i 
 
 ; . 
 
 California 
 
 egional 
 
 acility
 
 The Spurious Speeches in the 
 Lysianic Corpus 
 
 Si 2Di0dertation 
 
 PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF BRYN MAWR COLLEGE IN PARTIAL 
 
 FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE 
 
 OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 BY 
 
 ANGELA C. DARKOW 
 
 BRYN MAWR, PENNSYLVANIA 
 MARCH, 1917
 
 Copyright, 1917, by Angela C. Darkow 
 
 I 
 
 Zfit Boxb (gafhmore (preee 
 
 BALTIMORE, MD., U. S. A. 
 
 • • .•• .«. 
 
 • • • 
 
 I • « • • 
 
 •• ••• * * ••• !•* • •
 
 LIST OF REFERENCES. 
 
 For the sake of brevity, I give the following list of works to 
 which reference is constantly made. Other citations are made 
 in full where occasion arises. All citations are made in the 
 chronological order of the editions used, except in cases of 
 recognized dependence such as that of Jebb upon Blass, Attische 
 Beredsamkeit. 
 
 Adams, C. D., Lysias, Selected Speeches, New York, 1905. 
 
 Albrecht, E., De Lysiae oratione vigesima, Berlin, 1878. 
 
 Bake, J., Scholica Hypomnemata, Leyden, 1837 ff- 
 
 Baur, F., Die erhaltenen Reden des Lysias, Stuttgart, 1868 flF. 
 
 Benseler, G. E., De hiatu in oratoribus Atticis, Freiberg, 1841. 
 
 Bergk, T., Griechische Litteraturgeschichte IV, Berlin, 1887. 
 
 Bernhardy, G., Wissentschaftliche Syntax der griechischen Sprache, 
 Berlin, 1829. 
 
 Blass, F. W,, Attische Beredsamkeit P, Leipzig, 1887. 
 
 Bockh, P. A., Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener', Berlin, 1886. 
 
 Bremi, J. H., Lysiae et Aeschinis orationes selectae, Erfurt, 1826. 
 
 Bruns, I.. Litterarisches Portrat, Berlin, 1896. 
 
 Biichle, A., Lysias' Rede gegen Philon, Durlach, 1893. 
 
 Bursian's Jahresbericht CXXXIII (1907), i ff. 
 
 Carel, G., De Lysiae iudicali sermone sententiae veterum, Halle, 1874. 
 
 Christ, W. von, Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur^ Munchen, 
 1905. 
 
 Cosattini, A., I'epitafio di Lisia e la sua autenticita, Studi italiani di 
 filol. class. VII (1890), I ff. 
 
 Croiset, M. et A., Histoire de la Litterature Grecque IV', Paris, 1900. 
 
 Dobree, P. P., Adversaria I, Cambridge, 1831. 
 
 Eckert, C. H. L., De epitaphio Lysiae oratori falso tribute, Berlin, 1868. 
 
 Falk, A., Die Reden des Lysias, Breslau, 1843. 
 
 Francken, C. M., Commentationes Lysiacae, Utrecht, 1865. 
 
 Friinkel, F. K., De oratione pro Polystrato habita, Berlin, 1869. 
 
 Franz, J., Lysiae Orationes, .Stuttgart, 1831. 
 
 ]'>ohbcrger, G. A., Ausgcwahltc Reden des Lysias, Leipzig, 1866 ff. 
 
 Gebauer, G., Ausgewahlte Reden des Lysias, Frohberger', Leipzig, 
 1880. 
 
 Gcvers, G., Disputationis dc Lysiae epitaphii auctore, caput alterum, 
 Gottingen, 1839. 
 
 4 r: (" ("*><•>
 
 4 LIST OF REFERENCES 
 
 Gleiniger, T., Hermes IX (1875), 150 ff. 
 
 Grote, G., History of Greece^ London, 1869 f. 
 
 Guide, O. R. J., Quaestiones de Lysiae oratione in Nicomachum, 
 Berlin, 1882. 
 
 Halbertsma, T., Lectiones Lysiacae, Utrecht, 1868. 
 
 Hallensleben, H., De orationis, quae inter Lysiacas fertur octava, 
 ratione et tempore commentatio, Arnstadt, 1887. 
 
 Hamaker, H. A., Quaestiones de nonnuUis Lysiae orationibus, London, 
 
 1843- 
 
 Hanisch, E., Lysiae Amatorius, Leipzig, 1827. 
 
 Hecker, A., De oratione in Eratosthenem trigintavirum Lysiae false 
 tributa, Leyden, 1847. 
 
 Hentschel, J. M., Quaestionum de Lysiae oratione Epicratea (XXVII) 
 capita duo, Meissen, 1874. 
 
 Herrmann, K., Zur Echtheitsfrage von Lysias X Rede und iiber das 
 Verhaltniss zwischen Rede X und XI, Hannover, 1878. 
 
 Herwerden, H. van, Lysiae Orationes, London, 1899. 
 
 Hoffmeister, De quibusdam locis XX orationis Lysiacae, Stargard, 
 1872. 
 
 Hofmeister, A., Uber Gebrauch und Bedeutung des Iota Demon- 
 strativum bei den attischen Rednern, Halle, 1877. 
 
 Holscher, C. G. L., De Lysia, Berlin, 1837. 
 
 Hoyer, R., Alkibiades Vater und Sohn in der Rhetorenschule, Kreuz- 
 nach, 1887. 
 
 Hude, K. T., Lysiae Orationes, Oxford, 1913. 
 
 Hudtwalcker, M. H., Uber die Offentlichen und Privat-schiedsrich- 
 ter Diaeteten in Athen und Process vor Denselben, Jena, 1812. 
 
 Huss, M. W., De Lysiae contra Philonem oratione, Upsala, 1868. 
 
 Jebb, Sir R., Attic Orators I, London. 1876. 
 
 Jowett, B., The Dialogues of Plato T, Oxford, 1892. 
 
 Kayser, L., Philologus XXV (1867), 321 ff. 
 
 Keller, H., Die Rechtsfrage in Lysias' neunte Rede, Niirnberg, 1894. 
 
 Landweer, G. J., De epitaphio qui Lysiae vulgo tribuitur, Groningen, 
 
 1879. 
 
 Mahaffy, J. P., History of Classical Greek Literature II, New York, 
 1880. 
 
 Markland, J., in Reiske, Oratores Graeci V, Leipzig, 1772. 
 
 Motschmann, W., Die Charaktere bei Lysias, Miinchen, 1905. 
 
 Miiller, F. A., Observationes de elocutione Lysiae I, Halle, 1877. 
 
 Miiller, O., Geschichte der Grieschischen Litteratur IP, Breslau, 1857. 
 
 Nitzsche, R., Uber die griechischen Grabreden der klassischen Zeit 
 I, Altenburg, 1901. 
 
 Norden, E., Antike Kunstprosa, Leipzig, 1898.
 
 LIST OF REFERENCES 5 
 
 Nowack, F., Leipziger Studien XII (1890), iff. 
 
 Pabst, O. R., De orationis virep rov ffTpanurov quas inter Lysiacas 
 tradita est causa, authentia, integritate, Leipzig. 1890. 
 
 Parow, H., De orationis quae inter Lysiacas locum obtinet vicesimum, 
 Halle, 1870. 
 
 Pertz, C A., Quaestionum Lysiacarum caput secundum, Clausthal, 
 1862. 
 
 Pohl, A., De oratione pro Polystrato Lysiaca, Strassburg, 1881. 
 
 Polak, H. J., Mnem. XXXI (1903), i57 ff- 
 
 Pretzsch, B., De vita Lysiae oratoris temporibus definiendis, Halle, 
 1881. 
 
 Rauchenstein, R., Ausgewahlte Reden des Lysias, Fuhr"*, Berlin, 1889. 
 
 Reinhardt, C, De Isocratis aemulis, Bonn. 1873. 
 
 Reiske, J. J., Oratores Graeci V, Leipzig, 1772. 
 
 Rogholt, L. P., Ps. Lysias oratio contra Andocidem, Groningen, 1893. 
 
 Sachse, E. G., Quaestionum Lysiacarum specimen, Halle, 1873. 
 
 Scheibe, K. F., Jahn's Jahrb. XXXI (1841), 355 ff. 
 
 Scholl, R., Quaestiones fiscales iuris attici ex Lysiae orationibus 
 illustratae, Berlin, 1873. 
 
 Schomann, G. F., Griechische Altertiimer I', Berlin, 1871. 
 
 Siegfried, E., De multa quae fm^oXri dicitur, Berlin, 1876. 
 
 Sittl. K., Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur II, Miinchen, 1884. 
 
 Sluiter, J. O., Lectiones Andocideae, ed. Schiller, Leipzig, 1834. 
 
 Spengel, L., awayuyi] rexi'w;', Stuttgart, 1828. 
 
 Stutzer, E., Hermes XIV (1879), 499 ff. 
 
 Taylor, J., in Reiske, Oratores Graeci V, Leipzig, 1772. 
 
 Teichmiiller, G., Litterarische Fehden, Breslau, 1884. 
 
 Thaliieim, T. F., Lysiae Orationes, Leipzig, 1901. 
 
 Thomaschik, P., De Lysiae epitaphii authentia verisimili, Breslau, 
 1887. 
 
 Thompson, W. H., The Phaedrus of Plato, London, 1868. 
 
 Vahlen, J., Uber die Rede des Lysias in Platos Phaedrus, Sitzungsber. 
 der Akad. zu Berlin, 1903, II, 788 ff. 
 
 Vogel, F., Analecta I aus griechischen Schriftstellern, Fiirth. 1901, 
 
 33 ff. 
 
 Wagner, R., De infmitivo apud oratores atticos cum articulo coni- 
 uncto, Schwerin, 1884. 
 
 Weber, H. H., De Lysiae quae fertur contra Andocidem oratione 
 (VI), Leipzig, 1900. 
 
 Weidner, A. C, Lysiae Orationes Selectae, Leipzig, 1888. 
 
 Weineck, A., Das Geburtsjahr des Lysias und die sich daran kniip- 
 fenden Fragen, Mitau, 1880. 
 
 Weinstock, H., De crotico Lysiaco, Wcstfalen, 1912.
 
 O LIST OF REFERENCES 
 
 VV^estermann, A., Lysiae Orationes, Leipzig, 1854. 
 
 Wilamowitz-Mollendorff, U. von, Aristoteles und Athen, Berlin, 1893. 
 
 Wolff, E., Quae ratio intercedat inter Lysiae epitaphium et Isocratis 
 panegyricum, Berlin, 1895. 
 
 Worpel, G., De Lysiae oratione vvep tov dbwarov quaestiones, Leip- 
 zig, 1901. 
 
 Zutt, Die Rede des Andokides vepi tup fivvrripiuv und die Rede des 
 Lysias kot 'AudoKtdov I, Leipzig, 1891.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The following dissertation on " The Spurious Speeches in 
 the Lysianic Corpus " is the outcome of an investigation of the 
 essential characteristics of Lysias' work. Lysias' renown as a 
 master of ethopoiia led me first to direct my attention to his 
 methods of presentation of character. Here at the outset, since 
 Lysias in this respect works in low relief, as does Sophocles 
 in tragedy, a trained perception is needed to grasp the writer's 
 delicacy of touch, and one may not be dogmatic. Furthermore, 
 in prose, where no stage directions can be indicated through 
 vagaries of metre, and characters cannot be brought out by 
 means of dialogue, the reader must supply the make-up, setting 
 and role. Isocrates V. 26 mentions the necessity of reading 
 ethos into written speeches, and, indeed, since prose is the more 
 readily subjective vehicle, it is not strange to find Lysias' tricks 
 of thought and phrase recurring in the mouths of various 
 characters. 
 
 I considered the speeches generally accounted spurious in the 
 light of this investigation of ethopoiia, and some of them, 
 notably VI, VIII, IX, X., XXIV, I found by no means lacking 
 in this quality. I then turned to an examination of the grounds 
 upon which so-called spurious speeches have been rejected, and 
 found that in the majority of cases the final objection was un- 
 suitability for delivery in the law court. 
 
 It was necessary, therefore, to investigate the position of 
 logography in general, and that of Lysias in particular, since 
 as my work advanced, it seemed to me certain that the criterion 
 of applicability to actual pleading is a false one. The con- 
 temporary evidence, at least, does not point to Lysias as a 
 logographer in the sense of one who wrote speeches for clients 
 to use in court. Yet this suggestion is so subversive of tradition, 
 and must rest so largely on negative argument, that I have 
 decided to subject to detailed examination the evidence in
 
 8 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 Lysias' case only, leaving- for a future study the position of 
 the orators generally in this respect, and what seems to me the 
 erroneous assumption that the extant work of the Greek orators 
 is the result of writing speeches for clients to deliver in court 
 or assembly. 
 
 Of four hundred and twenty-five speeches attributed to 
 Lysias in antiquity, only two hundred and thirty < three > were 
 considered genuine by Dionysius and Caecilius.' One hundred 
 and seventy-two are known to us by name ; " of these, thirty-one 
 survive more or less intact, and parts of three others are quoted 
 by Dionysius. Of the thirty-one, six ' are cited with some 
 reservation by Harpocration. and five others ' without any sus- 
 picion of their authenticity. Of the value of Harpocration's 
 ci yv^o-to?, the form usually taken by his reservation, we are 
 unable to judge. We do not even know whether he based it 
 upon the judgment of his predecessors, or upon a criterion of 
 his own. Photius ° mentions as a radical scholar a certain 
 Paulus of Mysia ' who through his rejections deprived posterity 
 of many genuine speeches of Lysias. If ancient scholars took 
 such liberties with the text, — and it is due in part at least to 
 their excisions, that of four hundred and twenty-five speeches 
 once attributed to Lysias, only thirty-one survive, — it appears 
 that the presence of a speech in the Lysianic corpus argues that 
 the presumption of its genuineness is considerably increased. 
 
 Dionysius, in his study of Lysias' work, a study obviously 
 undertaken from a purely literary point of view, made the ulti- 
 mate criterion of the genuineness of his work so intangible a 
 (|uality as xap«/ and yet this quality cannot, as he himself admits, 
 be defined, but must be intuitively apprehended. The English 
 word " charm " seems the best translation. Should this cri- 
 terion be applied to all Lysias' speeches? Certainly invective 
 is not likely to possess to any high degree the quality of charm. 
 
 ' Ps. Plut. 836a = Photius cod. 262, 488b, 15. ' See Blass, 357 ff 
 
 ' VI, IX, X, XIV, XXIV, XXX. 
 
 M. II, VII, XII, XX, (V?). For V, see Blass, 362. 
 
 'cod. 262. 'See under \'II. 'loff.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 9 
 
 It is on the ground of absence of this quahty, that Dionysius 
 rejected the two speeches for Iphicrates (frgg. XVIII and 
 LXV), a rejection which after his manner he supports on the 
 basis of chronological difficulties. Chronology would, indeed, 
 seem to be the only fair and objective ground for rejection, if 
 we had reasonably certain knowledge of dates. In spite of 
 Dionysius' rejection, we find the former of the two, 7rp6s 
 'Ap^oSiov iT(.pl 'I<f)tKpdTov<: Sojpcwv, (cited by Dionysius as ^rept tt}s 
 'l<l>LKpdTov'i ctKoi'os), acccptcd as genuine by Paulus Germenus ' 
 and both of them by Ps. Plut., 836d.' Aristeides XLIX, 
 518 Dind., left the question of authorship undecided." Aris- 
 totle " cited sentences from both as spoken or written by 
 Iphicrates, but his testimony is open to various interpretations, 
 since he also quotes the Platonic Socrates as Socrates. 
 
 Dionysius" further rejected a speech for Nicias (fr. XCIX) 
 which had incurred the censure of Theophrastus for undue 
 levity of language in a passage of appeal to pity. Theophrastus 
 seems to have missed comprehension of Lysias' ironic humour, 
 and certainly Dionysius' cutting of the knot " is even less justifi- 
 able than it is efficacious. Even if Lysias, speaking through 
 Nicias, represented the general as we find him represented in 
 Thucydides' speeches, it is quite conceivable that he should have 
 introduced, as a personal contribution, the solemn sort of 
 ■ levity ' that lies purely in the rhyming of words. It is a solemn 
 levity, for this is one of the rhetorical figures of the epitaphii, 
 and the rhetoric still appeals in passages of the New Testament. 
 Especially if the speech was, as seems probable, purely epi- 
 deictic," no ground for objection remains. Theophrastus' 
 objection assails the authenticity of Lysias' speech no more 
 
 'cf. Suidas under IlaOXoj Ftpiilvos ao4>i(jTi)r 6 ypdipas on ye Avaiov faTin 
 b ntpi Trji 'I<^iKpdroi'S ddiptds, fiifiXia (i' . 
 
 " He even reported tliat Lysias was successful in both ! This is merely 
 a manner oi appreciation of the merits of the speech. 
 
 '" tIOh fifv tl PovXti Avaiov tov \6yov tlyat, ri6(i 5' 'l0(*cpdTois. 
 
 "Aristotle Khet. II. 2;^. 6; 7; 9; III. 10. '^ m. 
 
 "6x1 5f ovK iypa\j/t \vaia% rbv imip SikIov Xoyov .... iroWoii iravv tck- 
 fir]pioii anoddiai divdntvos ovk t'xto Kaipbv iv rip -napovri Xoyu. 
 
 '* iilass, .447 f. See 448 for defenders of its genuineness.
 
 lO SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 successfully than does Protagoras' objection to the imperative 
 in the opening lines of the Iliad cast doubts upon their 
 genuineness. 
 
 Modern scholars like those of ancient times have been active 
 in their suspicion and rejection of Lysias' speeches. Only six " 
 of the thirty-one speeches remaining to us have not been 
 attacked by either. Nor have recent scholars been constant in 
 their valuation of the early critics: no suspicion, for instance, 
 of II and XX is recorded in antiquity, whereas they are rejected 
 by most scholars of recent times. In no case, however, has 
 Harpocration's et yvrjaio? failed to excite doubts in the mind of 
 some recent investigator. 
 
 The scholars of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth cen- 
 turies were cautious about rejection. Gradually II, VI, VIII, 
 IX, XI, XX, came to be regarded as almost certainly spurious, 
 though of course not all scholars reject precisely the same 
 speeches. Croiset " for example refused to admit VI, VIII, IX, 
 XV, XX, but did not mention II or XI ; Hude, the latest editor 
 of Lysias, though considering several of the speeches probably 
 spurious, brackets only VIII and XI." 
 
 XI has been generally considered as epitome of X. It was 
 Francken who first applied extensively to other speeches of 
 Lysias the theory that they are epitomes. His example has been 
 faithfully followed, and his method has been applied to various 
 speeches. Many scholars have justly inveighed against it.'' It 
 is not only incapable of proof, but entirely unsatisfactory as a 
 means of explaining difificulties. Furthermore, the insistence 
 in PI. Phaedr. 228d that Phaedrus shall read Lysias' speech, 
 and not give an epitome (iv Kt^aAaioi? c<f>c$^^ Stei/xi) may be in- 
 tended to emphasize the fact that Lysias' manner of composi- 
 tion might lead to a confusion between epitome and original, 
 eyw fxlviKava. . . . e'pwra (234c) points to the Unfinished nature 
 of Lysias' speeches, which (264c) are criticized as lacking head 
 and tail. There seems therefore to be some recognized char- 
 
 "I. Ill, XXI, XXVI, XXXII, XXXIV. 
 449, n. I. "praef. ad fin. "See Nowack, 99 f.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS II 
 
 acteristic in Lysias' work that might lend semblance to the possi- 
 bility of any one speech being an epitome. 
 
 On the ground of avoidance of hiatus, Benseler^* rejected 
 \'III outright; he did not consider the argument from hiatus 
 sufficiently urgent to warrant the rejection of II, IX, XIV ; 
 XVI, XXII, XXIV, XXV, XXVIII, XXIX, XXXIII he esti- 
 mated as " dubitationi justae obnoxias ". In no case, except in 
 that of VIII, has his judgment commanded attention, and his 
 results have been corrected by Blass.'"' 
 
 Dionysius " following Aristotle,'"* divides oratory into three 
 classes : dicanic, symboleutic, and epideictic, i. e. panegyric. 
 Quintilian " makes the much needed distinction between enco- 
 miastic and epideictic oratory and points out that all three kinds, 
 dicanic, symboleutic, as well as encomiastic, are comprehended 
 in epideixis. It is this wider use of the word epideixis, in the 
 sense of literary production, that is the keynote and keystone 
 of my dissertation. 
 
 There seems to have existed in Athens in the late fifth and 
 the fourth century ,"" a more or less clandestine practice of writ- 
 
 "i83ff. "Ill, 337 i- "16. 
 
 "cf. Rhet. I. 3.3. It is far from certain that Aristotle was the first to 
 make this tripartite division. The text of Anaximenes rex- PV"-, init. 
 and again in 17, was changed by Spengel to secure conformity with 
 Quintihan III. 4. This arbitrary emendation has not been unanimously 
 accepted, cf. O. Navarre, Essai sur la Rhetorique Grecque avant 
 Aristote, Paris, 1900, 335 ff., and references there given. According to 
 Burgess, Kpideictic Literature, Chicago, 1902, 97 ff., there are in Isocrates 
 indications of " the triple division made so distinct and permanent by 
 Aristotle ". 
 
 ^' III. 4. 14, esp. " ut causarum quidem tria genera sint, sed ea turn in 
 negotiis, tum in obstentatione posita " the meaning of which is not made 
 clear in the translation of Burgess (95), "Though there are three 
 kinds of oratory, in each of these a part is devoted to subject-matter and 
 a part to display". It seems reasonably clear in the light of tlie con- 
 text that Quintilian meant to point out that although there were throe 
 divisions of oratory, each of the three included speeches actually used, 
 as well as those written for display ( eVtSeiKTiKwj ). With this use of 
 the word negotium, cf. its use in a not dissimilar connection in Am. 
 Mar. XXX. 4. Hermogenes, n. id. II, 417 Sp., also designates Aristotle's 
 imStiKTiKOi' yivoi as iraprjyvpiKo^ X6701. 
 
 Query : Quint. IH. 4. 10 says, " Isocrates in omni genere incsse laudem 
 ac vituperationem existimavit ". Can this be a misunderstanding or mis- 
 translation of Isocrates' use of t6 iiriOfiKTiKov in its wider sense? cf. 
 Burgess, 97 ff. " See Blass, 92.
 
