This pointer extracts volume and chapter and section
This pointer extracts volume and chapter
This pointer extracts volume
To The Reverend J. B. Lightfoot, D.D., Canon of St. Paul's, Lady Margaret
Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, honorary fellow
and late tutor of Trinity College, these pages are inscribed, in
admiration of his services to the cause of true learning, and in
affectionate remembrance of constant kindness, by his former pupil, the
author.
THE first object of this book is to offer a contribution to a chapter in the history of Greek Literature which has perhaps received less attention than its importance deserves. The oratorical branch of Attic prose has a more direct and more fruitful relation to the general development than modern analogies would suggest. To trace the course of Athenian oratory from its beginnings as an art to the days of its decline is, necessarily, to sketch the history of Greek prose expression in its most widely influential form, and to show how this form was affected by a series of causes, political or social.
The second object of the book is to supply an aid to the particular study
of the Attic orators before Demosthenes. The artistic development of
Attic oratory is sketched as a whole. But a separate and minute
treatment is given only to Antiphon, Andokides, Lysias, Isokrates and
Isaeos. The period thus specially determined has more than a
correspondence with a practical need: it has an inner unity, resting on
grounds which are stated in the Introduction and which are illustrated
at each stage of the subsequent inquiry.
As regards the former and larger of these two purposes, the writer may venture to hope that his attempt, however imperfect, will be recognised at least as one for which, in this country, there is room. The History of Greek Literature by Otfried Müller— translated and continued by Donaldson—had been carried only to Isokrates when the author died, at the early age of forty-three, in 1840. Müller's chapters on ‘The beginnings of regular Political and Forensic Oratory among the Athenians’ (XXXIII), on ‘The new cultivation of Oratory by Lysias’ (XXXV), and on ‘Isokrates’ (XXXVI) are, relatively to the plan of his work, very good: that is, they state clearly the chief characteristics of each writer separately. But this very plan precluded a full examination of each writer's works, and even a full discussion of his style. Nor does Müller appear to have regarded Oratory otherwise than as strictly a department, or adequately to have conceived its relation to the universal prose literature. The materials for a more comprehensive estimate had already been brought together in Westermann's
For the analyses of the orations it seemed best to adopt no uniform scale, but to make them more or less full according to the interest of the subjectmatter or the nature of its difficulties. In analysing the works of Isokrates, which abound in matter of literary or historical value, I have endeavoured to give the whole of the contents in a form easy of access, and, at the same time, to preserve the most characteristic features of expression. A careful analysis, whether copious or not, is necessarily to some extent a commentary, since the analyst must exhibit his view of the relation in which each part of the writer's meaning stands to the rest.
In this sense, I hope that the analyses will serve my second and more
special purpose—to help students of these five orators who have nothing
but a Greek text before them. Critical scholarship in
The present attempt to aid in giving Attic Oratory its due place in the
history of Attic Prose was
Last, though not least, I have to thank my friend Mr Sandys for his help in revising some of the earlier sheets of the book for the press, as well as for several valuable suggestions.
It seems probable that the study of antiquity, especially of the Greek
and Latin languages and literatures, so far from declining, is about to
enter on a larger and a more truly vigorous life than it has had since
the Revival of Letters. That study has become, in a new and fuller
sense, scientific. The Comparative Method, in its application to
Language, to Literature, to Mythology, to Political or Constitutional
History, has given to the classics a general interest and importance far
greater than they possessed in the days when the devotion which they
attracted was most exclusive. For the present, indeed, during a time of
transition, the very breadth of the view thus opened is apt to be
attended by a disadvantage of its own. So long as the study given to
ancient Greece or Rome was practically confined to the short periods
during which the literature of either was most brilliant, this study was
often narrow, perhaps, but it was usually searching and sympathetic. The
great masters in each kind were known at close quarters. Their
excellence was not something taken on credit Securus
iudicat orbis terrarum.
THE UNIVERSITY, GLASGOW, November, 1875.
IN the reign of Augustus, when Rome had become the intellectual no less
than the political centre of the earth, a controversy was drawing to a
close for which the legionaries cared less than their master, but which
for at least fifty years had been of some practical interest for the
Forum and the Senate, and which for nearly three centuries had divided
the schools of Athens, of Pergamos, of Antioch, of Alexandria, of all
places where men spoke and wrote a language which, though changed from
the glory of its prime, was still the idiom of philosophy and of art.
This controversy involved principles by which every artistic creation
must be judged; but, as it then came forward, it referred to the
standard of merit in prose literature, and, first of all, in oratory.
Are the true models those Attic writers of the fifth and fourth
centuries, from Thucydides to Demosthenes, whose most general
characteristics are, the subordination of the form to the thought, and
the avoidance of such faults as come from a misuse of ornament? Or have
these been surpassed in brilliancy, in freshness of fancy, in effective
force by those writers,
Among the Greeks then living in the Imperial City were two men, united by
friendship, by community of labours and by zeal for the Atticist
revival; symbols, by birth-place, of influences which in the past had
converged upon the Athens of Perikles from Sicily and the Ionian
East,—Caecilius of Calacte and Dionysios of Halikarnassos, now met in
that new capital of civilised mankind to which the arts, too, of Athens
were passing. Both were scholars of manifold industry, in history, in
archæology, in literary criticism, in technical rhetoric,
The lost work of Caecilius was entitled
Dionysios, as has been said, altogether ignores the decade. If we
supposed that Caecilius was its
Nothing is more characteristic of Dionysios as a critic than his
resolution not to accept tradition as such, but to bring it to the test
of reason. This comes out strikingly, for instance, in his distrust of
merely prescriptive or titular authenticity when he is going through the
list of an ancient writer's works. Now, his object in handling the Attic
orators was
The task which I have set before me is to consider the lives, the styles
and the writings of Antiphon, Andokides, Lysias, Isokrates and Isaeos,
with a view to showing how Greek oratory was developed, and thereby how
Greek prose was moulded, from the outset of its existence as an art down
to the point at which the organic forces of Attic speech were matured,
its leading tendencies determined, and its destinies committed, no
longer to discoverers, but to those who should crown its perfection or
At the outset, it is well to clear away a verbal hindrance to the
comprehension of this subject in its right bearings. The English term
‘orator,’ when it is not used ironically, is reserved for one who, in
relation to speaking, has genius of an order analogous to that which
entitles a man to be seriously called a poet. The term ‘oratory,’ though
the exigencies of the language lead to its often being used as a mere
synonym for ‘set speaking,’ is yet always inconveniently coloured with
the same suggestion either of
This is the fundamental conception on which rests, first, the relation
between ancient oratory and
The relation between ancient oratory and ancient prose, philosophical,
historical or literary, is necessarily of the closest kind. Here our
unfortunate word ‘oratory,’ with its arbitrary and perplexing
associations, is a standing impediment to clearness of view. The
proposition will be more evident if it is stated thus:—In Greek and
Roman antiquity, that prose which was written with a view to being
The affinities between ancient and modern oratory
Ancient oratory is a fine art, an art regarded by its cultivators, and by
the public, as analogous to sculpture, to poetry, to painting, to music
and to acting. This character is common to Greek and Roman oratory; but
it originated with the Greeks, and was only acquired by the Romans. The
evidence for this character may be
Thirdly, we find that the orators, in addressing
The external evidence is supplied by what we ἐπὶ τύχῃ ποιεῖσθαι τὴν δύναμιν,
Stetit soleatus praetor populi Romani
cum pallio purpureo tunicaque talari, muliercula nixus, in
litore
Patris dictum
sapiens
temeritas filii comprobavit:
and adds,—‘The applause
drawn from the meeting by this dichoreus was positively astonishing.’
Quam lepide lexeis compostae! ut tesserulae omnes arte pavimento atque emblemate vermiculato.The satirist was mocking T. Albucius, who wished himself to be thought ‘plane Graecus’ (Cic.
It has already been observed that this feeling about speaking is
originally Greek; and it is worth πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἄτοπον εἰ τῷ σώματι
μὲν αἰσχρὸν μὴ δύνασθαι βοηθεῖν ἑαυτῷ, λόγῳ δ’ οὐκ
αἰσχρόν· ὃ μᾶλλον
ἴδιόν ἐστιν ἀνθρώπου τῆς τοῦ σώματος χρείας,
It will now be useful to look at some of the broad characteristics of
modern oratory and of the modern feeling towards it; but only in so far
as these will help our present purpose—namely, to elucidate the nature
of ancient oratory. The first thing that strikes one is how completely
modern life has redressed the complaint made by the earliest
philosophical theorist of rhetoric. Aristotle opens his treatise with
the ὁ γὰρ κριτὴς ὑπόκειται εἶναι ἁπλοῦς,
κ.τ.λ.
It is true, indeed, that the ancient theory has often been partially
applied in modern times, sometimes with great industry and with much
success; but modern conditions place necessary limits to the
application, and the great difference is this:—The ancients required the
speech to be an artistic whole; the modern orator who composes, or
verbally premeditates, trusts chiefly, as a rule, to particular passages
and is less solicitous for a total symmetry. Debate, in our sense, is a
modern institution; its
‘The resources created by peace are means of war. In cherishing those
resources, we but accumulate those means. Our present repose is no more
a proof of inability to act, than the state of inertness and inactivity
in which I see those mighty masses that float in the waters above your
town is a proof that they are devoid of strength and incapable of being
fitted out for action. You well know, gentlemen, how soon one of those
stupendous masses now reposing on their shadows in perfect stillness—how
soon, upon any call of patriotism or of necessity, it would assume the
likeness of an animated thing, instinct with life and motion—how soon
would it ruffle, as it were, its swelling plumage—how quickly it would
put forth all its beauty and its bravery, collect its scattered elements
of strength, and awaken its dormant thunder. Such as is one of those
magnificent machines when springing from inaction into a display of its
might—such is England herself, while, apparently passive and motionless,
she silently concentrates the power to be put forth on an adequate
occasion.’
The ancient parallel for this is such a passage θεωρίᾳ μᾶλλον ἢ στρατείᾳ προσεοικώς
‘Do not suffer the arrogance of England to imagine a surviving hope in the fears of Ireland; do not send the people to their own resolves for liberty, passing by the tribunals of justice and the high court of Parliament; neither imagine that, by any formation of apology, you can palliate such a commission to your hearts, still less to your children, who will sting you with their curses in your graves, for having interposed between them and their Maker, robbing them of an immense occasion, and losing an opportunity which you did not create and never can restore.
‘Hereafter, when these things shall be history, your age of thraldom and poverty, your sudden resurrection, commercial redress, and miraculous armament, shall the historian stop at liberty, and observe—that here the principal men among us fell into mimic trances of gratitude; that they were awed by a weak ministry, and bribed by an empty treasury; and, when liberty was within their grasp, and the temple opened her folding doors, and the arms of the people clanged, and the zeal of the nation urged and encouraged them on,—that they fell down and were prostituted at the threshold.
‘I might, as a constituent, come to your bar and demand my liberty,—I do
call upon you, by the laws of the land and their violation, by the
instruction of eighteen counties,
‘I will not be answered by a public lie in the shape of an amendment;
neither, speaking for the subject's freedom, am I to hear of faction. I
wish for nothing but to breathe, in this our island, in common with my
fellow-subjects, the air of liberty. I have no ambition, unless it be
the ambition to break your chain and contemplate your glory. I never
will be satisfied so long as the meanest cottager in Ireland has a link
of the British chain clanking to his rags; he may be naked, he shall not
be in iron; and I do see the time is at hand, the spirit is gone forth,
the declaration is planted; and though great men should apostatize, yet
the cause will live; and though the public speaker should die, yet the
immortal fire shall outlast the organ which conveyed it, and the breath
of liberty, like the word of the holy man, will not die with the
prophet, but survive him.’
Erskine's defence of Stockdale, the publisher of a pamphlet in defence of
Warren Hastings, containing certain reflections on the Managers which
the House of Commons pronounced libellous, contains a passage of which
the ingenuity, no less than the finished art, recalls the best efforts
of ancient forensic oratory; though this ingenuity cannot be fully
appreciated without the context. At first, Erskine studiously keeps his
defence of Stockdale separate from his defence of Hastings; then he
gradually suggests that Hastings is entitled to indulgence on account
(1) of his instructions, (2) of his situation, (3) of English and
European policy abroad, (4) of the depravity to which, universally, men
are liable who have vast power over a subject race,—and the last topic
is illustrated thus:—
‘Gentlemen, I think that I can observe that you are touched by this way
of considering the subject; and I can account for it. I have not been
considering it through the cold medium of books, but have been speaking
of man and his nature, and of human dominion, from what I have seen of
them myself among reluctant nations submitting to our authority. I know
what they feel, and how such feelings can alone be repressed. I have
heard them in my youth from a naked savage, in the indignant character
of a prince surrounded by his subjects, addressing the governor of a
British colony, holding a bundle of sticks in his hand as the notes of
his unlettered eloquence; ‘Who is it,’ said the jealous ruler over the
desert encroached upon by the restless foot of English adventure—‘who is
it that causes this river to rise in the high mountains and to empty
itself into the ocean? Who is it that causes to blow the loud winds of
winter, and that calms them again in summer? Who is it that rears up the
shade of those lofty forests, and blasts them with the quick lightning
at his pleasure? The same Being who gave to you a country on the other
side of the waters, and gave ours to us; and by this title we will
defend it!’ said the warrior, throwing down his tomahawk on the ground,
and raising the war-sound of his nation. These are the feelings of
subjugated men all round the globe; and, depend upon it, nothing but
fear will control where it is vain to look for affection
But no speaker, probably, of modern times has
‘Having terminated his disputes with every enemy and every rival, who
buried their mutual animosities in their common detestation against the
creditors of the Nabob of Arcot, he drew from every quarter whatever a
savage ferocity could add to his new rudiments in the arts of
destruction; and compounding all the materials of fury, havoc, and
desolation into one black cloud, he hung for a while on the declivity of
the mountains. Whilst the authors of all these evils were idly and
stupidly gazing on this menacing meteor, which darkened all their
horizon, it suddenly burst, and poured down the whole of its contents
upon the plains of the Carnatic. Then ensued a scene of woe, the like of
which no eye had seen, no heart conceived, and which no tongue can
adequately tell. All the horrors of war before known or heard of were
mercy to that new havoc. A storm of universal fire blasted every field,
consumed every house, destroyed every temple. The miserable inhabitants,
flying from their flaming villages, in part were slaughtered; others,
without regard to sex, to age, to the respect of rank, or sacredness of
function, fathers torn from children, husbands from wives, enveloped in
a whirlwind of cavalry, and amidst the goading spears of drivers and the
trampling of pursuing horses, were swept into captivity in an unknown
and hostile land. Those who were able to evade this tempest fled to the
walled cities. But escaping from fire, sword and exile they fell into
the jaws of famine. For months together these creatures of sufferance,
whose very excess and luxury in their most plenteous days had fallen
short of the allowance of our austerest fasts, silent, patient,
resigned, without sedition or disturbance, almost without complaint,
perished by a hundred a day in the streets of Madras or on the glacis of
Tangore, and expired of famine in the granary of India.’
Brougham
It might, however, have been anticipated that
The most memorable triumphs of modern oratory are connected with the
tradition of thrills, of electrical shocks, given to the hearers at the
moment by bursts which were extemporary, not necessarily as regards the
thought, but necessarily as regards the form. It was for such bursts
that the eloquence of the elder Pitt was famous; that of Mirabeau, and
of Patrick Henry, owed its highest renown to the same cause. Sheil's
retort, in the debate on the Irish Municipal Bill in 1837, to Lord
Lyndhurst's description of the Irish (in a phrase borrowed from
O'Connell), as ‘aliens in blood, language and religion’, was of this
kind
Hitherto we have been seeking to bring into relief, against the modern
conception, that character which is common to Greek and to Roman
oratory. But Greek oratory, as compared with Roman, has a stamp of its
own. It is separated from the Roman, not, indeed, by so wide an
interval, yet by a line as firm as that which separates both from the
modern.
That character which, with special modifications, belongs to every
artistic creation of the Greek mind,
The question at issue here happens to be vital to the immediate subject
of these pages, viz., the development, through Attic oratory, of Attic
prose. It is, however, just as vital for every other department
whatsoever in the study of ancient art, literature and thought, for it
involves nothing less than our fundamental conception of the antique.
Unless that conception is true, everything will be seen in a distorted
light, and the best things that the ancient world has to teach will be
neglected for the secondbest.
Let us take a moment of the period when, as a matter of fact, the
creative activity of Greek art was abundant—say 440 B.C.—and consider
what, at that moment, was the principal characteristic of Greek
reflection
Why, however, should this art have expressed itself in Sculpture rather
than, for instance, in Painting? Art gives pleasure by form, by colour,
by sound, or, as in poetry, by the reminiscence of all these combined
with the delight of motion. But the mind has had a history; and the very
degree in
This character of Sculpture belongs also to Greek Tragedy. But this is
not, as seems sometimes to be imagined, because the Greeks sought to
make
Since, as has been seen, Oratory was for the Greeks a fine art, it
follows that Greek Oratory must have, after its own kind, that same
typical character which belongs to Greek Sculpture and to Greek Tragedy.
Wherein, then, does it manifest this character? We must here be on our
guard against the great stumblingblock of such inquiries, the attempt to
find the analogy in the particulars and not in the whole. It might be
possible to take a speech of Demosthenes and to work out the details of
a correspondence with a tragedy of Sophokles or a work of Pheidias; but
such refinements have usually a perilous neighbourhood to fantasy, and,
even when they are legitimate, are apt to be more curious than
instructive. How truly and universally Greek Oratory bears the plastic
stamp, can be seen only when it is regarded in its largest aspects. The
The plastic character of Greek oratory,—thus seen, first of all, in the
finished distinction of successive types, clearly modelled as the nature
that wrought them,—is further seen in the individual oration. Take it
whence we will, from the age of
This seems the fitting place to touch for a moment on a trait of ancient
forensic oratory which has sometimes been noticed with rather
exaggerated emphasis, and which, it might be objected, is strangely
discordant with the character just described—the disposition of Greek as
well as Roman orators to indulge in personalities of a nature which
would be deemed highly indecorous in modern times. Their case is
scarcely, perhaps, mended by the observation that
The superiority of Greek oratory to Roman, in the deliberative and
forensic branches alike, has been recognised by the best critics as well
as by the most
The main reason of this decided advantage on the
The least gifted people, in the earliest stage of intellectual or
political growth, will always or usually have the idea, however rude, of
a natural
The special attributes and endowments of the
The Homeric ideal, to shine in eloquence as in action, to be at once ‘a
speaker of words and a doer of deeds,’ ‘good in counsel, and mighty in
war,’ had ample scope, as far as kings and nobles were concerned, in the
council and the agora. But the eloquence of the commons does not appear
to have been particularly encouraged by the chiefs, and the consummate
individuality of an Achilles or an Odysseus was no real step towards the
development of a popular oratory based upon a theory communicable to
all. In the presence of these great debaters of the Iliad, the Homeric
The intellectual turning-point came when Poetry ceased to have a sway of
which the exclusiveness rested on the presumption that no thought can be
expressed artistically which is not expressed metrically. So soon as it
had been apprehended that to forsake poetical form was not necessarily
to renounce beauty of expression, an obstacle to clear reflection had
been overcome. Mythology and cosmical speculation began to have a
rival,—a
The political turning-point came with the Persian Wars. Greek freedom was
secured against the barbarian. A maritime career was opened to commerce.
The Greek cities everywhere came into more
The theories of the Ionian physicists had not been able to interest more
than a few, still less had they been able to draw away the mass of the
people from the old poetical faith; nor had the Ionian chroniclers made
any but the rudest approaches to a
Protagoras of Abdera, the earliest of the Sophists τῶν γὰρ
υἱέων νεηνιῶν — ἀμηχανίην
.
Prodikos of Keos—the junior by many years of Protagoras—was neither, like the latter, a dialectician nor a rhetor of the Siceliot type, but rather, like Hippias, the teacher of an encyclopaedic culture. There is no reason to think that he, any more than Protagoras or Hippias, concerned himself with the artistic oratory of Gorgias. Xenophon gives in the
οὕτω πως διώκει( Πρόδικος τὴν ὑπ’ Ἀρετῆς Ἡρακλέους παίδευσιν, ἐκόσμησε μέντοι τὰς γνώμας ἔτι μεγαλειοτέροις ῥήμασιν ἢ ἐγὼ νῦνδιῴκει ?)
Hippias of Elis is of no immediate significance τὸ καὶ τὰ δημόσια πράττειν δύνασθαι
μετὰ τῶν ἰδίων
Thrasymachos of Chalkedon stands in a far riper and more definite
relation to Attic rhetorical prose, and will more properly be noticed in
connexion with the progress from Antiphon to Lysias, when we come to
look back on the development as a whole
These, then, were the two things by which the Eastern or Ionian school of
practical culture prepared the ground for Attic oratory: first and
chiefly, popular Dialectic; secondly, in the phrase of Protagoras,
orthoepy—attention to correctness in speaking or writing. In contrast
with the Eastern
Deeper causes than a political crisis fitted Sicily to become the
birthplace of Rhetoric. The first cause was the general character of the
Sicilian Greeks. Thucydides remarks that the quick and adventurous μάλιστα ὁμοιότροποι,
Now, if we consider what would be, as a rule,
Diogenes Laertios quotes a statement of Aristotle that Empedokles was the
inventor of Rhetoric, as Zenon of Dialectic
κεκινηκέναι
,
The founder of Rhetoric as an Art was Korax of Syracuse. He had enjoyed
some political consideration in the reign of Hieron (478—467 B.C.), and
was probably several years older than Empedokles. The law-suits which
followed the establishment of the democracy are said to have given him
the idea of drawing up, and committing to writing, a system of rules for
forensic speaking. This was his
Tisias, the pupil of Korax, must have been born about 485 B.C. We hear
that he was the master of Lysias at the colony of Thurii (founded in 443
B.C.), and of the young Isokrates at Athens—about 418 B.C.; Pausanias
makes him accompany Gorgias to Athens in 427 B. C.; and speaks of him as
having been banished from Syracuse (VI. 17 § 8). Whatever may be the worth of
these details, the main facts about Tisias are clear. He led the
wandering life of a Sophist.
Those who bring a scientific spirit to the study of Attic oratory need
not be cautioned against allowing what is ignoble, puerile, or even
immoral in the earliest Greek Rhetoric to prejudice their
Gorgias is a man of whose powers and merits it is extremely difficult for
us now to form a clear or impartial notion. This is not, however,
because the portrait of him in Plato is so vivid. Nothing more
distinguishes Plato from later satirists of like keenness than his
manner of hinting the redeeming points of the person under dissection;
and, whenever Gorgias comes in—whether in the dialogue that bears his
name or elsewhere—it may be discerned (I venture to think) that Plato's
purpose was to bring out an aspect of the man—that aspect which he
considered most important—but that he allowed, and was writing for those
who knew, that there was another side to the picture. διὸ δεῖ ποιεῖν ξένην τὴν διάλεκτον·
θαυμασταὶ γὰρ τῶν ἀπόντων εἰσίν· ἡδὺ δὲ τὸ θαύμαστον
τὸ σαφὲς καὶ τὸ ἡδὺ καὶ τὸ ξενικὸν
ἔχει μάλιστα ἡ μεταφορά
τὰ ξένα μάλιστα ἁρμόττει λέγοντι
παθητικῶς
It may be hard now to understand how such
Allowing, however, all that has been advanced above, it might still seem
strange that Gorgias should have had this reception from the Assembly
which, within three years, had been listening to Perikles. But the true
question is whether ῥήτωρ καὶ δημαγωγός, ὅστις πρῶτος γραπτὸν
λόγον ἐν δικαστηρίῳ εἶπε, τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ σχεδιαζόντων
.antiquissimi fere sunt, quorum quidem
scripta constent:
Ante Periclem, cuius scripta quaedam
feruntur, littera nulla est quae quidem ornatum aliquem
habeat
.Equidem non reperio quicquam tanta
eloquentiae fama dignum; ideoque minus miror esse qui nihil ab eo
scriptum putent, haec autem quae feruntur ab aliis esse composita.
ἔγγραφον μὲν οὐδὲν ἀπολέλοιπε πλὴν τῶν
ψηφισμάτων· ἀπομνημονεύεται δὲ ὀλίγα παντάπασιν
Eupolis, πάντων τελεώτατος εἰς τὴν ῥητορικήν
The earliest of those Athenian orators who have left writings is not the
disciple of him who most represented the new art of oratory. Antiphon
was chiefly formed, not by the new Oratory, but by the
μισθοῦ συναπολογουμένοις ἀεὶ τοῖς κρινομένοις. — But the real error both of Greeee and of Rome (until, at some time before Justinian, Trajan's renewal of the Lex Cincia was repealed), lay in their refusal to recognise Advocacy as a profession. See, on the theory, Forsyth,
But while literary fashion or private need thus lent their aid, greater
and older causes than these had prepared Athens to be the home of Civil
Oratory. τὴν μὲν γὰρ Πειθὼ μίαν τῶν θεῶν
νομίζουσιν εἶναι, καὶ τὴν πόλιν ὁρῶσι καθ’ ἕκαστον τὸν
ἐνιαυτὸν
θυσίαν αὐτῇ ποιουμένην
Athenian oratory has two great aspects, the artistic and the political.
The artistic aspect will necessarily be most prominent in the following
pages, since their special object is to trace the development of Attic
oratory in relation to the development of Attic prose. When, however,
Attic oratory is considered, not relatively to Attic prose, but in
itself, the artistic aspect is not more important than the political;
and, if even the literary value of the Attic orations is to be fully
understood, their political significance must not for a moment be left
out of sight. This significance resides not merely in the
In describing the Revolution of the Four Hundred at Athens, Thucydides
lays stress upon the fact that the measures which had effected it owed
their unity and their success to the control of a single mind. The
figure of Peisandros is most conspicuous in the foreground. ‘But he who
contrived the whole matter, and the means by which it was brought to
pass, and who had given his mind to it longest, was Antiphon; a man
second to no Athenian of his day in virtue; a proved master of device
and of expression; who did not come forward in the assembly, nor, by
choice, in any scene of debate, since he lay under the suspicion of the
people through a repute for cleverness; but who was better able than any
other individual to assist, when consulted, those who were fighting a
cause in a law-court or in the assembly. In his own case, too—when the
Four Hundred in their later reverses were being roughly used by the
people, and he was accused of having aided in setting up this same
government—he is
This passage gives in outline nearly all that is known of the life of Antiphon. Other sources supply details, and make it possible to work up the sketch into something like a picture; but they add nothing which enlarges its framework. The Revolution of the Four Hundred is still the one great scene presented to our view.
Antiphon was born about the year 480 B. C.γέγονε κατὰ τὰ Περσικὰ καὶ Γοργίαν τὸν
σοφιστὴν, ὀλίγῳ νεώτερος αὐτοῦ
. Gorgias can scarcely
have been more than seventy in 411 B.C. Blass would place the birth of
Gorgias ‘a few years’ below 496 (ἐστρατήγησε πλεῖστα, ἐνίκησε πλεῖστα,
ἑξήκοντα τριήρεσι πεπληρωμέναις ηὔξησεν Ἀθηναίοις τὸ
ναυτικόν
. The speech of Lysias τραγῳδίας ἐποίει
: and Philostratos
describes him as put to death by Dionysios for criticising his
tragedies. III. τοὺς ἀγωνιζομένους καὶ ἐν δικαστηρίῳ
καὶ ἐν δήμῳ...δυνάμενος ὠφελεῖν
‘satis, ni fallor,
is surely not justified by his reasonings.
Nothing is directly known of Antiphon's political relations before the
year 411 B. C.; but there are slight indications which agree well with
his later hostility to the democracy. Harpokration has preserved the
names of two speeches written by him, one for the people of Samothrace,
on the subject of the tribute which they paid to Athens; another, on the
same subject, for the people of Lindos in Rhodesἐν δὲ ταῖς
Ἀντιφῶντος λοιδορίαις γέγραπται
. These εἷλον διώκων λοιδορίας
οὐδ’ ἐς ἄλλον ἀγῶνα ἑκούσιος οὐδένα
κεκωμῴδηται δ’ εἰς φιλαργυρίαν ὑπὸ Πλάτωνος
ἐν Πεισάνδρῳ
.καθάπτεται
ἡ κωμῳδία τοῦ Ἀντιφῶντος ὡς δεινοῦ τὰ δικανικὰ καὶ λόγους κατὰ τοῦ
δικαίου ξυγκειμένους ἀποδιδομένου πολλῶν χρημάτων αὐτοῖς μάλιστα
τοῖς κινδυνεύουσιν
.
In the spring of 411 B. C. the opportunity for which Antiphon had been
waiting at last came. Alkibiades, by promises of Persian aid, induced
the oligarchs in the army at Samos to commence a movement for the
overthrow of the Athenian democracy. Peisandros, as their
representative, came to Athens, and, by insisting on the hopelessness of
the war without such help as Alkibiades covenanted to bring, extorted
from the ekklesia a vote for that change of constitution which the exile
demanded. Having visited the various oligarchical clubs in the city and
urged them to combine in favour of the project, Peisandros went back to
confer with Alkibiades. When he presently returned to Athens,—with the
knowledge that his hopes from Persia were idle, but that, on the other
hand, the Revolution must go on,— he found a state of things very
different from that which he had left. He had left the people just
conscious that an oligarchy was proposed, and consenting, in sheer
despair, to entertain the idea; but, at the same time, openly and
strongly averse to it, and in a temper which showed that the real
difficulties of the undertaking were to come. He now finds that, in the
brief interval of his absence, every difficulty has already vanished.
Not a trace of open opposition remains in the senate or in the ekklesia;
not a ξυνωμοσίας ἐπὶ δίκαις καὶ ἀρχαῖς,
The Council of the Four Hundred comprised two distinct elements, — those
thorough oligarchs who had been the core of the conspiracy; and a number
of other men, more or less indifferent to the ideas of oligarchy, who
had accepted the Revolution because they believed that it alone could
save Athens. Had the new Government been able to conciliate or to
frighten the army at Samos, both sorts of men would have been satisfied,
and the Council would have gone on working, for a time at least, as a
seemingly harmonious whole. But the resolute hostility of the army,
which at once
The Extreme party was soon driven, in May 411 B. C., to the last resource
of an embassy to Sparta. Phrynichos, Antiphon, Archeptolemos, Onomakles
and eight othersἈντιφῶντα καὶ Φρύνιχον καὶ ἄλλους δέκα
παντὶ τροπῳ ὅστις καὶ ὁπωσοῦν ἀνεκτός
ξυναλλαγῆναι πρὸς τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους
This embassy brought the unpopularity of the Extreme party to a crisis. Immediately upon his return Phrynichos was assassinated. The revolt of the citizens employed in fortifying Eëtioneia quickly followed. The assembly in the Anakeion, broken up by the sudden appearance of the Peloponnesian fleet, met again on the Pnyx soon after the Peloponnesian victory at Oropos; and the Four Hundred, who had taken office in March, were deposed about the middle of June.
The leading ultra-oligarchs hastened to save themselves by flight.
Peisandros, Alexikles and others went to Dekeleia; Aristarchos, taking
with him a body of bowmen, contrived to betray Oenoe on the Athenian
frontier into the hands of the Boeotians who were besieging it. But, of
the twelve who had formed the embassy, and who now, before all others,
were in peril, three remained at Athens—Antiphon, Archeptolemos and
Onomakles. An information against these three men was laid before the
ekklesia by the Generals. The eisangelia charged them with having gone
on an embassy to Sparta for mischief to Athens, sailing, on their way
thither, in an enemy's ship, and traversing the
Onomakles seems to have escaped or died before the day. Archeptolemos and
Antiphon were brought to trial. The scanty fragments of the speech made
by Antiphon in his own defence reveal only one item of its contents. One
of the prosecutors, Apolexis, having asserted that Antiphon's
grandfather had been a partisan of the Peisistratidae, Antiphon replied
that his grandfather had not been punished after the expulsion of the
tyrants, and could scarcely, therefore, have been one of their
‘body-guardἈντιφῶν ἐν τῷ περὶ τῆς
μεταστάσεως· περὶ τοίνυν ὧν Ἀπόληξις κατηγόρηκεν ὡς στασιώτης ἦν
ἐγὼ
καὶ ὁ πάππος ὁ ἐμός· ἔοικε νῦν ὁ ῥήτωρ ἰδίως ἐπὶ τοῦ δορυφόρου
κεχρῆσθαι τῷ ὀνόματι· ἐν γοῦν τοῖς ἑξῆς φησιν ὅτι· οὐκ ἂν τοὺς μὲν
τυραννοῦντας ἠδυνήθησαν οἱ πρόγονοι κολάσαι, τοὺς δὲ δορυφόρους
ἠδυνάτησαν
.Curtius (καὶ μᾶλλον ἂν φροντίσειεν ἀνὴρ
μεγαλόψυχος τί δοκεῖ ἑνὶ σπουδαίῳ ἢ πολλοῖς τοῖς
τυγχάνουσιν, ὥσπερ
Ἀντιφῶν ἔφη πρὸς Ἀγάθωνα κατεψηφισμένος τὴν ἀπολογίαν
ἐπαινέσαντα
The sentence ran thus:—
‘Found guilty of treason—Archeptolemos son of Hippodamos, of Agryle,
being present: Antiphon son of Sophilos, of Rhamnus, being present. The
award on these two men was—That they be delivered to the Eleven: that
their property be confiscated and the goddess have the tithe: that their
houses be razed and boundary-stones put on the sites, with the
inscription, ‘the houses of Archeptolemos and Antiphon the traitors:’
that the two demarchs [of Agryle and Rhamnus] shall point out
The distinctive feature in the life of Antiphon is the suddenness of his
appearance, at an advanced age, in the very front of Athenian politics.
Unlike nearly all the men associated with him, he had neither made his
mark in the public service nor come forward in the ekklesia; yet all at
once he becomes the chief, though not the most conspicuous, organiser of
an enterprise requiring in the highest degree trained political tact;
does more than any other individual to set up a new government; and acts
to the last as one of its foremost members. The reputation and the power
which enabled him to take this part were mainly literary. Yet it would
not probably be accurate to conceive Antiphon as a merely literary man
who suddenly emerged and succeeded as a politician. It would have been a
marvel, indeed, if any one had become a leader on the popular side in
Athenian politics who had not already been prominent in the ekklesia.
But the accomplishments most needed in a leader of the oligarchic party
might be learned elsewhere than in the Nestor
of his party, as it was the fashion to call him.
’
(Curtius, πρῶτος δὲ καὶ ῥητορικὰς τέχνας
ἐξήνεγκε, γενόμενος ἀγχίνους· διὸ καὶ Νέστωρ ἐπεκαλεῖτο
. As this
notice makes the name ‘Nestor’ refer simply to rhetorical skill, not to
political sagacity, I have hesitated to follow Curtius in his
picturesque application of it.
The ability which Antiphon brought to the service of his party is defined
as the power
Thucydides praises Antiphon not only for his ability but, with equal
emphasis, for his
In a general view of Antiphon's career there is one aspect which ought
not to be missed—that aspect in which it bears striking evidence to the
growing importance in Athenian public life of the newly-developed art of
Rhetoric. Antiphon's first and strongest claim to eminence was his
mastery over the weapons now indispensable in the ekklesia and the
law-courts; it was this accomplishment, no less fashionable than useful,
which recommended him to the young men of his party whom he had no other
pretension to influence; it was this rhetorical
ANTIPHON stands first among the orators of the Attic canon; and he claims this place not merely because he was born a few years earlier than any one of the rest. A broad difference separates him from those who were nearly his contemporaries hardly less than from men of the next century, from Andokides and Lysias as well as from Demosthenes and Hypereides. He represents older ideas and an older conception of the manner in which these ideas are to find expression. His successors, taken collectively, are moderns; compared with them, he is ancient.
The outburst of intellectual life in Hellas during the fifth century
before Christ had for one of its results the creation of Greek prose.
Before that age no Greek had conceived artistic composition except in
the form of poetry. The Ionians who had already recorded myths or stated
philosophies in prose had either made no effort to rise above the ease
of daily talk, or had clothed their meaning in a poetical diction of the
most ambitious kind. As the mental horizon of Greece was widened, as
subtler ideas and more various combinations began to ask for closer and
more flexible expression, the desire grew for
The leading characteristic of the earlier prose is dignity. The newly
created art has the continual consciousness of being an art. It is
always on its guard against sliding into the levity of a conversational
style. The composer feels above all things that his written language
must be so chosen as to produce a greater effect than would be produced
by an equivalent amount of extemporary speaking. Every word is to be
pointed and pregnant; every phrase is to be the condensed expression of
his thought in its ultimate shape, however difficult this may be to the
reader or hearer who meets it in that shape for the first time; the
movement of the whole is to be slow and majestic, impressing by its
weight and grandeur, not charming by its life and flow. The prose-writer
of this epoch instinctively compares himself with the poet. The poet is
a craftsman, the possessor of a mystery revealed to the many only in the
spell which it exerts over their fancies; just so, in the beginnings of
a literary prose, its shaper likes to think that he belongs to a guild.
He does not care to be simply right and clear: rather he desires to have
the whole advantage which his skill gives him over ordinary men; he is
eager to bring his thoughts down upon them with a splendid and
irresistible force. In Greece this character, natural to immature prose,
was intensified by a special cause —the influence of the Sophists. In so
far as these teachers dealt with the form of language, they tended to
confirm that view of the prose-writer in which he is a professional
expert dazzling and overawing laymen. The Sophists of Hellas Proper
dwelt especially ὀρθοέπεια,
ὀρθότης ὀνομάτων,
Omnino Graeci sophistae, et quos diximus,
et alii minus noti, recte et dilucide eloqui studebant; et si uno
vocabulo omnia comprehendamus, Graeci
’
Dionysios has described vividly the characteristics of that elder school
of composition to which Antiphon belonged. He distinguishes three
principal styles, the austere, the smooth and the middle
‘It wishes its separate words to be planted firmly and to have strong positions, so that each word may be seen conspicuously; it wishes its several clauses to be well divided from each other by sensible pauses. It is willing to admit frequently rough and direct clashings of sounds, meeting like the bases of stones in loose wall-work, which have not been squared or smoothed to fit each other, but which show a certain negligence and absence of forethought. It loves, as a rule, to prolong itself by large words of portly breadth. Compression by short syllables is a thing which it shuns when not absolutely driven to it.
‘As regards separate words, these are the objects of its pursuit and
craving. In whole clauses it shows these tendencies no less strongly;
especially it chooses the most dignified and majestic rhythms. It does
not wish the clauses to be like each other in length of structure, or
enslaved to a severe
It is important to remember that this description is applied to a certain
kind of poetry as well as of prose, to Pindar and Aeschylos as well as
to Thucydides and Antiphon; and that, taken in reference to prose alone,
it needs modification. It is not true, for instance, of the older prose
that it always shrank from the
In the first place, then, Antiphon is preeminently dignified and noble.
He is to his successors generally as Aeschylos to Euripides. The elder
tragedy held its gods and heroes above the level of men by a colossal
majesty of repose, by the passionless utterance of kingly thoughts; and
the same feeling to which these things seemed divine conceived its ideal
orator as one who controls a restless crowd by the royalty of his calm
power, by a temperate and stately eloquence. The speaker who wins his
hearers by blandishments, who surprises them by adroit turns, who
hurries them away on a torrent of declamation, belonged to a generation
for which gods also and heroes declaimed or quibbled on the stage.
Plutarch has described, not without a tinge of sarcasm, the language and
demeanour by which Perikles commanded the veneration of his age
Antiphon relies much on the full, intense significance of single words.
This is, indeed, a cardinal de caed. Herod. § 94
A further characteristic of the older style—that it is ‘fanciful in
imagery, but by no means florid’— is exemplified in Antiphon. The
meaning of the antithesis is sufficiently clear in reference to
Aeschylos and Pindar, the poets chosen by Dionysios as his instances. In
reference to prose also it means a choice of images like theirs, bold,
rugged, grand; and a scorn, on the other hand, for small prettinesses,
for showy colouring, for maudlin sentiment. The great representative in
oratory of this special trait must have been Perikles. A few of his
recorded expressions bear just this stamp of a vigorous and daring
fancy;—his description of Aegina as the ‘eyesore’ of ib., and I. 7.de Thuc. c.
53), and remarks (ib. 51) that it was not a general
fashion of the time, but a characteristic distinctive of him.ib. § 84 ap. Phot.
Nothing in the criticism of Dionysios on the ‘austere’ style is more
appreciative than his remark, that it aims rather at pathos than at
êthos. That is, it addresses itself directly to the feelings; but does
not care to give a subtle persuasiveness to its words by artistically
adjusting them to the character and position of the person who is
supposed to speak them. It is tragic; yet it is not dramatic. There has
never, perhaps, been a greater master of stern and solemn pathos than
Thucydides. The pleading of the Plataeans before their Theban judges,
the dialogue between the Athenians and the Melians, the whole history of
the Sicilian Expedition and especially its terrible closing scene, have
a wonderful power over the feelings; and this power is in a great degree
due to a certain irony. The reader feels throughout the restrained
emotion of the historian; he is conscious that the crisis described was
an agonising one, and that he is hearing the least that could be said of
it from one who felt, and could have said, far more. On the other hand,
a characteristic colouring, in the literary sense, is scarcely attempted
by Thucydides. No writer is more consummate in making personal or
national character appear in the history of actions. And when his
characters speak, they always speak from the general point of view which
he conceived to be appropriate to them. But in the form and language of
their speeches there is little discrimination. Athenians and
Lacedaemonians, Perikles and Brasidas, Kleon and Diodotosib. § 4
The place of Antiphon in the history of his art is de Demosth. c. 39, circuitum et quasi orbem verborum
membra), as a
hoop may be made either of a single lath bent round, or of segments
fitted together. It was a maxim of the later Greek rhetoric that, for
the sake of simplicity and strength, a period should not consist of more
than four
AristotleDie gewisse Periodik hat naturlich die
griechische und jede Litatur von Anfang an gehabt: eine ganz reine
de Lys. c. 6 (in reference to Lysias) thought of each sentence to be, though
he is sometimes clumsy in the mechanism of the sentence itself.
