If, nevertheless, the internal evidence were every way satisfactory, it would be credible that after the decease of Demosthenes one of his literary admirers endeavoured to complete his oration, by searching for the genuine decrees and letters in the public offices at Athens; and although we might still wonder why the search which had been twenty-seven times together successful, should then uniformly meet with a failure, which no internal grounds could have led us to anticipate; still the strangeness of the phenomenon would probably be insufficient to make us suspect the documents as spurious. But although the mere negative evidence of consistency might thus suffice to establish them, they have no external evidence of positive weight and capable of resist ing objections founded on their contents. If we find them to be erroneous as to dates or facts, we must not try to save their credit by re-modelling our chronology and history, by tampering with their text, or by putting forced senses on the words of the two orators. Moreover, it will be conceded that they form in some sense a whole within themselves; insomuch that whatever should clearly demonstrate the spuriousness of one would, forthwith, cast a certain doubt upon the others: and if a large proportion of them were proved spurious, the fact would throw prejudice so strong on the rest, that no mere negative merit could save them from a common verdict: especially if those which we had failed of directly disproving, appeared to be screened from detection by mere emptiness or by remoteness from the sphere of our knowledge; while to forge them would have been an easy task to any grammarian.

Strong suspicion was long since directed against most of them, when it was observed that the eponymous archons affixed to them never (except in one solitary case) agreed with the names found in other lists. In several notes which are published in the current editions, Palmer and Taylor complain of this incongruity; the former sometimes in a very decisive tone. The phenomenon itself is so marked, that, but for the extreme unwillingness of the excellent old commentators to lose any portion of a classic work by allowing its spuriousness, a more cutting criticism might have been expected. Various hypotheses were set up concerning these pseudeponymous archons, but none of them satisfactory. It has been imagined that they were éríorara, or some other presidents, whose names, pro hâc vice, were attached to the decrees, instead of that of the ordinary névvμos; and laborious theories have been erected and overthrown in endeavouring to establish one or other of these

views. But it is an obvious and decisive reply, that if the Athenians thus tampered with the word apxwv, all utility of the name of the chief archon in ascertaining dates, is lost, and in fact he is no longer vos at all: and that if such liberties were really taken, we should find the difficulty to recur elsewhere in genuine decrees; but we do not. Another theory, that the names belonged to archons who were substituted for the vμos upon his dying during his year of office, is equally untenable. No one can imagine so many chief archons together, and only just at this critical time, to have died during office, some of them in the very first month; moreover, as Corsini observed, we find two and even three pseudo-archons in the very same year. The argument also from the analogy of the Roman republic seems to be valid; viz. that even if an archon (as a consul) did die in office, his name would nevertheless be attached to the whole year, for the very object of avoiding chronological confusion. All such assertions as that the names belong to other officers than the chief archon, are gratuitous guesses; and it has been truly observed, that we might as well interpret Cæsare et Bibulo consulibus, to mean, Cæsare et Bibulo prætoribus, in order to get rid of an anachronism; as pretend that ἄρχων meant ἐπιστάτης οι πρόεδρος.

It appears to me that this single fact, the non-agreement of the names of the archons, is sufficient prima facie evidence to throw the burden of proof most heavily on him who should allege the authenticity of these decrees. If there had been but one or two cases of the kind, this might have been imputed to corruption of the text; or possibly the received lists of archons might have been believed faulty. But here we have fourteen Attic records, yielding ten or eleven different names, one only of which is a true chief archon-this cannot be corruption of the text:-and the solitary true name is that of Chærondas, which was so notorious by its association with the fatal battle of Charonea, that every rhetorical composer would be likely to remember it', though few had lists of archons at hand to refer to. It will hereafter be shown that the only decree in which this name certainly appears, refers to an event which undoubtedly did not take place in his year. In

1 Plutarch, in his notices of Demosthenes, says, that the bill of Æschines against Ctesiphon was filed Xaιpúvdov ἄρχοντος, μικρόν ἐπάνω τῶν ΧαιρωVIKOV. This is too obviously false, not

to have been remarked on by everybody : but it is a singular proof, how easily a writer most ignorant of chronology, and of all other archons, would stumble on the name of Chærondas.

another decree which, I believe, did happen while he was in office, the common editions read 'Errì Xapádov 'Hynμovos, (De Coron. 253) where both names can scarcely be correct. It looks as if Xapávdov had been added by a later hand.

It may be useful here to present in a tabular form those decrees, which we can by their contents refer to a known date, with the true and false archons' names annexed. (The reasons for some of the dates will be given below.)

But since many learned men do not regard the objection drawn from the false names in so serious a light as I view it, it appears desirable to go more fully into the question; and, examining the details of the documents one by one, to consider whether they can support themselves as genuine.

