LYCURGUS, HYPERIDES, DINARCHUS
§ 1. _Life_
Lycurgus according to Libanius, was older than Demosthenes,[400] though
they were practically contemporaries. He belonged to the illustrious
house of the Eteobutadae, who traced their descent from one Butes,
brother of Erechtheus. The priesthood of Posidon-Erechtheus, and other
religious offices, were hereditary in this family.
The grandfather of the orator, also called Lycurgus, was put to death by
the Thirty; his father, Lycophron, is known only by name.
In the orator’s extant speech, and in his recorded actions, we find
abundant proof of a sincere piety and deep religious feeling, which were
natural in the true representative of such a family. The traditions of
his house may well have turned his thoughts to the stern virtues of
ancient days, the days of Athenian greatness, when self-sacrifice was
expected of a citizen. He expresses a friendly feeling towards Sparta.
Of his earlier political life we know only that he was an ally of
Demosthenes.[401] He came into greater prominence after Chaeronea, and
was one of the ten orators whose surrender was demanded by Alexander
after the destruction of Thebes.
In 338 B.C., when the war party came into power, he succeeded Eubulus,
the nominee of the peace party, in an important financial office. In the
decree quoted by the Pseudo-Plutarch he is called ‘Steward of the public
revenue’ (τῆς κοινῆς προσόδου ταμίας), which is probably not his correct
title, though it fairly represents his appointment.[402] He kept this
office for twelve years. His long administration, which was characterized
by absolute probity, brought the finances of Athens to a thoroughly sound
condition. During his office he built a theatre and an odeon, completed
an arsenal, increased the fleet, and improved the harbour of Piraeus.
He also embellished the city with works of art—statues of the great
poets erected in the public places, golden figures of Victory and golden
vessels dedicated in the temples. His respect for the poets was further
shown by his decree that an official copy should be made of the works
of the three great tragedians—a copy which afterwards passed into the
possession of the Alexandrine library.[403]
He conceived it as his mission to raise the standard of public and
private life. Himself almost an ascetic,[404] he enacted sumptuary
laws; as a religious man by instinct and tradition, he built temples
and encouraged religious festivals; an ardent patriot by conviction,
he thought it his duty to undertake the ungrateful part of a public
prosecutor, pursuing all who failed in their sacred duty towards their
country. In this way he conducted many prosecutions, which were nearly
all successful. He was never a paid advocate or a writer of speeches
for others; indeed he would have thought it criminal to write or speak
against his convictions.[405] His indictments were characterized by such
inflexible severity that his contemporaries compared him to Draco, saying
that he wrote his accusations with a pen dipped in death instead of
blood.[406]
He died a natural death in 324 B.C.,[407] and was honoured by a
public funeral. His enemy Menesaechmus, who succeeded to his office,
accused him of having left a deficit, though, according to one story,
Lycurgus, on the point of death, had been carried into the ecclesia and
successfully defended himself on that score. His sons were condemned to
make restitution, and, being unable to pay, were thrown into prison, in
spite of an able defence by Hyperides. They were released on an appeal by
Demosthenes, then in exile.[408]
§ 2. _Works_
Fifteen speeches of Lycurgus were preserved in antiquity, nearly all
accusations on serious charges. He prosecuted Euxenippus, whom Hyperides
defended; he spoke against the orator Demades, and, in alliance with
Demosthenes, against the sycophant Aristogiton. Other speeches known to
us by name are _Against Autolycus_, _Against Leocrates_, two speeches
_Against Lycophron_, _Against Lysicles_, _Against Menesaechmus_, a
_Defence of himself against Demades_, _Against Ischyrias_, πρὸς τὰς
μαντείας (obscure title), _Concerning his administration_, _Concerning
the priestess_, and _Concerning the priesthood_.[409]
Only one speech is now extant, the impeachment of Leocrates.
Leocrates, an Athenian, during the panic which succeeded the battle of
Chaeronea, fled from Athens to Rhodes, and thence migrated to Megara,
where he engaged in trade for five years. About 332 B.C. he returned
to Athens, thinking that his desertion would have been forgotten; but
Lycurgus prosecuted him as a traitor.
Only a small part of the speech is really devoted to proving the charge.
By § 36 Lycurgus regards it as generally admitted. The remaining
114 sections consist mostly of comment and digressions which aim at
emphasizing the seriousness of the crime and produce precedent for the
infliction of severe punishment in such cases.
_Analysis_
1. _Introduction._ Justice and piety demand that I should
bring Leocrates to trial (§§ 1-2); the part of a prosecutor
is unpopular, but it is my duty to undertake it (§§ 3-6).
This is a case of exceptional importance, and you must give
your decision without prejudice or partiality, emulating the
Areopagus (§§ 7-16).
2. _Narrative._ The flight of Leocrates to Rhodes. _Evidence_
(§§ 17-20). His move to Megara and occupation there. _Evidence_
(§§ 21-23).
3. _Argument._ Comments on the narrative. Possible line of
defence (§§ 24-35). The case is now proved. It remains to
describe the circumstances of Athens at the time when Leocrates
deserted her (§ 36).
4. The panic after the battle of Chaeronea (§§ 37-45). Praise
of those who fell in the battle there (§§ 46-51). Acquittal
is impossible (§§ 52-54). Another ground of defence cut away
(§§ 55-58). Further excuses disallowed (§§ 59-62). Attempt of
his advocates to belittle his crime refuted by appeal to the
principles of Draco (§§ 63-67). They appeal to precedent—the
evacuation of the city before the battle of Salamis: this
precedent can be turned against them (§§ 68-74). The sanctity
of oaths and punishment for perjury. Appeals to ancient
history. Codrus (§§ 75-89). Leocrates says he is confident in
his innocence—_quem deus vult perdere, prius dementat_ (§§
90-93). Providence (§§ 94-97). Examples of self-sacrifice;
quotations from Euripides and Homer (§§ 97-105). Praise of
Sparta. Influence of Tyrtaeus on patriots. Thermopylae (§§
106-110). Severity of our ancestors towards traitors (§§
111-127). Sparta was equally severe (§§ 128-129). Due severity
will discourage treachery, and the treachery of Leocrates is of
the basest sort (§§ 130-134). His advocates are as bad as he is
(§§ 135-140). Appeal to the righteous indignation of the judges
(§§ 141-148).
