Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T20:59:46.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Context of [Demades] On the Twelve Years1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Ian Worthington
Ian Worthington
Affiliation:
University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This speech attributed to Demades has provoked controversy on the grounds of its authenticity and the circumstances to which the piece refers. The date generally assigned to its content of about 326 is determined by ‘counting forward’ twelve years (the title of the speech) from 338, since the speech details some aspects of Demades' political career starting with his diplomacy in the immediate aftermath of the battle of Chaeronea (2 August 338). The date of 326 and its implied context merit question, but first some remarks on the authenticity of the speech may be made since this is relevant to its subject.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , May 1991, pp. 90 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

2 Blass, F., Die attische Beredsamkeit 2, iii.2 (Leipzig, 1898), p. 271Google Scholar, Burtt, J. O., Minor Attic Orators ii (Loeb edition, 1954 [repr. 1980]), p. 334.Google Scholar

3 See in particular Blass, op. cit., iii.2, pp. 269–72; cf. Burtt, op. cit., p. 334, Kennedy, G., The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton, 1963), pp. 258, 286 and 323Google Scholar, Davies, J. K., Athenian Propertied Families (Oxford, 1971), p. 100Google Scholar, Kirchner, J.. Prosopographia Attica (Berlin, 1901), no. 3263 at p. 215Google Scholar and N. G. L. Hammond, OCD 2, s.v. Demades at p. 323.

4 §7; cf. §2. On the genealogy see Davies, op. cit., pp. 99–100.

5 I disagree with Kennedy's belief (op. cit., p. 258) that Demades was a better orator than statesman; he was an invaluable diplomat for Athens, and was recognised as such by Philip II, Alexander III and the Athenians themselves. For a recent reappraisal of Demades see Williams, J. M., Ancient World 19 (1989), 19–30Google Scholar; cf. further below. (Williams also does not believe that any of Demades' speeches has survived: ibid. pp. 20–1.)

6 Butler's translation in the Loeb text translation does not faithfully reproduce the Latin (‘neque enim orationes scribere est ausus, ut eum multum valuisse in dicendo sciamus’): ‘for although he delivered his speeches with great effect, he never ventured to write them for others’ (my italics). On the passage cf. the remark of Winterbottom, M., Philologus 108 (1964), 124CrossRefGoogle Scholar – I owe this reference to Professor Bosworth. Again, for Quint. 12.10.49 the Loeb translation ‘in durable literary form’ is somewhat misleading (‘ideoque in agendo clarissimos quosdam nihil posteritati mansurisque mox litteris reliquisse, ut Periclem, ut Demaden’).

7 On this see especially Blass, op. cit., iii.2, p. 274 with note 3; cf. Kirchner, op. cit., no. 3263 at p. 214. On Demades' style see Blass, op. cit., iii.2, pp. 272–8.

8 See Davies, op. cit., pp. 100–1; contra Williams, op. cit., pp. 19–21.

9 The survey of Demades' decrees (21 proposals in Assembly) and offices by Hansen, M. H., GRBS 24 (1983), 163Google Scholar is particularly useful; cf. Schwenk, C. J., Athens in the Age of Alexander (Chicago, 1985)Google Scholar, nos. 4, 5, 7, 8, 23, 24, 37, 51 and 87, and Williams, op. cit., passim. He was an adept extemporaneous speaker: Plut. Demosthenes 8.7 and 10.1–2.

10 Cf. the criticism of Quint. 12.10.49, discussed above.

11 See my forthcoming article in Class, et Med. (1991), which argues this in more detail (and suggests that the revision stage of a speech throws even greater doubt on the reliability of oratory as historical source material).

12 Blass, op. cit., iii.2, p. 272, suggests that the author is contemporary with Herodes Atticus, thus first century a.d.Haupt, H., Hermes 13 (1878), 496Google Scholar, plausibly argues that much of the rhetorical techniques and content are drawn from fourth-century oratory, especially that of Demosthenes (accepted by Blass), which makes the speech at least hellenistic or later.

