cussion 1). But we must limit our choice yet further, and exclude any date after 402 B. C. Eduard Meyer has recently advanced with great force the claims of 4012) or 400 B. C. The opinion of Eduard Meyer carries the utmost weight, but it seems to me almost impossible to suppose that § 28 of the speech can have been written in either of these two years. For in that passage the Eleans are described as autonomous and masters in their own house, and that with especial reference to interference on the part of the Lacedaemonians. But in the spring of 401 B. C.3) the Spartans marched an army into Elis to compel the Eleans to recognise the autonomy of Triphylia. It is true that the constitution of Elis was left unaltered, but the relations of the two states in 401 B. C. and 400 B.C. cannot have been such that a speaker could use the language of § 28 concerning them 1). This leaves us the choice of a date between 404 and 402 B. C., and here another difficulty confronts us. The speaker declares that his opponents may urge that the Lacedaemonians are establishing oligarchies everywhere). He tacitly admits this to be the case, but argues that these oligarchies are much more moderate and desirable things than the government under which his own state has been existing. But such a description could not possibly be applied even by the boldest orator to the decarchies established by Lysander after Aegospotami. If then the action of Sparta is not the establishment of the decarchies, to what are we to refer it? The only possible suggestion is the gradual collapse of the decarchies and the substition of πάτριοι πολιτείαι which followed the fall of Lysander. But we do not know at what date this took place; all we know is that it was apparently just completed in 396 B. C. 6). It would certainly be very hazardous to refer the beginning of this process to any date earlier than 401 B. C. But even granting that possibility. I do not see how the process in question can be described in the words of the text). The setting up of the oligarchies is adduced as an instance of Spartan interference in the internal affairs of other Greek states. But surely this cannot be a description of the withdrawal of Spartan support of the decarchies and above all of the harmosts, and the establishment of the rule of the local oligarchical parties. We are left then to discover a period between the fall of Athens and the setting up of the decarchies. But no such period is to be found. For Lysander had already begun to establish the decarchies before the 1) § 26. § 33. 2) In Theopomps Hellenika (1909) pp. 209 ff. and earlier in G. d. Alt. V, § 764 A. 7) § 30. 17* surrender of Athens, and, until that date, all Greece was certainly not united under Spartan leadership. Thus then we are left without a single date at which this speech could have been credible to a contemporary audience or reading public: that is, if we regard it as a practical discussion of contemporary politics urging a definite course of action towards Sparta. But the flank of this argument is turned, if we accept Professor Drerup's contention that the treatise is a political pamphlet written at Athens for home consumption. For, in that case, the Thessalian setting need hardly be correct in every detail: the main thing that matters is the praise of a limited franchise in $$ 30-32. Drerup appears to found his contention on two main points. He argues that the writer shows an excellent and exact knowledge of Greek affairs as a whole, together with considerable ignorance of Macedonian history1). Moreover, there is a reference to the rúrgios routɛia which was certainly a party war-cry at Athens in 404 B.C.). But I find myself unable to agree with the contention that the writer shows an exact knowledge of contemporary Greek politics. For, as I have sought to show above, the references to Greek affairs cannot have been all true at any one single date, and certainly not in 404 B.C. And is it possible that the Athenians, still smarting under their defeat, would receive with kindness a speech which described the unaggressive character of the Lacedaemonians?' But the real objection to Drerups attractive theory is the very small part of the speech which can be made to apply to affairs at Athens. The speech discusses all manner of things, but its main theme is an alliance with the Spartans against the nearer and more dangerous power of Macedon. In one passage only, and that a short and singularly obscure one, do we find anything which can be taken to refer to Athenian politics. Drerup supposes the pamphlet to be written to advocate the aims of the party of Theramenes, and a main point of their programm was certainly the limiting of the franchise. The supposed writer is apparently content to write a long speech containing a single reference put in the mouth of a speaker urging alliance with Sparta, a reference entirely parenthetical and by no means very cogent as a political argument. Surely then it is very difficult to accept Drerup's theory that the speech is, in essence, a party-political pamphlet written at Athens for home consumption. The rival contention that we have here a fifth Century speech delivered in Thessaly to persuade certain states to ally themselves with Sparta can hardly survive the fact that there seems to be no date at 1) Op. cit. p. 116. 2) Op. cit. ibid. which all the statements in the speech can have been credible to a contemporary audience. On the other hand, this fact becomes entirely explicable, if we regard the speech as the declamation of a late sophist who has combined two or more authorities without any very great care for historical consistency. There are, besides, other points in the speech which are best explained by this assumption. For instance, a war is mentioned in terms which imply that hostilities have broken out between the Spartans and Archelaus of Macedon). This war is to be carried on by an alliance of Greeks. But no such war ever happened, for we can find no trace of it in our authorities, and an entire omission to mention it is practically inconceivable, if such a war ever took place. I would suggest that the speech is no more historical than the war it discusses. This work then appears to be a late production, certainly not a speech delivered at the time of the events. which are presupposed in it. But even when this conclusion is accepted there arises the further question. Does this late work contain good and early material which has not come down to us elsewhere?2). If the speech is not early, it is presumably a rhetorical or stylistic exercise, and it is just possible that the writer consulted and used early authorities. But, a priori, such diligence