Listed 85 sub titles with search on: Biographies for wider area of: "ATTICA, EAST Prefectural seat ATTIKI" .
MARATHON (Ancient demos) ATTICA, EAST
Satyrus. The son of Theognis, of Marathon, a distinguished comic actor at Athens,
and a contemporary of Demosthenes, is said to have given instructions to the young
orator in the art of giving full effect to his speeches by appropriate action
(Plut. Dem. 7). The same orator relates an honourable anecdote of him, that having
once been at a festival given by Philip king of Macedon, after the capture of
Olynthus (B. C. 347), when the king was making large presents to all the other
artists, Satyrus begged, as his reward, the liberation of two of the Olynthian
captives, daughters of an old friend of his, to whom he afterwards gave marriage
portions at his own cost (Dem. de fals. Leg.; Diod. xvi. 55). He is also mentioned
incidentally by Plutarch (De se ips. c. inv. laud.). Athenaeus (xiii.) quotes
a statement respecting Phryne from the Pamphila of " Satyrus, the actor, of Olynthus,"
from which it would seem that Satyrus not only acted comedies, but also wrote
some. Either Athenaeus may have called him an Olynthian carelessly, from the scene
of the anecdote in Demosthenes being at Olynthus, or he may have settled at Olynthus.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
an Athenian general killed at Marathon
ERCHIA (Ancient demos) SPATA
Xenophon. An Athenian, the son of one Gryllus, born about B.C. 444. In
his early life he was a pupil of Socrates; but the turningpoint in his career
came when he decided to serve in the Greek contingent raised by Cyrus against
Artaxerxes in 401. Xenophon himself mentions (Anab. iii. 1) the circumstances
under which he joined this army. Proxenus, a friend of Xenophon, was already with
Cyrus, and he invited Xenophon to come to Sardis, and promised to introduce him
to the Persian prince. Xenophon consulted his master, Socrates, who advised him
to consult the oracle of Delphi, as it was a hazardous matter for him to enter
the service of Cyrus, who was considered to be the friend of the Lacedaemonians
and the enemy of Athens. Xenophon went to Delphi, but he did not ask the god whether
he should go or not: he probably had made up his mind. He merely inquired to what
gods he should sacrifice in order that he might be successful in his intended
enterprise. Socrates was not satisfied with his pupil's mode of consulting the
oracle, but as he had got an answer, he told him to go; and Xenophon went to Sardis,
which Cyrus was just about to leave. He accompanied Cyrus into Upper Asia. In
the battle of Cunaxa (B.C. 401) Cyrus lost his life, his barbarian troops were
dispersed, and the Greeks were left alone on the wide plains between the Tigris
and the Euphrates. It was after the treacherous massacre of Clearchus and others
of the Greek commanders by the Persian satrap Tissaphernes that Xenophon came
forward. He had held no command in the army of Cyrus, nor had he, in fact, served
as a soldier, yet he was elected one of the generals, and took the principal part
in conducting the Greeks in their memorable retreat along the Tigris over the
high table-lands of Armenia to Trapezus (Trebizond) on the Black Sea. From Trapezus
the troops were conducted to Chrysopolis, which is opposite to Byzantium. The
Greeks were in great distress, and some of them under Xenophon entered the service
of Seuthes, king of Thrace. As the Lacedaemonians under Thimbron, or Thibron,
were now at war with Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus, Xenophon and his troops were
invited to join the army of Thimbron, and Xenophon led them back out of Asia to
join Thimbron (399). Xenophon, who was very poor, made an expedition into the
plain of the Caicus with his troops before they joined Thimbron, to plunder the
house and property of a Persian named Asidates. The Persian, with his women, children,
and all his movables, was seized, and Xenophon, by this robbery, replenished his
empty pockets. He tells the story himself, and is evidently not at all ashamed
of it. In other ways also he showed himself the prototype of an adventurous leader
of condottieri, with no ties of country or preference of nationality. He formed
a scheme for establishing a town with the Ten Thousand on the shores of the Euxine;
but it fell through. He joined the Spartans, as has been seen, and he continued
in their service even when they were at war with Athens. Agesilaus, the Spartan,
was commanding the Lacedaemonian forces in Asia against the Persians in 396, and
Xenophon was with him at least during part of the campaign. When Agesilaus was
recalled (394), Xenophon accompanied him, and he was on the side of the Lacedaemonians
in the battle which they fought at Coronea (394) against the Athenians. As a natural
consequence a decree of exile was passed against him at Athens. It seems that
he went to Sparta with Agesilaus after the battle of Coronea, and soon after he
settled at Scillus in Elis, not far from Olympia, a spot of which he has given
a description in the Anabasis. Here he was joined by his wife, Philesia, and his
children. His children were educated in Sparta.
Xenophon was now a Lacedaemonian so far as he could become
one. His time during his long residence at Scillus was employed in hunting, writing,
and entertaining his friends; and perhaps the Anabasis and part of the Hellenica
were composed here. The treatise on hunting and that on the horse were probably
also written during this time, when amusement and exercise of this kind formed
part of his occupation. On the downfall of the Spartan supremacy, at Leuctra in
371, Xenophon was at last expelled from his quiet retreat at Scillus by the Eleans,
after remaining there about twenty years. The sentence of banishment from Athens
was repealed on the motion of Eubulus, but it is uncertain in what year. There
is no evidence that Xenophon ever returned to Athens. He is said to have retired
to Corinth after his expulsion from Scillus, and as we know nothing more, we assume
that he died there. In the battle of Mantinea (B.C. 362) the Spartans and the
Athenians were opposed to the Thebans, and Xenophon's two sons, Gryllus and Diodorus,
fought on the side of the allies. Gryllus fell in the same battle in which Epaminondas
lost his life. The events alluded to in the epilogue to the Cyropaedia show that
the epilogue at least was written after 362. The time of his death, for reasons
given above, seems to have been later than 357.
The following is a list of Xenophon's works: (1) The Anabasis
(Anabasis), a history of the expedition of the Younger Cyrus, and of the retreat
of the Greeks who formed part of his army. It is divided into seven books. As
regards the title it will be noticed that under the name "The March Up"
(ana, i. e. inland from the coast of Cunaxa) is included also the much longer
account of the return march down to the Euxine. This work has immortalized Xenophon's
name. It is a clear and fascinating narrative, written in a simple style, free
from affectation, and giving a great deal of curious information on the country
which was traversed by the retreating Greeks, and on the manners of the people.
It was the first work which made the Greeks acquainted with some portions of the
Persian Empire, and it showed the weakness of that extensive monarchy. The skirmishes
of the retreating Greeks with their enemies, and the battles with some of the
barbarian tribes, are not such events as elevate the work to the character of
a military history, nor can it as such be compared with Caesar's Commentarii.
There is no weight whatever in the argument that, because Xenophon speaks of the
expedition of Cyrus as having been related by Themistogenes, the Anabasis is therefore
not Xenophon's work. The statement can be explained either on the theory that
Xenophon speaks of his own work under a fictitious name (which was possibly the
case also with the Oeconomicus), or, more simply, by supposing that another account
was actually written by Themistogenes. It is known that a separate account was
written by Sophaenetus, and there may have been others. If the latter theory be
correct, it would be a natural inference that Xenophon's Anabasis was written
after the third book of the Hellenica. (2) The Hellenica (Hellenika) of Xenophon
is divided into seven books, and covers the forty-eight years from the time when
the History of Thucydides ends to the battle of Mantinea (B.C. 362). The Hellenica
is generally a dry narrative of events, and there is nothing in the treatment
of them which gives a special interest to the work. Some events of importance
are briefly treated, but a few striking incidents are presented with some particularity.
The Hellenica was not written at one time. Differences are traced between the
first two and the later books as regards the arrangement, which in the earlier
books is year by year, while, in the later, events growing out of one another
are grouped together; and, as regards political sentiment, in the diminished admiration
for Sparta which appears in the last three books. It is clear that book vi. was
written after 357, since it mentions the death of Alexander of Pherae; but the
first four books were probably written a good deal earlier. (3) The Cyropaedia
(Kuropaideia), in eight books, is a kind of political romance, the basis of which
is the history of the Elder Cyrus, the founder of the Persian monarchy. It shows
how citizens are to be made virtuous and brave; and Cyrus is the model of a wise
and good ruler. As a history it has no authority at all. Xenophon adopted the
current stories as to Cyrus and the chief events of his reign, without any intention
of subjecting them to a critical examination; nor have we any reason to suppose
that his picture of Persian morals and Persian discipline is anything more than
a fiction. Xenophon's object was to represent what a State might be, and he placed
the scene of his fiction far enough off to give it the colour of possibility.
His own philosophical notions and the usages of Sparta were the real materials
out of which he constructed his political system. The Cyropaedia is evidence enough
that Xenophon did not like the political constitution of his own country, and
that a wellordered monarchy or kingdom appeared to him preferable to a democracy
like Athens. (4) The Agesilaus (Agesilaos) is a panegyric on Agesilaus II., king
of Sparta, the friend of Xenophon. The genuineness is disputed, not without reason,
and a recent critic holds it to be the work of a young rhetorician of the school
of Isocrates. (5) The Hipparchicus (Hipparchikos) is a treatise on the duties
of a commander of cavalry, and it contains many military precepts. (6) The De
Re Equestri, a treatise on the horse (Hippike), was written after the Hipparchicus,
to which treatise he refers at the end of the treatise on the horse. This essay
is not limited to horsemanship as regards the rider: it shows how a man is to
avoid being cheated in buying a horse, how a horse is to be trained, and the like.
(7) The Cynegeticus (Kunegetikos) is a treatise on hunting; and on the dog, and
the breeding and training of dogs; on the various kinds of game, and the mode
of taking them. It is a treatise written by a genuine sportsman who loved the
exercise and excitement of the chase, and it may be read with pleasure by a sportsman
of the present day. (8, 9) The Respublica Lacedaemoniorum and Respublica Atheniensium,
the two treatises on the Spartan and Athenian States (Lakedaimonion Politeia and
Athenaion Politeia), were both ascribed to Xenophon, but the Respublica Atheniensium
is certainly not by his hand. It was written by some one of the oligarchical party,
and possibly it is right to date it as early as 420, and therefore to regard it
as the earliest Attic prose work. On the other hand, a modern critic of Xenophon
(Hartmann) believes it to be by a later writer compiling from Xenophon, Aristophanes,
and other sources of information. The same critic denies the genuineness of the
Resp. Laced., which is more generally accepted. (10) The De Vectigalibus, a treatise
on the Revenues of Athens (Poroi e peri Prosodon), is designed to show how the
public revenue of Athens may be improved. (11) The Memorabilia of Socrates, in
four books (Apomnemoneumata Sokratous), was written by Xenophon to defend the
memory of his master against the charge of irreligion and of corrupting the Athenian
youth. Socrates is represented as holding a series of conversations, in which
he develops and inculcates his moral doctrines. It is entirely a practical work,
such as we might expect from the practical nature of Xenophon's mind, and it professes
to exhibit Socrates as he taught. It is true that it may exhibit only one side
of the Socratic argumentation, and that it does not deal in subtleties of philosophy.
Xenophon was a hearer of Socrates, an admirer of his master, and anxious to defend
his memory. The charges against Socrates for which he suffered were, that "Socrates
was guilty of not believing in the gods which the State believed in, and introducing
other new daemons (daimonia): he was also guilty of corrupting the youth."
Xenophon replies to these two charges specifically, and he then goes on to show
what Socrates' mode of life was. The whole treatise is intended to be an answer
to the charge for which Socrates was executed, and it is therefore, in its nature,
not intended to be a complete exhibition of Socrates. That it is a genuine picture
of the man is indisputable, and its value therefore is very great. (12) The Apology
of Socrates (Apologia Sokratous pros tous Dikastas) is a short speech, containing
the reasons which induced Socrates to prefer death to life. It is not one of the
author's best works, and was possibly a rhetorical exercise much later than Xenophon.
(13) The Symposium (Sumposion), or Banquet of Philosophers, in which Xenophon
delineates the character of Socrates. The speakers are supposed to meet at the
house of Callias, a rich Athenian, at the celebration of the Great Panathenaea.
Socrates and others are the speakers. The piece is interesting as a picture of
an Athenian drinking-party, and of the amusement and conversation with which it
was diversified. The nature of love and friendship is discussed. It is probable
that Plato wrote his Symposium later, to some extent as a corrective. (14) The
Hiero (Hieron e Turannikos) is a dialogue between King Hiero and Simonides, in
which the king speaks of the dangers and difficulties incident to an exalted station,
and the superior happiness of a private man. The poet, on the other hand, enumerates
the advantages which the possession of power gives, and the means which it offers
of obliging and doing services. (15) The Oeconomicus (Oikonomikos) is an excellent
treatise in the form of a dialogue between Socrates and Critobulus, in which Socrates
gives instruction in the art called economic, which relates to the administration
of a household and of a man's property.
In language as well as in politics, Xenophon was a cosmopolitan.
His long residence in other lands resulted in his losing or abandoning pure Attic:
he admits words from all dialects; hence he cannot be adduced as an authority
for strict Attic usage, and it has been well shown by abundant instances that
his diction is in many respects an anticipation of the common dialect of the Macedonian
period. Of each of Xenophon's treatises there are from thirty to forty manuscripts.
Of the Anabasis, the best is a Codex Parisinus (No. 1640), and dating from the
fourteenth century. Of the Cyropaedia, the most esteemed is also in Paris (No.
1635), of the fifteenth century, though a copy at Wolfenbuttel (Codex Guelferbytanus)
of about the twelfth century is also valuable. Of the twenty-one manuscripts of
the Hellenica, the best are two Codices Parisini (Nos. 1642 and 1738) of the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries.
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Xenophon
Life
Xenophon, the son of Gryllus, was born at Athens during the early
years of the Peloponnesian War into a family of knights; he died either in Athens
or Corinth sometime after 355, making him about seventy-five at the time of his
death. He may have been educated by the sophist Prodicus at Thebes, and in all
likelihood established some type of connection with Socrates in the last decade
of the fifth century. It also seems likely that he was knight under the rule of
the Thirty Tyrants at Athens and may have even taken part in the battle of Munychia
which brought an end to that regime. In 401 he accepted the invitation of his
Theban guest-friend Proxenus to join the Greek mercenaries in the service of the
Achaemenid prince Cyrus the Younger who was attempting to usurp the throne of
Persia from his brother, Artaxerxes. Following the death of Cyrus at the battle
of Cunaxa near Babylon (late summer 401) and the murder of the commanders of the
Ten Thousand (as the Greek mercenaries are known), Xenophon was appointed strategos
or general and commanded a portion of the troops. After leading them back from
the heartland of the Persian empire to the Black Sea and then the coast of Asia
Minor, he along with his contingent enrolled in the service of the Spartans then
operating in Asia Minor. Fighting there under three successive Spartan commanders
Xenophon formed a strong and lasting friendship with the last one, King Agesilaus.
In 395, when the home authorities recalled Agesilaus from Asia to lead the Spartan
forces against Thebes, Corinth and Athens, Xenophon followed and took part in
the battle of Coronea (394). It was shortly after this that Xenophon was exiled
from Athens, either because of his participation in the battle of Coronea, or
because of this service with Cyrus (an enemy of Athens in the second phase of
the Peloponnesian War), or perhaps both. Without a homeland Xenophon's attachments
to Sparta became even stronger: sometime shortly after Coronea he was granted
an estate by the Spartans at Scillus, a town near Olympia. He had two sons, both
born on his estate and educated at Sparta in the agoge (the rigorous Spartan education
system designed to produce Spartiates or full citizen-warriors). During his time
at Scillus he probably wrote many of his works, remained in touch with his friends
at Sparta, but also established and kept up international contacts at the panhellenic
festival at Olympia. Although his exile may have been repealed as early as 386,
it seems he did not return to Athens but remained at Scillus. After the Spartan
defeat at Leuctra in 371 Xenophon was forced to give up his estate and probably
went to Corinth. Whether he returned to Athens or stayed at Corinth is uncertain:
that some reconciliation took place between Xenophon and his native city seems
to be indicated by the focus of his later works on Athenian matters, and by his
growing commitment to Spartan and Athenian cooperation. Indeed his eldest son
Gryllus was killed fighting for Sparta in an Athenian cavalry contingent in a
skirmish before the decisive Spartan defeat at Second Mantinea in 362. References
to contemporary events in his last work allow us to say that he was alive in 355;
given his extreme old age he surely did not live much longer.
Works
Xenophon's work may be divided into three main categories: historical,
Socratic, and Minor Works.
The Anabasis or ?Trip Up Country? (late 370s or 360s) is Xenophon's story of the journey of the ten thousand mercenaries under the command of Cyrus the Younger into the heart of the Persian empire and then back again to the Greek world. It is of particular significance because Xenophon himself served on the expedition and he is prominent from Book 3 onwards. It was probably composed after Xenophon's return to Greece from a memoir he kept while with the Ten Thousand. The Hellenica or ?Hellenic Affairs?, is a history of Greece from 411-362 (early in Xenophon's career; early 350s). This work appears to have been written in two phases: the first portion of the work, going down to the beginning of the Thirty Tyrants at Athens in 403 ( Xen. Hell. 2.3.10), may well have been one of the first things Xenophon wrote; the second, much larger portion, goes from 403 and extends down to the battle of Second Mantinea (362), and was probably composed very late in Xenophon's life. Due to certain superficial similarities with the work of Thucydides, and especially to the fact that the work picks up roughly where Thucydides leaves off, it is thought to have been conceived originally as a continuation of Thucydides' history of the Peloponnesian War. The testimony of Marcellinus' life of Thucydides (Chap. 45) supports this view. A major break is argued for at 2.3.10 on a number of grounds: stylometric (chiefly distribution of particle usage), change in chronological conventions, change in viewpoint (from Athens to Sparta), and subtle changes in thematic focus (increasing attention to the moral evaluation of individuals). Although frequently faulted for its omissions and Spartan bias, especially when compared with the fragmentary remains of another continuator of Thucydides, the Oxyrhyncus Historian, the Hellenica is our major continuous historical narrative for the crucial period between the latter stages of the Peloponnesian War to the years immediately preceding the rise of Macedon. The Cyropaedia or 'The Education of Cyrus' (370s, revised later) is a long (8 books) biographical treatment of Cyrus the Great of Persia (6th century). This work, which also has a strong claim to be categorized under 'philosophy', is a massive account of the education and training of the ideal king. It comprises elements of historiography, legend, ethnography, and romance, and is thought to be a precursor of the later novel. It contains an epilogue (Xen. Cyrop. 8.8) on the decline of Persia since the time of Cyrus which seems to have been written after the work was completed. The Agesilaus is a biography of King Agesilaus of Sparta (c.444/3-360), composed in all likelihood sometime after the winter of 360, when the king died. It too is a study of leadership, but clearly also contains apologetic elements. It overlaps significantly with portions of the Hellenica. Together with the Evagoras of Isocrates Isoc. 9 (374) it is one of the first true biographies in Greek literature.
It is difficult to date precisely any of the Socratic works of Xenophon,
only that they must have been composed after the philosopher's death in 399. Like
Plato and other Socratics, Xenophon felt the need to compose an Apology or defense
of Socrates in response to the charges brought against him by his accusers. Like
Plato he also composed a Symposium. The most important of the Socratic works of
Xenophon is the Memorabilia, a collection of discussions between Socrates and
(typically) young Athenian men which begins in much the same spirit as the Apology,
that is in defense of the philosopher. The Oeconomicus is a dialogue between Socrates
and an Athenian, Ischomachus, on the subject of house management; it is actually
comprised mostly of a reported set of discussions between Ischomachus and his
(unnamed) young wife. The work is probably the best introduction into the mind
of Xenophon, foregrounding as it does the topic of order, an issue central to
his thought. While the Hiero does not actually feature Socrates, it is clearly
a combination of a Socratic dialogue and a Herodotean meeting between a sage and
a powerful king (e.g. Solon and Croesus), though interestingly the main speaker
is Hieron (king of Syracuse from 478 to 467), not the sage (Simonides the poet,
c.557/6-468/7); the conversation, on the subject of tyranny, is imaginary.
Xenophon's interest in practical knowledge and didactic literature
is clearly evidenced by a number of smaller works. Like his contemporary Aeneas
Tacticus , Xenophon composed two technical handbooks on matters of practical knowledge,
On the Cavalry Commander and On Horsemanship; the On Hunting is widely regarded
as not belonging to Xenophon. He also wrote a Constitution of the Lacedaemonians,
what is not so much a picture of Spartan government as a valuable description
of the Spartan educational system thought to have been set up by the legendary
lawgiver Lycurgus (11th-8th?); it, like the Cyropaedia, contains an epilogue (actually
the penultimate chapter, Xen. Cyrop.14) which suggests that Spartan society has
degenerated. The Poroi or On Revenues is the probably the last thing Xenophon
wrote; it attempts to persuade the Athenians to abandon hegemonic war as a way
to increase state revenue and adopt instead programs aimed at improving the existing
resources of the city-a proposal and conceptual framework virtually without parallel
in all antiquity.
Xenophon, the Athenian, was the son of Gryllus, and a native of the demus Ercheia.
The time of his birth is not known, but it is approximated to by the fact mentioned
in the Life of Xenophon by Diogenes Laertius, and in Strabo that Xenophon fell
from his horse in the flight after the battle of Delium, and was taken up by Socrates,
the philosopher, on his shoulders and carried a distance of several stadia. The
battle of Delium was fought B. C. 424 between the Athenians and Boeotians (Thucyd.
iv. 96), and Xenophon therefore could not well have been born after B. C. 444.
The time of his death also is not mentioned by any ancient writer. Lucian says
(Macrob. 21) that he attained to above the age of ninety, and Xenophon himself
in his Hellenica (vi. 4.35) mentions the assassination of Alexander of Pherae
which happened in B. C. 357, according to Diodorus (xvi. 14). Between B. C. 424
and B. C. 357, there is a period of sixty-seven years, and thus we have evidence
of Xenophon being alive nearly seventy years after Socrates saved his life at
Delium. There has been much discussion on the age of Xenophon at the time when
he joined the expedition of the younger Cyrus, B. C. 401. Those who would make
him a young man between twenty and thirty must reject the evidence as to the battle
of Delium. Plutarch has a story that Socrates saved the life of Alcibiades at
Potidaea, and that Alcibiades protected Socrates in the retreat after the defeat
at Delium (Alcib. 7). The passage in the Anabasis (ii. 1.12) in which Xenophon
is called neaniskos is not decisive, for in this passage of the Anabasis the best
MSS. read " Theopompus" instead of " Xenophon" and, besides this, the term neaniskos
is not used in such a way as to limit it to a young man. Xenophon seemed to Seuthes
(Anab. vii. 2.8) old enough to have a marriageable daughter. This question is
discussed at some length by C. W. Kruger (De Xenophontis Vita Quaestiones, Halle,
1822). The most probable conclusion seems to be that Xenophon was not under forty
at the time when he joined the army of Cyrus. The mode in which Xenophon introduces
himself in the Anabasis (iii. 1) would almost lead to the conclusion that his
name ought not to occur in the first two books.
Xenophon is said to have been a pupil of Socrates at an early age,
which is consistent with the intimacy which might have arisen from Socrates saving
his life. Philostratus states that he also received instruction from Prodicus
of Ceos, during the time that he was a prisoner in Boeotia, but nothing is known
of this captivity of Xenophon from any other authority. Photius (Biblioth. cclx.)
says that Xenophon was also a pupil of Isocrates, which may be true, though Isocrates
was younger than Xenophon, being born in B. C. 436. A story reported by Athenaeus
(x.) of something that Xenophon said at the table of Dionysius the tyrant, may
probably refer to the elder Dionysius who lived till B. C. 367; and if the statement
is true, Xenophon must have visited Syracuse. Letronne, endeavours to show that
Xenophon wrote the Symposium and the Hiero before B. C. 401; but his conclusion
can hardly be said to be even a strong probability. Xenophon was the editor of
the History of Thucydides, but no time can be fixed for this; nor can we assent
to Letronne's conclusion that he published the work before B. C. 401. Xenophon
may have been at Athens in B. C. 402, and Thucydides may have been dead then;
but these two facts prove nothing as to the time when the work of Thucydides was
published.
Xenophon in the Anabasis (iii. 1) mentions the circumstances under
which he joined the army of Cyrus the younger, who was preparing his expedition
against his brother, Artaxerxes Mnemon, the king of Persia. Proxenus, a friend
of Xenophon, was already with Cyrus, and he invited Xenophon to come to Sardis,
and promised to introduce him to the Persian prince. Xenophon consulted his master
Socrates, who advised him to consult the oracle of Delphi, for it was rather a
hazardous matter for hint to enter the service of Cyrus, who was considered to
be the friend of the Lacedaemonians and the enemy of Athens. Xenophon went to
Delphi, but he did not ask the god whether he should go or not: he probably had
made up his mind. He merely asked to what gods he should sacrifice in order that
he might be successful in his intended enterprise. Socrates was not satisfied
with his pupil's mode of consulting the oracle, but as he had got an answer, he
told him to go; and Xenophon went to Sardis, which Cyrus was just about to leave.
The real object of the expedition was disguised from the Greeks in the army of
Cyrus, or at least they affected not to know what it was. But Clearchus knew;
and the rest might suspect. Cyrus gave out that he was going to attack the Pisidians,
but the direction of his march must have very soon shown that he was going elsewhere.
He led his forces through Asia Minor, and over the mountains of Taurus to Tarsus
in Cilicia. From thence he passed into Syria, crossed the Euphrates, and met the
huge army of the Persians in the plain of Cunaxa, about forty miles from Babylon.
In the affray that ensued, for it was not a battle, Cyrus lost his life, his barbarian
troops were dispersed, and the Greeks were left alone on the wide plains between
the Tigris and the Euphrates. It was after the treacherous massacre of Clearchus
and other of the Greek commanders by the Persian satrap Tissaphernes, that Xenophon
came forward. He had held no command in the army of Cyrus, nor had he in fact
served as a soldier. In the commencement of the third book of the Anabasis he
states how he was called to take a part in conducting the hazardous retreat. Instead
of attempting to return by the road by which they advanced, where they would have
found no supplies, at least till they reached the Mediterranean, the Greek leaders
conducted their men along the Tigris and over the high table lands of Armenia
to Trapezus, now Trebizond, a Greek. colony on the south-east coast of the Black
Sea. From Trapezus the troops were conducted to Chrysopolis, which is opposite
to Byzantium. The Greeks were in great distress, and some of them under Xenophon
entered the service of Senthes, king of Thrace, who wanted their aid, and promised
to pay for it. The Greeks performed what they agreed to do, but Seuthes was unwilling
to pay, and it was with great difficulty that Xenophon got from him part of what
he had promised. The description which Xenophon gives (Anab. vi. 3,&c) of the
manners of the Thracians is very curious and amusing. As the Lacedaemonians under
Thimbron were now at war with Tissaphernes and Pharnal azus, Xenophon and his
troops were invited to join the army of Thimbron, and Xenophon led them back out
of Asia to join Thimbron B. C. 399. Xenophon, who was very poor, made an expedition
into the plain of the Caicus with his troops before they joined Thimbron, to plunder
the house and property of a Persian named Asidates. The Persian, with his women,
children, and all his moveables was seized; and Xenophon, by this robbery, replenished
his empty pockets (Anab. vii. 8. § 23). He tells the story himself as if he were
not ashamed of it.
Socrates was put to death in B. C. 399, and it seems probable that
Xenophon was banished either shortly before or shortly after that event. His death
during Xenophon's absence in Asia appears to be collected from the Memorabilia
(iv. 8.4). Xenophon was not banished at the time when he was leading the troops
back to Thimbron (Anab. vii. 7.57), but his expression rather seems to imply that
his banishment must have followed soon after. It is not certain what he was doing
after the troops joined Thimbron. The assumption of Letronne. that he went to
Athens is unsupported by evidence. As we know nothing of his movements, the conclusion
ought to be that he stayed in Asia, and probably with Thimbron and his successor
Dercyllidas.
Agesilaus, the Spartan king, was commanding the Lacedaemonian forces
in Asia against the Persians in B. C. 396, and Xenophon was with him at least
during part of the campaign. When Agesilaus was recalled B. C. 394, Xenophon accompanied
him (Anab. v. 3.6), and he was on the side of the Lacedaemonians in the battle
which they fought at Coroneia B. C. 394 against the Athenians (Plutarch, Agesil.
18). It seems that he went to Sparta with Agesilaus after the battle of Coroneia,
and soon after he settled at Scillus in Eleia, not far from Olympia, a spot of
which he has given a description in the Anabasis (v. 3.7, &c). Here he was joined
by his wife Philesia and his children. It has been said that Philesia was his
second wife; but when he married her, or where, is unknown. His children were
educated in Sparta, or at least Agesilaus advised him to educate them there (Plut.
Agesil. 20). Xenophon was now an exile, and a Lacedaemonian so far as he could
become one.
His time during his long residence at Scillus was employed in hunting,
writing, and entertaining his friends; and probably his historical writings, the
Anabasis and the Hellenica, or part of the Hellenica, were composed here, as Diogenes
Laertius says. The treatise on hunting and that on the horse were probably written
during this time, when amusement and exercise of that kind formed part of his
occupation. Xenophon was at last expelled from his quiet retreat at Scillus by
the Eleans, but the year is uncertain. It is a conjecture of Kruger's that the
Eleans did not take Scillus before B. C. 371, the year in which the Lacedaemonians
were defeated by the Thebans at the battle of Leuctra. Diogenes says that the
Lacedaemonians did not come to the aid of Xenophon when he was attacked by the
Eleans, a circumstance that may lead to the probable inference that they were
too busily employed in other ways either to prevent his expulsion or to reinstate
him; and this is a reason why Letronne supposes that the Eleans probably attacked
Scillus in B. C. 368 during the invasion of Laconica by Epaminondas. Xenophon's
residence at Scillus in either case was above twenty years. The sentence of banishment
from Athens was repealed on the motion of Eubulus, but it is uncertain in what
year. In the battle of Mantineia which was fought B. C. 362, the Spartans and
the Athenians were opposed to the Thebans, and Xenophon's two sons, Gryllus and
Diodorus, fought on the side of the allies. He sent them, says Diogenes, to Athens
to fight on behalf of the Spartans. Gryllus fell in the same battle in which Epaminondas
lost his life. From the circumstance of Xenophon's two sons being in the battle.
Letronne assumes that the decree for Xenophon's banishment must have been repealed
before B. C. 362, a conclusion which is far from being necessary. Kruger concludes
for other reasons that it was repealed before the battle of Mantineia. There is
no evidence that Xenophon ever returned to Athens. He is said to have retired
to Corinth after his expulsion from Scillus, and as we know nothing more, we assume
that he died there (Diog. Laert.).
The Hipparchicus was written after the repeal of the decree of banishment,
and the treatise on the revenues of Athens. The events alluded to in the Epilogus
to the Cyropaedia (viii. 8.4) show that the Epilogus at least was written after
Ol. 104. 3 (Diod. xv. 92). Diogenes quotes Stesicleides as authority for Xenophon
having died in the first year of the 105th Olympiad, or in B. C. 359. The time
of his death may have been a few years later.
The titles of the works of Xenophon which Diogenes enumerates are
the same as those which are now extant. He says that Xenophon wrote about forty
books (biblia), and that they were variously divided, which expression and the
list of works which he gives, show that by the word books he meant the several
divisions or books of the larger works, and the smaller works which consist of
a single book. The number of books of Xenophon thus estimated is thirty-seven,
which is tolerably near the number mentioned by Diogenes, and shows that a division
of Xenophon's works into books existed at that time. Of the historical writings
of Xenophon, the Anabasis, or the History of the Expedition of the Younger Cyrus,
and of the retreat of the Greeks, who formed part of his army, has immortalised
his name. It is a clear and pleasing narrative, written in a simple style, free
from affectation; and it gives a great deal of curious information on the country
which was traversed by the retreating Greeks, and on the manners of the people.
It was the first work which made the Greeks acquainted with some portions of the
Persian empire, and it showed the weakness of that extensive monarchy. The skirmishes
of the retreating Greeks with their enemies and the battles with some of the barbarian
tribes are not such events as elevate the work to the character of a military
history, nor can it as such be compared with Caesar's Commentaries. Indeed those
passages in the Anabasis which relate directly to the military movements of the
retreating army are not always clear, nor have we any evidence that Xenophon did
possess any military talent for great operations, whatever skill he may have had
as a commander of a division. The editions of the Anabasis are numerous...
In a passage in the Hellenica (iii. 1.1), the author says, "Now how
Cyrus got his army together and marched up the country with it against his brother,
and how the battle was fought, and how he died, and how after this the Greeks
made their retreat to the sea, has been written by Themistogenes of Syracuse."
This passage seems sufficiently to indicate the Anabasis, though the extract says
nothing of the course which the Greeks took from Trapezus to Byzantium. Plutarch
(De Gloria Athen.) says, that Xenophon attributed the Anabasis to Themistogenes
in order that the work might have more credit, than if it appeared as the narrative
of one who had to say so much about himself. We might suppose that there was a
work on the expedition of Cyrus by Themistogenes, and that Xenophon wrote his
Anabasis after he had written this passage in the Hellenica. But this is merely
a conjecture, and not a satisfactory one. When we read the Anabasis we never doubt
that Xenophon was the author of it, for he speaks of himself in many places in
a way in which no other person could speak: he records, for instance, dreams and
thoughts, which no one could know except from his evidence. The Anabasis, then,
as we have it, was either written by Xenophon, or compiled from his notes; and
the reference to the work of Themistogenes either proves that there was such a
work, or that Xenophon's work passed under the name of Themistogenes, at the time
when the passage in the Hellenica was written, if Xenophon wrote the passage in
the Hellenica. Bornemann's proposal to translate the words in the Hellenica, Themistogenei
toi Surakousioi gegraptai, " das habe ich fur den Themistogenes geschrieben" is
altogether inadmissible.
The Hellenica (Hellenika) of Xenophon are divided into seven books,
and comprehend the space of forty-eight years, from the time when the history
of Thucydides ends to the battle of Mantineia, B. C. 362. But the fact of the
assassination of Alexander of Pherae is mentioned (vi. 4. 35), as to which the
reference already made to Clinton's Fasti may be consulted. It is the opinion
of Niebuhr and others that the Hellenica consists of two distinct parts or works
written at different times. The History of Thucydides would be completed by the
capture of Athens, B. C. 404, which is described in the second book (Hellen. ii.
2); the remainder of this book carries the history to the restoration of Thrasybulus
and the exiles, B. C. 403. The second paragraph of the third book in which Themistogenes
is mentioned, may be considered as completing the history up to B. C. 399; and
a new narrative appears to begin with the third paragraph of the third book (Epei
mentoi Tissaphernes, &c). But there seems no sufficient reason to consider the
Hellenica as two works, because an expression at the end of the second book refers
to the Athenian amnesty (eti kai nun omou, &c) of B. C. 403, and because the death
of Alexander of Pherae is recorded in the sixth. This would only prove that Xenophon
had the work a long time under his hands. The division into books proves nothing,
for that was posterior to Xenophon's time.
The Hellenica is generally a dry narrative of events, and there is
nothing in the treatment of them which gives a special interest to the work. Some
events of importance are briefly treated, but a few striking incidents are presented
with some particularity.
The Cyropaedia (Kuropaideia) in eight books, is a kind of political
romance, the basis of which is the history of Cyrus, the founder of the Persian
monarchy. It shows how citizens are to be made virtuous and brave; and Cyrus is
the model of a wise and good ruler. As a history it has no authority at all. Xenophon
adopted the current stories as to Cyrus and the chief events of his reign, without
any intention of subjecting them to a critical examination; nor have we any reason
to suppose that his picture of Persian morals and Persian discipline is any thing
more than a fiction, for we know that many of the usages of the Persians in the
time of the first Dareius and his successors were different from the usages which
Xenophon attributes to the Persians; and Xenophon himself affirms this. Besides
this, Xenophon could know no more of the Persians in the time of the first Cyrus
than other Greeks; and, setting aside the improbability of his picture, we are
certain that he could not know many things which he has introduced into his romance.
His object was to represent what a state might be, and he placed the scene of
his fiction far enough off to give it the colour of possibility. His own philosophical
notions and the usages of Sparta were the real materials out of which he constructed
his political system. The Cyropaedia is evidence enough that Xenophon did not
like the political constitution of his own country, and that a well-ordered monarchy
or kingdom appeared to him preferable to a democracy like Athens. The genuineness
of the Epilogus or conclusion, in which Xenophon shows how the Persians had degenerated
since the time of Cyrus, is doubted by some critics; but there seem to be no sufficient
reasons. The author here says that the " Persians of his time, and the rest who
were among them, were proved to be both less reverential towards the gods and
less just to their kin, and more dishonest towards others, and less courageous
in war now than they were before; and if any man has a contrary opinion, he will
find, if he looks to their acts, that they testify to the truth of what I say."
The Cyropaedia is one of the most pleasing of Xenophon's works, and it contains
many good hints on the training of youth. Xenophon's remarks are practical; we
do not find in his writings any thoughts that strike us as very profound or new,
but we always discover careful observation of human life, good sense, and honest
purpose. The dying speech of Cyrus (viii. 7) is worthy of the pupil of Socrates,
and Cicero (de Senectute, 22) has transferred the substance of it to enforce his
argument for the immortality of the soul. This passage may be assumed as evidence
of Xenophon's belief in the existence of the soul (Psuche) independent of the
organised being in which it acts. " I never could be persuaded," says Cyrus, "
that the soul lives so long as it is in a perishable body, and that it dies when
it is released from it." The argument of Xenophon bears some resemblance to the
argument of Bishop Butler, in his Analogy, where he treats of a future life (chap.
i.). There is an English translation of the Cyropaedia, by Maurice Ashley Cowper.
The Agesilaus (Agesilaos) is a panegyric on Agesilaus II., king of
Sparta, the friend of Xenophon. That Xenophon wrote such a work is proved by the
list of Diogenes, and the testimony of Cicero (ad Fam. v. 12), who considers it
a monument more glorious than all the statues of kings. Some modern critics do
not consider the extant work as deserving of high praise, to which it may be replied,
that it will be difficult to find a panegyric which is. It is a kind of composition
in which failure can hardly be avoided. However true it may be, it is apt to be
insipid and to appear exaggerated.
The Hipparchicus (Hipparchikos) is a treatise on the duties of a commander
of cavalry, and it contains many military precepts. One would be inclined to suppose
that it was written at Athens, but this conclusion, like many others from internal
evidence, is not satisfactory. A strain of devotion runs through the treatise;
and on this the author makes the following remark near the end: " Now if any one
admire that I have often used the expression ` God willing,' he must know that
if he happen to be frequently in a state of danger, he will admire the less; and
if he consider, that when there is war, the hostile parties form their designs
against one another, but very seldom know what designs are formed against them
severally. But all these things the gods know, and presignify them to whom they
please by means of sacrifices, birds, voices, and dreams."
The treatise on the Horse (Hippike) was written after the Hipparchicus,
to which treatise he refers at the end of the treatise on the Horse. " Since,"
says Xenophon, at the beginning of this treatise, " it happens that I have been
accustomed to riding a horse for a long time, I consider that I am well acquainted
with horses, and I wish to show my younger friends in what way I think that they
may best meddle in the matter of a horse." The treatise is not limited to horsemanship,
as regards the rider : it shows how a man is to avoid being cheated in buying
a horse, how a horse is to be trained, and the like. In the beginning of the treatise
Xenophon refers to a treatise on the same subject by Simon.
The Cynegeticus (Kunegetikos) is a treatise on hunting, an amusement
of which Xenophon was very fond; and on the dog, and the breeding and training
of dogs, on the various kinds of game, and the mode of taking them. It is a treatise
written by a genuine sportsman, who loved the exercise and the excitement of the
chase; and it may be read with delight by any sportsman who deserves the name.
The two treatises on the Spartan and Athenian states (Lakedaimonion Politeia,
and Athenaion Politeia) were not always recognised as genuine works of Xenophon,
even by the ancients. They pass, however, under his name, and there is nothing
in the internal evidence that appears to throw any doubt on the authorship. The
writer clearly prefers Spartan to Athenian institutions.
A treatise on the Revenues of Athens (Poroi e peri Prosodon) is designed
to show how the public revenue of Athens may be improved: it treats of the mode
of increasing the number of resident strangers (metoikoi), by improving their
condition at Athens, which improvement would ultimately be beneficial to the revenue,
and attract strangers; and it recommends such facilities to be given to strangers
trading to Athens, as would induce them to come to a port where they were not
compelled, as in many ports, to take merchandise, for want of a good current coin,
but where they could take silver as a commodity in exchange, if they preferred
it : he then proceeds to discuss the mode of improving the revenue by a better
management of the Athenian silver mines, and to show that provision may thus be
made for the poorer citizens and other purposes, without levying contributions
on the allies and the subject states.
In the Memorabilia of Socrates, in four books (Apomnemoneumata Sokratous)
Xenophon defends the memory of his master against the charge of irreligion (i.
1 ) and of corrupting the Athenian youth. Socrates is represented as holding a
series of conversations, in which he developes and inculcates moral doctrines
in his peculiar fashion. It is entirely a practical work, such as we might expect
from the practical nature of Xenophon's mind, and it professes to exhibit Socrates
as he taught. It is true that it may exhibit only one side of the Socratic argumentation,
and that it does not deal in those subtleties and verbal disputes which occupy
so large a space in some of Plato's dialogues. Xenophon was a hearer of Socrates,
an admirer of his master, and anxious to defend his memory. The charges against
Socrates for which he suffered were (Mem. i. 1), that "Socrates was guilty of
not believing in the gods which the state believed in, and in introducing other
new daemons (daimonia) : he was also guilty of corrupting the youth." Xenophon
(c. 1, 2) replies to these two charges specifically; and he then goes on to show
(c. 3) what Socrates' mode of life was. The whole treatise is intended to be an
answer to the charge for which Socrates was executed, and it is, therefore, in
its nature, not intended to be a complete exhibition of Socrates. That it is a
genuine picture of the man, is indisputable, and it is the most valuable memorial
that we have of the practical philosophy of Socrates. The Memorabilia will always
be undervalued by the lovers of the transcendental, who give to an unintelligible
jargon of words the name of philosophy : it comes too near the common understanding
(communis senses) of mankind to be valued by those who would raise themselves
above this common understanding, and who have yet to learn that there is not a
single notion of philosophy which is not expressed or involved by implication
in the common language of life. The Apology of Socrates contains the reasons which
induced Socrates to prefer death to life. It is not a first-rate performance;
and because they do not consider it worthy of Xenophon, some critics would deny
that he is the author; but this is an inconclusive reason. Laertius states that
Xenophon wrote an Apologia, and the original is as likely to have come down to
us as a forgery.
In the Symposium (Sumposion), or Banquet of Philosophers, Xenophon
delineates the character of Socrates. The speakers are supposed to meet at the
house of Callias, a rich Athenian, at the celebration of the great Panathenaea.
Socrates, Cratibulus, Antisthenes, Charmides, and others are the speakers. The
accessories of the entertainment are managed with skill, and the piece is interesting
as a picture of an Athenian drinking party, and of the amusement and conversation
with which it was diversified. The nature of love and friendship is discussed.
Some critics think that the Symposium is a juvenile performance, and that the
Symposium of Plato was written after that of Xenophon; but it is an old tradition
that the Symposium of Plato was written before that of Xenophon.
The Hiero (Hieron e Turannikos) is a dialogue between king Hiero and
Simonides, in which the king speaks of the dangers and difficulties incident to
an exalted station, and the superior happiness of a private man. The poet, on
the other hand, enumerates the advantages which the possession of power gives,
and the means which it offers of obliging and doing services. Hiero speaks of
the burden of power, and answers Simonides, who wonders why a man should keep
that which is so troublesome, by saying that power is a thing which a man cannot
safely lay down. Simonides offers some suggestions as to the best use of power,
and the way of employing it for the public interest. It is suggested by Letronne
that Xenophon may have been led to write this treatise by what he saw at the court
of Dionysius; and, as already stated, there is a story of his having visited Sicily
in the lifetime of the tyrant of Syracuse.
The Oeconomicus (Oikonomikos) is a dialogue between Socrates and Critobulus,
in which Socrates begins by showing that there is an art called Oeconomic, which
relates to the administration of a household and of a man's property. Socrates
(c. 4), when speaking in praise of agriculture, quotes the instance of the younger
Cyrus, who was found of horticulture, and once showed to the Spartan Lysander
the gardens which he had planned and the trees which he had planted with his own
hands. Cicero copies this passage, in his treatise on Old Age (de Senectute, c.
17). Xenophon gives the same character of Cyrus, in this passage of the Oeconomicus,
which he gives in the Anabasis (i. 8, 9), which tends to confirm his being the
author of the Anabasis, if it needs confirmation. In answer to the praises of
agriculture, Critobulus speaks of the losses to which the husbandman is exposed
from hail, frost, drought, and other causes. The answer of Socrates is that the
husbandman must trust in heaven, and worship the gods. The seventh chapter is
on the duty of a good wife, as exemplified in the case of the wife of Ischomachus.
The wife's duty is to look after the interior of the household: the husband labours
out of doors and produces that which the wife must use with frugality. The wife's
duty is to stay at home, and not to gad abroad. It is an excellent chapter, abundant
in good things, worthy of a woman's careful perusal, and adapted to practice.
A wife who is perpetually leaving her home, is not the wife that Xenophon would
have. It is a notion which one sees in some modern writers, that the attachment
of husband and wife, independent of the sexual passion, and their permanent love
after both have grown old, is a characteristic of modern society, and that the
men of Greece and Rome were not susceptible of that affection which survives the
decay of a woman's youth and beauty. The notion is too absurd to need confutation.
The duties of a wife, says Ischomachus, give her great opportunities, by exercising
which she will not have to fear " that as she grows older she will receive less
respect in the house hold, but may be assured that as she advances in life, the
better companion she becomes to her husband and the better guardian of her children,
the more respect she will receive." This is one of best treatises of Xenophon.
A man's character cannot be entirely derived front his writings, especially
if they treat of exact science. Yet a man's writings are some index of his character,
and when they are of a popular and varied kind, not a bad index. Xenophon, as
we know him from his writings, was a humane man, at least for his age, a man of
good understanding and strong religious feelings : we might call him superstitious,
if the name superstition had a well-defined meaning. Some modern critics, who
can judge of matters of antiquity with as much positiveness as if all the evidence
that exists were undoubted evidence, and as if they had all the evidence that
is required, find much to object to in Xenophon's conduct as a citizen. He did
not like Athenian institutions altogether; but a man is under no moral or political
obligation to like the government under which he is born. His duty is to conform
to it, or to withdraw himself. There is no evidence that Xenophon, after his banishment,
acted against his native country, even at the battle of Coroneia. If we admit
that his banishment was merited, and that is more than can be proved, there is
no evidence that he did any thing after his banishment for which an exile can
be blamed. If his preference of Spartan to Athenian institutions is matter for
blame, he is blameable indeed. If we may form a conjecture of the man, he would
have made an excellent citizen and a good administrator under a constitutional
monarchy; but he was not fitted for the turbulence of an Athenian democracy, which,
during a great part of his lifetime, was not more to the taste of a quiet man
than France under the Convention. All antiquity and all modern writers agree in
allowing Xenophon great merit as a writer of a plain, simple, perspicuous, and
un-affected style. His mind was not adapted for pure philosophical speculation
: he looked to the practical in all things; and the basis of his philosophy was
a strong belief in a divine mediation in the government of the world. His belief
only requires a little correction and modification, to allow us to describe it
as a profound conviction that God, in the constitution of things, has given a
moral government to the world, as manifestly as he has given laws for the mechanical
and chemical actions of matter, the organisation of plants and animals, and the
vital energies of all beings which live and move.
There are numerous editions of the whole and of the separate works
of Xenophon. The Hellenica, the first of Xenophon's works that appeared in type,
was printed at Venice, 1503, fol. by the elder Aldus, with the title of Paralipomena,
and as a supplement to Thucydides, which was printed the year before. The first
general edition is that of E. Boninus, printed by P. Giunta, and dedicated to
Leo X., Florence, 1516, fol.; but this edition does not contain the Agesilaus,
the Apology, and the treatise on the Revenue of Athens. A part of the treatise
on the Athenian Commonwealth is also wanting. This edition of Giunta is a very
good specimen of early printing, and useful to an editor of Xenophon. The edition
by Andrea of Asola, printed by Aldus at Venice, 1525, folio, contains all the
works of Xenophon, except the Apology ; though the Apology was already edited
by J. Reuchlin, Hagenau, 1520, 4to., with the Agesilaus and Hiero. The Basel edition,
printed by N. Brylinger, 1545, fol. is the first edition of the Greek text with
a Latin translation. The edition of H. Stephens, 1561, fol., contains an amended
text, and the edition of 1581 has a Latin version. The edition of Weiske, Leipzig,
1798--1804, 6 vols. 8vo., did something towards the improvement of the text. The
most pretending edition is that of Gail, Paris, 6 vols. 4to. 1797--1804; a seventh
volume, in three parts, published afterwards, contains the various readings of
three MSS., notices on the MSS. and observations, literary and critical, and an
Atlas of maps and plans. This edition contains the Greek text, the Latin version,
a French version and notes; the Latin version is that of Leunclavius, occasionally
corrected; and the French is not entirely new, for the author took the French
versions already existing of various parts of Xenophon's works. Letronne, in his
article on Xenophon (Biog. Univ.), has given an account of this pompous edition,
which has very little merit. J. G. Schneider revised the edition of Zeune, and
the various parts of the works of Xenophon appeared between 1791 and 1815. The
editions of the several works are too numerous to be mentioned.
Fabricius (Bibliotheca Graeca), Scholl (Geschichte der Griechischen
Literatur), Letronne (Biog. Univ. art. Xenophon), and Hoffmann (Lexicon Bibliographicum)
will furnish full information about the numerous editions and translations. As
to the seven Epistles attributed to Xenophon, among the one and forty so-called
Socratic Epistles, the same remark applies to them as to most of the Greek literary
remains of that class; they are mere rhetorical essays.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Editor’s Information: The e-texts of the works by Xenophon are found in Greece (ancient country) under the category Ancient Greek Writings.
FILAIDES (Ancient demos) MARKOPOULO MESSOGEAS
Peisistratidae, Pisistratids (Pisistratid). Their tyranny, put down by Lacedaemonians under Cleomenes, their expulsion from Athens, at Xerxes' court, their attempt to induce Athens to surrender.
Pisistratus, (Peisistratos). An Athenian, son of Hippocrates,
named after Pisistratus, the youngest son of Nestor, since the family of Hippocrates
was of Pylian origin, and traced their descent to Neleus, the father of Nestor.
The mother of Pisistratus (whose name we do not know) was first cousin to the
mother of Solon. Pisistratus grew up equally distinguished for personal beauty
and for mental endowments. The relationship between him and Solon naturally drew
them together, and a close friendship sprang up between them. He assisted Solon
by his eloquence in persuading the Athenians to renew their struggle with the
Megarians for the possession of Salamis, and he afterwards fought with bravery
in the expedition which Solon led against the island. When Solon, after the establishment
of his constitution, retired for a time from Athens, the old rivalry between the
parties of the Plain, the Highlands, and the Coast broke out into open feud. The
party of the Plain, comprising chiefly the landed proprietors, was headed by Lycurgus;
that of the Coast, consisting of the wealthier classes not belonging to the nobles,
by Megacles, the son of Alcmaeon; the party of the Highlands, which aimed at more
of political freedom and equality than either of the two others, was the one at
the head of which Pisistratus placed himself, because they seemed the most likely
to be useful in the furtherance of his ambitious designs. His liberality, as well
as his military and oratorical abilities, gained him the support of a large body
of citizens. Solon, on his return, quickly saw through the designs of Pisistratus,
who listened with respect to his advice, though he prosecuted his schemes none
the less diligently. When Pisistratus found his plans sufficiently ripe for execution,
he one day made his appearance in the agora with his mules and his own person
exhibiting recent wounds, pretending that he had been nearly assassinated by his
enemies as he was riding into the country. An assembly of the people was forthwith
called, in which one of his partisans proposed that a body-guard of fifty citizens,
armed with clubs, should be granted to him. It was in vain that Solon opposed
this; the guard was given him. Through the neglect or connivance of the people,
Pisistratus took this opportunity of raising a much larger force, with which he
seized the citadel, B.C. 560, thus becoming what the Greeks called turannos of
Athens.
Having secured to himself the substance of power, he made no
further change in the constitution or in the laws, which he administered ably
and well. His first usurpation lasted but a short time. Before his power was firmly
rooted, the factions headed by Megacles and Lycurgus combined, and Pisistratus
was compelled to evacuate Athens. He remained in banishment six years. Meantime
the factions of Megacles and Lycurgus revived their old feuds, and Megacles made
overtures to Pisistratus, offering to reinstate him in the tyranny if he would
connect himself with him by receiving his daughter in marriage. The proposal was
accepted by Pisistratus, and the following stratagem was devised for accomplishing
his restoration, according to the account of Herodotus: A maiden named Phya, of
remarkable stature and beauty, was dressed as Athene in a full suit of armour,
and placed in a chariot, with Pisistratus by her side. The chariot was then driven
towards the city, heralds being sent on before to announce that Athene in person
was bringing back Pisistratus to her Acropolis. The report spread rapidly, and
those in the city believing that the woman was really their tutelary goddess,
worshipped her, and admitted Pisistratus. Pisistratus nominally performed his
part of the contract with Megacles; but, in consequence of the insulting manner
in which he treated his wife, Megacles again made common cause with Lycurgus,
and Pisistratus was a second time compelled to evacuate Athens. He retired to
Eretria in Euboea, and employed the next ten years in making preparations to regain
his power. At the end of that time he invaded Attica with the forces he had raised,
and also supported by Lygdamis of Naxos with a considerable body of troops. He
defeated his opponents near the temple of Athene at Pallene, and then entered
Athens without opposition. Lygdamis was rewarded by being established as tyrant
of Naxos, which island Pisistratus conquered.
Having now become tyrant of Athens for the third time, Pisistratus
adopted measures to secure the undisturbed possession of his supremacy. He took
a body of foreign mercenaries into his pay, and seized as hostages the children
of several of the principal citizens, placing them in the custody of Lygdamis
in Naxos. He maintained at the same time the form of Solon's institutions, only
taking care, as his sons did after him, that the highest offices should always
be held by some member of the family. He not only exacted obedience to the laws
from his subjects and friends, but himself set the example of submitting to them.
On one occasion he even appeared before the Areopagus to answer a charge of murder,
which, however, was not prosecuted. Athens was indebted to him for many stately
and useful buildings. Among these may be mentioned a temple to the Pythian Apollo,
and a magnificent temple to the Olympian Zeus, which remained unfinished for several
centuries, and was at length completed by the emperor Hadrian. Besides these,
the Lyceum, a garden with stately buildings a short distance from the city, was
the work of Pisistratus, as also the Fountain of the Nine Springs. Pisistratus
also encouraged literature in various ways. It was apparently under his auspices
that Thespis introduced at Athens his rude form of tragedy (B.C. 535), and that
dramatic contests were made a regular part of the Attic Dionysia. It is to Pisistratus
that tradition ascribes the first written text of the whole of the poems of Homer,
as to which see Flach, Peisistratos und seine literarische Thatigkeit; and the
article Homerus, pp. 838-39. Pisistratus is also said to have been the first person
in Greece who collected a library, to which he generously allowed the public access.
By his first wife Pisistratus had two sons, Hippias and Hipparchus. By his second
wife, Timonassa, he had also two sons, Iophon and Thessalus, who are rarely mentioned.
He had also a bastard son, Hegesistratus, whom he made tyrant of Sigeum after
taking that town from the Mitylenaeans. Pisistratus died at an advanced age in
527, and was succeeded in the tyranny by his eldest son Hippias; but Hippias and
his brother Hipparchus appear to have administered the affairs of the State with
so little outward distinction that they are frequently spoken of as though they
had been joint tyrants. They continued the government on the same principles as
their father. Thucydides (vi. 54) speaks in terms of high commendation of the
virtue and intelligence with which their rule was exercised till the death of
Hipparchus. Hipparchus inherited his father's literary tastes. Several distinguished
poets lived at Athens under the patronage of Hipparchus, as, for example, Simonides
of Ceos, Anacreon of Teos, Lasus of Hermione, and Onomacritus.
After the murder of Hipparchus in 514, an account of which
is given under Harmodius, a great change ensued in the character of the government.
Under the influence of revengeful feelings and fears for his own safety, Hippias
now became a morose and suspicious tyrant. He put to death great numbers of the
citizens, and raised money by extraordinary imposts. His old enemies the Alcmaeonidae,
to whom Megacles belonged, availed themselves of the growing discontent of the
citizens; and after one or two unsuccessful attempts they at length succeeded,
supported by a large force under Cleomenes, in expelling the Pisistratidae from
Attica. Hippias and his connections retired to Sigeum in 510. The family of the
tyrants was condemned to perpetual banishment, a sentence which was maintained
even in after times, when decrees of amnesty were passed. Hippias afterward repaired
to the court of Darius, and looked forward to a restoration to his country by
the aid of the Persians. He accompanied the expedition sent under Datis and Artaphernes,
and pointed out to the Persians the plain of Marathon as the most suitable place
for their landing. He was now (490) of great age. According to some accounts,
he fell in the battle of Marathon; according to others, he died at Lemnos on his
return. Hippias was the only one of the legitimate sons of Pisistratus who had
children; but none of them attained distinction.
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Peisistratus (Peisistratos) the son of Hippocrates, was so named after Peisistratus,
the youngest son of Nestor, the family of Hippocrates being of Pylian origin,
and tracing their descent to Neleus, the father of Nestor (Herod. v. 65). It was
generally believed that the future tyrant Peisistratus was descended from the
Homeric Peisistratus, although Pausanias (ii. 18. 8, 9), when speaking of the
expulsion of the Neleidae by the Heracleids, says that he does not know what became
of Peisistratus, the grandson of Nestor. The fact that Hippocrates named his son
after the son of Nestor shows the belief of the family, and he appears not to
have belonged to the other branches of the Neleidae settled in Attica: but the
real descent of an historical personage from any of these heroic families must
always be very problematical. The separate mention of Melanthus and Codrus (Herod.
l. c.) implies that he did not belong to that branch; that he did not belong to
the Alcmaeonidae is clear from the historical relations between that family and
Peisistratus; and we nowhere hear that the latter was connected with the Paeonidae,
the only other branch of the Neleidae who came to Attica. Hippocrates (probably
through some intermarriage or other) belonged to the house of the Philaidae (Plut.
Sol. 10; Pseudo-Plat. Hipparch. It is through an oversight that Plutarch speaks
of the deme of the Philaidae, which did not then exist). Intermarriages with the
descendants of Melanthus would be sufficient to account for the claim which Peisistratus
is represented as making (in the spurious letter in Diogenes Laertius, i. 53),
to be considered as a member of the family of Codrus, even if the statement that
he did so deserves any credit. The mother of Peisistratus (whose name we do not
know) was cousin german to the mother of Solon (Heracleides Ponticus ap. Plut.
Sol. 1). There are no data for determining accurately the time when Peisistratus
was born; but the part which he is represented as taking in the military operations
and measures of Solon would not admit of its being later than B. C. 612, a date
which is not inconsistent with the story of Chilon and Hippocrates, for the former,
who was ephor in B. C. 560, was already an old man in B. C. 572 (Diog. Laert.
i. 68, 72).
Peisistratus grew up equally distinguished for personal beauty and
for mental endowments. The relationship between him and Solon naturally drew them
together, and a close friendship sprang up between them, which, as was to be expected
under such circumstances between Greeks, soon assumed an erotic character (Plt.
Sol. 1). On the occasion of the successful attempt made by Solon to induce the
Athenians to renew their struggle with the Megarians for the possession of Salamis,
Peisistratus greatly aided his kinsman by his eloquence. The decree prohibiting
further attempts upon the island was repealed, and an expedition led against it
by Solon, again assisted by his young relative, who distinguished himself by his
military ability, and captured Nisaea (Herod. i. 59; Plut. Solon. 8, 12. Justin.
ii. 8).
After the legislation of Solon, the position of parties at Athens
was well calculated to favour the ambitious designs of Peisistratus. The old contests
of the rival parties of the Plain, the Highlands, and the Coast, had been checked
for a time by the measures of Solon, but their rivalry had not been removed; and
when Solon, after the establishment of his constitution, retired for a time from
Athens, this rivalry broke out into open feud. The party of the Plain, comprising
chiefly the landed proprietors, was headed by Lycurgus; that of the Coast, consisting
of the wealthier classes not belonging to the nobles, by Megacles, the son of
Alcmaeon; the party of the Highlands, which aimed at more of political freedom
and equality than either of the two others, was that at the head of which Peisistratus
placed himself, not because their wishes and feelings corresponded with his own,
but because they seemed the most likely to be useful in the furtherance of his
designs; and indeed his lead of this faction seems to have been a mere pretext,
to render it less obvious that he had in reality attached to himself a large party
among the poorer class of citizens (Herod. i. 59. egeire triten stasin sullexas
de stasiotas, kai toi logoi ton huperakrion prostas). These he secured by putting
himself forward as the patron and benefactor of the poor. With a species of munificence,
afterwards imitated by Cimon, he threw open his gardens to the use of the citizens
indiscriminately (Theopompus ap. Athen. xii), and, according to some accounts
(Eustath. ad Il. xxiv. extr.), was always accompanied by two or three youths,
with a purse of money to supply forthwith the wants of any needy citizen whom
they fell in with. His military and oratorical (Cic. de Orat. iii. 34, Brut. 7.27,
10.41; Val. Max. viii. 9. ext. 1) abilities, and the undeniably good qualities
which he possessed (Solon, according to Plut. Solon. 29, declared of him that,
had it not been for his ambition, Athens had not a more excellent citizen to show),
backed by considerable powers of simulation, had led many of the better class
of citizens, if not openly to become his partisans, at least to look upon him
with no unfavourable eye, and to regard his domination as a less evil than the
state of faction and disturbance under which the constitution was then suffering.
Solon, on his return, quickly saw through the designs of Peisistratus, who listened
with respect to his advice, though he prosecuted his schemes none the less diligently
(According to Isocrates, Panath. p. 263, ed. Steph. one part of his procedure
was to procure the banishment of a considerable number of influential citizens
who were likely to oppose his plans). Solon next endeavoured to arouse the people,
by speeches and poetical compositions (Plut. Solon. 30; Diog. Laert. i. 49, 50),
to a sense of the danger to which they were exposed, but in vain. Some refused
to share his suspicions, others favoured the designs of Peisistratus, others feared
his power, or were indifferent. Even the senate, according to Diogenes Laertius
(i. 49), were disposed to favour Peisistratus, and declared Solon to be mad. When
Peisistratus found his plans sufficiently ripe for execution, he one day made
his appearance in the agora with his mules and his own person exhibiting recent
wounds, pretending that he had been nearly assassinated by his enemies as he was
riding into the country. The indignation of his friends was excited; an assembly
was forthwith called, in which Ariston, one of his partisans, proposed that a
body-guard of fifty citizens, armed with clubs, should be granted to Peisistratus.
It was in vain that Solon opposed this; the guard was granted. Through the neglect
or connivance of the people Peisistratus took this opportunity of raising a much
larger force, with which lie seized the citadel B. C. 560 (Plut. Sol. 30; Herod.
i. 59; Aristot. Pol. v. 10; Diog. Laert. i. 66; Polyaen. i. 21.3) A similar stratagem
had been practised by Theagenes of Megara, and was afterwards imitated by Dionysius
(Diod. xiii. 97). Megacles and the Alcmaeonidae took to flight. Solon, after another
ineffectual attempt to rouse the citizens against the usurper, placed his arms
in the street before his door, saying that he had done his utmost to defend his
country and its laws. Peisistratus, having secured to himself the substance of
power, made no further change in the constitution, or in the laws, which he administered
ably and well.
The first usurpation of Peisistratus lasted but a short time (Herod.
i. 60. meta ou pollon chronon -- exelaunousi min). Before his power was firmly
rooted, the factions headed by Megacles and Lycurgus combined, and Peisistratus
was compelled to evacuate Athens. As, on his second expulsion, we are distinctly
told (Herod. i. 61) that he quitted Attica, the presumption is, that on the first
occasion lie did not. His property was confiscated and sold by auction, when the
only man who ventured to purchase it was Callias, the son of Hipponicus (Herod.
vi. 121). How Peisistratus cmplayed himself during his banishment, which lasted
about six years, we do not know. Meantime, the factions of Megacles and Lycurgus,
having accompolished their immediate object, revived their old feuds, and Megacles,
finding himself the weaker of the two, made overtures to Peisistratus, offering
to reinstate him in the tyranny, if he would connect himself with him by receiving
his daughter Coesyra (Suidas s. v. enkekoisuromenen) in marriage. The proposal
was accepted by Peisistratus, and the following stratagem wad devised for accomplishing
(as Herodotus supposes) his restoration. In what was afterwards the deme Paeonia,
they found a damsel named Phya, of remarkable stature and beanty (according to
Athenaeus xiii., a garland seller, the daughter of a man named Socrates). This
woman they dressed up as Athene in a full suit of armour, and placed in a chariot,
with Peisistratus by her side, instructing her how she was to maintain a suitable
carriage. The chariot was then driven towards the city, heralds being sent on
before to announce that Athene in person was bringing back Peisistratus to her
Acropolis. The report spread spread, and those in the city believing that the
woman was really their tutelary goddess, worshipped her, and admitted Peisistratus
(Herod. i. 60; Polyaesn. Strateg. i. 21.1, where there is a good deal of blundering).
"This story," lentarks Bishop Thirlwall, "would indeed be singular, if we consider
the expedient in the loght of a stratagem, on which the confederates relied for
overcoming the resitaince which they might otherwise have expected from their
adversaries. But it seems quite as likely that the pageant was only designed to
add extraordinary solemnity to the entrance of Peisistratus, and to suggest the
reflection, that it was by the especial favour of heaven that he had been so unexpectedly
restored". It is said that Phya was given in marriage to Hipparchus (Athen. l.
c.). Peisistratus nominally performed his part of the contract with Megacles;
but not choosing to have children by one of a family which was accounted accursed,
treated his wife in the most odious manner. She complained to her mother of the
indignity to which she was exposed; and Megacles and the Alcmaeonidae, incensed
at the affront, again made common cause with Lycurgus, and Peisistratus was a
second time compelled to evacuate Athens (Herod. i. 61). This time he left Attica,
and retired to Eretria in Euboea (The very extraordinary statement in Eusebius,
Chro. Olymp. 54. 3, and Hieronymus, that Peisistratus went into Italy, is doubtless
a blunder. Vater conjectures that the name Italy has been substituted by mistake
for that of some place in Attica, perhaps Icaria, and that the statement refers
to the first exile of Peisistratus). His property was again offered for sale (hokos
ekpesoi, Herod. vi. 121), and again Callias, who had been one of his most active
opponents, was the only purchaser.
On reaching Eretria Peisistratus deliberated with his sons as to the
course he should pursue. The advice of Hippias, that he should make a fresh attempt
to regain his power, was adopted. Contributions were solicited from the cities
which were in his interest. Several furnished him with large sunis. Thebes especially
surpassed all the rest in the amount of money which she placed at his disposal.
With the funds thus raised he procured mercenaries from Argos. Ten years elapsed
before his preparations were complete. At last, however, with the forces which
he had raised, a Naxian named Lygdamis having also of his own accord brought him
both money and a body of troops, he crossed into Attica, and lauded at Marathon.
Here his friends and partisans flocked to his standard. His antagonists, who had
viewed his proceedings with great indifference, when they heard that he was advancing
upon Athens hastily marched out to meet him. The two armies encamped not far from
each other, near the temple of Athene at Pallene, and Peisistratus, seizing the
opportunity with which the remissness of his antagonlists furnished him, and encouraged
by the soothsayer Amphilytus of Acharnae, fell suddenly upon their forces at noon,
when, not expecting any thing of the kind, the men had betaken themselves after
their meal to sleep or play, and speedily put them to flight. He then, with equal
wisdom and moderation, refrained from pursuing the fugitives with his troops,
but sent forward his sons on horseback, who, having overtaken the flying Athenians,
told them they had nothing to fear if they would disperse quietly to their homes.
