LYSIAS
§ 1
Though we attempt a chronological arrangement of the orators, such a
treatment is apt to be misleading, for their lives and the periods of
their activity overlap considerably. About the year 390 B.C. Andocides
was still composing speeches, Lysias was yet in his prime; Isocrates
had already made himself a reputation, and Isaeus had at least begun to
be known. It would be rash therefore to attempt to trace in the work
of any one the influence of any of the others. Speaking and writing
as contemporaries all may have had something to teach and something
to learn, but we can hardly say that one is in the fullest sense the
literary predecessor or the disciple of another.
Lysias was by descent a Syracusan; his father Cephalus, of whom Plato
gives us a charming picture in the opening chapters of the _Republic_,
was induced by Pericles to settle in Athens, and there Lysias was born.
The Pseudo-Plutarch gives the date as 459 B.C., and Dionysius gives
the same year; but this is founded on an assumption. He was known to
have gone to Thurii at the age of fifteen, and Thurii was founded in
443 B.C. But there is no proof that Lysias went to Thurii in the year
of its foundation; we only know that he cannot have been born earlier
than 459 B.C. Tradition, however, made him live to the age of eighty or
eighty-three, and his latest known speech is dated, probably, in 380
B.C., so that if we assume his death to have occurred shortly after 380
B.C., we shall be consistent.[117] The modern view, supported by Blass,
that Lysias was born not earlier than 444 B.C., has little evidence to
support it. It is based chiefly on the statement of the Pseudo-Plutarch
that Lysias did not go to Thurii till after his father’s death, and the
belief that Cephalus was alive in 430 B.C., the date in which the scene
of the _Republic_ is supposed to be laid. But Blass has himself collected
instances of Plato’s untrustworthiness about dates, and the biographer by
himself is a poor authority.
Lysias, then, went to Thurii with his brothers Polemarchus and
Euthydemus. He is said to have studied under the Syracusan rhetorician
Tisias. After the loss of the Athenian armies in Sicily, 413 B.C.,
Lysias and his brothers were among three hundred persons accused of
‘Atticizing,’ and were expelled from Thurii. They returned to Athens in
412 B.C. From this year till 404 B.C., the brothers lived in prosperity
and happiness, making a considerable fortune as proprietors of a
shield-factory, where they employed 120 slaves.
They had many friends; they belonged to the highest class of aliens—the
_isoteleis_—and the evidence of Plato and Dionysius makes it clear that
they mixed with the most cultivated society. They took pride in the
performance of all public services which fell to their share.
Fortune changed for the sons of Cephalus when in 404 B.C. a successful
revolution brought the Thirty into power; the orator himself gives a
graphic description of the way in which their ruin was brought about.
The Thirty, he tells us, ‘avowed that they must purge the city of
wrongdoers, and turn the rest of the citizens towards virtue and
justice.’ Two of the leaders pointed out that some of the _metoeci_ were
discontented with the new constitution; these _metoeci_ were rich, so
that their execution was not only a moral duty but a sound financial
move. They easily prevailed on their colleagues, who, as Lysias neatly
puts it, ‘thought nothing of taking life but thought a lot of making
money.’ The orator’s name was on the list, and he was arrested at a
dinner-party in his own house. He describes what followed:
‘I asked Piso whether he would save my life for money; he said
he would, if it was a large sum. So I said I was ready to pay
a talent, and he agreed to the terms. I knew well enough that
he regarded neither god nor man, but I thought my only chance
lay in trusting him. So when he had sworn by his own and his
children’s hope of salvation that he would save me if he got a
talent for it, I went into my strong-room and opened the chest.’
The sight of its contents, amounting to about six talents’ worth of
gold and silver as well as a quantity of plate, was too much for Piso’s
honesty. ‘I begged him to allow me enough for my journey, but he said I
ought to be well satisfied if I saved my skin.’
The prisoner was handed over by Piso to the keeping of Damnippus and
Theognis in the former’s house, and Damnippus, who seems to have been
softer-hearted than the rest, agreed to speak with Theognis on Lysias’
behalf. He knew his man, and ‘thought he would do anything for money.’
While they were bargaining, Lysias managed to slip away unnoticed
through the back-door, and on the following day escaped on ship-board to
Megara; his brother Polemarchus was arrested by Eratosthenes and put to
death.[118]
During his exile, which lasted something less than a year, Lysias showed
himself a true friend of the democracy. He gave two hundred shields to
the army and obtained recruits and gifts of money. When the oligarchy
fell in 403 B.C. the ecclesia, on the motion of Thrasybulus, passed a
vote conferring the citizenship on Lysias; but owing to some informality
the decree was declared illegal, and he lost his privilege immediately.
From this time till about 380 B.C. he was actively employed in writing
speeches, very few of which he delivered himself. His industry must have
been considerable, since Dionysius attributed to him not less than two
hundred forensic speeches.