_Epilogue_ (§§ 149-150):
‘I have come to the succour of my country and her religion and
her laws, and have pleaded my case straightforwardly and justly,
neither slandering Leocrates for his general manner of living,
nor bringing any charge foreign to the present matter; but you
must consider that in acquitting him you condemn your country
to death and slavery. Two urns stand before you, the one for
betrayal, the other for salvation; votes placed in the former
mean the ruin of your fatherland, those in the latter are
given for civil security and prosperity. If you let Leocrates
go, you will be voting for the betrayal of Athens, her religion,
and her ships; but if you put him to death, you will encourage
others to guard and secure your country, her revenues, and her
prosperity. So imagine, Athenians, that the land and its trees
are supplicating you, that the harbours, the dockyards, and the
walls of the city are imploring you; that the temples and holy
places are urging you to come to their help; and make an example
of Leocrates, remembering what charges are brought against him,
and how mercy and tears of compassion do not weigh more with
you than the safety of the laws and the commonwealth.’[410]
§ 3. _Style, etc._
Lycurgus is called a pupil of Isocrates; whether he was actually a
student under the great master we cannot be sure, but undoubtedly he
had studied the master’s works. The influence of the _Panegyric_ may be
traced here and there in the forms of sentences and in certain terms
of speech which are characteristic of the epideictic style. Blass
and others have drawn attention to isolated sentences in the speech
against Leocrates which might have been deliberately modelled, with
only the necessary changes of words for the different circumstances, on
sentences in Isocrates.[411] The employment of a pair of synonyms, or
words of similar sense, where one would suffice, also belongs to this
style[412]—_e.g._ safeguard and protect, § 3; infamous and inglorious, §
91; greatheartedness and nobility, § 100.
With these we must class such phrases as τὰ κοινὰ τῶν ἀδικημάτων for τὰ
κοινὰ ἀδικήματα[413] (§ 6), and the employment of abstract words in the
plural, as εὔνοιαι, φόβοι, § 48, 43.
Lycurgus is very variable with regard to hiatus. In some instances he
has deliberately avoided it by slight distortions of the natural order
of words;[414] in some passages he has been able to avoid it without any
dislocation of order—a work of greater skill;[415] but again there are
sentences where the sequences of open vowels are frequent and harsh.[416]
Other instances of careless writing may be found in the inartistic
joining of sentences and clauses, for instance in §§ 49-50, where
several successive clauses are connected by γάρ,[417] or in the clumsy
accumulation of participles, as in § 93.[418] We must conclude that
Lycurgus, though so familiar with the characteristics of Isocratean prose
as to reproduce them by unconscious imitation, was too much interested
in his subject to care about being a stylist; and that though, like
Demosthenes, he wrote his speeches out, he really belongs rather to the
class of improvisatory speakers like Phocion.
His tendency towards the epideictic style is also seen in his treatment
of his subject-matter; thus §§ 46-51 are nothing but a condensed funeral
speech on those who died at Chaeronea. It is introduced with an apology
(§ 46); it may seem irrelevant, he says, but it is frankly introduced to
point the contrast between the patriot and the traitor. The concluding
sections of the eulogy are as follows:
‘And if I may use a paradox which is bold but nevertheless
true, they were victorious in death. For to brave men the
prizes of war are freedom and valour; for both of these the
dead may possess. And further, we may not say that our defeat
was due to them, whose spirits never quailed before the terror
of the enemy’s approach; for to those who fall nobly in battle,
and to them alone, can no man justly ascribe defeat; for
fleeing from slavery they make choice of a noble death. The
valour of these men is a proof, for they alone of all in Greece
had freedom in their bodies; for as they passed from life
all Greece passed into slavery; for the freedom of the rest
of the Greeks was buried in the same tomb with their bodies.
Hence they proved to all that they were not warring for their
personal ends, but facing danger for the general safety. So,
Gentlemen, I need not be ashamed of saying that their souls are
the garland on the brows of their country.’[419]
This, with the exception of a slight imperfection of style already
noticed, is good in its way, in the style which tradition had established
as appropriate to such subjects. It is less conventional and, in spite of
its bold metaphors, less insincere than Gorgias, avoiding as it does the
extravagance of his antithetical style.
But in spite of the speaker’s apology we feel that it is out of
place, and its effect is spoiled by the use to which it is put in the
argumentative passage which immediately follows:
‘And because they showed reason in the exercise of their
courage, you, men of Athens, alone of all the Greeks, know how
to honour noble men. In other States you will find memorials
of athletes in the market-places; in Athens such records are
of good generals and of those who slew the tyrant. Search the
whole of Greece and you will barely find a few men such as
these, while in every quarter you will easily find men who
have won garlands for success in athletic contests. So, as
you bestow the highest honours on your benefactors, you have
a right to inflict the severest punishments on those by whom
their country is dishonoured and betrayed.’[420]
His use of examples from ancient history is similar to that of Isocrates,
_e.g._ in the _Philip_ and the _Panegyric_; but many of these episodes
are forcibly dragged into a trial of the kind with which Lycurgus was
concerned, whereas those of Isocrates always help to convey the lesson
which he is trying to enforce. Thus the following passage, which succeeds
a quotation from Homer, leads up to a digression on Tyrtaeus, accompanied
by a lengthy quotation from his works. There is only a bare pretence that
all this has anything to do with the case:
‘Hearing these lines and emulating such actions, our ancestors
were so disposed towards manly courage that they were content
to die not only for their own fatherland but for all Greece,
as their common fatherland. Those, at any rate, who faced the
barbarians at Marathon, conquered the armament of all Asia,
by their individual sacrifice gaining security for all the
Greeks in common, priding themselves not upon their fame but
on doing deeds worthy of their country, setting themselves up
as champions of the Greeks and masters of the barbarians; for
they made no nominal profession of courage, but gave an actual
display of it to all the world.’[421]
Here Lycurgus has reverted to the antithetical style of Antiphon, the
opposition of ‘word’ and ‘deed,’ ‘private’ and ‘public,’ and the like. We
are also from time to time reminded of Antiphon by the prominence given
in the _Leocrates_ to religious considerations. The digressions may be
partly explained by the speaker’s avowed motive in introducing some of
them—his wish to be an educator. He introduces a very moral tale of a
young Sicilian who, tarrying behind to save his father, on the occasion
of an eruption of Etna, was providentially saved while all the others
perished. This is his excuse—‘The story may be legendary, but it will be
appropriate for all the younger men to hear it now’;[422] and the manner
of the lecturer is evident elsewhere—‘There are three influences above
all which guard and protect the democracy and the welfare of the city,’
etc. ‘There are two things which educate our youth:—the punishment of
evil-doers and the rewards bestowed on good men.’[423]
Quite apart iron these decorative digressions, Lycurgus admits into his
ordinary discourse poetical phrases and metaphors which the stricter
taste of Isocrates would have excluded. The bold personifications in his
epilogue and elsewhere are cases in point:
‘So imagine, Athenians, that the land and its trees are
supplicating you; that the harbours, the dockyards, and the
walls of the city are imploring you; that the temples and holy
places are urging you to come to their help.’[424]
Lycurgus must have tried the patience of his hearers by his lengthy
quotations from the poets. No other orator, perhaps, would have dared
to recite fifty-five lines of Euripides and to follow them, after a
short extract from Homer, with thirty-two lines of Tyrtaeus. Aeschines,
no doubt, was fond of quoting, but his extracts are comparatively
short and generally to the point; he can make good use of a single
couplet. Demosthenes too, in capping his great adversary’s quotations,
observed moderation and season. But the long quotations in Lycurgus
are superfluous; that from Euripides is a mere excrescence, for he
has already summarized in half a dozen lines the story from which he
draws his moral; and the only purpose in telling the story at all is to
introduce the refrain ‘Leocrates is quite a different kind of person.’