The majority obeyed these directions, and Peisistratus entered Athens without
opposition (Herod. i. 61-63; Polyaen. Strat. i. 21.1. The account of the latter,
however, is full of blunders). Lygdamis was rewarded for his zealous co-operation
by being established as tyrant of Nxos, which island Peisistratus conquered.
Having now become tyrant of Athens for the third time (1)
, Peisistratus adopted measures to secure the undisturbed possession of his supremacy.
Hetook a body of foreign mercenaries into his pay, and seized as hostages the
children of several of the principal citizens, placing them in the custody of
Lygdamis, in Naxos. Others of the Athenians either fled or were exiled. Among
the latter was Cimon, the father of Miltiades, who, however, was afterwards permitted
to return. The revenues which Peisistratus needed for the pay of his troops, were
derived partly from Attica (the produce, very likely, in part at least, of the
mines at Laureion), partly from some gold mines on the Strymon. How he became
possessed of these we do not know. It is most likely that they were private property,
and came into his hands during his second exile, somehow or other through his
connection with the royal family of Macedonia, a connection of which we subsequently
see a proof in the offer of the town of Anthenmus made by Amyntas to Hippias (Herod.
v. 94). It appears to have been shortly after his restoration, that Peisistratus
purified tile island of Delos, in accordance with the directions of an oracle,
by removing all the dead bodies which had been buried within sight of the temple
to another part of the island (Herod. i. 64; Thucyd. iii. 104). Besides the subjugation
of Naxos, the only other foreign military expedition which we hear of his undertaking
in this third period of his tyranny was the conquest of Sigeum, then in the hands
of the Mytilesnaeans. The Atheniains had long before laid claim to the island,
and had waged war with the Mytilenaeans for the possession of it, and it was awarded
to them through the arbitrationt of Periander. Peisistratus established his bastard
son Hegesistrattis as tyrant in the town (Herod. v. 94, 95). Polyaenus (Strat.
v. 14) mentions some operations conducted by his son Hippias, for the suppression
of piracy.
Having now firmly established himself in the government, Peisistratus
maintained the form of Solon's institutions, only taking care, as his sons did
after him (Thucyd. vi. 54), that the highest offices should always be held by
some member of the family. He not only exacted obedience to the laws from his
subjects and friends, but himself set the example of submitting to them. On one
occasion sion he even appeared before the Arciopagus to ansswer a charge of murder,
which however was not prosecuted (Arist. Pol. v. 12; Plut. Solon. 31). His government
seems to have been a wise admixture of stringelcy as regards the enforcement of
the laws and the prevention of disorders, and leniency towards isndividuals who
offended him personally (For anecdotes illustrating this see Plutarch, Apopth.
Peisist.; Polyaen. Strut. v. 14; Val. Max. v. 1. ext. 2). He enforced the law
which had been enacted by Solon, or, according to Theophrastus (ap. Plut. Solon.
31) by himself, against idleness, and compelled a large number of the poorer class
to leave A thens, and devote themselves to agricultural pursuits (Aeliasn. V.
H. ix. 25; Dion Chrysost. vii., xxv.). The stories of his compellings the people
to wear the Catonace (Hesychius and Suidas s. v. tatonake ; Aristoph Lysist. 1150,
Eeeles. 724 Schol. ad 1. 755; Schol. ad Lysist. 619), probably have refereecce
to this. Those who had no resources of their own he is said to have supplied with
cattle and seed. His policy taste taste combined also led him to employ the poorer
Athenians in building. Athens was inidebted to limi for many stately and useful
buildings. Among these may be mentioned a temple to the Pythian Apollo (Suidas
s. v. Puthion; Hesych. s. v. en Puthioi chesai). Vater has made a great mistake
in supposing that Thucydides (vi. 54) states that this temple was built by Peisistratus
the son of Hippias: Thucydides only says that the latter set up an altar in it),
and a magnincent temple to the Olympian Zeus (Arist. Pol. v. 11), for which he
employed the architects Antistates, Callaeschrus, Antimachides, and Porinus (Vitruvius,
Praef. vii.15). This temple remained unfinished for several centuries, and was
at length completed by the emperor Hadrian (Paus. i. 18.6; Strab. ix.). Besides
these, the Lyceum, a garden with stately buildings a short distance from the city,
was the work of Peisistratus (Suidas, s. v. Lukeion), as also the fountain of
the Nine Springs (Eneakrounos, Thucyd. ii. 15; Paus. i. 14.1). The employment
of the sons of Peisistratus in superintending works of this kind, orcompleting
them after their father's death, will probably account for slight variations in
the authorities as to whether some of these were built by Peisistratus himself
or by his sons. According to most authorities (the author of the letter in Diog.
Laert. i. 53; Suidas, s. v. kai sphakeloi poiousin ateleian; Diodor. Vatic. vii.-x.
33) Peisistratus, to defray these and other expenses, exacted a tithe of the produce
of the land, an impost which, so employed, answered pretty nearly the purpose
of a poor's rate. He was also (Plut. Sol. c. 31) the author of a measure, the
idea of which he had derived from Solon, according to which those disabled in
war were maintained at the public expense.
Peisistratus likewise bestowed considerable attention upon the due
performance of public religious rites, and the celebration of festivals and processions
(Epist.ap. Diog. Laert. i. 53), an example which was followed by his sons, who
are even said to have invented thalias kai komous (Athen. xii. 44). The institution
of the greater Panathenaea is expressly ascribed to Peisistratus by the scholiast
on Aristeides; and before the time of Peisistratus we do not hear of the distinction
between the greater and the lesser Panathenaea.
He at least made considerable changes in the festival, and in particular introduced
the contests of rhapsodists. Peisistratus in various ways encouraged literature.
It was apparently under his auspices that Thespis introduced at Athens his rude
form of tragedy (B. C. 535, Clinton, F. H. sub anno), and that dramatic contests
were made a regular part of the Attic Dionysia. "It is to Peisistratus that we
owe the first written text of the whole of the poems of Homer, which, without
his care, would most likely now exist only in a few disjointed fragments." (Respecting
the services of Peisistratus in relation to the text of Homer, and the poets who
assisted him in the work, see the article Homerus,
and the authorities there referred to). Peisistratus is also said to have been
the first person in Greece who collected a library, to which he generously allowed
the public access (A. Gellius, N. A. vi. 17; Athen. i.). The story that this collection
of books was carried away by Xerxes, and subsequently restored by Seleucus (A.
Gellius, hardly rests on sufficient authority to deserve much notice). It was
probably from his regard to religion and literatre that many were disposed to
class Peisistratus with the Seven Sages (Diog. Laert. i. 122). Either from his
patronage of diviners, or from his being, like his son Hipparchus, a collector
of oracles, he received the surname of Bakis (Suid. s. v. Bakis; Schol. ad Aristoph.
Pax, 1036 or 1071).
"On the whole, though we cannot approve of the steps by which he mounted
to power, we must own that he made a princely use of it, and may believe that,
though under his dynasty, Athens could never have risen to the greatness she afterwards
attained, she was indebted to his rule for a season of repose, during which she
gained much of that strength which she finally unfolded." (Thirlwall, Hist. of
Greece, vol. ii. p. 65.)
Peisistratus was thrice married (including his connection with the
daughter of Megacles). The name of his first wife, the mother of Hippias and Hipparchus,
we do not know. The statement of the Scholiast on Aristophanes (Eqzuil. 447) that
her name was Myrrhine, arises probably from a confusion with the wife of Hippias.
From Plutarch (Cato Major, c. 24) we learn that when Hippias and Hipparchus were
grown up, Peisistratus married Timonassa, a lady of Argolis, and had by her two
sons, Iophon and Thessalus. It is a conjecture of Vater's that Timonassa was connected
with the royal house of Macedonia. Nothing more is known of Iophon; he probably
died young. Hegesistratus, a bastard son of Peisistratus, has been already mentioned.
Mention is also made of a daughter of Peisistratus, who was forcibly carried off
by a youth named Thrasybulus, or Thrasymedes, and was afterwards married to him
with the consent of her father, when, having put to sea, and fallen into the hands
of Hippias, he was brought back (Plut. Apophth. Peisist.). Thucydides (i. 20,
vi. 54) expressly states, on what he declares to be good authority, that Hippias
was the eldest son of Peisistratus (a statement which he defends by several arguments,
not all very decisive, though they at least confirm it), contrary to the general
opinion in his day, which assigned the priority of birth to Hipparchus. The authority
of Thucydides is fully supported by Herodotus (v. 55) and Cleidemus (in Athen.
xiii.). Peisistratus died at an advanced age (Thuc. vi. 54) in B. C. 527, and
was succeeded in the tyranny by his son Hippias (Herod. l. c. ; Cleid. l. c.)
though the brothers appear to have administered the affairs of the state with
so little outward distinction, that they are frequently spoken of as though they
had been joint tyrants (Thucyd. l. c. ; Schol. ad Aristoph. Vtesp. 502, ho de
Hippias eturannesen, ouch ho Hipparchos: koinos de pantes hoi Peisistratidai turannoi
elegonto). They continued the government on the same principles as their father.
Thucydides (vi. 54) speaks in terms of high commendation of the virtue and intelligence
with which their rule was exercised till the death of Hipparchus ; and the author
of the dialogue Hipparchus speaks of their government as a kind of golden age.
There seems no reason to question the general truth of this description, though
particular exceptions may be adduced, such as the assassination of Cimon, the
father of Miltiades (Herod. vi. 39, 103) They exacted only one-twentieth of the
produce of the land to defray their expenses in finishing the buildings left incomplete
by Peisistratus, or erecting new ones (though according to Suidas, s. v. to Hipparchou
teichion, Hipparchus exacted a good deal of money from the Athenians for building
a wall round the Academy) for maintaining their mercenary troops, who bore the
appellation Lukopodes (Suid. s. v.; Schol. ad Aristoph. Lys. 664), and providing
for the religious solemnities. Hipparchus inherited his father's literary tastes.
It was he who erected on the roads leading to the country towns of Attica busts
of Hermes, inscribed on one side with the distances from the city (which distances
were measured from the altar of the twelve gods set up in the agora by Peisistratus,
the son of Hippias, Thuc. vi. 54 ; Herod. ii. 7), and on the other side with some
moral maxim in verse (Pseudo-Plat. Hipparch.). He also arranged the manner in
which the rhapsodes were to recite the Homeric poems at the Panathenaic festival.
Several distinguished contemporary poets appear to have lived at the court of
the Peisistratidae under the patronage of Hipparchus, as, for example, Simoides
of Ceos (Pseudo-Plat. Hipparch.; Aelian. V. H. viii. Anacreon of Teos (ibid.),
Lasus of llermione, and Onomacritus (Herod. vii. 6). The latter was employed in
making a collection of oracles of Musaeus, and was banished on being detected
in an attempt to interpolate them. This collection of oracles afterwards fell
into the hands of Cleomenes (Herod. v. 90). The superstitious reverence for oracles
and divination which appears to have led Hipparchus to banish Onomacritus again
manifests itself in the story of the vision (Herod. v. 56). That he was also addicted
to erotic gratification appears from the story of Harmodius, and the authority
of Heracleides Ponticus, who terms him erotikos.
Of the particular events of the first fourteen years of the government
of Hippias we know scarcely anything. Thucydides (vi. 54) speaks of their carrying
on wars, but what these were we do not know. It was during the tyranny of Hippias
that Miltiades was sent to take possession of the Chersonesus. But a great change
in the character of his government ensued upon the murder of Hipparchus (B. C.
514), for the circumstances connected with which the reader is referred to the
articles Harmodius
and Leaena.
Hippias displayed on the occasion great presence of mind. As soon as he heard
of the assassination of his brother, instead of rushing to the scene of it, he
went quietly up to the armed citizens who were forming the procession, and, as
though he intended to harangue them, directed them to go without their arms to
a spot which he pointed out. He then ordered his guards to seize their arms, and
to apprehend those whom he suspected of being concerned in the plot, and all who
had daggers concealed about them (What Polyaenus, i. 21.2, relates of Peisistratus
has probably arisen out of a confusion with these events). Under the influence
of revengeful feelings and fears for his own safety Hippias now became a morose
and suspicious tyrant. His rule became harsh, arbitrary, and exacting (Thucyd.
vi. 57-60). He put to death great numbers of the citizens, and raised money by
extraordinary imposts. It is probably to this period that we should refer the
measures described by Aristotle (Oeconom. ii.), such as having houses that were
built so as to interfere with the public convenience put up for sale; and, under
pretence of issuing a new coinage, getting the old coinage brought in at a low
valuation, and then issuing it again without alteration. Feeling himself unsafe
at Athens he began to look abroad for some place of retreat for himself and his
family, in case he should be expelled from Athens. With this view he gave his
daughter Archedice in marriage to Aeantides, the son of Hippoclus, tyrant of Lampsacus,
an alliance which he would doubtless have thought beneath him, had he not observed
that Hippoclus was in great favour with Dareius.
The expulsion of the Peisistratidae was finally brought about by the
Alcmaeonidae and Lacedaemonians. The former, since their last quarrel with Peisistratus,
had shown unceasing hostility and hatred towards him and his successors, which
the latter met by tokens of similar feelings, insomuch that they not only demolished
their houses, but dug up their tombs (Isocrates, de Big. 26). The Alcmaeonidae
were joined by other Athenian exiles, and had fortified a stronghold on the frontier
of Attica, named Leipsydrion, on the heights of Parnes, above Paeonia (Aristot.
ap. Schol. ad Aristoph. Lysist. 665; Suidas, s. v. epi Leipsudrioi mache and Lukopodes.
Thirlwall remarks that the description seems to relate to some family seat of
the Paeonidae, who were kinsmen of the Alcmaeonidae). They were, however, repulsed
with loss in an attempt to force their way back to Athens, and compelled to evacuate
the fortress (Suidas, l. c.). Still they none the more remitted their machinations
against the tyrants (Herod. v. 62). By well-timed liberality they had secured
the favour of the Amphictyons and that of the Delphic oracle, which they still
further secured by bribing the Pythia (Herod. v. 63). The repeated injunctions
of the oracle to the Lacedaemonians to free Athens roused them at length to send
an army under Anchimolius for the purpose of driving out the Peisistratidae (though
hitherto the family had been closely connected with them by the ties of hospitality).
Anchimolius landed at Phalerus, but was defeated and slain by Hippias, who was
assisted by a body of Thessalian cavalry under Cineas. The Lacedaemonians now
sent a larger force under Cleomenes. The Thessalian cavalry were defeated on the
borders, apparently at a place called Pallenion (Andoc. de Myst. 106), and returned
home; and Hippias, unable to withstand his enemies in the field, retreated into
the Acropolis. This being well supplied with stores, the Lacedaemonians, who were
unprepared for a siege, would, in the judgment of Herodotus, have been quite unable
to force Hippias to surrender, had it not been that his children fell into their
hands, while being conveyed out of Attica for greater security, and were only
restored on condition that Hippias and his connections should evacuate Attica
within five days. They retired to Sigeum, B. C. 510 (Herod. v. 64; Paus. iii.
4.2, 7.8; Aristoph. Lysist. 1150). The family of the tyrants was condemned to
perpetual banishment, a sentence which was maintained even in after times, when
decrees of amnesty were passed (Andoc. de Myst.78). A monument recording the offences
of the tyrants was set up in the Acropolis (Thuc. vi. 55).
The Spartans before long discovered the trick that had been played
upon them by the Alemaeonidae and the Delphic oracle; and their jealousy of the
Athenians being stimulated by the oracles, collected by IIipparchus, which Cleomenes
found in the Acropolis, in which manifold evils were portended to them from the
Athenians, they began to repent of having driven out their old friends the Peisistratidae,
and accordingly sent for Hippias, who came to Sparta. Having summoned a congress
of their allies, they laid the matter before them, and proposed that they should
unite their forces and restore Hippias. But the vehement remonstrances of the
Corinthian deputy Sosicles induced the allies to reject the proposal. Hippias,
declining the offers that were made him of the town of Anthemus by Amyntas, and
of Iolcos by the Thessalians, returned to Sigeum (Herod. v. 90-94), and addressed
himself to Zeuxippus had Brachyllas assassinated, a crime Artaphernes. (Respecting
the embassy of the Athenians to counteract his intrigues, see Artaphernes)
He appears then with his family to have gone to the court of Dareius (Herod. l.
c.): while here they urged Dareius to inflict vengeance on Athens and Eretria,
and Hippias himself accompanied the expedition sent under Datis and Artaphernes.
From Eretria he led them to the plain of Marathon, as the most suitable for their
landing, and arranged the troops when they had disembarked. While he was thus
engaged, we are told, he happened to sneeze and cough violently, and, most of
his teeth being loose from his great age, one of them fell out, and was lost in
the sand; an incident from which Hippias augured that the expedition would miscarry,
and that the hopes which he had been led by a dream to entertain of being restored
to his native land before his death were buried with his tooth (Herod. vi. 102,
107). Where and when he died cannot be ascertained with certainty. According to
Suidas (s. v. Hippias he died at Lemnos on his return. According to Cicero (ad
Att. ix. 10) and Justin (ii. 9) he fell in the battle of Marathon; though from
his advanced age it seems rather unlikely that he have been engaged in the battle.
The family of the tyrant are once more mentioned (Herod. vii. 6) as at the court
of Persia, uirgilng Xerxes to invade Greece.
Hippias was in his youth the object of the affection of a man named
Charmus (who previously stood in a similar relation to Peisistratus; Plut. Solon.
1), and subsequently married his daughter (Athen. xiv.). His first wife was Myrrhine,
the daughter of Callias, by whom he had five children (Thucyd. vi. 55). One of
his sons, named Peisistratus, was Archon Eponymus during the tyranny of his father.
Of Archedice, daughter of Hippias, mention has already been made. According to
Thucydides (l. c.) Hippias was the only one of the legitimate sons of Peisistratus
who had children.
What became of Thessalus we do not know. He is spoken of as a high-spirited
youth (Heraclid. Pont. 1), and there is a story in Diodorus (Fragm. lib. x. Olymp.
lxvi.) that he refused to have any share in the tyranny of his brothers, and was
held in great esteem by the citizens.
Commentary:
(1) There is a good deal of difficulty with regard to the chronology
of Peisistratus. The dates of his usurpation and death may be fixed with tolerable
accuracy, as also the relative lengths of the periods during which he was in possession
of the tyranny and in exile. Aristotle (Pol. v. 12) says, that in the space of
thirtythree years he was in possession of the tyranny during 17 years; his sons
holding the tyranny after him for eighteen years, making thirty-five years in
all. His tyranny commenced in B. C. 560; his death happened in B. C. 527. He had
three distinct periods of government, with two periods of exile, the latter amounting
together to fifteen years. The second period of exile lasted ten years complete
(Herod. i. 62). That would leave about five years for the first exile. Clinton
(Fasti Hellen. vol. ii. p. 203) assigns six years for the first period of government,
one for the second, and ten for the third. In doing this he assumes that Hippias
was born in the first year of the tyranny of Peisistratus, and that it was in
the first period of his rule that Croesus sent to Greece to form alliances against
Cyrus. To this scheme it is objected by Vater that it is clear from the narrative
of Herodotus (i. 59 ; comp. i. 65, init), that it was in the third period of the
government of Peisistratus that Croesus sent to Greece; that Peisistratus was
expelled shortly after he seized the citadel, before his power was firmly rooted
(a strange mode of describing a period of six years); and that on the occasion
of his marriage with the daughter of Megacles, Hippias (according to Clinton)
would be only thirteen years old, his brother Hipparchus still younger; and yet
they are called Weanias by 13erodotus, snd Hipparchus is stated to have married
Phya; and when Peisistratus shortly after retired to Eretria they were both old
enough to assist him with their advice (Herod. i. 61). The mention of Hippias
in connection with the battle of Marathon is not in the least inconsistent with
his being eighty or eighty-five years old (his teeth were then so loose from age
that one of them dropped out when he sneezed). That Hippias was born before tile
year B. C. 560 is also shown by the fragments of the poetry of Solon, in which,
immediately after the capture of the citadel by Peisistratus, he reproaches the
Athenians with having themselves aggrandized their tyrants (Plut. Sol. 30). The
plural would indicate that Peisistratus had sons at that time. Vater places the
commencement of the tyranny of Peisistratus in the latter part of B. C. 561; assigns
half a year for the first period of government; five years and a half for the
first exile; half a year for the second tyranny; ten years and a quarter for the
second exile; and sixteen years for the third tyranllny. The embassy of Croesus
is the only point that can occasion any diiiculyity; blut tliess same writer has
shown that it is probable that the capture of Sardes is placed a few years too
early by Clinton. That it much shorter interval than Clinton supposes elapsed
between the embassy of Croesus to Gireece and the capture of Sardes, is shown
by the circumstance that the presents sent by the Lacedaemonians to Croesus did
not reach him before he was taken prisoner. (Herod. i. 70)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited June 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Pisistratidae, (Peisistratidai). The legitimate sons of Pisistratus. The name is used sometimes to indicate only Hippias and Hipparchus, and sometimes in a wider application, embracing the grandchildren and near connections of Pisistratus (as by Herod.viii. 52, referring to a time when both Hippias and Hipparchus were dead).
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
FREARI (Ancient demos) ATTICA
Themistocles (Themistokles). A celebrated Athenian, the son
of Neocles and Abrotonon, a Thracian woman, and born about B.C. 514. In his youth
he had an impetuous character, and displayed great intellectual power combined
with a lofty ambition and a desire for political distinction. He began his career
by setting himself in opposition to those who had most power, among whom Aristides
was the chief. The fame which Miltiades acquired by his generalship at Marathon
made a deep impression on Themistocles; and he said that the trophy of Miltiades
would not let him sleep. His rival Aristides was ostracized in B.C. 483, to which
event Themistocles contributed; and from this time he was the political leader
in Athens. In 481 he was Archon Eponymus. It was about this time that he persuaded
the Athenians to employ the produce of the silver mines of Laurium in building
ships, instead of distributing it among the Athenian citizens. His great object
was to draw the Athenians to the sea, as he was convinced that it was only by
their fleet that Athens could repel the Persians and obtain the supremacy in Greece.
Upon the invasion of Greece by Xerxes, Themistocles was appointed to the command
of the Athenian fleet; and to his energy, prudence, foresight, and courage the
Greeks mainly owed their salvation from the Persian dominion. Themistocles. Upon
the approach of Xerxes, the Athenians, on the advice of Themistocles, deserted
their city, and removed their women, children, and infirm persons to Salamis,
Aegina, and Troezen; but as soon as the Persians took possession of Athens, the
Peloponnesians were anxious to retire to the Corinthian isthmus. Themistocles
used all his influence in inducing the Greeks to remain and fight with the Persians
at Salamis, and with the greatest difficulty persuaded the Spartan commander Eurybiades
to stay at Salamis. But as soon as the fleet of Xerxes made its appearance, the
Peloponnesians were again anxious to sail away; and when Themistocles saw that
he should be unable to persuade them to remain, he sent a faithful slave to the
Persian commanders, informing them that the Greeks intended to make their escape,
and that the Persians had now the opportunity of accomplishing a noble enterprise,
if they would only cut off the retreat of the Greeks. The Persians believed what
they were told, and in the night their fleet occupied the whole of the channel
between Salamis and the mainland. The Greeks were thus compelled to fight; and
the result was the great and glorious victory, in which the greater part of the
fleet of Xerxes was destroyed. This victory, which was due to Themistocles, established
his reputation among the Greeks. On his visiting Sparta, he was received with
extraordinary honours by the Spartans, who gave Eurybiades the palm of bravery
and Themistocles the palm of wisdom and skill. The Athenians now began to restore
their ruined city, and Themistocles urged them to rebuild the walls and make them
stronger than before. The Spartans sent an embassy to Athens to dissuade them
from fortifying their city, for which it is hard to assign any motive except national
jealousy. Themistocles, who was at that time prostates tou demou, went on an embassy
to Sparta, where he amused the Spartans with lies, till the walls were far enough
advanced to be in a state of defence. It was upon his advice also that the Athenians
fortified the port of Piraeus. The influence of Themistocles does not appear to
have survived the expulsion of the Persians from Greece and the fortification
of the ports. He was probably justly accused of enriching himself by unfair means,
for he had no scruples about the way of accomplishing an end. A story is told
that, after the retreat of the fleet of Xerxes, when the Greek fleet was wintering
at Pagasae, Themistocles told the Athenians in the public assembly that he had
a scheme to propose which was beneficial to the State, but could not be divulged.
Aristides was named to receive the secret, and to report upon it. His report was
that nothing could be more profitable than the scheme of Themistocles, but nothing
more unjust: the Athenians were guided by the report of Aristides. It is difficult,
if not impossible, to reconcile the statement in Arist. Ath. Pol. 25, that Themistocles
intrigued for the overthow of the Areopagus, with the date of his exile from Athens.
The attack upon the Areopagus was in 463; but in 471, in consequence of the political
strife between Themistocles and Aristides, the former was ostracized from Athens,
and retired to Argos.
After the discovery of the treasonable correspondence of Pausanias
with the Persian king, the Lacedaemonians sent to Athens to accuse Themistocles
of being privy to the design of Pausanias. Thereupon the Athenians sent off persons
with the Lacedaemonians with instructions to arrest Themistocles (466). Themistocles,
hearing of what was designed against him, first fled from Argos to Corcyra, and
then to Epirus, where he took refuge in the house of Admetus, king of the Molossi,
who happened to be from home. Admetus was no friend to Themistocles, but his wife
told the fugitive that he would be protected if he would take their child in his
arms and sit on the hearth. The king soon came in, and, respecting his suppliant
attitude, raised him up, and refused to surrender him to the Lacedaemonian and
Athenian agents. Themistocles finally reached the coast of Asia in safety. Xerxes
was now dead (465), and Artaxerxes was on the throne. Themistocles went up to
visit the king at his royal residence; and on his arrival he sent the king a letter,
in which he promised to do the king a good service, and prayed that he might be
allowed to wait a year and then to explain personally what brought him there.
In a year he made himself master of the Persian language and the Persian usages,
and, being presented to the king, he obtained the greatest influence over him,
and such as no Greek ever before enjoyed--partly owing to his high reputation
and the hopes that he gave to the king of subjecting the Greeks to the Persians.
The king gave him a handsome allowance, after the Persian fashion; Magnesia supplied
him with bread nominally, but paid him annually fifty talents. Lampsacus supplied
wine, and Myus the other provisions. Before he could accomplish anything he died;
some say that he poisoned himself, finding that he could not perform his promise
to the king. A monument was erected to his memory in the Agora of Magnesia, which
place was within his government. It is said that his bones were secretly taken
to Attica by his relations, and privately interred there.
Themistocles undoubtedly possessed great talents as a statesman,
great political sagacity, a ready wit, and excellent judgment; but he was not
an honest man, and, like many other clever men with little morality, he ended
his career unhappily and ingloriously. Twenty-one letters attributed to Themistocles
are spurious.
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Themistocles (Themistokles), was the son of Neocles, not one of the most distinguished
among the Athenians, though he was allied to the Lycomedae. The name of his mother
was Abrotonon, a Thracian woman, according to some authors, but others call her
Euterpe, and say that she was a Carian; and Neanthes adds that she was of Halicarnassus.
As his mother was not an Athenian, Themistocles belonged to the class of nothi
(Plut. Themist. 1, compare Pericl. c. 37). Themistocles was born about B. C. 514
as it is conjectured. In his youth he had an impetuous character; he displayed
great intellectual power combined with a lofty ambition and desire of political
distinction. In his hours of relaxation he did not join in the ordinary amusements
of the boys, but he practised himself in making speeches on imaginary subjects.
His master used to say to him "My boy, you will not be any thing little, but certainly
something great, good or bad". He had not much taste for the usual branches of
learning and for accomplishments, but be showed a decided liking for all studies
which strengthened the understanding and had a practical object. There is a story
that his father who saw his ambitious turn of mind, wishing to divert him from
a political career, pointed out to him some old gallies thrown on the shore and
neglected, and he told him that this was the way that "the many" treated popular
leaders, when they were no longer of any use. The remark, though true, did not
keep Themistocles from his course, nor will it keep others.
The ambition of Themistocles was to be the first man in Athens, and
he began his career by setting himself in opposition to those who had most power,
among whom Aristides was the chief. We cannot infer from the words of Plutarch
whether Themistocles was in the battle of Marathon (B. C. 490) or not; but if
he was born so early as B. C. 514, he must have been old enough for military service
in B. C. 490. The fame which Miltiades acquired by his generalship at Marathon
made a deep impression on Themistocles; he became thoughtful, and avoided his
usual company; and in reply to the remarks of his friends on the change in his
habits, he said, that the trophy of Miltiades would not let him sleep. Others
thought that the victory of Marathon had terminated the Persian war; but Themistocles
foresaw that it was only the beginning of a greater struggle, and it was his policy
to prepare Athens for it.
His rival Aristides was ostracized in B. C. 483, to which event Themistocles
contributed; and from this time he was the political leader in Athens. In B. C.
481 he was Archon Eponymus. The chronology of the early part of the life of Themistocles
is uncertain. It was perhaps before his archonship, or it may have been in that
year that he persuaded the Athenians to employ the produce of the silver mines
of Laurium in building ships, instead of distributing it among the Athenian citizens
(Herod. vii. 144; Pint. Themist. c. 4). The motive which he suggested was that
the fleet of Athens should be made a match for that of Aegina, with which state
Athens was then at war; but his real object was to prepare Athens against a future
attack from the Persians. It was the policy of Themistocles to draw the Athenians
to the sea, as he was convinced that it was only by their fleet that Athens could
repel the Persians and obtain the supremacy in Greece. The number of ships which
were built at the suggestion of Themistocles was two hundred, according to Herodotus;
and they were not employed against Aegina, with which state Athens made peace,
but against the Persians; and thus, as Plutarch remarks, the policy of Themistocles
saved Greece. Either at this time or somewhat later he persuaded the Athenians
to pass a decree that twenty new ships should be built every year.
When news arrived of the immense armament of Xerxes, the Athenians
deliberated about choosing a commander. Themistocles had no rival at Athens except
Epicydes, who was strong with his tongue, but weak in spirit. Themistocles, fearing
that matters would go ill if this incompetent man was elected commander-in-chief,
bought off his opposition and was elected himself (Plut. Themist. 6). There can
be no doubt that Themistocles was ambitious to have the command, and his ambition
was justified by his talents. A body of men was sent by sea to Alus in Achaea,
whence they marched to the pass of Tempe, under the command of Themistocles land
Euaenetos, a Spartan, to make a stand against the army of Xerxes; but after a
few days this force retreated to their ships in alarm before Xerxes had crossed
over to Europe from Abydos (Herod. vii. 173; Plut. Themist. 7). The Thessalians
being thus deserted, joined the Persians, and all Greece as far south as Boeotia
also went over to them. Upon this the Greek confederates held a council at the
isthmus of Corinth, in which it was resolved to snake a stand against the Persians
at Thermopylae, and to send the fleet to Artemisium on the northwest coast of
Euboea, where it could watch the operations of the forces at Thermopylae. Themistocles
showed his magnanimity by offering to serve under Eurybiades, the Spartan, though
the Athenians furnished a greater number of ships than the Spartans. The Persian
fleet sustained great loss on the coast of Thessaly from bad weather (Herod. vii.
190), but at last it reached Aphetae. Eurybiades being alarmed at the approach
of this great force meditated a retreat to Southern Greece (Herod. viii.4; Plut.
Themist. 7); but the Euboeans, who were afraid of being deserted at this critical
time, before they should be able to put their women and children in a place of
safety, gave Themistocles thirty talents, part of which he gave to Eurybiades
and to Adimantus, the Corinthian commander, and thus induced them to stay and
hazard a battle. The Greeks had the advantage in the naval engagements off Artemisium,
and the Persian fleet was damaged by another storm; but the Greek fleet also suffered
in the battle, and half of the Athenian ships were disabled (Herod. viii. 18).
The fights off Artemisium took place on the same days on which Leonidas and his
little band fought with the Persians at Thermopylae. The Greek fleet retired to
Salamis opposite the south-western coast of Attica. Before leaving Artemisium
Themistocles cut on the rocks and on pieces of stone an address to the Ionians,
who were in the fleet of Xerxes, hoping that either the Ionians might be detached
from the cause of Xerxes, if what he had written should not become known to the
king, or that if the king should be informed of what was written, he might suspect
the fidelity of the Ionians and not let them engage in the sea-fights. (Herod.
viii. 22.)
It was the plan of the Peloponnesians to retire within the peninsula,
and to build a wall across the isthmus,and the fleet had withdrawn to Salamis
only at the entreaty of the Athenians to allow them time to remove their women
and children from Attica. An answer of the oracle of Delphi had advised the Athenians
to defend themselves with wooden walls, and Themistocles, who may have suggested
the answer of the oracle, also gave it an interpretation, saying that they must
take refuge in their fleet. Accordingly he recommended that Athens should be left
to the care of its tutelary deity, and that the women, children, and infirm persons
should be removed to Salamis, Aegina, and Troezen, which was done. The people
of Troezen received most hospitably the fugitives, and provided for their maintenance
at the public expense. The united fleet of the Greeks was now assembled at Salamis,
consisting both of ships from Artemisium and the navy which was stationed at Troezen;
in all three hundred and seventy-eight ships, besides penteconters (Herod. viii.
48). In the mean time the Persian army advanced through Boeotia, and entered Attica,
destroying all before them. Athens also was occupied by them, and the Acropolis
was burnt. The Greek confederates assembled at Salamis were alarmed, and many
of them were preparing to escape in their vessels. In this emergency Mnesiphilus,
a friend of Themistocles, hearing front him that the Greeks had resolved in council
to withdraw to the Isthmus, and fight a naval battle there, urged him to prevent
so fatal a step, and to induce Eurybiades to stay. Themistocles, who was of the
same opinion as Mnesiphilus, prevailed on Eurybiades to hold a fresh council of
war, in which Themistocles showed the consequences of the intended movement. Adimantus
the Corinthian insolently told Themistocles to be silent, and said that a man
who had no city ought not to speak in the council. Themistocles rated him soundly
and his countrymen of Corinth too ; and added, that the Athenians had a larger
country and city than the Corinthians, inasmuch as they had two hundred vessels,
and that no Greek state could resist such a force if attacked by it. Then turning
to Eurybiades, he told him that if he did not stay there, he would cause the ruin
of Greece, for that all the power of the Greeks was in their fleet; and that if
they would not fight at Salamis, the Athenians would sail off to Italy, and the
Greeks being left alone would then remember what he had said. Eurybiades at last
yielded, and it was determined to stay at Salamis.
On the arrival of the huge armament of Xerxes, consisting of twelve
hundred vessels, in the Saronic gulf, the fears of the Greeks were renewed, and
a fresh council was held, in which it was proposed by the rest of the Greeks to
sail off to the Peloponnesus, while the Athenians, Aeginetae, and people of Megaris,
still urged that they should keep their position (Herod. viii. 74). Themistocles,
however, frustrated the plan of the dissentient Greeks. He sent a faithful slave,
named Sicinnus, in a boat to the Persian commanders, with a message to this effect
: that the Athenian commander, without the knowledge of the other commanders,
inasmuch as he wished success to the king's cause, had sent him to say that the
Greeks were alarmed, and intended to make their escape, and that the Persians
had now the opportunity of accomplishing a noble enterprise, if they would only
cut off the retreat of the Greeks. The Persians believed what they were told,
and took their measures accordingly. They landed a large force on Psyttaleia,
a little island in the channel which separates Salamis from the Attic coast, and
about midnight the Persian fleet occupied the whole of the channel between Salamis
and the mainland as far as Munychia, and thus the Greeks were hemmed in. (Herod.
viii 76.)
The Greek commanders were disputing in council, not yet being aware
that their retreat was cut off. Aristides, who was still in exile, crossed over
from Aegina to Salamis, and sending for Themistocles out of the council, told
him that it was useless to discuss the matter of retreat any longer, for he had
seen the enemy's fleet, and the Greeks were completely blockaded. Themistocles
communicated to Aristides what he had done to bring this about, and asked him
to inform the council of what he had seen. Though Aristides assured the council
that retreat was now impossible, and urged them to prepare for battle, many of
the commanders would not believe the intelligence until it was confirmed by a
Tenian galley which had deserted from the Persians. In the morning the battle
took place, in which the Greeks had the advantage of their position over the Persian
fleet, which was crowded in too narrow a space. The battle was fought chiefly
in the eastern strait. The Greeks gained a signal victory, in which the Aeginetae
most distinguished themselves, and next to them the Athenians. Aristides did good
service by landing on Psyttaleia with some soldiers from Salamis, and cutting
to pieces the Persians who were on this islet. Xerxes, who watched the battle
from the shore of the mainland, saw his mighty armament defeated and dispersed
in the autumn of B. C. 480. The fleet of the Persians was pursued by the Greeks
as far as Andros, and as they did not come up with it there, a council was held,
in which Themistocles advised that they should pursue the enemy through the Aegean,
and sail to the Hellespont to destroy the bridge of boats by which Xerxes had
passed over. Eurybiades more prudently suggested that they should allow the immense
army of Xerxes to move off as quick as they could, and should leave the bridge
standing ; and this advice was approved by the other Peloponnesian commanders
(Herod. viii. 107; compare Plut. Aristid. 9, Themist. 16). Themistocles pacified
the Athenians, who were most eager to follow the Persians, by urging plausible
arguments against the pursuit at present, and saying that in the following spring
they might sail to the Hellespont and to Ionia. Herodotus attributes to Themistocles
a treacherous motive in the affair, and says that his object was to secure a retreat
to Persia, if any thing should befal him at Athens (Herod. viii. 109); and accordingly
he sent some confidential persons to Xerxes, and among them the faithful Sicinnus,
to tell him that Themistocles had prevented the Greeks from pursuing the Persian
fleet, and destroying the bridge over the Hellespont, and he advised the king
to move off. Xerxes retreated with his army, and left Mardonius with a large force
behind him.
While the Greek fleet was among the islands of the Aegean, Themistocles
attempted to levy contributions on the islanders. The people of Andros were called
upon to pay money in the name of two powerful deities, Persuasion and Necessity,
but they answered, as other people may answer to the collector of imposts, that
they possessed two invincible antagonist deities, Poverty and Want of means, whose
powerlessness no power could vanquish. Themistocles, however, got money from the
Carystians and Parians (Herod. viii. 111, &c.); and probably he filled his own
pockets. The victory of Salamis, however, which was due to Themistocles, established
his reputation among the Greeks; and it was only jealousy among the commanders
which caused him to receive at the Isthmus the second prize of merit instead of
the first (Herod. viii. 123). But on his visiting Sparta, he was received with
extraordinary honours by the Spartans, who gave Eurybiades the palm of bravery,
and to Themistocles the palm of wisdom and skill, with a crown of olive, and the
best chariot that Sparta possessed. When he returned home, three hundred select
Spartan horsemen accompanied him as far as the borders of Tegea (Herod. viii 124;
Plut. Themist. 17).
In the battle of Plataea, B. C. 479, in which Mardonius was defeated,
Aristides, now no longer an exile, commanded the Athenians (Herod. viii. 28; Plut.
Arist. 11). The name of Themistocles is not mentioned on this occasion by Herodotus
or by Plutarch; nor on the occasion of the fight at Mycale, which took place on
the same day. Neither does it appear clearly what he was doing all this time,
except so far as may be collected from Plutarch's vague narrative (Plut. Themist.
18). It seems probable that his political influence declined very speedily after
the affair which raised his reputation to the greatest height; and that his conduct
to the Spartans on two several occasions contributed to his final downfall.
T he Athenians began to restore their ruined city after the barbarians
had left the country, and Themistocles advised them to rebuild the walls, and
to make them stronger than before. The Spartans sent an embassy to Athens to dissuade
them front fortifying their city, for which we can assign no motive, except a
miserable jealousy. Themistocles, according to Theopompus, quoted by Plutarch,
got over this opposition by bribing the Ephori, which is probable enough, and
not inconsistent with the story told circumstantially by Thucydides of his deceiving
the Spartans. He prevailed on the Athenians to dismiss the Spartan ambassadors,
and to send him and others to Sparta on the matter of the fortifications. Themistocles
went first, after advising the Athenians not to send his colleagues till the walls
were far enough advanced to be in a state of defence. In the mean time he amused
the Spartans with lies, and pretended that he was waiting for his colleagues in
order to be enabled to enter on the business on which he was sent; and when the
report of the progress of the walls was confirmed by fresh intelligence, Themistocles
told the Spartans to send trusty persons to Athens to inquire, and not to trust
to rumours. The Spartans despatched their agents, and Themistocles at the same
time sent instructions to Athens, to detain the Spartans until he and his colleagues
should return in safety, for his colleagues had now joined him. When he was informed
that the walls of Athens were in a fit state for defence, he came before the Spartans,
and told them plainly that Athens could now protect herself. The Spartans dissembled
their resentment, and the ambassadors respectively returned from Athens and Sparta
(Thucyd. i. 90, &c). It was also on the advice of Themistocles that the Athenians
finished the fortifications of the port of Peiraeeus, which they had commenced
during his archonship (Thucyd. i. 93; Diod. xi. 41); the position was exceedingly
favourable, possessing three natural harbours, and as the Athenians had been made
a naval power, the improvement of their ports would contribute to the increase
of it. For Themistocles was the first who declared that the Athenians must make
the sea their element, and he took the first steps towards this object. His policy
was not to let the fortune of the Athenians depend on the fate of their city Athens;
but if they were ever hard pressed, his advice was that they should leave it for
the Peiraeeus, which he designed to make so strong that a few men could defend
it, while the rest could embark in the fleet. The building of the walls which
connected Athens with Peiraeeus and Phalerum was later, and accomplished about
B. C. 456 (Thucyd. i. 107).
The influence of Themistocles does not appear to have survived the
expulsion of the Persians from Greece and the fortification of the ports. He was
probably justly accused of enriching himself by unfair means, for he had no scruples
about the way of accomplishing an end. A story is told by Plutarch in his Lives
of Aristides and Themistocles, that after the retreat of the fleet of Xerxes,
when the Greek fleet was wintering at Pagasae, Themistocles told the Athenians
in the public assembly that he had a scheme to propose which was beneficial to
the state, but could not be expounded to the many. Aristides was named to receive
the secret, and to report upon it. His report was that nothing could be more profitable
than tile scheme of Themistocles, but nothing more unjust; and the Athenians abided
by the report of Aristides. His project was to burn the Greek fleet, and thus
confirm the naval supremacy of Athens. Themistocles resisted the proposal of the
Lacedaemonians to exclude from the Amphictyonic assembly those states which had
not aided the Greeks against Xerxes, for such a measure, he argued, would put
the whole power of the Amphictyonic federation in the hands of two or three of
the chief states. He succeeded in defeating this scheme, and thus incurred the
enmity of the Spartans, who supported his rival Cimon (Plut. Themist. 20). If
this affair took place soon after the battle of Salamis, it will help to account
for the disappearance of Themistocles from the stage. In B. C. 471 he was ostracised
from Athens, and retired to Argos. He had now leisure to think of the old gallies
and his father's lessons.
Pausanias, being detected in a treacherous correspondence with the
Persian king, lost his life, and the Lacedaemonians sent persons to Athens to
accuse Themistocles of being privy to the designs of Pausanias (Thucyd. i. 135;
Plut. Themist. 23). The Athenians, either convinced of his guilt or affecting
to be convinced, sent off persons with the Lacedaemonians with instructions to
arrest Themistocles wherever they should find him. (B. C. 466). But Themistocles,
hearing of what was designed against him. fled from Argos to Corcyra, the inhabitants
of which owed him some obligations; but as the Corcyraeans were afraid to keep
him for fear of incurring the hostility of Athens and Sparta, they took Themistocles
across to the main land. Being followed by his pursuers, he took refuge in the
house of Admetus, king of the Molossi, who happened to be from home. Admetus was
no friend to Themistocles, but his wife, at the entreaty of the fugitive, told
him that he would be protected if he would take their child in his arms, and sit
on the hearth. The king soon came in, and respecting his suppliant attitude, raised
him up, and refused to surrender him to the Lacedaemonian and Athenian agents.
He also sent him to Pydna on the coast of the Aegean, where Themistocles found
a merchant vessel bound for Ionia. The vessel was carried by the weather close
to the Athenian armament, which was blockading Naxos, on which Themistocles discovered
himself to the master, and told him, that if he did not carry him off safely,
he would inform the Athenians that he was aiding him to escape for a sum of money.
The master kept his vessel tossing off the island a whole day and night to avoid
the risk of landing, and at last safely reached Ephesus. Themistocles, who received
money from his friends at Athens, and from Argos, where he had money, rewarded
the master for his pains.
Xerxes was now dead (B. C. 465), and Artaxerxes was on the throne.
Themistocles went up to visit the king at his royal residence, in company with
a Persian, and on his arrival he sent the king a letter, in which he told him
that he had done the greatest damage to the cause of the king's father, when out
of necessity he fought against him, but that he had done him still greater services,
by which he meant his information as to the intended retreat of the Greeks from
Salamis, and the not breaking down of the bridge over the Hellespont, the merit
of which he falsely claimed : he said that he could do the king good service,
and that his life was sought by the Greeks on account of his friendship to the
king; he prayed that he might be allowed to wait a year, and then to explain personally
what brought him there. Themistocles was too cunning to entrust his business to
an interpreter. In a year he made himself master of the Persian language and the
Persian usages, and, being presented to the king, he obtained the greatest influence
over him, and such as no Greek ever before enjoyed; partly owing to the high reputation
and the hopes that he gave to the king of subjecting the Greeks to the Persians.
The king gave him a handsome allowance, after the Persian fashion; Magnesia supplied
him with bread nominally, but paid him annually fifty talents. Lampsacus supplied
wine, and Myus the other provisions. Before he could accomplish any thing he died;
some say that he poisoned himself, finding that he could not perform his promise
to the king. A monument was erected to his memory in the Agora of Magnesia, which
place was within his government. It is said that his bones were secretly taken
to Attica by his relations, and privately interred there. Themistocles was, according
to Plutarch, sixty-five years of age when he died, and if he was born B. C. 514,
he died in B. C. 449. He left several sons and daughters. The descendants of Themistocles
enjoyed certain honours in Magnesia in Plutarch's time. A tomb called that of
Themistocles existed in the Peiraeeus in the time of Pausanias (i. 1): Pausanias
mentions also a portrait of Themistocles in the Parthenon: he says, it appears
that the sons of Themistocles returned to Athens, and dedicated the painting in
the Parthenon in which Themistocles was represented: it was probaby an historical
piece, in which Themistocles appeared as an actor (Compare Paus. i. 26 and 37).
The great abilities of Themistocles are thus briefly characterised
by Thucydides (i. 138): " Themistocles was the strongest example of the power
of natural talent, and in this respect is particularly worthy of admiration; for
by his natural understanding, without any education originally to form it, or
afterwards to strengthen it, he had the best judgment in actual circumstances,
and he formed his judgment with the least deliberation; and as to future events
he made, in the general, the best conjectures; whatever he took in hand, he was
also able to expound; and on matters where he had no experience, he was not unable
to form a competent judgment; and both of the better and the worse, while it was
still in uncertainty, he had a most excellent foresight; and to express all in
brief, by the force of his natural capacity, and the quickness of his determination,
he was the most efficient of all men in promptly deciding what was to be done."
Undoubtedly he possessed great talents as a statesman, great political sagacity,
a ready wit, and excellent judgment: but perhaps he was not an honest man; and,
like many other clever men with little morality, he ended his career unhappily
and ingloriously, an exile and a traitor too. Some of the anecdotes about him
deserve little credit; but an examination of them belongs to another kind of work.
There is a life of Themistocles in the collection which goes under
the name of Nepos. Plutarch has enlivened his biography with several curious stories
about Themistocles, after his arrival in Asia. Diodorus (xi.), always a careless
writer, is of little value for the biography of Themistocles. One and twenty letters
attributed to Themistocles are spurious.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
KYDANTIDES (Ancient demos) MARKOPOULO MESSOGEAS
Nicias (ca. 470-413 B.C.) An Athenian politician prominent during the first half
of the Peloponnesian War (431-404). Nicias is best known for arranging a halt
to that war in 421 ("Peace of Nicias') and for presiding over an Athenian
military disaster in Sicily in which he lost his life.
Family
Little is known of Nicias' father, Niceratus. A wealthy man, Nicias
was one of the biggest known slaveholders in late fifth century Athens. The family's
money came from interests in silver mines (Plut. Nic. 4 ). Nicias continued the
family investment and was said to have employed 1,000 men in the mines (Xen. Ways
4.14 ).
Biography
Since Niceratus is unknown in Athenian politics, Nicias may have had
to proceed as a newcomer. Nicias probably sought the patronage of Pericles. Plutarch
implies that he was Pericles' political heir (Plut. Nic. 2 ). Thucydides makes
no mention of Nicias' early political significance. There Nicias appears for the
first time in 427 leading an Athenian expedition to the island of Minoa just off
Megara (Thuc. 3.51 ). In the years thereafter Nicias held important (but not momentous
) military commands (Thuc. 3.91; Thuc. 4.42 ).
It was also in 425 that a confrontation occurred in the assembly which
provides insight into Nicias' character (Thuc 4.26-41 ). As general that year
Nicias was held responsible by the demagogue Cleon for the stalemate at Sphacteria.
Cleon demanded in the assembly that Nicias act decisively to capture the Spartans
on the island. Cleon pointed to Nicias and claimed that "if only the generals
were real men" the Spartans could be easily brought back to Athens and boasted
that if he himself were in command the matter would be quickly resolved (Thuc.
4.27 ). Nicias replied by turning his command over to Cleon. Ancient and modern
observers have judged Nicias harshly for bowing to the reckless Cleon (Plut. Nic.
9 ).
In 424 Nicias achieved his greatest military success. A force under
his command occupied Cythera, a large island off the southern Peloponnesus. Thucydides
says that the occupation of Cythera brought Spartan morale to a low level (Thuc.
4.55 ). From 423 to 421 Nicias was closely involved in peace negotiations with
Sparta. In March 423 an armistice was arranged and in 421 a fifty-year alliance
was concluded (Thuc. 4.119, Thuc. 5.17-24 ). Nicias was present at these conferences,
taking the oath of peace on each occasion. As the most important Athenian at the
time, the peace came to be named after Nicias. The contemporary Thucydides does
not refer to the accord as the "Peace of Nicias" but Andocides does
use such terminology (Andoc. 3.8 ).
At this point in the Peloponnesian War, Nicias is usually considered to be the
spokesman for conservative elements which constituted a "peace party"
at Athens. Plutarch implies that Nicias forged an alliance with the wealthy and
older citizens as well as with rural landlords and peasants. These men had the
most to gain from an end to hostilities (Plut. Nic. 9 ). Nicias himself also had
reason to hope for peace. Thucydides states (Thuc. 5.16 ): "Nicias wished
to rest upon his laurels, to find an immediate release from toil and trouble both
for himself and for his fellow citizens."
By 420 the peace between Sparta and Athens had collapsed. In that
year Nicias made a last attempt to repair the rupture. He traveled to Sparta to
seek, among other things, Spartan help in the return of Amphipolis. In the balance
lay not only war or peace but also Nicias' own strategy. The embassy failed and
hostilities soon resumed. Thucydides reports that Nicias was attacked upon his
return to Athens for the failure of his peace (Thuc. 5.46 ).
The opposition to Nicias and his supporters came from new demagogues,
most notably the young and talented Alcibiades. The two men were thorough contrasts.
In 418 Nicias was approximately 52 years old while Alcibiades was perhaps 32.
More than the different values and temperaments of two generations divided the
men. Nicias had appeared on the political scene from a relatively unknown family;
Alcibiades was a descendant of the famed Cleisthenes and nephew to Pericles. Nicias
was a conservative in politics and war; Alcibiades was brilliant and daring. Finally,
Nicias was superstitious and pious (Thuc. 7.50; Plut. Nic. 3.4 ); while Alcibiades
became infamous for sacrilege.
By 417 a crisis of leadership had developed. Alcibiades and Nicias
were elected generals but advocated imcompatible military policies. The solution
proposed by Hyperbolus was the old Athenian practice of ostracism. It was assumed
the process would eliminate either Nicias or Alcibiades and leave the state with
a single leader and policy. The wily Alcibiades, however, thwarted Hyperbolus
and allied himself with Nicias. The result was that Hyperbolus' name appeared
on a majority of the ostraka and the demagogue was promptly ostracized (Plut.
Nic. 11; Plut. Alc. 13 ).
The alliance between Alcibiades and Nicias was only temporary. A debate
in the assembly over the proposed Sicilian expedition revealed the differing policies
and characters of the two men (Thuc. 6.8-26 ). The Athenians voted to send 60
ships to Sicily under Alcibiades, Nicias and Lamachus. Nicias was utterly opposed
to the project. When the assembly met to consider the logistics of the expedition
Nicias leveled a bitter attack on Alcibiades and Athenian adventurism and asked
the Athenians to reconsider, calling on support from older men. Nicias emphasized
the strength of the Sicilian cities and reminded the Athenians that they were
risking a two-front war (Thuc. 6.10,20-22 ). (It is interesting to note that many
of the concerns Nicias voiced in the debate--for example his fears over the Syracusan
cavalry and Athenian supply lines--turned out to be well-founded. ) In a last
attempt to dissuade the Athenians Nicias recommended that only a very large force
could succeed in the project (Thuc. 6.19 ). This strategy was indeed a blunder.
Not only did the Athenians quickly approve Nicias' request, they also gave the
generals powers to call on whatever forces they saw fit. Instead of giving the
Athenians cause to pause in their plans, Nicias actually increased the risks of
the Sicilian expedition. Perhaps most surprising of all is Nicias' decision to
take part in an expedition he opposed.
The drama of the Athenian expedition to Sicily (415-413 B.C ) is vividly
treated by Thucydides in books six and seven. Modern historians have often assigned
Nicias a large part of the blame for the Athenian defeat in Sicily. Thucydides
does not explicitly do so, but does record numerous strategic blunders committed
by the general. Two in particular loom large. The first allowed reinforcements
to reach Syracuse when Nicias neglected to complete his northern wall around Syracuse
(Thuc. 7.1,6 ). Later, when the Athenian position had deteriorated and speedy
withdrawal was critical, the superstitious general delayed a breakout for an entire
month because of a lunar eclipse (Thuc. 7.50. The eclipse can be pinpointed to
August 27, 413 B.C.) In the intervening period the Syracusans sealed the harbor
to trap Nicias and the Athenians. When attempts to breakout finally came it was
too late. In Nicias' defence it should be noted that the general suffered from
a kidney illness in Sicily and had personally written to Athens asking to be relieved
(Thuc. 7.8-15; Plut. Nic. 17-18 ). On the eighth day of the Athenian retreat from
Syracuse Nicias surrendered to Gylippus in hopes of saving his men and was soon
executed (Thuc. 7.85 ).
Ancient and Modern Views of Nicias.
Nicias stands as one of the most important personalities in Thucydides'
History. Although many of his actions in the History are blameworthy, the final
judgement of Thucydides on Nicias is surprising: "he was killed, a man who,
of all the Hellenes in my time, least deserved to come to so miserable an end,
since the whole of his life had been devoted to the study and practice of virtue
arete." This statement has led to much modern debate about Thucydides' view
of Nicias. Several of Aristophanes' comedies also contain contemporary references
to Nicias: see, for example, Aristoph. Birds 593-595. Contemporary Athenians may
not have been as charitable as Thucydides in their view of Nicias after the Sicilian
debacle. The second century A.D. travel writer Pausanias records having seen a
stele commemorating the Athenian generals who had died in Sicily. Nicias' name
had been left off the list. Pausanias' reason for the omission was that Nicias
had been "unmanly in war" (Paus. 1.29.11-12 ).
Vincent Burns, ed.
This text is cited August 2004 from
Perseus Project URL bellow, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Nicias, Nikias. An Athenian general who was a man of birth and fortune; but one in whom a generous temper, popular manners, and considerable political and military talent were marred by unreasonable diffidence and an excessive dread of responsibility. Nicias, however, signalized himself on several occasions. He took the island of Cythera from the Lacedaemonians, subjugated many cities of Thrace which had revolted from the Athenian sway, shut up the Megarians within their city-walls, cutting off all communications from without, and taking their harbour Nisaea. When the unfortunate expedition against Syracuse was undertaken by Athens, Nicias was one of the three commanders who were sent at its head, the other two being Alcibiades and Lamachus. He had previously, however, used every effort to prevent his countrymen from engaging in this affair, on the ground that they were only wasting their resources in distant warfare and multiplying their enemies. After the recall of Alcibiades, the natural indecision of Nicias, increased by ill-health and dislike of his command, proved a principal cause of the failure of the enterprise. In endeavouring to retreat by land from before Syracuse, the Athenian commanders, Nicias and Demosthenes (the latter had come with re-enforcements), were pursued, defeated, and compelled to surrender. The generals were put to death (B.C. 414); their soldiers were confined at first in the quarry of Epipolae, and afterwards sold as slaves. There is a life of Nicias by Plutarch.
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Nicias> One of the most celebrated of the Athenian generals engaged during
the Peloponnesian war. He was the son of Niceratus, from whom he inherited a large
fortune, derived mainly from the silver mines at Laureium, of which he was a very
large lessee, employing in them as many as 1000 slaves (Xen. Mem. ii. 5.2, de
Vect. 4.14; Athen. vi.). His property was valued at 100 talents (Lys. pro Arist.
Bonis). From this cause, combined with his unambitious character, and his aversion
to all dangerous innovations, he was naturally brought into connection with the
aristocratical portion of his fellow-citizens. He was several times associated
with Pericles, as strategus; and his great prudence and high character gained
for him considerable influence. On the death of Pericles he came forward more
openly as the opponent of Cleon, and the other demagogues of Athens; but from
his military reputation, the mildness of his character, and the liberal use which
he made of his great wealth, he was looked upon with respect, and some measure
of attachment, by all classes of the citizens. His timidity led hint to buy off
the attacks of the sycophants. This feature of his character was ridiculed by
more than one comic poet of the day. Tile splendour with which he discharged the
office of choregus exceeded anything that had been seen before. On one occasion,
when charged with the conduct of the Theoria to Delos, he made a remarkable display
of his wealth and munificence. To prevent the confusion which usually ensued when
the Chorus landed at Delos amidst the crowd of spectators, he landed first at
Rheneia; and having had a bridge prepared before he left Athens, it was thrown
across the channel between Rheneia and Delos, in the course of the night, and
by daybreak it was ready, adorned in the most sumptuous manner with gilding and
tapestry, for tile orderly procession of the Chorus. After the ceremonies were
over he consecrated a brasen palm tree to Apollo, together with a piece of land,
which he purchased at the cost of 10,000 drachmae, directing that the proceeds
of it should be laid out by the Delians in sacrifices and feasts; the only condition
which he annexed being, that they should pray for the blessing of the god upon
the founder. His strong religious feeling was perhaps as much concerned in this
dedication, as his desire of popularity. It was told of him that he sacrificed
every day, and even kept a soothsayer in his house, that he might consult the
will of the gods not only about public affairs, but likewise respecting his own
private fortunes. Aristophanes ridicules him rather severely in the Equites for
his timidity and superstition (l. 28, &c., 80, 112, 358). The excessive dread
which Nicias entertained of informers led him to keep as much as possible in retirement.
He made himself difficult of access; and the few friends who were admitted to
his privacy industriously spread the belief that he devoted himself with such
untiring zeal to the public interests, as to sacrifice enjoyment, sleep, and even
health, in the service of the state. His characteristic caution was the distinguishing
feature of his military career. He does not seem to have displayed any very great
ability, still less anything like genius, in the science of strategy; but he was
cautious and wary, and does not appear on a single occasion to have beemi guilty
of any act of remissness, unless it were in the siege of Syracuse. Hence his military
operations were almost invariably successful. In B. C. 427 he led an expedition
against the island of Minoa, which lies in front of Megara, and took it (Thuc.
iii. 51). In the following year he led an armament of sixty triremes, with 2000
heavy-armed soldiers, against the island of Melos. He ravaged the island, but
the town held out; and the troops being needed for an attack upon Tanagra, he
withdrew, and, after ravaging the coast of Locris, returned home (Thuc. iii. 91;
Diod. xii. 65). He was one of the generals in B. C. 425, when the Spartans were
shut up in Sphacteria. The amusing circumstances under which he commissioned his
enemy, Cleon, to reduce the island, have already been described in the article
Cleon. In the same year Nicias led an expedition into the territory
of Corinth. He defeated the Corinthians in battle, but, apprehending the arrival
of reinforcements for the enemy's troops, he re-embarked his forces. Two of the
slain, however, having been left behind, whom the Athenians had not been able
to find at the time, Nicias resigned the honours of victory for the purpose of
recovering them, and sent a herald to ask for their restoration. He then proceeded
to Crommyon, where he ravaged the land, and then directed his course to the territory
of Epidaurus. Having carried a wall across the isthmus connecting Methone with
the main land, and left a garrison in the place, he returned home (Thuc. iv. 42-45;
Diod. xii. 65). In B. C. 424, with two colleagues, he led an expedition to the
coasts of Laconia and captured the island of Cythera, a success gained with the
greater facility, as he had previously had negotiations with some of the Cytherians.
He stationed an Athenian garrison in the island, and ravaged the coast of Laconia
for seven days. On his return he ravaged the territory of Epidaurus in Laconia,
and took Thyrea, where the Spartans had settled the Aeginetans after their expulsion
from their own island. These Aeginetans having been conveyed to Athens were put
to death by the Athenians (Thuc. iv. 54; Diod. l. c.). In B. C. 423, Nicias and
Nicostratus were sent with an army to Chalcidice to check the movements of Brasidas.
They obtained possession of Mende, and blockaded Scione; while thus engaged they
entered into an agreement with Perdiccas. Having finished the circumvallation
of Scione, they returned home (Thuc. iv. 130- 132).
The death of Cleon removed out of the way of Nicias the only rival
whose power was at all commensurate with his own, and he now exerted all his influence
to bring about a peace. He had secured the gratitude of the Spartans by his humane
treatment of the prisoners taken at Sphacteria, so that he found no difficulty
in assuming the character of mediator between the belligerent powers. The negotiations
ended in the peace of B. C. 421, which was called the peace of Nicias on account
of the share which he had had in bringing it about (Thuc. v. 16, 19, 24, vii.
86). In consequence of the opposition of the Boeotians, Corinthians, and others,
and the hostile disposition of Argos, this peace was soon followed by a treaty
of defensive alliance between Athens and Sparta. According to Theophrastus, Nicias,
by bribing the Spartan commissioners, contrived that Sparta should take the oaths
first. Grounds for dissatisfaction, however, speedily arose between the two states.
The jealousy felt by the Athenians was industriously increased by Alcibiades,
at whose suggestion an embassy came from Argos in B. C. 420, to propose an alliance.
The Spartan envoys who came to oppose it were entrapped by Alcibiades into exhibiting
an appearance of double dealing, and it required all the influence of Nicias to
prevent the Athenians from at once concluding an alliance with Argos. He induced
them to send him at the head of an embassy to Sparta to demand satisfaction with
respect to the points on which the Athenians felt themselves aggrieved. The Spartan
government would not comply with their demands, and Nicias could only procure
a fresh ratification of the existing treaties. On his return the alliance with
Argos was resolved on (Thuc. v. 43, 46).
The dissensions between Nicias and Alcibiades now greatly increased,
and the ostracism of one or other began to be talked of. The demagogue Hyperbolus
strove to secure the banishment of one of them that he might have a better chance
of making head against the other. But Nicias and Alcibiades, perceiving his designs,
united their influence against their common enemy, and the ostracism fell on Hyperbolus.
In B. C. 415, the Athenians resolved on sending their great expedition to Sicily,
on the pretext of assisting the Segestaeans and Leontines. Nicias, Alcibiades,
and Lamachus were appointed to the command. Nicias, who, besides that he disapproved
of the expedition altogether, was in feeble health, did all that he could to divert
the Athenians from this course. He succeeded in getting the question put again
to the vote; but even his representations of the magnitude of the preparations
required did not produce the effect which he wished. On the contrary, the Athenians
derived from them grounds for still greater confidence; and Nicias and the other
generals were empowered to raise whatever forces they thought requisite. When
the armament arrived at Rhegium, finding the hopes which the Athenians had entertained
with regard to the Segestaeans futile, in a conference of the generals Nicias
proposed that they should call upon the Segestaeans to provide pay, if not for
the whole armament, at least for the amount of the succours which they had requested,
and that, if they furnished these. the forces should stay till they had brought
the Selinuntines to terms, and then return home, after coasting the island to
display the power of Athens. But the intermediate plan of Alcibiades was finally
adopted. After the recall of Alcibiades Nicias found no difficulty in securing
the concurrence of Lamachus in his plans. From Catana, which had come over to
the Athenians and been made their head-quarters, Nicias and Lamachus proceeded
with all their forces towards Segesta. On their way they captured Hyccara. Nicias
went himself to Segesta, but could only obtain thirty talents. On their return
they seem to have remained almost inactive for some time, but in the autumn they
prepared to attack Syracuse. By a skilful stratagem the Athenians without molestation
took possession of a station near the Olympieum, by the harbour of Syracuse. A
battle took place the next day, in which the Syracusans were defeated. But, being
in want of cavalry and money, the Athenians sailed away, and for the first part
of the winter took up their station at Naxos. They were unsuccessful in their
endeavours to induce Camarina to join them, but secured the assistance of several
of the Sicel tribes. Even some Etruscan cities promised aid, and envoys were sent
to Carthage. From Naxos Nicias removed to Catana. Additional supplies were sent
from Athens, and arrived at Catana in the spring (B. C. 414). Nicias now made
preparations for seizing Epipolae, in which ho was successful; and the circumvallation
of Syracuse was immediately commenced. The work proceeded rapidly, and all attempts
of the Syracusans to stood it were defeated. In a battle which took place in the
marsh Lamachus was slain. It fortunately happened at this juncture that Nicias,
who was afflicted with a painful disorder of the eyes, was left upon Epipolae,
and his presence prevented the Syracusans from succeeding in a bold attempt which
they made to gain possession of the heights and destroy the Athenian works. The
circumvallation was now nearly completed, and the doom of Syracuse seemed sealed,
when Gylippus arrived in Sicily. Nicias, for the first time in his life probably,
allowed his confidence of success to render him remiss, and he neglected to prevent
Gylippus from making his way into Syracuse. lie seems now to have supposed that
he should be unable to stop the erection of a counter-wall on Epipolae, and therefore
abandoned the heights and established his army on the headland of Plemmyrium,
where he erected three forts. His forces were defeated in an attempt to hinder
the completion of the counterwork of the Syracusans. Succours were now called
in by the Syracusans from all quarters, and Nicias found himself obliged to send
to Athens for reinforcements, as his ships were becoming unsound, and their crews
were rapidly thinned by deaths and desertions. He requested at the same time that
another commander might be sent to supply his place, as his disorder rendered
him unequal to the discharge of his duties. The Athenians voted reinforcements,
which were placed under the command of Demosthenes and Eurymedon. But they would
not allow Nicias to resign his command.
Meantime, Gylippus induced the Syracusans to try their fortune in
a sea-fight. During the heat of the action he gained possession of the forts on
Plemmyrium. The sea-fight at first was against the Athenians; but the confusion
caused by the arrival of the reinforcements to the Syracusans from Corinth enabled
the Athenians to attack them at an advantage, and gain a victory. Other contests
followed in the great harbour, and in a severe engagement the Athenians were defeated
with considerable loss. But at this moment the Athenian reinforcements arrived.
