« السابقةمتابعة »
when quoting these titles, refers to the decrees before us as his sole and sufficient proof.
Page 238, whepia ir-apevptau, "on no pretence." Who would not have expected fujde/ita npo<pao-(i or rexyv? Uapcvplo-Kav is found in Herodotus, and Diodorus, the Ionism blending (as frequently) with the later common dialect. I cannot find iraptipeo-is again.
Page 261, in the former KaraXoyos, we read: Tovs Tpu)papx<u
Kakeiadai eiri rqv Tpnjpr) <rw(KKal8(Ka Ik Twi iv rots Xd^otr <rvvrt\fi£)v.
By the embarrassment of the commentators concerning these Xd^oi, and their apparent inability to produce any similar use of the word in Attic finance, I presume that it has no parallel extant. I do not get any light upon it from Boeckh (book n. ch. xxii. p. 278 of Eng. Tr. 2nd ed.).
In the next Karcikoyos We read ?as rpiiav irXolav Ka\ virqptTucov,
where F. A. Wolf (Proleg. to In Lept.) interprets it "three triremes and a boat." He is no doubt correct; but I do not remember ifkoiov in the Attic classics with this sense. It is a generally received doctrine that vavs is the generic term for ships of war, irkoiov for ships of burden.
Page 265. The first decree, under Demonicus, uses the expression, eierg fur eiKaba instead of ircpirry airiovros. Has this any parallel in early documents? Perhaps it is from my own inadvertence that I am led to ask the question; for I perceive that in several highly respectable books of reference the two modes of expression are stated to be wholly indifferent.—The second decree uses Tovs vcavio-Kovs for "the soldiers;" which savors of later idiom. The Index for Demosthenes does not contain the word; in^Eschines it bears its primitive sense.
Page 266. In the decree of Ctesiphon we read rots i< ira<r£>v Jw <f>v\av deapiKols. I believe there is no authority for such a
masculine as oi BeapiKoi. Ta Seapixa is common, but To « rav <j>v\av
Stapuca is new; and I have difficulty in thinking it quite right. Will the words bear the sense: "Demosthenes gave a hundred rninas to the theatrical fund of Each tribe?" (or rather, ten to each, a hundred to all.) Bceckh probably does not so interpret it, or he would have used the passage to confirm the opinion which he expresses (Pub. Ec. Ath. n. vii. p. 183, Eng. Tr.): "The number of these treasurers is nowhere mentioned, but there were most probably ten, one from each tribe," &c.
In each of the decrees (p. 282, 283) named after the archon Heropythes, the verb «rt/3dXXfT<u is used in an Ionic, or recent sense, for intends, or aims.
In the last decree of Demosthenes, we find wpoayci in the intransitive meaning of increases: ev6vp.ri0rjvat 8«>ti for evdvixrjdrjvat Sri: and itmfkfctut in a rather suspicious poetical sense for ivav
naffrjvai, or avrtcrrfjiiai.
II. OTHER DOCUMENTS.
More striking certainly are the peculiarities in the other documents, which are not strictly Attic. In Philip's Letter, p. 239, we have Tow piv yap oXotr, for, in short: oiSev 7rpoT€piJ<7€T€, for, you will gain no advantage, where oiScv wXtov Hgere might have been expected: and ?£a> rot! tydaictvai for 7rA^i/ T. t.
In his second Letter, p. 251, we find oi irpeoftcvrai in the plural. The singular ■npeo-^tvrfis was already the legitimate term: but it can hardly be by accident that the historians and orators so uniformly make the plural oi »rp«o-/3«r6. Here also is Kosokov, for denique: but this does not. sound to me so decidedly recent as Tou S\ok.
In the decree of the Chersonesites, the phrase «£eAd/i€Poj « Ttjs #(Xunrou, is explained by the ellipsis of x"p6s- What is to be said of this? Is it an orientalism? In the same decree the word napalrtoi must apparently be explained as equivalent to alrios, otherwise it is but a poor compliment to the Athenians. This use of the word is familiar to Polybius, but I" do not remember it earlier.