In this matter Lycurgus lacks taste—that is to say, he lacks a sense of
proportion; but for all that he is felt to be speaking naturally quite
according to his own character; he is attaining the highest _ethos_ by
being himself. We know his interest in the tragedians from the fact that
he caused an official copy of the plays to be preserved; and though
religious motives would suffice to account for this decree, probably
personal feeling, the statesman’s private affection for the works which
he thus perpetuated, to some degree influenced his judgment.
Though he may be unskilful, if judged by technical standards, Lycurgus
impresses us by his dignified manner. He will not condescend to any
rhetorical device which might detract from this dignity. He has no
personal abuse for his opponent; he promises to keep to the specific
charge with which the trial is concerned,[425] and at the end of the
speech can justly claim that he has done so.[426] Though it may lay him
open to the suspicion of sycophancy, he disclaims any personal enmity
against Leocrates; he professes to be impelled entirely by patriotic
motives, and we believe him.[427] He may seem to us excessively severe;
we may regard the crime of Leocrates as nothing worse than cowardice;
but we are convinced that to Lycurgus it appeared as the greatest of all
crimes; and the Athenian assembly too was apparently so convinced.[428]
Failure in patriotism was to Lycurgus an offence against religion,
and religion has the utmost prominence in his speech. There can be no
doubt of his sincerity. The court of the Areopagus, which was more
directly under religious protection and more closely concerned with
religious questions than any other court, is mentioned by him with
almost exaggerated praise.[429] The Areopagus was very highly respected
by all Athenians, but it was not a democratic court; it was a survival
from pre-democratic days. An orator who only wished to propitiate the
good-will of his popular audience would praise not the old aristocratic
court but the modern popular assembly before which he was speaking.
Lycurgus gives praise and blame where he thinks them due. He is by no
means satisfied with the democratic courts.
‘I too, shall follow justice in my prosecution, neither
falsifying anything, nor speaking of matters extraneous to the
case. For most of those who come before you behave in the most
inappropriate fashion; for they either give you advice about
public interests, or bring charges, true or false, of every
possible kind rather than the one on which you are to be called
on to give your verdict.
There is no difficulty in either of these courses; it is as
easy to utter an opinion about a matter on which you are not
deliberating as it is to make accusations which nobody is going
to answer. But it is not just to ask you to give a verdict in
accordance with justice when they observe no justice in making
their accusations. And you are responsible for this abuse,
for it is you who have given this licence to those who appear
before you....’[430]
The whole speech is pervaded by references to religion; Rehdantz has
noted that the word θέος occurs no less than thirty-three times; and
other words of religious import are very frequent, though the orator
never uses ejaculations such as the ὦ γῆ καὶ θεοί of Demosthenes. This
reiteration is of less significance than the serious tone of the passages
in which such references occur; his opening sentences indicate the
attitude which he is to maintain:
‘Justice and Piety will be satisfied, men of Athens, by the
prosecution which I shall institute, on your behalf and on
behalf of the gods, against the defendant Leocrates. For I pray
to Athena and the other gods, and to the heroes whose statues
stand in the city and in the country, that if I have justly
impeached Leocrates; if I am bringing to trial the betrayer
of their temples, their shrines and their sanctuaries, and the
sacrifices ordained by the laws, handed down to you by your
forefathers, they may make me to-day a prosecutor worthy of his
offences, as the interests of the people and the city demand;
and that you, remembering that your deliberations are concerned
with your fathers, your children, your wives, your country,
and your religion, and that you have at the mercy of your vote
the man who betrayed them all, may prove relentless judges,
both now and for all time to come, in dealing with offenders
of this kind and degree. But if the man whom I bring to trial
before this assembly is not one who has betrayed his fatherland
and deserted the city and her holy observances, I pray that he
may be saved from this danger both by the gods and by you, his
judges.’[431]
Passages later in the speech deepen this impression, and contain definite
statements of belief which we cannot disregard:
‘For the first act of the gods is to lead astray the mind of
the wicked man; and I think that some of the ancient poets were
prophets when they left behind them for future generations such
lines as these:
For when God’s wrath afflicteth any man,
By his own act his wits are led astray,
And his straight judgment warped to crooked ways,
That, sinning, he may know not of his sin.
‘The older men among you remember, the younger have heard, the
story of Callistratus, whom the city condemned to death. He
fled the country, and hearing the god at Delphi declare that if
he went to Athens he would obtain his due, he came here, and
took sanctuary at the altar of the twelve gods; but none the
less he was put to death by the city.
‘This was just; for a criminal’s due is punishment. And the god
rightly gave up the wrong-doer to be punished by those whom he
had wronged; for it would be strange if he revealed the same
signs to the pious and the wicked.’
