.........!77








J7,












THE ATTIC ORATORS
FROM
ANTIPHON TO ISAEOS.








THE ATTIC ORATORS
FROM
ANTIPHON TO ISAEOS.
BY..), C. JEBB, M.A.
FELLOW AND LATE TUTOR OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, AND
PUBLIC ORATOR IN THE UNIVERSITY:
PROFESSOR OF GREEK IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.
Translator of the Characters of Theophrastus: Author of Commentaries on the Electra
and Ajax of Sophocles, and of Translations into Greek and Latin Verse.
VOL.      I.
Honbon:
MACMILLAN AND CO.
1876


[All Rights reserved.]




(amibyge:
PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A.
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.




TO
THE REVEPREND J. B. LIGIITFOOT, D.D.,
CANON OF ST PAUL'Is,
LADY MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE,
HONORARY FELLOW AND LATE TUTOR OF TRINITY COLLEGE,
THESE PAGES ARE INSCRIBED,
IN ADMIRATION OF HIS SERVICES TO THE CAUSE OF TRUE LEARNING,
AND IN AFFECTIONATE REMEMBRANCE OF CONSTANT KINDNESS,
BY HIS FOEMER PUJPIL,
THE AUJTHOR{.








COC AxNHP EK~ýAAOC OZýOITTOjPEWLN AyF-AZETAI               CTP.
FAYTITOY'C TE3XNITOj3N TWAN TTeAPOC Epre\ KOAOCCOyC,
tACY)OIC MAOPý)ACI NOON 00IM6'NCN EEMTE6AAOMGENOYC ET" cOY^CIN,
'yA\ OPpECINN AyTAMI'TO) CYMMANOCIN
OIOC A   HN 0) 10C
6Tr6OEN 0' M4pNTAE
ICON TA 'Y  3ECIPfl\CM&ON'
AAAA' AeC CC(ON 0EAF6T4.I CC TECAOC 4N 0YM W^ AAB WN      ANT.
KAAAOC TI Th\'NTA\PXONP CKOTTCEI Ae' TTeNH^MAP
TA\N rpocconoic A4AQýydN E40ZOME'NAN Torn HCMIOE-OIC lc AANAcN~
K6J% MEACON A'BpO'N Cf P'iOM(ON C0'N-OC,q
EK  OI'Ao/Y~e XAP61'C,
MeAKPOC, CO KACINO;, XPONOC
yMME MH KA'MNOI cE'BCON*
W  A IMN&ACTOI CTOMATCON Au TEP1TNCON PCICtCc            Err.
IC MENCI YMeTEPA, GAY^M A'NNp'CIN AoA.o
O1 C EAA\C OYK I'AOMCN XPYCANIOY
A^   %  E' 3EA/A'K~.i 4(i)o IfBY)
OybAe T~TATAN A'NAKApY^FM KEN CEXOIMEN 'AOA"NAC.
YMMI r-p AEM~ON MEN 4ýAMI AEAyKE'N4J, OyAg EMMEN CKOTON,
AAAAe AAMrIOYC A"OA'NATOI XA~PITCC
XEYKA'N rrpodC &KT^IN  Ec~rpoy.








PREFACE.
Tim first object of this book is to offer a contribution to a chapter in the history of Greek Literature
which has perhaps received less attention than its
importance deserves.    The  oratorical branch  of
Attic prose has a more direct and more fruitful
relation to the general development than modern
analogies would suggest. To trace the course of
Athenian oratory from its beginnings as an art to
the days of its decline is, necessarily, to sketch the
history of Greek prose expression in its most widely
influential form, and to show how this form was
affected by a series of causes, political or social.
The second object of the book is to supply an
aid to the particular study of the Attic orators
before Demosthenes.   The artistic development of
Attic oratory is sketched as a whole.,IBut a separate and minute treatment is given only to Antiphon, Andokides, Lysias, Isokrates and Jsaeos. The
period thus specially determined has more than a
correspondence with a practical need: it has an
inner unity, resting on grounds which are stated in
the Introduction and which are illustrated at each
stage of the subsequent inquiry.




x


PREFACE.


As regards the former and larger of these two
purposes, the writer may venture to hope that his
attempt, however imperfect, will be recognised at least
as one for which, in this country, there is room. The
History of Greek Literature by Otfried Mullertranslated and continued by Donaldson-had been
carried only to Isokrates when the author died, at
the early age of forty-three, in 1840. Muller's chapters on 'The beginnings of regular Political and
Forensic Oratory among the Athenians' (xxxiii), on
" The new cultivation of Oratory by Lysias' (xxxv),
and on 'Isokrates' (xxxvi) are, relatively to the plan
of his work, very good: that is, they state clearly
the chief characteristics of each writer separately.
But this very plan precluded a full examination
of each writer's works, and even a full discussion
of his style.  Nor does Muller appear to have regarded Oratory otherwise than as strictly a department, or adequately to have conceived its relation
to the universal prose literature. The materials for
a more comprehensive estimate had already been
brought together in Westermann's Geschichte der
Beredsamkeit, which carries the chronicle of technical rhetoric and   of eloquence to the days of
Chrysostom. But this great work is rather a storehouse of references than properly a history; and,
owing to its vast compass and its annalistic method,
gives too little space, proportionally, to the best




PREFACE.


xi


period  of Athens.    Westermann's thesaurus and
Muller's sketch have recently been supplemented
by the excellent works of Dr F. Blass: (1) 'Die
Attische Beredsamkeit von Gorgias bis zu Lysias,'
1868: (2) 'Isokrates und Isaios', 1874-of which
the latter came into my hands only after my own
chapters on Isokrates were almost wholly printed.
I desire here to record in general terms my obligations to both these works. Particular debts are in
every case, so far as I know, acknowledged on the
page where they occur.
For the analyses of the orations it seemed best
to adopt no uniform scale, but to make them more
or less full according to the interest of the subjectmatter or the nature of its difficulties. In analysing
the works of Isokrates, which abound in matter of
literary or historical value, I have endeavoured to
give the whole of the contents in a form easy of
access, and, at the same time, to preserve the most
characteristic features of expression.    A   careful
analysis, whether copious or not, is necessarily to
some extent a commentary, since the analyst must
exhibit his view of the relation in which each part
of the writer's meaning stands to the rest.
In this sense, I hope that the analyses will serve
my second and more special purpose--to help students of these five orators who have nothing but
a Greek text before them. Critical scholarship in
c




xii


PREFA CE.


England has done some of its best work on the
orators before Demosthenes.    The names of John
Taylor, Markland, Robert Tyrwhitt, Dobree, Dobson,
Churchill Babington-to mention only a few-are
proof enough. But it is long since the orators before
Demosthenes have been taken into the ordinary
course of reading at our schools and universities.
The commentary of Mr Sandys on Isokrates Ad Demonicum and Panegyricus is (so far as I know) alone
in this country. Frohberger's selections from Lysias,
Schneider's selections from Isokrates, Rauchenstein's
selections from Lysias and from Isokrates, Bremi's
selections from Lysias and from Aeschines, are representative of the German feeling that these Greek
orators should be read by ordinary students. The
principal reason why they have dropped out of school
and university favour among ourselves is perhaps not
difficult to assign. Demosthenes and (in his measure)
Aeschines have a political and historical interest of
a kind which every one recognises, and which lends
dignity to ancient prose in the eyes of a public that
is rather political than philological. Many speeches
which Demosthenes did not write have long been
studied among us in the belief that they were composed by   that statesman; while, on the other
hand, comparatively few know, or comprehend, the
conjecture of Mr Freeman that every Athenian
ekklesiast was equal in political intelligence to an




PREFACE.                    xiii
average Member of Parliament. In truth, an oration taken at hazard from Antiphon, Andokides,
Lysias, Isokrates or Isaeos, will often be poor food
for the mind if it is read alone. What is necessary
to make it profitable is some idea of the world in
which it was spoken. These orators who were not
conspicuous actors in history must be read, not fragmentarily or in the light of notes which confine
themselves to explaining what are termed 'allusions,'
but more systematically, and with some general comprehension of the author and the age. Brougham, one
of the best and most diligent critics of ancient oratory,
himself tells us that he could not read Isaeos:-' the
total want of interest in the subject, and the minuteness of the topics, has always made a perusal of them
so tedious as to prevent us from being duly sensible
of the force and keenness with which they are said
to abound.' If, however, Brougham had considered
Isaeos, not as merely a writer on a series of willcases, but as the oldest and most vivid witness for
the working of inchoate testation in a primitive
society, and, on the other hand, as the man who,
alone, marks a critical phase in the growth of Attic
prose, it is conceiva-ble   that Brougham     should
have thought Isaeos worthy of the most attentive
perusal.
The present attempt to aid in giving Attic Oratory its due place in the history of Attic Prose was




xiv


PREFACE.


begun in the summer of 1870, and has since employed all the time that could be spared to it from
the severe and almost incessant pressure of other
occupations.  In addition to the works of Dr Blass,
I would name the exhaustive work of Arnold
Schafer, Demosthenes und seine Zeit, as one which
has been my constant help.    M. Perrot's 'L'Eloquence Politique et Judiciaire a Athenes: Ire" Partie,
Les Precurseurs de Demosthene,' and Mr Forsyth's
Hortensius, also claim my gratitude. Among particular aids, I must mention the Essay on Isokrates,
by M. Havet, prefixed to M. Cartelier's translation
of the rrTEp cdEvrSo-eco,-an acknowledgement which
is the more due since, by an inadvertence for which
I would fain atone, the essay is ascribed at p. 45 of
my second volume, not to its true author, but to
the scholar whose memory he has so loyally served.
The article of Weissenborn on Isaeos in Ersch and
Gruber's Encyclopaedia, the editions of Isaeos by
Schomann and Scheibe, and the edition of the
two Speeches On the Crown by MM. Simcox, must
be added to the list. I am glad that my Introduction was not printed too soon to profit by some
of Mr Watkiss Lloyd's remarks on Perikles. The
authorities, general or particular, not specified above
will be found in a list which is subjoined. If an
obligation anywhere remains unacknowledged, I
would beg my readers to believe that it is by an




PREFACE.


xv


oversight which I should rejoice to have the opportunity of repairing.
Last, though not least, I have to thank my
friend Mr Sandys for his help in revising some of
the earlier sheets of the book for the press, as well
as for several valuable suggestions.
It seems probable that the study of antiquity,
especially of the Greek and Latin languages and
literatures, so far from declining, is about to enter
on a larger and a-more truly vigorous life than it
has had since the Revival of Letters. That study
has become, in a new and fuller sense, scientific.
The Comparative Method, in its application to
Language, to Literature, to Mythology, to Political
or Constitutional History, has given to the classics
a general interest and importance far greater than
they possessed in the days when the devotion
which they attracted was most exclusive. For the
present, indeed, during a time of transition, the
very breadth of the view thus opened is apt to be
attended by a disadvantage of its own. So long as
the study given to ancient Greece or Rome was
practically confined to the short periods during
which the literature of either was most brilliant,
this study was often narrow, perhaps, but it was
usually  searching  and  sympathetic.   The great
masters in each kind were known at close quarters.
Their excellence was not something taken on credit




xvi


PREFACE.


as giving them their claim to a place in a rapid
survey. It was apprehended and felt. Paradoxes
as to their relative merits were, therefore, not so
easily commended to educated opinion in the name
of a revolt from academical prescription. I remember
to have seen an ingenious travesty of 'The Last
Days of Pompeii,' in which the sorcerer Arbaces had
occasion to recite the praises of his countrymen, the
Egyptians.   'The Greeks,' Arbaces sang, ' are wonderfully clever; but we have invented the Greeks.'
Goethe said that Winckelmann had 'found' the
antique; but it appears sometimes to be forgotten
that this merit is essentially distinct from that
intimated by the Egyptian. In the meantime, I
am  persuaded that anyone will be      doing useful
work who makes a contribution, however slight,
to that close study of the best Greek literature
which ought ever to be united with attention to
the place of Greece in the universal history of the
mind. In these things, as in greater still, the words
are true, ' Securus iudicat orbis terrarum'.


THE UNIVERSITY, GLASGOW,
November, 1875.




EDITIONS AND AUTHORITIES.
I. CLASSICAL TEXTS.
1. Greek.


Oratores Attici.
Aristotle.
Athenaeos.
Comicorum Fragmenta.
Diodoros.
Diogenes Laertios.
Dionysios of Halikarnassos.
Eunapios.


J. G. Baiter and Hermann Sauppe, 1850. Vol. I.:
Antiphon, Andokides, Lysias, Isokrates, Isaeos,
Lykurgos, Aeschines, Deinarchos, Demosthenes.
Vol. II.: Scholia to lsokrates, Aeschines, Demosthenes, and the Fragments of the Orators,
from Gorgias to Demetrios Phalereus, arranged,
with comments, by Sauppe. Hypereides, ed. F.
Blass, 1869 (Teubner).--For the text, I have consulted also:-1. Oratores Attici, ed. Imm. Bekker,
1828.-2. Oratores Attici, ed. G. S. Dobson, with
notes by 11. Stephens, J. J. Scaliger, J. Taylor,
J. Markland, J. J. Reiske, A. Auger, &c. 1828.3. Antiphon, Andokides, Deinarchos, ed. F. Blass,
and Isaeos, ed. C. Scheibe, in Teubner's series.
Imm. Bekker, edition of the Imperial Academy of
Berlin, 1831-1870. The Rhetoric, with Commentary, L. Spengel, 1867.
J. Schweighauser, 101-1804.
F. H. Bothe, 1855 (Didot).
L. Dindorf and C. Miller (Didot).
C. G. Cobet, 1862 (Didot).
J. J. Reiske, 1774. (Also text in the series of C.
Tauchnitz, 1829.)
Blot OtAoo-r6cov Kal o oLoTrrcoV. J. F. Boissonade,
Amsterdam, 1822.
W. Dindorf, 1850.
J. Alberti, 1746.
1mm. Bekker, 1853.
L. Dindorf (Didot), 1845.
C. L. Kayser, 1844.
Imm. Bekker, 1824.
J. G. Baiter, J. C. Orelli, and A. G. Winckelmann, 1842.
Imm. Bekker, 1855.


Harpokration.
Hesychios.
Lucian.
Pausanias.
Philostratos.
Photios.
Plato.
Plutarch, Parallel


Lives.
[Plutarch]Livesof In Plutarchi Moralia, ed. F. Dilbner (Didot), 1868.
the Ten Orators.




xviii


i EDITIONS AND A UTHORITIES.


Pollux.           Imm. Bckker, 1846.
Rhetores Graeci. (1) For Anaximenes, Aphthonios, Aristeides Rhetoric,
Demetrios rEpt p/lppvlEar, Hermogenes, Longinus,
Theon, and the writer repl i' tovv:-Rhetores
Gracci, ed. L. Spengel, 3 vols., 1853. (2) For
the scholia, and for the lesser writers generally:Rhetores Graeci, ed. C. Walz, 9 vols., 1832.
Sextus Empiricus. vrpis rov r Ia7O7/vaTLKO0r aVTLppqTLKoL. J. A. Fabricius,
Leipzig, 1718.
Stobaeos.         Anthology, 4 vols.; Eclogues, 2 vols., ed. A. Meineke
(Teubner), 1860.
Strabo.          6C. Miller and F. Diibner (Didot), 1853.
Suidas.           G. Bernhardy, 1853.
Thucydides.       Imm. Bekker, 2nd ed., 1868.
Xenophon.         G. Sauppe, 1865.
2. Latin.


Cicero.
1,
Gellius.
Lucilius, Fragments of.
Quintilian.
Rhetorica ad
Iferennium.
De Oratoribus
Dialogus.
Belin de Ballu,
J. N.
BarthBlemy, J. J.
Becker, A. G.
Beckhaus, H.
Benseler, G. E.
Berbig, F.
Blai, H.
Blair, H.,


Opera omnia (with the incerti Rhet. ad Ilerenniurn)
C. F. A. Nobbe, Leipzig, 1869.
Rhetorica (De Inventione, 1. I1.), with the Rhet. ad
Her., F. Lindemann, Leipzig, 1828.
De Oratore, 1. ni. C. W. Piderit, Leipzig, 4th ed.
1873.
Brutus de claris oratoribus, C. W. Piderit, Leipzig,
2nd ed. 1875.
Partitiones Oratoriae, C. W. Piderit, Leipzig, 1867.
De Optimo Genere Oratorurn, (with Orator,) 0.
Jahn, Berlin, 3rd ed. 1869.
Mart. Hertz (Teubner), 1853.
In L. Miller's Saturarum Reliquiae, 1872.
E. Bonnell (Teubner), 1868; commentary-Spalding,
Buttmann, Bonnell, and Zumpt; bks. I-vI. Leipzig,
1798-1834.
F. Lindemann (see above), Leipzig, 1828.
In Tacitus, ed. J. G. Orelli, 1846.
II. OTHER AUTHORITIES1.
Histoire Critique de l'Eloquence chez les Gres.
Paris, 1813.
Voyage dujeune Anacharsis en Grae'ce Paris, 1788.
Andokides, ilbersetzt und erltutert. 1832.
Xenophon derjiingere und Isokrates. Posen, 1872.
De fliatu in Oratoribus Atticiset Historicis Graecis.
1841.
U1eber das genus dicendi tenue des Redners Lysias.
Ciistrin, 1871.
Isokrates Werke, Griechisch und Deutsch. 1854.
Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres. London,
1783.


1 The following list does not claim to represent the literature of the
subject. My purpose has been to set down every book-whether it has been
expressly quoted or not-to which I am conscious of having owed help.




EDITIONS AND A UTIIORITIES.


xix


Blass, F.
Boeckh, A.
Boehnecke, G.
Brause, R. T.
Bremni, J. IH.
Brougham, Lord.
Campbell, G.
Cartelier, A.
Clinton, H. Fynes.
Cobet, C. G.
Cope, E. M.,?
Cowell, Herbert.
Cox, G. W.
Curtius, E.
Dobree, P. P.
Dyer, T. H.
Eckert, H.
Ernesti, J. C. T.
Finlay, G.
Forsyth, W.
Francken, C. M.
Franz, J.
Freeman, E. A.
Frohberger, H.
Gladstone, W. 1H.
Grote, G.
-lager, Herman.
Hecker, A.
Henn, P.
Holmes, A.
Hdlscher, L.
Hume, D.
Jones, Sir W.


Die Attische Beredsamkeit von Gorgias bis zu
Lysias. Leipzig, 1868.
Isokrates und Isaios. 1874.
Die Griechische Beredsamkeit in dem Zeitraum von
Alexander bis auf Augustus. 1865.
Die Staatshshaushaltung  der  Athener.    2nd ed.
1851.
Demosthenes, Lykurgos,Hyperidesund ihr Zeitalter.
1864.
De aliquot locis Isocratis. Freiburg, 1843.
Lysiae et Aeschinis Orationes selectae. 1826.
Rhetorical and Literary    Dissertations and Addresses.  1856.
The Philosophy of Rhetoric. 7th edit., 1823.
Le Discours d Isocrate sur lui-meme (with Introduction by E. Havet), 1862.
Fasti Hellenici. 3 vols. 1834-1851.
Novae Lectiones. 1858.- Variae Lectiones. 1873.
The Sophists, in Journ. of Class. and Sacred
Philology, I. 145: On the Sophistical Rhetoric, ib.
11. 129, 111. 253.
Introduction to Aristotle's Rhetoric, 1867.
Plato's Gorgias, literally translated, with an Introductory Essay. 1864.
Tagore Law Lecturesfor 1870. Calcutta, 1870.
History of Greece, Vols. I. and II., 1874.
History of Greece, translated by A.W. Ward. 5 vols.,
1868-1872.
Adversaria. 2 vols., 1831.
Ancient Athens. 1873.
De Epitaphio Lysiaefalso tributo. Berlin. 1865 (?).
Lexicon   Technologiae   Graecorum     Rhetoricae.
1795.
Greece under the Romans, B.c. 146-A.D. 716.2nd ed.,
lb57.
Hortensius: an Historical Essay on the Office and
Duties of an Advocate. 1874.
Commentationes Lysiacae. Utrecht, 1865.
Dissertatio de locis quisbusdam Lysiae arte critica
persanandis. Munich, 1830.
Historical Essays. Second Series, 1873.
History of Federal Government. Vol. I., The Greek
Federations, 1863.
Lysias ausgewdihlte Reden. 1868.
Studies on Homer. 1858.
History of Greece, ed. 1870.
Quaestionum Hyperidearum capita duo. Leipzig,
1870.
De Graecitate Hyperidea.
De Oratione in Eratosthenem   XXXvirum Lysiae
falso tributa. 1847-8.
De Isocrate rhetore. K61n, 1861.
Demosthenes De Corona. 1871.
Quaestiunculae Lysiacae. Herford, 1857.
Essay XII., Of Eloquence.
The Speeches of Isceus, with a Prefatory Discourse,
&c. 1779.




xx


xjEDITIONIS AND A UTHORITIES.


Jowett, B.
Kirchhoff, A.
Kyprianos, A.
Le Beau, A.
Leloup, P. J.
Liebmanan, J. A.
Lightfoot, J. B.
Ljungdahl, S.
Lloyd, W. W.
Macaulay, Lord.
Madvig, J. N.
Maine, H. S.
Meier and Sch6 -mann.
Mitchell, T.
Mlller, K. 0.
Mure, W.
Oncken, W.
Ottsen, P. G.
Overbeck, J.
Paley, F. A., and
J. E. Sandys.
Pater, W. H.
Perrot, G.
Pfund, J. G.
Philippi, A.
Rauchenstein, R.
Roelfzema, C. IH.
B. 1H.
Rubnken, D.
Sandys, J. E.
Sanneg, P.
Schiifer, A.
Schirach, G. B.
Schmitz, P. J. A.


The Dialogues of Plato, translated into English,
withAynalyses and Introduction. 1st ed., 187t, and
2nd ed., 1875.
Andocidea, in Hlermes, 1T. 1-20.
Ta 'Arndppirra i-o Io-oKpa'rovr. Athens, 1871.
Lysias Epitaphios als echt erwiesen. Stuttgart, 1863.
Prolegomena in 1socratis Philippicum. 1625.
De Isaei Vita et Scriptis. Halle, 1831.
On Hyperides, in Journ. of Class. and Sacred Philology, IV. p. 318, 1859.
De transeundi generibus quibus utitur Isocrates
commentatio.   Upsala, 1871.
The Age of Pericles. 1874.
On the Athenian Orators (in MViscellaneous Writings, Vol. 1) 1860.
Adversaria, vol. I.
Ancient Law. 5th ed., 1874.
Der Attische Process.  1824.
Indices Graecitatis Oratorum    Graecorum   (after
Reiske). 1828.
History of the Literature of Ancient Greece, translated and continued by J. W. Donaldson. 1858.
A Critical History of the Language and Literature
of Ancient Greece. 1857.
Isokrates uwd Athen. Heidelberg, 1862.
De rerum   inventione ac dispositione quae est in
Lysiae atque Antiphontis orationibus.     Hensburg, 1847.
Geschichte der Griechischen Plastik. 1869.
Die Antiken Schriftquellen zur Gesch. der Bildenden Kiinste bei den Griechen.  1868.
Select Private Orations of Demosthenes. Part I.
Cambridge, 1874.
Studies in the History of the Renaissance. 1873.
L'Eloquence Politique et Judiciaire i Athenes:
Preminre Partie, Les Pricurseurs de Dimosthene.
1873.
Dinmosthen e et ses Contenmporains (Revue des Deux
Mondes, June 15, 1873).
De Isocratis Vita et Scriptis. Berlin, 1833.
B-eitrdge zu einer Geschichte des Attischen Biirgerrechtes. Berlin, 1870.
A usgecrdhlte Reden des Lysias. 1864.
Isokrates, Panegyricus, Areopagiticus. 1864.
Annotationes in Isocratis Evagoram. Gr6aningen,
1837.
IHistoria Critica  Oratorum   Graecorum, in his
Opuscula.
Disputatio de Antiphonte, ib.
Isocrates. Ad Demonicum et Panegyricus, 1868.
De Schola Isocratea. Halle, 1867.
Demosthenes und seine Zeit. 1856.
De rita et gen.re scribendi Isocratis. 1766.
Animadversiones in     Isocratis Panathenaicum.
Marburg, 1835.
Isokrates ausgewkhlte Reden. 1860.


Schneider, 0.




EDITIONS AND A UTHORITIES.                      xxi
Schbmann, G. F. Commentarii in Isaeum (appended to an edit. of the
text). Greisswald, 1831.
Schr6der, H. P.  Quaestiones Isocrateae duae. Utrecht, 1859.
Sidgwick, H.      The Sophists: in Journal of Philology, IV. p. 288,
1872.
Simcox, G. A.      The Orations of Demosthenes and Aeschines On
Simcox, W. H.      the Crown, with Introductory Essays and Notes,
1872.
Sluiter, J. O.   LectionesAndclocideae (with C. Schiller's notes), 1834.
Spengel, L.      Yvvay-y?' TEXvy(v, sice Artium Scriptores. 1828.
Stallbaum, G.    Lysiaca ad illustrandas Phaedri Platonici origines. 1851.
Starke, F. A. H.  De Isocratis Orationibus Forensibus Commentationis Specimen. 1845.
Strang, J. G.    Kritische Bomerkungen zu den Reden des Isokrates.
1831.
Symonds, J. A.   Studies of the Greek Poets. 1873.,,           Renaissance in Italy: Age of the Despots. 1875.
Taylor, John.    Lectiones Lysiacae (in Dobson's Oratores Attici,
vol. 11. pp. 94-158, 1828).
TBlfy, J. B.     2vvayoy' rcv 'ATTLK)V v OUov. Pesth, 1868.
Thirlwall, C.    History of Greece, ed. of 1855.
Thompson, W. H. On the Philosophy of Isocrates, and his Relation to
the,Socratic Schools.  Appendix II. to edition of
Plato's Phaedrus, 1868. Also the Introductions
to the Phaedrus and the Gorgias (1871), and the
Conmmentary on both Dialogues.
Volkmann, R.     Die Rhetorik der Griechen and Rbmer.     Berlin,
1872.
Wackernagel, W. Poetik, Rhetorik und Stilistik.  Ialle, 1873.
Weijers, F. V.    Diatribe in Lysiae Orationem  in Nicomachum.
Leyden, 1839.
Weil, iH.         Les lHarangues de Demosth'ne (with Introd. and
Commentary), 1873.
Weissenborn, IHI. Isius, in Ersch and Gruber's Encyclopaedia, Section
II., Part 38, pp. 286-310.
Westermann, A.    Geschichte der Griechischen Beredsamkeit. 1835.
Whately, R.      Elements of Rhietoric. 7th ed., 1866.
Wilkins, A. S.   National Education in Greece, 1873.








CONTENTS.
PAGE
ANNALS....... xxxvii
INTRODUCTION
The Augustan Atticism.....    xiii
Caecilius and Dionysios......    Ixiv
Caecilius on the Attic Orators...    Ixv
The decade......     ib.
Dionysios on the Attic Orators.....     xvi
His classification-the eVpEra and the TeXE ral T..   xviii
Plan of this book.....           ib.
The English word 'orator' compared with the Latin, and
with the Greek word    rop.....    lxix
Significance of the term 'rhetor'.....     xx
Relation between ancient oratory and ancient prose.   lxxi
Relation between ancient and modern oratory..     ib.
Ancient oratory is a fine art.....     ib.
I. Internal Evidence: 1. Finish of form: 2. Repetitions:
3. Speakers criticise each other's style...   lxxii
II. External evidence: 1. Training of speakers: 2. Appreciation shown by hearers: 3. Pamphlets in the
oratorical form: 4. Collections of common-places:
5. Ancient critics compare oratory with sculpture
or painting.......   xxiii
This conception is originally Greek.....   xxvii
Its basis-the idealisation of man.... lxxviii
Its secondary motives, (1) the oral tradition of poetry,
(2) the civil importance of speech, (3) competition.  ib.




xxiv


CONTENTS.


PAGE
Characteristics of modern oratory.....   lxxix
Aristotle on   the three instruments of rhetorical proof
His estimate is that of the modern world: modern Oratory
puts the logical proof first.....      ib.
The modern speaker has no distinct acceptance as an artist     lxxxi
The ancients were less strict about logical relevance.      ib.
Influence of perfect reporting for the Press...     ib.
The modern feeling that a great speech must be extemporary.........  lxxxii
Sources of this feeling: 1. the failures of premeditation:
2. the Hebraic basis of Christian education..      ib.
Modern approximations to the theory of ancient Oratory:
influence of debate....... lxxxiii
Finished rhetorical prose-Canning.... lxxxiv
Union of rhythmical finish with passion: Grattan-Erskine-Burke......  lxxxv
Brougham on Burke compared with Demosthenes.. 1xxxix
Modern eloquence of the pulpit.....      ib.
Modern Oratory-its greatest triumphs won by sudden
bursts.........      xc
Use of quotation........     xci
Special characteristics of Greek Oratory....     xcii
All Greek art has the plastic character....      ib.
Popular misconception of what is meant by 'plastic'.    xciii
A result of this misconception.......      ib.
Consequent danger to the whole study of the antique.    xciv
Character of Greek thought in the best days of Greek art,
compared with the oriental and with the mediaeval.         ib.
Greek reflection was at a happy pause, and the Greeks
were beautiful.......    xcvi
Why Greek art became plastic rather than picturesque.     ib.
Series of the arts-Sculpture comes between Architecture
and the romantic group (Painting, Music, Poetry)The limit of expression in Sculpture-not irksome,
but congenial to the Greek.....   xcvii
The best Sculpture is not cold nor vague...  xcviii




CONTENTS.


XXV


PAGE
Mistake of conceiving Greek Tragedy as the daughter of
Sculpture........   xcviii
They are sister forms of that one tendency which we call
"plastic'........      ib.
Greek   Tragedy has an     alloy of trouble, but is still
typical........      ib.
The true greatness of Euripides.....    xcix
Fallacy involved in calling Euripides the most 'human'
of the Greek dramatists....      ib.
Sophokles is the most human......
Sophokles is the most perfect type of the Greek intellect.     ib.
The plastic character as manifested in Greek Oratory.      ci
A series of types is developed by a series of artists..     cii
In the individual oration, the main lines of the theme are
"unperplexed, and the unity is sealed by a final calm.   ciii
Attic perorations in Cicero and in Erskine...     civ
The personalities of ancient oratory....      ib.
Superiority of Greek to Roman Oratory....     cvi
Brougham on Cicero......      ib.
Cicero's orations utterly unfit for the modern Senate or
Bar; whereas almost all the Greek orations could be
adapted........      ib.
Reasons of this superiority: 1. Greek Oratory is always
to the point: 2. The political inspirations of Greek
Oratory are nobler, and the forensic motive is more
genuine........          cvii
Early History of Greek Oratory-two conditions for the
possibility of any such history.....   cviii
Late appearance of Greek Oratory as an art-brilliancy
of the pre-theoretic Oratory.....     cix
Homeric estimate and illustrations of eloquence..      ib.
Modern character of the great Homeric speeches..      ib.
Their historical significance......      cx
The Homeric eloquence is still aristocratic, not civil.      ib.
First conditions of civil eloquence (1) loryopa, and (2)
popular culture......     cxi
The faculty of speech--its place in early Greek Democracy      ib.




xxvi                     CONTENTS.
PAGE
The intellectual turning  point-first conception of a
literary prose........     cxi
The political turning-point-opening of secure intercourse
between the cities, and the new primacy of Athens.    cxii
External influences which prepared Attic oratory-I. The
Practical Culture of lonia.....     ib.
Protagoras.........   cxiii
Prodikos........    cxiv
Hippias.........     cxv
Summary: Influence of the Ionian practical culture.    cxvi
II. The Sicilian Rhetoric......   cxvii
Character of the Sicilian Greeks....      ib.
Political development of the Sicilian cities...      ib.
The Age of the Tyrants-the Democratic Revolution.      ib.
Character of Sicilian Democracy.....   cxviii
Circumstances under which Rhetoric became an art:derangement of civil life by the Tyrants...     ib.
Claims thence arising.......      ib.
General features of such claims......    cxix
Best aids for such claimants,-1. skill in marshalling
facts, 2. skill in arguing probabilities...    cxx
Empedokles.........      ib.
Korax..........    cxxi
The treatise of Korax on Rhetoric-Arrangement, and
the topic of K.......     ib.
Tisias and his Rhetoric-......   cxxii
The topic of ELKdO further developed....      ib.
Real meaning of the lawsuit story.....   cxxiii
Gorgias.........               ib.
His province neither Dialectic nor Rhetoric, but Oratory  cxxiv
His first visit to Athens......   cxxv
0T 4Evi4ov in his speaking......   cxxvi
Its poetical character.......      ib.. Specimen from his Funeral Oration....     ib.
His great popularity at Athens-how it is to be understood  cxxvii.. Perikles: was his oratory artistic in form?... cxxviii
Statement of Plutarch......   cxxix




CONTENTS.                     xxvii
PAGE
Thucydidean speeches of Perikles..... cxxix
"Notices of his oratory......    ib.
Its distinctive conditions......  cxxx
History of Athenian oratory begins with Antiphon-a
disciple not of Gorgias but of the Sicilian Rhetoric.  cxxxi
Rhetoric and Popular Dialectic at Athens from 450 B.C.Tragedy........     ib.
Forensic Advocacy.......     ib.
Athens the chief seat of Civil Oratory.-Political morality
of the Greeks...... cxxxii
This morality most practical at Athens..               ib.
Relation of Athenian to Greek Oratory....     ib.
Political aspect of Athenian Oratory.... cxxxiv
Political training of the Greek citizen, and especially of
the Athenian.......  xxxv
Civic sentiment in the Greek and in the Italian IRepublics
-Athens and Florence......     ib.
Civil Oratory defined-Attic Oratory fulfils this definition cxxxvi
CHAPTER I.
ANTIPHON. --LIFE.
Birth of Antiphon......    2
Antiphon the first Xoyoypao.....    3
Antiphon and Thucydides.....    4
Antiphon's life to 411 B.c....        5
The Revolution...    7
The two parties in the Council...        9
Fall of the Four Hundred....   11
Trial and Condemnation of Antiphon.....   12
Character of Antiphon's political life.....   14
Character of his ability....   15
His dper.....   16
The new power of Rhetoric....  17
d




XXViii


CONTENTS.


CHAPTER II.
ANTIPHION.-STYLE.
Antiphon the most antique of the orators
The beginnings of Greek Prose
Character of the early Prose
Dionysios on the 'austere' style
Antiphon's style-its dignity
Reliance on single words
Antiphon is imaginative, but not florid
Pathos and 6thos in Antiphon
The style of Antiphon--how far periodic
Antiphon's treatment of snbject-matter
Religious feeling of Antiphon
His Aesehylean tone
Relation of Antiphon to the elder democracy
CHAPTER III.
ANTIPHON.-WORKS.


PAGE
ib.
20
21
24
25
27
30
31
36
S 40
42
43


The 0ovLKol XoyoL alone extant
The Tetralogies
First Tetralogy
Second Tetralogy
Third Tetralogy
Speech on the Murder of Herodes
Speech on the Choreutes.             a
Speech Against a Stepmother.
Lost Works: Authorship of the treatises
Concord, On Statesmanship
The Rhetoric-the Proems and Epilogues.


45
* ib.
47
52
54
55
62
65


On Truth, 0.


68
70




CONTENTS.


xxix


CHAPTER IV.
ANDOKIDES.-LIFE.
PAGE
Birth of Andokides.......   71
Affair of the Hermae...   73
Decree of Isotimides......   75
The Speech On the Mysteries.....   76
Life of Andokides from 415 to 402 B.C.....   79
Life after 402.......   81
Character of Andokides.......    5
CHAPTER V.
ANDOKIDES.-STYLE.
Andokides not an artist.......   88
Comparative neglect of him by the ancient critics..   ib.
General tendency of ancient criticism upon oratory-unjust
to Andokides........    94
Four epithets given to his style in the Plutarchic Life.  96
The diction of Andokides is 'plain' (JA-Xq)...   ib.
And 'sparing of figures' (Jro-/xaros)....   98
His method is 'simple' (jrA-ovis) and 'inartificial' (dKWaTdK   o).........   100
Andokides has little skill in commonplaces of argument. 102
His strength is in narrative......   ib.
His references to the early history of Attica... 105
Love of Andokides for gossip..... 106
His proneness to low comedy.... 107
Summary........                 ib.
CHAPTER VI.
ANDOKIDES.-WORKS.
Speech On his Return.... 109
Speech On the Mysteries.... 114
d2




XXX


CONTENTS.


PAGE
Historical matter in the Speech.....  120
Its arrangement and style...... 126
Speech On the Peace with the Lacedaemonians... 128
Question of authenticity......        129
Historical difficulties....... 130
Passage common to Andokides and Aeschines.. 132
Speech Against Alkibiades..... 133
Not by Andokides...... 134
Was Phaeax the author..... 136
Ostracism misconceived.....  137
Particular errors in the speech...  138
Lost works of Andokides...... 139
Doubtful Fragments......  141
CHAPTER VII.
LYSIAS.-LIFE.
Birth of Lysias-doubt about the date....  142
Lysias at Thurii........ 146
His life at Athens from 412 to 405 B.C....  147
The Anarchy......... 148
Lysias aids the Exiles.......  151
His professional life...... 152
The impeachment of Eratosthenes..... 153
Lysias and Sokrates........   ib.
Lysias at Olympia........  154
Chronological limit of his known work....  155
Character of Lysias.......  156
CHAPTER      VIII.
LYSIAS.-STYLE.
It is easier for us to appreciate Lysias as a writer than as
an orator; reason of this...... 158
Lysias the representative of the Plain Style... 160




CONTENTS.                         xxxi
PAGE
Its general characteristics......     161
Originality of Lysias..... 162
Had his style been florid before it became plain.. 164
His Composition.......     166
His diction-its purity,...... 168
simplicity,........ 169
clearness, conciseness,..... 171
vividness.........  172
His 6thopoiia........ 173
The 'propriety' of Lysias. His 'charm'....  176
His treatment of subject-matter..... 178
Invention. Arrangement..... 179
Proem..........  181
Narrative. Proof........ 182
Epilogue......... 183
The tact of Lysias. His humour.....  184
His sarcasm.-Defects of Lysias as an orator... 185
The limits of pathos in Lysias...... 186
His eloquence rarely passionate..... 187
Exceptions.......  188
Place of Lysias in the history of Rhetoric....  192
The ancient critics upon Lysias.....  193
Lysias and his successors....... 197
His services to the prose idiom....  198
CHAPTER IX.
LYSIAS.-WORKS.
THE EXTANT COLLECTION.-EPIDEICTIC AND DELIBERATIVE
SPEECHES.
Proportion of extant to lost works..... 200
Condition of the extant speeches.....   i.
Arrangement in the MSS........ 201
Oratory at the Panhellenic festivals...     203




xxxii


CONTENTS.


PAGE
The Olympiakos.... 204
Compared with the Panegyrikos..                206
The Epitaphios..  ib.
Its character and authorship.... 208
Oration xxxiv., a Plea for the Constitution..      211
CHAPTER X.
LYSIAS.- WORKS.
FORENSIC SPEECHES IN PUBLIC CAUSES.
Principle of distinction between 'public' and 'private' lawspeeches....... 213
I. Causes relating to offences directly against the State:
(ypacal 8rlyjorowv a3WKr<ucOaTwv):
1. Oration xx., For Polystratos... 217
2. Oration xxI., Defence on a Charge of taking
Bribes........ 219
3. Oration xxviII., Against Ergokles... 221
4. Oration xxvII., Against Epikrates... 222
5. Oration xxx., Against Nikomachos... 224
6. Oration xxII., Against the Corndealers..227
II. Indictment for proposing an Unconstitutional Measure
(ypa)j 7rapavodov)-Oration xvII., On the Property of
the Brother of Nikias..... 229
III. Claims for Moneys withheld from the State (aTroypa<ba): 1. Oration IX., For the Soldier... 232
The speech spurious.....       235
2. Oration xix., On the property of Aristophanes.  ib.
3. Oration xxix., Against Philokrates.. 240
IV. Causes relating to a Scrutiny (SoKLqato-a) before the
Senate; especially of Officials Designate:
1. Oration xxvi., Against Evandros... 242
2. Oration xvI., For Mantitheos.. 245
3. Oration xxxI., Against Philon... 248




CONTENTS.


xxxiii


PAGE
4. Oration xxv., (So-called) Defence on a Charge of
seeking to abolish the Democracy.. 250
5. Oration xxIv., For the Invalid... 254
V. Causes relating to Military Offences (XiroTa$tov-do-TpaTEas): 1. Oration xiv., Against Alkibiades, on a
Charge of Desertion: 2. Oration xv., Against Alkibiades, on a Charge of Failure to Serve... 256
VI. Causes relating to Murder or Intent to Murder
(ypacal (0>vov--pa-tpatros ~K i rpovolas): 1. Oration xII.,
Against Eratosthenes.....       261
2. Oration xiii., Against Agoratos.. 269
3. Oration I., On the Death of Eratosthenes.. 275
4. Oration III., Defence against Simon... 277
5. Oration Iv., On Wounding with Intent.. 278
VII. Causes relating to Impiety (ypafal o~are/Eas, E"porvXlas, K.T.X.): 1. Oration vi., Against Andokides.. 281
The speech not by Lysias..... 284
2. Oration v., For Kallias.... 287
3. Oration vii., On the Sacred Olive...289
CHAPTER XI.
LYSIAS.-WORKS.
FORENSIC SPEECHES IN PRIVATE CAUSES-MISCELLANEOUS
WRITINGS.-FRAGMENTS.
I. Action for Defamation (81&Kr KaK']yopaas): Oration x.,
Against Theomnestos.....       293
II. Action by a Ward against a Guardian (8Ky -7rLTpo7rs):
Oration xxxII., Against Diogeiton... 297
III. Trial of a Claim to Property (ta8LKao-ta): Oration
xvii., On the Property of Eraton... 300
IV. Answer to a Special Plea (rrpos 7rapaypa /v): Oration
xxiim., Against Pankleon...... 302
Miscellaneous Writings: 1. Oration viii., To his Companions. -Not by Lysias...... 304




xxxiv


CONTENTS.


PAGE
2. The Erotikos in Plato's Phaedros. 305
Preparation for a verbally exact recital... 306
Character of the Criticism on the speech.         307
The ipwOrTtK  is really by Lysias...       309
Fragments...... 310
1. Against Kinesias.,,.           311
2. Against Tisis: 3. For Pherenikos... 312
4. Against the Sons of Hippokrates.., 313
5. Against Arcbebiades: 6. Against Aeschines. 314
Letters...,.. 315




CORRIGENDA.
Vol. I. p. 66, in the note, right-hand column, line 8 from      bottom, for
' Cirrh.' read ' Cir.',,,, 92, in 1. 3 from bottom, for ' point' read 'part'.,,,, 130, in 1. 11 from bottom, for 'in 507' read 'in or about 509.',,,, 143, in 1. 13 from top, for 444 B.c., read 'early in 443 B.c.',, 180, in note 3, for ' Griesch.' read ' Griech.',, 201, in 1. 4 from top, 'For Andokides' read 'Against Andokides.',, 226, in note 4 to p. 225, 11. 3 and 2 from end, for Lysae...Nikomachmia, read Lysiae...Nicomachum.,, 246, in 1. 1 of Analysis, for ' The first' read 'The speaker first'.,,,, 248, in the note, 11. 4 and 8, for arpaTLK'V, 'Pyrpolinicen', read
o-rpfTarWTKVq, ' Pyrgopolinicen'.
Vol. II.,,   9, in 1. 16 from top, for dXa56peta read dXa'oela.,, 31, in 1. 2 from top, for 345 read 355.,, 75, in 1. 7 from top, for 'Praxiteles' read 'Polykleitos'.,, 82, in 1. 4 from  top, for 'Against Allkibiades,' read ' For Alkibiades.',, 101, in 1. 10 from top, omit '(5)'.,, 119, in note, 1. 3, for 'Ericthonius' read 'Erichthonios'.,, 120, in note, 1. 2 from bottom, for 7rapeKaCo-ets read 7rapseKfqdaets.,, 156, in note, 1. 5, for 423 B.c. read 42 L B. c.,, 185, in note 3, 1. 6, for 'Ochos' read 'MInemon'.,, 193, in 1. 14, for 'the speech' read 'this speech'..   201, in note 3 to p. 200, 1. 11, for 464- -355 read 464-455.,, 217, in 1. 3 from top, for 'Kyclades ' read ' Kyklades.',, 273, in 1. 12 from top, for ' Philistos' read 'Philiskos'.,, 351, place the reference to Note 1 at 'civil strife,' in 1. 7 from top,
not at 'Olynthians,' in 1. 16..   400, 1. 3 from top, for 337 read 336.,, 439, 1. 14 from bottom, for rpiO3 read Trptf^.
Vol. I., p. 26, note 1.-Read the Note thus:-'Thuc. im. 82. Hermogenes
(irepi liev i. cap. vi.) remarks that creqvi Xýts depends more on iOv6ara, substantives and adjectives, than on  opara, verbs.    Thus, he says, in this
sentence of Thucydides, the whole effect is wrought by the 6v6/,ara. And
so verbal adjectives (drb p'yi.crwv els 6vooaI ireTroodva) are preferred to relative
clauses with the verb.  (E.g. rroXa dX6'ytoros is aeuporepov than 6orts roXAWPv
oO Xo-yl^erat.)'-[This, I now believe with Ernesti s.v. 6vota, is the dovOJaoG-7Ki
ePOT7-Js-as opposed to pq1tartK-here meant by Hermogenes.]








ANNALS.


Olympiads and
Archons.     B. c.
72. Diognetos   492
2. Hybrilides  491
3. Phaenippos 490




4. Aristides
73. Anchises
2.
3.
4. Philokrates
74. Leostratos
2. Nikodemos
3.
4.Themistokles
75. Kalliades


489
488
487
486


Pindar IIvO. 7 and (?) 12.
Aeschylos fights at Marathon.
Pheidias born?
Simonides of Keos flourishes.
Pindar HIvO. 3.


485  Gorgias, Protagoras and
Tisias born about this
time.
484 Pindar 'OXvprr. 10 and 11.
Epicharmos writes Comedy
at Syracuse.
Aeschylos begins to be eminent in Tragedy.
Herodotos born.
483
482
481
480 Antiphon born.
Pindar 'Ir-O0. 7.
Euripides born. (Aeschylos was now    45, and
Sophokles 15.)
479


Fleet of Mardonios destroyed off
Athos.
Persian heralds sent by Dareios
to demand earth and water
from the Greek cities.
Persians, under Artaphernes
and Datis, invade Greece:
Hippias lands with them at
Marathon. Athenian victory.
Expedition of Miltiades to Paros: his disgrace and death.
Death of Dareios: Xerxes king
of Persia.
Gelon becomes tyrant of Syracuse.
Aristeides ostracised.
Amnesty at Athens before Salamis I. 125. Second Persian
invasion. Xerxes crosses Hellespont. Battles of Thermopylae, Artemision and Salamis.
Athenians reject the offers of
Mardonios: he occupies Athens.   Battles of Plataea
and Mykale. Athenian dpXý
founded. Athens rebuilt and
Peiraeus fortified: Walls of
Themistokles.


2.


Xanthippos




Xxxviii
Olympiads and
Archons.
3. Timosthenes
4. Adeimantos
76. Phaedon


ANNALS.


B.C.
478
477
476
475
474
473
472
471
470
469
468


History of Herodotos ends
at siege of Sestos (spring).
Phrynichos tragicus victor
with   oivzaoa'.
Pindar 'OXviUr. 1 and 12.
Death of Pythagoras aet.
99.
Aeschylos IIlpo'at.
Thucydides born.
Pindar 'OXv/ur. 6.
Sopholdes gains his first
tragic victory, aet. 28.
Sokrates born.


2.
3.
4.
77.


Dromokleides
Akestorides
Menon
Chares


2. Praxiergos
3. Demotion
4. Apsephion
78. Theagenides


Hieron succeeds Gelon as tyrant
of Syracuse: Korax flourishes
in his reign (cf. 466 B.c.). Pausanias recalled from Byzantium to Sparta.
Formation of Delian Confederacy under headship of Athens:
tribute assessed on members
by Aristeides. Treason and
death of Pausanias.-Kleisthenean constitution begins
to be developed through the
vavUrKOS 6XXoS: Fourth Class
made eligible for archonship:
boards for internal administration multiplied (dyopdveofot,
dao-rvoCLot, &c.).
Athenians take Eion, reconquer
Lemnos, reduce Skyros and
Karystos.
Thrasydaeos, tyrant of Agrigentum, expelled: Empedokles
opposes the restoration of the
tyranny, I. cxx.
Themistokles ostracised.
Death of Aristeides.
Thrasybulos succeeds Hieron
as tyrant of Syracuse.
Thrasybulos expelled from Syracuse: Gelonian   dynasty
overthrown and a democracy
established.  Naxos revolts
from Athens and is subjugated.
Athenian colonists destroyed
by Thracians near Ennea
Hodoi: n. 189.
Thasos revolts from Athens: is
reduced 463 B.c.
Death of Xerxes: Artaxerxes I.
(MaKpoXecp) king (-425 B.c.).
Helots rise against Spartans
(-455 B.c.): quarrel between
Athens and Sparta: alliance
between Athens and Argos.
Megara joins Athenian alliance:
Long Walls of Megara built.


2. Lysistratos  467


3. Lysanias    466 Korax   begins to   teach
Rhetoric  at Syracuse:
i. cxxi.-Pindar IIvO. 4
and 5.
Diagoras of Melos flor.
4. Lysitheos   465
79. Archidemi- 464 Pindar 'OXvUir. 7 and 13.
des
2. Tlepolemos 463
3. Konon       462
4. Evippos     461




ANNALS.


xxxix


Olympiads and
Archons.
80. Phrasikleides
2. Philokles


B.C.
460
459


3. Bion        458
4. Mnesithei-  457
des


81. Kallias      456
2. Sosistratos  455


Parmenides visits Athens.
Zenon of Elea ('inventor
of Dialectic', Arist.) for.
Hippokrates the physician
born.
Demokritos born.
Lysias born, ace. to [Plut.]
and Dionys. (cf. 444 B.c.). 143.-Thrasymachos of
Chalkedon born?
Aeschylos 'Opecreia.
Pindar 'OXvArr. 9.
Death of Aeschylos aet. 69.
First tragedy, IIHeXdes, of
Euripides, aet. 36.
Pindar 'OXv7tr. 4 and 5.
Ion of Chios, tragic poet,
begins to exhibit.
Krates comicus and Bakchylides lyricus flor.
Anaxagoras aet. 50 withdraws from Athens: he
had taught Perikles and
Euripides.
Kratinos comicus flor.


Kephalos, father of Lysias, invited to settle at Athens by
Perikles? i. 142.
Revolt of Egypt from Persia
(-455 B.c.).
Reforms of Ephialtes n. 208.
Kimon ostracised?
Long Walls of Athens begun.
Embitterment of the conservative  party: murder    of
Ephialtes.-Athenians    defeated at Tanagra by Lacedaemonians and allies.-Athenians  defeat Boeotians at
Oenophyta.   Athenian   empire at its greatest extent
Kimon recalled from exile. Long
Walls of Athens completed.
Destruction of Athenian armament sent to help Inaros i.
189.  Persians reduce    all
Egypt except the fens held
by Amyrtaeos.-Ithome surrenders to Sparta (cf. 464B.c.):
Tolmides, arpar-ydos, settles
expelled Helots at Naupaktos.
-Athens conquers Aegina.
Death of Alexander I. (xkihX'r)
of Macedon (498 B.c.-): accession of Perdikkas.
FiveYears'Truce between Athens
and Sparta I. 130. Athens
sends 60 ships to help Amyrtaeos in Egypt.
Siege of Citium in Cyprus by
Kimon: of. n1. 189. His death.
Athenian victory at the Cyprian Salamis. Alleged treaty
('of Kallias') between Athens
and Persia, n. 157
Alkibiades born?
Death of Themistokles.-Athenians under Tolmides defeated by Boeotians at Koroneia.
Athenians evacuate Boeotia:
their dpXi begins to break up.


3. Ariston
4. Lysikrates
82. Chaerephanes
2. Antidotos
3. Euthydemos
4. Pedieus
83. Philiskos
2. Timarchides


453
452
451
450
449
448
447






xl


ANAALS.


Olympiads and
Archons.
3. Kallimachos
4. Lysimachides


B.C.
446
445


84. Praxiteles   444


2. Lysanias
3. Diphilos


443


4. Timokles    441
85. Myrochides  440


Iktinos and Kallikrates, architects, flor.
Date for birth of Lysias
placed between this year
and 436 by C. F. Hermann and Blass, I. 144
(cf. 459 B.c.).
Pheidias aet. 44 has superintendence of the public
art-works of Athens.
Death of Pindar aet. 79.
Herod. aet. 43 goes to
Thurii: Lysias    either
now or later.
Euripides aet. 49 gains, for
the first time, the first
prize in tragedy.
Andokides born, i. 71.
Decree to put down Comedy
(o 0tcrqwa 70 TOV 1.  KOW/LW6e6v).
Sophokles 'Avr7yy6v (in the
year of his arparm-yia).
Parthenon completed and
dedicated: Pheidias aet.
50. - Euripides "AXKco-Ts.-Kalamis, sculptor,
flor.
Pheidias goes to Elis.
Decree against Comedy repealed.
Isokrates born, n. 2.
The Zeus at Olympia completed by Pheidias.
Propylaea of Athens begun.
Phrynichos comicus begins
to write.
Polygnotos, painter, flor.


Euboea and Megara revolt from
Athens. Lacedaemonians under Pleistoanax invade Attica.
Thirty Years' Truce between
Athens and Sparta: Andokides, grandfather of the orator,
an envoy, 1. 132.
Foundation of Thurii (i. 143),
by Athenian colonists, on the
site of Sybaris.
Thucydides, son of Melesias,
ostracised: aristocratic party
broken up.
Revolt of Samos from Athens:
Andokides avus and Sophokles command with Perikles
against Samos, i. 72. Samos
surrenders in  9th  month.
Appeal of Samians to Lacedaemonians: congress at Sparta:
Corinthians insist on  the
principle of non-interference
with an autonomous city.
The people of Epidamnos apply
to their metropolis Corcyra:
help is refused, and they
apply to Corinth.
Corinthian army admitted into
Epidamnos:    sea-fight  between Corinthians and Corcyraeans: Epidamnos capitulates to Corcyraeans.
Embassies to    Athens from
Corcyra and from Corinth:
Athens makes a defensive
alliance with  Corcyra: 10


2. Glaukines
3. Theodoros
4. Euthymenes
86. Lysimachos


439
438
437
436


Antilochides 435


3. Chares
4. Apseudes


434
433




AN~NALS.,


xli


ANAI   I


Olympiads and
Archons.


B.C.


87. Pythodoros 1 432


Pheidias and Aspasia prosecuted 6de-e3eas: Pheidias dies in   prisonAnaxagoras also persecuted: he withdraws to
Lampsakos.
Perikies speaks the Cr'mTciOts of those who had
fallen in the first year of
the war.
Euripides M '6eta.
Xenophon born.


2. Euthydemos


431


3. Apollodoros 1 430 1 Polykleitos, sculptor, flor.


4.~


Epameinon 1 429


Damon, musician, flor. ii.
145.
Plato born (May).-Death
of Perikies (autumn).
Eupolis writes Comedy.


Athenian ships sent to Corcyra under Lakedaemonios
son of Kimon.
Corcyraeans, supported by Athenians, defeated in a sea-fight
by Corinthians (spring).Athenians blockade Pydna
and Potidaea.-Congress at
Sparta (autumn): a large
majority of the allies vote for
war with Athens.
Peloponnesian demands rejected by Athens.-Beginning of
Peloponnesian War.-Theban
attempt on Plataea.-First
invasion of Attica under
Archidamos.-Brasidas, now
first heard of, rescues Methone
from Athenians.
Year 2 of War.-Second invasion of Attica.-Plague at
Athens--Perikies unpopular:
he is fined, but re-elected
strategos.
Year 3 of War.-Potidaea surrenders on conditions (of.
332 n.c.)-Phormion, commanding Athenian fleet, gains
two victories in Corinthian
gulf.
Year 4 of WYar.-Lesbos, except  Methymna,    revolts:
Athenians besiege Mytilene.
-Third invasion of Attica,
led by Kleomenes.
Year 5 of War.-Plataea destroyed by Sparta, 11. 176.-,
Fourth invasion of Attica,
led by Kleomenes.-Mytilene
taken by Athenians, I. 56:
massacre proposed by Kleon
and averted by Diodotos.Strife at Corcyra between
oligarchs and demos (summer). Athens sends help to
Leontini.
Year 6 of War.-Athenians
purify Delos and restore the
Panionic festival, to be held
there every 4 years.
Year 7 of T ar.-Coroyraean
demos, helped by Eurymedon
and Athenians, storm Istone:
massacre of oligarchs.-Fifth
invasion of Attica led by Agis
II. - Demosthenes occupies
Pylos. Spartan hoplites blockaded in Sphakteria: Kleon


88. Diotimos
2. Enkleides
3. Euthynos
4. Stratokies


428


427
426
425


Gorgias visits Athens as
chief envoy of Leontini, I.
cxxv. Tisias accompanies
him, acc. to Pans. Aristophanes begins to satirize
the New Culture in his
AacraXWis-a contrast between the old school and
the new.
Aristophanes Baj3vXcWtt--
a plea for the allies
against Kleon, &c.
Aristophanes 'AXapvEZS.
Zeuxis, painter, flor.




xlii


ANNALS.


Olympiads and
Archons.
89. Isarchos


B.C.


424  Aristophanes 'Irres.


2. Ameinias    423


3. Alkaeos


422
421
420


Thucydides, the historian,
is banished, or withdraws
from Athens, in consequence of his failure to
save Amphipolis (January?). Returns to Athens
in 403.
Aristophanes Ne~eXat (1st
edit.).
Aristophanes Z 5^Kes.
Eupolis in his KoXaces
brings in Protagoras as
then living at Athens.
Isaeos born n. 262.
Plato comicus flor.


takes the island, and brings
Spartan prisoners to Athens.
-Death of Artaxerxes I. (465
B.C.-See next year.)
Year 8 of    War.-Defeat of
Athenians by   Thebans at
Delium.-Brasidas in Thrace:
he gains Akanthos, Amphipolis, Stageiros, Torone.Congress of Sicilian Greeks
at Gela: Hermokrates denounces Athenian aggression.
Accession  of  Dareios  II.
(No'Oos-405 B.c.) after a contest.
Year 9 of War.-Brasidas in
Thrace: Skione and Mende
revolt from Athens.-Truce
for a year.
Year 10 of War.-Torone recovered by Kleon. Battle of
Amphipolis: Kleon and Brasidas killed.-Number of Athenian males above the age of
20 was at this time about
20,000: total civic population (excluding /JriOLKOt and
slaves) about 82,000: average
attendance in Ekklesia, about
5000.
Year 11 of War.-Peace 'of
Nikias,' for 50 years, nominally valid down to 414, but
not accepted by Boeotians,
Corinthians or Megarians.
Year  12   of  War.-Separate
treaty of Sparta with    (1)
Boeotians, (2) Argives.-Alkibiades contrives to alienate
the Argives from Sparta: defensive  alliance  between
Athens, Argos, Elis    and
Mantineia.
Year 13 of War.-Alkibiades
OrpaTr',OS: he makes a progress through Achaia.-Invasion of Epidauros by Argives.
Year 14 of War.-Spartans invade Argos. Argives, with
Alkibiades, attack Orchomenos: Spartans come to the
defence of Tegea. Battle of
Mantineia (cf. 362 B. c.): Com

Aristion


4.

90. Astyphilos


2. Archias     419
3. Antiphon    418




ANNA LS.


xliii


A Nf                          v


Olympiads and
Archons.


B.C.


--  I -,        I -------- --


4. Euphemos


417


Antiphon or. 5 repl
'Hpdiov <6'vov, I. 59


rTO


91. Arimnestos   416  Agathon tragicus flor.


2. Chabrias
3. Peisandros
4. Kleokritos


415


Andokides banished, under
the decree of Isotimides,
1. 75.
Fictitious date of [Andok.]
or. 4 KGara 'AXKI3CiSou,
I. 134.
Sokrates flor., aet. 53:
Plato is now 14: Alkibiades circ. 34, Xenophon
circ. 16.-Euripides Tpodces.


plete victory of Spartans over
Argives and Athenians. Oligarchical conspiracy of the
Thousand at Argos.
Year 15 of War.-Rising of Argive demos against oligarchs.
-Athenian expedition to get
back Amphipolis: Perdikkas
of Macedon breaks faith, and
the plan fails.-Ostracism of
Hyperbolos, i.134-the tenth,
and last, recorded exercise of
ostracism since its institution
by Kleisthenes about 509 B.C.
(Cf. i. 137.)
Year 16 of War.--Athenians
take Melos, n. 156.
Victories of Alkibiades at Olympia? in. 227.-Embassy to
Athens from Egesta, asking
help against Selinus. Athenian envoys sent to Egesta.
Year 17 of War.-Envoys return
from Egesta: Sicilian Expedition voted.-Mutilation of
the Hermae, just as fleet is
going to sail for Sicily (May),
I. 73-(Athenian ambitions
in 415: 1I. 188.)- Alkibiades accused of profaning Mysteries.-Expedition sails for
Sicily under Nikias, Lamachos and   Alkibiades.-Excitement caused at Athens by
disclosures of Diokleides and
Andokides. Alkibiades condemned to death in his absence.-Nikias   misses  his
chance of investing Syracuse.
Year 18 of War.-Second campaign in Sicily. Lamachos
killed. Gylippos enters Syracuse. Nikias writes to Athens
for help.
Year 19 of War.-Dekeleia in
Attica fortified by Lacedaemonians, 11. 188, who ravage
Attica. Formal end to the
truce of 421. Beginning of
the second chapter of the
War, called the AEKeXeCK6s or
'IdWutos  rXspoS (--404 B.C.)
Third campaign in    Sicily.
Sea-fight at Syracuse: Athenian fleet destroyed. Death
of Nikias and of Demosthenes.


414  Aristophanes "Opvoeds.


413


e




xlliv


ANNALS.2;$


xliv                   A NNALS.


Olympiads and
Archons. B.C.


I


92. Kallias,2. TheopomPOS


412
411


Antiphon or. 6 r.repi i-oil
Xopevro-? i. 63.--Lysias
and his brother Polemarchos   driven   from
Thurii, come to Athens.Euripides TEX&v-q, 'Aelpo.
"oiaa. Kallimachos, sculptor, flor.
First return of Andokides
to Athens, I. 79. Antiphon dies, 1. 13. Xenophon begins his EXX'OVtKCt
with the mancenvres at
the Hellespont just after
the hattie of Kynosserna:
cf. 362 B.C.
Aristophanes Avaao-rpafq,
Oetoap optc'ovo-at.
Second return of Andokides to Athens: or. 2.
-repi 7975 savrU7  KaO'6IoL, I.
109.-Dramatic date of
Plato 4ai'3pog? 11. 3.History of Thucydides
breaks off after the battle
of Kyzikos.


Death of Perdikkas, King of
Macedon (454 B. c.-); accession of Archelaos (-399 B. c.).
Year 20 of TVar.-Revolt of
Lesbos from Athens, I. 58.
Revolt of Eubosa, 11. 263.
Revolt of Chios, 11. 160. Pedaritos commands there for
Sparta, 11. 198. Revolt of
Miletos.  Oropos seized by
Bocotians, 11. 179. Athenians
lose a sea-fight off Knidos, iT.
351.-Samian demos, true to
Athens, rises against the
oligarchs.  Athenian  fleet
musters at Samos: Spartan
Astyochos defeats Charminos.
Alkibiades takes refuge from
Spartans with Tissaphernes:
his overtures to the Athenian
leaders.
Year 21 of Yar. -Government of
the Four Hundred, r. 7: (March
-June. )-Eratosthenes (Lys.
or. 12) active at the Hellespont for the oligarchs: i.
266.-Athenian victory at
Kynossema.-Evagoras     begins to reign? 11. 110.
Year- 22 of War.-Thrasyllos
commands on coast of Asia
Minor, i. 297.-Second form
of the Trierarchy brought
in -o-evP7pt-papXla: cf. 357,
340 B.c. -Athenians attack
and recover Kyzikos: death
of Spartan admiral Mindaros. - Kleophon 8oyiaywy6s:
Athens rejects Spartan offers
of peace.
Year 23 of Wcar.-Athenian
campaign under Thrasyllos
in Lydia. - Messenians in
Pylos surrender to Sparta.Megara recovers Nisaea.
Year 24 of Wcar.-Alkihiades
recovers Selymbria and Byzantium for Athens.-Troops
under Thrasyllos defeated at
Ephesos, I. 297.
Year 25 of War.-Alkibiades
returns to Athens, is chosen
or7pamj-qs  and leads the procession  to Eleusis.-Antiochos, the pilot of Alkibiades,
defeated by Lysander off


3. Glaukippos 1 410


4. Diokles
93. Euktemon
2. Antigenes


409 1 Sophokles (DA0OKT'4T TS.


408
407


Euripides 'Opf-rr7qs. Aristophanes    IIXODTOS   (1st
edit.: cf. 388 B.c.).
Lysias or. 20 iarlp    HoXvowrpa-ro)? I. 217.




ANNALS.


xlv


Olympiads and
Archons.      B.C.


ANNALS.                    xlv


-----------------


I


Kallias


3.


406 Death of Euripides.


4. Alexias


405


94. Pythodorus 404


Death of Sophokles.
Aristophanes BdrpaXot.
Dramatic   date of Plato
Popylas.
Polemarchos, brother of
Lysias, put to death by
the Thirty (May); Lysias escapes to Megara,
i. 148: cf. 265.-Isokrates leaves Athens for
Chios, n. 6.
Proposal to give Lysias the
citizenship defeated by
Archinos, I. 151. Lysias
or. 12 Kard 'Epaorooa-dvovU, I. 261.-Lysias or.
34 7repl 70ro ^ J. KacTaXra ra
7rjy 7rolrelav, I. 211.
Isokrates returns to Athens,
n1. 6. Isokrates or. 21
7rpds E'Ovvowv, 1n. 219.
Third and final return of
Andokides to Athens.
Lysias or. 21 8opo8oKtIa
dTroXoyia, I. 219.
Lysias  or. 24 67rrp rov
dcvvdrov? I. 255.


Notion. Alkibiades plunders
Kyme. He is deposed from
his arpa-rryia: ten new Generals are chosen.
Year 26 of War.-Dionysios I.
becomes tyrant of Syracuse,
ii. 171.-Kallikratidas (successor of Lysander) storms
Methymna    and   blockades
Konon in Mytilene.    Complete victory of Athenians at
Arginusae: death of Kallikratidas.--Theramenes accuses the Generals: six are put
to death, Sokrates protesting.
Year 27 of War.-Battle of
Aegospotami (late autumn).
The Areiopagos takes measures
for public safety, H. 212.
Konon escapes to Evagoras.
Death of Dareios II. (424
B.C.-): Artaxerxes II. (Mv4 -fLwv-359 B. c.) succeeds him.
Theramenes brings the terms
of peace from Sparta. Agoratos informs, I. 269. Athens
surrenders   to   Lysander.
Kritias and Eratosthenes are
among the five oqopot, and then
amongthexxx., I. 266. Tyranny of the Thirty begins (April).
Thrasybulos advances from
Phyle   to  Peiraeus.  The
Thirty deposed in 8th month
(Dec.).  Theramenes put to
death in autumn, n. 6.Death of Alkibiades aet. circ.
45.
Thrasybulos and the exiles in the
Peiraeus are at war with the
Ten; but are in possession
of Athens before the end of
July.-Democracy    formally
restored in September.-Law
of Aristophon, n. 328.Knights who    had   served
under the Thirty are required
to refund their KcarTdraorts, I.
246.-Expedition from Athens
to Eleusis, to dislodge the
Thirty, i. 252.


2. Eukleides   403


3. Mikon


402


e2




xlvi


ANNALS.


v                ANNALSI


Olympiads and
Archons.


B.C.


4. Xenaenetos 1 401


Isokrates or. 18 wpis KaXXlaXyov, I1. 232.
Lysias or. 25 59spov Ka-raVccoms CdrokeoyIa, I. 250.
Sophokles Oiakrovg wi KoXwYi: brought out by
Sophokles nepos.


95. Laches


40oo  Parrhasios, painter, flor,


a, Aristokrates 1399 1


3. Ithykles
4. Suniades
96. Phormion


398
397
396


Andokides or. 1 JEptl rzw"
pvrppi  y, I. 114.-Death
of Solirates, r, 153.-Lysias or. 30 KaTa NLKOia'xov, I. 224.-[Lys.] or.
6  KaT-   'AVz50K 0e,  I.
281.-Plato withdraws to
Megara.-Lys. or. 13 KaTd
'AyopU-ov, I. 269.
Ktesias brought his HlcpOLKU
to this year.
Lysias or. 17 rep? 6doToolws
XpP/prTWV [better repti Tron
'Epireovosxppgcirwo]I. 300
Isokrates or, 17 repi 70-ro
ýei'yovs, 11. 228.
Lysias or. 18 rep    6qLAe6 -Cews T7W? 70) Nueiv d beXolv^, 1. 229.
Plato aet, 34 returns to
Athens.    His   ropylas
written between this year
and 389.
Lysias   or.  7  repl rov^
0- 7cKO.  a. 289.
[Lysias] or. 9 wrcp r70o
acpa-rtwcroe, a. 232.
Isokrates or. 20 Ka7d Aox1 -7rov, II. 215.-(or. 393)
or. 19 'AtytV7TLKE9, II.
217: or. 17 TparetTrLK6S,
I., 222.


Expedition of Cyrus theyounger,
II. 161, 173. Battle of Kunaxa and death    of Cyrus
(autumn).-Retreat   of the
Greeks: they reach Armenia
in the winter.-War between
Lacedaemon and Elis.
Campaign of Thimbron in Asia
Minor, 1I. 161,
The Greeks in their retreat
reach Kotyora on the Euxine
8 months after battle    of
Kunaxa.
Proceedings before the Areiopagos against men formerly of
the xxx., 1 296.
Derkyllidas supersedes Thimbron in Asia Minor, 11. 161.Death of Archelaos of Macedon (413 B.c.-); his son
Orestes succeeds, but is dispossessed (396 B.c.) by his
guardian Aeropos. See 394.
Second campaign of Derkyllidas in Asia Minor.
Third campaign of Derkyllidas
in Asia Minor: he is about
to invade Karia when he
meets the satraps and makes
an armistice with Tissaphernes.
Beginning of 6 r-epI 'P606e sri-XcP/oS between Persia and Sparta (-394 B.c.), 11. 160. First
campaign of Agesilaos in Asia
Minor, II. 161.
Athenian expedition to relieve
Haliartos, I. 247. Alkibiades
the younger takes part, I. 257,
and Lysander is killed.-Second campaign of Agesilaos.
Beginning of Corinthian War
(-390 B.C.), 11. 161. Naval
campaigns of Konon (Lys. or.
19),I. 235.-Battle of Corinth.
Agesilaos in Boeotia (autumn),
a. 247. Battle of Knidos, ii.
160. - Dionysios I. hard
pressed by Carthaginians, ii.
198. - Amyntas II. of Macedon begins to reign, ii.
158.


a. Diophantos 3951


3. Eubulides


394




ANNALS.


xivii


ANNALS.                   xlvii


Olymupiads arid
Archons.
4. Demostratos
97. Philokies
2. Nikoteles
3. Ilemostratos


B.C.
393
392


13911


1390


4.Antipatros 138


'Lysias or. 3 KarTK Tfj'wvog,
1. 277.
PolykrateS KaTIOyOPIL-4 2'KPU.TOVS, 11. 94.
(-391) Isaeos the pupil of
Isokirates, 11. 264.
Lysias or. 16 dwrep MaSTtOi"ov? 1. 245.
Isokrates begins to teach.
First period of his S chool,
392-378 B. C.:I1. 10.Aristophanes 'EKKXprsCi-U?,ovo~at.
(-390 B. C.) Isokrates or.
11 Bov~osptg, 11. 93: or.
13 KaTa' coq~ar63s, 11. 127.
Andokides or. 1 weplrt' 7I
7rpos AaKC&UPCI.OnVS sIP7ps v'r
(spring), i. 128.-Isokratesvisits Gorgias in Thessaly, 11. 5.
Isacos or. 5 7r-ept' roO AtKacnayeVOUS KXupoe, 11. 348.
Skopas, sculptor, and Th eepompos, last poet of Old
Comedy, fher.
Lysias or. 23 Karl,. 'Ep-yoKXEIOlJI 1. 221.
Lysias or. 27 Ka7-l,.'Eu71 -KpdTeus? 1. 222.
Lysias or. 29 Ka-ra 4<PXoKpd'TrOvs, 1. 240.
Aeschines horn. Plato aet.
40 first visits Sicily. His
He~trsla was- begun before this year.
Lysias or. 33 'OXevui-saK6s,
1. 204.
Aristophanes fi3ed-ro-09second (the extant) edition,
marking the transition to
Middle Comedy; cf. 408
B. C.
Polykrates eminent as a
teacher of Rhetoric, 11. 95.
Lysias or. 19 wrepit'-wP 'AptoTO0at'Ovt xp77/~.4a'-COV)s. 235.
Lysias or. 22 K T& 7' votTorw~w-p? 1. 227.
Plato act. 43 hegins to teach
in the Academy?


Long Walls of Athens restored
hy 1{onon, 1. 83.
Lechacnm, western port of
Corinth, taken hy Lacedacmonians, 11. 352.
Plenipotentiaries sent byAthens
to treat f or peace at Sparta, i.
833 (wvinter 391-390).
Thrasyhuies tise Steirian receives  Amadok-os   I. and
Senthes into the alliance of
Athens, 11. 1-65: descends the
coast of Asia Minor, 11. 340.
Death of Tbrasybnlos the Stelrian, 1. 246. Athseniass expedition to aid Idvagoras, 1.
2.36.-Conquests of iDionysios
I. in Sicily and Magna Ciraecia, 11. 160"(.389-387'n. C.).
388--387 n. c., IDiotimos commands, in Hellespont, 1. 237.
Dionysios 1. of Syracuse sends
an embassy to Olympia:.
16"55.
Eight triremnes under Thrasybulos the Kollytean takesn by
Antaliddas, inear Ahydos, i.
243.-Peace of Antalkidas, ii.
151
Plataca rebuilt by Sparta as a.
stronghold against Thebes, ii.
176.
Mantinela destroyed by Lacedaemonians, us. 152.-Begyinning of wvar between Evagoras
and Artaxcrxcs IT, ii. 1538.


98. Pyrrhion,2. Theodotos
3. Mlystiohides
4. ]Iexitheos


388
387
386
385




x1viii


xA l  ANALS.


Olympiads and


--


Olympiads and
Archons.      B.C.
99. Diotrephes1 384


2. Phanostratos
3. Evandros


383
382


4. Demophilos 1 381 1 (


100. Pytheas
2. Nikon
3. Nausinikos


4. Kallias
101. Charisandros
2. Hippodamos
3. Sokratides
4. Asteios


380
379
378
377
376
375
374
373


-383 B.c.) Lys. or. 10 KClTa
OeopvYr'oTev, I. 293.
lemosthenes born (Schlfer).
ýristotle born: Plato aet.
45.
jysias or. 26 KaT& 'Eviv6pov, I. 242.
-380 B. c.) Lysias frag.
cxx. f. (Sauppe) wrip 4'epeCiKOU, I. 312.
lysias (I. 155).
'I
rorgias and Aristophanes
die about this time.
-376 B.c.) Isokrates companion and secretary of
Timotheos, 11. 10.
'hese orators flourish;Kallistratos, Leodamas,
Thrasybulos and Kephalos of Kollytos, 11. 372.
-371 B.c.) Isaeosor.10 repI
xo 'AptoCrdpXOU KaX'poU, II.
333,
-351, Second period of the
school of Isokrates, 11.
10.
)eath of Antisthenes, xx.
103.
saeos or. 8 repti 70ro  KlpoVOS KXýPOVp? II. 327.
raros (son of Aristophanes)
and Eubulos, earliest
poets of Middle Comedy.
sokrates or. 2 rpoi's NLKoKAa, 1I. 87.
sokrates or. 14 IIaarai'b,
11. 176.


Olynthos besieged by Lacedaemonians, xi. 150.-Beginning
of Olynthian War (- 379),
11. 158. Kotys becomes King
of Thracian Odrysae. Iphikrates goes against him with
Athenian force: then makes
peace with him, 11. 337.
The Kadmeia seized by Lacedaemonians, ii. 152.-Philip
of Macedon, son of Amyntas
II., born: cf. 359 B.C.
Phlius besieged by Lacedaemonians, 11. 150.
End of Olynthian War, ii.
158.
Athens at the head of a new
Naval Confederacy, 11. 10.Financial reform: establishment of the 20 avApopicu for
payment of war-tax, 11. 30.
O/a3uiiKs rbXeuos (11. 331) begins
(-371 B.c.). Invasions of
Boeotia by Agesilaos and
Kleombrotos, 11. 176.
Agesilaos invades Boeotia. -
Thebes begins to reorganise
the Boeotian Confederacy, ii.
178.
End of war (385-) between
Evagoras and Artaxerxes II.,
11. 158. Kleombrotos invades
Boeotia.
Timotheos sails round Peloponnesos: Corcyra and other
cities of the Ionian Sea join
the Athenian League.
-370 B.c., Jason of Pherae
tagos of Thessaly, 11. 18.
Death of Evagoras king of
the Cyprian Salamis, 11. 107.
Congress at Sparta. Peace
between Athens and Sparta,
1. 178: Thebes excluded
from it, ib. 181.
Plataea destroyed. Walls of
Thespiae razed by Thebans,




A NNALS.X


xlix


ANNALS.IxlIx


Olympiads and
Archons.
102. Alkisthenes
2. Plrasikleides


13.0.


----- ---- ---- --- I


372
371


Isokrates or. 1 7rpls A--
~t6vtrKOV? II. 84: or. 3
NtKOKX^?S K' Kwpto&, II. 90.


3.


Dysniketos  3701 Isokrates or. 10 'EXhevq
el KwL/hOV, Is. 100.


4. Lysistratos  369  Isacos or. 9cpi rol 7- 'ArrvO/eXou K\'qpoV, I1. 330.


11. 177-9.   At this time
Oropos belonged to Athens,
ib.: cf. 412 B.c.--Timotheos
deposed from  his crrpaTryTia
and accused by Iphikrates and
Kallistratos. - Iphikrates,
Chabrias, Kallistratos chosen
Generals.
Battle of Leuktra, July 6, 11.
196.
General Peace (excluding the
Thebans) concluded at Sparta
('Peace of Kallias'), June 16,
ii. 141--Jason  of Pherae
enters Greece as mediator.
Jason assassinated, 11. 18. First
march of Epameinondas into
Peloponnesos: invasion of
Laconia: foundation of Megalopolis and of the   new
Messene, 11. 194.
Second march of Epameinondas into Peloponnesos. First
expedition sent by Dionysios
I. of Syracuse to help the
Corinthians and Spartans:
Athens also forms friendly
relations with him.-Death
of Amyntas II. of Macedon:
accession of his eldest sou
Alexander II. (brother of
Philip).
Second expedition sent by Dionlysios I.
Pelopidas imprisoned by Alexander of Pherae: released by
E pameinondas.-Philip (act.
14) sent by Ptolemaeos as
a hostage to Thebes: lives
there till 365 B.c. - Alexander II. of Macedon put to
death by usurper Ptolemaeos
(-365. C..).
Death of Dionysios I. of Syracuse, so. 19. His son Dionysios II. succeeds him.
Third march of Epameinondas
into Peloponnesos. -Timotheos again in command of
Athenian fleet.
Sparta refuses to recognise
Messene. Corinth, Epidauros and Phlius make peace
for themselves with Thebes,
1s. 193.


103. Nausigenes 1 368


2. Polyzelos
3. Kephisodoros


367
366


Isolkrates Epist. i A oiospv,
is. 238.
Dionysios I. gains tragic
prize with A6i7pa "'ErrOPOS.
Plato aet. 62 visits Sicily
for second time.
Aristotle aet. 17 comes to
Athens, where he lives
till Plato's death in 347.
Isokrates or. 6 'ApX15aacos,
11. 193.
Demosthenes comes of age:
his studies with Isaeos
probably begin, 1i. 267.




1


ANNALS.


Olympiads and


Olympiads and
Archons.
4. Chion




365


104. Timohrates 364


2. Charikleides 363


3. Molon


362


Isokrates or. 9 'Evay6pas?
n. 106.
(-363 Bn. ) Isaeos or. 6 rept
TO   ILXoKT4ULOPOS KXhIpov,
n. 343.
Demosthenes or. 27 Ka-rt
'A/p6ovu a', or. 28 Kcard
'A~/p3ov lg', n. 301.
Demosthenes or. 30 irpbs
'Oz4ropa a', or. 31 rpbs
'Ovz'4ropa 3', 1n. 301.
Plato's third visit to Sicily.
Xenophon closes his 'EXX77VLKad (411 B.c.-) at the
battle of Mantineia.
Demosthenes or. 41 'rpbs
7irovSlav, or. 55 irpos KaXXtKcXa, nI. 301.
Deinarchos born.
(-353 B.c.)Isaeos or. 1 repZ
"ro' KXewt6oxov KXf'pov, II.
319.
Hypereides Kar' AuJroKOXOus,
xn. 381.
Praxiteles, sculptor, flor.
Isaeos or. 11 -repi ro 'A-yvov
KXx'pov, n. 354.
Demosthenes trierarch.
Isokrates Epist. vi -ros 'IdO-ovpS ratOiv, II. 241.


Oropos revolts from Athens
and is occupied by the Thebans.
Kallistratos and Chabrias impeached for the Oropos affair
by Leodamas, Philostratos
KoXweus, and (?) Hegesippos:-acquitted.
Timotheos    reduces   Samos
(where KX77povXOL are established), Sestos and Krithote.
-Perdikkas III. (second son
of Amyntas II. and brother
of Philip) King of Macedon
(- 359 B.c.).
Timotheos succeeds to the command of Iphikrates in Thrace:
takes Methone, Pidna, Potidaea, Torone.
Expedition of Pelopidas into
Thessaly: his death.
Campaign of Timotheus against
Kotys and Byzantines: his
return to Athens.
Fourth and last march of Epameinondas into Peloponnesos.
Battle of Mantineia (July 3);
death   of   Epameinondas.
General   peace,  excluding
Sparta.-Autokles Athenian
commander at the Hellespont.
Archidamos III. succeeds his
father Agesilaos as a king of
Sparta, n. 19.-Kallistratos
flies from Athens to Thasos:
Thasians recolonise Datos,
11. 185.  Aristophon  S-/xya"War between Artaxerxes II. and
his satrap Orontes: Athens
supports the latter n. 185.
Death of Artaxerxes II. (Mix/jwV, 405 B. c.-) Accession of
Artaxerxes III. (*'0os-337
B.c.).-Perdikkas III. of Macedon killed in battle with Illyrians: contest for throne:
accession of Philip (-336 B.C.).
-Alexander of Pherae murdered by his wife Thebe's halfbrothers, Tisiphonos, Peitholaos and Lykophron, 1n. 241.
Kotys, king of Thracian Odrysae, murdered: his son Ker

4. Nikophemos 361


105. Kallimedes


360


2. Eucharistos 359




ANNA LS.


li


ANNLS                              Ii-`----


Olympiads and I
Archons.    I B.C.


- -- -- ---- I


3. Kephisocldo-.
tos
4. Agathokles
106. Elpines
2. Kallistratos
3. Diotimos
4. Eudemos
107. Aristode.
mos


358
357
3586
355
354
353
352


Isaeos frag. xvi (Sauppe)
vWvp EidaiOovUs, I. 367.
Demosthenes or. 54 KaTa'
K6z'vwoT? I1. 300.
Isokrates Epist. ix 'ApXt6ci.uL, 11. 243.
Alexis writes Comedy.
Isokrates or. 8 repi rSs elipivs-s (or Ov4.4cUaX46Ks): or. 7
'Apeowayt-rLKds, II. 202.
Demosthenes or. 22 KT-da
'Avyporitwos, i1. 301.
Aristotle may have taught
Rhetoric as early as this
year.
Death of Xenophon?
Isaeos or. 2 repti rov MeveKXOVS K?'poe, 11, 336,.
Dem. or. 14 repi   dvj eiyv -
poptiv, i1. 301, 373, or.
20 rpos Aesriv-v, 11. 301.
Isokrates or. 15 7repi r7s
dcOTLSrOOeW, 11. 134.
Isaeos or. 7 repi troO 'AIroXhoX0pov KX pov, u. 324.
Demosthenes or. 16 bv-p
MeyaroXcrnv, or. 24 KuaTr
TLbOPorpdrous, or. 23 KaXrd
'AprrcKpdOiU'ovs, or. 36 brrp
4op/pAiwos, 11. 300.
Theodektes tragicus flor.
Theopompos, historian,
flor.


sobleptes prevails, in a contest for the succession, over
Berisades and Amadokos II.,
i. 185.
Chios, Kose, Rhodes, Byzantium
revolt from Athens. Social
War begins (- 355 B. c.), II.
183. Philip takes Amphipolis, 11. 185. Treaty between
Chares and Kersobleptes:
Thracian Chersonese (except
Kardia) ceded to Athens, ib.
Third form  of the Trierarchy
brought in by the av-pjoplac
of Periandros: cf. 410 B.c.
Philip victor at Olympia: takes
and destroys Potidaea: founds
Philippi. Alexander the Great
born.   Chares defeats a Persian force, 11. 206.
Social War ends (midsummer),
ii. 183.---Phocian (or Sacred)
War begins (- 346 B.c.).Oligarchies set up at Corcyra,
Chios, Mytilene, &c., 11. 248.
Eubulos   becomes    financial
minister of Athens (rcmcias
7- KO1V? w7POOTd5OU), II. 27: cf.
338 B.c.--Timotheos brought
to trial: dies at Chalkis.Kallistratos returns to Athens
(cf. 361 B.c.):-his death, ii.
186.-The Generals Ipikrates,
Menestheus and Timotheos
arraigned by Aristophon and
Chares.
Philip marches along the Thracian coasts, and takes Abdera
and Maroneia.-Philip takes
Methone: is   defeated  in
Thessaly by Onomarchos.
Philip re-enters Thessaly: defeats Phocians under Onomarches (who is killed), and
advances to Thermopylae:
finds it held by Athenians,
and retires. He marches to
Heraeon on Propontis: dictates peace to Kersobleptes,
makes alliance with Kardia,
Perinthos and Byzantium.



lii


ANNALS.


Olmpad and--


Olympiads and
Archons.
2. Thessalos


B.C.
351


3. Apollodoros 350


4. Kallimachos 349


Demosthenes or. 4 Kard& 'iXir7rov a', 11. 301: or. 15
iriep T -S 'Poeiw  ~evOeplaw.
(-338.) Third period of the
school of Isokrates, n. 10.
Demosthenes or. 39     rpbs
BOLWTrby repi TOO dv6uaAos,
ii. 300.
Isokrates Epist. Ix rots MvrtXiyvaiwv dpXovoa, 11. 248.
Death of Isaeos? u. 269.
Demosthenes or. 26 KarMeoSlov, or. 1 'OXvutaKis a', or. 2'OvvOLUaKdsp'.
Demosthenes or. 3 'OXvvOmiKs y'.
[Dem.] or. 40 7rpos BotwrOi
7rept rrpo~Kcs.
Death of Plato aet. 82.
Aristotle leaves Athens and
goes to Hermeias of Atarneus.
Isokrates  or. 5   ciXtinrros
(April), n. 167.
Demosthenes or. 5 urep; eiprjvsP (August).


108. Theophilos 348


He frees Pherae from the
Tyranny, n. 241.
Death of Mausolos. Artemisia
proposes a contest of oratory:
Theopompos the    historian
gains the prize, n1. 11. Idrieus, brother of Mausolos, succeeds Artemisia as dynast of
Karia,n. 173.-Philip marches
against the Molossian Arybbas.
Euboeans ally themselves with
Athens. Phokion leads Athenians to support Plutarchos
of Eretria: battle of Tamynae.--Apollodoros tried and
condemned for proposing to
apply the OewptLKbv to the war.
-First help sent by Athens
to Olynthos.
Philip makes war on Olynthos
and  the  Chalkidic towns.
Alliance between Olynthians
and Athens.-Second Athenian expedition, under Chares,
to help them.
Philip besieges Olynthos-third
Athenian expedition, under
Chares, to help it:-Philip
takes Olynthos: destroys it
and the 32 Chalkidic towns
of its Confederacy.
Philip renews war with Kersobleptes (cf. 352)-which he
ends in 346 by dictating a
peace. Athenian troops under Chares sent to Thrace.Mytilene returns into alliance
with Athens.
Envoys (Philokrates, Aeschines,
Demosthenes, &c.) sent by
Athens to Philip. - Philip
goes to Thracian War.--Antipater and Parmenion negociate with Athenian envoys.
-Peace ' of Philokrates' ratified on part of Athens and
allies (April).-Second Athenian embassy to await Philip
at Pella: he returns and
takes the envoys to Pherae:
ratifies peace there (end of
June).-Philip occupies Phocis: end of Phocian War.
Philip becomes a member of
Amphictyonic Council, and
thereby a Greek Power.
Philip marches against Illyrii,


2. Themistokles
3. Archias


347
346


I. Eubulos     345 Demosthenes or. 37 -rpb~




ANNALS.


liii




Olympiads and
Archons.


B.C.


- ~--L-' '----


109. Lykiskos


344


Pythodotos 1343


3. Sosigenes
4. Nikomachos
110. Theophrastos
2. Lysiroachides


342
341
340
339


Hav-ralverc7v, or. 38 7rp0's
NavaluaXov, 11. 300.
Aeschines or. 1 iara TC dpXov,
Isokrates Epist. vII. TtAo8e, 11. 246.
The A-wtiaK6s of Hypereides
(of. 11. 385 n.) earlier than
344: Sauppe 11. 285 f.
Demosthenes or. 6 Karci
4ALiirov P'.
Aristotle  removes   from
Atarneus to Mytilene.
Ephoros, historian, flor.
Demosthenes or. 19, and
Aeschines or. 2, rnepi ris
raparpepoEias.
Antiphanes still writing
Comedy.
Hegesippos ([Dem.] or. 7)
repi'AXovvr eov.
Isokrates Epist. i. 4<Xirwre a', I.11 250: Epist. v.
'AXedVcbpwj, 11. 252.
Aristotle begins to teach
Alexander.
Menander born.
Demosthenes or. 8 7rep7 r-C
ep Xepopo-vry, or. 9 KarTa
4uXirrroe y'.
Aphareustragicus flor. down
to this time.
Isolrates Epist. Iv. 'Avri.
7I-rpy, 11. 253.
Anaximenes 'PqTOPLKKi [7rpl
'AXiEav3povj?
Isokrates or. 12 lavayvaiFK65, II. 113.
Xenokrates begins to teach
in the Academy.


Dardani, Triballi.-Timoleon
of Corinth goes againstDionysios II. of Syracuse.
Timoleon frees Sicily.-Philip
begins to meddle in Peloponnesos.  Demosthenes   goes
thither to counteract him.
Embassy, in remonstrance,
from Philip, Argos and Messene to Athens.
Philokrates is accused by Hypereides: goes into exile.Aeschines is accused by Demosthenes of malversation in
the embassy (346 B. c.), but
is acquitted.
Philip sets up tetrarchies in
Thessaly. - His letter to
Athens about Halonnesos.Alliance between  Euboean
Chalkis and Athens.-Beginning of Philip's Third Thracian War (-339 B. c.): cf. 352,
347 B. C.
Feud between Kardia and Attic
kleruchi of  Chersonese.Philip supports Kardia: Dio.peithes, Athenian General,
ravages Thracian seaboard.
Letter of Philip to Athens
about the Chersonese. -Philip
approaches Perinthos.-Demosthenes envoy to Byzantium:  its  alliance  with
Athens.
Philip besieges Perinthos and
Byzantium:-Athenians under Chares support Byzantines.-Philip's  ultimatum:
Athens, on proposal of Demosthenes, declares war.Fourth form of the Trierarchy brought in by law of
Demosthenes, equalising the
burden on taxable capital:
cf. 410, 357 B. c.
Aeschines and Meidias go as
irviA,6pac to Amphictyonic
Council: Amphictyons make
war on Lokrians of Amphissa.-Second Athenian force
sent to help   Byzantium:




liv


ANNALS.


Olympiads and
Archons.     B.C.


3. Chaerondas 338


4. Phrynichos  337


111. Pythodemos
2. Euaenetos


336
335
334
333
332


Isokrates Epist. III. 4)h\irr-c 3', In. 235.
Death of Isokrates, In. 31.
(-326 B.c.) Lykurgos, the
orator, is raAfias rp KOIV7jS
rpoorbsov, I. 375.
(Jan.?) At the annual winter Festival of the Dead
in the outer Kerameikos,
Demosthenes speaks the
epitaph of those who fell
at Chaeroneia. [Not extant: the Demosthenic
or. 60 is spurious.]
Ktesiphon proposes(March)
that Demosthenes should
be crowned at the Great
Dionysia.
Aeschines gives notice of an
action rapavpotwv against
Ktesiphon.
Deinarchos begins his activity as Xoyoypdc;ios,
The surrender of Demosthenes.
Lykurgos, &c. is demanded
from Athens by Alexander:-Demades helps to
arrange a peace.
Aristotle settles at Athens
and teaches in the Lykeion.-His 'ProptK'c ertainly  later than   338
B.C.


Philip raises the siege.- Amphictyons make Philip their
General (Oct.). He returns to
Greece, defeats mercenaries
under Chares and Proxenos,
and destroys Amphissa.
Commissioners (including Demosthenes) appointed to restore fortifications of Athens:
Demosthenes administers the
OewptKbv.-Immediately after
destroying Amphissa, Philip
hands over the Achaean Naupaktos to the Aetolians: then
enters Phokis, and occupies
Kytinion and Elateia (Feb.?).
Battle of Chaeroneia: ACEraOyetTVlwvos p3663py (Aug. 2? Curt. v.
436 Eng. tr. n.). Peace 'of
Demades' between Philip and
Athens.   End of Athenian
Naval Hegemony: Congress
of Corinth: Hellenic League
under Macedonian Hegemony:
Philip Hellenic General against Peisia. - Artaxerxes
III. ('Xos) dies: Arses succeeds him.
Death of Arses: Dareios III.
King of Persia (-330 B.c.).
Parmenion and Attalos open the
Persian War in Asia.
Philip assassinated at Aegae
(early in August).
Alexander the Great becomes
king of Macedon.-He enters
Greece: Thessaly, Amphictyons, Athens and Congress
of Corinth acknowledge his
hegemony.
Parmenion repulsed in Asia by
Memnon, who takes Ephesos.
- Thebans     rise  against
Macedon: Alexander takes
and destroys Thebes (autumn).
Alexander sets out for Persian
War, and crosses Hellespont:
wins battle of Granikos (May):
reduces Aeolis and lonia:
takes Miletos and Halikarnassos: and advances to Gordion
in Phrygia.
Alexander routs Dareios III. at
Issos (Oct.).
Alexander besieges Tyre; takes
it (July): takes Gaza: occupies Egypt: founds Alexan

Ktesikles


3.


4. Nikokrates
112. Niketes




ANNALIS.


IV


ANNLS                                   l v -


Olympiads and
Archons.     B.c.


2. Aristophanaes


331


3. Aristophon 1 330


4. Kephisophon
113. Euthykritos
z. Hegemon
3. Chremes


Lysippos, sculptor, for.
With his school began a
decline of Sculpture, parallel to that of Oratory.
Cf. I1. 445.
Kallisthenes of Stageiros,
who went with Alexander to Asia, represents
the decay of taste in oratorical prose.
(August?) Demosthenes or.
18 rvepi i-e ovT~ 7eoov,
Aesehines or. 3 KaT& l{1-rutolP7-es, 11. 398. - Aeschines leaves Athens.
Lykurgos Kar&a AewKpca'TuO,
11. 376.
Demades administers the
OewpIK6v.-[Dem.] or. 17
'Jpl rw-v7v wrpos 'AVtavspov
TPVVOi7KwP (hy Hegesippos?).
Hypereides ibwap 'Evrevtweov? 11. 387.
Between 330 and 326 B.C.
(Sch~ifer) there was a
great dearth at Athens,
during  which   Demosthenes administered the
acrcwnia.
End of financial administration of Lykurgos (338
B.C. -): Menesaechmos
becomes 7-apias.
Fictitious date of the speech
irepti -  &,S6EKaertas (i. e.
338-326 B..c.): not by
Demades, Sauppe 11.312.


329
328
327
326


dria: winters at Memphis.
Alexander crosses Euphrates
(July); routs Darelos at
Arbela (Oct.); marches to
Babylon, Susa and Persepolis.
Spartans, under Agis III., rise
against Macedon:- are defeated at Megalopolis by Antipater; and accept Macedonian
hegemony: death of Agis III.
-Alexander pursues Dareios,
who is murdered by Bessos in
Parthia:-enters  Hyrcania,
Drangi~ania, and Aracosia:
founds Alexandria ad Caucasum (Kandahar?).
Alexander enters Baktria and
Sogdiana; takes Marakanda,
(Samarkand): crosses   the
Oxus and advances to Jaxartes: founds Alexandria Eschate (Khojend?).-Returns
to winter-quarters in Baktria.
Alexander subdues Sogdiana.Slays Kleitos at Marakanda.
-Harpalos sends supplies of
corn to Athens, and receives
the citizenship.,
Alexander crosses the Indus and
enters the Punjaub.
Alexander defeats Porus. -
Begins his river-voyage southwards through India.
Alexander reaches mouth of
Indus about July.-Sets out
on march westward in Aug.,
and reaches capital of Gedrosia in Oct.-Nearchos sails
for Persian Gulf in Oct.Harpalos, the profligate treasurer of Alexander, crosses


4. Antikles     325




Ivi


ANNALS.


lvi                   ANNALS.