The prosecution of Eratosthenes in 403 B.C. marks, so far as we know,
his only personal contact with Athenian politics. The occasion of the
_Olympiacus_ shows us Lysias appealing to a far wider audience at the
Olympic festival of 388 B.C. He died, according to the computation of the
ancients, soon after 380 B.C., at the age of about eighty years.
§ 2
In literature as in politics we grow tired of hearing Aristides called
the Just, and so perfect writers are less admired than they should be.
In Latin Terence, praised by all for the purity of his style, is less
read than the ruder Plautus, and in Greek Lysias, accounted by ancient
critics the standard writer of Attic prose,[119] is less appreciated than
Demosthenes.
Using the everyday language as a literary medium, Lysias, by his
exceptional skill and mastery over its idiom, exalted it to a simplicity
and accuracy of expression never surpassed by other writers. This
simplicity is deceptive:
‘ut sibi quivis
Speret idem, sudet multum frustraque laboret
Ausus idem.’
It is not till we analyse a passage or try to imitate the style that we
realize how great a part has been played by art in this structure which
seems so natural.
The smoothness strikes us, after a time, as monotonous, and many
readers will turn with relief from Lysias’ polish to the more telling
ruggedness of Antiphon, or the varied magnificence of Plato. Lysias, in
fact, provides us with an excellent example of the purest prose, but
the comparative coarseness of the average taste prefers something less
refined, less carefully purged of the natural impurities which prevent
insipidity, less free from the colouring matter which gives character.
So far I have considered only the broad impression produced by the
language, apart from more personal elements in style.
As an orator, Lysias is, on first acquaintance, disappointing. He seems
to lack fire, and to subordinate vigour to precision.
For this apparent weakness we must make certain allowances. We must
remember that he has to be judged chiefly by speeches written for others,
and speeches dealing with cases which in their very nature are often
unimportant, and in their details have little interest.
It would be unreasonable to ask for any other qualities than clear
statement of fact in a speech for the prosecution relating to
embezzlement by a trustee for a will (_Against Diogiton_), or in the
indictment of Nicomachus, a magistrate who has not rendered his accounts
in due course. Such speeches are of considerable importance indirectly:
to the jurist, as bearing upon the peculiarities of Attic Law; to the
general reader, because they help to fill in details of the picture of
public and private life at Athens. We should not pass a hasty judgment
on the writer because, considered as examples of oratory, they are less
attractive and impressive than some of the more famous models.
I will reserve for future consideration the only speech in which the
personal feelings of Lysias are deeply involved—the accusation of
Eratosthenes. Of the other speeches there is none which, taken as
a whole, is comparable to the finest of the public speeches or the
harangues of Demosthenes. Though Lysias had often to deal with trials of
public men, these trials were never really of public importance. It was
not his business to lay down a definite line of policy for his city to
follow; it was not for him to awake an apathetic nation to the need of
instant and decisive action. We cannot believe that any of his speeches
would appeal, or were meant to appeal, to Athens as a whole.
Even when he is dealing with events that took place during the tyranny
of the Thirty, though no doubt feeling still ran high, we have the
impression that only that part of the community which had been directly
concerned in promoting or thwarting the Revolution would be keenly
interested in the process of punishing or rewarding those who had
played minor parts: the majority had acquiesced, with greater or less
unwillingness, at the time of the changes, and now that the trouble was
past, were eager to make the best of the present; political memory at
Athens was short.
The position of Demosthenes was very different; his chief activity was
not after a crisis, but during a time of national danger. He found great
opportunities and he rose to them.
A great enthusiasm is required to produce really great men, whether
orators or statesmen. A gifted man under the influence of a great
constructive idea may, with exceptional opportunities, become a Pericles;
an extraordinarily favourable combination of such circumstances may give
birth to an Alexander.
In modern times the greatest eloquence is usually on the side of the
opposition, and in all ages a losing cause has tended to produce more
conspicuous men.
Demosthenes owes his great reputation partly to his exceptional ability,
but in very large part also to his opportunities, to the fact that he
was fighting against national apathy and foreign aggression for a noble
ideal—his conception of Athenian Liberty. A lesser intellect might have
shone under such circumstances; and on the other hand Demosthenes, if he
had had no opportunity for the speeches against Philip, might have been
ranked almost in the same class with such orators as Lysias.
§ 3
Lysias is no less simple in the arrangement of his subject-matter than
in his language. Practically every speech which has come down to us in
entirety may be analysed into four elements—preface, narrative, proof,
and epilogue. The preface or epilogue may be very slight; the narrative
may be so self-evident that proof is practically unnecessary, or on the
other hand, there may be hardly any facts to narrate, so that beyond
the words of the indictment only an accumulation of proofs is required;
but the order of the parts seems to be invariable. We have seen that
Andocides instinctively divided up his narrative, where there was a long
story to tell, and interspersed the parts with proofs of the details.
