Demosthenes' Speech "On Organization" (Dem. 13) Trevett, Jeremy Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1994; 35, 2; ProQuest pg. 179

Demosthenes' Speech 
On Organization (Dem. 13) 

Jeremy Trevett 

D OUBTS ABOUT THE AUTHENTICITY of the thirteenth speech 
of the Demosthenic corpus, fIfpi cr'\)v'ta~fw~ (On Or­

ganization), have been repeatedly entertained since the 
nineteenth century.! The trend this century has been towards 
accepting it as genuine, but the most recent discussion of the 
problem argues forcibly against this view. 2 One hesitates to add 
to what has already been written on the subject, but the view 
that it is spurious should not be left holding the field. The 
objections that have been raised are far from cogent; moreover, 
it is essential to look at the speech as a whole, rather than 
concentrate on one or two passages that are thought to present 
difficulties.3 The question is important, as we need to know 
whether the speech can be used as evidence of Demosthenes' 
thought and the development of his political views. Absolute 
proof is unattainable, but in what follows I argue that the speech 
is almost certainly genuine. 

Testimonia. As the speaker identifies himself as Demosthenes 
(13.12), the speech must be either genuine or a deliberate fake; it 
cannot be a work of the fourth century wrongly attributed to 
him. No ancient scholar expresses any doubt about its authen-

1 The principal discussions (hereafter cited by author's name only) are: F. 
B LASS, Die attische Beredsamkeit2 IILl (Leipzig 1893) 401 ffj ]. M. F OSSEY, • A 
Demosthenic Doublet (XIII, 22-24 and XXIII, 198-200)," LeM 11 (1986) 77fj 
]. HEIMER, De Demosthenis oratione XIII (diss.Munster 1912); F. LEVY, De 
Demosthenis m'pt o'\Jv'ta~ECj)~ oratione (diss.Berlin 1919); A. SCHAEFER, De­
mosthenes und seine Zeit III.2 (Leipzig 1858) 89-94j R. SEALEY, ·Pseudo­
Demosthenes XIII and XXV," REG 80 (1967: hereafter 'Sealey 1') 250-55, 
and Demosthenes and His Time (Oxford 1993: 'Sealey II') 235ff; H. W EIL, 

Les harangues de Demosthene 3 (Paris 1912) 435-38j H. WINDEL, Demosthenis 
esse orationem quae m:pt o'\Jv'ta~Ew~ inscribitur (diss.Hameln 1889). 

2 Sealey II resuming Sealey r. 
3 Seventy-five years ago Levy complained (13) that ·omnes viri docti, quam­

cumque sententiam de oratione protulerunt, singillatim tantum partibus 
orationis vel argumentis selectis de totius orationis fide iudicaverunt." 

179 



180 DEMOSTHENES' SPEECH ON ORGANIZATION 

ticity. Libanius, Harpocration, and the scholiasts all refer to it as 
Demosthenic. 4 Didymus (colI. 13.14-15.10) treats it as authentic, 
unlike the spurious Reply to the Letter of Philip (Dem. 11). 
This argument from silence should not be lightly dismissed, 
because Demosthenes' political speeches were closely studied 
in antiquity, and the three evidently spurious works were 
identified as such. 5 Moreover, if the work is a forgery and 
written after the middle of the third century B.C., its absence 
from Callimachus' catalogue ought to have led the scholars of 
later antiquity at least to question its authenticity. But as 
Goldstein notes, there is in fact "no evidence that any work not 
listed by Callimachus has found its way into the Demosthenic 
corpus."6 The absence of other late forgeries makes it harder to 
accept that Dem. 13 is uniquely spurious. 

The only indication that the speech might have been thought 
spurious is the failure of Dionysius of Halicarnassus to mention 
it in his first Letter to Ammaeus (1.4, 10), where he gives dates 
for Demosthenes' major speeches. His silence is taken to 
suggest that he doubted that it was genuine; but as he refers to 
individual speeches only in order to prove that they were 
anterior to Aristotle's Rhetoric, he probably omitted this 
speech because he did not know its date, which was (and is) 
unclear.7 Further, the list of Demosthenes' speeches that he 
used was clearly eccentric, as he thought that 4.30-51 was a 
separate speech, and accepted 7 and 11 as genuine. There is no 
evidence that any other scholars thought that 4 was really two 
speeches; and Didymus, his contemporary, rightly suspected 
that 11 was spurious (col. 11.7-17). Thus, even if Dionysius 
represents a tradition that 13 is spurious, it has little authority. 

4 Liban. Hyp. Dem. 13; Harp. 5.'V'V. 'Onl(JOoOo~a<;, ·Opyo.<;. Mopuv. ITpa-
1tUA,(llU tuutu, KUOVlOl. 

5 Dem. 7: Liban. Hyp. 2ff; Dem. 11: Didymus col. 11.7-17; Dem. 17: Dian. 
Hal. Dem. 57; Harp. 5.'V. 1tp6[30A.a<;; Liban. Hyp. 