Dionysios mentions among the excellences which Demosthenes borrowed from
the historian, ‘his rapid movement, his terseness, his intensity, his
sting
These seem to be the leading characteristics of Antiphon as regards form:
it remains to consider his treatment of subject-matter. The arrangement
of his speeches, so far as the extant specimens warrant a judgment, was
usually simple. First a proem (
The rhetorician of the school is further seen in the great number of
commonplaces, evidently elaborated beforehand and without reference to
any special occasion, which are brought in as opportunity offers. The
same panegyric on the laws for homicide occurs, in the same words, both
in the speech On the Choreutes and in that On the Murder of Herodes. In
the last-named speech the reflections on the strength of a good
consciencede Choreut. § 93.ib. § 73.ib.)θρασὺς, εὔγλωττος, τολμηρὸς, ἴτης
Nor was it by the stamp of his eloquence alone that he was fitted to
command the attention of that Court. In politics Antiphon was
aristocratic; in religion, an upholder of those ancient ideas and
conceptions, bound up with the primitive traditions of Attica, of which
the Areiopagos was the embodiment and the guardian. For most minds of
his day these ideas were losing their awful prestige,—fading, in the
light of science, before newer beliefs, as obligarchy had yielded to
democracy, as Kronos to the dynasty of Zeus. But, as Athene, speaking in
the name of that dynasty, had reserved to the Eumenides a perpetual
altar in her land (Aesch. and reverses in men's fortunes.
You must therefore remember that vengeance is yours: you must impute to
this man his own crimes: you must bring their penalty home to him, and purity back to Athens.’ Again, in λιχὴν ἄφυλλος, ἄτεκνος,
de Myst. § 131)—frag. 103—4,
referred to by Grote, vol. VII. p. 230.
‘The god, when it was his will to create mankind, begat the earliest of
our race and gave us for nourishers the earth and sea, that we might not
die, for want of needful sustenance, before the term of old age.
Whoever, then, having been deemed worthy of these things by the god,
lawlessly robs any one among us of life, is impious towards heaven and
confounds the ordinances of men. The dead man,
The analogy of Antiphon to Aeschylos in regard to general style has once already been noticed; it forces itself upon the mind in a special aspect here, where the threat of judgment from the grave on blood is wrapt round with the very terror and darkness of the
Alas that doom which mingles in the world A just man with the scorners of the gods! ... Aye, for a pure man going on the sea With men fierce-blooded and their secret sin Dies in a moment with the loathed of heaven
In the Herodes trial the defendant appeals to the silent witness which
the gods have borne in his behalf:—‘You know doubtless that often ere
now men red-handed or otherwise polluted have, by entering the same
ship, destroyed with themselves those who were pure towards the gods;
and that others, escaping death, have incurred the extremity of danger
through such men. Many again, on standing beside the sacrifice, have
been discovered to be impure and hinderers of the solemn rites. Now in
all such cases an opposite fortune has been mine. First, all who have
sailed with me have had excellent voyages: then, whenever I have
assisted at a sacrifice it has in every instance been most favourable.
These facts I claim as strong evidence touching the present charge and
the falsity of the prosecutor's accusations
Coincidences of thought and tone such as these deserve notice just
because they are general coincidences. There is no warrant for assuming
a resemblance in any special features between the mind of Antiphon and
the mind of Aeschylos: all the more that which the two minds have in
common illustrates the broadest aspect of each. By pursuits and calling
Antiphon belonged to a new Athenian democracy antagonistic to the old
ideas and beliefs: by the bent of his intellect and of his sympathies he
belonged, like Aeschylos, to the elder democracy. It is this which gives
to his extant work a special interest over and above its strictly
literary interest. All the other men whose writings
SIXTY speeches ascribed to Antiphon were known
The Tetralogies have this special interest, that they represent rhetoric
in its transition from the technical to the practical stage, from the
schools to the law-courts and the ekklesia. Antiphon stood between the
sophists who preceded and the orators who followed him as the first
Athenian who was at once a theorist of rhetoric and a master of
practical eloquence. The Tetralogies hold a corresponding place between
merely ornamental exercises and real pedantic (umbratici), hairplitting, empty,
affected kind of speaking with which the schools of the ancients were
rife.’ The very phrase ‘scholae veterum’ shows the vagueness of this
assertion. Precisely that which distinguished Antiphon from the earlier
sophists was his practical bent. No man could be less fairly called
‘umbraticus.’
The First Tetralogy supposes the following case. A citizen, coming home
at night from a dinner-party, has been murdered. His slave, found
mortally wounded on the same spot, deposes that he recognised one of the
assassins. This was an old enemy of his master, against whom the latter
was about to bring a lawsuit which might be ruinous. The accused denies
the charge: the case comes before the court of the Areiopagos. The
speeches of accuser and defendant comprise a number of separate
arguments, each of which is carefully, though very briefly, stated, but
which are not systematised or woven into a whole. An enumeration of the
points raised on either side in this case will give a fair general idea
of the scope of the Tetralogies generally.
1. §§ 1—3. (
[Here a narrative of the facts would naturally follow; but as this is
a mere practice-speech, it is left out, and the speaker comes at
once to the proofs—first, those derived from argument on the
circumstances themselves (the
2. § 4. The deceased cannot have been murdered by robbers; for he was not plundered.
3. Nor in a drunken brawl; for the time and place are against it.
4. Nor by mistake for some one else; for, in that case the slave would not have been attacked too.
5. §§ 5—8. It was therefore a premeditated crime and this must have been prompted by a motive of reveng or fear.
6. Now the accused had both motives. He had lost much property in actions brought by the deceased, and was threatened with the loss of more. The murder was the only means by which he could evade the lawsuit hanging over him. [Here follows a curious argument in a circle.] And he must have felt that he was going to lose the lawsuit, or he would not have braved a trial for murder.
7. § 9. The slave identifies him.
8. §§ 9—11. (
1. §§ 1—4. (Proem.) The accuser deserves the pity of the judge, for
he is the most unlucky of men. In death, as
2. §§ 5—6. The deceased may have been murdered by robbers, who were scared off by people coming up before they had stripped him.
3. Or he may have been murdered because he had been witness of some crime.
4. Or by some other of his numerous enemies; who would have felt safe, knowing that the suspicion was sure to fall on the accused, his great enemy.
5. § 7. The testimony of the slave is untrustworthy, since, in the terror of the moment, he may have been mistaken; or he may have been ordered by his present masters to speak against the accused. Generally, the evidence of slaves is held untrustworthy; else they would not be racked.
6. § 8. Even if mere probabilities are to decide
the case, it is more probable that the accused
should have employed some one else to do the murder, than that the
slave should, at such a time, have been accurate in his recognition.
7. § 9. The danger of losing money in the impending lawsuit could not have seemed more serious to the accused than the danger, which he runs in the present trial, of losing his life.
8. §§ 10—13. (
1. § 1. (Proem.) The defendant has no right to speak of his
‘misfortune:’ it is his fault. The first speech for
2. § 2. Had the robbers been scared off by people coming up, these persons would have questioned the slave about the assassins, and given information which would have exculpated the accused.
3. Had the deceased been murdered because he had been witness of a crime, this crime itself would have been heard of.
4. § 3. His other enemies, being in less danger from him than the accused was, had so much less motive for the crime.
5. § 4. It is contended that the slave's testimony is untrustworthy because it was wrung from him by the rack. But, in such cases as these, the rack is not used at all. [Nothing is said about the hypothesis that the slave may have been suborned by his masters.]
6. § 5. The accused is not likely to have got the deed done by other
hands, since he would have been suspected all
the same, and could not have been so sure of the work being done
thoroughly.
7. § 6. The lawsuit hanging over him—a certainty— would have seemed more formidable to him than the doubtful chance of a trial for murder.
8. §§ 7—8. (Notice of a few topics touched on by the defendant at the beginning and end of his speech.)—The fear of discovery is not likely to have deterred such a man from crime: whereas the prospect of losing his wealth—the instrument of his boasted services to the State—is very likely to have driven him to it.—When the certain murderer cannot be found, the presumptive must be punished.
9. §§ 9—11. (
1. §§ 1—3. (Proem.) He is the victim of cruel malignity.
2. §§ 4—5. Suppose that robbers did the murder, but were scared, before they had taken their booty, by people coming up. Would these persons, as it is contended, have remained to make inquiries? Coming on a bloody corpse and a dying man at dead of night, would they not rather have fled in terror from the spot?
3. § 6. Suppose that the deceased was slain because he had been witness of a crime:—the fact of such crime not having been heard of, does not prove that it did not take place.
4. § 7. The slave, with death from his wounds close at hand, had nothing to fear if he bore false testimony.
5. § 8. But the accused can prove a distinct
alibi. All his own slaves can testify that on the night in
question— the night of the Diïpolia—he did not leave his own house.
[The assertion of the alibi has been reserved
till this point, because now the prosecutor cannot reply.]
6. § 9. It is suggested that he may have committed the crime to protect his wealth. But desperate deeds, such as this, are not done by prosperous men. They are more natural to men who have nothing to lose.
7. § 10. Even if he were the presumptive murderer, he would not have been proved the actual: but, as it is, the probabilities also are for him. On all grounds, therefore, he must be acquitted, or there is no more safety for any accused man.
8. §§ 11—12. (
A tolerably full analysis of this First Tetralogy has been given,
because it is curious as showing the general line of argument which
a clever Athenian reasoner, accustomed to writing for the courts,
thought most likely to succeed on either side of such a case. It
will be seen that, though other kinds of evidence de
caed. Herod. §§ 57—63.
The subject of the Second Tetralogy is the death of a boy accidentally
struck by a javelin while watching a youth practising at the gymnasium.
The boy's father accuses the youth—whose father defends him—of
accidental homicide; and the case comes before the court of the
Palladion. In order to understand the issues raised, it is necessary to
keep in mind the Greek view of accidental homicide. This view was mainly
a religious one. The death was a pollution. Some person, or thing, must
be answerable for that pollution, and must be banished from the State,
which would else remain defiled
The accused, in his first speech, assumes that the case punished
himself for his own fault (§§ 6—8).—The accuser answers in the
tone of a plain man bewildered by the shamelessness of the defence, (first cause of his own death (§§ 3—5).
The youth did no more than the other throwers, who did not hit the boy
only because he did not
The striking point of the whole Tetralogy is the ingenuity with which the
defender inverts the natural view of the case. The guilt of blood is, he
says, with the deceased alone, who has taken satisfaction for it from
himself. ‘Destroyed by his own errors, he was punished by himself in the
same instant that he sinned.’ (
Another peculiarity of the Athenian law of homicide is illustrated by the
third and last Tetralogy. An elderly man had been beaten by a younger
man so severely that in a few days he died. The young man is tried for
murder before the Areiopagos.
The accuser, in a short speech, appeals chiefly to the indignation of the
judges, dwelling, in a striking passage on the sin of robbing a
fellow-mortal of the god's gift (A. §§ 1—4).—The defendant argues in
reply that, if the homicide is to be regarded as
accidental, then it rests with the surgeon, under whose unskilful
treatment the man died; but, if it is to be regarded as deliberate, then the murderer is the deceased
himself, since he struck the first blow, which set the train of events
in motion (B. §§ 3—5).— The accuser answers that the elder man is not
likely to have first struck the younger (
The line thus taken by the defence is remarkable. It relies chiefly on the provocation alleged to have been given by the deceased. But it does not insist upon this provocation as mitigating the guilt of the accused. It insists upon it as transferring the whole guilt from the accused to the dead man. Athenian law recognised only two kinds of homicide; that which was purely accidental, and that which resulted from some deliberate act. In the latter case, whether there had been an intent to kill or not, some one must be a murderer. Thus, here, it would not have been enough for the defence to show that the accused had, without intent to kill, and under provocation, done a fatal injury. It is necessary to go on to argue that the deceased was guilty of his own murder.
The literary form of the Third Tetralogy deserves notice in two respects;
for the solemnity and majesty of the language in the accuser's first
address; and for the vivacity lent by rhetorical question and answer to
part of the first speech of the defendant
Of extant speeches written by Antiphon for real causes, by far the most
important is that On the Murder of Herodes. The facts of the case were
as
It was necessary that the trial should take place arrested
by the Eleven: § 85 in Leokr. § 12. The procedure in the case
of Agoratos (391 B.C.), again, was by an in Agorat. § 85). Strictly speaking the in Agor. § 85.
But, since the procedure of the Areiopagos was so highly favourable to
the accused, a prosecutor would generally prefer the procedure by
The date of the speech must lie between the capture of Mytilene in 427
The speech opens with a proem in which the defendant
The defendant now concentrates his force upon proving the testimony of
the slave to be worthless (§§ 31—51). He next discusses the statement of
the prosecutors that a letter, in which he announced the murder to
Lykînos, had been found on board the returning vessel (§§ 52—56). He
shows
Besides all the other proofs, the innocence of the prisoner is vindicated
by the absence of signs of the divine anger. Voyages and sacrifices in
which he has taken part have always been prosperous (§§ 81—84). In a
concluding appeal the judges are reminded that, in any case, justice
cannot be frustrated by his acquittal, since it will still be possible
to bring him before the Areiopagos (§§ 85—95).
In reviewing the whole speech as an argument, the first thing which
strikes us is the notable contrast between the line of defence taken
here and that traced for a case essentially similar in the modelspeeches
of the First Tetralogy. There, the defendant employs all his ingenuity
in suggesting explanations of the mysterious crime which shall make the
hypothesis of his own guilt unnecessary. Here, the defendant pointedly
refuses to do any thing of the kind. It is enough if he can show that he
was not the murderer; it is not his business to show who was or might
have been. On this broad, plain ground the defence takes a firm stand.
The arguments are presented in a natural order, as they arise out of the
facts narrated, and are drawn out at a length proportionate to their
consequence,—by far the greatest stress being laid on the worthlessness
of the slave's evidence; in discussing which, indeed, alibi. If the
numerous commonplaces and general sentiments seem to us a source of
weakness rather than strength, allowance must be made for the taste and
fashion of the time; and every one must recognise the effectiveness of
the appeal to divine signs in which the argument finds its rhetorical
climax.
As a composition, the speech has great merits. The êthos, indeed, is not
artistic; a style so dignified and so sententious is scarcely suitable
to a speaker who is continually apologising for his youth and
inexperience. Nor, except in the passage which touches on the ruin of
Mytilene
The speech On the Choreutes relates to the death of Diodotos, a boy who
was in training as member of a chorus to be produced at the Thargelia,
and who was poisoned by a draught given to him to improve his voiceby his order that the draught was
given to the boy, though he did not hand the cup to him. No intent to
murder was imputed to him: see § 19 two tribes (§ 11) points to a contraction of
public expenses in a time of distress, is not worth much, since we do
not know that this may not have been the usual custom at the Thargelia.
At any rate the decidedly modern character of the speech as compared
with the
In a long proem, the accused dwells on the advantage
It seems probable that the end of the speech has been lost. Standing last
in the MSS. of Antiphon, it would thus be the more liable to mutilation;
and in the concluding speech of a trial the orator would scarcely have
broken the rule, which he observes in every other instance, of finishing
with an appeal to the judges. The fact that a rhetorical promise made in
the speech
In the speech On the Murder of Herodes, Antiphon had to rely mainly on
his skill in argument; here, witnesses were available, the case against
the accusers was strong, and little was needed but a judicious
marshalling of proofs. This is ably managed; but, as a display of power,
the speech is necessarily of inferior interest. The Mytilenean defendant
in the Herodes case and the choregus here speak in the same general
tone—with a certain directness and earnestness; but the common êthos is
more strongly marked here, as the personality of the speaker comes more
decidedly forward. In other points of style there is a striking contrast
between
The short speech entitled ‘Against a Step-mother, on a Charge of
Poisoning,’ treats of a case which, like the preceding, belonged to the
jurisdiction of the Areiopagos. The speaker, a young man, is the son of
the deceased. He charges his step-mother with having poisoned his father
several years before
After deprecating in a proem (§§ 1—4) the odium to
Two questions have been raised in connexion with this speech; whether it
was written merely for practice; and whether it was the work of
Antiphon. I. It has been urged that stories of this kind were often
chosen as subjects by the rhetoricians of the schools; that the
designation of the accused as Klytaemnestra is melodramatic; that the
name Philoneos (de Cirrh. hered.
(Or. VIII.) § 3. Maetzner derived the name de Choreuta § 27.
Besides the extant compositions, twenty-four others, bearing the name of
Antiphon, are known by their titles. Among these three deserve especial
notice, because their titles have occasioned different inferences as to
their contents, and because it is now tolerably certain that they
belong, not to Antiphon only to Antiphon the sophist. But this is an
arbitrary and violent treatment of the text. Sauppe is no doubt right in
thinking that its only corruption is the recurrence of n.) ‘In hoc autem libro,’ (says Blass, fragm.
Or. Graec. p. 149). Galen ap. Hippokr. epidem. I. 3. vol. 17, 1. p. 681 (Kühn) says:—huic (Gorgiae)
Antiphontem Rhamnusium similia quaedam habuisse conscripta:
— where
THE life of Andokides has, in one broad aspect, a striking analogy to the life of Antiphon. Each man stands forth for a moment a conspicuous actor in one great scene, while the rest of his history is but dimly known; and each, at that moment, appears as an oligarch exposed to the suspicion and dislike of the democracy. The Revolution of the Four Hundred is the decisive and final event in the life of Antiphon. The mutilation of the Hermae is the first, but hardly less decisive event, in the known life of Andokides; the event which, for thirteen years afterwards, absolutely determined his fortunes, and which throws its shadow over all that is known of their sequel.
Andokides was born probably about 440 B.C.in Andok. § 46, he was in 399 B.C. de Red. §
7. His father, Leogoras II., may have been born about 470: Andokides I.
about 500: Leogoras I. about 540. The pseudo-Plutarch puts his birth in
the archonship of Theagenides, Ol. 78. 1, 468 B.C.: probably on the
assumption that the orator was the Andokides of Thuc. I. 51.de Myst. § 106. In de Red.
§ 26 Valckenar and Sauppe read de Pace § 6.τοὺς φασιανοὺς οὓς τρέφει Λεωγόρας
de Myst. § 117: cf. §§ 42, 50.
The only glimpse of the life of Andokides before 415 B. C. is afforded by
himself. He belonged to a set or club, of which one Euphiletos was a
leading memberde Bigis § 6.in Andok. § 51 de Myst. § 29
But there was a very general belief that the bottom of the matter had not
been reached, and that the conspiracy had been far more widely spread; a
belief which the commissioners of enquiry, especially Peisandros, seem
to have encouraged. As usual in such cases, the demand for discoveries
created the supply. Diokleides, the Titus Oates of this plot, came
forward to state that the conspiracy included no less than three hundred
persons. Fortytwo of these were denounced, among whom were Andokides,
his father, his brother-in-law and ten other of his relatives. They were
imprisoned at once; Diokleides was feasted as a public benefactor at the
Prytaneion; and the whole town spent the night under arms,
panic-stricken by the extent of the conspiracy,—not knowing whence,
when, or in what strength they might be attacked by the enemies of gods
and men
The deposition of Andokides, confirming as it did the testimony of
Teukros, and at the same time supplementing that testimony, was
accepted, at least at the time, as the true and complete account. The
affair of the Hermae was dropped, and attention was fixed once more upon
the affair of the Mysteries
This closes the first chapter of his life. Two questions directly arising out of it suggest themselves for consideration here.
First—Does the speech On the Mysteries give the story which he really
told before the Council at Athens in 415? In that speech, he represents
himself as having stated that the mutilation of the Hermae had been
proposed by Euphiletos at a convivial meeting of their club; that he had
strenuously opposed it; and that, while he was confined to his house by
illness, Euphiletos had seized the opportunity of executing the scheme,
telling the others that Andokides had become favourable to it. Now it is
a suspicious fact that in the speech On his Return, spoken in 410—that
is, eleven years before the speech On the Mysteries—Andokides distinctly
pleads guilty to certain offences committed in 415, and excuses them by
his youth, his folly, his madness at the timein Andok. §§ 36, 51.
It is a further question whether, supposing that the story which he told
at the time inculpated himself, this story was true. Was he really
guilty? It ought to be remembered that the eighth book of Thucydides was
probably written before the speech On the Mysteries had been delivered,
or the exiles of 415 had returned; and that, therefore, we have perhaps
larger materials than Thucydides himself had for forming a judgment on
an affair which (as he says) had never been cleared uponly one—de Myst. § 62. But Plut.
The second chapter in the life of Andokides covers the years from 415 to 402. It is the history of his exile.
On leaving Athens in 415 he appears to have adopted a merchant's life.
Archelaos, king of Macedonia, a friend of his family, gave him the right
of cutting timber and exporting itde Red. § 11. Cf. Theophr. in Andok. § 26.de
Red. § 13) in
Andok. § 28.
In Cyprus Andokides found a new opportunity to serve the interests of
Athens. The loss of her power in the Propontis had cut off her
corn-trade with the Euxine; and Andokides procured the despatch of
corn-ships from Cyprus to the Peiraeus. in Andok § 6.
The general amnesty of 403 at last gave him the opportunity which he had
so long sought in vain. He returned to Athens from Cyprusin
Andok. § 39. It seems safe, then, to conclude that he did not
return to Athens before the early part of 402.in Andok § 33 de Myst. § 132. The date 399 is confirmed by
another consideration. In de Myst. § 132 the
offices which he had held are enumerated in apparently chronological
order:—in Andok § 30 de Myst. § 121.
Little is known of the life of Andokides after 399. From the speech On
the Mysteries it appears ib. §§ 117—123.ib. § 146.
The first reappearance of Andokides in public life is marked by the
speech On the Peace with Lacedaemon, which belongs to 390, the fourth
year of the Corinthian War
This, his only recorded utterance on a public question, is temperate and
sensible. He points out that it is idle to wait either for the prospect
of crushing Sparta in war, or for the prospect of recovering by
diplomacy all the possessions abroad which Athens had lost in 405; her
ships and walls are now, as they always were, her true strength, and she
ought to accept thankfully the secured possession of these. The
soundness of this view was proved in the sequel. By the Peace of
Antalkidas three years later Athens got only what she was offered in
390; and she got it, not by treaty on equal terms with a Hellenic power,
but as part of the price paid by the Persian king for the disgraceful
surrender of Asiatic Hellas. The advice of Andokides probably lost
something of its effect through the suspicion of ‘laconism’ attaching to
all statesmen of oligarchical
A fair estimate of Andokides is made difficult by the fact that he was
first brought into notice by a scandal, and that the memory of this
scandal runs through nearly all that is known of his after-life. At the
age of twenty-five he is banished for the Hermae affair; he is defeated,
on the same ground, in two attempts to return; at the end of sixteen
years he is brought to trial for impiety; and his acquittal is the last
thing recorded about him. At that time he was only forty-one; already,
since his return in 402, he had discharged public services; and now,
formally acquitted of the charges which had so long hung over him, he
might hope for a new career. His speech On the Peace shows that in 390
he was sufficiently trusted by his fellow-citizens to have been sent as
a plenipotentiary to Sparta; and proves also, by its statesmanlike good
sense, his fitness for such a trust. But, except in this speech, nothing
is recorded of his later and probably brighter years. History knows him
only under a cloud. It was, moreover, his misfortune that while the
informations which he laid in 415 made him hateful to the oligarchs, his
hereditary connexion with
To judge from his extant works he had not genius, but he was energetic
and able. Hard and various experiences had sharpened his shrewdness; he
had a quick insight into character, and especially the triumphant skill
of a consciously unpopular man in exposing malignant motives. There was
no nobleness in his nature, except such as is bred by selfreliance under
long adversity; but he had practical good sense, which his merchant's
life in exile must have trained and strengthened. If the counsel which
he gives to Athens in his speech On the Peace with Lacedaemon may be
taken as a sample of his statesmanship, he was an adviser of the kind
rarest in the ekklesia; not only clearsighted in the interests of the
city, but bold enough to recommend to Athenians a safe rather than a
brilliant course.
ANDOKIDES differs in one important respect from all the other Attic orators of the canon. He is not an artist. Each of the rest represents some theory, more or less definite, of eloquence as an art; and is distinguished, not merely by a faculty, but by certain technical merits, the result of labour directed to certain points in accordance with that theory. Among these experts Andokides is an amateur. In the course of an eventful life he spoke with ability and success on some occasions of great moment and great difficulty. But he brought to these efforts the minimum of rhetorical training. He relied almost wholly on his native wit and on a rough, but shrewd, knowledge of men.
This accounts for the comparatively slight attention paid to Andokides by
the ancient rhetoricians and critics. Dionysios mentions him only twice;
once, where he remarks that Thucydides used a peculiar dialect, which is
not employed by ‘Andokides, Antiphon, or Lysias ‘Andokides
aims at being a political orator, but does not quite achieve it. His
figures want clear articulation; his arrangement is not lucid; he
constantly tacks on clause to clause, or amplifies in an irregular
fashion, using parentheses to the loss of a distinct order. On these
accounts he has seemed to some a frivolous and generally obscure
speaker. Of finish and ornament his share is small; he is equally
deficient in fiery earnestness. Again, he has little, or rather very
little, of that oratorical power which is shown in method; general
oratorical power he has almost none The
phrase ‘political oratory’ as used by Hermogenes has two senses, a
larger and a narrower. In the larger sense it denotes all public
speaking as opposed to scholastic declamation, and comprises the
deliberative, the forensic, the panegyric styles. In the narrower sense
it denotes practical oratory, deliberative or forensic, as opposed not
only to scholastic declamation but also to that species of panegyric
speaking in which no definite political question is discussed The first and general remark of Hermogenes upon
Andokides implies, then, that he is wanting in these qualities. The
special remarks which follow develop it. They refer partly to his
arrangement of subject-matter, partly to his style of diction. He is
said to have little ‘power’ (or ‘cleverness’) ‘of method’; that is,
little tact in seeing where, and how, each topic should be brought in We have now seen the worst that can be said of Andokides from
the point of view of the technical Rhetoric; and it must be allowed
that, from that point of view, the condemnation is tolerably complete.
Now the canon of the Ten Attic Orators was probably drawn up at the time
when scholastic rhetoric was most flourishing, and when, therefore, the
standard of criticism used by Hermogenes and Herodes was the common one.
It may seem surprising, then, that Andokides was numbered in the decad
at all. Kritias, his contemporary, whom so many ancient writers praise
highly, might be supposed to have had stronger claims; and the fact that
the memory of Kritias as a statesman was hateful, is not enough in
itself to explain his exclusion de Thuc. c. 51.de Lys. c. 2.de Isaeo cc. 19 ff.Nam quis erit hic Atticus? Sit
Lysias; hunc enim amplectuntur amatores istius nominis modum.
Non
igitur iam usque ad Coccum et Andocidem remittemur.
.’ It
has been thought that Quintilian refers to the Kokkos mentioned by
Suidas as a pupil of Isokrates; but, however this may be, the context is
enough to show that he means to mark, not the antiquity, but the
inferiority (in his view) of the two men. When Herodes Atticus was told
by his Greek admirers that he deserved to be numbered with the Attic
Ten, he turned off the compliment, with an adroitness which his
biographer commends, by saying—‘At all events I am better than Andokidesad
init.
de Coron.
§ 2). So the use of short, simple words may be a mark of
refinement comes into it.de Coron. § 10, de falsa Legat. §
24, n., ed. Donaldson) ‘It
is surprising that Kritias was not rather enrolled among the Ten; but
perhaps his having been one of the Thirty stood in his way.’
It is a result of the precision with which the art of rhetoric was
systematized in the Greek and Roman schools that much of the ancient
criticism upon oratory is tainted by a radical vice. The ancient critics
too often confound literary merit with
It is somewhat difficult to analyse the style of a speaker whose real
strength lay in a natural vigour directed by a rough tact; and who, in
comparison with other Greek orators, cared little for literary form. An
attempt at such an analysis may, however, start from the four epithets
given to Andokides in the Plutarchic Lifevit. Andok. § 15,
The sense in which the diction of Andokides is ‘plain’ will be best
understood by a comparison with Antiphon and Lysias. Antiphon
consciously strives to rise above the language of daily life; he seeks
to impress by a display of art. Lysias carefully confines himself to the
language of daily life; he seeks to persuade by the use of hidden art.
Andokides usually employs the language of daily life; he is free, or
almost free, from the archaisms of Antiphon, and writes in the new-Attic
dialect, the dialect of Lysias and his successorse. g. de Myst. § 103: de Red. § 16: de Pace §
40): and of the dative eg. de Myst. §§ 15,
38, 40, 41, 42, etc.ἐξορθιάζων πολλά
τοὐπίτριπτον κίναδος
πρόρριζον...ἔφθαρται γένος
de Corona, § 324, forms of two sentences or clauses: (3) e g.
De Myst. § 57: e.g. De Myst. § 16:—
As Andokides is ‘plain’ in diction and avoids ornamental figures, so he
is also ‘simple’ in treatment of subject-matter, and avoids an
artificial arrangementib.) that Isaeos ‘in proportion as he falls
short of the other's grace, excels him in cleverness of artificial
arrangement’—
But it is not merely in special features of diction or of arrangement
that Andokides is seen to be no technical rhetorician. A disciple of the
sophistical rhetoric learned to deal copiously and skilfully with those
commonplaces of argument which would be available in almost any case.
His education taught him to prefer general argument to argument from
particular circumstances, unless these were especially easy to
manipulate. We see this in Antiphon's First Tetralogy: it is a model
exercise in making the utmost of abstract probabilities as inferred from
facts which are very slightly sketched. In the speech On the Murder of
Herodes the statement of the facts is hurried over, and there is no
attempt at a close and searching analysis of them. But for a speaker
unskilled in rhetorical commonplace the particulars of any given subject
would be everything. Picturesque narration, shrewd inference from small
circumstances, lively illustration of character would naturally be his
chief resources. And so it is with Andokides. His strength is in
narrative, as the strength of Antiphon is in argument. Andokides relies
on his case, Antiphon on his science; it is only Lysias who hits the
masterly mean, who makes his science the close interpreter of his case,
who can both recount and analyse. But, although the narrative element in
Andokides exceeds the just proportion always observed by Lysias, it is,
from a
‘When we had all been imprisoned in the same place; when night had come,
and the gaol had been closed; there came, to one his mother, his sister
to another, to another his wife and children; and there arose a piteous
sound of weeping and lamentation for the troubles of the hour. Then
Charmides (he was my cousin, of my own age, and had been brought up with
me in our house from childhood) said to me:—‘Andokides, you see how
serious our present dangers are; and though hitherto I have always
shrunk from saying anything to annoy you, I am forced by our present
misfortune to speak now. All your intimates and companions except us
your relations have either been put to death on the charges which
threaten us with destruction, or have taken to flight and pronounced
themselves guilty. If you have heard anything about this affair which
has occurred, speak it out, and save our lives—save yourself in the
first place, then your father, whom you ought to love very dearly, then
your brother-inlaw, the husband of your only sister,—your other kinsmen,
too, and near friends, so many of them; and me also, who have never
given you any annoyance in all my life, but am most zealous for you and
for your interests, whenever anything is to be done.’ When Charmides
said this, judges, and when the others besought and entreated me
severally, I thought to myself,—‘most miserable and unfortunate of men,
am I to see my own kinsfolk perish undeservedly—to see their lives
sacrificed and their
Another passage in the same speech illustrates the skill of Andokides in dramatising his narrative. He delighted to bring in persons speaking. Epichares, one of his accusers in this case, had been an agent of the Thirty Tyrants. He turns upon him.
‘Speak, slanderer, accursed knave—is this law valid or not valid? Invalid, I imagine, only for this reason,—that the operation of the laws must be dated from the archonship of Eukleides. So you live, and walk about this city, as you little deserve to do; you who, under the democracy, lived by pettifogging, and under the oligarchy—lest you should be forced to give back all the profits of that trade—became the instrument of the Thirty.
‘The truth is, judges, that as I sat here, while he accused me, and as I
looked at him, I fancied myself nothing else than a prisoner at the bar
of the Thirty. Had this trial been in their time, who would have been
accusing me? Was not this man ready to
‘Can you suppose, judges, that my fate, as your champion, would have been
other than this, if I had
The love of Andokides for narrative, wherever it can be introduced, is
strikingly seen in his mode of handling his legal argument in the speech
On the Mysteries. Instead of simply citing and interpreting the
enactments upon which he relies, he reviews in order the events which
led to the enactments being madeib. § 174, where the
1000 talents set apart in 431 B.C. against special need (Thuc. II. 24)
are represented as the total sum then in the Athenian treasury.
Andokides sometimes shows his taste for narrative in a special form which
deserves notice. He is a master of shrewd and telling gossip. He
diverges from the main thread of his argument into anecdotes which will
amuse his hearers, and either directly damage the adversary, or at least
strike some chord favourable to himself. A part of the speech On the
Mysteries is, in fact, made up of such stories (§§ 110—136.) Speaking,
for instance, of the son of his accuser Kallias, he reminds the judges
that there was once a certain Hipponikos at Athens whose house was
haunted by an avenging spirit—so said the children and the women: and
the saying came true, for the man's son proved a very demon to him.
Well, the house of Kallias is haunted by a fiend of the same kind (§§
130—131). In this trait Andokides resembles one, and one only, of the
other Greek orators: it is precisely the impudent, unscrupulous
cleverness of Aeschines. There
‘Never again may we see the colliers coming in from the hills to the
town—the sheep and oxen and the waggons—the poor women and old men— the
labourers arming themselves! Never more may we eat wild greens and
chervil
In passing judgment upon Andokides, it must be allowed that he possesses
neither literary merit nor properly oratorical merit which can entitle
him to rank with the greatest masters of Greek rhetorical prose. His
language has neither splendour nor a refined simplicity; he is not
remarkably acute in argument; and, compared with his contemporaries, he
is singularly without precision in the arrangement of his ideas. His
extant works present no passage conceived in the highest strain of
eloquence; he gravitatem
illius sum admiratus. Arte Lysiae cedit, nervos plures habet et
lacertos: vehemens imprimis in reprehendendo, in defendendo se gravis,
ad misericordiam erga se movendam odiumque in adversarios excitandum
plane compositus, in proponendis diiudicandisque
argumentis subtilis et acutus, dictione purus et elegans,
plenus
Attici saporis: ut iure a Grammaticis in numerum sitrelatus
et inter decem collocatus principes.’
Four speeches ascribed to Andokides are extant, bearing the titles ‘On the Mysteries:’ ‘On his Return:’ ‘On the Peace with the Lacedaemonians:’ ‘Against Alkibiades.’ The speech On the Mysteries, as the chief extant work of its author, stands first in the manuscripts and the editions. But the second oration relates to an earlier passage in the life of Andokides, and may conveniently be considered first.
The speech of Andokides ‘On his Return’ affords no further internal
evidence of its own date than that it was spoken later than 411 and
earlier than 405 B. C.in Andok. § 29 gives no help
towards fixing the date.Ἆγις δὲ ἐκ τῆς Δεκελείας ἰδὼν πλοἶδ
πολλὰ σιτοῦ εἰς Πειραιᾶ καταθέοντα οὐδὲν ὄφελος ἔφη εἶναι
τοὺς μετ’
αὐτοῦ πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον Ἀθηναίους εἴργειν τῆς γῆς, εἰ μή τις
σχήσοι
καὶ ὅθεν ὁ κατὰ θάλατταν σῖτος φοῖτᾷ
As a speech on a private matter before the public assembly, this oration
belongs to the same class as that which Demosthenes is said to have
written for Diphilos in support of his claim to be deliberative speech; not a true καταπλεύσας δὲ ἐκεῖθεν δεῦρο εἰς
δημοκρατίαν εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ πόλιν τοῖς μὲν πρυτάνεσιν ἔδωκε χρήματα
ἵνα αὐτὸν προσαγάγοιεν ἐνθάδε, ὑμεῖς δ’ αὐτὸν ἐξηλάσατε ἐκ
τῆς
πόλεως
The object of the speech is to procure the removal of certain disabilities under which he was alleged to lie. His disclosures in 415 were made under a guarantee of immunity from all consequences. But the decree of Isotimides, passed soon afterwards, excluded from the marketplace and from temples all ‘who had committed impiety and who had confessed it;’ and his enemies maintained that this decree applied to him.
In the proem he points out the malice or stupidity of
He then speaks of his life in exile; of his services to the army at Samos in 411; of his return to Athens in the time of the Four Hundred; and of his imprisonment at the instance of Peisandros, who denounced him as the friend of the democracy (§§ 10—16). Statesmen and generals serve the State at the State's expense; he has served it at his own charge. Nor has the end of these services been yet seen. The people will be soon in possession of the secrets which he has imparted to the Senate; and will soon see supplies of corn, procured by his intercession, enter the Peiraeus. (§§ 17—21.) In return for so much, he asks but one small boon—the observance of the promise of impunity under which he originally laid his information, but which was afterwards withdrawn through the influence of his enemies. (§§ 22—23.)
The peroration opens with a singular argument. When a man makes a
mistake, it is not his body's fault: the blame rests with his mind. But
he, since he made his mistake, has got a new mind. All that remains,
therefore, of the old Andokides is his unoffending body. (§ 24.) As he
was condemned on account of his former deeds, he ought now to be
welcomed for his recent deeds. His family has ever been patriotic; his
great-grandfather fought against the Peisistratidae; he, too, is a
friend of the people. The people, he well knows, are not to blame for
the breach of faith with him; they were persuaded to it by the same
advisers who persuaded them to tolerate an oligarchy. They have repented
of the oligarchy; let them repent also of the unjust sentence. (§§
25—28.)
There is a striking contrast between this defence before the ekklesia and
that which Andokides made on the same charges, some eleven years later,
before a
In the style of the speech there is little to remark except that its
difference from that of the speech On the Mysteries exactly corresponds
with the difference of tone. There the orator is diffuse, careless,
lively; here he is more compact—for he
The events with which the speech On the Mysteries is connected have been related in the life of Andokides. After his return to Athens, (probably early in 402 B. C.,) under favour of the general amnesty which followed the overthrow of the Thirty Tyrants, he had spent three years in the discharge of various public offices. At length, in 399 B. C., his enemies renewed their attack. During the festival of the Great Mysteries, which Andokides attended, in the autumn of that year, Kephisios laid an information against him before the Archon Basileus.
Some obscurity hangs over the form of the accusation; we will give
the account of it which appears most probable. When, in 415 B. C.,
Andokides made his disclosures, he did so on the guarantee of
impunity (who had committed
impiety and had confessed it should be excluded from the
marketplace and from the temples. The enemies of Andokides
His accusers now contended that he had broken the decree of
Isotimides by attending the Mysteries and entering the Eleusinian
Temple. To attend the festival or enter the temple unlawfully would,
of course, be an impiety. The information which they laid against
him charged him, therefore, on this ground, with impiety. It was an
His defence is therefore directed to showing, in the first place, that he had not committed impiety at that time either by profaning the Mysteries or by mutilating the Hermae. The speech takes its ordinary title from the fact that the Mysteries form one of its prominent topics. But a more general title would have better described the range of its contents. It might have been more fitly called a Defence on a Charge of Impiety.
This view of the matter explains some difficulties. Andokides says (de Myst. § 71), ‘Kephisios has informed against
me according to the existing law, but bases his accusation on the
decree of Isotimides.’ That is, Kephisios laid against Andokides an
ordinary
directly charged either with profaning the Mysteries or
with mutilating the Hermae; his guilt in one or both of these
matters was assumed. He proceeds to prove that this assumption is
groundless; and that, therefore, the decree does not apply to himform in which the accusation was preferred.
Andokides was not simply accused of usurping certain rights which
the decree of Isotimides had taken from him. That would have been an impiety—the result of usurping
such rights: it was an de Myst. § 146: [Lys.] in
Andok. § 55.)
The charge, like all connected with religion, was brought into court
by the Archon Basileus. Since details connected with the Mysteries
might be put in evidence, the judges were chosen exclusively from
the initiated of the higher gradede
Cor. § 219.
The speech On the Mysteries falls into three main divisions. In the first, Andokides shows his innocence in regard to the events of 415 B. C. In the second he shows that, in any case, the decree of Isotimides is now obsolete. In the third he deals with a number of minor topics.
1. (
2. §§ 8—10. He is perplexed as to what topic of his defence he shall first approach. After a fresh appeal to the judges he resolves to begin with the facts relating to the Mysteries.
3. §§ 11—33.
4. §§ 34—69.
It is argued that the decree of Isotimides is now void, because it has been cancelled by subsequent decrees, laws and oaths, §§ 70—72. These are next enumerated, as follows.
1. §§ 73—79. During the siege of Athens by the
2. § 80. After the truce with Sparta in 404, when the Thirty Tyrants were established, all exiles received free permission to return.
3. § 81. After the expulsion of the Thirty in 403 a general amnesty was proclaimed.
4. §§ 82—89. At the same time, in accordance with the decree of
Tisamenos, a revision of the laws was ordered. This revision having
been completed, four new general laws (
5. §§ 90, 91. Returning to the subject of § 81, Andokides recalls the terms of the oath of amnesty taken in 403 B. C. He then quotes the official oath of Senators and the official oath of Judges.