At the suggestion of Demosthenes, a bold attempt was made in the night
to recover Epipolae, in which the Athenians, after being all but successful, were
finally driven back with severe loss. Demosthenes now proposed to abandon the
siege and return to Athens. To this Nicias would not consent. He professed to
stand in dread of the Athenians at home, but he appears to have had reasons for
believing that a party amongst the Syracusans themselves were likely in no long
time to facilitate the reduction of the city, and, at his urgent instance, his
colleagues consented to remain for a little longer. But meantime fresh succours
arrived for the Syracusans; sickness was making ravages among the Athenian troops,
and at length Nicias himself saw the necessity of retreating. Secret orders were
given that every thing should be in readiness for departure, supplies were countermanded,
and nothing seemed likely to prevent their unmolested retreat, when an eclipse
of the moon happened. The credulous superstition of Nicias now led to the total
destruction of the Athenian armament. The soothsayers interpreted the event as
an injunction from the gods that they should not retreat before the next full
moon, and Nicias resolutely determined to abide by their decision. The Syracusans
now resolved to bring the enemy to an engagement, and, after some successful skirmishing,
in a decisive naval battle defeated the Athenians, though a body of their land
forces received an unimportant check. They were now masters of the harbour, and
the Athenians were reduced to the necessity of making a desperate effort to escape.
Nicias exerted himself to the utmost to encourage the men, but the Athenians were
decisively defeated, and could not even be induced to attempt to force their way
at day-break through the bar at the mouth of the harbour. They set out on their
retreat into the interior of Sicily. Nieias, though bowed down by bodily as well
as mental sufferings, used all his arguments to cheer the men. For the details
of the retreat the reader is referred to Thucydides. Nicias and Demosthenes, with
the miserable remnant of the troops, were compelled to surrender. Gylippus was
desirous of carrying Nicias to Sparta; but those of the Syracusans with whom Nicias
had opened a secret correspondence, fearing lest its betrayal should bring them
into difficulties, eagerly urged that he should be put to death. His execution
draws the following just remarks from Bishop Thirlwall: " His death filled up
the measure of a singular destiny, by which the reputation he had acquired by
his prudence and fortune, his liberality and patriotism, his strength as well
as his weakness, all the good and the bad qualities of his mind and character,
his talents and judgment, as well as his credulity and superstition, his premature
timidity, his tardy courage, his long protracted wavering and his unseasonable
resolution, contributed in nearly equal degrees to his own ruin and to the fall
of his country. The historian deplores his undeserved calamity; but the fate of
the thousands whom he involved in his disasters was perhaps still more pitiable."
According to Pausanias (i. 29.12), his name was omitted on a monument raised at
Athens to the memory of those who fell in Sicily, because he surrendered himself
voluntarily (Plut. Nicias; Diod. xii. 83; Thuc. vi. and vii.).
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
The Peace of Nicias
Cleon, the most prominent and influential leader at Athens after the Athenian
victory at Pylos in 425, was dispatched to northern Greece in 422 to try to stop
Brasidas. As it happened, both he and Brasidas were killed before Amphipolis in
422 B.C. in a battle won by the Spartan army. Their deaths deprived each side
of its most energetic military commander and opened the way to negotiations. Peace
came in 421 B.C. when both sides agreed to resurrect the balance of forces just
as it had been in 431 B.C. The agreement made in that year is known as the Peace
of Nicias after the name of the Athenian general Nicias, who was instrumental
in convincing the Athenian assembly to agree to a peace treaty. The Spartan agreement
to the peace revealed a fracture in the coaltion of Greek states allied with Sparta
against Athens and its allies because the Corinthians and the Boetians refused
to join the Spartans in signing the treaty.
This text is from: Thomas Martin's An Overview of Classical Greek History from Homer to Alexander, Yale University Press. Cited July 2005 from Perseus Project URL below, which contains bibliography & interesting hyperlinks.
STIRIA (Ancient demos) ATTIKI
Thrasybulus. An Athenian, the son of Lycus, of the deme Steiria. He was zealously attached to the democratic party, and was a warm friend of Alcihiades. The first occasion on which we find him mentioned is in B. C. 411, when he was in command of a galley in the Athenian fleet at Samos. and took an active part in the suppression of the oligarchical conspiracy (Thuc. viii. 73). When the news arrived of the establishment of the Four Hundred at Athens, Thrasybulus and Thrasyllus were among the most active in urging resistance to the oligarchy, and exacted a solemn oath from the Athenians of the fleet that they would maintain the democracy, and persevere in the war with the Peloponnesians. In an assembly held soon after in the camp, some of the suspected generals were removed, and others appointed in their room. Among the latter was Thrasybulus. Through the influence of Thrasybulus a decree was passed by the camp-assembly, by which Alcibiades was pardoned and recalled. Thrasybulus himself sailed to fetch him from the court of Tissaphernes. Shortly afterwards he set out towards the Hellespont with five galleys, when news arrived of the revolt of Eresus. After his junction with Thrasyllus was fought the battle of Cynossema, in which Thrasybulus commanded the right wing, and by a sudden attack upon the Peloponnesians, who had gained a partial success, turned the fortune of the day (Thuc. viii. 75, 76, 81, 100, 104, &c.). Just before the battle of Cyzicus Thrasybulus joined Alcibiades with twenty galleys, having been despatched on an expedition to collect money from Thasos and other places in that quarter (Xen. Helen. i. 1.12). In 407 he was sent with a fleet of thirty ships to the coast of Thrace, where he reduced most of the revolted cities to submission (Xen. Hellen. i. 4.9; Demosth. adv. Lept.; Diod. xiii. 72). He was about the same time elected one of the new generals, together with Alcibiades. While engaged in fortifying Phocaea, he received a visit from Alcibiades, who had left his fleet at Notium (Xen. l.c. i. 5.6). After the unfortunate battle of Notium took place, he was involved in the disgrace of Alcibiades, and was superseded in his command, but still continued to serve in the fleet. He was one of the subordinate officers at the battle of Arginusae, and was one of those charged with the duty of taking care of the wrecks (Xen. i. 6.35). He is said to have had a dream before the battle, which portended the victory and the death of the generals (Diod. xiii. 97). On the establishment of the Thirty Tyrants he was banished, and was living in exile at Thebes when the rulers of Athens were perpetrating their excesses of tyranny. Being aided by the Thebans with arms and money, he collected a small band, and seized the fortress of Phyle, where he was rapidly reinforced, and after repulsing an attack made upon the fortress, he defeated the forces placed to check the incursions of the garrison. Four days afterwards he descended with a body of 1000 men and marched into Peiraeus, taking up a strong position on the hill of Munychia. where he was joined by most of the population of Peiraeus. The forces of the tyrants were immediately despatched against them, but were defeated, though with no great loss. The Ten, who were appointed in place of the Thirty, however, showed no less disposition to overpower Thrasybulus and his party, who strengthened themselves as much as possible, and made foraging excursions every day from Peiraeus. In consequence of the application of the oligarchs Lysander and Libys were sent to blockade Peiraeus. The exiles however were delivered from their perilous position through the machinations of Pausanias. After they had sustained a severe defeat, Pausanias secretly sent to them, directing them to send an embassy to him, and suggesting the kind of language that they should hold. An armistice was concluded with them, and deputies were despatched by them to plead their cause at Sparta. The issue was a general reconciliation, accompanied by an amnesty, and the exiles entered the city in triumph, and offered a sacrifice to Athene on the Acropolis. Soon afterwards the oligarchical exiles at Eleusis, who were preparing to renew the civil war, were overpowered, and a new act of amnesty was passed with respect to them, the credit of which seems to have belonged to Thrasybulus and his friends (Xen. Hellen. ii. 4.2-43; Diod. xiv. 32, 33; Paus. i. 29.3, iii. 5.l; Plut. Lys. 27). In B. C. 395 we find Thrasybulus moving the decree for an alliance between Thebes and Athens, when the former was menaced by Sparta, and leading an army to the help of the Thebans (Pans. iii. 5.4; Xen. Hellen. iii. 5.16, &c). In B. C. 390 Thrasybulus was sent with forty ships to aid the democratical Rhodians against Teleutias. Not finding that he could be of any service at Rhodes, he sailed away to Thrace, where he reconciled two Odrysian princes, Amadocus and Seuthes, and brought them to enter into alliance with Athens. Seuthes offered to give him his daughter in marriage. He then proceeded to Byzantium, where by the aid of Archebius and Heracleides he established the democratical party, and restored the Athenian interest. He also brought Chalcedon into alliance with Athens. In the island of Lesbos he reduced Methymna and some other towns. From Lesbos he sailed southwards, and having anchored in the Eurymedon near Aspendus, the inhabitants of this place fell upon him in the night and killed him in his tent (Diod. xiv. 94, 99; Xen. Hellen. iv. 8.25, &c.; Demosth. adv. Lept.). His tomb was on the road leading to the Academy, near those of Pericles, Chabrias, and Phormion (Paus. i. 29.3).
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Extract from Diodorus Siculus, Library
In Athens the Thirty Tyrants, who were in supreme control, made no end of daily
exiling some citizens and putting to death others. When the Thebans were displeased
at what was taking place and extended kindly hospitality to the exiles, Thrasybulus
of the deme of Stiria, as he was called, who was an Athenian and had been exiled
by the Thirty, with the secret aid of the Thebans seized a stronghold in Attica
called Phyle. This was an outpost, which was not only very strong but was also
only one hundred stades distant from Athens, so that it afforded them many advantages
for attack.
The Thirty Tyrants, on learning of this act, at first led forth their
troops against the band with the intention of laying siege to the stronghold.
But while they were encamped near Phyle there came a heavy snow, and when some
set to work to shift their encampment, the majority of the soldiers assumed that
they were taking to flight and that a hostile force was at hand; and the uproar
which men call Panic struck the army and they removed their camp to another place.
The Thirty, seeing that those citizens of Athens who enjoyed no political rights
in the government of the three thousand were elated at the prospect of the overthrow
of their control of the state, transferred them to the Peiraeus and maintained
their control of the city by means of mercenary troops; and accusing the Eleusians
and Salaminians of siding with the exiles, they put them all to death.
While these things were being done, many of the exiles flocked to
Thrasybulus; (and the Thirty dispatched ambassadors to Thrasybulus) publicly to
treat with him about some prisoners, but privately to advise him to dissolve the
band of exiles and to associate himself with the Thirty in the rule of the city,
taking the place of Theramenes; and they promised further that he could have licence
to restore to their native land any ten exiles he chose. Thrasybulus replied that
he preferred his own state of exile to the rule of the Thirty and that he would
not end the war unless all the citizens returned from exile and the people got
back the form of government they had received from their fathers. The Thirty,
seeing many revolting from them because of hatred and the exiles growing ever
more numerous, dispatched ambassadors to Sparta for aid, and meanwhile themselves
gathered as many troops as they could and pitched a camp in the open country near
Acharnae, as it is called.
Thrasybulus, leaving behind an adequate guard at the stronghold, led
forth the exiles, twelve hundred in number, and delivering an unexpected attack
by night on the camp of his opponents, he slew a large number of them, struck
terror into the rest by his unexpected move, and forced them to flee to Athens.
After the battle Thrasybulus set out straightway for the Peiraeus and seized Munychia,
which was an uninhabited and strong hill; and the Tyrants with all the troops
at their disposal went down to the Peiraeus and attacked Munychia, under the command
of Critias. In the sharp battle which continued for a long time the Thirty held
the advantage in numbers and the exiles in the strength of their position. At
last, however, when Critias fell, the troops of the Thirty were dismayed and fled
for safety to more level ground, the exiles not daring to come down against them.
When after this great numbers went over to the exiles, Thrasybulus
made an unexpected attack upon his opponents, defeated them in battle, and became
master of the Peiraeus. At once many of the inhabitants of the city who wished
to be rid of the tyranny flocked to the Peiraeus and all the exiles who were scattered
throughout the cities of Greece, on hearing of the successes of Thrasybulus, came
to the Peiraeus, so that from now on the exiles were far superior in force. In
consequence they began to lay siege to the city. The remaining citizens in Athens
now removed the Thirty from office and sent them out of the city, and then they
elected ten men with supreme power first and foremost to put an end to the war,
in any way possible, on friendly terms. But these men, as soon as they had succeeded
to office, paid no attention to these orders, but established themselves as tyrants
and sent to Lacedaemon for forty warships and a thousand soldiers, under the command
of Lysander.
But Pausanias, the king of the Lacedaemonians, being jealous of Lysander
and observing that Sparta was in ill repute among the Greeks, marched forth with
a strong army and on his arrival in Athens brought about a reconciliation between
the men in the city and the exiles. As a result the Athenians got back their country
and henceforth conducted their government under laws of their own making; and
the men who lived in fear of punishment for their unbroken series of past crimes
they allowed to make their home in Eleusis.
This extract is from: Diodorus Siculus, Library (ed. C. H. Oldfather, 1989). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains comments & interesting hyperlinks.
AFIDNES (Ancient demos) AFIDNES
Callimachus (Kallimachos). Of the tribe of Aiantis and the demos of Aphidna, held
the office of Polemarch, B. C. 490, and in that capacity commanded the right wing
of the Athenian army at Marathon, where he was slain, after behaving with much
gallantry. In the battle he is said to have vowed to Artemis a heifer for every
enemy he should slay. By the persuasion of Miltiades he had given his casting
vote for fighting, when the voices of the ten generals were equally divided on
the question. This is the last recorded instance of the Polemarch performing the
military duties which his name implies. Callimachus was conspicuously figured
in the fresco painting of the battle of Marathon, by Polygnotus, in the stoa poikile.
(Herod. vi. 109--114)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
The Athenian generals were of divided opinion, some advocating not fighting because
they were too few to attack the army of the Medes;(at Marathon battle) others,
including Miltiades, advocating fighting. Thus they were at odds, and the inferior
plan prevailed. An eleventh man had a vote, chosen by lot to be polemarch1 of
Athens, and by ancient custom the Athenians had made his vote of equal weight
with the generals.
Callimachus of Aphidnae was polemarch at this time. Miltiades approached
him and said, "Callimachus, it is now in your hands to enslave Athens or
make her free, and thereby leave behind for all posterity a memorial such as not
even Harmodius and Aristogeiton left. Now the Athenians have come to their greatest
danger since they first came into being, and, if we surrender, it is clear what
we will suffer when handed over to Hippias. But if the city prevails, it will
take first place among Hellenic cities. I will tell you how this can happen, and
how the deciding voice on these matters has devolved upon you. The ten generals
are of divided opinion, some urging to attack, others urging not to. If we do
not attack now, I expect that great strife will fall upon and shake the spirit
of the Athenians, leading them to medize. But if we attack now, before anything
unsound corrupts the Athenians, we can win the battle, if the gods are fair. [6]
All this concerns and depends on you in this way: if you vote with me, your country
will be free and your city the first in Hellas. But if you side with those eager
to avoid battle, you will have the opposite to all the good things I enumerated."
By saying this Miltiades won over Callimachus. The polemarch's vote
was counted in, and the decision to attack was resolved upon. Thereafter the generals
who had voted to fight turned the presidency over to Miltiades as each one's day
came in turn. He accepted the office but did not make an attack until it was his
own day to preside. When the presidency came round to him, he arrayed the Athenians
for battle, with the polemarch Callimachus commanding the right wing, since it
was then the Athenian custom for the polemarch to hold the right wing. He led,
and the other tribes were numbered out in succession next to each other.
This extract is from: Herodotus. The Histories (ed. A. D. Godley, 1920), Cambridge. Harvard University Press. Cited August 2004 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains comments & interesting hyperlinks.
KOROPI (Town) ATTICA, EAST
1947
AZINIA (Ancient demos) ATTIKI
Aristophon. A native of the demos of Azenia in Attica (Aeschin. c. Tim. p. 159)
He lived about and after the end of the Peloponnesian war. In B. C. 412, Aristophon,
Laespodius and Melesias were sent to Sparta as ambassadors by the oligarchical
government of the Four Hundred (Thuc. viii. 86). In the archonship of Eucleides,
B. C. 404, after Athens was delivered of the thirty tyrants, Aristophon proposed
a law which, though beneficial to the republic, yet caused great uneasiness and
troubles in many families at Athens; for it ordained, that no one should be regarded
as a citizen of Athens whose mother was not a freeborn woman (Caryst. ap. Atwcn.
xiii.; Taylor, Vit. Lys.). He also proposed various other laws, by which he acquired
great popularity and the full confidence of the people (Dem. c. Eubul.), and their
great number may be inferred from his own statement (ap. Aeschin. c. Ctes.), that
he was accused 75 times of having made illegal proposals, but that he had always
come off victorious. His influence with the people is most manifest from his accusation
of Iphicrates and Timotheus, two men to whom Athens was so much indebted (B. C.
354). He charged them with having accepted bribes from the Chians and Rhodians,
and the people condemned Timotheus on the mere assertion of Aristophon (C. Nepos,
Timoth. 3; Aristot. Rhet. 11, 23; Deinarch. c. Demosth., c. Philocl.). After this
event, but still in B. C. 354, the last time that we hear of him in history, he
came forward in the assembly to defend the law of Leptines against Demosthenes,
and the latter, who often mentions him, treats the aged Aristophon with great
respect, and reckons him among the most eloquent orators. (c. Lept.) He seems
to have died soon after. None of his orations has come down to us.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited June 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Aristophon of Azenia was one of the most durable politicians of fourth century Athens. He first appears on the political scene at the time of the restoration of the democracy at the close of the fifth century and his career lasted into the middle of the fourth. Even in old age he was an able political fighter. He was one of the prosecutors of the general Timotheus in the mid 350s and secured his conviction with a crushing fine of 100 talents. Demosthenes (18.162, 19.291) makes Aeschines earlier in his career an associate of Aristophon. Harris (1995 p.155) is sceptical. Certainly Aeschines is critical of Aristophon at 3.194. However, Aristophon fiercely opposed the terms of the peace with Macedonia in 346 (see 2.74n) and it may be that policy differences over Macedonia led to a rupture between the two.
Isocrates (Isokrates). The fourth among the ten Attic orators. He
was born at Athens in B.C. 436, the son of Theodorus, the wealthy proprietor of
a flute manufactory, who provided for his son a thorough education. Accordingly,
he had the advantage of being instructed by Prodicus, Protagoras, Theramenes,
and above all by Gorgias, his character was also moulded by the influence of Socrates,
although he never belonged to the more restricted circle of that philosopher's
pupils.
Bashfulness and a weak voice prevented him from taking part
in public life. After the fall of the Thirty, as his father had lost his means
in the calamitous years that closed the Peloponnesian War, he turned his attention
to composing forensic speeches for others. After having taught rhetoric at Chios
(probably about B.C. 404), he returned to Athens in 403, and there opened a regular
school of rhetoric about 392. It was largely attended by both Athenians and non-Athenians,
and gained for him considerable wealth. The total number of his pupils has been
given at one hundred, including Timotheus, son of Conon, the orators Isaeus, Hyperides,
and Lycurgus, and the historians Ephorus and Theopompus. Each pupil paid him 1000
drachmae. Isocrates also had friendly relations with foreign princes, especially
with Evagoras of Cyprus and his son Nicocles, who loaded him with favours. He
kept himself completely aloof from any personal share in the public life of his
day; yet attempted to influence the political world, not only within the narrow
bounds of his native land, but also throughout the whole of Greece, by a series
of rhetorical declamations, not intended to be delivered, but only to be read.
This he did in the first place in his Panegyricus (Panegurikos), which he published
in B.C. 380, after spending ten or, according to another account, as many as fifteen
years over its preparation. It is a kind of festal oration, eulogizing the services
of Athens to Greece, exhorting the Spartans peacefully to share the supremacy
with Athens, and calling on the Greeks to lay aside all internal dissensions and
to attack the barbarians with their united strength. In the ninetieth year of
his age, in a discourse addressed to Philip in B.C. 346, he endeavoured to induce
that monarch to carry out his policy by reconciling all the Greeks to one another
and leading their united forces against the Persians. Other discourses relate
to the internal politics of Athens. Thus, in the Areopagiticus (B.C. 354), he
recommends his fellow-citizens to get rid of the existing weaknesses in their
political constitution by returning to the democracy as founded by Solon and reconstituted
by Clisthenes, and by reinstating the Areopagus as the supreme tribunal of censorship
over public decorum and morality. He retained his mental and bodily powers unimpaired
to an advanced age, and in his ninety-eighth year completed the Panathenaicus,
a discourse in praise of Athens. He lived to see the total wreck of all his hopes
for a regeneration of Greece, and died B.C. 338, a few days after the battle of
Chaeronea. He is said to have died of voluntary starvation, owing to his despair
at the downfall of Greek liberty; but this account of his death, made familiar
to the English world by Milton in his fifth English sonnet, must be considered
as doubtful.
There were sixty compositions bearing his name known to antiquity,
but less than half that number were considered genuine. Of the twenty-one which
have come down to us, the first, the letter to Dominicus, is often regarded as
spurious, but there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of nine of the ten other
letters. It is only the letter prefixed to the nine in the older editions that
is not genuine, having been really written by Theophylact Simocatta early in the
seventh century A.D. Of the speeches, six are forensic orations, written to be
delivered by others; the rest are declamations, chiefly on political subjects.
By his mastery of style, Isocrates had a far-reaching influence on all subsequent
Greek prose, which is not confined to oratorical composition alone. His chief
strength lies in a careful choice of expression, not only in his vocabulary, but
also in the rhythmical formation of his flowing periods, in a skilful use of the
figures of speech, and in all that lends euphony to language. Even in Latin the
oratorical prose of Cicero is, on its formal side, based chiefly on that of Isocrates;
and as modern literary prose has, in its turn, been largely modelled on that of
Cicero, the influence of Isocrates has endured to the present day.
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Isocrates (436-338 BC) considered himself a philosopher, not an orator or rhetorician.
Although he was a poor speaker himself, he began his career as a logographer,
writing speeches for others. He ceased this practice in about 390 and turned to
writing and teaching. In several long essays he set forth his political views,
which favored accommodation with Philip and a panhellenic unity, and his theory
of education based on a broad concept of rhetoric. His school attracted pupils
from the entire Greek world and became the main rival of Plato's celebrated Academy.
Although Plato is better known and more highly regarded today, Isocrates had a
much greater influence than his rival during the Hellenistic and Roman periods
and down into modern times, for until the eighteenth century education in most
European schools was based on his principles.
Life and Works
Isocrates came from a wealthy Athenian family. His interest in philosophical
issues led him to study with the sophists Prodicus and Gorgias, and also to associate
with Socrates. In Plato's Phaedrus (Plat.
Phaedrus 279a) Socrates prophecies (perhaps ironically) a bright future for
him. During the Peloponnesian War his father lost most of his property, and so
after the democracy was restored, Isocrates turned to logography from financial
need. Six speeches for a variety of private cases survive from this period, and
Isocrates probably wrote many more. Later he scorned the profession of logographer
and sought to disavow this period of his past.
After a decade or so as a logographer, Isocrates abandoned that career
and founded a school, first in Chios and then in Athens (in c. 388 BC), to train
young men in the true practice of rhetoric. The earliest work proclaiming this
new educational undertaking is probably the fragmentary Against the Sophists (c.
390), in which he attacks other teachers of rhetoric and seeks to distance himself
from them on the grounds that they teach only rhetoric. His education, on the
other hand, combines teaching of rhetoric with ethics and politics, thereby preparing
his pupils more fully for their future lives. The school was very successful.
Although only six students were enrolled at any one time, they included young
men from some of the best known families all over the Greek world, and they were
willing to pay a high fee for tuition. Among the students were political leaders,
historians and other writers, foreign nobility, and orators, including Isaeus,
Lycurgus and Hyperides. (Demosthenes, it is said, could not afford the tuition
fee.)
The fame of Isocrates and of his school was spread especially by the
publication of several long essays expounding his views on political, philosophical
and educational issues. To mention just a few of these: Panegyricus (c. 380),
which he spent about ten years composing, is Isocrates? earliest call for Hellenic
unity under the spiritual and political leadership of Athens; in Areopagiticus
and On the Peace (both c. 355 BC), he advocates a policy of peace abroad and political
reform at home; and in Panathenaicus (339), completed as he lay ill and near death,
and especially in his longest essay Antidosis (354), Isocrates sets forth his
views on broad philosophical and educational issues, as well as on political matter,
all within the context of defending himself and his career and attacking the views
and practices of his opponents. In his ninety-eighth year (338) he starved himself
to death.
Educational Philosophy
Isocrates considered himself a teacher of philosophia but his concept
of ?philosophy? differed considerably from Plato's and resembled rather what we
call ?practical? or ?applied philosophy? (as when philosophy professors today
teach courses in ?business ethics? or ?contemporary moral issues?- usually abortion
and the like). Philosophy, for Isocrates, helped people understand political and
ethical issues more clearly, while rhetoric helped them express their views clearly
and persuasively to others. Isocrates was not interested in the abstract metaphysics
and his moral views were less rigorously absolute than Plato's; moreover, a degree
of relativism underlies his belief that rhetoric should concern itself with what
is appropriate (prepon) and comes at the right time (kairos). But like Plato Isocrates
attacks ?sophists? (whom he sees as rivals) for having no moral values, and he
affirms his own belief in rather traditional moral values, arguing that it is
the job of rhetoric to express these. Novelty is important in the expression of
one's views but not in the views themselves.
Style
Isocrates is also known for a characteristic style involving long
complex periodic sentences full of balanced, often antithetical subordinate clauses,
reinforced by Gorgianic types of assonance. The effect of individual sentences
is striking, and their underlying structures can profitably be analyzed, and indeed
have been analyzed by generations of students of Greek prose style. The effect
of this style over dozens, and sometimes hundreds, of pages is considerably less
pleasing. Unlike Demosthenes, he does not have the ability to mix different styles
and he is thus best read in small doses.
Significance
As noted above, Isocrates? significance lies primarily in his influence on later generations, who for centuries were guided by his model of education grounded in rhetoric. Since this model has little influence today, Isocrates is little read, but for the historian of rhetoric or especially of education, he cannot be ignored.
- Blass, Friedrich, Die attische Beredsamkeit, 3nd ed. vol. 2. Leipzig 1892.
- Jebb, R. C. The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeus, vol. 2. London 1893.
- Kennedy, George, The Art of Persuasion in Greece. Princeton 1963.
- Kennedy, George, ?Oratory? in The Cambridge History of Classical Literature
I: Greek Literature. Ed. by P. E. Easterling and B. M. W. Knox (Cambridge 1985),
pp. 498-526.
- Marrou, H. I. A History of Education in Antiquity. London 1956.
- Usher, S. Greek Orators III: Isocrates. Warminster 1990.
- Usher, S. ?The Style of Isocrates,? BICS 20 (1973) 39-67.
statue of: Paus. 1.18.8
his repute: Paus. 1.18.8
voluntary death: 1.18.8
Isocrates (Isokrates). A celebrated Attic orator and rhetorician, was the son
of Theodorus, and born at Athens in B. C. 436. Theodorus was a man of considerable
wealth, and had a manufacture of flutes or musical instruments, for which the
son was often ridiculed by the comic poets of the time; but the father made good
use of his property, in procuring for the young Isocrates the best education that
could be obtained : the most celebrated sophists are mentioned among his teachers,
such as Tisias, Gorgias, Prodicus, and also Socrates and Theramenes (Dionys. Isocrat.
1; Plut. Vit. X. Orat.; Suidas, s. v. Isokrates; Phot. Bibl. Cod. 260). Isocrates
was naturally timid, and of a weakly constitution, for which reasons he abstained
from taking any direct part in the political affairs of his country, and resolved
to contribute towards the development of eloquence by teaching and writing, and
thus to guide others in the path for which his own constitution unfitted him.
According to some accounts, he devoted himself to the teaching of rhetoric for
the purpose of ameliorating his circumstances, since he had lost his paternal
inheritance in the war against the Lacedaemonians (Plut. l. c.; Phot. Bibl. Cod.
l. c. 176; Isocrat. de Permut. 172). He first established a school of rhetoric
in the island of Chios, but his success does not appear to have been very great,
for he is said to have had only nine pupils there. He is stated, however, to have
exerted himself in another direction, and to have regulated the political constitution
of Chios, after the model of that of Athens. After this he returned to Athens,
and there opened a school of rhetoric. He met with the greatest applause, and
the number of his pupils soon increased to 100, every one of whom paid him 1000
drachmae. In addition to this, he made a large income by writing orations ; thus
Plutarch relates that Nicocles, king of Cyprus, gave Isocrates twenty talents
for the oration pros Nikoklea. In this manner he gradually acquired a considerable
property, and he was several times called upon to undertake the expensive trierarchy;
this happened first in B. C. 355, but being ill, he excused himself through his
son Aphareus. In 352 he was called upon again, and in order to silence the calumnies
of his enemies, he performed it in the most splendid manner. The oration peri
antidoseos pros Lusimachon refers to that event, though it was written after it.
In his earlier years Isocrates lived in the company of Athenian hetaerae (Plut.
l. c.; Athen. xiii.), but at a later period he married Plathane, the widow of
the sophist Hippias, whose youngest son, Aphareus, he adopted. Isocrates has the
great merit of being the first who clearly saw the great value and objects of
oratory, in its practical application to public life and the affairs of the state.
At the same time, he endeavoured to base public oratory upon sound moral principles,
and thus to rescue it from the influence of the sophists, who used and abused
it for any and every purpose; for Isocrates, although educated by the most eminent
sophists, was the avowed enemy of all sophistry. He was, however, not altogether
free from their influence; and what is most conspicuous in his political discourses
is the absence of all practical knowledge of real political life, so that his
fine theories, though they were unquestionably well meant, bear a strong resemblance
to the visions of an enthusiast. The influence which he exercised on his country
by his oratory must have been limited, since his exertions were confined to his
school, but through his school he had the greatest possible influence upon the
development of public oratory; for the most eminent statesmen, philosophers, orators,
and historians of the time, were trained in it, and afterwards developed each
in his particular way the principles they had imbibed in his school. No ancient
rhetorician had so many disciples that afterwards shed lustre on their country
as Isocrates. If we set aside the question as to whether the political views he
entertained were practicable or wise, it must be owned that he was a sincere lover
of his native land, and that the greatness and glory of Athens were the great
objects for which he was labouring; and hence, when the battle of Chaeroneia had
destroyed the last hopes of freedom and independence, Isocrates made away with
himself, unable to survive the downfal of his country, B. C. 338 (Plut.; Dionys.
Photius, ll. cc.; Philostr. Vit. Soph. i. 17).
The Alexandrian critics assigned to Isocrates the fourth place in
the canon of Greek orators, and the great esteem in which his orations were held
by the ancient grammarians is attested by the numerous commentaries that were
written upon them by Philonicus, Hieronymus of Rhodes, Cleochares, Didymus, and
others. Hermippus even treated in a separate work on the pupils of Isocrates;
but all these works are lost, with the exception of the criticism by Dionysius
of Halicarnassus. The language of Isocrates is the purest and most refined Attic
dialect, and thus forms a great contrast with the natural simplicity of Lysias,
as well as with the sublime power of Demosthenes. His artificial style is more
elegant than graceful, and more ostentatious than pleasing; the carefully-rounded
periods, the frequent application of figurative expressions, are features which
remind us of the sophists ; and although his sentences flow very melodiously,
yet they become wearisome and monotonous by the perpetual occurrence of the same
over-refined periods, which are not relieved by being interspersed with shorter
and easier sentences. In saying this, we must remember that Isocrates wrote his
orations to be read, and not with a view to their recitation before the public.
The immense care he bestowed upon the composition of his orations, and the time
he spent in working them out and polishing them, may be inferred from the statement,
that he was engaged for a period of ten, and according to others, of fifteen years,
upon his Panegyric oration (Quintil. x. 4. 4). It is owing to this very care and
labour that in the arrangement and treatment of his subject, Isocrates is far
superior to Lysias and other orators of the time, and that the number of orations
he wrote is comparatively small.
There were in antiquity sixty orations which went by the name of Isocrates,
but Caecilius, a rhetorician of the time of Augustus, recognised only twenty-eight
of them as genuine (Plut. l. c.; Phot. Bibl. Cod. 260), and of these only twentyone
have come down to us. Eight of them were written for judicial purposes in civil
cases, and intended to serve as models for this species of oratory ; all the others'are
political discourses or show speeches, intended to be read by a large public :
they are particularly characterised by the ethical element on which his political
views are based. Besides these entire orations, we have the titles and fragments
of twenty-seven other orations, which are referred to under the name of Isocrates.
There also exist under his name ten letters, which were written to friends on
political questions of the time; one of them, however (the tenth), is in all probability
spurious. A scientific manual of rhetoric (techne rhetortke) which Isocrates wrote
is lost, with the exception of a few fragments, so that we are unable to form
any definite idea of his merits in this respect.
The orations of Isocrates are printed in the various collections of the Greek
orators. The first separate edition is that of Demetrius Chalcocondylas (Milan,
1493), which was followed by numerous others, which, however, are mainly based
upon the edition of Aldus (e. g. those published at Hagenau, 1533, 8vo.; Venice,
1542, 1544, 1549, 8vo.; Basel, 1546, 1550, 1555, 1561, 8vo.). A better edition
is that of H. Wolf (Basel, 1.553, 8vo.), and with Wolf's notes and emendations,
Basel, 1570, fol., the text of which was often reprinted. Some improvements were
made in the edition of H. Stephens (1593, fol., reprinted in 1604, 1642, 1651,
8vo., in London 1615, 8vo, and at Cambridge 1686, 8vo.). The edition of A. Auger
(Paris, 1782, 3 vols. 3vo.) is not what it might have been, considering the MSS.
he had at his disposal. The best modern editions are those of W. Lange (Halle,
1803, 8vo.), Ad. Coraes (Paris, 1807, 2 vols. 8vo.), G. S. Dobson (London, 1828,
2 vols. 8vo., with a Latin transl., copious notes and scholia), and Baiter and
Sauppe (Zurich, 1839, 2 vols. 12mo.). There are also many good editions of separate
orations and of select orations, for which the reader must be referred to bibliographical
works (Hoffmann, Lexicon Bibliogr. vol. ii. p. 615, &c.) A useful Index Graecitatis
was published by Th. Mitchell, Oxford, 1827, 8vo. (Comp. Westermann, Gesch. der
Griech. Beredts. §§ 48, 49, and Beilage iv. pp. 288--293; Leloup, Commentatio
de Isocrate, Bonn, 1823, 8vo.; J. G. Pfund, de Isocratis Vita et Scriptis, Berlin,
1833.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
(Isocrates,
by J.F.Dobson, The Greek Orators, London, 1919)
Life
Isocrates was born in 436 B.C., and lived to the remarkable age
of ninety-seven in full possession of his faculties. His childhood and youth
were passed amid the horrors of the Peloponnesian
War; he was already of age when the failure of the Sicilian
expedition turned the scale against Athens.
In mature manhood he saw the ruin of his city by the capitulation to Lysander.
He lived through the Spartan supremacy, saw the foundation of the new Athenian
League in 378 B.C., and the rise and fall of the power of Thebes. At the time
when Philip obtained the throne of Macedon
he was already, by ordinary reckoning, an old man, but the laws of mortality
were suspended in the case of this Athenian Nestor. Some of his most important
works were composed after his eightieth year; the Philippus, which
he wrote at the age of ninety, shows no diminution of his powers; he produced
one of his longest works, the Panathenaicus, in his ninety-seventh
year, and lived to congratulate Philip on his victory at Chaeronea
in 338 B.C.
In a life of such extent and such remarkable variety of experience
we should expect to find many changes of outlook and modifications, from time
to time, of earlier views. But Isocrates was a man of singularly fixed ideas.
With regard to education, he formulated in the discourse against the Sophists
(391 B.C.) views which are practically identical with what he expressed nearly
forty years later in the Antidosis,
(see also Antidosis)
views which he maintains in his last work of all, the Panathenaicus (339 B.C.).
With regard to Greek politics, he held till the close of his life the opinions
propounded in the Panegyricus of 380 B.C. His aims were unchanged,
though of necessity he modified the means by which he hoped to carry them out.
We have little information about the orator's early life. He tells
us himself that his patrimony was dissipated by the Peloponnesian War (Antid.,
§ 161), so that he was forced to adopt a profession to make a living.
The story contained in the 'Life,' that he endeavoured to save Theramenes
when condemned by the Thirty, has no other authority but the Pseudo-Plutarch.
It appears from Plato's Phaedrus (pp. 278-9) that he was intimate with Socrates,
that Socrates had a high opinion of him, and considered that the young man might
distinguish himself either in oratory or in philosophy. Tradition names the
Sophists Prodicus, Protagoras, and Gorgias among his early teachers. He is believed
to have visited Gorgias in Thessaly.
Plutarch asserts that Isocrates at one time opened a school of rhetoric,
with nine pupils, in Chios;
and that while there he interfered in politics and helped to institute a democracy.
The story may be accepted with reservations. Isocrates himself never refers
to it, and in Ep.
vi. § 2 (to the children of Jason) excuses himself from visiting Thessaly
on the ground that people would comment unfavourably on a man who had 'kept
quiet' all his life if he began travelling in his old age. Jebb assumes a short
stay in Chios in 404-403 B.C.
Between 403 and 393 B.C. Isocrates composed a certain number of
speeches for the law-courts, in which, however, he never appeared as a pleader,
for natural disabilities--lack of voice and nervousness, to which he refers
with regret--made him unfitted for such work.
About 392 B.C. he opened a school at Athens, and in 391 B.C. published,
in the discourse Against the Sophists, his views on education. His
pupils were mostly Athenians, many of them afterwards being men of distinction
(Antid.,
§§ 159 sqq.).
It was probably between 378 and 376 B.C. that Isocrates went on
several voyages with Conon's son, Timotheus, who was engaged in organizing the
new maritime league. From this time down to 351 B.C. he had many distinguished
pupils from far countries-- Sicily
and Pontus as well as all
parts of Greece--and amassed,
as he tells us, a reasonable competence, though not a large fortune.
In the year 351 B.C., when a great contest of eloquence was held
by Artemisia, widow of Mausolus of Caria,
in honour of her husband, it is reported that all the competitors were pupils
of Isocrates.
In the last period of his life, 351-338 B.C., Isocrates still continued
to teach, and was also busily occupied in writing. He published the Philippus,
which is one of his most important works, and one of the greatest in historical
interest, in 346 B.C.; in 342 B.C. he began the lengthy Panathenaicus,
which he had half finished when he was attacked by an illness, which made the
work drag on for three years. It was finished in 339 B.C. In the following year,
a few days after the battle of Chaeronea, he died. A report was current in antiquity
that he committed suicide, by starving himself, in consequence of the news of
this downfall of Greek liberty; the story is quite incredible when we consider
that the result of the battle gave a possibility of the fulfilment of the hopes
which Isocrates had been cherishing for half his life, the end to which he had
been labouring for over forty years--the concentration of all power into the
hands of one man, who might redeem Greece by giving her union and leading her
to conquest in the East.
His last letter, in fact, written after the battle of Chaeronea,
congratulates Philip on his victory; and even if this letter is spurious, the
probability, to judge from the tone of his earlier works, is that he would have
hailed the Macedonian success as a victory for his imperial ideas.
Style
Though Isocrates composed, in his youth, a few forensic speeches,
it is not by such compositions that he must be judged; indeed he himself, far
from claiming credit for his activity in that direction, in later life adopted
an apologetic tone when speaking of his earlier work. As a teacher of rhetoric
he won great renown, numbering, as he boasts, even kings among his pupils; and
he had a complete mastery of all the technique of the rhetorical art.
He was also a master of style, having theories of composition which
he exemplified in practice with such skill that he must occupy a prominent place
in any treatise on the development of Greek prose.
But his highest claim to consideration is as a
political thinker. His bold and startling theories of Greek politics
were expressed indeed in finished prose, and in rhetorical shape; but the artistic
form is only an added ornament; if Isocrates had written in the baldest style
he must have made a name by his treatises on political science, and by the fact
that he took a broader and more liberal view of Hellenism than any Athenian
before or after. Thus he, who perhaps never delivered a public speech, is of
more importance than any of the other orators; and though no politician in the
narrow sense, he exerted a wider influence than any, not excepting Demosthenes,
who devoted their lives to political activity, for he originated and promulgated
ideas which completely changed the course of Greek civilization. It was probably
he who was the first to instigate Philip to attempt the conquest of Asia, as
he had before urged Dionysius and others to make the attempt--all for the sake
of the union of Greek States and the spread of Hellenism; certainly
he encouraged the Macedonian in his project, and perhaps it may be said to be
due to him that on Philip's death Alexander found the way prepared.
Isocrates could not fully foresee the results of Alexander's conquests;
Alexander himself modified and expanded his ambitions as he advanced; but undoubtedly
Isocrates urged the general desirability of the undertaking and saw clearly,
up to a certain point, the lines on which it ought to be carried out. The petty
law-suits which occupied Lysias and Andocides seem trivial and unimportant,
even the patriotic utterances of Demosthenes seem of secondary weight, compared
with these literary harangues of Isocrates, in cases where civilization and
barbarism, unity and discord, are the litigants, and the court is the world.
Isocrates is named by Dionysius as an example of the smooth (or florid) style
of composition, which resembles closely woven stuffs, or pictures in which the
lights melt insensibly into the shadows (de Comp. Verb., ch. xxiii).
It is clear that to aim consciously at producing such effects as
these is to exalt mere expression to supreme heights, and to risk the loss of
clearness and emphasis. We may gather the opinions of Isocrates on the structure
of prose partly from his own statements, partly from the criticisms of Dionysius,
and partly from a study of his compositions. The subject has been very fully
and carefully dealt with by Blass, and in the present work only a summary of
the chief results can be attempted.
The most noticeable feature of the style is the care taken to avoid
hiatus. This is particularly remarked by Dionysius, who, after quoting from
the Areopagiticus a long passage which he particularly admires, notes,
'You cannot find any dissonance of vowels, at any rate in the passage which
I have quoted, nor any, I think, in the whole speech, unless some instance has
escaped my observation.'
We should expect to find that, to produce this effect, it was necessary
to depart frequently from natural forms of expression, either by changing the
usual order, or by inserting unnecessary words. It is probable that Isocrates
resorted to both these devices; but such is the skill with which he handles
his materials that careful reading is necessary to detect the distortions.
Dionysius further notes that dissonance or clashing of consonants
is rare, and herein Isocrates seems to have been at pains to follow the rules
of euphony laid down in his own Techne. In a fragment preserved by Hermogenes
he tells his readers to avoid the repetition of the same syllable in consecutive
words--as helika kala, entha Thales. The ingenuity of Blass has discovered passages
in which the natural form of a phrase has been altered to avoid such juxtaposition
of similar syllables. Certain combinations of consonants, too, are hard to pronounce,
and must therefore be avoided. There is, in truth, much justice in the remark
of Dionysius that in reading Isocrates it is not the separate words but the
sentence as a whole that we must take into account.
The third characteristic of Isocrates' style is his attention to
rhythm.
The extravagance of Gorgias had hindered the development of the language by
introducing into prose the rhythms and language of poetry; Thrasymachus, as
we know from Aristotle's Rhetoric, had studied the effect of the foot
'paeonius' (-uuu or uuu-) at the beginning and end of periods (Rhet.,
Book iii. 8. 4). Isocrates, while deprecating the use of poetical metres
in any strict sense, asserted that oratorical prose should have rhythms of its
own, and favoured combinations of the trochee and the iambus. In this he differed
from Aristotle, who disapproved of the iambic rhythm as being too similar to
the natural course of ordinary speech, and of the trochaic, as being too light
and tripping--in contrast to the hexameter, which he classed as too solemn for
spoken language.
The periods of Isocrates are remarkable for their elaboration. The
analyses of Blass show us a complication of structure in some of the longer
sentences which may almost be compared to that of a Pindaric ode. Never, perhaps,
has there been a writer who attained such luxuriant complexity in his composition
of sentences. But Isocrates is too much the slave of his own virtues; his periods
are so long, so complete, so uniformly artistic, that their everlasting procession
is monotonous. Lysias, less perfect in form, has in consequence more variety;
Demosthenes, who could compose long periods, did not confine himself to them,
but enlivened his style by contrast.
The structure of the period lends itself naturally to antithetical
forms of expression. We observed in Antiphon the frequency of verbal antitheses
of various kinds--the logoi and ergoi, the men and de, and others. Isocrates,
having before him the examples of his predecessors and the precepts of rhetoricians,
and having theories of his own on sentence-construction, developed very fully
a scheme of parallelism in word, sense, and sound.
Thus a period will consist, as we have seen, of a succession of
kola or limbs, each one corresponding to another in size, and pairs of corresponding
kola will contain pairs of words parallel in sense, form or sound. So the whole
period is bound closely together.
Vocabulary. Schemata
His vocabulary avoids excess; he is, in the judgment of Dionysius,
the purest of Atticists, with the exception of Lysias. But if we compare the
two we find much more tendency to fine writing in Isocrates. Using ordinary
words he can produce notable effects, and he is always consciously striving
after a certain pomposity of diction. This is most noticeable in the exhibition-writings,
such as the Helen and Busiris, where grandiloquent compound
words are not infrequent, and metaphors are commoner and more striking than
in the speeches on real subjects.
One of his affectations, copied by nearly all subsequent orators,
is the unnecessary piling up of words almost synonymous to express one idea.
On the other hand we sometimes find synonyms apparently contrasted in different
parts of the sentence; such contrast is only verbal, and is made for the purpose
of rounding the period; in either case we must note that the writer departs
from simplicity in order to improve the sound of his words, but does not add
much to the sense.
Another characteristic is the use of the plural of abstract nouns,
in much the same sense as the singular. All these details--the partiality for
compounds, for the accumulation of synonyms and for the use of the plural instead
of the singular, may be classed together under the head of exaggerations of
expression, and recorded as characteristics of the epideictic style.
In general, the tone is heightened, and Isocrates tends to appear
florid when compared with Lysias; if, on the other hand, we take Gorgias as
a standard, we see how far Isocrates, who undoubtedly imitated the Sicilian
style, has surpassed his model in the direction of refinement.
On education
Prevented by natural disabilities from exercising his talents in
public, but urged on by the necessity of earning a living, since the Peloponnesian
War had dissipated his fortune, Isocrates turned to a profession for which he
was well fitted, that of an educator. During many years he was, like Gorgias,
a teacher of rhetoric, and like Gorgias he may be classed as a Sophist. This
title is misleading. In itself it means nothing more than an educator, or teacher
of wisdom, and early writers use it in a laudatory sense; Herodotus applies
it to the Seven Sages. In the fourth century it was debased, partly by the comic
poets, as representing the popular habit of sneering at anything which the mob
cannot understand, but more honestly and systematically by Plato, who, though
he admitted that some of the Sophists, such as Protagoras, were men worthy of
the highest respect, took many opportunities of disparaging Sophists as a class,
and Sophistry as a profession.
There can be no doubt that he was quite sincere, for he takes great
pains to bring out the distinction between the educators and his own master
Socrates, whom Aristophanes had already marked as one of the crowd (Clouds,
passim).
To us it seems that the marked distinction cannot be maintained;
apart from Socrates' peculiarity of refusing to take fees from his pupils, he
is distinguished only by possessing a higher moral tone than the rest of the
Sophists. Like them he was a sceptic as far as philosophy was concerned, and
like them he was an educator.
We have, however, accepted the word at the value which Plato chose
to put upon it; but we must not suppose that this was the value at which it
was usually current. This is clear from the fact that Isocrates can use the
word without any idea of disparagement.
Though he wrote a speech Against the Sophists, it is directed
not against the profession as a whole, but against certain classes, whom he
calls the agelaioi sophistai--'Sophists of the baser sort.'
Isocrates' earliest work on education, the speech or tract Against
the Sophists (Or.
xiii.), dates from the beginning of his professional career, perhaps about
the year 390 B.C. We possess only part, perhaps less than half, of the speech.
What remains is purely destructive criticism which, as is clear from the concluding
words, was meant to lead up to an exposition of the writer's own principles
and theory. The loss is to be regretted, but is not irreparable, since the speech
On the Antidosis, composed thirty-five years later, supplements it
by a full constructive statement.
The introduction on the Sophists is sweeping in its severity:
He proceeds to criticize various classes:If all our professional educators would be content to tell the truth and not promise more than they ever intend to perform, they would not have a bad reputation among laymen. As it is, their reckless effrontery has encouraged the opinion that a life of incurious idleness is better than one devoted to philosophy.
The general tone of this censure recalls the attacks of the Platonic Socrates on the 'eristic' Sophists; but it is certain that the 'eristics,' whom Isocrates here attacks, are some of the lesser Socratics. This is made obvious by the reference in § 3 to the knowledge (episteme) which, according to these teachers, will lead to right conduct or virtue, and so to happiness. The Socratic view that knowledge is the basis of virtue, and virtue of happiness, is well known. Socrates himself did not profess to teach virtue for a fee; but the Megarians, the followers of his pupil Euclides, did, and at them the sarcasm of Isocrates seems to be directed. Elsewhere, indeed, Isocrates refers definitely to the Platonic school as belonging to the eristic class.We cannot help hating and despising the professors of contentious argument (eristic), who, while claiming to seek for Truth, introduce falsehood at the very beginning of their pretensions. They profess in a way to read the future, a power which Homer denied even to the gods; for they prophesy for their pupils a full knowledge of right conduct, and promise them happiness in consequence. This invaluable commodity they offer for sale at the ridiculous price of three or four minae. They affect, indeed, to despise money--mere dross of silver or gold as they call it-- yet, for the sake of this small profit they will raise their pupils almost to a level with the immortals. They profess to teach all virtue; but it is notable that pupils, before they are admitted to the course, have to give security for the payment of their fees.
Here again Isocrates, who himself composed an 'Art' of rhetoric, does not condemn all who may try to teach the subject; his complaint is that the majority of such teachers have confined themselves to the ignoble branch of the profession. This criticism is obviously a valid one, and is echoed by Aristotle, who declares that speaking before a public assembly is less knavish (kakourgon) than speaking in a law-court (Rhet., i. 1. 10).They profess to teach litigation, choosing for themselves this offensive title which would be more appropriate in the mouths of their detractors. They are worse than those who wallow in the mire of "eristic," for they at least pretend to be concerned with virtue and moderation, while those whom we are considering now undertake only to teach men to be busy-bodies from motives of base covetousness. (§§ 19 sqq).
These two treatises taken together, and supplemented by a few passages from other speeches, give us a fair idea of Isocrates' system. His 'Philosophy' is to be distinguished from all merely theoretical speculation, such as the physical theories of the Ionians, or the logic of Parmenides; from 'eristic'--the art of arguing for argument's sake--from geometry and astronomy; from literary work which has no practical use; from the rhetoric of the law-courts. Boys at school may profitably study grammar and poetry; at a later age the applied mathematics, and even 'eristic,' are good mental training; but it must be recognized that they are only a preparation for the Isocratean 'philosophy,' which is for the soul what gymnastic is for the body.The gymnastic trainer teaches his pupils first to perform the separate movements, then to combine them. The educator follows the same order, and both insist on long and diligent practice; but the trainer of the body cannot always make a man an athlete, nor can the trainer of the mind make everybody an orator. There are three essentials requisite for success--natural aptitude, proper teaching, and long practice; and moreover there must be a will on the part of both teacher and pupil to persevere. The natural ability is by far the most important element. Training, however complete, may break down utterly if the speaker lacks nerve.
Some people expect a marked improvement after a few days of study with a Sophist, and demand a complete training in a year. This is ridiculous; no class of education could produce such results; and there is no need to disparage us as a class because we cannot do more than we profess. We cannot make all men orators, but we can give them culture.
Others assert that our philosophy has an immoral tendency. I shall not defend all who claim to be educators, but only those who have a right to the name. We have nothing to gain by making men immoral; on the contrary the greatest satisfaction for a Sophist is that his pupils should become wise and honourable men, respected by their fellows. Our pupils come from Sicily, from Pontus, and from other distant regions; do they come so far to be instructed in wickedness? Surely not; they could find plenty of teaching at home. They incur the trouble and expense because they think that Athens can give them the best education in the world.
Again, power in debate is not in itself a demoralizing thing. The greatest statesmen of this and earlier generations studied and practised oratory--Solon, who was called one of the Seven Sophists, Themistocles, Pericles. You blame the Thebans for lacking culture; why blame us who try to impart it? Athens honours with a yearly sacrifice the Goddess Persuasion; our enemies attack us for seeking the faculty which this goddess personifies.
We are even attacked by the "Eristics": far from retorting, I am ready to admit that there is good to be got even from eristic disputation, from astronomy, and from geometry: they are useful as a preliminary to higher studies.
My own view of philosophy is a simple one. It is impossible to attain absolute knowledge of what we ought or ought not to do; but the wise man is he who can make a successful guess as a general rule, and philosophers are those who study to attain this practical wisdom. There is not, and never has been, a science which could impart justice and virtue to those who are not by nature inclined towards these qualities; but a man who is desirous of speaking or writing well, and of persuading others, will incidentally become more just and virtuous, for it is character that tells more than anything.
Thoughtful speaking leads to careful action. Your superior culture raises you above the rest of Greece, just as mankind is superior to the lower animals and Greeks to barbarians: do not, then, punish those who would give you this culture. Antid., Summary of §§ 181-303.
A summary of a few extracts will indicate the tenor of the speech.I decided (he writes) to broach the subject to you, not as a special compliment, though I should be glad if my words could find favour with you, but from the following motive. I saw that all other men of distinction have to obey their cities and their laws, and may do nothing beyond what they are told; and moreover none of them are capable of dealing with the matter I now intend to discuss.
You alone have had given you by fortune a full authority to send embassies to whom you will, and receive them from where you choose, and to say whatever you think expedient. Besides, you possess wealth and power beyond any other Greek--the two things which are the most potent either to persuade or to compel: and you will find persuasion useful for the Greeks and compulsion for the barbarians. Ibid. (Or. v.), §§ 14-17.
It may be said that Isocrates overrated the purity of Philip's motives. On the other hand, it may be conceived that Philip would have greatly preferred to march to Asia as the general of a Greek force willingly united. He, whom Isocrates reckons as a Greek of royal or semi-divine descent, whom Demosthenes stigmatized as a barbarian of the lowest type, had much more of the Greek than the barbarian in his nature. To Athens at least he always showed extraordinary clemency, treating her with a respect far beyond her merits, and honouring her for her ancient greatness. He did all that was possible to conciliate her, and this policy he handed on to his son. But he could not start for the East, leaving so many irreconcilable enemies behind him; and the refusal of the States to accept his hegemony made Chaeronea inevitable.'It is your duty to try to reconcile the four great cities --Argos, Sparta, Thebes, and Athens; bring these four to their right mind, and you will have no difficulty with the rest, which all depend on them (§§ 30-31). Your ancestors are Argive by descent, and these cities should never have been at enmity with you or each other. All must make allowances, as all have been at fault (§§ 33-38). If Athens or Sparta were now, as once, predominant, nothing could be done; but all the great cities are now practically on a level. No enmities are so deep-seated that they cannot be overcome: Athens has at different times been allied with both Thebes and Sparta. Sparta, Argos, and Thebes all desire peace; Athens has come to her senses before the others, and already made peace. She will be ready to give you her active sympathy' (§§ 39-56).
'History provides many instances of men who, with few advantages, even with disabilities, have achieved great tasks: you, with all your resources, should find the present task easy' (§§ 57-67).
'Success in such a cause would be magnificent; even failure would be noble: your slanderers impute to you the design of subjugating Greece; you will convince them of their error' (§§ 68-80).
'So much for your duty to Greece; now turn to the conquest of Asia. Agesilaus failed because he stirred up political animosities.'
'The Greeks under Cyrus defeated the Persian army, and though left leaderless they made good their retreat. All conditions are favourable for you. The Greeks of Asia were hostile to Cyrus, but will welcome you. The present King of Persia is less of a man than his predecessor, against whom Cyrus fought; and Persia is divided against itself. Cyprus, Cilicia, and Phoenicia, which provided the king with ships, will do so no longer' (§§ 83-104).
'You may aim at conquering the whole Persian Empire; failing of that you might win all that is west of a line drawn from Cilicia to Sinope. Even this would be an enormous advantage. You could found cities for the hordes of mercenaries who are driven by destitution to wander and prey upon the settled inhabitants--a growing menace to Greeks and Persians alike. You would thus render these nomads a great service, and at the same time establish them as a permanent guard of your own frontiers. If this proved too much for you, at the very least you could free the Greek cities of Asia. However great or little is your success, you will at least win great renown for having led a united expedition from all Greece' (§§ 119-126).
'No other state or individual will undertake the task; you are free from restrictions, as all Hellas is your native land. You will fight, I know, not for power or wealth, but for glory. Your mission, then, is this:--To be the benefactor of Greece, the king of Macedon, the governor of Asia' (§§ 127-155).
VI. Remaining works
The general contents of the Panegyricus
have already been discussed, but only a careful study of the speech will reveal
the skill with which one topic is made to lead up to another, the nice proportion
of the parts, and the adroitness displayed in gathering and binding together the
various threads of the argument. Numerous paragraphs which seem at first to be
almost digressions are found, when we take the speech as a whole, to be essential
to its unity, and though in its course a large number of topics is handled, the
main subject is never left out of view. The level of style is high throughout,
and no extracts can properly represent it. A short analysis may, however, serve
to indicate the coherence of the arguments:
'I am here to offer advice about the necessity of war with Persia and unity
among the Greeks. Others have handled the same theme, but the fact of
their failure renders any excuse for a fresh attempt superfluous, and the subject
admits of being treated better than it has been' (§§
1-14).
'My predecessors have missed an important point; that nothing can be done until
the leaders--Athens and Sparta --are reconciled, and persuaded to share the leadership.
'Sparta has accepted a false tradition, that leadership is hers by ancestral right.
I shall try to prove that the leadership really belongs to Athens; Sparta then
should consent to a joint command' (§§
15-20).
'Athens first possessed maritime empire, and her civilization is the oldest in
Greece (§§
21-25). Her claims to hegemony are as follows:
'A. (a) Tradition, which has never been refuted, records that
Athens first provided the necessities of life. Demeter taught in Attica
the cultivation of corn and instituted the Mysteries.
'(b) Athens undoubtedly led the way in colonization, thus enlarging the boundaries
of Greek land, and driving back the barbarians (§§
28-37).
'(c) Athens had the earliest laws, and the earliest constitution. She established
the Piraeus, the centre of
Greek trade. She provides in herself a perpetual festival, at which the arts are
encouraged. Practical philosophy and oratory are so highly honoured at Athens
that the name "Greek" is applied properly not by claim of blood but
by virtue of the possession of Athenian culture (§§
38-50).
'B. (a) From heroic times downwards Athens has shown herself
the helper of the oppressed. Even Sparta grew great through her support (§§
57-65).
'(b) Athens in the earliest times and in the Persian Wars distinguished herself
against the barbarians (§§
66-74).
'In old days the rivalries between opposite political parties and between Athens
and Sparta were noble ones, and the honourable competition of the two cities shamed
the other Greeks into taking arms against Xerxes. Athens, however, furnished more
ships than all the rest put together. Her claim to leadership, up to the end of
the Persian War, is therefore established' (§§
75-79).
'It is true that Athens treated her revolted allies-- Melos
and Scione--severely: rebels
must expect punishment. On the other hand, our loyal subjects enjoyed
for seventy years freedom from tyranny, immunity from barbarian attacks, settled
government, and peace with all the world' (§§
100-106).
'Sparta and her partisans inflicted more harm in a few months than Athens in the
whole duration of her empire' (§§
110-114).
'Our rule was preferable to the so-called "peace and independence" which
Sparta has given the cities. The seas are overrun by pirates, and more cities
are raided now than before the peace was made. Tyrants and harmosts make life
in the cities intolerable. The Great King, whom Athens confined within stated
limits, has raided the Peloponnese (§§
115-119); Sparta has abandoned the Ionians to slavery, and herself caused
devastation in Greece, and burdened the islanders with taxation. It is monstrous
that we Greeks, owing to our petty quarrels, should devastate our own country,
when we might reap a golden harvest from Asia' (§§
120-132).
'We have allowed the Great King to attain unheard of power--simply through our
quarrels, for he is not really strong.
'Numerous instances from history betray the inferiority of the Persian leaders
and organization. They have often been defeated on the coast of Asia; when they
invaded Greece we made an example of them; finally, they cut a ridiculous figure
before the walls of their own palaces' (§§
133-149).
'This is what we might expect from their manner of life; the mass of the people
are more fit to be slaves than soldiers; the nobles are by turns insolent and
servile, and being permanently corrupted by luxury they are weak and treacherous.
They deserve our hatred, and, in fact, our enmity can never be reconciled. One
of the reasons even of Homer's popularity is that he tells of a great war against
Asia' (§§
150-159).
'The time is favourable for attack; Phoenicia
and Syria are devastated;
Tyre is captured; Cilicia
is mostly in our favour; Egypt
and Cyprus are in revolt.
The Greeks are ready to rise; we must make haste, and not let the history of the
Ionic revolt repeat itself.
The present suffering in Greece passes all records, and for this the present generation
deserves some recompense--another reason for haste. The leading men in the cities
are callously indifferent, so we who stand outside politics must take the lead,
as I am doing' (§§
160-174).
'The treaty of Antalcidas need not stand in our way; it has been broken already
in spirit. We only observe the provisions which are to our own shame, i.e. those
by which our allies are given over to the Persians. It was never a fair covenant--we
submitted to terms dictated by the king.
'Honour and expediency alike demand that we should combine to undertake this war,
whose fame will be greater than that of the Trojan
war' (§§
175-189).
We may now consider the group of speeches which deals with the internal
affairs of Greece.
Plataicus (Or.
xiv.). Plataea, destroyed
in 427 B.C., was restored by Sparta in 386 B.C. as a menace to Thebes, but was
forced into the Boeotian
Confederacy in 376 B.C. In 373 B.C. it was surprised by a Theban army and again
destroyed. The inhabitants escaped to Athens, and their case was discussed in
the ecclesia, and also at the congress of allies. The present speech is professedly
delivered by a Plataean before the Athenian ecclesia. It consists chiefly of an
appeal to sentiment through history; the speaker recalls the ancient relations
of Plataea and Athens, and thence infers the present duty of Athens. The speech
is in a form suitable for delivery before the assembly, and may have been so delivered.
On the Peace (Or.
viii.), on the other hand, is a political treatise. It dates from 355 B.C.,
when the Social War was near its end. The main theme of the speech is the necessity
of peace between Athens and all the world, but the urging of this policy naturally
brings in a criticism of the war-party, and a severe indictment not only of present
politics but of the conditions of the old empire of Athens. The speech is remarkable
from the fact that for once Isocrates abandons his even and temperate language,
and allows indignation and even bitterness to give colour to his criticisms.
There is much truth in the invectives aimed at the old empire; Isocrates could see behind the glowing colours in which the glories of the Periclean age are sometimes painted, and equally with Demosthenes he realized, and did not shrink from noticing, the weakness of Athens in his own days. But his advice, though noble, is unpractical. He failed, in spite of his knowledge of history, to fathom the depth of Greek selfishness. No State that relied solely or chiefly on moral worth could have a voice in the council of Greece, far less dominiate its policy.'The acquisition of empire,' he says, 'over unwilling subjects, is both unjust and impolitic. Ambition is like the bait which entices a wild beast into a trap. Our administration is rotten; our citizens have lost faith in personal effort, and we employ mercenaries to fight our battles. Our politicians are our worst citizens, and we appoint as generals incompetent men who are not fitted for any position of trust. We hold our own, but only because our rivals are as weak as we are. The follies of our assembly win allies for Thebes; their follies in turn are our salvation. It would pay either State to bribe the assembly of the other to meet more often.
'Our hope lies in abandoning our empire; it is unjust, and moreover, we could not maintain it when we were rich, and now we are poor. The statesmen of imperial Athens did all that they could to make their city's policy unpopular. They displayed the tribute extorted from the allies, thus reminding all the world of their tyranny; and paraded the children of those who had fallen in wars in various parts of the world--the victims of national covetousness. Far different was the position of Athens under Themistocles and Aristides. National life is demoralized by Empire. The history of Sparta's supremacy is another case to the point. Pericles was a demagogue, and led the city on a disastrous career, but he at least enriched the treasury, not himself. Our modern demagogues are merely self-seeking, and their covetousness reduces not only the state but the citizens to penury.
'Peace, at the price I have indicated, is the only remedy. We must deliver Greece, not despoil her. Athens should hold among Greek States the position that the kings occupy in Sparta; they are not tyrants; they have a higher standard of conduct than any private person, and are held in such respect that any man who would not throw away his life for them in the field is reckoned meaner than a deserter.'
Antidosis. In its literal and general meaning, an exchange, was, in the language of the Attic courts, peculiarly applied to proceedings under a law which is said to have originated with Solon (Dem. c. Phaenipp. init.). It is natural, however, to refer the law to more democratic times; and the orators were in the habit of ascribing to Solon all laws, especially those which they happened to be quoting in a favourable sense. By this law, a citizen nominated to perform a leiturgia, such as a trierarchy or choregia, or to rank among the property-tax payers in a class disproportioned to his means, was empowered to call upon any qualified person not so charged to take the office in his stead, or submit to a complete exchange of property--the charge in question, of course, attaching to the first party, if the exchange were finally effected. For these proceedings the courts were opened at a stated time every year by the magistrates that had official cognisance of the particular subject; such as the strategi in cases of trierarchy and rating to the property-taxes, and the archon in those of choregia. (Dem. c. Phaenipp. p. 1040; Meier, Att. Process, p. 471; proskaleisthai tina eis antidosin, Lysias, Or. 24, pro Inval. § 10.) If the person challenged could prove that he had already discharged the leiturgia, or was otherwise lawfully exempted, the magistrates might dismiss the case: otherwise the parties proceeded to a diadikasia or legal award of their respective claims. Each litigant could now repair to the houses and lands of his antagonist, and secure himself, as all the claims and liabilities of the estate were to be transferred, from fraudulent encumbrances of the real property, by observing what mortgage placards (horoi), if any, were fixed upon it, and against clandestine removal of the other effects, by sealing up the chambers that contained them, and, if he pleased, by putting bailiffs in the house. (Dem. c. Phaenipp. pp. 1040, 1041.) An oath was taken by both parties that each would deliver to the other, within three days, a correct inventory (apophasis) of their respective properties (Dem. c. Phaenipp. p. 1042, § 11): but in practice the time might be extended by consent of the challenger. All immovable and movable property was transferred in the exchange, with the exception of mines, which were exempted from the extraordinary taxes and leiturgiae, as being already taxed: and all claims and obligations attached to it, and particularly all debts, were included in the transfer, as may be seen from the speech against Phaenippus. The notion of some of the older scholars, that actions not referring to property were also transferred from the one to the other, is justly pronounced by Bockh too absurd to be imputed to the Athenian law (Publ. Econ. p. 582, E. T.). The case of Demosthenes, who was challenged to an antidosis by Thrasylochus, in collusion with his guardians, at the moment when he was bringing his action against the latter to recover his property, and who performed the trierarchy rather than surrender his claims, is an instructive example of the operation of this law in real life. (Dem. c. Aphob. ii. pp. 840-1; c. Meid. pp. 539-40.) The speech of Isocrates on the Antidosis is a fiction based on a fact (Jebb, Att. Or. ii. 135).
This text is from: A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890) (eds. William Smith, LLD, William Wayte, G. E. Marindin). Cited August 2004 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Panegyricus (panegurikos). The name given among the Greeks to a speech delivered before a paneguris--that is, an assembly of the whole nation on the occasion of the celebration of a festival, such as the Panathenaea and the four great national games. This oration had reference to the feast itself, or was intended to inspire the assembled multitude with emulation by praising the great deeds of their ancestors, and also to urge them to unanimous co-operation against their common foes. The most famous compositions of this kind which have been preserved are the Panegyricus and Panathenaicus of Isocrates, neither of which, however, was actually delivered in public. In later times eulogies upon individuals were so named. This kind of composition was especially cultivated under the Roman Empire by Greeks and Romans. In Roman literature the most ancient example of this kind which remains is the eulogy of the emperor Trajan, delivered by the younger Pliny in the Senate, A.D. 100, thanking the emperor for conferring on him the consulate --a model which subsequent ages vainly endeavoured to imitate. It forms, together with eleven orations of Mamertinus, Eumenius, Nazarius, Pacatus Drepanius, and other unknown representatives of the Gallic school of rhetoric from the end of the third and the whole of the fourth centuries A.D., the extant collection of the Panegyrici Latini. Besides these we possess similar orations by Symmachus, Ausonius, and Eunodius. There are also a considerable number of poetical panegyrics--e. g. one upon Messala, composed in the year B.C. 31, and wrongly attributed to Tibullus; one by an unknown author of the Neronian time upon Calpurnius Piso; and others by Claudian, Sidonius Apollinaris, Merobaudes, Corippus, Priscian, and Venantius Fortunatus.