‘But I am of opinion, Gentlemen, that the god’s care watches
over every human action, particularly those concerned with our
parents and the dead, and our pious duty towards them; and
naturally so, for they are the authors of our being, and have
conferred innumerable blessings on us, so that it is an act of
monstrous impiety, I will not say to sin against them, but even
to refuse to squander our own lives in benefiting them.’[432]
The following fragment deserves quotation as an example of his dignified
severity:
‘You were a general, Lysicles; a thousand of your
fellow-citizens met their death, two thousand were made
prisoners, and our enemies have set up a trophy of victory over
Athens, and all Greece is enslaved; all this happened under
your leadership and generalship; and yet do you dare to live
and face the sun’s light, and invade the market-place—you,
who have become a memorial of disgrace and reproach to your
country?’[433]
HYPERIDES
Hyperides, a member of a middle-class family, was born in 389 B.C., and
so was almost exactly contemporary with Lycurgus, whose political views
he shared. He too, according to his biographer, was a pupil of Isocrates
and of Plato, but the influence of the latter can nowhere be traced in
his work.
A man of easy morals and self-indulgent habits, he presents a striking
contrast to the austerity of Lycurgus. The comic poets satirized his
gluttony and his partiality for fish, and the Pseudo-Plutarch records
that he took a walk through the fish-market every day of his life; but
the pursuit of pleasure did not impair his activity.
He was at first a writer of speeches for others, as Demosthenes was at
the beginning of his career;[434] but before he reached the age of thirty
he began to be concerned personally in trials of political import. He
prosecuted the general Autocles on a charge of treachery, in 360 B.C.;
he appeared against the orator Aristophon of Azenia, and Diopeithes. He
impeached in 343 B.C., Philocrates, who had brought about the peace with
Philip.[435] He was sent as a delegate to the Amphictyonic Council,[436]
and showed himself a vigorous supporter of the policy of Demosthenes;
in 340 B.C., when an attack on Euboea by Philip was anticipated, he
collected a fleet of forty triremes, two of which he provided at his
own cost. Shortly before Chaeronea he proposed a decree to honour
Demosthenes; after the battle he took extreme measures for the public
safety, including the enfranchisement of _metoeci_ and the manumission
of slaves. He was prosecuted by Demades for moving an illegal decree,
and retorted, ‘The arms of Macedon made it too dark to see the laws; it
was not I who proposed the decree—but the battle of Chaeronea.’[437] He
was able to retaliate soon afterwards by prosecuting Demades for the
same offence of illegality. Demades had proposed to confer the title
of _proxenos_ on Euthycrates, who had betrayed Olynthus to Philip. A
fragment which remains of Hyperides’ speech on this subject shows him to
be a master of sarcasm.[438]
We know nothing for certain about the origin of the breach between
him and Demosthenes; it may have been due to his disapproval of the
latter’s policy of inactivity when Sparta in 330 B.C. wished to fight
with Antipater; at any rate his language in 334 B.C. shows him to be an
irreconcilable adversary of Macedon. Nicanor had sent a proclamation
to the Greeks requesting them to recognize Alexander as a god, and
to receive back their exiles. At the same time Harpalus, Alexander’s
treasurer, had deserted from the king’s side and arrived at Athens with
a considerable treasure. Demosthenes was in favour of negotiating with
Alexander; Hyperides wished to reject the proposals of Nicanor, and use
the treasure of Harpalus for continuing the war against Macedon. Harpalus
was arrested, but succeeded in escaping, and many prominent statesmen
came under suspicion of having received bribes from him. Hyperides was
chosen as one of the prosecutors, and Demosthenes was exiled.
Hyperides, after Alexander’s death, took the chief responsibility for
the Lamian war, and was chosen to pronounce the funeral oration on
his friend, the general Leosthenes, and the other Athenians who fell
in the war. Demosthenes had now returned from exile; the two patriots
were reconciled, and persisted in the policy of resistance from which
the prudence of Phocion had long striven to dissuade Athens. After the
battle of Crannon, Antipater demanded the surrender of the leaders of the
war party; Hyperides fled, was captured and put to death in 322 B.C.
He is said to have bitten out his tongue for fear that he might, under
torture, betray his friends. His body was left unburied till the piety
of a kinsman recovered it and gave him interment in the family tomb by
the Rider’s Gate. He had proved himself consistent throughout his public
life, and however mistaken his policy, especially in the latter years,
may have been, honour is due to him for the unflinching patriotism which
led him to martyrdom in a vain struggle to uphold his country’s honour.
Until the middle of the nineteenth century, Hyperides was known to the
modern world only from the criticisms of Dionysius and other ancient
scholars, and from a few minute fragments preserved here and there by
quotations in scholiasts and lexicographers. A manuscript is believed to
have existed in the library at Buda, but when that city was captured by
the Turks in 1526 the library was destroyed or dispersed, and Hyperides
was lost.
In 1847 portions of his speeches began to reappear among the papyri
discovered in Egypt. In that year a roll, containing fragments of the
speech _Against Demosthenes_ and of the first half of the _Defence of
Lycophron_, was brought to England; a second roll discovered in the
same year was found to contain the second half of the _Lycophron_ and
the whole of the _Euxenippus_. In 1856 were discovered considerable
fragments of the Funeral Speech. In 1890, some fragments of the speech
_Against Philippides_ were acquired by the British Museum, while the most
important discovery of all was that of the speech _Against Athenogenes_.
The MS. was purchased for the Louvre in 1888, but the complete text was
only published in 1892. Its importance may be estimated by the fact that
Dionysius couples this speech and the defence of Phryne as being the
best examples of a style in which Hyperides surpassed even Demosthenes.
The papyrus itself is of interest as giving us one of the very earliest
classical MSS. that we possess; it dates from the 2nd century B.C.[439]
In many points Hyperides challenges comparison with Lysias. The criticism
of Dionysius is well worth our consideration: ‘Hyperides is sure of aim,
but seldom exalts his subject; in the technique of diction he surpasses
Lysias, in subtlety (of structure) he surpasses all. He keeps a firm hold
throughout on the matter at issue, and clings close to the essential
details. He is well equipped with intelligence, and is full of charm; he
seems simple, but is no stranger to cleverness.’[440]
The first sentence contrasts Hyperides once for all with his contemporary
Lycurgus, who, while less sure of his aim, has a personal dignity which
gives exaltation to every theme.
