862 HISTORY OF GREECE. first and to the third. Stueve (as cited by Dr. Thirl wall) mention* another reason tending to the same conclusion. Nothing is said in the second Olynthiac about meddling with the Theoric Fund ; whereas in the first, that subject is distinctly adverted to and in the third, forcibly and repeatedly pressed, though with sufficient artifice to save the illegality. This is difficult to explain, assuming the second to be posterior to the first ; but noway difficult, if we suppose the second to be the earliest of the three, and to be delivered with the purpose which I have pointed out. On the other hand, this manner of handling the Theoric Fund in the third oration, as compared with the first, is one strong reason for believing (as Petrenz justly contends) that the third is posterior to the first and not prior, as Dionysius places it. As to the third Olynthiac, its drift and purpose appear to me cor- rectly stated in the argument prefixed by Libanius. It was delivered after Athens had sent some succor to Olynthus ; whereas, both the first and the second were spoken before anything at all had yet been done. I think there is good ground for following Libanius (as Petrenz and others do (in his statement that the third oration recognizes Ath- ens as having done something, which the two first do not ; though Dr. Thirlwall (p. 509) agrees with Jacobs in doubting such a distinction. The successes of mercenaries, reported at Athens (p. 38), must surely have been successes of mercenaries commissioned by her ; and the tri- umphant hopes, noticed by Demosthenes as actually prevalent, are most naturally explained by supposing such news to have arrived. Demosthenes says no more than he can help about the success actually gained, because he thinks it of no serious importance. He wishes to set before the people, as a corrective to the undue confidence preva- lent, that all the real danger yet remained to be dealt with. Though Athens had done something, she had done little sent no citizens provided no pay. This Demosthenes urges her to do with- out delay, and dwells upon the Theoric Fund as one means of obtain ing money along with personal service. Dr. Thirlwall indeed argues that the first Olynthiac is more urgent than the third, in setting forth the crisis ; from whence he infers that it is posterior in time. His ar- gument is partly founded upon a sentence near the beginning of tho first Olynthiac, wherein the safety of Athens herself is mentioned as in- volved Ttiiv TtQuypaicov I'ftlv acndi? avnltjTnfov eyiiv, fl'my inty G<tnr,oiaq avt ot v cpQovTiQtit : upon which I may remark, that the reading a v T w v is not universally admitted. Dindorf, in his edition, reads ecttAv, referring it to KQuynonuv : and stating in his note that a v 1 M v is the reading of the vulgate, first changed by Reiske into a v r o) v on the authority of the Codex Bavaricus. But even if we grant that the first Olynthiac depicts the crisis as more dangerous and urgent than the third, we cannot infer that the first is posterior
