•H-'i- 
 
 ^m 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 III III mill Hill III! 
 
 $B 14 701 
 
 FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER 
 
 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH 
 IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 A DISSERTATION 
 
 SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND 
 
 LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF 
 
 DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 (uiiPARTMRNT OF GREEK) 
 
 BY 
 HAZEL LOUISE BR( W > 
 
 MENASHA, WIS. 
 
 THE COLLEGIATE PRESS 
 
 GEORGE P.ANTA PUBLISHING CO. 
 
 1914 
 
EXCHANGE 
 
 ^5" 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2007 with funding from 
 
 Microsoft Corporation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/extemporaryspeecOObrowrich 
 
FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER 
 
 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH 
 IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 A DISSERTATION 
 
 SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND 
 
 LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF 
 
 DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 (department of greek) 
 
 BY 
 HAZEL LOUISE BROWN 
 
 • • •, « • » 
 
 » ,». •» •• 
 
 » » • • » • • 
 
 MENASHA, WIS. 
 
 THE COLLEGIATE PRESS 
 
 GEORGE BANTA PUBLISHING CO. 
 
 1914 
 
G> 
 
PREFACE 
 
 While the object of the following pages has been to consider the 
 part played by extemporary speech in the theory and practice of the 
 orators and rhetoricians of ancient times, it has been thought best to 
 set the discussion in the framework of a running commentary on 
 Greek oratory in general, in order to give to the paper some sort of 
 unity. In case of many of the orators there are only a few isolated 
 references to their practice as speakers, and of some of them we can 
 only say, after considering the evidence, what in each case was the 
 probable method followed. Many topics which might have been 
 investigated in connection with the main subject, necessarily have 
 been left untouched, since a discussion of them would carry the 
 treatment far beyond the confines of a single paper. An attempt 
 has been made to bring the discussion into relation to modern theory 
 and practice by means of the parallels in the foot-notes, though of 
 necessity these have been few and short. 
 
 In the notes I have endeavored to give credit to all articles from 
 which I consciously received any suggestion; if I have in any case 
 failed to do so, the oversight has been unintentional. Particular 
 mention must be made of Blass's Attische Beredsamkeit, which has 
 proved invaluable. 
 
 In conclusion I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Paul Shorey 
 of the University of Chicago, at whose suggestion the paper was 
 written, and to whose comments and criticism any value it may have 
 is largely due. 
 
 Hazel Louise Brown. 
 
 Chicago, 19 14 
 
 306169 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 Preface. 
 
 Chapter I. The Place of Extemporary Speech in the Theory 
 OF Rhetoric. 
 
 (i). Among the Greeks : 
 
 In Homeric times 7 
 
 Empedocles 7 
 
 Corax and Tisias 8 
 
 Gorgias 11 
 
 Thrasymachus 13 
 
 Antiphon 13 
 
 Lysias 16 
 
 Plato's Phaedrus 18 
 
 Isocrates 22 
 
 Alcidamas 27 
 
 Aristotle's Rhetoric 42 
 
 Anaximenes 45 
 
 Plutarch 47 
 
 Hermogenes '. 49 
 
 Gregory of Corinth 50 
 
 Aristides 51 
 
 Longinus 51 
 
 Theon : 53 
 
 Alexander 53 
 
 Tiberius 53 
 
 (2). Among the Romans: 
 
 Cicero 54 
 
 Horace 58 
 
 Quintilian 58 
 
 Tacitus 66 
 
 Chapter H. The Place of Extemporary Speech in the Prac- 
 tice OF THE Orators. 
 
 (i). Among THE Greeks: 
 
 Pre-Homeric orators 70 
 
Homer ^2 
 
 Corax and Tisias 75 
 
 Cimon y"j 
 
 Themistocles ^7 
 
 Pericles 79 
 
 Alcibiades 88 
 
 The Sophists 95 
 
 The Attic Orators 102 
 
 Repetitions 139 
 
 Minor orators 146 
 
 (2). Among THE Romans : 
 
 Pre-Ciceronian orators 147 
 
 Cicero and his contemporaries 165 
 
 The Emperors 169 
 
 Minor Speakers 172 
 
 (3). The Later Sophists i75 
 
 Index 181 
 
I. THE PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THE 
 THEORY OF RHETORIC 
 
 It is not until comparatively late in the history of Greek liter- 
 ature that we find any formal theoretical treatment of extemporary 
 speech, and then only in the form of polemic against a rival. Purely 
 extemporaneous speech was very early found to be ineffective, and 
 as a result there arose a large number of Ts^vai, the object of which 
 was to show how speech could be used to the best advantage.^ 
 Any treatise on rhetoric implies preparation and study on the part 
 of the one who produces it, and of the one who follows it. It is 
 the result of its author's experience and observation,^ and the study 
 of this is the means by which the pupil attains his purpose.^ If a 
 people '^practiced rhetoric" they must have studied to make their 
 speeches effective, and they must have used all the technical knowl- 
 edge they possessed to attain that end. 
 
 It pleased the Greek rhetoricians to trace back their art, not only 
 in practice but in theory, to even before the time of Nestor, Phoenix, 
 Odysseus, and the other Homeric heroes.* The rules for speeches 
 
 * The first of these came into being as a result of the political disturbances 
 in Sicily (cf, p. 75): Cases which dealt with this period must be settled 
 largely on the basis of the probable, and it was the man of training who 
 could make his case seem most probable. The man able to speak had an 
 advantage over the one who could not, as well then as in Aristotle's time; 
 (Cf. Arist. Rhet. I, 12, 2; 24; II, 2, 7). 
 
 'Blair (Lecture XIV) p. 348 Vol. I says: "All science arises from ob- 
 servations on practice. Practice has always gone before method and rule; 
 but method and rule have afterwards improved and perfected practice in 
 every art." 
 
 " Cf. Hobbes's Brief of Aristotle's Rhetoric I, i : "to discover method is 
 all one with teaching an art." 
 
 * Syrianus in Hermog. p. 17 (Rhet. Gr. IV, 43, 3 Walz) : avvSponog 7010 
 y\ ^ Q-x\TOQiY.y\ x(p XoYfp xcov rl^xtov xal jiqo NEOxooog xe xat IlaT-aiLiriSoug xal 
 ^oivixog xal 'OSuaoEcog xal jiqo xwv ev IXicp tioxt]xo :rtaQ' dv^Qcojroig f| yovv 
 xaxd KdSfiov x.x.X. Cf. Plut. De Soc. Genio p. 309H; also Hermogenes 
 (Rhet. Gr. II, 405, 25, Spengel)', where Homer, as the best poet, is also called 
 the best orator and speech writer. Seymour (Life in the Homeric Age) p. 
 44, says: "The oratory of Nestor, like that of the second book of the Iliad, 
 where Odysseus urges the Achaeans to remain before Troy (II, 284), and 
 that of the ninth book of the Iliad, where Achilles is asked to return to the 
 
8" EXTEM^OilLARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 in very early times were doubtless very simple ones and not worthy 
 of the name of ziyyai. But still the observance of them would take 
 the speakers out of the class of purely extemporaneous orators. 
 One critic says ^ that the germs of a ts^vy] existed in Homer, and 
 some even go so far as to attribute the invention of the St^^avtxo? 
 XoYO? not to Antiphon, but to Menestheus,^ the leader of the Athen- 
 ians at Troy. 
 
 Leaving the age of legend, we find that the '^discovery" of rhe- 
 toric is ascribed by Aristotle to Empedocles.'^ Empedocles himself 
 seems to have written no book on rhetoric, but perhaps imbued 
 Corax and the other rhetoricians with his principles. 
 
 field of conflict (IX, 225 ff.), is no natural untrained eloquence, but shows 
 that the art had been studied." 
 
 Gladstone, in his Homer (p. 119)', says: "The art of speech was, in truth, 
 at this period what may be termed their (the Greeks) only fine art; and 
 they had carried it, at a stroke, to its perfection." 
 
 The practice of the rhetoricians of tracing their art back to the Homeric 
 heroes is parodied by Plato in the Phaedrus (261 B-C) : "What", says 
 Socrates "have you heard only of the rhetorical arts of Nestor and Odysseus, 
 which they composed during their leisure in Ilium, and have you never heard 
 of those by Palamedes?" "By Zeus," replies Phaedrus, "I have not even heard 
 of those by Nestor, unless you make Gorgias a Nestor, or Thrasymachus and 
 Theodorus an Odysseus." "Perhaps I do," returns Socrates. 
 
 According to the Scholiast on the passage, by Palamedes Socrates meant 
 Zeno. Holden in a note on Plut. Dem. c VIII, 3, says Plato is referring 
 to Alcidamas under the name of Palamedes. 
 
 "Auctor. Proleg. in Hermog. (Walz VII, 5-6) quoted by Spengel {Art. 
 Script, p. 7) : xal oxi "G^iTiQog xa 0;t8QM,aTa xfig xiyyy\c, xaxE|3aA,EV, eSri^^ooae 
 TrjXeqpog 6 IlEQYa^Tivos ooxig %i'/yy\\ avyyQCP^ayizyoc, EJievQa^e keqi xfjg xai^' 
 "O^iTiQOv 'pTixoQixfig xdxEi JtEQi xcov XQiaxaifiEXtt oruvEYQaipaxo axdaEcov Xzyovai 
 hi xivEg Sixavixov Xoyov EuprixEvai [Cod. eigrixEvai] jxqojxov MEVEO^Ea xov 
 oxQaxT]Yov xcov 'AiBrivaicov og xai EJtl Tgoiav d(pix£xo, dA,?ioi bk \iyovGi 
 *Avxi(p{ovxa. Compare Quintilian X, i, 49. 
 
 ^The choice of Menestheus as originator of this sort of speech was no 
 doubt due to a desire on the part of the late writer to prove the superiority 
 of Athens even in heroic times. It was on the basis of Komer's mention of 
 Menestheus {Iliad II, 552; XII, Z72>; XIII, 195; cf. ^sch. Ill, 184; Plut. 
 Cimon 7) that Athens claimed the right to the leadership against Xerxes 
 (Herod. VII, iS9-i6i). 
 
 ^Diogenes Laertius VIII, 57: 'Aeiaxox£A,Tig 8e ev x(p 2oq)i0xfi (pT]al rcQwxov 
 *E|LiJiE6ox7.Ea 'qtixcqixtiv evqeiv, Zrivcova Se fiia^Exxixriv. Cf. also IX, 25. 
 Sextus Empiricus Adv. Math. VII, 6 : EM.;iE8ox7,Ea \ikv ydg 6 'AQiaxoxE^.Tig 
 cprioi JtQcoxov 'qtixoqixtiv xExivrixEvai. Suidas s. v. Zrivcov. Quintilian III, i, 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC 9 
 
 It is usually agreed that the founders of rhetoric as an art were 
 Corax and Tisias of Syracuse, the first of whom was said to be the 
 author of the first rhetorical treatise or Texvir].^ Whether Corax, or 
 
 8: nam primus post eos quos poetae tradiderunt movisse aliqua circa rhe- 
 toricen Empedocles dicitur. Aristotle {De Soph. Elench. 183, b. 31) seems 
 to have Empedocles and Corax in mind when he says: "The original in- 
 ventors (of the art of rhetoric) made but little progress. The great 
 modern professors inherited from those who went before them many suc- 
 cessive improvements, and added others themselves. Tisias after the first 
 inventors of the art, Thrasymachus after Tisias, Theodorus after Thrasy- 
 machus, and many others contributed different portions." 
 
 Cf. Verrall, Journal of Philology, Vol. IX, p. 129 ff; and 197 ff. In the 
 first of these papers Mr. Verrall states that Pindar, in a passage of the 
 Second Olympian Ode (93 ff.)' alludes to a work of an etymological character 
 by two authors, one of whom was Corax of Syracuse. His co-worker is 
 not named. Mr. Verrall reaches this ingenious conclusion in the following 
 manner. In line 93 of the Ode, instead of eg bk to jtolv, he argues in favor 
 of TOJtdv from xojiri, a noun which he elicits from the verb xojidto) or 
 TOJtdco. This "divination" (xo:tt|) he believes meant the explanation of words, 
 a technical explanation, which could only be given by a professional in- 
 terpreter. The professors of this species of learning are described as two 
 in number (vaQvexov) and resemble crows. In the word xopaxE?, Mr. 
 Verrall sees a play upon the name of the Sicilian rhetorician, Corax. He 
 therefore infers that the Pindar passage contains an allusion to a work on 
 etymology by Corax and some unnamed coadjutor. 
 
 In the second paper Mr. Verrall undertakes to show (i) that Tisias was 
 a collaborator with Corax in his xexvti, and (2) that Tisias may have been the 
 collaborator in the work to which Pindar alludes. 
 
 If we accept Mr. Verrall's view, all the accounts of the life of Tisias 
 which make an allusion by Pindar chronologically impossible must be re- 
 jected. Mr. Fennell suggests that the second author might be Empedocles. 
 
 " Quintilian III, i, 8. Whether Corax and Tisias each wrote a xexvT], or 
 whether there was but one work is a disputed question. Aristotle mentions 
 Tisias as the immediate successor of the founders of the art of rhetoric, 
 {Soph. Elench. c. 34, 183b 31). Cicero {De Invent. II, 6) calls him the in- 
 ventor and princeps of the art; cf. also Plato, Phaedrus 273C and Eudocia 
 Aug. DLXV, p. 441 (ed. Flach). Later {De Orat. I, 20, 91) he applies the 
 same terms to both Corax and Tisias, and in the Brutus (XII, 46) quoting 
 Aristotle, he joins them as the authors of an art ; "artem et praecepta Siculos 
 Coracem et Tisiam conscripsisse." Plato (Phaedrus 273A) assigns the 
 theory of probability to Tisias (cf. also 267A) ; Aristotle {Rhet. II, 24), to 
 Corax. Quintilian (II, 17, 7, and III, i, 8), joins the two. The author of 
 the Proleg. ad Hermog. (p. 130A), ascribes the treatise to Corax. See also 
 
 Syrianus ad Hermog. (Rhet. Gr. IV, 575 Walz) Kogai 6 
 
 T£xvoYQdq)og. Arsen. Violet, ed. Walz p. 506: laoxQaxrig Eljtovxog auxcp xivog, 
 
10 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 Corax and Tisias, in their rules for speaking, treated the subject of 
 extemporary speech is unknown. The divisions of a speech which 
 Corax made, proemium, narrative, argument, subsidiary remarks, 
 and peroration,^ would seem to argue preparation/^ Except the 
 story of his lawsuit with his pupil Tisias,^^ there is no evidence 
 of his having appeared in court himself, or written speeches for 
 
 8x1 6 bfinog vno xcov 'qtitoqcov dojtd^exai, xi ^avuaaxov, el Kogaxog ecpEvgov- 
 X05 XT|v 'qtixcqixtiv ol djr' exsivou xogaxeg eIoiv. Two explanations are pos- 
 sible. First, Corax himself wrote no xexvn. His instructions were oral, and 
 were developed and committed to writing by his pupil Tisias. This is the 
 conclusion reached by Susemihl, Genet. Entwickelung d^r platonisch Philo- 
 sophie (1885) I, p. 485. Second, both wrote "arts". That of Tisias was an 
 expansion of that of his master and superseded it. We hear nothing of 
 Corax's work, but that of Tisias was a well-known text book in Plato's tim^ 
 (Phaedrus 273A). 
 
 Cf. Verrall, Journ. Phil. IX, 199-203, on the reference to Tisias in 
 Aristotle, Soph. Elench. p. 183b 32. 
 
 W. R. Roberts has pointed out (Class. Rev. XVIII, [1904] pp. 18-21) 
 that the fragment of a rhetorical treatise recently discovered {Oxyrhynchus 
 Papyri Part III, pp. 27-30) offers some interesting points of contact with 
 the Sicilian rhetoric of Corax and Tisias as described by Cicero {Brutus 
 XII), the Prolegomena in Hermogenem (Walz Rhet. Gr. IV, 12), and Aris- 
 totle (Soph. Elench. 183b). He calls attention to the fact that the words 
 axQiPecog and VEYoa^ijAevaig, found at the beginning of the new fragment 
 correspond closely to the accurate and de scripto (cf. c. II, n. 31) of Cicero's 
 quotation from Aristotle's lost cruvaYWY'n xe/vcov in the Brutus. (Compare 
 Alcidamas 13)'. The fragment also closely agrees with the purposes and 
 methods of Corax as given in the Prolegomena in Hermogenem and con- 
 tains the same technical terms, Sirivnoig and jiQOOifxiov. For a full discussion 
 of the fragment and conjectures as to its possible source see Roberts' article. 
 
 "Proleg. in Hermog. (Rhet. Gr. IV, 11-12 Walz); Spengel, Art. Script. 
 p. 25. Doxopater (Rhet. Gr. VI, 13 Walz) attributes to Corax only three 
 divisions: prooemium, argument, and peroration. Cf. Rhet. Gr. Ill, 610, 
 where an anonymous author gives the same three. 
 
 " Not necessarily verbal preparation. The speakers need not have writ- 
 ten out and memorized a speech, but their remarks could not have been 
 arranged under such heads without a certain amount of at least mental 
 preparation. 
 
 " Auctor Proleg, in Hermog. (Rhet. Gr. IV, 13; 154 ff., Walz) ; Sopater, 
 (Rhet. Gr. V, 6, 65, Walz); Max. Plan. (Rhet. Gr. V, 215, Walz); for 
 another version see Sext. Empir. Adv. Math. II, 96. 
 
 The same story is told of the suit between Protagoras and his pupil 
 Euathlus by Aulus Gellius (V, 10), Marcell. (Rhet. Gr. IV, 179, Walz)', 
 Apuleius (Flor. IV, 18) ; compare Quintilian, III, i, 10. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC II 
 
 Others, although it is quite possible that he may have done so.^^ 
 Under the circumstances in which he wrote, he would hardly fail 
 to set forth his principles of rhetoric in written speeches.^^ 
 
 Whether Gorgias left a written art is doubtful.^* Diogenes 
 Laertius, quoting Satyrius, says that Gorgias left behind him a 
 treatise containing a complete system of the art of rhetoric.^^ His 
 
 "Corax appears to have taught rhetoric for a living because he failed 
 in political life: 0^x05 6 Koqo^ ohr (Westermann) tp^ovcp xQaxoujievos ttiv 
 Tf)5 'o'HT^OQixfig xTiQVTTei 8i8aoxaX,iav (Schol. Hermog. p. 26 Sp.)- Cf. Jebb, 
 p. CXXI. 
 
 According to Pausanias (VI, 17, 8), Tisias received pay for writing a 
 pleading for a certain woman of Syracuse. This is mentioned only by 
 Pausanias, and doubts have arisen as to the reliability of the statement. 
 Cf. Blass, I, 21 (2nd. ed.). 
 
 ^*Cf. Navarre, (Essai sur la Rhetorique Grecque) p. 13. There can 
 be little doubt that speeches were written by them to be memorized by their 
 clients in their suits at law. Navarre believes that it was the practice of his 
 profession which suggested to Corax the idea of writing a formal treatise. 
 
 "Cf. Blass, Att. Bereds. I, 53. Diogenes Laertius (VIII, 58) asserts 
 that Gorgias left behind him a xExvn and the author of the Prolegomena to 
 Hermogenes (Spengel, Art. Script, p. 82) agrees with him. Quintilian 
 (III, I, 8) includes him among the writers of "artes." A scholion on 
 Hermogenes (quoted by Spengel p. 78) assigns xexvai to the sophist. The 
 latter were, however, rather dissertations on particular questions than any 
 one complete theory (cf. Welcker, Kleine Schriften II, 456, 176). Dionysius 
 (De Comp. Verb. c. 12)1 mentions a discussion of Gorgias ategi xaiQoO with 
 the remark that he was the first who ever wrote on the subject. 
 
 Spengel (p. 81) would deny the existence of any rhetorical treatise by 
 Gorgias on the basis of passages from Aristotle (Soph. Elench. c. 33, 183b 15) 
 and Cicero {Brut. XII, 46,) but Schanz {Beitrage zur Vorsokratischen Phil- 
 osophie p. 131) declares that neither of these passages is decisive. Plato 
 {Phaedrus 261 B, 267A)l expressly alludes to treatises on rhetoric by Gorgias. 
 Cf. also Dionysius {De Comp. Verb. c. 12, p. 68R)L Blass's conclusion, how- 
 ever, is the probable one. 
 
 Dr. Siiss (Ethos, pp. 17-49) regards Gorgias as the source of all that is 
 good in the rhetorical ideas of Plato, Alcidamas, and Isocrates. Plato and 
 Isocrates may have owed far more to Gorgias than we can see at present, 
 but Dr. Siiss's method of reasoning does not convince us of this with 
 certainty. 
 
 ^Diog. Laert. VIII, 58; Quint. Ill, 8; Eud. Aug. CCLI; Diod. Sic. 
 XII, 53; Rhet. Gr. V, 543, Wlalz; Dionys. Hal. De Comp. Verb. p. 7Z (Goel- 
 ler) ; Auctor Proleg. in Hermog. (Spengel p. 82) : FogYiag 6 Aeovxlvog 
 xaxd TiQEij^ziav eXi^ojv 'AOrivxici xag 0UYYOa<P£iooi5 ^oiq' avxcov [Corace et 
 Tisia] ExoM-iae xai auxog exegav :n:Q0O£^x£ * xal piex' avxov 'Avxiq){ov 6 
 
12 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 method of teaching, Uke that of Protagoras/^ rested on the com- 
 mission to memory of prepared passages : "he wrote panegyrics and 
 invectives on every subject, for he thought it was the province of 
 an orator to be able to exaggerate or extenuate as occasion might 
 require." ^^ That he advocated extemporary speech is, of course, 
 clear. The object of his teaching was to enable orators to speak 
 plausibly on any subject at a moment's notice.^^ But this power was 
 to come as a result of his teaching, and the method he followed. The 
 commission to memory of general topics and devotion to style would 
 seem to argue that the so-called extemporary speeches were in part, 
 at least, carefully prepared and even memorized. The preparation 
 of the Sophists was none the less preparation because it was for all 
 occasions rather than for any particular one.^^ 
 
 'PajAvovaiog 6 8i8daxaA.05 Xiyeiai texvt]v vgdaiJai* ^leta xavxa 'Iaoy,Q6.xr\q 6 
 'QrJTCDQ. Cf. Aristotle, Soph. Elench. c, 34; Plato, Phaedrus 261B-C. The 
 work of Gorgias's pupil, Polus, doubtless contained his doctrines. Syrianus 
 (Rhet. Gr. IV, 44, Walz) calls this work of Polus a te/vt). Suidas (s. v. 
 Polus) calls it jieqI Xeierag. In Plato's Gorgias (462B-C) we are told that 
 Socrates had read this work. On this passage the scholiast on the Gorgias 
 remarks: ex tovtou 8fj^ov, oxi ov% 6 e^ oiqx^S "^o^ lidikov Xoyoc, avtooxEfiiog 
 ■nv oXka aTJYYQttM'M'Oi. This statement seems very doubtful. On p. 448C of 
 the Gorgias the scholiast says: (paai M'^ £| avxoaxeSiov xov ITcbXov xavxa 
 eIjieiv, KQOG\3yyQay^6.\JiZ\o\ Se, probably meaning that Plato in this passage 
 has preserved a fragment of Polus's xe/vti, possibly its opening sentence. 
 He is said to have borrowed some technical terms from Licymnius (cf. 
 scholiast on Phaedrus 267C)', whose art of rhetoric is mentioned by Aris- 
 totle, {Rhiet. Ill, 13, 5). 
 
 "Cf. Quintilian III, i, 10; Spengel, pp. 42-45. 
 
 "Cicero, Brutus XII, 46-47; Arist. Soph. Elench. c. 34, 183b. Cf. also 
 Quintilian III, i, 12. The scholia or commentary of Olympiodorus on the 
 Gorgias, printed in the Supplement to Jahn's Jahrhucher Bd. XIV, is a copy 
 of what professes to be contemporary notes of the oral lectures of the 
 rhetorician. 
 
 The picture drawn by Plato of the method of teaching of Gorgias must 
 not be taken as decisive evidence. We are told by Athenaeus (XI, 113), and 
 the story is not improbable, that when the dialogue was read to Gorgias he 
 assured his friends that he never said or heard any of the things contained 
 in it. 
 
 ^^ Compare Cicero's definition of an orator: De Orat. I. 6, 21; 13, 59. 
 
 "On the services rendered by the Sophists to eloquence, see Blass, 
 Att. Bereds. II, 125; Navarre, pp. 66-71. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC 1 3 
 
 According to Aristotle,^^ the next after Tisias to take up rhet- 
 oric was Thrasymachus of Chalcedon.-^ He is said to have been 
 the author of an **art of rhetoric",^^ and also to have written 
 d(pop(JLat 'pyjTOpixat,^^ which may not have differed from his large 
 treatise, a collection of exordia,-* discussions on climaxes, ^^ and 
 on the means of arousing pity.^^ 
 
 We are told that Antiphon was the first to publish an art of 
 rhetoric: xpwxo? 8e v.<x\ 'pYjioptx-a? xe/vac; e?YjV£7y,£ ysv6[j.£V0? ^YX'" 
 voui;.^^ Pollux declares that the treatise current under Antiphon's 
 
 "" Soph. ElencK c. 34. 
 
 "On Thrasymachus see Blass I, 240 ff., Jebb, {An. Or.) II, 423 Cope 
 (Journ. Class, and Sac. Phil.) 111,268-281; C. F. Hermann, de Thrasymacho 
 Chalcedonio (Gottingen, 1848); Suidas s. v. Thrasymachus; Dionys. Hal. 
 de Isaeo p. 627; de Dem. c. 3; c?^ Lys. c. 6. 
 
 ^Suidas s. n. ; cf. Plato, Phaedr. 267C-D, 271 A; and the couplet in 
 Athenaeus (X, 454) quoted by Blass (I. 243), where the name is given by 
 the first letters of the words in the first line; also the scholiast on Juvenal 
 VII, 203. 
 
 ^Suidas; Navarre, p. 155, believes these are to be identified with the 
 rhetoric mentioned by the Scholiast on Aristophanes' Birds, 850. According 
 to Welcker {Kl. Schr. II, 457), the dcpogjAal 'qtitoqixqi are identical with the 
 
 VJlEQpdXPlOVXEg, 
 
 ^^ Athenaeus X, p. 416A. 
 
 * vjiEePd^Xovxeg (^6701), Plutarch, Symp. I, 2, 3, (616D). 
 
 ^H'A,eoi. Aristotle, Rhet. Ill, i. These were no doubt what Cicero calls 
 "miserationes" : Top. XXII, 86; Part. Or. XVII, 56; Brut. XXI, 82; De Or. 
 Ill, 30, 118; Orat. XXXVII, 130; De Inv. I, 98; 106 ff.; Quint. VI, i, 21-45. 
 Cf. Volkmann, sec. 28, p. 222. From Plato, Phaedrus, 267C, Blass {Att. 
 Bereds. I, 248 ff., 2nd. ed.)' would suggest that Thrasymachus wrote a treatise 
 on arousing anger and one on invective. All these may have been separate 
 treatises or chapters in his great work (Navarre, p. 156). They were prob- 
 ably collections of examples rather than theoretical treatments of the sub- 
 jects. Spengel {Art Script, p. 96)' believes that Thrasymachus is described 
 in the following passage of Aristotle; {Rhet. I, i, p. 1354A) : viiv m-ev ovv 
 
 ol xd? xExvag xcov Xoycov ovvxi^^evxes bXiyov jiEJiOQixaaiv avxfig inogiov 
 
 SiaPoXr) vdo xal E^Eog xal OQvn xai xd xoiaCxa JtddY), xfj? y^vyir\c, ou tczqi x6u 
 Jiodypiaxog eaxiv d?iXd Jigog xov 8ixaaxr|v. Cf. also Plato, Rep. I, 336B. 
 Dionysius {de Dem. c. 3) praises his SiinYiYOQixovg Xovoug, probably the same 
 called by Suidas (TUM.povX,£Vxixoi. These Navarre (p. 417) says were not real 
 speeches but only compositions to serve as models. This would account 
 for the statement of Dionysius that Thrasymachus left no judicial or de- 
 liberative speeches {de Isaeo c. 20). 
 
 " Pseudo-Plut. Vit. X Oratt. 832E; also Quintilian III, i, 11: "artem et 
 ipse (Antiphon) composuit." Diod. Sic. ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. I, 365: cpaol 
 
14 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 name is spurious,^^ but he seems to be alone among ancient critics 
 in that opinion.^^ There seems to have been a difference of opinion 
 in ancient times as to whether Antiphon "discovered" rhetoric or 
 only advanced an art already existing.^^ Hermogenes describes 
 him as the inventor and founder of the political style.^^ He is, 
 at any rate, the first Greek whose works are extant who combines 
 the theory with the practice of rhetoric. 
 
 It is possible to form some idea of Antiphon's treatise.^^ In his 
 extant speeches we find a combination of natural eloquence with the 
 rhetorical influence of Gk>rgias,^^ of whom one account makfes 
 
 88 xal Tovg xaxa fiiaTQipTjv "Koyovi; %aX xa 'qtitoqixoi ISicoM-axa evqeiv xal fxiadov 
 
 (TuvnYOQ^aai jtQcbxov Sixavixov Xoyov elq exSoaiv yQa'\^a\xz\o\ 
 
 X. X. "k. Photius Cod. CCLIX : jtQooxov fie auxov xal 'QT]X0Qixa5 cruvxd|aordai 
 (paoi xexvag dy^ivow VEvovoxa. 7EV05 'AvxKpoovxog, 4; iir\b' f\\ jtco xis xoxe 
 M-TixE xexvcov. 'qt)xoqix6)v ovyyQa(pzv(; 
 
 "Pollux VI, 143: ev xaig 'QrjxOQixaig xexvan; ['Avxiqjwv 
 
 eljtEv] fioxovai b'ov y\r\Giai 
 
 '^ Cf. Dionys. Hal. First Letter to Ammaeus c. 2 : "I would not have them 
 think that all the precepts of rhetoric are included in the Peripatetic phil- 
 osophy, and that nothing important has been devised by such men as Theo- 
 dorus, and Thrasymachus, and Antiphon; nor by Isocrates and Anaximenes 
 and Alcidamas, nor by their contemporaries who composed rhetorical hand- 
 books, and engaged in oratorical contests, such men as Theodectes, and 
 Philiscus, and Isaeus, and Cephisodorus, together with Hyperides, and 
 Lycurgus, and ^schines." (Roberts). 
 
 "° Philostratus, Fit. Soph. I, 15, 2; Eud. Aug. CVIII, and Suidas s. v. 
 Antiphon. 
 
 ®^ Hermogenes, De Form. II, (Rhet. Gr. II, 415, Sp.) : rtptoxog Xiytxai 
 EVQTjxTig xal apxriYo? yzxia^ax. xov xvjtou xoO jroXixixoO. 
 
 •^It would seem that the work was of rather a technical nature. Galen 
 Praef. ad Glossas Hippocrat. 19, p. 66 (Kuhn) : oxi bz xal avxog ^xaaxog xcov 
 tteqI "koyovc, exovxcov fi|iou jtoieiv ovopiaxa xaivd, bvikol \ik,v xal 'Avxicprov 
 Ixavcog, og yz ojtcog avxa jtoitixeov Ex8i8dax£i. Also Ammonius tc. 8iaq). "kzE,. 
 p. 127 (Valcken) : otijxeiov xal xex|iit|qiov 8ia(p£QEi. 'Avxiqpcov ev xfj XExvn xd 
 M-Ev JtagoixoM-Eva ariM-Eioig Kiaxovof^ai, xd 8e M-e^^ovxa xexjatiqiois. Cf. also 
 p. 173. Other passages referring to the xexvt] also seems to deal with mean- 
 ings of words: Antiattic. B. A. p. 78, 6: — daxogyla, (piXoaxopYia, oxoovri* 
 *Avxi(pcbv EV 8euxeq(p k. xy\c, ^Qy\x. xexvt)?. p. 79, i : ajtagaaxEuaoxov, 
 'Avxiqpcov XQix(p 'QTixoQixfig xexvTig. p. no, 33: oXiyocpdiav. 'Avxitpcov xgixcp. 
 Pollux III, 63 : JioA,uq)iXiav 8e xal 6Xi7oq)iA.iav 'AvxKpwv. 
 
 "Cf. Philostratus, Vit. Soph. I, 15, 6:— (X-ovoig) ev 0I5 f| 8£iv6xTig xal 
 Jidv x6 Ix XEXVT15 EYxeixai Cf. Blass, I, 130-134. Compare 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC 1 5 
 
 Antiphon a pupil,^* and it is of course natural to suppose that in 
 his speeches he set forth the principles advocated in his xexvY). In 
 the passages referring to this work there is no hint that he preached 
 the doctrine of extemporary speech, although he may of course, 
 have done so in parts of the treatise which have not been preserved. 
 All the evidence we have supports the opposite belief, that he en- 
 joined upon the orator care and practice: 'Av-ct^wv ts ev xoTiq 
 'pY]Topt>tat? Ts^vat? TO [JL£V Ta xapovia s^y] x-at uxapxovTa /.al xapa- 
 xstpieva acffGoveffOat xaxa (puciv elvai iq^jliv • Tcojpa <p6atv 8s to cpuXaTTStv 
 auTWv socTuoScov Ysvo(JL5v<ov evapYY) tov tutcov.^^ Two other things seem 
 to indicate that his ts^viq would advise preparation of speeches, in 
 part, at least. These are his tetralogies,^^ and his collection of 
 prooemia and epilogues. The first were probably [LzXixai, school 
 exercises or examples, in his rhetorical treatise. In them only the 
 essential framework for discussion is supplied. They are merely 
 skeletons to be filled out as occasion might require. It cannot he 
 proved that the tetralogies were not issued separately. But since 
 they are exactly the sort of thing which would show the ability of 
 Antiphon to argue well on both sides of a case,^^ a power which 
 as a rhetorician he doubtless claimed to possess,^^ it seems possible, 
 at least, to assign them to the texvy].^® 
 
 Dionysius' remarks on Gorgias (De Imitat. II, 8) ; see, however, Frei. 
 Quaest. Protag. 530 ff. Mahaffy {Hist. Class. Gr. Lit.) p. 82 says: "His style 
 shows, as might be expected, evident traces of the study of Tisias and 
 Gorgias, the reasonable presumptions (elxoxa) of Tisias, and the antitheses 
 of Gorgias being prominent in his speeches." 
 
 "^Suidas s. v. Antiphon. 
 
 * Longinus, Rhet. Gr, I, 318, 9 Sp. 
 
 "^The authenticity of the Tetralogies has been questioned. The argu- 
 ments given for them in the following works seem conclusive: Blass, Att. 
 Bereds. II (2nd. ed.), pp. 151-154; Croiset, Hist, de la Lit. Grecque, IV, 73; 
 Cucuel, Essai sur la langue et le style de I'orateur Antiphon p. I27ff. 
 
 "^ Cf . Auctor Hypothes. in Antiphont. Tetralog : Jiavtaxou jxev ttiv olxeiav 
 *AvTiq)c6v dvfieixvutai fivvajxiv, \i6.Xioxa 8' ev xavtaig xaig xexQaXoyiaK; ev alg 
 avxbt; kq6<; avxbv dYCOVitetai. Avco yag vkeq xov xaxriYOQOu ^6701)5 eiJtwv, 
 fiuo) xal vjiZQ xov qpevYOVxog e\ieXBXT(\aev, OM-oicog ev a\iq)OxiQOii; EuSoxifxcov. Cf. 
 Arist. Rhet. I, i, 12. 
 
 '* Compare the story of Carneades' ability to so argue, and Cato's horror 
 at the proceeding: Quintilian, XII, i, 35; at greater length in Lactantius, 
 Div. Inst. V, 13, 16; Plut. Cato; Pliny, N. H. VII, 31. 
 
 '^Sauppe (Fragm. Oratt. Gr. p. 145) and Spengel (Art. Script, p. 117) 
 believe the Tetralogies to be examples taken from the xix"^- 
 
l6 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 The collection of Proems and Epilogues (xpootVia >tat stciXoyoi) 
 ascribed to Antiphon may also have had a place in the "art." But 
 since we know of collections of such parts of speeches by orators who 
 never wrote a formal treatise, it is more natural to suppose that they 
 were issued separately. Such collections furnished the orator with 
 introductions and conclusions of speeches. They were of so general 
 a nature as to be applicable to almost any speech, and their use im- 
 plies verbal preparation and memorization at least for part of the 
 oration. Blass *° suggests that Antiphon may have used this col- 
 lection of his for the opening and closing passages of the speech 
 "On the Murder of H erodes," and the opening of that "On the 
 Choreutes." Examples of the 7upootVt<z have been preserved by 
 Suidas.*^ The passage in Cicero's Brutus (c. XII) where he quotes 
 
 a statement from Aristotle, ''huic (Gorgiae) Anti- 
 
 phontem Rhamnusium similia quaedam habuisse conscripta," prob- 
 ably refers to this collection.*^ 
 
 The period of Lysias' activity at Athens was not unlike the crisis 
 at Syracuse which produced the earliest masters of rhetoric, Corax 
 and Tisias. Except the doubtful story in Aristotle, which Cicero 
 repeats,*^ we have no evidence that he taught rhetoric, yet he, too, 
 is said to have produced a rhetorical treatise,** and a collection of 
 commonplaces.*^ 
 
 On the Tetralogies as "oeuvres d'ecole" see Cucuel, p. 131. Cf. also 
 Siiss, Ethos pp. 3-10. 
 
 *^ An. Bereds, p. 103. Cf. de caede Herod. 14, 87 and de Chor. 2, 3. 
 
 "s. V. afxa, aladeadai, m-oxOtiqo?; also Pollux VI, 143; Photius s. v. 
 fiox^TiQog. B. A. p. 359, 6. 
 
 *^Cf. Blass, p. 103; Mahaffy, II, p. 94, believes that the reference is to 
 the extant tetralogies. Cicero, in the above-mentioned passage, discusses 
 "communes loci"; under this heading the proems and epilogues certainly 
 would be included. The term does not seem nearly so applicable to the 
 tetralogies. 
 
 ** Cicero, Brutus XII, 48. Compare Dionys. Hal. de Isaeo p. 365 ; Spengel, 
 Art. Script, p. 98n. ; Westermann, sec. 46, 6. 
 
 ** Pseudo-Plut. 836B; Suidas, s. v. Lysias; Eud. Aug. 619, p. 463 (Flach). 
 
 *" jittQaaxEuai. Cf. Siiss, pp. lo-ii; Blass, I, (2nd. ed.)' 382 n. i. Navarre 
 p. 158, believes that these were distinct from his treatise on rhetoric. On 
 these productions see Marcellinus in Hermog. (Rhet. Gr. IV, 352 Walz) : 
 they were xojioi 78YV|Livaan£voi. Navarre, p. 166, says: "I'ouvrage de Lysias 
 n'etait pas un traite theoriquc mais un recueil de modeles." 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC \J 
 
 Even if Lysias did not write an art of rhetoric himself, he at 
 least served as a text for one. Plato's Phaedrus has very aptly been 
 described as "a dramatized treatise on rhetoric." ^^ Indeed, if one 
 can imagine a great genius dramatizing Aristotle's Rhetoric, the 
 result would probably be an approach to the second half of the 
 Phaedrus. The popular treatises on the art of rhetoric excited 
 Plato's ridicule and both in the Phaedrus and in the Gorgias he 
 holds them and their professors up to scorn.*^ But in the Phaedrus, 
 as Thompson observes,*^ Plato furnishes us with the scheme of a 
 new and philosophical rhetoric, founded partly on psychology and 
 partly on dialectic, and which he exemplifies in the second erotic 
 discourse.*^ At the beginning of the Phaedrus,^^ a speech at- 
 tributed to Lysias is read by Phaedrus,^^ and criticized by 
 
 Aristotle mentions two other writers of treatises on rhetoric who de- 
 veloped Toirtoi. Of these the first is Calippus (Rhet. II, 23, 13, 1399a; also 
 1400a), and the other Pamphius (Rhet. II, 23, 20, 1400a; see 1373a). The 
 latter is praised by Cicero (de Orat. Ill, 21, 81) ; see also Quintilian III, 
 6, 34. 
 
 *^ Thompson, Phaedrus, p. XIV (Introd.). 
 
 *'' In the Gorgias he characterizes rhetoric as a mere trick acquired by 
 practice. Cf. Gorgias, 462C; Phaedr. 260E. 
 
 *' Introd. p. XIV. 
 
 *® Phaedr. 244-257C. Cf . Thompson, Introd. p. XV. 
 
 '*227C. 
 
 " Whether or not the Eroticus ascribed to Lysias {Phaedr. 230E-236B) 
 is genuine, is a much debated question. Lysias is mentioned as the author 
 of erotic discourses by the Pseudo-Plutarch (836B), Suidas (s. v. Lysias), 
 Eudocia Augusta (619 p. 463 Flach), Photius (Cod. CCLXII), Harpocration 
 (s. V. 'AjiayoQevEiv) and Maximus of Tyre (XVIII, 5), and so far as we 
 know he was the first to commit to writing discourses of this description 
 (Thompson, Phaedrus, p. 151 n. 3). The ancient critics, Hermeias, Dionysius 
 of Halicarnassus (Ep. ad Pompeium, de Platone, 775R), Diogenes Laertius 
 (III, c. 19) all believe it genuine. Cornelius Pronto wrote an Eroticus in 
 imitation of that ascribed to Lysias, and neither he nor his pupil, Marcus 
 Aurelius, for whom the discourse was written, seem to have doubted that the 
 speech in the Phaedrus was the work of Lysias. 
 
 Among modern critics, Jebb (Att. Or. I, p. 305 if.) believes the speech a 
 genuine production of Lysias. He bases his belief first, on the elaborate 
 dramatic introduction for a verbally exact recital of the speech, which 
 Phaedrus has spent the day memorizing (Phaedr. 228A-C), a preface which 
 he says would be inartistic if the speech were merely Plato's imitation of 
 Lysias, but which is perfectly fitting as an apology for incorporating into 
 
l8 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 Socrates.^^ Phaedrus thereupon demands that Socrates make a bet- 
 ter speech on the same theme. Socrates, after ironically depreciating 
 his own ability as a speaker, and the folly of his attempting to speak 
 "extempore"^^ on the subject on which Lysias, the most able writer 
 of the day, has spent a long time,^* makes a speech ^^ which he imme- 
 diately recants on the ground of impiety, in the second erotic dis- 
 course, which exemplifies the theory of rhetoric contained in the 
 rest of the dialogue. 
 
 Plato's definition of rhetoricj Xoyou 5uva[JLt? TUYxavst (j^uxaywYta ^® 
 
 his own production so large a portion of the work of another, (Phaedrus 
 228; also 243C: 6 8x Tov (3i|3A,iou 'QTidei?), and second, on the closeness of 
 Socrates's criticism, which would not have much meaning or force "if the 
 satirist were merely analyzing his own handiwork". Others who hold this 
 opinion are Spengel (Art Script, p. 122 ff.), Westermann, Sauppe, Vater, 
 Susemihl, and Egger (Observations sur I'Eroticos insere sous le nom de 
 Lysias dans le Phedre de Platon, Annuaire des fitudes grecques 1871)'; Blass, 
 (Att. Bereds. I, 416-23); Thompson (Phaedrus, App. I, and Gorgias, Introd. 
 iii), Grote, (Plato, III, p. 47). The opposite view is taken by Stallbaum, 
 Jowett (Introd. to the Phaedrus), Perrot (L' eloquence Pol. et Jud. a 
 Athenes, p. 246), Miiller (Donaldson) II, p. 140, C. F. Hermann, Mahaffy 
 (Gr, Lit. II, pp. 141-142), and Croiset, IV, 436. Cf. also Siiss, pp. 11-12, ^nd 
 p. 71 ff. 
 
 °^ 230E-234D. 
 
 '"'236D. 
 
 " 227D-228. 
 
 "2376-241 D. 
 
 •^In reality, Plato's definition has an element which that of the rheto- 
 ricians does not possess. Dr. Siiss (Ethos, p. 79, and 99) transfers the 
 Platonic definition to Gorgias. He cites as proof a passage in Gorgias* 
 Helen (sec. 10), and two passages of Isocrates (II, 49, and IX, 10). The 
 passage of Gorgias does not contain the word, and Isocrates uses it in a very 
 different sense from Plato. In the first passage, Isocrates is speaking as a 
 moralist. With the examples of Homer and the tragedians before us, he 
 says, there is proof given to those who desire to entertain (liiuxaYtoyeiv) 
 their audience that they must refrain from admonitions and advice, and 
 must say only such things as they see that crowds most delight in. In the 
 second passage, also, Isocrates is not speaking as a rhetorician. He is merely 
 stating that poetry possesses means of entertaining the hearers which prose 
 lacks. 
 
 Plato goes back to the etymology of the word, "a guidance of the soul," 
 and uses it to emphasize the psychological element in rhetoric. 
 
 See Professor Shorey's review of Doctor Siiss's book (Classical Philolo- 
 gy^ Vol. VI, No. I, p. iio)l 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC I9 
 
 ouaa,^^ seemingly does not differ much from that held by the rhet- 
 oricians,^^ and elsewhere ^^ he shows that he appreciates its worth. 
 But it is not the purpose of the present discussion to enter into 
 Plato's ideas about rhetoric in general. It will deal only with his 
 remarks upon the relative value of the written and the spoken 
 speech. In the Phaedrus, the first valuable extant treatise on rhet- 
 oric, there is no discussion of extempore speech. The question dis- 
 cussed is the greater value of oral as compared with written dis- 
 course, or rather, of oral as compared with written instruction.^^ 
 These remarks are introduced by the myth of Theuth, the scene of 
 which is laid in Egypt, the supposed source of written discourse.^^ 
 The object of the fable is to show that the art of writing causes 
 men to neglect the cultivation of the memory, and gives them the 
 appearance and not the reaHty of wisdom.®^ Written words, goes 
 on Socrates, are of no further value than to remind one who al- 
 ready knows the subject of which the writings treat.^^ Writing is 
 
 ""Phaedrus, 271 D. 
 
 ^'qtitoqixt] Jtei^oug 811^101)070? (Plato, Gorgias, 453 A, 452E, 454E, 4S6A. 
 This definition originated with Corax and Tisias (Proleg. in Hermog. Rhet. 
 Gr. Ill, 611, and IV, 19 Walz) ; Ammianus Marcellinus XXX, 4, 3: "Tisias 
 suasionis opificem esse memorat assentiente Leontino Gorgia"; of. Aristotle, 
 Rhet. I, 2, I. Doxopater {Rhet. Gr. II, 104 Walz) attributes this to Gorgias 
 himself, but is probably quoting Plato; cf. also Rhet. Gr. VII, 33 (Walz). 
 Quintilian, II, 15, 3 ff., attributes the definition to Isocrates and finds fault 
 with it as too wide; compare II, 15, 10. See also Isocrates apud Sextus 
 Empiricus Adv. Math. II, 62, p. 301F; Rhet. Gr. Ill, 451 Sp. Alcidamas is 
 said to have defined rhetoric in his xexvr] as Suvapiig xoC ovxog Jti^dvou, 
 (Proleg. in Hermog. Rhet. Gr. VII, 8 Walz) Aristotle (I, i, 14; II, i, 7) 
 has the following definition: "Rhetoric is the faculty of observing or dis- 
 covering in every case the possible means of persuasion"; cf. I, 2, i. This 
 is objected to by Quintilian, II, 15, 13. Cf. Cicero, de Or. I, 31, 138; III, 
 14, 53; de Invent. I, 5, 6; Tacitus, Dial. c. 30, 27. 
 
 ^Polit. 304A ff. 
 
 *°The oral exercises which formed part of the teaching of the Academy 
 were ridiculed and disparaged by the comic poets. Cf. Epicrates ap. Athenaeus 
 II. 59C (Meineke III, p. 370), and the amusing picture of the orator in the 
 Naufragus of Ephippus (Meineke III, p. 332), quoted by Athenaeus (XI, 
 p. S09C) . 
 
 '^274C-275B. Cf. Quintilian XI, 2, 9. Pithoeus observes that there was 
 a similar opinion among the Druids (Caesar, B. G. VI, 14.) 
 
 ^275. 
 
 •"275C-D. 
 
20 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 like painting, its productions seem alive, but they can neither answer 
 questions nor defend themselves when attacked. Writing is the 
 same for all, and cannot adapt itself to different persons,^* as the 
 true orator ought to do.^^ The written word is only an eidolon of 
 the spoken discourse, and is only its voOo*; aSeXcpo?.^® Therefore 
 the philosopher who has true ideas of the just, the beautiful, and 
 the good, will not, in his serious moods, "write them in water" by 
 committing them to paper; he will not sow them in ink through 
 a reed, in the form of discourses which are both unable to defend 
 themselves and to convey an exact impression of the truth.^'' This 
 he will do only for the sake of recreation, and as a substitute for 
 the amusements of the many.^® 
 
 Rhetoric, then, is inferior to dialectic, which, when it works in 
 minds suited to it, is the surest way to propagate truths and preserve 
 them from extinction.^^ 
 
 As to speeches, it has been shown, says Socrates, that, whether 
 dialectic or persuasive, they cannot be constructed technically, that 
 is, scientifically, even so far as their nature admits of such treatment, 
 unless the speaker or writer has been thoroughly trained in dialectic, 
 and can define any term he uses and divide it into parts until such 
 division is no longer possible, and unless he can adjust his discourse 
 to the different types of mind/^ 
 
 Speech writing in itself is not disgraceful. The disgrace lies in 
 writing speeches ill.^^ The speech will be written well if the writer 
 esteems his art at its true value ; if he knows that the best of written 
 speeches are for the purpose of reminding those who already know, 
 and that only in discourses spoken and written for the sake of in- 
 
 •*27sD-E. Cf. Alcidamas, 27-28. 
 
 "273E. The treatment of rhetoric in the Laws modifies this. Cf. Grote, 
 Plato, IV, p. 324 (1888). 
 
 *" 276A. Cf . Alcidamas 27. 
 
 '"276C, 
 
 •*276D. Cf. Alcidamas 2, and 35. 
 
 ••276E-277A. 
 
 "'277B-C. Modem writers on the art of rhetoric are dissemblers, accord- 
 ing to Socrates, and conceal the very admirable knowledge they have of 
 the soul; but they will not write artistically until they speak and write ac- 
 cording to the method based on the knowledge of souls (271). 
 
 "258D. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC 21 
 
 struction is there found what is clear and perfect and worthy of 
 study/2 
 
 If, then, those who write have composed their works knowing 
 the truth, and if they are able to defend what they have written, and 
 show by speaking that their own written productions are inferior 
 to their oral efforts, they must be given the higher name of "philos- 
 opher." They must not be called poets, writers of speeches, or 
 compilers of laws. Such names apply only to those who have 
 nothing more valuable to offer than what they have written."^^ In 
 this last class Plato places Lysias. 
 
 Of course, Plato as a teacher would naturally extol dialectic. 
 And it is true that he tries to make his own written compositions 
 approach as nearly as possible to the method he believed correct. 
 The dialogue form imitated most closely the method of oral teach- 
 ing.*^* In the person of Socrates, Plato's ideas and beliefs are able to 
 defend themselves. They are not like the Athenian Orators, who, 
 we are told, are like books, and able neither to ask nor to answer 
 questions. ^^ But it seems that to such orators as Lysias Plato is 
 unfair. ^^ Lysias accomplished a great deal of necessary work which 
 Plato would not have done. The orator described in Plato's 
 Phaedrus, a perfectly wise man who knows all truth,^^ could not 
 possibly exist, and even if he could, Plato himself tells us that the 
 
 '' 277B-278B. 
 
 ™ 27SB-E. 
 
 ^*Cf. Demetrius of Phalerum (de Elocut. 224)', where he says that the 
 dialogue reproduces an extemporary utterance. 
 
 '^Protagoras 329A. 
 
 '®0n Plato and Lysias see Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ep. ad Cn. Pom- 
 peium, de Platone. According to Dionysius, Plato had a marked feeling 
 of rivalry against Lysias. 
 
 "Grote, Plato, Vol. Ill, 42. No man could be said to know, according to 
 Plato, who could not conduct and sustain a Socratic cross-examination. 
 
 Grote (Plato, III, 44) says: "Plato himself seems to regard this ideal 
 grandeur of the orator as unattainable, and only worth aiming at for 
 the purpose of pleasing the gods, not with any view to practical benefit." 
 
 Later (III, 48) Grote says: "Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ars 
 Rhet. p. 381)' notices the severe exigencies which Plato here imposes 
 on the Rhetor, remarking that scarcely any rhetorical discourse could 
 be produced which came up to them. The defect did not belong to 
 Lysias alone, but to all other rhetors also. Demosthenes alone (in the 
 opinion of Dionysius) contrived to avoid the fault because he imitated Plato." 
 
22 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 people would never listen to him.'^® His only chance of being heard 
 would be inside the Academy with Socrates, Plato, and Theatetus 
 for his hearers. Plato's orator is a splendid ideal orator, not a human 
 being, with a human being's limitations. Such men as Lysias and 
 Antiphon were practical orators, whose speeches were to serve a 
 practical purpose, and aid ordinary men, not intellectual genuises.^^ 
 
 In depreciating the written speech Plato is not quite fair, and 
 it is very natural that he should be unfair. Immeasurably the 
 superior intellectually of any man of his time, it would be as un- 
 reasonable to expect him to come down to the level of an orator 
 who would write a clever speech for a given sum, as it would to 
 expect Lysias to rise to the ideal orator of the Phaedrus. 
 
 To take Plato's view of the written speech as typical of the time, 
 is of course impossible, but that a prejudice did exist against written 
 speeches we know from Isocrates.^^ 
 
 Whether Isocrates ever published a formal handbook of the 
 theory of rhetoric is doubtful. He himself never makes mention of 
 it, as he probably would have done had he written one.®^ 
 
 '" Gorg. 513B ; Rep. 495-496. 
 
 ™ Plato is thinking of all types of literature ; the speech-writer, of rhetoric 
 only, 
 
 ^Isocr. V, 29. Cf. John Quincy Adams, "Declamation, Composition and 
 Delivery" (Lectures on Oratory) ; also Mathews, Oratory and Orators, p. 43 ff. 
 
 "Aristotle says nothing of such a treatise. The Pseudo-Plutarch (838F) 
 says: "Some say that he wrote treatises on rhetoric; others hold that he 
 employed no formal method, but only practice." The authenticity of the 
 treatise which circulated under his name was doubted by Quintilian (II, 15, 
 4) : — "si tamen re vera ars quae circumfertur eius est." cf. also III, i, 
 14. Photius likewise doubt's (Cod. 260) : Y^YacpEvai be avxbv texvtiv 
 'cTixoQixTiv XiyovGiv, riv xai fiiixEis lapiev xou avbgoq cjtiYQaqJOM-evTiv Ttp ovoiiaxi. 
 ol bk auvaanriOEi pici^^ov r\ xExvti XQr\Gao^ai xaxa xovg XoYovg xov avSga 
 cpaoi. Plutarch (Dem. c. 5, 5) speaks of TaoxQoixouc; xExvag. Cf. also 
 Cicero, de Invent. II, 2, 7. In the Brutus (XII, 48), Cicero seems to imply a 
 
 formal treatise: — "Isocrates se ad artes componendas". The 
 
 reference in Ad Atticum II, i, i : "mens autem liber totum Isocrati 
 M-VQodrixiov", need not necessarily be an allusion to such a work. See also 
 the Scholiast in Apthon. Progymn. Cod. VIII, 127B; Scholiast in Hermog. 
 (Spengel, Art. Script, p. 160); Sopater in Hermog. (Sp. p. 161); Apsines 
 p. 713 (Sp. 163)'; Tzetzes Chil. XI, 654; IX, 935; 941; Zozimus p. 258, 137. 
 There is a learned discussion of Manntius on the subject in a note on Cicero, 
 Epist. ad Div. I, 9. He conjectures that the treatises may have been the work 
 of Isocrates of Apollonia. Another explanation is to understand that xsxvai 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC 23 
 
 Blass ^^ shows that there is not sufficient evidence to ascribe the al- 
 leged work to Isocrates himself *'who seems only to have devised 
 special rhetorical artifices called Te/vai.^^ Notes on these were col- 
 lected by his pupils into a book which passed under his name. ®* In 
 the extant fragments of this work or collection, there is no reference 
 to extemporary speech, nor can I find in his speeches any evidence 
 that he advocated it.^^ On the contrary, all indications point to his 
 having held the opposite view. We are told that in his school tech- 
 nical rules came first. Then the scholar must write a composition in 
 
 or artes mean the actual speeches of Isocrates (cf. Rauchenstein, Pane- 
 gyricus and Areopagiticus, ed. V, Introd. p. xxiv). According to the Pseudo- 
 Plutarch (837A), Isocrates made use of certain institutions of rhetoric com- 
 posed by Theramenes, which have since borne Bolon's name. 
 
 Cf. M. Sheehan, De fide artis rhetoricae Isocrati tributae. (Bonn, 1901) ; 
 M. Pantazes, f| 'laoxgaxoug 'griToeixTi texvti oljio twv X6yo)v auxov niOQi^OM-EVY]. 
 (Athens, 1906). 
 
 "pp. 96-98. 
 
 ^Mahaffy, Hist. Class. Gr. Lit. II, p. 231. Cf. the use of xE/vai in 
 ^schines, I, 117. 
 
 "The fragments of this treatise may be found in the Benseler-Blass 
 edition of Isocrates, II, 275. 
 
 ^The word avxoaxsSia^Ei'v, as far as I am aware, occurs but twice in 
 Isocrates; once in IX, 41, where it means to act on the spur of the moment, 
 and once in XIII, 9, in a taunt against certain sophists who, while they 
 promise to make their followers able speakers, write worse speeches than 
 certain of the laymen extemporize. Compare XIII, 16 ff. avxooxeSiateiv, 
 Latin, extempore facere, or dicere, is classed as specifically Attic by the 
 ancient grammarians. Eustathius {ad. Horn. II. XVI, 1081) discusses at 
 length axsfiiog in Homer, and its later derivatives. 
 
 The word often occurs in senses allied to the idea of practice without 
 suitable preparation (cf. Bud. p. 886) : yEsch. Ill, 158; Xen. Mem. Ill, 5, 21; 
 Hell. V, 2, 32. 
 
 A few examples of the verb in the sense of extemporize, and of the 
 words allied to it follow. An exhaustive list is of course impossible here. 
 In most cases passages used in the text have been omitted. 
 
 auxoax£8idt£iv : Plato, Crat. 413D'; Apol. 20C; Menex. 235C-D; Lucian, 
 Pseudol. c. 5 ; Athenaeus, 589B (of a made-up story) ; Demetrius, de 
 Elocut. 224; Dion. Hal. de Comp. Verb. c. 25, p. 200. 
 
 ojtoaxefiia^eiv : Suidas djioaxe8id^ouoiv=£x xov Jiagaxuxovxog Xiyovoi. 
 Athenaeus, III, 125C; VIII, 337B ; Ptolem. Greg. I, 18, 3; Philost. 
 Vit. Apoll. V, p. 222, 26A. 
 
 avxoaxeSiaaxrig : Xen. Rep. Lac. 13, 5, opposed to the xExvixTig. Cf. Pol- 
 lux, VI, 142. 
 
24 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 which the rules he had learned were applied. The finished pro- 
 duction was then carefully revised by Isocrates.^® 
 
 Naturally a man like Isocrates, who was incapacitated for the 
 delivery of even a prepared speech, would not advocate a practice 
 which he himself could not follow. Besides, he took his profession 
 too seriously ^'^ to trust much to unpremeditated speech.®^ His aim 
 was to produce work which should be worthy of consideration 
 among all people and for all time.®^ He even dignified his system by 
 the name of "philosophy." ^^ Rhetoric he regarded as a sort of 
 
 auToax£8iaoTi>c6s : Tragedy and comedy were at first mere improvisation : 
 Arist. Poet. IV, 12; Alcid. 80, 11; 89, 7; 90, 18. 
 
 avxooxebiao[ia: Arist. Poet. IV, 6; Pollux VI, 142, from Plato Comicus. 
 
 auToaxESiaonog : Alcid. 85, 5R. 
 
 auToaxeSiaaxog : Alcid. 84, 2; 16. 
 
 auToaxEfiiog: Dionys. Hal. de Comp. Verb. p. 204; and aiibioc, de Comp. 
 Verb. c. 18, p. 123; Ars. Rhet. I, 40. II, 34; Herodian, IV, 7, 9; Schol. 
 Arist. Eq. 539. Dio. Cass. LXXIII, i. 
 
 auToaxTmaxiaxo? : Phot. Bibl. Cod. 92, p. 73, 25. 
 
 auToaxeSicog : Alex. Rhet. ;i8qi Gym\iax.', Aristeides, keqi Xoyov JtoXit. p. 
 654. 
 
 Closely allied to avToaxeSiog is o.vxocpvi\c, : Phot. Bibl. Cod. LXI ; LXVII ; 
 Dionys. Hal. de Isaeo c. 7; c. 16; Demetrius de Elocut. 27; 30. 
 
 Another equivalent is avTOxd|38aXa : Aristotle, Rhet. Ill, 14, 11, with 
 Cope's note. 
 
 '"Isocr. XV, i83ff; Ep. VI, 7ff. He lays great stress on the art of 
 memorizing, and this would imply that the pupils may have committed their 
 speeches to memory after the final revision by the teacher. 
 
 *^Cf. Isocr. XV, 11; XIII, 16-19. 
 
 ^The orator's position in ancient times was one of great responsibility. 
 Lord Brougham (Vol. IV, p. 380) says: "The Press now takes the place 
 of public speaking among the ancients. The orator of old was the Parlia- 
 mentary debater, the speaker at public meetings, the preacher, the newspaper, 
 the published sermon, the pamphlet, the volume all in one." Cf. also Jebb, 
 p. LXXII. 
 
 ~XV, 41, 44. 
 
 '"I, 3; III, i; IV, 10; VIII, 145; XI, i; XII, 263; XIII, i; 11; 14; 
 XV, 10; 30; 50; 181; 205; 209; 215; 243; 247; 266; 270; 279; Ep. VI, 8; also 
 Quintilian, II, 15, 33. 
 
 On the philosophy of Isocrates and his relation to the Socratic schools 
 see Spengel, Isokrates und Platon (Transactions of Munich Academy, 1855, 
 VII, 3, 731-69) ; Philolog. XIX (1863) 594-8; Bake, J., de aemulatione Platonem 
 inter et Isocratem {Scholia hypomnemata III, [1844] 27-47; Susemihl, F., 
 de Platonis Phaedro et Isocratis contra sophistas oratione dissertatio {Index 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC 25 
 
 mental gymnastic,^^ and to one who practiced it three things were 
 necessary: natural ability, practice, and theoretical instruction.^^ 
 Even among the qualities included under the head of natural abili- 
 ties, Isocrates places a liking for work.^^ He was said by some to 
 have employed no formal method of teaching in his school, but to 
 have relied on practice.^* He used to make his students repeat to 
 
 Gryph; 1887) ; Holzner, E, : Platons Phaedrus und die Sophistenrede des 
 Isokrates {Prager Stud. 1894) ; Huit, C, Platon et Isocrate {Revue des 
 Btudes grecques, 1888, 49-60; Thompson, Phaedrus, p. 147; 170-183; Jebb, 
 n, 3 ff.; 36 ff.; SO-53; Blass, II, 27-38. Grote, Plato, III, 36-7. 
 •^XV, 181. 
 
 "^XIII, 14-15; XV, i8iff.; 191 fip.; Plato Phaedrus, 269D. How far natural 
 ability, practice, and theoretical instruction contribute to success was a 
 commonplace among both Greeks and Romans: cf. Plut. de Educat. Puer. 
 c. 4; Cicero, Archias, i; de Or. I, 4, 14; I, 25, 113-115; Horace, A. P. 408; 
 Quint. I, Praef. 26-7, 11, 19; Tacitus, Dial. c. 33, 19, with Gudeman's note. 
 Auctor ad Herenn. differs slightly : the necessary qualities are to be acquired 
 (i)' arte, (2) imitatione, (3) exercitatione. Saintsbury {Hist, of Crit. I, 25) 
 quotes some interesting verses of the comic poet Simulus which deal with 
 this subject. For a discussion of the matter see Shorey, $uaig, Me^etTi, 
 'EmaxT||LiTi. {Trans. Am. Phil. Assn. Vol. XL, i85ff.). 
 
 Sometimes the question is whether art or nature aids most, but in "art" 
 are included, of course, both practice and instruction; Horace, A. P. 408: 
 both are necessary; each aids the other. The conjunction of the two insures 
 perfection: Longin(?), de Suhlim. XXXVI, 4 (compare XXXII, i). Nature 
 must be aided by art : Quint. IX, 4, 5. Although the chief power rests with 
 nature, the highest excellence is possible only when nature is aided by art: 
 Quint. XI, 3, II. 
 
 ^XV, 189 ff. The necessary natural abilities are: ability to invent, ease 
 of understanding, liking for work, memory, a good voice, and self-confidence 
 in public. Compare XV, 244; Quint. I, praef. 27; also Emerson's qualifi- 
 cations for an orator in his Essay on Eloquence, and Mathews, Oratory and 
 Orators, pp. 63-139. 
 
 "* Pseudo-Plut. 838F; Photius, Cod. CCLX; cf. Isocr. XV, 191; Dion. 
 Hal. de Comp. Verb. c. 26 fin.; Himerius, Or. XXIV; Cicero, de Or. I, :^:^, 
 149; Arist. Eth. II, i, 4; Erasmus, II, col. 254d (Leyden, 1703)'. 
 
 Pliny, while admitting that practice is the best master in the art of plead- 
 ing, believes that it should not be carried too far lest it produce a rash as- 
 surance rather than a just confidence in one's powers {Ep. VI, 29, 4). Com- 
 pare Tacitus, Dial. c. 33 : "Neque enim solum arte et scientia, sed longe magis 
 facultate et usu eloquentiam contineri, nee tu puto abnues et hi significare 
 vultu videntur." 
 
26 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 him the speeches they heard dehvered at the public assemblies,®^ 
 and each month held a contest among them at which a crown was 
 given to the victor.®^ Doubtless his aim was to give them a taste 
 of that ''experience which is the main secret of success in speak- 
 ing." ®^ Since he was himself unable to appear in public as an orator, 
 he made style the object of his care,®^ perhaps being convinced, like 
 Aristotle, that "written orations influence more by means of their 
 style than through their sentiment." ®® His defense of his speech at 
 the beginning of the Panegyriciis is a rebuke to those who look with 
 scorn upon orations which are carefully worked out.^^° 
 
 Isocrates' care and devotion to perfecting his style, and the 
 praise he won as a result of this, and likewise his contemptuous 
 references to other teachers of the time as his inferiors, seem to 
 have drawn upon him the dislike, not only of the Sophists, but even 
 of Aristotle.^^^ Of the enmity between Isocrates and Aristotle, if 
 enmity there was, we have little means of judging, but the case for 
 the Sophists is admirably set forth by Alcidamas in the first formal 
 
 •"^ Pseudo-Plut. 838F. 
 
 •^Menander (Rhet, Gr. Ill, 398 Sp.). 
 
 "" Isocr. XV, 296. 
 
 ""Quintilian X, i, 79: "he is so careful in composition that his care is 
 even censured." 
 
 "'Arist. Rhet III, i, 7. 
 
 '~ii-i5. 
 
 "^ The almost extravagant praise bestowed on Isocrates by the ancients 
 (such as that found in Cicero, de Or. II, 3, 10; II, 22, 94; Brutus, VIII, 32; 
 Orator, XIII, 40; Quintilian, III, i, 14; II, 8, 11) is said to have angered 
 Aristotle, who, in his indignation, set up a rival school in which rhetoric 
 should be taught more philosophically (Cicero, de Or. Ill, 35, 141; Tusc. 
 Disp. I, 4, 7; de Off. I, I, 4; Orator, XIII; XIX, 62; LI, 172; Quint. Ill, i, 
 14; Numenius ap. Euseb. Praep. Evang. XIV, 6, 9; Sopater and Syrianus ad 
 Hermog. {Rhet. Gr. IV, 298 Walz). Cf. Stahr, Aristotelia, I, p. 63 ff.; II, 
 p. 44 ff. 
 
