Philip in the intervals; and several months at least may be allowed between the original seizure and the decree of Philocrates. Yet Philocrates was capitally impeached by Hyperides, and went into voluntary exile in the year 343, before the celebrated accusation of Æschines by Demosthenes. It is true, there may seem to be some difficulty as to the later fortunes of Philocrates. Namely, in this same speech (De Cor. 310), Demosthenes mentions the slanders of Philocrates as dangerous to him after the battle of Chæronea; which at first made me infer that Philocrates had obtained forgiveness and returned to Athens. Æschines, however, in his attack on Ctesiphon (395), speaks of him as still in exile; φύγας ἀπ ̓ εἰσαγγελίας γεγένηται. I think we must believe that Philocrates, although banished, was still dangerous to Demosthenes by his voice or pen, with which he could pretend to reveal scandalous secrets, owing to his former intimacy with him.

If we could trust the date Boëdromion, which is affixed to both these decrees, they must have been passed in the autumn of B. C. 344. At any rate, I think we are justified in saying, that the event which occasioned them was between midsummer 344 and midsummer 343; that is, it fell under the archon Lyciscus, as I have expressed in the table.

It cannot be doubted that the Eubulus who drew up the first decree was the celebrated statesman of that name; for Demosthenes would not otherwise have used the bare name without qualification; moreover, he is endeavouring to show that the first opposition to Philip began, not from him, but from his opponents; of whom Eubulus was the most eminent. Whether this Eubulus was son of Mnesitheus, as the decree says, I am not able to find; but that he was 'Avapλúσrios is generally received as certain. I at first thought that it was a clear error in the present decree to call him by any other cognomen; but upon searching for the proof that he was of Anaphlystus, I was unable to find any other than the first decree already examined (235), which I have been rejecting as spurious. Will any one then say, that possibly the wellknown Eubulus was not really 'Avapλúorous, but as our present decree says, Kúπpios? or that he was of the parish Anaphlystus, but derived from Cyprus? The objection to this is, that Cyprus is not an Attic parish at all, and that even supposing him to have been derived from the island Cyprus, such an epithet was out of place; where the name of the parish was certainly needed. For this reason, several critics have conjecturally altered the word

to Kvenpios; but such a proceeding presupposes that the composer wrote with full knowledge, or with a list of the Attic parishes at his side.

It is to be remarked, as a peculiarity in this decree, that it has the date Boëdromion only, and not the day of the month.

The act of the senate, in pursuance of the decree of the people, needs no particular remark: I proceed to Philip's letter. Every careful reader, I suppose, is surprised by the comments on the letter which Demosthenes makes; for they are not merely sophistical, but so unplausible and stupid as to be unworthy of him. His argument is this (249, 250, 252): "It is Philip that first broke the peace, and not the city; and when he did so, the first persons to complain were Eubulus and his followers, not I; and, in fact, Philip himself blames others and not me (érépois éykadŵv) as the cause of the war. Read his letter......There! he has not put down the name of Demosthenes, nor brought any charge at all against me. Why did he not mention my doings, when he was finding fault with everybody else (roîs aλois)?" Now what is the fact? that the present letter does not refer by name to any Athenian statesman at all, nor complain pointedly of any one; but has merely the vague words, ὑπὸ τινῶν ἀρχόντων, καὶ ἑτέρων, ἰδιωτῶν μὲν νῦν ὄντων, ἐκ παντὸς δὲ τρόπου βουλόμενοι . . . τὸν πόλεμον ἀναλαβεῖν: words which are so far from excluding Demosthenes, that it is hard to say to whom they might more naturally be applied. This alone gives me a strong indisposition to believe that the letter before us is the real one which Demosthenes ordered the clerk to recite.

It is also rather inconsistent for Philip to begin by imputing fraud to the Athenians: "You are great simpletons, if you think I do not see that these ships were sent, &c.," and then, in so few lines, to acquit them of the guilt, and lay it on crafty individuals, and statesmen whom they ought to punish. But perhaps it will be said, that consistency is not to be expected.

