MASTER NEGATIVE NO. 91-80189 MICROFILMED 1991 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK as part of the "Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project" Funded by the NATION.\L ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES Reproductions may not be made without permission from Columbia University Library COPYRIGHT STATEMENT The copyright law of the United States - Title 17, United States Code - concerns the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material... Columbia University Library reserves the right to refuse to accept a copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of the copyright law. AUTHOR: DARKOW, ANGELA C TITLE: THE SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE PL A CE : BRYN MAWR DA TE : 1917 ResLrictioiiS vi\ lise c:c ) 1 1 J N 1151 A u N 1 \- 1 ■: K^:, 1 r^- lib r a k 1 1- s I'RliSliRVATlON DliPARTMIiNT 15115!J0C;RAI'HIC MICROI ORiM TARGE F Master Negative # ni'Am^ri. Original ivlaleiiai as iaiiiicd -■■ HAi:Uing Bibliogia|')hic Rucuid I 38L98 DD2 Da,rkow, Angela Ciiaiiotte, l^^a-- 'l^^'' >pari(.iis -iMMW-h^-s in the? .Lvsiaiiie corpus . iiv \,r~ gfla (J. iJarivuw. Jir\ii ,Ma\vr, Pa., HUT. 95, a; p. 2y^. Thesis ua. u,) ia-vn Mawr coilrre. Vita. "l,ia of rcfercncca' ; p. [3^.^. I. Title. 117!! 7 1^. brary of Congress Cop3rig!.: A 460508 17-12942 •n-CaNICAL MICKOrORM DATA i'lLM SlZli: 3b"7>1.^> 7 ,_ laaJUCTION RATIO: IMAGE PLACl-Mliaa-; lA "AXi^ IB I!i5 DATE FILM I- a : '^^'^. ;■ .? - ^- . INI T I A I. S j.h ^'i^jj^j; FILMED BY: Rl^SI'AKCI! FUBLICATIONS, INC \V(A )Dl}l Columbia Mnifaersitp in tfte Citp of ^eto Borb LIBRARY -^•ya>'ir.,:,f»«:!r»F'^^^"^7^'^-'>^-g- riie Spurious Speeches in the Lysiaiiic Corpus PkliblNThD in Tnl- fACVnvof BRYN MAWR COLLLuh IN PARTi\. M.:L|-|LMi.Ni ^.f T:ih RLQi: IREMENTb FOR THh DLGREL Ul DOCTOR OF PrilLuSOP'iV BY '^^CiFLA C, DARKOW \\\ I'Rt'X MAWR, PENNSYLVANIA MARCH, 1917 Copyright, 1917, by Angela C. Darkow i-. i I ' - a ■ h •■. ■« ; ^ . , r. 8, A. LIST OF REFERENCES. For the sake of brevity, I give the following list of v\ oil - t » which reference is constantly made Other citations are r i aoi in fitil wiirrr occasion arises. All ciiatioii^^ are made iii iiie c!ircirail();^it;c] ccaltc' oi \\]v C'lrnon^ ii^ed, cxceist in case'- oi recc>c:iii/e(l (ici'didiac/* -i-ci- a< that of Jebl) ciixci Ida-.-, -altische Bered^aiCikiat ACaTiic. r. D., Lysias, Selected Speech r=;. Xew V-a-k. !ik,^5. /\!Crt',ia, r. Do I.ysiae oratione vigesiiaa. Bcrh-:, iH-R. Bakr. y, bchoiica f U'pomneiiKCa, I,.,t'\-M;i-. ^'tl^u!ara I'k'.k^ ^. lii-n-fitT, n. F,, De hiatii u\ > ratiakkn- Ata;ci- i-rtakt-ru. ;^4i. Bi^rgk^ 'i'., Griechische I /aaa■;ita^iM•N^!^!^k^t^ k\ . Hr-c-n, i^a; lHT!ihark\, (k , Wissentschaftikka- k\'ntax (k a- Kac 'aa-va- :■ Sprache, Ik'^'ki;, jaj'j, kk r W Aa A Fkedsamkeit P, Leipzig, 1887. }k)ckh, }'- A., Du ^^aiatshaushaltung der kdu-r:-', BtAna 1886. k--(nk. _k H,, k)-;<^r (; a I iT. Bra ^-.ta, kk it \, Histoire a? ki Bit! era air-? XrcCiiuc i\'', Paris, xv/ao. k)(Xr^4k. |-Xa?icke.'a, A \k, ( '? annir^aaia ^a*--- !A-^aaai«a I irfciik 18^/5^ i'kai!ikfk k\ K ^ l)c .-raaf nt- arc fka;, -arato habita, Bcrkn. 186^, kkaia/. J,^ k\-Ma.r ^ aaa;vait-. atuttkiart. i^?T. i-kXa^er-jc r, ' i. A,, Au-arw.aiite Brku': '''V-- l,.\<-ui<. Bt'[>zsa, iH66flF. Xfkaiaa,, X,. ,-\u«'ar\vakkr Krkia; dcs k) >ao, Ckaa]l)ergark Leipzig, X'';vrK. c7. D^-^putatK aa- kt; k\'-tat; ra'^AifXii aactore. caput aitcrum, kMCtaiiHa), I a, a I. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Gleiniger, T., Hermes IX (1875), i5off. Grote, G., History of Greece', London, 1869 f. Guide, O. R. J., Quaestiones de Lysiae oratione in Nicomachum, Berlin, 1882. Halbertsma, T., Lectiones Lysiacae, Utrecht, 1868. Hallensleben, H., De orationis, quae inter Lysiacas fertur octava, r.itione et tempore commentatio, Arnstadt, 1887. Hamaker, H. A., Quaestiones de nonnullis Lysiae orationibus, London, 1843. Hanisch, E., Lysiae Amatorius, Leipzig, 1827. Becker, A., De oratione in Eratosthenem trigintavirum Lysiae false tributa. Ley den, 1847. Hentschel, J. M., Quaestionum de Lysiae oratione Epicratea (XX VH) capita duo, Meissen, 1874. Ihrrmann, K.. Zur Echtheitsfrage von Lysias X Rede und iiber das \ crh.iltiiiss zwischen Rede X und XI, Hannover, 1878. Herwerden, H. van, Lysiae Orationes. London, 1899. Hoffmeister, l)i quibusdam locis XX orationis Lysiacae, Stargard, 1872. iiufmeister. A., Uber Gebrauch und Bedeutung des Iota Demon- strativum bei den attischen Rednern, Halle, 1877. Holscher, C. G. L.. De Lysia, Berlin, 1837. Hoyer, R., Alkibiades Vater und Sohn in der Rhetorenschule, Kreuz- nach, 1887. Hude, K. T., Lysiae Orationes, Oxford, 1913. Hudtwalcker, M. H., Uber die Offentlichen und Privat-schiedsrich- ter Diactcten in Athen und Process vor Denselben, Jena, 1812. III! ,\! W., De Lysiae contra Philonem oratione, Upsala, 1868. It ! !., r-ir R., Attic Orators I, London, 1876. Jnu. tr, B., The Dialogues of Plato P, Oxford, 1892. Kayser, L., Philologus XX\^ (1867), 321 if. Kir TI Die Rechtstrage in Lysias' neunte Rede, Niirnberg, 1894. I aiidweer, G. J., De epitaphio qui Lysiae vulgo tribuitur, Groningen, 1879. Mahaffy, J. P., History of Classical Greek Literature II, New York, 1880. Markland, J., in Reiske, Oratores Graeci \" Leipzig, 1772. M 1 . hmann, W., Die Charaktere bei Lysias, Miinchen, 1905. Mi 1 A . Observationes de elocutione Lysiae I. llalic, 1877. M ilhr. n, Geschichte der Grieschischen Litteratur \\\ F.reslau, 1857. Xi!/ ir R., Uber die griechischen Grabreden der klassischen Zeit X r kii, i ., Antike Kunstprosa, Leipzig, 1898. Nowack, F., Leipziger Studien XII (1890), iff. Pabst, O. R., De orationis vnep tov ffrpanuTov quas inter Lysiacas tradita est causa, authentia, integritate, Leipzig, 1890. Parow, H., De orationis quae inter Lysiacas locum obtinet vicesimum, Halle, 1870. Pertz, C. A., Quaestionum Lysiacarum caput secundum, Clausthal, 1862. Pohl, A., De oratione pro Polystrato Lysiaca, Strassburg, 1881. i'olak, H. J., Mnem. XXXI (1903), I57 ff- I'retzsch, B., De vita Lysiae oratoris temporibus definiendis, Halle, 1881. Rauchenstein, R., Ausgewahlte Reden des Lysias, Fuhr'", Berlin, 1889. Reinhardt, €., De Isocratis aemulis, Bonn, 1873. Reiske, J. J., Oratores Graeci V, Leipzig, 1772. Rogholt, L. P., Ps. Lysias oratio contra Andocidem, Groningen, 1893. Sachse, E. G., Quaestionum Lysiacarum specimen, Halle, 1873. Scheibe, K. F., Jahn's Jahrb. XXXI (1841), 355 ff. Scholl, R., Quaestiones fiscales iuris attici ex Lysiae orationibus illustratae, Berlin, 1873. Schomann, G. F., Griechische Altertiimer I', Berlin, 1871. Siegfried, E., De multa quae cTrt^oXij dicitur, Berlin, 1876. Sittl K., Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur II, Miinchen, 1884. Sluiter, J. O., Lectiones Andocideae, ed. Schiller, Leipzig, 1834. Spengel, L., ffwayujyr} 7 t^fwi'. Stuttgart, 1828. Stutzer, E., Hermes XIV (1879), 499 ff- Taylor, J., in Reiske, Oratores Graeci V, Leipzig, 1772. Teichmiiller, G., Litterarische Fehden, Breslau, 1884. Ihalheim, T. F., Lysiae Orationes, Leipzig, 1901. Thomaschik, P., De Lysiae epitaphii authentia verisimili, Breslau, 1887. Thompson, W. H., The Phaedrus of Plato, London, 1868. \ahlen, J., Uber die Rede des Lysias in Platos Phaedrus, Sitzungsber. rr \kad. zu Berlin, 1903, II, 788 ff. \ ogel, F., Analecta I aus griechischen Schriftstellern, Furth, 1901, 33 ff. Wagner, R., De infinitivo apud oratores atticos cum articulo coni- uncto, Schwerin, 1884. Weber, H. H., De Lysiae quae fertur contra Andocidem oratione (VI), Leipzig, 1900. \\ cidner, A. C., Lysiae Orationes Selectae, Leipzig, 1888. Weineck, A., Das Geburtsjahr des Lysias und die sich daran kniip- fenden Fragen, Mitau, 1880. Weinstock, H . De erotico Lysiaco, Westfalen, 1912. LIST OP REFERENCES V n ? * Lysiae Orationes, Leipzig, 1854. W ■ t endorff, U. von, Aristoteles und Athen, Berlin, 1893. \\ if. 1 \ a ratio intercedat inter Lysiae epitaphium et Isocratis n ; ,^icum, Berlin, 1895. \\ t ft I C De Lysiae oratione vrcep rov ddv^irov quaestiones, Leip- J.t u« Zutt Die Rede des Andokides wepl rwv fivarripluv und die Rede des Lysias va-' 'Av5ok18ov I, Leipzig, 1891. ■ li ti2 ct ' -^o his :set, siiict; >hocles iter's ■ 1 rough t out by INTRODUCTION. The following dissertation on '' The Spurious Speeches in Liic Lysianic Corpus " is the outcome of an investigation of the essential rharncteristics of Lysias' work. Lysi: master of ethopoiia led me fir-* *• direct ^^" methods of presentation of cha r f I err ^ ^Im m iracredy, a trained 1 perception 15 liccut^i 1 delicacy of touch, and one mav not he do-M in prose, where no stage directions can be hi vagaries of metre, and characters cannot ' < means of dialogue, the reader must supply u make-up, setting and role. Isocrates V. 26 mentions tlic necc:3Siiy oi reading ethos into written speeches, and, mdeed, since pro-e 1- f:e more readily subjective vehicle, it is not strange to find 1 > of thought and phrase recurring in ilic mouths of characters. I considered the speeches generalh acmur ti < light of this investigation of :' r^oiia, ami -onie notably VI, VIII, IX, X, XXI\ l found by n- HI this quality. I then turned lu aii examination c upon which so-called spurious speerhe'=^ have ' < found that in the majority of cases the final objecr. suitability for delivery in the law court. It was necessar) therefore, to investigate the position of iogographv in ireiH'ral and that o( i,}"-ia- in particular, since seemed to me ta:nain iiiat tiic criterion aiiiriuir a'ks as ( lilC lem, iin ^' I' i I a- nu' work ad\ of applicabilii 10 actual pleading is a false one. Th temporar) 1 vidence, at least, does not point to Lysias as a logographcr ■ tie bcn5c of one who \vr to use in coin 1 Yet this suggestion is so and must rest 1 1 -t 1y on negative argument decided to subject to detailed examination the tvalmc ta: ic >{)eeches for clients -ii!)\'er>i vc ■ + *■»--. iicU 1 h 8 SPURIOUS SPEECHES TN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS T.vsias' case only, leaving for a future study the position of t\]v urat r it! rally in this respect, and what seems to me the t : n assumption that the extant work of the Greek orators ' r ult of writing speeches for clients to deliver in court Ui lour iiuiidrcd and twenty-five speeches attributed to Lysia^ in antiquity, only two hundred and thirty were considered genuine by Dionysius and Caecilius/ One hundred and seventy-two are known to us by name ; " of these, thirty-one sin !\ ( more or less luiaci, and parts of three othcib are quoted 1> h" y-iii^ Of the thirty-one, six ^ are cited with some reser\.itH)ri by Harpocration, and five others* without any sus- picion of their authenticity. Of the value of Harpocration's €t yi'A/*r «,s I lie form usually taken by his reservation, we are niKilu In liiil^e. We do not even know whether he based it ujjon litt judgment of his predecessors, or upon a criterion of his own. Photius ° mentions as a radical scholar a certain Paiiiii nf Mysia ' who through his rejections deprived posterity ui ui.iuy gciiuiiic ^peeches of Lysias. If ancient scholars took sue!! llertie^ with the text, — and it is due in part at least to their excisions, that of four hundred and twenty-five speeches once attributed to Lysias, only thirty-one survive, — it appears iliai I Ik presence of a speech in the Lysianic corpus argues that the ])resumptioti of its genuineness is considerably increased. Dionysius, in his study of Lysias' work, a study obviously iinui It ait I] from a purely literary point of view, niddc the ulti- mau t rit< ra>n of the genuineness of his work so intangible a (jiial!!) I- xilp^s,' and yet this quality cannot, as he himself admits, lu kfiiK .1. hill 11111! be intuitively apprehended. The English wall] " fhariri "' >cvin> liic bf-l iraii-lation. Should this cri- itiini. he a]>i>]ied to all Lysias' speeches? Certainly invective I- laa h! 1 1) to possess to any high degree the quality of charm. " Ps. Plttt 8^^ = Photius cod. 262, 488b, 15. ' See Blass, 357 ff. h ! 1 cod. Jij2. ' XTW XXIV VXX. i Xn. XX, kW:). For V, see Blass, 362. ' ;i>tc under VII. Mo ff. SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSLANIC CORPUS Tt is on the ground of absence of this quality, that Dionysius rejected the two speeches for iphicrates (frgg. X\ III and LXV), a rejection which after his manner he supports on the basis of chronological difficulties. Chronology would, indeed, seem to be the only fair and objective ground for rejection, if we had reasonably certain knowledge of dates. In spite of Dionysius' rejection, we find the former of the two, tt^o? ApfioSiov TTcpt Ic^iK/aarors Swptwi/, (cited by Dionysius as ^rcpt rij^ 'l(f>LKpdTovt c 448 for defenders of its genuineness. lO SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS Mivressfuilv tfian tlocs Protagora^' objection lu liic iiii|H'rative ill the cjiK'nniL; line- of the Iliad cast doubts iipnn ihrT L;rniiUK'Hr>s. ^ ■ ' V those of ancient times have been active aid rejection of T.vsias' speeches. Only ix " (>\ irie iliiriy-onc speeches remrniiiinr t** u^ have not bteii at!:u;kct nuaiiiuii il or XI ; Ilude, the latc^l editor f^ L\'^ia-, ihou-h ccMi-alta-in^ several of the speecbo- probably -aiiraai^. brackets onh \ iX aial XT." XI fat iHi generally con^ahaad as epitome of X ]i was IXaiiuXta! vXiM ar-i applied tjxtciaaxa-h in nihri" -prc\_iiC:) ut I .\ ^!a:> trie liaj* aa' I ha! ihey are epit^ a^a/a I h •- t xaaaJr hn«^ been faalifula, uni r^^v^\, aial his nieilaX a..s been applied to vari'.as s|u't.,-ahc«>, ,Man\ -cholars have justly inx aia!'<''l against it.'* it i- a(it .ail\- aaaipable of proof, but ianira'\ na-au-faatory as a iaa:in> ni fxplaaanir diffiniii a,--, }■ urnaaar;,' iia:. t!a.' in:>i:5lcnce in Xl- Xlaualr jj^^' 'X;? ? 'liaedrus -hall rn.^u Lysias' speech, atal not aiva aa faai.rna uj At<^aAatot« t\ 1,,'unposi- teiaia-l t-* t-aaXa->a/a ila; a, .a a.,t: ! a-^-a-N' tuin fiaaai ia.iu In a aoiuubion haU^.ia-ii i o<" /.tX^?*, uju. . . , €pv)Ta 1234c) '^naa- a* ! anc a!ilita.l nature a; !a/-a.i-' speeches, which (264c) arc aniiai/tal a> lackifii; iiead ana tail, i here seems therefore to La a i recognized char- i. Ill XXL>X\ I, XXXli, XXXIV. 44a, a. a X*f«ief. ad fin. "See Nowack, 99 f. IS 1« SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS II aatc ! ' 1 I ■• 1 tar' lu I vsias' work that tnt^ht lend semblance to the possi- U-. <:aa speech beiiur ar^ lantM-me. ^j-,.n!w' u r 1 ca. Acc^u.ag to Burgess, Epideictic Literature, Chicago, 1902, jj a a . re are in Isocrates indications of "the triple division made so distu a : n a permanent by Aristotle ". . , . . . „„ j ^^ ^.^ ;„ »in • ■ ^ .-'■ ■• at caa^aru^a (|uale!n tria genera sint, sed ea tum Ul negotii^ aim ai obstentata tic !< saa ' the meaning of which is not made clear i a tla translation of Burgess (95) " Thoii-li there are three kindv f . r:.-,rv ill cach of these a part is dcv. tc i a .ulaect matter and a oart \- --nlav" It seems reasonably clear ai die hiiht ut tae coa- text that rainaila.a meant to point out that alttaa.iah^tht;rr u'cre tarei- division- (X r-raU^rs. vaX ta au^ tliree niclaaca ^JKaHau'■^ actuaay usca. ^..,,11 .,^ |],n.,, \%'-\vvu for displav { iind^LKTiKu^s a Wan tnx use oi .r. d"',ry vvv^'-un^ in u- U'>t^ ^'1 d la-jt ia>-taalar conntction in Arn. xflX'a \X""^' n*.^-rM,..r!a-. ' r. n. ta 417 M'-. aao designates Aristotle's trjif .r.t^ov nti'os as rai-'Tj'a 0iK'js .\o*y ai (aaas <4eaere aies-e lauaeni .^,X; •r,:.a.,.,^,.::'^';;;:, \\j,^uvu.'n ■'■' r,,ri nun l.c a na^aaler^taadam r>r niis- ',,' ^,, j,X,,t> nf i-.-.(aates' use 01 ro iirtottKTLKoi-' ai \l> uatier sca-e ' Burgess, 97 ff ^ee Blass, 92. cf. 12 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS ing >pcfclic< for the use of others in the courts. Contemporary refercri c to it are slight. Oddly enough, it is not commented upon 11! w hi! is left to us of Old Comedy, though we know from Ps. 1 lui. 833c that Plato in his Peisander satirized Antiphon*s iXapyvpLa. Of direct contemporary evidence regarding Anti- I hfii!. wc n \e only the passage in Thucydides (\'IIT. 68) from winch \vt liiiv conclude that Antiphon was, in some sense, an advtuah . 1 !it iiui uitli Blass, 92, n. i, that ^vfiPovktvaauBai may iikhi }r written counsel, and that Antiphon was ihcrciore a professunial -jkhIiw right." Cicero, Brut. 47 -'t a'v quotes fr( ! 1 I'ni I assage in Thucydides. Quintiliati. ! ! i. 1. 11, echoes Thucydides' statement about the excellence of Antiphon's Apo- logia, bui ii liiUbi be iiuiii some other source that he derived his " orationem primus omnium scripsit ", unlesb by chance the ovhtvns P)tvT€po's in Thucydides gave rise to a misniiclerstanding. r-. 1 111! N u'c jiiotes a tradition to the effect that Antiphon was the fit-' i wriiv <=peeches for the law courts at the request of In ii ]| rnvinc^ ' on the notice in Quintilian. Hermo- c\ i 1. 415 Sp., contents himself with calling Antiphon r . ii afj^rjyo^: .... tov tvttov tov ttoXltlkov. It is not ica^h IJiuduiLis ap. Clem. Alex. Str. 1. 365 and Philo- >! raiu . f^toi (Tocf>. 17, that we find combined the two notices kept nL:i(lh. ij art la fV. Plutarch — first, the tradition that Antiphon \va- fir I (o write speeches for others, and second, that Plato Cltl7ClW', f]:;(^nir-, r tinti 7" salir nl Xinphon's (biXapyvpia. Ammianus Marcellinus XXX. warn a re| I iition 01 tlie information dis- 1 hilostratus. 1,. ; f W H I ' ! -4 S A a lance at i!a a citations suffices to show the lateness of the final \cr ina« (if ihe story, and warrants serious doubts of its *^ \\ ilani'iw !/ Philoloy:ische Untersuchungen. Bcrlna 1880, 1. 38, n. 68, "... inai wi- -.na denn Antiphons tetralogien rartorische schati-tackr (nitw tq-kgl tur dtai wirkln-lawi gebrauch und behandlungen juristischer probieme ' " n« iIlon.^ tlie second alternative, and ex- pects tn cn\n conviction by a ciUitjoii <>\ Pint. Per. 36 as evidence that tfa Ml uia uiralugy deals with an actual <.a-t. Bnt there is no evidence in Plutara li tlait the accidental murder — if it ever occurred — was tried in court. aiKl tla^ i^ raan"- ;ai instantw- ..f ';<-,v an event — real or fictitious — iiiav lie u\:x■ t compared to sorcery. By its means, dicasts, ecclesiasts, and other bodies of men are beguiled and persuaded; Aoao- ./ therefore, may include public orators as well a'^ private |h cclnvr!2:hts. In the Laws, XI. 937e seq., riaa« acr^^ura^. vahcnientlv the practice of ^wSiKta, a perversion of justicia masquerading iHider the name 01 rt)^ y ^^^ich is rewarded by money. x\n alien con- victed of this ofifense is to be banished for life ; a citizen, to be put to death." ^'cf. Isocrates V. 81 and epist. I. 9. for his inability to speak; also XV iRof. and XII. of. . , , . .^. ^,,,^_ aai--^«:.-c. T.. xpiJMOTa. Xo lan i take to be not speeches in any specitic cases, but sample speeches, nidicating arguments which, though specious, would under certnin conditions be effective ; in other words Xo7ot is practically ear v licnt to methods. It is possible that Quint n i, 30, cL turn mad n . scribere litisat -nlais, quae iUi pro se ipn dicerent, erat moris, atque a batur ", depend uin, quo Jion 1- altero agere this passage tlhibe- 14 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 15 Isocrates, Antid. 2 and passim (cf. esp. 31, t^j f.), defended Inni th lu a n ! ilic charge of 8iKoypa<^ta/* of which he had been accn-t ! 1 \ hi- tnrmies. One might as well acrii<=e Pheidias, iu rnin|.l inu 1. ot being a doll-maker! Later, 41, he remarks a! 'ft re very many who are ready to prepare speeches for iiaai in In -iiits. i u i lu, Brut. 48, says that Isocrates tc ior otiu fs but aiiirwards abandoned the practice. -niN fie isocr. 18, we tind mention of a dispute on this ttwitii Aphareus, an adopted son of Isocrates, and \}a^ is cited as advancing in proof of his point, that in I )a a, siilijfa; A r 1 -!()'! * lanv diauat., 'Ill (lies, of Isocrates' dicanic speeches were in the hand- ni uw hnnk-ellers. On the testimony of Cephisodorus \v!h) \\ rail li^ainst Aristotle in defense of Isocrates, Dionysius concludes thai he had written a few dicanic speeches. As a n aik r of fact, uf the few private speeches that remain to us, -\ I \\I are tin suited to delivery in a real case. It is possible ilaii the actual pomt of dispute between Aphareus and Aristotle was the question whether Isocrates ever wrote speeches un (licanie subjects, for it would indeed be strange if Isocrates, a! lu p |aii to Irfend himself against an accusation, should leave nunnr ig evidence in the hands of booksellers, or refriin in the Antidosis from alluding to forgeries. Cicero following: Aristotle, would uncritically adopt his point of view, lur die i at i * n aeks and the Romans omitted from considera- tion t1ie no-aaniiix that speeches were written as literature, or at least i^ rht torische Musterstiicke \ Isocrates took a ficti- tious lekml hai kgrround even for his Antidosis (cf. 6 f.).