1. §§ 92—105. He shows that, if the amnesty is to be violated in his case, it may be violated to the cost of others also. The accusers, Kephisios, Meletus and Epichares, as well as others, would, in various ways, be liable to punishment.
2. §§ 106—109. He illustrates the good effect of general amnesties by
two examples from the history of Athens: (i) the moderation shown
after the expulsion of the Peisistratidae: (ii) an amnesty in the
time of the Persian Wars.
3. §§ 110—136. He answers a charge made against him by Kallias.
Kallias asserted that Andokides, terrified by the accusation hanging
over him, had laid a suppliant's bough (
4. §§ 137—139. He ridicules the assertion made by the accuser, that the gods must have preserved so great a traveller from the dangers of the sea because they reserved him for the hemlock.
5. §§ 140—150. Peroration, on three topics chiefly:— (i) the credit which Athens has gained by her policy of amnesties—credit which the judges are bound to sustain: (ii) the public services of the ancestors of Andokides: (iii) his own opportunities for usefulness to the State hereafter, if he is acquitted.
Andokides was acquitted. Before speaking of the method and style of his speech, it is due to its great historical interest to notice some of the disputed statements of fact which it contains.
1. Does the speech represent that account of his own conduct which
Andokides gave in 415 when he made his disclosures before the
Council of Four Hundred? Next—had he, as a matter of fact, taken
part in the mutilation of the Hermae? These two
2. In § 11 Pythonikos, who brought forward the evidence of the slave
Andromachos, is named as the first denouncer of Alkibiades. ‘Some
residentaliens and slaves in attendance on their masters’ (
3. In § 13 it is stated that, on Pythonikos making his accusations,
Polystratos was at once arrested and executed, and that the other
accused persons fled. It is certain, as Grote
4. In § 13 there is an oversight. Among those denounced by Pythonikos was Panaetios. And it is said that all persons so denounced—except Polystratos, who was put to death—fled. But in § 68 Panaetios appears as leaving Athens in consequence of the later denunciation of Andokides. As the list in § 13 contains ten names in all, the speaker might easily have made a mistake about one of the number. Or the evidence against Panaetios—who is named last of the ten—may have been so weak that he was acquitted upon this first charge.
5. In § 34 it is said that some of the persons accused by Teukros
were put to death. To this Mr Grote
6. In § 38 Andokides quotes, without comment, the statement of
Diokleides that he had seen the
7. In § 17 the action brought by Leogoras against Speusippos is
mentioned directly after the evidence of Lydos. But it should be
observed that it is mentioned parenthetically; and that the
indefinite
8. In § 45 the panic, during which the citizens kept watch under arms
through the night, is placed in immediate connection with the
informations of Diokleides, who caused this panic by representing
the plot as widely spread. It is said, also, that the Boeotians took
advantage of the alarm at Athens to march to the frontier. Now
Thucydides (VI. 60)
9. In § 106 the expulsion from Athens of the tyrants—that is, Hippias
and his adherents—is described as following upon a battle fought note:
Thirlwall, note: Grote,
10. In § 107 it is said that when, later, the Persian king made an
expedition against Greece, the Athenians recalled those who had been
banished, and reinstated those who had been disfranchised, when the
tyrants were expelled. No such amnesty is recorded in connection
with the first Persian invasion in 490; but Plutarch mentions such a
measure as having been passed shortly before the battle of Salamis
in 480
11. In § 107 it is said of the Athenians;— ‘They resolved to meet the
barbarians at Marathon... They fought and conquered; they freed
Greece and saved their country. And having done so great a deed,
they thought it not meet to bear malice against any one for the
past. Therefore, although through these things they entered upon their city desolate, their
temples in ashes, their walls and houses in ruins, yet by
concord they achieved the empire of Greece,’ &c. From this
passage Valckenär
It is impossible to read the speech On the
As regards style, the language of the speech is thoroughly unaffected
and easy, plain without studied avoidance of ornament, and rising at
the right places—as when he speaks of the old victories of freedom
(§§ 106—109), and in the peroration (§§ 140 —150). But the great
merit of the composition is
The speech On the Peace with the Lacedaemonians belongs, as has been
noticed in a former chapter
The opponents of peace contend that peace with Lacedaemon is fraught with
danger to the democracy (§§ 1—2). He meets this objection by instancing
a number of cases in which peace with Sparta, so far from injuring the
Athenian democracy, was productive of the greatest advantage to it. He
cites (1) a peace with Sparta negotiated by Miltiades during a war in
Eubœa: §§ 3—5. (2) The Thirty Years' Truce, 445 B. C. §§ 6—7. (3) The
Peace of Nikias,
There is no good reason for continuing the war. The claims of Athens have
now been recognised; the Boeotians desire peace; the hope of finally
crushing Sparta is idle (§§ 13—16). Athens is the power which gains most
by the peace now proposed (§§ 17—23). If Boeotia makes peace, Athens
will be left with one weak ally, Corinth, and another who is a positive
encumbrance—selfish Argos (§§ 24—27). Athens must not, here, prefer weak
friends, as formerly she preferred Amorges to Xerxes II.; Egesta to
Syracuse; Argos to Sparta (§§ 28—32). The speaker goes on to notice a
variety of objections to the peace. Some say that walls and ships are
not money, and wish to recover their property abroad [
In a peroration the assembly is reminded that the decision rests wholly
with it; Argive and Corinthian envoys have come urging war; Spartan
envoys, offering peace. The true plenipotentiaries are not the
ambassadors, but those who vote in the ekklesia (§§ 40, 41
According to the author of the Argument, the speech On the Peace was
judged spurious by Dionysiosad fin.
ad Diod. Sic. XII. c. 8; and Blass,
note 3. For
the Five Years' Truce Clinton gives the date 450, which I take:
Grote, 452: Curtius (
Again, in § 6 it is said that Athens having been plunged into war by the Aeginetans, and having done and suffered much evil, at last concluded the Thirty Years' Peace with Sparta (445 B. C.). The impression conveyed by this statement is wrong. The war between Athens and Aegina began about 458, and ended in 455 with the reduction of Aegina. In 450 Athens and Sparta made a truce for five years. A new train of events began with the revolution in Boeotia in 447, followed by the revolt of Megara and Euboea; and it was this which led up to the peace of 445 B. C.
These inaccuracies are in regard only to the earlier history of
Athens: and the undoubtedly genuine speech On the Mysteries contains
allusions which are no less inaccurate. In regard to contemporary
events the speaker makes no statement which can be shown to be
incorrect: and on one point—the position of Argos at the time—he is
incidentally confirmed in a striking manner by Xenophonὡς Ἄργους τῆς Κορίνθου ὄντος
and set
them apart by law for the use of the people at special need’:
Aeschines, leaving out the qualifying clause, makes it appear that
the sum of 1000 talents was the total sum laid up in the Athenian
treasury
The treatment of the subject certainly affords no
The speech against Alkibiades is certainly spurious. It discusses the
question whether the speaker, or Nikias or Alkibiades is to be
ostracised. The
The supposed date of this speech is fixed by a reference in § 22 to the
capture of Melos. Melos was taken in the winter of 416—415 B. C. Nikias
left Athens, never to return, in the spring of 415. Therefore the speech
could have been spoken only in the early part of 415 B. C.
The orator, after stating the point at issue, and censuring the institution of ostracism (§§ 1—6), enters upon an elaborate invective against Alkibiades (§§ 10—40). The latter is attacked for having doubled the tribute of the allies (§§ 10—12); for having ill-used his wife (§§ 13—15); for contempt of the law (§§ 16—19); for beating a choregus (§§ 20, 21); for insolence after his Olympian victory (§§ 24—33). He is then contrasted with the speaker (§§ 34—40), who concludes with a notice of his own public services (§§ 41, 42).
The speech is twice cited without suspicion by Harpokration: it is
also named as genuine by Photiosthe Sokratic,
That Andokides spoke this speech is inconceivable. The speaker says
(§ 8) that he has been four times tried; and (§ 41) that he has been
ambassador to Molossia, Thesprotia, Italy and Sicily. But elsewhere,
excusing himself for acts committed in the very year in which this
speech is supposed to have been delivered—in 415—Andokides pleads
that he was young and foolish at the time
Nor is it credible that Andokides wrote the speech for another
person—Phaeax, for instance, as Valckenär
Tayloronly from § 29 of the speech, where it
runs:—
But an overwhelming amount of evidence tends to show that the speech is the work of a later sophist. First stand two general reasons; the supposed occasion of the speech, and the style of its composition.
As far as the nature of ostracism is known to us, he was one of the citizens who had
rendered the resort to ostracism necessary; secondly,
note) remarks on the erroneous conception of ostracism
involved in the speaker complaining that he is going to be
ostracised without any secret voting—as if by a
show of hands. But in § 2 the
If the nature of the situation supposed were not enough, the style of the composition would in itself be almost decisive. The speaker begins with a formal statement of the matter in hand, evidently meant for a reader; and then goes on to string together all the tritest stories about Alkibiades. This —the body of the speech—has the unmistakable air of a compilation.
The arguments from the supposed occasion and from the style are
confirmed by the evidence of particular misstatements. In §§ 22, 23
Alkibiades is said to have had a child by a Melian woman who came
into his power after the capture of Melos; but the speech, as has
been shown, can refer only to the spring of 415: and Melos was taken
only in the winter of 416—415. In § 33 Kimon is said to have been
banished because he had married his own sister. In § 13 the
commander at Delium—a battle fought but nine years before the
supposed date of the speech
Beside the extant speeches of Andokides, the titles of four others have
been preserved. (1) Plutarch quotes an address ‘To the Associates,’ or
members in Andoc. § 30.
Besides the names of these four speeches, two
Lysias, though he passed most of his years at Athens, did not possess the citizenship, and, except in the impeachment of Eratosthenes, appears to have had no personal contact with the affairs of the city. Yet, as in literary style he is the representative of Atticism, so in his fortunes he is closely associated with the Athenian democracy. He suffered with it in its two greatest calamities—the overthrow in Sicily and the tyranny of the Thirty; he took part in its restoration; and afterwards, in his speeches for the law-courts, he became perhaps the best, because the soberest, exponent of its spirit—the most graceful and most versatile interpreter of ordinary Athenian life.
Kephalos, the father of Lysias, was a Syracusan, who settled at Athens as
a resident alien on the invitation of Perikles (Lys.
Lysias was born at Athens after his father had come to live there. The
year of his birth cannot be determined. Dionysios assumes the same year
as the pseudo-Plutarch—Ol. 80. 2., 459 B. C.; but admits, what the
latter does not, that it is a mere assumptionas
one might conjecture
—
This is not, however, the prevalent modern view. Lysias was said to have
gone to Italy after his father's death
This view depends altogether on the statement that Lysias remained at Athens till his father's death—a statement vouched for only by the Plutarchic biographer, who is surely untrustworthy on such a point. Further, it assumes both the date and the literal biographical accuracy of the
Besides Lysias, Kephalos had two other sons, Polemarchos and Euthydêmos
At the age of fifteen
The next seven years at Athens—from 412 to 405—seem to have been years of
peace and prosperity for the brothers. They were the owners of three
houses, one in the town, in which Polemarchos livednam Lysiam primo profiteri solitum
artem dicendi, deinde, quod Theodorus esset in arte
subtilior, in
orationibus ieiunior, orationes eum scribere aliis coepisse,
artem
removisse
Soon after the Thirty had taken power in the
Polemarchos received the usual message of the Thirty
During the ten or twelve months of the exile— from the spring of 404 to
the spring of 403—Lysias seems to have been active in the democratic
cause. According to his biographerib. § 11), and also from that in Ctes § 195: note 1.
Stripped of a great part of his fortune by the Thirty Tyrants, and
further straitened, probably, by his generosity to the exiles, Lysias
seems now to have settled down to hard work at Athens. His activity as a
writer of speeches for the law-courts falls—as far as we know—between
the years 403 and 380 B. C. That it must have been great and constant is
shown by the fact that Dionysios speaks of him as having written ‘not
fewer than two hundred forensic speeches
Lysias had probably been a professional speech-writer de Epist.
Socr. § 6, p. 51), the speech cannot have been written
before 392 B.C.
Lysias is named in the ordinary text of his own speech On the Property of
Aristophanes as taking part in an embassy to Dionysios the elder of
Syracuse, an embassy of which the date cannot be put below 389 B. C. But
there can be little doubt as to the correctness of the emendation which
removes his name from that passagede bonis Aristoph. § 19,
As has already been noticed, the indisputably genuine works of Lysias, so
far as they are known, cease about 380 B.C. The latest, the speech for
Pherenikos of which a fragment remains, belongs to 381 or 380. Of the
two speeches for Iphikrates, also represented by fragments only, one
belonged to 371, the other to 354
The character, as well as the capacity, of Lysias must be judged from the indirect evidence of his own writings. Circumstances kept him out of political life, in which his versatility and shrewdness would probably have held and improved the position which great powers of speech must soon have won. The part which he took during the troubles under the Thirty proved him a generous friend to Athens, as the
An appreciation of Lysias is, in one sense, easy for modern criticism. He
was a literary artist, and his work bears the stamp of consummate
literary skill. The reader may fail to realise the circumstances under
which a particular speech was delivered, the force with which it appeals
to emotion or to reason, the degree in which it was likely to prove
persuasive or convincing. But he cannot fail to be aware that he is
reading admirable prose. The merit of Lysias as a writer is secure of
recognition. It is his oratorical power which runs some danger of being
too lightly valued, unless attention is paid to the conditions under
which it was exerted. The speech Against Eratosthenes, indeed, in which
he expresses the passionate feeling of his own mind, would alone suffice
to prove him in the modern sense eloquent. But a large majority of his
other speeches are so comparatively tame, so poor in the qualities of
the higher eloquence, that his oratorical reputation, to
Although on a few occasions he himself came forward as a speaker, the
business of his life was to write for others. All sorts of men were
among his clients; all kinds of causes in turn occupied him. Now he lent
his services to the impeachment of an official charged with defrauding
the Athenian treasury, or to the prosecution of some adherent of the
Thirty, accused of having slandered away the lives of Athenian citizens;
now he supplied the words in which a pauper begged that his obol a day
from the State might not be stopped, or helped one of the parties to a
drunken brawl to demand satisfaction for a black eye. The elderly
citizen who appeals against the calumny of an informer to his past
services as trierarch or choregus; the young man checked on the
threshold of public life by some enemy's protest at his dokimasia for
his first office,—in turn borrow their eloquence from Lysias. If he had
been content to adopt the standard which he found existing in his
profession, he would have written in nearly the same style for all these
various ages and conditions. He would have treated all these different
cases upon a uniform technical system, merely seeking, in every case
alike, to obtain the most powerful effect and the highest degree of
ornament by applying certain fixed rules. Lysias was a discoverer when
he perceived that a purveyor of words for others, if he would serve his
customers in the best way, must give the words the air of being their
own. He saw that the monotonous intensity of the fashionable
This style, imitated by many, but marked in Lysias by an original
excellence, made him for antiquity the representative of a class of
orators. It was in the latter part of the fourth century B. C. that
Greek critics began regularly to distinguish three styles of rhetorical
composition, the grand, the plain and the middle. The grand style aims
constantly at rising above the common idiom; it seeks ornament of every
kind, and rejects nothing as too artificial if it is striking. The plain
style may, like the first, employ the utmost efforts of art, but the art
is concealed; and, instead of avoiding, it imitates the language of
ordinary life. The ‘middle’ style explains itself by its name.
Theophrastos appears to have been the first writer on Rhetoric who
attempted such a classification; there is, at least, no hint of it in
Aristotle or in the Rhetorica ad Alexandrumas
Theophrastos thinks,’ or by some one else: ib. VI. p. 337) recognised five styles—the
plain (grandiloqui—tenues, acuti—medius et
quasi temperatus.
ib. 34): the plain, as ib.
2), or ib. 34): the middle as ib. 34) or ib. 3).Unum
Primum igitur eum tanquam e vinculis
numerorum eximamus......Solutum quiddam sit, nec vagum tamen.
a) puritysermo erit purus et Latinus.
b) clearnessdilucide planeque dicetur.
c) proprietyquid deceat circumspiciatur.
verecundus erit usus oratoriae
quasi supellectilis. supellex est enim quodammodo nostra
quae est in
ornamentis, alia rerum, alia verborum.
With certain exceptions, which will be noticed in their place, Lysias has
these characteristics, and is the best representative of the plain
style, whether viewed historically or in the abstract. That style
gradually came to be used by almost all writers for the ekklesia or the
law-courts; but it was Lysias, says Dionysios, who ‘perfected’ it, and
‘brought it to the summit of the excellence proper to it
It does not, perhaps, strike the modern mind as very remarkable that a
man whose business was to write speeches for other people should have
conceived
His dramatic purpose—if it may be so called— decided the special
characteristics of his style. But, even without this purpose, an
instinctive dislike of exaggeration would of itself have given his style
some general characteristics, sufficient to distinguish it from that of
any of his contemporaries. On this account we must dissent from a view
advanced by K. O. Müller in his History of Greek Literature
Plainness and an easy versatility are, then, the general characteristics of Lysias. We propose now to consider in detail his special characteristics; speaking first of his style in the narrower sense, his composition and diction; next of his method of handling subject-matter.
Cicero, as we have seen, counts among the marks of the ‘plain’ style
a free structure of sentences and clauses, not straining after a
rhythmical period (
ib. c. 6.terse
periodic style)—
The diction of Lysias is distinguished in the first place by its
purity. This is a quality upon which no modern could have pronounced
authoritatively, but for which the ancient Greek critic vouches. In
the Augustan age the reaction from florid Asianism to Atticism had
set in strongly, and especial attention was paid by Greek
grammarians to the marks of a pure Attic style. Dionysios may be
taken as a competent judge. He pronounces Lysias to be ‘perfectly
pure in expression, the best canon of Attic speech,— not of the old
used by Plato and Thucydides,’ but of that which was in vogue in his
own timeib. c. 13, where the ‘purity’ spoken of in
c, 2 is defined as consisting of two elements—
Next, in contrast with the Sicilian school of rhetoric, Lysias is
characterised by a general avoidance of ornamental figures. Such
figures as occur are mostly of the kind which men use in daily life
without rhetorical consciousness,—hyperbole, metaphor, prosopopoiïa
and the likeib.
ib.
Closely connected with this simplicity is his clearness. Lysias is
clear in a twofold sense; in thought, and in expression. Figurative
language is often a source of confusion of thought; and the habitual
avoidance of figures by Lysias is one reason why he not only speaks
but thinks clearly. In regard to this clearness of expression
Dionysios has an excellent remark. This quality might, he observes,
result merely from ‘deficiency of power,’ i.e. poverty of language
and of fancy which constrained the speaker to be simple. In the case
of Lysias it does, in fact, result from wealth of
the right words
ib. c. 4
invariable clearness of Lysias,
emphasis (e.g.) in Or. XIII. § 63 symmetry (e.g.) in Or. XXVIII. § 3
Vividness,
From this trait we pass naturally to another which has just been
mentioned as one of its sources— the faculty of seizing and portraying
character. Of all the gifts of Lysias this is the most distinctive, and
is the one which had greatest influence upon his style. It is a talent
which does not admit of definition or analysis; it can be understood
only by studying its results. It is shown, as Dionysios says, in three
things—thought, diction, and compositionÊthopoiia. The prevalent tone, however, was
that of the average man.’no character
in Lysias is inartistically drawn or lifeless
‘I have understood, Senators, that some people are annoyed with me for
this too—that I presumed, though rather young, to speak in the Assembly.
It was about my own affairs that I was first compelled to speak in
public; after that, however, I do suspect myself of
having been more ambitiously inclined than I need have been,—partly
through thinking of my family, who have never ceased to be statesmen,—
partly because I saw that you (to tell the truth)
The ‘propriety’ which has always been praised in Lysias depends mainly on
this discernment of what suits the character of each speaker; but it
includes more—it has respect also to the hearers and to the subject, and
generally to all the circumstances of the case. The judge, the
ekklesiast, the listener in the crowd at a festival are not addressed in
the same vein; different excellences of style characterise the opening,
the narrative, the argument, the final appeal
Êthopoiia and the
It remains to say a few words on the peculiar and crowning excellence of
Lysias in the province of expression,—his famous but inexplicable
‘charm.’ It is noticeable that while his Roman critics merely praise his
elegance and polish, regarding it as a simple result of his artegregie subtilis scriptor atque
elegans
ieiunitas polita, urbana, elegans
subtilis atque elegans
:
IX. 4. 17 gratia quae in eo maxima est
simplicis atque inaffectati coloris
. It must be allowed
to Cicero that he felt the plainness of Lysias to have a charm of its
own. But he did not, like Dionysios, feel this charm to be something
independent of the plainness, which could be used as a distinct test of
genuine work. See nam ut mulieres esse dicuntur
nonnullae inornatae, quas id ipsum deceat, sic haec
subtilis oratio
atque incompta delectat. fit enim quiddam in utroque,
quo sit
venustius, sed non ut appareat.
A modern reader would be sanguine if he hoped to analyse the distinctive
charm of Lysias more closely than Dionysios found himself able to do. He
may be content if study by degrees gives him a dim apprehension of
something which he believes that he could use, as Dionysios used the
qualities detected by his ‘instinct,’ in deciding between the genuine
and the false. Evidently the same cause which in great measure
disqualifies a modern for estimating the ‘purity’ of the language of
Lysias also disqualifies him for estimating its charm. This charm may be
supposed to have consisted partly in a certain felicity of
expression,—Lysias having a knack of using the word which, for some
undefinable reason, was felt to be curiously right; partly in a certain
essential urbanity, the reflection of a nature at once genial and
refined. The first quality is evidently beyond the sure appreciation of
a modern ear: the second less so, yet scarcely to be estimated with
nicety, since here too shades of expression are concerned. At best a
student of Lysias may hope to attain a tolerably true perception of what
he could
Having now noticed the leading characteristics of Lysias in regard to
form of language, we will consider some of his characteristics in the
other great department of his art—the treatment of the subject-matter.
In this the ancient critics distinguished two chief elements, Invention
and Arrangement
By ‘invention’ was meant the faculty of discovering
In regard to arrangement, Lysias is distinguished
If we turn from his general plan to his execution of its several parts, Lysias will be found to shew very different degrees of merit in proem, narrative, proof and epilogue.
His proem, or opening, is always excellent, always gracefully and
accurately appropriate to the matter in hand. This inexhaustible
fertility of resource calls forth the special commendation of
Dionysios. ‘The power shown in his proems will appear especially
marvellous if it is considered that, though he wrote not fewer than
200 forensic speeches, there is not one in which he is found to have
used a preface which is not plausible, or which is not closely
connected with the case. Indeed, he has not twice hit upon the same
syllogisms, or twice drifted into the same thoughts. Yet even those
who have written
The same kind of cleverness which never fails to make a good
beginning finds a more important scope in the next stage of the
speech. In narrative Lysias is masterly. His statements of facts are
distinguished by conciseness, clearness and charm, and by a power of
producing conviction without apparent effort to convinceid. De Lys. c. 18.
In the third province—that of proof—this supremacy is not maintained.
Rhetorical proofs are of three kinds: (1) direct logical proofs
which appeal to the
In the first sort Lysias is strong both by acuteness in discovering,
and by judgment in selecting, arguments. In the second he is
effective also; and succeeds, even when he has few facts to go upon,
in making characters seem attractive or the reverse by incidental
touches. In the third he is comparatively weak; he cannot heighten
the force of a plea, represent a wrong, or invoke compassion
Hence in the fourth and last department, the epilogue, he shows,
indeed, the neatness which suits recapitulation, but not the power
which ought to elevate an appeal. The nature of his progress through
a speech is well described by an image which his Greek critic
employs
The manner in which Lysias handles his subject-matter has now been spoken
of so far as concerns its technical aspect. But, besides these
characteristics of the artist which may be discovered in particular
parts, there are certain general qualities, resulting from the character
of the man, which colour the whole; and a word must now be said of
these.
Foremost among such qualities is tact. One of its special
manifestations is quick sympathy with the character of the speaker;
another is perception of the style in which a certain subject should
be treated or a certain class of hearers addressed. Both these have
already been noticed. But, above and beyond these, there is a
certain sureness in the whole conduct of a case, a certain
remoteness from liability to blunder, which is the most general
indication of the tact of Lysias. Among his genuine extant speeches
there is only one which perhaps in some degree offers an exception
to the rule;—the speech against Evandros
A quality which the last almost implies is humour; and this Lysias
certainly had. The description of an incorrigible borrower, in the
fragment of the lost speech against the Sokratic Aeschines, shows
this humour tending to broad farce
Really powerful sarcasm must come from earnest feeling; and Lysias,
though intellectual acuteness gave him command of irony, was weak in
sarcasm for the same reason that he was not great in pathos. There
is, properly speaking, only one extant speech—that against
Nikomachos—in which sarcasm is a principal weapon
The language, the method, the genius of Lysias have now been considered
in reference to their chief positive characteristics. But no attempt to
estimate what Lysias was would be true or complete if it failed
It would be untrue to say that Lysias never appeals to the feelings with
effect, and unfair to assume that he lacked the power of appealing to
them with force. But the bent of his mind was critical; his artistic
instinct shrank from exaggeration of every sort; and, instead of giving
fervent expression to his own sense of what was pitiable or terrible in
any set of circumstances, it was his manner merely to draw a suggestive
picture of the circumstances themselves. This self-restraint will be
best understood by comparing a passage of Lysias with a similar passage
of Andokides. The speech On the Mysteries describes the scene in the
prison when mothers, sisters, wives came to visit the victims of the
informer Diokleides
‘Judges, I have no one to put up to plead for us; for of our kinsmen some
have died in war, after showing themselves brave men, in the effort to
make Athens great; some, in the cause of the democracy and of your
freedom, have died by the hemlock of the Thirty; and so the merits of
our kinsmen, and the misfortunes of the State, have become the causes of
our friendlessness. It befits you to think of these things and to help
us with good will, considering that under a democracy those deserve to
be welltreated at your hands who, under an oligarchy, had their share of
the troubles.’
After inquiring how far Lysias fails in pathos, it remains to speak of
the other principal defect noticed above. How far, and in what sense,
does he want fire? By ‘fire’ is meant here the passion of a speaker
In the
‘It befits us, then, to desist from war among ourselves and to cleave,
with a single purpose, to the public weal, ashamed for the past and
apprehensive for the future; it befits us to imitate our forefathers,
who, when the barbarians coveted the land of others, inflicted upon them
the loss of their own; and who, after driving out the tyrants,
established liberty for all men alike. But I wonder most of all at the
Lacedaemonians, and at the policy which can induce them to view
passively the conflagration of Greece. They are the leaders of the
Greeks, as they deserve to be, both for their inborn gallantry and for
their warlike science; they alone dwell exempt from ravage, though
unsheltered by walls; unvexed by faction; strangers to defeat; with
usages which never vary; thus warranting the hope that the freedom which
they have achieved is immortal, and that, having proved themselves in
past perils the deliverers of Greece, they are now thoughtful for her
future.’
In the speech Against Eratosthenes, he concludes the impeachment with an appeal to the two parties who had alike suffered from the Thirty Tyrants;— the Townsmen, or those who had remained at Athens under the oligarchy; and the democratic exiles who had held the Peiraeus:—
‘I wish, before I go down, to recall a few things
‘And you, first, of the Town—reflect that under their iron rule you were forced to wage with brothers, with sons, with citizens a war of such a sort that, having been vanquished, you are the equals of the conquerors, whereas, had you conquered, you would have been the slaves of the Tyrants. They would have gained wealth for their own houses from the administration; you have impoverished yours in the war with one another; for they did not deign that you should thrive along with them, though they forced you to become odious in their company; such being their consummate arrogance that, instead of seeking to win your loyalty by giving you partnership in their prizes, they fancied themselves friendly if they allowed you a share of their dishonours. Now, therefore, that you are in security, take vengeance to the utmost of your power both for yourselves and for the men of the Peiraeus; reflecting that these men, villains that they are, were your masters, but that now good men are your fellow-citizens,—your fellow-soldiers against the enemy, your fellow-counsellors in the interest of the State; remembering, too, those allies whom these men posted on the acropolis as sentinels over their despotism and your servitude. To you—though much more might be said—I say thus much only.
‘But you of the Peiraeus—think, in the first
‘And you, the remnant who escaped death, after perils in many places, after wanderings to many cities and expulsion from all, beggared of the necessaries of life, parted from children, left in a fatherland which was hostile or in the land of strangers, came through many obstacles to the Peiraeus. Dangers many and great confronted you; but you proved yourselves brave men; you freed some, you restored others to their country.
‘Had you been unfortunate and missed those aims, you yourselves would now
be exiles, in fear of suffering what you suffered before. Owing to the
character of these men, neither temples nor altars, which even in the
sight of evil-doers have a protecting virtue, would have availed you
against wrong;— while those of your children who are here would
‘I do not wish, however, to speak of what might have been, seeing that what these men have done is beyond my power to tell; and indeed it is a task not for one accuser, or for two, but for a host.
‘Yet is my indignation perfect for the temples which these men bartered
away or defiled by entering them; for the city which they humbled; for
the arsenals which they dismantled; for the dead, whom you, since you
could not rescue them alive, must vindicate in their death. And I think
that they are listening to us, and will be aware of you when you give
your verdict, deeming that such as absolve these men have passed
sentence upon them, and that such as exact
retribution from these have taken vengeance in their names.
‘I will cease accusing. You have heard—seen— suffered: you have them:
judge.’
On reviewing the general position of Lysias among the Attic orators, it
will be seen to result mainly from his discovery, made at a time when
Rhetoric had not yet outlived the crudest taste for finery, that the
most complete art is that which hides itself. Aided not only by a
delicate mastery of language but by a peculiar gift for reading and
expressing character, he created a style of which the chief mark was
various naturalness. It was long before the art of speaking reached, in
general
This supremacy in a definite province is allowed
Plato's satire
unphilosophic character of Lysias—that Plato gives such a
decided preference to Isokrates. Compare the remark of Dionysios that
Isaeos differs from Lysias in this among other things—Accuratius quoddam dicendi et
exquisitius afferebat genus.
Suavitatem Isocrates, subtilitatem
Lysias, acumen Hyperides, sonitum Aeschines, vim Demosthenes
habuit.
intelligamus hoc esse Atticum in
Lysia, non quod tenuis sit atque inornatus, sed quod
nihil habeat
insolens aut ineptum.
Quanquam in Lysia saepe sunt etiam
lacerti, ita sic ut fieri nihil possit valentius.
Est enim (Lysias) multis locis
grandior; sed quia et privatas ille plerasque et eas ipsas
aliis et
parvarum rerum caussulas scripsit, videtur esse ieiunior,
quom se
ipse consulto ad minutarum genera caussarum limaverit.
Ita fit ut Demosthenes certe possit
summisse dicere, elate Lysias fortasse non possit.
Lysiam—alterum
paene Demosthenem.
Quem iam prope
audeas oratorem perfectum dicere; nam plane quidem perfectum, et cui
nihil admodum desit, Demosthenem facile dixeris.
quo nihil, si oratori satis est docere,
quaeras perfectius.
cod. 262:
A few words will be enough to mark the broad differences between Lysias
and those three of his successors who may best be compared with him,—
Isaeos, Isokrates and Demosthenes. Isokrates, like Lysias, has purity of
diction and accuracy of idiom; command of plain language (though he is
seldom content with it); power of describing, though not of dramatizing,
character; propriety and persuasiveness. But while Lysias hides his art
in order to be more winning, Isokrates aims openly at the highest
artificial ornament, and escapes being frivolous or frigid only by the
greatness of most of his subjects and the earnestness with which he
treats them. Isaeos, a direct student of Lysias, resembles him most in
his diction, which is not only, like that of Isokrates, clear and pure,
but concise also; further, he strives, like his master, to conceal his
art, but never quite succeeds in this. The excellence of Demosthenes
comprises that of Lysias, since, while the latter is natural by art, the
former is so by the necessary sincerity of genius; but Demosthenes is
not, like Lysias, plain; nor has he the same delicate charm; grandeur
and irresistible power take its place.
Lastly—it should be remembered that it is not only as an orator but also,
and even more, as a writer that Lysias is important; that, great as were
his services to the theory and practice of eloquence, he did greater
service still to the Greek language. He brought the everyday idiom into
a closer relation than it had ever before had with the literary idiom,
and set the first example of perfect elegance joined to plainness;
deserving the praise that, as in fineness of ethical portraiture he is
the Sophokles, in delicate control of thoroughly idiomatic speech he is
the Euripides of Attic prose.
The Plutarchic biographer of Lysias says:—‘425 compositions pass under
his name; of which 233 are pronounced genuine by Dionysios and
Caecilius’.cod. 262), has de Lys. 1, or Caecilius, not
by both; but it may be taken as representing roughly the proportion of
genuine to spurious allowed by the Augustan Atticists. It is not
difficult to understand how the list of works attributed to Lysias had
become so large and so inaccurate. His fertility was known to have been
great; his style was distinguished less by any salient features than by
marks needing for their recognition a finer sense, especially an
instinct for the niceties of Attic idiom; and it was not until the Attic
revival under Augustus that such an
Thirty-four speeches, entire, or represented by large fragments, are
extant under the name of Lysias. A hundred and twenty-seven lost
speeches are known from smaller fragments or by their titles. Three
letters, cited by grammarians, are identified by the names of the
persons to whom they were addressed. If to this list is added the
disputed Erôtikos in Plato's Phaedros, 165 of the 425 compositions
mentioned in the Plutarchic Life have been accounted for; 260 remain
unknown
Of the 34 speeches now usually reckoned as extant, three are mere
fragments, though large fragments, preserved by Dionysios alone, and
printed with the rest only in the more recent editions of Lysias. These
are nos. XXXII. (Against Diogeiton); XXXIII. (Olympiakos); XXXIV.
(Defence of the Constitution). Of the other 31 speeches eight are more
or less mutilated. In the first place an entire quaternion (eight
pages), and three pages of another, are wanting in the Palatine MS. The
lost quaternion contained the end of Or. XXV. (Defence on a Charge of
abolishing the Commonwealth), the speech
Leaving aside the three speeches known only
It seems probable that each of these two divisions—Or. I. with III. to
XI., and Or. XII. to XXXI.— is a fragment of a manuscript edition which
originally comprised all the speeches of Lysias; but whether both
fragments belong to the same edition can hardly be decided
The extant speeches of Lysias may be considered under the heads of
Epideictic, Deliberative and Forensic. After these, it will remain to
speak of the Miscellaneous Writings ascribed to him, represented by the
Address to his Companions (Or. VIII.) and the Platonic Erôtikos. Lastly
the Fragments of speeches and letters will claim notice.
Of the Epideictic speeches of Lysias at least one genuine specimen
remains—the fragment of an oration delivered at the Olympic
festival. The fashion of addressing a set harangue to the
Panhellenic concourse at the great national meetings had been set by
the earliest sophists. Hippias ‘used to charm Greece at Olympia with
ornate and elaborate speeches.’ib. I. 9.
This topic had a special significance at the moment when the
Olympiakos of Lysias was spokennote) rejects the statement of
Diodôros, and assumes 384 B. C.—the next festival—as the date; but
on grounds which do not appear conclusive. The oration distinctly
speaks of as war a going on at the time:
Only the first part of the speech has been preserved; but, to judge from the scale on which the topics are treated and from the point in the argument which the extract reaches, the whole cannot have been much longer.
After praising Herakles for having founded the Olympic
Here the extract ends—probably at the point de Lys. c. 28,
The Funeral Oration ascribed to Lysias purports to have been spoken,
in the course of the Corinthian
The oration opens by contrasting the greatness of the
Two questions have to be considered in regard to the Epitaphios;
whether it was written for a real occasion or merely as an exercise;
and whether it is or is not the work of Lysias
If it was written for a real occasion, then it can hardly be his
work; for Lysias, not being an Athenian citizen, could not have
spoken it himself; and it is unlikely that he should have composed
it for another, since the citizen chosen by the Senate to pronounce
a funeral harangue was usually an orator of reputethe Epitaphios’ a passage which is found in our
speech, but does not name Lysias, though in the same chapter he
cites Perikles, Isokrates and others by name. Nothing, however, can
fairly be inferred from this except that in Aristotle's time the
speech was celebrated
The speeches of Lysias for the ekklesia have had the same fate as his epideictic speeches. These, too, are represented by one fragment alone—that which now stands last in the collection as Oration XXXIV. Like the fragment of the Olympiakos, it is given by Dionysios as a specimen of a class. The title which it usually bears describes it as a Plea against abolishing the ancient Constitution of Athens. When, after the fall of the Thirty, the democracy was restored in 403, it was the aim of Sparta to restrict it. One Phormisios proposed in the ekklesia that only landowners should have the franchise, a measure which, according to Dionysios, would have excluded about five thousand citizens. The speech from which he gives an extract was made against this motion during a debate in the ekklesia. It appears to have been written by Lysias for some wealthy citizen who was not personally affected by the proposal, and may probably be regarded as the earliest of the orator's works now known.
A censure on the proposers and supporters of the motion
If it is said that Athens can be safe only by obeying Sparta, it should be remembered how desperate are the terms which Sparta would like to impose. Surely it is better to die fighting for one's rights than to pass sentence of death upon oneself. But there is a danger for Sparta also, which will to a certain extent restrain her. She leaves Argos and Mantineia at peace, because she knows that nothing can be gained, and that much would be risked, by driving them to extremities: she will feel the same in regard to Athens. This was the policy of Athens herself when she was greatest. (§§ 6—9.) It would be strange if the democrats who fought bravely in exile should lose heart now that they are restored; if the sons of men who saved Hellas should shrink from delivering Athens. (§§ 10, 11.)
Dionysios remarks on this speech that there is nothing to prove that
it was actually delivered on the occasion supposed, but that ‘at all
events it is in a style suitable for debate.’
In classifying forensic speeches the first thing to be done is to fix the
principle of distinction between the public and the private. One method
is to consider solely the form of procedure, and to distinguish ‘public’
and ‘private’ as they were technically distinguished by Greek law.
Another method is to consider rather the substance than the form of each
cause, and to arrange the causes according as their practical interest
was more directly for the State or for the individual. Blass adopts the
latter planliterary
importance, and have already been recognised (p. 166) as corresponding
to different shades of style. But they appear too indefinite to form a
good basis for scientific classification. The necessity of drawing a
doubtful or arbitrary line is avoided by taking the classification
supplied by Greek law itself. Classified as public and private (
A. Speeches in public causes.
B. Speeches in private causes.
1.
In the present case malversation in his registrarship
The date must lie between 411 and 405. The war in the Hellespont is noticed (§ 29); but there is no reference to Arginusae or subsequent events; and the early part of 407 is therefore the latest date which appears probable.
Polystratos, who was a man past sixty (§ 10), is represented by the
eldest of his three sons (§ 24).
The first part of the speech sets forth that Polystratos was one of
the least prominent and least culpable of the oligarchs; that he had
already suffered severely, and is now accused maliciously; and that
the general tenor of his past life proves his patriotism (§§ 1—23).
The speaker then relates his own services in Sicily after the
disaster of 413, and reads a patriotic letter written to him by his
father at that time. He recounts also the services of his brothers,
the second and third sons of Polystratos; of whom the former had
been active at the Hellespont, and the latter at home (§§ 24—29). In
return for all that the father and his three sons have done for the
city, they ask only to be spared a verdict which would rob them of
citizenship (§§ 30—36).
The only ancient notice of this speech is by Harpokration, who once
refers to it; then, indeed, without suspicion
2.
A clue to the date is given by the fact that the
Having already answered the accusers in detail, he goes on, in the extant fragment, to enumerate his public services. As choregus and trierarch he has spent upwards of ten talents in eight years—more than four times the amount which would have satisfied legal requirements (§§ 1—5). His trireme, when he was trierarch, was so good that Alkibiades, as admiral, had done him the unwelcome honour of sailing in it (§ 7); and it was one of the twelve which made good their escape from Aegospotami (§ 10).
He might fairly claim some substantial recognition of these costly
services; but he asks only not to be deprived of his own property
(§§ 11—19). In conclusion he reminds the judges that one who had
risked his life and whole fortune for the State was not likely to
have taken bribes to defraud it (§§ 21, 22). Beggary had often
enough hung over his wife and children when he was fighting for
Athens; it would be hard if it should at last actually befall them
by the sentence of an Athenian court (§§ 24—52).
Lysias shows here strikingly his power of adapting language to
character; the êthos is the merit of the speech. It expresses the
strong, honest feeling of a man who has made sacrifices for his
country, who is conscious of his desert, and who claims, rather than
begs, acquittal. ‘I think, judges, that it would be much fairer for
you to be indicted by the revenueofficers for keeping my property,
than for me to be
3.
The short speech of Lysias was spoken by one of the Public Prosecutors; who, as others had already gone fully into the charges, does little more than recapitulate them.
Ergokles is charged with having betrayed Greek towns ἐκ δὲ τούτου τὰς μὲν προσηγάγετο
τῶν πόλεων, ἐκ δὲ τῶν οὐ προσχωρουσῶνλ εηλατῶν χρήματα
τοῖς
στρατιώταις ἔσπευσεν εἰς τὴν *(πόδον ἀφικέσθαι. ὅπως δ’
ἂν καὶ
ἐκεῖ ὡς ἐρρωμενέστατον τὸ στράτευμα ποιήσαιτο, ἐξ ἄλλων
τε
πόλεων ἠργυρολόγει, κ.τ.λ.
Decision and vigorous brevity are the chief characteristics of this speech, as of that Against Epikrates (XXVII.) and that Against Philokrates (XXIX.); both of which, like this, were spoken by Public Prosecutors. An address by an official afforded less scope for artistic individual colouring than a speech which had to be fitted to the character and circumstances of a private speaker.
