Scanned text contains errors.
obstacles which his physical constitution threw in his way when he commenced his career, were so great, that a less courageous and persevering man than Demosthenes would at once have been intimidated and entirely shrunk from the arduous career of a public orator. (Plut. Dem. 6, &e.) Those early difficulties with which he had to contend, led him to bestow more care upon the composition of his orations than he would otherwise have done, and produced in the end, if not the impossibility of speaking extempore, at least the habit of never venturing upon it; for he never spoke without preparation, and he sometimes even declined speaking when called upon in the assembly to do so, merely because he was not prepared for it. (Pint. Dem. 8, Vit. X Orat. p. 848.) There is, .however, no reason for believing that all the extant orations were delivered in that perfect form in which they have come down to us, for most of them were probably subjected to a careful revision before publication ; and it is only the oration against Meidias, which, having been written for the purpose of being delivered, and being afterwards given up and left incomplete, may be regarded with certainty as a specimen of an oration in its original form. This oration alone sufficiently shews how little Demosthenes trusted to the impulse of the moment. It would lead us too far in this article to examine the manner in which Demosthenes composed his orations, and we must refer the reader to the various modern works cited below. We shall only add .a few remarks upon the causes of the mighty impression which his speeches made upon the minds of his hearers. The first cause was their pure and ethical character; for every sentence exhibits Demosthenes as the friend of his country, of virtue, truth, and public decency (Plut. Dam. 13) ; and as the struggles in which he was engaged were fair and just, he could without scruple unmask his opponents, and wound them where they were vulnerable, though he never resorted to sycophantic artifices. The second cause was his intellectual superiority. By a wise arrangement of his subjects, and by the application of the strongest arguments in their proper places, he brought the subjects before his hearers in the clearest possible form; any doubts that might be raised were met by him beforehand, and thus he proceeded calmly but irresistibly towards his end. The third and last cause was the magic force of his language, which being majestic and yet simple, rich yet not bombastic, strange and yet familiar, solemn without being ornamented, grave and yet pleasing, concise and yet fluent, sweet and yet impressive, carried away the minds of his hearers. That such orations should notwithstanding sometimes have failed to produce the desired effect, was owing only to the spirit of the times.
Most of the critical works that were written upon Demosthenes by the ancients are lost, and, independent of many scattered remarks, the only important critical work that has come down to us is that of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, entitled Trepl rijs rov Arj^oarde^ovs ^eivor^ros. The acknowledged excellence of Demosthenes's orations made them the principal subjects of study and speculation with the rhetoricians, and called forth numerous imitators and commentators. It is probably owing to those rhetorical speculations which began as early as the second century b. c., that a number of orations which are decidedly spurious and un-
worthy of Demosthenes, such as the \6yos ei (j)ios and the l/j&m/«$y, were incorporated in thw collections of those of Demosthenes. Others, such as the speech on Halonesus, the first against Aris-togeiton, those against Theocrines and Neaera, which are undoubtedly the productions of contemporary orators, may have been introduced among those of Demosthenes by mistake. It would be of great assistance to us to have the commentaries which were written upon Demosthenes by such men as Didymus, Longinus, Hermogenes, Sallus-tius, Apollonides, Theon, Gymnasius, and others; but unfortunately most of what they wrote is lost^ and scarcely anything of importance is extant, except the miserable collection of scholia which have eonie down to us under the name of Ulpian, and the Greek argumenta to the orations by Libanius and other rhetoricians.
The ancients state, that there existed 65 orations of Demosthenes (Plut. Vit. X Orat. p. 847; Phot. Bibl. p. 490), but of these only 61, and if we deduct the letter of Philip, which is strangely enough counted as an oration, only 60 have come down to us under his name, though some of these are spurious, or at least of very doubtful authenticity-Besides these orations, there are 56 Exordia to public orations, and six letters, which bear the name of Demosthenes, though their genuineness is very doubtful.
The orations of Demosthenes are contained in the various collections of the Attic orators by Aldus, H. Stephens, Taylor, Reiske, Dukas, Bekker, Dobson, and Baiter and Sauppe/ Separate editions of the orations of Demosthenes alone were published by Aldus, Venice, 1504 ; at Basel in 1532 ; by Feliciano, Venice, 1543; by Morellus and Lambinus,iParis, 1570; by H. Wolf, 1572 (often reprinted); by Auger, Paris, 1790; and by Schae-fer, Leipzig and London, 1822, in 9 vols. 8vo. The first two contain the text, the third the Latin translation, and the others the critical apparatus, the indices, &c. A good edition of the text is that by W. Dindorf, Leipzig, 1825, 3 vols. 8vo. We subjoin a classified list of the orations of Demosthenes, to which are added the editions of each separate oration, when there are any, and the literature upon it.
I. political orations.
A. Orations against Philip.
Editions of the Philippics were published by J. Bekker (Berlin, 1816, 1825 and 1835), C. A. Rudiger (Leipzig, 1818, 1829 and 1833), and J. T. Vomel. (Frankfurt, 1829.)
1. The first Philippic was delivered in b.c. 352, and is believed by some to be made up of two distinct orations, the second of which is supposed to commence at p. 48 with the words a /uev ?Jyue?s. (Dionys. Ep. ad Amm. i. 10.) But critics do\vn to the present time are divided in their opinions upon this point. The common opinion, that the oration is one whole, is supported by the MSS., and is defended by Bremi, in the Phiiol. Beitr'dye cms der Schweiz, vol. i. p. 21, &c. The opposite opinion is very ably maintained by J. Held, Prolegomena ad Dem. Orat. quae vidgo prima Phil, dicitur^ Vratislaviae, 1831, and especially by Seebeck in the Zeitsclirift fur d. Alterthumswiss. for 1838, No. 91,&c.
2—4. The first, second, and third Olynthiac orations -belong.to.the year b. c. 349. Dionysius