6 J. A. Goldstein, The Letters of Demosthenes (New York 1968) 18 n.63, 
who also argues that the marginal stichometric numeration of the speech 
shows that it belongs to a "corpusculum" of public speeches with "'IS-syllable 
stichoi" that was probably compiled at the time of Callimachus, if not earlier. 
His discussion of the problems involved (6-25) is difficult but rewarding. 

7 See L 13.1 (I 163 Dilts): <> 1tEP1. (J'UVto.~E())<; A.Oyo<; o\ne EXEl !lEV 1tpo<puvil tov 
Xpovov. It is clear that Didymus also did not know when it was delivered, for 
he tried to use Philochorus to date it and came up with a solution that is 
probably too late (col. 13.40-62). Thus Weil 438; see further 188f below. 



JEREMY TREVETT 181 

Doublets. The main arguments against the speech are based 
on several passages that appear in a very similar form in other 
speeches of undoubted authenticity. The most substantial 
doublets are: (1) 13.21-24 and 23.196-200. These passages 
contrast the modest rewards that the Athenians once gave to 
successful generals and to deserving foreigners with the inflated 
rewards that are now handed out. Most of the factual content is 
the same in both passages, but the sections dealing with Menon 
and Perdiccas differ. At 23.199f it is claimed of each of them that 
the Athenians "did not pass a decree that whoever killed him 
should be liable to arrest, but gave him citizenship and thought 
that this honor was sufficient," but at 13.23f that they gave them 
"not citizenship but immunity from taxes." 

We may start with the version in 23, which is certainly the 
work of Demosthenes. First, an historical error common to 
both versions must be noted. It is generally accepted that when 
the text refers to "Perdiccas," this is a mistake for the Alexander 
who was king of Macedonia at the time of the Persian Wars. 
This error has no bearing on the relationship between the two 
passages. The claim that "Perdiccas" and Menon were each 
awarded citizenship is almost certainly true of Menon, whose 
name very probably appears on ostraca for an ostracism.S 

Whether Alexander was given the same award is less certain, 
but in view of his rank and non-residence in Athens it is likely 
that, if he was given either honor, it was citizenship rather than 
ateleia (which was only of use to a resident in Athens: Osborne 
III 108f). Thus the version in 23 seems the more plausible. 

Detailed comparison of the two passages suggests that 23 is 
earlier than 13 (Fossey). It might seem puzzling that Demos­
thenes deliberately altered the correct version, but a plausible 
reason in not hard to find. The purpose of 23 is to challenge the 
proposal that Charidemus' person be regarded as inviolable. 
The argument in this passage is that the Athenians did not make 
such awards to Menon and "Perdiccas," but limited themselves 
to the citizenship, and that therefore Charidemus' friends 
should be content with the same award for him. If Demos­
thenes wished to reuse the passage, he would have found that 
the reference to inviolability, which made sense when talking 
about Charidemus, was inappropriate in any other context. 
Rather than rewrite the whole passage, he simply altered "in-

8 See M. J. OSBORNE, Naturalization in Athens (Brussels 1981-83: hereafter 
'Osborne') III 2~23. 



182 DEMOSTHENES' SPEECH ON ORGANlZA TION 

violability" to "citizenship," and "citizenship" to "immunity," in 
order to preserve a contrast, albeit now an incorrect one. 9 Such 
a falsification is no doubt reprehensible, but Athenian orators 
and their audiences were singularly careless about getting 
historical details right. 10 As he did not trouble to give the name 
of the Macedonian king correctly, he can hardly be represented 
as a paragon of historical accuracy. 

The other difference of fact between the two passages is 
trivial: at 23.199 Menon contributes 300 cavalrymen to the 
Athenian force at Eion, but at 13.23 the figure is 200. This 
discrepancy is most likely the result of a copying error.11 

It is further claimed that euergesia at 13.24 (IlEYUA,llV Kat 
'tllltav, otllat, Kat crEllvT)V 'tT)v au'twv 1ta'tptB' llYOUIlEVOt Kat 
1tucrll<; IlEl~OV' EU£pYEcrta<;) may be an anachronism introduced 
by someone thinking of the later association of the term with 
grants of proxenia (Fossey 78). But EU£PYEcria and its cognates 
are common in Demosthenes' speeches (over eighty instances 
are listed in Preuss' Index), and the argument has no force. 