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited August 2004 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Editor’s Information: The e-texts of the works by Isocrates can be found in Greece (ancient country) under the category Ancient Greek Writings.
MARATHON (Ancient demos) ATTICA, EAST
Atticus Herodes, Tiberius Claudius. The most celebrated Greek rhetorician of the
second century of the Christian era, was born about A. D. 104, at Marathon in
Attica. He belonged to a very ancient family, which traced its origin to the fabulous
Aeacidae. His father, whose name was likewise Atticus, discovered on his estate
a hidden treasure, which at once made him one of the wealthiest men of his age.
His son Atticus Herodes afterwards increased this wealth by marrying the rich
Annia Regilla. Old Atticus left in his will a clause, according to which every
Athenian citizen was to receive yearly one mina out of his property; but his son
entered into a composition with the Athenians to pay them once for all five minas
each. As Atticus, however, in paving the Athenians, deducted the debts which some
citizens owed to his father, they were exasperated against him, and, notwithstanding
the great benefits he conferred upon Athens, bore him a grudge as long as he lived.
Atticus Herodes received a very careful education, and the most eminent
rhetoricians of tire time, such as Scopelianus, Favorinus, Secundus, and Polemon,
were among his teachers: he was instructed in the Platonic philosophy by Taurus
Tyrius, and in the critical study of eloquence by Theagenes of Cnidus and Munatius
of Tralles. After completing his studies, he opened a school of rhetoric at Athens,
and afterwards at Rome also, where Marcus Aurelius, who ever after entertained
a high esteem for him, was among his pupils. In A. D. 143 the emperor Antoninus
Pius raised him to the consulship, together with C. Bellicins Torquatus; but as
Atticus cared more for his fame as a rhetorician than for high offices, he afterwards
returned to Athens, whither he was followed by a great number of young men, and
whither L. Verus also was sent as his pupil by the emperor M. Aurelius. For a
time Atticus was entrusted with the administration of the free towns in Asia;
the exact period of his life when he held this office is not known, though it
is believed that it was A. D. 125 when he himself was little more than twenty
years of age. At a later time he performed the functions of high priest at the
festivals celebrated at Athens in honour of M. Aurelius and L. Verus. The wealth
and influence of Atticus Herodes did not fail to raise up enemies, among whom
Theodotus arid Demostratus made themselves most conspicuous. His public as well
as his private life was attacked in various ways, and numerous calumnies were
spread concerning him. Theodotus and Demostratus wrote speeches to irritate the
people against him, and to excite the emperor's suspicion respecting his conduct.
Atticus Herodes, therefore, found it necessary to travel to Sirmium, where M.
Aurelius was staying; he refuted the accusations of the Athenian deputies, and
only some of his freedmen were punished. These annoyances at last appear to have
induced him to retire from public life, and to spend his remaining years in his
villa Cephisia, near Marathon, surrounded by his pupils. The emperor M. Aurelius
sent him a letter, in which he assured him of his unaltered esteem. In the case
of Atticus Herodes the Athenians drew upon themselves the just charge of ingratitude,
for no man had ever done so much to assist his fellow-citizens and to embellish
Athens at his own expense. Among the great architectural works with which he adorned
the city, we may mention a race-course (stadium) of white Pentelic marble, of
which ruins are still extant; and the magnificent theatre of Regilla, with a roof
made of cedar-wood. His liberality, however, was not confined to Attica: at Corinth
he built a theatre, at Olympia an aqueduct, at Delphi a race-course, and at Thermopylae
a hospital. He further restored with his ample means several decayed towns in
Peloponnesus, Boeotia, Euboea, and Epeirus, provided the town of Canusium in Italy
with water, and built Triopium on the Appian road. It also deserves to be noticed,
that he intended to dig a canal across the isthmus of Corinth, but as the emperor
Nero had entertained the same plan without being able to execute it, Atticus gave
it up for fear of exciting jealousy and envy. His wealth, generosity, and still
more his skill as a rhetorician, spread his fame over the whole of the Roman world.
He is believed to have died at the age of 76, in A. D. 180.
If we look upon Atticus Herodes as a man, it must be owned that there
scarcely ever was a wealthy person who spent his property in a more generous,
noble, and disinterested manner. The Athenians appear to have felt at last their
own ingratitude; for, after his death, when his freedmen wanted to bury him, according
to his own request, at Marathon, the Athenians took away his body, and buried
it in the city, where the rhetorician Adrianus delivered the funeral oration over
it. Atticus's greatest ambition was to shine as a rhetorician; and this ambition
was indeed so strong, that on one occasion, in his early life, when he had delivered
an oration before the emperor Hadrian, who was then in Pannonia, he was on the
point of throwing himself into the Danube because his attempt at speaking had
been unsuccessful. This failure, however, appears to have proved a stimulus to
him, and he became the greatest rhetorician of his century. His success as a teacher
is sufficiently attested by the great number of his pupils, most of whom attained
some degree of eminence. His own orations, which were delivered extempore and
without preparation, are said to have excelled those of all his contemporaries
by the dignity, fullness, and elegance of the style. (Gell. i. 2, ix. 2, xix.
12.) Philostratus praises his oratory for its pleasing and harmonious flow, as
well as for its simplicity and power. The loss of the works of Atticus renders
it impossible for us to form an independent opinion, and even if they had come
down to us, it is doubtful whether we could judge of them as favourably as the
ancients did; for we know, that although he did not neglect the study of the best
Attic orators, yet he took Critias as his great model. Among his numerous works
the following only are specified by the ancients:
1. Dogoi autoschedioi, or speeches which he had delivered extempore.
2. Dialexeis, treatises or dialogues, one of which was probably the one mentioned
in the Etymologicum Magnum (s. v. arsen) peri gamou sumbioseos.
3. Ephemerides, or diaries.
4. Epistolai
All these works are now lost. There exists an oration peri politeias, in which
the Thebans are called upon to join the Peloponnesians in preparing for war against
Archelaus, king of Macedonia, and which has come down to us under the name of
Atticus Herodes. But the genuineness of this declamation is very doubtful; at
any rate it has very little of the character which the ancients attribute to the
oratory of Atticus. The " Defensio Palamedis," a declamation usually ascribed
to Gorgias the Sophist, has lately been attributed to Atticus Herodes by H. E.
Foss in his dissertation De Gorgia Leontino; but his arguments are not satisfactory.
The declamation peri politeias is printed in the collections of the Greek orators,
and also by R. Fiorillo in his Herodis Attici quae supersunt, admonitionibus illustr.,
Leipzig, 1801, 8vo., which work contains a good account of the life of Atticus
Herodes.
At the beginning of the sixteenth century, 1607, two small columns
with inscriptions, and two others of Pentelic marble with Greek inscriptions,
were discovered on the site of the ancient Triopium, the country seat of Atticus,
about three miles from Rome. The two former are not of much importance, but the
two latter are of considerable interest. They are written in hexameter verse,
the one consisting of thirty-nine and the other of fifty-nine lines. Some have
thought, that Atticus himself was the author of these versified inscriptions;
but at the head of one of them there appears the name Markellou), and, as the
style and diction of the other closely resemble that of the former, it has been
inferred, that both are the productions of Marcellus of Sida, a poet and physician
who lived in the reign of M. Aurelius. These inscriptions, which are known by
the name of the Triopian inscriptions, have often been printed and discussed,
as by Visconti (Insscrioni grecche Triopee, con version ed osservazioni, Rome,
1794, fol.), Fiorillo (l. c.), in Brunck's Analecta (ii. 302), and in the Greek
Anthology. (Append. 50 and 51, ed. Tauchnitz.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
PEANIA (Ancient demos) PEANIA
Demosthenes. A celebrated Athenian orator, a native of the deme
of Paeania, in the tribe Pandionis. His father, Demosthenes, was a citizen of
rank and opulence, and the proprietor of a manufactory of arms; not a common blacksmith,
as the language of Juvenal would lead us to believe. The son was born about B.C.
383, and lost his father at the early age of seven years, when he was left to
the care of his mother, Cleobule. The guardians to whom his father had intrusted
the administration of a large property proving faithless to their charge and wasting
a large portion of his patrimony, the orator's early studies were seriously hampered
by the want of sufficient means, to say nothing of the delicate state of his own
health. When Demosthenes was some sixteen years of age his curiosity was attracted
by a trial in which Callistratus pleaded and won a cause of considerable importance.
The eloquence which gained, and the applause which followed, his success so inflamed
the ambition of the young Athenian that he determined to devote himself thenceforward
to the assiduous study of oratory. He chose Isaeus as his master rather than Isocrates;
from Plato, also, he imbibed much of the richness and the grandeur which characterize
the writings of that philosopher. At the age of seventeen he appeared before the
courts and pronounced against his faithless guardians, and against a debtor to
his father's estate, five orations, which were crowned with complete success.
These discourses, in all probability, had received the finishing touch from Isaeus,
under whom Demosthenes continued to study for the space of four years after he
had reached his majority.
An opening so successful emboldened the young orator to speak
before the people in the assembly; but, when he made the attempt, his feeble and
stammering voice, his interrupted respiration, his ungraceful gestures, and his
ill-arranged periods, brought upon him general ridicule. Returning home in the
utmost distress, he was encouraged by the kindness of the actor Satyrus, who,
having requested Demosthenes to repeat some passage from a dramatic poet, pronounced
the same extract after him with so much correctness of enunciation and in a manner
so true to nature that it appeared to the young orator to be quite a different
passage. Convinced, thereupon, how much grace and persuasive power a proper enunciation
and manner add to the best oration, he resolved to correct the deficiencies of
his youth, and accomplished this with a zeal and perseverance which have passed
into a proverb. To free himself from stammering he spoke with pebbles in his mouth,
a story resting on the authority of Demetrius Phalereus, his contemporary. It
also appears that he was unable to articulate clearly the letter R; but he vanquished
that difficulty most perfectly, for Cicero says that he exercitatione fecisse
ut plenissime diceret. He removed the distortion of features which accompanied
his utterance by watching the movements of his countenance in a mirror; and a
naked sword was suspended over his left shoulder while he was declaiming in private,
to prevent its rising above the level of the right. That his enunciation might
be loud and full of emphasis he frequently ran up the steepest and most uneven
walks, an exercise by which his voice acquired both force and energy; and on the
sea-shore, when the waves were violently agitated, he declaimed aloud, to accustom
himself to the noise and tumult of a public assembly. He constructed a subterranean
study, where he would often stay for two or three months together, shaving one
side of his head, that in case he should wish to go abroad the shame of appearing
in that condition might keep him within. In this solitary retreat, by the light
of his lamp, he is said to have copied and recopied, ten times at least, the orations
scattered throughout the history of Thucydides, for the purpose of moulding his
own style after so pure a model.
Whatever may be the truth of these stories, Demosthenes got
credit for the most indefatigable labour in the acquisition of his art. His enemies,
at a subsequent period of his career, attempted to ridicule this extraordinary
industry, by remarking that all his arguments "smelled of the lamp,"
and they eagerly embraced the opportunity of denying him the possession of natural
talents. This criticism of Demosthenes seems to have rested chiefly on his known
reluctance to speak without preparation. The fact is, that though he could exert
the talent of extemporaneous speaking, he avoided rather than sought such occasions,
partly from deference to his audience and partly from apprehending the possibility
of a failure. Plutarch, however, who mentions this reluctance of the orator, speaks
at the same time of the great merit of his extemporaneous effusions.
Demosthenes reappeared in public at the age of twenty-five
years, and pronounced two orations against Leptines, the author of a law which
imposed on every citizen of Athens, except the descendants of Harmodius and Aristogiton,
the exercise of certain burdensome functions. The second of these discourses,
entitled "Of Immunities," is regarded as one of his happiest efforts.
After this, he became much engaged in the business of the bar, and these professional
labours, added to the scanty portion of his patrimony which he had recovered from
his guardians, appear to have formed his only means of support. But, whatever
may have been the distinction and the advantages which Demosthenes acquired by
his practice at the bar, his principal glory is derived from his political discourses.
At the period when he engaged in public affairs the State was a mere wreck. Public
spirit was at the lowest ebb; the laws had lost their authority; the austerity
of early manners had yielded to the inroads of luxury, activity to indolence,
and probity to venality. Of the virtues of their fathers there remained to the
Athenians little save an attachment, carried almost to enthusiasm, for their native
soil. On the slightest occasion this feeling of patriotism was sure to display
itself; and, thanks to this sentiment, the people of Athens were still capable
of making strenuous efforts for the preservation of their freedom. No one understood
better than Demosthenes the art of exciting and keeping alive this enthusiasm.
His penetration enabled him easily to divine the ambitious plans of Philip of
Macedon from the very outset of that monarch's operations, and he resolved to
counteract them. His whole public career, indeed, had but one object in view,
and that was war with Philip. For the space of fourteen years this monarch found
the Athenian orator continually in his path, and every attempt proved unavailing
to corrupt so formidable an adversary. These fourteen years, which immediately
preceded the fall of Grecian freedom, constitute the brightest period in the history
of Demosthenes. And yet his courage was political rather than military. At Chaeronea
(B.C. 338) he fled from the field of battle, though in the Athenian assembly no
private apprehensions could check his eloquence or influence his conduct. But,
though overpowered in the contest with the enemy of Athenian independence, he
received after his defeat the most honourable recompense which, in accordance
with Grecian customs, a grateful country could bestow. Athens decreed him a crown
of gold. The reward was opposed by Aeschines. The combat of eloquence which arose
between the two orators attracted to Athens an immense concourse of spectators.
Demosthenes triumphed, and his antagonist, not having received the fifth part
of the votes, was, in conformity with the existing law, compelled to retire into
exile. A short time after this splendid victory Demosthenes was condemned for
having suffered himself to be bribed by Harpalus, a Macedonian governor, who,
dreading the anger of Alexander, had come to Athens to hide there the fruit of
his extortion and rapine, and had bargained with the popular leaders of the day
for the protection of the Republic. Demosthenes, having escaped from imprisonment,
fled to Aegina (B.C. 324), whence he could behold the shores of his beloved country,
and earnestly and constantly protested his innocence. After the death of Alexander
he was restored, and his entry into Athens was marked by every demonstration of
joy. A new league was formed among the Grecian cities against the Macedonians,
and Demosthenes was the soul of it. But the confederacy was broken up by Antipater,
and the death of the orator was decreed. He retired, thereupon, from Athens to
the island of Calauria, off the coast of Argolis, and, being still pursued by
the satellites of Antipater, terminated his life there by poison, in the temple
of Poseidon, at the age of about sixty years, B.C. 322.
Before the time of Demosthenes there existed three distinct
styles of eloquence: that of Lysias, mild and persuasive, which quietly engaged
the attention and won the assent of an audience; that of Thucydides, bold and
animated, which awakened the feelings and powerfully forced conviction on the
mind; while that of Isocrates was, as it were, a combination of the two former.
Demosthenes can scarcely be said to have adopted any individual as a model, although
he bestowed so much untiring labour on the historian of the Peloponnesian War.
He rather culled all that was valuable from the various styles of his great predecessors,
working them up and blending them into one harmonious whole. In the general structure
of many of his sentences he resembles Thucydides, but is simpler and more perspicuous
and better calculated to be quickly comprehended by an audience. On the other
hand, his clearness in narration and his elegance and purity of diction remind
the reader of Lysias. But the argumentative parts of the speeches of Lysias are
often deficient in vigour; whereas earnestness, power, zeal, rapidity, and passion,
all exemplified in plain, unornamented language and a strain of close, business-like
reasoning, are the distinctive characteristics of Demosthenes. The general tone
of his oratory, indeed, was admirably adapted to an Athenian audience, constituted
as it was of those whose habits of life were mechanical, and of those whom ambition
or taste had led to the cultivation of literature. The former were captivated
by strong good sense, urged with masculine force and inextinguishable spirit,
and by the forcible application of plain truths; while there was enough of grace
and variety to please more learned and fastidious auditors. Another very remarkable
excellence of Demosthenes is the collocation of his words. The arrangement of
sentences in such a manner that their cadences should be harmonious, and to a
certain degree rhythmical, was a study much in vogue among the great masters of
Grecian composition. See Colon.
The question has often been raised as to the secret of the
success of Demosthenes. The universal approbation will appear the more extraordinary
to a reader who for the first time peruses the orations. They do not exhibit any
of that declamation on which loosely hangs the fame of so many aspirants to eloquence.
There appears no deep reflection to indicate a more than ordinary penetration,
or any philosophical remarks to prove the extent of his acquaintance with the
great moral writers of his country. He affects no learning; he aims at no elegance;
he seeks no glaring ornaments; he rarely touches the heart with a soft or melting
appeal, and when he does, it is only with an effect in which a third-rate speaker
would have surpassed him. He had no wit, no humour, no vivacity, in our acceptance
of these terms. The secret of his power is simple, for it lies essentially in
this, that his political principles were interwoven with his very spirit; they
were not assumed to serve an interested purpose, to be laid aside when he descended
from the bema and resumed when he sought to accomplish an object, but were deeply
seated in his heart and emanated from its profoundest depths. The more his country
was environed by dangers, the more steady was his resolution. Nothing ever impaired
the truth and integrity of his feelings or weakened his generous conviction. It
was his undeviating firmness, his disdain of all compromise, that made him the
first of statesmen and orators; in this lay the substance of his power, the primary
foundation of his superiority; the rest was merely secondary. The mystery of his
influence, then, lay in his honesty; and it is this that gave warmth and tone
to his feelings, energy to his language, and an impression to his manner before
which every imputation of insincerity must have immediately vanished. We may thus
perceive the meaning of Demosthenes himself, when, to one who asked him what was
the first requisite in an orator, he merely replied, "Delivery" (hupokrisis);
and when asked what were the second and third requisites, gave the same answer
as at first (Plut. Vit. X. Orat.). His meaning was this: a lifeless manner on
the part of a public speaker shows that his own feelings are not enlisted in the
cause which he is advocating, and it is idle for him, therefore, to seek to make
converts of others when he has failed in making one of himself. On the other hand,
when the tone of voice, the gesture, the look, the whole manner of the orator,
display the powerful feelings that agitate him, his emotion is communicated to
his hearers, and success is inevitable.
Of the orations we have sixty-one (half of them spurious),
and fifty-six Introductions, or prooimia demegorika. In confining ourselves to
the classification adopted by the ancient rhetori cians, we may arrange all these
discourses under one of three heads. (I.) Deliberative discourses (logoi sumbouleutikoi),
treating of political topics, and delivered either before the Senate or the assembly
of the people. (II.) Judicial speeches (logoi dikanikoi), having for their object
accusation or defence. (III.) Studied or set speeches (logoi epideiktikoi), intended
to censure or praise. Seventeen of the orations of Demosthenes
belong to the first of these classes, forty-two to the second, and two to the
third.
Of the seventeen discourses which compose the first class,
five treat of various subjects connected with the Republic, and twelve of the
quarrels between the State and Philip. Our limits allow an examination of only
a few of these that are most important in their character. Of the twelve harangues
that turn upon the quarrels of the Republic with Philip, the first was pronounced
in B.C. 351; the second, third, and fourth in B.C. 349; the fifth in B.C. 347;
the sixth in B.C. 346; the seventh in B.C. 344; the eighth in B.C. 343; the ninth
in B.C. 342; the tenth and eleventh in B.C. 341; and the twelfth in B.C. 340.
The order here given is that of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, but no manuscript
and no editions observe it. The manuscripts give the First, Second, Tenth, and
Eleventh Philippics of Dionysius by name, and regard his fifth as forming the
conclusion of the first. They give the title of Second, Third, and First Olynthiacs
to his Second, Third, and Fourth. The remaining four (Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Twelfth)
have the following titles: "Of Peace," "Of Halonesus," "Of
the Chersonesus," and "On the Letter of Philip." We shall now speak
of them in chronological order. The (1 and 2) Pros Philippon logos protos, the
First Philippic. Demosthenes here exhorts his fellow-citizens to prosecute the
war with the greatest vigour against Philip. This monarch had, after the defeat
of the Phocians, assumed a threatening attitude, as if wishing to establish himself
in their country. The discourse we are now considering has been divided into two
parts, which, according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, were pronounced at different
times; but this opinion is contradicted by most critics. (3, 4, 5) Olunthiakos
A, B, G--The three Olynthiacs. Their object is to stimulate the Athenians to succour
Olynthus and prevent its falling into the hands of Philip. (6) Peri tes eirenes,
"Of the Peace." Philip having obtained a seat in the council of the
Amphictyons, Demosthenes advises his countrymen to preserve the peace with this
prince. Libanius thinks that this discourse, though written by Demosthenes, was
never delivered. Modern scholars are, however, of a different opinion. (7) Kata
Philippou logos B, the Second Philippic, pronounced after the return of Demosthenes
from the Peloponnesus, where he had negotiated a peace between Sparta and Messenia.
(8) Peri tes Halonesou, "Of Halonesus," or, rather, of a letter of Philip's,
by which he makes a present to the Athenians of the island of Halonesus, which
he had taken from the pirates, and demands of the Athenians to share with them
the office of protecting the seas. Demosthenes strenuously opposes so insulting
an offer; it is, however, far from certain whether he ever pronounced such a discourse
as this. Libanius says that the ancient critics ascribed it to Hegesippus, the
friend of Demosthenes. Suidas and the author of the Etymologicum Magnum agree
with him. (9) Peri ton en Cherronesoi pragmaton, e ho peri Diopeitheous, "Of
the events in the Chersonesus, or of Diopithes." That general, sent at the
head of a colony into the Chersonesus, had committed hostilities against the city
of Cardia, the only one which Philip had reserved for himself in the conditions
of peace. Diopithes had even made an inroad into Macedonia. Philip insisted on
his being punished. Demosthenes undertakes in this oration to justify the conduct
of the Athenian commander. (10) Kata Philippou logos G, the Third Philippic. The
progress which Philip had made in Thrace, where he was preparing to lay siege
to the cities of Perinthus and Byzantium, form the subject of this harangue. (11)
Kata Philippou logos D, the Fourth Philippic, pronounced at the time when Philip
had raised the siege of Perinthus, in order to fall upon Byzantium. Valckenaer,
Wolf, and Bekker do not acknowledge this as a production of Demosthenes. (12)
Ho pros ten epistolen Philippou logos, "On the Letter of Philip." The
letter of the king, to which this harangue refers, still exists. It contains many
complaints, but no declaration of war. Taylor, Reiske, Valckenaer, and Bekker
consider this letter to be spurious.
We come now to the second class of the orations of Demosthenes,
namely, those of a judicial nature; and here a distinction must be made between
those which refer to affairs connected with the State and those which relate to
individual interests: in the former case, the procedure was called kategoria;
in the second, dike--words which may be translated by "accusation" and
"pleadings." Of the first species we have twelve harangues remaining,
the most important one of which is that entitled Peri Stephanou, "On the
Crown." Demosthenes had been twice crowned in the theatre during the Dionysiac
festival: the first time after the expulsion of the Macedonian garrisons from
the island of Euboea, and again after the alliance with the Thebans. In the year
B.C. 338, Ctesiphon, who was then president of the Senate, had a decree passed
by this body that, if the people approved, Demosthenes should be crowned at the
approaching Dionysiac festival, in the public theatre, as a recompense for the
disinterested manner in which he had filled various offices, and for the services
which he had never for a moment ceased to render the State. This matter had to
be confirmed by a psephisma, or decree of the people; but, before it was brought
before them, Aeschines presented himself as the accuser of Ctesiphon. He charged
him with having violated the laws in proposing to crown a public functionary before
the latter had given an account of the manner in which he had discharged his office;
and to crown him, too, in the theatre, instead of the senate-house or the Pnyx,
where this could alone be done; finally, in having alleged what was false, for
the purpose of favouring Demosthenes. He concluded by demanding that a fine of
fifty talents be imposed upon Ctesiphon. The matter remained for some time pending,
in consequence of the troubles that followed the battle of Chaeronea. When, however,
the influence of the Macedonian party had, through the exertions of Antipater,
gained the ascendency in Athens, Aeschines believed it to be a favourable moment
for the revival of his accusation. It was brought forward, therefore, again, in
B.C. 330, or eight years after the proposition of Ctesiphon had been made. Aeschines
thereupon pronounced his famous harangue, to which Demosthenes replied. This speech
of Demosthenes is regarded, and justly so, not only as his masterpiece, but as
the most perfect specimen that eloquence has ever produced. It is said that after
this discourse Demosthenes no longer appeared as a public speaker. Ulpian, in
his commentary on the oration De Corona, relates an anecdote which has been often
cited. Demosthenes is endeavouring to fix the charge of bribery on Aeschines,
whom he represents as corrupted by Philip and by Alexander, and consequently their
hireling and not their friend or guest. Of this assertion he declares his willingness
to submit the truth to the judgment of the assembly. "I call thee,"
says the orator, "the hireling, first of Philip and now of Alexander; and
all these who are here present agree in opinion with me. If thou disbelievest
it, ask them the question; but no, I will ask them myself. Athenians, does Aeschines
appear to you in the light of a hireling or a friend of Alexander's?" In
putting this question, Demosthenes purposely commits a fault of accentuation:
he places the accent improperly on the antepenultima, instead of the last syllable,
of misthotos--in the words of Ulpian, hekon ebarbarisen--in order to draw the
attention of the people from the question to the pronunciation. This had the desired
effect: the accurate ears of the Athenians were struck with the mistake; to correct
it, they called out misthotos, misthotos, "a hireling! a hireling!"
from every part of the assembly. Pretending to receive the word as the expression
of their sentiments on the guilt of Aeschines, he cried out, "Dost thou hear
what they say?"
The simple pleadings (dikai) relative to matters of private
interest, constitute the second class of judicial actions. Of these we have thirty
remaining, which are as follows: (1) Discourses having relation to the proceedings
instituted by Demosthenes against his guardians. They are five in number: of these,
two are against Aphobus, and two against Onetor, his brother. (2) Logoi paragraphikoi,
or, as Cicero calls them, constitutiones translativae. We have seven discourses
of this class from the pen of Demosthenes, viz.: against Zenothemis, against Apaturius,
against Lacritus, against Phormion, against Pantaenetus, against Nausimachus,
and Xenopithaea. (3) Discourses relative to the rights of succession and to questions
of dower. These are four in number: against Macartatus, against Leochares, against
Spudias, against Boeotus for his mother's dowry. (4) Discourses in matters of
commerce and of debt. These are three in number: against Calippus, against Nicostratus,
against Timotheus. (5) Actions for indemnity and for damages (blabe, aikia). The
discourses under this head are five in number: against Boeotus, against Olympiodorus,
against Conon, against Dionysiodorus, against Callicles. (6) Actions for perjury:
two discourses against Stephanus, and one against Euergus and Mnesibulus. (7)
Three discourses on the subject of the antidosis (q. v.), or exchange of estates.
The discourses under this head are the following: against Phoenippus, against
Polycles, and respecting the crown of the trierarchia. It is unnecessary to speak
of each of these thirty pleadings; a few [p. 494] remarks on some of them must
suffice. The five discourses which Demosthenes pronounced against his guardians
contain valuable details respecting his youth, his fortune, and the Athenian laws.
Aphobus, one of the guardians, was condemned to pay Demosthenes the sum of ten
talents. It does not appear whether he brought the two other guardians to trial
or not. These discourses have some resemblance to those of Isaeus, his master.
The paragraphe for Phormio against Apollodorus has furnished occasion for a reproach
to the memory of Demosthenes. We are told by Plutarch that Demosthenes "wrote
an oration for Apollodorus, by which he carried his cause against the general
Timotheus, in an action for debt to the public treasury; as also those others
against Phormio and Stephanus, which formed a just exception against his character.
For he composed likewise the oration which Phormio had pronounced against Apollodorus.
This, therefore, was like furnishing the enemies with weapons out of the same
shop."
The discourse against Macartatus, respecting the succession
of Hagnias, is interesting from the circumstance of our having the defence of
Macartatus by Isaeus, and from our being thus able to compare the pupil with his
former master. It remains to speak of the third class of Demosthenes's orations,
the logoi epideiktikoi, "studied or set speeches." We have only two
remaining, and these, very probably, are spurious. The one, epitaphios logos,
is a eulogy on the Athenians who had perished at Chaeronea; the other, erotikos
logos, is written in praise of the beauty of the young Epicrates.
There are also six letters ascribed to Demosthenes; five of
them are addressed to the people of Athens. All, however, are forgeries.
Good manuscripts of Demosthenes are rare, but several of them
are as old as the eleventh century, and most of them contain a very large portion,
if not the whole, of the extant works. In all, there are some 170 MSS. They are
divided by editors into three groups, of which the first is headed by a Codex
Parisinus (S or S) of the tenth or eleventh century, distinguished by remarkable
omissions in the text; the second is headed by a Marcianus Venetus (F) and another
Codex Parisinus (g), both of the eleventh century; the third by a Codex Monacensis
(A), also of the eleventh century, distinguished by curious simplifications of
hard passages. Editors are not entirely agreed as to the value of S or S, some
maintaining that it gives the authentic text, others believing that it gives an
edition by a clever scholar. The scholia on Demosthenes are inferior, the best
being those in C. Muller (Paris, 1846-47) and Scholia Graeca in Demosth. (Oxford,
1851). On the MSS. see Vomel's Prolegomena Critica to his edition (Halle, 1856-57).
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Demosthenes, the greatest of the Greek orators, was the son of one Demosthenes,
and born in the Attic demos of Paeania. Respecting the year of his birth, the
statements of the ancients differ as much as the opinions of modern critics. Some
of the earlier scholars acquiesced in the express testimony of Dionysius of Halicarnassus
(Ep. ad Amm. i. 4), who says that Demosthenes was born in the year preceding the
hundredth Olympiad, that is B. C. 381. Gellius (xv. 28) states that Demosthenes
was in his twenty-seventh year at the time when he composed his orations against
Androtion and Timocrates, which belong to B. C. 355, so that the birth of Demosthenes
would fall in B. C. 383 or 382, the latter of which is adopted by Clinton. According
to the account in the lives of the Ten Orators Demosthenes was born in the archonship
of Dexitheus, that is, B. C. 385, and this statement has been adopted by most
modern critics, such as Becker, Bockh, Westermann, Thirlwall, and others; whereas
some have endeavoured to prove that B. C. 384 was his birthyear. The opinion now
most commonly received is, that Demosthenes was born in B. C. 385. For detailed
discussions on this question the reader is referred to the works mentioned at
the end of this article.
When Demosthenes, the father, died, he left behind him a widow, the
daughter of Gylon, and two children, Demosthenes, then a boy of seven, and a daughter
who was only five years old (Plut. Dem. 4; Dem. c. Aphob. ii; Aeschin. c. Ctesiph.171).
During the last moments of his life, the father had entrusted the protection of
his wife and children and the care of his property, partly capital and partly
a large sword manufactory, to three guardians, Aphobus, a son of his sister Demophon,
a son of his brother, and an old friend Therippides, on condition that the first
should marry the widow and receive with her a dowry of eighty minae; the second
was to marry the daughter on her attaining the age of maturity, and was to receive
at once two talents, and the third was to have the interest of seventy minae,
till Demosthenes, the son, should come of age (Dem. c. Aphob. i, ii). But the
first two of the guardians did not comply with the stipulations made in the will,
and all three, in spite of all the remonstrances of the family, united in squandering
and appropriating to themselves a great portion of the handsome property, which
is estimated at upwards of fourteen talents, and might easily have been doubled
during the minority of Demosthenes by a prudent administration. But, as it was,
the property gradually was so reduced, that when Demosthenes became of age, his
guardians had no more than seventy minae, that is, only one twelfth of the property
which the father had left (Dem. c. Aphob. i., c. Onet.). This shameful conduct
of his own relatives and guardians unquestionably exercised a great influence
on the mind and character of Demosthenes, for it was probably during that early
period that, suffering as he was through the injustice of those from whom he had
a right to expect protection, his strong feeling of right and wrong was planted
and developed in him, a feeling which characterizes his whole subsequent life.
He was thus thrown upon his own resources, and the result was great selfreliance,
independence of judgment, and his oratory, which was the only art by which he
could hope to get justice done to himself.
Although Demosthenes passed his youth amid such troubles and vexations,
there is no reason for believing with Plutarch (Dem. 4), that he grew up neglected
and without any education at all. The very fact that his guardians are accused
of having refused to pay his teachers (c. Aphob. i.) shews that he received some
kind of education, which is further confirmed by Demosthenes's own statement (de
Coron.), though it cannot be supposed that his education comprised much more than
an elementary course. The many illustrious personages that are mentioned as his
teachers, must be conceived to have become connected with him after he had attained
the age of manhood. He is said to have been instructed in philosophy by Plato
(Plut. Dem. 5, Vit. X Orat.; Diog. Laert. iii. 46; Cic. Brut. 31, Orat. 4; Quintil.
xiii. 2.22, 10.24; Gellius, iii. 13). It may be that Demosthenes knew and esteemed
Plato, but it is more than doubtful whether he received his instruction; and to
make him, as some critics have done, a perfect Platonic, is certainly going too
far. According to some accounts he was instructed in oratory by Isocrates (Plut.
Vit. X Orat.; Phot. Bibl.), but this was a disputed point with the ancients themselves,
some of whom stated, that he was not personally instructed by Isocrates, but only
that he studied the techne rhetorike, which Isocrates had written (Plut. Vit.
X Orat., Dem. 5). The tradition of Demosthenes having been a pupil of Isocrates
is, moreover, not supported by any evidence derived from the orations of Demosthenes
himself, who speaks with contempt of the rhetorical school of Isocrates (c. Lacrin.),
and an unbiassed reader of the works of the two orators cannot discover any direct
influence of the elder upon the younger one, for certain words and phrases cannot
assuredly be taken as proofs to the contrary. The account that Demosthenes was
instructed in oratory by Isaeus (Plut. Dem. 5, Vit. X Orat.; Phot. Bibl.), has
much more probability; for at that time Isaeus was the most eminent orator in
matters connected with the laws of inheritance, the very thing which Demosthenes
needed. This account is further supported by the fact, that the earliest orations
of Demosthenes, viz. those against Aphobus and Onetor, bear so strong a resemblance
to those of Isaeus, that the ancients themselves believed them to have been composed
by Isaeus for Demosthenes, or that the latter had written them under the guidance
of the former (Plut. Vit. X Orat.; Liban. Vit. Dem., Argum. ad Orat. c. Onet.).
We may suppose without much hesitation, that during the latter years of his minority
Demosthenes privately prepared himself for the career of an orator, to which he
was urged on by his peculiar circumstancesno less than by the admiration he felt
for the orators of his time, and that during the first years after his attaining
the age of manhood he availed himself of the instruction of Isaeus.
Immediately after becoming of age in B. C. 366, Demosthenes called
upon his guardians to render him an account of their administration of his property;
but by intrigues they contrived to defer the business for two years, which was
perhaps less disagreeable to him, as he had to prepare himself and to acquire
a certain legal knowledge and oratorical power before he could venture to come
forward in his own cause with any hope of success. In the course of these two
years, however, the matter was twice investigated by the diaetetae, and was decided
each time in favour of Demosthenes (Dem. c. Aphob. i., c. Aphob. iii.). At length,
in the third year after his coming of age, in the archonship of Timocrates, B.
C. 364 (Dem. c. Onet.), Demosthenes brought his accusation against Aphobus before
the archon, reserving to himself the right to bring similar charges against Demophon
and Therippides, which, however, he does not appear to have done (c. Aphob. i.;
Plut. Vit. X Orat.; Zozim. Vit. Dem.). Aphobus was condemned to pay a fine of
ten talents. This verdict was obtained by Demosthenes in the face of all the intrigues
to which Aphobus had resorted for the purpose of thwarting him and involving him
in a series of other law-suits (c. Aphob.). The extant orations of Demosthenes
against Aphobus, who endeavoured to prevent his taking possession of his property,
refer to these transactions. Demosthenes had thus gained a signal victory over
his enemies, notwithstanding all the extraordinary disadvantages under which he
laboured, for his physical constitution was weak, and his organ of speech deficient--whence,
probably, he derived the nickname of Batalos, the delicate youth, or the stammerer,--and
it was only owing to the most unwearied and persevering exertions that he succeeded
in overcoming and removing the obstacles which nature had placed in his way. These
exertions were probably made by him after he had arrived at the age of manhood.
In this manner, and by speaking in various civil cases, he prepared himself for
the career of a political orator and statesman. It is very doubtful whether Demosthenes,
like some of his predecessors, engaged also in teaching rhetoric, as some of his
Greek biographers assert.
The suit against Aphobus had made Meidias a formidable and implacable
enemy of Demosthenes (Dem. c. Aphob. ii., c. Meid.), and the danger to which he
thus became exposed was the more fearful, since except his personal powers and
virtues he had nothing to oppose to Meidias, who was the most active member of
a coterie, which, although yet without any definite political tendency, was preparing
the ruin of the republic by violating its laws and sacrificing its resources to
personal and selfish interests. The first acts of open hostility were committed
in B. C. 361, when Meidias forced his way into the house of Demosthenes and insulted
the members of his family. This led Demosthenes to bring against him the action
of kakeloria, and when Meidias after his condemnation did not fulfil his obligations,
Demosthenes brought against him a dike exoules (Dem. c. Meid.). Meidias found
means to prevent any decision being given for a period of eight years, and at
length, in B. C. 354, he had an opportunity to take revenge upon Demosthenes,
who had in that year voluntarily undertaken the choregia. Meidias not only endeavoured
in all possible ways to prevent Demosthenes from discharging his office in its
proper form, but attacked him with open violence during the celebration of the
great Dionysia (Dem. c. Meid.). Such an act committed before the eyes of the people
demanded reparation, and Demosthenes brought an action against him. Public opinion
condemned Meidias, and it was in vain that he made all possible efforts to intimidate
Demosthenes, who remained firm in spite of all his enemy's machinations, until
at length, when an amicable arrangement was proposed, Demosthenes accepted it,
and withdrew his accusation. It is said that he received from Meidias the sum
of thirty minae (Plut. Dem. 12; Aeschin. c. Ctesiph. 52). The reason why Demosthenes
withdrew his accusation was in all probability his fear of the powerful party
of which Meidias was the leader; his accepting the sum of thirty minae, which,
however, can scarcely be treated as an authentic fact(Isid. Epist.iv. 205), has
been looked upon as an illegal act, and has been brought forward as a proof that
Demosthenes was accessible to bribes. But the law which forbade the dropping of
a public accusation (Dem. c. Meid.) does not appear to have been always strictly
observed, as it was merely intended to prevent frivolous and unfounded accusations.
If, on the other hand, Demosthenes did receive the thirty minae, it does not follow
that it was a bribe, for that sum may have been required of him as a fine for
dropping his accusationn against Meidias, or Demosthenes may have regarded that
sum as a satisfactory acknowledgement of the guilt of his enemy. This affair belongs
to the year B. C. 353, in which also the extant oration against Meidias was written,
but as Demosthenes did not follow up the suit, the oration was left in its present
unfinished state.
Demosthenes had some years before this event come forward as a speaker
in the public assembly, for in B. C. 355 he had delivered the orations against
Leptines and Androtion (Dionys. Ep. ad Amm. i. 4), and in B. C. 353 the oration
against Timocrates. The general esteem which Demosthenes enjoyed as early as that
time is sufficiently attested by the fact, that in B. C. 354, in spite of all
the intrigues of Meidias, he was confirmed in the dignity of Bouleutes, to which
he had been elected by lot (Dem. c. Meid.), and that in the year following he
conducted, in the capacity of architheoros, the usual theoria, which the state
of Athens sent to the festival of the Nemean Zeus (c. Meid.). The active part
he took in public affairs is further attested by the orations which belong to
this period: in B. C. 354 he spoke against the projected expedition to Euboea,
though without success, and he himself afterwards joined in it under Phocion (Dem.
de Pace, Meid.). In the same year he delivered the oration peri summoron, in which
he successfully dissuaded the Athenians from their foolish scheme of undertaking
a war against Persia (Dem. de Rhod. lib.), and in B. C. 353 he spoke for the Megalopolitans
(huper Megalopolton), and opposed the Spartans, who had solicited the aid of Athens
to reduce Megalopolis.
The one hundred and sixth Olympiad, or the period from B. C. 356,
is the beginning of the career of Demosthenes as one of the leading statesmen
of Athens, and henceforth the history of his life is closely mixed up with that
of his country; for there is no question affecting the public good in which he
did not take the most active part, and support with all the power of his oratory
what he considered right and beneficial to the state. King Philip of Macedonia
had commenced in B. C. 358 his encroachments upon the possessions of Athens in
the north of the Aegean, and he had taken possession of the towns of Amphipolis,
Pydna, Potidaea, and Methone. During those proceedings he had contrived to keep
the Athenians at a distance, to deceive them and keep them in good humour by delusions
and apparently favourable promises. Demosthenes was not, indeed, the only man
who saw that these proceedings were merely a prelude to greater things, and that
unless the king was checked, he would attempt the subjugation, not only of Athens
but of all Greece; but Demosthenes was the only person who had the honesty and
the courage openly to express his opinions, and to call upon the Greeks to unite
their strength against the common foe. His patriotic feelings and convictions
against Macedonian aggrandizement are the groundwork of his Philippics, a series
of the most splendid and spirited orations. They did not, it is true, produce
the desired results, but the fault was not his, and the cause of their failure
must be sought in the state of general dissolution in the Greek republics at the
time; for while Philip occupied his threatening position, the Phocians were engaged
in a war for life and death with the Thebans; the states of Peloponnesus looked
upon one another with mistrust and hatred, and it was only with great difficulty
that Athens could maintain a shadow of its former supremacy. The Athenians themselves,
as Demosthenes says, were indolent, even when they knew what ought to be done;
they could not rouse themselves to an energetic opposition; their measures were
in most cases only half measures; they never acted at the right time, and indulged
in spending the treasures of the republic upon costly pomps and festivities, instead
of employing them as means to ward off the danger that was gathering like a storm
at a distance. This disposition was, moreover, fostered by the ruling party at
Athens. It was further an unfortunate circumstance for Athens that, although she
had some able generals, yet she had no military genius of the first order to lead
her forces against the Macedonian, and make head against him. It was only on one
occasion, in B. C. 353, that the Athenians gained decided advantages by a diversion
of their fleet, which prevented Philip passing Thermopylae during the war between
the Phocians and Thebans. But a report of Philip's illness and death soon made
room for the old apathy, and the good-will of those who would have acted with
spirit was paralyzed by the entire absence of any definite plan in the war against
Macedonia, although the necessity of such a plan had been pointed out, and proposals
had been made for it by Demosthenes in his first Philippic, which was spoken in
B. C. 352. Philip's attack upon Olynthus in B. C. 349, which terminated in the
year following with the conquest of the place, deprived the Athenians of their
last stronghold in the north. At the request of several embassies from the Olynthians,
and on the impressive exhortation of Demosthenes in his three Olynthiac orations,
the Athenians had indeed made considerable efforts to save Olynthus (Dem. de Fals.
Leg.; Dionys. Ep. ad Amm. i. 9), but their operations were thwarted in the end
by a treacherous plot which was formed at Olynthus itself, and the town fell into
the hands of Philip.
The next event in which Demosthenes took an active part is the peace
with Philip, which from its originator is called the peace of Philocrates, and
is one of the most obscure points in the history of Demosthenes and of Athens,
since none of the historians whose works are extant enter into the details of
the subject. Our only sources of information are the orations of Demosthenes and
Aeschines on the embassy (peri parapresbeias), which contain statements so much
at variance and so contradictory, that it is next to impossible to come to any
certain conclusions, although, if we consider the characters of the two orators,
the authority of Demosthenes is entitled to higher credit than that of Aeschines.
The former may, to some extent, have been labouring under a delusion, but Aeschines
had the intention to deceive. The following particulars, however, may be looked
upon as well established. During the Olynthian war, Philip had expressed his willingness
to conclude a peace and alliance with Athens, and the Athenians, who were tired
of the war and unable to form a coalition against the king, had accepted the proposal.
Philocrates accordingly advised the Athenians to commence negotiations and to
send an embassy to Philip. Demosthenes supported the plan, and Philocrates, Aeschines,
and Demosthenes were among the ambassadors who went to the king. The transactions
with Philip are not quite clear, though they must have referred to the Phocians
and Thebans also, for the Phocians were allied with Athens, and the Athenian ambassadors
probably demanded that the Phocians should be included in the treaty of peace
and alliance between Macedonia and Athens. But this was more than Philip was inclined
to agree to, since he had already resolved upon the destruction of the Phocians.
It is, therefore, very probable that he may have quieted the ambassadors by vague
promises, and have declined to comply with their demand under the pretext that
he could not make a public declaration in favour of the Phocians on account of
his relation to the Thessalians and Thebans. After the return of the ambassadors
to Athens, the peace was discussed in two successive assemblies of the people,
and it was at length sanctioned and sworn to by an oath to the king's ambassadors.
Aeschines censures Demosthenes for having hurried the conclusion of this peace
so much, that the Athenians did not even wait for the arrival of the deputies
of their allies, who had been invited, and the contradictory manner in which Demosthenes
himself (de Fals. Leg., de Coron.) speaks of the matter seems indeed to cast some
suspicion upon him; but the cause of Demosthenes's acting as he did may have been
the vague manner in which Philip had expressed himself in regard to the Phocians.
At any rate, however, quick decision was absolutely necessary, since Philip was
in the meantime making war upon Cersobleptes, a king of Thrace, and since, in
spite of his promises to spare the possessions of Athens in the Chersonesus, he
might easily have been tempted to stretch out his hands after them: in order to
prevent this, it was necessary that Philip, as soon as possible, should take his
oath to the treaty of peace and alliance with Athens. It was on this occasion
that the treacherous designs of Aeschines and his party became manifest, for notwithstanding
the urgent admonitions of Demosthenes not to lose any time, the embassy to receive
the king's oath (epi tous horkous), of which both Aeschines and Demosthenes were
again members (the statement in the article Aeschines,
that Demosthenes was not one of the ambassadors, must be corrected: see Newman
in the Classical Museum, vol. i. p. 145), set out with a slowness as if there
had been no danger whatever, and instead of taking the shortest road to Macedonia
by sea, the ambassadors travelled by land. On their arrival in Macedonia they
quietly waited till Philip returned from Thrace. Nearly three months passed away
in this manner, and when at length Philip arrived, he deferred taking his oath
until he had completed his preparations against the Phocians. Accompanied by the
Athenian ambassadors, he then marched into Thessaly, and it was not till his arrival
at Pherae that he took his oath to the treaty, from which he now excluded the
Phocians. When the ambassadors arrived at Athens, Demosthenes immediately and
boldly denounced the treachery of his colleagues in the embassy; but in vain.
Aeschines succeeded in allaying the fears of the people, and persuaded them quietly
to wait for the issue of the events. Philip in the meantime passed Thermopylae,
and the fate of Phocis was decided without a blow. The king was now admitted as
a member of the Amphictyonic league, and the Athenians, who had allowed themselves
to act the part of mere spectators during those proceedings, were now unable to
do anything, but still they ventured to express their indignation at the king's
conduct by refusing their sanction to his becoming a member of the Amphictyonic
league. The mischief, however, was done, and in order to prevent still more serious
consequences, Demosthenes, in B. C. 346, delivered his oration " on the peace"
(pepi eirenes), and the people gave way.
From this time forward the two political parties are fully developed,
and openly act against each other; the party or rather the faction to which Aeschines
belonged, was bribed by Philip to oppose the true patriots, who were headed by
Demosthenes. He was assisted in his great work by such able men as Lycurgus, Hyperides,
Polyeuctus, Hegesippus, and others, and being supported by his confidence in the
good cause, he soon reached the highest point in his career as a statesman and
orator. The basis of his power and influence was the people's conviction of his
incorruptible love of justice and of his pure and enthusiastic love of his country.
This conviction manifested itself clearly in the vengeance which the people took
upon the treacherous Philocrates (Aeschin. c. Ctesiph. 79). But this admiration
and reverence for real and virtuous greatness soon cooled, and it was in vain
that Demosthenes endeavoured to place the other men who had betrayed their country
to Philip in their embassy to him, in the same light as Philocrates (Dem. de Fals.
Leg.), for the people were unwilling to sacrifice more than the one man, whom
the Macedonian party itself had given up in order to save the rest. It was undoubtedly
owing to the influence of this party that Aeschines, when after a long delay he
consented to render an account of his conduct during the embassy, B. C. 343, escaped
punishment, notwithstanding the vehement attacks of Demosthenes in the written
oration peri parapesbeias.
In the mean time Philip followed up his plans for the reduction of
Greece. With a view of drawing the Peloponnesians into his interests, he tried
to win the confidence of the Argives and Messenians, who were then perilled by
Sparta; he even sent them subsidies and threatened Sparta with an attack (Dem.
Phil. ii.). Sparta did not venture to offer any resistance, and the Athenians,
who were allied with Sparta, felt unable to do anything more than send ambassadors
to Peloponnesus, among whom was Demosthenes, to draw the Peloponnesians away from
the Macedonian, and to caution them against his intrigues (Dem. Philip. ii.).
In consequence of these proceedings, ambassadors from Philip and the Peloponnesians
met at Athens to complain of the Athenians favouring the ambitious schemes of
Sparta, which aimed at suppressing the freedom of the peninsula, and to demand
an explanation of their conduct. The Macedonian party at Athens, of course, supported
those complaints; their endeavours to disguise Philip's real intentions and to
represent them to the people in a favourable light, afforded an opportunity for
Demosthenes, when the answer to [p. 985] be sent to the king was discussed in
the assembly, B. C. 344, to place in his second Philippic the proceedings and
designs of the king and his Athenian friends in their true light. The answer which
the Athenians sent to Philip was probably not very satisfactory to him, for he
immediately sent another embassy to Athens, headed by Python, with proposals for
a modification of the late peace, although he subsequently denied having given
to Python any authority for such proposals (Dem. de Halones.).
Philip had for some time been engaged in the formation of a navy,
and the apprehensions which the Athenians entertained on that score were but too
soon justified; for no sooner were his preparations completed, than he took possession
of the island of Halonesus, which belonged to Athens. The Athenians sent an embassy
to claim the island back; but Philip, who had found it in the hands of pirates,
denied that the Athenians had any right to claim it, but at the same time he offered
to make them a present of the island, if they would receive it as such. On the
return of the ambassadors to Athens in B. C. 343, the oration on Halonesus (Peri
Halonedon) was delivered. It is usually printed among the orations of Demosthenes,
but belongs in all probability to Hegesippus. This and other similar acts of aggression,
which at length opened the eyes of the Athenians, roused them once more to vigorous
and energetic measures, in spite of the efforts of the Macedonian party to keep
the people quiet. Embassies were sent to Acarnania and Peloponnesus to counteract
Philip's schemes in those quarters (Dem. Phil. iii.), and his expedition into
Thrace, by which the Chersonesus was threatened, called forth an energetic demonstration
of the Athenians under Diopeithes. The complaints which Philip then made roused
Demosthenes, in B. C. 342, to his powerful oration peri ton en Cherrhoonesps,
and to his third Philippic, in which he describes the king's faithlessness in
the most glaring colours, and exhorts his countrymen to unite and resist the treacherous
aggressor. Soon after this, the tyrants whom Philip had established in Euboea
were expelled through the influence and assistance of Demosthenes (Dem. de Coron.);
but it was not till B. C. 341, when Philip laid siege to Perinthus and attacked
Byzantium, that the long-sup-pressed indignation of the Athenians burst forth.
The peace with Philip was now declared violated (B. C. 340); a fleet was sent
to relieve Byzantium (Plut. Phoc. 14), and Philip was compelled to withdraw without
having accomplished anything. Demosthenes was the soul of all these energetic
measures. He had proposed, as early as the Olynthian war, to apply the theoricon
to defray the expenses of the military undertakings of Athens (Dem. Olynth. iii.);
but it was not till Philip's attack upon Byzantium that he succeeded in carrying
a decree to this effect (Dionys. Ep. ad Amm. i. 11). By his law concerning the
trierarchy (nomos trierarchikos), he further regulated the symmoriae on a new
and more equitable footing (Dem. de Coron.). He thus at once gave a fresh impulse
to the maritime power and enterprise of Athens, B. C. 340.
Philip now assumed the appearance of giving himself no further concern
about the affairs of Greece. He carried on war with his northern neighbours, and
left it to his hirelings to prepare the last stroke at the independence of Greece.
He calculated well; for when in the spring of B. C. 340 the Amphictyons assembled
at Delphi, Aeschines, who was present as pylagoras, effected a decree against
the Locrians of Amphissa for having unlawfully occupied a district of sacred land.
The Amphissaeans rose against this decree, and the Amphictyons summoned an extraordinary
meeting to deliberate on the punishment to be inflicted upon Amphissa. Demosthenes
foresaw and foretold the unfortunate consequences of a war of the Amphictyons,
and he succeeded at least in persuading the Athenians not to send any deputies
to that extraordinary meeting. (Dem. de Coron.; Aeschin. c. Ctesiph.125). The
Amphictyons however decreed war against Amphissa, and the command of the Amphictyonic
army was given to Cottyphus, an Arcadian; but the expedition failed from want
of spirit and energy among those who took part in it (Dem. de Coron.). The consequence
was, that in B. C. 339, at the next ordinary meeting of the Amphictyons, king
Philip was appointed chief commander of the Amphictyonic army. This was the very
thing which he had been looking for. With the appearance of justice on his side,
he now had an opportunity of establishing himself with an armed force in the very
heart of Greece. He set out without delay, and when the Athenians received the
news of his having taken possession of Elatea, they were thrown into the deepest
consternation. Demosthenes alone did not give up all hopes, and he once more roused
his countrymen by bringing about an alliance between Athens and Thebes. The Thebans
had formerly been favoured by Philip, but his subsequent neglect of them had effaced
the recollection of it; and they now clearly saw that the fall of Athens would
inevitably be followed by their own ruin. They had before opposed the war of the
Amphictyons, and when Philip now called upon them to allow his army to march through
their territory or to join him in his expedition against Athens, they indignantly
rejected all his handsome proposals, and threw themselves into the open arms of
the Athenians (Dem. de Coron.). This was the last grand effort against the growing
power of Macedonia; but the battle of Chaeroneia, on the 7th of Metageitnion,
B. C. 338, put an end to the independence of Greece. Thebes paid dearly for its
resistance, and Athens which expected a similar fate, resolved at least to perish
in a glorious struggle. The most prodigious efforts were made to meet the enemy;
but Philip unexpectedly offered to conclude peace on tolerable terms, which it
would have been madness to reject, for Athens thus had an opportunity of at least
securing its existence and a shadow of its former independence.
The period which now followed could not be otherwise than painful
and gloomy to Demosthenes, for the evil might have been averted had his advice
been followed in time. The catastrophe of Chaeroneia might indeed to some extent
be regarded as his work; but the people were too generous and too well convinced
of the purity of his intentions, as well as of the necessity of acting as he had
acted, to make him responsible for the unfortunate consequences of the war with
Philip. It was, on the contrary, one of the most glorious acknowledgments of his
merits that he could have received, that he was requested to deliver the funeral
oration upon those who had fallen at Chaeroneia, [p. 986] and that the funeral
feast was celebrated in his house (Dem. de Coron.). But the fury of the Macedonian
party and of his personal enemies gave full vent to itself; they made all possible
efforts to humble or annihilate the man who had brought about the alliance with
Thebes, and Athens to the verge of destruction. Accusations were brought against
him day after day, and at first the most notorious sycophants, such as Sosicles,
Diondas, Melanthus, Aristogeiton, and others, were employed by his enemies to
crush him (Dem. de Coron.); but the more notorious they were, the easier was it
for Demosthenes to unmask them before the people. But matters soon began to assume
a more dangerous aspect when Aeschines, the head of the Macedonian party, and
the most implacable opponent of Demosthenes, came forward against him. An opportunity
offered soon after the battle of Chaeroneia, when Ctesiphon proposed to reward
Demosthenes with a golden crown for the conduct he had shewn during his public
career, and more especially for the patriotic disinterestedness with which he
had acted during the preparations which the Athenians made after the battle of
Chaeroneia, when Philip was expected at the gates (Dem. de Coron.). Aeschines
attacked Ctesiphon for the proposal, and tried to shew that it was not only made
in an illegal form, but that the conduct of Demosthenes did not give him any claim
to the public gratitude and such a distinction. This attack, however, was not
aimed at Ctesiphon, who was too insignificant a person, but at Demosthenes, and
the latter took up the gauntlet with the greater readiness, as he now had an opportunity
of justifying his whole political conduct before his countrymen. Reasons which
are unknown to us delayed the decision of the question for a number of years,
and it was not till B. C. 330 (Plut. Dem. 24) that the trial was proceeded with.
Demosthenes on that occasion delivered his oration on the crown (peri stephanou).
Aeschines did not obtain the fifth part of the votes, and was obliged to quit
Athens and spend the remainder of his life abroad. All Greece had been looking
forward with the most intense interest to the issue of this contest, though few
can have entertained any doubt as to which would carry the victory. The oration
on the crown was, in all probability, like that of Aeschines against Ctesiphon,
revised and altered at a later period.
Greece had in the mean time been shaken by new storms. The death of
Philip, in B. C. 336, had revived among the Greeks the hope of shaking off the
Macedonian yoke. All Greece rose, and especially Athens, where Demosthenes, although
weighed down by domestic grief, was the first joyfully to proclaim the tidings
of the king's death, to call upon the Greeks to unite their strength against Macedonia,
and to form new connexions in Asia (Plut. Dem. 23; Aeschin. c. Clesiph.161; Diod.
xvii. 3). But the sudden appearance of young Alexander with an army ready to fight,
damped the enthusiasm, and Athens sent an embassy to him to sue for peace. Demosthenes
was one of the ambassadors, but his feelings against the Macedonians were so strong,
that he would rather expose himself to the ridicule of his enemies by returning
after having gone half way, than act the part of a suppliant before the youthful
king (Plut. Dem. 23; Aeschin. c. Ctesiph.161). But no sooner had Alexander set
out for the north to chastise the rebellious neighbours of Macedonia, than a false
report of his death called forth another insurrection of the Greeks. Thebes, which
had suffered most severely, was foremost; but the insurrection spread over Arcadia,
Argos, Elis. and Athens. However, with the exception of Thebes, there was no energy
anywhere. Demosthenes carried indeed a decree that succours should be sent to
Thebes, but no efforts were made, and Demosthenes alone, and at his own expense,
sent a supply of arms. (Diod. xvii. 8.) The second sudden arrival of Alexander,
and his destruction of Thebes, in B. C. 335, put an end to all further attempts
of the Greeks. Athens submitted to necessity, and sent Demades to the king as
mediator. Alexander demanded that the leaders of the popular party, and among
them Demosthenes, should be delivered up to him; but he yielded to the intreaties
of the Athenians, and did not persist in his demand.
Alexander's departure for Asia is the beginning of a period of gloomy
tranquillity for Greece; but party hatred continued in secret, and it required
only some spark from without to make it blaze forth again in undiminished fury.
This spark came from Harpalus, who had been left by Alexander at Babylon, while
the king proceeded to India. When Alexander had reached the easternmost point
of his expedition, Harpalus with the treasures entrusted to his care, and with
6000 mercenaries, fled from Babylon and came to Greece. In B. C. 325 he arrived
at Athens, and purchased the protection of the city by distributing his gold among
the most influential demagogues. The reception of such an open rebel could not
be viewed by the Macedonian party otherwise than as an act of hostility towards
Macedonia itself; and it was probably at the instigation of that party, that Antipater,
the regent of Macedonia, and Olympias called upon the Athenians to deliver up
the rebel and the money they had received of him, and to put to trial those who
had accepted his bribes. Harpalus was allowed to escape, but the investigation
concerning those who had been bribed by him was instituted, and Demosthenes was
among the persons suspected of the crime. The accounts of his conduct during the
presence of Harpalus at Athens are so confused, that it is almost impossible to
arrive at a certain conclusion. Theopompus (ap. Plut. Dem. 25, comp. Vit. X Orat.)
and Deinarchus in his oration against Demosthenes state, that Demosthenes did
accept the bribes of Harpalus; but Pausanias (ii. 33.4) expressly acquits him
of the crime. The authority of his accusers, however, is very questionable, for
in the first place they do not agree in the detail of their statements, and secondly,
if we consider the conduct of Demosthenes throughout the disputes about Harpalus,
if we remember that he opposed the reception of the rebel, and that he voluntarily
offered himself to be tried, we must own that it is at least highly improbable
that he should have been guilty of common bribery, and that it was not his guilt
which caused his condemnation, but the implacable hatred of the Macedonian party,
which eagerly seized this favourable opportunity to rid itself of its most formidable
opponent, who was at that time abandoned by his own friends from sheer timidity.
Demosthenes defended himself in an oration which Athenaeus (xiii.) calls peri
tou chrusiou, and which is probably the same as the one referred to by others
under the title of apologia ton doron (Dionys. de Admir. vi dic. Dem. 57, Ep.
ad Amm. i. 12). But Demosthenes was declared guilty, and thrown into prison, from
which however he escaped, apparently with the connivance of the Athenian magistrates
(Plut. Dem. 26, Vit. X Orat.; Anonym. Vit. Demosth.158). Demosthenes quitted his
country, and resided partly at Troezene and partly in Aegina, looking daily, it
is said, across the sea towards his beloved native land.
But his exile did not last long, for in B. C. 323 Alexander died,
and the news of his death was the watchword for a fresh rise of the Greeks, which
was organized by the Athenians, and under the vigorous management of Leosthenes
it soon assumed a dangerous aspect for Macedonia (Diod. xviii. 10). Demosthenes,
although still living in exile, joined of his own accord the embassies which were
sent by the Athenians to the other Greek states, and he roused them to a fresh
struggle for liberty by the fire of his oratory. Such a devotedness to the interests
of his ungrateful country disarmed the hatred of his enemies. A decree of the
people was passed on the proposal of Demon, a relative of Demosthenes, by which
he was solemnly recalled from his exile. A trireme was sent to Aegina to fetch
him, and his progress from Peiraeeus to the city was a glorious triumph: it was
the happiest day of his life (Plut. Dem. 27, Vit. X Oral.; Justin, xiii. 5). The
military operations of the Greeks and their success at this time, seemed to justify
the most sanguine expectations, for the army of the united Greeks had advanced
as far as Thessaly, and besieged Antipater at Lamia. But this was the turning
point; for although, even after the fall of Leosthenes, the Greeks succeeded in
destroying the army of Leonnatus, which came to the assistance of Antipater, yet
they lost, in B. C. 322, the battle of Cranon. This defeat alone would not indeed
have decided the contest, had not the zeal of the Greeks gradually cooled, and
had not several detachments of the allied army withdrawn. Antipater availed himself
of this contemptible disposition among the Greeks, and offered peace, though he
was cunning enough to negotiate only with each state separately. Thus the cause
of Greece was forsaken by one state after another, until in the end the Athenians
were left alone to contend with Antipater. It would have been folly to continue
their resistance singlehanded, and they accordingly made peace with Antipater
on his own terms. All his stipulations were complied with, except the one which
demanded the surrender of the popular leaders of the Athenian people. When Antipater
and Craterus thereupon marched towards Athens, Demosthenes and his friends took
to flight, and, on the proposal of Demades, the Athenians sentenced them to death.
Demosthenes had gone to Calauria, and had taken refuge there in the temple of
Poseidon. When Archias, who hunted up the fugitives everywhere, arrived, Demosthenes,
who was summoned to follow him to Antipater, took poison, which he had been keeping
about his person for some time, and died in the temple of Poseidon, on the 10th
of Pyanepsion, B. C. 322 (Plut. Dem. 29, Vit. X Orat.; Lucian, Encom. Dem.. 43).
Thus terminated the career of a man who has been ranked by persons
of all ages among the greatest and noblest spirits of antiquity; and this fame
will remain undiminished so long as sterling sentiments and principles and a consistent
conduct through life are regarded as the standard by which a man's worth is measured,
and not simply the success--so often merely dependent upon circumstances--by which
his exertions are crowned. The very calumnies which have been heaped upon Demosthenes
by his enemies and detractors more extravagantly than upon any other man--the
coarse and complicated web of lies which was devised by Aeschines, and in which
he himself was caught, and lastly, the odious insinuations of Theopompus, the
historian, which are credulously repeated by Plutarch,--have only served to bring
forth the political virtues of Demosthenes in a more striking and brilliant light.
Some points there are in his life which perhaps will never be quite cleared up
on account of the distorted accounts that have come down to us about them. Some
minor charges which are made against him, and affect his character as a man, are
almost below contempt. It is said, for example, that he took to flight after the
battle of Chaeroneia, as if thousands of others had not fled with him (Plut. Dem.
20, Vit. X Oral.; Aeschin. c. Ctesiph.); that, notwithstanding his domestic calamity
(his daughter had died seven days before) he rejoiced at Philip's death, which
shews only the predominance of his patriotic feelings over his personal and selfish
ones (Plut. Dem. 22; Aeschin. c. Ctesiph.77); and lastly, that he shed tears on
going into exile--a fact for which he deserves to be loved and honoured rather
than blamed (Plut. Dem. 26). The charge of tergiversation which is repeatedly
brought against him by Aeschines, has never been substantiated by the least evidence
(Aeschin. c. Ctesiph.173, c. Timarch.131, de Fals. Leg.165; Plut. Dem. 15). In
his administration of public affairs Demosthenes is perfectly spotless, and free
from all the crimes which the men of the Macedonian party committed openly and
without any disguise. The charge of bribery, which was so often raised against
him by the same Aeschines, must be rejected altogether, and is a mere distortion
of the fact that Demosthenes accepted'subsidies from Persia for Athens, which
assuredly stood in need of such assistance in its struggles with Macedonia; but
there is not a shadow of a suspicion that he ever accepted any personal bribes.
His career as a statesman received its greatest lustre from his powers
as an orator, in which he has not been equalled by any man of any country. Our
own judgment on this point would necessarily be one-sided, as we can only read
his orations; but among the contemporaries of Demosthenes there was scarcely one
who could point out any definite fault in his oratory. By far the majority looked
up to him as the greatest orator of the time, and it was only men of such over-refined
and hypercritical tastes as Demetrius Phalereus who thought him either too plain
and simple or too harsh and strong (Plut. Dem. 9, 11); though some found those
features more striking in reading his orations, while others were more impressed
with them in hearing him speak. (Comp. Dionys. de Admir. vi die. Demosth. 22;
Cic. de Oral. iii. 56, Brut. 38; Quintil. xi. 3.6). These peculiarities, however,
are far from being faults; they are, on the contrary, proofs of his genius, if
we consider the temptations which natural deficiencies hold out to an incipient
orator to pursue the opposite course. The [p. 988] obstacles which his physical
constitution threw in his way when he commenced his career, were so great, that
a less courageous and persevering man than Demosthenes would at once have been
intimidated and entirely shrunk from the arduous career of a public orator (Plut.
Dem. 6). Those early difficulties with which he had to contend, led him to bestow
more care upon the composition of his orations than he would otherwise have done,
and produced in the end, if not the impossibility of speaking extempore, at least
the habit of never venturing upon it; for he never spoke without preparation,
and he sometimes even declined speaking when called upon in the assembly to do
so, merely because he was not prepared for it (Plut. Dem. 8, Vit. X Oral.). There
is, however, no reason for believing that all the extant orations were delivered
in that perfect form in which they have come down to us, for most of them were
probably subjected to a careful revision before publication; and it is only the
oration against Meidias, which, having been written for the purpose of being delivered,
and being afterwards given up and left incomplete, may be regarded with certainty
as a specimen of an oration in its original form. This oration alone sufficiently
shews how little Demosthenes trusted to the impulse of the moment. It would lead
us too far in this article to examine the manner in which Demosthenes composed
his orations, and we must refer the reader to the various modern works cited below.