Isocrates, who states the necessity of the divisions which Lysias tacitly
adopted, himself departs from his own rules at times, while Isaeus, by a
judicious subdivision and shifting of the parts, contrives, as Dionysius
says, to ‘outmanœuvre’ the judges.[120]
Within these limits Lysias aimed at elasticity; though the form of the
speech was to be settled precisely, his artistic sense demanded a variety
in the details. It is remarked by Dionysius that, though he composed two
hundred speeches, he never used the same preface twice. Some orators
were in the habit of using over again the opening sentences which had
already served as introduction to an old speech, and even borrowing such
_proems_ whole from the speeches of their predecessors or from rhetorical
handbooks.
Lysias, with a truer instinct for what was appropriate, composed for
every speech a _proem_ adapted to its requirements. His versatility in
this small matter is much to be admired. It is to be noticed also that
there is considerable variety in his ways of ending his speeches; though
many of his epilogues practically say the same thing in different words,
they nearly all succeed in saying it in a way more appropriate to the
particular speech than to any other.
As there is diversity in these forms, so there is great variety in the
details of expression. There are very few formal mannerisms on which we
could seize if we wished to produce a parody of the style. There are
indeed one or two common necessary phrases which he employed frequently,
but even these are presented in different shape from time to time.[121]
§ 4
Lysias varies greatly in the structure of his sentences, at one time
producing periods neatly turned, with clauses carefully balanced, at
another time writing in a style by no means periodic; again varying
his form by mingling the two methods, inserting in the middle of the
period a parenthesis or relative clause which keeps us in suspense, or
attaching to the end of the period an extra limb which, from a technical
point of view, spoils its symmetry. It is impossible without quoting
a large number of examples to prove these statements in detail, but
we may state broadly that in speeches dealing with serious matters of
public interest the style is more periodic; in some of the private
speeches on comparatively trivial subjects the style is simpler and more
straightforward.
But there is often much variety within the limits of the same speech;
as Blass and others have pointed out, the narrative is usually told
in a simple style,[122] while for arguments and proofs the greater
elaboration of the period is employed. As I have pointed out in a
previous chapter,[123] narrative and argument seem naturally to evoke
different styles, and it may be supposed further that the juries
trying the more serious cases looked for a more finished style of
speech than the colloquial simplicity which would be admissible in
minor police-court cases. But even in the unimportant private speeches
Lysias has not one method only, and we feel that he varied his style of
sentence-construction to suit the character of the speaker for whom he
wrote. Thus the youth Mantitheus is nearly as simple in speech as he is
ingenuous in thought, while the cripple, whom we feel to be a plausible
rascal, glibly produces strings of neat antitheses, such as the following:
‘The rich with their money can buy exemption from danger, the
poor are compelled by their indigence to practise moderation.
The young claim indulgence from their elders, but both young
and old are equally severe on the faults of the others.
‘The strong have the opportunity, without risk to themselves,
of ill-treating whom they will; the weak can neither defend
themselves against an aggressor when they are ill-treated, nor
overpower their intended victims when they wish to ill-treat
others.’[124]
§ 5
The variation of sentence-construction is a minor help towards the
delineation of character—a necessary part of the business of a
professional speech-writer who tries to be realistic. But, in order that
the speech may seem appropriate to the speaker, it is necessary that
not only his words and phrases but his sentiments should be consonant
with his character. This effect Lysias attempted to produce, and he is
credited with having attained great success.
We may to some extent discover from the speeches what was the nature of
the speakers, but not altogether, for we have no indication as to tone or
manner of delivery.
However, from data of various kinds, we can form conceptions of many of
the speakers. Thus the defendant on a charge of receiving bribes (Or.
xxi.) gives a long and prosy catalogue of his services to the State, with
an account of the moneys that he has spent on liturgies (§§ 1-10); all
this leads up to his conclusion that he, who desired little for himself
and expended all his fortune for his country’s good, had no inducement to
take bribes to injure her.
* * * * *
From the _Mantitheus_ we get quite a vivid and pleasing picture of
a young Athenian of good birth and breeding, who ingenuously admits
to having some fashionable affectations and owns to an overpowering
ambition to distinguish himself as a speaker in the ecclesia, as he has
already done good service in the field.
The speech throughout is frank and self-confident, but not by any means
boastful:
‘From such records as these you ought to judge a man who in his
public life is guided by ambition combined with moderation;
you ought not to detest a man because he does his hair in the
fashionable way: such habits hurt nobody personally, and do no
harm to the community; while all of you alike are benefited by
those who willingly face your enemies. So it is not fair either
to love or to hate any one on account of his looks; you should
judge by his actions. Many people who talk little and dress
quietly have been the authors of great harm, while others who
do not affect such deportment have done you great services....
‘I have observed, too, that some people are offended with me
because I have ventured to speak in public when I am in their
opinion too young: but in the first place I have been forced to
speak publicly about matters which concern me, and besides, I
think I am by nature somewhat excessively ambitious.