(2) 13.25-31 and 3.23-32. These passages contrast the conduct 
of present-day Athenians with that of their fifth-century 
ancestors. One particular difference is taken to be significant. 
Both passages refer to the modest houses of great men of the 
fifth century, but different men are named: Aristides and 
Miltiades at 3.26, and Themistocles, Aristides, and Cimon at 
13.29. As Theopompus (FGrHist 115 F 89) records that Cimon 
owned a house large enough to entertain many poor men at 
dinner, and as at 23.207 Demosthenes refers to the modest 
houses of Miltiades and Themistocles (but not Cimon), it is 
argued that his appearance at 13.29 is an intrusion introduced by 
someone who did not know that he had a large house (that is, 
by someone other than Demosthenes). This argument is weak: 
one might as well ask why Miltiades is paired with Aristides at 
3.26 but with Themistocles at 23.207. In any case, one can argue 
that a man can be hospitable without possessing a large house, 

9 Wei! 451: "lci cet honneur est, pour Ie besoin de l'antithese, remplace par 
l'immunite, contrairement a la verite historique, on ne saurait en douter." 

10 See esp. M. Nouhaud, L 'utilisation de l'histoire par les orateurs attiques 
(Paris 1982). 

11 Fossey 78, although his suggestion that it belongs to a miniscule stage of 
the textual transmission seems to assume that the tradition was still unified in 
the ninth century. 



JEREMY TREVETT 183 

or that a house that was large by early fifth-century standards 
may have seemed unimpressive a century later. 12 The truth is 
surely that Demosthenes regarded the great names of the early 
fifth century as interchangeable for the purpose of criticizing 
the degeneracy of the present day. 

It is also claimed that two <common' passages are appropriate 
in their original contexts but inappropriate in 13. The first such 
pair is 3.27f and 13.27, both describing the state of £PTl~ia in 
which Athens finds herself. The meaning of the word is not 
wholly clear, but it is generally translated at 3.27 as "power 
vacuum," on the ground that it is followed by a series of 
genitive absolutes referring to the weakness of the Spartans, 
Thebans, and others, which are taken as explanatory. It is then 
argued that its use in the same sense in 13, where no explanation 
is provided, renders its meaning in context obscure. 

I suggest that the translation "power vacuum" is wrong, and 
that in any case the word need not have an identical force in 
both contexts. 13 The text of 13.27 reads: 

EK'£lVOt flfV S~ 't"alna' ~fl£lS; S', oaT]S; u1tav't"£S; opii't" , EpT]fllas; 
E1tetAT]flflEVOt, O"1c£\jlaa8' ei 1tapa1tAlJata. OU 1tAeiro flfV i1 
XiAta. Kcd 1t£V1aKOata. 'tUAav't' UVlJAro'tat flU'tT]V eis; 'tOUS; 
'tOlY 'EAAlJVrov U1t0POUS;, E~aVlJArov't"a.t 0' oY 't' lOtO. 1tuv't£S; 
OtKOt Kat 'ta. KOtVa. 'til1tOAet Kat 1a. 1tapa. 'trov aUflfluxrov, OUS; 
S' EV 10 1tOAEflC? aUflfluxoUS; EK'tT]aUfl£8a, ot'tOt VUV EV 'til 
dp-rlVl1 U1toAWAaatv; 

Sealey offers the following translation: 

Those men did those deeds, But consider whether we, who 
have had the opportunity of a power vacuum, which you 
can all see, do similar things. Have not more than fifteen 
hundred talents been spent in vain among the Greeks? Have 
not all the private estates and the common resources of the 
city and those derived from the allies been used up? Have 
not these men lost in the peace the allies whom we had 
gained in the war? 

Whatever its meaning at 3.28 (see below), it is not obvious that 

12 Weil ad loc.; Levy 57. 

13 Levy 56£ noted that tPTllJ.ta seems to be something advantageous in 3 but 
disadvantageous in 13. 



184 DEMOSTHENES' SPEECH ON ORGANIZA nON 

EpTUtla should be glossed as "power vacuum." 14 If the passage 
had to be interpreted on its own, the word would most naturally 
be translated "isolation" or "destitution" (LS] s.v. II). Moreover, 
to translate f1tHATlIlIl£vOl as "who have had the opportunity of" 
is only justified if EPTlllla is regarded as something beneficial to 
Athens-the verb has no necessary connotation of advantage. 15 

It would be as valid, and in my view more natural, to render the 
passage: "Those men did those deeds. But consider whether we, 
who have reached such a state of destitution as you can all see, 
do similar things. Have not more than fifteen hundred talents 
b ~" een spent .... 

As already noted, the translation of EPTlllta as "power 
vacuum" derives from 3.27, where it is suggested by the 
references to the weakness of the rest of Greece: 

'tU J.1fV aAAa. awmro, n:OAA' av EXWV etn:EtV, aAA' oallS an:a.v­
'tES opu't' EPllJ.1lm; En:ElAllJ.1J.1EVOt, Aa.KE8a.tJ.10VlWV J.1EV an:oAW­
AO'twv, 8ll~a. tWV 0' aaxoAwv ov'twv, 'trov 0' aAAwv OUOEVOS 
QV'tos a~tOxpEW n:Ept 'trov n:PW'tElWV i1J.1tv avn'ta~a.aSa.t, E~OV 
0' i1J.1tv Ka.t 'tU ~J.1bEP' a.U'trov aaq>a.Aros exElV Ka.t 'tu 'trov 
aAAwv OtKa.ta. ~pa.~EUElV, an:EO"'tEPTtJ.1ESa. .... 