** We niiaen^ea lu liie piaeUee, lu Anaxiinencs Rhet. \u, v"^ and Tbrnphrastus, Jebb-Sandys ed., 116, i. 2, but tan la far to the end of the fourth century, and not to the an u i as, mention of them is sufficient. W'v ma) liuw exaniirie the evidence on which it is assumed triat L.vsins waas a professional ^poerbwright. Of contemporary *• For 5t/co7pd<^oj see Pollux VIII. 24; Diog. Laert. VI. 115. ••Biirsiess, 97»,». 2, ** Though but a small proportion of his (Isocrates*) ^peechta: are epideictic in title or technically such in theme, all are of this class in reality." a . . , . « a 1 , ! , \ 1, t 1 1 a cism. fortunately, we have Plato's Phaedrus, whicl) ihroutih- 1: ueaic Lysias as a literary man. It is questionable whether to would have taken the trouble tu criucize, from this n* ' ! of view, a professional speechwright. The crucial word, \oy07pa i>< V, occurs however in 267c. Xuw lie word Aoyoypao^. In this sense, it is 1 cl lii Thuc. I. 21. Aristotle in his Rhetoric uses the word ' h a tunes (11. II. 7 ; III. 7- 7 ; "I. 12. 2), in each case with this nu aning. In 1 1 . 11 . 7, it is contrasted with Trotr/r^s as repeatedly n r-o n? is contrasted with ttqu^tz/s m Isocrates (cf. V. 109; \ . 137), while in the Phaedrus Lysias is judged as a 7rotr?r>;s (= artist)." Even in later times \oyoypdo<: maintained its original sense, for Hermogenes, it. IS. II. 405, 417 Sp., dis- tincTiiishes as representatives of the three classes of literature, e poetry, and spoken and written speeches Uprose), Troa.^rai, p^Topt^, and koyoypdoL, and includes laTopia under the general La. We do find, however, Aoyoypaos used in a more restricted sense. Gaisford on Phaedr. 257c quotes schol. Plat 63, Aoyo- 7pa<^oi? €Kd\ovv ol 7ra\aiol To^9 inl titaOi^ Xoyovs ypac^ovra?, Kal -^^pdaKOVTos a^To.. c> aarijpLa' p^ropa^ Bl rov^ Bi'lavri^v Xiyovra^. In Lycurgus in Leocr. 138 (where the word is not actually used), and in Deinarchus in Demosth. in, the reference is to oi^v^yopot, who spoke in person on behalf of the defendant, but with the expressed imputation of doing so for money instead of iju the eoiiveiitional basis of friendship or relationship.*' In Aeschines in Ctes. 173, and Demosthenes de falsa leg. 246, each orator alls the other Xoyoypaos, mikI \e-rhines once again (adv 1 111 u4) uses the word in the o\ professional speechwngiii. (So in the Meidias, uju Denn t ht es pretends that Meidias accuses Imn 01 having pr pared au elaborate " cf . 236d, 245a, 258d, 278e. ^«^,i« "\oyo7roi€iy in Dein. 1.32,35, and Dem i v . 49, refers to the ctrc^a- tion of stories or speeches (pamphlets?) mtended to influence public sentiment. i6 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS speech, or still more pointedly, of having received aid in his proseciuiuii. Yet this speech was never used in court, and was probably never intended for delivery.) \Miether or not the word was in common use in that sense in the circle of Plato ! tniains doubtful. Certainly the passage in the Phaedrus is the isolated instance of its use. Phaedrus in this passage remarks that some one slandering Lysias called him Aoyoypa>os% and that Lysias would probably, therefore, give up writing altogether. Socrates answers, " I siippu:=c you think that the man meant what he implied? " and Phaedrus continues to discourse upon the stigma incurred by leaving after one's death any (n^ypd^fiara, since they make one liable to the imputation of being a sophist. It seems as if in this cast ihrrv were a play on the word. Phaedrus interprets it in the cunvciitional meaning, litterateur." Socrates seems to think that Lysias might have been, though obviously without justice, accused of writing speeches for money. In any case, the sug- gestion is drop{)ed, and in 258c \oyoyp(io^ means writer of prose, as is definitely shown by the use of the verb irvyy pd€Ly as an equivalent. There remains to be considered only the passage in Cicero, Brut. 48 : — '' . . . Lysiam primo profited solitum artem esse dicendi, deinde, quod Theodorus esset in arte subtilior, in ora- tionibiis autem ieiunior, orationes eum scribere aliis coepisse, art em removisse . . . ". If Cicero did, indeed, copy this notice I roll) Aristotle, there remains the possibility that he interpreted liH nfion of Lysias' dicanic speeches to mean that Lysias wrote sjin lies for actual use, whereas to the Greeks the meaning of fictional speeches with dicanic background may have been clear without further explanation. nre, indeed, passages in Isocrates which prove con- I fh clu SI Vt a ti, m Greece in the time of Lysias, speeches were \\ rittt n of> dicanic subjects yet not for delivery in court. Isoc- rates {XV. 26) in his pride at having written great panegyrics, "• cf. Blass, 350, n. 3. SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS IJ speaks with some scorn of other forms of writing and speaking: — '* First of all, when a man intends to write or deliver speeches .ill] .hall bring him honour and fame, it is undeniable that he V all abandon such subjects as take the wrong side, or are trivial, . leal with matters of private dispute, and that he will choose : P , I. noble, philanthropic subjects that pertain to the common ^ eal " In V I he uses the same expression, vTroBemv Trot^aaa^oi, u,v Choice of subject. In IV. n, he refers to those critics who •to distinguish between speeches written as pieces of display :ul those written on subjects of private dispute, but in both ases his criticism is literary, and he regards both classes as I trrary productions. Finally, in XII. i, there is a direct refer- . e to dicanic speeches written as models merely, to be studied by the younger generation if they wish to be successful m their lawsuits. I should suggest, therefore, that there is some probability n t Lysias and indeed all the orators of the canon were not A rotot in the sense of professional speechwrights. They were the real representatives of a rix^v behind which all speech mongers sheltered themselves. The opponents of this theory must explain why these speeches-once they had served their use in court— were published, and how they could be published with impunity. In the following detailed investigation of the so- . ailed spurious speeches, I shall emphasize the characteristics that render the speech under consideration unfit for delivery in court. 1 i8 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS II. II, t'KiTi< ro.\ KopivBivv fiovfSol^, is re] aiicii'iit'- \iiii-nii! ,i!:\^ ilonbt of its LhU • Mf : :C'--s. Am KMil' t!]!j lll(*k:rniaiin/' MaHhaura,'' i k'niiann/* Benseler," <■ ■'. Alullcr,' ^ Fnr a list of te^timonia, see LeBeau, 2 ff.. and add ^vho]. D<,iri. r.pu. 10. The i^a^-aLa ni Aristotle, Rhet. III. lO has been t!u suurce of much disiiis'don Hi! Ar^ < tlr quote from memory, as iir quotes without the tunnt' nf tin- .tut!i'r\ <>r should one agree with >d.\\\>]>v'~~ ad-ai'^u; 'A tlu- conitaa'urr *i' Aauia f^a^ *"•■ laXn.,.rc" Or. aaana -^ the passaur i-^'C- lessh' CfiTupt:' >a,iia!"-'-- '-xi'tM m.,/-'* .i-'-uiTu-- thv -;''••'- ■-"'•f^'^ '■' h!:ct, III.' 1 sht)u!\ i,„\;-ia^ ii. bu r^at-rs fn th.^-; wh'' ifh ai Afi4u>~ potamoi. Tlua'- death ■^\'!nholizes the d^ aA; t' Miu' cai; laidr'aand that fra-edam died \\\{\\ hrr drunders at Sahtniis, since thf;r -iic^-t---. .i -. \scra unable U< .Aa-naaa; la-r CaU->a -tic- cttssfuUv. Idas, at hai-a. could !ai\c been said ailcr tia- taal ^^i ihv ladi )|S()i!iH'-ani War il i- pos^tair al^^o that some other aulia-r ni an t'ltUaphais nai\' laua- v.-vd thai cxprc^Mun, and An-a-tle nas\ thar(,A thcr than tlie one before us. The metapii^ a, a -elih must haxa- hetai a (a aima mfdaac. It h> faned also in A< - h, m ( des. 21' and l.yaura. ir; Leeuaa -n lei Wendhtiai, Hermes X X \' M).A -A the L!enanHaa/-s (a h\-Kt- ii. iJicis, Ai>h,, d. k. Akad. 'h \\h — . iSa.a. \\\ ^ tt,. rejected aaiipae'v expedient, and adnaticd ihat Ana-aha rtf* '^-• t > prove the genuineness ft ti hdaaatans. a 1 Wdhiitiown/. he ;a- a , ih. aiea (A ^ a a'laas, I fi it]] w ! i ich ^ >> , rnwrd. Bia:^^. 4JA,. rejei;?'^ Ua- made an err. a- \n t|a«aataa; ' ViiV. laaa,. X\Aa ^, ' Le tailed f aaatapfiais a t ! a ( a u ^ e> iaanaia ' < ier consiea rat a in a, a-- ! lur- i thaiks thai X-asLullc siniply ^id Herud. \ IL 139. n\hAaa. I i a j^r. *49 f. \ta M IS. I. 2, 260 fT. ^ Atuka. \ ear. \'! I, MA.fschunucn auf dwA Gahaet der Geschnrhtta .\ltona. i^jj, I, aa " Demosthuies aK ataat-marm and Redn(aa A^^-: Der-noa'a Ahdaaataie, XXX I \h ^' tTTideiiiS TT€pi AtffLGi Toe -•■TiTopoc. Xarnher'i.a t>aS. ij fa "4. '* a.|0. "ad (Aminn, 105. fn^t. Phdoh Stndien. lierhn. iH,c. h [aa f . ; 23a A "Quacst. Demo-th., laapzia. iS,a'. Ih .at tV. : lah, X\ i. " Praef. ad I'laton. Menex., a.;: h.\-iaiai ad dhi-tranda^ {'iaiedri Platoiiici orignu's, Leip/ie. i8'a i" f. ^^ Geschichte and >\^teai der Pkitl.aa^chen Philuiuphie, licidcibcrii, 1839. 520; 078, la 572. ^' 184. He wouhl ran rea.aa a upe-n tlie a?''aind nf tlu.' 'Asglu departure from Lvsias' y^e ui hiati^^. ahaa..- , — 4 i SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 19 X'tllemain," rafT^aiiv/" rdiatt " all accepted it a- genuine. Schon- a; i ^\dA ^-^A defended its autlientiaity. His argument M a I ! ia)ni I a*,' as aaaaama atawaea it atal tlic aft. ^ a been a,uaakad hv Pur.^."' Fpiiaidaii-. LeB (aiaxeiiiia o! 1 daito nas 1 .^. ihoai^ii the aittiar Aa1 tail taaeat tne eau jVXVT 5 a i \ , ., a , ■. , I ; ,. • i. i I ill w 1 V,. 1 1 t V- i T ' 1 \ i a. \],i: (jthar haiak we find that )\ 1- rajealcd 1..*}' Reiske/ Valakanar." \\d.aA.'"' :--iuiter." ^,. iiiuun/' Berahardv.'* >aup]'e.' Mohrata"^ \P..aaTa^-^ ladk/' ^aliaibe,^ Pcrtz" ^taiiihan;" Meeker, 3 i \ a \ ■ V ( • * ' i AAl a '^a ^n'la *" h" kaaaara], ! A. aiiiiler. ident-cnea •hdiree '' and tiai^akk-r" IkkI nreviouslv advara.aai delailaa ar-a!aaa!> aJ2:ainst I he !L|jilaphiUs. T ^had ta^aanna.- ai creaTei" detail onlv the work of tho^e scholars aaa> have ida\(a] the aai^t iniinartaia aand at ilje COntraAaa--\a Ihjiaae a;.:ia„ad adh \aka coaid ia\fi ra.i\'e ikdi\a.aa.-d ilia Jaaitapha.]-. iAe further t!a,.iii^hi n aiildxeh- that 11 \\ai- waaih.; a* -oiiie one else ii= deliver, but achiiitied la e: 1 1 a f \ ■ that wai- a purely literary production, lie ba^ed his I "F'^sai Mir ^u^al^u^ Puiicbrc (qutaed hy Aaihaux, 8i i.). I *" P Oraison Funebre. Valenciennes, a%j, 70 a. " Platn aid the ^ i;a r Companions of Socrates', London, 1867, H, 256. 'nd)er da- \ erhahai-- in welchetri IdamnA Menexenu-^ /a dem h.pitaphius des PvMa^ ^tela. PeiiPen. 1833. 25 tt. Stallliaum and LeBeau ah-- a^ed this argunnaa. ''ajrau ra.tio inter Phitnnis Menexenimi et Pysiae laudationem sive eaa.aiAaaam aitercedat disputatio. Trier, 1846. The same view is de- t! nded hy KihjII, Sind Hezichungeti /wischen dem }apitaphio.s im Meiic- -xetios und dem sog. Px-saiaiischaai nachzuweisen i^ Krern-.. a^" a ^^ '•' AlP- /chaP, ],XX\'IIi M833f; ,e). cit. ; X. Jahrlr XPIP (.1866), 8( 18 A "A 1' 1 (at . '"' (ij. en; a. et \ aa,a^ 1 . »rat.., 218. cited hv Dobrce. 8 f . '' h^ia'hea!!. i,aer., h'rfurdt. 1782, 34; ad Detnosth. l.a'|)iaicna :;^b}.. '"18!, '"Pa-t! }udh.aaca Jfy) Kruuer. ''^22. 43. I2fa 3ae •'Pal Pacara, 144; Xachr, d. (h>tt. Ges. d. Wdss,, 18(^3, 73 tY. , Gult. geh An?,. 1804. aj„| ti, ■•'■ \ii2 : 105 A. ''Miidex Sdiedaruta, IPiPe. a837. .ijf, "*i7iff. ; XH \h '%ahh Pejpzia. i887Ai..XXIX. ^Pi3, ''' X'ers, Platan,, \"P ^6a 174. ''2. " Pihrh. f. Phih LXXXAl (18^8). -^71 ff ^^Pltd.p XX\' (i8(ra iw. A, "62, ^=3. ^* 5 f, "4. ** Praelectir) m P-eudo-Lysiae e^ratiuneni fanehrena Cambridge., 1823 (op. ca.. 3 ii.). He quotes Victorius as considering II genuine. ''47 ff. 2(") cpr-RTOT'^; '^prFrTTr<; i y tttf. f,YST\xrr CORPUS rejectioti on \hv innni^ oi rniu.irf witii l-ocratc- 1 :uu^;::yri.'. from which he clechiccd that the auilmr of the lM>itaphui^ was the horrower. In style, al-o, he tliuu.uht tlie author had imitated Lcher achancech m >U|)port of tin- view, details of stvle, such, as excc-ssive n-e ot /uo and ^t, oi antitheses, and the accunudation of synon-yin-. (levers emphasized the neces-it_\- ol keej'.ni^ ah-'hitrl)- «h.- tinct the dicanic and epideictic >tvle^, and an-wcred llol^clicr - ari^uments against i4"eiuhnene-^ 1»\- point iim out tliat the \tT\- peculiarities to which he took exci-ption. a.re ch.:iractcro-lu ot epideixis, (in its restricted sense). LeBeau/" after citini^: the reference- of tlie ancient> to tlie }'4)itaphius. among which he included Aristotle. Khet. III. io. answered the arguments that had l)een advanced against u, and attempted, though unsuccessfully, as I tlnnk. to p^rove thai an- titheses are found in eipially great tuunher- in Lysia-' (»ther speeches. Between the Kroticus and the l^pitaphius he |K)inted out definite resemhlances. e. g. halance of clauses and periods. artificial order, |)urely verhal antitheses. He defendetl L\sias' right to deliver the l^pitaphius. He helieved that Plato in the IMenexenus wrote with direct reference to n. and regarded i\u^ as a proof of Lysianic authorship. X'omer* wa- convinced l)y I. e Beau. Sauppe had [)reviously '' ha>ed hi.^ rejection of the e|)itaphii that appear under tlie names of Demosthenes and Lysias, andi also of the Menexeiuis. on the mention in them all of gymnaMic contests on the occasion of the great puljlic funerals of tho-e i 48 49 For a list of these passages, see Woltl. 17 ti. op. cit. He quotes. a,N believing' in i4enuniene-^s. .-\iiuer an«l Peluf! de E^allu. Hist, de I'eloqueiue cbez ies (,rces i. 194 I i.axc liceu uaahk- to secure the original of LeBeau's work. "^Jahrb. f. Phil LXXXVll {i>M\V), :,ty(y iT. ile iiuoies. as rejectuu the Epitaphius on pedagogic grounds, Classen in tlie preiace to k.is thud edition of Jacobs' Attica, b'or another favourable review of Lel'>eau. cf. Litt. Centralblatt, 1863. 1141 f- hy an anonymou- writer. "GoU. Nachr.. 1864. V¥)f\. f who IVI SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 21 .vs. E])it. H*:v Dcrn, kAii, v'^ : Meir 249h P. i'(;an^-e 1 neia,- i-- ii< i nit/nof ni 11 ol these oanie in Pericles' funeral oration, lie kielievcd that the custom did not exist until the lie- ginning of the third century. But Blass '' and other scholars opposed this view, and Saup|)e's evidence is insuf^cient and his reasoning circuitotis. Sauppe now "' opposed LeBeau's argu- ments. iMT-t. he f|uoted Thuc. 11. 3,4, Lsoc. IW 74, and Bern. X\dlL jH^ to ])rove that Lysias as a metic could not have deliveredi tlic h4'ita|)hiu>. He thought that the jieculiarities of ;-tvie are uoi sutliciently explained l)y the e|:)ideictic genre, and heheved tliat tlie autlior used Isocrates' Panegyric. LeBeatr' re|)hed. U) San}.|)c'> criticism, and tried to confirm his previous contention, namely that .\ristotle cites from Lysias' Kpita|)hin> ; tliat L\-ia- could and diid deliver it ; that it was the source for passages in lsoerate>' Panegyric; and that Saufipe's olijections on the ^core of ^tyle a.re invalid. lickert ''' saw that the Epita|)hius could only have hecn written as a f/tAtrv, hilt tliought that the impossihility of assigning it dehnitelv to anv one year ui the Corinthian War, and the lack (jf detinite historical fact.^ al)out the war prove that the author wa^ a, late rlietor. The style of the |)iece confirmed him in this conclusion. * hrard '^ and T'errot '' maintained its authenticity, and attri- hiiti'd It- i.iecuiiariiic- of ^wlv to the c-xi^'cncies of tliat de|)art- meiit of literature. Kliigmann '^ regarded tlie Ki)ita|diiu> as genuine, and thought the Panegvric had heen written in dependence upon it. Land- weer,^^ after c:oing over the del)ated .i^round with some thorough- ness, admitted that spuriousncss could not he absolutely proved : still lie urged against it lack of historical accuracy and the 'presence of a sophistic fiavour. LAirthermore, he thought it "441, n. (). "(;ott. (^el. Anz,. 1864, 824 lY. 'APihrb. f. IMiil. XCHl (i8^iC)). 808 If. ''op. cit. ^ '"'Sur rainhenticite de I'oraison funebre attribue a Lysias. Rev. Arch., 1872. ■''M\('\. des deux MOndes, 1871. S:,2 : op. cit., 248. *■' Die Amazonen in der atti^cheii Litieratnr u. Kuiist. Stuttgart, 1875, f-h ■■* op, cit. \ ■y ■ > i*i;ki« K,;- >!'ij-i ! f r H ; : 1 v^f '. NIC {"; nivi probable that Lysia.^ (bd not write cjudcietic juece- alter the anarchy: but of this there i< no proof, tiel^auer^' rejected, thotiirh Frohbero^er "' had accepted it. Richter"' attempted to show l)y a detailed invotiiratioii of the style of II that it could not be the work of Lv>iav. l^rdniaiin rejected it. advancini,^ as a new ariiunient " that in contract to the funeral orations of 1 )einostliene>. Thucydides, and Hypcr- eides, (cf. Dion. Hal. ars rhet. \'\. J), tlie Ly>ianic e|)itaphius is devoted, in 1,-reat })art, to the prai>e of the Trpoyoror ; whereas the i)raise of those wlio are to be niierrcd i:^ i!»ven only two parai^-raphs (0 and J). Idns preclude^, accordin- to bun, the possibility that Lysias wa- the author. <-uid proves that it wa- written by a late rhetorician. However, one niiuht an>wer tliat a late rhetorician, writini^ in mutation, would he unlikely to deviate so ol)viously from the norm. Keu-- " advanced a^ ;iddi- tioual proof of the author^ dependence on. llie Pane.uvnc. parallels Isetween 47 and 1-ocratc- \'ll. J^. .uid l.etwccn .^J aiui Isocrates \d. icx). iUass"' pointed out i\\v re:-emblaiice between A7 and I'A-aii-oras h2, and oc. l.\, f)j. and fUircM-h.' lUa^-'^ believed with Lel»eau and the ancient critic-*" that the h.|)i- taph.ius was written before trie baneiivric. i ie tliouiiht that tlie (piestioti of authorshif) could be settled on.lv un -rounds u\ ^tyk^ •^7. n. 50. ''ihui. 'Uny cU. . " De pseiulolysiat cpitaphu ('(»p. : Photiu^, c^d. j6r,i, 1458. Si'LKlOUS SPLLv^iiL^ i>. 'iliE LV-IANIC CORPUS 23 and from a comparison of the style of the b4)ita|,)liiti- with that of the ( dvmpiacus. concluded that Lysias could not be the ciutlior. Maas<,'' in defense of its i^-emiineness, rejected this ar.uument. and found, m the strictly epi]). cit. op. cit. Chaillet. De orationibus, quae Athenilius in funeribus put habebantur. Lcvden, 1891. has been inaccessible to me. B. P. W. XVII 08(^7). 3.^; op. cit.. XXX\ I. Mnem. XXIX (1901). 434 f- "^37?- De Gregorii Nanzianzeni orationibus funebribus, Strassburg, itX)7. U- 24 .^prKKii j'Ki-:rHf- Tiir ^ -^--lANir (v-^RFUs as " probably spurious "/^ Hudc" admitted tbe diftcrcncc be- tween this and other Lysiauic si>eecbes, aiu! promised a more detailed treatment in the future. 1\) sum up: the Kr<^^^^'i^^^ ^^^ suspicion tliat have hvvn ad- vanced a<^ainst the Kpitai)hius are its style, and it< dej.endcnie upon the F'aneKyric. The (juestion whether or not it could have l)een delivered l>y Lysias. or written !)y him to l)e delivered !)> some one else is no Ioniser debated by scholar>. Xo one voiuld now attempt a defence of the h:pitaphius exceiit on the a-uni['- tion that it is a literary effort . It has been rei)eatedly acknowled.i^ed that we liavc no ad.c- (juate criterion l)y which to jud-e the i- not nvco- sarilv his onlv epideictic manner, and luique^tional)!) ( .or-ias' h^pitaphius set the fashion for all >ucce»ivc literary tunera. orations. As for the ])arallel pa^-a.^e- in. the h".|)ita|>hin< and the ranegyric. it is (piite conceivable that they are dr.uvn irom one and the same source, possibly ( iori^ias' l-:pitaplnns. oi whuh we have otdv the epilogue pre>er\ed ( DieL, \ or:-okr;itiker li. z,:^() {.). ( )tlierwise the !|Uestion. which \va- written tir-t. cnii onlv be answered subjectively, as may l)e seen from tlie \ar\in- opinions of scholar^ or. this point. If ancient an.thoritie^ \\pr' -priate to the conventional epitaphius. Ancient evidence points to In- havnii; composed an epitaiiliin- wortlu ni Imii ; n woukl Icnall)- be expected that Lysias in Mich a conipo.sition would not control bib terseness, his inversion-, his audacitv. l*'.ven ii the k,p>ilaplini- could have been written for anotiter to dehver on a real occaoon, " up. cit.. M/ ^^X. SPURIOUS SlMiECHES IN UlL Li ; \ N n V uic r-) -."^ the emplovment of ethos would hardly have been in place. The personal etho< is no longer appro])riate : there is substituted for It the ethos of the literary genre. So two criteria of genuine- no-, Ly^anic (piahty of nnnd. as betraved in his style, and ethos fail in this case, of application. IV. Tavlor' was the llr^t to regard with sn.|:>ie!on l\k -ep^ rparu.iro^tTiami. ad iina.uinem siipcrioris orationis elaborata, cm denak- <'!> arunnicnti atanitatem in scriptis codd. at tieri solet. per- peiun adhae-it ". , i a- i • . ..a i-Tnrn M)<.bree lu-^ i)ointcd (ait the error made by V ale-ui^ (aa narp. dTToXavetH' who ulciitiiicd W with a Kara UoaeiCnTTTTOv. cited by smdas under' 5mXaxeo', recaibna that this speecli was written yrpos nva. not Kara. TH'OK. .So too. Ht'dsch.er. 1O4. ' 184. " Nil video, (iiiare Ly-iae abiudicare delieat haec oratio. quae inpenium cius res|>iret ' . ' .'Xniinadv. ni .