Online Encyclopedia

Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.

SPURIOUS

Online Encyclopedia
Originally appearing in Volume V08, Page 16 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
» Make a correction to this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Spread the word: del.icio.us del.icio.us it!

SPURIOUS . (The first eight of the following are given by Schafer to See also:

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, See also:

Blass] (M) Or. 51. On the Trierarchic See also:Crown (by Cephiso- 360_359 dotus ?) (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 See also:

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. 6o (brim./nos) and Or. 61 (€pwruK6s) are See also:

works of rhetoricians. The six epistles are also forgeries; they were used by the composer of the twelve epistles which See also:bear the name of See also:Aeschines. The 56 apooluta, exordia or sketches for See also:political speeches, are by various hands and of various See also:dates.2 They are valuable as being compiled from See also:Demosthenes himself, or from other classical See also:models. The See also:ancient fame of Demosthenes as an orator can be compared only with the fame of See also:Homer as a poet.

See also:

Cicero, with generous appreciation, recognizes Demosthenes as the See also:standard of perfection. See also:Dionysius, the closest and most penetrating of his ancient critics, exhausts the See also:language of admiration in showing how Or. II and 12 are probably both by-Anaximenes of See also:Lampsacus. 2 According to Blass, the second and third epistles and the exordia are genuine. Demosthenes See also:united and elevated whatever had been best in earlier masters of the See also:Greek See also:idiom. See also:Hermogenes, in his works on See also:rhetoric, refers to Demosthenes as 6 I TWp, the See also:Literary orator. The writer of the See also:treatise On Sublimity knows See also:history of no heights loftier than those to which Demosthenes Dthaneemoshas risen. From his own younger contemporaries, s. See also:Aristotle and See also:Theophrastus, who founded their theory of rhetoric in large See also:part on his practice, down to the latest Byzantines, the consent of theorists, orators, antiquarians, anthologists, lexicographers, offered the same unvarying See also:homage to Demosthenes. His See also:work busied commentators such as Xenon, Minucian, Basilicus, Aelius, See also:Theon, See also:Zosimus of See also:Gaza. Arguments to his speeches were See also:drawn up by rhetoricians so distinguished as See also:Numenius and See also:Libanius. Accomplished men of letters, such as See also:Julius Vestinus and Aelius Dionysius, selected from his writings choice passages for declamation or perusal, of which fragments are incorporated in the See also:miscellany of See also:Photius and the lexicons of See also:Harpocration, See also:Pollux and Suidas.

It might have been anticipated that the purity of a See also:

text so widely read and so renowned would, from the earliest times, have been guarded with jealous care. The works of the three See also:great dramatists had been thus protected, about 340 B.C., by a standard See also:Attic recension. But no such See also:good See also:fortune befell the works of Demosthenes. Alexandrian See also:criticism was chiefly occupied with See also:poetry. The titular works of Demosthenes were, indeed, registered, with those of the other orators, in the catalogues (pt7Topteol 7rivaKes) of See also:Alexandria and See also:Pergamum. But no thorough See also:attempt was made to See also:separate the See also:authentic works from those spurious works which had even then become mingled with them. Philosophical See also:schools which, like the Stoic, See also:felt the ethical See also:interest of Demosthenes, cared little for his language. The rhetoricians who imitated or analysed his See also:style cared little for the criticism of his text. Their treatment of it had, indeed, a See also:direct tendency to falsify it. It was customary to indicate by marks those passages which were especially useful for study or See also:imitation. It then became a rhetorical exercise to recast, adapt or interweave such passages. Sopater, the commentator on Hermogenes, wrote on A raaoXal Kai luerairotiiaeis rCw An,uoa%vovr xwpica, " adaptations or transcripts of passages in Demosthenes.” Such manipulation could not but See also:lead to interpolations or confusions in the See also:original text.

Great, too, as was the See also:

attention bestowed on the thought, sentiment and style of Demosthenes, comparatively little care was bestowed un his subject-See also:matter. He was studied more on the moral and the formal See also:side than on the real side. An incorrect substitution of one name for another, a See also:reading which gave an impossible date, insertions of spurious See also:laws or decrees, were points which few readers would stop to See also:notice. Hence it resulted that, while See also:Plato, See also:Thucydides and Demosthenes, were the most universally popular of the classical See also: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 See also:arrest the See also:process of corruption. See also:Editions of Demosthenes based on a See also:critical recension, and called 'ATrLKtava (avriypacba), came to be distinguished from the vulgates, or t5t , ihECs EK66o-a . Among the extant See also:manuscripts of Demosthenes—upwards of 170 in number—one is far See also:superior, as a whole, to the See also:rest. This is Parisinus 2934, of the loth See also:century. A comparison of this MS. with the extracts of Aelius, Aristeides and Harpocration from the Third Philippic favours the view that it is derived from an 'ArrtKtavbv, whereas the 3nµ66ets EKSbvets, used by Hermogenes and by the rhetoricians generally, have been the See also:chief See also:sources of our other manuscripts. The See also:collation of this See also:manuscript by Immanuel See also:Bekker first placed the textual criticism of Demosthenes on a See also:sound footing. Not only is this manuscript nearly See also:free from interpolations, but it is the See also:sole See also:voucher for many excellent readings. Among the other See also:MSS., some of the most important are—See also:Marcianus 416 F, of the loth (or filth) century, the basis of the Aldine edition; Augustanus I.

