| I. DELIBERATIVE SPEECHES. | |||||
| Genuine. | |||||
| Or. | 14. | On the Navy Boards | 354 | B.C. | |
| Or. | 16. | For the People of Megalopolis | 352 | " | |
| Or. | 4. | First Philippic | 351 | " | |
| Or. | 15. | For the Rhodians | 351 | " | |
| Or. | 1. | First Olynthiac | 349 | " | |
| Or. | 2. | Second Olynthiac | 349 | " | |
| Or. | 3. | Third Olynthiac | 348 | " | |
| Or. | 5. | On the Peace | 346 | " | |
| Or. | 6. | Second Philippic | 344 | " | |
| Or. | 8. | On the Affairs of the Chersonese | 341 | " | |
| Or. | 9. | Third Philippic | 341 | " | |
| Spurious. | |||||
| (a) | Or. | 7. | On Halonnesus (by Hegesippus) | 342 | B.C. |
| Rhetorical Forgeries. | |||||
| (a) | Or. | 17. | On the Treaty with Alexander. | ||
| (a) | Or. | 10. | Fourth Philippic. | ||
| (m) | Or. | 11. | Answer to Philip’s Letter.[1] | ||
| (m) | Or. | 12. | Philip’s Letter. | ||
| (m) | Or. | 13. | On the Assessment (σύντξις). | ||
| II. FORENSIC SPEECHES. | |||||
| A. In Public Causes. | |||||
| Genuine. | |||||
| Or. | 22. | In (κατά) Androtionem | 355 | B.C. | |
| Or. | 20. | Contra (πρός) Leptinem | 354 | " | |
| Or. | 24. | In Timocratem | 352 | " | |
| Or. | 23. | In Aristocratem | 352 | " | |
| Or. | 21. | In Midiam | 349 | " | |
| Or. | 19. | On the Embassy | 343 | " | |
| Or. | 18. | On the Crown | 330 | " | |
| Spurious. | |||||
| (a) | Or. | 58. | In Theocrinem | 339 | B.C. |
| (a) | Or. | 25, 26. | In Aristogitona I. and II. (Rhetorical forgeries). | ||
| B. In Private Causes. | |||||
| Genuine. | |||||
| Or. | 27, 28. | In Aphobum I. et II. | 364 | B.C. | |
| (m) | Or. | 30, 31. | Contra Onetora I. et II. | 362 | " |
| Or. | 41. | Contra Spudiam | ? | " | |
| (m) | Or. | 55. | Contra Calliclem | ? | |
| Or. | 54. | In Cononem | 356 | " | |
| Or. | 36. | Pro Phormione | 352 | " | |
| (m) | Or. | 39. | Contra Boeotum de Nomine | 350 | " |
| Or. | 37. | Contra Pantaenetum | 346–5 | " | |
| (m) | Or. | 38. | Contra Nausimachum et Diopithem | ? | |
| Spurious. | |||||
| (The first eight of the following are given by Schäfer to Apollodorus.) | |||||
| (m) | Or. | 52. | Contra Callippum. | 369–8 | B.C. |
| (a) | Or. | 53. | Contra Nicostratum | after 368 | " |
| (a) | Or. | 49. | Contra Timotheum | 362 | " |
| (m) | Or. | 50. | Contra Polyclem | 357 | " |
| (a) | Or. | 47. | In Evergum et Mnesibulum | 356 | " |
| (m) | Or. | 45, 46. | In Stephanum I. et II. | 351 | " |
| (a) | Or. | 59. | In Neaeram | 349[343–0, Blass] | " |
| (m) | Or. | 51. | On the Trierarchic Crown (by Cephisodotus?) | 360–359 | " |
| (m) | Or. | 43. | Contra Macartatum | ? | |
| (m) | Or. | 48. | In Olympiodorum. | after 343 | " |
| (m) | Or. | 44. | Contra Leocharem | ? | |
| (a) | Or. | 35. | Contra Lacritum | 341 | " |
| (a) | Or. | 42. | Contra Phaenippum | ? | |
| (m) | Or. | 32. | Contra Zenothemin | ? | |
| (m) | Or. | 34. | Contra Phormionem | ? | |
| (m) | Or. | 29. | Contra Aphobum pro Phano | ||
| (a) | Or. | 40. | Contra Boeotum de Dote | 347 | " |
| (m) | Or. | 57. | Contra Eubulidem | 346–5 | " |
| (m) | Or. | 33. | Contra Apaturium | ? | |
| (a) | Or. | 56. | In Dionysodorum | not before 322–1 | " |
Or. 60 (ἐπιτάφιος) and Or. 61 (ἐρωτικός) are works of rhetoricians. The six epistles are also forgeries; they were used by the composer of the twelve epistles which bear the name of Aeschines. The 56 προοίμια, exordia or sketches for political speeches, are by various hands and of various dates.[2] They are valuable as being compiled from Demosthenes himself, or from other classical models.
