De Dinarcho

Having said nothing about Dinarchus the orator in my writings on the ancient authors—because the man was neither the inventor of a style of his own, as I judge Lysias, Isocrates, and Isaeus to have been, nor one who brought to perfection the discoveries of others, as I judge Demosthenes, Aeschines, and Hyperides to have done—yet seeing that this man too is held worthy of repute by many for his forensic power, and that he has left behind public and private speeches neither few in number nor to be despised, I thought I ought not to pass him over, but to give an account both of his life and of his style, and to distinguish his genuine speeches from the spurious ones. This I consider more necessary than almost anything else for those who practise rhetoric not as mere amateurs. At the same time, observing that neither Callimachus nor the grammarians of Pergamum wrote anything accurate about him, but, through having made no precise inquiry into him, fell into error—so that they not only made many false statements, but also attributed to Dinarchus speeches that in no way belong to him, and declared that speeches actually written by him were the work of others—and observing further that Demetrius of Magnesia, who had the reputation of being a man of wide learning, when in his treatise On Persons of the Same Name he discusses this man too and raises the expectation that he is going to say something accurate about him, fell short of that expectation: there is no reason why I should not set down the man's own words. What Demetrius wrote is as follows: "We have met with four men named Dinarchus. Of these, one belongs among the Attic orators; another compiled the legends concerning Crete; a third, older than both of these and a Delian by birth, composed both epic poetry and treatises on practical matters; and a fourth composed a discourse about Homer. I wish to treat each in turn, and first the orator. Now this man, in my own opinion, falls in no way short of the charm of Hyperides—so that one might say, 'and now he would have outstripped or drawn level with him.' For he brings forward persuasive argument and every variety of figure; in plausibility, moreover, he is so successful that he convinces his hearers that the matter could not have happened otherwise than as he describes it. And one might think those simple-minded who supposed that the speech Against Demosthenes was his, for it is far removed from his style." But such darkness has spread over the matter that it has come about that all his other speeches, which number somewhat above one hundred and sixty, are unknown, while the one speech that was not written by him is alone thought to be his. The diction of Dinarchus is properly ethical, capable of stirring emotion, falling short of the Demosthenic style almost only in bitterness and intensity, but lacking nothing in plausibility and propriety.

From these statements it is impossible to find anything either accurate or even true. For Demetrius has indicated neither the man's family, nor the times in which he lived, nor the place where he resided; he has busied himself only with common, current names, and has mentioned a multitude of speeches in agreement with none of the . . . . He ought to have done the opposite. The facts, then, which I myself have ascertained through my own efforts, are these. Dinarchus the orator was the son of Sostratus and Corinthian by birth. He came to Athens at the time when the schools of the philosophers and orators were flourishing, and he became a pupil of Theophrastus and of Demetrius of Phalerum. Being naturally gifted for political oratory, he began, while the school of Demosthenes was still at its height, to write speeches, and he gradually advanced in reputation. He reached his prime above all after the death of Alexander, when Demosthenes and the other orators had fallen into perpetual exile and death, and no man worth mention was left after them. He continued for a period of fifteen years composing speeches for those who wished them, until Cassander seized control of the city. In the archonship of Anaxicrates—in which the partisans of the kings Antigonus and Demetrius dissolved the garrison in Munychia that had been established by Cassander—Dinarchus, being accused along with the most distinguished of the Athenians of dissolving the democracy, although he was himself a foreigner, and seeing the Athenians stirred up and looking on him with special suspicion on account of his wealth, did not, for fear of suffering some grievous fate on this account, endure to enter the court, but left the city and went to Chalcis in Euboea. There he spent the time from Anaxicrates to Philip, a period of fifteen years, waiting to see whether through Theophrastus and his other