In the second Amphictyonic decree, d£io> Iva PonBrjoy for d|t£ avrbv j3oi)6W sounds to me like a more recent idiom; and much
more does (eat bwn alpovvrai avrov <rrparrrybv, if it means dyye'AXctv fiidrt,
for dyydiXtw on. But perhaps mas p,i)— is to be looked on as in apposition to ral 8idri, and the latter is to be rendered, "and because—"
In Philip's reply to the Athenians (p. 283), alpco-iv is used for
■npoaipto-a/, intentions, line of policy, irpeo-pevTal for 7rpferj3«s, and
■napcmiptyavTcs (having discarded) for airtkao-avres. In his letter also to the Thebans, we may remark on the verb o-vyKaTari6cpai, I assent, as bearing the stamp of a more recent phraseology. We find also
irvvBavopai 8ioti for irvv8avop.ai on: wpoo-<p(peo~6ai (pikon/uav for napt^ecrdai KpiXoTip-iav Or irpoar(pepea-6ai (piX-orl/ias. 'Yp.S>v KareylvaxTKOv «r« Tip /icXXcw
appears a stiff expression for "I blamed you for being about, &c." At the end, n-pdcWtr for irpoalpto-K, a determination, is usual with Polybius; perhaps not earlier. The adjective avyiaiTaa/mt is very rare; an Athenian would, I think, have said oWn-ati/or, and altogether the Ionic' and the later style has often a preference for compounds of Kara, which are less used in Attic.
• Since writing the above, I find the following in the Lexicon Xenophonleum: "Ilpeaflewnis, legatus...Plma\is damnatur a Thoma: diiap-rdvei b Xeycoi/
i-jri ir\ridvirriKov wpea(2evTal Kul irpea/3cuTa's" oitSeit yap Twv SoKtpnav elve Touto. Sed non item a Folluce 8,137."
It has occurred to me as rather questionable, whether the Amphictyons would have published a decree against the Amphissians in Attic Greek; and equally, whether Philip would write to his Peloponnesian allies in that dialect. To the former objection it might be replied, that perhaps the Athenian irvkayopas habitually sent to Athens authenticated copies of the decrees, translated into the Attic; and that the quotation is from the public record at Athens. The latter objection also, in the opinion of a literary friend, may be overruled.
Sensible as I am of the delicacy of these inquiries, and of the danger of resting on negative arguments, I shall be glad of correction on these points from any competent scholar. On the whole, however, the dialect of these documents appears to me somewhat to corroborate, and at least not to weaken, the evidence of their spuriousness, which rests on another line of reasoning.
Francis W. Newman.
[Prof. Droysen published in 1839 a dissertation, Ueber die Aechtheit der Urkunden in Demosthenes Rede vom Kranz, in which he contested the genuineness of these documents. This dissertation (which contains an account of all that had been previously written in Germany on the subject) first appeared in the Zeitschrifi fur die Alterihumswissenchaji, and was afterwards reprinted separately, (Berlin, 1839. 1 vol. 12mo, pp. 205). The genuineness of the documents has been since defended by Prof. Voemel, who published in 1841, at Frankfort, a programme of the gymnasium, entitled Die Echtheit der Urkunden in des Demosthenes Rede vom Kranze vertheidigt gegen den Herrn Prof. Droysen, 4to, which has been followed by a second part in 1842. The latter dissertation is not yet finished; when complete, it is likely to be reprinted in the Rheinisches Museum.—Editor.]
7 We should distinguish between the old poetical Ionic, and the new Ionic developed in prose. The latter often,
more raxely the former, found its way at a latter period into the Koii/ij <WA
A MEMOIR ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE ANABASIS OF XENOPHON.