4.
Like the speech against Ergokles, this was preceded by others for the prosecution, and gives therefore only a general view of the case.
Corrupt officers of the treasury, like Ergokles, often tell
5.
After the fall of the Second Oligarchy in 403, a second Revising
Commission was appointed by the Senate. These special Nomothetae
were to report within one month to the Senate
and the 500 ordinary Nomothetae selected by the demes
The speaker is one of several accusers (§ 34), probably not the
principal; the penalty demanded is death (§§ 23, 27.)
The first part of the speech sets forth the antecedents of Nikomachos. His father was a public slave; he himself, after late enrolment in a phratria, became an under-scribe to a magistrate. His present offence was not the first of the kind which he had committed. After the First Oligarchy, as after the Second, commissioners for the revision of the laws were appointed. Nikomachos had been one of these also; and had retained the appointment for six years (§ 2)— (that is, till 404 B.C.)—(§§ 1—6).
He will perhaps try to cast upon his accuser the suspicion of
oligarchical sympathies. It ought not to be forgotten that it was he
himself who, by a forged law, enabled the oligarchs to destroy
Kleophonde
bonis Aristoph. (Or. XIX) § 48:
Neither service in war, nor liberality at home, nor the merit of
ancestors, nor the hope of his own gratitude, can
Unsparing and rather coarse sarcasm is the strength of this attach. Throughout, Nikomachos is treated, not as the recorder of laws, but as the son of the public slave, as the ex-under-scribe. ‘Are we to acquit him for his ancestors?’ asks the accuser. ‘Nay, for his own sake he deserves death; and for theirs—the slave-market’ (§ 27).
6.
It is this second law which is here alleged to have been broken by the guild or by some of its members. The case is tried before an ordinary court under the presidency of the Thesmothetae: the penalty is death.
The date of the speech cannot be fixed. All that
The speaker begins by deprecating the notion that the charge preferred by him is vexatious or spiteful. On the contrary, he says, he was at the beginning of the business suspected of unduly favouring the Guild. An impeachment was first laid before the Senate, who were inclined to deliver the Corndealers then and there to the Eleven. It was he who then counselled moderation and the observance of the usual legal course. Accordingly the case was heard before the Senate (which was itself the preliminary court in cases of impeachment). No one came forward as accuser; and the speaker then made the accusation himself. The case was sent by the Senate for trial by an ordinary court (§§ 1—4).
One of the Corndealers is then questioned, and admits having bought more than fifty bushels at once, but says that he did so by the recommendation of the Corn-Inspectors. The speaker shows, first, that this is no defence; next, that the statement is false (§§ 5—10). The dealers plead that their object in buying large quantities was to be able to sell cheap; but their claim to public spirit can be refuted (§§ 11—16). They have acknowledged their combination against the wholesale importers. Their death is the satisfaction due to these and to the officials who have so often been punished for inability to check such frauds (§§ 17—22).
Compact and clear, without any attempt at ornament, this short speech
is at least good of its kind,—a specimen of the strictly
business-like style of Lysias.
The legal form of the cause is doubtful. Two
One point is in favour of the latter view. The speaker appeals in his
peroration, first, to the judges
On the other hand, a passage in § 14 supports the first view. ‘All
men will know’ [i. e. if Poliochos gains the cause] ‘that on the
former occasion you finedthe same man being on his trial for a
breach of the Constitution.’
The last words—
The date may be inferred from two circumstances. (1) The speaker and
his brothers were children in
The following stemma shows the relationship of the persons with whom
the speech is concerned:—
The speaker begins by dwelling on the public services
They can produce no relatives to weep and pray for them; they are the
last of their house; they can only appeal to the judges to protect
the kinsmen of those who suffered for the democracy. Let the judges
remember the time when, in exile and poverty, they prayed to the
gods for a day when they might be able to show their gratitude to
the children of their champions. This gratitude is claimed now. The
This fragment is interesting as giving a sequel, in the history of
his family, to the personal fortunes
1.
After complaining that his adversaries have wandered
The malice of his enemies had been provoked, he says, by the favour which he had formerly enjoyed with Sôstratos, an influential citizen. They are resolved to ruin him. The matter at issue is nominally a fine, but really his citizenship; for, if the court also takes part against him, he will be driven to fly from a city in which justice is not to be had (§§ 13—22).
Harpokration doubted the authenticity of this
Francken thinks that the language is in some points doubtful Atticin court, as for striking strategi, and this is certainly easier.
But, in that case, the words
Far stronger than these special objections is unknown proper names in § 5;— by the fact
of the ‘influential’ Sôstratos (§ 13) being lost to fame;—by the
absence of clearness in the statement of the case;—or by the
uncertainty of the date. The subject would surely have been a poor
one for a declamation.
2.
After the death of Aristophanes, one Aeschines proposed the
confiscation of his property. The proposal, like that of Poliochos
in the case of the property of Eukrates, was resisted on the ground
of illegality, and a speech was written by Lysias against it
The date is indicated by § 50. It is there
The defence is approached with timidity, as if under
The next division of the speech is devoted to showing that Aristophanes was not originally a rich man, and was at all times lavish. He was not chosen by the speaker's father as a son-in-law on account of his wealth: indeed, his last act before sailing for Cyprus was to come to their house and borrow seven minae; and it could be proved that shortly afterwards he was in want of a very small sum of ready money. Then follows a formal inventory of the property left by the deceased (§§ 12—27).
But why, it may be asked, was this property so small? Aristophanes
had scarcely any fortune until four years before his death; and
within these four years he was twice choregus, besides buying a
house and lands. The defendant had taken precautions for the due
transference to the Government of every article left in the house of
Aristophanes: a watch had even been set to see that the doors were
not torn off, as sometimes happened to confiscated houses. He is
ready to take the most solemn oath before the Syndici that nothing
remains in his hands; nay, that his sisters' dowry and the debt of
seven minae still remain unpaid. Supposing that the property of
Timotheos, son of Konon, were confiscated and only four talents
realized, would his relatives be thought to
deserve ruin? Yet the father of Timotheos was at least ten times as
rich as the father of Aristophanes (§§ 28—41). There are many
instances in which the popular estimate of a man's fortune has been
proved, at his death or on inquiry during his lifetime, to have been
enormously exaggerated. The recent case of Diotimos (§ 50) and the
case of the great Alkibiades (§ 52) are among those in point. (§§
42—54.)
The good character borne by himself and by his father ought to be
remembered. If their property were confiscated now, the State would
not get two talents. At this moment he is a trierarch: his father
spent his fortune on the State and for its honour; he kept good
horses, had athletes in his pay, and won victories at the Isthmos
and at Nemea (§ 63). On all these grounds the defendant claims the
protection of the court against a malignant attach (§§ 55—64).
This very clever speech gives a formidable idea
3.
The speaker is one of several Public Prosecutors (
Many persons, says the speaker, who had promised to
The Athenians ought to defend their own interests, and compel Philokrates to give up their property. It is hard if those who cannot pay taxes incur the public anger, while the embezzlers of State-property escape. Indeed, the accomplices of Ergokles deserve not only a pecuniary penalty, but the same punishment which he suffered—death. While his trial was pending, his friends went about boasting that they had bribed upwards of 2000 men (§ 12). Let it be proved to them that no amount of bribery can save evil-doers. If the citizens are wise, they will reclaim what is their own (§§ 8—14).
Like the speeches Against Ergokles and Against Epikrates, this is the
address of an official prosecutor, and of one who had but a
subordinate part to perform. It has the characteristic excellences
of the other two, compactness and vigour; but it is necessarily
inferior to the speech Against Ergokles, in which the greater
importance of the cause calls forth more oratorical vigour.
1.
The case is heard on the last day but one of Ol. 99. 2, i.e. at about
midsummer of our year 382 B. C.conventionally 382 B. C.
The election of Evandros was, in fact, ratified; for
Thrasybulos the Collytean is charged in § 23 with having estranged
Boeotia from Athens and with having lost Athenian ships. The first
accusation refers to the establishment of oligarchies in the
Boeotian cities, through Spartan influence, after the Peace of
Antalkidas; and is curiously illustrated by the reference of
Aeschines to Thrasybulos of Collytos as a man of great influence at
Thebesin Ktes. § 138.
All the first part of the speech has been lost in those eight pages
of the Palatine MS. which contained the conclusion of the
Twenty-fifth Speech and the whole of that Against Nikides
It is hard—the speaker says—that, not content with impunity for his
offences against the people, Evandros should ask for office.
Evandros relies on the recent sobriety (
Evandros appeals to the Amnesty [of 403 B. C.]; but that Amnesty did
not mean that the honours, as well as the toleration, of the State
should be accorded to its recent enemies (§§ 16—20). Let the Senate
compare the accuser with the advocate of Evandros. The accuser is
pure of all connection with oligarchies; his ancestors fought
against the Peisistratidae; his family have exhausted a large
fortune upon the State. Thrasybulos has alienated the Boeotians from
Athens; has lost her ships, and brought her to despair. If the Court
reflects which of these two men ought rather to prevail, it will
decide rightly upon the claims of Evandros (§§ 21—24).
Unwillingness to mar a great annual festival may have influenced the
Senate when they confirmed the election; but there is no proof that
the grounds upon which it was opposed were good. The accuser must
have felt that his case was well-nigh hopeless. This,
2.
The first disproves the charge against him of having served as a
Knight under the Thirty Tyrants. Before the disaster on the
Hellespont [405 B.C.], his father had sent him and his brother to
the Euxine, to Satyros [king of the Kimmerian Bosporos]; and they
did not return to Athens till five days before the democratic exiles
captured the Peiraeus [404 B.C.] (§ 4). The appearance of his name
upon the list of Knights at that time proves nothing; the list has
many false entries and many omissions. Here is a better proof on the
other side:—when the democracy was restored, the phylarch (captain
of cavalry) of each tribe was directed to recover from each Knight
who had served under the Tyrants the sum paid to him
by
the State for his equipment when he was first enrolled (
Having disproved the charge against him, he goes on to urge his positive merits. His private life has been blameless. After his father's death, he portioned his two sisters and helped his brother. Men who are fond of dice and wine have a marked aversion to him (§ 11). Then his public services have been constant. He volunteered on the expedition for the relief of Haliartos [395 B.C.] (§ 13). In the next year he fought in the disastrous battle of Corinth, and retreated later than ‘the majestic Steirian [Thrasybulos], who has taunted all the world with cowardice’ (§ 15). In the autumn of the same year [394 B. C.] he and his company volunteered for service against Agesilaos in Boeotia. Since then, he has constantly served in the field or in garrison (§ 18).—(§§ 9—19).
Some have taunted him with forwardness because, though so young, he has spoken in the ekklesia. His own affairs, however, compelled him to do so at first. Perhaps, indeed, he has been too ambitious. But he could not help thinking of his forefathers, who had always been in public life and served the State, and he saw that Athenians, to tell the truth, respected none but those who could act and speak for the city. ‘And why should you be annoyed with such men? You yourselves and none else are their judges’ (§§ 20, 21).
Perhaps hardly anything in Greek literature has
3.
The speaker begins by protesting that no private enmity, but only
regard to his oath as senator, induces him to appear against Philon.
What is the definition of a worthy senator? One who both is, and
desires to be, a citizen (§ 5). Now when the troubles came on Athens
[405 B. C.], Philon proved how little he valued his citizenship. He
neither stayed with the oligarchs in the town, nor joined the exiles
at Phylê,
‘He has broken no law,’ he says. No: for an offence so enormous was
never expressly contemplated by any legislator (§§ 27, 28). If the
aliens who helped Athens in her need were honoured, surely the
citizens who abandoned her should be disgraced. The advocates who
claim honour for Philon now would have done better had they advised
him to deserve it then (§§ 29—33). Let each senator ask himself why he was admitted to that dignity, and he will
see why Philon ought to be shut out from it (§ 34).
The tone of this address is in contrast with that
4.
It would not be strange, he says, if the speeches made a) a clearer meaning to
b) a clearer contrast between
The explanation is simply that their interests varied at different
times. Now, the interest of the speaker lay wholly with the
democracy. He had been five times trierarch and had been in four
sea-fights (§ 12). The establishment of the Thirty destroyed his
chance of reward for these services. Neither under the First
Oligarchy nor under the Second did he hold office (§§ 7—14). If he
did no wrong in the Anarchy, much more will he be a good citizen
under the restored Democracy. The victims of the Tyrants must not be
confounded with their agents. It was the error of the Thirty that
they visited the sins of a few corrupt demagogues on
The speaker had evidently been closely connected with the party of
the Tyrants; for though he states his services to the democracy
before 405 B. C., of his political character since that time he has
nothing better to say than that it has been harmless; indeed, he
implies a contrast between himself and those who had been true to
the democracy at its need (§ 4). It is hard to understand the high
praise which
5.
Having premised that jealousy is the only conceivable
Harpokration seemsseems, for his words are (s. v.
1.
2.
These speeches do not refer to two distinct accusations, but are merely
two different ways of stating the same accusation. Alkibiades, son of
the famous Alkibiades, had taken part in the expedition sent from Athens
to the relief of Haliartos when Boeotia was invaded by Lysander in 395
B. C. But, instead of serving with the heavy-armed infantry, he had
chosen to serve with the cavalry, although he had not passed the
scrutiny (dokimasia) required before enrolment among the Knights. His
accusers might have indicted him under a special law which attached the
penalty of disfranchisement to such a fraud (Or. XIV. § 8). They
preferred, however, to bring against him a more invidious
charge—desertion of military duty.
The principal military offences were dealt with at Athens by one law.
Under this law a citizen was liable to indictment and if convicted to
disfranchisement for 1. Failure to join the army—in Ctes. § 175 de Myst. § 73 refused to give evidence; not merely against
one who, having undertaken to do so, failed to appear.
The date and occasion of the speeches are not de Bigis (Or. XVI) § 45 it appears that
the younger Alkibiades was born in, or just before, 415 B. C.
The Court was composed of soldiers (
The accuser explains his appearance in that capacity. An explanation is,
indeed, hardly necessary, considering the character of Alkibiades; but
in his own case a feud inherited from his father supplies a special
motive. (§§ 1—3.) He then addresses himself to a technical point. The
law against Desertion is so worded (it has been argued) that it does not
apply where there has been no battle. He answers that one of the two
offences which that law contemplates—namely Failure to Serve—is
manifestly proved against Alkibiades, who did not take his place among
the hoplites. Of the other offence—Desertion of his Post through
cowardice—he is virtually guilty, since his reason for preferring to
serve with the cavalry was that there he would run less risk. Others,
who were really knights, waived their privilege in this instance
Then follows a bitter attack upon the defendant and his father.
Alkibiades the younger is described as vicious from his youth, and as a
traitor to his own fatherostracised. (§§ 23—40.) An attack on the family in
their private relations, as stained with every impurity and impiety,
leads to the conclusion. Much, the accuser says, has been omitted: the
judges must imagine it. He then causes to be read the laws on which he
relies; the judicial oath; and the indictment. (§§ 41—47.)
The Generals, the presidents of the Court, say that they
The first especially, of these two speeches should be compared with the
Defence written shortly before by Isokrates—probably in 397 or 396
B.C.—for the same man. Both bear striking witness to the hatred felt for
the memory of the elder Alkibiades in the early years of the restored
democracy. Here, denunciations of the father fill about one-half of the
speech against the son; there, the son devotes more than three-fourths
of his address to a defence of his father. The speech Against Alkibiades
ascribed to Andokides, but probably the work of a late sophist,
indirectly illustrates the same feeling; being, in fact, an epitome of
the scandalous stories about Alkibiades current at the same period.
Harpokration refers to Oration XIV. with a doubt of its authenticityboth speeches; though
allowing, with Francken, that they certainly are not mere sophistic
exercises. Taylor thought the second spurious
(Reiske hi non sunt
numeri Lysiani: ille potius scripsisset
(ap. Reiske
1.
A question has to be considered in regard to the
On the former supposition it is hard to say before what court the
trial took place. Clearly it was not the Areiopagos. If it was the
Delphinion, then Eratosthenes must have pleaded some justification
of the homicide; but he admits its guilt, and lays the blame on his
colleagues (§ 24). If it was an ib) thinks that the trial was ‘fortasse apud
heliastas ad Delphinium;’ Rauchenstein apparently (
The other supposition offers less difficulty. A special clause in the
Amnesty of 403 B. C. excluded the Thirty Tyrants, the Ten who had
succeeded them, and the Eleven who had served them. But any one even
of these might enjoy the Amnesty if he chose to stand a public
inquiry, and was acquittedonly
(not one of the Ten. This is clear from §§
54, 55.
The date must be 403 B. C., the year of Eukleides. After their flight
from Athens the Thirty maintained themselves for a short time at
Eleusis. Soon after the restoration of the democracy, an expedition
was made against Eleusis; the generals of the Thirty, who came out
to ask for a parley, were seized and put to death; and the Tyrants,
with their chief adherents, fled from Attica (Xen.
Again, in §§ 92 f. Lysias addresses successively two distinct parties—the ‘men of the city’ who remained in Athens under the Thirty, and the ‘men of the Peiraeus.’ The line of demarcation could have been drawn so sharply only while the war of parties was quite recent; not two or three years later, when exiles and oligarchs had long been fused once more into one civic body. It was, no doubt, remembered for years who had been on one side and who on the other. But in a speech made (say) in 400 B. C., we should not find the ‘men of the city’ and the ‘men of Peiraeus’ addressed separately as if they still formed two distinct camps.
The speech falls into two divisions. The first and shorter (§§ 1—36) deals with the special charge against Eratosthenes; the second, with his political character and with the crimes of the Tyrants generally.
The difficulty here is not how to begin, but where to stop.
Ordinarily the accuser is expected to show that he has some
motive for hostility to the accused. Here it would be more
Lysias then enters on his narrative of the facts. His father had been invited by Perikles to settle at Athens as a resident-alien, and had lived there peaceably for thirty years. His family had never been involved in any troubles until the time of the Thirty Tyrants. Theognis and Peison, members of that body, suggested the policy of plundering the residentaliens. These two men first paid a visit to the shield-manufactory of Lysias and his brother, and took an inventory of the slaves. They next came to the dwelling-house of Lysias, and got all his ready money, about three talents. He managed to slip away from them, and took refuge with a friend in the Peiraeus; then, hearing that his brother Polemarchos had been met in the street by Eratosthenes and taken to prison, he escaped by night to Megara. Polemarchos received the usual mandate of the Thirty—to drink the hemlock; and had a beggar's burial. Though he and Lysias had yielded such rich plunder, the very earrings were taken from the ears of his wife (§ 19). Now the murderer of Polemarchos was Eratosthenes (§§ 4—23). Here he is briefly cross-examined:—
‘Did you arrest Polemarchos or not?’ ‘Terrified by the orders of the authorities—I proceeded to do so.’ ‘And were you in the council chamber when we were being talked about?’ ‘I was.’ ‘Did you support, or oppose, those who advised our execution?’ ‘Opposed them.’ ‘Opposed our being put to death?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Considering such treatment of us to be unjust—or just?’ ‘Unjust.’
Lysias comments indignantly on these answers. If Eratosthenes had
really protested against the sentence, he would not have been
selected to make the arrest. He was one of the Thirty themselves
and had nothing to fear. All the circumstances disprove his
pretence of good-will; instead of contenting himself with a
visit to the house of Polemarchos, he seized him in the street;
he gave him no friendly hint beforehand. If it is true that he
opposed the sentence, he must at least prove that he did not
make the arrest, or did not make it in a harsh manner. The
judges are then
To say more is superfluous: the guilt of Eratosthenes has already been shown to be capital. But lest he should appeal to his past life, this must be exposed. In the first oligarchy [411 B. C.] he had to fly from the Hellespont after an unsuccessful attempt to corrupt the democratic crews of Athenian vessels there. After the defeat of Athens [405 B. C.] he and Kritias were first among the Five Ephori and afterwards among the Thirty Tyrants. Perhaps he will say that he obeyed the Thirty through fear. No, in the cause of Theramenes he dared to oppose them. But this opposition was not patriotic; all the quarrels among the Thirty were selfish. The so-called moderate party to which Theramenes belonged was represented by the later Board of Ten. And the Ten, instead of promoting peace, waged war with the exiles more bitterly than the Thirty (§§ 37—61).
Theramenes is the man whom Eratosthenes takes credit for having defended. It can be fancied how eagerly he would have claimed friendship with Themistokles, who built the walls of Athens, if he is proud of friendship with Theramenes —who pulled them down. Theramenes, when a member of the first oligarchy, betrayed his own closest friends, Antiphon and Archeptolemos; after Aegospotami, he undertook to make peace without loss of honour, and yet it was he who proposed at Sparta that Athens should lose her walls and her fleet; it was he who advocated the proposal of Drakontides for the establishment of the Thirty; and it is this man— twice the enslaver of Athens—whom Eratosthenes glories in having defended! (§§ 62—78.)
This is no season for mercy. The man who condemned, untried, the
fathers, sons, brothers of those who now judge him, does not
deserve even a trial. His advocates can urge
Lysias now addresses himself, first, to those who remained in
Athens during the Anarchy, then to the exiles who returned from
the Peiraeus—speaking as if he had before him two definite
bodies of men. He reminds each party of their peculiar reasons
for hating the Thirty. The ‘men of the city’ should hate that
despotism; for it shared with them nothing but its shame, and
forced upon them an unholy strife. The ‘men of Peiraeus’ should
hate it: it proscribed them, persecuted them, severed them from
country and kinsfolk. Had it triumphed, no sanctuary would have
protected them, nothing could have saved their children from
outrage at home or slavery abroad. But it is needless to speak
of what might have been: what has been is too great for words.
It can only be felt—felt, with boundless
resentment for the shrines which these men desecrated, for the
city which they humbled, —for the dead, who are listening now to
mark if the judges will avenge them.
‘I will cease to accuse. You have heard, seen, suffered:— you have them:—judge.’ (§§ 92—100.)
The result is unknown. But as the accused had
The Speech Against Eratosthenes must take the ‘quam suppositam esse a Graeculo
ludimagistro idoneis argumenti sevincam.
Literature has lost a curiosity by the non-fulfilment of this
promise.
2.
It was in the spring of 404 that Theramenes came back from Sparta
with the hard conditions of peace. before the acceptance of the
peace and the surrender of the city, appears distinctly from § 17, after it. He remarks: (1) That it
is difficult to suppose an interval sufficient for these accusations
between the return of Theramenes and the ratification of the peace,
for which the people were most impatient. (2) That the bailers of
Agoratos could not have proposed to convey him away by sea from
Munychia, when the harbour was blocked up. (3) That the expression
‘till quieter times’ (ib.) would have been
inappropriate at a moment just before the surrender.Now, (1) all
that Lysias relates about the informations need not have occupied
more than one day; there is room for them, then, between the return
of Theramenes and the ratification of the peace (on the day after
his return, Xen.
immediately on the act of Agoratos, § 34. (2). We do
not know how strict the blockade established in November 405 may
have been in March 404: the ‘two boats’ may have lain ready at some
point in Munychia outside the harbour. (3) The third objection I do
not understand. Surely the time just before the surrender—when Athens was full
of misery and faction—might be called a troubled time.No doubt
Lysias had a motive for placing the informations of Agoratos before
the capitulation, and thus representing him as responsible for it.
On the other hand, it may be observed that the oligarchs would not
have had the same motive for suborning Agoratos when the peace,
which gave them the ascendancy, had been ratified.An ingenious
attempt has been made (by Christian Renner, accepted, and that the popular leaders,
when denounced by Agoratos, were only agitating for a revision of it. But the words in § 17 bar
this view. Renner can get over them only by supposing them corrupt.
He proposes with Frohberg to strike out the words
The government of the Thirty having been established, the prisoners
were tried; but not by the Two Thousand; only by a new oligarchical
Senate. They were all condemned to death, except Agoratos, who was
banished. In 404 he joined the democratic exiles at Phylê, and
afterwards returned to Athens
The procedure was not by an indictment before the Areiopagos or the
Delphinion, but by an information (endeixis) laid before the archon,
followed by a summary arrest (apagogê)—precisely as in the case of
the Mitylenean charged with the murder of Herodes, for whom Antiphon
wrote a defence; the case was therefore heard by an ordinary court
under the presidency of the Eleven. There had, however, been a
slight informality. Strictly speaking, endeixis and apagogê were
applicable only in cases where the accused had been taken in the
act; though, as appears from this and from the Herodes case, the
limitation was not always observed. Here the accuser had left out
the words
The trial took place ‘long after’ the events to which it referred (§
83); and the condemnation of Menestratos, who himself suffered on
the same account ‘long after’ his offence (§ 56), is mentioned as if
it was not very recent. At least five or six years, then, must have
elapsed since 404 B. C. The speech cannot be placed earlier than
400; probably it may be placed as late as 398
The speaker begins by explaining that both on private and on public
grounds he is entitled to be the accuser of
The narrative of the facts (§§ 5—48) falls into four parts. (i) From the defeat at Aegospotami in 405 to the moment when Agoratos made his accusations, in the spring of 404: §§ 5—34. (ii) The trial and condemnation of the accused: §§ 35—38. (iii) Their last injunctions to their relatives: §§ 39—42. (iv) The sequel of their deaths—the reign of terror, which they had foreseen and endeavoured to avert: §§ 43—48.
The pleas which Agoratos may set up in his defence are next considered. He may deny the fact of having informed; but the decrees of the Senate and of the ekklesia will confute him. He may pretend that he informed in the interest of the State: but the events disprove that. He may say that he was forced to inform; but the circumstances of his arrest show that he did so willingly. He may throw the blame on Menestratos, who also informed. Nay, Menestratos was afterwards a victim of Agoratos, whose turn it is now to suffer himself. Compare the conduct of Agoratos with that of Aristophanes, who died rather than turn accuser (§§ 49—61).
The eminent men whom Agoratos destroyed may be contrasted with himself and with his family. His three brothers have all suffered death for base crimes; he himself obtained the citizenship by pretending to have assassinated Phrynichos. It is a dilemma; let him suffer for the murder or for the fraud (§§ 62—76).
He will perhaps claim sympathy as having joined the exiles at Phylê and returned with them. The fact was that, when he appeared at Phylê, they would have put him to death, had not the general Anytos interfered; and when, at the entry into Athens, he presumed to bear arms in the procession, Aesimos, its leader, came and snatched away his shield (§§ 77—82).
Or he will raise technical objections. He will say that the time
which has elapsed ought to exempt him from penalties; but there is
no statute of limitations (
The judges, the whole people, are bound by the solemn injunctions of the dead. To acquit Agoratos would be to confirm the sentence by which they perished. A democratic court must not be in unison with the courts of the Tyrants. By condemning Agoratos, the judges will mark the difference between them; will avenge their friends; and will have done right in the sight of all men (§§ 91—97).
In historical interest the speech Against Agoratos stands next,
perhaps, to the speech Against Eratosthenes; but it is conceived in
a totally different
3.
Οἴηθεν,
The cause would be tried, probably by heliastic judgesadv.
Callim. § 54, Dem. in Neaer. § 90.
Probably at the Delphinion also they had taken the place of the
Ephetac.
The accused asks the judges to imagine themselves in his place: all
Greece, he says, would recognise the justice of his act. He had no
motive for it but the dishonour done to his wife, his children and
himself (§§ 1—4). Then comes the narrative (§§ 5—28), followed by the citation of
witnesses and laws (§§
29—36). He meets the suggestions of the defendants; as (i)
that Eratosthenes was decoyed into the house, §§
37—42; (ii) that the homicide was prompted by a former enmity,
or by cupidity, §§ 43—46. In any of these
cases, he would not have slain him before witnesses. The decision of
the judges will have a good effect if it accords with the laws; if
it does not, then these laws should be annulled, since citizens are
only entrapped (
The first part
4.
After observing that Simon ought to be defendant rather than prosecutor, and requesting the indulgence of the court for the weakness which had involved him in so unpleasant a dispute (§§ 1—4), the accused gives his own account of the quarrel between himself and the prosecutor (§§ 5—20). He then refutes the account given by Simon (§§ 21—39). The formula, ‘wounding with intent,’ does not, he says, apply to this case (§§ 41—43). He wishes that he was at liberty to give illustrations of Simon's character [the Areiopagos not allowing the introduction of irrelevant matter]. As it is, he will mention only one fact—that Simon was dismissed from the Athenian army at Corinth (§§ 44, 45). Simon, he concludes, is one of those informers ‘who force their way into our houses, who persecute us, who snatch us by force out of the street.’ He appeals to the services of his ancestors, and to his own; and says that compassion is due to him, not only in the event of being condemned, but for the very fact of having been brought to trial (§§ 46—48).
5.
The speech, as now extant, begins at the point where the
Assuming, however, that this personal enmity did exist, yet the very
circumstances of the assault exclude the idea of premeditation. The
accuser had made the utmost of a black eye (
This fragment has at least some antiquarian interest. It is curious
to find from § 2 that the fact of having offered a man the antidosis
could be quoted in court as presumptive evidence of ill-will towards
him. The difficult passage in § 3 regarding the appointment of
judges at the Dionysia has already been noticed. Section 4
illustrates a point in the peculiar procedure of the Areiopagos—that
no witness could be examined who did not swear either to or against
the guilt of the accused in regard to the particular facts before
the court.
Taylor's suspicion that in this piece a sophistic writer has imitated
the Defence against Simon seems gratuitous
1.
The fragment begins in the middle of a story told to show how surely the goddesses of Eleusis resent an insult. A certain man cheated them of an offering; and there came upon him this doom, that he starved amid plenty; for though good food was set before him, the goddesses made it seem loathsome to him. Let the judges beware, then, of showing mercy to Andokides, whose punishment is claimed by these same deities (§§ 1—3). If he should be acquitted, and, as Archon Basileus, should some day conduct the festival of the Mysteries, what a scandal for comers from all parts of Greece! For he is known to them, not only by his deeds at Athens, but by his conduct during his exile in Sicily, in Italy, in the Peloponnesus, at the Hellespont, in Ionia, at Cyprus (§§ 4—8).
He will say that the decree banishing him from the agora and the
temples has been cancelled. Let the advice of Perikles be
remembered, that impious men should be liable not only to written
laws, but to the unwritten laws of the Eumolpidae. Andokides has
aggravated his offence against the gods by presuming to make himself
their champion. Before he had been ten days at Athens, he accused
Archippos of having defaced a Hermes, and withdrew the charge only
on receiving money (§§ 9—12). He will say that it is hard if the
informer is to suffer when the denounced have been pardoned. The
court is not responsible for that pardon; besides, these men denied
their guilt; he confesses it. A man is banished for injuring his
fellow; shall he not be banished for injuring the gods? Diagoras of
Melos mocked the religion of a strange land; Andokides outraged the
religion of his own. It is a further proof of atheism that, not
dreading his own crimes, he committed himself to the dangers of the
sea. [A notable petitio principii.] But the gods were reserving him
for a late reckoning. Let the judges consider what his life has been
since his first great crime. Imprisoned, and escaping only by
betraying kinsmen and friends;
But he is not content to have escaped punishment; he dares to meddle in public affairs, even in the concerns of religion (§§ 33, 34). And now he will be ready with various pleas. That his informations relieved Athens from distress: —but who had first caused it? That the Amnesty shields him: but it was only political. That Kephisios is as bad as he is: perhaps so, but that is irrelevant. That no one will inform in future, if he suffers: nay, he has had his reward— he saved his life. He is now in danger because he has forced himself upon Athens—more shameless than Batrachos, the informer of the Thirty, who at least hid his infamy abroad (§§ 35—45).
Why should Andokides be acquitted? Not for his services in war, for
he has never made a campaign. Not for services rendered by his
boasted wealth; for at the citizens' sorest need he did not so much
as buy them corn (§§ 46—49). [Here, after the
The profanation of the Mysteries is an old story now, and men's horror of it is faded: but let them for a moment imagine Andokides mocking the awful rites of the Initiated, and then remember the priests standing with their faces to the west, and waving the crimson banners as they cursed him! The city must be purged and the gods appeased by his expulsion. Once, when it was proposed that a Megarian guilty of impiety should be put to death without trial, Diokles said that he ought to be tried indeed, but that every judge must come into court resolved to condemn. And now, let not the judges be moved by entreaty. Compassion is not for murderers but for their victims (§§ 50—55).
The doubt with which Harpokration twice
The diction shows many words and phrases which Lysias could hardly
have used
composition, indecd, is not very different from that of
Lysias. It is free from the diffuse periods of the later
rhetoric—such as those, for instance, of the speech Against
Alkibiades attributed to Andokides—undoubtedly a late sophistic
work.
sycophantic tone; it is rancorous, palpably unfair and prodigal
of unproved assertion. Lastly it is singularly deficient in the
foremost general quality of Lysias—in tact; it is preeminently a
blundering speech. The accuser makes at least four mistakes. First,
he recites at length the sufferings which Andokides has been
enduring without respite for the last sixteen years; intending
thereby to prove the displeasure of the gods, but forgetting that he
was more likely
It is a further question whether this Accusation
2.
In the view of sacrilege taken by Attic law, its ἐάν τις φανερὸς γένηται κλέπτων ἢ
λωποδυτῶν ἢ βαλαντιοτομῶν ἢ τοιχωρυχῶν ἢ ἀνδραποδιζόμενος ἢ
ἱεροσυλῶν, τούτοις θάνατός ἐστιν ἡ ζημία
ἐφ’ οἷς γέ μην ἔργοις κεῖται
θάνατος ἡ ζημία, ἱεροσυλίᾳ, τοιχωρυχίᾳ, ἀνδραποδίσει,
πόλεως
προδοσίᾳ
The speaker says that, were it not a case of life or death, he would
have forborne to come forward, considering the defence to be already
complete; as it is, he desires to give a public proof of friendship
for Kallias (§§ 1, 2). He then refers very briefly, first, to the
high character of the accused; secondly, to the worthless nature of
the informations. It is the hope of winning freedom which has
prompted the calumny of the slaves. If they are believed, servants
who desire liberty will henceforth think, not how they are to oblige
their masters, but what lie they can tell against them (§§ 3—5).
The phrase used by the speaker in reference to Kallias—‘those who
bring themselves into danger by lending their services to the
Treasury’ (
3.
Throughout Attica, besides the olives which were private property (moriae (Ζεὺς Μόριος
moria was an offence punishable by banishment
and confiscation of goods (§ 41)
The technical terms used in this speech need definition: see
especially §§ 20, 24. mere
equivalent for the ‘stump’ or ‘stock;’ on the other hand, an
Athenian could say as opposed to
The case is tried by the Areiopagos under the presidency of the
Archon Basileus. The offence was alleged to have been committed in
the archonship
A quiet life, the defendant had thought, was its own
After commenting on the unlikelihood of his having done a deed which could hardly have escaped detection (§§ 12— 18), he observes that the accuser has failed to bring any witnesses (§§ 19—23). The defendant has several other farms, on which olive-trees abound; but, notwithstanding the strict watch kept by the Areiopagos, he has never been accused of any such offence as this. And here the risk would have been peculiarly great. It is strange if Nikomachos has discovered what escaped the regular Inspectors (§§ 24—29).
He then speaks of his own public services; of the accuser's refusal to give up his slaves for torture, and of the absence of witnesses for the prosecution. He describes the malice of his enemies who had bribed Nikomachos to bring this charge; and refers to the cruel sentence which hangs over him (§§ 30—41). He then concludes with a short review of the whole case. It depends upon an unproved assertion, which the accuser has refused to bring to the test (§§ 42, 43).
One attraction, which elsewhere seldom fails Lysias, is wanting in
this speech;—there is no narrative, for there is no story to tell,
except the former history of the farm. In this, one rather curious
point may be noticed. The farm had belonged, it seems, to
Peisandros; had been confiscated; and had then been given as a
public gift to Apollodôros of Megara. Now Apollodôros, as is known
from the speech Against Agoratos (§ 71), was he could not understand a word of it
Of the speeches of Lysias in private causes only four are extant; but each of these four represents a class.
The Athenian law against Defamation (in Eubul. §
30 it appears that to reproach a citizen with trading in the marketplace
(
From § 4 the date is certain. The speaker had been thirteen years old in
the time of the Tyrants (404—3 B. C.), and was now thirty-three: the
speech belongs therefore to 384—3.
Witnesses can scarcely be needed, since many of the judges themselves
heard the libel when it was uttered in court. The prosecutor holds it
mean and pettifogging (parricide has driven him to it (§§
1—3). He then proves by witnesses that he was only thirteen years old at
the time of his father's death; and that he was directly a sufferer by
it, since he became the ward of his father's elder brother, Pantaleon
Theomnêstos owns that he used the taunt; and the taunt has been proved
false. But Theomnêstos argues that it is not, in the view of the law, a
libel. He said only ‘slew:’ not ‘murdered.’ Is it
lawful, then, the speaker asks, to reproach a man with ‘flinging’ away
his shield? The law speaks only of ‘throwing.’ He gives further
instances; and then observes that, in the procedure of the Areiopagos,
‘slaying’
If Theomnêstos got satisfaction for having been charged with cowardice,
much more should the plaintiff get satisfaction for having been charged
with parricide. Theomnêstos has had one favour done him
already:—Dionysios, a brave man, has been his victim. For the plaintiff,
what could be so shameful a reproach as to be accused of murdering his
father —a man who, after serving the democracy all his life, died for it
at the hands of the oligarchs? His bravery has to this day its memorials
in the temples of Athens; even as the cowardice of Theomnêstos and of his father have their memorials—in the temples of
the enemy (§§ 21—29). The plea that the libel was uttered in anger is no
defence at law (§ 30). Let the court bear in mind that he, who is now
accused of murdering his own father, had in his youth impeached the
Tyrants before the Areiopagos. Remembering this, the laws and their
oaths, let the judges stand by his father and him (§§ 31, 32).
If not one of the most artistic or the most powerful, not S.
VV.
The reference in § 31 is of some interest. The speaker says that,
immediately on reaching the age of eighteen—that is, in 399 or 398 B.
C.—he had prosecuted ‘the Thirty’ before the Areiopagos. Now when the
Thirty Tyrants left Athens in 403 B. C., Pheidon and Eratosthenes alone
of their number are known to have stayed at Athens. If the allusion here
is to them, then we see that Eratosthenes escaped at least the penalty
of death when impeached by Lysias in 403.
The so-called Second Speech Against Theomnêstos [Or. XI.] is merely an
epitome of the First, made by some grammarian later than Harpokration
Epitome §§ 1— 2 = Speech §§ 1— 5
Epitome §§ 3— 6 = Speech §§ 6—20
Epitome §§ 7—10 = Speech §§ 21—29
Epitome §§ 11—12 = Speech §§ 30—32.
Diodotos, an Athenian citizen, went to the coast
This action was brought—probably in 400 B. C.— by the eldest son. It is contended that Diodotos had left altogether 15 talents and 26 minae. Diogeiton had at first represented the sum left as only 20 minae 30 staters, i.e. 26 minae altogether. But he had since confessed to 7 talents and 40 minae additional, i.e. 8 talents 6 minae in all. His accounts, however, made him out to have spent 8 talents 10 minae on his wards in eight years; so that, instead of having a balance to hand over to them, he was 4 minae out of pocket.
The speech is directed to showing, first, that the property left by Diodotos was about double of that to which Diogeiton owned; secondly, that his alleged outlay was incredible.
The speaker is husband of the daughter of Diodotos and brother-in-law of
the plaintiff. An action of this kind was
The speaker begins by explaining the necessity which
The narrative of facts falls into two parts:—(i) The circumstances under which Diogeiton was appointed guardian, and his assumption of the office on the death of Diodotos: §§ 4—8. (ii) The disclosure made by him to his eldest ward on the latter coming of age, and the interview which followed between the young man's mother and her father Diogeiton: §§ 9—18.
These facts having been proved by witnesses, the speaker turns to the case set up by the defence. The defendant (i) has denied receiving part of the property; and (ii) professes to account for the rest:—§ 20. This account is scrutinised in detail, and shown to be absurd. On the most liberal reckoning, a balance of six talents should have been forthcoming (§§ 19—29).
Here the extract given by Dionysios ends. The statement of the defendant as to the amount which he had originally received must have been the next topic; followed, probably, by the peroration.
This speech—or fragment—is admirable for two
The speaker's grandfather had lent two talents to Eraton, who died
without having repaid them. Eraton's three sons, Erasiphon, Eraton, and
Erasistratos, failed to pay the interest. The speaker's father therefore
brought an action against Erasistratos, the only one of the three
brothers who was at Athens; and obtained an order for the payment of the
entire debt, principal and interest.
His father having died about this time, the speaker, in right of the verdict, took possession of certain lands of Erasistratos at Sphettos, and claimed at law certain other lands at Kikynna, which the representatives of Erasiphon, the eldest brother, refused to give up to him.
Meanwhile—for what reason is not stated—all the property which had
belonged to the elder Eraton
He now brings an action against the Treasury for the partial satisfaction of his claim upon the property of Eraton. The whole of this property was (he says) insufficient to satisfy his claim. Yet he is ready to give up two-thirds of it to the State; and rates the remaining third, which he demands for himself, at 15 minae (§ 7);—i.e. one-eighth of the sum originally lent by his father to Eraton.
The case is heard by an ordinary court, of which the fiscal board of
syndici (§ 10) were presidents. Since the action against Erasistratos
fell in the archonship of Xenaenetos (§ 3), i.e. in 400 B. C., and
The plaintiff begins by expressing a fear that the judges
In this short speech there is no argument; the proofs are all
‘inartificial,’ ‘probabile mihi
videtur, esse hanc orationem commentarium, aut potius
and at p.
238 he describes it as ‘epitome.’