‘I reflect that my ancestors have never ceased to serve the
State, and—to be candid—I observe that you think that such
people alone deserve your notice.
‘Seeing that such is your opinion, who would not be encouraged
to act and speak on the State’s behalf? And why should you be
displeased with those who do so? No one else has a right to
judge them; it is for you alone.’[125]
A very different picture is that of the cripple (Oration xxiv.) who
defends himself on a charge of receiving a State pension under false
pretences. He seems to protest too much about his infirmity, his
poverty, and his general helplessness, while he keeps a sneering tone
throughout, and hardly troubles to conceal a malicious temper:
‘I am almost grateful to the prosecutor for instituting this
trial. Hitherto I have had no pretext for giving you an account
of my life: now I have obtained one—through him. In my speech
I shall attempt to show that he is a liar, and that up to the
present day my life has been one that should win praise rather
than be exposed to jealousy, for I cannot think that he has
brought me to trial from any other motive than jealousy. But
if a man feels jealousy towards one whom all others pity, what
baseness will he not sink to, do you suppose?
‘It is not to gain money that he has laid this information, and
he is not trying to punish an enemy; he is a bad character,
with whom I have had no dealings either friendly or hostile.
So it is clear, Gentlemen, that he is jealous of me because,
though thus afflicted, I am a better citizen than he is. For I
think that one should compensate for bodily misfortunes by good
habits of mind; and if I show a disposition of mind to match my
unfortunate body, and fashion my life accordingly, I shall be
as bad as he is....’[126]
‘As to my riding, which he has had the audacity to mention,
having no fear of fortune or respect for you, there is not much
to say. I know that all who labour under any incapacity seek
some such relief, and speculate how best they may alleviate
their suffering. I am one of this class, and, being afflicted
as you see, have found riding a great comfort for a journey of
any length....
‘If I had the means, I would ride in comfort on a mule, instead
of a borrowed horse; but as I cannot afford a beast of my own,
I am compelled often to use a borrowed horse.... I am surprised
that he does not make it a ground for accusation that I walk
with two sticks, while others use one—on the plea that only the
affluent can afford two.’[127]
‘Again, he says that I associate with numerous bad characters
who have spent all their own money, and are plotting against
those who want to keep what belongs to them. But reflect that
this accusation does not hit me more than anybody else who
practises a trade; nor does it apply to my visitors more than
those of the rest of the working-class. Every one of you pays
visits to the perfumer, the barber, the shoemaker, or any
tradesman, and most people go to the establishments nearest
the market-place, and fewest to those farthest away. So if you
condemn my visitors as scoundrels, it is clear that you must
equally condemn those who spend their time in other people’s
shops; and if they are guilty, all the inhabitants of Athens
must be; for you are all in the habit of paying visits and
spending your time somewhere or other.’[128]
Another good example of this realism in depicting character is the speech
_de Caede Eratosthenis_. Lysias seems to have given us just the kind of
speech that is appropriate to a rather stupid man of the lower middle
classes who, by his own showing, is no better than his neighbours, though
no worse. Incidentally, the whole speech is an important contribution to
our knowledge of domestic arrangements in an Athenian home:
‘So things went on, till one day I returned unexpectedly from
the country. After dinner the baby was crying and fidgeting—the
servant had been teasing it on purpose, to make it cry,
for Eratosthenes was in the house: I heard all about that
afterwards.—I told my wife to go and feed the baby, to stop it
crying. She refused at first, pretending to be glad to have me
back after so long; but when I grew annoyed and told her again
to go, “Yes,” said she, “and leave you and the servant alone
up here; I know how you behaved one night when you were drunk.”
I laughed, but she got up and went away and shut the door,
treating it as a joke, and drew the bolt outside. I thought
nothing of it, and had no suspicion, and was glad to go to
sleep after my day’s work in the country. Early in the morning
she came back and opened the door, and when I asked why the
doors had banged in the night, she told me that the lamp beside
the child’s bed had gone out, and she had fetched a light from
a neighbour. I made no remark, supposing that this was the
truth. I had an idea that her face was powdered, although her
brother had died less than a month ago; but for all that I
said nothing more about it, and left the house and went on my
business without comment.’[129]
§ 6
Though Lysias shows dramatic instinct in the representation of character,
he seldom employs theatrical effects for the purpose of overpowering
the feelings of the court. He trusts more to logic than to the elements
of pity and terror, and shows a moderation of language comparable to
the self-restraint which characterizes his style in general. He avoids
exaggeration of every kind; even the story of his own arrest is told in
a dispassionate, almost impersonal style.[130] There can be no doubt
that Lysias thus gains greatly in dignity. The prison scene described
by Andocides[131] may appeal more to our feelings, but certainly more
impressive is the solemnity of a similar scene in Lysias:
‘When they were condemned to death, and their end was near,
they sent for various kinswomen—sister, mother, wife, as the
case might be—to visit them in prison, in order that they
might, before they died, bid them a last farewell. Dionysodorus
sent for my sister, who was his wife. Receiving the message,
she came dressed in mourning as a fit tribute to her husband’s
condition.’[132]
The prisoner then disposed of his property, and ‘solemnly warned his
wife, if she should bear a son, to tell the child that Agoratus had
killed his father, and bid him take vengeance on the murderer.’