 There is no ill-will toward Isocrates expressed in Aristotle's references 
 to him (Rhet. I, 9, 38; II, 23, 12; III, 17, lo-ii; 16; and probably I, 9, 36; 
 I, 2, 7; III, 16, 4 (Cope), but see Quintilian, IV, 2, 32, and Dion. Hal. de 
 Isocr. 18), but critics believe that traces of this rivalry may be found in 
 Isocrates (XII, 20; XV, 258; Ep. V, 3. Cf. Spengel, Trans. Bavar. Acad. 
 Munich, 1851, p. 16 ff.; Teichmuller, opposed by Blass in Bursian-Miiller's 
 Jahr^sbericht XXX, 235. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC 2^ 
 
 defense of extemporary speech extant, the treatise entitled Hspi 
 Twv Tou^ YpaxTOLx; aoyou(; Ypa^ovxwv y^ xepi ao^taKov/"" 
 
 That this tract is a manifesto, not perhaps against Isocrates 
 personally, but against his school, is generally agreed,^^^ although 
 there is no direct reference to him in the treatise. Alcidamas, being 
 not only the pupil,^^* but in the strictest sense the follower of 
 Gorgias, had for his object the cultivation of eloquence that was in 
 part, at least, extemporary. The incessant care, the constant re- 
 vision, and the intense devotion to style of Isocrates, due in the be- 
 ginning, doubtless, to his poor voice and lack of self-confidence, were 
 
 "* That there existed some historical connection between Plato's Phaedrus, 
 the xaxd xtbv ooqpiaxcov of Isocrates, and Alcidamas' attack on written 
 speeches, is practically certain, but any attempt to determine what it was, 
 brings up the vexed question of the relative dates of the Platonic and Iso- 
 cratean treatises, and thus opens an endless field for discussion. 
 
 The Phaedrus may be either earlier or later than the work of Isocrates, 
 according as one regards Phaedrus 269D as an idea imitated and expanded in 
 Isocrates XIII, 14-15, or as Plato's summary of the orator's entire doctrine. 
 Either view can be made to seem probable. 
 
 If we admit the obvious parody of the Pan^gyricus (8)' in Phaedrus 
 267A (but see Siiss, p. 20), and that of Isocrates XIII, 17, in the Gorgias 
 (463A)', we get the sequence, xaxa xcov aoqpiaxcov, Gorgias, Panegyricus, 
 Phaedrus. 
 
 Turning to Alcidamas, we find a passage (12) which may be either a 
 challenge to Isocrates which he answers in Panegyricus 11, or it may be 
 Alcidamas' reply to that passage. Blass thinks, and his view seems prob- 
 able, that the Panegyricus is a reply to Alcidamas. If, then, we admit the 
 parody of Isocrates in the Phaedrus, the treatises would appear in the order, 
 Alcidamas, Panegyricus, Phaedrus. If one holds the belief that the Alcidamas 
 passage is an answer to Panegyricus 11, Alcidamas would be placed after the 
 Panegyricus. 
 
 Cf . Siiss, p. 30 ff . ; Gercke, Hermes XXXII, 341 ff. ; Rhein. Mus. LIV, 
 404 ff.; Hubik, Weiner Studien XXIII, 234 ff. 
 
 The resemblances in Alcidamas to Plato and Isocrates are not sufficient 
 to date him with certainty in relation to either author. Compare Alcid. 2 and 
 35 with Phaedrus 276D; Alcid. 27-28 with Phaedrus 275D, and Isocrates 
 XIII, 10. 
 
 '"" Christ, p. 229; Blass II, ZV ff-; Mahaffy, II, 245; Jebb, II, 428. See 
 also Tzetzes, Chil. XI, 672. The authenticity of the treatise is doubted by 
 Sauppe, O. A. II, 156, but Blass (II, 327) conclusively proves the arguments 
 against it inadequate. 
 
 ^^ Quintilian, III, i, 10; Suidas, s. v. Gorgias; Alcidamas; Eud. Aug. 
 XCIX; Athen. XIII, 592C; Tzetzes, Chil. XI, 746. On Alcidamas see Blass, 
 11,^ 364, and Vahlen, Der Rhetor Alkidamas, Vienna, 1864. 
 
2!8 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 directly at variance with the teachings of the Sophists. Their object 
 was "to teach methodically the art of saying, under all circumstances, 
 something which would pass muster at the time."^^^ An additional 
 motive for the attack of Alcidamas is suggested by the tradition that 
 Isocrates had once been the pupil of Gorgias.^*^^ 
 
 There is but slight evidence on which to base the belief that 
 Alcidamas wrote a treatise on rhetoric,^^^ but his theory is set forth 
 in detail in the extant essay "On the Sophists/' 
 
 The opening thesis is that those who are mere composers of 
 cleverly written speeches "have missed the greater part both of 
 rhetoric and philosophy, and should rather be called poets than 
 sophists." ^^^ Alcidamas by no means despises writing, but believes 
 that it should be practiced as a ^'parergon." His case is supported 
 by a series of clearly stated, but not logically connected arguments. 
 In the first place, writing is easier than speaking.^^^ To speak 
 fittingly at a moment's notice, and with speed and ease, about what- 
 ever subject comes up for consideration; to make a speech appro- 
 priate to the crisis which calls for speech, and pleasing to one's audi- 
 ence, is a talent which does not belong to every man, nor is it the 
 result of any chance system of training.^^^ But to write with plenty 
 of time at one's disposal, to correct at one's leisure, to place before 
 one the treatises of preceding sophists and gather arguments there- 
 from, to imitate things which have been well said, to correct one's 
 writing and make it clear, partly through consultation with friends, 
 and partly by long meditation, this is a task easy even for the un- 
 trained.^^^ 
 
 And so, since it is easier to write than to speak, the ability to 
 write, naturally is held in less esteem.^^^ 
 
 ^"'Jebb, 11,40. 
 
 ^°®Dionys. Hal. de Isocr. i; cf, p. ii6 n., 205. If not a pupil of Gorgias, 
 Isocrates had at any rate many Gorgian traits. 
 
 *"' Plut. Dem. c. 5, 5. 
 
 *'"i-2; 12. Both Plato and Isocrates speak of the writer of a finished 
 prose production as a ''poet": cf. Plato, Phaedr. 236D : dvadov jtoirixriv (of 
 Lysias) ; 234E; Euthyd. 305B; Legg. IX, 858C. Isocrates, XV, 192; XIII, 15. 
 
 *°*Cf. Isocrates, IV, 11, where he says that the master of elaborate dic- 
 tion will also be able to write in the simple style. Compare XV, 49. 
 
 oil 
 
 4-5. Cf. Plato, Phaedr. 278D. 
 
 "'S. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC 29 
 
 In the second place, there is no doubt that the man who is able 
 to speak well will be able to write well, but no one will be able to 
 speak as a result of his ability to write. For the speakers have 
 learned the more difficult art, and so can readily turn to the simpler, 
 as one who has been used to heavy burdens, can easily carry lighter 
 ones. But the writers have trained themselves in the easier pursuit, 
 and can no more perform the harder task, than can the one who has 
 been used to Hgfit burdens carry a heavy weight. So the skillful 
 extempore speaker, if time and leisure be given him, will be a better 
 writer of speeches, but the one who has spent his time in writing, if 
 he turn to extempore speech, will be filled with perplexity and con- 
 fusion. ^^^ 
 
 Here Alcidamas shifts his point bf view, and from this point on, 
 discusses the advantage that the extempore speaker has with an 
 audience over the man who depends on a written speech. 
 
 M daily life there are many opportunities for the speaker, but 
 few for the writer. For often a written speech cannot be brought 
 to perfection until the opportunity for it has passed.^^* Besides, 
 elaborately worked out compositions fill the minds of the hearers 
 with distrust and envy, and therefore writers imitate the style of 
 extempore speakers, and are thought to write best when they write 
 least like written speeches.^^^ Therefore the method of training 
 which leads to ability in extempore speaking ought most to be 
 honored. Some recommend writing part of the speech and ex- 
 temporizing the rest; but to this, too, there are objections, for the 
 result will be a production in which part appears mean and poor in 
 comparison with the accurate finish of the rest.^^® 
 
 "^6-7. 
 
 "*8-ii. It is said of Gladstone: "Mr. Gladstone never wrote a line of 
 his speeches, and some of his most successful ones have been made in the 
 heat of debate and necessarily without preparation." (Quoted by Hardwicke, 
 History of Oratory and Orators, p. 289; cf. also Morley's Life of Glad- 
 stone). 
 
 *^^ 12-13. Nowadays people loosely call a speech extemporary if it is not 
 actually read from a manuscript. There seems to be a sort of tacit conspiracy 
 between author and audience so to regard a speech unless it is openly read. 
 The modern feeling is that great oratory ought to be extemporary. Ac- 
 cording to Jebb {Introd. LXXXII ff.) the Hebraic basis of Christian edu- 
 cation is responsible for this. 
 
 "° 14. Cicero and Quintilian held exactly the opposite view : Cicero, de Or. 
 I, 33, 150 ff; Quint. X, 3, 2; I, I, 28. 
 
30 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IX ANTIQUITY 
 
 ' The one who professes to teach others must not be a man who 
 can display his knowledge if he has tablet or manuscript ^^^ in hand, 
 but if deprived of these is no better than the untrained. He must 
 not be one who, if time be g^ven him, can produce a speech, but if 
 
 Lord Brougham, Inaugural Address (Vol. Ill, 93) says: **We may rest 
 assured that the highest reaches of the art, and without any necessarj' sacri- 
 fice of natural effect, can only be attained by him who well considers and 
 maturely prepares and oftentimes sedulously corrects and refines his oration. 
 Such preparation is quite consistent with the introduction of passages 
 prompted by the occasion, nor will t}i€ transition from the one to the other 
 he perceptible in the execution of a practiced master. I have knovsTi attentive 
 and skillful hearers completely deceived in this matter, and taking for ex- 
 temporaneous, passages which pre\nously existed in a manuscript, and were 
 pronounced without the variation of a particle or a pause. Thus, too, we are 
 told by Cicero in one of his epistles, that having to make, in Pompey'.«; 
 presence, a speech, after Crassus had very unexpectedly taken a particular 
 line of argument, he exerted himself and, it appears, successfully, in a mar- 
 vellous manner, mightily assisted in what he said extempore, by his habit of 
 rhetorical preparation, and introducing skillfully, as the inspiration of the 
 moment, all his favorite commonplaces, with some of which, we gather from 
 a good-humored joke at his o\^ti expense, Crassus had interfered (Ad Att, I, 
 14)/' 
 
 If, however, we believe in the rules of avoidance of hiatus, regularity of 
 clauses in a period, etc., to which critics have called attention, we must believe 
 one of two things in the case of the carefully finished productions which the 
 Greeks have left us ; either that all such extemporarj- additions were omitted 
 from the published speech, or, what is more likelj-, that such additions were 
 carefully revised and polished before the speech received publication. 
 
 ^ yQa4i\iaT£low r\ 3i3>a'ov. 3i3>iov here clearly must mean the speaker's 
 manuscript copy of his speech. He has memorized his oration, but lest his 
 memory fail, he brings \\4th him either a tablet containing notes (YQanM^axEiov), 
 or a copy of his speech to which to refer (PiPXiov). Were it not for 
 YQamxaTEiov, we might take PipJwiov to mean note-book as it does in Ps. Dem. 
 LXI, 2. As it is, it seems necessarj- to give the word the other interpreta- 
 tion. In the Phaedrus (228B) 3i3?iov is the written manuscript of Lysias' 
 speech which Phaedrus consults and learns by heart In Aristophanes' Birds 
 (.973^ 977, 980, 986, 989) PiPXiov is the oracle-monger's copy of the collec- 
 tion of oracles which was referred to for checking his quotations. Compare 
 Isocrates V, 21, where Isocrates calls the written speech he sends to Philip 
 
 TO Pl3W0V. 
 
 Mr. H. Hayman (Journal of Philol. VIII, 123-5) has pointed out that 
 the use of writing-tablets to assist the memory was so well established in 
 ^schylus' time that they furnish a rather trite metaphor in Prom. V. 789; 
 Coeph. 450; Eumen. 275. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IX THEORY OF RHETORIC 3 1 
 
 he must speak on the sudden, is voiceless, and while he professes-to 
 teach the art of speaking, has himself no power to speakj.^^* 
 
 Writing, according to Alcidamas, is a hindrance rather than a 
 help to speaking. The mind of the writer who tries extemporary 
 speech moves like a captive newly freed from long-worn bonds, 
 whose limbs, even when at liberty, move in the same way in which 
 they were forced to move when bound.^^* 
 
 Furthermore, it is difficult to learn and remember a written 
 speech, and disgraceful to forget before an audience what one has 
 learned.'-'' The man who uses written speeches must remember the 
 very words and syllables of his text; the extempore speaker need 
 only have the arguments clearly in mind.^-^ If one of these should 
 
 "*I5. For somewhat the same idea see Isocr. XIII, 9; Plato, Protag. 329A. 
 
 "* 16-17. Plutarch, de Educat. Puer. 9, uses the same figure. Plutarch ad- 
 vocates no extemporary speech until the child reaches man's estate: cf. p. 47. 
 
 ^This. according to M. Sarcey {Recollections of Middle Life, trans. 
 Gary) pp. lo-ii, was the fate of Gaston de Saint Valry who forgot his lec- 
 ture, lost his way among his notes, and so made a failure of his performance. 
 
 There is still a prejudice against speeches which are clearly learned by 
 heart. See the epigram on Ward: 
 
 "\\ard has no heart, they say, but I deny it: 
 He has a heart, and gets his speeches by it." 
 
 (Bartlett: Familiar Quotations, p. 456). 
 
 ^ This was M. Sarcey's method in delivering a lecture {Recollections of 
 Middle Life, p. ^y). But consider M. Sarcey's advice to a lecturer (p. 156) : 
 "You have possessed your memor>' of the themes from the development of 
 which the lecture must be formed; pick out one from the pile, the first at 
 hand, or the one you have most at heart, which for the moment attracts you 
 most, and act as if you were before the public; improvise upon it Yes, 
 force yourself to improvise. Do not trouble yourself about badly constructed 
 phrases, nor appropriate words — go your way. Push on to the end of the 
 development, and the end once reached, recommence the same exercise, 
 recommence it three times, four times, ten times, without tiring. You will 
 have some trouble at first. The development will be short and meagre; 
 little by little around the principal theme there will group themselves acces- 
 sor},- ideas, or convincing facts, or pat anecdotes that will extend and en- 
 rich it. Do not stop in this work until you notice that in thus taking up 
 the same theme you fall into the same development, and that the develop- 
 ment with its turns of language and order of phrases fixes itself in your 
 memory." 
 
 This is certainly a close approach to verbal preparation. The method 
 of Alcidamas' extemporary speaker may have been similar. 
 
2^2 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 escape him/^^ he can pass to the next and still, since the style of 
 his speech is loose, leave no break. If he remembers it later, he can 
 easily prove the point then, but the one who delivers a written 
 speech, is thrown into utter confusion if he forgets.^^^ 
 
 The minds of the audience, too, are more favorably disposed to 
 the extempore speaker/^* The man who has written out his speech, 
 
 M. Sarcey's preparation was quite as thorough as any verbal preparation : 
 cf. pp. 47, 49, 51, 146, 147, and Chapter IX, {How a Lecture is Prepared), 
 and as a result of it he gradually acquired great facility (p. 85). So well did 
 he know his lectures that they were easily written out afterwards if needed 
 
 (p. 195). 
 
 W. D. Howells says of Mark Twain : "It was his custom always to think 
 out his speeches, mentally wording them, and then memorizing them by a 
 peculiar system of mnemonics which he had invented" {My Mark Twain 
 
 p. 59). 
 
 On the problem of after-dinner speeches, etc., see Sears, The Occasional 
 Address. 
 
 The orator Alcidamas praises may have been such an one as Sears 
 {History of Oratory, p. 398) says Wiendell Phillips was : "He usually spoke 
 without notes, as he composed his speeches without pen. This does not 
 mean without preparation. He was always preparing and storing his memory 
 with facts, pursuing fallacies, linking chains of argument that seemed to have 
 no weakest link, gathering anecdotes, culling illustrations that found their 
 own place when and where they were wanted. Above all, for years, he 
 cultivated the habit of thinking on the platform and off, and was never so 
 effective as when apparently the most extemporaneous. His own explanation 
 seems simple enough: "The chief thing I aim at is to master my subject. 
 Then I earnestly try to get the audience to think as I do." 
 
 ^According to Quintilian, some object to partition of matter in speeches 
 for this same reason, but Quintilian says that nothing of this kind can happen 
 except to one who is utterly deficient in ability, or who brings to his pleading 
 nothing settled or premeditated (IV, 5, 2). 
 
 ^ 18-21. There can be no doubt, however, that in the Greek courts the 
 general practice was neither to extemporize solely nor absolutely to be 
 prepared. Compare Quintilian, X, 7, 1-4. 
 
 ^^ Compare Lord Brougham's remarks (Vol. Ill, 92) : "I am now re- 
 quiring not merely great preparation while the speaker is learning his art, 
 but after he has completed his education. The most splendid effort of the 
 most mature orator will be always finer for being elaborated with much 
 care. There is, no doubt, a charm in extemporaneous elocution, derivied 
 from the appearance of artless, unpremeditated effusion, called forth by the 
 occasion, and so adapting itself to its exigencies, which may compensate 
 for the manifold defects incident to this kind of composition : that which is 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC 33 
 
 Speaks either too long or not long enough to suit his audience. The 
 extemporary speaker can adjust the length of his speech to the desire 
 of his hearers/^^ 
 
 The extempore speaker can take advantage of all unforeseen 
 points which appear in the actual progress of the contest. He can 
 catch an argument from his adversary and turn it to his own ad- 
 vantage. The one who is used to written speeches, must either 
 neglect all these opportunities, or else throw his whole oration into 
 confusion and destroy its symmetry.^^® 
 
 Alcidamas, then, would not call these productions speeches, but 
 rather phantoms and shapes and imitations of speeches. Like the 
 statues of men and the paintings of living creatures, they give some 
 pleasure to the sight, but are of no advantage to man in his time of 
 need. At a crisis they are motionless and voiceless like the statues, 
 but extempore speech is vital and like to the living creature.^^'' 
 
 At this point Alcidamas stops to justify himself and to explain 
 why he who so praises extemporary speech has descended to writ- 
 inspired by the unforeseen circumstances of the moment, will be of necessity- 
 suited to those circumstances in the choice of the topics, and pitched in the 
 tone of the execution, to the feelings upon which it is to operate. These are 
 great virtues : it is another to avoid the besetting vice of modern oratory, 
 the overdoing everything, the exhaustive method, which an offhand speaker 
 has no time to fall into, and he accordingly will take only the grand and 
 effective view : nevertheless, in oratorical merit, such effusions must needs 
 be very inferior; much of the pleasure they produce depends upon the hearer's 
 surprise that in such circumstances anything can be delivered at all, rather 
 than upon his deliberate judgment that he has heard anything very excellent 
 in itself." 
 
 ^^ 22-23. 
 
 ^^24-26. Alcidamas assumes too much. Any speaker with a reasonable 
 amount of practice could make such additions to his speech. 
 
 See what M. Sarcey says of Deschanel : "Did he read? Did he write? 
 Did he extemporize? I believe, indeed, that he employed in turn all three 
 processes which he knew how to mould into a harmonious whole" (p. 53). 
 
 Jebb (1,37) thinks that Alcidamas means in this section that the intro- 
 duction of commonplaces makes the speech uneven. The unevenness results 
 from the difference between the prepared and the extemporary portions of the 
 speech. The prepared portions need not necessarily be commonplaces. The 
 speech would seem "patch-work:" Horace A. P. 15; compare Quint. XII, 
 9, 15 ff. 
 
 ^' 27-28. Cf. Plato, Phaedr. 275-276. 
 
34 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 ing. He does not, he says, utterly depreciate writing. He has written 
 his treatise, in the first place, in order to show that writing should 
 be practiced as a secondary consideration, and secondly that he might 
 show those people who pride themselves on their ability as writers 
 that after a little labor he can far surpass them.^^* Writing he be- 
 lieves useful to a certain extent. It is difficult to remember one's 
 extemporaneous speeches and so tell whether one is improving in 
 the art or not. In written speeches one can see plainly the growth 
 of the soul. Besides, he is anxious to leave some memorial of him- 
 self behind. ^^^ 
 
 "® 29-31. It was perhaps with this purpose in view that Alcidamas wrote 
 his pamphlet in defense of the new Messene (Aristotle, Rhet. I, 13, 3, and 
 schol.; II, 23, I, see Vahlen, p. 491 ff., and especially 504 ff.), which may be 
 contrasted with Isocrates' Archidamus (Curtius [Ward], Hist. Gr. V, 173)'. 
 
 Whenever an orator wished to publish what we should now call a pamph- 
 let, he did not put it in the form of an essay, but in that of a speech pur- 
 porting to be delivered on a real occasion. Jebb, II, 45 says : "Since the end 
 of the fifth century B. C. a literature of political pamphlets had been coming 
 into existence; writing was now recognized as a mode of influencing public 
 opinion on the affairs of the day. Thrasymachus pleaded for the Larisaeans, 
 as Isocrates for the Plataeans, in a rhetorical pamphlet; in the same way 
 
 Isocrates attacked, and Alcidamas defended, the new Messene 
 
 To Isocrates belongs the credit of trying to raise the dignity and worth of 
 this intermittent journalism." 
 
 On Thrasymachus' pamphlet cf. Sauppe, O. A. II, 162. 
 
 In Rome funeral speeches were used for this purpose. Cato's death at 
 Utica called forth quite a literature of its own. Cicero (Plut. Caes. c. 54; 
 Cic. c. 39; Cic. ad. Att. XII, 40, i ; XIII, 27, i ; XIII, 46, 2; Orat, X, 35; Tac. 
 Ann. TV, 34), M. Brutus (Cic. ad Att. XIII, 46, 2; XII, 21, i), M. Fadius 
 Gallus (Cic. ad Fam. VII, 24, 2; 25, i), and Munatius (Plut. Cat. Min. c. 37; 
 cf. c. 25; Val. Max. IV, 3, 2), wrote in praise of him, and against him wrote 
 Hirtius (Cic. ad Att. XII, 40, i ; 41, 4; 44, i ; 45, 3; 47, 3), Caesar (Suet. 
 lul. 56; luv. VI, 338; Plut. Caes. c. 3; c. 54; Cic. 39; PHn. A^. H. VII, 117; 
 Plut. Cat. Min. 36; 52; 54; Plin. Ep. Ill, 12; Cic. ad. Att. XIII, 50, i ; 51, i ; 
 Top. c. 25, 95; Quint. Ill, 7, 29), Metellus Scipio (Plut. Cat Min. 57), and 
 later Augustus (Suet. Aug. 85). 
 
 On the pamphlets to which the death of Cato gave rise cf. Wartmann, 
 Leben des Cato von Utica (Zur. 1858), 145. 
 
 So there were "laudationes Porciae" by Cicero {ad Att. XIII, 2)7, 3; 48, 2) 
 which was carefully revised, M. Varro, and Lollius (Cic. ad Att. XIII, 48, 2). 
 
 On the possibility that the "laus Catonis" of Cicero may have been, par- 
 tially at least, in verse, see Philologus, XLII, 181. 
 
 "'*32. "Res scripta manet." 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC 35 
 
 The orator may use forethought as regards his argument and 
 arrangement ; ^^^ the words should come at the inspiration of the 
 moment.^^^ The accuracy ^^- of the writer will not compensate for 
 the opportunities he will lose. Therefore the one who wishes to be 
 called a clever orator rather than a competent maker of speeches, 
 
 ""But compare Longinus, Ars Rhet. (Rivet. Gr. I, 318, 14, Sp.) 
 
 ^'^^ Quintilian (IX, 4, 3) says that if only language such as happens to 
 present itself is to be used, the whole art of oratory is at an end, and this 
 is true in a certain sense. However, Alcidamas' idea may not have differed 
 so very much from the "praeceptum paene divinum" attributed to Cato 
 (lulius Victor Ars. Rhet. p. 197, O), "rem tene, verba sequentur." This idea is 
 often found as well in modern writers as in those of ancient times: Cicero 
 de Or. I, 6, 20; II, 34, 146; III, 3, 125; Orat. XXXIV, 119; de Fin. Ill, 5; 
 Horace, A. P. 40-41 ; 311 ; Quint. VIII, praef. 21 ; 28-30; Dionys. Hal. de Isocr. 
 c. 13 ; Seneca, Cont. Ill, Proem. 
 
 Blair, Lecture XIX (Vol. II, 51). Montaigne (I, 195, ed. Cotton) says: 
 "Let but our pupil be well furnished with things, words will follow but too 
 fast; he will pull them after him if they do not voluntarily follow." 
 
 Milton says : "True eloquence I find to be none but the serious and hearty 
 love of truth; and that whose mind soever is fully possessed with a fervent 
 desire to know good things, and with the dearest charity to infuse the 
 knowledge of them into others, when such a man would speak, his words, 
 by what I can express, like so many nimble and airy servitors, trip about him 
 at command, and in mell-ordered files, as he would wish, fall aptly into their 
 places." 
 
 "^axQiPsia. The word is used of the exactness and high finish of style 
 of written speeches. Cf. Aristotle, Rhet. Ill, 12, 5 (with Cope's note), 
 Philostratus {Vit. Soph. II, 9, p. 581) contrasts it with to axeSidteiv. Cf. 
 also Grant's note on Aristotle, Eth. Nic. I, 7, 18. 
 
 The word seems to be used at times in two different senses : 
 
 1. As opposed to mere slovenliness and effusiveness of style: accurate 
 and clear; Isocr. V, 4: dxQiPoig xai xadagw?; V, 155; cf. also Plato, Phaedr. 
 234E. 
 
 2. Of a highly finished style as opposed to one which avoids ornament, 
 like that of Lysias, for example, which is yet a highly finished style from 
 one point of view. Isocrates uses it in this sense in IV, 11, where axQiPcbg, 
 as contrasted with aiikihc, means dn:i6Eixxix(0(;. Cf. also IX, 7^. 
 
 The axQiPeia of the Alcidamas passage might, of course, be the simple 
 accuracy of the Lysias type of speech, but if we admit that Alcidamas had 
 Isocrates in mind as he wrote, it is more probable that the word meant for 
 him the high finish of the emSeixxixog Xoyo?. In the Pseudo-Dem. Erotica, 
 61, 2, there is the same contrast : orations for oral delivery are to be written 
 in a simple style (djiXcog), like what one would say on the spur of the 
 moment; those which are designed for a permanence should be emSeixTixo)?. 
 
36 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 who desires rather to be able to seize opportunities than to be an 
 accurate user of words, and prefers the good-will of his audience to 
 their envy, will make the ability to speak extempore the object of his 
 care, and regard writing as an amusement and a secondary consider- 
 ation/^^ 
 
 This treatise of Alcidamas in its secondary arguments, in some 
 ways strikingly anticipates the views held by the Roman writers on 
 rhetoric, although on the main point they are opposed. He views the 
 question from the common-sense standpoint and his individual con- 
 clusions are sound. Unfortunately, however, Alcidamas has di- 
 rected his polemic against two distinct classes of people, to neither 
 of which all of his arguments apply. Part of his criticisms are aimed 
 at those who write speeches to be read, and part at those orators who 
 are dependent on their manuscripts for their words. 
 
 If the treatise is directed against Isocrates, as critics believe,^^* 
 it ought to deal primarily with those writers whose speeches were 
 composed to be read, not delivered.^^^ Alcidamas' statement at the 
 beginning of his work, that his remarks are directed against those 
 who plume themselves on the display of their wisdom through books, 
 and who spend their lives in writing speeches, would surely show 
 that he had Isocrates in mind.^^^ His description of the author 
 laboriously composing and taking the advice of his friends in re- 
 vising his speech,^^^ would fit in perfectly with what we know of 
 Isocrates' practice. Likewise his remarks about the one who pro- 
 fesses to teach the art of words, but has himself no power to speak,^^^ 
 is a good characterization of Isocrates. The further criticisms of 
 the orators who are voiceless except when they have learned a 
 
 '''33-35. Cf. Plato, Phaedr. 276D. 
 
 ^Ci. Tzetzes, Chil. XI, 672; Spengel, pp. 173-180; Gercke, A.: die alte 
 Texvt) 'qt)toqiht| und ihre Gegner {Hermes, XXXII [1897] 341-81), and 
 Jsokrates XIII und Alkidamas (Rhein. Mus. LIV [1899] 404-13). Against 
 this view see Hubik, J.: Alkidamas oder Isokrates {Weiner Stud. XXIII 
 [1901] 209-12; cf. Reinhardt, C. : de Isocratis aemulis, (Bonn, 1873); 
 Mahaffy, II, 246; Blass, II, p. 22 ff. ; 240-242. See, however, Siiss on 
 Alcidamas. 
 
 "^The title of the treatise, jieqi tcov xovg yQtmxoy^c, Xoyoug 7Qaq)6vTcov,. 
 would seem to imply that Alcidamas had this class of writers in mind. 
 
 ^1-2. 
 
 "^4-5. 
 
 "" 15 ; cf. also Pseudo-Plutarch 838E. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC 37 
 
 written speech by heart, could not apply to Isocrates or writers of 
 his sort. He never tried to deliver a public speech, nor is there any 
 evidence that he ever taught his pupils to rely solely on their manu- 
 scripts/^® 
 
 Alcidamas claims that the ability to speak well necessarily im- 
 plies an ability to write well. Since the speakers have been trained 
 for the more difficult task, they can turn readily to the easier one ; ^*^ 
 but what can that training have been which the extemporary orator 
 went through ? ^*^ Clearly one in which writing played a large part, 
 at least if Alcidamas followed the method of his teacher Gorgias.^*^ 
 
 In Gorgias' school, extempore speech was the result, in part at 
 least, of training in writing, and Alcidamas himself admits that 
 writing has some use.^"*^ If a speaker has gained his ability to speak 
 through writing, of course writing will be an easier task to him. 
 Perhaps this is the explanation of Alcidamas' other claim, that it is 
 easier to write than to speak.^^* His statement that no one will be 
 able to speak as a result of having trained himself in writing is one 
 which Quintilian later is at great pains to disprove.^"*^ 
 
 To the orators who wrote their speeches, whoever they may have 
 been, Alcidamas is clearly unfair. He proves the superiority of ex- 
 
 *^ How far Isocrates' pupils did commit to memory is uncertain. Their 
 productions were subjected to careful revision by the master (cf. p. 24). The 
 stress Isocrates lays on the cultivation of the memory (cf. n. 86), might 
 imply that in the end the revised speech was memorized. Even if this were 
 the case Isocrates doubtless also trained his pupils to take advantage of 
 unforeseen opportunities. 
 
 "°This is, of course, a pure fallacy. Learning a more difficult subject 
 may make it easier to learn an easier one. Certain branches of higher mathe- 
 matics are more difficult than certain languages, but it by no means follows 
 that the one who knows the mathematics can speak the languages. 
 
 "^Alcidamas himself says (6) that the ability to speak extempore is the 
 result of no chance method of training. 
 
 "^On the method of Gorgias see p. 11. Also Siiss, Ethos pp. 17-59; Scheel. 
 E. : de Gorgianae disciplinae vestigiis (Rostock, 1890). 
 
 ^"3. Cf. the dictum of Epicurus, that writing entails no trouble: to 
 ya.Q ovx EJiLTCovou ToO YQdqpEiv ovxog, d)g auxog 'EmxouQog "Kiyzi, which 
 Dionysius of Halicarnassus strongly condemns {de Comp. Verb. c. 24 fin.). 
 That depends upon what sort of writing or speaking one does. It is a ques- 
 tion of how well one does either. 
 
 "'Cf. Quintilian, X, 3, 2; I, i, 28; X, 7, 12; also Cicero, de Or. I, zz, 
 150 ff. 
 
38 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 temporary speech by attacking exaggerated examples from the other 
 side. The man he sets up as a representative of the non-extempo- 
 rary orators is one who has spent his life in writing in his study, 
 and is suddenly forced to make an extemporary speech/*^ or one 
 who has laboriously written out his speech and learned it by heart, 
 and who is absolutely incapable of saying anything beyond what 
 appears in his written copy/*^ The recluse or teacher like Isocrates, 
 suddenly brought from his retirement and forced to make a speech 
 at a moment's notice, of course would be at a loss. So, too, would 
 the man who could do nothing but repeat, parrot-like, a 
 speech he had written.^*® Such a man could not, as Alcidamas 
 
 "'Alcidamas seems to have in mind chiefly the speakers in the assem- 
 blies and law-courts (9; 11; 13; 24). In the latter, very often the speeches 
 delivered must have been recited by another than the author, but Alcidamas 
 does not seem to have considered the case of the man who has purchased 
 a written speech, unless section 13 be a possible reference. Such a speech 
 must be memorized in order to keep within the letter of the law which de- 
 clared that each citizen must make his own defense (cf. p. Son. 54)'. Plutarch 
 (de Garrulitate, 5) tells the following story: 'Tysias wrote a defense for 
 some accused person and gave it to him, and after he had read it (dvavvovg) 
 several times, he came to Lysias in great dejection and said: "When I first 
 read this defense, it seemed to me wonderful, but when I read it a second and 
 a third time, it seemed utterly dull and ineffective." Then Lysias laughed 
 and said: "What then? Are you going to recite it (n8?c?t£i5 XeyEiv) more 
 than once to the jury?" 
 
 According to Liddell and Scott, Xeyoj never means read, but always 
 recite. Even in such phrases as Xa^e to pipXiov xal Xeye, they believe that 
 Xeys means recite what is written. In the Plutarch passage the distinction 
 is clear between the man's reading the speech to himself, and his reciting 
 it to the jury after he has memorized it, but in the directions of an orator 
 to the clerk, when decrees or laws clearly are read, it is difficult to keep such 
 a distinction; cf. Dem. XVIII, 28, 2>7, 39, 53, 7Z, 75, 76, 83, 89, 92, 105, 
 115, 118, 120, 154, 155, 156, 163, 180, 212, 214, 217, 221, 222, 267, 289, 305; 
 XIX, 32, 38, 40, 47, 51, 61, 62, 63, 70, 86, 130, 154, 161, 162, 168, 170, 200, 
 214, and elsewhere. 
 
 ^** Alcidamas does not seem to have contemplated the possibility of an 
 orator having practiced a speech, and yet being able to extemporize if neces- 
 sary. He harps continually on the "written" speech and uses no word which 
 could be taken to mean an oration practiced, and yet such that it will not suf- 
 fer from necessary extemporary interpolations. According to Alcidamas, if a 
 man writes a speech, it follows that he must depend on it word for word. 
 
 If other advantages are equal, the best writer is apt to be the best speaker, 
 but an inferior writer would have the advantage on the platform if he pos- 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC 39 
 
 says/^^ take advantage of sudden opportunities for speaking, and if 
 he did forget a part of his speech or tried to insert any new mat- 
 ter,^^^ would be thrown into utter confusion, but why write an attack 
 on speakers whose failure before an audience would be the clearest 
 proof of their inability to speak ? Surely such men could not be taken 
 as representative of the non-extemporary orator in Alcidamas' time. 
 A capable orator must have been one who, while he prepared his 
 speech so far as he could, was still able to extemporize if occasion 
 should require it, and so weave the parts together that one portion 
 would not, as Alcidamas says, seem mean and poor in comparison 
 with the accurate finish of the rest/^^ The statement that the audi- 
 ence looks with distrust and envy upon highly elaborated pro- 
 ductions is perfectly true,^^" and all who treat of rhetoric have much 
 to say about how the speaker is to disarm the suspicion of the judg€ 
 and the audience.^^^ It is likewise true that orators are most success- 
 
 sessed a good voice and an attractive personality. Ulpian (in Dem. c. Timocr. 
 822) says that Demosthenes, when he was asked whether he or Callistratus 
 of Aphidnae were the better speaker, answered: iyu) \iev VQacpoM-evo?, KaX- 
 lioxQaTOc, bk dxovonEvog (Jebb, I, LXIV). It was precisely because Iso- 
 crates did not possess these other abilities that he failed as a speaker. 
 
 ^^21. Plutarch, de Educat. Puer. c. 9, would allow extemporary speech as 
 emergencies call for it, but believes that it should be used only as one would 
 take medicine, i. e. occasionally and sparingly, 
 
 ^^ 14. David Hume in An Essay on Eloquence (Essay XII of Essays Moral, 
 Political, and Literary) says: "It is true there is a great prejudice against 
 set speeches ; and a man cannot escape ridicule who repeats a discourse as a 
 schoolboy does his lesson, and takes no notice of anything that has been ad- 
 vanced in the course of the debate. But where is the necessity of falling 
 into this absurdity? A public speaker must know beforehand the question 
 under debate. He may compose all the arguments, objections, and answers 
 such as he thinks will be most proper for his discourse. If anything new 
 occur, he may supply it from his own invention ; nor will the difference he 
 very apparent between his elaborate and his extemporary compositions. The 
 mind naturally continues with the same force which it has acquired by its 
 motion; as a vessel, once impelled by the oars, carries on its course for some 
 time, when the original impulse is suspended" 
 
 For exactly the same figure see Cicero, de Or. I, 3;^, 150, p. 55. 
 
 ^^22-23. 
 
 ^ The idea that the judge and the audience are suspicious of a finished 
 speech and that the suspicion of the judge may be disarmed and the good- 
 
40 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 ful when their speeches appear to be spontaneous, but this is no 
 reason for assuming that an extemporary speaker is superior to a 
 capable orator who prepares his speeches/^* 
 
 will of the audience gained by seeming to speak without preparation, very 
 frequently occurs in the writings of the ancients: Alcidamas, 12-13, 22-23, 
 33-35 J Aristotle, Rhet. Ill, 14, 7; Cicero, de Invent. I, 15, 20; Quintilian, IV, 
 I, 5; 8-9; 37-39; 54; 56-58; IV, 2, 126-7; XI, 2, 47; XI, 3, 157-8; Anaximenes, 
 Ars Rhet. c, 36 {Rhet. Gr. I, 229 Sp.) ; Hermogenes {Rhet. Gr. II, 440;" 
 441, 28, Sp.) ; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. VIII, 6, i; cf. Sarcey, p. 161. 
 
 A profession of weakness, inexperience, or inferiority in ability to the 
 other side, according to Quintilian (IV, i, 8-9) allays the suspicion of the 
 judge. Of this there are many examples : Antiphon, de caede Herod. 1 ; 
 Tetral II, 2, i; Lysias, XVI, 20-21; XII, 1-3; Ps.-Lys. Epitaph. 1-3; Dem. 
 XLI, 2; Ps.-Dem. LVIII, 2; 58; 60; LIX, 14; Isaeus, VIII, 5; IX, 35; X, 
 I, Cicero, Pro Quint, and Pro Arch, (beginning) ; cf. Quint. XI, i, 19-20, 
 and elsewhere. Cf. Mathews, p. 208 ff. 
 
 Attempts are often made by one side to arouse the envy and jealousy of 
 the judges against the other: Lys. XX, 23, Isocr. VII, 35; XVIII, 48; 60; 
 Dem. XXVIII, 2; 7; 24; 45-66; Ps. Dem. XLII, 23; LVIII, 41; Isaeus, 
 VIII, 39, 5 ; 35, 2 ; ^sch. I, loi ; Lycur. Adv. Leocr. 10, 32 ; Din. I, 70. 
 
 The hearers are told that the effect of the orator's speech depends on their 
 good-will and sympathy: Dem. XVIII, 277; XIX, 340; Ps. Dem. Epitaph. 
 13; Plut. comp Dem.-Cic. II, and elsewhere. 
 
 There was a technical term for the attempts of an orator to render his 
 hearers or the judge favorably disposed toward him: jiQOJtaQaaxEuri or prae- 
 paratio; Tac. Dial. c. 19, 11 (with Gudeman's note)'; compare Quint. IV, i, 
 62; 72; 2, 26; VII, 10, 12. 
 
 Isocrates (IV, 13) attacks those who seek to mollify their hearers by 
 "alleging either that they have had to make their preparations off-hand (e| 
 vJtoYviov), or that it is difficult to find words adequate to the greatness of 
 their subject matter". 
 
 The phrase, e§ vKoyv'iov is interpreted by avxooxEfiia^Eiv by the Scholiast 
 on Aristophanes' Clouds 145, and by Suidas, s. v. 8| vnoymv. According 
 to Kiihner {Gr. Gram. sec. 523) £§ vjtOYuiou = eh tov naQaiQr\\x.o.. Cf. ex 
 XeiQog off-hand (Polybius), e| dn:Qoa8oxr|Tou, e| kxol\x,ov and ex toiI qpavEQOv 
 (Isocr. IV, 147). Other passages in which the phrase or an allied expression 
 occurs are Arist. Rhet. I, i, 7; H, 22, 11; Pol. VII (VI), 8, 1321b 17; Xen. 
 Cyr. VI, I, 43; Plato, Menex. 235C; Isocr. XVIII, 29; XV, 4; Ep. VI, 3; 
 Longin. (?) de Sublim. XVIII, 2; XXXII, 3; C. I. 2250, 7, and elsewhere. 
 
 For the equivalent phrase ex tov jtagaxefjpia, JtagaxQfiM-a, etc., see 
 Plato, Crat. 399D ; R^P- 455A; Menex. 236B; Polit. 310C; Plut. Mor. 6C; 
 Dem. I, I ; XXXVII, 47 ; Ps. Dem. LXI, 2, and elsewhere, ex toij kqogxvxov- 
 Tog and avxodEv occur in Plut. Mor. 407B and elsewhere. 
 
 ^An orator might be fully capable of extemporizing an address and still 
 prefer to prepare. M. Sarcey (p. 45) tells an anecdote of M. Leon Say who 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC 4I 
 
 In Alcidamas' complaint that written speeches are Hke statues 
 and cannot help one in his time of need/^^ he goes back again to his 
 criticism of speeches to be read. In comparison with a living speak- 
 er they are indeed lifeless, and of this disadvantage Isocrates was 
 well aware.^^^ The comparison, however, need not necessarily be 
 between written speeches and extemporary speakers. It would hold 
 perfectly well between academic essays and the speeches of such an 
 orator as Demosthenes. Even Alcidamas, while proving the superi- 
 ority of the extemporary speaker, would leave himself a loop-hole 
 of escape. He would allow his speaker to arrange his arguments 
 and the order of his speech ; the words ought to be extemporary.^^^ 
 This might imply much or little in the way of preparation.^^^ 
 
 Alcidamas' treatise, then, is a laudation of extemporary speech, 
 first, as compared with orations which are written to be read, and 
 so far, perhaps, aimed at Isocrates; and secondly, against those 
 orators who can speak only if they have written and memorized a 
 speech.^^^ His arguments against each class are sound, but they will 
 
 had prepared a lecture and as he was stepping on the platform received an 
 order from the government to change his subject. He thereupon delivered an 
 extemporary lecture with great success. Emerson (Essay on Eloquence) 
 tells of Lord Ashley's being unable on one occasion to deliver a premeditated 
 speech, and his finally drawing an eloquent argument from his own confusion. 
 
 ^"^27 ff. Cf. Plato, Phaedr. 275-6. 
 
 ^"Isocr. V, 25-26. 
 
 ^°^ Of course the preparation need not necessarily be verbal. Still, if an 
 orator spent much time on the arrangement of his arguments he would un- 
 consciously fall into using certain sequences of words which would again 
 recur with the argument. Cf. Sarcey, quoted in n. 121 p. 31. The result is 
 practically memorization. 
 
 ^'® There are amusing stories in Quintilian of those orators who cannot 
 alter the fashion of their speeches, into which they have introduced passages 
 for effect which sometimes fail to produce it: VI, i, 42-43; VI, 3, 39-40. 
 Also Cicero pro Cluent. 21. Compare Goldwin Smith, Reminiscences, pp. 
 405-6: "The average of speaking, however, in America, both in Congress and 
 elsewhere, is far higher than it is in England. Rhetoric and elocution are 
 
 parts of American education The training, however, has one 
 
 bad result, the orator seldom gets rid of the air of speaking for effect. The 
 •great English orators, nature's elect and pupils, such as Gladstone and Bright, 
 speak in the accent of nature and to the heart, though practice in debating 
 societies had marred the freshness of Gladstone's style. I once heard Everett, 
 
42 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 not apply to both classes, nor would they hold against one who 
 could justly be called a good orator, the man who is able to deliver 
 a creditable extemporary speech when necessary, but who realizes 
 that there are occasions which demand a degree of precision and 
 finish which only a written speech can attain. 
 
 Isocrates' other opponent, Aristotle, held very different views 
 from those of Alcidamas. It was the practice of Aristotle, we are 
 told, to ^'accustom his disciples to discuss any question which might 
 be proposed, training them just as an orator might." "^ This might 
 almost be a description of Gorgias' method of teaching, but there 
 are not many traces of the sophists in Aristotle's theoretical treat- 
 ment of rhetoric. 
 
 Aristotle's Rhetoric is in reality only an amplification of the 
 principles set forth in Plato's Phaedrus}^^ Like the Phaedrus, it 
 contains no treatment of extemporary speech.^^^ The question 
 Aristotle deals with is the difference between written and spoken 
 speeches, that is, the difference between the style to be used in writ- 
 ing and that to be used in pleading.^^^ He distinguishes two kinds of 
 speeches, and two styles appropriate to them: (i) the style of de- 
 bate, that of the speech made in the actual contest in the assembly 
 or law-court; and (2) the style of written compositions which are 
 
 whose platform oratory was the acme of American art. His language was 
 unimpeachable. But his every word, and not only his every word, but his 
 every gesture, was unmistakably prepared. He seemed to gesticulate not only 
 with his hands, but with his legs. He even planned scenic effects beforehand. 
 Having to deliver a Fourth of July oration, he introduced a veteran of 1812, 
 put him in a conspicuous place, and told the old man to rise to him at his 
 entrance into the Hall. The old man did as he had been bidden. Everett 
 apostrophized him with, "Venerable old man, sit down ! It is not for you to 
 rise to us, but for us to rise to you." The veteran said afterwards, "Mr. 
 Everett is a strange man; he told me to rise when he came into the hall, 
 and when I did rise he told me to sit down." 
 
 ""Diogenes Laertius V, Aristotle, 4. 
 
 *" Cf . Thompson's Phaedrus, Introd. p. XX, where he compares the 
 Phaedrus and the Rhetoric. 
 
 ^•"Aristotle's treatment of the agonistic speech may possibly include ex- 
 temporary speeches. See, however, p. 44, n. 174. 
 
 ^^Rhet. Ill, 12. On the adaptation of style to the different kinds of 
 oratory, see Quintilian, VHI, 3, 11 -14 (Cope)'; also HI, 8, 63, though with 
 perhaps a difference of meaning. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC 43 
 
 confined to the ''display*' branch of literature, and under which he 
 includes all compositions which are intended to be read, poetry, 
 history, philosophy, any writing on any subject whatever. ^^* 
 
 With both of these styles the orator ought to be acquainted. A 
 knowledge of the agonistic style means simply the power of speaking 
 good Greek, and if the orator is acquainted with the style appropri- 
 ate to writing, he need not sit silent when he wishes to communicate 
 his opinions to others besides the members of the assembly or court 
 before which he actually makes his speech, a fate which awaits those 
 who can only speak and not write.^^^ 
 
 According to Aristotle, the written style is the more exact or 
 finished; the style of debate partakes more of declamation.^^^ In 
 debate character and emotion are both represented,^^'' doubtless be- 
 cause in a debate the interests at stake are real and there is therefore 
 more room for portrayal of character and display of passion than in 
 the comparatively unemotional written speeches. ^^^ A man who is 
 passionately intent upon moving a judge, may omit a conjunction or 
 
 "* See Hermogenes (Rhet. Gr. II, 401, Sp.). Aristotle subdivides the 
 first class of speeches into the deliberative and the forensic. He does not 
 contemplate the epideictic speech as a spoken speech (III, 12, 5-6). 
 
 "°Rhet. Ill, 12, 2. See Blair's Lecture (VII) on the Rise and Progress 
 of Writing (Vol. I, 171)'. 
 
 The authenticity of the Third Book of Aristotle's Rhetoric has been 
 questioned. Diogenes Laertius (V, i, 24) in his list of Aristotle's works 
 gives the following : texvy)? qyjtoq ixfig a (3, jieqI ^lE^ecog a p. Jebb, in his trans- 
 lation of the Rhetoric {Introd. p, xxii. 7) believes that the latter refers to the 
 two parts of Book III, also described as nzQi Xelecog xa^agag a. The argu- 
 ments of H. Diels {Ahliandl. d. Berl. Akad. [1886] IV, 1-37) who believes it 
 genuine appear conclusive. The treatise has also been defended by Spengel 
 (ed. 1867, II, 354), and Cope (ed. 1867, Introd. p. 8). Sauppe (Ausg. Schr. 
 [1863] 354 ff.) and Rose {Ar. Pseud. 137) believe it spurious. 
 
 "° vjiojcQiTixcoTdxT) : "lends itself most to acting" (Cope); "is the best 
 adapted to deliver" (Jebb). 
 
 Cope, on Aristotle, Rhet. Ill, 12, 2, quotes Cicero, Orator, LXI, 208, for 
 the reason why the graphic style admits of more ornament and artificial ar- 
 rangement than the other, at least so far as declamation is concerned. Cf. 
 also Rhet. Ill, 5, 6. 
 
 ^•"III, 12, 2. 
 
 ^®*0n the contrast between the two see Isocrates V, 25-26; Alcidamas, 
 Jteol Ttov TOiig yQO.KTQvc, "koyovc, YQaqpovTWv. 
 
44 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 two with safety.^^^ Demetrius of Phalerum has the same idea in 
 mind when he assigns to debate the disjointed style, and keeps the 
 compacted and consolidated one for the reader/^*^ 
 
 Therefore, according to Aristotle, the speeches of the writers if 
 they are delivered in actual debate, seem paltry ^^^ in comparison 
 with those of the orators, while the latter, excellent as they were 
 when delivered, appear crude ^^^ when taken in the hands and 
 read.^''^ 
 
 The reason for this is that speeches intended for delivery do not 
 produce their proper effect when delivery is withdrawn, and so ap- 
 pear ridiculous,^^* and in like manner, while omission of connectives 
 and frequent repetitions in written style are justly censured, in de- 
 bate they become amplification and are employed by the orator 
 because more adapted for declamation. ^^^ 
 
 "* Aristotle elsewhere says that where action or delivery is most re- 
 quired, there there is least of exact finish to be found : III, 12, 5. 
 
 "°de Elocutione 193: "No doubt the disjointed style lends itself better 
 to debate. It likewise bears the name of "histrionic" since a broken structure 
 stimulates acting. On the other hand, the best "literary style" (vQacpixTi 
 8e Xe^ig) is that which is pleasant to read; and this is the style which is 
 compacted and (as it were) consolidated by the conjunctions" (Roberts). 
 
 Sarcey (p. 163) says that in a lecture there are no transitions. When 
 you have finished one theme, simply pass on to the next if there is no logical 
 connection between the two. If there is, the audience will follow it. 
 
 "^axevog: "narrow" (Cope) ; "thin" (Jebb). axevog is the Latin tenuis, 
 that is, "slight", in a depreciatory sense. Cf. Cope's note on this passage. 
 
 "^ l8icoTi>toi : "such as have only the capacity of unprofessional persons 
 or laymen"; as opposed to professionals (Cope): 
 
 "' III, 12, 2. Cf . Quint. XI, 3, 8, on Hortensius. 
 
 "* Such speeches must have been written or they could not appear "silly^' 
 (Jebb) or otherwise; there would be no means of judging of their effect 
 on a reader. This would argue against the assumption that Aristotle in- 
 cluded impromptu speeches in the agonistic class. 
 
 Memorization of speeches must have been common, for Theophrastus' 
 "Loquacious Man" is one who never fails to repeat a much-applauded speech 
 he once made in the assembly. 
 
 "^III, 12, 2. Cf. Aquila Romanus 30. 
 
 Jebb, in his translation, has the following: "But when we reiterate we 
 must also vary — an art, which is, as it were, introductory to the whole art 
 of delivery." I cannot get this meaning out of the passage: the varying of 
 the expression, as the following example shows, opens the way to declamation. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC 45 
 
 Leaving now the subject of written speech as contrasted with 
 the speech of debate, Aristotle discusses the two classes into which 
 he divides the latter.^^® Of these, the deliberative, or speech to the 
 people, is exactly like sketching ; ^^^ the greater the crowd addressed, 
 the more distant is their point of view, and so finished productions 
 are superfluous. The style of a judicial oration or forensic pleading, 
 being before a smaller audience, admits of more exactness and 
 finish/^^ still more so if it be before a single judge. Here there is 
 least room for rhetorical artifices ;^^^ what belongs to the case and 
 what is foreign to it is more easily seen, and since the contest is 
 absent,^^^ and there is no room for prejudice, the judgment is un- 
 biased. This is why the same orators do not distinguish themselves 
 in all these branches, but where delivery is most required, there 
 there is least of accurate finish to be found. 
 
 The epideictic style, says Aristotle, is best suited to writing for 
 its purpose is to be read, and in the second degree, the judicial/^^ 
 Aristotle nowhere says that the speech to be delivered should be 
 extemporary. 
 
 Other writers of Greek treatises on rhetoric have very little to 
 say on the subject of extemporary speech.^^^ Anaximenes,^®^ who is 
 
 "'III, 12, 5, Cf. Cope's note on this passage. 
 
 "'Ill, 12, 5. For the figure see Plato, Theatetus, 208E; also Phaedo, 
 69B; Parmen. 165C; Rep. 365C; 602D; Jebb (p. 178) renders axiayoacpia, 
 "rough fresco-painting". 
 
 "Mil, 12, 6; Quint. Ill, 8, 62. 
 
 "®Jebb (p. 178) renders this: "the relevant and the irrelevant are then 
 more easily seen in one view, and the turmoil is absent, so that the judgment 
 is serene." 
 
 ^^Cf. Cicero, ad Att. I, 16, 8. 
 
 "Mil, 12, 6. 
 
 ^^For the attitude toward rhetoric of the post- Aristotelian philosophers, 
 and that of the Stoics and later schools, see Zeller : The Stoics, Epicureans, 
 and Sceptics, Eng. trans. London, 1870; Stryter: de Stoicorum studio rheto- 
 ric 0. 
 
 For the Stoic definition of rhetoric see Diog. Laert. VII, 42; Sext. Emp. 
 Adv. Math. II, Plut. de Stoic. Repug. 28, 1047 ff. It was characteristic of the 
 Stoics to separate theory and practice: Cicero, de Or. II, 38, 159; III, 18, 65. 
 
 On Chrysippus' Jtegi xfjg 'gTixogixfi? cf. Baguet, de Chrysippi vita, doc- 
 trina, et scriptis, Lovan, 1822, 103. 
 
 For Epicurus' attitude toward oratory and learning, see Schol. in Hermog. 
 (Spengel, p. 8); Quint. II, 17, 15; XII, 2, 24. 
 
 ^ Cf. Siiss, Ethos, p. 123. 
 
46 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 generally accepted as the author of the "Rhetorica ad Alexan- 
 drum,"^^* has a few brief remarks about the prepared speech. They 
 have, however, nothing to do with the theory of the matter, being 
 merely interesting directions for a reply to the charge of deliver- 
 ing a prepared speech. His remarks are a practical admission of 
 the charge of preparation : sav 5s Sta^aXXwatv Yjfxaq tdq YeYpa[i|jt.svou? 
 XoYOu? Xs^o^xsv, 1^ Xs^eiv [leXeTwpLsv yj w? ext {xtaOco Ttvt auvY]Yopou(jLev, 
 XPY] xpo? xa TOtauTOf 6[jl6<7S faBi^ovTag etpwveueaOat, Ttai xspi [xsv tyji; 
 Ypa^-^q Xsystv, [jly) T^wXustv tov v6[i.ov out. sav TOtauxa TcpaiTStv, XsYstv Se 
 OTuw? av Tt(; fouXir^Tat ffuyx^pstv. 'Pyjisov- Ss /.at OTt outg)^ 6 evavuto? 
 oteiat iisyaXa Y)5cxY]xevat. wax' 06 vo[i.t^st [as /.ax' a?tav xaTYj^opYJaat, 
 et iJLY] Ypa^otpi-t /.at xoXuv ^povov ax£<J^atVir]v. xspt [asv ouv xa? xo)v YSTpaji.- 
 [ji,€V(j)v Xoywv SiagoXa? ouxo? axavxY)xeov, ov 8e (paa/watv, if3iJLa(; Xe^etv 
 [xavOavstv /at [isXsxav, 6[jLoXoYin(iavx£<; spoujisv • yj^xsi? (lev ot [jLavOavovx£<; 
 to? 9Y]<; oO 9tX6St/.ot safjisv, au Se 6 Xeystv [jly] extaxa[JL£VO(; /.at v5v if]|ia? 
 xai xpoxspov £aX(o? a'jT^oqjavx&iv ' toaxe XuatxfiXfi? qjavstxat zolq xoXtxat? 
 >tdxsivov (jLavSavstv 'pY]xop£U£tv -^^^ Later in his treatise Anaximenes 
 
 ^^The Rhetorica ad Alexandrum is now universally admitted to be the 
 work of some author other than Aristotle. The Florentine scholar, Victorius, 
 seems to have been the first to argue that the real author was Anaximenes of 
 Lampsacus. Since the thorough discussion of the question by Spengel {Art. 
 Script. 182-189) this view has been almost universally adopted although it is 
 not without its difficulties (cf. Cope, Introd. to Aristotle's Rhetoric, pp. 
 406-414). The treatise is not quoted in Aristotle's Rhetoric, although it bears 
 some rather superficial points of resemblance to it. The latest event men- 
 tioned in it belongs to 340 B. C, and therefore the date has been put at about 
 340-330 B. C. For a further discussion of the treatise see Spengel, (Anax- 
 imenes Ars Rhetorica, (ed. 1847), and Philologus XVIII (1862), 604-646; 
 Blass, Att. Bereds. II, 378-399, (2nd. ed. II, 353 ff.)'; Jebb, II, 431; Wendland, 
 (Berlin, 1905); Nitsche, W: Dem. u. Anaximenes (Berlin, 1905). Navarre, 
 Essai sur la Rhetorique grecque avant Aristote (Paris, 1900), 160; 335 ff., 
 does not believe that Aristotle was the author, but finds it difficult to accept 
 Anaximenes. See also Susemihl {Jahres. Ub. die Fortsch. d. classisch. Alterth. 
 (188s), XIII, I ff.; and Maas, E. : Deutsch. Litteraturz. IV (1896), 103 ff. 
 
 Gamier, Mem. sur V art oratoire de Corax (Memoires de I'lnstitut, 
 2e serie, tom. II, 1815) tries to prove it the work of Corax. (Cf. Gros. E. : 
 £tude sur I'etat de la Rhetorique ches les Grecs [Paris, 1835], 16). 
 
 ^Rhet. Gr. I, 234-5, Sp. Cf. Demosthenes' admission of preparation: 
 XXI, 191 ; Plut. de Educat. Puer. 9. There may possibly be a hint of prepar- 
 ation on Demosthenes' part in XIII, 171, 18, but the authenticity of this speech 
 is questioned. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC 47 
 
 observes very sensibly :^^^ Sei §£ /.at XsYOVia? y,at ypa^ovxa? otc 
 pLaXtffTa :r£ipaa6(Z5 xaia Ta xsTupafpLeva tou? Xbyouq aTuoScSovat itat 
 juvsOt^etv auTOug xouxot? axajtv e? sxotVou ^®^ xpri5^(xi. Kat xepi [xev 
 [ouv] Tou Asyetv Ivts^vo)?, >tat ev lot? tBcot? /.ai Iv TOt(; vtotvot? aywat 
 %av Tat? 7up6? TOU? aXXou? ojitXtat?, evTSuOev TuXetaTa? xai Ts^vtz-WTaTa? 
 a^oppia? £^opL£v • ypri hi %at tyjv ETutpilXfitav xot£t(TOat [xy] [j,6vov TC£pt tou? 
 Xoyou?, aX).a xat 7C£pt tov ftov tov auTOu, Staxoaptouvxa Tat? tSfiat? Tat? 
 £tpY;[jL£vat?. (ju(jL^aXX£Tat vap yj 7U£pt tov ptov xapaaxsuY] y,ai xpo? to 
 
 X£t0£tV Xat XpO? TO SO^YJ? £Xt£t%OU? TUY)jaV£tV. 
 
 Although Plutarch cannot be classed among the writers on rhet- 
 oric, in the strict sense of the term, one passage in particular of 
 his writings ought to be mentioned here. In his treatise "Ow the 
 Education of Children" Plutarch says:^*^ "For perfection is only 
 attained by neither speaking nor acting at random. As the proverb 
 says 'Perfection is difficult to attain'. But extemporary oratory is 
 reckless and thoughtless (oi B'auToaxs^tot twv Xoycov xoXXyj? £U7£p£ta? 
 xat p'aStoupYta £tat xX'^p£t?) and knows neither where to begin nor 
 to end. And besides their other shortcomings, extemporary speak- 
 ers fall into great disproportion and repetition,^®^ but preparation 
 does not allow the speech to go beyond its due proportion. ^®° 
 
 There seem to be two possible ways of interpreting the passage of Anax- 
 imenes ; it may be that the speaker who is to reply to the charge of prepar- 
 ation has written his own speech, as Demosthenes, for example, wrote the 
 Midias speech, and so replies to his opponents. The other possibility is that 
 the speaker is going to deliver a speech which has been written for him, and 
 which he has memorized and will speak as his own. Certainty on this point 
 seems impossible. The passage could be used to support either view. 
 
 ^""Rhet. Gr. I, 239, Sp. 
 
 ^ Cf . p. 40, n. 153 fin ; Philost. Vit. Soph. II, 9, 7. 
 
 ^'^Dr Ediicat. Puer. 9. evxEQCia and *QQt6iovQYia have a disparaging moral 
 sense here. The translation given by Goodwin renders the words "easy and 
 facile". I hardly think this is the sense in this passage. 
 
 ^^ Sears (p. 412) says of George William Curtis : "The lessons which he 
 left to youth of kindred aspirations were, first, that nothing should be spared 
 in the preparation for public speech, even to the perfect memorizing which 
 has all the force of extemporization without its inevitable blemishes of repeti- 
 tion and disproportion, of things better left unsaid, of good things arriving 
 too late to be uttered, and a general deterioration in the speaker who follows 
 it exclusively". 
 
 ^*° Hume, in his Essay on Eloquence, says a defect of modern orators is 
 that "their great affectation of extemporary discourses has made them reject 
 
48 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 Pericles, as we hear from tradition, when called upon by the people 
 to speak, frequently refused, saying that he was unprepared. In 
 like manner, too, Demosthenes, the zealous follower of Pericles in 
 affairs of state, when the Athenians called upon him for his advice, 
 refused to give it, saying 'I am not prepared'. But, perhaps you 
 will say, this statement is without authority, and mere tradition. 
 However, in his speech against Midias, Demosthenes plainly sets 
 forth the utility of preparation. At any rate, he says:^^^ 'I ac- 
 knowledge, men of Athens, that I have considered my speech, and 
 I do not deny that I have prepared it to the best of my ability ; for 
 I should have been but a simpleton if, after having suffered so much 
 at his hands, and even still suffering, I had neglected how to plead 
 my cause before you'.^^^ Not that I would altogether reject ex- 
 temporary oratory, or deny that one should practice it on fitting 
 occasions, but it ought to be used as one would take medicine (i. e. 
 sparingly and occasionally). Until the child reaches man's estate,^®* 
 I would advocate no extemporary speaking, but when his power to 
 speak is rooted, then it is fitting that at critical times his words 
 should flow freely. For just as those who have been for a long 
 time in fetters, stumble if they are afterwards freed, not being able 
 to walk because they have long been accustomed to their bonds,^^* in 
 
 all order and method, which seems so requisite to argument, and without 
 which it is scarcely possible to produce any entire conviction on the mind." 
 ^" XXI, 191. 
 
 "* See the comment on this admission by Gregory of Corinth {Rhet. Gr. 
 VII, 1271, Walz). 
 
 "" Practice in extemporary speaking clearly held a place in the schools. 
 
 Crassus advocates it (Cic. de. Or. I, 33, 150) in istis ipsis exer- 
 
 citationibus etsi utile est etiam subito saepe dicere; also I, 60, 257, . . . . 
 subitae ad propositas causas exercitationes. Compare Cic. ad Fam. IX, 18, 3. 
 Quintilian (II, 4, 15-16)' condemns extemporary garrulity in boys; they should 
 learn to speak correctly before they speak rapidly. There will be a proper 
 time for acquiring facility of speech. 
 
 It was usual for the pupils to learn by heart what they had composed and 
 repeat it on a certain day. This practice Quintilian condemns, and would have 
 them instead learn portions of the speeches of others (II, 7, 1-5; cf. also I, 
 II, 14): 
 
 "*For exactly the same figure see Alcidamas 16-17, as describing the 
 mind of the writer who tries extemporary speech. Cf. p. 31. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC 49 
 
 the same way, those who for a long time have bound their speech 
 fast, if at any time they must speak at a moment's notice, keep none 
 the less the same character of expression. But to allow those who 
 are still children to speak extempore, is to give cause for the highest 
 possible degree of idle talk". 
 
 Elsewhere Plutarch advocates preparation of speeches if such 
 preparation be possible. The man who takes part in public life must 
 of course know how to speak,^^^ and the speech he delivers before 
 the people ought to be premeditated.^^® The oration should not be 
 over-elaborate,^^^ but fitting preparation is necessary if the orator 
 is to speak before a numerous and honorable assembly.^^^ 
 
 Although Plutarch advises preparation when preparation is pos- 
 sible, he knows that there arise many occurrences in political life 
 when it is imperative that the orator should speak at once, and for 
 this he should be trained.^^^ Plutarch's orator, in short, would be 
 one who, while he understood the value of preparation and would 
 employ it wherever he could, would still be able to express himself 
 in a creditable manner on any subject which suddenly came up for 
 discussion. 2^^ 
 
 Hermogenes, in his treatise on eloquence,^^^ makes one excellent 
 point in connection with the subject of preparation for a speech. 
 He believes that if a speaker is making a speech in the deliberative 
 branch of oratory, he ought to admit that he has prepared what he 
 is going to say. On other occasions he may, if he wishes, pretend to 
 extemporize: "When shall an orator pretend to extemporize? Of 
 the three branches of rhetoric, in a speech belonging to the advisory 
 class, he especially ought even to admit that he has deliberated. For 
 the one who seeks advice will not suffer the one who gives it to say 
 whatever comes into his head, but on the contrary, the adviser ought 
 to admit that he has considered and thought the matter out, like 
 Demosthenes when he says ^^^ **but as it seemed, that crisis called 
 
 "" Pol. Praec. 802 A. 
 
 ^'' Pol Praec. 803 F, and c. 9. 
 
 "' Pol. Praec. 802 E-F. 
 
 ^■^^Ilwg av Tig eji' (XQexfj 80 C-D. 
 
 ^«*Fo/. Praec. 803F-804A. 
 
 ^^ In the "Lives" Plutarch tells of the actual practice of the orators. 
 
 ^""Rhet. Gr. II, 426-56, Sp. Cf. n. 185. 
 
 ^ XVIII, 172. 
 
50 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 for a man who was not only well-disposed towards you, and wealthy, 
 but one who had also followed matters most closely from the be- 
 ginning." ^^^ For this ought to belong to the counsellor, (namely), 
 experience in affairs. But in a forensic speech, even if you have 
 come prepared (ea/,£[jLiJLevo? i^'/.y)?), pretend to speak on the spur of 
 the moment (auToSev Xeyeiv), just as all the ancients do: for al- 
 though they all wrote, they pretend to extemporize (a^sSia^stv). 
 Why? Because the judge looks with suspicion upon the orator, and 
 fears that he may be deceived by the power of rhetoric. This very 
 characteristic, then, is part of the orator's skill, to seem to speak 
 extempore, in order that thus, too, the judge may be misled: and 
 introductions which they have long considered, they speak as if 
 they had found on the spur of the moment, and the heads of their 
 discourse, as if they called them to mind on a sudden in the progress 
 of each case. But in the encomiastic type of speeches, there is 
 nothing to prevent you at times from using both : both acknowledged 
 written preparation and pretended extemporization". ^^^ 
 
 Gregory of Corinth ^^^ comments in some detail on this passage of 
 Hermogenes. He agrees with Hermogenes that the one who gives 
 advice should be a man of experience, and quotes Euripides to prove 
 his point.-°^ A confession of preparation in this branch of speak- 
 ing is, therefore, admissible. Gregory, like Hermogenes, com- 
 mends pretended extemporization in the judicial branch of oratory 
 as disarming the suspicion of the judge. In encomiastic speeches, 
 Gregory agrees that the orator may use both methods, but adds that 
 he found in one of the ancient waiters a statement that while one 
 could admit preparation and also pretend to extemporize in encomi- 
 astic speeches, one must not employ both methods in the same speech, 
 for the two things are irreconcilable with each other.^*^^ 
 
 ^°^ Hermogenes' example is not a good one. In the Demosthenes passage 
 there is only the remotest kind of implication of preparation. 
 
 The slight differences between our text of the Demosthenes' passage and 
 that quoted by Hermogenes is probably to be explained on the theory that 
 the rhetorician was quoting from memory. It is, of course, possible that 
 Hermogenes had access to a different text. 
 
 "^ Rhet. Gr. 11, 440-41 Sp. 
 
 '''Rhet. Gr. VII, 1268 ff., Walz. 
 
 ^°® Phoen. 529 : aXX' 'f\nKeiQia e'xei xi Xelai xcov vecov aoq)c6T8QOv, and 453 : 
 Ppadeig fie \iv^oi nXeloxov avvovoiv oocpov. 
 