Sealey translates: 

I pass over many things I could state, but since the Lakedai­
monians have perished and the Thebans have their hands full 
and none of the others is of sufficient weight to compete 
with us for the first place, we have had the opportunity of a 
power vacuum, which you can all see, but although we 
might possess our own property in safety and administer 
justice to others, we have been deprived .... 

I suggest that here too it is wrong to understand £PTlllia in this 
sense, and that a different interpretation is preferable: that the 
genitive and accusative absolutes form a single unit (as implied 
by the articulation through Il£v and 8£), and that all have a 
concessive force. The statement that the Athenians are destitute 
(£PTlllia~) is then picked up at (11tE<J'tEPTtIlE8a (an appropriate 
verb to explain such a condition). The point being made is that in 
spite of the weakness of their opponents, they are destitute, and 

\4 This is the sense offered by LS] (s. v. bttAall~av(J) IlLS U having found an 
empty field, i.e. an absence of competitors") and repeated by the Loeb trans­
lator ("who have gained ... a clear field"). 

15 See LS] s.v. £1ttAall~av(J) IlLS for the metaphorical sense of "reach" (a 
state or condition). 



JEREMY TREVETT 185 

that their destitution is exemplified by all that they have lost. 
They are destitute not of potential opponents, but of land, 
money, and allies. I would thus translate the passage as follows 
(adapting Sealey): 

You all see the extent of our destitution: although the Lake­
daimonians have perished and the Thebans have their hands 
full and none of the others is of sufficient weight to com­
pete with us for the first place, and although we might 
possess our own property in safety and administer justice 
to others, we have been deprived .... 

Even if this interpretation of 3.27f is not accepted, we are still 
not required to assume that the word must have the same 
meaning in both passages. Unless there is further evidence that 
£prlllia was commonly used in the sense of "power vacuum,» I 
see no reason to translate it as such in 13. 

Second, the claim that the Athenians conduct their politics by 
symmories appears (with trivial variations) at 13.20 and at 2.29. 
Sealey argues that, because in 2 the simile is introduced by a 
sentence criticizing the Athenians for being divided among 
themselves, it is well integrated into the speech; conversely, that 
the absence of such an introduction in 13 weakens its impact. 

Again, this argument lacks force.lt', The point of the simile is 
not just that the Athenians are divided among themselves, but 
also that a few politicians are monopolizing public life in their 
own interest. The Athenians conduct their politics by sym­
mories not only because they are split into groups, but also 
because individual politicians and generals have too much power 
at the head of their 'symmory'. As the preceding sections in 13 
criticize the selfishness of politicians (18H), the introduction of 
the simile at 20 can hardly be regarded as seriously awkward. 
Moreover, its relevance is reinforced by the sentence that 
follows: 

Hence all that you gain is that So-and-so has a public statue 
and So-and-so makes his fortune-just one or two men 
profiting at the expense of the State. The rest of you are idle 
witnesses of their prosperity, surrendering to them, for the 
sake of an easy life from day to day, the great and glorious 
prosperity which is yours by inheritance. (tr. Loeb) 

16 See too L. Pearson, The Art of Demosthenes (=Beitr.z.kl.Phil. 68 [Meisen­
heim am Glan 1976]) 136: "Rather than ask which is the better arrangement, it 
is more useful to notice the different logical contexts in the two speeches." 



186 DEMOSTHENES' SPEECH ON ORGANIZATION 

Thus none of the doublets can be taken as evidence that the 
speech is not the work of Demosthenes. Sealey claims that in 
the places discussed above the speech is atypically careless; this 
is a curious judgement on a politician who could be cavalier with 
the truth when it suited his purpose. 

Further, Demosthenes reused earlier material in at least one 
speech whose genuineness is undoubted. 1? It has been main­
tained that the reuse of material from 13 in 3 make it unlikely 
that the former speech was delivered, but this involves the 
implausible assumption that orators were reluctant to use an 
argument more than once when addressing the people. 18 

General Style. In discussing the speech's authorship, attention 
has been focused on the doublets at the expense of a more gen­
eral consideration of its style. Although it is impossible to prove 
on such grounds that the speech is authentic, there is nothing in 
its style or vocabulary that suggests otherwise. Stylometric 
analysis has shown that it conforms to Demosthenic practice in 
its avoidance of tribrachs (Blass' Law) and of hiatus. 19 A full 
study (published in 1919) of every word or construction with 
which opponents of the speech's authenticity had found fault 
proves beyond reasonable doubt that the style is wholly 
Demosthenic (Levy 15-32). The same conclusion was reached 
by Ronnet, and by Weil and Blass (although on other grounds 
they were reluctant to accept the speech as genuine).2o 

Two features of the speech's style may be isolated as typically 
Demosthenic. First, the use of full asyndeton between sen­
tences, which is particularly common in his work. 21 Second, a 
taste for striking metaphors that is wholly typical of Demos-

17 Cf 22.47-56, 65-78 with 24.160-86. Dem. 10 is also rich in doublets. 
18 The same argument cannot be applied to the doublet in 23 and 13, be­

cause the former speech was spoken before a much smaller audience in court, 
rather than the assembly, and by someone other than Demosthenes: M. 
Croiset, Demosthene : Harangues I (Paris 1946) 72. 