Olympiads and
Archons.
114. Hegesias
2. Kephisodoros
3. Philokles
4. Archippos
115. Neaechmos
2. Apollodoros
3. Archippos


B.C.
324
323
322
321
320
319
318


Deinarchos or. 1 Kard Aj-"
/.oo'-0vovus,or. 2 KaTa'AparroyeirToos, or. 3 KarT a tXOKX40ov, n. 373.
Hypereides Kcard A7aoo0- -
eovs.-Death   of Lykurgos (before midsummer).
Epikuros aet. 18 comes to
Athens.
Hypereides   7rwid-TLO, II.
389.
Death of Hypereides (Oct.
5).  Death   of Demosthenes (Oct. 12). Aristotle retires to Chalkis,
and dies there (Oct.?).
Theophrastos succeeds him
in the Lykeion.
New Comedy beginning.Menander aet. 21 'OpyT
(his first play).-Philemon, Diphilos     comici
flor.
Death of Demades.-Demetrios Phalereus flor.
Decline of Oratory begins.


from  Asia   to  Attica:-is
"warned from the Peiraeus,
and goes to Taenaron.
Alexander celebrates the Dionysia at Susa. - Death    of
Hephaestion at Ekbatana.Athens decrees divine honours
to Alexander.-Demosthenes
dpxicwpos at Olympia (July).
- Areiopagos directs that
Demosthenes, Philokles, Demades, &c. be prosecuted for
taking bribes from Harpalos.
-Demosthenes is fined and
imprisoned:-escapes to Aegina.
Alexander holds court at Babylon and receives the embassies.-His death, June 8.
Lamian War, promoted by Hypereides. - Leosthenes    of
Athens defeats Antipater at
Herakleia and besieges him
in Lamia.
Leosthenes killed before Lamia.
Antiphilos succeeds to command of the Greeks and de.
feats Leonnatos. - Decisive
victory of Macedonians at
Krannon (Aug. 5).-Hellenic
League breaks up. Athens
submits to   Antipater. On
proposal of Demades, the Ekklesia  pronounces Demosthenes, Hypereides, &c., traitors.
Alexander's  Empire    divided
among his Generals. Ptolemy founds a monarchy in
Egypt (306) B.c. The descendants of Seleukos found a kingdom in Asia, which afterwards
shrinks up into Syria. In
Macedonia there is confusion
till about 272 B.c.: then the
house of Antigonos reigns till
168 B.c., when Rome abolishes
the kingdom.
Death of Antipater.




ANNALS.


Ivii


Olympiads.
116. 4.
120. I.
122. 3 -127. 3.
129. I.
130. I.
132. 3.
-157. 3.


I---"I---"------------


B.c.
314
300
290
270
264
260
250
150
200
194
156
146
120


145.
146.
156.
158.


I.
3.
I.
3.


Death of Aeschines.
Kleitarchos of Soli, representative of the florid
Asianism.
Hegesias of Magnesia, the
so-called founder ofAsianism, flor.
Theokritos, Bion, Moschos
flor.
Timaeos of Tauromenion
(now aet. circ. 70, resident at Athens     since
about 310 B.c.) brought
his History down to this
year. He represents the
epigrammatic Asianism.
Kallimachos, the poet, librarian of Alexandria.
A period of almost total
darkness in the history of
Greek Oratory.    When
light returns, Asianism
is fully dominant, but a
reaction to Atticism is
just beginning.
Aristophanes librarian of
Alexandria.
Apollonios Rhodios librarian of Alexandria.
Aristarchos   librarian  of
Alexandria.
Polybios brought his History from 264 B. c. (where
Timaeos left off) to this
year.
Hierokles and Menekles represent the epigrammatic Asianism in its maturity.
Hortensius born.
Approximate date for Hermagoras of Temnos [usually put much too late
-by Clinton, about 62
B.. See Cic. de Invent. T.
8,written about 84 B.c.,
which shows that Hermagoras was then long dead:
Blass die Griech. Ber. von
Alex. bis zu Aug., pp.84f.]
-Hermagoras founds the
Scholiastic Rhetoric, and
thus prepares the way for
Atticism.
Apollonios 6 paXaK6g eminent as a teacher of Rhetoric at Rhodes.


285-247.
phos.
280-251.
Achaean
247-222.


205-181. Ptolemy Epiphanes.
197. Battle of Kynoskephalae.
The Greek allies of Rome,
though nominally free, are
henceforth  practically  dependent.
Corinth destroyed. The Achaean cities become formally
subject to Rome.
145. Polybios legislates for the
Achaean cities.


306-285. Ptolemy Soter.


Ptolemy PhiladelFirst  period  of
League.
Ptolemy Euergetes.


165. I.
166. 3.
167. 3.


114
110




lviii


ANNALS.


Olympiads.


168. 3.
r1o0 I.


--


171. 2.
172. x.


173.
174.
175.


3.
I.
3.t
I,.I

B.C


106
100
95
92
86
84
82
80
79
69
55
50
46
44
43
30
25


175. 2.
177. 4.
181, 2.
182. 3.
183. r.
4,
184. 1.
187. 3.
188. 4 -

''


I




Cicero born.
Established fame of the
Rhodian eclectic school
of Oratory,--Attic in baýsis, but with Asian elements.
Julius Caesar born.
Greek Rhetoric is already
thoroughlyfashionable at
Rome,
Apollonios, surnamed Molon  (Cicero's  master),
eminent at Rhodes.
L. Plotius and others open
schools at Rome for the
teaching of Rhetoric, no
longer in Greek, but in
Latin,
Cicero De Inventione?
Caius Licinius Calvus born.
The Rhetorica ad Ierennium (incerti) not earlier
than this year.-Aeschylos of Knidos and Aesehines of Miletos represent
the florid Asianism. Cf.
120 B.c.
Cicero, aet. 27, at Athens.
Hortensius, the Roman representative of Asianism,
is Consul.   After this
time he comes little forward as a speaker; and
leaves the field to Cicero,
the representative of the
Rhodian eclecticism.
Cicero De Oratore.
Calvus represents pure Atticism of the Lysian type.
Apollodoros of Pergamos
and Theodoros of Gadara
are rival masters of Scholastic Rhetoric,
Death of Calvus.
Cicero Bruetus.
Cicero Orator.
Cicero De Optimo Genere
Oratorum.
Death of Cicero.
Didymos   of Alexandria,
grammarian and critic,
for,
Dionysios of Halikarnassos
and Caecilius of Calacte,
a Sicilian Greek, flourish
at Rome as scholars and
critics. Victory of Atti



Sulla takes Athens.




)Dath of Caesar.


I


Octavianus (Augustus Caesar)
begins to govern the Republic
as Emperor.










A NXALS.


lix


Olympiads.   B.C.




189. 4.
191. 3.
192. 3.
213. 2.
214. 4.
217. 2.
230. 3.
234. 4.
237. 2.
242. 2.


21


A.D.
14
18
74
80
90
143
160
170
190


cism over Asianism complete and nearly universal.
Strabo (born 66 B.c.) published his y-wypacLKd about this year.
Tacitus Dialogus De Oratoribus.
The P3ot T l 3iKa p7-q-r6pWP,
wrongly ascribed to Plutarch, were perhaps compiled about this time,
chiefly from Caecilius.
Plutarch flor.
Quintilian flor.
Herodes Atticus, the master in Greek oratory of
Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, is made consul aet. 40, by Antoninus
Pius. - Favorinus and
Fronto flor.
Lucian, a Syrian of Samosata, writes the best Attic Greek since Hypereides. - Aulus Gellius
Noctes Atticae.-Pausanias the geographer, Ptolemy the astronomer, Polyaenos (2;rparyequagra),
and Galen flor.
Publius Aelius Aristeides,
of Mysia, in his llavaOypLKdos and icpoi X6-yo, imitates the Attic models of
Hermogenes makes a complete digest of the Scholastic Rhetoric since Hermagoras of Temnos (110
B. c.).  It is contained
in his repl a-rdieew', rrept
1666v, repl ebpirews, repl
e60B6OV  ae6671T7-Eos, WpoyvpuPdzo tara (in Rhetores
Graeci, ii. Spengel). Hermog. was the chief authority on his subject till
Aphthonios.
Athenaeos Aeurvoo-sot-ra1.
Dio Cassius flor. - The
xooao-T1LK6V of Julius Pol

Athens deprived of its jurisdiction over Eretria and Aegina:
Confederacy of the free Laconian cities formed by Augustus.
Death of Augustus.
69-79. Vespasian.
81-96. Domitian.
98-117. Trajan.
117-138. Hadrian. His visits
to Athens, 122-135.
138-161. Antoninus Pius.
161-180. Marcus Aurelius.


f




Ix


ANNAALS.


lx                     ANNALS.I               I


Olympiads.
247. 2.
249. 4.
251. r.
253. 3.
264. 4.
259. 4.
273. 3.
282. 2.
289. 4.


--


210
220
225
235
280
260


lux drawn up about this
time.
Tertullian flor.
Origen flor.
Sextus Empiricus rpOs -ros
cta0yqarTLKtOS9 CwVTLpp-TLKGL:
a controversy with the
professors of (1) grammar and history, (2) rhetoric, (3) geometry. (4)
arithmetic, (5) astrology,
(6) music. - Diogenes
Laertios  A6Woo0oL ioit.
Philostratos Plot Lo tOac-Tv.
Aelian flor.
Timaeos XlevS IXa-(OVKatl.
Longinus (Atovdioos Kdcootors
Aoyyi'or) flor. His re'xvy
pJropltK7 is printed in
Rhet. Graec., 11. 298 f.,
ed. Spengel. [The treatise On the Subliine (repi
iVVbous, ib. 245 f.) may be
his, and is at least of
about this date.    The
ground of the doubt is
that the oldest MS. has
Atov'oiov (certainly not
the Halikarnassian) 7
Aoyylvov: another, a'pwAphthonios rpoyvwcido-ara
(in  Rhet.   Graec.   11.
Spengel). This book superseded Hermogenes in
the schools. At the Revival of Letters it again
became a text-book of
Rhetoric, saec. xvi. and
XVII.
Libanios of Antioch biroo-ets els 70-robs A rA oivovs
Xbyovs, Plos Aq1Ao-O7dove:
peXc1rat-: rpoyvgvao7IdiTow
7rapa5eiyaara, &c.-Gregory of Nazianzos: Athanasios flor.
Aelius Theon, of Alexandria, rpoyverwdca-ara (in
Rhet. Graec. II. Speng.).
[The only clue to his date
is that he certainly used
both Hermog. and Aphthonios, though he does
not name them; and pro

284-305.   Diocletian.
306. Flavius Valerius Constantinus (the Great) begins to
reign.
323--337. Constantine makes
Christianity the religion of
the  Empire, and    builds
Constantinople as its new
capital.
361-363. Julian Emperor.
379-395. Theodosios the Great.


315
350
380




ANNVALS.


Ixi


ANNALS.                   lxi

Olympiads.  A. D.


293. 2.


394
395
397
480
800
858
988
1050
1100


bably wrote while the
popularity of the latter
was fresh.    Cf. Walz,
Rhet. Graec. vol. v. pp.
137 f.]
Eunapios of Sardis, Plot
\oa6006oPv Kcli opo00'CTWv*
Ioannes, surnamed    Xpva6aocroos, archbishop of
Constantinople.
loannes Stobaeos, 'Av0oX6 -"yeov 'EXoyal.
Photios raised to the patriarchate, Dec. 25, P3t3 -X\O 'Kih, XEwv onvUawycyi.? Byzantine  'ErvALoXoytKO,
gueya.? Suidas Xe'etL.
Harpokration's Lexicon to
the Ten Orators (Vaets
7rv t ' r7/rdpwV) was used
both by the compilers of
the Etymologicum and by
Suidas. Its author has
been identified (1) with
the Harpokration who
taught Lucius Verus, about 150 A.D.: (2) with
the  poet and   teacher
praised by Libanios,about
350 A.D.: (3) with the
Harpokration of Mendes
mentioned by Athenaeos
-whom    Schweighiuser
(ad xiv. 648 b) identifies
with the friend of Julius
Caesar.


390-420. The Pagan religion
prohibited, and (except in the
rural districts) extinguished.
Olympic Games abolished under
Theodosios I.
The Empire divided between
the Caesar of the West and
the Caesar of the East.
Charles, king of the Franks,
crowned Emperor of Rome.
Cherson, the last of the Greek
Commonwealths, submits to
"Wladimir of Russia.


f2








IN TROD UCT ION.


IN the reign of Augustus, when Rome had become The Augusthe intellectual no less than the political centre of CUsM.
the earth, a controversy was drawing to a close for
which the legionaries cared less than their master,
but which for at least fifty years had been of some
practical interest for the Forum and the Senate, and
which for nearly three centuries had divided the
schools of Athens, of Pergamos, of Antioch, of Alex-'
andria, of all places where men spoke and wrote a
language which, though changed from the glory of its
prime, was still the idiom of philosophy and of art.
This controversy involved principles by which every
artistic creation must be judged; but, as it then
came forward, it referred to the standard of merit
in prose literature, and, first of all, in oratory. Are
the true models those Attic writers of the fifth and
fourth centuries., from Thucydides to Demosthenes,
whose most general characteristics are, the subordination of the form to the thought, and the avoidance of such faults as come from a misuse of ornament? Or have these been surpassed in brilliancy, in
freshness of fancy, in effective force by those writers,




Ixiv


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


belonging sometimes to the schools or cities of Asia
Minor, sometimes to Athens itself or to Sicily, but
collectively called 'Asiatics,' who flourished between
Demosthenes and Cicero? This was the question of
Atticism against Asianism.   For a long time Asianism had been predominant. But, in the last century
of the Republic, the contest had centred at Rome, at
Rome it was fought out, and the voice that decided
the strife of the schools was the same that commanded the nations. If the Roman genius for art
had little in common with the Greek, if it was illfitted to apprehend the Greek subtleties, it had preeminently that sound instinct in large art-questions
which goes with directness of character, with the
faculty of creating and maintaining order and with
reverence for the majesty of law. A ruling race may
not always produce the greatest artists or the finest
critics. But in a broad issue between a pure and a
false taste its collective opinion is almost sure to
be found on the right side.    Rome pronounced for
Atticism.
caecaiius  Among the Greeks then living in the Imperial
and DionySios.   City were two men, united by friendship, by community of labours and by zeal for the Atticist revival;
symbols, by birth-place, of influences which in the
past had converged upon the Athens of Perikles
from  Sicily and the Ionian     East,--Caecilius of
Calacte and Dionysios of Halikarnassos, now met
in that new capital of civilised mankind to which
the arts, too, of Athens were passing. Both were
scholars of manifold industry, in history, in archeology, in literary criticism, in technical rhetoric,




INTROD UCTION.


lxv


and in a field which the catalogues of the libraries
had left almost untouched-discrimination between
the genuine and the spurious works of Attic writers.
Both wrote upon the Attic orators, but with a difference of plan which is instructive.
The lost work of Caecilius was entitled Trp' Xa- Caeciius
on the Attic
paKTrjpO< TOWV  Ka L pTrrpwv, On the Style of the Ten orators.
Orators. These ten were Antiphon, Andokides, Lysias, The decade.
Isokrates, Isaeos, Lykurgos, Aeschines, Demosthenes,
Deinarchos.   Now, Caecilius, and his contemporary
Didymos, the grammarian and critic of Alexandria,
are the earliest writers who know this decade. Dionysios takes no notice whatever of the canon thus
adopted by his friend. He seems never to have
heard of the number 'ten' in connexion with the
Attic orators. But from the first century A.D. onwards the decade is established. It is attested, for
instance, by the Lives of the Ten Orators, wrongly
ascribed to Plutarch, but probably composed about
80 A.D.; by Quintilian; by the neoplatonist Proklos,
about 450 A.D.; and by Suidas, about 1100 A.D.from whom it appears that, in his time, the grammarians had added a second list of ten to the first. The
origin of the canon is unknown. It has been ascribed
to Caecilius himself, mainly on the ground that it is
not heard of before his time. It has been referred
to Aristophanes the Byzantine, librarian at Alexandria about 200 B.c., or to his successor Aristarchos,
about 156 B.c.,-by whom a canon of the poets, at
least, was certainly framed. Another view is that
it arose simply from the general tendency to reduce
the number of distinguished names in any field to




]xvi


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


a definite number,-the tendency that gives the
Seven Sages of Greece, the Seven Champions of
Christendom, and the like. This last theory may
safely be rejected. The decade includes at least
three names which this kind of halo can neyer have
surrounded-Andokides, Isaeos and Deinarchos.        It
excludes other orators who, though inferior as artists,
would have had a stronger popular claim, such as
Kallistratos of Aphidnae, the chief organiser of the
Athenian Confederacy in 378, of whom Demosthenes
said, when asked whether he or Kallistratos were
the better speaker, 'I, on paper-Kallistratos on the
platform',-his opponents, Leodamas of Acharnae,
Aristophon of Azenia, Thrasybulos and Kephalos of
Kollytos,-or that vigorous member of the antiMacedonian party, Polyeuktos of Sphettos. Clearly,
this canon was framed once for all by a critic or a
school from whose decree contemporary opinion allowed no appeal, was adopted by successive generations, and ultimately secured the preservation of the
writings which it contained, while others, not so
privileged, were neglected, and at last suffered to
perish.   The decade was probably drawn up          by
Alexandrian grammarians in the course of the last
two centuries before our era: but there is no warrant
for connecting it with any particular name1.
Dio.sn      Dionysios, as has been said, altogether ignores
on th, Attic
rators.  the decade.  If we supposed that Caecilius was its
1 On the history of the decade, and the observations in Blass, Die
see Ruhnken, Historia Critica  Griechische Beredsamkeit in dem
Oratorum Graecorum, who brings  Zeitraum von Alexander bis auf
together the ancient authorities; Augustus (Berlin, 1865) p. 193.
Meier, Comment. Andoc. iv. 140;




.I.-,1l'OD U, C fELO.'xi


lxvii


author, and that, when Dionysios wrote, Caecilius
had not yet made his selection, the fact would be
explained. But the double supposition involves the
strongest improbability. Even if Caecilius had been
the framer of the decade, it can hardly be doubted
that at least the idea must have been known through
him to his intimate friend Dionysios before the latter
had completed the series of works which we possess,
and that we should find some trace of it in those
long lists of orators which Dionysios frequently gives.
The truth probably is that Dionysios was perfectly
aware of this arbitrary canon, but disregarded it,
because it was not a help, but a hindrance, to the
purpose with which he studied the Attic orators.
Nothing is more characteristic of Dionysios as a
critic than his resolution not to accept tradition as
such, but to bring it to the test of reason. This
comes out strikingly, for instance, in his distrust of
merely prescriptive or titular authenticity when he
is going through the list of an ancient writer's works.
Now, his object in handling the Attic orators was ifis oject
in handling
not to complete a set of biographies or essays, but to them.
establish a standard for Greek prose, applicable alike
to oratory and to every other branch of composition.
He considers the orators, accordingly, less as individual writers than as representatives of tendencies.
He seeks to determine their mutual relations, and,
with the aid of the results thus obtained, to trace a
historical development. The orators whom he chose
as, in this sense, representative were six in number
-Lysias, Isokrates, Isaeos, Demosthenes, Hypereides,
Aeschines. We have his treatises on Lysias, Isokrates,




Ixviii


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


and Isaeos.    We have also the first part of his
treatise on Demosthenes-that part in which he discusses expression as managed by Demosthenes; the
second part, in which he discussed the Demosthenic
handling of subject-matter, has perished with his discourses on Hypereides and Aeschines.      The treatise
on Deinarchos, it need hardly be said, is bibliographical, and has nothing to do with the other series.
isclassi- Dionysios considers his six orators as forming two
fication"dthe  classes.  Between these classes the line is clearly
TeXeicra/ai,                                     c    /  6
drawn. Lysias, Isokrates, Isaeos are evpecrat, inventors,-differing indeed, in degree of originality, but
alike in this, that each struck out a new line, each
has a distinctive character of which the conception
was his own.    Demosthenes, Hypereides, Aeschines,
are TEXELOraY, perfecters,-men who, having regad
to the historical growth of Attic prose, cannot \be
said to have revealed secrets of its capability, but
who, using all that their predecessors had provided,
wrought up the several elements in a richer synthesis or with a subtler finish1.
Panofthis   The task which I have set before me is to conbook.
sider the lives, the styles and the writings of Antiphon, Andokides, Lysias, Isokrates and Isaeos, with
a view to showing how Greek oratory was developed,
and thereby how    Greek prose was moulded, from
the outset of its existence as an art down to the
point at which the organic forces of Attic speech
were matured, its leading tendencies determined,
and its destinies committed, no longer to discoverers,
but to those who should crown its perfection or
SI)ionys. De Deinarch. c. 1; cf. c. 5.




INTROD UCTION.


lxix


initiate its decay. The men and the writings that
mark this progress will need to be studied systematically and closely.  It is hoped that much which is
of historical, literary or social interest will be found
by the way.     But the great reward of the labour
will be to get, if it may be, a more complete and
accurate notion of the way in which Greek prose
grew. It will not be enough, then, if we break off
when the study of Isaeos has been finished. It will
be necessary to look at the general characteristics
of the mature political oratory built on those foundations at which Isaeos was the latest worker. It
will be necessary to conceive distinctly how Isaeos
and those before him were related to Lykurgos,
Hypereides, Aeschines, Demosthenes.        Nor must
we stop here. The tendencies set in movement
during the fifth and    fourth centuries B. c. were
not spent before they had passed into that life of
the Empire which sent them on into the modern
world.   The inquiry which starts from the Athens
of Perikles has no proper goal but in the Rome of
Augustus.
At the outset, it is well to clear away a verbal The English word
hindrance to the comprehension of this subject in 'oraor'
its right bearings.  The English term 'orator,' when
it is not used ironically, is reserved for one who, in
relation to speaking, has genius of an order analogous
to that which entitles a man to be seriously called a
poet.   The term   'oratory,' though the exigencies
of the language lead to its often being used as a mere
synonym for 'set speaking,' is yet always inconveniently coloured with the same suggestion either of




lxx


THE ATTIC ORA TOIS.


coitated irony or of superlative praise.  The Roman term
woith the
Latin,.,  orator, 'pleader,' had this advantage over ours, that
it related, not to a faculty, but to a professional or
official attitude. It could therefore be applied to any
one who stood in that attitude, whether effectively
or otherwise. Thus the Romans could legitimately
say 'mediocris' or 'malus orator,' whereas, in English, the corresponding phrases are either incorrect
or sarcastic. Even the iRomans, however, seem to
have felt that their word was unsatisfactory, and
to have confessed this sense by using ' dicere,' 'ars
andtAt dicendi,' as much as possible.  But the Greeks had
the Greek
word ~ a word which presented the man of eloquence, not,
like the English word, as a man of genius, nor like
the Roman word, as an official person, but simply as
a sPeaker, pf'3-o~p. This designation was claimed by
those Sicilian masters who taught men how to speak:
at Athens it was given especially to the habitual
speakers in the public assembly: in later times it
was applied to students or theorists of Rhetoric.
What, then, is the fact signified by this double phenomenon-that the Greeks had the word rhetor,
si,qnf and that they did not apply it to everybody?  It is
of the ternn
rhetor'. this: that, in the Greek view, a man who speaks may,
without necessarily having first-rate natural gifts for
eloquence, or being invested with office, yet deserve
to be distinguished from his fellows by the name of
a speaker. It attests the conception that speaking
is potentially an art, and that one who speaks may,
in speaking, be an artist.
This is the fundamental conception on which
rests, first, the relation between ancient oratory and




INTROD UCTION.


lxxi


ancient prose; secondly, the relation between ancient
and modern oratory.
The relation between ancient oratory and ancient Relation
between
prose, philosophical, historical or literary, is neces- cint
sarily of the closest kind.   Here our unfortunate Pos."""
word 'oratory,' with its arbitrary and perplexing
associations, is a standing impediment to clearness
of view. The proposition will be more evident if
it is stated thus:-In Greek and Roman antiquity,
that prose which was written with a view to being
spoken stood in the closest relation with that prose
which was written with a view to being read. Hence
the historical study of ancient oratory has an interest
wider and deeper than that which belongs to the
study of modern oratory. It is that study by which
the practical politics of antiquity are brought into
immediate connexion with ancient literature.
The affinities between ancient and modern oratory Relation
between
have been more often assumed than examined.        To Anciet
and Modern
discuss and illustrate them   with any approach to Oratory.
completeness would be matter for a separate work.
We must try, however, to apprehend the chief points.
These shall be stated as concisely as possible, with
such illustrations only as are indispensable for clearness.
Ancient oratory is a fine art, an art regarded Ancient
Oratory a
by its cultivators, and by the public, as analogousfineart.
to  sculpture, to   poetry, to painting, to     music
and   to  acting.   This   character is common     to
Greek and Roman oratory; but it originated with
the  Greeks, and was only      acquired by the Romans.    The evidence    for this character may be




Ixxii           THE ATTIC ORATORS.
I. internal considered as internal and external1. The internal
evidence.
1. Finish of evidence is that which is afforded by the ancient
form.
orations themselves.    First, we find in these, considered universally, a fastidious nicety of diction,
of composition and of arrangement, which shows
that the attention bestowed on their form, as distinguished from their matter, was both disciplined
2. Repei- and minute.  Secondly, we find the orator occasiontions.
ally repeating shorter or longer passages-not always
striking passages-from some other speech of his
own, with or without verbal amendments; or we
find him   borrowing   such   passages from    another
orator. Thus Isokrates, in his Panegyrikos, borrowed
from the Olympiakos of Lysias, and from the so-called
Lysian   Epitaphios.   Demosthenes, in     the speech
against Meidias, borrowed from speeches of Lysias,
of Isaeos and of Lykurgos, in like cases of outrage.
In many places Demosthenes borrowed from himself.
This was done on the principle that Tr KaXico    EirrELV
tara  7rcp7L'PyyvcETa, 3l 8;   OVK v&'EXETa: A thing can
be well said once, but cannot be well said tzice2.
That is, if a thought, however trivial, has once been
perfectly expressed, it has, by that expression, become a morsel of the world's wealth of beauty.
The doctrine might sometimes justify an artist in
repeating himself; as an excuse for appropriation, it
omits to distinguish the nature of the individual's
property in a sunset and in a gem; but, among
Greeks, at least, it was probably not so much indolence
1 Some of the chief heads of the  2 Theon (who disputes the
evidence are given by Brougham, maxim) nrpoyvvdao-Jcara c. 1 (Rhet.
Dissertation on the Eloquence of  Graec. n. 62, ed. Spengel).
the Ancients.




INTROD UCTION.


lxxiii


as solicitude for the highest beauty, even in the least
details, that prompted such occasional plagiarisms.
Thirdly, we find that the orators, in addressing sp?7,
criticise
juries or   assemblies, criticise  each   other's  style. e".Other's
Aeschines, in a trial on which all his fortunes depended, quotes certain harsh or unpleasant figures of
speech which, as he alleges, Demosthenes had used.
'How,' he cries to the jurors, 'how, men of iron, can
you have supported them?'        And then, turning in
triumph to his rival, 'What are these, knave? (pfpTara
- Oavia-ra; metaphors or monsters1?' When a poet,
a painter or a musician thus scrutinises a brother
artist's work, the modern world is not surprised.
But a modern advocate or statesman would not
expect to make a favourable impression by exposing
in detail the stylistic shortcomings of an opponent.
The external evidence is supplied by what we IL. External eviknow   of the orators, of their hearers and of their dece.
critics. Already, before the art of Rhetoric had 1. Training
of speakers.
become an elaborate system, the orators were accustomed to prepare themselves for their task by
laborious training, first in composition, then in delivery.  They make no secret of this.         They   are
not ashamed of it. On the contrary, they avow it
and insist upon     it.   Demosthenes     would   never
speak extemporarily when he could help it; he was
unwilling to put his faculty at the mercy of fortune2. ' Great is the labour of oratory,' says Cicero,
S Aesch. In Cles. ~~ 166 f.  of many contemporaries, Demo2 e7rL TVX,roteLo-OaL T7-v vva/av,  sthenes showed more ro6Xa and
Plut. Demosth. c. 9: who observes  Odpo-os when he spoke without
that this was certainly not from  premeditation. His habitual rewant of nerve, since, in the opinion  luctance to do so is, however, well




]xxiv


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


2. Apprecia. 'as is its field, its dignity and its reward.' Nor
tion shown
by hearers. were the audiences less exacting than the speakers
were painstaking. The hearers were attentive, not
merely to the general drift or to the total effect, but
to the particular elegance. Isokrates speaks of' the
antitheses, the symmetrical clauses and other figures
which lend brilliancy to oratorical displays, compelling the listeners to give clamorous applause '1.
Sentences, not especially striking or important in
relation to the ideas which they convey, are praised
by the ancient critics for their artistic excellence2.
3. namph- Further, when an orator, or a master of oratorical
lets in the
oratorical prose, wished to publish what we should now call a
pamphlet, the form which he chose for it, as most
likely to be effective, was that, not of an essay, but
of a speech purporting to be delivered in certain
circumstances which he imagined.        Such are the
Archidamos, the Areopagitikos and the Symmachikos
of Isokrates in the Deliberative form, and his speech
On the Antidosis in the Forensic. Such again is the


attested. See Plut. 1. c. c. 8, and the
story in [Plut.] Vitt. X. oratt.,
Dem. ~ 69. To the reproach, 'rT
daL -KeKTrroro, he answered:-alo-xvvoip17v yap av el rrqXLKovT   i4pI)
c-v/_Jov~XeEVcoV a'roox-cEaMbtboL. The
compiler naively adds, rovs      E
7rXELorovE voyove El7rev avToo-XEaid(rag, ev 7Tpo   avrTo 7 recfVKos',-a
fact perfectly consistent with laborious preparation for all grave
occasions.
1 Isokr. Panath. (Or. xni.) ~ 2.
2 E.g. Cic. in Verr. Act. ii. Lib.
v. c. xxxiii, Stetit soleatus praetor
populi Romani curm pallio pur

pureo tunicaque talari, muliercula nixus, in litore: praised by
Quint. viii. 3 ~ 64 for Jvdpyeta,
artistic vividness: (not, as Brougham
says in alluding to it, Dissert. on
the Eloquence of the Ancients,
p. 42, for ' fine and dignified composition.')-Cic. Orator, c. 6 3 ~ 214,
speaking of the rhythmical effect
of the dichoreus, - -- _, at the end
of a sentence, quotes from the tribune Carbo, Patris dictum sapiens temeritas flii comprobavit:
and adds,-' The applause drawn
from the meeting by this dichoreus
was positively astonishing.'




INTROD UCTION.


lxxv


famous Second Philippic of Cicero.       Then we know 4. ollections of
that orators compiled, for their own use, collections '""~"of exordia or of commonplaces, to be used as occasion
might serve.    Such was that volumen prooemiorum
of Cicero's which betrayed him into a mistake which
he has chronicled. He had sent Atticus his treatise
'De Gloria' with the wrong exordium          prefixed to
it-one, namely, which he had already prefixed to
the Third Book of the Academics. On discovering
his mistake, he sends Atticus a new exordium, begging him to 'cut out the other, and substitute thisl.'
Lastly, the ancient critics habitually compare the 5. Ancient
criticst compains needful to produce a good speech with the pgreEapains needful to produce a good statue or picture. s oZ         g.
When Plato wishes to describe the finished smoothness of Lysias, he borrows his image from the sculptor,
and says daroreropVevrat.   Theon says:-' Even as for
him who would be a painter, it is unavailing to observe the works of Apelles and Protogenes and Antiphilos, unless he tries to paint with his own hand,
so for him who would become a speaker there is no
help in the speeches of the ancients, or in the
copiousness of their thoughts, or in the purity of
their diction, or in their harmonious composition,
no, nor in lectures upon elegance, unless he disciplines
himself by writing from day to day2.' Lucilius, from
S Cic ad Att. xvi. 6 ~ 4, quoted  of them from Demosthenes, some
by Brougham, Dissert. p. 36. As  from other orators, and probably
to the ' rpoolipa of Demosthenes' wrote some himself: Schifer, Dem.
there noticed, it is now well known  u. seine Zeit, III. App. p. 129.
that they were not drawn up by  2 Theon, arpoyvvaou C.ara c. 1,
Demosthenes. The scholastic com-  (Rhet. Graec. I. p. 62 ed. Spengel.)
piler, whoever lie was, took some
g




Ixxvi


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


whom Cicero borrows the simile, compares the phrases,
lexeis, each fitted with nicety to its setting in a
finished sentence, with the pieces, tesseridae, laid
in a mosaic.    But among the passages, and they
are innumerable, which express this view there is
one in Dionysios that can never be too attentively
Dinysioo considered by those who wish to understand the
7r~p' o-vvO'qew,. 25. real nature of ancient, and especially of Attic, oratory.
He is explaining     and  defending-partly     with  a
polemical purpose at which we shall have to glance
by and by-that minute and incessant diligence
which Demosthenes devoted to the perfecting of his
orations. It is not strange, says the critic, 'if a
man who has won more glory for eloquence than
any of those that were renowned before him, who
is shaping works for all the future, who is offering
himself to the scrutiny of all-testing Envy and
Time, adopts no thought, no word, at random, but
takes much care of both things, the arrangement
of his ideas and the graciousness of his language:
seeing, too, that the men of that day produced
discourses which resembled no common scribblings,
but rather were like to carved and chiselled forms,I mean Isokrates and Plato, the Sophists.          For
Isokrates spent on the Panegyrikos, to take the
lowest traditional estimate, 'ten years; and Plato
ceased not to smooth the locks, and adjust the
1 Lucilius ap. Cic. De Oratore  Albucius, who wished himself to
im. ~ 171:                   be thought 'plane Graecus' (Cic.
Quam lepide lexeis compostae!  De Fin. I. 1 ~ 8), and was alluding
ut tesserulae omnes      especially to the Isokratics. No
arte pavimento atque emble- one, certainly, could say of Lucilius
mate vermiculato.        what he said of Albucius.
The satirist was mocking T.




INTRODUCTION.


lxxvii


tresses, or vary the braids, of his comely creations,
even till he was eighty years old'. All lovers of
literature are familiar, I suppose, with the stories
of Plato's industry, especially the story about the
tablet which, they say, was found after his death,
with the first words of the Republic-KCar-/3i)v }xO
el[ IIELpac   i er  rXacKoIVO 70ro  'ApICrrovo ---arranged
in  several different orders.    What wonder, then,
if Demosthenes also took pains to achieve euphony
and harmony, and to avoid employing a single word,
or a single thought, which he had not weighed?       It
seems to me far more natural that a man engaged in
composing political discourses, imperishable memorials
of his power, should neglect not even      the smallest
detail, than that the generation of painters and sculptors, who are darkly showing forth their manual tact
and toil in a corruptible material, should exhaust the
refinements of their art on the veins, on the feathers,
on the down of the lip and the like niceties2.'     Repeating this passage, slightly altered, in the essay
on Demosthenes, Dionysios adds that we might indeed marvel if, while sculptors and painters are thus
conscientious, 'the artist in civil eloquence (7roXtLLKO
8-r/JLovpyos) neglected the smallest aids to speaking
well-if indeed these be the smallest.'
It has already been observed that this feeling Thisconception ii
about speaking is originally Greek; and it is worth.l,,ly
1 The language here-rovs Eavro1  and dvcaarrhKv to the retrenchLaXoyovs K7revlwov Kal poa'rpvxltov  ment, of luxuriance.
KatL vraT rporov dva7rXEKwcv-is not,  s DiOlnyS. 7TEpl o('vOrEOEWS VOLdperhaps, mere tautology. KTreNloWV 0co, c. 25.
may be the general term; while  3 Dionys. De Demosth. c. 51.
poo-rpvXlowv refers to the addition,
g2




lxxviii


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


while to consider how it arose.    That artistic sense
ts bss  which   distinguished the Greeks above       all races
the ideali-,4a"f   that the world has known was concentrated, in the
happy pause of development to which we owe
their supreme works, on the idealisation of man.
Now, Xoyos, speech, was recognised by the Greeks
as the distinctive attribute of man1.      It was necessary, therefore, that, at this stage, they should
require in speech a clear-cut and typical beauty
analogous to that of the idealised human form.
This was the central and primary motive, relatively
to which all others were subsidiary or accidental.
secondary But, of these secondary    motives, two     at  least
motives:
triadfii  demand a passing notice.   First, the oral tradition
of poetry:
or: of poetry and the habit of listening to poetical recitation furnished an analogy which was present to
people's minds when they saw a man get up to make
a set speech; they expected his words to have something like the coherence, something like the plastic
outline, something even like the music of the verses
which they were wont to hear flow from the lips of
(2) e   his counterpart, the rhapsode.      Secondly, in the
civil iqnorteacof Greek cities, and especially at Athens, public speakspeech.
ing had, by 450 B. c., become so enormously important, opened so much to ambition, constituted a
safeguard so essential for security of property and
person, that not only was there the most various
1 Aristotle uses this considera- E ortv dvOpo;-ov rjE ro o-wtiaaros
tion to enforce the 'defensive' Xpelas, Rhet. I. 1. On Xdyos as
use of Rhetoric:--rpos '8  rov- the distinction of man, see a splenrots.Tirovrov el r7a o T-aTt.l  did passage in Isokrates, Antid.
alo-Xpv  ) BiUvao-aj poyOev EavcW, (Or. xv.) ~~ 252-257.
Xodyc)  ' o'K al'Xpdv' " 'uaiXXov 'to6




INTROD UCTION.


lxxix


inducement to cultivate it, but it was positively
dangerous to neglect it. Further, since in a law-court () compet.
it was unavailing for the citizen that he could speak
well unless the judges thought that he spoke better
than his opponent, the art of persuasion was studied
with a competitive zeal which wrought together
with the whole bent of the Greek genius in securing
attention to detail.
It will now be useful to look at some of the broad chracter
istics Of
characteristics of modern oratory and of the modern oiory.
feeling towards it; but only in so far as these will help
our present purpose-namely, to elucidate the nature of ancient oratory. The first thing that strikes
one is how completely modern life has redressed the
complaint made by the earliest philosophical theorist
of rhetoric. Aristotle opens his treatise with the ob- Aristotle on.                       the three
servation that, whereas there are three instruments intuets
of rhetorical persuasion-the ethical, the patheticca Proof:
and the logical-his predecessors have paid by far the
most attention to the second, and have almost totally
neglected the third, though this third is incomparably the most important,-indeed, the only one of the
three which is truly scientific.  The logical proof is
the very body, o-/^4a, of rhetorical persuasion,-everything else, appeal to feeling, attractive portrayal of
character, and so forth, is, from the scientific point of
view, only rrpoo-r4Kq, appendage. This is essentially Hs estimate
the modern, especially the modern Teutonic, theory tAfrn
of oratory, and the modern practice is in harmony
with it. The broadest characteristic of modern ora- Modern
Oratory
tory, as compared with ancient, is the predominance uts the
of a sustained appeal to the understanding.     Hume, irst




]xxx


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


with general truth, declares the attributes of Greek
oratory to be 'rapid harmony, exactly adjusted to
the sense',' vehement reasoning, without any appearance of art', 'disdain, anger, boldness, freedom,
involved in a continual stream of argument1'-a
description, it must be observed, which should at all
events be limited to the deliberative and forensic
orators contemporary with Demosthenes. Brougham,
however, states the case both more accurately and
in terms of wider application, when he observes that
in ancient oratory there are scarcely any long chains
of elaborate reasoning; what was wanted to move, to
rouse, and to please the hearers, was rather a copious
stream of plain, intelligible observations upon their
interests, appeals to their feelings, reminiscences
from the history, especially the recent history, of
their city, expositions of the evils to be apprehended
from inaction or from   impolicy, vindications of the
orator's own conduct, demonstrations of the folly
which disobeys, or of the malice which assails him 2.
Aristotle himself, it may be observed, the very champion of the enthymeme, is the strongest witness to the
truth of this.   He impresses upon the student of
Rhetoric that a speaker must ever remember that he
is addressing the vulgar; he must not expect them
to be capable of a far-reaching ratiocination, he must
not string syllogism to syllogism, he must administer
his logic temperately and discreetly 3,  Now, in contrast with this, long and elaborate chains of reasoning,
1 Essay xiI., Of Eloquence.  3 See (e.g.) Rhet. I. 2 ~~ 12, 13
2 Dissertation On the Eloquence (( y/ap KpLTrs rTOKELTaI Elvac darXovs,
qf the Ancients, pp. 48, 58.  K.r.X.): I. 22 ~~2 ff., III,17 ~ 6, etc.




INTRODUCTION.


lxxxi


or expositions of complicated facts, have been the very
essence of the great efforts and triumphs of modern
oratory; the imagery and the pathos heighten the
effect, but would go only a very little way if the
understandings of the hearers had not, in the first
place, been convinced. We are here again reminded
of the basis on which ancient oratory rested.      The Th modern
" speaker has
modern speaker comes before his audience with no,aSptan
a priori claim to be regarded as an artist whose display of his art may be commendable and interesting
in itself.  Cicero's speech for Archias, which is ex- heancients
less strict
quisitely  composed, but of which not more than,,,,"" ca
one-sixth is to the purpose, or his speech for Publius
Sextus, in which the relevant part bears a yet smaller
proportion to the whole, could not have been delivered in a British court of justice 1.      There is
usually, however, an important difference, which will
be noticed by and by, between the nature of Greek and
that of Roman irrelevance. On the other hand, the
modern exaction of consecutive and intelligible reasoning becomes, of course, less severe the more nearly
the discourse approaches to the nature of a display.
Still, this logical vigilance, with a comparative indifference to form, is, on the whole, the first great
characteristic of modern oratory, and has, of course,
become more pronounced since the system of reporting for the Press has been perfected, as it is fl,,nce of
newspaper
now, in many cases, far more important for thereporting.
speaker to convince readers than to fascinate hearers. The characteristic which comes next in degree
of significance for our present object is the habitual
1 Brougham, 1. c., p. 46.




lxxxii


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


Modernfeel- presumption that the speech is extemporary.  Even
ing that a
u   e^ where there has been the most laborious preparatemporary. tion, even where the fact of such preparation is
notorious, it is generally felt to be essential to impressiveness that the fact of verbal premeditation
should be kept out of sight, and on the part of the
hearers it is considered more courteous to ignore it.
A certain ridicule attaches to a speech which, not
having been delivered, is published,-the sense of
s3mething ludicrous arising partly from the feeling,
' What an absurd disappointment', but also from
the feeling, 'Here are the bursts which would have
sources o felectrified  the audience'.  One  thing  which has
this feeling:
)ilues of helped  to  establish  this feeling is the  frequent
Premeditation.   failure of those who have attempted       verbal premeditation; a failure probably due less often to
defective memory or nerve than to neglect of a
department in which the ancient orators were most
diligent, and in which, moreover, they were greatly
assisted by the plastic forms among which they lived,
by the share of musical training which they ordinarily
possessed, and by the draping of the himation or the
toga-delivery, in respect both of voice and of action.
When a premeditated speech is rendered lifeless or
ludicrous by the manner in which it is pronounced,
the modern mind at once -recurs to its prejudice
against Rhetoric-that is, against the Rhetoric of
the later schools-and a contempt is generated for
those who deign to labour beforehand on words
2. The  that should come straight from     the heart.    There
Hebraic
bais of  is however, a much deeper cause than this for the
Christian
educaton. popular modern notion that the greatest oratory




INTROD UCTION.              lxxxiii
must be extemporary, and it is one which, for
Ith-e modern world, is analogous -to the origin of the
Greek requirement that speech should be artistic.
This cause is the Hebraic basis of education iD
modern Christendom, especially in those countries,
which have been most influenced by the Reformation.   It becomes a prepossession that the true
adviser, the true warner, in all the gravest sitnatiaiis, on all the most momentous subjects, is one
to whom it will in that hour be given what he shall
speak, and whose inspiration, when it is loftiest,
must be communicated to him at the moment by
a Power external to himself.    The ancient world
compared the orator with the poet.. The modern
world compares the orator with the prophet.
It is true, indeed, that the ancient theory has Moenap.
often been partially applied in modern times, some- tionsto tee
Ancient
times with great industry and with much success; Oratory.
but modern conditions place necessary limits to the
application, and the great difference is this:-The,
ancients required the speech to be an artistic whole;
the modern orator who composes, or verbally premeditates, trusts chiefly, as a rule, to particular passages and is less solicitous for a total symmetry.
Debate, in our sense, is a modern institution; its Influe~nce of
unforeseen exigencies claim a large margin in the Debate.
most careful premeditation;- and hence, in the principal field of oratory, an insurmountable barrier is
at once placed to any real assimilation between the
ancient and the modern modes. Just so much the
more, if only for contrast, is it interesting to contemplate those modern orators who have approximated




lxxxiv


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


to the classical theory in such measure as their
genius and their opportunities allowed. In an inquiry of the present scope, it might be presumptuous
to select living illustrations of the Pulpit, the Senate, or the Bar. It would not, indeed, be needful
to go far back; but it may be better, for our purpose,
to seek examples where the natural partialities of a
recent memory no longer refract the steady rays of
Finished  fame.  In respect of finished rhetorical prose, which
Rhetorical
prose:  is not, either in the ancient or in the modern sense,
great oratory, but which bears to it the same kind of
relation  that the Panegyrikos of Isokrates bears
to the speech On the Crown, no one, perhaps, has
cannin's excelled Canning.   The well-known passage of his
Plymouth
speech.  speech at Plymouth in 1823 will serve as an illustration:'The resources created by peace are means of war. In
cherishing those resources, we but accumulate those means.
Our present repose is no more a proof of inability to act,
than the state of inertness and inactivity in which I see
those mighty masses that float in the waters above your
town is a proof that they are devoid of strength and incapable of being fitted out for action. You well know,
gentlemen, how soon one of those stupendous masses now
reposing on their shadows in perfect stillness-how soon,
upon any call of patriotism or of necessity, it would assume
the likeness of an animated thing, instinct with life and
motion-how soon would it ruffle, as it were, its swelling
plumage-how quickly it would put forth all its beauty and
its bravery, collect its scattered elements of strength, and
awaken its dormant thunder.    Such as is one of those
magnificent machines when springing from inaction into
a display of its might-such is England herself, while, apparently passive and motionless, she silently concentrates
the power to be put forth on an adequate occasion.'




INTROI) UCTION.


lxxxv


The ancient parallel for this is such a passage is ancas that in the Panegyrikos, describing the irresis-Isokrates.
tible and awe-inspiring might in which the Panhellenic invasion will move through Asia-OeOpi
pakkov     o-rparTE  TrpOO-EOKWK .  But a nearer re- Union of
"11hrhythmical
semblance to the classical union of rhythmical finish '$iof"
with living passion is afforded, in deliberative oratory, by Grattan, in forensic, by Erskine. Take
the peroration of Grattan's speech in the Irish Par- arattan.
liament on the Declaration of Irish Rights2:'Do not suffer the arrogance of England to imagine a
surviving hope in the fears of Ireland; do not send the
people to their own resolves for liberty, passing by the
tribunals of justice and the high court of Parliament;
neither imagine that, by any formation of apology, you can
palliate such a commission to your hearts, still less to your
children, who will sting you with their curses in your graves,
for having interposed between them    and their Maker,
robbing them of an immense occasion, and losing an opportunity which you did not create and never can restore.
'Hereafter, when these things shall be history, your age
of thraldom and poverty, your sudden resurrection, commercial redress, and miraculous armament, shall the historian
stop at liberty, and observe-that here the principal men
among us fell into mimic trances of gratitude; that they
were awed by a weak ministry, and bribed by an empty
treasury; and, when liberty was within their grasp, and
the temple opened her folding doors, and the arms of the
people clanged, and the zeal of the nation urged and encouraged them on,-that they fell down and were prostituted
at the threshold.
" I might, as a constituent, come to your bar and demand
my liberty,-I do call upon you, by the laws of the land
and their violation, by the instruction of eighteen counties,


I Isokr. Or. iv. ~ 182.


"" Speeches, Vol.. pp. 52 f.




Ixxxvi


TIHE ATTIC ORATORS.


by the arms, inspiration, and providence of the present
moment, tell us the rule by which we shall go-assert the
law of Ireland-declare the liberty of the land.
'I will not be answered by a public lie in the shape of
an amendment; neither, speaking for the subject's freedom,
am I to hear of faction. I wish for nothing but to breathe,
in this our island, in common with my fellow-subjects, the
air of liberty. I have no ambition, unless it be the ambition
to break your chain and contemplate your glory. I never
will be satisfied so long as the meanest cottager in Ireland
has a link of the British chain clanking to his rags; he may
be naked, he shall not be in iron; and I do see the time is
at hand, the spirit is gone forth, the declaration is planted;
and though great men should apostatize, yet the cause will
live; and though the public speaker should die, yet the
immortal fire shall outlast the organ which conveyed it, and
the breath of liberty, like the word of the holy man, will
not die with the prophet, but survive him.'
Erskine.   Erskine's defence of Stockdale, the publisher of a
pamphlet in defence of Warren Hastings, containing
certain reflections on the Managers which the House
of Commons pronounced libellous, contains a passage
of which the ingenuity, no less than the finished art,
recalls the best efforts of ancient forensic oratory;
though this ingenuity cannot be fully appreciated
without the context. At first, Erskine studiously
keeps his defence of Stockdale separate from his defence of Hastings; then he gradually suggests that
Hastings is entitled to indulgence on account (1) of
his instructions, (2) of his situation, (3) of English
and European policy abroad, (4) of the depravity to
which, universally, men are liable who have vast
power over a subject race,-and the last topic is
illustrated thus:



INTROD UCTIOY ix.


Ixxxvii -


'Gentlemen, I think that I can observe that you are
touched by this way of considering the subject; and I can
account for it. I have not been considering it through the
cold medium of books, but have been speaking of man and
his nature, and of human dominion, from what I have seen
of them myself among reluctant nations submitting to our
authority. I know what they feel, and how such feelings
can alone be repressed. I have heard them in my youth
from a naked savage, in the indignant character of a prince
surrounded by his subjects, addressing the governor of a
British colony, holding a bundle of sticks in his hand as the
notes of his unlettered eloquence; 'Who is it,' said the
jealous ruler over the desert encroached upon by the restless foot of English adventure--' who is it that causes this
river to rise in the high mountains and to empty itself into
the ocean? Who is it that causes to blow the loud winds
of winter, and that calms them again in summer? Who is it
that rears up the shade of those lofty forests, and blasts
them with the quick lightning at his pleasure? The same
Being who gave to you a country on the other side of the
waters, and gave ours to us; and by this title we will defend
it!' said the warrior, throwing down his tomahawk on the
ground, and raising the war-sound of his nation. These are
the feelings of subjugated men all round the globe; and,
depend upon it, nothing but fear will control where it is
vain to look for affection.'
But no speaker, probably, of modern times has Burke.
come nearer to the classical type than Burke; and
this because his reasonings, his passion, his imagery,
are sustained by a consummate and unfailing beauty
of language. The passage in which he describes the
descent of Hyder Ali upon the Carnatic is supposed
to owe the suggestion of its great image, not to
1 From a longer extract given by  Review in the volume of his ' RheBrougham in his Essay on Erskine, torical and Literary Dissertations
reprinted from  the Edinburgh  and Addresses,' p. 225.




Ixxxviii


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


Demosthenes, but to Livy's picture of Fabius hovering over Hannibal; the whole passage is infinitely
more Roman, more Verrine, if the phrase may be
permitted, than Greek; but it is anything rather
than diffuse:'Having terminated his disputes with every enemy and
every rival, who buried their mutual animosities in their
common detestation against the creditors of the Nabob of
Arcot, he drew from every quarter whatever a savage ferocity
could add to his new rudiments in the arts of destruction;
and compounding all the materials of fury, havoc, and desolation into one black cloud, he hung for a while on the
declivity of the mountains. Whilst the authors of all these
evils were idly and stupidly gazing on this menacing meteor,
which darkened all their horizon, it suddenly burst, and
poured down the whole of its contents upon the plains of the
Carnatic. Then ensued a scene of woe, the like of which
no eye had seen, no heart conceived, and which no tongue
can adequately tell. All the horrors of war before known
or heard of were mercy to that new havoc. A storm of
universal fire blasted every field, consumed every house,
destroyed every temple. The miserable inhabitants, flying
from their flaming villages, in part were slaughtered; others,
without regard to sex, to age, to the respect of rank, or
sacredness of function, fathers torn from children, husbands
from wives, enveloped in a whirlwind of cavalry, and amidst
the goading spears of drivers and the trampling of pursuing
horses, were swept into captivity in an unknown and hostile
land. Those who were able to evade this tempest fled to
the walled cities. But escaping from fire, sword and exile
they fell into the jaws of famine.  For months together
these creatures of sufferance, whose very excess and luxury
in their most plenteous days had fallen short of the allowance of our austerest fasts, silent, patient, resigned, without
sedition or disturbance, almost without complaint, perished
by a hundred a day in the streets of Madras or on the glacis
of Tangore, and expired of famine in the granary of India.'




INTROD UCTION.


lxxxix


Broughaml contrasts this passage with that in Broughm
on Burke
which Demosthenes says that a danger 'went by           thD
like a cloud', with that where he says, 'If themosthenes.
Thebans had not joined us, all this trouble would
have rushed like a mountain-torrent on the city', and
with that where he asks, 'If the thunder-bolt which
has fallen has overpowered, not us alone, but all the
Greeks, what is to be done2 '    Brougham contends
that Burke has marred the sublimity of the 'black
cloud' and 'the whirlwind of cavalry' by developing
and amplifying both.     This, surely, is to confound
the plastic with the picturesque-a point which will
presently claim  our attention.    Demosthenes is a
sculptor, Burke a painter.
It might, however, have been anticipated that Modern
1Eloquence
modern   oratory would have most resembled the oth,
Pulpit.
ancient in that branch where the conditions are
most nearly similar. If Isokrates could have foreseen
the splendid, the unique opportunities which in later
ages would be enjoyed by the Christian preacher,
what expectations would he not have formed, not
merely of the heights that would be attained-past
and living instances remind us that, in this respect,
no estimate could well have been too sanguine-but
of the average abundance in which compositions of
merit would be produced!       It will, of course, be
recollected that no quality is here in question except that of an eloquence which, regarded as literary
prose, has the finish which deserves to be called
artistic.  If the test, thus defined, be applied, it
1 In his Inaugural Discourse  2 Dem. de Corona ~ 188 (v' osg),
before the University of Glasgow.  ~ 153 (Xetpadppove), ~ 194 ((T-KlrrTS).




XC


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


will be found to afford a striking confirmation of
what has already been observed in regard to the
effect upon oratory of that especially Protestant conception according to which the orator's function is
prophetic.   In the combination of argumentative
power with lofty earnestness and with eloquence of
the Hebraic type 1, none have surpassed, or perhaps
equalled, those divines whose discourses are among
the chief glories of the English language. In respect,
however, of complete artistic form, of classical finish,
a nearer resemblance to the antique has been presented by the great preachers of Catholic France 2
The most memorable triumphs of modern oratory
are connected with the tradition of thrills, of electrical
shocks, given to the hearers at the moment by bursts
which were extemporary, not necessarily as regards
the thought, but necessarily as regards the form. It
was for such bursts that the eloquence of the elder
Pitt was famous; that of Mirabeau, and of Patrick
Henry, owed its highest renown to the same cause.
Sheil's retort, in the debate on the Irish Municipal
Bill in 1837, to Lord Lyndhurst's description of
the Irish (in a phrase borrowed from O'Connell), as


Modern
Oratoryits greatest
triumphs
won by
sudden
bursts.


' aliens in blood, language
kind 3.     Erskine, in    his
1 Chatham prescribed a study
of Barrow as the best foundation
of a good style in speaking.
2 In his Essay on 'Pulpit Eloquence ' Brougham seems hardly
to do justice to Bossuet-the
more florid  Isokrates of the
group. Bourdaloue, with his abundant resource, his temperate pathos and his frequent harshness,


and religion', was of this
defence of Lord George
may perhaps be compared with
Lykurgos: Massillon, Voltaire's
favourite, with his severity, rapidity, and lofty fervour, was probably the most Demosthenic.
3 It is quoted in the excellent
article on 'The British Parliament;
its History and Eloquence', Quarterly Review of April, 1872, No.
cxxxii. p. 480.




INTRODUCTION.


xci


Gordon, produced an astonishing effect by a protestation,-which would have been violent if it had
not been solemn,-of personal belief in his client's
innocence; a daring transgression of the advocate's
province which was paralleled, with some momentary
success, in a celebrated criminal case about twenty
years ago. Now these sudden bursts, and the shock or
the transport which they may cause, were forbidden
to ancient oratory by the principal law of its being. In
nothing is the contrast more striking than in thisthat the greatest oratorical reputations of the ancient
world were chiefly made, and those of the modern
world have sometimes been endangered, by prepared
works of art.    Perikles and Hypereides were renowned for no efforts of their eloquence more than
for their funeral orations.  Fox's carefully composed
speech in honour of the Duke of Bedford, Chatham's
elaborate eulogy of Wolfe, were accounted among
the least happy of their respective performances.
There is, however, at least one instrument of ue o
sudden effect which Greek oratory and British Par- quottion.
liamentary oratory once had in common, but which
the latter has now almost abandoned-poetical quotation. A quotation may, of course, be highly effective
even for those to whom it is new. But the genuine
oratorical force of quotation depends on the hearers
knowing the context, having previous associations
with the passage, and thus feeling the whole felicity
of the application as, at the instant, it is flashed
upon the mind. In this respect, the opportunities
of the Greek orator were perfect. His hearers were
universally and thoroughly familiar with the great
h




xcii


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


poets.   When    Aeschines applies the lines from
Hesiod to Demosthenes, it is as if Digby, addressing Puritans, had attempted to sum up Strafibrd
in a verse of Isaiah. In the days when all educated
Englishmen    knew    a  good   deal of Virgil and
Horace, and something of the best English poets,
quotation was not merely a keen, but, in skilful
hands, a really powerful weapon of parliamentary
debate; and its almost total disuse, however unavoidable, is perhaps a more serious deduction        than
is generally perceived from the rather slender resources of modern English oratory for creating a
glow. Pitt's speech on the Slave Trade concluded
with the expression of this hope-that 'Africa, though
last of all the quarters of the globe, shall enjoy at
length, in the evening of her days, those blessings
which have descended so plentifully upon us in a
much earlier period of the world': the first beams
of the rising sun were just entering the windows
of the House, and he looked upward as he saidNos...... primus equis Oriens afflavit anhelis;
Illic sera rubens accendit unmina Vesper.
special     Hitherto we have been seeking to bring into
characteritcs of  relief, against the modern conception, that character
Greek oratory:   which is common to Greek and to Roman oratory.
But Greek oratory, as compared with Roman, has
a stamp of its own. It is separated from the Roman,
not, indeed, by so wide an interval, yet by a line as
firm as that which separates both from the modern.
all Gree    That character which, with special modifications,
aser. belongs to every artistic creation of the Greek mind,




LVTRODUCTION.                 xciii
whether this be a statue, a temple, a poem, a speech,
or an individual's conception of his own place in life,
is usually, and rightly, called the plastic. When it
is desired to describe the primary artistic aspect of
Greek Tragedy, this is commonly and justly done by
a comparison with Sculpture. But it is certain that Popular
misconcep.
comparatively few understand the real meaning of inofwhat
is meant by
plastic', 'sculpturesque', in these relations; and that platic:
to a vast majority of even cultivated persons, the
statement of this affinity conveys an altogether
erroneous notion.   The reason of this is that the
place held in antiquity by Sculpture is now held
jointly by Painting, Music and certain forms of
Poetry; that the modern mind instinctively refers
the sculptural to the standard of the picturesque;
and that, consequently, while the positive and essential characteristics of Sculpture are lost sight of, its
negative qualities, relatively to Painting, become
most prominent.    These are, the absence of colour
and the exclusion of tumultuous or complex action.
Hence to the popular modern conception of Sculpture
there usually attaches the notion of coldness and of
rigidity. When people are told that Greek Tragedy
(for example) is sculpturesque, they form this idea of
it-that it has grandeur, but that it is cold and
rather stiff. Then, if they are convinced that somehow the Greeks really were a race with the very
highest genius for art, they begin to feel a secret
wish that this alleged analogy between Greek Tragedy and sculpture might turn out to be a mistake.
Here is an opportunity.   The ingenious step in and -4result of
say, 'It is a mistake. It is pedantry and sentiment, Conception.
/b2




xciv


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


For our part, we have always felt that Sophokles
was frigid, and that Euripides, with his pathetic
humanity, his tender women, his heroes who are
not ashamed to display their emotions, was the
better artist; now, dismiss the prepossessions created
by students who are in no sympathy with nature or
men, look at the facts as they are, deign to take
homely views, and say, Is it not so?'
Consequent  The question at issue here happens to be vital to
danger to
tue wthe the immediate subject of these pages, viz., the de"a""que.  velopment, through Attic oratory, of Attic prose. It
is, however, just as vital for every other department
whatsoever in the study of ancient art, literature
and thought, for it involves nothing less than our
fundamental conception of the antique. Unless that
conception is true, everything will be seen in a distorted light, and the best things that the ancient
world has to teach will be neglected for the secondbest.
character of  Let us take a moment of the period when, as a
Greek
thought?, matter of fact, the creative activity of Greek art
of Greek
art     was abundant-say 440 B.C.-and consider what, at
that moment, was       the principal characteristic of
Greek reflection'.    This will be best understood by
a comparison with two other characters of thought;
that which has belonged, though in a multitude of
special shapes, to the East, and that of mediceval
Europe. Oriental thought, as interpreted by Oriental
1 The essay on Winckelmann, in  If the restatement of some of its
Mr W. H. Pater's 'Studies in the  points should gain for it fresh stuHistory of the Renaissance.' is the  dents, such a separation of its
most perfect interpretation of the  teaching from its beauty may deGreek spirit in art that I know. serve to be forgiven.




INTRODUCTION.


xcV


art, fails to define humanity or to give a clear-cut compared
with the
form to any material which the senses offer to it. riental;
Life is conceived only generally, as pervading men,
animals and vegetables, but the distinctive attributes
of human life, physical or spiritual, are not pondered
or appreciated. The human form, the human soul,
are not, to this Eastern thought, the objects of an
absorbing and analysing contemplation. To European,7wth
mediaevalism, they are so; but the body is regarded val
as the prison and the shame of the soul; and mediaeval
art expresses the burning eagerness of the soul to
escape from this prison to a higher communion. The
three marks of mediaeval art are individualism, desire
and ecstasy; individualism, since the artist is struggling to interpret a personal intensity, and goes to
grotesqueness in the effort; desire, since the perpetual
longing of the Church on earth for her Master is the
type of the artist's passion; ecstasy, since this passion demands the surrender of reason and has its
climax in the adoration of a mystery revealed 1. Between the Oriental and the Mediaeval art stands the
Greek. Greek art defines humanity, the body and
the soul of man. But it has not reached the medieval
point; it has not learned to feel that the body is the
prison and the shame of the soul. Rather, it regards
the soul as reflecting its own divinity upon the body.
'What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason!
how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in
1 I have not at hand an article  the Westminster Review, and in
on (I think) Mr Rossetti's poems,  which these traits of medivevalism
which appeared some years ago in  were very finely delineated.




xcvi


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the
world! the paragon of animals!'   If Hamlet could
have stopped there, he would have been a Greek;
but he could not, he was sick with a modern
distemper, abandonment to the brooding thought
r~,.t re that sapped his will'.  The Greek of the days when
at a happy
pase:   art was supreme could and did stop there; he was
Narcissus, standing on the river bank, looking into
the deep, clear waters where the mirror of his image
shows the soul, too, through the eyes, Narcissus in
love with the image that he beholds,-but Narcissus
as yet master of himself,-as yet with a firm foot-hold
upon the bank, not as yet possessed by the delirious
impulse to plunge into the depths. Here, then, was
the first condition for the possibility of a great art.
Reflection had taken the right direction, had got far
enough, but had not got too far; it was a pause.
But, in order that this pause should be joyous, and
that the mind should not, from weariness or disappointment, hasten forward, another thing was necesand the  sary-that men and women should be beautiful. By
Greeks were
beautiful  some divine chance, the pause in reflection coincided
with the physical perfection of a race; and the result
was Greek art.
why Greek  Why, however, should this art have expressed
art became
stinez itself in Sculpture rather than, for instance, in Paintrather than
ictresque. ing?  Art gives pleasure by form, by colour, by
sound, or, as in poetry, by the reminiscence of all
these combined with the delight of motion.      But
the mind has had a history; and the very degree in
series of  which the resources of a particular art are limited or
the art:l
1 Dowden, ' Shakspere's Mind and Art,'/p. 47.




INTROD UCTION.


xcvii


ample may give it a special affinity with an earlier
or a later stage of the mind. Architecture corresponds rehitec.
with the phase when man's thoughts about himself
are still indistinct; the building may hint, but it
cannot express, the artist's personality: Egyptian art
has been called a Memnon waiting for the day. Paint- Paintng,
ing, Music and Poetry are the modern and romantic Poetry;
arts, with a range of expression adequate to every
subtlety and intricacy of self-analysis. Between this
group and Architecture comes Sculpture, the art sculpture.
kindred with that phase in the mind's history when
man has just attained to recognition of himself and
is observing his own typical characteristics of form
and spirit with wonder and with joy, but, as yet,
without the impulse towards analysis.      In all the
greatest sculpture there breathes the unshamed and
innocent surprise of a child just waked from sleep.
But this of itself implies renouncement; the limits The limit of
Sexpression
of possible expression in Sculpture are severe. If, tSculP
then, the Greek was contemplating his own soul as-nonge,
to the
well as his own body, why, it might be asked, had he Greek.
recourse to a medium of interpretation for which the
spiritual subtleties of painting and poetry are impossible?  The answer is,-Because he was not
observing the soul apart from the body, but as one
with the body in a godlike union; and because, to
him, any expression of spiritual subtleties was not
a gain but a loss, if it was effected at the expense
of that in which he was absorbed-the contemplation of man as man, in his totality, as the paragon
of animals. Sculpture cannot express a complex or
refined situation; but its very limitations on that




xcviii


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


side make it the clearest interpretation of a character
or a type.    The Greek's attention was fixed on the
typical, unchanging, divine lineaments of man, as he
stood forth under the blue heaven, his outlines clear
against the sunlit sea; and, for the Greek's purpose,
sculpture was the more fitting just because it elimiThe best  nates what is restless or accidental. But he did not
sculpture
s not cold mean sculpture to be cold or rigid; he did not mean
nor vague.
it to be blank or vague; and assuredly he made it none
of these things. The 'Adorante' lifting up his hands
in praise for victory, the cousinship of Love with
Death hinted in the Genius of Eternal Slumber,-let
these works and such as these be witnesses.
Mistake of  This character of Sculpture belongs also to Greek
conceiving
Gceed   Tragedy.    But this is not, as seems sometimes to
as the
dauhter of be imagined, because the Greeks sought to make
Sculpture:
They are  Tragedy like Sculpture. It is because that tendency
sister forms
of oe, of intellect and feeling, for which Sculpture happened
tendency,
to be a peculiarly apt expression, set its necessary
stamp equally on every thing else that the Greek
which we  mind created.   In naming this stamp 'plastic' we
call'plastic'.
borrow our term from the arts of modelling; but to
conceive the form of Greek Tragedy as derived from
Sculpture is like conceiving the Greek language to be
derived from Sanskrit.    It is true that, in reference
reek    to the history of Greek thought, Tragedy is a later
Tragedy
ha  alloy manifestation than Sculpture; the perfect repose is
of trouble,
already troubled, an element of conflict has entered,
man is in the presence of Nemesis, and the 8pdao-avr
rraOEV, the law    that sin shall entail suffering, is
but is  the theme.    But the typical character is not lost;
typical still.         i      i
those unchanging attributes which, on the one hand,




INTROD UCTION.


xcix


bring man near to the gods or, on the other, mark his
brotherhood with the dust and the limits of his mortal
destiny are presented in emphatic, untroubled lines;
and, when Retributive Justice has done its work,
that blitheness out of which the passions rose into a
storm returns subdued to the graver and deeper calm
that follows a transcendant contemplation. All honour
to those sublime voices of Titanic pain or victory that
roll, like dirges or paeans, along the spacious music of
Aeschylos; all honour to Euripides also, for no one
is capable of feeling that Sophokles is supreme who
does not feel that Euripides is admirable. Euripides Thte ue,
p                        greatness of
is a great emotional dramatist; a master of the pic- Euripides.
turesque; the only Greek, except Aristophanes, who
set foot in the charmed woodlands of fancy1.        That
special claim, however, which has in recent times been
made for Euripides, and on the strength of which he
has by some been preferred to his predecessors, involves a fallacy which it is important to observe, since
what is at issue is much more than our judgment on
the relative merits of two poets, it is the principle of
appreciation relatively to all the best Greek work in
every kind. Euripides has been regarded as distinct- Falacy n,volved in
ively the human. Now if by this were meant only 'des,
that he is great in dramatising the accidents of life, Iuman' of
the Greek
in portraying the more obvious phenomena of charac- 'rageaians.
1 'An admirer of Aeschylus or  fancy which Calderon and ShaksSophocles might affirm that neither  pere and Fletcher trod.' Symonds,
Aeschylus nor Sophocles chose to  The Greek Poets, p. 230. This
use their art for the display of  seems to me exactly to define one
thrilling splendour. However that  of the most attractive poetical dismay be, Euripides, alone of Greeks, tinctions of Euripides. Compare
with the exception of Aristophanes, the same writer's remarks on the
entered the fairyland of dazzling  lyrics of Aristophanes, p. 250.




c


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


ter, in exciting compassion for such troubles, or sympathy with such joys, as come home to us all, in
establishing between the poet and the spectator not
merely a vivid intelligence but something like a personal friendship, then the epithet would be perfectly
just. If, however-and this is the popular notionEuripides is to be called the 'human' poet in contrast
with, for instance, Sophokles; if it is meant that Sophokles is comparatively cold, pompous, stiff, while
Euripides is in a warm, flexible, fruitful sympathy
with humanity-then the epithet involves a confusion of ideas than which nothing could be more fatal.
sopholkes Euripides is human, but Sophokles is more human;
is the most
^,nhem s Sophokles is so in the only way in which a Greek
the most
reek.  could be so, by being more Greek.    When the best
Greek mind was truest to the law of its own nature,
it looked at man and man's life in the manner of
Sophokles-fixing its regard on the permanent, divine
characteristics of the human type, and not suffering minor accidents or unrulinesses or griefs so to
thrust themselves forward as to mar the symmetry
of the larger view. True simplicity is not the avoidance, but the control, of detail.  In Sophokles, as in
great sculpture, a thousand fine touches go to that
which, as the greatest living creator in fiction has
proved, he can still help to teach-the delineation of
sophokles the great primary emotions.  Sophokles is the purest
the most
efect  type of the Greek intellect at its best. Euripides is a
type of the
'iteuet.  very different thing, a highly gifted son of his day.
Rhetorical Dialectic has broken into Tragedy, and
the religious basis, the doctrine of Nemesis, has been
abandoned in favour of such other interests as the




INTROD UCTION.


ci


poet can devise. Euripides was brilliantly fertile in
plots. This is what Aristotle means by -rpacytKcoraToTS,
alluding especially to sudden and pathetic reversals
of situation; for, before Alexander's time, 'tragic' had
already come near to 'sensational'1.     No woman in
Greek Tragedy is either so human, or so true a
woman, as the Antigone of Sophokles 2.
Since, as has been seen, Oratory was for thee plasetic
character as
Greeks a fine art, it follows that Greek Oratory gant;
must have, after its own kind, that same typical oratory.
character which belongs to Greek Sculpture and to
Greek Tragedy.      Wherein, then, does it manifest
this character?    We must here be on our guard
against the great stumblingblock of such inquiries,
the attempt to find the analogy in the particulars
and not in the whole. It might be possible to take
a speech of Demosthenes and to work out the details of a correspondence with a tragedy of Sophokles
or a work of Pheidias; but such refinements have
usually a perilous neighbourhood to fantasy, and,
even when they are legitimate, are apt to be more
curious than instructive. 'How truly and universally
Greek Oratory bears the plastic stamp, can be seen
only when it is regarded in its largest aspects.   The
1 The gradual degradation of the 7Mdos) Kal rTas Karqryoplas ddyp1Kodwords rpa-ycolev, "rpayp-8a, etc., is Tre d. Eo a.
a painful hint of this. Perhaps the  2 To Sophokles, hardly less than
nadir has been reached when a  to Plato, apply the words of Procontemporary of Aristotle's, a  fessor Jowett (Introduction to
master, too, of all Attic refine-  the Phaedros, 2nd edit. II. 102),
ments, can use rpaycpalc of the  'We do not immediately recognize
menaces with which a Macedo-  that under the marble exterior of
nion queen intimidated Athens: Greek literature was concealed
Hypereides 'rnEp 'Ev$Evl-r0ov col. a soul thrilling with spiritual emo37, r7a rTpayq&ias av`Trjs (i.e. 'OXvp/-  tion.'




cii


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


A series of first point to be observed is that, in Greek Oratory,
developed
f a seris we have a series of types developed by a series of
artists, each of whom seeks to give to his own type
the utmost clearness and     distinction that he is
capable of reaching.    The same thing is true of
Tragedy, but not in the same degree; for, in Tragedy,
the element of consecrated convention was more persistent; and, besides, Oratory stood in such manifold
and intimate relations with the practical life that the
artist, in expressing his oratorical theory, could express his entire civic personality.  Hence the men
who moulded Attic Oratory, whether statesmen or
not, are good examples of conscious obedience to that
law of Greek nature which constrained every man to
make himself a living work of art.  'In its poets and
orators', says Hegel 1, 'its historians and philosophers, Greece cannot be conceived from a central
point unless one brings, as a key to the understanding of it, an insight into the ideal forms of sculpture,
and regards the images of statesmen and philosophers
as well as epic and dramatic heroes from the artistic
point of view; for those who act, as well as those
who create and think, have, in those beautiful days
of Greece, this plastic character.   They are great
and free, and have grown up on the soil of their own
individuality, creating themselves out of themselves,
and moulding themselves to what they were and
willed to be. The age of Perikles was rich in such
characters: Perikles himself, Pheidias, Plato, above
all Sophokles, Thucydides also, Xenophon and Sokrates, each in his own order, without the perfection
1 Aesthetik, Part m. Section 2, ch. 1, quoted by Pater, p. 192.




INTROD UCTIONN.


ciii


of one being diminished by that of the others. They
are ideal artists of themselves, cast each in one flawless mould-works of art which stand before us as
an immortal presentment of the gods.'
The plastic character of Greek oratory,-thus
seen, first of all, in the finished distinction of successive types, clearly modelled as the nature that
wrought them,-is further seen in the individual
oration.  Take it whence we will, from the age of      the individual
Antiphon or of Demosthenes, from the forensic, from otion,
the deliberative or from the epideictic class, two great
characteristics will be found. First, however little the main
lines qf the
of sustained reasoning there may be, however much them^are
the argument may be mingled with appeals, re-plexed,
miniscences or invectives, everything bears on the
matter in hand.    It is an exertion of art, but of art
strictly pertinent to its scope.   No Greek orator
could have written such a speech as that of Cicero
For Archias or For Publius Sextus.       In a Greek
speech the main lines of the subject are ever firm;
they are never lost amid the flowers of a picturesque
luxuriance. Secondly, wherever pity, terror, anger, anthe
or any passionate feeling is uttered or invited, this fc,,.
tumult is resolved in a final calm; and where such
tumult has place in the peroration, it subsides before
the last sentences of all.  The ending of the speech
On the Crown-which will be noticed hereafter'-is
exceptional and unique.    As a rule, the very end is
calm; not so much because the speaker feels this to
be necessary if he is to leave an impression of personal
dignity, but rather because the sense of an ideal
1 Vol. n. p 415.




civ


THIE ATTIC ORA TORS.


beauty in humanity and in human speech governs
his effort as a whole, and makes him desire that,
where this effort is most distinctly viewed as a whole
-namely, at the close-it should have the serenity
Attic pero- of a completed harmony.   Cicero has now and then
rations in
Cro an  an Attic peroration, as in the Second Philippic and
the Pro Milone; more often he breaks off in a burst
of eloquence-as in the First Catilinarian, the Pro
Flacco and the Pro Cluentio. Erskine's concluding
sentences in his defence of Lord George Gordon
are Attic:-' Such topics might be useful in the
balance of a doubtful case; yet, even then, I should
have trusted to the honest hearts of Englishmen to
have felt them without excitation. At present the
plain and rigid rules of justice are sufficient to entitle
me to your verdict.'
me person-  This seems the fitting place to touch for a moment
alities of
ancient  on a trait of ancient forensic oratory which has someoratory.
times been noticed with rather exaggerated emphasis,
and which, it might be objected, is strangely discordant with the character just described-the disposition
of Greek as well as.Roman orators to indulge in
personalities of a nature which would be deemed
highly indecorous in modern times.         Their case is
scarcely, perhaps, mended by the observation that
1 This calmness of the Greek  the language of the passions, reperoration is noticed by Brougham  quired that both the whole oration
in his Dissertation (p. 25), but is  and each highly impassioned pormore fully discussed in his essay  tion of it, should close with a
on Demosthenes, pp. 184 f. He does  calmness approaching to indiffenot, however, penetrate to the true  rence, and tameness.' There comes
Greek feeling when he says, 'The  in the popular modern notion of
same chastened sense of beauty  the sculpturesque.
which forbade a statue to speak




INTROD UCTIJON.


cv


the point of honour did not then exist. A more important circumstance to observe is that the language
in question, however strong, is seldom redundant.
It finds its place; but it does not overflow; nor
does it destroy that self-mastery in the speaker on
which the unity of his utterance depends. From the
artistic point of view-and from this alone it is now
being regarded-it is a distressing blemish; yet not,
even here, of the order to which it is referred by
those whose estimate of it is purely modern, since
it is not permitted to disturb the symmetry or the
repose of the whole. Unquestionably, the scale of
life in the Greek republics, and the dialect of the
aristocracy at Rome, often imparted to the mutual
criticisms of their orators a parochial character which
is comparatively rare in the public discussions of the
present day.     Apart from    this accident, however,
modern analogies are, unfortunately, not wanting1.
The speech against Ktesiphon and the speech against
Piso certainly contain exceedingly strong phrases.
Catullus, who used the ordinary language of society
in his day2, is less euphemistic than Byron.         But
scurrility is not the measure of vituperation. Ancient
invective concentrated the former. Modern invective
prefers to diffuse, without diluting, the latter.
1 Specimens of the language ad-  or two of them will be found in the
dressed by Coke, then Attorney-  Quarterly Review, No. 132, p. 470.
General, to Raleigh, whose prose-  Those who desire further illustracution he was conducting, will be  tions may read, or recall, the defound in a note to Mr Forsyth's  bates in the House of Commons of
Hortensius, p. 45. The phrases  May 15 and June 8, 1846.
are surpassed by nothing in Aes-  2 See H. A. J. Munro on Cachines. Chatham's most effective  tullus' 29th Poem in the Journal
retorts were personalities which  of Philology, I1. 1-34 (1869).
might have satisfied Cicero. One




cvi


TIHE ATTIC ORA TORS.


superiority  The superiority of Greek oratory to Roman, in
of Greek to
Rom.    the deliberative and forensic branches alike, has been
oratory.
recognised by the best critics as well as by the most
Broughm  competent practical judges. Brougham, who speaks
on Cicero.
with the authority of both characters, brings this
out with great force and clearness.       He says:'In all his (Cicero's) orations that were spoken (for,
singular as it may seem, the remark applies less to
those which were only written, as all the Verrine,
except the first, all the Philippics, except the first
and ninth, and the Pro Milone), hardly two pages
can be found which a modern assembly would bear.
Some admirable arguments on evidence, and the
credit of witnesses, might be urged to a jury; several
passages, given by him on the merits of the case,
and in defence against the charge, might be spoken
in mitigation of punishment after a conviction or
confession of guilt; but, whether we regard the
political or forensic orations, the style, both in respect
icero's  of the reasoning and the ornaments, is wholly unfit
orations
uttely unfit for the more severe and less trifling nature of modern.for the
tne"or  affairs in the senate or at the bar.  Now, it is alBar:
whereas  together otherwise with the Greek masters; changalmost all.
"oratn  ing a few phrases, which the difference of religion
could be
adapted.  and of manners might render objectionable,-moderating, in some degree, the virulence of invective,
especially  against private   character, to suit the
chivalrous courtesy of modern hostility,-there is
hardly one of the political or forensic orations of the
Greeks that might not be delivered in similar circumstances before our senate or tribunals1.'
1 Inaugural Discourse, pp. 122 f. Humee, again, observing that Cicero




INTROD UCTION..vi
CVll


The main reason of this decided advantage on the eason, of
this supepart of Greek practical oratory-and the epideictic,ort,:
oratory is
oratory has a corresponding excellence relatively to lwto
that of the French Pulpit-is the business-like
character already noticed.     If everything is not
logical, everything is at least relevant. Cicero, with
all his ingenuity, brilliancy and wit, is so apt to
wander into mere display, and this display is so
openly artificial, that, as Brougham says, 'nothing
can be less adapted to the genius of modern elocution'. The style of modern debate comes far nearer
to the Greek than to the Latin. But there are two
other causes which should be remarked, one especially influential in Deliberative, the other in
Forensic, oratory. The first is that, in the days of the political
inspirations
the great Roman eloquence, Rome had no political o.fee
rival. Her discipline and her manners contributed nobler:,
with her civic security to exempt her citizens from
sudden or violent emotion.     What Claudian1 afterwards happily called the vitae Romana quies already
prevailed. If the paradox of Quintilian2 be true, that
Demosthenes has plus curae, Cicero plus naturae, it
is true in this sense alone, that Cicero is an inferior
artist, and indulges more freely the taste of the
natural man for ornament. But that Roman oratory
should be on the whole more artificial than the
Greek, and more limited in its range of subjects, was
inevitable.   Athens, the antagonist of Sparta or
is 'too florid and rhetorical,' and  (Essay XI., Of Eloquence, p. 60.)
that Greek oratory is 'more chaste  1 De sexto consulatu Honorii
and austere,' adds:-' could it be  A ugusti (404 2.D.) v. 150.
copied, its success would be in-  2 x. 1 ~ 106.
fallible over a modern assembly.'




CVeiii


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


Thebes, Athens vigilant against Persia or threatened
by Macedon, was a city in which the inspirations
of eloquence were not only personal but national.
a,^th   Secondly: the Roman patronus, who pleaded his
forensic
more'   client's cause gratuitously, rewarded by the fact that
genuine.
all the higher paths of ambition opened directly
from the forum, had, doubtless, an incentive to
eloquent declamation which his Attic brother, the
professional logographos, did not possess.   But he
had not anything like the same inducement to
handle his case scientifically. He was a political
aspirant, not a man settled to a calling; and, from
a forensic point of view, the element of unreality
in his position had a strong tendency to vitiate
his performance by making it, before all things, a
display.
Eiarly      The least gifted people, in the earliest stage of
History of
Greek  intellectual or   political growth, will always or
Oratory.
usually have the idea, however rude, of a natural
Two comni- oratory.  But oratory first begins to have a histions.for the
possiili  tory, of which the development can be traced, when
oqf any such
hitory.  two conditions have been fulfilled. First, that oratory should be conceived, no longer subjectively,
but objectively also, and from having been a mere
faculty, should have become an art. Secondly, that
an oration should have been written in accordance
with the theory of that art.   The history of Greek
oratory begins with Gorgias. The history of Attic
oratory, properly so called, begins with Antiphon.
The special attributes and endowments of the




INTRODUCTION.


cix


Greekswould lead us to expect, before the beginnings
of an oratorical art, a singularly rich and various
manifestation of natural eloquence, and also an early
moment of origin for the art itself.     Now, as aLateappearance of
matter of fact, the origin of the art was singularly,Gr.,
late, relatively to the gifts and   to  the generalaArt'
artistic tendency of the race; but the causes of this
delay were external and political. On the other hand, Extraordinary brilno documents of any early society can show        an i8fg
exuberance, a brilliancy, a diversified perfection of Oatry.
natural eloquence comparable to that which makes
one of the chief glories of the Homeric poems. By
'natural' is meant, not      necessarily  unstudied,
but unsystematic, or antecedent to      a theory of
Rhetoric.   The man to whom     the gods had given Homeric
0       estimate of
dyoprj-qs, the power of discourse,-that which, with Eloquence.
beautiful strength,   vr4, and good sense,    bp;ePV,
makes the Homeric triad of human excellences,might cultivate it; but so long as this cultivation
is empirical, not theoretic, the eloquence which it
achieves is still natural. From Achilles to Thersites,
the orators of the Iliad and the Odyssey are indi- omeric
illustrations
vidual. If Achilles alone is a Demosthenes, who had q.Eono defects to conquer and no mysteries to learn,
Nestor is an Isokrates unaided or unembarrassed by
his system, Telemachos an ingenuous youth who has
no need of prompting by a Lysias, Odysseus a
speaker in whom the logical terseness of Isaeos is
joined to something like the unscrupulous smartness,
though to nothing like the theatrical splendour, of.-Modern
Aeschines.   Nor does any oratory that the ancient ehacter of
world has left approach so nearly as the Homeric to great
world has left approach so nearly as the Homeric to s'poechs




eC


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


the modern ideal. The reason of this is that the great
orations of the Iliad are made in debate, and the
greatest of all are replies,- as the answer of Achilles
to the envoys in the First Book. Condensed statement, lucid   argument, repartee, sarcasm, irony,
overwhelming invective, profound and irresistible
pathos,-all these resources are absolutely commanded by the orators of the Iliad, and all these
must have belonged to him, or to those, by whom
heir h- the Iliad was created.  As Mr Gladstone has said 1,
fica'nce. 'Paradise Lost' does not represent the time    of
Charles the Second, nor the 'Excursion' the first
decades of this century, but 'as, when we find these
speeches in Homer, we know that there must have
been men who could speak them, so, from the existence of units who could speak them, we know that
there must have been crowds who could feel them.'
The bo-    The Homeric ideal, to shine in eloquence as in
meric elo-,0,,    action, to be at once 'a speaker of words and a doer
tocratic, not
Iciv.   of deeds,' 'good in counsel, and mighty in war,
had ample scope, as far as kings and nobles were
concerned, in the council and the agora. But the
eloquence of the commons does not appear to have
been particularly encouraged by the chiefs, and the
consummate individuality of an      Achilles or an
Odysseus was no real step towards the development
of a popular oratory based upon a theory communicable to all.  In the presence of these great debaters
of the Iliad, the Homeric tis, when present at all,
is essentially a layman, confined strictly to the
critical function and uttering his criticisms, when
1 Studies on Homer, mr. 107.




INTROD UCTION.


cxi


they find utterance, in the     fewest and    plainest
words.   Democracy, with its principle of ItrLyopla,-  First conditions of
the principle that every citizen has an equal right civo
to speak his mind about the concerns of the city,- ""yopa,
was necessary before a truly civil eloquence could be
even possible.   But, after Democracy had arisen, a
further condition was needed,-the cultivation of and popular
culture.
the popular intelligence.    What is so strikingly
characteristic of Greek Democracy in the period rlefacuzty
of speechbefore an artistic oratory is this,-that the power of f.8spae I
public speaking now     exists, indeed, as a political emocracy.
weapon, but, instead of being the great organ by
which the people wield the commonwealth, is constantly used by designing individuals against the
people. It is employed as a lever for changing the
democracy into a tyranny. Such names as Aristagoras, Evagoras, Protagoras, Peisistratos, frequent
especially in the Ionian colonies, indicate, not the
growth of a popular oratory, but the ascendancy
which exceptionally gifted speakers were able to
acquire, especially in democracies, before oratory
was yet an accomplishment studied according to a
method.
The intellectual turning-point came when Poetry The itel.
lectual
ceased to have a sway of which the exclusiveness tunlgrested on the presumption      that no thought cantepono,
litrary
be expressed artistically which is not expressed Prose.
metrically. So soon as it had been apprehended
that to forsake poetical form was not necessarily
to renounce beauty of expression, an obstacle to
clear reflection had been overcome. Mythology and
cosmical speculation   began   to have a rival,-a




cxii


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


curiosity withdrawn from the cloud-regions of the
past or of the infinite to the things of practical life.
And this life itself was growing more complex. The
present, with its problems which must be solved
under penalties, was becoming ever more importunate, and would no longer suffer men's thoughts to
wander in mazes where they could find no end:The riddling Sphinx put dim things from our minds,
And set us to the questions at our doors.
Political   The political turning-point came with the Perturningopen of sian Wars.    Greek freedom was secured against the
secure iMtercourZe  barbarian.  A maritime career was opened to combetween the
ities:  merce. The Greek cities everywhere came into more
and th e ne active intercourse; and the centre of the Greek world
primacy of
"Athens  was Athens.   The Dorian States, Sparta and Argos,
had never been favourable to the artistic treatment
of language.   This, like all art and science, was
especially the province of the lonians; and, for the
future of oratory, it was of the highest importance
that the central city of Hellas should be Ionian.
But, though Athens perfected the art, and soon
became almost its sole possessor, the first elements
External were prepared elsewhere.    The two principal forces
influences
whiedptic which moulded Attic oratory came from     the East
oratory.  and the West.   One was the Practical Culture of
lonia; the other was the Rhetoric of Sicily.
i. The      The theories of the Ionian physicists had not
Practical
culture of been able to interest more than a few, still less had
they been able to draw away the mass of the people
from the old poetical faith; nor had the Ionian
chroniclers made any but the rudest approaches to a




INTROD UCTION.


cxiii


written prose. But the national Wars of Liberation
had quickened all the pulses of civic life. Freedom
once secured, the new intellectual tendency took
a definite shape.    Men   arose  who, in  contrast
with the   speculative philosophers, undertook to
give a practical culture.  This culture had representatives in every part of Greece.     But, while
in Sicily and Magna Graecia it was engrossed with
Rhetoric, in Asiatic, and especially Ionian, Hellas
it was more comprehensive. There, its essence was
Dialectic, in connexion with a training sometimes
encyclopaedic, sometimes directed especially to grammar or to literary criticism. These more comprehensive teachers were known by the general name
of Sophists1. Those who, like the Sicilians, had a
narrower scope were sometimes called Sophists, but
were especially and properly called Rhetors.
Protagoras of Abdera, the earliest of the Sophists Protagorar.
proper, was born    about 485 B.c., and travelled
throughout Greece, teaching, for about 40 years, from
455 to 415. The two things by which he is significant for artistic oratory are, his Dialectic, and the


1 It does not fall within my province to enter on the ' Sophist' controversy, to which, in this country,
eminent scholars have lately given
a new life. But I would invite the
reader's attention to a note, on
p. 130 of my second volume, as to
the use of the word by Isokrates.
And I would record my general
agreement with the reasoned development of Grote's view by Mr
H. Sidgwick, in the 'Journal of
Philology,' Vol. Iv. No. 8 (1872).


For the details given here respecting particular Sophists or
Rhetors, I have used chiefly:-(1)
Cope's papers on the Sophists and
the Sophistical Rhetoric, in the
Journal of Classical and Sacred
Philology, I. 145-188,.11129-169,
II. 34-80: (2) Westermann, Gesch.
der Beredsamkeit, pp. 36-48:
(3) Blass, die Attische Beredsamkeit von Gorgias bis zu Lysias,
pp. 1-78.




cxiv


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


Commonplaces which he made his pupils commit to
memory. His Dialectic is famous for its undertaking
to make the weaker cause the stronger. One of the
uses of Rhetoric, as Aristotle says, is to succour truth
when truth is imperilled by the weakness of its
champion; but this is not the place to inquire
whether Protagoras intended, or how far he was
bound to foresee, an immoral application.        As a
mental discipline, his Dialectic was important to
oratory, not merely by its subtlety, but by its treatment of the rhetorical syllogism.       The prepared
topics which his pupils learned seem       to mark a
stage when public speaking in general was no longer
purely extemporary, but when, on the other hand,
the speech was not, as in Antiphon's time, wholly
written.   In regard to language, Protagoras insisted
on opOoe Tca-i.e. a correct accidence: but there is
no proof that he sought to make a style; both the
Ionic fragment in Plutarch' and the myth in Plato2
are, for the prose of the time, simple, and they are
free from the Gorgian figures.
prodicos.   Prodikos of Keos-the junior by many years of
Protagoras-was neither, like the latter, a dialectician nor a rhetor of the Siceliot type, but rather,
like Hippias, the teacher of an encyclopaedic culture.
There is no reason to think that he, any more than
Protagoras or Hippias, concerned himself with the
artistic oratory of Gorgias.  Xenophon gives in the
Memorabiliac   a paraphrase of the 'Choice of Hera1 Plut. 7rapapITvOrtLKos rrpIoS'AAroX-  2 Plat. Protag. pp. 320 D-328 c.
Xcovov, c. 33 (Moral. p. 118), r7cv  3 I. i. ~~ 21-33. Xen. calls it
yip viowv vErliqLv-d'trlXavlrv.  TOb a-yypauILa TO nep' 'HpaKXEovV.




INTROD UCTION.