There is no hint here of such weeping and wailing as Andocides describes;
nothing but the quiet pathos of the story itself to work upon the
feelings. To a certain class of audience this style would appeal more
truly than any extravagance of grief, and passages of this kind should be
enough to refute the common charge against Lysias that he lacks pathos.
§ 7
Lysias was not without a sense of humour, and sometimes employed sarcasm
which could be delicate and playful or bitter to the point of brutality
according to circumstances; thus in the _Epitaphios_ he remarks how the
Persians thought that their best chance of success would be to invade
Greece ‘while Greece was still quarrelling as to the best means of
defence against invasion.’[133]
Other sentences may be found in the speech _For the Cripple_.[134]
Sometimes a sarcastic reference is introduced by a play on words—as
βουλεύειν—δουλεύειν in _Philo_, § 26—‘He desires the position of a public
servant; that of a public slave is what he deserves.’ Out of several
instances in the _Nicomachus_ one may be quoted, in comparison with a
rather similar passage in Andocides: ‘He has now become a citizen instead
of a slave, a rich man instead of a poor man, a legislator instead of an
under-clerk.’
This is far less effective than the unexpected turn which Andocides gives
to a similar passage.[135]
Finally, the fragment of the speech against Aeschines the Socratic
contains a long humorous passage. Aeschines has a mania for borrowing
money which he never repays. ‘His neighbours are so badly treated by him
that they all move as soon as they can and take houses at a distance....
The crowd of creditors round his doors at daybreak makes people think
they are assembling for a funeral,’ and so on, in a comic vein, till the
speaker ends with a spiteful remark about Aeschines’ mistress, that ‘you
could count her teeth more easily than the fingers of her hand.’
§ 8
Lysias composed an extraordinary number of speeches; of the 425
attributed to him, Dionysius pronounced 233 to be genuine.[136] There
are now extant thirty-four, either complete or, in some cases, with
portions missing. A hundred and twenty-seven speeches are known by the
preservation of their titles or of small fragments.
As we cannot trace with any certainty a chronological development in
style, the most convenient classification of the speeches is according to
their subject-matter.
_Epideictic Speeches_
The fragment of the ‘Olympiac’ speech, which is undoubtedly genuine, is
an interesting specimen of compositions of this class.
The Sophists had early realized the opportunities which the great
assembly of all Greek States gave for an expression of national feeling,
and though perhaps the speech-making was instituted chiefly for the
display of oratory, the custom had grown up of making it an occasion
for discussing broad political questions. Thus Gorgias had preached the
necessity of union among Greeks, and in later time Isocrates in his
_Panegyric_ was to urge again the need of putting aside petty disputes
among cities for the good of the Greek nation.
In 388 B.C. Dionysius of Syracuse had sent a magnificent embassy to the
Olympic festival. Lysias, realizing that this despot of the West, who
had reduced important cities of Sicily, had defeated Carthage, and was
now threatening the towns of Magna Graecia, might become, especially if
allied with Persia, a serious menace to the independence of the cities of
Greece proper, urged them to sink their private animosities for the good
of all, and as a foretaste of their enmity he called upon them to tear
down the royal pavilion at Olympia and scatter its treasures.
In the extant fragment the speaker warns his hearers that much of the
Greek world is in the hands of tyrants, and much under barbarian sway.
This is owing to the weakness caused by internal discord. Empire depends
on command of the seas, and Dionysius and Artaxerxes are both strong in
ships.
‘You ought therefore to lay aside your war with each other, and
by harmonious action make a bid for safety; you should view the
past with shame and the future with apprehension.’
He invites Sparta to take the lead. The substance of the end of the
speech is known to us only from the ‘argument,’ but the fragment is long
enough to be judged as a simple yet dignified composition.
The _Epitaphios_ or Funeral Speech purports to relate to the Athenians
who fell in the Corinthian war, _c._ 394 B.C., though it is impossible to
determine the year precisely.
Such speeches were habitually delivered at Athens, a speaker of
established reputation being generally chosen to perform the service. Now
Lysias, not being a citizen, could not be so chosen, and, if the speech
was really delivered, he can hardly have composed it; for a practised
public speaker would probably not require the services of a professional
logographos.[137]
An extract from the peroration will give a general idea of the style:
‘And so we may deem these men most happy, in that they faced
and met their end on behalf of all that is great and noble, not
committing themselves to chance, nor awaiting the death that
comes in nature’s course, but choosing the noblest way of dying.