friends some means of return might be granted to him. When the king allowed him to return along with the other exiles, he came to Athens and lodged with one of his friends, Proxenus, and there lost his gold, being now an old man and weak in his eyesight. As Proxenus showed indifference in searching for it, Dinarchus brought a suit against him concerning the money—though he himself had never before entered a court. Such was the man's life. Each of these points is proved both from the histories of Philochorus and from what Dinarchus himself wrote about himself in his speech Against Proxenus, which was delivered after his return, and which has prefixed to it this indictment: "Dinarchus, son of Sostratus, of Corinth, against Proxenus, with whom he is staying, for damages to the amount of two talents. Proxenus injured me, in that, having received me into his house in the country, at the time when, after my exile from Athens, I was returning from Chalcis, he plotted against and took from me two hundred and eighty-five gold staters, which I had brought from Chalcis with Proxenus's knowledge and had on me when I entered his house, and silver plate worth not less than twenty minae." Moreover, in the speech itself, right at the beginning, he has stated that he had never before entered a suit; and in what follows—first in the proem he has stated the injury done to him through Proxenus, and in the subsequent passages he goes through the whole matter of his exile and the rest, from which the points mentioned above become clear; and besides this, that he remained a foreigner and was already an old man when he delivered the speech, as is shown from what he says at the close of the suit. These things, then, Dinarchus himself says about himself. Philochorus, in his Histories of Attica, speaks thus about the exile of those who dissolved the democracy and about their return again: "For when Anaxicrates was archon, straightway the city of the Megarians was captured; and King Demetrius, having come up from Megara, made preparations against Munychia, and, having razed its walls, restored them to the people. Afterwards many of the citizens were impeached, among them Demetrius of Phalerum. Of those impeached, some who did not stand their trial were condemned to death by vote, while others who answered the summons were acquitted on being heard." These things, then, are in the eighth book. In the ninth he says: "When this year had passed and another had come in, there occurred on the Acropolis the following portent: a dog entered the temple of Athena Polias, and, having slipped into the Pandroseum and climbed onto the altar of Zeus Herceius which stands beneath the olive tree, lay down there. Now it is an ancestral custom of the Athenians that a dog should not go up to the Acropolis. And about the same time, in the sky, at midday, while the sun was high and the air clear, a star became visible for a certain time. When we were asked about the portent and the apparition, to what they pointed, we said that both foretold the return of exiles, and that this would come about not through a revolution in affairs but under the established constitution; and so it came to pass that the trial was carried through."

These things having been stated above, one matter still remains, and it is most necessary: to determine his age, so that we may also have something definite to say about which of his speeches are genuine and which are not. We assume, then, that he returned from exile in his seventieth year—as he himself says, calling himself an old man (and we are accustomed to apply that name especially to men of this age). On these assumptions, by a rough reckoning (for we cannot attain precision), he would have been born in the archonship of Nicophemus. If anyone shall say that he is older or younger than the dates mentioned, then, besides talking nonsense, he will also strip away many speeches—indeed all but five or six—by saying that he was older than the authors of some and younger than the authors of others. Furthermore, in saying that he began to compose speeches from his twenty-fifth or twenty-sixth year we should not be in error, especially since the school of Demosthenes was then at its height. Now the twenty-sixth archon from Nicophemus is Pythodemus. Hence, if anyone shall set down as genuine all those that we find earlier than this archon, we should reasonably distrust him; and further, we should likewise record among the false ones the cases pleaded between Anaxicrates and Philip. For people would not have sailed to Chalcis for the sake of speeches, whether private or public; for they were not so utterly destitute of speeches. Since, then, the man's date has been found out as accurately as possible—by reference to which we shall also distinguish the genuine speeches from the false—it is now time to speak also of his style. But it is hard to define. For he had nothing either

common or peculiar to himself, either in his private or in his public pleadings, but in some places he resembles the speeches of Lysias, in others those of Hyperides, in others those of Demosthenes. And of these one could set out many examples. Of the Lysianic style there are examples both in the speech On Behalf of Mnesicles and in the speech Against Lysicrates on behalf of Nicomachus, and in many others. Of the Hyperidean style—which is more precise in its arrangement and somehow nobler in its constructions than the Lysianic—one can find examples in more than thirty speeches of Dinarchus, and not least in the speech On the Protestation of Agathon. Moreover, of the Demosthenic style, which he imitated most of all, one could cite far more examples, especially in the speech Against Polyeuctus. For he opens in the same manner as Demosthenes, and throughout the whole speech he has remained very similar to him.