-Xth.. 2f>J. , .^ • • ,• vvtt '444. Xowack, 102. misciiiotcd Jacol)- and h>rcmpas rejecting AAin ' i,^S '^4 1 ' ^;. ' M)^. answa-rcd l)y Bias;;. -S^ n. '"Vlvck "]b, Supi>b Bd^ k(i85-(o. 3on " k c. ;pi'Rir)r '!■:!•:< ■!!!•■ jTir T ^■vI \xir coRpr^ Si'UKluU^. vl^elhil- iS iin: iA>iA:NiL iORViss 27 formal proem;' narrative aiul proDl, and in p tlic absence of the evidence referred tn in u: declared tliat t!n-> could not be the main speech of tlie defcp^dana. It. then, we consider it a StvTepoXoyta, \et we carniot. accordni- to ialk, l)elieve in its genuineness, hor in tliat ca>e we .^liould be com- pelled to assume that both parties to a suit were in pos>t>-ion of each other's speeches and argument^, in order to make it possible that Lysias couM write thi>, and .uive it to lii- cheiit before the trial. d"heref<»re. >ince thi- ir> out of the (pie-tion. a Sci-repoAoyta is necessarily extemporaneous, and, thei-eiore. not written by I.ysias. Xor doe> the assumption tliat the be-mmni,^ has l)een lost remedy matter>; tlie lack of arrar.-ement remain- to be considered. Idtiiuatel} , it i> U]>o!! TaylorV ar-ument that I'^alk based his proof of spuriousno-. that i-, u|)on tlie similarity in subject of 111 and I\\ rnid the dilTerence in tlie lorm and tone of the two. Now, wdiile it seem^ impn>xible to deny the similarities be- tween 111 and l\ ," tlu-re is no reaM.n why wc- should not have two speeches on the same snbjcct, eiitailinu sonic siniilarit}' m detail, nor whv we should deduce spuriousneosc. Ill illustrates Lysias skill in arrang-ement ; l\\ his (devernes> in ethopoiia. I'Yancken, overlookini;- tlie work of b^alk." and remarkin,^ that Taylor's argument scarcely needed refutation, did not reject J2 For Lysias' omission of a proem, sec Dion, of Hal. an e|)ilome. but did not fultil his proiui>e to prove this. Hofmeister" rejected it because the name.s of the plaintiit and defendant are not given, and because he failed to grasp their rank in life. Xowack.'' who accepted 1\\ justly characterized klofmeister's rejection as rash. V.lass-' did not hesitate to ascribe IV to Lysias, but thought either that the first |)art had been mutilated. ( Sittl "^ believed that tlie beginning had been lo>l), or with >au|)pe," that it is a deuterology. !nas> refuted I'adk's argument^ from lack of arrangement, but left unanswered the significant observation that a logog- rai>lier could not write a hcvrcpoXoyta without an acciuaintance with the preceding speech made by the opponent; therefore, since writing speeches for both plaintiff and defendant was a highlv exce|)tional practice,'' it is obvious, unless we insist upon the s|)nriousness of all aevrepoAoytat, that a speech such as the one Ijefore us was written either as a mere Trar/nov, or as a model ^evrtpoXoyui, being in neither case designed for actual Use in the courts." ddie absence of all proper names would i>oiiit to this conclusion. It is necessary, for the sake of completeness, to mention hnally the opinions of Jebb'' and L>aur;' the former in favour of the genumeness of I\\ the latter adopting Talk's arg:uments a^>-ainst it: as neither of these, however, has contributed any- '" T " Duliia utique dKt>aXos ; fortassc est exercitatio rhetorica ". ^' As'Hamaker. 4. had already done, followed by Scheibe, \ mdiciae Lvsiacae. Leipzig. 1845- praef.. X '''^j. '\;,2i. n. 1. ''23. "kx). ^Ls83ff. '' i>2. ''ed. Tur. adn. "ci. Egger, Si les Atheniens ont connu la Profession d'Avocat, Pans, T S/So 1 A i '" it is only a logical consequence of the question raised by Falk as to the possibility of genuineness of devrepoXoyiaL to deny the possibility ot genuineness of the npcoroXoyia on the defense, itself an answer to the lpu,ro\oyia of the prosecution. This is another sign-post pointing to the general conclusion, that speech writing, as indulged in by Lysias, was par excellence a literary pursuit. '' 280 f. 107. 28 JTIUOI im:i:(ii V" S •!!!'. ! \ ion, this Isare iiK'niioii .»! tlieir ()]>ir.i()!i>^ suffices."* With the fall of h'alk's ar.i;iinient-, fall all ohjeolions to the genuineness ot 1\ . ^"* \\*cin-t()ck, 4(\ bracki'ted I\\ v. The fifth speech, i'-tp KuAA/or, perhap- l)cran-c of it- iraL;- mentary condition, has all hut escaped adver-e critici-in. Francken,' h(j\vever, mention- it a little dul)i()U>l>-. a> a "' ip;irvun! fragmentuni vjuod L\^iae esse potest ". Ihi^ does not ainouiit to rejection, and is too inta.niiiblc for argument. 1 , -j^ \ 1. \'I, Kar' WrSoKiSov uinrkLas, !- cited three time- hv llarjxi- cration,' twice with the addition o1 ti yi,j<,s. AhMlerii -ch<>lar> have almo>t universalis rejected thi- -jseecli « )l tliem Kuhn- ken ' was the fir>t to declare it -]>nriou-. ha-inu lir- rejecti-nj on supposed i,i,morance of Analocide-' hi>t(.>r_\ and nn c within the -peech.' Thi- jndi^nient \va< repeated willi detailed substantiation hv Slniter/ who or.oted \ alckenar iw)'] Imahc as ' s. V. KarairXrii and (-1 -, i-yjdtos : =, v noTrrpoi', where no cemim-iit is addeti. 'Sec Reiske \lil. J^4■ Mt is scarcely jiistitiakU- lo v-all .U and 4S c-iitradu-tfirv^ 1 lu'\ arc. rather, ditTcrent point- ea' \-u\\, ,\!id< >ch!cn innma' lia- ^rtii ua^tc! in saving; hinT-clf from dani^cr {tK nvy ^irPn r.^v ) : ,.11 tiu- ctiu'r jsaiid. lie has net used ni(au'\' in the ^crvua' ot tlir Ntate, *lll (f. His aruunient fr.un flu- nuMitaui ui tie iitTn! \i\ ii c iai- heen refuted by KirchhoiY. Hrnnt.-s I ( iH(^^ r >^n.. \\\}^'- thonula tbat \' I was uiKiUfstionahl}' written by a contcmp(jrary oi" L\Ma-. aial d!;-.t a Nsais delivered in court. i-Kioi;^ ^i'l^i■A in-:- in tiie lvsianr corpus -^9 a,-reeino- with him/ IJreiui* also regarded it as spuriou-. hd-anz. who first' defended the speech as possessing Lysias' vtyle and lacking none of his characteristics, as consistent, historically accttrate. and actually delivered in court, later retracted.' Dobree ' thought the speech so unlike Lysias' speeches that it could not have been written in conscious imitation of Lysias. It is difficult to understand how he would account for its in- trusion into the Lysianic corpus. He did not decide whether it was actually delivered. Sluiter had advanced arguments for the view that'\"l was the work of a late sophist or rhetorician, not far removed from the time of Demetrius of Phalerum. These arguments Dobree assailed. Me answered the criticisms that the speech consisted entirely of declamation and that there was no i)roof. by maintaining that VI was a ScvrcpoXoyla. Absence of narrative was accounted for on the same grounds, or it might have been found in that part of the speech which has been lo^t. One would not expect, he argued, quotation of laws or decree^ in a htvrepokoyia : the sophistic phrases occur in I)a>sages where the text is corrupt; he could find no " nitor fucatus ■■ about the speech ; the speaker might have been eitlier ]'4>icrates or Meletus. Dobree left unsettled the question of dependence upon Andocides I. r,ecker '" cited Goddeck, Init. Hist. Lit. i\ 182, as holding that Ly>ias himself delivered VI in court. He himself agreed with siuiter that the author was a sophist of the time of Demetrius. llolschcr^' repeated some of Sluiter's arguments against the s|.ccch, such as the absence of laws, witnesses and proof, but thought the author a feeble imitator and contemporary of Lv>ias. The historical inconsistencies pointed out by Ruhnken and Sluiter, are not. according to Holscher, real inconsistencies ; M).i>^e(" 200 savs that X'alckenar in 1756 when he wrote his adver- saria did not doubt its authenticity, and that Sluiter " falso exhihet eni> verba ". Becker, however. Andocides, Leipzig, 1832. 5. quotes \ alckenar and Liizac as agreeing with Sluiter. xr. ■ v- v.- . "Win Nowack. 104. cites Fortsch as rejecting Vl in his eclitien. ' nepl Avaiov rov prjropos, 8 ff. ' 279. ' 200 ff. '" op. Cit.. 5 tl. '' -6 fi. Quaestiunculae Lysiacae, Erfurt, 1857. 19 "'• 0^ kiur- -iMJ.i 1! l-> i N on the contrarv. Iw fouiiij nuk-h lii.ii i- rx'dvwrc ui arcinMie knowk-d-t' (\\ «.*\aa'. en-nanei' ! allv." wla) tlioni^lu it ^j)Uri(iii>- and not wrillnn li\ a runuanpi aatrx- m 1 y-ia-. Pertz '' ri'ircted \d. and ^n did !-'r.in;axrn." \\n«' aliialannd it to ,1 late rlietor. l\a\'^cr.'' without dto'i-ndmi: L\ -la-- ant la )r-hi]>, eoti^ir(.ad in niann-annl iman. I'Vanker" inaintainvd that i- \\a- .iatnah\- dnlivtaa-d m t'nnrt. harow '' left iintdiudied tlu- .jimMmn ^li aiithor-lnjn Imt paw it a-^ his fipniioii that in it- jaa'-tait lurni it i^ the rc-ndt ui tin^- !iient< put tni4ethvr at ha/ar(], Perrot "'' did imt rao'vat \ I (adiriLdit : lie ])r]i«a\-tah in. an\" laa^e, that it \va> wintten h\- a. ia-aitvni|)(irar\^ i)t hw^ia-, anid dtduai'vd ])0^sihlv h\ C'adha-. a -UL^pn-tiun nc,L;k:cied \)\ iiio>t -ehukir-, 'AU(\ refuted h\ I a|)-iii^.'' F. A. Muhvr;' (;.a/." kdaAl.ernar;' rA'lanuaa'^ Iknna'^ ^ittk-' Seheihe."' all reita'tnd \ 1. heri^k " rnhann n]>(fn a luilua- n: Miula-/ adxanaed tha lla/ftrv tlial \d i-- the ua«iax nf 11a'ndnrn< of iA/antmin. wrnna; 'nv aial deli\-ered h\- l-'jaahara- whu-v -aniaaaai- alia. A •• \nd. \. ICK)) has hecai ka-^t m the !<'-■. (a iJir hapinninL: , '-'^Jj; h 194- "Andocides, Leip/ip, 1SR8. X. n. ,pa fvndioh ,,]]<] Silaifnirr aP.* rt- jected the possil)ility that Cdlka- cmad h.tvi- dcnvrrr.! \ P 'pa "J. J. Suppl. Vdfi (iH-p/;^!. 540 { -'pr.ik-'a., ci. nSjp (.. a, 41. ''7, n. 50. '*iir). " p^3- '"ed.PXXX. ''pp^^ f. '*' S. V. iiiodii^pos' Of65u."po5 iP (di'Tios ao(piarrj% .... t'lpa-ye Kara Opaai- (Soi'Xor, /car' 'Ai/5ok18oi Kal dk\a nva. . . . "^ Andocides'. Leipzii!. 1880. X\dll ; op. an... ^b2\\. SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSI X a CORPUS riTid of .ahar point- lliat had heen addiieed to |)rove \ 1 a late lori^arx, \pain-t it- peaminene-s lie advanced the -\aa*phantic nature of the speech, it- lack of conviiicinip power, aki-ence (O fo-ianic -inipiicitN- and laaiciseness, and the occurrence ot rare turns and jihrases. Wv admitted, however, that tlie peneral scheme of compp-ition and the n^e of llpnre- are not nicon- si-tent with Pv-ianic usage, lie ccri]>cd this ^|)eech airainst Andocides to Theodorn-, k'or iiiulouhtedP/ many od' the rhetorician- vsroae ai^am-t .\ndocide-, as the\- did ai^ainst and for many pnainnent men of tlie time. P.la-- ihoupht that \'l \va< delivered either Ipa >Uletu- or l^pichare-, and then pu!)lishe(k for tlie sake ot its cuiueni-, .'i< a counterpart of .Xndoicide- 1. prohahly witki some elianp'e- and addition-, k'hk) '■" re])eated in >rdi)stance th.e con- idn-ion- readied hv Ida.-s. WAddner " rejected the speech. Pi|)-iii- '■' tliouplit it \\a< written at the time of the trial, kait a.s a rhetorical piajduction m imitation of a dicamc speech, jii-t as !\)hacraPie- wrfpe wliaP pairpcnned to he a -|)eech ot ,\nytns apann-t Socrates/'" lie did not deny that the autlior mipdit lie Idieodorii- Xowaick'^ rejected \d without discussion. Ztitt '' ex])lained \d as an epitome of a speech actually delixeia'd hef<=re tlie court in accusatirm of Andocide-. to \\hicii Andocide- ! i- the an-w^er. R(^p:holt "' thought aPo that it wais deli\-ere(k and written either for Meletu< or P})ichare^ h\- a con- tem|.Mjrar\a t'crliaiis |)\- ddua,idoru<. Wdlamowitz ' reierredi to it n< P<. Ics'siai- (MeletPisi a.ptimst .Andocides. I'run- ^' held tliat it is a rhetoricrd production, written -hortly after the trial, and advanced in hehalf of t]ii< view the disparities net ween .\ndocides I a.nd Pysias \\, the attack on C.A^pliisiu< in 4J. and especially the unsmtahility for the law-court of tlie mvective. llerwerdenA' thought it a late rhetorical exercii-e, m ap-reement wdth kd-ancken. whose argument- had. liowever. ■■281 II -'6. =A'\nd(-c, \ . n. i ; VHP n. iS; X. n. 35- '-ci. Hirzek Rh. Mus. XPII (1887). 23Q f- '* 104, ''op. cit. 'MP 240. n. 5-. ''47') f. "^^''f- op. cit. t ) !')US SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS rt'vH'iulv hi-i'ii aUaAixtMl in ui'i.iil h} /iiti ,iMd k^cihnk. L iui>i;l and 'llKillicinr' rcjCi'trJ it wiiIh.uI am (l!-cii--inn n^ it< autl]or>hi|). W'cbcr " atlcnipteil to r-^ rcctlle<^ of the view licld !>\- {.iii^iii-. i ir rhuii-lit thaJ \ 1 wa- written aUcr the trial prohalil) :i\U/v the ainlaar bud -eeii Aiulocide^' s|>eeel!. l)ta'rup''' ni a rr\ lew ,,t ,,, ,■,..,,. ,.. t e)P.h- u'hat ina\- he eatliere'l naaii Cieeia), I-harin^ ij. 48 than eon ieetnre. >ni1i alenlniealKai aan nexaa Uv iin>i\: V. Schneider" -nninied np the ar^nnuait- in hah !,,.n ,\i Hi * O U H view defeiKU'd hv \\'e!)er andi h>rern!a A eoniianporar) 1- n:ni:\m'^i^ s(,iphi-ta.' orii^in tor \ 1 I lie declamatory totie, intentional fal^ijitaati. ai- ot laci ni 5^1. ilie iPiX-ective ai4airn>>l Andoeide-, ah ])oint to tlie -anie eoiu/ln-'aaL Schneider rejeeteii,L:.i4e>iion of reveled p'nhlieatieai, lu-ean^e lie eonld not ^I'e the laai-on tor -neh addnions ,\- \j. The author of thn^ -pcech liaal before Iiini Andoeale- h" aral 40 440, n. T, *'XXX\!M. " ov.. rit, *Ar P, W XX i noon, a:- fT. "Jalirh, f. Phil. Sup. >.X\11 ta>oan ^^7n.. i)rcriip in ho oiit!.»n of l.^(n■rates (la-ip/i-j. njuOi , prints ibucralc^ l a> ihooajpoi roi lli^^alr(.oi ■noL-qriKT] KaraaKtirj Kal to utrtwpov or? roiro sai TvoumKOf t'pr]ui;oi'. " if] orationihu.s iruiirK-r." ^pialirb. t. iliil Sup. XX\ !i ( ignaX :,-2(f. " 'i'halheini. l^ P. W. Xi\ uSij.p, kkj,^, aoioia-:e i. ir- rupt, thougfil it i!Tip»o.-,>iblc Lu draw curicki>iuii5 Ituiu 11, and emended it in fns edition. '*ci. And. I. ja, i,;; IV), K;^^;, f>^, wiia by>. \'b 5. ni n, n), jj, rt'>nectivelv. SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 33 this author was a contemporary of Lysias. Yl is a sophistic invective to be attributed, m Ai probability, to Theodorus of Byzantium. This cnnrfu^inn is based, in pan. upon- iJrcrup's stylistic investigation. Polak '" acrreed wiiii idassand lehh ijiat VI was delivered in euun. ! he author^iiip ui Pheodorus seemed to Inni n^a in- t>rohable, a^na hv no means certain. Mot.^eliniann '' and Ldirist '' simply rejected \ 1. Now that \ ' vdn T was once regardt <1 as the product of late rhetoric, has been laTaPiiitated a- da work iU a eonteniporarv, it i^ v.'nrth while n« ]oo'^ alosely ai tlie reasons given by scholars for denying abs(dnn ]\- the authorship of I ,ysias, thonnT thcv do iHit liesitate to attrihuie it to a wrin r sehokir> ajue \aini»ns inleriaT'tatinnv, — mnv acr(.»rait for llie lack of cnnvinaing power ]]] the -!>eo'h. In ni\ (tpini-ai the iad\- atteiii]'! tliat X\"--ild\- iieiitioim >])Oiv;e--nian. rina ir- waiat ]k)haTate- attempted wdieii lie wrote in tlie person of Anvtii- airain^t S'-arate^^ ddie serUeiua' siriuanre, the u-e (d rhetorical figures, the general :odierne of eonipu>iiion. are all euine^>edl\- i-v-iamc. ""11 neaa XX .\ m 1 /< ) t 5^3. "The laai that ddu'«H;.iru> i-- in\-.jrde(l as the aiit!"an- oi >i)ec^aies men-i ddnai-x'huho and An(h>aides p:ives ns nn ri^ht t>* identii\ with . < I . hciri tia'-e anralinted to P\ma^. Anvitlicr speecli atiainst Andocide* .au^d a- P\'-aa;ita f ^ *; i'TjfiO'?, h\- i kirpocrahian s. ev. (tti'^i toi- hud rrXaa- rr]pta:jai-ri s. 34 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 35 It iioi iiiiii-ri-ift !o reject outri0it m ^i^'iiimI- ci tbr in- tni'-inn n! porlk' anu aiaauiihlK^ rx i'l ] .1 \- lilt i> prcihahK- ml anfiniiaL a -i^cca 1 .\-sias :' r. . > t la nt !UT\\a-(/ no! Hi i Ilia* I :a)^C U t is with a U'ual aaai \U-Vi a-liantia (cf. 5.-4 ^ 1 .aal,- .jnina!. then. tliat Lv>ia-. ha> wnucn ihi- iii\aa-lna, and jaaaad n ni lac naann <*f an ardent partisan, a -aiprrMila aw. lana-i -w annain'l c -n-rrxa- tive. wlio-e leactionarx \ir\\^ are -nilahh. vdan ni « .hh ; a-huuiri ! lanL^uai^ta A parallel in ihv peiiihaiai)' n* i!a- laniruaije miuhi be sonLiiit ni the di tVnrenf lat a ai m lanana;.:r ;n -nia .t a"nur n> Hehastie and Arecspa-it in a^.url-, -. 1*^ trie n!n\' ni-'a!a:t scholar- ha\a^ rairamail fr.an ha-ini: rau'vaaai (a a >|)ccari. oi al least a dnuht nf n^ L;ennnuaa;--. nj)iai advrr-a aritiai-^n- dan has come dnwai fraan ancient inncs. li wa- liu- laianaaiaan 'anliis tdaan A '•■•-^•- •- — ''A-ia \sheeidi ; hnt nuahiuA i'l antiCi--!n ni ncnci'al ^atan !•■ a,i\r ia l\Cl' iTi;/f(C '"f/^ [ Tt j -,11)01- " Ichb. JoJ :— - " 1 'la )nn^ --av > , . - I a.tl t la,' flaii a-jrain 1 'aa aa- > a .\i ' -^ia. m |)artuailar. la-miincnf--, !'»!- ilit- nnc< 'luiiK-uiij ra'oiin. niat lu- cni;l(} n really an araa)r of inn/rpifaatK a nn ]u^ pan X^a even i'aiihis eoii'd lao r hah d to aadcmaafl \dL aor i-niial he ha-, e ^ivcn Mich an arainnera aeanio c, tut eejiMH ; .-r m thr phra-y" anat-r eon- sideration. refias, ~'tf)' Tor (r>;K<>i', ' Snidas, s. va HaiXoc Vs. vv. arjKos, imypuixovas. Yin. K ' S I 1 1 , /"/opfa '~f)(}'^ 7rir<; i-rrf ■!'0>'(T'!aTT im hadly tnuiilated. and is p*eriia]j> ot ad tlu- extant -iaaadic-- in the wan"-! ccaidilion. Tnvlor * and Mar!<]and" expre-^ed douht oi its i^etiiiineness. ]\ia-kc ' refti^ed to decale the nne^tiici. hecaii-e much of the otir ii^'norance of the facl<. lie thcaiLtiit it a Khter op fornuila of rennnciatir)n of ineiuAldp, uninne ni n- loiah and h\ lo meaiw a (htaniic -i^eech. "^licinad' contented hini-cA with skilin^ tlie -iK-eC!i 'Aiefnre tiU- aicirchy ", and with jMantini^ di^p(ai\-f jAosl^e':- tluaaw of it^ heinii a letter. >nn!iarha i lainz ' niereh a-;ii;ned it to ciii earn' dale, i. e. to befcaa.- 40O 1 1. C. lathree hidd that \ lie in-:c A!, ^ara Hcouvrjarnr ij , i«; at! excerpt nkiAclierk iu/iuwanLt" that the diff'ereiice in -tvle he-- "iweeii L\-]a.s' earhs' and his kite mantier would be ?liiliit, :?a\v in C( i annaad-c, i ;4u. in kea-ke. S9S' he says unly, " Uraiie, (paa *2q6. ^206. * I2S. 3 ; ed., 249. ^ 70 fT. Of lav aetaiied objections, most have been oafisfactorily an^werad 1 \ htaa.a Gevers and Scheibe. alaai as ■■'] latak at aw ". a-ia'- paaaoaani n\ ^iat- arte critica persaiiaiidis. Man-n:r. 1^30, 36 SI i UIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS a!!ti wiivicAiv \-criKi! i-.-h- inuiiniK. reasons for rejecting it, raihcr !!;:i!! a — iL^inni,; an r.:r]\ .lac Like Spen<^-el he thon-iil it s to n-iucize \\i the sentence -n-iuniu- ilinn lloNrluT. .hhI accounuu for sini^ui:;: ily of (lirn..i! by the con- diliuii (jf liiv !i: — - Mr ihrrci.M-e :;■■• ej-.'i Spencrer- «!ictuin that T.v^ia- w mtc \ !N iu'fore the aiiaiv]-. ^^^iu/:iH■ repLuii- aic I ! ; ! 1 ( u ■ r 1 1 ' I \ .ysias' attention, lie planted on! ih.i! ili^' i'. ni' ia loii of the •.•\! lankc^ a \cr) chthcnU to reaali a hiKil < nihaii-i< u), and adniaa/d i !i:il in\ laHty of tia a^c, aiid du n-e n\ r a a vssions not elsewhere occnrrinj^ in Lysias are in>uth(acnl a r* aaal- h a' re w^'l u )a 1 r » . ; I 1 - * ' he ohserved avoidance ]''\,['u ehjuc nun uplano 1 »en--taer vajuueiiine* l \ i ; of hiatu-, and a^^^iirncd a s-' *' !-h<-a.fi senorinu !e!ri]H aaini, .jUm eliaai duvai .naauaent urn exile'. lailk " did not i-ne-tani u^ -enuasiMie--. a'al nw.iuda, a was prn])al)]\' waalten i^'V aetn;;! n-r :i!al dea\ercd neiia'r a ehai e e riaanr, aia-nr(hna to laiik. a oni^l !).:\ e maae ;i ea-aaa' -tatenieai oi naaai that is nuTeh- alluded t'e l-eean-e U \\a- ..h\aind\- laiown !<> tke anditaire addre-^^ed^ «V Mailer ,d-Mt aeerplrd die nu-va' as ! ,esiani(a hut heliexed a \\a- ha-rd n]H»n tarenrn-'anae- n! nai life, and that, thonah -< 'pin-! laaih \\"ana! in Marai- aiHiN ( i, in whii-k 1 a \ 1 are ihr o; ^ >1 llV- aa-t^' he- 1 >re- 3f>4 f. ,1 an^werea, a^ aor eaa Ii 'I], I .(■ 1( K'-> W estr!!;!,! 1 S ^s n 'MMul.^ 1 1 '. i \ r - aiestion of aea U ii in iii.^ ediUuii. a- •a- ^-it. 353. 14 13 ff. a-, a!]- SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS tiaau:hl nnn-nal aral i-ranaken ^' hit thai t^ ^(a-\a'd. as well a- ai X and H- derived ni^-. kor Un- laaison. .aid !;ecause he missed ;i formal priaan and narrative ainl ftanai l]]c diiaiaal aera/ralh- fnvok.n-. he inion that tkeoe wlio kak laaeoXal the -pcaarn jlldaed " eekea aaan \eruis 1 'arow "■ taXerred t* < it as ** laeiniosa (l naitne "", Ijiil not a- -pun(iU^. i'ertait" re\erted p. krida-M akw, and -aw in \ i 1 1 a latter of nknki tke tkeine i^ d( \aXopek ni -opkwtia fadn*ui ; aae(aaiino^ to hnn then it is ] art of !>ysias' >ophi:aae work. !a A. Muder'" mentioned it a- nn- oaie-ti(juahly bpuiauu>. ( ileinica^r " pointed ot a* ant )o>ii a as m 1 a^ -aa- tana (ajt liial mnek m tlte ;^tH;eai anaative ! i IV nrae d tiiai tile wa-ekli oi detail and tke ak-enee id i^eneralizini^ c(annioiiplace- pro\a^ that it can ke no nuaa' rlaaiaaiad exerewe, iliatim. he -iiowad. m iess carefnkx' avoalea tlani lien^n-ler keae\aak IXeeawe ^a the ohsiaint\" ke tk ataki tkat tke pre-^ax tonii tional eitM]nna,aa and |);aal\ le) thai ui llie Ctjinisl. kiurniann '' ni of \d kl i- .m inten- -1 1 15 18 19 Mneni. ( 1903 . , i '7 (r. '^ 59 ff. : 237. " suppositicia ". " 327 Quaestioneir;! Lysiacaruia -pLcimen, Dcneariirt, 1869. 