(_The first eight of the following are given by Schäfer to
Apollodorus._)
(m) Or. 52. Contra Callippum. 369-8 B.C.
(a) Or. 53. Contra Nicostratum after 368 "
(a) Or. 49. Contra Timotheum 362 "
(m) Or. 50. Contra Polyclem 357 "
(a) Or. 47. In Evergum et Mnesibulum 356 "
(m) Or. 45, 46. In Stephanum I. et II. 351 "
(a) Or. 59. In Neaeram 349[343-0, Blass] "
(m) Or. 51. On the Trierarchic Crown (by 360-359 "
Cephisodotus?)
(m) Or. 43. Contra Macartatum ?
(m) Or. 48. In Olympiodorum. after 343 "
(m) Or. 44. Contra Leocharem ?
(a) Or. 35. Contra Lacritum 341 "
(a) Or. 42. Contra Phaenippum ?
(m) Or. 32. Contra Zenothemin ?
(m) Or. 34. Contra Phormionem ?
(m) Or. 29. Contra Aphobum pro Phano
(a) Or. 40. Contra Boeotum de Dote 347 "
(m) Or. 57. Contra Eubulidem 346-5 "
(m) Or. 33. Contra Apaturium ?
(a) Or. 56. In Dionysodorum not before 322-1 "
Or. 60 ([Greek: epitaphios]) and Or. 61 (Greek: erôtikos) are works
of rhetoricians. The six epistles are also forgeries; they were used
by the composer of the twelve epistles which bear the name of
Aeschines. The 56 [Greek: prooimia], exordia or sketches for
political speeches, are by various hands and of various dates.[5]
They are valuable as being compiled from Demosthenes himself, or from
other classical models.
Literary history of Demosthenes.
The ancient fame of Demosthenes as an orator can be compared only with
the fame of Homer as a poet. Cicero, with generous appreciation,
recognizes Demosthenes as the standard of perfection. Dionysius, the
closest and most penetrating of his ancient critics, exhausts the
language of admiration in showing how Demosthenes united and elevated
whatever had been best in earlier masters of the Greek idiom.
Hermogenes, in his works on rhetoric, refers to Demosthenes as [Greek:
ho rhêtôr], _the_ orator. The writer of the treatise On Sublimity knows
no heights loftier than those to which Demosthenes has risen. From his
own younger contemporaries, Aristotle and Theophrastus, who founded
their theory of rhetoric in large part on his practice, down to the
latest Byzantines, the consent of theorists, orators, antiquarians,
anthologists, lexicographers, offered the same unvarying homage to
Demosthenes. His work busied commentators such as Xenon, Minucian,
Basilicus, Aelius, Theon, Zosimus of Gaza. Arguments to his speeches
were drawn up by rhetoricians so distinguished as Numenius and Libanius.
Accomplished men of letters, such as Julius Vestinus and Aelius
Dionysius, selected from his writings choice passages for declamation or
perusal, of which fragments are incorporated in the miscellany of
Photius and the lexicons of Harpocration, Pollux and Suidas. It might
have been anticipated that the purity of a text so widely read and so
renowned would, from the earliest times, have been guarded with jealous
care. The works of the three great dramatists had been thus protected,
about 340 B.C., by a standard Attic recension. But no such good fortune
befell the works of Demosthenes. Alexandrian criticism was chiefly
occupied with poetry. The titular works of Demosthenes were, indeed,
registered, with those of the other orators, in the catalogues ([Greek:
rhêtorikoi pinakes]) of Alexandria and Pergamum. But no thorough attempt
was made to separate the authentic works from those spurious works which
had even then become mingled with them. Philosophical schools which,
like the Stoic, felt the ethical interest of Demosthenes, cared little
for his language. The rhetoricians who imitated or analysed his style
cared little for the criticism of his text. Their treatment of it had,
indeed, a direct tendency to falsify it. It was customary to indicate by
marks those passages which were especially useful for study or
imitation. It then became a rhetorical exercise to recast, adapt or
interweave such passages. Sopater, the commentator on Hermogenes, wrote
on [Greek: metabolai kai metapoiêseis tôn Dêmosthenous chôriôn],
"adaptations or transcripts of passages in Demosthenes." Such
manipulation could not but lead to interpolations or confusions in the
original text. Great, too, as was the attention bestowed on the thought,
sentiment and style of Demosthenes, comparatively little care was
bestowed on his subject-matter. He was studied more on the moral and the
formal side than on the real side. An incorrect substitution of one name
for another, a reading which gave an impossible date, insertions of
spurious laws or decrees, were points which few readers would stop to
notice. Hence it resulted that, while Plato, Thucydides and Demosthenes
were the most universally popular of the classical prose-writers, the
text of Demosthenes, the most widely used perhaps of all, was also the
least pure. His more careful students at length made an effort to arrest
the process of corruption. Editions of Demosthenes based on a critical
recension, and called [Greek: Attikiana (antigrapha)], came to be
distinguished from the vulgates, or [Greek: dêmôdeis ekdoseis].
Manuscripts.