How, then, could one come to recognize the speeches that are genuinely his? First, if one were to know the styles of the other orators; next, if one were to assign to Dinarchus those speeches that resemble Lysias, while saying a long farewell to the titles of the books in the case of those that have seemed to some to be Hyperides's but are really Dinarchus's; and if one were to affirm that those which have approached the Demosthenic style are, as far as may be, the work of this man. For in the case of the other orators whom he has imitated, the surest means of recognition is the uniformity of their speeches. Lysias, for instance, in both his private and his public pleadings, is consistent with himself . . . and as for his manner of expression, in respect of clarity of diction and a composition that appears natural and smooth, it differs from every other style in point of charm. Hyperides, in his choice of words, is inferior to Lysias, but in the handling of subject matter he surpasses him. He narrates in many ways, sometimes following the natural order, sometimes proceeding from the end back to the beginning. And he establishes his case not by enthymeme only, but also by expanding it through formal argument. Demosthenes, who surpasses both these and all the others, having imitated everything and chosen out the finest features of all, is recognizable even by his mere voice; recognizable too by what is fitting in each particular speech; and not only so, but also by his composition, by the intricacy of his figures, by his arrangement, by his pathos, and—greatest of all—by his forcefulness. But Dinarchus is neither uniform in all things nor the inventor of anything peculiar to himself by which one might recognize him with precision, except in this way: for he displays much in the way of imitations, and of difference from the originals of his speeches—just as is the case with the pupils of Isocrates and with Isocrates himself.

Let us suppose, then, that there are certain speeches inscribed as being by Dinarchus which bear a strong resemblance to the works of Lysias. Of these, whoever wishes to make the determination should first consider the individual quality of that man Lysias; then, if he sees the excellence and charm that bloom upon the speeches, and the choice of words present in them, and that nothing in what is said is lifeless, let him boldly declare these to be Lysias's. But if he find neither the charm to be like, nor the persuasiveness, nor the precision of the words, nor the touch of truth, let him leave them among the speeches of Dinarchus. Likewise in the case of those resembling Hyperides: if a speech has the strength of its diction, the simplicity of its composition, the timeliness of its matter, and a construction that is neither tragic nor turgid (for these are the chief peculiarities of that man), let him declare it Hyperides's. But if it be deficient in these very qualities, even though all the rest be not poorly written, let it once more be recorded among the speeches of Dinarchus. The same view we take also regarding Demosthenes. If the magnificence of the diction, the variety of the composition, the living quality of the emotions, the bitter and intelligent edge that runs through every fibre, the breath of inspiration, and the forcefulness all attend a speech, let there be nothing further to hinder us from recording it among the works of Demosthenes. But if there be lacking the supreme excellence in each of these, or the uniform quality running through every species of style, let such speeches remain among the Dinarchean ones. To speak generally, one might find two kinds of difference in imitation as compared with the ancient models: of these, the one is natural and acquired through much instruction and familiar training, while the other, akin to this, is acquired from the precepts of the art. About the former, what need is there to speak? About the latter, what could one say except that upon all the original models there rests a kind of natural charm and bloom, whereas in the works fashioned after them—even if they reach the height of imitation—there is nevertheless present something laboured and not derived from nature? And by this very criterion not only do orators distinguish orators, but also painters distinguish the works of Apelles and of those who imitated him, modellers the works of Polyclitus, and sculptors the works of Phidias.