We have hardly enough of the work of Hyperides to enable us to form a
first-hand judgment as to the merits of his diction compared with that of
Lysias. He has, indeed, the same simplicity and naturalness, but hardly,
so far as we can judge, the same felicity of expression.
Hermogenes blames him for carelessness and lack of restraint in the use
of words, instancing such expressions as μονώτατος, γαλέαγρα, ἐπήβολος,
etc., which seem to him unsuited for literary prose. As we have had
occasion to notice already, rare and unusual words may be found
occasionally in every orator, almost in every writer. Hyperides was no
purist; he enlivened his style with words taken from the vocabulary of
Comedy and of the streets. He did not wait for authority to use any
expression which would give a point to his utterance.
Critics who expected dignified restraint in oratorical prose may have
been shocked by the adjective θριπήδεστος, ‘worm-eaten,’ which he applied
to Greece; to us it seems an apt metaphor. Of his other colloquialisms
some recall the language of Comedy—as κρόνος (‘an old Fossil’), the
diminutive θεραποντίον, and ὀβολοστάτης[441] (‘a weigher of small
change’ = ‘usurer’), προσπερικόπτειν (‘to get additional pickings’—the
metaphor is apparently from pruning a tree), παιδαγωγεῖν in the sense of
‘lead by the nose.’ Others seem to be merely colloquial, part of that
large and unconventional vocabulary which was soon to form the basis of
Hellenistic Greek; for we must remember that we are already on the verge
of Hellenism, and that the Attic dialect must soon give way before the
spread of a freer language. In this class we may put ἐποφθαλμιᾶν (‘to eye
covetously’), ὑποπίπτειν (‘to put oneself under control of somebody’),
ἐνσείω (‘to entrap’), κατατέμνειν (‘to abuse’), ἐπεμβαίνω (poetical or
colloquial, ‘to trample on’).
In some of his speeches relating to _hetairai_ he seems to have used
coarse language which offended his critics; nothing offensive is found in
his extant speeches.[442]
Other metaphors and similes abound; he is fond of comparing the life
of the State to the life of a man, as Lycurgus does also—ἓν μὲν σῶμα
ἀθάνατον ὑπείληφας ἔσεσθαι, πόλεως δὲ τηλικαύτης θάνατον κατέγνως, ‘You
imagine that one person (_i.e._ Philip) can live for ever, and you
passed sentence of death on a city as old as ours.’ The Homeric phrase
ἐπὶ γήρως ὀδῷ (= ἐπὶ γήραος οὐδῷ, ‘on the threshold of old age’) is
curiously introduced into a serious passage in the _Demosthenes_ without
any preparation or apology. We can only suppose that it was so familiar
to his hearers that it would not strike them as being out of place in
ordinary speech. It is similarly used by Lycurgus.[443] In the same
speech (_Against Demosthenes_) Hyperides speaks of the nation being
robbed of its crown, but the metaphor is suggested by the fact that
actual crowns had been bestowed on Demosthenes. Such metaphors as ‘others
are building their conduct on the foundations laid by Leosthenes,’ though
less common in Greek than in English, are perfectly intelligible. A happy
instance of his ‘sureness of aim’ which Dionysius commended is preserved
in a fragment about his contemporaries:
‘Orators are like snakes; all snakes are equally loathed, but
some of them, the vipers, injure men, while the big snakes eat
the vipers.’[444]
He uses simile, however, with varying success; the following, though the
conception is good, is not properly worked out, as the parallelism breaks
down:
‘As the sun traverses the whole world, marking out the seasons,
and ordering everything in due proportion, and for the prudent
and temperate of mankind takes charge of the growth of their
food, the fruits of the earth and all else that is beneficial
for life; so our city ever continues to punish the wicked and
help the righteous, preserving equal opportunities for all,
and restraining covetousness, and by her own risk and loss
providing common security for all Greece.’[445]
The _Epitaphios_ from which the last quotation is taken is a speech of
a formal kind composed in the _epideictic_ style, and naturally recalls
similar speeches of Isocrates and others. Its composition shows much
greater care than was taken with the other speeches; thus there are few
examples of harsh hiatus, a matter to which the author as a rule paid
no attention. All the other extant speeches have far more instances of
clashing vowels.[446] The antithetical sentences are appropriate to the
style, and the periodic structure is like that of Isocrates, except that
the sentences are, on the whole, shorter and simpler.
In other speeches he mingles the periodic and the free styles with
discretion. The objection to a long period is that it takes time to
understand it; we cannot fully appreciate the importance of any one
part until we have reached the end and are in a position to look back
at the whole. For practical oratory it is far better to make a short
statement which may be in periodic form, and amplify it by subsequent
additions loosely connected by καί, δέ, γάρ, and such particles. This
is what Hyperides does with success, for instance in the opening of the
_Euxenippus_, an argumentative passage.[447] In narrative passages a free
style is expected.[448]
In contrast to this flowing style we must notice the quick abrupt
succession of short sentences which he sometimes affects, either in the
form of question and answer, as in the following fragment, or otherwise:
‘“Did you propose that the slaves should be made free?” “I did,
to save the free men from becoming slaves.” “Did you move that
the disfranchised citizens should be enfranchised?”—“I did, in
order that all in harmony might fight side by side for their
country.”’[449]
Still more effective is the following:
‘It is on this account that you have enacted laws to deal
separately with every possible offence that a citizen may
commit. A man commits sacrilege—prosecution for sacrilege
before the king-archon. He neglects his parents—the archon
sits on his case. A man proposes an illegal measure—there is
the council of the Thesmothetae. He makes himself liable to
arrest—the “eleven” are permanent officials.’[450]
Hyperides possessed an active wit which enabled him on many occasions
to evade an argument by making his opponent appear ridiculous.