39. "249. "3. "I50ff. "' ^ i. 15, the proper names; 10, the normal cost of a horse, ict A.rnli iXancs. Nnbc^. 22 f. : T22 fX ; 6. the toia? (u' reverence in refcrcriCe tu Eleiisis. '"ibrna-. X ( ib-Ji.) ) , 347 ff. 3S SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 1 --j )nrh)U-ness 1 ' -■« u[>pcj>iliuii i \ic\\ inaiiunincd lii;it \ FII is a ftcAcrr;, wfilten for a fi(MitH'i!< c:\<(\ and ilmt too at a late date. '1 iu:> lie attciinacd In prnxi' !i\ iMaiuinL^ <«ii! tiu' u-e '^f n!Hda--u;n1 wnrn^ and uraiiniial laal |H;ciiliarilU'-. whul; \i<<\\v\ (jiiaU'K' (,'\|ilaiiK'il ])(/t]! i)\ kii!)]/' wlw' ailinnio hut iXMll-^rtl in ai)!!-i(l('r il a. la'a //cAt r-/. .and i )\ \\ U'l)])'^ "' ^iii^ular in\a,'aii\a' a^ani-t \\\v \\t a"llilr--ne<< of tlic piccf has |)c'(,M] siit'tK-inntl\- aoinnnailnd iij'nn 1)\" i'^jal./' ItiI ■- scIk' "' in a di^-cTlation tliat lia- added link- to attcrnpU'd pTtMiis of s|>iirion>ncssd rejected the ^peeeh. Alhreclit "' exi)re>sed hi-, a^reeineni w ilii ilie \ lew -n'^L^C'^tefi 1)\- Dohree and ado])ted h\- ( ileini^er. llerrniann," on the cain- trar\'. agreed with !)in"n]ann that it i^ no exeei'pl, hn.t :>])nrion->. Thalheini ' also rejected the theory thai it !-- an epnonie. hi defense of this view StiUzer"' used a^ his main argument the obscuritw which seemed to him also a proof that it could not he a jieXertj. 1 le thought the epitome had been made for the sake of the rhetoric; that only enough of the original had been pre- served to afford a setting; ; and that the original belongs to Lysias' early, sophistic ])erio(l. IVetzsch"' and b. Schultze " also a^ree that V 1 11 is an epitome, (iebauer ' and Sittl "' tacitlx assume spuriousness. Rlass '■' declared \ 1 11 spurious, usini;" as a criterion avoidance of hiatus, some peculiarities in expression.' the excessive sim- plicity that is nevertheless combined with pointed antitheses "Rursian. IX (1877), j6_> f. ; Zeits. f. (ivmii.. XXXI (1877), ^(^i.; XXXV (1881). loi tT. '"]. c. '''m)i. 'U(^. ^^ Dc pseudolysine orationc octava. ivostock, 1877. He (jiiotes a^ ba\- ineci]re thi^ proj2:raninun or to find any detailed account of it. Tliere is a hare mention of it hy Xowack. 205, and another hy Halleiisleben, 4. n. 23. ■''" Fveviewed ])y Blass in lUirsian IX (1877); referred to l)y him in A. B. b 642, n. 6, as " \veni<4 hedeutend ". 20. -'5. ''Jahrh. f. Phil. CX\II (i87S).;4o. ''4Q<)rt. '''j,S\. 3X ^^ 32 . 36 3S De Lysiae oratione triuesima. Berlin. 1883, 2~ f. '" 7. n. 'o. 131. He pointed out that only in \dll. 18, do we find ^a roi's f)eovs. the solitary i)arallels to which are \'I. 7. ,U', 38, /jlo. t6u Aia. '''04()}T. *^ Includin.tj: some that have been defended 1)>' other scholar> ; — for 10, (pL\oao(poi'UTas, see Scheihe. 3^15 : 7. 7ro\i'0i\os ; 17, dTro^ero?, TrapaKaTaBrjKT]^', ha\e heen i)aralleled hy Polak. 1. c. . I . (1 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 39 and paranomasia ; his final argunieni w a^ that he could not find natural ethos or any other Lysiarnc niialii \- in it, An epiturnizer. be thought. W'^ib] not lirna^ avonj^d hniui^. He wa:- nichned ni anren wuli !\eiske ihat n i- a letter, or rather a letter 01 n, resiunalnin in i!k' lorni in a -peecli ; l:v heluwed tnat it wa> x'vntlen liir actual u-i.' ])eu>re an 'Sui omiAui.'' 1 A- dal^^'d U to\\ar(A ilu- end of the Attic period, liut admitted the imjiOssi- biht\ u^^ ai'nviuL: at a defniite conclusion concernini^" thi^ urhfjue j.'iece o! W(»rkn i lallen.^leben " m a programme not highly valued by Xowack.'" reiected it maml} on grounds of excessive antitheses and tm- pleasant verlial rejictitiouis. lie tlujUL^hd it was actually de- h\ei"ed in an assem1)i\' ot triends. \\ eidner '' re\erted witbi ^ome he-itation to the idea that \'I11 is an epitome. Xowack '' rejected it. \ ianello."' as Ikiur '' had already done, accepted it as i^'enuine, while fdirist '' did not even raise the (juestion of authenticity. Jlerwerden *'■* spoke of it as " futilis et obscura ", and bracketed it in his edition. Schneider " an.d C'roi^et ' con- sidered it s])urious. Thalheim " expressed himself with less finality. Iiude bracketed the speech. I^olak " dated the s])eech at the end of the fourth or beginnin^^" of the third century Lb C, rejecting Biirmann's arguments for a later and Idialheim's for an earlier date of composition."^ He thought it was written for an actual occasion, and so, with Falk, explained the obscurity by assuming that the w-riter merely alluded to facts already known to the judges. The ethopoiia that he found, he thought unintentional, and therefore more effective; finally, he resented the low valuation of the speech by ])lass and Jebb. rhe one point upon which scholars agree in reference to Vlll *Af. Anaximcnes, Rliet. I; Dionys.. de Thuc. 49. "op. cit. *^ 104. he speaks of it as " nullius pretii ". ** 6. " 104 f. *" L'ottava orazione di Lisia e le societa private Atheniensi, Genoa, 1895. See Bursian, 84, for a review of this. Ferrai is cited as believing either in spnriousness, or at least in considerable revision. ^A49f. ''37^- ""Mnem. XXV (1897). 217. "" 3-^7. "=" XXXIX. "Mncm. XXXI (1903). i57 ^• '*"' He explained the use of ^i'j^ as conscious Atticizing. 449, n. I, ♦ I 40 SPURIOUS Sl'KIiCHKS IN Tin-: LYSIANIC CORPUS SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 41 is that it certainly was never delivered, or written for delivery, before a court " Whether or not it was written for delivery before an assembly of friends is still a moot point. The main argument uri^ed a.t^^ainst its hciuix a merely epideictic piece is the obscurity which has, 1 think, been overemphasized, witliout sufiicient consideration of the condition of the text. The i;cn- eral situation is clear : a man who has been treated by members of his club in such a way as virtually to oblii;e him to resii^n, turns the tables and, in an address to them which is in line an accusation of them, sii^mities his intention to withdraw. The story of the horse ( 10 f.) is more than an allusion, and the text is responsible for the blurred outlines. It is unlikely that such a speech was written by another than the man who delivered it, and still more unlikely that, if it was not written for publication, it sliould have been preserved. It is not of course v /leAcn; iu the sense of a rhetorical treatise on an abstract theme, but it is almost certainly, as l)eri;k thought, a Trutyitor. The fact that it has come down also in a separate ms. should l)e a contlrmation, rather than cause for doubt, of its authenticity. Idie combina- tion with II and \'I suL;<2:ests that the scribe chose samples of various types of Lysias' work, — the epitaphius, the invective, the iraiyvLov, — all of them e])ideictic. Avoidance of hiatus, which is noticeable, bul whieh Picnseler, as Gleiniger pointed out. exa^i^erated mii;ht sui4.i;est that Lysias, at one period of his career, entered into rivalry with Isocrates; we know that in several in.stances they wrote on the same themes.^ There is no foundation for the assuiuption, made by those who date the speech early, that Lysias as he L;rew older was less influenced by Sicilian rhetc^ric, or that he could not have written such a Traiyviov \o\v^ after he was established in Athens. The fact that Plato, in the Phaedrus, after Lysias had .i^^ained fame, used the kToticus to characterize the Lysianic manner is sii^niibcinit. "^ Meier u. SclifHiiann, Dcr Attische Process, ed. Lipsius. Ikrliii, iSSv" ^7, 628. '^ Psocrates XXI and Lvsias fr. XXI\' ; Psocrates X\l and Lysias XIV, XV. il The theory that it is an epitome, so easily advanced, so in- capable of proof, does not obviate any difficulties. The remain- iuii^ objections to ^genuineness, — first the antitheses, and secondly the occurrence of unusual forms, — are less si.i2:nificant than they would appear at first sip^ht. Since this piece is unique we have no fair standard by which to judge its rhetoric, and though Lysias as a rule uses antitheses with moderation, still with this type of speech he may have been g^uided by conventions. The citation of parallels or justifiable emendation has removed nearly all the exceptions taken to certain unusual forms. To balance these we have the use of cvv and other minor indications of an early date. The humour of the situation and the irony wdth which the speaker is characterized are, one would think, unmistakeable. In both Lysianic inversion ])lays a part. The conclusion { 18 ft.) is, as P)aur remarked, especially good. Certainly one must say that the summary rejection of the speech which has been the fashion of late years is unwarranted." ^' It is interesting: to compare with the invective against the evil ."Speakers in this piece. Theophrastus' description of tlie evil speaker ( Jebl)-Sandys ed.. KjOy. 112 f.) ; — xal cruyuadrj/xepos Sfuos nepl rov dpaardv- Tos ciVeij', Kal dpxr]^ 7^ f^X'70ws M^? diroaxiaSai /X7)d€ rovs otKci'ois avrov Xol- dopijcraL Kal TrXelara nepi tCjv (piXoov Kal oUeioji' KaKo. eiireip .... Kal Ttln> iv T(f> /Sta> y]^i-OTa tovto TroLdju. I IX. IX, v7T(fj Tov (7TpaTuoToi\ is citcd oiicc by lIar])Ocration,' with some doubt of its genuineness. Taylor,' owing to its obscurity, ' S. v. SiKaiojais' Arat'as eV T vnep rov (XTpaTiwTov, el yvrjaios, Kal /j.d\a, Tcts diKaiuati^ ancken ' rejected it. l^rst he concluded that it was muti- lated, because, in spite of 3 aiayKa/dy um Tvepl 7rai'T(oi' <-rr;i'> (xtto- Xoyiav TToirjaaadai, the only mention of Polyaenus' former life is found in 14. This fact may be used as an argument um ex silentio against the speaker, but is no real evidence ft)r mutila- tion, or ground for rejection. l^Vanckcn took exception to many passages for which obviously the condition of the mss., not the author, is responsible, and for most of them he him. and Jebb, Xowack. Pabst. among: more recent scholars ; on the other side, Holscher, Siegfried, Gilbert. Blass, Thalheim. Lysias uses apx^i' for arpaT-nyos in X\I. 6. XXVIII. I :;. XI\\ 21, XV. 5' For parallels of the construction, see Pabst 47. to which may be added XXI. S. " 17 f. '' 10, n. i. '' 327 f. ■■ De argumenti ex contrario formis, Zwickau, 1877, 376: op. cit., 7, ^ 15 ^ n. 50 10 6. He found contrary to Lysianic usage Trpo^acrts. 7, -rrepl eXdrroj'os Troielaeai, 1 6. 1 8, 22 \ '' Zcits. f. Gymn. XXXllI (187Q), 43- "■2<). Zeits. f. Gymn. XXXVI (1882), 340. IS 409. Hermes XA'I (1881), 88 ff.^ ^ 3() f. '\)\). cit., 27. '^ed., LXXXI. f 44 SPURIOUS SPKECHKS IN TIIK r.VSIANIC CORPUS Blass " cited ai^ainst Stiitzer the fulness of ])rocm and epi- logue as contrasted with the shi;htness of narrative and proof, but used this as an ari^ument for rejection. Hie etlios, he feU. was not sustained ; the narrative devoid of charm, the proof insufficient, the style lacking- in I^ysianic sini})hcity. Jehb " thou,!L^ht it spurious, written hy a |X)or imitator of r.ysias, !)ut for a real case. W'eidner"" considered that possibly it is a late excer])t. Xowack '"' rejected it, advancing- as special objection the solitary address to the judges in 3. lie admitted that the writer was evidently versed in Attic law, an admission defended by Pal)st,'' who rejected the speech, and bv Keller,'" who accepted it. Tabst's rejection is based virtually u])on the same arf^uments as those advanced by Stutzer and lUass. althoui^h, no doubt, his identification of Ctesicles with the archon influenced his decision. I lerwerden '" was convinced of its spuriousness by what be thoui^^ht was avoidance of hiatus, and agreed with ilalbertsma that it is an ej)itome of a non-Lysianic s|)eech. (/roiset " and Thalheim '' also rejected it. I'olak,''' in refutation of Iler- werden's aru^ument, pointed out cases of unysias' lucidity absent from the subject and the stvle. btit did not reject IX outrii^ht. I lude." inllueuced l)v the " orosojjopria ej^rei^ia ", accepted it. The rejection of IX, ba laid so much em])hasis, lias vanished in tlie lii^ht of recent in- vestij^-ations such as those of Pabst and Keller. The atithor has even been freed from the accusation of i^nor;nice of Attic law. There remain then onl\- objections due to the absence t)i charm and ethos, and to the lack of simplicity in st\le. lUu, in my opinion, it is j)recisely the presence of ethos that accounts for 23 ;96fT. 449. n. I. 25 6. Hi 2-\ I(t- i()8 f ''' ap. cit. ^]()H, II. 4. " < '!». cit. () SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LVSIANIC CORPUS 45 <.. .")■ y the truculent, })ointedly antithetical style. The speaker is a veteran with a i^rievance, without the humour of the invalid who s])eaks in XX I W It must be remembered that ethos pre- supi)oses an interpreter of some dramatic imagination. ConsideriuL^- the small proportion of Lysias' work that has survived, aTra;- Aeyo/xeva that are paralleled in writers of the classical ])erio(r'' should not be used as an argument against genuineness. Hie generally ])oor condition of the text may l)e in part responsible for the presence of difficulties. The impossibility of identifying the persons named in the speech { for obviously Ctesicles is a general and not the archon), suiT^ests its l)eing t<)rical inaccuracx ol ^^ i , wlierc thi.- speaker says that lie isroeeeded a^ain^t the Thirt} iniiiiechatelx ii|)()n coming of a,^e, i. e. in ^]n<) l*. i". (ci. 4). lUit hy ^n*;, Schei1)e pr()te>te(h all of the Thirty, exeejst l->atostliene- and Pheidon, had heen put out of the wav ( L\-^. Xll. 541. and even hh'atosthene,-- had hc-en ]>r()>eeuted hv L}>ia->. Sneli a Ijlimder in a genuine >])eeeh is ti> him ineredihle. h'rohher^cr " and lUa-^s ' ha\e answert-d thi-- ohivetion l)y ^tatin^' that the ])()S^ihiht\- of procXMhire ai^ainst IMieidnn and {^ratosthenes ^nfiieed to niahe ^^ i intclh^ihle. I hit helore their answer, 1 iecker ' had, on the same i^rotmds as Seheihe. rejected X. h'lirther. I'raneken ' thought the spcceli mu' of L\-i.as" he:-!, lie also ohjeeted to _^ 1 ;is hi-ti)rieall\ impii^^ihle. hut aoeounted f(.)r it h\' a>snmi!iL; that the sp^al^er lied aliout his a-f in 4. lUirman.n,'" witlioiU further reason tlian the pre-enee of diuipo's and (TKCKts, anid I larpoei'a.tion > ri-])eate<.l t- yt'/fr^os-. re- jected X. I'Ut niiiipn^ and its lorni- are fcanid in XW. jn, as well as in \dll. J, Phacfhais J^^^l). 11. 7,;. X. jS. XL io; form- of (jKiiuxi. onl_\- in \ III. 15 and X, 15 Two \ears later. Konrad Iferrmaim " aNo, in a more detailed in\-c-ti'j,ai inn. canne to the conclusion that X is s])uriou- : he thou^lit it a po-i-1 )emo-tlienie exercise. .\--iL;mnL: C'Hisi(lfrai)le mi] torianiT if! i laia m laralion's douht, he hunted out par'allels hctween X and the ralier -perehc^ to which i lar|)0(n"atit M! altarlu.-(l ti yiljirn.s. i. c. \ L XI\ . XX1\'( ?). XXX. and aKo hctwi'en X and llio-i- wlnv']] \]c Inni self considered spurious, 11. \dll. IX, ! iir-^' p;irad:rN ni themselves are sliiiht and 1 lerrmann eonles-cd thai t!u-\ w^uid not sutiice to disfnaavi' the uenuineiu-^- oi X,/"' The hnuui-tia peculiarities cited h\- him fail to ju-tifv a helief in the -puiious- ui 1^ I 1 . 7' J. n. ,0 , ' .< >'. *'*»}). cit.. 51. i- rt iiilirrL'tT, "S, rfjci'ftil la-. araiaatr-lN a^ \\]'«<1 tenabU'. lie cvcTlonktMl >rlu ;l c ralluia lif4.rr liu > nl\- -r.ai"''a'r <>i Har])»)Cratin a ca.,-^e tliat was compromised out of court, bcaar,- main' traces oi acniL! :m ess< av bv Demosthenes i 11 many of the forms of e|)ideictic invective and encomium. ''cf. Piti'ai. "Zcitv 1. (jvmn. XXXl 11 (i<^7'.'). 4-' ff- '■X\L;aiu^l ik'rniiann. ivolil. 1. c. : (jchaucr. 7, 11. 50; I31a--. iaursian XXI ( 1880), 184 ; (>]). cit., 607, n. 0; Stulzcr_. iicrnics X\d (1881 ). <.>7 1^ ; Xt)wack, uaj 1. 48 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 49 Mtii iciciiLd lu X as certainly spurious, without however ritti n^ptinc^ anv proof. The later rhetoricians, therefore, ac- cording- to lii failed to recoi^nize this when they made the \ .nation" (XI). Stutzer " had already pointed iiiliij ill ilie assumption thai rlutoricians worked • <^peech. Baur" thought that hu.-.piLiuii.- of nnu-irntlv well QToiitv]p 1 niru Ul- liaa!nr P' Miini( aa a. sa ^cMiuiiia. I'niii-- '" rp\a\'<.-(i d* aila 1 1 -fi a1<. , hv](] that X \vri< i a- 1 - ' 1 > a . 1 1 a ( 1 il-^ l: pnuauair. t " 1 1 i vU'i 1 Uk' ira:-ailalil\ and pctiilaiua- ni iiu' ])i,ii!inii. in In- nalna'at th^nsl^at ihe pid'^p-, i and a.p to ]n> ariaraatari/alion! nt Muaiin- ncstn^ '' and to tlu- '" rn-aalilialikail "' ol tlk' aatack. I 1k' rc])r('aah that TlieoniiK'sin^ !•- a citward i> arnj >ha^i/pd ])\- rcpn- titioM, (though nt'arK' always hy in^iniia.tion. so that the speaker avoids libel) ; he and his t"athor are alike in that, and big men, too! (cf. j8. 2().) This, r)runs tbougbt, bad naa ])laee in an accusation for slander; furthermore it refers to the previous trial, in which the speaker bad testified against ddieomnestus, who nevertheless had won the case. In my ooinion, liruns erred in his iiUeri)retalion of the char- acter of the speaker, who is by no means the prototype of the man from Shropshire. On the contrary, be is a man of con- siderable humour, and no little irony. He would not have objected to an accusation of murdering Theomnestus' father, 2 ; his brother had robbed him of his patrimony after bis father's death, — of course, then, he wished his father alive (cf. 5; also 9, 11,21, 28-31 ). Idle detailed interpretation of the laws, 15 (i.^ suggests a comic scene in which a master instructs an obtuse '"14Q. ; 1^4, n. Novvack, I. c, expressed surprise at such a statement. "1. c. '' 162. ^"Bursian XXI (1880). 184; op. cit.. (>oi fi. '" 1. c. ; cf. Polak. 172. '' 3)5 f. '' 460. ^^ Bruns thinks that hysias' plaintiffs do not, in their attacks upon the defendant, ^ive a sketch of his character. pupil with painful seriousness, most ludicrous to the spectator, and the theme is that of Aristophanes Banqueters, fgg. 198, 222. The thrusts at Theomnestus for his cowardice can hardly be said to charaeurize. They are usually put in a humourous way, 9, 28, 29, and '^erve to betrav the ethos of the speaker raJb( r tlaai^ that of Iiu sannestus. It is .-paroely fair to say that the speaker attacks liie judges. He dm - Inn la nioi' ihan men- linii ihe laai thai ihex' ah-dvcd TliLajnaiestus m ihe previous tia;.!. and enters lato no mwiau-e again^I lluaia !l i> clear iheii that i'rnn-' ariruinent> proxe imthing against tiie gcnninenc^- of the speech, and thai, a^ I'okik"' reniaiXed. ilie}" are ba^-ed upuii " ] aaie indiiaila eaque ta]>a o]>inione "'. \\ kaa r.rnn^ called the "" I 'ii>achlichkeit " ui the oliarge, j)oini> to the e])ideictic nalnre of Tne speech. So too tkie pro- longed examination oi laws, wiiicb, as ba> \)CL'n |)oir.ied iiut above, suggests a comic scene, ddic trick ot ideniitxing, i. tlie judges ol' this with those of the preceding trial ( lioth tictitious), avoids the necessity of calling witnesses to ddieomnestus" words. The ethos of the speaker, humourous and ironical, also suggests the epideictic. If we resign the idea of an actually delivered speech, we need not be disturbed about the historical possibility of 31, since we may then assume cither (with bXancken) that the s])eaker lied in 4, or that Lysias simply neglected historical detail. In any case, historical precision is no sine qua non in (ireek literature, and readers of the speech which was written no earlier than 384/3 !>. C. (cf. 4), would no doubt have over- looked the inaccuracy, supposing it to be an inaccuracy." Idle introduction of the previous elaayyeXta against ddieom- nestus, I, on the charge of cowardice, (a case necessarily assumed to have been won by him, otherwise the plaintitT's task would have been too easy) ; his retaliation upon one of the witnesses in a suit if/evhofiapTvpuoi'^ 24 ; upon the speaker, l)y call- ing him parricide, — all this culminates in the present accusation '" In this way, historical inaccuracies in \T are accounted for by Schneider, Jahrl). Suppl. XXVII (1902), 367 ff., as permissible in a .sophistic exercise, thouirh not in a speech actually delivered. 50 siH'Kiors siM'.ixii [■:> ix rni-: i.vsi wu (OKrr I'UKiors spi-:i-XTii-:s ix tttk t.vstaxic corpus 51 ai^ainst Tht'oniiicslns. Here we have a ^tory of iiitrieale threads, comic irony, told l)y a humourist. |)erlia|)> with a desire to parody the slander case^ ot' the daw The faet that the speaker does not hesitate to appl\- incriminating: epithet^. jS. Jg. tu Theoninestn^ and his father, add-- ironv lo the je^t. We hear of a -])eeeh a-aan-l Panlaleon '"' whom Sanp])e " and, lldlscher"' identilied with liie brother ot llie -peakcr se!, 5). dliis su^<4\L:e^^ts tlie |)os-ihdit\' ilia! 1 aw!-uil, prrci-fl_\- heaan-e n\ the s])eaker^ ellio-, llial he ]>iil anniluo" lan. da; nuauh i>\ ihr -anie '■ hero ". eonneiaii!