 12 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 ing speeches for the use of others in the courts. Contemporary 
 references to it are sHght. Oddly enough, it is not commented 
 upon in what is left to us of Old Comedy, though we know from 
 Ps. Plut. 833c that Plato in his Peisander satirized Antiphon's 
 <f)i\apyvpia. Of direct contemporary evidence regarding Anti- 
 phon, we have only the passage in Thucydides (VIII. 68) from 
 which we may conclude that Antiphon was, in some sense, an 
 advocate, but not with Blass, 92, n. i, that ^vfi/^ovXevuacrOaL may 
 include written counsel, and that Antiphon was therefore a 
 professional speechwright." Cicero, Brut. 47, directly quotes 
 from this passage in Thucydides. Quintilian, III. i. 11, echoes 
 Thucydides' statement about the excellence of Antiphon's Apo- 
 logia, but it must be from some other source that he derived his 
 " orationem primus omnium scripsit ", unless by chance the 
 ouSevos' 8«'Te/3os in Thucydides gave rise to a misunderstanding. 
 Ps. Plut. 832c quotes a tradition to the efifect that Antiphon was 
 the first to write speeches for the law courts at the request of 
 citizens, thus ' improving ' on the notice in Quintilian. Hermo- 
 genes, tt. IS. II. 415 Sp., contents himself with calling Antiphon 
 
 o\<l)<i CUpCT^S Kttl dpX'qyO'i .... TOV TVTTOV TOV TToXlTLKOV. It IS UOt 
 
 until we reach Diodorus ap. Clem. Alex. Str. I. 365 and Philo- 
 stratus, ySi'oi ao<p. 17, that we find combined the two notices kept 
 rigidly apart in Ps. Plutarch — first, the tradition that Antiphon 
 was first to write speeches for others, and second, that Plato 
 satirized Antiphon's 4>i\apyvpia. Ammianus Marcellinus XXX. 
 4 brings up the rear with a repetition of the information dis- 
 closed by Diodorus and Philostratus. 
 
 A glance at these citations suffices to show the lateness of the 
 final version of the story, and warrants serious doubts of its 
 
 "Wilamowitz, Philologische Untersuchungen, Berlin, 1880, 1. 38, n. 
 68, "... und was sind denn Antiphons tetralogien? rhetorische 
 schaustiicke oder toitol fiir den wirklichen gebrauch und behandlungen 
 juristischer probleme?" He chooses the second alternative, and ex- 
 pects to gain conviction by a citation of Plut. Per. 36 as evidence that 
 the second tetralogy deals with an actual case. But there is no evidence 
 in Plutarch that the accidental murder — if it ever occurred— was tried in 
 court, and this is rather an instance of how an event — real or fictitious — 
 may be made the basis of sophistic discussion in words or on paper. But 
 it is noteworthy that even with his point of view, Wilamowitz does not 
 claim that the tetralogy was destined for actual use in court.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS I3 
 
 accuracy. Not until the late second or the third century do we 
 come upon the tradition that Antiphon wrote speeches for 
 money, and then we find that it has probably arisen from a 
 contaminatio of sources. 
 
 The confusion among the various Antiphons even in the Ps. 
 Plut. vita ^ would impose additional caution in the application 
 of references to the orator. (^iXapyvpia is a common thrust at 
 Teiresias, and one Antiphon was a Te/aaToaKoro? (Diog. Laert. 
 11.46). 
 
 Andocides, it is clear, never wrote for clients. Before we 
 can consider Lysias, we must first notice the passages that 
 throw light on the general practice of speech w-riting as a 
 profession. 
 
 Plato in the Euthydemus (289c) mentions AoyoTroiot, makers 
 of speeches, some of whom like the \vpoTroioi, makers of lyres, 
 are not always able to use the instrument they fashion. It 
 is noticeable that the simile, if carried to a logical conclusion, 
 implies that the XoyoTroioi were unable to use the speeches from 
 lack of oratorical ability." Isocrates is an obvious instance in 
 point, both from his own admissions and the suggestion of his 
 father's business in the simile. In 2896, Xoyoiroua is compared 
 to sorcery. By its means, dicasts, ecclesiasts, and other bodies 
 of men are beguiled and persuaded ; AoyoTrotot. therefore, may 
 include public orators as well as private speechwrights. 
 
 In the Laws, XI. 9376 seq., Plato censures vehemently the 
 practice of ^wSiKia, a perversion of justice, masquerading under 
 the name of rex^r]. which is rewarded by money. An alien con- 
 victed of this offense is to be banished for life; a citizen, to be 
 put to death." 
 
 " Blass, 93 f . 
 
 " cf . Isocrates V. 81 and epist. 1. 9, for his inability to speak; also 
 XV. 189 f. and XII. 9 f. 
 
 " Swpeav 6' avriji tlvat rijs t(x''V^ "^^ ''<«'*' ^oyuv rwy (k rijt t«x»''?i. Sl" 
 dvTiSwpTJrai tis xP'JM<i^o- \6yuy I take to be not speeches in any specihc 
 cases, but sample speeches, indicating arguments vvhicli, though specious, 
 would under certain conditions be effective; in other words Xd^ot is 
 practically equivalent to methods. It is possible that Quitit. II. 15. 30, 
 " et turn maxime scribere litigatoribus, quae illi pro se ipsi dicercnt, erat 
 moris, atque ita iuri, quo non licebat pro altero agere, fraus adhibe- 
 batur ", depended for his information upon this passage in Plato.
 
 14 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 Isocrates, Antid. 2 and passim (cf. esp. 31, 37 f.)> defended 
 himself against the charge of 8tKoypa</)ia /' of which he had been 
 accused by his enemies. One might as well accuse Pheidias, 
 he complained, of being a doll-maker! Later, 41, he remarks 
 that there are very many who are ready to prepare speeches for 
 men engaged in lawsuits. Cicero, Brut. 48, says that Isocrates 
 first wrote for others but afterwards abandoned the practice. 
 In Dionysius, de Isocr. 18, we find mention of a dispute on this 
 subject between Aphareus, an adopted son of Isocrates, and 
 Aristotle, who is cited as advancing in proof of his point, that 
 many Sea/tat, bundles, of Isocrates' dicanic speeches were in the 
 hands of the booksellers. On the testimony of Cephisodorus 
 who wrote against Aristotle in defense of Isocrates, Dionysius 
 concludes that he had written a few dicanic speeches. As a 
 matter of fact, of the few private speeches that remain to us, 
 XVI, XX, XXI are unsuited to delivery in a real case. It is 
 possible that the actual point of dispute between Aphareus and 
 Aristotle was the question whether Isocrates ever wrote speeches 
 on dicanic subjects, for it would indeed be strange if Isocrates, 
 at such pains to defend himself against an accusation, should 
 leave incriminating evidence in the hands of booksellers, or 
 refrain in the Antidosis from alluding to forgeries. Cicero 
 following Aristotle, would uncritically adopt his point of view, 
 for the later Greeks and the Romans omitted from considera- 
 tion the possibility that speeches were written as literature, or 
 at least as ' rhetorische Musterstiicke '. Isocrates took a ficti- 
 tious legal background even for his Antidosis (cf. 6 f.).'" We 
 have still other references to the practice, in Anaximenes Rhet. 
 ad Alex. 36, 38, and Theophrastus, Jebb-Sandys ed., 116, i. 2, 
 but as these refer to the end of the fourth century, and not to the 
 canonical orators, mention of them is sufficient. 
 
 We may now examine the evidence on which it is assumed 
 that Lysias was a professional speechwright. Of contemporary 
 
 "For diKoypd(pos see Pollux VIII. 24; Diog. Laert. VI. 115. 
 
 ** Burgess, 97, n. 2, " Though but a small proportion of his (Isocrates') 
 speeches are epideictic in title or technically such in theme, all are of 
 this class in reality."
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 1 5 
 
 criticism, fortunately, we have Plato's Phaedrus, which through- 
 out treats Lysias as a literary man. It is questionable whether 
 Plato would have taken the trouble to criticize, from this 
 point of view, a professional speechwright. The crucial word, 
 \oyoypd<f>o<;, occurs however in 267c. 
 
 Now the word Xoyoypd<f>o^ originally meant prose writer, or 
 more particularly chronicler, ixv6oypa.<f>o<i. In this sense, it is 
 used in Thuc. I. 21. Aristotle in his Rhetoric uses the word 
 three times (II. 11. 7; III. 7. 7; III. 12. 2), in each case with this 
 meaning. In II. 11. 7, it is contrasted with ttoit/t^s, as repeatedly 
 AoyoTToids is contrasted with ttoit^tt^s- in Isocrates (cf. V. 109; 
 XV. 137), while in the Phaedrus Lysias is judged as a ttoit/t^s 
 (= artist)." Even in later times Aoyoypa^os maintained its 
 original sense, for Hermogenes, tt. t8. II. 405, 417 Sp., dis- 
 tinguishes as representatives of the three classes of literature, 
 i. e. poetry, and spoken and written speeches (prose), TroirjTai, 
 pr)Top€<:, and \oyoypd(fioi, and includes laTopla under the general 
 sense of \oyoypa<f>ia. 
 
 We do find, however, \oyoypd(f>o<; used in a more restricted 
 sense. Gaisford on Phaedr. 257c quotes schol. Plat. 63, Aoyo- 
 ypd<f>ov<: cKaAoi'v ot TraAatoi tou? eirl {iiadCo Aoyovs ypd^ovra'i, Kat 
 7rnrpd(TK0VTa<i aurot'S cts SiKaor^pta" pr)Topa<i Se tous Si'tavrwi' Aeyovra?. 
 In Lycurgus in Leocr. 138 (where the word is not actually 
 used), and in Deinarchus in Demosth. in, the reference is to 
 <n<vr)yopoi, who spoke in person on behalf of the defendant, but 
 with the expressed imputation of doing so for money instead of 
 on the conventional basis of friendship or relationship." In 
 Aeschines in Ctes. 173. and Demosthenes de falsa leg. 246, each 
 orator calls the other Aoyoypa^os, and Aeschines once again 
 (adv. Tim. 94) uses the word in the sense of professional 
 speechwright. (So in the Meidias, 191, Demosthenes pretends 
 that Meidias accuses him of having pre])are(l an elaborate 
 
 " cf. 236d, 245a, 2s8d, 278e. 
 
 " Xo707ro(eii' in Dein. 1.32,35, and Dcm. IV. 49, refers to the circula- 
 tion of stories or speeches (pamphlets?) intended to influence public 
 sentiment.
 
 l6 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 Speech, or still more pointedly, of having received aid in his 
 prosecution. Yet this speech was never used in court, and was 
 probably never intended for delivery.) Whether or not the 
 word was in common use in that sense in the circle of Plato 
 remains doubtful. Certainly the passage in the Phaedrus is the 
 isolated instance of its use. 
 
 Phaedrus in this passage remarks that some one slandering 
 Lysias called him \oyoypd(f>o<i, and that Lysias would probably, 
 therefore, give up writing altogether. Socrates answers, " I 
 suppose you think that the man meant what he implied? " and 
 Phaedrus continues to discourse upon the stigma incurred by 
 leaving after one's death any avyy pdix^iara, since they make one 
 liable to the imputation of being a sophist. It seems as if in this 
 case there were a play on the word. Phaedrus interprets it in 
 the conventional meaning, litterateur.'' Socrates seems to think 
 that Lysias might have been, though obviously without justice, 
 accused of writing speeches for money. In any case, the sug- 
 gestion is dropped, and in 258c Aoyoypa^o? means writer of 
 prose, as is definitely shown by the use of the verb trvyypa^uv 
 as an equivalent. 
 
 There remains to be considered only the passage in Cicero, 
 Brut. 48 : — " . . . Lysiam primo profiteri solitum artem esse 
 dicendi, deinde, quod Theodorus esset in arte subtilior, in ora- 
 tionibus autem ieiunior, orationes eum scribere aliis coepisse, 
 artem removisse . . . ". If Cicero did, indeed, copy this notice 
 from Aristotle, there remains the possibility that he interpreted 
 mention of Lysias' dicanic speeches to mean that Lysias wrote 
 speeches for actual use, whereas to the Greeks the meaning of 
 fictional speeches with dicanic background may have been clear 
 without further explanation. 
 
 There are, indeed, passages in Isocrates which prove con- 
 clusively that in Greece in the time of Lysias, speeches were 
 written on dicanic subjects yet not for delivery in court. Isoc- 
 rates (XV. 26) in his pride at having written great panegyrics, 
 
 "cf. Blass, 350. n- 3-
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS \^ 
 
 speaks with some scorn of other forms of writing and speaking : 
 — " First of all, when a man intends to write or deliver speeches 
 which shall bring him honour and fame, it is undeniable that he 
 will abandon such subjects as take the wrong side, or are trivial, 
 or deal with matters of private dispute, and that he will choose 
 great, noble, philanthropic subjects that pertain to the common 
 weal ". In V. i, he uses the same expression, Wo^caiv iroLrjcraadai, 
 for choice of subject. In IV. ii, he refers to those critics who 
 fail to distinguish between speeches written as pieces of display 
 and those written on subjects of private dispute, but in both 
 cases his criticism is literary, and he regards both classes as 
 literary productions. Finally, in XII. i, there is a direct refer- 
 ence to dicanic speeches written as models merely, to be studied 
 by the younger generation if they wish to be successful in their 
 lawsuits. 
 
 I should suggest, therefore, that there is some probability 
 that Lysias and indeed all the orators of the canon were not 
 AoyoTTotoi in the sense of professional speech wrights. They 
 were the real representatives of a r^x^'y behind which all speech 
 mongers sheltered themselves. The opponents of this tiieory 
 must explain why these speeches — once they had served their 
 use in court — were published, and how they could be published 
 with impunity. In the following detailed investigation of the so- 
 called spurious speeches, I shall emphasize the characteristics 
 that render the speech under consideration unfit for delivery in 
 court.
 
 l8 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 II. 
 
 II, lTnTa<i>ios Tol<s KopLvdiiDV jSorjOoh, is repeatedly cited by the 
 ancients without any doubt of its genuineness/ Among the 
 moderns, it has been the subject of considerable controversy. 
 Muret,' Taylor,' Markland," Schweighauser," Schlegel,* Jacobs,^ 
 Dahlmann,' Becker," Franz,'" Hanisch," Spengel," Kriiger," 
 Westermann," Stallbaum," Hermann," Benseler," O. Muller," 
 
 ' For a list of testimonia, see LeBeau, 2 ff., and add schol. Dem. Epit. 
 ID. The passage in Aristotle, Rhet. III. lo has been the source of much 
 discussion. Did Aristotle quote from memory, as he quotes without 
 the name of the author, or should one agree with Sauppe's adoption of 
 the conjecture iv Aafiia for iv ^aXa/xlvi? Or, again, is the passage hope- 
 lessly corrupt? Sauppe's expedient assumes the spuriousness of Rhet. 
 III. I should prefer to be conservative, and admit that Aristotle was 
 quoting from memory. Lysias II. 60 refers to those who fell at Aegos- 
 potamoi. Their death symbolizes the death of freedom. Yet in a 
 sense one can understand that freedom died with her defenders at 
 Salamis, since their successors were unable to champion her cause suc- 
 cessfullJ^ This, at least, could have been said after the end of the 
 Peloponnesian War. It is possible also that some other author in an 
 epitaphius may have used that expression, and Aristotle may therefore 
 refer to another than the one before us. The metaphor, itself, must have 
 been a commonplace. It is found also in Aesch. in Ctes. 211, and 
 Lycurg. in Leocr. 50 (cf. Wendland, Hermes XXV (1890), 181, n. i, 
 and 185 f.). Therefore, Ar. Rhet. III. 10 cannot be used as proof of 
 the genuineness of Lysias II. Diels, Abb. d. k. Akad. d. Wiss. 1886, IV, 
 5 ff., rejected Sauppe's expedient, and admitted that Aristotle's refer- 
 ence could not be used to prove the genuineness of the Epitaphius. 
 Wilamowitz, ib. 35 ff., thought that Aristotle quoted from the Epitaphius 
 of Gorgias, from which 60 of the one under consideration was bor- 
 rowed. Blass, 438, rejects this expedient and thinks that Aristotle simply 
 made an error in quotation. 
 
 'Var. Lect., XVII.2. ' Lect. Lys., III. 231. ■'49f- 
 
 'ad Herod. VII. 139. ' Wieland's Att. Mus. I. 2, 260 ff. 
 
 'Attika, Vorr. VII. 
 
 ' Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der Geschichte, Altona, 1822, I. 21. 
 
 * Demosthenes als Staatsmann und Redner, 466; Demosth. Philippicae, 
 XXXIV. 
 
 '° iiriSei^is irepl Avciov rov priropos, Niirnberg, 1828, 12 ff. " 4- 140' 
 
 "ad Clinton, 105; Hist. Philol. Studien, Berlin, 1837, I. 102 f.; 232 ff. 
 
 " Quaest. Demosth., Leipzig, 1837, II. 32 ff. ; ed., XVI. 
 
 " Praef . ad Platon. Menex., 14 ; Lysiaca ad illustrandas Phaedri 
 Platonici origines, Leipzig, 1851, 15 f. 
 
 " Geschichte und System der Platonischen Philosophic, Heidelberg, 
 1839, 520 ; 678, n. 572. 
 
 " 184. He would not reject it upon the ground of the slight departure 
 from Lysias' use of hiatus, alone. " 375 f.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS IQ 
 
 Villemain," Caffiaux/" Grote/^ all accepted it as genuine. Schon- 
 born," in 1833, had defended its authenticity. His argument 
 from the connection between it and the ^lenexenus of Plato has 
 been attacked by Lors/' though the latter did not reject the 
 Epitaphius. LeBeau " and Gevers " also defended it at greater 
 length. 
 
 On the other hand, we find that it is rejected by Reiske,** 
 Valckenar/' Wolfif;' Sluiter/' Clinton,=^ Bernhardy,'^ Sauppe/* 
 Dobree," Meier," Falk," Scheibe,^ Pertz," Steinhart,** Hecker," 
 Kayser" Scholl " Halbertsma," F. A. MuUer ," Hentschel," 
 Hermann." Dobree "* and Holscher " had previously advanced 
 detailed arguments against the Epitaphius. 
 
 I shall examine in greater detail only the work of those 
 scholars who have played the most important part in the 
 controversy. 
 
 Dobree agreed with Valckenar that Lysias could not have 
 delivered the Epitaphius. He further thought it unlikely that it 
 was written for some one else to deliver, but admitted the possi- 
 bility that it was a purely literary production. He based his 
 
 " Essai sur I'Oraison Funebre (quoted by Caffiaux, 81 f.). 
 
 "L'Oraison Funebre, Valenciennes, 1861, 70 ff. 
 
 " Plato and the Other Companions of Socrates', London, 1867, II, 256. 
 
 " Uber das Verhaltniss in welchem Platen's Menexcnus zu dem 
 Epitaphius des Lysias steht, Gruben, 1833, 25 ff. Stallbaum and LeBeau 
 also used this argument. 
 
 " Quae ratio inter Platonis Menexenum et Lysiae laudationem sive 
 epitaphium intercedat disputatio, Trier, 1846. The same view is de- 
 fended by Knoll, Sind Beziehungen zwischen dem Epitaphios im Mene- 
 xenos und dem sog. Lysianischen nachzuweisen ? Krems, 1873. 
 
 "Allg. Schiilz. LXXVIII (1833); op. cit.; N. Jahrb. XCIII (1866), 
 808 ff. ''op. cit. ^64. 
 
 " Hemst. et Valck. Orat., 218, cited by Dobree. 8 f. 
 
 " Euphem. Liter., Erfurdt. 1782, 34; ad Demosth. Leptinem, 363. 
 
 "181. ^ Fasti Hellenici, 269 Kriiger. "22.43, 126,310. 
 
 "ad Lycurg. 144; Nachr. d. Gott. Ges. d. Wiss., 1863, 73 f(.; Gcitt. 
 gel. Anz., 1864, 824 ff. " 192; 195 ff. 
 
 •* Index Scholarum, Halle, 1837. 12 f. ''171 ff. ; XIV. 
 
 "ed.', Leipzig, 1887, LXXIX. "13. "Vers. Platon., VI. 36';. 374- 
 
 "2. "Jahrb. f. Phil. LXXVII (1858), 373 f^- 
 
 "Philol. XXV (1867), i6<')ff. "62. ■"3. ".Sf- "4- 
 
 ** Praelectio in Pseudo-Lysiae orationcm funcbrcm, Cambridge, 1823 
 (op. cit., 3 ff.). He quotes Victonus as considering II genuine. "47 ff.
 
 20 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 rejection on the points of contact with Isocrates' Panegyric,** 
 from which he deduced that the author of the Epitaphius 
 was the borrower. In style, also, he thought the author had 
 imitated Isocrates, and while realizing that we have no criterion 
 for Lysias' epideictic style, felt sure that it could not have been 
 that of the Epitaphius. Holscher advanced, in support of this 
 view, details of style, such as excessive use of /xev and Se, of 
 antitheses, and the accumulation of synonyms. 
 
 Gevers emphasized the necessity of keeping absolutely dis- 
 tinct the dicanic and epideictic styles, and answered Holscher's 
 arguments against genuineness by pointing out that the very 
 peculiarities to which he took exception, are characteristic of 
 epideixis, (in its restricted sense). 
 
 LeBeau," after citing the references of the ancients to the 
 Epitaphius, among which he included Aristotle, Rhet. III. lo, 
 answered the arguments that had been advanced against it, and 
 attempted, though unsuccessfully, as I think, to prove that an- 
 titheses are found in equally great numbers in Lysias' other 
 speeches. Between the Eroticus and the Epitaphius he pointed 
 out definite resemblances, e. g. balance of clauses and periods, 
 artificial order, purely verbal antitheses. He defended Lysias' 
 right to deliver the Epitaphius. He believed that Plato in the 
 Menexenus wrote with direct reference to it, and regarded this 
 as a proof of Lysianic authorship. Vomel °° was convinced by 
 LeBeau. 
 
