affair of Thermopyla;" since the Athenians had for a long time made war in this way, and Demosthenes himself, in his oration Tepì ouvrάews, had already severely censured in the same manner? As to the acts of injustice towards the commanders (p. 53), they obviously

« Previous Continue »