 ^^ Gregory later (p. 1273) tries to explain this. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC 5 1 
 
 According to Gregory, the view that the adviser should take 
 thought and prepare was held as well by Homer ^^^ as by Demos- 
 thenes.'^^ 
 
 In explaining why pretended extemporization is best in a ju- 
 dicial speech Gregory says,^^** again quoting Euripides,^^^ that truth 
 is simple. The man who pleads a true cause will need no prepar- 
 ation or consideration ([xeXsTY], c-^i^iq), and so even if orators have 
 prepared their speeches beforehand, they pretend to speak extempo- 
 raneously. This is the explanation of the prayer to Apollo in Poly- 
 xenus' speech and of the remarks of Aristogeiton in the speech 
 against Hyperides, which he pretends that he has just remembered. 
 
 Aristides mentions pretended extemporization as one of the many 
 ways of rendering one's speech credible. After giving examples of 
 the pretended recollection of an important point,^^^ and the pre- 
 tended search for a decree "which ought to be somewhere there,"^^^ 
 he adds : ''for to introduce one not as having made one's preparations, 
 but as searching at the critical time, oiJLOtov edTtv aOxoaxs^^Cj) x.ai 
 a^toxtffxov xotet tov Xofov.^^* 
 
 The author of the treatise ''On the Sublime," ^^^ by virtue of his 
 
 ''"^P. 1270. Homer, //. IX, 74; X, 17; XIV, 3; Od. 192. 
 
 ««I, 9 (St.) r XVIII, p. 284. 
 
 ^^T. 1271 (Walz). 
 
 '^^Phoen. 469: djtX,oC5 o m-O^o? xfig dXri^Eiag ecpv. Or. 491. 
 
 ^Dem. XXIV, 122; and XL, 58; cf. Blass, III, 150-161. 
 
 ^ Dem. XX, 84. 
 
 ^^*Rhet. Gr. II, 490, Sp. Instances of the employment of such devices may 
 be found in large numbers in the orators; for example the interpolation of 
 remarks while a decree is being sought, or between the command to read a 
 decree and its actual reading: Dem. XVIII, 179; 212; 218-219; XXI, 108; 
 XX, 84-7. So in Dem. XIX, 213-15, the orator has the witnesses called and 
 then goes on speaking for a time while they are supposedly standing at the 
 bar, and this too, in a speech which was probably never delivered (cf. p. 
 128, n. 273). 
 
 '"^The authorship of the treatise "On the Sublime" has been much de- 
 bated in late years. No doubt seems to have been felt by the early editors. 
 The editio princeps, published at Basle in 1554, by Francis Robortello, at- 
 tributed the work to Dionysius Longinus, and the statement seems to have 
 been unquestioned by all the editors, translators, and critics who flourished 
 during the next two centuries. In 1808, however, doubt was aroused by the 
 discovery by the Italian scholar Amati that one of the Vatican manuscripts 
 read Aiovvaiov r\ Aoyyi'vou jieqi uil^oug. 
 
52 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 subject advocates a care in the choice of words which is incompatible 
 with extemporary speech. He says in one passage: "Now the 
 choice of proper and striking words attracts and charms the hearers 
 in a wonderful degree, (and this choice is the most important 
 pursuit of all orators and writers), since it is through its agency that 
 there is caused to blossom upon speeches, as upon the most beauti- 
 ful statues, grandeur, beauty, mellowness, dignity, power, strength, 
 and whatever admirable qualities there may be in addition, and 
 breathes into things, as it were, a kind of living voice. Upon this 
 fact it is superfluous to dilate in detail to those who know it well." ^^* 
 An outburst of passion should have the appearance of extempo- 
 rization, if it is to produce its greatest effect upon the audience, but 
 it is only the appearance of spontaneity, produced by the skillful use 
 of figures.^^^ 
 
 At present critical opinion seems to be against the traditional view that 
 the treatise is the work of Longinus. There is no good evidence for at- 
 tributing the production to the Longinus of history; it is not listed among 
 his works by Suidas, Porphyry, or others, nor is it mentioned or quoted by 
 a^iy writer of antiquity. Furthermore, internal evidence, as Roberts has 
 shown, points to the first century rather than the third as the probable period 
 of the production of the treatise. 
 
 Additional information on the subject may be found in W. R. Roberts* 
 excellent introduction to his edition of the work (Cambridge, 1899), and in 
 the following articles: Buchenau, G. : De Scriptore Libri liegi ''Ytpoug^ 
 (Mar. Catt. 1849); Egger, A. E. : Longin est-il veritahlement fauteur du 
 Trait e du Sublime f (In his Essai sur Vhistoire de la critique chez les Grecs 
 [Paris, 1849] 524-533); Francs, L. B. des : Utrum Dionysio Longino ad- 
 scribendus sit liber qui Uegi "Yil^ovg inscribitur. (Grat. 1862) ; Winkler, A. : 
 De Longini qui fertur libello XIeqI ''Yil^ovg (Hal. 1870); Martens. L. : De 
 libello ITeqi "Yipoug (Bonn, 1877); Rohde, E. : Zu der Schrift Hzqi ^'Yapoug 
 (Rhein. Mus. N. F. 1880, XXXV, 309-312; Pessonneaux, R. : De I'auteur 
 du Traite du Sublime (Annates de la Faculte des Lettres de Bordeaux, 1883,, 
 V, 291-303; Coblentz, B. : De libelli IIeqi "Yi^Joug auctore (Argent. 1888); 
 Hultzsch, T. : Zum Anonymus IIeqI "YiJ^ovg (Jahrb. f. Class. Phil., 1890, 
 CXLI, 369-370) ; Brighentius, E. : De libelli Hegi "YilJoug auctore dissertatio, 
 (Patav. 1895). 
 
 ^^''De Sublimitate 30, i {Rhet. Gr. I, 279, I, Sp.). Elsewhere (I, 4; Rhet. 
 Gr. I, 246, 4) the same author says: "Elevated language does not produce 
 the effect of persuasion upon the audience, but that of ecstacy. In every way 
 and at every time imposing speech, with the effect it produces, has greater 
 power than that of persuasion, or that which aims at gratification." 
 
 ^"^ De Sublim. 18, 2 (I, 270, Sp.). In this passage the author is discussing: 
 the figure of question and answer as a means of simulating a natural out- 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC 53 
 
 According to Theon, it is impossible for one to become an orator 
 without the daily drill of writing. Neither the speeches of the 
 ancients, nor the art of rhetoric will help the would-be orator, unless 
 he disciplines himself by writing from day to day: "But just as for 
 those who would be painters, it is of no advantage to look at the 
 works of Apelles and Protogenes and Antiphilos unless they them- 
 selves try their hands at painting, so, too, for those who would be 
 orators, there is no help in the speeches of the ancients, nor in the 
 multitude of their thoughts, nor in their purity of style, nor in the 
 harmony of their composition, nor is there any advantage in hearing 
 about elegance, unless each one, by his own efforts, trains himself 
 by writing every day."^^^ 
 
 Among the less important rhetoricians there are two slight ref- 
 erences to the subject of extemporary speech. Alexander ^^^ has 
 the following observation : lait 5s 5ta twv (jxw^"^^^ Soxetv xa( auTO- 
 
 XotTuoq XoYog;"^^*^ tq oGto) ''toutc [jitTtpou [is xap^XOsv sixstv."^^^ Ta YC«p 
 TOtauTa TY]v Tou Soxstv auToOsv Xsystv sfA^aaiv xoist. Tiberius has even 
 
 burst of passion. Later (22, 3; I, 273, Sp.) he speaks of hyperbata as use- 
 ful for the same purpose. For the same idea, see Demetrius, de Elocutione, 
 27, and 300. 
 
 *^* Theon, Progymnasmata, c. 1 (Rhet. Gr. II, 62, Sp.). Elsewhere (c. 2; 
 II, 65, Sp.) Theon gives an interesting glimpse of the method of teaching 
 which he believes correct. He says that the teacher should select from the 
 ancient orators good examples of various kinds of discourse, among them the 
 so-called commonplace, and assign them to be memorized by the pupils. 
 
 On the stress laid by Cicero and Quintilian on writing see p. 54 ff. 
 Compare Cicero, Brut. LXXI, 250, of Marcellus' practice. 
 
 '^'Rhet Gr. Ill, 14, 7-8. Cf. also Rhet. Gr. Ill, 12, 15 ff. Quintilian (IV, 
 5, 4) recommends the introduction of such expressions as giving an air of 
 spontaneity to the speech. 
 
 ^^° As far is I am aware this exact sequence of words does not occur in 
 Demosthenes. The nearest approaches to it are the following: 
 
 XXIII, 82: "^Agd Tig fifxiv exi XoiJtog eaxi vojxog; 
 XXI, 99 : Ti ovv uJioA-outov ; 
 
 XXIV, 99: xal Ti XoiJtov ea^' fmiv akV r\ zaxakeXvo^ai ; 
 
 XXV, 81 : Ti ovv XoiJtov, & avbgeq 'A-^vaioi ; 
 XLI, 18 : Ti exi Xomov ; 
 
 LV, 18 : Ti XoiKow 5i axbgeq Sixaoxal JtQog decov ; 
 '^^Dem. XIX, 234; XXI, no. 
 
54 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 less to say :^^^ auTOaxeStov S'la-rtv oiav TcpoaxotYjTai apit vsvoir3/,svat, olov 
 "o TOtvuv ixexaju Xsywv eveOu[JL'»iOY]v'V^^ >^at xaXiv, "touti yap au jjLi>tpou 
 [xe xapTJXOev.^^* 
 
 Among the Romans the subject of extemporary speech was 
 treated by Cicero, Quintilian,^^^ and Tacitus. Cicero, in his treatise, 
 de Oratore, discusses in the person of Crassus, the worth of exer- 
 cise in extemporary speaking. In considering methods of training 
 students, Cicero says: ''Although in those exercises (those of the 
 students) it is useful even frequently to speak on the sudden, yet it 
 is more advantageous, after taking time to consider, to speak with 
 greater preparation and accuracy. But the chief point of all is, 
 that which, to say the truth, we hardly ever practice, for it requires 
 great labor which most of us avoid; I mean, to write as much as 
 possible. Writing "^ is said to be the best and most excellent 
 modeller and teacher of oratory, and not without reason. For if 
 what is meditated and considered easily surpasses sudden and ex- 
 temporary speech, a constant and diligent habit of writing will surely 
 be of more value than meditation and consideration itself ; ^^'' since 
 all the arguments relating to the subject on which we write, whether 
 they are suggested by art or by a certain power of genius and under- 
 standing, will readily present themselves and occur to us while we 
 examine and contemplate it in the full light of our intellect ; and all 
 the thoughts and words which are the most expressive of their kind, 
 must of necessity come under and submit to the keenness of our 
 judgment while writing; and a fair arrangement and collocation of 
 words is gained by writing in a certain rhythm and measure, not 
 poetical but oratorical. Such are the qualities which bring applause 
 
 "^'Rhet. Gr. 111,66, 28, Sp. 
 
 '^ Dem. XXIV, 122. 
 
 =^Dem. XIX, 234; XXI, no. 
 
 ^" Quintilian (III, i, 19 ff.) gives a list of writers on the theory of elo- 
 quence beginning with Cato, the Censor. Cf. Boelte, F. : De Artium Scrip- 
 toribus Latinis Quaestiones, 1886. 
 
 ""Stilus. Compare the "stilus exercitatus" of Orator, XLIV, 150; also 
 Brutus, XXV, 96; Quint, IX, 4, 114: "practice in writing, accordingly, will 
 qualify us sufficiently for observing due numbers in prose, and enable us to 
 pour them forth in a similar way extemporaneously." 
 
 "^Cicero seems to have three different stages of speech in mind: (i)'pure 
 extemporization, subitam et fortuitam orationem, (2) a speech which one 
 has had time to think over and prepare in his mind, (3) the stage of writing. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC 55 
 
 and admiration to good orators ; nor will any man ever attain them 
 unless after long and great practice in writing, however resolutely 
 he may have exercised himself in extemporary speech ; and he who 
 comes to speak after practice in writing brings this advantage with 
 him, that though he speak at the call of the moment, yet what he 
 says will bear a resemblance to something written ; ^^^ and if ever, 
 when he comes to speak, he brings anything with him in writing, 
 the rest of his speech, when he departs from what is written will 
 flow on in a similar strain.^^^ As when a boat has once been impelled 
 
 ^*Two interpretations of this passage seem possible: (i) the general 
 habit of writing will impart a finish to the orator's style when he reaches the 
 stage of being able to speak extempore; (2) if a part of the speech be written, 
 it will give finish to that part which is extemporized. 
 
 Cicero may have mixed the two ; the figure of the boat would apply only 
 to the second. Either interpretation supports the thesis that writing is an 
 aid to extempore speaking. 
 
 ^ There is hardly any doubt that the written passages were memorized. 
 Antonius, in speaking of the Greek teachers of rhetoric says (de Or. II, 19, 
 78-9)': "But their whole method of teaching, so far as I can judge, is ex- 
 tremely ridiculous They make five parts, as it were, of elo- 
 quence : to find what you are to say, to arrange what you have invented, then 
 to clothe it in proper language, then to commit it to memory (memoriae 
 mandare), and at last to deliver it with due action and elocution; a task 
 surely requiring no very abstruse study. For who would not know without 
 assistance that no one can make a speech unless he has settled what he is to 
 say, and in what words, and in what order, and remembers it?" Elsewhere 
 (I, 31, 142) Crassus mentions the five necessary things for an orator to 
 consider in his speech : "reperire primum quid diceret, deinde inventa non 
 solum ordine sed etiam momento quodam atque iudicio dispensare atque 
 componere ; tum ea denique vestire atque ornare oratione ; post memoria 
 saepire; ad extremum agere cum dignitate ac venustate." 
 
 Again we are told {de Or. I, 34, 157)' that the memory must be exercised 
 "by learning by heart, word for word, as many of our own writings and those 
 
 of others as possible : ediscendis ad verbum quam plurimis et 
 
 nostris scriptis et alienis." 
 
 Another thing which would imply memorization of the prepared portions 
 is the fact that Cicero insists that the memory is to be used as well for words 
 as for facts: de Or. I, 5, 18: (memoria) nisi custos inventis cogitatisque 
 
 rebus et verbis adhibeatur also I, 15, 64; 21, 94, (compare Tac. 
 
 Dial. c. 30, fin.). Committing to memory is one of the regular parts of pre- 
 paring a speech : de Or. II, 19, 79. In Aristotle there is no mention of com- 
 mitting to memory. There is merely a discussion of style and delivery. Here, 
 between style and delivery there is committing to memory. De Or. II, 87, 355, 
 implies memorization : omnem scriptum verborum apparatum (cf. also II, 
 
56 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 forward, though the rowers suspend their efforts, the vessel herself 
 still keeps her motion and course during the intermission of the im- 
 pulse and force of the oars, so, in a continued stream of oratory, 
 when written matter fails, the rest of the speech maintains a similar 
 flow, being impelled by the resemblance and force acquired from 
 what was written." ^^° 
 
 88, 359), as does III, 9, 33. Oratorical rhythm (de Or. I, 33, 151 and else- 
 where) would also imply verbal memorization. "Memoria iuris consultorum 
 (de Or. I, 28, 128) probably refers only to memory of facts. 
 
 It was the general practice of orators, and particularly of Cicero, to 
 memorize the essential parts, and particularly the introductions of their 
 speeches (Quint. X, 7, 29-30; cf. p. 164, n. 414). There is an amusing in- 
 stance of this practice in Lucian's "Zeus in Tragics" 658-9. Zeus is to make 
 a speech to the Gods and has forgotten the exordium he has prepared. By 
 the advice of Hermes, he adapts the opening of Demosthenes' First Olynthiac 
 to his needs, and when his memory for the orator's words fails, is carried 
 on into his speech without trouble. Lucian says that such an adaptation is 
 "the fashionable method with speakers nowadays." Apparently it was also 
 a common practice for the orators to commence with a quotation from 
 Homer. 
 
 The French lecturer, M. Sarcey, tried to learn his exordium by heart, 
 thinking that by doing so, all trace of emotion would disappear, but found the 
 plan a failure (p. 81 ; p. 160) ; he believes that the audience always knows 
 the moment a speaker passes from recitation to pure improvisation (p. 161). 
 
 There is a bare possibility that an orator may have used his manuscript 
 for the written portions, but it is not likely. Such great reliance on the 
 actual written text would be an effective check on any attempt at extemporary 
 eloquence. Modern speakers agree that one must not form the habit of rely- 
 ing on one's manuscript if one ever wishes to speak extempore. 
 
 ^'^ de Or. I, 33, 150 ff. The Greek rhetorician, Alcidamas, held exactly the 
 opposite view: cf. p. 29 and n. 151; Sarcey, p. 158. Antonius (de Or. I, 60, 
 257) finds fault with this system of training as too severe. 
 
 The phrase used by Antonius, "accuratae ac meditatae commentationes" 
 is closely paralleled in Tacitus, Dial. c. 6, 20: "accuratam meditatamque 
 orationem." Meditatus is a word frequently used by Tacitus. It occurs once 
 in an absolute and active sense in Dial. c. 10, 32 (cf. Gudeman's note where 
 Seneca, Ep. 20, 12, is quoted as a parallel). As a passive participle in the 
 sense of well-prepared, it appears often ; for example, Ann. XIV, 55 ; Hist. 
 IV, 68, 27. As far as I know, the verb meditor occurs but once in Quintilian 
 (X, 3, 30) where it is used of Demosthenes "practicing" his oratory on the 
 sea-shore. The noun meditatio is used by Quintilian in the sense of what he 
 later calls "scholasticae controversiae" (IV, 2, 92; 97; Sen. Cont. I, Praef. 
 12; Tac. Dial. 14, 23) or \ieXixai (cf. Spalding's note on Quint. X, i, 70), 
 in contrast to actual pleadings in the law-court (IV, 2, 29). The word appears 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC 57 
 
 He elsewhere speaks of frequent practice which is superior to 
 the precepts of all masters,^^^ calls the pen ''the creator of elo- 
 quence," ^^^ and believes that nothing has so much power as writing 
 to produce skill in speaking.^^^ 
 
 again (X, i, 70) of the formal speeches, M-eA.exai, meditationes, in the plays of 
 Meander. In Tacitus (Dial. 14, 4) it is used in the same sense of "school 
 declamations." These are ridiculed by Juvenal, Sat. I, 15 (cf. Mayor's note). 
 
 The correspondence in meaning of meditari (Cicero, de Or. I, 30, 136; 
 S2, 148; Brut. LXXXVIII, 302) with ixeXexdv is clear enough (ci.Cnrt. Greek 
 Verb, p. 224) but the best authorities now deny any radical connection (cf. 
 Curt. Gr. Et. I^ 9, 2>7^; Vanicek, Et. Worterh. pp. 670, 1216). These 
 words and the nouns derived from them are often used of the actual decla- 
 mation (see above; also Philostratus, Vit. Soph. I, 22, 3; I, 25, 17, of a 
 declamation which had been written out and published; I, 25, 22; II, 8, 3, of 
 a written speech; II, 24, i), and also of the close preparation of a speech 
 even if the exact character of the preparation is not specified: cf. ^sch. I, 
 30: T(ov XoYcov hm\iEXt\M\xa.; Plut. Reip. Ger. 15, fin.: 'IcpixgaxTig fie xal 
 
 M-eXexag Xoytov jioiovpiEvog ev oixcp On Hearing, 38 E: xal 
 
 XoYcov piev oiovxai piddrioiv elvai xal pieXexriv Compare Tac. Ann. 
 
 VI, 48, i; III, 15, 13; Arist. Rhet. II, 19, 13. 
 
 \iBkix'x\ seems to have referred primarily to a prepared speech or exer- 
 cise, and is contrasted in Philostratus, Vit. Soph. II, 33, 4, (628)', with ex- 
 temporary speech, but it is also used to include extemporary speech : Philost. 
 Vit. Soph. II, 4, 4, (570) : xag jxev ovv [xeXexag a.^)X0G%^bi0vc, ejtoieixo, also 
 I, 20, 4 (514), and pp. 604, 619, 628, 626. It was also the common word U€ed 
 for the deliberative or controversial speech, either extemporary or prepared, 
 delivered on the occasion of a display (Volkmann, Rhetorik, p. 361, however, 
 would not agree). 
 
 ne^Exdv may also be used of committing a speech to memory. It is the 
 word used in Phaedrus 228B of Phaedrus' practicing the speech of Lysias 
 which he has committed to memory (cf. also 228E). Solon, when he desired 
 to move the people for a purpose, secretly composed some verses and got 
 them by heart, so that he seemed to utter them extempore: EA,EY£ia be 
 HQvqpa ovv^Ei? xal (LiE^-sxTioag oSoxe ^eyeiv djto oxo^iaxog x. x. X. (Plut. Solon, 
 c. VIII, [82] )L 
 
 Compare also the phrases "cura meditatio" : Tac. Dial. c. 
 
 16, 3; cf. c. 30, 9; c. 33, 19; Ann. IV, 61; Cicero, de Or. I, i, i ; de Rep. I, 
 21, 34. A similar collocation is found in Greek: iieXixr] xai im\ieXeia (Dem. 
 XVIII, 308)1 
 
 '''de Or. I, 4, 15. 
 
 "^ ad Earn. VII, 25, 2. Cf . Mathews, p. 175 ff. 
 
 '"^Brutus, XXIV, 92. Cf. de Or. I, 33, 150; I, 60, 257; III, 40, 190; Brut. 
 XXV, 96; ad Earn. VII, 25, 2; Quint. X, 3; Aquila Romanus de Eig. XLVIII. 
 
58' EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 Horace, most of whose precepts in his ''Art of Poetry" would 
 apply equally well to prose, has nothing to say of extemporary 
 speech, but preaches the doctrine of constant correction and re- 
 vision. ^^"^ 
 
 Quintilian ^^^ treats the subject of extemporaneous speech with 
 his usual discernment. He regards with sincere admiration one who 
 possesses the gift of speaking well without preparation, yet believes 
 that if constant training is not added to it, the very gift will be of 
 little worth. ^^^ He considers the art of speaking to be something 
 very important and difficult to acquire : ''magnus est labor dicendi ; 
 magna res est." ^^'' UnHke the earlier sophists, he does not believe 
 in the "oratory in twenty lessons" system. He does not adopt the 
 position of Antonius who says ''rhetoricen observationem quamdam 
 esse non artem," ^^^ but believes that it is assisted by rules ''si tamen 
 rectam viam non unam orbitam monstrent ; qua declinare qui credi- 
 derit nefas, patiatur necesse est illam per funes ingredientium 
 tarditatem." ^^^ 
 
 Some theory and much practice ^*^ are what the would-be orator 
 requires, and his practice is to consist, not in speaking, but in writ- 
 jj^g 241 u^^Q must write" he says, "as carefully and as much as 
 
 "^Sat. I, 10, 69-72; A. P. 289 ff.; 291, 386, 438 ff.; Persius, I, 106; V, 162. 
 
 Quintilian (X, 4, i) calls correction by far the most useful part of one's 
 studies, quoting Cicero's saying that the pen is not least serviceable when it 
 is used to erase (Cicero, de Or. II, 23, 96; Pliny, Ep. I, 18). The best method 
 is to lay the work by for a time if possible. Correction, however, should have 
 its limits, lest over-polishing wear the production to nothing (cf. Horace, 
 A. P. 24 ff.; also Quint. X. 3, 7-8; Blair, Lecture XIX, Vol. II, p. 53). 
 
 So it is said that Daniel Webster, in speaking of a certain writer, re- 
 marked that the only thing he needed to learn was how to scratch out, adding 
 that a very large part of his own life had been spent in scratching out (Hard- 
 wicke, p. 423). 
 
 ^On Quintilian as a pleader in the law-courts, see IV, i, 19; 2, 86; VII, 
 2, 5; 2, 24; IX, 2, 73-4; as a professor of oratory. Mart. II, 90, i; Pliny, 
 Ep. II, 14, 10; VI, 6, 3; Juv. VII, 186; Quint. I, Praef. i; II, 12, 12; III, 6, 
 68; IV, Praef. 2; X, i, 125. 
 
 ""X, 3, 2. 
 
 ^IX, 3, 36. Cf. also II, 13, 15; 17; Cic. pro Mur. c. 13. 
 
 «'«II, 17, 5; cf. Cicero, de Or. II, 8, 32. 
 
 ** II, 13, 16. 
 
 *" For the idea that the two must go together see Tac. Dial. c. 2)2>^ 21. 
 
 ^The entire Third Chapter of Quintilian's Tenth Book is on the utility 
 of writing. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC 59 
 
 we can For without this precaution, the very faculty 
 
 of speaking extempore will but furnish us with empty loquacity 
 and words born on the lips. In writing are the roots, in writing are 
 the foundations of eloquence; by writing resources are stored up, 
 as it were, in a sacred repository, whence they may be drawn forth 
 for sudden emergencies, or as circumstances require." ^*^ 
 
 Writing, he says elsewhere,^*^ is the most laborious, but also the 
 most advantageous means of improvement for the orator, and not 
 without reason has Cicero called the pen "the best modeller and 
 teacher of eloquence."^** 
 
 It is Quintilian's belief that the ability to speak extempore is 
 absolutely necessary. He says of it "maximus vero studiorum 
 fructus est et velut praemium quoddam amplissimum longi la- 
 boris," 2*^ and believes that he who has not succeeded in acquiring it, 
 will do well to renounce the occupation of the forum, and devote his 
 solitary talent of writing to some other employment.^'*^ 
 
 Often there arise occasions when it is absolutely necessary to 
 speak on the spur of the moment ; ^*^ if a friend or client must be 
 
 Compare Lord Brougham's remarks (Inaugural Address, Vol. Ill, p. 91) : 
 "I should lay it down as a rule admitting of no exceptions that a man will 
 speak well in proportion as he has written much; and that with equal talents, 
 he zmll be the finest extempore speaker, when no time for preparation is 
 allowed, who has prepared himself most sedulously when he had the oppor- 
 tunity of delivering a premeditated speech. All the exceptions I have ever 
 heard cited to this principle are apparent ones only; proving nothing more, 
 than that some few men, of rare genius, have become great speakers with- 
 out preparation ; in no wise showing that with preparation they would not 
 have reached a much higher pitch of eloquence." Compare Quintilian II, 17, 
 12-13, p. 126, n. 264. 
 
 ^X, 3, 2; also I, I, 28; I, 4, 3; cf. Cicero, de Or. I, 22, 150 ff. For the 
 opposite view see Alcidamas 14. These resources Sarcey would store up by 
 repeated improvisations upon the same theme (p. 158). Compare Phillips 
 Brooks, Lectures on Preaching, 170-172. 
 
 **^ X, 3, I ; ut laboris, sic utilitatis etiam longe plurimum adf ert stilus ; cf . 
 Blair, Lecture XIX, Vol. II, 52. 
 
 ^**de Or. I, 23, 150; also Quint. X, 7, 28. 
 
 ""X, 7, I. 
 
 '"This, of course, is the man attacked by Alcidamas, the orator who is 
 incapable of departing at all from his written speech. See Montaigne's ex- 
 cellent essay Of Quick or Slow Speech (Vol. I, p. 44). 
 
 '^'X, 7, 2; cf. Anaxim. Ars. Rhet. 38 (Rhet. Gr. I, 239 Sp.). 
 
60 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 aided at once, of what use is an advocate who "secessum et silentium 
 quaeret, dum ilia verba fabricentur et memoriae insidant et vox 
 et latus praeparetur ?" ^^^ The speech which the advocate has writ- 
 ten and prepared may suddenly be rendered useless : "nam saepe ea, 
 quae opinati sumus, et contra quae scripsimus, f allunt, ac tota subito 
 causa mutatur; atque ut gubernator ad incursus tempestatum sic 
 agenti ad varietatem causarum ratio mutanda est." ^^^ Time may be 
 wanting for delivering a speech which has been prepared and com- 
 posed (laboratam congestamque studio actionem) 
 
 with the labor of whole days and nights,^^^ or objections must be 
 met.^^^ It is to provide against such dangers as these that the orator 
 must possess the ability to speak extempore. The habit will be of 
 advantage, however, only if it has been acquired and formed by a 
 course of careful study and practice, *'ut ipsum illud quod in se 
 rationem non habet, in ratione versetur." ^^^ Quintilian does not 
 admire mere continuity of speech (fortuiti sermonis contextum).^^' 
 He says: "neque ego hoc ago, ut extempore dicere malit, sed ut 
 possit." 254 
 
 Although the orator must be able to speak extempore, his mem- 
 ory must be trained not only to remember what he has written after 
 repeated perusals, but to observe the order of thoughts and words 
 even in what he has merely meditated. The ability to speak ex- 
 
 '^X, 7, 3; cf. X, I, 2; XII, 9, 21; Alcidamas, 24 ff.; Tac. Dial. c. 39, 10. 
 This is particularly true if the orator is the defendant in a case. The accuser 
 generally sets forth what he has previously meditated, the defendant has 
 frequently to oppose what is entirely unexpected; (Quint. V, 13, 3), Some 
 orators, however, neglect all objections, for instance, and in general deliver 
 their premeditated speech as if they had no opponent (Quint, V, 13, 36). 
 
 This idea still holds good in modern courts; see the discussion given by 
 Blair, Lecture XXVII (Vol, II, 235 ff.). His way of meeting the difficulty 
 agrees closely with that of Quintilian. 
 
 ^ XII. 6, 5, 
 
 ^^XII, 9, i5ff. 
 
 ^■^X, 7, 12, It is to be based on art, but through habit to have become 
 mechanical. X 7, 5-7 would practically imply verbal premeditation. 
 
 ^X, 7, 13; cf. II, 4, 15; Cicero, de Or. I, 5, 17. Compare Theophrastus 
 III, where "an effusion of prolix and unpremeditated discourse" is the defini- 
 tion given of garrulity. 
 
 "*X, 7,4- 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC 6 1 
 
 tempore seems to Quintilian to depend on no other faculty of the 
 mind than memory.^^^ 
 
 On the question whether those who are going to deliver a speech 
 should learn it by heart word for word, or only master the substance 
 and order of particulars, Quintilian believes that no general decision 
 can be given. He says : "For my own part, if my memory is suf- 
 ficiently strong, and time is not lacking,^^® I should wish not a single 
 syllable to escape me; otherwise it would be of no avail to write. 
 Such exactness we should acquire in childhood ; and the memory 
 should be brought to such a condition by exercise that we may never 
 learn to excuse its failures. To be prompted, therefore, and to refer 
 to one's writing, is harmful, because it grants indulgence to careless- 
 ness; and a speaker will not feel that he retains with sufficient se- 
 curity that which he is in no fear of losing.^^^ As a result of this 
 come interruptions in the course of our speech, and a method of 
 delivery halting and irregular, for the speaker, since he appears 
 like one who has learned a lesson, destroys the 'whole grace of what 
 he had written with grace' by making it clear that he did write it. 
 A good memory, however, gains us credit even for quickness of wit, 
 because we seem, not to have brought from home what we say, but 
 to have conceived it on the instant; and this opinion is of great 
 service both to the orator and his cause, for a judge admires more 
 and distrusts less that which he regards as not having been precon- 
 certed to mislead him. We should therefore consider it as one of 
 the very best devices in pleading to deliver some parts of our speech 
 which we have extremely well connected, as if they had not been 
 connected at all, and to seem, at times, like people thinking and 
 doubting, seeking what we have in reality brought with us." 
 
 'Tt is foppish," says Quintilian elsewhere,^^^ "for the orator to 
 be prompted or to read, as if he were forgetful; for by all such 
 practices the force of eloquence is relaxed and the ardor cooled, 
 while the judge will think that too little respect is paid him." 
 
 It was Quintilian's purpose to train an orator who would not 
 
 ^°*XI, 2, 2; 3; see Blair's remarks on memorizing a sermon, Lecture 
 XXIX, (Vol. II, 320) ; Quint. XI, 2, 44-5. 
 
 ^" The speech may be learned in parts : XI, 2, 27. 
 
 «- XI, 2,46-47. 
 
 "'^XI,3,i32. 
 
62 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 depend either wholly on premeditation ^^^ or entirely on the con- 
 ceptions of the moment.^^*' He should be one whose extemporary 
 efforts have the finish and accuracy of a prepared speech, and the 
 prepared portions of whose oration have the appearance of being 
 poured forth extemporaneously. The speech should be an har- 
 monius whole: ''nam sicut cithara ita oratio perfecta non est, nisi 
 ab imo ad summum omnibus nervis consentiat."^^^ 
 
 ^ The orator must be one to whom memory is not wanting for retaining 
 what he has written, or ready facility in uttering what he has to speak extem- 
 pore (XI, 3, 12). 
 
 ^®° Cf . Quint. X, 6, 5 ff. : "but if by chance while we are speaking, some 
 glowing thought, born at the moment, should flash upon our minds, certainly 
 we ought not to adhere too superstitiously to that which we have meditated. 
 For what we have pondered is not to be so precisely fixed that no room is 
 to be allowed for the happy thought of the moment, since often, even in our 
 written compositions, those thoughts are inserted which arise on the spur of 
 the moment; and so the whole of this sort of exercise (premeditation: 
 cogitatio) must be arranged in such a manner that we may be able easily to 
 depart from that which we have meditated and easily to return to it. For 
 just as it is of the very greatest importance to bring from home (afferre) a 
 prepared and definite supply of language, so to reject the gifts of the moment 
 is the very greatest folly. Let our premeditation, therefore, have this end in 
 view, that fortune, while she cannot disappoint us, may yet have it in her 
 power to aid us." 
 
 Quintilian would prefer the rashness of purely extemporary speech to 
 that preparation which is unable to depart from what it has before con- 
 sidered (X, 6, 6). 
 
 The word afferre, as in the above passage (see also Quint. X, 7, 30), is 
 often used of speeches prepared beforehand as opposed to those delivered 
 extempore; cf. Cicero, Orator, XXVI, 89; quaesita nee ex tempore ficta sed 
 domo allata; Phil. II, 42; Sen. Controv. Ill, praef. 4: Vir (Cassius Severus) 
 enim praesentis animi et maioris ingenii quam studii magis placebat in iis 
 quae inveniebat quam in iis quae attulerat; also X, 2, 6; compare Tac. Dial. 
 c. 6, 22: sive accuratam meditatamque profert orationem 
 
 One of these "glowing thoughts" or "happy inspirations" occurred to 
 Cicero on one occasion {ad Att. I, 16, 9)'. It either occurred to him before he 
 made the speech, or was reduced to writing by him later, because he clearly 
 had a copy by him when he wrote to Atticus. After quoting "the happy in- 
 spiration" he says "I have copied almost a whole speech into a letter" (paene 
 orationem in epistulam inclusi). 
 
 ^* II, 8, 15 ; cf . Horace, A. P. 23 : Denique sit quidvis simplex dumtaxat 
 et unum. Perhaps the idea goes back ultimately to the twov of Plato's 
 Phaedrus, 264C; cf. Tac. Dial. c. 21, 33; Isocr. XIII, 13. The "patching" 
 (cf. p. zz, n. 126) in an orator's speech will be visible only if he has not the 
 "facilitas" (cf. p. 65, n. 276). 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC 63 
 
 The faculty of extemporaneous speech was, in Quintilian's mind, 
 one which could be acquired by proper attention to theory and 
 study. ^^^ The orator must have a settled method of speaking. He 
 must know the parts of causes, the proper order of questions, and 
 the order of particulars in each department. Thus he will adhere 
 with greatest ease to the chain of facts in the narration.^^^ He will 
 know what he wants in each portion of a speech, and will "not look 
 about him like one at a loss." Such orators will have a certain 
 range and limit which cannot exist without proper division. These 
 qualifications, he says, depend on art, the rest is due to study : ^®* 
 "multo ac fideli stilo -^^ sic formetur oratio, ut scriptorum colorem 
 etiam quae subito effusa sint reddant; ut cum multa scripserimus, 
 etiam multa dicamus. Nam consuetudo et exercitatio ^^^ f aciUtatem 
 maxume parit ; quae si paululum intermissa f uerit non velocitas ^^^ 
 ilia modo tardatur sed ipsum os quoque concurrit." 
 
 Although the power to speak extempore can be acquired, it will 
 not, however, come to the orator as soon as he begins to speak, and 
 
 it cannot be retained without practice: "facilitatem 
 
 extemporalem a parvis initiis ^^® paulatim perducemus 
 
 ^«^X, 7, 5 ff. Cf. Philost. Vit. Soph. II, 33, i. 
 ^^X, 7, 6. 
 
 ^''Stilus, in the sense of composition: II, 2, 11 ; 4, 13; X, i, 2; 3, 5, 7, 4; 
 Tac. Dial. c. 39, 9. II, 2, 11, implies a written composition recited by the pupil 
 to his fellow students. It was no doubt memorized. 
 
 ^*^The practice of speaking constantly in connection with writing. 
 
 ^*" velocitas. This is the "fluency," evgoia, of the Greeks ; cf . Plato, Phaedr. 
 238 C; Pollux, IV, 20, and 22: VI, 147 and 148; Suidas s. v. evqou?; Dionys. 
 Hal. de Comp. Verb. c. 23. Plutarch {Alex. c. 53) uses the phrase eugofiaai 
 jtQog vKo^zGvv of an orator who was clever at making speeches on a given 
 theme at a moment's notice. Among the later Sophists evQOia became almost 
 a technical term for the continual flow of extemporary speech: cf. Philost. 
 Vit,, Soph. I, 8, 6; I, 18, 4; II, 9, 5; H, 10, 2; II, 15, i ; II, 25, 6; II, 27, 10; 
 II, 2>2„ 2; Synes. Dion. p. 40, and elsewhere. Cf. Hobein : De Maximo Tyrio 
 Quaestiones Philologae Selectae (Gottingen, 1895) ; 16 ff. 
 
 ^"^Just what the "parva initia" were is not stated. From the general tone 
 of Quintilian's treatment of the subject, one would suppose that the orator 
 prepared parts of his speech and then followed the method advocated by 
 Sarcey (pp. 156-7, cf. p. 31, n. 121), extemporized badly until he had acquired 
 some skill. Crassus {de Or. I, 33, 150 ff. ; I, 60, 257) recommends extemporary 
 exercises on stated cases: subitae-ad propositas causas exercitationes. 
 
64 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 ad summam, quae neque perfici neque contineri nisi usu potest."^^^ 
 It ought, however, to be attained to such a degree that premedi- 
 tation (cogitatio)^^^ though safer, may not be more effective.^^^ 
 
 ^X, 7, 18. Quintilian's orator must exercise himself by speaking daily 
 in the hearing of several persons, or alone, or failing either, must silently 
 meditate by himself. 
 
 Against the idea that extemporary speaking needs no training, Henry 
 Ward Beecher says : "Not an eminent orator has lived but is an example of 
 
 industry If any one would sing, he attends a master and is 
 
 drilled in the very elementary principles; and it is only after the most la- 
 borious process that he dares to exercise his voice in public 
 
 But the extempore speaker, who is to invent, as well as utter, to carry on an 
 operation of the mind, as well as to produce sound, enters upon the work 
 without preparatory discipline, and then wonders that he fails!" (Hardwicke, 
 
 p. 73). 
 
 On the necessity for an orator to carry on all these operations at once, 
 see Quintilian, I, 12, 4; X, 7, 9; XI, 2, 3. 
 
 ^° Cogitatio here seems to stand for the verbally prepared speech as 
 contrasted with the extemporary oration, and implies that Quintilian expected 
 that the majority of speeches would be prepared; cf. n. 277. 
 
 ^^ X, 7, 19. Quintilian continues : "Since many have had such command 
 of language, not only in prose, but even in verse, as Antipater of Sidon 
 (Cicero, de Or. Ill, 50, 194) and Licinius Archias (Cicero, pro Arch. 
 c. VIII), for we must rely on Cicero's authority with regard to 
 them both; not but that even in our own times some have exercised 
 this talent and still exercise it." Cicero {pro Arch. VIII) says of Archias: 
 "quotiens ego hunc vidi, cum litteram scripsisset nullam, magnum numerum 
 optimorum versuum de eis ipsis rebus, quae tum agerentur, dicer e ex tempore! 
 quotiens revocatum eandem rem dicere commutatis verbis atque sententiis !" 
 Mr. Kelsey in a note on this passage says : "All the writings of Archias have 
 perished with the exception of eighteen epigrams (cf. Reinach, de Archia, 
 p. 28) which are assigned to him with a strong probability that they are 
 genuine. To judge from these, his success as an extemporizer consisted 
 chiefly in the ability to patch together, on the spur of the moment, phrases, 
 lines and passages from the older poets which had previously been committed 
 
 to memory By having a memory stored with original and 
 
 selected passages appropriate to many subjects and occasions, a good ear for 
 meters, and constant practice, a professional extemporizer was able to perform 
 feats that appeared little short of the marvellous, and that, too, without being 
 a great poet." Such may have been the case also with Antipater of Sidon 
 whose epigrams may be found in the Palatine Anthology. 
 
 Poetic extemporization, and particularly the extemporization of epigrams, 
 is said to go back as far as Simonides (Athenaeus, III, 99). According to 
 Plutarch (IIeqI tov fXT) XQOiv Efx^exa vuv tt|V IlvOiav 25) there were several 
 extempore poets stationed about the Tripos, who received the words of the 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC 65 
 
 There are even occasions on which extemporizations are more ef- 
 fective than premeditated speeches: "si calor ac spiritus tulit, fre- 
 quenter accidit, ut successum extemporakm consequi cura ^^^ non 
 possit. Dum tunc affuisse, cum id evenisset, veteres oratores, ut 
 Cicero dicit, aiebant. Sed ratio manifesta est. Nam bene concepti 
 affectus et recentes rerum imagines continuo impetu feruntur, qua 
 nonnunquam mora stili refrigescunt et dilatae non revertuntur."273 
 
 If he is without this enthusiasm, an orator, if called upon to 
 speak on the sudden, may gain time in various ways : ^^* in the 
 first place, he may relax something of his care about words ; a slower 
 method of pronunciation, and a mode of speaking with suspense and 
 doubt, as it were, gives time for consideration ; yet the orator must 
 manage so that he may seem to deliberate and not to hesitate. 
 
 This talent,^''"'^ however, must be kept up with no less practice 
 than it is acquired. The pen, through lack of use, loses little of its 
 readiness ; while promptitude in speaking, which depends on activity 
 of thought, can be retained only by exercise.^''® The orator must 
 
 oracle and dressed them up in extempore (Ix xov jiQoaxuxovTog) verses. He 
 later complains of those who lessen the value of poetry by composing vain 
 predictions in verse either extempore (ol \i£\ avxo'&Ev) or by lot from little 
 books which they carry. "From a meal without wine" says Athenaeus "there 
 arise neither jokes nor extempore poems (II, 9)". Horace (Sat. I, 4, 10) 
 says that Lucilius would extemporize a couple of hundred lines at a stretch. 
 Suetonius (de Gram, et Rhet. 23)' says Palaemon had the gift of making 
 extempore verses. Cicero, too, could write verses rapidly (Plut. Cic. c. XL, 
 881), Statins' "Silvae" are said to have been practically extemporaneous 
 (see the dedication to Stella) as the name shows (cf. the use of "silvam" in 
 Quint. X, 3, 17), and Vergil's librarian is said to have extemporized a missing 
 two lines which were incorporated in the manuscript. Athenaeus (XIV, 16, 
 622B) mentions improvisator!. He says of certain men: ay^ib-xxv EJtegaivov 
 'oriaEig which clearly means avxoaxefiidtov, although Liddell and Scott be- 
 lieve it means "acted as buffoons." 
 
 "^ Ut possit. "Ut successus orationis extemporalis vinca't 
 
 successum curae et meditationis" (Spalding). 
 
 Cura here means study; that of writing and premeditation; literary 
 composition. The Greek equivalent in some senses is ZKi\x.il.Evo.. Cf. n. 285, 
 p. 68. 
 
 "^X, 7, 14. 
 "'^X, 7, 22. 
 
 "^X, 7,24. 
 
 '"^ Reading, writing, and speaking are together to produce a certain 
 efficient readiness (firma facilitas) which the Greeks call e^ig (X, i, 1-3; 
 
66 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 Speak before others daily,^" or failing that, must speak (dicere) 
 by himself.^^^ 
 
 Even the orator who has acquired the power of speaking on the 
 sudden, should take whatever time is possible for consideration. ^^^ 
 
 The good orator, in Quintilian's opinion, would prepare his 
 speech as far as he could foresee the trend of the case,^^^ and meet 
 any unforeseen attacks with extemporaneous replies. 
 
 Tacitus, if we are able to regard the ''Dialogus" as a work of 
 
 compare X, 7, 8; 11-14; 18; XII, 9, 21; Polybius, X, 47, 11). Later e|i? be- 
 came almost technical for the acquired habit of extemporary speech (Pliny, 
 Ep. II, 3, 4), especially in the New Sophistic. 
 
 ^'" Cogitatio, premeditation, according to Quintilian (X, 6, i ff.) is some- 
 thing between writing and extemporary speech. It may fit together the whole 
 texture of a speech, so that nothing is wanting but to write it down, and fixes 
 it in the memory even more firmly than writing. This power of thought, 
 however, is not to be easily acquired. 
 
 Cogitatio is elsewhere contrasted with what the orator has written and 
 learned by heart (X, 6, 4), although in some cases premeditation accomplishes 
 memorization, cf. Cicero, de Or. II, 88; Pliny, A^. H. VII, 24; also compare 
 Cicero, de Or. I, 4, 14; II, 30, 131 ; 35, 149. 
 
 "^Cf. Plut. Cat. Min. c. IV: "He (Cato) did not practice his exercises 
 in company with others, nor did anyone hear him when he was declaiming." 
 Compare Seneca, Contr. IV, praef. 2, of Asinius Pollio. 
 
 ^^* X, 7, 20. He will give to every cause such preparation as he can (XII, 
 9, 15)1; Cicero, de Or. II, 24; cf. Blair, Vol. II, p. 269. 
 
 ^"^ Quintilian (XII, 3, 2-5) in arguing that a knowledge of civil law is 
 necessary to an orator, says that the speaker may be able to get it from others, 
 but "when he shall bring before the judge what he has taught himself and 
 arranged at home, and which he has learned by heart like other parts of the 
 cause" (praecepta et composita et sicut cetera quae in causa sunt, in discendo 
 cognita), he will fare ill unless there be one skilled in the law near to prompt 
 him. 
 
 These learned men of the law, who were to aid the speaker were called 
 pragmatici or iuris interpretes (Quint. XII, 3, 3-4; III, 6, 59; cf. Juv. VII, 
 123; Cicero, de Or. I, 45, 198; 59, 253; Plut. Ger. Reip. 19, 5. "There were 
 among the Romans a set of men called Pragmatici, whose office it was to give 
 the Orator all the law knowledge which the cause he was to plead required, 
 and which he put into popular form, and dressed up with those colors of 
 eloquence that were best fitted for influencing the judge before whom he 
 spoke" (Blair, Lecture XXVIII, Vol. II, 279). 
 
 Libanius (I, 185, 17) says: "In former days the expert in law stood in 
 court with his roll in his hand, looking at the speaker, and waiting for the 
 order to read." Cf. Mitteis, Reichsrecht u. Volksrecht, p. 189 ff. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC 6/ 
 
 his,^^^ accorded enthusiastic praise to extemporaneous speaking. 
 Aper, in his ''defense of oratory," ^^^ after speaking of the honors 
 
 *^ The manuscripts, with the exception of the codex Vaticanus 2964 which 
 contains only a fragment of the work, unanimously attribute the Dialogus 
 to Tacitus. In the codex Vindobonensis 351 there is found "Quinctil." added 
 to the title, but both hand-writing and ink are different from those of the 
 rest of the treatise. Lipsius believed that the word was inserted by Johannes 
 Sambucus (1531-1584) to whom this manuscript belonged (cf. Gudeman, 
 Introd. p. XIV, n. 4). The editio princeps and an edition of 1475 were printed 
 directly from the manuscripts and also give Tacitus as the author, Gudeman 
 (p. XXII) points out that, since the manuscript history of the Dialogus is 
 identical with that of the Germania, every examination must start out with 
 the presumption that the one is as genuine a work of Tacitus as the other. 
 
 The first to doubt the authenticity of the treatise was Beatus Rhenanus 
 in a note to his edition of Tacitus published at Basle in 15 19. No attention 
 was paid to 'the matter, however, until the edition of Lipsius in 1574. This 
 critic denied that the Dialogus was the work of Tacitus, and attributed it 
 to Quintilian. Later, however, he abandoned this position because of chrono- 
 logical difficulties. Nevertheless, the theory that Quintilian is the author of 
 the treatise has been held by many. The arguments for it are based on the 
 similarity of style between the Institutio Oratoria and the Dialogus. This 
 theory has been disposed of by Spaulding in his edition (1803) of Quintilian 
 (Vol. II, p. 424 ff.)- 
 
 Nast, in his German translation of the Dialogus (1778), brings forward 
 the younger Pliny as the author, and this view, too, had its followers. The 
 arguments for this theory, based on similarities in diction and thought be- 
 tween the Dialogus and the works of Pliny, have been refuted by Eckstein 
 (Proleg. in Tac. qui vulgo fertur dial, de Orat., Halle, 1835). Suetonius, 
 Messalla, and Maternus have also been mentioned as possible authors of the 
 treatise (Eckstein, pp. 43-46). The burden of proof seems to rest on those 
 who deny the accepted authorship. 
 
 There is an excellent and full discussion in Gudeman's edition (pp. xiv- 
 Ixiii) which contains all the facts given above, and many additional ones. 
 Those who desire to pursue the subject further may consult Eckstein, F. A. 
 Proleg. in Tac. qui vulgo fertur dial, de orat. (Halle, 1835) ; Eruenwald, E. 
 Quae ratio intercedere videatur inter Quint, et Tac. Dial. (Berlin, 1883) 
 Dupre A. : Dial, de orat. nee Quint, nee cuivis alii sed Tacito adiudicandum 
 esse (Calais 1849) ; Peck, T. : On the authorship of the Dial. {Transact, Am. 
 Phil. Ass. Vol. X, 1879) ; Widal, A.: In Tac. Dial, de orat. disputatio (Paris, 
 1851) ; Jansen, I. H. A. G. : de Tac. dial, auctore (Gron., 1878) ; Wackermann, 
 G. O. F., Dial. Qui de orat. inscr. quo iure Tac. abiudicatur (Rostock, 1874)'; 
 Vogel, T. : De dial, qui Tac. nomine fertur sermone iudicium. Fleck Jahrh. 
 Sup pi. Vol. II, 249-282. 
 
 ^^^ Dial. cc. 5-10. The Dialogus purports to represent the faithful repro- 
 duction from memory of a debate on the decline of eloquence (cc. 1-2). 
 
68 EXTEMPORAR': SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 paid to eloquence, adds that there belong to it other joys of which 
 the orator alone can be sensible. If he comes to his task armed with 
 an elaborate and well-prepared speech (accuratam meditatamque 
 orationem) "est quoddam sicut ipsius dictionis, ita gaudii pondus 
 et constantia."-^^ If he enters upon a new and perhaps unexpected 
 debate, even the nervous flutter of spirit ^^* which he felt when he 
 arose, increases the pleasure of his success ; but the greatest pleasure 
 comes when he boldly hazards an extemporary speech : "sive novam 
 et recentem curam ^^^ non sine aliqua trepidatione animi attulerit, 
 ipsa sollicitudo commendat eventum et lenocinatur voluptati: sed 
 extemporalis audaciae atque ipsius temeritatis vel praecipua iucund- 
 itas est; nam in ingenio quoque, sicut in agro, quamquam quae 
 (alia) diu seriuntur atque elaborantur grata, gratiora tamen quae 
 sua sponte nascuntur." 
 
 Later, however, Tacitus' enthusiasm seems to have been con- 
 siderably modified. He places a greater value upon the enduring 
 fame which comes from thought and care ; ^^® the fame that rests 
 on such a basis will not end even with the life of the man himself. 
 
 ^^ Dial c. 6, 20. Cf. Cicero, de Or. I, 6o, 257. 
 
 ^Quintilian believes that such anxiety should be assumed if it is not 
 really felt (XII, 5, 4). Tacitus himself realized the possible value of this 
 "trepidatio :" Hist. I, 69. Cf. also Cicero, de Or, I, 26, 1 19-120; I, 27, 123 ff. 
 where two causes are given; Pliny, Ep. V, 17, 3; VII, 17, 13; 25, i; Sarcey, 
 p. 300; Mathews, Oratory and Orators, p. 141 ff. 
 
 ^*"*novam et recentem curam" clearly means a speech which the orator 
 has had a little time to prepare, but has not been able to bring to the per- 
 fection of the "accuratam meditatamque orationem." 
 
 Tacitus uses "cura" seemingly for formal literary composition in general. 
 In Dial. c. 3, 13, it means the tragedy, Cato. Here it is the "speech." Later 
 (c. 2^, 20) he uses "curae" for school-exercises. Cf. also Ann. Ill, 24, and 
 IV, II, where the word is used of Tacitus' own writings; also Dial. c. 16, 3; 
 Agric. 10, where the meaning is practically "research." 
 
 Tacitus seems to be the only prose writer who so uses the word, though 
 it occurs frequently in poetry: Ovid, Ex Panto, II, 4, 16; IV, 16, 39; Martial, 
 I> 107, 5, and elsewhere. 
 
 ^^ Ann. IV, 61, 5. So much value did Tacitus give to care that here the 
 contrast is not between extemporary and prepared speeches, but between 
 speeches prepared carelessly and those prepared properly. 
 
 On Haterius, here used as an example, see Hieron, on Eus. Chr. a. Abr. 
 2040; Sen. Contr. IV, praef. 6-11 ; Ep. 40, 10. Specimens of his declamations 
 are frequently given by Seneca the Elder. Cf. also Tac. Ann. II, ZZ\ Suet. 
 Tih. 27', 29; and in general Cinia, A.: de Q. Materia Oratore {Saggj di studj 
 lat., Flor. 1889, 105). 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THEORY OF RHETORIC 69 
 
 Outside of these treatises there are but a few scattered references 
 to the theory of eloquence among the Romans. Oratory was dis- 
 pleasing to the later Emperors, and therefore the greater part of it 
 is mere declamation in the schools of the rhetoricians. The referen- 
 ces in Seneca, Petronius, Pliny the Younger, and Pronto, have been 
 employed in different parts of this paper. 
 
11. THE PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN THE 
 PRACTICE OF THE ORATORS 
 
 Even in the heroic age, long before men thought of a theory of 
 rhetoric, or the written word was known, there were brilHant ex- 
 amples of the practice of oratory. Even before the time of the 
 great struggle of the Greeks against Troy, Menestheus is said to 
 have' used his skill as a speaker to exasperate the people against 
 Theseus.^ In the time of which Homer tells, power to fight and 
 ability to speak were rated equally high, each having an equal share 
 in making the hero, and so Achilles, when he set out to join the 
 Grecian force, "being as yet unskilled in war and public speaking, 
 wherein men win renown," took Phoenix with him, "who should 
 teach him all these things, to be both a speaker of words and a doer 
 of deeds." ^ The eloquence of Nestor was proverbial throughout 
 antiquity,^ his fame as an orator being based on the well-known 
 line of the Iliad: toG y.(x\ cztco yXtjicaT^q iiiXiio? ^'kuv.idi^ 'pisv auBY).* 
 Menelaus, too, was an able speaker,^ but according to Quintilian, the 
 highest power of eloquence was reached in Ulysses, %(x\ exea vtcpaSsj- 
 (Jiv eotxoTa ^s'lAspf^atv,^ and the admirable qualities shown in Ulys- 
 
 * Plut. Thes. cc. 32-33; Pausanias, I, 17, 6. The Greeks loved to trace the 
 beginnings of rhetoric back to history. 
 
 ^ Iliad, IX, 440 ff. See Quintilian II, 3, 12; 17, 8; Phoenix praeceptor 
 Achillis; Plut. de Educat. Puer. c. 7; Cicero, de Or. Ill, 15, 57. Compare 
 Odyssey VIII, 171 flf. : if the gods have "crowned a man's words with beauty," 
 the people gaze on him as on a god ; cf , Cicero, de Or. Ill, 14, 53. Gladstone 
 (Homer, p. 118) calls Achilles' speech in the Ninth Book of the Iliad the most 
 elaborate of all the orations found in the poem. 
 
 "Theognis, 714; Cicero, de Sen. 10, 31; Brut. X, 40; Auct. ad Heren. IV, 
 33, 44; Seneca, Ep. 40, 2; Pliny, Ep. IV, 3, 3; Lucian, Imag. 13; Tac. Dial. 16, 
 19; Laus Pis. 64; Tertull. de Anim. 31; Auson. Prof. 16, 22, 22; see Otto, 
 Die Sprichw. etc. bei d. Roni: p. 242. 
 
 The Trojan elders, too, are able speakers; cf. Iliad, III, 150; compare 
 Vergil, Aen. I, 148; Quint. XII, i, 27. 
 
 * Iliad, I, 249; cf. also Hesiod's description of those gifted by the Muses 
 with eloquence : Theog. 81 ff. 
 
 ^ Iliad, III, 213 ff. On this characterization of Menelaus as fitting a 
 Spartan see Croiset, IV, 18. 
 
 Uliad, III, 221 ff. See Ovid, Met. XIII, 92; Pliny, Ep. I, 20, 22; Her- 
 mogenes (Rhet. Gr. II, 390 Sp.). Emerson in his Essay on Eloquence (So- 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 7 1 
 
 ses' Speech, he says, were such as Eupolis ^ admired in Pericles, 
 and which Aristophanes ^ compared to thunder and lightning.* 
 The example of Ulysses who stands ''with his eyes fixed on the 
 ground and his scepter motionless" before he begins to utter his 
 speech, is the one which the Roman orator is to follow; he, like 
 Ulysses, is to stand silent a moment and consider what he is to say, 
 even after leave to speak has been granted him by the praetor.^^ In 
 Quintilian's opinion, practically all oratorical excellence is to be 
 
 found in Homer: omnibus eloquentiae partibus ex- 
 
 emplum et ortum (Homerus) dedit nam ut de laudi- 
 
 bus, exhortationibus, consolationibus taceam; nonne vel nonus liber, 
 quo missa ad Achillem legatio continetur, vel in primo inter duces 
 ilia contentio vel dictae in secundo sententiae omnes litium ac con- 
 siliorum explicant artes ? ^^ Cicero calls Nestor and Ulysses the old- 
 
 ciety and Solitude p. 72) says : "For what is the Odyssey but a history of the 
 orator, in the largest style, carried through a series of adventures furnishing 
 brilliant opportunities to his talent?" Cf. also pp. 73-4 of the same Essay. 
 
 'Afi^ioi (Meineke, II, 458-9; Kock, I, 281). 
 
 * Acharnians, 530. 
 
 ' Quintilian, XII, 10, 64 : Nam et Homerus brevem quidem cum iucundi- 
 tate et propriam, id enim est non deerrare verbis, et carentem supervacuis 
 eloquentiam Menelao dedit, quae sunt virtutes generis illius primi ; et ex ore 
 Nestoris dixit dulciorem melle profluere sermonem, qua certe delectatione 
 nihil fingi maius potest ; sed summam aggressus in Ulixe f acundiam et magni- 
 tudinem illi iunxit; cui orationem nivibus hibernis et copia verborum et 
 impetu parem tribuit. Cum hoc igitur nemo mortalium contendet; hunc ut 
 deum homines intuebuntur. Hanc vim et celeritatem in Pericle miratur 
 Eupolis, hanc fulminibus Aristophanes comparat, haec est vere dicendi facul- 
 tas. 
 
 ^"Quintilian, XI, 3, 157-8. I suppose the usual interpretation of the word 
 cogitatio would make the passage mean no more than that the orator is to 
 stand a moment and collect his thoughts before he speaks, and yet the same 
 word is used in another passage (X, 7, 19) in direct contrast with extem- 
 porary speech and where we are obliged to make it mean the premeditated, 
 which may in some cases be equivalent to the memorized, speech. That 
 Quintilian may have had the latter idea in mind is, therefore, possible. 
 
 "X, I, 46; cf. also II, 17, 8: apud Homerum et praecept- 
 
 orem Phoenicem cum agendi turn etiam loquendi (II. IX. 432) et oratores 
 plures et omne in tribus ducibus orationis genus et certamina quoque 
 proposita eloquentiae inter iuvenes invenimus (//. XV, 284), quin in caelatura 
 clipei Achillis et lites sunt et actores (//. XVIII, 497-508). Cf. Hermog. II, 
 10 {Rhet Gr. Ill, 375, Walz; II, 405, 21 Sp.) ; Xen. Symp. IV, 6. 
 
72 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 est representatives of Greek eloquence, and adds that Homer would 
 not have bestowed such praise upon them if oratory had not been 
 held in honor even in those days, nor could the poet himself have ex- 
 hibited such fine specimens of eloquence as we actually find in his 
 poems otherwise.^^ 
 
 The "three leaders" are probably Nestor, representing the grand style.. 
 Menelaus, the simple, and Ulysses, the middle. Cf. Aulus Gell. VII, 14. Cap- 
 peronier thinks Phoenix, Ulysses and Ajax are meant: the speakers in the 
 embassy to Achilles (//. IX). In Spengel, Rhet. Gr. Ill, 152, 12 ff. may be 
 found an elaborate comparison of the Homeric heroes with Lysias, Demos- 
 thenes and Isocrates. See also Spengel, Rhet. Gr. II, 63, 28 ff. ; Art Script. 
 pp. 6, 7, 119 n. 
 
 It is somewhat difficult for a modern fully to appreciate the feeling of 
 the ancients about Homer. "Boys learned Homer by heart at school, priests 
 quoted him touching the gods, moralists went to him for maxims, statesmen 
 for arguments, cities for claims to territory or alliance, noble houses for the 
 title-deeds of their fame." (Jebb, Primer. Gr. Lit. p. 34. Homer was re- 
 ferred to in all seriousness as authority in historical appeals (Herod. VII, 
 1 59- 1 61 ; Arist. Rhet. I, 15; Thucyd. II, 41, 4; cf. I, 10, i; Plut. Solon, c. 10). 
 He was looked upon as the embodiment of national Hellenic sentiment (cf. 
 Isocr. IV, 159). According to Plato, (Rep. 603E) certain eulogists of Homer 
 asserted that he had educated Greece (see also Plato's Ion). Hippias of EHs 
 made him the subject of "displays" at the Olympic festivals (Plato, Hipp. 
 Min. 363 A). The schools used Homer as a text-book (Plato, Protag. 325C; 
 Xen. Sywp. Ill, 5; Dion. Chrys. Or. II, p. 308; Quintil. I, i, 36; cf. I, i, 19, 
 I, 8, lo-ii and elsewhere. 
 
 According to Longinus (?) de Sublim. XIII, 3-4, Herodotus, Stesichorus, 
 Archilochus, and above all, Plato, drew from the great Homeric source (com- 
 pare Quint. X, I, 46 ff.). The same author (c. XIV) advises one who is 
 elaborating anything which requires lofty expression and elevated conception, 
 to consider, as the most severe test of its excellence, how Homer, Plato, 
 Demosthenes, or Thucydides would have treated the same thing and further- 
 more how the writer's productions would have affected Homer and Demos- 
 thenes had they heard them. Horace (A. P. 140 ff.) quotes the opening verse 
 of the Odyssey as a model exordium. Lucian (Encom. Detnosth.)' parallels 
 Homer with Demosthenes, and he, with Demosthenes is the author most 
 quoted in the pages of the rhetoricians. Only a few authors dared to accuse 
 Homer and Demosthenes of "nodding:" Cicero, Orat. XXIX, 104; Plutarch, 
 Cicero, c. XXIV; Cicero, Brut. IX, 35; Quint. X, i, 24; XII, i, 22; Horace, 
 A. P. 357. 
 
 "Brutus, X, 39-40: Nee tamen dubito quin habuerit vim magnam semper 
 oratio. Neque enim iam Troicis temporibus tantum laudis in dicendo Ulixi 
 tribuisset Homerus et Nestori quorum alterum vim habere voluit, alterum 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 73 
 
 In the years between Homeric times, to which the Greeks traced 
 back the history of eloquence and rhetoric/^ and the actual rise of 
 those arts in democratic Athens, lyric poetry, such as that of 
 Callinus, Tyrtaeus, Archilochus, and Solon, practically fulfilled all 
 the functions of the orator. 
 
 Callinus of Ephesus, the earliest elegiac poet, gives us in his 
 poems not only the general's speech, which occurs first in Homer,^* 
 but also that of the orator who seeks to rouse his countrymen 
 against an invader. 
 
 Tyrtaeus, whom Pausanias makes a lame Athenian school- 
 master,^^ averted a revolution in Sparta by his poem Eimofwia,^^ 
 and his exhortations and marching songs at any rate, if not Tyrtaeus 
 himself, as tradition says, led the Spartans to victory.^'' His poems 
 were political as well as martial, and his elegies were learned by 
 heart and sung by Spartan soldiers around their camp-fires. ^^ 
 
 Archilochus, who was the first to wield the weapon of public 
 satire, not only urged on the Thasians to war against the Thracians 
 of the mainland, but also used his gift of poetry for political pur- 
 poses.^^ 
 
 suavitatem, nisi iam turn esset honos eloquentiae ; neque ipse poeta hie tarn 
 ornatus in dicendo ac plane orator fuisset. 
 
 The fact that Homer contrasts the two styles perhaps shows that he had 
 given some thought to the theory of the question. Compare Plut. Pal. Praec. 
 c. 5. Quintilian (II, 17, 8) points out that in Homer there are contests in elo- 
 quence proposed among the young men (//. XV, 284), and that both law- 
 suits and pleaders are represented among the figures on Achilles' shield (//. 
 XVni, 479-508). Cf. Croiset, M. : De Puhlicae Eloquentiae Principiis apud 
 Graecos in Homericis Carminibus (Paris, 1874) ; also Epes Sargent's remarks 
 on early Greek oratory (Oratory Ancient and Modern, quoted by Byars, 
 Handbook of Oratory, p. 270 fif.)- 
 
 " Cf . p. I fif. 
 
 "Cf. p. 91, n. 100. 
 
 ^^ On the legend see Busolt, Gr. Gesch. p. 166 ; compare Plato, Laws, 629A. 
 
 " Cf . f r. 5, 6, 7. 
 
 "Fr, 8, 10 (with which compare Theognis 699 fif.), 15, 30-33. 
 
 "Athenaeus, XIV, 630F. Cretans as well as Spartans knew their Tyr- 
 taeus (Plato, Laws, 629) and later Lycurgus quotes him in his indictment of 
 a coward {in Leocr. 107). 
 
 ^"^Cf. Welcker, Archilochos (Kl. Schr. i); Hauvette, Archiloque, (Paris, 
 1905); Hauvette, in Rev. d. Etudes Greques, 1901. 
 
74 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 Solon's poetry is in the main the expression of his political life 
 against those who criticised his measures. ^^ As Tyrtaeus' songs 
 roused the Spartans to reconquer Messenia, so Solon, after writing 
 and getting by heart his poem, Salamis, recited it in the market- 
 place as if it were an extemporary outburst, and with Pisistratus' 
 aid, inspired the Athenians to renew the war.^^ 
 
 The history of Greek eloquence is practically the history of elo- 
 quence at Athens. In historic times Athens was the city which was 
 regarded as the true home of eloquence: (urbs) in qua et nata et 
 alta sit eloquentia,^- the city which Isocrates later made the "school 
 of Greece." ^^ It was not, however, until after the expulsion of 
 the tyrants and the establishment of the democracy that eloquence 
 began to flourish to any great extent even in Athens.^* For this 
 Cicero gives the reason : ''nee enim in constituentibus rem publicam 
 nee in bella gerentibus nee in impeditis ac regum dominatione de- 
 vinctis nasci cupiditas dicendi solet. Pacis est comes otiique socia 
 et iam bene constitutae civitatis quasi alumna quaedam eloquen- 
 tia."2^ 
 
 ^° Plut. Solon, c. Ill ; cf . f r. 4, where he describes the evils of the political 
 system which he overthrew. Cf. in general, Begemann, QuaesHones Soloneae 
 (Gottingen, 1878). 
 
 *^ Plut. Solon, c. VIII : kXtyzla hk xgijcpa mrv^Eig xal 
 
 ILiE^ex'noag waxe Xiytiy duro axonaxog x. x. X. 
 
 ^ Cicero, Brut. X, 39 ; also XIII, 49 : hoc autem studium non erat com- 
 mune Graeciae sed proprium Athenarum, Cf. Velleius Paterculus (I, 18)', who 
 probably had this passage in mind: "Una urbs Attica pluribus annis elo- 
 quentiae quam universa Graecia operibusque floruit, adeo ut corpora gentis 
 illius separata sint in alias civitates ingenia vero solis Atheniensium muris 
 clausa existimes." 
 