CXv


kles' as related by Prodikos in his fable called
'"paL. When Philostratos' says that he need not
describe the style of Prodikos because Xenophon
has sketched it, he is refuted by Xenophon himself,
who observes that the diction of Prodikos was
more ambitious than that of his paraphrase2. There
are certainly confusions of synonyms which the
Platonic   Prodikos   distinguishes3; and     the  only
safe inference appears to be that, however faithful
Xenophon may have been to the matter of the
fable, he is a witness of no authority for its form.
The true point of contact between Prodikos and the
early Rhetoric is his effort to discriminate words
which express slight modifications of the same idea,
and which, therefore, were not ordinarily distinguished by poets or in the idiom of daily life. However unscientific his effort may have been, it at least
represented a scientific tendency, which soon set its
mark on literature as well as on thought. Two men
who are said to have been pupils of Prodikos--
Euripides and Isokrates-show        clear traces' of it;
but, for reasons which will appear further on, it is
especially distinct in the earliest phase of artistic
oratory-in Antiphon, and above all in Thucydides.
Hippias of Elis is of no immediate significance ippias.
1 Vit. Sophist. p. 16 (Kayser),  3 As Blass points out (1. c.),
KaL rtl ~ XapaKTrqpltSoe  VtV too  Xenophon (Mem. II. i. ~ 24) makes
Hpo&IKov yXT)rrav, EvooTSvrov av-  Prodikos use reprrEwoOaL, qEr-Oat,
7rv mKCIVa v7roypadovrovT;   E'vpalveaoOa,  indistinguishably:
2 Mem. 11. i. ~ 34, oGro rco7W  whereas Plato (Prot. 337 c) makes
&ODKE (BCOKE?) IIpo~tKOs T7V trV  Prodikos appropriate edtvpalvEo-Oa,
'Aperij 'HpaizEovs 7raievcriw, EKC'-  to intellectual, '738eoOa to sensuous
Lyoae lEvroL Tra yvwcia EL 'rt Lya-  pleasure.
AeLOrEPOIS pqJ/taoCTV 4; y< VVlV.




cxvi


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


for our subject.     Neither Dialectic nor Rhetoric
was included, or at least prominent, in the large
circle of arts and sciences which     he professed to
teach. Economics, Ethics and Politics-'the faculty
of managing public affairs along with his own1'formed his especial province.     Like all the other
Sophists, he touched, of course, the       domain    of
grammar and prosody; his TpoLKos Xoyos2, a dialogue
between Nestor and Neoptolemos, made pretensions
to elegance of style, but probably not of a poetical
or Gorgian cast3; and, in Plato, Hippias assigns,
not his oratory, but his political insight, as the
ground of his selection as an ambassador by the
Eleans 4.
Thrasymachos of Chalkedon stands in a far
riper and more definite relation to Attic rhetorical
prose, and will more properly be noticed in connexion with the progress from Antiphon to Lysias,
when we come to look back on the development
as a whole 5.
summary:    These, then, were the two things by which the
influence
ofthe;  Eastern or Ionian school of practical culture preIonian
Practicat
culture.  pared the ground for Attic oratory: first and chiefly,
popular Dialectic; secondly, in the phrase of Protagoras, orthoepy-attention to correctness in speaking  or writing.     In   contrast with the Eastern
1 Plat. Hipp. Mai. 282 B, TO  yo rov TcK roEr rTKF0 s odvotara, Vit.
Kat r a qsro-a prrt1pCpTTV  Uava-8a  Sophist. p. 15 (Kayser).,ETa rv liL4yP. Of. Cope in Journ.  4 Plat. 1. c. p. 281 (ad init.) He
Class. and Sacr. Phil. II. 63.  is a 8Kao-rTe S  al tiyyeXov r v X1ycOv
"2 Plat. 1. c. p. 286 A.   ol av  7raph T'a   TrrkXecov  EiiaTwv
3 Philostratos, at least, says of Xycovrat.
Hippias that he wrote 'powerfully  5 See Vol. ii. ch. xxiii.
and naturally,' els dXlya Kaa4v



INTROD UCTION.


cxvii


Dialectic stands the Western Rhetoric.     In contrast
with the Ionian study of correct diction, opOoEc7TEa,
stands the Sicilian study of beautiful diction, EEITrect.
Deeper causes than a political crisis fitted Sicily n. The
to become the birthplace of Rhetoric. The first cause Rhetoric.
was the general character of the Sicilian Greeks.
Thucydides remarks that the quick and adventur- character
of the
ous Athenians, who were often benefited by Lace- ^S
daemonian slowness or caution, found most formidable adversaries in the Syracusans just because
the Syracusans were so like themselvesl; and this
resemblance, we have good reason to suppose, included the taste for lively controversy and the
passion for lawsuits described by Aristophanes in
the Wasps. 'An acute people, with an inborn love of
disputation', is the description of the Sicilians which
Cicero quotes from   Aristotle2: 'Sicilians are never
so miserable ', he says in one of the Verrine speeches,
'that they cannot make a happy joke3 '. The popu- Political
development
lation thus gifted had, further, gone through the ofth
same political phases as Athens; through aristocracy cties.
they had arrived at tyranny, and through tyranny
at a democracy. The flourishing age of the Sicilian The Age
of the
Tyrants-the early part of the fifth century B. c.-     Tyrat
was illustrated by. art and literature, by the lyric
poetry which, native to lonia, found its most splendid
theme in the glory of these Dorian princes of the
West, and by a home-growth of Comedy, the creation of Phormis and Epicharmos.        It was in 466 TheDemocratic Revolution.
1 pdao-rra otLOtorpoTrot, Thuc. viil.  3 Cic. In Verr. IV. 43 ad fin.
96.                          Cf. Quint. vI. 3 ~ 41.
2 Cic. Brut. xii. ~ 46.




exviii


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


that Thrasybulos, last of the Gelonian dynasty, was
expelled and that a democracy was established at
Syracuse. Somewhat later, a democracy arose at
haracter of Agrigentum also. Popular life was now as exuberant
Sicilian
Democracy. in Sicily as it was at Athens after the Persian
Wars; but, with its mixture of races, it was less
fortunately tempered; its vigour, instead of glowing with the sense of national welfare secured
against aliens, had the feverish vehemence of a domestic reaction; and hence we should be prepared to
find these younger democracies showing almost at
once some features which do not appear in the
elder Athenian democracy until the time of the
Peloponnesian War.      But it was neither by the
turbulent rivalries of the popular assembly, nor by
ircum-  the natural growth of O -VKOJaTvrTK  or pettifogging,
stances
nde whichthat the formulation of Rhetoric as an Art was
Rhetoric
became an
Art.   immediately caused. The absolute princes of Sicily
had done as they listed. They had banished, they
Deranýe- had confiscated,-like Dionysios I. in later times,
meat of civil
et by  they had effaced towns and transferred populations,they had turned all things upside-down.        When
they were driven out, and when governments arose
based on the equality of citizens before the law, a
claims  crowd of aggrieved claimants presented themselves
thence
arisinq.  wherever that law had a seat.    'Ten years ago',
this one would say, ' Hieron banished me from
Syracuse because I was too much a democrat, and
gave my house on the Epipolae to Agathokles,
who still lives among you; I ask the people to
restore it to me.'   'When Gelon razed our city',
another would say,' and divided the lands among




INTROD UCTIO N.


cxix


his friends, we were commanded to dwell at Selinus,
where I have lived many years; my father's land
was given to a favourite of the tyrant's, whose first
cousin still holds it; I ask you to insist on this
man   making    restitution.'   Claims of this kind
would be innumerable.      And, besides those which
were founded in justice, a vast number of false
claims would be encouraged by the general presumption that the rights of property had been universally
deranged. If, twenty years after the Cromwellian
Settlement of Ireland, a government had arisen of
such a nature as to make it worth people's while
to dispute every possession taken under that settlement in the Ten Counties, the state of things which
would have ensued would have borne some resemblance to that which prevailed throughout Sicily,
but especially at Syracuse, in 466 B.c.1
Now, if we consider what would be, as a rule, General
features
the characteristics of claims to property made under ofsuc
claims.
such conditions, we shall find that they throw a
significant light on the little which is expressly
recorded in regard to the first artists of Rhetoric.
First, such claims would, as a rule, go several years
back, and would often require for their elucidation
that a complicated mass of details should be stated
or arranged.     Secondly, such claims would often
lack documentary support; the tablets proving a
purchase, a sale, or a contract, would, in many or
most cases, have been lost or destroyed, and the
1 Those who wish to test the ac-  Cromwellian Settlement by Mr
curacy of this illustration are  J. P. Prendergast. (Longmans,
referred to the History of the  1866.)




cxx


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


claimant would have to rely chiefly on inferences
from   other facts    which   he   could  substantiate.
Best ads  If, then, we imagine a man       conceiving the idea
for such
claimants: that these innumerable claimants want help, and
that the occupation of helping them may be a
way to notoriety or gain, in what particular forms
is it probable that he would have tried to render
1. Skill in this help?  He would have seen, first, that people
marshalling
facts:  must be assisted to deal with an array of complex
facts; they must be taught method.           He would
have seen, secondly, that they must be assisted
to  dispense with    documentary     or  circumstantial
2. Skilin  evidence; they must be given hints as to the best
arguing
li-ti's.  mode of arguing from   general probabilities.
Empedokles.  Diogenes Laertios quotes a statement of Aristotle
that Empedokles was the inventor of Rhetoric, as
Zenon of Dialectic1. The more cautious phrase of
Sextus   Empiricus2    (also  from  Aristotle), which
Quintilian  translates, is that    Empedokles     broke
ground (KEKWtYKE'at, aliqua     movisse) in   Rhetoric.
Assuredly the poet and philosopher of Agrigentum
created, at least, no rhetorical system. His oratorywhich, after the fall of Thrasydaeos in 472, found
political scope in resistance to a restoration of the
tyranny-however brilliant, was practical only; and
his analogy-so far as the wanderings of his later
1 Iiog. vIII. 57, 'Apurr-orE'Xhr  'O OptJL d.S. Twining notices (Vol.. p.
a' ev rmr 6roftarrL cqro-t ptrov 'El/-  249) the apparent discrepancy be7rEoK1Xa prTOpILKY EvpEv, Zrvcova  tween this statement and that in
4 EaXEKTtKrjV. In his lost work  the Poetics c. 1.-that Empedokles
7rep t rotqrwv, Arist. (as quoted by  and Homer have ov36v KoLvyv 7FXlvv
Diog. 1. c.) said that Empedokles  rOb IEppov.
was lEtvOs 9rEpL TrY  p'C(op   and  2 VII. 6: Quint. III. 1 ~ 8.
xeAraOopLKos, as well as generally




INTROD UCTION.


cxxi


years and the union of care for studied expression
with a doctrine give the semblance of such-is, at
least, more with the Sophists of proper Greece than
"with the Sicilian Rhetors.
The founder of Rhetoric as an Art was Korax Korax.
of Syracuse.    He had enjoyed some political consideration in the reign of Hieron (478-467 B.C.),
and was probably several years older than Empedokles. The law-suits which followed the establishment of the democracy are said to have given
him the idea of drawing up, and committing to
writing, a system    of rules for forensic speaking.
This was his rixvyr or Art of Rhetoric-the earliest
theoretical Greek book, not merely on Rhetoric, but in
any branch of art. There is no mention of speeches
composed by him either for himself or for others.
Nor, except the story of his law-suit with Tisias, is
there any evidence that he taught Rhetoric for pay.
In regard to the contents of his ' Art' two facts Treatise of
Korax on
are known which are of interest.        They are pre- Rhetoric:
cisely those which, as has been shown, we should
have expected to find.      First, he gave rules for
arrangement-dividing the speech into five parts- Arrange-,ment.
proem, narrative, arguments (dyJ^ves), subsidiary remarks (7rcapeK ao-Ls) and peroration 1. Secondly, he The topic of
illustrated the topic of general probability, bringing
out its two-edged application: e. g. if a physically
weak man is accused of an assault, he is to ask,
'Is it probable that I should have attacked him?';
if a strong man is accused, he is to ask, 'Is it
1 The ayovev and 7rapEK/3aa-ts are  legomena to Hermogenes, Spenthus explained in the Greek pro- gel, rvvaycowy xvexvp, p. 25.




exxii
C1XIll


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


probable that I should have committed an assault
in a case where there was sure to be a presumption against me?'.    Nothing could be more suggestive of the special circumstances in which the art
of Rhetoric had      its birth.    The   same    topic of
Probability holds its place in the Tetralogies of
Antiphon1.     But its original prominence was, in
truth, a Sicilian accident2.
Tisias.      Tisias, the pupil of Korax, must have been born
about 485 B.c.     We hear that he was the master of
Lysias at the colony of Thurii (founded in 443 B.C.),
and of the young Isokrates at Athens-about 418 B.c.;
Pausanias makes him accompany Gorgias to Athens
in 427 B. c.; and speaks of him as having been
banished from Syracuse 3. Whatever may be the
worth of these details, the main facts about Tisias
are clear.  He led the wandering life of a Sophist.
T'he 'he- And in his Art of Rhetoric-the only work of his
toric' of
Tisas.  which antiquity     possessed-he followed his master
The topic
of f     in further developing the topic of Probability4.
developed.  Those who bring a scientific spirit to the study
of Attic oratory need not be cautioned against
allowing what is ignoble, puerile, or even immoral in
the earliest Greek Rhetoric to prejudice their esti1 See below, pp. 47 ff.     abstract and particular probability.
2 This topic of ELKOS-the great  Arist. illustrates it by the verses
weapon of the early Rhetoric--  of Agathon:-'Perhaps one might
stands ninth among those topics  call this very thing a probability,of the fallacious enthymeme which  that many improbable things will
Aristotle enumerates in Rhet. II.  happen to men.' 'Of this topic'
24-a chapter which, for his   says Aristotle (Rh. 11. 24 ~ 9) 'the
Rhetoric, is what the rrepi o-o~tc-  Treatise of Korax is made up.' Cf.
rtLK dEXyYXwV is for the Topica.  Spengel, -vvaywoy r'exve v -pp. 30 f.
The  fallacy  arises from  the  3 Pausan. vi. 17 ~ 8.
omission to distinguish between i  Plat. Phaedr. 267 A, 273 A-c.




INTROD UCTION.               cxxiii
mate of the real services afterwards rendered both
to language and to thought by the conception of
expression as an art. Popular sentiment is universally against new subtleties. To gauge the morality
of the early Rhetoric by the feeling of the people
would be as unreasonable as to judge Sokrates on
the testimony of the Clouds.   The real meaning of rea mn.
the story about the lawsuit between Korax and ist'u
story.
Tisias lies in its illustration of the people's feeling.
Korax, suing Tisias for a fee, argued that it must be
paid whether he gained or lost his cause; if he
gained, under the verdict; if he lost, because the
success of his pupil proved the fee to have been
earned; Tisias inverted the dilemma; and the judges
dismissed them both with the comment, 'bad crow,
bad eggs.' What this really expresses is not the
character of the earliest Rhetoric, but its grotesque
unpopularity.
Gorgias is a man of whose powers and merits corg,as.
it is extremely difficult for us now to form a
clear or impartial notion.  This is not, however,
because the portrait of him in Plato is so vivid.
Nothing more distinguishes Plato from later satirists of like keenness than his manner of hinting the
redeeming points of the person under dissection;
and, whenever Gorgias comes in--whether in the
dialogue that bears his name or elsewhere-it may
be discerned (I venture to think) that Plato's purpose was to bring out an aspect of the man-that
aspect which he considered most important-but
that he allowed, and was writing for those who
knew, that there was another side to the picture.
k




exxiv


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


This other side is suggested by the fact that Gorgias
had at least some influence on a man of such intellectual power as Thucydides, on one so highly cultivated as the tragic poet Agathon, and on so shrewd
a judge of practical ability as Jason of Pherae. The
difficulty of now estimating Gorgias comes from
this,-that he was an inventor whose originality it
is hard for us to realise, but an artist whose faults
are to us peculiarly glaring. Gorgias of Leontini
was born about 485 B.c. Tradition made him      the
pupil of Empedokles; but their nearness in age
makes this unlikely. That they knew each other
is probable enough. Gorgias, like Protagoras, began
with  natural philosophy; and, after employing
Eleatic methods to combat Eleatic       conclusions,
turned from a field of which he held himself to have
The pro-  proved the barrenness.  The practical culture to
vince of
orgiass  which he next addressed himself differed both from
neither
ot Rhet  that of the Eastern Sophists and from that of the
torie
S  Sicilian Rhetors. It was founded neither upon Dialecbut oratory. tic nor upon a systematic Rhetoric.  Its basis was
Oratory considered as a faculty to be developed
empirically. Whether Gorgias left a written Art or
not, is doubtful; it seems more probable that he did
not'; and his method of teaching-which reappears
a century and a half later with the beginnings of
Asianism2-rested on the commission to memory of
prepared passages. These passages were especially
such as might serve to magnify the speaker's theme
(a6jcnrs) or to bring out the enormity of a wrong
(8ECvoo-s). Beautiful and effective expression (Xe'ts)
" On this point see Blass, p. 53.  2 See Vol. In. ch. xxiv.




INTROD UCTION.


cxxv


was the one great object. Gorgias seems to have
given little or no heed to the treatment of subjectmatter,-to invention or management; or even to
that special topic of Probability which was already
engaging so much of the attention of Rhetoric. He
was himself a man with a brilliant gift for language.
His general conception was simple enough, but, for
his own day and world, both bold and original.
If the faculty of expression is cultivated to the right
point, and is combined with a certain amount of
general information, it will carry all before it. Just
in the spirit in which Vivian Grey is described as
saying to himself 'knowledge is power', Gorgias said
to himself, 'expression is power.'      He considered
the gift in its relation to victory, and this victory not to be such narrow and painful success
as was prepared by the pedantries of the rhetors,
but dazzling and world-wide. Everything recorded
of the man suggests his immense self-confidence, his
capacity for sustained work, his exuberant vitality,
and, above all, his power of doing what a new style
would not have done without other gifts-setting
the fashion to the ambitious among the rising generation, or even exciting a popular enthusiasm.      In mHfirst
visit to
427 B. c. the Leontines sent an embassy to Athens, Athens.
praying for help in their war with Syracuse.       'At
the head    of the   envoys,' says   Diodoros1, 'was
Gorgias the rhetor, a man who far surpassed all his
1 xII. 53, 7 6Evl(ovrT r7Vj Xe-  Kal trapia-ot Ka d o1LtorTXEVrotL KaL
weaWs  e'rX?~e robS 'AOrvvaiovC  repost TrotOV'TO. On these, see
ovraa evdVetE Kal 0AXoXdyovs, S a-  Vol. II. pp. 64 f.
(bpovryv dvrtOroEt Kalt l(TKCoots
ck2




cxxvi


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


contemporaries in oratorical force.    He astonished
the Athenians, with their quick minds and their
a evIov  love of eloquence, by the foreign fashion (-ra ^evLin his
speaking, ýoVrt) of his language '-and by figures which the
historian  proceeds to    enumerate.    Now    Gorgias
appears to have always spoken and written in the
Attic dialect-not in the ordinary Sicilian Doric,
nor in the Ionic of Leontini1.      The To 4cvLtov of
Diodoros is that 'foreign' air which Aristotle in his
Rhetoric calls   0 'EVLKOV 2, and which, for Athenians
at least, was capable, when rightly used, of being
a charm in oratory. There is no word which will
exactly translate it, but it is nearly akin to what
we mean by ' distinction.' That which was, to the
Athenians, TO EvtZO, or the element of distinction,
its poetica in the Sicilian's speaking, was its poetical character;
character.
and this depended on two things-the use of poetical words, and the use of symmetry or assonance
between clauses in such a way as to give a strongly
marked prose-rhythm and to reproduce, as far as
possible, the metres of verse. The only considerable
fragment of Gorgias extant is that from the Funeral
Oration-for the Palamedes and the Helen are now
generally admitted to be later imitations. A few
specimen sentences from this will give the best idea of his
from his
Epitaphios. manner:kapTvpcas 82E TOVTw1 TO v cpIa e Jo-r-cravro r7Wv 7TroXjicov, Ao3 LE)v /yaX(Iara, rov8ro  - S- "va"iarc O
1 Blass, p. 52.           rT oaes Kal TO 8 Kal T $cEVtKOV
2 (e.g.) Arist. Rhet. III. 2 ~ 3, ao ' eXt pdaXurra  fcera/iopd.  And III.
7TOLEtV  EV7v  V7-nV 6tiaX~KTOV  7 ~ 11, 7ra  Eva  fidto-ra a(p/oTrtEL
Oaviao-ral *y3ap rav dwvrwcv decrivy XEyovrt TraO)r-lKS3.,   8  Trb Oa'uaoi-rov.  So  ib. ~ 8,




INTROD UCTION.


cxxvii


aretpot OVTE E epvrov oApeo owre vopOipWV EpWaTW OvTE
~vorTov EpL,80o oVe  kLXOKo XOV Epfj7V7, Oc(TEVOG fLEV
7^ O EPaoLTEL, L laaoL 7Tpo TOV< o' crTov 7Two) t, E'o cr/EE
E Trp   Tov    iovU  g Tr t 7rloTEL. To0yapov aVTOv aroOavorw()   0 Tr0Oo0 ov CrvvaTreOavEV, dXX da5dvaTros  v
OVK COi)j(LoTTOL  wJLfa o'L 47 Ov  vTOv1
It may be hard now     to understand how such mlisreat
popularity
a style can have moved to transports of delight men t,A;s
be underwho lived among the works of Pheidias and Iktinos, stoo.
who knew the prose of Herodotos, and whose ears
were familiar with Homer, with Aeschylos and with
Sophokles.   It is more difficult still, perhaps, to
realize that the invention of this style was a proof
of genius. Gorgias was the first man who definitely
conceived how literary prose might be artistic. That
he should instinctively compare it with the only
other form of literature which was already artistic,
namely poetry, was inevitable. Early prose necessarily begins by comparing itself with poetry.  Gorgias was a man of glowing and eager power; he
carried the assimilation to a length which seems
incredibly tasteless now. But let it be remembered
that the interval between Gorgias and Thucydides,
in some passages of the historian's speeches,- is not
so very wide. And if the enthusiasm of the Ekklesia still seems incomprehensible, let it be remembered that they felt vividly the whole originality of
the man, and did not at all see that his particular
tendency was mistaken.     It was only by and by,
and after several compromises, that men found out
1 Sauppe, Or. Att. n. 130.




Cxxviii


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


the difference between T    EppvOLov and TO EVpvOpov,
between verse and rhythmical prose; namely, that
rhythm is the framework of the former but only the
fluent outline of the latter. If a style is new and
forcible, extravagances will not hinder it from being
received with immense applause at its first appearance. Then it is imitated until its originality is
forgotten and its defects brought into relief. In the
maturity of his genius, Lord Macaulay pronounced
the Essay on Milton to be 'disfigured by much gaudy
and ungraceful ornament.' Gorgias was the founder
of artistic prose; and his faults are the more excusable because they were extravagant.       Granting
the natural assumption that prose was to be a kind
of poetry, then Gorgias was brilliantly logical; and,
as the event proved, his excesses did good service
by calling earlier attention to the fallacy in his
theory. Allowing, however, all that has been advanced above, it might still seem strange that
Gorgias should have had this reception from        the
Assembly which, within three years, had been listenPerikles.  ing to Perikles.  But the true question is whether
Wasis   Perikles had aimed at giving to his eloquence the
oratory
form   finish of a literary form.   Suidas says that Perikles
was the first who composed a forensic speech before
delivering it; his predecessors had extemporised'.
Cicero says that Perikles and Alkibiades are the
most ancient authors who have left authentic writings2. Quintilian, however, thinks that the com1 Suidas s. v. IlepiKX-s; pr7p  2 Cic. De Orat. i. ~ 93, antiKat r?7Laycoyos, o-rcs rporos ypa7r-  quissimi fere sunt, quorum quirOv Xdyov El BLKao-Trrpl Wrf e Ce, cVdem scripta constent: where the
prpo aTro v a-CEadvur7c.   'constent' seems to imply that the




INTROD UCTION.


cxxix


positions extant under the name of Perikles are not
worthy of his reputation, and that, as others had
conjectured, they were spurious.        Plutarch   says statement
of Plutarch.
positively that Perikles has left nothing written
(Eyypaoov) except decrees2. The antithesis meant
by eyypacov is with those sayings of Perikles which
tradition had preserved; especially those bold similes
from nature and life to which reference will be made
in considering the style of Antiphon 3.   The speeches Thucdidean
in Thucydides doubtless give the general ideas of Spehesof
Perikles with essential fidelity; it is possible, further, that they may contain recorded sayings of his
like those in Aristotle: but it is certain that they
cannot be taken as giving the form of the statesman's
oratory. Like the other speeches, they bear the
stamp of a manner which was not so fully developed
until after his death.    Perikles as an orator is best Yotices of
his orcatory.
known to us from    the brief but emphatic notices of     oratory.
the impression which he made. 'This man,' says
Eupolis, 'whenever he came forward, proved himself the greatest orator among men: like a good
runner, he could give the other speakers ten feet
start, and win........Rapid you call him; but, besides
his swiftness, a certain persuasion sat upon his lips
-such was his spell: and, alone of the speakers,
question of authenticity had been  minus miror esse qui nihil ab
examined. But in Brut. ~ 27  eo scriptum putent, haec autem
he says, more doubtfully, Ante  quae feruntur ab aliis esse comPericlem, cuius scripta quaedam  posita.
feruntur, littera nulla est quae  2 Plut. Periel. c. 8, yypaeov
quidem ornatum aliquem habeat. Lav oEv v rOXXoErE, 'X   r^Civ r,1 Quint. IIi. 1 ~ 12, Equidem  < tcrýarcoV r  drropLvrfiovevETaL te
non reperio quicquam tanta elo- 3Xlya ravrarracrav.
quentiae fama dignum; ideoque  3 Below, pp. 27 f.




cxxx


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


he ever left his sting    in the hearers1.'    When
Aristophanes is describing the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, 'Perikles the Olympian,' he says, 'was
thundering and lightening and putting Greece in a
nts isin- tumult2.'  Unique as an Athenian statesman, Peritive con"ditins.  kles must have been in two respects unique also as
an Athenian orator;-first, because he occupied such
a position of personal ascendancy as no man before
or after him attained; secondly, because his thoughts
and his moral force won him     such renown for eloquence as no one else ever got from        Athenians
without the further aid of artistic expression. His
manner of speaking seems to have been tranquil,
stately to a degree which Plutarch seems inclined
to satirize', but varied by occasional bursts having
the character of lofty poetry4.


1 A.   KpadlTTroS  oTOS F'yEle
dvOpw7r(ov XEyv  o drre TrapEXot,
Xo-7nrep dyaOol 8poiLps [dK  EKa
octYV pet X'yov 7roV4 pjropaS.
B. raxC'v XeyEts LEv' Wrpos ve y'
aVTroV T) Ta(XEL I 7TE0L) TLS E7r~EKaOLCEV
i7r roTos^ vxnEuv' OVTO)S EK XEL Kail
IOVOS TV o pr7TOpAV I TO KEVTpOV yKaT XErtE TotL tKpoo)OiEvots. Eupolis, A-fos, Bothe Frag. Com. i.
162, where the ancient citations of
this famous passage are brought
together. See (e.g.) Cic. Quint.
xii. 10. Brut. ~ 38.
"2 Ar. Ach. 530.
3 Plut. Per. c. 5.
4 Cf. Mr Watkiss Lloyd's 'Age
of Perikles' I. 159 (speaking of the
sweetness of voice and facile swiftness which distinguished the elocution of Perikles):- 'The combination of power, rapidity, and


fascination that is thus avouched,
is probably not so much explained
by, as it explains, the tradition of
his obligations to such varied instructors as Anaxagoras, Damon,
and Aspasia...To Plato, Perikles
was still, though only by traditional reputation, the most accomplished of all orators' (Phaedr.
p. 269 E, rvavwO  Te raXroT OE ELr 7T
pr7TopKrfV.)-As Mr Lloyd says,
Plato seems inclined there to connect this excellence of Perikles
with a study of psychology under
Anaxagoras: though the Phaedo
p. 97 B implies that Anaxagoras
did not enter on such inquiries.
Undoubtedly psychology is what
Plato in the Phaedros is recommending, first of all, to Isokrates;
see on this, Blass, Isokrates und
Isaios, p. 29.




INTROD UCTION.cxi


cxxxi


The earliest of those Athenian orators who have -istory of
Athenian
left writings is not the disciple of him      who most oratory
represented the new     art of oratory.   Antiphon was Antiphon:
chiefly formed, not by the new     Oratory, but by thea dscpe,
new Rhetoric, not by Gorgias but by Tisias.         The )ogi,
f       Sicilian
influence of Gorgias meets us somewhat, of course, Rhetoric.
even in Antiphon, but far more decidedly in Thucydides, and then, chastened to a form of which its
beginnings had little promise, in Isokrates. The Rhetoric
and Popusecond half of the fifth century at Athens had al- larDialectic at
ready given a place in the popular life to the newf^ro4.c.
culture. While Comedy set itself against that culture, Tragedy had been more compliant. No con- Tragedy.
trast could be more significant than that between
the singular barrenness of the trial-scene in the
Eumenides, or the measured controversies of the
Ajax, and the truly forensic subtleties of the Orestes.
Nor was the exercise only       mimic.     Already   the
public advocates (o-vv1ryopoL) formed a class.      The Forensic
Advocacy.
private advocate was forbidden        to take    money.
Hence he usually begins by defining the personal
interest which has led him to appear. In the next
century, at least, the law was not strictly observed';
private advocacy was often paid; and it is not rash
1 Lykurgos thus speaks of the  them for pay'-txio-Oo o-wvaroXomercenary advocacy which in his  yovpiEvotLEs Ei rots KpLvo0evot.-But
time had become a tolerated prac- the real error both of Greece and
tice, iara AEewcparove ~ 138 (circ. of Rome (until, at some time be330 B. c.):-' I am astonished if fore Justinian, Trajan's renewal of
you do not see that your extreme  the Lex Cincia was repealed), lay
indignation is well deserved by  in their refusal to recognise Admen who, although they have no  vocacy as a profession. See, on
tie whatever either of kinship or  the theory, Forsyth, IHortensius,
offriendship with the accused per-  pp. 377 ff.
sons, continually help in dqfending




cxxxii


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


to suppose that this practice was as old as the frequency of litigation.
Athens the  But while literary fashion or private need thus
chief seat of
vi Ora- lent their aid, greater and older causes than these
tory.
had prepared Athens to be the home of Civil Oratory.
Politcal  The chief importance of Grecian history depends on
morality of
the Greeks. this, that the Greeks are the first people from whom
we can learn any lessons in the art of ruling men
according to law1.     While all the nations with
which the Greeks came in contact were governed
more or less despotically, the Greek cities alone were
governed politically.   No Persian or Egyptian had
any conception of the principle that both sides of a
public question should be fairly heard, that it should
be decided by the opinion of the civic majority, and
that the minority should be bound by this decision.
Every Greek city, be it planted where it might, at
the Pillars of Herakles or on the shores of the Inhospitable Sea, was perfectly familiar with this doctrine.
Sometimes a tyrant forcibly suspended its operation,
sometimes an oligarchy capriciously narrowed its
scope, but it was known wherever the Greek tongue
This    was spoken.    In democratic Athens, more than in
morality
ost rac- any other Greek city, this doctrine was no speculatical at
Athens.  tive opinion, no occasional motive, but the present
and perpetual spring of public action; nor did any
goddess of the pantheon receive a tribute more
fitting or more sincere than that which Athenians
Rlation of annually laid on the altar of Persuasion 2   It has
Athenian to
Greek
Oratory.
SFreeman, ' General 'Sketch of mocracy' (Second Series, no. iv.).
European History,' ch. II. ~ 3: and  2 Isokr. Antid. (Or. xv.) ~ 249,
the essay on 'The Athenian De- Trv pev yap HIIE1co,lav rc-v Ofev




INTRODUCTION.


cxxxiii


sometimes been said that Greek Oratory means
Athenian Oratory. This is far from being true in
the sense that all the considerable masters of oratorical prose were either natives of Attica or permanent residents at Athens. Gorgias         of Leontini,
Theodoros of Byzantium, Thrasymachos of Chalkedon, Anaximenes of Lampsakos, Naukrates of
Erythrae, Philiskos of Miletos, Ephoros of Cumae,
Theopompos of Chios, Theodektes of Phaselis, and
many more, might be adduced. But there is another
sense in which the statement is true. Athens was
the home, though Attica was not the birth-place,
of all the very greatest men in this branch of art,
of all the men whose works had wide and lasting
acceptance as canons.   Athens was, further, the educator of all those men, whether first-rate or not,
who, after about 400 B. c., won a Panhellenic name
for eloquence. The relation of Athenian to Greek
oratory is accurately stated by Isokrates when, in
353 B. c., he is defending his theory of culture
against supposed objections-objections which, as
the very history of his school shows, had never
really taken hold of the Athenian mind, but were
restricted to a much narrower circle than his rather
morbid   sensibility  imagined1.    'You    must   not
forget that our city is regarded as the established2
teacher of all who can speak or teach others to speak.
And naturally so, since men see that our city offers
votdJovo-vw s"at, al  ri 7rv,-X  2 o Kel yeyevqcrOat bta'OdaXogo:
opCoo- K aO' EKaaTrov Tv eavrovT note the tense, - expressing a
Ovolav avrg 7roLovtovrmv.    position thoroughly won and gene1 Isokr. Antid. (Or. xv.) ~~ 295-  rally recognised.
298.




cxxxiv


TIHE ATTIC ORATORS.


the greatest prizes to those who possess this faculty,
-provides the most numerous and most various
schools for those who, having resolved to enter the
real contests, desire a preparatory discipline,--and,
further, affords to all men that experience which
is the main secret of success in speaking.      Besides, men hold that the general diffusion and the
happy temperament     of Attic speech, the Attic
flexibility of intelligence and taste for letters, contribute not a little to literary culture; and hence
they not unjustly deem that all masters of expression
are disciples of Athens. See, then, lest it be folly
indeed to cast a slur on this name which you have
among the Greeks...; that unjust judgment will
be nothing else than your open condemnation of
yourselves.  You will have done as the Lacedaemonians would do if they introduced a penalty for
attention to military exercises, or the Thessalians,
if they instituted proceedings at law against men
who seek to make themselves good riders.'
Political  Athenian oratory has two great aspects, the
aspect of
tory.   artistic and the political.  The artistic aspect will
necessarily be most prominent in the following pages,
since their special object is to trace the development
of Attic oratory in relation to the development
of Attic prose. When, however, Attic oratory is
considered, not relatively to Attic prose, but in
itself, the artistic aspect is not more important than
the political; and, if even the literary value of the
Attic orations is to be fully understood, their political significance must not for a moment be left out of
sight. This significance resides not merely in the




INTROD UCTIO N.


CxxxV


matter or form   of each discourse, but also in the oitical
training of
training which had been received by the public to te,.Ieek
which it is addressed. We must ask ourselves, not
merely, 'Is this subject well treated?' but also,
'What manner of a multitude can it have been for
which the speaker thought this treatment adapted?'
The common life of every Greek city, not suppressed by tyranny or too much warped by oligarchy, was a political education for the citizens.
The reason is manifest from      the very fact that
the society was a city, and neither a village nor
a nation.  On the one hand there was the instinct
which demanded the highest attainable organisation
under laws. On the other, there was the inability to
conceive parliament except as a primary assembly.
At Athens this political education of the citizensad specially of the
was more    thorough   than   elsewhere, because atAthenian.
Athens the tendency of a commonwealth to deposit
all power in an assembly was worked out with most
logical completeness'. All the powers of the State,
legislative, executive and judicial were concentrated
in the absolute Demos: the law-courts were committees of the Ekklesia, as the archons or generals
were its officers. The world has seen nothing like
this. The Italian Republics of the middle age were civicsentiment in
fragments of the Roman Empire and the Kingdom tnd the
Italian
of Italy.  It was from their prosperity as municipali- eblice.
ties that they had derived their independence as
States. They grew up among traditions of feudal
privilege, represented here and there by a noble who


1 Freeman, Historical Essays (Second Series), pp. 128 f.




(exxxvi


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


could openly violate the order of the city within
Athens and whose walls he lived'. A  Florentine, like an AtheFlorence.
nian, was a citizen with his share in the government
of the city: Florence, like Athens, recognised the
right of the assembled People to decide questions of
State.   But   Florence, until its latest days, had
nothing truly corresponding to the Ekklesia. The
citizens were occasionally called together, but there
was no popular Assembly with an organised and
continual superintendence of all affairs.     Nor was
the civic sentiment so vivid or so direct for the
Florentine as for the Athenian. The Florentine acted
in politics primarily as member of a commercial
guild2 and only secondarily as a citizen. The Greek
Republics far more than the Italian, Athens far more
than Florence, afforded the proper atmosphere for
such an oratory as alone, in strictness, can take the
civil   lofty name of Civil   that is, which is addressed by a
Oratory
defined,  citizen, educated both in ruling and in obeying, to
the whole body of fellow-citizens who have had the
Attic   same twofold training as himself. The glory of Attic)
Oratory
rshi    oratory, as such, consists not solely in its intrinsic
definition.
excellence, but also in its revelation of the corporate
political intelligence to which it appealed: for it
spoke sometimes to an Assembly debating an issue
of peace or war, sometimes to a law-court occupied
1 In the Essay on 'Ancient  qualified for the franchise by beGreece and Mediweval Italy' (His- longing to one of the incorporated
torical Essays, Second Series), Mr  arts: Symonds, 'Renaissance in
Freeman has worked out the like-  Italy: Age of the Despots,' p.
ness and unlikeness which here  128. On the mercantile character
are barely touched on.       of the Italian republics as in2 The Florentine burgher was fluencing the political, ib. 173 f.




INTROD UCTION.             cxxxvii
with  a private plaint, sometimes to Athenians
mingled with strangers at a festival, but everywhere
and always to the Athenian Demos, everywhere
and always to a paramount People, taught by life
itself to reason and to judge.








CHAPTER I.


A NTIPHON.
LIFE.
N describing the Revolution of the Four Hundred
at Athens, Thucydides lays stress upon the fact
that the measures which had effected it owed their
unity and their success to the control of a single mind. The figure of Peisandros is most conspicuous in the foreground.  'But he who contrived
the whole matter, and the means by which it was
brought to pass, and who had given his mind to it
longest, was Antiphon; a man second to no Athenian
of his day in virtue; a proved master of device and
of expression; who did not come forward in the assembly, nor, by choice, in any scene of debate, since
he lay under the suspicion of the people through a
repute for cleverness; but who was better able than
any other individual to assist, when consulted, those
who were fighting a cause in a law-court or in the
assembly.  In his own case, too-when the Four
Hundred in their later reverses were being roughly
used by the people, and he was accused of having
aided in setting up this same government-he is
1




2


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


known to have delivered the greatest defence made
in the memory of my age by a man on trial for his
life.'
This passage gives in outline nearly all that is
known of the life of Antiphon. Other sources supply details, and make it possible to work up the
sketch into something like a picture; but they add
nothing which enlarges its framework. The Revolution of the Four Hundred is still the one great
scene presented to our view.
Antiphon was born about the year 480 B.C.2,
being thus rather younger than Gorgias, and some
eight or nine years older than the historian Thucydides. He was of the tribe of Aiantis and of the
deme of Rhamnus3; of a family which cannot have


Birth of
Antiphon.


1 Thuc. viii. 68.
2 [Plut.] Vitt. X. Oratt. yEyove
Kara rTa IIEp'LKa Ka  ropylav roV
oro(nro)v, OXiye) vEoJrepov  avroO.
Gorgias can scarcely have been
more than seventy in 411 B.c.
Blass would place the birth of Gorgias 'a few years' below 496 (Att.
Bereds. p. 45). Clinton suggests
485 (sub ann. 427).
" He is often distinguished as
the ' Rhamnusian' from namesakes.
Of these there are especially three
with whom his ancient biographers
-the pseudo-Plutarch, Philostratos, Photios (cod. 259), and the
anonymous author of the yEvor 'AvTqafvros-frequently confuse him.
I. The Antiphon who was put to
death by the Thirty Tyrants, seven
years after the orator's death:
Xen. Hellen. Im. 40. He had furnished two triremes at his own
cost during the war: and of him


Philostratos is probably thinking
when he says of the orator, Eorpaqjyr/,icr  7rXEto-ra, EvIKY)cTE 7rXELcrTa,
Er/KOVTO 7ptLpErfL  ~7rE7rX7pOevJLtas
rl7Jrlv ev 'AOrivalot vTO avavTrKO. The
speech of Lysias rept rTE "AvrTLCvTro Ovyarpo' (pseudo-Plut. Vitt. X.
Oratt.) referred to his daughter.
II. Antiphon the tragedian, put
to death by Dionysios the elder,
towards the end of his reign, i.e.
about 370 B.c.: Arist. Rhet. n1. 6.
The anonymous biographer says of
the orator, rpayplar a TrolEL: and
Philostratos describes him as put
to death by Dionysios for criticising his tragedies. III. Antiphon the Sophist, introduced by
Xenophon as disputing with Sokrates, Memor. i. 6. 1. Diogenes
calls him reparo-KOrro( (soothsayer),
Suidas, OvetpoKpitTL-by which title
he is often referred to. Hermogenes expressly distinguishes him




I.]


ANTIPHON: -LIFE


3


been altogether obscure, since it was made a reproach to him on his trial that his grandfather had
been a partisan of the Peisistratidae1. The tradition
that his father Sophilos was a sophist antedates by
a generation the appearance of that class of teachers2,
and may have been suggested simply by the jingle of
the words3.    Antiphon himself, as the style of his
composition indicates, must have felt the sophistic
influence; but there is no evidence for his having
been the pupil of any particular sophist. He is
allowed by general consent to have been the first Antihon
the first
representative at Athens of a profession for which X"Yo-YP"
the new conditions of the time had just begun to
make a place,-the first Xoyoypados, or writer of
speeches for money4. With the recent growth of
Rhetoric as a definite art, the inequality, for purposes
of pleading or debating, between men who had and
who had not mastered the newly-invented weapons
of speech had become seriously felt. A rogue skilled
in the latest subtleties of argument and graces of
style was now more than ever formidable to the
plain man whom he chose to drag before a court or
to attack in the ekklesia: and those who had no
leisure or taste to become rhetoricians now began to
find it worth while to buy their rhetoric ready-made.
Forensic speeches were, no doubt, those with which
Antiphon most frequently supplied his clients. But
from the orator (TrEpl IS eL, I.  3 Donalds., note, ibid.
497); but they are confused by the  4 [Plut.] Vitt. X. Oratt. XdyovE
pseudo-Plut. and by Photios.  Grvveypa~E e Tpro os Ei roVro rpaners,
1 Harpokration s. v. o-raar-COTrL.  wOcr'O p rLVeT (ao-t. Diod. ap. Clem.
2 K. O. Miiller, Hist. Gr. Lit. Alex. Strom. I. 365,,rp&rov LKaViLC. xxxII.,Vol. Ii. p. 105, ed. Donald-  KOV X yov des Exboo- ypa4a1divov.
son.
1-2




4


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


Hermogenes1 describes him    as 'the inventor and
founder of the political style',-a phrase including
deliberative as well as forensic oratory: and this
exactly agrees with the statement of Thucydides
that Antiphon was practised in aiding, not only
those who had lawsuits, but debaters in the ekklesia2.
Besides being a speech-writer, he was also a teacher
of rhetoric, and, as the allusion in the Menexenos3
implies, the most fashionable master of Plato's time,tin on at Athens.  The tradition that Thucydides was the
and Thucy"dides.  pupil of Antiphon may have been suggested by the
warmth and emphasis of the passage in which the
orator is mentioned by the historian4; a passage
which, in its sudden glow of a personal admiration,
recalls two others in the History-the tribute to the
genius of Themistokles, and the character of Perikles.
In the tradition itself there is nothing improbable,
but it wants the support of evidence. The special
relation of master to pupil need not be assumed to


1 Hermog. 7repl 1&.  p. 415, XEyera.. evpeTrF Kat dPXy     3 y/EvEroOaL roV TrV7rov TO 70roXtIKOV. By
7roXtrtmKO  Xoyot, as distinguished
from 8LaXEKrKTK, were meant both
o-v[fpovXevTrKol and &aKavK.ol: see
Isokr. Karia o'-o. ~ 20.
2 Thuc. VIII. 68, rovs aycovtLofevovs Kat Ev ) &ao'frqpl) Kal Ev 82j*.6)...vad)elos GJOEXchiTY.
" Plat. Menex. p. 236 A.
4 [Plut.] Vitt. X. Oratt. KatKtILtor
N6 (Caecilius of Calacte, the Greek
rhetorician of the time of Augustus) E-   r rEpl apv'o ovwrvvdyLaTtr
eOovKVt\ov TO( o-vyypaQpE&r  (VIII.
68.) /t aOr7 j' v reKaCUpErat yEyoVivat, 1 wv   wavawerat i rap' avrio


'AvrtL c. Ruhnken (Disp. de Ant.)
says that some mss. have Bt6cd--
KaXov instead of pa0OrTriv here:
Blass suggests KaOlyrlTyr. Hermogenes (Irepi l1. I. 497) refers to the
tradition as one which 'many' receive; but rejects it for the inadequate reason that the style of
Thucydides resembles that of Antiphon the Sophist (see note above)
rather than that of Antiphon the
orator. In Bishop Thirlwall's remarks (c. xxvin. Vol. IV. p. 23 note,
ed. 1855) I entirely concur. Ruhnken's 'satis, ni fallor, demonstravimus Thucydidem    ab Antiphonte
esse eruditum,' is surely not justified by his reasonings.




I.]


ANTIPHON.-LIFE.


5


account for a tone which congeniality of literary
taste1, common sufferings at the hands of the democracy, or perhaps personal friendship, would sufficiently explain.
Nothing is directly known of Antiphon's political Antiphon's
life to 411
relations before the year 411 B.C.; but there are B..
slight indications which agree well with his later
hostility to the democracy.    Harpokration has preserved the names of two speeches written by him,
one for the people of Samothrace, on the subject of
the tribute which they paid to Athens; another,
on the same subject, for the people of Lindos in
Rhodes2. The oppression of the subject-allies by the
demagogues, who extorted from them large sums on
any pretence or threat, was a commonplace of complaint with oligarchs. The employment of Antiphon, afterwards so staunch an oligarch, by aggrieved
allies, preparing to represent their grievances at the
imperial city, was perhaps more than an accident of
professional routine. The hostility of Antiphon to
Alkibiades4, again, need not have had any political


1 See below, ch. II. pp. 23 ff., on
the affinity between the styles of
Antiphon and Thucydides.
2 Harpokration quotes five times
a speech of Antiphon 7repi rov
2atoOpaKC.v (6pov, spoken, as the
fragments show, by their ambassador; and in ten places refers to
another rep t 7ro  AwLvhicoVw  pov.
3 See, e. g., Ar. Vesp. 669 ff.
"4 Plutarch (Al.k. c. 3) quotes
Antiphon as the authority for a
discreditable story  about Alkibiades; and goes on to say that it
must be received with caution, on


account of Antiphon's avowed enmity towards him: evu E rais 'AvrTLCvTro-   XotopLats yEyparraL.
These Xot8oplat would seem to have
formed a sort of polemical pamphlet. But Athenaeos, on the other
hand, quotes a statement made by
Antiphon, d ' rT  KCar' 'AXKttdUiaOV
Xotopias (Athen. xII. 525 B). This
would seem to have been a speech
in a 8K?1 KcaKqryopLas (Dem. Konon.
~ 18), for which Xot8opta is used
as a convertible term: cf. Ar.
Vesp. 1207, eTXov 8tcoov Xotopiar.
Sauppe thinks that the mistake is




6               THE ATTIC ORATORS.               [CHAP.
meaning; but it would have been especially natural
in one who had shared the views, and who mourned
the fate, of Nikias.    At all events, the words of
Thucydides give a vivid idea of the position held at
Athens by Antiphon just before the Revolution of the
Four Hundred.      His abilities were acknowledged,
but they were exerted only for others; he himself
came forward neither in the assembly, nor-'when
he could help it l'-in the law-courts; he lay under
the suspicion of the people for 'cleverness.' The
nature of the 'cleverness' (S3LVCOwdT) for which Antiphon was distrusted and disliked is sufficiently illustrated by his Tetralogies.   It was the art of fighting
a cause which could hardly be defended on any
broad ground by raising in succession a number of
more or less fine points.    The indignant bewilderment expressed by the imaginary prosecutor in the
Second Tetralogy2 on finding the common-sense view
of the case turned upside-down represents what
many a citizen of the old school must have felt when
he encountered, in the ekklesia or the law-court, a
client of the ingenious 'speech-writer.' Antiphon
was a cautious, patient man. The comic poets could
ridicule him for his poverty or his avarice3; they
could say that the speeches which he sold for great
sums were 'framed to defeat justice;' but a carewith Athenaeos, not with Plutarch. Tro vov IEiraodvSp.
See Blass, Att. Bereds. p. 95.  4 Philostratos p. 17, KaOdCirTrat i
1 Thuc. viii. 68, o 0' E's aXXov  KCof'laa rov 'Avr0i  3wro 0 r70S BE V
adyva EKOVo'I oS- eva. Ot- vKCavLKaI KaL Xoyovr Kart ro a tL2 Tetr. i. r ad init.      Kalov  vyKELC;iEvovs daroSt80/d3 [Plut.] Vitt. X. Oratt. KEKCO-  vov 7roXX5v XP7arTovae avrolv iadiJGrlrat 8' els OtXapyvpl'av VO IIXa- XLto-a roLE Kt8VeaVVEvo(V.




I.]


ANTIPH01Y. -LIFE.


7


fully obscure life probably offered no hold to any
more definite attack. Meanwhile he was quietly
at work with the oligarchic clubs. According to
Thucydides he was not merely the arch-plotter of
the Revolution. He was the man who 'had thought
about it longest.'
In the spring of 411 B.c. the opportunity for heReowhich Antiphon had been waiting at last came.
Alkibiades, by promises of Persian aid, induced the
oligarchs in the army at Samos to commence a movement for the overthrow of the Athenian democracy.
Peisandros, as their representative, came*to Athens,
and, by insisting on the hopelessness of the war
without such help as Alkibiades covenanted to bring,
extorted from the ekklesia a vote for that change of
constitution which the exile demanded.      Having
visited the various oligarchical clubs in the city
and urged them to combine in favour of the project,
Peisandros went back to confer with Alkibiades.
When he presently returned to Athens,-with the
knowledge that his hopes from Persia were idle, but
that, on the other hand, the Revolution must go on,he found a state of things very different from that
which he had left. He had left the people just conscious that an oligarchy was proposed, and consenting,
in sheer despair, to entertain the idea; but, at the
same time, openly and strongly averse to it, and in
a temper which showed that the real difficulties of
the undertaking were to come. He now finds that,
in the brief interval of his absence, every difficulty
has already vanished. Not a trace of open opposition remains in the senate or in the ekklesia; not a




8               THE ATTIC ORATORS.               [CHAP.
murmur is heard in the conversation of the citizens 1.
It is a fair inference from the words of Thucydides
that the principal agent in producing this rapid and
wonderful change had been Antiphon2. A brief consideration of the task which he had to do, and of
the manner in which it was done, will supply the
best criterion of his capacity. He had, first, to
bring into united and disciplined action those oligarchical clubs to which Peisandros had appealed.
These are described as 'leagues with a view to lawsuits and to offices3;' that is, associations of which
the members were pledged by oath to support, personally and with funds, any one of their body who
brought, or defended, a civil action, or who sought
one of the offices of the State. When, with the
steady advance of democracy from the Persian wars
onwards, the oligarchs found themselves more and
more in a minority, such associations became their
means of concentrating and economising their one
great power-wealth. The tone of such clubs would
always be, in a general way, antipopular.          But
they were unaccustomed to systematic action for
great ends; and, in regard to those smaller ends
which they ordinarily pursued, their interests would,
from  the nature of the case, frequently       conflict.
Antiphon need not have had much difficulty in
proving to them that, on this occasion, they had a
common interest. But to make them effective as
well as unanimous; to restrain, without discouragS Thuc. viii. 65, 66.      transl.).
2 Cf. Grote, ch. LXI; Curl ius,  3 vvwiooLas-r 7At 8iKa KtaL dpHiist. Gr. Vol. il. p. 435 (Ward's  Xat, Thuce. vim. 54.




I.]


ANTIPHON.-LIFE


9


ing, the zeal of novices in a political campaign, and
to make of these a compact and temperate force,
loyally taking the word from the best men among
them, and so executing the prescribed manceuvres
that in a short time they were completely ascendant
over an enormous and hostile, but ill-organised majority,-this, assuredly, was the achievement of no
ordinary leader. The absence of overt, and the skilful use of secret, violence was the characteristic of
the Revolution. Adverse speakers were not menaced,
but they disappeared; until apparent unanimity,
and real terror, had silenced every objection. Antiphon had seen clearly how the Athenian instinct
of reverence for constitutional forms might be used
against the constitution. His too, on the showing of
Thucydides, must have been that clever invention,
the imaginary body of Five Thousand to whom the
franchise was to be left; a fiction which, to the
end, did service to the oligarchs by giving them
a vague prestige for strength.
The Council of the Four Hundred comprised he two
- parties i
two distinct elements,- those thorough oligarchs the counci.
who had been the core of the conspiracy; and a
number of other men, more or less indifferent to
the ideas of oligarchy, who had accepted the Revolution because they believed that it alone could save
Athens.   Had the new    Government been able to
conciliate or to frighten the army at Samos, both
sorts of men would have been satisfied, and the
Council would have gone on working, for a time
at least, as a seemingly harmonious whole.     But
the resolute hostility of the army, which at once




10


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


made the case of the Four Hundred really hopeless,
brought the discord to light forthwith. The Council
was thenceforth divided into an Extreme and a
Moderate party. Among the leaders of the Extreme party were Peisandros, Phrynichos, Aristarchos, Archeptolemos,     Onomakles     and  Antiphon.
The   Moderates    were   led  by   Theramenes     and
Aristokrates. Two chief questions were in dispute
between the parties.      The Moderates wished to
call into political life the nominal civic body of
Five Thousand; the ultra-oligarchs objected that
it was better, at such a crisis, to avoid all chance
of a popular rising. The ultra-oligarchs were fortifying Eitioneia, alleging the danger of an attack
from  Samos; the Moderates accused them       of wishing to receive Peloponnesian troops.
The Extreme party was soon driven, in May
411 B.c., to the last resource of an embassy to
Sparta.    Phrynichos,    Antiphon,    Archeptolemos,
Onomakles and eight others1 were sent 'to make
terms with the Lacedaemonians in any way that
could at all be borne2.'    Thucydides does not say
what the envoys offered at Sparta or what answer
they got; but he states plainly the length which
he conceives that their party was ready to go.
'They wished, if possible, having their oligarchy,
at the same time to rule the allies; if that could
not be, to keep their ships, their walls, and their
1 Thue. vii. 90, 'Avrt(nvra Ka  [Plut.] Vitt. X. Oratt.
1'pvvLXov Ka' aXXovv &cKa. That  2 Thuc. ib. rravrl Tr7pO 0r T T
Archeptolemos and Onomakles  al dmrroWrov avEKards vvakXawere on the embassy appears from  yqva t rpos ro\I  AaKESaifLoviovs.




I.]


A NTIPHON. -IE


11


independence; or, if shut out even from this, at
all events not to have their own lives taken first
and foremost by the people on its restoration;
sooner would they bring in the enemy and covenant
to keep the city on any terms, without wall or
ships, if only their persons should be safe1.'
This embassy brought the unpopularity of the Fallofthe
Four HunExtreme party to a crisis. Immediately upon his dred
return Phrynichos was assassinated.     The revolt
of the citizens employed in fortifying Eetioneia
quickly followed. The assembly in the Anakeion,
broken up by the sudden appearance of the Peloponnesian fleet, met again on the Pnyx soon after
the Peloponnesian victory at Oropos; and the Four
Hundred, who had taken office in March, were
deposed about the middle of June.
The leading ultra-oligarchs hastened to save
themselves by flight.   Peisandros, Alexikles and
others went to Dekeleia; Aristarchos, taking with
him a body of bowmen, contrived to betray Oenoe
on the Athenian frontier into the hands of the
Boeotians who were besieging it.      But, of the
twelve who had formed the embassy, and who now,
before all others, were in peril, three remained at
Athens-Antiphon, Archeptolemos and Onomakles.
An information against these three men was laid
before the ekklesia by the Generals.    The eisangelia charged them with having gone on an embassy
to Sparta for mischief to Athens, sailing, on their
way thither, in an enemy's ship, and traversing the


1 Thuc. vmI. 91.




12


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


enemy's camp at Dekeleia. A psephism was passed
by the ekklesia directing the arrest of the accused that they might be tried by a dikastery,
and instructing the Thesmothetae to serve each
of them, on the day following the issue of the
decree, with a formal summons. On the day fixed
by the summons the Thesmothetae were to bring
the cases into court; and the Generals, assisted
by such Synegori, not more than ten in number,
as they might choose from the Council of the Five
Hundred, were to prosecute for treason1.
Trl a      Onomakles seems to have escaped or died before
condemnatifho.. the day. Archeptolemos and Antiphon were brought
to trial. The scanty fragments of the speech made
by Antiphon in his own defence reveal only one item
of its contents. One of the prosecutors, Apolexis,
having asserted that Antiphon's grandfather had
been a partisan of the Peisistratidae, Antiphon replied that his grandfather had not been punished
after the expulsion of the tyrants, and could scarcely,
therefore,, have been one of their 'body-guard2.'


1 [Plut.] Vitt. X. Oratt.
2 Harpokr. s.v. raao-twLrrt7 (Sauppe,
Or. Att. 1. p. 138.) 'Avnr4Lv e'v r
7TEpL rlg eraorTadrao-m WpT'  7 rolvvv
CWv ' A r dX  t Kar?7yop rKEv 0S
o-7ao-r)tr7Er rv Ey3 Kai o 7rarr"TOS 0  blOS d EOL OtKE VV  pirjp
lios dE7 ro o80pv(dfpov KEXpra'OacL
TO) OVO/djLT.T  Elv yovv Totl Ei/ 3rjS  pO-tv OrTL OVK aV T70rS 7v rvpavvoVVTras   3vvO07r7oav ol rTpoyovot KoXdo-aL, TroVs U   8opvfdopovs r3'vvdrryoaav.
Curtius (Hist. Gr. Vol. Im.p. 460,
transl. Ward) infers from this frag

ment that Antiphon in his speech
argued 'that the Four Hundred
had acted as one equally responsible body, and that, therefore, either
all ought to be punished or all
acquitted.' He observes that 'reference seems to be made to an
unjustifiable separation of the parties involved: this is indicated
by the distinction drawn between
the r-pavvot and the sopvbd6pot.' It
is very likely that Antiphon may
have used this argument: but I do
not see how it is to be inferred
from the fragments of the speech




I.]               ANTIPHON.-LIFE.                     13
The other special topics are unknown; but their
range, at least, is shown by the title under which
the speech was extant. It was inscribed Trept p eracrrd-coEs, On the Change of Government.        It dealt,
then, not merely with the matter specified in the
eisangelia-the embassy to Sparta-but with the
whole question of the Revolution. It is described
by Thucydides as the greatest defence made in the
memory of that age by a man on trial for his life.
The story in the Eudemian Ethics1, whether true or
not, seems at any rate characteristic.    Agathon, the
tragic poet, praised the speech; and Antiphon-on
whom sentence of death had passed-answered that
a man who respects himself must care more what
one good man thinks than what is thought by many
nobodies.
The sentence ran thus:'Found guilty of treason-Archeptolemos son of
Hippodamos, of Agryle, being present: Antiphon
son of Sophilos, of Rhamnus, being present. The
award on these two men was-That they be delivered to the Eleven: that their property be confiscated and the goddess have the tithe: that their
houses be razed and boundary-stones put on the
sites, with the inscription, 'the houses of Archeptolemos and Antiphon the traitors:' that the two
demarchs [of Agryle and Rhamnus] shall point out
7rEpt r77" p ETrao-TdcoS that he used it.  1 Eth. Eudem. IIr. 5, Kal LPaxov
The distinction between the rvpav- av ppovricELsv d'vp ieyaXogIvXos
pot and the uopv0opot is made, as a  ri eL 0KEC -   o-7rov8al O A 7ro\XXos
perusal of the fragment will show, roT.V rvyxdvovo-tv, co-rep 'ACr7r op V
solely in reference to the Peisistra-  7-rpo's 'Aydcwova Karetýq/to-/,ivo
tidae.                       TVv droXoyiav rawvE-aavra.




14


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CIHAP.


their houses. That it shall not be lawful to bury
Archeptolemos and Antiphon at Athens or in any
land of which the Athenians are masters. That
Archeptolemos and Antiphon and their descendants,
bastard or true-born, shall be infamous; and if a
man adopt any one of the race of Archeptolemos
or Antiphon, let the adopter be infamous. That this
decree be written on a brazen column and put in the
same place where the decrees about Phrynichos are
set up1.'
Character  The distinctive feature in the life of Antiphon is
of AntifPu'.i'- the suddenness of his appearance, at an advanced
age, in the very front of Athenian politics. Unlike
nearly all the men associated with him, he had neither made his mark in the public service nor come
forward in the ekklesia; yet all at once he becomes
the chief, though not the most conspicuous, organiser
of an enterprise requiring in the highest degree
trained political tact; does more than any other
individual to set up a new government; and acts
to the last as one of its foremost members. The
reputation and the power which enabled him to take
this part were mainly literary. Yet it would not
probably be accurate to conceive Antiphon as a
merely literary man who suddenly emerged and
succeeded as a politician. It would have been a
marvel, indeed, if any one had become a leader on
the popular side in Athenian politics who had not
already been prominent in the ekklesia. But the
accomplishments most needed in a leader of the
oligarchic party might be learned elsewhere than in
1 [Plut.] Vitt. X. Oratt.




I.]


ANTIPHOON.-LFE


15


the ekklesia. The member of a &eratpda, though a
stranger to the bema, might gain practice in the
working of those secret and rapid combinations upon
which his party had come to rely most in its unequal
struggle with democracy.       As fame and years by
degrees brought Antiphon more and more weight in
the internal management of the oligarchic clubs,
he would acquire more and more insight into the
tactics of which at last he proved himself a master1.
He need not, then, be taken as an example of instinct supplying the want of training: he had probably had precisely the training which could serve
him best. The real significance of his late and
sudden prominence lies in its suggestion of previous
self-control. No desire of place, no consciousness of
growing power, had tempted him to stir until in his
old age he knew that the time had come and that all
the threads were in his hand.
The   ability  which   Antiphon    brought to    the chracter
of his abiservice of his party is defined      as the power 'v- 1i
OvqOL70'jva  Kat \L  ytvolr  ETELVr.  It was the power
of a subtle and quick mind backed by a thorough
command of the new       rhetoric.    He was masterly
in device and in utterance.     Fertility of expedient,
1 'By far the larger number of  'fashion' which I have been able
the members of the party belonged  to find is [Plut.] Vitt. X. Oratt.:
to the sophistically-trained younger rrpcwros N  Kxai p'?opitKa  rexvaS
generation...who greedily imbibed  E'$ieyev, ytevor d ayXvovE  to
the political teaching communi- Kal No-rcop EreEKakelro. As this
cated to them at the meetings of  notice makes the name 'Nestor'
the party by Antiphon, the Nestor  refer simply to rhetorical skill, not
of his party, as it was the fashion  to political sagacity, I have hesito call him.' (Curtius, Hist. Gr. tated to follow Curtius in his piciiI. p. 435, transl. Ward.)  turesque application of it.
The only authority for this




16


THE1 ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


ingenuity in making points in debate, were the
qualities which the oligarchs most needed; and it
was in these that the strength of Antiphon lay.
In promptness of invention where difficulties were
to be met on the instant he probably bore some
likeness to Themistokles; but there is no reason
for crediting him with that largeness of view, or
with any share of that wonderful foresight, which
made Themistokles a statesman as well as a diplomatist.
mHsdPeC.   Thucydides praises Antiphon not only for his
ability but, with   equal emphasis, for his aper4,
his virtue.  The praise may be interpreted by what
Thucydides himself says elsewhere about the moral
results of the intense conflicts between oligarchy
and democracy1.    The adpET, precious as rare, of
a public man was to be a loyal partisan; to postpone personal selfishness to the selfishness of party;
to be proof against bribes; and at the worst not
to flinch, or at least not to desert. Thucydides
means that of the men who brought about the Revolution Antiphon was perhaps the most disinterested
and the most constant.   He had taken previously no
active part in public affairs, and was therefore less
involved than such men as Peisandros and Phrynichos
in personal relations: his life had been to some extent that of a student: he had never put himself
forward for office: he seems, to judge from       his
writings, to have really believed and felt that old
Attic religion which at least the older school of
oligarchs professed to cherish: and thus altogether
1 Thue. im. 82.




I.]


ANTIPHON.-LIFE.


17


might be considered as the most unselfishly earnest
member of his party, the man who cared most for its
ideas. In this measure he was disinterested: he was
also constant. When the Council fell, he could, no
doubt, have escaped with Peisandros and the rest.
Considering his long unpopularity, and the fact that
he would be assumed to have been the chief spokesman of the odious embassy to Sparta, his condemnation was perhaps more certain than that of any other
person. But he stood his ground: and for the last
time put out all his strength in a great defence of
the fallen Government.
In a general view of Antiphon's career there is tene
one aspect which ought not to be missed-that aspect Rhetoric.
in which it bears striking evidence to the growing
importance in Athenian public life of the newlydeveloped art of Rhetoric.     Antiphon's first and
strongest claim to eminence was his mastery over
the weapons now indispensable in the ekklesia and
the law-courts; it was this accomplishment, no less
fashionable than useful, which recommended him to
the young men of his party whom he had no other
pretension to influence; it was this rhetorical Sewdrr)O
to which he owed his efficiency in the Revolution.
In his person the practical branch of the new culture
for the first time takes a distinct place among the
qualifications for political rank. The Art of Words
had its definite share in bringing in the Four Hundred: it was a curious nemesis when seven years
later it was banished from Athens by the Thirty.


2




18


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


CHAPTER           II.
ANTIPHON.
STYLE.
Antphzon ANTIPHON   stands first among the orators of the
the most
Gtqe of. Attic canon; and he claims this place not merely
because he was born a few years earlier than any one
of the rest. A broad difference separates him from
those who were nearly his contemporaries hardly
less than from men of the next century, from Andokides and Lysias as well as from Demosthenes and
Hypereides. He represents older ideas and an older
conception of the manner in which these ideas are to
find expression. His successors, taken collectively,
are moderns; compared with them, he is ancient.
The begin-  The outburst of intellectual life in Hellas during
nings of
Grek   the fifth century before Christ had for one of its results the creation of Greek prose. Before that age no
Greek had conceived artistic composition except in
the form  of poetry.  The Ionians who had already
recorded myths or stated philosophies in prose had
either made no effort to rise above the ease of daily
talk, or had clothed their meaning in a poetical diction of the most ambitious kind. As the mental
horizon of Greece was widened, as subtler ideas and
more various combinations began to ask for closer
and more flexible expression, the desire grew for




II.]


ANTIPIION.-STYLE.


19


something more precise than poetry, firmer and more
compact than the idiom of conversation. Two special causes aided this general tendency. The development of democratic life, making the faculty of
speech before popular assemblies and popular lawcourts a necessity, hastened the formation of an
oratorical.prose.  The Persian Wars, by changing
Hellenic unity from  a sentiment into a fact, and reminding men that there was a corporate life, higher
and grander than that of the individual city, of which
the story might be told, supplied a new motive to
historical prose. Athens under Perikles became the
focus of all the feelings which demanded this new
utterance, and of all the capabilities which could
make the utterance artistic. The Athenian mind,
with its vigour, its sense of measure, its desire for
clearness, was fitted to achieve the special excellences of prose1, and moulded that Attic dialect in
which the prose-writer at last found his most perfect instrument. But the process of maturing the
new kind of composition was necessarily slow; for it
required, as its first condition, little less than the
creation of a new language, of an idiom neither poetical nor mean. Herodotos, at the middle point of
the fifth century, shows the poetical element still
preponderant. The close of that century may be
taken as the end of the first great stage in the
growth of a prose literature. If a line is drawn
there, Lysias will be perhaps the first representative
name below it: Antiphon and Thucydides will be
among the last names above it.
1 See Curtius, Hist. Gr. Vol. L. p. 517, transl. Ward.
2-2




20             TilE A TTIC ORA TORS.        [CHTAP.
Chaaceri   The leading characteristic of the earlier prose is.rs. dignity. The newly created art has the continual
consciousness of being an art. It is always on. its
guard against sliding into the levity of a conversational style. The composer feels above all things
that his written language must be so chosen as to
produce a greater effect than would be. produced
by an equivalent amount of extemporary speaking.
Every word is to be pointed and pregnant; every
phrase is to be the condensed expression of his
tbought in its ultimate shape, however difficult this
may be to the reader or hearer who meets it in that
shape for the first time; the movement of the whole
is to be slow and majestic, impressing by its weight
and grandeur, not charming by its life and flow.
The prose-writer of this epoch instinctively compares
himself with the poet. The poet is a craftsman, the
possessor of a mystery revealed to the many only in
the spell which it exerts over their fancies; just
so, in the beginnings of a literary prose, its shaper
likes to think that he belongs to a guild. He does
not care to be simply right and clear: rather he
desires to have the whole advantage which his skill
gives him over ordinary men; he is eager to bring
his thoughts down upon them with a splendid and
irresistible force. In Greece this character, natural
to immature prose, was intensified by a special cause
-the influence of the Sophists. In so far as these
teachers dealt with the form of language, they tended
to confirm that view of the prose-writer in which he
is a professional expert dazzling and overawing laymen. The Sophists of Hellas Proper dwelt especially




,11.]


ANTIZPHON.-ST~1YLE..


21


on the minute proprieties of language, as Protagoras
on correct grammatical forms1 and Prodikos on the
accurate use of synonyms2; the Sophists of Sicily
taught its technical graces3. In this last respect the
teaching of Gorgias was thoroughly reactionary, and
was calculated to hinder the growth of a good prose
just at the critical point. At the moment when prose
was striving to disengage itself from the diction of
poetry, Gorgias gave currency to the notion that
poetical ornament of the most florid type was its
true charm. When, indeed, he went further, and
sought to imitate the rhythm as well as the phrase
of poetry, this very extravagance had a useful result.
Prose has a rhythm, though not of the kind at which
Gorgias aimed; and the mere fact of the Greek ear
becoming accustomed to look for a certain proportion
between the parts of a sentence hastened the transition from the old running style to the periodic.
Dionysios has described vividly the character- Dionysios
on the
istics of that elder school of composition to which ""' 
Antiphon belonged. He distinguishes three principal styles, the austere, the smooth      and  the
middle4. He cites poets, historians and orators who


1 pOop7rea,Plat.Phaedr.p.267 c.
2 pOprrS  /ovoIdrcov, Plat. Euthyd. p. 277 E. On the work of
Protagoras and Prodikos in these
departments, see Mr Cope in the
Journal of Classical and  acred
Philology, vol. Iii. pp. 48-57.
3 Spengel, uvvay. TEXvcV, p. 63:
'Omnino Graeci sophistae, et quos
diximus, et alii minus noti, recte et
dilucide eloqui studebant; et si uno
vocabulo omnia comprehendamus,


Graeci opOoE0reLav, Siculi evEtiav
elaborabant.'
4 avorarpa, yXa4vpd and KOLVA (or
pIfao) dpikovia: Dionys. rept orvvO.
ovocc. cc. 22, 23, 24.  The three
dplioviat, or styles of composition,
distinguished by Dionysios, must
not be confused with the three
h,eLS, or styles of diction, which he
distinguishes in his essay on Demosthenes, cc. 1-3. The dpFtoviac refer, of course, to the putting to



22


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


are examples of each.      Among orators Antiphon is
his representative of the austere style, Isokrates of
the smooth, Demosthenes of the middle. The austere
style is thus described1:
'It wishes its separate words to be planted
firmly and to have strong positions, so that each,
word   may    be  seen  conspicuously; it     wishes its
several clauses to be well divided from       each other
by sensible pauses. It is willing to admit frequently
rough and direct clashings of sounds, meeting like
the bases of stones in loose wall-work, which have
not been squared or smoothed to fit each other, but
which show a certain negligence and absence of
forethought. It loves, as a rule, to prolong itself
by large words of portly breadth. Compression by
short syllables is a thing which it shuns when not
absolutely driven to it.
'As regards separate words, these are the objects
of its pursuit and     craving.   In   whole clauses it
shows these tendencies no less strongly; especially
it chooses the most dignified and majestic rhythms.
It does not wish the clauses to be like each other
in length of structure, or enslaved to a severe syngether of words; the X;eLst, to the  Isokrates Of Antiphon and Isaeos,
choice of words. As to XiELs, Dio- in respect to XIevS, he says merely
nysios recognises (1) an elaborate  that there was nothing 'novel' or
diction, which employs farfetched  'striking' in their choice of words.
and unusual words, lDXXayyvr;, (Demosth. c. 8.) Probably he would
rEptr-qT XCiaL, of which Thucydides  have regarded them as intermediis the great example: (2) a smooth  ate in XEh~l  between Thucydides
and plain diction, XLTr, a4cEXj  and Lysias, but as representing the
Xcts, best represented by Lysias:  compromise in a less mature and
(3) a mixed diction, /UKT Kla, (ao--  linished form than Isokrates.
OTros X~tig, of which the type is  ' Dionys. wepi aUvv. vop.. c. 22.




"II.]


ANTIPHON.-STYLE.


23


tax, but noble, simple, free. It wishes them to bear
the stamp of nature rather than that of art, and to
stir feeling rather than to reflect character. It does,not usually aim at composing periods as a compact
framework for its thought; but, if it should ever
drift undesignedly into the periodic style, it desires
to set on this the mark of spontaneity and plainness.
It does not employ, in order to round a sentence,
supplementary words which do not help the sense;
it does not care that the march of its phrase should
have stage-glitter or an artificial smoothness; nor
that the clauses should be separately adapted to the
length of the speaker's breath.    No indeed.    Of all
such  industry it is innocent...     It is fanciful in
imagery, sparing of copulas, anything but florid; it
is haughty, straightforward, disdainful of prettiness,
with its antique air and its negligence for its beauty.'
It is important to remember that this description
is applied to a certain kind of poetry as well as of
prose, to Pindar and Aeschylos as well as to Thucydides and Antiphon; and that, taken in reference
to prose alone, it needs modification.      It is not
true, for instance, of the older prose that it always
shrank from the display of artificialism. Negligent
it often was; but at other times it was consciously,
ostentatiously artificial. Its general characteristics,
however, are admirably given by Dionysios. It is
dignified; it relies much on the weight of single
words; it is bold but not florid; it aims at moving
the hearer rather than at reflecting the character of
the speaker. Antiphon, his representative orator,
exemplifies these points clearly,-as will be seen




24              TIE ATTIC ORATORS.               [CHAP.
better if he is compared from time to time with the
critic's representative historian, Thucydides.
Antiphon's  In the first place, then, Antiphon is preeminently
style-its
dignity,  dignified and noble.  He is to his successors gene-,
rally as Aeschylos to Euripides. The elder tragedy
held its gods and heroes above the level of men by
a colossal majesty of repose, by the passionless
utterance of kingly thoughts; and the same feeling
to which these things seemed divine conceived its
ideal orator as one who controls a restless crowd by
the royalty of his calm power, by a temperate and
stately eloquence. The speaker who wins his hearers
by blandishments, who surprises them by adroit
turns, who hurries them away on a torrent of
declamation, belonged to a generation for which
gods also and heroes declaimed or quibbled on the
stage. Plutarch has described, not without a tinge
of sarcasm, the language and demeanour by which
Perikles commanded the veneration of his age1.
'His thoughts were awe-inspiring2, his language
lofty, untainted by the ribaldry of the rascal crowd.
His calm features, never breaking into laughter;
his measured step; the ample robe which flowed
around him and which nothing deranged; his moving
eloquence; the tranquil modulation of his voice;
these things, and such as these, had over all men a
marvellous spell.' The biographer goes on to relate
how Perikles was -once abused by a coarse fellow
in the market-place, bore it in silence until he had
1 Plut. Per. c. 5.         Perikles took from 'his sublime
2 -ooapov. The word is openly speculations' (peecopooXo'ya) and
sarcastic, and is meant by Plutarch  'supramundane talk' (ýErapo-LoXeto describe a pompous tone which o-lia) with Anaxagoras.




II.]


n NTIPIIroON.--TYL E.


25


finished his business there, and when his persecutor
followed him home, merely desired a slave to take
a lantern and see the man home1. It is not probable that the receiver of the escort felt all the
severity of the moral defeat which he had sustained;
and he is perhaps no bad representative of the
Athenian democracy in its relations to the superb
decorum2 of the old school.     Much of this decorum
survives in Antiphon, who, in a literary as in a
political sense, clung to traditions which were fading.
Yet even in him the influence of the age is seen.
The Tetralogies, written for practice, and in which
he had to please no one but himself, are the most
stately of his compositions. The speech On the
Murder of Herodes is less so, even in its elaborate
proem; while part of the speech On the Choreutes,
doubtless the latest of his extant works, shows a
marked advance towards the freedom and vivacity
of a newer style.   It was in the hands of Antiphon
that rhetoric first became thoroughly practical; and
for this very reason, conservative as he was, he
could not maintain a rigid conservatism. The public
position which he had taken for his art could be
held only by concessions to the public taste.
Antiphon relies much on the full, intense signifi- eliance on
single
cance of single words. This is, indeed, a cardinal words.
1 loc. cit.                paxvs. (In Ctes. ~ 2.) Cf. Dem.
2 EvKoT-la. Aeschines says that  de F. L. ~ 251: 'He said that the
Solon made regulations 7repl rjs sobriety (o-o pocr-vr) of the popurTCv pTrpCO EvKo-plar. The oldest lar speakers of that day is illuscitizen was to speak first in the  trated by the statue of Solon with
assembly-a-copovos 6r r  /3^7iia  his cloak drawn round him and his
vrapeXOwv a'Yvv Oopv~pov Kai ra-  hand within the folds.'




26


THE ATTIC ORA TORS.


[CHAP.


point in the older prose. Its movement was slow; each
word was dropped with deliberation; and now and
then some important word, heavy with concentrated
meaning, came down like a sledge-hammer.           Take,
for  instance, the    chapter   in  which    Thucydides
shows how party strife, like that in Corcyra, had the
effect of confusing moral distinctions. Blow on blow
the nicely-balanced terms beat out the contrasts,
until the ear is weary as with the clangour of an
anvil.   'Reeckless daring   was esteemed loyal courage,-prudent delay, specious cowardice; temperance
seemed    a cloak   for pusillanimity; comprehensive
sagacity  was called universal indifference1.'      'Remonstrance is for friends who err; accusation for
enemies who have done wrong2.' In Antiphon's
speech On the Murder of Herodes, the accused says
(reminding the court that his case ought not to be
decided until it has been heard before the Areiopagos):-' Be now, therefore, surveyors of the cause,
but then, judges of the evidence,-now surmisers,
but then deciders, of the truth3.'      And in the Second Tetralogy:-' Those who fail to do what they
mean are agents of a mischance; those who hurt, or
are hurt, voluntarily, are authors of suffering4.' Ex1 Thc. III. 82. Hermogenes  stance is II. 62, aXr/a piv yap
(rrept liwv I. cap. vI.) remarks that  Kail tdro dEa6las eVrvxoVS KcaL EX0
aoevorT/g  is a matter of odfdLara, rTLV dyyiyveraal, Kaacpovr,-s Te
phrases, not of ipara, single  6 av Kat yvr7d/y -revy rav evavwords; and that the attempt to  rlov rrpoE;Xv.
achieve oEvory7  by iapara is a  3 de caed. Herod. ~ 94 vvv pE'v
mistake. Thucydides, however, he  otv yvcopto-al yve-Oe rT^j 8iK,, rdre
says, is constantly doing this: Kara_.  Kao-ral r-,v,iaprvpOw Vv' v1EV
cbavcs 8V aVro EV r6j 7-S o'ro-Ta&co  8oao'ral, TOTE e KptTra'l TrV cajX77v.
fKcpad'-e rC0V KEpKvpalWv rrolCKE.  4 Tetral.. B. II.  ~ 6, o' re yap d2 Thuc. I. 69. Another good in-  papTrdovres!jv av' EVnrvoGo-lt rT




II.]


A NTIPHOX STLE


27


amples of this eagerness to press the exact meaning
of words are frequent in Antiphon, though far less
frequent than in Thucydides. It is evidently natural to that early phase of prose composition in which,
newly conscious of itself as an art, it struggles to
wring out of language a force strange to the ordinary idiom; and in Greece this tendency must have
been further strengthened by the stress which Gorgias laid on antithesis, and Prodikos on the discriminating of terms nearly synonymous. Only so long as
slow and measured declamation remained in fashion
could the orator attempt thus to put a whole train
of thought into a single weighty word. What the old
school sought to effect by one powerful word, the later
school did by the free, rapid, brilliant development
of a thought in all its fulness and with all the variety of contrasts which it pressed upon the mind.
A further characteristic of the older style-that ýaoni.
Simaginative
it is 'fanciful in imagery, but by no means florid'-    unof
is exemplified in Antiphon.      The meaning of the
antithesis is sufficiently clear in reference to Aeschylos and Pindar, the poets chosen by Dionysios as his
instances.   In reference to prose also it means a
choice of images like theirs, bold, rugged, grand; and
a scorn, on the other hand, for small prettinesses, for
showy colouring, for maudlin sentiment. The great
representative in oratory of this special trait must
have been Perikles. A few of his recorded expressions bear just this stamp of a vigorous and daring
fancy;-his description of Aegina as the 'eyesore' of
3ploratj, oVroT 7rpaKTope rW daKov-?) radOrxovTer, OVTOL To 7ra0r]qirCiT(
1riov elcrlv* ol NE CKoV'0d.E rtE 8pLY VT  a'TLOL tyyIovyrat.




28


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


the Peiraeus1; his saying that, in the slain youth of
Athens, the year had lost its spring2; his declaration,
over the bodies of those who fell at Samos, that
they had become even as the gods; 'for the gods
themselves we see not, but infer their immortality
from the honours paid to them and from the blessings which they bestow3.' The same imaginative
boldness is found in Antiphon, though but rarely,
and under severe control.      'Adversity herself is
wronged by the accused,' he makes a prosecutor
exclaim, 'when he puts her forward to screen a
crime and to withdraw his own villainy from view4.'
A   father, threatened with     the condemnation    of
his son, cries to the judges:-' I shall be buried
with my son-in the living tomb of my childlessnessQ'   But in Antiphon, as in Thucydides, the
haughty 6, careless freedom of the old style is shown
oftener in the employment of new or unusual words
or phrases 7. The orator could not, indeed, go so far
as the historian, who is expressly censured on this
score by his Greek critic8; but they have some expressions of the same character in common 9. While


1 Arist. Rhet. In. 10.
2 ib., and I. 7.
3 Plut. Per. c.'8.
4 Tetr. i. r. ~ 1.
5 Tetr. n. B. ~ 10: cf. i. r. ~ 12.
6 i/eyaXo'dppov-avOEKao-7Tos: Dionys. vTepl o-)v. 3vol. c. 22.
7 E. g. Tetr. I. r. ~ 10 r'ta tXvr rTs
wTrorlas: Tetr. I. A. ~ 10 Ta t'iXvy rov
dfrvov: Tetr. II. B. ~ 2 dvarporev*S
rTV OLKov eyEvero: Tetr. IV. r. ~ 2
dpXoOlvrs: Herod. ~ 78 Xcpo^oPXiE
(=   AOXCopELi.)


8 Dionysios speaks of TO KarayXwo-o-ov r qs XEeEco  al $Vvov in
Thucydides (de Thuc. c. 53), and
remarks (ib. 51) that it was not a
general fashion of the time, but a
characteristic distinctive of him.
9 The Thucydidean style may be
recognised, for instance, in Tetr.
I. ~. ~ 3, 1  ato-xv--a-dpKovo-a,,v o-0 -bpovloat rTO OvfIovLevov 7 r*  yvdfL":
Herod. ~ 73 KpeUt'o-ov   ' XP4) dcE'
yylyvewoOat TO v'pEpov  3vvdFpevov
EbLE &KaCHC  (T(O'CDeW? TO TAr  vOp(A)v




II.]


ANTIPHON.-S~TYLE.


29


Antiphon is sparing of imagery, he is equally moderate in the use of the technical figures of rhetoric.
These have been well distinguished as 'figures of
language' (oXrjara XE(~c) and 'figures of thought'
(craXo rra& Savola)-the first class including various
forms of assonance and of artificial symmetry between
clauses; the second including irony, abrupt pauses,
feigned perplexity, rhetorical question and so forth.
Caecilius of Calacte, the author of this distinction,
was a student of Antiphon, and observed that the
'figures of thought' are seldom or never used by
him1. The figures of language all occur, but rarely2.
Blass3  and   K. 0. Miller4 agree in referring this
marked difference between the older and later schools
of oratory-the absence, in the former, of those
lively figures so abundant in the latter-to an essential change which passed upon Greek character in
the interval. It was only when fierce passion and
dishonesty had become strong traits of a degenerate
national character that vehemence and         trickiness
came into oratory. This seems a harsh and scarcely
accurate judgment. It appears simpler to suppose
that the conventional stateliness of the old eloquence
altogether precluded such vivacity      as marked the
later; and that the mainspring of this new vivacity
was merely the natural impulse, set free from the
restraints of the older style, to give arguments their
most spirited and effective form.
3ovXOiLEvov dal&KOSs te d7roXXvvat:  p. 485, Bekker.
ib. ~ 84 ol pv i aXXot ~AvOporrot rot-  2 See Blass, Att. Bereds. pp.
Epyou 7ro0  XVyovs EXEyov(y, 1ovroL  130-134.
a' rolE X/yoL ' roo- rT ^pya awr-  3 Att. Bereds. p. 134.
a-ra KaOtro-vai.               4 Hist. Gk. Lit. c. xxxIII. ~ 5.
1 Caecilius ap. Phot. Cod. 259,




30


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


Pathos and  Nothing in the criticism    of Dionysios on the
Athos in
Atiphon. ' austere' style is more appreciative than his remark,
that it aims rather at pathos than at 5thos. That
is, it addresses itself directly to the feelings; but
does not care to give a subtle persuasiveness to its
words by artistically adjusting them to the character
and position of the person who is supposed to speak
them.   It is tragic; yet it is not dramatic.   There
has never, perhaps, been a greater master of stern
"and solemn pathos than Thucydides.     The pleading
of the Plataeans before their Theban judges, the
dialogue between the Athenians and the Melians,
the whole history of the Sicilian Expedition and
especially its terrible closing scene, have a wonderful
power over the feelings; and this power is in a great
degree due to a certain irony.      The reader feels
throughout the restrained emotion of the historian;
he is conscious that the crisis described was an
agonising one, and that he is hearing the least that
could be said of it from    one who felt, and could
have said, far more. On the other hand, a characteristic colouring, in the literary sense, is scarcely
attempted by Thucydides.     No writer is more consummate in making personal or national character
appear in the history of actions. And when his
characters speak, they always speak from the general
point of view which he conceived to be appropriate
to them. But in the form and language of their
speeches there is little discrimination.   Athenians
and Lacedaemonians, Perikles and Brasidas, Kleon
and Diodotos' speak much in the same style; it is
a Thuc. in. 42.




II.]


ANTIPHON.-STYLE.


31


the ideas which they represent by which alone they
are broadly distinguished.     The case is nearly the
same with Antiphon.        His extant works present
no subject so great as those of Thucydides, and his
pathos is necessarily inferior in degree to that of the
historian; but it resembles it in its stern solemnity,
and also in this, that it owes much of its impressiveness to its self-control.   The second2 and      fourth3
speeches of the First Tetralogy, and the second 4 and
third 5 of the Second, furnish perhaps the best examples. In 6thos, on the contrary, Antiphon is
weak; and this, in a writer of speeches for persons
of all ages and conditions, must be considered a
defect.   In the Herodes case the defendant is a
young Mytilenean, who frequently         pleads his inexperience of affairs and his want of practice as a
speaker. The speech On the Choreutes is delivered
by an Athenian citizen of mature age and eminent
public services. But the two persons speak nearly
in the same strain and with the same measure of
self-confidence.  Had    Lysias   been   the   composer,
greater deference to the judges and a more decided
avoidance of rhetoric would have distinguished the
appeal of the young alien to an unfriendly court
from  the address of the statesman to his fellowcitizens.
The place of Antiphon in the history of his art is The stle of
Antiphon
SOne exception may possibly  els o-ov 3ovX6uELOa 'ipXEv: ib. ~ 4  iofc.
be noted. It seems as if the  Iva IIXoorovvrl o-lwv  ro pE o fev TOb
unique personality of Alkibiades  pdvr7lpa.
were sometimes indicated by a   ' Esp. ~~ 1-4, 9.
characteristic insolence and vehe-  3 Esp. ~~ 1-3.
mence of language: e. g. vi. 18  4 ~~ 1-3, 10-12.
~ 3Kal OVK E Or jtV alT 7aLotEvEOa  ~~ 3, 4.




32


THE A TTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


further marked by the degree in which he had attained a periodic style. It is perhaps impossible to
find English terms which shall give all the clearness
of the Greek contrast between 7rrepto8&K   and eLpoJEdvr
XE:'61.  The 'running' style, as elpopJt&r expresses, is
that in which the ideas are merely strung together,
like beads, in the order in which they naturally present themselves to the mind. Its characteristic is
simple continuity. The characteristic of the 'periodic' style is that each sentence 'comes round' upon
itself, so as to form a separate, symmetrical whole2.
The running style may be represented by a straight
line which may be cut short at any point or prolonged
to any point: the periodic style is a system of independent circles.   The period may be formed either,
so to say, in one piece, or of several members (K53Xa,
membra), as a hoop may be made either of a single
lath bent round, or of segments fitted together. It
was a maxim of the later Greek rhetoric that, for
the sake of simplicity and strength, a period should
not consist of more than four3 of these members or
segments; Roman rhetoric allowed a greater number4.
Aristotle5 takes as his example of the 'running'
1 XeV elpo1LE'v (Arist. Rhet. in. each other without pause. Aristo9). Demetrios (Cp/p. TepL rrepLdcov  tie (1. c.) calls the periodic style
~ 12) calls it &jpy/li,'disjointed,' KareorTpalpivev4, 'compact.'
&aXaev/Lpv  'loose,' &eppi,tEv 7  2 Cicero calls the period circui'sprawling'-in contrast to the  turn et quasi orbem verborum (de
close, compact system of the peri-  Orat. III. 51. 198).
odic style. It is also called by Dio-  a Hermogenes repti Epeo-. II. p.
nysios de Demosth. c. 39, KopLka-  240, Spengel.
TLKr, 'commatic,' as consisting of  4 Quint. Ix. 4. 124.
short clauses (6/qpara) following  - Rhet. III. 9.




II.]


ANTIPHON.-STYLE.


33


style the opening words of the History of Herodotos;
and, speaking generally, it may be said that this was
'the style in which Herodotos and the earlier Ionian
logographers wrote. But it ought to be remembered
that neither Herodotos, nor any writer in a language
which has passed beyond the rudest stage, exhibits the
'running' style in an ideal simplicity.    In its purest
and simplest form, the running style is incompatible
with the very idea of a literature1. Wherever a literature exists, it contains the germ, however immature, of the periodic style; which, if the literature is
developed, is necessarily developed along with it.
For every effort to grasp and limit an idea naturally
finds expression more or less in the periodic manner,
the very nature of a period being to comprehend and
define. In Herodotos, the running style, so congenial to his direct narrative, is dominant; but
when he pauses and braces himself to state some
theory, some general result of his observations, he
tends to become periodic just because he is striving
to be precise2.   From the time of Herodotos onward
the periodic style is seen gradually more and more
matured, according as men felt more and more the
stimulus to find vigorous utterance for clear conceptions. Antiphon represents a moment at which this
stimulus had become stronger than it had ever before
1 Blass, Att. Bereds. p. 124:  on the causes of the overflowing
Eine gewisse Periodik hat natiir-  of the Nile, 11. 24, 25. It begins
lich die griechische und jede Lit- in a thoroughly periodic style:teratur von Anfang an gehabt: eine  el  BE'it, I tpqLEapevov yvcltaE raS
ganz reine Xe61t elpoiLvr ist in der  rpoK6Eieva, I avrov rept p  r(  dWirklichkeit nie vorhanden.  gavwcov dwro8;aacrOa, I ypda-ro BLri
2 See (for instance) the passage "'oL, BOKEE' wX7rXqOearOa: NEiXos rovI
in which Herodotos speculates  OEpEos.
3




34


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHArP.


been in the Greek world.        His activity as a writer
of speeches may be placed between the years 421
and 411 B.C. '. The effects of the Peloponnesian war'
in sharpening political animosities had made themselves fully felt; that phase of Athenian democracy
in which the contests of the ekklesia and of the lawcourts were keenest and most frequent had set in;
the teaching of the Sophists had thrown a new light
upon language considered as a weapon.         Every man
felt the desire, the urgent necessity, of being able
in all cases to express his opinions with the most
trenchant force; at any moment his life might depend upon it. The new intensity of the age is
reflected in the speeches of Antiphon.         Wherever
the feeling rises highest, as in the appeals to the
judges, he strives to use a language which shall
"pack the thoughts closely and bring them out
roundly2.'   But it is striking to observe how         far
this periodic style still is from the ease of Lysias or
the smooth completeness of Isokrates.         The harshness of the old rugged writing refuses to blend with
it harmoniously, -either taking it up with marked
transitions, or suddenly breaking out in the midst of
the most elaborate passages3. It is everywhere plain
that the desire to be compact is greater than the
1 The speech On the Murder of  to the elpoFlgr.
Herodes must probably be placed  3 E.g., in the speech On the
between 421 and 416 B.c.; the  Murder of Herodes, sections 1, 2
speech On the Choreutes about 413.  show thoroughly artistic periods:
"2 Dionys. de Lys. c. 6 (in refer-  ~ 20, again, is almost pure ElpoLevr:
ence to Lysias) 4 cvo-rpE"ovo-a ra  in Tetral, II. r. 7 (ditwv  e 'La ro
volara Ka i orpoyyvXcow -Kbepovo-a  OavEpav elvat Trrv vro'lav....EIr Ero
XE'i6,-a good description of the  avrw) the KaTno-rpaIJIEVir] and elpoperiodic style generally as opposed  'evr] are combined.




II.]


AN TIPHON.-STYLE.


35


power. Antitheses and parallelisms1 are abundantly
employed, giving a rigid and monotonous effect to
the periods which they form. That more artistic
period of which the several parts resemble the
mutually-supporting stones of a vaulted roof2, and
which leads the ear by a smooth curve to a happy
finish, has not yet been found. An imperfect sense
of rhythm, or a habit of composition to which rhythmical restraint is intolerable except for a very short
space, is everywhere manifest. The vinegar and the
oil refuse to mingle. Thucydides presents the same
phenomenon, but with some curious differences. It
may perhaps be said that, while Antiphon has more
technical skill (incomplete as that skill is) in periodic
writing, Thucydides has infinitely more of its spirit.
He is always at high pressure, always nervous, intense. He struggles to bring a large, complex idea
into a framework in which the whole can be seen at
once. Aristotle says that a period must be of 'a
size to be taken in at a glance;' and this is what
Thucydides wishes the thought of each sentence to
be, though he is sometimes clumsy in the mechanism
of the sentence itself.    Dionysios mentions among
the excellences which Demosthenes borrowed from
the historian, 'his rapid movement, his terseness, his
intensity, his sting4;' excellences, he adds, which
1 E.g. Accus. Venen. ~ 5 ro0 pv  4 ra rdX-ra 7 v-rpotS U(sTpOa-TO
PK 7rpof3ovXf dKovo-iOEs adroOavo'ror  rdvovE--Ti rrKpdv: Dionys.De Thuc.
r fjT  EKovaiOS CK rrpovola daTroKrL- 53. He adds Tr o-rpv/v6v (which
vaa-rv.                      seems to be a metaphor of the same
2 rEpLcf~Ep.s o-re-y, Demetrios  kind as avorTrpov, and to mean 'his
Lrepi ipf. ~ 12, where this compari-  biting flavour'); and r-v egeyeipovson is made.                 o-av ra TrdO? 8Etvorr/Ta.
3 LeyeOs vcTvorrro7:TOv Rhet. III.9.
3--2




36


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


neither Antiphon nor Lysias nor Isokrates possessed.
This intensity, due primarily to genius, next to the
absorbing interest of a great subject, does, in truth,
place Thucydides, with all his roughness, far nearer
than Antiphon to the ideal of a compact and masterly prose. Technically speaking, Thucydides as
well as Antiphon must be placed in the border-land
between the old running style and finished periodic
writing. But the essential merits of the latter,
though in a rude shape, have already been reached
by the native vigour of the historian; while to the
orator a period is still something which must be constructed with painful effort, and on a model admitting
of little variety.
Antiphon's-  These seem to be the leading characteristics of
treatment
omajec - Antiphon as regards form: it remains to consider his
matter.
treatment of subject-matter. The arrangement of
his speeches, so far as the extant specimens warrant
a judgment, was usually simple. First a proem
(Trpoolp0ov) explanatory or appealing; next an introduction (technically irpoKa7raoKEcv4) dealing with the
circumstances under which the case had been brought
into court, and noticing any informalities of procedure: then a narrative of the facts (qSyr^crs"): then
arguments and proofs (vo-rers), the strongest first:
finally an epilogue or peroration (I'Xoyos).    The
Tetralogies, being  merely   sketches for practice,
have only proem, arguments and epilogue, not the
'introduction' or the narrative.  The speech On the
Murder of Herodes and the speech On the Choreutes
(in the latter of which the epilogue seems to have
been lost) are the best examples of Antiphon's




11.]


A NTIPHON.-STYLE.


37


method.    It is noticeable that in neither of these
are the facts of the particular case dealt with closely
or searchingly; and consequently in both instances
the narrative of the facts falls into the background.
Narrative was the forte of Andokides and Lysias;
it appears to have been the weak side of Antiphon,
who was strongest in general argument. General
presumptions,-those afforded, for instance, by the
refusal of the prosecutors to give up their slaves
for examination, or by the respective characters of
prosecutor and prisoner and by their former relations-are most insisted upon. The First Tetralogy
is a  good   example    of Antiphon's ingenuity in
dealing with abstract probabilities (elKOra); and the
same preference for proofs external to the immediate circumstances of the case is traceable in all
his extant work. The adroitness of the sophistical
rhetoric shows itself, not merely in the variety of
forms given to the same argument, but sometimes
in sophistry of a more glaring kind1.
The rhetorician of the school is further seen in
the great number of commonplaces, evidently elaborated beforehand and without reference to any
special occasion, which are brought in as opportunity
offers.  The same panegyric on the laws for homicide
occurs, in the same words, both in the speech On the
Choreutes and in that On the Murder of Herodes.
In the last-named speech the reflections on the
strength of a good conscience2, and the defendant's
contention that he deserves pity, not punishment3,
1 See e.g. the argument in a circle  2 de Choreut. ~ 93.
in Tetr. I. A. ~ 6.           3 ib. ~ 73.




38


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP


are palpably commonplaces prepared for general use.
Such patches, unless introduced with consummate
skill, are doubly a blemish; they break the coherence
of the argument and they destroy everything like
fresh and uniform colouring; the speech becomes, as
an old critic says, uneven1. But the crudities inseparable from a new art do not affect Antiphon's
claim to be considered, for his day, a great and powerful orator. In two things, says Thucydides, he
was masterly,-in power of conception and in power
of expression2. These were the two supreme qualifications for a speaker at a time when the mere
faculty of lucid and continuous exposition was rare,
and when the refinements of literary eloquence were
as yet unknown. If the speaker could invent a sufficient number of telling points, and could put them
clearly, this was everything. Antiphon, with his
ingenuity in hypothesis and his stately rhetoric, fulfilled both requirements. Remembering the style of
his oratory and his place in the history of the art,
no one need be perplexed to reconcile the high praise
of Thucydides with what is at first sight the startling judgment of Dionysios. That critic, speaking
of the eloquence which aims at close reasoning and
at victory in discussion, gives the foremost place in
it to Lysias. He then mentions others who have
practised it,-Antiphon among the rest. 'Antiphon,
however,' he says, ' has nothing but his antique and
stern dignity; a fighter of causes (dywvtLo-Tr) he is
1 dcvaitaov: Alkidamas Ilep' 2o-  E1LTELv. Comp. [Plut.] Vitt. X.
ou-r. ~~ 24, 25.             Oratt. 8: e rr8e '  Iv ro X\yots
2 Thuc. viii. 68: KpaTriaror evOv- adKpys3 KaU rrtOavOb Kal cLVw6s 7rEp'
nOz 0?vat yevofdevoT Ka a yvotrl rupv evpeo'v.




II.]


ANTIPHON.-STYLE.


39


not, either in debate or in lawsuits1.' If, as Thucydides tells us, no one could help so well as Antiphon
those who were fighting causes (aywvL4ioiEvovs2 in
the ekklesia or the lawcourts; if, on his own trial, he
delivered a defence of unprecedented brilliancy; in
what sense is Dionysios to be understood?       The explanation lies probably in the notion which the critic
attached to the word 'agonist.' He had before his
mind the finished pleader or debater of a time when
combative oratory considered as an art had reached
its acme; when every discussion was a conflict in
which the liveliest and supplest energy must be put
forth in support of practised skill; when the successful speaker must grapple at close quarters with his
adversary, and be in truth an 'agonist,' an athlete
straining every nerve for victory.      Already Kleon
could describe the 'agonistic' eloquence which was
becoming the fashion in the ekklesia as characterized
by  swift surprises, by     rapid  thrust   and  parry3;
already Strepsiades conceives the 'agonist' of the
lawcourts as 'bold, glib, audacious, headlong4.' This
was not the character of Antiphon. He was a subtle
reasoner, a master of expression, and furnished others
with arguments and words; but he was not himself
1 Dionys. de Isaeo c. 20: 'Avrt- -$vveoseor dycavt 7ratpoL-EVovO-cov
(LOWv yE fL)jV TO av'oT17Opv EXEtL /LOYOV  OVK 4eyvO(TaTCI dyCwico-am' av-ECK TOWV
Kat dpxatov, dycovaorT7js ~a Xo6yC  roLcavE dyo)dov-alttotL ' Va~ e/ KaovTr -Vf/L3ovXEVTrLK OVTE IKVLK(oKa V  K)S9 dy) OVOETOvVTES-cLdvTayov tl4Eo-rt.                        vot. The characteristics of the
2 Thuc. VIII. 68.          dycoVioTj7E are rT evTperrEs ro Xd3 It is remarkable how strongly  yov eKrrovOV^cat--KaLawVto  XOyXov-othis image of debate in the ekklesia  &coE XE~Yvey (ib.)
as an dywv is brought out in Kleon's  4 Ar. Nub. 445 Opaacrv, eyXcrspeech, Thuc. III. 37, 38: dyovwoTral 70o, TroX/.Lpos, 't'r s.




