Worthington, 'Demosthenes, On The Crown', Bryn Mawr Classical Review 9502
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/bmcr/bmcr-9502-worthington-demosthenes.html
@@@@95.2.16, Usher, Demosthenes: On the Crown
Stephen Usher, Demosthenes, On The Crown. Warminster:
Aris & Phillips, 1993. Pp. vi & 282. $49.95. ISBN 0-85668-533-X.
Reviewed by Ian Worthington -- University of Tasmania
The number of orators in the Aris and Phillips Greek
Orators Classical Texts series is growing, and rightly so,
but until now the greatest speech by the greatest orator was
lacking. Happily, that gap has now been filled by Stephen Usher's
translation of, and commentary on, Demosthenes 18 On The
Crown (= Volume 5). A useful introduction (pp.1-28) discusses
aspects of Demosthenes' life, the background to the famous Crown
trial of 330, and Demosthenes' literary style, but the bulk of
the book is devoted to a translation of the speech
(pp.34-165--the facing Greek text is Fuhr's 1914 Teubner text)
and a commentary on it (pp.169-277).
I must say at the outset that what Usher has given us seems
inconsistent with the overall aim of Aris & Phillips. I thought
that Aris & Phillips intended to make Greek (and Latin) authors
available to those without the language or appoaching ancient
authors in the original for the first time, and thus in need of a
good, recent, translation. The same goes for the commentary,
which I thought was to provide background on the text, some
discussion, and suggestions for further reading, but which
essentially was aimed at non-specialists. In other words, a wide
audience. Usher's commentary is too scholarly on certain topics,
especially Demosthenes' rhetorical style; he gives the names of
rhetorical devices etc. as used by Demosthenes in Greek, quotes
from other Greek and Latin authors in the original without
translation, and refers to specialist works which are not cited
in the bibliography, and hence would only be known to those
working in the field (some instances are given below). The end
result is a somewhat uneven book: too detailed for the average
undergraduate or interested persons, yet not detailed enough in
some parts (the introduction and sections of the commentary) to
be one of these so-called specialist books. It thus does not do
justice to Usher himself, who is one of the more influential
scholars working on Greek oratory these days.
The Introduction is in three sections: 'Demosthenes' life'
(pp.1-12--divided into four chronologically-arranged
sub-sections), 'Background to the Trial' (pp.13-19) and
'Demosthenes' Style' (pp.19-28).
'Demosthenes' life' (pp.1-12) succinctly deals with the life
and career of the orator, and is a good starting point for the
reader who might be approaching Demosthenes for the first time.
It is marred by some inaccuracies, and, more importantly,
something which does not help readers who want to find out more
about Demosthenes and the period, a lack of up-to-date works.
(The same holds true for the Introduction in general.) The book
was published in 1993, and since Usher refers to Christopher
Carey's 1992 Aris & Phillips' Greek Orators Volume 6 on
[Demosthenes] 59 (the most recent publication which he does
cite), I am surprised that older and at times quite dated
material is so often cited in the notes.
For example, in his discussion of the Meidias case (p.7)
Usher merely states that the question of whether the trial took
place and the speech was delivered cannot be decided, and he
cites MacDowell's 1990 commentary on Demosthenes 21 Against
Meidias in n.17. However, there is no reference to the
article by E.M. Harris 'Demosthenes' Speech Against Meidias',
HSCPh 92 (1989), pp.117-136 (which appeared too late for
MacDowell to consider), which argues that the speech was indeed
delivered. Also on p.7 (in his sub-section 'Ascent and Decline':
pp.7-10), Usher merely alludes to the controversial Peace of
Philocrates, so important in the political rise of Demosthenes,
and cites in n.18 a one-page reference to it in Cawkwell's 1978
biography of Philip II as further reading! In his discussion of
the political situation of 324/3 (p.11), much has been published
since Badian's 1961 article on Harpalus, but Usher cites only
this in his n. 27.