Euthias, in prosecuting Phryne for impiety, made his audience shudder
by describing the torments of the wicked in Hades. ‘How is Phryne to
blame,’ asked Hyperides, ‘for the fact that a stone hangs over the head
of Tantalus?’[451] In the _Euxenippus_, he complains that the process of
impeachment before the assembly has been applied to the present case:
‘Impeachment has hitherto been employed against people like
Timomachus, Leosthenes, Callistratus, Philon, and Theotimus
who lost Sestos—some of them for betraying ships which they
commanded, some for betraying cities, and one for giving, as
an orator, bad advice to the people.... The present state of
affairs is ridiculous—Diognides and Antidorus are impeached for
hiring flute-players at a higher price than the law allows;
Agasicles of Piraeus is impeached for being registered as of
Halimus; and Euxenippus is impeached on account of the dream
which he says he dreamed.’[452]
His sarcasm is playful at times, even in serious passages; for instance
the following:
‘These Euboeans Demosthenes enrolled as Athenian citizens,
and he treats them as his intimate friends; this need not
surprise you; naturally enough, since his policy is always
ebbing and flowing, he has secured as his friends people from
Euripus.’[453]
Another good example of his sarcastic humour appears in the defence of
Euxenippus against the charge of Macedonian sympathy:
‘If your assertion (the prosecutor’s) were true, you would
not be the only person to know it. In the case of all others
who in word or deed favour Philip, their secret is not their
own; it is shared by the whole city. The very children in the
schools know the names of the orators who are in his pay, of
the private persons who entertain and welcome his emissaries,
and go out into the streets to meet them on their arrival.’[454]
This same sarcasm is in many places a powerful weapon of offence, as in
the next extract from the indictment of Demosthenes:
‘You, by whose decree he was put in custody, who when the watch
was relaxed did nothing to assure it, and when it was abandoned
altogether did not bring the guilty to trial—no doubt it was
for nothing that you turned the opportunity to such advantage.
Are we to believe that Harpalus gradually paid out his money
to the minor politicians, who could only make a noise and raise
an uproar, and overlooked you, who were master of the whole
situation?’[455]
The following fragment contains the most striking example of irony to be
found anywhere in his works; the situation explains itself:
‘The reasons which Demades has introduced are not the true
justification for Euthycrates’ appointment, but if he must
be your _proxenos_, I have composed, and now put forward, a
decree setting forth the true reasons why he should be so
appointed:—Resolved—that Euthycrates be appointed _proxenos_,
for that he acts and speaks in the interests of Philip; for
that, having been appointed a cavalry-leader, he betrayed the
Olynthian cavalry to Philip; for that by so doing he caused the
ruin of the people of Chalcidice; for that after the capture
of Olynthus he acted as assessor at the sale of the prisoners;
for that he worked against Athens in the matter of the temple
at Delos; for that, when Athens was defeated at Chaeronea,
he neither buried any of the dead nor ransomed any of the
captured.’[456]
We have seen already how he could turn his wit against the whole class of
orators, to which he belonged himself; it is pleasant to find him, in a
speech which he wrote for a fee, thus describing Athenogenes: ‘A common
fellow, a professional writer of speeches.’[457] It was the business of
the _logographos_ to sink his own personality in that of his client, and
Hyperides, who was an artist by instinct, did so more successfully than
any other speech-writer, except, perhaps, Demosthenes. In the present
instance he must have felt a peculiar satisfaction in his work.
In private speeches he introduces many matters extraneous to the case;
thus in the _Athenogenes_, though the question is only about a shady
business transaction, he rouses odium by references to his adversary’s
political offences. No doubt many weak cases succeeded by such devices,
which call forth the just indignation of Lycurgus.[458] In public cases
he has a higher ideal. When Lycurgus was an advocate on the other side,
Hyperides referred to him with all the respect due to his character. Even
the speech against Demosthenes is entirely free from personal abuse,
if we except a little mild banter about Demosthenes’ austere habits of
sobriety.[459] The indictment of Demosthenes’ public actions is vigorous
enough, but it is restrained within the limits of good taste, and this is
not for the sake of ancient friendship, which Hyperides repudiates:
‘After that will you dare to remind me of our friendship? ...
(as if it were) not you yourself who dissolved that friendship,
when you received money to do your country harm, and changed
sides? When you made yourself ridiculous and brought disgrace
on us who hitherto had been of your party? Whereas we might
have been held in the highest respect by the people, and been
attended for the rest of life’s journey by an honourable
repute, you shattered all such hopes, and are not ashamed at
your age to be tried by the younger generation for receiving
bribes. On the contrary, the younger politicians ought to
receive education from men like you; if they committed any
hasty action they ought to be rebuked and punished. Things
are quite different now, when it falls upon the young men
to correct those who have passed the age of sixty. And so,
Gentlemen, you may well be angry with Demosthenes, for through
you he has had his fair portion of wealth and renown; and now,
with his foot on the threshold of old age, he shows that he
cares nothing for his country.’[460]
Dionysius approves the diversity of Hyperides’ manner in dealing with
his narratives:—‘He tells his story on a variety of ways, sometimes
in the natural order, sometimes working back from the end to the
beginning.’[461] We have no means of judging; the _Euxenippus_, the only
complete forensic speech, contains practically no narrative; the story of
the _Athenogenes_ is, apparently, told straight through without a break,
and then followed by evidence and criticism and legal arguments. Then
follows the attempt to blacken the character of Athenogenes by extraneous
arguments.
We may conclude this section by a few sentences from the treatise _On the
Sublime_, expressing an estimate of the general character of his oratory:
‘If successes were to be judged by number, not by magnitude,
Hyperides would be absolutely superior to Demosthenes. He has
more tones in his voice, and more good qualities. He is very
nearly first-class in everything, like a pentathlete, so that,
while other competitors in every event beat him for the first
prize, he is the best of all who are not specialists.’ ...
‘Where Demosthenes tries to be amusing and witty, he raises
a laugh, but it is against himself. When he attempts to be
graceful, he fails still more signally. At any rate, if he had
attempted to compose the little speech about Phryne or the
one against Athenogenes, he would have established still more
firmly the reputation of Hyperides.’ ‘But ... the beauties
of the latter, though numerous, are not great; his sobriety
renders them ineffective, and leaves the hearer undisturbed—no
one, at any rate, is moved to terror by reading Hyperides.’[462]
And the passage concludes with a sincere tribute to the titanic force of
Demosthenes.
Hyperides had seventy-seven speeches ascribed to him, of which fifty-two
were thought by the Greek biographer to be genuine.[463] Blass has
collected the titles of no less than sixty-five, in addition to the five
which are extant in the papyri; so that only seven are unknown by name.