Among the extant manuscripts of Demosthenes--upwards of 170 in
number--one is far superior, as a whole, to the rest. This is
_Parisinus_ [Sigma] 2934, of the 10th century. A comparison of this MS.
with the extracts of Aelius, Aristeides and Harpocration from the Third
Philippic favours the view that it is derived from an [Greek:
Attikianon], whereas the [Greek: dêmôdeis ekdoseis], used by Hermogenes
and by the rhetoricians generally, have been the chief sources of our
other manuscripts. The collation of this manuscript by Immanuel Bekker
first placed the textual criticism of Demosthenes on a sound footing.
Not only is this manuscript nearly free from interpolations, but it is
the sole voucher for many excellent readings. Among the other MSS., some
of the most important are--_Marcianus_ 416 F, of the 10th (or 11th)
century, the basis of the Aldine edition; _Augustanus_ I. (N 85),
derived from the last, and containing scholia to the speeches on the
Crown and the Embassy, by Ulpian, with some by a younger writer, who was
perhaps Moschopulus; _Parisinus_ [Upsilon]; _Antverpiensis_
[Omega]--the last two comparatively free from additions. The fullest
authority on the MSS. is J. T. Vömel, _Notitia codicum Demosth_., and
Prolegomena Critica to his edition published at Halle (1856-1857), pp.
175-178.[6]
Scholia.
The extant scholia on Demosthenes are for the most part poor. Their
staple consists of Byzantine erudition; and their value depends chiefly
on what they have preserved of older criticism. They are better than
usual for the [Greek: Peri stephanou, Kata Timokratous]; best for the
[Greek: Peri parapresbeias]. The Greek commentaries ascribed to Ulpian
are especially defective on the historical side, and give little
essential aid. Editions:--C. W. Müller, in _Orat. Att._ ii. (1847-1858);
_Scholia Graeca in Demosth. ex cod. aucta et emendata_ (Oxon., 1851; in
W. Dindorf's ed.).
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--_Editio princeps_ (Aldus, Venice, 1504); J. J. Reiske
(with notes of J. Wolf, J. Taylor, J. Markland, &c., 1770-1775);
revised edition of Reiske by G. H. Schäfer (1823-1826); I. Bekker, in
_Oratores Attici_ (1823-1824), the first edition based on codex
[Sigma] (see above); W. S. Dobson (1828); J. G. Baiter and H. Sauppe
(1850); W. Dindorf (in Teubner series, 1867, 4th ed. by F. Blass,
1885-1889); H. Omont, facsimile edition of codex [Sigma] (1892-1893);
S. H. Butcher in Oxford _Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca_ (1903
foll.); W. Dindorf (9 vols., Oxford, 1846-1851), with notes of
previous commentators and Greek scholia; R. Whiston (political
speeches) with introductions and notes (1859-1868). For a select list
of the numerous English and foreign editions and translations of
separate speeches see J. B. Mayor, _Guide to the Choice of Classical
Books_ (1885, suppt. 1896). Mention may here be made of _De corona_
by W. W. Goodwin (1901, ed. min., 1904); W. H. Simcox (1873, with
Aeschines _In Ctesiphontem_); and P. E. Matheson (1899); _Leptines_
by J. E. Sandys (1890); _De falsa legatione_ by R. Shilleto (4th ed.,
1874); _Select Private Orations_ by J. E. Sandys and F. A. Paley (3rd
ed., 1898, 1896); _Midias_ by W. W. Goodwin (1906). C. R. Kennedy's
complete translation is a model of scholarly finish, and the
appendices on Attic law, &c., are of great value. There are indices
to Demosthenes by J. Reiske (ed. G. H. Schäfer, 1823); S. Preuss
(1892). Among recent papyrus finds are fragments of a special lexicon
to the _Aristocratea_ and a commentary by Didymus (ed. H. Diels and
W. Schubart, 1904). Illustrative literature: A. D. Schäfer,
_Demosthenes und seine Zeit_ (2nd ed., 1885-1887), a masterly and
exhaustive historical work; F. Blass, _Die attische Beredsamkeit_
(1887-1898); W. J. Brodribb, "Demosthenes" in _Ancient Classics for
English Readers_ (1877); S. H. Butcher, _Introduction to the Study of
Demosthenes_ (1881); C. G. Böhnecke, _Demosthenes, Lykurgos,
Hyperides, und ihr Zeitalter_ (1864); A. Bouillé, _Histoire de
Démosthène_ (2nd ed., 1868); J. Girard, _Études sur l'éloquence
attique_ (1874); M. Croiset, _Des idées morales dans l'Éloquence
politique de Démosthène_ (1874); A. Hug, _Demosthenes als politischer
Denker_ (1881); L. Brédit, _L'Éloquence politique en Grèce_ (2nd ed.,
1886); A. Bougot, _Rivalité d'Eschine et Démosthène_ (1891). For
fuller bibliographical information consult R. Nicolai, _Griechische
Literaturgeschichte_ (1881); W. Engelmann, _Scriptores Graeci_
(1881); G. Hüttner in C. Bursian's _Jahresbericht_, li. (1889).
(R. C. J.)