Some discussion needs to be made in the sub-section 'Ascent
and Decline' (pp.7-10) about Demosthenes' On The Peace,
which was a turning point in the emergence of that orator to
centre-stage in Athenian politics, preparing the way for the
influence Demosthenes would wield after Philippic 2. There
are also some factual inaccuracies in the section--e.g., p.5: the
Athenians 'were technically at war with [Philip II] from 356'. In
fact, the war over Amphipolis was declared in late 357 (cf.
Commentary, p.177 sec. 20, where the year is correct). Also,
Usher's statement on p.11 that 'Alexander demanded the Greek
cities should acknowledge his divinity . . .' is not only
sweeping but also dangerously misleading (and I believe outdated:
see now G. Cawkwell, 'The Deification of Alexander the Great: A
Note', in my Ventures Into Greek History [Oxford: 1994],
pp.293-306).
'Background to the Trial' (pp.13-19) is straightforward
enough. The schematic breakdown of the speech on pp.17-18, which
shows that Demosthenes used the Ordo Homericus in
structuring it, is extremely useful. Usher follows Gwatkin and
Wankel in believing that Aeschines had the law on his side and
that Demosthenes' attempts to counter Aeschines were weak (pp.14
ff.). Perhaps more scepticism is needed in thinking that
Aeschines did have such a clear-cut case at 3.9 ff. (the
illegality of crowning all officials before they had submitted
their accounts), and thus that when Demosthenes searches for
precedents (at 18.114) occasional ad hominem grants could
be made.
What worries me in this section is the readiness to accept
that the entire trial was heard in a single day (p.16). Some
consideration of the revision of speeches after oral delivery,
and the implications for length of trials and final content of
speeches, is necessary in my opinion (not only in this section
but also elsewhere--e.g., p.7, on the differences between Dem. 19
and Aes. 2). Demosthenes 18 is a very long speech (even Usher
notes this, p.17), and so is the prosecution speech of Aeschines.
I cannot see how these two speeches in their present length, to
which must be added Ctesiphon's introductory speech (however
short it was), the quoting of a great deal of additional and
often lengthy evidence, and then the business associated with the
final verdict, can be fitted into a period of about 61/2 hours:
see further my 'The Duration of an Athenian Political Trial',
JHS 109 (1989), pp.204-207.
Usher is at his best in the Introduction for the way he so
deftly and lucidly discusses Demosthenes' style, and shows the
influence which Lysias, Isaeus, Isocrates and Thucydides had on
Demosthenes, in the section so titled (pp.19-28). It is a pity
that much of this section will be lost on Greek-less readers
(some of the longer quotations could have been translated), but
this is an excellent discussion for anyone reading Demosthenes in
the original.
On the text and translation (pp.34-165), Usher uses the 1914
Teubner text of Fuhr and lists his divergences from it (with
which I agree), together with a brief apparatus criticus,
on pp.166-168. It would have been more user-friendly to have set
the app. crit. at the bottom of the relevant pages of the
text, but perhaps the Publisher made the final decision here.
The translation is extremely good, and Usher does justice to
a great orator, bringing not only the language but also some of
the vitality of Demosthenes to life--no mean feat. It is not a
literal translation, and thus parts might prove puzzling to
students reading the speech in Greek and wanting a translation
for help, however a literal translation would detract much from
the power of this speech. One can quibble with anyone's
translations, and although I might have phrased some things
differently I am not going to take on Dr. Usher at translating
Greek oratory--I particularly liked his decision to translate
neanias (sec. 136, referring to Aeschines), as 'young
wag', and phusei kinados (sec. 242, again of Aeschines) as
'foxy nature'!
The Commentary (pp.169-277) contains much information for
ancient historians and especially literary critics--it is a
better research tool for the latter than for the former. As well
as notes on the background to the case and the period, Usher
devotes extensive discussion to rhetorical matters and resources.
He cites copious references to ancient sources, and his command
of them is obvious.