19 D. F. McCabe, The Prose-rhythm of Demosthenes (New York 1981) esp. 
169-74 for a summary of his conclusions. This work supersedes previous 
treatments. 

20 G. Ronnet, Etude sur Ie style de Demosthene dallS les discours politiques 
(Paris 1951) 189; Wei1437; Blass 401f. 

21 7tPWtOv !lEV oi oU!l!laxot (6); 7tapEAeWV U!lWV (12); olov 07tWe; 8E !l~ eOp\)­
IYTlOEt (14); 7t<lAtv KW7tae; tte; UCjlElAEtO (14); PT]tWP 'hYEllWV (20=2.29); otov a npoe; 
tOUe; KatapatO\)e; MqapEae; (32); unavta KaAa (33). See]. D. Denniston, 
Greek Prose Style (Oxford 1952) 99-123, esp. 112: "In Demosthenes, par­
ticularly, fine examples [of full asyndeton] are to be found in great profusion." 



JEREMY TREVETT 187 

thenes' practice in all but his earliest speeches. 22 Similarly, the 
pungently vulgar description of the men to whom the 
Athenians make grants of citizenship as cp8opous av8pc.l)1tous 
OiKO'tpi~(Ov OiKo'tpl~ac; (24) foreshadows the outburst against 
Philip at 9.31, oA€8pou MaKE<>ovoC;, 08EV ou<>' av<>pa1to<>ov 
o1tou<>atov OU<>EV ~v 1tpO'tEPOV 1tpiacr8al, and the use of similar 
'low' language to attack Aeschines.2J 

More generally, there are many expressions in this speech that 
resemble those found in speeches of Demosthenes whose 
authenticity is not in doubt. It would be otiose to provide a full 
list; what follows is a representative selection of some of the 
more striking examples: 

OuoXEpatVoucrt 'to 1tpuY/la (1=10.42); d<; OUOEV OfOV (4), d<; 
OfOV (4.14); aAAo<; (Xv TtV AO"{O<; (7), aAAo<; (Xv £'{1l A&yoc., ot,to<; 
(9.16); 0 oe /lOt 1tAdo'tllv uOu/ltav 1tapeOXEv a,mlv'twv (10), 
1tOAAllV uOu/ltav au'tcp 1tapfxn (1.21); tpOO 1tpo<; U/lU<; Kat OUK 
UKOKpu'I'o/lat (10=6.31; with variants Af~W 1tpo<; u/lu<; at 8.73 
and <ppa.ow 1tpo<; u/lu<; at 19.3); tV'tEUOEV ap~aoeC£t 'tou 1tpa.,,{­
/la'to,; (11), 'lV' Ev't£u8£v apsw/lat (9.8); KeLl. mlV'tu JlUAAOV i1 
'teX peA'tto't' aKOUEtV d{hoOE (13), KUt 1telv'ta /lUAAOV i1 'teX 
f3eA'tto'tu 'tOt'; 1tpa"{Jlaotv OUVEtBtoBat /lOt OOKEt't' UKOUEtV 
(Proem 15.1); f."{ro of. <pPelOW (15), f."{ro <ppaow (4.20); 'teXS f.A-
1ttoa<; UlltV U1tO'tElVWV (19), 'tOOv tA1tlOWV u<; U1tf'tEtV' 0 'Apto­
'to/laxo<; (23.14); 1tpo,; 'tOu,; KU'tUPa.'tOu<; MqupfU'; (32), 
ME"(apfa<; 'tou'tOUOt 'to'u<; Ku'tapa.'tou<; (23.212); Eon 0', c1 av­
OPE<; 'ABllvutot, KE<paAUtOV a,1tav'twv 'tOOv dPll/lfVWV (36), 
"A.f"{w (1) K£<paAUtOv (2.31). 

It is particularly notable that the majority of these parallels are 
with Demosthenes' early speeches and with the Prooemia, most 
of which are themselves early compositions. 24 The speeches 
with which it has passages in common (2, 3, 23) are also all early. 

22 7tOAAa 'tWV 7tpUnUl-t(t)v 'tl)V UIlf.'tEPUV 7t08f.t 7tupo'UO'iuv (7); 'ta c1"tu 
7tpw"tov Ufl-wv iuaua8m (13); 7tf.7toAt"tf.'U£O'8f. yap EV "tOt,> "EAATjO'lV (35). See 
Ronnet (supra n.20: 149-76) for the claim that the speech is "Ie plus image de 
tous" (151). 