Thus those who profess to imitate Plato, and who cannot grasp his archaic, lofty, graceful, and beautiful manner, but introduce dithyrambic and vulgar words, are easily convicted on this score. And those who profess to emulate Thucydides, and who can hardly seize upon his vigour, his solidity, his force, and the like qualities, but put forward his solecistic-seeming figures and his obscurity, would very readily be caught out by this criterion. Just so, in the case of the orators too: those who imitate Hyperides, failing of that charm of his and of the rest of his power, became somewhat arid—such as were the Rhodian orators, the school of Artamenes, Aristocles, Philagrius, and Molon; while those who wished to take an impression of Isocrates and the manner of Isocrates became flat, frigid, loose-knit, and unconvincing—these are the school of Timaeus, Psaon, and Sosigenes. And those who took Demosthenes as their model and pursued his excellences were praised for their choice, but had not the strength to grasp the finest of that orator's achievements. Of these one might set Dinarchus down as the best. He falls short of Demosthenes in the choice of words, in forcefulness; in his composition, in the variety and the alternation of his figures; in the invention of arguments, in not taking up novel and surprising ones, but ones that are obvious and lie in the open; in arrangement, in respect of the ordering and the elaboration of the arguments, the preliminary constructions, the modes of approach, and the other technical precepts that belong to this department; but most of all he falls short of him in symmetry, in timeliness, and in propriety. I say this not in the absolute sense, as though he succeeded in none of these things, but in the more general sense and for the most part. For this very reason some have called him a "rustic Demosthenes," having formed this opinion of him on account of the deficiency in his arrangement; for the rustic element in the body politic differs not in form, but in a certain construction and disposition of the form.

Such, then, is what it was possible to discover and to write about the man's style. I shall now turn to the determination of the speeches. To the genuine ones there will be attached only the bare record; but to the false ones there will be attached the precise statement of the proof and of the reason for which we reject each of them. And since for this purpose the determination of dates is necessary, I shall set out the archons at Athens, from the time at which we have assumed Dinarchus to have been born, down to the return granted to him after his exile—seventy in number. They are these: Nicophemus, Callimedes, Eucharistus, Cephisodotus, Agathocles, Elpines, Callistratus, Diotimus, Thudemus, Aristodemus, Theellus, Apollodorus, Callimachus, Theophilus, Themistocles, Archias, Eubulus, Lyciscus, Pythodotus, Sosigenes, Nicomachus, Theophrastus, Lysimachides, Chaeronidas, Phrynichus, Pythodemus—in whose archonship we have assumed that he first began to compose speeches for the courts. After him: Euaenetus, Ctesicles, Nicocrates, Nicetes, Aristophanes, Aristophon, Cephisophon, Euthycritus, Hegemon, Chremes, Anticles, Hegesias, Cephisodorus, Philocles—in whose archonship the Athenians admitted the garrison, and the democracy was dissolved. Archippus, Neaechmus, Apollodorus, Archippus, Demogenes, Democleides, Praxibulus, Nicodorus, Theophrastus, Polemon, Simonides, Hieromnemon, Demetrius, Caerimus, Anaxicrates—in whose archonship the oligarchy established by Cassander was dissolved, and those who had been impeached went into exile, among whom was Dinarchus. Coroebus, Euxenippus, Pherecles, Leostratus, Nicocles, Clearchus, Hegemachus, Euctemon, Mnesidemus, Antiphates, Nicias, Nicostratus, Olympiodorus, Philippus . . . in whose archonship the return was granted to the other exiles and to Dinarchus by King Demetrius.