From the four controversial speeches left us by the two great orators, we gain, in spite of their inconsistencies, a pretty clear view of the transactions of the year 346 B. C. The first embassy, of Ten, returned from Philip in the beginning of Elaphebolion: the peace and alliance were decreed by the Athenians on the 19th of that month. The people placed the management of the business

in the hands of the senate; and, when the ambassadors delayed, Demosthenes, being that year a senator, passed a decree of the senate on the 3rd of Munychion, ordering them to sail immediately, and follow Philip wherever he might be, in order to gain a ratification of the peace. (See Æsch. F. L. 271, Demos. F. L. 359). This is the celebrated embassy rì roùs opkovs, for inalversation in which Demosthenes accused Eschines, B. c. 343.We have now to examine the decree presented to us in the De Coron. 235, as the actual Bouλns popa by which the ambassadors were so peremptorily ordered to depart.

erroneous.

A glance at the document shows that the date is hopelessly It is the last day of Hecatombæon, instead of the 3rd of Munychion. Even if we did not know the true day so distinctly on Æschines's information, we should be certain that the alleged date is false; for in Hecatombæon, Demosthenes was no longer a senator at all; and, in fact, the embassy actually returned as early as Skiroph. 13th (Demosth. F. L. 359). Looking on the case as desperate, Corsini cuts the knot by altering the text of this decree; which may spare us the need of farther words on the subject.

Again: the decree is wrong as to the names of the ambassadors. It gives us five names, Eubulus, Æschines, Cephisophon, Democrates, and Cleon; and deceived by this, and forgetting for a moment the incontrovertible proof on the other side, the learned author of the article ÆSCHINES, in Dr. Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biogr. and Mythol., has stated (p. 37) that Demosthenes was not a member of this second embassy. That he was, appears by entire pages of the two orators; and there is a passage in Æschines (F. L. 273), which appears to me to imply that the same ten persons were re-elected for the second embassy. He says: "I must take up from the beginning our journey in quest of the oaths, and our embassy. Whereas on the former occasion, there were so many as ten ambassadors, besides an eleventh sent along with us by the allies, not one of them would eat at the same table with him (Demosthenes), nor, where it could be helped, stop at the same inn; seeing that he, in the former embassy, had plotted against them all." Thus, on the second embassy, they shunned him, in revenge for his conduct to them in or after the first. That the same ambassadors should have been reappointed was natural, since likewise on the third embassy, (" to the Amphictyons"), this was done, as Eschines was just before saying: проσаvaукáČovтos TOÛ δήμου μηδὲν ἧττον πρεσβεύειν ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἐξ ἀρχῆς αἱρεθέντας ἅπαντας. That

is, though at first Demosthenes had absolutely refused to go on the third embassy, and Eschines had taken an oath of ill-health, by reason of which two other persons, Stephanus (?) and Aphobetus (?), were substituted for them; yet all were finally compelled to go. This justifies us in interpreting literally the words of Eschines, above translated, to mean, that all the ten ambassadors (besides Aglaocreon of Tenedos, who was the eleventh,) were on the second as well as on the first embassy. The names of the Ten were Philocrates, Phrynon, Aristodemus, Ctesiphon, Æschines, Demosthenes, Iatrocles, Nausicles, Dercyllus, and Cimon. Thus the decree under examination is wrong in four names out of the five, besides giving five instead of ten. It could not help being right in one, namely, that of Eschines: but it deserves remark, that from the oration De Corona, (from which alone I believe the rhetorical author to have fabricated the decree), no other name could have been discovered. That Demosthenes was on the second embassy, appears clearly enough in his attack on Æschines, thirteen years earlier, but in the De Corona he studiously keeps it out of sight.

The decree before us has then a false archon, a false date, and false names of the ambassadors. It is rarely that we can expect to get more decisive marks of spuriousness than these three points combined. Yet, perhaps, in the present case still more can be adduced, as cumulative disproof. If, however, the reader should give less weight to the following, it must not be allowed to injure the force of what has been already said.

In the first place, then, it appears nearly certain, that the real decree contained the name of the general (i. e. admiral) Proxenus, who was ordered to conduct the ambassadors straight into the presence of Philip. For we read in Demosthenes (F. L. 389), γράφω ψήφισμα βουλεύων,.......ἀπιέναι τοὺς πρέσβεις τὴν ταχίστην, τὸν δὲ στρατηγὸν Πρόξενον κομίζειν αὐτοὺς, &c......, γράψας, ὥσπερ νῦν λέγω, τοῖς ῥήμασιν οὕτως ἀντίκρυς. The last clause which I quote appears to justify the belief that Proxenus was named in the real decree but he is not in that which here lies before us.

vûv

Other words seem to be quoted by Demosthenes from this decree, in F. L. 430, viz. : Αθηναίοις καὶ τοῖς Ἀθηναίων συμμάχοις εἶναι

2 Æsch. F. L. 289, we find Stephanus among the ambassadors on the third occasion; and by Dem. F. L. 379, it appears

that one of Eschines's brothers was his substitute.