- tlie 1 w < » h\ llu- ])er-i aiaju \ ni t!u' iianatnr. In a \\ a \a ^^'' ma. imd m Lhi> a [larailcl lu liuj na.xicni -(.-riai nova']/' *" Ik'ruk's ( cp- -•' >*.-k!krr. l^('\l s \'\i-\]\y'x,i\:i -w < i kan', iK'on with the I'antau-nii if ,i>\i\vA\. tlnaiah ,aHir..\^a 1\ ! h K>, :u r, i^('. wa- rc- jectcal hv Bki-s. (,(ij, 11. S, . n ihr L:!-..uial < a' nioianaua i>!-....i. '• Orat. An. Ik a-a " \n'-- ^%-t. l-^ac-ii- XI ana [ Dtm j XLIM: Unaratf- Wi a-].] k^-a-- \i\' and X\' ; 1 s' i.-ratc-' 1"raia /a 'aai- i aa.ina-t i'aMuii;. ana Dcin. X.\X\ i U"ur riiuriiHuj and Xl/\ oig.ini>i >tcplianus). X 1 . »_ 1 XI, K«;rA f)ii>u\'iirrnv Xk lias bccn, ahnosj from ^'-aliger's fimia re^ar] X ui a latr rliet'. 'ruaan i a \ 1< aa' i i' ' ■>'. ^^"^ ^a" k. as such, the work oa:-jr-ua| I wo otlicr po'^^ilidit iw- ; hr-! . that X was an eniaraed a ad anpri oa-ij \aa-sion ( f XI ; -rconikoa — this he thoiii.rlu more |)roijable, — that Xi was a prelinnnar\- -pia/ah kefore the diaetri:;! mnaaau'd in X 6. f i ndl walakcr ■ reirao,d da/ second alnaaaitive 'ai ike arninal thai rrL:nkir -piaaaa'- wire iiul deh\ereii belurc da- dawlcUie, aral dial prsaaiid\' i!< ^ Adaadan rv.^r wa-n to thr t \\ .' -f of cm- idf ixdfw 1 ,\'-o;i -. \( ', \\ r^Av a -a ho ad 1 ! < a- knn a * (kduia' kt- ^ < aa; ! iuan. R \\ a kkirkland' thotight Xl a 1 k:d>cker a I ' a) raiiawa: uia- \ mere ei)itome of X, done as a school exercise by a late rheto- rician, and all >nh>e(jnent scholars have a.ureed with him.' llerrmann' and Albrecht ' investigated in detail the relation of XI to X. lk)tii of them came to the conclusion that XI is a nwre ejutome of the precedin- speech, which Herrmann" thought >ptn-i()us. hut Ali)recht acce])te(l as <^^enuine. kdirms of addros. pro])er names, citation of laws, callnpu' of witnesses are all lackin-- in XI. So, too, wdth sli.^ht exce|)tion>. ad mention n\ die previou> law-nit^ and tlie |)re]imiiiarv hear- m- kefiaa- tke aidater!^. The etlao (d the -peaker i- practically o-ona. tlaaiuii lliere i- a tone of iron}' in Xk 7 (ci. X. Ji A and in XI. oA. X. 28). h. i-a- ii XI were mereh' tke iraniework of X. lau diere i^ nu mure rea-on lo think ii an epitome than a t~ir-t krief draJ t. Adlaaaki okiecud I*' tlie repetition (d word^ in XI. T ana J, vA\w\] ka da audi! due to akisrexaaia in. (ail lie iinLiiu eatially well have oi)|ecled, ihoUL^k ke did not. lo rejieinioiw 111 X,. ic-pv For ike t>c(niiiarine< of ])]naoe in XI. he himTn So;d. ddure i^ no rca-cai, thereioiaa oii die -core of ]aia4"naL:e. in assit^n a late date la* XI. It l^ clear iruui pa>>a-c- ikat are identical werd 1 > a" voaa] m the two >=neer]ie<."' tliat one mn-^t liave been wntten with the " Unless we except Sittk 140, wlm prefrrv to c:di n a " vcrkiirzte \'aria- tion". ' op. cit. X I J. . , , "He ke, 34/ c 342. '81 f. *77' '345; 3/5. 52 Sl'LKiOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS n'hrr -1 front of iIh' writer If . th(Tefore. wc find in \l devia- tion^ iliai 1 ' M-5 ^^ ' vr iMi- abbreviation, this will be an indica- liMii a-aiii^t ih- a-uinpia.ii in.' i: i- an epitome. So XufxfS/n X- 1 ^ t '!■ 1- i\;} 'Kua . (_ K , \ I ; ■ ' ■ .' ' ■' I i »■. ! J T ( ( 5" K' € - i!k- XL 0;" there is variation in 1 X 1 S. between X. 27 and XL 9 (ni .\,. ,, uic rxpi.^-inn r^ :m-^^. -.muuhat fuller).^ In XL 8 hti^-.tpra: .am r],i -'"Xtv is paralleled by i^ rfi TroAei 8,,rrua aiX ; 1 XI ; ihe -enitive with l-ni corresponds to 1 It sec in ^ hkXx liu r lore, that X and XI are not speech and ,.,.;u.nu J ui iluii XI WIS a fir I I. etch, later expanded by Lysias ,/,|,. X Tin- irlu v.- us of the necessity of explaining how an !a>ii..!nr made i!-^ uav n iin the eorpns, a neces.iu not recognized by advocates ( » ! n 1 . aniiii >! ilv accepted tb(>or>a It is not re- 1 I nieri.abia liiai i iari-.a-ai am does n-e ni.^ X L or api)ear to know it. The same \ nu. n; X\\ Kara XXKilduihov (3', though he cites \ -,!!.. aX krra I'u aianitna ntivc in X. i ). as read in ms. X, as a 5ta ptaov ,-.,„Mra a. n. la ui: n uu writer was obviously influenced by the quite luaanal raiaaitive in XI. 6. SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 53 a! -onaXfni^iiXa' Kaiu-luai-uaia' \\ a^terniann aiitl iraruXi-ii ha\a' aX') di-proxaal 1 U-ekrrV- aa'Lriinicril-, Iv^-- rcjceia^ai ha- rait \)cvu ia: nietie eoukl aot deHvar tlie -peeeli ha- .neraily agreed tlial Iw-ias ]U;1 111 \ari<)ii> wax-, IjUI il ib gcneraii)- agreed uiai i.\ -ath i]](\ driua'r It, whiihar it was n cn'^c rX axtraorchnarx' i^roeeduri:. of ;< li. -\\\: ' >f ih(wdli/t"n>h!]) ttaniH aairdx" es .iiumd. iijm ai hmi hy the decree of T"hra-\'hiiius.** I'm e\en u it eiadd I'c laaAed that 1 1 ' 1 L}-ia:- eniild not aiai «ial iiul delnaa^ tile -paaeli, 111'-, ai my opiiiicaaa waadd imiI uiditate agairwt kl- aenmnaness, and, as a liialtta- 01 lacl. \\ k;an( twaia ' ihniiv- liail aflcr its delivcrxa it \\a- au!)]i-hrd a- a anhueal i»am!>hial. *Zeits. f 1. Altswiss. VII (1849), 348 ff. Nowack, 191. thinks his ( rk' MMn a.nnecessarily harsh, but is himself cntiia hv opposed to Hecker's view. XMIIf. "79ff. Kayser, 328, approves, but finds Franc kc a- refutation too gentle. ' Polak. 1/9. n. i., refers to it as 'X\lphonsi Heckeri sententia sane- quam mirabilis ct aanc dudum silentio oblitterata ". * Croiset, 433; W ilamowitz, H, 219, n. 4., insists upon the "juristische Selbststiindigkeit " of metics. "II, 223. M ! ! >:ennine hy the ancients/ nidi''-u.ilnii:1\- aeeepted bv XIL'^(r^Hi'(i\'s, raairMf>;a ha> hreii ahiiu-t naix^rr-an inudtaai -a!a ilai"^ dechirad ha^ hvhve' daa da^ laa-aal iXiaa ^i di in,,rei.r a-^ rcvwaea ie,.u lur.n ahea- rwrelad il. ^ iX-ehm". ;,r-iinRMim irMiii da- wiiq.n-cd ha^Ma^,d aiaeeiirana^ ai die .nceeb. irmii himuwnr p-a. ! hiri".*crat k ••), ^i'O f {('lwac!\ 77 f. ^1 ^t^ 1', iln\. i^-r a oiapha. h-i of testimonia, S-- a)."<. a. 1 ' op. cit. XIIT. ) ' A-;Of,<^r(,r, ia'M-nd>k-< clo^elv, hi -!\ia aiai -idaeet nanuaa tlir precednig speeeh. m/tu d-:/,aro-iim e-'^^e et x'aida-. amendatif)!iam ad]iihaa--t' mine piget. ^jies'^i -iipin .-^iiam esse a Uraaeido ha!i- nKiamlro aloneis a- )j csl ^iiaaba^ tor not an-^wcrniL: Marklaial^ ar-iinionl, -aluaka Imwrv.-r. (lid not. at Ica-t m tin- plavc. roirat \!\ . aiin-lit.' i-alk; l-ranckcn; [•'rohhcr-er; and otlua-^^' in^M in -j.Uf ut llarpocration'- donl.t. upon the -^cMiunRMU/-- oi -"^ ' ^ • ^ ^ '''^' trcalnKMil of the older Aleihiade- in tin- s|K'erh foiled \ i^elier to indi-nation a-ain-t it- author, who v.va^^. however, deiende-i l)v Rauchensteiii ' a> havin- heen exee-Mvelv irritated h> the eticomium in Isocrate- \\ l.Trtpl rov ^'eryors. Teiehnudler ' -aw evidence of Lysianie authorship in the very invective that ias hei-ele-t ". and ( hilde '" thou-ht that it was written by a contenii)orary of 1 .y^ia-. Idiese scholar^ were probably convinced, thou,i;h Reinhardt '' and I arel " were not, by the arguments of lUass a-ainst the <^enuinene>s ot Xl\ . Rlass/" though admittin.u" that there are no external -rounds ai^-ainst the speech, excei)t 1 larpocration's d yr->inLos, still decided upon rejection. Parallels with XXX he naturally refused to 'Scheibe, 367, concludes wrtm.uly from Keiske s nete, .44 t., nut lie ciuestioned its genuineness. "* i<)2. , • ,, M c He cites Markland's note. 547 f- as aitackuii; the l;enulnene^^ of XIV. That is stran.ue in view of the fact that it apostrophizes the author as "O hone Lvsia ". . . . ' He hrackets it, liowever. in Die Oligarchische I mvval/unp: 711 Athen, Leipzig 1841. as does Dessoulavy (cf. XoNvack 5. n. i). .Scheihe doe^ not question its Genuineness in his edition. Weslermann. (,riechische Beredsamkeit. 280. hracketed XI\' and XV. hut rejected neither in hi., edition. ^178 tT. 'io8tY.; 237- ''' H U- . " p>ankel 8- Baur. 2V): Sittl assumes its L;\-iiniiieness ; llioma>cnik. thesis H. '''cf. Blass.'4o-'. 'Ml. J>(). ^'Zeits. f. Gymn. XIX (18^,5), Jher. 2^ ,^ "J. J. Supi)l. \ni (i8757'»>. 54". 43 ''3. n. 2. 2,^ 4^0 t.. \ SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 55 admit as evidence of genuineness."" Two considerations led Blass to rejection:— firM, ihe style of the speech whi li contains rhetorical figures in exce^'^. e-i-ei aaily iiuniuiuickuUt, lur winch he can find parallels onU ni iIk- Fpitaphins ; '' secoiidh' the absence of ilhc-, <.;' .diarni. and of coiivincing power, io account f»a- the I.ysianic sinipheii} ui rxpre-^ion and careless- ness of arrangenieiil, he ^uggesled thai the auliior wa> an imila,t< u' of T.A-^ia'^. Neither lehh"" imr Her-k '" rejected XI\'. Xowack,'' in his (k't:;ik'(l 1:1 ve-tiuatioii. after -eine hesitation nnally accepted tlie ar-nn.ur:i- of k.la--, and i:;ive as hi,-^ ultiinatum the following:— -Atone k-ac re M)la ( i, e. k'lck of x'>-pi^) |>erntoveor. ut etiani (.latKMiein XIx' -pnriani ess in the following way. ddie unusual style of the speech is accounted for by its l)eing a literary product, as Rruns '' con- vincingly proved : secondly, in speeches in which the character of the oi)ponent is treated in detail, the personality of the speaker falls into the background, and this accounts for the absence of ethos. With the fall of these arguments against the genuineness of XI\k the question of spurioijsness may be dis- missed, for the point emphasized by Xowack, the absence of ;y^u'pts, is almost a sine (fua non of invective. Let us now turn to a consideration of the character of the speech, and its relation to Isocrates X\'I. ^ It seems inconsistent that in the case of X, he should he disturbed hv a parallel with the Epitaph ius. . ^ , ''This might have suggested to Blass the possibility that XIV be- longed to epideictic literature. Similar phenomena in XXXI, Kara O^iXcofos, did not lead him to reject the speech. "260. ''355f. ''op. cit. "46. XLTI. "31 f. ''^4i)T,i'i. He pointed out that, as a literary publication. XIV has no standard of comparison in Lvsias as it would have, if the defence of Socrates were extant. This, of course, is a point of view with which 1 can hardlv auree. since all Lysias' work seems to me purely literary. Still, the fact that Bruns considered it genuine, deserves notice. - ^ 5f' SPURIOUS SPEFXHFS IN Till'. LVSIANK CORPUS SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS :)/ There seems to have heeii a j^eneral consensus of oi)inion that XI\' was actiiallv dehvered hefore the court" until Hover'" took the view that this speech, hke Isocrates X\'I. and ps. Ando- cides I\\ is cpideictic/" and that Lysias, as well as Isocrates. invented the facts of the case, as a hackii^round for his rhetorical skill. He went so far as to ([uestion whether, outside ot comedy and rhetoric, there ever existed a son of the .i^reat Alcihiades. Nowack '' remarked that no one would deny that Xl\' was actually delivered in court. Ihit he suhstantiated this assertion with the utterly invalid arL^ument that much of the knowledge of military affairs and of the defendant's life presupposes a con- temporary as author. This serves merely to date the speech, and is no evidence a^ain^t e])i(lri.\is. W'ilamowitz " lett un- answered the (juestion whether or not it was used in court. This (juestion is to a certain extent connected with that ot the relation existing- hetv/een ihis s|)eech and Isocrates X\ 1, in which Isocrates })Uts into tk.e mouth of the youni^er Alcihiade> an encomium of his father. The presence of related passat^es '' in the two led lUass to su,i;^est that still another speech, now lost, served as model for them hoth. 1 le helieved that it is ([uite im|)0ssil)le to decide from the ])arallel ]>a^^a^es which was written first. Xowack ''^ thoui^ht that L\sias wrote merely in an>wer to what was heini^- constantly written and said in 1)ehalt of the i/reat Alcihiades, and not with reference to what had heen S{)ecificallv written hy Isocrates. He insisted, however, that Isocrates puhlished his speich in a revised form, after having access to that of Lysia.^. I I. Schultze " lindin^' what seemed to ^^ Sievers, C"()tnm. dr Xcti. 1 IflU'iiici>. IUtHh. 1S33. 81. 11. 30. scciii> {<> have regarded it as delivm-d liy L_\>ias liim>elf. ""('!'• "-"i^- ■" He thoiii;ht that tlie rhetorieians eho.se. in these ea>es. the form of 8evT£po\o^ia : thi-. t! ousjli true ot Ly>ias Xl\ (ei. 3), !> net [rue of Isocrates X\ I. '■^ De Isocratis nepl tov (h'^ois oratioiie ( X \ 1 ) ct L\->iae Kar' ' A\Ki,hadov priore (XIV) (luae-^tioiVvS epieritieae. in Cotninentatione.^ ixihheekianae, Lcip/it;-. 1888. 4^3 tV- "'I. 34. n. i. ""cf. Isoc. X\I. 10. 10 1"., II, 13 f.. i^). J5. witli L\^. Xl\. 30. T,7. 31 ^K- 35. 3J f.. 16. 24, resptctivels . ■''' COnini. RiM).. 4''3tt. '"' Oiiaestionuni Isoeratear uni siieeinieu, IUixtelui(K', 1880. . i , him cross references, was compelled to assume thai Lysias rei)lied to Isocrates' orig;inal draft as delivered in court, and that afterwards Isocrates, in answer to Lysias, revised and puhlished his s])eech. l^)runs '' went one step further, and assumed that Isocrates had first written the accusation against Teisias ; then Lysias. on l)ehalf of Archestratides, the accusation against the younger Alcil)ia(les. Isocrates then rewrote his speech, pre- serving only enough of the case for a setting of his encomium ; Lysias followed suit and rewrote his speech in the form in which we now have it. A careful examination of the passages under consideration satistics me that lUass was right in thinking that neither speech was written in direct dependence upon the other. It is un- (juestionahle that \lcil)iades was a favourite topic in the litera- ttn-e of the d;iy. and ([uite inevitable that an encomium and an invective referring to the same person should have many points of contact. The following passages are commonplaces of attack and defence: — Alcihiades was responsible for much good to Athens (Isoc. 16), also for much evil (Lys. 16) ; he advised the fortification of Deceleia (Isoc. 10, Lys. 30), and so on. Any pamphlet for or against Alcihiades would have had to touch ufMJU these ]K)ints, and to answer supposed objections from the other side. It is not so much a criticism of Isocrates 25 ff. that we find in 24 as a commonplace of pleading, such as is also found in Lvsias XXX. i. It is unnecessary to adopt Blass' suggestion of a third speech as a source for these two ; the points of contact are, as I have tried to show, natural and inevitable. Isocrates X\'I has been of late years generally recognized as an epideictic speech, if only as a revised version of one actually delivered.'' We read in Diodorus XIIL 74, ps. Andocides IV . '' 1. c. •■" Rauclienstein tliouglit tliat this speech was published in revised form. Bhiss, II. 204-209, did not agree with him, hut thought that the tlr>^t i^art of the speecli was lost, (on tliis point, see the discussion under X\'Ili. n. 3) 1)ut even he admitted that this " Epilogus im weiteren Sinne " belonged to the class of encomia, not to dicanic speeches. Schultze. Xowack. and Bruns. following Rauchenstein. believed that Isocrates changed it froin a forensic to an epideictic production ; Hover thouuht that Isocrates used a tktiticms legal setting for his eulogy of Alcihiades. 5S si'iuHHs sim:i-ciii:s in nii; lnsiaxic (ORi'f 26, and Plutarch. Alcib. i J, a story to tbc effect that a certain Dioniedes sent a team with Alcihiades to ( )l\ini)ia. IMutarch has drawn in i)art on Isocrates X\ L remarking that here Teisias and not Dioniedo i> the (h-putant. It -eeni> then that Isocrates used the facts of a w ell-known ca^e. changed tlie nan.ie, and so framed his enconnnm. h'ven thou-h the ;ictnal ca-r came U]) in 3cralL> X\'l preceded Ly.sias \l\ ; the >upposed date of \rche-!r:i- tides' prt)secution !> 3<,)5 4 ( lUa-^. \X' ) f. ) hni llii- 1- nui nt^'C^-s- sarilv the date of writini^ ; no one would tlaU' the I'lannnc dia- lo.i^aies from their dramatic scuiiil:. The -up])o-i:ion ot rr\!-iori for ])ul)lication — and re\-!:-ion ni tlicM/ c;.-e- niu-l ha\-i' ])r;icti- calh' in\'olved rewriting i^ ha.^rd iipnr; pina- conjcrnn'i' ; llu- complicated hvpotlu>i^^ of P)rnn^ 1^ incapa])K' oi ( Kino'i-iralion. lie is (juite ri^iiht. iio\\e\er. ni hehe\in- th<-il Ly-Ki- X I \ . a- it stan(l>, i^ un>uited to delixcry in court. < 'ulx' i 15 de;i1 witi', the facts of the ca^e : if more ^pace i^ L:iven lo ilu-m here- than in l>ocrates X\ I, it i> hecau.^e in the -])eech oi i .y-ia^ the hac'k ^Tound is j)ure tiction. Tl u-re i^ no (4 her mention ot the caM- in antiquitv. Section> \(>-~2J are directed a^ain-t tlio-e who tor the fatherX -ake will defend tla- -on; j^-jS arc an in\ectivc ai/ainst the N'ouni'er Alcihiade- : ' t!ie re>t m the ^i>eech r-- directed ai^ainst the father. I should suppose it (juite clear. therefore, after tlie proof i^iven h}- I'.run-, thai Xl\ i- a liiinarv production, and should a^rec with llo\ar th.at the le^iil ground is purely t'lctitious. l.U i\' 39 Rriins is compelled to as.sunie. .since this is net answered in Isocrates X\d, that these parai^rafihs were not fumid in the actiiall> delivered speech. \'et it would be otdy natural to iind sorne invt-ctixe at^ainst tlie defendant. This fact points rather lo a lack ul definite connection between the two speeches. sprRioi's spi:i:ciii-:s ix tiii: l^siaxic corpus 59 X\\ X\\ Kar' 'AkKil3idSov aarparda^, though the title differs from that of the |)recedin,^- speech, was written, nevertheless, as scholars now diink, a- a rpiroXoy'ta in the same case. It is not cited hv 1 larpocration, hut it is douhtful whether Pdass is justi- fied in assumitr^- dehtiitely that he would have (]uestioned its ,L;eimineness. Aharkland '' llioii,L:ht lite speech a continuation of XI\' : Taylor m liis edition a-recd. hut a])parently abandoned this view after- ward:^, and contented liimself with rejecting XW" partly because in s(,nie of llse ni--. il does not bear Pysias' name. l\ei>ke "' insisted u])( )n its genuineness, leaving undecided the (|uesti.>n whether it wa< a dterc/ooAoyta of Xl\', or belonged to a second trial. Sluiter ' returned to Markland's assumption that XIV ;nid .X\ arc one continuous speech, lie was the last exponent of this view which has since been unanimously rejected and repeatedly refuted in some detail." r.ockh ' with(»ut stating his reason, gave it as his opinion that X\' wa- ]'robal)lv not written by Ly.sias, but by a contemporary; 111 thi.s he was followed by Premi.' I' ranz ^ and Dobree ' lielieved it genuine. Holscher '" empha- sized, finally, Schdmann's '^ view that Xl\' and X\' are (n-oy- yo^t'ai. Xl\' a aerrepoAoyta, X\' a rpiToKoy'La. He inclined to belief in the genuineness of X\\ agreeing with Pranz that the diction is Pvsianic. Ikake"' and Palk "' rejected it owing to the discrepancy be- tween Xl\'. .4 and XX. (j, and both thought the author a con- temporary of Lysias. So, too, Scheibe," who objected to the ' I. 33-'. "• b ' 553. ^"-.■j. '170. 'See Hr)lscher, 85: Falk. 195. .. .0- - "• XVIII; 123. '286. M92;J30- "'8^'^ He cited Westerrnann as agreeing with Bockh. " ut videtur . This die took probably from the Griechische Beredsamkeit, 280. where both Xi\' and XV a're bracketed. In his edition, Westerrnann seems to have given up all doubt of their genuineness. " Att. b'roc. (^02. n. 445- '' H- -'«-• '' ^94 ff- '' 367. Later, in his edition, also. (X) SlTRlorS >l'iJAllKS 1 N 1111 .\>!.\.\U. (OiUT srrRir)!-- -pFRfiT X I!- .\>I \xu. iUPl■^ (jl similarity of |)assaL;cs in Xl\ and W .''' A- lUa-- | onitc^l <'ii!, sucli passa.^'C's arc not inorr easily explained on tlx' a-^ninpni>n of (liflerent authors. f'Vancken '' pointed out that I'.akc's ohjcction to the i\\--- crcpancy between XIW 4 .-nid W. <; i< in^ntTuient to ]>rove spurionsness, since L\'sias would not need to he consistent ni speeches written for two separate cdients. ! le hini^elt however rejected W as either cntireK spurious, or a> llie re-^nlt oi woj-k- ini( over a i^enuine speecli. I le objected to the change from the third to the second ])erson. as used of the i^ener.iN ( 1 11 . ) . th( lU^h this is really a form of rei)raesentatio ; to what ^eemed to him. l)Ut is not actually an involved construction in j ; '' umiece.s- sarily, as I think, to the imperfects, yyavaKTtlre and tOtorro (J) ; finally to the use of the active aiaKtiXdi' in 5. rhi> \-erb i^ use(k however, in the active, and in the sense of " summon ", if not to a court, in llerod. 111. 1 J7, and Andoc. I.45. The o])iection:d)le uV in (), deleted b\' l)obree. e\identl\' found its \\a\- into the text by dittof^raphy. It is (juite clear to my mind that thi^ list of objections (jn the part of iM-ancken is not valid. Rauchenstein.'' iM-ohberiLier,'" Kayser,"' jehh.'' Teichnudler," lliomaschik,'' Baur,'' Bergk '' did not hesitate to accept X\' as Lysianic. Sittl,''" Christ,"' and 1 lover "' re^'arded it as a mere cxcer])t of XI\\ an idea that would have been allowed to pa>s in -ilence. had not Xovvack " definitely refuted and rejected it. IMass ■^" ])ointe(l out that the coincidence with XI\' aie unim- portant, and that the fact that there is le>s rhetorical ornament in XV' is ex[)laine(l by the absence of passai^es suitable for it. Still X\k 9 shows that the writer is not unver>ed in the u>e of 15 16 cf. XIV. J. 3, 22 with X\'. IJ, ij. 8 f,. respectively. llofT. 