23 <peopo,>: Ar. Eq. 1151; Thes. 535; OiKO'tpnl': Ar. Thes. 426. For 'comic' 
language directed at Aeschines see esp. 18.127. 

24 Blass 403: .. Endlich mug hervorgehoben werden, dag die Beriihrungen 
mit andern Demosthenischen Werken sich fast durchweg auf die alteren, 
einschlieglich der Olynthischen Reden, beschranken, iihnlich wie das bei der 
Prooemiensammlung der Fall ist." On the dating of the Prooemia see R. 
Clavaud, Demosthene: Prologues (Paris 1974) 13-25, who assigns only two to 
the period after the fall of Olynthus. 



188 DEMOSTHENES' SPEECH ON ORGANIZATION 

A lexical feature points in the same direction: the verb xUPUlVii) 

is common here and in Demosthenes' early speeches and 
Proemia, but it is not used in his later political speeches. 25 This is 
a clear case of changing usage (whatever the reason); 13 con­
forms exactly with Demonsthenes' practice in the early 
speeches. Thus, if the speech is not authentic, it was written by 
someone who could reproduce Demosthenes' style perfectly, 
and also distinguish between his earlier and later styles. Even the 
former possibility seems unlikely. 

Date and Context. Much has been written on the dating of the 
speech, and a number of different possibilities has been canvas­
sed. 26 My purpose here is not to argue for a particular date, 
which the evidence hardly allows, but to show that the allusions 
in the speech are all consistent with a date in the late 350s. At 
13.8 the speaker refers to the destruction of the Mytilenean and 
Rhodian democracies. The latter is familiar from Dem. 15; the 
former is mentioned in the same speech (15.19), where it is said 
that My til ene, Rhodes, and Chios are all under oligarchies; 
moreover, the thirty-seventh Proemium advocates that the 
Athenians send help to the people of Mytilene. As our passage 
does not indicate how long ago these democracies fell, it gives us 
only a rough indication of the speech's date. 

At 13.14 reference is made to the Opisthodomos having 
recently (x PO:Hlv) been broken into. Some commentators 
identify this episode with the scandal in which the Treasurers of 
Athena and of the Other Gods borrowed sacred money and 
lent it to the bankers in the hope of enriching themselves; when 
the banks went bust, they set fire to the building in a vain 

25 1tUPUtvro: 13.2,34=14.5,10,26; 15.20; 16.32; Pro 12.2; 17; 31.1; 56.2; 1tUpUtV­
£Oatf.lt: 13.34=14.3; 15.7,25; 1tUpatv£OUvtu: 13.1. C[ 1tUpUtvEt<;: Pro 35.4; 1tUp­
atVoUOt: Pro 6.1; 1tUpatvi1: Pro 35.4; 1tUPUtVElv: Pro 10.2; 17; 26.1; 35.2; 44.1; 
1tUPUtVOUV1:E<;: Pro 10.2; 1tUpatVOUV1:cov: 16.9; 1tUPDvouv: Pro 41.1; 1tUPDv€Ou: 15.6, 
14; 1tupatv£crat: 15.28. 

26 In addition to the, works listed supra n.l, the following are most impor­
tant: H. Francotte, "Etudes sur Demosthene," MusB 17 (1913) 237-88 at 
271-78; F. Focke, "Demosthenesstudien," in F. Focke et al., edd., Genethliakon 
Wilhelm Schmid (= Tubinger Beitrage zur Altertumswissenschaft 5 [Stuttgart 
1929]) 1-68 at 12-15; G. L. Cawkwell, "Anthemocritus and the Megarians and 
the Decree of Charinus," REG 82 (1969) 327-35. 



JEREMY TREVETT 189 

attempt to hide their crime.27 But scepticism is perhaps wiser, 
not least because the most striking feature of the scandal, the 
fire, is not mentioned in 13. 

At 13.32f the speaker mentions the Athenian's failure to act on 
the decree that they should march out and prevent the 
"accursed Megarians" from cultivating the hiera orgas. Friction 
with Megara over the sacred land is confirmed by fragments of 
Philochorus (FGrHist 328 F 155 [=Didymus col. 13.40-58], dated 
3501349) and Androtion (FGrHist 324 F 30=Didymus colI. 
14.35-49). In addition, IG II 2 204 of 3521351 fixes the appoint­
ment of an Athenian board to determine the boundaries of the 
land. Although Megara is not named in the text of the decree, it 
clearly relates to the same dispute. These data are combined by 
Cawkwell to produce a plausible reconstruction, according to 
which the speech refers to an early stage of the dispute, before 
Athens acted forcibly (an expedition is mentioned by Phi loch­
orus and at Dem. 3.20). Its precise chronological relationship to 
the decree cannot be determined. 