40


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


a man of the arena.      He never descended into it
when he could help; he had nothing of its spirit.
He did not grapple with his adversary, but in the
statelier manner of the old orators attacked him (as
it were) from an opposite platform. Opposed in
court to such a speaker as Isaeos, he would have
had as little chance with the judges as Burke with
one of those juries which Curran used to take by
storm.   Perhaps it was precisely because he was not
in this sense an 'agonist' that he found his most
congenial sphere in the calm and grave procedure of
the Areiopagos.
Relio       Nor was it by the stamp of his eloquence alone
feelig 0of
Antipho. that he was fitted to command the attention of that
Court. In politics Antiphon was aristocratic; in
religion, an upholder of those ancient ideas and
conceptions, bound up with the primitive traditions of Attica, of which the Areiopagos was the
embodiment and      the guardian.     For most minds
of his day these ideas were losing their awful
prestige,-fading, in the light of science, before newer
beliefs, as oligarchy had yielded to democracy, as
Kronos to the dynasty of Zeus.         But, as Athene,
speaking in the name of that dynasty, had reserved
to the Eumenides a perpetual altar in her land1, so
Antiphon had embraced the new culture without
parting from a belief in gods who visit national
defilement 2, in   spirits  who   hear   the   curse   of
" Aesch. Eum. 804.          vile and polluted as he is, should
2 See, for instance, the close of  enter the precincts of the gods to
the accuser's first speech in the  defile them, or should poison with
First Tetralogy (I. A. ~ 10)...' It is  his infection the guiltless persons
also harmful for you that this man, whom he meets at the same table.




II.]


ANTIPHON.-STYLE.


41


dying  men1 and,avenge blood      crying from  the
ground. In the recent history of his own city he
had seen a great impiety followed by a tremendous
disaster2. The prominence which he always gives
to the theological view of homicide means more than
that this was the tone of the Court to which his
speeches were most frequently addressed: it points
to a real and earnest feeling in his own mind. There
is no better instance of this feeling than the opening
of the Third Tetralogy-a mere exercise, in which
the elaborate simulation of a religious sentiment
would have had no motive:'The god, when it was his will to create mankind,
begat the earliest of our race and gave us for nourishers the earth and sea, that we might not die, for
want of needful sustenance, before the term of old
age. Whoever, then, having been deemed worthy
of these things by the god, lawlessly robs any one
among us of life, is impious towards heaven and
confounds the ordinances of men. The dead man,


From such causes spring plagues
of barrenness (al tdoplat) and reverses inmen'sfortunes. You must
therefore remember that vengeance
is yours: you must impute to this
man his own crimes: you must
bring their penalty home to him,
and purity back to Athens.' Again,
in Tetr. ii. r. ~ 8, he speaks of
OEIa KY\is. Compare the passage
in  which  the Erinyes threaten
Attica with XtXiXv 8avXXoS, drTEKVOS,
Eum. 815; and Soph. 0. T. 25,
101.
1 oC dXtrmpLo& (which Antiphon
uses in the sense of dXo-rropev: and
so Andok. de Myst. ~ 131)-ol rTwv0


daroavrovT o  wrpoo-rpdoraot: Tetr.
iii. A. ~ 4. He uses EvOvztuos (Tetr.
i. A. 2 &c.), just as the older poets
do, of a sin which lies heavy on the
soul, bringing a presage of avenging
Furies; and the poetical,rowtv
(Tetr. i. A. ~ 11), of atonement for
blood.
2 Timaeos, writing early in the
3rd century B.C., directly connected
the defeat of the Athenians in Sicily with the mutilation of the
Hermae-noticing that the Syracusan Hermokrates was a descendant of the god Hermes: Tim. frag.
103-4, referred to by Grote, vol.
VII. p. 230.




42


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CCHAP.


robbed of the god's gift, necessrily bequeaths, as
that god's punishment, the anger of avenging spirits
-anger    which    unjust judges or false witnesses,
becoming partners in the impiety of the murderer,
bring, as a self-sought defilement, into their own
houses.   We, the champions of the murdered, if for
any collateral erimity we prosecute innocent persons,
shall find, by our failure to vindicate the dead, dread
avengers in the spirits which hear his curse; while,
by putting the pure to a wrongful death, we become
liable to the penalties of murder, and, in persuading
you to violate the law, responsible for your sin also.'
Ase~ean     The analogy of Antiphon to Aeschylos in regard
"Antiphon. to general style has once already been noticed; it
forces itself upon the mind in a special aspect here,
where the threat of judgment from the grave on
blood is wrapt round with the very terror and darkness of the Eumenides.       In  another place, where
Antiphon is speaking of the signs by which the gods
point out the guilty, the Aeschylean tone is still
more striking.    No passage, perhaps, in Aeschylos
is more expressive of the poet's deepest feeling about
life than that in which Eteokles forebodes that the
personal goodness of Amphiaraos will not deliver
him:Alas that doom which mingles in the world
A just man with the scorners of the gods!
-         *    ^    *  *    - *    *
Aye, for a pure man going on the sea
With men fierce-blooded and their secret sin
Dies in a moment with the loathed of heaven2.


Tetclr. iii. A. ~~ 2 f.


"2 Aesch. Theb. 593 ff.




II.]


A NTIPHON.. --STYLE.'j5,~


43


In the Herodes trial the defendant appeals to
the silent witness which the gods have borne in his
behalf:-' You know doubtless that often ere now
men red-handed or otherwise polluted have, by
entering the same ship, destroyed with themselves
those who were pure towards the gods; and that
others, escaping death, have incurred the extremity
of danger through such men. Many again, on standing beside the sacrifice, have been discovered to be
impure and hinderers of the solemn rites. Now in all
such cases an opposite fortune has been mine. First,
all who have sailed with me have had excellent
voyages: then, whenever I have assisted at a sacrifice it has in every instance been most favourable.
These facts I claim as strong evidence touching the
present charge and the falsity of the prosecutor's
accusations1.'
Coincidences of thought and tone such as these
deserve notice just because they are general coincidences. There   is  no  warrant for assuming a
resemblance in any special features between the
mind of Antiphon and the mind of Aeschylos: all
the more that which the two minds have in common
illustrates the broadest aspect of each. By pursuits and calling Antiphon belonged to a new Athenian democracy antagonistic to the old ideas and
beliefs: by the bent of his intellect and of his
sympathies he belonged, like Aeschylos, to the elder
democracy. It is this which gives to his extant
work a special interest over and above its strictly
literary interest. All the other men whose writings
1 De caed. Herod. ~~ 82 ff.




44              THE ATTIC ORATORS.              [CHAP.
remain to show the development of oratorical Attic
prose have around them the atmosphere of eager
debate or litigation; Antiphon, in language and
in thought alike, stands apart from     them  as the
representative of a graver public life.  Theirs is the
spirit of the ekklesia or the dikastery; his is the
spirit of the Areiopagos.




III.]


ANTIPHON.- WORKS.


45


CHAPTER          III.
ANTIPHON.
WORKS.
SIXTY speeches ascribed to Antiphon were known The onvcoI
Ayoe alone
in the reign of Augustus; but of these Caeciliusextant.
pronounced twenty-five spuriousi. Fifteen, including
the twelve speeches of the Tetralogies, are now
extant. All these relate to causes of homicide. The
titles of lost speeches prove that Antiphon's activity
was not confined to this province; but it was in this
province that he excelled; and as the orations of
Isaeos are now represented by one class only, the
KX)pLKOi, so the orations of Antiphon are represented
by one class only, the OPtLKOL.
The Tetralogies have this special interest, thai The etra.
they represent rhetoric in its transition from  th logies.
technical to the practical stage, from the schools to
the law-courts and the ekklesia.    Antiphon stood
between the sophists who preceded and the orators
who followed him as the first Athenian who was at
once a theorist of rhetoric and a master of practical
eloquence. The Tetralogies hold a corresponding
place between merely ornamental exercises and real


S[Plut.] Vitt. X. Oratt.




46


THE ATTIC ORA TORS.


[CHAP.


orations. Each of them forms a set of four speeches,
supposed to be spoken in a trial for homicide. The
accuser states his charge, and the defendant replies;
the accuser then speaks again, and the defendant
follows with a second reply. The imaginary case
is in each instance sketched as lightly as possible;
details are dispensed with; only the essential framework for discussion is supplied. Hence, in these
skeleton-speeches, the structure and anatomy of the
argument stand forth in naked clearness, stripped
of everything accidental, and showing in bold relief
the organic lines of a rhetorical pleader's thought.
It was the essence of the technical rhetoric that it
taught a man to be equally ready to defend either
side of a question. Here we have the same manAntiphon himself-arguing both sides, with tolerably well-balanced force; and it must be allowed
that much of the reasoning-especially in the Second
Tetralogy-is, in the modern sense, sophistical. In
reference, however, to this general characteristic
one  thing  ought to   be borne   in  mind.   The
Athenian law of homicide was precise, but it was
not scientific.  The distinctions which  it drew
between various degrees of guilt in various sets of
circumstances depended rather on minute tradition
than on clear principle. A captious or even frivolous style of argument was invited by a code
which employed vague conceptions in the elaborate
classification of accidental details. Thus far the Tetralogies bear the necessary mark of the age which
produced them. But in all else they are distinguished- as widely as possible from the essays of a,




ANTIPHON.- WORKS.


47


merely artificial rhetoric; not less from the' displays'
of the elder sophists than from the ' declamations'
of the Augustan age1. They are not only thoroughly
real and practical, but they show Antiphon, in one
sense, at his best. He argues in them with more
than the subtlety of the speeches which he composed for others, for here he has no less an antagonist than himself: he speaks with more than
the elevation of his ordinary style,-for in the
privacy of the school he owed less concession to an
altered public taste.
The First Tetralogy supposes the following case. First
A citizen, coming home at night from a dinner-party,
has been    murdered.     His slave, found     mortally
wounded on the same spot, deposes that he recognised one of the assassins. This was an old enemy
of his master, against whom the latter was about to
bring a lawsuit which might be ruinous. The accused
denies the charge: the case comes before the court
of the Areiopagos. The speeches of accuser and defendant comprise a number of separate arguments,
each of which is carefully, though very briefly, stated,
but which are not systematised or woven into a
whole. An enumeration of the points raised on either
side in this case will give a fair general idea of the
scope of the Tetralogies generally.
S I Antiphon is a sophist,' (says  very phrase 'scholae veterum'
Reiske (Orat. Att. vii. p. 849)-  shows the vagueness of this as'nay, in a manner the father of  sertion. Precisely that which
that pedantic (umbratici), hair-  distinguished Antiphon from the
splitting, empty, affected kind of  earlier sophists was his practical
speaking with which the schools  bent. No man could be less fairly
of the ancients were rife.' The  called 'umbraticus.'




48 -

48      ~~THE ATTIC ORA TORS.   [HP


[CHAP.


I. First Speech of Accuser.
Analysis.   1.~ 1-3. (Proem.) The accused is so crafty that even
an imperfect proof against him ought to be accepted: a proof
complete in all its parts is hardly to be looked for.-It is not
to be supposed that the accuser would have deliberately
incurred the guilt of prosecuting an innocent person.
[Here a narrative of the facts would -naturally follow;
but as this is a mere practice-speech, it is left out, and the
speaker comes at once to the proofs-first, those derived
from argument on the circumstances themselves (the E"VrEXVOC
7rto7TetSý) -then, the testimony of the slave (which r~epresents
th e a"TeXvot.)]
2. ~ 4. The deceased cannot have been murdered by
robbers; for he was niot plundered.
3. Nor in a drunken brawl; for the time and place are
against it.
4. Nor by mistake for some one else; for, in that case,
the slave would not have been attacked too.
5. ~~ 5-8. It was therefore a premeditated crime;
and this must have been prompted by a motive of revenge
or fear.
6. Now the accused had both motives. He had lost
much property in actions brought by the deceased, and was
threatened with the loss of more. The murder was the only
means by which he could evade the lawsuit hanging over
him. [Here follows a curious argument in a circle.] And
he must have felt that he was going to lose the lawsuit, or
he would not have braved a trial for murder.
7. ~ 9. The slave identifies him.
8. ~~ 9-11. (Epilogue.) If such proofs do not suiffice,
no murderer can ever be brought to justice, and the State
will be left to bear the wrath of the gods for an unexpiated
pollution.
II. First Speech of the Defendant.
1. ~ 1-4. (Proem.) The accuser deserves the pity of
the judge, for he is the most unlucky of men. In death, as




III.]


ANTIPHON.- WORKS.


49


in life, his enemy hurts him still. It is not enough if he
can prove his own innocence; he is expected to point out
the real culprit. The accuser credits him with craft. If he
was so crafty, is it likely that he would have exposed himself to such obvious suspicion?
2. ~~ 5-6. The deceased may have been murdered by
robbers, who were scared off by people coming up before
they had stripped him.
3. Or he may have been murdered because he had been
witness of some crime.
4. Or by some other of his numerous enemies; who
would have felt safe, knowing that the suspicion was sure to
fall on the accused, his great enemy.
5. ~ 7. The testimony of the slave is untrustworthy,
since, in the terror of the moment, he may have been mistaken; or he may have been ordered by his present masters
to speak against the accused. Generally, the evidence of
slaves is held untrustworthy; else they would not be racked.
6. ~ 8. Even if mere probabilities are to decide the
case, it is more probable that the accused should have employed some one else to do the murder, than that the slave
should, at such a time, have been accurate in his recognition.
7. ~ 9. The danger of losing money in the impending
lawsuit could not have seemed more serious to the accused
than the danger, which he runs in the present trial, of losing
his life.
8.    10-13. (Epilogue.)    Though he be deemed the
probable murderer, he ought not to be condemned unless he
is proved to be the actual murderer.-It is his adversary
who, by accusing the innocent, is really answerable for the
consequences of a crime remaining unexpiated.-The whole
life and character of the accused are in his favour, as much
as those of the accuser are against him.-The judges must
succour the illfortune of a slandered man.
III. Second Speech of the Accuser.
1. ~ 1. (Proem.)   The defendant has no right to speak
of his 'misfortune:' it is his fault. The first speech for
4




50


THlE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


the prosecutor proved his guilt; this shall overthrow his
defence.
2. ~ 2. Had the robbers been scared off by people
coming up, these persons would have questioned the slave
about the assassins, and given information which would have
exculpated the accused.
3. Had the deceased been murdered because he had
been witness of a crime, this crime itself would have been
heard of.
4. ~ 3. His other enemies, being in less danger from him
than the accused was, had so much less motive for the crime.
5. ~ 4. It is contended that the slave's testimony is untrustworthy because it was wrung from him by the rack. But,
in such cases as these, the rack is not used at all. [Nothing
is said about the hypothesis that the slave may have been
suborned by his masters.]
6. ~ 5. The accused is not likely to have got the deed
done by other hands, since he would have been suspected all
the same, and could not have been so sure of the work being
done thoroughly.
7. ~ 6. The lawsuit hanging over him-a certaintywould have seemed more formidable to him than the doubtful chance of a trial for murder.
8. ~~ 7-8. (Notice of a few topics touched on by the
defendant at the beginning and end of his speech.)-The fear
of discovery is not likely to have deterred such a man from
crime: whereas the prospect of losing his wealth-the instrument of his boasted services to the State-is very likely
to have driven him to it.-When the certain murderer
cannot be found, the presumptive must be punished.
9. ~~ 9-11. (Epilogue.) The judges must not acquit
the accused-condemned alike by probabilities and by
proofs-and thereby bring bloodguiltiness on themselves.
By punishing him, they can take the stain of murder off
the State.
IV. Second Speech of the Defendant.
1. ~~ 1-3. (Proem.)   He is the victim  of cruel ma



III.]


A NTIPIIHOY- WORKS.


lignity. Though bound only to clear himself, it is demanded
of him that he shall account for the crime.
2. ~~ 4-5. Suppose that robbers did the murder, but
were scared, before they had taken their booty, by people
coming up. Would these persons, as it is contended, have
remained to make inquiries? Coming on a bloody corpse
and a dying man at dead of night, would they not rather
have fled in terror from the spot?
3. ~ 6. Suppose that the deceased was slain because he
had been witness of a crime:-the fact of such crime not having been heard of, does not prove that it did not take place.
4. ~ 7. The slave, with death from his wounds close at
hand, had nothing to fear if he bore false testimony.
5. ~ 8. But the accused can prove a distinct alibi. All
his own slaves can testify that on the night in questionthe night of the Dilpolia-he did not leave his own house.
[The assertion of the alibi has been reserved till this
point, because now the prosecutor cannot reply.]
6. ~ 9. It is suggested that he may have committed
the crime to protect his wealth. But desperate deeds, such
as this, are not done by prosperous men. They are more
natural to men who have nothing to lose.
7. ~ 10. Even if he were the presumptive murderer, he
would not have been proved the actual: but, as it is, the
probabilities also are for him. On all grounds, therefore,
he must be acquitted, or there is no more safety for any
accused man.
8. ~~ 11-12. (Epilogue.) The judges are entreated not
to condemn him wi'ongfully, and so leave the murder unatoned for, while they bring a new stain of bloodguiltiness
on the State.
A tolerably full analysis of this First Tetralogy
has been given, because it is curious as showing the
general line of argument which a clever Athenian
reasoner, accustomed to writing for the courts, thought
most likely to succeed on either side of such a case.
It will be seen that, though other kinds of evidence
4-2




52


THEJfk ATTIC ORA TORS.


[ CHAP.


come into discussion, the contest turns largely on
general probabilities (Edrora)--a province for which
Antiphon had the relish of a trained rhetorician, and
on which he enlarges in the speech On the Murder
of Herodes'.    As regards style, in this as in the
other Tetralogies the language is noble throughout,
rising, in parts of the speeches of the accused, to
an austere pathos2; it is always concise without
baldness, but somewhat over-stiff and antique. There
is also too little of oratorical life; at which, however,
in short speeches written for practice, the author
perhaps did not aim.
Second      The subject of the Second Tetralogy is the death
Tetralogy.
of a boy accidentally     struck  by   a javelin  while
watching a youth practising at the gymnasium. The
boy's father accuses the youth-whose father defends
him-of accidental homicide; and the case comes
before the court of the Palladion.     In order to understand the issues raised, it is necessary to keep in
mind the Greek view of accidental homicide. This
view was mainly a religious one. The death was a
pollution. Some person, or thing, must be answerable for that pollution, and must be banished from
the State, which would else remain defiled3.       In a
case like the supposed one, three hypotheses were
possible:-that the cause of the impurity had been
the thrower, the person struck, or the missile. Pe1 See esp. de caed. Herod. ~~ 'lWorv els Tr avrb roTs vY KaOapo'i
57-63.                       Tas X-etpas, rovro  d b'wOK0) TvTV
2 Esp. B. ~~ 1-4: A ~~ 1-3.  LKv 70TOV q6ovov tva p 6ofJoLpdocaos
3 This feeling about homicide  yETv`rat r~ aetvrrn. Cf. supra, p.
comes out strongly in the custom  40, note 2; and Dem. Aristocr.
of trying cases of 4ovov in the open  ~~ 65-79.
air: Iva TroVro p~E ot '01Kacral itp




III.]


III.]        ANTIPIION.-WOld{15.


rikles and Protagoras spent a whole day in discussing
a similar question. Epitimos, an athlete, had chanced
to hit and kill a certain Pharsalian: did the guilt
lie, they inquired, with Epitimos, with the man
killed, or with the javelin1?   There was a special
court-that held at the Prutaneion-for the trial of
inanimate things which had caused death. Here,
however, the question is only of living agents.   The
judges have nothing whatever to do with the question as to how far either was morally to blame. The
question is simply which of them is to be considered
as, in fact, the author or cause of the death.
The accused, in his first speech, assumes that the case Analysis.
admits of no doubt; states it briefly; and concludes with an
appeal to the judges (A. ~~ 1-2). The father of the accused,
after bespeaking patience for an apparently strange defence
(B. ~~ 1-2)-argues that the error, the adfapTia, was all
on the boy's side (~~ 3-5). The thrower was standing in
his appointed place; the boy was not obliged to place himself where he did. The thrower knew what he was about;
the boy did not-he chose the wrong moment for running
across. He was struck; and so punished himself for his
own fault (~~ 6-8).-The accuser answers in the tone of a
plain man bewildered by the shamelessness of the defence,
(F. ~~ 1-4). It is absurd, he says, to pretend that the boy
killed himself with a weapon which he had not touched.
On the showing of the defence itself, the blame is divided: if
the boy ran, the youth threw: neither was passive (~~ 5 -10).-The youth's father answers that his meaning has been
perverted (A. ~~ 1-2): he did not mean, of course, that the
boy pierced himself, but that he became the first cause of his
own death (~~ 3-5). The youth did no more than the other
throwers, who did not hit the boy only because he did not


1 Plut. Perikl. 36.




514


THE A'TTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


cross their aim (~~ 6-8). Involuntary homicide is, doubtless, punishable by law; but, in this instance, the involuntary
slayer-the deceased himself-has been punished already.
To condemn the accused would be only to incur a new
pollution (~~ 9-10).
The striking point of the whole Tetralogy is the
ingenuity with    which   the  defender inverts the
natural view of the case. The guilt of blood is, he
says, with the deceased alone, who has taken satisfaction for it from himself.   'Destroyed by his own
errors, he was punished by himself in the same
instant that he sinned.' (A. ~ 8.)
Third      Another peculiarity    of the Athenian     law   of
Tetralogy.
homicide is illustrated by the third and last Tetralogy. An elderly man had been beaten by a younger
man so severely that in a few days he died.       The
young man is tried for murder before the Areiopagos.
Analysis.  The accuser, in a short speech, appeals chiefly to the
indignation of the judges, dwelling, in a striking passage
on the sin of robbing a fellow-mortal of the god's gift
(A. ~~ 1-4).-The defendant argues in reply that, if the
homicide is to be regarded as accidental, then it rests
with the surgeon, under whose unskilful treatment the man
died; but, if it is to be regarded as deliberate, then the
murderer is the deceased himself, since he struck the first
blow, which set the train of events in motion (B. ~~ 3-5).The accuser answers that the elder man is not likely to have
first struck the younger (F. ~ 2); and that to blame the surgeon is idle; it would not be more absurd to inculpate the
persons who called in his aid (~ 5).-[Here the second
speech of the accused could naturally follow. But the accused has, in the meantime, taken advantage of the Athenian law by withdrawing into voluntary exile. The judges
have no longer any power to punish hirm. A friend, however,




IlI.]


A 7N TIP'IH0 X- WORIiKS.


who was a bystander of the quarrel, comes forward to defend
the innocence of the accused.] The guilt, he maintains, lies
with the old man; he, as can be proved, gave the first blow
(A. ~~ 2-5); he is at once the murdered and the murderer
(~ 8).
The line thus taken by the defence is remarkable.
It relies chiefly on the provocation alleged to have
been given by the deceased. But it does not insist
upon this provocation as mitigating the guilt of the
accused.   It insists upon it as transferring the whole
guilt from the accused to the dead man.      Athenian
law recognised only two kinds of homicide; that
which was purely accidental, and that which resulted
from some deliberate act. In the latter case, whether
there had been an intent to kill or not, some one
must be a murderer.     Thus, here, it would not have
been enough for the defence to show that the accused
had, without intent to kill, and under provocation,
done a fatal injury.    It is necessary to go on to
argue that the deceased was guilty of his own
murder.
The literary form of the Third Tetralogy deserves
notice in   two respects; for the      solemnity   and
majesty of the language in the accuser's first address; and for the vivacity lent by rhetorical question and answer to part of the first speech of the
defendant1-a vivacity which distinguishes it, as
regards style, from everything else in these studies.
Of extant speeches written by Antiphon for real
causes, by far the most important is that On the speech n
the Murodr
Murder of Herodes.     The facts of the case were as ofHerodes.


1 Tetral. II. B. ~~ 2, 3.




56


THE ATTI'C ORATORS.


[CHAP


follows.  Herodes, an Athenian citizen, had settled
at Mytilene in 427 B.C. after the revolt and reduction
of that town.    He was one of the kleruchs among
whom its territory was apportioned, but not" otherwise wealthy1. Having occasion to make a voyage
to Aenos on the coast of Thrace, to receive the ransom of some Thracian captives who were in his hands,
he sailed from  Mytilene with the accused,-a young
man whose father, a citizen of Mytilene, lived chiefly
at Aenos2.   Herodes and his companion were driven
by a storm to put in at Methymna on the north-west
coast of Lesbos; and there, as the weather was wet,
exchanged their open vessel for another which was
decked. After they had been drinking on board
together, Herodes went ashore at night, and was
never seen again.    The accused, after making every
inquiry for him, went on to Aenos in the open vessel; while the decked vessel, into which they had
moved at Methymna, returned to Mytilene3. On
reaching the latter place again, the defendant was
charged by the relatives of Herodes with having murdered him at the instigation of Lykinos, an Athenian4 living at Mytilene, who had been on bad terms
with the deceased. They rested their charge principally on three grounds. First, that the sole companion of the missing man must naturally be considered accountable for his disappearance.     Secondly,
that a slave had confessed under torture to having
assisted the defendant in the murder.    Thirdly, that
1 ~ 58.      2 ~ 78.      repel 8E avrbo lpov, which implies,
3 Compare ~ 28 with ~ 23.  as Blass points out, that Lesbos
4 See ~ 61; and also ~ 62, dreo-- was not the rarpis of Lykinos, as it
rpEL ev C~  ra   p rarpiSoos, dreo  was of the defendant.




III.]


ANTIPHON.-WORKS.


on board the vessel which returned from Methymna
had been found a letter in which the defendant
announced to Lykinos the accomplishment of the
murder.
It was necessary that the trial should take place mode of
legal
at Athens, whither all subject-allies were compelledprocedure.
to bring their criminal causes. The ordinary course
would have been to have laid an indictment for
murder (ypaq') f6vov) before the Areiopagos. Instead, however, of doing this the relatives of Herodes
laid an information against the accused as a 'malefactor'l.  He was accordingly to be tried by an ordinary dikastery under the presidency of the Eleven.
'Malefactor,' at Athens, ordinarily meant a thief,
a housebreaker, a kidnapper, or criminal of the like
class; but the term was, of course, applicable to
murder, especially if accompanied by robbery. Instances of persons accused of murder being proceeded against, not by an indictment, but by an
information, and being summarily arrested without previous inquiry, occur only a few years later
than the probable date of this speech. When,


1    tvetJeL  KaKovpylav: cf. ~ 9
KaKovpyos VEtve IeyLteVOv. When the
accused arrived in Athens, he was,
on the strength of the ve'VtaC&,
arrested by the Eleven: ~ 85 dr.-.
xOqv. Hence in ~ 9 he speaks of
ravrrv iv d7ra-yco'yv. The terms
vtL$gis KaKovpylav and darayowyq
KaKovpytia  do not denote two different processes, but two parts of
the same process. "EvM5t~E was the
laying of information against a
person not yet apprehended: dwr

aycoy'r was the act of apprehending
him.
2 The two murderers of Phrynichos in 411 were ' seized and put
in prison' by his friends (XrqOi'evTw
Kal es t beo r7I ptlov d7roreOCvov),
-that is, were proceeded against
by draywoy4t  Lykurgos in Leokcr.
~ 12. The procedure in the case
of Agoratos (391 B.c.), again, was
by an "v3eta.s, not by a ypa 4
6vov, and there was an daraywy,
of the accused (Lys. in Agorat.




58             THE ATTIC ORATORS.             [CHAP.
therefore, the accused contends that the form of the
procedure was unprecedented and illegal, this is probably to be understood as an exaggeration of the fact
that it was unusual. In two ways it must have
been distasteful to the prisoner; first, as an indignity; secondly, as a positive disadvantage. Trial
before the Areiopagos left to the prisoner the option
of withdrawing from the country before sentences;
and imposed upon the accuser a peculiarly solemn
oath1. In this case, moreover, the unusual (though
not illegal) procedure was accompanied by unjust
rigours.  When    the accused arrived in Athens,
although he offered the three sureties required by
law, his bail was refused; he was imprisoned. This
treatment, of which he reasonably complains2, may
have been due in part to the unpopularity of Mytileneans at Athens, and to the fact that Herodes had
been an Athenian citizen.
Date of e  The date of the speech must lie between the
speech.
capture of Mytilene in 4273 B.c. and the revolt of
Lesbos in 412 B.c.  The accused says that in 427 B.C.


~ 85). Strictly speaking the Eu"ete
and daraywy were applicable only
to those cases in which the accused
was taken dEr advro(dppp: that is,
in which no further proof of his
guilt was required. Thus Pollux
defines 'Vsees as 6poXoyoviE'vov
aBtK7jlLaro JIJvvorT', ov Kplo-Ecs XX
rtpoplae   eotie'vov. Agoratos appears to have raised this very point:
Lys. in Agor. ~ 85. But, since the
procedure of the Areiopagos was
so highly favourable to the accused,
a prosecutor would generally prefer the procedure by 'SeV s if


there was any decent pretence for
it. And the condition of manifest
guilt does not seem to have been
rigorously insisted upon by the
authorities. There was, probably,
a feeling that the forms of the
Areiopagos would be in a manner
profaned by application to criminals of the vilest class.
1 De caed. IHerod. ~ 12, ieov ae
&opxoaacrOa' IpKrov Trov LELTTGov Kal
l(cXvpdrarov, EdoXEca aT a   Kal y'VPt Kat olKlc T7 Ojry ETrapcodxevov.
"2~ 17.
" ~ 76.




III.]


AN TIPHONP7,  W ORKSS


59


he was too young1 to understand the events which
were passing, and that he knows them only by
hearsay.   On the other hand, he can hardly have
been less than twenty at the time of the trial.
Kirchner2 and Blass are inclined to place the speech
about 421 B.c.; it would perhaps be better to put
it three or four years later, about 417 or 416 B.c.
On the other hand, a slight indication-which seems
to have escaped notice-appears to show that it was
at least earlier than the spring of 415 B.C. The
accused brings together several instances in which
great crimes had never been explained3. If the
mutilation of the Hermae had then taken place, he
could scarcely have failed to notice so striking an
example.
The speech opens with a proem in which the defendant Analyslis
pleads his youth and inexperience (~~ 1-7); and which is
followed by a preliminary argument (7rpoicaraa-Kcev) on the
informality of the procedure (~~ 8-18). The defendant
then gives a narrative of the facts up to his arrival at Aenos
(~~ 19-24); and shows that the probabilities, as depending
upon the facts thus far stated, are against the story of the
prosecutors (~~ 25-28). The second part of the narrative
describes how the vessel into which Herodes and the defendant had moved at Methymna returned to Mytilene; how
the slave was tortured, and under torture accused the defendant of murder (~~ 29-30).
The defendant now concentrates his force upon proving
the testimony of the slave to be worthless (~~ 31-51). He
next discusses the statement of the prosecutors that a letter,
in which he announced the murder to Lykinos, had been
found on board the returning vessel (~~ 52-56). He shows
1 ~ 75.                   by Blass, Attisch. Bereds. p. 166.
2 Kirchner De temporibus ora-  ~~ 67-70.
tionum Antiphont, pp. 2 ff., quoted




60              THE ATTIC ORATOIRS.              [CIAP.
that he could have had no motive for the murder (~~ 57-63).
He maintains that he cannot justly be required to suggest
a solution of the mystery. It is enough if he establishes his
own innocence. Many crimes have finally baffled investigation (~~ 64-73). He notices the reproaches brought
against his father as having taken part in the revolt of
Mytilene and having been generally disloyal to Athens
(~~ 74-80).
Besides all the other proofs, the innocence of the prisoner
is vindicated by the absence of signs of the divine anger.
Voyages and sacrifices in which he has taken part have
always been prosperous (~~ 81-84). In a concluding appeal
the judges are reminded that, in any case, justice cannot
be frustrated by his acquittal, since it will still be possible
to bring him before the Areiopagos (~~ 85-95).
Remarks.    In reviewing the whole speech as an argument,
the first thing which strikes us is the notable contrast between the line of defence taken here and that
traced for a case essentially similar in the modelspeeches of the First Tetralogy.      There, the defendant employs all his ingenuity in suggesting explanations of the mysterious crime which shall make
the hypothesis of his own guilt unnecessary. Here,
the defendant pointedly refuses to do any thing of
the kind. It is enough if he can show that he was
not the murderer; it is not his business to show who
was or might have been. On this broad, plain
ground the defence takes a firm stand. The arguments are presented in a natural order, as they arise
out of the facts narrated, and are drawn out at a
length proportionate to their consequence,-by far
the greatest stress being laid on the worthlessness
of the slave's evidence; in discussing which, indeed,




IIT.]


ANTIPHON.-IF. ~ ORKS.,


61


the speaker is not very consistent1. One apparent
omission is curious.    The prisoner incidentally says
that he never left the vessel on the night when
Herodes went on shore and disappeared2; but he
does not dwell upon, or attempt to prove, this allessential alibi. If the numerous commonplaces and
general sentiments seem     to us a source of weakness
rather than strength, allowance must be made for
the taste and fashion of the time; and every one
must recognise the effectiveness of the appeal to
divine signs in which the argument finds its rhetorical climax.
As a composition, the speech has great merits.
The ethos, indeed, is not artistic; a style so dignifled and so sententious is scarcely suitable to a
speaker who is continually apologising for his youth
and inexperience. Nor, except in the passage which
touches on the ruin of Mytilene3, is there even an
attempt at pathos. But there is variety and versatility; the opening passage is artistically elaborate,
the concluding, impressive in a higher way; while
the purely argumentative part of the speech is not
encumbered with any stiff dignity, but is clear,
1 In ~ 39 it is contended that  2 ~ 26 XEyovo'Ui ED Ev lv 7
the slave cannot have represented  y7 drreOavev 6 dvqjp, Kdy  XIOov
himself as taking part in the mur-  eW/aXov avrcj  T s rCj KEc/aX7gv, S
der, but only as helping to dispose  OVK EtIPjv rT rrapadrav  c Troy
of the corpse. In ~ 54, on the con- wrXoov.
trary, it is assumed that the slave  3 ~ 79: 'For all Mytileneans, the
represented himself as the actual  memory of their past error has been
murderer. Lastly, in ~ 68, the  made indelible; they exchanged
view taken in ~ 39 is not only reas-  great prosperity for great misery;
serted, but is ascribed to the ad-  they beheld their country made
versaries as their own.       desolate.'




62


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CIHAP.


simple, and sufficiently animated. Altogether the
style has less sustained elevation, but shows more
flexibility, greater maturity and mastery, than that
of the Tetralogies.
speech on  The speech On the Choreutes relates to the death
the
Choretes. ofDiodotos, a boy who was in training as member of
a chorus to be produced at the Thargelia, and who
was poisoned by a draught given to him to improve
his voice'. The accused is the choregus, an Athenian
citizen, who discharged that office for his own and
another tribe, and at whose house the chorus received
their lessons. The accuser, Philokrates, brother of the
deceased Diodotos, laid an information for poisoning
before the Archon Basileus; and after some delay,
the case came before the Areiopagos2. It was not
contended that the accused had intended to murder
the boy, but only that he had ordered to be ad

1 The object with which     the
draught was given is not stated in
the speech itself: but the argument says Ev'(povla Xadpw  rtme pdpjtaKov Ka 7nwTv T Ovrv77KEv. Compare
the passage in which     Plutarch
speaks of the pains taken to train
the voices of the chorus (De glor.
Athen. c. 6): ol ~   Xopqyo' rtot
Xopevrals ey)Xta Kal OpLbaKLta KaU
K~EXXtLa&  Kal iuveXOv 7rapaTIOEV7TES
EV4dXOV dErr rroXbv Xpdvov b(cvao'KOVfLgVOVu  Kai rpv(covTras.
2 That the Areiopagos was the
court which tried the case appears
certain (1) because that court alone
had jurisdiction in ypa(/alt /appadKW: (2) because the special compliment to the court as 'the most
conscientious anduprightin Greece'
(~ 51) points to the Areiopagos


Some have supposed that this case
came before court at the Palladion,
because, in ~ 16, the accused is
spoken of as f3ovXeiv-as r7v Odvarov,
and, according to Harpokration,
cases of poiXevo-Ls were tried at
the Palladion by the Ephetae. But
the 8oVXevo-ts of Harpokration is a
technical term, -- drE'WTLXVTevs, and
denotes the intent to kill in cases
in which death had not actually
followed. On the other hand, the
accused here is said povXEco-aL r'
Odvarov merely in the sense that it
was by his order that the draught
was given to the boy, though he
did not hand the cup to him. No
intent to murder was imputed to
him: see ~ 19 ol Kaarryopot O/xoXoyovato-t F  K 7rpovolas fW~" E'K wrapaOTKEVUr 7EVETyECIL TOp r vaTov.




III.]


ANT IPHON.-WORKS.


63


ministered to him the draught which caused his
death. According to Athenian law this was, however, a capital offence. The present speech is the
second made by the defendant, and the last, therefore, of the trial. Its date may probably be placed
soon after the Sicilian disaster 1.
In a long proem, the accused dwells on the advantage Analysis.
of a good conscience-on the excellence of the court of the
Areiopagos-and on the weight of a judicial decision in
such a case (~~ 1-6). He goes on to complain of the manner
in which the adversaries have mixed up irrelevant charges
with the true issue; he will address himself to the latter, and
then refute the former (~~ 7-10). A narrative of the facts
is then begun; but he breaks it off with the remark that
it would be easy to expose the falsehoods contained in the
adversary's second speech, and that he will now bring proofs
(~~ 11-15). The testimony of witnesses is adduced and
commented upon (~~ 16--19). The defendant goes on to
contrast his own conduct in the matter with that of the
accuser; dwells on the refusal of his challenge to an examination of slaves; and urges the strength in all points of
his case (~~ 20-32). The evidence closed, he digresses


SIn ~~ 12, 21, 55 the choregus
speaks of having brought an action
for embezzlement of public monies
against Philinos and two other
persons. Now Antiphon wrote a
speech  Kara    ivXLvov,-very probably, as Sauppe conjectures, against this same Philinos when
prosecuted by the choregus: and
from the speech Karmt  LXLvov are
quoted the words, rovs re Oras
airavras  rXira  7roto-'at. Sauppe
thinks this points to a time just
after the Sicilian disaster: 'in
illis enim rerum angustiis videntur
Athenienses thetes ad arma vocasse.' (Or. Att. vol. i. p. 144.)


This is quite possible: but Sauppe's
other argument that the fact of
the choregus representing   two
tribes (~ 11) points to a contraction of public expenses in a time of
distress, is not worth much, since
we do not know that this may not
have been the usual custom at the
Thargelia. At any rate the decidedly modern character of the
speech as compared with the De
caed. Herodis warrants us in placing it some years after the latter,
which (as has been said above)
wns probably spoken between 421
and 416 B.c.




THE ATTIC ORA TORS.


[CHAP.


into a full review of the adversaries' conduct from the first,
in order to illustrate their malice and dishonesty. 'What
judges,' he asks in conclusion, ' would they not deceive, if
they have dared to trifle with the awful oath under which
they came before this court?' (~~ 33-51.)
nemarks.    It seems probable that the end of the speech has
been lost. Standing last in the MSS. of Antiphon,
it would thus be the more liable to mutilation;
and in the concluding speech of a trial the orator
would scarcely have broken the rule, which he observes in every other instance, of finishing with an
appeal to the judges. The fact that a rhetorical
promise made in the speech1 is not literally fulfilled
need not be insisted upon to strengthen this view.
In the speech On the Murder of Herodes, Antiphon had to rely mainly on his skill in argument;
here, witnesses were available, the case against the
accusers was strong, and little was needed but a judicious marshalling of proofs. This is ably managed;
but, as a display of power, the speech is necessarily
of inferior interest.  The Mytilenean defendant in
the Herodes case and the choregus here speak in
the same general tone-with a certain directness
and earnestness; but the      common    6thos is more
strongly marked here, as the personality of the
speaker comes more decidedly forward. In other
points of style there is a striking contrast between
1 In ~ 8 the speaker says that he  however, is conditional -"ah "vi
will first deal with the matter at  rop'votv ": and is, in effect, if not
issue, and then meet certain other  literally, fulfilled by the digression
charges which the adversaries have  (~~ 33-51) in which he brings out
brought against him, but which he  the malicious character of their
feels sure that he can turn to their  whole conduct towards him.
own discomfiture. The promise,




III.]


ANTIPHTON.- WORKZS.


65


the earlier and the later oration. The proem here is,
indeed, as measured and as elaborate as any thing in
the earlier work. But it stands alone; in the rest of
the speech there is no stiffness. The language is
that of ordinary life; the sentences are more flowing,
if not always clear; the style is enlivened by question
and exclamation, instead of being ornamented with
antitheses and parallelisms; and already the beginning of a transition to the easier, more practical
style of the later eloquence is well-marked.
The short speech entitled 'Against a Step-mother, peech
on a Charge of Poisoning,' treats of a case which, like tepmother.
the preceding, belonged to the jurisdiction of the
Areiopagos.   The speaker, a young man, is the son
of the deceased. He charges his step-mother with
having poisoned his father several years before1, by
the instrumentality of a woman who was her dupe.
The deceased and a friend, Philoneos, the woman's
lover, had been dining together; and she was persuaded to administer a philtre to both, in hope of
recovering her lover's affection. Both the men died;
and the woman-a slave--was put to death forthwith.   The accuser now asks that the real criminal,
-the true Klytaemnestra2 of this tragedy,-shall
suffer punishment.
After deprecating in a proem (~~ 1-4) the odium to Analysis.
which his position exposes him, and commenting on the
refusal of the adversaries to give up their slaves for examination (~~ 5-13), the speaker states the facts of the case.
(~~ 14-20.)  He goes on to contrast his own part as his
father's avenger with that of his brother, the champion of
S~ 30.             2 ~  7.
5




66


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


remarkcs.


the murderess (~~ 21-25); appeals for sympathy and retribution (~~ 26-27); denies that his brother's oath to the
innocence of the accused can have any good ground, whereas
his own oath to the justice of his cause is supported by his
father's dying declaration (~~ 28-30); and concludes by
saying that he has discharged his solemn duty, and that it
now remains for the judges to do theirs. (~ 31.)
Two questions have been raised in connexion
with this speech; whether it was written merely for
practice; and whether it was the work of Antiphon.
I. It has been urged that stories of this kind
were often chosen as subjects by the rhetoricians
of the schools; that the designation of the accused as Klytaemnestra is melodramatic; that the
name Philoneos ()LX6vO'o) seems      fictitious; that
the address to the Areiopagites as (        8 Kd'OVrTE
in ~ 7 is strange; and      that the   speech stands
in the mss. before the Tetralogies1.     The last ob

1 Spengel rejects the speech, but
without assigning reasons (o-vv.
rexvoov, p. 118). The special objections mentioned above were
advanced by Maetzner, an editor
of Antiphon, and are examined by
Dr. P. G. Ottsen in a tract De
rerum inventione ac dispositione
quae est in Lysiae atque Antiphontis orationibus (Flensburg,
1847). If the speech was written
as a mere exercise, then it certainly is not the work of Antiphon,
who would have treated the subject
as he treats the subjects of the Tetralogies-in outline merely, without needless details of name or
place. But there is no good ground
for assuming that the speech was


not spoken in a real cause. The
story has some melodramatic features, but contains nothing which
might not have occurred in ordinary Greek life. With the designation of the accused as Klytaemnestra, compare Andok. de.Myst. ~ 129, ris av e'lq ooros; Ol&I7rOVE Y Ai-yIpo-o; ' 7- xp' avro
dvopFo-aL; Isaeos mentions AtoKX'a
7Tv (Xv'a, TOV 'Opeo'Ty7v 7TItKaXovpvov: de Cirrh. hered. (Or. viii.)
~ 3. Maetzner derived the name,tXod'eco from  c'iosv and vavs, and
thought it suspicious that such
a name should be given to a resident in the Peiraeus. Ottsen accepts the etymology, but does not
share the suspicion. Even if iXod



III.]


A NTIPHON.- WORKS.


67


jection alone requires notice. The place of the
speech in the mss. is, as Blass observes, due to
the fact that it is the only accusatory speech;
the Tetralogies comprise both accusation and defence; then come the defensive orations1. On the
other hand the prominence of narrative and the
entire absence of argument in this speech-in direct
contrast to the Tetralogies, which are all argument
and no narrative-and the unfitness of the subject
for practising the ingenuity of an advocate, seem
conclusive against the view that this was a mere
exercise. II. The question of authenticity is more
difficult. As regards matter, nothing can be weaker
than the speech. There is no argument. An unsupported assertion that the accused had attempted
the same crime before; the belief of the deceased
that his wife was guilty; the refusal of the adversaries to give up their slaves; these are the only
proofs. As regards style, there is much clumsy
verbiage2.   On the other hand, the narrative (~~
14-20) shows real. tragic power, especially in the


vwso could be equivalent to 1(~bvavs
(cf. XtTrDvavs, JLvpptoavv, &c.), the fact
of a person so called living at a seaport would be about as strange as
the fact of a person called Philip living at "Apyo wrr4'3orov. Lastly, as
to the CO SLKadovres in ~ 7, the great
variety of forms used by Greek
orators in addressing the judges
would forbid us to pronounce this
one inadmissible because it is unusual. But the genuineness of
the words is not above suspicion.
Blass, in his edition of Antiphon,


brackets as spurious the words in
~ 7, 7rcS ov0 7repl TroV7r(, ) &KadCOVTrS-OK etXi'E. One good ms.
omits them; and they seem like a
scholium on what immediately precedes.
I Attisch. Bereds. p. 180.
"2 e. g. ~ 21 rc reOvewrt vL.a  KEXEVcO) Kal T7( it  I)K7PiEV). TLJ6P)poV 'yev'EOa...6.. s Ka' XAEov Kal
o3070elas Kal rTtlCoplav trap vlp7v
r-^vXev...~ 22 dOpeira Kal dre),Xrra
Kal advKovoTa...~ 23 &tiaoTral ye'yvcErOE Kalt fK?5rj0qre.
5-2




68


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP


contrast drawn between the unconsciousness of the
miserable dupe and the craft of the instigator;
throughout there is a pathos of the same kind as
that of the Tetralogies, but higher; and lastly there
is a strong resemblance to a particular passage in the
speech On the Choreutes 1. The conclusion to which
Blass comes appears sensible2. Our knowledge of
Antiphon's style is not so complete as to justify this
rejection of the speech; but it must in any case be
assigned to a period when both his argumentative
skill and his power as a composer were still in a
rude stage of their development.
Lost works.  Besides the   extant compositions, twenty-four
others, bearing the name of Antiphon, are known
by their titles. Among these three deserve especial
notice, because their titles have occasioned different
inferences as to their contents, and because it is now
tolerably certain that they belong, not to Antiphon
Authorsi the orator but to Antiphon the sophist3.       These
of the trea-  o   r.                   t               Te
tises On
Trut on are the 'speeches' (or rather essays) On Truth, On
Concord,
on tes. Concord, On Statesmanship4. As regards the first of
manship.
these, indeed, the testimony of Hermogenes5 that it


"1 Compare ~ 1 with de Choreuta
~ 27.
2 Att. Bereds. p. 184.
"3 See p. 2, note 3.
4 dXjOelatr  X'6yos B:-rEpt Ot/ovolas:---roXtKors. The fragments
are given in Sauppe'sFragm.Oratt.
Att. pp. 145 ff. printed in Baiter
and Sauppe's Oratores Attici, and
in the edition of Antiphon by Blass,
pp. 124-143 (Teubner, 1871).
5 Hermog. TrEpt lECOv. n. c. 11. p.
414. There were two Antiphons, he
says, o(V ES J  Ev EcrLV r  pqrop, OV7TEp


ot (ovol g(povrat, Xoyot Kal tqJayr7yoptKol Kat OaotL TOVTOLS 8ItOLOt.
ETEpoc 'E 0 Ksa rTparotrKTro sKat
odcEpoKpirt7r  Xeyot/vo yeveC-Oat, ov7rep ot rTe rpt TpE dXjrOelaS X'/yovTat XOyot sal o 0  ept ofovolaO Kal
ol 87rtrL)yoptKOL  Kalt  TroXTiKos'.
Spengel proposed to detach the
words Kal o wrEpl oliovotaS Kal ol 8r9yoptsoL Katl   roXLtiKOs from  the
last clause, and to insert them in
the first clause after cpipovras Xoyot,
(omitting, of course, the Kail tfty.
which already stands there, and




III.]


ANTIPHZON.- WORKS.


69


was the work of the Sophist has scarcely been
questioned. But the treatise On Concord has often
been given to the orator on the assumption that it
was a speech, enforcing the importance of harmony,
which he delivered in some political crisis, perhaps
at the moment when the Four Hundred            were
threatened with ruin by internal dissensions1. The
treatise on Statesmanship, again, might, as far as
the  title witnesses, have been    a   practical exposition of oligarchical principles by the eloquent
colleague of Peisandros. An examination of the
fragments leads, however, to    the  almost certain
conclusion that all these three    works must be
ascribed to the Sophist.  The essay On Truth was
a physical treatise, in which cosmic phenomena
were explained mechanically in the fashion of the
Ionic School 2. The essay On Concord was an ethical


the re in ol rT 7rEpL rT7j daXqOElas).
He would thus make Hermogenes
ascribe the rEpl topoovolas and the
rroXLrtI-K  to Antiphon the orator,
and the dXqleOar Xo'yo   only to
Antiphon the sophist. But this is
an arbitrary and violent treatment
of the text. Sauppe is no doubt
right in thinking that its only corruption is the recurrence of oi
8c1xq)yPopLKol in the second clause.
The article had been accidentally
left out where the word first occurs,
and a corrector wrote ol &r07u8yopLKOt
at full length in the margin, whence
it crept into the text a second
time.
1 In reference to the meeting of
the Four Hundred on the day after
the mutiny of the hoplites in the
Peiraeus (Thuc. viii. 92, 93), Mr


Grote says--'It may probably have
been in this meeting of the Four
Hundred that Antiphon delivered
his oration strongly recommending
concord.' (Hist. Gr. c. 62, vol. viii.
p. 94 n.) 'In hoc autem   libro,'
(says Blass, Antiphon    p. 130)
'sicut fragmenta docent, de moribus sophista   disserebat deque
vitae brevitate et aerumnis: rempublicam vero civiumque concordiam nusquam attigit.'
2 Protagoras called his Treatise
of Natural Philosophy dXrOEj~a,
7rept ro7v oroS. The most suggestive fragment of the dXredlas XoyoL
is no. 13 in Sauppe's list (fragm.
Or. Graec. p. 149). Galen ap.
Hippokr. epidem. I. 3. vol. 17, 1.
p. 681 (Kiihn) says:--o"rc  Ka Kal
Trap' 'AvrcT vrL Kara TO 8ETEpoa




70


T7[1HE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


treatise, exhorting all men to live in harmony and
friendship, instead of embittering their short lives
by strife'.  The essay on Statesmanship was no
party-pamphlet, but a discussion of the training required to produce a capable citizen2. Besides the
speeches known to the ancients, a work on the Art
rinreto. of Rhetoric3, and a collection of Proems and Epilogues4, were current under Antiphon's name.
The collec-Sa        I   54
ioofn- Sauppe and Spengel' believe the Tetralogies to be
Proerns and,piogues, examples taken from the Rhetoric; the latter, however, is expressly condemned as spurious by Pollux.
The collection of Proems and Epilogues may, as
Blass7 suggests, have furnished the opening and
concluding passages of the Speech On the Murder of
Herodes, and the opening passage of that On the
Choreutes.  In the latter case the difference of
style between the proem and all that follows it is
certainly striking.


7? 'AX7eElav   o-TLY Evpeuy yeypap2v6 71jv T  7rpooy7yoptiaY ev 7- T 7E j
P706EL' orapv ovv'vycoyat     ey
T   a dEpL LOppot TE Kal rvevplaTa vrIEV  rTta aXXlXOteS, rOre
o-vLorp ek  atrL TO V'80p Kal IJVKVOv7aL KaTa iroXX6, K.T. X.
SSee, for instance, fragments 1
and 4 of the    rEpt dJpovotas in
Sauppe:-d'vaEC'aOat U " <crEp WerTOv TVy ploP oVK EorcT...roXXoX 8'
EXOPaTEs  LIXOVE 0v  YLyV)0(KOVOTV,
aXX' Ealpovs r otovrat 0oGrav, w hovTOry Kat TrvX9. KoXaKas-.
2 For instance, in fragment 2 of
the WOXLTLKOE we have a precept on
the value of a character for steady
business habits-skTjE    LtXOWrOT17V
KX?)OPat Kalt OKELP 7'I-a lpaypara


KaratXEL-  l,r' oIvov TOr;O)EPov.
P plJTptKat rEXvaL.
"r rpoolpta KaL EMIXoyo.
"5 Sauppe, Fragm. Oratt. Gr.
p. 145.
6 Pollux (vi. 143) quotes a word
as used by Antiphon v ra-s P)TroptKats- 7EYPats: but adds-aOKOio-t a'
oi yva-ftac.
7 Attisch. Bereds. p. 103, where
he quotes (note 7) Cic. Brut. 47 for
the statement of Aristotle-huic
(Gorgiae) Antiphontem Rhamnusium  similia quaedam   habuisse
conscripta: - where   conscripta
seems to mean a collection of communes loci stored up to be used
as they might be wanted.




III.]


AN DOKIDES.-LIFE.


71


CHAPTER IV.
ANDOKIDES.
LIFE.
THE life of Andokides has, in one broad aspect, a
striking analogy to the life of Antiphon. Each man
stands forth for a moment a conspicuous actor in one
great scene, while the rest of his history is but dimly
known; and each, at that moment, appears as an
oligarch exposed to the suspicion and dislike of the
democracy.    The Revolution of the Four Hundred
is the decisive and final event in the life of Antiphon.
The mutilation of the Hermae is the first, but hardly
less decisive event, in the known life of Andokides;
the event which, for thirteen years afterwards, absolutely determined his fortunes, and which throws its
shadow over all that is known of their sequel.
Andokides was born probably        about    440 B.C.1,CBtof
The deme Kydathene, of which he was a member,
was included in the Pandionian tribe. His family
was traced by Hellanikos the genealogist through
1 According to [Lys.] in Andok.  I. about 540. The pseudo-Plu~ 46, he was in 399 B.c. TrXEov q rTe-  tarch puts his birth in the archonTapdiovTa E'r r yeyovtr. He speaks  ship of Theagenides, 01. 78. 1, 468
of his 'youthfulness' in 415 B.C.:  B.C.: probably on the assumption
de Red. ~ 7. His father, Leogoras  thatthe orator was the Andokides
II., may have been born about 470: of Thuc. I. 51.
Andokides I. about 500: Leogoras




72


ITHE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHar.


Odysseus up to the god Hermes1, and had been
known in Athenian history for at least three generations. Leogoras, his great grandfather, had fought
against the Peisistratidae2. Andokides the elder,
his grandfather, was one of ten envoys who negotiated the Thirty Years' Truce with Sparta in 4453;
and had commanded with Perikles at Samos in 4404,
and with Glaukon at Corcyra in 4355. Leogoras,
father of the orator, was, to judge from Aristophanes,
famous chiefly for his dinners and his pheasants 6.
The only   glimpse of the life of Andokides
before 415 B. c. is afforded by himself. He belonged to a set or club, of which one Euphiletos
was a leading member7, and with which his address ' To His Associates ' (rp;     ro TOV raipovO),
mentioned by Plutarch, has sometimes been con

1 [Plut.] Vit. Andok. yevovs E-'
rarpai- v, r vd E'EXXdwtKos, Katl dr
'EpfJo ' KaOJ7Ke E yap els avrov bO KrqPVKovV yevor. The pseudo-Plutarch
seems to have inferred from the
fact that the descent of Andokides
was traced from Hermes, that he
belonged to the priestly family of
the KjpvKeK, who represented their
ancestor K^pv( as the son of Hermes (Paus. I. 38. 3). But Plutarch
(Alkib. c. 21) tells us that Hellanikos traced Andokides up to Odysseus; the line from Hermes, then,
was not through Keryx, but through
Autolykos, whose daughter Antikleia was mother of Odysseus.
2 Andok. de Myst. ~ 106. In de
Red. ~ 26 Valckenair and Sauppe
read 0 ro^ / ioD vrarpby rTrwTror instead of 0 TOV dEo$Oi TarpOs wrp0o7a7r3 Andok. de Pace ~ 6.


4 Schol. Aristid. III. 485, ap.
Blass Att. Bereds. p. 270.
SThuc. i. 51.
6 Ar. Vesp. 1269: Nub. 109 rovs
(ao-tavovs ovs TpeFt~ Aewyopar.
Athen. IX. p. 387 A KCOPU08ETrat yap
0 Aecoyopar ws yao-rplilapyov vro
HIdrovos ev Il ptaXye.   Besides
his son Andokides, Leogoras had a
daughter who married Kallias a
son of Telekles: de Myst. ~ 117:
cf. ~~ 42, 50.
7 De Myst. ~~ 61-63. Euphiletos is there described as proposing the sacrilege at a convivial
meeting of the club (elo-ryrfoaro...
rwwtVroTv r7jiOv ~ 61). Its members
were intimate associates (d'rt7r8Eot
~ 63: cf. ofT -EXP( Kaai o& crvv o Oa
~ 49). There is nothing to show
that this club of young men was
anything so serious as a political
4ratpela.




IV.]


A lV~DOKIDES. -LIFE.E%~


73


nected1.   It was in May, 415, when he was about Affair of
the Hermae.
twenty-five, when the Peiraeus was alive with preparations for the sailing of the fleet to Sicily, and
all men were full of dreams of a new empire opening
to the city, that Athens was astonished by a sacrilege,
of which it is hard now to realise the precise effect
upon the Athenian mind. When it appeared that
the images of Hermes throughout the town-in the
marketplace, before the doors of houses, before the
temples-had been mutilated in the night, the sense
of a horrible impiety was joined to a sense of helplessness against revolution2; for to an Athenian it would
occur instinctively that the motive of the mutilators
had been not simply to insult, but to estrange, the
tutelar gods of the city. This terror, while still
fresh, was intensified by the rumoured travesties in
private houses of the innermost sacrament of Greek
religion, the Mysteries of Eleusis.       In   order to
understand the position of Andokides, it is necessary to keep these two affairs distinct. There is
nothing to shew that he was in any way concerned,
as accomplice or as informer, with the profanation
of the Mysteries.   As a matter of course, the author
of the speech against him     asserts it3; but his own
denial is emphatic and clear4, and agrees with what
is known from    other sources.    It was in the affair
SPlut. Them. c. 32. See ch. vi.  3 [Lys.] in Andok. ~ 51 Vq^o_ad fin.                      FPvos T r lepah cEebeiKVV roi S aU2 Thuc. VI. 27 Kal TO 7rpay/Aa  roLt, K.T.X.
FpetLlvos n AXdaavov ' rov r  yap  4 Andok. de Myst. ~ 29 rrept
KW7rXov olEvos E&SKEL ElvaL Kal ErrTi pLyv TrcV fLvaor7ptOv....a7ro~EiELCra,vvoapoo-alc aCta Cvewepw ov opaypd- pot, ovrE jo-/1prfla ovE /~L p~fyTo ov      v aL &J8ov KaraXvro-cos yeye- VVKa, Ka..X.
vqa-Oal. Cf. Isokr. de Bigis ~ 6.




74


THE ATTIC ORA TORS.


[CHAP.


of the Hermae alone that he was implicated. The
first important evidence in this matter was given by
Teukros, a resident-alien, who had fled to Megara,
and who was brought back to give information under
a promise of impunity. This man denounced twelve
persons as guilty in regard to the Mysteries, and
eighteen as mutilators of the Hermae. Among the
eighteen were Euphiletos and other members of the
club to which Andokides belonged; of whom some
were at once put to death, and others fled'.
But there was a very general belief that the
bottom  of the matter had not been reached, and
that the conspiracy had been far more widely spread;
a belief which the commissioners of enquiry, especially Peisandros, seem to have encouraged. As
usual in such cases, the demand for discoveries
created the supply. Diokleides, the Titus Oates of
this plot, came forward to state that the conspiracy
included no less than three hundred persons. Fortytwo of these were denounced, among whom were
Andokides, his father, his brother-in-law and ten
other of his relatives. They were imprisoned at
once; Diokleides was feasted as a public benefactor
at the Prytaneion; and the whole town spent the
night under arms, panic-stricken by the extent of
the conspiracy,-not knowing whence, when, or in
what strength they might be attacked by the
enemies of gods and men2. Andokides has described
the first night in prison. Wives, sisters, children,
who had been allowed to come to their friends, joined
in their tears and cries of despair. Then it was that


1 Doe Myst. ~ 35.


2 De Myst. ~ 45.




IV.]            ANDOKIDES.-LIFE.                   75
Charmides, one of his cousins, besought him to tell
all that he knew, and to save his father, his relations
and all the innocent citizens who were threatened
with an infamous death. Andokides yielded.       He
was brought before the Council, and stated that
the story of Teukros was true. The eighteen who
had died or fled were indeed guilty. But there
were four more whom     Teukros had left out, and
whom Andokides now named. These four fled1.
The deposition of Andokides, confirming as it
did the testimony of Teukros, and at the same time
supplementing that testimony, was accepted, at least
at the time, as the true and complete account. The
affair of the Hermae was dropped, and attention was
fixed once more upon the affair of the Mysteries2.
At some time not much later, Leogoras, the father
of Andokides, gained an action which he brought
against the senator Speusippos, who had illegally
committed for trial Leogoras and the other persons
accused by the slave Lydos of having profaned the
Mysteries in the house of his master Pherekles3.
Andokides himself was less fortunate.       He had
given his information under a promise of personal
indemnity guaranteed by a decree of the ekklesia.
After his disclosures, however, a new decree, proposed by Isotimides, cancelled the former. It pro-,Of
vided that those who had committed impiety and
confessed it should be excluded from the marketplace
and from the temples; a form of 'disgrace' (atimia)
1 De Myst. ~ 68.          Tv pera rov avrov X6yov Katu  r s
2 Thuc. vI. 61 EIELS TOr rrav 7 vVCOooolaSr rt 7T T78O) dn' eKEivov
'Epp/x5v WOVTO crasoa ELvea, r oXo   'AXaKLlLABov) ) e&KEy.   irpax0I7 va.
La\XXov Kal Tr iVO-TtKa OW i7ratTLE  De Miyst. ~ 17.




76


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAr.


virtually equivalent to banishment. Andokides was
considered as falling under this decree, and was
accordingly driven to leave Athens.
This closes the first chapter of his life.      Two
questions directly arising out of it suggest themselves for consideration here.
The speec   First-Does the speech On the Mysteries give
on the
"ystries. the story which he really told before the Council at
Athens in 415? In that speech, he represents
himself as having stated that the mutilation of the
Hermae had been proposed by Euphiletos at a
convivial meeting of their club; that he had strenuously opposed it; and that, while he was confined
to his house by illness, Euphiletos had seized the
opportunity of executing the scheme, telling the
others that Andokides had become favourable to it.
Now it is a suspicious fact that in the speech On
his Return, spoken     in  410-that is, eleven years
before  the speech    On   the Mysteries-Andokides
distinctly  pleads guilty to    certain  offences   committed in 415, and excuses them by his youth, his
folly, his madness at the time1. It is suspicious,
also, that not merely the author of the speech
against him 2, but also Thucydides in terms which
can hardly be explained away3, and Plutarch still
more explicitly4, represent him     as having accused
1 De Red. ~~ 7, 25.         Gr. vol. III. Appendix II. p. 500).
2 [Lys.] in Andok. ~~ 36, 51.  But the words would naturally
3 Thuc. vI. 60 Ka' 6 Pe'v avrd4s rE  mean that he confessed particiKaO' Lavrov Kat Kar' XXowv IqvvEL  pation in the fact. And so Mr
TO rTV 'Epppz3v. Bishop Thirlwall  Grote understands them, vol. vn.
thinks that this need not mean  p. 279.
more than that Andokides con-  4 Plut. Alk. 21 ovros (TilaLos)
fessed privity to the fact (Hist. davareWle ro v 'AVoUL8KW  av7ro Ka



IV.]


ANDOKIDES.-LIFE.


77


himself along with the rest.      It can hardly be
doubted that, in 415, he told the Council that the
mutilation of the Hermae had been a mad freak
committed by the club of young men to which he
belonged, and by himself among the number. Probably he felt that it would be useless to make
a reservation of his own innocence.    No one would
believe him; and     at the   same   time   it would
seriously damage    the  plausibility of his alleged
acquaintance with the plans of the conspirators.
It is very likely, however, that he did make excuses
for himself, such as that his active part in the
affair had been small, or that he had been drawn
into it against his will, or in a moment of excitement.
At the distance of sixteen years such excuses might
easily grow into a denial of his having been concerned
at all.
It is a further question whether, supposing that
the story which he told at the time inculpated himself, this story was true.  Was he really guilty?  It
ought to be remembered that the eighth book of
Thucydides was probably written before the speech
On the Mysteries had been delivered, or the exiles
of 415 had returned; and that, therefore, we have
perhaps larger materials than Thucydides himself
had for forming a judgment on an affair which (as
he says) had never been cleared up1. Great weight
ought surely to be allowed to the circumstance that
rlrjopov Kal vv aXX Tol yevEorOaL. (iparoros det)av ar;"s' os ' oy.dP7 7roXXcYv... o 'AvsoKtIy9s e6rreTLr  /0ace, K. r. X.
Kal yEvoLe Ivo -?IvvrT Kaf avrov Kac l  Thuc. vI. 60.
KaO' ErTEcoY Eo-YXe 7v  K ro-) t +7 -



78


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


the Hermes before the house of Andokides was one
of the very few1 which had not been mutilated. The
explanation of this given by Andokides himself in 399
is at least plausible. Euphiletos, he says, had told
the other conspirators that Andokides had himself
undertaken the mutilation of this particular image;
and so it escaped, Andokides being ill and ignorant
of the whole matter. Now if Euphiletos had a spite
against Andokides for having condemned his proposal, he could not, in fact, have taken a more
effectual revenge. The sparing of this Hermes was
just the circumstance, which, in the event, turned
suspicion most strongly upon Andokides. Had he
been out himself that night and engaged in the
sacrilege, he could scarcely have failed to think of a
danger so evident, and would have taken care that
his own house should not be marked out by its
immunity.    If the number of mutilators was as
small as he states, the neglect of such a precaution
is altogether inconceivable. The conjecture to which
we should incline is that the Hermae were mutilated
by the small club of young men to which Andokides
belonged, but that, for some reason or otter, he had.
no hand in it; that, however, when he gave his
evidence at the time, he accused himself of having
been actively concerned, thinking that otherwise the
rest of his story would be disbelieved. It would follow
that the version of the matter given in his speech
1 The only one-pdovos rTv'Eppow  rcw v iMav6pv tvov o-XFaoeb dKEpatos
-3v 'Arivitrov, according to Ando-  4tAeve: and Thuc. vi. 27 says only
kides himself, de Myst. ~ 62. But  olf 7rXEorot repteKornroav.
Plut. Alk. 21 says Ev Alt'yot w rdv




TV.]


A ND~ OXIDES.LIE


79


On the Mysteries is, on the whole, true in itself, but
is untrue as a representation of what he stated in 415.
The second chapter in the life of Andokides ifeo
A ndokides
covers the years from 415 to 402.    It is the history f415. to
of his exile.
On leaving Athens in 415 he appears to have
adopted   a  merchant's life.    Archelaos, king   of
Macedonia, a friend of his family, gave him the
right of cutting timber and exporting it1. In
Cyprus, according to the author of the speech
against him, he was imprisoned by the king of
Citium on account of some treachery2; a story
from  which it would be unsafe to infer more than
that Andokides had visited      the  island. When,
after the Sicilian disaster, Samos became the headquarters of the Athenian fleet, he endeavoured to
conciliate his countrymen there by supplies of corn
and cargoes of oar-spars and of bronze, which his
mercantile connexion enabled him to get for them
at a cheap rater.   In the spring of 411 he made ,,
his first attempt to re-establish himself at Athens. Athens
He was unaware, at the moment of his return, that
the revolution of the Four Hundred had taken place.
The hatred of the oligarchical clubs, incurred by his
denunciation of his own associates, and the enmity
of Peisandros, whose desire to keep up a panic had
been thwarted by his reassuring disclosures, would
have been enough to have prevented him from expecting any other reception than that which he
SAndok. de Red. ~ 11. Cf. the EIayoy' %vrXowv dreX.
Theophr. Char. xxIII., where the  [Lys.] in Andok. ~ 26.
aXaNCv boasts of having received,  3 De Red. ~ 11.
as a special honour from Antipatros,




80


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


actually experienced1. He was instantly denounced
to the Council by Peisandros for supplying oars to
the hostile democracy at Samos, and was thrown
into prison2. Released by the downfall of the oligarchy, he again visited Cyprus,-where, according
to his accuser he was once more imprisoned 'for a
misdeed'-this time by Evagoras king of Salamis";
but we may hesitate whether to recognise here the
monotony of fate or of invention.
In Cyprus Andokides found a new opportunity
to serve the interests of Athens.        The loss of her
power in the Propontis had cut off her corn-trade
with the Euxine; and Andokides procured the despatch of corn-ships from Cyprus to the Peiraeus.
Hissecon  It must have been in the spring or summer of 410,
return to
Athens.  before the results of the victory at Kyzikos had removed all fear of famine4, that Andokides was again
at Athens, and in a speech in the ekklesia pleaded
for the removal of the disabilities under which the
decree of Isotimides was held to have placed him.
He expresses penitence for his errors in       415; and
lays stress upon certain information which he had
given to the Senate, as well as upon his services in
procuring a supply of corn5.       His application was
1 He says (de Red. ~ 13) Ka'r-  this is a way of fixing the date.
7rXevora Cds EraweOro-6pLvo v7ro rov  It does not follow that the tidings
dvO6aE: and he would hardly have  from Athens had then reached
expected the 'praise' of the Four  Samos.
Hundred for having ministered to  2 De Red. ~ 15.
the army at Samos. Earlier in the  3 [Lys.] in Andok. ~ 28.
narrative, indeed, (~ 11) he says that  4 For a discussion of the date of
he brought the supplies to Samos  the speech On his Return, see
'when the Four Hundred had al-  Chap. vi.
ready seized the government;' but  5 De Red. ~~ 19 ff.




IV.]


ANDOKID ES.-'-LIFE.


81'


rejected; and for the third time he went into exile.
During the next eight years he is said to have visited
Sicily, Italy, the Peloponnesus, Thessaly, the Hellespont, Ionia and Cyprus1. In Cyprus he had received,
perhaps from Evagoras, a grant of land2; and the
fortune which afterwards enabled him to discharge
costly offices at Athens, although his patrimony had
been wrecked3, appears to show that he had been
active and successful as a merchant.
The general amnesty of 403 at last gave him the
opportunity which he had so long sought in vain.
He returned to Athens from Cyprus4, probably about
the beginning of 4025; and for three years was not
only unmolested, but was readmitted to the employments and honours of an active citizen. He was
a choregus, and dedicated in the Street of Tripods
the prize which he had won with a cyclic chorus 6;
he was gymnasiarch at the Hephaestia-head of
sacred missions to the Isthmian and Olympian
games-and steward of the sacred treasure7; he is
heard of as speaking in the Senate and preferring
accusations in the law-courtss. At length, in 3999,


1 [Lys.] in Andok. ~ 6.
2 In De Myst. ~ 4 he supposes his
enemies saying of him--n'oi-rrXeviocavrL et Kvrpov, O8evTEp 77KE~, y^
7roXX') Kal dyaTO S&80oivr Kal 8wpEa
v7rdpXovca.
3 ib. ~ 144.    4 ib. ~ 4.
"" The contest between the exiles
at the Peiraeus and the town party
was not finally concluded till Boedromion (Sept. - Oct.) 403 B. c.
See Clinton, F. H. At the time
when the amnesty was sworn, Andokides was absent from Athens:


[Lys.] in Andok. ~ 39. It seems
safe, then, to conclude that he did
not return to Athens before the
early part of 402.
6 [Plut.] Vit, Andok.
7 De Myst. ~ 132.
8 [Lys.] inAndok. ~ 33 rapacraevdýErac ra ro)rtOLKa 7TpdrTTEt Kai 177r
)/.zpyopEi. Cf. ib. ~ 11, where mention is made of a ypaqi) GEo-flas
brought by Andokides against one
Archippos.
I Three years after his return to
Athens: de Myst. ~ 132. The date
6




82


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


the zeal of his enemies-stimulated, perhaps, by his
prosperity-appears to have revived.      After one
attempt which seems to have been abortivel, he was
brought to trial, in the autumn of 399, on a charge
of impiety. He had attended the Greater Mysteries
at Eleusis; and his enemies contended that he had
thereby violated the decree of Isotimides, by which
he was excluded from all temples. Before the Eleusinian festival was over2, an information to this
effect was laid before the Archon Basileus. The
accusers were Kephisios, Epichares and Meletos,
supported by Kallias and Agyrrhios. The fact that
Andokides was supported in court by Anytos and
Kephalos3, two popular public men, as well as by
advocates chosen by his tribe, shows that his assiduous services to the State, and perhaps the persevering malice of his adversaries, had at last produced their effect upon the general feeling towards
him. He speaks like a man tolerably confident of a
verdict; and he was acquitted.
Little is known of the life of Andokides after
399. From the speech On the Mysteries it appears


399 is confirmed by another consideration. In de Myst. ~ 132 the
offices which he had held are enumerated in apparently chronological order:--rpcorov dv yvpvao-lap"XOaV tH~atrr"ot, TrFt-ra dpxtLecopov
x  "^v  v KHat - OvTr'a, aETaa a s
ElS 'JlTO/OY Kal 'OX vfrlatoE/, Era
raJiav Iev rTE rCVc lepvWv Xpharmcv.
Now the Olympic festival at which
he was adpXLOmpd0 must have been
that of 01. 95. 1, 400 B.c. After
this architheoria he had been tamias; but clearly was so no longer
at the time when the speech On


the Mysteries was spoken.
1 [Lys.] in Andok. ~ 30 d/dKolievoS els T1V troXLy iev  l i TI aVTO) [IVLavrt?] Evb3berLKTa. Neither Andokides nor his accuser say anything
about the result of the earlier EvtS$er: probably, then, it never
came to a trial.
2 The great Eleusinia fell in the
last half of Boedromion (end of
Sept. and beginning of Oct.). The
E&vELe  was laid ra-s eLKca-', Trol.vcrrLT)ploros Tvrot, de Myst. ~ 121.
"3 De Myst. ~ 150.




IV.]


ANDOKIDES.-LIFE.


83


that he was at that time unmarried and childless1:
His uncle Epilykos had died leaving two daughters,
whom Andokides and Leagros, as the nearest kinsmen, had claimed in marriage before the Archon.
The girl claimed by Andokides had died before the
claim was heard; the other was now claimed by
Kallias, who had induced Leagros to retire in his
favour, and Andokides, to defeat this intrigue, had
entered a counter-claim; but in 399 the case was
still undecided2. If Andokides died without legitimate issue, his family became extinct3.
The first reappearance of Andokides in public life
is marked by the speech On the Peace with Lacedaemon, which belongs to 390, the fourth year of
the Corinthian War4. Athens, Boeotia, Corinth and
Argos were at this time allied against Sparta. The
success of Agesilaos in 391 had led the Athenians,
probably in the winter of 391-90, to send plenipotentiaries, among whom was Andokides, to treat
for peace at Sparta. According to the terms proposed by the Lacedaemonians, Athens was to retain
her Long Walls-rebuilt three years before by Konon


1 De Myst. ~ 148.
2 ib. ~~ 117-123.
3 ib. ~ 146.
4 From the speech itself it appears that (1) the Boeotians had
been now four years at war, ~ 20:
(2) Lechaeum had been taken by
the Lacedaemonians, ~ 18: (3) The
Lacedaemonians are spoken of as
having been already thrice victorious-at Corinth, Coronea, and
Lechaeum; and nothing is said of
any check which they had received:
~ 18. The destruction of the mora by


Iphikrates-so tremendous a blow
to the Spartan arms--can hardly,
then, have taken place. Grote puts
the victory of Iphikrates in 390:
see his note, vol. ix. p. 455, which
discusses Clinton's view that it occurred in 393.
Kriiger places the speech of Andokides in 393: Grote and Kirchner in 391; but the data above
mentioned seem in favour of 390:
which is the year for which Blass
decides (Att. Bereds. pp. 282 f.).


6--2




84


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


--and her fleet; she was also to recover Lemnos,
Imbros and Skyros: and Boeotia was to be gratified
by the withdrawal of the Spartan garrison from Orchomenos. The plenipotentiaries did not use their
powers, but requested that the Athenian ekklesia
might have forty days in which to consider these
proposals; and returned, accompanied by Spartan
envoys, to Athens1.     It was in the ensuing debate
-early in the year 390-that the speech of Andokides was made.
This, his only recorded utterance on a public
question, is temperate and sensible.     He points out
that it is idle to wait either for the prospect of
crushing Sparta in war, or for the prospect of recovering by diplomacy all the possessions abroad which
Athens had lost in      405; her ships and walls are
now, as they always were, her true strength, and she
ought to accept thankfully the secured possession of
these. The soundness of this view was proved in
the sequel. By the Peace of Antalkidas three years
later Athens got only what she was offered in 390;
and she got it, not by treaty on equal terms with
a Hellenic power, but as part of the price paid by
the Persian king for the disgraceful surrender of
Asiatic Hellas. The advice of Andokides probably
lost something of its effect through the suspicion of
'laconism' attaching to all statesmen of oligarchical
1 Xenophon and Diodoros say  IK AaKfe8at1ovias Katl drpaKrovs dVeXnothing about such an embassy  Oeýiv p  reto-avro7 rov 'AV8OKtSov.
from Sparta to Athens. But, ac- Philochoros, writing circ. 300-260
cording to the author of the Argu- B.c., is a trustworthy witness for
ment to the Speech, Xt)6xopos pEv the fact of the embassy.
oVV Xf"YEi Kal EXOeWv rovys pýjEoS'0




IV.]


A NDOKIDES.-LIFE.


85


antecedents; and, though he had long cast in his
lot with the democracy, a certain odour of oligarchy
must have clung to him still. At any rate his advice was not taken.   The story that he was not only
disobeyed, but banished1, probably represents merely
the desire to add one disaster more to a history so
full of repulses.
A fair estimate. of Andokides is made difficult by Char
the fact that he was first brought into notice by ads
scandal, and that the memory of this scandal runs
through nearly all that is known of his after-life.
At the age of twenty-five he is banished for the
Hermae affair,; he is defeated, on the same ground,
in two attempts to return; at the end of sixteen
years he is brought to trial for impiety; and his
acquittal is the last thing recorded about him. At
that time he was only forty-one; already, since his
return in 402, he had discharged public services;
and now, formally acquitted of the charges which
had so long hung over him, he might hope for a
new career. His speech On the Peace shows that in
390 he was sufficiently trusted by his fellow-citizens
to have been sent as a plenipotentiary to Sparta;
and proves also, by its statesmanlike good sense, his
fitness for such a trust. But, except in this speech,
nothing is recorded of his later and probably brighter
years.  History knows him    only, under a cloud.   It
was, moreover, his misfortune that while the informations which he. laid in 415 made him      hateful
to the oligarchs, his hereditary connexion with oli1 [Plut.] Vit. Andok. Trel(OBels Kal oUas daKel v ivye.
U rrepti Tjs elprvrjS dE AacKedUl'pozva




86            THE ATTIC ORATORS.           [CHAP.
garchy exposed him to the continual suspicion of the
democrats. One year he is imprisoned by the Four
Hundred; the next he is repulsed by the ekklesia.
It would be an easy inference that there must have
been something palpably bad and false in the man to
whom both parties were harsh, did not a closer view
show that one party may have been influenced by
spite and the other by prejudice. Many of those who
believed that Andokides was concerned in the mutilation of the Hermae must have regarded him
with sincere horror. But on the other hand it
should be remembered that such horror is never so
loudly expressed, and is never so useful to personal
enmity, as at a time when a popular religion, still
generally professed, is beginning to be widely disbelieved. Diagoras and Sokrates were accused of
impiety with the more effect because the views
ascribed to them resembled the real views of many
who seemed orthodox. Besides those who hated
Andokides as an informer, as an oligarch, or as an
iconoclast, there were probably many who regarded
him with that special kind of dislike which attaches
to a person who drives the world into professing
angry conviction on matters to which it is secretly
indifferent. Viewed apart from the feelings which
worked on his, contemporaries, the facts of his life
seem  to warrant severe blame as little as they
warrant high praise. His youthful associates were
dissolute; through them he was involved, rightly
or wrongly, in the suspicion of a great impiety;
and this suspicion clung to him for years. But it
was never proved; and when he was at last brought




IV.]


A I]ANDOKIDES.-LIFE.


87


to trial, he was acquitted. As an exile he conferred
on Athens services which, if not disinterested, were
at all events valuable; after his return he discharged
costly public services, and represented the State on
an important mission.
To judge from his extant works he had not
genius, but he was energetic and able. Hard and
various experiences had sharpened his shrewdness;
he had a quick insight into character, and especially
the triumphant skill of a consciously unpopular man
in exposing malignant motives. There was no nobleness in his nature, except such as is bred by selfreliance under long adversity; but he had practical
good sense, which his merchant's life in exile must
have trained and strengthened. If the counsel which
he gives to Athens in his speech On the Peace with
Lacedaemon may be taken as a sample of his statesmanship, he was an adviser of the kind rarest in the
ekklesia; not only clearsighted in the interests of
the city, but bold enough to recommend to Athenians
a safe rather than a brilliant course.




88


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


CHAPTER V.
AND O0KIDES.
STYLE.
ANDOKIDES differs in one important respect from all
the other Attic orators of the canon. He is not an
artist. Each of the rest represents some theory,
more or less definite, of eloquence as an art; and is
distinguished, not merely by a faculty, but by certain technical merits, the result of labour directed
to certain points in accordance with that theory.
Among these experts Andokides is an amateur.
In the course of an eventful life he spoke with ability and success on some occasions of great moment
and great difficulty. But he brought to these efforts
the minimum of rhetorical training. He relied almost
wholly on his native wit and on a rough, but shrewd,
knowledge of men.
This accounts for the comparatively slight attention paid to Andokides by the ancient rhetoricians
and critics. Dionysios mentions him     only twice;
once, where he remarks that Thucydides used a
peculiar dialect, which is not employed by 'Andokides, Antiphon, or Lysias1;' again, where he says
I Dionys. de Thuc. c. 51.




v.]


ANDOKIDES.-STYLE.


89


that Lysias is the standard for contemporary Attic,
'as may be judged from the speeches of Andokides,
Kritias and many others'.'     Both these notices recognise Andokides as an authority for the idiom of
his own day; and it is evident that he had a
philological interest for the critic. On the other
hand it is clear that Dionysios discovered in him no
striking power; for Andokides does not occur in his
long list of men foremost in the various departments of oratory 2.   Quintilian names him     only in
one slighting allusion. Who, he asks, is to be our
model of Attic eloquence? ' Let it be Lysias; for his
is the style in which the lovers of' Atticism' delight.
At this rate we shall not be sent back all the way
to Andokides and Kokkos,'       It has been thought
that Quintilian refers to the Kokkos mentioned by
Suidas as a pupil of Isokrates; but, however this
may be, the context is enough to show that he
means to mark, not the antiquity, but the inferiority (in his view) of the two men.    When Herodes
Atticus was told by his Greek admirers that he deserved to be numbered with the Attic Ten, he turned
off the compliment, with an adroitness which his biographer commends, by saying-'At all events I am
better than Andokides4.'     More definite censure is
expressed in the compact criticism of Hermogenes:I de Lys. c. 2.              4 Philostratos, Vit. Her. Att. II. 1.
"2 de Isaeo cc. 19 ff.     ~ 14, p. 564 ed. Kayser. 3poCo-s 6e
3 Quint. xII. 10. ~ 21. Nam quis  r' arbYv rvj 'TEXXa'oy Kal KaXoVa1rs
erit hic Atticus? Sit Lysias; hunc arbv o'va rTAv aKa, ovx j77TTr  ro0
enim amplectuntur amatores is- deralvov, LEYAXov OKOV-VTOS, dXX'
tius nominis modum. Non igitur  do-'rerara arpbs rovS 1ratveaavras,
iam usque ad Coccum et Ando- 'AzVoKLBSov p, e7Oq, /EXrTiOV F l.
cidem remittemur.




W


90      ~~THE ATTIC ORATORS.     [hP


[CHAP.


'Andokicles aims at being a political orator, but
does not quite achieve it. His figures want clear
articulation; his arrangement is not lucid; he constantly tacks on clause to clause, or amplifies in an
irregular fashion, using parentheses to the loss of a
distinct order. On these accounts he has seemed to
some a frivolous and generally obscure speaker. Of
finish and ornament his share is small; he is equally
deficient in fiery earnestness. Again, he has little,
or rather very little, of that oratorical power which
is shown in method; general oratorical power he
has almost noneV
The phrase ' political oratory' as used by Hermogenes has two senses, a larger and a narrower.
In the larger sense it denotes all public speaking
as opposed to scholastic declamation, and comprises
the deliberative, the forensic, the panegyric styles.
In the narrower sense it denotes practical oratory,
deliberative or forensic, as opposed not only to scholastic declamation but also to that species of panegyric speaking in which no definite political question
is discussed2. Here, the narrower sense is intended.


I Hermog.?TeplLME64     B. c. xi.
(vol. ii. p. 416 Spengel Rhet. Gr.):
S'AvaoKi'a 7TOXLTLK6.9 MEl)C.
7PpoatpELTaL, Ov' /In'V 7JTLVV ye E7TtrVoya'TO'8Vt I Opcorov -yap E(oTTLv
E-oL. T -X')a FtKal a&8EVKp'WqTOE Ka'
Ta 7roXXa E rcTmVv'alrrTEL TE KaL TrepL/3 aXXE& aTAKTrcov aTaro" ratsLEc'W/4c3oXaZE
XCO)Pit' EVKPtVEtag xp a-Oat, 0OEv Z&6'$
Tto-& cOv'apoV Kal1aX*Wsv do-a~hq`s elva&'
e~rt/JEXElav ac'av'7c~ Kal KOO7-11OV TraP?)
/3pa~vO jxET`TfG, jyopyoT?)Tosre TE (ot-vTC#)E.V  Kat /LliTrot Kat Tn7E KaTa u -
&P a~ELPoTTOE ov Ayov AM' tKal -5'


a5pa Altyove"XIEL, T?ýE 8' Axnv XE8O'V
2 For the larger sense, see repl
18E ^v B. C. X. 7TepL T Oy IroXLt7KOV
XO'yov: in which chapter hie says,
TovTov 86' -oE-TO'YXoyov TroV XLtrmov- 0
/16V CO-7-9 YV/43OVXCVTtKOE0' V0"86 &Kam)KoE 9o e lral)?7yvpLKoE.v.For the narrower sense, see C, XL.lrEp't Tov d7rXcOE T7rOXvr&KOV XO'YOV: and c. mi.
T7repLTrov^) AToE T7ralvl-yvptKOv-. It is
in the narrower sense-that is, as
including deliberative and forensic
speaking only, and excluding all




V.]              ANDOKIDES.-STYLE.                  91
When Hermogenes says that Andokides does not
succeed in being a 'political' speaker, he means
that Andokides does not exhibit-for instance, in
the speech On his Return.and in the speech On the
Peace-the     characteristic excellences of deliberative speaking; nor-for instance in the speech On the
Mysteries-the characteristic excellences of forensic
speaking. What Hermogenes took these excellences
to be, he explains at length in another place; the
chief of them are these three;-clearness; the stamp
of truth; fiery earnestness1.
The first and general remark of Hermogenes
upon Andokides implies, then, that he is wanting
in these qualities. The special remarks which follow
develop it. They refer partly to his arrangement of
subject-matter, partly to his style of diction. He
is said to have little 'power' (or ' cleverness') 'of
method'; that is, little tact in seeing where, and
how, each topic should be brought in2; he 'amplifies3'


epideiktic speaking, on whatever
subject-that?TroXrLKO, X6yos is
generally used: see e.g. the PproptKo) rpOs 'AX$avipov, c. I. (Spengel),
(Uo yE'Y TOW TrokXrtLKv eLoTL Xyac)v,
TO JYev 8771)yopLKOV TO  E 7N KaVLKo'v.,
Cf. Isok. Karma o-o. ~ 19.
1 See 7rEpt l. B. c. x. passim: esp.
ad init. OC/aI TOLVv  ev &E  rT&  roWtOVTr) Xoyco 1rXeovaewtv pev del rov re
T1rv (rap rvesav 7rotovVra TrVITOV KaL
TO 'OLK'OVr TE Kal aX&I0rj Kal,.L7Ta TOVrovV rbv yopyov.
2 The distinction drawn by Hermogenes in his criticism upon Andokides between 4 Kara pELo8oov E tvo'Trs, and what he calls 4 a'XX aELvo'7TqS is explained by his own wri

tings. His treatise Iepi  peLOoov
8vwdoTros discusses the proper occasion (Katpos ''atos c. I.) for using
the various figures and arts of rhetoric. It is a treatise upon Rhetorical Tact. By 4 i'XX fevoTqVr
he means simply what he speaks
of in VrepL 18. B. c. XI., rept 8ELvwdrjrov:-oratorical power in the largest and most general sense, including all particular excellences whatsoever.
7 rept,3aXet. Hermogenes uses
the terms vreptLoXr, rpepd\eXXrv in
a special technical sense, for which
it is difficult to find any precise
English   equivalent. 'Amplification' perhaps comes nearest. There


0




92


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


unnecessarily, by detailing circumstances unnecessary
for his point; he obscures the order of his ideas by
frequent parentheses, or by adding, as an afterthought, something which ought to have come earlier.
As regards diction, in the first place his 'figures' are
said to be 'wanting in clear articulation' (dSidpfpowra).
Hermogenes elsewherel enumerates thirteen 'figures'
of rhetoric, which are either certain fixed modes of
framing sentences, such as the antithesis and the
period; or (in the phrase of Caecilius) 'figures of
thought,' such as irony and dilemma 2. Hermogenes
means that Andokides does not use 'figures' of
either sort with precision; he does not work them
out to an incisive distinctness; he leaves them 'inarticulate '-still in the rough, and with their outlines dull.  Again Andokides has little 'finish' (EmLPdXEca)-a term by which his critic means refinement
and smoothness in composition3. Lastly, Andokides
is said to be wanting in 'fiery earnestness.' The
word yopyonTr, which we have attempted thus to
paraphrase, plays a very important point in the
rhetorical terminology of Hermogenes: it describes
one of the three cardinal excellences of 'political'
are two sorts of rEppfoXý: (1) Kar'  1 Hermog. 7rpt evpEo-ECOv A.Evvotav-when some special state- Ch. I. is Trepl X'yov o-XLLdrov in
ment is prefaced by a general genera: cc. n.-xiv. discuss the
statement: e.g. wovrqpov 6 ' ovKa- several exrj7/ara.
dvry dl 7 roiro 7 a al e bVOe Klva3os  2 See supra, p. 29.
rdvOp7rr&6v der: (2) Kar h\ XeV,  3 See the chapter rept ET7iLeXeaS
when a fact is related with all Kalt Kadov,Hermog. rEpt L. A.c. XII,
its attendant circumstances: e.g. where he opposes KadXXos r Kal EVv7OXOI?1ad Xov PopyroEtL' wore; rpLrov  pv8QOla to TO a ieXE s Kal dppvOlpov:
TOE r0ovrlT roi; E  EKKX'Io-ta. &ia and observes,,rXeotv e rI TiE ETilT7; 0V KrLOeaTrKoror Xoplyo, K.T.X, ep K./XE   TO Kaa XXS o xovLv al
See Herm. repl 18. A. C. XI.  ptKpal rciv XecwOv Kai 6i' dliyuv




V.]


A NDOKIDES.-STYLE.


oratory1. Perhaps no simple English equivalent can
be found for it. But Hermogenes has explained
clearly what he means by it. He means earnest
feeling, especially indignation, uttered in terse, intense, sometimes abrupt language.       It is to a strong
and   noble emotion what 'keenness' (8o'rrT) and
'tartness' (SpqkVrs) are to a lower kind of eagerness.
The lofty invectives of Demosthenes against Philip
supply Hermogenes with his best examples of it2.
We have now      seen the worst that can be said
of Andokides from the point of view of the technical
Rhetoric; and it must be allowed that, from         that
point of view, the condemnation is tolerably complete.  Now the canon of the Ten Attic Orators was
probably drawn up at the time when scholastic
rhetoric was most flourishing, and when, therefore,
the standard of criticism used by Hermogenes and
Herodes was the common one. It may seem surprising, then, that Andokides was numbered in the
decad at all. Kritias, his contemporary, whom so
many ancient writers praise highly, might be supposed to have had stronger claims; and the fact
that the memory of Kritias as a statesman was hateful, is not enough in itself to explain his exclusion
C0vyKELqLvaL ovXXapG3t' oov, rrep  of slackness and languor (ro dveaT70 rTS d KoVCEV v/La OS ~o Be1 /ElvoV Kal Trnlov):-that it usually
(from Dem. de Coron. ~ 2). So  expresses itself in the trenchant
the use of short, simple words  style(h (& roV rpTTKOVl yiveravrvrov).
may be a mark of 7irpiXkresa-show- He cites as examples of yopyo'rT
ing how the notion of refinement the opening of the Third Philippic:
comes into it.                also de Coron. ~ 10, E'rO rolvvY o0vros
1 repi 1. B. c. x. ad init.  o irpcros: K. r.X., and several other
2 See the chapter Trepl yopydrq- passages from the same speech;
Tro (Vre p 1. B. c. i.). He there  de falsa Legat. ~ 24, rl yap Kal
says that yopydr0 is the opposite  0ovX6EooLK.T. X.




94


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


from a literary group1. Probably one reason, at least,
for the preference given to Andokides was the great
interest of the subjects upon which he spoke.       The
speech on the Mysteries, supplying, as it does, the
picturesque details of a memorable event, had an
intrinsic value quite apart from its merits as a composition.   The speech On the Peace with Lacedaemon, again, gives a clear picture of a crisis in the
Corinthian War; and is an illustration, almost unique
in its way, of Athenian history at the time just after
the rebuilding of the walls by Konon, when, for the
first time since Aegospotami, Athenian visions of
empire were beginning      to revive.    As Lykurgos
seems to have owed his place among the Ten chiefly
to his prominence as a patriot, so Andokides may
have been recommended partly by his worth as an
indirect historian. Again, Dionysios, as we have
seen, recognised at least the philological value of
Andokides. It is further possible that even rhetoricians of the schools may have found him interesting
as an example of merely natural eloquence coming
between two opposite styles of art; between the
formal grandeur of Antiphon and the studied ease
of Lysias.
~e     of   It is a result of the precision with which the art
iticm   of rhetoric was systematized in the Greek and Roupon
oatory.  man schools that much of the ancient criticism upon
Unjust to
Andokdes. oratory is tainted by a radical vice.    The ancient
critics too often confound literary merit with oratori1 K.O. Miller says (Hist. Gr.Lit. was not rather enrolled among the
c. xxxIi.Vol. ii.p. 115n., ed. Donald- Ten; but perhaps his having been
son) ' It is surprising that Kritias one of the Thirty stood in his way.'




V.]


V.]       ~ANDOKIDES.-~STYLE.               5


95ý


cal merit. They judge too much from the standpoint
of the reader, and too little from the standpoint of
the hearer. They analyse special features of language and of method; they determine with nicety
the rank of each man as a composer; but they too
often forget that, for the just estimation of his rank
as a speaker, the first thing necessary is an effort
of imaginative sympathy. We must not merely
analyse his style; we must try to realise the effect
which some one of his speeches, as a whole, would
have made on a given audience in given circumstances. As nearly all the great orators of antiquity
had been trained in the rudiments of the technical
rhetoric, the judgment upon their relative merits
is not, as a rule, much disturbed by this tendency
in their critics. It may often, indeed, be felt that
the judgment, however fair in itself, is based too
much upon literary grounds. But, in most cases,
so far as we can judge, no great injustice is done.
Criticism of this kind may, however, happen to be
unjust; and it has certainly been unjust in the
case of Andokides. Others far excel him in finish
of style, in  clearness of arrangement, in force
and in fire; but no one can read        the speech
On the Mysteries (for instance) without feeling
that Andokides was a real orator. The striking
thing  in  that speech   is a   certain  undefinable
tone which assures even the modern reader that
Andokides was saying the right things to the
judges, and knew himself to be saying the right
things.   He is, in places, obscure or diffuse; he
sometimes wanders from the issue, once or twice




96


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


into trivial gossip; but throughout there is this glow
of a conscious sympathy with his hearers. He may
not absolutely satisfy the critics; but he was persuading, and he felt with triumph that he was
persuading, the judges.
Fou,        It is somewhat difficult to analyse the style of
given to
the style of a speaker whose real strength lay in a natural vigour
Andokides                             a
by the  directed by a rough tact; and who, in comparison
author of
"arc    with other Greek orators, cared little for literary
Plutarchic
I6.     form.   An attempt at such an analysis may, however, start from the four epithets given to Andokides
in  the Plutarchic Life1.     He is there said to be
'simple' (dTrAXoS); 'inartificial in arrangement' (dKardo-KEvoS); 'plain' (dcEX4); and 'sparing of figures'
(do-Xy raToro&).  The first two epithets apparently
refer to the order in which his thoughts are marshalled; the last two, to the manner in which they
are expressed. We will first speak of the latter,
and then come back to the former.
The diction  The sense in which the diction      of Andokides
of Ando-,plain'  is  plain' will be best understood by a comparison
with Antiphon and Lysias.        Antiphon consciously
strives to rise above the language of daily life; he
seeks to impress by a display of art.      Lysias carefully confines himself to the language of daily life;
he seeks to persuade by the use of hidden art.
Andokides usually employs the language of daily
life; he is free, or almost free, from the archaisms
of Antiphon, and writes in the new-Attic dialect,
the dialect of Lysias and his successors2. On the
1 [Plut.] vit. Andok. ~ 15, 4frt Xoyoyt, d(cEX~s TE Kal d'orxqLar'toros.
&s EwrXoO K aldKarda-KEvo V Tv ro  2 As exceptions may be noted




V.]