 Blair (Lecture XXV, Vol. II, 186) says : "The most liberal endowments 
 of the greatest princes never could found such a school for true oratory as 
 was formed by the nature of the Athenian Republic. Eloquence there 
 sprung, native and vigorous, from amidst the contentions of faction and 
 freedom, of public business, and of active life." 
 
 Compare Isocr. XV, 295-8; IV, 50; Thucyd. II, 41, i. 
 
 « Cicero, Brut. VIII, 32. 
 
 "Before this time Cicero (Brut. VII, 2y) mentions only Solon, Pisistra- 
 tus, and Cleisthenes as men who were considered able speakers "ut tem- 
 poribus illis." 
 
 *^ Brutus, XIII, 45; cf. Sandys ed. of Cicero's Orator, Introd. p. 3. For 
 the idea see also de Or. I, 4, 14; I, 8, 30; II, 8, 33; Orat. XLI, 141 ; Brut. VI, 
 22; Quint. I, 16, I ff. These passages seem at first sight to be contradicted by 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 75 
 
 Cicero says there were no orators at Corinth, Argos, or Thebes, 
 and he never even heard of one belonging to Sparta,^® brevity of 
 speech being, in his opinion, of merely occasional importance in 
 oratory. 
 
 The earliest practical development and the real study of oratory 
 arose, however, not in Athens but in Sicily.^^ After the expulsion 
 of the tyrants, the return of the exiles, and the consequent claims 
 and counter-claims to property, there arose a storm of litigation 
 out of which emerged the *'art of rhetoric," of which the founder 
 was Corax of Syracuse.^^ There is no mention Of speeches com- 
 posed by him either for his own use or that of others, yet that he 
 did compose speeches seems very probable, since we are told that 
 although no one before the time of Corax and his pupil Tisias ^® 
 had composed by rules of art, yet there had been many orators who 
 expressed themselves carefully and who even wrote out their 
 
 Tacitus, Dial. c. 40, where it is stated that internal dissensions are necessary 
 for the development of eloquence, but Cicero, too, by "pax" {Brut. XII, 45) 
 means freedom from foreign wars ; cf . de Or. I, 9, 38 ; de Invent. I, i, i ; 
 also Longin. (?) de Sublim. c. 44. Compare Mathews, Oratory and Orators, 
 p. 32 ff. 
 
 ^ Brut. XIII, 50: "quis enim aut Argivum aut Corinthium, aut Thebanum 
 scit fuisse temporibus illis? nisi quid Epaminonda docto homine (cf. Nepos, 
 Epam. IV-V; Plut. Apophtheg. 194B; Agesilaus, c. 27) suspicari libet; 
 Lacedaemonium vero usque ad hoc tempus audivi fuisse neminem." Cf. Veil. 
 Pater. I, 18, 2: neque vero hoc magis miratus sum quam neminem Argivum, 
 Thebanum, Lacedaemonium oratorem aut dum vixit auctoritate, aut post 
 mortem memoria dignum existimatum. Cf. also Tacitus, Dial. c. 40, 13; 
 Quint. II, 16, 4. 
 
 Thucydides (IV, 84, 2) mentions Brasidas, but with an important reser- 
 vation: (Brasidas)' was, for a Lacedaemonian (65 AaxESaifxoviog) not de- 
 ficient in eloquence. Cf. also Athen. XIII, 611 A; Schol. Find. Isthm. V, 87. 
 
 " The Sicilians were naturally quick and disputatious : Cicero, Brut. XIII, 
 46; Verr. IV, 43, 95. 
 
 ^® Cicero, Brut. XII, 46. On Corax see Blass, Att. Bereds. I, 18-20; Suidas, 
 
 s. n 6 xfig 'griTOQixfig evqctti?. Scjiol. ad. Hermog. (Or. Att. 
 
 VIII, 196, ed. Reiske) ; Croiset, Hist. Lit. Gr. IV, 42. Jebb, Introd. p. cxix 
 gives an excellent sketch of the causes which would spring up at such a 
 time and the instruction which the claimants to property would need; cf. 
 also Navarre, p. 5 ff. The establishment of a popular ecclesia (Diodorus 
 XI, y2y no doubt increased the need for ability as a speaker. 
 
 ^^ On Tisias see Blass I, 20-22. 
 
76 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 Speeches : ^^ "itaque ait Aristoteles cum sublatis in Sicilia tyrannis 
 res privatae longo intervallo iudiciis repeterentur, turn primum, quod 
 esset acuta ilia gens et controversiae nata, artem et praecepta Siculos 
 Coracem et Tisiam conscripsisse ; nam antea neminem solitum via 
 nee arte, sed accurate tamen et de scripto ^^ plerosque dicere." 
 
 This judicial oratory of the Sicilians, partially shaped by the 
 hands of Antiphon, reached its earliest finished form in the speeches 
 of Lysias, but while it was being so shaped, another branch of ora- 
 tory, the political, was flourishing at Athens, and of this the great ex- 
 ample was Pericles, ''an almost perfect orator."^^ In this first great 
 age of eloquence, the age of Themistocles, Cimon, Pericles, Alcibi- 
 ades, Thucydides, oratory had not yet become the subject of system- 
 atic study. It was practical, and had little or nothing to do with the 
 theory of rhetoric. Nevertheless the orators whom this age pro- 
 duced were in Plutarch's opinion greater than any who followed 
 them.33 
 
 '" Cicero, Brut. XII, 46. The passage from Aristotle was no doubt taken 
 from his lost work owaymyi] xexvcov (Diog. Laert. V, 24). Cicero describes 
 it (de Invent. II, 2, 6) : "Ac veteres quidem scriptores artis usque a principe 
 illo atque inventore Tisia repetitos unum in locum conduxit Aristoteles et 
 nominatim cuiusque praecepta magna conquisita cura perspicue conscripsit 
 atque enodata diligenter exposuit." Cf. also Cicero, de Or. II, 38, 160. 
 
 Spengel. Art. Script, p. 2, suggests that Quint. Ill, i, 13, and Diog. Laert. 
 II, 104, may be citations from this •work. 
 
 ^de scripto is a disputed reading. In the manuscripts there is a vari- 
 ation: F, B, O, have descripto; C, de scripto. J. Schmitz proposes to 
 emend to descripte, and Eberhard to discripte. It is perhaps easier to keep 
 de scripto. W. R. Roberts, in the article before referred to (Class. Rev. 18 
 [1904] 18-21) has shown that the parallel between a recently discovered 
 rhetorical fragment and this passage of the Brutus (cf. p. 9, n. 8)' if accepted 
 tends to confirm the manuscript reading de scripto as against the conjectural 
 emendations descripte, and discripte. 
 
 The best evidence, however, in favor of the reading de scripto, is the 
 fact that Cicero frequently uses the phrase when he means to speak or read 
 from a written composition; Plane. 30, 74; Phil. X, 2, 5; ad Att. IV, 3, 3; 
 ad Fam. X, 13, i; Sest. 129; Leg. Agr. II, 48; Pliny, Ep. VI, 6, 6. 
 
 "^ Cicero, Brut. XII, 45. 
 
 '^ Speaking of Demosthenes (Dem. 852B) Plutarch says: "and if to the 
 nobleness of his principles and his high-souled eloquence he had added war- 
 like courage and hands clean from bribery, he would have been worthy to 
 hold a place, not with Moerocles, Polyeuktus, and Hyperides, but with Cimon, 
 Thucydides, and Pericles of old." 
 
 Caesar (Plut. Caes. 880) in commending Cicero's eloquence, compares 
 him to Pericles and Theramenes. Compare Dem. XVIII, 219. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 7/ 
 
 We have no means of forming a judgment of Cimon as an 
 orator,^* although the fact that Plutarch classes him with Pericles 
 and bestows such high praise upon him, would lead one to suppose 
 that he was an able speaker. 
 
 To the eloquence of Themistocles there are several references. 
 Herodotus ^^ says : "At the dawn of day all the men-at-arms were 
 assembled together, and speeches were made to them, of which the 
 best was that of Themistocles ; who throughout contrasted what was 
 noble with what was base, and bade them, in all that came within the 
 range of man's nature and constitution, always to make choice of 
 the nobler part. Having thus wound up his discourse, he told 
 them to go at once on board their ships, which they accordingly 
 did" (Rawlinson). 
 
 Thucydides ^® describes him as xpccTtaTO? Sy) outo? auTOuxeSta^eiv 
 Ta Seovxa sysvsto. The Pseudo-Lysian Epitaphiiis^'^ speaks of him 
 as one [/.avcoTaiov etTustv v.a\ Yvwvat xat Tupa^at. In Cicero's account 
 of the earlier Athenian oratory, between the establishment of the 
 democracy and the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, the first 
 important name is that of Themistocles, "quem constat cum pru- 
 dentia tum etiam eloquentia praestitisse".^^ 
 
 Beyond these general expressions of approval, there is almost 
 nothing known of the character of Themistocles' eloquence. Plu- 
 tarch attributes two public speeches 4o him : one at the time of his 
 alleged proposal to bum all the Grecian ships except those of the 
 Athenians,^^ and another, on the authority of Theophrastus, at 
 
 ^Nepos speakes rather slightingly of Cimon (Cimon, c. II): "habebat 
 enim satis eloquentiae." 
 
 ^ Herod. VIII, 83. This speech was evidently quite pretentious, and 
 would argue quite a degree of knowledge of speechmaking on his part. We 
 can see from Herodotus' account that Themistocles' speech contained several 
 of the topics which later came to be regarded as fixed parts of an oration. 
 It contained (i) a series of antitheses (xd be enea f\v Jidvxa, [xd] TiQeoofo 
 xoiai f\aaooi dvxixiOeiiiEva, 00a 8t| ev dv^Qcojtov (pvai xal xaxaaxdai EYYivexai) 
 (2) an appeal to the Greeks to choose the better course (jtagaivEaa^ 6e xovxwv 
 xd XQEoaco aloEEO^ai,) and finally a peroration (xaxa;i?L£^ag xt]v 'gfjaiv)'. 
 
 ""I, 138. 
 
 '" sec. 42. 
 
 ^Brutus, VII, 28. Cicero elsewhere quotes Thucydides' characterization 
 of Themistocles: ad Att. X, 8, 4; cf. also Himerius Or. V, 11. 
 
 '^Plut. Them. c. 20, i. Cf. also Plut. Arist. c. 22, 2; Diodor. XI, c. 42; 
 Cic. de Off. Ill, II, 49; Val. Max. VI, 5, i, sec. 2. Grote (Hist. Gr. V, p. 27, 
 
yS EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 Olympia against Hieron of Syracuse, in which he urged the Greeks 
 to tear down Hieron's tent and not to allow his horses to compete 
 for the prize.*^ Nepos says,*^ "multum in iudiciis privatis versaba- 
 tur ; *^ saepe in concionem populi prodibat ; nulla res maior sine eo 
 gerebatur, celeriter que quae opus erant reperiebat ; neque minus in 
 rebus gerendis promptus, quam excogitandis erat, quod et de instan- 
 tibus (ut ait Thucydides) verissime iudicabat, et de futuris calli- 
 dissime coniciebat." 
 
 There is one passage in the Pseudo-Plutarch which is usually 
 understood to imply that Themistocles' oratorical efforts were ex- 
 temporary. The author of the Lives of the Ten Orators in speak- 
 ing of Antiphon says:*^ t(ov youv izph auTOu [Antiphon] ysvoixIvcov 
 ouB£v6(; (pspeiai §txavt/.6? XoYoq, dXX' ouSs twv /.ax' auTOV, 5ta to ply)S£tc(«) 
 ev sGss TO auYYpa9£{v elvat, ou ©spuaTOX-Xeou?, oux 'AptaTsfSou oO Ilspt- 
 
 xXeou? I cannot see that this necessarily means that 
 
 the predecessors of Antiphon made purely extemporaneous speeches. 
 The passage seems only to say that there were no forensic speeches 
 of these orators in circulation (cpepeTat,**) in published form at the 
 time when the author of the Life of Antiphon wrote his account. 
 The speeches may have been lost before his time, or the orators 
 may never have put them in shape for publication ; but in any case 
 the lack of speeches does not prove that Themistocles failed to 
 prepare his oration before he delivered it. 
 
 n. 2) says, "the story is probably the invention of some Greek of the Platonic 
 age who wished to contrast justice with expediency and Aristides with 
 Themistocles." 
 
 *" Plut. Them. c. 25, i ; cf . Aelian, Var. Hist. IX, 5. 
 
 " Them. c. i. 
 
 **Cf. Plut. Them. c. 5, 4. Themistocles is most frequently mentioned 
 for his excellent memory and for his achievement of learning the Persian 
 language in one year. Cf . Thucyd. I, 138, i ; Plut. Them. c. 5, 4, and c. 29, 2 ; 
 Cicero, de Or. II, 74, 299; Quint. XI, 2, 50; Philost. Imagg. II, 31; Diodorus, 
 XI, 56-57; Nepos, Them. c. 10, gives an exaggerated account of his attain- 
 ments in this line; cf. also Val. Max. VIII, 7, 15. 
 
 " Vit. X Oratt. 832D. The statement that it was not customary may be 
 a false statement, or merely an inference from the fact that no speeches were 
 in existence at that time. 
 
 **0n (psQExai in this sense see Budaeus, Comm. Ling. Graec. p. 393. De 
 Aristide: 'Ava^E|i£voc; ak'kov Xlava^rivaixov evteA-tj xal li^vxQOv, og xal cpEQExai. 
 JuHan, Or. p. 189A; Argum. Rhesi Eurip. ; Schol. Eurip. Phoen. ^77', Ps- 
 Plut. Ant. 15. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 79 
 
 Suidas *^ says that the predecessors of Pericles extemporized ; 
 he was the first to write out a forensic speech before he deUvered 
 it ; *^ but we cannot be sure that this would apply to Themistocles 
 for it is a question whether Suidas would class him as one of those 
 xpo IleptxXeouq/^ although it is probable that he did. It is impossible, 
 however, to decide the point on the testimony of Suidas alone, and it 
 therefore seems as if the question must be left open for lack of di- 
 rect evidence.*^ The probabilities seem to me to be in favor of the 
 belief that Themistocles was not a purely extemporary speaker, the 
 more so, since there is evidence to show that Pericles, whom the 
 Pseudo-Plutarch classes with Themistocles, certainly did not rely 
 solely on the inspiration of the moment. 
 
 According to Cicero,*^ the earliest authors who have left authen- 
 tic writings are Pericles and Alcibiades : "Antiquissimi fere sunt 
 quorum quidem scripta constent, Pericles atque Alcibiades et eadem 
 aetate Thucydides." Jebb ^^ declares that the use of "constent" in 
 
 ^'On the sources of Suidas and the trustworthiness of his accounts see 
 Daub, A,: De Suidae Biographicorum origine et fide (Leipzig, 1880); and 
 Studien su den Biographika des Suidas (1882)'; Volkmann, D. : De Suidae 
 biographicis quaestiones selectae, (1861), De Suidae biographicis quaestiones 
 alterae (1867), De Suidae biographicis quaestiones novae (1873). 
 
 ^'s. V. Pericles. 
 
 *'' Themistocles was born c. 525 B. C, Pericles c. 493 B. C. Cicero 
 {Brutus VII, 28) speaks of Cleon as the contemporary of them both. 
 
 *® There is an amusing story in Plutarch {Them. c. 2, 3)' of the boy 
 Themistocles inventing and arranging speeches in his play hours. One 
 could not argue from this that it was his practice in later life to be careful 
 about his speeches, although it seems probable that he was so. 
 
 ^''De Or. II, 22, 93. Mure {Crit. Hist. Gr. Lit. V, p. 166) says: "There 
 can be little doubt that the specimens of Periclean eloquence here vaguely 
 referred to by Cicero are the speeches in Thucydides." The fact that 
 Cicero mentions Thucydides would be against this view. 
 
 ^ Att. Or. I, p. cxxviii. Constent, however, may mean merely "are in 
 existence," and so the passage may mean, not that these particular speeches 
 are genuine, but are in existence as representative of such writings. I have 
 been able to find no other passage in which constent is used in raising the 
 question as to whether a given work is or is not genuine. The lexicons 
 explain constent in this passage of Cicero by esse or existere, and in this 
 sense the word is frequent in Cicero: Verr. Ill, 187; de Fin. IV, 54; V, 
 22; II, 38; de Nat. Deor. I, 25; I, 48; I, 89, and elsewhere. Wilkins in his 
 note on de Or. II, 22, 93, translates constent "are recognized as genuine" 
 but gives no other passage containing a similar use of the word. 
 
8o EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 this passage seems to imply that the question of the authenticity of 
 the speeches had been investigated. From this statement alone, one 
 might suppose that Cicero believed the speeches genuine, but as 
 Jebb points out, he elsewhere speaks more doubtfully : ^^ "Ante 
 
 Periclem cuius scripta quaedam f eruntur littera nulla 
 
 est quae quidem ornatum aliquem habeat et oratoris esse videatur." 
 
 This seems to mean no more than that there were in circulation 
 in antiquity certain speeches which were ascribed to Pericles, but 
 which were probably spurious. Such, at any rate, was the belief of 
 Quintilian,^^ who, after quoting the above passage of the Brutus, 
 adds : "Equidem non reperio quidquam tanta eloquentiae f ama dig- 
 num ; ideoque minus miror esse qui nihil ab eo scriptum putent, haec 
 autem quae feruntur ab aliis esse composita." 
 
 Elsewhere ^^ Quintilian positively asserts that no writings of 
 
 Pericles were extant in his time: " Periclem, cuius 
 
 eloquentiae, etiamsi nulla ad nos monumenta venerunt," and ". . 
 . . . in agendo clarissimos quosdam nihil posteritati mansurisque 
 mox litteris reliquisse ut Periclem" etc. 
 
 It may perhaps be suggested that the speeches ascribed to Peri- 
 cles in Cicero's time and those known to Quintilian were not the 
 same, and that the former may have been genuine. To support such 
 a thesis one must suppose that the authentic writings were lost be- 
 tween the time of Cicero and that of Quintilian, and that the speech- 
 es Quintilian knew were imitations of the true ones mentioned by 
 Cicero. There is no evidence for such a belief ; it seems an arbitrary 
 assumption. 
 
 We may, then, accept it as Quintilian's view that the speeches 
 in circulation in his time under the name of Pericles were spurious. 
 
 Suidas ^* says very positively that the predecessors of Pericles 
 
 ^^ Brutus, VII, 27. 
 
 "^ Quintilian, III, i, 12. 
 
 "XII, 2, 22; 10, 49. 
 
 "s. V. Pericles. Pericles delivered a number of forensic speeches in 
 addition to those which we know (Ps.-Plut. Antiph. 5). He must have 
 delivered one in his own defense (Plut. Peric. c. 35, 3-4), since according to 
 Athenian law (cf. Meier-Shomann, Att. Process, II, p. 919, n. 438) a man 
 must make a speech at his own trial, even if the speech were written for 
 him, or he later employed an advocate to speak in his behalf. This speech 
 might be one of only a few words, before the speech of the advocate. There 
 is no evidence that Pericles employed an advocate, and it is extremely 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 8l 
 
 had extemporized ; he was the first who wrote out a forensic speech 
 before he delivered it: [IIsptTtXYi?] 'prixtjip y.(x\ lTi\L(xy(si^bq, oait? 
 xpo)TO? Ypa:cTOv Xoyov ev St>taffTY]pj(p elxs, xwv irpo auTOu (j/sSia^ovTWv, 
 but we cannot, of course, form a definite judgment from the evi- 
 dence of Suidas f-' this must be supported by other reliable authori- 
 ties. I find a like statement in no other author except Eudocia 
 Augusta ^® who clearly followed Suidas. ^^ Apparently the statement 
 is flatly contradicted by the passage in the Pseudo-Plutarch quoted 
 above.^^ 
 
 Plutarch ^^ says Pericles left nothing in writing behind him ex- 
 cept some decrees, and that there are very few of his sayings 
 recorded: sfypaqjov [Jiev oOv cuSsv (ZTuoXeXotTus xXy^v twv (j;riq3t(T[jLaT(ov 
 d7U0[JiVY;]jL0V£U£Tai S'oXtYa TuavTaxaatv. 
 
 Lucian,*^^ quoting from comedy, says Pericles could lighten and 
 thunder and that he possessed ^'TustOout; xt vivipov." He adds: "So 
 much tradition tells us, but we have nothing left from which to form 
 a judgment," in the last sentence referring of course to the lack of 
 written productions. 
 
 probable that a man of his character and position would deliver the princi- 
 pal speech in his own defense. He also made a speech against Cimon 
 (Plut. Peric. c. lo, 5; Cim. c. 14, 4; Arist. Ath. Pol; c. 27), and one on be- 
 half of Aspasia (Plut. Peric. c. 32, 3; Athen. XIII, 589E). Cf. also Plut. 
 Peric. c. 12, possibly. 
 
 On the elusion of this law which was effected by delivering speeches 
 prepared by others, see Quint. II, 15, 30. 
 
 •"Cf. n. 45. 
 
 ^ Violarium, p. 353: IlEQixXfii; 'qiitooq xal 811111070)765, 
 
 ooTig jiQWTog YQOj-txov X6yo\ Sixaaxrigiq) eljie, xwv jiqo avxoC axeSicxtovxcov. 
 
 " See Flach, J. : Untersuchungen Uber Eudokia und Suidas, Leipzig, 1879. 
 
 On the authenticity of the Violarium see Pulch, P.: Hermes, XVII, 177; 
 Amer. Journ. Phil. Ill, 489; IV, 109; V, 114 ff. ; VII, 104. 
 
 =' Vit. X Oratt. 832D ; cf. p. 78. 
 
 ^Pericles c. 8. These opTicpia^iaxa (cf. c. 10, 3; 17, i; 20, 2; 25, i; 29, i; 
 30. 3; 34, 2) were probably taken from the liJ'ncpiaM.dxcov auvaytoYri or copies 
 of the original decrees made by Craterus (Plut. Arist. c. 26, 2). The 
 originals, kept in the temple of the Mighty Mother at Athens, were stolen 
 by Apellicon (Athen. V. 53). At the capture of Athens by Sulla they were 
 carried to Rome (Plut. Sull. 26). See Cobet. Mnemos. N. S. I, p. 97 ff. 
 
 ^ Encom. Demosth. 20: cxsivou [IlEQixXeovg] [lev ye xa^ 
 
 doxQOJtag xal Pgovxdg xal jiei^ov? xi xevxgov b6^r\ KagaXa^ovxe^, aXX' amr]v 
 yz ovx OQWHEv Cf. n. 7 and n. 9. 
 
82 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 Finally Sopater ®^ bears witness that neither Themistocles nor 
 Pericles committed any speeches to writing. They and the other 
 orators of their time spoke aypa^wc;. Philostratus ^^ states that there 
 are some who believe that extemporary speech began with Pericles, 
 but he seems rightly to doubt the statement. 
 
 Now if we accept as correct the verdict of Quintilian as to the 
 speeches ascribed to Pericles, there remains no record of any written 
 speech of his. This lack of record, however, gives no trustworthy 
 ground for the belief that Pericles did not prepare his speeches be- 
 fore delivering them.®^ 
 
 For the moment we may disregard the statement of Suidas, until 
 we see how much we are justified in inferring from the other pas- 
 sages cited. The statement in the Pseudo-Plutarch is limited to one 
 class of speeches, the 5ty,avt%oi Xoyot, and seems to mean no more 
 than that there was no such speech by Pericles in circulation in 
 published form.^* This, as well as Plutarch's affirmation that 
 Pericles left nothing in writing, s^Ypacpov [jl£V ouv ouSsv dxoXsXoJxe, can 
 by no means be taken as conclusive proof that Pericles' speeches 
 were extemporary. The record of the effect produced by his ora- 
 tions would seem to make this belief improbable. The comic poets, 
 a class of men, as Quintilian says ^^ "not at all inclined to flattery," 
 said that the power of his eloquence was scarcely credible. They 
 
 "'^ Prolegom. in Aristidem (Arist. Ill, 737, ed, Dindorf)': xpEig cpogal 
 'ot]t6qo)v Y£Yovaaiv, Sv f| \isv nQiaxt] ay Q&cpox; eXeyev, fjg eoxi ©Efiiaxox^fis 
 xal IlEQixXfjg xal ol xax' exsivovg *qtitoq8? • f) 8e fiEvxega eyyqokpo)? eA-eyev, 
 f\q ion AriiLioa^Eviig xai Alax^vrig xal TooxQdxr]g xal ovv avxotg f| jtQax- 
 xoM-EVT] xwv 'qtixoqcov beyAc,. Compare Apsines, quoted by Spengel, Art. 
 Script, p. 93. 
 
 ^ Vit. Soph. Praef. 4, p. 481 : axeSicov 8e JiiiYag Xoywv oi m-ev ex Heqi- 
 xA,£Ovg 'gvfivai jiqcoxou (jpaaiv, o^ev xal M-EYag 6 nEQix?tfjg Evojiiadri xt)v Y^tox- 
 xav £|iiol 8e jiXEioxa piEv dv^Qo'maw Alaxivrig Soxei oxEfiidoat 
 
 ^^ Pericles prayer (see n. 78) that no word might escape him foreign to 
 the subject with which he was to deal, would almost imply verbal prepara- 
 tion. 
 
 ^The contradiction between the Pseudo-Plutarch and Suidas is only 
 apparent. The author of the Life of Antiphon says merely that there 
 were no Sixavixol ?l6yoi of Themistocles, Aristides, or Pericles in circulation. 
 
 •"XII, 2, 22. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 83 
 
 compare his energy to "thunder and lightning from heaven." ®^ He 
 was the "Olympian," ^'^ on whose lips "persuasion was seated," ^^ and 
 "he alone of all the orators left a sting in the minds of his hear- 
 ers".®^ Thucydides ^^ calls him lupwio? 'AOrjvattov, Xsysiv t£ xai 
 TCpaaaetv SuvaKoxa-uoq. Plato '^ speaks of him as iuavT(Ov TsXs(OTaT0(; 
 zlq TY)v 'prizopiY.riV. Plutarch ^^ says that Pericles used to govern 
 Athens by sheer force of character and eloquence. To Cicero ^^ 
 
 "Aristophanes, Acharn. 530; Quintilian II, 16, 17-19; XII, 10, 24; 65; 
 Pliny, Ep. I, 20, 17; Cicero, Orat. IX, 29; de Orat. Ill, 34, 138. In the 
 Brutus (IX, 38; XV, 59) Cicero assigns the passage of Aristophanes, or 
 a similar passage, to Eupolis. He evidently did so at first in the Orator 
 (IX, 29) but had it corrected when Atticus pointed out the error (ad Att. 
 XII, 6, 3)'. Cf. De Quincey (ed. Masson, 1890) Vol. X, 325. 
 
 «^Plut. Perk. c. 8, 2; Athenaeus X, 48, 436F; XII, 45, 533C; XIII, 
 56, 589D; Aristoph. Acharn. 530; Cicero, Orat. IX, 29; Diodor. XII, 40, 
 5; XIII, 98, 3; Val. Max. V, 10, ext. i ; Lucian, Imagg. 17; Theon, Progym. 
 (Rhet. Gr. II, in, 9, Sp.) ; Plut. Mor. 118E; Pliny, AT. H. XXXIV, 8, 19. 
 
 ^ Eupolis, Afjfxoi ( Meineke, II, 458-9 ; Kock, I, 281 ) : IleiM T15 sjtexddi^ev 
 dm T015 x£i?.8aiv. Quint. X, i, 82; XII, 10, 65; Cicero, de Or. Ill, 34, 138; 
 Brut. XV, 59; Himerius, Or. XXIII, 4; Pliny, Ep. I, 20, 17; Val. Max. VIII, 
 9, 2. Cf. ^schines' insinuation that Demosthenes is trying to ape Pericles 
 (III, 256). In like manner Ennius calls M. Cethegus "flos delibatus populi 
 suadaeque medulla" (Cicero, Brut. XV. 58; Quint. II, 15, 4). 
 
 ""Eupolis, AfiiLioi: 
 
 ovTCoi; exriXei xal [lovog xoav 'qtitoqov 
 
 TO JCEVTQOV EYXaxeXElJlE TOig dxQOCOJXEVOl?. 
 
 Cicero, Brut. IX, 38; de Or. Ill, 34, 138; Pliny, Ep. I, 20, 17; Val. Max. 
 VIII, 9, ext. 2. 
 
 '"I, 139, 4. Cf. also Hermogenes {Rhet. Gr. II, 392, 14, Sp.) : . . . 
 . . Tov rtEQKpavcog fifiivoTaxov y^yovoxa. "kiyeiv xov IlEQixA-Ea. 
 
 "^^Phaedrus, 269E. Cf. Isocrates, XV, 234: 'qtitcoq aQioxog, compare 
 
 XV, 315. 
 
 ^^Plut. A^^V. Ill, (524D) : IizQiyXr\c, |xev ohi ojto xe (XQExfj? d>.Ti^ivfi5 xal 
 
 "Koyov fiirvd^iECog xtiv Jt6>av dycov Plutarch goes on to say that 
 
 Pericles required no tricks of manner or plausible speeches to gain him 
 
 credit with the populace: ovSevo^ eSeixo G%'^\iaxiG\iov kqoc, xov 
 
 ox^ov ouSe m^avoxaxog. Perhaps Plutarch meant to contrast Pericles with 
 Cleon, who was the first to abandon the dignified calm assumed by speakers ; 
 cf. Plut. Nic. VIII; Tib. Gracch. II; Quint. XI, 3, 123; and the Scholiast 
 on Lucian, Tim. c. 29 (quoting Theopompus). 
 
 See also Diodorus, XII, 38, 2; (6 n£QixA,fJ5) Xoyov Seivoxyixi koXv jtqoexcov 
 d;tdvxcov xcbv jtoXixwv. Plut. Pol. Praec. 802C; Peric. VII, i. 
 
 '^^De Or. I, 50, 216: eloquentissimus Athenis Pericles; also 
 
 de Or. Ill, 34, 138; Brut. VII, 29; IX, 38; XI, 44; XII, 45; XV, 59- 
 
84 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 he was "the best orator in Athens" and Themistius '^* gives him 
 like praise, assigning the merit for it to the teaching of Anaxagoras : 
 
 (tyjv xoXtv) HeptxT^sa STuatvouaav [Jiovcv v.a\ 'AaTuaatav, 
 
 d)? 'piQTopa? TsXeatoupYOu? xe y.a( 6(};y3X6vou<;, OTt evt t^? 'Ava^aYOpou 
 
 That the cautious Pericles should have been willing to trust solely 
 to the "natural gift" which Plato says was his/^ in his speeches, and 
 when he wished to produce an effect on the people should have 
 relied on "a stream of fortuitous eloquence" such as Quintilian says 
 "iurgantibus etiam mulieribus superfluere video" " is not probable. 
 
 In addition to the probability that such a high degree of elo- 
 quence required preparation, there are passages which seem to indi- 
 cate that Pericles actually did prepare his speeches. Plutarch says : '^^ 
 ou (iY)v dXXa 7,at outgx; 6 H&piv.'kric, xspl tov Xoyov e6XafY)(; y)v, wjt' 
 aet zpbq ^YJ^jia PaSt^(Ov Y]ux£fO lolq 0£Ot<; [at^Ss ^pri\L(x {jlyjSsv £y.7U£(7etv 
 dxovTO? auToG izphq tyjv xpo)t£t[JLevY]v xp£'<3f^ av ap pt,oaTOV. Such a prayer 
 certainly seems to imply careful preparation beforehand; moreover 
 the adjective fiuXagYJ? ^^ would hardly be applied to a man who 
 trusted to the inspiration of the moment even for choice of words. 
 The same story appears elsewhere in Plutarch in a context which 
 
 '*0r. XXVI, p. 396 (ed. Dind). 
 
 "With this passage compare Plato, Phaedrus, 270A and Scholiast on 
 261A; Cic. de Or. Ill, 34, 138; Brut. XI, 44-5; Orat. IV, 15 (with Sandys' 
 note); Plut. Perk. c. IV; c. VI; Himerius, Or. XXIII, 4; V, 11; Quint. 
 XII, 2, 22 (Pericles, Demosthenes, Cicero) ; also Blass, Att. Bereds. I,^ p. 34 
 ff. ; Pseudo Dem. Erot. 45; Diodor. XII, 38-41; Lucian, Timon, V, 10; Val. 
 Max. VIII, 9, 2; II, ext. i; Suidas, s. v. Pericles; Diog. Laert. II, Anaxag. 
 c. IX; Isocr. XV, 235. For philosophy as an aid to eloquence see Cicero, 
 d£ Or. I, 19, 88. 
 
 '"Plato. Phaedrus, 270A. Philostratus (p. 493) and Suidas (s. n.) make 
 Pericles and Thucydides when old men, the pupils of Gorgias; cf. also Eud. 
 Aug. CCLI. 
 
 "X, 7, 13. 
 
 '«PmV. c. VIII, 4. Cf. also Aelian, Var. Hist. IV, 10; Quint. XII, 9, 13. 
 
 ■^ Plut ; Perk. c. VIII, 4 : IlEQixXfig jteqI tov X670V euXaprig. EvXapri? : 
 discreet; careful in speaking; Plato, Polit. 311 A-B; Plut. Fah. c. 17; 
 C. Gracch. c. 3; Dem. XIX, 206; Schol. Arist. Eq. 13. In later Greek, and 
 particularly in ecclesiastical writers and in the New Testament, the word 
 comes to have a mainly religious significance : careful in one's dealings 
 towards the gods, reverent, pious : Ev. Luc. 2, 25 ; Act. Ap. 25, 8, 2, and 
 often in Christian inscriptions. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 85 
 
 leaves no doubt of the meaning. In his Political Precepts ®^ Plutarch 
 speaks as follows: ''Let your (i. e. the would-be statesman's) chief 
 endeavor, therefore, be to use to the multitude a premeditated and 
 not empty speech, and (you may do) that with safetyj knowing that 
 even Pericles himself, before he made any address to the people, 
 was wont to pray that he might not utter a single word foreign to 
 the matter with which he was to deal". There would be little point 
 in the application of the story if the speeches Pericles made after 
 uttering his prayer were extemporary. 
 
 In still another passage *^ Plutarch says that Demosthenes, whose 
 aversion to speaking extempore was well known, followed Pericles 
 ''in his forbearing to speak on the sudden or upon every occasion" : 
 aXX' £oty,sv 6 oiWTip xou UzpiySkiouq to: [jlsv aXXa [jly) izphq auxov YjY'^craaOat, 
 TO Be xXaajjia ^ac tov (jy\Laziu\Lbv auTOu y.at to [jly] Ta7S(0(; [jly]5£ Tuepi 
 
 TuavTO? £7, Tou TcaptdTajxsvo'j Xl^stv ^^ If Pericles and 
 
 Demosthenes were alike in this respect, then the statement in the 
 Pseudo-Plutarch must be understood to mean only that no speeches 
 of Pericles were in circulation, and the statement of Suidas may be 
 regarded as authoritative. The other passages which might seem to 
 indicate that Pericles' speeches were extemporary, are merely state- 
 ments to the effect that he left no written speeches behind him. 
 They do not prove that he did not write his orations before delivery. 
 He may not have cared to revise and publish them. He may have 
 felt that such an act would not have been consistent with his practice 
 of reserving his appearance in public for exceptional occasions,*^ 
 or he may have preferred that the impression he made upon the 
 people should be a personal one. Lastly, his reason may have been 
 the one given in Plato's Phaedrus,^'^ where we are told that men 
 
 ^ Pol. Praec. 803 F : \i6Xi<5xa piev o&v eo>c8[X|lievci) Jteigto xai 
 
 M-T) fiiaxevo) T(p Xoycp XQ^<J^ai nQoc, xovc, koIXovc, jAex' dacpaXEiai;, elSo)? oti 
 xal nEQLx?ifjg EXEivog tiuxeto kqo tov 8tim,tiyoq£iv \ii[\hk 'Qfjixa |iiti8ev oXkoxQX.O'v 
 Twv jTQaYpiaTcov ejieXOeiv auTcp. 
 
 ^Dem. c. 9, 3; also de Educat. Puer. c. 9. 
 
 ^ The phrase ex toO jtaQiaxa^Evou does not appear in Greek before 
 Aristotle. It occurs fairly often in later literature: Plut. Dem. c. 9, 2; Mor. 
 639D; Dion. c. 5, 4; Lucian, Charon, c. 13, and elsewhere. 
 
 "Plut. Peric. c. 7, 5 ; cf. Mor. 811C. 
 
 ^ Plato, Phaedr. 257D : ot \xiyiaTO\ SuvdiLiEvoi te xal aE^ivoTaxoi ev xaig 
 jioXeoiv aiaxmrovxai Xoyoug xe ygacpeiv xal xaxaX,£iJtEiv GvyyQ6.\.iaxa Eauxcov, 
 86iav (popovpiEvoi xoO E;t£ixa xQovou m-t) aoq)iaxal xaXcovxai. 
 
86 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 high in political life shrank from writing speeches lest, if any of 
 their productions lived after them, they should gain from posterity 
 the name of "sophists".^^ Lucian's explanation,^^ that there re- 
 mained no means of forming an estimate of Pericles's oratory be- 
 cause, beyond the momentary impression produced, there was in 
 his performances no element of permanence, nothing which would 
 stand the test of time, is, of course, a possible one.®^ It seems im- 
 probable, however that speeches of that sort could "leave a sting in 
 the minds of the hearers". The fact that Pericles' productions 
 have not survived is no proof that they did not deserve to do so. 
 
 Whatever may have been the reason for the non-survival of 
 written speeches by Pericles, it seems very probable that his pro- 
 ductions were in the main, the result of preparation and study. He 
 probably did, as Plato says, have a natural gift for speaking, but 
 mere extemporary eloquence, however clever, could not have pro- 
 duced the effect ascribed to Pericles' speeches. His cautious charac- 
 ter would also make it unlikely that he would rely solely on his 
 natural ability, particularly on such important occasions as those of 
 his policy speech, the funeral oration, etc. Of the passages bearing 
 on the subject, those in Cicero and Quintilian are concerned with 
 certain speeches ascribed to Pericles. If the speeches were authentic, 
 then it is probable that Pericles wrote them before rather than after 
 delivery. His only reason for writing them after delivery would 
 have been because he wished them to be published. If they were 
 spurious, as Quintilian believed, that fact by no means proves that 
 Pericles extemporized solely. It does not mean that he did not 
 write, but that he did not publish. Suidas states plainly that Pericles 
 
 "'The name of "sophist" as well as that of 'KoyoyQ6.(pog was held in 
 disrepute, although in the strict etymological sense neither of the two terms 
 would imply reproach (cf. Thompson's Phaedrus, Introd. p. xxvii)': Plato, 
 Phaedr. 257C; 258D; Protag. 312A; Arist. Soph. Elench. c. 34; Dem. XIX, 
 246; ^sch. Ill, 173, 200, 215; I, 170; Dinarchus, I, iii, and elsewhere. 
 
 ^ Encom. Demosth. c. 20 : dXX' auxr|v ye ovx 6qco|ii8v 8fiA,ov 0)5 vjiep xtiv 
 cpavxaaiav ovbev e\i\iovov ^xovoav ovb* olov slagxeaai kqoi; rfiv xoii xQovov 
 Pdaavov xal xqioiv. 
 
 ^Quintilian (XII, 10, 49-56) says that many men of great learning 
 have thought that the reason why Pericles and Demades left nothing in 
 writing was because the modes of speaking and writing are essentially 
 different. Pericles and Demades were speakers, not writers. Isocrates was 
 a writer, not a speaker. Quintilian denies the truth of this. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 87 
 
 wrote out at least one kind of speech, the §i^avivt6? Xoyo? before he 
 delivered it. Plutarch's statement that he left nothing behind him 
 except decrees, cannot be used as proof that his speeches were ex- 
 temporaneous. The testimony of the author of the Life of Antiphon 
 seems outweighed by the three passages of Plutarch ^^ mentioned in 
 the discussion. ^^ 
 
 ^^Peric. c. 8, 4; Dem. c. 9; Pol. Praec. 803F. 
 
 ^The funeral oration in Thucydides (II, 35-46), supposed to be de- 
 livered by Pericles, as well as the other speeches attributed to him by the 
 historian (I, 145; II, 60), are, of course, not genuine. Thucydides himself 
 (I, 22) has disposed of the question of the authenticity of all the speeches: 
 0)5 8' av eSoxouv Efxoi exaaxog jieqI xcov alsi jiaQovxoav xa Seovxa ixaXiax' 
 EiJTEiv, ExojAEVQ) oxi EYYUxaxtt xfjg §DM,;idar]g 7vo)|xi1? ^div dXY)#(bg ^ex^evxcov, 
 ovxcog £iQT)xai, The words eXeye [n£Qi5<>.fig] xoid8E (II, 34), as well as 
 6 \izv IXEQixA-fig xoiaijxa eIjiev (I, 145) and xoiauxa 6 IlEQix^ifig Xeycov (II, 
 65) show that Thucydides made no claim to give the actual speech. Diony- 
 sius {de Thucyd. lud. c. 44, p. 924) regards the speech of Pericles simply 
 as the composition of Thucydides and criticizes it as such. Sandys (Cicero's 
 Orator, Introd. p. 3) says: "Thucydides gives us only the substance of three 
 of the great orator's speeches as seen through the transforming medium of the 
 historian's mannerisms." Mure (Crit. Hist. Gr. Lit. V, 168 ff.) attempts to 
 reconstruct Pericles' speech by sifting out the palpably Thucydidean matter. 
 His attempt shows clearly that the speech in its present form could not have 
 been delivered by Pericles. Cf. Jebb, The Speeches of Thucydides (Essays 
 and Addresses p. 381 ff.) ; Attic Orators, II, 424; Blass, I, 227-239; Auffen- 
 berg, L. : De orationum operi Thucydideo insertam origine, vi historica, 
 compositione (Pr. 1879); Heimann, A.: De Thucydidis orationibus, (1833)'; 
 Hiippe, O. : De orationibus operi Thucydidis insertis (Pr. 1874) ; Tiesler, C. ; 
 Ueber d. Reden d. Thukydides (Pr. 1854). Also Macaulay's remarks on the 
 speeches of Thucydides in his Essay On the Athenian Orators. On the 
 funeral oration of Pericles see Weber, K. F. : Ueber die Stand-Rede des 
 Perikles (Darmstadt, 1827); Westermann : Gesch. der Bereds. sees. 35, 
 63. 64. 
 
 Busolt (Griechische Geschichte II, 602, n. 2) gives a list of authorities 
 for supposing that the quotation in Plutarch (Peric. c. 8, 5): x6 AiYivav 
 (bg Xr][i'r]v xov JlEigaicog dcpeleiv •asXevoai, and the famous saying xr)v vEoxrixa 
 Ix xfjg ji6/.E(og dvtiQfiai^ai wojieq x6 eag ex xoij Eviavxov, twice quoted by 
 Aristotle (Rhet. I, 7, 34; III, 10, 7) belong to the speech delivered over 
 those who fell in the Samian war (Plut. Peric. c. 28, 24). Mure (Crit. Hist. 
 Gr. Lit. V, 166) with less reason would place the quotations in the speech 
 over those who fell in the first year of the Peloponnesian war. Athenaeus 
 (III, 55) attributes the remark about Aegina and that about the loss of the 
 young men of Greece to the orator Demades. In Herodotus (VII, 162) 
 Gelon, tyrant of Syracuse, is quoted as making the the same remark. 
 
88 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 As to Alcibiades, no specimens of his oratory seem to have ex- 
 isted in ancient times, notwithstanding the fact that Cicero mentions 
 him as one of the two most ancient authors who have left authentic 
 writings. ^^ The Pseudo-Plutarch ^^ agrees with Cicero and also 
 attributes written orations to him. The writings referred to in this 
 passage, however, like those attributed to Pericles, are probably 
 spurious. 
 
 The funeral oration in the Menexenus (236C-249C) is, of course, Plato's 
 own production (cf. Jebb, I, 301, and Jowett, Introd. to Menex.). It is as- 
 cribed to Aspasia, and purports to be in part impromptu on her part, and in 
 part composed of passages from a funeral oration delivered by Pericles but 
 written for him by Aspasia (236B-C; cf. 249C-E)l Socrates' pretended re- 
 luctance to repeat the oration lest Aspasia be angry with him if he publishes 
 her speech (236C), is part of the jest of the whole. A. G. Becker, Demosthe- 
 nes als Sta^tsniann und Redner, says : "Some funeral orations were actually 
 spoken at the ceremony; others were only sketched out by the writers whose 
 names they bear, without having been delivered on such an occasion. To the 
 latter class belongs avowedly the noble oration of Plato in the Menexenus, 
 which the philosopher puts in the mouth of Socrates, with the assertion that 
 it was composed by Aspasia, It seems that Plato, dissatisfied with the ordi- 
 nary forms of these public funeral orations, wished to show by a specimen, 
 how the orators might, on so important an occasion, express themselves in 
 a more lofty way than they were accustomed to do. 
 
 In the same class, it seems, we must place the oration of Pericles in 
 Thucydides (II, 34). For though the historian ascribes it to that statesman, 
 it is most probably a work of his own design and composition, like the rest 
 of his. speeches ascribed to other men." 
 
 The funeral oration incorporated in the Menexenus was much admired 
 by the Greeks. Cicero tells us that it was publicly recited every year at the 
 celebration of the annual funeral rites in honor of those citizens who had 
 perished in their country's service (Orat. XLIV, 151). Cf. also Dion. Hal. 
 de Dent. c. 23, compared with Ars Rhet. c. 6. 
 
 The story of Aspasia's having been the teacher of Pericles and even of 
 Socrates, although of course unworthy of belief, is often referred to in 
 antiquity: Plut. Perk. c. 24, 4; Plato, Menex. 235E; Schol. Plat. Menex. p. 
 391; Clem. Alex. Strom. IV, c. 19, 124 (ed. Klotz) ; Alciphron, Ep. I, 34, 7; 
 Athen. V, 61, 219B; Philost. Ep. 7Z, 2. 
 
 ^ de Or. II, 22, 93. Helbig, on very insufficient grounds, has assigned 
 to Alcibiades the Pseudo-Xenophontic treatise, De reditibus Atheniensium. 
 
 " Vit. X Oratt. 832D : oooug jaevtoi e'xojiev em to JtaA-aioxaxov dvacp^QOv- 
 TEg aKoiivY\\iovevaai xriv iSeav twv X67COV xauxriv \x£Tax£iQiaa[ii\ovq xoi3xov5 
 EVQOi xig av £Jii|3E|3^T|x6xag 'Avxicpwvxi KQea^vxw r\br\ ovxi, olov 'AA.>ti3id8Tiv, 
 Kgixiav, Auaiav, 'Aq/ivov. Alcibiades is said to have been a pupil of 
 Gorgias: Philost. Vit. Soph. I, 9, 2. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 89 
 
 Demosthenes in one passage ^^ says of him : /.al Xsyscv e36/.ei 
 TcavTcov, w? qjaat, elvai SetvoTaxo*;. The phrase w? ^aat, although it 
 seems to imply that no written orations existed from which a judg- 
 ment could be formed, cannot be taken as absolute proof that such 
 was the case.^^ 
 
 As in the case of Pericles, the fact that no speeches written by 
 Alcibiades were in existence does not prove that he was an extem- 
 porary orator. We are told that he was an eloquent and persuasive 
 speaker. Plutarch says : ^* *'And that he was a capable orator, the 
 comic poets bear witness, and the most powerful of public speakers 
 in his oration against Midias says that Alcibiades, in addition to 
 other admirable qualities, was a most accomplished orator." 
 
 Lucian, in praising an orator, says that "when he came forward 
 to speak, the whole city listened to him open-mouthed, as men say 
 the Athenians of old did to Alcibiades." ^^ 
 
 Cicero describes him, with Pericles and Thucydides, as "subtiles, 
 acuti, breves, sententiis magis quam verbis abundantes." ^^ This 
 would be a rather strange characterization if Alcibiades had been a 
 purely extemporary speaker. It is true that Cicero may have had 
 in mind the speeches in Thucydides, for he says elsewhere ^^ that 
 
 ^Dem. XXI, 143. This passage is also quoted in Plutarch, Alcib. 196A. 
 Buttman, in his note on the Midias passage, argues that Demosthenes was 
 simply adapting his language to the ignorance of his audience, but a fair 
 interpretation of the passage implies that Demosthenes himself knew no 
 published speeches of Alcibiades. Cf. also Westermann, Gesch. der Bereds. 
 I, 2, sec. 39. 
 
 ^ The phrase &c, qpaai is not to be pressed. The Attic orators, even when 
 quoting well-known facts of history like to give them an air of tradition : 
 cf. Isocr. IV, 87; VI, 99; XII, 154; XIV, 571 Dem. IV, 17; XIV, 30; XV, 22; 
 XVI, 7; XX, 12; 161; XXI, 36; 62; 144; XXIII, 116; 117; XXIV, 212; 
 XXVI, 6; XL, 25; LIV, 18, and elsewhere. 
 
 ^ Alcib. 196A. Cf. also Nepos, Alcib. c. i: disertus, ut imprimis dicendo 
 valeret quod tanta erat commendatio oris atque orationis, ut nemo ei dicendo 
 possit resistere. Plut. Nic. 528C. 
 
 ^ The Scythian, c. 11 : "In truth, when he speaks in public, the whole city 
 listens, open-mouthed, just as they say the Athenians, once upon a time, listen- 
 ed to Alcibiades." 
 
 ""de Or. II, 22, 93; cf. Ill, 16, 59- 
 
 ^^ Brut. VII, 29. The fact that Alcibiades' speech to the Spartans (Thucyd. 
 VI, 89-93) is in Attic, not Doric, would be of no value in determining the 
 question of the authenticity of the speech. Neither Xenophon nor Thucy- 
 dides use dialect speeches. Occasional Doric words may be found, but the 
 
90 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 the character of the eloquence of the time of Alcibiades, Critias,^® 
 and Theramenes,^^ may be inferred from the writings of Thucy- 
 dides: "grandes erant verbis crebri sententiis, compressione rerum 
 breves et ob eam ipsam causam interdum subobscuri/' What Cicero 
 probably meant by this statement was that Thucydides, in the speech- 
 es attributed to Alcibiades, gives the best specimens of the style of 
 oratory which prevailed at the time, and which Alcibiades and his 
 contemporaries probably followed. It can hardly be that Cicero 
 means that the speeches are to be taken as representing the actual 
 productions of Alcibiades. In the first place, neither Critias nor 
 Theramenes make a formal speech in Thucydides, and besides it 
 was impossible that a man of Cicero's intelligence could have failed 
 to see that the speeches in Thucydides are speeches by Thucy- 
 dides.^*^ 
 
 Spartan generals address their troops in Attic Greek. Blass (I, 234-5, 2nd. 
 ed.) points out that the speeches of the Spartans in Thucydides are as 
 Jengthy as any others and are in Attic, not Doric. 
 
 Attic Greek probably became the official language or dialect in the sub- 
 ject states early, and an authentic speech in Attic by Alcibiades to the Spar- 
 tans is not impossible. Cf. Bonner, R. J. : The Mutual Intelligibility of Greek 
 Dialects, Classical Journal, IV, 356 ff. 
 
 ** There were extant in Cicero's time some writings by Critias (de Or. 
 II, 22, 93). Dionysius of Halicarnassus mentions his orations (de Lys. c. 2; 
 de Isaeo c. 20; de Thucyd. c, 51) as does Phrynicus (ap. Phot. Cod. 158). 
 That he was eloquent and learned we are told by Cicero (de Or. Ill, 34, 139; 
 Brut. VII, 29; cf. Xen. Mem. I, 2, 16)'. Hermogenes quotes as to oratory his 
 jigooifiia 8Y)M,T]Y0Qixd (Rhet. Or. II, 415-6 Sp.). Philostratus (Vit. Soph. I, 16, 
 5; II, I, 35) characterizes his method of speaking; cf. also I, 19, 2; Ep. 72,, 2. 
 Only a few trifling fragments of his prose works remain. He also wrote 
 tragedies, elegies and other works. The remains of his writings have been 
 collected by Bach (1827). Cf. also Westermann, p. 58. 
 
 ^Of the eloquence of Theramenes Cicero says he only heard (de Or. 
 II, 22, 93; cf. Ill, 16, 59; Brut. VII, 29), The writings attributed to him by 
 Suidas (s. v. Theramenes) are doubtless spurious. "They seem to be" says 
 Ruhnken (Hist. Crit. Orat. Gr. p. xli) "the productions of later sophists, as 
 Quintilian puts it (II, 4, 41), fictas ad imitationem fori consiliorumque mater- 
 ias apud Graecos dicere circa Demetrium Phaleria institutum fere constat." 
 Cf. also Eud. Aug. p. 231 ; Westermann, p. 57. 
 
 ^""It is true that Thucydides seems to take more pains to make the 
 speeches of Alcibiades fit his character (cf. Thucyd. VI, 18, 3-4) than he 
 does in the case of the others, but the attempt is a very transparent one and 
 could hardly have deceived Cicero. Furthermore, Cicero has elsewhere pro- 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 9I 
 
 All Cicero seems to mean is, that because of the lack of authentic 
 speeches, one can conjecture what sort of oratory existed in the 
 time of Alcibiades from the speeches of Thucydides who belonged 
 
 nounced judgment on the speeches in Thucydides. He says in one passage 
 (Brut. LXXXIII, 287) : orationes autem quas interposuit (multae enim sunt) 
 eas ego laudare soleo; imitari neque possim si velim, nee velim fortasse, si 
 possim." Cf. Orat. IX, 30; "nihil ab eo transferri potest ad forensem usum et 
 publicum; ipsae illae contiones ita multas habent obscuras abditasque sen- 
 tentias, vix ut intellegantur ; quod est in oratione civili vitium vel maximum ;" 
 also Orat. IX, 31-32; LXXI, 234; de Opt. Gen. 15-16; de Or. II, 56; 93; Brut. 
 LXXXIII, 288; cf. also Dionys. Hal. de Thucyd. c. 55. Polybius (XII, 25) 
 criticises Timaeus' disregard for truth in the speeches in his history. 
 
 To take the orations in the historians as representative of the actual 
 speech-making ability of the Greeks is of course impossible. Particularly 
 true is this in the case of the type of speech known as the "general's speech," 
 and yet the very existence of such a type implies that the Greek generals 
 possessed the ability to speak extempore to some degree at least. Even in 
 Homeric times an assembly might be called by any chief at a moment's no- 
 tice (cf. //. I, 54; 11, 50 ff.; VII, 345; VIII, 489; IX, 9; X, 299; XVIII, 249; 
 XIX, 4 ff. and elsewhere) at which the different heroes might be called upon 
 to speak, a custom which still prevailed in the Greek army in historic times 
 (cf. Xen. Anab. I, 3, 3-7; 9-19; III, i, 15; III, i, 35; 45; 3, 12, and elsewhere; 
 compare Thucyd. VIII, 93). It was an absolute necessity, then, that the men 
 in authority should be able to express themselves clearly on matters of im- 
 portance without preparation, (cf. Norden, Antike Kunstprosa, I, 87)'. As 
 Jebb (II, 39 ff.) says: "The power of speaking coherently and effectively in 
 a law-court, in a public assembly or at a public festival, held a place in old 
 Greek life roughly analogous to that which the journalistic faculty holds in 
 modern Europe. The citizen of a Greek republic might be called upon at 
 any moment to influence public opinion in behalf of certain interests or 
 ideas, by a neat, pointed, comprehensive address, which must be more or less 
 extemporary." The ability to utter fitting words of encouragement to the 
 soldiers before battle is placed by Socrates among the necessary qualifica- 
 tions for a general (Plato, Ion. 540D ; cf. also Theon, Rhet. Gr. II, 115 Sp.), 
 but the elaborate productions given in the historians as general's speeches are 
 justly subjected to criticism. As Plutarch says {Praec. Ger. Reip. 803B) 
 in speaking of the highly finished productions found in Ephorus, Theopompus, 
 and Anaximenes : "ovSelg 0i6tiqou xavxa ^icogami mXac, axac,. (Eurip. Autol. 
 ig. 284, 22). 
 
 The general's speech may be found in its first stage in Homer in the en- 
 couraging words uttered before battle by the leaders to the soldiers (//. IV, 
 234 ff. ; 294 ff. ; VI, 66; iii; 123, and elsewhere. Cf. also yEsch. P^r^a^, 400 ff. ; 
 Eurip. Suppl. 700 ff. ; Heraclidae, 820 ff. In lyric poetry the poems of Callinus 
 and Tyrtaeus take the place of the general's speech. A form of it occurs in 
 
92 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 to the same age: "quibus temporibus quod dicendi genus viguerit 
 ex Thucydidi scriptis, qui ipse turn fuit intellegi maxume potest." 
 
 Himerius has the following statement about Alcibiades and his 
 power as an orator r^'^^ 'A'ky.i^KX^T^q sTuetSr) izXripriq Au/.£tou v.ou twv ev 
 
 Tuavuac; tg) Oau^jLOCTt, axoxYjSiqaa*; Auxstou, B(5(oatv eauxov ^Yj^jLoata tux*?) 
 %al Tupa^sat • §oug 5s oaov xoi? XoYOt? Toaouiov TOt(; oxXoi? svtx.Yjo'sv. 
 
 So much for Alcibiades' oratory in general. There remain sever- 
 al passages which seem to show that he should not be regarded as an 
 extemporary orator. 
 
 ''He was," says Plutarch,"^ ''an excellent orator, and so careful 
 in his choice of words and phrases that he would pause in the midst 
 of his discourse if a particular apt expression for the moment es- 
 caped him and stand silent until he recollected it." 
 
 Elsewhere ^^* Plutarch attributes this hesitation to confusion due 
 to lack of proper preparation : eait Ss /.at XeyovTai; eauiwv Xajigavstv 
 8ia:t£tpav el pi-^TS xoXXwv luapa xpoaSoxcav cuvsXOovtwv utuo 5£iX(a(; 
 avaSuopLsOa, [jl'^t' ev bXiyoiq a8u[JLoij|i£v aY(ov{J^6[JL£vot, [1'^t£ xpoq Sr[Aov iq 
 
 7Up6? Cfp;(t)V £l7C£tV S£YJjaV ev8£!a TY]? 7U£pt TY]V Xs^tV XapacrX£UY)? 7:pOt£[JL£6a 
 
 Tov y.atp6v ola x£pi AYjpioaOlvou? Xfiyouai y.(x\ 'AXy.t^ta5ou. /.at yap O'jto? 
 vo*^<Tat [JL£V xpaYjiaxa SetvoxaTO? wv Tuept Bs tyjv Xs^tv dSapasaxepo? sauxov 
 
 Herodotus (for example, VIII, 83), and it is often found in Xenophon {Anah. 
 I, 7, 3-8; III, 2; IV, 8, 10; Cyrop. I, 4, and elsewhere. 
 
 For a full discussion of the general's speech, its tojxoi, etc., see Burgess, 
 Epideictic Literature, p. 209 ff. 
 
 '<»0r. V, 12; also £c/. 17, 8. 
 
 ^•"For Alcibiades as a pupil of Socrates see Cic. de Or. Ill, 34; Pseudo 
 Dem. Erot. 45; Philost. Ep. VII, i; FiV. ^o/)/^. I, 9, 2; cf. Xen. Mem. I, 2, 
 40-46, where he gets the better of his uncle Pericles in an argument about law. 
 
 ^"'Alcib. 196A: el 6e 08oq)QdaT(i) maxEvoiiEv avSgl cpdrixow xai Iotoqixw 
 
 JiaQ* OVTIVOUV TCOV (piXoOOCpCOV, £UQ£IV M,8V 'HV TOt SEOVXtt Xal VOfjaai JtdvTCOV 
 
 ixavcoxaxog 6 'AA-xiPidSrig, ^tixcov 8e iixt) ^lovov, a Sei Xeyeiv, dX.?id xai 0)5 
 Sei xoig 6v6|iiaoi xal xoig 'grmaoiv^ oux EVJtogwv 8e, koXKoxic, EaqpdX^EXo xal 
 (XExaiv Xeymv djiEoicojta xal 8i£X,£i;tE, 'Ki^eayi; bia(pvyovay]<; auxov, dvaXaiiipdvcov 
 xal biaonojioviieyoq. Compare Goldwin Smith, Reminiscences p. 359, of 
 John Stuart Mill: "His speeches were written, and he sometimes lost the 
 thread. But he would not, like less scrupulous speakers, fill the gap with 
 mere words; he would wait, however awkward the pause might be, till the 
 thread was recovered." 
 
 ^•^ On man's progress in virtue, 80C-D. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 93 
 
 Stwxcov ovopia y.at 'p^(xa Sta^euyov e^sxtTcxev/^^ Furthermore, Plutarch 
 would hardly class a successful extemporary speaker with Demos- 
 thenes, whose dislike to speak without preparation was an established 
 fact. 
 
 Again, in his Political Praecepts ^^^ Plutarch says that a ready 
 tongue is an indispensable possession for the man who would lead 
 in political affairs, as is the ability to speak on a moment's notice.^^^ 
 Lack of this ability is the reason why Demosthenes was deemed in- 
 ferior to many, as they say. Plutarch then adds, on the authority 
 of Theophrastus, the same story that appears in the Life. There 
 would be no fitness in telling the story here if Alcibiades had not 
 been unwilling to speak extempore. The inference, then, is that he 
 was accustomed to prepare his speeches before delivery. 
 
 It seems probable, then, that both Pericles and Alcibiades made 
 their speeches the object of study, and that they could not have been 
 extemporary orators. How much knowledge of the "art of oratory" 
 they possessed cannot be told, but there is no reason why the opin- 
 ion Quintilian expresses of Lysias, Herodotus, and Thucydides, 
 should not hold equally well for Themistocles, Pericles, Alcibiades, 
 or any Athenian who sought to influence his countrymen by his 
 oratory: 'Ttaque ut confiteor, paene ultimam oratoribus artem 
 compositionis, quae perfecta sit, contigisse; ita illis quoque priscis 
 habitam inter curas, in quantum adhuc profecerant, puto."^^^ 
 
 When we come to the Attic orators, the first who have left com- 
 plete written orations, we are better able to judge of the amount of 
 preparation spent by the orators upon their speeches. First there is 
 the internal evidence of the speeches themselves ; their perfect finish 
 and polish, the judicious use of figures, and the extreme condensation 
 
 ^** 8XJti;iTco here means to forget what one has before prepared or written 
 down. It is the word used by ^schines when he charges Demosthenes with 
 forgetting his speech before Philip, II, 34; also Philost. Vit. Soph. I, 18, 2; 
 II, I, 36; II, 32, 2. 
 
 ^*'8o3F-8o4A. 
 
 ^'" This was particularly true at Athens. Cf. Fenelon's remark (quoted by 
 Croiset, IV, 19) : "A Athenes tout dependait du peuple, et le peuple dependait 
 de la parole." 
 
 ^"^Blass (P 276) however, thinks Alcibiades never prepared his speeches 
 in writing. 
 
 ^^^ IX, 4, 16-17. 
 
94 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 of Style. This, however, cannot be taken as perfectly decisive proof 
 of preparation before delivery, because we cannot be sure that the 
 spoken speech and the one we now read were exactly the same. We 
 know that some of the Roman orators at least, carefully revised the 
 speeches they had delivered before they allowed them to be pub- 
 lished."« 
 
 Besides this evidence of the diction, we have many cases of 
 repetition of passages in different compositions of an orator, or 
 even the appearance of the same passage in the works of several 
 different orators. There are cases in which speeches were prepared 
 for delivery and later published, but which were never actually de- 
 livered before an audience. There are stock parts of speeches, such 
 as prooemia, composed by orators in such general terms as to be 
 applicable to almost any speech, and kept on hand for sudden 
 needs. We know how great pains some of the orators took to ac- 
 quire their art, and we also know that some of them were never 
 willing to run the risk of an extemporary speech. There are instances 
 where the orator frankly admits that he has prepared his speech, ^^^ 
 and finally, what seems a very clear argument against the belief that 
 the speeches were extemporary, there are many very transparent 
 efforts to give the orations an air of spontaneity. 
 
 As far as the diction of the speeches of the Attic orators is con- 
 cerned, it cannot, as has been said, be taken as a proof of prepar- 
 ation beforehand. We cannot tell how great a command over lan- 
 guage the orator's training may have given him. It is possible, 
 though not probable, that a skillful orator may always have used the 
 right word in the right place even in an extemporary speech, and 
 also have employed just the right figure where it would have the best 
 effect, but certainly the conciseness characteristic of the Attic orators 
 would argue against the belief that the speeches were in the first 
 place extemporary. Repetition and prolixity are the acknowledged 
 signs of unpremeditated discourse ; condensation implies thought and 
 effort. Indeed, condensation is so striking a characteristic of the 
 
 ""Cicero, for example; for his practice see p. 158. 
 
 ^ Demosthenes. Cf. XXI, 191 ; Plut. de Educat. Puer. 9. The preparation 
 in Demosthenes' case was, I think, practically verbal. While his speech was 
 thoroughly prepared and memorized, there was of course freedom for the 
 orator to insert any extemporary matter which might be necessary or ad- 
 visable. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS Oq 
 
 Attic orations, that it almost leads one to believe that the speeches 
 in their present form could not possibly have been delivered before 
 an audience, and that the spoken speech was worked over, polished, 
 perhaps, and condensed, and then reduced to writing in its present 
 form."^ The question arises, could an Athenian audience, even 
 granting all the natural quickness that has been attributed to it, and 
 all the critical taste it had acquired from listening to the finest pro- 
 ductions,"^ have appreciated Demosthenes' speeches, for example, 
 after hearing them once ? Perhaps so, if all the Greeks were as good 
 judges as the old market-woman who mortified Theophrastus by 
 calling him Ssvoq for no other reason than that his Attic Greek was 
 too Attic."* It might be argued from this very conciseness that the 
 present form of the speeches is not the one in which they were 
 originally delivered, and that explanatory words and phrases, neces- 
 sary to the hearer but not to the reader, have been omitted from the 
 published speech. 
 
 Granting, however, so far as the diction of the speeches is con- 
 cerned, that the orators might have been able to extemporize so 
 successfully, and granting that "in general intelligence the Athenian 
 populace far surpassed the lower orders of any community that has 
 ever existed," ^^^ let us see what the actual practice of the orators 
 was in regard to extemporary speech. 
 
 Before taking up the Attic orators, however, it will be necessary 
 to say a few words about Gorgias with whom the history of Greek 
 oratory begins. 
 
 According to Blass "^ the art of the sophists was first brought 
 to Athens not by Gorgias but by Protagoras. One might naturally 
 expect to find that the speeches of the sophists, who claimed uni- 
 versal knowledge, were wholly extemporary, but such was not the 
 practice of Protagoras himself nor of his pupils. He prepared 
 certain general topics called ''commonplaces" which he made his pu- 
 
 "^ Cf. Brougham's Dissertation on the Eloquence of the Ancients, Edin- 
 burgh Review, Vol. XXXVI, p. 86 ff. ; Mathews, Oratory and Orators, p. 198. 
 
 "* See Macaulay's Essay On the Athenian Orators. 
 
 *" Quint. VIII, I, 2; Cic. Brut. c. XLVI, 172. 
 
 "^ Macaulay, On the Athenian Orators. 
 
 ^^^ Att. iBereds. I (2nd. ed.) p. 23 ff. On Protagoras see Frei, Quaestiones 
 Protagoreae, Bonn, 1845. 
 
96 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 pils commit to memory/^^ These prepared topics, of so general a 
 nature that they were applicable to almost any speech, and on sub- 
 jects which were most likely to occur in a discussion,^^^ were elab- 
 orately worked out beforehand and brought in as opportunity 
 offered. A good example of the way in which these topics were em- 
 ployed may be seen in Plato's Protagoras. In this dialogue Pro- 
 tagoras is asked by Socrates to prove that virtue can be taught.^^^ 
 Protagoras agrees and gives his hearers a choice as to the method 
 of procedure, whether he shall prove his point by relating a fable or 
 by argument. The hearers leave the choice to Protagoras, and he 
 chooses to relate a fable. There follows the myth of Prometheus and 
 Epimetheus,^^^ doubtless Plato's own production, but still just such 
 a "display speech" ^^'^ as the sophists must have written by the 
 score. 
 
 "^Cicero, on the authority of Aristotle, states that Protagoras was the 
 
 first to do this, Brut. XII, 46: scriptasque fuisse et paratas a 
 
 Protagora rerum illustrium disputationes quae nunc communes loci appellan- 
 tur. Cf. Aristotle, Soph. Elench. c. 34; Quint. Ill, i, 12. 
 
 "* Aristotle, Soph. Elench. c. 34: "ready-made" speeches which were be- 
 lieved to cover the topics likely to be discussed, were learned by heart. 
 Aristotle believes this method unscientific. Elsewhere, however, Aristotle 
 declares that one should learn by heart arguments on the problems that 
 oftenest arise, and also that one should have "ready-made" arguments for 
 the conclusions that are oftenest wanted, and for those problems where proof 
 is difficult to extemporize: {Top. VIII, 12 (14), 4; 6; 7; 17; cf. Top. II. 5, i; 
 Soph. Elench. XII, 2 and 4. 
 