13 On the actual title of the speech see the remarks of Blass, op. cit., iii.2, p. 271.

14 For example, the Theban hegemony: §§12–13 (cf. §32); the influence of Demades in concluding peace with Philip II after the battle of Chaeronea and honours for that king: §§ 9–10; the garrisoning of Thebes by Philip II after that battle: §13; Alexander's advance into Boeotia at the start of his reign: §§ 11–12; Demades' diplomatic negotiations and success with Alexander after the Theban revolt: §§13–14, 16–20, 42, ?52, 56–7, ?64 (Demades in effect saved Demosthenes, if this fragment belongs to a context where Demades is maligning Demosthenes).

15 On the date see the discussion of Davies, op. cit., p. 101.

16 For example, by Burtt, op. cit., p. 355 note a.

17 Hansen, M. H., GRBS 24 (1983), 163.Google Scholar

18 I believe that the peace and honours on Philip were both part of the same proposal (contra Hansen) since Diodorus does not necessarily indicate that the latter was the product of another proposal.

19 Williams, op. cit., pp. 23–4 with n. 29.

20 See Williams, op. cit., pp. 21–2 with n. 14. Williams (op. cit., p. 24 n. 29) accepts that Demades fell victim to graphae paranomon for the proposals to deify Alexander and honour Euthycrates, but does not speculate what the third may be.

21 On chronology see Ian, Worthington, SO 61 (1986), 68–9 with n. 42.Google Scholar

22 Demosthenes: Dein. 1.1, 8, 40, 61, 63, 83–4, 86, 104, 108 and Hyp. 5.1; Philocles: Dein. 3.2, 5, 16, 21; cf. Hyp. 5.34 (unnamed others). On the decree empowering the Areopagus to investigate (apophasein): Dein. 1.1, 4, 6, 68, 82–3, 86, Hyp. 5.1, 2, 8, 34.

23 Death penalty on Demosthenes: Dein. 1.18, 22, 40, 63, 65–6, 77, 84; Aristogeiton: Dein. 2.2, 3, 4, 11, 17, 20; Philocles: Dein. 3.5 and 7.

24 For example, Dein. 1.5–6, 7, 12, 45, 54ff., 84ff., 104 and Hyp. 5.2–3 and 13–14 (Demosthenes); Dein. 2.1–3, 17–19 and 20–1 (Aristogeiton).

25 Dein. 1.106, 113, Dem. Ep. 2.14; cf. Hyp. 5.6–7 and see Goldstein, J. A., The Letters of Demosthenes (New York, 1968), p. 243Google Scholar. Dein. 2.15 and 21 imply that Aristogeiton's case was heard after that of Demosthenes and Demades.

26 In a now completed commentary on Deinarchus I argue that Demosthenes was not responsible for the destruction of Thebes in the way the orators allege, but that this formed a topos to his discredit.

27 Athens by no means acted in isolation: cf. Diod. 17.113 on the number of embassies travelling to the king.

28 Note Demades' remark (Val. Max. 7.2.13) that the Athenians were so concerned about heaven (the deification issue) that they stood to lose the earth: perhaps a reference to Samos. On the background to Alexander's decision and subsequent warfare see Ian, Worthington, ZPE 57 (1984), 139–14Google Scholar with bibliography cited.

29 Demosthenes' remark at Hyp. 5.31 is openly contemptuous in tone; cf. that of the Spartan Damis at [Plut.] Mor. 219e, with Aelian VH 2.19.

30 Many times in his speeches Deinarchus discredits the defendants by accusing them of dorodokia against the interests of the city: Demosthenes: Dein. 1.11, 13, 15, 26, 29, 40. 46–7, 53, 60, 64, 67, 88, 108 (cf. Hyp. 5.13, 21, 38); Aristogeiton: Dein. 2.1–2, 6, 15, 20, 22–3, 26; Philocles: Dein. 3.2, 6, 18, 22.

31 See Schäfer, A., Demosthenes und seine Zeit, iii (Leipzig, 1887), pp. 344–5Google Scholar and Badian, E., JHS 81 (1961), 35 with n. 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 See Goldstein, op. cit., p. 44 n. 42 (cf. p. 49 n. 67), and my commentary ad Dein. 1.29 and 104. Goldstein argued that since the verb κβλλειν is used of the named Philocrates in 28 and the unnamed ‘defiler’ of 29, then the passage in 29 applies to Philocrates (I disagree).

33 See, for example, Williams, op. cit., pp. 24–30.