Public speeches: genuine. Against Polyeuctus, who had been allotted the office of king-archon, at his scrutiny: "May many good things come to pass." Against Polyeuctus, after he had been expelled by vote of the Council, an indictment: "For a long time I have wondered at you." Against Polyeuctus, concerning the land that had come to light: "Concerning the information itself." Epilogue concerning the land that had come to light: "Briefly, gentlemen." Against Pytheas, for usurpation of citizenship: "The pretext was indeed sufficient." Against Pytheas, concerning the affairs of the market: "Since to some of the orators it falls to speak." Against Timocrates: "As is just." Against Lycurgus, at his audit: "I know that, even if to you nothing." A speech supporting Aeschines against Dinias: "I should wish, gentlemen." Against Phormisius, for impiety: "Surely, if any persons." Against Callaeschrus, concerning the honours: "Often, men of Athens." The Tyrrhenian speech: "That everything will yet come about." Against Dionysius, the one in charge of the administration: "Perhaps, men of Athens." Against Himeraeus, an impeachment: "I believe no one, men of Athens." An impeachment against Pistias: "As each of you also." Against Agasicles, an impeachment for usurpation of citizenship: "I think no one ever yet." Against Theocrines, an indictment: "Of my father, gentlemen." This one Callimachus places among the speeches of Demosthenes. Against Stephanus, for an illegal proposal: "Inasmuch as the law has granted, gentlemen." Against Callisthenes, an impeachment: "I am not unaware, gentlemen." An arbitration of the Phalerians against the Phoenicians concerning the priesthood of Poseidon: "I pray, by Athena, that it may be fitting indeed." Against the registration filed by Cephisophon: "First, gentlemen, I beg." The latter speech: "As to the matters concerning the purchase." A defence in an arbitration against the . . . of Chares . . . An impeachment against Phidiades the secretary: "Through no enmity whatever." Against Philocles, concerning the affair of Harpalus: "What need is there to say what, before the . . ." Against Gnodias, concerning the affair of Harpalus: "It is not unclear." Against Aristonicus, concerning the affair of Harpalus: "It was indeed a piece of good fortune, gentlemen." Against Demosthenes, concerning the affair of Harpalus: "Your demagogue." Against Aristogeiton, concerning the affair of Harpalus: "Everything, it seems, gentlemen."

Public speeches: falsely ascribed. Against Theodorus, an audit-speech: "Least of all, gentlemen." It is earlier than the age of Dinarchus. For it was delivered in the archonship of Theophilus, or of Themistocles, in the third or fourth year after the archon Theellus, as becomes clear from the speech itself—when Dinarchus was not yet fifteen years old, as we have shown. Against the Heralds: "If my father, gentlemen." This case was pleaded in the archonship of Eubulus, or of Lyciscus who succeeded Eubulus, when Dinarchus was not yet twenty years old . . . . For the speech concerns someone who had been disfranchised in the archonship of Archias, who succeeded Themistocles. Each of the points mentioned becomes clear from the speech itself. Against Moschion, when Nicodicus had registered an action against him: "Of those who voted to disfranchise this man Moschion, gentlemen, having met him . . ." This speech too was delivered about the same time as the former. It is shown both from the very opening of the speech and from what follows. Against Menecles, for arrest: "Gentlemen of the jury, both of the laws by which . . ." This too was delivered while Dinarchus was still a boy. For the man on trial is the Menecles who convicted the priestess Ninus, and the accuser is the son of Ninus. These events are earlier than the prime of Dinarchus. For the speech of Demosthenes On the Name, in which they are mentioned, was completed in the archonship of Theellus or of Apollodorus, as we have shown in our treatise on Demosthenes. And if Demosthenes there mentions Menecles as already dead, saying, "for you all saw him, as long as he lived, associating with Menecles," that is an old story. That this is the same Menecles, the accuser has made clear in the speech itself. An arbitration at Athmonon concerning the myrtle and the bindweed: "I pray to Demeter and Kore." It is earlier than the prime of Dinarchus. For it was delivered in the archonship of Nicomachus, as becomes clear from the speech itself, when the orator was twenty-one years old. Now the speeches that are reported under his name but are earlier than his prime, and are falsely ascribed, are these. After his withdrawal from Athens to Chalcis, the following are falsely ascribed: An arbitration of the priestess of Demeter against the hierophant: "Of many and surprising things, gentlemen of the jury." This speech was delivered when he was already in exile, as becomes clear from it. For the speaker in it mentions the oligarchy that had taken hold. Against Timocrates, an impeachment for the dissolution of the democracy: "You do deeds . . ." This one is shown to be falsely ascribed even from its very title. Against Spoudias: "And in the assembly I undertook to accuse." This too was delivered after the dissolution of the oligarchy, when Dinarchus was already in exile, as becomes especially clear from the speech itself. An arbitration of the Eudanemi against the Heralds concerning the sacred basket: "By no means are such things . . ." This too was delivered about the same time, when the orator was already in exile, as is again shown in the speech itself. The Attic speech: "All alike were . . ." This too was delivered in those times, as becomes clear in the speech itself. The Aetolian speech: "We too, men of Aetolia, are envoys." This was delivered, when the oligarchy was established, by the exiles from Athens, who were begging the Aetolians to help them, since Cassander too was attacking the Aetolians, who were free—as becomes clear in the speech itself. It is therefore not likely that Dinarchus, being a friend of those who established the oligarchy, would have made common cause with those who were attempting to dissolve it; nor is it possible that such speeches could have been . . . at Athens. A public address for Diphilus, who was requesting rewards: "Because it is not easy . . ." I have been persuaded that this speech was written by Demosthenes, because Demosthenes proposed the rewards for Diphilus, as Dinarchus has shown in the speech Against Demosthenes, and because at the end of the speech Diphilus calls upon Demosthenes as his advocate. And I think it improbable that Demosthenes, while showing such goodwill to Diphilus as to propose the honours for him, would have allowed Diphilus to take his speech from Dinarchus. A defence for Hermias, the superintendent of the market, concerning the charges brought against him: "I beg of you, gentlemen." From the very style one might find that the speech is not Dinarchus's (for it is watery, feeble, and frigid); rather one might assign it to Democleides, or Menesaechmus, or some other of that sort. I take away from him also both of the speeches On Behalf of Menesaechmus, of which the one is concerned with the sacrifice at Delos: "We beseech you, and . . ."; and the other is against Pericles and Democrates, whose opening is: "We think, gentlemen . . ."—both on account of the style (for it is watery, diffuse, and frigid), and because the man who delivered them, being neither without reputation, and having after Lycurgus taken over the administration of the public funds, and having himself often been put on trial, as he reveals in his speeches about all these matters, would not have been incapable in either private or public pleadings, so as to make use of Dinarchus as a speech-writer. On the question of not surrendering Harpalus to Alexander: "It is not, then, worth wondering at." Neither does this speech display the style of Dinarchus. For if nothing else, one might at any rate find in it much that is silly and sophistical, the furthest possible from the qualities of Dinarchus. The Delian speech: "Of Apollo and Rhoeo, the daughter of Staphylus." This is not the orator's, but belongs to some other writer of history. It shows itself, from its manner and style, to be archaic, and it ranges over the local history of Delos and Leros. Against Demosthenes, for an illegal proposal: "You are accustomed, gentlemen." This is reported in the catalogues of Pergamum as the work of Callicrates. For my part, whether it is his I do not know (for I never came upon any of the works of Callicrates); but that it stands very far removed from the speeches of Dinarchus—being cheap, empty, and not far from the babble of an amateur—I am convinced.