A far more serious ground of suspicion, and one which (in connection with the other objections) convinces me that the letter is a forgery, is found in the allusions to Selymbria. In his speech for the Rhodians (p. 198 Reiske, p. 225 of others), in the year 351, Demosthenes counts this city as an integrant part of the Byzantine confederacy; and especially as it lies between Perinthus and Byzantium, it is on other grounds impossible that Philip could have

blockaded it, without being involved ipso facto in a war with those cities. Yet it is certain that at the date of this affair, i. e. not later than B.C. 343, he was still ostensibly at peace with Byzantium. The speech reρì Xeрσovýσou, while labouring to set forth the encroachments of Philip, as well as his positive breaches of the peace with Athens,-makes no allusion to any blockade of Selymbria. It describes hostilities with Byzantium as impending merely, (p. 93 Reiske, p. 112 others), and the Byzantines themselves as inactive: ἐὰν περιμείνας τοὺς ἐτησίας ἐπὶ Βυζάντιον ἐλθὼν πολιορκῇ, οἴεσθε τοὺς Βυζαντίους . . . . οὔτε παρακαλέσειν ὑμᾶς, οὔτε βοηθεῖν αὑτοῖς ἀξιώσειν ; Such supineness on the part of the Byzantines would seem incredible, if Selymbria had already been attacked; and if even the Athenians were so alive to pity a town which was not theirs, as to send in corn for their relief. In the 3rd Philippic, also which was spoken rather later in the same year, Demosthenes merely says of Philip (p. 120 Reiske, p. 138 of others), κaì vôv ènì Bušavríovs πορεύεται, συμμάχους ὄντας ; but still there is no allusion to Selymbria, nor to any deeds of actual hostility already commenced.

....

In short, neither from any of the extant remains of the orators, nor from Diodorus, nor from Justin, nor from any other source, as far as I am aware, does it appear that Philip ever established a blockade of Selymbria at all, much less that it became the first and direct occasion of hostility with the Athenians. In the two orations concerning Malversation in the Embassy, which, it appears, must have been composed after the seizure of the vessels, it is not surprising that no allusion to this act of hostility is found: for Demosthenes was not likely to go out of his way to inveigh against Philip in a matter which would probably be looked on as a result rather of his own policy than of his rival's. Nevertheless, if Philip had involved himself in so serious a matter as a war with Selymbria, that, I think, might have been expected to come out somewhere in so long and desultory a speech. My suspicion that there is no authority whatever for the whole story except this letter of Philip's, and the comment on it by Ulpian, is confirmed, by observing that these two are the only authorities to which Mr. Clinton appeals (F. H. in Tables): while, under the intrinsic improbability of the alleged facts, we need not be surprised that there has been controversy concerning their date.

Whether the commentary is really from Ulpian of Cæsarea, or has been ascribed to him without any grounds, need not concern us here, since he lived as late as the times of Constantine the

Great. It is more important to insist, that this scholiast, whoever he was, knew no more of the affair of Selymbria than he learnt from the letter before us. In fact, he even retains many of its very words, under a more historical form. All that his comment can prove, is, that the letter was not forged later than A.D. 300, and was then received as genuine.

The reform of the Trierarchy by Demosthenes (261) must next engage us; the date of which is pretty well fixed by the orator's statement, πάντα τὸν πόλεμον τῶν ἀποστόλων γιγνομένων κατὰ Tòv vóμov tòv ẻμòv, &c. (262). As we have no reason to regard this as a rhetorical boast, we may suppose the law to have been carried in the year 340, early enough to allow of fleets being built or duly equipped by help of its enactments.