We shall only add a few remarks upon the causes of the mighty impression which
his speeches made upon the minds of his hearers. The first cause was their pure
and ethical character; for every sentence exhibits Demosthenes as the friend of
his country, of virtue, truth, and public decency (Plut. Dem. 13); and as the
struggles in which he was engaged were fair and just, he could without scruple
unmask his opponents, and wound them where they were vulnerable, though he never
resorted to sycophantic artifices. The second cause was his intellectual superiority.
By a wise arrangement of his subjects, and by the application of the strongest
arguments in their proper places, he brought the subjects before his hearers in
the clearest possible form; any doubts that might be raised were met by him beforehand,
and thus he proceeded calmly but irresistibly towards his end. The third and last
cause was the magic force of his language, which being majestic and yet simple,
rich yet not bombastic, strange and yet familiar, solemn without being ornamented,
grave and yet pleasing, concise and yet fluent, sweet and yet impressive, carried
away the minds of his hearers. That such orations should notwithstanding sometimes
have failed to produce the desired effect, was owing only to the spirit of the
times.
Most of the critical works that were written upon Demosthenes by the
ancients are lost, and, independent of many scattered remarks, the only important
critical work that has come down to us is that of Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
entitled peri tes tou Demosthenous deinotetos. The acknowledged excellence of
Demosthenes's orations made them the principal subjects of study and speculation
with the rhetoricians, and called forth numerous imitators and commentators. It
is probably owing to those rhetorical speculations which began as early as the
second century B. C., that a number of orations which are decidedly spurious and
unworthy of Demosthenes, such as the logos epitaphios and the erotikos, were incorporated
in the collections of those of Demosthenes. Others, such as the speech on Halonesus,
the first against Aristogeiton, those against Theocrines and Neaera, which are
undoubtedly the productions of contemporary orators, may have been introduced
among those of Demosthenes by mistake. It would be of great assistance to us to
have the commentaries which were written upon Demosthenes by such men as Didymus,
Longinus, Hermogenes, Sallustius, Apollonides, Theon, Gymnasius, and others; but
unfortunately most of what they wrote is lost, and scarcely anything of importance
is extant, except the miserable collection of scholia which have come down to
us under the name of Ulpian, and the Greek argumenta to the orations by Libanius
and other rhetoricians.
The ancients state, that there existed 65 orations of Demosthenes (Plut. Vit.
X Orat.; Phot. Bibl.), but of these only 61, and if we deduct the letter of Philip,
which is strangely enough counted as an oration, only 60 have come down to us
under his name, though some of these are spurious, or at least of very doubtful
authenticity. Besides these orations, there are 56 Exordia to public orations,
and six letters, which bear the name of Demosthenes, though their genuineness
is very doubtful.
The orations of Demosthenes are contained in the various collections
of the Attic orators by Aldus, H. Stephens, Taylor, Reiske, Dukas, Bekker, Dobson,
and Baiter and Sauppe. Separate editions of the orations of Demosthenes alone
were published by Aldus, Venice, 1504; at Basel in 1532 ; by Feliciano, Venice,
1543; by Morellus and Lambinus, Paris, 1570; by H. Wolf, 1572 (often reprinted);
by Auger, Paris, 1790; and by Schaefer, Leipzig and London, 1822, in 9 vols. 8vo.
The first two contain the text, the third the Latin translation, and the others
the critical apparatus, the indices, &c. A good edition of the text is that by
W. Dindorf, Leipzig, 1825, 3 vols. 8vo. We subjoin a classified list of the orations
of Demosthenes, to which are added the editions of each separate oration, when
there are any, and the literature upon it.
I. POLITICAL ORATIONS.
A. Orations against Philip.
Editions of the Philippics were published by J. Bekker (Berlin, 1816, 1825 and 1835), C. A. Rudiger (Leipzig, 1818, 1829 and 1833), and J. T. Vomel. (Frankfurt, 1829.)
1. The first Philippic was delivered in B. C. 352, and is believed by some to be made up of two distinct orations, the second of which is supposed to commence at p. 48 with the words ha men hemeis. (Dionys. Ep. ad Amm. i. 10.) But critics down to the present time are divided in their opinions upon this point. The common opinion, that the oration is one whole, is supported by the MSS., and is defended by Bremi, in the Philol. Beilrage aus der Schweiz, vol. i. p. 21, &c. The opposite opinion is very ably maintained by J. Held, Prolegomena ad Dem. Orat. quae vulgo prima Phil. dicitur, Vratislaviae, 1831, and especially by Seebeck in the Zeitschrift fur d. Alterthumswiss. for 1838, No. 91, &c.
2--4. The first, second, and third Olynthiac orations belong to the year B. C.
349. Dionysius (Ep. ad Amm. i. 4) makes the second the first, and the third the
second in the series; and this order has been defended by R. Rauchenstein, de
Orat. Olynth. ordine, Leipz. 1821, which is reprinted in vol. i. of Schaefer's
Apparatus. The other order is defended by Becker, in his German translation of
the Philippics, i. p. 103, &c., and by Westermann, Stuve, Ziemann, Petrenz, and
Bruckner, in separate dissertations. There is a good edition of the Olynthiac
orations, with notes, by C. H. Frotscher and C. H. Funkhanel, Leipzig, 1834, 8vo.
5. The oration on the Peace, delivered in B. C. 346. Respecting the question as to whether this oration was actually delivered or not, see Becker, Philippische Reden, i. p. 222, &c., and Vomel, Prolegom. ad Orat. de Pace, p. 240, &c.
6. The second Philippic, delivered in B. C. 344. See Vomel, Integram esse Demosth. Philip. II. apparet ex dispositione, Frankf. 1828, whose opinion is opposed by Rauchenstein in Jahn's Jahrb. vol. xi. 2, p. 144, &c.
7. On Halonesus, B. C. 343, was suspected by the ancients themselves, and ascribed to Hegesippus. (Liban. Argum. p. 75; Harpocrat. and Etym. M. s. v.; Phot. Bibl. p. 491.) Weiske endeavoured to vindicate the oration for Demosthenes in Dissertatio super Orat. de Halon., Lubben. 1808, but he is opposed by Becker in Seebode's Archiv. for 1825, i. p. 84, &c., Philippische Reden, ii. p. 301, &c., and by Vomel in Ostenditur Hegesippi esse orationem de Haloneso, Frankf. 1830, who published a separate edition of this oration under the name of Hegesippus in 1833.
8. Peri ton en Cherrhoonesoi delivered in B. C. 342.
9. The third Philippic, delivered in B. C. 342. See Vomel, Demosthenis Philip. III. habitant esse ante Chersonesiticam, Frankf. 1837; L. Spengel, Ueber die dritte Philip. Rede des Dem., Munich, 1839.
10. The fourth Philippic, belongs to B. C. 341, but is thought by nearly all critics to be spurious. See Becker, Philip. Reden, ii. p. 491, &c.; W. H. Veersteg, Orat. Philip. IV. Demosth. aljudicatur, Groningae, 1818.
11. Pros ten Epistolen ten Philippou refers to the year B. C. 340, but is a spurious oration. Becker, Philip. Reden, ii. p. 516, &c.
B. Other Political Orations.
12. Peri Suntaxeos, refers to B. C. 353, but is acknowledged on all hands to be spurious. F. A. Wolf, Proleg. ad Leptin. p. 124; Schaefer, Apparat. Crit. i. p. 686.
13. Peri Summorion, was delivered in B. C. 354. See Amersfoordt, Introduct. in Orat. de Symmor. Lugdun. Bat. 1821, reprinted in Schaefer's Appar. Crit. vol. i.; Parreidt, Disputat. de Instit. eo Athen. cujus ordinat. et correct. in orat. Peri Summ. inscripta suadet Demosth., Magdeburg, 1836.
14. Huper Megalopoliton, B. C. 353.
15. Peri tes Rhodion eleutherias, B. C. 351.
16. Peri tonpros Alexandron sunthekon, refers to B. C. 325, and was recognized as spurious by the ancients themselves. (Dionys. de Admir. vi die. Dem. 57; Liban. Argum. p. 211.)
II. JUDICIAL OR PRIVATE ORATIONS.
17. Peri Stephanou, or on the Crown, was delivered in B. C. 330. There are numerous separate editions of this famous oration; the best are by I. Bekker with scholia, Halle, 1815, and Berlin, 1825, by Bremi (Gotha, 1834), and by Dissen (Gottingen, 1837). Comp. F. Winiewski, Comment. Historica et Chronolog. in Demosth. Orat. de Coron., Monasterii, 1829. The genuineness of the documents quoted in this oration has of late been the subject of much discussion, and the most important among the treatises on this question are those of Droysen (Ueber die Aechtheit der Urkund. in Denmosth. Rede vonm Kranz, in the Zeitschrift fur die Alterthumsw. for 1839, and reprinted separately at Berlin, 1839), and F. W. Newman (Classical Museum, vol. i. pp. 141--169), both of whom deny the genuineness, while Vimel in a series of programs (commenced in 1841) endeavours to prove their authenticity. Comp. A. F. Wolper, de Forma hodierna Orat. Demosth. de Coron. Leipzig, 1825 ; L. C. A. Briegleb, Comment. de Demosth. Orat. pro Ctesiph. praestantia, Isenac. 1832.
18. Peri tes Parapredbeias, delivered in B. C. 342.
19. Peri tes ateleias pros Leptinen, was spoken in B. C. 355, and it has been edited separately by F. A. Wolf, Halle, 1789, which edition was reprinted at Ziirich, 1831.
20. Kata Meidiou peri tou kondulou, was composed in B. C. 355. There are separate editions by Buttmann (Berlin, 1823 and 1833), Blume (Sund. 1828), and Meier (Halle, 1832). Compare Bockh, Ueber die Zeitverhaltnisse der Midiana in the Abhandl. der Berlin. Akadem. for 1820, p. 60, &c.
21. Kata Androtionos paranomon, belongs to B. C. 355, and has been edited separately by Funkhanel, Leipzig, 1832.
22. Kata Aridtokratous, B. C. 352. See Rumpf, De Charidemo Orita, Giessen, 1815.
23. Kata Timokratous, B. C. 353. See Blume, Prolegom. in Demosth. Orat. c. Timocrat., Berlin, 1823.
24 and 25. The two orations against Aristogeiton belong to the time after B. C. 338. The genuineness of these two orations, especially of the first, was strongly doubted by the ancients themselves (Dionys. de Admir. vi dic. Dem. 57; Harpocrat. s. vv. Theoris and nealh/s; Pollux, x. 155) though some believed them to be the productions of Demosthenes. (Liban. Argum. p. 769; Phot. Bibl. p. 491.) Modern critics think the first spurious, others the second, and others again both. See Schmidt, in the Excursus to his edition of Deinarchus, p. 106, &c.; Westermann, Quaest. Demosth. iii. p. 96, &c.
26 and 27. The two orations against Aphobus were delivered in B. C. 364.
28. Pros Aphobon pseudomarturion, is suspected of being spurious by Westermann, Quaest. Dem. iii. p. 11, &c. Comp. Schomann, de Jure Publ. Graec. p. 274.
29 and 30. The two orations against Onetor. See Schmeisser, de Re Tutelari ap. Athen., &c., Freiburg, 1829. The genuineness of these orations is suspected by Bockh, Publ. Econ. of Athens, Index, s. v. Demosthenes.
31. Paragraphe pros Zenothemin, falls after the year B. C. 355.
32. Pros Apatourion paragreraphe, is of uncertain date.
33. Pros Phormiona peri daneiou, was spoken in B. C. 332. See Baumstark, Prolegom.
in Orat Demosth. adv. Phorm., Heidelberg, 1826.
34. Pros ten Lakritou paragraphen, is of uncertain date, and its genuineness is doubted by some of the ancients. See the Greek Argumentum.
35. Huper Phormionos paragraphe, belongs to B. C. 350.
36. Pros Pantaineton paragraphe, falls after B. C. 347.
37. Pros Nausimachon kai Xenopeithe paragraphe, is of uncertain date.
38. Pros Boioton peri tou onomaatos, belongs to B. C. 351 or 350, and was ascribed by some of the ancients to Deinarchus. (Dionys. Hal. Deinarch. 13.) See Bockh, Urkund. uber. das Att. Seewesen, p. 22, &c.
39. Pros Boioton nper proikos metroias, B. C. 347.
40. Pros Spoudian huper proikos, of uncertain date.
41. Pros Phainippon peri antidoseos, of uncertain date. The genuineness of this oration is doubted by the author of the argum. to it, Bockh, Index to Publ. Econ. of Ath/ens, and Schaefer, Appar. Crit. v. p. 63.
42. Pros Makartaton peri Hagniou klerou, of uncertain date. See de Boor, Prolegom. zu der Rede des Demosth. gegen. Makartatus, Hamburg, 1838.
43. Pros Leochare peri tou klerou, of uncertain date.
44 and 45. The two orations against Stephanus, belong to the time previous to B. C. 343. The genuineness of the first is doubted by I. Bekker. See C. D. Beel, Diatribe in Demosth. Orat. in Stephan., Lugdun. Bat. 1825.
46. Peri Euerlou kai Mnesiboulou pseudomarturion, belongs to the time after B.
C. 355. Its genuineness is doubted by Harpocr. s. vv.)Ekaki/stroun and h)|thme/nhn,
H. Wolf, Bockh (l. c.), and I. Bekker. See Schaefer, Appar. Crit. v. p. 216.
47. Kata Olumpiodorou blabes after B. C. 343.
48. Pros Timotheon huper chreeos, falls between B. C. 363 and 354, but is considered spurious by Harpocrat. s. v. Kakotechnion, boxke, and Bekker (see Schaefer, Appar. Crit. v. p. 264). It is defended by Rumpf, de Orat. adv. Timothy , Giessen, 1821.
49. Pros poluklea peri tou epitrierarchematos, after B. C. 361.
50. Peri tou Stephanou tes trierarchias, after B. C. 361, is suspected by Becker, Demosth. als Staatsmann und. Redner, p. 465.
51. Pros Kallippon, spoken in B. C. 364.
52. Pros Nikostraton peri ton Arethousiou andrapodon, of uncertain date, was suspected by Harpocrat. s. v. Apographe.
53. Kata Kononos abikias, B. C. 343.
54. Pros Kallaklea peri choriou, of uncertain date.
55. Kata Dionusodorou blabes, B. C. 329.
56. Ephesis pros Eubouliden, after B. C. 346.
57. Kata Theokrinou endeixis, belongs to B. C. 325, but is probably the work of Deinarchus. (Dionys. Deinarch. 10; Argum. ad Orat. c. Theocrin. p. 1321; Harpocrat. s. vv. agraphiou and Theokrines; Schaefer, Appar. Crit. v. p. 473.)
58. Kata Neairas, refers to B. C. 340, but is considered spurious both by ancient and modern writers. (Dionys. de Admir. vi die. Dem. 57 ; Phrynich. p. 225; Harpocrat. s. vv. gerrha, demopoietos, dienguesen, Hipparchos, and Kolias ; Schaefer, Appar. Crit. v. p. 527.)
III. SHOW SPEECHES.
59. Epitaphios, refers to B. C. 338, but is un questionably spurious. (Dionys. de Adnir. vi dic. Dem. 23, 44; Liban. p. 6; Harpocrat. s. tv. Aigeidai and Kekroipis; Phot. Bibl. p. 491; Suid. s. v. Demosthenes; Bekker, Anecd. p. 354; Westermann, Quaest. Dem. ii. p. 49, &c.) Its genuineness is defended by Becker (Demosth. als Staatsm. u. Red. ii. p. 466, &c.) and Kriiger (in Seebode's Archiv, i. 2, p. 277).
60. Erotikos, is, like the former, a spurious production. (Dionys. de Adnmir.
vi dic. Dem. 44 ; Liban. p. 6; Pollux, iii. 144; Phot. Bibl. l. c.; Westermann,
Quaest. Dem. ii. p. 70, &c.)
Among the lost orations of Demosthenes the following are mentioned :--Diphiloi demegorikas aitounti doreas. (Dionys. Deinarech. 11.) 2. Kata Medontos. (Pollux, viii. 53; Harpocr. s. v. Dekateuein.) 3. Pros Polueukton paragraphe. (Bekker, Anecd. p. 90.) 4. Peri chrusiou (Athen. xiii. p. 592) is perhaps the same as the apologia ton doron. (Dionys. Ep. ad Amm. i. 12, who, however, in Demoosth. 57, declares it a spurious oration.) 5. Peri tou me ekdounai Harpalon, was spurious according to Dionysius. (Demosth. 57.) 6. Kata Demadou. (Bekker, Anecd. p. 335.) A fragment of it is probably extant in Alexand. de Figur. p. 478, ed. Walz. 7. Pros Kritian peri tou enepiskemmatos. (Harpocrat. s. v. Enepiskemma, where Dionysius doubts its genuineness.) 8. Huper petoron, probably not a work of Demosthenes. (Suid. s. v. Hama. 9. Huper Saturou tes epitropes pros Chaaridemon, belonged according to Callimachus (ap. Phot. Bibl. p. 491) to Deinarchus.
Besides the ancient and modern historians of the time of Philip and Alexander, the following works will be found useful to the student of Demosthenes : Schott, Vitae Parallelae Aristot. et Demosth. Antwerp, 1603; Becker, Demosthenes als Staatsmann und Redner, Halle, 1816, 2 vols. 8vo.; Westermann, Quaestiones Demosthenicae, in four parts, Leipzig, 1830--1837, Geschichte der Griech. Beredtsamkeit, §§ 56, 57, and Beilage, vii. p. 297, &c.; Bohneke, Studien auf dem Gebiete der Attischen Redner, Berlin, 1843.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited June 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
(Demosthenes,
by J.F.Dobson, The Greek Orators, London, 1919)
Introduction
The art of rhetoric could go no further after Isocrates, who, in addition
to possessing a style which was as perfect as technical dexterity could make it,
had imparted to his numerous disciples the art of composing sonorous phrases and
linking them together in elaborate periods. Any young aspirant to literary fame
might now learn from him to write fluent easy prose, which would have been impossible
to Thucydides or Antiphon. If the style seems on some occasions to have been so
over-elaborated that the subject-matter takes a secondary place, that was the
fault not so much of the artist as of the man. Isocrates never wrote at fever-heat;
his greatest works come from the study; he is too reflective and dispassionate
to be a really vital force.
With Demosthenes and his contemporaries it is otherwise; they are
men actively engaged in politics, actuated by strong party-feeling, and swayed
by personal passion. This was the outcome of the political situation: just as
feeling was strong in the generation immediately succeeding the reign of the oligarchical
Thirty at Athens, so now, when Athens and the whole of greece were fighting not
against oligarchy but the empire of a sovereign ruler, the depths were stirred.
A new feature in this period is the publication of political speeches.
From the time of the earliest orator--Antiphon--the professional logographoi
had preserved their speeches in writing. The majority of these were delivered
in minor cases of only personal importance, though some orations by lysias and
others have reference indirectly to political questions.
Another class of speeches which were usually preserved is the epideictic--orations
prepared for delivery at some great gathering, such as a religious festival or
a public funeral. Isocrates was an innovator to the extent of writing in the form
of speeches what were really political treatises; but these were only composed
for the reader, and were never intended to be delivered.
Among the contemporaries of Demosthenes we find some diversity of
practice. Some orators, such as Demades and Phocion, never published any speeches,
and seem, indeed, hardly to have prepared them before delivery. They relied upon
their skill at improvisation.
Others, for instance Aeschines, Lycurgus, and Dinarchus, revised and
published their judicial speeches, especially those which had a political bearing.
Hyperides and Demosthenes, in addition to this, in some cases gave to the world
an amended version of their public harangues. Demosthenes did not always publish
such speeches; there are considerable periods of his political life which are
not represented by any written work; but he seems to have wished to make a permanent
record of certain utterances containing an explanation of his policy, in order
that those who had not heard him speak, or not fully grasped his import, might
have an opportunity for further study of his views after the ephemeral effect
of his eloquence had passed away. It is probable that most of the speeches so
published belong to times when his party was not predominant in the state, and
the opposition had to reinforce its speech by writing. The result is of importance
in two ways, for the speeches are a serious contribution to literature, of great
value for the study of the development of Greek prose; and they are of still greater
historical value; for, though untrustworthy in some details, they provide excellent
material for the understanding of the political situation, and the aims and principles
of the anti-Macedonian party.
Life, etc.
Demosthenes the orator was born at Athens in 384 B.C. His father,
Demosthenes, of the deme of Paeania, was a rich manufacturer of swords; his mother
was a daughter of an Athenian named Gylon, who had left Athens, owing to a charge
of treason, at the end of the Peloponnesian war, settled in the neighbourhood
of the Cimmerian Bosporus (Crimea),
and married a rich woman who was a native of that district. We know nothing more
of her except that Aeschines describes her as a Scythian.
She may have been of Hellenic descent; even Plutarch doubts the assertion of Aeschines
that she was a barbarian; the suspicion, however, was enough for Aeschines, who
is able to call his enemy a Greek-speaking Scythian.
Demosthenes the elder died, leaving his son seven years old and a
daughter aged five. By his will two nephews, Aphobos and Demophon, and a friend
Therippides, were appointed trustees. The two former, as nearest of kin, were,
according to Attic custom, to marry the widow and her daughter, but these provisions
were not carried out. During the years of Demosthenes' minority his guardians
ruined the sword business by their mismanagement, and squandered the accumulated
profits.
At the age of eighteen Demosthenes, who had been brought up by his
mother, laid claim to his father's estate. The guardians by various devices attempted
to frustrate him, and three years were spent in attempts at compromise and examinations
before the arbitrators. During this time Demosthenes was studying rhetoric and
judicial procedure under Isaeus, to whose methods his early speeches are so deeply
indebted that a contemporary remarked 'he had swallowed Isaeus whole.' At last,
when he was twenty-one years old, he succeeded in bringing his wrongs before a
court; thanks to the training of Isaeus he was able to plead his own case, and
he won it. The ingenuity of his adversaries enabled them to involve him in further
legal proceedings which lasted perhaps two years more. In the end he was victorious,
but by the time he recovered his patrimony there was very little of it left.
Being forced to find a means of living he adopted the profession of
a speech-writer, which he followed through the greater part of his life. he made
speeches for others to use, as his father had made swords, and he was as good
a craftsman as his father. He succeeded by this new trade in repairing his damaged
fortunes.
In addition to forging such weapons for the use of others, he instructed
pupils in the art of rhetoric. This practice he seems to have abandoned soon after
the year 345 B.C., when public affairs began to have the chief claim on his energies.
From that time forward he wielded with distinction a sword of his own manufacture.
It is said that as a youth barely of age he made an attempt to speak
in the ecclesia, and failed. His voice was too weak, his delivery imperfect, and
his style unsuitable. The failure only inspired him to practise that he might
overcome his natural defects. We are familiar with the legends of his declaiming
with pebbles in his mouth and reciting speeches when running up hill, of his studies
in a cave by the sea-shore, where he tried to make his voice heard above the thunder
of the waves.
The training to which he subjected himself enabled him to overcome
to a great extent whatever disabilities he may have suffered from, but he never
had the advantage of a voice and delivery such as those of Aeschines. Legends
current in the time of Plutarch represent him as engrossed in the study of the
best prose-writers. He copied out the history of Thucydides eight times, according
to one tradition. This we need not accept, but it may be taken as certain that
he studied the author's style carefully. He may not have been a pupil of Isocrates
or Plato, but from the former he must have learnt much in the way of prose-construction
and rhythm, and the latter's works, though he dissented from the great principle
of Plato that the wise man avoids the agora and the law-courts,
may well have inspired him with many of the generous ideas which are the foundation
of his policy. From the study of such passages as the Melian controversy and others
in which the historian bases justice upon the right of the stronger, he may have
turned with relief to the nobler discussion of justice in the Republic, and indeed,
in his view of what is right and good, Demosthenes approaches much nearer to the
philosopher than to the historian.
A professional speech-writer at Athens might make a speciality of
some particular kind of cases, and by thus restricting his field become a real
expert in one department, as Isaeus, for instance, did in the probate court; or,
on the other hand, he might engage in quite general practice. A farmer might have
a dispute with his neighbours about his boundaries, or damage caused by the overflow
of surface water; a quiet citizen might seek redress from the law in a case of
assault against which he was unable or unwilling to make retaliation in kind;
an underwriter who had been defrauded in some shady marine transaction might wish
to bring another knave to account. but besides these private cases, whether they
are purely civil, or practically, if not technically, criminal actions, there
is other work of more importance for a logographos.
The state may wish to prosecute an official who has abused its trust.
In times when honesty is rarer than cleverness it may find the necessity of appointing
a prosecutor rather for his known integrity than for his ability in the law-courts.
Such a prosecutor will need professional assistance; and this need evoked some
of the early political speeches of Demosthenes, Against Androtion, Timocrates,
and Aristocrates (355-352 B.C.). It is noticeable that we have no trace of his
work between the speeches delivered against his guardians and the first of this
latter group. Probably he spent these ten years partly in study and partly in
the conduct of such cases as fell to the portion of a beginner. In this time he
must gradually have built up a reputation, but he may not have wished to keep
any record of his first essays which, when he had arrived at his maturity as a
pleader, could not, perhaps, have seemed to him worthy of his reputation.
It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of these varied activities
to the career of Demosthenes. In the course of these early years he must have
made himself familiar with many branches of the law; he was brought into intimate
relations with individuals of all classes, and all shades of political opinion.
In order to be of use vicariously in political cases he must have made a careful
study of politics. Such studies were of great value in the education of a statesman,
and by means of the semi-public cases in which he was engaged, though not on his
own account, and perhaps not always in accordance with his convictions, his own
political opinions must gradually have been formed.
In 354 B.C., the year after the trial of Androtion, Demosthenes appeared
in person before the dicastery on behalf of Ctesippus in an action against Leptines.
This was a case of some political importance. A few months later he came forward
in the assembly to deliver his speech On the Symmories, which was shortly
followed by another public harangue On Behalf of the People of Megapolis
(353 B.C.). Two years later he came to the front not as a mere pleader, but a
real counsellor of the people, and began the great series of Philippics.
His career from this point onward is divided naturally into three
periods.
In the first, 351-340 B.C., he was in opposition to the party in power
at Athens. The beginning of it is marked by some famous speeches, the First
Philippic and the first three Olynthiac orations (351-349 B.C.).
Till this time the Athenians had not realized the significance of the growth of
the Macedonian power. It was only eight years since Philip, on his accession to
the throne, had undertaken the great task of uniting the constituent parts of
his kingdom which had long been torn by civil war, of fostering a national feeling,
and creating an army. He had won incredible successes in a few years. By a combination
of force and deceit he had made himself master of Amphipolis
and Pydna in 357 B.C. In
the following year he obtained possession of the gold mines of Mt.
Pangaeus, which gave him a source of inexhaustible wealth, and enabled him
to prepare more ambitious enterprises. This was an important crisis in his career:
the bribery for which he was famous and in which he greatly trusted could now
be practised on a large scale.
In the early speeches of Demosthenes there is little reference to
Philip; he is certainly not regarded as a dangerous rival of Athens. There is
a passing mention of him in the Leptines (384 B.C.); in the Aristocrates he plays
a larger part, but is treated almost contemptuously: 'You know, of course, whom
I mean by this Philip of Macedon' (iste derou Philirron toutoni ton Makedona)
is the form in which his name is introduced (§
111). He is considered as an enemy, but only classed with other barbarian
princes, such as Cersobleptes of Thrace.
But Philip was not content with annexing towns and districts in his
own neighbourhood in whose integrity Athens was interested--Amphipolis, Pydna,
Potidaea, Methone,
and part of Thrace. He interfered in the affairs of Thessaly,
which brought the trouble nearer home to Athens
(353 B.C.). In 352 B.C. he proposed to pass through Thermopylae,
and take part in the Sacred War against Phocis,
but here Athens intervened for the first time and checked his progress.
After this one vigorous stroke the Athenians, in spite of Philip's
renewed activities in Thrace and on the Propontis,
relapsed into an apathetic indifference, from which Demosthenes in vain tried
to rouse them.
The language of the First Philippic shows that Demosthenes
fully recognized the seriousness of the situation, and the imminent danger to
which the complacency of his countryment was exposing them; he wishes to make
them feel that the case, though not yet desperate, is likely to become so if they
persist in doing nothing, while a whole-hearted effort will bring them into safety
again:
§ 2.
'Now, first of all, Gentlemen, we must not despair about the present state of
affairs, serious as it is; for our greatest weakness in the past will be our greatest
strength in the future. What do I mean? I mean that you are in difficulties simply
because you have never exerted yourselves to do your duty. If things were as they
are in spite of serious effort on your part to act always as you should, there
would be no hope of improvement. Secondly, I would have you reflect on what some
of you can remember and others have been told, of the great power possessed not
long ago by Sparta; yet,
in face of that power you acted honourably and nobly, you in no wise detracted
from your country's dignity; you faced the war unflinchingly in a just cause.
. . .'
§ 4.
'If any of you thinks that Philip is invincible, considering how great is the
force at his disposal, and how our city has lost all these places, he has grounds
for his belief; but let him consider that we once possessed Pydna, Potidaea, and
Methone, and the whole of that district; and many of the tribes, now subject to
him, were free and independent and better disposed to us than to Macedon. If Philip
had felt as you do now, that it was a serious matter to fight against Athens because
she possessed so many strongholds commanding his own country, while he was destitute
of allies, he would never have won any of his present successes, or acquired the
mighty power which now alarms you. But he saw clearly that these places were the
prizes of war offered in open competition; that the property of an absentee goes
naturally to those who are on the spot to claim it, and those who are willing
to work hard and take risks may supplant those who neglect their chances.'
§ 8.
'Do not imagine that he is as a God, secure in eternal possession. There are men
who hate and fear and envy him, even among those who seem his closest associates.
These feelings are for the present kept under, because through your slowness and
your negligence they can find no opening. These habits, I say, you must break
with.'
§ 10.
'When, I ask, when will you be roused to do your duty?--When the time of need
comes, you say. What do you think of the present crisis? I hold that a free nation
can never be in greater need than when their conduct is of a kind to shame them.
Tell me, do you want to parade the streets asking each other, "Is there any
news to-day?" What graver news can there be than that a Macedonian is crushing
Athens and dictating the policy of Greece?
"Philip is dead," says one. "Oh no, but he is ill," says another.
What difference does it make to you? Even if anything happens to him you will
very soon call into existence a second Philip if you attend to your interests
as carefully as you are doing now. For it is not so much his own strength as your
negligence that has raised him to power.'
The orator proceeds to give detailed advice for the conduct of the
war; he asks for no 'paper forces,' such as the assembly is in the habit of voting,
irrespective of whether they can be obtained or not--ten or twenty thousand of
mercenaries or the like. He requires a small but efficient expeditionary force,
of which the backbone is to be a contingent of citizenhoplites, one quarter of
the whole; a small but efficient fleet, and money to pay both army and navy--this
was a matter often overlooked by the assembly--and an Athenian general in whom
the host will have confidence. The advice was moderate and sound in the extreme.
Demosthenes probably knew what he was talking about when he said that two thousand
hoplites, two hundred cavalry, and fifty triremes were enough for the present.
A resolute attack on Philip by such a force would probably have put fresh heart
into the many enemies whom he had not yet completely subdued.
There is a further point which marks the difference between the present
advice and that of previous counsellors. The army is not to be enlisted for a
particular expedition only; it is to be maintained at its original strength as
long as may be necessary. Soldiers will serve for a certain limited time, and
at the end of their term will be replaced by fresh troops. The army which he suggests
will not be enough to defeat Philip unaided, but enough to produce a strong impression.
They might send a large force, but it would be unwieldy, and they could not maintain
it.
The First Philippic failed to produce the effect desired.
The Olynthiac speeches which closely followed it were also ineffectual.
In 349 B.C. Philip seized a pretext for making war on Olynthus,
which appealed for help to Athens. The alliance, which had been sought in vain
in 357 and 352 B.C., was now, apparently, granted with little opposition, and
Chares with two thousand mercenaries sent to the help of the Olynthian league.
Demosthenes tries to emphasize the importance of the situation; the aid which
has been voted is not enough; they ought to act at once, sending two forces of
citizens, not mercenaries; the one to protect Olynthus, the other to harass Philip
elsewhere. Large supplies of money are necessary, and he hints that the Athenians
have such supplies ready at hand. He refers to the Festival Fund (theorikon),
but concerning this he is in a delicate position. The ministry of Eubulus was
in power, and a law of Eubulus had pronounced any attempt to tamper with the theorikon
a criminal offence. Demosthenes, being one of a weak minority, could only move
cautiously, suggesting that a change of administration was desirable, but not
proposing a definite motion.
There is a marked difference in tone between the first two speeches
and the third. In the former Demosthenes insists that everything is still to be
done, but he points out that there are many weak points in Philip's armour, and
a vigorous and united policy may still defeat him. In the third he makes it clear
that the opportunity is past, and the lost ground can only be recovered by desperate
measures. He openly advocates the conversion of the Festival Fund into a military
chest, and this is the main theme of the oration, to which every argument in turn
leads up.(1)
The efforts of Athens were dilatory and insufficient; Olynthus and
the other cities of the Chalcidian League fell in the following year (349 B.C.);
they were destroyed, and all the inhabitants made slaves. Attempts to unite the
Peloponnesian States against the common enemy were futile, and negotiations were
begun between Philip and Athens. They were conducted at first informally by private
persons, but in 347 B.C., on the proposal of Philocrates, an embassy was sent
to Philip. Philip's answer, received in 346 B.C., demanded that Phocis and Halus
should be excluded from the proposed treaty. Demosthenes contested this point,
but Aeschines carried it. A second embassy was sent, and the discreditable Peace
of Philocrates was signed. The result was the ruin of Phocis. Although Demosthenes
disapproved of the peace, later in the year, in his speech On the Peace,
he urged Athens to keep its conditions, arguing that to break it would bring upon
them even greater disaster.
In consequence of the peace, Philip had been able to convoke the Amphictyonic
Council, and pass a vote for the condemnation of Phocis. Twenty-two towns were
destroyed, and the Phocian votes in the Council transferred to Philip, who was
also made president of the Pythian
Games. Thus the barbarian of a few years ago had received the highest religious
sanction for his claim to be the leader of Greece. Athens alone, whose precedence
he had usurped, refused to recognize him, and Demosthenes saw that to persist
in a hostile attitude might involve all the States in a new Amphictyonic war.
It was better to surrender their scruples, and to regard the convention not, indeed,
as a permanent peace, but a truce during which fresh preparations might be made.
Six years of nominal peace ensued, during which Philip extended his influence
diplomatically. Whether from principle or policy he treated Athens with marked
courtesy, and, through his agents, made vague offers of the great services which
he was prepared to render. Many of the citizens believed in his sincerity, notably
Isocrates, who in 346 B.C. spoke of the baseless suspicions caused by the assertions
of malicious persons, that Philip wished to destroy Greek freedom (Isocr.,
Philippus, § 73-74). Demosthenes was never duped by these professions. He
was now a recognized leader, and was gathering to his side a powerful body of
patriotic orators such as Lycurgus and Hyperides. Philip, after organizing the
government of Thessaly and allying himself with Thebes,
interfered in the Peloponnese
by supporting Messene, Arcadia,
and Argos against Sparta.
An Athenian embassy, led by Demosthenes, was sent to these states
to advise them of the danger which they incurred by their new alliance. Some impression
was produced, and apparently an embassy was sent by some of the states to Athens.
In reply to their representations, of which no trace is preserved, Demosthenes
delivered the Second Philippic. In it he exposes the king's duplicity.
'The means used by Athens to counteract his manoeuvres are quite inadequate; we
talk, but he acts. We speak to the point, but do nothing to the point. Each side
is superior in the line which it follows, but his is the more effective line'
(§§ 1-5).
Philip's assurances of goodwill are accepted too readily. He realized that Thebes,
in consideration of favours received, would further his designs. He is now showing
favour to Messene and Argos from the same motive. He has paid Athens the high
compliment of not offering her a disgraceful bargain (§§
6-12). His past actions betray him; as he made the Boeotian
cities subject to Thebes, he is not likely to free the Peloponnesian States from
Sparta. He knows that he is really aiming at you, and that you are aware of it;
that is why he is ever on the alert, and supports against you Thebans and Peloponnesians,
who, he thinks, are greedy enough to swallow his present offers, and too stupid
to foresee the consequences' (§§
12-19). The epilogue contains an indictment of those whose policy is to blame
for the present troubles. In accordance with Demosthenes' general practice Aeschines
and Philocrates, at whom he aims the charge, are not mentioned by name.
The anti-Macedonian party grew in strength in 343 B.C. Hyperides impeached
Philocrates, who retired into exile and was condemned to death. About the same
time Demosthenes himself brought into court an action against Aeschines, which
had been pending for three years, for traitorous conduct in connexion with the
embassy to Philip. The position was a difficult one for two reasons: his own policy
in that matter could not be sharply distinguished from that of Aeschines; the
accusation depended largely on discrimination of motives, and he had practically
no proof of the guilt of Aeschines. Considering the technical weakness of the
prosecutor's case it is not surprising that Aeschines escaped; it is more remarkable
that he was acquitted only by a small majority.
In 342 B.C. Philip, whose influence in the Peloponnese had slightly
waned, began a fresh campaign in Thrace, and in 341 B.C. had reached the Chersonese.
The possession of this district meant the control of the Dardanelles, and, as
Athens still depended largely on the Black
Sea trade for her corn supply, his progress was a menace to her existence.
Diopeithes, an Athenian mercenary captain, had in 343 B.C. taken settlers to Cardia,
a town in the Chersonese in nominal alliance with Macedon. Cardia
was unwilling to receive them, and Philip sent help to the town. Diopeithes, who,
in accordance with the habit of the times, in order to support his fleet, exacted
?benevolences? from friends and foes impartially, happened to plunder some districts
in Thrace which were subject to Macedon. Philip addressed a letter of remonstrance
to Athens, and his adherents in the city demanded the recall of Diopeithes. Demosthenes
in his speech On the Chersonese urged that the Chersonese should not be abandoned
at such a crisis: a permanent force must be maintained there. He defends the actions
of Diopeithes by an appeal to necessity. The Athenians were in the habit of voting
armaments for foreign service without voting them supplies; consequently the generals
had to supply themselves.
In addition to including a plan of campaign, the speech contains, as many of the orations do, a frank statement of the position of affairs, and the usual invectives against Athenian apathy. The concluding section, however, contains a more solemn warning than is usual, showing that Demosthenes almost despairs of success."All the generals who have ever sailed from Athens take money from Chios, Erythrae, or from any other Asiatic city they can. Those who have one or two ships take less; those with a larger force take more. Those who give, whether in large or small amounts, are not so mad as to give them for nothing; they are purchasing protection for merchants sailing from their ports, immunity from ravages, safe convoy for their own ships and other such advantages. They will tell you that they give "Benevolences," which is the term applied to these extortions.
Now in the present case, since Diopeithes has an army, it is obvious that all these people will give him money. Since he got nothing from you, and has no private means to pay his soldiers with, where else do you imagine he can get money to keep them? Will it fall from the skies? Unfortunately, no. He has to live from day to day on what he can collect and beg and borrow." Chers., §§ 24-26.
The Third Philippic was delivered in the same year (341 B.C.). The situation is in all essentials the same. Demosthenes again demands that help should be sent to the Chersonese and the safety of Byzantium assured; but he does not enlarge on these points, which have been treated by previous speakers (§ 19). 'We must help them, it is true, and take care that no harm befalls them; but our deliberations must be about the great danger which now threatens the whole of Greece.' (§ 20). It is this breadth of view which distinguishes the Third Philippic, and makes it the greatest of all the public harangues."If you grasp the situation as I have indicated, and cease to make light of everything, it may be, it may be that even now our affairs may take a favourable turn; but if you continue to sit still and confine your enthusiasm to expressions of applause and votes of approval, but shirk the issue when any action is required of you, I cannot conceive of any eloquence which, without performance of your duty, can guide our State to safety." Chers., § 77.
This short extract is a fair example of Demosthenes' vigorous use of historical argument, but it can give little idea of the speech as a whole. It abounds, indeed, in enumerations of recent events bearing on the case, and in contrasts between the present and the past.'I pass over Olynthus, Methone, and Apollonia, and thirty-two cities in the Thracian district, all of which he has so brutally destroyed that it is hard for a visitor to say whether they were ever inhabited. I am silent about the destruction of a great nation, the Phocians. But how fares Thessaly? Has he not deprived the cities of their governments, and established tetrarchies, in order that they may be enslaved, not only city by city, but tribe by tribe? Are not the cities of Euboea now ruled by tyrants, though that island is close on the borders of Thebes and Athens? Does he not expressly state in his letters "I am at peace with those who will obey me"? And his actions corroborate his words. He has started for the Hellespont; before that he visited Ambracia; he holds in the Peloponnese the important city of Elis; only the other day he made plots against Megara. Neither Greece nor the countries beyond it can contain his ambition.' §§ 26-27.
Style and composition
Though Demosthenes wrote in pure Attic Greek, it is to Lysias and
Isocrates rather than to him that Dionysius assigns praise for the most perfect
purity of language. It is probable that Demosthenes was nearer to the living speech.
Even in his deliberative speeches he can use such familiar expressions as o tan,
ho deina and such expletives as ne Dia, the frequent use of which would have seemed
to Isocrates to belong to the vocabulary of Comedy. The epideictic style would
also have shunned such vigorous touches as lago bion ezes--'you lived a hare's
life,' or, to give the proper equivalent, 'a dog's life,' (de
Cor., § 263) or the famous kakon Ilias-- 'Twenty-four books of misery.' (de
Falsa Leg., § 148). Colloquial vigour is apparent in some metaphorical uses
of single words, e.g. heola kai psuchra--'stale and cold' (applied to crimes,
Midias,
§ 91), proselosthai--'to be pinned down,' (Ibid.,
§ 105), or the succession of crude metaphors in the account of how Aristogiton,
in prison, picked a quarrel with a newcomer; 'he being newly caught and fresh,
was getting the better of Aristogiton, who had got into the net some time ago
and been long in pickle; so finding himself getting the worst of it, he ate off
the man's nose.' There is bold personification of abstractions in 'Peace, which
has destroyed the walls of your allies and is now building houses for your ambassadors,'
(de
Falsa Leg., § 275) and such phrases as tethnasi toi deei tous toioutous apostolous
--'they are frightened to death of so and so,' are more vigorous than literary.
Demosthenes seems to discard metaphor in his most solemn moments.
In a spirit of sarcasm he can use such expressions as those quoted above about
the disorderly scene in prison, and in an outburst of indignation he can speak
of rival politicians as 'Fiends, who have mutilated the corpses of their fatherlands,
and made a birthday present of their liberty first to Philip, and now again to
Alexander; who measure happiness by their belly and their basest pleasures' (de
Cor., § 296); but on grave occasions, whether in narrative or in counsel,
he reverts to a simplicity equal to that of Lysias. The plainness of the language
in which he describes the excitement caused by the news of Philip's occupation
of Elatea is proverbial (de
Cor., § 169); and the closing sentences of the Third Philippic afford
another good example:
The simplicity of the language is only equalled by the sobriety of tone. The simplest words, if properly used, can produce a great effect, which is sometimes heightened by repetition, a device which Demosthenes finds useful on occasion--all' ouk estin, ouk estin horos hemartete--'But surely, surely you were not wrong.' (de Cor., § 208). We realize a slight raising of the voice as the word comes in for the second time. Dinarchus, an imitator of Demosthenes, copies him in the use of this 'figure,' but uses it too much and inappropriately. In this, as in other details, his style is an unsuccessful parody of the great orator.'If everybody is going to sit still, hoping to get what he wants, and seeking to do nothing for it himself, in the first place he will never find anybody to do it for him, and secondly, I am afraid that we shall be forced to do everything that we do not want. This is what I tell you, this is what I propose; and I believe that if this is done our affairs may even yet be set straight again. If anybody can offer anything better, let him name it and urge it; and whatever you decide, I pray to heaven it may be for the best.'
Another passage quoted from the same speech gives a companion picture of the defendant's behaviour in civil life:"Two years ago, having been detailed for garrison-duty, we went out to Panactum. Conon's sons occupied a tent near us; I wish it had been otherwise, for this was the primary cause of our enmity and the collisions between us. You shall hear how it arose. They used to drink every day and all day long, beginning immediately after breakfast, and this custom they maintained all the time that we were in garrison. My brothers and I, on the contrary, lived out there just as we were in the habit of living at home. So by the time which the rest of us had fixed for dinner, they were invariably playing drunken tricks, first on our servants, and finally on ourselves. For because they said that the servants sent the smoke in their faces while cooking, or were uncivil to them, or what not, they used to beat them and empty the slops over their heads . . . and in every way behaved brutally and disgustingly. We saw this and took offence, and first of all remonstrated with them; but as they jeered at us and would not stop, we all went and reported the occurrence to the general--not I alone, but the whole of the mess. He reprimanded them severely, not only for their offensive behaviour to us, but for their general conduct in camp; however, they were so far from stopping or feeling any shame that, as soon as it was dark that evening, they made a rush on us, and first abused us and then beat me, and made such a disturbance and uproar round the tent that the general and his staff and some of the other soldiers came out, and prevented them from doing us any serious harm, and us from retaliating on their drunken violence." Against Conon, §§ 3-5.
Dionysius observes that the ecclesia and the courts were composed of mixed elements; not all were clever and subtle in intellect; the majority were farmers, merchants, and artisans, who were more likely to be pleased by simple speech; anything of an unusual flavour would turn their stomachs: a smaller number, a mere fraction of the whole, were men of high education, to whom you could not speak as you would to the multitude; and the orator could not afford to neglect either section. He must therefore aim at satisfying both, and consequently he should steer a middle course, avoiding extremes in either direction."When we met them, one of the party, whom I cannot identify, fell upon Phanostratus and held him tight, while the defendant Conon and his son and the son of Andromenes fell upon me, and first stripped me, and then tripped me up, and dashed me down in the mud. There they jumped upon me and beat me, and so mishandled me that they cut my lip right through, and closed up both my eyes. They left me in such a weak state that I could neither get up nor speak, and as I lay on the ground I heard them uttering floods of abominable language. What they said was vilely slanderous, and some of it I should shrink from repeating, but I will mention one thing which is an example of Conon's brutality, and proves that he was responsible for the whole incident--he began to crow like a game-cock after a victory, and the others told him to flap his arms against his sides in triumph. After this I was carried home naked by some passers-by, while the defendants made off with my coat." Against Conon, §§ 8-9.
Dionysius, as we know from many of his criticisms, had a remarkably acute sense of style; he had also a strong imagination. In this same treatise he recounts how the forms of the sentences themselves suggest to him the tone in which the words were uttered, the very gestures with which they were accompanied."When I read a speech of Isocrates, I become sober and serious, as if I were listening to solemn music; but when I take up a speech of Demosthenes, I am beside myself, I am led this way and that, I am moved by one passion after another: suspicion, distress, fear, contempt, hate, pity, kindliness, anger, envy--passing successively through all the passions which can obtain a mastery over the human mind; . . . and I have sometimes thought to myself, what must have been the impression which he made on those who were fortunate enough to hear him? For where we, who are so far removed in time, and in no way interested in the actual events, are led away and overpowered, and made to follow wherever the speech leads us, how must the Athenians and other Greeks have been led by the speaker himself when the cases in which he spoke had a living interest and concerned them nearly? . . ." (Demos., ch. xxii.)
Similarly in the Third Olynthiac he rouses the curiosity of the audience by propounding a riddle, of which, after some suspense, he himself gives the answer. The matter under discussion is the necessity of sending help to Olynthus. There is, as usual, a difficulty about money.'On the question of resources of money at present at our disposal, what I have to say will, I know, appear paradoxical, but I must say it; for I am confident that, considered in the proper light, my proposal will appear to be the only true and right one. I tell you that we need not raise the question of money at all: we have great resources which we may fairly and honourably use if we need them. If we look for them now, we shall imagine that they never will be at our disposal, so far shall we be from willingness to dispose of them at present; but if we let matters wait, we shall have them. What, then, are these resources which do not exist at present, but will be to hand later on? It looks like a riddle. I will explain. Consider this city of ours as a whole. It contains almost as much money as all other cities taken together; but those individuals who possess it are so apathetic that if all the orators tried to terrify them by saying that the king is coming, that he is near, that invasion is inevitable, and even if the orators were reinforced by an equal number of soothsayers, they would not only refuse to contribute; they would refuse even to declare or admit the possession of their wealth. But suppose that the horrors which we now talk about were actually realized, they are none of them so foolish that they would not readily offer and make contributions. . . . So I tell you that we have money ready for the time of urgent need, but not before.' de Symmor., §§ 24-26.
This mention of the Festival Fund suggests some reflections on the orator's tenacity and perseverance. He is not content to say once what he has to propose, and leave his words to sink in by their own weight. Like a careful lecturer he repeats his statement, emphasizing it in various ways, until he perceives that his audience has really grasped its importance. The walls which he is attacking will not fall flat at the sound of the trumpet; his persistent battering-rams must make a breach, his catapults must drive the defenders from their positions. Such is the meaning of Lucian's comment in the words attributed to Philip."Very well," you may say; "we have all decided that we must send help; and send help we will; but how are we to do it; tell me that?" Now, Gentlemen, do not be astonished if what I say comes as a surprise to most of you. Appoint a legislative board. Instruct this board not to pass any law (you have enough already), but to repeal the laws which are injurious under present conditions. I refer to the laws about the Theoric Fund. Third Olynthiac, §§ 10-11.
Narrative, too, can take the place of argument; a recital of Philip's misdeeds during the last few years may do far more to convince the Athenians of the necessity for action than any argument about the case of a particular ally who chances to be threatened at the moment.(4)If Philip captures Olynthus, who will prevent him from marching on us? The Thebans? It is an unpleasant thing to say, but they will eagerly join him in the invasion. Or the Phocians?--when they cannot even protect their own land, unless you help them. Can you think of any one else?--"My dear fellow, he won't want to attack us." It would indeed be the greatest surprise in the world if he did not do it when he got the chance; since even now he is fool enough to declare his intentions.First Olynthiac, §§ 25-26.
This, however, occurs in a speech before the law courts; it is excellent in its place, but would have been unsuitable to the more dignified and solemn style in which he addresses the assembly. Equally unsuitable to his public harangues would be anything like the virulent satire which he admits into the de Corona, the vulgar personalities of abuse and gross caricatures of Aeschines and his antecedents. For these the only excuse is that, though meant maliciously, they are so exaggerated as to be quite incredible. They may be compared to Aristophanes' satire of Cleon in the Knights, which was coarse enough, but cannot have done Cleon any serious harm. Demosthenes indeed becomes truly Aristophanic when he talks about Aeschines' acting:I should like to tell you, Gentlemen, how legislation is conducted among the Locrians. It will do you no harm to have an example before you, especially the example of a well-governed State. There men are so convinced that they ought to keep to the established laws and cherish their traditions, and not legislate to suit their fancy, or to help a criminal to escape, that any man who wishes to pass a new law must have a rope round his neck while he proposes it. If they think that the law is a good and useful one, the proposer lives and goes on his way; if not, they pull the rope and there is an end of him. For they cannot bear to pass new laws, but they rigorously observe the old ones. We are told that only one new law has been enacted in very many years. Whereas there was a law that if a man knocked out another man's eye, he should submit to having his own knocked out in return, and no monetary compensation was provided, a certain man threatened his enemy, who had already lost an eye, to knock out the one eye he had left. The one-eyed man, alarmed by the threat, and thinking that life would not be worth living if it were put into execution, ventured to propose a law that if a man knocks out the eye of a man who has only one, he shall submit to having both his own knocked out in return, so that both may suffer alike. We are told that this is the only law which the Locrians have passed in upwards of two hundred years.Timocrates, §§ 139 sqq.
He is generally described as deficient in wit, and he seems in this point to have been inferior to Aeschines, though on one or two occasions he could make a neat repartee. As Dionysius says: "Not on all men is every gift bestowed."When in the course of time you were relieved of these duties, having yourself committed all the offences of which you accuse others, I vow that your subsequent life did not fall short of your earlier promise. You engaged yourself to the players Simylus and Socrates, the "Bellowers," as they were called, to play minor parts, and gathered a harvest of figs, grapes, and olives, like a fruiterer getting his stock from other people's orchards; and you made more from this source than from your plays, which you played in dead earnest at the risk of your lives; for there was a truceless and merciless war between you and the spectators, from whom you received so many wounds that you naturally mock at the cowardice of those who have never had that great experience. de Corona, §§ 261-262
Demosthenes: Lives, by Plutarch
Editor’s Information
The e-texts of the works by Demosthenes are found in Greece (ancient country) under the category Ancient Greek Writings.
Editor’s Information
The e-texts of the works by Demades are found in Greece (ancient country) under the category Ancient Greek Writings.
RAMNOUS (Ancient demos) ATTIKI
The earliest of the ten great Attic orators, born B.C. 480 in Attica,
son of the sophist Sophilus, to whom he owed his training. He was the founder
of political eloquence as an art, which he taught with great applause in his own
school of rhetoric; and he was the first who wrote out speeches for others to
deliver in court, though he afterwards published them under his own name. He also
played an active part in the politics of his time as a leading member of the oligarchical
party, and the real author of the death-blow which was dealt to democracy in B.C.
411 by the establishment of the Council of Four Hundred. He then went as ambassador
to Sparta, to purchase peace at any price in the interest of the oligarchy. On
the fall of the Four Hundred he was accused of high treason, and, in spite of
a masterly defence --the first speech he had ever made in public-- was condemned
to death B.C. 411. Of the sixty orations attributed to him, only fifteen are preserved--all
on trials for murder; but only three of them are about real cases. The rest (named
tetralogies because every four are the first and second speeches of both plaintiff
and defendant on the same subject) are mere exercises. Antiphon's speeches exhibit
the art of oratory in its rudimentary stage as regards both substance and form.
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Oct 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Antiphon (c. 480-411 B.C.), senior of the ten orators of Attic canon, was
a man of strong aristocratic prejudices who rarely, if ever, appeared in court
or spoke in public; he gained fits great reputation by speeches coposed for others.
His involvement in political life was brief: he came suddenly to the forth in
411 B.C. as the brain of the oligarchic conspiracy. After the fall of the Four
Hundred, Antiphon was tried, con- demned and executed. His extant works, 15 speeches,
deal mainly with murder cases, and give valuable information about the Criminal
Law of the lime. His style, though crude at times, is always vigorous and precise.
He was the first who paid attention to 'periodic' expression, while he made use
of an- tithesis both of word and of thought, and was able to join together clauses
so neatly balanced that they correspond even in the number of syllables, in vocabulary,
he avoids colloquialisms, and has some partiality tor poetical words
This text is cited Aug 2002 from the Cactus Editions URL bellow.
Antiphon. The most ancient among the ten Attic orators contained in the Alexandrine
canon, was a son of Sophilus the Sophist, and born at Rhamnus in Attica in B.
C. 480 (Plut. Vit. X. Orat.; Philostrat. Vit. Soph. i. 15. 1; Phot. Cod.; Suid.
s. v.; Eudoc..) He was a man of eminent talent and a firm character (Thucyd. viii.
68; Plut. Nic. 6), and is said to have been educated partly by his father and
partly by Pythodorus, while according to others he owed his education to none
but himself. When he was a young mall, the fame of Gorgias was at its height.
The object of Gorgias' sophistical school of oratory was more to dazzle and captivate
the hearer by brilliancy of diction and rhetorical artifices than to produce a
solid conviction based upon sound arguments; it was, in short, a school for show-speeches,
and the practical purposes of oratory in the courts of justice and the popular
assembly lay beyond its sphere. Antiphon perceived this deficiency, and formed
a higher and more practical view of the art to which he devoted himself; that
is, he wished to produce conviction in the minds of the hearers by means of a
thorough examination of the subjects proposed, and this not with a view to the
narrow limits of the school, but to the courts and the assembly. Hence the ancients
call Antiphon the inventor of public oratory, or state that he raised it to a
higher position (Philostr. Vit. Soph. i. 15. ; Hermog. de Form. Orat. ii.; comp.
Quintil. iii. 1.1; Diod. ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. i.). Antiphon was thus the first
who regulated practical eloquence by certain theoretical laws, and he opened a
school in which he taught rhetoric. Thucydides, the historian, a pupil
of Antiphon, speaks of his master with the highest esteem, and many of the excellencies
of his style are ascribed by the ancients to the influence of Antiphon (Schol.
ad Thuc. iv.; comp. Dionys. Hal. de Comp. Verb. 10). At the same time, Antiphon
occupied himself with writing speeches for others, who delivered them in the courts
of justice; and as he was the first who received money for such orations -a practice
which subsequently became quite general- he was severely attacked and ridiculed,
especially by the comic writers, Plato and Peisander (Philostr. l. c.; Plut. Vit.
X. Orat.). These attacks, however, may also have been owing to his political opinions,
for he belonged to the oligarchical party. This unpopularity, together with his
own reserved character, prevented his ever appearing as a speaker either in the
courts or the assembly; and the only time he spoke in public was in B. C. 411,
when he defended himself against the charge of treachery (Thuc. viii. 68 ; Lys.
c. Eratosth.; Cic. Brut. 12).
The history of Antiphon's career as a politician is for the most part
involved in great obscurity, which is in a great measure owing to the fact, that
Antiphon the orator is frequently confounded by ancient writers with Antiphon
the interpreter of signs, and Antiphon the tragic poet. Plutarch (l. c.) and Philostratus
(Vit. Soph. i. 15.1) mention some events in which he was engaged, but Thucydides
seems to have known nothing about them. The only part of his public life of which
the detail is known, is that connected with the revolution of B. C. 411, and the
establishment of the oligarchical government of the Four Hundred. The person chiefly
instrumental in bringing it about was Peisander; but, according to the express
testimony of Thucydides, Antiphon was the man who had done everything to prepare
the change, and had drawn up the plan of it (Comp. Philostr. l. c.; Plut. Vit.
X. Orat.). On the overthrow of the oligarchical government six months after its
establishment, Antiphon was brought to trial for having attempted to negotiate
peace with Sparta, and was condemned to death. His speech in defence of himself
is stated by Thucydides (viii. 68; comp. Cic. Brut. 12) to have been the ablest
that was ever made by any man in similar circumstances. It is now lost, but was
known to the ancients, and is referred to by Harpocration (s. v. stasiotes), who
calls it logos peri metastaseos. His property was confiscated, his house razed
to the ground, and on the site of it a tablet was erected with the inscription
"Antiphon the traitor". His remains were not allowed to be buried in Attic ground,
his children, as well as any one who should adopt them, were punished with atimia
(Plut. l.c.).
As an orator, Antiphon was highly esteemed by the ancients. Hermogenes
(de Form. Orat.) says of his orations, that they were clear, true in the expression
of feeling, and faithful to nature, and consequently convincing. Others say, that
his orations were beautiful but not graceful, or that they had something austere
or antique about them (Dionys. de Verb. Comp. 10, de Isaeo, 20). The want of freshness
and gracefulness is very obvious in the orations still extant, but more especially
in those actually spoken by Antiphon's clients (No. 1, 14, and 15). His language
is pure and correct, and in the three orations mentioned above, of remarkable
clearness. The treatment and solution of the point at issue are always striking
and interesting (Dionys. Jud. de Thucyd. 51, Demosth. 8; Phot.).
The ancients possessed sixty orations of different kinds which went
by the name of Antiphon, but Caecilius, a rhetorician of the Augustan age, declared
twenty-five to be spurious (Plut. Vit. X. Orat.; Phot. l. c.). We now possess
only fifteen orations of Antiphon, three of which were written by him for others,
viz. No. 1. Kategoria pharmakeias kata tes metruias; No. 14. Peri tou Herodou
phonou, and No. 15. Peri tou choreutou. The remaining twelve were written as specimens
for his school or exercises on fictitious cases. They are a peculiar phenomenon
in the history of ancient oratory, for they are divided into three tetralogies,
each of which consists of four orations, two accusations and two defences on the
same subject. The subject of the first tetralogy is a murder, the perpetrator
of which is yet unknown; that of the second an unpremeditated murder; and that
of the third a murder committed in self-defence. The clearness which distinguishes
his other three orations is not perceptible in these tetralogies, which arises
in part from the corrupt and mutilated state in which they have come down to us.
A great number of the orations of Antiphon, and in fact all those which are extant,
have for their subject the commission of a murder, whence they are sometimes referred
to under the name of logoi phouikoi (Hermog. de Form. Orat.; Ammon. s. v. enthumema).
The genuineness of the extant orations has been the subject of much discussion,
but the best critics are at present pretty nearly agreed that all are really the
works of Antiphon. As to the historical or antiquarian value of the three real
speeches -the tetralogies must be left out of the question here- it must be remarked,
that they contain more information than any other ancient work respecting the
mode of proceeding in the criminal courts of Athens. All the orations of Antiphon
are printed in the collections of the Attic orators edited by Aldus, H. Stephens,
Reiske, Bekker, Dobson, and others. The best separate editions are those of Baiter
and Sauppe, Zurich, 1838, 16mo., and of E. Matzner, Berlin, 1838, 8vo.
Besides these orations, the ancients ascribe to Antiphon, 1. A Rhetoric
(techne rhetorike) in three books (Plut. Vit. X. Orat.; Phot. l. c. ; Quintil.
iii. 1.10). When it is said, that he was the first who wrote a work on rhetoric,
this statement must be limited to the theory of oratory in the courts of justice
and in the assembly; for treatises on the art of composing show-speeches had been
written by several sophists before him. The work is occasionally referred to by
ancient rhetoricians and grammarians, but it is now lost. 2. Prooimia kai epilogoi,
seem to have been model speeches or exercises for the use of himself or his scholars,
and it is not improbable that his tetralogies may have belonged to them (Suid.
s. vv. hama, aithesthai, mochtheros; Phot. Lex. s. v. mochtheros).
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited June 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Introduction
In describing the Revolution of the Four Hundred at Athens, Thucydides
lays stress upon the fact that the measures which had effected it owed their unity
and their success to the control of a single mind. The figure of Peisandros is
most conspicuous in the foreground. 'But he who contrived the whole matter, and
the means by which it was brought to pass, and who had given his mind to it longest,
was Antiphon; a man second to no Athenian of his day in virtue; a proved master
of device and of expression; who did not come forward in the assembly, nor, by
choice, in any scene of debate, since he lay under the suspicion of the people
through a repute for cleverness; but who was better able than any other individual
to assist, when consulted, those who were fighting a cause in a law-court or in
the assembly. In his own case, too--when the Four Hundred in their later reverses
were being roughly used by the people, and he was accused of having aided in setting
up this same government--he is known to have delivered the greatest defence made
in the memory of my age by a man on trial for his life.' (Thuc. VIII. 68.)
This passage gives in outline nearly all that is known of the life
of Antiphon. Other sources supply details, and make it possible to work up the
sketch into something like a picture; but they add nothing which enlarges its
framework. The Revolution of the Four Hundred is still the one great scene presented
to our view.
Birth of Antiphon.
Antiphon was born about the year 480 B. C., being thus rather younger
than Gorgias, and some eight or nine years older than the historian Thucydides.
He was of the tribe of Aiantis and of the deme of Rhamnus(1);
of a family which cannot have been altogether obscure, since it was made a reproach
to him on his trial that his grandfather had been a partisan of the Peisistratidae.
The tradition that his father Sophilos was a sophist antedates by a generation
the appearance of that class of teachers, and may have been suggested simply by
the jingle of the words. Antiphon himself, as the style of his composition indicates,
must have felt the sophistic influence; but there is no evidence for his having
been the pupil of any particular sophist. He is allowed by general consent to
have been the first representative at Athens of a profession for which the new
conditions of the time had just begun to make a place, -- the first logographos,
or writer of speeches for money. With the recent growth of Rhetoric as a definite
art, the inequality, for purposes of pleading or debating, between men who had
and who had not mastered the newly-invented weapons of speech had become seriously
felt. A rogue skilled in the latest subtleties of argument and graces of style
was now more than ever formidable to the plain man whom he chose to drag before
a court or to attack in the ekklesia: and those who had no leisure or taste to
become rhetoricians now began to find it worth while to buy their rhetoric ready-made.
Forensic speeches were, no doubt, those with which Antiphon most frequently supplied
his clients. But Hermogenes describes him as 'he inventor and founder of the political
style',--a phrase including deliberative as well as forensic oratory: and this
exactly agrees with the statement of Thucydides that Antiphon was practised in
aiding, not only those who had lawsuits, but debaters in the ekklesia. Besides
being a speech-writer, he was also a teacher of rhetoric, and, as the allusion
in the Menexenos implies, the most fashionable master of Plato's time Antiphon
and Thucydides. at Athens. The tradition that Thucydides was the pupil of Antiphon
may have been suggested by the warmth and emphasis of the passage in which the
orator is mentioned by the historian; a passage which, in its sudden glow of a
personal admiration, recalls two others in the History--the tribute to the genius
of Themistokles, and the character of Perikles. In the tradition itself there
is nothing improbable, but it wants the support of evidence. The special relation
of master to pupil need not be assumed to account for a tone which congeniality
of literary taste, common sufferings at the hands of the democracy, or perhaps
personal friendship, would sufficiently explain.
Antiphon's life to 411 B.C.
Nothing is directly known of Antiphon's political relations before
the year 411 B. C.; but there are slight indications which agree well with his
later hostility to the democracy. Harpokration has preserved the names of two
speeches written by him, one for the people of Samothrace, on the subject of the
tribute which they paid to Athens; another, on the same subject, for the people
of Lindos in Rhodes. The oppression of the subject-allies by the demagogues, who
extorted from them large sums on any pretence or threat, was a commonplace of
complaint with oligarchs. The employment of Antiphon, afterwards so staunch an
oligarch, by aggrieved allies, preparing to represent their grievances at the
imperial city, was perhaps more than an accident of professional routine. The
hostility of Antiphon to Alkibiades, again, need not have had any political meaning;
but it would have been especially natural in one who had shared the views, and
who mourned the fate, of Nikias. At all events, the words of Thucydides give a
vivid idea of the position held at Athens by Antiphon just before the Revolution
of the Four Hundred. His abilities were acknowledged, but they were exerted only
for others; he himself came forward neither in the assembly, nor--'when he could
help it'?--in the law-courts; he lay under the suspicion of the people for 'cleverness'.
The nature of the 'cleverness' (deinotes) for which Antiphon was distrusted and
disliked is sufficiently illustrated by his Tetralogies. It was the art of fighting
a cause which could hardly be defended on any broad ground by raising in succession
a number of more or less fine points. The indignant bewilderment expressed by
the imaginary prosecutor in the Second Tetralogy on finding the common-sense view
of the case turned upside-down represents what many a citizen of the old school
must have felt when he encountered, in the ekklesia or the law-court, a client
of the ingenious 'speech-writer'. Antiphon was a cautious, patient man. The comic
poets could ridicule him for his poverty or his avarice; they could say that the
speeches which he sold for great sums were 'framed to defeat justice'; but a carefully
obscure life probably offered no hold to any more definite attack. Meanwhile he
was quietly at work with the oligarchic clubs. According to Thucydides he was
not merely the arch-plotter of the Revolution. He was the man who 'had thought
about it longest'.
The Revolution.
In the spring of 411 B. C. the opportunity for which Antiphon had
been waiting at last came. Alkibiades, by promises of Persian aid, induced the
oligarchs in the army at Samos to commence a movement for the overthrow of the
Athenian democracy. Peisandros, as their representative, came to Athens, and,
by insisting on the hopelessness of the war without such help as Alkibiades covenanted
to bring, extorted from the ekklesia a vote for that change of constitution which
the exile demanded. Having visited the various oligarchical clubs in the city
and urged them to combine in favour of the project, Peisandros went back to confer
with Alkibiades. When he presently returned to Athens,--with the knowledge that
his hopes from Persia were idle, but that, on the other hand, the Revolution must
go on,-- he found a state of things very different from that which he had left.
He had left the people just conscious that an oligarchy was proposed, and consenting,
in sheer despair, to entertain the idea; but, at the same time, openly and strongly
averse to it, and in a temper which showed that the real difficulties of the undertaking
were to come. He now finds that, in the brief interval of his absence, every difficulty
has already vanished. Not a trace of open opposition remains in the senate or
in the ekklesia; not a murmur is heard in the conversation of the citizens (Thuc.