‘For their memory is ageless, and their honour is envied of
all men; we mourn for them as mortal in their nature, but we
celebrate them as immortal for their valour. They are receiving
a public funeral, and in their honour we institute displays
of strength and wisdom and wealth, holding them who have died
in battle worthy to be honoured with the same honour as the
immortals. So I call them happy in their death, and envy them
therefor, and think it should be said that life was worth the
possessing only for those men who, endowed with mortal bodies,
have left behind them through their valour a memorial that is
immortal. Still, we must follow ancient custom, and, obeying
the law of our fathers, make lamentation for those whom we are
burying to-day.’[138]
There is nothing striking or original in this peroration, which recalls
the fragment of the funeral speech of Gorgias, especially in the forced
and repeated contrasts between ‘mortal’ and ‘immortal.’ In manner and in
substance it is infinitely inferior to the famous speech of Pericles,
which, with all its extravagances of style, has a note of true feeling.
The _Epitaphios_ of Lysias rings hollow; it is feeble in imagery, it
contains very little reference to the dead, and holds out no hope of
comfort to the living. The allusions to the Persian war are part of the
rhetorical paraphernalia such as stirred the bile of Aristophanes, while
the historical references to the supposed circumstances of the speech are
so vague as not to be appropriate to any particular occasion.
On internal evidence, therefore, we may well believe that it is not a
real speech, but a declamatory exercise.
There is the further question, whether it was composed by Lysias or not.
The composer of a ‘_declamatio_’ may allow himself liberties which he
would not take in a real speech; yet it is hard to believe that Lysias
would have committed such faults of taste as to drag the wars of the
Amazons into discussion or to indulge in the exaggerations of the opening
sections: ‘All time would not be enough for all men to prepare a speech
adequate to such deeds!’ and again, ‘Everywhere and among all men do
those who mourn for their own sorrows proclaim the valour of these dead!’
This is not appropriate to the Corinthian war nor to any war in
the lifetime of Lysias, and Lysias did not elsewhere say things so
inappropriate.[139]
The speech is probably an exercise composed by a writer who had before
him the speech of Pericles and other such compositions. It is actually
quoted by Aristotle, who, however, does not assign it to Lysias.[140] The
general lack of restraint in tone is suspicious, and is, on the whole,
the strongest argument against authenticity.
Only one fragment (Or. xxxiv.) remains of a speech composed for the
ecclesia. According to its title, it was delivered in opposition to
some proposals to abolish or limit the ancient constitution after the
fall of the Thirty (403 B.C.). Dionysius doubts whether it was actually
delivered, but considers it to be written in a style suitable for
debate.[141] It is significant historically that the speaker dares to
compare the position of Athens in relation to Sparta with that of Argos
and Mantineia. The Athenians must have been broken in spirit to tolerate
such a reference.
_Public Causes_
These γραφαί fall under various heads; they deal with all offences
against the State, directly comprising treason, sacrilege, embezzlement,
unconstitutional procedure, evasion of military service, wrongful
claims for admission to office; or against the State in the person of an
individual, _e.g._ charges of murder or attempted murder.
They range in importance from high treason (_e.g._ _Ergocles_) and
deliberate murder (_e.g._ _Eratosthenes_) to the attempt of the Cripple
(Or. xxiv.) to obtain an insignificant pension by alleged false pretences.
* * * * *
_For Polystratus_ (Or. xx.), 411-405 B.C. This speech is entitled ‘_For
Polystratus; defence on a charge of attempting to subvert the democracy_.’
Polystratus had held office under the Four Hundred, and had even been
a member of that body. The nature of the charge brought against him
is uncertain, but as the penalty proposed was only a fine, it cannot
have been so serious as the title implies. Modern critics decide that
the speech is spurious, entirely on grounds of style and method. The
arrangement is at times confused, the argument obscure, and the style
weak.
This kind of argument against genuineness must always be a subjective
one; it is hard to prove the case. The speech _Against Theomnestus_ (_see
below_, p. 100) has faults unworthy of Lysias, and yet, according to the
same critics, it is undoubtedly genuine.
It should be remembered that the present speech is earlier by some years
(_c._ 407 B.C.) than any of the orations accepted as genuine, and perhaps
in the case of an orator’s earlier efforts we should look for less
precision and finish.
Or. xxi., on a charge of taking bribes, is only the second half of the
speech. The first part, dealing with specific charges, is lost. The
defendant points to his distinguished public services as a proof that he
is not the sort of man to be bribed to betray his country. The date is
probably 402 B.C.