66

When we examine the document set before us, it is strange to find that it does not profess to be what we expect, viz., the Act of Reform itself, but the record of a failure to convict Demosthenes of illegality for passing it. It does not detail what was the change, so as to shew the advantage gained by the state and by the poor, as the orator desires: it only alludes to the fact of a change, and states that Patrocles had to pay the 500 drachmas" for losing his suit against Demosthenes. Is it possible that the composer was deceived by the phrase, λέγε μοι τὸ ψήφισμα καθ ̓ ὅτι εἰσῆλθον τὴν γραφήν; and interpreted it, Read the decree about my having been impeached," instead of, "the decree which gave occasion to my impeachment"? As for "the 500 drachmas," in the other passages to which we are directed, I find that it was 1000 drachmas. Is this also a mistake3?

After this, the orator directs two Karáλoyo to be read, one according to the old law, and another according to his reformed system. We naturally expect a schedule, or rather (in an English sense) a catalogue, which shall tell how many Athenian citizens had to keep one or more trireme, how many half a trireme, how many one third, &c. &c.; nor does it appear to me that in this connection, the word karáλoyos can have any other meaning. On the contrary, we are, instead, presented with two decrees,

There is something peculiar in the process indicated. Demothenes eionvεγκε τὸν νόμον εἰς τὸ τριηραρχικὸν, (what is this? "Laid a copy of it before the admiralty" ?-) and then, the senate and people sanctioned it by vote.

-Such specifications, even when, as here, not very intelligible, are rather in favour of the genuineness of the record. [Bockh, Ec. of Ath. b. iv. note 387, corrects εἰσήνεγκε νόμου τριηραρχικὸν in the decree.-ED.]

or fragments of decrees, which do not tell us the actual results of the reform at all. In fact, it would seem that what is here called τὸν ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ νόμου κατάλογον, would more properly be called a clause of the law itself. It may be imagined, that the fabricator had felt that he ought to tell the reader somewhere what the arrangements were under the new law, and unluckily brought them into the karáλoyos, because he had left them out under the ψήφισμα.

I come next to the Amphictyonic decrees (279), and the Attic date affixed to them. Here is at once a startling difficulty, and even absurdity, The two decrees are obviously intended to be separated by a year of time; each being at the spring Pylæa, and the state of affairs widely different in the two. In the former, the Amphissians are mildly rebuked, in the latter, Philip is called in as general against them. Nevertheless, only one date is given for both these decrees: Ἄρχων Μνησιθείδης, μηνὸς Ἀνθεστηριῶνος ἕκτῃ ἐπὶ δέκα. It was hardly by accident that Demosthenes asked, Λέγε δὴ τοὺς χρόνους (plural), ἐν οἷς ταῦτ ̓ ἐγίγνετο. At least, if the δόγματα really recited by the clerk, were passed (as is probable) at different times, two different dates would be needed. If, on the contrary, xpóvovs is to be understood vaguely to mean "the period," including weeks or months, there is some impropriety in so definite a date as ̓Ανθεστηριώνος ἕκτῃ ἐπὶ δέκα. Once more, by what link was this Attic date attached to the Delphian decrees? was the decree countersigned by the Tuλáyopai, and was a copy thus attested deposited in the records at Athens? This is left obscure; but perhaps is not to be complained of. On the other hand, is it not strange that the Delphian decree had no date of its own to mark the year? For if these doypara are genuine, the Delphian priesthood was not annual; indeed, it is on other grounds improbable that it should have been so: hence, the formula ènì iépews Kλewayópov does not distinguish the year at all. Mr. Clinton has remarked (F. H. Vol. 11. p. 357), that, at least at a later time, the Delphian decrees were for this very reason dated, not by the name of the priest, but by that of the archon.

Another suspicious circumstance, is, that the second decree styles Cottyphus the Arcadian; whereas, we know by Esch. c. Ctes. (413, in fine,) that he was a Pharsalian. A grammarian, who did not remember this, might have been tempted to make him an Arcadian, from observing that he was a general,