 Cf. the saying attributed to Protagoras (Diels, fr. 10)': \vi\hk\ elvai M-ri'ce 
 TexvY)v av8v m-eXettis ilitite \iz'kixy\\ avev XEXvrig. (Stob. Flor. 29, 80). 
 
 '"" Cf. Philostratus, Vit. Soph. I, 10, 494. 
 
 "° This is clearly shown by the words used in the Protagoras (328D) : 
 nQOTayoQag |ii£v xooauxa xal xoiaOxa EJiiSEildpiEvog. Cf. also Navarre, p. 39. 
 
 EmfiEilig and ejiifiEixwodai are the standing expressions for such displays. 
 The author of the Prolegomena ad Hermog (Rhet. Gr. IV, 15, Walz) uses 
 the same word of Gorgias on the occasion of the famous embassy: eX^ovxo? 
 be FoQYiou Elg xdg 'Adrivag E;i£8£i|axo exei X,6yov xal EuSoxipniaE Jidvu, &axE 
 f)vixa ejteSeixvvxo Xoyov 6 PoQYiag eoqxtiv d:JiQdxxov £jcoi6vv 'A^Tjvaioi, xal 
 Xa\mabac, xoug A-oyovg auxoO wvopiaoav. Prodicus' Choice of Heracles is 
 an EmfiEi^ig (Xen. Mem. II, i, 21 ff.)'. Cf. also Plato, Protag. 317C; 320C; 
 347B; Hipp. Mai. 286A, of Hippias' fine speech; Gorg. 447A; B; C; 
 Axiochus, 336C; Cratylus, 384B (of Prodicus' course of lectures); Eryx. 
 398E; Euthyd. 274D; 275A; 278C; 272D; Gorg. 458B; Hipp. Min. 363A; C; 
 D ; 364B ; Hipp. Mai. 282B ; C ; 285C, 287B ; Ion, 530D ; 542A ; Phaedr. 235A ; 
 Protag. 328D and elsewhere. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 97 
 
 Of course it was the purpose of the sophists to seem to speak 
 without preparation, but nevertheless their speeches doubtless were 
 largely composed of brilliant discussions of topics prepared in ad- 
 vance, brought into the discourse as opportunity offered, and pieced 
 together with extemporary oratory. 
 
 One of the earliest uses of the verb in this sense occurs in Aristophanes, 
 E-Q- 349 (cf. also Ran. 771). Both verb and noun occur frequently in Isocrates: 
 II, 7; IV, 4; 17; V, 25; 27; 17; 93; XII, 271; 272; X, 9; 15; XV, 55; I47;XI, 
 9; Ep. VI, 4, and elsewhere. 
 
 In the lists of the sophists' productions are given titles of lectures which 
 must almost necessarily have been written discourses which they probably 
 knew by heart. Diogenes Laertius (IX, 55), speaking of the works of Pro- 
 tagoras which were extant in his time and so were written treatises, mentions 
 the following : a treatise on the Art of Contention, one on Wrestling, one on 
 Mathematics, one on a Republic, one on Ambition, one on Virtues, one on the 
 Original Condition of Man, one on Those in the Shades Below, one on Things 
 that are not Done Properly by Men, one volume of Precepts, one essay en- 
 titled Justice in Pleading for Hire, two books of Contradictions. 
 
 Of these there are several which were clearly lectures and as such were 
 no doubt delivered more than once. According to Zeller (Pro-Socratic Phil- 
 osophy, II, 409, n. 2) the 81XT1 viJtEQ nioi^oO (Diog. Laert. IX, 55), if genuine, 
 may have discussed the theme of the law-suit with Euathlus, and the anecdote 
 rose from it : if not genuine, then the anecdote gave rise to its fabrication. 
 This would be an excellent theme for a sophist's lecture. 
 
 Diogenes says (IX, 54) that the first of Protagoras' works that he ever 
 read (dvEYvco) in public was the treatise on the Gods which he read "at 
 Athens in the house of Euripides, or as some say, in that of Megaclides ; 
 others say that he read it in the Lyceum, his pupil Archagoras, the son of 
 Theodotus, giving him the aid of his voice." This was the treatise which was 
 burnt for political reasons (Plato, Theatet. 171D; Cicero, de Nat. Deor. I, 
 2Z, 63; Diog. Laert. IX; 51 ; 54; Eus. Pr. Ev. XIV, 19, 10; Philost. Vit. Soph. 
 I, 10; Joseph, c. Ap. II, Z7\ Sext. Empir. Adv. Math. IX, 56 and elsewhere). 
 
 Parts of the 'A^rjOeia from which came the famous sentence, "Man is the 
 measure of all things" (Plato, Theat. 152A; 161C; see also 155E; 162A; 
 166B; 170E; 171C; Craty. 386C; 391C) may have been used as lectures. The 
 Scholiast on Theatetus 161 says 'AA.ri'dEia was the name of the work (see, 
 however, Sext. Empir. Adv. Math. VII, 60; Porph. ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. X, 3, 25, 
 and the discussions of the matter in Frei, p. 176 ff. ; Bernays, Rhein. Mus. VII, 
 464 ff. ; Schanz, Beitr. z. Vorsokr. Phil. I, H, 29 ff . 
 
 The myth of the Protagoras (320 ff.) is believed by Zeller (p. 471)' to be 
 taken from a treatise of Protagoras. Steinhart (PI. Werke, I, 422) doubts this 
 on the ground that it is too good for Protagoras. Frei (p. 182) believes it to 
 be taken from the treatise jteqI Tfjg ev aQjcfj xaxaoxdaECog, but Bernays {Rhein. 
 Mus. VII, 466) believes the last-mentioned work to be a rhetorical treatise. 
 
98 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 Protagoras' contemporary, Gorgias/^^ another of the crowd of 
 rhetoricians who appeared "as soon as the force of a regular and 
 well-adjusted style was understood," ^^- belonged to a different 
 
 If we can believe Diogenes Laertius, the lectures of Protagoras and 
 Prodicus were read: 0^x05 (Protagoras) xai IIqoSixo? 6 Keiog "koyovi; 
 dvaYivc6axovTE5 'figavi^ovxo. 
 
 Grorgias is said to have read his Olympic oration (Plut. Coni. Praec. c. 
 43)'; another account says he recited it; cf. Hieronymus, quoted by Wytten- 
 bach on Plutarch 144B. 
 
 Among the works of Prodicus (cf. Welcker, Kleine Schr. II, 393-541)' 
 are mentioned several which must have been memorized "displays." Such 
 was his famous fifty-drachma emSeiiig, (Plato, Crat. 384B; Arist. Rhet. Ill, 
 14, 9) ; his Heracles, of which the proper title was "Qgai (Schol. on Aristoph. 
 Clouds 360; Suidas: Sgai, IIooS; Cicero, de Off. I, 32, 118) of which the con- 
 tents are given by Xenophon {Mem. II, i, 21 ff.) and which he may have 
 heard Prodicus deliver and written up from memory; and the lecture Jtsgl 
 6vo|xdT(ov OQ^OTTiTog (Plato, Euthyd. 277E; Crat. 384B; cf. Welcker, p. 452) 
 which, according to Zeller, even judging from Plato's caricature of it, must 
 have been preserved after the writer's death. The treatise on the mitigation 
 of the fear of death, which is imitated in the Pseudo-Platonic Axiochus 
 366B; 369C) and the discussion of the value and use of wealth (Eryxias 
 395E; 396E; 379C-D) probably belonged to the same class, as might be the 
 case also with the panegyric on Agriculture implied in Themistius Or. XXX, 
 349B. 
 
 It is asserted that Hippias (see Mahly, Hippias von Elis, Rhein. Mus. 
 N. F. XV, 514-535; XVI, 38-49)' usually delivered lectures in the temple pre- 
 cincts at the Olympic games (Plato, Hipp. Min. 363C, emfiEfiEixxai and elg 
 Em68i|iv) and answered any questions that were asked him (cf. also Protag. 
 315B; 317D). Epideictic speeches by him at Athens are also mentioned 
 {Hipp. Mai. 286B ; Hipp. Min. 363A; cf. also Philost. Vit. Soph. I, 11). 
 
 His lecture on Homer is mentioned in the Lesser Hippias (363A), and 
 elsewhere in the same dialogue (368B ff.) the sophist boasts of lectures in 
 prose, epics, tragedies, etc. (Cf. Philost. Vit. Soph. I, 11; Cicero, de Or. Ill, 
 32, 127; Apul. Flor. 32; Themistius, Or. XXIX, 345C). His lecture which 
 contained advice to a young man, (Nestor to Neoptolemus, Hipp. Mai. 286A)' 
 was probably distinct from his lecture on Homer. 
 
 Socrates {Hipp. Min. 363B) says: eoxi 7' a fiSECog av Jtvdoijx'nv 'Ijtmou 
 &v vvv 8t) eXeye JtEQi 'GjATiQOv. If, as Liddell and Scott assert, Xeyeiv never 
 means to read but always to recite (cf. p. 38, n. 147), then Hippias' Homer 
 lecture was memorized and recited. 
 
 "*On Gorgias see Blass, Att. Bereds. I, 44-72; Navarre, p. 79 ff. ; Spengel, 
 Art. Script 63-84; Jebb, I, cxxiii-cxxviii ; Cope {Camb. Journ. Class, and 
 Sacr. Phil. HI, 65-80). 
 
 "^^ Cicero, Brut. c. VIII, 30. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 99 
 
 school. He was the inheritor of the teaching of Corax and Tisias, 
 and was '*in oratical ability the foremost man of his time." ^^^ He, 
 too, prepared discussions on general topics like those of Prota- 
 goras/^* and seems to have been the first rhetorician who made a 
 practice of giving what Navarre calls "les seances d'improvisa- 
 tion." ^^^ We are told that he was the first to signify his willingness 
 to speak on any subject his audience might be pleased to suggest/-® 
 a practice which he continued even in extreme old age/^'^ Never- 
 
 "'Diodor. Sic. XII, 53, Of Gorgias' own rhetorical training we know 
 little. Tradition makes him the pupil of Tisias (Rhet. Gr. IV, p. 14 Walz) 
 and of Empedocles (Diog. Laert. VIII, 58; Quint. Ill, i, 8; Schol. ad Plat. 
 Gorg. 465D; Suidas s. v. Gorgias; Eud. Aug. CCLI). In Plato (Meno 76C) 
 they are shown to be advocates of the same doctrines (cf. also Theoph. Fr. 
 3; de Igne y^t)- Blass rejects the tradition because of the slight diflference 
 in age between the two men; see Diels, Gorgias und Empedocles {Bericht. der 
 Berlin Akademie, 1884, p. 343 ff.). According to Pausanias (VI, 17, 8)' Gorgias 
 was the pupil of Tisias (cf. Schol. ad Hermog. Oratt. Gr. VIII, 191, ed. 
 Reisk), who accompanied him to Athens on his embassy and contended with 
 him for the palm of eloquence (Diod. Sic. XII, 53; Olympiod. in Gorg. p. 3; 
 also Dionys. Hal. de Lys. 3; Plut. de genio Socrat. c. 13; Plato, Hipp. Mai. 
 282B). Thucydides (III, 86) in describing the embassy, does not mention 
 Gorgias. 
 
 ^Cicero, Brut. XII, 46-47; Quint. Ill, i, 12. There may be a possible 
 reference to this in Isocrates, IV, 8; cf. also Plato, Phaedr. 267 A. 
 
 E. Scheel, De Gorgianae Disciplinae Vestigiis (Rostock, 1890), endeavors 
 to reconstruct Gorgias' method of training from the works of Gorgias and 
 the orations of Isocrates. He translates xe/vai in Gorgias' teaching by 
 "exempla," commonplaces. 
 
 ^P. 37. 
 
 ^ Philostr. Proem, ad Vit. Soph. 4 (483) : axsbiov 8e 
 
 'K6yov Fogyiat; ag^ai (jtaQEXdwv vao ovxog £5 x6 'Adrivaicov deaxQOv eddg- 
 QTiOEv e'lJieiv "Tcgo^aXXexe" xal x6 xivSiWevjxa xovxo JtQcaxog dvEq)^8Y|axo, 
 ev8eixvijm,£V05 SiiJtou xcdvxa |xev ElfiEvai, jieqI Jiavxog 8'dv eIjieiv Ecpislg x(p 
 
 xaiQCp Also Philostr. Vit. Soph. 1, 9, 2; Cicero, de Fin. II, 
 
 I, I ; de Or. I, 22, 103, where Crassus ridicules the men who make such 
 claims in his own day; III, 32, 129; Val. Max. VIII, 15, ext. i, 2; Plato, 
 Gorg. 447C-D: xal yag avxcp ev xoOx' fjv xfig £;ti8Ei|Ecog exeA-eve yovv vvv 
 8ti eqcoxqIv 6 xi xig PovXoixo xwv £v8ov ovxcov xai Kgbg djtavxa Ucpt] djto- 
 xQivEiadai. The answering of questions gave him an opportunity for a 
 "display". After the display, Gorgias, like the modern extension lecturer, 
 will answer questions. Cf. Plato, Hipp. Mai. 286A, where Hippias tells 
 Socrates of the fine speech he has, written with great care, which he is to 
 "exhibit" in three days (EJii8£ixvvvai). 
 
 This is Sarcey's definition of a lecturer: "A man capable of improvising, 
 on no matter what subject, before any audience, a development of any theme 
 
lOO EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 theless, to natural gifts must be added painstaking study and in- 
 cessant practice. Even a naturally clever man cannot become a 
 master of style without practice, and it doubtless took the rhetor- 
 ician who has been called '1e Balzac de la prose attique" ^^^ many a 
 weary hour to bring the Gorgian style to perfection. If, in addition, 
 this master of style had his memory stored with prepared passages, 
 and had written panegyrics and invectives on every subject,^^^ he 
 could not be at a loss for materials for a speech at a moment's notice. 
 There are few subjects which his audience could propose to him 
 which he could not turn to a discussion of generalities and so bring 
 in his prepared topics.^^^ Thus the extemporary speech would be 
 only partly extemporary, and in reality would be largely the result 
 of study and preparation, and even memorization. Of course in 
 Gorgias' case and in that of some of the other sophists there was, 
 to start with, some natural aptitude for extemporary speaking, but 
 
 whatever" (Recollections of Middle Life p. 147). This ability will never 
 come, according to Sarcey, if one reads his lectures, or recites lectures learned 
 by heart. If one does so, he will be no further along at the end of ten years 
 than on the same day; but see the French lecturer's method of preparation 
 (p. 31, n. 121). Every lecture must be improvised, he says (p. 160) ; but, he 
 adds, one does not improvise successfully before the public until he has 
 twenty times improvised in solitude ; cf. also p. 163. 
 
 "^ Quint. II, 21, 21; XII, II, 21; also Eud. Aug. CCLI ; Aelian, Var. Hist. 
 I, 23. Polus and Meno made similar claims (Plato, Gorg. 461 D; Men. 70B), 
 but the "improvisateur par excellence" seems to have been Hippias (Plato, 
 Hipp. Min. 363C; 364A; also Protag. 315C; compare Apul. Flor. IX), yet even 
 he, after experiencing some of Socrates' dialectic, needs a little time for 
 thought before improvising an answer {Hipp. Mai. 295A; 297E). For a 
 general account of Hippias see Apelt, O. : Beitrdge zur Gesch. d. Griech. 
 Philos. (Leipzig, 1891) 369-393. 
 
 ^Navarre, p. 119. 
 
 "' Cicero, Brut. XII, 47. Cf. Plato, Menex. 235D, where Socrates says 
 it is not hard to extemporize panegyrics, at least in the presence of the per- 
 sons praised; cf. also Arist. Rhet. Ill, 17, 11, 
 
 ^° So Sarcey (p. 115)' says of Henry de Lapommeraye : "He was ready 
 upon every subject, and treated commonplaces with extraordinary abundance 
 of improvisation." 
 
 On the sophists' evasion of uncomfortable discussions, and their methods 
 toward their opponents, see Zeller, p. 463 ff., who illustrates his points from 
 the Platonic dialogues. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH ik :^RACtlcfe OfdRk'rdk^' lOI 
 
 even granting that, their ability would still be largely the result of 
 training in which writing played a large part.^^^ 
 
 Three great speeches are assigned to Gorgias, the Olympiacus, 
 the Epitaphius and the Pythdus. Few if any scholars would argue 
 that these were extemporary. The Gorgian figures point to an 
 elaborately perfected style. Philostratus tells us that Gorgias de- 
 livered his oration against the barbarians in the presence of the 
 assembled Greeks at the Olympic games. ^^^ His Epitaphius was de- 
 livered by him personally at Athens and ''was composed with the 
 highest art." ^^^ Philostratus also speaks of the Pythian oration as 
 having been delivered by Gorgias, and adds that on the altar or 
 pedestal from which he spoke, a golden statue of the orator was set 
 up.i^* 
 
 "^The characteristic Gorgian style could hardly be extemporary, or if by 
 any chance it could be so used, the feat would be like that of the Italian 
 improvisatori. 
 
 ^ Philost. Ep. 73 (13), 2 (887), the verb used is SieXex^, not avxoaxebida^ 
 which Philostratus probably would have used had the speech been extem- 
 porary, since he seems fond of using the word. Elsewhere (Vit. Soph. 1,9,2) 
 he has the following statement : 6 8' 'OXvfxmxog "koyot; vkeq tov \ieyiGxov 
 avx(^ EKoXiTEv&r). The verb in the Latin version is rendered by "composita 
 est" and cannot be taken to imply actual delivery by Gorgias himself. Ac- 
 cording to Plutarch, however, Gorgias actually read the speech {Conj. Praec. 
 c. 43); cf. Pausan. VI, 17; also Hieronymus, quoted by Wyttenbach on 
 Plutarch, 144B; compare Eud. Aug. CCLI, p. 173 (ed. Flach) ; Quint. Ill, 8, 
 9. Aristotle, Rhet. Ill, 14, quotes from the speech. 
 
 ^ Philost. Vit. Soph. I, 9» 3 ; aoqpiQi 8' v:xEQtak'kovGX^ 
 
 %vyy.zixai, also Eud. Aug. CCLI. Blass, I, (2nd. ed.) p. 64 ff. studies the ex- 
 tant fragment of the Epitaphius {Rhet. Gr. V, 548 Walz)' in great detail. 
 
 ^^Vit. Soph. I, 9, 2; Cf. Eud. Aug. CCLI. 
 
 Cicero, de Or. Ill, 32, 129, mentions this golden statue, but Pausanias 
 (X, 18, 7) very gravely declares that the statue which he saw on his visit 
 to the shrine was only "gilt." Pliny the Elder {N. H. zz, 4, 24)1 believes it 
 solid, as does Dio Chrysostom {Or. XXXVII, p. iisR). According to 
 Athenaeus (XI, 113) who quotes Hermippus, the statue was set up by Gorgias 
 himself, and this is the belief of Pliny {N. H. 33, 4, 24) ; cf. also Pausan. X, 
 18, 7. Valerius Maximus (VIII, 15, ext. i, 2) says that a statue of solid 
 gold was erected by the whole of Greece in honor of Gorgias; cf. Philostr. 
 p. 493. Pausanias (VI, 17, 7-8) mentions a statue at Olympia, set up by the 
 descendants of Gorgias' brother and sister. 
 
 The Encomium of Helen and the Defense of Palamedes, ascribed to 
 Gorgias are probably spurious. All early critics seem to ignore them. Blass 
 (1)1 at first rejects them, but later (II, 222) accepts the Encomium as genu- 
 
 J'^'^^ W 
 
 .,..''' ^^P 
 
I02 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 The earliest of the Athenian orators who left writings was 
 Antiphon, and it is with him that the history of Attic oratory be- 
 gins.^^® He is said to have been the first to write out a forensic 
 
 speech for publication: irpwTOV Si^avt7,6v Xoyov si? 
 
 IxSoatv YpatJ^apisvov 'AvitcpcovTOc (puXou 'Pa^JLVouciov. o)? <pY]ai AtoSopo?.^^® 
 Quintilian says "Antiphon quoque et orationem primus omnium 
 scripsit,"^^^ doubtless meaning no more than that Antiphon was the 
 first orator who left behind him an authentic speech. He was, in 
 fact, the first orator who put his speeches into shape with a view to 
 their general circulation. He seems to have been the first to regard 
 speeches written for others from a literary point of view.^^^ The 
 speeches he wrote were to be worthy of preservation, not merely 
 pleas whose sole object was to accomplish their immediate purpose 
 in the court-room. 
 
 We are told that Antiphon, who was evidently a celebrated 
 teacher of rhetoric,^^^ was the first to write speeches for others to 
 
 ine, believing that it was in reply to this that Isocrates wrote his Helen. 
 Schonborn, De authentia dechmationum Gorg. (Bresl. 1826) defends both; 
 Foss {De Gorg. Leon. 78 ff.)' and Spengel, p. 71 ff., reject both, as do Stein- 
 hart {PI. Werke, II, 509, 18) and Jahn (Palamedes, Hamb. 1836). Geel 
 (Hist. Grit. Soph. p. 31 if., p. 48 ff.) believes the Palamedes genuine and the 
 Helen spurious. Cf. Siiss, Ethos, pp. 49-59. 
 
 "*Jebb. I, p. cvi. On Antiphon see Blass, Att. Bereds. I, 79-195; Jebb, I, 
 1-70; Parrot, £.loq. polit. et judic. pp. 96-153- 
 
 ""Diodorus ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. I, 365; cf. Blass, III, B, 324. The 
 statement of Suidas (see n. 54) that Pericles was the first to write out a 
 forensic speech before he delivered it, does not conflict with this passage. 
 Pericles did not publish his speech; Antiphon was the first to write out a 
 forensic speech for publication (elg exfioaiv). 
 
 ^''III, I, II. Suidas s. v. Mox^Qog calls him 6 jiaXaioxaxoe 
 
 Tcov 'qtitoqcov. 
 
 "*Cf. Navarre, p. 13. 
 
 "" Plato, Menex. 236A. Thucydides is said to have been his pupil : 
 Suidas, s. v. Thucyd. and Antiphon; Eud. Aug. CVIII; Ps.-Plut. 259; 
 Hermog. de Form. II (Rhet. Gr. II, 414, 19 Sp.) ; Aristides, p. 131 Dind. ; 
 Themistius, Or. XXVI, p. 329; Dion. Hal. de Comp. Verb. 10; Schol. Thucyd. 
 IV, 135, and VIII, 68; Marcellinus, Vit. Thucyd. p. 25; Trypho {Rhet. Gr, 
 III, 201, 8 Sp.) ; Vita Antiphontis. For striking rhetorical coincidences be- 
 tween the two see Mure, Hist. Gr. Lit. V, Appendix G, No. 11, and Neischke, 
 A.; De Thucydide Antiphontis discipulo (Miinden, 1885)'; Lehmann, J.: 
 Thucydidis oratio Antiphontis dictione comparat. (1876). 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS IO3 
 
 deliver in court; there was, at least, no such speech in circulation 
 by any writer before his time: Y.(xi Tiva? Xofou? zolq 8eopt.svo5(; twv 
 xo>.tT(OV auveypatpsv elq tou? ev zoiq liY.o^uiripmq a^wva?, TupwTO? eiui 
 TOUTO TpaTCet(;, waxep Ttve? ^aatv. t(j>v fouv ^*" wpo auxou ysvo^JLevtov 
 ouSevo? (pepsTat S{)tavi/,0(; Xoyo?, aXX' ou5s to)V y-ax' auiov . . . 
 . }^^ It is hardly possible that there were no speeches written 
 for clients before Antiphon's time. The explanation of the passage 
 no doubt is that his speeches were the first published, and since no 
 speech of an earlier date was in existence, some critics (tcvs? ^aat) 
 attributed to Antiphon the origin of the practice. He is described, 
 perhaps correctly, as the first who ever made a practice of selling 
 speeches. ^^- 
 
 Antiphon was primarily a writer rather than a maker of speeches, 
 and so closely did he adhere to his vocation that he never addressed 
 the people himself until he made his own defense in the trial which 
 resulted in his condemnation and death. 
 
 That he was the leading man of his time so far as speech-making 
 is concerned, is shown by the fact that he assisted not individuals 
 only, but even wrote speeches for the allied cities in disputes about 
 the tribute.''*^ 
 
 He himself took little part openly in public life ; his role in poli- 
 tics was played from behind the scenes. Thucydides, in speaking of 
 the aflfair of Pisander, says: ''The person who devised the whole 
 matter was Antiphon, a man second to none of the 
 
 ^*"The YoOv shows that such was the author's belief. 
 
 "^ Ps.-Plut. Vit. X Oratt. 832. Cf. also the ysvo? 'AvTiq)cbvTos 4 : . . . 
 . . H'nS' ^v 71(6 T15 TOTE jxriTE XoyoDV \iy\Te texvcov 'qt)toqix(ov ODYYQCicpevs. 
 Auctor Proleg. in Hermog. : Xiyovoi be tive? Sixavixov Xoyov evgriHevat 
 (Cod. elgyijcevai) jtqwtov Meveadea tov OTgaTTivov t6)v 'A^vaitov og xal 
 em Tgoiav dcpixsTO, oKTioi be "Kiyovoi 'AvTicpoovTa. 
 
 ^*^For this he was attacked by Plato the comic poet: Meineke, I, 180; 
 Kock, I, 103; Plut. Mor. 833C; Phot. Cod. 259; Ps.-Plut. Vit. Antiph. 17; 
 Philost. Vit. Soph. I, 15, 2 ; Eud. Aug. CVIII ; Ammianus Marcell. XXX, 4, 
 5; Diodorus ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1, 365. 
 
 ^*^ Harpocration mentions two of these : jieqI xov AivSicov (poQOu (Harpocr. 
 s. V. 'AfitpiJtoXig, ojieuieiv, aTTa, 81' eviavToi), EKayyeXia, ejiiaxojiog, ngoacpOQa, 
 av\r\yoQoi, ToiPooveuopievoi), and keqI tov Saixo^gdxoov cpogov (Harpocr. 
 s. V. ExXoyeig, dsi, aKobib6\i£voi, djtoTalig, ovvTeX-Eig). The latter is referred 
 to by Suidas (s. v. HajioiS^QQi'xTi ) , Priscian (18, 280), and Blass believes 
 by Demetrius, (de Elocut. 53)', where the name of the speech is not men- 
 tioned. 
 
I04 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 Athenians of his day in ability, and who had proved himself most 
 capable to devise measures and to express his views ; and although 
 "he did not come forward to speak in the assembly of the people, nor, 
 of his own will, into any other debate, but was regarded with sus- 
 picion by the people owing to his reputation for cleverness, yet was 
 most able, for any one man, to aid those who were engaged in a 
 contest," both in the law-court and before the assembly of the people, 
 whoever of them might ask his advice on any point."^** 
 
 Only once did he appear as pleader before a court, when, after the 
 downfall of the Four Hundred, he was tried for his Hf e on the charge 
 of having been a party to the establishment of the oligarchy. Of 
 the speech he made in his own defense, the xept ty;? [isxajTaasto^,^*'^ 
 
 Thucydides says: "he appears to me to have made 
 
 the best defense of all men up to my time, when he was brought to 
 trial for his life in regard to this very matter, on the charge of hav- 
 ing assisted in setting up the oligarchy."^*^ 
 
 Aristotle tells us that Agathon, the tragic poet, praised the speech, 
 and that Antiphon, who had just been condemned to death, replied 
 that a self-respecting man will care more for the opinion of one per- 
 son who is competent to judge, than for that of many whose opinion 
 is worthless.^*^ 
 
 ^**Thucyd. VIII, 68. No doubt it was forensic speeches which Antiphon 
 was most often called upon to write for his clients, yet the statement of 
 Thucydides xoug pievxoi etc., seems to imply, as Jebb (Att. Or. I, 3-4)' points 
 out, that he was versed in deliberative as well as forensic oratory. Cf. also 
 Philost. Vit. Soph. I, 15, 6. 
 
 Antiphon may very possibly have been concerned in helping the speakers 
 who came forward at the time of the Pisander episode prepare their speeches 
 (Thucyd. VIII, 66). We are told that the points to be brought forward by 
 the speakers were previously discussed (jiqcijoxejitg). 
 
 "^ Harpocr. s. v. oxaaicoxTi? (cf. also Suidas)' 8iaaxfiaai, 8jxJto8o')v (cf. 
 Etym. M. p. 336, 35), EJieaxri'ipaxo (cf. Etym. M. p. 355, 36) 'HexicovEia, 
 xexQaxomoi. Blass would refer the two fragments quoted by Suidas (I, 2, p. 
 977, and II, 2, p. 1073, i6)i to the same speech; cf. Sauppe, Or. Att. II, p. 138. 
 
 **» Thucyd. VIII, 68. Cf. Quint. Ill, i, 11: "pro se dixisse 
 
 optime est creditus;" and Cicero, Brut. XII, 47: "(Antiphon) 
 
 quo neminem umquam melius ullam oravisse capitis causam, cum se ipse 
 defenderet, (se audiente) locuples auctor scripsit Thucydides." 
 
 ""^ Aristot. Eud. Eth. Ill, 5. One other production which bears his name 
 may have concerned Antiphon personally. This is the 'AA,>ti(5id8ou XoiSoQim. 
 Plutarch (Alcib. 192F) quotes a story about Alcibiades on this authority 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS IO5 
 
 There are various accounts of his rhetorical training. The 
 Pseudo-Plutarch gives two accounts :^*^ {jLaOYjTSuaa*; Be tw xaTpt (fy 
 yap aoq/taTiQ^j '(p /.ai 'AX7,tPtaSY]v tpaatv exi xatBa ovxa (potiYJaat) %at 
 Suvapicv X6y<j)v 7.TY]cra(JLSV0?, <y]> w^ tcvs? vopitJ^ouatv, dx' ot^^sca? 
 (puffsfc)?. The latter of these is the view held by the author of the 
 Yevog 'AvTtcpwvTOi; who explicitly says that he had no teacher, and 
 adds that to his natural cleverness Antiphon added the drill of 
 practice/*^ As Spengel puts it, he was "multa doctus exercita- 
 tione"/^^ 
 
 There is no evidence that Antiphon ever made an extemporary 
 speech/^^ Owing to his policy of keeping in the background in 
 political matters, and the fact that the people regarded him with 
 suspicion because of his cleverness in speaking,^^^ he did not appear 
 in public except in the trial in his own defense, and on that occasion 
 it would certainly be very unlikely that he would trust to an extem- 
 porary speech, when his own life depended on the result of the trial. 
 
 Andocides,^^^ though an interesting figure with reference to the 
 history of Athens, is of little importance so far as the present in- 
 
 (ev 8e xaig 'AvxKpcovxog Xoi8oQiaig) and adds that too much weight must 
 not be given to it on account of Antiphon's open enmity towards Alcibiades. 
 This might have been a political attack on Alcibiades, published by Antiphon 
 in pamphlet form. Jebb (I, p. 5) points out that Athenaeus (XII, 5256) 
 quotes a statement made by Antiphon ev xw y.ax' ' AXy.i^iabr]\ Xoi8oQia?. From 
 this Jebb would suppose that the work was a speech in a Sixt] xaxTiyoQiag (of. 
 Dem. Conon 18) for which he says Xoibogia was used as a convertible term; 
 cf. Aristoph. Vesp. 1207, elXov 8i(6xo)v XoiboQiai^. In that case the speech may 
 have been delivered by some one of Antiphon's clients. Sauppe, O. A., be- 
 lieves Athenaeus made a mistake and that Plutarch is correct. Cf. Blass, 
 Att. Bereds. p. 95. 
 
 '** Vit. Antiph. 2; Eud. Aug. CVIII; Philost. Vit. Soph. I, 15, 2: yevEodai 
 t' avxov ol |LiEv aiJxofia^cog aoqpov, ol 8' ex jtaxQog. 
 
 "« sec. 4. 
 
 ^'Art. Script, p. 116. 
 
 "^The JtEQi xfjg jLiExaoxdaEcog is spoken of by Pseudo-Plutarch (sec. 
 20) as the speech vjieq Eauxoi) VEYQatpE. It was, then, prepared before de- 
 livery, since there is not much possibility of its having been reduced to writing 
 afterwards. It is impossible to tell from the Aristotle passage (n. 147) 
 whether Agathon had read the speech or heard it delivered. 
 
 "^ Thucyd. VIII, 68, i vjtojtxcog xcp JiX-iidEt 8ia 86iav 
 
 8£iv6xTixog 8iax£ipiEvog 
 
 ^On Andocides see Blass, I, 268-331; Jebb, I, 71-141 ; Lipsius, J. H. : 
 de Andocidis Vita et Scriptis. 
 
I06 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 vestigation is concerned. He owes his reputation chiefly to his 
 historical interest in connection with the affair of the Hermae, and 
 the violation of the Mysteries. We know nothing of his rhetorical 
 training, although he may have profited by the instructions of Anti- 
 phon, who was at the time the chief teacher of rhetoric. Andocides 
 was not a professional rhetorician. His speeches were more in the 
 nature of pamphlets or essays written in vindication of his own 
 policy or character.^^* There is no evidence that he ever made an 
 extemporary speech. Of the four extant orations ascribed to 
 him,^^^ de Mysteriis, de Reditu,^'^^ de Pace,^^'' contra Alcibiadem,'^^^ 
 there is no probability that any were extemporary on an occasion, 
 and reduced to writing afterwards. ^^^ 
 
 ^ Cf. Harpocration, 'Oq 'qcdSeiv. 
 
 "" Photius, Cod. CCLXI. 
 
 ^Cf. Harpocration, 'Oo'qcoSeiv. 
 
 "^According to the author of the argument (Auctor Arg. fin.) Dionysius 
 of Halicarnassus believed that the speech On the Peace was spurious. Har- 
 pocration also doubts its authenticity. He quotes it three times, but always 
 with the addition eI yvriaiog. This view is now rejected by nearly all scholars. 
 Blass (cf. his edition of Andocides)' thinks that the exile Andocides wrote 
 the oration for his own justification, Jebb (p. 82) believes it was actually 
 delivered. He calls it Andocides' "only recorded utterance on a public 
 question." Taylor (Lectiones Lysiacae c. VI, Vol. H, p. 260, ed. Reiske) and 
 Markland (acd JEsch. de Pals. Legat. p. 302) take the same view as Dionysius. 
 Ruhnken {Hist. Crit. Gr. Orat. in his Opuscula Vol. I, 325) and Blass {Att. 
 Bereds. I, 332) defend the speech as authentic. Cf. also Croiset, IV, 430. 
 
 ^ The speech against Alcibiades, perhaps spoken in the person of Phaeax 
 (cf. Plut. Alcih. 193E); is undoubtedly spurious. Harpocration, the Pseudo- 
 Plutarch, and Photius attribute it to Andocides, but Blass {Att. Bereds. I, 
 336 ff.)' rightly rejects their view. Taylor {Lectiones Lysiacae c. VI) follow- 
 ing Plutarch {Alcih. 196) assigns the speech to Phaeax, who shared with 
 Alcibiades in the danger of ostracism. He believes that it was read by 
 Plutarch as the oration of Phaeax in the actual contest between Phaeax, 
 Nicias and Alcibiades. His view is opposed by Ruhnken {Hist. Crit. Gr. 
 Orat. XLVII ff.) and Valckner. For another view see Grote, Gr. Hist. IV, 
 151, n. I. According to Meier, de Andocidis quae vulgo fertur oratione in 
 Alcihiadem, the speech is an imitation by some later rhetorician. This is 
 shown by the utter ignorance of history and the polished style. This is the 
 view held by Jebb, I, 131, who points out that sections 10-40 are a mere 
 stringing together of all the stories about Alcibiades, and that the speech has 
 the unmistakable air of a compilation. 
 
 The Jtgo? xovg ExaiQOvg, which Plutarch mentions in his Life of Themis- 
 tocles (c. 32, 128C) is believed by Ruhnken (p. LII)' and Sauppe to have 
 been a letter written to the allies of Pisander, who were called Exaigoi. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS IO7 
 
 There was little opportunity for Lysias ^®° to display skill as an 
 orator in person. In station he was a metic, and so debarred from 
 public business, and by profession he was a writer of speeches for 
 others.^^^ 
 
 Very little is known of his rhetorical training.^^^ We are told 
 that in Sicily he was the pupil of Tisias.^^^ Cicero, on the authority 
 of Aristotle, tells us that Lysias was the first "to profess the art 
 of speaking," and that he kept a school of rhetoric, but finding him- 
 self outdone as a theorist by Theodorus, although his superior in the 
 practice of the art, he abandoned teaching, and took up speech- 
 writing.^^* The story, however, is hardly probable. The fact that 
 
 ^"^ Cf . p. 139 ff. The repetition of such passages would make it impossible 
 to hold the view that the speeches containing them were extemporary. 
 
 '•^Cf. Blass, Att. Bereds. I, 331 ff ■ ; Jebb, I, 158-198. 
 
 "^When a man procured a speech from an expert, he must memorize 
 it. This would familiarize the Athenians with the idea of a completely 
 memorized speech. 
 
 Antiphon seems to have been the first to follow the profession of speech- 
 writer at Athens (Ps.-Plut. 832; Philost. Vit. Soph. I, 15, 2; Amm. Marcell. 
 XXX, 4, 5; Diod. ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. I, 365), but after his time the cus- 
 tom of writing and selling speeches became general. The men who practiced 
 this art, as a rule were not held in high esteem, and were classed with the 
 sophists (Plato, Phaedr. 257C; Euthyd. 272A; 289D ; 30SA; Dem. XIX, 246; 
 250; Anaxim. Rhet. XXXVI (Rhet. Gr. I, 234-5 Sp.), but nevertheless we 
 find that orators of the greatest ability, such as Antiphon, Lysias, Demos- 
 thenes, Isaeus, and others, did not hesitate to write speeches for others to 
 deliver (cf. Dionys. Hal. de Lys. c. i ; Meier-Schomann, Att. Proc. p. 7^)- 
 Quintilian (II, 15, 30) says it was a general practice at the time of Socrates' 
 trial for men to deliver speeches composed for them by others. 
 
 ^^^ Most ancient critics say little about Lysias except in praise of his style, 
 and his ability in adapting the speech to the speaker. Aristotle in his 
 Rhetoric never mentions him by name, although he quotes once (II, 23, 19) 
 from the speech On the Constitution (XXXIV, 11), of which Dionysius re- 
 marks {de Lys. c. 32) : el fXEv ouv EQpri^ xoxe, a8T]A,ov ouYXEixai yov\ wg 
 KQOg dvcova EmxTidEitog. Plato's only mention of Lysias is in the Phaedrus. 
 Quintilian mentions his style in several places, and believes that the art of 
 composition was studied by him as far as the skill of the ancients then 
 reached (IX, 4, 16). 
 
 ^*® Ps.-Plut. 835D; Phot. Cod. 262; Suidas, s. v. Lysias; Eud. Aug. 619. 
 
 ^'^ Brut. XII, 48; On Theodorus see Blass, I, 251 ff . ; 2nd. ed. 259 ff. ; Cope, 
 III, 284 ff. Aristotle, Rhet. II, 23, speaks of a xe/vti of his; cf. also Soph. 
 Elench. c. 34; Dionys. Hal. de Isae. c. 19; Cicero, Orat. XII, 39; Aristotle, 
 Rhet. Ill, 13, 5; Plato, Phaedr. 261 C; 266E. 
 
I08 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 all his known forensic speeches were composed after his loss of 
 wealth seems to show that Lysias adopted speech-writing as a pro- 
 fession because of his misfortunes under the rule of the Thirty.^^' 
 He wrote speeches for men in all stations of life, from that of a 
 knight, to that of an object of public charity. Tradition tells us that 
 he even wrote a defense for Socrates,^^® but the only occasion on 
 
 ^^ Cf . Thompson's Phaedrus p. xxvi. 
 
 "* There seems to be nothing improbable in the story that Lysias com- 
 posed a defense for Socrates. Lysias was the foremost speech-writer of his 
 time, a friend of Socrates, and as such would naturally wish to aid him. 
 The reason given by Socrates for refusing to make use of the speech, as 
 given by Cicero {de Or. I, 54, 231), is characteristic of him: "sed, inquit, ut, 
 si mihi cakeos Sicyonios attulisses, non uterer, quamvis essent habiles atque 
 apti ad pedem, quia non essent viriles, sic illam orationem disertam sibi et 
 oratoriam videri, fortem et virilem non videri." According to Quintilian (II, 
 IS> 30> with Spalding's note), Socrates declined the speech on the ground 
 that it was "inhonestam sibi;" compare Plato, .Apol. 20B-C; Quint, XI, i, 
 11; Ps.-Plut. 836B; Diog. Laert. II, 40; VI, 4, 2; Val. Max. VI, 4, ext. 2; 
 Stob. Flor. VII, 56; Photius, Cod. 262; Antiatt. in Bekker. Anecd. p. 115, 8; 
 Schol. ad Plat. Apol. 18B. 
 
 This tradition is usually rejected on the ground that it is based on a 
 misunderstanding. Diogenes Laertius (II, 5, 39)', quoting Hermippus, says 
 that "Polycrates the sophist wrote the speech which was delivered (i. e. 
 against Socrates at his trial), not Anytus, as others say." Quintilian cautiously 
 accepts the same view (II, 17, 4; cf. also III, i, 11). That this is not true, 
 however, Diogenes goes on to show. He says : "But Favorinus, in the first 
 book of his Commentaries, says that the speech of Polycrates against Socrates 
 is not a genuine one ; for in it there is mention made of the restoration of 
 the walls by Conon, an event which took place six years after the death of 
 Socrates." This accusation of Socrates by Polycrates (also mentioned by 
 Suidas s. v. Polycrates; Isocr. Busir. 3, and 5 ; Auctor argument. Aelian, Var. 
 Hist. XI, 10) was, according to Bentley {de Epist. Socr. 6, p. 51 ; cf. Jebb, 
 I, 150) published later than 392 B. C. In reply to this accusation Lysias 
 wrote a Defense of Socrates (Schol. ad Aristid. p. 113, 6, vol. Ill, 480 ed. 
 Dind., quoted by Jebb, I, 151). 
 
 There seems to be no necessity for identifying the two speeches of Lysias. 
 He may very well have written a defense at the time of the trial, which 
 Socrates declined to use, and then later, after Polycrates' attack, have written 
 a reply to that. Cf. Holscher, L. : Quaestunculae Lysiacae (Her ford, 1857) 
 p. 4 ff., who also believes that the 'An:oXoYia Scoxedxoue was distinct from 
 the reply to Polycrates. 
 
 Cf, Grote, Hist. Or. Vol. IV, 171 (1862) who quotes the testimony of 
 Xenophon, Mem. IV, 4, 4, that Socrates would have been acquitted if he had 
 taken a less lofty tone toward the dicasts. Compare Cicero, Tusc. Disp. I, 
 29, 71 ; Ovid, Trist. V, 12, 12. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS IO9 
 
 which he came into direct contact with Athenian politics, ^^'^ was his 
 coming forward in person to accuse Eratosthenes/^® the murderer of 
 his brother. In addition to this speech, there are only two others 
 which could, by any possibility, be assigned to Lysias for personal 
 delivery. These are the Epitaphius ^^^ and the Olympiacus. 
 
 The Funeral Oration ascribed to Lysias has been the subject of 
 much discussion. The Pseudo-Plutarch,^^^ Suidas,^^^ Eudocia 
 Augusta ^^^ and Photius tell us that Lysias was the author of 
 STUCTacptot, but do not mention any particular one. Among ancient 
 critics Harpocration and Theon ^" assign this particular one to 
 Lysias. Aristotle ^^* quotes a passage from the speech,^*^^ but does 
 not mention Lysias as the author.^^^ 
 
 There seems to be little doubt that the speech we possess is 
 spurious, although attempts have been made to prove it a genuine 
 production of the orator.^^^ If the speech is the work of Lysias it 
 
 "' References are also made to a production of Lysias entitled On his 
 own Services. This may have been delivered as a speech or published as a 
 pamphlet at the time of the proposal of Thrasybulus that full citizenship be 
 conferred upon Lysias, It has survived only in a few words quoted in 
 various places. Cf. Harpocration, s. v. Keioi, fxexojtiJQYiov, ^^yaxEvoi. Ps.-Plut. 
 836B ; Blass, I, 359. 
 
 "^^We know from his own words that this was his first appearance in a 
 
 law court: eyo) M-ev 0^ ovx' eiiauTOv Jicojioxe ouxe aXKoxQva 
 
 jtodYJiaxa Jigdla^. {Contra Erato s. 3)'. This statement, of course, cannot 
 be taken as proof that Lysias did not write speeches for others before 403, 
 although it seems likely that he did not. Cf. also Cicero, Brut. IX, 35; 
 Quint. IX, 4, 17. 
 
 ^** On the Funeral Speeches in Greek see Buresch, C. : Consolationum 
 a Graecis Romanisque Scriptarum Historia Critica {Leipzig er Studien IX 
 [1887], 1-164)'; Holmes, D.H.: A Study of the Type of the Greek Epitaphios 
 with Special Reference to the Oration in Thucydides (Kansas, 1896) ; 
 Burgess, T. C. : Epideictic Literature, p. 146 ff., and the literature there cited. 
 
 "°836B. 
 
 *^s. V. Lysias. 
 
 "^619. 
 
 ""^Rhet. Gr. II, 63, 31; H, 68, 26, Sp. 
 
 '"^Rhet. Ill, ID, 7, with Cope's note. 
 
 ""* sec. 60. 
 
 "® Cf . Dionys. Hal. Ars Rhet. c. 6, who mentions an Epitaphius by 
 Lysias. 
 
 ^"Dr. Le Beau in his Lysias Epitaphios als echt erwiesen (Stuttgart 1863) 
 tries to prove it genuine ; cf . also Girard, J. : Sur Vauthenticite de I'Or. fun. 
 attribuee a Lysias {Revue Archeol. 1871, pp. 373-389) ; Thomaschke, de 
 
no EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 cannot have been delivered by him in person, since, as Jebb points 
 out,^^^ Lysias was debarred from the privilege of delivering such an 
 oration because he was not an Athenian citizen. The supposition 
 that another man was chosen speaker, and that Lysias composed the 
 speech for this citizen to deliver, is very unlikely. Thucydides ^^^ 
 tells us that the citizen chosen by the state to deliver such a speech 
 was "one who in point of intellect is considered talented, and in 
 dignity is preeminent/' one who would surely be capable of writing 
 his own speech. Besides, we are told by Plato ^^° that such speeches 
 were prepared beforehand by the orators in case the choice of the 
 citizens should fall upon them. 
 
 Le Beau ^^^ thinks that Lysias wrote the speech for the use of 
 the Archon Polemarchus, and that he delivered it at the annual 
 gathering held in honor of those citizens who had died during the 
 past year. Eckert ^^^ on the other hand, believes that the custom 
 mentioned by Le Beau did not exist before the time of Alexander. 
 He shows, moreover, that the style of the speech is extremely un- 
 like that of Lysias' authentic writings.^^^ 
 
 Some have thought the speech a mere scholastic exercise, never 
 intended for actual delivery, written by some unknown rhetorician 
 who borrowed largely from Isocrates.^^* Against this, however, 
 is to be set the fact that Aristotle quotes from the speech as from 
 a well-known epitaphius.^*^ 
 
 L. epitaphii authentia verisimili, (Vrat. 1887). The opposite view is main- 
 tained by Eckert, H. : De Epitaphio Lysiae oratori falso tributo (Berlin, 
 1865) ; also Blass, I, 431. The arguments given by Eckert seem conclusive. 
 Dobree {Adv. I, p. 8) calls it "non modo Lysia sed quovis oratore indig- 
 nam." 
 
 ""I, p. 203. 
 
 "« II, 34, 6. Cf. Plato, Menex. 234C. 
 
 ^^ Menexenus, 235D. 
 
 "^P. 37 ff. 
 
 "^'p. 6ff. 
 
 "^pp. 19-43. 
 
 ***Jebb, I, 205. It may have been assigned to Lysias by some later critics 
 to account for the statement in the Pseudo-Plutarch (836B), Photius, and 
 Suidas (cf, Sauppe, O. A. 170) that Lysias wrote epitaphioi. 
 
 "''Aristot. Rhet. Ill, 10, 7, with Cope's note. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS III 
 
 Grote/®^ following some German critics/®^ believes it a genu- 
 ine work of Lysias, although perhaps only a rhetorical exercise, 
 he also believes that the funeral oration in the Menexenus was com- 
 posed by Plato in competition with it. The two speeches do cover 
 nearly the same range of subjects, but, as Jebb points out,^^^ these 
 topics were the "commonplaces of commemorative oratory" and 
 there is no need to assume that Plato imitated this particular one. 
 The speech, on its own evidence, was prepared. ^^^ 
 The Olympiacus is usually regarded as the fragment of a genu- 
 ine speech actually delivered by Lysias in person at the Olympic 
 festival in 388 B. C., when Dionysius of Syracuse sent a splendid 
 embassy to contend at the games. ^^^ Ancient authorities for the 
 belief that the speech was actually delivered are Dionysius of Hali- 
 carnassus ^^^ and Diodorus. The latter tells us ^^^ that the crowd 
 at the games, as a result of this address, plundered Dionysius' tents, 
 hooted at his poems, and ridiculed his ambassadors, but so far as 
 we can judge, this was the only result obtained. The speech, on the 
 evidence of Diodorus and the Pseudo-Plutarch was prepared be- 
 forehand and read.^^^ 
 
 ^^ Plato, III, 408, see also p. 404; Hist. Gr. VI, p. 191, n.; Holmes, A 
 Study of the Type of the Greek Epitaphios, 221. 
 
 "^ Stallbaum, Proleg. ad Menex. p. 10; Westermann, Gesch. der Bereds- 
 amkeit, sec. 66, p. 134; Schleiermacher, Einleitung to his translation of the 
 Menexenus. 
 
 ^■^1,205. 
 
 ^^'secs. 1-3. 
 
 '^Jebb, I, 152; Mahaffy, II, 142. Scheibe, Jahrh. f. Phil. XXXI, 373, 
 doubts its authenticity. The title is found in Harpocration, s. v. loviog. 
 Theon, Progym. (Rhet. Gr. II, 63, 31 Sp.)' and Hermogenes (Rhet. Gr. II, 
 420, 24 Sp.) refer to it. The Pseudo-Plutarch and Photius (Cod. 262) do 
 not mention it, although they may have included it under the general title 
 iyii(bliia{8s6B). 
 
 ^^ de Lys. c. 29. 
 
 ^XIV, 109. 
 
 "" Diodorus Sic. XIV, 109, 3 : ote xai xov '0X,UM,mx6v X-oyov 
 
 §jiiYQacp6nsvov dvevvto. Ps.-Plut. 836D. 
 
 For the reading of a speech from manuscript, see Ps.-Plut. 836D : 
 dv8YV(o §8 xai Ev xfj 'OA-uputiaxfj Ka\y\yvQZi "koyov \iiyiaxov, of this same 
 speech. Lamachus read his attack on the Olynthians : Plut. Dem. c. 9 : dxouaag 
 
 AajAdxov dvaYivcaaxo-vTO?, and Ps.-Plut. 845C. dvavvovg is 
 
 the word used (Plut. de Garrul. c. 5) of the man who had purchased a speech 
 
112 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 Isocrates, who follows Lysias in the list of Attic orators, was, 
 as Macaulay says,^®* ''rather a pamphleteer than an orator." With 
 the exception of the six forensic speeches,^^^ all Isocrates' pro- 
 
 from Lysias reading it over to himself as opposed to delivering it (Xeyeiv) 
 in court. According to Menander (Rhet. Gr. IX, 623, 25, Walz)' Isocrates 
 read (dvavvoug) his Panegyric at Olympia, as did Gorgias according to 
 Plutarch (Conj. Praec. c. 43, 144B : roQYiou xov 'QTjxoQog dvavvovTog ev 
 'Ohiixjiiq. "koyov .....) ^Eschines read Demosthenes' speech at Rhodes 
 (cf. n. 299). Caesar read his speeches to the pirates (Plut. Apophtheg. 205F)'. 
 Pompey's oration in praise of Plancus was read in the Senate (Plut. Cat. 
 Min. c. 48, 753; see, however, Pomp. c. 55, 649). For other references see 
 Cicero, ad Att. IV, 3; ad Fam. X, 13. 
 
 How far the Greek orator used his manuscript when delivering, not 
 reading a speech, I am unable to say. Alcidamas (15) refers to tablets 
 (VQaniixaTElov)' as a help to the orator, and probably to a manuscript 
 (pipXiov)l; cf. p. 30, n. 117. On the use of notes see p. 164, n. 414, 
 
 This reading of a speech was of course distinct from author's readings 
 such as those given by Herodotus (Eusebius, Chron. ad Ol. 83-4; Lucian, 
 Herod, i. ff. ; Suidas s. v, 0ouhv8. ; 'OoyqIv; Marcell. Vit. Thucyd.; Photius, 
 Cod. LX), Thucydides, Lucian, Plutarch, and Maximus of Tyre. 
 
 Among the Romans we are told that Asinus Pollio was the first to invite 
 his friends to a recital of his own compositions (Seneca, Contr. IV, praef.2). 
 
 On author's readings, public recitations, etc., see the exhaustive notes 
 of Mayor on Juvenal, III, 9; VII, 38 ff.; VII, 84 ff. 
 
 As late as Pliny's time there was no system of publication by which 
 a work could be brought before the public, although the book selling trade 
 was extensive (Pliny, Ep. VI, 2; 9; 11; Martial, I, 117. Recitations largely 
 took its place. 
 
 On the publication of books see Haenny, Schriftsteller u. Buchhdndler. 
 
 ^^ On the Athenian Orators. Macaulay's own speeches are merely essays 
 which he recited. 
 
 "The modem analogy for Isocrates' oratory is that of the pulpit" (Jebb, 
 
 II, 7). 
 
 '* There has been much discussion over the question as to whether 
 Isocrates did or did not write for the law-courts. Aristotle in his Rhetoric 
 (I, 9; cf. also Ps.-Plut. 837A) speaks of Isocrates as familiar with suit- 
 pleading, and according to the current story, sneered at the bundles of the 
 rhetorician's speeches which he- saw hawked about by the book-sellers 
 (Dionys. Hal. de Isocr. c. 18)'. The reading 8id tt)v ouvri^eiav xoO 
 bi'Ko'koyelv adopted by Jebb in his translation of Aristotle's Rhetoric (1909) 
 is, however, that of the inferior manuscripts. Spengel, Cope, and Roemer 
 prefer the reading of the Paris manuscript 8ia ttiv dcruvri^Eiav. Cope (Comm. 
 on Arist. I, 185) renders this "in consequence of his want of actual practice 
 in the law-courts." 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS II3 
 
 Cicero (Brut. XII, 48) probably on Aristotle's authority, says Isocrates 
 wrote speeches for others to deliver. The Pseudo-Plutarch (837A) says: 
 "It is evident that he composed orations for others to use, but himself de- 
 livered only one, that Concerning the Exchange of Property." Photius {Cod. 
 159)! mentions such speeches and expresses no doubt as to their authenticity. 
 In the supposed reference to Isocrates in Plato's Euthydemus (278E), he 
 is spoken of as "one who composed speeches for the law-courts with ability 
 and success," and later the speaker says of the same person : "I doubt whether 
 he ever got up in court in his life, though they say that he is thoroughly 
 versed in his profession and that he writes excellent speeches." 
 
 Lucian in the Parasite (c. 42) says: "Isocrates, so far from serving in 
 war, never ventured into a law-court;" compare Quint. X, i, 79. The reason 
 given by Lucian is Isocrates' weakness of voice. This, however, is merely 
 against personal delivery of a court speech. It does not prove that he never 
 wrote any. 
 
 Isocrates himself nowhere refers to this part of his career. He alludes 
 with scorn to those who write forensic speeches (IV, 11 ; XII, 11 ; XV, 2; 3), 
 as compared with the higher type of speeches he advocates (IV, i ; 11-12; XII, 
 11; 26-35; XV, 2-3; 38; 41; 46; 48; 49; 51; 161; 216; 228; 276; XIII, 20). 
 Isocrates' adopted son, Aphareus, declares that Isocrates never wrote a 
 forensic speech (Dionys. Hal. de Isocr. c. 18) but Dionysius rejects the 
 statement, and on the authority of one of Isocrates' pupils, Cephisodorus, 
 believes that he did write some forensic speeches, but not many. Cf. Grote, 
 Plato, III, 36. On the court speeches see Blass, 11,^ 213-40; III, 2; 377-8. 
 
 Most modern critics also believe the speeches genuine. Thompson, 
 Phaedrus, p. 182, n. declares that Isocrates' forensic speeches are his best. 
 Mahafify (II, 221) points out that a sentence in the earliest of them {Against 
 Callimachus) is copied verbatim in the Antidosis. There seems to be no 
 passage where Isocrates explicitly denies that he wrote for the courts; he 
 simply ignores this early part of his career. 
 
 Another theory in regard to the court-speeches is that they are merely 
 rhetorical exercises, iieXixai, perhaps written on the occasion of real law-suits, 
 in rivalry with the speeches actually delivered, and by way of models for 
 his pupils to show what ought to have been said (Mahafify, II, 212). The 
 view that the speeches are rhetorical exercises is held by Blass, III, 118; 
 Benseler, de Hiatu (he rejects Or. XVII, and XXI, because of the admission 
 of hiatus), and Westermann {Hist. Or. Or. p. 82). The opposite opinion 
 is held by Miiller {Hist. Gr. Lit. II, 159) ; Rauchenstein {Introd. Panegyr. 
 p. iv) ; Henn, de Isocrate rhetore; cf. Jebb, II, 221 flf. ; Norden, E., Die 
 Antike Kunstprosa, I (1898), 113-119- 
 
 While not strictly a forensic speech, there is a possibility that the 
 Plataicus may have been written by Isocrates for actual delivery by a 
 Plataean in the ecclesia at Athens (Grote, Hist. Gr. X, 220) ; Croiset, IV, 
 498. Plutarch {de Glor. Athen. 350B) attributes this speech to Hyperides. 
 cf. Blass, II," 265-68. 
 
114 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 ductions were written to be read, not spoken/^^ He himself tells 
 us that he was barred from participation in public affairs by his 
 weakness of voice and timidity of disposition.^^^ Although he gained 
 
 ^®* There is a slight possibility that the Archidamus may have been 
 delivered. In this speech Isocrates seems to have caught more nearly the 
 real oratorical tone. Jebb (II, 195) believes that the speech was sent to 
 Archidamus, not for delivery, but as a proof of sympathy with the Spartan 
 policy. Spengel {Art. Script. Introd. p. xxiv) says of it : "non est ut 
 Philip pus oratio Archidamo missa, sed declamatio," (cf. the hypothesis to 
 the speech, quoted by Spengel)', but, as Jebb remarks, the fact that the speech 
 was a declamation would not prove that it was not sent to Archidamus. The 
 speech doubtless expresses more or less faithfully, the feeling of the ma- 
 jority of the Spartans over the reestablishment of Messenia, and Isocrates 
 has attempted to give it something of a Spartan air (15-16). There is 
 nothing in the oration which would prevent Archidamus from using it if he 
 had wished to do so. 
 
 On the speech see Blass, IP 288-293. 
 
 The Nicocles is another speech about which there may be doubt as to 
 whether it was delivered. Jebb (II, 90) says: "the piece was no doubt written 
 to order." If the Salaminians had heard the Ad Nicoclem as section 11 of 
 this speech says, it would be very natural for Nicocles to desire that they 
 should see the other side of the picture. The plea for monarchy (14 ff.) 
 does not represent the real opinion of Isocrates, but is, of course perfectly 
 suited to Nicocles. The praises of the reign of Nicocles (27 ff.) which 
 sound rather strange when put into the King's own mouth, would not, per- 
 haps, be an argument against the possibility of the speech having been 
 recited by the monarch. The argument, by an unknown grammarian, says : 
 xal yo.Q xal 6 Xoyog vjto NixoxXEOvg XevExai, but the verb here may mean no 
 more than "is put into the mouth of Nicocles." On the two speeches see 
 Blass, IP 269-78. 
 
 ^Isocr. V. 81-82; XII, 9-10; Ep. I, 9; Ep. VIII, 7. Cf. also Ps.-Plut. 
 837A; 838E; Cicero, de Or. II, 3, 10; de Rep. Ill, 42; Brut. VIII, 32; Pliny, 
 Ep. VI, 29, 6; Philostr. Vit. Soph. I, 17, 3; Suidas, s. n.; Lucian, Parasit. c. 
 42. Cf. De Quincey (ed. Masson, 1890) vol. X, 210; 323-4; 296. 
 
 The Pseudo-Plutarch (837A)' says Isocrates delivered the Antidosis him- 
 self, but this is clearly wrong (cf. Antid. 13). Isocrates was challenged to 
 an exchange of properties (Dionys. Hal. de Dinar ch. 13), but did not appear 
 in court because of illness. His adopted son, Aphareus, represented him, and 
 made a speech on that occasion (Dionys. Hal. de Dinarch. 13). Isocratfes' 
 essay, which is a defense of his whole life, he puts in the form of a speech 
 delivered in court (7-9; lo-ii) against an imaginary opponent, Lysimachus 
 (sec. 14), whom he taunts with delivering a composed speech even while he 
 attacks the skill of Isocrates' compositions. The real challenger, according 
 to Dionysius {de Dinarch. 13) was Megaclides. On this speech see Blass, 
 IP 73-4; 308; 314. So in the Areopagiticus and the de Pace (145) "the de- 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 11$ 
 
 the name of "the father of eloquence,"^^® and although his house 
 was called the "school of eloquence," ^^^ and the "Trojan horse 
 from which none but real heroes proceeded," ^^" this fame was due 
 to his ability as a teacher rather than as a speaker. ^"^^ Indeed, he 
 himself boasts that he had more pupils than any other teacher of 
 the art.202 
 
 Isocrates is described as a pupil of Tisias,-^^ Prodicus ^'^'^ and 
 
 liberative form was adopted merely for the sake of giving greater life and 
 impressiveness of the pleading" (Jebb, II, 203 flf. ; 182 ff. ; Blass, IP 299-308. 
 
 On one occasion only we are told that Isocrates was able to overcome 
 his natural lack of nerve. During the rule of the Thirty at Athens, when 
 Theramenes was unjustly condemned by Critias, Isocrates arose and stoutly 
 defended him. The story, however seems to be based on insufficient evi- 
 dence (Suidas, s. v. 'Aqyeov uio?; Pseudo-Plutarch, 836F). 
 
 The tradition that Isocrates came forward as a rival of his own pupils 
 in the contest in memory of Mausolus, and that he was defeated by Theo- 
 pompus, is probably groundless. The Isocrates who contended was probably 
 Isocrates of Apollonia, the greater Isocrates' pupil. Suidas mentions an 
 Isocrates as a contestant but says that none but pupils of Isocrates of Athens 
 entered, thus showing that he understood that the Isocrates named was 
 Isocrates of Apollonia (s. v. *A|Livx>.a, 'laoxQCixTig, ©£o8EXTTig)l The Pseudo- 
 Plutarch (838B) and Aulus Gellius (X, 18)! say Isocrates of Athens. 
 Theopompus, whom Ruhnken {Hist. Crit. Orat. Gr. p. Ixxxv) says ought to 
 be believed rather than "a hundred Suidases," boasts that he defeated his 
 master Isocrates (Euseb. Pr. Ev. X, 3, p. 464). This view is held by Taylor 
 {Lectiones Lysiacae III, p. 233). Sanneg {de Schola Isocratea) ingeniously 
 tries to combine both views by proposing the explanation that Isocrates of 
 Athens wrote a speech which Isocrates of Apollonia delivered. 
 
 Presence of mind, which Isocrates so plainly lacked, is believed by 
 Quintilian to be the most important of all the qualities needed by the orator. 
 Neither study nor knowledge will avail without it. (XII, 5, 2)'. 
 
 "® Cicero, de Or. II, 3, 10; cf. de Rep. Ill, 30, 42; Isocr. XII, 10. 
 
 "* Cicero, Brut. VIII, 32 ; compare Isocr. XV, 295. 
 
 '""Cicero, de Or. II, 22, 94. 
 
 ^"^ Quint. II, 8, II. On Isocrates as a teacher see Girard, Paul: L' educa- 
 tion athefiienne, 310-327, and Strowski, M. F. : de Isocratis paedagogia (Albi, 
 1898). 
 
 '°'XV, 30; 41. Cf. Quint. XII, 10, 22; III, i, 14; later the pupils of 
 Isocrates were made the subject of a special treatise by Hermippus, which is 
 praised by Athenaeus (VIII, 342C). Cf. also Sanneg, P.: de Schola Isocratea 
 (Halle, 1867). 
 
 ^ Dionys. Hal. de Isocr. c. i ; Photius, Cod. 260 ; Suidas, s. v. Isocrates. 
 
 '"*Dionys. Hal. de Isocr. c. i ; Photius, Cod. 260; Ps.-Plut. 836; cf. 
 Welcker, Kleine Schrift. II, 393-541. 
 
Il6 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 Gorgias,^^^ and also of Theramenes who was put to death by the 
 Thirty.2«« 
 
 He himself did not claim any ability as a speaker. Once when he 
 was asked how it was that he who himself possessed no great 
 amount of eloquence, could make others eloquent, he replied : ''Just 
 as a whetstone cannot cut, yet will sharpen knives for that pur- 
 pose." 2«^ 
 
 Isocrates looked upon his speeches as productions to be read 
 rather than delivered,^^^ and complains bitterly of those who fail 
 to do justice to his compositions in reading them.^^^ So in later 
 years when Hieronymus tried to declaim Isocrates' orations with the 
 gestures, passion, and tones appropriate to speeches, he failed utter- 
 ly. He says scornfully that Isocrates "has dropped his voice to the 
 key in which a slave reads aloud to his master." -^° 
 
 Isocrates was well aware of the disadvantages under which a 
 
 ^Dionys. Hal. de Isocr. c. i; de vi die. Dent. c. 4; Quint. Ill, i, 13 
 (who quotes Aristotle as his authority); Cicero, de Senect. V, 13; Orator, 
 LII, 176; Suidas, s. v. Isocrates; Gorgias; Val. Max. VIII, c. 13, 2; Photius, 
 Cod. 260; Ps.-Plut. 836; Phil. Vit. Soph. I, 17, 4; cf. Frei. p. 541. 
 
 "^ Dionys. Hal. de Isocr. c. i ; Photius, Cod. 260 ; Ps.-Plut. 837A. 
 
 ^Ps.-Plut. 838E. Cf. Horace, A. P. 304: reddere quae ferrum valet, 
 exsors ipsa secandi. Photius, Cod. 260; Stephan. Apophtheg. p. 697; Arsen. 
 Viol. p. 307; Sextus Empir. p. 678, 14 Bek. ; Chaucer, Troilus and Criseyde 
 I, 631. 
 
 ^ Cf . Dionys. Hal. de Isocr. c. 2 ; compare Isocr. XV, 67. 
 
 ^*®XII, 17; also V, 26-27. These people might belong to either of two 
 classes: (i) opponents or plagiarists who "murdered" his speeches pur- 
 posely; (2)' merely bad readers who might be students or friends. 
 
 When Isocrates sent the Philippus to Philip, he probably contemplated 
 the possibility that it would be read to him. The actual pronouncing of the 
 speech was indispensable according to Greek feeling. The modern feeling 
 is different. Macaulay, On the Athenian Orators, says: "Our legislators, 
 our candidates, on great occasions, even our advocates, address themselves 
 less to the audience than to the reporters. They think less of the few 
 hearers than of the innumerable readers. At Athens the case was differ- 
 ent" etc. 
 
 ""Dionys. Hal. de Isocr. c. 13; also c. 2; Quint. X, i, 79; XII, 10, 49. 
 The translation given is Jebb's rendering of the words elg dvayvcooxou 
 7tai86g cpcovriv xaxaSmrxa, (II, 71). Croiset (IV, 493) less happily gives: 
 "le chantonnement monotone d'un enfant qui lit a haute voix." 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 11/ 
 
 speech not intended for delivery lay. He says in the Philippus : ^^^ 
 "Now I have not forgotten the great advantage which spoken dis- 
 
 ^"25-26. Cf. also Ep. I, 2. Compare Ps. Dem. Erotica, 61, 2: "All this is 
 written in the way in which you would put it down in a note-book. For 
 orations intended for oral delivery ought to be written in a simple style like 
 what you would say on the spur of the moment (ex xoii (Jiaga/Qfjiia) ; but 
 those which are intended for permanence should be composed with the utmost 
 care and according to rules of art. It is proper that the former should be 
 convincing, the latter epideictic" (Kennedy). 
 
 Isocrates himself calls the Philippus a pamphlet (21) : x6 pipXiov. 
 On the difference in the effect produced by a speech delivered and a 
 speech read see Quint. X, i, 16 ff.; Pliny, Ep. II, 3, 9; 19, i, who laments 
 the fact that in a speech read there is no room for impromptus. 
 