VIII. 65, 66.). It is a fair inference from the words of Thucydides that the principal
agent in producing this rapid and wonderful change had been Antiphon. A brief
consideration of the task which he had to do, and of the manner in which it was
done, will supply the best criterion of his capacity. He had, first, to bring
into united and disciplined action those oligarchical clubs to which Peisandros
had appealed. These are described as 'leagues with a view to lawsuits and to offices';
that is, associations of which the members were pledged by oath to support, personally
and with funds, any one of their body who brought, or defended, a civil action,
or who sought one of the offices of the State. When, with the steady advance of
democracy from the Persian wars onwards, the oligarchs found themselves more and
more in a minority, such associations became their means of concentrating and
economising their one great power--wealth. The tone of such clubs would always
be, in a general way, antipopular. But they were unaccustomed to systematic action
for great ends; and, in regard to those smaller ends which they ordinarily pursued,
their interests would, from the nature of the case, frequently conflict. Antiphon
need not have had much difficulty in proving to them that, on this occasion, they
had a common interest. But to make them effective as well as unanimous; to restrain,
without discouraging, the zeal of novices in a political campaign, and to make
of these a compact and temperate force, loyally taking the word from the best
men among them, and so executing the prescribed manoeuvres that in a short time
they were completely ascendant over an enormous and hostile, but ill-organised
majority,--this, assuredly, was the achievement of no ordinary leader. The absence
of overt, and the skilful use of secret, violence was the characteristic of the
Revolution. Adverse speakers were not menaced, but they disappeared; until apparent
unanimity, and real terror, had silenced every objection. Antiphon had seen clearly
how the Athenian instinct of reverence for constitutional forms might be used
against the constitution. His too, on the showing of Thucydides, must have been
that clever invention, the imaginary body of Five Thousand to whom the franchise
was to be left; a fiction which, to the end, did service to the oligarchs by giving
them a vague prestige for strength.
The two parties in the Council.
The Council of the Four Hundred comprised two distinct elements, --
those thorough oligarchs who had been the core of the conspiracy; and a number
of other men, more or less indifferent to the ideas of oligarchy, who had accepted
the Revolution because they believed that it alone could save Athens. Had the
new Government been able to conciliate or to frighten the army at Samos, both
sorts of men would have been satisfied, and the Council would have gone on working,
for a time at least, as a seemingly harmonious whole. But the resolute hostility
of the army, which at once made the case of the Four Hundred really hopeless,
brought the discord to light forthwith. The Council was thenceforth divided into
an Extreme and a Moderate party. Among the leaders of the Extreme party were Peisandros,
Phrynichos, Aristarchos, Archeptolemos, Onomakles and Antiphon. The Moderates
were led by Theramenes and Aristokrates. Two chief questions were in dispute between
the parties. The Moderates wished to call into political life the nominal civic
body of Five Thousand; the ultra-oligarchs objected that it was better, at such
a crisis, to avoid all chance of a popular rising. The ultra-oligarchs were fortifying
Eetioneia, alleging the danger of an attack from Samos; the Moderates accused
them of wishing to receive Peloponnesian troops.
The Extreme party was soon driven, in May 411 B. C., to the last resource
of an embassy to Sparta. Phrynichos, Antiphon, Archeptolemos, Onomakles and eight
others were sent 'to make terms with the Lacedaemonians in any way that could
at all be borne'. Thucydides does not say what the envoys offered at Sparta or
what answer they got; but he states plainly the length which he conceives that
their party was ready to go. 'They wished, if possible, having their oligarchy,
at the same time to rule the allies; if that could not be, to keep their ships,
their walls, and their independence; or, if shut out even from this, at all events
not to have their own lives taken first and foremost by the people on its restoration;
sooner would they bring in the enemy and covenant to keep the city on any terms,
without wall or ships, if only their persons should be safe'. (Thuc. VIII. 91)
Fall of the Four Hundred.
This embassy brought the unpopularity of the Extreme party to a crisis.
Immediately upon his return Phrynichos was assassinated. The revolt of the citizens
employed in fortifying Eetioneia quickly followed. The assembly in the Anakeion,
broken up by the sudden appearance of the Peloponnesian fleet, met again on the
Pnyx soon after the Peloponnesian victory at Oropos; and the Four Hundred, who
had taken office in March, were deposed about the middle of June.
The leading ultra-oligarchs hastened to save themselves by flight.
Peisandros, Alexikles and others went to Dekeleia; Aristarchos, taking with him
a body of bowmen, contrived to betray Oenoe on the Athenian frontier into the
hands of the Boeotians who were besieging it. But, of the twelve who had formed
the embassy, and who now, before all others, were in peril, three remained at
Athens--Antiphon, Archeptolemos and Onomakles. An information against these three
men was laid before the ekklesia by the Generals. The eisangelia charged them
with having gone on an embassy to Sparta for mischief to Athens, sailing, on their
way thither, in an enemy's ship, and traversing the enemy's camp at Dekeleia.
A psephism was passed by the ekklesia directing the arrest of the accused that
they might be tried by a dikastery, and instructing the Thesmothetae to serve
each of them, on the day following the issue of the decree, with a formal summons.
On the day fixed by the summons the Thesmothetae were to bring the cases into
court; and the Generals, assisted by such Synegori, not more than ten in number,
as they might choose from the Council of the Five Hundred, were to prosecute for
treason.
Trial and condemnation of Antiphon.
Onomakles seems to have escaped or died before the day. Archeptolemos
and Antiphon were brought to trial. The scanty fragments of the speech made by
Antiphon in his own defence reveal only one item of its contents. One of the prosecutors,
Apolexis, having asserted that Antiphon's grandfather had been a partisan of the
Peisistratidae, Antiphon replied that his grandfather had not been punished after
the expulsion of the tyrants, and could scarcely, therefore, have been one of
their 'body-guard'(2). The other special topics are unknown;
but their range, at least, is shown by the title under which the speech was extant.
It was inscribed peri metastaseos, On the Change of Government. It dealt, then,
not merely with the matter specified in the eisangelia--the embassy to Sparta--but
with the whole question of the Revolution. It is described by Thucydides as the
greatest defence made in the memory of that age by a man on trial for his life.
The story in the Eudemian Ethics, whether true or not, seems at any rate characteristic.
Agathon, the tragic poet, praised the speech; and Antiphon--on whom sentence of
death had passed--answered that a man who respects himself must care more what
one good man thinks than what is thought by many nobodies.
The sentence ran thus:
'Found guilty of treason--Archeptolemos son of Hippodamos, of Agryle,
being present: Antiphon son of Sophilos, of Rhamnus, being present. The award
on these two men was--That they be delivered to the Eleven: that their property
be confiscated and the goddess have the tithe: that their houses be razed and
boundary-stones put on the sites, with the inscription, 'the houses of Archeptolemos
and Antiphon the traitors': that the two demarchs [of Agryle and Rhamnus] shall
point out their houses. That it shall not be lawful to bury Archeptolemos and
Antiphon at Athens or in any land of which the Athenians are masters. That Archeptolemos
and Antiphon and their descendants, bastard or true-born, shall be infamous; and
if a man adopt any one of the race of Archeptolemos or Antiphon, let the adopter
be infamous. That this decree be written on a brazen column and put in the same
place where the decrees about Phrynichos are set up'.
Character of Antiphon's political life.
The distinctive feature in the life of Antiphon is the suddenness
of his appearance, at an advanced age, in the very front of Athenian politics.
Unlike nearly all the men associated with him, he had neither made his mark in
the public service nor come forward in the ekklesia; yet all at once he becomes
the chief, though not the most conspicuous, organiser of an enterprise requiring
in the highest degree trained political tact; does more than any other individual
to set up a new government; and acts to the last as one of its foremost members.
The reputation and the power which enabled him to take this part were mainly literary.
Yet it would not probably be accurate to conceive Antiphon as a merely literary
man who suddenly emerged and succeeded as a politician. It would have been a marvel,
indeed, if any one had become a leader on the popular side in Athenian politics
who had not already been prominent in the ekklesia. But the accomplishments most
needed in a leader of the oligarchic party might be learned elsewhere than in
the ekklesia. The member of a hetaireia, though a stranger to the bema, might
gain practice in the working of those secret and rapid combinations upon which
his party had come to rely most in its unequal struggle with democracy. As fame
and years by degrees brought Antiphon more and more weight in the internal management
of the oligarchic clubs, he would acquire more and more insight into the tactics
of which at last he proved himself a master(3). He need not,
then, be taken as an example of instinct supplying the want of training: he had
probably had precisely the training which could serve him best. The real significance
of his late and sudden prominence lies in its suggestion of previous self-control.
No desire of place, no consciousness of growing power, had tempted him to stir
until in his old age he knew that the time had come and that all the threads were
in his hand.
Character of his ability.
The ability which Antiphon brought to the service of his party is
defined as the power enthumethenai kai ha gnoie eipein. It was the power of a
subtle and quick mind backed by a thorough command of the new rhetoric. He was
masterly in device and in utterance. Fertility of expedient, ingenuity in making
points in debate, were the qualities which the oligarchs most needed; and it was
in these that the strength of Antiphon lay. In promptness of invention where difficulties
were to be met on the instant he probably bore some likeness to Themistokles;
but there is no reason for crediting him with that largeness of view, or with
any share of that wonderful foresight, which made Themistokles a statesman as
well as a diplomatist.
Thucydides praises Antiphon not only for his ability but, with equal
emphasis, for his arete, his virtue. The praise may be interpreted by what Thucydides
himself says elsewhere about the moral results of the intense conflicts between
oligarchy and democracy (Thuc. III. 82.). The arete, precious as rare, of a public
man was to be a loyal partisan; to postpone personal selfishness to the selfishness
of party; to be proof against bribes; and at the worst not to flinch, or at least
not to desert. Thucydides means that of the men who brought about the Revolution
Antiphon was perhaps the most disinterested and the most constant. He had taken
previously no active part in public affairs, and was therefore less involved than
such men as Peisandros and Phrynichos in personal relations: his life had been
to some extent that of a student: he had never put himself forward for office:
he seems, to judge from his writings, to have really believed and felt that old
Attic religion which at least the older school of oligarchs professed to cherish:
and thus altogether might be considered as the most unselfishly earnest member
of his party, the man who cared most for its ideas. In this measure he was disinterested:
he was also constant. When the Council fell, he could, no doubt, have escaped
with Peisandros and the rest. Considering his long unpopularity, and the fact
that he would be assumed to have been the chief spokesman of the odious embassy
to Sparta, his condemnation was perhaps more certain than that of any other person.
But he stood his ground: and for the last time put out all his strength in a great
defence of the fallen Government.
The new power of Rhetoric.
In a general view of Antiphon's career there is one aspect which ought
not to be missed--that aspect in which it bears striking evidence to the growing
importance in Athenian public life of the newly-developed art of Rhetoric. Antiphon's
first and strongest claim to eminence was his mastery over the weapons now indispensable
in the ekklesia and the law-courts; it was this accomplishment, no less fashionable
than useful, which recommended him to the young men of his party whom he had no
other pretension to influence; it was this rhetorical deinotes to which he owed
his efficiency in the Revolution. In his person the practical branch of the new
culture for the first time takes a distinct place among the qualifications for
political rank. The Art of Words had its definite share in bringing in the Four
Hundred: it was a curious nemesis when seven years later it was banished from
Athens by the Thirty.
Commentary:
1. He is often distinguished as the 'Rhamnusian' from namesakes.
Of these there are especially three with whom his ancient biographers --the pseudo-Plutarch,
Philostratos, Photios (cod. 259), and the anonymous author of the genos Antiphontos--frequently
confuse him.
I. The Antiphon who was put to death by the Thirty Tyrants, seven
years after the orator's death: Xen. Hellen. III. 40. He had furnished two triremes
at his own cost during the war: and of him Philostratos is probably thinking when
he says of the orator, estrategese pleista, enikese pleista, hexekonta trieresi
pepleromenais euxesen Athenaiois to nautikon. The speech of Lysias peri tes Antiphontos
thugatros (pseudo-Plut. Vitt. X. Oratt.) referred to his daughter.
II. Antiphon the tragedian, put to death by Dionysios the elder, towards
the end of his reign, i.e. about 370 B. C.: Arist. Rhet. II. 6. The anonymous
biographer says of the orator, tragoidias epoiei: and Philostratos describes him
as put to death by Dionysios for criticising his tragedies.
III. Antiphon the Sophist, introduced by Xenophon as disputing with
Sokrates, Memor. I. 6. 1. Diogenes calls him teratoskopos (soothsayer), Suidas,
oneirokrites -- by which title he is often referred to. Hermogenes expressly distinguishes
him from the orator (peri ideon, II. 497); but they are confused by the pseudo-Plut.
and by Photios.
2. Harpokr. s.v. stasiotes (Sauppe, Or. Att. II. p. 138.) Antiphon
en toi peri tes metastaseos: peri toinun hon Apolexis kategoreken hos stasiotes
en ego kai ho pappos ho emos: eoike nun ho rhetor idios epi tou doruphorou kechresthai
toi onomati: en goun tois hexes phesin hoti: ouk an tous men turannountas edunethesan
hoi progonoi kolasai, tous de doruphorous edunatesan. Curtius (Hist. Gr. Vol.
III. p. 460, transl. Ward) infers from this fragment that Antiphon in his speech
argued ?that the Four Hundred had acted as one equally responsible body, and that,
therefore, either all ought to be punished or all acquitted.? He observes that
?reference seems to be made to an unjustifiable separation of the parties involved:
this is indicated by the distinction drawn between the turannoi and the doruphoroi.?
It is very likely that Antiphon may have used this argument: but I do not see
how it is to be inferred from the fragments of the speech peri tes metastaseos
that he used it. The distinction between the turannoi and the doruphoroi is made,
as a perusal of the fragment will show, solely in reference to the Peisistratidae.
3. 'By far the larger number of the members of the party belonged
to the sophistically-trained younger generation...who greedily imbibed the political
teaching communicated to them at the meetings of the party by Antiphon, the Nestor
of his party, as it was the fashion to call him'. (Curtius, Hist. Gr. III. p.
435, transl Ward)The only authority for this fashion which I have been able to
find is [Plut.] Vitt. X. Oratt.: protos de kai rhetorikas technas exenenke, genomenos
anchinous: dio kai Nestor epekaleito. As this notice makes the name 'Nestor' refer
simply to rhetorical skill, not to political sagacity, I have hesitated to follow
Curtius in his picturesque application of it.
This text is cited June 2005 from Perseus Project URL bellow, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Antiphon the most antique of the orators.
Antiphon stands first among the orators of the Attic canon; and he
claims this place not merely because he was born a few years earlier than any
one of the rest. A broad difference separates him from those who were nearly his
contemporaries hardly less than from men of the next century, from Andokides and
Lysias as well as from Demosthenes and Hypereides. He represents older ideas and
an older conception of the manner in which these ideas are to find expression.
His successors, taken collectively, are moderns; compared with them, he is ancient
The beginnings of Greek Prose.
The outburst of intellectual life in Hellas during the fifth century
before Christ had for one of its results the creation of Greek prose. Before that
age no Greek had conceived artistic composition except in the form of poetry.
The Ionians who had already recorded myths or stated philosophies in prose had
either made no effort to rise above the ease of daily talk, or had clothed their
meaning in a poetical diction of the most ambitious kind. As the mental horizon
of Greece was widened, as subtler ideas and more various combinations began to
ask for closer and more flexible expression, the desire grew for something more
precise than poetry, firmer and more compact than the idiom of conversation. Two
special causes aided this general tendency. The development of democratic life,
making the faculty of speech before popular assemblies and popular lawcourts a
necessity, hastened the formation of an oratorical prose. The Persian Wars, by
changing Hellenic unity from a sentiment into a fact, and reminding men that there
was a corporate life, higher and grander than that of the individual city, of
which the story might be told, supplied a new motive to historical prose. Athens
under Perikles became the focus of all the feelings which demanded this new utterance,
and of all the capabilities which could make the utterance artistic. The Athenian
mind, with its vigour, its sense of measure, its desire for clearness, was fitted
to achieve the special excellences of prose, and moulded that Attic dialect in
which the prose-writer at last found his most perfect instrument. But the process
of maturing the new kind of composition was necessarily slow; for it required,
as its first condition, little less than the creation of a new language, of an
idiom neither poetical nor mean. Herodotos, at the middle point of the fifth century,
shows the poetical element still preponderant. The close of that century may be
taken as the end of the first great stage in the growth of a prose literature.
If a line is drawn there, Lysias will be perhaps the first representative name
below it: Antiphon and Thucydides will be among the last names above it.
Character of the early Prose.
The leading characteristic of the earlier prose is dignity. The newly
created art has the continual consciousness of being an art. It is always on its
guard against sliding into the levity of a conversational style. The composer
feels above all things that his written language must be so chosen as to produce
a greater effect than would be produced by an equivalent amount of extemporary
speaking. Every word is to be pointed and pregnant; every phrase is to be the
condensed expression of his thought in its ultimate shape, however difficult this
may be to the reader or hearer who meets it in that shape for the first time;
the movement of the whole is to be slow and majestic, impressing by its weight
and grandeur, not charming by its life and flow. The prose-writer of this epoch
instinctively compares himself with the poet. The poet is a craftsman, the possessor
of a mystery revealed to the many only in the spell which it exerts over their
fancies; just so, in the beginnings of a literary prose, its shaper likes to think
that he belongs to a guild. He does not care to be simply right and clear: rather
he desires to have the whole advantage which his skill gives him over ordinary
men; he is eager to bring his thoughts down upon them with a splendid and irresistible
force. In Greece this character, natural to immature prose, was intensified by
a special cause --the influence of the Sophists. In so far as these teachers dealt
with the form of language, they tended to confirm that view of the prose-writer
in which he is a professional expert dazzling and overawing laymen. The Sophists
of Hellas Proper dwelt especially on the minute proprieties of language, as Protagoras
on correct grammatical forms and Prodikos on the accurate use of synonyms; the
Sophists of Sicily taught its technical graces. In this last respect the teaching
of Gorgias was thoroughly reactionary, and was calculated to hinder the growth
of a good prose just at the critical point. At the moment when prose was striving
to disengage itself from the diction of poetry, Gorgias gave currency to the notion
that poetical ornament of the most florid type was its true charm. When, indeed,
he went further, and sought to imitate the rhythm as well as the phrase of poetry,
this very extravagance had a useful result. Prose has a rhythm, though not of
the kind at which Gorgias aimed; and the mere fact of the Greek ear becoming accustomed
to look for a certain proportion between the parts of a sentence hastened the
transition from the old running style to the periodic.
Dionysios on the 'austere' style.
Dionysios has described vividly the characteristics of that elder
school of composition to which Antiphon belonged. He distinguishes three principal
styles, the austere, the smooth and the middle. He cites poets, historians and
orators who are examples of each. Among orators Antiphon is his representative
of the austere style, Isokrates of the smooth, Demosthenes of the middle. The
austere style is thus described:
' It wishes its separate words to be planted firmly and to have strong
positions, so that each word may be seen conspicuously; it wishes its several
clauses to be well divided from each other by sensible pauses. It is willing to
admit frequently rough and direct clashings of sounds, meeting like the bases
of stones in loose wall-work, which have not been squared or smoothed to fit each
other, but which show a certain negligence and absence of forethought. It loves,
as a rule, to prolong itself by large words of portly breadth. Compression by
short syllables is a thing which it shuns when not absolutely driven to it.
'As regards separate words, these are the objects of its pursuit and
craving. In whole clauses it shows these tendencies no less strongly; especially
it chooses the most dignified and majestic rhythms. It does not wish the clauses
to be like each other in length of structure, or enslaved to a severe syntax,
but noble, simple, free. It wishes them to bear the stamp of nature rather than
that of art, and to stir feeling rather than to reflect character. It does not
usually aim at composing periods as a compact framework for its thought; but,
if it should ever drift undesignedly into the periodic style, it desires to set
on this the mark of spontaneity and plainness. It does not employ, in order to
round a sentence, supplementary words which do not help the sense; it does not
care that the march of its phrase should have stage-glitter or an artificial smoothness;
nor that the clauses should be separately adapted to the length of the speaker's
breath. No indeed. Of all such industry it is innocent... It is fanciful in imagery,
sparing of copulas, anything but florid; it is haughty, straightforward, disdainful
of prettiness, with its antique air and its negligence for its beauty'.
It is important to remember that this description is applied to a
certain kind of poetry as well as of prose, to Pindar and Aeschylos as well as
to Thucydides and Antiphon; and that, taken in reference to prose alone, it needs
modification. It is not true, for instance, of the older prose that it always
shrank from the display of artificialism. Negligent it often was; but at other
times it was consciously, ostentatiously artificial. Its general characteristics,
however, are admirably given by Dionysios. It is dignified; it relies much on
the weight of single words; it is bold but not florid; it aims at moving the hearer
rather than at reflecting the character of the speaker. Antiphon, his representative
orator, exemplifies these points clearly,--as will be seen better if he is compared
from time to time with the critic's representative historian, Thucydides.
Antiphon's style--its dignity.
In the first place, then, Antiphon is preeminently dignified and noble.
He is to his successors generally as Aeschylos to Euripides. The elder tragedy
held its gods and heroes above the level of men by a colossal majesty of repose,
by the passionless utterance of kingly thoughts; and the same feeling to which
these things seemed divine conceived its ideal orator as one who controls a restless
crowd by the royalty of his calm power, by a temperate and stately eloquence.
The speaker who wins his hearers by blandishments, who surprises them by adroit
turns, who hurries them away on a torrent of declamation, belonged to a generation
for which gods also and heroes declaimed or quibbled on the stage. Plutarch has
described, not without a tinge of sarcasm, the language and demeanour by which
Perikles commanded the veneration of his age. 'His thoughts were awe-inspiring,
his language lofty, untainted by the ribaldry of the rascal crowd. His calm features,
never breaking into laughter; his measured step; the ample robe which flowed around
him and which nothing deranged; his moving eloquence; the tranquil modulation
of his voice; these things, and such as these, had over all men a marvellous spell'.
The biographer goes on to relate how Perikles was once abused by a coarse fellow
in the market-place, bore it in silence until he had finished his business there,
and when his persecutor followed him home, merely desired a slave to take a lantern
and see the man home. It is not probable that the receiver of the escort felt
all the severity of the moral defeat which he had sustained; and he is perhaps
no bad representative of the Athenian democracy in its relations to the superb
decorum of the old school. Much of this decorum survives in Antiphon, who, in
a literary as in a political sense, clung to traditions which were fading. Yet
even in him the influence of the age is seen. The Tetralogies, written for practice,
and in which he had to please no one but himself, are the most stately of his
compositions. The speech On the Murder of Herodes is less so, even in its elaborate
proem; while part of the speech On the Choreutes, doubtless the latest of his
extant works, shows a marked advance towards the freedom and vivacity of a newer
style. It was in the hands of Antiphon that rhetoric first became thoroughly practical;
and for this very reason, conservative as he was, he could not maintain a rigid
conservatism. The public position which he had taken for his art could be held
only by concessions to the public taste.
Reliance on single words.
Antiphon relies much on the full, intense significance of single words.
This is, indeed, a cardinal point in the older prose. Its movement was slow; each
word was dropped with deliberation; and now and then some important word, heavy
with concentrated meaning, came down like a sledge-hammer. Take, for instance,
the chapter in which Thucydides shows how party strife, like that in Corcyra,
had the effect of confusing moral distinctions. Blow on blow the nicely-balanced
terms beat out the contrasts, until the ear is weary as with the clangour of an
anvil. 'Reckless daring was esteemed loyal courage,--prudent delay, specious cowardice;
temperance seemed a cloak for pusillanimity; comprehensive sagacity was called
universal indifference'. 'Remonstrance is for friends who err; accusation for
enemies who have done wrong'. In Antiphon's speech On the Murder of Herodes, the
accused says (reminding the court that his case ought not to be decided until
it has been heard before the Areiopagos): 'Be now, therefore, surveyors of the
cause, but then, judges of the evidence,--now surmisers, but then deciders, of
the truth'. And in the Second Tetralogy: 'Those who fail to do what they mean
are agents of a mischance; those who hurt, or are hurt, voluntarily, are authors
of suffering'. Examples of this eagerness to press the exact meaning of words
are frequent in Antiphon, though far less frequent than in Thucydides. It is evidently
natural to that early phase of prose composition in which, newly conscious of
itself as an art, it struggles to wring out of language a force strange to the
ordinary idiom; and in Greece this tendency must have been further strengthened
by the stress which Gorgias laid on antithesis, and Prodikos on the discriminating
of terms nearly synonymous. Only so long as slow and measured declamation remained
in fashion could the orator attempt thus to put a whole train of thought into
a single weighty word. What the old school sought to effect by one powerful word,
the later school did by the free, rapid, brilliant development of a thought in
all its fulness and with all the variety of contrasts which it pressed upon the
mind
Antiphon is imaginative but not florid.
A further characteristic of the older style--that it is 'fanciful
in imagery, but by no means florid'-- is exemplified in Antiphon. The meaning
of the antithesis is sufficiently clear in reference to Aeschylos and Pindar,
the poets chosen by Dionysios as his instances. In reference to prose also it
means a choice of images like theirs, bold, rugged, grand; and a scorn, on the
other hand, for small prettinesses, for showy colouring, for maudlin sentiment.
The great representative in oratory of this special trait must have been Perikles.
A few of his recorded expressions bear just this stamp of a vigorous and daring
fancy;--his description of Aegina as the 'eyesore' of the Peiraeus; his saying
that, in the slain youth of Athens, the year had lost its spring; his declaration,
over the bodies of those who fell at Samos, that they had become even as the gods;
'for the gods themselves we see not, but infer their immortality from the honours
paid to them and from the blessings which they bestow'. The same imaginative boldness
is found in Antiphon, though but rarely, and under severe control. 'Adversity
herself is wronged by the accused', he makes a prosecutor exclaim, 'when he puts
her forward to screen a crime and to withdraw his own villainy from view'. A father,
threatened with the condemnation of his son, cries to the judges: 'I shall be
buried with my son -in the living tomb of my childlessness'. But in Antiphon,
as in Thucydides, the haughty, careless freedom of the old style is shown oftener
in the employment of new or unusual words or phrases. The orator could not, indeed,
go so far as the historian, who is expressly censured on this score by his Greek
critic; but they have some expressions of the same character in common. While
Antiphon is sparing of imagery, he is equally moderate in the use of the technical
figures of rhetoric. These have been well distinguished as 'figures of language'
(schemata lexeos) and 'figures of thought' (schemata dianoias) --the first class
including various forms of assonance and of artificial symmetry between clauses;
the second including irony, abrupt pauses, feigned perplexity, rhetorical question
and so forth. Caecilius of Calacte, the author of this distinction, was a student
of Antiphon, and observed that the 'figures of thought' are seldom or never used
by him. The figures of language all occur, but rarely. Blass and K. O. Muller
agree in referring this marked difference between the older and later schools
of oratory--the absence, in the former, of those lively figures so abundant in
the latter--to an essential change which passed upon Greek character in the interval.
It was only when fierce passion and dishonesty had become strong traits of a degenerate
national character that vehemence and trickiness came into oratory. This seems
a harsh and scarcely accurate judgment. It appears simpler to suppose that the
conventional stateliness of the old eloquence altogether precluded such vivacity
as marked the later; and that the mainspring of this new vivacity was merely the
natural impulse, set free from the restraints of the older style, to give arguments
their most spirited and effective form.
Pathos and Ethos in Antiphon.
Nothing in the criticism of Dionysios on the 'austere' style is more
appreciative than his remark, that it aims rather at pathos than at ethos. That
is, it addresses itself directly to the feelings; but does not care to give a
subtle persuasiveness to its words by artistically adjusting them to the character
and position of the person who is supposed to speak them. It is tragic; yet it
is not dramatic. There has never, perhaps, been a greater master of stern and
solemn pathos than Thucydides. The pleading of the Plataeans before their Theban
judges, the dialogue between the Athenians and the Melians, the whole history
of the Sicilian Expedition and especially its terrible closing scene, have a wonderful
power over the feelings; and this power is in a great degree due to a certain
irony. The reader feels throughout the restrained emotion of the historian; he
is conscious that the crisis described was an agonising one, and that he is hearing
the least that could be said of it from one who felt, and could have said, far
more. On the other hand, a characteristic colouring, in the literary sense, is
scarcely attempted by Thucydides. No writer is more consummate in making personal
or national character appear in the history of actions. And when his characters
speak, they always speak from the general point of view which he conceived to
be appropriate to them. But in the form and language of their speeches there is
little discrimination. Athenians and Lacedaemonians, Perikles and Brasidas, Kleon
and Diodotos speak much in the same style; it is the ideas which they represent
by which alone they are broadly distinguished. The case is nearly the same with
Antiphon. His extant works present no subject so great as those of Thucydides,
and his pathos is necessarily inferior in degree to that of the historian; but
it resembles it in its stern solemnity, and also in this, that it owes much of
its impressiveness to its self-control. The second and fourth speeches of the
First Tetralogy, and the second and third of the Second, furnish perhaps the best
examples. In ethos, on the contrary, Antiphon is weak; and this, in a writer of
speeches for persons of all ages and conditions, must be considered a defect.
In the Herodes case the defendant is a young Mytilenean, who frequently pleads
his inexperience of affairs and his want of practice as a speaker. The speech
On the Choreutes is delivered by an Athenian citizen of mature age and eminent
public services. But the two persons speak nearly in the same strain and with
the same measure of self-confidence. Had Lysias been the composer, greater deference
to the judges and a more decided avoidance of rhetoric would have distinguished
the appeal of the young alien to an unfriendly court from the address of the statesman
to his fellow citizens.
The style of Antiphon: how far periodic.
The place of Antiphon in the history of his art is further marked
by the degree in which he had attained a periodic style. It is perhaps impossible
to find English terms which shall give all the clearness of the Greek contrast
between periodike and eiromene lexis. The 'running' style, as eiromene expresses,
is that in which the ideas are merely strung together, like beads, in the order
in which they naturally present themselves to the mind. Its characteristic is
simple continuity. The characteristic of the 'periodic' style is that each sentence
'comes round' upon itself, so as to form a separate, symmetrical whole. The running
style may be represented by a straight line which may be cut short at any point
or prolonged to any point: the periodic style is a system of independent circles.
The period may be formed either, so to say, in one piece, or of several members
(kola, membra), as a hoop may be made either of a single lath bent round, or of
segments fitted together. It was a maxim of the later Greek rhetoric that, for
the sake of simplicity and strength, a period should not consist of more than
four of these members or segments; Roman rhetoric allowed a greater number.
Aristotle takes as his example of the 'running' style the opening
words of the History of Herodotos; and, speaking generally, it may be said that
this was the style in which Herodotos and the earlier Ionian logographers wrote.
But it ought to be remembered that neither Herodotos, nor any writer in a language
which has passed beyond the rudest stage, exhibits the ?running? style in an ideal
simplicity. In its purest and simplest form, the running style is incompatible
with the very idea of a literature. Wherever a literature exists, it contains
the germ, however immature, of the periodic style; which, if the literature is
developed, is necessarily developed along with it. For every effort to grasp and
limit an idea naturally finds expression more or less in the periodic manner,
the very nature of a period being to comprehend and define. In Herodotos, the
running style, so congenial to his direct narrative, is dominant; but when he
pauses and braces himself to state some theory, some general result of his observations,
he tends to become periodic just because he is striving to be precise . From the
time of Herodotos onward the periodic style is seen gradually more and more natured,
according as men felt more and more the stimulus to find vigorous utterance for
clear conceptions. Antiphon represents a moment at which this stimulus had become
stronger than it had ever before been in the Greek world. His activity as a writer
of speeches may be placed between the years 421 and 411 B.C.8 . The effects of
the Peloponnesian war in sharpening political animosities had made themselves
fully felt; that phase of Athenian democracy in which the contests of the ekklesia
and of the lawcourts were keenest and most frequent had set in; the teaching of
the Sophists had thrown a new light upon language considered as a weapon. Every
man felt the desire, the urgent necessity, of being able in all cases to express
his opinions with the most trenchant force; at any moment his life might depend
upon it. The new intensity of the age is reflected in the speeches of Antiphon.
Wherever the feeling rises highest, as in the appeals to the judges, he strives
to use a language which shall 'pack the thoughts closely and bring them out roundly'.
But it is striking to observe how far this periodic style still is from the ease
of Lysias or the smooth completeness of Isokrates. The harshness of the old rugged
writing refuses to blend with it harmoniously,--either taking it up with marked
transitions, or suddenly breaking out in the midst of the most elaborate passages.
It is everywhere plain that the desire to be compact is greater than the power.
Antitheses and parallelisms are abundantly employed, giving a rigid and monotonous
effect to the periods which they form. That more artistic period of which the
several parts resemble the mutually-supporting stones of a vaulted roof, and which
leads the ear by a smooth curve to a happy finish, has not yet been found. An
imperfect sense of rhythm, or a habit of composition to which rhythmical restraint
is intolerable except for a very short space, is everywhere manifest. The vinegar
and the oil refuse to mingle. Thucydides presents the same phenomenon, but with
some curious differences. It may perhaps be said that, while Antiphon has more
technical skill (incomplete as that skill is) in periodic writing, Thucydides
has infinitely more of its spirit. He is always at high pressure, always nervous,
intense. He struggles to bring a large, complex idea into a framework in which
the whole can be seen at once. Aristotle says that a period must be of 'a size
to be taken in at a glance'; and this is what Thucydides wishes the thought of
each sentence to be, though he is sometimes clumsy in the mechanism of the sentence
itself. Dionysios mentions among the excellences which Demosthenes borrowed from
the historian, 'his rapid movement, his terseness, his intensity, his sting';
excellences, he adds, which neither Antiphon nor Lysias nor Isokrates possessed.
This intensity, due primarily to genius, next to the absorbing interest of a great
subject, does, in truth, place Thucydides, with all his roughness, far nearer
than Antiphon to the ideal of a compact and masterly prose. Technically speaking,
Thucydides as well as Antiphon must be placed in the border-land between the old
running style and finished periodic writing. But the essential merits of the latter,
though in a rude shape, have already been reached by the native vigour of the
historian; while to the orator a period is still something which must be constructed
with painful effort, and on a model admitting of little variety.
Antiphon's treatment of subject-matter.
These seem to be the leading characteristics of Antiphon as regards
form: it remains to consider his treatment of subject-matter. The arrangement
of his speeches, so far as the extant specimens warrant a judgment, was usually
simple. First a proem (prooimion) explanatory or appealing; next an introduction
(technically prokataskeue) dealing with the circumstances under which the case
had been brought into court, and noticing any informalities of procedure: then
a narrative of the facts (diegesis): the arguments and proofs (pisteis), the strongest
first, finally an epilogue or peroration (epilogos). The Tetralogies, being merely
sketches for practice, have only proem, arguments and epilogue, not the ?introduction?
or the narrative. The speech On the Murder of Herodes and the speech On the Choreutes
(in the latter of which the epilogue seems to have been lost) are the best examples
of Antiphon's method. It is noticeable that in neither of these are the facts
of the particular case dealt with closely or searchingly; and consequently in
both instances the narrative of the facts falls into the background. Narrative
was the forte of Andokides and Lysias; it appears to have been the weak side of
Antiphon, who was strongest in general argument. General presumptions,--those
afforded, for instance, by the refusal of the prosecutors to give up their slaves
for examination, or by the respective characters of prosecutor and prisoner and
by their former relations--are most insisted upon. The First Tetralogy is a good
example of Antiphon's ingenuity in dealing with abstract probabilities (eikota);
and the same preference for proofs external to the immediate circumstances of
the case is traceable in all his extant work. The adroitness of the sophistical
rhetoric shows itself, not merely in the variety of forms given to the same argument,
but sometimes in sophistry of a more glaring kind.
The rhetorician of the school is further seen in the great number
of commonplaces, evidently elaborated beforehand and without reference to any
special occasion, which are brought in as opportunity offers. The same panegyric
on the laws for homicide occurs, in the same words, both in the speech On the
Choreutes and in that On the Murder of Herodes. In the last-named speech the reflections
on the strength of a good conscience, and the defendant's contention that he deserves
pity, not punishment, are palpably commonplaces prepared for general use. Such
patches, unless introduced with consummate skill, are doubly a blemish; they break
the coherence of the argument and they destroy everything like fresh and uniform
colouring; the speech becomes, as an old critic says, uneven. But the crudities
inseparable from a new art do not affect Antiphon's claim to be considered, for
his day, a great and powerful orator. In two things, says Thucydides, he was masterly,--in
power of conception and in power of expression. These were the two supreme qualifications
for a speaker at a time when the mere faculty of lucid and continuous exposition
was rare, and when the refinements of literary eloquence were as yet unknown.
If the speaker could invent a sufficient number of telling points, and could put
them clearly, this was everything. Antiphon, with his ingenuity in hypothesis
and his stately rhetoric, fulfilled both requirements. Remembering the style of
his oratory and his place in the history of the art, no one need be perplexed
to reconcile the high praise of Thucydides with what is at first sight the startling
judgment of Dionysios. That critic, speaking of the eloquence which aims at close
reasoning and at victory in discussion, gives the foremost place in it to Lysias.
He then mentions others who have practised it,--Antiphon among the rest.'?Antiphon
however', he says, 'has nothing but his antique and stern dignity; a fighter of
causes (agonistes) he is not, either in debate or in lawsuits'. If, as Thucydides
tells us, no one could help so well as Antiphon those who were fighting causes
(agonizomenous) in the ekklesia or the lawcourts; if, on his own trial, he delivered
a defence of unprecedented brilliancy; in what sense is Dionysios to be understood?
The explanation lies probably in the notion which the critic attached to the word
'agonist'. He had before his mind the finished pleader or debater of a time when
combative oratory considered as an art had reached its acme; when every discussion
was a conflict in which the liveliest and supplest energy must be put forth in
support of practised skill; when the successful speaker must grapple at close
quarters with his adversary, and be in truth an 'agonist', an athlete straining
every nerve for victory. Already Kleon could describe the 'agonistic' eloquence
which was becoming the fashion in the ekklesia as characterized by swift surprises,
by rapid thrust and parry; already Strepsiades conceives the 'agonist' of the
lawcourts as 'bold, glib, audacious, headlong'. This was not the character of
Antiphon. He was a subtle reasoner, a master of expression, and furnished others
with arguments and words; but he was not himself a man of the arena. He never
descended into it when he could help; he had nothing of its spirit. He did not
grapple with his adversary, but in the statelier manner of the old orators attacked
him (as it were) from an opposite platform. Opposed in court to such a speaker
as Isaeos, he would have had as little chance with the judges as Burke with one
of those juries which Curran used to take by storm. Perhaps it was precisely because
he was not in this sense an 'agonist' that he found his most congenial sphere
in the calm and grave procedure of the Areiopagos.
Religious feeling of Antiphon.
Nor was it by the stamp of his eloquence alone that he was fitted
to command the attention of that Court. In politics Antiphon was aristocratic;
in religion, an upholder of those ancient ideas and conceptions, bound up with
the primitive traditions of Attica, of which the Areiopagos was the embodiment
and the guardian. For most minds of his day these ideas were losing their awful
prestige,--fading, in the light of science, before newer beliefs, as obligarchy
had yielded to democracy, as Kronos to the dynasty of Zeus. But, as Athene, speaking
in the name of that dynasty, had reserved to the Eumenides a perpetual altar in
her land (Aesch. Eum. 804), so Antiphon had embraced the new culture without parting
from a belief in gods who visit national defilement, in spirits who hear the curse
of dying men and avenge blood crying from the ground. In the recent history of
his own city he had seen a great impiety followed by a tremendous disaster. The
prominence which he always gives to the theological view of homicide means more
than that this was the tone of the Court to which his speeches were most frequently
addressed: it points to a real and earnest feeling in his own mind. There is no
better instance of this feeling than the opening of the Third Tetralogy--a mere
exercise, in which the elaborate simulation of a religious sentiment would have
had no motive:
'The god, when it was his will to create mankind, begat the earliest
of our race and gave us for nourishers the earth and sea, that we might not die,
for want of needful sustenance, before the term of old age. Whoever, then, having
been deemed worthy of these things by the god, lawlessly robs any one among us
of life, is impious towards heaven and confounds the ordinances of men. The dead
man, robbed of the god's gift, necessarily bequeaths, as that god's punishment,
the anger of avenging spirits --anger which unjust judges or false witnesses,
becoming partners in the impiety of the murderer, bring, as a self-sought defilement,
into their own houses. We, the champions of the murdered, if for any collateral
enmity we prosecute innocent persons, shall find, by our failure to vindicate
the dead, dread avengers in the spirits which hear his curse; while, by putting
the pure to a wrongful death, we become liable to the penalties of murder, and,
in persuading you to violate the law, responsible for your sin also.
Aeschylean tone in Antiphon.
The analogy of Antiphon to Aeschylos in regard to general style has
once already been noticed; it forces itself upon the mind in a special aspect
here, where the threat of judgment from the grave on blood is wrapt round with
the very terror and darkness of the Eumenides. In another place, where Antiphon
is speaking of the signs by which the gods point out the guilty, the Aeschylean
tone is still more striking. No passage, perhaps, in Aeschylos is more expressive
of the poet's deepest feeling about life than that in which Eteokles forebodes
that the personal goodness of Amphiaraos will not deliver him:
Alas that doom which mingles in the world
A just man with the scorners of the gods! ...
Aye, for a pure man going on the sea
With men fierce-blooded and their secret sin
Dies in a moment with the loathed of heaven (Aesch.
Theb. 593 ff.)
In the Herodes trial the defendant appeals to the silent witness which
the gods have borne in his behalf: 'You know doubtless that often ere now men
red-handed or otherwise polluted have, by entering the same ship, destroyed with
themselves those who were pure towards the gods; and that others, escaping death,
have incurred the extremity of danger through such men. Many again, on standing
beside the sacrifice, have been discovered to be impure and hinderers of the solemn
rites. Now in all such cases an opposite fortune has been mine. First, all who
have sailed with me have had excellent voyages: then, whenever I have assisted
at a sacrifice it has in every instance been most favourable. These facts I claim
as strong evidence touching the present charge and the falsity of the prosecutor's
accusations'.
Coincidences of thought and tone such as these deserve notice just
because they are general coincidences. There is no warrant for assuming a resemblance
in any special features between the mind of Antiphon and the mind of Aeschylos:
all the more that which the two minds have in common illustrates the broadest
aspect of each. By pursuits and calling Antiphon belonged to a new Athenian democracy
antagonistic to the old ideas and beliefs: by the bent of his intellect and of
his sympathies he belonged, like Aeschylos, to the elder democracy. It is this
which gives to his extant work a special interest over and above its strictly
literary interest. All the other men whose writings remain to show the development
of oratorical Attic prose have around them the atmosphere of eager debate or litigation;
Antiphon, in language and in thought alike, stands apart from them as the representative
of a graver public life. Theirs is the spirit of the ekklesia or the dikastery;
his is the spirit of the Areiopagos.
This text is cited June 2005 from Perseus Project URL bellow, which contains interesting hyperlinks
The Tetralogies.
Sixty speeches ascribed to Antiphon were known in the reign of Augustus; but of
these Caecilius pronounced twenty-five spurious. Fifteen, including the twelve
speeches of the Tetralogies, are now extant. All these relate to causes of homicide.
The titles of lost speeches prove that Antiphon's activity was not confined to
this province; but it was in this province that he excelled; and as the orations
of Isaeos are now represented by one class only, the klerikoi, so the orations
of Antiphon are represented by one class only, the phonikoi.
The Tetralogies have this special interest, that they represent rhetoric in its
transition from the technical to the practical stage, from the schools to the
law-courts and the ekklesia. Antiphon stood between the sophists who preceded
and the orators who followed him as the first Athenian who was at once a theorist
of rhetoric and a master of practical eloquence. The Tetralogies hold a corresponding
place between merely ornamental exercises and real orations. Each of them forms
a set of four speeches, supposed to be spoken in a trial for homicide. The accuser
states his charge, and the defendant replies; the accuser then speaks again, and
the defendant follows with a second reply. The imaginary case is in each instance
sketched as lightly as possible; details are dispensed with; only the essential
framework for discussion is supplied. Hence, in these skeleton-speeches, the structure
and anatomy of the argument stand forth in naked clearness, stripped of everything
accidental, and showing in bold relief the organic lines of a rhetorical pleader's
thought. It was the essence of the technical rhetoric that it taught a man to
be equally ready to defend either side of a question. Here we have the same man
-Antiphon himself- arguing both sides, with tolerably well-balanced force; and
it must be allowed that much of the reasoning -especially in the Second Tetralogy-
is, in the modern sense, sophistical. In reference, however, to this general characteristic
one thing ought to be borne in mind. The Athenian law of homicide was precise,
but it was not scientific. The distinctions which it drew between various degrees
of guilt in various sets of circumstances depended rather on minute tradition
than on clear principle. A captious or even frivolous style of argument was invited
by a code which employed vague conceptions in the elaborate classification of
accidental details. Thus far the Tetralogies bear the necessary mark of the age
which produced them. But in all else they are distinguished as widely as possible
from the essays of a merely artificial rhetoric; not less from the ?displays?
of the elder sophists than from the ?declamations? of the Augustan age2 . They
are not only thoroughly real and practical, but they show Antiphon, in one sense,
at his best. He argues in them with more than the subtlety of the speeches which
he composed for others, for here he has no less an antagonist than himself: he
speaks with more than the elevation of his ordinary style, -for in the privacy
of the school he owed less concession to an altered public taste.
First Tetralogy.
The First Tetralogy supposes the following case. A citizen, coming home at night
from a dinner-party, has been murdered. His slave, found mortally wounded on the
same spot, deposes that he recognised one of the assassins. This was an old enemy
of his master, against whom the latter was about to bring a lawsuit which might
be ruinous. The accused denies the charge: the case comes before the court of
the Areiopagos. The speeches of accuser and defendant comprise a number of separate
arguments, each of which is carefully, though very briefly, stated, but which
are not systematised or woven into a whole. An enumeration of the points raised
on either side in this case will give a fair general idea of the scope of the
Tetralogies generally. Analysis.
I. First Speech of Accuser.
1. § 1--3. (Proem.) The accused is so crafty that even an imperfect proof against
him ought to be accepted: a proof complete in all its parts is hardly to be looked
for. -It is not to be supposed that the accuser would have deliberately incurred
the guilt of prosecuting an innocent person.
[Here a narrative of the facts would naturally follow; but as this is a mere practice-speech,
it is left out, and the speaker comes at once to the proofs--first, those derived
from argument on the circumstances themselves (the entechnoi pisteis) -then, the
testimony of the slave (which represents the atechnoi.)]
2. § 4. The deceased cannot have been murdered by robbers; for he was not plundered.
3. Nor in a drunken brawl; for the time and place are against it.
4. Nor by mistake for some one else; for, in that case the slave would not have been attacked too.
5. § 5--8. It was therefore a premeditated crime and this must have been prompted
by a motive of reveng or fear.
6. Now the accused had both motives. He had lost much property in actions brought by the deceased, and was threatened with the loss of more. The murder was the only means by which he could evade the lawsuit hanging over him. [Here follows a curious argument in a circle.] And he must have felt that he was going to lose the lawsuit, or he would not have braved a trial for murder.
7. § 9. The slave identifies him.
8. § 9--11. (Epilogue.) If such proofs do not suffice no murderer can ever be
brought to justice, and the State will be left to bear the wrath of the gods for
an unexpiated pollution.
II. First Speech of the Defendant.
1. § 1--4. (Proem.) The accuser deserves the pity of the judge, for he is the
most unlucky of men. In death, as [p. 49] in life, his enemy hurts him still.
It is not enough if he can prove his own innocence; he is expected to point out
the real culprit. The accuser credits him with craft. If he was so crafty, is
it likely that he would have exposed himself to such obvious suspicion?
2. § 5--6. The deceased may have been murdered by robbers, who were scared off
by people coming up before they had stripped him.
3. Or he may have been murdered because he had been witness of some crime.
4. Or by some other of his numerous enemies; who would have felt safe, knowing that the suspicion was sure to fall on the accused, his great enemy.
5. § 7. The testimony of the slave is untrustworthy, since, in the terror of the moment, he may have been mistaken; or he may have been ordered by his present masters to speak against the accused. Generally, the evidence of slaves is held untrustworthy; else they would not be racked.
6. § 8. Even if mere probabilities are to decide the case, it is more probable that the accused should have employed some one else to do the murder, than that the slave should, at such a time, have been accurate in his recognition.
7. § 9. The danger of losing money in the impending lawsuit could not have seemed more serious to the accused than the danger, which he runs in the present trial, of losing his life.
8. § 10--13. (Epilogue.) Though he be deemed the probable murderer, he ought not
to be condemned unless he is proved to be the actual murderer. -It is his adversary
who, by accusing the innocent, is really answerable for the consequences of a
crime remaining unexpiated. -The whole life and character of the accused are in
his favour, as much as those of the accuser are against him. -The judges must
succour the ill fortune of a slandered man.
III. Second Speech of the Accuser.
1. § 1. (Proem.) The defendant has no right to speak of his ?misfortune:? it is
his fault. The first speech for the prosecutor proved his guilt; this shall overthrow
his defence.
2. § 2. Had the robbers been scared off by people coming up, these persons would have questioned the slave about the assassins, and given information which would have exculpated the accused.
3. Had the deceased been murdered because he had been witness of a crime, this crime itself would have been heard of.
4. § 3. His other enemies, being in less danger from him than the accused was, had so much less motive for the crime.
5. § 4. It is contended that the slave's testimony is untrustworthy because it was wrung from him by the rack. But, in such cases as these, the rack is not used at all. [Nothing is said about the hypothesis that the slave may have been suborned by his masters.]
6. § 5. The accused is not likely to have got the deed done by other hands, since
he would have been suspected all the same, and could not have been so sure of
the work being done thoroughly.
7. § 6. The lawsuit hanging over him -a certainty- would have seemed more formidable
to him than the doubtful chance of a trial for murder.
8. § 7--8. (Notice of a few topics touched on by the defendant at the beginning
and end of his speech.) -The fear of discovery is not likely to have deterred
such a man from crime: whereas the prospect of losing his wealth -the instrument
of his boasted services to the State -is very likely to have driven him to it.
-When the certain murderer cannot be found, the presumptive must be punished.
9. § 9--11. (Epilogue.) The judges must not acquit the accused--condemned alike
by probabilities and by proofs--and thereby bring bloodguiltiness on themselves.
By punishing him, they can take the stain of murder off the State.
IV. Second Speech of the Defendant.
1. § 1--3. (Proem.) He is the victim of cruel malignity. Though bound only to
clear himself, it is demanded of him that he shall account for the crime.
2. § 4--5. Suppose that robbers did the murder, but were scared, before they had
taken their booty, by people coming up. Would these persons, as it is contended,
have remained to make inquiries? Coming on a bloody corpse and a dying man at
dead of night, would they not rather have fled in terror from the spot?
3. § 6. Suppose that the deceased was slain because he had been witness of a crime:
-the fact of such crime not having been heard of, does not prove that it did not
take place.
4. § 7. The slave, with death from his wounds close at hand, had nothing to fear
if he bore false testimony.
5. § 8. But the accused can prove a distinct alibi. All his own slaves can testify
that on the night in question - the night of the Diipolia-he did not leave his
own house.
[The assertion of the alibi has been reserved till this point, because now the prosecutor cannot reply.]
6. § 9. It is suggested that he may have committed the crime to protect his wealth.
But desperate deeds, such as this, are not done by prosperous men. They are more
natural to men who have nothing to lose.
7. § 10. Even if he were the presumptive murderer, he would not have been proved
the actual: but, as it is, the probabilities also are for him. On all grounds,
therefore, he must be acquitted, or there is no more safety for any accused man.
8. § 11--12. (Epilogue.) The judges are entreated not to condemn him wrongfully,
and so leave the murder unatoned for, while they bring a new stain of bloodguiltiness
on the State.
A tolerably full analysis of this First Tetralogy has been given, because it is
curious as showing the general line of argument which a clever Athenian reasoner,
accustomed to writing for the courts, thought most likely to succeed on either
side of such a case. It will be seen that, though other kinds of evidence come
into discussion, the contest turns largely on general probabilities (eikota)--a
province for which Antiphon had the relish of a trained rhetorician, and on which
he enlarges in the speech On the Murder of Herodes . As regards style, in this
as in the other Tetralogies the language is noble throughout, rising, in parts
of the speeches of the accused, to an austere pathos; it is always concise without
baldness, but somewhat over-stiff and antique. There is also too little of oratorical
life; at which, however, in short speeches written for practice, the author perhaps
did not aim.
Second Tetralogy.
The subject of the Second Tetralogy is the death of a boy accidentally
struck by a javelin while watching a youth practising at the gymnasium. The boy's
father accuses the youth -whose father defends him- of accidental homicide; and
the case comes before the court of the Palladion. In order to understand the issues
raised, it is necessary to keep in mind the Greek view of accidental homicide.
This view was mainly a religious one. The death was a pollution. Some person,
or thing, must be answerable for that pollution, and must be banished from the
State, which would else remain defiled. In a case like the supposed one, three
hypotheses were possible: that the cause of the impurity had been the thrower,
the person struck, or the missile. Perikles and Protagoras spent a whole day in
discussing a similar question. Epitimos, an athlete, had chanced to hit and kill
a certain Pharsalian: did the guilt lie, they inquired, with Epitimos, with the
man killed, or with the javelin? There was a special court -that held at the Prutaneion-
for the trial of inanimate things which had caused death. Here, however, the question
is only of living agents. The judges have nothing whatever to do with the question
as to how far either was morally to blame. The question is simply which of them
is to be considered as, in fact, the author or cause of the death.
The accused, in his first speech, assumes that the case admits of
no doubt; states it briefly; and concludes with an appeal to the judges (A. §
1--2). The father of the accused, after bespeaking patience for an apparently
strange defence (B. § 1--2) -argues that the error, the hamartia, was all on the
boy's side (§ 3--5). The thrower was standing in his appointed place; the boy
was not obliged to place himself where he did. The thrower knew what he was about;
the boy did not -he chose the wrong moment for running across. He was struck;
and so punished himself for his own fault (§ 6--8). The accuser answers in the
tone of a plain man bewildered by the shamelessness of the defence, (G. § 1--4).
It is absured, he says, to pretend that the boy killed himself with a weapon which
he had not touched. On the showing of the defence itself, the blame is divided:
if the boy ran, the youth threw: neither was passive (§ 5-- 10). The youth's father
answers that his meaning has been perverted (A. § 1--2): he did not mean, of course,
that the boy pierced himself, but that he became the first cause of his own death
(§ 3--5). The youth did no more than the other throwers, who did not hit the boy
only because he did not cross their aim (§ 6--8). Involuntary homicide is, doubtless,
punishable by law; but, in this instance, the involuntary slayer -the deceased
himself- has been punished already. To condemn the accused would be only to incur
a new pollution (§ 9--10). The striking point of the whole Tetralogy is the ingenuity
with which the defender inverts the natural view of the case. The guilt of blood
is, he says, with the deceased alone, who has taken satisfaction for it from himself.
'Destroyed by his own errors, he was punished by himself in the same instant that
he sinned'. (D. § 8.)
Third Tetralogy.
Another peculiarity of the Athenian law of homicide is illustrated
by the third and last Tetralogy. An elderly man had been beaten by a younger man
so severely that in a few days he died. The young man is tried for murder before
the Areiopagos.
The accuser, in a short speech, appeals chiefly to the indignation
of the judges, dwelling, in a striking passage on the sin of robbing a fellow-mortal
of the god's gift (A. § 1--4). The defendant argues in reply that, if the homicide
is to be regarded as accidental, then it rests with the surgeon, under whose unskilful
treatment the man died; but, if it is to be regarded as deliberate, then the murderer
is the deceased himself, since he struck the first blow, which set the train of
events in motion (B. § 3--5). The accuser answers that the elder man is not likely
to have first struck the younger (G. § 2); and that to blame the surgeon is idle;
it would not be more absurd to inculpate the persons who called in his aid (§
5). [Here the second speech of the accused could naturally follow. But the accused
has, in the meantime, taken advantage of the Athenian law by withdrawing into
voluntary exile. The judges have no longer any power to punish him. A friend,
however, who was a bystander of the quarrel, comes forward to defend the innocence
of the accused]. The guilt, he maintains, lies with the old man; he, as can be
proved, gave the first blow (D. § 2--5); he is at once the murdered and the murderer
(§ 8).
The line thus taken by the defence is remarkable. It relies chiefly
on the provocation alleged to have been given by the deceased. But it does not
insist upon this provocation as mitigating the guilt of the accused. It insists
upon it as transferring the whole guilt from the accused to the dead man. Athenian
law recognised only two kinds of homicide; that which was purely accidental, and
that which resulted from some deliberate act. In the latter case, whether there
had been an intent to kill or not, some one must be a murderer. Thus, here, it
would not have been enough for the defence to show that the accused had, without
intent to kill, and under provocation, done a fatal injury. It is necessary to
go on to argue that the deceased was guilty of his own murder.
The literary form of the Third Tetralogy deserves notice in two respects;
for the solemnity and majesty of the language in the accuser's first address;
and for the vivacity lent by rhetorical question and answer to part of the first
speech of the defendant -a vivacity which distinguishes it, as regards style,
from everything else in these studies.
Speech On the Murder of Herodes.
Of extant speeches written by Antiphon for real causes, by far the
most important is that On the Murder of Herodes. The facts of the case were as
follows. Herodes, an Athenian citizen, had settled at Mytilene in 427 B.C. after
the revolt and reduction of that town. He was one of the kleruchs among whom its
territory was apportioned, but not otherwise wealthy. Having occasion to make
a voyage to Aenos on the coast of Thrace, to receive the ransom of some Thracian
captives who were in his hands, he sailed from Mytilene with the accused, -a young
man whose father, a citizen of Mytilene, lived chiefly at Aenos. Herodes and his
companion were driven by a storm to put in at Methymna on the north-west coast
of Lesbos; and there, as the weather was wet, exchanged their open vessel for
another which was decked. After they had been drinking on board together, Herodes
went ashore at night, and was never seen again. The accused, after making every
inquiry for him, went on to Aenos in the open vessel; while the decked vessel,
into which they had moved at Methymna, returned to Mytilene. On reaching the latter
place again, the defendant was charged by the relatives of Herodes with having
murdered him at the instigation of Lykinos, an Athenian living at Mytilene, who
had been on bad terms with the deceased. They rested their charge principally
on three grounds. First, that the sole companion of the missing man must naturally
be considered accountable for his disappearance. Secondly, that a slave had confessed
under torture to having assisted the defendant in the murder. Thirdly, that on
board the vessel which returned from Methymna had been found a letter in which
the defendant announced to Lykinos the accomplishment of the murder.
It was necessary that the trial should take place at Athens, whither
all subject-allies were compelled to bring their criminal causes. The ordinary
course would have been to have laid an indictment for murder (graphe phonou) before
the Areiopagos. Instead, however, of doing this the relatives of Herodes laid
an information against the accused as a 'malefactor'. He was accordingly to be
tried by an ordinary dikastery under the presidency of the Eleven. 'Malefactor',
at Athens, ordinarily meant a thief, a housebreaker, a kidnapper, or criminal
of the like class; but the term was, of course, applicable to murder, especially
if accompanied by robbery. Instances of persons accused of murder being proceeded
against, not by an indictment, but by an information, and being summarily arrested
without previous inquiry, occur only a few years later than the probable date
of this speech6 . When, therefore, the accused contends that the form of the procedure
was unprecedented and illegal, this is probably to be understood as an exaggeration
of the fact that it was unusual. In two ways it must have been distasteful to
the prisoner; first, as an indignity; secondly, as a positive disadvantage. Trial
before the Areiopagos left to the prisoner the option of withdrawing from the
country before sentences; and imposed upon the accuser a peculiarly solemn oath.
In this case, moreover, the unusual (though not illegal) procedure was accompanied
by unjust rigours. When the accused arrived in Athens, although he offered the
three sureties required by law, his bail was refused; he was imprisoned. This
treatment, of which he reasonably complains, may have been due in part to the
unpopularity of Mytileneans at Athens, and to the fact that Herodes had been an
Athenian citizen.
The date of the speech must lie between the capture of Mytilene in
427 B. C. and the revolt of Lesbos in 412 B. C. The accused says that in 427 B.C.
he was too young to understand the events which were passing, and that he knows
them only by hearsay. On the other hand, he can hardly have been less than twenty
at the time of the trial. Kirchner and Blass are inclined to place the speech
about 421 B. C.; it would perhaps be better to put it three or four years later,
about 417 or 416 B. C. On the other hand, a slight indication -which seems to
have escaped notice- appears to show that it was at least earlier than the spring
of 415 B. C. The accused brings together several instances in which great crimes
had never been explained . If the mutilation of the Hermae had then taken place,
he could scarcely have failed to notice so striking an example.
The speech opens with a proem in which the defendant pleads his youth
and inexperience (§ 1--7); and which is followed by a preliminary argument (prokataskeue)
on the informality of the procedure (§ 8--18). The defendant then gives a narrative
of the facts up to his arrival at Aenos (§ 19--24); and shows that the probabilities,
as depending upon the facts thus far stated, are against the story of the prosecutors
(§ 25--28). The second part of the narrative describes how the vessel into which
Herodes and the defendant had moved at Methymna returned to Mytilene; how the
slave was tortured, and under torture accused the defendant of murder (§ 29--30).
The defendant now concentrates his force upon proving the testimony
of the slave to be worthless (§ 31--51). He next discusses the statement of the
prosecutors that a letter, in which he announced the murder to Lykinos, had been
found on board the returning vessel (§ 52--56). He shows that he could have had
no motive for the murder (§ 57--63). He maintains that he cannot justly be required
to suggest a solution of the mystery. It is enough if he establishes his own innocence.
Many crimes have finally baffled investigation (§ 64--73). He notices the reproaches
brought against his father as having taken part in the revolt of Mytilene and
having been generally disloyal to Athens (§ 74--80).
Besides all the other proofs, the innocence of the prisoner is vindicated
by the absence of signs of the divine anger. Voyages and sacrifices in which he
has taken part have always been prosperous (§ 81--84). In a concluding appeal
the judges are reminded that, in any case, justice cannot be frustrated by his
acquittal, since it will still be possible to bring him before the Areiopagos
(§ 85--95).Remarks.
In reviewing the whole speech as an argument, the first thing which
strikes us is the notable contrast between the line of defence taken here and
that traced for a case essentially similar in the modelspeeches of the First Tetralogy.
There, the defendant employs all his ingenuity in suggesting explanations of the
mysterious crime which shall make the hypothesis of his own guilt unnecessary.
Here, the defendant pointedly refuses to do any thing of the kind. It is enough
if he can show that he was not the murderer; it is not his business to show who
was or might have been. On this broad, plain ground the defence takes a firm stand.
The arguments are presented in a natural order, as they arise out of the facts
narrated, and are drawn out at a length proportionate to their consequence, -by
far the greatest stress being laid on the worthlessness of the slave's evidence;
in discussing which, indeed, the speaker is not very consistent. One apparent
omission is curious. The prisoner incidentally says that he never left the vessel
on the night when Herodes went on shore and disappeared; but he does not dwell
upon, or attempt to prove, this allessential alibi. If the numerous commonplaces
and general sentiments seem to us a source of weakness rather than strength, allowance
must be made for the taste and fashion of the time; and every one must recognise
the effectiveness of the appeal to divine signs in which the argument finds its
rhetorical climax.
As a composition, the speech has great merits. The ethos, indeed,
is not artistic; a style so dignified and so sententious is scarcely suitable
to a speaker who is continually apologising for his youth and inexperience. Nor,
except in the passage which touches on the ruin of Mytilene, is there even an
attempt at pathos. But there is variety and versatility; the opening passage is
artistically elaborate, the concluding, impressive in a higher way; while the
purely argumentative part of the speech is not encumbered with any stiff dignity,
but is clear, simple, and sufficiently animated. Altogether the style has less
sustained elevation, but shows more flexibility, greater maturity and mastery,
than that of the Tetralogies.
Speech On the Choreutes.
The speech On the Choreutes relates to the death of Diodotos, a boy
who was in training as member of a chorus to be produced at the Thargelia, and
who was poisoned by a draught given to him to improve his voice1 . The accused
is the choregus, an Athenian citizen, who discharged that office for his own and
another tribe, and at whose house the chorus received their lessons. The accuser,
Philokrates, brother of the deceased Diodotos, laid an information for poisoning
before the Archon Basileus; and after some delay, the case came before the Areiopagos(1).
It was not contended that the accused had intended to murder the boy, but only
that he had ordered to be administered to him the draught which caused his death.
According to Athenian law this was, however, a capital offence. The present speech
is the second made by the defendant, and the last, therefore, of the trial. Its
date may probably be placed soon after the Sicilian disaster(2).
In a long proem, the accused dwells on the advantage of a good conscience
-on the excellence of the court of the Areiopagos- and on the weight of a judicial
decision in such a case (§ 1--6). He goes on to complain of the manner in which
the adversaries have mixed up irrelevant charges with the true issue; he will
address himself to the latter, and then refute the former (§ 7--10). A narrative
of the facts is then begun; but he breaks it off with the remark that it would
be easy to expose the falsehoods contained in the adversary's second speech, and
that he will now bring proofs (§ 11--15). The testimony of witnesses is adduced
and commented upon (§ 16--19). The defendant goes on to contrast his own conduct
in the matter with that of the accuser; dwells on the refusal of his challenge
to an examination of slaves; and urges the strength in all points of his case
(§ 20--32). The evidence closed, he digresses into a full review of the adversaries'
conduct from the first, in order to illustrate their malice and dishonesty. 'What
judges', he asks in conclusion, 'would they not deceive, if they have dared to
trifle with the awful oath under which they came before this court'? (§ 33--51).
It seems probable that the end of the speech has been lost. Standing
last in the MSS. of Antiphon, it would thus be the more liable to mutilation;
and in the concluding speech of a trial the orator would scarcely have broken
the rule, which he observes in every other instance, of finishing with an appeal
to the judges. The fact that a rhetorical promise made in the speech is not literally
fulfilled need not be insisted upon to strengthen this view.
In the speech On the Murder of Herodes, Antiphon had to rely mainly
on his skill in argument; here, witnesses were available, the case against the
accusers was strong, and little was needed but a judicious marshalling of proofs.
This is ably managed; but, as a display of power, the speech is necessarily of
inferior interest. The Mytilenean defendant in the Herodes case and the choregus
here speak in the same general tone -with a certain directness and earnestness;
but the common ethos is more strongly marked here, as the personality of the speaker
comes more decidedly forward. In other points of style there is a striking contrast
between the earlier and the later oration. The proem here is, indeed, as measured
and as elaborate as any thing in the earlier work. But it stands alone; in the
rest of the speech there is no stiffness. The language is that of ordinary life;
the sentences are more flowing, if not always clear; the style is enlivened by
question and exclamation, instead of being ornamented with antitheses and parallelisms;
and already the beginning of a transition to the easier, more practical style
of the later eloquence is well-marked.
Speech Against a Stepmother.
The short speech entitled 'Against a Step-mother, on a Charge of Poisoning',
treats of a case which, like the preceding, belonged to the jurisdiction of the
Areiopagos. The speaker, a young man, is the son of the deceased. He charges his
step-mother with having poisoned his father several years before, by the instrumentality
of a woman who was her dupe. The deceased and a friend, Philoneos, the woman's
lover, had been dining together; and she was persuaded to administer a philtre
to both, in hope of recovering her lover's affection. Both the men died; and the
woman -a slave- was put to death forthwith. The accuser now asks that the real
criminal, -the true Klytaemnestra of this tragedy- shall suffer punishment.
After deprecating in a proem (§ 1--4) the odium to which his position
exposes him, and commenting on the refusal of the adversaries to give up their
slaves for examination (§ 5--13), the speaker states the facts of the case (§
14--20). He goes on to contrast his own part as his father's avenger with that
of his brother, the champion of the murderess (§ 21--25); appeals for sympathy
and retribution (§ 26--27); denies that his brother's oath to the innocence of
the accused can have any good ground, whereas his own oath to the justice of his
cause is supported by his father's dying declaration (§ 28--30); and concludes
by saying that he has discharged his solemn duty, and that it now remains for
the judges to do theirs (§ 31).