Some quotations have been given from the indictment of Demosthenes;[464]
the subject-matter has been explained,[465] and the treatment, so far as
we can judge from the fragments, criticized.[466] The date is 324 B.C.
The _Defence of Lycophron_ is a speech in an εἰσαγγελία in which Lycurgus
was one of the prosecutors. Lycophron, an Athenian noble, was a commander
of cavalry in Lemnos, and was accused of seducing a Lemnian woman of good
family, the wife of an Athenian who died before the case came on. The
date is uncertain; perhaps _circa_ 338 B.C. The case of Euxenippus arises
out of the fact that Philip, after Chaeronea, restored the territory of
Oropus to Athens. It was divided into five lots, and one lot assigned
to every two tribes. A question arose whether the portion given to the
Hippothoöntid and Acamantid tribes was not sacred to Amphiaraüs, and
Euxenippus and two others were deputed to sleep in the shrine of the hero
and obtain from their dreams a divination on the subject. They reported
a dream which could be interpreted in favour of their tribes. In the
present instance they are prosecuted for having given a false report of
their dreams. The defendant and another advocate had already preceded
Hyperides, so that the present speech is mainly devoted to bickering with
the prosecutors, of whom Lycurgus was one. Date about 330 B.C.
The speech _Against Philippides_[467] is very much mutilated. It is a
γραφὴ παρανόμων against Philippides, otherwise unknown, who had proposed
a vote of thanks to a board of πρόεδροι or presidents of the ecclesia
for their action in passing a certain decree, which seems to have been a
vote of honour to Philip. It was passed under compulsion, and Philippides
attempted subsequently to exonerate them from all possible blame by a
decree which is here declared illegal.
The _Epitaphios_ or Funeral Speech is a composition in a well-known
conventional form. The topics for such a speech were already laid down
by long custom. The skill of the orator is seen in his original way of
handling the traditional commonplaces. First of all there is the strong
personal note. He had been associated in politics with Leosthenes,
and with him was jointly responsible for the Lamian war in which the
latter met his death.[468] His personal feeling for the general is very
prominent in the speech; Leosthenes is in fact the principal theme; he is
put, as M. Croiset remarks, almost on a level with Athens:—‘Leosthenes
seeing all Greece humbled and cowering, brought to ruin by the traitors
whom Philip and Alexander had bought; seeing that our city wanted a
man, and all Greece wanted a city, to take the leadership, freely gave
himself for his country and gave our city for the Greeks to win their
freedom.’[469] It is not, he says, that he wishes to slight the other
patriots, but in praising Leosthenes he is praising all. He draws a fancy
picture of the heroes of antiquity welcoming Leosthenes in Hades. It is
a sign of the times that the individual should so be exalted; we have
travelled far indeed from the cold impersonality of Pericles, to whom
the nameless heroes who sacrifice their lives are but part of a pageant
passing before the eyes of the deathless city. The consolation to the
living is remarkable for containing references to a future life, which
is quite without precedent:—‘It is hard to comfort those who are in
such grief; for neither speeches nor laws can send sorrow to sleep’ ...
(there follow remarks about eternal praise, which are not particularly
characteristic; but he concludes in a higher strain):—‘Furthermore, if
the dead are as though they had never been, our friends are released from
sickness and pain and the other misadventures which afflict mankind; but
if the dead have consciousness, and are under the care of God, as we
believe, we may be sure that they, who upheld the honour of the gods when
it was threatened, are now the objects of God’s loving kindness.’[470]
Truly Socrates had not lived in vain.
The speech _Against Athenogenes_[471] is an admirable example of the
orator’s lighter style. Its chief merit is the way in which the narrative
of the events is delivered by the speaker.
Hyperides’ client, a young Athenian, wished to obtain possession of a
young slave, who was employed in a perfumery-shop. Athenogenes, the owner
of the shop—‘a vulgar speech-maker, and worst of all an Egyptian’—saw
his opportunity for a good stroke of business, and at first refused to
sell the slave. A quarrel ensued. At this point Antigona, once the most
accomplished courtesan of her day, but now retired, came and offered
her services to the young man. She contrived to pick up for herself a
gratuity of 300 drachmas, just as a proof of his good opinion. Later,
she told the young man that she had persuaded Athenogenes to release
the boy, not separately, but together with his father and brother,
for forty minas. The young man borrowed the money; a touching scene
of reconciliation followed, Antigona exhorting the two adversaries to
behave as friends in future. ‘I said that I would do so, and Athenogenes
answered that I ought to be grateful to Antigona for her services; “and
now,” he said, “you shall see what a kindness I will do you for her
sake.”’ He offered, instead of setting the slaves free, to sell them
formally to the plaintiff, who could then set them free when he liked,
and so win their gratitude. As to any debts they have contracted, you can
take them over; they are trifling, and the stock remaining in the shop
will easily cover them.’ Assent having been given, Athenogenes produced
a contract in these terms, which he had brought with him, and it was
signed and sealed on the spot. Within three months the unhappy purchaser
found himself liable for business debts and deposits amounting to five
talents. Athenogenes made the preposterous excuse that he had not known
anything about this enormous debt. His dupe was in an awkward position,
as he had formally taken over the business and its liabilities. He tries
to prove that the contract should be held not valid. His legal claim
is very slight; the appeal is really to equity. The second part of the
speech deals with Athenogenes in his political relations. The epilogue
exhorts the judges to take this opportunity of punishing such a scoundrel
on general grounds, even if he cannot actually be brought under any
particular law.