* * * * *
_Against Ergocles_ (Or. xxviii.), _Against Epicrates_ (Or. xxvii.), and
_Against Philocrates_ (Or. xxix.) may be taken together as speeches
delivered by a public prosecutor, all in the year 389 B.C.; they assume
that the previous speakers have gone fully into the charges, so that
they themselves need only recapitulate them. The speakers are vigorous
and concise, but impersonal. There was no need in such formal orations
for the kind of adaptation to the speaker’s character which we find
elsewhere. Ergocles was prosecuted and put to death for betraying Greek
cities in Asia and enriching himself by embezzlement. Philocrates had
been his subordinate and confederate. Epicrates was also accused of
embezzling public money when in a position of trust.
* * * * *
_Against Nicomachus_ (Or. xxx.), date probably 399 B.C.—The only
charges against Nicomachus are that, having been appointed to revise
certain laws, he was dilatory in his work and did not finish it within
the appointed time, and has caused an excessive expenditure of public
money—not, be it noted, for his own advantage. Though Nicomachus at the
worst was unbusinesslike and indiscreet, the accuser thinks fit to shower
abuse on him, chiefly in connection with his humble origin, for his
father was a freedman.[142]
* * * * *
_Against the Corn-dealers_ (Or. xxii.) is a plain, unpretentious speech
arising out of the laws relating to the corn supply; the dealers were
not allowed to make a profit of more than one obol a bushel, and monopoly
was strictly guarded against. The date is uncertain; possibly about 390
B.C.
* * * * *
_On the Confiscation of the Property of the Brother of Nicias_ (Or.
xviii.), about 396-385 B.C.—Nicias’ brother Eucrates was put to death by
the Thirty in 404 B.C., and at some time later a decree was passed for
the confiscation of his estate. The sons and nephew of Eucrates plead
against the enforcement of this sentence. Of the fragment which remains
the greater part consists of an appeal to pity, which is very unusual in
the speeches of Lysias.
* * * * *
_For the Soldier_ (Or. ix.), 394-387 B.C.; a defence of Polyaenus, who is
prosecuted for non-payment of a fine, is of doubtful authenticity, though
the arguments concerning it are not conclusive.
* * * * *
_On the Property of Aristophanes_ (Or. xix.), 387 B.C., is another case
dealing with confiscation. The speech is very carefully constructed to
meet what was evidently a difficult case.
* * * * *
_Against Evandrus_ (Or. xxvi.), 382 B.C.—This is a considerable fragment
of a speech relating to a scrutiny (δοκιμασία). Leodamas, the first man
to be elected as archon for the year 381 B.C., having been rejected
as unfit, the second choice, Evandrus, becomes archon if he can pass
the scrutiny; but his enemies refer to his actions in the time of
the oligarchy, and, while admitting that he has been blameless since
the Restoration, refuse him all credit for this. The bitterness and
injustice of this speech are unusual in Lysias, but its genuineness is
not suspected.
* * * * *
_For Mantitheus_ (Or. xvi.),[143] about 392 B.C.; _Against Philo_ (Or.
xxxi.), 405-395 B.C.; and the wrongly entitled _Defence on a charge of
subversion of the democracy_ (Or. xxv.), 402-400 B.C., are all concerned
with δοκιμασία. There is more bitterness in the κατὰ Φίλωνος than in
the speech against Evandrus, but with more justification, for Philo, if
the stories told of him are true, must have been a very objectionable
scoundrel.
* * * * *
The speech _For the Cripple_ (Or. xxiv.), about 400 B.C., is also
concerned with a δοκιμασία, though of a different kind. A pension was
given by the State to certain persons who could not, on account of bodily
infirmity, support themselves, and had no other means of living. The
defendant in this case is accused of claiming the pension, whereas he is
comparatively well off.[144]
* * * * *
_Against Eratosthenes_ (Or. xii.), 403 B.C.—This, the most famous of
Lysias’ speeches, has been to some extent dealt with already.[145] It is
generally classed as a speech in a prosecution for murder, but it seems
more probable that it was delivered on the occasion of the εὔθυνα of
Eratosthenes; for the amnesty passed after the expulsion of the Thirty
specially provided that any of them who chose to give an account of their
actions should receive a fair trial.[146] Eratosthenes and Pheidon were
the only two who embraced this opportunity.
The latter view finds some support in the fact that only the first part
of the speech (§§ 1-37) deals with the murder of Polemarchus; the
longer portion (§§ 37-100) deals more generally with the character of
Eratosthenes and the crimes of the Thirty in general.
* * * * *
_Against Agoratus_ (Or. xiii.), 400-398 B.C.—Agoratus, an informer,
is prosecuted for having caused the death of the speaker’s cousin,
Dionysodorus. There is much historical matter in the speech, but the
accuser keeps definitely to the charge of murder, touching on political
matters only incidentally.
* * * * *
_On the Murder of Eratosthenes_ (Or. i.), date uncertain, is of interest
chiefly as illustrating domestic life among the middle class at
Athens.[147]
* * * * *
_Defence against Simon_ (Or. iii.), after 394 B.C.; and _On wounding
with intent_ (Or. iv.), date uncertain, are both speeches in defence on
the charge of wounding with intent to kill (τραύματος ἐκ προνοίας). The
defendant in the latter, wishing to prove that he was formerly on good
terms with the prosecutor, tells an extraordinary story of corruption.