Two questions have been raised in connexion with this speech; whether
it was written merely for practice; and whether it was the work of Antiphon.
I. It has been urged that stories of this kind were often chosen as subjects by
the rhetoricians of the schools; that the designation of the accused as Klytaemnestra
is melodramatic; that the name Philoneos (Philoneos) seems fictitious; that the
address to the Areiopagites as o dikazontes in § 7 is strange; and that the speech
stands in the mss. before the Tetralogies. The last objection alone requires notice.
The place of the speech in the mss. is, as Blass observes, due to the fact that
it is the only accusatory speech; the Tetralogies comprise both accusation and
defence; then come the defensive orations. On the other hand the prominence of
narrative and the entire absence of argument in this speech -in direct contrast
to the Tetralogies, which are all argument and no narrative- and the unfitness
of the subject for practising the ingenuity of an advocate, seem conclusive against
the view that this was a mere exercise.
II. The question of authenticity is more difficult. As regards matter, nothing
can be weaker than the speech. There is no argument. An unsupported assertion
that the accused had attempted the same crime before; the belief of the deceased
that his wife was guilty; the refusal of the adversaries to give up their slaves;
these are the only proofs. As regards style, there is much clumsy verbiage. On
the other hand, the narrative (§ 14--20) shows real tragic power, especially in
the contrast drawn between the unconsciousness of the miserable dupe and the craft
of the instigator; throughout there is a pathos of the same kind as that of the
Tetralogies, but higher; and lastly there is a strong resemblance to a particular
passage in the speech On the Choreutes6 . The conclusion to which Blass comes
appears sensible. Our knowledge of Antiphon's style is not so complete as to justify
this rejection of the speech; but it must in any case be assigned to a period
when both his argumentative skill and his power as a composer were still in a
rude stage of their development.
Commentary:
1. That the Areiopagos was the court which tried the case appears
certain (1) because that court alone had jurisdiction in graphai pharmakon: (2)
because the special compliment to the court as 'the most conscientious and upright
in Greece' (§ 51) points to the Areiopagos Some have supposed that this case came
before court at the Palladion, because, in § 16, the accused is spoken of as bouleusas
ton thanaton, and, according to Harpokration, cases of bouleusis were tried at
the Palladion by the Ephetae. But the bouleusis of Harpokration is a technical
term,=epibouleusis, and denotes the intent to kill in cases in which death had
not actually followed. On the other hand, the accused here is said bouleusai ton
thanaton merely in the sense that it was by his order that the draught was given
to the boy, though he did not hand the cup to him. No intent to murder was imputed
to him: see § 19 hoi kategoroi homologousi me ek pronoias med' ek paraskoues genesthai
ton thanaton.
2. In § 12, 21, 55 the choregus speaks of having brought an action
for embezzlement of public monies against Philinos and two other persons. Now
Antiphon wrote a speech kata Philinou, -very probably, as Sauppe conjectures,
against this same Philinos when prosecuted by the choregus: and from the speech
kata Philinou are quoted the words, tous te thetas hapantas hoplitas poiesai.
Sauppe thinks this points to a time just after the Sicilian disaster: 'in illis
enim rerum angustiis videntur A thenienses thetes ad arma vocasse'. (Or. Att.
vol. II. p. 144.) This is quite possible: but Sauppe's other argument that the
fact of the choregus representing two tribes (§ 11) points to a contraction of
public expenses in a time of distress, is not worth much, since we do not know
that this may not have been the usual custom at the Thargelia. At any rate the
decidedly modern character of the speech as compared with the De caed. Herodis
warrants us in placing it some years after the latter, which (as has been said
above) was probably spoken between 421 and 416 B. C.
This text is cited June 2005 from Perseus Project URL bellow, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Besides the extant compositions, twenty-four others, bearing the name of Antiphon, are known by their titles. Among these three deserve especial notice, because their titles have occasioned different inferences as to their contents, and because it is now tolerably certain that they belong, not to Antiphon the orator, but to Antiphon the sophist. These are the 'speeches' (or rather essays) On Truth, On Concord, On Statesmanship. As regards the first of these, indeed, the testimony of Hermogenes that it was the work of the Sophist has scarcely been questioned. But the treatise On Concord has often been given to the orator on the assumption that it was a speech, enforcing the importance of harmony, which he delivered in some political crisis, perhaps at the moment when the Four Hundred were threatened with ruin by internal dissensions. The treatise on Statesmanship, again, might, as far as the title witnesses, have been a practical exposition of oligarchical principles by the eloquent colleague of Peisandros. An examination of the fragments leads, however, to the almost certain conclusion that all these three works must be ascribed to the Sophist. The essay On Truth was a physical treatise, in which cosmic phenomena were explained mechanically in the fashion of the Ionic School. The essay On Concord was an ethical treatise, exhorting all men to live in harmony and friendship, instead of embittering their short lives by strife. The essay on Statesmanship was no party-pamphlet, but a discussion of the training required to produce a capable citizen. Besides the speeches known to the ancients, a work on the Art The Rhetoric. of Rhetoric, and a collection of Proems and Epilogues, were current under Antiphon's name. The collectwn of Proems and Epilogues. Sauppe and Spengel believe the Tetralogies to be examples taken from the Rhetoric; the latter, however, is expressly condemned as spurious by Pollux. The collection of Proems and Epilogues may, as Blass suggests, have furnished the opening and concluding passages of the Speech On the Murder of Herodes, and the opening passage of that On the Choreutes. In the latter case the difference of style between the proem and all that follows it is certainly striking.
This text is cited June 2005 from Perseus Project URL bellow, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Editor's Information
The e-texts of the works by Antiphon are found in Greece (ancient country) under the category Ancient Greek Writings.
GARGITOS (Ancient demos) GERAKAS
Epicurus (Epikouros). A celebrated philosopher, born in the
year B.C. 341, in the island of Samos, whither his father had gone from Athens,
in the year B.C. 352, among 2000 colonists then sent out by the Athenians. Yet
he was an Athenian by right, belonging to the deme Gargettus and to the tribe
Aegeis. His father Neocles is said to have been a school-master, and his mother
Chaeristrata to have practised arts of magic, in which it was afterwards made
a charge against Epicurus that, when he was young, he assisted her. Having passed
his early years in Samos and Teos, he went to Athens at the age of eighteen.
He had begun to study philosophy when only fourteen, from a desire, which the
teachers to whom he had applied had failed to satisfy, of understanding Hesiod's
description of chaos. In Samos he is said to have received lessons from Pamphilus,
a follower of Plato. On the occasion of this his first visit to Athens, Epicurus
stayed there for a very short time. He left it in consequence of the measures
taken by Perdiccas after the death of Alexander the Great, and went to Colophon
to join his father. In B.C. 310, he went to Mitylene, where he set up a school.
Staying only one year at this latter place, he next proceeded to Lampsacus,
where he taught for four years. He returned to Athens in the year B.C. 306,
and now founded the school which ever after was named from him the Epicurean.
He purchased a garden (Kepoi Epikourou) for eighty minae (about $1450), wherein
he might live with his disciples and deliver his lectures, and henceforth remained
in Athens, with the exception only of two or three visits to his friends in
Asia Minor, until his death, from stone in the bladder, B.C. 270. He was in
his seventy-second year when he died, and he had then been settled in Athens
as a teacher for thirty-six years.
Epicurus is said by Diogenes Laertius to have had so many
pupils that even whole cities could not contain them. Hearers came to him from
distant places; and while men often deserted other schools to join that of Epicurus,
there were only two instances, at most, of Epicurus being deserted for any other
teacher. Epicurus and his pupils lived together in the garden of which we have
spoken, in a state of friendship, which, as it is usually represented, could
not be surpassed--abstaining from putting their property together and enjoying
it in common for the quaint yet significant reason that such a plan implied
mutual distrust. The friendship subsisting between Epicurus and his pupils is
commemorated by Cicero. In this garden, too, they lived in the most frugal and
decorous manner, though it was the delight of the enemies of Epicurus to represent
it differently, and though Timocrates, who had once been his pupil and had abandoned
him, spread such gossip as that Epicurus used to vomit twice a day after a surfeit
and that harlots were inmates of the garden. An inscription over the gate of
the garden told him who might be disposed to enter that barleycakes and water
would be the fare provided for him; and such was the chastity of Epicurus that
one of his principal opponents, Chrysippus, endeavoured to account for it, so
as to deny him any merit, by saying that he was without passions. Epicurus remained
unmarried, in order that he might be able to prosecute philosophy without interruption.
His most attached friends and pupils were Hermachus of Mitylene, whom he appointed
by will to succeed him as master of the school; Metrodorus, who wrote several
books in defence of his system; and Polyaenus. Epicurus's three brothers, Neocles,
Chaeredemus, and Aristobulus, also followed his philosophy, as also one of his
servants, Mys, whom at his death he made free. Besides the garden in Athens,
from which the followers of Epicurus, in succeeding time, came to be named "the
philosophers of the garden", Epicurus possessed a house in Melite, a village
near Athens, to which he used often to retire with his friends. On his death
he left this house, together with the garden, to Hermachus, as head of the school,
to be left by him again to whosoever might be his successor.
In physics Epicurus trod pretty closely in the footsteps
of Democritus; so much so, indeed, that he was accused of taking his atomic
cosmology from that philosopher without acknowledgment. He made very few, and
these unimportant, alterations. According to Epicurus, as also to Democritus
and Leucippus before him, the universe consists of two parts, matter (soma)
and space, or vacuum (to kenon), in which matter exists and moves; and all matter,
of every kind and form, is reducible to certain indivisible particles or atoms
(atomoi), which are eternal. These atoms, moving, according to a natural tendency,
straight downward, and also obliquely, have thereby come to form the different
bodies which are found in the world, and which differ in kind and shape, according
as the atoms are differently placed in respect to one another. It is clear that,
in this system, a creator is dispensed with; and indeed Epicurus, here again
following Democritus, set about to prove, in an a priori way, that this creator
could not exist, inasmuch as nothing could arise out of nothing, any more than
it could utterly perish and becoming nothing. The atoms have existed always,
and always will exist; and all the various physical phenomena are brought about,
from time to time, by their various motions. The soul itself is made of a finer
and more subtle kind of atoms, which, when the body dies and decays, separate
and are dissipated. The various processes of sense are explained on the principles
of materialism. From the surfaces of all objects continually flow thin, filmy
images of things (eidola), which, by impact on the organism, cause the phenomena
of vision, hearing, etc.
It remains to speak of the Epicurean system of ethics. Setting
out with the two facts that man is susceptible of pleasure and pain and that
he seeks the one and avoids the other, Epicurus declared that it is a man's
duty to endeavour to increase to the utmost his pleasures and diminish
to the utmost his pains--choosing that which tends to pleasure rather than that
which tends to pain, and that which tends to a greater pleasure or to a lesser
pain rather than that which tends respectively to a lesser pleasure or a greater
pain. He used the terms pleasure and pain in the most comprehensive way, as
including pleasure and pain of both mind and body; and esteemed the pleasures
and pains of the mind as incomparably greater than those of the body. The highest
pleasure, then, is peace of mind (ataraxia, aponia), and this comes from phronesis
or the ability to decide what line of conduct will best secure true happiness.
Death, he says, is not to be feared, for "where we are, death is not; and
where death is, we are not."
The period at which Epicurus opened his school was peculiarly
favourable. In place of the simplicity of the Socratic doctrine, nothing now
remained but the subtlety and affectation of Stoicism, the unnatural severity
of the Cynics, or the debasing doctrine of indulgence taught and practised by
the followers of Aristippus. The luxurious refinement which now prevailed in
Athens, while it rendered every rigid scheme of philosophy, as well as all grossness
of manners, unpopular, inclined the younger citizens to listen to a preceptor
who smoothed the stern and wrinkled brow of philosophy, and, under the notion
of conducting his followers to enjoyment in the bower of tranquillity, led them
unawares into the path of moderation and virtue. Hence the popularity of his
school. It cannot be denied, however, that from the time when this philosopher
appeared to the present day, an uninterrupted course of censure has fallen upon
his memory; so that the name of his sect has almost become a proverbial expression
for everything corrupt in principle and infamous in character. The charges brought
against Epicurus are that he superseded all religious principles by dismissing
the gods from the care of the world; (Atheism) that if he acknowledged their existence,
it was only in conformity to popular prejudice, since, according to his system,
nothing exists in nature but material atoms; that he showed great insolence
and vanity in the disrespect with which he treated the memory of former philosophers
and the characters and persons of his contemporaries; and that both he and his
disciples were addicted to the grossest sensuality.
With respect to the first charge, it certainly admits of
no refutation. The doctrine of Epicurus concerning nature militated directly
against the agency of a Supreme Being in the formation and government of the
world, and his misconceptions with respect to mechanical motion and the nature
of divine happiness led him to divest the Deity of some of his primary attributes.
It is not true, however, that he entirely denied the existence of superior powers.
Cicero charges him with inconsistency in having written books concerning piety
and the reverence due to the gods, and in maintaining that the gods ought to
be worshipped, while he asserted that they had no concern in human affairs.
That there was an inconsistency in this is obvious. But Epicurus professed that
the universal prevalence of the ideas of gods was sufficient to prove that they
existed; and, thinking it necessary to derive these ideas, like all other ideas,
from sensations, he imagined that the gods were beings of human form and made
known to men by the customary emanations. He believed that these gods were eternal
and supremely happy, living in the intermundane spaces (metakosmia) in a state
of quiet, and meddling not with the affairs of the world. He contended that
they were to be worshipped on account of the excellence of their nature, and
not because they could do men either good or harm.
The Epicurean school was carried on, after Hermachus, by
Polystratus and many others, concerning whom nothing is known; and the doctrines
which Epicurus had taught underwent few modifications. When introduced among
the Romans, these doctrines, though very much opposed at first, were yet adopted
by many distinguished men, as Lucretius, Atticus, and Horace. Under the emperors,
Pliny the Younger and Lucian of Samosata were noted Epicureans.
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Epicurus (Epikouros), a celebrated Greek philosopher and the founder of a philosophical
school called after him the Epicurean. lie was a son of Neocles and Charestrata,
and belonged to the Attic demos of Gargettus, whence he is sometimes simply called
the Gargettian (Cic. ad Fam. xv. 16). He was born, however, in the island of Samos,
in B. C. 342, for his father was one of tile Athenian cleruichi, who went to Samos
and received lands there. Epicurus spent the first eighteen years of his life
at Samos, and then repaired to Athens, in B. C. 323, where Xenocrates was then
at the head of the academy, by whom Epicurus is said to have been instructed,
though Epicurus himself denied it (Diog. Laert. x. 13; Cic. de Nat. Deor. i. 26).
He did not, however, stay at Athens long, for after the outbreak of the Lamian
war lie went to Colophon, where his father was then residing, and engaged in teaching.
Epicurus followed the example of his father: he collected pupils and is said to
have instructed them in grammar, until gradually his attention was drawn towards
philosophy. Epicurus himself asserted that lie had entered upon his philosophical
studies at the early age of fourteen, while according to others it was not till
five or six years later. Some said that he was led to the study of philosophy
by his contempt of the rhetoricians and grammarians who were unable to explain
to him the passage in Hesiod about Chaos; and others said that the first impulse
was given to him by the works of Democritus, which fell into his hands by accident.
It is at any rate undeniable that the atomistic doctrines of Democritus exercised
a very great influence upon Epicurus, though he asserted that he was perfectly
independent of all the philosophical schools of the time, and endeavoured to solve
the great problems of life by independent thought and investigation. From Colophon
Epicurus went to Mytilene and Lampsacus, in which places he was engaged for five
years in teaching philosophy. In B. C. 306, when he had attained the age of 35,
he again went to Athens. He there purchased for eighty minae a garden--the famous
Kepoi Epikourou--which apparently was situated in the heart of the city, and in
which he established his philosophical school. Surrounded by numerous friends
and pupils and by his three brothers, Neocles, Charidemus, and Aristobulus, who
likewise devoted themselves to the study of philosophy, Epicurus spent the remainder
of his life in his garden at Athens. His mode of living was simple, temperate,
and cheerful, and the aspersions of comic poets and of later philosophers who
were opposed to his philosophy and describe him as a person devoted to sensual
pleasures, do not seem entitled to the least credit, although they have succeeded
in rendering his name proverbial with posterity for a sensualist or debauchee.
The accounts of his connexion with Leontium, Marmarium, and other well known hetaerae
of the time, perhaps belong to the same kind of slander and calumny in which his
enemies indulged. The life in Diogenes Laertius affords abundant proof that Epicurus
was a man of simple, pure, and temperate habits, a kind-hearted friend, and even
a patriotic citizen. He kept aloof from the political parties of the time, and
took no part in public affairs. His maxim was lathe Biosas, which was partly the
result of his peculiar philosophy, and partly of the political condition of Athens,
which drove men to seek in themselves happiness and consolation for the loss of
political freedom. During the latter period of his life Epicurus was afflicted
with severe sufferings, and for many years he was unable to walk. In the end his
sufferings were increased by the formation of a stone in his bladder, which terminated
fatally after a severe illness of a fortnight. He bore his sufferings with a truly
philosophical patience, cheerfulness, and courage, and died at the age of 72,
in Olymp. 127. 2, or B. C. 270. His will, which is preserved in Diogenes Laertius
(x. 16, &c.), shews the same mildness of character and the same kind disposition
and attachment to his friends, which he had manifested throughout life. Among
his many pupils Epicurus himself gave the preference to Metrodorus of Lampsacus,
whom he used to call the philosopher, and whom he would have appointed to succeed
him (Diog. Laert. x. 22); but Metrodorus died seven years before his master, and
in his will Epicurus appointed Hermarchus of Mytilene his successor in the management
of his school at Athens. Apollodorus, the Epicurean, wrote a life of Epicurus,
of which Diogenes made great use in his account of Epicurus, but this is now lost,
and our principal source of information respecting Epicurus is the tenth book
of Diogenes Laertius, who however, as usual, only puts together what he finds
in others; but at the same time he furnishes us some very important documents,
such as his will, four letters and the kuriai doxai, of which we shall speak below.
With the account of Diogenes we have to compare the philosophical poem of Lucretius,
and the remarks and criticisms which are scattered in the works of later Greek
and Roman writers, nearly all of whom, however, wrote in a hostile spirit about
Epicurus and his philosophy and must therefore be used with great caution. Among
them we must mention Cicero in his philosophical treatises, especially the De
Finibus, and the De Natura Deorum ; Seneca in his letter to Lucilius, and some
treatises of Plutarch in his so-called Moralia.
Epicurus appears to have been one of the most prolific of all the
ancient Greek writers. Diogenes Laertius (x. 26), who calls him polugraphotatos,
states that he wrote about 300 volumes (kulindroi). His works, however, are said
to have been full of repetitions and quotations of authorities. A list of the
best of his works is given by Diogenes (x. 27), and among them we may mention
the Peri phuseos in 37 books, Peri atomon kai kenou, Epitome ton pros phusikous,
Pros tous Megarikous diaporiai, Kuriai doxai, Peri telous, Peri kriteriou e kanon,
Chairedemos e peri Deon, Peri bion in three books, Peri tes en te atomo gonias,
Peri heimarmenes, Peri eidolon, Peri dikaiosunes kai ton allon areton, and Epistolai.
Of his epistles four are preserved in Diogenes (x. 22, 35, 84, 122). The first'is
very brief and was addressed by Epicurus just before his death to Idomeneus. The
three others are of far greater importance: the first of them is addressed to
one Herodotus, and contains an outline of the Canon and the Physica; the second,addressed
to Pythocles,contains his theory about meteors, and the third, which is addressed
to Menoeceus, gives a concise view of his ethics, so that these three Epistles,
the genuineness of which can scarcely be doubted, furnish us an outline of his
whole philosophical system. An abridgement of them is preserved in Eudocia. They
were edited separately by Nurnberger in his edition of the tenth book of Diogenes
Laertius, Nurnberg. The letters, to Herodotus and Pythocles were edited separately
by J. G. Schneider under the title of Epicuri Physica et Metcorologica duabus
Epistolis comprehensa, Leipzig, 1813. These letters, together with the above mentioned
Kuriai doxai, that is, forty-four propositions containing the substance of the
ethical philosophy of Epicurus, which are likewise preserved in Diogenes, must
be our principal guides in examining and judging of the Epicurean philosophy.
All the other works of Epicurus have perished, with the exception of a considerable
number of fragments. Some parts of the above-mentioned work, Peri phuseos, especially
of the second and eleventh books, which treat of the eidola, have been found among
the rolls at Herculaneum, and are published in C. Corsini's Volumin. Herculan.
vol. ii. Naples, 1809, from which they were reprinted separately by J. C. Orelli,
Leipzig, 1818. Some fragments of the tenth book of the same work have been edited
by J. Th. Kreissig in his Comment. de Sallust. Histor. Fragm.. If we may judge
of the style of Epicurus from these few remains, it must be owned that it is clear
and animated, though it is not distinguished for any other peculiar merits.
With regard to the philosophical system of Epicurus, there is scarcely
a philosopher in all antiquity who boasted so much as Epicurus of being independent
of all his predecessors, and those who were believed to have been his teachers
were treated by him with scorn and bitter hostility. He prided himself upon being
an autodidaktos, but even a superficial glance at his philosophy shews that he
was not a little indebted to the Cyrenaics on the one hand and to Democritus on
the other. As far as the ethical part of his philosophy is concerned thus much
may be admitted, that, like other systems of the time, it arose from the peculiar
circumstances in which the Greek states were placed. Thinking men were led to
seek within them that which they could not find without. Political freedom had
to a great extent disappeared, and philosophers endeavoured to establish an internal
freedom based upon ethical principles, and to maintain it in spite of outward
oppression, no less than to secure it against man's own passions and evil propensities.
Perfect independence, self reliance, and contentment, therefore, were regarded
as the highest good and as the qualities which alone could make men happy, and
as human happiness was with Epicurus the ultimate end of all philosophy, it was
necessary for him to make ethics the most essential part, and as it were the centre
of his whole philosophy. He had little esteem for logic and dialectics, but as
he could not altogether do without them, he prefixed to his ethics a canon, or
an introduction to ascertain the criterium which was to guide him in his search
after truth and in distinguishing good from evil. His criteria themselves were
derived from sensuous perception combined with thought and reflection. We obtain
our knowledge and form our conceptions of things, according to him, through eidola,
i. e. images of things which are reflected from them, and pass through our senses
into our minds. Such a theory is destructive of all absolute truth, and a mere
momentary impression upon our senses or feelings is substituted for it. His ethical
theory was based upon the dogma of the Cyrenaics, that pleasure constitutes the
highest happiness, and must consequently be the end of all human exertions. Epicurus,
however, developed and ennobled this theory in a manner which constitutes the
peculiarity and real merit of his philosophy, and which gained for him so many
friends and admirers both in antiquity and in modern times. Pleasure with him
was not a mere momentary and transitory sensation, but he conceived it as something
lasting and imperishable, consisting in pure and noble mental enjoyments, that
is, in ataraxia and aponia, or the freedom from pain and from all influences which
disturb the peace of our mind, and thereby our happiness, which is the result
of it. The summum bonum, according to him, consisted in this peace of mind; and
the great problem of his ethics, therefore, was to shew how it was to be attained,
and ethics was not only the principal branch of philosophy, but philosophy itself,
and the value and importance of all other kinds of knowledge were estimated by
the proportion in which they contributed towards that great object of human life,
or in which they were connected with ethics. His peace of mind was based upon
Phronesis, which he described as the beginning of everything good, as the origin
of all virtues, and which he himself therefore occasionally treated as the highest
good itself.
In the physical part of his philosophy, he followed the atomistic
doctrines of Democritus and Diagoras. His views are well known from Lucretius's
poem De Rerum Natura. It would, however, appear that sometimes he misunderstood
the views of his predecessors, and distorted them by introducing things which
were quite foreign to them; sometimes he appears even in contradiction with himself.
Tile deficiencies are most striking in his views concerning the gods, which drew
upon him the charge of atheism. His gods, like everything else, consisted of atoms,
and our notions of them are based upon the eidola which are reflected from them
and pass into our minds. They were and always had been in the enjoyment of perfect
happiness, which had not been disturbed by the laborious business of creating
the world; and as the government of the world would interfere with their happiness,
he conceived the gods as exercising no influence whatever upon the world or man.
The number of pupils of Epicurus who propagated his doctrines, was
extremely great; but his philosophy received no further development at their hands,
except perhaps that in subsequent times his lofty notion of pleasure and happiness
was reduced to that of material and sensual pleasure. His immediate disciples
adopted and followed his doctrines with the most scrupulous conscientiousness:
they were attached and devoted to their nester in a manner which has rarely been
equalled either in ancient or modern times: their esteem, love, and veneration
for him almost bordered upon worship; they are said to have committed his works
to memory; they had his portrait engraved upon rings and drinking vessels, and
celebrated his birthday every year. Athens honoured him with bronze statues. But
notwithstanding the extraordinary devotion of his pupils and friends, whose number,
says Diogenes, exceeded that of the population of whole towns, there is no philosopher
in antiquity who has been so violently attacked, and whose ethical doctrines have
been so much mistaken and misunderstood, as Epicurus. The cause of this singular
phaenomenon was partly a superficial knowledge of his philosophy, of which Cicero,
for example, is guilty to a very great extent, and partly also the conduct of
men who called themselves Epicureans, and, taking advantage of the facility with
which his ethical theory was made the handmaid of a sensual and debauched life,
gave themselves up to the enjoyment of sensual pleasures. At Rome, and during
the time of Roman ascendancy in the ancient world, the philosophy of Epicurus
never took any firm root; and it is then and there that, owing to the paramount
influence of the Stoic philosophy, we meet with the bitterest antagonists of Epicurus.
The disputes for and against his philosophy, llowever, are not confined to antiquity;
they were renewed at the time of the revival of letters, and are continued to
the present day.
The number of works that have been written upon Epicurus and his philosophy
is prodigious (Fabric. Bibl. Graec.); we pass over the many histories of Greek
philosophy, and mention only the most important works of which Epicurus is the
special subject. Peter Gassendi, de Vita et Moribus Epicuri comentarius libris
octo constans, Lugdun. 1647, and Hag. Comit. 1656, 4to.; Gassendi, Syntagma Philosophiae
Epicuri, Hag. Comit. 1659, 4to., London, 1668, 12mo., Amsterdam, 1684; J. Rondel,
La Vie d'Epicure, Paris, 1679, 12mo., La Haye, 1686, 12mno.; a Latin translation
of this work appeared at Amsterdam, 1693, 12mo., and an English one by Digby,
London, 1712, 8vo.; Batteux, La Morale d'Epicure, Paris, 1758, 8vo.; Bremer, Versuch
einer Apoloyie des Epicur, Berlin, 1776, 8vo.; Warnekros, Apologie und Leben Epicurs,
Greifswald, 1795, 8vo.; and especially Steinhart in Ersch u. Gruber, Allgem. Encyclop.
vol. xxxv. p. 459, &c.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited June 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
This term has two distinct, though cognate, meanings. In its popular
sense, the word stands for a refined and calculating selfishness, seeking not
power or fame, but the pleasures of sense, particularly of the palate, and those
in company rather than solitude. An epicure is one who is extremely choice and
delicate in his viands. In the other sense, Epicureanism signifies a philosophical
system, which includes a theory of conduct, of nature, and of mind.
HISTORY
Epicurus, from whom this system takes its name, was a Greek,
born at Samos 341 B.C., who,
in 307 B.C., founded a school at Athens,
and died 270 B.C. The Epicurean School was rather a practical discipline than
a habit of speculation. The master laid down his principles dogmatically, as if
they must be evident as soon as stated, to any one not foolish. His disciples
were made to learn his maxims by heart; and they acquired a spirit of unity more
akin to that of a political party, or of a sect, than to the mere intellectual
agreement of a school of philosophers.
EPICUREAN ETHICS
Philosophy was described by Epicurus as “the art of
making life happy”, and he says that “prudence is the noblest part
of philosophy”. His natural philosophy and epistemology seem to have been
adopted for the sake of his theory of life. It is, therefore, proper that his
ethics should first be explained. The purpose of life, according to Epicurus,
is personal happiness; and by happiness he means not that state of well-being
and perfection of which the consciousness is accompanied by pleasure, but pleasure
itself. Moreover, this pleasure is sensuous, for it is such only as is attainable
in this life. This pleasure is the immediate purpose of every action. The pleasure
of Epicurus is a state, equably diffused, “the absence of [bodily] pain
and [mental] anxiety”. That which begets the pleasurable life is not [sensual
indulgence] but a sober reason which searches for the grounds of choosing and
rejecting, and which banishes those doctrines through which mental trouble, for
the most part, arises. The wise man will accordingly desire “not the longest
life, but the most pleasurable”.
It is for the sake of this condition of permanent pleasure, or tranquillity,
that the virtues are desirable. “We cannot live pleasurably without living
prudently, gracefully, and justly; and we cannot live prudently gracefully, and
justly, without living pleasurably” in consequence; for “the virtues
are by nature united with a pleasurable life; and a pleasurable life cannot be
separated from these.” The virtues, in short, are to be practiced not for
their own sake, but solely as a means of pleasure.
”The wise man will not take any part in public affairs”;
moreover, “the wise man will not marry and have children”. But “the
wise man will be humane to his slaves”. “He will not think all sinners
to be equally bad, nor all philosophers to be equally good.” That is, apparently,
he will not have any very exacting standard, and will neither believe very much
in human virtue, nor be very much surprised at the discovery of human frailty.
In this system, “prudence is the source of all pleasure and of all virtue”.
THEOLOGY
Epicurus seems to have held that there was one supreme being; but
this god was not the creator, scarcely the orderer, of the universe, the gods
being only a part of the All. Nor is there a Providence, for an interest in human
affairs would be inconsistent with perfect happiness. In short, the gods are magnified
Epicurean philosophers.
BIOLOGY
In this Epicurus simply followed the view of Empedocles,
that, first, all sorts of living things and animals, well or ill organized, were
evolved from the earth and that those survived which were suited to preserve themselves
and reproduce their kind.
LOGIC
The Epicurean logic is criterional. The test of truth practically
is the pleasant and the painful belief. Theoretically, their criterion is sensation.
Sensation never is deceptive; the error lies in our judgment. Besides sensation
the human mind has also notions, or anticipations (prolepseis). These notions
are the results left by previous sensations. The understanding, then, does not
differ essentially from the internal senses.
PSYCHOLOGY
The human soul is material and mortal, being composed of
a finer kind of atoms, resembling those of air or fire, but even more subtle.
It is the bodily organism that holds together the atoms composing the soul. Yet
the human will is free. Fatlism was to those of an Epicurean temper simply a source
of unpleasantness and helplessness. The freedom asserted by the Epicureans is
not rational freedom in the true sense of the word. It does not consist in the
power of choosing the right and the noble in preference to the pleasant. It is
little better than physical contingency.
M.J. Ryan, ed.
Transcribed by: Rick McCarty
This extract is cited June 2003 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
MARATHON (Ancient demos) ATTICA, EAST
SOUNIO (Cape) ATTIKI
417 - 369
An Athenian, the son of Euphronius of Sunium, introduced as one of the speakers in Plato's Theaetetus and Sophistes, in which he is spoken of as a noble youth, ardent in the pursuit of knowledge, and especially in the study of geometry.
Theaetetus. An Athenian, the son of Euphronius of Sunium, is introduced as one
of the speakers in Plato's Theaeteius and Sophistes, in which dialogues he is
spoken of as a noble, courageous, and well-disposed youth; in person somewhat
like Socrates ; and ardent in the pursuit of knowledge, especially in tile study
of geometry (Plat. Theaet.; Sophist. passim; Polit.). Diogenes Laertius (ii. 29)
mentions him as an example of the happy effects of the teaching of Socrates. Eusebius
(Chron.) places "Theaetetus the mathematician" at Ol. 85, B. C. 440, a date which
can only be accepted as referring, not to the time when he really flourished,
but when, as a mere youth, he became the disciple of Socrates.
Theaitetos (c. 417-369 BC): Studied with Theodoros of Cyrene
and at the Academy with Plato.
Father died before he reached manhood and left a large fortune but
the trustees of the estate squandered it. At some time taught in Herakleia in
Pontus; may have taught Herakleides.
Died from disease contracted after wounding in battle (prob. v. Korinth
369)
Contributed to the theory of irrational quantities, construction of
regular solids, and theory of proportions, built upon by Eudoxos and set out by
Euclid bk 5.
Eponym of one Platonic dialogue and principal character of Sophist.
This text is cited Sept 2003 from the Greek & Roman Science & Technology URL below.
In the fourth century, Athens became a great centre for mathematical study, and the scholars Anaxagoras (B.C. 500-428), Hippocrates of Chios, Eudoxus, Plato, and Theaetetus are among its greatest names.
The construction of the five regular solids is attributed to the Pythagoreans.
Some of them, the cube, the tetrahedron (which is nothing but a pyramid), and
the octahedron (which is only a double pyramid with a square base), cannot but
have been known to the Egyptians. And it appears that dodecahedra have been found,
of bronze or other material, which may belong to periods earlier than Pythagoras'
time by some centuries.
It is true that the author of the scholium No. I to Eucl. XIII. says
that the Book is about "the five so-called Platonic figures, which however
do not belong to Plato, three of the aforesaid five figures being due to the Pythagoreans,
namely the cube, the pyramid and the dodecahedron, while the octahedron and the
icosahedron are due to Theaetetus." This statement (taken probably from Geminus)
may perhaps rest on the fact that Theaetetus was the first to write at any length
about the two last-mentioned solids. We are told indeed by Suidas (S. V. Theaitetos)
that Theaetetus "first wrote on the ?five solids? as they are called."
This no doubt means that Theaetetus was the first to write a complete
and systematic treatise on all the regular solids; it does not exclude
the possibility that Hippasus or others had already written on the dodecahedron.
The fact that Theaetetus wrote upon the regular solids agrees very well with the
evidence which we possess of his contributions to the theory of irrationals, the
connexion between which and the investigation of the regular solids is seen in
Euclid's Book XIII.
Theaetetus By Plato (e-texts)
Theaetetus: Various WebPages
Demetrius of Sunium. Cynic philosopher, who flourished at Corinth in the first century. During the reign of Caligula he taught philosophy at Rome, where he obtained the highest reputation for wisdom and virtue. He was banished from Rome in the time of Nero for his free censure of public manners. After the death of this emperor he returned to Rome, but the boldness of his language soon offended Vespasian and again subjected him to the punishment of exile. Apollonius, with whom he had formed a friendship, prevailed on Titus to recall him; but under Domitian he withdrew to Puteoli. Seneca, who was acquainted with him, speaks in the highest terms of his masculine eloquence, sound judgment, intrepid fortitude, and inflexible integrity.
This text is cited Oct 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Demetrius of Sunium, a Cynic philosopher, was educated in the school of the sophist Rhodius, and was an intimate friend of the physician Antiphilus. He is said to have travelled up the Nile for the purpose of seeing the pyramids and the statue of Memnon (Lucian, Toxar. 27, adv. Indoct. 19). He appears, however, to have spent some part of his life at Corinth, where he acquired great celebrity as a teacher of the Cynic philosophy, and was a strong opponent of Apollonius of Tyana (Philostr. Vit. Apoll. iv. 25). His life falls in the reigns of Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Vespasian, and Domitian. He was a frank and open-hearted man, who did not scruple to censure even the most powerful when he thought that they deserved it. In consequence of this, he was sent into exile, but he preserved the same noble freedom and independence, notwithstanding his poverty and sufferings; and on one occasion, when the emperor Vespasian during a journey met him, Demetrius did not shew the slightest symptom of respect. Vespasian was indulgent enough to take no other vengeance except by calling him a dog. (Senec. de Benef. vii. 1, 8; Suet. Vespas. 13; Dion Cass. lxvi. 13; Tacit. Ann. xvi. 34, Hist. iv. 40; Lucian, de Saltat. 63.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Aug 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Theaetetus. An Athenian, the son of Euphronius of Sunium, is introduced as one of the speakers in Plato's Theaeteius and Sophistes, in which dialogues he is spoken of as a noble, courageous, and well-disposed youth; in person somewhat like Socrates ; and ardent in the pursuit of knowledge, especially in tile study of geometry. (Plat. Theaet.). Diogenes Laertius (ii. 29) mentions him as an example of the happy effects of the teaching of Socrates. Eusebius (Chron.) places "Theaetetus the mathematician" at Ol. 85, B. C. 440, a date which can only be accepted as referring, not to the time when he really flourished, but when, as a mere youth, he became the disciple of Socrates.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
IKARIA (Ancient demos) DIONYSSOS
The father of Greek Tragedy. He was a contemporary of Pisistratus,
and a native of Icarus, one of the demes in Attica, where the worship of Dionysus
had long prevailed. The alteration made by Thespis , which gave to the old Tragedy
a new and dramatic character, was very simple but very important. Before his time
the leader of the Chorus had recited the adventures of Dionysus and had been answered
by the Chorus. Thespis introduced an actor (hupokrites, or "answerer") to reply
to the leader of the Chorus. It is clear that, though the performance still remained,
as far as can be gathered, chiefly lyrical, and the dialogue was of comparatively
small account, yet a decided step towards the drama had been made. Some modern
scholars have credited Horace's statement that Thespis went about in a wagon as
a strolling player. It is suggested that the expressions for the freedom of jesting
at the festival of the Lenaea (ta ex hamaxon, ex hamaxes hubrizein) may have given
rise to the story.
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
The “inventor of tragedy” was born in Attica,
and was the first prize winner at the Great Dionysia in 534 BC. He was an important
innovator for the theatre, since he intoduced such things as the independent actor,
as opposed to the choir, as well as masks, make up and costumes.
Thespis walked around Athens
pulling a handcart, setting up a kind of one man plays, where he showed the bad
behaviour of man. The word for actor “thespian” comes from his name.
His contemporary Solon resented him, with the explanation that what
he showed on stage soon would be acted out in reality as well.
This text is cited Sept 2003 from the In2Greece URL below.
Tragoedia (tragoidia).
I. Tragedy in Greece originated in the lyric dithyramb; i. e. in the
song of a chorus at the rites held in honour of Dionysus (see Dionysia). This
song, in accordance with the cult of the god, expressed at one time exuberant
joy, at another deep sorrow. The cult of Dionysus is also indicated by the very
name of tragedy, signifying goat-song; i. e. (according to the usual explanation)
the hymn sung by the chorus in their dance round the altar at the sacrifice of
the goat (tragos), dedicated to Dionysus. Others derive the name from the fact
that, to represent Satyrs, the chorus were clad in goat-skins, and hence resembled
goats. These choral songs seem to have received a certain dramatic form as early
as the time of Arion , to whom the dithyramb owes its artistic development. The
true drama, including tragic and satyric plays, was evolved subsequently in Athens.
Tradition ascribes the origin of tragedy to a contemporary
of Solon named Thespis, of Icaria, which was a chief seat of the cult
of Dionysus. The date assigned to this is B.C. 540. Thespis was at the same time
poet, leader of the chorus, and actor. According to the testimony of the ancients,
his pieces consisted of a prologue, a series of choral songs standing in close
connection with the action, and dramatic recitations introduced between the choruses.
These recitations were delivered by the leader of the chorus, and were partly
in the form of monologues, partly in that of short dialogues with the chorus,
whereby the action of the play was advanced. The reciter was enabled to appear
in different roles by the aid of linen or wooden masks, which are also said to
have been introduced by the poet himself. (See Persona below.) The invention of
Thespis , whose own pieces soon lapsed into oblivion, won the favour of Pisistratus
and the approval of the Athenian public. Tragedy thus became an important element
in the Attic festival of Dionysus. Thespis's immediate followers were Choerilus,
Pratinas (the inventor of the Satyric
Drama), his son Aristias , and Phrynichus. Phrynichus especially did good
service towards the development of tragedy by introducing an actor apart from
the leader of the chorus, and so preparing the way for true dialogue. He further
improved the chorus, which still, however, occupied a disproportionate space in
comparison with the action of the play.
Tragedy was really brought into being by Aeschylus, when he added
a second actor (called the deuteragonistes) to the first, or protagonistes, and
in this way rendered dialogue possible. He further subordinated the choruses to
the dialogue.
Sophocles, in whom tragedy reaches its culminating-point, added to
Aeschylus's two actors a third, or tritagonistes: and Aeschylus accepted the innovation
in his later plays. Thenceforward three actors were regularly granted by lot to
each poet, at the public expense. Only rarely, and in exceptional cases, was a
fourth employed. Sophocles also raised the number of the chorus from twelve to
fifteen. The only other important innovation due to him was that he gave up the
internal connection, preserved by Aeschylus, among the several plays of a tetralogy
which were presented in competition by the tragic poets at the festival of Dionysus.
See; Tetralogia;
Trilogia.
The third great master of tragedy is Euripides, in whom, however,
we already observe a decline in many respects from the severe standard of his
predecessor. During and after the age of these masters of the art, from whom alone
have complete dramas come down to us, many other tragic poets were actively employed,
whose works are known to us by name alone, or are only preserved in fragments.
It is remarkable that, in the case of the great tragic writers, the
cultivation of tragic compositions seems to have been hereditary among their descendants,
and among those of Aeschylus in particular, for many generations. His son Euphorion,
his nephew Philocles, his grand-nephews Morsimus and Melanthius, his grandson
Astydamas, and his great-grandsons Astydamas and Philocles, were poets of more
or less note. In the family of Sophocles may be mentioned his son Iophon and his
grandson Sophocles; and in that of Euripides, his son or nephew of the same name.
Among the other poets of the fifth century B.C., Ion, Achaeus, Aristarchus,
and Neophron were accounted the most eminent. Agathon may also be included as
the first who ventured to treat a subject of his own invention, whereas hitherto
mythical history, especially that of Homer and the Cyclic
Poets, or, in rare instances, authentic history, had furnished the materials
of the play. After the Peloponnesian War, tragedy shared the general and ever-increasing
decline of political and religious vitality. In the fourth century, besides the
descendants of Aeschylus, we must mention Theodectes, Aphareus, and Chaeremon,
who partly wrote for readers only.
The number of tragedies produced at Athens is marvellous. According
to the not altogether trustworthy records of the number of plays written by each
poet, they amounted to 1400. The works of the foremost poets were represented
over and over again, especially in the theatres of Asia Minor, under the successors
of Alexander. During the first half of the third century Ptolemy Philadelphus
built a great theatre in Alexandria, where he established competitions in exact
imitation of those at Athens. This gave a new impetus to tragic poetry, and seven
poets became conspicuous, who were known as the Alexandrian
Pleiad, Alexander Aetolus, Philiscus, Sositheus, Homerus, Aeantides, Sosiphanes,
and Lycophron. The taste of the Alexandrian critics deemed them worthy to occupy
a place beside the five great tragic poets of Athens, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides,
Ion, and Achaeus. See Canon
Alexandrinus;
Inasmuch as tragedy developed itself out of the chorus at the Dionysiac
festivals, so, in spite of all the limitations which were introduced as a result
of the evolution of the true drama, the chorus itself was always retained. Hence
Greek tragedy consisted of two elements: the one truly dramatic, the prevailing
metre of which was the iambic trimeter; the other consisting of song and dance
(see Chorus)
in the numerous varieties of Dorian lyric poetry. The dramatic portion was generally
made up of the following parts: the prologos, from the beginning to the first
entry of the chorus; the epeisodion, the division between each choral song and
the next; and the exodos, or concluding portion which followed the last chorus.
The first important choral part was called the parodos: and the song following
an episodium, a stasimon. There were further songs of lamentation by the chorus
and actors together, which were called kommoi. A solo was sometimes sung by the
actor alone; and this became especially common in the later tragedies.
II. Roman tragedy was founded entirely on that of the Greeks. In early
times there existed crude dramatic productions (see Satira),
which provided an opening for the translation from the Greek dramas brought on
the stage by Livius Andronicus. He was a Greek by birth, but was brought to Rome
as a captive about B.C. 200. It is to him that Roman tragedy owes its origin.
His dramas and those of his successors were more or less free versions of Greek
originals. Even the tragedies, or historical plays, drawn from national Roman
materials, called fabulae praetextae or praetextatae (see Praetexta),
the first writer of which was his immediate successor Naevius (about B.C. 235),
were entirely modelled on the Greek. The most noteworthy representatives of tragedy
under the Republic were Ennius (B.C. 239-170), Pacuvius (220- 130), and Attius
(170-84), besides whom only a few other poets produced any works about this time.
It is true that the scanty fragments we possess of these dramas admit of no positive
judgment as to their merit, but there is no doubt that they rank far below the
original creations of the Greeks. It may also be clearly inferred from the fragments
that declamation and pathos formed a characteristic attribute of Roman tragedy,
which was intensified by a studied archaism of expression. Moreover, the titles
of their plays that have come down to us show that preference was given to subjects
relating to the Trojan epic cycle; this is to be explained by the Trojan origin
claimed by the Romans. (See Trojan
War.) Next to this the most popular were the myths of the Pelopidae, of the
Theban cycle, and of the Argonauts. Euripides was the favourite model; after him
Sophocles; rarely Aeschylus. Roman tragedy, like Greek, was made up of spoken
dialogue in iambic trimeters and musical portions called cantica. See Canticum,
and on the chorus in Roman tragedy see Chorus
(near the end).
In the time of Augustus the representatives of tragedy were Asinius
Pollio, Varius, and Ovid; under Tiberius, Pomponius Secundus; under Nero and Vespasian,
Curiatius Maternus, of whose works scarcely a line has been preserved. The only
tragedies of Roman antiquity which we possess are those of the philosopher Seneca,
which show great mastery of form and a fertile imagination, but suffer from an
intolerable excess of rhetorical declamation. It is doubtful whether they were
intended for the stage at all, and not rather for public recitation and for private
reading.
This extract is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Tragoedia. The purpose of this article is to sketch the progress of Greek Tragedy
from its origin to its maturity; and to give some account of Roman Tragedy, which
was derived from the Greek.
The Dithyramb.
The Dorian worship of the gods, and especially of Apollo, had been
accompanied from an early time by choral lyrics, to which an artistic development
was given by Alcman of Sparta (660 B.C.) and Stesichorus of Himera (620 B.C.).
It was reserved for a man of Aeolian origin to perfect one particular species
of the poetry which Dorians had made their own. Arion, of Methymna in Lesbos,
lived about 600 B.C. He gave a finished form to the dithurambos, or choral hymn
in honour of Dionysus. The kuklios choros--i. e. the chorus which stood, or danced,
round the altar of Dionysus--received from him a more complete organisation, its
number being fixed at fifty. The earliest kuklioi choroi of this kind were trained
and produced by Arion at Corinth in the reign of Periander. Pindar alludes to
this when he speaks of Corinth as the place where the graces of Dionysus --the
joyous song and dance of his festival--were first shown forth, sun boelatai .
. . dithuramboi (Olymp. xiii. 19). The epithet boelates which is there given to
the dithyramb probably refers to the fact that an ox was the prize, rather than
to a symbolical identification of Dionysus with that animal. In one of his lost
poems Pindar had connected the origin of the dithyramb with Naxos, and, in another,
with Thebes. This is quite consistent with Corinth having been the first home
of the matured dithyramb. It is well known that the dithyramb had existed before
Arion's time. The earliest occurrence of the word is in Archilochus (circ. 670
B.C.), fr. 79: hos Dionusoi' anaktos kalon exarxai melos | oida dithurambon, oinoi
sunkeraunotheis phrenas--a testimony to the impassioned character of the song.
Herodotus speaks of Arion as not merely the developer, but the inventor (i. 23);
and Aristotle made a similar statement, if we can trust the citation in Photius
(ton de arxamenon tes oides Aristoteles Ariona phesin einai, hos protos ton kuklion
egage choron: Biblioth. Cod. 239). But it was natural that the man who developed
and popularised the dithyramb should have come to figure in tradition as its inventor.
The etymology of dithurambos is unknown. Plato conjectures that its original theme
was the birth of Dionysus (Legg. p. 700 B). If this was so, at any rate the scope
must soon have been enlarged, so as to include all the fortunes of the god.
Earliest Tragic Choruses.
At Sicyon, circ. 600 B.C., tragikoi choroi were in use. This date
coincides with the period at which Arion perfected the dithyramb; and we find
that these choroi had originally been held in honour of Dionysus. The Sicyonians
had diverted them from that purpose, and had applied them to the cult of the Argive
hero Adrastus, whose adventures were celebrated by the choruses (Her. v. 67, ta
pathea autou tragikoisi choroisi egerairon). Cleisthenes, the tyrant of Sicyon,
reclaimed these choroi for Dionysus. Two points in this account deserve attention.
(1.) The epithet tragikoi is already given to these choruses, although there was as yet no actor distinct from the chorus. The saturoi (=tituroi, he-goats ) were woodland beings, half man, half beast, who attended on Dionysus, and who were conventionally represented with pointed ears, budding horns, a snub nose, and a tail. Some allusion to the satyrs was evidently involved in tragikos, as an epithet of the chorus, and in tragoidia, as a name for their song. But it is hardly doubtful that these terms also refer directly to the association of an actual goat with the Dionysiac worship. It was the goat that suggested the conventional type of the saturoi, not the latter that prompted the use of the terms tragikos and tragoidia. The choice of the votive animal is sufficiently explained by the lower side of the nature ascribed to the god, the side which would be most prominent in a rustic carnival. A goat was perhaps sacrificed to Dionysus before the choral song began. But this does not necessarily exclude another hypothesis--viz. that a goat was sometimes the prize. When, in early times, the country people spoke of a goat-chorus, or a goat-song, no doubt the literal and the allusive meanings were blended; men thought partly of the goat which was the sacrifice or the prize, partly of the goat-like satyrs who formed the Chorus. The word tragoidia is often applied to the purely choral performance in honour of Dionysus, when as yet there was no tragedy in the later sense. Thus Plato remarks that tragoidia had existed in Attica before the days of Thespis and Phrynichus (Minos, p. 321 A). Similarly Athenaeus (630 c) and Diogenes Laertius (iii. 56) speak of the primitive tragoidia which was performed wholly by a chorus.
(2.) Further, it appears that as early as 600 B.C. tragikoi choroi were not necessarily restricted to the worship of Dionysus, but could celebrate the fortunes of a hero such as Adrastus. This illustrates the peculiar position of Dionysus among the Hellenic deities. According to legend, his entrance into Greece had been opposed; he had endured various insults and trials before his worship was finally established. Dionysus alone was at once a god--superhuman in might--and a hero who had striven like Heracles. The tragic chorus, which sang the dithyramb, commemorated his pathe--the varying fortunes which had preceded his final triumph. Such a chorus might change its theme to a hero who had experienced like vicissitudes, but not to any other god. Apollo had long been honoured with choruses by the Dorians. But there was no germ of drama in the choral cult of Apollo, because there was no reminiscence of suffering.
Transition from Lyric to Dramatic Tragedy.
As the central idea of the Dionysiac worship was a vivid sympathy
with the fortunes of the god, a certain dramatic element must have entered into
it from the first. The energy of the dithyrambic style would itself prompt the
dancers to use animated gesture. It would also be natural that their leader should
enact the part of Dionysus himself, or of a messenger from him--reciting some
adventure, to which the satyr-chorus would then make a lyric response. Greek tradition
clearly associated some such rudiments of drama with the primitive tragoidia.
[p. 859] Thus Diogenes Laertius says: In early tragedy the Chorus alone sustained
the action (diedramatizen); afterwards Thespis introduced one actor, in order
to give rest to the Chorus (iii. 56). Aristotle, too, states that tragedy was
at first extemporary (autoschediastike), and took its rise from those who led
off the dithyramb (apo ton exarchonton ton dithurambon: Poet. 4). He refers to
an effusion, more or less unpremeditated, by the leader, as distinguished from
the hymn chanted by the Chorus.
Thespis, a native of Icaria in Attica, flourished about 536
B.C., in the later years of Peisistratus. He was a trainer and leader
of dithyrambic choruses, who made an improvement in the mode of performance. Hitherto
the leader, who recited an adventure of Dionysus, had addressed the Chorus, and
had been answered by them. Thespis now set apart a person specially for dialogue
with the leader. As this person had to reply to the leader, he was called the
answerer, hupokrites--which became the regular term for an actor. This was another
step towards drama; but how far it went we do not know, because we do not know
what the dramata of Thespis (as Suidas calls them) were like. The alleged fragments
of Thespis in Plutarch, Clement of Alexandria, Pollux, and other writers, are
spurious, as Bentley has shown (Phalaris, pp. 289 ff., ed. Dyce). Everything would
depend on the manner in which the part of the new hupokrites was adjusted to that
of the coryphaeus. If the latter was made virtually a second actor, then Thespis
might fairly be regarded as the founder of drama proper. If, on the other hand,
the dialogue remained comparatively unimportant, and the whole performance continued
to be essentially lyric, then Thespis had merely modified the tradition--though
in a fruitful way. The latter view seems the more probable. The ancients themselves
were divided: some regarded him as the protos tragikos: others, as merely improving
on Sicyonian tradition (Suidas). Bentley maintained that Thespis composed only
pieces of a humorous character; Welcker, that he produced serious tragedy also.
Neither view admits of proof. Horace (Ars Poet. 276) has given currency to the
notion that Thespis went about the country with a strolling company, and acted
his plays on a waggon. The fiction may have been suggested by the jests from a
waggon which were associated with the processions to Eleusis (ex hamaxes hubrizein).
When all the evidence has been sifted, Thespis remains to us a famous name, and
little more. That he made an epoch in the gradual development is beyond question.
But, in the light of such imperfect knowledge as we possess, Aeschylus, not Thespis,
must be regarded as the true founder of Tragedy.
The Period between Thespis and Aeschylus.
(1) Choerilus, an Athenian, is said to have gained his first dramatic victory
in 523 B.C., and to have been active for some sixty years afterwards. Pausanias
(i. 14, § 2) refers to him as drama poiesanti Alopen. Alope was a hapless maiden
whom her father Cercyon put to death; and Pausanias quotes the play for some genealogical
details about Triptolemus. Here, then, we have a tragedy, connected, by subject,
with Eleusis, but not directly with Dionysus. Choerilus is said by Suidas to have
composed 160 plays. Only a few words are extant. The view that he excelled in
satyr-drama rests on a verse of an unknown poet, henika men basileus en Choirilos
en saturois, quoted by Marius Plotius Sacerdos (circ. 300 A.D.), in the third
book of his Ars Grammatica, where he treats of metres. The phrase en saturois,
however, may have referred to Dionysiac choruses generally, and not to satyr-plays
as distinguished from tragedies.
(2) Pratinas, a native of Phlius, is said by Suidas to have contended against
Choerilus and Aeschylus in the 70th Olympiad, i. e. at some time between 500 and
497 B.C. If the first year of the Olympiad is meant, the date would be the spring
of 499 B.C. The tradition that he was the first to write satyr-plays is founded
on the words of Suidas, protos egraphe saturous: but it can be traced further
back, if Pratinae be read for Cratini in a note on the Ars Poetica (230) by Helenius
Acron, the commentator on Terence and Horace (circ. 190 A.D.). The satyr-plays
of Pratinas were presumably intended to preserve the old type of satyr-chorus,
now threatened with extinction by the new improvements. Such an effort would have
been natural for one whose native place was not far from Sicyon. Among the scanty
fragments of Pratinas, which are almost wholly lyric, the most considerable is
a passage of 20 lines from a huporchema (Bergk, Poet. Lyr. 953 ff.: cf. Nauck,
Frag. Trag. p. 562). Suidas says that he wrote 60 plays, of which 32 were, satyric
dramas; unless, with Boeckh, 32 should be altered to 12 (lb' to ib').
(3) Phrynichus, an Athenian, is said to have gained the tragic prize first in
511 B.C., and for the last time in 476 B.C. His tragedy on the Capture of Miletus
must have been produced soon after the date of the event (494 B.C.): it is uncertain
whether the title was Miletou halosis (Her. vi. 21), or Persai. Eight other of
his plays are known by titles, but only a few verses remain (Nauck, Frag. Trag.
557 ff.). According to Bentley's conjecture, the Phoenissae (on the same subject
as the Persae of Aeschylus) was the play produced in 476 B.C., when Themistocles
was his choregus. In the Thesmophoriazusae of Aristophanes the tragic poet Agathon
says of Phrynichus that the comeliness of his person was matched by the beauty
of his dramas (v. 166). His lyrics, in particular, were admired for their simple
grace and sweetness. It seemed as if the birds had taught him to warble (Ar. Av.
748 ff.) These lyrics had probably more of an Ionian than of a Dorian or an Aeolian
stamp. He was. the most popular tragic poet of his time: the audiences to whom
Aeschylus made his earlier appeals are described as having been brought up in
the school of Phrynichus (para phrunichoi traphentas, Ar. Ran. 910).
Aeschylus, a native of Eleusis in Attica, was born in 525 B.C. About 499 B.C. he was already exhibiting tragedy, but it was in 484 that he first gained the prize. The great change which he introduced consisted in adding a second actor, and in making the dialogue more important than the Chorus (ton lolon protagonisten pareskeuase, Arist. Post. 4). It may be conjectured that this change had been made some years before 484 B.C.; at any rate it was earlier [p. 860] than the date of the Persae, 472 B.C. So long as there was only a single actor, that actor might, indeed, assume different parts in succession, but there could be no drama in the proper sense of the word. If, for instance, Phrynichus used only one actor in the Capture of Miletus, that person might first appear as a messenger, relating the calamity; the Chorus would express their grief; the actor might then reappear as one of the victors or of the vanquished, and give occasion for another choral strain. But the presentment of an action as passing before the eyes of the spectators became possible only when a second actor was added. Aeschylus also gave a new grandeur to the scenic accessories of tragedy. He improved the masks, and introduced new costumes, of which we shall speak presently. The introduction of scene-painting has also been ascribed to him; but it is probable that his use of this aid did not go beyond an elementary form. Aeschylus is essentially the creator of the tragic drama as it existed at Athens during the 5th century B.C. In comparison with Phrynichus and his other predecessors, Aeschylus stood out as the first of the Greeks who had built up a lofty diction for Tragedy, and who had made it a splendid spectacle. (Ar. Ran. 1004 f.)
Sophocles was born in or about 495 B.C., and first gained the tragic prize in
468 B.C., against Aeschylus. He added a third actor. He also raised the number
of the tragic chorus from 12 to 15. Hitherto one of the ordinary choreutae had
acted as leader. One of the three additional men was now appointed coryphaeus;
the other two were destined to serve as leaders of hemichoria when the Chorus
was required to act in two divisions (as it does in a passage of the Ajax, 866
ff.). Aristotle mentions scene-painting (skenographia) as an improvement distinctive
of Sophocles. It cannot be doubted that, though Aeschylus may have used some kind
of scenepainting at an earlier date, Sophocles was the dramatist who first made
a more thorough and effective use of it, so that it continued to be associated
with his name. (see Theatrum)
The external form of Attic tragedy was now complete.
Occasions on which Tragedy was acted at Athens
We may next consider the conditions under which tragedy was presented
to the Athenian public. Before the time of Peisistratus, the rural Dionysia (ta
kat' agrous) afforded the only occasion for the Bacchic choruses in Attica. It
is conjectured that Peisistratus was the founder of the Dionysiac festival called
the Lenaea. This was held every January in the Lenaion (so named from lenos, a
wine-press), the precinct sacred to Dionysus, on the S.E. slope of the Acropolis.
The Lenaea witnessed the exhibitions of Thespis, Choerilus and Pratinas, as well
as the earlier plays of Phrynichus and of Aeschylus. A regular contest (agon)
for the tragic prize at the Lenaea seems to have existed as early as the days
of Thespis and Choerilus. The institution of the Great, or City, Dionysia (ta
kat' astu) may probably be referred to the time immediately after the Persian
wars, circ. 478 B.C. The Great Dionysia then became the chief occasion for Tragedy;
and in the middle part of the 5th century the Lenaea seems to have been exclusively
the festival of Comedy. About 416 B.C., however, we again hear of Tragedy at the
Lenaea. Thenceforth, down at least to the days of Demosthenes, tragic drama accompanied
both festivals; though it was more especially associated with the Great Dionysia.
At the Anthesteria, the February festival, no drama was exhibited.
Trilogy and Tetralogy
The form in which Aeschylus produced his tragedies, -during, at least,
the later part of his career,- was that of the trilogy, or group of three. To
these was appended a satyr-drama (saturoi, or saturikon drama), so called because
the Chrous consisted of satyrs attendant on Dionysus. We have seen that Pratinas
was the reputed inventor of the satyr-play, and that its object was to preserve
the memory of the tragic chorus in its earliest phase. A mingling of seriousness
and mirth was characteristic of the Dionysiac worship. Tragedy represented one
side of this mood, and Comedy the other. The satyr-drama--true to its origin from
the old tragikos choros--was nearer to Tragedy than to Comedy, but contained elements
of the latter also; hence it was aptly described as paizousa tragoidia (Demetrius,
de Elocut. § 169). The trilogy, or group of three tragedies, and the satyr-drama,
together made up the tetralogy. It is not known that Aeschylus himself, or any
of the Attic dramatists, used the word trilogia or tetralogia. These terms cannot
be traced back beyond the Alexandrian age. But, whether the Attic dramatists did
or did not use these words, it is certain that they composed in these forms. The
origin of the trilogy has been conjecturally derived from a custom, in the days
when there was only one actor, that he should give three successive recitations
between the choral songs: but this is doubtful. Nor is it certain, though it is
very probable, that Aeschylus was the inventor of the trilogy. His Oresteia is
the only extant example. In that trilogy, the three plays form successive chapters
of one story. A trilogy which has this kind of unity has been called a fable-trilogy.
On the other hand the term theme-trilogy has been used to describe three tragedies
linked, not by story, but by some abstract idea, such as that of Hellenic victory
over the barbarian. Thus, according to Welcker, the Persae belonged to a theme-trilogy
in which the first play (Phineus) related to the Argonauts, and the third (Glaucus)
to the victory of the Sicilian Greeks at Himera (480 B.C.). The fable-trilogy
was the type characteristic of Aeschylus. It has been attempted to show, from
the recorded titles of his plays, that his trilogies always had the unity either
of fable or of theme. But it is more probable that, though he preferred fabletrilogies,
he sometimes also produced trilogies in which the plays were wholly unconnected.
With regard to the practice of the poets after Aeschylus, these points may be
observed. (1) In addition to the Aeschylean examples, ten tetralogies can be traced,
ranging in date from 467 to 405 B.C. Five of these belong to Euripides; the other
five, to minor tragic poets. (2) Suidas says that Sophocles began the practice
of play contending against play, and not tetralogy against tetralogy. But it is
known that Sophocles competed with Euripides on at least two occasions when the
latter produced [p. 861] tetralogies, viz. in 438 and in 431 B.C. It cannot be
doubted that in each of these cases Sophocles, too, produced four plays. To have
competed with a single play against a tetralogy would have argued sterility or
arrogance. Sophocles continued to use the tetralogical form, but the tragedies
in his trilogy were usually unconnected, as those of Aeschylus had usually been
linked. The statement of Suidas is probably founded on a statement of some older
writer who was noticing a result of the Sophoclean practice: viz., that the judges
of the tragic prize, having to decide between trilogies of unconnected plays,
found it easier to pronounce which one play was the best of all, than to determine
which trilogy was best as a whole. Thus, though tetralogies were still produced,
the contest for the prize would often be one of play against play. (3) There is
no proof that Sophocles, or any poet of his time, ever competed at the Dionysia
with one tragedy only. The year 340 B.C. is the earliest in which it is proved
that the tragic poets exhibited less than three plays each; and in that year they
produced two each. This is proved by a contemporary inscription. (4) The conclusion
is that tetralogy continued to be the rule in Tragedy down at least to 400 B.C.,
and perhaps somewhat longer. It was only by a tetralogy that the old Dionysiac
chorus of fifty persons was fully represented. The Aeschylean chorus of 12, and
the Sophoclean of 15, roughly symbolised a quarter of that number. Anything less
than a tetralogy would have seemed an incomplete tribute to the god. No argument
can be drawn from the case of Comedy. Comedies were always produced singly.
The Actors.
In the time of Thespis, poet and actor were identical. In the earlier
years of Aeschylus and Sophocles it was still not unusual for a poet to bear a
part in the performance of his own tragedies. Thus Sophocles is recorded to have
played the title-role in his own Thamyris, and Nausicaa in his Plyntriae. But,
when the tragic drama had once been matured, the art of the tragic actor became
a distinct profession. According to the degree of the actor's skill--which was
tested by special trials--he was classed as a player of first, second, or third
parts. We must remember that, until Aeschylus introduced the second actor, the
principal performer was not the single actor, but the coryphaeus, since the choral
element was more important than the dialogue. It was Aeschylus who, in Aristotle's
phrase, first made the dialogue protagonist. The protagonist played the most important
character of the piece, which was often, but not necessarily, the character from
which the piece was named. He might take more than one part, if the leading person
disappeared long before the end of the play: thus in the Ajax the protagonist
would play Ajax and Teucer; in the Antigone, the heroine, Teiresias, and Eurydice.
The deuteragonist usually played the person, or persons, most directly concerned
with the principal character;--as Ismene and Haemon in the Antigone. The tritagonist
took the smaller parts,--as, for example, the part of a king, when, like Creon
in the Antigone, he was not the chief person of the play (Dem. de Fals. Leg. §
247). The Athenian actor went through an elaborate preparation. In the first place,
great care was given to the artistic training of the voice (plasma phones), with
a view to flexibility and strength. This was demanded alike by the size of the
theatres and by the fineness of the Athenian ear. Deportment was also carefully
studied. In Attic Tragedy the movements were usually slow and stately: much, also,
depended on statuesque effects. As the masks excluded play of feature, it was
all the more necessary that the actor should have command of expressive gesture,
especially with the hands. Now and then, though not often, he was required to
dance (cf. Eur. Phoen. 316); hence his professional training was incomplete without
orchestike.
Costume.
How the tragic actor was dressed before the time of Aeschylus, we
do not know; it is only a conjecture that the dress of the Dionysiac priests may
have been the model. Aeschylus introduced a type of costume which remained in
use throughout the classical period. Its chief elements were the following. (1)
A tunic, with stripes of bright colours, sometimes richly embroidered with patterns
of flowers or animals. It was girt up high under the breast, and fell in long
folds to the feet. The sleeves reached to the hands. Such a tunic was called.
poikilon (Pollux). Women sometimes wore a purple robe, with a long train (surtos
porphurous). (2) Over the tunic, or robe, an upper garment was worn;--sometimes
the himation, an oblong piece of cloth; sometimes a mantle, chlamus, which was
cut in a circular form, and fastened by a clasp on the right shoulder. The chlamys
was often very splendid. Some other varieties of garment, with special names,
are mentioned; but their nature is often uncertain. Padding was worn under the
costume, which was designed to exaggerate all the actor's proportions. (3) A boot,
which the Greeks called embates, and the Romans cothurnus. The sole was wooden,
and the shape such as to fit either foot. The object of this boot--like that of
the high girdle--was to increase the actor's apparent stature; and the sole seems
to have varied in thickness from some two inches to as many as six, or even more.
Indeed, for an inexperienced actor, the difficulty of walking on the embates seems
to have resembled that of walking on stilts. We hear of clumsy actors falling;
and the support afforded by a long walking-stick was not disdained, where the
part admitted of it. (4) Masks. Thespis, according to the tradition, first used
pigments to, smear the actor's face, and afterwards adopted linen masks of a simple
kind. Masks suited to female characters are said to have been used first by Phrynichus.