 Sauppe had previously " based his rejection of the epitaphii 
 that appear under the names of Demosthenes and Lysias, and 
 also of the Menexenus, on the mention in them all of gymnastic 
 contests on the occasion of the great public funerals of those 
 
 49 
 
 For a list of these passages, see Wolff, 17 ff. 
 
 op. cit. He quotes, as believing in genuineness, Auger and Belun 
 de Ballu, Hist, de I'eloquence chez les Grecs I, 194. I have been unable 
 to secure the original of LeBeau's work. 
 
 '"Jahrb. f. Phil. LXXXVH (1863), 366 ff. He quotes, as rejecting 
 the Epitaphius on pedagogic grounds, Classen in the preface to his third 
 edition of Jacobs' Attica. For another favourable review of LeBeau, 
 cf. Litt. Centralblatt, 1863, 1141 f. by an anonymous writer. 
 " Gott. Nachr., 1864, 199 ff.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 21 
 
 who fell in war (Lys. Epit. 80; Dem. Epit. 36; Men. 249b). 
 Because there is no mention of these games in Pericles' funeral 
 oration, he believed that the custom did not exist until the be- 
 ginning of the third century. But Blass " and other scholars 
 opposed this view, and Sauppe's evidence is insufficient and his 
 reasoning circuitous. Sauppe now "' opposed LeBeau's argu- 
 ments. First, he quoted Thuc. II. 34, Isoc. IV. 74. and Dem. 
 XVIII. 285 to prove that Lysias as a metic could not have 
 delivered the Epitaphius. He thought that the peculiarities of 
 style are not sufficiently explained by the epideictic genre, and 
 believed that the author used Isocrates' Panegyric. LeBeau ^* 
 replied to Sauppe's criticism, and tried to confirm his previous 
 contention, namely that Aristotle cites from Lysias' Epitaphius ; 
 that Lysias could and did deliver it ; that it was the source for 
 passages in Isocrates' Panegyric ; and that Sauppe's objections 
 on the score of style are invalid. 
 
 Eckert " saw that the Epitaphius could only have been written 
 as a /u,cA£T7/, but thought that the impossibility of assigning it 
 definitely to any one year of the Corinthian War, and the lack 
 of definite historical facts about the war prove that the author 
 was a late rhetor. The style of the piece confirmed him in this 
 conclusion. 
 
 Girard " and Perrot " maintained its authenticity, and attri- 
 buted its peculiarities of style to the exigencies of that depart- 
 ment of literature. 
 
 Klijgmann " regarded the Epitaphius as genuine, and thought 
 the Panegyric had been written in dependence upon it. Land- 
 weer," after going over the debated ground with some thorough- 
 ness, admitted that spuriousness could not be absolutely proved ; 
 still he urged against it lack of historical accuracy and the 
 presence of a sophistic flavour. Furthermore, he thought it 
 
 "441, n. 6. "Gi,tt. Gel. An/.., 1864, 824 ff. 
 
 ^'Jahrh. f. Phil. XCIII (1866), 808 ff. "op.cit. 
 
 •* Sur I'authenticitc de I'oraison fiincbrc attribiie a Lysias, Rev. Arch., 
 1872. "Rev. dcs deux Mondes, 1H71, 832; oj). cit., 248. 
 
 " Die Ama/.onen in der attischcn Litteratur 11. Kiinst, Stuttgart. 1875, 
 67 ff. " op. cit.
 
 22 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 probable that Lysias did not write epideictic pieces after the 
 anarchy; but of this there is no proof. Gebauer'" rejected, 
 though Frohberger " had accepted it.. 
 
 Richter " attempted to show by a detailed investigation of the 
 style of II that it could not be the work of Lysias. Erdmann " 
 rejected it, advancing as a new argument " that in contrast to 
 the funeral orations of Demosthenes, Thucydides, and Hyper- 
 eides, (cf. Dion. Hal. ars rhet. VI. 2), the Lysianic epitaphius 
 is devoted, in great part, to the praise of the irpoyovoi.; whereas 
 the praise of those who are to be interred is given only two 
 paragraphs (6 and 7). This precludes, according to him, the 
 possibility that Lysias was the author, and proves that it was 
 written by a late rhetorician. However, one might answer that 
 a late rhetorician, writing in imitation, would be unlikely to 
 deviate so obviously from the norm. Reuss " advanced as addi- 
 tional proof of the author's dependence on the Panegyric, 
 parallels between 47 and Isocrates VII. 75, and between 32 and 
 Isocrates VI. 100. Blass *° pointed out the resemblance between 
 47 and Evagoras 62, and suggested that both authors in such 
 isolated cases might be imitating Gorgias. In any case, it 
 seems to me, a repetition of a commonplace need not be due to 
 conscious imitation. 
 
 Albrecht " in approval of Richter's results, and Sittl " rejected 
 the Epitaphius, as did Keil,*™ who thought that 2 was compiled 
 from Thuc. II. 41. 4 and Isoc. IX. 62, and Buresch."* Blass" 
 believed with LeBeau and the ancient critics " that the Epi- 
 taphius was written before the Panegyric. He thought that the 
 question of authorship could be settled only on grounds of style, 
 
 ~ 7, n. so. " ibid. " op. cit. 
 
 *^ De pseudolysiae epitaphii codicibus, Leipzig, 188 1 ; Pseudolysiae 
 oratio funebris, Leipzig, 1881. 
 
 "Woch. f. klass. Philol. VI (1882), ii84f?. 
 
 "Rh. Mus. XXXVIII (1883), 148 ff. Philol. LII (1893), 615. 
 
 "443, n. 5. "Zeitschr. f. Gymn., XXXVI (1882), 337- " MS- 
 
 "Analecta Isocratea, Prague, 1885, 98. '"Leip. Stud. IX (1886), 90. 
 
 " 436 ff. In his first edition, 432, he had thought that the Panegyric 
 was the original. 
 
 " Pseudoplut., Vita Isocr. 837 f.; Theon, 63 Sp. ; Photius, cod. 260, 
 1458.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LVSIANIC CORPUS 2$ 
 
 and from a comparison of the style of the Epitaphius with that 
 of the Olympiacus, concluded that Lysias could not be the 
 author. Maass," in defense of its orenuineness, rejected this 
 argument, and found in the strictly epideictic genre sufficient 
 explanation of the style. Jebb " thought it the work of a late 
 rhetor who copied from Isocrates, and Hallensleben " and 
 Bergk '* also considered it spurious. 
 
 Baur " and Bockh " thought the Epitaphius genuine and in- 
 sisted that style should not be made a ground for rejection. 
 Thomaschik " saw in the Epitaphius an example of genuine 
 Lysianic art, not differing from the norm in composition, style, 
 figures, or choice of words. 
 
 Weidner,*" Pabst,'^ and Nowack,*^ without new evidence, re- 
 jected it. Wendland *^ insisted that the Epitaphius is at least an 
 early production, and Diimmler ^ maintained that spuriousness 
 had not been proved, and that the Panegyric is dependent upon 
 it. Wolff' "' based his rejection upon the idea that the Epitaphius 
 is, in part, imitation of the Panegyric, and found this imitation 
 especially evident in 54-61 which seemed to him out of place 
 while appropriate in the Panegyric, 103 f., 106, 115 f. The other 
 grounds of rejection, he admitted, are inconclusive, but this one, 
 he considered, would sufficiently disprove Lysianic authorship. 
 Cosattini "* defended at some length, but without advancing any 
 new line of defence, the genuineness of II. Nitzsche " regarded 
 arguments from style, and other objections to it as inadequate 
 for proof, yet rejected it as being dependent upon the Panegyric. 
 Thalheim** also agreed with Wolff that the author's use of the 
 Panegyric demonstrated that the Epitapliius is not by Lysias. 
 Polak,*" Christ,"" Hiirth,"' all rejected it. Burgess referred to it 
 
 "Deutsche Litztg., 1887, 1546 f. 
 
 "2o8ff. "4. ".354 f. "7of. 
 
 '" Encvclopadie der Pl^iIoloRie^ Leipzig. 1886, 212 f. 
 
 '•op. cit. ~6. "30. "104. "Hermes XXV (1890), 181 ff. 
 
 "Hermes XXVII (1892), 282. n. 2. "op. cit. "oi). cit. 
 
 " op. cit. Chaillet, De orationibus, quae Athenibus in f uneribus pub- 
 licis iiabebantur, Leyden, 1891, has been inaccessible to me. 
 
 "B. P. W. XVII (iS*;;), 33; op. cit.. XXXVI. 
 
 "Mnem. XXIX (1901 ), 4.34 f. ""jjs. 
 
 " De Gregorii Nanzianzeni orationil)US funebribus, Strassburg, KJ07, 
 13-
 
 24 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 as •• probably spurious ".'" Hude*" admitted the difference be- 
 tween this and other Lysianic speeches, and promised a more 
 detailed treatment in the future. 
 
 To sum up: the grounds of suspicion that have been ad- 
 vanced against the Epitaphius are its style, and its dependence 
 upon the Panegyric. The question whether or not it could have 
 been delivered by Lysias, or written by him to be delivered by 
 some one else is no longer debated by scholars. No one would 
 now attempt a defence of the Epitaphius except on the assump- 
 tion that it is a literary effort. 
 
 It has been repeatedly acknowledged that we have no ade- 
 quate criterion by which to judge the style of the Epitaphius. 
 Lysias' epideictic style as seen in the Olympiacus is not neces- 
 sarily his only epideictic manner, and unquestionably Gorgias' 
 Epitaphius set the fashion for all successive literary funeral 
 orations. As for the parallel passages in the Epitaphius and 
 the Panegyric, it is quite conceivable that they are drawn from 
 one and the same source, possibly Gorgias' Epitaphius, of which 
 we have only the epilogue preserved (Diels, Vorsokratiker II, 
 556 f.). Otherwise the question, which was written first, can 
 only be answered subjectively, as may be seen from the varying 
 opinions of scholars on this point. If ancient authorities were 
 unanimous in rejecting the Epitaphius, as they are unanimous 
 in their acceptance, it may safely be presumed that not one 
 modern scholar would speak in its defence. The burden of 
 proof, therefore, is with those who reject it, and it is quite fair 
 to say that they have not proved their case. 
 
 On the whole, decision in this case must be withheld. The 
 peculiar quality of Lysias' style in dicanic, or rather in epi- 
 deictic-dicanic speeches would be quite inappropriate to the 
 conventional epitaphius. Ancient evidence points to his having 
 composed an epitaphius worthy of him ; it would hardly be 
 expected that Lysias in such a composition would not control his 
 terseness, his inversions, his audacity. Even if the Epitaphius 
 could have been written for another to deliver on a real occasion, 
 
 "op. cit., 147. ""X.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 25 
 
 the employment of ethos would hardly have been in place. The 
 personal ethos is no longer appropriate ; there is substituted for 
 it the ethos of the literary genre. So two criteria of genuine- 
 ness, Lysianic quality of mind, as betrayed in his style, and 
 ethos fail, in this case, of application. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Taylor ' was the first to regard with suspicion IV, irepl 
 Tpav[xaTo^ tK Trpoi'ota?, of whlch wc find no mention in antiquity.* 
 He thought it a mere imitation of the preceding speech, 7rpo« 
 lifiojva, and, since then, other scholars have hesitated to pro- 
 nounce on its genuineness. Reiske,^ however, found no reason 
 for rejecting it. Jacobs,* followed by Bremi," considered it not 
 Lysianic. Dobree ' suggested the alternate possibilities of a 
 .spurious epitome, or a genuine epilogue. Falk ' was the first to 
 advance detailed arguments against the speech, in substantia- 
 tion of Taylor's point of view which Holscher' had found alto- 
 gether untenable. Scheibe, at first,' though finding dififerences 
 between I\' and other Lysianic speeches did not question its 
 authenticity. Although he afterwards '" agreed with Falk's 
 rejection, he seems finally, in his edition, to have accepted IV' as 
 genuine, though mutilated. Falk," struck by the absence of 
 
 ' Taylor, 164, " Multis modis mihi videtur hanc declamatiuncula in 
 umbra scholae ntXtTaffOai, ad imaginem superioris orationis elahorata, 
 cui deinde ob arguinenti afrmitatcm in scriptis codd. ut fieri solet, pcr- 
 petuo adhaesit ". 
 
 ' Dobree, 198, pointed out the error made l)y Valesius (ad Harp. 
 airoXaxdi') , who identified IV with a Kara Uoaeidinnov, cited by Suidas 
 under diaXaxtlv, recalling that this speech was written rrpoj rifa, not 
 Kard Tivos. So too, Holscher, 164. 
 
 * 184, " Nil video, quare Lysiae abiudicare debeat hacc oratio, quae 
 ingenium eius respiret ". 
 
 ' Animadv. in Ath., 262. 
 
 •444. Nowack, 102, misquoted Jacobs and Brenii as rejecting XXII. 
 
 ' Uj8. ' 54 f. '55. " 36-}, answered by Hlass, 585 ff. 
 
 "Heck. Jb. Suppl. Bd. 1 (1855/6), 301. "1. c
 
 26 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 formal proem," narrative and proof, and in particular, by the 
 absence of the evidence referred to in 12,*' declared that this 
 could not be the main speech of the defendant. If, then, we 
 consider it a SivrepoXoyia, yet we cannot, according to Falk, 
 believe in its genuineness. For in that case we should be com- 
 pelled to assume that both parties to a suit were in possession 
 of each other's speeches and arguments, in order to make it 
 possible that Lysias could write this, and give it to his client 
 before the trial. Therefore, since this is out of the question, a 
 ScvTcpoAoyta is necessarily extemporaneous, and, therefore, not 
 written by Lysias. Nor does the assumption that the beginning 
 has been lost remedy matters ; the lack of arrangement remains 
 to be considered. Ultimately, it is upon Taylor's argument that 
 Falk based his proof of spuriousness. that is, upon the similarity 
 in subject of III and IV, and the difference in the form and tone 
 of the two. 
 
 Now, while it seems impossible to deny the similarities be- 
 tween III and IV," there is no reason why we should not have 
 two speeches on the same subject, entailing some similarity in 
 detail, nor why we should deduce spuriousness from the greater 
 frankness and incoherence of IV. Both frankness and inco- 
 herence belong to the realm of ethos. If Lysias wrote twice on 
 the same theme, it is only natural to find some variation in treat- 
 ment, and it is not just to ascribe intentional incoherence in a 
 composition to inability to compose. Ill illustrates Lysias' skill 
 in arrangement ; IV, his cleverness in ethopoiia. 
 
 Francken, overlooking the work of Falk," and remarking that 
 Taylor's argument scarcely needed refutation, did not reject 
 
 " For Lysias' omission of a proem, see Dion, of Hal. de Lysia, 17, 
 ^Srj 5e TTore /cai dvb fiovris Tavrrj^ (i. e, rijs irpodecreus) iip^aro, Kal dtrpooi/jLi- 
 dffTws iroT€ eiae^aXe tt)p diTiyTjaiv dpxv" Xa^wv. 
 
 "The TEK/iTipia and iJ-apTvpta mentioned in 12 evidently refer to the 
 circumstantial evidence that has just been given, and to the testimony 
 that would have been elicited from the girl, had she been submitted to 
 the pdaavos, though Blass 585, n. 2, gave a slightly different explanation. 
 
 " An inadequate attempt is made by Blass, 586, n. 3. 
 
 ^^37, "Nemo postea (i.e. after Taylor) de auctore dubitavit ". 
 Westermann, XVI, mentioned IV as generally rejected.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 2."] 
 
 the speech outright," but in any case assumed mutilation " as 
 did Parow." 
 
 Stutzer " expressed his opinion that IV was an epitome, but 
 did not fulfil his promise to prove this. Hofmeister"" rejected 
 it because the names of the plaintiff and defendant are not 
 given, and because he failed to grasp their rank in life. 
 Nowack," who accepted IV, justly characterized Hofmeister's 
 rejection as rash. 
 
 Blass " did not hesitate to ascribe IV to Lysias, but thought 
 either that the first part had been mutilated, (Sittl" believed 
 that the beginning had been lost), or with Sauppe,'* that it is a 
 deuterology. 
 
 Blass refuted Falk's arguments from lack of arrangement, 
 but left unanswered the significant observation that a logog- 
 rapher could not write a SevrepoAoyta without an acquaintance 
 with the preceding speech made by the opponent ; therefore, 
 since writing speeches for both plaintiff and defendant was a 
 highly exceptional practice," it is obvious, unless we insist upon 
 the spuriousness of all Sex'TcpoAoyiat, that a speech such as the 
 one before us was written either as a mere -Kaiyviov, or as a 
 model StvTcpoAoyta, being in neither case designed for actual 
 use in the courts."" The absence of all proper names would ix)int 
 to this conclusion. 
 
 It is necessary, for the sake of completeness, to mention 
 finally the opinions of Jebb " and Baur,^' the former in favour 
 of the genuineness of IV, the latter adopting Falk's arguments 
 against it; as neither of these, however, has contributed any- 
 
 "237, " Dubia, utique dKe(pa\os ; fortasse est exercitatio rlietorica ". 
 
 " As Hamaker, 4, had already done, followed by Scheibe. Viiidiciae 
 Lysiacae, Leipzig, 1845, praef., X. 
 
 "37. "521, n. I. "23. "100. "583ff. "15-'. ^' cl. Tur. adn. 
 
 " cf. Egger, Si les Atheniens out connu la Profession d'Avocat, Paris, 
 i860, 14 f. 
 
 "It is only a logical consequence of the question raised by Falk as to 
 the possibility of genuineness of SfirtpoXoylai to deny the possibility of 
 genuineness of the irpuToXoyia on the defense, itself an answer to the 
 irpuToXoyia of the prosecution. This is anotlier sigii-p"!^t i)ointinK to 
 the general conclusion, that speech writing, as indulged in by Lysias, was 
 par excellence a literary pursuit. " 280 f. " 107.
 
 28 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LVSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 thing new to the discussion, this bare mention of their opinions 
 suffices." With the fall of Falk's arguments, fall all objections 
 to the genuineness of IV. 
 
 "Weinstock. 46, bracketed IV. 
 
 V. 
 
 The fifth speech, vntp KaAAi'ou, perhaps because of its frag- 
 mentary condition, has all but escaped adverse criticism. 
 Francken,^ however, mentions it a little dubiously, as a " parvum 
 f ragmentum quod Lysiae esse potest ". This does not amount 
 to rejection, and is too intangible for argument. 
 
 '237. 
 
 VI. 
 
 VI, /car' 'AvSoKi8ov dacySctas, is cited three times by Harpo- 
 cration,' twice with the addition of et yrr^mo?. Modern scholars 
 have almost universally rejected this speech. Of them Ruhn- 
 ken ' was the first to declare it spurious, basing his rejection on 
 supposed ignorance of Andocides' history and on contradictions 
 within the speech.' This judgment was repeated with detailed 
 substantiation by Sluiter,* who quoted Valckenar and Luzac as 
 
 ' s. V. KarairXrji, and (papfiaKos, in both cases with ei yvrjcnos ; s. v. poirrpov, 
 where no comment is added. 
 
 ^ See Reiske VIII, 234. 
 
 ^ It is scarcely justifiable to call 31 and 48 contradictory. They are, 
 rather, different points of view. Andocides' fortune has been wasted 
 in saving himself from danger (e>c twj' Kivbvvwv) ; on the other hand, 
 he has not used money in the service of the state. 
 
 ■"in ff. His argument from the mention of the Herm in 11 f. has 
 been refuted by Kirchhoff, Hermes I (1866), 8 ff., who thought that VI 
 was unquestionably written by a contemporary of Lysias, and that it was 
 delivered in court.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 29 
 
 agreeing with him.' Bremi* also regarded it as spurious. 
 Franz, who first' defended the speech as possessing Lysias' 
 style and lacking none of his characteristics, as consistent, 
 historically accurate, and actually delivered in court, later 
 retracted.' 
 
 Dobree ' thought the speech so unlike Lysias' speeches that it 
 could not have been written in conscious imitation of Lysias. 
 It is difficult to understand how he would account for its in- 
 trusion into the Lysianic corpus. He did not decide whether 
 it was actually delivered. Sluiter had advanced arguments for 
 the view that VI was the work of a late sophist or rhetorician, 
 not far removed from the time of Demetrius of Phalerum. 
 These arguments Dobree assailed. He answered the criticisms 
 that the speech consisted entirely of declamation and that there 
 was no proof, by maintaining that VI was a SevrtpoAoyta. 
 Absence of narrative was accounted for on the same grounds, 
 or it might have been found in that part of the speech which has 
 been lost. One would not expect, he argued, quotation of laws 
 or decrees in a SevTepoXoyia ; the sophistic phrases occur in 
 passages where the text is corrupt ; he could find no '' nitor 
 fucatus " about the speech ; the speaker might have been either 
 Epicrates or Meletus. Dobree left unsettled the question of 
 dependence upon Andocides I. 
 
 Becker '" cited Goddeck, Init. Hist. Lit. l\ 182, as holding that 
 Lysias himself delivered VI in court. He himself agreed witli 
 Sluiter that the author was a sophist of the time of Demetrius. 
 Ilolscher" repeated some of Sluiter's arguments against the 
 speech, such as the absence of laws, witnesses and proof, but 
 thought the author a feeble imitator and contemporary of 
 Lysias. The historical inconsistencies pointed out by Ruhnken 
 and Sluiter, are not, according to Holscher, real inconsistencies ; 
 
 ' Dobree, 200, says tliat Valckeniir in 1736 when lie wrote liis adver- 
 saria, did not doubt its autlienticity, and that Sluiter " falso exliil)et eius 
 verba". Becker, however, Andocides, Leipzig. 1832, 5, quotes Valckenar 
 and Lnzac as agreeing with Sluiter. . 
 
 'XVIII. Nowack, 104. cites Fortsch as rejectinR VI in his edition. 
 
 •irepi Avfflov rov i'riTopo^, 8 flf. '279. '200 fT. '"op. cit., 5 ff. 
 
 " 56 fif. Quaestiunculae Lysiacae, Erfurt, 1857. ly tT.
 
 30 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 on the contrary, he found much that is evidence of accurate 
 knowledge of the times. Therefore he believed that it was a 
 Sci'TfpoAoyt'a actually delivered by Meletus in the trial of Ando- 
 cides. His arguments did not, however, convince Falk," who 
 thought it spurious and not written by a contemporary of Lysias. 
 Pertz " rejected VI, and so did Francken," who attributed it to 
 a late rhetor. Kayser," without defending Lysias' authorship, 
 considered that it was written by an eager partisan of the prose- 
 cution at the time of the trial. He suggested that it might be an 
 invective against Andocides, spread abroad in manuscript form. 
 Frankel " maintained that is was actually delivered in court. 
 Parow " left untouched the question of authorship, but gave it 
 as his opinion that in its present form it is the result of frag- 
 ments put together at hazard. 
 
