On the Birth-Year of Dernosthenes, 395 avTOL^y KUL TovTip TrXeico eijuJ TeOeiKm. — eyw ^* v7rep(iaX(jov TovTO TTOirjaco TpiaKOvra ^va^^ 'iva irpo^ TavTa (jlt]^* avTei- nrelv e^aocnv). It seems therefore very doubtful, whether the pleader would have thought it expedient to name a term longer than that which had really elapsed, in order to found upon it a claim of more than was due to him, rather than to support the character of equity and moderation which he assumes, by confining his demand somewhat within the li- mits of his strict right. At the same time it would certainly be very improbable that the period of his wardship should have much exceeded the time he mentions, because he then would not have failed to call the attention of the judges to so extraordinary a proof of forbearance. Mr Clinton how- ever upon the strength of this argument thinks himself at liberty to make a supposition very different from Corsini'^s, as to the real periods signified by the terms of seven and ten years. He assumes that Demosthenes had only just en- tered his seventh year at his father'^s death, and that the ten following years of his minority expired, not in the archon- ship of Polyzelus, but in the beginning of that of his suc- cessor Cephisodorus : so that the oXa ^eKa errj were strictly nine years and ten months, and he was born in the first month of Evander, which is consistent with the dates of Gellius and Libanius. It would certainly be difficult to shew, that Mr Clinton is not as well entitled to make these assumptions as Corsini those which he has adopted, if they are to be tried merely by the language of Demosthenes : for the objections we have suggested as to the term of ten years may perhaps in the judgment of many readers seem to be of no force at all, and undoubtedly are not decisive. With regard also to the interpretation of the words from which Corsini inferred that Demosthenes was admitted to his estate in the last month of Polyzelus, Mr Clinton's opinion will probably to many appear preferable. For Corsini has not shewn any good reason for limiting the time signified by the phrase evOv^ iixera tov^ ydjuov^ to the month in which the marriage took place. On the contrary the subsequent passage, where, after naming the archons who followed Poly- zelus, the orator says : sttI tovtwv eveKokovv coKi^aaOeh, has been thought by other writers (as by Schoemann in the
