249 Ἡρώδου 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 Ηρώδου περὶ πολιτείας we have a work written towards the end of 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 Larissa'). 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 3). 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 Schmid1) and Costanzio). 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. cussion1). 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 4). 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 rários orria which was certainly a party war-cry at Athens in 404 B.C.2). But I find myself unable to agree with the contention that the writer shows an exact knowledge 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. |