 Dr. Blair (Lecture XXVI), in discussing modern eloquence says: "With 
 regard to the pulpit, it has certainly been a great disadvantage that the 
 practice of reading sermons, instead of repeating them from memory, has 
 prevailed so universally in England. They may, indeed, have introduced 
 accuracy, but it has done great prejudice to eloquence, for a discourse read 
 is far inferior to an oration spoken. It leads to a different sort of compo- 
 sition as well as of delivery, and can never have an equal effect on any 
 audience." (Cf. also Lecture XXV, vol. II, 178; XXIX, p. 321; XXXIV, 
 471; Mathews, Oratory and Orators, p. 198 ff.). 
 
 Quintilian denies (XIL 10, 49 ff.) that the modes of speaking and writ- 
 ing differ (cf. p. 43, n. i68)L He says (51) that a written oration is nothing 
 else but a record of an oration delivered. Pliny, Ep. I, 20, says: "For the 
 oration on paper is, in truth, the original and model of the speech that is to 
 be pronounced." 
 
 The Greeks and Romans paid a great deal of attention to delivery. 
 Demosthenes regarded it as of supreme importance (cf. n. 257, p. 124). 
 Cicero called it the language {de Or. Ill, 59) and the eloquence of the 
 body {Orator, c. XVII). Quintilian (XI, 3, i ff.) has a long discussion of 
 delivery, mentioning the orators who were famed in that respect, and adding 
 comments (compare XII, 5. 5). Cf. also Cicero, Orat. c. LVI; de Or. Ill, 
 56, 213; I, 31, 142; II, 19, 78; Brut. LXVI, 234; XXXVIII, 141-2; Longinus, 
 Ars Rhet. (Rhet. Gr. I, 310, Sp.). Aristotle {Rhet. Ill, i, 3) declares that 
 being qualified for delivery is a gift of nature, and rather without the 
 province of art. Cf. Dionys. Hal. de vi die. Dem. c. 22. 
 
 Cicero {Orator, XXXVII, 130) says that the written page lacks that 
 living breath (spiritus) which makes exactly the same passages appear more 
 striking when delivered than when read. Cf. Arist. Rhet. Ill, 12, 2; Dionys. 
 Hal. de Dem 54, of Demosthenes' speeches when badly delivered. 
 
 How an orator delivered his speech was even more important than 
 what he said: Quint. XI, 3, 5; Plut. Pol. Praec. 801C (who quotes Menander, 
 Kock, III, 13s) ; Cicero, Brut. XLIX, 184. 
 
Il8 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 courses have over written ^^^ for the purpose of persuasion, nor 
 have I forgotten the universal impression that the one is delivered 
 in connection with serious and important affairs, the other com- 
 posed merely for the purpose of display or for the sake of profit. 
 And this belief is not without reason; for when a discourse is de- 
 prived of the personal reputation of the speaker, of the tones of 
 his voice, and of the changes of expression which oratory can com- 
 mand, and when it has lost, in addition, the advantages of time and 
 place and of the enthusiasm called forth by the affair under con- 
 sideration ;^^^ when the discourse is bare and destitute of all the 
 things I have spoken of, and is read in an unpersuasive manner, 
 without giving any impression of character, but in the manner of 
 one telling over an inventory, it naturally appears to the hearers to 
 be a poor production."-^* 
 
 This disadvantage Isocrates labored to overcome by the time he 
 spent in perfecting the style of his speeches. He was a tireless 
 worker. Even in his ninety-seventh year, while suffering from the 
 disease which finally caused his death, he boasts that he is still able 
 to work hard.^^^ He spent three years on the Panathenaicus. He 
 
 Hardwicke, p. 152, speaking of John Philpot Curran, says: "In reading 
 his speeches it must be borne in mind that it was not so much his matter, 
 but the manner in which his speech was made which invested it with such 
 irresistible power, and caused it to produce such wonderful effects." 
 
 The importance of the manner of delivery made Fox say: "Did the 
 speech read well when reported? If so, it was a bad one" (quoted by Hard- 
 wicke p. 126). Cf. Whately's remarks on delivery in his Elements' of Rhetoric 
 (quoted by Byars, Handbook of Oratory, p. 254) and the passage from 
 Harsha, quoted by Byars, pp. 316-317. Compare Mathews, Oratory and Ora- 
 tors, Chapter I, 
 
 '^It might, perhaps, ht thought that in the "spoken discourse" Isocrates 
 was thinking of extemporary speeches, but it is probable that he had in 
 mind merely speeches delivered, which had been written and committed to 
 m'emory, like those mentioned in Ps. Dem. Erot, 61, 2; cf. n. 211. 
 
 ="'Cf. De Quincey, Vol. X, 326; also Blair's Lecture (VII) On the Rise 
 and Progress of Writing, Vol. I, 171. 
 
 ^"The opposition Isocrates had in mind was that between a speech 
 actually delivered by the author, or learned and delivered by another as if 
 he were the author, and a speech avowedly read with no attempt at delivery, 
 Cf. n. 211. 
 
 *«XII, 268; Cicero, de Senect. c. 5. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACflCE OF ORATORS II9 
 
 tells US that he began this oration at the age of ninety-four ^^^ and 
 speaks of revising it with some of his young pupils. ^^^ When the 
 speech was about half written he fell ill,^^^ and it was only finally 
 completed when he reached his ninety-seventh year.^^^ 
 
 Isocrates gives in the same speech an interesting account of his 
 careful method. He had been revising the speech with some of 
 his pupils, and they believed that nothing was lacking but a con- 
 clusion. -^'^ A friend whom Isocrates asked for an opinion about his 
 speech disliked the criticism of Sparta. Isocrates silenced this critic ^^^ 
 and had his essay written out at once ; ^^^ but a few days later he 
 was seized with new misgivings, and at last called a council of 
 friends to decide whether the composition should be burnt or pub- 
 lished.--^ At its reading the speech met with their approv- 
 al.22* 
 
 In other speeches of Isocrates there is evidence of the same 
 painstaking workmanship. He himself acknowledges that the Peace 
 of 346, between Athens and Philip, was made before he finished the 
 work in which he intended to advocate its measures.^^^ 
 
 216 
 
 a?. 
 
 XII, 3; Ps.-Plut.837F. 
 
 200. 
 
 ^^*The Panathenaicus, he says (267), was begun when he was ninety-four 
 years old. "It was already half completed when there came upon me a dis- 
 eas'e unpleasant to mention, which is able to destroy not only the old in 
 three or four days, but also many in the prime of life. Against this I have 
 been struggling for three years." He had at last given in, when his friends 
 urged him not to leave his speech unfinished. He completed it as they 
 desired. 
 
 ""270. 
 
 ^°20o; compare V, 4. 
 
 ^^228. 
 
 ^231. 
 
 "^233. 
 
 ^This is exactly the method followed by M. Ernest Legouve in pre- 
 paring a lecture according to Sarcey, p. 106 ff. The French lecturer, after 
 this careful revision, committed his lecture to memory, practiced its delivery, 
 and delivered it in private before he risked a public appearance. He always 
 took his manuscript with him that the audience might not think that he was 
 pretending to extemporize (p. 147). 
 
 Compare the anecdote told of Archbishop Tillotson in Campbell's Philos- 
 ophy of Rhetoric (quoted by Byars, p. 208). 
 
 ^V, 4-7; Tzetzes, Chil. XI, 382; Athenaeus, jieqI ^Tixavrmaxcov p. 2; cf. 
 Plut. Mor. 350-351. 
 
I20 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 The care bestowed upon the Panegyriciis ^^^ became almost pro- 
 verbial. Ten years is usually mentioned as expressing the duration 
 of its composition,^^^ a period which Quintilian gives as the lowest 
 estimate assigned by his predecessors.^-^ Plutarch -^^ speaks scorn- 
 fully of this painstaking care : "Isocrates was nearly three Olympi- 
 ads in writing his Panegyric; while Timotheus -^^ 
 
 freed Euboea from slavery he sits at home, poring 
 
 over his work, seeking out choice words, as long a time as Pericles 
 
 spent in erecting the Propylea and the Parthenon 
 
 Consider, now, the poor spirit of this sophist who spent the ninth part 
 of his life in compiling one single oration." The author of the 
 treatise On the Sublime, in like manner, quotes Timaeus as praising 
 Alexander for conquering the whole of Asia in fewer years than it 
 took Isocrates to write the Panegyricusr^^ 
 
 '^^Isocrates himself gave the speech this name: V, 9; 84; Ep. Ill, 6; 
 XV, 172. 
 
 ^ Ps.-Plut. 837E : *'He labored on his Panegyric ten years, or as some 
 tell us, fifteen." Cf. Longin. (?) de Suhlim. 4, 2; Dionys. Hal. de Comp. Verb. 
 c. 25; de vi die. in Dem. c. 51; Photius; Plut. Mor. 350E says twelve years. 
 Cf. Fenelon's Dialogues on Eloquence. 
 
 ^^ X, 4, 4, Quintilian in the same passage mentions Cinna's Smyrna which 
 occupied nine years in composition. On this see Catullus, 95. i ; Philargyrus 
 and Servius on Verg. Eel. IX, 35. The latter suggests that Horace's "nine 
 years" {A. P. 386)' is a reference to this, but Horace is not speaking of the 
 time spent in composition, but of the lapse of time between composition 
 and publication. Cf. Quintilian's preface to his treatise. 
 
 Together with Isocrates' Panegyricus, critics usually mention the story of 
 Plato's having written over many times the opening words of the Republic : 
 Dionys. Hal. de Comp. Verb. v. 25; de Dem. c. 51; Diog. Laert. Ill, 38; 
 Quint. VIII, 6, 64. On Vergil's care in his compositions see Aulus Gellius 
 XVII, 10; Quint. X. 3, 8. 
 
 ""'Mor. 350E-351A 
 
 ^ Timotheus was a pupil of Isocrates : XV, 102 ; Ep. VIII, 8 ; Cic. de Or. 
 Ill, 34, 139; de Off. I, 32, 116. According to the Pseudo-Plutarch (837) and 
 Photius (Cod. 260), Isocrates composed the dispatches which Timotheus 
 sent to the Athenians. 
 
 ^ de Sublim. 4, 2. The author continues: "On this principle the 
 Lacedaemonians were clearly inferior to Isocrates in prowess, for they spent 
 thirty years in the conquest of Messene, whereas he composed his Panegyric 
 in ten." 
 
 Isocrates avows the care he spent on this composition : IV, 13 ; V, 84. 
 We may venture to suppose that he worked it over with his pupils as he 
 tells us he did with later writings: V, 4; 17,-23; XII, 200. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 121 
 
 That this oration was ever publicly delivered, as Philostratus 
 tells us,-^^ is extremely unlikely.^^^ Isocrates' weakness of voice and 
 lack of self-confidence would probably have deterred him from the 
 attempt, but apart from that, the manner in which he speaks of the 
 Lacedaemonians would make it improbable that the speech was 
 actually delivered.^^* The latter argument would also hold against 
 the view that the speech might have been delivered for Isocrates by 
 another. The probable way in which it became known was by means 
 of copies circulated at the festival, or else sent to the leading men 
 in the various Greek states.-^^ This speech was like all the others, 
 a pamphlet on a question of public policy thrown into the form of a 
 speech delivered under imaginary circumstances. 
 
 Aelian -^^ ascribes to the influence of the Panegyricus, the ex- 
 pedition against the Persians planned by Philip and carried out by 
 Alexander. While we need not take the statement literally, there 
 can be no doubt that the influence of Isocrates' pamphlets in their 
 time was very great. The renown enjoyed in antiquity by the 
 Panegyricus is attested by Dionysius of Halicarnassus ^^^ and 
 Philostratus.-^^ It was Isocrates, as well as Xenophon, who pre- 
 pared the way for Philip.^^^ 
 
 ^Philostr. Vit. Soph. I, 17, 4; also Aelian Far. Hist. XIII, 11; Lucian, 
 in Macrobiis c. 23 (III, 225 ed. Reitz). Menander (Rhet. Gr. IX, 623, Walz) 
 says: wojieq 'laoxgaxTig fiorOri, xotg "EX^Tiaiv dvavvovg ev 'OA-vjutia xov 
 jtavTiYVQixov A.6yov. Isocrates himself speaks of it as the "speech I delivered 
 at the festival," but the statement is not to be pressed. It is, no doubt, only 
 one of those touches by which "ce Haranguer sans tribune" (J. Girard, Etudes 
 sur I'Eloquence attique p. 90) endeavored to make himself seem one who took 
 an active part in public affairs. Compare IV, 187; V, 149-151, and elsewhere. 
 
 ^' Some of the sentences are far too long for delivery ; for example, IV, 
 47, cpdoaocpiav xoivw ^.tI. On this point see Quintilian, VIII, 2, 17; 
 Demetrius, de Elocut. 193. Compare Aristotle, Rhet. Ill, 5, 6. 
 
 ^* Wilamowitz, Aristoteles und Athen (1893) pp. 100-114; also Rauchen- 
 stein's Introd. p. 21. 
 
 ^^In V, II, Isocrates speaks of the Panegyricus as 6 \6yoz 6 Jteoxegov 
 Ex8o^8i5. It was probably published in a year in which the festival occurred, 
 probably 380; see Sandys' Panegyricus Introd. p. xlii, and Blass, II, 230. 
 
 ^ Far. Hist. XIII, 11. Cf. Isocr. Ep. Ill, 3. According to the author of 
 the argument to the Philippus, it was not the Panegyricus but the PhUippus 
 which roused Alexander to make war on Darius. 
 
 ^^ de Isocr. c. 14. 
 
 ^ Vit. Soph. I, 17; cf. also Isocr. V, 11. 
 
 ^On the Panegyricus and the relation of Isocrates to the Greek and 
 Athenian politics of his time see Blass IP 250-256; III, 2,* 379; Oncken, 
 
122 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 Of Isaeus,-*^ whose name appears next in the canon, very Httle 
 is known. He is said to have been the pupil of Lysias and of 
 Isocrates.^*^ With the exception of the Greek argument to his Fourth 
 Oration,^^^ there is no evidence that Isaeus ever deHvered a speech. 
 His importance is usually estimated by the influence which he exer- 
 cised upon his pupil Demosthenes.^'*^ Dionysius of Halicarnassus 
 says he discusses Isaeus because he believes that in him are to be 
 found the seeds and beginnings of the oratorical power which 
 reached its perfection in Demosthenes.^** Indeed, Demosthenes was 
 later reproached by Pytheas with having swallowed Isaeus bodily. ^*^ 
 It is doubtful, however, whether Demosthenes' debt to Isaeus was 
 as great as is usually believed. ^*^ 
 
 The tradition which makes Demosthenes a pupil of Isocrates,-*'' 
 is probably without foundation. Hermippus, who wrote a special 
 
 W. : Isokrates und Athen (1862), 37-62; Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, U. v.: 
 Aristoteles und Athen (1893) II, 100-114; Meyer, Ed.: Geschichte des 
 Altertums V, (1902)' 46; 312; 369-372. 
 
 ^On Isaeus see Blass, II, 452-541; Jebb, II, 261-368; Moy, M. £tude 
 sur les Plaidoyers d'Isee, Paris, 1876; Dionys. Hal. de Isaeo, especially c. 
 4, and c. 16. 
 
 '^'Ps.-Plut. 839E; Photius, Cod. CCLXIII; Suidas s. n. ; Eud. Aug. DVI ; 
 Dionys. Hal. de Isaeo, 1 ; genus Isaei, i. 
 
 ^ On the value of this evidence see Blass, II, 506 ; Curtius, Hist. Gr. V, 
 226 (Wiard). 
 
 ^On Isaeus as the teacher of Demosthenes see Plut. de Glor. Athen. 
 350C; Photius, Cod. CCLXIII; CCLXV; Ps.-Plut. 837D; 839F; 844C; Suidas, 
 s. n. ; Eud. Aug. DVI ; Dionys. Hal. de Isaeo, c. i ; c. 3 ; genus Isaei, i ; 
 Philostr. Vit. Soph. I, 17, i ; also Hoffmann, P. : de Demosthene Isaei 
 discipulo (1875). 
 
 On Demosthenes' speech Against Aphohus as the work of Isaeus, see 
 Ps.-Plut. 839F; 844C. 
 
 ^ Dionys. Hal. de Isaeo, c. 3 ; c. 20. 
 
 ^"Dionys. Hal. de Isaeo, c. 4. 
 
 ^ On the influence of Isaeus on Demosthenes see Blass, HI, 14, 202 ; 
 Jebb, II, 267-69; 300; the dissertation of W. Herforth (Griinberg, 1880), and 
 the careful examination made by A. Laudahn in two programs (Hildesheim 
 1872-3). 
 
 ^'Ps.-Plut. 837D; 839F; 844C; Suidas s. n.; we are also told that he 
 received instructions from Plato : Plut. Dem. c. 5 (on the authority of 
 Hermippus); Cicero, Brut. XXXI, 121; Orator, IV, 15; de Or. I, 20, 89; 
 de Off. I, I, 4; Diog. Laert. Ill, 46; Suidas, s. n. ; Olympiodorus, ad Plat. 
 Gorg. 515D; Schol. ad Plat. Phaedr. 261 A; Quint. XII, 2, 22; XII, 10, 24; 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS I23 
 
 treatise on Isocrates' pupils, does not mention him, but merely 
 quotes an unbelievable story about Demosthenes' having obtained 
 some of Isocrates' treatises in an underhand way.^*^ That Isaeus 
 aided Demosthenes in the composition of his speeches against his 
 guardians is very likely,^*^ but the training of Isaeus alone would 
 never have made him an orator. The years that elapsed between 
 his law-suits with his guardians and the delivery of his first public 
 speech,^^" he devoted to overcoming those natural defects ^^^ which 
 are alleged to have caused his failure on his first attempt to speak in 
 public,^^^ and even after these difficulties were conquered, he still 
 labored to improve his gifts as an orator by constant industry. We 
 are told that he copied the works of Thucydides eight times with 
 his own hand,^^^ that he used to begin work before dawn, and was 
 vexed if he found that the workmen were astir first in the morn- 
 ing.^^* His study by night caused his opponents to sneer at his 
 speeches as smelling of the lamp.^^^ All this laborious course of 
 
 Aul. Gell. Ill, 13; Tac. Dial. c. 32, 26. The letter of Demosthenes appealed 
 to as testimony by Olympiodorus is doubtless apocryphal. Cf. also Schaefer, 
 Dent. u. seine Zeit, I, 278-295; 312; Blass, III, 397; Funkhaenal, de Deni. 
 Platonis discipulo ; Heusde, P. W. van: Initia Philosophiae Platonicae, Vol. 
 II, pt. I, p. 151 ff. 
 
 ^ Plut. Dem. c. 5, 5 (nguqja Xapovxa) ; Ps.-Plut. 844C ; Suidas, s. v. 
 Demosthenes. 
 
 =^^ Ps.-Plut. 839F; 844; Liban. Vit. Dem. p. 3; Argum. ad Orat. c. Onet. 
 p. 875. 
 
 ""In 354. 
 
 '"Dion. Hal. de Dem. c. 53; Cicero, de Div. II, 46, 96; de Or. I, 61, 
 260-1; de Fin. V, 2, 5; Plut. Dem. c. 7; c. 11; Ps.-Plut. 844D; Lucian, 
 Encom. Demcsth. c. 14; Suidas, s. n. ; Quint. X, 3, 30 (compare X, 3, 25); 
 XI, 3, 54; XI, 3, 68; 130 (cf. also Liban. Vit. Dem.); I, 11, 5; Val. Max. 
 VIII, 7, i; Photius, Bibl. p. 493, 5; Apuleius, Apol. p. 87; Hermogenes 
 Progym. {Rhet. Gr. II, 7, i Sp.)!; Zozimus, Vit. Dem. p. 20, 2. Schaefer, I, 
 299-301 ; De Quincey, X, p. 327 ; Mathews, p. 428. 
 
 "^Plut. Dem. c. 6; cf. Ps.-Plut. 845 A; Zozimus, Vit. Dem. p. 19, 22. 
 For modern instances of such failure see Mathews, p. 144 ff. 
 
 ^Lucian, Adv. Indoct. c. 4. Cf. Dionys. Hal. de Thucyd. 53. 
 
 ^Cicero, Tusc. Disp. IV, 44; Stobaeus, Flor. 29, 90. 
 
 ^Plut. Dem. c. 8, 3; c. 11; Comp. Dem.-Cic. 1-3; Pol. Praec. 802E-F; 
 803C; Cic. Tusc. Disp. IV, 19, 44; Ps.-Plut. 848C; Athenaeus, II, 22; Aelian, 
 Var. Hist. VII, 7; Lucian, Encom. Dem. c. 15; cf. ^sch. Ill, 229; Liban. 
 79-82. For an orator's study by night, etc., see Aristophanes, Knights 346, 
 
124 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 training, ^^^ not only in composition but in delivery,^^^ was practiced 
 before rhetorical theory was completed by the treatise of Aristotle, 
 for Dionysius of Halicarnassus is at great pains to prove that 
 Demosthenes had delivered his most important orations before 
 Aristotle wrote his Rhetoric .'^^^ 
 
 Nevertheless, in spite of the facility which his training must 
 have given him, this "most powerful orator" ^^^ would never speak 
 extempore if he could possibly help it.^^*' Plutarch tells us that al- 
 and with the picture there given, Horace, A. P. 474, and Plato, Phaedr. 228B. 
 
 On Pytheas see Suidas, s. n. ; Blass, 253-256. Titles of works by him are 
 given by Sauppe, O. A. II, 311. 
 
 For the taunt against Demosthenes as a water drinker see Plut. Dem. 
 8; Dem. VI, 30; XIX, 46. Compare Aristoph. Eq. 89; Com, Poet, fr, 41: 
 evfiv ap' 0)5 eoixe, xal ev oivq) Xoyoc, 
 evioi 8' \j8(oq mvovxEg elo' dPEXTEQOi, 
 also Athenaeus, p. 44E-F; Lucian, LXXIII, 15. 
 
 ^"^Lucian ('qtitoqcov 8i8aaxa>.og) contrasts the laborious methods of such 
 orators as Demosthenes with the superficial ones followed in his own day. 
 
 =*' Cicero, de Or. Ill, 56, 213; Brut. XXXVIII, 142; Orat. XVII, 56; 
 Quint. XI, 3, 6-7; Suidas; Plut. Dem. c. 8; Ps.-Plut. 845B; Philodemus, 
 Rhet. 16, 3 (I, p. 196, 3, ed. Sudhaus) ; Longinus, Ars Rhet. {Rhet. Gr. I, 
 310, 32, Sp.). Cf. Schaefer, I, 298; Emerson, Essay on Eloquence {Society 
 and Solitude, 70-71 ; also 97-8) ; Bacon, Essay on Boldness. 
 
 ^*Dionys. Hal. Ep. ad Ammaeum I, c. 2 ff. ; c. 10 ff. 
 
 Compare Renan, Discours de Reception de M. de Lesseps: "You have 
 a horror of rhetoric and you are right; it is (with poetics) the only mistake 
 of the Greeks. After having produced masterpieces, they thought they could 
 give rules for producing them, a serious mistake. There is no art of speak- 
 ing, any more than there is an art of writing. To speak well is to think 
 aloud. Oratorical and literary success never had any cause but one, abso- 
 lute sincerity." 
 
 Thinking, however, is one thing, and speaking another. Theoretical 
 knowledge and practice are also necessary for an orator. Cf. Cicero, de Or. 
 I, 14, 63. 
 
 Demosthenes, too, is said to have read carefully all the treatises on 
 rhetoric that he could get hold of : Plut. Dem. c. 5. For the idea that elo- 
 quence has not sprung from art, but art from eloquence see Cicero, de Or. 
 I, 32, 146. 
 
 ^™ Plut. Alcib. 196A. On the power of his eloquence see Plut. Dem. c. 
 18, and elsewhere. Compare Fenelon: Lettre a I'Academie frangaise. 
 
 ^®° So Dumoul in his Recollections of Miraheau says : "More a thinker 
 than an extemporiser, he never spoke without first writing or dictating his 
 speeches. Resembling Cicero and Demosthenes in this respect, he read them 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS • 1 25 
 
 though he was frequently called upon by name by the people as he 
 sat in the assembly, he would not rise to speak unless he had 
 previously considered the subject and come prepared for it.^^^ He 
 "followed Pericles" in his "dislike to speak on the sudden," and was 
 unwilling too often to put his faculty of speaking at the mercy of 
 fortune.^^^ Plutarch says that it was due to want of courage and 
 assurance that he refused to speak off-hand,^^^ giving as a proof the 
 fact that when Demosthenes was at a loss and discomposed, Demades 
 would often rise up on the sudden to support him, but that he was 
 never seen to do the same for Demades.^^* This certainly could not 
 
 over, put finishing strokes, gave them solidity by lengthened arguments, 
 lightened them by touches of eloquence, recalled them to his memory, some- 
 times read them, more often spoke them, adding, to that which he had 
 meditated on, the abrupt, unforeseen fire of inspiration." See, however, 
 Sears, History of Oratory, 244-5, on Mirabeau. 
 
 Mirabeau, like Demosthenes, was capable of extemporary speaking. 
 
 "^ Plut. Dem. c. 8 ; also de Educat. Puer. 9 : "Demosthenes, when the 
 Athenians called upon him for his advice, refused to give it, saying 'I am un- 
 prepared.' " 
 
 These calls upon Demosthenes doubtless occurred at those unexpected 
 meetings of the senate or people of which ^lEschines speaks (II, 72), and at 
 which it would be necessary for the orators to deliver an extempore 
 cRjfiPov^euTixog "koyoi;. It might be said that Demosthenes' speech, when the 
 news came that Elatea had been captured by Philip (Dem. XVIII, 174 ff.) 
 was of this character. On this, Westermann (p. 131) has the following 
 comment : "Verum nox intercesserat baud dubie meditando commentandoque 
 ab oratore consumpta." When Demosthenes quotes from this speech he seems 
 to claim to give the exact words (XVIII, 174-9), thus leading one to sup- 
 pose that the speech was prepared; cf. 179: Tauxa xal JiaQOJt^Tioia xouxoig 
 
 £ljld)V XttTEpTlV. 
 
 One of the exordia (IX) of the collection said to have been written by 
 Demosthenes is designed to serve as an introduction to an extemporary 
 speech of advice. 
 
 '"^Plut. Dem. c. 9; cf. also Pol. Praec. 803F-840A. Demosthenes himself 
 declared that his eloquence came only from practice: Plut. Comp. Dem-Cic. 
 2. Exordium XLV has the same idea, that the faculty of eloquent speaking 
 is acquired by practice. 
 
 ^Dem. c. 8. Cf. also Plut. On Man's Progress in Virtue 80 C-D. 
 For Demosthenes' reason cf. Plut. de Educat. Puer. c. 9; Dem. c. 8; Ps.- 
 Plut. 848C. 
 
 ^This is probably a mere story. On Demades see Blass, III, B, 242-7. 
 As an orator he seems to have had natural gifts of an extraordinary kind 
 (cf. Pollux, XII, 104 : ArnxaSrig evcpurig ; Emerson, Essay on Eloquence 
 
126 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 have been due to any lack of ability on Demosthenes' part. Many 
 contemporaries believed that he was a better orator when he spoke 
 without premeditation.^®^ The story is told that once when Lamac- 
 hus the Myrrhenaean had written a panegyric upon King Philip and 
 Alexander, in which he uttered many things in reproach of the 
 Thebans and Olynthians, and read it publicly at the Olympic games, 
 Demosthenes suddenly arose and so justified the Thebans and 
 Olynthians that Lamachus was forced to leave the assembly at 
 
 {Society and Solitude, 84-5). His powers as an extemporary speaker made 
 some prefer his speeches even to the prepared ones of Demosthenes (Plut. 
 Dem. c. 10; c. 23; cf. Aelian, Var. Hist. XII, c. 43)1. Many of his sayings 
 are to be found scattered through Plutarch and Stobaeus. Demetrius (de 
 Elocut. 282; 284-286) refers to a collection of his sayings, and Aulus Gellius 
 (XI, 10) quotes a witticism of his. (Cf. Diog. Laert. V, 81; Apsines, Ars 
 Rhet. p. 707), Demades wrote no speeches (Cicero, Brut. IX, 36; Orat. 
 XXVI, 90; Quint, XII, 10, 49)1, although Tzetzes, or rather the ancient rhet- 
 orician whom Tzetzes compiled, claims to have read speeches of his (Tzet. 
 Chil. VI, 36, 37), and is usually cited as the natural orator who owed nothing 
 to art. Quintilian, however, in discussing him (II, 17, 12-13)1 has some 
 excellent remarks. In arguing against those who declare that it is not 
 necessary to learn oratory in order to become an orator, Quintilian says: 
 "They cite Demades, a waterman, and ^Eschines, an actor, as instances of 
 
 this but it is not certain that Demades did not learn; and 
 
 he might, by constant practice in speaking, which is the most efficient mode 
 of learning, have made himself master of all the powers of language that 
 he ever possessed. But we may safely say that he would have been a better 
 speaker if he had learned, for he never ventured to write out his speeches 
 for publication, though we know that he produced considerable effect in 
 delivering them." Compare Brougham's remarks, quoted on p. 59, n. 241 ; 
 also those of Henry Ward Beecher on the same topic: Byars, 290-1. 
 
 According to Stobaeus, Flor. 29, 91, Demades plumed himself on having 
 had no other master but the tribune. Pseudo-Callisthenes II, 2-5, professes 
 to give a speech of his, and Suidas (s. n.) says: 8Yoail»8v ' kitoXoyvayiOv 
 jtQog 'O/iuM-Jtidfia 8o)8£>caETiag. Neither Sauppe (O. A.) nor Blass (ed. 
 Dinarchus, 1888) who give the fragment believe it genuine. 
 
 "^ Plut. Dem. c. 9. As a modern parallel John Bright might be cited ; 
 cf. Goldwin Smith, Reminiscences, 238-9: "Few would hesitate to give John 
 Bright the foremost place among the British orators of his day. The ques- 
 tion whether his speeches were prepared has been debated. But there can 
 be no doubt upon the point. I have stood by him when he was speaking 
 and seen the little sheaf of notepapers on each of which probably his 
 sentence or his catchword was written, and which dropped into his hat as 
 he went on. Nobody can speak literature ex tempore, and Bright's great 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 1 27 
 
 once.^^^ While there can be no doubt that Demosthenes possessed 
 the ability to speak extempore,^*'^ and probably incorporated some 
 extemporary matter in his speeches,^®^ he always preferred to pre- 
 pare his speech if he could. "®® This habit of his became a by-word 
 
 speeches are literature, first-rate of its kind. He was, however, by no 
 means without the power of speaking ex tempore. I have known him when 
 called on unexpectedly to respond very well. If he was interrupted by an 
 opponent in his speech, he was ready with his retort. He told me that when 
 he was to speak at the unveiling of Cobden's Statue at Bradford he had 
 been greatly at a loss as to what he should say; but the happy thought had 
 come to him one morning while he was dressing. He had begun as a 
 temperance lecturer with a single address. He had no doubt formed his 
 style on the Bible, which I never heard read so well as when I heard 
 him read it to his household. His delivery was calm and impressive, with- 
 out gesticulation or appearance of rhetorical passion. His enunciation 
 was perfectly distinct, and he thus without straining his voice made him- 
 self heard in the largest hall. He confessed to me that after all his practice 
 and success he never got over his nervousness. At Bradford, where his 
 audience was more than friendly, he told me that his knees shook under him 
 when he rose to speak". 
 
 ^^ Plut. Dem. c. 9; the same story is told by the Pseudo- Plutarch, 845C, 
 who uses the same word, dvavivcoaxovTog. 
 
 ''*^It hardly seems possible to doubt that some of the speeches made by 
 Demosthenes on his various journeys through the country were extem- 
 porary. It is true that on one occasion when he deemed it important 
 (XVIII, 174-179), Demosthenes incorporates into his oration a former 
 speech which might be thought to have been extemporary (see n. 261). 
 Doubtless Demosthenes prepared for all the emergencies he could foresee, 
 but he must have delivered a great many speeches during periods of which 
 we have no record. A possible explanation of this lack of speeches might 
 be that they were extemporary and so were lost. Such might be some of 
 the speeches implied in XVIII, 45; 69; 72; 86; 88; 136; 141; 143; 179; 191; 
 214; 244-245; 320, and elsewhere; ^schines, III, 63; 71; 97; 145-146; 150; 
 160; 166; 167. 
 
 ^ Plut. Dem. c. 8 : Demosthenes would admit that his speeches were 
 neither entirely prepared beforehand, nor yet wholly extemporary. Cf. 
 also c. 9: his retorts and rejoinders were often extemporary. Compare 
 Longinus(?) de Sublim. (Rhet. Gr. I, 273, 19, Sp.) ; Plut. Pol. Praec. 803C; 
 Dem. c. II. Quint. VI, 3, 33, says care should be taken that jests should 
 never seem premeditated. Extemporary retorts are recorded by Ammianus 
 Marcellinus (XVIII, i, 4) of the Emperor Julian; by Philostratus {Vit. 
 Soph. I, 2, i) of Leo of Byzantium; by Pliny the Elder {N. H. I) of 
 Plancus. 
 
 ^^ If we are to acknowledge the "law of three short syllables" in 
 Demosthenes, that orator's preparation must have been verbal preparation 
 
128 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 among the popular pleaders,^^^ and Demosthenes thus answers it in 
 his reply to a supposed taunt by Midias : "Probably he will also say 
 something of this kind — that all my speech is considered and pre- 
 pared (£ff/.£[JL{jieva y.a{ xapaffy-euaapieva).^^^ I admit, men of Athens, 
 I will not deny that I have considered it (eff%e<pOat), aye, and got 
 it up (pi.eiJLeXeTYiy.svat) as well as I possibly could. ^^^ I were a 
 simpleton indeed, if, after I have suffered, and am still suffering 
 such injuries, I took no pains (Y)|jLeXouv) about the method of stat- 
 ing them to you. I maintain, however, that Midias has composed 
 my address (yeYpacpevat) : he that has supplied the facts with which 
 the speech deals, may most fairly be deemed its author, not he who 
 has only considered (eaxeixpievo?) or studied ([JLspt[jLVi^c7a?) how to 
 lay an honest case before you".^^^ 
 
 of the most minute sort, if the speeches we have reproduce at all the speeches 
 actually delivered. It was Blass (Att. Bereds. Ill, 99-i04) who first drew 
 attention to the fact that Demosthenes, as far as he possibly can, avoids the 
 consecutive use of three or more short syllables, except when the three 
 syllables are included in the same word or in a combination which is virtually 
 equivalent to one word, such as a noun preceded by a preposition or an 
 article. Compare Cicero, Orat. XLIV, 151. 
 
 If one believes that the speeches we have are in the main the speeches 
 delivered, this law would imply careful memorizing of the entire speech. 
 Blass (III, 248)! and Schaefer (III, 64-65) believe that Demosthenes' avoid- 
 ance of hiatus is an evidence of the highly finished character of the final 
 draft of the speeches. The attempts that have been made to define the rules 
 which govern the rhythms of Demosthenes' prose have been anticipated by 
 Dionysius of Halicarnassus (de Comp. Verb. c. 17). 
 
 "° Plut. Dem. c. 8. Plutarch elsewhere seems to disapprove of Demos- 
 thenes' preparation as over-elaborate^ at least for statesmen's speeches: 
 Pol. Praec. 802E-F. In jieqi Svocomag, 16 (534F) he speaks scornfully of 
 those speakers who are so extremely careful that they will not allow two 
 vowels to come together. 
 
 ^ EOXEfx|LiEva xal jiaQaaxEvao|i£va. For oxEiiJEig xai iTiaQaaxEudg : studied 
 and prepared speeches, see Plut. Dem. c. 10: K}a\v xov yz ArmaSiiv Kayxzc, 
 d)M,oX6Youv xfj (puoEi %q(X)\xz\o\ dvixTixov Elvai xal jcaQa(p£Q£iv avToaxEfiid^ovxa 
 xdg xoii AT]|[xoa^£vovg axEil^Eig xal JiagaaxEudg, also Moral. 6C; 844E. 
 
 ^ As a contrast to this admission see H. W. Grady's words of his 
 celebrated speech The Old South and the New: "When I found myself on 
 my feet, every nerve in my body was strung as tight as a fiddle-string" etc, 
 
 "'XXI, 191. This passage is quoted by Plutarch, de Educat. Puer. 9. 
 
 Hardwicke, p. 423, says of Daniel Webster: "The impression has been 
 current that his great speeches were unstudied. He said on one occasion 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 1 29 
 
 Demosthenes used to affirm that it was a more truly popular act 
 to use premeditation in one's speeches, such preparation being in a 
 
 that he would as soon think of appearing before an audience half-clothed 
 as half-prepared, and at another time he told one of his friends that he 
 would as soon stand up and tell his audience that he had garments enough 
 at home, but did not think it worth while to put them on, as to tell them 
 that he could have made a satisfactory speech, perhaps, if he had taken the 
 requisite pains." 
 
 Commentators have long disputed over the question whether the speech 
 against Midias was ever actually delivered. Personally I am inclined to think 
 that it was not. The main evidence against its having been delivered is the 
 statement of ^schines (III, p. 61, sees. 52-53; cf. also p. 84) that Demos- 
 thenes compromised the suit for thirty minae (cf. also Ps.-Plut. 844D). 
 While one must not rely too implicitly on the testimony of ^schines, he 
 would hardly have ventured to make such a statement in public if the trial 
 had been carried to its conclusion. Plutarch (Dem. c. 12) agrees with 
 ^schines and thinks that Demosthenes compromised the suit through fear 
 of Midias' party leader, Eubulus. 
 
 H. Weil (Demosthenes, Introd. p. xxi) has the following statement, 
 "Plutarque dit que Demosthene desespera de triompher de la ligue qui 
 protegeait Midias. Nous n'avons pas la clef de cette enigme. Mais on pent 
 soupQonner, et Ton aime a croire, que les malheurs de la patrie I'ayant 
 rapproche d'Eubule, Demosthene fit taire ses haines personelles devant les 
 convenances politiques et les devoirs du citoyen." It is quite possible that 
 Demosthenes may have felt that Eubulus was doing good work for the state 
 and therefore did not wish to render compromise with him impossible. 
 
 Goodwin, in his edition of the speech (p. vi)' says: "His (Demosthenes') 
 first and greatest struggle was to unite the people at once in opposition to 
 Philip, and he could not afford to alienate any men of influence at this 
 critical time." 
 
 Dionysius {Ep. ad Ammaeum I, 4) speaks of it as "the speech which 
 Demosthenes composed after the vote of censure passed upon Midias by the 
 people," where the verb used, oruvexdlaxo, seems to imply that Demosthenes 
 wrote but did not deliver the speech. Isidore of Pelusium {Ep. IV, 205) 
 believes that Demosthenes did not compromise the suit through mercenary 
 motives, but because he feared a defeat due to the power of the other party. 
 Diogenes Laertius (VI, Diog. 6)' also refers to the suit as having been 
 compromised. Cf. Westermann, A. : de Litihus quas Demosthenes oravit ipse 
 (Leipzig, 1834}, 25-28; Boeck, Comment. Acad. Berol. 1818, CI. hist. phil. 
 60-100; Schaefer, II, 102; Blass, III, I^ 238 ff. 
 
 The strongest argument that the speech was not delivered lies in the 
 apparently unfinished character of the oration itself; for example, the 
 repetition in sees. 10 and 185, the failure to give the evidence of the gold- 
 smith which was promised in sec. 21, and the apparent disregard, in places, 
 of the three short syllable law (cf. n. 269 p. 127). Buttman. in his second 
 
130 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 Excursus, believes that there is a lacuna after the evidence of the goldsmith, 
 which was followed by a series of depositions. If so, the omission may 
 have been due to the negligence of the copyists, Demosthenes himself may 
 have omitted the sections when he published, or the oration may have 
 been published from an imperfect manuscript. From what is said by the 
 anonymous author of the Second Argument, it would appear that some 
 passages of the edited edition have been lost (pp. 519, 520, 535), but this 
 testimony cannot be relied upon. 
 
 The statement in 191, that the speech has been carefully worked out, 
 cannot be taken as evidence that it was delivered. Doubtless Demosthenes, 
 when he wrote the speech, intended that it should be delivered, and such a 
 statement would naturally find a place in the first draft of the oration. The 
 same argument would hold good for Demosthenes' expressions of indignation 
 against those who had compromised such suits, and his determination not 
 to follow their example (3, 39, 103, 120, 151, 215, 261). Grote (Hist. Gr. 
 XI, 479) suggests that "Demosthenes may have delivered the discourse and 
 obtained judgment in his favor; and then afterwards, when the second vote 
 of the dicasts was about to come on for estimation of the penalty, may have 
 accepted the offer of the defendant to pay a moderate fine, in fear of 
 exasperating too far the powerful friends around Midias" (for a possible 
 case of this sort cf. sec. 176 of the speech). Mahaffy (II, 350) believes 
 that the condition of the speech (cf. 20, 28, 29, 47) indicates that it was edited, 
 not by Demosthenes himself, "but by pupils and admirers, possibly by his 
 nephew, Demochares." A. G. Becker suggests that there were legal doubts 
 as to whether the offense was of a public or a private character, and there- 
 fore Demosthenes, feeling not sure of his ground, had an additional motive 
 for accepting the terms offered. The vote of censure and the fact of a 
 payment by Midias, which was practically a confession of guilt, may have 
 satisfied Demosthenes. Grote's explanation would leave us to suppose either 
 that we possess only the first draft of the speech which was delivered, or 
 else that Demosthenes delivered the speech in its present unfinished state, a 
 thing which he would not be likely to do. There is a possibility, however, 
 that the orator did deliver the oration in this rough form, and never wrote it 
 up for publication, for Photius (Cod. 265), speaking of the two speeches, 
 
 Against Midias and Against ^schines says : xai xivEg eqpriaav 
 
 ExdxEQOv \6yo\ £v TVKOic, xaxaXeiqp^fivai dXXa \xy\ kqoc, exSooiv fiiaxEJca^dgdai. 
 
 On the Midias speech see Haupt, O. : Ueber die Midiana des Demosthenes, 
 Posen, 1857; Wachendorf, de Demosthenis Midiana, Neuss, 1879; Vielhaver, 
 C : de Demosthenis Midiana, Breslau, 1908. 
 
 The speech On the Corrupy Embassy, here joined by Photius with the 
 speech against Midias, is also suspected of never having been delivered. 
 Dionysius (Ep. ad. Amm. I, 10) says : xov xax' 'Aioxivou Xoyov ovvexdlaxo ; 
 composed not delivered (ajxt\yyE\X2 or SieOexo). Idomeneus and Ulpian (in 
 annot. ad Dem. or. d. f. I. p. 402 say the trial actually took place (cf. Philost. 
 Vit. Soph. I, 18, 2). Photius (Cod. 61; cf. Cod. 264)' says that ^schines 
 was not convicted because Eubulus arranged matters so that the jurors got 
 up and went out while Demosthenes was still speaking (cf. Auctor Epistolae 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS I3I 
 
 certain sense, a mark of respect toward the people,"* and once 
 when Epicles reproached him with preparing what he had to say, 
 he replied: "I should be ashamed to make an extemporary speech 
 to so great an assembly." ^''^ 
 
 ^schineae XII, p. 695 R.). Other critics believe that the case never came to 
 trial, but that the speeches on both sides were only published (Ps.-Plut. 840C; 
 Auctor arg. ^sch. II, p. 314 Bekk. ; Auctor arg. ^sch. I; Schol. ^sch. 
 p. 49, 2; Hermogenes jieqI tcov oxaoecov p. 28, ed. Walz; Photius, Cod. p. 
 490; Blass, III, i^ 351; Westermann, p. 52 ff. Plutarch {Dem. c. 15, 853) 
 seems to have been the first to doubt on the ground that no mention of the 
 trial is made in either of the orations on the Crown. The same view is held 
 by A. G. Becker {Demosthenes als Staatsmann und Redner, II, 320), who 
 argues the matter at greater length. Kennedy believes that the evidence on 
 which they rely, being negative has little force under the circumstances, for 
 the reason Auger gives and which Becker does not answer in a satisfactory 
 manner, namely that both orators had cause to be silent: Demosthenes had 
 lost the verdict, and .^schines had so small a majority that his acquittal 
 could hardly be considered honorable. 
 
 Cf. also Schaefer, A.: Dem. und seine Zeit, III, 2, p. 66; Weil, Demos- 
 thenes, 234-236; Grote, Hist. Gr. XI, 525 ff. and note; Rohdewald: de 
 nonnullis orationum ^schinis et Demosthenis de legatione male gesta habit- 
 arum locis disputatio, Miinster, 1867 ; Schmidt, M. : Quaestiones de Demos- 
 thenis et ^schinis orationibus de falsa legatione, 1851. A speech might be 
 modified by failure to get the required number of votes: cf. Blass I, p. 318. 
 
 On the speech On the Peace from this point of view see Blass, III, 
 342, 343, 351. 
 
 "* Plut. Dem. c. 8. The audience, according to Plutarch, seemed to 
 expect that an orator would prepare his speech. In his essay on Listening 
 (c. 14, 45D) he rebukes those who come to listen to a speech without any 
 preparation or consideration, and yet expect that what the orator has to say 
 
 will be prepared and premeditated ( exsivov \iev dlioiJaav ^xeiv 
 
 jtscpQovTixoxa xal jiaQEaxevaaM-Evov). Elsewhere in the same treatise (c. 3, 
 38E) he says that such people think that speaking requires study and atten- 
 tion (jxa-dTiaiv \ie'kexr\v), but listening does not need either. 
 
 Compare the beginning of Lord Brougham's Inaugural Address (Vol. Ill, 
 7^) : "I am anxious to address you rather in the form which I now adopt, 
 rather than in the more usual one of unpremeditated discourse. I shall thus 
 at least prove that the remarks which I deem it my duty to make, are the 
 fruit of mature reflection, and that I am unwilling to discharge an important 
 office in a perfunctory manner." 
 
 ^'^'^ Ps.-Plut. 848C : "alaxwoi!i,'nv ^ag av" eIjiev "eI ttiXijcovto) SrifXQ) 
 (TupipovXEijcov avxooxebi6.t,oi[ii." The compiler adds: "He never put out his 
 lamp, that is, ceased polishing his orations, until he was fifty years old." 
 Cf. Plut. Dem. c. 11. 
 
132 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 Dionysius of Halicarnassus defends at some length the incessant 
 care which Demosthenes devoted to the perfecting of his works. The 
 critic urges that it is not strange if one who surpassed all his pre- 
 decessors in oratorical fame, should use no thought or word at 
 random, but should pay great heed to the order of his thoughts and 
 the grace of his language, when he was producing works for all 
 future ages, and putting himself to the test of envy and time. If 
 Isocrates spent at least ten years on the Panegyricus, and if the first 
 words of Plato's Republic were found arranged in several different 
 ways in his tablets, we cannot wonder if Demosthenes took pains 
 to attain perfection, and to avoid employing a single word or thought 
 which he had not weighed.-'^ 
 
 According to Demosthenes' political rival, there was one occasion 
 on which all his skill and preparation availed him nothing, ^schines 
 tells us that when Demosthenes appeared for the first time in the 
 presence of the King of Macedonia, whose projects he had so often 
 denounced at home, his presence of mind entirely failed him; he 
 forgot the speech he had written, and in spite of some good-natured 
 encouragement from Philip, was quite unable to deliver his ad- 
 dress.^'^ While we may grant that there was exaggeration on the 
 part of yEschines, it is quite possible that the story rests on a basis 
 
 The sentence which follows this account: "He delivered most of his 
 speeches extempore, nature having qualified him for it," is supposed to have 
 been added by some other hand, since it contradicts what goes before. 
 Another suggestion is that Demosthenes may have made many extemporary 
 speeches, but only laboriously prepared for important occasions (Jebb, I, 
 p. Ixxi). 
 
 ^^ de Comp. Verb. c. 25. Dionysius repeats this passage slightly altered 
 in de Dem. c. 51. Quintilian (XII, 9, 15) quotes Demosthenes as saying that 
 the orator will utter, so far as his subject will allow, nothing but what he has 
 written or "hewn into shape." On the effect of Demosthenes' eloquence see 
 Lucian, Encom. Demosth. 32; Dionys. H^l. de Dem. c. 22; Amm. Marcell. 
 
 XXX. 4, 5. 
 
 ^^sch. II, 34-35, also mentioned by Philostratus, Vit. Soph. I, 18, 2; 
 II, I, 36; in II, 32, 2 the subject for an extemporary speech given by the 
 Emperor to a sophist is, 6 Aimoo^evTig im, xov ^iKikkov exjtEOcbv xal SeiXiag 
 (pEvyiox. Cf. Aelian, Var. Hist. VIII, 12; Longinus, Ars Rhet. (Rhet. Gr. 
 I, 314, 31 Sp). 
 
 A similar misfortune happened to Curio: Cicero, Brut. UK, 217; com- 
 pare 218-220. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 1 33 
 
 of fact= It may be, as Grote suggests,-'® ''that Demosthenes was 
 partially divested of his oratorical powers by finding himself speak- 
 ing not only before the enemy whom he had so bitterly denounced, 
 but surrounded by all the evidence of Macedonian power, and doubt- 
 less exposed to the unequivocal marks of well earned hatred from 
 those Macedonians who took less pains than Philip to disguise their 
 feelings,"^^^ but perhaps in view of the lack of evidence, it would be 
 better to adopt Miiller's more charitable opinion, that Demosthenes' 
 "common sense assured him that this was not an occasion on which 
 fine speaking could produce any practical results, and so he contented 
 himself with a very brief address." "®^ 
 
 Among the contemporaries of Demosthenes, there are but two 
 who claim ability as extemporary speakers. I mean, of course, 
 /Eschines and Demades.-®^ 
 
 Of Lycurgus as a speaker not much is known. Cicero mentions 
 him as one of the contemporaries of Demosthenes.-®- He is said to 
 have been a pupil of Plato,^^^ and Hyperides characterizes him as 
 not inferior as a speaker to anyone in the city.-®* There seems to be 
 but one account of his method of preparing his speeches. The 
 Pseudo-Plutarch tells us that Lycurgus was not gifted with the 
 ability to speak extempore ; that he studied night and day, and used 
 even to lie on an uncomfortable couch so that he might rise earlier 
 and devote himself to his studies. So anxious was he to note down 
 his thoughts as they occurred to him, that writing materials were 
 always placed at his bedside.-®^ He may even have employed 
 rhetoricians to aid him when he was engaged in the composition of 
 his speeches ; at least he was taunted with having done so, and as 
 far as we are able to judge, did not deny the charge.-®^ 
 
 ""'Hist. Gr. XI, 530. 
 
 ^'Cf..^sch. II, 32; 33. 
 
 ^^ Hist. Gr. Lit. II, 320. Brougham suggests that Demosthenes' failure 
 may have been due to lack of time for proper preparation. 
 
 ^ On Demades see n. 264. 
 
 ^^ Brutus, IX, 36: "Huic (Demosthenes) Hyperides proximus et 
 ^schines fuit et Lycurgus et Dinarchus et is, cuius nulla exstant scripta, 
 Demades aliique plures." 
 
 '^Diogenes Laertius III, 31. 46; Olympiodorus ad Plat. Gorg. 515 D. 
 
 ^ Hyperides Pro Euxen. col. XXVI-XXVII. 
 
 ^^ Pseudo-Plutarch, 842 C-D. 
 
 '^ Pseudo-Plutarch, 842 C. 
 
 The long quotations from the poets found in Lycurgus (sees. 92, 100, 
 
134 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 ^schines, in sharp contrast to his state-rival, Demosthenes, 
 seems more than any other professional orator, to have trusted to 
 extemporary inspiration. He often taunts Demosthenes because of 
 his rhetorical skill and preparation,^^^ and Demosthenes, in his turn. 
 
 103, 107, 109, 132) would suit a speech prepared verbatim. Such quotations 
 seem to have been part of the orator's stock-in-trade, ^schines before 
 giving a quotation from Hesiod, has the following statement (III, 135) : 
 "And I myself will speak the words ; for I think it was for this reason that 
 when we were children we learned the words of the poets, in order that 
 when we were men we might make use of them." Other passages in which 
 ^schines quotes from memory are I, 128, 129, 144, 151, 152; II, 144, 158; 
 III, 184-185. 
 
 There is evidence, however, that such quotations, as well as oracles, laws, 
 and epigrams, were read for the speaker by the clerk (Dem. XVIII, 289; 
 XIX, 70; 247; 255; 297; XXI, 8, 10; ^sch. I, 148; 149; 150; III, 112; 190; so 
 in the Antidosis, with the exception of sec. 194, the extracts from Isocrates' 
 other speeches are read by the clerk; cf. Isocr. XV, 59; 65; 72). The read- 
 ing of passages by the clerk would suit an extemporary speech still less than 
 quoting from memory. 
 
 In the Lycurgus passages there is no indication of reading either by the 
 orator himself or by the clerk. The supposition therefore is that Lycurgus 
 memorized the passages and delivered them himself. 
 
 ^"11, i; 4; 114; 157 (compare Dem. XVIII, 280) ; III, 142; 153; 157; 167; 
 209-210; 215; 229; 233; cf. Blass, III, 64-66. 
 
 ^schines' demand (III, 202) that Demosthenes make his defense in the 
 same order as the accusation, may have been designed to embarrass Demos- 
 thenes if the speech he had prepared and was intending to use was arranged 
 in a different way (cf. Quint. Ill, 6, 3). The objection given by Demosthenes 
 (XVIII, 2) to this attempt to prescribe an order to him, was so reasonable 
 that it allowed an excellent starting-point for the defense. Cf. Quint. VII, 
 I, 2. Whately {Elements of Rhetoric, c. I) in speaking of the importance 
 of arrangement, says: "-(^schines strongly urged the judges (in the celebrated 
 contest for the Crown) to confine his adversary to the same order in his 
 reply to the charges brought, which he himself had observed in bringing 
 them forward. Demosthenes, however, was far too skillful to be thus en- 
 trapped; and so much importance does he attach to this point, that he opens 
 his speech with a most solemn appeal to the judges for an impartial hear- 
 ing; which implies, he says, not only a rejection of prejudice, but no less also 
 a permission for each speaker to adopt whatever arrangement he should think 
 fit. And accordingly he proceeds to adopt one very different from that which 
 his antagonist had laid down ; for he was no less sensible than his rival that 
 the same arrangement which is most favorable to one side is likely to be 
 least favorable to the other." 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 1 35 
 
 ^schines' seeming knowledge of Demosthenes' speech (III, 54, 57, 189, 
 216, 225, 228, 257) means no more than that the orator in composing his 
 attack, dealt with the points which his own sense and the gossip of the 
 town had told him were to be made by his opponent. No knowledge of the 
 actual speech of Demosthenes is implied. So Oration I of ^schines is 
 composed along the general lines which he had heard were to be taken by 
 the other side (I, 117). Compare Dem. XIX, 80. 
 
 Scholars have debated much over the question whether the two 
 orations on the Crown, in their present form, were the speeches actually 
 delivered at the trial. W. Fox, Kranzrede dies Demosthenes, p. 214, maintains 
 that in the present form of the two orations on the Crown, we have not only 
 in the main, but in detail, the orations prepared, memorized, and delivered 
 at the trial. He believes that there may have been in addition a slight 
 amount of extemporized matter. Other scholars have regarded with sus- 
 picion passages in ^schines anticipating Demosthenes, and passages of 
 refutation to which there is no corresponding passage in the rival orator, 
 as pointing to addition or suppression when the speakers revised their ora- 
 tions; for example, yEsch. 13-16, 24-30, 35-48, 54-56, 84, 159-167, i77 ff-, 
 189 (cf. Dem. XVIII, 319), 197-199, 216, 225 ff. (cf. Dem. XVIII, 243), 228. 
 A. Schaefer, Demosthenes und seine Zeit, III, Beitrdge p. 72 ff., believes that 
 the trend of each orator's argument might well be known to the other through 
 gossip and by the arguments made at the preliminary hearing. While deny- 
 ing that such anticipation of similes as appears in ^schines (189, 215, 225, 
 228) could occur, and must have been added after the trial when the 
 speech was prepared for publication, he thinks that we have the orations in 
 the main as they were delivered. A. Kirchhoff, Ahhandlungen der Berliner 
 Akademie, 1875, P- 64 ff., is very severe on Demosthenes' speech in regard 
 to revision, but makes fewer changes in that of ^schines. B. Cammerer, 
 de duplici Recensione Orationis ^schineae contra Ctesiphontem habitae 
 (Arnstadt, 1876), believes that yEschines made large additions to his speech 
 when he revised it. His attempts to seem extempore (57, 176, 177) are merely 
 conventional. Kirchhoff believes that Demosthenes' speech as we have it, is 
 a combination of two speeches : one "sketched" when first there was danger 
 of a trial, and the other the speech which was actually delivered six years later. 
 Blass, III, 2, p. 180 ff., thinks that in ^schines' speech we have the draft of 
 the oration as drawn up in S3^, emended in 330 by new suggestions, and 
 still further worked over after the trial had actually taken place, and before 
 the speech was published. Some of the points he criticizes might be due to 
 the fact that ^schines was less skillful than Demosthenes in preparing and 
 revising. 
 
 Cf . also Nadrowski, R. : de genuina Demosthenis pro Corona orationis 
 forma, Thorn, 1880 ; Fox, W. : Analyse und WUrdigung der Rede von Kranze, 
 Innsbruck, 1863. 
 
 Demosthenes' Third Philippic (Or. IX) has been handed down in two 
 recensions. The shorter and better one is represented by the oldest manu- 
 script, Parisian S, only, the other by all the rest. Blass, III,^ 304, believes 
 
136 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 constantly ascribes the success of his opponent to his great natural 
 powers and his strong, clear and carefully cultivated voice. ^^^ Some, 
 according to Philostratus,^^^ even attribute to ^schines the invention 
 (supY]pL05) of extemporary speech. Philostratus himself, while ac- 
 knowledging ^schines' ability, assigns the beginning of the practice 
 to Gorgias. As we have seen, Gorgias' boast that he was able to 
 speak on any subject at a moment's notice, rested on a basis of care- 
 fully prepared commonplaces. ^^^ There is no evidence that ^schin- 
 es' ability was dependent on any such aid. According to Suidas "he 
 was the first of all men to have the name of speaking 'in a god-like 
 manner,' owing to the fact that he extemporized as one who was in- 
 spired. "^^^ Philostratus says he spoke "as those who utter oracles."-®^ 
 That this ability was a natural gift, probably improved by practice, 
 is usually conceded.^^^ ^schines may have had some training in 
 
 that the shorter version was a revised edition prepared by the orator himself. 
 This, if so, would be another proof of Demosthenes' careful and thorough 
 revision of his speeches. Both versions are thoroughly Demosthenic. See 
 also Spengel, Ahhandl. f. Munich Acad., 1863, at the end of his first article 
 on Demosthenes' public speeches. 
 
 288 XVIII, 127, 132, 259, 276-77, 280 (cf. yEsch. II, 170), 285, 291, 308, 313; 
 XIX, 126, 199, 206, 208, 209, 216, 336, 337-340; cf. A. Schaefer Dem. u. seine 
 Zeit, I, 215, 3; Blass, III, B, 222. ^schines warns his hearers against the 
 professional artifices of Demosthenes, III, 200; I, 170, and describes himself 
 as an unprofessional speaker: II. 181-182; III, 228. 
 
 "^ Proem ad Vit. Soph. 4. 
 
 ^ Cf . p. 99 ff. Philostr. proem, ad Vit. Soph. 4. 
 
 ^^ Suidas, s. n. : JtQcoxog [AIoxivt]?] hk Jidvxcov to "deicog ^eyeiv" Tixovae, 
 fiia TO axeSia^ELv wg ev^ouaicav. Philostr. Vit. Soph. I, 18, 4: to yoiq ^ei(os 
 Xeveiv ovjtco ^aev E;iExa)Qia08 aoq)iaTa)v ojiovSaig, dii' Alaxivou 6' TiQ|aT0, 
 
 d£0(pOQT|TCp OQILlfi dvTOOXESld^OVTOg, oSaJTEQ ol XOVC, %Qr[G\lO\}C, dvOJrVEOVTE?. 
 
 ^schines thought well of his own gifts: II, 41; III, 228; cf. also Dem. 
 XVIII, 242; XIX, 339 ff. 
 
 ""' Philostr. Vit. Soph. I, 18, 4; cf. also Photius, Cod. 61, and 67; 
 Caecilius of Calacte (ap. .^sch. p. 5 Sch.) ; Dionys. Hal. c. 35, p. 206; iud. 
 "^^t- V, 5 ; the Scholiast on ^schines says his oratory has power and facility 
 such as would come from nature and private study: \izkixr\c, dqpavovg i. e. 
 not under a master; cf. Hermog. de Fig. II, c. 11; Dio Chrys. XVIII, 11. 
 Cf. Schaefer, Dem. I, 229; Sauppe, O. A. II, p. 26. 
 
 ^ Critics are divided as to whether ^schines' speech to the Amphictyons, 
 which created so much excitement (yEsch. Ill, 122; Dem. XVIII, 149), and 
 from which he gives a quotation (III, 1 19-122), was prepared or extemporary, 
 -^schines says (III, 119) of the clerk, d|xa bk dvayiYvcoaxEiv exeA-euov auTOig 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 1 37 
 
 his youth, ^^* but probably never enjoyed any extensive schooUng 
 by rhetoricians.^®^ His reply to the Rhodians, when they asked him 
 to teach them the art of rhetoric, that he did not know it himself, 
 may well be true,^®^ He was, as it seems, an orator with an extra- 
 
 xriv jLiavxeiav xoC ^eov, which Schaefer regards as proof that ^JEschines' speech 
 was not the result of a sudden impulse as he seems to imply, 119: d-KOvoag 
 
 be ovxo) JtaQ(]o|uv^v, and ejtfiXdE 68 M,ot im, xi]v yvwhtiv 
 
 M-vTiadfivai x.xA. but that he had prepared it and provided the necessary 
 documents (cf. Dem. XVIII, 149). A burst of extemporary eloquence might 
 be expected from ^schines, and as Weidner argues, against Schaefer's view, 
 such important documents as the one cited, concerning the Delphic god, 
 would surely be close at hand, and the clerk might procure and read them 
 after a very short time. It might be argued from ^schines' repeating part 
 of the speech that it was prepared, but he only claims to give the substance, 
 II, 122: xoiaOxa xai Jtgog xouxoig exEpa jioX^d 8i£|E>.^6vxog epiov >c. x. A.. Tn 
 like manner, the other speeches mentioned as his were probably extemporary. 
 An abstract of his speech to the assembly in June, B. C. 346, when Philip 
 had reached Thermopylae (cf. Dem. XVIII, 35) is given by Demosthenes 
 (XIX, 19 ff.), and ^schines replies to it (II, 119 ff.). 
 
 His speech before the Athenians is reproduced in summary in II, 75 ff. ; 
 cf. Dem. XIX, 15. 
 
 Other speeches by him are mentioned in ^sch. II, 41 ; 114; III, 71 ; 146; 
 215 ; Dem. XVIII, 35-36. 
 
 Cf. Philostratus, proem ad Vit. Soph. 4, where it is stated that ^schines 
 spoke extemporaneously as ambassador, as the defender of anyone in court, 
 and when he made an address to the people. 
 
 His speech On the Embassy was probably not delivered, but written and 
 published as a defense of his policy and character (Auct. arg. ^sch. II; 
 Plut, Dem. c. 15; Hermog. K£qi xcov oxao. p. 28 ed. Walz) although Schaefer, 
 Thirlwall, and others think otherwise. Cf. Busse, R. : de duplici recensione 
 orationis quae est de Falsa Legatione, Berlin, 1880. 
 
 On his speech Against Timarchus see the anonymous Second Argument. 
 Compare n. 287. 
 
 ^^ Quint. II, 17, 12-13. 
 
 ^'We are told on somewhat doubtful authority that he was a pupil of 
 Plato, Alcidamas, Isocrates, and even of Socrates : Ps.-Plut. 840 B ; Philostr. 
 Vit. Soph. I, 18, 4; Phot. Cod. 61, and 264; Suidas, s. n. The Scholiast on 
 ^sch. II, I, gives Demetrius of Phalerum as authority for the connection 
 with Plato and Socrates, but Apollonius {Vit. ^sch. 6)' says this is a mistake 
 due to confusion with vEschines of Eleusinia who is said to have written a 
 rhetorical xexvy] ; cf. Diog. Laert. II, 64; Athen. XIII, 93; Schaefer, I, 229. 
 
 -""Ps.-Plut. 840D. On ^schines' school at Rhodes see Blass, III, B, 
 1.38-139. Westermann (Gesch. d. Bereds. I, 81) regards ^schines as the 
 
138 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 ordinary natural gift improved by practice. According to Philostrat- 
 us/^'' he left written speeches behind him in order that he might not 
 be far surpassed by the laboriously prepared orations of Demosthe- 
 nes. It was only in his exile, if we may believe the often repeated 
 story of his reading of the speech to the Rhodians^^^ and his sub- 
 sequent comment on Demosthenes, that he acknowledged the su- 
 periority of his rival. "°^ 
 
 Of the last two Attic orators, Hyperides and Dinarchus, little 
 need be said. Hyperides was preferred by some to Demosthenes,'^*^^ 
 and was famous for his wit,^^^ but there is no evidence that he de- 
 livered an extemporary speech. The story is told that in leisure 
 moments he drew up several declarations against Demosthenes, and 
 that Demosthenes, on coming to see him when he was ill, found him 
 with the book in his hand. At this Demosthenes expressed his dis- 
 pleasure, and Hyperides replied : "This shall hurt no one who is my 
 friend, but will keep the one who is my enemy from doing aught 
 against me."^^^ It is impossible, of course, to draw a conclusion from 
 one instance only, but this evidence, such as it is, would show that 
 Hyperides prepared himself for emergencies. 
 
 In the case of Dinarchus, with whom Attic oratory ends,^^^ ex- 
 temporary speech is practically out of the question. As a metic ^*^* he 
 
 founder of the Rhodian school of eloquence. Cf. Quint. XII, 10, 19; Philostr. 
 Vit. Soph. I, 18, 2; Plut. Dem. c. 34; Photius, Cod. 61, and 264; Schaefer, 
 III, 266 n. 
 
 ^ Proem, ad Vit. Soph. 4. 
 
 "* Ps.-Plut. 840D (dvEYvo)). 
 
 "'^For this story see Ps.-Plut. 840D-E; Cicero, de Or. Ill, 56, 2^3; 
 Quint. XI, 3, 7; Pliny, Ep. II, 3, 10; IV, 5, i; Schol. ad ^sch. Or. II, i, p. 
 
 5 Sch. ; Phot. Cod. 61, 7-10; Cod. 264 (ejieSeilaxo) ; Philostr. Vit. Soph. I, 18, 
 
 6 (dvavvou^) ; Val. Max. VIII, c. 10, ext. i ; Pliny, A^. H. VII, 31 (30). 
 
 '^Ps.-PIut. 849D; Longinus(?)i de Suhlim, 34 ff. On Hyperides see 
 also Ps.-Plut. 848D; Diodorus XVIII, 3; Blass, III, B, 1-72. 
 
 ^"*Long.(?) de Suhlim. 34, 2; Cicero, de Or. I, 13, 58; II, 23, 94; III, 
 7, 28; Brut. XVII, 67; Acad. II, 10; Quint. X, i, 77. He is said by some to 
 have been a pupil of Isocrates and Plato: Ps.-Plut. 848D; Diog. Laert. 
 Ill, 46; Philostr. Vit. Soph. I, 17, 5; Athen. VIII, 342C; Suidas. 
 
 "^ Ps.-Plut. 849E-F; his funeral speech, Ps.-Plut. 850A; Dem. XVIII, 
 221, 27. 
 
 '""Croiset, IV, 650; Jebb, II, 373. 
 
 ""^Dionys. Hal. de Dinarch. c. 3 ; c. 2. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 1 39 
 
 was barred from public debates. His three extant orations were 
 all written for prosecutors in the affair of Harpalus.^^^'* The only 
 speech he ever delivered in person was that against his faithless host 
 Proxenus,^^^ and there is no ground for believing that this could 
 have been extemporary. 
 
 Before leaving Greek orators of the classical period, it might be 
 well to consider one class of evidence which shows perhaps better 
 than anything else that many of these speeches were the result of 
 verbal premeditation. I mean the repetition of striking passages. 
 
 The ancients seem to have been firm believers in the maxim, to 
 Y.ofkdq skeiv axa? xeptYtYvsiat, h\c, Be oOx svSexsxat.^^^ An orator 
 will repeat in one speech passages from some other speech of his own, 
 sometimes verbatim,^"^ and at times with slight changes. This he 
 had a perfect right to do of course, but the question assumes a differ- 
 ent aspect when we come to consider passages taken bodily by one 
 author from another. I do not refer to the so-called "commonplaces 
 of thought," these were of course public property and at the service 
 of any orator who might choose to make use of them,^^^ but when 
 
 '°^ Ps.-Plut. 850C ; but see also Suidas ; s. v. IlQaYnaxEia. 
 