 Perrot " did not reject VI outright ; he believed, in any case, 
 that it was written by a contemporary of Lysias, and delivered 
 possibly by Callias, a suggestion neglected by most scholars, 
 and refuted by Lipsius." 
 
 F. A. Miiller," Gotz,^^ Frohberger," Gebauer,^' Baur," Sittl,=' 
 Scheibe,'* all rejected VI. 
 
 Bergk " relying upon a notice in Suidas,'' advanced the theory 
 that VI is the work of Theodorus of Byzantium, written for 
 and delivered by Epichares whose scurrilous attack (And. I. 
 loo) has been lost in the loss of the beginning of the speech. 
 He suggested that the author accomodates himself, as far as 
 possible, to the manner of the sycophant. Blass " disposed 
 finally of the arguments from inconsistency with Andocides I, 
 
 13 
 
 '65ff; XIV. Westermann, XVI, mentioned it as generally rejected. 
 '13. "43ff;237. "326f. ^"Thesis I. 
 ^^ 40 ff., opposed by Nowack, 104. 
 
 " Perrot, L'filoquence politique et judiciaire a Athenes, Paris, 1873. I. 
 194. 
 
 " Andocides, Leipzig, 1888, X, n. 35. Rogholt and Schneider also re- 
 jected the possibility that Callias could have delivered VI. ^3. 
 J. J. SuppI VIII (1875/76). 540 f. ^'proleg., ed. 1875, 6, n. 41. 
 ^7, n. 50. "116. ;»i53. ^ed., LXXX. "356f. 
 S. V. Qtodupof eeoSwpoj Bv^dprios ffo0t<7TT(S .... €ypa\f/e Kara Qpaav- 
 fioyXov, Kar' 'AvdoKioov Kai aWa riva. . . . 
 "Andocides', Leipzig, 1880, XVIII; op. cit., 562 ff.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 3I 
 
 and of other points that had been adduced to prove VI a late 
 forgery. Against its genuineness he advanced the sycophantic 
 nature of the speech, its lack of convincing power, absence of 
 Lysianic simplicity and conciseness, and the occurrence of rare 
 turns and phrases. He admitted, however, that the general 
 scheme of composition and the use of figures are not incon- 
 sistent with Lysianic usage. He concluded too hastily from the 
 note in Suidas, and in agreement with Bergk's suggestion, that 
 the ancients had ascribed this speech against Andocides to 
 Theodorus. For undoubtedly many of the rhetoricians wrote 
 against Andocides, as they did against and for many prominent 
 men of the time. Blass thought that VI was delivered either by 
 .Meletus or Epichares, and then published, for the sake of its 
 contents, as a counterpart of Andocides I, probably with some 
 changes and additions. Jebb ^' repeated in substance the con- 
 clusions reached by Blass. Weidner" rejected the speech. 
 
 Lipsius " thought it was written at the time of the trial, but as 
 a rhetorical production in imitation of a dicanic speech, just as 
 Polycrates wrote what purported to be a speech of Anytus 
 against Socrates.'^ He did not deny that the author might be 
 Theodorus. Nowack " rejected VI without discussion. 
 
 Zutt" explained VI as an epitome of a speech actually 
 delivered before the court in accusation of Andocides, to which 
 Andocides I is the answer. Rogholt "* thought also that it was 
 delivered, and written either for Meletus or Epichares by a con- 
 temporary, perhaps by Theodorus. Wilamowitz '^ referred to 
 it as Ps. Lysias (Meletus) against Andocides. 
 
 Bruns " held that it is a rhetorical production, written shortly 
 after the trial, and advanced in behalf of this view the disparities 
 between Andocides I and Lysias VI, the attack on Cephisius in 
 42, and especially the unsuitability for the law-court of the 
 invective. Herwerden " thought it a late rhetorical exercise, 
 in agreement with Franckcn. whose arguments had, however. 
 
 "281 ff. "6. "Andoc. V, n. i; VIII, n. 18; X, n. 35- 
 
 »cf. Hirzel, Rli. Mus. XLII (1887), 2.19^. " I04- 
 
 "op. cit. "op. cit. "U, 24<J, n. 55. "47'ji- "39^-
 
 32 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 recently been attacked in detail by Zutt and Rogholt. Croiset ** 
 and Thalheim" rejected it without any discussion of its 
 authorship. 
 
 Weber " attempted to demonstrate, at some length, the cor- 
 rectness of the view held by Lipsius. He thought that VI was 
 written after the trial, probably after the author had seen 
 Andocides' speech. Drerup "^ in a review of Weber, rejected, 
 as he had done, Zutt's theory that it is an epitome. He too 
 regarded VI as a literary production, written by Theodorus ; 
 he attempted a proof of this from a stylistic investigation of 
 VI." But in view of the fact that we know of Theodorus' style 
 only what may be gathered from Dionysius, de Isaeo 19 " and 
 Cicero, Brutus 12. 48" such identification can never be more 
 than conjecture. 
 
 V. Schneider" summed up the arguments in behalf of the 
 view defended by Weber and Drerup. A contemporary is indi- 
 cated by the exact historical knowledge displayed in the refer- 
 ences to Evagoras, 26, to Batrachus, 45 (cf. XII. 48), in men- 
 tion of the two eVStt^ei? in 30, and in the biographical informa- 
 tion about Andocides in 46. 19 is suitable only to the main 
 accuser,*' and 42 precludes the thought of Cephisius; 31, men- 
 tion of the sycophants, is not in place in a sycophant's speech 
 delivered in court, but suggests sophistic origin for VI. The 
 declamatory tone, intentional falsifications of fact in 51, the 
 invective against Andocides, all point to the same conclusion. 
 
 Schneider rejected Blass' suggestion of revised publication, 
 because he could not see the reason for such additions as 42. 
 The author of this speech had before him Andocides I," and 
 
 "449, n. I. "XXXVIII. •"op. cit. "B. P. W. XXI (1901), 257ff. 
 
 "Jahrb. f. Phil. Sup. XXVII (1902), 337 ff. Drerup in his edition 
 of Isocrates (Leipzig, 1906), prints Isocrates I as BeoBtSipov rov Bv^avriov 
 irphs AijuoviKov. 
 
 *^ noiijTiKrj KaraffKevri Kal to fieTewpov Sr) tovto (cat irotittiKhv eipri/iivov. 
 
 " " in orationibus ieiunior." 
 
 *'Jahrb. f. Phil. Sup. XXVII (1902), 352 ff. 
 
 " Thalheim, B. P. VV. XIV (1894), 1063, considered this passage cor- 
 rupt, thought it impossible to draw conclusions from it, and emended 
 it in his edition. 
 
 "cf. And. I. 32, 137-139, 85-87, 64, with Lys. VI, 5, 19 f., 10, 22, 
 respectively.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 33 
 
 this author was a contemporary of Lysias. VI is a sophistic 
 invective to be attributed, in all probability, to Theodorus of 
 Byzantium. This conclusion is based, in part, upon Drerup's 
 stylistic investigation. 
 
 Polak " agreed with Blass and Jebb that VI was delivered in 
 court. The authorship of Theodorus seemed to him not im- 
 probable, but by no means certain. Motschmann " and Christ " 
 simply rejected VI. 
 
 Now that VI which was once regarded as the product of late 
 rhetoric, has been rehabilitated as the work of a contemporary, 
 it is worth while to look closely at the reasons given by scholars 
 for denying absolutely the authorship of Lysias, though they 
 do not hesitate to attribute it to a writer of the same age, of 
 whom our knowledge is practically negligible." Lysianic sim- 
 plicity and logic may be lacking, but similar accusations have 
 been brought against XIV, Kar' 'AKkl/SkISov a, also a rhetorical 
 invective, yet XIV has not been unanimously rejected. The 
 occurrence of commonplaces and the touch of unnatural pathos, 
 or rancour, or sycophancy, — for various scholars give various 
 interpretations, — may account for the lack of convincing power 
 in the speech. In my opinion the only attempt that Lysias made 
 to convince was the attempt to render convincing the character 
 of his spokesman through his attitude to .\ndocides. The 
 nature of the mirror determines the form of the thing reflected. 
 The archaistic and poetic turns may cause difficulty, but why 
 with Lysias, and not with Theodorus? If Lysias was a master 
 of ethos, he could, no doubt, assume the language of his adopted 
 and possibly fictitious spokesman. That is what Polycrates 
 attempted when he wrote in the person of Anytus against 
 Socrates. The sentence structure, the use of rhetorical figures, 
 the general scheme of composition, are all confes.sedly Lysianic. 
 
 "Mnem. XXX (i()02). .37of. "3.3. "383. 
 
 "The fact tliat 'I'licodorus is recorded as the author of speeches 
 against Thrasyhulus and Andocides K'ves us no ri^ht to identify with 
 ihcm those attril>uted to Lysias. Another speech apainst Andocides is 
 cited as Lysianic, tl yvriaios, by Harpocration, s. vv. ^7r/7i'to»' aiul TtXtia- 
 TTipidffavTti.
 
 34 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 Is it not indiscreet to reject outright on grounds of the in- 
 trusion of poetic and archaistic expressions, — an intrusion that 
 is probably intentional, — a speech otherwise not unlike those of 
 
 Lysias ? 
 
 It is with a legal and hierophantic (cf. 54) background, then, 
 that Lysias has written this invective, and placed it in the mouth 
 of an ardent partisan, a superstitious, narrow-minded conserva- 
 tive, whose reactionary views are suitably clad in old-fashioned 
 language. A parallel to the peculiarity of the language might 
 be sought in the differentiation of language appropriate to 
 Heliastic and Areopagitic courts, and, in modem times, in the 
 distinctive language of the priestly families in Russia. Whether 
 or not Athens recognized the speaker, may be matter for 
 speculation. 
 
 VII. 
 
 VII, TTcpt Tov arjKov, is the only instance in which modern 
 scholars have refrained from basing rejection of a speech, or 
 at least a doubt of its genuineness, upon adverse criticism that 
 has come down from ancient times. It was the rhetorician 
 Paulus from Mysia who, according to Photius,' rejected this 
 speech ; but his methods of criticism in general seem to have led 
 him to athetesis. He was not the only one to question the 
 genuineness of VII. But of the arguments of Paulus or the 
 other athetisers we know nothing," and Photius contents him- 
 
 ^ cod. 262 : — 'A/i0tj3dXXeTat /lep nap' iviois 6 nepl tov (ttjkov X670S. ... A 
 detailed defense of VII follows, and then we read UavXos de ye 6 e/c Mu- 
 ffias TOV re Trepi tov ar\Kov \6yov, oiidev twv eipTjuevwi' avvuls, ttjs [re] yvrjai- 
 6t7)tos tuv AvaiaKciv cK^dWei \6yuv. . . . 
 
 ' Jebb, 292 : — " Photius says . . . that the rhetorician Paulus of Alysia, 
 in particular, denied its genuineness, for the unconvincing reason, that 
 he could not understand a word of it ". What seems to Jebb an uncon- 
 vincing reason is really an error of interpretation on his part. Not even 
 Paulus could have failed to understand VII, nor could he have given 
 such an argument against it. tuv elpTjfievwv in the phrase under con- 
 sideration, refers to Photius' own preceding exposition of the Lysianic 
 traits found in the speech, not to the speech itself, as if it were twv ev rv 
 \6yo} tipi)p.evo3v. Paulus, Photius means, rejected the speech because he 
 failed to understand the criteria of genuine Lysianic speeches.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 35 
 
 self with proving its genuineness from its regularly Lysianic 
 prologue, narrative and epilogue, its clearness and brevity, its 
 antitheses of thought and word, and the well-constructed cola 
 of the periods. 
 
 We cannot attribute any significance to a rejection of which 
 we hear no details or reasons. Of Paulus of ]\Iysia himself, we 
 have but scant knowledge.' It is noteworthy, finally, that Har- 
 pocration quotes twice without comment a speech of Lysias, 
 
 iripi Tov crrjKOV.* 
 
 Suidas, s. v. IlaOXos. * s. vv. (ttjkos, itriyi'Wf/oi'as. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 VIII, KaTip/opia 7r/3os tov^ crvvovaLaaTa'i KaKoXoytwv, not men- 
 tioned in antiquity, has come down to us badly mutilated, and 
 is perhaps of all the extant speeches in the worst condition. 
 
 Taylor ' and Markland ° expressed doubt of its genuineness. 
 Reiske' refused to decide the question, because much of the 
 obscurity, he felt, is due to our ignorance of the facts. He 
 thought it a letter or formula of renunciation of friendship, 
 unique of its kind, and by no means a dicanic speech. 
 
 Spengel * contented himself with dating the speech " before 
 the anarchy ", and with pointing out that the first words of the 
 proem suffice to disprove Reiske's theory of its being a letter. 
 Similarly, Franz " merely assigned it to an early date, i. e. to 
 before 406 B. C. 
 
 Dobree' held that VIII, like XI, Kara QtoiivijaTov (i', is an 
 excerpt. Holscher,' believing that the difference in style be- 
 tween Lysias' early and his late manner would be slight, saw in 
 
 'ed., Cambridge, 1740. In Keiske, 3y5, he says only, " Oralio (|ua 
 lutnm non lutulentins". '296. '206. * 125. 
 
 * De locis quibusdam Lysiae arte critica persanandis. Miinstcr, 18.^0, 
 3;^ed., 249. "207. 
 
 ' 70 ff . Of his detailed ohjections. most have been satisfactorily 
 answered by Pertz, Gevers and Scheibe.
 
 36 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 the excessive antitheses, the repetitions, the confused structure, 
 and intricate verbal constructions, reasons for rejecting it, 
 rather than assigning an early date. Like Spengel he thought 
 it a mere " exercitatio ". 
 
 Gevers ' defended the speech against Holscher, who had him- 
 self confessed that the grounds for his rejection were slight. 
 He found less to criticize in the sentence structure than 
 Holscher, and accounted for singularity of diction by the con- 
 dition of the mss. He therefore accepted Spengel's dictum 
 that Lysias wrote VHI before the anarchy. Scheibe ° repudi- 
 ated Reiske's hypothesis that it is a letter and hesitated to reject 
 the speech outright, though he thought it strange that matters 
 of such slight import should occupy Lysias' attention. He 
 pointed out that the condition of the text makes it very difficult 
 to reach a final conclusion, and admitted that triviality of theme, 
 and the use of expressions not elsewhere occurring in Lysias are 
 insufficient grounds for rejection. 
 
 Benseler " condemned VHI because he observed avoidance 
 of hiatus, and assigned it to " rhetori cuidam eique non optimo 
 seriorum temporum, quo etiam ducit argumentum exile ". 
 
 Falk " did not question its genuineness, and thought it was 
 probably written for actual use and delivered before a club of 
 friends or acquaintances. In a purely fictitious case a rhetor, 
 according to Falk, would have made a clearer statement of much 
 that is merely alluded to, because it was obviously known to the 
 audience addressed. O. IMiiller" also accepted the piece as 
 Lysianic, but believed it was based upon circumstances of real 
 life, and that, though sophistically worked out, it was Lysias' 
 own farewell to former comrades and friends. Bergk ^' called 
 it a iraiyvLov, and assigned it to Lysias' youth. 
 
 Pertz " thought it suspicious that VHI was found in Marci- 
 anus G, in which H and VI are the only other speeches pre- 
 
 » 10. 
 
 * 364 f. In his edition, he still leaves the question of authenticity un- 
 answered, as does Westermann in his edition. 
 "i83f. "loif. "374. n. 3- 
 "Philol. XXV (1859), 183; op. cit. 353. "i3ff.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 2)7 
 
 served, as well as in X and its derived mss. For this reason, 
 and because he missed a formal proem and narrative and found 
 the thought generally frivolous, he decided that it had come only 
 accidentally into the Lysianic corpus, and is, in reality, a 
 rhetorician's /AeAer?;. Most of his objections to words that he 
 thought unusual and late have been answered by Polak." 
 Francken '° felt that the only way to preserve VIII for Lysias 
 was to assign it, as Spengel and other scholars had done, to the 
 period of Sicilian influence on Lysias, but himself preferred to 
 reject it as being the work of a rhetorician, mainly because of 
 the inherent obscurity. Kayser " accepted Benseler's criterion 
 and decision and rejected the speech, regarding it as the product 
 of an Isocratean. 
 
 F. Kirchner," in an investigation which attempted to obviate, 
 whether by interpretation or emendation, many of the diffi- 
 culties in diction that had been pointed out by previous scholars, 
 expressed as his opinion that those who had rejected the speech 
 judged " celerius quam verius ". Parow ^° referred to it as 
 " lacunosa et mutila ", but not as spurious. Perrot '" reverted 
 to Reiske's idea, and saw in VIII a letter of which the theme is 
 developed in sophistic fashion ; according to him then it is part 
 of Lysias' sophistic work. F. A. Miiller" mentioned it as un- 
 questionably spurious. 
 
 Gleiniger " pointed out that much in the sjieech is indicative 
 of composition in Lysias' time.^^ He urged that the wealth of 
 detail and the absence of generalizing commonplaces prove that 
 it can be no mere rhetorical exercise. Hiatus, he showed, is less 
 carefully avoided than Benseler believed. Because of the 
 obscurity he thought that the present form of VIII is an inten- 
 tional corruption of the original Lysianic speech. lie ascribes 
 the intrusion of late and unusual forms partly to the work of an 
 epitomizcr, and partly to that of the copyist. P)iirmann " in 
 
 "Mnem. XXXI (1903), i.S7 ff. ".sgff.; 23,7, " .suppositicia ". "3^7- 
 
 " Quacstionum Lysiacariim spccitncn, Dcininin, i86(). 
 
 "39. "24-;. "3- "i50fT. 
 
 ".So, 15, tlic proper names; 10, tlic normal cost of a Iiorse, (cf. 
 Aristophanes, Nubes, 22 f. ; 122 f.) ; 6, the tone of reverence in reference 
 to Eleusis. "Hermes X (1876), 347 ff. 
 
 45<iGli2
 
 38 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LVSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 opposition to this view maintained that VIII is a ixeXirr], written 
 for a fictitious case, and that too at a late date. This he 
 attempted to prove by pointing out the use of unclassical words 
 and grammatical peculiarities, which however have been ade- 
 quately explained both by R6hl,'° who admitted spuriousness 
 but refused to consider it a late ixeXirt], and by Polak.''° 
 
 Jebb's " singular invective against the worthlessness of the 
 piece has been sufficiently commented upon by Polak."' Fritz- 
 sche '" in a dissertation that has added little to attempted proofs 
 of spuriousness,'" rejected the speech. 
 
 Albrecht "' expressed his agreement with the view suggested 
 by Dobree and adopted by Gleiniger. Herrmann,"' on the con- 
 trary, agreed with Biirmann that it is no excerpt, but spurious. 
 Thalheim"" also rejected the theory that it is an epitome. In 
 defense of this view Stutzer"' used as his main argument the 
 obscurity, which seemed to him also a proof that it could not be 
 a AicAcTT/. He thought the epitome had been made for the sake 
 of the rhetoric ; that only enough of the original had been pre- 
 served to afford a setting; and that the original belongs to 
 Lysias' early, sophistic period. Pretzsch'' and F. Schultze '' 
 also agree that VIII is an epitome. Gebauer '' and Sittl '' tacitly 
 assume spuriousness. 
 
 Blass "* declared VIII spurious, using as a criterion avoidance 
 of hiatus, some peculiarities in expression,'" the excessive sim- 
 plicity that is nevertheless combined with pointed antitheses 
 
 ^'Bursian. IX (1877), 262 f. ; Zeits. f. Gymn., XXXI (1877), 36 f. : 
 XXXV (1881), 191 ff. ^M. c. "301. =^164. //^ >5"i-, 
 
 '° De pseudolysiae oratione octava, Rostock, 1877. He quotes as hav- 
 ing suspected the speech, a certain Wilkius ( ?) in a Leipzig Programme 
 of 1870, " Die achte Rede des Lysias ". I have been unable to secure this 
 programme, or to find any detailed account of it. There is a bare 
 mention of it by Nowack, 205, and another by Hallensleben, 4, n. 23. 
 
 '"Reviewed by Blass in Bursian IX (1877); referred to by him in 
 A. B. I, 642, n. 6, as " wenig bedeutend ". 
 
 ='29. ='5- ''Jahrb. f. Phil. CX VII (1878), 549. '*499ff. ='38f. 
 
 ** De Lysiae oratione trigesima, Berlin. 1883, 27 f. " 7, n. 50. 
 
 ^ 151. He pointed out that only in VIII. 18, do we find /U" roiis Oeovs, 
 the solitary parallels to which are VI. 7, 32, 38, ijlo. tov Ai'a. ^''64off. 
 
 " Including some that have been defended by other scholars ; — for 
 10, (f>i\o<jo<t)ovi'Ta's, see Scheibe, 365 ; 7, iro\v^t\os ; 17, d.Tr6$€Tos, 
 irapaKarae-fiKriv, have been paralleled by Polak, 1. c.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 39 
 
 and paranomasia ; his final argument was that he could not find 
 natural ethos or any other Lysianic quality in it. An epitomizer. 
 he thought, would not have avoided hiatus. He was inclined 
 to agree with Reiske that it is a letter, or rather a letter of 
 resignation in the form of a speech; he believed that it was 
 written for actual use before an tSta 6/AiAia." He dated it 
 towards the end of the Attic period, but admitted the impossi- 
 bility of arriving at a definite conclusion concerning this unique 
 piece of work. 
 
 Hallensleben" in a programme not highly valued by Nowack/" 
 rejected it mainly on grounds of excessive antitheses and un- 
 pleasant verbal repetitions. He thought it was actually de- 
 livered in an assembly of friends. Weidner*" reverted with 
 some hesitation to the idea that \"III is an epitome. Nowack" 
 rejected it. 
 
 Manello," as Baur " had already done, accepted it as genuine, 
 while Christ** did not even raise the question of authenticity. 
 
 Herwerden *' spoke of it as " futilis et obscura ", and 
 bracketed it in his edition. Schneider '■* and Croiset " con- 
 sidered it spurious. Thalheim " expressed himself with less 
 finality. Hude bracketed the speech. 
 