Particularly good are the notes on the parentage of
Aeschines (pp.214 ff.); on Demosthenes' securing the alliance
with Thebes in 339 (pp.228 ff. and 244 ff.)--the analysis of the
famous section of the speech (169 ff.) dealing with Athenian
reaction when Philip seized Elatea (on pp.230 ff.) is masterly,
though in discussing the actual language used reference is needed
in sec. 173 to the article by Slater cited later (p.235 sec. 180)
on the epiphany of Demosthenes; and on the epilogue of the speech
(pp.270 ff.).
There is much to learn from the commentary, and plenty to
take issue with, as should be the case. For example, I do not
believe that Demosthenes' embassies to the Peloponnese in 343/2
and 341/0 were 'more productive' (p.197 sec. 79), and on p.220
sec. 138 I suspect that the oral nature of Greek society meant
that people had far longer memories than Demosthenes, Thucydides
or Usher allow. And I do not think that the Athenian fleet would
ever have been 'ready and willing' to take part in Philip's
invasion of Persia (p.238 sec. 195)!
There are some factual errors (e.g. the League of Corinth
was established in 337, not 336: p.200 sec. 89), but the greatest
criticism I have against the content of the commentary is the
omission of modern works, especially for the historical
background, which does not make it a valuable research tool for
historians. Again, this may well be the result of misgauging the
book's audience--specialist or not--in which case the fault lies
with the Publisher. Usher relies far too heavily on Cawkwell's
biography of Philip II, and does not cite, e.g., J.R. Ellis' far
more thorough and critical Philip II and Macedonian
Imperialism, published in 1976 (though it is included in the
bibliography), or N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History
of Macedonia 2 (Oxford: 1979)--not even in the bibliography.
Further references are needed in several places--e.g. p.175
sec. 13 on eisangelia: Hansen replies to Rhodes in
JHS 100 (1980), pp.89-95; p.205 sec. 102 on the symmories:
MacDowell, 'The Law of Periandros about Symmories', CQ 36
(1986), pp.438-449 and V. Gabrielsen, 'The Number of Athenian
Trierarchs after ca. 340', C&M 40 (1989), pp.145-159;
p.218 sec. 133 on apophasis: R.W. Wallace, The
Areopagos Council, to 307 b.c. (Baltimore and London: 1989),
pp.113 ff.; p.250 sec. 234 on the Second Athenian League and its
suntaxeis: J. Cargill, The Second Athenian League
(Berkeley: 1981); p.252 sec. 240 on eulogising Demosthenes'
alliance with Thebes: Ellis's criticisms, Philip II pp.191
ff., are needed as a 'balance'; p.276 sec. 322 on the differing
numbers of Athenian politicians to be surrendered to Alexander in
335: the discussion of, e.g., A.B. Bosworth, A Historical
Commentary on Arrian's History of Alexander 1 (Oxford: 1980),
pp.92-96; and many of the prosopographical notes would benefit
from J.K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families (included
in the bibliography and even given an abbreviation, yet, if
memory serves, I saw only three instances of this work in the
commentary). Also, in various places modern references are
lacking--e.g.: the corn shortage in the 320's (p.200 sec. 89),
and the Theban invasion of Sparta after Leuctra (p.203 sec. 98).
Above, I said that Usher refers to works which are not cited
in the bibliography but without supplying full details, and hence
would only be known to those working in the field (not the
intended Aris & Phillips' audience?). Examples include Rhodes'
Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia, which
appears cited by author's name only (e.g. pp.206, 244, 260), as
Comm. on [Aristot.] Ath. Pol. on p.209, and again on p.221
but without the Comm. (n.b. Rhodes does not use the square
brackets), and Cope's Introduction to Aristotle's
Rhetoric, which appears without publication details (pp.209,
247 and 263 [the last two by author's name alone]). Elsewhere, we
find a reference on p.240 sec. 201 to '[Longinus) [sic]
Subl. 15' followed merely by '(Russell's notes 120 ff.)';
on p.253 sec. 243 we have 'Dover LCL 170'; and on p.269
sec. 295 'Polybius 18 (17), 14 and Walbank, ad loc.'.