With a promise that he will be brief, the speaker comes
As in the last speech, so here all is narrative; excerpta ex
Lysiaca.’ At p. 164 he says only ‘equidem spondere ausim, hanc
Lysiacam esse; sed aut non satis ab auctore aut satis superque ab aliis
refictam.’ Dobree notices, and appears to endorse, a doubt of its
genuineness; but without assigning grounds (
A friend addresses friends who have wronged him—states his
grievances—and formally renounces their acquaintance.
The opportunity is favourable for approaching this painful but unavoidable subject. He has before him both those whom he wishes to accuse and those whom he wishes to witness the accusation (§§ 1—2). His so-called friends have spoken of him as having thrust his society upon them (§§ 3—8). They have also persuaded him to buy an unsound horse, and have since taken part with the seller (§§ 9—13). Lastly, they have charged him with inciting others to slander them (§§ 14—17). For all these reasons he renounces their friendship. He will be safe now—for they attack only their friends (§§ 18—20).
It is scarcely worth while to inquire how this curiously absurd
composition first came among the works of Lysias. As it is too
uniformly dreary to be mistaken for a joke, not even a grammarian's
conception of his sportive style can explain the imputation. The
person who could thus take leave of his friends is certainly hard to
imagine; but it is hiatus, and that such as do occur can
easily be removed — e.g. in § 7 by reading de hiatu, pp. 182 f.).
In § 17, again, one may recognise very distinctly the ring of the
scholastic rhetoric—
2.
This is probably the light in which the question would appear at first to most readers of Plato. But a nearer examination of the
The first point is the elaborate dramatic preparation made for such a
recital of the speech as shall be verbally
exact. Phaedros is asked to repeat it from memory—makes
excuses—is pressed; and presently it turns out that he has the book
with him. Now if the speech was merely Plato's imitation of Lysias,
surely this preface would be somewhat heavy —inartistic, indeed, as
forcing attention too strongly upon the illusion. It is perfectly
fitting, on the other hand, as the dramatist's apology for bringing
into his own work of art so large a piece of another's work
The second point to be observed is the closeness
Again, further on:—
Then comes the comparison of the speech to the epitaph on Midas, and Phaedros can bear it no longer:—
You are making fun of that oration of ours.
It is surely clear that the speech of Lysias is both so introduced
and so handled by Plato as to stand on a wholly different ground
from such dramatic fictions as those in the Protagoras, where the
sophists are persons of the drama, imitated in their general method
and style of discourse; or from the fiction of Aspasia's authorship
in the Menexenos—a fiction, indeed, which Plato has taken so little
trouble to keep up that he makes her allude to the Peace of
Antalkidas
Lysias is the earliest known writer of Erotic discourses
Three hundred and thirty-five fragments of every kind, from speeches, letters or unknown works, are arranged and examined by Sauppe,
1.
The next four fragments have all been preserved by Dionysios; who quotes the first of them in comparing Lysias with Demosthenes—the other three, in contrasting Lysias with Isaeos.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Letters are mentioned among the writings of Lysias by Dionysios, by
the pseudo-Plutarch and
ISOKRATES was born five years before the beginning of the Peloponnesian
War and died just after the battle of Chaeroneia. It might have been
expected that such a life, touching both limits of such a century, would
have been in its written records the vivid image of that century itself,
with all its vicissitudes of struggle, with all its variety of
impressive contrasts. One whose youth had known the intense and
desperate energy of that war in which Imperial Athens was fighting for
existence, whose early manhood had witnessed the terrible and moving
drama of her overthrow, whose middle age had been passed under the
dominion of Sparta now changed from the deliverer into the despot, whose
later days had seen the restoration of Athens to the headship of a great
Confederacy, the rise of Epameinondas—a second, though a Theban,
Perikles for Greece—and his death before his national patriotism could
give a new coherence to the nation, then
Isokrates was born in 436 B.C. (Ol. 86. 1.)— five years before the birth
of Xenophon
The dramatic date of the
This memorable prophecy offers to Isokrates the choice of two careers;
and the fact that, in Plato's sense, he did
not eventually rise to the higher career only increases the
interest of such a testimony. The ‘philosophy’ of Isokrates—the way in
which he was affected by Sokrates, and his relation to the
Sokratics—must be considered separately. At present we are concerned
with the outer facts of his life. It appears, then, from the
Nearly all the popular sophists of that day are named as teachers of
Isokratesin Timocr. § 135).de Isocr. vita et scriptis p. 14, puts the
visit in
Want of nerve and weakness of voice—defects which at Athens, as he says,
entailed more than the ignominy of disfranchisement
It can hardly be doubted that it was at this time—in the autumn of
404—that Isokrates left Athens for Chios: In that island he opened a
school of Rhetoric, and had some success. He seems to have returned to
Athens either just before or just after the Athenian democracy was
formally restored in September, 403first wrote forensic speeches, and afterwards taught rhetoric. But his earliest
known forensic speech, Or. XXI, refers to 403 B.C.; the latest (Or.
XVII, XIX) belong to 394 or 393. If, then, Aristotle is right, his teaching at Chios cannot have begun before
393.(2) Sanneg (
Now begins the first period of his regular professional life—that period during which he wrote speeches for the law-courts. The six forensic speeches which are extant cover a period of about ten years. The speech Against Euthynus (XXI) may be placed in 403, immediately after the restoration of the democracy; that Against Kallimachos (XVIII) in 402; the
In his later writings Isokrates nowhere recognises this phase of his own
activity. He speaks de Isocr. rhetore (he justly lays stress on
Arist.'s notice); Starke note; Rauchenstein 3 Antid. § 2,
choice, his real calling, lay in another direction.
It was about the year 392 that this choice was finally made. He opened a
school at Athens near the Lykeionde
Schol. Isocr. p. 14; Anon. Biogr. the Lykeion (
The discourse Against the Sophists is the manifesto which he put forth
(about 391) at the beginning of his professional life, as the speech on
the
Here, then, we have hinted the leading ideas of the new culture which Isokrates was preparing to interpret: (1) it is to be practical—avoiding barren subtleties: (2) it is to be rational—resting on the development of the whole intelligence, not on technicalities; (3) it is to be comprehensive—not limited to any single professional routine.
To judge from the ages of the men who were his pupils, Isokrates must
have been successful from the first. The outer history of his school
falls into
From 392 to 378 his pupils were almost exclusively Athenian. His own literary activity is marked by the
In 378 the new Confederation revived for de Isocr. vit. et scr. p. 16. From [Dem.] de sch. Isocr. p. 10.
Between the years 376 and 351 the school of Isokrates reached the height
of its prosperity and
In the year 351 Mausôlos, dynast of Karia, died; and his widow Artemisia
proposed in honour of his memory a contest of panegyrical eloquence
which brought a throng of brilliant rhetoricians to Halikarnassos. No
competitor (it is said) presented himself who had not been a pupil of
Isokrates; and it was certainly a pupil of Isokrates—Theopompos the
historian—who gained the prize. A tradition that this day of glory for
the school was a day of personal defeat for its master may safely be
rejected. One who had always been deterred by want of nerve and of voice
from speaking in the Athenian ekklesia was not likely, at the age of
eighty-five, to ignone these defects, for the purpose of competing in a
foreign city with his own pupils. The Isokrates named as a competitor by
Suidas was unquestionably Isokrates of Apolloniacod. 176 quotes
Theopompos as speaking slightingly of his master Isokrates; and
Porphyry's statement (ap. Euseb. because he had beaten him was probably founded
on this. Sanneg thinks that the Athenian
wrote an oration which the Apolloniate
spoke; an ingenious but surely an improbable compromise.
The speech
The importance of his school for Athens and for
partim in pompa, partim in acie illustres.
But it was not only or most directly through the statesmen, speakers and
writers whom he
The fourth century B.C. is filled with the feverish struggle of the Greek
States for two objects, one of which was no sooner partly gained than it
seemed
Under this struggle, as the cause of its feverishness and its futility,
lay the mortal disease which theory of this identity was kept up.
At Athens this cosmopolitanism at least assumed its noblest form. It was
there that the distinction between Greek and barbarian had taken its
finest edge; and it was there that the first movement was made towards
effacing it. The old Greek communal feeling, now no longer in sympathy
with the State, found its new seat in the schools of the philosophers,
in a republic of the cultivated and the thoughtful. They formed a polity
apart, of which the franchise was possible for all who could prove
kinship with the Hellenic spirit. Isokrates was the prophet, as
Epameinondas and Timotheos were the practical exponents, of this new and
more comprehensive Hellenism which is not of the blood but of the soul.
‘Athens,’ he says, ‘has so distanced the rest of the world in power of
thought and speech that her disciples have become the teachers of all
other men. She has brought it to pass that the name of Greek should be
thought no longer a matter of race but a matter of intelligence; and
should be given to the participators in our culture rather than to the
sharers of our common origin
But it was not only in this ideal sense that the sympathies of Isokrates
were panhellenic: he was animated by a practical patriotism for the
whole of Greece, a patriotism which was vividly affected by the miseries
of the time and which burned with
How were these evils to be cured? By inducing the Greeks to lay aside their quarrels with each other, and to unite in some common cause. And Isokrates conceived that there was but one cause which could so unite them—war against Persia.
He was not the first advocate of this idea. Gorgias had long ago
proclaimed it in his speech at Olympia. Lysias had eloquently urged it
at the same festival in 388
The appeal failed. Isokrates ceased to hope that either of the foremost States, as such, would lead forth the united Greeks to the East. But for thirtyfour years he persevered in the endeavour to find some man who would lead them.
Jason of Pherae was master of Thessaly from
In the conventional view this is enough. Isokrates is condemned. He has blindly abetted, to the last moment, the destined enslaver of Greece, even if he has not congratulated him on success. It may be worth while, however, to consider these two questions;—first—what was the abstract worth of this ruling idea of Isokrates—war with Persia? Secondly—how far is he to be held the dupe, or, if not the dupe, the unpardonable accomplice of Philip?
Isokrates believed that the first necessity of the when they will not
listen to you.’
But next—how far was Isokrates deceived by Philip? Or is he to be called false to Athens or Greece?
Isokrates had despaired of Athens and of Greece
The whole thought of that age was setting in ad loc. quotes St Hilaire:— ‘Cette pensée
d'Aristote a sans doute quelque rapport aux entreprises politiques des
rois de Macédoine. Ce fut Alexandre qui réussit enfin à réunir la Gréce
en un seul état; et ce fut là, en quelque sort, la condition préalable
de sa grande expédition.’
Isokrates held with Aristotle that the first despaired of the republic. He does not stop to
ask what was the republic for an Athenian of that
time.
The first concern of Isokrates was with Greece. But two of his speeches relate specially to Athens; the
The root of all the troubles which beset Athenian de F. L. § 136,
Such was the Athens to which Isokrates had to address his counsels. The
Speech On the Peace was written probably in 355, just before the
conclusion of the treaty which closed the Social War and broke up the
Naval Confederacy of 378. Athens is urged to resign the dream of
supremacy, and to treat allies as friends, not slaves. In his fervour
the orator personifies that Empire which, like a false mistress, has
allured and betrayed the two foremost Republics of Greece. ‘Is she not
worthy to be hated?’
The private life of Isokrates was too evenly prosperous to have a
history. He is said to have taught his Athenian pupils gratis, and to
have taken fees only from foreigners
chiefly from the gifts of foreigners.See, on the other hand, Dem. ib.
§ 40, ib. § 145.twice challenged to an antidosis, see below,
introd. to Or. XV.
In 338 B.C. Isokrates was in his 98th year; his health, which had been
strong throughout his long life, had broken down under an illness which
had attacked him three years before. According to the frag. Trag. p. 340.)(2) Πέλοψ ὁ Ταντάλειος εἰς Πῖσαν μολών
Isokrates was buried on a piece of rising ground near the Kynosarges,—a
sanctuary of Herakles, with a gymnasium, just outside the Diomeian Gate
on the east side of Athens
Ἰσοκράτους
εἰκὼ τήνδ’ ἀνέθηκε θεαῖς
In his strength, as in much of his weakness, Isokrates may be compared
with Cicero. He was a master of expression, with few ideas, but with
much ingenuity in combining and varying these; a politician between whom
and the power of seeing facts as they were, over any wide field, there
usually floated the haze of some literary theory which vanity made
golden; a man of warm, if somewhat exacting, benevolence, always ready
to do his best for those who believed in him; industrious, earnest, with
that simplicity which has been called an element of nobleness, and with
the capacity for a generous enthusiasm which was never kindled to a
brighter flame than by the glories of his city or his race. Cicero's
powers, naturally more various, were more thoroughly brought out and far
better disciplined by a life in which studious retirement alternated
with public cares. Isokrates missed those lessons of the world which are
proverbially useful to a successful teacher; but in an unbroken privacy
he kept his ardour for work unchilled and the purity
IN a passage of the
This use of the term ‘philosophy’ though
The two important documents for the ‘philosophy’ of Isokrates are the discourse
It is distinguished, then,—first, from all theoretic passim: cp.
esp.
It forms the last and highest department of the ib. § 268, branches or styles of literary composition;
e.g. historical, rhetorical, critical: (2) figures of rhetoric, properly called formulas. For a precisely
similar use, see science of them. There can only be opinion, conjecture about them; and he is the
wisest man who—exact foresight being out of the question —can best conjecture what any given crisis will demand of himib. §§ 184—185: cf. § 271, and ib. §§ 276, 46: cp. ib. § 65.
The ‘Philosophy’ of Isokrates is, then, the Art of
But something more than such a definition is needed for the accurate
appreciation of his work. It is necessary to determine his relation to
other teachers who professed to be doing nearly the same thing.
Isokrates conceives himself as belonging to a numerous and honourable
profession, but as distinguished from most of his brethren by certain
characteristics which give him a higher moral and intellectual dignity.
The members of this profession he calls generically Sophistsvulgar Sophists
The power of speaking, coherently and effectively,
The art which he and the ordinary sophists alike professed was thoroughly established as the essence of a practical Athenian education. In the speech
The first characteristic of Isokrates, as compared
The second distinctive mark of Isokrates is
Thirdly, Isokrates is distinguished by his method cod. 260, that Isokrates taught not merely by one year of such training ought
to make a finished
It results from his whole conception of his art, ib. p. 154. Cp. Curtius
These, then, are four chief things by which
The relation of Isokrates to the Sokratics is in fact rather a biographical question than one which concerns the examination of his art. His so-called ‘philosophy’ had no point of true contact with the Sokratic schools except his personal obligation to Sokrates. But, in so far as there was a real or an apparent antagonism between them, some attempt to estimate this may help to make the exact position of Isokrates clearer.
Sokrates held that it is of the essence of true philosophy to have a
direct bearing on civic life.
At whatever time the
In the discourse
In no one of these passages, nor elsewhere, does Isokrates deny a
possible science of absolute truth; rather he implicitly recognises it.
His contention is that this knowledge, supposing it attained, is worth
less than judicious, though inexact, opinion on the affairs of practical
life. That ‘knowledge’ or ‘science’ of which he does deny the possibility is a science of the
contingencies which may arise in practical life. These cannot certainly
be foreknown; the words or deeds which a future crisis may demand can
never be more than matter of guesswork.
The supposed allusions of Plato to Isokrates
IT has been seen that the end which Isokrates set before himself in all
his work was practical, and practical in a high way. His teaching aimed
at forming good citizens, not only of Athens, but of Greece. His
writings aimed at showing how literary skill might be applied to the
treatment of really political subjects. But, except during those few
Isokrates began the career of his choice—when the labours not of his
choice were over—about ib. 132: for the ib. 167. Tho first used to be
ascribed to Alkidamas; the second to Gorgias; the third to Antisthenes.
H. E. Foss in his
It has been said in a former chapter
‘It does not seek that each separate word should be conspicuously seen,
as if set on a broad, firm pedestal; or that the pauses between the
words should be long. The slow, steadfast manner is not at all to its
mind. Rather it likes movement and impetus of language; it wishes word
to come on word as wave rides wave, each lending buoyancy to each, like
flowing waters that never are still. It requires that all the parts of
the context should be taken together and find their power in their whole
effect. This result is wrought by a nicety of joining which leaves no
pause that can be felt
‘Nor is it only between word and word that it seeks this apt juncture and
coherence. It desires that clause should be closely knitted to clause;
that every sentence should be rounded to a period; that each segment of
a period should be neither shorter nor longer than the just mean; and
that the whole period should be within the compass of one full breath. A
sentence not periodic, a period not jointed into members, or a member
not symmetrical with the rest, are thoroughly foreign to its
workmanship. The rhythms which it employs are not
the longest but the middle or the shorter. It wishes the last words of a
period to be rhythmical and firmly set, as on a base squared by line and
rule;—thus reversing, in the structure of these final clauses, its
practice in the ordinary harmonies of words. Ordinarily it makes word
slide into word. But it would have the closing
words of a period to stand clear, and be seen, as it were, from every
side. The figures which it uses are not those which have an
antique air, or which are notable for majesty or impressiveness or
ruggedness; but rather the luxuriant and voluptuous, in which the
elements of illusion and stage-glitter are strong. To speak de comp. Verb. c. 23.
This description may serve at the outset to
In applying more closely to Isokrates the general description just
quoted, the first point to be noticed is his choice of words. His
diction is tempered of two opposite elements. It is a compromise between
the ‘elaborate’ diction represented by Thucydides and the ‘plain’
diction represented by Lysias
Of its Lysian qualities, the first is purity; an ib. § 186)
as poetical words legitimately used in a climax: de Isokr. c. 2: figures—to be noticed presently; but his diction
generally avoids tropes
beauty in expression is purity; now tropes give vividness, but are
against purity; hence Isokr., who thought most about beauty, made least
use of tropes.ib. 2),
art (c. 20).—Perhaps plain manner.
But choice of words was of comparatively small importance in determining
the style of Isokrates, between whom and the elder ‘austere’ school the metre in prose is rhythm desirable—simply, he thinks, as the
period is—because ‘all men like to see to the end.’ Cf. Volkm. p. 447.bound.
Quintilian (IX. iv. 45) distinguishes the metre (dimensio
quaedam) of verse from the rhythm (numeri) of
prose: and so Cic. has numerus=mere prose),
With Antiphonib. p. 166.meandering period, of Isokrates. Cf. de Isocr. c. 12, adv. Lept.; the Conversational, by
the opening of Plat. de comp. Verb. c. 19
observes that the best style is sometimes more,
sometimes less, periodic: but that Isokr. did not understand such
variety: cf. his padding, as Dionys. says
(de Isocr. c. 3). The critic illustrates this
minutely in his analysis of
Next to this general characteristic, luxuriance, the special marks of the
periodic style in Isokrates depend on his use of figures. In order to
see just what Isokrates does here, it will be a help to keep in mind the
strict distinction between a ‘trope’ and peculiarities of pathology or
syntax, with no rhetorical purpose —e.g. the schema Pindaricum: (2)
rhetorical—where a certain effect is meant to be wrought by the
combination. Volkmann (who refers the distinction between rich give to the poor:’ or
(ii) from
The idea of all these three ‘figures’ is the same— that idea of
mechanical balance in which the craving for symmetry is apt to take
refuge when it is not guided by a really flexible instinct or by a
spiritual sense of fitness and measure. No one can read Isokrates
without feeling with what a leaden weight this elaborately wrought
ornament lies on much of his work, often chilling the thought and almost
crushing out its lifeto seem Isokratic, and who accordingly overload
their sentences with ib. c. 20):
Before we leave the technical traits of his composition, one striking
trait remains to be noticed as the special cause of his ‘smoothness.’
This is the
Passing from the province of Expression to the treatment of matter with
its two departments of Invention and Arrangement, we find that here also
Isokrates has his distinctive merits. As regards Invention—the art of
discovering the available in inventione facilis, honesti studiosus.
as Isokrates used to do,
owing to his familiarity with suit-pleading’ (
In Arrangement Isokrates is very clever. He is
preludes with an attack on the Eristics (§§ 1—131).pass into a foreign region (
One uniform type of structure may be recognised in all the best discourses of Isokrates. There is a leading idea—generally some large proposition about the affairs of Athens or of Greece—which is worked out on the principle of antithesis. Every contrast which it can yield is developed: but through all divisions and subdivisions the dominant idea is kept before the mind; and, at the close, the simplicity of the original proposition emerges from these intricate, yet never confused, antitheses in the simplicity of the conclusion. Take, for instance, the
But the merits of Isokrates whether on the verbal or the real side are
not those which are best fitted to succeed in a law-court or in an
assembly. It is true that, as Hermogenesbeing
a citizen as distinguished from the power of civil
rhetoric.ap. Dionys.
subdued manner—namely, attention to the êthos (general moral
tone)—and attention to the cadences of the rhythm. Dionysios has been at
pains to contrast a passage of the
totum Isocratisμυροθήκιον atque omnes eius discipulorum arculas.
It was inevitable that when such a manner as that of Isokrates was
developed and became widely popular it should have a certain reflex
action on the language; and the nature of this action was determined by
the fact that Isokrates had the Greek impulses in art without the
sureness or fineness of the best Greek instinct. The invariable desire
of rounding periods led to periphrasis, the craving for antitheses to a
bold use of synonyms. Hence came a certain loss of that strict yet
always graceful precision which had marked the best Attic, when the
accurate expression of a clearly defined thought was the first thing,
and the light which played over the words came through the eyes of the
thought. That language which had been as a perfect human body to a vivid
soul began in these later days to be more like a dress fitting loosely
to a form still fair and stately; a dress which Oriental taste gradually
changed into a flowing robe, with always ampler folds and heavier
embroideries as there
Yet, if Isokrates does not give the intimate Attic charm, it must not be
forgotten that a Greek could still distinguish him from Lysias by saying
that Lysias was to Kalamis and Kallimachos what Isokrates was to
Praxiteles and Pheidias
Isokrates cannot be represented by extracts; the structure and the total
effect are especially important for him just because he is specially an
artist. But three passages may be taken as showing the bent rather than
the compass of his art,—the contrast, in
In the
‘Under the supervision of that Council, the city was not distracted
with law-suits and grievances and taxes and penury and wars; people
lived on good terms with their neighbours and peaceably with all
men. Athenians were the trust of Greece and the terror of
barbarians; they had saved their country, and had so punished the
enemy that he was glad enough to be let alone. And so, thanks to
this, they lived in such security that the houses and establishments
in the country were handsomer and richer than those within the
wall,—many citizens never coming to town even for the festivals, but
preferring their own snug homes to a share in the bounty of the
State. The public spectacles, for which they might have come, were
managed sensibly, and not with an insolent profusion. People did not
measure happiness by shows, or by rivalries in the equipment of a
chorus, or by the like forms of pretentiousness, but by soberness of
life, by everyday comfort, by the absence of destitution among
citizens. These are the tests of a real prosperity as distinguished
from a policy of low makeshifts. Is there any sane man who can help
being stung by what goes on nowa-days — when he sees numbers of
citizens actually drawing lots for daily bread before the lawcourts,
yet condescending to feed any Greeks who
In the
‘All, I think, would expect that State to be the best president of
Greece under whose former rule those who accepted it were, as a
fact, happiest. Now it will be found that under our leadership
private households throve best and cities, too, became greatest. We
were not jealous of the growing States; we did not sow the seeds of
strife by setting up in them a government adverse to their own, in
order that they might be divided by faction and that both factions
might pay court to us; rather, holding the concord of our allies to
be a common good, we governed all the cities by the same laws,
debating their affairs in the federal spirit, not in a spirit of
absolutism; watching over the interests of the whole league, but
leaving every member of it free,—helping the commons and warring
against despotisms,—thinking it a shame that the many should be
under the few, that men worse than their fellows in nothing but
fortune should be scouted for office, aye, and that, when Greece is
the mother of us all, some Greeks should be tyrants while others are
barely residents on sufferance, and that a franchise
In the
‘They had reason for their choice, and I for the greatness of these
praises; for she was gifted above all others with Beauty, the first
of all things in majesty and honour and divineness. It is easy to
see its power; there are many things which have no share of Courage,
or Wisdom, or Justice which yet will be found honoured above things
which have each of these; but nothing which is devoid of Beauty is
prized; all things are scorned which have not been given their part
of that attribute; the admiration for Virtue itself comes to this,
that of all manifestations of life Virtue is the most
beautiful. The supremacy of Beauty over all other things
can be seen from our own dispositions towards it and them. Other
things we seek merely to attain, as we may have need of them; we
have no further affection of the mind about them; but beautiful
things inspire us with love—love, which is as much stronger than
wish as its object is better. We are jealous of those who excel in
ability or anything else, unless they
TWENTY-ONE Speeches or Discourses, and nine Letters, are extant under the
name of Isokrates. All these are probably genuine
supposed to be lost:—(1) An ap. Diog. L. II. 55, by Isokrates; but
this probably refers to Isokrates of Apollonia: see Sauppe de Hiatu p. 56—that there was a vit. Isocr. § 20.cod. 159,
The text of our collection is tolerably perfect.
The writings of Isokrates are arranged differently in different MSS. With this elassification according to A stricter classification according to
omitting, no doubt by an oversight, the
The principle of this classification seems hardly
Setting the six real Forensic Speeches apart, the other writings of
Isokrates ought to be classified, not according to accident of form, but
by subject-matter. They may be considered as I. Scholastic, II.
Political. The whole list will then stand thus:—
1.
The date at which the Letter was written cannot
The Letter consists of three parts: I.
I. There is no greater difference between good and bad men (
II. The following are the principal heads under which the precepts in §§ 13—43 may be brought:—
1.
2.
3.
III. Many of the rules just given will not suit the present age of
Demonikos; but by and by he will need them, and this letter will
then serve him as a storehouse (
The authenticity of a treatise remarkably ad
init. As Mr Sandys shows, in his first note on the
Argument, its date cannot be earlier than the fourth century A. D.
The distinguishing mark of the
2.
It was probably soon after the accession of
‘The usual offerings to a king, Nikokles, are garments, or
‘First—What is the function of a king? To stay the troubles, to guard the welfare, to raise the greatness of his realm (§ 9).
‘In order to perform this task well, you ought, in the first place,
to be intelligent. By converse with the ablest men, and by reading,
you must make yourself capable of deciding small questions, and of
grappling with great
‘Next, you must be the friend of mankind and of your realm (§ 15).
Keep the people alike from doing, and from suffering, outrage (§
16). Let your laws be not only just and consistent, but framed for
the settlement, rather than for the raising, of issues (§ 17). Rule
the State like your own house, generously but carefully (§ 19). Let
your word be held surer than other men's oaths. Honour less those
strangers who bring gifts than those who deserve to receive them (§
22). Be royal, not in severity, but by the recognised supremacy of
your wisdom: warlike in knowledge and preparation, peaceful in
abstinence from aggression (§ 24). Choose your associates with care,
knowing that the many
‘Practical advice must not aim at being novel, and can hardly hope to be amusing (§§ 54—56). Hesiod, Theognis, Phokylides are praised—and neglected: Homer and the dramatists are the poets of the people (§§ 40—49). You, Nikokles, are a king, and ought to think first of what is useful. A good adviser is the most royal of possessions (§§ 40—53). Encourage others to bring you gifts like mine; gifts which, instead of wearing out in use, become more valuable the more they are used’ (§ 54).
Isokrates wrote for the cultivated. His idea of
3.
I. ‘Some people are hostile to all discussion on the
‘For a king, the first questions are of the relations between rulers
and ruled. Isokrates has traced the duty of a king; I will now
attempt to trace the duty of subjects (§ 11). But first I will try
to show (1) that monarchy is the
II. ‘A Monarchy, as compared with a limited or with a pure Republic, has these advantages:—1. It discriminates the different degrees of merit. Equality is the principle of republics. A Monarchy gives the first place to the best man, the second to the second-best, and so on (§§ 14, 15). —2. It has, more than other forms of government, an insight into the natures and actions of men; merit, wherever it exists, is therefore sure of recognition.—3. It is the mildest of governments; since it is easier to propitiate one man than many (§ 16).—4. Its ministers, being not annual but permanent, learn and discharge their duties more thoroughly and composedly (§§ 17, 18).—5. It is prompt in action. A popular assembly consists of men who are immersed in private affairs, and who meet only to wrangle: in a cabinet there are fewer distractions and delays (§ 19).—6. It has no jealousies. In a Republic there are always at least two parties, each of which hopes that the other will mismanage the country as grossly as possible. A monarch, having no rivals, has no spite (§ 20).—7. It has a more direct interest in good government. Republicans regard themselves as stewards, a monarch regards himself as the owner, of the State (§ 21).—8. It is more effective in war. Secret preparation, striking display, versatile intrigue, are easier for it than for other governments (§ 22).
‘Experience shows that these advantages are not imaginary. In Persia,
devotion to Monarchy has been rewarded with unequalled greatness. In
Sicily, the absolutism of Dionysios has not only delivered an
enslaved country, but has made it the first in Greece. Carthage and
Sparta, oligarchies at home, become monarchies in the field. Athens,
the most anti-monarchical of States, has generally failed when she
sent out a committee of generals, and succeeded when she gave the
command to one. Lastly—Is not Zeus monarch of the gods? Whether the
gods really live under that form of government or not, the fact of
men ascribing it to them proves at least a human sense that it is
the best (§§ 22—26).
‘Having shown the advantages of Monarchy, I will show more briefly that I am entitled to be your monarch. First, historically. Teukros, the founder of our house, brought hither the forefathers of the present Cyprians. His throne, lost for a time by his descendants, was regained by my father Evagoras, who put down Phoenician rule at Salamis and restored it to its original kings (§§ 27, 28). Next, personally. At my accession, I found the treasury empty, the State disturbed, Cyprus on bad terms with the rest of Greece and with Persia: and I met all these difficulties without wronging any man (§§ 29—35). Nor have youth (§ 45) and opportunity ever drawn me into licence (§§ 36—46).
III. ‘As the lawful holder, then, of a beneficent power, I may advise with a right to be heard—Let each man do his appointed task carefully and fairly (§ 48).—Do not make haste to be rich (§ 50).—Murmur not at one of my commands, knowing that those who serve me best will best serve their own fortunes.—Let everyone be sure that nothing of which his own conscience is aware will escape me (§ 51).— Form no clubs, hold no meetings, without my knowledge (§ 54).—Guard the present constitution, and desire no sort of change (§ 55).—Be humble to me, and magnificent in the service of the State (§ 56).—Consider that the greatest and surest wealth which you can leave to your children is my favour (§ 58).—Be not jealous, but emulous, of my counsellors (§ 60).—Think my words, laws—and keep them.— In short, be to your king what you wish your subordinates to be to you (§ 62).
‘If you follow this course, while I do not change mine, your prosperity and my power will grow together. Such a hope might well encourage to any toils. But you need not toil at all. You need only to be just and loyal’ (§§ 63—64).
Perhaps the most interesting part of this Discourse is that in which
the writer, putting himself at the king's point of view, offers a
popular plea for Monarchy as against Republic. Here Isokrates is
1.
The
Polykrates evidently held a respectable rank among the rhetoricians
of his time. He is mentioned by Dionysios in company with Antiphon,
Thrasymachos of Chalkedon, Kritias, Theodoros of Byzantium,
Anaximenes, Zoilos and Isaeosn. 2. Cf. Quint. II. 17, 4 (composuisse orationem, quae
est habita contra Socraten, dicitur. By the auctor argum. Polykrates is described as
No weight can be given to the suggestion made
‘Your worth, Polykrates, and the change in your way of
‘You put trust in your
‘The father of Busiris was Poseidon; his mother, Libya, daughter of Epaphos the son of Zeus, and earliest queen of the land which bears her name. Not content with his mother's realm, Busiris, after wide conquests, founded a monarchy in Egypt. He saw that that country had the best climate in the world, was the most fertile, and had in the Nile a perpetual barrier against invasion. For other lands, the steward of rains and droughts is Zeus; for Egypt, the Nile. That river is at once their protector and their nourisher, giving them the wealth of a continent with the security of an island (§§ 10—14).
‘Having got a good country, Busiris next sought to give
‘Nor was mental culture neglected. The priests, having wealth and leisure, developed a science of medicine,—to which it is due that the Egyptians have the best health and the longest lives. Other sciences were cultivated also; and while the elder men were busied with great affairs, the younger studied astrology, logic, geometry.
‘But it is for their reverent worship of the gods that the Egyptians
are most admirable. Exaggeration is harmful in most things; but it
is good for human life that men should have an even exaggerated idea
of the gods' power to reward or punish. To the Egyptian mind this
power is so awful that oaths taken in Egyptian temples have a
greater
‘The philosophy of Egypt, and the spirit of its scrupulous ritual, were first brought into Hellas by Pythagoras; who felt sure that, if not requited by the gods, he would at least be esteemed by men. And to this day the silence of his disciples is more admired than the eloquence of others (§§ 21—29).
‘You will perhaps say that I have praised the laws, the piety, the
thought of Egypt without proving that these are due to Busiris. It
would ill become you to reproach me as illogical; you have yourself
said that it was Busiris who distributed the Nile by its seven
channels through the land, and who, at the same time, slew strangers
on his altars; thus ascribing to him at once the fury of a beast and
the faculty of a god. But my account is not merely as reasonable as
yours; it has intrinsic probability. The benefits which it imputes
to Busiris have not been shown to be due to any one else; and who is
more likely to have wrought them than the son of Poseidon and of
Libya,—the most powerful man of his time? The falseness of the
charges laid against him is seen in this, that they represent him as
having been slain by Herakles. Herakles lived four generations
‘But you have had no care for truth—you have followed the blasphemies
of the poets, who love to represent the gods as more vicious than
men. These blasphemers have often suffered, though less than they
deserved; some have become wandering beggars, some blind, some
exiles, some foes, of their own kindred: Orpheus, the worst of them,
was torn to pieces. Now it is my faith that not the gods only, but
their children, are without spot of vice. If the gods have not the
wish to make their own sons good, they are
‘Much more might be said; but my object is to give hints, not to make a display. You have defended Busiris from the charges against him by admitting them, but arguing that they might be brought against others. How would you yourself like to be defended in this fashion? Or if any of your own friends had acted like Busiris, would you praise him? You will say, perhaps, that you wished merely to set an example of defending difficult causes. But a defence of this kind is futile, and tends also to bring philosophy into disrepute. In future you must choose better subjects, or treat those which you do choose more judiciously. Do not resent the advice of a stranger who has not even the privilege of age; it is not age or intimacy, it is knowledge and goodwill which give the right to advise in such matters' (§§ 44—50).
The subject of the
2.
It is probable, if not certain, that the allusion
But was Gorgias indeed the author? After
Two indications help to fix the time at which the sophists of
that day’ Gorgias is mentioned as he ‘who
presumed to say,’ &c.: § 3.
‘There are persons who pride themselves on being able
‘Of all the children whom Zeus begat, the dearest to him were those of whom Alkmene and Leda were the mothers. Herakles and Helen were both destined by him to deathless life in heaven and deathless fame on earth; but to Herakles he gave strength—to Helen, that beauty which vanquishes the strong (§§ 16—17).
‘Her first lover was Theseus, called the son of Aegeus, but in truth the son of Poseidon. He fell in love with her when she was yet a young girl; and when Tyndareus rejected his suit, bore her away from Lacedaemon toAphidna in Attica.
‘Now the man who thus loved her stands alone in
‘When Theseus descended with Peirithoos to Hades, Helen returned to
Sparta. The oath taken by her suitors— that he who won her should,
if robbed of her, be helped by the rest—showed their foresight of
the strife which she must cause. That foresight proved true, though
the private hope of each was baffled. Alexander, son of Priam, was
chosen
‘And who would have scorned wedlock with her for whose
‘And naturally: for Helen was endowed beyond compare
‘Before beauty Zeus himself is humble—approaching it
‘Helen's power was proportionate to her supremacy in this gift. She
became not only immortal but omnipotent. When her brothers were
already the prisoners of Death, she lifted them to heaven; and in
token of the change, set in the sky that star to which storm-tost
sailors pray. To Menelaos, too, she gave deliverance from earthly
troubles, and a place in heaven at her side; and at this day, at
Therapnae in Lacedaemon, Helen and Menelaos are worshipped, not as
blessed spirits only, but as gods. When
‘More than has been said remains untold. Besides the arts, the ideas, the other gains which Greece owes to her and to the Trojan War, it owes its very freedom from the barbarian. Before that time, Greece was a refuge for unlucky foreigners—for Danaos, for Kadmos, for Pelops, for the Karians who settled in the islands. After the war, our race grew strong enough to conquer towns and territory from the alien. If others choose to work out this theme, they will find no lack of matter for past praise of Helen’ (§§ 67—69).
The
3.
The speech is arranged as follows:—I. Proem, §§ 1—11. II. Evagoras: (1) his lineage and his acquisition of the throne, §§ 12—40: (2) his character, and his domestic reforms, §§ 41—50: (3) his wars, §§ 51—64: (4) general retrospect of his career, §§ 65 —72. III. Hortatory conclusion, §§ 73—81.
I. ‘Seeing you, Nikokles, bringing costly offerings to as exercises with the Sophists,—such as the
II. ‘The descent of Evagoras, well-known though it be, must be
mentioned. The house of the Aeakidae, the
‘That dynasty has not, however, reigned uninterruptedly. the descendants (note 1).in Andoc. § 28. Mr Grote concludes that
Evagoras began to reign ‘about 411 or 410 B. C.’ (411 B. C. is
probably the latest year we can take)— justly observing that ‘he
must have been a prince not merely established, but powerful, when
he ventured to harbour Konon in 405 B. C., after the battle of
Aegospotami.’ (vol. X. p. 25).
‘If I were to say no more, the surpassing merit of Evagoras would have been sufficiently proved. No hero of legend or of history ever won kingly power in a manner so brilliant. Take the most famous instance of all—that of the elder Cyrus, who transferred the empire from the Medes to the Persians. Cyrus conquered by his army; Evagoras by his own courage: Cyrus slew his mother's father; Evagoras incurred no guilt’ (§§ 33—40).
‘His use of power was worthy of the manner in which he had gained it.
Gifted with great and ready talents, he was at the same time
minutely and incessantly diligent. He attended personally to all
affairs; knew every citizen; did nothing on hearsay. The love of the
gods for him, and his own love of men, were so apparent in his
government that strangers visiting Cyprus envied the subjects no
less than the king. Enemies found him resistless, friends pliant; he
was dignified, but never harsh; consistent in deeds as in words;
versatile in taking from every form of constitution its best part;
at once a friend of the people, a large-minded statesman, and a
far-seeing general (§§ 41—46).’
‘The history of his reign will be found to justify these n.)
by [Lys.] in
Andoc. § 26:
‘Foremost among these was Konon. The friendship,
‘Meanwhile Artaxerxes had viewed uneasily the genius took away the empire (
maritime power of Sparta was crushed at Knidos, the Spartan
‘Legend celebrates the conquest, by united Hellas, of the town of Troy; but must not that achievement yield to the defeat, by the single city of Salamis, of all Asia? Or where in history is the man who, after winning a throne and civilising a kingdom, won victories which changed the destinies of a race? It is hard to decide whether Evagoras is most admirable for his warfare against Sparta, for his warfare against Persia, for his acquisition, or for his exercise of power.
‘If the gods ever bestowed immortality in reward for virtue, surely it may be deemed that they have given it to Evagoras. During his lifetime, their favour graced him with all gifts of mind and body, with unchanging prosperity, with fame, with years, with noble children (§§ 65—72).
‘Failing powers have not suffered me to praise Evagoras aright; yet a
slight tribute, at least, has been offered; and the portrait of a
man's character is a better memorial than an image of his body. For
you, Nikokles, and for your children, that character should be a
spur to excellence. Most men have to take example from strangers;
you need not go beyond your own family. I did not forget that you
have begun your course well; I exhort you only as
The
4.
The
I. ‘In my younger days I used to write, not on legends or remote
history, nor in forensic causes, but on practical interests of
Athens and Hellas—bringing to bear upon these all the resources of
rhetoric. Such subjects and such a style do not now become my
ninety-four years; rather it becomes me to speak as all men are apt
to think that they could if they would, but as none can without
toil.
‘I shall speak of the deeds of Athens and the goodness
II. ‘The beneficence of Athens to Hellas has often ere now been
praised by me incidentally; but it has never been, as now, my
special themc. I am moved to choose
‘As purple or gold is most brilliant when it has a foil, Athens will be best estimated if we place beside her another great city—Sparta (§§ 39—41).
‘The comparison may begin from the Dorian conquest of τὸ γὰρ παλαιὸν ἐόντες Μίνω τε
κατήκοοι καὶ καλεόμενοι Λέλεγες εἶχον τὰς νήσους, φόρον
μὲν
οὐδένα ὑποτελέοντες, ὅσον καὶ ἐγὼ δυνατός εἰμι
μακρότατον
ἐιξικέσθαι ἀκοῆ·| οἱ δὲ, ὅκως Μίνως δέοιτο, ἐπλήρουν οἱ
τὰς νέας
de exil. p. 603 B] describe them as
possessing the Kyklades after the return of the Heraklidae into
Peloponnesos, and ascribe their expulsion to the Athenians.’ Clinton
thinks that the words of Isokr. in this passage refer ‘to the Ionic
migration, when the colonists seized upon the Kyklades’. ib. p. 39, note g.