 Polak '" dated the speech at the end of the fourth or beginning 
 of the third century B. C, rejecting Bijrmann's arguments for a 
 later and Thalheim's for an earlier date of composition." He 
 thought it was written for an actual occasion, and so, with Falk, 
 explained the obscurity by assuming that the writer merely 
 alluded to facts already known to the judges. The ethopoiia 
 that he found, he thought unintentional, and therefore more 
 effective ; finally, he resented the low valuation of the speech by 
 Blass and Jebb. 
 
 The one point ujjon which scholars agree in refcretice to VTII 
 
 "cf. Anaximcnes, Rhct. I; Dionys., dc Thuc. 4a ^""P- '^'t- 
 ** 104, he speaks of it as " nullius pretii ". "6. ** 104 f. 
 "L'ottava orazione di Lisia e le societa private Athcniciisi. Genoa, 
 1895. See Bursian, 84, for a review of this. Ferrai is cited as l)ehevmK 
 either in spuriousness, or at least in considerable revision. 
 "Mof. "376. "Mncm. XXV (i8.>7). J17. ".1^7. "449. "••• 
 "XXXIX. "Mncm. XXXI (1903). i.i7T- 
 ** He explained the use of ^vv as conscious Atticizing.
 
 40 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 is that it certainly was never delivered, or written for delivery, 
 before a court." Whether or not it was written for delivery 
 before an assembly of friends is still a moot point. The main 
 argument urged against its being a merely epideictic piece is 
 the obscurity which has, I think, been overemphasized, without 
 sufficient consideration of the condition of the text. The gen- 
 eral situation is clear : a man who has been treated by members 
 of his club in such a way as virtually to oblige him to resign, 
 turns the tables and, in an address to them which is in fine an 
 accusation of them, signifies his intention to withdraw. The 
 story of the horse ( lo f .) is more than an allusion, and the text 
 is responsible for the blurred outlines. It is unlikely that such 
 a speech was written by another than the man who delivered it, 
 and still more unlikely that, if it was not written for publication, 
 it should have been preserved. It is not of course a /xcAcVt; in 
 the sense of a rhetorical treatise on an abstract theme, but it is 
 almost certainly, as Bergk thought, a iraiyviov. The fact that it 
 has come down also in a separate ms. should be a confirmation, 
 rather than cause for doubt, of its authenticity. The combina- 
 tion with II and VI suggests that the scribe chose samples of 
 various types of Lysias' work, — the epitaphius, the invective, 
 the -naiyviov, — all of them epideictic. 
 
 Avoidance of hiatus, which is noticeable, but which Benseler, 
 as Gleiniger pointed out, exaggerated might suggest that Lysias, 
 at one period of his career, entered into rivalry with Isocrates ; 
 we know that in several instances they wrote on the same 
 themes."* There is no foundation for the assumption, made by 
 those who date the speech early, that Lysias as he grew older 
 was less influenced by Sicilian rhetoric, or that he could not 
 have written such a iralyviov long after he was established in 
 Athens. The fact that Plato, in the Phaedrus, after Lysias had 
 gained fame, used the Eroticus to characterize the Lysianic 
 manner is significant. 
 
 "Meier u. Schomann, Der Attische Process, ed. Lipsius, Berlin, 1883/ 
 87, 628. 
 
 "Isocrates XXI and Lysias fr. XXIV; Isocrates XVI and Lysias 
 XIV, XV.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 4I 
 
 The theory that it is an epitome, so easily advanced, so in- 
 capable of proof, does not obviate any difficulties. The remain- 
 ing objections to genuineness, — first the antitheses, and secondly 
 the occurrence of unusual forms, — are less significant than they 
 would appear at first sight. Since this piece is unique we have 
 no fair standard by which to judge its rhetoric, and though 
 Lysias as a rule uses antitheses with moderation, still with this 
 type of speech he may have been guided by conventions. The 
 citation of parallels or justifiable emendation has removed 
 nearly all the exceptions taken to certain unusual forms. To 
 balance these we have the use of $vv and other minor indications 
 of an early date. 
 
 The humour of the situation and the irony with which the 
 speaker is characterized are, one would think, unmistakeable. 
 In both Lysianic inversion plays a part. The conclusion ( 18 fT.) 
 is, as Baur remarked, especially good. Certainly one must say 
 that the summary rejection of the speech which has been the 
 fashion of late years is unwarranted." 
 
 " It is interesting to compare with the invective against the evil 
 speakers in this piece, Theophrastus' description of the evil speaker 
 ( Jebb-Sandys ed., IQ09, 112 f.) : — /cat avyKaOrifitvos Seivoi irepl tov dvaarav- 
 Toj elTTilv, Kal dpxvi' ye elXrjcpdys firi airoaxeodo-i. firjoe tovs oLKfiovs avrov \oi- 
 Soprjffat Kal wXelcTa wepl twu (piXojv kuI oiKfiwi' kuko. elirelv .... Kal Twf 
 iv T<i> ^iw riOiara tovto ttoiwi'. 
 
 IX. 
 
 IX, vnip TOV aTpaTiwTov, is cited once by Harpocration,' with 
 some doubt of its genuineness. Taylor,' owing to its obscurity, 
 
 ' s. V. ^UaKixTis' Avffias tv rip v-nip tov OTpaTiuTov, el yprjffios, Kal /xaXa, 
 Ta$ oiKatwam <t)rialv dvrl tov biKaioXoyiai (8)' d nevTOi HovKvSiorjs TroXXaKtt 
 TTiv OiKaiuaiv inl Tr/i KoXdfftws TaTTei. Pabst agrees with I'rantkcn that 
 Kal ixdXa was inserted by a scribe who wished to show that he thought 
 the f|ucry unnecessary. Zonaras s. v. AiKalwan and Cramer. Anccd. f)x- 
 on. II, 439. 2, also cite Lysias' use of diKaiwats as equivalent to SiKatoXoyia. 
 If they drew from Harpocration, they evidently disregarded his 
 tl yvriffio^; if not, this is some substantiation of the authenticity of the 
 speech. 
 
 ' So in his edition. In Reiskc, 317. " Harpocration. . . . mcrito ambigit 
 tl yvriaios haec oratio ".
 
 42 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 thought it spurious, though he reahzed that the condition of the 
 text is, in part, at fault. He thought that the Ctesicles men- 
 tioned in 6, was the archon of 333 B. C. ; " in this he was fol- 
 lowed by Reiske ' and Dobree,' who, however, characterized IX 
 as " arguta, elegans. subtilis ". Franz," meanwhile, had dated it 
 early, before 406 B. C, and in this way accounted for the lack of 
 finish in a style not otherwise unlike that of Lysias. 
 
 Westermann in his Griechische Beredsamkeit, Leipzig, 1833/ 
 35, 278, bracketed the speech, but expressed no doubt of its 
 genuineness in his edition of 1854. Holscher ' pointed out that 
 the Ctesicles mentioned in 6 is one of the generals who fined 
 Polyaenus, and accepted IX as genuine. Falk ' also regarded 
 it as Lysianic. 
 
 Francken ' rejected it. First he concluded that it was muti- 
 lated, because, in spite of 3 avayKalov ian TTtpl TrdvTwv <tt/v> avo- 
 Aoyt'av 7roLr](jaa6aL, the only mention of Polyaenus' former life is 
 found in 14. This fact may be used as an argumentum ex 
 silentio against the speaker, but is no real evidence for mutila- 
 tion, or ground for rejection. Francken took exception to many 
 passages for which obviously the condition of the mss., not the 
 author, is responsible, and for most of them he himself sug- 
 gested satisfactory explanations or emendations. His objection 
 to 2 as inconsistent with 10, is, in my opinion, not valid, for in 2 
 the defendant's contention is that his opponents felt contempt 
 for the whole afifair rather than for him, (and contempt of court 
 on their part is neatly insinuated), whereas in 10 he simply 
 proves that they are his enemies. The discrepancy between the 
 law quoted in 6 and that quoted in Demosthenes' Meidias 33 is 
 no reason for rejection ; either Athenian law was in a fluid state, 
 or, as I should prefer to think, speeches that were not written 
 for actual use would not necessarily cHng to the letter of the 
 law. As for Demosthenes' Meidias, we know that the case was 
 compromised, and that the speech was never delivered (Blass, 
 A. B., 111,287). 
 
 ' 320. * ibid. ° 192 ; 209. 
 
 ' De locis quihusdam Lysiae arte critica persanandis, 3 ; ed., 250. 
 
 ' 74. * 108. " 64 ff. ; 237, " suppositicia ".
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 43 
 
 Further, Francken dated the speech by what he thought a 
 reference to the archon Ctesicles." His final argument against 
 the genuineness of IX is its obscurity, which is however suffici- 
 ently explained by the presence of lacunae. 
 
 Halbertsma " was the first to suggest that IX is an epitome, 
 and that of a speech not composed by Lysias. He of course 
 pointed to its obscurity, and objected furthermore to the use of 
 avaypd(f>€(T6aL, 7, for b/ypd(j>ta6ai, although the two are used in- 
 terchangeably in XXX. 2: to KaT-qyopovvTO}V for KaTijyopaiv , I4, 
 which however recurs in XII. 2, and elsewhere. 
 
 Scholl," Kayser," Gebauer," F. A. Miiller," all rejected IX. 
 So also did Herrman,'* but upon insufficient grounds, as Rohl " 
 pointed out. 
 
 Albrecht " regarded it as an epitome, a view championed at 
 some length by Stutzer," whose main arguments are drawn 
 from the obscurity of the case, from the absence of testimony 
 and laws, and from the lack of the usual accusations against the 
 opponents. All this convinced him that the speech in its present 
 condition is unfitted for delivery in court, and hence he thought 
 it probable that the present form is an abbreviation. In con- 
 firmation of his view he adduced peculiarities of diction, al- 
 though there is scarcely one of Lysias' extant speeches that 
 would be found free of such peculiarities: and faults in the 
 composition, such as the lack of clear distinction and transition 
 between proof and narrative. Pretzsch '" and F. Schultze " also 
 thought IX an epitome. Scheibe " left unanswered the ques- 
 tion of authorship. 
 
 "For this view, see Falk. no, n. 6, and Jcbb, Nowack, Pabst. anionf,' 
 more recent scholars; on the other side, Holschcr. Siegfried, (iilbert. 
 Blass, Thalheim. Lysias uses fipx"" for (rTparriyds in XVI. 6. XW'III. 
 15, XIV. 21, XV. 5. For parallels of the construction, sec Pabst 47. to 
 which may be added XXI. X. " 17 f. " 10. n. i. "327 f. 
 
 " De argument! ex contrario formis, Zwickau, 1877, 376; op. cit., 7, 
 
 "■50. "3- . , , ., . 
 
 "6. He found contrary to Lysianic usa^c -rrpitpaai^. 7, irtpi tAoTTo^ot 
 
 iroitlaeai, i6, l8, 22! " Zeits. f. Gymn. XXX 11 1 (187(7). •43- 
 
 "29. Zeits. f. Gymn. XXXVI (1882). 340. 
 
 "40g. Hermes XVI (1881), 88 ff. 
 
 "39f. "op. cit., 27. "ed., LXXXI.
 
 44 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 Blass ^ cited against Stutzer the fulness of proem and epi- 
 logue as contrasted with the slightness of narrative and proof, 
 but used this as an argument for rejection. The ethos, he felt, 
 was not sustained ; the narrative devoid of charm, the proof 
 insufficient, the style lacking in Lysianic simplicity. 
 
 Jebb " thought it spurious, written by a poor imitator of 
 Lysias, but for a real case. Weidner " considered that possibly 
 it is a late excerpt. Nowack '° rejected it, advancing as special 
 objection the solitary address to the judges in 3. He admitted 
 that the writer was evidently versed in Attic law, an admission 
 defended by Pabst," who rejected the speech, and by Keller,'* 
 who accepted it. Pabst's rejection is based virtually upon the 
 same arguments as those advanced by Stutzer and Blass, 
 although, no doubt, his identification of Ctesicles with the 
 archon influenced his decision. 
 
 Herwerden "" was convinced of its spuriousness by what he 
 thought was avoidance of hiatus, and agreed with Halbertsma 
 that it is an epitome of a non-Lysianic speech. Croiset "" and 
 Thalheim" also rejected it. Polak,*' in refutation of Her- 
 werden's argument, pointed out cases of unquestionable hiatus 
 but still refused to accept the speech as genuine, though like 
 Jebb he thought it written for a real case. Christ" found 
 Lysias' lucidity absent from the subject and the style, but did 
 not reject IX outright. Hude,"" influenced by the " prosopopeia 
 egregia ", accepted it. 
 
 The rejection of IX, based upon the slightness of the narra- 
 tive and proof, is virtually a rejection of it as unfit for use in 
 the court. The so-called obscurity, upon which earlier scholars 
 laid so much emphasis, has vanished in the light of recent in- 
 vestigations such as those of Pabst and Keller. The author has 
 even been freed from the accusation of ignorance of Attic law. 
 There remain then only objections due to the absence of charm 
 and ethos, and to the lack of simplicity in style. But, in my 
 opinion, it is precisely the presence of ethos that accounts for 
 
 "596flF. "232ff. '»6. -105. "op. cit. ^%p. cit. ''63. 
 
 449, n. 1. " XL. '' 168 f. =' 368, n. 4. =* X
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 45 
 
 the truculent, pointedly antithetical style. The speaker is a 
 veteran with a grievance, without the humour of the invalid 
 who speaks in XXIV. It must be remembered that ethos pre- 
 supposes an interpreter of some dramatic imagination. 
 
 Considering the small proportion of Lysias' work that has 
 survived, aTra$ Xeyo/xeva that are paralleled in writers of the 
 classical period '' should not be used as an argument against 
 genuineness. The generally poor condition of the text may be 
 in part responsible for the presence of difficulties. 
 
 The impossibility of identifying the persons named in the 
 speech (for obviously Ctesicles is a general and not the archon), 
 suggests its being a piece of fiction, a view substantiated by the 
 absence of testimony and of citation of laws. On the whole, 
 therefore, there is no reason for rejecting a speech that is a good 
 example of Lysias' skill in ethopoiia. 
 
 " See Pabst, 29 ff. 
 
 X. 
 
 Harpocration * six times quotes X, Kara ©eo/xirjaTov (a), four 
 times with the addition d yvrjaios, never, as Blass" pointed out, 
 with any sign to distinguish it from a second speech, Kara 
 @€o(j.\n](TTov (ft'). Led by this repeated reflection upon its genu- 
 ineness, various scholars have found cause to reject the speech ; 
 to many however the grounds for doing so seem insufficient.' 
 To Dobree ' moreover it seemed " arguta. elegans, subtilis ". 
 
 VVestermann bracketed X in his (Iricchische Ikrcdsamkeit. 
 279, but in his edition allowed it to go unquestioned. Scheibe ' 
 was the first to advance arguments against it. He objected to 
 
 ' S. vv. d»r/XXfi;', d-ir6ppr]Ta, wf'ftaafJiei'Tjf, jro3oK(iK«7j, (witll e/ 7i'7j<rioi) ; <irt- 
 opKr]<TavTa, oIk(u)s (without coinnu'iit ). '6f)i, 11. 1. 
 
 •Hfjlsclu-r, 76; Falk. 114 f.; l-VohbcrKcr II, 58; Stutzcr. 564. n. i. 
 * 192. ' 365.
 
 46 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 what he thought the historical inaccuracy of 31, where the 
 speaker says that he proceeded against the Thirty immediately 
 upon coming of age, i. e. in 399 B. C. (cf. 4). But by 399, 
 Scheibe protested, all of the Thirty, except Eratosthenes and 
 Pheidon, had been put out of the way (Lys. XII. 54), and 
 even Eratosthenes had been prosecuted by Lysias. Such a 
 blunder in a genuine speech is to him incredible. 
 
 Frohberger* and Blass ' have answered this objection by 
 stating that the possibility of procedure against Pheidon and 
 Eratosthenes sufficed to make 31 intelligible. But before their 
 answer, Hecker' had, on the same grounds as Scheibe, rejected 
 X. Further, Francken * thought the speech one of Lysias' best. 
 He also objected to 31 as historically impossible, but accounted 
 for it by assuming that the speaker lied about his age in 4. 
 
 Biirmann," without further reason than the presence of 
 aviapo'i and a-KaL6<i, and Harpocration's repeated et yvr^o-to^, re- 
 jected X. But avta/oo? and its forms are found in XXV. 20, as 
 well as in VIII. 2, Phaedrus 233b, II. 73, X. 28, XI. 10; forms 
 of oKaLo^, only in VIII. 15 and X. 15. Two years later, Konrad 
 Herrmann " also, in a more detailed investigation, came to the 
 conclusion that X is spurious ; he thought it a post-Demosthenic 
 exercise. Assigning considerable importance to Harpocration's 
 doubt, he hunted out parallels between X and the other speeches 
 to which Harpocration attached ci yvr/o-tos, i. e. VI, XIV, 
 XXIV ( ?), XXX, and also between X and those which he him- 
 self considered spurious, II, VIII, IX. These parallels in 
 themselves are slight and Herrmann confessed that they would 
 not suffice to disprove the genuineness of X." The linguistic 
 peculiarities cited by him fail to justify a belief in the spurious- 
 
 "11,79.11.31. '605. 
 
 ' op. cit., 5 f . Frohberger, 58, rejected his arguments as wholly un- 
 tenable. He overlooked Scheibe, calling Hecker the only supporter of 
 Harpocration. * 72 ; 78. 
 
 '"Hermes X (1876), 370. Against him, Polak, Mnem. XXXI (1903), 
 171. " op. cit. 
 
 "Gleiniger, 150 ff., had pointed out parallels between X and VIII in 
 defense of VIH. These Herrmann used to prove the spuriousness of X. 
 The fallacy of such reasoning is obvious.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LVSIANIC CORPUS 47 
 
 ness of the speech. There is scarcely one among all the extant 
 speeches that does not contain, among other stylistic peculiari- 
 ties, one or more words used only once in what remains of 
 Lysias' work. Not satisfied with the explanation of 31 as 
 interpreted by Frohberger and Blass, Herrmann revived 
 Scheibe's objection to it as historically inaccurate. He further 
 attacked the construction of the speech as unlike that of 
 Lysianic speeches, especially the absence of narrative, absence 
 of proof and evidence, and the considerable space given to 
 discussion and interpretation of the laws." 
 
 But these peculiarities of treatment result, partly at least, 
 from the nature of the fictitious case, and no one of these points 
 can make us hesitate about the author, if we look upon it as not 
 intended for actual use in court. The fact that X is in accord 
 with rhetoricians' rules (cf. especially the amplificatio, 21 ff., 
 at the beginning of the peroration) proved conclusively to 
 Herrmann that it was a late rhetorical exercise. In answer to 
 this, Rohl " pointed out that rhetoricians' rules were originally 
 derived from speeches which they considered models. From 
 parallels between X and the speeches of Demosthenes against 
 Meidias, Timocrates, and Androtion, Herrmann deduced con- 
 scious imitation on the part of the writer. These parallels, 
 however, are sufficiently explained by the similarity of subject 
 matter, and, in any case, Herrmann has overemphasized them, 
 and sometimes even exaggerated the likeness by emendation. 
 It would be very strange indeed if a rhetorician's exercise done 
 in imitation of Demosthenes should find its way into the Lysianic 
 corpus. This view has found no approbation among scholars." 
 Moreover the Meidias, on a case that was compromised out of 
 court, bears many traces of being an essay by Demosthenes in 
 many of the forms of epideictic invective and encomium. 
 
 "cf. Polak, 172, who compares with X. 6 (T., XIX. 45-53, for unusual 
 length of exposition. 
 
 "Zeits. f. Gymn. XXXTII (1879), 42 ff. 
 
 " Against Herrmann, Rohl, 1. c. ; Ck-baucr, 7. n. 50; Hlass, Hursian 
 XXI (1880). 184; op. cit., 607, n. 6; Stutzcr. Hermes XVI (1881). (j? i-i 
 Nowack, 100 f.
 
 48 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 Sittl " referred to X as certainly spurious, without however 
 attempting any proof. The later rhetoricians, therefore, ac- 
 cording to him, failed to recognize this when they made the 
 " verkiirzte Variation" (XI). Stutzer" had already pointed 
 out the improbability in the assumption that rhetoricians worked 
 over a spurious speech. Baur" thought that suspicions of 
 spuriousness had not been sufficiently well grounded. Blass " 
 considered X genuine, hesitating only at the similarity between 
 X. 28 and 23 of the Epitaphius, which he considered spurious. 
 Rohl "' had already explained these two passages as versions 
 of the same commonplace. Jebb " also held that X was probably 
 genuine. 
 
 Brvms " revived doubts of its genuineness. He objected to 
 the irascibility and petulance of the plaintifiF, to his indirect 
 thrusts at the judges, i and 24, to his characterization of Theom- 
 nestus " and to the " Unsachlichkeit " of the attack. The 
 reproach that Theomnestus is a coward is emphasized by repe- 
 tition, (though nearly always by insinuation, so that the speaker 
 avoids libel) ; he and his father are alike in that, and big men, 
 too! (cf. 28, 29.) This, Bruns thought, had no place in an 
 accusation for slander; furthermore it refers to the previous 
 trial, in which the speaker had testified against Theomnestus, 
 who nevertheless had won the case. 
 
 In my opinion, Bruns erred in his interpretation of the char- 
 acter of the speaker, who is by no means the prototype of the 
 man from Shropshire. On the contrary, he is a man of con- 
 siderable humour, and no little irony. He would not have 
 objected to an accusation of murdering Theomnestus' father, 2 ; 
 his brother had robbed him of his patrimony after his father's 
 death, — of course, then, he wished his father alive (cf . 5 ; also 
 9, II, 21, 28-31). The detailed interpretation of the laws, 15 ff., 
 suggests a comic scene in which a master instructs an obtuse 
 
 "149; 154, n. Nowack, I. c, expressed surprise at such a statement. 
 "1. c. " 162. '*Bursian XXI (1880), 184; op. cit, 601 ff. 
 " 1. c. ; cf. Polak, 172. " 295 f. " 460. 
 
