249 Ηρώδου περὶ πολιτείας. By F. E. Adcock und A. D. Knox. I. Within the last two decades a belief has been growing that in the speech Hoodor Aεgì лOTEías we have a work written towards the endof the 5th Century B.C. If this theory is accepted the historical authority of the speech is greatly increased, and it becomes the most important contemporary document for the history of Thessaly at this period. Those who believe in the antiquity of the work may regard it as written for the Thessalians in general, or for the inhabitants of one of the more important towns of that region. Indeed some have gone so far as to assert with boldness that the town in question is Larissa1). But it is possible to refine upon this view and to declare as Professor Drerup 2) has done, that this work is an oligarchical party-pamphlet expressing the views of the party of Theramenes and dating from 404 B. C. If either of these views are accepted, the historical value of the book is much greater than that which we would naturally assign to a declamation by Herodes Atticus or a late sophist. Wherefore, while it may seem beneath the dignity of literary criticism to seek to assign accurately the credit for a very unimpressive piece of writing, the question of authorship is nevertheless important both for the study of Greek Prose and the study of Greek History. In a case of this kind the burden of proof must fall upon those who argue for a time and a writer other than those afforded by the manuscript tradition. The view of those who ascribe to the speech an early origin is best summed up by Beloch in his Greek History). The author of the speech shows an excellent knowledge of Thessalian affairs in this period. . . . . Moreover the ideas, vocabulary and style of the speech seem to me entirely to fit the period about 400 B. C. It would be indeed. a marvellous achievement if a rhetorician of the second Century of the Empire proved capable of accomplishing all this: and I believe that if the speech had been handed down to us as the work, let us suppose. of Thrasymachus, no one would dream of doubting its genuineness.“ 1) E. g. E. Meyer, Gesch. des Alt. V p. 56 f.; Theopomps Hellenika p. 259. II. Bd. 1. Hft. Paderborn 1908. 3) Griech. Gesch. II (1897) p. 132 n. 2. Klio, Beiträge zur alten Geschichte XIII 2. 17 The argument then is twofold; the language and ideas suggest the closing years of the 5th Century B. C. and the knowledge displayed of Thessalian affairs in this period points to a contemporary writer. My concern is with the second of these contentions. Are the statements in the speech of such a character that we must ascribe to the speaker and to his audience contemporary knowledge of Greek affairs? If we are to answer this question in the affirmative, we must be able to find a date at which none of the statements in the speech could have been incredible to a contemporary Greek audience or reading public. If, on the other hand, it can be shown that there is no early date which fulfils these requirements, it then becomes almost impossible to maintain this theory of an early authorship. The dates which have been suggested may conveniently be divided into those earlier and those later than the end of the Peloponnesian War. The claims of dates earlier than 404 B. C. are urged by Schmid 1) and Costanzi2). The former contends that the speech would fit the circumstances of the beginning of the Peloponnesian War, and is an appeal to certain Thessalians to throw in their lot with Sparta against Athens. But the speech refers to Archelaus as a ruling prince, and he did not ascend the throne of Macedon until 416 B.C. It is true that in § 19 there appears to be a confusion between Perdiccas and Archelaus, but that hardly justifies us in understanding Perdiccas for Archelaus throughout the speech. Moreover, how is it possible to refer such words as εἰ μόνοι τῶν Ἑλλήνων εἰς τὴν Ἑλληνίδα συμμαχίαν οὐ συναριθησόμεθα (§ 24) to a confederacy aimed against Athens and her allies, who surely might reckon themselves among the Greeks. The same objection seems to hold good against Costanzi's view that the speech was composed in 410/9 B. C. For in that year no alliance with Sparta could mean anything else than an alliance against Athens. In fact on this point we must agree with Drerup3), when he contends that the speech must refer to a time when the Athenians were politically negligeable and Greece was united under the leadership of Sparta. We are thus limited to the years between 404 B. C. and 395 B.C. Any date within this period must imply that the Archelaus of the speech is the king of Macedon who ruled from 416 B. C. to 399 B. C., so we must rule out of court any year later than 399 B. C. For Archelaus is clearly supposed to be alive and dangerous at the time of the crisis under dis 1) Rhein. Mus. LIX (1904) p. 512 24. Schmid argues-on stylistic grounds-for the late composition of the speech, but believes that the conditions reflected are those of the beginning of the Peloponnesian War. It seems necessary, therefore, to discuss the evidence which seems to go against this part of his thesis. 2) Studi italiani di filologia classica VII (1899) p. 137/59. 3) Op. cit. p. 99. |