237. "'hi Alcil)ia(k'tii II. Suppo^it icia ; forlasNt- TrapaTreTrohjTai ex genuina ". ''Namely the ^eiictive v/jloji' placed hi fdre idtoi'To. \ci (k-petident upon KaTa\f7](pi(Ta(T0ai, aiul the difticulty of referrin- ijyoi/j. I'oi to 7)7a^a/vT£iTe after the interposition of a now suhpTt Oea/jLoOirai. '' N. Schweiz. Mus., iW)j. 2H4 f. 'Ml. [ 1. ''' u^ 'MI. 26O. 'Mhesis 11. '' J- f. '' v^'. f 7. '"sf. ^"49^ f. 22 28 J(K) f. 140. -' 38(>, n. 4. rhetorical hLinre-^. What i- -aid in X\k mof Alci!)kide<. corre- ^pond. exactly to what is said m Xl\ . lUass, therefore, con- cluded llial the <])ceche^ stand or fall lo-ether ; in conse(|uerice. haxir,- rejected Xl\'. he wa- forced to reject X\'. A.s we have seen, lii- rejection of Xl\' wa> unwarranted, so that his rejec- tion of X\ is not of serious moment in our consideration of its o'cnuineness. Xowack •' pointed out. as IHass had already done, the absence of rhetorical fi-ures in X\', but he did not accept the explana- tion that r.la^s had ;;iven. Tpon this absence of rhetorical fi-uro he mainly based his contention that XI\' and X\' were written by different authors, lie is, nevertheless, compelled to admit that both were imitators of Lysias. It is not unnatural that charm, ])ersuasion, and other characteristics of Lysias' narratives are here lacking;, ddiere is no reason, then, to assume either another author, or s])uriousness for XV. Thalhemi '' ai^^reed with Xowack. llerwerden "' and Croiset '' also rejected the speech. r.runs " api)arently thoui^ht it genuine, and also Wilamowitz,'' who considered the ])Ossibility that it was not delivered. 1 should sui^-.^^est that Lysias wrote XV as a first draft of the frame that was to contain the invective against Alcibiades, father and son. It, as well as Xl\^ is a ScvrepoXoyla, purporting to be delivered by a friend of Archestratides, and an enemy of Alcibiades ( u, cf. XIV. 2 f.). The same lawsuit serves as a background in both. Therefore, in XIV, the interpretation of the defendant's offense is emphasized; in XV, the generals are attacked. X\\ 10 ff. is the germ of the expanded invective against the son in XI\\ to wdiich w^as later appended the in- evitable invective against the father. Blass has shown that the attitude to Alcibiades is precisely the same in the two speeches, that even the same word, KarayeAar, is used of him in both. This hyi)Othesis accounts also for the more numerous though 31 34 35 op cit. "XLIL ="op. cit. ^^49. n. I. ^493- 2" I. 34. n. 9. He refers to XIV and XV as " die Reden, die wider den jungen Alki1)iades gehalten oder doch geschrieben waren ". 62 spi'Riors srM:i:riii:s ix the i.vsiAxir cohits SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSTANIC CORPUS 63 less strikiiii^; similarities tliat caii.-ed some >clu)lar> io think X\ an excer|)t of XIW It mav be that the extraordinary numl)er of speeches a-crihed to Lvsias may be in part acconnted for by the pnblication of such first drafts together with his tinished work. X\dl. ( )win^' to the brevity C)\ X\ 1 I. Trepl 8///iO'r('(MT a^^iKijudnn}-, some scholars haye thouL;ht thai a p.-srt is lost/ l-"rancken " .i^oin^ one step further, believed not onl\- tliat b\- far tlie greater part of the s])eeeh has been lost, but that w hat remains is a mere epitome or excerpt frt)m a ii^enuine Lysianic speech. The judges, he thoui^ht, eoidd not have understood the facts of the case, from hearing" it in its present form. \o Herwerden it seemed ])rob- able that l^^rancken's view was correct, yet he did not bracket the speech. Jebb ' {)ointe(l out that eacli section of the narrative is followed by a short recapitulation (3, 4. 10) such as an epitomizer would have omitted, and rejected h'rancken's theory, as did also Kayser," Stutzer." Hlass, and Xowack X the last two saw in this speech an example of Lysias' reputed conciseness and lucidity. Sittl,'' intlucn.ced no doubt by the absence of detail in the ])resentation of the facts of the case, called X\'I1 an epiIoi;ue. Subjective ari;ument>, su.ch as have led scholars to assume mutilation, abbreviation, or a characteristically abbreviated tvpc of speech (i. e. epiloL^ue). can only be answered subjectively. There is no possibility of definite proof tliat X\'I1 if delivered wotild or would not have made the case clear to the judi;'e<. If we assimie, however, that it \\a< a moinion, no sign of mutilation, but an indica.tion of the ])urely fictitious character of the legal ^citing.' To the teclmicality of the case itself we ' ¥()v the form UoXioxos as preferable to IloXt'orxos, see Blass, ^23, n. i. M-'alk. Jio. thoii.clit the speech a complete tirlXoyos; Holscher. 00. thought it a devrepoXo-'iia (erroneously, as Sachse. 48. pointed out). Most scholars have assumed mutilation. Blass believed that only the epideictic |)art of the orii^inal was puhlished. and so came down to us. The be.u;inninii. as we have it. recalls those of Isocrates X\T nepi tov in ini i.\-^!\xfc ('orpits ' 1! PEFXiir.< !x iiii: [.\>i\xu corpus r>; find littU' more th;in a n-forciuT, i |,' Tlu' -^'cecb u]> in tliat point C{)!i,^i>l> of the narrative of tiie palrmiir ^crxiee- n\ thc J4'eneral Xieia^ and iii^ faniilw Tlie wliulr. thrn-fi aa-. i^ a literar\- eneoninnn (Mi a l':nnnu> LimiK". a liienu- whi'-h i^i\n> o|)|)ortnn!t y loi" a \i\al. Imnioroii- i)si mi' (K--en|'a()!i ( hit and ty])iea]l\- Ly^einie lui'n-- d' j>}n-;;-e ,\]i<\ llinnLju « i; I'L. ji i.). II. Sclniitze j/oniU-d laU tlir -irilxin- j.:!!:.'!!-]- !)rl\\een I^ocrates X\d and L\-i.!-^ Will, ilicn- -nn]:..rn\ m -a\]r aial e()ni])o>it!on, and \\a^ nielnied !e l.\.-~i a:-Nunied da- lo-.^ of th,; nr-i \\ivi ai dir -'h.v,t!i. went a step tnrtliei-. ^iiywi'j,; " atqne hoc (•ijuid''ni laudc el dieo. orationeni hane a L\Ma non e^-e -erijit.nn. (jiia!!- wi in.inihn^ e-t, sed ah alio i;"enninani nratainern ilcrnni travaanna. neipu- areu- rate taetani e>>e ". I hi> jndarnerit he ha^^d partK re|Hin his interj)retation of tlu- ea>e from i }. whiehi ha-^ foimd no a--int- ini^- voiee amoni^- >eholar~>. ]>ar!]\ uonii ^npj'o^^',} mfe!"iorn\' to other L_\':>iame >]»eeehes, hnl n.o odlaa* --einil.if. if wr rxeaiit Gleiniger/ hab faded to recaiLMii/e Hi Will da/ work 'a' 1 ,\ -las. ample of Ia-^i:i'=' f.ir fruia-'H ^]<'^]] "i! «-t'H »|)oiia, a speech '..'i r.] tnuui irlcTfLs tK Toi i](hvi. haicv'i, .iheua thr cndrc '^-Hvch is talv* m \:u with the -H'r\'u~i'^ (>t t'lr sjH-akc!^ ]<> the -aate i ; ! > .aal 22-J4 i . .aai wah raaisons whv. no! milv' out of aralilia'i- hut !-r a- ^ w n \>v<^"\H-'~:t\' - -ikc the -^talt' shfUiid e-anr to hi- ;iN-.i>-t;au'( ^ M iq). hi j > .a \s r have .1 hrui eliaraett ri/ano!i (.[ \\i-. o;,jon(aits. One la;:^])! alia, a ■ » !• in ii:'s iianu'lr^^ i nnapa(X7]uo'ii -.acakn. ,1 h aaTunn I'nJlx t-( .n-ru ,sa nu opaaon, pomts to tla- t.iet ika! XXI wa-. \sratra a-- a purr .a' larranaaa a' t a- a -'ktcIi loF- u>e Ml tile courts. * I niortiniatfl}- \.\ \^ e to iIr- actual hii'fu (a ataaaaa' a aivoh!.!^ hi a .a-c v^kca'e narrpretation (U'penih upon (uaaakitaai. wa c^i.u i rxprvf ana:aanav ol ludt^nKau, kor a dmaa-a-n of tar xaiaaa \ a-a -. cf, Blass, 525!. ;; Dp. cit., -'4 iV. " 4.). ' Ai^ainst Saelisr, sta- Scla.ll, haai latzaa a^; p < -6 , hla;>^. lan-a.a! I (1873), J/,]; hipsius. Bursian li ( a^p^ a p^pS. '168, n. I. wiiere he uive^ a^ la^ opniaaa that X\ li! I'ls luan " lacla' Oder minder stark ukerai-laatja " watla.-a an\ proia' of iu- Ntat expia^ssed don1)t of tiie ^cMUiinene.--^ of XIX. 7T(pl rwi k\puTro(/)(/'roas' \fjiifidru)i'. lli- ar^nmicrits are based upon ecii]iarn\' m the adalres> to tlie iud^'es as (o SiKaaTat \v\ a ])e 34. w hieh he hn(Ls in th.e " spurious " speeches, \d Kar' 'AiSoklSov and \ 1 1 1. KaKoXoyuov, hilt also in a s])eech attestcdi h\- l)ion.}siu> of 1 lalKaarna>^ns. XXX 11 Kara AfoyeiVorosa His sus])ieions were tnrth.er laai-^ed he the (h^fj(^ wlneki stands Ijefore Trpos^ OiiJn- 'OAru- ■TTLvii in 34. '1 he {lancit}- of the>e ari^iiments i^ patent, and the\' liaxa- heeii adefjiiatel}' relnted h)\- Xowaacls." 102. XX. XX. rrrtfj [U)Ai(rrfjnes< because i'olhix \ 1 1 1, J.

an alternative, that IVilhnx miizlit lUii ha\e read the spaecli, or mi^ht liave forg"otten the passai^aa kdaniz accepted it, hut dated it l)efore 40() B. C. l)ol)ree ' criti- cized it a.s " craa.>o tilo. ut]K)te pleheio lo(|ueiUe 'k yet >aid of it. "non contemnenda 'k His doubt oi its lienuineness seems tu liave been ha^ed on the necessity of datin,^' it early. 1 h»lvcher ' was the fir^t to juaint out tliat XX i^ a SerrepoAoyta. s]H!ken ])>' tlie >on ' in hi> fatlier's l)ehu'dfk* Hi: tlioni^ht it As. \a lloXicTTpaTOS. *44n I-. " S. v. UoXvarparos. ^683, ' TTtpi \ialoi Toi i>7]Topos. ^ : da loais (,|iiil)usdani Lysiae arte critica persaiiaiidis. 3 ; ed.. 250. '' n)2 ; 240. ' 95 tl. * Xo>t the ashk'st. hut the middle son (2S, 29). as Sauppe noted in the naaruin of las copy of lh">lscher. " Ahu]<-ac ( Reiske, (V)3). Marklarak k c. and Meier ( Histona juri- Attici de ko!iis damnaitorum. Beran. 1819, nS2 ) . had regarded it a^ dK€0a\os. Taylor, k c. had oi>posed this on the ground that Lysias sometimes omitted piroenas. (4 SPUKM'.^l 1 FXHES .^■^! \X!i ■ ('<■ >RPUS -h, IK^.siblc that Xll,^ refer- onlv to mkhvIu.-^ ;u-!n. illy .IciivriTM, so that the early se(b e-])ecially ni the tir^-t half, lucidity, valid proof, and lo.Liical order of thouL^du. lie also considered it unlikely that Lysias should liave wruten dicanic speeches as early as 410 H. (".. and that one who had been driven from dhurii because of democratic ])rmciples. should defend an oli-arch. Westermann " ur.^ed against its authenticity both the early date. i. e. 410. that had been assi.i^ned by Krii,!L,^er '' and the form of the s])eech. Bake " rejected it without advancin,!;- any new ar.i^uments ; so also did llerbst/' Pertz.*" and Rauchenstein.' Wattenbach," Grote," O. Miiller,-' accei)ted it as -enuine. Francken " because of the confusion in the narrative, the lack of arranj^ement and lucidity, the su])])osed historical maccura- cies, and the resulting- difticulty in determinini;- the statu- of the case, not only declared XX spurious, but insisted that it could not have been written by a contemporary of Lysias. lie considered that the author was not an adept in classical Greek, judgini:^, for the most part, from certain corrupt ])assai;es. Kayser'' and Ualbertsiua '' thou-h with less vehemence, also rejected XX. Frankel " rejected it on the -core of date alone, h^rom Gicero. Brut. 12, atid Lysias XI I. 3, he thou.uht it certain that before 403 Lysias had not written speeches for others, d he ])assa,<4e in Cicero has already l)een discussed in the i)reface: re^ardin.i; XIL 3 1 may say, in addition to my other references to it,, that ^"Lect. Lvs.. 34-'; t'd.. LXXXIIl. "XiX': 2431. "-'-7: X\ I. ''on Clinton. F. H., Ol. XCll. ^. I^'ilk. 24J, n.. and brankel. Ji re- futed O. Midler's ariiuments for a later date. 'Mil, 245 tl. '" Die Schlacht bei den Arsinnsen. Hamburg. 1855, 77. " 13- "6; cf. Annales phil. et paedal.^ XCl (18(17). 507; Pbilol. Anz. IX (1879), 451. '' I3e {inadrint^H'ntoruin Atbenis factione, 38 ff. >»Vn, 252. n. I. '\^Sj. n. 2, '' 143 ff; -\^H- '\Uo. "44- "op. cit. SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN TTIE LYSIAM' CORPUS 67 it wcmid liardh' liaxe l>een p()v>i])]e for Lv-ia- to adnii! I^effsrc a eon.rt u-lneh lie hoped to persuade, dial he wa> a |)rotesMunai speech writer. I'arow ""' emphasized the discrej^ancy between 1-30 which iiichide narrative and proof, and 30-36, which according- to nio^-t -eholars. are incom])arably better written and much nearer Ly Tbalhcinr""* ur.i;c(l a,ixain>t it the ]Mierilc ar^nnuMit^ nscl in 5. 7. 16, the inahihtv to express thoughts in period.-, th.e verbal repr- litioiis. and die laek of arrani;rnient. Rold ■'" thoui;ht it an cj.itoine. a view that Alhreeht ' in\f-n~ _i;ated at some Ien,L:th in an attempt to prove it eorrcet ])y jiointinLr ont resemh-lrmees hetueen X and XL Stntzer ai-o dctended this theorv. and adwuieed in proof the al)^enec oi tormn.lae or ad(h'ess in the >uppose(hv e])itomized imrt-. the man\ ur-d;- Acyo'/xei'a '\i;rammatiea] ])eenharitie--, !anlt\ edmpo-itmn. rxees- sive antitheses, and the faei that, in -jnte nf ii-^ i)re\it_\ <•! expression, repetitions oeeur. i)Oth. .\rhieohit .I'.id ^-!nt/er t!i0UL:;ht the ori,L:inal speeeh ^ennint-. ;uid freiz-i-li ' adopted tfieir view. I'ohh*" wlnle rejeetin.14 the -peeela ].'ro\e(h ])V (piot- ini( parallels from Antiphon and .\nd(K;ide- to the expre-^ion^ not eonsi>tenl with L}sianie n^aL:e, that Irom ^t\le there i^ no evidenee for the theor_\ that XX 1^ a late epitome, I.andweer." bd'ohherL^erd K-hauer.'" < mlde.' >]!i!." ail reieeted XX. Hlass '■ o!)jeeted to an\- a!lrm]'t at iran-po^-itioii and to ilu' explanation of the Npeeeli a> an epitainie. ni order to aA-connt for it-> (d)>eurU\a llie laek of lo^iial dio\ elo]»meni. e<»iiiH-ion n detail, intrieaey of ex])re--ion. tlie alt-enee oi eonvmeniL: power. all [serstiaded Inm ai the ^piinoiiMie^^ nt XX, I he ela'iraeter of the sentenee >trnetn!"e eonfirnied hi- en:i\u-tion. Net the ahsenee of tii^nre-. and the na! urainc-.- and irnih ot man) ot the tnrn^ lef. e^p. lo and m? hr adnnltetl. eia- h\>iam(,a hi reieetmt^ the -peeeh lie -eeni- !<> lia\-e rehed -oinewhat on the earh' dale te> wdneli n ns a---u'nedi. lehl) ** l)elu-\-ed XX in he ]>rohal)i\' -pnrion- kin.r ' reieeted it. and wa^ inelmed t«» regard the wliede -pee^ h. a-^ a fietuni ha--ed '' Die R-.k> fur l'u!> Mr.it-- ( t1u* N{)ecidi m Ins cilitu . I X\ .S-' -racket? ■'^/nt., t, (;vii:n, XXX ! ' 1S7; 1. i_e ^ (>1). cir. k'.hl, /rit-. ! ( .) lan. X XX 1 ! i i i^j i ■ 4,1 f,. tibuiuht Alhrrcia went too far in niakuru. tlu' >atn'.' v\i'^^r\A^^r r«, >]ii iraablc lur XI and XX. and in i"(nisi(loruiu tlu- errjinail --pfcch m.-n!i:!n-. '' f;45 rT. ; cf. idiilol Kun.lschan. iSSj, Sn, 'X-f. MPrt.-lit. 59. 38. 4« tip. C!t,, (."-^i). 41 i r '»' srrRiou.^ .^I'Kt-xiiES ix tiik pysiaxic eORPUS 69 upon the welbknown events of the time. Bergk.*' inspired by the excellenee of the peroratio. su.u:gested that Polystratus' son wrote the s])eeeh and that it was later revised by Lysias, wdio added 30-36. Gilbert '' eited it as genuinely Lysianic. Weid- ner"^ and Xowack ' rejected it. Wilamowitz ' assumed the spuriousness of XX, and thought U the work of a Xoyonouk less well trained than Lysias, ])ul)- hshed onlv on account of the '* renommee " of the speaker and his family, ddie s])eech, ])ublished wdth omission of what was detrimental or unnecessary for the fuliilment of this purpose. wa< |)re-erved by chance, and made its way into the Lysianic cor|)u< through tlie stupidity of the collector. Wilamowatz admitted that no laws >hould be laid down for the composition of XX. but he felt that the virtual retpetition of 6-8 in 16-17 is madmisMble, and demanded an ex|,)lanation why the substance of !-io is repeated in 13-17. Idierefore he concluded that wdiat we know as XX i^ really part> of two speeches :-— the former, o- lo, dehvere.l Iw a man of some imi)ortance;' perhaps a friend ni holv-iratu-. the second by the son. But his grounds for ihi-^ assumption are inadecjuate. and 1 do not agree with his conten- tion that the Kalrot at !i is an impossible transition. If there IS reallv a distinct difference in tone before and after lo, it i< reasonable enough that the son should speak rather formally and impersonally at tlr^t. and later adopt a more ])ersonal tone, l-inallv. llerwerden " and Troisct '" rejected XX. I ]Ki\a' ])ur]a)sel\- omitted from this discussion all coiisidera- non of the le-al aspect of XX. since scholars are utterly at \anance about it. Acc(.»unts of the history of the Four Hun- dred, m what remams to Us of contemporary writings, vary so considerably that it i< (luite impossible to determine with eertainlv the actual course of events. The 'A6>;iator ttoAitcnx has adiled luel to llie filaze. but no light. a."/ = X,p. cit.. ^^^. '"6. " 10-. 'M!h ^^(^f(. The ethos'ta" itu- latter miclil i-c petulance, nidignatiyn ; il is rather too common and raio '1. 'ured. a r-dra-e tu Ijc a test of etnus. JlS I •suS M I &4 :?o- 44P. 11. I. 'u SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS As 1 li;ivc .tea {' ) -iluw , in answer to I'^iinki' 1!:^ «/,iriV (kite d(K'> nni H 1^1 -rn\r the r)0<-il>:i 1a -^Ki^lU- aUU.ur^llip. I,.,! ..MWr AU-h a- ITlH/tm^'li-- all.! .ift'- It'lni ^iMl^i'. (It'ixis 111 llu' llH ifC !"<■ iicial scntciK-c -iviwiwrc. iark * \i)j ],\{\ ci A M/ix-iiaa. aia >. w rarviu ill tlu- aruunu-ni in |)art for the coufu-ion aial Uu- oh-cuntxa The nulniereiu-e to teehnK-ahne> -u kiu , and the onii^^ion of anv verv detinue fact^ ahoni the le-al nalin-e of the ea^e led Baur tu'sn-^e>t that XX i^ a mere kieiion unli a hi-^toneal haek- j^rronnd. WiUunowUz. ni order to eKj.kini ihi-. -n--er>ted that publication had nivolved the corre>i)undui,L: onn-ion^. i shouM think it liktdy that Lysias here made one of hi^ hr>l attempt, at dicanic epideixis. 1 his view may a!se> to some extent account for the obscurity of the speech. 30-36 have been j^enerally re,^arded a> not unworthy ot Lysias. It may be that the speech was pubhshed wuhout revi- sion. Bhiss admitted that the merit> of XX are Lysianic ; we perhaps see more shortcoming's, since our criterion of style i> necessarily derived from Lysias' more mature j)roduct>. in any case, summary rejection is unjustitiable. XXII. The ^eiuiineness of XXII. Kara rojr o-tTtuTrojAwi'. has only twice been called into ([uestion.' The ari^umerUs advanced a.i^ainst it by Meeker' were so thorou.'j:hly refuted by Rauchenstein ' that they need not ])e considered further. kTancken * thou.iiht it Lysianic, " sed fortasse ex receiUiore recensione 'k He com- * Nowack, 102. citing XXII as genuine, ({uoto as its only detractors except for Benseler. Jacol)S. add. animadv. in Athen. j()-'. and Brenii, 444. This is ol)viously an err(ir. It was the fourth speech (q.v.) th:it Jacobs and Bremi regarded as spurious. , ^ , 'op. cit, 7. 'Zeits. f. d. Altswiss. \ II (1S49). 