(N Si), derived from the last, and containing scholia to the speeches on the Crown and the See also:

Embassy, by See also:Ulpian, with some by a younger writer, who was (m) 11 11 „ „ Manuscripts. perhaps See also:Moschopulus; Parisinus T ; Antverpiensis II—the last two comparatively free from additions. The fullest authority on the MSS. is J. T. Vomel, Notitia codicum Demosth., and Prolegomena Critica to his edition published at See also:Halle (1856–1857), PP. 175-178.1 The extant scholia on Demosthenes are for the most part poor. Their See also:staple consists of See also:Byzantine erudition; and their value Scholia. depends chiefly on what they have preserved of older criticism. They are better than usual for the Hepi o7e4avov, Kara Tlp.oxparovs; best for the IIepc srapa7rpecr-3eias. The Greek commentaries ascribed to Ulpian are especially defective on the See also:historical side, and give little essential aid. Editions: C. W. See also:Muller, in Drat.

Att. ii. (1847–1858); Scholia Graeca in Demosth. ex See also:

cod. aucta et emendata (Oxon., 1851; in W. See also:Dindorf's ed.). (1892–1893) ; S. H. See also:Butcher in See also:Oxford Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca (1903 See also:foil.); W. Dindorf (9 vols., Oxford, 1846-1851), with notes of previous commentators and Greek scholia; R. See also:Whiston (political speeches) with introductions and notes (1859–1868). For a select See also:list of the numerous See also:English and See also:foreign editions and See also:translations of separate speeches see J. B. See also:Mayor, See also:Guide to the Choice of Classical Books (1885, suppt, 1896). Mention may here be made of De See also:corona by W.

W. See also:

Goodwin (1901, ed. See also:min., 1904) ; W. H. Simcox (1873, with Aeschines In Ctesiphontem); and P. E. See also:Matheson (1899); See also:Leptines by J. E. See also:Sandys (189o); De falsa legatione by R. See also:Shilleto (4th ed., 1874) ; Select Private Orations by J. E. Sandys and F. A.

See also:

Paley Ord ed., 1898, 1896) ; Midias by W. W. Goodwin (1906). C. R. See also:Kennedy's See also:complete See also:translation is a See also:model of scholarly finish, and the appendices on Attic See also:law, &c., are of great value. There are indices to Demosthenes by J. See also:Reiske (ed. G. H. Schafer, 1823) ; S. Preuss (1892).

Among See also:

recent See also:papyrus finds are fragments of a See also:special See also:lexicon to the Aristocratea and a commentary by See also:Didymus (ed. H. Diels and W. See also:Schubart, 1904). Illustrative literature: A. D. Schafer, Demosthenes and See also:seine Zeit (2nd ed., 1885–1887), a masterly and exhaustive historical work; F. Blass, See also:Die attische Beredsamkeit (1887–1898); W. J. Brodribb, " Demosthenes " in Ancient See also:Classics for nglish Readers (1877); S. H. Butcher, Introduction to the Study of Demosthenes (1881); C.

G. Bohnecke, Demosthenes, Lykurgos, IIyperides, and ihr Zeitalter (1864); A. See also:

Bouille, Histoire de Demosthene (2nd ed., 1868) ; J. See also:Girard, Etudes sur l' eloquence attique (1874) ; M. Croiset, See also:Des idees morales clans l'Eloquence politique de Demos-thane (1874);, A. See also:Hug, Demosthenes als politischer Denker (1881); L. Bredit, L'Eloquence politique en Grece (2nd ed., 1886) ; A. Bougot, Rivalite d'Eschine et Demosthene (1891). For See also:fuller See also:bibliographical See also:information consult R. See also:Nicolai, Griechische Literaturgeschichte (1881); W. Engelmann, Scriptores Greeci (1881); G. Huttner in C.

See also:

Bursian's Jahresbericht, li. (1889). (R. C.

End of Article: SPURIOUS

Additional information and Comments

There are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML.
Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide.
Do not copy, download, transfer, or otherwise replicate the site content in whole or in part.

Links to articles and home page are always encouraged.

[back]
SPURGEON, CHARLES HADDON (1834—1892) 		[next]
SPURN HEAD, or SPURN POINT

Site © 2006 - Net Industries