‘When, later, Xerxes invaded Greece, Sparta, the ruler
‘Each of the two cities was in turn empress of the sea,
‘Those who reluctantly admit the positive merits of
‘(Can I pass by Agamemnon without a word of special
‘I was saying that the victims of our severity have been insignificant; those of Sparta's illustrious, and, moreover, her own allies against Troy; the Messenians, namely, whom she drove from their country; and the Argives, with whom she is still at war. Plataea, the only city of Boeotia loyal to Hellas in the Persian war, was soon after taken by Sparta, and most of its citizens were put to death, in order to please Thebes. Athens, on the other hand, gave an asylum at Naupaktos to the Messenians, and bestowed her franchise upon the surviving Plataeans (§§ 88—94).—Both Athens and Sparta are accused of having reduced those cities, of whose liberty they professed themselves champions, to vassalage. Now in the early history of Athens there is no instance of her having aimed at ruling a single other city; whereas the policy of Sparta in the Peloponnesos has been from the first aggressive. Down to the time of our disaster at the Hellespont, we had never caused in any city the factions, the bloodshed, the revolution which, under Sparta, became rife everywhere. It was only when the Lacedaemonian power, after having become the first in Greece, began to decline, that two or three of our generals were guilty of imitating in a few cases a policy of which Sparta had set the earliest example.
‘Lastly, there is an offence against Hellas which Sparta has committed, but Athens, never. When most closely pressed by her neighbours, Athens has never forgotten the enmity which all Greeks ought to feel against the barbarian. Sparta used the alliance of the great king to advance her own power in Hellas; and rewarded him by supporting the rebel Cyrus with the forces led by Klearchos. Then, when Persia had defeated the Spartans at Knidos, they conciliated her by giving up the Asiatic Greeks (§§ 95—107).
‘Discreet admirers of Sparta will admit the truth of
‘I hope to show the superiority of the Athenian Constitution—not,
‘The history of our ancestors’ polity must be traced from a time when
as yet Oligarchy and Democracy were not; when barbarians and Greeks
alike lived under Monarchies. If the savage heroes of other cities
have claimed mention, much more do those of Athens deserve it. The
horrors of which, in those days, Thebes and Argos were full, have
supplied endless material for tragic poets; Athens, meanwhile, had
already a noble civilisation. The favour of the gods was shown by
this rare blessing—that from Ericthonios to Theseus the line of
hereditary kings was unbroken
his monarchy, which they preferred: on his death, then,
they would have the democracy.a ) b) a) b
)
‘The excellence of the old Democracy was due to the
‘The principles of the old polity have been stated; it
‘As regards military science, too, it can be shown that
‘The rulers of Athens before the Persian war had no aim but the national well-being. They mediated between cities which were at variance; drove the barbarian from the islands and coasts which he had seized; and thus gave the Greeks wealth and security (§§ 161—167). Their military repute may be judged still better from their interference on behalf of Adrastos, when the Thebans, alarmed at their approach, consented to bury the Argive dead (§§ 168—171). (In the
‘Further, compare the early wars of Sparta with those of
III. ‘Here, at its climax, this discourse would naturally
‘It had been written thus far, and I was revising it with three or
four of my young pupils. We thought that nothing but a conclusion
was wanted; but it occurred to me to ask a friend of oligarchical
sympathies, and devoted to Sparta, if he could point out any
misstatement which we had over
‘My opponent was silenced, and went away a wiser man, inasmuch as he
had learned the lesson recommended at Delphi. He had learned to know
himself—and Lacedaemon. I had my essay written out immediately. But
three or four days later new misgivings assailed me. It seemed to me
‘These remarks were applauded enthusiastically; and all urged me to take the counsel. I thanked my able adviser; but did not tell him how far he had hit, or missed, my real mind (§§ 229—265).
‘My work is finished; a word in conclusion as to the
Isokrates prefaces the
There is one comparison, however, which can
The
1.
‘If those who undertake to instruct others would only
‘First, the professors of Eristic Discussion are to blame.
‘Next, the teachers of Forensic and Deliberative speakingn. 4.note 4.
‘The pretentious school of sophists which has lately sprung up,
however flourishing now, will, I feel sure, be at last reduced to
admitting this. As for the sophists before our time who wrote the
so-called Arts of Rhetoric, they, too, had their faults. They
undertook to teach the mode of conducting law-suits—thus confining
their subject to its most
‘That I may not seem to be complaining of what others undertake to
do, and myself, at the same time, undertaking what is impossible, I
will give the reasons which
Isokrates was, and called himself, a sophista sophist's noblest and greatest reward if
some of his pupils prove themselves men of high character, sensible
men, men respected by their fellow-citizens’—
Three classes of teachers are censured. (1) The
(2) The second class of teachers blamed by sham
(3) Besides these two classes—the Eristics and
The Speech
2.
It is known that, in 355 B. C.two lawsuits (
‘If this speech were an ordinary specimen of the Forensic
‘The worst knave is he who brings against another
‘Here, in the indictment, he charges me with corrupting
‘First, it must be remembered that there are as many branches of
prose as of poetry. Some prose-writers have spent their lives in
tracing the genealogies of the Heroes. Others have been critics of
the poets. Others have compiled histories of wars. Others have woven
discussions into dialogues. My work has lain in yet another
field,—in the composition of discourses bearing upon the politics of
all Hellas, and fitted for recitation at Panhellenic vice versa. At these I have worked; and have
got by them a reputation better than law-courts could give. (§§
45—50.)
‘I am ready to impose the severest terms upon myself.
‘Is the writer of this a ‘corrupter of young men,’ or their inciter to noble daring? Does he deserve punishment; or is he to be thanked for having so praised Athens and your ancestors that former writers on the same theme feel remorse, and intending ones, despair? (§§ 60—61.)
‘Some who, themselves unable to create, can only criticise, will say that this is ‘graceful’ (they could not bring themselves to say ‘good’); but that praise of the past is less valuable than censure of present mistakes. You shall hear, then, part of another speech in which I assume this office of censor. Its immediate subject is the peace with Chios, Rhodes and Byzantium; it goes on to show the drawbacks to a maritime supremacy; and ends by addressing to Athens exhortation, censure and advice.—(Begin there, and read this extract to them.) [
‘You have now heard parts of two discourses; a short passage from a
third shall be read, in order that you may see
‘This shall be the last of these long extracts; but I reserve the
right of referring in detail to my own writings whenever it can be
useful. I offered just now to bear any penalty, not
‘You know my writings; you shall now hear who have de bon. Arist. §§ 19 ff.) 2. adv. Callipp. § 14, as a friend of
lsokrates and Aphareus; and in Mid. § 157,
along with Kallaeschros, as among the wealthiest citizens. 3.
‘The general charge against me in the indictment—that in Demosth. § 14.
‘I hardly know how to arrange the topics on which it remains for me
to speak; perhaps it will be best to take each as it occurs. But
here I am checked by the warning of a
‘The indictment has now been answered. But from the first I have
foreseen that I should have to combat, not merely the charges
against myself, but the prejudice against these studies generally.
Reflection, however, assured me that among you I should find
fairness, and that the cause of Philosophy could be satisfactorily
defended. In the fact of the prejudice against it there is nothing
strange. Athens is large and populous. Public opinion here is
irregular
‘What Gymnastic is for the body, Philosophy is for the
‘Do not suppose that my claims are modest only when I
[
You see, then, that at the outset as at the close of my career, in safety as in danger, I have held this language.
‘This, I well know, will not satisfy those against whose prejudices I am contending. Much more must be said before they can be converted or refuted. Their prejudice utters itself in one of two assertions:—that the system of the sophists is futile; or that it is effectual, but immoral. (§§ 193—198.)
‘Those who say that it is futile try it by a standard
‘Others maintain that Philosophy has an immoral de Orat. III. xxxiii.
§ 132, and was said to have taught Perikles. (Plat.
‘But I can point out the places in which may be found
‘If a man used his inherited wealth, his skill as a hoplite or as an
athlete, in doing harm to his fellow-citizens, he would be punished,
though the founders of his fortune, the teachers of his skill, might
be praised. The gods have given
‘Lysimachos and such as he are not the only enemies of Rhetoric. It
is attacked also by the professors of Eristic.
‘Having said what Philosophy is not, I musttry to explain
gain, will incidentally become more virtuous and more just.
Desirous of speaking these pursuits. They attack
us, who discourage them; and say that youths who spend on their
education a tithe of what others spend on vice, are being corrupted
(§§ 270—290).
‘Power of speaking, when simply natural, is admired; it
‘The length of my defence has already passed due limits;
The speech
1.
The duty of Hellenic unity against the barbarian had already been the
theme of Gorgias and of Lysias in speeches delivered at Olympia
His appeal to Panhellenic patriotism was made
The
I. ‘It is strange that the founders of the great Festivals should
have kept all their rewards for a physical prowess which serves only
the athlete himself, and should have assigned no honour to the
mental toil from which flow benefits to all. Content, however, with
the hope of simple approbation, I am here to offer counsels of unity
among Greeks and
‘That the various cities of Greece should renounce their
‘Maritime Empire belongs of right to Athens, whether a) naval efficiency, (b) antiquity, or (c)
services done to Greece. Her services have been of two kinds, (1)
civil, and (2) military (§§ 21—27).
(1.) ‘The first things which human life needs came to a priori likelihood. The earliest men, most
needing, were most likely to obtain, direct help from the gods; and
the people of Attica are confessedly the oldest of races (§§ 28—33).
‘The next great boon which Athens bestowed on early
‘These primary benefits were followed by others. Athens
(2.) ‘Such are the services which Athens has rendered
‘In Greece she has always shown herself the unselfish
‘Against the barbarians Athens has waged more wars
‘Similar in spirit and in result were the wars against
‘Praise is due, first of all, to those earlier generations of
‘The rivalry between Athens and Sparta was never so noble as in the
Persian wars. When the army of Dareios
‘If there is now to be an expedition against the barbarians, who ought to lead it? Who but the foremost fighters, the most unselfish sufferers, in the former war; the founders, in ancient days, of cities to which, later, they became saviours? Would it not be hard if, having borne most evil, we did not receive most honour; if, having once been chosen to lead, we should now be forced to follow? (§§ 85—99.)
‘Everyone must allow that, up to the close of the Persian
‘Though we have given such proofs of moderation, we
‘Sparta has, indeed, given nominal peace
‘I have spoken harshly of Sparta; but not as an enemy who would
denounce,—rather as a friend who would admonish. Instead of making
her neighbours helots to herself,
II. ‘To lookers-on our conduct would seem madness. While we quarrel
among ourselves, the king of Persia profits by our divisions. We
suffer him to blockade one Greek ib. 8) to 385. Isokrates alludes in § 141
to the seafight, and here (§ 134) speaks of the blockade as
existing. He says, moreover, that the king of Persia has now wasted
six years in the war; which naturally means, and has always been
taken to mean, that it is six years since the war began.I. Engel
reconciles Diodoros with Isokrates by supposing that, with the
exception of §§ 125—132 which allude to 380 B.C., the
note above.)II. Clinton, holding the natural view that
the entire eighth year) or from the defeat of
Evagoras in 385.It seems impossible—in the absence of better data—to
arrive at a certain or satisfactory conclusion. For my own part, I
incline to prefer, with Clinton, the authority of Isokrates to that
of Diodoros; to suppose that the Athenian expeditions of 390 and 388
preceded any formal declaration of war; that the actual war began in
385; that the naval defeat of Evagoras also fell in 385, and was
soon followed by the blockade; but that Evagoras held out (whether
able to take the sea again or not) till 376.
‘Some stand in awe of his strength. Were he indeed held in check for three years’ are blockade of Konon by Pharax in Kaunos (Diod
XIV. 83) in 395;—that, of course, did not last three years;— but the
fact that, during 396—394, even after the revolt of Rhodes from
Sparta, Konon kept his fleet in harbours, avoiding engagements on
the open sea, until just before Knidos.
‘This weakness naturally results from the political and
‘They merit our hatred; and they are hateful also to our
‘We have every motive, then, for attacking Persia. The frag. 111, ed. Müller,
quoted by Mr Sandys on § 134); but had afterwards become
disaffected, and had secretly supplied Evagoras with money (Diod.
XIV. 98).now. The present generation has a claim to be
indemnified for long sufferings and privations. There never was in
Hellas a greater mass of individual distress; though, indeed, the
troubles of individuals seem
‘Since the leading statesmen of the various cities are apathetic or timid, it is the more incumbent on men outside the political sphere to press this grave question. Before we can have firm peace, we must have common war against Asia. Before we can shake off our poverty, we must cease to prey upon each other, and must unite in gathering spoils elsewhere.
‘The Treaty of Antalkidas is no real obstacle. Its more all that it had ever acquired by conquest; or
(3) as much as it actually held at the time of the treaty.—As it
was, the terms of peace were left to be settled arbitrarily by the
Great King. As if he were parcelling out the world between himself
and Zeus, he has taken one-half of it
‘From every point of view this is the right course. Those who look to nothing but abstract justice cannot refuse to punish our malignant foes. Those whom the sight of unmerited prosperity provokes, indeed, yet leaves prudent, may safely resent a grandeur almost superhuman which is, at the same time, divorced from merit. Those who wish to consult both justice and expediency see before them evil-doers who are rich and helpless. The cities will gladly bear the burden of the campaign; and its fame will surpass that of the war against Troy. (§§ 183—186.)
‘At the outset I had hopes of doing some justice to my subject; now,
at the close, I feel how inadequately I have handled it. Try, then,
to imagine for yourselves what an
The
Foremost among its author's works in merits of
2.
This letter had not been sent when peace was concluded (§ 7).
Isokrates now writes on another
‘Do not be surprised, Philip, if before entering upon the ad loc. The
elder Amadokos is first heard of in 405 B.C.: Diod. XIII. 105. Xen. in Aristocr. p. 623.
‘I say, then, that you ought, as their common friend, to
‘This obligation is laid upon you by your descent. Argos Macedonum reges ex ea civitate (
‘The attempt which I propose to you can be shown to be feasible:—and
first, on general grounds. The difficulty which would have been
presented by the great predominance of any one State, as of Athens
and Sparta, has vanished; changes of fortune have placed all the
cities of Greece upon one level. Your position, on the other hand,
is supreme. Experience
‘The practicability of the attempt may be shown, further, on particular grounds. It is favoured by the respective conditions of the several States concerned.
‘Sparta wishes for peace, because, deprived of her empire
‘Argos desires peace, because her distress resembles, but
‘Thebes wishes for peace, because, through abusing the
‘Athens is no longer yearning for peace; she has had the
‘The possibility of reconciling Hellas may be
seen from ease,
for you, of the attempt may be judged from the cases of other men,
who, though less favoured by circumstances, have changed the
destinies of whole countries. Alkibiades, exiled from Athens and
resolved to force his way back, effected it by first throwing all
Greece into a tumult. Konon, disgraced through no fault of his own,
not only retrieved the disgrace by his own unaided energy, but lived
to restore the glory of Athens. Dionysios, an ordinary Syracusan,
made himself master of Sicily. The elder Cyrus, whom, in his
infancy, his mother left to perish at the roadside, became sovereign
of Asia. Shall not the achievements of these men be equalled by one
who is, from the outset the descendant of Herakles, the king of
Macedonia, the lord of such great multitudes? (§§ 57—67.)
‘The enterprise is one which may well rouse your ambition. What
nobler position can be imagined than that of president of
Greece—acknowledged arbiter of her destinies? It is also an
enterprise which would silence certain calumnies now current against
you. Some ill-disposed persons pretend
‘The counsel which I offer to you—as I offered it to Dionysios after
he became master of Syracuseimmediately followed the acquisition of the
tyrannis by Dionysios. Benseler and O. Schneider read
founder of the despotism,’ as opposed to Dionysios II.
who succeeded him in 367.
‘Your duty towards Greece has been spoken of; it
‘The first condition of a successful attack upon Persia is
‘All would admit that the sympathy, active or passive, of Hellas is a
primary requisite. But most people, if they wished to encourage you
by example, would quote wars in which Greece triumphed over Asia. I
prefer to cite an expedition in which we were considered to have
been worsted
‘Next, consider how far more favourable circumstances his expedition,
thinking that its success would probably aggravate the Spartan
tyranny under which they groaned:— they will favour your expedition; and the great multitudes of
homeless exiles and wanderers, ready to serve as mercenaries, will
make it easy to raise a large army. Secondly, as regards the
character of the former, and the actual, king of Persia. The fathernote. The chronology of the later revolt,
spoken of here as not yet subdued, is uncertain. Schäfer (
‘If I went on to offer you advice as to the
conduct of the war, I might be reproached with want of
military experience. But as to the object of
the war, and as regards the general ‘Man
hat also für Europa nicht mit Benseler auch an griechische
Fürsten, Neleus in Pylos, Hippokoon in Lacedämon, sondern
nur an
Barbaren wie an den Thrakerfürsten Diomedes (Apollodor 2, 5,
8)
zu denken; für Asien (und Afrika) ist an Mygdon, die
Hippolyte,
Sarpedon (über Alle Apollodor 4, 5, 9), Busiris (obwohl Is.
über
diesen 11, 36 seq. anders urtheilt), Antaeus u. s. w. zu
denken.’
O. Schneid. ad § 112.
‘The popularity which a Persian war would command in Greece may be
estimated from the case of Jason of Pherae.
‘Three different degrees of success—the lowest of which is
glorious—are possible. You may conquer the Persian empire.
‘It may be made a reproach to me that I call upon you, and not upon
my own city, to lead the enterprise. I have
‘Shame should forbid us to see, unmoved, Asia more prosperous than
Europe,—the descendants of Cyrus more prosperous than the
descendants of Herakles. It is not power or wealth—you have more
than enough of both already—it is glory that ought to be your
motive. Hear, in this counsel of mine—would that it were more
complete!—the suggestion of your forefathers,—of the heroes,—of the
present opportunity. Do not believe that the despotism built up by a
‘Beneficence, not brilliancy, is the ultimate test of
‘If my words seem, in themselves, weak and poor, set it
‘This, then, is the sum:—“Be the benefactor of Greece;
Dionysios extols the
1.
After its destruction in 427 Plataea had been
The speech of Isokrates is supposed to be spoken by a Plataean before
the ekklesia; and there is nothing in the matter or form of the
speech itself
‘We know, Athenians, that it is your custom to help the n.) as meaning
simply that Plataea and Thebes were at peace —the autonomy of
Plataea, subjcet to the Boeotian confederacy, having been guaranteed
by Thebes when she reconstituted that confederacy in 377—376.
Thirlwall, on the other hand (vol. V. pp. 70—73), understands the
peace of 374 between Athens and Sparta, to which, he thinks, Thebes
was a party, and under which the Spartan garrisons had been
withdrawn from Boeotia. The words n.).
‘It is sometimes their pretence that they have thus dealt after Leuktra (IX. 14. 2). The praycr to
the Athenians, which Xenophon puts into their month—n 1.
‘Perhaps, however, the Thebans will take a different
‘Remember that the war which you suddenly undertook,
‘They pretend that they have acted in the common
‘They cannot plead that there is danger lest, if we get
‘It may be said that Boeotia is the bulwark of Attica;
‘Even supposing, however, that they were likely to act
‘Who could be found more wretched than we are? Our
‘We ask you to give us back our land and town. Alone
The
2.
‘It is the custom of everyone who addresses this assembly
‘You are wont to drive from the platform all speakers but those whose
advice meets your wishes; for, though in private life you hate
flattery, you tolerate it in the counsels of the State. On the
present occasion the advocates of war are
‘The older among you ought to recollect, the younger must have heard,
that advocates of war have ere now brought us into trouble,—but
advocates of peace, never. Yet we are
‘It is up-hill work to oppose your prejudices; we have a democracy, but freedom of speech is enjoyed only by the most foolish members of this Assembly and by the comic poets in the theatre. As, however, I am not here to court your votes, I shall say what I think; first, about the special business which the presidents have brought before us; then, about the affairs of Athens generally (§§ 1—15).
‘I say, then, that we ought to make peace, not only with
‘It will be asked why, if Thebes is to keep Plataea and Thespiae, Athens should needlessly resign what she holds. I hope to show on general grounds that all unjust acquisition is impolitic; but I will first endeavour to show what would be the results of this particular peace.
‘Security—prosperity—the esteem of Greece:—should in
Aristocr. § 12), had served with distinction as a
captain of mercenaries in the army of Artaxerxes Ochos during the
war (360 B. C.) between the king and his satrap Orontes, who was
supported by an Athenian force under Chares, Charidemos and Phokion.
In that contest for the throne of Thrace which ensued on the death
of Kotys in 359, Berisades was supported by Athenodoros, as
Kersobleptes by Charidemos, and Amadokos by Simon and Bianor. The
position of Athenodoros at that time (359— 357) would have been one
of sufficient influence to enable him to become founder (oekist) of
a new town, though he was merely an prov. Graec. Cent. 3. 11). The young colony
was destroyed four years later, when, in 356, Philip founded
Philippi in its near neighbourhood. Daton was probably on the site
of Neapolis, the port of Philippi (Scylax, p. 27 § 67). Schäfer
places the return of Kallistratos to Athens (immediatcly followed by
his death) in 355, before the end of the Social War, and observes
that there is nothing in this passage to warrant the inference that
he was alive when it was written. But the perfect
‘This is enough to show that the offer of the envoys is advantageous.
But I wish you to go away, not merely
‘Our prospects abroad, however, would not be hopeless if
‘Some one to whom these remarks apply may be stung into asking—‘How
is it that, if our policy is so bad, we are still on a level with
any city in Greece?’ ‘Because,’ I
‘True national prosperity depends on a religious respect
‘Let us compare the period before, and the period after, de Isocr. c. 8). As to the large schemes of
conquest—embracing Italy and Libya—entertained at Athens in 415, see
Curtius αὐτὸν δὲ Σωφάνεα χρόνῳ ὕστερον
τούτων κατέλαβε ἄνδρα ἀγαθὸν γενόμενον Ἀθηναίων
στρατηγέοντα ἅμα
Λεάγρῳ τῷ Γλαύκωνος ἀποθανεῖν ὑπὸ Ἠδώνων ἐν Δάτῳ περὶ
τῶν
μετάλλων τῶν χρυσέων μαχεόμενον,
‘The effect of naval supremacy may be further seen in
‘Remembering this, you must not be led by demagogues
‘To sum up—the conditions of restoring Athens to
‘If you do this—and if, at the same time, you show yourselves warlike in preparation, but peaceful in the justice. of your policy—Greece will be tranquillised, seeing your power ready to step in to the support of the injured. In any event, however, Athens will gain reputation. If wars cease, the credit will be ours. If they do not, we shall be the recognised champions of the weak. The infirmities of age do not suffer me to express all that I foresee as in store for us. But, in one word, let us be the deliverers, not the despoilers of Greece.
‘The position among the Hellenes at which Athens ought to aim is like
that which the kings of Sparta held among the
‘Two things warn me to cease—the length of this speech, and the number of my years. Let younger men strive, by speaking and writing, to give an honest direction to the politics of Greece. They may remember that, when Greece prospers, her most thoughtful men prosper too’ (§§ 132—145).
The Speech
Dionysios admires the Speech as an exhortation to a just and upright
policyde
Isocr. c. 8.
The
‘Perhaps some of you will be surprised that I, who have always been
loyal to the customs of Sparta, should, in spite of my youth
‘The royal house of Sparta is responsible for the conduct of war;
surely it ought to have a voice in the debates on
‘Our allies urge us to resign Messenia and to make
‘I am no lover of words; but it will be useful at this moment to trace the historical claims of Sparta to Messene (§§ 15—16).
‘When Herakles had passed from earth to the gods, his their fatherland. Reflecting, they
found that Argos belonged to them by hereditary right—since the
offspring of Herakles were now the only representatives of Perseus:
Lacedaemon, by gift—for Heracles had bestowed it upon Herakles who
had restored him from exile: Messene, by conquest—for Herakles,
wronged by Neleus and his sons, had slain them and taken their town.
‘Deeming that the oracle spoke of all these places, the
‘All titles to possession are made stronger by length of occupancy.
We acquired Messene before the Persians were masters of Asia, and
before some of the Greek cities had been founded. Yet the Thebans,
while recognising, in the
‘Further, our claim to Messene has been indirectly allowed by our
enemies. We have had ere now to make a humiliating peace; but
neither Persia nor Athens has ever asked us for Messene. Our claim
was also recognised by the oracle at Delphi,—the most august in
Greece. It advised
‘We are urged to make our decision on grounds of expediency, not of abstract justice. This is wrong in principle, and not easy in practice; for what is expediency? It is not clear that, supposing we obeyed Thebes, we should obtain a firm peace. Concessions of this kind always invite new attacks (§§ 34—39).
‘There are plenty of instances in which disasters as great
‘Some advocate peace because war is a bad thing in itself. But that depends on circumstances. Peace is for the prosperous: war is certainly the best hope of the unfortunate. Those who would be free must make peace, not when the enemy bids them, but when they have become stronger than, or equal to, him (§§ 49—51).
‘We ought not to be less spirited in defending ourselves ib. 38. Pedaritos having refused to help
Astyochos in supporting the revolt of Lesbos, Astyochos refused to
support Pedaritos at Chios. The Athenian fort was at length
eompleted. Pedaritos then sent an urgent message to the Spartan
fleet at Rhodes, representing that, unless help came speedily, Chios
must be lost. In the mean time he made an attack on Delphinion with
such forces as he had, but was defeated and slain: Thuc. VIII. 55.
The words of Isokrates—
‘Some, reckless of our honour, advise peace because
‘Even, however, if we were utterly forsaken, I should be ashamed to
give up Messene, and to admit, either that our
‘There could be no nobler cause in which to die than the present,
when the prestige, when the very existence of Sparta is threatened.
Epidauros, Corinth, Phliusn. 2), no free Messenian theoria could
have visited Olympia since 723 B.C.
‘The true view of this crisis may be shortly given. By
The
The date is to be inferred from five indications:— ib.: (4) had got a bad name in Hellas and
incurred the enmity of Persia, § 10: (5) had been forced ‘to save
the friends of the Thebans’ and to lose their own allies, ib.
These notices point to one of two dates; to 346 B.C., in which peace was concluded between Athens and Philip; or to 355, in which the Social War, begun in 357, was closed by a peace between Athens and her allies.
The year 346 best suits (2), since it was only in de F. L. § 125.de Cor. §
169.
The year 355 evidently fits (1), (2) and (4) of
‘It will be asked why I come forward to speak on the “safety” of
Athens at a time when she has a fleet of more than two hundred
triremes; peace on her frontiers; the command of the sea; numerous
allies. It is, in truth, this very persuasion of security which
alarms me. The rise and the fall, first of Athens, then of Sparta,
prove that anxious watchfulness leads to success,—arrogance, to
ruin. Our
‘Under that democracy, licence was not confounded with freedom.
Political “equality” has been understood in two most other offices, lot was substituted for
election about 478 B.C.—Isokrates probably believed that, in the
case of archous, sometimes appointed by ballot; and also
that the proportion of inferior officials so appointed was larger
than in former times.See Curtius,
‘Such was their political system. From it followed their
‘If it is inquired to what causes such results may be
‘I do not mean to be hard upon youthful follies. My censure is meant
for those statesmen who, a little before our own timede Pac. (Or. VIII.) § 130
‘Some who have heard this account of our ancestors’ life, while
admiring it, have thought that my advice was unpractical—long habit
cannot be broken through,—and also dangerous to myself. I shall be
suspected, they say, of desiring an oligarchy. Now if I were
praising some new
‘Even our corrupt democracy would seem god-made by the side of the
government of the Thirty Tyrants. It was
‘You may ask why, then, I am dissatisfied with this
‘If our general system of government remains unaltered, all its
particular phenomena must continue the same—our conduct of war, our
conduct of debate, the spirit of our private life. If we go back to
the old system we shall get the old results. Then the Greeks trusted
us; then the de Fals. Legat. § 311 says that the
conditions were —
The purpose of the
The powers exercised by the Areiopagos before the reforms of
Ephialtes were of two kinds, definite and indefinite. The definite
powers were:—1. A limited criminal jurisdiction: 2. the supreme
direction of religious worship, especially of the cultus of the
Eumenides. The indefinite powers were:—1. A general supervision of
all magistrates and law-courts: 2. a general guardianship of the
laws, with the right of protest (though not of veto) when proposed
new laws conflicted with old: 3. a general control of the education
of the young: 4. a general censorship of public morals: 5.
competence to assume, in emergencies of the State, a dictatorial
authority
The definite powers of the Areiopagos were never at any time taken
from itde caede
Eratosth. § 32:—it has been assigned in your own time
also, to try causes of homicide.’ The antithesis is between restored,’ but ‘rendered,
assigned as a province.’ The idea might have been expressed
thus—in Aristocr. § 66) —in Eratosth. (Or. XII.) § 69,
THE six forensic speeches extant under the name of Isokrates belong to
the first period of his literary life, and cover about ten years 403—393
B.C. They are all in private causes, and may be classed thus:—
‘videtur esse actioThe speech of Demosthenes against Konon (a case ofαἰκίας , quam cum gravioriὕβρεως studiose confundit orator.>’
Two points help to fix the date. (1) Lochites is
The fact of the assault (the prosecutor says) has already
The cleverness of this speech lies in the speaker's
assault (
outrage (
The date is uncertain. In §§ 18—20, there is a de Isocrate rhetore, Köln, 1861: (perhaps
referring the troubles in Siphnos and Paros to the effect of the
Restoration at Athens in 403 B.C.).
The relationship of the persons chiefly concerned is shown by this
stemma:—
The speaker is glad of the opportunity given him by this
The speaker next contrasts his own conduct towards Thrasylochos with
that of the female claimant. In the first place he had saved the
very property now in question. Thrasylochos and his brother Sôpolis,
citizens of Siphnos, had, for security, placed the greater part of
their fortune in the neighbouring island of Paros. Paros was
suddenly seized by a party of democratic exiles, Parians and
Siphnians, led by one Pasînos. At the risk of his life, the speaker
sailed by night to Paros, and carried the endangered property back
to Siphnos. Presently the democratic masters of Paros attacked and
took Siphnos itself. The speaker—whose family belonged to the
aristocracy of the island, and had even given it kings—was among
those who were forced to fly. He took
Her advocates do not question the genuineness of the will, but complain of it as unreasonable and unjust. It is, however, perfectly reasonable, since, by adopting the speaker as his son, Thrasylochos provided against his family being extinguished and his mother and sister left destitute. It is also just; for the speaker was in all respects best entitled to the inheritance. The choice of him as heir would have gratified Sôpolis, the late brother, and Thrasyllos, the late father, of the testator (§§ 34—46). The speaker claims a verdict on the ground of his benefits to the deceased; of the will; and of the law with which the will accords (§§ 47— 51).
This is perhaps the best of the extant forensic
1.
Lysias wrote a speech, now lost, for Euthynus
The speaker can show good reason for appearing as
As no one, freeman or slave, was present when Nikias deposited or
demanded the money, no witness can be brought. The case for the
plaintiff must rest solely on presumptive evidence (
Had Nikias wished to practise extortion, he would not have chosen as
victim his own first-cousin Euthynus, a man, too, with little money
but with many friends. Probably Euthynus himself would not have
chosen out his kinsman to wrong, if the fact of the deposit had not
made the opportunity too tempting (§§ 8—10). The strongest
presumption for the defendant's guilt may be found in the time of
the transaction. Under the Thirty, Euthynus was all-powerful.
Nikias, merely on account of his wealth, was exposed to danger. Thus
Timodemos extorted 30 minae from him by the simple threat of
arresting him. At such a time, it is more likely that he should have
been a victim than a slanderer (§§ 11— 15). Euthynus will perhaps
say that it is unlikely that he should have repaid two talents and
withheld the third. It was just the foreseen plausibility of this
argument which emboldened him. Judicious frauds of this kind are
common; they ought not to be encouraged by the acquittal of
Euthynus. Besides, the same argument will serve Nikias. Why, if he
wished to extort money, should he not have claimed all three
talents? No fraudulent motive can be assigned for his demanding only
one. But the motive of Euthynus in repaying two is clear. It was
notorious that Nikias had deposited a sum of money with him; but the
amount of that sum was unknown. He saw, therefore, that it would be
safe for him to steal a part of it, but unsafe to steal the whole
(§§ 16— 21).
Philostratos reckons this ‘unattested
2.
Two points fix the date. (1) The Lacedaemonian supremacy
‘An action of this class is always difficult to maintain.
‘Presently news came that my father was restored to the favour of Satyros. Pasion, aware that there was now no longer any reason why legal proceedings should not be openly taken against him, hid his slave Kittos, who knew the truth. When Menexenos demanded that Kittos should be given up, Pasion retorted that we ourselves had made away with him, after bribing him to give us money from the bank. Presently, however, Kittos was found in Athens by Menexenos, who then demanded that he should be given up by Pasion for torture. Pasion at first asserted that Kittos was a freeman. Subsequently, however, he consented to submit him to the question: but, when we met for that purpose, refused to allow torture to be applied (§§ 11—16).
‘Finding that his conduct was blamed by everyone, he next sought a private interview with me. He pleaded poverty as the cause which had forced him to deny the debt. He then gave me a bond that he would accompany me to the Euxine and there pay the money—thus avoiding a scandal at Athens. The bond, which stipulated that, if we could not come to an agreement, Satyros should arbitrate, was placed in the hands of Pyron of Pherae, a merchant in the Euxine trade. In the event of an amicable settlement, he was to burn it; otherwise, to place it in the hands of Satyros (§§ 17—20).
‘Meanwhile Menexenos had upon his own account brought an action for libel against Pasion. Pasion was now terrified lest Menexenos should get hold of our bond. He implored my mediation, which I refused. Desperate, he bribed the slaves of Pyron, and found means of tampering with the bond. He then became defiant, and refused to go with me to the Euxine or to pay the money. When the bond was opened before witnesses, it was found to release Pasion from all claims on my part (§§ 21—23).
‘Pasion will rely much on this forged document. That it is a forgery,
is evident (1) from the terms of the
‘Or perhaps Pasion will contend that I had no money at all here. Among other things which disprove this is the fact that he himself became security for me in seven talents when a vessel upon which I had lent money was denounced as being the property of a Delian, and was in danger of being put to death untried. In a word,—which is more probable—that, at a moment when I was helpless, I should have brought a false charge against Pasion, or that he should have been emboldened to defraud me? (§§ 35—50.)
‘Ultimately Pasion did not go himself to the Bosporos, but sent Kittus as his agent. Satyros declined to give a judgment, but took my part, and wrote in my behalf to Athens. It is the clearest argument for my claim that Pasion declined my challenge to have his slave tortured. Consider the strength of my cause; remember the benefits of Satyros and his father [Spartakos I.] to Athens, for whose sake he has often sent away empty the corn-ships of other States,—and give just sentence in my favour.’ (§§ 51—58.)
The
The charge has a close likeness to another n.) and Cox (in Alc. § 26 Alkibiades took the horses
from Diomedes by force— screened by his influence with the Elean
Tisias could not charge Alkibiades the son with ib.) that, if cast in the suit,
he will be disfranchised. This means that, as he was unable to pay,
an action of ejectment (
In § 45 the speaker says that he was born just ap. Rauchenstein, Introd. to Select
Speeches (p. 4); by Krüger ad Clinton,
The speech, as extant, appears to be mutilated at the beginning,—the
lost part having contained the statement of the facts, followed by
the citation of evidence
The specific charge against him, the defendant says, has
Alkibiades was the victim of the men who concerted the Revolution of
the Four Hundred. Finding that he would not come into their schemes,
they brought against him the two most odious charges which they
could devise,—that of profaning the Mysteries, and that of
undermining the democracy. Their accusations broke down; and he was
appointed commander of the expedition to Sicily. In his absence,
they again caballed against him. Sentenced to an unjust banishment,
he still respected the welfare of Athens. He went to Argos and lived
quietly there, until the persecution kept up by his enemies at home
at last drove him to Sparta. The acts imputed to him—his having
caused Dekeleia to be fortified, having thrown the islands into
revolt, having guided the tactics of Sparta—admit either of denial
or of justification. Athenian citizens, who tasted the bitterness of
banishment under the Thirty, ought to sympathise with an exile who
was eager to return. Let them remember, too, what Alkibiades was
before his banishment—how, with 200 hoplites, he gained for Athens
the greatest cities of the Peloponnesus,—and how he commanded in
Sicily. Again, let them remember what was the position of affairs at
the moment when they received him back. The democracy had fallen;
the democratic army at Samos regarded the oligarchic rulers of
Athens as worse enemies than the Spartans; and the
It remains to speak of his private life—after a word as to his descent. On the paternal side, he sprang from the Eupatridac,—on the maternal, from the Alkmaeonidae—a family, one of whose members, Alkmaeon, was the first winner of a chariot-race at Olympia,—a family which was true to the people throughout the forty years of the Peisistratid tyranny, and which produced the leaders under whom the tyrants were overthrown. Alkibiades, whose father fell at Koroneia (great-grandson of him just named), became the ward of Perikles. On reaching the age for military service, he distinguished himself as one of 1000 picked hoplites whom Phormio led into Thrace. He afterwards married the daughter of Hipponikos,—whose hand was another prize won by him from many competitors. About the same time he conducted a sacred embassy to Olympia; and scorning to excel as a common athlete, sought a more splendid triumph in the chariot race. He entered more and better teams than the greatest State could have afforded; and gained the first, second, and third places. As regards his other public services, they might have been less brilliantly performed, and yet have formed the glory of other men: but to praise him for them would be trivial. (§§ 23—35.)
His loyalty to the democracy was proved by his sufferings. His
banishment was the first preparation for the oligarchy of the Four
Hundred, and the first consequence of the oligarchy of the Thirty.
His interests were, indeed, closely bound up with yours. The Tyrants
knew this; and while they drove others from Athens, drove Alkibiades
from Hellas; thinking that it would be vain to level the walls,
unless they removed him who could restore them. Among those Tyrants
was Charikles, brother-in-law of Tisias. Tisias himself was a
senator under the Thirty, and yet dares, in this instance, to
violate an amnesty which alone protects his own life. (§§ 36—44.)
The defendant appeals to the pity of the judges. He has had experience enough of troubles. He was not four years old when his father was banished,—his mother being already dead—and was then in danger of his life. He was still a boy when he was driven from Athens by the Thirty; and at the restoration of the democracy, was prevented by his enemies from benefiting by the grant of land made to those whose property had been confiscated. The damages are now laid at five talents. He is too poor to pay this, and will therefore be disfranchised. The father's victory at Olympia ought not to have for a result the son's disgrace,— a citizen who has ere now lost his privileges in the cause of the people ought not again to lose them by the people's vote. (§§ 45—49.)
Isokrates marks elsewhere his admiration for the ap. Blass
The facts of the case are these. In 403 B. C., during the short reign
of the Ten who succeeded the Thirty, Patrokles, the Archon Basileus,
denounced Kallimachos for having in his possession a sum of money
which was liable to confiscation, as being the property of a man who
had joined the exiles in the Peiraeus. The Ten referred the case to
the Senate, and the Senate decided that the money should be
confiscated. On the restoration of the democracy, Kallimachos
brought an action (1) against Patrokles, from whom he recovered ten
minae; (2) against one Lysimachos, from whom he recovered two minae;
(3) against the defendant. The defendant compromised the case,
paying two minae; and this compromise was sanctioned by the award of
an arbitratorunder terms.’ Cf. Or. XVII. § 19,
The defendant now avails himself of the new law
The Amnesty of 403 is recent (§ 29); on the ib.) 397; Sanneg, 400;
Rehdantz, 403—400; Krüger (ap. Starke) 400.
The Special Plea is a novelty, and its form must be
A narrative of the facts follows. (§§ 5—12.)
‘Kallimachos intends,’ the defendant goes on, ‘to deny that any arbitration took place. It is not likely, he will say, that he should have chosen as referee my friend Nikomachos; or that he should have taken two minae in payment for a hundred. But the terms of the reference left no discretionary power to Nikomachos; and it is not surprising that a claimant who had no real case at all should have been satisfied by two minae. Even, however, if there had been no arbitration; even if no witnesses could be brought; you could infer the truth from my past character. When the oligarchy was strongest,—when injustice was easiest,—I never assailed the fortunes or life of any citizen, nor struck any one off the civic list to place him upon the muster-roll of Lysander. Is it likely that I should have dared to do so when the oligarchy was tottering? (§§ 11—18.)
‘This is enough to show that the accusation is untrue. It can also be
shown that the action is illegal. The Amnesty, and the oaths which
ratified it, shall be read to you.
‘Kallimachos will bewail his poverty and his peril; he will inveigh
against the crimes of the oligarchy. The plea of poverty is no
defence for a slanderer who has brought peril upon himself; the
crimes of the oligarchy are irrelevant. (§§ 35—41.) Men will infer
from your verdict whether the Amnesty is, or is not, to be observed.
You yourselves know that that Amnesty has brought us peace and
honour in exchange for an infamous civil war. (§§ 42—46.) Shall it
be broken by a man of such life as Kallimachos? During the ten years
of our war with Sparta, he kept away from us. When the Thirty came
to power, he returned to Athens. When they were about to fall, he
went to the Peiraeus; when the Spartan army had blockaded the exiles
there, he fled to Boeotia. You do not know him as I do. Kratinos
once had a lawsuit for a farm with the brother-inlaw of Kallimachos.
A personal encounter took place; and the brother-in-law of
Kallimachos swore that a female slave of his had died of a blow
received from Kratinos during the fray. Kratinos allowed them to
bring their action; and, as soon as Kallimachos had sworn that the
woman was dead, produced her alive. That such a man should accuse
others of falsehood is as if Phrynondas should say that his
neighbours are blackguards; or, Philurgos, the stealer of the
‘But there will be other opportunities of denouncing Kallimachos; I wish now to recall one of my own merits. When our fleet was lost at Aegospotami, I was one of the few trierarchs who saved their ships; and the only one who, on returning to the Peiraeus, did not lay down his trierarchy. In partnership with my brother, I continued to serve, bringing corn to Athens in defiance of Lysander's prohibition. For this you crowned us—at a time when crowns were less common than they now are. Remember the contrast between Kallimachos and me; remember the Amnesty; and decide in the interests of justice and of Athens.’ (§§ 58—68.)