ANDOKIDES.-STYLE.


97


other hand, he does not confine himself to a rigid
simplicity. In his warmer or more vigorous passages, especially of invective or of intreaty, he often
employs phrases or expressions borrowed from the
idiom of Tragedy1. These, being of too decidedly
poetical a colour, have a tawdry effect; yet it is
evident that they have come straight from        the
memory to    the lips; they are quite unlike prepared fine things; and they remind us, in fact, how
really natural a speaker was Andokides,-neither
aiming, as a rule, at ornament, nor avoiding it on
principle when it came to him.       The 'plainness'
of Lysias is an even, subtle, concise plainness, so
scrupulous to imitate nature that nature is never


suffered to break out; the
is that of a man who,
the frequent use of the formula
TroV p/,E.. ro ro M E (e. g. de Myst.
~ 103: de Red. ~ 16: de Pace ~ 40):
and of the dative ol-avoided, as a
rule, by the other orators: e.g. de
Myst. ~~ 15, 38, 40, 41, 42, etc.
1 E.g. De Myst. ~ 29,.ol dXOyo
TC)V KarTrydpcpv ravra Tr 7 eava Kal
(p K0'r) dvwpOpia~ov: (cf. Aesch.
Choeph. 271, Eop&Otawv wroXXa.)
Ib. ~ 67, rloT rv Trdv  dv-apos7rotS
adrt-rordaTrv. Ib. ~ 68, Op&o-t rov
itlov rob o(s-a phrase which,
however, occurs also in the fragment of the speech of Lykurgos
against Lysikles. Ib. ~ 99, J o'VKodavTa Kai E7rirpt7rTov Kivabos: (cf.
Soph. Ai. 104, TrovrrpLrrov Kivaaos.) Ib. ~ 146 (yevos) olXera wav
rrpopptov: (cf. Soph. El. 765 7rpopptiov...(bO0apTra yEvov.) De Pace,
~ 34, 'elpnv rrc p":,cf. Arist. Poet.


' plainness' of Andokides
with little rhetorical or
c. 22, where the collocation 'AL'XXews rErpt instead of replt 'AXlXXeao
is specially instanced as a violation
of the idiom (&8tdiroq) of ordinary
life. Add to these examples the
use of the poetical (pevc^v in
De Red. ~ 7, rotav'rlv VVcfL(opav
rTSV  ppevcov: which, however, occurs also in the peroration of Demosth. de Corona, ~ 324, rTOVTro
/EXTio) rva vow Kal opEVas evEel7rTE. Both instances, perhaps, come
under the principle of Aristotle
(Rhet. 1iI. 7. ~ 11) that unusual or
poetical words pdXto-rra dpfoTdrrT
Xeyovrt 7ra0rirttas. The writer of
the speech car' "AXKt4tiov has imitated the tragic vein which appears
in the genuine speeches of Andok,
ides: ~ 22, 7rapavolpdripos Alyio-0ov yEyovev. Cf. ~ 23.


7




98


THAE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CItAP.


literary culture, followed chiefly his own instinct in
speaking. Lysias had at his command all the resources of technical rhetoric, but so      used them
towards producing a sober, uniform effect that his
art is scarcely felt at any particular point; it is
felt only in the impression made by the whole.
Andokides had few of such resources. As his bioand     grapher says, he is 'sparing of figures.'    Here the
sparing of
figures  distinction already noticed between 'figures of lanT"'tTo.)  guage' and 'figures of thought' must be kept in
mind. Andokides uses scarcely at all the 'figures
of language': that is, he seldom employs antitheses
-aims at parallelism between the forms of two
sentences -  or studies the niceties of assonance1.
His neglect of such refinements -which, in his day,
constituted the essence of oratorical art, and which
must have been more or less cultivated by nearly
all public speakers-has one noticeable effect on his
composition. There is no necessary connection between an antithetical and a periodic style.       But,
in the time of Andokides, almost the only period
in use was that which is formed by the antithesis


1 In technical language, he
seldom  attempts, (1) davrlTOers,
the opposition  of words, or of
ideas, or of both, in the two corresponding clauses of a sentence:
(2) iraplo-co-t, a general correspondence between theforms of two sentences or clauses: (3) rrapopotloo-s,
correspondence of sound between
words in the same sentence. See
on these, Mr Sandys's ed. of Isokr.
Ad Demonicum, and Panegyricus,
p. xiv. One special form of 7rapo

I/olocn-, viz. 6oiLtoreXVtrov, OCcurs
e.g. in Andok. De Pace, ~ 2, &6
Tre 71yV d rELpav 70ov epyov ad rTE TTV
EKEclvav  a7mrotav: another special
form, viz. irapqtxao'tr, e.g. in De
Red. ~ 24, el yap o'ra ol avOpwrrot
rr yvydji daLapTrvovaot, r O acra avT70V 411 aTtov e' n, K...X.: where
there is a general resemblance of
sound between yvdpr and o-aca.
But such artifices, so common in
the other orators, are rare and
exceptional in Andokides.




v.i


ANDOKIDES.-STYLE.


99


or parallelism of clauses.  Hence, since he rarely
uses antitheses or parallelisms, Andokides composes
far less in a periodic style than Thucydides or
Antiphon or even Lysias.   His sentences, in the
absence of that framework, are constantly sprawling
to a clumsy length; they are confused by parentheses, or deformed by supplementary clauses, till
the main thread of the sense is often almost lost1.
But while he thus dispenses with the ornamental
'figures of language,' Andokides uses largely those
so-called 'figures of thought' which give life to a
speech; -irony-indignant question, and the like2


" See e.g. De Myst. ~ 57: el tV)
"yr  av vo-  " " rpov e'AE'o'at, 'A
yap?l IVoLv TO ETEPOY Ere  EOOaL, E77
KaXck6 calroXVo-7aL i7 aitxp5s co  vOTLo,
feXOt aV T  elel KaKtav eLvatL Ta yetva/Iea  K atroL 7o Xolt AV Ka TOv"TO"ELXOvro, T '  7V 7VEpL 7rXwEloVV rroLýoa/p1EVro 70Tal) KCXO)  oaveV*  7ov
V 7TourV rO E'aVrtLTaToV 7q v,(TaI)7r(T7avTt /1Ev alro) TE ataXto Ta aroXE'O-dac /L7B7v i'a-e/j3o-avrlET, ET  JEN TO
rarEpa rEpLtBEllt drOXod/lCVOVl KeEl Tov
K7irEor?77v  Kat ToUV OvyyEVEL Kal avE%        I           3adrve os  dE,,  'Xdq1/LOV. VTOTOVTOV9, OVV Ov&E taIraXXVEV 7 E)- /y17 EL7rIO () anErepOL,E1apTOl. I ACOKXEi'7E /1E'V yap 1JtEVo-Ea'evog 9E"8qTEV 0VTOVS, (0oT77pla Ie avn3Tv
aXX7 oV&8E4l 7a  ' 9 P rvOEo-aLE 'AOqvalovE 7TaEvrar a rpaXOEvra- (overV
ov1v avT(ov EylyVO/L7V EyO / 477 El7(Ol
v/.zV a llKoVaa.,
Here the parenthesis, KalTro 7roXXol...TOV^ KaXo0 5s  roOaveLv, first of
all disturbs the original plan of the
antithesis; this plan is resumed by
the words Wrov     7T EVoEvarTEraTov,v: but then the speaker goes off
into a new antithesis, oatoworavrTe
P-V, K..A., which is never corn

pleted; for the clause ovis oV'aEEE
dEZ;XXvev 7 Ey7', K.T.X. leads to a
new parenthesis in explanation,
AEOKXEltaE /1PEV yap...7B -7rpaXOEVra:
and the final clause, 4ovrlv ovY avTrV yyOYIL7LlVq, K.T.X., is a conclusion
drawn from this parenthesis, not
the proper completion of that second member of the original antithesis which the words 0rrov aE 7
ivavrTcorwTrov 77v commenced.
This is a strong example; but it
is typical of the perplexity in which
many passages of Andokides are
involved through the same causeimperfect or careless structure of
antithesis.
2 Among the minor o-xJELTara &1avola' used by Andokides, asyndeton is one of the most frequent.
It often adds life and vigour to
his style: see e.g. De Myst. ~
16:-Tpl77 - 17pVVL'  E yEVETO. 7 YvVT
"AXWK/iatovlaov, yEvo/1IV  IE KatAa'VOV-AyapIo-T7 OVO/1a avETy/-aVT'7 -177vr(TEv, K.T.X.: cf. ~~ 33, 115, 127.
He also uses the figure called dz'abopa-i. e. the emphatic repetition
7-2




100


1THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


This animation is indeed one of the points which most
distinguish his style from the ordinary style of Antiphon, and which best mark his relative modernism.
The method  As Andokides is 'plain' in diction and avoids
of A~ndo.
Icides  ornamental figures, so he is also 'simple' in treatad in.- ment of subject-matter, and avoids an artificial ar=   1ia  (ciKaov.)   rangementl. His two speeches before the ekklesia--
that On his Return and that On the Peace-shew,
indeed, no distinct or systematic partition. In his
speech On the Mysteries he follows, with one difference, the arrangement usually observed by Antiphon and more strictly by Lysias.     There is a


of a word at the beginning of successive clauses: and I5roqopc--the
' suggestion' of some argument or
objection which is then refuted.
In De Myst. ~ 148, davaopa' and
W(rooopa occur together:-7iva yhp
Kal avapp3t3ao-oat 8Eo-6erEvov VcrEp.avro; rov raTriepa; dXaa 6OAIKEV.
OVS 70'E aiEXcbos'; aXXV OiK El-'tv.
a'XXa TO7Lo 7rat8av; dnXX' o0no yeyEvyvrat. Ve'V roh0 vV Ka avrtl 7na-;pc s  Aoi   Kai   cuv? dVT  ba  o  Ka t  apr L
%9 /AO1slt acil t a' Er I V  al a^ '
TraL&)L 'EVELTOE  E E   11/1 /a V Kara Evyco
gat a vrct3oXi txal LKETEVCO- V/1 tfE1
ME 7rap' vpaY   auvro  alTr7oTCt/EvO L
t'cacare.
1 As he is adEX)s9 and aowXTya'rr70os, so he is also arXhofs and
aLarao-Kevov. The wordadKaToaKEvov
is, indeed, often closely synonymous with a cEXli~ and dirXoiv: e.g.
Dionys. Isae. c. 7, asara'0KEVOV  oalveraTL Eva  Kai a e Av a1toLCAT71 TtS
ElTEyW,vatw TO 1 EtPYILEVOV: cf. Ernesti Lex. Tech. Gr. Rhet. s.v.,
who quotes from Menander &ctatp.
eimt. p.624, EUc0s airayyeX~lae drXoiy,kces    I sa asoaevov. But in one
h( 1EX ' Kal aKarar'~vv


or two places the usage of Dionysios seems to confirm the view that
the author of the Plutarchic Life of
Andokides meant dwXovs and dsaraGKEVor  to refer mainly to arrangement of subject-matter, as the
other two epithets refer mainly to
diction. Contrasting the method
of Lysias with the method of Isaeos,
Dionysios says (Isae. c. 3): wapa
Avia /ELJdV 01 7OTXX iV T7yv E7TLTrXL)L7 -0tv avr dv LEPLEToL~ot TnY n-payl/aT(AWV    EL' 27 Ta  T Li EL'CJ IVMPLTOL oV) Ou  TaOL E'Epyao-laL~ avrwL
(TeS) 04GEmaL. drrXoiS vyap 4 dv'4p.
Again, he says (ib.) that Isaeos 'in
proportion as he falls short of the
other's grace, excels him in cleverness of artificial arrangement'00-ov a7roXEL7LErat Ti7S Xvaptrov 1EKEtvyn, roo-o Tov WnEpEXl) 7/ BELdOT)TG
r777 K arat0srEv j.  In the essay of
Dionysios on Thucydides, again,
(c. 27) To C'OpTLKOV Te XiE$EO  Kal
TKOXLo'V Kal tvtor-7ap.aK.oX oOV7oroV
are opposed to r7 daye'Es Kai XapLatrerte Kai aEarTrL.KEVoP.




V.]


ANDOKIDES.-STYLE,


101


proem, followed by a short prothesis or general
statement of the case; then narrative and argument;
lastly epilogue1. But the narrative as a whole is
not kept distinct from the argument as a whole.
Each section of the narrative is followed by the
corresponding section of the argument. Dionysios
notices such interfusion as a special mark of art in
Isaeos2.   In Andokides it is rather a mark of artlessness.  He had a long       story to tell, and    was
unable, or did not try, to tell it concisely. The
very length of his narrative compelled him to break
it up into pieces and to comment upon each piece
separately. He has not effected this without some
loss of clearness, and one division of the speech is
thoroughly confused3. But it should be remembered
that a defective ordering of topics, though a grave
fault, was less serious for Andokides than it would
have been for a speaker in a different style. The
main object of Andokides was to be in sympathy
with his audience-amusing them with stories, however irrelevant-putting      all his arguments in the
most vivid shape-and using abundant illustration.
Lucid arrangement, though       always important, was
not of firstrate importance for him. His speeches
were meant to carry hearers along with them, rather
than to be read and analysed at leisure.
1 Proem, ~~ 1-7: prothesis,  vos: 'sometimes he divides his
~~ 8-10: narrative and argument, statement under heads; and, pre~~ 11-139: epilogue, ~~ 140-150. senting the proofs under the seve2 Dionys. Isae. ~ 14: rorE ae e-  ral heads, adds somewhat to the
plroa a~ira" (ras ( LryEro- S) els ra  length of the narrative, while he
KeqdxXala, Kal trap' cao-rov avT'r"  departs, as may be expedient, from
Tas TTIoreL 7rapantOElv, EKprI77)K  its strict form.'
Tre /aXXov Kaut EKpaLveL TO ri.js 7&- y-  3 ~~ 92,- 150.,
fTe(AS cTX?/j-a, T9) roVMEPOVTt  p( XPAME



102


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


Andokides   But it is not merely in special features of diction
has little
"sokl i  or of arrangement that Andokides is, seen to be no
places of
rhetorical technical rhetorician.  A  disciple of the sophistical
argument.
rhetoric learned to deal copiously and skilfully with
those commonplaces of argument which would be
available in almost any case. His education taught
him to prefer general argument to argument from
particular circumstances, unless these were especially
easy to manipulate. We see this in Antiphon's
First Tetralogy: it is a model exercise in making
the utmost of abstract probabilities as inferred from
facts which    are very slightly    sketched.    In   the
speech On the Murder of Herodes the statement of
the facts is hurried over, and there is no attempt at
a close and searching analysis of them. But for a
speaker unskilled in rhetorical commonplace the
particulars of any given subject would be everything.
Picturesque narration, shrewd inference from small
circumstances, lively illustration of character would
naturally be his chief resources. And so it is with
Andokides. His strength is in narrative, as the
strength of Antiphon is in argument.          Andokides
relies on his case, Antiphon on his science; it is only
Lysias who hits the masterly mean, who makes his
science the close interpreter of his case, who can
both recount and analyse. But, although the narrative element in Andokides exceeds the just proportion always observed by Lysias, it is, from. a
strength  literary point of view, a great charm.     The speech
of Ando"ies iat. On the Mysteries is full of good bits of description,
lively without set effort to be graphic. For instance,
the scene in the prison, when Andokides was per



V.].]  ANDOCIDRES.-SIT'YLIL


suaded to denounce the real mutilators of the
Hermae:
' When we had all been imprisoned in the same
place; when night had come, and the gaol had been
closed; there came, to one his mother, his sister. to
another, to another his wife and children; and there
arose a piteous sound of weeping and lamentation
for the troubles of the hour. Then Charmides (he
was my cousin, of my own age, and had been brought
up with me in our house from childhood} said to
me:-' Andokides, you see how serious our present
dangers are; and though hitherto I have always,
shrunk from  saying anything to annoy you, I am
forced by our present misfortune to speak now.
All your intimates and companions except us your
relations have either been put to death on the
charges which threaten us with destruction, or have
taken to flight and pronounced themselves guilty.
If you have heard anything about this affair which
has occurred, speak it out, and save our lives-save
yourself in the first place, then your father whom
you ought to love very dearly, then your brother-inlaw, the husband of your only sister,-your other
kinsmen, too, and near friends, so many of them;
and me also, who have never given you any annoyance in all my life, but am most zealous for you and
for your interests, whenever anything is to be done.'
When Charmides said this, judges, and when the
others besought and    entreated  me severally, I
thought to myself,-'most miserable and unfortunate of men, am I to see my own kinsfolk perish
undeservedly-to see their lives sacrificed and their




104


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


property confiscated, and in addition to this their
names written up on tablets as sinners against the
gods,-men who are wholly innocent of the matter,am   I to see moreover three hundred Athenians
doomed to undeserved destruction and the State
involved in the most serious calamities, and men
nourishing suspicion against each other,-or shall I
tell the Athenians just what I heard from Euphiletos himself, the real culprit 12'
Another passage in the same speech illustrates
the skill of Andokides in dramatising his narrative.
He delighted to bring in persons speaking. Epichares, one of his accusers in this case, had been an
agent of the Thirty Tyrants.    He turns upon him.
'Speak, slanderer, accursed knave-is this law
valid or not valid? Invalid, I imagine, only for this
reason,-that the operation of the laws must be
dated from the archonship of Eukleides. So you
live, and walk about this city, as you little deserve
to do; you who, under the democracy, lived by
pettifogging, and    under the oligarchy-lest you
should be forced to give back all the profits of that
trade-became the instrument of the Thirty.
'The truth is, judges, that as I sat here, while he
accused me, and as I looked at him, I fancied myself
nothing else than a prisoner at the bar of the Thirty.
Had this trial been in their time, who would have
been accusing me? Was not this man ready to
1 De Myst. ~~ 48-51. Compare, seen by moonlight the conspirators
as another graphic passage, the  meeting in the orchestra of the
account in ~~ 38-40 of the story  theatre of Dionysos.
told by Diokleides-how he had




V.]


ANDOKIDES.-STYLE.


105


accuse, if I had not given him money? He has
done it now. And who but Charikles would have
been  cross-examining me?     'Tell me, Andokides,
did you go to Dekeleia, and enforce the hostile
garrison on your country's soil? '-' Not I.'-' How
then? You ravaged the territory, and plundered
your fellow-citizens by land or sea? '-' Certainly not.'
-' And you did not serve in the enemy's fleet, or
help to level the Long Walls, or to abolish the democracy?'-'None of these things have I done.'' None? Do you think, then, that you will enjoy
impunity, or escape the death       suffered by many
others?'
'Can you suppose, judges, that my fate, as your
champion, would have been other than this, if I had nefrences
ofAndobeen caught by the Tyrants? I should have been kidstohe
destroyed by them, as they destroyed many others, Acoa.
for having done no wrong to Athens1.'
The love of Andokides for narrative, wherever it
can be introduced, is strikingly seen in his mode of
handling his legal argument in the speech On the
Mysteries.   Instead of. simply citing and interpreting the enactments upon which he relies, he reviews
in order the events which led to the enactments being
made2.    The same tendency appears in his habit of
drawing   illustrations  from  the early    history  of
Attica. These references are in many points loose
and   confused3.   Andokides, however, is hardly
SDe Myst. ~~ 99- 102.      and  in  De  Pace  ~~  3-7  will  be
2De Myst. ~~ 70-91.       found in ch. vi., in connexion witlh
SRemarks on the historical re- these speeches respectively.
ferences in De Myst. ~~ 106-108




106


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


a worse offender in this respect than (for instance)
Aeschines1; and has more excuse.        In the time of
Andokides written history was a comparatively new
invention, and most men knew the events even of
their grandfathers' days only from hearsay. Nor does
the apparent inaccuracy of Andokides in regard to
earlier history affect his authority as a witness for
events, with    which   he   was contemporary.      The
value of his testimony for the years 415-390 is
unquestioned.
Love of     Andokides sometimes shows his taste for narraAndokides
for gossip. tive in a special form which deserves notice. He
is a master of shrewd and telling gossip. He diverges from the main thread of his argument into
anecdotes which will amuse his hearers, and either
directly damage the adversary, or at least strike
some chord favourable to himself. A part of the
speech On    the Mysteries is, in fact, made up of
such stories (~ 110-136.) Speaking, for instance,
of the son of his accuser Kallias, he reminds the
judges that there was once a certain Hipponikos
at Athens whose house was haunted by an avenging
spirit-so said the children and the women: and
the saying came true, for the man's son proved a
very demon to him.      Well, the house of Kallias is
haunted by a fiend of the same kind (~~ 130-131).
In this trait Andokides resembles one, and one only,
of the other Greek orators: it is precisely the impudent, unscrupulous cleverness of Aeschines. There
1 See, e.g. Aeschin. De Falsa  set apart in 431 B.C. against special
Legat. ~ 172, where Miltiades is  need (Thuc. II. 24) are represented
spoken of as alive after Salamis: as the total sum then in the Atheand ib. ~ 174, where the 1000 talents  nian treasury.




V.]


ANDOKIDES.--STYLE.


107


is the same shrewd perception of what will raise
a laugh or a sneer; the same adroitness, unchecked
by self-respect, in making a point of this kind whenever the opportunity offers; the same command of
coarse but telling abuse; the same ability and
resolution to follow the workings, and profit by the
prejudices, of low   minds.    Akin to this taste for roneness
ofAndokgossip is a certain proneness to sink into low comedy. ideolow
There is a fragment of Andokides, describing the
influx of country-people into Athens in 431 B.c.,
which will illustrate this. It has exactly the tone
of the Acharnians:
'Never again may we see the colliers coming in
from the hills to the town - the sheep and oxen
and the waggons-the poor women and old menthe labourers arming themselves! Never more may
we eat wild greens and chervil!'
In passing judgment upon Andokides, it must summary.
be allowed that he possesses neither literary merit
nor properly oratorical merit which oan entitle him
to rank with the greatest masters of Greek rhetorical prose. His language has neither splendour
nor a refined simplicity; he is not remarkably acute
in argument; and, compared with his contemporaries,
he is singularly without precision in the arrangement
of his ideas. His extant works present no passage
conceived in   the highest strain of eloquence; he
S1 f yap 'to oev y ore 7rdXtv K  &tKaC rT e dyotyiEv. Quoted by SuiTrw opEow rov' dvOpaKEvTas 7Kovrae  das, p. 3327 B, from a scholium on
KaL 7rp6O3ara tKa (lovs  a Kr' crs adaýa  Ar. Acharn. 477: Sauppe, Fragm.
els ro ao'rv, KaC yvuvata KaL 7rpeo-j3v-  Oratt. Gr. p. 166: Blass, Andoc.
repove C3v8paS Kal e'pydrav CowrXtqo-  (Teubler) p. 97,
ZJvovv" tqrle aypta Xdxava KCaL orKdv



108            THE ATTIC ORATORS.            [CHAP.
never rises to an impassioned earnestness. On the
other hand, his naturalness, though not charming,
is genuine; he has no mannerisms or affectations;
and his speeches have a certain impetus, a certain
confident vigour, which assure readers that they must
have been still more effective for hearers. The chief
value of Andokides is historical. But he has also
real literary value of a certain kind: he excels in
graphic description. A few of those pictures into
which he has put all the force of a quick mindthe picture of Athens panicstricken by the sacrilegel-the scene of miserable perplexity in the
prison2-the patriotic citizen arraigned before the
Thirty Tyranrts3-have a vividness which no artist
could easily surpass, combined with a freshness
which a better artist might possibly have lost4.


1 De Myst. ~~ 43-45.
2 De Myst. ~~ 48-51.
3 Ib. ~~ 70-91.
4 Sluiter's judgment (Lectiones
Andocideae, p. 3) does not show
much discrimination:--'At equidem,quanquamAndocidi orationem
non tribuam ratione et arte excultam et politam; subtilitatem tamen,
impetum atque gravitatem illius
sum admiratus. Arte Lysiae cedit,
nervos plures habet et lacertos:


'vehemens imprimis in reprehendendo, in defendendo se gravis, ad
misericordiam erga se movendam
odiumque in adversarios excitandum plane compositus, in proponendis diiudicandisque argumentis subtilis et acutus, dictione purus
et elegans, plenus Attici saporis:
ut iure a Grammaticis in numerum
sitrelatus et inter decem collocatus
principes.'




VI.]


ANDOKIDES.-WORKS.


109


CHAPTER VI.
ANDOKIDES.
WORKS.
F   OUR    speeches ascribed    to Andokides are extaut, bearing   the titles ' On    the Mysteries:'
'On his Return:' ' On the Peace with the Lacedaemonians:' 'Against Alkibiades.' The speech On the
Mysteries, as the chief extant work of its author,
stands first in the manuscripts and the editions.
But the second oration relates to an earlier passage
in the life of Andokides, and may conveniently be
considered first.
The speech of Andokides 'On his Return' affords speech'on
no further internal evidence of its own date thanhis Rt"'.
that it was spoken later than 411 and earlier than
405 B. c.1   Blass places it in 4092.     But a circumstance which he has not noticed seems to us to make
it almost certain that the speech cannot have been
delivered later than the summer of 410.       Andokides
lays stress upon the service which he has rendered
to Athens by securing a supply of corn from Cyprus.
1 Later than 411-as being a  the Peiraeus is open to corn-ships,
considerable time after the fall of ~ 21.--The notice in [Lys.] in
the Four Hundred in June, 411,  Andok..~ 29 gives no help to~~ 13-16, &c.: and obviously ear-  wards fixing the date.
lier than Aegospotami-since (e.g.)  2 Attisch. Bereds. p. 278.




110


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[C-HAP.


There had been a disappointment about this supply;
but he states that he has overcome the difficulty,that fourteen corn ships will be in the Peiraeus almost
immediately, and that others are to follow1. Now
the event which had made this supply a matter of
anxiety to Athens was the stoppage of the usual
importations from the south coast of the Euxine.
In 411 she had lost the command of the Bosphorus
by the revolt of Chalkedon, and the command of
the Hellespont by the revolt of Abydos2.       But, in
"410, the battle of Kyzikos was followed by the reestablishment of Athenian power in the Propontis
and in its adjacent straits.   The corn-trade of the
Euxine once more flowed towards Athens; and, in
the autumn of 410, Agis, from his station at Dekeleia, saw with despair the multitude of corn-ships
which were running into the Peiraeus 3. The benefit,
therefore, for which Andokides claims so much credit,
would have been no great benefit, had it been conferred later than the middle of the year 410. The
Four Hundred were deposed about the middle of
June, 411; and it would have been natural that
Andokides should have endeavoured to return at
least in the course of the following year.
As a speech on a private matter before the
public assembly, this oration belongs to the same
class as that which Demosthenes is said to have
written for Diphilos in support of his claim     to be
1 ~ 20-21.                  p~eXor E'c77ri val TOSr ier' avrov
2 See Grote, vIII. pp. 171 ff.  7roXv '1 Xpdvov 'AOrlalovs eLpyE
"3 Xen. Hellen.. i. 35, 1Aytvs d.K rT7r yCVj, el q rTLt o-Xo-oL Kal OrEy a
oTrj AEKIlXlas Isa) 7rXo'a r roXXd  Kara O karrav rTovs ^otTra.
atroi E1l I ELpaia KaraOEov'ra ov'v




ANDOKIDES.- WORKS.


111


rewarded by the State1.     Andokides is charged, in
the speech of the pseudo-Lysias, with having gained
admittance to the ekklesia by bribing its presidents2.
It is unnecessary to believe this story.     But the
emphasis which he himself lays on the valuable
information which he had previously given to the
Senate3 suggests that, without some such recommendation, he would have found it difficult to obtain a
hearing from the people.
The object of the speech is to procure the removal of certain disabilities under which he was
alleged to lie. His disclosures in 415 were made
under a guarantee of immunity from all consequences.
But the decree of Isotimides, passed soon afterwards,
excluded from the marketplace and from temples all
'who had committed impiety and who had confessed
it;' and his enemies maintained that this decree applied to him.
In the proem he points out the malice or stupidity of Analysis.
the men who persist in rejecting the good offices which he
is anxious to render to Athens; and refers to the importance


1 That is to say, it is a buqpyopia,
but not properly a deliberative
speech; not a true Tvfj3ovXEVTLK Os
Xdyos.  Dionysios mentions (De
Deinarcho, c. 11) a brf)yopIKbos Xdyo/ written for Diphilos, in which
the latter urged before the ekklesia his own claim to certain public
honours (ompEal). Dionysios thinks
that this must have been written by
Demosthenes, not by Deinarchos.
Cf. Sauppe, Fragm. Oratt. Gr.
p. 251.
2 [Lys.] in Andok. ~ 29, KarairXcuo-a Ne KElOev BEpo els gano

Kparlav EIt Tý v Eavrov 7rovXw ro7S Edv
rpVTvrVETtv EmoK XpjLZarCT va Iav ra
rpowayayotrv evOd-e, v;C'iE 8' avrob
Ef?7XracraT'e 'K rqS ^9roXEgo.
3 Andok. De Red. ~ 19, 4CoL rolvvv rT pCi:v 'r7 7rE7rpay/tELva ctXEbOv rt
a7ravre av s;l elE I, TC  e IeXXovra
TE KaC rr7 7rpatToiEva avpES pE VWV
revpaKooot E 'v dropprTp 'lo-aoiv, 77,fovXr. The words a~pes rTevraKomLOt deserve notice as a clever rhetorical touch: they imply a congratulation on the recent abolition
of the Senate of Four Hundred.




112


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


of the communications which he has made in confidence to
the Senate. (~~ 1-4.) His so-called crimes-committed in
'youth' and ' folly'-are, he contends, his misfortunes. For the
disclosures which he was driven to make five years before he
deserves pity-nay, gratitude-rather than hatred (~~ 5-9).
He then speaks of his life in exile,; of his:services
to the army at Samos in 411; of his return to Athens in
the time of the Four Hundred; and of his imprisonment
at the instance of Peisandros, who denounced him as the
friend of the democracy (~~ 10-16). Statesmen and generals serve the State at the State's expense; he has served
it at his own charge. Nor has the end of these services
been yet seen. The people will be soon in possession of the
secrets which he has imparted to the Senate; and will soon
see supplies of corn, procured by his intercession, enter the
Peiraeus. (~~ 17-21.) In return for so much, he asks but
one small boon-the observance of the promise of impunity
under which he originally laid his information, but which
was afterwards withdrawn through the influence of his
enemies. (~~ 22-23.)
The peroration opens with a singular argument. When
a man makes a mistake, it is not his body's fault: the
blame rests with his mind.    But he, since he made his
mistake, has got a new mind. All that remains, therefore,
of the old Andokides is his unoffending body. (~ 24.) As
he was condemned on account of his former deeds, he ought
now to be welcomed for his recent deeds. His family has
ever been patriotic; his great-grandfather fought against the
Peisistratidae; he, too, is a friend of the people. The people, he well knows, are not to blame for the breach of faith
with him; they were persuaded to it by the same advisers
who persuaded them to tolerate an oligarchy. They have
repented of the oligarchy; let them repent also of the unjust sentence. (~~ 25-28.)
Remarks.    There is a striking,contrast between this defence
before the ekklesia and that which Andokides made
on the same charges, some eleven years later, before a




VI.]


SA NDOKIDES.-WORKS.


113


law-court.  There he flatly denies that he is in any
degree guilty; he turns upon his adversaries with
invective and ridicule; he carries the whole matter
with a high hand, speaking in a thoroughly confident
tone, and giving free play to his lively powers of
narration. Here it is quite otherwise.    He speaks
with humility and remorse of the 'folly '-the 'madness' of his youth; he complains feelingly of the
persecution which he has suffered; he implores, in
return for constant devotion to the interests of
Athens, just one favour-a little favour, which will
g give his countrymen no trouble, but which will be
to him  a great joy.   In 399 he is defiant; in 410
She is almost abject.   In 410 the traces of guilt to
which his enemies pointed were still fresh. Before
his next speech was spoken, they had been dimmed,
not by lapse of time only, but by that great wave
of trouble which swept over Athens in 405, and
which left all older memories faint in comparison
with the memory of the Thirty Tyrants. Andokides the wealthy choregus, the president of the
sacred mission, the steward of the sacred treasure,
supported on his trial by popular politicians and by
advocates chosen from his tribe, was a different
person from the anxious suitor who, in the speech
On his Return, implored, but could       not   obtain
tolerance.
In the style of the speech there is little to remark except that its difference from that of the
speech On the Mysteries exactly corresponds with
the difference of tone.  There the orator is diffuse,
careless, lively; here he is more compact--for he
8




114


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[ CHAP.


dared not treat a hostile assembly to long storiesmore artificial-and decidedly more dull. Once only
does the dramatic force of his natural style flash
out-where he describes his appearance before the
Council of the Four Hundred. 'Some of the Four
Hundred learned that I had arrived; sought me at
once; seized me; and brought me before the Council.
In an instant Peisandros was at my side:-' Senators,
I impeach this man for bringing corn and oar-spars
to the enemy" (~ 14.)
fSpeec     The events with which the speech On the Mysthe Myste"r"    teries is connected have been related in the life of
Andokides. After his return to Athens, (probably
early in 402 B. c.,) under favour of the general
amnesty   which   followed  the  overthrow    of the
Thirty Tyrants, he had spent three years in the
discharge of various public offices. At length, in
399 B. c., his enemies renewed their attack. During
the festival of the Great Mysteries, which Andokides
attended, in the autumn of that year, Kephisios
laid an information against him before the Archon
Basileus.
ode of      Some obscurity hangs over the form     of the aclegal procee.    cusation; we will give the account of it which appears most probable. When, in 415 B.c., Andokides
made his disclosures, he did so on the guarantee of
impunity (JSca) which a special decree of the ekklesia
had given to all who should inform.    Subsequently,
however, Isotimides proposed and carried a decree
that all who had committed impiety and had confessed it should be excluded from the marketplace
and from the temples. The enemies of Andokides




VI.],


ANDOKIDES.--WORKS.


115


maintained that he came under this decree.       This
was the immediate cause of his quitting Athens in
415. In 409 he was unsuccessful in applying to have
the sentence of disfranchisement cancelled. On his
return in 402, however, nothing had been said at
first about his disabilities.
His accusers now contended that he had broken
the decree of Isotimides by attending the Mysteries
and entering the Eleusinian Temple.     To attend the
festival or enter the temple unlawfully would, of
course, be an impiety.   The information which they
laid against him    charged him, therefore, on this
ground, with impiety.    It was an   V8eCEL do-eftas.
But, in order to prove it, it was necessary to show
that he came under the decree of Isotimides. It was
necessary to show that he had committed impiety,
as well as given information, in 415 B.C.
His defence is therefore directed to showing,
in the first place, that he had not committed impiety
at that time either by profaning the Mysteries or
by mutilating the Hermae.       The speech takes its
ordinary title from the fact that the Mysteries form
one of its prominent topics. But a more general
title would have better described the range of its
contents. It might have been more fitly called a
Defence on a Charge of Impiety.
This view of the matter explains some difficulties.
Andokides says (de Myst. ~ 71), 'Kephisios has
informed against me according to the existing law,
but bases his accusation on the decree of Isotimides.'
That is, Kephisios laid against Andokides an ordinary ES6E  9 dcrE/ELas.  But the charge of do-rE'ta
8-2




116


THE~ A TTI~C ORA TORS.l~


[CHAP.


rested on the assumption that he had broken the
decree of Isotimides. He was not directly charged
either with profaning the Mysteries or with mutilating the Hermae; his guilt in one or both of these
matters was assumed. He proceeds to prove that
this assumption is groundless; and that, therefore,
the decree does not apply to him1.
The charge, like all connected with religion, was
brought into court by the Archon Basileus. Since
details connected with the Mysteries might be put
in evidence, the judges were chosen exclusively from
the initiated of the higher grade2. Kephisios, the
chief accuser3, was assisted by Meletos, who had
been implicated in the murder of Leon under the
Thirty4, and by Epichares, who had been a member of
their government5. On the same side were Kallias6
and Agyrrhios7, each of whom had a private quarrel
with the accused. Andokides was supported by
Anytos and Kephalos, both politicians of mark, and
both popular for the part which they had taken


1 Blass says: 'Kephisios, der
als Hauptkliger auch die Hauptrede hielt, hatte nach Andokides
seine Anklage gegriindet auf das
Psephisma des Isotimides.' (Att.
Bereds. p. 300.)  This statement,
though substantially true, is not
calculated to convey a clear idea
of the form in which the accusation was preferred. Andokides
was not simply accused of usurping
certain rights which the decree of
Isotimides had taken from him.
That would have been an ~'VBEL~
atulaS. He was accused specifi

cally of impiety-the result of
usurping such rights: it was an
ev&eis daEflelas. Thus alone can
we understand why the cause was
brought into court by the Archon
Basileus; and why death was the
penalty. (Cf. de Myst. ~ 146: [Lys.]
in Andok. ~ 55.)
2 ~ 29 ol /iE/IvryEvot: ~ 31 Lep.Z'77cre OKal EcopaKarE ro Ol EOiv -TO pd.
3 ~71.
4 ~94.
5 ~95.
6 ~~ 110-131.
7       - 132-136.




VI.]


ANDOKIDES.- WtORKS.l


117


in the restoration of the democracy1.       Advocates
chosen for him by his tribesmen were also in court.
It is remarkable if, as there is reason to believe, two
men engaged on different sides in this trial were, in
the same year, united in preferring a more famous
charge of impiety. Anytos undoubtedly, Meletos2
probably, was the accuser of Sokrates.
The speech On the Mysteries falls into three main
divisions.  In the first, Andokides shows his innocence in regard to the events of 415 B. c.      In the
second he shows that, in any case, the decree of
Isotimides is now obsolete. In the third he deals
with a number of minor topics.
I. ~~ 1-69.
1. (Proem.) ~~ 1-7. Andokides dwells on the rancour Anaysis.
of his enemies; insists on the fact of his having remained
to stand his trial-instead of withdrawing to his property
in Cyprus-as a proof of a good conscience; and appeals to
the judges".


1 ~ 150. For Anytos, see Xen.
Hellen. II. 3 ~~ 42, 44: for Kephalos, Demosth. de Cor. ~ 219.
2 Meletos is mentioned in ~~ 12 f.,
35, 63, 94. He was a partisan of
the Thirty (~ 94), and is clearly
identical with the Meletos who
went to Sparta as one of the envoys of the Town Party in 403 to
discuss the terms of peace between
the Town and the Peiraeus (Xen.
Hellen. 11. 4. ~ 36). All this agrees
with what is known about the age
of the Meletos who accused Sokrates. See the article by Mr Phi

lip Smith in the Diet. of Greek and
Roman Biography.
3 Parts of this proem, viz. ~ 1
to the words 7oXXoiv XDyov.s roLelo-Oat, and ~~ 6, 7 alrofiLat ov'aKOvo-r7e d-roXoLyovYEvov  occur,
slightly varied, in Lysias de bonis
Aristophanis ~~ 2-5.    Spengel
and Blass believe that both Andokides and Lysias used a proem
written by some third person; Andokides interpolating in it some
matter of his own. It is true that
the transition from ~ 5 to ~ 6 in
the speech of Andokides is harsh,




!18


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


2. ~~ 8-10. He is perplexed as to what topic of his
defence he shall first approach. After a fresh appeal to
the judges he resolves to begin with the facts relating to
the Mysteries.
3. ~~ 11-33.     The Mysteries Case. He neither profaned them himself, nor informed against others as having
profaned them.     Four persons, on four distinct occasions,
did, in fact, so inform: viz.:-(i) Pythonikos, who produced
the slave Andromachos, ~ 11: (ii) Teukros, ~ 15: (iii)
Agariste, ~ 16: (iv) Lydos, ~ 17. Lydos implicated Leogoras
the father of Andokides.      Leogoras, however, not only
cleared himself, but got a verdict in an action which he
brought against the senator Speusippos, ~~ 17, 18.     (This
occasions a parenthesis, in which Andokides defends himself
against the imputation of having denounced his father and
relations: ~~ 19-24.)   The largest reward for information
(ljPvvTpa) was adjudged to Andromachos; the second, to
Teukros: ~~ 27, 28, Andokides calls upon the judges to
recognise his innocence as regards the Mysteries: ~~ 29-33.
4. ~~ 34-69.      The IHermae Case. In this matter the
chief informants were (i) Teukros: ~~ 34-35: (ii) Diokleides, whose allegations caused a general panic: ~~ 36-46:
(iii) Andokides himself.   The circumstances, motives and
results of his disclosure are stated at length: ~~ 47-69.
II. ~~ 70-91.
It is argued that the decree of Isotimides is now void,
because it has been cancelled by subsequent decrees, laws
and oaths, ~~ 70-72. These are next enumerated, as follows.
1. ~~ 73-79.      During the siege of Athens by the
as if a patch had been made; but  probable. I should prefer to supthe transition from ~ 3 to ~ 4 is  pose that the whole proem is the
hardly less harsh, as Blass himself  work of Andokides himself, and
observes; indeed he suggests that  that Lysias (whose speech belongs
a second borrowed proem may have  to 387 Bn..) abridged it.
been used there; but this is im



VI.]


ANDOKIDES.- WORKS.


119


Lacedaemonians in 405 B.C. the decree of Patrokleides was
passed, reinstating all the disfranchised.
2. ~ 80. After the truce with Sparta in 404, when
the Thirty Tyrants were established, all exiles received free
permission to return.
3. ~ 81. After the expulsion of the Thirty in 403 a
general amnesty was proclaimed.
4. ~~ 82-89. At the same time, in accordance with
the decree of Tisamenos, a revision of the laws was ordered.
This revision having been completed, four new general laws
(v6LOt) were passed:-viz. (i) That no    'unwritten' law
should have force: (ii) That no decree (#'~to-la) of ekklesia or senate should overrule a law (voi'co): (iii) That no
law should be made against an individual (er' dvpli, ~ 87):
(iv) That decisions of judges or arbiters, pronounced under
the former democracy, should remain valid; but that, in
future, all decisions should be based on the code as revised
in the archonship of Eukleides in 403 B.c. [This is expressed by the phrase Xpro-Oa v[ot1o   drt i EVKXelSov cipXovwro, ~ 87.]
5. ~~ 90, 91. Returning to the subject of ~ 81, Andokides recalls the terms of the oath of amnesty taken in
403 B.C. He then quotes the official oath of Senators and
the official oath of Judges.
III. ~~ 92-150 (end).
1. ~~ 92-105. He shows that, if the amnesty is to be
violated in his case, it may be violated to the cost of others
also. The accusers, Kephisios, Meletus and Epichares, as
well as others, would, in various ways, be liable to punishment.
2.  ~~ 106-109.     He illustrates the good effect of
general amnesties by two examples from     the history of
Athens: (i) the moderation shown after the expulsion of the
Peisistratidae: (ii) an amnesty in the time of the Persian
Wars.




120


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[OCHAP.


3. ~~ 110-136. He answers a charge made against
him by Kallias. Kallias asserted that Andokides, terrified
by the accusation hanging over him, had laid a suppliant's
bough (itcerlpia) on the altar in the temple at Eleusis during
the festival of the Great Mysteries. To take sanctuary, or
to place a symbol of supplication, in that temple at that
season, was a capital offence (as implying the approach
of guilt to the temple at a holy season). Andokides explains the motive of this false charge. Kallias was seeking
for his son an heiress whose hand was claimed by Andokides
(~~ 110-123). This leads to a digression about a scandal
connected with the birth of this son (~~ 124-131). He
then attacks the abettors of Kallias in this slander-especially Agyrrhios, a fraudulent tax-farmer who had a grudge
against Andokides (~~ 132-136).
4. ~~ 137-139. He ridicules the assertion made by
the accuser, that the gods must have preserved so great
a traveller from the dangers of the sea because they reserved
him for the hemlock.
5. ~~ 140-150. Peroration, on three topics chiefly:(i) the credit which Athens has gained by her policy of
amnesties-credit which the judges are bound to sustain:
(ii) the public services of the ancestors of Andokides: (iii)
his own opportunities for usefulness to the State hereafter, if
he is acquitted.
Andokides was acquitted.       Before speaking of
the method and style of his speech, it is due to its
great historical interest to notice some of the disputed statements of fact which it contains.
Historical  1.  Does the speech represent that account of
matter in
the Speec. his own conduct which Andokides gave in 415 when
he made his disclosures before the Council of Four
Hundred? Next--had he, as a matter of fact, taken
part in the mutilation of the Hermae? These two




YVI.]


ANDOKIDES.- WORKS.


121


questions have been shortly discussed in Chapter IV.1
Some reasons are there suggested for believing (1)
that, in 415, Andokides had criminated himself as
well as others: (2) that he was, in fact, innocent.
2.  In ~ 11 Pythonikos, who brought forward
the evidence of the slave Andromachos, is named as
the first denouncer of Alkibiades. ' Some residentaliens and slaves in attendance on their masters'
(dKoXo;0wv) are said    by Thucydides (vI. 28) to
have been the first accusers; and Plutarch adds
that these were brought forward by Androkles.
Androkles is mentioned by Andokides only in ~ 27,
as claiming the reward (pjvvrpa) from    the Senate.
In order to reconcile Andokides with Thucydides, it
must be supposed either (1) that the 'resident-aliens
and slaves' of Thucydides (vi. 28) were the witnesses
of Pythonikos, and not, as Plutarch states (Alkib. 19),
of Androkles: or (2) that they were the witnesses,
some of Pythonikos, some of Androkles; and that
those brought forward by Androkles did not criminate Alkibiades, although Androkles afterwards found
witnesses who did so. The former supposition, which
makes Plutarch inaccurate, seems the most likely.
3. In ~ 13 it is stated that, on Pythonikos making his accusations, Polystratos was at once arrested
and executed, and that the other accused persons fled.
It is certain, as Grote 2 observes, that Alkibiades
was accused, but neither fled nor was brought to
trial; and it would seem    more probable, therefore,
that the charge was dropped, for the time, in reference to the others also. On this point, however, it
1 p. 76.             2 Hist. Gr. III. p. 243.




122


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


does not seem necessary to assume inaccuracy in Andokides. The position of Alkibiades, as a commander
of the expedition on which the hopes of the people
were set and which was about to sail, was wholly
exceptional. The evidence against him may also
have been of a different nature.
4. In ~ 13 there is an oversight. Among those
denounced by Pythonikos was Panaetios. And it is
said that all persons so denounced-except Polystratos, who was put to death-fled. But in ~ 68
Panaetios appears as leaving Athens in consequence
of the later denunciation of Andokides. As the list
in ~ 13 contains ten names in all, the speaker might
easily have made a mistake about one of the number.
Or the evidence against Panaetios-who is named
last of the ten-may have been so weak that he
was acquitted upon this first charge.
5. In ~ 34 it is said that some of the persons
accused by Teukros were put to death. To this Mr
Grote1 opposes the fact that Thucydides (vi. 60)
names as having suffered death only some of those
who were denounced by Andokides. It seems unsafe, however, to conclude that the orator has made
a wrong statement. The language of Thuc. vi. 53,
evXXaX3odvovErc KaTEeovv, hardly warrants the inference that imprisonment was the utmost rigour
used in other cases. The statement of Andokides
in ~ 34 is incidentally confirmed by the words which
he ascribes to Charmides in ~ 49.
6. In ~ 38 Andokides quotes, without comment,
the statement of Diokleides that he had seen the
1 Hist. Gr. vn. p. 268.




.VI.]


ANDOKIDES.- WORKS.


123


faces of some of the conspirators by the light of a
full moon.   Now Plutarch says that one of the informers (he does not give the name), being asked
how he had recognised the faces of the mutilators,
answered, 'by the light of the moon;' and was thus
convicted of falsehood, it having been new moon on
the night in question 1.   Diodoros (xiII. 2) tells the
same story, without mentioning any name; but his
account does not apply to Diokleides.     Mr Grote is
unquestionably right in treating the new-moon story
as a later fiction2. Andokides would not have failed
to notice so fatal a slip on the part of Diokleides;
nor is it likely that the informer would have made it.
7. In ~ 17 the action brought by Leogoras
against Speusippos is mentioned directly after the
evidence of Lydos.    But it should be observed that
it is mentioned parenthetically; and that the indefinite Kc7Trara does not fix its date at all.   Leogoras was in the prison with his son (~ 50); and the
action  was doubtless not brought until after the
disclosures of Andokides.
8. In ~ 45 the panic, during which the citizens
kept watch under arms through the night, is placed
in immediate connection with the informations of
Diokleides, who caused this panic by representing
the plot as widely spread. It is said, also, that the
Boeotians took advantage of the alarm at Athens
to march to the frontier.    Now Thucydides (vi. 60)
SPnut. Alk. c. 20 dl 8' avrWTv  Trov ravrdO, EVryS Kal vEa, ovao-s ore
ep7orciLEvoS OTroW ra rpodrcora TcoV ravr' ESpao.
epPOKorMW SV yvOpiCELE, KCa atOKptva-  2 Hist.. G  VII. p. 271.
JLEVOS OTL 7rpo' Tr v (TEXIJfVV f, 4'6Xjr




124


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


states that, during one night an armed body of
citizens garrisoned the Theseion; but he puts this
after the disclosures of Andokides, and connects
it with the appearance of a Spartan force at the
isthmus. Bishop Thirlwall justly remarks that, unless there were two or more occasions on which the
citizens kept armed watch, Andokides, who goes
into minute detail, is more likely than Thucydides
to be right about the time of it 1.
9. In ~ 106 the expulsion from Athens of the
tyrants-that is, Hippias and his adherents-is described as following upon a battle fought ET IIaXXrW9, which seems to mean ' at the Pallenion,' the
temple of Athene Pallenis at Pallene, about 10 miles
E.N.E. of Athens2. Now it was near this temple
that Peisistratos, on his third return, won the victory
which led to the final establishment of his tyranny,
probably in 545 B.c.3    But no battle at the same
spot, or anywhere near it, is mentioned by any
other authority in connexion with the expulsion of
of the Peisistratidae.  According to Herodotos, the


Lacedaemonians sent, in
Kleomenes. Kleomenes,
1 Hist. Gr. In. p. 499 (appendix
in. to ch. xxv.)
2 Professor Rawlinson, in the
Journal of Philology, Vol. I. No. 2,
p. 25, questions whether the IIaXXmvov of Andokides means the
temple of Athene at Pallene. The
proper name of that temple was,
he thinks, 'the Pallenis.' It appears to me as I have endeavoured
to show (Journ. Philol. Vol. i.


510, an expedition under
on entering Attica from
No. 3, p. 48) that InaXXrvis is always
the epithet of the goddess, not the
name of the temple.    I believe
HaXX\irtov to be identical with what
Herodotos (I. 62) calls HaXX7lvtor
'AOfrvaLiq IpOv.
3 This is the date fixed on by
Curtius (Hist. Gr. Vol. 1. p 359
tr. Ward). Clinton (F. H. n. p.
202) thinks 537 more probable.




VI.]


ANDOKIDES.- WORKS.


125


the isthmus, met and routed the Thessalian cavalry
of Hippias; advanced to Athens; and besieged the
Peisistratidae, who presently capitulated'. Herodotos and    Andokides can     be  reconciled   only by
supposing that the account of Herodotos is incomplete2.   It seems more probable, however, that Andokides has confused the scene of a battle won by
Peisistratos with the scene of a battle lost by the
Peisistratidae 3.
10. In ~ 107 it is said that when, later, the
Persian king made an expedition against Greece,
the Athenians recalled those who had been banished,
and reinstated those who had been disfranchised,
when the tyrants were expelled.       No such amnesty
is recorded in connection with the first Persian invasion in 490; but Plutarch mentions such a measure
as having been passed shortly before the battle of
Salamis in 480 4.   Now the Persian invasion in 490
was undertaken for the purpose of restoring Hippias;
and the invasion in 480 was undertaken partly at
the instance of his family. Men (or their descendants)
who had     been  banished   or disfranchised    in  510
would certainly not have been restored to Athenian
citizenship in 490 or 480. Andokides seems, then,
SHer. v. 64.                 3 The view that the battle de2 Professor Rawlinson thinks  scribed by Andokides as fought
that there was a second battle,  Er'ti aXXrlvip is identical with that
(after that won by Kleomenes on  mentioned in Herod. v. 64 is held
entering Attica), in which the Alk- by Sluiter, Lect. Andoc. p. 6:
maeonidae and the other exiles  Wordsworth, Athens and Attica,
fought on the Spartan side; and  p. 198 note: Thirlwall, Hist. Gr.
this battle, he suggests, may have  n. p. 80 note: Grote, Hist. Gr.
been fought near Pallene (Journ. Iv. p. 165 note.
Phil. L. 2. pp. 25 ff.).       4 Plut. Them. c. 11,




126              THE ATTIC ORATORS.                [CHAP.
to have remembered vaguely that an act of amnesty
was passed at Athens on some occasion during the
Persian wars; to have placed this act in 490 instead of 480; and to have represented it as passed
in favour of the very persons who would probably
have been excluded from it.
11.   In ~ 107 it is said     of the Athenians;"They resolved to meet the barbarians at Marathon...
They fought and conquered; they freed Greece and
saved their country.     And having done so great a
deed, they thought it not meet to bear malice against
any one for the past.     Therefore, although through
these things they entered upon their city desolate,
their temples in    ashes, their walls and     houses in
ruins, yet by concord they achieved the empire of
Greece,' &c.   From   this passage Valckenarl, Sluiter
and Grote infer that Andokides has transferred the
burning of Athens by Xerxes in 480 to the first
invasion in 490. This is hardly a necessary inference.   Andokides is speaking of the struggle with
Persia-extending      from  490 to 479-as a whole.
He names Marathon: he does not name Salamis or
Plataea. He merely says that, after the Athenians
had 'freed Greece,' they came back to find their
city in ruins 2
Arrange-     It is impossible    to  read  the speech    On   the
ment and
Style of the
Speech.
1 See Valckenar's note, quoted  sub Themistocle, Xerxis gesta.
and endorsed by Sluiter, Lect.  Hic urbem incendio delevit, non
Andoc. p. 48, and by Grote, Iv.  ille. Nihil magis est manifestum
p. 165 n.:-' Confundere videtur  quam diversa ab oratore confundi.'
Andokides diversissima: Persica  2 See the Journal of Philology,
sub Miltiade et Dario et victoriam  Vol. I. No. 1, p. 165, for a discusMarathoniam, quaeque evenere  sion of this passage.




VI.]


VI.]     ANDOICIDES.- WORKS.12


127


Mysteries without feeling that, as a whole, it is
powerful, in spite of some evident defects. The
arrangement is best in what we have called the first
division (~~ 1-69), which deals with two distinct
groups of facts, those relating to the Mysteries case
and those relating to the Hermae case. These facts
are stated in an order which is, on the whole,
clear and natural, though not free from the parentheses of which Andokides was so fond, and of which
sections 19-24 form    an example.     Less praise is
due to the second part of the speech (~~ 70-91),
devoted to the various enactments which had made
the decree of Isotimides obsolete. It is at once full
and obscure, giving needless, and withholding necessary, details. The third part (~~ 92-end) is a mere
string of topics, unconnected with each other, and
but slightly connected with the case. This confused
appendix to the real defence is, however, significant.
It shows the anxiety of Andokides to make the
judges understand the rancorous personal feeling of
his enemies; an anxiety natural in a man who for
sixteen years had been pursued by unproved accusations.  The passages about Kallias and Agyrrhios probably had a stronger effect upon the court
than any conventional appeal to compassion would
have produced.
As regards style, the language of the speech is
thoroughly unaffected and easy, plain without studied avoidance of ornament, and rising at the right
places-as when he speaks of the old victories of
freedom (~~ 106-109), and in the peroration (~~ 140
-150). But the great merit of the composition is




128


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


its picturesqueness, its variety and life. The scene
in the prison (~~ 48-53) and the description of the
panic at Athens (~~ 43-45) are perhaps the best
passages in this respect. If Andokides had not
many rhetorical accomplishments, he certainly had
perception   of character, and    the  knack   of describing it.   Diokleides bargaining    with   Euphemos (~ 40)-Charmides       exhorting   Andokides    to
save the prisoners (~~ 49, 50)-Peisandros urging
that Mantitheos and      Aphepsion    should  be  put
on the rack (~ 43)-are well given in a few       vivid
touches.
speeh 0t    The   speech On the Peace with the Lacedae-,with the
Lacedaemo- monians belongs, as has been noticed in a former
nians.
chapter 1, to the year 390. Athens, Thebes, Corinth
and Argos had then been four years at war with
Sparta. Andokides had just returned from an embassy to Sparta with a view to peace. The terms
proposed by the Lacedaemonians were, as regarded
Athens, permission to retain her walls and ships,
and the restoration of Lemnos, Imbros and Skyros.
The orator, speaking in debate in the ekklesia, urges
that these terms should be accepted.
Analysis.   The opponents of peace contend that peace with
Lacedaemon is fraught with danger to the democracy
(~~ 1-2). He meets this objection by instancing a number
of cases in which peace with Sparta, so far from injuring the
Athenian democracy, was productive of the greatest advantage to it. He cites (1) a peace with Sparta negotiated by
Miltiades during a war in Euboea: ~~ 3-5. (2) The Thirty
Years' Truce, 445 B.c. ~~ 6-7. (3) The Peace of Nikias,


SCh. iv. p. 83.




VI.]


ANL'D 0 KID -ES. - WO RK S..


129


421 B.C.: ~~ 8, 9.-The compulsory truce with Sparta in 404,
followed by the establishment of the Thirty Tyrants, was not,
properly speaking, a peace at all; and is therefore no exception to the rule that peace with Sparta has always been
found salutary (~~ 10-12).
There is no good reason for continuing the war. The
claims of Athens have now been recognised; the Boeotians
desire peace; the hope of finally crushing Sparta is idle
(~~ 13-16). Athens is the power which gains most by the
peace now proposed (~~ 17-23). If Boeotia makes peace,
Athens will be left with one weak ally, Corinth, and another
who is a positive encumbrance-selfish Argos (~~ 24-27).
Athens must not, here, prefer weak friends, as formerly she
preferred Amorges to Xerxes II.; Egesta to Syracuse; Argos
to Sparta (~~ 28-32). The speaker goes on to notice a
variety of objections to the peace. Some say that walls and
ships are not money, and wish to recover their property
abroad [7r a erep' aiTcav r i vrepopias, ~ 36] which was lost
when the Athenian empire fell. But such men ought to
remember that walls and ships were just the means by which
the empire was won in the first instance (~~ 33-39).
In a peroration the assembly is reminded that the decision rests wholly with it; Argive and Corinthian envoys
have come urging war; Spartan envoys, offering peace. The
true plenipotentiaries are not the ambassadors, but those
who vote in the ekklesia (~~ 40, 41 1).
According to the author of the Argument, the Question of
authenspeech   On   the  Peace   was judged      spurious byticity
Dionysios2, and Harpokration also doubted its authenticity3.   Among modern       critics, Taylor4 and
Markland5 are the chief who have taken the same
view; but they have a majority of opinions against
1 7rpEo3evTrs o7a'  v rraVE v/La^  with the addition el yvrjatos.
7jLets o TrpEGofELE 7ro0tIovEv.  4 Lectiones Lysiacae, c. vi. (Vol.
2 Auct. Argum. ad fin. 6d 6 Ato-  n. p. 260, ed. Reiske.)
VVOLo9 vo0ov EWOL XE0yEL To X6yo.  5 Ad Aeschin. De Falsa Legat.
S He quotes it thrice, but always  p. 302.
9




130             THE ATTIC ORATORS.                [CHAP.
them1.    Probably the suspicions of Dionysios, like
those of Taylor, arose mainly from    the difficulties of
the historical passage (~8 3--6); and from the fact
that this passage is found, slightly modified, in the
speech of Aeschines On the Embassy.
istori      It is said in ý~ 3-5 that, when the Athenians
-Difficulties.
"had the war in Euboea '-being        then masters of
Megara, Troezen and Pegae-Miltiades, son of Kimon, who had been ostracised, was recalled, and was
sent to treat for peace at Sparta. A peace was
concluded   between    Athens and     Sparta   for fifty
years2; and was observed on both sides for thirteen
years. During this peace the Peiraeus was fortified
(478 B.c.), and the Northern Long Wall was built
(457  B. c.).  Now   (1) the   only recorded    war of
Athens in which Euboea was concerned, during the
life of Miltiades, was in 507, when the Chalkidians
were defeated and their territory given to the first
kleruchs. (2) Megara, Troezen and Pegae were not
included in the Athenian alliance until long after
478 B.C.   (3) Miltiades was never ostracised; having
been sent to the Chersonese before the invention of
ostracism by Kleisthenes. (4) No such peace as that
spoken of is known; though in 491, an Athenian
embassy went to Sparta with a different object-to
denounce the medism       of the Aeginetans.     Most
critics have assumed that Andokides refers to the Five
1 Sluiter, Lect. Andoc. c. x. p. thentic.
205, and Valckenir quoted there:  2 Taylor, correcting Andokides
Ruhnken, Hist. Crit. Or. Graec. from Aeschin. De Fals. Legat.
(Opusc. Vol. I. p, 325); Wesseler  ~ 172, reads Wrevrrjovra for TrEVTE:
ad Diod. Sic. xI. c. 8; and Blass, and so Blass.
Att. Bereds. p. 322, are among  3 Her. vI. 49.
the defenders of the speech as au



YV.1]            AND OKIDES.-WORKS.                   131
Years' Truce between Athens and Sparta, concluded
in 450 B.c., mainly through the influence of Kimon,
son of Miltiades; and that he names the father instead of the son 1. But all agree that the passage
as it stands is full of inaccuracies, and can be reconciled with history only by conjectural emendation2.
Again, in ~ 6 it is said that Athens having been
plunged into war by the Aeginetans, and having
done and suffered much evil, at last concluded the
Thirty Years' Peace with Sparta        (445 B. c.).  The
impression conveyed by this statement is wrong.
The war between Athens and Aegina began about
458, and ended in 455 with the reduction of Aegina.
In  450 Athens and      Sparta made a truce for five
years. A new train of events began with the revolution in Boeotia in 447, followed by the revolt of
Megara and Euboea; and it was this which led up
to the peace of 445 B. c.
These inaccuracies are in regard only to the
earlier history of Athens: and the undoubtedly genuine   speech On the Mysteries contains allusions
which are no less inaccurate. In regard to contemporary events the speaker makes no statement
which can be shown to be incorrect: and on one
point-the position     of Argos at the time-he is
incidentally confirmed in a striking manner by
Xenophon 3.    A forger would have studied the early
This view, briefly stated by  the date 450, which I take: Grote,
Sluiter, Lectiones Andocideae, c. x. 452: Curtius (Hist. Gr. ii. p. 402 tr.
p. 135, is discussed and approved  Ward) 451-450.
by Clinton, Fasti Hellen. Vol. 1.  2 Cf. Curtius, Hist. Gr. Vol. ir.
Append. c. 8. p. 257; and adopted  p. 412 (tr. Ward): Grote, v. pp.
by Grote, v. p. 453, note 3. For  455-464.
the Five Years' Truce Clinton gives  3 The speech On the Peace
9-2




132


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


Passage
common to
Andokides
and
Aeschines.


history with more care, and would not have known
the details of the particular situation so well. But
how does it happen that the whole historical passage
(~ 3-12) reappears, with     modifications, in  the
speech of Aeschines On the Embassyl? Either Aeschines copied this speech, or a later writer copied
the speech of Aeschines. There can be little doubt
that the former was the case. Andokides, grandfather of the orator, is. mentioned in the speech On
the Peace2 as a member of the embassy to Sparta in
445 B.c. In the speech of Aeschines3 he is named
as chief of that embassy. This Andokides-an obscure


speaks of the Argives as having
'made a peace on their own account'
which protected their territory:
~ 27 avrol 8 ' I8ta elpdrrY v rot77javrEs
rIv XcopaV o v  rapEXovCo:v ep7roXEpELe. Now Xenophon tells us that
in 392 the Corinthian government
had formed a close alliance with
Argos. The boundary-stones between the territories were taken
up; an Argive garrison held the
citadel of Corinth; and the very
name of Corinth was changed to
Argos (Hellen. Iv. 4-6). In 391
Agesilaos had ravaged the Argive
territory before taking Lechaeum
(Hell. iv. 4-19). The next year,
399, 01. 97. 3, was the year of the
Isthmia. The Argives assumed
the presidency of the festival, and
offered the sacrifice to Poseidon,
on the ground that 'Argos was
Corinth'--ol "Apyove r.-s KoplvOov
OTro9 (Hell. Iv. 5.1). Consequently
they claimed the privilege of the
Sacred Month (lepoqrvia) for Argolis. And so, precisely in the
year 390, to which we saw that the


speech On the Peace belongs, it
was true that the Argive territory
enjoyed a special immunity. This
had not been the case in 391; nor
was it any longer the case in 388
(the next Isthmian year), when
Agesipolis asked Zeus at Olympia
and Apollo at Delphi whether he
was bound to respect this fictitious
extension  of the lepoplvIa-was
absolved by the gods from respecting it-and ravaged Argolis (H. Iv.
7. 2).
1 Aeschin. De Fals. Legat. ~ 172,
o-vvrapaxXevrer &i... to ~ 176, 4jvayKac7vot. The topics are the same
as those of Andok. De Pace, ~~
3-12: the language is coincident
in several points, yet, on the whole,
much altered.
2 ~ 6  perqo-av  a 3Ka avper E,(
'AO,7valow diravrTcv 7rpeo'3Ets es AaKeiSaaILova avroKparopes, Cv iv Kal
'AvaOKim&qS TrdTrTOS  6?(JiLErEpOS'.
3 Aesch. De Fals. Legat. ~ 174,
'AvaOKt8irv  eKrreWEpavTES Kal TOVS
ovymioper Etq.




VI.]


ANDOKIDES.-WORKiS.


133


member, if he was a member, of the embassy which,
according to Diodoros, was led by Kallias and Chares
-would not have been pamed at all except by his
own   grandson.    Again, there are traces in       Aeschines   of  condensation-not      always   intelligent
--from the speech On the Peace.       Thus the latter2
says (referring to the years before the Peloponnesian
war)-' we laid up 1000 talents in the acropolis, and
set them apart by law for the use of the people at special
need': Aeschines, leaving out the qualifying clause,
makes it appear that the sum of 1000 talents was
the total sum laid up in the Athenian treasury3
during the years of peace.
The treatment of the subject certainly affords no ^Berks
argument against the authenticity of the speech. peech.
Andokides gave little care to arrangement, and here
there is no apparent attempt to treat the question
methodically. On the other hand, the remarks about
Corinth and Argos4, and the answer to those who
demanded the restoration of lands abroad5, are both
acute and sensible. In this, as in his other speech
before the ekklesia, the descriptive talent of Andokides had little scope; but, as in the speech On the
Mysteries, the style is spirited and vigorous.
The speech against Alkibiades is certainly spu- spe
against
rious. It discusses the question whether the speaker, Alkibiades.
or Nikias or Alkibiades is to be ostracised.        The
1 xI. 7.                     3 Aeschin. De Fals. Legat. ~ 174
2 Andok. De Pace, ~ 7 vrpcrov  Xl'Xca tEv yap TaXavra adrvqEyKaLEYv
ILe...vrI)VyKa/LEv XlXLa rTXavra eX a  VoLO[(raros El rTv Kpdo7-Tok, cKaT7y dkp6oroXt Kat Vo p KaT~EKXiE-  TOv E 7TptIpELS ETrpaS) 3K.T.X.
crapEJv EealpETa ELvaL Ta t r7j6LI/  4 ~~ 24-27.
TroVro 8E rpjpesr a'Xas9 EKarTO, K.T.X.  & ~~ 36-39.




134


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CIHAP.


situation resembles one which is mentioned by Plutarch. Alkibiades, Nikias and Phaeax were rivals for
power, and it had become plain that one of the three
would incur ostracism1. They therefore made common cause against Hyperbolos, who was ostracised,
probably in 417 B. c.2
The supposed date of this speech is fixed by a
reference in ~ 22 to the capture of Melos.         Melos
was taken in the winter of 416-415 B. c. Nikias
left Athens, never to return, in the spring of 415.
Therefore the speech could have been spoken only
in the early part of 415 B. c.
Analysis.   The orator, after stating the point at issue, and censuring
the institution of ostracism (~~ 1-6), enters upon an elaborate invective against Alkibiades (~~ 10-40). The latter
is attacked for having doubled the tribute of the allies
(~~ 10-12); for having ill-used his wife (~~ 13-15); for
contempt of the law (~~ 16-19); for beating a choregus
(~~ 20, 21); for insolence after his Olympian victory
(~~ 24-33).    He is then contrasted with the speaker
(~~ 34-40), who concludes with a notice of his own public
services (~~ 41, 42).
The peech   The speech is twice cited without suspicion by
Andocides. Harpokration: it is also named as genuine by Photios3.  The biographer of Andokides does not men1 Plut. Alk. c. 13. In Aristid....darEOave. The death of Hyperc. 7 and in Nik. c. 11 Plutarch  bolos is fixed by Thue. viii. 73 to
names only Alkibiades and Nikias  411 B.c. Blass, with Cobet and
as the rivals; adding, in Nik. c. others, thinks that the ' six years'
11, that Theophrastos substitutes  of Theopompos represent simply
Phaeax for Nikias.            the number of years which inter2 The Schol. on Ar. Vesp. 1007  vened between the banishment of
quotes Theopompos for the state-  Hyperbolos and his death. This
ment ge o-rpdKLto-a TOV -'Yep oXov  brings the ostracism to 417 B.C.
SIrT). 6 # e K ararXEvoas el id4oV  a Phot. God. 261.




VI.]


ANDOKIDES.- WORKS.


135


tion it; but, in its place, mentions a Defence in
reply to Phaeax1. There are traces of its ascription
in antiquity both to Lysias2 and to Aeschines3. But
an examination of the speech will show that it cannot
have been spoken by Andokides, or written by him
for the use of another; that it was probably not
written by any one who lived at the time of which it
treats; and that there is good reason for believing it
to be the work of a late sophist.
That Andokides spoke this speech is inconceivable.
The speaker says (~ 8) that he has been four times
tried; and ({ 41) that he has been       ambassador to
Molossia, Thesprotia, Italy and      Sicily.  But elsewhere, excusing himself for acts committed in the
very year in which this speech is supposed to have
been delivered-in 415-Andokides pleads that he
was young and foolish at the time4.      Moreover, no
writer mentions Andokides as having been in danger of ostracism at the same time as Nikias and
Alkibiades.
Nor is it credible that Andokides wrote the
speech for another person-Phaeax, for instance, as
Valckenar5 suggests.     The style is strongly against
this.   It is far more artificial than    anything   by
Andokides which we possess; it approaches, indeed,
more nearly to the style of Isokrates. The formal
1 [Plut.] Vit. Andoc. drrooyla Tv 8 Kal Ev ro7t p?r)opLKOtL lKavCnv
1rpb0s '9aaKa.               yEyvLva1ao-1_Evos, C f Xov 'K rT rTr7
"2 Athenaeos (Ix. p. 408 c.) quotes  drroXoylia [rov rarps---Blass vrrep]
some words from ~ 29 of the speech, c al Kos ro v apaTrryov Kal ALOvos.
as from Avo-'la Kar' 'AXKL3t8ov.  De Reclitu, ~ 7.
SThis may be surmised from  5 See Valckenar's dissertation,
Diogenes Laertios, 11. 63, who says, given at the end of Chap. I. of
speaking of Aeschines the Sokratic,  Sluiter's Lect. Andcc.




136


136     ~THE ATTIC ORA TORS.     LHP


[CHAP.


antitheses in the proem (ýý 1-2) are, a striking
example of this character'.
W4asea    Taylor 2 and others have ascribed the speech to
au~thor? Phaeax himself. Plutarch names Phacax, Alkibiades,
and Nikias as the three men over whom ostracism
was hangin-g at the same time; and quotes from a
speech against Alkibiades, with which the name of
Phacax. is connected, a story which appears (in a
different form) in our speech 3. Then it is known
from Thucydides that Phaeax went on an embassy
at least to Sicily and Italy 4. Valckenair's and IRuhnken's 5 arguments against Taylor are inconclusive. If
the speech was really written at the time of which it
treats, it cannot be disproved, any more than it can
be proved, that Phaeax was the author.


Compare also ~ 21 AVXX~' L.9~i
evEl) rLZ atv Tpa-1q8tatv 'rotai^7ra OEOx)OvYTEI5La 1OF1 EtE, Vyl)OFLl)U.
TVIy 7TOXLOPCOPlTEE O~V    jp * V-'
ETwith  Isokr. Panegy~r.~ 168
Elfl L~z'raCE  ~vpOopalE '7-a^~
TCO)))7TO177TCWOV7OVKEtJLE1JCLLE laKpV'EIV
a~vo-vaX0     a &Ewa i rXa lt
aetva' yvyv6'[kva  &a Tl 7-' 7ro'XE/Lol)
ElOpO)lJTIEE TOO1JTOV 5E'OVO-tLI)ECEEI
K.T. X.
2' Ledt. Lysiac. c. vir.
3 Plut. AZAI. c. 13  /E"pe7at  Kal
Xoyov 7TLE KlTaXK/3 a 0      tK  t '~aaKoEv yqpap4ILElovEvEl) 'p ra Tc OW Sa
XCOw je~ypall-TaL Kalt On 7TlJE O'XeCOE,7roXXai 7To~LttrlaXp -FtKa a'p-yvpa^
KEKT-?pfkVE  XKfSa51EExPTOwu
avlroi. Coo'7rCp INNS' wpr O'S' )l'VgaO'
77/tpav &IlLTavI. For Kal JDat'aKoE
Taylor (1. e.) and Yater (nerumi Andocidearumn cap. iv.) propose V'7r 0
(D a lahKoE: Blass (Att. Bereds. 330)


w~ryp ýIlltlK. Blass thinks that,
whoever the author of the speech
was, the person meant to be defended was Phaeax; and that the
adwoXoyt'a irp I E cIDIl'aKalin [Plut.]
Vit. Andoc. may have come from
ani original dwrokoyt'a IDalaK, i. e.
The Story of the sacred vessels
can hardly have been taken by
Plutarch only froni ~ 29 of the
speech, where it runs:-,ra' woFml1ta
7wapa TO)5) apXLOEOwp~wCov T?7UatI/evoE
COlE ELE TOWrl)LKta 7T7j WpoTEp~la Ta 7q
OVmtIas' XPlJI1AYoII )OEEý7W17ra Tae Kai.
awroaovvat Ov'K l7OEX
4 Thuc. v. 4.
5 Ruhanken, Historia Cs-it. Os-att.
Gr-aec. (Opuse. 1. p. 326). Ruhnken, as Sluiter points out, borrows
largely from Valckeniar's dissertation (see above), which had appeared 12 years before.




VI.]


ANDOKIDES.- WORKS.


137


But an overwhelming amount of evidence tends Thesgee
to show that the speech is the work of a later sophist. S ist.
First stand two general reasons; the supposed occasion of the speech, and the style of its composition.
As far as the nature of ostracism is known to us, straism
the whole speech involves a thorough misconception ced'.
of it: it assumes a situation which could never have
existed. Once every year the ekklesia was formally
asked by its presidents whether, in that year, an
ostracism should be held. If it voted affirmatively,
a day was fixed.    The market-place was railed in
for voting, every citizen might write any name he
pleased on the shell which he dropped into the urn;
and if against any one name there were six thousand
votes, the person so indicated was banished for tenin later times, for five-years. The characteristic
feature of the whole proceeding was the absence of
everything like an open contest between definite
rivals. The very object of ostracism was to get rid
of a dangerous man in the quietest and least invidious way. No names were mentioned; far less
was discussion dreamed of. The idea of a man rising
in the ekklesia or other public gathering, and stating
that he was one of three persons who were in danger
of ostracism; then inveighing at great length and
with extraordinary bitterness against one of the
other two; and concluding with a vindication of his
own consequence-would have probably seemed to
Athenians of the days of ostracism incredibly indecent and absurd. In the first place, they would
have been offended by his open assumption-whether
true or not-that he was one of the citizens who had
rendered the resort to ostracism necessary; secondly,




138


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


they would have resented his attempt to prejudice
the ballot; and if, in the end, he had escaped, his
escape would probably have been due to their conviction that, as the poet Plato said of Hyperbolos,
'it was not for such fellows that shells were invented1.' But the speaker against Alkibiades does
not only himself speak thus; he asserts that Alkibiades is about to address the house next, and to
endeavour to move it by his tears2.
tyle.       If the nature of the situation supposed were not
enough, the style of the composition would in itself
be almost decisive.      The speaker begins with       a
formal statement of the matter in hand, evidently
meant for a reader; and then goes on to string together all the tritest stories about Alkibiades.   This
-the body of the speech-has the unmistakable air
of a compilation.
Particular  The arguments from     the supposed occasion and
errors.
from the style are confirmed by the evidence of
particular misstatements. In ~~ 22, 23 Alkibiades
is said to have had a child by a Melian woman who
came into his power after the capture of Melos; but
the speech, as has been shown, can refer only to the
spring of 415: and Melos was taken only in the
winter of 416-415. In ~ 33 Kimon is said to have
been banished because he had married his own sister.
In ~ 13 the commander at Delium-a battle fought
but nine years before the supposed date of the speech
1 Ap. Plut. Alk. C. 13 od yap  is going to be ostracised without
TroLovrovr  cec' oo-rpay' eVp'Oy.  any secret voting-as if by a show
2 ~ 39. Grote (Iv. p. 202, note)  of hands. But in ~ 2 the OVTE beremarks on the erroneous con-  fore &a+yito-apivcoo` Kpvf38aV is now
ception of ostracism involved in  omitted by Schleicrmacher and
the speaker compnaining that he  Blass.




VI.]


A ND OKID ES.- WO R i.1S.


139


--is called Hipponikos instead of Hippokrates. The
two last blunders would have been impossible for an
Athenian of that age.    On the whole there can be
little doubt that in this speech we must recognize
the work of a late rhetorician who saw, in the juxtaposition of Alkibiades, Nikias and Andokides, a
dramatic subject; who had only an indistinct notion
of how ostracism was managed in olden times; and
who believed himself sufficiently prepared for his
task when he had read in Plutarch all the scandalous
stories relating to Alkibiades.
Beside the extant speeches of Andokides, the Los
Works.
titles of four others have been preserved. (1) Plutarch quotes an address ' To the Associates,' or mem- Address to
the Assobers of the oligarchical clubs, as authority for a state-  tes.
ment that the remains of Themistokles had been
dishonoured at Athens; but adds that the statement
was made by Andokides merely for the purpose of
exasperating   the  oligarchs against the    people1.
Ruhnken2, with whom Sauppe3 agrees, thought that
this Address was a letter written by Andokides, then
in exile, to the fellow-conspirators of Peisandros in
411. But the breach of Andokides with the oligarchical party, after his informations in 415, was decisive and final; when he returned to Athens in 411
he was at once denounced by Peisandros and imprisoned.   It seems better, then, with Kirchhoff4
and Blass, to refer this Address to an earlier time
than 415: perhaps to the years 420-418, a period
1 Plut. Themist. c. 32.     4 Andocidea, Hermes I. pp. 1 -2 list, Crit. Or. Gr. (Opusc. I. 20.
p. 326).                      5 Att.B ereds. p.286; and Andoc.
3 Or. Att. ii. p. 165.    (Teubner) p. 96.




140


THIE ATTIC ORATORS.


[OHAP.


of keen struggle between the oligarchical and popular
euibera- parties at Athensl.    (2) The 'Deliberative Speech'
tive Speech.                              D   irv
quoted by the lexicographers 2 is identified by Kirchhoff with the last-mentioned.     Its title seems, however, to show plainly that it was of a different kind,
and was either spoken, or supposed to be spoken, in
Speech On debate  in  the ekklesia.    (3) Harpokration     once
the Infor"maton.  quotes a 'Speech On the Information' (Trept r;, ESelo) for the word    T7T77,3, which occurs twice in
the speech    On the Mysteries3.       Hence the two
speeches have sometimes been identified. But the
pseudo-Plutarch expressly distinguishes them4. And
the author of the speech against Andokides states
that two informations had been laid against him in
the same year. It is true that there is no proof
of the earlier information having resulted in a trial;
and that the title of the lost speech, if really distinct
from  the De Mysteriis, was ill-chosen.       But it is
difficult to suppose that the biographer could have
made such a blunder as to quote the same speech by
two different titles in the same sentence.       On the
whole, Sauppe's6 view, that the speech On the Mysteries and the speech On the Information were
distinct, appears most probable. If the lost speech
referred, like the De Mysteriis, to the Hermae case,
it must have contained the word which Harpokration
quotes; and it would have been natural for him to
C Of. Plut. Alk. c. 13.    ries and On his Return; and then
"2 Antiatticista, Bekker Anpd.  adds, r(TcTrat U avrov Kal 1 rrepi
"vol. I. p. 94, v. 25. Photios, p. 288, rjg Ev Ieco XodyOS Ka'L 7droXoyla
23.                          Vpbs  alaKa Ka  l  rrept l 7rjS elpijvrS.
3 ~~ 36, 40.                 s [Lys.] in Andoc. ~ 30.
"4 [Plut.] Vit. Andoc. mentions  0. A. i.. p. 165.
first the speeches On the Myste



VI.]


B 2 ND OACIDES. - TFORKS..


141


quote it from the earlier of the two compositions in
which it occurred.    (4) The 'Reply to Phaeax' is Rplo
known only from the pseudo-Plutarch, who does not
name the speech 'Against Alkibiades'1. It has been
shown that the latter is probably the work of a late
sophist; and it is likely that Phaeax, rather than
Andokides, was intended to be the speaker.           If,
then, it could be assumed that ' Reply to Phaeax'
is an inaccurate quotation of the title, which ought
to have been cited as 'Reply for Phaeax,' there is no
difficulty in supposing the identity of this work with
the extant speech Against Alkibiades.
Besides the names of these four speeches, two Doubtful.fragments.
fragments of unknown context have been preserved2.
One of them expresses the hope that Athens may
not 'again' see the country       people thronging in
to seek shelter within the walls. This seems to refer
to the invasion by Archidamos in 431. If this be so,
the speech to which the fragment belonged was
probably older than 413, when Agis occupied Dekeleia, and when the scenes of 431 must have been to
some extent repeated. Such a passage might have
found place either in the address To the Associates
or in the Deliberative Speech 3. The other fragment speaks of Hyperbolos as then at Athens; and
is therefore older, at least, than 417 4.
S [Plut.] Vit. Andoc. 1. c.  fovXEvrtKos. If these, however,
2 Sauppe, O. A. i. p. 166: Blass  were distinct, the fragment may
Andoc. (Teubner) p. 97.      belong just as well to the rvyj3ov3 Sauppe refers the fragment to  XevrTIKr.
the Trpos ro% v EralpovE. So, also,  4 On the date of the ostracism
does Kirchhoff, identifying the  of Hyperbolos, see above, p. 134,
Trpbs rOE &ralpovE with the oav/-  note 1.




142'


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


CHAPTER.         VII.
L YSIA S.
LIFE.
LYSIAS, though he passed most of his years at
Athens, did not possess the citizenship, and,
except in the impeachment of Eratosthenes, appears
to have had no personal contact with the affairs of
the city. Yet, as in literary style he is the representative of Atticism, so in his fortunes he is closely
associated with the Athenian democracy. He suffered with it in its two greatest calamities-the
overthrow in Sicily and the tyranny of the Thirty;
he took part in its restoration; and afterwards, in
his speeches for the law-courts, he became perhaps
the best, because the soberest, exponent of its spirit-the most graceful and most versatile interpreter
of ordinary Athenian life.
Kephalos, the father of Lysias, was a Syracusan,
who settled at Athens as a resident alien on the
invitation of Perikles1.  Such an invitation would
scarcely have carried much weight before Perikles
had begun to be a leading citizen,- i. e. before about


1 Lys. in Eratosth. ~ 4.




VII.]


LYSIAS. -LIFE.


143


460 B.C.; and the story which represented Kephalos
as having been driven from Syracuse when the democracy was overthrown by Gelon         (485 B.C.) is
therefore not very probable1.
Lysias was born at Athens after his father had
come to live there.    The year of his birth cannot
be determined. Dionysios assumes the same year
as the pseudo-Plutarch-01. 80. 2., 459 B.c.; but
admits, what the latter does not, that it is a
mere assumption2.     And the ground upon which
the assumption rested is evident. Lysias was known
to have gone to Thurii when he was fifteen. Thurii
was founded 01. 84. 1., 444 B.C.: it was inferred,
then, that Lysias was born in 459 B. C. But there is
nothing to prove that Lysias went to Thurii in the
year of its foundation. The date 459 B. c. must be
regarded, therefore, as a mere guess. It is the guess,
however, which had the approval of the ancients;
and it is confirmed by this circumstance-that Lysias
was reported to have died at about eighty3, and
that, in fact, his genuine works, so far as they are
extant, cease at about 380 B..4 In the absence


1 [Plut.] Vit. Lys. w   e rTLVE,
EKTrEco-vraT  Tu  vpaKovorwv  ViKa
cr TIrcovos Ervpavvovvro.
2 Dionys. Lys. c. 1 says that in
the archonship of Kallias (412 B.c.)
Lysias was forty-seven, as one
might conjecture-cs w' C. '  elrKdueeEv. Again in c. 12 he supposes
that Lysias may have died in 379
at the age of 80. The pseudo-Plutarch Vit. Lys. says boldly:-yeapo evroS 'AOvYrq  o  'tv E,l 4lXOKXOVE
apXovroV rov pera DpapcOtK, KaTa"


TO  ~EVETepOV ETO0 Tr^E Oy3O?)KOoT17
3 Dionys. Lys. c. 12: [Plut.] Vit.
Lys.
4 The speech Against Evandros
(382 B.c.), and that ForPherenikos,
of which a fragment remains, (381
or 380 B.c.)-are his latest known
works. The two lost speeches For
Iphikrates (Sauppe, Frag. xviii.
and LXV, Att. Or. Ii. pp. 178, 190).
belonged respectively to the years
371 and 354; but the judgment of




144


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


of certainty, then, it seems probable that the date
459 is not far wrong.
This is not, however, the prevalent modern view.
Lysias was said to have gone to Italy after his
father's death1; and this fact is the criterion for
the date of his birth on which C. F. Hermann2
and Baur3 rely, as the ancient writers relied on
the foundation-year of Thurii.    Kephalos is introduced in Plato's Republic, of which the scene is
laid (C. F. Hermann thinks) in 430 B.c.       Lysias,
then, it is agreed, cannot have gone to Thurii before 429, or have been born before 444.         Blass
justly objects to a dialogue of Plato being used as
an authority for a date of this kind; but he himself
arrives at the same conclusion on another groundviz. because Kephalos cannot have come to Athens
earlier than 460, and had lived there (as his son
says4) thirty years.   Again, Lysias was certainly
older than Isokrates5, who was born in 436. The
birth of Lysias must therefore be put (Blass thinks)
between 444 and 436.


Dionysios in rejecting them (Lys.
c. 12) has been generally confirmed
by modern writers.
1 70rO 7arpO g7 rl EEXEVTr)KOTO S:
pseudo-Plut. Vit. Lys.
2 Gesammelte Abhandlungen, p.
15.
3 Uebersetzung d. Reden d. Lys.
pp. 5 ff.-Blass, Attisch. Bereds.
p. 333.
4 Lys. in Eratosth. ~ 4.
5 A dialogue of Plato can seldom
be safely cited to prove that one
of the persons of the imaginary


conversation was, or was not, alive
at a given time long before. But
when, in such a dialogue, one of
two persons contemporary with
Plato is represented as very decidedly older than the other, it
must be assumed that this was the
case. To infer from the Republic
that Kephalos was alive in 430 B.C.
would be rash. But it is perfectly
safe to infer from the Phaedros
(p. 278 E, &c.) that Lysias was an
orator of matured powers when
Isokrates was a boy.




vII.]


LYSIAS.-LIFE.`E


145


This view depends altogether on the statement
that Lysias remained at Athens till his father's
death-a statement vouched for only by the Plutarchic biographer, who is surely untrustworthy on
such a point. Further, it assumes both the date and
the literal biographical accuracy of the Rejpublic;
or else-what is at least doubtful-that Kephalos
could not have come to Athens before 460. Lastly,
it makes it difficult to accept the well-accredited
account of Lysias having reached, or passed, the age
of eighty; since all traces of his industry, hitherto
constant, cease when, at this rate, he would have
been no more than sixty-six1. The question must be
left uncertain.  But the modern hypothesis that
Lysias was born between 444 and 436 B.c. does
not seem, at least, more probable than the ancient
hypothesis that he was born about 4592.
Besides Lysias, Kephalos had two other sons,
Polemarchos and Euthydemos3-Polemarchos being
the eldest of the three; and a daughter, afterwards
married to Brachyllos. The hospitable disposition


1 Blass distinctly admits this:'Starb also Lysias bald nach diesem Jahre, so sind freilich jene
Angaben iiber das Alter, welches
er erreichte, vdllig aufzugeben.'
Att. Bereds. p. 336.
2 Stallbaum, in his Lysiaca ad
illustrandas Phaedri Platonici
origines (Leipzig, 1851) pp. 6f.,
takes the following dates: Birth
of Lysias, 459: Foundation of
Thurii, 446: Kephalos comes to
Athens, 444: Lysias goes to Thurii,
443: Death of Lysias, 378.
3 Plato (Rep. p. 328 B) mentions


Lysias and Euthydemos as the
brothers of Polemarchos. Dionysios
(Lys. 1) speaks of two brothers of
Lysias. But the pseudo-Plutarch
gives him   three - Polemarchos,
Eudidos (Euthyd6mos), and Brachyllos. Blass seems right in concluding from Demosth. Neaer. ~ 22
that Brachyllos was not brother,
but brother-in-law, of Lysias. It is
there said that Lysias married the
daughter of Brachyllos, his own
niece (d EXq4L8gi.) Hence, probably, the mistake of the so-called
Plutarch.
10




146


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


of Kephalos is     marked in     the opening    of the
Republic, of which the scene is laid at the house
of his eldest son.  He complains that Sokrates does
not come often now to see them       at the Peiraeus,
and begs that in future he will come to them without
ceremony, as to intimate friends'. It is easy to
believe that, in the lifetime of Perikles, the house
of the wealthy Sicilian whom       his friendship had
brought to Athens was an intellectual centre, the
scene of many such gatherings as Plato imagined
at the house of Polemarchos; and that Lysias really
grew up, as Dionysios says, in the society of the
most distinguished Athenians2.
Sat         At the age of fifteen -his father, according to
one account, being dead4-Lysias went to Thurii,
accompanied certainly by his eldest brother Polemarchos; perhaps also by Euthydemos 5. At Thurii,
where he passed his youth and early manhood, he
is said to have studied rhetoric under Tisias6 of
Syracuse, himself the      pupil of Korax, reputed
founder of the art. If, as is likely, Tisias was
born about 485 B.C. and did not go to Athens till
about 418, there is nothing impossible in this account.   At any rate it is probable that Lysias had
lessons from some teacher of the Sicilian school, a
1 Plat. Rep. p. 328 D.       5 Dionysios (I. c.) says a0vv dbcX2 Dionys. Lys. 1: 0YvvEratcEBO7  4olt &vo-l: the pseudo-Plut. menro0t ei.tC)aveoa-drotg 'AOuvalow. The  tions Polemarchos only.
pseudo-Plut. repeats the words:'  The pseudo-Plut. says WraLi&vvr fLeV Trpcrov oPvvEraL&eVero rTO i p  ofj 7rS rapa TLo'la ca N  l'a rots
7ru/i. 'AOq.                S2vpaKovcrlost. Blass thinks that
" Dionys. Lys. 1.          the name of the unknown Nikias
"4 [Plut.] Vit. Lys.       arose out of Toica by a dittography.




VII.]


LYSIAS.-LIFE


147


school the trammels of which his maturer genius
so thoroughly    shook   off.  The overthrow      of the
Athenian arms in Sicily brought into power an
anti-Athenian faction at Thurii. Lysias and his
brother, with    three  hundred    persons accused     of
'Atticising1,' were driven out, and fled to Athens
in  412 B.C.2    A   tradition, idle, indeed, but picturesque, connected the Athenian disaster in Sicily
with the last days of Lysias in southern Italy. To
him was ascribed a speech, possessed by the ancients,
in which the captive general Nikias implored the
mercy of his Sicilian conquerors3.
The next seven years at Athens-from           412 to HRiif"a
from 412 to
405--seem    to have been years of peace and pros- 0S.o.
perity for the brothers.     They were the owners of
three houses, one in the town, in which Polemarchos
lived4; another in the Poiraeus, occupied by Lysias;
and, adjoining the latter, a shield-manufactory, employing a hundred and twenty slaves.        Informerswho were especially dangerous to rich foreignersdid not vex them5; they had many friends; and, in
the liberal discharge of public services, were patterns
to all resident-aliens6. The possession of house1 'ATTKLO-JLWov E KX907ELL, Dionys. 6~ epov, K.r.X. But it must have
Lys. 1.                       been at least as old as the latter
2 Dionysios and the pseudo-  part of the fourth century B.c.,
Plut. both mark the date by the  since Theophrastos  quoted it
archonship of Kallias.        (Dionys. Lys. 14).
3 See the short fragment of this  4 This follows from Lys. In Eraspeech vrrep NKIov in Sauppe 0. A. tosth. ~ 16.
ii. p. 199. Dionysios unhesitatingly  5 In Eratosth. ~ 4.
rejected it, and the few remaining  C6 f. In Eratosth. ~ 20, where
words suffice in themselves to be-  Lysias speaks of himself and his
tray a vulgar rhetorician:-KXalco  brother as rado-as rats Xopryias Xorov dad/4Xrfov Ka\ dvavyýcXg7rov  piy/jauvara---and, in contrast with
10-2




148


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


property1 shows that they belonged-as their father
Kephalos had doubtless belonged-to that privileged
class of resident-aliens who paid no special tax as
such, and who, as being on a par in respect of
taxes with citizens, were called isoteleis. If Lysias
continued his rhetorical studies during this quiet
time, he probably had not yet begun           to  write
speeches for the law-courts. A rich man, as he
then was, had no motive for taking to a despised
drudgery; and the only extant speech ascribed to
him which refers to a date earlier than 403-that for
Polystratos-is probably spurious. Cicero2, quoting
Aristotle, says that Lysias once kept a rhetorical
school, but gave it up because Theod6ros surpassed
him  in technical-subtlety.    If this story is worth
anything, there is perhaps one reason for referring
it to the years 412-405; it certainly imputes to
Lysias the impatience of a wealthy amateur. At
any rate the ornamental pieces enumerated in the
lists of his works-the encomia, the letters, the
show-speeches-may have belonged in part to this
period of his life.  After 403 he wrote for the lawcourts as a profession, and wrote with an industry
which can have left little time for the rhetoric of
display.
The         Soon   after the Thirty had taken power in the
Anarchy.
the Thirty, oVXo 6poe1A ero0o vV-  2 Cie. Brut. c. 48: nam Lysiam
ragC co-rep avrol eTroXtrEvovro. primoprofiteri solitum artem di1 Boeckh, Publ. Econ. Bk. i. c. cendi, deinde, quod Theodorus
24. A resident-alien could under  esset in arte subtilior, in orationo circumstances be an owner of nibus ieiunior, orationes eum
land; and only an isoteles could be  scribere aliis coepisse, artem reowner of a house.            movisse.




VII.]


LYSIAS.-LIFE.


149


spring of 404, two of them, Theognis and Peison,
proposed that measures should be adopted against
the resident-aliens; nominally, because that class
was disaffected -really, because it was rich. Ten
resident-aliens were chosen out for attack, two poor
men being included for the sake of appearances.
Lysias and Polemarchos were on the list. When
Theognis and Peison, with their attendants, came
to the house of Lysias in the Peiraeus, they found
him  entertaining a party of friends.   The guests
were driven off, and their host was left in the charge
of Peison, while Theognis and his companions went
to the shield-manufactory close by to take an inventory of the slaves. Lysias, left alone with Peison,
asked if he would take a sum of money to save
him.   'Yes,' said Peison, 'if it is a large sum.'
They agreed on a talent; and Lysias went to bring
it from the room where he kept his money-box.
Peison, catching sight of the box, called up two
servants, and told them to take its whole coffTents.
Thus robbed of more than thrice the amount bargained for, Lysias begged to be left at least enough
to take him out of the country. Peison replied that
he might consider himself lucky if he got off with
his life. They were then going to leave the house,
when they met at the door two other emissaries of
the Thirty. Finding that Peison was now going to
the house of Polemarchos in the town, these men
relieved him of Lysias, whom they took to the house
of one Damnippos. Theognis was there already with
some other prisoners. As Lysias knew Damnippos,
he took him aside, and asked him to assist his




150


THEY4 ATTIO~C ORATORS..


[CHAP.


escape.   Damnippos thought that it would be best
to speak directly to Theognis, who, he was sure,
would do anything for money. While Theognis and
Damnippos were talking in the front-hall, Lysias
slipped through the door, which chanced to be open,
leading from   the first court of the house to the
second1.   He had still two doors to pass through
luckily they were both unlocked.       He escaped to
the house of Archene6s, the master of a merchantship, close by, and sent him    up to Athens to learn
what had become of Polemarchos.       Archene6s came
back with the news that Polemarchos had been met
in the street by Eratosthenes, one of the Thirty,
and taken straight to prison.     The same night Lysias took boat to Megara.
Polemarchos received the usual message of the
Thirty2-to drink the hemlock.       Although the property of which the brothers had been despoiled was
so valuable-including almost the whole stock of
the s]ield-manufactory, gold and silver plate, furniture, and a large sum     of money-the decencies of
burial were refused to Polemarchos.       He was laid
out in the prison     on  a  common    stretcher,-one
friend gave a cloth to throw over the body, another
a cushion for the head, and so forth. A pair of
gold   earrings were   taken   from  the ears of his
widow 3.
1 In Eratosth. ~ 16, rptLav 6I  r2 v  KEPCOi EL' vcv dLOtEv rrapdyOvpcv ov a-rcv a  IEts ei E &EX e'iv yeX/a, rivewEv KCVtOV: In Eratosth.
arrao-at ave dw)yvat ErvXov. The first  ~ 17.
of these must have been the IIrav-  In Eratosth. ~ 19. For the
Xo! ONpa, leading from the outer to  whole account of the arrest, see
the inner aX ij.             that speech, ~~ 6-20.