35-'- 160: J3^> \\ SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LVSIANIC CORPUS I mented upon the form €Acwea(;at ' in 11. and saw possible evi- dence of a late recension hi the fact ihai after we have lue aren^^ilaai .aniiiltcdh- eoiiipK/le ir; 7. a iu;w ]H,inl Aiouki he \s\,,\vjh\ lip aL:ani-l the inereliarii-. l-hii w-' nui-i nonce mat ni ~ ^ Tuvi,iv T7/1 K(ir//yopt(xr refer- -trieli\- to what ha- ]>receded. ara! doe- noi exehide tfie j-o — ihilil)^ of additional ehar-'es. it 15, nior<'o\r'a dilheuh to see \V\ t". It:\ tw^ t-arropoi^ avruiraafiai and Jl ruv^ tuTTofjois idj oU (X (Ks) 0V70L (jri'CfrT/;(Jur morC llian ail Iteration, from a dilYereiit point of view, of the general charge. Tk.e (|ne-ti()ii- and answers in 5. the introduction of Amytti-. — wliom ddialkieim unnecessarly distinguishes from the Anytn- of Lvven then, a statem'ent in an oration can scarcely be accepted as strictly autobio- graphical. i^ 72 SPURIOUS SI'HKCUKS IN THE LYSTAXIC CORPUS SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 73 XXIII. Dobree ' quoted PTemstcrhusen as having hesitated to admit the irenuineness of XXIII, Kara ITayKAcwro?. Francken, how- ever, pointed out that the scholar who exi)ressed his dotibt in Misc. Obs. Amstel. t. VII. 319, wms not Hemsterhusen, as the appended initials J. E. ])rove. Francken.' while insistin^^ that the speech is Lysianic, thou.i^ht it an e])itome, because he found the " nexus sententiarum non oi)tinuis, et plena expositio causae desideratur ". But the " sententiac " are in no case more than obvious deductions from obvious testimony, and the " ex- positio "of the case in hand. i. e. of the napaypaKfiyj, is clear enough. The details of the original grievance in the case pre- viously brought before the polemarch would be irrelevant. Further, Francken objected to the phrase Kal fxoi tViAa/^c t6 vSiop, as not elsewhere found in Lysias. and unsuited to the brevity of the speech, and saw in it the work of another hand. Sittl,' also, because of this unusual formula, ([ueslioned the genuine- ness of XXIII." Stutzer.'' jebl).' lUass.' and Xowack ^ rejected Francken's theory. Blass pointed out es])ecially that lengthy announcements of the testimony of the witnesses" found here, as in XVII, would have been omitted by the e])itomizer. We are fully justified, therefore, in regarding XXIII, in its present form, as genuinely Lysianic. '245. ■-' 164: 23^- ' 15-'- * Wilamowitz, II, 36^. c'xi)laiiu'(l tlic rciit'atcd references to the water clock hy the fact that Lysias had only a short time for the ohviou> reason that this i)reHminary trial was separated from the real trial. Bnt in I and 11, Lysias says he will make no lon.u story of a short one. Perhaps the repetition of the jihrase (witnesses are called five times in the course of the speech) is consonant with Lysias' inverted humour, a jest, punctuating^ with emphasis the short time needed for completin.u the case ai^ainst Pancleon. That Lysias held the hrief. whether real or fictitious, for the winnin- side is unquestionable, since I'ancleon had failed to put in his appearance in his suit i)\ ^^tiboixapTvpLil^v against Aristodikos. '4<)<;- \^"4- '620. ' 101 f. ''This announcement of the testimony, which usually consi'>ts of a brief capitulation of its contents. p(iints to the literary production. Tin- testimony thus becomes unnecessary for a comj)rehension of the case, from the reader's point of view, while in a court of justice, it would be strange if the testimony of the witness should be tluis anticipated by either plaintiff or defendant. ik, ^M 4 « IV. XXIV, vTTtp Tov dSvi'ttTou, is attcstcd by Suidas ; * it is men- tioned as Lysianic by Harpocration,' and only in recent years have modern scholars been inclined to question its genuineness. To Dobree,' who quoted Hemsterhusen as assigning the speech to Lysias, it seemed not only an " oratio minime contemnenda ", but also " acuta, nitida ". Bockh, in his Staatshaushaltung der Athencr spoke of it as a mere /xcAeVy; that was never delivered,* but nowhere rejected it as spurious, although most modern scholars quote him as denying its genuineness.' That a speech may be genuine, and yet neither suited not intended for delivery in the courts, we have already seen.' To Bergk/ who attempted a refutation of Bockh's judgment, the speech seemed well adapted for actual pleading, also to Bremi,' Falk,' Gleiniger,'° and Blass," who classified it as a " bagatelle " speech, and re- marked that productions of this type were all regarded as spurious by the ancient critics ; '' he nevertheless regarded it as genuine, and hesitated to sav with Bockh that it is unsuited to 1 c- . Suidas, s. v. dva-n-qpov' Xvaias tv ri^i irepi rov StSo/xeVor rois ddwdrois ofioXov. ^ Harpocration, s. v. ddivaTOL, eaxL 5e Kal X670S ns, ojs Xeyerai, Avaiov nepl TOV dSvi'droi . ev V u-'S oftoXbv Xafx^dvovros fiefivrjrai. Dindorf reads as above, inserting the ws Xe^erat from B C G H. Bekker omits these words. Blass quotes, omitting Xiyerai. Even with the reading tl's Xeyerac, we can hardly say that Harpocration questioned the genuineness of the speech. It seems rather as if he had heard of the existence of such a speech, but had seen no manuscript of it. To read ws without Xeyerat is taking an unnecessary liberty with the mss. readings, and one not to be defended by Harpocration, s. v. hyvS-qKy]. ' 192 ; 246. M,2. 30Q n. ■' Dicse Rede ist iibrigens in einem so possirlichen Ton verfas'st, dass ich sie fur eine blosse Ubungsrede halte. die nicht vorge- tragen wurde ; wenigstens batten die Athener sich hochlich verwundern mussen ul)er die Spasshaftigkeit dieses um Sold flehenden Menschen ". ''Gleiniger. 168; Scheibe, ed. LXXXIV ; Blass, 637; Nowack, 102; Bruns, 461 f. ; Herwerden, 175; Worpel. op. cit. ; Motschmann, op. cit. : Christ. 388, n. 4. ' cf . speeches IV. \T. VHI, XIV, XV. ' lb. f. Philol. LXV (18^2), 392, approved by Max Frankel ad Buckhn locum, II, 68, n. 453- ^245. 30 i68'f. "633ff. i-i Jebb, 2^;, points out that Athenaeus, V. 209 f. refers to irepl r-qs iyyvd-nKTjs aVascribed to Lysias, acquiescing, apparently, in the ascription. i 74 si'iKioi's sim:i-:(iii:> in iifi. i.^sI.\NK" c()K1'L'> SPURIOUS SPEECHES IX THE LYSIANIC CORPUS / D delivery. He thoui^ht il impossible to deeide what style of S|)eeeh Lysias would refuse to write or the eourt to hear. Rosenberi^ '' doubted whether it was a fortun;ite idea to represent the speaker of Lysias XX I\' in his ])eeuliar ethos. " wenn die Rede iiberhaupt mehr als eine blosse I'bun^srede ^ewescn ist ", and indeed the invalid's eharaeter, though not calculated to hoodwink any but a most simple-minded jury, i^ excellent in a /xeAerr/, as a humorous sketch. MahalYy '' thoui^ht that the s])eech is i^enuine and not only that it was delivered in court, but " that it L^ains or loses almost all its ])oint by the delivery ". It is impossible to ai^ree with this last assertion. The literary value of XXIV is. as 1 shall have o|)portunity to repeat, independent of its delivery and incontestable. Hruns '' was the first, therefore, of the moderns to reject the s{)eech outrii^ht. He believed with Hockh that it is a /xeAcV?/. His con- clusions have been rejected by \\\')rpel,'" Motschmann.'' and Adams,'"* but their refutations of his arguments are not alto- i^ether adecjuate or convincint;'. It will be worth while, there- fore, to examine them in some detail. The two main ari^nnnents advanced by P)runs against the genuineness of the speech serve, as we shall see. only to empha- size the probal)ility that it was written as a /xcAe'rr;. In the hrst place, he objects to the violent accusations aij^ainst the ])laintilT in 2, 10, 13, 14, and 18. from which we L^et no ])iclure of his character, and which are inaj)propriate to the triviality of the case. hTirthermore, the defendant ascribes to the ])lainti ff various inconsistent motives (2, 3. 18). Hruns' second ari^u- nient is based upon the comic role ])layed by the speaker from bei^'inniniL;' to end, his evasion of the accusation^ broui^ht aj^ainst him. and his failure to ])rove \\\> case." In ar..^wer to the tir>t ar^umcnl, it i> m\ o])mi()ii tiial all of these trails ser\e to emphaMze the etlio> of ilic M>cakfr. An 11 '' V\\\\. :\\\Z. \ { i^7S). Ariy .\h\. '^4t)it"f. "'oi). cit. '■■ dp. cit. '^j.uiT. "lii^ < ihjcciioii to the procni a- s;nii!ai' to tiiat ot' X\ 1, ( i. c. cc>iiiciiila!»lf to \ .\ 1 \ , lla~^ Keen rcfiiletl i)V Wo; pel. additional sketch of the plaintiff would have interfered wnth the artistic unity of the piece. As for the variety and incon- sistencv of the motives assigned to the plaintiff, this also may be set down to the ethos of the invalid ; moreover, we have a parallel in HI. Tr/ao? 2t/xwva, where the speaker quotes various and inconsistent motives for his own previous inaction."" The comic role of the speaker, moreover, is no proof of spuriousness, but possibly an indication of the fictitious character of the speech."' That I-lruns' ari^uments are conclusive a.u:ainst any view of XX1\' as a sober defence, -\dams admitted, but added, "they '" He speaks of shame in 3 and <). and immediately afterwards in 9, of fear of ridicule; in 31. *>f f^'^J" ^^ publicity, and in 40. of desire to avoid if not liostilitv l)et\veen himself and his opponent, at least the exile that was hanuin'^ over one of them. The element of caricature in XXIV accountN for tlie greater variety and lack of consistency m the motives there ({uoted. . . '' In order to account for the intrusion of this speech into the Lysianic corpus Hruns depends upon iiis theory of ethopoua. He assumes that 1 vsias" never ohjectivelv creates a character, but throws himselt. as it were into his client's boots, and becoming the client himselt writes, literallv the client's own speech. (So. for instance, like Devries, Fthopoi'ia in Lvsias. Baltimore, 1892. he regards Euphiletus in 1 as an honest guileless, misused man. Other scholars detect a note of pathos in XX'l\ '\11 this shows that Lvsias' characters, like those of a modern novei, are ca])able of various interpretations.) Bruns argues that too clever ethopoiia would have made the judge aware of the logographer behind the speech, and so prejudiced him unfavourably, but if speech writing was a well-known practice, this argument falls, even if the prac- tice were, among literarv men. in ill repute. Again, he l)elieves, that lvsias mav put into the'mouth of his client (cf. 1. 32) arguments of which the 'reasoning and the arrangement could not possibly originate with the client simplv because thev were right and eflecUve i hat this is inconsistent with 'the preceding point, and his general theory ot ethopoiia. is o1)vious. It seems almost as if Bruns falls into the class of scholars mentioned bv Dionysius ot Halicarnassus (de Lysia »}• '^"o fail to realize that Lysias' artlessness is artful. But to return to XXI \. the writer of this speech, according to Bruns. admiring the living char- acters in Lvsias' speeches, failing to understand his method of ethopoiia. and believing that he worked in these cases like a comic poet, who lets a character go throuuh an unbroken soliloquy in a quarrel scene, upon this supposition wrote XXIW supposedly in the Lysianic manner. (X Kara e\o^..^arov a', he believes, as we have seen, is a less successtul example of this imitation.) This hypothesis falls, of course, with he fall of Bruns' theory of ethopoiia. Lysias can ^^J^^^^ ,^^ 1?.^"t.S the client, the light that " illumes the grinning pumpkin s head • i>P^^^^ Lysianic inversions occur in most varied speeches, uttered b> cliaracters of various types. ^ » ,m' 7(> SPURIOl'S SPKlXflKS IN Till-: LVSIANU CORPUS 1^ SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 77 do not meet the theory that the speech is a humorous parody, written for the actual use of a notoriously odd character, for whom there was really no plea except his own comical person- ality ". Here Adams seems to take as amhiii^uous a view as Blass, who re.G^arded XX l\' as a " l)ai;atelle " speech, and yel as one that was actually delivered. Fhat a " humorous parody " is not suitable for a defendant's speech in court, under any circumstances, that the " comical personality " of the sj)eaker could not, in any court of justice, he presumed upon to take the place of ari^ument, that the speech emphasizes the weakness of the defendant's case, all this shows that it was a literary exercise, not written for delivery. Lysias' attitude to the speech and its |)remises is, in my judixment, ironical, as is that of Kuri|)ides to the premises of his plays and to his plays them- selves ( Wilamowitz, X. J. XXIX (191J), 460). I^'rom the mock emphasis on the amount of the pension we may ima<^nne this a satire written after the passai^e of the Xew Pension Law. which was made after the end of the war, reducing the pension from two ohols to one, hut still insisting; on an annual SoKifiaaia (22, 26). Baur,'' Worpel,'' Motschmann," all believed that the s{)eech is i^^enuine, and was actually used in coiu't. So, a|)part*ntly, did Xowack." Worpel, however, is the only critic who advanced arguments against the tlu-ory that it is a fieXtTy. It could not. he thought, be a /ieAcT>/, l)ecause the case is so clear against the defendant, and. moreover. l)ecau>e it is im])Ossible. in his opinion, to have a historical backgroun i-vcn with a (lash of caricature -he hcconu-^ the prototype 01' .1 ty])e. One cannot hut rcmc!n])er. in connectidn with thi-. nivalid, Dickcn^' man with the wooden leti. .^ilas W'clil;. Xeithcr was ever anything hut a hterary figure, yet hotli are perfectly iniHviduahzecK "102. '*' See J'-. The pen.^ion hiw is, of cuur.-e. lii.^turical. A a* to Worpel, it is a wretched piece of work on the part of a frigid sophist. The fact that the case is clearly against the defendant points in the opposite direction. The clever Lysias would hardly write speeches for his clients which clearly put or left them in the wrong. Purely historical subjects are treated in epideictic speeches as in' Isocrates' oration for the younger Alcibiades (XVI), in Lysias' speeches on the other side, (XIV, XV), m Lysias VI, against Andocides, and, to some extent, in the p:pitaphii. The question of use in court cannot fairly be said to aiTect its literary value. What a " frigid sophist " would write as an exercise, Lysias could not write for a client. I am therefore of the opinion that XXIV is genuinely Lysianic, and at the same time, epideictic. XXVIL Francken ' has been the only scholar ' to question the genuine- ness of XXVI I, KaT 'ETTiK/aarois [kqi twv (n'/xTrpea^ct'Twv cTrtAoyos, C09 0€o8cupo9 1 . His objections, based partly on supposed peculiar- ities in diction, partly on the parallel passages in XXX, Kara NtKo/iaxoi', and XXVl'l, which led him to the conclusion that the author of XXVI 1 was a late imitator, were opposed by Kayser ' and Blass,' and refuted in considerable detail by Hentschel.^ The indefiniteness of the accusation and the obscurities that render interpretation of the case difficult have suggested many (|uestions to scholars which, however, they have answered in various ways. Francken cut the knot and rejected the speech, lierwerden' acquiesced in this rejection. Holscher thought it M04 ff ; 238. " rhetoris recentioris ". ,, , ^-x-v =^Xowack refers to Schomann, 584. where, however a though XXX. /card Nt/coMdxoi'. i-^ suspected, there is no mention of XX\ II. 33^- *4^o. n. I. Blass points out that HentscheVs ohjection to M^pc ru:p ddiK-nijLdroji' in 6. is groundless. 'op. cit.. 26 t1. ' 194 f- ^v» s Vi t! A i i I \ ', I NIC CORPUS srrRKU'- la-'^. who first'* llioimht it a ^^tiTtpoXoyin. later' k'lt iiiaU'calcd tlie (jiicstioii wlu'lluT it is ail t7r/'Aoy(»s- in tlu' son^c used aluavc, or a mere ])er()ration. but inclined to the latter \iew. Haniaker" thoui^ht that XX\ 11 in its |.reaur " opposed this view and Hlass " held out a,L;ainst it. Most scholars, anion*; them Blass, think l^picrates was accused of thett and accepting bribes. To me it seems more })robable that d hal- 'iio. The words xal tuh' av/jLTrpeafitiTLi'i' eTriXo-^tos, added in the title by a late ^^ranimarian, 'IheDdonis, are of little value. \^()(). '"Vind. hys., ()5 ; ed.. LXXW. " deuterolo^ia e^t ". .According to Blass. 454, he assumes the loss of the precedinij; part in ed.'. LXXXIII. In ed.', LXXXiri. lie assumes the mutilation of X\lll and XXI. Is not Blass in error? "'-'04. " 3'"^/ f • ''' Aimales liter. Jenen^es 1874. i 5. '^454. ^'7-' IT. ''\ind. Lys.. <;4 it , '"-'*'_>. ^ ." 4-^ ff- " 4^ ff . 'M. c. ^' s'l tf- His arguments are not decisive. "' XL\ 11. "We know of two speeches against Alcihiades. two against Andocides, two against Diogenes (cf. lilass. M)()), and two for Iphicrates (of. Dion. of Hal., de hysia u). ''1. c. "* 453 f- 4 I i lieim's - view tliat the case is identical with the one on the false embassv mentioned in Demosthenes, is correct."" Only I should think that Lysias never wrote for the actual trial, but composed XX\'II as a demonstration ay:ainst {he Brj^-ayoyyoi mentioned m 10." of whom I'.picrates was obviously one,^'' taking: advantage of' the opportunity offered by Epicrates' trial for the false embassy. This accounts for the assumption in i that the accusa- tion on'the charge of the false embassy has been completed, and the end of the speech, 16, seems to show knowledge of Epicrates' escape from the sentence, which, as we know from Dem. XIX. jjj, was ])assed upon him. ' Whether Lysias' other speech against Epicrates. thus assumed, dealt with the direct accusation in this trial, it is impos- sible to >ay. I le might have used as a background the previous lawsuit against him, mentioned in 4, to which Hentschel,'* following Erancken. referred Phuarch Vit. Pelop. 30.^ It is likely, also, that we should find some characterization of E])ic- rates,\vhich is entirely lacking in XX Vll, where a class of men. rather than the individual, is attacked. T ] (1878). ^s3ff; ed., XL\111. -•"He points out Vhe striking coincidence of dates, and the probability that Theodorus added /cat rci. avpiTrpec^evr^p to the title if he found it in I rather than that he inserted it in both places, and then omitted 1 in i(.. Blass, 4^3, n. 1, objects to the form of the word, instead of cvuTTpeaBeuJu, but (npLTrpea(3€vrr)P occurs ni Aesch. I. Ib«. ^ ^ ''' Dem XIX 277 speaks of Epicrates in the following terms, apvp • . • aTTOvdaio, Kal ttoXXcc xPV^r^f^os rv noXec Kal rcD. e^ DctpatcDs Karayayovru^p TO. di,f.o. Kal aXXcs d^f^orcKos. XXVI 1 seems to be an attack precisely upon his strong point of defence. In to, ovk dyae<::v dway^yo^^ is the reverse of Demosthenes' picture. Theophrastus (Jebb-Sandys ed.. IS2) makes his man of oligarchic disposition say. nore navaofx^da vtcotu^v XurovpyiCiu Kai rpiapx^C^v aiToXXvp.€vo, ; ^-at d>$ fxia-nrbv to ru:v drj^aywywi' yivos. ''cf. Harp. s. v. 'ETrt/cpaTT^s. "* 10 f. 8o SPURIOUS SPF.rXUFS IX THE LVSIAXIC ('ORPUS < > SPURIOUS SPEIXHES IN THE LVSIAXIC CORPUS 8l XXVllI. The genuineness of XXVI 1 1, Kara 'EpyoKAt'ois ' ['ETriAoyo?) has been questioned only by Sittl,' who thou^L^ht it stran.q^e that Lysias should attack a friend of llirasybulus the Stirian, and objected, furthermore, to the address, w aiSper.v.os. wrutcn on the lines of to c/kov unhont the franknc- about thi- ty]»e ot 'dri^u- incnt that wc tnid in Antij.hon. Tctralo-v 1. '\'hv hc-innin- of th.e ])roeni, i. i.- -nnply a coinnionplacr of hack-round which <:ives an o])])onuinty for the rather ^ophi^tic concluMon tliat Lv-ias draw^ from U. Mnalty. a^ 1 have j.ri vioudv ].ointei>tn |. i- eile«! once hv Harpcicralioir wuli the fannhar n m/^x al imm, t^yi ns fie u-e-- the luitrcinanu- S'snsiaxion^ . Imw cxcr'. wlneh we tm.l u>ed once m tlie -pieech il-ell. In the juduMuent of ! )ohrce ' n i- " aecrlsa e! acuci. -ni>ni.:e vehement", thiou-h U;-^ " (;ieL.',anter .^cn[ila " llian XX\ li ami XXXdU. Ihiniak<'r wa- the hrM to ^ULrtrcM ihal tiu- \i>n]] m XXX is (hie to muldatiiC!, thoUL:h he -UL:i:e-ted a- an aUerualive that it mav he a invi]yopta. \ le etai^i'lered wliat Taanainc'l nn-relv the epilo.^aie of the oriL:inai .speech, and aeeninncd in ihi- man^ ner for the ohscnrny of thr an^e a!id \\\k- dihienii> ni ii- expkma- tion. Sclied)e.' lajweveic Offended n a- n«a " niaiu-a el nnitda , hut " intei^a-a '\ aeenuntm- for die (»h-enrn\- h\^ the madeanaev of modern a^ roin|'arcd wilii cuntenip(!rar\- Unowien^e ol iXthenian aManr.^. '' ^, \ . tTti3o\r}. 'Y^JY .. list Ml' xanmis '^!m atia-ptr.! in.- at, a scfmiars in ill XU'urs) for n.'t ' I ar|'. naaca ai : iia aUaai as a- raa nana t«. this •-lite*. h. 5 V .'^■C: ! ■■ \ aa! \.\ < !t SPfRFOUS SPI-FXHE-S IN TIIK LYSIANIC CORPUS 83 The first doubt of .i^^-cnuineness was expressed by Francken, who. however, considered the style Lysianic, and, on the whole, contented himself with explaining "historical discrepancies" by the assum|)tioti that the author was a clever si)eechwright rather than an honest man. To Frankel,' it seemed unques- tional)ly genuine. Schomann ' exi)ressed a doubt, finding im- ])robable or incredil)le many statements that, contrary to Lysias' usual manner ( Dion, de Lysia 18), are not Itv^oUjiv bixo'ia. The <])eech. he thought, was never delivered in court, nor ever written for th.at |)urpose, Init was published by an enemy ot Xicomachn- m the form of a legal speech. Whetlu-r Fysia- wrote it for liimself or for anothier, Schomann did not deter- mine, lint llarpocrationX ci yv'qaio^ suggested to him the |)0s-i- hilitv. a.t lea-t, of s|)uriouMiess. (deiniger " held that tlii- ^])eech. among oilier-. ha> I'een more or les> worked over, hut gave 'lo twadence in eontirniatioii of his view. ITohher-er,'''" to whom Scheimann '' had recommended clo-e Mudv of XXX. followed Sauppe in thinking it a htrripoKoyia, ilion-li he admitted that there i> no evidence for l)elieving that a '^■peecli aL;ain-t .Xicouiachu< p'recedcd thi>. Alhrecln''' and Mntzer '' both expre>sed the o])inion that XXX i- an epitome, hut without giving reasons to substantiate 'hi- viewa Stutzer ha- not fulfilled his ])romise of more detadta! n-eatment. Rauchen-tem "' and ITihr '' con-idercd it genuine aial a ^crrcpoAovafo ( nilde.'' after a careful examination of the speech, came to ilie conclusion tliat it was the real accu-ation, and that \i lia- come dowPi to u> mtaci. He admitted, however, tliat tliere iniL^ln be some reasonable objection to the form of the narra- tive, which is \-erv brief (2-5) and intersper-ed wath accu-a~ tin!!-. (.aration Im rejection. 'Ml 61 InUl. Op. cit K 4 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN TFE LYSIANIC CORPUS 1 ! i \' ]\ ilu- accits;ii:nn ' 1 ~ 1 , 1 -, 1 1 , > thoiii^lit. caiintii hr ;i dti Ttf>oXn\ m, u sju'cch prect'tln;- '.1. .iii the accusation llu! N icmachu^ uill hnn- auaii-' { \j-iif) point- U) hw l)i-ni- \\w niani acciiM/r. from 7 1-. a-^ Ula-- " iM.Miinl mu, l).i:^c of ihr ])a--^aL:c. ]'". ScluiU/c." u^iU' a^^^l■ln^■ w that XXX 1:^ a LrrtpoXt^yia l- vinu.ili) |Mavhaiol, lliHMr ill anv ca-^c thi^ a-Mim|Uinn wuuM nui a\ai! in cxjaaii ()h>curitv. ! o cniakann Uu- mh ( ( h as ^j a.. -< ... no hcllc'r cx]RMhcnt. snua- in U^ |aa-rnl cn.hia.n i: conl'l uni liavc hccn dchvcrcd ni cuurt^ Thrrclore hr cnnaliido! iha: n nui>t hr an qatmiua hut a^hnutr.l tliai Ua- n an aniz.r worko: ,,vci- uiterprelation \a!h Giik!'' that the i^n^-ilMhlx' m! tine T 1 t r, la a. c of tliese spc'celie- i- an cpUonur I n reftaauiae lo XXX. anas' on. _ . • , ■ i the as>uniption that it i^ an epitMina i-^ parin uknkv lU namocn \\"hv r^lioukl an t-pitonii/er ^nddcuix we.o'x oi hi^ ia4.. and eo].x out 'a L:reat part of hi- orityinal unhu of work- 111 3<> ' 1 a.a'<^ ui ri'i ar v-rrfri'alr-U' Aus- ! 