In the same paragraph reference is made to another decree, 
recently passed in favor of those exiled from Phlius, that the 
Athenians should help them and call on volunteers from the 
Peloponnese. This episode is otherwise unattested. Phlius had 
been affected by internal strife earlier in the century, and it is not 
unlikely that there was a fresh outbreak in the late 350s. 28 

Demosthenes' speech advocating acceptance of a Megalopolitan 
appeal in 353/352 (Dem. 16) shows that Athens could con­
template intervention in the Peloponnese in support of states 
that were being threatened by Sparta, and it is possible that 
Sparta was also involved in Phliasian affairs. 

The events alluded to in the speech can thus all be assigned 
with either certainty or great plausibility to the late 350s. If it is 
spurious, its author had a minute knowledge of the history of 
the period. Moreover, the fact tells against the hypothesis 
(discussed below) that all the allusions belong to the same 
period, it seems unlikely that the speech was put together from 
scattered fragments by a later editor. 

27 Oem. 24.136 with L The date of this episode is unclear, and the issues 
involved are complex: see D. M. Lewis, "Notes on Attic Inscriptions," BSA 49 
(1954) 17-50 at 39-49, esp. 47ff. Weil ad lac. refers the two accounts to the 
same event. 

28 See R. P. Legon, "Phliasian Politics and Policy in the Early Fourth 
Century B.C.," Historia 16 (1967) 324-37. 



190 DEMOSTHENES' SPEECH ON ORGANIZATION 

As these allusions cannot be exactly dated, the date of the 
speech must remain somewhat unclear. 29 It is generally agreed 
that the view of Didymus, that it belongs to 349/348, has little to 
commend it.30 Cawkwell urges that its silence about Philip 
ought to place it before his march to Heraion Teichos in 
November 352, perhaps even before Athens' blockade of Ther­
mopylae in the summer of that year. 31 This may be so, although 
it is perhaps wrong to think that Philip monopolized Demos­
thenes' attention in these years. On the other hand, the speech is 
probably later than 23, which (for what it is worth) is dated 
352/351 by Dionysius. 32 Moreover, the reference to trouble 
with Megara, securely dated to 350/349 by Philochorus, suggests 
that 353/352 may be too early. Certainty, however, is impos­
sible. 

The Policy of the Speech. It remains to examine the speech as 
a whole, and in particular to consider whether it is sufficiently 
coherent to be considered a unity. Some scholars have accepted 
that the individual parts are largely or wholly Demosthenic, but 
believe that it was put together by an editor. 33 Others detect an 
absence of structure or point (Sealey I 252). The theory that an 
editor worked on Demosthenes' speeches (so convenient as an 
explanation for puzzling or difficult features in them) is un­
proven and in my judgement unfounded. The speech is in fact 
quite consistent, both with itself and with the views that 
Demosthenes developed in his other speeches of this period. 

The speech is to be delivered before a meeting of the 
Assembly at which the subject under discussion is the use to 
which a certain sum of money is to be put (13.1). At issue is 

29 Dates from 353/352 to 349/348 have been suggested. For bibliography see 
supra n.26. 

30 Col. 13.40-62. Didymus simply assumes that the speech is later than the 
invasion assigned by Philochorus to 350/349. 

31 The view that it postdates the First Philippic, and that it says nothing 
about Philip because he was absent in Thrace, is based on the unfounded 
assumption that the earlier speech referred to at 13.9 is the First Philippic. 

32 Ad Amm. 1.4. His general reliability is defended by R. Sealey, "Dionysius 
of Halicarnassus and Some Demosthenic Dates," REG 68 (1955) 77-120, who 
nevertheless admits that he made some errors. I see no reason to believe that 
he had access to reliable dates. On the relationship of 13 and 23 see Fossey 
and supra 182f. 

33 Blass 402: "Also die Rede als solche ist das Werk eines andern, den man 
auch nur in dem Sinne noch Redactor nennen kann." 



JEREMY TREVETT 191 

whether or not to distribute the money to the citizens (only the 
poor are specified). Demosthenes neither opposes nor supports 
the distribution, for in his view both sides are motivated by 
selfish considerations; rather, the Athenians should link the 
receipt of money to the performance of duties, military or 
otherwise, depending on age. 

The source of the money under discussion is never made 
clear; but Libanius' confident statement in his hypothesis to the 
speech that it is Theoric is unlikely to be wrong. Almost every 
aspect of the Theoric Fund is controversial, and what follows is 
put forward as no more than a speculative suggestion. 34 If Han­
sen is correct to distinguish between two sources of Theoric 
payments-an annual allocation from the city's budget and the 
much smaller and more variable surplus of that budget-it 
seems likely that the latter is here at issue, for two reasons. First, 
Demosthenes says that the sum of money is small (13.2). 
Second, as we are told that a vote is to be taken about the destin­
ation of the money, it is tempting to see a connection with the 
reference at [Dem.] 59.4 to Apollodorus' proposal (in 349/348) 
that the assembly should decide whether the budget surplus (t(x 
1tEptOV'tU XPllIlU'tU 'tile; OtOtrilcrECOe;) should be used for military 
or for Theoric purposes. This passage is difficult, not least be­
cause it is internally inconsistent. 35 But it does represent the 
assembly voting on whether money should be used for Theoric 
distributions or for another purpose, and can hardly be wholly 
fictitious. 