 " Bruns thinks that Lysias' plaintiffs do not, in their attacks upon the 
 defendant, give a sketch of his character.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 49 
 
 pupil with painful seriousness, most ludicrous to the spectator, 
 and the theme is that of Aristophanes Banqueters, igg. 198, 
 222. The thrusts at Theomnestus for his cowardice can hardly 
 be said to characterize. They are usually put in a humourous 
 way, 9, 28, 29, and serve to betray the ethos of the speaker 
 rather than that of Theomnestus. It is scarcely fair to say that 
 the speaker attacks the judges. He does little more than men- 
 tion the fact that they absolved Theomnestus in the previous 
 trial, and enters into no invective against them. It is clear then 
 that Bruns' arguments prove nothing against the genuineness 
 of the speech, and that, as Polak " remarked, they are based 
 upon " praejudicata eaque falsa opinione ". 
 
 What Bruns called the " Unsachlichkeit " of the charge, 
 points to the epideictic nature of the speech. So too the pro- 
 longed examination of laws, which, as has been pointed out 
 above, suggests a comic scene. The trick of identifying, i, the 
 judges of this with those of the preceding trial (both fictitious) , 
 avoids the necessity of calling witnesses to Theomnestus" words. 
 The ethos of the speaker, humourous and ironical, also suggests 
 the epideictic. If we resign the idea of an actually delivered 
 speech, we need not be disturbed about the historical possibility 
 of 31, since we may then assume either (with Francken) that 
 the speaker lied in 4, or that Lysias simply neglected historical 
 detail. In any case, historical precision is no sine qua non in 
 Greek literature, and readers of the speech which was written 
 no earlier than 384/3 B. C. (cf. 4), would no doul)t have over- 
 looked the inaccuracy, supposing it to be an inaccuracy." 
 
 The introduction of the previous elaayytKCa against Theom- 
 nestus, I, on the charge of cowardice, (a case necessarily 
 assumed to have been won by him, otherwise the plaintiff's task 
 would have been too easy) ; his retaliation upon one of the 
 witnesses in a suit ij/evBofuipTX'pMv 24 ; upon the speaker, by call- 
 ing him parricide, — all this culminates in the present accusation 
 
 "171 f. 
 
 "In this way, liistorical inaccuracies in VI arc accounted for by 
 Schneider, Jahrl). .Suim)!. XXVII (1902), 3^7 ff-. as permissible in a 
 sophistic exercise, thouf-^h not in a speech actually delivered.
 
 50 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 against Theomnestus. Here we have a story of intricate 
 threads, comic irony, told by a humourist, perhaps with a desire 
 to parody the slander cases of the day. The fact that the speaker 
 does not hesitate to apply incriminating epithets, 28, 29, to 
 Theomnestus and his father, adds irony to the jest. 
 
 We hear of a speech against Pantaleon '* whom Sauppe " and 
 Holscher"' identified with the brother of the speaker (cf. 5). 
 This suggests the possibility that Lysias found his speech 
 against Theomnestus so successful, precisely because of the 
 speaker's ethos, that he put another into the mouth of the same 
 " hero ", connecting the two by the personality of the narrator. 
 In a way, we may find in this a parallel to the modern serial 
 novel.™ 
 
 ^Bergk's (ep. ad Schiller, 136 ff.) identification of Pantaleon with 
 the Pantaleon of comedy, though approved by Holscher, 196, was re- 
 jected by Blass, 602, n. 8, on the ground of insufficient proof. 
 
 " Orat. Att. II, 202. =' 196. 
 
 "•cf. Isaeus XI and [Dem.] XLIII ; Isocrates XVI and Lysias XIV 
 and XV; Isocrates' Trapeziticus (against Pasion), and Dem. XXXVI 
 (for Phormio) and XLV (against Stephanus). 
 
 XL 
 
 XI, Kara Qtofivqarov ^' , has been, almost from Scaliger's' 
 time, regarded as a mere epitome of X, and, as such, the work 
 of a late rhetorician. Taylor,^ however, suggested two other 
 possibilities : first, that X was an enlarged and improved version 
 of XI ; secondly, — this he thought more probable, — that XI was 
 a preliminary speech before the diaetetae mentioned in X. 6. 
 Hudtwalcker' rejected the second alternative on the ground 
 that regular speeches were not delivered before the diaetetae, 
 and that probably no Athenian ever went to the expense of em- 
 ploying Lysias to write a speech for him to deliver before them. 
 Holscher * also rejected this view. Markland ° thought XI a 
 
 ' in Reiske, 347 f • '342. '8if. * 77. '345; 375-
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 5I 
 
 mere epitome of X, done as a school exercise by a late rheto- 
 rician, and all subsequent scholars have agreed with him/ 
 
 Herrmann ' and Albrecht * investigated in detail the relation 
 of XI to X. Both of them came to the conclusion that XI is a 
 mere epitome of the preceding speech, which Herrmann ' 
 thought spurious, but Albrecht accepted as genuine. 
 
 Forms of address, proper names, citation of laws, calling of 
 witnesses are all lacking in XL So, too, with slight exceptions, 
 all mention of the previous lawsuits and the preliminary hear- 
 ing before the arbiters. The ethos of the speaker is practically 
 gone, though there is a tone of irony in XI. 7 (cf. X. 21), and 
 in XI. 9 (cf. X. 28). It is as if XI were merely the framework 
 of X, but there is no more reason to think it an epitome than a 
 first brief draft. 
 
 Albrecht objected to the repetition of words in XI. i and 2, 
 which he thought due to abbreviation, but he might equally 
 well have objected, though he did not, to repetitions in X. 10-13. 
 For the peculiarities of phrase in XI, he himself quoted Lysianic 
 parallels. He pointed out awoiSamv, XI. i, as un- Attic, but 
 Antiphon in his tetralogies, and Thucydides use occasional 
 Ionic forms. iK\a/j./3dvtLv he called, " inferioris aevi ", but the 
 word is used in the sense of " understand ", " interpret ", not 
 only by Aristotle, but by Plato, Laws Soyd. There is no reason, 
 therefore, on the score of language, to assign a late date to XL 
 
 It is clear from passages that are identical word for word in 
 the two speeches,'" that one must have been written with the 
 
 ° Unless we except Sittl, 149, who prefers to call it a " vcrkiirzte \aria- 
 tion ". 'op. cit. ' 1-12. 
 
 * He deduces from a certain degree of freedom in the epitomizcr's 
 work that he must have known that X was spurious, and ar)j;ues tliat 
 only if he for this reason realized the unimportance of the names and 
 similar details, couhl he have sulijccted the original speech to such 
 treatment. If he realized their unimportance, it was prol)aI)ly because 
 he understood that it was a mere piece of epideixis, not l)ecause lie 
 doubted its genuineness. Stutzer, Hermes XV'l (1881), 97, i)oints out 
 that it is unlikely that a spurious speech would have been eiiitomized. 
 
 "X. 6-8=1X1. 3-4, and in most of the j)aralkl passages, the only 
 difference is the absence of names and formulae of address in XI, and 
 their presence in X.
 
 52 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 other in front of the writer. If, therefore, we find in XI devia- 
 tions that do not serve for abbreviation, this will be an indica- 
 tion against the assumption that it is an epitome. So Xa/x/3dvetv 
 X. 13 is replaced by iK\afi(3dv€Lv XI. 6;" there is variation in 
 tense between X. 23 and XL 8, between X. 27 and XL 9 (in 
 XL 9 the expression is also somewhat fuller). In XL 8 
 SiiairapTai. Kara rrjv voXiv is paralleled by iv rfj TroAet KareaKe- 
 Sao-Tttt, and in XL 9 the genitive with l-n-i corresponds to the 
 dative with iv in X. 28. 
 
 It seems hkely, therefore, that X and XI are not speech and 
 epitom.e, but that XI was a first sketch, later expanded by Lysias 
 into X. This relieves us of the necessity of explaining how an 
 epitome made its way into the corpus, a necessity not recognized 
 by advocates of the commonly accepted theory. It is not re- 
 markable that Harpocration does not cite XI, or appear to know 
 it. The same is true of XV, Kara 'AX-Kif^idSov P', though he cites 
 
 from XIV, Kara 'AXki^mSov a. 
 
 " I should keep the infinitive in X. 13, as read in ms. X, as a dia jxeaov 
 construction, in which the writer was obviously influenced by the quite 
 normal infinitive in XI. 6. 
 
 XII. 
 
 XII, Kara 'Eparoa^evou?, regarded as genuine by the ancients,* 
 has been almost universally and unhesitatingly accepted by 
 modern scholars. Gleiniger,^ without attempt at demonstration, 
 declared his belief that the present form of the speech betrays 
 more or less revision, but Hecker' alone rejected it. Hecker's 
 arguments from the supposed historical inaccuracies in the 
 speech, from linguistic peculiarities, and finally from the fact 
 that Lysias, as metic, could not have delivered it, were refuted 
 
 * Plutarch, Harpocration, Pollux. For a complete list of testimonia, 
 see Holscher, yj f. 'Hermes IX (1875), 168, n. i. 'op. cit.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 53 
 
 at some length by Rauchenstein/ Westermann ° and Francken ' 
 have also disproved Hecker's arguments. His rejection has not 
 been supported by more recent scholars.' His argument from 
 the fact that Lysias as a metic could not deliver the speech has 
 been met in various ways, but it is generally agreed that Lysias 
 did deliver it, whether it was a case of extraordinary procedure, 
 or a result of the citizenship temporarily conferred upon him by 
 the decree of Thrasybulus.' But even if it could be proved that 
 Lysias could not and did not deliver the speech, this, in my 
 opinion, would not militate against its genuineness, and, as a 
 matter of fact, Wilamowitz * thinks that after its delivery, it 
 was published as a political pamphlet. 
 
 *Zeits. f. d. Altswiss. VII (1849), 348 ff. Nowack, 191, thinks his 
 criticism unnecessarily harsh, but is himself entirely opposed to Hecker's 
 view. ' XVIII f. 
 
 ° 79 ff. Kayser, 328, approves, but finds Francken's refutation too 
 gentle. 
 
 ' Polak, 179, n. I., refers to it as " Alphonsi Heckeri sententia sane- 
 quam mirabilis et nunc dudum silentio oblitterata ". 
 
 ' Croiset, 433; Wilamowitz, II, 219, n. 4., insists upon the "juristische 
 Selbststandigkeit " of metics. *II, 223. 
 
 xni. 
 
 Xni, Kara 'Ayopdrov, resembles closely, in style and subject 
 matter, the preceding speech, Kara 'EparocrdevoiK;. It is natural, 
 therefore, to find that Hecker ' attacks the genuineness of XHI 
 also. After quoting from it as a genuine speech, he retracts his 
 opinion with twelve pages, " Ita p. i. 12. oratione in Agoratum 
 tamquam a Lysia scripta usum esse et verbis emcndationem 
 adhibuisse nunc piget. Quam suppositam esse a Graeculo ludi- 
 magistro idoneis argumentis enicam ". Rauchenstein ' and 
 Westermann ' referred to this rejection with some scorn. 
 Whether or not this criticism checked Hecker's investigation, T 
 have been unable to find any further communication of his ujxjn 
 the subject. 
 
 'i; 13. 'Zeits. f. d. AUswiss. VIl (1849), 348. "XIX.
 
 54 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 XIV. 
 
 XIV, KaT 'A\Ki^id8ov XiTTOTa^Lov, the former of two speeches 
 against a son of the great Alcibiades, is cited once by Harpocra- 
 tion," with the reservation, el yv^ato?. Markland ' was the first 
 to substantiate this doubt, by pointing out the absence of the 
 Lysianic " numerus ". Holscher,' who, like Taylor, Reiske," 
 Dobree," thought the speech genuine, was criticized by Scheibe ° 
 for not answering Markland's argument. Scheibe, however, 
 did not, at least in this place, reject XIV outright.' 
 
 Falk," Francken," Frohberger," and others " insist in spite of 
 Harpocration's doubt, upon the genuineness of XIV. The 
 treatment of the older Alcibiades in this speech roused Vischer 
 to indignation against its author, who was, however, defended 
 by Rauchenstein '" as having been excessively irritated by the 
 encomium in Isocrates XVI, vepl tov Itvyovs. Teichmuller " saw 
 evidence of Lysianic authorship in the very invective that dis- 
 turbed Vischer. Rohl " questioned its authenticity ; Gotz '' 
 referred to it as " dem Lysias beigelegt ", and Giilde " thought 
 that it was written by a contemporary of Lysias. These scholars 
 were probably convinced, though Reinhardt " and Carel " were 
 not, by the arguments of Blass against the genuineness of XIV. 
 
 Blass," though admitting that there are no external grounds 
 against the speech, except Harpocration's ci yv^cnos, still decided 
 upon rejection. Parallels with XXX he naturally refused to 
 
 ^s. V. 'AXKiPiadvs. =553 on § 47. ^83ff. 
 
 * Scheibe, 367, concludes wrongly from Reiske's note, 544 f., that he 
 questioned its genuineness. " 192. 
 
 ' 1. c. He cites Markland's note, 547 f ., as attacking the genuineness 
 of XIV. That is strange in view of the fact that it apostrophizes the 
 author as " O bone Lysia ". 
 
 ' He brackets it, however, in Die Oligarchische Umwalzung zu Athen, 
 Leipzig, 1841, as does Dessoulavy (cf. Nowack 5, n. i). Scheibe does 
 not question its genuineness in his edition. Westermann, Griechische 
 Beredsamkeit, 280, bracketed XIV and XV, but rejected neither in his 
 edition. *i78ff. » 108 ff. ; 237. "II, 11. 
 
 " Frankel, 8 ; Baur, 239 ; Sittl assumes its genuineness ; Thomaschik, 
 thesis II. "cf. Blass. 492. "11,266. 
 
 "Zeits. f. Gymn. XIX (1865), Jber. 2. 
 
 "J. J. Suppl. VIII (1875/76), 540. "43- "3. n. 2. "23. "486ff.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 55 
 
 admit as evidence of genuineness."" Two considerations led 
 Blass to rejection: — first, the style of the speech which contains 
 rhetorical figures in excess, especially homoioteleuta, for which 
 he can find parallels only in the Epitaphius ; "^ secondly the 
 absence of ethos, of charm, and of convincing power. To 
 account for the Lysianic simplicity of expression and careless- 
 ness of arrangement, he suggested that the author was an 
 imitator of Lysias. 
 
 Neither Jebb" nor Bergk '''' rejected XIV. Nowack," in his 
 detailed investigation, after some hesitation finally accepted the 
 arguments of Blass, and gave as his ultimatum the following: — 
 " Atque hac re sola (i. e. lack of X"/^'*) permoveor, ut etiam 
 orationem XIV spuriam esse maiore fiducia contendam ". 
 Pabst " bracketed both XIV and XV. 
 
 Thalheim "° found the arguments for rejection insufficient; 
 so too Motschmann.'' who answered the arguments advanced by 
 Blass in the following way. The unusual style of the speech is 
 accounted for by its being a literary product, as Bruns " con- 
 vincingly proved ; secondly, in speeches in which the character 
 of the opponent is treated in detail, the personality of the 
 speaker falls into the background, and this accounts for the 
 absence of ethos. With the fall of these arguments against the 
 genuineness of XIV, the question of spuriousness may be dis- 
 missed, for the point emphasized by Nowack, the absence of 
 Xapi?, is almost a sine qua non of invective. 
 
 Let us now turn to a consideration of the character of the 
 speech, and its relation to Isocrates XVI. 
 
 *' It seems inconsistent that in the case of X, he should be disturbed 
 by a parallel with the F^pitaphius. 
 
 "This might have suggested to Blass the possibility that XIV be- 
 longed to epideictic literature. Similar phenomena in XXXI, Kara 
 ^IXtDvoi, did not lead him to reject the speech. 
 
 "260. ''355f. "op. cit. "46. "XLIl. "3ff- 
 
 "493ff. He pointed out that, as a literary publication. Xl\^ has no 
 standard of comparison in Lysias as it would have, if the defence of 
 Socrates were extant. This, of course, is a point of view with wliicli 
 I can harrlly aKree, since all Lysias' work seems to me purely literary. 
 Still, the fact tiiat Bruns considered it genuine, deserves notice.
 
 56 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 There seems to have been a general consensvis of opinion that 
 XIV was actually delivered before the court," until Hoyer"" 
 took the view that this speech, like Isocrates XVI, and ps. Ando- 
 cides IV, is epideictic," and that Lysias, as well as Isocrates, 
 invented the facts of the case, as a background for his rhetorical 
 skill. He went so far as to question whether, outside of comedy 
 and rhetoric, there ever existed a son of the great Alcibiades. 
 
 Nowack '" remarked that no one would deny that XIV was 
 actually delivered in court. But he substantiated this assertion 
 with the utterly invalid argument that much of the knowledge 
 of military aflfairs and of the defendant's life presupposes a con- 
 temporary as author. This serves merely to date the speech, 
 and is no evidence against epideixis. Wilamowitz ^ left un- 
 answered the question whether or not it was used in court. 
 
 This question is to a certain extent connected with that of the 
 relation existing between this speech and Isocrates XVI, in 
 which Isocrates puts into the mouth of the younger Alcibiades 
 an encomium of his father. The presence of related passages '' 
 in the two led Blass to suggest that still another speech, now 
 lost, served as model for them both. He believed that it is quite 
 impossible to decide from the parallel passages which was 
 written first. 
 
 Nowack '° thought that Lysias wrote merely in answer to 
 what was being constantly written and said in behalf of the 
 great Alcibiades, and not with reference to what had been 
 specifically written by Isocrates. He insisted, however, that 
 Isocrates published his speech in a revised form, after having 
 access to that of Lysias. H. Schultze '" finding what seemed to 
 
 '' Sievers, Comm. de Xen. Hellenicis, Berlin, 1833, 81, n. 30, seems to 
 have regarded it as delivered by Lysias himself. '"op. cit. 
 
 '^ He thought that the rhetoricians chose, in these cases, the form 
 of devrepoXoyia ; this, though true of Lysias XIV (cf. 3), is not true 
 of Isocrates XVI. 
 
 "De Isocratis nepl tov fei57oi;j oratione (XVI) et Lysiae /car' 'AXKi^iadov 
 priore (XIV) quaestiones epicriticae, in Commentationes Ribbeckianae, 
 Leipzig, 1888, 463 ff. " I. 34, n. i. 
 
 *'cf. Isoc. XVI. 10, 10 f., II, 13 f., 16, 25, with Lys. XIV. 30, 37, 31 & 
 35^32 f., 16, 24, respectively. "Comm. Ribb., 463 ff. 
 
 ^Quaestionum Isocratearum specimen, Buxtehude, 1886.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 57 
 
 him cross references, was compelled to assume that Lysias 
 replied to Isocrates' original draft as delivered in court, and that 
 afterwards Isocrates, in answer to Lysias, revised and published 
 his speech. Bruns " went one step further, and assumed that 
 Isocrates had first written the accusation against Teisias ; then 
 Lysias, on behalf of Archestratides, the accusation against the 
 younger Alcibiades. Isocrates then rewrote his speech, pre- 
 serving only enough of the case for a setting of his encomium ; 
 Lysias followed suit and rewrote his speech in the form in which 
 we now have it. 
 
 A careful examination of the passages under consideration 
 satisfies me that Blass was right in thinking that neither speech 
 was written in direct dependence upon the other. It is un- 
 questionable that Alcibiades was a favourite topic in the litera- 
 ture of the day, and quite inevitable that an encomium and an 
 invective referring to the same person should have many points 
 of contact. The following passages are commonplaces of attack 
 and defence: — Alcibiades was responsible for much good to 
 Athens (Isoc. i6), also for much evil (Lys. i6) ; he advised 
 the fortification of Deceleia (Isoc. lo, Lys. 30), and so on. Any 
 pamphlet for or against Alcibiades would have had to touch 
 upon these points, and to answer supposed objections from the 
 other side. It is not so much a criticism of Isocrates 25 ff. that 
 we find in 24 as a commonplace of pleading, such as is also 
 found in Lysias XXX. i. It is unnecessary to adopt Blass' 
 suggestion of a third speech as a source for these two ; the points 
 of contact are, as I have tried to show, natural and inevitable. 
 
 Isocrates XVI has been of late years generally recognized as 
 an epideictic speech, if only as a revised version of one actually 
 delivered." We read in Diodorus XIII. 74, ps. Andocides IV. 
 
 " 1. c. ... 
 
 " Rauchenstein thought that this speech was i)ul)hshccl in revised 
 form. Blass, II, 204-209, did not a^ree with him, Imt thouKht that the 
 first part of the speech was lost, (on tliis point, sec the discussion under 
 XVIII, n. 3) hut even he admitted tliat this " i-lpilo^'us im weitercn 
 Sinne" helonged to the class of encomia, not to dicanic speeches. 
 Schultze, Nowack, and Bruns, following Rauchenstein, l)elieved that 
 Isocrates changed it from a forensic to an epideictic production ; Hoycr 
 thou^'ht that Isocrates used a fictitious legal setting for his eulogy of 
 Alcibiades.
 
 58 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 26, and Plutarch, Alcib. 12, a story to the effect that a certain 
 Diomedes sent a team with Alcibiades to Olympia. Plutarch 
 has drawn in part on Isocrates XVI, remarking that here 
 Teisias and not Diomedes is the disputant. It seems then that 
 Isocrates used the facts of a well-known case, changed the name, 
 and so framed his encomium. Even though the actual case 
 came up in 397 (Blass II, 205), the fictitious setting may have 
 been used considerably later, and there is no proof that Isocrates 
 XVI preceded Lysias XIV; the supposed date of Archestra- 
 tides' prosecution is 395/4 (Blass, 489 f.) but this is not neces- 
 sarily the date of writing ; no one would date the Platonic dia- 
 logues from their dramatic setting. The supposition of revision 
 for publication — and revision in these cases must have practi- 
 cally involved rewriting — is based upon pure conjecture ; the 
 complicated hypothesis of Bruns is incapable of demonstration. 
 He is quite right, however, in believing that Lysias XIV, as 
 it stands, is unsuited to delivery in court. Only 1-15 deal with 
 the facts of the case; if more space is given to them here than 
 in Isocrates XVI, it is because in the speech of Lysias the back- 
 ground is pure fiction. There is no other mention of the case 
 in antiquity. Sections 16-22 are directed against those who for 
 the father's sake will defend the son ; 23-28 are an invective 
 against the younger Alcibiades ; '" the rest of the speech is 
 directed against the father. I should suppose it quite clear, 
 therefore, after the proof given by Bruns, that XIV is a literary 
 production, and should agree with Hoyer that the legal back- 
 ground is purely fictitious. 
 