1 1 ,1 1 i( / 1 1 more hkelv that he woukh ni Mach a ea^a nalieatr ni tia- ])roa.h-;t outhne the -uhManva- o! tho MH-ea!i : moreoxer, iloa- not -how a de^^a■ on iha pa inchitka e\er\ -era]) oi attnhuted to L> -la- ralhta' uaha.tlr oXoUa dice to Schult/e'- iaaa-lu-ion wnar. '* i k kluiftMiatlel 1st, dK- uhcrhclerlc Raha lu: ana; i'^auMne /n erkkaren . Sittk"' though he pointed out that n; XXX we iaiva the onk. example of a " Ka]aMlprozess " n; wh'ah tiu' uai-es are addressed a- o> aidpe^ ?>,KaaTni (hd not on tin- accoiuil .{UCstaai the -entnuane^. (U thn -.eoaln 1 in a-aad with Iha-- that hv tkic a>suniption tliat it i- a ^^evnpnXoyia all iH- tnaf-aa: a. 1m rkin 1^83. I . SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 85 and X X \d I -u^rntieant o! alentity nf author-liiiN thou-li he ha 1084. ( reading r-roypa/u/uartojv as one wajrd. a< do most modern editors followin.u' Ber.i^^kX suggestion "" } . Unques- tionahlv Ini- maladministration wans sj^enerally knowai. it not "Ukt-r (lit vmn, XXWII (18831. ''i(>6f.^ „_„^,-.. "' hna-tajated in detail ky Schiiltzc, 3/11. '•<)}', cm ' XL ^ 11 1 '''tp. ad Sclalhrian. ni SchillcrX ed. nf Aridocidcs. 14611. 86 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS I., recall in ihc Allu'inan- nu IK"' iCl ■I (,if the amiK'-!\ ti:,^- 1:^.,! ii(> iu;i;.l to clo mnix' than N icomachu-. 1 tie .1 in llic rcliT- K i !i i \\ li'um. I - < a t.i \ i: 1 ,.„,.,- to av.-iil. thai toMk laaarinnnoliairiy.ifliaMhra.hriiniMra^. t,nn .a ilu' iMUir liiiiahaMl i-nini-^ aln^ m iha unniiK-^ m Uu- >|.ccch ior ddivcrv. There i^ im narrative. iKa'aii-e (here i^^ uetli hi the taet> to aUorh MiilalT' eia'ortnnitv mr nnca and lUL. ir Lvsias prohahly kept tn the iaet-^. thou-h unuue^tmn II ) Iv t ! ) own ver.sion. The aiitieipation of Xieoniaehii^ attack^ upon th.r speaker serve>. in each ea^e. merely as a tTaniework npon^ which. to bnild a siniikir accusation a-aiiir^t Xicomachns hmisclt. I he speaker then falls into invective, first a-ainst Niconiacluis personallv, and here we hnd a typically Ly^ianic passa-e o! rhetorical (jnestions and answer.. ( 2(k ->7 ) : then a-ainst v^ro- ypafjifjiard, as a ckiss ; he ends with animadversions a-ainst tho>e who will defend Xicomaehus. 1 shonld. therefore, without (lueslionin- the -ennineness ol XXX, maintain the view first held by Sehdmann that it wa^ written as a demonstration ai^ainst Xicomaehus ; that, althoui^h it was couched in the form of a speech, it was never intended for delivery in court. Assumin- this, we are not confronted with the necessity of determininir the exact dicanic status of tlie speech, wdiich has been for scholars a serious difticulty. XXXi. XXXI, Kara I yet considei chcn^tein.' ]M-nhiheri:"er. uf^cient ])roof of spuriousness ; so Raii- )('. i l;iihrn-rna )ri[\c i \ iu^>. ill llic same \ ear as the ^T'cech a< -carce]\- wfjrthy ct Lysias, because tranL^e tliat SolonX law. e\en )i it was at the time antiquated, slunikl not lia.ve been cited. I ie remarked that 1 lalhenMua mi-ht have u-ed tliis ;.x im a.r.QU- meiit. hut did not draw any final conclu>iun about ilie --enuiiie- ness of XXXI. {Mamcken ' thou.^ht tlie form, composition, and course 01 ariiument truly Lysianic, and rejected Scheibeas strictures as containing no i)roof of spuriousness. Xevertheless. mainly on lin-uistic ,l; rounds, he believed that the si)eech has been to some extent worked over. liis objections were answered, in part. b\ Kayser : '" what remains unaccounted for, such as the unicpie expression. IxOpav ^traTroptvo^i^vo^ (2), is insufficient warrant for an assumption of redaction. Baur," without attacking the o-enuinensss of XXXI, doubted if it was ever delivered in court, because of the slii^htness and fancifulness of the accusations against Philon. The an^ument from the mother's will (20-24 ) seemed to Baur especially typical of an " Ubungsrede ". Sittl ' suggested that variations in 14 and 23 from the usual formulae for summoning witnesses might point to spuriousness, but as we have previously seen,'' Sittl overestimated the need for abso- lute uniformity in these formulae. Wagner " expressed doubts of its genuineness, and remarked upon the extraordinarily large number of articular infinitives, eleven in thirty-four para- graphs. Xowack'' classed this speech and the preceding one, Kara NtKOjutaxoiN -'IS " dubiae " ; in addition to the non-Lysianic char- ^ h 130. '61. fie rejected Francken's theory of a late redaction. '4'85. 'op. cit: cf. Frohberger. Phil. Anz. II (1869), 290. ' De Magis. prob. ap. Ath. Deventer. 1841. 31. 'I. 588. "230-238 " Lvsiac. scd TrapaTreTTOtr/rat". ^"^ 2>Z3- ^M-3- ^"15-- ^^See under XIX, XXIII, XXVIII. 14 4. 15 107 88 SPURIOUS SrEECIIES IN THE LVSIANIC CORPUS acteristics observed by Scheibe and Frohberj^er, another con- sideration inclined him to consider it spurious: neither the amnesty decree of 403 nor Solon's law insistini^ upon participa- tion in party strife is mentioned. Liibbert's " explanation of the first omission, and Luders"' of the second, failed to satisfy Novvack. The simplest explanation, however, is that in an cpideictic speech to which, as we have seen, the sli^ditness of the argu- ment, essentially based u])on irioru^ Ik tov i'jdov^, and the rhetori- cal ornament of XXXI ])oint,"' there is not the same necessity for mention of the amnesty and the law of Solon, that there would have been in a s])eech designed for use. Xowack's argu- ments, therefore, suggest that it is a literary fiction, but do not prove spuriousness. Voger' believed that XXXI is a late school exercise, and explained by this assumption the intangibility of the historical personages and the vagueness of the time relations. I lis other objections to the plays on words and the commonplaces, and to some constructions differing from Lysianic usage (among which the undesirable presence or al)sence of ai' may be due to the text tradition ) , are not sufficient to ])rove his |)oint. Buchle *" also condemned the speech. Me emphasized the vagueness and indefiniteness of the narrative of I'hilon's neutrality at tlie time of the strife. The story of his r()bl)ing the old citizens seemed to Buchle " leblos ". In the third narrative. — of his non-fulfil- ment of duties, — we hear nothing of Thilon himself. Also there are objections to the *' Gliederung " of XXXI and to the use oi commonplaces, as well as to the failure to cite definite laws. All this, he admitted, does not argue against Ly.siam"c author- '" De amncstia anno CCCClll a Chr. n. a1) Athcniensibus dccrcta. Kiel. 1881. gi. He tlunij^ht that Pliilcn was excluded from the benefits of the amnesty, because he did not belonu to either of the two parties concerned, but had committed crimes af;ainst the entire state. "J. J. XCVII (iH()8). 54. His idea that the law was obsolete in Lysias' time w-as confirmed by Rauchenstein, Fuhr. and Blass. cf. Blass, 485. esp. n. j. op. cit. ; Bursian. (/>• *" op. cit. ; Bursian, q; f. 18 19 w SPURIOl\S SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 89 I \ ship. So that it is otily upon the basis of individual peculiarities found by him in the speech, that he concluded that it lacked ethopoiia, and that rhetorical devices had been employed to excess. It is therefore *' eine Ubungsrede, aber aus wnrklich lysianischen Flecken meist nicht immer gliicklich zusammen- gesetzt ". It is not true, in my opinion, that the speech lacks ethopoiia, though of course it is Philon, and not the speaker, who is cast into the foreground. The rhetorical figures are not in excess if the work is epideictic, so Bitchle's arguments serve rather to uphold this view than to disprove the genuineness of XXXI. 9 XXXIII. The 01ymi)iacus of Lysias is ])reserved, in part, by Dionysius of Ualicarnassus, de Lysia 30, as an example of his epideictic manner. It is referred to, without question of its genuineness, by Pseudo-Plutarch, Hermogenes. and Harpocration.' Scheibe in 1841 ' advanced various arguments (later refuted by Blass'), in the belief that the fragment is spurious, but in his edition accepted it as genuine without question. Schafer ' defended the date assigned by Diodorus, 388 B. C, against (irote's attempt' to place the speech four years later. Never- theless he adopted one of Grote's arguments, and insisted upon the impossibility of Lysias' speaking of the Spartans in such words as are used iti 7. He concluded therefore that the demonstration against Dionysius, tyrant of Sicily, at the Olym- pian festival catne from Xenophon's circle, though Lysias may have written the speech, and conjectured that the man who delivered it was Themistogenes of Syracuse, to whom Xeno- l)hon ( Hell. III. 1.2) ascribed his Anabasis. But it is not clear ' See Holscher. iiQ f 373- 434- i' ^Philol. XVIli (1862), i88tT. = IX, 291 ff. (and X, 306 ff.). 90 SPURIOUS spEFXiir^s IX Tiir. lvsiaxic corpus why Lysias could not himself utter words that he could write. It is unlikely that an Olynipiac speech would he local or sec- tional in any case. The s])eech was not that of a person in a private capacity ; the speaker was the niouthjMece of the com- munity ." Since the speech is a ])lea for |)eace, and no doubt the result of an earnest endeavour to secure it. how better could Lysias have proved his sincerity and that of the Athenians, than by a show of frank ap])reciation of Sparta? Perhaps Lysias had heard a rumor of the coming- peace of Antalcidas, and was makini^ a last appeal to brinj^' Sparta over to th.e side of Greece a.i^ainst Persia as well as ai^ainst Syracuse. There is no reason why we should not believe, on the unani- mous testimony of the ancients, that Lxsias wrote and delivered the speech. 6 XT Not, however, in an (ifficial capacity. Tlic fact that L\sias \va metic need not have interfered witli the dehvery of this s])eecli. s a Tllh: EROTICLS. The I'^roticus in Plato's Phaedrus. thouLjh scarcely within the province of this dissertation, deserves mention as haviuf^^ been twdce in recent years included in editions of Lysias." X'ahlen's defence of it as s^eiuiinely Ly>ianic would seem to have turned the tide of criticism completely in that direction.' lUu W'ein- stock.' in a lon<.; and elaborate dissertation has taken once more the opposite, and to my mind correct p)oint of view. Mil tlie edition.s of Hervverden and ilude, as in llohne>' Index Lysiacus. Bonn, 1895. ''798, lie overlook.s the fact that Herwerden's edition included the F.roticus (as well as that of Franz in 1831). ^op. cit. To his list of defenders of Pkito's authorship may he added the following: Leutsch, Theses Sexaginta, 1833, 13; Stallhaum. Lysiaca ad illustrandas Phaedri Platonici origines ; yiahatTy. 142; Baur, 71; Jowett. S53'f to champions of Lysianic authorship: — Keil on Phaedrus 234; Kiel on Athenaeus XI. 505 f. ; Heindorf on Phaedrus. 187; Wytten- bach on Plut. Moralia. 340; Franz, -nepl \vaiov tov i'rjTopos, 15; (cf. De locis quihusdam Lysiae arte critica persanandis. 3. n. J, and his edi- SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIAXIC CORPUS 91 Plis first chapter is a detailed investigation into the language of the Eroticus, including rhetorical figures, rhythm, composi- tion and choice of words, and general style. His second chapter, dealing with the authorship of the Eroticus, attempts in the first instance to draw^ conclusions from the investigations in the preceding chapter. It appears * that in details, such as use and avoidance of figures, there is a strange consonance be- tween Lysias' speeches and the Eroticus, though in the latter his brevity and clearness are lacking. The rhythm and a few words are not Lysianic. These discrepancies cannot, accord- ing to Weinstock, be entirely explained away by the nature of the subject treated, and the only possible conclusion is that Lysias is not the author. With the warning that resemblances to Lysias' speeches can never prove his authorship of the Eroticus, since Plato, in writ- ing- it, nuist have imitated his characteristic tricks of thought and style, Weinstock examines the parallel passages cited by Vahlen and proves, by citation from other orators, that they are forms of expression common to all Attic oratory. The repeated occurrence of rhetorical formulae used by Lysias is the result of conscious imitation, and as we should expect it is the imitator, not the original author, who out-Herods Herod. It is even i)ossible, he thinks, that Plato may have copied from an actual work of Lysias. (This, to me, seems improbable, but is in no case of any consequence for the argument.) As a result of his stylistic investigation, Vahlen concluded onlv that Lvsias might have been the author.' Weinstock tion 349 f in which the Froticus is included, 249 ff.) ; \ ater, N. J. SuppL IX (1843). 176; Grote, Plato and the Other Companions ot Socrates 11 254 ff . ; Thompson, op. cit.; Eckert, op. cit., 14 ff . ; Pluntke, Plato's Urteil uher Isocrates, 1871, 8 f . ; Steinhart, Platons Leben Leip- zi^^ 1873 179 (retracting his statement made m his praef. ad H. Muller s German 'version of Plato. IV, Leipzig. 1854, cited by Weinstock, 34) : Constantinides. 'ASvpaiou IV (1875). IV 32 ff. ; Jebb, 305 ff • ; Weineck, -o f • Teichmiiller, op. cit., passim; Sitd. 148; Bockh, Encyclopadie der Philologie 212 f . ; Nowack, 100; Herwerden and Hude, who include the Froticus in their editions. To the list of neutral scholars may he added:— Riickert. on Plato Symp.. 2'^2\ \'an Heusde, Init. phil. Plat. 1. loi ^33 '8o8f.. though he speaks less guardedly m the preface. ^t 92 sPURiors si'i;iA !ii:s in riii' r.^siAxir coRrrs proves, as he thinks, that X'ahlcn's whole arf^iiment is *' vaiia atque irrita ", hy pointinjj^ out words and constructions, which are not Ly^^ianic, hut in F^latonic usa.i^e. Of the words which he sin.^des out as not occurrini^ in Lysias, one, l-rroXoyo^, occurs in JV which he brackets, another in VIII, which he with most scholars, rejects. As he sui^i^ests, the non-occurrence of words may be due to chance, and it is impossible to draw valid con- clusions from the small ])roportion of Lysias' work that has survived, es])ecially since his IpoiTiKol Aoyot have all been lost. No doubt they dilTercd consideral)ly from his dicanic s|)eeches (whether or not these latter were written for actual use in court). To a certain extenl. choice and use of words and phrases are determined by the i;enre of the work.' Nor is the appearance of certain IMatonic, but apparently not Lysianic con- structions conclusive; the element of chance must be reckoned with. h>om an examination of the rhythm, it ap|)ears that the h>oticus resembles more closely Socrates' first s])eech in the ]*haedrus than the ( )lym])iacus. ilere ai^ain on this debatable .^rotmd of rln'thm, it seems as if ij;-enre mii^ht be a determining;' factor. In my 0])inion therefore no decisive conclusions can be drawai from these facts, though they ])oint to what I hold to be the correct view. According to W'einstock, IMato imitated Lysias as closelv as possible ; the l^roticus is a " verissima at(jue simillima veri imai;"0 orationum Lysiacarum ". At the same time, it is '* luce clarius " that the h>oticus was written not bv Lvsias, but bv Plato. Lhilolo.i^ians are too clever to be deceived by Plato, but '* quicum([ue inteiiro liberocjue animo lei;'erint oratiunculam, Lroticum esse vere Lysiacum certe iudicabunt ". Are we to take it that IMato wrote for ])hiloloi;ians ? Or to deceive in- ♦j^enuous readers? I las Y'ahlen the unprejudiced mind, and is Weinstock the philoloi^ian ? It seems to me that Plato could not seriouslv have intended his readers to believe that the fl T This explains satisfactorily the iion-occurrcncc in what remains of Lysias of poetic and erotic words and jihrases, such as I'oatli', used of the mind, Ofpanevwu ijoovrji', tcpa, cf. W'einstock, 48 f. r SPl'RIO rs >n:F,ciTES in the lysianic corpus 93 l-roticu^ was Lvsiaiiic, unless it had already been published under Lvsias' name. In that case, the Phaedrus is a literary book review. But unciuestionably he intended that his readers .hould understand that the Eroticus is a subtle Platonic version of !.>sias' manner.— almost a Lysianic inversion of the manner. •rhe'readin,tr public would detect precisely where groping philo- lo;>ians fail, the element of caricature. Weinstock then turns to the Phaedrus itself, to see what con- clusions can be drawn about the authorship of the Eroticus.' Th- word " parodv " so frankly applied to the Eroticus by Thiele" seems to have aroused Vahlcn's indignation and in- spired his article, and here, at least, Weinstock agrees with him that it could not have been a parody. These two scholars, however, seem to interpret " parody " as a " grotesque mis- representation ". whereas Platonic parody is something at once more artistic and more subtle. To the " parody " idea, Wein- stock objects that, on this assumption, Lysias is subjected to a threefold criterion, first in the parody itself, then m Socrates first speech, and finallv in Socrates' detailed criticism of it. Now the parodv would seem to me. besides being the chef d'oeuvre of the dialogue, a tacit suggestion of the following criticism, which is, justlv for Plato's purpose, of three kinds ;— first, ot the ireatmeiu of 'the subject (Socrates' first speech) ; second, ot the choice of subject (Socrates' second) ; finally, of the details of composition, of the rhetoric (in the second part of the . ll uin-i Imah)^ hr Ivepl ni mind that the I'haedrn^ i^. par excenence. a piece ot liierature, and not Ntrictlx' accmaite. nl)ji-c!i\r cniaa-ni. end iliat the v\c- ment of Innnonr wa^ le--:-- readd\' o\-iTl(»oke(l and njidic re^inn.'ited hv contenmorarii'^ than h\- the nii-rc nu■!lculon^ ^jchuiarr^ ui to-da\c hi the thna] section \\'eni-lions can \)v driiwu from cnnipan-on wnli lliv hrMniL:nras and the Sxanpo^nnn, hni ponii- on! at die ^aine tnne tlial Xcnak'nV ■" ari^nnient from the prnkaiilc (U nnit\- ninM j-rovc, at hr^t siL^kit, th.e an!h !■- a irdtynoi , a " scki( »ka-la,';i exercn.ala» -iix' deekiin.'ita ». (juale> f.X'sia-- cipnh^ prcquMUTe -ok*hai ni exeniphan ad recitanchun 'k hkito'^ jndL^nieni ^n u n jn-iinahle, On the whole, tlierefore. W'eni-UtCiv ha- (kaie Intle to jTnx^e his conchi-ion. thoni^h n i-, l** nn nnnd, die rniaaaa one. Mis com])roni!-e thaa it 1- raa a ])ar(id\- mile k/a.d- kinn nitf> i/xtraia"- dinar\- ciaitraihction-.' Ike arL:n!neni ni kurarx' nnu\' ;a] vanced h\' XcnaUnn f'kito'- Lienerai niaina-r ni work;, the nnproh a!)iht\' tkiat tlie work of one antkioi- -lion.kJ. 'he <|rsoied aa. -rail ieniith in wha! !>. ip-o taiao, a work of aia, -nhe-e are da- -tronL;e>t ari^niiK'nt- aLiani-t L\--ia-' andior-hiii. 1 he answer in the qne>tion niii-l he inure or les- >rihjc'cri\ e, "So we Txank -i , " (jincnniiia^' aUci.!f^ >een ikat tlie radu-al treatment .d L>-ia-- wc.rk i^ not jn^tilialile. The I.vsianic corpn^ i^ the re^nlt (d contnnied exclusion ot Mippo-edlv .|)nrion- work. There is no contemporary evidence role >})eeches for chent> to deliver in court, 1 he 'eche<. of that I .\>ias w j.r-iinieni- i<.r and ai^am-t the -emnneness ol H)C( xvhich the andienticity ha> heeii (iue>tioned. rest on ]>eculiarities in choice (M word> and syntax, and on suitahiluy for actual ! hyMa- preserved, and any mvestmauou ,P ,]h- wnik n't l.v-ias nm-t proceed on that a-Mun])tion.^an(k u necessary, the n-e nt what i- to-day con^dered -oleci-tic^ m cla'^\v . \\ .:r ])or n 111 X on A()vcnH)cr i I) 1 88.), A \ 1 li IK'I )!•. A' \^ n senn: A u^l nn rl-vow^ ; r inotluT. I'lora Singer I ); the IMiil'idelj^liia llii^h S llic r ci >i ifi's" in '!! a ri-- ! mm r)r\ii .\ awi' i laiaa xv a-L'r. Ill -pent three vear-. doi 1 1; I an u ite WOTK \\ In e (lepartnienl M^.iiV in ( i!"eeh. of (ircek and San>krit at hlrvn Ahnur U)i 1 -IJ. ankrii. and ( omparatn.a* 1 TnlcloL'v Dr. W \- crnic]>e, I a ^h thron.L:ii wl ^vork m ( ir H)>e msjiiratinii :n'. I U a, - an* ! ( ( )mi a-iane an\a.' ioIul: V ia\ e ( onimue* 1 n ei' waihonl who-e eneom-a-emiait and aid I < 1 1 n I not ha\a' wntteri ihi: un---eria ! a )i i w i( I tiinity to express m\- -ratUnde and -ei!>e i-^i oh Ki' t!im f-^l'p"*' o i!ie-e ]»roie>sor- aial t< ! e. • t M 'J ^ 4 i i. II I a I '. < ) Mawr loi: I I /\ 1> C\ A V ^^ V ro: -'MR'A rt4-:'~- 010655832 , i\l ES I. due on the date indicated belcw, ^^ ^^ J^^ I J:::::: :;'Z::^^o^^er the date of borrowing, as ;::::,;::;;;.,;, : .rary rules or by special arrangen. .^ the I.ibranari in charge. C28 (747 MlOO ')5?; ..yr-M i^' P ci r' ! t^C: f Bfd«S fc.tChG5 !*a ^ b£- L?<5R, *''J'-> V ^' k^- U .c.-. ^''^ i i ^ M (^ I •%,i.. '.r-