VII.]


L YXIrA S. - LlEM


151


During the ten or twelve months of the exile-     a aids
the Exiles.
from the spring of 404 to the spring of 403-Lysias seems to have been active in the democratic
cause. According to his biographer1-whose facts
were probably taken from Lysias himself-he presented the army of the patriots with two hundred
shields, and with a sum of two thousand drachmas;
gained for it, with the help of one Hermon2, upwards
of three hundred recruits; and induced his friend
Thrasydaeos of Elis3 to contribute no less than two
talents.  Immediately upon the return from     the
Peiraeus to the city in the spring of 403, Thrasybulos proposed that the citizenship should be conferred upon Lysias; and the proposal was carried
in the ekklesia. In one respect, however, it was
informal. No measure could, in strictness, come before the popular assembly which was not introduced
by a preliminary resolution (probouleuma) of the
Senate. But at the moment when this decree was
passed, the Senate had not yet been reconstituted
after the anarchy4; and the probouleuma had therefore been wanting.    On this ground Archinos, a


1 [Plut.] Vit. Lys.   The facts
mentioned there may have been
taken from the speech of Lysias on
the motion of Archinos (ib. ~ 11),
and also from that irepI r7o Ilcov
evEpyEOLtv, (quoted by Harpokration s. vv. Ke^ot, CrJyatE{o'c, fera7rpytov,) if indeed this was distinct
from the former.
2 cEp/zýtL in the Vit. Lys.   7 7
ought probably to be "Epowv, as
Blass assumes, Att. Bereds. p. 340.
3 [Plut.] Vit.Lys. Cf. Xen. Hellen.


III. 2. 27.
4 This appears from the statement of the pseudo-Plut. Vit. Lys.
~ 8, that the proposal was made
/RETa rv KadOov E7Tr dvapxYlas r7
trpo EUKXE('oV, that is, immediately
after the return in the spring of
the year 403. Later in the same
year Eukleides became archon;
and with the revival of the constitutional forms which commenced
in his archonship the daapXta was
held to have ended.




152


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


colleague of Thrasybulos, arraigned the decree (under
the Graph6 Paranomon) as unconstitutional, and it
was annulled1. The whole story has been doubted2;
but it is difficult to reject it when the Plutarchic
biographer expressly refers to the speech made by
Lysias in connection with the protest of Archinos.
Whether this speech was or was not identical with
that of Lysias On his own Services4 cannot be
decided; but the latter must at least have been
made upon this occasion.
Thero-      Stripped of a great part of his fortune by the
fessionao
ysias.  Thirty Tyrants, and further straitened, probably, by
his generosity to the exiles, Lysias seems now to
have settled down to hard work at Athens.            His
Sactivity as a writer of speeches for the law-courts
falls-as far as we know-between the years 403
and 380 B.c. That it must have been great and
constant is shown by the fact that Dionysios speaks
of him   as having    written   'not fewer than      two
hundred forensic speeches 5.' No other of the Attic
orators was credited with so many as a hundred
compositions of all kinds6. First in time and first,
too, in importance among the extant orations of
I [Plut.] Vit. Lys. o peJ 8'F0LOs covyKarEXOdvrwv avTi  dwr o  v'Xlp,
EKvpcocE T1V copeaV, adTeveyKaelvov  Kal EaXE. This says only, rt.
e 'Apxlvov ypa()v rapavo/wv 8t a   orrTL a' avrov Kat o vrrp 0ro 4DrITO a7rpopovXEvTov eloraaXOvatL EcaXEo  IOJLaros (XoyoS) 8 Eypai'aT7o 'Ap+TO flOc/ LXLa.               X   Tvo~ r v 7roXLTELaZV avT ov r7plE~\tXcV:
2 As by Scheibe (Blass, p. 340),  Vit. Lys. ~ 11.
who thinks that the biographer  4 See p. 151, note 1.
assumed it from the vague allusion  6 De Lys. c. 17.
in Aeschin. in Ctes. ~ 195: 'ApX-vo  6 Even  including  doubtful
yap d EK KoiXtJ dypa']raro 7rapavr-  speeches, as Blass observes, Att.
/PO Opao-VaovXov rv SvreLppla ypd-  Bereds. p. 344.
aJavTa rIt apa rovs vollovs, Eva rTv




VII.]


LYSIAS.-LIFE.


153


Lysias is that Against Eratosthenes, in whom          he Th   "saw  not only one of the Thirty Tyrants but the ot,.^s
murderer of his brother Polemarchos. It was probably in 403 that Eratosthenes was impeached.
The speech of Lysias, memorable as a display of
eloquence, valuable, too, as a sufferer's picture of
a dreadful time, has this further interest, that it
is the only forensic speech known to have been
spoken by Lysias himself, and that it marks his
only personal contact with the politics of Athens.
Lysias had probably been a professional speech- gs nd
writer for about four years when          Sokrates was
brought to trial in 399. According to the popular
account, Lysias wrote a defence for Sokrates to
speak in court, but Sokrates declined to use it1.
In the story itself there is nothing improbable;
Kephalos and his son Lysias had been the intimate
friends of Sokrates. But it may be suspected that
the story arose from a confusion. At some time later
than 392 B.c. the sophist Polykrates published an
epideictic Accusation of Sokrates2, and, in reply to
it, Lysias wrote a speech In Defence of Sokrates3.
This was extant in antiquity; and some one who
1 Diog. Laert. Ir. 40:[Plut.] Vit. krates had referred to the rebuildLys.: Cic. de Orat. I. 54 ~ 231: ing of the walls by Konon: thereQuint. II. 15 ~ 30, xi. i ~ 9: Valer. fore, as Bentley first pointed out
Max. vi. 4. 2: Stob. Flor. vii. (deEpist.Socr. ~ 6, p.51), the speech
56.                          cannot have been written before
"2 The Ka-r)yopia coiKparov  of  392 B.C.
Polykrates is mentioned by Suidas  I Schol. ad Aristid. p. 113. 16
s. V. 1loXvKpdrqs: Isokr. Bus. ~~ 3, (vol. III. p. 480 Dind.), ol8le rOv co5, and auctorjArgum.: Aelian V. KpaTvvTpos rTov vEovs ade't r'Ovo--
H. xi. 10: Quint. II. 17, cf. III. 1:  ro-a OavpldaovTa...cs IIoXvKpa'T7 ev
Diog. Laert. n. 38. Diogenes no-  c Kar'T a-vrov X6yp -77c rt Kal Avulav
tices, from Favorinus, that Poly-  E r,) irpOs IoXvKpdraTv vrEp avroO.




154


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


had heard of it, but who knew nothing of the circumstances under which it was written, probably
invented the story that it had been offered to, and
declined by, the philosopher.    The self-denial of
Sokrates would be complete when, after rejecting
the aid of money, he had rejected the aid of the
best contemporary rhetoric1.
Ssias      Lysias is named in the ordinary text of his own
speech On the Property of Aristophanes as taking
part in an embassy to Dionysios the elder of Syracuse, an embassy of which the date cannot be put
below 389 B.C. But there can be little doubt as to
the correctness of the emendation which removes his
name from that passage2. There is better reason
for believing another story in which the name of
Lysias is associated with that of the elder Diony

The title of the speech probably
was 'YrrEp aooKparov 7rpbs HIoXvKpa1 Dr L. H81scher (Quaestiunculae Lysiacae, Herford, 1857, pp.4 ff.)
defends the ordinary account,believing that Lysias really composed a
defence which Sokrates declined to
use. He thinks that the droXoyla2coKparovs mentioned among the works
of Lysias by Phot. Cod. 262, Antiatt. in Bekker Anecd. p. 115. 8,
Schol. ad Plat. Gorg. p. 331 B, and
[Plut.] Vit. Lys., was distinct from
the speech v7rep coKpdarovq written
in reply to Polykrates, and cited
by the scholiast on Aristides. He
remarks that in the Plutarchic life
the Apologia is described as E'oroxao-EvTv  rwv 8tKacT-rTo-which is
meant, he thinks, to mark that it
was more practical, more forensic,


than Plato's Apologia Socratis.
He observes also that the scholiast
on the Gorgias (1. c.) notices the
speech of Lysias as having contained matter about Anytos and
Meletos. But neither of these references affords any good ground
for assuming that there was an
'ArroXoyla  coKpdirovs  by  Lysias
distinct from  his reply to Polykrates. The latter had been read
by  the   scholiast on Aristides.
Sauppe shows that the supposed
Apologia was at all events not extant in antiquity (0. A. i. p. 203).
2 Lys. de bonis Aristoph. ~ 19,
f3ovXopivov KOvcVO  7rrJT7rEwV TVaC
ELs, LKeXIav ['ApLcrToq)Cdvr]] ('xero
vroa-Tars /er Evlov u  t KL Avo tov,
PtlXov 'vros Ktal S  vov, TOb 7rXJ06os T
VETEpTpov 7rXEtorTa dyaOa  rE rorqKoros, K.r.X. Sauppe substitutes Amo



VII.]


LYSIAS.-LIFE.


155


sios. We have good authority1 for the statement
that the    Olympiakos, of which     a large fragment
remains, was spoken by Lysias in person at the
Olympic festival of 388 B.c., to which Dionysios
had sent a splendid embassy. In that speech Lysias
pointed out that two great enemies-the despot of
Syracuse in the west, the king of Persia in the eastthreatened Greece; and urged union among Greeks
with all the eagerness and with more than the
sagacity of Isokrates.
As has already been noticed, the indisputably chronogenuine works of Lysias, so far as they are known, Ikno
work.
cease about 380 B.C.       The latest, the speech     for
Pherenikos of which a fragment remains, belongs to
381 or 380.     Of the two speeches for Iphikrates,
also represented by fragments only, one belonged to
371, the other to 3542; but Dionysios pronounced
both spurious, partly on the external ground that
Lysias could not then have been living; partlywhich, for us, is the important point-on the internal evidence of style3. It seems probable that
Lysias died in, or soon after, 380 B.C., at the age of
about eighty4.
vvw-ov for the words Kal Avo-ov.  2 See Sauppe, O. A. n. p. 178,
Obviously the words tIXov Ivros  190.
Kal $vov require to be defined  3 Dionys. Lys. c. 12.
by the mention of the person    4 [Plut.] Vit. Lys. drEreXEVr?70 -whose friend he was. Kayser pro-  oy8orjKovTa ErT) 3iLOVs,  os r TIVEr'
posed to insert Alovvcro between  al E/8o/L?7Kor V, 7  tOE el  "vE p
Avwlov and (IXov. Sauppe's re-  dy0orlKovra, 183v At)ocrO'v)Yv jLEpa'medy is, as Blass says, simpler and  KLOV vra [Schafer places the birth of
better.                       Demosthenes in 384]. Dionys. Lys.
1 Dionys. Lys. c. 29: Diod. XIV.  c. 12 EL yap doyoB7Kovra tc7 yevo/de109.                          voV 0ja'TE T7S TreXvT^a7Tal Avolav, K.T.X.




156


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


aracter     The character, as well as the capacity, of Lysias
of Lysias.
must be judged from the indirect evidence of his
own writings. Circumstances kept him out of political life, in which his versatility and shrewdness
would probably have held and improved the position which great powers of speech must soon have
won. The part which he took during the troubles
under the Thirty proved him a generous friend to
Athens, as the Olympiakos shows him to have been
a wise citizen1 of Greece; but his destiny was not
that of a man of action. It is not likely that he
regretted this much, though he must have felt his
exclusion from the Athenian franchise as the refusal
of a reward to which he had claims. His real
strength-as far as can be judged now-lay in his
singular literary tact.    A  fine perception of character in all sorts of men, and a faculty for dramatising it, aided by a sense of humour always under
control; a certain pervading gracefulness and flexibility of mind; rhetorical skill, masterly in a sense
hardly dreamed of at that day, since it could conceal
itself-these were his most distinctive qualities and
powers.   His liberal discharge of public services,
and his generosity to the exiles in 404, accord with
the disposition which is suggested by the fragments
of his letters.  He was a man of warm       nature, impulsive, hospitable, attached to his friends; fond "of
pleasure, and freely indulging in it; but, like So1 The expression is his own: he  if he was still but a gIEro0Kos of
claims to give counsel as a good  Athens he was at least a WroXlrJ7s of
citizen (Olymp. ~ 3)-with the  Hellas.
thought in his mind, perhaps, that




VII.]             LYSIAS.-LIFE.                 157
phokles at the Chian supper-party described by
Ion1, carrying into social life the same intellectual
quality which marks his best work-the grace and
the temperate brightness of a thoroughly Athenian
mind.
SAthenaeos xiii. pp. 603 E-604 D.






158    ~THlE ATTIC ORATORS.    [HP


[CHAP.


CHAPTER VIII.
L YSIA S.
STYLE.
A Nappreciation of Lysias is, in one sense, easy for
modern. criticism. He was a literary artist,
and his work bears the stamp of consummate literary
skill. The reader may fail to realise the circumstances under which a particular speech was delivered,
the force with which it appeals to emotion or to
reason, the degree in which it was likely to prove
persuasive or convincing. But he cannot fail to be
aware that he is reading admirable prose. The merit
of Lysias as a writer is secure of recognition. It is
his oratorical power which runs some dan 'ger of being
too lightly valued, unless attention is paid to the
conditions under which it was exerted. The speech
Against Eratosthenes, indeed, in which he expresses
the passionate feeling of his own mind, would alone
suffice to prove him in the modern sense eloquent.
But a large majority of his other speeches are so
comparatively tame, so poor in the qualities of the
higher eloquence, that his oratorical reputation, to,




vIi.]


L YSIAS.STYLE.


159


be understood, needs to be closely interpreted by the
scope of his oratory.
Although on a few occasions he himself came
forward as a speaker, the business of his life was to
write for others. All sorts of men were among his
clients; all kinds of causes in turn occupied him.
Now he lent his services to the impeachment of an
official charged with defrauding the Athenian treasury,
or to the prosecution of some adherent of the Thirty,
accused of having slandered away the lives of Athenian citizens; now he supplied the words in which a
pauper begged that his obol a day from the State
might not be stopped, or helped one of the parties to
a drunken brawl to demand satisfaction for a black
eye. The elderly citizen who appeals against the
calumny of an informer to his past services as trierarch or choregus; the young man checked on the
threshold of public life by some enemy's protest at
his dokimasia for his first office,--in turn borrow
their eloquence from Lysias. If he had been content
to adopt the standard which he found existing in his
profession, he would have written in nearly the same
style for all these various ages and conditions. He
would have treated all these different cases upon a
uniform technical system, merely seeking, in every
case alike, to obtain the most powerful effect and
the highest degree of ornament by applying certain
fixed rules. Lysias was a discoverer when he perceived that a purveyor of words for others, if he
would serve his customers in the best way, must
give the words the air of being their own. He saw
that the monotonous intensity of the fashionable




160


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


rhetoric-often ludicrously unsuited to the mouth
into which it was put-was fatal to real impressiveness; and, instead of lending to all speakers the same
false brilliancy, he determined to give to each the
vigour of nature. It was the desire of treating
appropriately every case entrusted to him, and of
making each client speak as an intelligent person,
without professional aid, might be expected to speak
in certain circumstances, which chiefly determined
the style of Lysias.
Lysias the  This style, imitated    by many, but marked in
representative of the
-Pai    Lysias by    an  original excellence, made      him   for
tyle.  antiquity the representative of a class of orators.
It was in the latter part of the fourth century B. c.
that Greek critics began regularly to distinguish three
styles of rhetorical composition, the grand, the plain
and the middle. The grand style aims constantly at
rising above the common idiom; it seeks ornament
of every kind, and rejects nothing as too artificial if it
is striking. The plain style may, like the first, employ
the utmost efforts of art, but the art is concealed;
and, instead of avoiding, it imitates the language of
ordinary life. The 'middle' style explains itself by
its name.    Theophrastos appears to have been the
first writer on Rhetoric who attempted such a classification; there is, at least, no hint of it in Aristotle
or in the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum1.        Vague as the
1 Dionysios, speaking of the  thinks,' or by some one else: De
third or middle style, declares  Demosth. c. 3. From this, Franckhimself unable to decide whether  en infers with great probability
it was first used by Thrasymachos  that the distinction between the
of Chalkedon, 'as Theophrastos  three styles was first made by




Vill.)


L YSIA S. - S T YL -E.


161


classification necessarily is,, it was frequently modified
according to the taste of individual teachers. The
two extremes-the grand and the plain styles-were
recognised by all; but some discerned two1, some
three2 shades between them; while- others thought
it needless to distinguish anything intermediate ~.
On the whole, however, the tripartite division kept
its ground down to iRoi-man times. It was adopted,
with variations of detail, by Cicero", IDionysios5 and
Quintilian6. The characteristics of the- 'plain' style ~Genr
chsracsfther
-with which we are most concerned at present-are "taicsofthe
only sketched by Dionysios-7; but they are more


Theophrastos in his lost work irEp't
XF'ecco (Commentationes Lysiacae,
P. 9).
1 Tfhus IDemetrios (7rep! pu,
C. 36, Walz, Rh. Gra~ec. Vol. Ix. p.
21) distinguishes four types or
XapaKTr~per-the plain (La-Xv&O'.), the
grand (pe-yaXo,7rpc~rI'v), the polished
(yXa/vpO'g), and the forcible (8ctvov)-meaning by the last a terse,
vigorous style, suited to controversy in court or council.
2 Syrianos, in his commentary
on the repl 18 E C' of ilermogenes
ý(Walz, Rh. Craee. Vol. vii. p. 93),
says that ilipparchos (a rhetorician who wrote a treatise 7rt- p't,
TPO~rcV, ib. vi. p. 337) recognised
five styles-the plain (t'rxvO'v), the
copious (a'8po6,-another name for
the peyako~rpoin'v), the middle (pIE'o-os), the graphic (ypaq/nKO'), and
the florid, (d'vOt7pO'.)*
3 Demetrios says that his -yXa4V~vp XapaKni7p was considered by
some as a branch of the lo-xvo',9
and his acepo'v apaKrqp as the


branch of the p.eyA~orpe~r?7s: repl
iPE f c. 36, Walz, ix. 21.
4 Cic. Orator c. 6 ~ 20, grandiloqui-tenues, acuti-medius et
quasi temperatus.
r3Dionysios describes the grand
style as tqXa-y/.1'Vq~, 7rEPtTT'?) toy
KaTaTKEV09 (De Demosth. 1), or
'+7~7~X') Xits- (ib. 34): the plain, as
XLTI7, a4OeX+9 (ib. 2), or Io-xv4, d a3reptrrOý (ib. 34): the middle as 1n
(ib. 34) or ýULKTV/ (ib. 3)..6 Quint. xii. c. 10 ~.58. Unum
subtile (genus), quod io-xv1'v vocant,
alterum grande atque robustum,
quod allpo'v dicunt, constituunt;
tertium aiji medium. ex duobus,
a~ii floridum (namque id adrOqpo'v
appellant) addiderunt.
7 IDionyS. De Demosik. c. 2,
aoKovo-a KcLTWTKEV-V17V EKat I(Xvvr"T;v
7rp 0L&1(0   ex18?)rV' eELY X'yov KUl 411m"fllTri-a vague description, which
tells us only that this style is based
upon 18tco7-r/6 \Jyos--the language
of ordinary life.




162


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


precisely given by Cicero. There is a difference,
indeed, between the points of view of the two critics.
Dionysios treats the three styles historically; Cicero
treats them    theoretically.   The   'middle' style of
Cicero differs, therefore, from   the 'middle' style of
Dionysios in being an ideal. But Cicero's description
of the 'plain' style, at least, would probably have
been accepted in the main by Dionysios; and it is
clear that for Cicero, as for Dionysios, Lysias was
the canon of that style.      According to Cicero, the
chief marks of the 'genus tenue' are these:-1. In
regard to composition-a free structure of clauses
and sentences, not straining after a rhythmical period1.
2. In regard to diction-(a) purity2, (b) clearness3,
(c) propriety4.    3. Abstemious     use   of rhetorical
figures5.
sigiity     With certain exceptions, which will be noticed in
of Lysias.
their place, Lysias has these characteristics, and is
the best representative of the plain style, whether
viewed historically or in the abstract. That style
gradually came to be used by almost all writers for
the ekklesia or the law-courts; but it was Lysias,
says Dionysios, who      'perfected' it, and   'brought
it to the summit of the excellence proper to it6.' In
order that the originality of Lysias may         not be
1 Cic. Orator ~ 77, Primum  tur.
igitur eum tanquam e vinculis  5 ib. ~ 80 verecundus erit usus
numerorum eximamus......Solu-  oratoriae quasi supellectilis. sutum quiddam sit, nec vagum ta-  pellex est enim quodammodo nosmen.                          tra quae est in ornamentis, alia
2 ib. ~ 79 sermo erit purus et rerum, alia verborum.
Latinus.                       6 Dionys. De Demosth. c. 2, rEE3 ib. dilucide planeque dicetur.  X clwcre e avr7v KaL' es adxp v 'yaye
"4 ib. quid deceat circumspicia- r'7 ilas dperir Avo-la. 0 KedaXov.




VIII.]


LYSIAS.-STYLE.


163


underrated, attention must be given to the precise
meaning of this statement.      It appears to speak of
him merely as having succeeded better than others
in a style used by nearly all writers of speeches for
the law-courts.    But what was, in fact, common to
him   and  them   was this only-the        avoidance of
decidedly poetical ornament and the employment of
sober prose. This is all that the 'plain' style, as
opposed to the 'elaborate,' necessarily means. That
which he had, and which no other had in the same
degree, was the art of so writing this prose that it
should be in character with the person who spoke it.
Their style was monotonously plain; his was plain too,
but it was more, it was variously natural. Dionysios
shows elsewhere that he appreciated to the full the
originality of Lysias; but he has hardly brought it
out with sufficient clearness in the passage which
has just been noticed. Lysias may, in a general
sense, be regarded as the perfecter of a style aJready
practised by many others; but it is closer to the
truth to call him   the founder of a new one, and of
one in which he was never rivalled1.
It does not, perhaps, strike the modern mind as
very remarkable that a man whose business was to
write speeches for other people should have conceived
1 The question, 'How far is Ly-  essay will be referred to below.
sias the true representative of the  Its general conclusion is that 'In
genus tenue ' has been exhaust-  all his writings Lysias must be
ively discussed by Dr F. Berbig, pronounced, by any judgment not
in an essay 'Ueber das genus  absolutely rigorous, an excellent
dicendi tenue des Redners Lysias' model of the plain style;' though
(Gymnasium-program,  Ciistrin, both his composition and his lan1871: reviewed in the Philologis-  guage depart from it in certain
cher Anzeiger in. 5. p. 252). The  points.
11-2




164


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[C IHAP.


the idea of making the speech appropriate to the
person.   In order to understand why this conception
was, at the time, a proof of genius, it is necessary to
remember how     rhetoric was then     viewed.   Prose
composition in its infancy was a craft, a close profession, just as much as poetry. Beside the sacred band
of 'wise' poets stood the small group of experts
skilled to fashion artistic prose. When a man wished
for help in a law-suit he applied, as a matter of course,
if he could afford it, to one of these; and it was
equally a matter of course that the speech supplied
to him should bear the same stamp as others turned
out by the same machine. There was no pretence of
its being the work of the speaker, and no expectation,
therefore, that it should reflect his nature; a certain
rhetorical colour, certain recognized forms of argument and appeal, were alone looked for.       The idea
of writing for a client so that he should have in court
the whole advantage of professional aid, and, inaddition to this, the advantage of appearing to have
dispensed with it, was not only novel but daring.
This is what Lysias first undertook to do, and did
admirably.
steen       His dramatic purpose-if it may be so calledflorid before
it becam  decided the special characteristics of his style.  But,
plain 7
even without this purpose, an instinctive dislike of
exaggeration would of itself have given his style
some general characteristics, sufficient to distinguish
it from that of any of his contemporaries. On this
account we must dissent from a view advanced by
K. O. Muller in his History of Greek Literature.
1 Vol. n. p. 143 (transl. Donaldson).




VIIl.]


LYSIAS.-STYLE.


165


Lysias had, he thinks, two distinct styles at two
different periods of his life; the earlier, 'forced and
artificial;' the later, plain. Muller recognises the
former in the speech in the Phaedros, and in the
Epitaphios. The turning-point was, he conceives,
the impeachment of Eratosthenes, when 'a real feeling of pain and anger' in the mind of Lysias gave
'a more lively and natural flow both to his spirits
and to his speech.'  'This occasion '-Muller adds' convinced Lysias what style of oratory was both the
most suited to his own character and also least
likely to fail in producing an effect upon the judges.'
Ingenious as the theory is, we have no belief in the
fact of any such abrupt transition as it supposes.
That temperate mastery with which Lysias cultivated
the ' plain' style is doubly a marvel if it was only a
sudden practical experience which weaned him from
his first love for a forced and artificial rhetoric.
Converts are not proverbial for discretion; and the
exquisite judgment shown by Lysias after his supposed reformation ought to have prevented its necessity. Like all his contemporaries he must, unquestionably, have had his earliest training in the florid
Sicilian school; but there is nothing to show that its
precepts ever took a strong hold upon him; and there
is overwhelming reason to believe that a genius of
the bent of his must very early have thrown off such
pedantic trammels. It is true that the speech in
the Phaedros -assuming its genuineness-is more
stiffly composed than any of his presumably later
writings: but, on the other hand, it is, as Muller
allows, entirely free from the ornaments of Gorgias.




166


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[ICHAP.


As for the Epitaphios, its spuriousness is now a
generally recognised fact 1.
Plainness and an easy versatility are, then, the
general characteristics of Lysias. We propose now to
Special  consider in detail his special characteristics; speaking
issl. first of his style in the narrower sense, his composition and diction; next of his method of handling
subject-matter.
IS con-     Cicero, as we have seen, counts among the marks
position.
of the 'plain' style a free structure of sentences and
clauses, not straining   after a rhythmical period2
Dionysios, speaking of 6thopoi'ia in Lysias, says that
he composes 'quite simply and plainly, aware that
ethos is best expressed, not in rhythmical periods,
but in the lax (or easy) style' (E'v Tj 8WaXEXUVLEvry
XEetL).   In  another    place, however, he      praises
Lysias for a vigour, essential in contests, 'which
packs thoughts closely and brings them       out roundly' (o-rpoyyvXws) 4-that is, in terse periods.     Both
remarks    are  just.  Nothing more strikingly      distinguishes Lysias from      his predecessors and from
nearly all his successors than the degree in which
the structure of his sentences varies according to
his subject.   His speeches may in this respect be
classified under three heads.   First, those which are
of a   distinctly  public   character; in    which   the
composition is thoroughly rhythmical, and which
abound with artistic periods, single or combined5.
1 See below.                 5 In this class, Berbig (in the
2 Cic. Orator ~ 77, quoted above, essay mentioned above 'Ueber das
3 Dionys. De Lys. c. 8.    genus dicendi tenue des Redners
4 ib. c. 6.                 Lysias,' p. 8) places these speeches:




VIII.]


LYSIAS.--STYLE.


167


Secondly, those speeches which, from the nature of
their subjects, blend the private with the public
character; which     show  not only fewer combinations or groups of periods, but a less careful formation of single periods1.    Thirdly, the essentially
private speeches; which differ from the second class,
not in the mould of such periods as occur, but
in the larger mixture with these of sentences or clauses
not periodic2.    Further, in each     of these three
classes, a greater freedom of composition distinguishes the narrative from the argument. The narrative parts of the properly public speeches are
usually thrown into what may be called the historical as opposed to the oratorical period; that is,
the sentences are more loosely knit and are drawn
out to a greater length. According as the speech
has more of a private character, these freer periods are more and more relaxed        into  a  simple
series (XeIV eIpoUev`) of longer or shorter clauses.
Yet, while there are so many shades in the composition of Lysias, the colour of the whole is individual.
Isokrates develops period out of period in long, lux

1. Or. xxvII. (Kara 'EmrKprovE):
2. Or. xxvIII. (Kara 'EpyocKXCov):
3. Or. xxIX. (Kara    iLtXoKpCdovS):
4. Or. xxxIIi. ('OXv/TraK6?): 5.
Or. xxxiv. (rpl TOV 70  l  KaraXCrat
Tr7v roXtCrelay.)
I e.g. 1. Or. XII. (Kara 'EparToorOvovs): 2. Or. XIII. (Kara 'Ayoparov): 3. Or. xvI. (Kara IlXcovos)):
4. Or. xix. (7rrpi' rtV 'Apto-roqxdvov?
XP nUarcoi.)
2 In this third class two grades


may be distinguished, according to
the importance of the subject and
the use, greater or less accordingly,
of a periodic style. I. 1. Or. i.
(rrep't 70 'Eparooa-vovS  (6vov): 2.
Or. III. (Ka-ra  Ilpovov): 3. Or. Iv.
(repl rTpavlaros EK Xrpovolav): 4. Or.
VII. (7rpi roV G oiKo). II. 1. Or.
XVI. (7rept rijootlwv Xprp drov): 2.
Or. XXIII. (Kara HIIayKXevos): 3.
Or. xxxII. (Karh AtoyElrovoS).




168


THE ATTIC ORA TORS.


[CHAP.


uriont sequence; Demosthenes intersperses the most
finished and most vigorous periods with less formally
built sentences which relieve them; Lysias binds his
periods, by twos or threes at the most, into groups
always moderate in size but often monotonous in
form; excelling Isokrates in compactness, but yielding to Demosthenes in life1.
isDi -      The diction of Lysias is distinguished in the first
tion-its
urity.  place by its purity.   This is a quality upon which no
modern could have pronounced authoritatively, but
for which the ancient Greek critic vouches. In the
Augustan age the reaction from florid Asianism to
Atticism had set in strongly, and especial attention
was paid by Greek grammarians to the marks of a
pure Attic style. Dionysios may be taken as a competent judge. He pronounces Lysias to be 'perfectly
pure in expression, the best.canoia of Attic speech,not of the old used by Plato and Thucydides,' but of
that which    was in vogue in his own time2.        This
may be seen, he adds, by a comparison with the
writings of Andokides, Kritias and many others.
Two ideas are included under the 'purity' praised
here; abstinence from words either obsolete (yX3ro-o-ac)
or novel, or too decidedly poetical; and abstinence
from constructions foreign to the idiom of the dayan  excellence   defined   elsewhere   as  'accuracy   of,dialectV.' Lysias is not rigidly pure in these respects.
1 Cf. Dionys. De Lys. c. 6 (speak- a EXCSs0 d-crep Avo[laK, Xpqrding of the terse periodic style)-- 1  voK aivr, daXa x repepyco Kal
0vcrpepovora ra voijara Kal orpoy- 7r L K p <6s.
yiXcov eKO/Epovc-a Xevis, Dionysios  ' Dionys. De Lys. c. 2.
says, rauTrvv oXlyo, pv qcrwavr5o,  3 ib. c. 13, where the 'purity'
Ar1yoo-0Evf7r &  Kal v7rEpE/3fXETro  spoken of in c, 2 is defined as con7rXv v x oVrTco cV'TEXSa ovzb  sisting of two elements--,rM KaOa



.v-ii.]


L YSIAS.-AS7YLE.


169


The only instance of an old-fashioned syntax, indeed,
which has been noticed in him, is the occasional use
of 7-E as a copmla'; nor does he use such pedantic
words as were meant by 'glossae;' but rare or poeti-_
cal words and phrases occur in r~any places,2.    The
praise of purity must be taken in a general and
relative sense. Of those who came after Lysias,
Isokrates most nearly approached him in this quality3;
but Isaeos is also commended for jt4,
Next,) in contrast with the Sicilian school of rhe- Srnlicit?1.
toric, Lysias is characterised by a general avoidance
of ornamental figures. Such figures as occur are
mostly of the kind which men use in daily life -without rhetorical consciousness,-hyperbole, metaphor,
prosopopoi~a and the like-5. As a rule, he expresses
his meaning by ordinary words employed in their
normal sense 6.  His panegyrical speeches and his


pov rco v o1AaW oand 4 aKp'/Ec    u~
8taXE"KTOV.
1 This use occurs seven timies in
all: Or. L. ~ 17: xiii. ~~ 1, 82:
xxxi. ~~ 1, 5: xxxii. ~~ 1, 22. Berbig, p. 13.
2 e.g. Or. XXXIII. ~ 3 /ILKpOX0yI).
ao-IevoS': ~ 7 oL'KoVPT7Ea' dr 6pOp-qot Ka't
a~tEXtGTOL K~Lart Tao-taO-Tot KaL?7
T)7Tot: Or.. IV. ~ 85 rapoj)v1I.qLE~V0,
0$V'XELP XtaV Kat irapotvo.9 eo-7-v: ~ 9
eg T-wo1'O3apv~iatpovt'a.9' KEL: ~2
civ4KET79 -To~cV/lc/opa': Or. XVIII. ~ 49,
apXato7rXovT-oL': Or.xiii.~ 45 CaK'Xe7 -'}flpoTpocf2EV: Or. xxvi. ~ 4 aiepVJo-roy: Or. xxx. ~ 35 1IJ0-rO7TvpELV:
Or. XXIV. ~ 3 8vo-rvx4,.tar-a ao-Ow.: Or. XXXIII. ~ 7 a'Oc'a7-o.9EXevOepta.
3 IDionys. De Lys. C. 2 '10-o~cpc

TygI-Ka~ap6T',aroy 8q" 766V aXXcO)V /Er-a -1E Avo-lav.
4 Pionys. Do Isaeo. C. 3.
5 As an instance of a, common
prosopopoiia see e.g. Or. xxi. ~85ov'7co
wrap~eo-Kevao7jiEvv  TUjp?l7 7m-a otEV-0E.. 7-0v'.9 7rOXE/IL'ovv Etpyao-Oat KUKa';
Other common figures which occur
in Lysias are synekdoche, e.g. Or.
XXXIII. ~ 9 7-a".9rLm3av T-7^7.9 Lt2T777 -piw.: antonomasia, Or. ~ 15.0"o-qiUvov 2TEaptEvEv: metonymnia, Or. XII.
~ 60 Tm4 WO'XeyELI 4ryovris: epanaphora, Or. xxx. ~ 3 7roXXa't ALEV...
xo Xa' U:     synathroismos,    Or.
XXXIII. ~ 3 Kal..-.Kal'...KaIL-Kal: periphrasis, Or. XVIII. ~ 3 rpo'vatov
Lma-Ialat,
" Dionys. De Lys. C. 3 (dpe-1) 4
8t A 765VKVpL'OVreicv T K0CZL KOLOYKalt 'v




17.0


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[ CHAP.


letters are said to have presented a few exceptions
to this rule; but all his business-works, as Dionysios
calls them-his speeches for the ekklesia and for the
law-courts-are stamped with this simplicity.         He
seems, as his critic says, to speak like the ordinary
man, while he is in fact the most consummate of
artists1,-a prose poet who knows how to give
an  unobtrusive    distinction  to common     language,
and to bring out of it a quiet and peculiar music2.
Isokrates had the same command of familiar words,
but he was not content to seek effect by artistic
harmonies of these.    His ambition was to be ornate;
and hence one of the differences remarked by Dionysios: Isokrates is sometimes vulgar3; Lysias never
is. There is one kind of ornament, however, which
Lysias uses largely, and in respect to which he deserts
the character of the plain style. He delights in the
artistic parallelism (or opposition) of clauses. This
may be effected: (1) by simple correspondence of
clauses in length (isokolon); (2) by correspondence of
word with word in meaning (antitheton proper);
(3) by correspondence of word with word in sound
(paromoion) 4. Examples are very numerous both in
pIEOC KEIfIEVOV ovoidaTrov EKEpovo-a r-LeS /oprLK Sr.
ra voovafEva.                  4 Isokola and homoioteleuta
1 ib. o olos v &rolS 18tOLratC L8a- constantly occur together: see esp.
XEyEo-Oat OKOV 7r&heiaroT  o-oV li0-1 Or. xII. (~~ 1, 4, 6, 19, 26, 32, 39,
roV atajIepet.                &c.) and Or. xxxIII. passim. A
2 ib. KparTor- s roor)js X\ywv Xe- special form of the paromoion, viz.
XV/EvrYJS EK fe Lpov XEýEcos, loiav rwi  paronomasia, is frequent in Lysias:
XdyYoV evpJ77Ks dpwoviav,  rTa do6- e.g. Or. xxxI. ~ 11 yv;ir-o-vyyvoLara KOOaFLe re KaT?ijyavet, LqBcZ /o: ~ 24 TtcpO cTpo-Erai-TTEqL?7 -eYXora oyKW&s Ier cJ opTrKv:. T7raC: Or. xxx. ~ 29 ra rrrp'a8 Dionys. De Isocr. c. 3 o-Xpa-  Kara Traripa.




VIII.]


LYSIAS.--STYLE.


171


the public and in the private speeches. This love of
antithesis-shown     on  a larger scale in the terse
periodic composition-is the one thing which sometimes blemishes the ethos in Lysias.
Closely connected with this simplicity is his clear- learness.
ness.  Lysias is clear in a twofold sense; in thought,
and in expression.    Figurative language is often a
source of confusion of thought; and the habitual
avoidance of figures by Lysias is one reason why he
not only speaks but thinks clearly. In regard to
this clearness of expression Dionysios has an excellent remark. This quality might; he observes,
result merely from ' deficiency of power,' i.e. poverty
of language and     of fancy which constrained      the
speaker to be simple.    In the case of Lysias it does,
in fact, result from  wealth of the right woords'.  He
uses only plain words; but he has enough of these
to express with propriety the most complex idea.
The combination of clearness with        conciseness is Conciseness.
achieved by    Lysias because he has his language
thoroughly under command; his words are the disciplined servants of his thoughts 2. Isokrates is clear;
but he is not also concise. In the union of these
two   excellences, Isaeos3 perhaps     stands next to
Lysias.   There are, indeed, exceptions to the conSDe Lys. c. 4 Kal cl /epv  L'  3 It is remarkable that Dionydao-Ovetav 8vvd eoos EdyIyvro rb  sios expressly denies to Demostheo-acaE OVK &tov n'^v avlr d/yaarav" nes the invarzable clearness of Lyvov 8E 0 7rXoýroS rTcv KvplowV  sias, De Lys. c. 4 r-ie ^7 v eovKvVlOvofldraTv EK iroXX7^9 aC'I T7TEpov- 8ov XE'ECOS Ka' ApzooC'OovvO, o' bEtto-ac dTaroaeKVVTa Tra Tavrv TYV dpeTqV. VOTCTOL T"a 7rpdyJQara TEL'7tiev 'YcVOV"2 ib. c. 4 oV rots Ldn6cr- bovX Evet  To, rroXX av o'aK Taoa'Crd doErcv i tv
rd 7rpdy/llara 7rap' a ra, rot5 s  trpdy-  Kla' d o- a q)j.
gfa't i KoXove0^ r -a ovoaa.




172


THE ATTIC ORA TORS.


[CHAP.


ciseness of Lysias, as there are exceptions to the
purity and the plainness of his diction. Instances
occur in which terms nearly synonymous are accumulated, either for the sake of emphasis or merely
for the sake of symmetry 1; but such instances are
not frequent.
Vividness.  Vividness, E'Vpy Ea--'the power of bringing under the senses what is narrated2 '-is an attribute of
the style of Lysias.    The dullest hearer cannot fail
to have before his eyes the scene described, and to
fancy himself actually in presence of the persons
introduced as speaking. Lysias derives this graphic
force from two things;-judicious use of detail, and
perception of character. A good example of it is his
description, in the speech Against Eratosthenes, of


1 For emphasis (e.g.) in Or. xm.i.
~ 63 oi 8' avTwv 7reptyevoevot
Kail 0 o OEVTE,Sy 0o9 OVTO tV a' vEKTLV~EV EwALC  Ka't Oavaro av r(ov
KareyvcTo-O?,    8 ET rV'Xt KaIL 6
8alfLw  rptrolroo'E.. TrcprTat
WYJ' iv5uov. For symmetry (e.g.) in
Or. xxvIII. ~ 3 Kal yap a ' ewov
aiv eal el vvv YEv OVTm  avro'l rtýeoJEVOL Ta rt EL doopspat  rv vyyvolr)v
TOLIS KXE7ITOVO-1 Ka}7 TOtv (lopo8oKOV(iV eXOtrE, eI Ve TOO) TEWS
XpOV" Ka- rCTv o'LKOMV TWV V ýETEoWV
/JEydXo)v ovrCOV Kat TOrWV  rtflooY' Iv
7rpood6)V,/eyaXoV oXorv, Oavadr8 dCo dIEra robe rry ov0r0p-^V
T7-) EKOXa~TE TOVS' TW   E7 V  E"TP()V
e7ritOv/ovvras: where, as Blass
observes, the words   EyadXOv ovmoxv are superfluous, and the phrase
TOVS rOv OV rETEpov E7rLOvp/ovvraTs
where robs ro'ovrovs would have
sufficed, is meant to balance Trois
KXTirrTOVot Kal Tols (wopo8OKOV'(Tw.


Another strong instance of redundancy of the former kind-the
emphatic-is Or. xxi. ~ 24 ov'eTrOrrOT' 721rEoa  ov' E aKpvoa
o'a''  vo-i'rjv yvvatKs o 7 Trawlcol,
Trv EpaVroV, oV0' 1yov/Lv  ELVbOV
elJva el TEXEvro-aas vrEp Trjs Wrarpl5oS O p 0avoV   K al TO  7rarTpOS
adrEO-TEprl1Evovs' avTrov  KaTaXEit+ o.  Favorinus, according to
Gellius (ii. v.), used to say:-' If
you remove a single word from a
passage of Plato, or alter it, however suitably to the sense, you will
still have taken away something
from the elegance; if you do so in
Lysias, you will have taken away
something from the sense.' This
praise, as we have seen, needs
modification.
2 Dionys. De Lys. c. 7 Svvapls
TiS vwr Toa  atlo.?o-eSs ayovo-a Ta
XeyVolEva.




VIII.]


LYSIAS.-STYLE.LE


173


his own arrest by Theognis and Peison'. Dionysios
ascribes vividness, as well as clearness, to Isokrates
also2; but there is perhaps only        one passage in
the extant work of Isokrates which strictly justifies this praise3. A description may be brilliant
without being in the least degree graphic. The
former quality depends chiefly on the glow of the,
describer's imagination; the latter depends on his
truthfulness   and   skill in   grouping    around    the
main incident its lesser circumstances.       A   lifelike
picture demands the union of fine colouring and
correct drawing. Isokrates was a brilliant colourist; but he was seldom, like Lysias, an         accurate
draughtsman.
From   this trait we pass naturally      to another aopoiia.
which has just been mentioned as one of its sourcesthe faculty of seizing and portraying character.      Of
all the gifts of Lysias this is the most distinctive,
and is the one which had greatest influence upon
his style.   It is a talent which does not admit of
definition or analysis; it can be understood only by
studying its results. It is shown, as Dionysios says,
in three things-thought, diction, and composition4;
that is, the ideas, the words, and the style in which
the words are put together, always suit the person
to whom they are ascribed5. There is hardly one of
1 In Eratosth. ~~ 8-17.     XE'e Cs' Kal TplITrS ir cOvvOe2 De Isocr. C. 2.           Oe m, E vra  ro vroLt a7vrov dTro3 The passage in the Aeginetikos  qpaivoLzat KaropOovv.
in which the speaker describes his  6 Francken  (Commentationes
care of Thrasylochos: ~~ 24-27.  Lysiacae, pp. 5-7) thinks it doubt4 De Lys. c. 8 rpTcwv re owvra  ful whether by the rj0o7roLa of Lyiv oL KaLi 7rept a riv aprenv raTrVTv  sias Dionysios meant the approa-v/iLf83CrKve e(rva, tavola s re Ka'  priate delineation of each several




174


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


the extant speeches of Lysias upon which this peculiar power has not left its mark. Many of them,
otherwise poor in interest, have a permanent artistic
value as describing, with a few quiet touches, this or
that type of man. For instance, the Defence which is
the subject of the Twenty-first Oration is interesting
solely because it embodies to the life that proud consciousness of merit with which a citizen who had deserved well of the State might confront a calumny.
In the speech on the Sacred Olive, if the nameless
accused is not a person for us, he is at least a character-the man who shrinks from public prominence
of any kind, but who at the same time has a shy
pride in discharging splendidly all his public duties1.
The injured husband, again, who has taken upon
Eratosthenes the extreme vengeance sanctioned by
the law, is the subject of an indirect portrait, in
which homeliness is combined with the moral dig

character, or the attribution to all
characters alike of a certain attractive simplicity. Francken inclines to the latter view. He refers to cases in which, as he thinks,
Lysias has failed, or has not tried,
to mark individual character, or
in which the general stamp of simplicity is exaggerated. The appreciation of ethos depends much
upon taste; it scarcely admits of
argument. But it is clear to me
what Dionysios, at least, meant by
the,Oorroida of Lysias. He meant
the appropriate delineation of each
several character. Surely he says
so very plainly: De Lys. c. 8 ov
yap BtavoovLErvovE JUovov VTroTOdElrat
XpTorTa Kal E7TWLErK1 Kal tpfrTpta roVb


XEyovTas, C)rE ElKOYaS E~LVat &oKEL7
TWOV  (I'0V TOVS Xoyovs aXXa CKal
r^V XE"LV darobsi8( Aov dTs?OeoTLV  o KE lav.  Cf. K. 0. Miller,
Hist. Gr. Lit. I. p. 143 (tr. Donaldson):-' Lysias distinguished,
with the accuracy of a dramatist,
between the different characters
into whose mouths he put his
speeches, and made everyone, the
young and the old, the rich and
the poor, the educated and the
uneducated, speak according to his
quality and condition: this is what
the ancient critics praise under the
name of his Ethopoiia. The prevalent tone, however, was that of
the average man.'
1 De sacra Olea ~~ 1-3, 30.




VIII.]


LYSIAS.--STYLE.,


175


nity of a citizen standing upon his rights1. The
steady Athenian householder of the old type, and the
adventurous patriot of the new, are sketched in the
speech On the Property of Aristophanes2. The accuser
of Diogeiton, unwilling to prosecute a relative, but
resolved to have a shameful wrong redressed;-Diogeiton's mother, pleading with him for her sons;-are
pictures all the more effective because they have been
produced without apparent effort3.    But of all such
delineations-and, as Dionysios says, no character in
Lysias is inartistically drawn or lifeless4-perhaps
the cleverest and certainly the most attractive is
that of Mantitheos, the brilliant young Athenian
who is vindicating his past life before the Senate.
Nowhere is the ethical art of Lysias more ably shown
than in the ingenuous words of apology with which,
as by an afterthought, Mantitheos concludes his
frank and highspirited defence:'I have understood, Senators, that some people
are annoyed with me for this too-that I presumed,
though rather young, to speak in the Assembly. It
was about my own affairs that I was first compelled
to speak in public; after that, however, I do suspect
myself of having been more ambitiously inclined than
I need have been,-partly through thinking of my
family, who have never ceased to be statesmen,partly because I saw    that you (to tell the truth)
S De caed. Eratosth. (Or. I.)  4 De Lys. c. 8 dwrXs yap ov8e
~~ 5 ff., 47-50.            evpev iUvafLat rrapa rco propt roVTr
"2 De Aristoph. bonis ~~ 18-  7rporowrrov ovrT advq0orlroLv oVre
23, 55-64.                  tfvxozV.
3 In Diogeit. ~~ 1-3, 12-17.




176


THE1 ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP


respect none but such men; so that, seeing this to
be your opinion, who would not be invited to act
and speak in behalf of the State? And besideswhy should you be vexed with such men? The
judgment upon them rests with none but yourselves 1.
Th'pro-     The 'propriety' which has always been praised in
priety' of
Lysias.  Lysias depends mainly on this discernment of what
suits the character of each speaker; but it includes
more-it has respect also to the hearers and to the
subject, and generally to all the circumstances of the
case.   The judge, the ekklesiast, the listener in the
crowd at a festival are not addressed in the same
vein; different excellences of style characterise the
opening, the    narrative, the    argument, the      final
appeal2.
Zi'ciarm.'  It remains to say a few     words on the peculiar
and crowning excellence of Lysias in the province of
expression,-his famous but inexplicable 'charm.' It
is noticeable that while his Roman critics merely
praise his elegance and polish, regarding it as a
simple result of his art3, the finer sense of his Greek
1 Pro Mantith. ~~ 20, 21.     3 Cic. Brut. ~ 35 egregie sub2 The distinction between Etho- tilis scriptor atque elegans: ib.
poiia and the Propriety praised  ~285, ieiunitaspolita, urbana, elein Lysias will appear from a care-  gans. Quint. x. 1. 78 subtilis
ful reading of Dionys. De Lys. cc.  atque elegans: ix. 4. 17 gratia
8, 9. Ethopoiia is the adaptation  quae in eo maxima est simplicis
of the speech to the intrinsic cha-  atgue inafectati coloris. It must
racter of the speaker. Propriety  be allowed to Cicero that he felt
is the adaptation of the speech to  the plainness of Lysias to have a
the circumstances;-on the one  charm of its own. But he did not,
hand, to the age, quality, occupa-  like Dionysios, feel this charm to
tion, &c. of the speaker; on the  be something independent of the
other hand, to the cause and to  plainness, which could be used as
the audience.                 a distinct test of genuine work.




vIII.]


LYSIAS.-STYLE.


177


critic apprehends a certain nameless grace or charm,
which cannot be directly traced to art,-which cannot be analysed or accounted for: it is something
peculiar to him, of which all that can be said is that
it is there. What, asks Dionysios, is the freshness
of a beautiful face?   What is fine harmony in the
movements and windings of music?       What is rhythm
in the measurement of times? As these things baffle
definition, so does the charm of Lysias. It cannot
be taken to pieces by reasoning; it must be seized
by a cultivated instinctl. It is the final criterion of
his genuine work. 'When I am puzzled about one of
the speeches ascribed to him, and when it is hard for
me to find the truth by other marks, I have recourse
to this excellence, as to the last piece on the board.
Then, if the Graces of Speech seem to me to make
the writing fair, I count it to be of the soul of Lysias;
and "I care not to look further into it.     But if the
stamp of the language has no winningness, no loveliness, I am chagrined, and suspect that after all
the speech is not by Lysias; and I do no more violence to my instinct, even though in all else the
speech seems to me clever and well-finished; believing
that to write well, in special styles other than this,
is given to many men; but that to write winningly,
gracefully, with loveliness, is the gift of Lysias.'2
See Orator ~ 78, nam ut mulieres  the words-ris 4 rap' arvT  Xdp r
esse dicuntur nonnullae inorna-  eaort, 3ovXopEvois fiaOELV ViroOdeip
tae, quas id ipsum deceat, sic haec  aiv enTartqveeXPovev  /xaKpia KP a /aKpcsubtilis oratio atque incompta de-  rptpf^, Kat cL dya) 7cOEL Trv dXo
lectat. fit enim quiddam in utro-  yov o-vvaYaG-Kv altoOa-tv--and
que, quo sit venustius, sed non ut  to train their critical sense by a
appareat.                    feeling as instinctive as itself.'
S Dionys. De Lys. c. 11. Note  2 lb.
12




178            THE ATTIC ORATORS.              [CHAP.
A modern reader would be sanguine if he hoped
to analyse the distinctive charm of Lysias more
closely than Dionysios found himself able to do.
He may be content if study by degrees gives him a
dim apprehension of something which he believes
that he could use, as Dionysios used the qualities
detected by his 'instinct,' in deciding between the
genuine and the false. Evidently the same cause
which in great measure disqualifies a modern for
estimating the 'purity' of the language of Lysias
also disqualifies him for estimating its charm. This
charm may be supposed to have consisted partly in
a certain felicity of expression,-Lysias having a
knack of using the word which, for some undefinable
reason, was felt to be curiously right; partly in a
certain essential urbanity, the reflection of a nature
at once genial and refined.   The first quality is evidently beyond the sure appreciation of a modern
ear: the second less so, yet scarcely to be estimated
with nicety, since here too shades of expression are
concerned.   At best a student of Lysias may hope
to attain a tolerably true perception of what he
could not have written: but hardly the faculty of
rejoicing that he wrote just as he did.
strt-     Having now    noticed the leading characteristics
ter.    of Lysias in regard to form    of language, we will
consider some of his characteristics in the other
great department of his art-the treatment of the
subject-matter. In this the ancient critics distinguished two chief elements, Invention and Arrangement1.
SvEpeoa--rad$"t: Dionys. Dys. De. c. 15.




VIII.]


LYSIXAS. -SXTYLE.r


179


By 'invention' was meant the faculty of dis- Invention.
covering the arguments available in any given circumstances; the art, in short, of making the most
of a case. Sokrates, criticising the speech in the
Phaedros, is made to express contempt for the inventive power of Lysias'. Arguments, however,
which would not pass with a dialectician, might do
very well for a jury.    If Plato found Lysias barren
of logical resource, Dionysios emphatically praises
his fertile cleverness in discovering every weapon
of controversy which the facts of a case could yield
to the most penetrating search2. The latter part
of the speech against Agoratos may be taken as a
good example of this exhaustive ingenuity3. It is
a fault, indeed, that there the speaker attempts to
make too many small points in succession; and one,
at least, of these is a curious instance of overdone
subtlety4.
In regard to arrangement, Lysias is distinguished Arrangefrom all other Greek orators by a uniform simplicity.
His speeches consist usually of four parts, which
follow each other in a regular order: proem, narrative, proof, epilogue5. In some cases, the nature of
the subject renders a narrative, in the proper sense,
unnecessary; in others, the narrative is at the same
time the proof; in a few, the proem is almost or
1 Plat. Phaedr. pp. 234 E-236 A. party.
2 Dionys. Lys. c. 13.         co-r n  ra rTj  v7roOEa-ecow aL3 In Agorat. ~~ 49-90.     Xie a TEo-apa, TpootLov, t8jytj4 ib. ~~ 70-90, in which it is a(rL, trlorElP, EVrIoyos: Dionys.
argued that the amnesty of 403  Art. Rhet. x. c. 12. Aristotle's
does not hold good as between two  enumeration is,rpoolttov, urprOe~o-,
members of the same political  nrort?, diXoyoo: Rhet. III. 13.
12-2




180


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


entirely dispensed with. But in no case is there
anything more elaborate than this fourfold partition,
-and in no case is the sequence of the parts altered.
This simple arrangement, contrasting with the manifold subdivisions which Plato notices as used by the
rhetoricians of his day1, is usually said to have been
first made by Isokrates2. This may be true in the
sense that it was he who first stated it theoretically.
In practice, however, it had already been employed
by  Lysias; and more strictly       than  by   Isokrates
himself3. The difference between their systems,
according to Dionysios, is precisely this;-Lysias
uses always the same simple framework, never interpolating, subdividing or defining4; Isokrates knows
how to break the uniformity by transpositions of his
own devising, or by novel episodes5. The same difference, in a stronger form, separates Lysias here
from  his imitator in much else, Isaeos.     Every kind
of artifice is used by Isaeos in shifting, subdividing,
recombining the four rudimentary elements of the
speech according to the special conditions of the
case6. It was this versatile tact in disposing his
forces-this generalship7, as Dionysios in one place
calls it-which chiefly procured for Isaeos the reputation of unequalled adroitness in fighting a bad
1 Phaedr. pp. 266 E, 267 E. Cf. tion.
Arist. Rhet. iv. 13.           4 Dionys. De Lys. c. 15.
2 Dionys. Lys. 16: Sauppe, O.A.  6 Id. De Isocr. c. 4, 7O 8taXaaII. 224: Cope, Introd. to Arist. /dav-cOaL rT)v oLoeit&aav 181s /Ar EaRhetoric, p. 332.           fpoaic Kal.vows ereUo-o8ots.
3 Westermann (Griesch. Bereds.  6 Id. De Isae. c. 14.
p. 75) seems to recognise Lysias as  7 roV 8s &KaOradv KaTaorTpaTT]the inventor of the fourfold parti-  y e1, De Isae. 3.




VIII.]


LYSIAS.-STYLE.


181


cause1. Lysias had consummate literary skill and
much acuteness; but his weapons were better than
his plan of campaign; he was not a subtle tactician.
" In arranging what he has invented he is commonplace, frank, guileless;' 2 while Isaeos 'plays all manner of ruses upon his adversary,'3 Lysias 'uses no
sort of knavery.'4   Invention and selection are admirable in him: arrangement is best studied in his
successors5.
If we turn from his general plan to his execution
of its several parts, Lysias will be found to shew
very different degrees of merit in proem, narrative,
proof and epilogue.
His proem, or opening, is always excellent, always rom
gracefully and accurately appropriate to the matter
in hand. This inexhaustible fertility of resource
calls forth the special commendation of Dionysios.
' The power shown in his proems will appear especially marvellous if it is considered that, though he
wrote not fewer than 200 forensic speeches, there is
not one in which he is found to have used a preface
which is not plausible, or which is not closely connected with the case. Indeed, he has not twice hit
upon the same syllogisms, or twice drifted into the
same thoughts. Yet even those who have written
1 His reputation in this respect evpeOEvra: Dionys. De Lys. c. 15.
was of a somewhat sinister kind:-  3 7rps' r. v  TdvrLKtov 3ta7rovr7v U  rep' av-rov &46a 7rapa 'oli7 pElverat, De Isae. C. 3.
TOTre yorertEat KCat daradrnV, Cos ewoV  4 orTe yap,rpoKarao'KrvaL^s [K.T.X.],
dvirp reXVtrEo-at ao'yovs erl Ta  Tro-...oVre 7 ra-i t XXkats rotavratS vravvrmpoTrpa. Dionys. De Isae. 4.  ovpyiait evploa-Krat XPwpevos:
2 'TTrrtv TrepTTprroS 9TL KtaCU Xe-  De Lys. c. 15.
pos  KCaL a7Tovrfpos  oiKovotLrcat  ra  Ilb.




182


THE ATTIC ORA TORS.


[CIAP.


little are found to have had this mischance,-that, I
mean, of repeating commonplaces; to say nothing of
the fact that nearly all of them borrow the prefatory
remarks of others, and think no shame of doing so.'1
The opening of the speech against Diogeiton may be
cited as an example of a difficult case introduced with
singular delicacy and tact.
Warrative.  The same kind of cleverness which never fails to
make a good beginning finds a more important scope
in the next stage of the speech. In narrative Lysias
is masterly. His statements of facts are distinguished by conciseness, clearness and charm, and by a
power of producing conviction without apparent
effort to convince2. If these qualities mark almost
equally some of the narratives in the private orations of Demosthenes3, it is yet Lysias and          not
Demosthenes to      whom    Dionysios points     as  the
canon of excellence in this kind4. He goes so
far as to say that he believes the rules for narrative given in the current rhetorical treatises to
have been derived from       study of models supplied
by Lysias.
Proof.      In the third province-that of proof-this supremacy is not maintained. Rhetorical proofs are of three
kinds: (1) direct logical proofs which appeal to the
SDionys. De Lys. c. 17.     KaOaph KaL daKpLf^j Ka'tl -afj Ki ata
2 His narratives T7r tr TiTLcv aa  TrO KvplWov Kat KOLVCV oVOpCLTaV KaTXeXrTO6rTo (avvErTLcpovrtv, id. De  EcTrKvacra-va, WO7Tep r AvoRlov; and
Lys. c. 18.                   goes on to notice other excellences
3 After comparing an extract  which both have alike. De Defrom the lost speech of Lysias A-  mosth. c. 13.
gainst Tisis with an extract from  4 Opov re Kal Krava r^E Isla ravthe speech of Demosthenes Against  rrq arov drroqkalvopata: De Lys,
_Konon, Dionysios asks-raDra ov  c. 18.




VIII.]


LYSIAS.-STYLE.Y1;~


183


reason; and indirect moral proofs which appeal (2)
to the moral sense, and (3) to the feelings.
In the first sort Lysias is strong both by acuteness in discovering, and by judgment in selecting,
arguments.    In the second he is effective also; and
succeeds, even when he has few facts to go upon, in
making characters seem attractive or the reverse by
incidental touches. In the third he is comparatively
weak; he cannot heighten the force of a plea, represent a wrong, or invoke compassion1, with sufficient
spirit and intensity. Hence in the fourth and last Epiioge.
department, the epilogue, he shows, indeed, the neatness which suits recapitulation, but not the power
which ought to elevate an appeal. The nature of
his progress through a speech is well described by
an image which     his Greek critic employs2.      Like
a soft southern breeze, his facile inspiration wafts
him  smoothly through the first and second stages
of his voyage; at the third it droops; in the last
it dies.
The manner in which Lysias handles his subjectmatter has now been spoken of so far as concerns its
technical aspect.   But, besides these characteristics
of the artist which may be discovered in particular
parts, there are certain general qualities, resulting
from the character of the man, which colour the
whole; and a word must now be said of these.
1 In the technical language of  &ipyrjo-Ecos avrov ayEL' rav a els
Dionysios, Lysias understands ov'r  rovS d7VOEtKrtKOV' EXOy X6yov9, da'ý 'cTELS OV'TE  ELVCO'TE6 t9 O1VT  1LV&pa 7-19 ''VE 3L Ka1 aOOEP El
ad t7~s oare (~ij/o red oore  pvqpd rTI ylyvera Kal do-OEv7s ev
oLKTrovS' De Lys. c. 19.      E 8n7 roLE 7raOrl?7LKoi els TEXOS dro2 adrq ievtrot (4 Xd~P), KaOdzrep  o-/36vvra&: Dionys. De Demosth.
VOTc;rs Tt avpa, xpi LE poot iov Kai  c. 13.




184


THE ATTIC ORA TORS.


[CHAP.


The tac of  Foremost among such qualities is tact.       One of
Lysias.
its special manifestations is quick     sympathy with
the character of the speaker; another is perception of
the style in which a certain subject should be treated
or a certain class of hearers addressed.     Both these
have already    been   noticed.   But, above and     beyond these, there is a certain sureness in the whole
conduct of a case, a certain remoteness from liability
to blunder, which is the most general indication of
the tact of Lysias. Among his genuine extant
speeches there is only one which perhaps in some
degree offers an exception to the rule;-the speech
against Evandros 1. In the case of the speech against
Andokides, the conspicuous absence of a fine discretion is one of the most conclusive proofs that Lysias
was not the author2.     In relation to treatment, this
tact is precisely what the 'charm' praised by Dionysios is in relation to language; it is that quality, the
presence or absence of which is the best general criterion of what Lysias did or did not write.
ms          A   quality which the last almost implies is huhumour.
mour; and this Lysias certainly had. The description of an incorrigible borrower, in the fragment of
the lost speech against the Sokratic Aeschines, shows
this humour tending to broad farce3, and illustrates
SSee the remark4 below upon  cJ o'vpes &Kao-ral, OVK els JE 'Edvov
this speech.                  rotoeros (oT-r, and goes down to
2 The internal evidence against   ro7rp o-vidaXXEv:the authenticity of the speech  'But indeed, judges, I am not
Against Andokides is discussed  the only person to whom he bebelow.                        haves in this way; he is the same
3 Fragment I in Sauppe, O. A. to every one else who has had to
l. p. 172. The passage especially  do with him. Have not the neighmeant here begins at dXXa yap, bouring shopkeepers, from whom




VIII.]


LYSIAS.-STYLE.


185


what Demetrius means by the 'somewhat comic
graces ' 1 of Lysias. But, as a rule, it is seen only
in sudden touches, which amuse chiefly because they
surprise; as in the speech for Mantitheos, and most
of all in that for the Invalid2. Really powerful sarcasm.
sarcasm must come from earnest feeling; and Lysias,
though intellectual acuteness gave him command of
irony, was weak in sarcasm for the same reason that
he was not great in pathos. There is, properly
speaking, only one extant speech-that against Nikomachos-in which sarcasm is a principal weapon3.
Here he is moderately successful, but not in the
best way; for, just as in his attack upon Aeschines,
vehemence, tending to coarseness, takes the place of
moral indignation.
The language, the method, the genius of Lysias Defects of.118sas as
have now been considered in reference to their chief an orator.
positive characteristics. But no attempt to estimate
what Lysias was would be true or complete if it failed


he gets on credit goods for which
he never pays, shut up their shops
and gone to law with him    Are
not his neighbours so cruelly used
by him that they have left their
houses and are trying to take
others at a distance? Whenever
he has collected club-subscriptions,
he fails to hand over the payments
of the other members, and they are
wrecked on this little tradesman
like chariots at the turning-post
of the course. Such a crowd goes
at daybreak to his house to demand the sums due to them, that
passers-by fancy the people have
come to attend a funeral. As for


the inhabitants of the Peiraeus
they are in such a mind that they
think it much safer to sail to the
Adriatic than to encounter this
man.'
1 Demetr. irepIt EpElav  ~ 128
(Walz, Rhet. Gr. ix. 58): rc^v U
XapLrwv aL f Iv tela'L ILefoves KaL CrXEpvoVepal, al (e evreXeLs baXXov Kfal
KoMLKeorepal, olov at ApUrroTdXovS XadpT~re Ka'L 2obpovovS Kal Av2 e.g. In Mantith. (Or. xvi.)
~ 15: Pro Inval. (Or. xxiv.) ~ 9.
Cf. De sacra Olea (Or. vii.) ~ 1,14.
3 See esp. In Nikom. (Or. xxx.)
~~ 11, 27.




186


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


to point out what he was not. However high the
rank which he may claim as a literary artist, he cannot, as an orator, take the highest. The defects
which exclude him from it are chiefly two; and these
are to a certain extent the defects of his qualities.
As he excelled in analysis of character and in elegance,
so he was, as a rule, deficient in pathos and in fire.
The limits  It would be untrue to say that Lysias never
of pcethost
in sits. appeals to the feelings with effect, and unfair to
assume that he lacked the power of appealing to
them   with force.   But the bent of his mind was
critical; his artistic instinct shrank from exaggeration
of every sort; and, instead of giving fervent expression to his own sense of what was pitiable or terrible
in any set of circumstances, it was his manner merely
to draw a suggestive picture of the circumstances
themselves.   This self-restraint will be best understood by comparing a passage of Lysias with a similar
passage of Andokides. The speech On the Mysteries
describes the scene in the prison when mothers, sisters, wives came to visit the victims of the informer
Diokleides'.   A like scene is described in the speech
Against Agoratos, when the persons whom he had
denounced took farewell in prison of their kinswomen2.    But the two orators take different means
of producing a tragic effect. ' There were cries and
lamentations,' says Andokides, 'weeping and wailing
for the miseries of the hour.' 3 Lysias simply remarks
that the wife who came to see her husband had
already put on mourning4. For hearers of a certain
1 Andok. De Myst. ~~ 48--51.  3 De I~yst. ~ 48.
* Lys. In Agorat. ~~ 39-42.  4 In Agorat. ~ 40.




VIII.]


LYSIAS, -STYLE.2


187


class the pathos of facts is more eloquent than an express appeal; but the speaker who is content to rely
upon it renounces the hope of being found pathetic
by the multitude. It was only now and then that,
without going beyond the limits which his own
taste imposed, Lysias could expect to stir general
sympathy. In the defence which he wrote for the
nephews of Nikias, the last survivors of a house
made desolate by violent deaths and now threatened
with spoliation, he found such an opportunity. He
used it well, because, though declamation would have
been easy, he abstained from everything rhetorical
and hollow. The few words in which the defendant
speaks of his claim to the protection of the court are
plain and dignified:'Judges, I have no one to put up to plead for us;
for of our kinsmen some have died in war, after
showing themselves brave men, in the effort to make
Athens great; some, in the cause of the democracy
and of your freedom, have died by the hemlock of
the Thirty; and so the merits of our kinsmen, and
the misfortunes of the State, have become the causes
of our friendlessness. It befits you to think of these
things and to help us with good will, considering
that under a democracy those deserve to be welltreated at your hands who, under an oligarchy, had
their share of the troubles.'1
After inquiring how far Lysias fails in pathos, it The eloq.ue&?ce of
remains to speak of the other principal defect noticed Lyias
rarely pasabove. How far, and in what sense, does he want soate.
fire? By' fire' is meant here the passion of a speaker
De bonis Niciae fratris (Or. xviii.) ~~ 24, 25.




188


THE ATTIC ORA TORS.


[CHAP.


stirred with great ideas. Dionysios says (in effect)
that, besides pathos, Lysias wants two other things,
grandeur and spirit1.    He has not-we are toldthe intensity or the force2 of Demosthenes; he
touches, but does not pierce, the heart3; he charms,
but fails to astonish or to appal4. This is true;
but it   should   be remembered     that in    a  great
majority of the causes with which he had to deal
the attempt at sublimity would have been ridiculous. It may be granted that, had Lysias been
called upon to plead for Olynthos or to denounce
Philip, he would not have approached even distantly
the lofty vehemence of Demosthenes. The absence
of passion cannot properly be regarded as a defect in
his extant speeches; but they at least suggest that
under no circumstances could he have excelled in
passionate eloquence. They indicate a power which
sufficed to elaborate them, rather than a power which
gave them their special qualities out of an affluence
of resource. Two speeches, however, must be named,
one of which shows (in what remains of it) the inspiration of a great idea, the other, the inspiration
of an ardent feeling. These are the Olympialcos
and the speech Against Eratosthenes. If in each
of these Lysias has shown himself worthy of his subject, the inference in his favour should be strengthened by the fact that, so far as we know, these are
the noblest subjects which he treated.
Dionysios says that the style  13.
of Lysias is not viS4nr and / ~yaXo-  3 He wants Tr mrKPuv: id. Lys.
7rpE7"Ts: nor Ovylov KUa 7rvev/aror  13.
Lc-T'r: De Lys. c. 13.         4 His style being neither Oav3 roS--ioXvs: Dionys.Demosth. liaroor nor Kara7rXlKTKti: ib.




VIII.]


L YSIA S.-ST YLE.


189


In the Olympiakos he is enforcing the necessity
of union among Greeks and calling upon Sparta to
take the lead:
'It befits us, then, to desist from war among
ourselves and to cleave, with a single purpose, to
the public weal, ashamed for the past and apprehensive for the future; it befits us to imitate our
forefathers, who, when the barbarians coveted the
land of others, inflicted upon them the loss of their
own; and who, after driving out the tyrants, established liberty for all men alike. But I wonder most
of all at the Lacedaemonians, and at the policy which
can induce them to view passively the conflagration
of Greece. They are the leaders of the Greeks, as
they deserve to be, both for their inborn gallantry
and for their warlike science; they alone dwell
exempt from ravage, though unsheltered by walls;
unvexed by faction; strangers to defeat; with
usages which never vary; thus warranting the hope
that the freedom which they have achieved is immortal, and that, having proved themselves in past
perils the deliverers of Greece, they are now thoughtful for her future.'I
In the speech Against Eratosthenes, he concludes
the impeachment with an appeal to the two parties
who had alike suffered from the Thirty Tyrants;the Townsmen, or those who had remained at Athens
under the oligarchy; and the democratic exiles who
had held the Peiraeus:
'I wish, before I go down, to recall a few things


1 Olympiakos (Or. xxxim.) ~~ 6, 7.




190


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


to the recollection of both parties, the party of the
Town and the party of the Peiraeus; in order that,
in passing sentence, you may have before you as
warnings the calamities which have come upon you
through these men.
" And you, first, of the Town-reflect that under
their iron rule you were forced to wage with brothers, with sons, with citizens a war of such a sort
that, having been vanquished, you are the equals
of the conquerors, whereas, had you conquered, you
would have been the slaves of the Tyrants. They
would have gained wealth for their own houses from
the administration; you have impoverished yours in
the war with one another; for they did not deign
that you should thrive along with them, though they
forced you to become odious in their company; such
being their consummate arrogance that, instead of
seeking to win your loyalty by giving you partnership in their prizes, they fancied themselves friendly
if they allowed you a share of their dishonours.
Now, therefore, that you are in security, take vengeance to the utmost of your power both for yourselves and for the men of the Peiraeus; reflecting
that these men, villains that they are, were your
masters, but that now good men are your fellow-citizens,-your fellow-soldiers against the enemy, your
fellow-counsellors in the interest of the State; remembering, too, those allies whom these men posted
on the acropolis as sentinels over their despotism
and your servitude. To you-though much more
might be said-I say thus much only.
"But you of the Peiraeus-think, in the first




VIII.]


L YSIA S-STYLE.


191


place, of your arms-think how, after fighting many
a battle on foreign soil, you were stripped of those
arms, not by the enemy, but by these men in time
of peace; think, next, how you were warned by
public criers from the city bequeathed to you by
your fathers, and how your surrender was demanded
of the cities in which you were exiles. Resent these
things as you resented them in banishment; and
recollect, at the same time, the other evils that
you have suffered at their hands;-how some were
snatched out of the marketplace or from temples and
put to a violent death; how others were torn from
children, parents, or wife, and forced to become their
own murderers, nor allowed the common decencies of
burial, by men who believed their own empire to be
surer than the vengeance from on high.
'And you, the remnant who escaped death, after
perils in many places, after wanderings to many
cities and expulsion from all, beggared of the necessaries of life, parted from children, left in a
fatherland which was hostile or in the land of
strangers, came through many obstacles to the Peiraeus. Dangers many and great confronted you;
but you proved yourselves brave men; you freed
some, you restored others to their country.
'Had you been unfortunate and missed those
aims, you yourselves would now be exiles, in fear of
suffering what you suffered before. Owing to the
character of these men, neither temples nor altars,
which even in the sight of evil-doers have a protecting virtue, would have availed you against wrong;while those of your children who are here would




192


THE ATTIC ORA TORS.


[CHAP.


have been enduring the outrages of these men, and
those who are in a foreign land, in the absence of
all succour, would, for the smallest debt, have been
enslaved.
" I do not wish, however, to speak of what might
have been, seeing that what these men have done is
beyond my power to tell; and indeed it is a task
not for one accuser, or for two, but for a host.
'Yet is my indignation perfect for the temples
which these men bartered away or defiled by entering
them; for the city which they humbled; for the
arsenals which they dismantled; for the dead, whom
you, since you could not rescue them alive, must
vindicate in their death. And I think that they
are listening to us, and will be aware of you when
you give your verdict, deeming that such as absolve
these men have passed sentence upon them, and that
such as exact retribution from these have taken vengeance in their names.
" I will cease accusing.  You have heard-seensuffered: you have them: judge.'
Place of   On reviewing the general position      of Lysias
theSias inA
ofr I ye among the Attic orators, it will be seen to result
mainly from his discovery, made at a time when
Rhetoric had not yet outlived the crudest taste for
finery, that the most complete art is that which
hides itself. Aided not only by a delicate mastery of
language but by a peculiar gift for reading and expressing character, he created a style of which the
chief mark was various natursness. It was long
before the art of speaking reached, in general prac1 In Eratosth. ~~ 92-100.




vIII.]


LYSIAS. -STYL E.


193


tice, that sober maturity which his precocious tact
had given to it in a limited field; it was long before
his successors freed themselves to any great extentfew  wholly freed themselves-from        the well-worn
allurements which he had decisively rejected when
they were freshest. But at least no one of those who
came after dared to neglect the lesson taught by
Lysias; the attempt to be natural, however artificially or rarely, was henceforward a new element in
the task which professors of eloquence conceived to
be set before them. Lysias remains, for all aftertimes, the master of the plain style.
This supremacy in a definite province is allowed The aient
~               critics upon
to him  by the general voice of antiquity through Lsias.
the centuries in which its culture was finest; the
praise becoming, however, less discriminating as the
instinct which directed it became less sure.
Plato's satire1 upon Lysias--for not having seen
that   the  writing   of  love-letters is a branch    of
Dialectic-is joined to a notice of the clearness,
compactness, finished polish of his language 2; and
it would perhaps be unfair to Plato to assume that
in the one place where he seems at all just to
S Plat. Phaecr. p. 264 B: ov  (De Is. 16). That is, Isaeos freX'rqv oKEl /3Efp3XcrOat ra ro AXdyov;  quently makes an attempt (etxEIr/ (alveTral TO TE7repov Elpr7iEvov 6  pupa) at strict logical proof; wherertvor davayKi- bevr eVrepov r7EOdvaL;  as Lysias rarely goes beyond the
It is on this ground-the unphilo-  rhetorical syllogism (EvOBvfra).
sophic character of Lysias-that  2 Phaedr. p. 234 E: ri Se; Kai
Plato gives such a decided prefer-  raTry EL rTov X6yov TEratvEOvat, 0V
ence to Isokrates. Compare the  rah ov-ra EIpKdroo roD TrOýTroV, dXX'
remark of Dionysios that Isaeos  OVK KEK'Vyj 7.Vov, O0"5 (oaa Kýal
differs from Lysias in this among  - rpoyyVXa, Ka daKpf Os c  aora
other things--rT  I a Kar' EvOv1L71.rd rav oVopdrcawv d7roreropvevrat;
T, XE7yev dXXai Kal K arX' ireprza
13




194


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP


Lysias he meant to be altogether ironical. Isaeos
was a careful student of Lysias.      If Aristotle2
seldom quoted him, if Theophrastos3 appears to have
missed and Demetrios4 to have underrated his peculiar merits, one of the first orators of their generation,
Deinarchos5, often took him    for a model.    When


1 Dionys. De Is. 2: [Plut.] vit.
Isae.
2 In the extant works of Aristotle there occur but two quotations from authentic speeches of
Lysias: (1) In Rhet. In. ad fin.
EtpqKa, aK~KOartTE,  XETE, KplvaTe:
cited as an example of effective
asyndeton. This is probably an
inaccurate citation of the JKqKoarTE,
EiopaKare, re7rOvOareE, XErE, BLKaTcrTE
with which the speech Against Eratosthenes closes. (2) In Rhet. In.
c. 23 ~ 18 there is a quotation
from ~ 11 of the speech of Lysias
7rpt r-qs 7roXLreas (Or. xxxIV.): EL.
0eVyoVeO TEev LEpaX oe Oa 570)TS KaTE1XcOLEV, KaTeXdvTEr e &  (Ev$o/Le0a
oros j.q fiaxCco~L~ a.The citation in Rhet. im. c. 10
~ 7 (Otort a&tov 7v  TlrT 7- Tr(oC)ErvyKaraOaTrroLE'v~7y r1 dperrj avTrov
rT7  e'XevOplas) from  ~ 60 of the
f7ra'rdtoE ascribed to Lysias (Or..I) cannot be reckoned, since that
speech is unquestionably spurious.
Blass remarks that the words quoted by Demetrios (repl Epp. ~ 28)
from a lost work of Aristotle trepi
tKatoarvvrs resemble what we read
in ~ 39 of the speech Against Eratosthenes. (Att. Bereds. p. 377,
note 3.)
3 Dionysios expresses indignant
astonishment at the assertion of
Theophrastos (Ev roi9 7rEpt XEp;EOS)
that Lysias had a taste for vulgar


redundancy of ornament (4oprtKO)V Kai rfep~EppyCv avrov oi'Trae
"' Xwr)Tv yEvcr`Oat XOywov). Moderns
may share this surprise, when they
find that Theophrastos referred
in support of his opinion to a
speech said to have been composed
by Lysias for the captive general
Nikias. The few words quoted by
Theophrastos suffice to indicate
the work of a third-rate rhetorician: see above, p. 147. Cf. Sauppe's
remarks on the fragment, O.A. n.
p. 199.
4 In a passage of the rfpl Epppyvela( (~ 128) already noticed, the
epithets which Demetrios gives to
the 'graces' of Lysias are EvTrXEs
-KCu-OKcor)Tpac.  It is significant
that Demetrios should have mistaken d41Xeta for eV'r7XEa, plainness for paltriness. He lived at
the time when Greek eloquence,
in the first stage of its decline,
was beginning to affect the tawdry
ornament of the Rhodian school.
(See Westerm. Griesch. Bereds.
p. 165.)
5 Dionysios   names    certain
speeches of Deinarchos as bearing
especially the Avo-LaKras xapaKTp.
Hypereides and (of course) Demosthenes were the two other masters by whom Deinarchos was
chiefly influenced. (Dionys. De
Dein. c. 5.)
Among the less eminent imita



VIII.]


LYSIAS.-STYLE.


195


the taste for Attic simplicity, lost during two centuries in the schools of Asia, revived at Rome, Lysias
was recognised as its truest representative. Though
most of his Roman imitators appear to have become
feeble in seeking to be plain, one of them, Licinius
Calvus, is allowed at least the praise of elegance1.
Cicero's criticism of Lysias is not close; it does not
analyse with any exactness the special qualities of
his style; but the general appreciation which it
shows is just. For Cicero, Lysias is the model, not
of a plain style merely, but of Attic refinement2;
he has also the highest degree of vigour3; and
though grandeur was seldom possible in the treatment of such subjects as he chose, some passages
of his speeches have elevation4.      Yet, while Demosthenes could use the simplicity of Lysias, it
is doubtful (Cicero thinks) whether Lysias could
ever have risen to the height of Demosthenes5;


tors of Lysias who belonged nearly
to the age of Deinarchos, Cicero
names Charisios and Hegesias of
Magnesia (Brut. ~ 286: Orator
~ 226).
1 Cic. Brutus ~ 283 Accuratius
quoddam dicendi et exquisitius
afferebat genus. He treated this
style scienter eleganterque, though
with a certain self-conscious and
overwrought care which deprived
it of freshness and force.
- De Oratore iII. 7 ~ 28 Suavitatem   Isocrates,  subtilitatem
Lysias, acumen Hyperides, sonitum Aeschines, vim Demosthenes
Aabuit.   Compare Orator ~ 29
intelligamus hoe esse Atticum in


Lysia, non quod tenuis sit atque
inornatus, sed quod nihil habeat
insolens aut ineptum.
a Brutus ~ 64 Quanquam in
Lysia saepe sunt etiam lacerti,
ita sic ut fieri nihil possit valentius.
4 De opt. gen. Oratorum ~ 9 Est
enim (Lysias) multis locis grandior; sed quia et privatas ille
plerasque et eas ipsas aliis et parvarum rerum caussulas scripsit,
videtur esse ieiunior, quom se ipse
consulto ad minutarum genera
caussarum limaverit.
5 ib. ~ 10 Ita fit ut Demosthenes
certe possit summisse dicere, elate
Lysias fortasse non possit.
13-2




196


TIlE ATTIC ORA TORS.


[CHAP.


Lysias is 'almost' a second Demosthenes1, or,
what is the same thing, 'almost' a perfect orator2;
but his mastery is limited to a province.      The
Augustan age produced by far the best and fullest
of known ancient criticisms upon Lysias, that of
Dionysios. The verdict of Caecilius has perished
with his work on the Ten Orators; but the remark
preserved from it, that Lysias was abler in the invention than in the arrangement of arguments4,
shows discernment. This quality marks in a less
degree the judgments of subsequent writers. Quintilian5 only commends Lysias in general terms for
plain elegance of language and mastery of clear exposition; Hermogenes6 especially praises, not his
winningness, but his hidden force; classing him,
with Isaeos and Hypereides, next to Demosthenes
in political eloquence. Photios 7 goes wide of the


1 Orator ~ 226, Lysiam-alterum paene Demosthenem.
2 Brutus ~ 25 Quem iam prope
audeas oratorem   perfectum  dicere; nam plane quidem perfectum, et cui nihil admodum desit,
Demosthenem facile dixeris.
3 Besides the special essay on
Lysias, and the short notice in the
Kplo-Ws pxaltwv v. 1, there is much
criticism upon him in the essays
upon Isokrates, Isaeos, Demosthenes and   Deinarchos. It is
necessary to study these in connexion with the essay on Lysias;
they explain, or limit, many statements found there.
4 The criticism is cited, and contested, by Photios, p. 489 B, quoted
below.


5 Quint. ix. 4. 16: x. 1. 78 (Lysias)...quo nihil, si oratori satis
est docere, quaeras perfectius.
6 In the,rept ldev ii. c. 41 Hermogenes ranks Lysias, with Isaeos
and Hypereides, next to Demosthenes in mastery of the TroXLTLKos
Xoyos. In his chapter repi    EtvwoTr-ros (TrCep l. II. 9) he says that
there are three kinds of 8EtvdWs,
-that which is and seems, that
which seems and is not, and that
which is but does not seem. The
last, or hidden, BewtvOdr  is, he
thinks, most perfectly exemplified
in Lysias.
7 Photios cod. 26'): f'-rO ' ' ' Avo-la' BEIvbs /; i v Ta0?Tvaor-Oat, iwtrV7tBeos  T roVS 7rpbs arv'o-wv &BaOFlvat Xdyovv.-Id. p. 489 B. 13: Kat



VIIi,]


L YSIAS.- STYLE.


197


mark; he praises Lysias for those things in which
he was relatively    weak, pathos and sublime intensity; and disputes the just observation of Caecilius that Lysias excelled in invention rather than
in arrangement.
A few words will be enough to mark the broad a,sa
and his
differences between Lysias and those three of his successors.
successors who may best be compared with him,Isaeos, Isokrates and Demosthenes. Isokrates, like
Lysias, has purity of diction and accuracy of idiom;
command of plain language (though he is seldom
content with it); power of describing, though not of
dramatizing, character; propriety and persuasiveness.  But while Lysias hides his art in order to
be more winning, Isokrates aims openly at the
highest artificial ornament, and escapes being frivolous or frigid only by the greatness of most of
his subjects and    the   earnestness with which he
treats them.    Isaeos, a direct studebt of Lysias,
resembles him most in his diction, which is not
only, like that of Isokrates, clear and pure, but
concise also; further, he strives, like his master, to
conceal his art, but never quite succeeds in this.
The excellence of Demosthenes comprises that of
Lysias, since, while the latter is natural by art,
the former is so by the necessary sincerity of genius;
but Demosthenes is not, like Lysias, plain; nor has
he the same delicate charm; grandeur and irresistible power take its place.
KLIXhs B alaprcve EVpeTLKrV Iv  T pv pe 7-per  persro 7o X6yov ovaEIrv avzpa ELTrep aXXov 'Lva oTvvolo- vos opa^rac KaTa SteOTpos--inXoyov,, olcovoLo t raL BN Ta evpeO;ra  judicious praise indeed.
ov)X ovrwl iLKavov' Ka' yap Kdv rovrco




198            THE ATTIC ORATORS.              [CHAP.
Services of  Lastly-it should   be remembered    that it is
Lysias to
the prose
idiom.  not only as an    orator but also, and even more,
as a writer that Lysias is important; that, great
as were his services to the theory and practice of
eloquence, he did greater service still to the Greek
language. He brought the everyday idiom into a
closer relation than it had ever before had with the
literary idiom, and set the first example of perfect
elegance joined to plainness; deserving the praise
that, as in fineness of ethical portraiture he is the
Sophokles, in delicate control of thoroughly idiomatic speech he is the Euripides of Attic prose.




IX.]


LYSIAS.- WORKS.


199


CHAPTER IX.
L YSIA S.
WORKS.
THE   EXTANT     COLLECTION.-EPIDEICTIC AND
DELIBERATIVE SPEECHES.
THE Plutarchic biographer of Lysias says:-' 425
compositions pass under his name; of which 233
are pronounced genuine by Dionysios and Caecilius'.1 The precise number 233 was probably given
by Dionysios or Caecilius, not by both; but it may
be taken as representing roughly the proportion of
genuine to spurious allowed by the Augustan Atticists.  It is not difficult to understand how         the
list of works attributed to Lysias had become so
large and so inaccurate. His fertility was known to
have been great; his style was distinguished less by
any salient features than by marks needing for
their recognition a finer sense, especially an instinct
for the niceties of Attic idiom; and it was not until
the Attic    revival under Augustus that such          an
1 [Plut.] Vit. Lys. bepowrat ' The general term XoyoL is to be
avrvo Xoyot rErppaKoeLOL eKoo- 7rtIVTE  understood as including Letters:
TrorVT  yvycrlov (4acriv olf trpt ALO-  Cf. Dionys. de Lys. 1, ypc~as X6 -viotov Kai KatiXLov Etv aL aKocrlovs  yov eL LKaoTrptLa...rpo' U rovTrpIaKTra. Photios, in his transcript  ro7s...dE'-LroTXLKovs. - Suidas (s. v.
of the passage (cod. 262), has &iaKo-  Avolas) says Xoyot 3' avrov XEyorvai
o(ovu rpidaKovra TpEs: and probably  elval yvrjaioot Vtrp ro r'T (300)Tpels is to be replaced in [Plut.]. perhaps a mere slip for o' (200).




200


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAr.


instinct, dead during two centuries, was brought
back to an artificial life.    Meanwhile the grammarians of Pergamos and Alexandria, presuming on
the reputation of Lysias for industry, had probably
been lavish in ascribing to him such anonymous
forensic speeches as bore the general stamp of the
' plain' style.
potio=      Thirty-four speeches, entire, or represented by
to Lks.  large fragments, are extant     under the name of
Lysias. A hundred and twenty-seven lost speeches
are known from smaller fragments or by their titles.
Three letters, cited by grammarians, are identified
by the names of the persons to whom they were
addressed. If to this list is added the disputed
Erotikos in Plato's Phaedros, 165 of the 425 compositions mentioned in the Plutarchic Life have been
accounted for; 260 remain unknown1.
Condition   Of the 34 speeches now       usually reckoned as
of the
Extant  extant, three are mere fragments, though large fragSpeeches.
ments, preserved by Dionysios alone, and printed
with the rest only in the more recent editions of
Lysias. These are nos. xxxi. (Against Diogeiton);
xxxnII. (Olympiakos); xxxiv. (Defence of the Constitution).  Of the    other 31 speeches eight are
more or less mutilated.   In the first place an entire
quaternion (eight pages), and three pages of another,
are wanting in the Palatine MS. The lost quaternion
contained   the  end   of Or. xxv. (Defence on        a
Charge of abolishing the Commonwealth), the speech
3 For the titles and fragments  170-210. Blass reckons 170 (inof the 127 lost speeches, and of the  steadof 165) compositions knownby
letters, see Sauppe Or. Att. i. pp. name: Att. Bereds. pp. 348-365.




IX.]


L YSIA S. -TFWORKS.


201


Against Nikides, and the beginning of Or. xxvI.
(Against Evandros).     The imperfect quaternion contained on its first two pages the end of Or. v. (For
Kallias), and the beginning of Or. vi. (For Andokides); on its last page, a passage in Or. vi. corresponding to the lacuna in ~ 49 after cdvraroSov.     In
the next place the archetype of the Palatine MS.
itself was defective. The gaps are at the beginning
of Or. Iv. (On Wounding with Intent); at the end
of Or. xvII. (On the Property of Eraton); at the
beginning of Or. xviim. (On the Property of Eukrates); and at the beginning of Or. xxi. (On a Charge
of taking Bribes.)   Thus of the 34 speeches only 23
are entire1.
Leaving aside the three speeches known         only ArrangeZ   ment in the
from  Dionysios, the other 31, as arranged in thehss.
MSS., form three divisions.     The first division consists of the solitary epideictic speech, No. II. (the
Epitaphios)-interpolated, as it were, by accident,
and (considering its almost certain spuriousness)
possibly at a late time. The second division consists
of Orations I. and III. to xi. inclusive,-all forensic,
except viii., and arranged with an attempt at classification of subjects. Oration I. refers to a case of
murder; III. and iv. to cases of wounding with
murderous intent; v. vi. viI. deal with cases of
impiety; vIII.-xI. (inclusive) concern, directly or
indirectly, cases of libel (KaKCvyopLa);-No. VIII.,
though not forensic, being numbered with these
I These 'facts are taken partly  the references of Blass to Sauppe's
from Baiter and Sauppe's edition  Epistola Critica (Att. Bereds. pp.
of the text of Lysias, and the cri- 368-371).
tical notes thereto; partly from




202


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


for convenience.     In the third    division, consisting
of Orations xii.-xxxi. inclusive, no such system of
arrangement can be discovered; but the twenty
speeches have this in common, that all relate to
causes either formally or virtually public.       Oration
xvin. (On    Eraton's Property-in        the  MSS. TrepC
8roeoiwv   dSaK)c7/LC0ov), though not formally public,
is so virtually, as concerning a confiscation to the
treasury; the case dealt with by Or. xxim. (Against
Pankleon), though private in form, is so far akin
to a public cause that it turns upon a disputed claim
to Athenian citizenship.
It seems probable that each of these two divisions-Or. I. with in. to xi., and Or. xII. to xxxi.is a fragment of a manuscript edition which originally  comprised    all the   speeches   of Lysias; but
whether both fragments belong to the same edition can hardly be decided1.
The extant speeches of Lysias may be considered
under the heads of Epideictic, Deliberative and
Forensic. After these, it will remain to speak of
the Miscellaneous Writings ascribed to him, represented by the Address to his Companions (Or. vii.)
and the Platonic Er6tikos. Lastly the Fragments
of speeches and letters will claim notice.
1 If both fragments belong to  speeches-whether technically prithe same edition, then this edition  vate, or only virtually so, as conwould seem to have contained  cerning the individual more than
(1) the public speeches, classed to-  the State-arranged according to
gether as such, but not arranged  subjects. But then it is difficult to
according to subjects, with the  explain why Orat. vi., Against
great speeches Against Eratos-  Andokides-essentially a qA&ortos
thenes and Against Agoratos (xi. Xoyosr-should appear among the
xim.) at their head: (2) the private  latter.




IX.]


L YSIAS.- WORKS.


203


EPIDEICTIC SPEECHES.
Of the Epideictic speeches of Lysias at least
one genuine specimen remains-the fragment of an
oration  delivered  at the   Olympic festival.    The oratory
at the Panfashion of addressing a set harangue to the Pan- 4e
hellenic concourse at the great national meetings had
been set by the earliest sophists. Hippias 'used
to charm   Greece at Olympia with orn-at..and elaborate speeches.'1 The Olympic oration of Gorgias
was renowned; and at Delphi his golden statue stood
in the temple where, during the panegyris, he had
'thundered his Pythian speech from the altar.'2     If
only as displays of rhetorical art, such harangues
were in harmony with the character of the great
Panhellenic meetings, the central idea of which was
open competition in every sort of excellence, physical
and mental. But the speaker at such a time would
have certain practical themes suggested to him by
the occasion itself, and would enjoy a rare opportunity of treating them with practical effect. He could
interpret and apply to passing events the thought,
necessarily present to every mind in such an assemblage, of a common Hellenic brotherhood.      Gorgias
had not failed to strike this chord. ' His speech
at Olympia dealt with the largest of political questions. Seeing Greece torn by faction, he became a
counsellor of concord, seeking to turn the Greeks
against the barbarians, and advising them to take
1 ~Oeye X 7v 'EXXAba ev 'OXv/- I. 11.
rlt XAOyoLs ro7LKlXoLs Ka lrapqpovrt-  2 OvY X yov roy IIvObov daro 70T
o-Pvots ei, Philostr. Vit. Sophist. Poipo Xrcr e, ib. I. 9.




204


THE ATTIC ORA TORS.


[CHAP.


for. the prizes of their arms not each others' cities
but the land &of the barbarians."  Hellenic nationality
as a tie no less real than local citizenship, the Hellenic cause as paramount to all individual interests,
must, in one form or another, have always been the foremost topic of speakers at the Panhellenic festivals.
The Oin-   This topic had a special significance at the mopiakos.  ment when the Olympiakos of Lysias was spoken2.
It was spoken, according to Diod6ros, in the first
year of the 98th Olympiad, 388 B. c.-the year before
the Peace of Antalkidas, by which the Corinthian
War was brought to         a close.   Athens, Thebes,
Argos and Corinth had in 388 been seven years at
war with Sparta. During this time two powers,
both dangerous to the freedom of Greece, had been
rapidly growing. In the east the naval strength
of Persia had become greater than it had been for
a century. In the west Dionysios, tyrant, since
405, of Syracuse, had reduced Naxos, Katana and
Leontini; had twice defeated Carthage; and was
threatening the Greek towns of Italy.
The Rm-     A  magnificent embassy from     the court of Diobassy from
Dionysios. nysios, with his brother Thearides at its head, appeared   at the   Olympic festival of      388.   Tents
embroidered with gold were pitched in the sacred enclosure; a number of splendid chariots were entered in
the name of Dionysios for the four-horse chariot-race;
1 Philostr. 1. c.          elusive. The oration distinctly
2 xIv. 107, 109. Grote (x. 103, speaks of as war a going on at the
note) rejects the statement of Dio- time:  7V-re tov r v Tp i rpbs dXd6ros, and assumes 384 B. c.-the  Xr0Xovs,r6\elov KaraOeo'-at, ~ 6: and
next festival-as the date; but on  in 384 the Corinthian war had been
grounds which do not appear con- over for three years.




IX.]