is not probable in the case of a writer who clearly confuses Archelaus and Perdiccas3). It is more likely that the author relied on his memory for his Greek History and, even so, made his facts fit his arguments. And this is indeed the conclusion to which the internal evidence of the work seems to lead us. The first eighteen sections contain hardly anything that is not perfectly general. We have a string of good reasons for war against an ill-defined enemy. The argumentation is not realistic; rather it is an anthology of commonplaces about a dangerous neighbour. With § 19 we reach statements. which have a farrower application. The speaker has argued that the war is dyadór: now he is to show that it is drazaior. Thus neutrality must be ruled out. The supposed war is to be fought at the invitation and by the side of the Peloponnesians. The speaker cites an awful example. Archelaus he says, wished for nothing more than neutrality, but the Peloponnesians are his enemies and on that ground alone. Therefore the city must beware of incurring the same hostility for the same reason. Now as Hass1) pointed out, there is here a confusion between Perdiccas and Archelaus. It was the former who allowed Brasidas to march through Γ ὁ νῦν ἐπαγγελλόμενος πόλεμος. I cannot agree, for reasons stated above, with Schmid's contention that this is the Peloponnesian war. 2) Clearly the writer has not followed one single early source closely, as is shown by the inconsistences. Macedonia. Archelaus on the other hand was an admirer and friend of Athens and no doubt earned the ill-will of Sparta. In fact we have evidence that Archelaus overstepped the bounds of strict neutrality in favour of Athens1). Thus then we have a rhetorical point based on false and confused history. All the historical authority that need underly this passage is any text book which showed that Archelaus was king of Macedon about this time. So further we have a reference to the well-known neutrality or Medism of Thessaly during the great Persian War. We hear too of a general Alliance of the Greeks 2), but that is part of the rhetorical setting und can hardly be historical, except possibly with reference to Agesilaus expedition against Persia. Then comes a reference to injuries inflicted by Archelaus"). But in this passage we have no definite information as to the nature of these injuries. For the purpose of the speech the hint found here is presumably to be connected with the vivid description in § 16. But in that passage the enemy is a tyrant belonging to the same tribe as the supposed speaker. That detail can hardly be true of Archelaus of Macedon1), and so the rest of the picture may either be pure rhetoric or possibly based on some account of the disaster suffered by Larissa at the hands of Lycophron of Pherae). In any case it is no evidence for a good and early historical frame work to the speech. So too other facts in the speech do not bear the marks of good historical sources. The account of the relation of the Lacedaemonians to the neighbouring states), for instance the statement that the Boeotians do not pay gooos or suffer a Lacedaemonian dozor, fits much better with the rhetorical argument of the context than with what good authorities tell us of the period. For these facts were self-evident at the time and in those days no proof of Sparta's moderation. And finally there is the statement that Archelaus holds hostages 7). It is of course possible that we have here a historical fact, but it seems to me just as probable that the writer simply invented it, especially as it fits in quite well with the account of the vague enemy in the early part of the speech. Thus our conclusions are all negative. The internal evidence seems to go against any theory which would make this speech very early, there is nothing to guide us to a determination of any sources used, and, finally, 1) Drerup. p. 97,8. ... 2) § 24. 3) § 21. 4) οπότε τύχοι . τῶν αὐτῶν ἱερῶν κοινωνῶν ὁ ταῦτα ὁρῶν καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς quins or. Archelaus was regarded as a Greek though his subject were barbarian, but these words must refer to something closer than mere community of race. tūs avtūs quiūs must mean of the same political unit, the phyle, and Thessalians could not speak thus of the Temenid king of Macedon. 5) Xen. Hell. II, 3f.). — 6) § 28-9. 7) § 33. it appears quite probable that the writer used no early historical sources at all. As regards the question of date, much the same conclusion follows from Mr. Knox's examination on the philological side. Cambridge. F. E. A. II. The following portion of the paper attempts to disprove theories of an early date (not to examine thoroughly Drerup's arguments, which are necessarily negative). Before doing this, it is well to see whether some passages, which are difficult on any theory, may not still admit of emendation or explanation. As our text stands there are several passages where the reading is incompatible with Greek of any period. It will be well to correct these briefly before discussing the date of the author. § 5 ἡμεῖς μὲν γὰρ (εἰ) ἠπιστάμεθα (for ἐπιστάμεθα) . γιγνώσκειν (to recognise' cf. Herodas III 22) лgopiуvóózovtεc [t'] äv δὲ . . . § 15 οὐχ ὅπως διακωλύομεν) τοὺς βουλομένους ἀδικεῖν. § 28 οὔτε πλείονας ὄντας οὔτε κατὰ πόλεις οἰκοῦντας (for πλείους). The MS. reading is not Greek: 628 gives only a historical inaccuracy. § 31 ἕως ἂν παράδειγμα θῆται παρὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἅ παρ' ἡμᾶς ἐστιν. Since it is not permitted for us to translate ag' quas (or fuac) as 'bei Euch' (with Drerup), some other solution must be found. The easiest alteration I can see is repa) for the first agά. The sense is 'Certain cities (or citizens) are deprived of rights till they have set an example; but this is quite beside our case (Ar. 1299 a 18, Dio Chrys. IV 99). οἶμαι μὲν γὰρ ὑμᾶς μήδ' ἂν εὐχομένους) ἄλλως εὔξασθαι κτλ. (cf. [Plat.] Menex. 243E) for I suppose that they could not even wish your constitution to be altered in any way'. ibid. απαράσκευοί τ' εἰσὶ πρὸς τὴν χρείαν (for χώρα»). Polyb. I, 26, 4. § 33 Apriλaos raidés (hostages) (tiraz) yet. Read also for άrártor άraidor, and, for the second raidor, read rártor with Canter. Those who are to examine Drerup's qualifications for his task, may refer to his treatment of these sentences. But for the purpose of distinguishing the date of an author it is comparatively unimportant to adduce passages where he seems to offend against all canons of language. Only 1) On this word Drerup has not properly examined the passages cited. 2) Infra § 33 άrootegei [xegì] (tò) (Reiske) is a similar error (Greg. Cor. p. 360). 3) Aristid. I 483 (306,7). |