 '"^Ps.-Plut. 850D-E; Dionys. Hal. de Dimrch. p. 113. Cf. Plato, Gorg. 
 498E with the Scholiast. This was his first appearance in a law-court: 
 Dionys. Hal. p. 635 ; p. 647 ; Hermog. mqi ISecov H, 5, p. 384, Walz. 
 
 ^"^Theon. Progym. c. i (Rhet. Gr. II, 62, Sp.) disputes this. Cf. Broug- 
 ham, p. 387 for the effect of such repetitions on a modern audience. 
 
 ""^For example, see Antiphon, de caede Herod. 14, and de Chor. 2. 
 
 ^According to Cicero {Brut. XII, 46), who quotes Aristotle as his 
 authority, Protagoras composed a number of dissertations on such leading 
 and general topics as were later called "commonplaces". His example was 
 followed by Gorgias and Antiphon. Lysias is also said to have composed 
 a collection (cf. Siiss, pp. lo-ii). These elaborately worked-out topics were 
 quoted verbatim. They formed part of the intellectual training as well in 
 Rome (Cicero, de Or. I, 13, 56; I, 31, 141; II, 27, 118; Brut. LXXVIII, 
 271) as in Greece (for example in the school of Gorgias). Cf. Arist. Soph. 
 Elench. c. 34; Theon, Rhet. Gr. II, 65, Sp. Quintilian (II, i, 11-12) says 
 that such commonplaces mix themselves with the inmost substance of causes, 
 and recommends preparation of them. Later (II, 4, 27-33) he objects to 
 these carefully memorized topics, which are fitted, like ornaments, on to 
 extemporary speeches, on the ground that they become displeasing to the 
 audience when heard over and over. Furthermore, they are often used, 
 not because they are wanted, or apply to the case, but because they are 
 ready. 
 
 Cicero drew up a treatise on these on the basis of Aristotle's work 
 {ad Fam. VII, 19, 20; Top. c. i, 5, and the end of the preface to the Para- 
 
140 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 one finds a passage of one orator repeated verbatim or with such 
 slight changes that the passage is not materially affected, it seems a 
 clear indication of preparation, practically of memorization. The 
 first instance where such repetition occurs is found in the works of 
 Andocides and Eysias. Parts of the Prooemium ^^° of Andocides' 
 
 doxesy to which the "fire and sword" topic may have belonged {ad Att. 
 II, I, i; I, 14, 3; Brut. 298), and a collection is ascribed to Hortensius 
 (Quint. II, I, ii)l Such "commonplaces", which are to be distinguished 
 from the commonplaces of thought, the substance of which has often been 
 used, were no doubt a great help to the orator. 
 
 Commonplaces in general are discussed by Aristotle, Rhet. II, 18, 3-5; 
 II, 23; Auctor ad Heren. II, 5; 13; 14; 22; 24; 26; 48; 49; Cicero, de Invent. 
 II, 48 fl.; de Or. Ill, 27, 106; Orat. XV, 47; 72; 95; 118; 126; Quint. II, 
 I, 11-12; II, 4, 27-33; V, 12, 1S-16; Rhet. ad Alex. cc. XXXV-XXXVII; 
 Theon. Rhet. Gr. II, 106 Sp.; also II, 32 ff. 
 
 Blass suggests (II, 458) that the treatise on rhetoric ascribed to Isaeus 
 (Ps.-Plut. 839F; cf. Dionys. ad Amm. p. 722U. and R.) may have been a 
 collection of commonplaces. 
 
 The treatise of Hermagoras may have been useful for this purpose : 
 Cicero, Brut. LXXVIII, 271. On this work see Volkmann, Rhetorik, p. 5 ; 
 20 ff. ; Blass, Gr. Bereds. 84-88; Jebb, II, 444-445. 
 
 On Cicero's Topica see Brandis, Rhein. Mus. Ill, 547; Klein, J.: de 
 fontibus Top. Cic. (1844); Hammer, C, Bursian, Jahres., XIV, 200; XXII, 
 218. 
 
 '^"Collections of prooemia and epilogues were composed by orators to 
 be used as they might need them. The first known writer of such a collec- 
 tion was Cephalus (Suidas, s. n.)i who lived but a little while before Anti- 
 phon (cf. also Tzetz. Chil. VI, c. 34; the one mentioned in Athen. 592 C is 
 probably a later sophist, Ruhnken, p. xlii). There followed the collection 
 of Antiphon, of which examples are quoted by Suidas (s. v. aiiAa, alodecr&ai, 
 \jiOxih\Q6c,. We hear of such a collection by Thrasymachus (Athen. X, 416A) 
 and Lysias (cf, p. 16, n. 45). One book of Theophrastus' treatise on rhet- 
 oric was devoted to prooemia (Diog. Laert. V, 48; Proleg. in Hermog. p. 
 14), and Hermogenes speaks of Critias' Jigooiniai STiM-TiYOQixai. A collec- 
 tion is attributed to Demosthenes, which Harpocration and Stobaeus recog- 
 nize as genuine. Fabricius says : "a Demosthenes per otium elaborata, 
 quibus in tempore uteretur". The prooemia are probably spurious (Pollux, 
 VI, 143), and were collected, no doubt, by some unknown compiler who took 
 some examples from Demosthenes (cf . Dem. IV, and Exord. I ; I, and III ; 
 XIV, and VII; XVI, and VIII; XV, and XXVII), and some from other 
 writers, or he may have added a few himself. Cf. Blass, 283-287; Schaefer, 
 Dem. u. seine Zeit, III, Ap. p. 129; Mahaffy, II, 339; also Uhle, P.: de 
 prooemiorum Demosthenis origine (1885); Reichenberger, S. : Demosthenis 
 de collectione prooemiorum (1886) ; May, J.: Zur Kritik der Prooemien des 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS I4I 
 
 Speech On the Mysteries (sees. 1-7) occur with slight variation in 
 Lysias' On the Estate of Aristophanes (2-5). Isocrates, too, used a 
 part of the same material,^^^ but with much greater changes. That 
 such a practice was frequent in ancient times, I think we are justi- 
 fied in inferring from a passage in Dionysius of Halicarnassus.^^^ 
 After observing that among two hundred genuine speeches of Lysias, 
 no fixed use of any commonplaces, even in the prooemium, can be 
 found, the critic adds : "And yet even those who have written only 
 a few speeches are found to have suffered this misfortune, I mean of 
 
 Demosthenes (Durlach, 1905) ; Swoboda, R. : de Demosthenis quae feruntur 
 prooemis (1887), and others. 
 
 Apsines wrote a xexvr] 'qtitoqixti 'jieqI jiqooi|xiou, (cf. Spengel, Art. 
 Script., iio-iii), and Anaximenes (p. 4 ed. Sp.) discusses the exordium in 
 detail (cf. also Rhet. Gr. Ill, 470, Sp.). Mahaffy believes (II, 230) that of 
 Isocrates' Epistles, I, VI, and VIII, "are mere proems to political advices, 
 and evidently published as specimens by the author." 
 
 Cicero possessed a collection of these useful introductions. He sent 
 Atticus his treatise de Gloria with an exordium prefixed which he had 
 already used for the Third Book of the Academics. When he discovered 
 his mistake, he sent Atticus a new exordium, and begged him to take out 
 the other and put the new one on {ad Att. XVI, 6, 4). Cf. Quint. IV, i, 8; 
 Tac. Dial. c. 20, i, Messallae prooemia. 
 
 In this connection the Florida of Apuleius must also be mentioned. 
 This is supposed by some to be a sort of Anthology from the orations of 
 Apuleius, collected either by himself, or some follower of his. The more 
 probable explanation is that the book is a collection of passages which the 
 author intended to use as prooemia to declamations, or as bits to be worked 
 into extemporaneous speeches (cf. p. 173). 
 
 Quintilian, in discussing the exordium (III, 9, 8 ff.), does not believe 
 that the exordium should be written last, after the whole speech has been 
 prepared, as Antonius does in Cicero's de Oratore (II, 78, 315). This 
 practice would be harmful if the orator had no time to write his speech. 
 If he has the necessary time, he is to contemplate his material in the order 
 in which the different parts of the speech would naturally come, and then 
 write his speech in the order in which he is to deliver it. If the orator 
 can derive his exordium from the pleading of his opponent, it will gain 
 him the confidence of the audience, and even though the rest of his speech 
 be written and carefully studied, an extemporary exordium will give an 
 air of spontaneity to the whole (IV, i, 54; cf. also IV, i, 56-58). Com- 
 pare Cicero's treatment of the subject, de Or. II, 77, 315-325- 
 
 ^^Or. XV. 
 
 ^ de Lys. c. 17. Compare de Isaeo, c. 7 ff. Cf. Girard, L' Eloquence 
 Attique, p. 16 ff. 
 
142 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 falling into the repetition of commonplaces ; for I say nothing of the 
 fact that almost all of them take the things which have been sadxi by 
 others and consider it no shameful act to do so."^^^ In spite of 
 Dionysius, however, in this case Lysias seems to have "borrowed." 
 The question is, did he borrow from Andocides or did they both 
 take the material of some third person and alter it to suit their views ? 
 Jebb ^^* believes that the whole prooemium was the work of Andoci- 
 des and that Lysias abridged it. Blass, on the contrary, believes, with 
 more reason, that both Andocides and Lysias used a prooemium 
 written by some third person in which Andocides interpolated some 
 matter of his own (sees. 3-6). The original prooemium Blass at- 
 tributes to Antiphon.^^^ 
 
 In the sections where Andocides, Lysias and Isocrates use com- 
 mon matter Isocrates agrees with Andocides rather than with Lysias. 
 Compare Andoc. I, i, Lys. XIX, 2, Isocr. XV, 17 (cf. also Clem. 
 Alex. Strom. VI, p. 748) ; Andoc. I, 6, Lys. XIX, 2-3 ; Andoc. I, 7, 
 Lys. XIX, 4-5, Isocr. XV, 17-19; Andoc. I, i ; Lys. XIX, 11 ; Isocr. 
 XVI, 7, Andoc. I, 9, Lys. Frag. 70 (Th.) ; Lys. XVIII, 3, Isocr. XVI 
 21; Lys. XXIII, 4, Isocr. XVI, 5; Lys. XVIII, 4, Isocr. XVI, 
 46; Lys. II, 73, Lys. X, 28; Lys. X, 7, XI, 4; Lys. XIII, 13, XVIII, 
 5 fin.; Lys. XIII, 12, XXX, 10; Lys. XV, 8, XVI, 13. 
 
 Lysias' second speech against Theomnestus is merely an epitome 
 of the first speech. ^^^ Harpocration refers to the Speech 
 against Theomnestus six times, but never to a second speech, or 
 to the first as the first. It probably was, as Jebb says, made by some 
 grammarian later than Harpocration's time. The second speech 
 preserves for the most part the words of the first : ^^^ compare 
 first speech 1-5, and second speech 1-2; 6-20, and 3-6; 21-29, ^"^ 
 7-10; 30-32, and 11-12. 
 
 Isocrates boasts that he never appropriated the material of 
 others ; ^^^ according to his own story, he is the one who is the 
 
 »"Cf. Long.(?) de Sublim. 13, 3-4. 
 
 '"*!, 115. 
 
 '"Att. Bereds. P 115. Aristotle (Soph. Elench. c. 34) says ready 
 made speeches were given by the teachers of rhetoric to their pupils to be 
 memorized. This prooemium may have been part of one of those. 
 
 '""Jebb, I, 292. 
 
 '"^Cf. Herrmann, c. : Zur Echtheitsfrage von Lysias X Rede (Hannover, 
 1878) p. 17. 
 
 "^U, 41; V, 94; X, 13; XHI, 12. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS I43 
 
 object of quotation, imitation, and plagiarism,^^® because he has 
 surpassed his rivals.^^^ Repetition in his own works ^-^ he justifies 
 on the ground that since others adopt his arguments, he would be 
 a fool if he were the only one who did not make use of what he 
 had said before.^^- Nevertheless there were not wanting critics 
 who say that he borrowed from others, and it is on his pet Pane- 
 gyricus that the bulk of the censure falls. The Pseudo- Plutarch ^^^ 
 speaks of it as an oration "which he is said to have borrowed out 
 of Gorgias the Leontine and Lysias". According to Photius ^^* 
 the Panegyriciis owed much to the funeral oration of Archinus, 
 the friend of Thrasybulus whom Plato praises.^^^ According to 
 Philostratus, Isocrates' speech is an adaptation of that of Gorgias 
 on the same theme. ^-^ Theon believes that the oration is borrowed 
 fi-om Lysias' Epitaphius and Olympiacus.^^'^ 
 
 There is a close resemblance between the Epitaphius current 
 under Lysias' name and the Panegyriciis of Isocrates. If we be- 
 lieve the Epitaphius a genuine speech of Lysias, the explanation of 
 the resemblance must be that Isocrates borrowed from Lysias, or 
 that both were indebted to Gorgias. Those who doubt its authenti- 
 city ^-^ must regard the Epitaphius as the work of a later rhetori- 
 
 ^"•IV, 4; V, 11; 84; 94; XII, I ff.; 8; 16. Cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. VI, 
 263S, who mentions a book de scriptorum furtis, and gives examples. 
 
 Mirabeau used to take whole passages of other peoples speeches. The 
 Viscount de Cormenin calls him the "sublime plagiarist". On Mirabeau's 
 methods and style see Cormenin's essay on Mirabeau in his Orators of 
 France (Livre des Orateurs) American edition of 1854 to which is prefixed 
 J. T. Headley's essay on the Oratory of the French Revolution. Cf. also 
 Mathews, p. 195. 
 
 ^°XV, 61. 
 
 «=" Such as the quotations in XV, from III, VIII, IV, II, XIII. 
 
 ""V, 93-95. 
 
 '-' Ps.-Plut. 837F. 
 
 "^Cod. CCXL. 
 
 ^Menex. 403 A. 
 
 ^^ Vit. Soph. I, 17, 4; the Latin version calls the speech "consarcinata." 
 
 '"'Theon. Progym., Rhet. Gr. II, 63, 30, Sp. ; I, 155, Walz. 
 
 '"^ Among whom is Dobree, who says in his Adversaria "Illic (in the 
 Panegyricus) summum oratorem videas, hie (in the Epitaphius) nugacem 
 compilatorem". 
 
 On the resemblance between the two speeches see Wolff, E. : Quae 
 ratio intercedat inter Lysiae epitaphium et Isocratis Panegyricum, Berol, 
 1896. 
 
144 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 cian who followed Isocrates. Compare Lys. (?) II, 2, Isocr. IV, 
 t86; II, 9, IV, 72; II, 12, IV, 53; II, 15, IV, 24; II, 29, IV, 88- 
 89; II, 31, IV, 100; II, 33, IV, 96; II, 37, and IV, 96; II, 38, 
 IV, 97; II, 42, IV, 98; II, 44, IV, 93; II, 55, IV, 106; II, 
 59, IV, 115. Also compare Lys. XII, 98, Isocr. XIV, 48; XIV, 
 30, XVI, 10; XIV, 31, XVI, 11; XIV, 32, XVI, 12; XIV, 37, 
 XVI, 11; XVIII, 3, XVI, 21; XVIII, 4, XVI, 5; XVIII, 4, 
 
 XVI, 46. 
 
 Isaeus, being strictly a writer of court-speeches, would have 
 little need of the sort of passages usually copied by orators. The 
 curious expression in Oration V, 10, 2-3 : ouSe y-aia to eXa^taTOV 
 ixepo? TYjq ot/.ei6TY)TO? may have been copied from Lysias, XII, 
 20. The imitation seems the more probable since we find a pass- 
 age of Lysias (XXI, 19) quoted by Stobaeus ^^^ under the name 
 of Isaeus.^^^ 
 
 Lycurgus, Adv. Leocr. 70, is clearly an imitation of Isocrates, 
 IV, 72, 
 
 Demosthenes' imitation of Isaeus is perfectly clear. Still, the 
 way in which Demosthenes uses his borrowed material, shows him 
 to be no slavish imitator, but a capable orator. This will be 
 shown by an examination of the following parallel passages : De- 
 mosthenes XXX, 37, incorporates with slight changes Isaeus, XIII, 
 12, I. Porphyry, ap. Euseb. Praep. Ev. X, 3, p. 466, notes the 
 similarity of these two passages, with which compare Isocrates, 
 
 XVII, 54. Demosthenes XXXVII, 3, copies Isaeus, VIII, 4. De- 
 mosthenes XXVII, 2, 3, adopts Isaeus VIII, 5, i, and as Blass 
 (IP 558, n. 6) points out, Demosthenes' amplifications produce 
 a better rounded and more artistic period, but detract from the 
 effectiveness of the appeal. Compare also Demosthenes, XXVII, 
 3, and Isaeus, VIII, 4; XXVII, 7, and VIII, 28; XXVII, 47, and 
 VIII, 20. 
 
 Demosthenes XXX, 3, copies Isaeus, VIII, 5, 2-3. Demos- 
 thenes XXX, 38, imitates Isaeus VIII, 13, i. Demosthenes XXVII, 
 
 "^Flor. V, 54. 
 
 ^"Fr. 131, Sauppe. Many repetitions may be found in Isaeus' own 
 speeches: compare I, 41-43 with IV, 12-18; I, 44-47, with IV, 23; II, 46, 6, 
 with VII, 30; III, 35-39, with III, 28; cf. also III, 45, 49, 51; VIII, 28, i, 
 with fr. 30, Sauppe. The substance of this is a commonplace, but as Diony- 
 sius, de Isaeo, c. 12, observes, characteristic of Isaeus. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS I45 
 
 47 ff. imitates Isaeus, VIII, 28, 5 (compare Dem. XXIX, 55). 
 Demosthenes XXVIII, 23, copies Isaeus VIII, 45, 4. 
 
 Theon ^^^ charges Demosthenes with borrowing, in his speech 
 against Midias, from speeches by Lysias, Lycurgus, and Isaeus 
 in like cases of outrage, and also with very often repeating him- 
 self. The first charge may be true; the second certainly is. A 
 few examples follow: III, 35, 24 repeats XIII, 174, 26 (on Or. 
 XIII, see F. A. Wolf, Prolegomena ad Leptineam, p. 74) ; compare 
 III, 35, 25-26 and XIII, 174, 28-30, also XXIII, 17; XIII, 174, 
 26, and XV, 201, 35; XIII, 172, 22-173, 24, and XXIII, 686, 
 198; XXI, 547, and XXI, 574, also XXV, 776, 22; XXII, 595, 
 7, and XXIII, 653; XXII, 607, 47, and XXIV, 750-752; XXII, 
 607, 48, and XXIV, 750, 160; XXII, 613, 65, and XXIV, 753; 
 XXII, 615, 69-74, and XXIV, 753, 176-182; XXII, 616, 74 and 
 XXIV, 756, 182-187; XXII, 617, 76, and XX, 459; XXVII, 827, 
 44-45, and XXIX, 857, 44-46; XXVII, 830, 55-57, and XXIX, 
 858, 47-49; XXXVII, 983, 58 to end and XXXVIII, 990, 21- 
 'j'j 332 
 
 The Fourth Philippic and the oration On the Letter are usually 
 considered spurious and therefore need not be discussed. The 
 former ^^^ is composed largely of passages drawn from the Cher- 
 sonese oration, and the latter of parts of the Second Olynthiac .^^^ 
 
 vEschines, in his speech Oyi the Embassy (II, 172-176) repeats 
 
 '''Rhet. Gr. II, 63-64 Sp. 
 
 ®^^0n repetition in Demosthenes see Gresdorfius, C. G. : Synopsis repe- 
 titorum Demosthenis locoriim (Altenburg, 1833-34), who, however, under 
 repetitions includes ''commonplaces" as well. Westermann, de Litibus etc., 
 p. 143 ff., distinguishes between the two. It may be that Demosthenes him- 
 self contemplated the possibility of repetition : XXIV, 159. 
 
 *^0n the spuriousness of the Fourth Philippic see Dindorf, Annot. I, 
 202: Becker, A. G. : Dem. als Staatsm. u. Red. I, 293-302; Westermann, de 
 Litibus, etc., 147 ff. ; Boeckh. Staatshaush. d. Ath. I, 195; 235; 466; Rue- 
 digerus, de canone Philip pic arum, 18 ff. Brougham (Vol. IV, 388 ff.) has a 
 long and detailed examination of the Fourth Philippic, the authenticity of 
 which he does not doubt; cf. also Croiset, IV, 580. The speech may be 
 either a cento, or, as Blass thinks, an incomplete sketch prepared by way 
 of exercise by the orator himself, which was afterwards found among his 
 papers and published. Another possibility is that the passages were put 
 together by some pupil (Mahaffy, II, 321). 
 
 ^ Cf. Westermann, de Litibus, p. 165. 
 
146 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 with some omissions and changes a passage from Andocides' On 
 the Peace with the Lacedaemonians (III, 3-9).^^^ 
 
 In Dinarchus are to be found imitations of Demosthenes and 
 ^schines: compare Dinarchus I, 24 and ^schines III, 133; 
 Dinarchus I, yy, and ^schines III, 131, and 157 (possibly) ; Din- 
 archus, I, 96, and Demosthenes XVIII, 311; XIX, 282. Compare 
 Dinarchus I, 15 and 24, with Dinarchus, III, 18. 
 
 Dinarchus also borrowed from Isaeus. Blass ^^^ thinks that he 
 copied the opening of Isaeus' Eighth Oration in his speech Against 
 Ameinocrates.^^'^ 
 
 A fragment from an oration of Stratocles, praised by Photius,^^® 
 is repeated almost word for word by Dinarchus. ^^^ The presence 
 of such passages in so many speeches is good evidence of the 
 careful preparation of their authors. Indeed, such a practice 
 would hardly be possible except on the theory that a large portion 
 of the speeches were written and memorized. 
 
 Outside of the great orators, we have little evidence of the 
 practice of speech-makers among the Greeks. We are told that 
 when Lysander planned to abolish the exclusive right to the throne 
 of Sparta possessed by the families descended from Eurypon and 
 Agis, he endeavored "to win over his countrymen to his views 
 by his own powers of persuasion, and with that object, studied 
 an oration written for him by Kleon of Halicarnassus".^*^ After 
 Lysander's death the speech was found among his papers, and when 
 Agesilaus was eager to publish it, and thus prove the baseness of 
 
 ""^sch. III, 6, is repeated from I, 4. This is, however, a mere com- 
 monplace, for which, in the earlier passage ^schines disclaims originality; 
 cf. Isocr. XII, 132; Plato, Rep. 338D; Lycurg. Adv. Leocr. 3; Arist. Pol. 
 IV, 2, and elsewhere. 
 
 Critics have found likenesses between ^schines and Demosthenes. 
 These may be accidental, due to treatment of the same commonplaces : ^sch. 
 I, 2, Dem. XXI, 7; ^sch. I, 5, Dem. XX, 78; ^sch. I, 129, Dem. XIX, 243; 
 ^sch. II, 14, Dem. LVII, 9; ^sch. II, 158, Dem. XVIII, 200. 
 
 «»« Blass, II, 558, n. 5. 
 
 '^Cf. Dion. Hal. de Din. c. 12, p. 315, 15 (U. and R.). 
 
 "^Bihlioth. p. 447 Bk. 
 
 '^I, 24. Diodorus, XIII, p. 585 suspects either that Dinarchus took 
 the passage from Stratocles, or that the oration said to be Dinarchus' work 
 really belongs to Stratocles ; the latter is hardly possible. 
 
 '*° Plut. Lys. c. 25. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS I47 
 
 Lysander, Lakratides, chief of the ephors, advised him to bury 
 "so clever and insidious a composition" with Lysander.^*^ 
 
 In contrast to Lysander, who was obliged to learn a speech 
 written for him by another, may be mentioned the orator Callis- 
 thenes, who, being asked on one occasion by Alexander to make an 
 extemporary speech in praise of the Macedonians, succeeded so 
 well that all commended him except Alexander, who gave the praise 
 to the good subject on which the orator spoke. Callisthenes, 
 then being commanded to make a speech dealing with the faults 
 of the Macedonians, succeeded so well that he was hateful to them 
 ever afterwards.^*- 
 
 Phocion, whom Demosthenes called the ''pruning knife" of 
 his orations, ^*^ clearly prepared and memorized his speeches ; at least 
 we are told that once when he was asked by his friends why he 
 was buried in thought, replied that he was considering whether he 
 could shorten the speech he was going to recite to the Athenians.^** 
 
 Among the Roman orators we hear of many who prepared their 
 orations and of a few whose speeches were extemporary. For 
 our knowledge of many of these we are dependent on the mere 
 notices found in the treatises of Cicero and Quintilian. 
 
 Among the Greeks, eloquence was an end in itself. Among the 
 Romans it took from the beginning a practical direction.'*^ As 
 
 **^Plut. Lys. c. 30; also see Plut. Ages. c. 20; Nepos, Lys. Ill; Diodor. 
 XIV, 13. 
 
 ^ Plut. Alex. c. 53. Plut. Ant. c. 80, mentions Philostratus as very skill- 
 ful as an extemporary speaker : olvtiq eIjt81v fxev e| EmSQopifig 
 
 Ixavcaraxog. 
 
 ®"Plut. Dem. c. 10; Phoc. c. 5; Pol. Praec. 803 E; Stobaeus, Z7, P- 221. 
 For the saying: jxEYiaxog \ikv 'qtitcoq Aiifxoa^EVTig, SwaTcoxaxog Se eIjieiv 
 $coxicov, cf. Plut. Dem. 850D; Phoc. 753F; Pol. Praec. 803E. 
 
 *** Plut. Phoc. c, 5 : axEn;xo[Aai, ei xi Suva^ai xou Xoyou dq)EX,Eiv, ov \iilX(A 
 Xeyeiv (recite) Jtgog 'A'^vaiovg. The speech reported by Plutarch in c. 17, 
 is probably not authentic. What purports to be the same speech is given at 
 greater length by Diodorus XVII, 15. 
 
 «*'Cicero, de Or. II, 13, 55; cf. Sallust, Cat. 8. 
 
 Wilkins (Introd. to Cicero's de Oratore, p. 49) says: "Such instruction 
 as was given a young Roman was entirely practical. At an early age he 
 was taken by his father to the law-courts, to the popular assemblies, and at 
 one time at least, to the Senate (Aul. Cell. I, 23)', that he might become 
 familiar with the turmoil of business and the routine of legal proceedings, 
 
148 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 early as the close of the fifth century, Appius Claudius delivered 
 his famous speech against the peace with Pyrrhus, a speech after- 
 wards published,^*^ since it was extant in Cicero's time.^*^ Accord- 
 ing to Cicero, however, the first writer worthy of attention is Cato 
 
 and listen to the acknowledged masters of oratory". Cf. Tacitus, Dial. c. 
 36, 13 : eloquentiam tamen illud forum magis exercebat ; compare c. 38, 3. 
 
 Tacitus states this at great length in Dial. c. 34. As a result of this 
 practical training, the Roman orators began their career in early youth. 
 Africanus Minor says (Polyb. 32, 9) at the age of eighteen. Pliny (Ep. 
 V, 8, 8) says : undevicisimo aetatis anno dicere in foro coepi (compare Ovid, 
 Trist. IV, ID, 15). Quintilian (XII, 6, i) would set no particular year, but 
 let that depend on the student's capacity. 
 
 It was very common for an orator to commence his career by prosecu- 
 tions (Quint. XII, 6, I, who gives a list of orators; Polyb. 32, 15 fin.; Cic. 
 de Off. II, 49; Suet. Jul. 4; Val. Max. V, 4, 4; Tac. Dial. c. 34; Apul. ApoL 
 66), or by a speech in praise of a deceased relative. Augustus Caesar is 
 said to have done so at the age of twelve (Suet. Aug. c. 8; compare Tib. 
 6; Quint. XII, 6, i). On these youthful laudationes see Hiibner, E., 
 Hermes, I, 441. 
 
 The custom of delivering funeral orations among the Romans was 
 ancient, even older than the Greek custom; (Plut. Poplic. c. 9; Polyb. VI, 
 53; Cic. de Or. II, 44 ff. ; de Leg. II, 62; Brutus, XV, 61; Livy, II, 47, 11'; 
 Quint. Ill, 7, 2; XI, 3, 153; Aul. Cell. XIII, 20, 17; Capitol. Ant. 4>hil. 7, 11). 
 They were also published at a comparatively early time : Pliny, A'^. H. VII, 
 139 ; Plut. Fab. i ; Livy, XXVII, 27, and elsewhere. Compare Livy, VIII, 
 40; IV, 16. For the history of the custom see Vollmer: Laudationum 
 Funebrium, Romanorum Historia et Reliquiarum, Editio, Jahrb. f. class. 
 Phil. XVIII, 445; XIX, 319; Buresch, C. ; Consolationum a Graecis Roman- 
 isque Scriptarum Historia Critica, Leipziger Studien, IX (1887), 1-164. 
 
 ^ Publication of speeches was the rule rather than the exception among 
 the Romans. Any few chapters of Cicero's Brutus gives a very great number 
 of orators, many of little fame, whose speeches were extant in Cicero's time ; 
 for example, Brut. XIX, 77; XX, 79', 80; XXI, 81; XXIII, 90; 
 XXV, 94; 95; 96; XXVI, 102; XXVII, 103; 106; XXVIII, 108; 
 XXIX, 112; XXX, 113; 114; 117; XXXII, 122; 127; 129; 131; 132; 163 and 
 elsewhere. Many others may be found in the pages of Quintilian; I, i, 6; II, 
 I, 58; X, I, 120 and elsewhere. 
 
 "'Cic. Brut. XIV, 55; XVI, 61; Cat. Mai. c. 6, 16; Senec. Ep. 114, 13; 
 Tac. Dial. c. 18, 18; Quint. II, 16, 7; Pompon, dig. i, 2, 2, 36. This was the 
 first prose work written down and published among the Romans: cf. Isidor. 
 Orig. I, 37, 2: primus apud Graecos Pherecydes Syrius soluta oratione 
 scripsit, apud Romanos Appius Caecus adversus Pyrrhum solutam orationem 
 primus exercuit 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS I49 
 
 the Elder, ^^^ whose speeches were almost as numerous as those of 
 Lysias the Athenian.^*® "He was the first Roman who wrote 
 down and published his speeches on a large scale and among his 
 published speeches were some which were never actually de- 
 livered".^^" Nepos inaccurately says that Cato composed speeches 
 in his youth,^^^ for his account is at variance with all we know of 
 the practice of the "Roman Demosthenes.^^^ According to Plutarch 
 he practiced his eloquence through all the neighborhood and the 
 little villages, considering it an absolute necessity for one who lookfed 
 forward to something above a humble and inactive life.^^^ In 
 the art of speech-making he had recourse to the masters of rhetoric 
 
 *"0n Cato the Elder see Schober, E. : de Catone Cens. Oratore, Neisse, 
 1825. 
 
 ^'Brut. XVI, 63; 67; XVII, 69; Orat. XLV, 152. 
 
 "^Teuffel, Hist. Rom. Lit. sec. 119 (Warr). 
 
 *^^Cat. c. 3; a more accurate account appears in Cicero, Cat. Mai. 38. 
 
 '" Plut. Cat. c. 4. 
 
 "^'Plut. Cat. c. I. So Emerson says that the way to become an orator is 
 to stump New England several times. In his Journal (1850) he classes 
 Demosthenes as one of the four good stump-orators since history began. 
 
 Emerson himself, however, would never trust to extemporary speech, 
 but always read his speeches. Lowell, in Emerson the Lecturer (Vol. i, 
 359, Riverside ed.) says : '*I have heard some great speakers and some ac- 
 complished orators, but never any that so moved and persuaded me as he 
 (Emerson)', There is a kind of undertow in that rich baritone of his that 
 sweeps our minds from their foothold into deeper waters with a drift that 
 we cannot and would not resist. And how artfully (for Emerson is a long 
 studied artist in these things) does the deliberate utterance that seems wait- 
 ing for the fit word, appear to admit us partners in the labor of thought, and 
 make us feel as if the glance of humor were a sudden suggestion, as if the 
 perfect phrase lying written there on the desk were as unexpected to him as 
 to us ! In that closely-filed speech of his, at the Burns centenary dinner, 
 every word seemed to have just dropped to him from the clouds. He 
 looked far away over the heads of his hearers, with a vague kind of ex- 
 pectation, as into some private heaven of invention, and the winged period 
 came at last, obedient to his spell. 'My dainty Ariel !' he seemed murmuring 
 to himself as he cast down his eyes as if in deprecation of the frenzy of 
 approval and caught another sentence from the Sibylline leaves that lay 
 before him, ambushed behind a dish of fruit, and seen only by the nearest 
 neighbors." 
 
150 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 and exercised himself in the manner they directed.^^* There seems 
 to be no evidence that he ever spoke extempore.^^^ 
 
 Although there are many who are named as orators among 
 the contemporaries of Cato, there is little information as to their 
 practice. Of one of these, Quintus Fabius Maximus, we hear that 
 he wrote and delivered the funeral oration of his daughter.^^^ 
 
 In the following century we find three orators of particular note, 
 the Younger Scipio, Laelius and Servius Sulpicius Galba. The 
 latter was deemed the greatest orator of his timCj yet to Cicero 
 time has so destroyed the beauties of his eloquence that his speeches 
 have more the air of antiquity than those even of Cato.^®^ Of the 
 practice of Scipio and Laelius we know little, but there is left a 
 fair description of that of Galba. On one occasion, after Laelius 
 had failed to win a case, Galba undertook it, and as he had only the 
 the next day in which to prepare himself, he spent the whole of it 
 in considering and digesting his cause. Until the moment when 
 word was brought him that the consuls were going to take their 
 seats, he remained shut up in his study to which he admitted no one, 
 busily dictating to his scribes. Rutilius, who is relating the anecdote, 
 says that the scribes who attended Galba appeared very much fa- 
 tigued, and argues from this circumstance that Galba must have been 
 as energetic and vigorous in the composition of his speeches as he 
 was in their delivery.^^^ 
 
 The reason why no trace of the merit of Galba is to be found 
 in his written orations is thus given by Cicero :^^^ **The reasons why 
 
 »"Cic. Brut. XXXI, 119. 
 
 "" His habit of inserting his speeches in his book on Antiquities would 
 make such a practice unlikely. Cf. Cicero, Brut. XXIII, 89; de Or. I, 53, 
 227; II, 56, 227; Aul. Cell. VI, 3, 7; XIII, 25, 15; compare Brut. XX, 80. 
 
 *"Cic. Cat. Mai. XII, 39; Plut. Fab. i, and 25. 
 
 '^'Brut. XXI, 82-83. On Scipio see Cic. de Amicit. 96; Brut. XXI, 82; 
 LXXIV, 258; pro Mur. 58; de Inv. I, S', de Or. I, 50, 215; de Off. I, 116; 
 Fronto, 34, Nab. 
 
 "^Cic. Brut. XXII, 87; This description, especially the dictation to the 
 scribes, would imply verbal premeditation. The orator no doubt took the 
 finished manuscript with him. There is no evidence that the scribes took 
 down the speech in short-hand. Quintilian (X, 3, 19-23)' does not approve of 
 dictation. 
 
 "^'Brut. XXIII-XXIV. Cf. Pascal (Pensees VII, 6, ed. Havet) : "II y en 
 a qui parlent bien et qui n'ecrivent pas bien; c'est que le lieu, I'assistance les 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS I5I 
 
 some orators have not written anything, and others not so much as 
 they spoke are very different. Some of our orators, being indolent 
 and unwilHng to add the labor of private to that of public business, 
 do not practice composition ; for most of the orations we now possess 
 were written not before they were delivered, but some time after- 
 ward. Others did not choose to take the trouble of improving them- 
 selves, to which nothing contributes in a greater degree than frequent 
 writing, and to perpetuate their eloquence they thought unnecessary, 
 believing their renown in that respect already sufficiently estab- 
 lished, and that it would rather be diminished than increased if they 
 submitted any written orations to the arbitrary test of criticism.^^^ 
 Some also were sensible that they spoke much better than they were 
 able to write, which is generally the case with those who have great 
 genius but little learning, like Galba. When he spoke he was per- 
 haps so much animated by the force of his abilities and the natural 
 warmth and impetuosity of his temper that his language was rapid, 
 bold and striking ; but when he took up the pen in his leisure hours, 
 and his passion had sunk into a calm, his style ^^^ became dull 
 and languid. This misfortune, indeed, can never happen to those 
 whose only aim is to be neat and polished, because an orator may 
 always be master of that discretion which will enable him to speak 
 and write in the same agreeable manner, but no man can revive at 
 pleasure the warmth of his passion, and when that has once sunk, 
 the fire and pathos of his language will be extinguished. This is 
 why the calm and easy spirit of Laelius ^^^ seems still to breathe 
 
 echauffent, et tirent de leur esprit plus qu'ils n'y trouvent sans cette chaleur." 
 (Quoted by Croiset, IV, 13). 
 
 ^° The orations which came down to Cicero were those of men who wrote 
 them, and therefore presumably either committed them to memory or read 
 them. Cicero implies that the sole reason for non-publication was not writ- 
 ing the oration, and therefore those which were published were written. 
 This would not make revision after delivery and before publication impos- 
 sible. 
 
 ^^ oratio : this word is clearly used in the sense of style, because Cicero 
 is speaking of writing up a speech after it has been given, that is, putting it 
 in final finished form for publication. Cf. Terence, Heaut. 46: pura oratio, 
 "purity of style." Galba may have polished his speech so much before he 
 published it that he took all the fire out of it. 
 
 ^"^ Political speeches, defenses, and panegyrics by Laelius are mentioned : 
 Cicero, Brut. c. XXI, 82; 83; c LXXXVI, 296; de Rep. VI, 2; de Nat. Deor. 
 Ill, 43; cf. H. Meyer, Orat. fr. I, 96. 
 
152 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 in his writings, whereas the vigor of Galba is entirely withered 
 away".^^^ 
 
 Caius Gracchus, whose eloquence is much praised by the an- 
 cients,^^* was charged by an opponent with employing Menelaus 
 of Marathus to compose his speeches.^^^ 
 
 The Younger Cato was evidently an able orator.^^® He was 
 requested by Lucius Caesar to help him prepare a speech,^®^ and 
 on one occasion, at least, was fully capable of delivering an ex- 
 temporary defense against an attack by Caesar.^^® 
 
 The principal orators of the age before Cicero were M. Antonius 
 and L. Licinius Crassus. The first of these was a self-taught 
 orator who owed his eminence to his excellent memory, his natural 
 vivacity, and quickness in argument, and whose chief merit lay in 
 his brilliant delivery."^^ Cicero says of him: ''He had a quick 
 and retentive memory, and a frankness of manner which precluded 
 any suspicion of artifice. All his speeches were, in appearance, the 
 
 ^ Cicero is probably writing loosely and has mixed up style and delivery. 
 
 *^Plut. C. Gracch. c. i ; c. 3; c. 4; Cicero, Brut. XXXIII, 125-126; pro 
 Font. 39; Tac. Dial. c. 26; Fronto, Ep. p. 54; 144-145. On his delivery and his 
 care in the modulation of his voice, see Plut. C. Gracch. c. 4 (compare Cic. 
 de Or. I, 34, 154); Tib. Gracch, c. 2; Cic. de Or. Ill, 56, 214; III, 60, 225; 
 de harusp. resp. 19, 41; Florus, III, 15. Cf. also Plut. de cohib. ira 6; Val. 
 Max. VIII, 10, i; Quint. I, 10, 27; Aul. Cell. I, 11, 10; Amm. Marcell. XXX, 
 4, 19; De Quincey, X, 326. Fragments of his speeches are preserved in 
 Gellius: XI, 3, 3-5; XI, 10, 2-6, 13, 3; XV, 12, 2-4. The model of both the 
 Gracchi was M. Lepidus Porcina, mentioned by Cicero as not only an ex- 
 cellent speaker, but also as a distinguished writer of speeches for others: 
 Brut. XXV, 96. 
 
 ^ Cicero, Brut. XXVI, 100. He also received instructions from Diophanes 
 of Mytilene (Brut. XXVII, 104; Plut. Tib. Gracch. c. 8). There was also a 
 discussion in Cicero's time as to whether Gracchus' opponent, Fannius, might 
 have been indebted to others for his speech. Cicero rejects the view on the 
 ground that Gracchus would not have failed to mention the circumstance 
 if it were true. 
 
 ^'Aul. Gell. XIII, 20 (19), 10; Fest. 154, 25; Priscian, GL. I, 90. 
 
 •«' Plut. Cat. Min. c. 66. 
 
 **Plut. Cat. Min. c. 51 : dvaaxa^ exeivog wajteQ ex Xoyicm-ou 
 
 xal rcaQaaxevfjg xa \ikv elg eauxov iyKXi\\iaxa >.oi8oQiaig opioia 
 
 aJteSei^ev. 
 
 ^* In Cicero's de Oratore he and Crassus are the principal speakers. Cf. 
 de Or. II, 2, 8. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 1 53 
 
 unpremeditated effusions of an honest heart,^^° and yet in reality, 
 they were preconstructed (paratus) with so much skill that the 
 judges were sometimes not so well prepared as they should have 
 been, to withstand the force of them".^^^ He never published his 
 orations.^''^ 
 
 Crassus, in contrast to Antonius, was the man of training. Ac- 
 cording to Plutarch,^'^ he was one of the best speakers at Rome, 
 and no trial was so mean and contemptible that he came to it un- 
 prepared.^^* This does not necessarily mean that Crassus followed 
 
 ^"The highest triumph of art consists in concealing the means which it 
 uses. The idea passed into a proverb : artis est celare artem. Although this 
 exact form is not found in Cicero or Quintilian, the idea is often present : 
 Cicero, Brut. IX, 35; XVI, 64; Oral. LXVII, 226; de Opt. Gen. Orat. IV, 
 10; Quint. I, II, 3; II, 5, 8; III, 8, 50-51; IV, 2, 59; IX, 4, 17; 4, 144. Other 
 passages containing the same thought are Arist. Rhet. Ill, 2, 4-5; 7, 10; Dion. 
 Hal. de Lys. 8 ; Vet. Cens. V ; Ovid, Met. X, 252. A form of the proverb men- 
 tioned above is to be found in Erasmus, Adagia p. 234 {ed. 1656) 
 
 ^Brtit. XXXVII, 139. Cf. also Brut. sees. 143, 186, 207, 215, 301, 304; 
 Tusc. V, 19, 55; de Or. I, 172. 
 
 '"^Cicero, Orat. XXXIX, 133. Cicero, pro Cluent. 140 gives a reason: 
 "M. Antonium aiunt solitum esse dicere idcirco se nullam umquam orationem 
 scripsisse ut, si quid aliquando non opus esset ab se esse dictum, posse negare 
 dixisse." Cf. Orat. XXXVIII, 132. 
 
 Antonius either never wrote a speech at all, or, what is very much more 
 probable, he prepared his speeches before delivery so that they seemed un- 
 prepared, and never afterwards published them. 
 
 Speeches by him are mentioned in Cic. ad Fam. IX, 21, 3; de Or. I, 39, 
 178; II, 25, 107; 28, 124; 39, 164; 40, 167; 47, 194; 197 ff. ; de Off. II, 14, 50; 
 III, 16, 67; Tusc. Disp. II,, 24, 56; Val. Max. Ill, 7, 9. He published a small 
 work, de ratione dicendi: Cic. Orat. V, 18; de Or. I, sees. 94, 206, 208; Brut. 
 sec. 163; Quint. Ill, i, 19; VIII, proem. 13; XII, i, 21; Pliny, Ep. V, 20, 5. 
 
 ''^Plut. Crass, c. 3. 
 
 ''* Cic. Brut. c. XLIII, 158 : paratus (cf. also Brut. LXXVI, 
 
 263, of another orator) igitur veniebat Crassus. The same statement is made 
 in Plut. Crass, c. 3; cf. pro Mur. 23, 48; Tac. Dial. c. 37, 10; also Brut. sees. 
 I43-I45, 148, 158-165. The description given of Crassus in the de Oratore is 
 probably not very trustworthy. It is Cicero's evident desire to identify him- 
 self with Crassus, and so he attributes to him {de Or. I, 34, 154-155) those 
 exercises which Quintilian tells us (X, 5, 2) that Cicero himself went 
 through. The rest of the description may be colored in like manner. Com- 
 pare Brut. LXXXIX ff. Cf. Mathews, p. 429 ff. 
 
 Crassus, although equipped with all the learning of his time, affected to 
 think little of it {de Or. II, i, 4)'. So Aper, in Tacitus' Dialogus (c. i, 15; 
 
154 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 closely a written speech. Cicero tells of two occasions on which he 
 used only a series of topics or heads. On the occasion of the speech 
 made by Crassus in praise of Quintus Caepio, Cicero says : "Much 
 more was said than was committed to writing, as is sufficiently clear 
 from several heads of the oration which are merely proposed with- 
 out any enlargement or explanation. But the oration in his censor- 
 ship against Cn. Domitius, his colleague, is not so much an oration 
 as an analysis of the subject, or a general sketch of what he said, 
 with here and there a few ornamental touches by way of speci- 
 men".^^5 
 
 In addition to these orators, there may be mentioned P. Sul- 
 picius Rufus and C. Aurelius Cotta. Although both were speakers 
 of ability ^^^ they did not publish their speeches.^^^ Cicero says 
 of them : ^^^ "The orations now extant which bear the name of 
 Sulpicius are supposed to have been written after his death by my 
 contemporary, Publius Cannutius ^^^ But we have 
 
 c. 6) believed that his orations would be more admired if they did not sug- 
 gest care. Compare Cicero, Brut. LXVII, 237, where natural ability and 
 laborious care are contrasted. 
 
 '''"Brut. XLIV, 164; cf. Orat XXXIX, 132-133. Speeches by Crassus are 
 mentioned in Cicero, Brut. XXXIV, 130; XLIII, 160, 161; XLIV, 162, 163, 
 164; LII, 195; pro Cluent. 51, 140; de Or. I, 39, 178; 180; 52, 225; 57, 242; 
 II, 6, 24; Z2, 140; 55, 223 ff.; 59, 240; 66, 267; 70, 285; III, 2, 6\ de Off. II, 
 14, 50; Top. X, 44; pro Caec. 18, 53; Val. Max. IX, i, 4; Pliny, N. H. 
 XVII, I. 
 
 "'"Cic. Brut. LV, 203; XLIX, 182; LV, 202. 
 
 ^"^ Cic. Orat. XXXIX, 132-133. 
 
 """Brut. LVI, 205. Cf. also Brut. LV, 203; de Or. I, 53, 229; II, 21, 88; 
 HI, 36, 147. 
 
 ®'® From Cicero's words : "eas post mortem eius scripsisse P. Cannutius 
 putatur," one would gather that the speeches were forgeries. There is, of 
 course, the possibility that Cannutius wrote up the speeches from Sulpicius* 
 own notes, but of this the Cicero passage gives no hint. Cf. Cic. pro Cluent. 
 29, 50, 58, 7^, 74. 
 
 A modern parallel might be found in Dr. Johnson's writing up the 
 speeches delivered in the English parliament "from the scanty notes furnished 
 by persons employed to attend in both houses of Parliament." Boswell con- 
 tinues : "Sometimes, however, as he himself told me, he had nothmg more 
 communicated to him but the names of the several speakers, and the part 
 which they had taken in the debate." (Boswell's Life of Johnson, I, 68-69, ed. 
 Fitzgerald, London, 1900). 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 1 55 
 
 not a single speech of Sulpicius that was really his own ; for I have 
 often heard him say that he neither had, nor ever could commit 
 anything of the kind to writing ;^^° and as to Cotta's speech in 
 defense of himself, called a vindication of the Varian Law, it 
 was composed at his own request by Lucius ^lius".^®^ 
 
 In the age of Cicero himself, mention need be made only of the 
 principal orator of the aristocratic party, Q. Hortensius Hortalus, 
 whose chief merit seems to have been his wonderful memory.^®^ 
 
 Spurious speeches existed later also. In the post-Ciceronian period, 
 there are speeches under the names of Catiline, and Marcus Antonius against 
 Cicero; these may, however, have been genuine: cf. Asconius Pedianus, 96 
 Or. ; Quint. Ill, 7, 2 ; IX, 3, 94. Speeches under names of men of consular 
 rank were circulated against Sejanus (Tac. Ann. V, 4), 
 
 ^Compare Cic. Orat. XXXIX, 133. 
 
 °**^lius composed speeches for many prominent men. Brut. LVI, 206. 
 Cf. Suet, de Gr. 3; Cic. Brut. LVI, 205-7; XLVI, 169: This implies that 
 Cotta memorized or read the speech written by ^lius. So C. Laelius wrote 
 speeches for Tubero (Cic. de Or. II, 84, 341), and Fabius Maximus (Cic. 
 pro. Mur. 75 ; Schol. Bob. ad Cic. p. Mil. 16, p. 283 Or.) ; Plotius Callus for 
 Sempronius Atratinus (Suet, de Gr. 2)'; Caesar for Metellus (Suet, Jul. 55) ; 
 Cicero for Cn. Pompeius and T. Ampius (Quint. Ill, 8, 50) ; cf. also Cicero, 
 ad Q. Fr. Ill, 8, 5; ad Att. VII, 17; Fronto Ep. p. 123. 
 
 ^*^ For a specimen see Sen. Controv. I, Praef. 19. 
 
 The ancients paid a great deal of attention to the cultivation of the 
 memory. Plutarch (C. Marius, fin.) calls it "that safest of human treasure 
 chambers" (cf. also Cic. de Or. 1, 5, 18; I, 31, 142; Part Or. VII, 26). 
 Antonius {de Or. II, 86, 350-360) gives an outline of the art of memory (cf. 
 also Cic. de Inv. I, 7; Acad. II, 22, 38, p. 106 ed. Reid; IV, i; Arist. Rhet. 
 II, 8, 14; Plut. Dem. 846). The same subject is elaborately treated by the 
 Auctor ad Herennium I, 2, 2-3; III, 16, 28-40 (on this treatise see Spengel, 
 Rhein. Mus., 1861, 391-413) and later by Quintilian (XI, 2) who rejects the 
 elaborate system of "places," held by some and proposes a simpler one. Cf. also 
 Arist. de Mem. et Rem. c. 1 ; Martianus Capella V (de memoria) ; Plato, 
 Theat. 191 C-E; in the Philebus Plato compares memory to a book. 
 
 Hippias professed an art of memory (Plato, Hipp. Min. 368 E; Philostr. 
 Vit. Soph. I, II, I ; Mahly, Rhein. Mus. XVI, 40 ff.) as did Simonides (Quint. 
 XI, 2, 11; Philostr. Vit. A poll. I, 14, i) and Evenus (Plato, Phaedr. 267 A). 
 Philostratus, on the contrary, denies the existence of an art of memory; 
 "memory is a gift of nature and part of the imperishable soul" (Vit. Soph. 
 I, 22, 3 ff.) Quintilian says: "The great and only art of memory is exercise 
 and labor" (XI, 2, 40). Plutarch devotes one section of his treatise, de Educat. 
 Puer. (c. 13) to a discussion of the memory. The ability to use the memory 
 was sometimes ascribed to the use of drugs and Chaldean arts (Amm. Mar- 
 
156 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 Cicero says: "He had such an excellent memory as I never knew 
 in any person, so that what he had composed in private, he was able 
 to repeat, without his written copy, sine scrip to, ^^^ in the very 
 same words he had made use of at first. He employed this natural 
 advantage with so much readiness, that he not only recollected what 
 he had written or premeditated himself, but remembered every- 
 thing that had been said by his opponents without the help of a 
 prompter.^^* He was likewise inflamed with such a passionate 
 love for the profession that I never saw anyone who took more 
 pains to improve himself ; for he would not suffer a day to elapse 
 without either speaking in the forum or composing something at 
 home, and very often he did both in the same day." ^^^ 
 
 Quintilian ^^^ praises him for his exactness in division, not- 
 withstanding the fact that Cicero laughs at the divisions in Horten- 
 sius' speeches as being counted on his fingers. ^^^ His oratory de- 
 pended largely for its effect upon his graceful delivery ,^®^ and it 
 
 cell. XVI, 5, 7-8; Philostr. p. 523; 618; Longinus (Rhet. Gr. I, 314 ff. Sp.) ; 
 Plato, Phaedr. 274-S; Caesar, B. G. VI, 14; PHny, N. H. XXXI, 11, XXV, 21. 
 
 Wonderful feats of memory were attributed to some of the ancients. 
 A few passages dealing with such achievements follow: Pliny, A^. H. VII, 
 24; XXV, 2-3; Val. Max. VIII, 7, 6; Xen. Cyroped. Bk. V; Aul. Cell. XVII, 
 c. 17; Cicero, de Or. II, cc. 86-88; Tusc. Disp. I, c. 24; Pliny, Ep. II, 3, 3; 
 Seneca, Controv. I, praef.; Quint. X, 6, 4; XI, 2, 38; Amm. Marcell. XVI, 5, 
 7-8; Philostr. Vit. Soph. I, 25, 22; Eunapius, p. 65, 75, 79; Syn. Dion. 11. 
 
 On the subject in general see Morgenstern, C. : de arte veterum mnem- 
 onica; Heriotes, P. N. : 'H [xvrijxTi ev xfj grixooixfi xcov dgxaicov. 1883. 
 
 A sufficiently full list of modern treatments, beginning with Roger 
 Bacon's Tractatus de Arte Memorativa (1274 ?)' and extending through the 
 year 1888 may be found in Middleton-Fellows' Memory Systems New and 
 Old, N. Y. 1888. 
 
 ^ Sine scripto: cf. also de scripto dicere, to speak from a written copy; 
 Cicero, Plamc, 30, 70; Phil. X, 2, 5; Brut. XII, 46; ad Att. IV, 3, 3; ad. Fam. 
 X, 13, I ; Pliny, Ep. VI, 6, 6. For scriptum as a "speech" see Cicero, ad 
 Quint. Fr. Ill, 8, 5; Tac. Hist. IV, 29. Cf. also p. 76, n. 31. 
 
 '^ This probably does not refer to one who would aid him from a written 
 copy of his speech, but merely to one who would remind him of the points 
 made by the other side. Prompting in the modern sense, however, is men- 
 tioned by Quintilian (XI, 2, 45; 3, 132; cf. pp. 60-61. 
 
 '''Brut. LXXXVIII, 301-4. 
 
 '"IV, 5, 24. 
 
 ^ Divinat. in Caecil. c. 14; cf. also Brut. LXXXVIII; pro Quinct. c. 10. 
 
 »«* Cicero, Brut. LXXXVIII, 303; XCII, 317. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 1 57 
 
 was perhaps because of this that Cicero wrote of him: "dicebat 
 melius quam scripsit".^^® There seems to be no evidence that 
 Hortensius made extemporary speeches. ^^*^ 
 
 ^Orat. XXXVIII, 132; also pro Cluent. 50, 140; Quint. Ill, i. 19; XI, 
 3, 8. Cicero mentions a speech of his for Messala {Brut. XCVI, z^) as 
 published in the same words in which he delivered it as if such a proceeding 
 were unusual (compare Pliny, Ep. IX, 13, 18). Cicero has told us that the 
 speeches of the Roman orators were written out for publication after they 
 were delivered {Brut. XXIV, 91; 93; Pliny, Ep. IV, 9, 23; Sen. Suas. 15). 
 This would naturally lead to changes being made in the speeches. Cf. Pliny, 
 Ep. I, 20, and Sallust, de Coniur. Cat. 31, of Cicero's first Catilinarian. Such 
 was the practice of Calvus (Tac. Dial. XXIII, 10, with Gudeman's note), 
 Crassus and Sulpicius {Brut. XLIII, 160; XLIV, 164; Quint. X, 7, 30). 
 
 Nepos says of Cicero's Corneliana "iisdem paene verbis edita 
 
 est perorata" (Nep. fr. 45 H) ; compare Pliny, Ep. IX, 13, 18. 
 
 Pliny the Younger usually published his speeches in a revised and enlarged 
 form {Ep. IX, 28, 5; 13, 23), and his example was followed by Fronto {Ep. 
 p. 184 Nab.). 
 
 It seems, however, that the speeches in many cases must have been left 
 practically as they were prepared beforehand, since a copy of a speech was 
 sent to friends of the author immediately after its delivery or after so short 
 an interval that much revision would be unlikely. Cf. Cicero, ad Brut. II, 3; 
 ad Att. XVI, 15; XIV, 17a and ad Fam. IX, 14, 7; ad Att. XIV, 11, and XV, 
 20; VII, 9; VI, 3; XIV, 20; XV, lb; XV, 3, and XV, 4; ad Earn. Ill, 11 ; V, 
 4; XI, 13; 19; XV, 6; ad Att. II, 20. 
 
 Quintilian (XII, 10, 55) believes that if possible the orator should deliver 
 his speech in the same words in which he wrote it beforehand; he adds, 
 however: "but if the time allowed by the judge prevents him from doing so 
 by its shortness, much that might have been said, will be withheld; but the 
 speech, if published will contain the whole ; but what may have been intro- 
 duced to suit the capacity of the judges, will not be transmitted unaltered 
 to posterity, lest it be thought the offspring of his judgment, and not a 
 concession to circumstances." 
 
 Bossuet wrote his speeches for publication after he had made them: 
 Croiset, IV, 547. See Mathews, p. 23. 
 
 Pliny considered writing speeches a serious matter and worthy of every 
 effort: Ep. VI, 33, i ; VII, 6, 6; 13, 2; 30, 4; VIII, 3, i. His letters were as 
 carefully prepared as his speeches. They were given to the public in success- 
 ive portions during the author's life (Mommsen, PHny [Tr.j p. 2). Compare 
 Pliny, Ep. VII, 20; 87; V, 10. 
 
 So Symmachus intended his letters to be read by future generations {Ep. 
 VIII, 2) and polished and elaborated his style (I, i), especially in the earlier 
 letters (VII, 18) and advised his friends to do the same (VIII, 16; VIII, i; 
 compare VII, 18; V, 85). Sidonius also says that his letters are really in- 
 tended for posterity (Apoll. Sid. Ep. I, i; VIII, i). He revised them 
 carefully, a task in which his friends aided him (I, i). 
 
 •^ Cf. Cicero, ad Att. XIII, 33, 3. 
 
158 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 Neither is there any evidence that Cicero, Hortensius' rival, 
 ever trusted to the inspiration of the moment. All his pleadings 
 were done after careful preparation,^^^ and he constantly endea- 
 vored to improve himself. He says in the Brutus :^^^ "1 spared 
 no time to improve and enlarge my talents, such as they were, 
 by every exercise that was proper for the purpose, but particularly 
 by that of writing". The fact that he was subject to "stage 
 fright" ^^^ would make it unlikely that he would dare to neglect 
 preparation. 
 
 Of the six speeches against Verres, we know that only one was 
 delivered.^^* The first actio was merely an introduction to the 
 prosecution proper, an exordium, as it is, indeed, called by Asconius 
 Pedianus. The rest of the trial consisted merely in examination of 
 witnesses and documents. ^^^ Then after Verres, foreseeing a verdict 
 against him, had gone into exile, Cicero elaborated his materials in 
 the five remaining speeches of the second actio. Although they 
 were never delivered, ^^® Cicero speaks as if Verres had appeared 
 at the second hearing, and as if these orations might still have an 
 influence on the final decision. They have all the marks of speeches 
 intended to be delivered, including expressions which have the air 
 of unpremeditated discourse. ^^^ 
 
 The speech Pro L. Murena is interesting as showing a variation 
 between the form in which the speech was delivered, and that in 
 which it was published. In one part (sec. 57), only the heads of 
 
 ^^ Brutus, XC, 312. See also the story told in Plutarch (Apophtheg. 
 205 E-F) of his freeing the slave who came to tell him that a cause which he 
 was to plead had been postponed for a day. 
 
 On the effect of Cicero's eloquence see Quint. II, 16, 7 ; VIII, 3, 3; X, 2, 
 18 ; Pliny, N. H. VII, 13 ; Plut. Cicero, c. 39, and elsewhere. 
 
 '"'Brut. XCIII, 321. 
 
 ^' Cicero, de Or. I, 26, 121 ; pro Deiot. I, i ; pro Cluent. 18, 57 ; Div. in 
 Caec. 13, 41; Acad. II, 20, 64; Plut. Cic. 35; Quint. XI, i, 44. 
 
 •^ Pliny, Ep. I, 20. 
 
 ««Cf. Plut. Cic. c. 7. 
 
 "^''Cf. Brougham, Vol. IV, 412, on such speeches. 
 
 ^ Cf . Verr. IV, 10, 26 : the supposed forgetting of the mechanic's name, 
 and the being prompted by som-e one in the audience (quoted by Pliny, Ep. 
 I, 20). Cf. also Verr. IV, 25, 61 ; V, 3, 5 ; on such devices which Pliny {Ep. 
 I, 20) implies were very freely used, see Quint. IX, 2, 59-62, who also quotes 
 the Cicero passage. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 1 59 
 
 the sections de Postumii criminibus, de Servii adolescento, are 
 given.^^® 
 
 The speech for Milo which we possess is a subsequent revision of 
 the speech actually delivered. ^^^ Cicero is believed to have been 
 so alarmed at the hostile demonstrations of the opposite party, that 
 in spite of Pompey's protection, he broke down utterly in his 
 speech.*^'' Both speeches existed in antiquity. Quintilian mentions 
 them both, referring to the first as the "oratiuncula" which Cicero 
 pronounced on the occasion,*^^ and from which he gives a quota- 
 
 ** Pliny, Ep. I, 20, 7 : "Ciceronis pro Murena, pro Vareno, 
 
 in quibus brevis et nuda quasi subscriptio quorundam criminum solis titulis 
 indicatur ; ex his apparet ilium permulta dixisse, cum ederet omisisse." These 
 sections may have been lost. Another possible explanation is that Cicero, 
 following the method described by Quintilian (p. 163), extemporized these 
 sections. 
 
 '^^Asconius Pedianus, in Milonianam 31 (Wag.) fin.: "manet autem ilia 
 quoque excepta eius oratio : scripsit vero banc quam legimus ita perfecte ut 
 iure prima haberi possit." 
 
 *°*'Cf. Asconius Pedianus, 31 Wag., 42 K. S. : "Cicero cum inciperet 
 dicere, exceptus (est) acclamatione Clodiorum, qui se continere ne metu 
 quidam circumstantium militum potuerunt (cf. pro Mil. 1-2). Itaque non ea 
 qua solitus erat constantia dixit. Manet autem ilia quoque excepta eius oratio ; 
 scripsit vero banc quam legimus ita perfecte, ut iure prima haberi possit." 
 
 Cicero of course would not mention such a misfortune. He says in one 
 of his letters {ad Fam. Ill, 10) : "What marks of confidence has he (Pom- 
 pey) not desired me to receive in the most complimentary form? Finally 
 with what courtesy, with what patience did he endure my vigorous pleading 
 for Milo, though it was at times opposed to his own proposals! With what 
 hearty good will did he take measures to prevent my b^ing reached by the 
 hostile feelings aroused by that crisis, protecting me by his advice, his in- 
 fluence, and finally by his arms !" At the time however, Pompe/s kindness 
 did not seem to inspire Cicero with much confidence. Cf. Plut. Cic. c. 35. 
 According to Asconius (p. 41) it was the praetor at the trial and also one of 
 Milo's advocates who asked for the guard, but Cicero may, of course, have 
 added his request. Cf. Cic. ad Att. IX, 7b; compare Cic. de opt. gen. orat. 
 c. IV, 10; Dio Cassius XL, 53-54- 
 
 As an exercise, exercitationis gratia, Brutus wrote a speech pro Milone : 
 Ascon. Ped. p. 42 Or.; 36 K-S; Schol. Bob. p. 276; Quint. Ill, 6, 93; X, i, 23; 
 5, 20, with Spalding's note. Cestius Pius wrote a speech in Milonem, Senec. 
 Contr. Ill, praef. 16. 
 
 For other speeches by Brutus see Cicero, ad Att. XIV, i, 2; Brut, 21; 
 ad Att. XV, lb, 2; XIII, 46, 2; XII, 21, i ; Quint. IX, 3, 95; Tac. Dial. 21; 
 Ann. IV, 34 (spurious speeches) ; Diomed. GL. I, 367; Schol. Lucan. II, 234, 
 ed. Usener. 
 
 *°' Quint. IV, 3, 17. 
 
l60 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 tion.***^ He speaks elsewhere of the oration which Cicero "wrote 
 on behalf of Milo, and which he has left to us" thus referring to 
 the speech subsequently published.*^^ The first speech was extant 
 in the time of Asconius Pedianus, having been taken down by short- 
 hand writers.*^* 
 
 ** Quint. IX, 2, 54; cf. also Schol. Bob. 346, 13. 
 
 *" Quint. IV, 2, 25. Dio Cassius XL, 54 says: tovtov yag tov viiv 
 qpeponevov 65 xal vkeq tov MiJicovog xoxe Xex^evxa XQOvcp Jto§' vaxegorv 
 xal xaxa oxoXriv dvadapariaas 8YQa'il)E. Dio then tells the story that when 
 Cicero sent the improved edition of his speech to Milo in exile, the latter 
 remarked how fortunate it was that such a speech had never been actually 
 delivered, since, in that case, he should not have been enjoying such delicious 
 fish at Marseilles. Dio adds, that the jest was not so much intended to ex- 
 press Milo's content with his present fortune, as to rebuke Cicero for such 
 an ill-timed display of his oratorical powers, when Milo could no longer 
 profit by them. 
 
 *°*Ascon. Ped. 42 (31, ed. Wag. ) : manet ilia quoque ex- 
 
 cepta eius oratio. Cf. Schol. Bob. 276, 10: et extat alius 
 
 (Ciceronis) praeterea liber actorum pro Milone. 
 
 The first appearance of short-hand writers seems to have been at the 
 time of the debate in the senate upon the punishment of the Catilinarian con- 
 spirators. Diogenes Laertius (II, 481) seems to imply that Xenophon took 
 down lectures by some stenographic process, and Demosthenes (XXIX, 11) 
 speaks of a slave who was to take down the testimony of a witness, but there 
 is no direct mention of the practice before the time of Cicero. Short-hand 
 writers were employed at the time of the trial of the Catilinarian conspirators 
 to take down the speech of Cato. Plutarch (Cat. Min. c. 23)' says: "This 
 only, of all Cato's speches, it is said was preserved; for Cicero, the consul, 
 had disposed in various parts of the senate house, several of the most expert 
 and rapid writers, whom he had taught to make figures comprising numer- 
 ous words in a few short strokes, as up to that time they had not used what 
 we call short-hand writers, who then, as it is said, established the first ex- 
 ample of the art." It has been suggested, however, that this is a confusion with 
 the speech attributed to Cato by Sallust (Coni. Cat. 52) ; cf. Velleius Pater. 
 II, 35» 3; Schneider, F. : de Catone Uticensi oratore, Z. f. A. W. 1843, 112. 
 
 These short-hand writers were known as actuarii, notarii, and in Greek 
 as xa3cvYoaq)oi and crrmeioYQaqpoi. The "plures librarii" who were sent by 
 Cicero to take down the words of the Agrarian Law {de Lege Agra. II, s) 
 may have been notarii. 
 
 The invention of the notae is usually ascribed to Cicero's freedman. Tiro, 
 whose collection of abbreviations, the Notae Tironianae, are still extant. (On 
 his ability see Cic. ad Att. XIII, 25; ad Fam. XVI, 4; Aul. Cell. VI, 3, 8). 
 Isidorus. (Orig. I, 22) says: "vulgares notas Ennius primus mille et centum 
 invenit. Notarum usus erat ut quidquid pro contione aut in iudiciis diceretur, 
 librarii scriberent simul astantes divisis inter partibus, quot quisque verba et 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS l6l 
 
 quo ordine exciperet. Romae Tullius Tiro, Ciceronis libertus, commentus est 
 notas sed tantum praepositionum. Post eum, Vipsanius, Philargyrus, et 
 Aquila, libertus Maecenatis, alius alias addiderunt. Denique Seneca contracto 
 omnium digestoque et auctore numero opus effecit in quinque milia." Else- 
 where (I, 21-26) Isidorus devotes six chapters to the different kinds of notae. 
 The freedman of Maecenas, Aquila, mentioned by Isidorus, is spoken of by 
 Dio Cassius (55, 7)1 where Maecenas himself is said to have been the in- 
 ventor of the system which Aquila afterwards taught. Seneca (£/>. 20) says 
 the system was the invention of f reedmen : "Quid verborum notas, quibus 
 quamvis citata excipitur oratio? Vilissimorum manicipiorum ista commenta 
 sunt." Cf. also Quint. XI, 2, 25; Valerius Probus de lur. Not. Signif. I. 
 
 Quintilian complains that the pleadings extant under his name, except 
 one published by himself, were ruined by the blunders of short-hand writers 
 who took them down carelessly (VII, 2, 24). Augustus rejects some speeches 
 ascribed to Julius Caesar as the productions of blundering short-hand writers 
 who were not able to keep pace with Caesar (Suet. lul. 55). In Suetonius' 
 Life of Titus, 3, stenographic signs are alluded to : "E pluribus comperi notis 
 quoque excipere velocissime solitum (Titum) cum amanuensibus suis per 
 ludum iocumque certantur." A method of secret writing is spoken of in 
 Suet. Aug. 88, and we are told that Julius Caesar used a cipher (Plut. Caes. 
 17; cf. Aul. Cell. XVII, 9). 
 