DINARCHUS
Dinarchus, the last of the ten orators of the Alexandrian Canon, was
a Corinthian by birth. He lived as a _metoecus_ at Athens, but never
obtained the citizenship, and was therefore unable to appear in the
courts or the assembly. He was born about 360 B.C.; on coming to Athens
he is said to have studied under Theophrastus, and he began to write
speeches, as a professional _logographos_, about 336 B.C. He did not
come into prominence till about the time of the affair of Harpalus, and
his most flourishing period was after the death of Alexander, under the
oligarchic constitution set up by Cassander. During these fifteen years,
322-307 B.C., he composed a large number of speeches. In 307 B.C. the
democratic restoration threatened danger to all who had flourished under
the oligarchy, and he retired to Chalcis in Euboea, where he lived for
fifteen years.[472] He returned to Athens in 292 B.C. and stayed for a
time with one Proxenos, who, taking advantage of his age and infirmity,
robbed him of a large sum of money. He brought his host to justice, and,
according to Dionysius and other biographers, himself spoke in court for
the first time. We know nothing of the result of the case, and have no
information of the rest of the life of Dinarchus or his death.[473]
Dinarchus wrote, according to Demetrius Magnes,[474] over a hundred and
sixty speeches. Many of these were rejected by Dionysius, who, however,
admits the authenticity of a sufficiently large number—sixty out of
eighty-seven which he knew.[475] Three only have come down to us, and the
authenticity of the longest of these—_Against Demosthenes_—was questioned
by Demetrius. We shall, however, treat it as genuine, since in style and
subject-matter it is very similar to the others. The three speeches,
_Against Demosthenes_, _Aristogiton_, and _Philocles_, all relate to
the affair of Harpalus. The corruption connected with this affair was
so deep-rooted that it was necessary above all to find men of upright
character to conduct the prosecutions, and these would not be well-known
orators, since most of the prominent politicians were implicated as
defendants in the case. It is hardly remarkable, therefore, that
professional speech-writers should be employed or that one writer should
compose speeches to be delivered in three of the many prosecutions.
Dinarchus, the last of the truly Attic orators, is of very little
importance in himself, but must find a place in any history of this
kind as representing the beginning of the decline of oratory. ‘He
flourished most of all,’ says Dionysius, ‘after the death of Alexander,
when Demosthenes and the other orators had been condemned to perpetual
banishment or put to death, and there was nobody left who was worth
mentioning after them.’ This contains a fairly just estimate of the
merits of the man, who, according to the same critic, ‘neither invented
a style of his own, like Lysias and Isocrates and Isaeus, nor perfected
the inventions of others, as, in our judgment, Demosthenes, Aeschines,
and Hyperides did.’[476] His merits and defects are very obvious. He
knows all the technique of prose composition; he can avoid hiatus
cleverly, and writes a style which is easily intelligible, even when
his sentences are inordinately long. He has some skill in the use of
new words and metaphors—μετοιωνίσασθαι τὴν τύχην, ‘auspicate your
fortunes anew’—ἐκκαθάρατε, ‘purge him away from the State’—δευσοποιὸς
πονηρία, ‘ingrained wickedness.’ He has some vigour and liveliness:
abrupt statements like the following are terse and graphic enough—‘You
chose prosecutors in due course; he came before the court; you acquitted
him’;[477] he makes good use of rhetorical questions addressed to the
defendant:—‘Did you propose any motion about it? Did you give any
counsel? Did you contribute any money? Did you ever in any small matter
prove serviceable to those who were working for the common safety? Not
in the slightest degree’ ... etc.[478] His sarcasm, which is rare,
because he is generally too directly violent to be sarcastic, is at
times pointed:—‘Read again the decree which Demosthenes proposed against
Demosthenes.’[479] He knows the oratorical tricks: he can flatter the
jury by references to their intelligence, by praise of the Areopagus,
by encomia on the virtues of their ancestors. He can appeal to ancient
and modern precedent for the impartiality of judges and their severity
against evil-doers.
He is at his best in the long refutation of the defence which he
anticipates from Demosthenes[480]—this is, on the whole, orderly and
effective—and in short passages like the following from the speech
_Against Philocles_:
‘Reflecting on these facts, Athenians, and remembering the
present crisis, which calls for honour, not corruption, it is
your duty to hate evil-doers, to exterminate from your city
such beasts, and show the world that the nation has not shared
in the degradation of certain of its politicians and generals,
and is not a slave to conventional opinion; knowing that, by
God’s favour, with the help of justice and concord, we shall
easily defend ourselves, if any enemies wrongfully attack us,
but that in union with corruption and treachery and other such
vices which infect mankind, no city can ever be saved.’[481]
He was, then, thoroughly competent; but he was careless. He passes
from section to section with no logical and little formal connection;
invective takes the place of argument, and even his abuse is incoherent.
Everything is overdone; other writers have produced striking effects by
slight changes in the order of words; Dinarchus disarranges his order
without improving the emphasis.[482] Again, the repetition of a single
word may give emphasis, as thus:—‘A hireling, men of Athens, a hireling
he is and has been’; but this device is used _ad nauseam_.[483] His
sentences, great concatenations of participles and relatives, trail along
like wounded snakes.[484]
Invective had its place in Athenian oratory, but when on every page
we find such expressions as beast, foul creature, foul beast, scum,
cheat, accursed, thief, traitor, perjurer, receiver of bribes, hireling,
unclean, we feel that the orator is spitting rather than talking.[485]
There is a similar lack of decency in his imputation of corrupt motives
to all the public actions of Demosthenes, good or bad, and to his
exaggeration of the latter’s offences. He becomes positively ridiculous
when he describes Aristogiton’s first imprisonment—the first of many.
Aristogiton, the worst man in Athens, or rather, in all the world ... has
spent more time in prison than out ... the first time he went there he
behaved so disgustingly that the other prisoners, the dregs of all the
world, refused to have their meals with him, or associate with him on
terms of equality.[486] This abuse of a man who is on trial for a merely
political offence, is grossly over-coloured, and is probably as false
as his description of Demosthenes’ callousness:—‘He went about exulting
in the city’s misfortunes; he was carried in a litter down the road to
Piraeus, mocking at the miseries of the poor.’ Finally, his plagiarisms
from Demosthenes, Aeschines, and other orators are too numerous to
record; he borrows whole passages without skill or appropriateness.[487]
He borrows even from himself.[488] The ancient nicknames for him,
ἀγροῖκος Δημοσθενής, κριθινός Δημοσθενής—‘the boorish Demosthenes,’ ‘the
small-beer Demosthenes,’ are as apt as such characterisation can be.[489]
To sum up: the very marked decline of which Dinarchus is typical, is
due not to lack of technical ability, but to lack of originality on the
intellectual side, and still more to moral causes:—lack of literary
conscience, shown in the plagiarisms; lack of proper care, shown in the
incoherence of the whole speeches; and lack of all sense of proportion
and restraint, shown by the numerous exaggerations of various kinds which
have been described above.