L YSIA SL. - WORKS.~S


205


while rhapsodists, whose skill in recitation attracted
crowds, repeated poems composed by their royal
master1. While eye and ear were thus allured by
the glories of the Syracusan tyrant, Lysias lifted
up his voice to remind the assembled Greeks that in
Dionysios they must recognise one of the two great
enemies of Greece. Let them       not admit to their
sacred festival the representatives of an impious
despotism. Let them remember that their duty is
to overthrow that tyranny and to set Sicily free;
and let the war be begun forthwith by an attack
upon those glittering tents2.
Only the first part of the speech has been preserved; but, to judge from the scale on which the
topics are treated and from the point in the argument which the extract reaches, the whole cannot
have been much longer.
After praising Herakles for having founded the Olympic Analysis.
festival in order to promote goodwill among all Hellenes
(~~ 1, 2), the speaker says that he is not going to trifle with
words like a mere sophist, but to offer serious counsel upon
the dangers of Greece. Part of the Greek world is already
subject to barbarians, part to tyrants. Artaxerxes is rich
in ships and money; so is Dionysios. Greeks must lay aside
civil strife, and unite like their fathers against their common
foes. (~~ 3-6.) The Lacedaemonians are the acknowledged
leaders of Greece, unconquered abroad, untroubled by faction
at home. Why do they not bestir themselves?       (~ 7)
Instant action is needful. Greece must not wait until the
enemy in the east and the enemy in the west close in upon
her together. (~~ 8, 9.)
Here the extract ends-probably at the point Remarks.
where Lysias addressed himself more particularly
1 Diod. xIv. 109.        2 Dionys. Lys. c. 29,




206


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


to the state of Sicily, before concluding with an
invective against the envoys of Dionysios. It is
The     natural to compare with       this fragment the great
Olympiakos
ompa   speech in which eight years later the same subject
koei.    was treated,-the     Panegyrikos    of Isokrates.    In
each case a Panhellenic audience is reminded of the
political unity of Hellas and is urged to common
action against the barbarian; in each case there is
an appeal to the most powerful of the Greeks to
become organisers and leaders of the rest; in each
case the speaker claims to be a more practical adviser
than his predecessors. This last claim would not be
easy to decide. It would be hard to say which was
the more hopeful scheme; in 388, that Sparta should
persuade the other Greek cities to lay aside all
jealousies and unite for the common defence under
her leadership; or in 380, that Sparta and Athens
should jointly achieve that task, and act as harmonious colleagues in such a leadership. As regards
form, the vigorous plainness which stamps the fragment of the Olympiakos is perhaps in better keeping
with counsel given at a grave national crisis than
is the artistic finish    of the   Panegyrikos.     Dionysios says that in the epideictic style Lysias is
' somewhat languid,' and wants that power of 'rousing
the hearer' which Isokrates, like Demosthenes, possessed'.   It is not certainly in this fragment that
we find the justification of the criticism.
The Ei-     The Funeral Oration ascribed to Lysias purports
taphios.
to have been spoken, in the course of the Corinthian
1 Dionys. de Lys. c. 28, Ev pe Y rq poS...ov 0sEyepeL UE rOv dKpoarTv
roLs iTeirEKTtKoIS' X6'yoes paXaKwrTE-  CGTrep IaoKpadrTs q A7iJoTFOEV74r




IX.]


LYSIAS.- WORKS.


207


War, over Athenians who had been sent to the
support of Corinth. The precise date cannot be
determined. In ~ 59 there is an allusion to the battle
of Knidos in 394, and to the visit of the Persian
fleet to Greece in 393; and in ~ 63 there is an
allusion to the rebuilding of the walls of Athens in
the latter year. If it were supposed that the speech
was retouched after delivery, it might have been
spoken over those who fell in the battle of Corinth
in 394. Otherwise the fight in the Long Walls of
Corinth in 392, or that in 391 when Agesilaos took
Lechaeum, might be assumed as the occasion. To
any one of these three hypotheses there is, indeed,
the objection that the speaker seems to refer to the
battle in question as one in which the deceased
were on the winning side (~ 70).
The oration opens by contrasting the greatness of the Analsis.
theme with the shortness of the time allowed to the speaker
for preparation (~~ 1-3). It goes on, in the usual fashion
of such discourses, to commemorate the exploits of Athens
from the earliest times. It relates the war in which Theseus
repelled the Amazons; the part taken by Athenians in
obtaining burial for the Argives who fell before Thebes in
the war of the Seven; the brave refusal of Athens to give
up the children of Herakles to Eurystheus (~~ 4-16). Then
a brief digression on the character of the Athenians as autochthones, and on the early growth of democracy (~~ 17-19).
The Persian wars-the siege of Aegina in 458-and the
expulsion of the Thirty Tyrants are successively noticed,
with remarks on the contrast between the Athenian and
the Spartan empire. (~~ 20-66.) Then comes a curiously
short tribute to the departed (~~ 67-70), and a most gloomy
address to their surviving relatives (~~ 71-76); followed
by the usual commonplace about the immortal honours of
the dead (~~ 77-81).




208


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[OIIAP.


character  Two questions have to be considered in regard
and author-.
hip of the to the Epitaphios; whether it was written for a real
Epitaphios.
occasion or merely as an exercise; and whether it
is or is not the work of Lysias1.
If it was written for a real occasion, then it
can hardly be his work; for Lysias, not being an
Athenian citizen, could not have spoken it himself; and it is unlikely that he should have composed it for another, since the citizen chosen by
the Senate to pronounce a funeral harangue was
usually an orator of repute2. But two things are
in favour of the view that the Epitaphios was a
mere rhetorical exercise; first, the character of the
references to supposed contemporary events,-references particular enough to have been inserted by a
composer anxious for the appearance of reality, yet
not exactly corresponding with any known situation; secondly, the neglect of topics which a mere
exercise could afford to ignore, but which in a real
oration would, according to all fitness and all usage,
be prominent-the topics of practical advice and
of consolation. This Epitaphios says little enough


" The case for, and the case
against, the authenticity of the
Epitaphios are well argued in two
essays--(1) Lysias Epitaphios als
echt erwiesen, by Dr Le Beau,
Stuttgart, 1863: (2) De Epitaphio
Lysiae Oratori fclso tributo, by IH.
Eckert, Berlin [1865?]. Le Beau's
able essay is clear and admirably
thorough, but defends a hopeless
cause: Eckert's is a full re-statement, in reply to Le Beau, of the
arguments against the genuineness.


2 Cf. Thuc. 11. 34, dvjp?7pP)7hIvo'
SrNTii j 7XEeS G ~s s 'iv yvYu.j re BoKr j
[fJl daivveros elaLt K(al da'C~o(Et 7TporjKy.
A third hypothesis has been advanced by Le Beau (pp. 37ff.)that the oration was written by
Lysias to be spoken by the Archon
Polemarch at one of the annual
commemorations of citizens who
had died during the past year; but
Eckert maintains that such annual
commemorations were not instituted before the time of Alexander
(pp. 6 ff.).




IX.]


L YSLA S. - WORKS.


209


about the dead; it scarcely attempts to exhort or to
comfort the living. If, then, we may assume what
the general character of the speech indicates-that
it was composed merely as a rhetorical essay-the
next question is-Was Lysias the author? The external evidence is inconclusive. Harpokration and
Theon' ascribe it without suspicion to Lysias. Aristotle quotes from 'the Epitaphios' a passage which
is found in our speech, but does not name Lysias,
though in the same chapter he cites Perikles, Isokrates and others by name. Nothing, however, can
fairly be inferred from this except that in Aristotle's
time the    speech  was celebrated2.     Dionysics nowhere mentions an Epitaphios by Lysias; and his
silence is suspicious.   Turning    from  the external
to the internal evidence, we       find  that   this is
overwhelmingly against the authorship of Lysias.
All his leading     characteristics-simplicity, grace,
clearness, the sense of symmetry-are conspicuous
by their absence. The structure of the whole is
clumsy; the special topics are ill-arranged, and
receive a treatment sometimes meagre, sometimes
extravagantly" diffuse; the     language   is  affected,
turgid and in many places obscure to a degree which
makes it inconceivable that this oration and the
fragment of the Olympiakos can be the work of the
1 Theon, rrpoyvlvado-para p. 164  r wmTrawly, bodr~ aLOI ov Pv d't
(Spengel, Rhet. Gr. IT. p. 68) XiXo- Tr Ta r6P  rC^ rv Ev 2aXaalvt
Irv ' KaL 'IooKparov' /iev ra' EY K-  TreXvr?7oa'vrTW  y Keipao-dOat -v
pta, IIXrroavos 0E KalL OovKVaIBoV  EXXada, K.r.X. The passage ocKai 'YTrepeisov  Avov Ka Avrov ITOV E-  curs in nearly the same words in
raqplovE.                    ~ 60 of our Epitaphios.
2 Arist. Rhet. in. 10 al otov dv
14




210


TITE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


same man1.     There are several resemblances of expression between this Epitaphios and the Panegyrikos of Isokrates, and these have often been
explained by supposing Isokrates to have borrowed
from Lysias. But let any careful reader note how
thoroughly the more rhetorical parts of the Epitaphios bear the stamp of a cento, and he will
prefer to suppose that some very inferior writer has
borrowed from Isokrates 2. No weight can be allowed
to the argument that Plato in the Menexenos (386
B. c.?) had this particular Epitaphios in view. The
Menexenos goes, indeed, over very nearly the same
range of subjects; but these subjects were the commonplaces of commemorative oratory, and the coincidence
is no warrant for assuming a direct imitation. If
it may be taken for granted that Aristotle's citation
in the Rhetoric is from our Epitaphios, the composition of the speech, whoever was the author, may
be placed between 380 and 340 B.c.3.        In any case,
considering the general character of the Greek4, it
can scarcely be put much below the first half of the
second century B. c.
1 Eckert, in the essay referred fluens; nugax4 salebrosus, indigesto above, examines at length (pp. tus nunquam esse potuit.' (Advers.
19-48) the arrangement (-itr'), I. p. 15.)
'invention' (Eippeaos), and diction  2 Cf. Panegyr. ~ 72, with Epi(X`tis) of the speech, and shows  taph. ~ 9: Pan. ~ 88 with E. ~ 29:
how thoroughly each is foreign  Pan. ~ 115 with E. ~59; &c. 'Illic'
to the manner of Lysias. It has  (i.e. in the Panegyrikos), says Donot been judged necessary here to  bree, ' summum oratorem videas,
follow his analysis into details.  hic nugacem compilatorem.'
The broad impression left upon the  3 Aristotle's Rhetoric having
mind by the speech as a whole will  been written probably during his
be enough for most readers. As  second residence at Athens, 335 -Dobree said-' Lysias in genere epi-  323 B. c.: see Grote's Aristotle, i. 34.
deictico quantumvis plenus et dif-  4 ' Sermone utitur sat bene Grae



IX.]


L YSIAS.-WORKS.


211


DELIBERATIVE SPEECH.
The speeches of Lysias for the ekklesia have
had the same fate as his epideictic speeches. These,
too, are represented by one fragment alone-that
which now stands last in the collection as Oration or. xxxiv.,
a Pleafor
xxxiv.    Like the   fragment of the Olympiakos, hCTstiit is given by Dionysios as a specimen of a class.
The title which it usually bears describes it as
a Plea against abolishing the ancient Constitution
of Athens. When, after the fall of the Thirty, the
democracy was restored in 403, it was the aim of
Sparta to restrict it. One Phormisios proposed in
the ekklesia that only landowners should have the
franchise, a measure which, according to Dionysios,
would have excluded about five thousand citizens.
The speech from which he gives an extract was
made against this motion during a debate in the
ekklesia. It appears to have been written by Lysias
for some wealthy citizen who was not personally affected by the proposal, and may probably be regarded
as the earliest of the orator's works now known.
A censure on the proposers and supporters of the mo- Analysis.
tion is followed by a statement of the speaker's political
faith. Nothing but a full democracy, he says, can save
the country. When Athens was imperial, did she limit the
franchise? On the contrary, she gave one of the special
privileges of citizenship to the Euboeans. Then, to take
co atque Attico, et in universum  admodum peccasse' (Dobree Adv.
spectanti non videtur in sermonis  p. 14). Cf. Eckert, p. 52.
puritatem et verborum delectum
14-2




212


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


the landowners' point of view, it is not they who have ever
profited by oligarchies. In fact it is just on their property
that the advocates of this, as of former oligarchies, have
designs. (~~ 1-5.)
If it is said that Athens can be safe only by obeying
Sparta, it should be remembered how desperate are the
terms which   Sparta would like to impose. Surely it
is better to die fighting for one's rights than to pass sentence of death upon oneself. But there is a danger for
Sparta also, which will to a certain extent restrain her. She
leaves Argos and Mantineia at peace, because she knows
that nothing can be gained, and that much would be risked,
by driving them to extremities: she will feel the same in
regard to Athens. This was the policy of Athens herself
when she was greatest. (~~ 6-9.) It would be strange if
the democrats who fought bravely in exile should lose
heart now that they are restored; if the sons of men who
saved Hellas should shrink from delivering Athens. (~~ 10,
11.)
Dionysios remarks on this speech that there is
nothing to prove that it was actually delivered on the
occasion supposed, but that 'at all events it is in a
style suitable for debate.'1 For that very reason, the
smooth finish of the extract from the Olympiakos is
not to be looked for here; a rougher vigour takes its
place.  Regarded historically, it has one point of interest-the analogy suggested between Sparta's contemptuous forbearance towards Argos and Mantineia
and her probable attitude towards Athens. Nothing
could show more strikingly the prostrate condition
in which Athens was left by the Thirty        Tyrants
than that a speaker in the ekklesia should have ventured to use such an illustration.
1 De Lys. c. 32 E l fiv oLv  e  7ppO) rTr'E, 7r)Xov"' i*rayKEtaLto v ws (rpos
dywova E7rt're'Lo)S'.




X.]


LYSIAS.- WORKS.


213


CHAPTER        X.
L YSIA S.
WORKS.
FORENSIC SPEECHES IN PUBLIC CAUSES.


N classifying forensic speeches the first thing to be
done is to fix the principle of distinction between
the public and the private.    One method is to con- Prncie
of distincsider solely the form of procedure, and to distinguish eon
'public
'public' and ' private' as they were technically dis- an
tinguished by Greek law.       Another method is to 'che
consider rather the substance than the form of each
cause, and to arrange the causes according as their
practical interest was more directly for the State or
for the individual. Blass adopts the latter plan1.


1 Blass's classification is as follows:I. Public Causes: Against Epikrates [Or. xxvii]: Against Ergokles [xxviii]: Against Philokrates
[xxix]: Against Nikomachos [xxx]:
Against the Corndealers [xxii]:
Against Evandros [xxvi]: Against
Philon [xxxI]: Against Alkibiades
[xiv, xv]: Defence on Charge of
Taking Bribes [xxI]: For Polystratos [xx]: Defence on a Charge
of seeking to abolish the Democracy [xxv]: For Mantitheos [xvi]:


On the Property of the Brother
of Nikias [xvIII]: On the Property
of Aristophanes [xix].
II. Private Causes in which
the person of the accused, or the
consequences of the offence in question, had a specially high importance for the Commonweal (Att.
Bereds. p. 539). Against Eratosthenes [xII]: Against Agoratos
[xIII]: Against Andokides [vi].
III. Properly Private Causes.
On the Murder of Eratosthenes
[i]: Against Simon [II]: On Wound



214


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


The speech On the Murder of Eratosthenes [Or. I.],
for instance, is referred by Blass to the private class,
since the cause, though formally public (as being a
ypac/)r  / xvov), was of no properly political interest.
The obvious objection to such a mode of classification
is its uncertainty.  The definite technical distinction
once abandoned, it becomes hard to say what is or is
not a ' public' cause. Thus the speeches Against
Eratosthenes [Or. xm.] and Against Agoratos [Or.
xiii.] are placed by Blass in a rank by themselves,
intermediate between the properly public and the
properly private, because in each      case,.though an
individual is   mainly   concerned, the     issue is of
high moment to the State. Such differences have
a real literary importance, and have already been
recognised (p. 166) as corresponding to different
shades of style. But they appear too indefinite to
form  a good basis for scientific classification.   The
necessity of drawing a doubtful or arbitrary line is
avoided by taking the classification supplied by
Greek law itself. Classified as public and private
(S&)xo-Cao  and  8L OTCKoL) in  the Greek    sense, the
speeches of Lysias will stand thus:A.-SPEECHES IN PUBLIC CAUSES.
I. Causes relating to Offences directly against
the State (ypaeai &t8pioo'rti d"i8Kcr'oJ,) ); such as treaing with Intent [iv]: For Kallias  of Eraton [xvi]: Against Pankleon
[v]: On the Sacred Olive [vii]: [xxiii].
For the Soldier [ix]: Against  IV. Bagatelle Speeches. Forthe
Theomnestos [x, xi]: Against Dio-  Invalid [xxiv]: To his Companions
geiton [xxxii]: On the Property  [vii].-Att. Bereds. pp. 445-660.




x.]


LYSIAS.- WORKS.


215


son, malversation in office, embezzlement of public
moneys.
1. For Polystratos [Or. xx.].
2.  Defence on a Charge of Taking Bribes
[Or. xxI.].
3.  Against Ergokles [Or. xxvIIr.].
4. Against Epikrates [Or. xxvii.].
5. Against Nikomachos [Or. xxx.].
6. Against the Corndealers [Or. xxII.].
II.  Cause relating to Unconstitutional Procedure
(ypac)rj TrapavoufJv).
On the Property of the Brother of Nikias
[Or. xvIII.].
III.  Causes relating to Claims for Money withheld from the State (doroypagac.)
1.  For the Soldier [Or. ix.].
2. On the Property of Aristophanes [Or.
XIX.].
3.  Against Philokrates [Or. xxix.].
IV.   Causes relating to a Scrutiny (8oKqkaOia),
especially the Scrutiny by the Senate of Officials
designate.
1.  Against Evandros [Or. xxvi.].
2.  For Mantitheos [Or. xvi.].
3.  Against Philon [Or. xxxi.].
4.  Defence on a Charge of seeking to abolish
the Democracy [Or. xxv.].
5.  For the Invalid [Or. xxIv.].
V.   Causes relating to Military Offences (ypacax
XELTToraTLov, d 'TrpaLTEda, K. 7. X.).
1. Against Alkibiades, I. [Or. xiv.].
"2.  Against Alkibiades, II. [Or. xv.].




216


THE A1TTC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


VI.    Causes   relating  to Murder or Intent to
murder (ypcba'C fr0vov, TpaCLv/aTog iK r povocas).
1. Against Eratosthenes [Or. xii.].
2.   Against Agoratos [Or. xiii.].
3.   On the Murderi of Eratosthenes [Or. I.].
4. Against Simon [Or. III.].
5.  On Wounding with Intent [Or. Iv.].
VII.    Causes relating to Impiety (ypatqa       dorE1. Against Andokides [Or. vi.].
2.  For Kallias [Or. v.].
3.  On the Sacred Olive [vii.].
B.-SPEECHIES IN PRIVATE CAUSES.
I. Actionfor libel (8t&K   KaKrqYOpcs).
Against Theomnestos' [Or. x.].
II.  Action by a Ward against a Guardian (8&KTI
4EVUTp07711).Against Diogeiton [Or. xxxii.].
III.   Trial of a Claim to Property (8ca8LKclo-).
On the Property of Eraton2 [Or. xvii.].
IV.   Answer     to a Special Plea      (7Tpo  irctpaypct44v).
Against Pankleon [Or. xxIIi.].
SThe MSS. give Kamt ecopttvjorov  of the first: see below.
A. as Or. x. and Kard" OEoY14orov V 2 Entitled in the MSS. Wrept 8lq/oB. as Or. xi. But the so-called  71cv i d8LKqt1irov.
Second Speech is a mere epitome




x.]


LYSIAS.-WORKS.


217


SPEECHES IN PUBLIC CAUSES.
I. CAUSES RELATING TO OFFENCES DIRECTLY AGAINST
THE STATE (ypaot al Snrtoori&wv  8iLKYpjL7a0v).
1. For Polystratos. [Or. xx.]-Harpokration 1.. For
Polydescribes this as a 'Defence for Polystratos on a charge stratos,
of seeking to abolish the Democracy.'l But from the
speech itself the precise nature of the charge cannot
be gathered.   All that can be safely inferred is that
the offence alleged was of a political nature, and was
connected with the oligarchical revolution of 411 B.c.
Polystratos had held several offices under the oligarchy (~ 5), and had been elected to a vacancy in
the Council of the Four Hundred just eight days
before the defeat of the Athenian fleet by the Spartans at Eretria, immediately after which the government fell (~ 14). His most important employment
had been that of enrolling the 5000 persons to whom
the Council conceded the franchise; and he takes
credit for having placed, in his capacity of registrar,
9000 instead of 5000 on the roll. It was only in
their last peril that the Oligarchy took steps for giving
a real existence to the nominal body of 5000; and
this agrees with the account of Polystratos, who dates
his registrarship from his entry into the Council only
eight days before its overthrow (~ 14). When the
democracy was re-established, Polystratos was prosecuted and heavily fined; probably on the ground
of malversation in some office which he had held
under the Oligarchy.
In the present case malversation in his registrar- Probable
nature of
1 S.V. Ioorpo-rp II. tov Kaa       doXoa.     the charge.
S.V. riOXv;oT7paEoq-vIwE'. ILj 8qLOV K~aXrvo-EcS cwotoyla.




218


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


ship may have been the special charge against him.
The penalty threatened was pecuniary; but he says
that, as he has no money with which to meet it, the
result for him, if condemned, will be disfranchisement
as a state-debtor.
Date.        The date must lie between 411 and 405.           The
war in the Hellespont is noticed (~ 29); but there
is no reference to Arginusae or subsequent events;
and the early part of 407 is therefore the latest date
which appears probable.
Polystratos, who was a man past sixty (~ 10), is
represented by the eldest of his three sons (~ 24).
A nalysis.  The first part of the speech sets forth that Polystratos
was one of the least prominent and least culpable of the
oligarchs; that he had already suffered severely, and is now
accused maliciously; and that the general tenor of his past
life proves his patriotism (~~ 1-23). The speaker then
relates his own services in Sicily after the disaster of 413,
and reads a patriotic letter written to him by his father at
that time. He recounts also the services of his brothers,
the second and third sons of Polystratos; of whom the former
had been active at the Hellespont, and the latter at home
(~~ 24-29). In return for all that the father and his three
sons have done for the city, they ask only to be spared a
verdict which would rob them of citizenship (~~ 30-36).
The speech  The only ancient notice of this speech is by Harprobably
spurous. pokration, who once refers to it; then, indeed, without suspicion1. But the general opinion of recent
critics2 pronounces it spurious.   In one respect alone
1 s. v. IIoXvo'rparov.      arts critica perscnandis, by J.
2As of Baiter, Sauppe and Blass. Franz-numerous minute emenIt is curious to find-in an essay  dations proposed in the text of this
published at Munich in 1830, Dis-  speech (pp.7-10), all depending on
sertatio de locis quibusdam Lysiae  close observation of the language of




X.]


LYSIAS.-WORKS.


219


it has at first sight a resemblance to the style of
Lysias.   It is thoroughly natural.   Yet the naturalness is not that of Lysias. It is the absence, not
the concealment, of art; the simplicity, not of a
master, but of a composer wholly untrained. A want
of logical method renders the statements in the first
part (~~ 1--23) confused, and the language throughout clumsy, sometimes obscure. Instead of the compact sentences of Lysias there are long strings of
clauses loosely joined;-see especially ~ 14.     Were
the speech genuine, it would be the only known
forensic speech of Lysias earlier than the fall of the
Thirty Tyrants. But it seems hardly doubtful that
it must be rejected.
2. Defence    on   a  Charge of    Taking   Bribes. 12. D. efence on a
[Or. xxi.]-The first part of this speech, in which the    ge of
accused met the specific charges against him, has Bribes.
been lost; the part which remains contains only his
appeal to his previous character generally. The precise nature of the charge is therefore doubtful. In
~ 21 the speaker asks that he may not be adjudged
guilty of taking bribes; hence the title given to the
fragment.    The accused had probably held        some
office, and was charged, when he gave account of it,
with corrupt practices.
A clue to the date is given by the fact that the Date.
speaker became of full age (i. e. eighteen) in the
archonship of Theopompos (~ 1), 411 B. c.; and had
performed leiturgies yearly to the archonship of
Eukleides (~ 4), 403 B. C. No reason appears why his
Lysias; while the general character  like that of its reputed author's
of the whole composition-so un-  work-entirely escapes criticism.




220


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


public services should have ceased abruptly in that
year. On the other hand, if he had performed leiturgies later than 403B.c., he would probably have mentioned them. The year of the speech may therefore
be conjectured to be 402, and the age of the speaker
261.
Analysis.  Having already answered the accusers in detail, he goes
on, in the extant fragment, to enumerate his public services.
As choregus and trierarch he has spent upwards of ten talents
in eight years-more than four times the amount which
would have satisfied legal requirements (~~ 1-5). His trireme, when he was trierarch, was so good that Alkibiades,
as admiral, had done him the unwelcome honour of sailing
in it (~ 7); and it was one of the twelve which made good
their escape from Aegospotami (~ 10).
He might fairly claim some substantial recognition of these
costly services; but he asks only not to be deprived of his
own property (~~ 11-19). In conclusion he reminds the
judges that one who had risked his life and whole fortune
for the State was not likely to have taken bribes to defraud
it (~~ 21, 22). Beggary had often enough hung over his
wife and children when he was fighting for Athens; it
would be hard if it should at last actually befall them by
the sentence of an Athenian court (~~ 24-52).
The thos.   Lysias shows here strikingly his power of adapting
language to character; the ethos is the merit of the
speech.   It expresses the strong, honest feeling of a
man who has made sacrifices for his country, who is
conscious of his desert, and who claims, rather than
begs, acquittal. 'I think, judges, that it would be
much fairer for you to be indicted by the revenueofficers for keeping my property, than for me to be


I Blass, Att. Ber. p. 496.




x.]


LYSIAS.-WORKS.


221


now in peril on a charge of keeping the property
of the Treasury...I am    not proud of what is left
to me, but of what I have spent upon you.         My
fortune came to me from others-the credit for its
use is my own.' (ý~ 16, 17.)
3.  Against Ergokles.     [Or. xxviI.]-In     3901.3.
Against
B.C. a fleet of forty triremes was sent to the coast Ergok'es.
of Asia Minor under the command of Thrasybulos.
After   many    successes  in  the   Hellespont   and
a  victory over   the   Lacedaemonians    at  Lesbos,
Thrasybulos was slain at Aspendos in Pamphylia
by   a party   of natives who    surprised his camp
by night1.   Meanwhile anger had been excited at
Athens by reports that the commanders of the expedition had embezzled moneys levied on the towns
in Asia, and had been treacherous to the cause of
the city. A decree was passed demanding an account
of all funds so raised, and recalling the commanders.
Thrasybulos died before he could obey the summons;
his colleagues, of whom     Ergokles was one, wereDate.
brought to trial in 389 B.c. The procedure was
apparently by    impeachment.    Ergokles was condemned to death and his property was confiscated2.
The short speech of Lysias was spoken by one of
the Public Prosecutors; who, as others had already
gone fully into the charges, does little more than
recapitulate them.
Ergokles is charged with having betrayed Greek towns AnalTsis.
S Xen. Hellen. iv. viii. 25-30.  having in his hands part of the
2 See ~ 2 of the speech Against confiscated property of Ergokles.
Philokrates, who was accused of




222


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


in Asia, with having injured citizens and friends of Athens,
and with having enriched himself at the public cost. All
this time the fleet was allowed to go to ruin, with the
connivance of Thrasybulos-who would never have been
given the command, had it been foreseen that only his
'flatterers' (~ 4) were to benefit by it (~~ 1-7). Thrasybulos had done well to die; the partners of his guilt are
now seeking to buy their lives by wholesale bribery; but
this must not be suffered (~~ 8-11). Ergokles pleads his
patriotism at the restoration of the democracy; but he has
since shown himself worse than the Tyrants (~~ 12-14).
His condemnation and that of his associates is necessary
as an example to Greece, and is due to the cities, such as
Halikarnassos', which they betrayed (~~ 15-17).
Decision and vigorous brevity are the chief characteristics of this speech, as of that Against Epikrates
(xxvi.) and that Against Philokrates (xxix.); both
of which, like this, were spoken by Public Prosecutors.
An address by an official afforded less scope for
artistic individual colouring than a speech which had
to be fitted to the character and circumstances of a
private speaker.
igant       4.   Against Epikrates. [Or. xxvlI.]-The title,
krates. 'Against Epikrates and his Fellow-Envoys,' which
one Theod6ros2 affixed to this speech, is clearly
wrong.    In  the  first place each   of the 'FellowEnvoys' would have been the subject of a separate
S Xenophon does not name    rpoo-Xtpovo-vX c~Earw^pXpqj'ara
Halikarnassos: but he describes  rots o-rpaTtLoratv iEorEvo-EV el
Thrasybulos, after his victory at r7 v 'P6ov acgKEo-au. Ot Tro 8' av Kal
Lesbos, as levying money for his EdKE d- EppWcoIEveoraTovr T o-rpdre vUa
troops from some towns on the  7roiýo-aro, E'd aXXCOv re WOXv  py vGreek coast:-E'K e rovrov rTLa LEv  poXoye,, K.r.X. (H. Iv. viii. 30).
7rpoo-rydyETo rT wr6#J \, V   EK T7T oI0  2 The MSS. having KATA EIII



x.]


LYSIAS.-WORKS.


223


accusation; in the next place, there is absolutely
no reference to an embassy except in the opening
words1, which have probably been interpolated to
match the title. The grammarian, it can hardly
be doubted, was thinking of the Epikrates mentioned by Demosthenes as having been condemned,
with his colleagues in an embassy, by a decree of
the people2. Whether this Epikrates is the same
person or not, cannot be decided.     But, in the present case, the charge against him is of having embezzled public moneys while he held the office of
comptroller of the treasury (~ 3). The charge must
have been made either at his audit (E0V5^vaL) or
by a special impeachment (e0o-ayyEia.)        The only
clue to the date is the fact that a war had now
lasted some time (~ 10).     The latter part of the Da.
Corinthian War-about the year 389-is probably
indicated.
Like the speech against Ergokles, this was preceded by others for the prosecution, and gives therefore only a general view of the case.
Corrupt officers of the treasury, like Ergokles, often tell Analsis.
the judges, in asking for a verdict against some one whom
they have wrongfully accused, that if it is not given, the city
will soon lack funds to pay its public servants. And now this
lack of funds is caused by the corrupt officials themselves.
The State must punish heavily those guardians of the revenue
KPATOY2 KAI TON 2YMIIPE2- 7rpeo-fvrTcv El)OvYeloOat 8; XP'
BEYTON EIIIAOTO  22e OEOAQ-  Ka.T.. The words Kal rcv O-v/trpeo--
PO2,                       fPev7rv are probably spurious.
1 Karrydprirat v, t  c Ev pEr ' A-  2 De Falsa Legat. ~ 277: Blass,
vatoo, 'ESTKpcrove avat Kai rw3v crvp- p. 445.




224


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


who so often procure the confiscation of private property while
they enrich themselves out of the property of the public
(~~ 1-7). If such men were condemned without the forms
of a trial, it would be no breach of justice; their guilt is notorious. This is war-time; yet these men can not only pay
heavy taxes, but at the same time live in the best houses-men
who, in quieter times, had not bread to eat (~~ 8-10). No
appeal to mercy should be admitted from such a quarter.
The courts have lately been too lenient. Epikrates and his
like must be made to suffer loss, since they are insensible to
shame (~~ 11-16).
1i5.,.     5. Against Nikomachos. [Or. xxx.].-Soon after
Against
$ailos.  the fall of the First Oligarchy in 411 B.c., a decree
of the ekklesia (probably in 410) appointed a board
of special Commissioners (Nomothetae1) for the revision of the laws; especially for the recension of
those old laws of Solon, written on the sides of the
wooden prisms called Kurbeis or Axones, which now
needed to be freed from corruptions and interpolations.  Nikomachos2 was a member of the Commis

I Nikomachos is called in ~~ 2
and 27 voftoOr?,j. This was probably the ordinary official designation of the special Commissioners
both in 411 and 403: the title avaypaýe   t r'g v voiWco, 'Recorder' of
the laws, also applied to Nikomachos in ~ 2, being sometimes used,
perhaps, to distinguish the special
from the ordinary Nomothetae.Rauchenstein notices in Demosth.
Olynth. in. ~ 10 another trace of
the occasional appointment of special Nomothetae: see his Introductionto this speech, A usgewdhlte
Reden des Lysias, p. 130, n.
2 In ~ 11, as once in a quotation


by Harpokration (s. v. eimrtoX,'),
Nikomachos is called Nikomachides:-reldOovao- NtKotWaxIiv vSoIov
d7ro&etat co pXP'7 Kaal T77V 3ovX'v o-VViKa'ýeFv. Rauchenstein (ad loc.)
thinks that is merely an instance
of the patronymic used convertibly
with the simple name, as Eubulides
for Eubulos in Or. xix. ~ 29;
cf. Androkleides for Androkles
in Isae. Or. vi. 46.  Blass, with
more likelihood, suspects a mere
blunder. Is it possible that in ~ 11
we ought to insert rovrov after
7TeLOovo-, and understand:-' they
persuade the defendant to enuntiate a law of which he was him



X.]


L;YSTI S.-- WORKS.


225


sion. Four months were assigned for the work1;
but Nikomachos contrived to extend his share of
it over six years-i.e. until the overthrow of the
democracy in 404-without rendering an account.
After the fall of the Second Oligarchy in 403,
a second Revising Commission was appointed by the
Senate. These special Nomothetae were to report
wuithin one month to the Senate and the 500 ordinary
Nomothetae selected by the demes2.      Nikomachos
was again employed; his special duty on this occasion being to revise the laws which concerned the
public sacrifices3. Again he failed to discharge his
task within the prescribed term. At the date of
this speech he had held office for four years. The
speech  probably  belongs, therefore, to 399 B. C.
Nikomachos is accused before the Board of Auditors
(the ten Logistae) of having failed to render an
account of his office (aXoyCov 8iK/)4.


self the parent' (NLKoILaXIbr v votov)
-a law invented by Nikomachos
for the occasion? This would be
quite in keeping with the sarcastic
tone of the speech.
1 ~ 2,rpoo-raxOv Pyap avr r'(TEcapcov piuvcwv dvaypa'+ta....E6 r r)jV
apxYv drotocraro.
2 The psephisma of 403 for the
revision of the laws is given in full
by Andokides in the speech On
the Mysteries, ~ 83.
"3 See ~ 25, Kal rT v do0r0ov Kat
7v IepCov dvaypauEivr yevpopevoS
els dL)06Trepa ravra?7Iprl7Kev. Here
r(v oo'fic  refers to the first Commission of 410 B. C., when the laws
entrusted to the revision of Nikomachos were only secular; rwv


lepYv to the second Commission
of 403 B. c., when the laws which
came under his revision were those
relating to public worship.
4 The description in the MSS.
heading of the speech--Ev6vvcv
KaTrryopla-is inaccurate, as Rauchenstein points out(Introd. p. 131).
This would mean that Nikomachos
had rendered an account, and that,
when he rendered it, an accusation
was brought against him by some
citizen; which would then have
been heard by the erOvvot. The
charge against Nikomachos was
that he had never rendered any
account to the    Logistae. The
points of law connected with this
speech are discussed in an essay
15




226


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


The speaker is one of several accusers (~ 34),
probably not the principal; the penalty demanded is
death (S 23, 27.)
Ancalsis.   The first part of the speech sets forth the antecedents of
Nikomachos. His father was a public slave; he himself,
after late enrolment in a phratria, became an under-scribe to
a magistrate. His present offence was not the first of the
kind which he had committed. After the First Oligarchy, as
after the Second, commissioners for the revision of the laws
were appointed. Nikomachos had been one of these also;
and had retained the appointment for six years (~ 2)(that is, till 404 B.c.)-(~~ 1-6).
He will perhaps try to cast upon his accuser the suspicion of oligarchical sympathies. It ought not to be forgotten that it was he himself who, by a forged law, enabled
the oligarchs to destroy Kleophon' in 405.    His sufferings
under the Thirty were involuntary, and cannot be set against
an action which was deliberate (~~ 7-16). The speaker
will be taunted by Nikomachos with impiety because he
complained in the ekklesia of the number of public sacrifices which this self-authorised legislator had ordered. But
the truth is that, by ordering a number of new sacrifices,
Nikomachos has caused those prescribed by the laws of Solon
(Trd d 7c  v Idp/ecov, ~ 17) to be neglected; and has in two
years spent twelve talents more than was necessary (~ 21).
Hence the city, from want of funds, has been driven to confiscations (~ 22). Nikomachos ought to suffer the extreme
penalty, as a warning to the corrupt officials who, confident in
their powers of speech, are reckless of public or private
misery (~~ 17-25).
Neither service in war, nor liberality at home, nor the
merit of ancestors, nor the hope of his own gratitude, can
entitled Diatribe in Lysae ora-  Rhet. i. 15, etc. Cf. Lys. de bonis
tionem in Niikomachum, by F. V.  Aristoph. (Or. xix) ~ 48: KXcoWeijers, Leyden, 1839.        q(covra vavres t'Or 'e TL -roXXah fr
1 Kleophon, d Xvpowrotdo, the  t&,eXEptorE  - r  i T S 7roXecos rdraV,
denagogue: Ar. Ran. 677: Arist.




X.]


L; YSIA S. - WORKS.~X


227


be pleaded as a reason for acquitting  him. The people
themselves might well be denounced for entrusting to such
as he the powers once held by a Solon, a Themistokles, a
Perikles (~ 28). Nikomachos has sought in vain to bribe his
accusers; let his judges do their duty as firmly (~~ 26-35).
Unsparing    and  rather  coarse sarcasm    is the
strength of this attack. Throughout, Nikomachos
is treated, not as the recorder of laws, but as
the son of the public slave, as the ex-under-scribe.
"Are we to acquit him    for his ancestors?' asks the
accuser.  'Nay, for his own sake he deserves death;
and for theirs-the slave-market' (~ 27).
6.  Agcinst the Corndealers. [Or. xxn.].-The.. Against
q a                      -       the Corn"
Guild of Corndealers (o-ror73WXac) was composed of dealer
aliens (~ 5) resident in the Peiraeus, who bought corn
as it came into port and sold it in small quantities
to the citizens. The trade was a good one, and was
watched with jealousy both by citizens and by wholesale importers (ElropoL, ~ 27).   Stringent laws, administered by a board of Corn-Inspectors (cT-ro`XaCKES/,
~ 8), were framed to limit the gains of the retaildealers. One of these laws forbade them to charge
more than one obol a bushel over cost-price (~ 8);
another, in order to check monopoly, provided that
no one should buy more than 50 phormoi (about 50
bushels) of corn at one time (~ 6).
It is this second law which is here alleged to have
been broken by the guild or by some of its members.
The case is tried before an ordinary court under
the presidency of the Thesmothetae: the penalty is
death.
The date of the speech cannot be fixed. All that Date.
15--2




228


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


can be said is that it was certainly later than the
beginning of the Corinthian War in 394 B. c.; possibly
later than the Peace of Antalkidas in 387 B. c.1
Analysis.    The speaker begins by deprecating the notion that the
charge preferred by him is vexatious or spiteful. On the
contrary, he says, he was at the beginning of the business
suspected of unduly favouring the Guild. An impeachment
was first laid before the Senate, who were inclined to deliver
the Corndealers then and there to the Eleven. It was he
who then counselled moderation and the observance of the
usual legal course. Accordingly the case was heard before the
Senate (which was itself the preliminary court in cases of
impeachment). No one came forward as accuser; and the
speaker then made the accusation himself. The case was
sent by the Senate for trial by an ordinary court (~~ 1-4).
One of the Corndealers is then questioned, and admits
having bought more than fifty bushels at once, but says that
he did so by the recommendation of the Corn-Inspectors.
The speaker shows, first, that this is no defence; next, that
the statement is false (~~ 5-10). The dealers plead that
their object in buying large quantities was to be able to sell
cheap; but their claim     to public spirit can be refuted
(~~ 11-16). They have acknowledged their combination
against the wholesale importers. Their death is the satisfaction due to these and to the officials who have so often been
punished for inability to check such frauds (~~ 17-22).
Compact     and   clear, without any       attempt at
ornament, this short speech is at least good of its
kind,-a specimen of the strictly business-like style
of Lysias.
1 See ~ 14, which speaks of the  drropp7Oo'o-emOal. 'The ships in the
rumours spread by the Cori-     Euxine' are theships which brought
dealers in order to raise the price  corn to Athens from those regions:
of corn:--4 ras va.&Ei~OadpOac rta,  cf. Xen. IH. I 35. The o-rrovaal posev T  IIHdr&) A vrro AaKE8atovicov  sibly refer to the Peace of AntalKWrXEovcra o-rvvIEt ratJAL 7Ta 'i7r7pta  kidas or to negociations which
KKEKXdLOaA 74 ra9s orov&8av iEXXcay  preceded it,




X.]


L YSIAS.- WORKS.


229


II. INDICTMENT FOR       PROPOSING    AN   UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEASURE (ypacr) Trapavow.mw).
On the Confiscation of the Property of the Brother n. on the
Confiscaof Nikias.   [Or. xvIII.]-Eukrates, brother of the         io ofhe
the Brother
General Nikias, was put to death         by the Thirty ofNis.
Tyrants in    404 B. c.   Several years afterwards a
certain Poliochos1 proposed and carried in the ekklesia a decree for confiscating the estate left by
Eukrates.    In this speech the elder of the two sons
of Eukrates pleads against the execution          of the
decree.
The legal form    of the cause is doubtful.      Two Form o the
views are possible. (1) The sons of Eukrates may
have indicted Poliochos under the Graphe Paranomon for proposing an unconstitutional measure.         In
this case the speech is an Accusation. (2) Poliochos may have indicted      the sons of Eukrates for
withholding property due to the State under the
decree; the action being in form      an apograph6, or
claim  for moneys withheld from      the Treasury.     In
this case the speech is a Defence2.
One point is in favour of the latter view. The
speaker appeals in his peroration, first, to the judges
1 There is some doubt about the  siacae, pp. 124 ff.) thinks that Haname. The MSS. have nloXlaXos  maker has proved beyond all
or IIXio-Xo-: Galen, in his citation  doubt that the cause is an d7ro(xvIII. 2. 657 Kuihn), HIoXLoSXos. ypau(f, not a ypa(on) rapavoLcov.
Taylor has been followed by Sauppe  But the arguments brought are
and other recent editors in reading  unavailing without a satisfactory
HoXloXos, a proper name recog-  emendation of the words in ~ 14-to
nised by Harpokration.        be noticed presently.
2 Francken (Commentationes Ly



230


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


generally, then to the Syndici (~ 26). Now these
fiscal officers would have had the presidency of the
court in a cause affecting the treasury. But it is
not clear why they should have had jurisdiction in a
trial under the Graph6 Paranom6n.
On the other hand, a passage in ~ 14 supports
the first view.   'All men will know' [i. e. if Poliochos gains the cause] 'that on the former occasion
you finedi in 1000 drachmas the man who wished to
confiscate our land, whereas on this occasion he has
carried his proposal; and that, therefore, in these
two cases Athenian judges gave two opposite verdicts, the same man being on his trial for a breach of
the Constitution.'
The last words-rrapavopw      cv yovTO9 To ov   U av7rov
dvSpdo-may possibly be corrupt2.        But if they are
right, then they prove that this trial, like the former,
was a Graph6 Paranom6n against Poliochos.           And
this is confirmed by the fact that 'Against Poliochos' is the title under which the speech is cited by
Galen3.    On the whole, the probabilities appear to
lean to this side.   But the evidence does not suffice
to decide the question.
Date.       The date may be inferred from two circumstances.
(1) The speaker and his brothers were children in
1 Scheibe's emendation of dE/ui-  change: and besides, as Blass says,
coo-are for E'dphloo- seems certain,  one would require rOre 1.EV 7rapa2 Francken (Comm. Lys. p. 126)  vO4LovV cvyyVro, vVv  K vaK7OTavros.
suggests that Lysias may have  3 Vol. xvIr. 2. 657 (Kiihn), ap.
written something like rapavcdo4v  Sauppe Or. Att. p. 112 and Blass
(Pvyuvro rTOTe 7ro0 dvavp [not rov  Att. Bereds. p. 522. It seems very
avrov davpos, as Blass quotes it,  probable that KarT IloXLXov is the
Att. Bereds. p. 524], vv eU vLKtY-  right title.
acavror. But this is too violent a




x.]


LYSIAS.-WORKS.


231


404 (~ 10), but are now adults, holding the office of
trierarchs (~ 21).  (2) On the other hand, Athens and
Sparta are at peace (~ 15).       The Corinthian War
(394-387 B.C.), therefore, either has not begun or is
over. And as the son of Nikeratos (~ 10), the first
cousin of the speaker, is not mentioned as having
yet taken any part in public affairs, the earlier date
is more likely-396 or 395 B.c., approximately.
The following stemma shows the relationship of stemmaof
thefamily
the persons with whom the speech is concerned:-          ofNikia.
SNIIERATOS.
DIOGNETOS (returned from  ETJKRATES: died 404  NIrKIA, the General:
exile in 403, but is now  (~ 5 of speech),  died 413.
dead, ~ 9).
|         ~,_-    ___J--_,           I
DIromNESTos: ~ 21.  Second son: Eldest son:  NIKERATOs (Xenoph.
~ 21.     the Speaker.  Sympos. I. 2, etc.).
NIKIAS: ~ 10.
The speaker begins by dwelling on the public services Analysis.
of his uncles Nikias and Diognetos and his father Eukrates
(~~ 1-12). He next argues that a confiscation is never in
any true sense a gain to the State. First, it endangers the
most precious of all the city's treasures-concord among
citizens. In the next place, property thus confiscated is
always sold below its true value, and part even of the sum
"which it fetches is made away with by the proposer of the
measure. Left in the hands of patriotic owners-like the
speaker, his brother, and his cousin, who, all three, are
trierarchs-it is far more profitable to the State (~~ 13-23).
They can produce no relatives to weep and pray for them;
they are the last of their house; they can only appeal to
the judges to protect the kinsmen of those who suffered for
the democracy. Let the judges remember the time when,
in exile and poverty, they prayed to the gods for a day when
they might be able to show their gratitude to the children
of their champions. This gratitude is claimed now. The




232


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


danger which threatens the accused is nothing less than
utter ruin (~~ 24-27).
This fragment is interesting as giving a sequel,
in the history of his family, to the personal fortunes
Distctive of Nikias; it is interesting, too, as being distinquality of        '
theSpeech. guished by a quality somewhat rare in the works
of Lysias.   Few   of his speeches have so much
pathos. The address is emphatically an appeal to
pity; and excites it less by direct appeals than by
its simplicity and a tone of manly self-restraint.
One passage is especially striking-the description
of Diogn6tos bringing the orphan children of his brothers to Pausanias, and imploring the Spartan king
to remember all that their fathers had suffered (~ 10).
III.  CLAIMS FOR MONEYS WITHHELD          FROM  THE
STATE.
III.. Ior   1. For the Soldier.    [Or. ix.]-The accused,
the Soldier.
Polyaenos, is prosecuted under a writ (cvoypafr4,
~~ 3, 21) for the recovery of a fine alleged to be due
from him to the Treasury. He states that, two years
before, he had returned to Athens from a campaign,
but had not been two months at home before he
was again placed upon the list for active service.
Hereupon he appealed to the General of his tribe
(r7~ arparry&Y, ~ 4); but obtained no redress. He
spoke indignantly on the subject in conversation at
one of the banker's tables in the marketplace; and,
this having been reported to the authorities, he was
fined under the law    against reviling magistrates.
The Generals did not, however, take any steps to




X.]


LYSIAS.- WORKS.


233


levy the fine; but at the expiration of their year
of office, left a note of it with the Stewards of
the Treasury    (roZ^ ralca, ~ 6).     These, after inquiry, were satisfied that the fine had been inflicted
maliciously (~ 7), and cancelled it. The accusers,
ignoring this decision, now     prosecute the soldier,
at an interval of more than a year, as a state-debtor.
In case of conviction the penalty would be the payment of twice the original fine; but not the loss of
civic rights. (~ 21.) From ~ 4 the speech may be
referred to the time of the Corinthian War, 394 -387 B.C.
After complaining that his adversaries have wandered Analysis.
from the special issue into general attacks upon his character
the speaker sketches the facts of the case (~~ 1--7). He
then argues, first, that the fine was originally illegal, since
the offence contemplated by the law was that of speaking
against a magistrate in court (pv o-vpvpip, ~ 6), which he
had not done; secondly, that in any case the reversal of
the sentence by the stewards had absolved him (~~ 8-12).
The malice of his enemies had been provoked, he says,
by the favour which he had formerly enjoyed with SOstratos, an influential citizen. They are resolved to ruin
him. The matter at issue is nominally a fine, but really
his citizenship; for, if the court also takes part against him,
he will be driven to fly from a city in which justice is not
to be had (~~ 13-22).
Harpokration doubted the authenticity of this Question of
genuiespeech 1; some recent critics have decisively rejected he8"
it2.  There are several traces of mutilation in the
extant version. Thus the direct question with which
1 s. v. aLKaLoort-:-Avo-La e i- (  tationes Lysiacae pp. 64 f.: Blass,
7rept T'rpaTmtrov, el yv7UtOro.  Att. Bereds. pp. 606 f.
2Especially Francken, Commen



234


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


the speech opens is oddly abrupt; in ~ 5 a conversation is referred to (ra rrpoeLpryJv;a) as if it had been
given in terms; and in ~ 9 the speaker alludes to
witnesses whom he has called, but of whom there
is no other trace.    It would be easier to vindicate
the authorship of Lysias if the speech, as it stands,
could be assumed to be a mere extract or epitome,
like the so-called    Second    Speech   Against Theomnestos. But the epitomic character, distinct there,
is absent here; there, proem and epilogue have been
compressed; here their redundancies of expression
are left untouched.
Francken thinks that the language is in some
points doubtful Attic1; and that the law is questionable2. He argues further that, if the text is right
in ~ 6,' Ktesikles the archon,' there mentioned, must
be the archon of 01. cxI. 3, 334 B.c.; and notices
that, in that year, an armament was prepared, but
not despatched, by Athens 3-which agrees with the
fact that Polyaenos, when enrolled the second time,
was not called     upon   to serve.   These arguments
seem to point to different conclusions. If the diction
and the law are not classically Attic, then the speech
is a late work, probably a rhetorical exercise.        If
1 e.g. Evros for 'zvbov in ~ 10-  would have been, not a fine, but
already noticed by Dobree; &Kat-  atimia; and he thinks it strange
coo- for tikalowla ('plea' or 'argu-  that theraplat, inferior magistrates,
ment') in ~ 8, noticed by Harpokr.; should summon their superiors,
To Trepas in the sense of 'at last' in  the strategi, before them (~ 7). We
~ 17.                         do not know enough to decide such
2 He infers from Dem. Mfeid.  points: and nothing can be safely
~ 33 that the penalty for reviling  argued from them.
a magistrate in court, as for strik-  3 See Schfer, Demosthenes und
ing r0V 'IpXovra dEr-TebavoiEvov,  seine Zeit, vol. II. p. 162.




x.]


LYSIAS.-WORKS.


235


Ktesikles is the Ktesikles of 334, then the speech
was probably written for a real cause of about that
date1.
Far stronger than these special objections is The general
j         style proves
the general objection arising from     the style.    This, thoe.pes
indeed, appears conclusive.     The passage in       15 -18, where the speaker attacks his adversaries, could
hardly have come from Lysias. It is overwrought in
"tone, overloaded with antitheses, and too epideictic
for its place.    The whole defence is meagre, yet
not concise-a      reversal of the manner of Lysias.
It was probably written by a bad imitator of his
style; but for a real cause rather than as an exercise2.
2.   On   the  Property    of  Aristophanes.      [Or. 11ps.oO
xix.]-Nikoph6mos, father of Aristophanes, was the 'v".iof
phanes.
friend of Konon, and his comrade in the naval campaigns of 394--390 B.c.       When Konon visited the
Persian Court in 394, he left Nikophemos and Hier6 -nymos in joint command of the Persian fleet3; and
when he took Kythera in 393 Nikophemos was appointed harmost 4. While Konon and Nikophemos had
their home at Cyprus (~ 36), their sons, Timotheos and
Aristophanes, lived at Athens; the latter poor, until
1 Blass assumes (Att. Bereds. p. unknown proper names in ~ 5;607) that Ktesikles was one of the  by the fact of the 'influential' 86 -strategi, and this is certainly easier. stratos (~ 13) being lost to fame;--by
But, in that case, the words Tro  the absence of clearness in the
aPXovTro must be a gloss; added  statement of the case;--or by the
by a commentator who associated  uncertainty of the date. The subthe name only with the archon of ject would surely have been a poor
334. A strategus could not have  one for a declamation.
been called apXcw.              3 Diod. xiv. 81: NhK6orlo', in
2 I cannot see that, as Blass  that passage, being a mere clerical
thinks, a sophistic exercise is in-  error for NKOIurLO.
dicated by the accumulation of  4 Xen. fHellen. Iv. viii. 8.




236


THE AATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


the battle of Knidos in 394 and the campaigns of the
following years brought some wealth to his father
and himself (~ 28).     On two important occasions
Aristophanes was engaged in        the service of the
State.   He went on an embassy to Sicily (in what
year is doubtful) with proposals from Evagoras, king
of Cyprus, to Dionysios; and succeeded in dissuading
the latter from  affording his promised aid to Sparta
(~ 19, 20). Again in 389 B. c. he sailed with an
Athenian expedition to the aid of Evagoras (~~ 21 -23).  From   this expedition he never returned.     He
and his father Nikophemos were suddenly put to
death at Cyprus without trial (~ 7); doubtless on a
suspicion of treachery or of embezzlement similar
to that which raised a storm    of indignation against
Thrasybulos and his colleagues in 390 B.C.
origin of   After the death of Aristophanes, one Aeschines
the Action.
proposed the confiscation of his property.    The proposal, like that of Poliochos in the case of the property
of Eukrates, was resisted on the ground of illegality,
and a speech was written by Lysias against it1.      It
was, however, carried into effect, and so stringently
that not even the debts left by Aristophanes were
discharged, nor was the dowry of his widow       repaid
to her family (~ 32). But the amount of property
which was found disappointed the general belief in
the wealth of Nikophemos (~~ 11, 53). It was
SHarpokration s.v. Xvrpot:-p  schines with the Sokratic, against
Avo-ias ev rO KaLr' Aio-XIvov Trepti r  whom Lysias wrote on another
rILo-EogErs TrcApicrTrof-vov U  pr~jLd-  occasion. That the proposal of
rco: Sauppe O. A. I. p. 173. In  Aeschines was met with a ypaqýn
his Onomlasticenm Fragmentorim a rapavoowv is indicated in ~ 8 of
Sauppe seems to identify this Ae-  Or. xix.




X,]


LYSIAS.-WORKS.


237


thought that something must have been withheld;
and suspicion fell upon the father-in-law    of Aristophanes.   A  writ was therefore issued against him
for the recovery of moneys due to the treasury (~ 11).
Before the trial came on, he died, at the age of more
than  seventy (~ 60); and     his only son, a man of
thirty (~ 55), was left to defend the action.       The
Fiscal Board of Syndici were the presidents of the
court.
The date is indicated by       ~ 50.   It is there one.
said that Diotimos had      lately  ('VayXos) been accused of having    forty talents unaccounted for in
his possession; but had, on returning to Athens,
disproved the charge. Diotimos had held a command in the Hellespont in 388 and 3871 B.c.; 387
is therefore probably the year of the speech.
The defence is approached with timidity, as if under Aalysis.
the consciousness that a strong prejudice has to be met.
The speaker represents the gravity of the task which has
devolved upon him; his father's good fame, his own, and
all his fortunes are at stake. He sets forth the restless
malice of his accusers, and reminds the court that experience
has proved how little such accusations are to be trusted 2
The cruel fate of Nikophemos and Aristophanes;-the destitution of his brother-in-law's children, and the persecutions
to which his own family have been exposed in addition to
the burden thus thrown upon them;-the current delusions,
lastly, 4bout the wealth of Nikoph~mos, delusions so dangerous in the present impoverished state of the Treasury-all
these are urged as claims to the sympathetic attention of
the court. (~ 1-11.)
1 Xen. H. v. 1. 25.        and ~~ 1, 6, 7 of Andok. De Mys"2 On the almost verbal coinci- teriis, see above, p. 117.
dence between ~~ 2-5 of thisproem




238


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


The next division of the speech is devoted to showing
that Aristophanes was not originally a rich man, and was
at all times lavish. He was not chosen by the speaker's
father as a son-in-law on account of his wealth: indeed, his
last act before sailing for Cyprus was to come to their house
and borrow seven minae; and it could be proved that shortly
afterwards he was in want of a very small sum of ready
money. Then follows a formal inventory of the property
left by the deceased (~~ 12-27).
But why, it may be asked, was this property so small?
Aristophanes had scarcely any fortune until four years before
his death; and within these four years he was twice choregus,
besides buying a house and lands. The defendant had taken
precautions for the due transference to the Government of
every article left in the house of Aristophanes: a watch had
even been set to see that the doors were not torn off, as
sometimes happened to confiscated houses. He is ready to
take the most solemn oath before the Syndici that nothing
remains in his hands; nay, that his sisters' dowry and the
debt of seven minae still remain unpaid. Supposing that
the property of Timotheos, son of Konon, were confiscated
and only four talents realized, would his relatives be thought
to deserve ruin? Yet the father of Timotheos was at least
ten times as rich as the father of Aristophanes (~~ 28-41).
There are many instances in which the popular estimate of
a man's fortune has been proved, at his death or on inquiry
during his lifetime, to have been enormously exaggerated.
The recent case of Diotimos (~ 50) and the case of the great
Alkibiades (~ 52) are among those in point. (~~ 42-54.)
The good character borne by himself and by his father
ought to be remembered. If their property were conf*cated
now, the State would not get two talents. At this moment
he is a trierarch: his father spent his fortune on the
State and for its honour; he kept good horses, had athletes
in his pay, and won victories at the Isthmos and at Nemea
(~ 63). On all these grounds the defendant claims the protection of the court against a malignant attack (~~ 55-64).




X.]


LYYSIAS. IYORIIS.


239


This very clever speech gives a formidable idea igosl,
of the dangers to which an Athenian of the time was oeseger
of public
exposed if he or any member of his family was sup- ao'*
posed to have made a fortune on foreign service.
The city was poor'; it was full of informers, ready
to prefer any accusation on the chance of sharing
the spoil; and by a vague charge of treachery or
embezzlement abroad it was easy to inflame the
ekklesia2.   There   is nothing    to show    why Aristophanes or his father were put to death without
trial.  The point which is most strikingly brought
out by this defence is the strength of the popular
feeling which it had to combat. It is remarkable
in  how   diffident a tone the speaker begins, how
careful he is to put in the front of his case everything that can     excite compassion, how     he avoids
directly praising   or even   defending   Aristophanes.
He gradually insinuates that Aristophanes was a
worthy    man-poor, but       generous    and  patriotic.
The speech is nearly half over before it comes directly to the real issue (~ 28), and argues that
Aristophanes cannot, in fact, have left more property
than appeared.    Perhaps the modesty of the speaker
is a little overwrought; but there is consummate art
in the sketch of his father, the quiet citizen of the
1 See especially ~ 11, xaXe7rbv  tion to this Speech (p. 146), aptly
LEY ovO daroXoyeio-OaL 7pos onraivL  quotes Or. xxvII (Against Epiapyvpiov n vvv Eo-v dv rr rr roXE  krates) ~ 11: OVKL cr Jv oiroL (the
Compare Or. xxx (Against Niko-  corrupt demagogues) KXErrov0O- opmachos) ~ 22, and the case of Eraton  yt0eoOe, dXX' Sv aVrol Xa/lpcrVE
(Or. xvi): Francken, Comment. Xadpv aT-re, o-,rep vLELs rT rovrcov
Lysiacae, p. 130.             pLOcrOo~opoevvrs dXX' ovT rovrov ra
2 Rauchenstein, in his Introduc- ivrepa KXETrdorVW.




240


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


old school, and of Aristophanes, the adventurous
patriot of the new. On the whole, this is one of
the masterpieces of Lysias, in which all the resources
of his tact were brought into play by a subject
difficult enough to be worthy of them.
mr. 3.       3.  Against Philokrates.      [Or. xxix.]-This case
A gainst
ho-      may be regarded as a sequel to that of Ergokles
[Or. xxvm]1.      Philokrates had sailed, as steward
or purser (racxta6  ~ 3), under command of Ergokles
as trierarch. Ergokles had now been put to death
and his property had been confiscated.        But a sum
of thirty talents, which he was said to have gained
by corrupt practices, had not been found (~ 2).         A
writ was therefore issued against Philokrates on the
supposition that, since he had been in the confidence
of Ergokles, he must know what had become of the
money.
The speaker is one of several Public Prosecutors
(o-vwv yopoL) and, as in the case of Ergokles, merely
follows others with a summary of the leading points.
The case Against Philokrates has been stated, and
the   evidence cited, by     former speakers; this is
the concluding speech for the prosecution; hence
the title of epilogue or peroration2 given         in  the
1 See above, p. 221.         manifesto falsa est; statim enim
SKarh (4tXoKparovS  ToIXOyor.  ab initio totidem verbis neminem
The speaker says in ~ 1 that many  esse praeter se accusatorem orator
persons who had promised to appear  testatur' (Comment. Lys. p. 226).
against Philokrates have not done  The absence of witnesses and proofs
so; but obviously this does not  in this speech is conclusive, as
justify Francken's inference,-' Al-  Blass says (AtU. Bereds. p. 454),
tera pars inscriptionis (e'wTXoyos)  on the other side.




X.]


L YSIAS.- WORJKS.


241


MSS. to this as well as to the speech Against
Ergokles. The date is probably the year of the trial ate.
of Ergokles-389 B.c.
Many persons, says the speaker, who had promised to Analysis.
appear against' Philokrates have failed; an additional proof
that he has the money, and has been able to buy off numerous accusers. The thirty talents have not been discovered:
who can have them but the most intimate friend of Ergokles,
his subaltern and his steward? It rests with Philokrates to
show either that Ergokles was wrongly condemned, or that
some one else now has the missing sum (~~ 1-5). Three
talents, it is well known, had been promised to public speakers
if they could save Ergokles. Philokrates has got this money
back, and has possessed himself of the rest of his late chief's
property; yet now he has the effrontery to pretend that he
was his enemy. Is it likely that in that case he would have
volunteered to sail with him as trierarch? (~~ 6, 7.)
The Athenians ought to defend their own interests, and
compel Philokrates to give up their property. It is hard if
those who cannot pay taxes incur the public anger, while
the embezzlers of State-property escape. Indeed, the accomplices of Ergokles deserve not only a pecuniary penalty, but
the same punishment which he suffered-death. While his
trial was pending, his friends went about boasting that they
had bribed upwards of 2000 men (~ 12). Let it be proved
to them that no amount of bribery can save evil-doers. If
the citizens are wise, they will reclaim what is their own
(~~ 8-14).
Like the speeches Against Ergokles and Against
Epikrates, this is the address of an official prosecutor,
and of one who had but a subordinate part to perform.
It has the characteristic excellences of the other two,
compactness and vigour; but it is necessarily inferior
to the speech Against Ergokles, in which the greater
importance of the cause calls forth more oratorical
vigour.




242


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


IV. CAUSES RELATING TO A SCRUTINY (o0Kqpacrt'a)
BEFORE THE SENATE; ESPECIALLY OF OFFICIALS
DESIGNATE.
iv..       1. Against Evandros. [Or. xxvI.]-In the second
Against
BEandros. year of the 99th Olympiad (38 CB.C.) Leo6damas1 drew
the lot to be First Archon for the following year;
and Evandros was at the same time designated
First Archon in reserve2. Leodamas, before entering
upon the archonship, had to pass a scrutiny (SoKLILaco-La) before the Senate. On this occasion he was
accused by Thrasybulos of Collytos; the Senate rejected him; and the office thus came to Evandros.
But Evandros also had to pass a scrutiny; and the
present speech is made to the Senate in order to
prove that he is ineligible.
Date.      The case is heard on the last day but one of 01.
99. 2, i.e. at about midsummer of our year 382 B. C.3.
The last day of the Attic year was a public holiday,
on which no law-court could sit, and on which a
sacrifice to Zeus S6ter was celebrated by the First


1 Not the orator of Acharnae,
who was the advocate of Leptines
in 355 B.C., but a man of whom nothing is known except from this
speech and from a notice in Arist.
Rh. in. 23. Thrasybulos had said
in his accusation that the name of
Leodamas had been inscribed on a
pillar [recording traitors &c.] on
the acropolis (Iv orr'7-jr  yeyorv, o
dv r daKporAoXec), but was erased in
the time of the Thirty. Leodamas
answered that he was not likely to
have erased it then. The Thirty
would have trusted him the more
for his enmity to the people being


registered (dyyeypatigevr]s rj Ve'xOpav
irpos rov bpov).
2 cdrXaXe: Harpokr. s. v. Cf.
Aesch. in Ktes. ~ 62.
3 The Olympic year, reckoned
from July to July, is counted as
that year B.c. in which its first
half falls. The year 382 B.. comprised the second half of 01. 99. 2
and the first half of 01. 99. 3.
Hence the date of this speech,
which belongs to the end of 01.
99. 2, is, in strictness, 382 B.C. and
the following Greek year, 01. 99. 3,
in which Evandros was Archon, is
also conventionally 382 B. c.




X.]


L YSIAS.- WORKS.


243


Archon.    If, therefore, the Senate rejected Evandros,
no time remained for an appeal to an ordinary court;
and the State would be left without its chief magistrate at one of its great solemnities (~ 6).
The election of Evandros was, in fact, ratified; for Eanos
he appears in the lists as Archon for the following sc2in.
year, 01. 99. 3. This date is confirmed by allusions in
the speech.
Thrasybulos the Collytean is charged in ~ 23
with having estranged Boeotia from Athens and with
having lost Athenian ships. The first accusation
refers to the establishment of oligarchies in        the
Boeotian cities, through Spartan influence, after the
Peace of Antalkidas; and is curiously illustrated by
the reference of Aeschines to Thrasybulos of Collytos
as a man of great influence at Thebes1.      The second
accusation refers to an incident of the war on the
Hellespont five years before.    In 387 B.c. eight triremes under the command of this Thrasybulos were
captured by Antalkidas near Abydos2.
All the first part of the speech has been lost in
those eight pages of the Palatine MS. which contained the conclusion of the Twenty-fifth Speech and
the whole of that Against Nikides.         The special
charges made by the accuser, and the depositions to
which he alludes (~ 8), were in this part.        What
remains is chiefly his answer to certain pleas which
he conceives that Evandros may urge.
SAeschin. in Ktes. ~ 138.  statement (~ 23) that Thrasybulos
2 Xen. Hellen. v. 1. 27. Xeno-  betrayed his ships.
phon's account, it may be observed,  3 See p. 200.
gives no support to the accuser's
16-.-2




244


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


Analysis.   It is hard -the speaker says-that, not content with impunity for his offences against the people, Evandros should ask
for office. Evandros relies on the recent sobriety ({javXLorr',
~ 5) of his life-which has been compulsory: and on his
father's liberality-who used the influence thus gained to
overthrow the democracy (~~ 1-5). He has contrived to
delay his scrutiny until the last day but one of the year, when
there is no time to appoint another First Archon. But the
sacrifices of the morrow will surely be more pleasing to the
gods, though offered only by the King Archon and his colleagues, than if the celebrant were a man whose hands are
stained with the blood shed in the days of the Thirty Tyrants
(~~ 6-8). One of the principal objects of the law of Scrutinies (6 rrep'i rov 8OcLtaLo-ta'  v6o'lO, ~ 9) is to exclude from office
in a democracy those who have abused power under an oligarchy. The mere fact of having been an ordinary knight
or senator under the Thirty disqualifies a man for a place in
the Council of Five Hundred. Evandros was more than this;
he was guilty of special crimes against the people; and shall
he be First Archon? He will thus become a member of the
Areiopagos for life, and murderers will be tried by a murderer. And this through the influence of Thrasybulos, a
traitor to Athens. It must not be supposed that the speaker
opposes Evandros for the sake of Le6damas. Le6damas
would be well pleased that the Senate should prove itself
oligarchical by confirming so unpopular an appointment
(~~ 10-1).
Evandros appeals to the Amnesty [of 403 B.C.]; but that
Amnesty did not mean that the honours, as well as the toleration, of the State should be accorded to its recent enemies
(~~ 16-20). Let the Senate compare the accuser with the
advocate of Evandros. The accuser is pure of all connection
with oligarchies; his ancestors fought against the Peisistratidae; his family have exhausted a large fortune upon the
State. Thrasybulos has alienated the Boeotians from Athens;
has lost her ships, and brought her to despair. If the Court
reflects which of these two men ought rather to prevail, it
will decide rightly upon the claims of Evandros (~~ 21-24).




X.]


LYSIAS. -WIORKS.


245


Unwillingness to mar a great annual festival may
have influenced the Senate when they confirmed the
election; but there is no proof that the grounds upon
which it was opposed were good. The accuser must
have felt that his case was well-nigh hopeless. This, Tone ofthe
Speech.
and the feeling of Lysias himself towards all who had
been concerned in the violence of the Anarchy, will
partly account for the extreme bitterness and unfairness of this speech. In two places the tone is especially marked.    First, where the accuser admits
that since the restoration of the democracy Evandros
has been a thoroughly good citizen, and then argues
that he deserves no credit for it (~3 3-5); again,
where he maintains that the dokimasia was instituted for the express purpose of keeping oligarchs
out of office (~ 9). The outburst against Thrasybulos
at the end is of a piece with this (~ 23). A certain
boldness of expression, hardly congenial to Lysias,
corresponds with the excited tone of the speech1,
which has the air of having been written in haste,
to support a cause already desperate.
2. For2 Mcntitheos.    [Or. xvi.]--The name oc- tIV. 2
curs only in the title, which, contrary to the general
rule, is perhaps of the same age as the speech-' A
Defence for Mantitheos on his Scrutiny before the
Senate.' What the office was to which this scrutiny
related, can only be guessed; perhaps it was that of
an ordinary senator, since in ~ 8 the speaker cites
instances of persons who had really done what he is
charged with doing, and had yet been admitted to
the Senate. The complaint against him was that his
1 See especially ~~ 3, 4.




246


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


name appeared. on the list (o-avms, cf.    6) of those
who had served as Knights in the time of the Thirty.
As the speech Against Evandros shows (~ 10), the fact
of such service under the Tyrants became, after the
restoration of the democracy, a disqualification for
the office of senator. Mantitheos must, then, have
been at least eighteen years of age in 405 B. c., and
so must have been born before 422. He refers to his
share in campaigns subsequent to that of 394 B.C.
(  15-18). On the other hand, the tone of the joke
in ~ 15 rather suggests that Thrasybulos, its object,
was still alive;-that is, that the speech is earlier
Date.   than 389 B.C.'.     The date may have been about
392 B.C. The speaker, who was taunted with youthful presumption (~ 20), cannot have been much more
than thirty.
Analysis.     e first disproves the charge against him  of having
served as a Knight under the Thirty Tyrants. Before the
disaster on the Hellespont [405 B.c.], his father had sent him
and his brother to the Euxine, to Satyros [king of the Kimmerian Bosporos]; and they did not return to Athens till
five days before the democratic exiles captured the Peiraeus
[404 B.c.] (~ 4). The appearance of his name upon the list of
Knights at that time proves nothing; the list has many false
entries and many omissions. Here is a better proof on the
other side:-when the democracy was restored, the phylarch
(captain of cavalry) of each tribe was directed to recover
from each Knight who had served under the Tyrants the sum
paid to him by the State for his equipment when he was first
enrolled (tcardorao-St, ~ 6). Now Mantitheos was never called
upon to refund, nor brought before the Fiscal Board (o-avso, ~ 7)-(~~ 1-8).
1 Thrasybulos died in 01. 97. 3  bably, as Clinton (F. H.) says, in
(Diod. xiv. 94, 99: Xen. Hellen.  the early part of 389.
Iv. 8. 30), i.e. 390-389 B.C.: pro



X.]


S LYSIAS.-WORKS.


247


Having disproved the charge against him, he goes on to
urge his positive merits. His private life has been blameless.
After his father's death, he portioned his two sisters and
helped his brother. Men who are fond of dice and wine
have a marked aversion to him (~ 11). Then his public
services have been constant. He volunteered on the expedition for the relief of Haliartos [395 B.C.] (~ 13). In the next
year he fought in the disastrous battle of Corinth, and retreated later than 'the majestic Steirian [Thrasybulos], who
has taunted all the world with cowardice' (~ 15). In the
autumn of the same year [394 B. c.] he and his company
volunteered for service against Agesilaos in Boeotia. Since
then, he has constantly served in the field or in garrison
(~ 18).-(~~ 9-19).
Some have taunted him with forwardness because, though
so young, he has spoken in the ekklesia. His own affairs,
however, compelled him to do so at first. Perhaps, indeed,
he has been too ambitious. But he could not help thinking of
his forefathers, who had always been in public life and served
the State; and he saw that Athenians, to tell the truth, respected none but those who could act and speak for the city.
" And why should you be annoyed with such men? You
yourselves and none else are their judges' (~~ 20, 21).
Perhaps hardly anything in Greek literature has The chara fresher or brighter charm than this short speech-     titeos.
the natural, wonderfully vivid expression of an attractive character.  Mantitheos is the brilliant, ambitious young Athenian, burning to fulfil the Homeric
ideal by distinguishing himself in council as in war;
an Alkibiades made harmless by the sentiment of
chivalry. The general tone of simple self-reliance,
and possibly the gibe at Thrasybulos, may have been
found refreshing by elderly senators.     Mantitheos
had really done good service in the field; and his
statement of this is followed by an ingenuous apology




248


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


for over-eagerness to shine in the ekklesia. The last
passage is masterly. The virtue of ' minding one's
own affairs' (adrpayiooo'vVr) was often praised at
Athens; but Mantitheos goes to the centre of Athenian instincts when he tells the judges that ' to say
the truth' they respect no men who do not take part
in public life1.
"gainst     3. Against Philon. [Or. xxxi.]-This speech may
be considered as a companion-piece to the last; being
an Accusation, as the other is probably a Defence, at
a dokimasia for the Senate. Philon--a man otherwise
unknown-had been chosen by lot a member of the
Senate of Five Hundred; and had appeared before
that body, with others designated to places in it, in
order to pass the scrutiny. The speaker, himself a
senator, comes forward to oppose the admission of
Philon. The date cannot be fixed. Philon is accused
of having gone about Attica, plundering ' the oldest
of the citizens,' who had stayed quietly in their
Probable demes (~ 18); and some of these citizens were still
alive: some time between 404 and 395 B.C. may
therefore be assumed.
Analysis.   The speaker begins by protesting that no private enmity,
but only regard to his oath as senator, induces him to appear
against Philon. What is the definition of a worthy senator?
One who both is, and desires to be, a citizen (~ 5). Now
when the troubles came on Athens [405 B. c.], Philon proved
how little he valued his citizenship. He neither stayed with
the oligarchs in the town, nor joined the exiles at Phyle,
1 The speech is described by  which does no justice to the deliDobree (Adv. I. 192) as 'vividis et  cacy of the delineation. 'Ex verbis
paene comicis coloribus exprimens  Dobrei alterum quendam PyrpoorrparLKKv avd Oetav ea simul arto  linicen expectes,' as Francken says
ut hoc ipso placeat '-a description  (Comment. Lys. p. 118).




X.]


L;YSIAS.-O KS


249


but went to Oropus-paid the residentalien's tax, and lived
under the protection of a patron. This shall be proved by
witnesses (~~ 1-14). If he says that he was unfit for fighting, it can be shown that his name does not appear among
those of the citizens who, instead of personal service, paid
money or armed their demesmen (~~ 15, 16). Nor was he
merely passive: he did positive wrong to aged citizens of
Athens whom he met with in the country (~~ 17-19). This
corresponds with his treatment of his own mother, who transferred the keeping of her money from her son to a stranger
(~~ 20-23). Why should such as he be a senator? The
betrayer of a garrison, a fleet, or a camp is punished; but
Philon has betrayed the State itself (~~ 24-26).
'He has broken no law,' he says. No: for an offence so
enormous was never expressly contemplated by any legislator
(~~ 27, 28). If the aliens who helped Athens in her need
were honoured, surely the citizens who abandoned her should
be disgraced. The advocates who claim honour for Philon
now would have done better had they advised him to deserve
it then (~~ 29-33). Let each senator ask himself why he
was admitted to that dignity, and he will see why Philon
ought to be shut out from it (~ 34).
The -tone of this address is in contrast with that Theattack
strong, bzut
of the protest against the election of Evandros: it is temperate
severe and decided, but not bitter or unfair. A character which seems to have been really contemptible
is drawn without passion, each statement being supported by evidence; and the assertion of the speaker,
that only a sense of duty prompted him to accuse, is
at least not contradicted by his method.    The style
is rhetorical, and rather more openly artificial than
is usual with Lysias (see esp. ~ 11, 32); but it has
all his compactness and force-of which the short
appeal at the end is a good example.     One point ofAlfusioto
ofhistorical interest comes out. Philon is accused of
historical interest comes out.   Philon is accused of eetratity.




250              THE ATTIC ORATORS.               [CHAP.
having taken part, in 405 B.C., neither with oligarchs
nor with democrats.     He pleads:-' Had it been an
offence not to be present at such a time, a law would
have been made expressly on that subject.' The
answer is, that, owing to the inconceivable enormity
of the offence, no law has been enacted on the subject (~ 27).   So completely had Solon's enactment
against neutrality-to which the speaker could have
appealed with so much rhetorical effect-passed out
of the remembrance of that generation1.
IV. 4. e-   4.   Defence on a Charge of seeking to abolish
fence on a,Sg o    the Democracy. [Or. xxv.]-This title, given to the
abolish the.emocr"Ve. speech in the MSS., is clearly wrong.    The speaker
is, indeed, chiefly concerned to prove that he is guiltless of any share in the crimes of the Thirty Tyrants;
but it is clear that he was not upon his trial for high
treason. There is no reference to any penalties which
threatened him.     The question is whether he shall,
or shall not, be admitted to certain privileges. Thus
in ~ 3 he insists on his claim to participation in the
advantages of citizenship; in ~ 4 he speaks of rights
which citizens who have done no evil ought to share
with positive benefactors of the State; in ~ 14 he
says to the judges:-'If, when I might have had
"1 Rauchenstein, in his introduc-  duas partes fieret et ob earn caustion to the speech (p. 116), brings  sam  irritatis animis utrinque
together the chief passages in which  arma caperentur pugnareturque,
Solon's law is mentioned:-Plut. tur qui in eo tempore in eoque
Sol. c. 20 (afrtLouv ea TOlva Erv ev o-,oEL  casu civilis discordiae non alterpjtTErGpas IFplioE yedoPncoe): Cic. utripartiseadiunxeritsedsolitarius
ad Att. x. 1: Gellius n. 12 (trans- separatusque a communi malo civilating an extract from Aristotle tatis secesserit, is domo patria for-perhaps from his 7roXtreat)) si ob  tunisque omnibus careto, exul exhanc discordiam dissensionemque  torrisque esto.
seditio atque discessio populi in




X.]


LYSIAS.-IWORKS.


251


office, I declined it, I have a right to receive honour
from you now.'   Clearly this speech was delivered on neSp
the occasion of a dokimasia for some office to which 'do;iit
masia.
the speaker had been designated, but his admission
to which was opposed. The cause is heard by an
ordinary court-probably under the presidency of the
Thesmothetael-and on appeal from a decision for
the speaker already given by the Senate. The date D e
must be placed between 402 and 400 B. c.; probably
nearer to the lower limit2. The accusers were Epigenes, Diophanes and Kleisthenes (~ 25).    The defendant is not named.
It would not be strange, he says, if the speeches made An4alsis.
against him had excited the indignation of the judges against
all, without distinction, who had remained at Athens under
the Thirty. Much more might, indeed, have been said about
the crimes of the Tyrants. But it is unmeaning to charge
those crimes upon men who had no share in them. If he


1 Since the Thesmothetae had
jurisdiction in causes connected
with 8oiKqao-lai: Pollux 8. 44.
2 Rauchenstein (Introduct. p. 91)
supposes 402 B.c.; Blass (Att. Bereds. p. 509) prefers 401 or 400.
The arguments for the earlier
date are these:-(1) The general
tone of the speech, referring to the
troubles of the Anarchy as recent:
(2) ~ 17, where the speaker says
PrpoOvfýL7ooFiat Xpra'Tor elac--as
if he had not yet had time to prove
his reformed character: (3) ~~ 23
-24, where the exiled adherents
of the Thirty are described as still
hoping for a reaction at Athens:
(4) ~ 28, from which (Rauchenstein
thinks) it appears that the law of
Arclinos was not yet passed-a
law enacted soon after the resto

ration of the democracy, providing
that persons against whom, in
despite of the Amnesty, accusations were brought in violation
of the Amnesty, should be allowed
at once to enter a rapaypacj, and
to speak first at its hearing (Isokr.
Kall. ~ 2).
For the later date it is argued
(1) that in one place at least-~ 21
-the events under the Thirty are
spoken of as if some considerable
interval had elapsed; (2) that the
restored democracy was old enough
for abuses to have grown up,-~ 30
[this is, I think, a strong point]:
(3) that ~ 28 does not prove the
law of Archinos to be non-existent,
since that law would have had no
bearing on a 8oKLxao-ia.




252


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


can prove that he is innocent, he may surely claim at least
the ordinary privileges of citizenship in common with men
of more distinguished services (~~ 1-6). No man is born
an oligarch or a democrat. He becomes one or the other
according to his private interest (rvcv iSia o-v1ep6vrCyw, ~ 10).
This is proved by history. Phrynichos and Peisandros were
demagogues before they became oligarchs. Men who helped
to overthrow the Four Hundred were afterwards numbered
with the Thirty: many of the Four Hundred themselves
were with the democrats at the Peiraeus; some of those who
had expelled the Four Hundred were afterwards among the
Thirty; and some of the men who gave in their names for
the march against Eleusis, after going forth with the people,
were besieged along with the Tyrants'.
The explanation is simply that their interests varied at
different times. Now, the interest of the speaker lay wholly
with the democracy. He had been five times trierarch and
had been in four sea-fights (~ 12). The establishment of the
Thirty destroyed his chance of reward for these. services.
Neither under the First Oligarchy nor under the Second did
he hold office (~~ 7-14). If he did no wrong in the Anarchy, much more will he be a good citizen under the restored
Democracy. The victims of the Tyrants must not be confounded with their agents. It was the error of the Thirty
that they visited the sins of a few corrupt demagogues on


1 ~ 9 elo-L N oLTever Tcv 'EXEvo- lva'e adroaypaaaiLE,'tv   dEeXOV Tres /e'O VLpV, E7roXLopKovvTre oEr a vr v v. TheThirtyTyrants,
when their government fell and
was succeeded by that of the Ten,
withdrew to Eleusis. After the restoration of the democracy, an expedition was made from Athens
against Eleusis, and they were dislodged: Xen. Hell. n. iv. 39, 43.
The question is, whether ol 'EXEvO-JLvaE daroypa4dPiaEvoL are (1) men
who enrolled themselves at Athens
for this expedition, but afterwards


deserted to the Tyrants-in which
case E'ýXOdvreq  means   'having
marched out:' or (2) men who,
having been driven from Athens
by the Thirty, remained in Attica,
and, instead of joining the democrats, joined the tyrants at Eleusis
-in which case iCE OerTEr means
'having left Athens' under stress
of the Tyranny.    I prefer the
former view as giving (a) a clearer
meaning to dcroypaaptnvwcov, (b) a
clearer contrast between E\EXOd6vrT
/lEO' VL6cv and dTroXtopKOivro fpLr
CWTWVY




X.]


L YSIAS.-WORKS.


253


all the citizens: let not the people so err now (~~ 15-20).
Dissensions among the Thirty gave the exiles their first
hopes of success; let not disunion in the democracy now give
occasion to the enemies of Athens, but let the oaths of amnesty be kept towards all (~~ 21-24). After the fall of the
Four Hundred, the rigours which bad advisers caused to be
adopted against their political opponents brought the city
to ruin.  And now sycophants, counselling a revengeful
policy, oppose themselves to the views of those who were
really active in restoring the democracy. Such men show
what they would have been had they shared the power of
the Thirty. The friends of the city advise differently. Let
the Amnesty hold good for all. When those who are really
answerable for the past troubles are brought to account,
severity is excusable; but innocent men must not be mixed
up with them (~~ 25-35).
The speaker had evidently been closely connected
with the party of the Tyrants; for though he states*
his services to the democracy before 405 B. c., of
his political character since that time he lias nothing better to say than that it has been harmless;
indeed, he implies a contrast between himself and
those who had been true to the democracy at its need
(~ 4). It is hard to understand the high praise which The speec
has been given to this speech by some critics ofpraised.
Lysias1; it is barely conceivable that one of the ablest
of them should count it his best work2. The speaker's
interpretation of the Amnesty is, indeed, larger and
truer than the opposite view taken by the accuser of
Evandros3; and his elaborate exposition of the doctrine that political creed is purely an affair of self1 As by Reiske ('egregia, lucu-  oratio esse omn-ium optima.' Dolenta, Lysiao nomine dignissima,' bree, Adv. I. 247.
Or. Att. v. p. 759): and by Francken  Or. xxvi. ~~ 16-20: see above,
(Comment. Lys. p. 184).      p. 244.
2 ' Lysiam relegenti videtur haec




254:


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


interest may claim the praise of candour. The style
has vigour, but neither brilliancy nor dignity; and
the ethos of the speaker, as a moderately intelligent
and thoroughly practical man, can scarcely be accounted persuasive1.
iv. 5. For  5.   For the Invalid.    [Or. xxiv.]-This speech
the Invalid.
may conveniently be classed with the four preceding, since it was written for a dokimasia, although
the scrutiny in this case was of a different kind. At
public   Athens a certain allowance was made by the State to
Charity at
"Athens  the dSaroL2: that is, to persons who were unable,
through bodily ailment, to earn a livelihood, and who
had less than three minae of private property. Once
a year, or perhaps oftener, the list of applicants for
such relief was scrutinised by the Senate3 and then
passed by the ekklesia (~ 22). It is on the occasion
of such a scrutiny that the present speech is made.
The speaker had for years (~ 8) been in receipt of an
obol daily (~ 26) from   the State; but lately it had
been attempted to show that he was not entitled to
public relief. This objection is termed in the title to
the speech (not in the speech itself) an eisangelia;
but had, of course, nothing in common with eisangeliae technically so called except that it was an
1 It is difficult not to suspect firmity, or included (as Francken
that Lysias-himself a loyal friend  thinks, p. 171 n.) also the idea
of the democracy in two disasters-  of poverty. The Invalid was said
wrote this defence of easy tergi-  by his adversary (1) rT o-co'art
versation with deliberate, though  Uvvao-Oat Kal oVK Eltvat rc(v davvadrcov,
disguised, irony; irony which per-  ~ 4, and (2) Utvao-Oat o-vvevaL 8vhaps ran no danger from the acute-  vae5'vo ts dvOpiwroq davaXlaKELv  ~ 5,
ness of his client,           a phrase evidently as an antithesis
2 It is not clear whether the  -possibly humorous-to daivaror.
term d Uvaros, in this technical  3 Aeschin. in Timarch. ~ 104.
sense, referred only to bodily in



X.]


LYSIAS.-WORKS.


255


accusation laid immediately before the Senate. The Date.
date appears from ~ 25 to have been later than
403 B. c.
Having premised that jealousy is the only conceivable Analysis.
motive for this attack upon him, the speaker comes to the
two objections which have been made to his receiving the
public alms:-that he is not really a cripple; and that he
has a trade (~~ 1-4). He answers the second' objection
first (~~ 5-9); and then refutes the other with a good deal
of grim humour (~~ 10-14). Lastly, he defends his general
character (~~ 15-20), and concludes with an entreaty not to
be deprived of his obol a day (~~ 21-27).
Harpokration seems1 to have doubted the genuine- No ground
for doubtness of this speech; possibly on the ground taken by in the
Boeckh2-that Lysias would not have written, nor the ness"
Senate endured, so elaborate an address on such a
subject. This seems a most unsafe argument against
a composition excellent of its kind, and excellent in a
way suggestive of Lysias.    The humour, broad, but
stopping short of burlesque, exactly suits the condition of the speaker; and there is true art in the
ironical pathos. of the invalid, when, using an Attic
illustration, he remarks that his infirmity is disputed


with him by his adversary
heiress (~ 14).
S seems, for his words are (s. v.
d&'varos), 'rT8 ~E K(al 6Xy-os rV oWs
Avilov 7rep' rov dvaTrov: some
MSS. having W      XEyETcra  Aorlov
(Blass, Att. Bereds. p. 648).
2 Staatsh. I. p. 260 ff. referred
to by Blass 1. c. Blass classes
this speech with such 'bagatelle'
speeches as Xo'yos repl r 7S e'yyvOrfir, Xyosr refp rto xpvaoO 'rpl7roSor, &c., ascribed to Lysias; and


as eagerly as if it were an
remarks that all such trifles, without distinction, were held spurious
by the old critics, whom Harpokration and Athenaeos follow. But it
should be noticed that Athenaeos,
while he adds el yvrjo-or to his
mention of the rep't TOV XP. Tptroo80
(vi. p. 231 B), only says of the n-epl
r6 e  'yyvO]Krs that it is 'ascribed'
to Lysias-acquiescing, apparently,
in the ascription (v. p. 209 F).




256


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


V.   CAUSES RELATING TO MILITARY OFFENCES
(X 7ro-raNov-da-TparTEias).,s. 1.A     1.  Against Alkibiades, on a Charge of Desertion
kibiades, I. L v
2. Agains [Or. XI.].
Alkibiades,
1.         2. Against Alkibiades, on a Charge of Failure to
Serve [Or. xv.].
lThtwo      These speeches do not refer to two distinct accuSpeeches
oct~,. sations, but are merely two different ways of stating
the same accusation.   Alkibiades, son of the famous
Alkibiades, had taken part in the expedition sent
from Athens to the relief of Haliartos when Boeotia
was invaded by Lysander in 395 B.C.      But, instead
of serving with the heavy-armed infantry, he had
chosen to serve with the cavalry, although he had
not passed the scrutiny (dokimasia) required before
enrolment among the Knights.      His accusers might
have indicted him under a special law which attached
the penalty of disfranchisement to such a fraud (Or.
xiv. ~ 8).  They preferred, however, to bring against
him. a more invidious charge-desertion of military
duty.
iayw b      The principal military offences were dealt with at
ofencs. Athens by one law.     Under this law a citizen was
liable to indictment and if convicted to disfranchisement for 1. Failure to join the army-dorrpardna:
2. Cowardice in battle-&LXt: 3. Desertion of his
post-XaLroraglov.   This third term properly denoted
an offence distinct from the other two.    But it was
sometimes so extended as to include either of the
other two'.   Now   Alkibiades had served, indeed,
1 It does not appear quite certain  distinct from a ypa~i) XuroraSlov.
whether there was a ypaq') GXiars In ~ 6 of the First Speech Against




X.]


L YSIAS.- WORKS.


257


but had not served with the hoplites. His offence,
then, might be looked at from two points of view.
He might be considered as a man who, on service,
had been found out of his place, and who was liable
to an indictment for Desertion of his Post-ypaýr
XLroraLeov. Or he might be considered as a man who
had never been present in his place, and who was
liable to an indictment for Failure to Serve-yparj
cdorparTda. The First Speech takes the former point
of view; the Second takes the latter.
The date and occasion of the speeches are not Date.
directly indicated, but can be determined almost
certainly. This was the first military trial since
'the peace' (xiv. ~ 4);--a campaign had just taken
place,.but no battle had been fought (~ 5), though
the generals had given satisfaction to the State
(xv. ~ 1). All this corresponds with the campaign
of the year 395. It was the first since the peace,
or rather truce, with Sparta in the spring of 404.
No battle had been fought, because, before the


Alkibiades they appear to be identified. But in the following passages (among others) they are
distinguished:-Aeschin. in Ctes.
~175 ZoXco--v T70o atrots 7rlTteLrtlolt
wTro eiv 'vx EVX(rOa Trb dcrTpaTErvTOV KaU rTl  XEXoLoorra rv)Y rdayt
Katl rVv  EL(Xyv oooI': Andok.
de lMyst. ~ 73 7rroo-o XtlroLrv r77v
r   tv A7 adTrpaTnEiav  a ~ELXlav
avavi-axlov  (XotEv o " r7v da-trl&a
aro/pdoL3v: and Plato's distinction
(Legg. xiI. 943 F) of dorparelas
-Xt7roraViov-piq)0E'vrT  (the last
equivalent to e~Xlcta) may be sup

posed to correspond to a like distinction in the actual Attic law.
Obviously a ypact Xtroraglov might
be needed for cases in which a
ypabr) tELXlav could not be preferred. On the other hand, the
ypa; Xtrroraaiov might probably
include the case of do-rparcia: just
as the 81Kr XrropaprvpLov (compared
by Francken, Comment. Lys. p. 111)
lay against a man who refused to
give evidence; not merely against
one who, having undertaken to do
so, failed to appear.


17




258


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


Athenian force arrived at Haliartos, the Lacedaemonians had already been defeated, and Lysandros
slain.  The Athenian Generals had only to assist
at the arrangement of the humiliating truce under
which Pausanias led his army out of Boeotia1. In
395 B.c. the younger Alkibiades must have been
about twenty years of age2.
The Court was composed of soldiers (o-rparcoTra
8&KdcaELV, Or. xiv. ~ 5), the Generals presiding (r70v
crrpar)7y&v 8o/xau, xv. 1).  Archestratides, the chief
accuser, had opened the cause and produced the
evidence; these two speakers are his friends and
supporters. (Or. xiv. 3; xv. 12.)
Anaysis.-   The accuser explains his appearance in that capacity.
$peh.   An explanation is, indeed, hardly necessary, considering the
character of Alkibiades; but in his own case a feud inherited from his father supplies a special motive. (~~ 1-3.)
He then addresses himself to a technical point. The law
against Desertion is so worded (it has been argued) that
it does not apply where there has been no battle. He
answers that one of the two offences which that law contemplates-namely Failure to Serve-is manifestly proved
against Alkibiades, who did not take his place among the
hoplites. Of the other offence-Desertion of his Post through
cowardice-he is virtually guilty, since his reason for preferring
to serve with the cavalry was that there he would run less
risk. Others, who were really knights, waived their privilege
in this instance, and served as hoplites. Alkibiades seized
a privilege to which he had no claim (~ 10). Such audacity
1 Xen. Hellen. in. v. 16.  titheos (Or. xvi) ~ 12, where Man2 Since from Isokr. de Bigis (Or. titheos, speaking of this very
xvi) ~ 45 it appears that the  expedition to Haliartos, says:-o're
younger Alkibiades was born in,...ls 'AXlaprov e3e pofo,Eiv, V7r0
or just before, 415 B. c.   'OpOo{3ovXov KarTELXEypevoS tm7rEvetV,
3 This statement is exactly il-...reipcov da'afPdrwov dl Tro
lustrated by the Speech For Man- I'77ov dOoKLcEaoP-r rv apa rov




X.]


LYSIAS.-WORKS.


259


must be punished for public example. Let the soldiers
who sit in judgment remember how much each of them
sacrificed to his duty, and then decide what punishment is
merited by such contempt of duty (~~ 4-15). The advocates of Alkibiades will plead his youth and his parentage.
Neither his own nor his father's character deserves sympathy.
If relatives plead for him, it is they who ought to have restrained him; if officials, they must show that he is legally
innocent.  (~~16-22.)
Then follows a bitter attack upon the defendant and his
father. Alkibiades the younger is described as vicious from
his youth, and as a traitor to his own father1; all the treasons
of the elder Alkibiades are recounted at length. He prompted
the Spartan occupation of Dekeleia-he incited Chios to
revolt-he preferred a home even in Thrace to Athens. He
betrayed the Athenian fleet to Lysandros: both his greatgrandfathers, Megakles    and  Alkibiades, were ostracised.
(~~ 23-40.)   An attack on the family in their private relations, as stained with every impurity and impiety, leads to
the conclusion. Much, the accuser says, has been omitted:
the judges must imagine it. He then causes to be read the
laws on which he relies; the judicial oath; and the indictment. (~~ 41-47.)
The Generals, the presidents of the Court, say that they Second
allowed Alkibiades as a special favour to serve with thep
cavalry.  Why, in    that case, was he rejected by the
phylarch of his own tribe, and not struck off the list of
hoplites by the taxiarch?  Why, when he took the field, was
he treated with scorn by all the knights, and driven to
place himself among the mounted bowmen? It is strange
if the Generals can enrol a man among the knights at their
v 1oov EycW 7pocreXOWv vy rv - 'Op-  Francken suggests 'Opv~ed (the
0oi36vXp EaXe,  at  e LE E K roV  town in the Argeia); and thinks
KaraXO yo v.                   that the young Alkibiades may
1 An allusion in ~ 26 is obscure,  have had something to do with
It is said that the younger Alki-  a betrayal of that place to the Labiades pera Oeortpov Eimr3ovXEvaas  cedaemonians in 416 B. c.: cf.
T< wrrarpl 't pe ots rpovSoKev.  Thuc. vi. 7 (Comment. Lys. p. 10Y).
17-2




260              TIE ATTIC ORATORS.                [CHAP.
pleasure, when they cannot so enrol him among the hoplites.
If, however, the Generals have exceeded their real powers,
then the Court cannot recognise their arbitrary act. (~~ 1-8.)
The law is, indeed, severe; but the judges must administer
it as unflinchingly as if they were marching against the
enemy (~~ 9-12).
Feeling     The first especially, of these two speeches should
towards the
d.Alki- be compared with the Defence written shortly before
by Isokrates-probably in 397 or 396 B.c.-for the
same man. Both bear striking witness to the hatred
felt for the memory of the elder Alkibiades in the
early years of the restored democracy. Here, denunciations of the father fill about one-half of the
speech against the son; there, the son devotes more
than three-fourths of his address to a defence of his
father. The speech Against Alkibiades ascribed to
Andokides, but probably the work of a late sophist,
indirectly illustrates the same feeling; being, in fact,
an epitome of the scandalous stories about Alkibiades
current at the same period.
Doubt       Harpokration refers to Oration xrv. with a doubt
of the
-os-not"  of its authenticity1; Oration    xy. is cited by no
well
"founded, ancient author. The genuineness of each has been
called in  question   by modern     critics2; chiefly on
grounds of internal evidence. It has been noticed
that the composition varies in some points from the
usual Lysian character; and that the special marks
Ss. v. 'AXK1s/3t'i.        the sceptics, and himself inclines
2 See Francken (Comment. Lys. to doubt both speeches; though
pp. 110-115), who refers to the  allowing, with Francken, that they
doubts of Boeckh and others, but  certainly are not mere sophistic
himself expresses positive suspicion  exercises. Taylor thought the seonly of Or. xv: Blass (Att. Bereds. cond spurious (Reiske Or. Att. v.
pp. 491-4), who adds Scheibe to  553).




X.]


LYSIAS.-WORKS.