Private speeches: genuine. Against Proxenus, for damages, which he himself delivered on his own behalf: "If any of the gods, gentlemen . . ." Against Cephisocles and his relatives, for damages: "The charges which I bring, gentlemen . . ." A defence against Phanocles, for damages: "I, for my part, supposed, gentlemen . . ." Against Lysicrates, on behalf of Nicomachus, for damages: "Gentlemen of the jury, that, being a private person . . ." A speech supporting Parmenon, concerning damage relating to a slave: "And having been present afterwards, gentlemen of the jury, I myself recognized that Parmenon is being wronged." Against Posidippus, for theft: "Having been wronged, gentlemen . . ." Against Hedyle, in a suit concerning withdrawal from a freedwoman's obligations: "When the father had left . . ." A suit concerning a freedman's obligations against Archestratus: "May many good things come to pass." A speech supporting Hegelochus, concerning an heiress: "As each of us also . . ." A speech concerning an heiress, on behalf of the daughter of Iophon: "Gentlemen of the jury, not being a poor man . . ." The latter speech: "For it was beyond fighting against, gentlemen . . ." A protestation that the daughters of Aristophon are not even subject to adjudication: "The law having granted, gentlemen . . ." Against Pedieus, for maltreatment of an orphan boy: "Let none of you, gentlemen, be surprised." A protestation concerning the estate of Euippus, against Chares: "I have already often heard . . ." On behalf of the estate of Mnesicles: "A just request, gentlemen . . ." Against Proxenus, for outrage: "He is an insolent man, gentlemen . . ." A defence on a charge of blows—it ought to have been entitled a defence against a charge of outrage—for Epichares against Philotades: "That marvellous man, gentlemen . . ." Against Cleomedon, for assault: "That, gentlemen, both my father Theodorus indeed . . ." Against Dioscurides, concerning a ship: "I think I might justly, gentlemen . . ." A club-loan speech against the sons of Patrocles: "The wrongs which I suffer, gentlemen . . ." Against Aminocrates, an arbitration concerning the produce of a piece of land: "In these circumstances, gentlemen, there is a necessity . . ." Concerning the horse: "As to the contest, gentlemen . . ." The latter speech: "I should have wished, gentlemen . . ." For Lysiclides, against Daus, concerning slaves: "The wrongs which I suffer, gentlemen . . ." A counter-plea against Biotes: "That, gentlemen, I myself too, being inexperienced . . ." Against Theodorus, for false witness: "We think, gentlemen . . ." A speech supporting Agathon: "As Agathon himself has also said . . ." A defence in a suit concerning a freedman's obligations, for Aeschylus against Xenophon: "To make use, gentlemen . . ." Against Callippus, a mining suit: "That, gentlemen, Callippus . . ." On behalf of an adopted son—it ought to have been entitled "On behalf of Theodorus, whom Archephon adopted as his son": "I should wish, gentlemen, that, just as it is honourable and just . . ." Concerning the estate of Archephon: "Believing it also to be just . . ."