 After the Christian era began short-hand writing was largely used among 
 the Christians for taking down sermons and speeches. St. Augustine {Ep. 
 141) speaks of an episcopal meeting at Carthage at which eight stenographers 
 were employed in relays of two. 
 
 For other allusions to short-hand writing see Cic. ad Att. XIII, 25; XIII, 
 32 (see Becker's Callus, trans. Metcalff, p, 32, n, 4) ; Sull. 14, 15; Quint. XI, 
 2, 25 ; Ausonius' Epigram Ad Notarium {Ep. 146) ; Lucian, Encom. Demosth. 
 44; Pliny, Ep. Ill, 5, 15; IX, 36; Seneca, Ep. 72; Ep. 90, 25; Martial, XIV, 
 208; Petronius, 53; Tacitus, Ann. V, 4; Suet. Aug. 27 (probably); Spart. 
 Hadr. 3; Manil. IV, 197; and an amusing passage in Seneca's Mort. Claud. 
 (9), where the stenographer cannot keep pace with the fluent Father Janus; 
 also Libanius, I, 133-134; I43; HI, 440, 7; Eunapius, p. 79; Paul. Dig. 37, i, 
 6. The term occurs often in sepulchral inscriptions: C. I. L. II, 31 19; III, 
 1938; VI, 9704, 9705; Orell. Inscr. 2876, 2274, 3186. 
 
 Among modern treatments of the subject may be mentioned Lehmann, 
 O. : Quaestiones de Notis Tironis (1869); Wild, P.: Einiges ilher Tiro u. 
 die Tironischen Noten (1870); Schmitz, W. : Studien su den Tiron. Noten 
 (1879); Breidenbach, H, : Zwei Ahhandlungen Uber die Tironischen Noten 
 (1900) ; Pauly, Realency. V, s. v. notae and notarius; Schmitz, Commentarii 
 Notarum Tironianarum, Leipzig, 1893; Rose V., Hermes, VIII, 303. 
 
 Nowadays when a speech is published in good form, there is a great 
 possibility that there was a manuscript in advance, or that the speech was 
 remodelled in the proof. 
 
 The speech attributed to Cato by Sallust {Con. Cat. 52) contains nothing 
 of what Cicero says occurred in his speech in the Senate {ad Att. XII, 21 ; 
 
1 62 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 Of the Philippics, the Second was never delivered. *^^ Antony's 
 reply to the First Philippic was delivered in Cicero's absence, but 
 the orator has written his speech in the form of an answer delivered 
 immediately after his opponent's oration, although it was not pub- 
 lished until after Antony's departure from Rome.**^® Cicero speaks 
 in terms of praise of the First Philip pic, ^^"^ and contemptuously of 
 Antony as coming "primed for the contest, after studying his 
 speech for many days in the villa of Metellus",*^^ and in the Second 
 Philippic,^^^ taunts him with having composed his reply to the First 
 Philippic with the aid of the rhetorician, Sextius Clodius. 
 
 cf. pro Sest. 6i ; Vellei. Pater. II, 35, 3; Plut. Cat. Min. 23). Catiline's ad- 
 dress (Sallust, Con. Cat. 52) may be shown to have been different from a 
 comparison with Cicero, pro Mur. 25 and Plut. Cicero, 14. It might be argued 
 that Memmius' speech (Jug. 30)' was a reproduction of an actual speech from 
 some publication, for Sallust says: "decere extumavi unam ex tam multis 
 orationem eius perscribere." However, had this been so, Sallust would rather 
 have used exscrihere. Besides huiuscemodi shows that he did not profess 
 to give the exact words. The speeches are not authentic, nor does Sallust 
 pretend that they are, (cf. Con. Cat. 50, 52, 57; Jug. 9, 24, 30, 85). They are 
 such compositions as Thucydides (I, 22) declares the speeches in his own 
 history to be. Seneca's praise of the speeches (Controv. Ill, praef. 8) is from 
 the artificial point of view of the scholastic rhetorician. The judgment of 
 Licinianus (p. 42, ed. Bonn.) is equally perverse. Pompeius Trogus (Justin. 
 38, 3, 11) rightly censures, from a historian's point of view, the use of 
 speeches made by Sallust and Livy. 
 
 On this subject see H. Snorr v. Carolsfeld: d. Reden u. Brief e bei Sail., 
 Leipzig, 1888. 
 
 *^ Preparation is admitted, sec. 79. 
 
 *^ The usual attempts to make the speech seem one actually delivered are 
 not wanting: Quid est? num conturbo te? (32)'; Nescio quid conturbatus 
 esse videris (36); Quid est? num mentior? (61); miserum me! etc. (64); 
 At etiam adspicis me, et quidem, ut videris, iratus (76) ; non dissimulat, 
 patres conscripti : apparet esse commotum ; sudat, pallet, etc. (84) ; haec te, si 
 ullam partem habet sensus, lacerat, haec cruentat oratio (86); 11 1; hunc 
 unum diem, unum, inquam, hodiernum diem, etc. (112) 
 
 On such outbursts as that in section 64, see Sarcey, p. 147, and 150 (the 
 case of Coquelin). 
 
 *^ad Fam. XII, 2; XII, 25. 
 
 *^ad Fam. XII, 2. 
 
 *^ Phil. II, 42; 84. Cf. also Phil. X, 2, 6: Quod verbum tibi excidet. ut 
 saepe fit, fortuito; scriptum, meditatum, cogitatum attulisti. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 163 
 
 The Second Philippic was sent to Atticus, and it was left to his 
 discretion whether it should be locked up or published. ^^'^ Else- 
 where Cicero speaks of the oration as not likely to get abroad unless 
 the constitution should be restored,*^^ and expresses a wish that the 
 time would come when it might have free circulation.*^^ 
 
 In Cicero's letters there are many references to his productions 
 and the attention he bestowed upon them,*^^ but perhaps the best 
 proof of his care, outside of the speeches themselves, are his works 
 on rhetoric. No one who composed such detailed treatises on 
 oratory, would be likely to fail to use care in a real oratorical effort. 
 A good description of his general method of preparation for a 
 speech, is given by Quintilian, who tells us that "it is the general 
 practice among pleaders who have much occupation, to write only 
 the most essential parts, and especially the commencements of their 
 speeches; to fix the other portions that they bring from home 
 
 *^° ad Att. XV, 13. The constant parallelism in thought and language 
 in ad Fam. XII, 2 and Phil. II, shows that the letter was written while 
 Cicero was composing the speech: ad Fam. XII, 2, and Phil. II, 33; XII, 
 2, 16, and Phil. II. 7, and 63; XII, 2, 21, and Phil. II, 6, 42, 63, 76, 84, 104; 
 
 XII, 3, and Phil. II, 31, 34. 
 ""^ ad Att. XV, 13a. 
 
 *^ad. Att. XVI, II. Cicero goes on to say that he will make certain cor- 
 rections recommended by Atticus. 
 
 In one case a speech had gotten into circulation without Cicero's knowl- 
 edge. This was the violent speech, in Curionem et Clodium, which Cicero had 
 taken pains to suppress. In some way the oration, which was not delivered, 
 got into circulation, and Cicero proposes to extricate himself from any 
 difficulties into which it might bring him by denying the authorship of the 
 speech {ad Att. Ill, 12; III, 15). 
 
 *"arf Att. I, 14; 19, 10; 20, 6; II, i, i; IV, 2; IV, 13; 16; 17; XIII, 12; 
 48; ad Fam. I, 9; IV, 2; IX, 20, i; X, 28; XI, 6; XIII, 12; Brut. II, 4; 
 ad Quint. Fr. II, i; III, i; Compare ad Att. II, 7; ad Fam. IX, 12. In one 
 case his attention was called to a mistake in one of his orations which was 
 already in Atticus' hands for publication. He writes to Atticus {ad Att. 
 
 XIII, 44) to order his librarii to make the correction in all the copies, but 
 in spite of this the error still remains {pro Lig. 33). Cf. also ad Att. XII, 
 6, 3, where his attention had been called to a misquotation in the Orator (IX, 
 29). 
 
 Cicero was not scrupulous as to the accuracy with which his published 
 orations corresponded with his spoken ones. One reason why he could 
 not insert something in his speech pro Ligario was that it was already pub- 
 lished: ad Att. XIII, 20. 
 
164 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 (i. e. prepared in their minds) in their memory by meditation, and 
 to meet any unforeseen attacks with extemporaneous replies. That 
 Cicero adopted this method is evident from his own memo- 
 randa."*^* 
 
 *"X, 7, 29-30. There can be no doubt that the written portions were 
 memorized, since they are particularly separated from those other parts 
 which the orator is to fix in his mind by meditation. 
 
 Commentariis : "from his note-books" (Frieze). These outline speeches 
 or skeletons are mentioned again by Quintilian, IV, i, 69; cf. Hieronym. 
 Apol, ad Rufin. 2, 469 Vail. Quintilian goes on to say: "But there are also 
 in circulation memoranda of other speakers, which have been found, per- 
 haps, in the state in which each had thrown them together, when he was 
 going to speak, and have been arranged in the form of books; for instance, 
 the memoranda of the causes pleaded by Servius Sulpicius, three of whose 
 orations are extant; but these outlines (commentarii) of which I am now 
 speaking (those of Sulpicius) are so carefully arranged that they appear to 
 me to have been composed by him to be handed down to posterity. (31). 
 Those of Cicero, which were intended only for his particular occasions, 
 his freedman. Tiro, collected" (or, abbreviated, produced in even shorter 
 form than Cicero left them)'. 
 
 Quintilian believes that if one has prepared a speech, one ought to 
 memorize it and not use notes. On other occasions, when the speaker got 
 up only the heads and extemporized from them, he might use notes. This 
 idea is not unlike that of Alcidamas, who, would allow the speaker to pre- 
 pare the argument, and only demands that the words be extemporary; cf. 
 p. 31. 
 
 As to notes, Quintilian says (X, 7, 31) : "I approve of short notes 
 (brevem adnotationem) and of small memorandum books (libellos) which 
 may be held in the hand and on which we may occasionally glance; but the 
 method which Laenas recommends, of reducing what we have written into 
 an outline (commentarium) and heads, I do not like; for our very de- 
 pendence on these summaries begets negligence in committing our speech to 
 memory (ediscendi), and disconnects and disfigures our speech. I even 
 think that we should not write (i. e. make notes of) at all what we design 
 to deliver from memory (omitting non, with the best MSS) ; for if we do, 
 it generally happens that our thoughts fix us to the studied portions of our 
 speech, and do not allow us to try the fortune of the moment. Thus the 
 mind hangs in suspense between the two, having lost track of what was writ- 
 ten and not finding out the new ideas in the subject". 
 
 Elsewhere (XI, 3, 142) Quintilian speaks of a certain manner in which 
 the orator should hold his hand "unless it hold a memorandum book, a 
 practice which should not be much followed, for it seems to imply a dis- 
 trust of the memory". This passage, as well as the former one, implies that 
 the speech is to be memorized. 
 
 Commentarii are clearly the outlines, summaries, or skeletons of speeches 
 (cf. Quint. Ill, 8, 58; compare Tacitus, Dial. c. 23, 10, and c. 26, 11) although 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 165 
 
 Among Cicero's contemporaries Julius Caesar *^'^ was perhaps 
 the most renowned. We know little about his method as a speech- 
 maker but what little evidence we have would point to preparation 
 beforehand. He delivered "set speeches", and we are told that 
 he was particularly attentive to his diction.*^^ 
 
 Of the practice of Augustus Caesar we have a detailed descrip- 
 tion. We are told that "from his early youth he devoted himself 
 with great diligence and application to the study of eloquence and 
 the other liberal arts. In the war of Modena, notwithstanding the 
 weighty affairs in which he was engaged, he is said to have read, 
 written, and declaimed every day. He never addressed the senate, 
 the people, or the army except in a premeditated speech, although 
 he did not lack the ability to speak extempore on the spur of the 
 occasion. Lest his memory should fail him, as well as to prevent the 
 loss of time in getting his speeches by heart,*" he made it a practice 
 
 some scholars have taken the word to mean the finished speeches (cf. Peter- 
 son on Tac. Dial. 23, 10). The meaning seems plain from Seneca, Contr. 
 
 III, praef. 6: sine commentario numquam dixit (Severus) nee hoc com- 
 mentario contentus erat in quo nudae res ponuntur, sed maxima parte per- 
 scribebatur actio (actio, = oratio; cf. Gudeman on Tac. Dial. c. 17, 22). 
 
 For other passages in which notes, outlines, or note-books are used see 
 Cicero, Brut. XLIV, 164; ad Fam. V, 12; Quint. I, 8, 19; HI, 6. 59; 8, 58; 
 
 IV, I, 69; Seneca, Controv. I, praef. 11; II, i, 6; III, praef. 6; IX, 2, 2; Ep. 
 XV, 5; Asconius, tog. cand. p. 87 O; Pliny, Ep. I, 6, i; 22, 11; III, 5, 17; 
 VI, 5, 6; Traj. 10, 95 (96)'; Pliny, N. H. Ill, 17; Suet. Aug. 27, 64; Hieronym. 
 adv. Rufin. I, i ; compare Sarcey, p. iii; pp. 150-151. 
 
 For notes of lectures, etc., see Plato, Theatetus, 143A; Euclides, after 
 he returns home makes notes of the conversation between Theatetus and 
 Socrates; Cicero, de Or. I, 2; ad Att. XIII, 21; Diog. Laert. II, 13, i; VI, 
 I, 4; Quint. I, praef. 7; II, 11, 7; Lucian, Hermot. 2. Students in taking 
 notes of their lectures were sometimes assisted by slaves who wrote short- 
 hand : Liban. II, 293, 16. 
 
 *^^0n Caesar see Plut. Caes. cc. 2, 3, 4; Cic. de Or. sees. 252, 261; Brut. 
 sees. 72, 253; Quint. X, i, 114; XII, 10, 11; Tac. Dial. c. 21, 21; Ann. XIII, 
 3; Pliny, A^. H. VII, 25; Vellei. Pater. II, 36; Apul. Apol. 95; Fronto, Ep. 
 p. 123; Hirtius, B. G. VIII, praef. 7. 
 
 "° Plut. Caes. c. 5 ; c. 7, a studied speech ; Cat. Min. 769C. On Caesar's 
 speeches cf. Cic. Brut. 262; Tac. Dial. c. 21; Aul. Cell. IV, 16, 8; V, 13, 6; 
 XIII, 3, 5; Suet, Jul. 55, and 64; Non. 354; Schol. Bob. 297, and 317. 
 
 *" in ediscendo tempus absumeret : ediscere, to learn by heart, to commit 
 to memory. Pliny, Ep. VI, i, i, tells of a would-be orator, who wrote out 
 
1 66 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 to read them. In his intercourse with individuals, and even with 
 his wife, Livia, upon subjects of importance, he wrote on his tablets 
 all he wished to express,*^^ lest, if he spoke extempore, he should 
 say more or less than was proper. He delivered himself in a sweet 
 and peculiar tone, in which he was diligently instructed by a master 
 of elocution; but when he had a cold, he sometimes employed a 
 herald to deliver his speeches to the people".*^^ 
 
 Augustus' successor, Tiberius, prepared his speeches,*^" although 
 he rendered his style so obscure by excessive affectation and ab- 
 
 all his speeches, but was unable to get them by heart (non posset ediscere) ; 
 Quint. X, 7, 31. 
 
 *"It was quite usual to deliver a set harangue from a written copy to 
 a great man even in an informal meeting (cf. Cic. ad Att. XI, 10). As an 
 illustration of this custom of Augustus, Dio Cassius (55, 15 ff.) has preserved 
 a speech of this kind between him and Livia, and also two of the same sort 
 between Agrippa and Maecenas (52, i flf.)- Tacitus (Ann. IV, 39) says 
 such was the custom in the time of Tiberius, though seeming to imply that 
 it no longer held in his own time. Cf. also Plutarch, Caesar, c. 17. There 
 are instances of this reading of a set speech elsewhere, though perhaps in 
 some cases it was necessitated by difference in language. Sulla (Plut. Sull. 
 13)' says to Aristion's ambassadors: "My good friends, you may put up 
 (dvaA,a|j,(3dv(o cf. Ages. 20) your speeches and begone. I was sent by the 
 Romans not to take lessons but to reduce rebels to obedience". We hear 
 that Pompey (Plut. Pomp. 79) as he was being brought to Egypt just before 
 his murder "took a little book in his hand, in which was written out an 
 address in Greek which he intended to deliver to King Ptolemy and began 
 to read it (dveYivcoaxev)." See also the story told in Montaigne, Vol. I, 
 196, London, 1902. 
 
 *^' Suet. Aug. 84. Cf. also Aul. Cell. X, 24, 2. Speeches by Augustus 
 are mentioned by Suet. Aug. 8; Claud. 61; Dio Cass. 53, 30; 54, 28; 35; 
 5S, 2; Quint. XII, 6, i; Serv. on Aen. I, 712; Nikol. Dam. Aug. 3. 
 
 ***' See Suet. Tib. 2S, where he hands his speech to his son Drusus to 
 read. Cf. Tac. Ann. XIII, 3. He attended the lectures of the rhetorician 
 Theodorus of Gadara: Sen. Suas. Ill, 8; Suet. Tib. 57; Quint. Ill, i, 17. 
 The following productions of his are mentioned: funeral speeches (Suet. 
 Tib. 6; Aug. 100; Tac. Ann. IV, 12; Seneca, Cons, ad Marc. 15, 3; Dio 
 Cass. 57, 11; compare Tac. Ann. I, 52), accusations and defenses (Suet. 
 Tib. 8; Tac. Ann. Ill, 12; cf. Meyer, orat. rom? 553), edicts, etc. (Tac. 
 Ann. I, 81; II, 63; III, 6; 53; IV, 40; Suet. Tib. 61; 67; Dom. 20; cf. also 
 Tac. Ann. IV, 16; 38. Suidas, s. v. KaiaaQ TiPEQiog says: e'voaipev E.-iiYQaM'- 
 M-axa xai xexvTiv 'otitoqixtiv. According to H. Flack, Rhein. Mus. XXXVI, 
 319, this is an error due to confusion with the rhetorician Tiberius. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 167 
 
 struseness that he was thought to speak better extempore than 
 in a premeditated discourse.*^^ 
 
 Claudius published some speeches,*^^ and we are told that he 
 did not lack elegance when his speech was premeditated.*-"^ There 
 is no record of his ever having tried to extemporize. A speech of 
 his, engraved on a tablet of brass, has been found at Lyons. It re- 
 lates to a question mentioned by Tacitus, namely, the admission of 
 Gauls into the Roman Senate.*^* Tacitus has not given the argument 
 
 ■^^ Suet. Tib. 70. Tacitus (Ann. IV, 31)1 Gomments on the same arti- 
 ficialities of style, but adds that when he spoke as an advocate he delivered 
 himself with readiness and volubility. A speech of his against Maroboduus 
 (Tac. Ann. II, 63) was extant in Tacitus' time. Tacitus may have cited 
 it from the "acta senatus". The letter of Tiberius later quoted by Tacitus 
 {Ann. VI, 6) is given with one very slight variation by Suetonius {Tib. 
 67). The letter was probably extant in the acta senatus, but it seems strange 
 that both authors should have quoted exactly the same amount. Suetonius 
 may have quoted from Tacitus, or both from some earlier authority. 
 
 Records of the proceedings of the senate, the comitia, and the courts 
 seem always to have been kept by the magistrates, but their duty was 
 limited to the depositing and safe-keeping of them. They could be con- 
 sulted, of course, but were not made known to the general public. Julius 
 Caesar in B. C. 59 caused the official acts of the people, as well as those of 
 the senate to be published (Suet. Jul. 20). There is no evidence that the 
 publication of them extended beyond Rome, and it is probable that scribes 
 at Rome, by private arrangement, forwarded copies of the official announce- 
 ments to such magistrates abroad as desired them. Cicero constantly as- 
 sumes that such people receive them (cf. ad Fam. XII, 8; 22, i ; 23, 2; 28, 3). 
 Caesar seems to have had a special report made to him of the acta diurna 
 (Cic. ad Fam. IX, 16, 4), a practice continued by Augustus, who, however, 
 prohibited the publication of the acta senatus (Suet. Aug. 36, 64). A 
 senator was especially appointed by Tiberius to edit the acta senatus (Tac. 
 Ann. V, 4), which minutes were sent to Caesar in his absence (Suet. Tib. 
 7Sy. It is supposed that this official is the same as the curator actorum 
 senatus mentioned in inscriptions {Inscr. Henzen. 5447; 5478, and elsewhere). 
 Both acta senatus and acta diurna are frequently mentioned); cf. Cicero, ad 
 Att. Ill, 8; 15; VI, 2; ad Fam. I, 2; XII, 23; II, 15; Suet. Tib. 8; Cal. 8; 
 Tac. Ann. XII, 24; XIII, 31; Asconius, Milon. 19, 44, 47, 49; Pliny, Ep. VII, 
 Z3', IX, 15; Seneca, Benef. II, 10; III, 16; Quint. IX, 3; Juvenal. II, 136; 
 VII, 104; Amm. Marcell. XXII, 3, 4, and elsewhere. 
 
 Cf . E. Hubner, //. Suppl. Bd. Ill, 564 ff. ; 594 ff. ; Crutwell, Hist. Rom. 
 Lit. pp. 206-207. 
 
 *^ Suet. Claud. 38-41. 
 
 *^'Tac. Ann. XIII, 3-4. 
 
 *^Ann. XI, 24. Cf. Dio Cass. 60, 2, i. Seneca {Apocolocyn. 5, 7, 11) 
 represents Claudius as anything but eloquent. In section 14, he speaks so 
 
1 68 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 in the form and words of what probably is a copy of the original 
 speech, but has expressed the substance with his usual brevity .*^^ 
 
 It is usually agreed that Nero's speeches were the work of 
 Seneca.*^^ The encomium on Claudius, pronounced by Nero at the 
 funeral of his predecessor^ was, according to Tacitus, the production 
 of Seneca/^^ The historian adds that ''old men who make it their 
 recreation to compare the present and the past, took notice that 
 Nero was the first Roman emperor who required the aid of an- 
 other's eloquence: for Caesar the Dictator rivalled the most dis- 
 tinguished orators; and the eloquence of Augustus was prompt 
 and flowing as became a prince. Tiberius also possessed the art, so 
 
 far as nicely balancing his words was concerned ; 
 
 even the disordered mind of Caligula *-® did not impair his power 
 of speaking; nor in Claudius would you feel the lack of elegance 
 whenever his speech was premeditated". 
 
 The speech to the Senate, after the panegyric, was also the 
 work of Seneca.^^^ The orations in which the new Emperor pledged 
 himself to clemency were given to the world by Seneca through the 
 mouth of the Emperor ''either to show the purity of the precepts 
 
 poorly that there is need of some one versed in "the Claudian tongue" to 
 understand him. This is, of course, an exaggerated account. 
 
 It has been thought that Claudius in writing the speech availed himself 
 of that found in Livy IV, 3; cf. A. Zingerle, Zfo. G. XXXVII, 255. On a 
 comparatively recently discovered edict of his see Mommsen. Hermes, IV, 
 99, p. 107 ; F. Kenner, Ein Edict des K. CI., Vienna, 1869. 
 
 *^^Cf. Ann. XV, 62,', Tacitus {Ann. XV, 67) gives as a reason for quoting 
 a passage exactly, the fact that it was not published. 
 
 Tacitus does not claim that the speeches are genuine : Hist. 1,6; 29 ; 36 ; 
 83; Agric. 29; Ann. I, 58; II, 37, 38, 71 ; III, 50. 
 
 ""^ Dio Cass. 61, 3. 
 
 *'' Ann. XIII, 13, 3; Dio Cass. 61, p. 690; Quint. VIII, 5, 18. 
 
 *^^The orators who took part in the contests instituted by Caligula 
 clearly wrote their speeches, for those who were defeated were compelled 
 "scripta sua spongea linguave deleri" (Suet. Calig. 20). Cf. Sn^t. Calig. 53; 
 Tac. Ann. V, i. 
 
 "^^Tac. Ann. XIII, 4. Dio says (Bk. 61) that the Senate ordered this 
 speech of Nero's to be engraved on a pillar of solid silver, and to be read 
 publicly every year at the time when the consuls entered upon their magis- 
 tracy. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 169 
 
 he instilled or in ostentation of his talents".*^^ Tacitus would not 
 leave Nero even his poetry, claiming that the different lines were 
 the work of men who had talent for composing verses and that these 
 were tacked on to the Emperor's effusions, however crude the 
 latter might be.*^^ With some inconsistency, however, Tacitus 
 dramatically represents Nero as claiming ability both as a prepared 
 and as an extemporary speaker.*^^ 
 
 Of the rest of the Emperors, Titus only seems to have possessed 
 ability as a speaker.*^^ 
 
 After Galba had been declared emperor, Nymphidius attempted 
 to make himself Caesar before Galba's arrival. He came forward 
 to speak to the soldiers "carrying in his hand a speech written by 
 Cingonius Varro, which he had learned by heart" ; **^* and later Gal- 
 ba himself, when he adopted Piso as his heir, strove to read to the 
 soldiers a prepared speech.*^^ Otho's speech before his departure 
 against VitelHus was written for him.*^® Valentinus spoke against 
 the policy of extending the bounds of the Empire in a prepared 
 speech,*" and when Vitellius resigned the government, he made his 
 declaration "from a writing which he held in his hand".*^^ 
 
 ^^Tac. Ann. XIII, 11. The speeches mentioned by Suetonius {Nero, 7) 
 were probably written by Seneca. On the speech mentioned in Nero, 24, 
 see Berl. Wschrfkl. Phil. 1889, 106. A speech by Nero when the cities of 
 Asia decreed a temple to Tiberius is mentioned by Tacitus {Ann. IV, 15). 
 
 ^^ Ann. XIV, 16. Suetonius, Nero, 52, denies this charge on the evidence 
 of note-books of Nero's which he (Suetonius) possessed. 
 
 *" Ann. XIV, 55 ; Nero says to Seneca : "That I am thus able on the spur 
 of the moment to combat your studied reasonings, is the first benefit which 
 I acknowledge to have derived from you, who have taught me not only to 
 speak on subjects previously considered, but also to deliver my sentiments 
 extemporaneously." 
 
 Because of his care for his voice he had his speeches read for him ; cf . 
 Suet. Nero, 25, 46; Tac. Ann. XVI, 27. 
 
 ■*®^A speech by Vespasian is mentioned by Tacitus, Hist. II, 80; cf. 
 C. I. L. 14, 3608. 
 
 ^ Plut. Galha, c. 14, 30 : Xoyov xiva, xo^i^wv ev PiPXitp YEYQa^pievov i)jt6 
 KiYYCoviou BdQQO)vo5 ov EHM-ejiEXexrixEi jiQog xohc, oxQaxitoTag eIjieiv. c. 15, 4: 
 KiYYtoviog 6 xov ^oyov yq^'^^w? 
 
 *^ Plut. Galha. c. 23, 14: dglanEvou 8e xa (j-ev Xiyziv ev xcp axQaxoniha^. 
 xd §£ dvaYivtooxEiv. So Mamercus tried to deliver a long premeditated 
 speech to the people of Syracuse: Plut. Timol. 34. 
 
 "*' Tac. Hist. I, 90. 
 
 ^ Tac. Hist. IV, 68. 
 
 ■"'Suet. Vitell. 15; cf. also Tac. Hist. Ill, zy- 
 
170 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 Titus could extemporize in both Greek and Latin, in prose and 
 verse, ^^^ but all Domitian's letters, speeches, and edicts were drawn 
 up for him/**' 
 
 Seneca the Elder mentions several orators who were famous 
 for their abilities as extemporary speakers. He says of Porcius 
 Latro : **^ ''He did not know how to cease his studies and resume 
 them. When he set himself to write days were joined to nights, 
 and without rest he tasked himself more heavily, and did not cease 
 
 or fail Often when he had toiled the whole night 
 
 through, he went from his very meal immediately to declaim;**^ 
 
 *®®Suet. Tit. 3; cf. 6; compare Pliny, N. H. praef. 5; 11. 
 
 **" Suet. Dom. 20. 
 
 **^Controv. I, praef. 13-14, 18, 20-24; IX, praef. 3; X, praef. 15; for 
 specimens of his declamations see Controv. VII, 16, 16 ff. ; II, 11, and else- 
 where. Cf. also Quint. IX, 2, 91 ; Suet, de Gr. p. 99 (Rffsch.) 
 
 *^ Quintilian considers declamation by far the most useful of all exercises 
 (II, 10, i; compare X, 5, 14-16; cf. Seneca, Controv. I, praef. 12). Many, 
 indeed, think that it is in itself sufficient to form oratory, for no excellence 
 in continued speaking can be specified which is not found in it (II, 10, 2)1 
 Declamation is an exercise preparatory to pleading in the forum (IV, 2, 29), 
 although it lacks, of course, the spirit and force of actual pleading (X, 2, 12). 
 The orator is brought up in the schools, and on the manner in which he de- 
 claims will depend the manner in which he will plead (IX, 2, 81). The prac- 
 tice has degenerated because of the absurd themes, out of all relation to real 
 life, which have been chosen as its subjects (II, 10, 12; V, 12, 17-20; X, 
 2, II ff. ; X, 5, 14; Tac. Dial. c. 35, 17; c. 31, 3). It ought to keep in view 
 the pleading for which the speaker is being trained (II, 10, 3 ff., especially, 
 12; compare XI, i, 55 ff.)'. Declamations, if they are but adapted to real 
 causes, and are made similar to actual pleadings, are of the greatest service, 
 not only while the orator is still studying, but even after his studies may be 
 said to be completed, and he has obtained reputation in the forum (X, 5, 14; 
 compare Cic. de Or. I, ^2), 149). 
 
 The practice of speaking on fictitious cases as if they were real pleadings 
 in the forum or public councils became common among the Greeks about the 
 time of Demetrius Phalereus; it may have been invented by him (Quint. II, 
 4, 41-42). 
 
 Declamation was not solely a matter for the schools. Cicero {Brut. 
 XC, 310) says: commentabar declamitans (sic enim nunc loquuntur) saepe 
 cum M. Pisone, et cum Q. Pompeio, aut cum aliquo cottidie ; idque f aciebam 
 multum etiam Latine sed Graece saepius; (cf. also Quint. XII, 6, 7; Cic. 
 ad Att. IX, 4, 9; Brut. LXXXIX, 305). He carried on this practice of de- 
 claiming in Greek till the time of his praetorship, when he was forty years 
 old, (Suet, de Gr. I; Seneca, Controv. I, Praef. 11 ff. ; Quint. VIII, 3, 54; 
 XII, II, 6; Cicero, ad Div. 9, 16)'. Pompey, Antony, Augustus, and Nero 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS I7I 
 
 . . . . . after dinner he almost always toiled by lamplight. 
 
 His memory was indeed excellent by nature, but still 
 
 very much aided by art. He never read over what he was going to 
 say for the purpose of learning it; he had learned it when he had 
 written it. What would seem the more wonderful in him was the 
 fact that not slowly and carefully, but with almost the same speed 
 with which he spoke, he wrote. Those who twist about what they 
 have written, who consult about individual words, necessarily fix 
 at last what they have so often pondered, in their own mind; but 
 
 also followed this practice (Suet, de Gr. I ff.; Suet. Nero, 10). Crassus, too, 
 made use of declamation (Cic. de Or. I, 34, 154) as did Asinius Pollio 
 (Seneca, Controv. IV, praef. 2; compare I, praef. 12, and III, praef. i), and 
 Caius Piso (Cic. Brut. LXXVIII, 272). 
 
 This was the good side of declamation, but there was another which has 
 been vividly pictured by Petronius (cc. i, 2). The declaimers have been the 
 bane of all true eloquence (compare Quint. IV, 3, 2)'; by the unreal and 
 hackneyed themes on which they employ their empty compositions they 
 have overthrown all that is manly in oratory. The youth they train be- 
 comes totally perverted by hearing and seeing nothing which has any con- 
 nection with real life or human affairs. When the scholars of the declaimers 
 enter the forum, they look as if they were transported into a new world 
 (Petron. i; Quint. I, 2, 18; II, 10, 8-9; X, 5, 16-18; XII, 11, 14 ff.; Seneca, 
 Controv. VII, praef. 7 ff.; IX, praef. 3; praef. 5. 
 
 The word declamare in the sense of a rhetorical exercise, seems first to 
 have come into use in the time of Cicero (cf. Brut. XC, 310; Sen. Controv. 
 I, praef. 12), although the practice may go back to ^schines and his school 
 at Rhodes (cf. n. 299). These exercises were held both in public and in 
 private (Sen. Controv. Ill, 12; 18). There were public competitions in Greek 
 and Latin declamation and poetry from the time of Caligula (Suet. Calig. 
 20; C. I. L. IX, 1663; 2860; cf. Juvenal, I, 44.) 
 
 In the schools, pupils wrote their themes, memorized them-, and de- 
 claimed to father and friends (Quint. II, 7, i ; X, 5, 21; compare X, 5, 14 ff.). 
 Cf. Pliny, Ep. VI, 6, 6, of students declaiming: sicut in scholis discipuli 
 sedentes de scripto legunt, stantes declamant. Juvenal VII, 152: 
 Nam quaecunque sedens modo legerat, haec eadem stans 
 Perferet atque eadem cantabit versibus isdem. 
 Persius, III, 45; compare Petronius, 6. 
 
 Cf . Hulsebos, G. H. : de Educatione et Institutione apud Romanos 
 (Utrecht, 1875) PP- 102-133. 
 
 Parts of speeches, such as Galba's peroratio (Cic. Brut. XXXIII, 127) 
 and dictation lessons, usually parts of the poets, were learned by heart (Cic. 
 ad Quint. Fr. Ill, i, 4; compare Persius, I, 28; Horace, Ep. I, 20, 17; I, 18, 
 12; Sat. I, 10, 74; Juv. VII, 226; Statins, Theb. XII, 815. 
 
172 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 the memory of those whose pens are swift is slower. In him not 
 only was there natural excellence of memory, but the highest art 
 both for comprehending and keeping what it ought to hold, so that 
 it even retained whatever declamations he had spoken. His note- 
 books, therefore, were empty; he said that he wrote in his mind. 
 He so spoke those things which he had meditated that his memory 
 failed him in no word". 
 
 L. Vinicius pleaded cases extempore, but did not care for the 
 name of doing so.**^ 
 
 Cassius Severus would always write most of his case out in full, 
 and yet when taken by surprise and forced to speak off-hand, he 
 made a better impression than when he had prepared his speech.*** 
 Seneca mentions Haterius **^ and Argentarius **^ as fluent extem- 
 porary speakers. Albucius would never speak on the spur of the 
 moment, not because he lacked ability to do so, but because he 
 thought that he lacked it.**^ 
 
 Pliny the Younger speaks in terms of admiration of Pompeius 
 Saturninus, who, whether he spoke after preparation or extempore, 
 pleaded with no less warmth and energy than elegance and finish.**^ 
 
 Pliny himself used to revise his speeches after delivery, and 
 made additions to them before he published them.**^ He spent a 
 
 *^Conirov. II, 5, 20. 
 
 *** Controv. Ill, praef. p. 359. Cf . Robert, P. : de Cassii Severi eloquentia, 
 Paris, 1890. 
 
 *^ Controv. IV, praef. 7. Cf. Seneca, Ep. 40, 10; Tac. Ann. IV, 61, 5; 
 Hieronym. on Euseb. Chr. a. Abr. 2040. For a specimen of his declamation 
 see Sen. p. 541 (Kl.). Cf. Cima, A.: de Q. Haterio oratore, in his Saggj di 
 Studj. lat., Flor. 1889. Cf. p. 68, n. 286. 
 
 **^ Controv. IX, 3, 13. 
 
 **' Controv. VII, praef. 2-3. 
 
 *«£/>. I, 16, 2; 7. 
 
 ***£/>. IX, 13, 23; 28, 5. The advice of Quintilian and Cicero, as well as 
 that of Pliny, is meant for the court orator. The Romans had no other type 
 in mind. The man whom Quintilian, for example, trains, will be a finished 
 advocate. He strongly condemns those pleaders who do not take their pro- 
 fession seriously enough to give to their cases due preparation: II, 21, 15-16 
 (compare Cic. de Or. I, 12, 51) ; XII, 8, 2 ff.; 5 ff.; 14-21 ; cf. Seneca, Controv. 
 X, praef. 2; Amm. Marcell. XXX, 4, 15 ff.; 19; Athen. I, 10. 
 
 For the duties of a Roman advocate and the problems that beset him 
 see Forsyth, Hortensius : an Historical Essay on the Office and Duties of an 
 Advocate. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 1 73 
 
 great deal of time over his cases. Speaking of the sudden and un- 
 expected postponement of a case on which he was to speak, Pliny 
 calls it "an accident extremely agreeable to me, who am never so 
 well prepared but that I am glad of gaining further time".*^^ From 
 many of his letters we see that he was almost over careful in the 
 revision of his productions.*^^ 
 
 Among the works of Apuleius there is found a curious produc- 
 tion: the so-called prologue to the de deo Socratis^^^ It is, in 
 reality, not a prologue at all, but a pretended extemporary speech, 
 or rather, the pretended answer to a challenge to speak extempore, 
 delivered before the main lecture.*^^ The production is placed by 
 some, with far greater appropriateness, as it seems, in the collec- 
 tion of passages called the F/onda/^* which Walter Pater says 
 are **no impromptu ventures at random, but rather elaborate, carved 
 ivories of speech, drawn, at length, out of the rich treasure-house 
 of a memory stored with such, and as with a fine savour of old musk 
 about them".*^^ 
 
 This Prologus seemingly consists of five parts, though some 
 scholars recognize but three,*^® and it is with the first, or first 
 two of these that this discussion is concerned. 
 
 *^Ep. V, 21, 9. Cf. also the anecdote told of Cicero (Plut. Apophtheg. 
 205 E-F) referred to in n. 391. 
 
 «*Cf. Martial, X, 19; Pliny, Ep. I, 2, i ; I, 8, 2 ; II, 5, i ; III, 13, 18; 
 IV, 9, ^2,', 14, I ; V, 8, 6; 13, I ; 20, 2; VI, 31, i ; VII, 17, i ; 30, 4; VIII, 3, 2; 
 19, 2; 21, 4; IX, 5, 8; 8, 9; 9, 4; 10, 2; 15, 2; 16, 2; 28, 5; 35, 2; 36, 2; 
 40, I ; also his advice to Fuscus Ep. VII, 9, 4. 
 
 ^* Cf . Helm, R. : de prooemio Apuleianae quae est de deo Socratis 
 orationis. 
 
 ^ Such brief speeches, serving as introductions were termed jtQoXaXiai. 
 Lucian has two : JtgoXaXid 6 Aiovvoog and nQoXakia 6 'HgaxXfig. His Swans 
 and Amber probably belongs in the same class. On the subject see Stock, Al. : 
 de prolaliarum usu rhetorico (Diss. Konigsberg). 
 
 **** Cf. p. 140, n. 310. Cf. Goldbacher, A. : de L. Apulei Mad. Floridorum 
 quae dicuntur origine et locis quihusdam corruptis (Leipzig 1867) ; Jeltsch, 
 T. : de Apulei Floridis (1868)'; Cruttwell, Hist. Rom. Lit. p. 471. 
 
 *^^ Marius the Epicurean, c. XX. 
 
 *^ P. Thomas in his edition (Leipzig, 1908) divides the prologue into 
 five parts, which he discusses in Actis Acad. Belg. a. 1900, p. 143 ff. ; J. v. d. 
 Vliet in his edition (1900) of the Florida makes but three divisions, p. 190 ff. 
 Cf. also his article in Mnemosyne, 1888, N. S. XVI, p. 156 ff. 
 
174 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 In reply to those who challenge him to speak extempore, Apu- 
 leius will deliver what he calls an unpolished attempt (rudimentum). 
 He makes the venture, he says, with the better chance of success, 
 because his premeditated speeches (meditata sum dicturus incogitata) 
 have already been approved.***^ He is not afraid that he will fail to 
 please in trivial things since he has given satisfaction in more 
 serious matters.*^^ That his audience may see whether he is the 
 same when he speaks on the sudden (repentinus) as he is when pre- 
 pared (praeparatus), he bids them test him in this rough and un- 
 finished sketch (schedio incondito), if there be any who have 
 never heard any of his off-hand efforts (subitaria). 
 
 There follows a statement of the old idea that the audience is 
 more kindly disposed toward extemporary speeches (in rebus 
 subitariis venia prolixior).*^® The things which we recite (quae 
 scripta legimus) after we have written them,*^^ says Apuleius, 
 will be such as they were when they were composed, even though 
 you (the audience) are silent, but those which are produced on the 
 spot (quae inpraesentiarum) and as it were, in combination with 
 you, will be such as you shall have made them by your favor. *®^ 
 
 The second division, or second part of the first division, opens 
 by quoting an impromptu (de repentino) saying of the philosopher 
 Aristippus, and contains an elaborate comparison of extemporary 
 speeches and rubble masonry; for nothing can be at the same time 
 hurried and deliberate, says Apuleius, nor can anything possess 
 at once the merit of elaboration and the grace of dispatch. 
 
 Such a pretended extemporization would put an audience in 
 good humor if a prepared speech was to follow. If the orator were 
 really compelled to make an extemporary speech, a number of such 
 ready-prepared morceaux could easily be pieced together with ex- 
 temporary oratory, to form a creditable if not very profound 
 speech, a practice which was common among the earlier sophfsts.*^^ 
 
 **^ On his delivered and published speeches see Apol. 55, 73, 24. 
 *^The idea of extemporary speeches as trivial compared with prepared 
 ones would not have pleased Alcidamas, cf. p. 29 ff. 
 *^ Cf . p. 32 and n. 153. 
 
 **°This implies that the speeches were memorized. 
 *" Compare p. 39, n. 153. 
 *«=^Cf. p. 95ff. 
 
. PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 1/5 
 
 For our knowledge of the practice of those of later times, we are 
 mainly dependent on the pages of the Greek writer Philostratus. 
 
 Among the later sophists there were few who did not profess 
 skill as extemporary speakers. Their whole training was designed 
 to give them this ability, and after it was gained constant practice 
 was necessary to retain it. There were certain ones who laid claim 
 to wonderful ability, and while some were able to prove that their 
 boasts were true,^^^ others were shown to be utter frauds. In 
 general, however, the later sophists seem to have been hard-working, 
 painstaking teachers. Few of them resembled Hippias of Elis. 
 They were accustomed to study by night in order to perfect them- 
 selves.^^* Even after they had aquired the ability to make extem- 
 porary speeches, constant practice was necessary to keep it alive.*^^ 
 
 Pliny gives a good description of one of the better sophists, 
 Isaeus : "He always speaks extempore, and his lectures are as 
 finished as though he had spent a long time over their written 
 composition He suggests several subjects for dis- 
 cussion, allows his audience their 'choice, sometimes permits them 
 
 even to name which side he shall take, rises and 
 
 begins. At once he has everything almost equally at command. 
 
 His reflections are frequent, his syllogisms also are 
 
 frequent, a result not easily obtained even with the pen. As for his 
 memory, you would hardly believe what it is capable of. He re- 
 peats from a long way back what he has previously delivered 
 extempore, without missing a single word. This marvellous faculty 
 he has acquired by dint of great application and practice, for night 
 and day he does nothing, hears nothing, says nothing else."*^® 
 
 Among the sophists who are mentioned as clever extemporary 
 speakers are Scopelian,*®^ Lollianus,*^* Marcus,*®^ Polemo,*^® Her- 
 
 ^ Philostratus mentions Hermocrates, who impressed his audience with 
 his wonderful power to grasp his theme ev axiYM'fj xov xaiQOv (p. 612). 
 
 **^Philostr. Vit. Soph. p. 518; Liban. I, 75, 15; Syn. Dion. II; Themistius, 
 312B. 
 
 ^ Pliny, Ep. II, 3, 4; Himer. Or. XVII, 6; XXIV, 4; Luc. Encom. Dem. 
 36. 
 
 *^Ep. II, 3, I fif.; Philostr. I, 20, i; Juvenal, III, 74- 
 
 ^' Philostr. Vit. Soph. I, 21, i ff. 
 
 *«* Philostr. Vit. Soph. I, 23, 2. 
 
 ''' Philostr. Vit. Soph. I, 24, 3-4. 
 
 *'° Philostr. Vit. Soph. I, 25, 9. 
 
176 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 odes Atticus, *^^ who once, like Demosthenes, forgot his speech, 
 Aristocles,*^^* Antiochus,*^^ who wrote prepared speeches as well 
 as extemporized, Alexander,*^* Heraclides, who forgot his extem- 
 porary speech,*^'^ Hippodromus, who could speak extempore with 
 the readiness of one reading what was familiar to him,*^^ and 
 others.*" 
 
 Some sophists were accustomed to withdraw from the room 
 for a short space of time after their theme had been given them, 
 in order to collect their thoughts in private.*^^ One of them re- 
 quired half a day to put his argument into shape,*^^ and Proclus 
 demanded that his theme be given him the day before.*^^ Once 
 the sophist Proaeresius, made an extemporary speech which the 
 short-hand writers took down. When he had finished, he bade them 
 look to their copy, and proceeded to give the whole speech over again 
 without missing a single word.*®^ If the speech was really ex- 
 temporary, this certainly was a wonderful feat, but it reminds one 
 strongly of another sophist, Philager, who was accustomed to re- 
 peat his own speeches and pass them off as extemporary. It is 
 said that Herodes Atticus, hearing of this practice of Philager, 
 
 *^^Fhi\ostr. Vit. Soph. 11, I, 35-36' ^oyov ^xjteaeiv ; I, 25, 13. 
 
 *" Philostr. Vit. Soph. II, 3, i. 
 
 *'' Philostr. Vit. Soph. II, 4, 4- 
 
 *'* Philostr. Vit. Soph. II, 5, 3 ; also p. 618. 
 
 *"* Philostr. Vit. Soph. II, 26, 3: oxeSiou Xoyou exjieoeiv. 
 
 *'« Philostr. Vit. Soph. II, 27, 10; cf. also II, 27, 5. 
 
 *" Philostr. Vit. Soph. I, i ; I, 8, 6; II, 6, i ; 7, i ; 10, 2-3; 13, i; 15, i; 
 17, 2; 24, i; 25, 6; 29, I ; 33, 2. 
 
 *'^ Philostr. Vit. Soph. 1, 22, 10; 25, 15; II, 19, 2. Sometimes the sophist 
 thought over his theme for a few minutes in his seat : II, 5, 5. Isaeus gained 
 time for thought by spending a few minutes in arranging his gown : Pliny, 
 Ep. II, 3. Cf. Quint. X, 7, 22, for ways in which a few minutes' time 
 for thought may be gained. 
 
 *'" Philostr. Vit. Soph. I, 20, 4. 
 
 **° Philostr. II, 21, 3; cf. Liban, I, 51, 3. Much could be done with a day to 
 prepare in; Sears (p. 263) says of Thiers: "With an afternoon's preparation 
 it is said that he could make a three hour speech upon any subject under the 
 sun, architecture, law, poetry, military affairs, chemistry, astronomy, com- 
 merce, journalism," Thiers gained this facility by delivering and redeliver- 
 ing a speech ten or twenty times when he could, before his public appearance, 
 and by extemporizing parts of his addresses to friends; cf. Sarcey, p. 37; 
 
 p. 159. 
 
 *"Eunapius, p. 79; cf. also p. 70 ff. 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 1 77 
 
 gained possession of a copy of one of the sophist's published 
 speeches, and asked Philager to discuss the same theme on which 
 the speech was written. As the sophist went on deHvering his 
 oration, the declamation was read aloud from the written copy. 
 It agreed word for word with the pseudo-extemporary speech, 
 and Philager was laughed out of the room.*^^ 
 
 Even if they were honest in allowing their hearers to propose 
 themes, the sophists could, by skillful depreciation of the topics 
 suggested, force their audience to choose the theme on which they 
 wished to speak.*^^ They sometimes had friends stationed in the 
 audience to see that the subject they desired was proposed.*^* 
 
 In spite of all their pretensions, however, the sophists were thor- 
 oughly aware of the fact that extemporary speech does not conduce 
 to thorough work,*^^ and their course of training was not super- 
 ficial. **A central point in the Greek sophistical education" says 
 Mr. Walden,*^^ "was the training of the memory. The Greek 
 student of eloquence was required to learn by heart large quantities 
 of the ancient authors, as well as many of his own and his 
 professor's compositions. Discourses on common topics, such topics 
 as would frequently arise in the course of the student's profession- 
 al life, were prepared and given to be memorized. By this process 
 not only was the memory of the student, or, at least, the skill with 
 which the student used his memory, improved, but his mind was 
 filled with a ready store of material and illustration." **^ 
 
 Polemo considered that this learning by heart was the hardest 
 thing of all in the sophistic training, and so laborious did he deem 
 it that he recommended, as a sufficient punishment for a criminal, 
 
 *^ Philostr. Vit. Soph. II, 8, 3 : Soxouvxi 6' djtoaxESiateiv avTavEYiYvtoaxexo 
 T| \iEliTTf\. See the description of Fronto's lecture in Walter Pater's Marius 
 the Epicurean, ch. XV. 
 
 **" Luc. Rhet. Praec. 18. 
 
 *** Luc. Pseudolog. 5. 
 
 **'' Philostr. Vit. Soph. II, 9, 5 ; 24, i ; Syn. Dion. 12 ; Luc. Rhet. Prcvec. 20. 
 
 *** Universities of Ancient Greece, p. 214. 
 
 **^Liban. II, 273. Eunapius says of himself (p. 75) that at the age of 
 sixteen he had the ancients at his tongue's end, and a like statement is made 
 of Priscus (Eunap. p. 65)', 
 
178 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 the being compelled to commit to memory the writings of the 
 ancients.*®^ 
 
 Notwithstanding this training of the memory, the better sophists 
 took all possible precautions against failure in their speeches. 
 Polemo, one of the greatest of them, was chosen advocate by the 
 people of Smyrna, but died before he could plead their cause. 
 The speech he had prepared was produced after his death, read 
 (dvaYV(Off0svTO<;) in court, and gained for the inhabitants of Smyrna 
 the privilege they sought.*^® Some sophists had others help them 
 prepare their speeches,*^*' and there were collections of orations, 
 or Ready Speakers, to which the sophist could have recourse if 
 he wished.*^^ Parts of the oration might be prepared. For example, 
 the 8eaXe5{?, or part of the sophist's speech which followed the 
 introduction, though it might sometimes be in itself an introductory 
 speech, might be prepared beforehand if the speaker wished, or 
 given extempore.*®^ 
 
 Clearly, then, preparation and even memorization, was largely 
 employed by those sophists and rhetoricians of whom we only 
 hear; the extent of preparation is more easily seen when we come 
 to those whose writings still are extant. 
 
 Dio Chrysostom's orations are lectures, although they often have 
 the air of admirable improvisations.*^^ Many of the moral treatis- 
 es of Plutarch are little more than fair copies of his lectures.*^* 
 
 The theory is that the SiaiptPat of Epictetus and the Cynics 
 were extemporary, but such was probably not the case. Outside of 
 Arrian's Discourses of Epictetus, '^^^ there are collections by Teles, 
 Musonius Rufus and others.*®^ 
 
 *^ Philostr. Vit. Soph. p. 541 ; for another interpretation of 6.q%(sx(j. 
 EX|i4,avddvEiv see Mayor on Juvenal I, 43. 
 
 *'"* Philostr. Vit. Soph. I, 25, 19. 
 
 *^ Philostr. Vit. Soph. II, 2, i. 
 
 *" Philostr. Vit. Soph. II, i, 36; 9, i- 
 
 "'Himerius, Or. VI; XVII; XXII. 
 
 "*Cf. Von Arnim, H. : Lehen %ind Werke des Dio von Prusa, 2nd. ed. 
 vol. I, 171, 180 ff., 211, 282, 286, 288, 298, 305, 308; II, 316, 344. 
 
 *^ Cf . de aud. poet, c, i ; de Inimic. util. c. i ; an seni sit ger. c. 26 ; 
 Volkmann's Plutarch; Fowler, Greek Literature, p. 421; Dill, Nero to Marcus 
 Aurelius, p. 348. 
 
 *^' Cf . Ep. ad Cell 
 
 ^^'On the SiaxQipTi see Norden, die Anfike Kunstprosa, I, 128 ff. ; Hirzel, 
 der Dialog, I, 369; Susemihl, Greek Lit. I, 36; Burgess, Epideictic Literature, 
 234 ff. I , 
 
PLACE OF EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN PRACTICE OF ORATORS 1 79 
 
 The Dissertations of Maximus of Tyre are typical sophistic 
 lectures, doubtless carefuly prepared beforehand.*^^ Lucian clearly 
 read his productions,*^^ apparently before publishing them."*®^ 
 
 ^lius Aristides carefully elaborated his productions, since he 
 was not by nature gifted with tlie ability to speak extempore. Al- 
 though he had acquired this power by hard labor, he always re- 
 quired twenty-four hours in which to put his argument into shape.'^"^ 
 Apparently his formal speeches were read. In the speech in honor 
 of Diana, he had evidently digressed from his manuscript and 
 interpolated extemporary matter in praise of himself. He apolo- 
 gizes to one who attacks him for this. The whole thing would be 
 pointless had he not actually read the address, and looked up from 
 his manuscript to add some extemporaneous observations.^^^ 
 
 Himerius insists on the necessity of practice and training, par- 
 ticularly of private training before public appearance.^"^ In the 
 list of his works as given by Photius,^^^ EcL XVII, Or. XII, Or. 
 XVIII, Or. XX, and one lost speech are classed as extemporary. 
 Other speeches of his which purport to be delivered on the spur 
 of the moment, and they may possibly have been so, and been re- 
 duced to writing afterwards, are Oratt. VI, XIII, XV, XXIV. 
 
 Themistius did not care to speak without preparation. Being 
 asked on one occasion to deliver an extemporary address, he ex- 
 cuses himself in a short speech.^^* Phidias, he says, was a very 
 clever artist, yet even he needed time to bring his productions to 
 perfection. Had anyone asked him, however, to make a display of 
 his art at once, he would have answered that he must be given the 
 necessary time to produce something new, or else he must be judged 
 from the Athena or the Olympian Zeus. So Themistius bids -the 
 Emperor to examine some of his already completed productions, 
 
 *^ Cf . Hobein, H. : de Maximo Tyrio Quaestiones Philologae Selectae 
 (Gottingen, 1895) PP- 16-24. 
 
 *" Putnam, E. J. : Lucian the Sophist. Classical Philology, Vol. IV, 
 1909, pp. 162-177. 
 
 ^ Fowler, Greek Literature, 433. 
 
 '"° Philostr. Vit. Soph. I, 9, i ; 3 ; 5 ; 7 ; Eunapius, p. 82. 
 
 ^^Cf. Keil's edition, Latin preface. i 
 
 =<" Or. XVII ; XXIV. 
 
 ""^ Cod. CLXV. 
 
 «** Or. XXV. 
 
l80 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 and give him time to produce something new, for he is not skillful 
 in making extemporaneous speeches as are the inspired sophists.**"** 
 
 The orations and declamations of Libanius ^^^ are likewise lec- 
 tures. The obvious care with which he modelled his style on that 
 of the classical Greek writers is in itself a proof of preparation. 
 His orations were written, published, and sent to friends. ^'^^ 
 
 With the Emperor Julian, who belongs as a writer to the school 
 of the sophists,*^"® Greek prose literature may be said to end. The 
 art and learning of the sophists became absorbed by the teachings 
 of the Christians, and after a brief but brilliant period, Christian 
 eloquence sank into obscurity. 
 
 It has been thought best to end this discussion at the point 
 where sophistic rhetoric ends, but the question of the amount of 
 preparation and extemporization in a speech might still be consid- 
 ered not only in the practice of the Church Fathers, the mediaeval 
 Preachers, and the orators of the Renaissance, when sophistic 
 eloquence revived, but also in that of the orators of the French 
 Revolution, the great speakers of the English Parliament, and 
 our own American orators, as well of the present as of the past. 
 
 •^ol fiaifiovioi Gocpioxai; compare Or. XXVII, 332C. 
 
 "* Cf . Sievers, G. R. : Das Leben des Libanius, Berlin, 1868 ; Petit, Essai 
 sur Liban, Paris 1866; Westermann, Gesch. d. Griech. Bereds.; Forster, 
 Zur Schriftstellerei des Libanios, and the articles in Hermes IX and X. 
 
 •^•^ Liban. Ep. DXXV and DCLXX (Wolf); Fabricius, Biblioth. Graec. 
 VII, p. 378; p. 390. 
 
 "*Cf. France, Julian's Relation to the New Sophistic. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Achilles, 70, 71. 
 
 Admission of preparation, 46, 48, 49, 
 
 128. 
 Aelian, 121. 
 ^lius, Lucius, 15s, writes Cotta's 
 
 speech, 
 ^schines, 132, 133, 134 ff-, I45- 
 Agathon, 104. 
 Agesilaus, 146. 
 Agis, 146. 
 Albucius, 172. 
 Alcibiades, 76, 79, 88 ff., probably not 
 
 an extemporary speaker, 105, 
 
 106. 
 Alcidamas, 26 ff., his polemic against 
 
 written speeches, 36, 42. 
 Alexander of Macedon, no, 121, 126, 
 
 147. 
 Alexander, rhetorician, 53. 
 Alexander, sophist, 176. 
 Anaxagoras, 84. 
 Anaximenes, 45 ff. 
 Andocides, 105 ff., 140, repetition in, 
 
 142, 146. 
 Antiochus, 176. 
 Antiphon, 8, 13 ff., his treatise on 
 
 rhetoric, 22, 76, 78, 102 ff., his 
 
 practice, 106, 142. 
 Antonius, 58, 152, 153. 
 Antony, 162. 
 Appius Claudius, 148. 
 Apuleius, 173 ff. 
 Archilochus, 73. 
 Archinus, 143. 
 Archon Polemarchus, no. 
 Argentarius, 172. 
 Aristides, Aelius, 179. 
 Aristides, rhetorician, 51. 
 Aristides, orator, 78. 
 Aristippus, 174, quoted by Apuleius. 
 Aristocles, 176. 
 Aristophanes, 71. 
 
 Aristotle, 8, ascribes the discovery 
 
 of rhetoric to Empedocles, 13, 16, 
 26, 42 ff,, 76, 104, 107, 109, no, 
 
 124. 
 Arrian, 178. 
 Art of rhetoric, 7, traced back to pre- 
 
 Homeric times. 
 Asconius Pedianus, 158, 160. 
 Aspasia, 84. 
 
 Attic Orators, 93 ff., their speeches. 
 Atticus, 163. 
 
 auT0oxe8idt£iv, 23, n. 85. 
 Blass, 16, 23, 95, 142, 144, 146. 
 Caepio, Quintus, 154. 
 Caesar, Augustus, pp. 165-166, not an 
 
 extemporary speaker. 
 Caesar, Julius, 165. 
 Caesar, Lucius, 165. 
 Caligula, 168. 
 Callinus, 73. 
 Callisthenes, 147. 
 Cannutius, Publius, 154. 
 Cato, the Elder, 148 ff. 
 Cato, the Younger, 152. 
 Cicero, 16, 54 ff-, 59, 65, 71, 74, 75, 
 
 ^^, 79, 80, 83, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 
 
 107, 133, 147, 148, 150, 152, 154, 
 
 155, 156, 157, 158 ff. 
 Cimon, 76, ^^. 
 Claudius, 167, 168. 
 Clement of Alexandria, 142. 
 Clodius, Sextus, 162, 
 Commonplaces, 16, 95, in, 136, 139, 
 
 141. 
 Corax, 8 ff., his art of rhetoric, its 
 
 divisions; 13, 75, 99. 
 Cotta, C. Aurelius, 154, 155. 
 Crassus, 54, 152, 153, I54- 
 Critias, 90. 
 Cynics, 178. 
 Demades, 125, 133. 
 Demetrius of Phalerum, 44. 
 
l82 
 
 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 Demosthenes, 41, 48 ff., refused to 
 speak extempore, 49, 51, 53, 85, 
 89, 92, 93, 95, 122 ff., 133, 134, 
 138, 144 ff-, 146, 147, 176. 
 
 bmUlig, 178. 
 
 Diana, Aristides' speech in honor of, 
 179. 
 
 SittTQi pai, 178. 
 
 Dinarchus, 138, 146. 
 
 Dio Chrysostom, 178. 
 
 Diodorus, 102, iii. 
 
 Diogenes Laertius, 11. 
 
 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, iii, 121, 
 122, 124, 132, 141. 
 
 Dionysius of Syracuse, iii. 
 
 Domitian, 170. 
 
 Domitius, Cn., 154. 
 
 Display speeches, 96. 
 
 Eckert, 110. 
 
 Empedocles, said to be the discov- 
 erer of rhetoric, 8. 
 
 Epicles, 131. 
 
 Epictetus, 178. 
 
 Eratosthenes, 109. 
 
 Eudocia Augusta, 81, 109. 
 
 Eupolis, 71. 
 
 Euripides, 50, 51. 
 
 Eurypon, 146. 
 
 Extemporary speech, 7, 10, 12, 15, 
 18, 23, 27 ff., 45, 47 ff., 49 ff., 52, 
 53, 54 ff., 66 ff. 
 
 Fabius Maximus, 150. 
 
 Fronto, 69. 
 
 Funeral Orations, 109, 150. 
 
 Galba, Emperor, 169. 
 
 Galba, Servius Sulpicius, 150, 151, 
 152. 
 
 Gorgias, 11 ff., 14, i6, 27, 28, 37, 42, 
 95, 98 ff., 116, 136, 143- 
 
 Gracchus, C, 152. 
 
 Gregory of Corinth, 50 ff., comments 
 on Hermogenes. 
 
 Grote, III, 133. 
 
 Harpalus, the affair of, 139. 
 
 Harpocration, 109, 142. 
 
 Haterius, 172. 
 
 Heraclides, 176. 
 
 Hermippus, 122. 
 
 Hermogenes, 14, 49, advocates ad- 
 mission of preparation. 
 
 Herodes Atticus, 176. 
 
 H,erodotus, 77, 93. 
 
 Hieron of Syracuse, 78. 
 
 Hieronymus, 116. 
 
 Himerius, 92, 179. 
 
 Hippias of Elis, 175. 
 
 Hippodromus, 176. 
 
 Homer, 7, 8, 51, 70, 71, 72. 
 
 Horace, advocates constant care and 
 correction, 58. 
 
 Hortensius, 155 ff. 
 
 Hyperides, 133, 138. 
 
 Isaeus, Attic Orator, 122, 123, 144, 
 145, 146. 
 
 Isaeus, sophist, 175. 
 
 Isocrates, 22 ff., 27, 28, 36, 37, 38, 
 41, 42, 74, no, 112 ff., 122, 123, 
 132, 141, 142, 143, 144- 
 Jebb, 79, no, in, 142. 
 Julian, 180. 
 Kleon of Halicarnassus, writes Ly- 
 
 sander's speech, 146. 
 Laelius, 150, 151. 
 Lakratides, 147. 
 Lamachus, 126. 
 Le Beau, no. 
 Libanius, 180. 
 Livia, 166. 
 Lollianus, 175. 
 
 Longinus (?), pp. 51-52, 120. 
 Lucian, 81, 86, 89, 179. 
 Lycurgus, 133, 144, 145. 
 Lysander, 146. 
 
 Lysias, 16 ff., 21, 22, 76, 93, 107 ff., 
 112, 122, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 
 145, 149- 
 Macaulay, 112. 
 Marcus, 175. 
 Maximus of Tyre, 179. 
 Menelaus, 70. 
 Menelaus of Marathus, 152. 
 
INDEX 
 
 183 
 
 Menestheus, said to have invented 
 
 the fiixavijtog ^-oyog, 8, 70. 
 Metellus, 162. 
 Midias, 48, 89, 128, 145. 
 Miiller, 133. 
 Musonius Rufus, 178. 
 Navarre, 99. 
 Nepos, 78, 149. 
 Nero, 168 ff. 
 Nestor, 7, 70, 71. 
 Nymphidius, 169. 
 Odysseus, 7, 70, 71. 
 Otho, 169. 
 Pater, 173. 
 Pausanias, tt^ 
 Pericles, refuses to speak unprepared, 
 
 48, 71, 76. n, 78, 79, 79 ff., 88. 89. 
 
 93, 120, 125. 
 Petronius, 69. 
 Phidias, 179. 
 Philager, 176-177- 
 Philip, 119, 121, 126, 132, 133. 
 Philostratus, 82, loi, 121, 136, 138, 
 
 143, 175. 
 Phocion, 147. 
 Phoenix, 7, 70. 
 Photius, 109, 143, 146, 179. 
 Pisander, 103. 
 Pisistratus, 74. 
 Piso, 169. 
 Plato, 17 ff., 42, 83, 84, 85, 86, 96, 
 
 no. III, 132, 133, 143. 
 Pliny the Younger, 69, 172-173, 175. 
 Plutarch, 47 flf., 76, -JT, 81, 82, 83, 
 
 84, 85, 87, 89, 92, 93, 120, 124, 
 
 125, 149, 153, 178. 
 Polemo, 175, 177. 
 Pollux, 13. 
 Pompey, 159. 
 Porcius, Latro, 170 ff. 
 Porphyry, 144. 
 Prejudice against written speeches, 
 
 22. 
 Proaeresius, 176 ff. 
 Proclus, 176. 
 Prodicus, 115. 
 
 Proems and Epilogues, 13, 15, 16, 94, 
 140. 
 
 Prometheus and Epimetheus, myth 
 of, 96. 
 
 Protagoras, 11, his method of teach- 
 ing, 95 ff. 
 
 Proxenus, 139. 
 
 Pseudo-Plutarch, 78, 79, 81, 82, 85, 
 88, 105, 109, III, 133, 143. 
 
 Pyrrhus, 148. 
 
 Pytheas, 122. 
 
 Quintilian, 37, 54, 58 ff., 70, 71, 80, 
 82, 84, 86, 93, 102, 120, 147, 156, 
 
 159, 163. 
 
 Ready Speakers, 178. 
 
 Repetition of passages, 139 ff. 
 
 Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, 46. 
 
 Rhodians, 137. 
 
 Rutilius, 150. 
 
 Saturninus, Pompeius, 172. 
 
 Satyrius, 11. 
 
 Scipio, 150. 
 
 Scopelian, 175. 
 
 Seneca the Elder, 69, 170, '^l^- 
 
 Seneca the Younger, 168, wrote 
 Nero's speeches. 
 
 Severus, Cassius, 172. 
 
 Short-hand writers, 160, 176. 
 
 Socrates, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 96, 108, 
 his defense by Lysias. 
 
 Solon, 74. 
 
 Sopater, 82. 
 
 Sparta, 73, 74, 119, 121, 146. 
 
 Speech-writing no disgrace, 20. 
 
 Stobaens, 144. 
 
 Stratocles, 146. 
 
 Suidas, 16, 79, 80, 81, 82, 86, 109, 136. 
 
 Sulpicius Rufus, 154, 155. 
 
 Tacitus, 54, 66 ff., praises extem- 
 porary speech, 167, 168, 169. 
 
 Teles, 178. 
 
 Theatetus, 22. 
 
 Thebans and Olynthians, 126. 
 
 Theomnestus, speech against, 142. 
 
 Themistius, 84, 179, 180. 
 
 Themistocles, 76, ^^ ff., 82, 93. 
 
i84 
 
 EXTEMPORARY SPEECH IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 Theodorus, 107. 
 
 Theon, 53, the necessity of practice 
 
 in writing, 109, 143, 145. 
 Theophrastus, 'JT, 93, 95. 
 Theramenes, 90, 116. 
 Theseus, 70. 
 Theuth, myth of, 19. 
 Thompson, 17. 
 Thrasybulus, 143, 
 Thrasymachus, his rhetorical works, 
 
 13. 
 Thucydides, 76, 'JT, 78, 79, 83, 89, 90, 
 
 91, 92, 103, 104, no, 123. 
 Tiberius, Emperor, 166-167, 168. 
 Tiberius, rhetorician, 53. 
 Timaeus, 120. 
 
 Timotheus, 120. 
 
 Tisias, 9, 13, 16,' 75, ^, 107, 115. 
 
 Titus, 169, 170. 
 
 Tyrtaeus, 73. 
 
 Valentinius, 169. 
 
 Varro, Cingonius, writes Nymph- 
 
 idius' speech, 169. 
 Verres, 158. 
 Vinicius, 172. 
 Vitellius, 169. 
 Walden, 177. 
 Wolf, F. A., 145. 
 Writing, 19, 20, yj, 54 ff. 
 Written discourse inferior to oral, 
 
 20 ff., 28 ff., 117 ff. 
 Xenophon, 121. 
 
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 
YC 01310 
 U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES 
 
 CDS08ai741