 " Bruns is compelled to assume, since this is not answered in Isocrates 
 XVI, that these paragraphs were not found in the actually delivered 
 speech. Yet it would be only natural to find some invective against 
 the defendant. This fact points rather to a lack of definite connection 
 between the two speeches.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 59 
 
 XV. 
 
 X.y, kot' 'AA/ci/JiaSoi- daTpaT€La<;, though the title differs from 
 that of the preceding speech, was written, nevertheless, as 
 scholars now think, as a TpiToXoyia in the same case. It is not 
 cited by Harpocration, but it is doubtful whether Blass is justi- 
 fied in assuming definitely that he would have questioned its 
 genuineness. 
 
 Markland ^ thought the speech a continuation of XIV ; Taylor 
 in his edition agreed, but apparently abandoned this view after- 
 wards, and contented himself with rejecting XV,^ partly because 
 in some of the mss. it does not bear Lysias' name. Reiske ' 
 insisted upon its genuineness, leaving undecided the question 
 whether it was a heimpokoyLa of XIV, or belonged to a second 
 trial. Sluiter * returned to Markland's assumption that XIV 
 and X\^ are one continuous speech. He was the last exponent 
 of this view which has since been unanimously rejected and 
 repeatedly refuted in some detail.' 
 
 Bockh ° without stating his reason, gave it as his opinion that 
 XV was probably not written by Lysias, but by a contemporary ; 
 in this he was followed by Bremi.' 
 
 Franz ' and Dobree ' believed it genuine. Holscher " empha- 
 sized, finally, Schomann's " view that XIV and XV are avvi^- 
 yopiai, XIV a SevrepoKoyia, X-V a TpiroXoyia. He inclined to 
 belief in the genuineness of XV, agreeing with Franz that the 
 diction is Lysianic. 
 
 Bake " and Falk " rejected it owing to the discrepancy be- 
 tween XIV. 4 and XV. 9, and both thought the author a con- 
 temporary of Lysias. So, too, Scheibe," who objected to the 
 
 '553ff- '553- *557- * 170. * See Holscher. 85 ; Falk. 19.S. 
 
 •I. 332, n. b. 'XVIII; 123. '286. "192; 230. 
 
 "85. He cited Westermann as aRreeiiiK with Biickh. " ut videtur ". 
 This he took proI)al)ly from the Gricchische Bercdsainkeit, 280, where 
 both XIV and XV are bracketed. In his e<lition, Westermann seems 
 to have Riven up all doubt of their genuineness. 
 
 " Att. Proc, 902, n. 443- " H. 282. " 194 ff- 
 '367. Later, in his edition, also. 
 
 14
 
 60 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 similarity of passages in XIV and XV." As Blass pointed out, 
 such passages are not mofe easily explained on the assumption 
 of different authors. 
 
 Francken" pointed out that Bake's objection to the dis- 
 crepancy between XIV. 4 and XV. 9 is insufficient to prove 
 spuriousness, since Lysias would not need to be consistent in 
 speeches written for two separate clients. He himself however 
 rejected XV as either entirely spurious, or as the result of work- 
 ing over a genuine speech. He objected to the change from the 
 third to the second person, as used of the generals (iff.), though 
 this is really a form of repraesentatio ; to what seemed to him, 
 but is not actually an involved construction in 2 ; " unneces- 
 sarily, as I think, to the imperfects, ^yava/cretTe and IMovto (2) ; 
 finally to the use of the active avaKakdv in 5. This verb is used, 
 however, in the active, and in the sense of " summon ", if not to 
 a court, in Herod. III. 127, and Andoc. I. 45. The objectionable 
 dv in 6, deleted by Dobree, evidently found its way into the text 
 by dittography. It is quite clear to my mind that this list of 
 objections on the part of Francken is not valid. 
 
 Rauchenstein," Frohberger," Kayser,'" Jebb," Teichmijller,^^ 
 Thomaschik,"^ Baur," Bergk ^^ did not hesitate to accept XV as 
 Lysianic. 
 
 Sittl," Christ," and Hoyer ''^ regarded it as a mere excerpt of 
 XIV, an idea that would have been allowed to pass in silence, 
 had not Nowack ^^ definitely refuted and rejected it. 
 
 Blass '" pointed out that the coincidences with XIV are vmim- 
 portant, and that the fact that there is less rhetorical ornament 
 in XV is explained by the absence of passages suitable for it. 
 Still XV. 9 shows that the writer is not unversed in the use of 
 
 " cf. XIV. 2, 3, 22 with XV. 12, 12, 8 f., respectively. 
 
 "iiofF. 237, " In Alcibiadem II. Suppositicia ; fortasse irapaireiroLi^Tai 
 ex genuina ". 
 
 " Namely the genetive vi^tliv placed before edeovro, yet dependent 
 upon KaTa\}/7)<l>l(jaadai, and the difficulty of referring r]yov/i~fot to 
 ■nyavaKTeire after the interposition of a new subject, Oear/xodeTai. 
 
 " N. Schweiz. Mus., 1862, 284 f. ""11, 11. ^"328. "26of. 
 
 "11,266. '^thesis II. "257f. '°353f- '"149- "386,0.4. 
 
 "7. "5f. '''495f.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 6l 
 
 rhetorical figures. What is said in XV. lo of Alcibiades, corre- 
 sponds exactly to what is said in XIV. Blass, therefore, con- 
 cluded that the speeches stand or fall together ; in consequence, 
 having rejected XIV, he was forced to reject XV. As we have 
 seen, his rejection of XIV was unwarranted, so that his rejec- 
 tion of XV is not of serious moment in our consideration of its 
 genuineness. 
 
 Nowack ^ pointed out, as Blass had already done; the absence 
 of rhetorical figures in XV, but he did not accept the explana- 
 tion that Blass had given. Upon this absence of rhetorical 
 figures he mainly based his contention that XIV and XV were 
 written by diflferent authors. He is, nevertheless, compelled to 
 admit that both were imitators of Lysias. It is not unnatural 
 that charm, persuasion, and other characteristics of Lysias' 
 narratives are here lacking. There is no reason, then, to assume 
 either another author, or spuriousness for XV. Thalheim" 
 agreed with Nowack. Herwerden " and Croiset ^ also rejected 
 the speech. 
 
 Bruns " apparently thought it genuine, and also Wilamowitz," 
 who considered the possibility that it was not delivered. 
 
 I should suggest that Lysias wrote XV as a first draft of the 
 frame that was to contain the invective against Alcibiades, 
 father and son. It, as well as XIV, is a SevrepoXoyia, purporting 
 to be delivered by a friend of Archestratides, and an enemy of 
 Alcibiades (12, cf. XIV. 2 f.). The same lawsuit serves as a 
 background in both. Therefore, in XIV, the interpretation of 
 the defendant's oflFense is emphasized ; in XV, the generals are 
 attacked. XV. 10 ff. is the germ of the expanded invective 
 against the son in XIV, to which was later appended the in- 
 evitable invective against the father. IHass has shown that the 
 attitude to Alcibiades is precisely the same in the two speeches, 
 that even the same word. KaraycAai', is used of him in both. 
 This hypothesis accounts also for the more numerous though 
 
 "op. cit. "XLII. "op. cit. "44^11.1. " 4<)3- 
 " I, 34, n. Q. He refers to XIV and XV as " die Kedcn. die wider den 
 jungen Alkibiades gchaltcn odcr docli gcscliriebcn waren ".
 
 62 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 less striking- similarities that caused some scholars to think XV 
 an excerpt of XIV. 
 
 It may be that the extraordinary number of speeches ascribed 
 to Lysias may be in part accounted for by the publication of such 
 first drafts together with his finished work. 
 
 XVII. 
 
 Owing to the brevity of XVII, Trcpt Srjixoaioyv aStKrjfidTwv, some 
 scholars have thought that a part is lost.' Francken ' going one 
 step further, believed not only that by far the greater part of 
 the speech has been lost, but that what remains is a mere epitome 
 or excerpt from a genuine Lysianic speech. The judges, he 
 thought, could not have understood the facts of the case, from 
 hearing it in its present form. To Herwerden ^ it seemed prob- 
 able that Francken's view was correct, yet he did not bracket 
 the speech. Jebb * pointed out that each section of the narrative 
 is followed by a short recapitulation (3, 4, 10) such as an 
 epitomizer would have omitted, and rejected Francken's theory, 
 as did also Kayser,'^ Stutzer," Blass,' and Nowack * ; the last two 
 saw in this speech an example of Lysias' reputed conciseness 
 and lucidity. Sittl," influenced no doubt by the absence of detail 
 in the presentation of the facts of the case, called XVII an 
 epilogue. 
 
 Subjective arguments, such as have led scholars to assume 
 mutilation, abbreviation, or a characteristically abbreviated type 
 of speech (i. e. epilogue), can only be answered subjectively. 
 There is no possibility of definite proof that XVII if delivered 
 would or would not have made the case clear to the judges. If 
 we assume, however, that it was a model framework upon 
 
 ' So Dobree, 235 ; Kayser, 329; Scheibe, ed., XLIII. ' 123 ; 238. 
 "132. "302. "329. *499. '618. ' loi f. "149. 
 
 3
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 63 
 
 which speeches for use in similar cases were to be constructed 
 and elaborated, the lack of detail becomes at once intelligible, 
 and it is unnecessary to adopt strained theories to account for 
 its genuineness. 
 
 XVIIL 
 
 XVIII, TTepl T7ys Sr]fi€vae<o'i tUv tov Nlklov aScA^oii eVtAoyos, is 
 
 cited by Galen XVIII. 2 (657 Kiihn) as Kara noAioi'xou/ As 
 Blass pointed out,^ XVIII begins where the proof, if there were 
 any, must have ended. This is, in my opinion, no sign of 
 mutilation, but an indication of the purely fictitious character 
 of the legal setting.' To the technicality of the case itself we 
 
 'For the form IIoXioxoj as preferable to IIoXioi/xos, see Blass, 523. n. 1. 
 
 '523. 
 
 ^ Falk, 210, thought the speech a complete iiriXoyos ; Holscher, qo, 
 thought it a devrtpoXoyia (erroneously, as Sachse, 48, pointed out). 
 Most scholars have assumed mutilation. Blass believed that only the 
 epideictic part of the original was published, and so came down to us. 
 The beginning, as we have it, recalls those of Isocrates X\'I Trepi tov 
 ^evyovs, XX Kara Aox'tou, Lysias XXI aTroXoyia dwpo5oKia$ airapaariixos, 
 and the Eroticus. Of these Isocrates XVI and the Eroticus are epideic- 
 tic. For parallels between Isocrates XVI and Lysias XVIII see Blass, 
 530, esp. n. 5. 
 
 Isocrates XX, a private speech written somewhere in the years fol- 
 lowing the archonship of Euclides (Blass II, 199), is clearly a sophistic 
 work, unsuited for delivery. There is no need for assuming that the 
 section containing proofs and testimony has been lost. The statement 
 in I that Lochites' conduct has been witnessed by all present, releases 
 Isocrates from the necessity of adducing proof. The speech is a mere 
 expatiation on the gravity of personal injury, on the potential importance 
 of its evil results, and the injustice of treating unfairly a man who is 
 poor and in an insignificant station. All this is the generalization 
 peculiar to sophistic and epideictic work ; the legal fiction is rncrely 
 conventional setting and, in this case, the most transparent of fictitious 
 backgrounds. 
 
 Lysias XXI also lacks all exposition of the definite charge brought 
 against the speaker, as well as all definite proof of innocence. From 
 21 f. we know merely that he was accused of 5a;po5o«/a. The speaker 
 begins with the assumption that the judges have heard the facts of the 
 case, but he wishes them to listen still further, Iva inhrrjaOe irtpl otov 
 Tii'ds bvTOt ifjLov ^r]<Pi(i<jO€. This is the keynote of the sprecb. Instea<l of 
 an encomium on a famous family, as in XVIII, we shall have an ex-
 
 64 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 find little more than a reference, 14.* The speech up to that 
 point consists of the narrative of the patriotic services of the 
 general Nicias and his family. The whole, therefore, is a 
 literary encomium on a famous family, a theme which gives 
 opportunity for a vivid, humorous bit of description (10) and 
 typically Lysianic turns of phrase and thought (15 ff., 24 f.). 
 H. Schultze ° pointed out the striking parallels between 
 Isocrates XVI and Lysias XVIII, their similarity in style and 
 composition, and was inclined to assume that " generi cTrtSetKTtKw 
 attribuendam esse Lysiae orationem". Sachse,' who with most 
 other scholars assumed the loss of the first part of the speech, 
 went a step further, saying " atque hoc equidem laudo et dico, 
 orationem banc a Lysia non esse scriptam, qualis in manibus est, 
 sed ab alio genuinam orationem iteruni tractatam, neque accu- 
 rate factam esse ". This judgment he based partly upon his 
 interpretation of the case from 14, which has found no assent- 
 ing voice among scholars,' partly upon supposed inferiority to 
 other Lysianic speeches, but no other scholar, if we except 
 Gleiniger/ has failed to recognize in XVIII the work of Lysias. 
 
 ample of Lysias' far famed skill in ethopoiia, a speech based upon 
 TTio-Tets e/c Tov ijdovs. Indeed, almost the entire speech is taken up with 
 the services of the speaker to the state (i-io and 22-24), and with 
 reasons why, not only out of gratitude but for its own prosperity's sake, 
 the state should come to his assistance (11-19). In 20-21 we have a 
 brief characterization of his opponents. One might almost see in this 
 nameless {aTrapda7]iJ.os) speaker, a forerunner of Aristotle's " Magnani- 
 mous Man ", who is fully conscious of his magnanimity. The assurance 
 and poise of the speaker's character may be seen from 16-17 '> pride in his 
 personal integrity from 19 ; pride in his formerly refraining to appeal 
 to pity from 24. The trend of the argument in 11-14 resembles that of 
 XVIII ; cf. esp. XVIII. 29 and XXI. 13. All this, in my opinion, points 
 to the fact that XXI was written as a piece of literature, not as a speech 
 for use in the courts. 
 
 * Unfortunately 14 is corrupt, and there is no agreement among 
 scholars as to the actual form of accusation involved. In a case where 
 interpretation depends upon emendation, we cannot expect unanimity 
 of judgment. For a discussion of the various views, cf. Blass, 525 f. 
 
 " op. cit., 24 ff. ° 49. 
 
 ' Against Sachse, see Scholl, Jena Litztg. 1874, 678 ; Blass, Bursian I 
 (1873), 273; Lipsius, Bursian II (1873), 1378. 
 
 " 16S, n. I, where he gives as his opinion, that XVIII has been " mehr 
 oder minder stark iiberarbeitet " without any proof of his statement.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IX THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 65 
 
 XIX. 
 
 Sittl ' alone has expressed doubt of the genuineness of XIX, 
 TTtpl Twv ' ApiaTO(f>dvov<s xPVI^'^''''^^- His arguments are based upon 
 a pecuharity in the address to the judges as to SiKaarat in 
 34, which he finds in the '* spurious " speeches, VI Kar' 'Ai'8okl8ov 
 and VIII, KaKoXoyimv, but also in a speech attested by Dionysius 
 of Halicarnassus, XXXII Kara Atoyciroi/o?. His suspicions were 
 further roused by the ^e'pe which stands before irpos 6e<ov 'OAv/i- 
 TTicDV in 34. The paucity of these arguments is patent, and they 
 have been adequately refuted by Nowack.' 
 
 '153. 'I02.- 
 
 XX. 
 
 XX, VTTtp UoXvcTTpaTov \^6r]fiov KaraAvCTetos aTroAoyi'a] cited in 
 antiquity by Harpocration,' Photius,' and Suidas,' as Lysianic, 
 has been generally rejected in modern times. 
 
 Markland * suggested the possibility of spuriousness because 
 Pollux VIII. 2. 9. in citing airoXvaaL in the sense of a<f>uvai called 
 the expression ISiwtikov without referring to this speech of 
 Lysias. Still he admitted, as an alternative, that Pollux might 
 not have read the speech, or might have forgotten the passage. 
 Franz ' accepted it, but dated it before 406 B. C. Dobree ° criti- 
 cized it as " crasso filo, utpote plebeio loquente ", yet said of it, 
 " non contemnenda ". His doubt of its genuineness seems to 
 have been based on the necessity of dating it early. 
 
 Holscher ' was the first to point out that XX is a SeuTcpoAoyta. 
 spoken by the son' in his father's behalf." He thought it 
 
 ' s. V. noXvffTparoi. '441. 15. ' S. v. UoXvffrparoi. * 683. 
 
 '^ irepl Avalov Toii pr/Topoi, S', de locis ciuil)usflam Lysiae arte critica 
 persanandis, 3 ; ed., 250. " 192 ; 240. <>5 ff. 
 
 'Not the oldest, hut the middle son (28, 29), as Sauppe noted in the 
 margin of his copy of Hfilsclier. 
 
 •Maussac (Reiske, 663). Markl.ind, 1. c., and Meier (Historia juris 
 Attici de honis damnatorum. Berlin. 1819. 182), had regarded it as 
 dKi(paXo^. Taylor, 1. c, had opposed this on the ground that Lysias 
 sometimes omitted proems.
 
 66 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 possible that XII. 3 refers only to speeches actually delivered, 
 so that the early date may be no argument against the authen- 
 ticity of XX, yet he rejected it on the score of the confusion in 
 thought. Baiter and Sauppe bracketed it in their edition. 
 Scheibe "* rejected it. 
 
 Falk " rejected XX because he missed, especially in the first 
 half, lucidity, valid proof, and logical order of thought. He 
 also considered it unlikely that Lysias should have written 
 dicanic speeches as early as 410 B. C, and that one who had 
 been driven from Thurii because of democratic principles, 
 should defend an oligarch. Westermann " urged against its 
 authenticity both the early date, i. e. 410, that had been assigned 
 by Kriiger " and the form of the speech. Bake " rejected it 
 without advancing any new arguments ; so also did Herbst," 
 Pertz," and Rauchenstein." 
 
 Wattenbach," Grote,'" O. Muller,^" accepted it as genuine. 
 
 Francken " because of the confusion in the narrative, the lack 
 of arrangement and lucidity, the supposed historical inaccura- 
 cies, and the resulting difficulty in determining the status of 
 the case, not only declared XX spurious, but insisted that it 
 could not have been written by a contemporary of Lysias. He 
 considered that the author was not an adept in classical Greek, 
 judging, for the most part, from certain corrupt passages. 
 Kayser " and Halbertsma ^ though with less vehemence, also 
 rejected XX. 
 
 Frankel " rejected it on the score of date alone. From Cicero, 
 Brut. 12, and Lysias XII. 3, he thought it certain that before 
 403 Lysias had not written speeches for others. The passage 
 in Cicero has already been discussed in the preface ; regarding 
 XII. 3 I may say, in addition to my other references to it, that 
 
 "Lect. Lys., 342; ed., LXXXIII. "XIV; 243 f. "227; XVI. 
 
 "on Clinton, F. H., Ol. XCII. 3. Falk, 242, n., and Frankel, 21 re- 
 futed O. Miiller's arguments for a later date. " III, 245 ff. 
 
 " Die Schlacht bei den Arginusen, Hamburg, 1855, yy. " 13. 
 
 "6; cf. Annales phil. et paedag. XCI (1867), 507; Philol. Anz. IX 
 (1879), 451. '* De quadringentorum Athenis factione, 38 ff. 
 
 "VII, 252, n. I. ^"382, n. 2. ^•i43ff;238. ^330. 'Ua- ="op. cit.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 67 
 
 it would hardly have been possible for Lysias to admit before 
 a court which he hoped to persuade, that he was a professional 
 speech writer. 
 
 Parow "" emphasized the discrepancy between 1-30 which 
 include narrative and proof, and 30-36, which according to most 
 scholars, are incomparably better written and much nearer 
 Lysias' real manner, and concluded that XX is the result of 
 contaminatio of two speeches, but his proof of a thesis so diffi- 
 cult of demonstration is wholly inadequate. 
 
 Hofifmeister,^ because he found no order or definite ' dis- 
 positio ' of facts, rejected XX and subjected individual passages 
 to an absurdly cavilling examination ; his standard for style is 
 arbitrary and unreasonable, and his method, if followed to a 
 logical conclusion, would end in the rejection of virtually all 
 Lysianic speeches. In opposition to him, Kirchner " recalled 
 the fact that the text of XX is in a worse condition than that of 
 any speech, unless we except VIII, and outlined the speech in 
 proof that it is not devoid of a plan. He thought, however, that 
 some transposition has taken place, and that 13-15 originally 
 intervened between 2 and 3. He answered Francken's and 
 Hoffmeister's objections to points of syntax and style and con- 
 cluded that XX is a genuine but youthful work of Lysias. 
 Blass " in his review, disproved Kirchner's theory of transposi- 
 tion, and, while admitting the justice of his replies to Francken 
 and Hoflfmeister, nevertheless maintained that XX is spurious. 
 Kayser " also rejected Kirchner's conclusion. 
 
 F. A. MuUer," Hentschel," Hug,'' all rejected the speech. 
 Gleiniger " thought that it has been more or less worked over. 
 
 "op. cit. ^'op. cit. " De vicesima Lysiae oratione, Ohlau, 1873. 
 
 "Bursian I (1873), 273 ff. 
 
 "Phil. Anz. IX (1878), 451 f- He quoted Ruhl, Berliner Gymnasial- 
 schrift, 187 1, 775, as regarding XX as an epitome of a genuine speech. 
 Against this view, he advanced two invalid arguments: — the date, and 
 Lysias' democratic principles. The latter is invalid hecause a speech- 
 wright could hardly choose his clients for their political persuasions, 
 and if the speech is, as 1 hope to show, cpideictic. the political prin- 
 ciples of the speaker could not affect the question (if authorship. 
 
 " 3. " 5. " Jena Litztg., 1876, 635 f. " 168. n. i.
 
 68 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 Thalheim ** urged against it the puerile arguments used in 5, 7, 
 16, the inabiHty to express thoughts in periods, the verbal repe- 
 titions, and the lack of arrangement. 
 