Private speeches: falsely ascribed. Against Pedieus, a counter-plea: "According to this law . . ." This speech was delivered in the archonship of Aristodemus, as becomes clear from the speech itself. For the cleruchs sent out to Samos were sent in that archonship, as Philochorus says in his Histories; and Dinarchus at that time was not yet ten years old. Against Melesander, concerning the trierarchy: "As the laws command . . ." Whose speech . . . But the speaker makes his speech on the supposition that the offence occurred in the archonship of Molon. And he says that in the following year the case comes on in the archonship of Nicophemus, in which Dinarchus is found to have been born. Against Boeotus, concerning the name: "Through no love of meddling . . ." Even if those who take this speech away from Demosthenes and attach it to Dinarchus could not be refuted by other arguments, by the date at least they could be shown to be lying. For the speaker mentions the expedition to Pylae as having recently taken place; but the Athenian expedition to Pylae occurred in the archonship of Thudemus, when Dinarchus was in his eighth year. Against Mantitheus, concerning a dowry: "Of all things this is the most distressing . . ." This follows upon the former speech and has many things of the same kind in its diction, which would be the work of the same orator—outside the period of Dinarchus . . . The accuser pleaded the case not many years later, but two or three, as we have shown more precisely about these matters in our treatise on Demosthenes. A speech supporting Athenades concerning the raft, against Amyntichus: "Being a friend and intimate of mine . . ." The latter speech: "I think, gentlemen, that you . . ." The speech was delivered while Diopeithes, the general of the Athenians, was still occupied about the Hellespont, as becomes clear from it. The date falls in the archonship of Pythodotus, as Philochorus shows, together with the other . . . In this archonship Dinarchus was not yet twenty years old. Against Mecythus, a mining suit: "Having bought a mine, gentlemen . . ." This speech was delivered in the archonship of Nicomachus. For the speaker says that he leased the mine in the archonship of Eubulus, and that, after working it for three years, being thrown out by the man who held the neighbouring mines, he brought his suit against him in the archonship of Nicomachus, when Dinarchus was twenty-one years old. For Satyrus, against Charidemus, a defence in a guardianship suit: "Unless a great danger had befallen . . ." This too was delivered in the archonship of Nicomachus. Concerning an exchange of property, against Megaclides: "If it were necessary, gentlemen, against three or four . . ." The speaker is Aphareus, and the speech is outside the times of Dinarchus. For it was delivered while the general Timotheus was still alive, at the time of his generalship along with Menestheus, in respect of which he was convicted on submitting to his audit. Now Timotheus submitted to his audit in the archonship of Diotimus, the successor of Callistratus, when also . . .