The genuineness of the speech has been doubted not cultivated. But, assuming that he did write some forensic speeches, then
probably—when most careful—he would have given them the
characteristics which he recognises as distinctive of their class.
THE nine
1.
Three points are helps towards fixing the date.
iuniorem, sub regni initia’ [i. e. 367 B.C.]. But in 367
the statement regarding Carthage would have been much too strong. Nor
has Dobree observed that § 8 excludes the supposition of the Letter
being addressed to the younger Dionysios:—
‘Were I a younger man, I would not have written but
2.
370. On the death of Jason, his brothers Polydoros and Polyphron become joint tagoi. Polydoros is soon afterwards murdered by Polyphron.
369. Alexander, son of Polydoros, murders Polyphron and reigns in his stead.
359
note 2.
358. Tisiphonos dies. Lykophron and Peitholaos presently avail themselves
of the distraction caused by the Phocian (or ‘Sacred’) War, 357 B. C.,
to establish a joint tyranny
352. Philip of Macedon deposes Lykophron and frees Pherae from the tyranny.
This letter of Isokrates was written to Thebe and her half-brothers, the
children of Jasonchildren
of Jason, some have made the mistake of supposing this Letter to
have been written in 370 B.C.—eleven years before its real date. Thus
Dobree says (
‘One of our envoys has brought me word that you asked
‘I will try, however, to discuss your affairs as I would have done had I come to you. This letter is not meant for rhetorical display: it is written because I see you in great troubles. A man of my age is past writing well; but the very length of his experience qualifies him to advise. (§§ 4—6.) I always teach my pupils that, in composing a speech, the first thing needful is to define clearly the object which they wish the speech to effect; the next thing is to adapt the means to that end. This principle does not apply to the writing of speeches only; it applies to all enterprises, and to your case among the rest. You must reflect what mode of life, what kind of repute, you desire; whether you are ambitious of honours to be given by, or extorted from, your fellow-citizens; and then you must shape accordingly your daily conduct. To me the life of a private man seems better than that of a king,—the honours of a republic sweeter than those of a monarchy. I know that this view will find many adversaries, especially among those who are about you. They look only to the powers, the riches, the pleasures of royalty, ignoring its troubles and its dangers. Now this is just the feeling with which men dare crimes. They know that there is peril; but trust that they will contrive to avoid it. I envy such easiness of temper; but should be ashamed if, in advising others, I failed to state fairly both sides of the question. Expect, therefore, an impartial estimate.’...(§§ 7—14.)
3.
In § 4 there is a reference to ‘the battle in
Either the Letter was meant merely to introduce a discourse sent along
with it
prefaces to what must have been long discourses, like the
‘I leave to others, Archidamos, the easy task of praising
‘It is strange that no powerful statesman or speaker has
‘These miseries, now long continued, have as yet attracted the
indignation of no leading city in Greece; nor of any leading man, except
your father. Agesilaos stood alone
‘Some, perhaps, whose so-called ‘philosophy’ has none but petty aims,
will call it madness in me to suppose that Greece at large can be better
or worse for any words of mine. But, though eighty years old and worn
out, I am arrogant enough to believe that such counsels can come from no
one so well as from me, and that perchance they will bear fruit. I
believe that, if the other Greeks had to pick out the man who could best
advocate, and the man who could best execute, measures recognized as
useful, the choice would fall on none but you and me. My part is the
smaller; to say what one thinks is not hard; but you should be moved by
you descent, by your place in Sparta, by your name in Greece, to rise to
the height of your new duty. Leave all else, and give your mind to two
things only—the deliverance of the Greeks from their miserable feuds,
and the crushing of barbarian
4.
The date of this Letter can be only
‘You have probably often heard of the old friendship
‘Autokrator, the bearer of this letter, is my friend; our pursuits are the same, and I have often been helped by his skill. For these reasons I would have you use him well. Do not marvel that I thus write to you, though I never made any request of your father Klearchos. When he was with us, all agreed about his kindliness; but after he got power he was said to have changed. I was estranged from him; but your friendship would be prized by me. Farewell; if you want any thing from here, write.’ (§§ 10—13.)
5.
The revolt of the allies from Athens was followed, at the close of the
Social War (355 B.C.), by revolutions in many of the cities. Oligarchies
arose at Corcyra, Chios, Kos, Rhodes, and in the cities of
Lesbos—Antissa, Methymna, and Mytilene
democracy in 403 B.C., § 3: 2. Diophantos may
not have come back from Egypt till 346 B C.: for, while Diodoros and
Clinton (n.) argues from
Isokr. (
‘My grandsons, the sons of Aphareus, have asked me to
‘It will perhaps be said that this request is just, but that I have no
claim to make it. I have not, indeed, been a statesman or public
speaker; but I have been the adviser of the speakers truest to you and
to our other allies; and have myself written more in defence of Greek
liberty than all the ranters of the platform put together. Were Konon
and Timotheos alive—had Diophantos returned from Asia—they
6.
Philip was engaged in a Thracian War from 342 to 339 B.C.
‘Men are more grateful for praise than for advice. But
‘It is unworthy of you to aim at a reputation for mere reckless courage. The special risks of a monarch are enough without adding to them the risks of a soldier. Glory of a higher kind is within your reach. Carry war against the barbarians on your frontier no further than is necessary for the safety of Macedonia; and set the Greeks an example of making war upon the Great King. I wish that this advice had been given before your expedition; for then it might have averted your danger, or at least have proved my foresight. (§§ (—12.)
‘Though this letter is already too long, a word must be said in
conclusion about Athens. If you blame Athens for listening to those who
slander you, do not listen to those who slander her. The influence which
worthless men have here is only the influence that might be yours. I do
not deny that Athens has made some mistakes; but I maintain that no city
in Hellas could be a more useful ally for you. Her merely passive
friendship would give you strength both in Hellas and against the
barbarian. You have been applauded
7.
‘As I am writing to your father, and you are with him,
8.
The Letter commends to Antipater one Diodotos and his son, who wish to
enter the service of Philip. Nothing is known from other sources about
this Diodotosnote) on Letter VI., the
commentator suggests that this Diodotos is possibly identical with the
interpreter of Herakleitos mentioned by Diogenes Laertios, IX. 15.
‘Even in time of peace, a letter from Athens to
‘His son, too, is advised by me to take service under your government. He is ambitious to do so; but feels like an athlete eager for a crown which he dares not hope to win. He is without experience; and has defects of person which he fears will be against him. In any case, whether he resides in Macedonia or (as a neutral) at Athens, pray watch over his safety and that of his father. Look upon them as a trust committed to you by my old age—my fame (if that is worth aught)—my friendship. Forgive the length of an old man's letter; I had but one aim,—to show goodwill for the best of friends.’ (§§ 10—13.)
9.
‘I have already had some talk with Antipater about
The only lost workcod. 260. de Isocratis
Vita et Scriptis, pp. 21 f, which Bernhardy on Cic.
There is nothing to prove that any of the de
hiatu p. 56) thinks that this quotation is from a lost
speech of Isokrates
It would, of course, be idle to inquire what proportion of these sayings
is genuine. A master of neat expression, who was at the same time
singularly sententious, could not fail to be credited with many such
THE silence which surrounds the life of Isaeos, in contrast with the
reputation of his work, has a meaning of its own. Dionysios, in setting
forth those few and barren facts which the Augustan age could discover
to his search, unconsciously indicates the chief cause of their
scantiness. ‘I cannot tell,’ he says, ‘what were the politics of Isaeos,
—or whether he had any politics
at all
The date of his birth can only be guessed from vit.
Isae. and vit. Demosth.: Demetrios ap. Suid. and Harpokr.: Photios cod. 263.s.v.
ap. Harpokr.— Dionysios gives the preference to
this account: de Isae. c. 1 praef. vi.:
Weissenborn l.c. Curtius approves: V. 172 (Ward.) For the revolt of
Euboea, see Thuc. VIII. 95. Chalkis was the place where the remnant of
the Athenian ships sought refuge. Athenian kleruchs had held Oreos since
the reconquest of Euboea by Perikles. Thuc. I. 14: Cox ap. Weissenborn
l.c.) proposed
In 400 B. C.—when Plato was twenty-nine years old, Isokrates thirty-six,
and Lysias fifty-nine (or, according to the modern view of his
birth-date, forty-four at mostap. Dionys. ‘connected himself
with Plato’ (V. 172, Ward) and so Weissenborn. The
authorities for this (so far as they are known to me) are (1) Phot. cod. 265, p. 1472 R, and (2) [Plut.] vit. Demosth., whence Photios gets it.Now, I
strongly suspect that Photios has mis-construed the passage in the
Plutarchic Life. It says of s.
v.
vit. Demosth.,—in vit. Isaei the text is doubtful; and Suid. s. v.
vit. Isocr.—Benseler (p. 192), applying the
hiatus-test, puts the discipleship only a little before 360, when Isaeos
was past 50: but, as we shall see below, that test breaks down.vit. Isae. the ordinary reading gives n.: or cod. 263 took his
Isaeos, like Antiphon and Lysias, was a professsional writer of forensic
speeches. But a comparative
Demosthenes was born in 384, and came of age in 366. Before attaining his
majority he had resolved on the contest with the guardians who had
abused their trust. The two orations Against Aphobos belong to 363 B.
C.; the two orations Against Onetor to 362. Now, in 366, Isaeos must
have been known for upwards of twenty years as a successful writer of
forensic speeches, and also as a master of Attic law, especially in the
department of claims to property. No one could be better fitted to arm
Demosthenes for his first encounter. There is no doubt whatever that
Demosthenes had recourse to the aid of Isaeos. Afterwards, when that
relative obscurity in which the critics left the elder orator was hardly
broken save by this stray gleam from the glory of the younger, friendly
biographers naturally welcomed everything that could add brightness to
the borrowed rayvit. Dem. The same author represents these
studies with Isaeos as having begun while
Demosthenes was yet a minor and living in his mother's house; and so
Plutarch, vit. Demosth. c. 5: Libanios vit. Dem. p. 3 (Reiske): Suidas s v. vit.
Isae.: Phot. cod. 263. Curtius adopts
the tradition (V. 221, Ward). Schäfer suggests that it may have arisen
from Demosthenes having made some present to Isaeos on winning the cause
against Aphobos (vit. Dem. [not the
pseudoPlutarch in the lives of the X. Orators] c. 5.de glor. Athen. p. 350 C): but this is vague;
and need mean no more than that he knew an Art of Rhetoric (see ch. XXI. ad init.) to be extant under the name of
Isaeos.
The Sixth Oration, On the Estate of Philoktemon (364—363 B. C.), falls in
the midst of those years (366—362) which the tradition supposes Isaeos
to have reserved for Demosthenes; showing that, if Isaeos had no other
disciples, he had at least concurrent occupations. Then another version
claims for Isaeos the credit of having taught Demosthenes gratis
The death of Isaeos is conjecturally placed about 350 B.C. In a general
view of his career, we are praef. vi. (where his
‘fortasse’ seems to leave the question as to Or. IV. open; but see p.
269 of his Commentary): Schäfer delivery from Isaeos, ‘who himself never came
forward in public’ (v. 226, Ward).
AT the conclusion of his essay on Isaeostook its seeds and its
beginnings from Isaeos
ib. c. 3, where he says that the composition of
Isaeos, in respect of the power, the impressiveness, of its
embellishment (
The significance of Isaeos, when looked at closely,
A comparison of Isaeos with Lysias may begin in the province of expression, with its two departments of diction and composition, and thence pass to the province of subject-matter.
As regards diction, the resemblance is close. Isaeos, emulous of that
persuasive ‘plainness’ (de
futuro dicunt. Isaeus etiam de praeterito:
de
praeterito dicunt. These impossible solecisms must have been
mere blunders of the copyist for about which he had satisfied
himself’—i. e., which he felt sure that I would do [the speaker
had been saying that he had been approved by his actions, ib. § 18: VII. § 14, ib. § 36:
Lysias, as we have seen, had exchanged the rigid monotony of the old
periodic writing for a manner better suited to real contests, for a
style more flexible and more various, in which the periods are
relieved by sentences not periodic, and the proportion borne by one
element to the other is determined by the scale of the subject.
Lysias was, however, fond of antithesis; and the result is that,
while his composition as a whole has variety, the structure of his
periods themselves is apt to be too stiff and uniform
Good illustrations are afforded by those ‘proems,’ or openings, of
Lysian and Isaean speeches which Dionysios has compared
ethical contrast in the specimens taken by Dionysios
lessens the difficulty.
‘I think, judges, I must first tell you of my
Now take the opening of a speech by Isaeos
‘Once, judges, on a former occasion, I proved
Lysias wrote a defence
‘It is not enough, judges, for guardians to have
Isaeos, too, wrote a defence for a guardian against his ward:—
‘I could have wished, judges, that the plaintiff's
Lysias supplied a defence
‘As soon as Archebiades brought this action
Isaeos wrote a speech for a man who claimed from his demesmen a farm
which he had pledged to them; the speaker is supposed to be young
and untrained (
‘I should have wished, judges, if possible, not
These examples will illustrate what it is needful to see clearly—that, in
matter of expression, the difference between Lysias and Isaeos is one,
not of diction, but of composition. They will always show how far, and
in what sense, Isaeos sacrifices êthos to his more trenchant and
metallic emphasis: it is the portrayal of the ingenuous youth or the
plain man, the
Mention must be made once more of the technical distinction between
‘figures of language’ and ‘figures of thought’. A ‘figure of language’
is a combination of words for the artificial expression of an idea—as by
antithesis. The object of such a figure is rhetorical ornament; and, if
the form of expression is changed, the figure of language is destroyedcriterion taken by the rhetor Alexander
Numenios (flor. circ. 120 A.D. under Hadrian) in
his treatise die Rhet. der Griech.
u. Rom, pp. 395, 416. For his whole analysis of the figures
in both kinds, pp. 396—430.ib. p. 99.Sed sententiarum ornamenta [
, &c.
cod. 263. After observing that it is hard to discern the
work of Isaeos from that of Lysias, distribution and arrangement of all the
elements (including figures) of the spcech on which Dionysios dwells (de Isae c 3), and which will be noticed
presently. But this explanation, though ingenious, is strained. Photios
rather means that Isaeos was the first who really used the
cod. 259 (of Antiphon),
It remains to notice one minor trait of the Isaean composition which is
not without historical interest. Isokrates, as we saw, studiously shuns
allowing a vowel at the end of one word to be followed by a vowel at the
beginning of the next
That divergence of Isaeos from Lysias which thus widens at each step from
the starting point of a common diction is found complete when we turn
from the formal to the real side of his work. It is in the treatment of
subject-matter that the distinctive art of Isaeos is fully manifested.
Lysias adheres strictly to the simple fourfold partition—proem,
narrative, proof, epilogue. Sometimes a narrative, properly so-called,
may not be needed; sometimes the narrative may be in itself the proof;
but, where the four parts are present, Lysias keeps them distinct and in
their proper ordergeneral characteristics of
Isaeos, as compared with Lysias, in regard to treatment of
subjectmatter, are bricfly noticed by Dionysios special characteristics, in regard to (1)
narrative, (2) proof, in cc. 14—18.
Sometimes there is an ordinary proem, much in the manner of Lysias,
explaining the friendship of the speaker for the litigant
The narrative is sometimes short
In regard to proof, whether massed or sectional, the characteristic
difference between Isaeos and Lysias is fairly represented by the
remark of the same critic, that Lysias uses enthymeme, Isaeos uses also
epicheireme
enthymeme, Aristotle meant a all such things, Rhetoric deals only with
a certain class of them, viz. defines an enthymeme as ‘a of which
one premiss is suppressed
curtum enthymema. That the suppression of
one premiss was not essential to Aristotle's
conception of the Enthymeme, has been shown unanswerably by Sir W.
Hamilton,
defined the enthymeme as a syllogism of a peculiar matter (epicheireme was
then brought in to denote a rhetorical syllogism which is stated in
full—an ‘essay’ to deal thoroughly with the issue at stakedie Rhetorik der Griechen und Romer (1872),
pp. 153 f.—Sir W. Jones (stated. See Quint. v. 10 § 5, Propria eius
appellatio et maxima in usu est posita certa
quaedam sententiae comprehensio, quae ex tribus minimum
partibus
constat. Cicero rendered it by
ratiocinatio, which Quintilian likes better than ratio or aggressio: he himself keeps amplitude of epicheirematic, as compared
with enthymematic, proof, is well expressed by the phrase of Dionys.
‘You have now heard, judges, not only our
‘I should be glad, then, to learn from the most respected of our adversaries whether he could establish his Athenian citizenship by any other proofs than those which we have brought for Euphiletos. For my part, I do not think he could do more than show that both his parents are Athenians, and adduce the testimony of his relatives to the truth of that assertion. Then again, judges, supposing our adversaries were in peril, they would expect you to believe their friends rather than their accusers; as it is, though we have all that testimony on our side, shall they require you to put faith in their own story rather than in Euphiletos, in me and my brother, in our clansmen, in our entire family? Moreover, the adversaries are acting from private enmity, without personal risk to one of their number; we, who give our evidence, stand, one and all, within the peril of the law.
‘In addition to these testimonies, judges, the mother of Euphiletos,
whom the adversaries allow to be an Athenian, was willing to take an
oath before the arbitrator at the Delphinion that she and our
A striking trait of Isaeos in the province of argument is iteration;
and the preference of emphasis to form which this implies is worth
notice as suggesting how the practical view of oratory was beginning
to prevail over the artistic. Sometimes the repetition is verbal—an
indignant question or phrase occurs again and again, where Isokrates
would have abstained from using it twice
The epilogue in Isaeos is usually a brief recapitulation, often
concluding with an appeal in which the judges are urged to remember
their duty to the deadde Demosth. c. 39, where which does not stoop to petty
neatnesses,—ib. Ernesti (
naturalem.’
Dionysios sums up the relation of Isaeos to Lysias in one of those
illustrations which he loves to draw from painting or sculpture. ‘There
are some old pictures, simply wrought as to colouring, with no variety
of tints, but accurate in drawing, and thereby delightful; while the
later paintings are inferior in drawing, but more elaborate, with
variety of light and shade, and derive their effectiveness from the
multitude of their huesfiery earnestness
finish, again, is consummate beyond the measure of Lysias.
Complete, too, is his skill in amplifying, and in
the other constituents of grandeur
all of these, says Hermogenes, Isaeos has. They
are:—1. majesty. 2. The power of ‘amplifying (generalisation, sometimes development of an idea. 3. ‘Vigour,’ — asperity:
5.
brilliancy: 6. vehemence. [On the distinction between 4 and 6
see named in the text: but
we must bear in mind that the other four are vigour; so that,
in these respects, though he is not a little inferior to Demosthenes, he
is far superior to method is considerable in Isaeos,—but less than in
Lysias.’ The last remark might seem disputable; for, as Dionysios truly
sayspower, but inferior in tact. The result, obtained by too rigid and
mechanical a process, is incomplete; but it is interesting for its
careful and respectful estimate of an orator whom (with the great
exception of Dionysios) the criticism of the Roman age neglected
once mention him—and then in not very select company.
Speaking of the ‘Attici,’ he says (XII. 10 § 22), ‘Transeo plurimos,
Lycurgum, Aristogitona, et his priores Isaeum, Antiphontem: quos, ut
homines, inter sc similes, differentes dixeris specie.’ The style of
Lykurgos was not highly esteemed by the Augustan or later critics; he is vet. scrip. cens. 3. As to Aristogiton, the
adversary of Demosthenes (see [Dem.] Orr. XXV. XXVI. and Deinarchos Or.
II.), he was of small repute every way. Maximus Planudes speaks of that sycophantic oratory, ib. IV. 90. The truth is that Quint. made
no careful study of the Greek orators, except Isokrates, Demosthenes,
and (in a measure) Lysias: but this treatment of Isaeos is especially
remarkable.
In diction, Isaeos has, then, like Lysias, purity,
Now let us ask what is the meaning of that statement—so brief, so
general, yet so strikingly emphatic—in which Dionysios embodies his
reason for regarding the work of Isaeos, not as a mere result of Lysias,
but as possessing a substantive and permanent interest. In what sense is
it true that the oratorical power of Demosthenes took its ‘seeds and
beginnings’ from Isaeos? The first point to observe is that, besides
such special limitations of this statement as Dionysios himself
elsewhere furnishes, there is a general qualification which from the
outset we must supply for ourselves. Like other ancient critics
Isaeos was, through life, a professional writer of speeches for the
lawcourts, and this, so far as appears, almost exclusively in
private causes. Demosthenes, after the lawsuit with his guardians,
sought to repair the fortunes which they had brought low by working
in the calling which such men as Antiphon, Lysias and Isaeos had
followed before him. A host of private speeches, not his, are given
to him in the collection of Kallimachos. But, to take those only of
which the genuineness is tolerably certain, we have proof that he
wrote for private causes from 361 to
As regards composition, the likeness consists in ib. p. 61) he adds to these the
It was the secret of waging an oratorical contest, not, in the more
stately manner of an elder school, as from contrary stages, but at
close quarters, with the grip as of wrestlers, with the instance of
pleaders who urge their case, point by point, on critics as exact as
themselves, with the intensity of a prosecutor or prisoner, a
plaintiff or defendant, who knows that the imminent award will be
given by men whom the habit of listening to acute discussion has led
to set their standard high, for whom the detection of sophistry has
become a pastime and its punishment a luxury, and whose attention
can be fixed only by a demonstration that the speaker is in earnest.
Since the time when Kleon
‘I ask you, then, judges,—in order that you may not be deceived,—to
take note of the affidavit on which you have to give the verdict.
Insist that his defence, like our plaint, shall be relevant to that
affidavit. He has stated that Philoktemon did not give or bequeath
the estate to Chaerestratos;
born to a man who has already adopted
a son, both sons shall share alike in the inheritance. Let the
defendant prove then, as anyone of you would prove, that his clients
are legitimate. Legitimacy is not demonstrated by stating the
mother's name, but by a proof that the statement is true, supported
by the evidence of the kinsfolk, of those who knew the woman to be
Euktemon's wife, of the demesmen and of the clansmen, to these
points:—whether they have heard, or are aware, that Euktemon ever
discharged a public service on account of his wife's property:
where, or among what tombs, she is buried; who saw Euktemon
performing the rites at her grave; whither her sons still repair
with offerings and libations for the dead; and what citizen or what
servant of Euktemon has seen it. These things together will give
us—not abusive language, but—a logical test. If you keep him to
this, if you bid him give his proof in conformity with his
affidavit, your verdict will be religious and lawful, and these men
will get their rights.’ The First and
Isaeos influenced Demosthenes directly and decisively in the forensic
province, and, through this, in the deliberative also. But
Demosthenes himself is manifold; it is his very distinction that he
is of no one character, the exclusive disciple of no one masterib. 34.ib. 44. The word which I represent by
‘glitter’ is de
Isae. 4.—‘Florid’ is ib. 43ib. 45.
Relatively to the history of Attic Oratory, it is, for us, the unique
interest of Isaeos that he represents the final period of transition.
His profession was to write speeches which others were to speak in the
law-courts, and this almost wholly in private causes. He takes account,
therefore, of the pattern first made clear by Lysias; he tries somewhat
to make it seem as if the private person his client, and
SIXTY-FOUR speeches bearing the name of Isaeos—of which fifty were
allowed as genuine—and an Art of Rhetoric, are mentioned by the writer
of the Plutarchic Lifead Ammaeum I. 2 speaks generally of ‘Theodektes, Philiskos, cod.
263) are: circ. 850
A.D.) extant. The last sentence may obviously be rendered in two
ways:—(1) ‘Of this number, those which, being attested as genuine, are
extant are only 50’; —implying that others not so attested were extant.
(2) ‘Of this number, only those 50 which have been attested as genuine
are extant.’ I prefer the latter version.de Isae. 17) is printed as Or. XII. by recent
editors, as by Baiter and Sauppe in their s. v.
without
suspicion s. v.
So far as can now be judged, the orations of Isaeos s.
vv.
In the ancient collection of an orator's works, the largest or the most
distinctive class of his speeches stood first. For Antiphon, this class
consisted of the speeches in cases of homicide, the
In these extant speeches the connexion with the
The speeches of Isaeos are the oldest documents sacra have
passed under the separate jurisdiction of the Pontifical College; the
obligation imposed by the Civil Law has become independent of the
theological sanctionpro herede, suggests this explanation—quod voluerunt veteres maturius hereditates
adiri, ut essent qui sacra facerent: quorum illis temporibus
summa
observatio fuit; et ut creditores haberent a quo suum
consequerentur
— showing how far back in the past the old
religious feeling was to him.primarily in order that his departed spirit may
enjoy higher spiritual benefits than it could enjoy if the offerings at
the grave were made by a relative less near than a sondelivers the father from torment, has been
partly lost sight of; but it is still held that the son can thus admit
the father to some particular heaven which no other sacrificer could
open to him.primarily because he wished to leave his property
to a person who would not otherwise get it. For the Hindoo, that
religious motive in which adoption originated is still foremost. For the
Athenian of the days of Isaeos, the faculty of adoption, though
necessarily associated with religion, is chiefly significant in its
civil aspect, as a limited form of testamentary power.
The following are the chief rules which, at Athens, governed succession
and bequest:—
I. When a citizen died leaving sons, they shared the inheritance equally, the eldest having priority of choice.
II. Failing sons and sons' issue, daughters and daughters' issue
succeeded
III. But a daughter was never, in our sense, an heiress. She was,
strictly, a person who went with the estate (
IV. Failing lineal descendants, the succession passed to collateral
kinsfolk on the paternal side, as far down as to children of
first-cousinsson. Hence the fallacy.
V. A man could not disinherit his son. Nor could he separate his estate from his daughter, though he could select the person whom she was to marry.
VI. A childless man might, either during his life or by testament, adopt
any Athenian citizen as his son and heir.
VII. Mothers
Polyarchos left two children, Kleonymos, and the mother of the
claimants. On the death of their father the claimants became the
wards of their paternal uncle Deiniasnot brothers of Pherenikos. It
is by an oversight that the author of the Greek Argument has
included among the defendants Simon, named as a friend of Deinias in
§ 31,—where
The claimants contend that the will had been virtually cancelled, and
claim as next of kin (
Benseler places the speech below 360 B. C., and
‘Kleonymos had intended us to be his heirs: now we are
[Then comes a narrative of the facts, §§ 9—14, supported by witnesses, §§ 15—16.]
‘It is pretended that Kleonymos sent for the magistrate not to cancel but to confirm his will. If, being then on the best terms with us, his nephews, he wished to clinch the wrong which, in a fit of anger, he had once meant to do us, he was mad, and his will ought to be set aside. But that this was not his purpose,—that he meant, not to revise, but to revoke his will,—was shown by the unwillingness of Poseidippos and Diokles to admit the magistrate (§§ 17—24). Besides, a mere correction or addition might have been made on a new tablet; by sending for the original document Kleonymos showed that he desired some substantial alteration (24—26). Not only on grounds of kinship but also on grounds of friendship Kleonymos was more likely to have left his property to us than to the defendants (§§ 27—38). There is always a presumption for claimants by blood as against claimants by will (§§ 41—43). Again, take the test of reciprocal obligation: if Kleonymos had died leaving daughters unprovided for, we, not the defendants, would have been liable to provide for them (§§ 39, 40). Or, if the defendants and we had alike died without issue, Kleonymos would have been heir, not to them, but to us (§§ 44— 47). Either the testator was of unsound mind, or we are the heirs’ (§§ 48—51).
Nikostratos, an Athenian citizen, had died abroad, after an absence
from Athens of eleven years (§ 8), during part of which he seems to
have been doing
In this speech, a friend (§ 7) of Hagnon and Hagnotheos recapitulates
the points of their case. Hagnon (or, as he and his brother were
boys, may, of course, mean ‘relations,’ as it
does in § 18, but seems rather to mean merely ‘friends’:—Hagnon and
Hagnotheos are my as their father was before
them. ’ Schömann (p. 269) remarks that the author's
authority may have been Didymos, whose commentaries on Isaeos are
mentioned by Harpokr. S.V.
‘Witnesses cannot be brought, nor false statements easily
‘Six other persons besides Chariades have put forward, and withdrawn,
claims to the inheritanceunderstand
came six times into
dispute’. but (1) the grief would have been
counterfeited before the contest: and (2) the ellipse of were announced for competition’—six? The annotator may either, like Reiske,
have taken
‘Universally the presumption is strong in favour of claimants by
kinship as against claimants under a will (
‘Certain supporters of Chariades pretend that they are themselves the next of kin to Nikostratos. In that case it is their interest to claim the estate on their own account. If defeated they will be able to try again: whereas, if Chariades once obtains the estate under an alleged will, no claim founded on kinship can afterwards be entertained (§§ 21—26).
‘Lastly:—contrast the antecedents of the parties to the cause. Thrasippos, father of the defendants, was a patriotic citizen, and his sons have always borne a good name. Chariades—who has been absent from Athens for 17 years—has been imprisoned for theft and indicted as a malefactor. Let the judges decide as the evidence and their oaths enjoin’ (§§ 27—31).
Eupolis, Mneson and Thrasyllos were brothers. Mneson died childless.
Thrasyllos was killed in the Sicilian expedition, and left his son
Apollodoros I. to
At the death of Apollodoros, his estate was claimed by his first-cousin, the elder of the two daughters of Eupolis, and wife of one Pronapes. She denied that Thrasyllos II. had been adopted by Apollodoros I. In this speech Thrasyllos defends his right.
The date must be about 353 B. C. For:—
The speaker, Thrasyllos, was adopted by Apollodoros
Gratitude to Archedamos had prompted Apollodoros to adopt the
speaker; who, at the Thargelia, was duly received into the family
and the clan (§§ 5—17). Had there been no such adoption, however,
the next heir would have been, not the wife of Pronapes, but her
nephew, Thrasybulos. The silence of Thrasybulos is evidence to the
adoption (§§ 18—26); which was ratified by the demesmen of
Apollodoros. At their meeting to choose the officers of the deme (
The wife of Pronapes and her sister had already inherited the
property of their brother; but had ignored the obligation to
constitute one of their children his representative before the law (
ib.). This would have been warning enough to Apollodoros.
He would never have left his property to the wife of Pronapes
The public services of Apollodoros and his father, Thrasyllos I., are
contrasted with those of Pronapesas if he paid the tax of a knight’—showing
that the names, at least, of the Solonian classes were kept up.
Schömann suggests that the offices for which the census of a knight
was required may have been such as were concerned with the
administration of the public money (p. 373).
Kiron married his first-cousin, by whom he had one daughter. This daughter was married, first, to Nausimenes; secondly, to another husband by whom she had two sons, of whom the eldest is the speaker.
After the death of his first wife, Kiron married the sister of one
Diokles, and had by her two sons, both of whom died young.
At the death of Kiron, his estate was claimed by his daughter's
eldest son. But the son of Kiron's brother, instigated by Dioklesεἶτα κατάξειέ τις αὐτοῦ μεθύων τῆς
κεφαλῆς Ὀρέστης μαινόμενος
to the well-known law (
The only indication of the date is that the for we were born after the archonship
of Eukleides.’ This alludes to the law carried in 403
by Aristophon the Azenian,—that the son of a citizen shall be
illegitimate, if his mother (as well as father) was not a citizen:
The speaker denounces the impudence of this attempt
I. First, he will show that his mother was the legitimate daughter of Kiron (§ 6). He states the facts as to Kiron's second marriage (§§ 7—9); and proves, in support of them, that he had challenged the other side to give up Kiron's slaves for torture, which challenge had been refused (§§ 9—14). He and his brother were always treated by Kiron as his nearest kinsmen (§§ 15—17). His mother was treated as Kiron's daughter both by her husband and by the women of Kiron's deme: he and his brother were formally enrolled by Kiron in his phratria (§§ 18—20). Lastly, Diokles himself allowed the speaker and his brother to assist at the funeral of Kiron—thus recognising the relationship (§§ 21—29).
II. Secondly, he will show that, as son of Kiron's daughter, he has a
better claim than the son of Kiron's brother. Descent (
An account of the property of Kiron and of the intrigues of Diokles
(§§ 35—39) is followed by a personal attack on
Euthykrates and Thudippos were brothers. Thudippos had a son named Kleon. Euthykrates had a son Astyphilos and a daughter. On the death of Euthykrates, his wife married a second husband named Theophrastos, by whom she had a son.
Astyphilos died on military service at Mytilene. As soon as the news
of his death reached Athens, Kleon took formal possession of his
estateduring
the lifetime of the testator. A son adopted by
will had, like remoter kinsfolk, to put
in
a claim to the inheritance (
Presently the son of Theophrastos—who had been serving
abroad—returned to Athens, and claimedany
claimant in a willcase:
The date—a difficult point—is probably about to
Thessaly refers to 394, when Agesilaos marching through
Thessaly, routed the Thessalian allies of Thebes, who may have been
supported by Athenians: (3) The expedition to Mytilene is the visit
of Thrasybulos and his fleet in 390— 389 B.C.I should object:—(1)
that the order in § 14,—
Kleon and his son have already been adopted into as
kinsmen to the estate of Astyphilosnot been thus adopted into
another family, their claim to the estate of Astyphilos would have
been better than that of the speaker. Of collateral kinsfolk, the
law called to the succession,
first, kinsfolk on the father's side down to the secondly, in default of such, kinsfolk on
the mother's side—a son of the same mother by another marriage
ranking first among these. See Or. VII. § 20, and Schömann, p. 405.
If Astyphilos had intended such an adoption, he would have called
kinsmen or intimate friends as witnesses. But the witnesses now
produced are strangers (§§ 7—13). Again, Astyphilos served in many
expeditions before that to Mytilene. Is it likely that he should
have delayed making his will—if he was going to make one—till just
before the last campaign? (§§ 14, 15.) Astyphilos hated Kleon,
because Euthykrates had died of injuries received from Thudippos,
Kleon's father (§§ 16—21). Hierokles, ungrateful to the speaker's
father Theophrastos, has plotted this fraud with
Aristarchos I. had two sons and two daughters. Kyronides, the eldest
son, was adopted, during his father's lifetime, into the family of
his maternal grandfather Xenaenetos I. At the death of Aristarchos
I. the property went, therefore, to the second son, Demochares.
Demochares died in youth. One of his sisters had died, without
issue, before him. The other sister was thus left heiress to her
father's estate; and might have been claimed in marriage by one of
her near kinsmen. Her nearest kinsmen were, her uncle Aristomenes,
brother of Aristarchos I., and his son Apollodoros. Neither of them
claimed her hand. Aristomenes, as her guardian, gave her in
marriage, with a small dowry, to a stranger: he
The claim of Xenaenetos II. is now opposed by the grandson of Aristarchos I. He claims the estate on behalf of his mother as daughter of Aristarchos I., —not as sister (by adoption) of Aristarchos II.; though, at the preliminary inquiry (§ 2), legal form had required him to describe her in the latter manner.
Aristarchos ‘has been killed in the war,’
praescriptio) set by the law to the time within which an estate
could be claimed when its holder was not
the first heir, but that heir's successor. Here
Xenaenetos II. was the heir of Aristarchos II., who was the heir of
Aristarchos I. The estate of Aristarchos I must therefore be claimed
from Xenaenetos within five years from the death of Aristarchos II.
But it could have been claimed from Aristarchos II. at
any time while he lived. The
After contrasting his own want of nerve and fluency form of his claim is inconsistent with its substance. He has been obliged to describe his
mother, not as the daughter of Aristarchos I., but as the sister of
Aristarchos II., although he denies the validity of the adoption on
which the latter title depends (§§ 1—3).
He relates the facts (§§ 4—7); and then argues that Aristarchos II. could not have been adopted (1) by Aristarchos I., while the latter had a legitimate son, Demochares, living; nor (2) by Demochares, who died before he was competent to adopt; nor (3) by Kyronides, who had passed out of the family; nor (4) by Aristomenes or his son Apollodoros (§§ 8—14).
Xenaenetos II., the defendant, does not, however, rely only on the
alleged adoption of Aristarchos II. He says that his father,
Kyronides, had already acquired a right to the estate by discharging
debts with which it was encumbered. But, the speaker replies, (1)
the person liable for these debts was not Kyronides but the
speaker's motherpetitio
principii—that she was the
The speaker answers the objection that his claim ought to have been
made long ago. His father was deterred from taking proceedings by
the fear of losing his wife, whom the next of kin threatened that
they would claim at law (
The personal worth of Aristarchos II. cannot excuse the fact that the
property which he bequeathed was not his own. The holder of disputed
lands is bound to produce the mortgager (
At the death of Menekles, his estate was claimed by his brother
The adoption had come about thus. Eponymos, a friend of Menekles, had four children:—the speaker of this speech; another son; and two daughters. The younger daughter was, for about two years (§ 6), the wife of Menekles; but, their marriage proving childless, they separated, and she took a second husband, Eleios. At some later time Menekles became anxious to adopt a son. His brother— the prosecutor in this case—had only one son. Menekles decided, therefore, to adopt one of the two sons of his friend Eponymos (§§ 3—12).
The date is probably about 354 B. C. (1) The
After a narrative of the facts (§§ 1—12), it is shown inner circle of
The adversaries suggest that Menekles, when he adopted the speaker, was not in his right mind, and was influenced by his wife, the speaker's sister. It is replied that his sister was the wife of Eleios when the adoption took place; that she had two children of her own, in whose favour her influence would rather have been used; and that the speaker was the natural person for Menekles to adopt (§§ 19—22). The prosecutor's real complaint is that Menekles exercised the right of adoption—a right allowed by Greeks and barbarians alike, and one which the prosecutor would have used in a like case (§§ 23—26).
The prosecutor has no reason to be jealous; the speaker has inherited
from his adoptive father little but the name of son. Menekles owed
about £268 (§ 29) to the son of a deceased creditor (
The validity of the act of adoption was acknowledged by the prosecutor and his brother themselves; for, on their reconciliation with Menekles, they exchanged the oaths of amity not with Menekles, but with the speaker as his son (§§ 38—40). The speaker would not have resisted the prosecutor's claim—there being, in fact, no property at stake— did he not deem it base to allow the name of his adoptive father's house to perish (§§ 41—43). Briefly recapitulating the points of his case, he implores the judges not to deprive the dead Menckles of the only kinsman who can do the sacrifice at his grave (§§ 44—47).
Pyrrhos had bequeathed his estate to his adopted son Endios, the
elder of his sister's two sons. Endios enjoyed the inheritance for
more than twenty years. At his death it reverted, according to law,
to his mother, as sister of Pyrrhosin Leoch. § 68. The brother of Endios
could not claim the estate, because the adoption of Endios by
Pyrrhos cancelled the natural right of succession. ‘We,’ in this
speech—when it does not (as in § 2) mean the speaker and
Endios—means the speaker and his mother.de Falsa Legat. § 198.ib.) seems to have been
living in 349 B. C.in Neaer. § 39.
The plaintiff states the facts; argues that the proved
Nikodemos says that his sister was the lawful wife of Pyrrhos. I
would ask him these questions:—1. What dowry did he give with his
sister to Pyrrhos, the possessor of a property of three talents (
Her antecedents do not, indeed, prove that Pyrrhos did not marry her.
But the story of the betrothal is improbable. According to
Nikodemos, it took place in presence of a single witness, Pyretides;
whose deposition, taken out of court (they say that the daughter of Pyrrhos was named
Kleitarete, not Phile (§§ 30—34)naming-day (valued, with a view to restitution (
If Phile was legitimate, there were at least three earlier moments at
which her legitimacy ought to have been asserted:—1. When, at the
death of Pyrrhos, Endios claimed the estate (make an heir by adoption (de iure hered. p. 55, observes that
properly said of him ‘qui aliquem heredem simul et filium
instituit,’ while any testament.
Xenokles and Nikodemos seem to ignore the adoption of Endios by
Pyrrhos. Phile ought to have brought an action against Endios within
five years of her father's death (§ 58); or, at the death of Endios,
have claimed the property as her brother's. On any supposition, the
course of procedure has been irregular. A legitimate child does not claim (
Pyrrhos, if he had had a true-born daughter, would have had no motive
for adopting Endios. It can be shown that, at the time of his
alleged marriage, he neither gave a wedding-feast to his clansmen (
If Phile had been legitimate, Endios, as merely the adoptive son of Pyrrhos, must have married her
before he could legally take the inheritance (§ 69). And, if Endios
and his brother had declined to marry her, the maternal uncles of
Pyrrhos at least could not have suffered Phile to marry Xenokles, a
stranger in blood: one of them must have married her himself (§§
63—71).
Euktemon and his wife, the daughter of Mixiades, had three
sons,—Philoktemon, Hegemon and Ergamenes; and two daughters, of whom
one married Phanostratos, the other Chaereas. Euktemon, when an
elderly man, formed an attachment to a freedwoman named Akte, who
managed a lodging-house belonging to him in the Kerameikos. At last
he left his home, divorced his wife, and lived altogether there.