The ancient fame of Demosthenes as an orator can be compared only with the fame of Homer as a poet. Cicero, with generous appreciation, recognizes Demosthenes as the standard of perfection. Dionysius, the closest and most penetrating of his ancient critics, exhausts the language of admiration in showing how Demosthenes united and elevated whatever had been best in earlier masters of the Greek idiom. Hermogenes, in his works Literary history of Demosthenes. on rhetoric, refers to Demosthenes as ὁ ῥήτωρ, the orator. The writer of the treatise On Sublimity knows no heights loftier than those to which Demosthenes has risen. From his own younger contemporaries, Aristotle and Theophrastus, who founded their theory of rhetoric in large part on his practice, down to the latest Byzantines, the consent of theorists, orators, antiquarians, anthologists, lexicographers, offered the same unvarying homage to Demosthenes. His work busied commentators such as Xenon, Minucian, Basilicus, Aelius, Theon, Zosimus of Gaza. Arguments to his speeches were drawn up by rhetoricians so distinguished as Numenius and Libanius. Accomplished men of letters, such as Julius Vestinus and Aelius Dionysius, selected from his writings choice passages for declamation or perusal, of which fragments are incorporated in the miscellany of Photius and the lexicons of Harpocration, Pollux and Suidas. It might have been anticipated that the purity of a text so widely read and so renowned would, from the earliest times, have been guarded with jealous care. The works of the three great dramatists had been thus protected, about 340 B.C., by a standard Attic recension. But no such good fortune befell the works of Demosthenes. Alexandrian criticism was chiefly occupied with poetry. The titular works of Demosthenes were, indeed, registered, with those of the other orators, in the catalogues (ῥητορικοὶ πίνακες) of Alexandria and Pergamum. But no thorough attempt was made to separate the authentic works from those spurious works which had even then become mingled with them. Philosophical schools which, like the Stoic, felt the ethical interest of Demosthenes, cared little for his language. The rhetoricians who imitated or analysed his style cared little for the criticism of his text. Their treatment of it had, indeed, a direct tendency to falsify it. It was customary to indicate by marks those passages which were especially useful for study or imitation. It then became a rhetorical exercise to recast, adapt or interweave such passages. Sopater, the commentator on Hermogenes, wrote on μεταβολαὶ καὶ μεταποιήσεις τῶν Δημοσθένους χωρίων, “adaptations or transcripts of passages in Demosthenes.” Such manipulation could not but lead to interpolations or confusions in the original text. Great, too, as was the attention bestowed on the thought, sentiment and style of Demosthenes, comparatively little care was bestowed on his subject-matter. He was studied more on the moral and the formal side than on the real side. An incorrect substitution of one name for another, a reading which gave an impossible date, insertions of spurious laws or decrees, were points which few readers would stop to notice. Hence it resulted that, while Plato, Thucydides and Demosthenes were the most universally popular of the classical prose-writers, the text of Demosthenes, the most widely used perhaps of all, was also the least pure. His more careful students at length made an effort to arrest the process of corruption. Editions of Demosthenes based on a critical recension, and called Ἀττικιανά (ἀντίγραφα), came to be distinguished from the vulgates, or δημώδεις ἐκδόσεις.
Among the extant manuscripts of Demosthenes—upwards of 170 in number—one is far superior, as a whole, to the rest. This is Parisinus Σ 2934, of the 10th century. A comparison of this MS. with the extracts of Aelius, Aristeides and Harpocration from the Third Philippic Manuscripts.favours the view that it is derived from an Ἀττικιανόν, whereas the δημώδεις ἐκδόσεις, used by Hermogenes and by the rhetoricians generally, have been the chief sources of our other manuscripts. The collation of this manuscript by Immanuel Bekker first placed the textual criticism of Demosthenes on a sound footing. Not only is this manuscript nearly free from interpolations, but it is the sole voucher for many excellent readings. Among the other MSS., some of the most important are—Marcianus 416 F, of the 10th (or 11th) century, the basis of the Aldine edition; Augustanus I. (N 85), derived from the last, and containing scholia to the speeches on the Crown and the Embassy, by Ulpian, with some by a younger writer, who was