261


of his power are absent1. The two speeches must
stand or fall together.    If not the work of Lysias,
they are certainly the work of a contemporary writer
for the law-courts.    But the evidence, external or
internal, against their genuineness appears too slight
to warrant even a strong suspicion.
VI.   CAUSES RELATING TO MURDER OR INTENT
TO MURDER (ypa al (f)vov-TpavLacro3 EK 7Tpovo&a3).
1.  Against Eratosthenes.     [Or. xII.]-Polemar- vI.i.
Against
chos, brother of Lysias, had been put to death by loTsthe  Thirty   Tyrants.    Eratosthenes, one    of their
number, was the man who had arrested him and
taken him to prison. In this speech Lysias, himself
the speaker, charges Eratosthenes with the murder
of Polemarchos, and, generally, with his share in the
Tyranny.
A question has to be considered in regard to the Form of
procedure.
form of the accusation. Was Eratosthenes prosecuted
under an ordinary indictment for murder? Or was
he accused on the occasion of his coming forward to
render account of his office as one of the Thirty?
On the former supposition it is hard to say before
what court the trial took place.     Clearly it was not
the Areiopagos. If it was the Delphinion, then
Eratosthenes must have pleaded some justification
of the homicide; but he admits its guilt, and lays
the blame on his colleagues (~ 24).       If it was an
1 Blass notices especially the  Lysiani: ille potius scripsisset
heaping together of homoioteleuta  pEya-X/ 8' EvrvXLa  rr 7  XoX TOLovro0
in ~~ 41 and 35. Markland ob- 7rokXrov diraXXayjvac (ap. Reiske
serves on Or. xiv ~ 47, f/eydXy 8'  0. A. v. 553). The absence of "0os
evruvXa ro rotoivrwv roX rat draX-  and Xadp is the more general acXayvaL rOXEt, ' hi non sunt numeri  cusation-a vague one.




262


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


ordinary heliastic court under the presidency of
the Eleven, then there must have been an arrest
(daTycoyr) by the Eleven; but this does not seem
to have taken place1.
The other supposition offers less difficulty. A
special clause in the Amnesty of 403 B.c. excluded
the Thirty Tyrants, the Ten who had succeeded
them, and the Eleven who had served them. But
any one even of these might enjoy the Amnesty if
he chose to stand a public inquiry, and was acquitted2.
When the oligarchy was finally overthrown, Pheidon
and Eratosthenes were the only members3 of it who
stayed at Athens. As they dared to do this, they
must have availed themselves of the permission to
give account of their office. And Lysias could have
had no better opportunity for preferring his accusation than that which would be given by the public
inquiry into the conduct of Eratosthenes.    Two
things in the speech itself tend to show that it
was spoken on this occasion. First, itsY general


1 The arguments against the
hypothesis of an ordinary ypaOq'
o6vov are well given by Blass (Att.
Ber. pp. 540-1.) Scheibe(ib.) thinks
that the trial was 'fortasse apud
heliastas ad Delphinium;' Rauchenstein apparently(Introd. p. 16)
before an ordinary heliastic court.
Francken also (Comment. Lys. p.
79) seems to reject the idea of an
accusation at the evWvOat.
2 Xenophon (Hellen. n. iv. 38)
mentions the exclusion from the
Amnesty of the Thirty, the Eleven,
and 'the Ten who had ruled in tho
Peiraeus.' Andokides (De Myst. ~


90) gives the words of the Amnesty:
Kcat ov pvlcrKaKl7o'- rTv roXktrcv
oIbevr, rrX77 rTv TrpdKovra KCa TWv
EaaEKa [Kai rSv B3Ka]' ove roVTrcv
'E Ov E"OE X 3 EvOUvas Mbtvat rja  dpX]
Tq lpev.  Francken cannot be
right in referring Trovrov here to
"r&v 'eKa only (Comment. Lys. p.
79). The words rOWv eCa are added
by Sauppe and Baiter with Schneider and others.
3 Pheidon had been one of the
Thirty and also one of the Ten.
Eratosthenes had been one of the
Thirty, but not one of the Ten.
This is clear from ~~ 54, 55.




X.]


L YSIAS.-WORKS.


263


scope. It has a wider range, and deals more generally with the history of the Anarchy, than would
be natural if it was concerned exclusively with
an ordinary indictment for murder. Only the first
third of the speech relates to Polemarchos; thenceforth to the end his name is not mentioned, even
in the peroration; the political offences of Eratosthenes are exclusively dwelt upon. It may be
noticed, too, that at the commencement Lysias
speaks in the plural of 'the defendants' and their
hostility to Athens, as if Eratosthenes was only in
the same predicament with several other persons.
Secondly, an expression in ~ 37 should be noticed.
The speaker there says that he has done enough in
having shown that the guilt of the accused reaches
the point at which death is deserved. He would
not have said this if death had been the necessary
penalty in case of conviction. But he might well
say it if his charge was preferred, among many others,
when Eratosthenes was giving his account, and when
the question was what degree of punishment, if any,
he was to suffer1.


1 The view that Lysias accused
Eratosthenes at his evOvvaL is taken
by Blass (Att. Ber. p. 540) and by
Grote (vol. viii. p. 402). I have
purposely abstained from bringing
into the question the fact that
Lysias was only an isoteles. On
the one hand, as Rauchenstein
says, a resident-alien was probably
allowed to prosecute personally,
instead of being represented by
his wrpoo-rdris, when the duty of
avenging blood came upon him as


the nearest relative. On the other
hand, it can hardly be doubtful that
a resident-alien would, as Blass
thinks, have been allowed to prefer an accusation at the euthunae of
any official whose acts had touched
him: it certainly is not doubtful
that such a man as Lysias would
have been allowed, under the democracy which he had just helped
to restore, to impeach one of the
Thirty Tyrants.




264


THE ATTIC ORA TORS.


[OCIAP.


Date.       The date must be 403 B.c., the year of Eukleides.
After their flight from Athens the Thirty maintained
themselves for a short time at Eleusis.     Soon after
the restoration of the democracy, an expedition was
made against Eleusis; the generals of the Thirty,
who came out to ask for a parley, were seized and
put to death; and the Tyrants, with their chief adherents, fled from Attical.   But it is clear from   ~ 80
of the speech that this expedition had not yet taken
place.
Again, in ~g 92 f. Lysias addresses successively
two distinct parties-the 'men of the city' who remained in Athens under the Thirty, and the 'men
of the Peiraeus.' The line of demarcation could have
been drawn so sharply only while the war of parties
was quite recent; not two or three years later, when
exiles and oligarchs had long been fused once more
into one civic body. It was, no doubt, remembered
for years who had been on one side and who on the
other. But in a speech made (say) in 400 B. c., we
should not find the 'men of the city' and the 'men
of Peiraeus' addressed separately as if they still
formed two distinct camps.
The speech ftlls into two divisions.      The first
and shorter (~~ 1-36) deals with the special charge
against Eratosthenes; the second, with his political
character and with the crimes of the Tyrants generally.
I. ~~ 1-36.
Analjis.   The difficulty here is not how to begin, but where to stop.
Ordinarily the accuser is expected to show that he has some
motive for hostility to the accused. Here it would be more
"I Xen. Hellen. in. iv. 43.




X.]


LYSIAS.-WORKS.


265


natural to ask the accused what motive he and his fellows
have had for their hostility to Athens (~~ 1--3).
Lysias then enters on his narrative of the facts. His
father had been invited by Perikles to settle at Athens as a
resident-alien, and had lived there peaceably for thirty years.
His family had never been involved in any troubles until the
time of the Thirty Tyrants. Theognis and Peison, members
of that body, suggested the policy of plundering the residentaliens. These two men first paid a visit to the shield-manufactory of Lysias and his brother, and took an inventory of
the slaves. They next came to the dwelling-house of Lysias,
and got all his ready money, about three talents. He managed
to slip away from them, and took refuge with a friend in the
Peiraeus; then, hearing that his brother Polemarchos had been
met in the street by Eratosthenes and taken to prison, he
escaped by night to Megara. Polemarchos received the usual
mandate of the Thirty-to drink the hemlock; and had a
beggar's burial. Though he and Lysias had yielded such
rich plunder, the very earrings were taken from the ears of
his wife (~ 19). Now the murderer of Polemarchos was
Eratosthenes (~~ 4-23). Here he is briefly cross-examined:' Did you arrest Polemarchos or not?' ' Terrified by the
orders of the authorities-I proceeded to do so.' ' And were
you in the council chamber when we were being talked
about?' ' I was.' 'Did you support, or oppose, those who
advised our execution?' ' Opposed them.' ' Opposed our
being put to death?' ' Yes.' 'Considering such treatment
of us to be unjust-or just?' 'Unjust.'
Lysias comments indignantly on these answers. If Eratosthenes had really protested against the sentence, he would
not have been selected to make the arrest. He was one of
the Thirty themselves and had nothing to fear. All the
circumstances disprove his pretence of good-will; instead of
contenting himself with a visit to the house of Polemarchos,
he seized him in the street; he gave him no friendly hint
beforehand. If it is true that he opposed the sentence, he
must at least prove that he did not make the arrest, or did
not make it in a harsh manner. The judges are then re



266


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


minded of the importance which their decision will have as
an example for both citizens and foreigners. The fate of the
generals who conquered at Arginusae is contrasted with the
deserts of those who profited by the defeat at Aegospotami.
If those suffered death, what is due to these? (~~ 24-36.)
II. ~~ 37-100.
To say more is superfluous: the guilt of Eratosthenes
has already been shown to be capital. But lest he should
appeal to his past life, this must be exposed. In the first
oligarchy [411 B.c.] he had to fly from  the Hellespont
after an unsuccessful attempt to corrupt the democratic crews
of Athenian vessels there. After the defeat of Athens [405
B.C.] he and Kritias were first among the Five Ephori and
afterwards among the Thirty Tyrants. Perhaps he will say
that he obeyed the Thirty through fear. No, in the cause of
Theramenes he dared to oppose them. But this opposition
was not patriotic; all the quarrels among the Thirty were
selfish. The so-called moderate party to which Theramenes
belonged was represented by the later Board of Ten. And
the Ten, instead of promoting peace, waged war with the
exiles more bitterly than the Thirty (~~ 37-61).
Theramenes is the man whom Eratosthenes takes credit
for having defended. It can be fancied how eagerly he would
have claimed friendship with Themistokles, who built the
walls of Athens, if he is proud of friendship with Theramenes
-who pulled them down. Theramenes, when a member of
the first oligarchy, betrayed his own closest friends, Antiphon
and Archeptolemos; after Aegospotami, he undertook to
make peace without loss of honour, and yet it was he who
proposed at Sparta that Athens should lose her walls and her
fleet; it was he who advocated the proposal of Drakontides
for the establishment of the Thirty; and it is this mantwice the enslaver of Athens--whom   Eratosthenes glories
in having defended! (~~ 62-78.)
This is no season for mercy. The man who condemned,
untried, the fathers, sons, brothers of those who now judge
him, does not deserve even a trial. His advocates can urge




X.]


L YSIAS.-WORKS.


267


no merits either of his or of their own. His witnesses are
mistaken if they think that they can shield from peril of
death the men who made it dangerous to attend a burial.
They will say that Eratosthenes was the least criminal of the
Thirty. Is he to escape because there are twenty-nine greater
villains in Greece?  (~~ 79-91.)
Lysias now addresses himself, first, to those who remained
in Athens during the Anarchy, then to the exiles who returned
from the Peiraeus-speaking as if he had before him two
definite bodies of men. He reminds each party of their
peculiar reasons for hating the Thirty. The 'men of the
city' should hate that despotism; for it shared with them
nothing but its shame, and forced upon them an unholy strife.
The 'men of Peiraeus' should hate it: it proscribed them, persecuted them, severed them from country and kinsfolk. Had
it triumphed, no sanctuary would have protected them, nothing
could have saved their children from outrage at home or
slavery abroad. But it is needless to speak of what might
have been: what has been is too great for words. It can
only be felt-felt, with boundless resentment for the shrines
which these men desecrated, for the city which they humbled,
--for the dead, who are listening now to mark if the judges
will avenge them.
'I will cease to accuse. You have heard, seen, suffered:you have them:-judge.' (~~ 92-100.)
The result is unknown.      But as the accused had     esult of
the Trial.
evidently strong support, and as Lysias complains
of the difficulty which he had experienced in finding
witnesses to some of the principal facts, it is probable
that the penalty of death, at least, was not inflicted1.
The Speech Against Eratosthenes must take the chracter
of the
first place among the extant orations of Lysias.       In speech.
1 Grote vol. vim. p. 402: Rau-  the difficulty about witnesses, ~~ 46,
chenstein Introd. p. 16: Blass Att.  47. See Or. x (Against TheoBer. p. 542. As to the number of  mnestos) ~ 31, and the remarks on
men who supported Eratosthenes, it below.
see ~~ 51, 56, 65, 87, 88, 91. As to




268            THE ATTIC O]RATORS.             [CHAP.
the two parts into which it naturally falls the
speech presents, in perhaps unique combination,
two distinct styles of eloquence,-first, the plain
earnestness of a private demand for redress-then
the lofty vehemence of a political impeachment.
The compass of the power shown may best be
measured by the two passages which mark its limits
-on the one hand, the account of the arrest of
Polemarchos, which has almost the flow of Herodotean narrative;-on the other hand, the passionate appeal to the two classes of men who had suffered
from the Thirty-worked up with all the resources of
a finished rhetoric. As regards the first, what may
be called the private, division of the speech, it is
very noticeable how little attempt Lysias makes to
excite compassion; he contents himself with a bare
recital of facts.  He relies less on the atrocity of
the wrong itself than on its significance as part of
that system of organised crime which he sees personified in Eratosthenes. He therefore throws his
whole weight upon the second, the public, division
of his subject; and here he gives us, first, two
political biographies, the lives of Eratosthenes and
Theramenes-then, a retrospect of the government
to which they belonged. In one sense this speech
of Lysias may be compared with that of Demosthenes On    the  Crown.    The question at issue
involves a whole chapter of Athenian history, in
which both the parties to the case were actors. But
there is a difference. Demosthenes, the statesman,
reviews the train of events with which he deals
from the level of one who has helped to determine




X.]1


LYSIAS.-WORKS.


269


their course. Lysias stands on the lower ground
of a private person; he sees the events of the
Anarchy as they were seen by the masses who
suffered, but were powerless to control; he does
not discuss two rival lines of policy, but recalls,
as a common man, experiences familiar to thousands.
It is just because he speaks from among the crowd
that he is so successful in denouncing Eratosthenes,
and leaves the impression that in his attack upon
the worst of close oligarchies he was the spokesman
of an entire people1.
2.   Against Agoratos.      [Or. xiim.]-Agoratos, wgVs,
son of a slave, had gained the Athenian citizenship goratos.
by pretending to have had a hand in the assassination
of Phrynichos in 411; a merit to which, according
to his accuser, he had no claim.       (~ 76.)   For six
years afterwards he had lived at Athens, exercising
the trade of informer, and laying 'all conceivable
indictments' (rac    e  dvOpoirrow ypa4Js ~ 73) before
the law-courts. He is now charged with having
slandered away the lives of several distinguished
citizens just before the establishment of the Thirty*
It was in the spring of 404 that Theramenes came
back from Sparta with the hard conditions of peace.
1 Perhaps sceptical criticism has  in emending the speech Against
produced no greater marvel than  Agoratos; 'quam suppositam esse
an essay De oratione in Erat-  a Graeculo ludimagistro idoneis
osthenem Trigintavirum Lysiae  argumentisevincam. Antiphonteae
falso tributa, by A. Hecker (progr. omnes et omnes pariter AndociGymn. Leid. a. 1847-8). After  deae orationes spuriae sunt. Quae
proving to his own satisfaction  bredi singula persecuturus sum.'
the spuriousness of this speech, Literature has lost a curiosity by
the author ends by regretting  the non-fulfilment of this promise.
that he has spent some time




270


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


Athens had been suffering for months the extreme of
famine and misery; the mass of citizens were thankful for relief on any terms. But there were still a few
men, influential by their position and service, who
stood out against the bargain which the oligarchical
party were about to strike with Sparta.         The oligarchs, impatient to get rid of their opponents, had
recourse to the aid of Agoratos.       It was arranged
that he should himself be charged with plotting to
defeat the peace, and should then denounce a certain
number of other persons as his accomplices. One
Theokritos accused him before the Senate. A party
of senators went to the Peiraeus to arrest him. Agoratos, feigning alarm, took sanctuary at the altar in
the temple of Artemis at Munychia. Certain citizens
who suspected him to be the victim, or the agent, of
a plot, gave bail for him, and offered to take him out of
Attica to await quieter times. He declined this proposal, and appeared before the Senate to give information.   He denounced, first, the men who had
bailed him; then several of the Generals and taxiarchs (~ 13), among whom were the General Strombichides, Dionysiod6ros (kinsman of the accuser in this
case), and probably Eukrates1 the brother of Nikias;
also a number of other citizens. These, with Agoratos himself, were imprisoned; and it was decreed
that they should be tried both by the Senate and by
a special court of Two Thousand. Immediately afterwards the peace with Sparta was ratified2.
1 Eukrates is not named in this  2 That, according to Lysias, the
speech; but see ~ 5 of Or. xvim., informations of Agoratos were
which refers to the confiscation of  made before the acceptance of the
his property.                peace and the surrender of the




x.]


LYSIAS.-WORKS.


271


The government of the Thirty having been established, the prisoners were tried; but not by the
Two Thousand; only by a new oligarchical Senate.
They were all condemned to death, except Agoratos,
who was banished. In 404 he joined the democratic
exiles at Phyl6, and afterwards returned to Athens


city, appears distinctly from ~ 17,
EZXovro Wpfv r?)v 7 KKXrilav r v
7rrep T7 S  elprv77rS yEtvatOa  Tovtrovs (the popular leaders) els 6La-,3oXas  Kal KLYtVVOVS Karao-n7-aL.
It follows also from ~ 16.
Grote (vIII. p. 320) believes that
Lysias has misdated the informations of Agoratos, placing them
before the surrender, whereas they
were, in fact, given after it. He
remarks: (1) That it is difficult to
suppose an interval sufficient for
these accusations between the return of Theramenes and the ratification of the peace, for which the
people were most impatient. (2)
That the bailers of Agoratos could
not have proposed to convey him
away by sea from Munychia, when
the harbour was blocked up. (3)
That the expression 'till quieter
times' (Ecor Karacrral-  r 7arpdyiara,
ib.) would have been inappropriate at a moment just before the
surrender.
Now, (1) all that Lysias relates
about the informations need not
have occupied more than one day;
there is room for them, then, between the return of Theramenes
and the ratification of the peace (on
the day after his return, Xen.
Hellen. 11. ii. 22). Lysias describes
the capitulation and entrance of
Lysandros into Athens as following
immediately on the act of Agora

tos, ~ 34. (2). We do not know how
strict the blockade established in
November 405 may have been in
March 404: the 'two boats' may
have lain ready at some point in
Munychia outside the harbour. (3)
The third objection I do not understand. Surely the time just before
the surrender-when Athens was
full of misery and faction-might
be called a troubled time.
No doubt Lysias had a motive
for placing the informations of Agoratos before the capitulation, and
thus representing him as responsible for it. On the other hand, it
may be observed that the oligarchs
would not have had the same
motive for suborning Agoratos
when the peace, which gave them
the ascendancy, had been ratified.
An ingenious attempt has been
made (by Christian Renner, Comment. Lysiac. cc. duo, Gottingen
1869) to show that it is consistent
with the narrative of Lysias to
suppose that the peace had been
accepted, and that the popular
leaders, when denounced by Agoratos, were only agitating for a
revision of it. But the words in
~ 17 bar this view. Renner can
get over them only by supposing
them corrupt. He proposes with
Frohberg to strike out the words
~v rETpt rTj7 elpr7vJs after 'KKXT)(lav.
This is to cut the knot.




272


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


with them; but appears to have been ill received
(~ 77). He is now accused of murder by Dionysios,
cousin and brother-in-law to Dionysiod6ros.
Mode of    The procedure was not by an indictment before
procedure.
the Areiopagos or the Delphinion, but by an information (endeixis) laid before the archon, followed by a
summary arrest (apagoge)-precisely as in the case
of the Mitylenean charged with the murder of Herodes, for whom Antiphon wrote a defence; the case
was therefore heard by an ordinary court under the
presidency of the Eleven. There had, however, been
a slight informality. Strictly speaking, endeixis and
apagoge were applicable only in cases where the accused had been taken in the act; though, as appears
from  this and from the Herodes case, the limitation
was not always observed. Here the accuser had left
out the words 'Tr' aVTroopw in drawing up the indictment; but had been compelled to add them by the
Eleven, although in this instance they had no real
meaning (~~ 84, 86).
Date.      The trial took place 'long after' the events to
which it referred (~ 83); and the condemnation of
Menestratos, who himself suffered on the same account 'long after' his offence (~ 56), is mentioned as
if it was not very recent. At least five or six years,
then, must have elapsed since 404 B.c. The speech
cannot be placed earlier than 400; probably it may
be placed as late as 3981.
Analysis.  The speaker begins by explaining that both on private
and on public grounds he is entitled to be the accuser of


" Rauchenstein Introd. p. 55: Blass Att. Ber. p. 557.




X.]


L YSIAS.-WJORIKS.


273


Agoratos. On private grounds, since Dionysiodoros was his
cousin and brother-in-law; on public, because the crime of
Agoratos affects the whole State (~~ 1-4).
The narrative of the facts (~~ 5-48) falls into four parts.
(i) From the defeat at Aegospotami in 405 to the moment
when Agoratos made his accusations, in the spring of 404:
~~ 5-34. (ii) The trial and condemnation of the accused:
~~ 35-38. (iii) Their last injunctions to their relatives:
~~ 39-42. (iv) The sequel of their deaths-the reign of
terror, which they had foreseen and endeavoured to avert:
~~ 43-48.
The pleas which Agoratos may set up in his defence are
next considered. He may deny the fact of having informed;
but the decrees of the Senate and of the ekklesia will confute him. He may pretend that he informed in the interest
of the State: but the events disprove that. He may say that
he was forced to inform; but the circumstances of his arrest
show that he did so willingly. He may throw the blame on
Menestratos, who also informed. Nay, Menestratos was afterwards a victim of Agoratos, whose turn it is now to suffer
himself. Compare the conduct of Agoratos with that of
Aristophanes, who died rather than turn accuser (~~ 49-61).
The eminent men whom Agoratos destroyed may be contrasted with himself and with his family. His three brothers
have all suffered death for base crimes; he himself obtained
the citizenship by pretending to have assassinated Phrynichos.
It is a dilemma; let him suffer for the murder or for the
fraud (~~ 62-76).
He will perhaps claim sympathy as having joined the
exiles at Phyl6 and returned with them. The fact was that,
when he appeared at Phyl6, they would have put him to
death, had not the general Anytos interfered; and when, at
the entry into Athens, he presumed to bear arms in the procession, Aesimos, its leader, came and snatched away his
shield (~~ 77-82).
Or he will raise technical objections. He will say that
the time which has elapsed ought to exempt him from penalties; but there is no statute of limitations (rrpoOeac-'a, ~ 83)
18




274


THE ATTIC ORA TORS.


[CHAP.


here. Or he will say that the words   r' av7roCwp  were
omitted in the indictment; which is much the same thing as
arguing that he is guilty, indeed, but was not caught in guilt.
Or he will plead the Amnesty. This is in itself a confession.
Moreover, the Amnesty was a covenant between the oligarchs
in the city (~~ 83-90) and the democrats of the Peiraeus:
it has no force as between two democrats.
The judges, the whole people, are bound by the solemn
injunctions of the dead. To acquit Agoratos would be to
confirm the sentence by which they perished. A democratic
court must not be in unison with the courts of the Tyrants.
By condemning Agoratos, the judges will mark the difference
between them; will avenge their friends; and will have done
right in the sight of all men (~~ 91-97).
In historical interest the speech Against Agoratos
stands next, perhaps, to the speech Against Eratosthenes; but it is conceived in a totally different
chracter spirit.  No transition from a private to a public chaof the
apared racter, like that which is so marked in the other case,
woith Or.
xIL.    occurs here.   From   beginning to end the accuser of
Agoratos confines himself to his special task, that of
demanding vengeance for the death of his kinsman.
Much of the general history of the time is necessarily
introduced, and the speaker of course avails himself
of the great advantage which he possesses in being
able to represent the slander of Agoratos as treason
to the State.   But there is no such large view of a
whole period as is given in the speech Against Eratosthenes. The historical references are scattered,
not concentrated, and, instead of forming pictures,
are only picturesque; individual interests are in
the foreground throughout. Lysias accusing Eratosthenes hardly attempts to excite a personal sym



X.]


L YSIAS.--WORKS.


pathy; he relies rather on the hatefulness of that
system of crime to which this particular crime belonged; Dionysios accusing Agoratos describes the
wives, mothers, sisters of the condemned visiting
them in prison, and receiving their last messages of
vengeance-a passage which strikingly resembles in
conception and tone the prison-scene in the speech of
Andokides On the Mysteries. The arrangement of
the topics here, as usually with Lysias when        he
takes pains, is clear and good; though perhaps the
speaker tries to make too many distinct points towards the end, and thereby rather impairs the breadth
and strength of his argument. This is particularly
the case in ~~ 70-90; where the sophism about the
Amnesty-that it was not meant to hold good between two men of the same party--is a curious
exception to the usual tact of Lysias in argument.
3.  On the Death of Eratosthenes.       [Or. I.]-vI.s. on
the Death
Euphil6tos, an Athenian citizen of the humbler sort, tofetos.
had slain one Eratosthenes of Oea (Ol'E, ~ 16), whom
he had taken in adultery with his wife. He is now
prosecuted for murder by the relatives of Eratosthenes; and pleads in his defence the law which
allowed the husband, in such cases, to kill the adulterer1 (ý~ 30, 31). As the law was clearly against
them, the accusers were driven to allege that Euphi16tos had himself decoyed Eratosthenes into his
house (~ 30); and that the real motive of the homicide
was fear, enmity, or cupidity. This line of argument may have had some plausibility if Athenian
1 Dem. in Aristocr. ~ 53 Eav nT r adiapTr, K.T......ToVTrcoV EVKa
arroKTelrV  ev d 0Xots  C iKOV...A  ESTr (IEVYEtv KTELvavTa.
18-2




276


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


husbands were in the habit of compromising such
cases 1. But the assertion of the accusers would be
hard to prove; and Euphilktos speaks throughout
like a man confident of a verdict.
The cause would be tried, probably by heliastic
judges2, at the Delphinion, the court for cases in
which an admitted homicide was defended as justifiable. There is nothing to indicate the date.
Analysis.  The accused asks the judges to imagine themselves in his
place: all Greece, he says, would recognise the justice of his
act. He had no motive for it but the dishonour done to his
wife, his children and himself (~~ 1-4). Then comes the
narrative (~~ 5-28), followed by the citation of witnesses
and laws (~~ 29-36). He meets the suggestions of the defendants; as (i) that Eratosthenes was decoyed into the house,
~~ 37-42; (ii) that the homicide was prompted by a former
enmity, or by cupidity, ~~ 43-46. In any of these cases, he
would not have slain him before witnesses. The decision
of the judges will have a good effect if it accords with the
laws; if it does not, then these laws should be annulled,
since citizens are only entrapped (EveSpevovrat) by them. His
life and property are at risk because he trusted to the laws of
the city (~~ 47-50).


Social interest of the
Speech.


"


The first part of this speech (g 5-28) is curious


as a vivid picture-vivid
life-of a small Athenian
1 In one instance, at all events,
we find that the injured husband
Xacf43dav&  poLXOV...Katl ELs q(dOov
KaTraa rroa TrparTrTEC  TrpLtKOvra
v va v-not an excessive sum: Dem.
in Neaer. ~ 65. As Blass notices
(Att. Ber. p. 577) this case of
Eratosthenes happens to be the
only recorded example of that
extreme and summary vengeance


with almost Aristophanic
household3; especially as
which the law allowed.
2 After the year of Eukleides,
heliastic judges sat at the Palladion: see Isokr. adv. Callim. ~ 54,
Dem. in Neaer. ~ 90. Probably
at the Delphinion also they had
taken the place of the Ephetae.: The passage ~~ 6-18 may be
noted as a locus classicus on the
architecture of Athenian houses.




X.]


XLYSIAS.-WORKS.      2


277


illustrating the position of a married woman of the
lower class. The husband says that, at first, his wife
gave him entire satisfaction as a housekeeper; on his
part, he 'watched her as far as possible, and gave all
reasonable attention to the subject;' at length, however, at her mother's funeral, she for once left the
house; and hence the intrigue. Lysias has been clever
in making the defence homely and at the same time
dignified; Euphiletos, the plain citizen, feels strong
in the law of the city.
4.   Defence Against Simon.       [Or. iii.]-The ac-V
Against
cused, an elderly Athenian of good family and fortune simon.
(~5 4, 47), is accused by one Simon of having wounded
him in a quarrel about one Theodotos, a young Plataean. The indictment was for Wounding with Intent (rpapaTro3     K 5 pKOVOMac), a charge which, in this
case, seems to have been made merely in the sense of
'wounding deliberatelyl.' But, as the accused justly
says, the 'intent' to which the law referred was not
merely intent to wound, but intent to kill (~ 40-43).
It was for this reason that the Areiopagos had jurisdiction in such cases, as well as in those of actual
murder2.    The present trial took place before that
' The rpavIarov ypa(f4 seems to  bitual villanies-r7jv tapav TrarT?
have been notorious as an instru- rKEjaXLvX/J KaL VrE 'vvoV... tLvptpment of false accusation. Cf. Dem.  KLES KaraTTLr CKE1 KKaL TovTc)V Ltpfadv. Boeot. II. ~ 32 VrreTLrtEY 7rv  Oov EltX? Er 7papa7rov iEK  pol
KecaXYv atro- rpalFaror elE'Apetoy  voias ypa As ypaqc jt'Evov (in
7rayov lPE rPOo-EKaXEoaTO, & vwya-  Gtes. ~ 212).  Compare Lucian
C60-COW E' K T) r OXE()Er. Aeschines  Timnon ~ 46 rNAOeNIAH2. 71
charges Demosthenes with having  ro7ro; 7raiSEt, (0 T3 tco "lpapnvpopat.
brought a false ypak' of the same  c 'HpaKXE, lOU "Lov. rrpoo-KaXovpal
kind against one Demomeles (De  Oa 7pavlarov "YApetov -ayov.
F. L. ~ 93, in Ctes. ~ 51); indeed,  2 For the law see Dem. in Arishe says, this was one of his ha-  toer. ~ 22. In [Lys.] in Andoc.




278


TItE ATTIC ORA TORS.


[CHAP.


court (~~ 1, 3); the penalty was banishment (~ 47),
and further (as appears from Or. Iv. ~ 18) confiscaDate.    tion  of property.      The battles    of Corinth     and of
Koroneia had already been fought (~ 45); the speech
is therefore later than 394 B..
Analysis.    After observing that Simon ought to be defendant rather
than prosecutor, and requesting the indulgence of the court
for the weakness which had involved him in so unpleasant a
dispute (~~ 1-4), the accused gives his own account of the
quarrel between himself and the prosecutor (~~ 5-20). He
then refutes the account given by Simon (~~ 21-39). The
formula, 'wounding with intent,' does not, he says, apply to
this case (~~ 41-43). He wishes that he was at liberty to
give illustrations of Simon's character [the Areiopagos not
allowing the introduction of irrelevant matter]. As it is, he
will mention only one fact-that Simon was dismissed from
the Athenian army at Corinth       (~~ 44, 45).    Simon, he
concludes, is one of those informers 'who force their way
into our houses, who persecute us, who snatch us by force out
of the street.' He appeals to the services of his ancestors,
and to his own; and says that compassion is due to him,
not only in the event of being condemned, but for the very
fact of having been brought to trial (~~ 46-48).
w. 5. o       5.  On   Wounding     with Intent.     [Or. Iv.]-The
Mounding
"withntent' first part of this speech has been lost1, and with it
the original title.     It is a defence before the Areio~ 15 it is loosely said that 'accord-  was the last or at least the second
ing to the laws of the Areiopagos'  (' epilogus vel deuterologia') made
the penalty was banishment a'v...rLs  for the defence. In that case, as
dv8pos a-r  a rpCoCoJ KefsakXv \rpdo--  Blass says (Att. Ber. p. 590), the
o)rov   e XELPav q 7r6Ba-the men-  preceding speech or speeches can
tion of the rpovota being omitted.  have contained little more than
1 The loss must have taken place  the narrative; since our speech
before the  Palatine MS. was    deals with the proof. Francken
written. Sauppe (0. A. p. 73), re-  (Comment. Lys. p. 37) and Scheibe
garding the speech as complete in  (Blass 1. c.) agree in thinking the
its present shape, thinks that it  speech imperfect.




x.J


LYSIAS.-WORKS.


279


pagos on a charge of wounding with murderous intent in a quarrel for the possession of a slave girl.
The defendant asserted that the slave was the joint
property of himself and the accuser; the latter claimed
sole ownership (~ 10). The penalty threatening the
accused was banishment and confiscation of property
(~ 18).
The speech, as now extant, begins at the point where the Analysis.
defendant is answering the assertion that a personal enmity
of long standing accounts for the murderous character of the
assault. It is not true, the defendant says, that they'were at
this time enemies; they had been reconciled.  Ie had been
called upon to perform a costly leiturgia, and had challenged
his present accuser either to undertake it himself or to exchange properties (dar1Sootq); and this had been cited by
the accuser in proof of the alleged hostility. But it has been
shown that this exchange was never actually made; friends
mediated, and the defendant took the leiturgia. The accuser
had, indeed, already received some property of his, with a
view to the exchange; but had returned it when the reconciliation took place. Another proof is given that they were
on good terms. The accuser had been nominated by the
defendant as judge of the prizes at the Dionysia. Unfortunately, when lots were drawn, he was not among the judges
elected. If he had been, his goodwill to the defendant would
have been publicly shown; for he was prepared to give the
prize to the defendant's tribe, and left a written memorandum
of that resolve' (~~ 1-4).
S~ 3.PovXO1LrYv ' tv p d7roXa-  ciled tome, by adjudging the victory
XelY avrvY Kptrlv ALtovvo-lo, I'v  to my tribe. As it was, he made a
viv (avepos EyEvero Etol 8tLrlXay-  note of it in his tablets, but failed
tIEvor, pa Kplvas r4y j vXv Kv  v  to draw the lot.'
vvv Nd c'ypa e pdv ra ra els rb  The reference is apparently to
ypaLttareiov, 7riXE ax:-' I could  a private compact between the
have wished that he had not   defendant and the accuser. The
missed the lot to be judge at the  judges of the prizes at the DionyDionysia, as then he would have  sia were nominated by the Senate;
proved to you that he was recon-  the names of all the nominees were




280


iTHE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


Assuming, however, that this personal enmity did exist,
yet the very circumstances of the assault exclude the idea of
premeditation. The accuser had made the utmost of a black
eye (v57rt7ra ~ 9), and had pretended illness. At the same
time he has refused to allow the slave, who was the cause
and the eyewitness of the quarrel, to be put to the question
(~~ 5-11). After dwelling further on the refusal of this
challenge (rp6XOdK'cL-) as presumptive evidence in his own
favour (~~ 12-17), the defendant ends by contrasting the
gravity of his danger with the worthlessness of its cause, and
begs the court not to award so disproportionate a penalty
to him, and so excessive a triumph to his unjust accuser
(~~ 18-20).
SpciuS      This fragment has at least some antiquarian inth.e e  terest.   It is curious to find from    ~ 2 that the fact
of having offered a man the antidosis could be quoted
in court as presumptive evidence of ill-will towards
him. The difficult passage in ~ 3 regarding the appointment of judges at the Dionysia has already been
noticed. Section 4 illustrates a point in the peculiar
procedure of the Areiopagos-that no witness could
be examined who did not swear either to or against
the guilt of the accused in regard to the particular
facts before the court.
Taoyior's    Taylor's suspicion that in this piece a sophistic
doubt of its
"n"'."  writer has imitated the Defence against Simon seems
gratuitous1.   If the fragment which has been preput into an urn, and lots were then  This is Francken's explanation
drawn (Isokr. Trapez. ~ 33). The  (Comment. Lys. p. 38); and no
defendant-being at the time a  better has been offered. The shock
senator -had so nominated the  which the candour of the defendant
accuser, under a compact that he  must have given to the Areioshould award the prize to the  pagos is perhaps not a decisive
chorus furnished by the defend-  objection.
ant's tribe. The accuser had re-  1 'Multis modis mihi videtur
gistered this compact; but, in the  haec declamatiuncula in umbra
end, his name was not drawn.  Scholae LieXer~TOat, ad imaginem




X.]


L YSIAS.- WORKS.


281


served is neither clear in arrangement nor strong in
argument, it has at least the vigorous simplicity by
which Lysias knew how to make the appeal of a
commonplace man effective without making it rhetorical.
VII.   CAUSES    RELATING     TO  IMPIETY    (ypac4al
do-E/3ELc, CpocrvXLcg K..X.).
1.  Against Andokides.      [Or. vi.]-This is cer-vn.i.
Against
tainly not the work of Lysias; but in any survey ofAndokides.
his works its claim to be ranked with them must
at least be examined. It is probable that it was
really spoken against Andokides at his trial in 399
B.c. The occasion and the circumstances of that
trial have already been discussed1. Of his three
accusers-Kephisios, Epichares and Meletos-one,
Kephisios, is mentioned by the speaker (~ 42): it is
possible that the speaker himself may have been one
of the other two2. Two lost pages of the Palatine
MS. contained probably the latter part of the speech
Against Kallias, and the first part of this speech
Against Andokides. But it is not likely that the
part thus lost was so large as to include, besides the
proem, a connected statement of the whole case. It
remains to suppose that such a statement had been
made by a previous speaker and is only supplemented
superioris orationis elaborata, cui points of expression.
deinde ob argumenti affinitatem  I pp. 114 ff.
in scriptis codd., ut fieri solet, per-  2 All that can be gathered from
petuo adhaesit.' Taylor ap. Reiske  the speech about the speaker is
Or. Att. v. p. 164. Blass (p. 594) that he was the grandson of one
answers some objections raised by  Diokles, whose father Zakorus
Falk to the arrangement of the  had held the office of LEpoodfrrjs,
speech; by Scheibe, to the weak-  or initiating priest at Eleusis;
ness of the rir-rers and to some  ~ 54.




282


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


here. This is what might have been expected;
Kephisios, the chief accuser, would properly have
made the leading speech.
Analysis.   The fragment begins in the middle of a story told to
show how surely the goddesses of Eleusis resent an insult.
A certain man cheated them of an offering; and there came
upon him this doom, that he starved amid plenty; for though
good food was set before him, the goddesses made it seem
loathsome to him. Let the judges beware, then, of showing
mercy to Andokides, whose punishment is claimed by these
same deities (~~ 1-3). If he should be acquitted, and, as
Archon Basileus, should some day conduct the festival of the
Mysteries, what a scandal for comers from all parts of Greece!
For he is known to them, not only by his deeds at Athens,
but by his conduct during his exile in Sicily, in Italy, in the
Peloponnesus, at the Hellespont, in Ionia, at Cyprus (~~ 4-8).
He will say that the decree banishing him from the agora
and the temples has been cancelled. Let the advice of Perikles be remembered, that impious men should be liable
not only to written laws, but to the unwritten laws of the
Eumolpidae. Andokides has aggravated his offence against
the gods by presuming to make himself their champion.
Before he had been ten days at Athens, he accused Archippos
of having defaced a Hermes, and withdrew the charge only
on receiving money (~~ 9-12). He will say that it is hard
if the informer is to suffer when the denounced have been
pardoned. The court is not responsible for that pardon;
besides, these men denied their guilt; he confesses it. A man
is banished for injuring his fellow; shall he not be banished
for injuring the gods? Diagoras of Melos mocked the religion of a strange land; Andokides outraged the religion of
his own. It is a further proof of atheism that, not dreading
his own crimes, he committed himself to the dangers of the
sea. [A notable petitio principii.]  But the gods were reserving him for a late reckoning. Let the judges consider
what his life has been since his first great crime. Imprisoned,
and escaping only by betraying kinsmen and friends; dis



X.]


LYTSIAS.-,VORKS.


283


franchised and banished; rejected by oligarchy and by democracy at home, ill-treated by tyrants abroad; and now, in
this same year, twice brought to trial! Men ought not to
lose faith in the gods because they see Andokides surmount
so many dangers: the life of pain thus spared to him is no
life (~~ 13-32).
But he is not content to have escaped punishment; he
dares to meddle in public affairs, even in the concerns of
religion (~~ 33, 34). And now he will be ready with various
pleas. That his informations relieved Athens from distress:
-but who had first caused it? That the Amnesty shields
him: but it was only political. That Kephisios is as bad as
he is: perhaps so, but that is irrelevant. That no one will
inform in future, if he suffers: nay, he has had his rewardhe saved his life. He is now in danger because he has forced
himself upon Athens-more shameless than Batrachos, the
informer of the Thirty, who at least hid his infamy abroad
(~~ 35-45).
Why should Andokides be acquitted? Not for his services in war, for he has never made a campaign. Not for
services rendered by his boasted wealth; for at the citizens'
sorest need he did not so much as buy them corn (~~ 46-49).
[Here, after the dvrarro8ovt, follows a lacuna: see above,p. 201.]
The profanation of the Mysteries is an old story now, and
men's horror of it is faded: but let them for a moment imagine Andokides mocking the awful rites of the Initiated, and
then remember the priests standing with their faces to the
west, and waving the crimson banners as they cursed him!
The city must be purged and the gods appeased by his expulsion. Once, when it was proposed that a Megarian guilty
of impiety should be put to death without trial, Diokles said
that he ought to be tried indeed, but that every judge must
come into court resolved to condemn. And now, let not the
judges be moved by entreaty. Compassion is not for murderers but for their victims (~~ 50-55).
The doubt with which Harpokration twice' names
Ss vV. Kara7rX'J, IpappadaKO. It  citation, s. v. polrrpov, the words
may be an accident that in a third  el yvrjTovL are not added.




284


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


this speech is the only clue to the opinion of the
ancients. Modern critics are all but unanimous in
rejecting it.
The spc     The diction shows many words and phrases which
not by L1y"i"s.   Lysias could hardly have used1; but it is not by the
diction nor by the composition2 that his authorship
is disproved. The question is decided by broader
characteristics. In arrangement Lysias was not faultless; but he would not have tolerated the chaotic
disorder which is found here. Again, in several of
those passages which dwell on the crimes of Andokides and on the vengeance of the gods there
is a certain hollow pathos, a certain falseness and
affected elevation, which are utterly remote from
the style of Lysias.    Further the whole speech has
what may be called (in the Greek sense) a sycophantic
tone; it is rancorous, palpably unfair and prodigal
of unproved assertion. Lastly it is singularly deficient in the foremost general quality of Lysias-in
tact; it is preeminently a blundering speech. The
accuser makes at least four mistakes.          First, he
recites at length the sufferings which Andokides has
been enduring without respite for the last sixteen
years; intending thereby to prove the displeasure
of the gods, but forgetting that he was more likely
Se.g. ~~ 4, 44  aO os:  ~~  18, 48  (Att. Ber. p. 574).
Kordaev: ~ 30 dhXd evos: ~ 50  2 The composition, indeed, is not
KarTU7rXjye: ~ 49 rroia caapr4sLara  very different from that of Lysias.
dvaKaXo-a'eo, 4vo, woia rpo4e a diro-  It is free from the diffuse periods
Btios-. Blass further notes as non-  of the later rhetoric-such as those,
Lysian such redundancies as ~ 53  for instance, of the speech Against
Trv rrroXA KuOalpetr Kalt dr7rotorop/-  Alkibiades attributed to Ando-el-o-a Kal g(papLaKcLO  doa'rn7re/.7EtV  kides-undoubtedly a late sophistic
Ke; dXtrplov drraXXdrrreoOac, &Cs  work.




X.]


L YSIAS.-WORKS.


285


to move the compassion      of men. Secondly, he
observes that, strange to say, Andokides has always
come safely through his perils; but that it would
be wrong to suppose the gods capable of protecting
him;-an awkward allusion to the natural inference,
and almost a prophecy of acquittal. Thirdly, in
noticing the charges brought by Andokides against
Kephisios, he allows that there is something in them,
and objects to them only as irrelevant; thus needlessly throwing over his own colleague, the leader
of the prosecution. Fourthly, he ends by begging
the court to remember a saying of his own grandfather-that, in certai4 cases, it was the duty of
the judges to be prejudiced against the accused.
Any one of these faults would have been striking.:
taken together, they make the authorship of Lysias
inconceivable.
It is a further question whether this Accusation Wasthe
author a
was written by a contemporary of Lysias and was,emo.actually delivered in the Mysteries-trial, or is merely 'so.
a rhetorical exercise of later date. Those who takeiptt
the latter view, lay stress upon the discrepancies
between this speech and the speech of Andokides
On the Mysteries. Two of these discrepancies are
important. (1) Andokides complains of having been
specially charged with denouncing his own father
(De Myst. ~ 19): here, he is only accused generally
of denouncing his kinsfolk ( 23). Again (2) he
speaks of having been charged with placing a suppliant's bough in the temple at Eleusis (De Myst.
~ 110); here nothing of the kind is mentioned. But
in regard to such differences, it should be remem



286


THE ATTIC ORA TORS.


[CHAP.


bered that this speech, itself mutilated, was not the
only one for the prosecution; and that, where the
subjects of accusation were so large and covered so
many years, it would have been strange if every
point had been touched by every accuser. On the
other hand a rhetorician who had prepared himself
by studying the Speech On the Mysteries would
have aimed at a more exact correspondence with it.
He would probably have taken the charges against
Andokides in the order set by his model, and have
given paragraph for paragraph, or at least topic for
topic.  He must have been a subtle artist indeed,
if with a general agreement he combined so many
intentional differences of detail.  It may be noticed
that in ~ 46 Andokides is said to be 'upwards of
forty years old.'   This statement has been       used
as an argument for the late origin of the speech
by those who identify the orator Andokides with
the general named by Thucydides (I. 51) as holding
a command in 435 B.C.        But if, as is most probable, the general was the grandfather of the orator,
and the age of the latter in 399 B.c. was really
about forty, then the statement in ~ 46 is one
reason the more for ascribing the speech to a contemporary of Andokides1. As regards the faults
of expression, of method or of general tone, these
help to disprove the authorship of Lysias; but they
are not of a kind which help to prove that the
1 See above, p. 71. The infer-  a common mistake in later times.
ence is strengthened by the fact  The author of the Plutarchic Life
that the mistake which is not made -of Andokides, for instance, puts
by this speaker seems to have been  his birth in 468 B. c.




X.]


LYSXIAS. -WORITS. *


287


author was a late sophist.     Bad taste is of no age;
and the fact of being contemporary with Lysias
need not have given a good style to Epichares or
Meletos.
2.  For    Kallias.   [Or. v.]-The shortness ofjVi.Fo
this speech does not necessarily prove it to be a
fragment. It opens with an express statement that
the case for the defence had already been fully
argued by others; and it ends with a completed idea.
Since, however, two pages of the Palatine MS. have
been lost just at this place, comprising the first part
of the speech Against Andokides, that For Kallias
has probably suffered also1. As it now stands, it
gives no direct clue to the special nature of the
case. The traditional title, 'Defence on a Charge of
Sacrilege,' must therefore have been taken from      the
part now lost. The accused is a resident alien (~ 2),
an elderly man (~ 3), against whom his own slaves, in
hope of being rewarded with liberty, have informed.
In the view of sacrilege taken by Attic law, its sacriege
aspect as a robbery seems to have been more pro- iei          o
minent than its aspect as an impiety.         Thus it islaw.
mentioned in the same category with ordinary theft,
housebreaking, kidnapping and like offences2. In
1 Harpokration s. v. r/xa has: being the slaves of Kallias, who
-r it Lpr7 a dY v  rov eveX7vpov KaL  accused their master of having
olov adronpyrlta (i.e. 'instead of  agreed to rent some sacred land
'security,' or almost in the sense  ('fundum sacrun') at a higher rate
of 'mortgage,') Avoala iv r7 vrrEp  than he himself admitted (0. A.
KakXXov* o ro      pa(TrKovTEs  II. p. 192).
7rkXEovor ItLco-caa-aao-a Kal rL-  2 Xen. Memn. I.ii. 62 edv rt ca/pr/pa Karao-r7ocraaOat. Sauppe  rEpobv yEvrlTat KX7rTTwv ' XoKronivrcIv A
thinks that these words are a  paXavToTroLcv oA TOLXcOPXWiY  advqpafiragment from our speech; ovrot  ro6eoL vos A le poo-vX~ v, roTVrot




288


THE ATTIC ORA TORS.


[CHAP.


this instance it appears from the address, av3pec?
&iKaTraL   (~ 1), that the trial was not before the
Areiopagos. The cause must have been heard by
an ordinary heliastic court, under the presidency
either of the Thesmothetae or of the Eleven1.
Analysis.   The speaker says that, were it not a case of life or death,
he would have forborne to come forward, considering the
defence to be already complete; as it is, he desires to give
a public proof of friendship for Kallias (~~ 1, 2). He then
refers very briefly, first, to the high character of the accused;
secondly, to the worthless nature of the informations. It
is the hope of winning freedom which has prompted the
calumny of the slaves. If they are believed, servants who
desire liberty will henceforth think, not how they are to
oblige their masters, but what lie they can tell against them
(~~ 3-5).
ecture       The phrase used by the speaker in reference to
suggested
by '     Kallias-' those who bring themselves into danger
by lending their services to the Treasury' (7-r4      oo LO
/3orj0OoVvrc ~ 4)-is noticeable.    It suggests that the
'sacrilege' of which the title speaks may have been
connected with the sacred treasury on the Acropolis.
Kallias may have had some employment under the
Stewards of the sacred fund (rap.aL T3 OEeov, rTO
Icpcov Xprq1.drcov) which gave him access to the inner
Odvarods ovrw 1  f"ua. Id. Apol.  whether the fact, if established,
Socr. ~ 25 E4' ol e y prv epyotg  would amount to sacrilege: (2) by
KfEraL Odvarov 7 4 Cla, lepoTrvXla,  heliasts with the Thesmothetae
roLXOpvXia, dv paroolhecL 7r6oes  for presidents, when the question
7rpooa-ila.                    was of the fact only, the alleged
1 Meier and Schomann suggest  act being clearly sacrilegious:
that lepoo-vXias ypaobai may have  (3) by heliasts with the Eleven
been tried (1) by the Areiopagos, for presidents, when the committer
when, besides the question of fact,  of sacrilege had been taken in the
there was a further question as to  act (Att. Proc. pp. 306 if.).




X,]


LYSIAS.-WORKS.


289


chamber (drto-0o8opoo  ) of the Parthenon; and may
have been accused of profiting by that opportunity
to commit a theft.
3.  On the Sacred Olive.      [Or. vn.]-The man vs, on
the Sacred
(vii. 2) for whom  this defence was written-a rich olie.
Athenian citizen (~~ 21, 31)-had       originally been
charged with destroying a moria, or sacred olive, on a
farm which belonged to him.      As to do this was a
fraud upon the public Treasury, the form of the original
accusation had been an apograph6 (dTrcypda, ~ 2).
But the charge was not supported by the persons who
had rented from the State the produce of the moriae
on this farm  (ot EwvrpEivo rTOVs Kap7O    TOv 7)V iLOPLSV,
~ 2).  The accusers had      therefore changed    their
ground. They now charge the defendant merely with
uprooting the fenced-in stump (0o--CKd) of a moria;
and they lay against him   an indictment for impiety.
The chief accuser is one Nikomachosi.
Throughout Attica, besides the olives which were
private property (I'SacE XaZcu, ~ 10), there were others
which, whether growing on public or on private lands,
were considered as the property of the State.    These
were called moriae (,uop'act)-the legend being that
they had been propagated (eýCopp^iVai) from the original olive which Athene herself had caused to spring
up on the Acropolis2.    This theory was convenient
for their conservation as State property; since, by
giving them a sacred character, it placed them directly
1 Not the Nikomachos of Or.  2 The lxopia' were under the
xxx, who had held public office in  special protection of Zeos Modpos
411 B. c.; whereas this Nikomnachos  (Soph. O. 0. 705).
was a youth in 399 B. c. (~ 29).
19




290


T-Mc~E ATTIC ORATOR&I'~~


[CHAP.


under the care of the Areiopagos, which caused them
to be visited once a month by Inspectors (vttcX-prac,
~ 29) and once a year by special Commissioners (yv(ovovE1, ~ 25).    To uproot a moria was an offence
punishable by banishment and confiscation of goods
(~ 41)1.
Technic l   The technical terms used       in this speech need
terms.
definition: see especially ~~ 20, 24.    'EXcala was the
generic term.   Common olive-trees were called, either
Xka^ Z  simply, or 8Sac    XaZat; sacred, either popiac
EXal'd, or poploe  simply.   E$K6oS  properly meant the
enclosure or fence intended      to guard    the stump
(o-irAXeog) of a moria which had been cut down or
burnt down (TrvpKat, ~ 24)-as often happened in
the raids of the enemy during the Peloponnesian War2
(~ 6).  Then r0-Kd6O came to denote the fence with the
stump itself; and this is the sense which it bears
in this speech: see ~ 11, oi-KOV 'VEKKEKOOc3.    In ~~ 2,
5 EXoa t  as opposed    to o-qKpol means a full-grown
moria.
The case is tried by the Areiopagos under the
presidency of the Archon Basileus.      The offence was
alleged to have been committed in the archonship
ate.-    of Suniades (~ 11), 01. 95. 4, 397 B.C.  To judge from
1 In such cases the dycv; was  speech, p. 171) or)K6s was never a
arir4proS, and there was no fixed  mere equivalent for the 'stump'
period (7rpoOEo-pla) after which the  or 'stock;' on the other hand, an
liability of the offender ceased:  Athenian could say or-qo  eKKOrMeier and Schdmann. Att. Proc.  reTv, thinking rather of the morfp. 307.                      XEXOs than of the fence itself.
' On the vitality of the olive, see  This is probably whatHarpokration
Her. vII. 55, Ve5ig. G. I 30, 181.  means when he says loosely orbKv
" It is true, of course," that as  ), A ir KeoV, Ka'p opoplav oVotaiovo-'
R{auchenstein says (ntirod. to this  rv a''rv.




x.]


L YSIAS.- WORKIS.


291


S42 (roo-ovr'y  Xploy voC-rpov) the trial took place not
earlier than 395; probably later.
A quiet life, the defendant had thought, was its own Analysis.
protection; but he has been taught that hired informers
have a power which the unborn might dread (~~ 1--3). He
will have done enough if he can show that there has been
neither moria nor stump of moria on the farm since it came
into his possession. This he proves by the evidence of
tenants who had rented it from him (~~ 4-11).
After commenting on the unlikelihood of his having done
a deed which could hardly have escaped detection (~~ 12 -18), he observes that the accuser has failed to bring any witnesses (~~ 19-23). The defendant has several other farms,
on which olive-trees abound; but, notwithstanding the strict
watch kept by the Areiopagos, he has never been accused
of any such offence as this. And here the risk would have
been peculiarly great. It is strange if Nikomachos has discovered what escaped the regular Inspectors (~~ 24-29).
He then speaks of his own public services; of the accuser's
refusal to give up his slaves for torture, and of the absence
of witnesses for the prosecution. He describes the malice
of his enemies who had bribed Nikomachos to bring this
charge; and refers to the cruel sentence which hangs over
him (~~ 30-41). He then concludes with a short review
of the whole case. It depends upon an unproved assertion,
which the accuser has refused to bring to the test (~~ 42, 43).
One attraction, which elsewhere seldom fails
Lysias, is wanting in this speech;-there is no narrative, f6r there is no story to tell, except the
former history of the farm.      In  this, one rather
curious point may be noticed.      The farm   had belonged, it seems, to Peisandros; had been confiscated; and had then been given as a public gift
to Apollodoros of Megara.     Now Apollodoros, as is
known from the speech Against Agoratos (~ 71), was
19-2




292 -

THIE ATTIC ORATORS.


one of the two men who planned the assassination
of Phrynichos; and so it appears that he had been
rewarded for destroying one leader of the Four
Hundred by receiving the property of another.      As
iJths ote regards the character of the defendant, Lysias has
speaker.
described with a few touches the quiet citizen who
shrinks from publicity ( 1), but with whomrn, at
the same time, it is a point of honour to discharge
his public duties in the best way (~ 34); a man
who, in Greek phrase, is at once drrpcay7tkw  and ýAX6 -rLfo0. Photios says that some critics doubted the
authenticity of this speech: and that the rhetorician
Paulos of Mysia, in particular, absolutely     denied
its genuineness, for the unconvincing reason that
he could not understand a word of it'
1 Phot. Cod. 262 A P6tl3UXXErat rov UqKov hXOyoV, OVEUV TOV epI?7 -7Lap ElJloL. 0 7rf L TOV y 0KOV XO-yo.  /LeVW fo-VVLEL, Tj7V yPYnLOl7JTOr
HoiXos BI ye e'K Mlrias TOll rEpI TaOv AvucaK5V 'K[3aXXEL XOyeWlV




XI.]


LYSIAS.- WORKS.


293


CHAPTER XI.
L YSIA S.
WORKS.
FORENSIC SPEECHES IN PRIVATE CAUSES.-MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS.-FRAGMENTS.
O   F the speeches of Lysias in private causes only
four are extant; but each of these four represents a class.
I. ACTION FOR DEFAMATION (S'      KaK yopiac).
Against Theomnestos. [Or. x ]-The occasion of. Against
Theomthis action was as follows. (1) Theomnistos, a young 'sos.
Athenian, had been indicted by one Lysitheos for
throwing away his shield in battle; but had been
acquitted. The }present speaker had been among the
witnesses of Lysitheos; and in the course of the
trial had been called a parricide by Theomnestos.
(2) A certain Dionysios, also a witness of Lysitheos,
was next prosecuted by Theomnestos for perjury;
and was sentenced to disfranchisement ( 22). (3)
The present speaker then brought his action against
Theomnastos-which was thus the third of a series.
The Athenian law against Defamation (KaK'yo- La
ptas) punished with a fine of 500 drachmas (about S
~20) the utterance of certain reproaches classed as
dt6oppyra (~ 2). To call a citizen a murderer, a




294


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP


striker of father or mother, or to charge him with
having thrown away his shield in battle, were among
these1. The present case had already been submitted
to arbitrators (~ 6); it now came before an ordinary
court, under the presidency of the Thesmothetae2.
Date.        From   ~ 4 the date is certain.     The speaker had
been thirteen years old in the time of the Tyrants
(404-3 B.C.), and was now thirty-three: the speech
belongs therefore to 384-3.
Analysis.   Witnesses can scarcely be needed, since many of the
judges themselves heard the libel when it was uttered in
court. The prosecutor holds it mean and pettifogging (dveXV0Oepov-~Lx6ctKov) to go to law about abusive words; but
the taunt of parricide has driven him to it (~~ 1-3).   He
then proves by witnesses that he was only thirteen years old
at the time of his father's death; and that he was directly
a sufferer by it, since he became the ward of his father's
elder brother, Pantaleon', who has defrauded him (~~ 4, 5).
Theomnestos owns that he used the taunt; and the taunt
has been proved false.   But Theomn6stos argues that it is
not, in the view of the law, a libel. He said only 'slew:' not
'murdered.' Is it lawful, then, the speaker asks, to reproach
a man with 'flinging' away his shield? The law speaks
only of 'throwing.' He gives further instances; and then
observes that, in the procedure of the Areiopagos, 'slaying'
SSee the speech ~~ 6-9: dv-  Sauppe assumes the former, which
8po(d6vos--7rarpaXolas--irrpaXolas  is more likely. The speech of
-`aiat TrV do-wrla. From Dem.  Lysias Kara ITIaraXaov'Tos (Frag. v.)
in Eubul. ~ 30 it appears that to  may, he thinks, have had this man
reproach a citizen with trading in  for its object. He conjectures that
the marketplace (r E'K r-j dyopai  the father of the speaker-who is
ipyaoa-av) came under this law.  said in ~ 27 to have died for the
2 Meier and Schimann, Att.   democracy-may have been that
Proc. p. 67.                   Leon of Salamis who was put to
SThe language in ~ 5 leaves it  death by the Thirty (Or. Att. n.
ambiguous whether Pantaleon was  p. 202).
uncle or brother of the speaker;




XI.]


L YSIAS. - i/"-o R, Ifs


295


is the term always used (~~ 6-14). Not content with this
exposure of the quibble, he adds some illustrations from the
old laws of Solon. These are full of obsolete words; but their
meaning is the same now as ever (~~ 15-20).
If Theomnsstos got satisfaction for having been charged
with cowardice, much more should the plaintiff get satisfaction for having been charged with parricide. Theomnestos
has had one favour done him already:-Dionysios, a brave
man, has been his victim. For the plaintiff, what could be so
shameful a reproach as to be accused of murdering his father
-a man who, after serving the democracy all his life, died
for it at the hands of the oligarchs? His bravery has to this
day its memorials in the temples of Athens; even as the
cowardice of Theomnsstos and of his father have their
memorials-in the temples of the enemy (~~ 21-29). The
plea that the libel was uttered in anger is no defence at law
(~ 30). Let the court bear in mind that he, who is now accused of murdering his own father, had in his youth impeached the Tyrants before the Areiopagos. Remembering
this, the laws and their oaths, let the judges stand by his
father and him (~~ 31, 32).
If not one of the most artistic or the most power- The Spee
ful, this is at least one of the most spirited of the -""Yo
bably
speeches of Lysias1; and the doubt of its genuine- seunme.
ness which    seems to have      existed  in  antiquity2
must be explained-as in the case of the speech For
the Invalid-by the slightness of the matter on which
the case turned. The verbal quibble of Theomn6stos
is, indeed, treated at somewhat excessive length; but
the absurdity of the defence was perhaps felt to be
1 Oratio prior in Theomnestum  2 Harpokration adds Ed yvqa-o'o
ad optimas Lysiae referenda,' says  to his citation of the speech s. vv.
Francken: which is true so far, drrlXXetv, d'"rppr]ra, 7rcýao(niEvrq7, Tocertainly, that 'indignationis et  BOKaKK?: but not s. vv. ErtopKriusti plena doloris est oratio' (Conm-  otraWr, oIKEE.
ment. Lys. p. 72).




296


THIE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


among the best supports of the complaint.    The conclusion of the speech bears the sure stamp of genuineness.  It was a characteristic of Lysias that he loved
to end, not with a rhetorical appeal, but with a definite point, put in the fewest and plainest words.
Just such an ending we have here.      There are besides in the speech several passages quite worthy of
Lysias;-for instance, the opening remarks (~| 1-3);
--the reference to the fate of Dionysios (, 24, 25);and the speaker's tribute to his own father ( 26-28).
ieJerence   The reference in S 31 is of some interest.   The
inz ~ 31 to t ih3
Trants.' speaker says that, immediately on reaching the age of
eighteen-that is, in 399 or 398 B.c.-he had prosecuted  'the Thirty' before the Areiopagos.       Now
when the Thirty Tyrants left Athens in 403 B.c.,
Pheidon and Eratosthenes alone of their number
are known to have "stayed at Athens.      If the allusion here is to them, then we see that Eratosthenes
escaped at least the penalty of death when impeached by Lysias in 403.
Th,      The so-called Second Speech Against Theomrestos
' SecondZi
Speech an 'x      s
_Eilo. [Or. xi.] is -merely an epitome of the First, made by
som1e grammarian later than Harpokration1.       The
epitome preserves    for the   most   part the   very
words of its original, with which it corresponds as
follows:Epitome ~~    1--- 2 = Speech ~~  1-   5......... *   3-- 6 =......    6-20.........    7-10 =......  21-29.........  1-12 =......   30-32.
SWho in  no one  of his six  reer-  omnstos (see above) distinguishes
enecs to the specch Against The- it by a'.




XI.]


L IrSI~A S. TR 'S


297


II. ACTION BY A WARD AGAINST A GUARDIAN
Against Diogeiton. [Or. xxxni.] --After describing I'- 4gaý
in detail the charuacteristics of Lysias, Dionysios illustrates his criticism by giving extracts from a Forensic,
an Epideictic and a Deliberative Speech. The Olympiakos and the Defence of the Constitution (Or.
xxxiv.) supply his examples of the two latter classes.
The speech Against Diogeiton is chosen by him to specalt
zn  Z-)pr esti ge of
represent the distinctive excellences of Lysias in the this Speech.
forensic style'.  Photios, too, says expressly that it
was among the most admired of all its author's
works. It belongs to a class of private speeches
to which Dionysios gives a special title-- the inL-rpOWLKOt, Or those made in actions brought by wards
against their guardians"
Diodotos, an Athenian citizen, went to the coast Occasion
and Date.
of Asia as a hoplite under the command of Thrasyllos in 410 B.c.4,-the year of the battle at Kyzikos.
In 408 he waTas killed at Ephesos, when the troops
under Thrasyllos were defeated by the allies of Sparta5.
Before leaving Athens he had entrusted his two sons


Dionys. de Lys cc. 20-27.
2 Phot. Coc. 262    Oavu(iLovmat
ErVOL E a7ro0 ClXXnOt TE rWOXXol
XoOt Klt 8l) K(tL  7rp*OS AtLOyELTOL
ErwTpo7riv. After praising  it in
detail, he cenolude-Ks-( alt daXOE
o0xo  r v  Xoy OE 0tos  avuo-atU KOaTt 7E
Td o-XplaTa aKai Ta voripiar  KL rTA
ovoir1Ta KaL Tq  EVCivapiriO!v  TOvToDV
-(TVVO7Ki), Kanl 7Tiv  EupEOV TE K(ll0,rýv TE) 7!) 5FV f.7vl-CLTCE) TE KlL EWrLxfelpllpdacov.
3 De Lys. c. 20?oiE~ aN  & XAyiou
EK TI! iI-LTpOlrKo)1V.


4  avldwrov apXoV7o    Diony's.
Lys. c. 21, in his 7rciTrAssE  to the
speech.
5 Xenophon distinctly refers the
bttle at Ephesos, i l which the
troops of Thrasyllos were engaged,
to the arehonship of Euktlmon in
01. 93. 1, i.e. 408 B.C.: see Hellen.
I. ii. 1 and 7. Blass (Att. Ber. p.
620) puts the battle in 410; Grote
in 409 (vol. viii. p. 174). But the
statement of Xenophon, at least, is
clear. I once thought that in ~
7 of the speech we might read




298


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


and his daughter to the care of Diogeiton, who was at
once their uncle and their grandfather, since Diodotos
had married his own niece, the daughter of Diogeiton.
Eight years (~ 9) after his father's death-that is,
in 400 B.C.-the eldest son attained his majority.
Thereupon he was informed by Diogeiton that the
property left by Diodotos was exhausted, and that
he and his brother must shift for themselves.
This action was brought-probably in 400 B. C.by the eldest son. It is contended that Diodotos
had left altogether 15 talents and 26 minae. Diogeiton had at first represented the sum left as only
20 minae 30 staters, i. e. 26 minae altogether. But
he had since confessed to 7 talents and 40 minae
additional, i. e. 8 talents 6 minae in all. His accounts, however, made him out to have spent 8
talents 10 minae on his wards in eight years; so
that, instead of having a balance to hand over to
them, he was 4 minae out of pocket.
The speech is directed to showing, first, that the
property left by Diodotos was about double of that
to which Diogeiton owned; secondly, that his alleged
outlay was incredible.
The speaker is husband of the daughter of Diodotos and brother-in-law of the plaintiff. An action
of this kind was -rtttr,-that is, the plaintiff named
the sum which he claimed; as Demosthenes, for
instance, claimed ten talents from his guardians.
'EpE'a instead of 'E/(ýfop: since  other hand, does not agree with
Eresos in Lesbos was in fact the ET rXLXavLW7rrov apXovTro of
attacked by Thrasyllos in 411 B.C. Dionysios.
(Thuc. viii. 100). But this, on the




XI.]


L YSIA S.- WORKS.


299


It does not appear what precise sum      was claimed
from Diogeiton. The case would come before an ordinary court; and, as a ward was suing his guardian,
the president of the court would be the first Archon.
The speaker begins by explaining the necessity which Analysis.
forces him to appear against a relative. His brothers-in-law,
cruelly wronged, have besought his aid. Their grandfather
Diogeiton had rejected all attempts at mediation; they were
therefore driven to seek a legal remedy for his flagrant abuse
of his trust (~~ 1-3).
The narrative of facts falls into two parts:-(i) The circumstances under which Diogeiton was appointed guardian,
and his assumption of the office on the death of Diodotos:
~~ 4-8. (ii) The disclosure made by him to his eldest
ward on the latter coming of age, and the interview which
followed between the young man's mother and her father
Diogeiton: ~~ 9-18.
These facts having been proved by witnesses, the speaker
turns to the case set up by the defence. The defendant (i)
has denied receiving part of the property; and (ii) professes
to account for the rest:-~ 20. This account is scrutinised
in detail, and shown to be absurd. On the most liberal
reckoning, a balance of six talents should have been forthcoming (~~ 19-29).
Here the extract given by Dionysios ends. The
statement of the defendant as to the amount which
he had originally received must have been the next
topic; followed, probably, by the peroration.
This speech-or fragment-is admirable for two Ther woI
merit of the
things; the    compact marshalling     of a   mass   offpeech.
intricate details, so that the broad result is made
triumphantly clear; and the artistic treatment of
character.  Nothing could be better fitted to disarm
prejudice, or even to create one favourable to the
speaker, than the simple opening words.    They show




300


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHIIAP.


no bitterness against Diogeiton,-on the contrary,
annoyance    at having     to  appear against him-a
necessity for which no one but himself is to blame.
But the rhetorical skill is highest in the dramatic
passage where the plaintiff's mother is brought in
upbraiding her father Diogeiton with his purpose
of disinheriting her sons, and the effect of the pleading on those who heard it is described ( ~ 12-18).
III.   TRIAL OF A CLAIM TO PROPERTY (SiaSLKacrTa).
IIT. on the  On the Property of Eraton.      [Or. xvli.l'-This
Property of
Eraton.  is the only extant speech of Lysias in a diadikasia,i.e. in a case of a disputed claim (S&aSKao-[ca, ~ 10)
to property either between two private persons or between a private person and the State. Here the dispute lies between a private claimant and the State.
The speaker's grandfather had lent two talents
to Eraton, who died without having repaid them.
Eraton's three sons, Erasiphon, Eraton, and Erasistratos, failed to pay the interest. The speaker's
father therefore brought an action against Erasistratos, the only one of the three brothers who was
at Athens; and obtained an order for the payment
of the entire debt, principal and interest.
The title in the MSS. is 7repl follows Schott (0. A. i. p. 110) in
8qioo-lcov d)iKrqjpdrov. Reiske (Or. changing d3aLKTnLrmI v to Xprj7Facuv
Att. v. 588) thinks that this title is  and so prints it in his edition; but
common to our speech and to the  this is unsatisfactory. Hoelseher
next (7Trpl r?EVo-e(s r-v r-o NLKIOv  (ap. Blass, Att. Ber. p. 628) suggests
daE~Xov): and thatitmayhavestood  rpos Tb Orfaoov y rept rvo 'Ep(Ioriginally thus-AYSIOY HEPI TON  rwovos xprpda'r  (better 7repi rf v
IIPOI TO AH1MO2ION AAIKH-     'E. XP. wrpos rb 8.); and this would
MATRON AOrOI. Dobree concurs  be a better title
in this view (Adv. i. p. 233). Sauppe




XI.]


L YSIA S. - JITO  S.


301


His father having died about this time, the
speaker, in right of the verdict, took possession of
certain lands of Erasistratos at Sphettos, and claimed
at law  certain other lands at Kikynna, which the
representatives of Erasiphon, the      eldest brother,
refused to give up to him.
Meanwhile-for what reason is not stated-all
the property which had belonged to the elder Eraton1
was confiscated by the State.       The speaker was
obliged to give up the lands at Sphettos, which he
had already for two years been letting to tenants
(~ 5,) and to withdraw his claim to the others.
He now brings an action against the Treasury
for the partial satisfaction of his claim    upon the
property of Eraton.     The whole of this property
was (he says) insufficient to satisfy his claim.   Yet
he is ready to give up two-thirds of it to the State;
and rates the remaining third, which he demands
for himself, at 15 minae ( 7);-i.e. one-eighth       of
the sum originally lent by his father to Eraton.
The case is heard by an ordinary court, of which
the fiscal board of syndici (~ 10) were presidents.
Since the action against Erasistratos fell in the
archonship of Xenaenetos (~ 3), i.e. in 400 B.c., and Dte.
three years had elapsed since (~ 5), the date is 397
B.C., of which the winter months had already passed
(ib.).
The plaintiff begins by expressing a fear that the judges Analysis.
give him credit for powers of speech which he does not
possess-an exordium which suggests that he was at least
1 In ~ 6 'Epao-Lrcvros must be  elder Eraton), as appears from
altered to 'Eparcovos (meaning the  ~~ 4 f.




302


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


in some way distinguished (~ 1.)  He then gives a narrative, in three parts, of the facts just stated, witnesses being
called at the close of each part: (i) ~ 2: (ii) ~ 3: (iii) ~~ 4-9.
He ends by simply asking for a verdict (~ 10).
No gou      In this short speech there is no argument; the
for supposing this to.
be an   proofs are all 'inartificial, arTcxvOL oro-TEL: i.e. deepitome.
rived directly from   witnesses and documents.     But
there is certainly no reason for suspecting that we
have here merely an epitome of a longer oration,
like the so-called 'Second' speech      against Theomn6stos1.    Short as it is, the speech    is in every
respect complete and clear. There is nothing of
that crowding which is generally apparent in a
summary; the whole is on a small scale, but the
symmetry of the parts is perfect. Besides, each
section of the narrative is followed by a short recapitulation (~ 3, 4, 10). An epitomist would have
left out epitomes.
IV.   ANSWER TO A SPECIAL PLEA (7rp6$ 7rapaypac'v).
Iv. Against  Against Pankleon.     [Or. xxm.]--The speaker
Pcankleon.
had formerly indicted Pankleon, a fuller living at
Athens (~ 2), for some offence not specified; and
believing him to be a resident-alien, had summoned
him before the Polemarch, who heard cases in which
foreigners were concerned.    Pankleon thereupon put
in a 'plea to the jurisdiction,' on the ground that
he was a Plataean by birth, and, as such, entitled
at Athens to the rights of an Athenian citizen: and
SFrancken  (Comment. Lys. p.  rium,  aut  potius  excerptam  esse
123) says 'probabile mihi videtur, ex genuina Lysiaca;' and at p.
esse hane orationem comnmenta-  238 he describes it as 'epitome.'




XI.]


L YSLIS.- WORKS.


303


that, therefore, the action ought not to have been
brought before the Polemarch. This plea (vrapaypacj)ý
gave rise to a previous trial to decide whether the
action, in its original form, could be brought into
court (~ 5). In such a case the first speech was usually
made by the maintainer of the special plea': here
it is evidently made by the opponent2. The date
is uncertain.
With a promise that he will be brief, the speaker comes Anvlysis.
to the facts. Pankleon, on being summoned before the Polemarch, stated himself to be a Plataean by birth, son of
Hipparmodoros, and enrolled in the Attic deme of Dekeleia.
On inquiry3, the speaker learned that Pankleon was in fact
a runaway slave of a Plataean named Nikomedes. A few
days afterwards, Nikomedes actually claimed Pankleon as
his slave; but the latter was rescued by a gang of bullies
(~~ 5-12). He had once before been brought before the
Polemarch by a certain Aristodikos, and had blustered, but
had eventually given in. Before doing so, he had withdrawn
for a time to Thebes-a signal proof that he was no Plataean
(~~ 13-15). If the judges bear in mind these plain facts
the speaker is confident of a verdict (~ 16).
As in the last speech, so here all is narrative;


1 See e. g. the speeches of Demosthenes For Phormio and Against
Pantaenetos, and that of Isokrates
Against Kallimachos.
2 Meier and   Sch6mann, Att.
Proc. p. 648. The speaker makes
a full statement of the facts. He
would have assumed a general
knowledge of the case on the part
of the judges, and would have addressed himself rather to particular points, if Pankleon had spoken
before him.
3 The particulars of the inquiry


are curious. The speaker goes to
look for the Dekeleia men at a
barber's shop in the Hermae street
(leading from the Old to the New
Market-place), a regular resort
for the men of that deme-ro
Kovpeov TOb 7rap a rotL   Epfkv s Iva
oi AeEXeL 7r poofýoTrcao-w (~ 3).
He seeks the Plataeans, again, at
the cheese-market in    the Old
Agora-hearing that on the first
of every month EKEio-, orvXXEyovrat
o nIXaratEiL (~ 6).




301


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


there is no argument but the logic of facts.       These
are not stated with the same conciseness and clearness as in the former case; but there is no better
ground here than there for suspecting, with Francken,
the work of an epitomist1.
MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS.
1. To his Compcanions: a Complaint of Slacndcrs.
[Or. vi.]-A      friend   addresses friends who have
wronged him-states his grievances-and formally
renounces their acquaintance.
Analysis.   The opportunity is favourable for approaching this painful but unavoidable subject. He has before him both those
whom   he wishes to accuse and those whom he wishes to
witness the accusation (~~ 1-2). His so-called friends have
spoken of him   as having thrust his society upon them
(~~ 3-8). They have also persuaded him to buy an unsound
horse, and have since taken part with the seller (~~ 9--13).
Lastly, they have charged him with inciting others to slander
them (~~ 14-17). For all these reasons he renounces their
friendship. He will be safe now-for they attack only their
friends (~~ 18-20).
It is scarcely worth while to inquire how        this
curiously absurd composition first came among the
works of Lysias.     As it is too uniformly dreary to
be mistaken for a joke, not even a grammarian's
conception of his sportive style can explain the imputation.   The person who could thus take leave of
his friends is certainly'hard to imagine; but it is
1Comment. Lys. p. 238 'ex-  superque ab aliis refictam.' Docerpta ex Lysicca.' At p. 164 he  bree notices, and appears to endorse,
says only 'equidem spondere au-  a doubt of its genuineness; but
sim, hanc Lysiacam esse; sed aut  without assigning grounds (Adv.
non satis ab auctore aut satis I. 245).




XI.]


LYSIAS.-WORKS.


305


perhaps equally difficult-notwithstanding the amplitude of fatuity conventionally supposed in 'the late
sophist'-to fancy any one taking          such a subject
for an exercise 1
2.   The Erotikos in Plato's Phaedros (pp. 230 E The Erotikos in the
-234 c).-Plato makes Phaedros read to Sokrates Phaedr"o.
a speech of Lysias in which the claims of the nonlover are urged as against those of the lover.       Even
to ask whether this speech is or is not an actual
work of Lysias might seem at first sight to argue a
want of sympathy with the broad literary characteristics of the dialogues.   This speech of Lysias, it
might be assumed, is as much Plato's own creation
as the funeral speech by Aspasia which Sokrates
repeats in the Menexenos,-or as the discourses put
into the mouths of the sophists in the Protagoras,
or as those delivered by Aspasia, Agathon, Aristophanes and others in the Symposium.          The gravity
of the imitation is, of course, perfect; but only a
matter-of-fact reader could be misled by it.
This is probably the light in which the question
would appear at first to most readers of Plato. But
a nearer examination of the Phaedros brings out two
points which seem to distinguish this case in an important way from cases apparently analogous.
1 Benseler-a very close observer  Lysian style (Bens. de hiatu, pp.
of the style of Lysias-points out  182 f.). In ~ 17, again, one may
that in this Eighth Oration there  recognise very distinctly the ring
are hardly any examples of hiatus,  of the scholastic rhetoric- - v
and that such as do occur can  yap adoTeroEr1O VLV el8vat OiXkos, K.r.X.
easily be removed--e. g. in ~ 7  Some phrases in ~~ 2, 14 againby reading evioovvres for evvo  devavrtov 7-jS EXTrIor-6d 83 ro-rooV(res. Here, then-in this marked  rov Vrepe7-l rB 't e&d-are not like
avoidance of hiatus-we have at  the Attic of Lysias.
least one definite mark of a post20




306


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


1. Prepare-  The first point is the elaborate dramatic prepation for a
veb     ration made for such a recital of the speech as shall
exact recitla.  be verbally exact.    Phaedros is asked to repeat it
from memory-makes excuses-is pressed; and presently it turns out that he has the book with him.
Now if the speech was merely Plato's imitation of
Lysias, surely this preface would be somewhat heavy
-inartistic, indeed, as forcing attention too strongly
upon the illusion. It is perfectly fitting, on the
other hand, as the dramatist's apology for bringing
into his own work of art so large a piece of another's work1. There is surely a special emphasis
here:Phaedr. What do you mean, Sokrates? How can you
imagine that I, who am quite unpractised, can remember or
do justice to an elaborate work, which the greatest rhetorician of the day spent a long time in composing. Indeed,
I cannot; I would give a great deal if I could.
Sokr. I believe that I know Phaedros about as well as
I know myself, and I am very sure that he heard the words
of Lysias, not once only, but again and again he made him
say them, and Lysias was very willing to gratify him; at
last, when nothing else would satisfy him, he got hold of the
book, and saw what he wanted-this was his morning's occupation-and then when he was tired with sitting, he went
out to take a walk, not until, as I believe, he had simply
learned by heart the entire discourse, which may not have
been very long.... Therefore, Phaedros, as he will soon speak
in any case, beg him to speak at once.
Phaedr. As you don't seem very likely to let me off
until I speak in some way, the best thing that I can do is to
speak as I best may.
1 Phaedr. p. 228. It may be same emphasis which I recognise
noticed that at p. 243 c the speech  in the opening scene, as 0 dK rTO
of Lysias is designated, with the  pf3XLiov OOeis.




XI.]


L YSIAS.- WORKS.


307


Solcr. That is a very true observation of yours.
Phaedr. I will do my best, for believe me, Socrates, I
did not learn the very words; 0 no, but I have a general
notion of what he said, and will repeat concisely, and in
order, the several arguments by which the case of the nonlover was proved to be superior to that of the lover; let me
begin at the beginning.
Sockr. Yes, my friend; but you must first of all show what
you have got in your left hand under your cloak, for that
roll, as I suspect, is the actual discourse. Now, much as I
love you, I would not have you suppose that I am going to
have your memory exercised upon me, if you have Lysias
himself here1.
The second point to be observed is the closeness 2. character
of the critiof the criticism made by Sokrates on the speech- ism.
corresponding to the elaborateness of the contrivance
for an accurate report of it. General criticism of
expression or of moral drift would have been perfectly in place even if the speech had been fictitious.
But detailed criticism-recognition, on the one hand,
of 'clearness,' 'roundness,' 'polish' in every phraseon the other hand, ridicule of the chaos of topics, of
the repetitions, and especially of the beginning which
is no beginning-would this have much meaning or
force if the satirist were merely analysing his own
handiwork?
Solcr. Well, but are you and I expected to praise the
sentiments of the author, or only the clearness, and roundness, and accuracy, and tournure of the language?...I thought,
though I speak under correction, that he repeated himself
two or three times, either from want of words or from want
of pains2....
1 pp. 234 E--235 A. (From the Translation by Professor Jowett.)
Sp. 235 E.
20-2




308


THIE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


Again, further on:SoJcr. Read, that I may have his exact words.
Phaedr. (reading). 'You know my views of our common
interest; and I do not think that I ought to fail in the object
of my suit because I am not your lover, for lovers repent of
the kindnesses which they have shown, when their love is
over.'
Sokr. Here he appears to have done just the reverse of
what he ought; for he has begun at the end, and is swimming on his back through the flood of words to the place of
starting.... Then as to the other topics-are they not a mass
of confusion? Is there any principle in them? Why should
the next topic or any other topic follow in that order? I cannot help fancying in my ignorance that he wrote freely off
just what came into his head....
Then comes the comparison of the speech to the
epitaph  on Midas, and Phaedros can bear it no
longer:
You are making fun of that oration of ours.
Sokr. Well, I will say no more about your friend, lest I"
should give offence to you2....
It is surely clear that the speech of Lysias is both
so introduced and so handled by Plato as to stand
on a wholly different ground from such dramatic
fictions as those in the Protagoras, where the sophists
are persons of the drama, imitated in their general
method and style of discourse; or from the fiction
of Aspasia's authorship in the Menexenos-a fiction,
indeed, which Plato has taken so little trouble to
keep up that he makes her allude to the Peace of
Antalkidas3. It would not be much to the purpose
to analyse the composition of the Erotikos, or to


1 p 2G3 E.


2 p. 264 D.     3 Menex. p. 245 c.




XI.]


LYSI~SAS.-OLS


309


show that it bears the special marks of the style of
Lysias1. This could prove nothing. Plato could have
imitated Lysias, if he had chosen, without much
danger of being found out by us. It is the evidence
of the dialogue, not the evidence of the speech itself,
which is important.
Lysias is the earliest known writer of Erotic discourses2; and he is in a twofold sense the object of
Plato's attack in the Phaedros. The primary subject
of that dialogue is the antithesis between the false
and the true Rhetoric.    The true Rhetoric springs
from Dialectic, and Dialectic from love of the ideas.
Hence the secondary subject of the dialogue is the
antithesis between false and true Love.     Lysias is
by his profession a representative for Plato of the
false Rhetoric; by his Erotikos in particular he is the
representative of the false Eros. Plato could have
imitated well enough for his purpose the general
rhetorical characteristics of Lysias; but he embodied
the Erotikos in his dialogue, because, further, he
wished Lysias to speak for himself upon a special


subject3.
1 Blass (Att. Ber. p. 422) points
out that, plain as the style of the
Erotikos is on the whole, there is
rather more rhetorical ornament
of the type made popular by Gorgias than Lysias usually employed:
see e. g. p. 233 E EKelvoL yap Kal
dyarrjoovo-   Kat dKOXOvro7ov'O-Ot
Katl ETr raC Ov'pas  2) ovto-  Kal padXto-ra 'ro-Or7'ov-oraTL Katl OK  aXtOlTrrv Xadpv eItaovTrat Kal roXXa
dya0a avirois ei~ 0ovrat. In such
a piece as this-written very likely,
as Grote suggests (Plato I. 254),


simply for the amusement of
friends -it was natural enough
that Lysias should have drawn
upon the UK'vLta of the Sicilian
school rather more than he would
have allowed himself to do in a
graver performance.
2 Dr Thompson, Phaedr. p. 151
note 3.
3 In the foregoing discussion I
have purposely abstained from attempting to examine several arguments, turning on more or less fine
points of style, which have been




310


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CIAP.


FRAGMENTS.
Three hundred and thirty-five fragments of every
kind, from speeches, letters or unknown works, are
arranged and examined by Sauppe, Oratores Attici,
vol. n. pp. 170-216. Of this number, 252 represent 127 speeches of known title. Six of the 127
are represented by fragments more considerable than
the rest. These six demand a few words of notice.


brought forward on each side. The
fact that we have to do with such
a literary artist as Plato seems
to minimize the value of any argument which might be founded
on the internal evidence of the
speech. As to external evidence,
we know only (1) that Dionysios
and the pseudo-Plutarch mention
EpWrTLKOl among the works of Lysias; (2) that this particular pcoTLKOS  was thought really his by
Diogenes Laertius (In. 25), by Hermeias p. 63 (quoted in Spengel's
-vvayoy 7 rEXZor, p. 126); and (as
Dr Thompson points out, Phaedr.
p. 184, Appendix ii.) by Cornelius
Fronto-who took it as one of his
models in his extant Ep&rtLK6 to
Marcus Aurelius.   I would add
that the reference of Hermogenes
(repi 18. I. 12, Sp. Rh. Gr. In. 331)
makes it plain that he thought the
EpJ)LK os authentic. The evidence


of the dialogue in which the speech
is set must decide the question.
This is, to my mind, conclusive for
the authenticity.
Modern critics have been much
divided. Among those who believe
the Erotikos genuine are Sauppe
(Or.Att. ii. p. 209), Spengel (o-vv.
rEXVcV, p. 126), Blass (Att. Ber.
p. 416-423-where L. Schmidt
is quoted as agreeing)-and Dr
Thompson in his edition of the
Phaedros: see esp. Appendix i.
Among those who regard the discourse as fictitious are Stallbaum
(Lysiaca ad illustrandas Phaedri
Platonis origines, Leipz. 1851);
C. F. Hermann (Gesammelte Abhandlungen, pp. 1 ff.); K. O.
Milller (Hist. Gr. Lit. c. 35, vol.
i. p. 140 ed.Donaldson); and Professor Jowett, in his Introduction
to the dialogue (Translation, vol. I.
p. 553).




XI.]


L YSIA S. - WORKS.


311


In a Public Cause.
1.  Against Kinesias [LXXIII., LXXIV. Frag. Speeches.
143 in Sauppe].
In Private Causes.
2. Against Tisis [cxix. 231, 232].
3. For Pherenikos [cxx. 233, 234].
4.  Against the Sons of Hippokrates [LXII.
124].
5. Against Archebiades [xix. 44, 45].
6. Against Aeschines [I. 1-4].
1. Against Kinesias. -Harpokration mentions 1. Against
two speeches of Lysias against Kinesias. One ofKinesias.
these was probably identical with that speech of
Lysias ' For Phanios' from which Athenaeos (xIII.
p. 551 D) gives an extract. Phanios had been accused by Kinesias of proposing an unconstitutional
measure (lrapavcwtLv).   The short extract in question
is a personal attack    upon   Kinesias,   whose    impiety, and unfitness, therefore, to be the champion of
the laws, are set forth. He is described as having
belonged to a club the members of which styled
themselves KaKO 8atovto-rTaL-' the Mephistophelians'
-in ridicule of societies who chose carefully euphemistic names1. As the latter held their meetings on
the first of the month, the seventh, or some such
auspicious day, so this society made a point of meeting on one of the black days of the calendar (d7ro4pdcESe lxnepal). Kinesias is satirised by Aristophanes,
1 Such as the vovprtvtaa-ral men- vtao-rcv KaKo0atfiovto'ras O'lO'itV
tioned in Frag. 143-davr vovfli- avrolT rouvoiza OIeevot.




312


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CirAP.


partly for his dithyrambs, partly for his atheism';
and enjoyed the distinction of having a whole comedy
written about him by Strattis2.
The next four fragments have all been preserved
by Dionysios; who quotes the first of them in comparing Lysias with Demosthenes-the other three,
in contrasting Lysias with Isaeos.
P. Against  2. Against Tisis.-Tisis, a young Athenian, had
Tisis.
quarrelled with one Archippos at the palaestra; had
treacherously invited him to supper afterwards; and
then tied him to a pillar and flogged him. Archippos
brought an action for assault and battery (calKCa
8KY1); and the present speech was written for him by
Lysias. The extract given by Dionysios3 contains the
narrative of the facts, which he compares with the
similar narrative in the speech of Demosthenes against
Konon (~g 3-9).    The critic remarks that to other
excellences Demosthenes joined     those which distinguished the narrative style of Lysias-clearness
and naturalness.
8. For     3. For Pherenikos.-This fragment is concerned
Pherenikos.
with historical names. Plutarch4 mentions Pelopidas,
Androkleidas, Pherenikos as the principal of the Thebans who fled to Athens when the Kadmea was seized
by Phoebidas in 382 B.C. It appears that Androkleidas had died soon after their arrival, and that
Pherenikos had taken possession of his property. He
was sued for it by a rival claimant, probably also
a Theban; and the present speech was made in his
1 Ar. Ran. 366: Eccl. 330: Lys. 227 f.
838, 852.                      De Demosth. c. 11.
2 Meineke, Com. Graec. I. pp.  4 Pelop. c. 5.




XI.]


LYSIAS.- WORKS.


313


defence by an Athenian citizen, who had been hospitably received at Thebes by Kephisodotus, father
of Pherenikos, in the exile of 404 B.c. Dionysios
expressly says that the speech was made for Pherenikos as for a e&o0-which is against the improbable
statement of Aristeides' that the Athenian franchise
had been given to the Theban exiles on this occasion.
As the exiles were restored to Thebes in 379, this
speech must belong to the year 381 or 380, and is
therefore the latest known work of Lysias. Quoting
a passage of the same kind from      a lost oration of
Isaeos2-in which the advocate explains the motives
of gratitude which have prompted him to come forward-Dionysios compares it with this extract.       In
Isaeos, we hear the rhetorician; here it is the private
friend who recounts in the simplest but most telling
words the great services which Pherenikos and his
father had rendered to the Athenian refugees.
4. Against the Sons of Hippokrates.-A guardian4. Again.t
the Sons oj
is here defending himself against a charge of malver-.ppokrasation in his trust which had been brought against
him by his wards. Dionysios3 places an extract from
the opening of this speech beside a defence written
by Isaeos for a guardian; and remarks upon the difference between the styles in which they respectively
resent the imputation.     The client of Isaeos uses
elaborate phrases; the client of Lysias speaks like a
plain man, expressing a natural sense of hardship
1 Panath. p. 300 c.        On this and the two next Frag2 cUrep EviidOovS, els E\EVplav  ments, see vol. II. pp. 277 f., 365 f.
d CalIpeo-t. Dionj s. de Isae. c. 6.  3 De Isaeo c. 6.




314


THE ATTIC ORATORS.


[CHAP.


at the   recompense    which his wards     are  giving
him.
5. Against  5.  Against Archebiades.-A       young   Athenian
A rchebica"ade.   citizen who has lately succeeded to a fortune by his
father's death is sued byArchebiades for a debt alleged
to have been contracted by his father. The point of
the contrast which Dionysios1 illustrates by an extract from this speech is the same as in the two
last cases.  Isaeos, too, had once occasion to write
for a young client inexperienced in lawsuits. Yet
even here he could not prevent his artificialism from
showing itself. Lysias, on the contrary, has given
to the life the character of a man who was never
in a law-court before, who does not deserve to be
there now, and who hopes never to be there again.. Agst      6. Against Aeschines.-The Aeschines in question
A eschines.
here is that disciple whom Sokrates once advised 'to
borrow from   himself by shortening his commons'.
Athenaeos3 quotes a curious passage from this speech
by way of exemplifying the truth that philosophers
are not always philosophers.       'Who would have
supposed,' he says, 'that Aeschines the Sokratic had
been such a character as Lysias makes him in one
of his speeches on contracts?' (Ev To-o  Tv -vJPLpoXaOwv
Xodyot.)  The 'contract' to which the speech cited
by Athenaeos referred was a debt, due from Aeschines
to the speaker. It is not clear, as Blass remarks, how
Aeschines came to be plaintiff instead of defendant
1 De Isaeo c. 10.          SavelEco-rOa rTCV aricowv v(at2 Diog. Laert. II. 62, CaoTi ' po vTa.
avr  XE-eLv coKPaC7 arv, E7Ttrre8qp  a XIII. p. 611 ).
~tE7trTO wOEICIS, 7rap Eavrov




XI.]


LYSIAS.-WORKS.


315


in the action; that he was so, however, is plain from
the opening words. Aeschines had applied for a
loan to help him to set up in business as a distiller
of perfumes (rT'xvyv  vpeiýfKm v KaTraOKEvdCEo'-Oa8). The
speaker had lent him the money, 'reflecting that
this Aeschines had been a disciple of Sokrates, and
was in the habit of discoursing impressively concerning Justice and Virtue.' Then come some scandalous
stories about Aeschines.    The genuineness of the
speech has been elaborately attacked by Welcker1,
who takes it to be the work of a later rhetorician,
inspired by hatred of philosophers generally.      He
thinks it too coarsely defamatory for Lysias. This
kind of argument is scarcely satisfactory when not
supported by particular evidence; and in this case
there is none. Sauppe and Blass seem right, then,
in holding the fragment to be genuine. The broad
comedy of the latter part is remarkable2.
Letters are mentioned among the writings of Letters.
Lysias by Dionysios, by the pseudo-Plutarch and


1 The substance of his view, as
explained in an essay, Undchtheit
der Rede des Lysias gegen den
Sokratiker Aeschines, is given by
Sauppe, 0. A. II. p. 170.
2 Besides this fragment - to
which Athenaeos (xiii. p. 611 D)
gives the title, xrpos Alo-Xivu'v rv
ESwKpartKov XPEcO-two others are
cited by the lexicographers; viz.
(1) KarT Al'ort'vov Trep't rTT  8raqceVo"E).M rcv 'Apto-ropdvovS Xpqiadr-Ov:~
Ilarpokr. s. v. Xz-rpot: and (2) rrpos
Alo-Xlv v OX6afr]"s: Bekker anecd.
p. 132, 23.  Sauppe thinks that
neither of the   two latter was


against the Sokratic. Aesehines
was one of the commonest names.
Diogenes Laertius (1. 64) mentions
eight bearers of the name who
were  all more or less distinguished. The speech rEp'i O-VKOOavrila  which Diogenes notices
in  the same chapter as having   been  written   by  Lysias
against the Sokratic Aeschines is
very likely that from which our
fragment comes: see its opening
words-vopdo 8' oVK av paSq&i  avrav &rTpav ra6TrrS (8KtV) crVKOt()avrTeo'r-TIpav E Evpelv.




316


3TIHE ATTIC ORATORS. CA


[CIIA.P. XI.


by Suidas'. The last-named speaks of seven; one, 'a
business letter' (1TpaypucLrK'V), is generally identified
with the letter to Polykrates cited by larpokration.
In the other six may probably be included the letter
(or address) in the Phaedros; the Er6tikos quoted
by larpokration; and the letters *to Asybaros and
Metaneira. A few short sentences are all that remain. But two of these are interesting; each belongs, apparently, to a letter written after some coolness or misunderstanding with a friend; and each
of them shows in the writer a characteristically eager
warmth towards friends,


1 Dionys. De Lys. c. 3, cf. c. 1:
[Plut.] Vit. Lys.: Suidas s. v. Av2 The two fragments are nos.
260, 261 in Sauppe, 0. A. r. p. 210.
In the second there is a striking


phrase:-'I thought I was knitted
to you by such friendship'-Co'O'TE
/17'18  v rtly r 'EttwEc8OKX`OVi9 E'XOpav hr(xiia a&ao-Tro-(raL, i. e.,"'that
not the Principle of Enmity itself
could have parted us,'


END OF VOL. I.


CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AT TEE U!MIVEUSITY PRESS.