The improvement made by Aeschylus seems to have been the application of painting
to the plain linen masks of the earlier period. In the Alexandrian age, if not
earlier, the workmanship of tragic masks had become highly elaborate. Pollux gives
a list, derived from that age, which includes six types of old men, eight types
of young men, and eleven types of women. These various types. were distinguished
by a regular system of conventional traits, such as the colour of the hair, and
the mode of wearing it; the tint of the face; the expression given by the eyebrows;
the shape of the forehead, and even the line of the nose: thus a hooked nose (epigrupos)
was [p. 862] considered appropriate to the anaides. Each mask was known by a technical
name: for example, the suffering heroine was the katakomos ochra. [PERSONA] A
mask which did not belong to any regular type, but was made for some exceptional
part (such as the horned Actaeon), was called enskeuon prosopon. In the tragic
mask a peculiar device was used to raise the height of the forehead. This was
a cone-shaped frame (onkos), built up above the face, from which the hair of the
mask fell over the brows. The height of the onkos varied with the dignity of aspect
desired. (5) Special attributes. A king carried a sceptre; Hermes, a herald's
staff (kerukeion); the bacchant, a thyrsus, etc. Such an emblem was usually borne
in the left hand, in order that the right might be free for gesture: extant works
of art show this (cf. Baumeister, Denkmaler, p. 1852; Ovid, Amor. iii. 1, 13).
Warriors had swords, spears, etc. But, except by indications of this nature, the
dress was not adapted to the particular part which the actor played. This will
not appear strange if it is recollected that Athenian drama was an act of Dionysiac
worship. The tragic costume was festal first, and dramatic only in a secondary
sense, because, at the Dionysia, art was merely the handmaid of religion. It is
said that Aeschylus took some hints from the splendid dresses of the hierophant
and the daidouchos at the Eleusinian mysteries. (Athen. p. 21 e, reading zelosas
hen with Fritzsche; A. Muller, Buhnenalth. p. 229.) This would have been quite
in the Aeschylean spirit; but the tradition can no longer be verified. In satyric
drama the costume of gods and heroes was the same as in Tragedy, but the chiton
was shorter, as livelier movement was required. Silenus, an important figure in
satyric drama, was dressed either in tights, set with tufts of goat's hair, or
in a tunic and hose of goat's skin.
In the 5th century B.C. we find great actors specially associated
by fame with the poets in whose plays they excelled: as Cleander and Mynniscus
with Aeschylus; Cleidemides and Tlepolemus with Sophocles; Cephisophon with Euripides.
At a somewhat later period, it became usual for the three competitors in tragedy
to receive their protagonists from the archon by lot. But that arrangement seems
to have ceased before 341 B.C., when a protagonist played in one piece of a trilogy
for each of the three poets. Thus, by successive steps, the connexion between
poet and actor had become less and less close.
The Chorus.
In the development of Attic Tragedy the treatment of the Chorus passed
through several phases. Even after Aeschylus had made the dialogue more important
than the lyric element, he continued to compose choral odes of a length which
seemed excessive--or at least archaic--to the next generation. In the Frogs, Euripides
complains that his rival's Chorus used to inflict on the audience four strings
of lyric verse, one after another, while the actors were silent (914, ho de choros
ereiden hormathous an | melon ephexes tettaras xunechos an: hoi d'esigon). In
the Supplices of Aeschylus the Chorus follows up the parodos with eight consecutive
pairs of strophes and antistrophes; in the first stasimon of the Agamemnon there
are six pairs. Such a practice was tolerated, Euripides remarks, only because
the audiences of Aeschylus had been accustomed to it by Phrynichus. The Aeschylean
treatment of the Chorus bears, in fact, some impress of the still recent period
when the Chorus, and not the dialogue, had been protagonist: the Chorus has lost
its old primacy, but it still claims a large share of attention. Here, as in other
respects, Sophocles represents a golden mean. Nothing could be more perfect than
his management of the Chorus, given the two conditions under which he worked--viz.,
a matured drama, in which the dialogue necessarily holds the first place; and
secondly, the requirement that the Chorus should continue to be an organic part
of such drama. His choral odes have always a direct bearing on the action, by
commenting on what has passed, by preparing the mind for what is to come, and,
generally, by attuning the thoughts of the spectator to successive moods, in harmony
with the progress of the action. Then they are always of moderate length, and
often very short. Euripides marks a third phase. The Chorus is now little more
than an external adjunct to the drama; the choral songs have often nothing to
do with the action. This could hardly be avoided. The Chorus presented difficulties
to a poet who, like Euripides, was beginning a transition. When the gods and heroes
were handled in the new spirit, the old meaning of the Chorus was lost. It is
not a reproach to Euripides, it is rather a proof of insight, that he modified
the use of the Chorus in accordance with his dramatic aim, and in perhaps the
best manner which that aim permitted.
The Chorus was trained and equipped by the choregus whom the Archon
had assigned to the poet [Chorus;
Theatrum].
The tragic chorus of fifteen entered the orchestra three abreast: this was the
arrangement called kata stoichous ( in files ). The auletes walked in front. The
leader of the Chorus (koruphaios) walked third in the file nearest the spectators.
The two leaders of hemichoria were next to him--one in front of him, as second
man of the file, and the other behind him, as fourth. On reaching the orchestra,
the Chorus made an evolution to the right, so as to change from three files, five
deep, into three ranks, facing the actors, with five men in each rank. This was
the disposition kata zuga. The file of five men who, on entering, had been nearest
the spectators, now formed the front rank: the coryphaeus was in the middle of
it, having on his right and left the half-chorus-leaders, who were thence called
parastatai. In dialogue between the actors and the Chorus, the coryphaeus spoke
for the Chorus. It is also possible, though not certain, that he alone recited
any anapaests which belonged to the choral part. In the delivery of choral odes
the strophe was accompanied by a dance-movement towards the right, and the antistrophe
by a corresponding movement towards the left; while, during the singing of the
epode, the Chorus remained stationary. It would appear that, at least in some
cases, the functions of singing and dancing were divided; one part of the Chorus
executed the dance, while another sang. The dance proper to Tragedy (he tragike
orchesis) was technically called emmeleia, a name denoting stately movement in
time to music: [p. 863] as the dance of Comedy was the kordax, and that of satyric
drama the sikinnis. The huporchema--sometimes introduced in Tragedy, either incidentally
or in the place of a regular choral stasimon--was a more lively dance, a kind
of ballet, in which the best dancers appeared, adapting their movements to the
sense of the words sung by the other choreutae. Sophocles often employs it to
express sudden emotions of delight or hope,--especially for the purpose of contrast,
when a tragic catastrophe is at hand. In a kommos, or lyric dialogue between actor
and Chorus, parts were sometimes assigned to single choreutae. The verses with
which the Chorus close a tragedy were not attended by dancing, but were recited
to a musical accompaniment. As a rule the Chorus consists of persons belonging
to the scene of the action. In such cases the Chorus entered the orchestra, and
left it at the close of the play, by the entrance on the spectator's right hand.
But the entrance on his left was used if the Chorus represented strangers to the
place, as in Aesch. Suppl.; Soph. Phil.; Eur. Suppl., Ion, Iph. in Aul. With regard
to the first song of the Chorus on entering the orchestra (parodos), the extant
plays illustrate three different cases. (1.) The play can begin with this parodos:
as Aesch. Suppl. and Pers. (2.) The Chorus may enter to the anaepaestic chant
after the prologos: as in Soph. Ant. and Aj. (3.) The Chorus may enter silently,
after the prologos, and then begin the parodos: as in Aesch. P. V., Soph. El.,
and often. In some exceptional instances the drama required that the Chorus should
enter, not in regular procession, but singly or in small groups (sporaden); as
in Aesch. Theb. and Soph. O. C. The costume of the Chorus was, like that of the
actors, conventional--a chiton, made shorter than the actor's, for convenience
in dancing--and a himation. If the Chorus represented mourners, they could be
attired in dark-coloured garments (cf. Aesch. Cho. 19). Where the Chorus represented
sailors (as in Soph. Aj. and Phil.) hats (piloi) may have been worn; in the Bacchae
of Euripides, the Chorus seem to have carried the tumpana of Bacchants (v. 58).
But the general type of costume remained the same, whatever was the special character
of the Chorus. Instead of the embates of the tragic actor, they wore the half-boots
called krepides, which were sometimes white. In satyric drama the Chorus wore
a closefitting dress (somation) representing the naked form, with a short apron
(or girdle) of goat's skin.
The Innovations of Euripides.
The unsparing satire of Aristophanes, amusing and often instructive
as it is, must not blind us to the nobler side of the effort made by Euripides
to maintain the place of Tragedy as a living force in the spiritual life of Athens.
A change was coming over the old mental attitude of Athenians towards wards the
popular religion and the consecrated mythology. A large and increasing proportion
of the spectators in the theatre was now destitute of the training, musical and
poetical, which earlier poets could take for granted. The spirit of his age, and
the bent of his own genius, led Euripides to renounce much of the ideal grandeur
with which Tragedy had been invested by Aeschylus and Sophocles. He made a step
from typical towards individual portraiture, relying on the delineation of human
passion and human suffering in traits with which the ordinary spectator could
sympathise. He was not afraid of being homely, so long as he touched the springs
of natural feeling.
At first sight it might seem that, in a dramatist, such a conception
deserves nothing but praise. The praise awarded to it must, however, be tempered
by regard for the conditions under which the experiment was made. Euripides was
not the unfettered creator of a new drama. He inherited and maintained the old
framework of Attic Tragedy. He had still only three actors. He had still a Chorus
in the orchestra. His materials were still drawn exclusively from the heroic myths.
Such Tragedy could be great only so long as it was ideal. Every step by which
its persons were brought nearer to everyday life was a step which increased the
danger of burlesque. This fact is the element of justice in the attacks made on
Euripides by Aristophanes. Euripides gave a signal proof of original genius, not
only in the boldness of his conception, but also in the degree of success with
which he executed it. Nevertheless his effort was foredommed to the measure of
failure which attends on artists who, in seeking an impossible conciliation, achieve
only a clever compromise. Euripides stands between ideal and romantic drama; his
Tragedy has lost the noblest beauty of idealism, without attaining to the full
charm of romance. But, just for that reason, it was through Euripides, rather
than through Aeschylus or Sophocles, that the tradition of Tragedy was derived
in the later periods of ancient literature.
We said above that the Aristophanic jests on Euripides, however unfair,
are often instructive. This is particularly true of the satire in the Frogs. It
shows us the points in which Euripides seemed an innovator to those who were familiar
with the older school of Tragedy. One such point was his use of the prologue to
introduce duce the persons of the drama and explain its subject:--a clumsy and
sometimes ludicrous expedient, which is best excused by the plea that the spectators,
no longer familiar with the old mythology, required something in the nature of
a modern play-bill. Another novelty ascribed to Euripides is his practice of dressing
his suffering heroes in rags,--a detraction from their dignity which probably
struck Athenians all the more, because it was also a departure from the conventional
type of tragic costume described above. With regard to the frequent use of the
deus ex machina which has sometimes been made a reproach to Euripides, it is only
fair to distinguish between two classes of examples. In some instances his deus
ex machina is really no better than a mechanical expedient: this might be said
of the Andromache and of the Orestes. But in some other cases the intervention
is dramatically warranted by the plot, as in the Hippolytus and in the Bacchae.
In respect to lyrics, Aristophanes represents Euripides as having admitted the
more florid style which was becoming fashionable, and having thus destroyed the
grave dignity of the old choral song. The extant plays of Euripides indicate that
there was some ground for this charge: jingling repetitions of single words are
especially frequent; no fewer than sixteen instances occur in 150 lines of the
Orestes. But the most important innovation made by Euripides in the lyric province
was the introduction of florid lyric solos (monoidiai), to be sung by an actor
on the stage. Perhaps the cleverest stroke in the Frogs is the parody of such
a monoidia (1331 ff.), in the course of which the hapless heroine describes herself
as linou meston atrakton | heieieieieieilissousa cheroin.
After 400 B.C. Greek Tragedy declined. Numerous tragic poets appeared,
indeed, who won more or less applause from their contemporaries; but no one of
them rivalled the great masters. In the fourth century B.C. an ordinance was made
that some work of Aeschylus, Sophocles, or Euripides should always be produced
at the Dionysia along with the new tragedies. Lycurgus (circ. 330 B.C.) caused
a standard text of those three poets to be deposited in the public archives, with
a view to guarding against further corruption by actors; and this text afterwards
passed into the possession of Ptolemy Euergetes (247-222 B.C.). Down to about
300 B.C., Athens continued to be the chief seat of Tragedy. Alexandria afterwards
became so; and under the Ptolemies tragic composition had many votaries. Among
these were the seven poets who, in the reign of Philadelphus (283-247 B.C.), were
known as the tragic Pleiad. It was in 217 A.D. that the edict of Caracalla abolished
theatrical performances at Alexandria.
Aristotle defines Tragedy as the imitation of an action which is serious,
complete in itself, and of a sufficient magnitude or compass. The instrument of
imitation is language, made delightful to the hearers, either (a) by metre alone,
or (b) by metre combined with music. Further, this language is not used in the
way of narrative merely, but is conjoined with action on the part of the speakers.
The elements of Tragedy are six in number:--muthos, the story; ethe, the moral
qualities of the persons; lexis, the verbal form; dianoia, the thoughts or sentiments;
opsis, the presentation to the eye (under which Aristotle includes not merely
scenic accessories of every kind, but also gesture and dancing); melopoia, musical
composition. In every tragedy there is desis, a tying of a knot, and lusis, a
solution. The most effective kind of lusis is that which is introduced by a peripeteia,
a sudden reversal of fortune for the persons of the drama; or by an anagnorisis,
the discovery of a previously concealed relationship between the persons. The
anagnorisis may or may not be accompanied by a peripeteia. A muthos is said to
be peplegmenos when it involves a peripeteia, an anagnorisis, or both. It is haplous
when the lusis is managed without either. Again, a tragedy is pathetike when the
chief person acts mainly under the influence of pathos, a strong impulse of the
mind,--as Medea does. It is ethike when the chief person acts mainly in accord
with a deliberately formed purpose (proairesis), as Antigone does. As to the so-called
unities, the unity of action is the only one upon which Aristotle insists. The
action represented by tragedy must be one; it must not be a series of incoherent
or loosely-linked episodes. About the unity of place he says nothing at all. As
to the unity of time, he says that Tragedy now seeks, as far as possible, to confine
the supposed action within the compass of a single day, or nearly so: but the
earliest form of Tragedy, he adds, did not even do this; in it, just as in epic
poetry, the time was indefinite. Viewed as a composition, Tragedy consists of
the following parts; which are, in Aristotle's phrase, the mere kata to poson,
as distinguished from the six elements named above, which are the mere kata to
poion. All that part of a tragedy which precedes the first choral song is called
prologos. The part which comes between two choral songs is an epeisodion (a term
probably derived from the reappearance, epeisodos, of the single actor in primitive
Tragedy). The exodos is the part after the last choral song. The parodos is the
first utterance of the whole Chorus. The stasimon is a choral song without anapaests
or trochaics: i.e., not preceded by an anapaestic march, like the parodos, nor
interrupted by dialogue in trochaic tetrameters, such as that which the Chorus
in the Agamemmon (ad fin.) holds with the actors. The term stasimon melos means
literally, a song by the Chorus at its station in the orchestra. A kommos is a
threnos koinos chorou kai apo skenes, a lyric lament, sustained partly by the
Chorus and partly by an actor.
Tragedy is described by Aristotle as di' eleou kai phobou perainousa
ten ton toiouton pathematon katharsin, effecting, by means of pity and terror,
that purgation (of the soul) which belongs to (is proper for) such feelings. The
word katharsis involves a medical metaphor, from the use of purgatives. Tragedy
excites pity and terror by presenting to the mind things which are truly pitiable
and terrible. Now, pity and terror are feelings natural to men; but they are often
excited by unworthy causes. When they are moved, as Tragedy moves them, by a worthy
cause, then the mind experiences that sense of relief which comes from finding
an outlet for a natural energy. And thus the impressions made by Tragedy leave
behind them in the spectator a temperate and harmonious state of the soul. Similarly
Aristotle speaks of the enthusiastic worshippers of Dionysus as obtaining a katharsis,
a healthful relief, by the lyric utterance of their sacred frenzy:--hotan exorgiazosi
ten psuchen melesi, kathistamenous, hosper iatreias tuchontas kai katharseos (Pol.
viii. 7).
Of the three great tragedians, Sophocles seems to have been on the
whole the favourite of Aristotle, who refers to him in the Poetics about twenty
times, and in all cases, except three, with praise. The Oedipus Tyrannus is cited
in no less than ten places. Euripides is defended against the critics who had
complained that his plays usually ended unhappily; this, says Aristotle, is right
in Tragedy, and the, proof is that Euripides, although a faulty composer in other
respects, is found to be at, least the most tragic of poets (ei kai ta alla me
eu oikonomei, alla tragikotatos ge ton poieton phainetai: Poet. 13). By most tragic
is here meant, exciting pity most strongly, --most pathetic. But in Aristotle's
other notices of Euripides censure decidedly predominates [p. 865] over praise.
Aeschylus is named only thrice in the Poetics: there are further three citations
of his plays without his name. Aristotle seems to regard him as belonging to a
period when the proper type of Tragedy had not yet been matured. In this connexion
it may be noticed that not only are the terms trilogy and tetralogy absent from
the Poetics, but there is no indication in the treatise that tragedies had ever
been produced otherwise than singly. In one place, indeed (c. 24), there is a
reference to the number of tragedies set for one hearing (i. e. performed in one
day); but nothing in the context forbids us to suppose as many poets as pieces.
The reason of this silence is simply, doubtless, that the grouping of plays in
representation was foreign to the subject with which Aristotle was immediately
concerned,--viz. the analysis of Tragedy considered as a form of poetical art.
Indeed, the scenic aspect of drama generally receives comparatively little attention
from him. The production of scenic effects (apergasia ton opseon) is the affair
of the stage-manager. The art of the actor, again, is but slightly touched, since
it lies outside of the poet's domain.
The Didascaliae.
Aristotle compiled a work called Didaskaliai, Dramatic performances,
being a list of the tragedies and comedies produced at Athens in each year. His
materials were contemporary records. In the 5th century B.C. it had been customary
for the archon, after each festival at which dramas had been performed, to draw
up a list of the competing poets, the choregi, the plays, and the protagonists,
with a notice of the order in which the judges had placed the competitors. This
record was preserved in the public archives. At some time between 450 and 400
B.C. it became usual to engrave such a record on a stone tablet, and to set it
up in or near the Dionysiac theatre. Further, the choregus whose poet gained the
prize received a tripod from the state, and erected it, with an inscription, in
the same neighbourhood. Aristotle's compilation has perished, but its nature is
known from citations of it which occur in the Greek Arguments to some plays, in
scholia, and in late writers. There are altogether thirteen such citations, five
of which cite the Didaskaliai with Aristotle's name, and eight without it. They
are collected in the Berlin Aristotle (vol. v. p. 1572). About 260 B.C. the Alexandrian
poet Callimachus compiled another work of the same kind, Pinax kai anagraphe ton
kata chronous ap' arches genomenon didaskalion, A table and record of dramatic
performances from the earliest times. He made use of Aristotle's Didaskaliai (Schol.
Ar. Nub. 552). Works of a similar kind were written by Aristophanes of Byzantium
(circ. 200 B.C.), and by other scholars of Alexandria and of Pergamum. Several
of these writings were extant as late at least as 150 A.D. This appears from Athenaeus,
who was able to consult the Didaskaliai of Callimachus and Aristophanes, as well
as the Pergamene records (Athen. p. 336 c). Among the authors of the last-named
was Carystius of Pergamum (circ. 110 B.C.), who wrote peri Didaskalion. The period
covered by the extant fragments of Didaskaliai ranges from 472 B.C. (Arg. Aesch.
Persae) to 388 B.C. (Arg. Ar. Plut.).
Roman Tragedy.
The first half of the 3rd century B.C. was the period at which the
influence of Greek literature began to be directly felt by the Romans. Tarentum
was the greatest of the Greek colonies in Southern Italy. After the fall of Tarentum
in 272 B.C., the intercourse between Romans and Greeks became more familiar. In
the First Punic War (263-241 B.C.) Sicily was the principal battle-ground; and
in Sicily the Romans had ample facilities for improving their acquaintance with
the Greek language. They had also frequent opportunities of witnessing Greek plays.
Just after the close of the war the first attempt at a Latin reproduction of Greek
tragedy was made by Livius Andronicus (240 B.C.). He was a Greek, probably of
Tarentum, and had received his freedom from his master, M. Livius Salinator, whose
sons he had educated. He then settled at Rome, and devoted the rest of his life
to literary work. It may be conjectured that most of his plays were translated
from the Greek. All of them, so far as we know, were on Greek subjects. Among
the titles are Aegisthus, Ecus Trojanus, Ajax, Tereus, Hermione. His Latin style
appears to have been harsh and crude. Livianae fabulae non satis dignae quae iterum
legantur is Cicero's concise verdict (Brutus, 18, 71).
Five years after the first essay of Livius Andronicus, a Latin dramatist
of greater originality came forward (235 B.C.). Cn. Naevius was probably a Campanian;
and the racy vigour with which he could use his native language entitles him to
be regarded as the earliest Roman poet. Comedy was the form of drama in which
Naevius chiefly excelled; and he turned it to the purposes of political strife,
in a spirit similar to that of Aristophanes. But he was also a writer of tragedy.
His Lycargus was akin in theme to the Bacchae of Euripides; while the titles of
his Andromache, Ecus Trojanus, and Hector Proficiscens, show that, like Livius,
he drew largely on the Trojan cycle. At the same time he occasionally composed
tragedies founded on Roman history, or, as they were technically called, fabulae
praetextatae. The earliest praetextatae on record are his; one of them was called
Romulus. In the scanty fragments of his works we can recognise his ardour, his
self-confidence, his somewhat aggressive vigour, and his gift for terse and nervous
expression, of which the familiar laudari a laudato viro is a specimen.
The career of Naevius was drawing to a close when Q. Ennius came to
Rome (204 B.C.). Ennius, a native of Rudiae in Calabria, was serving as a centurion
with the army in Sardinia, when Cato arrived there as quaestor. Ennius followed
Cato to Rome; acquired the Roman citizenship in 184 B.C.; and made his permanent
abode on the Aventine. Here we have to do with his work only so far as it concerned
Tragedy. Although his Annals and his Satires were more characteristic products
of his genius, he was also the most popular tragic dramatist who had yet appeared;
and it was due to him, in the first instance, that Roman Tragedy acquired the
popularity which [p. 866] it retained down to the days of Cicero. About twenty-five
of his tragedies are known by their titles. Two of these were praetextatae,--one
of which, called Sabinae, dealt with the intervention of the Sabine women in the
war between Romulus and Tatius; while another, the Ambracia, turned on the capture
of the town of Ambracia in the Aetolian war. The other pieces were on Greek subjects,--about
one half of them being connected with the Trojan war. His Medea was translated
from the play of Euripides, and the opening lines, which are extant, indicate
that the version was a tolerably close one. They have a certain rugged majesty
which agrees with Horace's description of the style used by Ennius in Tragedy,--In
scaenam missos magno cum pondere versus.
M. Pacuvius, a nephew of Ennius by the mother's side, was a native
of Brundusium. He is thus the third instance (Livius and Ennius being the two
others) in which early Roman drama is associated with South Italian birth. Pacuvius
was born about 219 B.C., and lived to the age of ninety. Of his tragedies, one,
called Paulus, was a praetextata; twelve more are known to have been on Greek
subjects; and among these one of the most celebrated, the Antiope, was a translation
from Euripides. Some remarkable fragments of his Chryses--a tragedy concerned,
like his Dulorestes, with the wanderings of Orestes in search of Pylades--disclose
the growth of a Roman interest in physical philosophy, and also in ethical questions.
About 400 lines of Pacuvius are extant, but many of these are merely single verses,
preserved by grammarians as examples of strange words or usages. Much as Pacuvius
was admired on other grounds, his Latinity was not accounted pure by Cicero, who
couples him with the comic poet Caecilius in the censure, male locutos esse (Brutus,
74, 258). Pacuvius was prone to coin new forms of words (such as temeritudo, concorditas),
and carried the invention of compound adjectives to an extent which sometimes
became ludicrous,--as in Nerei repandirostrum incurvicervicum pecus.
L. Attius was born at Pisaurum, a Roman colony in Umbria, in 170 B.C.
The forms Attius and Accius are equally well-attested; but in the Imperial age
the form with tt became predominant; and the Greeks always wrote Attios (Teuffel,
Hist. Rom. Lit. § 119, 1). The aged Pacuvius, having left Rome in ill-health,
was spending the evening of his days at Brundusium, when Attius, then a young
man, passed through that place on his way to Asia. Attius was entertained by Pacuvius,
and read to him his tragedy Atreus. The old man found it sonorous and elevated,
but somewhat harsh and crude; and the younger poet, admitting the defect, expressed
his hope that the mellowing influence of time would appear in his riper work.
The excellences which Pacuvius recognised must have been present in the maturer
writings of Attius, whom Horace calls altus, and Cicero, gravis et ingeniosus
poeta. The harshness of his earlier style was due, perhaps, to a youthful excess
of that nervous and impetuous character, as Cicero calls it (de Orat. iii. 58,
217), which afterwards distinguished him, and which Ovid expresses by the epithet
animosus. Attius was far the most productive of the Roman tragic dramatists. The
extant notices and fragments indicate, according to one estimate, about 37 pieces;
according to another, about 50. Two of these were praetextatae;--the Brutus, on
the downfall of the Tarquins and the Aeneeadae, dealing with the legend of the
Decius who devoted himself at the battle of Sentinum. There are indications that
Attius was a student of Sophocles, though Euripides was probably his chief model.
Thus the verse in his Armorum indicium (fr. 10), virtuti sis par, dispar fortunis
patris, is translated from Soph. Ai. 550 f. Among his other celebrated tragedies
were the Atreus, Epigoni, Philocteta, Anstigona, Telephus. Cicero, in his youth,
had. often listened to the reminiscences of Attius (Brutus, 28, 107). The poet,
who was sixty-four at the date of the orator's birth (106 B.C.), must therefore
have lived to an advanced age.
The period from 240 to 100 B.C. is the first period in the history
of Roman poetry and oratory. And the century from 200 to 100 B.C. marks the flourishing
age of Roman Tragedy, as cultivated by Ennius, Pacuvius, and Attius. But Tragedy
continued to be a favourite form of composition in the later years of the Republic
and in the earlier part of the Imperial age. It became, however, more and more
a literary exercise, less and less a form of poetry which could appeal with living
force to the mind of the people. In the Augustan age C. Asinius Pollio wrote tragedies
which seem to have been acted. Virgil's well-known praise of them, as sola Sophocleo
digna cothurno, must be qualified by the criticism in the Dialogus de Oratoribus
(c. 21), where Tacitus observes that the harshest traits of earlier Roman tragedy
were reproduced in the style of Pollio ( adeo, durus et siccus est ). In the same
dialogue high praise is given to the Medea of Ovid and the Thyestes of Varius
(c. 12). No fragment of this Medea remains, except a few words quoted by Quintilian
(xii. 10, 75). Of the Thyestes Quintilian says that it is comparable to any Greek
Tragedy (x. 1, 98); and in another place he quotes it (iii. 8, 45). Two anapaestic
fragments are also extant (Ribbeck, Frag. Lat. p. 195 f.). But for Ovid and for
Varius, as for other less famous poets, Tragedy was now a mere parergon, a field
into which they might make occasional excursions, not the province of poetry in
which they sought to establish their permanent renown. In the middle of the 1st
century A.D. we have eight tragedies on Greek subjects by L. Annaeus Seneca: Hercules
Furens, Thyestes, Phaedra, Oedipus, Troades (Hecuba), Medea, Agamemnon, Hercules
Oetaeus; also part of an Oedipus Coloneus (362 lines), and of a Phoenissae (302).
A praetextata called Octavia, which was formerly ascribed to Seneca, was certainly
of later origin. The parentage of the other tragedies has also been disputed,
but the results of recent criticism confirm Seneca's authorship. The general characteristic
of the plays is rhetoric of the most pompous and artificial kind. A fertile and
lively fancy is present; the psychology, too, is often acute; but there is no
depth either of thought or of feeling. As most of Seneca's Greek models are extant,
a comparison is instructive. It serves to show how completely, in this latest
age of Roman [p. 867] Tragedy, the love of declamation had displaced all regard
for the soul and essence of tragic art. The pieces of Seneca were primarily designed,
doubtless, for recitation; but it is not impossible that, in Nero's age, they
were also acted; and certain scenic hints have been thought to point in that direction
(e.g. Phaedra, 392 f.). The last Roman writer of Tragedy who claims mention is
Curiatius Maternus, whose activity extended from the reign of Nero to that of
Vespasian. He wrote both tragedies (as Medea, Thyestes) and praetextatae (as Domitius,
Cato); and his eminent reputation is attested by several passages in the Tacitean
Dialogus (cc. 2, 3, 5, 11).
In looking back on the course of Roman Tragedy as a whole, we see,
in the first place, that for inspiration and material it was altogether dependent
on Greece. Euripides was more especially the master of the Roman dramatists, because,
in his hands, Tragedy had become less distinctively Hellenic, and therefore more
susceptible of imitation by those who were strangers to the Hellenic spirit. In
the plays of Euripides, the Chorus was already ceasing to be an organic part of
drama; and the Roman dramatists went only one step farther when they banished
the Chorus from the orchestra, leaving to it merely an occasional part in the
dialogue. Lyrics of a simple character, with a musical accompaniment, served,
indeed, to accentuate the more impassioned moments of a Roman tragedy; but, save
for these, the lyric element of the great Attic drama had vanished. In dialogue
the iambic and trochaic metres were retained: yet even here the Roman imitation
marred the Greek original. Any foot possible for an iambic verse was now admitted
in any place except the last. The finer rhythms were thus destroyed. Quintilian
says, Comedy is our weak point (x. 1, 99). But, so far as the tragic fragments
warrant a judgment, Roman Tragedy was, in style, much less successful than Roman
Comedy. Comedy had more in common with the satura, and the satura is the one species
of composition in which the Roman mind expressed itself with a truly original
force. [see Satura]
At the same time it is clear that there were noble qualities in the Roman Tragedy
of the Republic. It was marked by earnestness and by oratorical power; the tones
of the statesman and of the soldier were heard in it; it imbued the youth of Rome
with the fas et antiqua castitudo (as Attius says),--with the lessons of ancestral
fortitude and prudence; it taught the men who were conquering the world how they
should work, how they should suffer, and how they should rule. So long as Roman
Tragedy was doing this, it was living, though its spirit was not Athenian. But
this moral and political significance departed with the Republic; and then it
was inevitable that Roman Tragedy should descend to the place which it occupies
under the Empire. That noble form of drama which the Attic genius had matured,
and which is first made known to us in the majestic poetry of Aeschylus, disappears
from the ancient world in the rhetoric of Seneca.
This text is from: A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890) (eds. William Smith, LLD, William Wayte, G. E. Marindin). Cited August 2004 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Drama.
1. In Athens the production of plays was a State affair,
not a private undertaking. It formed a great part of the religious festival of
the Dionysia, in which the drama took its rise (see Dionysia);
and it was only at the Greater Dionysia that pieces could be performed during
the author's lifetime. The performances lasted three days and took the form of
musical contests, the competitors being three tragic poets, with their tetralogies,
and five comic poets, with one piece each. The authority who superintended the
whole was the archon, to whom the poets had to bring their plays for reading and
apply for a chorus. If the pieces were accepted and the chorus granted, the citizens
who were liable for the choregia undertook at their own cost to practise and furnish
for them one chorus each. (See Liturgia.)
The poets whose plays were accepted received a reward from the State. The State
also supplied the regular number of actors, and made provision for the maintenance
of order during the performances. At the end of the performance a certain number
of persons (usually five) were chosen by lot from a committee (agonothetai) nominated
by the Senate to award the prizes, and bound by solemn oath to give their judgment
on the plays, the choregi, and the actors. The poet who won the first prize was
presented with a crown in the presence of the assembled multitude--the highest
distinction that could be conferred on a dramatic author at Athens. The victorious
choregus also received a crown, with the permission to dedicate a votive offering
to Dionysus. This was generally a tripod, which was set up either in the theatre
or in the temple of the deity or in the Street of Tripods, so named from this
custom, an inscription being put on it recording the event, as in that of Panofka,
Musee Blacas, pl. I. (British Museum): Akamantis enika phule: Glaukon kalos. The
actors in the successful play received prizes of money, besides the usual honoraria.
From the time of Sophocles the actors in a play were three in number.
They had to represent all the parts, those of women included. This involved changing
their costume several times during the performance. The three actors were distinguished
as protagonistes, deuteragonistes, and tritagonistes, according to the importance
of their parts. If the piece required a fourth actor, which was seldom the case,
the choregus had to provide one. The choregus had also to see to the position
and equipment of the mute actors.
In earlier times it is possible that the persons engaged in the representation
did not make a business of their art, but performed gratuitously, as the poets
down to the time of Sophocles appeared upon the stage. But the dramatic art gradually
became a profession requiring careful preparation, and winning general respect
for its members as artists. The chief requirements for the profession were distinctness
and correctness of pronunciation, especially in declamatory passages, and an unusual
power of memory, as there was no prompter in a Greek theatre. An actor had also
to be thoroughly trained in singing, melodramatic action, dancing, and play of
gesture. The latter was especially necessary, as the use of masks precluded any
facial expression. The actors were according to strict rule assigned to the poets
by lot; yet a poet generally had his special protagonist, on whose peculiar gifts
he kept his eye in writing the dramatic pieces.
The Athenian tragedies began to be known all over the Hellenic world
as early as the time of Aeschylus. The first city outside of Attica that had a
theatre was Syracuse, where Aeschylus brought out some of his own plays. Scenic
contests soon began to form part of the religious festivals in various Greek cities,
and were celebrated in honour of other deities besides Dionysus. It was a habit
of Alexander the Great to celebrate almost every considerable event with dramatic
exhibitions, and after him this became the regular custom. A considerable increase
in the number of actors was one consequence of the new demand. The actors called
themselves artists of Dionysus, and in the larger cities they formed permanent
societies (sunodoi) with special privileges, including exemption from military
service and security in person and property. These companies had a regular organization,
presided over by a priest of their patron-god Dionysus, annually elected from
among their members. A treasurer and officers completed the staff. At the time
of the festivals the societies sent out their members in groups of three actors,
with a manager and a flute-player, to the different cities. This business was
especially lively in Ionia and on the Euxine, the societies of Teos being the
most distinguished. The same arrangement was adopted in Italy, and continued to
exist under the Roman Empire.
The universal employment of masks was a remarkable peculiarity of
costume. (See Persona.)
It naturally excluded all play of feature, but the masks corresponded to the general
types of character, as well as to the special types indicated by the requirements
of the play. Certain conventionalities were observed in the colour of the hair.
Goddesses and young persons had light hair; gods and persons of riper age, dark
brown; aged persons, white; and the deities of the lower world, black. The height
of the masks and top-knots varied with the age of the actors and the parts they
took. Lucian ridicules the "chest-paddings and stomach-paddings" of
the tragic actors (De Salt. 27). Their stature was considerably heightened in
tragedies by the high boot (see Cothurnus),
and the defects in proportion corrected by padding and the use of a kind of gloves.
The conventionalities of costume, probably as fixed by Aeschylus, maintained themselves
as long as Greek tragedies were performed at all. Men and women of high rank wore
on the stage a variegated or richly embroidered long-sleeved chiton, reaching
to the feet, and fastened with a girdle as high as the breast. The upper garment,
whether himation or chlamus, was long and splendid, and often embroidered with
gold. Kings and queens had a purple train and a white himation with a purple border;
soothsayers, a netted upper garment reaching to the feet. Persons in misfortune,
especially fugitives, appeared in soiled garments of gray, green, or blue; black
was the symbol of mourning. Soothsayers always wore a woollen garment of network;
shepherds, a short leathern tunic; while each of the gods had some distinguishing
mark, as the bow for Apollo, the caduceus for Hermes, the aegis for Athene. So
with the well-known heroes: Heracles bore a club; Perseus, the cap of darkness.
Kings wore a crown, and carried a sceptre. Warriors appeared in complete armour.
Old men bore a staff with a curved handle, introduced by Sophocles. Messengers
who brought good news were crowned with olive or laurel. Myrtle crowns denoted
festivity. Foreigners wore some one special badge, as a Persian turban for Darius
( Aesch. Pers.661). From the time of Euripides, heroes in misfortune (e. g. Telephus
and Philoctetes) were sometimes dressed in rags.
In the Satyric Drama the costumes of the heroic characters resembled
in all essentials what they wore in the tragedies, although, to suit the greater
liveliness of the action, the chiton was shorter and the boot lower. In the Old
Comedy the costumes were taken as nearly as possible from actual life, but in
the Middle and New Comedy they were conventional. The men wore a white coat; youths,
a purple one; slaves, a motley, with mantle to match; cooks, an unbleached double
mantle; peasants, a fur or shaggy coat, with wallet and staff; panders, a coloured
coat and motley overgarment. Old women appeared in sky-blue or dark yellow; priestesses
and maidens, in white; courtesans, in motley colours, and so on. Red hair marked
a roguish slave; beards were not given to youths or old men. The eyebrows were
strongly marked and highly characteristic. When drawn up, they denoted pride or
impudence. A touchy old man had one eyebrow drawn up and one down. The members
of the chorus were masked and dressed in a costume corresponding to the part assigned
them by the poet. (On their dress in the Satyric Drama, see Satyric
Drama.) The chorus of the comedy caricatured the ordinary dress of the tragic
chorus. Sometimes they represented animals, as in the Frogsand Birdsof Aristophanes.
In the Frogsthey wore tight dresses of frog-colour, and masks with a mouth wide
open; in the Birds, large beaks, bunches of feathers, combs, and so on, to imitate
particular birds.
2. Roman. Dramatic performances in Rome, as in Greece, formed
a part of the usual public festivals, whether exceptional or ordinary, and were
set on foot by the aediles and praetors. (See Ludi.)
A private individual, however, if he were giving a festival or celebrating a funeral,
would have theatrical representations on his own account. The giver of the festival
hired a troupe of players (grex), the director of which (dominus gregis) bought
a play from a poet at his own risk. If the piece was a failure the manager received
no compensation. But after its performance the piece became his property, to be
used at future representations for his own profit. In the time of Cicero, when
it was fashionable to revive the works of older masters, the selection of suitable
pieces was generally left to the director. The Romans did not, like the Greeks,
limit the number of actors to three, but varied it according to the requirements
of the play. Women's parts were originally played by men, as in Greece. Women
first appeared in mimes, and not till very late times in comedies. The actors
were usually freedmen or slaves, whom their masters sent out to be educated, and
then hired them out to the directors of the theatres. The profession was technically
branded with infamia, nor was its legal position ever essentially altered. The
social standing of actors was, however, improved through the influence of Greek
education; and gifted artists like the comedian Roscius, and Aesopus, the tragedian,
in Cicero's time, enjoyed the friendship of the best men in Rome. The instance
of these two men may show what profits could be made by a good actor. Roscius
received, for every day that he played, $175, and made an annual income of some
$21,000. Aesopus, in spite of his great extravagance, left $852,500 at his death.
Besides the regular honoraria, actors, if thought to deserve it, received other
and voluntary presents from the giver of the performance. These often took the
form of finely wrought crowns of silver or gold work. Masks were not worn until
Roscius made their use general. Before his time actors had recourse to false hair
of different colours and paint for the face. Young men wore black wigs; slaves,
red ones; old men, white ones. The costume in general was modelled on that of
actual life, Greek or Roman, but parasites were conventionally represented in
black or gray (Pollux, iv. 148). As early as the later years of the Republic,
a great increase took place in the splendour of the costumes and the general magnificence
of the performance. In tragedy, particularly, a new effect was attained by massing
the actors in great numbers on the stage.
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited August 2004 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Chorus (choros).
The word choros in Greek meant a number of persons who performed songs
and dances at religious festivals. When the drama at Athens was developed from
the dithyrambic choruses, the chorus was retained as the chief element in the
Dionysiac festival. With the old dramatists the choral songs and dances much preponderated
over the action proper. As the form of the drama developed, the sphere of the
chorus was gradually limited, so that it took the comparatively subordinate position
which it occupies in the extant tragedies and comedies. The function of the chorus
represented by its leader was to act as an ideal public, more or less connected
with the dramatis personae. It might consist of old men and women or of maidens.
It took an interest in the occurrences of the drama, watched the action with quiet
sympathy, and sometimes interfered--if not to act, at least to advise, comfort,
exhort, or give warning. At the critical points of the action, it performed long
lyrical pieces with suitable action of dance and gesture. In the better times
of the drama these songs stood in close connection with the action; but even in
Euripides this connection is sometimes loose, and with the later tragedians, after
the time of Agathon, the choral performance sank to a mere intermezzo. The style
of the chorus was distinguished from that of the dialogue partly by its complex
lyrical form, partly by its language, in which it adopted a mixture of Attic and
Doric forms. The proper place of the chorus was on the orchestra, on different
parts of which, after a solemn march, it remained until the end of the piece,
drawn up, while standing, in a square. During the action it seldom left the orchestra
to reappear, and it was quite exceptional for it to appear on the stage. As the
performance went on, the chorus would change its place on the orchestra; as the
piece required, it would divide into semi-choruses and perform a variety of artistic
movements and dances. The name emmeleia was given to the tragic dance, which,
though not lacking in animation, had a solemn and measured character. The comedy
had its burlesque and often indecent performance called kordax; the satyric drama
its Sikinnis, representing the wanton movements of satyrs. The songs of the choruses,
too, had their special names. The first ode performed by the entire body was called
parodos; the pieces intervening between the parts of the play, stasima; the songs
of mourning, in which the chorus took part with the actors, kommoi. The [p. 336]
number of the members (choreutai) was, in tragedies, originally twelve, and after
Sophocles fifteen. This was probably the number allowed in the satyric drama;
the chorus in the Old Comedy numbered twenty-four.
The business of getting the members of the chorus together, paying
them, maintaining them during the time of practice, and generally equipping them
for performance, was regarded as a leitourgia, or public service, and devolved
on a wealthy private citizen called a choregos, to whom it was a matter of considerable
trouble and expense. We know from individual instances that the cost of a tragic
chorus might run up to thirty minae (about $540), of a comic chorus to sixteen
minae (about $265). If victorious, the choregus received a crown and a finely
wrought tripod. This he either dedicated, with an inscription, to some deity as
a memorial of his triumph, or set up on a marble structure built for the purpose
in the form of a temple, in a street named the Street of Tripods, from the number
of these monuments which were erected there. One of these memorials, put up by
a certain Lysicrates in B.C. 335, still remains. (See Choregus.)
After the Peloponnesian War, the prosperity of Athens declined so much that it
was often difficult to find a sufficient number of choregi to supply the festivals.
The State, therefore, had to take the business upon itself. But many choruses
came to an end altogether. This was the case with the comic chorus in the later
years of Aristophanes; and the poets of the Middle and New Comedy accordingly
dropped the chorus. This explains the fact that there is no proper chorus in the
Roman comedy, which is an imitation of the New Comedy of the Greeks. In their
tragedies, however, imitated from Greek originals, the Romans retained the chorus,
which, as the Roman theatre had no orchestra, was placed on the stage, and as
a rule performed between the acts, but sometimes during the performance as well.
See Drama;
Theatrum.
The Roman chorus, in fact, belonged especially to the crepidatae--i. e. the tragedies
modelled on and derived from the Greek ones; but it also appears in the national
tragedy of the Romans, the praetextatae. Even though Diomedes declares that the
Roman comedy had no chorus, yet this is only true generally, for there is an undoubted
chorus of fishermen in the Rudens of Plautus. It was probably the whole company
of actors (caterva, grex), not a chorus, which said the "Plaudite" with
which comedies end. There appear to have been choruses in the pantomimus and in
the pyrrhica of the Empire. There was no fixed number of choreutae. As that part
of the theatre which was the Greek orchestra was given up to the spectators at
Rome, the chorus had to occupy the stage (Vitruv. v. 6, 2). The Roman chorus took
more part in the action of the drama than did the Greek chorus ( Ars Poet. 193).
It was led by a magister chori, who had his place in the middle of the chorus,
and so was called mesochorus ( Epist. ii. 14, 6). The musical accompaniment was
played by a choraules on a double flute. Between the acts the chorus (probably
in tragedy) and the tibicen (in comedy) used to sing or play (Donatus, Arg. ad
Andriam); and Horace (Ars Poet. 194) especially urges that the subject of the
songs should be pertinent to the action of the drama. The chorus was composed
of men who were professionals (artifices), and who were for the most part slaves.
As the chorus of the Romans sometimes represented women, they must have worn masks.
They were probably dressed after the manner of the Greeks, and the dresses appear
to have been very splendid, as was the whole production of plays at the end of
the Republic and during imperial times --e. g. purple chlamydes were wanted for
a chorus of soldiers, as is told in a well-known story of Lucullus ( Epist. i.
6, 40).
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited August 2004 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Choregus (choregos); in Latin, Choragus. The person who supplied a properly trained
chorus.
(1) Greek.
The maintenance of a choregia (choregia) was one of the regularly
recurring state burdens (enkuklioi leitourgiai) at Athens. Originally the chorus
consisted of all the inhabitants in the State. With the improvement of the arts
of music and dancing, the distinction of spectators and performers arose; it became
more a matter of art to sing and dance in the chorus; paid performers were employed;
and at last the duties of this branch of worship devolved upon one person, selected
by the State to be their representative, who defrayed all the expenses which were
incurred on the different occasions. This person was the choregus. It was the
duty of the managers of a tribe (epimeletai phules) to which a choregia had come
round, to provide a person to perform the duties of it; and the person appointed
by them had to meet the expenses of the chorus in all plays, tragic or comic (tragoidois,
komoidois) and satirical; and of the lyric choruses of men and boys, the pyrrhichistae,
cyclian dancers, and flute-players (choregein andrasi, or andrikois chorois, paidikois
chorois, purrichistais, kuklioi choroi auletais andrasin), etc. He had first to
collect his chorus, and then to procure a teacher (chorodidaskalos), whom he paid
for instructing the choreutae. The choregi drew lots for the first choice of teachers;
for as their credit depended upon the success of their chorus in the dramatic
or lyric contests, it was of great importance to them whose assistance they secured.
When the chorus was composed of boys, the choregus was occasionally allowed to
press children for it, in case their parents were refractory. The chorus were
generally maintained, during the period of their instruction, at the expense of
the choregus, and he had also to provide such meat and drink as would contribute
to strengthen the voice of the singers. The expenses of the different choruses
are given by Lysias as follows: Chorus of men, 20 minae; with the tripod, 50 minae;
pyrrhic chorus, 8 minae; pyrrhic chorus of boys, 7 minae; tragic chorus, 30 minae;
comic, 16 minae; cyclian chorus, 300 minae. According to Demosthenes, the chorus
of flute-players cost a great deal more than the tragic chorus. The choregus who
exhibited the best musical or theatrical entertainment received as a prize a tripod,
which he had the expense of consecrating, and sometimes he had also to build the
monument on which it was placed. There was a whole street at Athens formed by
the line of these tripodtemples, and called "The Street of the Tripods."
A well-preserved specimen is the Choragic Monument of one Lysicrates, shown in
the illustration. The laws of Solon prescribed forty as the proper age for the
choregus, but this law was not long in force.
(2) Roman.
The choragus among the Romans (Plaut. Trin.iv. 2. 16) was a lender
of costumes and properties, and to him the aediles used to give a contract for
supplying the necessary accessories for a play. In Plautus (Curc. iv. 1), the
choragus delivers a sort of parabasis. Under the Empire the procurator summi choragii,
appointed probably by Domitian, was a regular imperial minister, with a great
many subordinates, and had charge of the whole supply of decoration, machinery,
and costume necessary for the performance of the various shows as well in the
amphitheatre as in the theatre. A subdivision of this office was the ratio ornamentorum,
which had special reference to the "make-up" of the actors. Under Gordian
we find the name had vanished. Apuleius ( Apol.i. 13) had spoken of the choragium
thymelicum; but the functionary called logista thymelae now took the place of
the procurator summi choragii. In the fourth century, at Rome the praefectus urbi,
in the East the praefectus praetorio, and in Africa the proconsul looked after
the games. In the fifth century, at Rome, Milan, and Carthage, we find this done
by tribuni voluptatum.
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited August 2004 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Histrio (hupokrites). An actor.
(1) Greek.
The steps by which hupokrinomai, hupokrites acquired their dramatic
meaning have been variously traced. The primitive sense of "answering"
(i. e. of the quick repartee of dialogue between the actor and the chorus--hupokrinesthai
implying a more ready and instantaneous reply than apokrinesthai) seems quite
sufficient for the purpose ( Poll.iv. 123).
It is shown in the articles Chorus and Dionysia that the Greek drama
originated in the chorus which at the festivals of Dionysus danced around his
altar, and that at first one person detached himself from the chorus and, with
mimetic gestures, related his story either to the chorus or in conversation with
it. If the story thus acted required more than one person, they were all represented
in succession by the same choreutes. Thespis, who was regarded in antiquity
as the inventor of tragedy, was the first to employ an actor distinct from the
chorus; the latter still took the most important part in the performance,
but lost something of its original character by becoming an interlocutor in the
dialogue. Aeschylus therefore added a second actor, so that the action and the
dialogue became independent of the chorus, and the dramatist at the same time
had an opportunity of showing two persons in contrast with each other on the stage
(Aristot. Poet.4. 16). Sophocles took the final step by adding a third actor (Aristot.
l. c.); and towards the close of his career, Aeschylus found it necessary to follow
the example of his younger rival, and to introduce a third actor, as is seen in
the Agamemnon, Choephori, and Eumenides ( Poll.iv. 110). This number of three
actors was also adopted by Euripides, and remained the limit scarcely ever exceeded
in any Greek drama, at least in tragedy. In comedy a somewhat greater license
was taken; and though Cratinus kept to the regular three performers, Aristophanes
sometimes, and notably in the Thesmophoriazusae, employed a larger number.
Some real or apparent exceptions to this rule in tragedy have been
keenly discussed, and demand a short notice. For instance, the Prometheus is a
piece for two actors, yet in the opening scene there are four persons upon the
stage--Prometheus, Hephaestus, and the allegorical Kratos and Bia. But Bia does
not speak, and mute actors were unquestionably not reckoned; while Prometheus
himself, there can be no doubt, was represented by a gigantic lay figure, "so
contrived that an actor standing behind the pictorial mountain could speak through
the mask. No protagonist could have been expected to submit to the restraint of
such an attitude throughout the whole of the play, to say nothing of the catastrophe
at the end, when the rocks fall asunder, and Prometheus is dashed down into Tartarus"
(Donaldson, Theatre of the Greeks, 7th ed. p. 286). In the Choephori Aeschylus
had three actors, but in 900 foll. a fourth seems required, where Pylades, who
has been present most of the time as a mute actor, begins to speak. The notion
of the Scholiast that the oiketes, who has only just quitted the stage, reappears
as Pylades, is rejected by A. Muller on the ground that the actor has not had
time to change his dress. It may be remarked, however, that the Greek tragic actor,
in order to assume another character, had only to change an upper garment, a mask,
and perhaps a wig. There were none of the minute toilet accessories of the modern
"make-up," and the operation may have been got through with much greater
rapidity. Once more, in the Oedipus at Colonus, a fourth actor must be assumed
unless the part of Theseus is divided among all three performers. The former alternative
is supported by C. O. Muller (Diss. on Eumen. p. 127) and A. Muller (p. 175, n.
4); the latter by K. F. Hermann (De Distributione Personarum inter Histriones
in Tragoediis Graecis, Marburg, 1840, p. 42) and Donaldson, who observes that
"the mask and the uniformity of tragic declamation would make it as easy
for two actors to represent one part as for one actor to sustain several characters".
The terms paraskenion and parachoregema here come in for explanation. The usual
meaning of parachoregema is of course a subordinate chorus or heteros choros;
but the statement that the word was also applied to the part taken by a fourth
actor rests only on the authority of Pollux (iv. 109, 110), where there is almost
certainly some confusion in the text. It is more likely that a supernumerary who
spoke a few words only, such as the children in the Medea, or the above cases
of a fourth actor being required, was called paraskenion.
The three regular actors were distinguished by the technical names
of protagonistes, deuteragonistes, and tritagonistes, indicating the more or less
prominent part each had to play in the drama. Certain conventional means were
also devised, by which the spectators, as soon as an actor appeared on the stage,
were enabled to judge which part he was going to perform; thus the protagonist
regularly came from a door in the centre, the deuteragonist from one on the right,
and the tritagonist from a door on the left-hand side ( Poll.iv. 124). The protagonist
naturally undertook the character in which the interest of the piece was intended
to centre; not always the title-role, unless it were that of the real hero or
heroine. It is true that, in six out of the seven extant plays of Sophocles, the
title-role is also the leading part; but in the Cresphontes and Oenomaus of Euripides
the titlerole was only a third-class part, and as such was taken by Aeschines
( De Cor. p. 288. 180). The conjecture is also unfounded that the protagonist
was always the principal messenger (angelos), or again that the narrative of a
death (e. g. of Hippolytus or Pentheus) was necessarily assigned to the actor
of the dead man's part (K. F. Hermann, op. cit. p. 33). It is an ingenious but
rather fanciful notion of K. O. Muller's (Griech. Lit. ii. 57) that the deuteragonist
regularly took sympathetic parts as a friend of the hero or heroine, whereas the
tritagonist was generally "an instigator who was the cause of the sufferings
of the protagonist, while he himself was the least capable of depth of feeling
or sympathy;" in popular language, that he was the "villain of the piece."
This is supported by the recorded fact that Creon in the Antigone was a tritagonist's
part, and by an arrangement of the characters in the Orestean trilogy of Aeschylus
which gives the part of Clytaemnestra throughout to the tritagonist. It is a fact
not without significance that the thirty-two extant tragedies contain no "hero"
who is also a "villain," like Macbeth or Richard the Third; but the
titles of lost plays show an Ixion of Aeschylus, an Acrisius and an Atreus of
Sophocles; and it would seem that the villainhero, though rare, was not altogether
unknown. It is safer to say with Donaldson that the second and third performers
"seem to have divided the other characters between them, less according to
any fixed rule than in obedience to the directions of the poet, who was guided
by the exigencies of his play." As on the modern stage, parts were written
for particular actors; a proof that the author, notwithstanding the many conventional
restrictions imposed by the sacred character of the Attic drama, had some influence
over the choice of his actors.
The number of supernumeraries was unlimited. They were usually silent,
but sometimes spoke a few words, especially when a fourth interlocutor was required
as above; in which case the speaker was occasionally placed behind the scenes,
or sheltered from view by the chorus, that the limit of three actors might not
be obtrusively violated. Persons of rank and dignity always came upon the stage
suitably attended, just as no Athenian lady or gentleman in real life went out
without at least one slave: the body-guards of royal personages were a conspicuous
feature, so that doruphoros or doruphorema became an equivalent to kophon prosopon,
and in one or two instances (the opening scene of the Oedipus Tyrannus and probably
that of the Acharnians) we have a regular "stage-mob" of citizens like
those in Julius Caesar and Wilhelm Tell.
The acting of female characters by men was greatly assisted by the use of masks;
there was no need to assign such parts to beardless youths, as in England in the
Shakespearian times. In early days the dramatic poets themselves acted in their
own plays, and doubtless as protagonists. Of Aeschylus it is further recorded
that he was his own ballet-master, and trained his choruses to dance without the
aid of a professional orchestodidaskalos ( Ath.i. 21 e). Sophocles appeared only
twice on the stage; as Thamyris in the play of that name, accompanying a song
on the cithara, and as Nausicaa playing at ball, in the Pluntriai: he then gave
up acting on account of the weak ness of his voice. After his time it became exceptional
for the poet to be also an actor. Aeschylus, who seems to have been usually protagonist
in his own plays, employed Cleander as his deuteragonist, and subsequently (after
the introduction of a third actor) Mynniscus as tritagonist (Vit. Aesch. p. 3,
l. 75 Dind.). Cleidemides and Tlepolemus were similarly associated with Sophocles,
and Cephisophon with Euripides. Actors sometimes received enormous salaries, occasionally
as much as a talent ($1180) for two or even one day's performance ( Gell.xi. 9.
2).
No social stigma attached to the actor's calling (Corn. Nep. Praef.5).
Distinguished Athenian citizens appeared on the stage as amateurs, and the role
of a tritagonistes, notwithstanding the scurrilous and exaggerated invectives
of Demosthenes, did not detract from Aeschines' position as a soldier and orator.
Bad actors, however, to whatever station in life they belonged, were not, on that
account, spared; displeasure was shown by whistling or hissing (surittein, Demosth.
De Cor. p. 315. 265); another word is thorubein, probably denoting uproar against
the author rather than the actor. For the throwing of fruit or nuts in theatres,
and sometimes even of stones, cf. [Andoc. ] c. Alcib. 20; Demosth. De Cor. p.
314. 262. On the other hand, the practice of encoring (authis) is inferred from
Symp.9. 4.
At a later time, when Greece had lost her independence, we find regular
troops of actors, who were either stationary in particular towns of Greece, or
wandered from place to place, and engaged themselves wherever they found it most
profitable. They formed regular companies or guilds (sunodoi) with their own internal
organization, with their common officers, property, and sacra. There are a number
of inscriptions belonging to such companies. They can be traced at Athens, Thebes,
Argos, Teos, Cyprus, and Rhegium. But these actors are generally spoken of in
very contemptuous terms; they were perhaps in some cases slaves or freedmen, and
their pay was sometimes as low as seven drachmas ($1.25) for a performance (Lucian,
Icaromen. 29). The language of Lucian must, however, be received with caution.
He has evidently confused the old Greek estimate of the profession with the much
lower Roman one of his own time; and in one passage ( Apol.5) writes as though
Polus and Aristodemus, free Greeks of the highest consideration, had been liable
to the ius virgarum in histriones.
(2) Roman.
The word histriones, by which the Roman actors were called, is said
to have been formed from the Etruscan hister, which signified a ludio or dancer
(Livy, vii. 2). The origin of scenic representations at Rome has been related
under Comoedia. The name histrio thenceforward lost the signification of a dancer,
and was now applied to the actors in the drama. Only the Atellanae and exodia
were played by freeborn Romans, while the regular drama was left to the histriones,
who formed a distinct class of persons.
In the times of Plautus and Terence we find the actors gathered into
a company (grex, caterva), under the control of a manager (dominus gregis, also
called actor in a technical sense, though actor is of course also a synonym of
histrio). It was through the manager that a magistrate who was giving games, of
which stage-plays formed a part, engaged the services of a company. Brutus, who
was praetor in the year of Caesar's death, tried to regain the popularity he had
lost through the murder by giving the Ludi Apollinares with unusual splendour;
and he went all the way to Naples to negotiate with actors, who seem to have been
Greeks, besides getting his friends to use their interest in his behalf ( Plut.
Brut.21). So in imperial times a public singer is said vocem vendere praetoribus
( Juv.vi. 379). The pay (merces) was on as varied a scale as in modern times.
In the first century of the Empire an ordinary actor seems to have received five
denarii and his food ( Plin. Ep.80. 7); while at an earlier period "stars"
like Roscius and Aesopus, the contemporaries and friends of Cicero, made ample
fortunes. Cicero tells us that Roscius could have honourably made 6,000,000 sesterces
($240,000) in ten years had he chosen to do so (Pro Rosc. Com. 8. 23); and Pliny
gives half a million ($20,000) as his annual earnings. The tradition preserved
by Macrobius ( Sat.iii. 14. 11-13) is that Roscius alone received 1000 denarii
($175) for every day's performance; while Aesopus left a fortune of 20,000,000
sesterces ($800,000), acquired solely by his profession. This was afterwards squandered
by his son ( Sat.ii. 3 Sat., 239).
It is clear from the words of Livy (vii. 2) that the histriones were
not citizens; that they were not contained in the tribes, nor allowed to be enlisted
as soldiers in the Roman legions; and that, if any citizen entered the profession
of histrio, he, on this account, was excluded from his tribe. The histriones were
therefore usually either freedmen, foreigners, or slaves; the latter specially
educated for the stage to their master's profit. Even if ingenui, they were legally
infames (Edict. Praet. ap. Dig. 3, 2, 1; cf. De Rep. iv. fr. 10 ap. Aug. De Civ.
Dei, ii. 13), and socially in low estimation ( Pro Arch. 5. 10; Corn. Nep. Praef.4;
Suet. Tib.35). Aesopus seems to have been a freedman of the Claudian gens; but
Roscius, the amor et deliciae of Cicero, was certainly ingenuus, and probably
of good birth. Sulla gave him the gold ring of equestrian rank. Towards the close
of the Republican period, a few men of position and Greek culture raised themselves
above the prejudices of their countrymen, and valued the person no less than the
genius of great artists. When Caesar forced Laberius, a knight advanced in years,
to appear on the stage in his own mimes, he was thought to have exceeded the powers
even of a dictator, and his victim took a dignified revenge (Macrob. Sat.ii. 7.
3 foll.). Under the emperors men of equestrian rank often appeared, with or without
compulsion ( Suet. Aug.43; Dio Cass. liii. 31; Suet. Tib.35); and this circumstance,
together with the increasing influence of Greek manners, tended to improve the
social position of the actors. At the very beginning of the reign of Tiberius
it had become necessary to check the extravagant compliments paid them ( Tac.
Ann.i. 77). Their legal status remained the same as regards infamia and exclusion
from office; even provincial honours are denied them in the Lex Iulia Municipalis
of B.C. 45, where they are coupled with gladiators (C. I. L. p. 123); thoughinscriptions
show that the rule was not always enforced (Orelli, 2625). But the old law was
now somewhat modified, by which the Roman magistrates were empowered to coerce
the histriones at any time and in any place, and the praetor had the right to
scourge them (ius virgarum in histriones). Augustus entirely did away with the
ius virgarum, and limited the interference of the magistrates to the time when,
and the place where (ludi et scaena), the actors performed ( Suet. Aug.45). But
he nevertheless inflicted, of his own authority, very severe punishments upon
those actors who, either in their private life or in their conduct on the stage,
committed any impropriety. After these regulations the only legal punishments
that could be inflicted upon actors for improper conduct seem to have been imprisonment
and exile ( Tac. Ann.iv. 14Tac. Ann., xiii. 28).
The competition of the actors for public favour was carried to extraordinary
lengths, and stirred up factions like those of the Circus. If not as early as
the time of Plautus himself, yet at the time when the existing Plautine prologues
were composed (probably about B.C. 150-100), we find partisanship (ambitio) in
full operation (Plaut. Poen.prol. 37 foll.). At first palms and inexpensive crowns
of gold or silver tinsel were the reward of popularity (Pliny , Pliny H. N.xxi.
6); afterwards, under the Empire, presents of money and rich garments ( Juv.vii.
243 with Schol.). There was a regularly organized and paid claque (the theatrales
operae of Tac. Ann.i. 16; cf. Mart.iv. 5Mart., 8); and over and above that the
backers (fautores) resorted to actual violence and even bloodshed. Hence Tiberius
on one occasion found himself obliged to expel all histriones from Italy ( Tac.
Ann.iv. 14); but they were recalled and patronized by his successor. The emperors
as a rule tolerated, sometimes encouraged, and occasionally checked the excesses
of the stage. We read of the emperor's private companies who performed during
dinner-time ( Suet. Aug.74), and were sometimes allowed also to play in the theatres
before the people. The practice of giving immoderate sums to actors was restricted
by Tiberius ( Tac. Ann.i. 77; Suet. Tib.34); again by M. Aurelius, and by Alexander
Severus. Aurelius ordained a maximum payment of five aurei ($25.50) to each actor,
and that no editor should exceed the sum of ten aurei ($51); this must mean that
there were to be editores in number equal to half the actors, for it cannot be
thought that he reduced the actors to two for each performance. The restrictions
of the Greek stage as to the number of actors never prevailed upon the Roman.
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
MARATHON (Ancient demos) ATTICA, EAST
Panteleus (Panteleos), the author of nine verses in the Greek Anthology, the first two of which stand in the Vatican MS. as an epigram on Callimachus and Cynageirus, the well-known leaders of the Athenians at the battle of Marathon. There can be no doubt that the lines are a fragment of an heroic poem on the battle of Marathon, or the Persian war in general; but we have no indication of the author's age.
Artaphernes, a son of the satrap of Sardeis Artaphernes. After the unsuccessful
enterprise of Mardonius against Greece in B. C. 492, king Dareius placed Datis
and his nephew Artaphernes at the head of the forces which were to chastise Athens
and Eretria. Artaphernes, though superior in rank, seems to have been inferior
in military skill to Datis, who was in reality the commander of the Persian army.
The troops assembled in Cilicia, and here they were taken on board 600 ships.
This fleet first sailed to Samos, and thence to the Cyclades. Naxos was taken
and laid in ashes, and all the islands submitted to the Persians. In Euboea, Carystus
and Eretria also fell into their hands. After this the Persian army landed at
Marathon. Here the Persians were defeated in the memorable battle of Marathon,
B. C. 490, whereupon Datis and Artaphernes sailed back to Asia. When Xerxes invaded
Greece, B. C. 480, Artaphernes commanded the Lydians and Mysians. (Herod. vi.
94, 116, vii. 10.2, 74; Aeschyl. Pers. 21).
Cynaegeirus (Kunaigeiros), son of Euphorion and brother of the poet Aeschylus, distinguished himself by his valour at the battle of Marathon, B. C. 490. According to Herodotus, when the Persians had fled and were endeavouring to escape by sea, Cynaegeirus seized one of their ships to keep it back, but fell with his right hand cut off. The story lost nothing by transmission. The next version related that Cynaegeirus, on the loss of his right hand, grasped the enemy's vessel with his left; and at length we arrive at the acme of the ludicrous in the account of Justin. here the hero, having successively lost both his hands, hangs (on by his teeth, and even in his mutilated state fights desperately with the last mentioned weapons, "like a rabid wild beast!" (Herod. vi. 114; Suid. s. v. Kunaigeiros; Just. ii. 9; Val. Max. iii. 2. § 22; comp. Sueton. Jul. 68.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Pheidippedes. Professional runner who is said to have run from Marathon to Athens
to inform the Athenians that they had won the battle against the Persians, thus
running the first Marathon race. He uttered the words “Chairete nikomen”
(“Greetings, we have won”) and then dropped down dead.
Pheidippedes is also said to have run from Athens
to Sparta to ask for help
when the Persians were approaching. When the Persians attacked Athens
in 480 BC the messenger met Pan in Arcadia.
Pan asked him why the Athenians did not worship him and said he would gladly help
them against their enemy. So, he appeared on the side of the Athenians at the
battle of Marathon, and a cult was founded to his honour in a cave on the northern
side of the Acropolis.
This text is cited Sept 2003 from the In2Greece URL below.
Pheidippides, a courier, was sent by the Athenians to Sparta in B. C. 490, to ask for aid against the Persians, and arrived there on the second day from his leaving Athens. The Spartans declared that they were willing to give the required help, but unable to do so immediately, as religious scruples prevented their marching from home before the full moon (see Dict. of Ant. s. v. Carneia). On the return of Pheidippides to Athens, he related that, on his way to Sparta, he had fallen in with Pan, on Mount Parthenium, near Tegea, and that the god had bid him ask the Athenians why they paid him no worship, though he had been hitherto their friend, and ever would be so. In consequence of this revelation, they dedicated a temple to Pan, after the battle of Marathon, and honoured him thenceforth with annual sacrifices and a torch-race (Herod. v. 105, 106 ; Paus. i. 28, viii. 54; Corn. Nep. Milt. 4; Dict. of Ant. s. v. Lampadephoria). In Pausanias and Cornelius Nepos the form of the name is Philippides, which we also find as a various reading in Herodotus.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Echetlus (Echetlos), a mysterious being, about whom the following tradition was current at Athens. During the battle of Marathon there appeared among the Greeks a man, who resembled a rustic, and slew many of the barbarians with his plough. After the battle, when he was searched for, he was not to be found anywhere, and when the Athenians consulted the oracle, they were commanded to worship the hero Echetlaeus, that is the hero with the echetle, or ploughshare. Echetlus was to be seen in the painting in the Poecile, which represented the battle of Marathon. (Paus. i. 15.4, 32,4)
Receive our daily Newsletter with all the latest updates on the Greek Travel industry.
Subscribe now!
