This is a welcome addition to the commentaries on Demosthenes’ deliberative speeches, the most recent work being J. Herrman’s Demosthenes: Selected Political Speeches (Cambridge 2019). As the preface notes, ‘The edition has been written to provide the historical background’ of Demosthenes 8 and offers ‘the only extensive commentary ever written on this speech’.
The detailed introduction (55 pages) is, as promised, heavily focused on the historical background and context (1–13) including a discussion of Demosthenes’ political stance towards Macedonia down to the end of his political career (18–26). Concerning style, the author turns to Demosthenes’ use of history (26–28) while, regarding Demosthenes’ deliberative oratory more generally, the discussion focuses mostly on technical aspects of rhetoric (28–32). The section on the speech’s structure (33–44) offers a useful breakdown that helps the reader understand the main argumentative lines. At the same time, not all coheres: while on page 33 it is argued that the negative portrayal of Philip as untrustworthy is part of the first logos (mentioned third in order in the prooemium), in the analysis of the three logoi this is presented mostly as part of the second logos (see especially 38–40).
The translation is very literal yet solid, keeping close to the original but sometimes exhibiting a dictionary-like precision. Thus, it sometimes lacks stylistic nuances, failing to convey the rigour of the Demosthenic style, which is, admittedly, quite a task to perform, and the urgency of Demosthenes’ oratory. For instance, in section 14, ϵπὶ τῆς ἀνοίας τῆς αὐτῆς becomes ‘of the same mind’, weakening the point reinforced in the Greek through repetition of ἄνοια later in section 16 (ὑπϵρβάλλουσιν ἀνοίᾳ, here correctly translated ‘in lacking understanding’); in section 35, φαυλότατοι is translated ‘most simple’, dampening the force of the criticism; in section 48, ‘people’ instead of ‘anyone’ for τῳ detracts from the orality of the remark, addressing those in the audience with the most objections to Demosthenes’ plan; in section 52, in ἐπϵιδάν τι τῶν πρὸς Φίλιππον ἐμπέσῃ, ἐμπίπτω refers to Philip as a subject of deliberation meaning to ‘arise’, ‘come up’ (LSJ s.v. 3.b.), not to ‘attack’ (LSJ s.v. 2.), as it is taken to by Clarke (‘But whenever anyone attacks Philip’); in section 60, ἐπιστήσϵσθϵ is translated as from ἐφίσταμαι (‘stood over’), but it seems to me that it comes from ἐπίσταμαι, ‘know how to do’ (LSJ s.v. 1.), specifically employed here by Demosthenes to explain that the Athenians do not know how to behave as slaves.
The commentary is strong and detailed, especially on historical aspects, providing comprehensive accounts of military campaigns, interstate relations, the background of strategic actions and places, and demonstrating a deep knowledge of the ancient sources and relevant scholarship. In contrast, Clarke seems to be less interested in the internal affairs of Athens and in what may emerge from the speech regarding community values. One example will suffice here, which betrays my especial interest in the matter: section 71 is one of the very few on which Clarke makes no comment at all (the others being 34, 37, 46, 50, 67; note that there is commentary on 31 on page 139, but the numbering is missing); yet 71 offers a unique reference to philotimia in deliberative oratory, where Demosthenes denounces it as a motive for political activity along with kerdos (‘profit’), whereas philotimia is highly esteemed in the discourse of the law-courts, particularly in association with monetary and military services (e.g. Dem. 21.67–69, 21.159, 45.66–67; Isae. 7.39; cf. Lyc. 1.139–40), in state honorific decrees for Athenian officials (e.g. IG II3 1 306, 327, 416) and foreign benefactors (e.g. IG II3 1 367, 405, 419) and substate ones for a variety of services rendered by native Athenians (e.g. SEG 46.153, 63.105, 64.94) and very rarely by non-Athenians (IG II2 1186). In this respect, Demosthenes 8 is missed as a valuable source for the etiquette of the Assembly.
The edition ends with three very useful appendices. One and two concern the employment of ring composition in Demosthenes’ deliberative speeches, with detailed figures for every speech concerned, a valuable contribution to the analysis of Demosthenic style. Appendix 3 on ‘Athens and the north Aegean down to the end of the Peloponnesian war’ offers a comprehensive account of the matter demonstrating, again, this edition’s strength, which is in history.
In general, the edition seems to lack a final polish and would have benefited tremendously from further editing: there are several misprints (most notably, 205), titles of ancient texts and references that should have been italicised but are not, spelling errors, missing words or punctuation marks and an item (Serafim 2021) cited (109) but not in the bibliography. This, however, may be less the author’s fault and more of a symptom of our times regarding the state of operation of many publishing houses which unfortunately burden authors with the load of editing and proofreading.
All in all, with its strengths and weaknesses, this is a valuable edition of Demosthenes 8, accessible to students but also useful for scholars interested in the history of the period and in Demosthenes as a political advisor.