A Few of the geographical positions noticed in the expedition of the ten thousand Greeks to Babylonia under Cyrus, and their retreat from thence through the country of the Carduchians (Kurdistan) to the Euxine and Propontis, under the Greek generals, may be said never to have been lost sight of. Celebrated in antiquity they, or their remains, were well known during the middle ages, nor did the Mohammedan conquests efface their traces, but often preserved their name and memory at the same time, in a corrupted Oriental phraseology.
But this applies to very few among the number of sites indicated by the author of the Anabasis. The position of many of the towns and ancient cities noticed in that work has been lost even to the original inhabitants of the country, and appears never to have been known to their Turkish conquerors, while the true character and the physical features of the scene of many of the most stirring and remarkable events of the advance and of the retreat have only been made known in the most recent times. This was particularly the case with the hard-fought passage of the mountains of Kurdistan, which has always been considered as the most interesting event in the whole narrative, and the passes of which, in the track of the ten thousand, were first explored by the author. Many of the cities mentioned by Xenophon were ruins even in the times of Artaxerxes II. Mnemon (Ardashir,) and their position can only be drawn from obscurity by the distances given; by analogy or identity of name or some other accidental facts, as the discovery of the lake of Asmabeeus at Tyana; of the fossil limestones at Mespila; and of a pyramid at Larissa. It is, however, surprising how much may be gathered from recent explorations, and that more particularly since the publication of many able commentaries and geographical dissertations, sometimes got up at, much labour and expense.
The great body of the Greeks assembled, it is well known, with the barbarian or native troops at Sardis. The site of this city of the Lydian kings was well known to the historians of the lower empire, and, although now a mere fragment of a ruin, it preserves its identity under the Turkish abbreviation of Sart. From Sardis, the Greeks proceeded under Cyrus across the Maeander, now called Mendereh-su, to Colossae, one of the Seven Churches of Asia Minor. On the destruction of Colossae, it was succeeded by Chone, which became one of the most interesting and flourishing cities of the lower empire, was the birthplace of Nicetas the Byzantine historian, hence known as Choniates, and the seat of a magnificent church dedicated to the Archangel Michael, and burnt by the Turks. The two places have even been confounded, as by Carolus, who in his Geograph. Sac. (p. 241), says the Colossa of Strabo is commonly called Chone. This led Mr. Arundell (Seven Churches, p. 92j to identify the ruins of Chone in the modern Turkish town of Chonos with Colossa;; but Mr. W. J. Hamilton (Researches in Asia Minor, tyc. Vol. Ii. p. 508, et seq.) by a careful study of the neighbourhood and its antiquities, and still more of the course of the different rivers in reference to the statement of Herodotus that the Lycus disappeared in the town of Colossa?, decided almost beyond controversy that the position of the ancient Colossae was at or near the junction of three rivers, the Tchorfik-su, corresponding to the ancient Lycus, the Ak-su, or White Water, and a third coming from Chonos. This is further confirmed by a passage in Curopalates, quoted by Arundell (Asia Minor, Vol. n. p. 179J and Hamilton
(Vol. I. p. 512), where he says, h> wrrep oi irappeovres irorapoX eWo-e
X<avev6/uvoi, referring in the most decided manner to the existence of several rivers uniting their streams just above the narrow gorge.
From Colossa? Cyrus marched in three days twenty parasangs to Celaenas, where was the palace of the Persian satraps, and which, after the Macedonian conquests, was succeeded by Apamea Cibotus.
The site of Celaenae has been variously sought for at Sandukli, by Major Rennell (Must, of Xenop. Exp. of Cyrus, p. 23); at Isakli by Pococke; and at Eski-hisar by others, (Bell's Geog. Vol. iv. p. 122,) but has been recovered and explored in more recent times by Arundell, Leake, and W. J. Hamilton. The latter more especially has done much towards clearing up the confusion that reigned upon the subject of the sources of the Maeander, the mountain, lake, and valley of Aulo-Crenis, the cave of Marsyas, and the cataracts of Herodotus. All the ancient authorities which allude to this celebrated site, from Herodotus and Xenophon