Akte had two sons,—the children, according to the speaker, of one
Dion, a freedman. She persuaded Euktemon to enrol the eldest of
these boys in his phratria, as his own son. Philoktemon protested;
but was at length induced to consent, on the condition that Akte's
son was to inherit only one of Euktemon's farms. Soon afterwards
About two years later (§ 29), Androkles and Antidoros, kinsmen of
Euktemon, conspired with Akte. They persuaded Euktemon to cancel the
will deposited with Pythodoros, and to sell his land and
house-property. They even alleged that the sons of Akte had been
adopted by Ergamenes and Philoktemon; and, as guardians of the
youths, called upon the archon to administer their ward's property:
but the relations exposed the fraud to the court, and the plot was
defeated. Euktemon died at the age of 96. As he left no legitimate
sons, nor grandsons by Ergamenes or Hegemon, Chaerestratos, as
adopted son of Philoktemon, claimed Euktemon's estate. Chaerestratos
was opposed by Androkles and Antidoros. Androkles had at different
times put forward two different and inconsistent claims:— 1. That he
should receive in marriage, as nearest kinsman, the widow of
Chaereas, with 1/5th of Euktemon's estate: 2. That the two sons
supposed to be Akte's were legitimate sons of Euktemon by Kallippe,
daughter of Pistoxenos; that the will of Philoktemon, adopting
Chaerestratos, was a fiction; and that, therefore, the whole estate
both of Euktemon and of Philoktemon should go to these sons of
It is now fifty-two years since the Athenian
The inner chronology requires attention. later year, while keeping a distance above
378 B. C. sufficient for the
460 B. C.? Birth of Euktemon.
415. The speaker goes with Phanostratos
389. Death of Philoktemon.
378. ‘Long after’ Philoktemon's death (
376. Two years later (§ 29), Euktemon is persuaded to cancel the will
deposited with Pythodoros in 378.
364? Death of Euktemon, aged 96 (§ 18).
363. This trial.
After explaining that he appears as a friend of
Androkles and Antidoros pretend that the two youths, their clients,
are legitimate sons of Euktemon by his second wife, Kallippe. This
story is refuted (§§ 10—16). These youths are the sons of a
freedwoman named Akte—as she said, by one Dion. The eldest of them
was, indeed, enrolled by Euktemon among his phratores; but after
oppositionthe victim
was
taken away:’ i. e. Euktemon was not allowed to offer
the sheep which he had brought with him for sacrifice on the let (as if their clients were orphans. When the
archon and the guardian of an orphan let the orphan's estate, the
person to whom it was let was required to mortgage as security a
piece of ground or other real property. This was called slabs (
Androkles has at different times made two assertions:— 1. That his
clients were legitimate sons of Euktemon: 2. That they were adopted
sons of Philoktemon and Ergamenes. Now this alleged adoption would
exclude them from succession to Euktemon's estate. The law forbids
an adopted son to return (
Dikaeogenes, son of Menexenos—who, for distinction from his
grandfather, of the same name, we call Dikaeogenes II.—had four
sisters. These, when he died childless, shared among them two-thirds
of his estate. The other third went to his first-cousin, Dikaeogenes
III., son of his uncle Proxenos, in accordance with a will produced
by Proxenos, in which the deceased declared Dikaeogenes III. to be
his adopted son, and heir to one-third of his estate (
Twelve years later (§ 7), Dikaeogenes III. alleged that this first
will was invalid. Under a second will, he said,
he was heir, not to a third only, but to the whole of the estate. He
gained his cause. The sisters of the testator were deprived of their
shares, and the whole was transferred to Dikaeogenes III.
Ten years more elapsed (§ 35). Meanwhile the nephews of the testator had grown up. They now resolved to seek redress for their mothers and themselves. They began by bringing an action against one Lykon, who had been called by Dikaeogenes III. as a witness to the second will. Lykon was convicted of perjury.
The state of things was now this:—Dikaeogenes III. had himself
declared the first will—which gave him 1/3rd—to be invalid. The
judges of Lykon had declared the second will—which gave him all—to
be false. Accordingly, the nephews (with the exception of Menexenos
II., who had deserted their cause) now sued Dikaeogenes III. for the whole estate. One Leochares interposed a
protest (
Leochares is now sued (by an
The question of the date—a most difficult and,
412 B. C., Ol. 92. 1. Dikaeogenes II. killed in the sea-fight off
Knidos
400 B. C. Twelve years (§ 7) after the first will, Dikaeogenes III.
alleges a second will, which makes him heir to
the whole estate; and gains his cause. Meanwhile Athens had suffered
calamity, sedition, and civil strifeib.: i.e. the defeat at
Aegospotami, the tyranny of the Thirty, and the Anarchy).
393 B.C. Lechaeum, the western port of Corinth, is taken (§ 37) by the Lacedaemonians in the second year of the Corinthian War (394—387 B. C.).
390 B. C. Ten years (§ 35) after the establishment of the second
will, Dikaeogenes III. is sued by the testator's nephews. A great
war is still going on, in which—while he has
never served—‘Olynthians and islanders are dying (
It is true that, in the Olynthian War of 382— 379 B. C., Olynthians
were, in a sense, fighting the recent. They could not have been used thus
effectively after 21 years. The great war of § 46 must be identical
with the great war of § 37—the Corinthian. [For 391, 390 or 389 are
Schäfer,
The speaker defines his case by quoting his own affidavit
A narrative of the facts above stated follows—stress being laid on
the conduct of Dikaeogenes III. to his own
Dikaeogenes had covenanted, not only to resign his claim to
two-thirds of the estate, but to give the plaintiffs undisputed
possession of them. He now pretends that he had agreed only to
resign his claim. This would mean nothing, as he had already sold
these two-thirds to other persons. He was bound to refund the price
to the purchasers, and to explain that he could not warrant (
The plaintiffs have made fair allowance for the improvement of the
property by Dikaeogenes III.; and arbitrators, half of whom were
chosen by him, have recognised the justice of their claim (§§
28—34). Dikaeogenes deserves no sympathy on the ground of
patriotism. His public services have been ill done; and he has paid
no war-tax (
His private and public life is contrasted with that of the speaker's
ancestors—whose great-grandfather, Dikaeogenes I., fell fighting for
Athens at Eleusisa battle at Eleusis recorded.Read, with
Dobrce, captain of the Destructive cohort.’
Reiske's
Before it came into the possession of Theopompos, the estate of Hagnias had been the object of other claims. It is from the history of these former claims that the complexity of the case arises.
Failing lineal heirs, Attic law called collateral kinsfolk to the succession in this order:—
(1) brothers, being sons of the same father as the deceased:
(2) such brothers' children, males and females having an equal right:
(3) sisters by the same father:
(4) such sisters' children, males and females having an equal right:
(5) first-cousins (
(6) children of such first-cousins (
In default of the above, the succession reverted to the maternal side, and the next heirs were
(7) brothers born of the same mother as the deceased: and so on.
Reference to the accompanying table of the Buselidae will show that
Philagros married his own paternal first-cousin Phylomache I. Their
son, Eubulides II., was thus the paternal first-cousin of Hagnias, being sister's son of
the father of Hagnias.
I. Hagnias died, leaving his estate to his sister's
This decision was just. Phylomache, as the daughter of a paternal first-cousin, had a better claim in kinship than any living relative of Hagnias. Glaukon, of course, had no claim until the paternal kinsfolk should be exhausted.
II. Phylomache's possession of the estate was, however, contested (1)
by the mother of Hagnias, who, as sister of Stratios II., was second cousin of her own son: (2) jointly by
Stratios II. and the brothers Stratokles and Theopompos—all three
likewise second cousins of Hagnias. Stratios II. and Stratokles died
before the case came on. Theopompos then claimed the whole estate
for himself. He succeeded. The estate was taken from Phylomache II.
and adjudged to Theopompos—though only by three or four votesadv. Macart. § 10.
This was manifestly unjust. Phylomache II. was the daughter of the
first cousin of Hagnias. Theopompos was son of the first cousin of
Hagnias's father
Theopompos gained this cause. Long afterwardsadv. Macart. § 67.note.— Schäfer (sub ann., Schömann, p. 452, and Scheibe, p.
xliii.: but I agree with Blass that we want a longer interval.In §
48 it is said that people still remember how Makartatos,
brother-in-law of Theopompos, fitted out a trireme and sailed to
Krete,—thereby causing some alarm at Athens lest the peace with
Lacedaemon should be disturbed. Schäfer (l.c.) observes that this
points to a time before the revival of the Athenian power at sea in
378 B.C. But the incident may well have been 20 years past. Nothing
can be fixed by the embassy of Hagnias in § 8. Harpokration (s. v.
Theopompos reads the law for the succession of collateral
He then relates the previous history of the estate—the dispossession of Glaukon by Phylomache, and of Phylomache by himself—and comments on the claim made, simultaneously with his own, by the mother of Hagnias (§§ 8—19).
He next refutes three assertions made by the prosecutor:—
1. First—that, in the action against Phylomache, there had been a bargain between Theopompos and his deceased brother Stratokles for the division of the estate. Such a bargain, Theopompos answers, would have been aimless. It would not have given them two chances instead of one; since, being related in the same degree to Hagnias, they were claimants on the same ground, and must win or lose together (§§ 20—23).
2. Secondly—that Theopompos had agreed to give his nephew half the estate (§§ 24—35).
3. Thirdly—that Theopompos is rich and his nephew poor; and that Theopompos, not content with defrauding his nephew, has failed to dower his nieces, the four daughters of Stratokles (§§ 36—39). In reply, Theopompos details the property left by Stratokles (§§ 40—43), and his own (§§ 44—46). He ends by challenging his nephew to halve with him the total of their joint properties (§§ 47—50).—
Every Attic deme from time to time revised the s.v.
Euphiletos, son of Hegesippos (§ 12) by a second wife, had been
struck off the register of the deme of specially reappointed for a second year (p.
481).
may be referring only to the original institution of
the rule.
All the kinsmen of Euphiletos have now borne witness
There is perhaps no Attic writer, certainly no
A hundred and seventy-two fragments of Isaeos, or notices of phrases or
words used by him, have been collected by Sauppe
1.
2.
Another puzzle remains. Harpokration quotes s. v.
s. v.
s. vv.
s. v.
s. v.
3.
On the death of Epigenes, one of his heirs, Dionysios, acting for the
rests. v.
The speaker says that he was trierarch in the ib. c. 7).
The latter is now adopted by Sauppe and Scheibe. Kephisodoros was archon
in Ol. 103. 3, 366 B.C., a year which gives no probable clue to the
sea-fight. Kephisodotos was archon in Ol. 105. 3, i.e. from July 358 to
July 357; and the battle at Chios may, as Clinton suggests, have fallen
within his year. But I would observe that it is only the beginning of
the speaker's trierarchy which must have fallen
within it.
4. Lastly, Dionysios has briefly analysed, though without quoting
extracts, a speech ‘Against Aristogeiton and Archippos on the Estate of
Archepolisprefixed to the narrative (
WHILE a literary prose was being shaped, and while, on the other hand, a
series of forensic writers were perfecting a series of types in their
own branch, no artistic development that can be traced with the like
clearness had been going forward in deliberative oratory. When, with
Demosthenes and his contemporaries, deliberative oratory first comes
clearly into view, its masters are found to owe their several
excellences as artists to models taken from the other or
in the assembly
It is worth while to consider the principal causes
I. It was of the essence of Greek oratory, as will be seen most
clearly when we come to the days of its decline, that its practice
should be connected with a theory. Art is the application of rules,
generalised from experience, for the production of results; and the
Greek conception of speaking as an art implied a Rhetoric. This
Rhetoric grew only gradually into a complete system; but from the
first there was the fixed tendency to regard oratorical
II. In the true Greek conception the citizen was at once general and
statesman. So long as this identity lasted, the men at the head of
the State neither had leisure for the laborious training necessary
to eminence in artistic oratory, nor felt its attainment to be of
paramount importance. It was the separation of military from
political functions that enabled some men to become finished
speakers while others became accomplished soldiers. Perikles spoke
the epitaph of those whom he had led
III. The outer history of Athens, from the disaster in Sicily to the
battle of Chaeroneia, presents but two moments favourable to a great
political eloquence. One is the struggle with Philip of Macedon. The
other is the restoration of Athens, in 378, to the headship of a
Naval League, followed by the contest at Athens between the Boeotian
and antiBoeotian parties. Around this contest cluster the greatest
names in deliberative oratory that appear before the reign of
Philip. Kallistratos of Aphidnae, de falsa legat.
§ 297, de Cor. § 219,
Apart from the scantiest fragments,—preserved chiefly by Aristotle in the
In this period of thirty years, our concern, as defined by the scope of
our inquiry, is no longer with details either of style or of work. It
is, here, with tendencies or characteristics, considered de Dinarch. 1, ib. c. 5. ib. c. 8 ἀλλ’ ἄρσενάς τοι τῆσδε γῆς οἰκήτορας
εὑρήσετ’ οὐ πίνοντας ἐκ κριθῶν μέθυ
and so they call him
hordearius.
Lykurgos, Hypereides, Aeschines, Demosthenes are the four men who illustrate the maturity of civil eloquence. Each has an interest of his own, and each serves, in his own way, to show the unity of the whole Attic development.
Lykurgos is indeed a striking and a noble figure in the Athens of
Philokrates. He came of a house that, after the Persian war, had given a
colleague to Kimon in his Thracian campaigns, and, in the next
generation, a distinguished victim to the Thirty Tyrants. The stock of
the Eteobutadae, claiming to spring from Erechtheus, were hereditary
priests of Poseidon Erechtheus; from their house, too, was chosen the
priestess of Athena Polias; and their services to the State, recognised
for generations by public honours in life and in death, were thus
enhanced by the most sacred dignities that Athens could revere. The
special work that Lykurgos did for the city was to serve it as a steward
of the public treasury for a period of office which was thrice renewedib. II. 298—304.vitt.
X. oratt.: (Lykurgos was so severe) ‘that some of the
sophists said that he dipped his pen, not in ink, but in death, when he
drew laws against evil-doers.’ Demâdes had said of Drakon
This speech is a solemn and earnest protest on behalf of public spirit.
There is not a trace of personal feeling, there is no attempt to
disparage the man's private life. But the tone throughout is that of a
lofty and inexorable indignation. And the form of expression is not less
distinctive. Lykurgos was scarcely a born orator. The ancient vet. script. cens. V. 3
(after describing the power of Lykurgos), ad Ammaeum 2 he names Lykurgos between
Hypereides and Aeschines among the
Lykurgos had been the pupil of Isokrates; and the basis of his style is
essentially Isokratic. But his moral and intellectual affinities with
the elder Athens assert themselves. Engrafted on the smooth luxuriance
of Isokrates, we meet once more the archaic, somewhat rigid stateliness
of Antiphon: raised, however, above Antiphon's ordinary tone by the
speaker's intimate sympathy with the elder poets, especially with the
tragedians. The combination of these manners, the Isokratic and the
archaic, has an effect which is not harmonious— Lykurgos lacked the
force to fuse them—but which for that very reason is of much interest
for a comparison between the elder and the later prose. In the following
passages it has been attempted to keep something of the tone. The flight
of Leokrates is thus described:—
‘After the battle of Chaeroneia, when you all rushed to
Presently he describes the panic at Athens after Chaeroneia:—
‘In those days, Athenians, who would not have pitied if he is alive—the then she
thought it enough if she could successfully defend her own existence;
formerly she had ruled far and wide over the land of barbarians— then she was battling with Macedonians for her own;
and the people whose aid was once invoked by Lacedaemonians, by
Peloponnesians and by the Greeks of Asia was driven to seek succour for
itself from the men of Andros, of Keos, of Troezen, of Epidauros.’
The peroration is, however, the most characteristic passage, not merely for its matter, but also for its form. While the resemblance to Antiphon is marked, there is a strain that surpasses him; but the speaker does not soar; he rises with effort, and shows at the end how his cultivated gift of speech laboured to utter his high enthusiasm:—
‘Be sure, judges, that each of you, by the vote which he
‘In the cause of my country, of the temples and of the laws, I have fairly and justly set forth the issue, without disparaging or vilifying the defendant's private life or bringing any irrelevant accusation. You must reflect, every one of you, that to acquit Leokrates is to pass sentence of death and enslavement on your country. Two urns are before you; and the votes which you give are, in the one case, for the overthrow of your city, in the other, for its safety and its domestic welfare. If you absolve Leokrates, you will vote for betraying the city, the temples, and the ships—if you put him to death, you will exhort men to cherish and preserve their country, her revenues and her prosperity. Deem, then, Athenians, that a prayer goes up to you from the very land and all its groves, from the harbours, from the arsenals, from the walls of the city, deem that the shrines and holy places are summoning you to protect them, and, remembering the charges against him, make Leokrates a proof that compassion and tears do not prevail with you over solicitude for the laws and for the commonweal.’
Each urn was found to contain the same number
The most complete contrast to Lykurgos, in everything except firm
patriotism, is presented by his younger contemporary. Hypereides, son of
Glaukippos, of a good Athenian family, had begun life as a forensic
speech-writer. At an early age, in 360, he had prosecuted Autokles, a
general charged with treason in a Thracian command. He had afterwards
appeared as accuser against men so eminent as Aristophon of Azenia —
whose oppression of the allies he exposed—and Diopeithes of Sphettos.
From the Peace of 346 to the affair of Harpalos in 324 Hypereides stood
by the side of Demosthenes as a leader in the struggle against Macedon.
The Lamian War was especially his work; and he paid for it with his
life. But while in the political sphere Hypereides was a loyal and fiery
patriot, in his private character he was a true son of the new Athens.
His philosophy was expressed in his own saying—
Hypereides was, like Lykurgos, a pupil of
But the essential tendencies in the style of
‘He remembered to have heard an honourable and learned gentleman remark that there was something in the frame and constitution of the Company which extended the sordid principles of their origin over all their successive operations; connecting with their civil policy, and even with their boldest achievements, the meanness of a pedlar and the profligacy of pirates—alike in the political and military line, could be observed auctioneering ambassadors and trading generals;—and thus we saw a revolution brought about by affidavits; an army employed in executing an arrest; a town besieged on a note of hand; a prince dethroned for the balance of an account. Thus it was, they exhibited a Government which united the mock majesty of a bloody sceptre, and the little traffic of a merchant's counting-house, wielding a truncheon with one hand, and picking a pocket with the other.’
Hypereides was the Sheridan of Athens.
Dionysios saysvet.
script. cens. V. 6.de Dinarch. 7.by the author of the
‘If merits were to be counted, not weighed, Hypereides would stand far
before Demosthenes. He has more tones in his voice than Demosthenes, and
a greater number of special excellences. In fact, like the pentathlete,
Hypereides is second-best all round; for the prize in any given branch,
he comes after the specialists, but before the laymen. Besides imitating
the merits of Demosthenes in everything except composition, Hypereides
has further mastered in an eminent degree the excellences and the graces
of Lysias. He expresses himself in the ‘plain’ manner, where it is
fitting,—not with the sustained, unvarying tension of Demosthenes; and
he has moral persuasiveness, with the flavour of an unstudied suavity.
Incomparable wit plays about him; his sarcasm is in perfect keeping with
political oratory; he is adroit with the weapons of irony; his jokes are
not jarring, ill-bred, or importunate, in the ‘Attic’ manner of that
generation; when he does pull people to pieces, he does it neatly, with
much humour, and with the pungency of well-aimed banter; and with all
this, there is a beauty of style beyond imitation. He has great power of
pathos; in relating legends, he has a certain luxuriance, and a facile
inspiration that wafts him most smoothly from point to point on his
way;—for instance, he has managed Leto's story
The two points to which exception may be taken in this otherwise good
criticism are, the denial to
The work of Hypereides is now represented by
It is unfortunate that these remains nowhere illustrate what was especially characteristic of Hypereides—his lighter and more playful grace. But the Epitaphios is a noble monument of his graver eloquence. And the Speech Against Euxenippos— which shall first be noticed—shows his power of scathing reproof.
After the battle of Chaeroneia, Philip had
‘So, if you had been acquitted on that indictment,
“Yes,’ you say: ‘he behaved monstrously in allowing Olympias to dedicate that cup in the temple of the Goddess of Health!’ You introduce the name of Olympias to speed you on your course, you charge Euxenippos with a fictitious flattery, and you fancy that this will expose him to the hatred and anger of the judges.
‘My good friend, you should not invoke the names of Olympias and
Alexander on your attempts to hurt your fellow-citizens; no, but when
Olympias and Alexander lay unrighteous and improper commands on the
Athenian people, then you should get up, and, on behalf of the city,
protest, and argue for your rights with their emissaries, and go before
the general assembly of the Greeks to uphold your country's honour. In
that assembly you never rose: you never mentioned such things; but here you hate Olympias for the sake of Euxenippos,
and say that he is a flatterer of her and of the Macedonians. If you can
show that he ever
‘If these charges were true, they would have been on other lips than yours,—they would have been the talk of Athens; just as all the other advocates or agents of Macedonia are well-known to the rest of their fellow-citizens, aye, to the children in the schools, even as they are known to their own consciences—the orators who draw Macedonian pay, the entertainers who open their houses to Macedonian visitors, and go to meet them on the roads when they approach. Here, again, you will find that Euxenippos has kept clear of all such association.’
The Funeral Oration belongs to a year hardly so
‘Leosthenes, aware that all Hellas was abased,
Then he imagines the greeting that awaits Leosthenes and his comrades in the place of the departed:—
‘With us, and with all the living, as we have seen, they
The closing sentences are addressed to the
‘It is hard, perhaps, to comfort those who are in
such a sorrow; grief is not laid to rest by speech or by
observance; rather is it for the nature of the mourner, and the
nearness of the lost, to determine the boundaries of anguish.
Still, we must take heart, and
lighten pain as we may, and remember not only the
death of the departed but the good name also that they have left
behind them. We owe not tears to their fate, but rather great
praises to their deeds. If they came not to old age among men,
they have got the glory that never grows old, and have been made
blessed perfectly. Those among them who died childless shall
have as their inheritors the immortal eulogies of Greece; and
those of them who have left children behind them have bequeathed
a trust of which their country's love will assume the
guardianship. More than this,—if to die is to be as though we
had never been, then these have passed away from sickness and
pain and from all the accidents of the earthly life; or, if
there is feeling in the under-world, and if, as we conjecture,
the care of the Divine Power is over it, then it may well be
that they who rendered aid to the worship of the gods in the
hour of its imminent desolation are most precious to that
Power's providence.’
Lykurgos and Hypereides are men with opposite
In relation to Demosthenes and the orators contemporary with him, the
significance of Aeschines is closely similar to that which Andokides has
for the age of Antiphon. Andokides is an amateur, art,
practice,
faculty, culture, meaning by this partly his familiarity
with the standard poets, such as the old tragedians; partly a general
sense of propriety or refinement, which, for instance, leads him to
imitate the decorum (falsely ascribed to
Demosth.—e.g. and of private study—
If, however, Aeschines was no rhetorical artist,
Without the intensity of Demosthenes, Aeschines vet. script. cens.
v. 5: Cic. lēvitas et splendor verborum
.
Demosthenes belongs to the plan of the present
The last great picture of political life at Athens is an oratorical contest in which, so far as eloquence is concerned, art, allied with genius, wins the day against clever empiricism. The theory of Greek eloquence had its final and its most splendid illustration in that trial which brought forth the two speeches On the Crown: nor could this part of our discussion conclude more fittingly than with an endeavour to call up some faint image of Demosthenes as in that great cause he stood opposed to Aeschines.
In 338, after Chaeroneia, Demosthenes had been n. 2.
The first point was legally good. The second was a quibble. The third was the gist of the case. Had that policy towards Macedon which Demosthenes had pursued since 351 been condemned by Chaeroneia? Or, in spite of its failure, had it been right and patriotic?
Mere notice of the action against Ktesiphon was enough to stop the
passage of the bill into an act. For six years Aeschines found it easy
to shirk bringing the action. Alexander's strength was growing: in 334
he crossed the Hellespont, and in October, 331, the series of his
victories culminated at Arbela. In 330, however, Agis raised war against
Macedon in the Peloponnesos. In the spring of 330, probably,
No public cause had ever drawn so great a
Aeschines was now fifty-nine. Fifteen years
Aeschines, as accuser of Ktesiphon, opens the
‘Did not the gods send us warnings and signs to be on our
‘And, accordingly, what paradox or what portent is there that has not
come to pass in our time? Our days have not fallen on the common chances
of the mortal life: we have been set to bequeath a story of marvels to
posterity. Is not the king of Persia, he who cut through Athos and who
bridged the Hellespont, he who demands earth and water from the Greeks,
he who, in his letters, presumes to style himself lord of all men from
the sunrise to the sunset, is he not struggling at this hour—no longer
for authority over others—but for his own life? Do you not see the men
who delivered the Delphian temple invested not only with that glory but
with the leadership against Persia? While Thebes —Thebes, our neighbour
city, has in one day been swept from the face of Greece,—justly, it may
be, in so far as her general policy was erroneous, yet in consequence of
a folly which was no accident, but the judgment of Heaven. The
unfortunate Lacedaemonians, though they did but touch
‘Oft hath the bad man been the city's bane, And scourged his sinless brethren for his sin; Oft hath the all-seeing Father vexed their town With dearth and death, and brought the people low, Slain their strong host, cast down their fencèd wall, Broken their ships upon the stormy sea.’
‘Strip these lines of their poetical garb, look at them closely, and I think you will say that these are no mere verses of Hesiod's;—they are a prophecy of the Demosthenes Administration; for, by that Administration's agency, our ships, our armies, our cities have been swept from the world.’
He then contends that Demosthenes is to blame for the league with Thebes, for the miseries of the present, and for the neglect of three successive opportunities to rise against Alexander: Demosthenes is ready to seek bribes, but not to do manly deeds:—
‘‘Oh, yes,’ it will be replied: ‘but then he is a friend of
In the passage which follows, the speaker's hatred breaks out with an intensity which betrays conscious weakness. By half his parentage, Demosthenes is ‘a Scythian, Greek in nothing but language, and hence showing, in his very wickedness, the character of the alien’:—
‘But in his private life, what is he? The trierarch sank,
The peroration is notable in the history of oratory:—
‘Remember, then, that the city whose fate rests with you
This was the true climax. But Aeschines felt the pressure of the Attic
rule. He must not end thus. The storm must be laid
in a final harmony. And so he passed on to the most tremendous failure
that ever followed so close upon a triumph:—
‘O Earth and Sunlight! O ye influences of Goodness, of Intelligence, of that Culture by which we learn to distinguish things beautiful or shameful—
Apart from all faults of form, the hearers must
Ktesiphon, as ostensible defendant, introduced
‘Having by these means brought the cities into such
‘It was evening when a courier came to the presidents of the assembly with the news that Elateia had been seized. The presidents instantly arose from table—they were supping at the moment: some of them hastened to clear the marketplace of the shopmen, and to burn the wickerwork of the booths: others, to send for the Generals and order the sounding of the call to the Assembly. The city was in a tumult. At dawn next day the presidents convoked the Senate, you hurried to the Ekklesia, and before the Senate could go through its forms or could report, the whole people were in assembly on the hill. Then, when the Senate had come in, when the presidents had reported the news that they had received, and had introduced the messenger, who told his tale, the herald repeatedly asked,
‘What I said was this:—‘They who are so much alarmed by the belief that
Philip has already got the Thebans do not, I think, comprehend the
situation; I feel convinced that, if this was the case, we should have
been hearing of him, not at Elateia, but on our frontiers. That he has
come, however, to make things ready at Thebes, I am certain. Look (I
said) how it stands. Every Theban that could be bribed or blinded has
been made a tool by Philip: those who withstood him from the first, and
who oppose him now, he can never win. What does he mean? Why has he seized
Elateia? He means, by displaying his power and planting his camp close
at hand, to cheer and embolden his own friends, and to strike terror
into his opponents, so that they may either concede from fear what they
now refuse, or may be compelled to the concession. Now, if we choose (I
said) to make this a time for remembering any unpleasantness that the
‘Thus, or to this effect, I spoke, and left the platform. Everyone approved—there was not a dissentient; and what then? I did not make a speech and leave others to move a resolution. I did not move a resolution, and leave others to go on an embassy. I did not go on an embassy, and leave others to persuade the Thebans. No. I went through with the business from the beginning to the end; I gave myself to you without reservation in face of the perils that encompassed the city.—[Read me the decree that was made that day.] * * * * * * These were the first steps towards the adjustment of our relations to Thebes, at a time when enmity, hatred and distrust had been sown between our cities by yonder men.
‘The people gave their voice, and the danger that hung upon our borders went by like a cloud.
Having shown that the course taken by his party was the most advantageous open to loyal Athenians, the speaker goes on to take yet higher ground. This course failed. But it is not therefore to be regretted. By it alone could honour have been saved:—
‘As, however, he bears so hardly upon the results, I am
‘You, Athenians, find these principles so worthy of veneration, so accordant with your own character, that you praise none of your ancestors so highly as those who put them into action. You are right. Who must not admire the spirit of men who were content to quit their country, and to exchange their city for their triremes, in the cause of resistance to dictation; who put Themistokles, the author of this course, at their head, while as for Kyrsilos, the man who gave his voice for accepting the enemy's terms, they stoned him to death, yes, and his wife was stoned by the women of Athens? The Athenians of those days were not in search of an orator or a general who should help them to an agreeable servitude. No. They would not hear of life itself if they were not to live free. Each one of them held that he had been born the son, not only of his father and his mother, but of his country also. And wherein is the difference? It is here. He that recognises no debt of piety save to his parents awaits his death in the course of destiny and of nature. But he that deems himself the son of his country also will be ready to die sooner than see her enslaved. In his estimate, those insults, those dishonours which must be suffered in his city when she has lost her freedom will be accounted more terrible than death.
‘If I presumed to say that it was
‘But never, Athenians, never can it be said that you erred when you took upon you that peril for the freedom and the safety of all! No, by our fathers who met the danger at Marathon, no, by our fathers who stood in the ranks at Plataea, no, by our fathers who did battle on the waters of Salamis and Artemision, no, by all the brave who sleep in tombs at which their country paid those last honours which she had awarded, Aeschines, to all of them alike, not alone to the successful or the victorious! And her award was just. The part of brave men had been done by all. The fortune experienced by the individual among them had been allotted by a Power above man.’
The nobility of this great speech declares itself
‘Here is the proof. Not when my extradition was
‘NEVER, POWERS OF HEAVEN, MAY ANY BROW OF THE IMMORTALS BE BENT IN APPROVAL OF THAT PRAYER! RATHER, IF IT MAY BE, BREATHE EVEN INTO THESE MEN A BETTER MIND AND HEART; BUT IF SO IT IS THAT TO THESE CAN COME NO HEALING, THEN GRANT THAT THESE, AND THESE ALONE, MAY PERISH UTTERLY AND EARLY ON LAND AND ON THE DEEP: AND TO US, THE REMNANT, SEND THE SWIFTEST DELIVERANCE FROM THE TERRORS GATHERED ABOVE OUR HEADS, SEND US THE SALVATION THAT STANDS FAST PERPETUALLY.’
Two thousand years have challenged a tradition which lives, and will
always live, wherever there is left a sense for the grandest music which
an exquisite language could yield to a sublime enthusiasm— that, when
Demosthenes ceased, those who had come from all parts of Greece to hear,
that day, the epitaph of the freedom which they had lost, and a defence
of the honour which they could still leave to their children, had
listened to the masterpiece of the old world's oratory, perhaps to the
supreme achievement of human eloquence. But this wonderful speech,
though the greatest, is not the most characteristic work of its author.
The speech On the Crown is a retrospect: Demosthenes was a prophet. His
genius as an orator takes its
IT will now be useful to look back on the whole development from Antiphon to Demosthenes, and to trace the main lines of its course.
The ground for an artistic Athenian oratory was prepared partly by the popular Dialectic of the eastern Sophists, partly by the Sicilian Rhetoric. Intermediate between these stood the earliest artist of oratorical prose, Gorgias; differing from the eastern Sophists in laying more stress on expression than on management of argument, and from the Sicilian Rhetoricians in cultivating his faculty empirically, not theoretically.
Two principal tendencies appear in the beginnings of Attic oratory. One
of these sets out from the forensic Rhetoric of Sicily, in combination
with the popular Dialectic of the Sophists, and is but slightly affected
by Gorgias. It is represented by the writers of the ‘austere’ style, of
whom Antiphon and Thucydides are the chief. From Thucydides to
Demosthenes this manner is in abeyance, partly because it
Antiphon and Thucydides have been strongly
‘This great honour, this high and noble dignity, hath continued ever
since in the remarkable surnaine of De Vere, by so many ages, descents,
and generations, as no other kingdom can produce a peer in one of the
self-same name and title. I find in all this length of time but two
attainders of this noble family, and those in stormy and tempestuous
times, when the government was unsettled and the kingdom in competition.
I have laboured to make a covenant with myself that affection may not
press upon judgment; for I suppose there is no man that hath any
apprehension of gentry and nobleness, but his affection stands to the
continuance of so noble a name and house, and would take hold of a twig
or a twine-thread to uphold it. And yet Time hath its revolutions; there
must be a period and an end to all temporal things—
The ‘austere’ manner is, in one respect, better represented by Thucydides
than by Antiphon. Its
Kritias and Andokides stand together as cultivated amateurs of the phase
when this earlier manner of Antiphon and Thucydides was already felt to
be too rigid for practical life, but when, nevertheless, an alternative
manner had not yet been artistically shaped. Kritias, like Andokides,
appears to have avoided the poetical diction as well as the figures of
Gorgias; and is named along with Andokides as a witness to the currency
of the idiom used by Lysias
Thrasymachos of Chalkedon gave a new turn to
Lysias now completes the reaction from the poeticism of Gorgias and the
stateliness of Antiphon. He boldly takes as his material the diction of
the private citizen who has had the ordinary Athenian education; and,
being an artist of true genius, Lysias shapes out of this a singularly
beautiful prose. The conception was fortunate; it was in essential
harmony with the spirit of Attic Greek; and, if a Lysias had not arisen,
the world would not have known some most delicate felicities of that
idiom. It was a faculty of the language developed once for all,
committed to an exquisite record, and thus secured against the
possibility of being missed by anyone who hereafter should aim at
mastery over all the resources of Attic speech. Nor was the lesson
It might have seemed that a finished simplicity so congenial to the Attic
spirit had for ever superseded the ideal of Gorgias. But, just as the
influence of that ideal was declining, a pupil of Gorgias came forward
to show that his master's theory, though deformed by extravagances, was
grounded in truth. Isokrates proved that, without loss of ease and
fluency, prose may be artistically ornate in the general sense of
Gorgias, (that is, with the aid of certain embellishments proper to
poetry,) if only these are rightly chosen and are temperately used. The
great difference between the work of Lysias and
Two circumstances especially favoured his aptitude for such a task. The
first was that, until after the time of Aristotle, epideictic oratory,
the branch of Isokrates, had a higher dignity in general
By 350 B. C. this method had no longer any
Xenophon was no trained rhetor. The natural eloquence which did good service in the Retreat was of the rough and ready kind; nor, in writing, did he consciously or systematically aim at art. If he had studied expression, he would probably have become Lysian: as it is, in his manner of neither seeking nor declining ornament, he is sometimes like Andokides. Xenophon, living away from Athens, did not come under the direct influence of the Isokratic school. But there are indications, which a sober criticism can scarcely reject, that in his later years he was strongly influenced as a writer by his fellow-demesman and early friend, whose works were then read throughout Greece. Xenophon was engaged on the
Unquestionably it was more as a practical teacher
In the political eloquence contemporary with
AT the moment when the theory of oratory had been raised from a technical
to a scientific form, its practice began to decline: the great analyst
who gave a philosophy to Rhetoric was also the master of Demetrios
Phalereus. It is commonly said that the declension of Attic oratory
dates from the loss of political freedom. The fact is certain: but those
who have tried to see what this oratory in its essence was, will be the
first to feel that the connexion between the two things is not
altogether self-evident. As to
This question might fairly be raised. And assuredly a true answer to it
is not to be found merely in the political circumstances of the time
when Athens had just come under the leadership of Macedon. We must go
further back, and look deeper into the conditions under which the best
work of Greek art was done. In the Ionian republics, and especially at
Athens, while their life was still healthy, letters and the fine arts
entered into the education which was received by all citizens alike.
Letters and the fine arts were therefore subject to the opinion, not of
a class, but of the entire city. The artist, whether sculptor or
architect, painter,
While, then, the loss of political independence had a certain immediate
effect in deteriorating deliberative and forensic oratory, the primary
cause of their decline was one which lay deeper, which had begun its
slow workings before Philip had a footing in Greece, and which affected
the literary form of artistic prose even more strongly than the other
two forms. This cause was the same which gradually vitiated every other
branch of Greek art, and which prepared the downfall of Greek
independence itself —the decay of the citizen-life of the Greek
republics, whereby Greek art in every kind lost that popular character
which was the external safeguard of the Greek artist's instinct for
truth. It is important, therefore, to get rid of the notion that, when
‘Asianism’ is opposed to ‘Atticism’, the meaning is that Attic
simplicity was overlaid by the tawdry taste of the Orientals among whom
Greek letters were diffused by the conquests of Alexander. It is true
that, in the new Hellenic settlements of Karia, Mysia and the
Hellespont, Greek nationality was less pure, and that when the Augustan
Atticists wished to stigmatise their opponents they loved to call them
PhrygiansItaque
Caria et Phrygia et Mysia, quod minime politae minimeque
elegantes
sunt, asciverunt opimum quoddam et tanquam adipatae diction
is
genus.
From 300 to about 250 B.C. the general course of the decline can be made
out with tolerable clearness. From 250 to about 150 B.C. all is dark.
When light comes again, Asianism is seen fully developed and wholly
triumphant; but a reaction to Atticism is setting in. This reaction may
be considered as beginning with Hermagoras of Temnos, about
The general character of Asianism, or the New Prose, results from the
fact that it is founded on no theory of prose-writing as an art. The
prose composition, whether history or oration, is not contemplated as a
whole, and consequently no care is taken to preserve a symmetry of
parts. Hence arises
and not the Sun-god's fire, Not heaven's pure dew comes there, nor any wind.
During the first half century or so of the decadence—
From 250 to 150 B.C. the history of Greek oratory is as obscure as the
names which represent it. But, as appears from the sequel, such general
The first of these two manners, the epigrammatic, was represented,
according to Cicero, by the brothers Hierokles and Menekles of Alabanda,
about 120 B.C. The second manner, that of ornate declamation, is
represented by Aeschylos of Knidos and Aeschines of Miletos, about 80
B.C. It may be observed that
At the time when Asianism of the sententious
It may have been Cicero who paid a compliment
Before Roman oratory could be even indirectly influenced by Greek, there
was an obstacle to be removed. The Roman mind, unlike the Greek, did not
instinctively conceive the public speaker as an artist. It conceived him
strictly as a citizen, weighty by piety, years, or office, who has
something to say for the good of the other citizens, and whose dignity,
hardly less than the value of his hearer's time, enjoins a pregnant and
severe conciseness. Cato
As early as 90 B.C., then, the Greek conception of oratory was established at Rome. Roman oratory was to be, in some way, artistic. The question remained, Was this way to be the ‘Asiatic’ or the ‘Attic’?
About 95 B.C. Hortensius began to be the Latin representative of
Asianism. It was his
Cicero now comes forward as the representative of the Rhodian eclecticism. His success, though not exactly a victory for the Attic school, was, at least, a sure sign that the Atticists would finally prevail. Cicero, like his Rhodian masters, is by no means emancipated from Asianism; and, in a comparison with Demosthenes, his faults of form are made more conspicuous by the usual absence of great thoughts and of really noble feeling. The force of the recent and surely extravagant reaction against Cicero comes from the habit of regarding him as the great Roman orator, not as the great Roman master of literary rhetorical prose. His proper Greek analogue is not Demosthenes but Isokrates. As a practical orator, Cicero can scarcely be placed in the second rank by those who know the Attic models. As a stylist in the epideictic kind, though he has not consummate art, he joins versatile strength to brilliancy and abundance in a degree which has never been equalled.
The pure Atticism of Rome may be dated from about 60 B.C. Its best
representative was the poet and forensic orator, Gaius Licinius
Calvus (82—48 B.C.), who imitated Lysias in a field of work as
limited as the Greek writer's own, but who, like Lysias, was not
untouched by a generous sympathy A forensi strepitu remotissimus:
It must be borne in mind that the practical benefits to be derived from
Atticism by Rome were of a different order from those which could be
derived
The spirit which animated all this various work came from a certain way
of looking at the whole development of Greek prose since Alexander.
Cicero, the Roman, conceives Atticism as an unbroken tradition, which
was merely adulterated and debased by those influences which are called
Asiatic. In one sense this is most true. Athens made once for all the
conquest of Hellenic prose. The forms of the Attic dialect became once
for all the standard forms of Greek literature, and are so in the
newspapers of today. From Polybios to Trikoupes the literary supremacy
of Athens has been acknowledged by men who have written in a dialect
which they did not speak. It has been truly said that the latest
Byzantine was, in language, nearer to Xenophon than Xenophon was to
Herodotos
Atticism could not quicken the dead things of Greece, nor could it
permanently guard Rome against the intrusions of a false taste. Two
things, however, it did, and for these it deserves the gratitude of
mankind. It set correct models before those great Roman writers who, in
their turn, have been examples to the modern world. It founded a Greek
criticism of Greek literature in which the perspective was just, and
recorded the reasons of men, whose qualifications and opportunities were
complete, for comparative estimates which the sense of posterity has
approved, but to which posterity alone could not have given so
authoritative a sanction. Greek lived on, to be the tongue in which
Marcus and Julian, by the Danube or the Rhine, asserted the late
supremacy of a wisdom that carried the seeds of death, to bring the
message of a hope beyond the grave and to bear on a strenuous tide the
voices of men whom that promise made sublime, to be the record of empire
in the city of Constantine, to write its legends on the stones of
Ravenna or to blazon them on the apses of Venice and Torcello, even to
keep bright the memories of civil freedom where, in a northern
isolation, in the Tauric land washed by the harbourless sea, the fire
once taken from Megara burned for centuries on the last altar of the
hearth that had a Greek commonwealth for its shrine, and at last, in our
own age, after a second deliverance from the barbarian, most happily to
be