The prosecutor was nominated by the defendant as judge at the Dionysia,
on the understanding that, if elected, he should award the prize to
the latter’s tribe. He left a written note of this agreement; but
unfortunately he was not elected, so that the prize went to a chorus
which either sang better or organized its corrupt practices with more
skill.[148]
* * * * *
_For Callias_ (Or. v.), date uncertain, is a defence, apparently, on a
charge of sacrilege. The precise charge is unknown.
* * * * *
_On the Sacred Olive_ (Or. vii.), about 395 B.C., is in defence of a
man charged with uprooting the stump of a sacred olive—a sacrilege
punishable by banishment and confiscation of property.
* * * * *
_Against Alcibiades, I. and II._ (Or. xiv. and Or. xv.), about 395 B.C.
The first is on a charge of desertion, the second of avoiding military
service—two different aspects of the same offence. The defendant, a son
of the great Alcibiades, had presumed to serve in the cavalry when he
was only entitled to be a hoplite. The young Alcibiades evidently paid
for the sins of his father, to whom half of the present indictment is
devoted. On this point we may compare the subject-matter of the speech of
Isocrates in defence of Alcibiades,[149] and the speech against him which
is attributed to Andocides, but is probably a later work.[150]
_Private Speeches_
_Against Theomnestus_ (Or. x.), 384-383 B.C., is a speech for the
prosecution in an action for defamation. The speaker deals at quite
disproportionate length with a verbal quibble by which the defendant has
tried to escape justice. The argument is ingenious, but owing to the
slightness of the subject-matter the speech has no interest except to
students of method.[151]
* * * * *
_Against Diogiton_ (Or. xxxii.), 400 B.C., is a truly excellent
statement of the case against a dishonest guardian. In addition to the
skilful handling of financial details, there is much dramatic skill in
description and suggestion of character.
* * * * *
_On the Property of Eraton_ (Or. xvii.), 397 B.C.—This speech occurred in
a διαδικασία between an individual and the State. The speaker asserts
a claim to the property of Eraton (which has been confiscated), for the
repayment of a debt.
* * * * *
_Against Pancleon_ (Or. xxiii.), date uncertain.—Pancleon, accused on
some unknown charge, and supposed by the prosecutor to be a _metoecus_,
has put in a plea that he is a Plataean citizen and therefore not
amenable to the law under which he was indicted. He turns out after all
to be a runaway slave.
These last two speeches consist almost entirely of narrative.
_Spurious or Doubtful Speeches_
_Against Andocides_ (Or. vi.), 399 B.C.—It is generally believed that
this speech is not by Lysias, the most serious argument being that the
writer of it is a blunderer. As Jebb points out, he makes at least three
damaging admissions calculated seriously to injure his own case. It may,
however, really be a speech delivered against Andocides. It contains some
statements which do not agree with Andocides’ own admissions, but, as
we have seen, it cannot be proved that Andocides was always veracious.
On the ground of general agreement with Andocides’ statements we may
believe that it was composed by some contemporary orator, and not, as has
been sometimes asserted, by a late Sophist. It may have been actually
delivered at the trial of Andocides in 399 B.C.
* * * * *
_Eroticus._—Phaedrus, in the dialogue of Plato which bears his name,
reads aloud a speech of Lysias which Socrates criticizes.
If Plato could be taken literally, we should believe that what is read
was the authentic work of Lysias; but Plato is if anything too emphatic
in his attempts to produce this illusion, and most readers will probably
be left with the impression that Plato is following his usual custom; he
tries to give his myths the solemnity of fact, and what he produces here
is an imitation too close to be called a parody. We may compare Plato’s
reproduction of Aspasia’s oration in the _Menexenus_.
* * * * *
The speech _To his Companions_ (Or. viii.) cannot reasonably be
attributed to Lysias, and indeed is so trivial that it can hardly be the
work of any self-respecting forger. It is probably to be regarded as a
declamatory exercise.
The speaker complains that his friends have slandered him by asserting
that he forced his company on them; they have sold him an unsound horse,
and accused him of inducing others to slander them. He therefore abjures
their friendship.
* * * * *
Extracts from six lost speeches are preserved by quotation in various
writers:
_Against Cinesias_ (Athenaeus, xiii. 551 D); _Against Tisis_ (Dion.,
_de Demos._, ch. xi.); _For Pherenicus_ (Dion., _de Isaeo_, ch. vi.);
_Against the Sons of Hippocrates_ (_ibid._); _Against Archebiades_
(_ibid._, ch. x.); _Against Aeschines_ (Athenaeus, xiii., 611 E-612
C).[152]
The fragments of other speeches, in Suidas, Harpocration, and others, are
negligible.