The quality of the finished book is very poor indeed: this
has to be one of the worst I have come across for its myriad of
spacing errors (especially involving commas), typos and
inconsistencies. I counted errors in the triple figures,
all testimony to extremely poor proof-reading. Just a few
examples, aside from the many typos (too numerous to
mention--e.g.: p.193 sec. 67: two indefinite articles; p.222:
section number for 142 missing; p.267 last word: atttended; Index
entry for Agis II should be III): complete sentences, or
references, within parentheses but with the full stop outside the
closing bracket; parentheses within parentheses but lacking a
closing bracket; misplaced opening brackets before Greek (and
Latin) words; misplaced punctuation before parentheses;
apostrophes missing; some sentences with words missing (e.g.
p.186 sec. 41: 'Aeschines' missing before 'invites'; p.187 sec.
44: 'of' omitted in 'full list Philip's conquests'; p.257 sec.
253: 'of' again missing from 'more distant the two major
oracles') or lacking closing punctuation; missing full stops in
abbreviated names of ancient authors or works.
Inconsistencies abound--e.g.: titles of journal articles are
sometimes given, sometimes not; publication details of books are
sometimes given, sometimes not; quotations or translations (e.g.
of some Greek words) are indiscriminately within single or double
inverted commas, especially in the Commentary section; numbers of
Demosthenic speeches are at times missing before their title;
some numerals are elided, others not; Demosthenes is spelt in
full in the text of the Introduction (as it should be) and as
Dem. in the notes and commentary (though in full on p.196 last
entry sec. 71, and p.223 sec. 144), but at times the abbreviated
form also appears in the text (e.g. pp.21, 25, 26), and on p.267
last entry sec. 285, from the context Dem. must refer to
Demades; 'Peloponnesian War' is written in full and then
abbreviated to 'Pel. War' for no reason (e.g. pp.204, 271);
perhaps also appears as 'perh.' (e.g. pp.233, 250); Thucydides
crops up in full and as 'Thuc.' (p.254); and MacDowell's
commentary on Demosthenes 21 is variously abbreviated as Comm.
Ag. Meidias, Comm. (e.g. pp.7, 16, 20, 257) and
MacDowell (e.g. p.205)--all three might throw the reader
unaquainted with this work since the word 'Commentary' does not
appear in this book's title in the Bibliography nor is an
abbreviation used there--there is for his Law in Classical
Athens (p.31).
Even the mere two pages of Bibliography (pp.29-31) are
messy: on p.30, J.R. Ellis is not the author of the article on
Philip's strategy in 346 but M.M. Markle, whose article is
correctly cited on p.31--which of Ellis' articles is meant to be
on p.30? There are several instances of punctuation before
bracketed publication details in the case of books, and of
journals without the comma after the bracketed year of
publication (also missing after the title in Hansen 1987).
Journal articles are given in full pagination, apart from
Cawkwell 1978 which appears as '93ff.'. The title of Andrew
Dyck's article is incorrect (not '. . . in the De Corona'
but '. . . in the Speech On The Crown'), and the volume
number of Greece and Rome in which this article appears is
32, not 33. Also, an extra bracket appears in Jones' entry.
I have gone on at some length, not only because of my own
frustration at coming across so many errors (or puzzling over the
odd and often faulty bracketing system), but also because those
buying books today reasonably expect as professional and polished
a final product as can be. In these respects, this book falls far
short. With whom the fault lies I do not know, but a second
printing, this time with some very careful proofing, would be an
excellent idea.
Though I still think Usher, or more likely the Publisher,
has misgauged the audience, it goes without saying that anyone
working on the orators will need a copy of this book. It is
particularly strong on rhetorical and literary matters, and for
that will need to be consulted time and time again.