If this is correct, the question before the Assembly in 13 may 
also have been whether the money should be used for Theoric 
or military expenditure. The opponents of distribution are char­
acterized as being rich (13.1, 1tEptOucriue; EXOUcrtV). As the burden 
of military expenditure fell largely on the rich, through payment 
of eisphorai, it was in their interest that it be met as far as 
possible from th~ city's revenues. 

It might be objected that Demosthenes would not have de­
clined to support the transfer of surplus money to the military 
fund, when in the Olynthiacs he wished (but refused to pro­
pose) that Theoric money be used to pay for his military plans 
(3.10-13). But his attitude towards Theoric distributions in 13 is 

34 See esp. M. H. Hansen, "The Theoric Fund and the graphe paranomon 
against Apollodorus," G R BS 17 (1976) 235-46, with full references to earlier 
discussions. 

35 J. Trevett, Apollodoros the Son of Pasion (Oxford 1992) 138-46. 



192 DEMOSTHENES' SPEECH ON ORGANIZATION 

not truly neutral, because he explicitly and repeatedly criticizes 
the mentality of those Athenians who expect to get something 
for nothing. Although he refuses to oppose distributions, he 
thinks that they are a bad habit, which may come to be seen as 
seriously mistaken (13.2); money should only be distributed as 
pay (13.4, 9); the Athenians are obsessed with the two-obol dole 
(13.10); they give themselves up to a life of hedonism (13.20); 
they depend on whatever distributions their political masters 
permit them (13.31). He advocates a sea change in the nature of 
Athenian public life, in relation to which the sum of money 
being debated is trivial. His target is not this particular distribu­
tion, but the entire political culture of hand-outs, reluctance to 
serve in person, and apathetic tolerance of self-serving 
politicians.36 

The criticism (Sealey I 252) that we are led to expect specific 
proposals, which are not forthcoming, should therefore be 
rejected. On the contrary, Demosthenes makes it clear that 
what is needed, and what he proposes, is a further meeting of 
the Assembly to discuss Athens' organization and military 
preparation (13.3). Again, I see no truth in the claim (Sealey I 
252) that "the conclusion, that responsibility for success or 
failure rests with all the Athenians and not with their speakers, is 
feeble and has little to do with what has preceded." This is 
precisely the thesis of the whole speech. 

More generally, the main themes of the speech are the same as 
those that dominate the First Philippic (4) and the Olynthiacs 
(1-3): the Athenians must shake off their apathy and be willing 
to serve in person; they are the dupes of self-serving politicians, 
who squander money on doles and public works; they must 
regain the spirit that made the city great. It also shares with the 
early speech On Symmories (14) an interest in Athens' military 
organizationY There are still further points of correspondence 
between the subject-matter of this speech and that of other 

36 Interestingly, he takes a similarly detached view of theoric distributions in 
the much later Fourth Philippic, where he argues that both the rich who 
oppose them and the poor who support them have a case, but that their 
disagreements are detrimental to the state (10.35-45). 

37 Note how often (J1Jv'taSl<; and its cognates are found in Or. 13 and 14: cJ'uv­
'taSl<;: 14.23; O'\JV'tuS£w<;: 14.17; O'uv'taslV: 13.9 (also almost identically at 1.20, 
and similarly at 3.34); 0'\Jv'tax8EiT('tE: 13.9; 0'\Jvmx8ilvat: 13.3, 11; O'\JV'tE'tUX-
8at: 13.9, 10; 14.17; O'\Jv'tE'taY/-lEva: 14.19. Otherwise it appears only at 5.13; 
8.21,23 in the sense of "tribute." 



JEREMY TREVETT 193 

early works: cf 13.25 and 3.32 on pride (q>poVTllw.), and 13.8 and 
15.17f on oligarchy and democracy. 

In all these cases, however, he does not slavishly copy earlier 
passages. Even in the doublets discussed above numerous small 
alterations have been made. To my mind this method of 
working smacks of the perfectionist orator, which we know 
Demosthenes to have been, rather than of a writer of pastiche, 
however clever. 38 

In sum: the speech was accepted by all ancient critics as 
genuine, and was probably included in Callimachus' catalogue. 
In language and style it is not only wholly Demosthenic, but also 
closely resembles his other early public speeches. The presence 
of <doublets' is not alien to Demosthenes' practice, and the 
discrepancies in them are either explicable or trivial. The speech 
can be located securely if not precisely in the late 350s. It is 
coherent, and its ideas conform with those found in his other 
speeches of this period. The belief that it was put together 
posthumously is wholly gratuitous. 39 

NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD 

September, 1994 

38 On his working methods see Plut. Dem. 8. 

39 This article was written in the course of a research project funded by the 
British Academy.