 Rohl '° thought it an epitome, a view that Albrecht ^ investi- 
 gated at some length in an attempt to prove it correct by pointing 
 out resemblances between X and XI. Stutzer ^' also defended 
 this theory, and advanced in proof the absence of formulae of 
 address in the supposedly epitomized parts, the many aira^ 
 \ey6fjLtva ^ grammatical peculiarities, faulty composition, exces- 
 sive antitheses, and the fact that, in spite of its brevity of 
 expression, repetitions occur. Both Albrecht and Stutzer 
 thought the original speech genuine, and Pretzsch " adopted 
 their view. Pohl * while rejecting the speech, proved, by quot- 
 ing parallels from Antiphon and Andocides to the expressions 
 not consistent with Lysianic usage, that from style there is no 
 evidence for the theory that XX is a late epitome. 
 
 Landweer,*" Frohberger-Gebauer,'' Giilde,"^ Sittl," all rejected 
 XX. 
 
 Blass "' objected to any attempt at transposition and to the 
 explanation of the speech as an epitome, in order to account for 
 its obscurity. The lack of logical development, confusion in 
 detail, intricacy of expression, the absence of convincing power, 
 all persuaded him of the spuriousness of XX. The character 
 of the sentence structure confirmed his conviction. Yet the 
 absence of figures, and the naturalness and truth of many of 
 the turns (cf. esp. 10 and 17) he admitted, are Lysianic. In 
 rejecting the speech he seems to have relied somewhat on the 
 early date to which it is assigned. 
 
 Jebb " believed XX to be probably spurious. Baur " rejected 
 it, and was inclined to regard the whole speech as a fiction based 
 
 '*Die Rede fiir Polystratos (Lysias) XX, Breslau, 1876. He brackets 
 the speech in his edition. '"Zeits. f. Gymn. XXXI (1877), 13. 
 
 "•op. cit. Rohl, Zeits. f. Gymn. XXXIII (1879), 44 f., thought Albrecht 
 went too far in making the same excerptor responsible for XI and XX, 
 and in considering the original speech genuine. 
 
 "545ff.; cf. Philol. Rundschau, 1882, 8 ff. ^^'cf. Albrecht, 59. "38. 
 
 *° op. cit., esp. 34 f . " 70. " 7, n. 50. " 41. " 149 f. ; 152. " 503 ff. 
 
 '"2i8f. "3o8f.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 6g 
 
 Upon the well-known events of the time. Bergk,** inspired by 
 the excellence of the peroratio, suggested that Polystratus' son 
 wrote the speech and that it was later revised by Lysias, who 
 added 30-36. Gilbert " cited it as genuinely Lysianic. Weid- 
 ner °" and Nowack '' rejected it. 
 
 Wilamowitz " assumed the spuriousness of XX, and thought 
 it the work of a AoyoTrotds less well trained than Lysias, pub- 
 lished only on account of the " renommee " of the speaker and 
 his family. The speech, published with omission of what was 
 detrimental or unnecessary for the fulfilment of this purpose, 
 was preserved by chance, and made its way into the Lysianic 
 corpus through the stupidity of the collector. Wilamowitz 
 admitted that no laws should be laid down for the composition 
 of XX, but he felt that the virtual repetition of 6-8 in 16-17 is 
 inadmissible, and demanded an explanation why the substance 
 of i-io is repeated in 13-17. Therefore he concluded that what 
 we know as XX is really parts of two speeches : — the former, 
 i-io, delivered by a man of some importance,'' perhaps a friend 
 of Polystratus, the second by the son. But his grounds for this 
 assumption are inadequate, and I do not agree with his conten- 
 tion that the KatVoi at 11 is an impossible transition. If there 
 is really a distinct difference in tone before and after 10, it is 
 reasonable enough that the son should speak rather formally and 
 impersonally at first, and later adopt a more personal tone. 
 
 Finally, Herwerden '' and Croiset "" rejected XX. 
 
 I have purposely omitted from this discussion all considera- 
 tion of the legal aspect of XX, since scholars are utterly at 
 variance about it. Accounts of the history of the Four Hun- 
 dred, in what remains to us of contemporary writings, vary 
 so considerably that it is quite impossible to determine with 
 certainty the actual course of events. The ' Adrjvaiwv TroXiriia has 
 added fuel to the blaze, but no light. 
 
 "357f. "op. cit., 33.^. "6. "105. "Ill, .?5()ff. , 
 
 "From 5 ^7w 5' -fiyoi/fiai .... vaaxf^"', 'O. Std-bv 5i fioi SoKti tlfai. 
 The ethos of the latter miKht he petulance, indignation ; it is rather 
 too common and uncoloured a phrase to he a test of etiios. 
 "•.S3- "449, n. I.
 
 yo SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 As I have attempted to show, in answer to Frankel, the early 
 date does not disprove the possibihty of Lysianic authorship, 
 though it may explain the presence of characteristics of epi- 
 deixis in the more restricted sense, such as repetitions and arti- 
 ficial sentence structure, lack of logical coherence, and weakness 
 in the arguments. The state of the text is obviously responsible 
 in part for the confusion and the obscurity. 
 
 The indifference to technicalities of law, and the omission of 
 any very definite facts about the legal nature of the case led 
 Baur to suggest that XX is a mere fiction with a historical back- 
 ground. Wilamowitz, in order to explain this, suggested that 
 publication had involved the corresponding omissions. I should 
 think it likely that Lysias here made one of his first attempts at 
 dicanic epideixis. This view may also to some extent account 
 for the obscurity of the speech. 
 
 30-36 have been generally regarded as not unworthy of 
 Lysias. It may be that the speech was published without revi- 
 sion. Blass admitted that the merits of XX are Lysianic ; we 
 perhaps see more shortcomings, since our criterion of style is 
 necessarily derived from Lysias' more mature products. In 
 any case, summary rejection is unjustifiable. 
 
 XXII. 
 
 The genuineness of XXII, Kara twv o-iTWTrwAwv, has only twice 
 been called into question.^ The arguments advanced against it 
 by Hecker ' were so thoroughly refuted by Rauchenstein * that 
 they need not be considered further. Francken * thought it 
 Lysianic, " sed fortasse ex recentiore recensione ". He com- 
 
 * Nowack, 102, citing XXII as genuine, quotes as its only detractors 
 except for Benseler, Jacobs, add. animadv. in Athen. 262, and Bremi, 
 444. This is obviously an error. It was the fourth speech (q. v.) that 
 Jacobs and Bremi regarded as spurious. 
 
 *op. cit, 7. 'Zeits. f. d. Altswiss. VII (1849), 352. *i6o; 236.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LVSIANIC CORPUS "Jl 
 
 mented upon the form iXtvutudai" in ii, and saw possible evi- 
 dence of a late recension in the fact that after we have the 
 accusation admittedly complete in 7. a new point should be 
 brought up against the merchants. But we must notice that in 
 7, TavTrjv T^v KaTYj-yopiav refers strictly to what has preceded, and 
 does not exclude the possibility of additional charges. It is, 
 moreover, difficult to see in 17, eVi tovs ifnropox": ovviaTaaOai 
 and 21 Tov<; ijXTTopovi €<!>' ov? (X ois) ovTOt avviarrjcrav more than 
 an iteration, from a different point of view, of the general 
 charge. 
 
 The questions and answers in 5, the introduction of Anytus, 
 — whom Thalheim unnecessarly distinguishes from the Anytus 
 of Lysias XIII and Plato's Apology," — the humour in 15. all 
 suggest an element of epideixis. 
 
 'Rutherford, New Phrynichus, London, 1881, iiof., opposing Lobeck 
 and Elmsley, regards this very passage as evidence that tlie forrn was 
 good Attic. The paradigm represents eXevffofiai as correct Attic in the 
 moods. 
 
 •Adams, ad loc. admits the possibiHty that this is the Anytus who 
 was well known as one of Socrates' accusers. The only argument to 
 the contrary might be the date which most scholars set at 387/6, either 
 shortly before or after the peace of Antalcidas. But 14 and 15 from 
 which the speech is dated, apply equally well to the last years of the 
 Peloponnesian War. The battle of Arginusae did not clear the sea of 
 Lacedaemonians. ffirovSas diropr]driaeaeai, if a definite historical interpre- 
 tation be demanded for the benefit of realism, may quite well refer to 
 the rejection by Cleophon of Sparta's offer of peace, immediately after 
 that battle (cf. Aesch. IL 76, and Aristophanes' Peace 667 for a similar 
 phrase). A possible reference to the summary execution of the gen- 
 erals who survived, in the suggestion of speakers in the senate to put 
 the retailers to death untried (2), confirms an early date, 406 B. C. 
 It is noteworthy that the speech is against the corndcalers as a body, 
 though the questions in 5 are addressed to an individual. 
 
 XII. 3 will hardly be urged against an early date for an epideictic 
 speech, nor, indeed, could it l)c fairly urged as an obstacle to anytliuiR 
 but Lysias' actual appearance as a i)leader, before 403. I'.ven then, a 
 statement in an oration can scarcely be accepted as strictly autobio- 
 graphical.
 
 "^2 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 XXIII. 
 
 Dobree ' quoted Hemsterhusen as having hesitated to admit 
 the genuineness of XXIII, Kara IlayKAtwvos. Francken, how- 
 ever, pointed out that the scholar who expressed his doubt in 
 Misc. Obs. Amstel. t. VII, 319, was not Hemsterhusen, as the 
 appended initials J. E. prove. Francken," while insisting that 
 the speech is Lysianic, thought it an epitome, because he found 
 the " nexus sententiarum non optimus, et plena expositio causae 
 desideratur ". But the " sententiae " are in no case more than 
 obvious deductions from obvious testimony, and the " ex- 
 positio " of the case in hand, i. e. of the ■rrapaypa<f>r], is clear 
 enough. The details of the original grievance in the case pre- 
 viously brought before the polemarch would be irrelevant. 
 Further, Francken objected to the phrase Kai /xoi eViAaySe to v8wp, 
 as not elsewhere found in Lysias, and unsuited to the brevity 
 of the speech, and saw in it the work of another hand. Sittl," 
 also, because of this unusual formula, questioned the genuine- 
 ness of XXIII." Stutzer,' Jebb," Blass,' and Nowack' rejected 
 Francken's theory. Blass pointed out especially that lengthy 
 announcements of the testimony of the witnesses " found here, 
 as in XVII, would have been omitted by the epitomizer. We are 
 fully justified, therefore, in regarding XXIII, in its present 
 form, as genuinely Lysianic. 
 
 ' 245. " 164 ; 238. ' 152. 
 
 * Wilamowitz, II, 369, explained the repeated references to the water 
 clock by the fact that Lysias had only a short time for the obvious 
 reason that this preliminary trial was separated from the real trial. But 
 in I and 11, Lysias says he will make no long story of a short one. 
 Perhaps the repetition of the phrase (witnesses are called five times in 
 the course of the speech) is consonant with Lysias' inverted humour, a 
 jest, punctuating with emphasis the short time needed for completing 
 the case against Pancleon. That Lysias held the brief, whether real or 
 fictitious, for the winning side is unquestionable, since Pancleon had 
 failed to put in his appearance in his suit of ^evdonapTvpicii' against 
 Aristodikos. °499. "304. '620. ' loi f. 
 
 * This announcement of the testimony, which usually consists of a 
 brief capitulation of its contents, points to the literary production. The 
 testimony thus becomes unnecessary for a comprehension of the case, 
 from the reader's point of view, while in a court of justice, it would 
 be strange if the testimony of the witness should be thus anticipated 
 by either plaintiff or defendant.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 73 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 XXIV, Wep Tov aSvi'drov, is attested by Suidas ; ' it is men- 
 tioned as Lysianic by Harpocration," and only in recent years 
 have modern scholars been inclined to question its genuineness. 
 To Dobree,' who quoted Hemsterhusen as assigning the speech 
 to Lysias, it seemed not only an " oratio minime contemnenda ", 
 but also " acuta, nitida ". Bockh, in his Staatshaushaltung der 
 Athener spoke of it as a mere /leAt'r?; that was never delivered,* 
 but nowhere rejected it as spurious, although most modern 
 scholars quote him as denying its genuineness." That a speech 
 may be genuine, and yet neither suited not intended for delivery 
 in the courts, we have already seen." To Bergk,' who attempted 
 a refutation of Bockh's judgment, the speech seemed well 
 adapted for actual pleading, also to Bremi," Falk," Gleiniger,'* 
 and Blass." who classified it as a " bagatelle " speech, and re- 
 marked that productions of this type were all regarded as 
 spurious by the ancient critics ; " he nevertheless regarded it as 
 genuine, and hesitated to say with Bockh that it is unsuited to 
 
 ^ Suidas, s. v. a.va.ir'qpov' Ai'crias tv ry irepl tov oioofj.fi>ov rois dSwdrois 
 6po\ov. 
 
 ' Harpocration, s. v. ddifaroi, fffri 5e Kal X670S tij, is Xeyerai, Avaiov vtpl 
 Toii abwaroi', iv v ws 6(io\6v \atJ.^dvovTO% ^ipivriTai. Dindorf reads as 
 above, inserting the ws Xe7eTa« from B C G H. Bekker omits these 
 words. Blass quotes, omitting Xe^erai. Even with the reading wi 
 X^7«Tat, we can hardly say that Harpocration questioned the genuineness 
 of the speech. It seems rather as if he had heard of the existence of 
 such a speech, but had seen no manuscript of it. To read ws without 
 Xeyerai is taking an unnecessary liberty with the mss. readings, and one 
 not to be defended by Harpocration, s. v. iyyvdriKri. '192; 246. 
 
 * I, 2, 309 n. " Diese Rede ist iibrigens in eiiiem so possirlichen Ton 
 verfasst, dass ich sie fiir eine blosse tjbungsrede halte, die nidit vorge- 
 tragen wurde ; wenigstcns batten die Athener sich hochhch verwundorn 
 mijssen lilier die Spassliaftigkeit dieses um Sold Helieiiden Mcnsciien ". 
 
 •Gleiniger, 168; .Scheibe. ed. LXXXIV; Blass, 6.37; Nowack, loj ; 
 Bruns, 461 f . ; Hcrwerden. 175; Worpel, op. cit. ; Motschmann, op. cit. ; 
 Christ. 388, n. 4. 'cf. .speeches IV. VI, VIII, XIV, XV. 
 
 ' Jb. f. Philol. LXV (i8s2), 392. approved by Max Fr.inkcl ad Bockhn 
 locum, II, 68, n. 453. '24.S. •277. '" i^^^ f- "(kU(^- 
 
 "Jebb, 255, points out that Athenacus, V. 209 f. refers to ntpl riji 
 iyyve-fiKrjs as ascribed to Lysias, acquiescing, apparently, in the ascrii)tion.
 
 74 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 delivery. He thought it impossible to decide what style of 
 speech Lysias would refuse to write or the court to hear. 
 
 Rosenberg " doubted whether it was a fortunate idea to 
 represent the speaker of Lysias XXIV in his peculiar ethos, 
 " wenn die Rede iiberhaupt mehr als eine blosse Ubungsrede 
 gewesen ist ", and indeed the invalid's character, though not 
 calculated to hoodwink any but a most simple-minded jury, is 
 excellent in a ixeXirrj, as a humorous sketch. Mahaffy " thought 
 that the speech is genuine and not only that it was delivered in 
 court, but " that it gains or loses almost all its point by the 
 delivery ". It is impossible to agree with this last assertion. 
 The literary value of XXIV is, as I shall have opportunity to 
 repeat, independent of its delivery and incontestable. Bruns ^'^ 
 was the first, therefore, of the moderns to reject the speech 
 outright. He believed with Bockh that it is a fi€\€Trj. His con- 
 clusions have been rejected by Worpel," Motschmann," and 
 Adams,"* but their refutations of his arguments are not alto- 
 gether adequate or convincing. It will be worth while, there- 
 fore, to examine them in some detail. 
 
 The two main arguments advanced by Bruns against the 
 genuineness of the speech serve, as we shall see, only to empha- 
 size the probability that it was written as a fieXerrj. In the first 
 place, he objects to the violent accusations against the plaintiff 
 in 2, lo, 13, 14, and 18, from which we get no picture of his 
 character, and which are inappropriate to the triviality of the 
 case. Furthermore, the defendant ascribes to the plaintiff 
 various inconsistent motives (2, 3, 18). Bruns' second argu- 
 ment is based upon the comic role played by the speaker from 
 beginning to end, his evasion of the accusations brought 
 against him, and his failure to prove his case." 
 
 In answer to the first argument, it is my opinion that all of 
 these traits serve to emphasize the ethos of the speaker. An 
 
 13 
 
 Phil. Anz. V (1873), 456. 
 "i46f. "461 ff. "op. cit. ''op. cit. "231 ff. 
 "His objection to the proem as similar to that of XVI, (i. e. copied 
 from it) but not suitable to XXIV, has been refuted by Wdrpel.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 75 
 
 additional sketch of the plaintiff would have interfered with the 
 artistic unity of the piece. As for the variety and incon- 
 sistency of the motives assigned to the plaintiff, this also may 
 be set down to the ethos of the invalid ; moreover, we have a 
 parallel in III, Trpos 2t/itova, where the speaker quotes various 
 and inconsistent motives for his own previous inaction."" The 
 comic role of the speaker, moreover, is no proof of spuriousness, 
 but possibly an indication of the fictitious character of the 
 speech."* 
 
 That Bruns' arguments are conclusive against any view of 
 XXIV as a sober defence, Adams admitted, but added, " they 
 
 ^^ He speaks of shame in 3 and 9, and immediately afterwards in 9. 
 of fear of ridicule; in 31, of fear of publicity, and in 40. of desire to 
 avoid, if not hostility between himself and his opponent, at least the 
 exile that was hanging over one of them. The element of caricature in 
 XXIV accounts for the greater variety and lack of consistency in the 
 motives there quoted. 
 
 " In order to account for the intrusion of this speech into the Lysianic 
 corpus, Bruns depends upon his theory of ethopoiia. He assumes that 
 Lysias never objectively creates a character, but throws himself, as it 
 were, into his client's boots, and becoming the client himself, writes, 
 literally, the client's own speech. (So, for instance, like Devries, 
 Ethopoiia in Lysias, Baltimore, 1892, he regards Euphiletus in I as an 
 honest, guileless, misused man. Other scholars detect a note of pathos 
 in XXIV. All this shows that Lysias' characters, like those of a modern 
 novel, are capable of various interpretations.) Bruns argues that too 
 clever ethopoiia would have made the judge aware of the logographer 
 behind the speech, and so prejudiced him unfavourably, but if speech 
 writing was a well-known practice, this argument falls, even if the prac- 
 tice were, among literary men, in ill repute. Again, he believes, that 
 Lysias may put into the mouth of his client (cf. I. 32) arguments of 
 which the reasoning and the arrangement could not possibly originate 
 with the client, simply because they were right and effective. That this 
 is inconsistent with the preceding point, and his general theory of 
 ethopoiia, is obvious. It seems almost as if Bruns falls into the class 
 of scholars mentioned by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (dc Lysia 8). wlio 
 fail to realize that Lysias' artlessness is artful. But to return to XXIV : 
 the writer of this speech, according to Bruns, admiring the living char- 
 acters in Lysias' speeches, failing to understand his method of ethopoiia, 
 and believing that he worked in these cases like a comic poet, who lets 
 a character go through an unbroken soliloquy in a (juarrcl scene, upon 
 this supposition wrote XXIV, supposedly in the Lysianic manner. (X. 
 Kara Qeofiv-qffTov a', he believes, as we have seen, is a less successful 
 example of this imitation.) This hypothesis falls, of course, with (lie 
 fall of Bruns' theory of ethoi)oiia. Lysias can always be seen behind 
 the client, the light that " illumes the grnming jjumpkin's head ". Typical 
 Lysianic inversions occur in most varied speeches, uttered by characters 
 of various types.
 
 y6 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 do not meet the theory that the speech is a humorous parody, 
 written for the actual use of a notoriously odd character, for 
 whom there was really no plea except his own comical person- 
 ality ". Here Adams seems to take as ambiguous a view as 
 Blass, who regarded XXIV as a " bagatelle " speech, and yet 
 as one that was actually delivered. That a " humorous parody " 
 is not suitable for a defendant's speech in court, under any 
 circumstances, that the " comical personality " of the speaker 
 could not, in any court of justice, be presumed upon to take the 
 place of argument, that the speech emphasizes the weakness 
 of the defendant's case, all this shows that it was a literary 
 exercise, not written for delivery. Lysias' attitude to the speech 
 and its premises is, in my judgment, ironical, as is that of 
 Euripides to the premises of his plays and to his plays them- 
 selves (Wilamowitz, N. J. XXIX (1912), 460). From the 
 mock emphasis on the amount of the pension we may imagine 
 this a satire written after the passage of the New Pension Law, 
 which was made after the end of the war, reducing the pension 
 from two obols to one, but still insisting on an annual SoKLfiaaia 
 (22, 26). 
 
 Baur," Worpel,'^ Motschmann," all believed that the speech is 
 genuine, and was actually used in court. So, apparently, did 
 Nowack." Worpel, however, is the only critic who advanced 
 arguments against the theory that it is a /xcActt;. It could not, 
 he thought, be a /icAeTiy, because the case is so clear against the 
 defendant, and, moreover, because it is impossible, in his 
 opinion, to have a historical background ^* for an epideictic 
 speech, since the rhetoricians preferred subjects taken from 
 mythology. If the speech is a mere exercise, then, according 
 
 " 345 f . " op. cit. 
 
 ** op. cit. Motschmann's attempt to prove that Lysias' characters are 
 all types is of questionable value and more questionable truth. Once 
 a character has been drawn with some fidelity to life — perhaps even 
 with a dash of caricature — he becomes the prototype of a type. One 
 cannot but remember, in connection with this invalid, Dickens' man with 
 the wooden leg, Silas Wegg. Neither was ever anything but a literary 
 figure, yet both are perfectly individuahzed. 
 
 " 102. ^ See 25. The pension law is, of course, historical.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS "J"] 
 
 to Worpel, it is a wretched piece of work on the part of a frigid 
 sophist. 
 
 The fact that the case is clearly against the defendant points 
 in the opposite direction. The clever Lysias would hardly write 
 speeches for his clients which clearly put or left them in the 
 wrong. Purely historical subjects are treated in epideictic 
 speeches as in Isocrates' oration for the younger Alcibiades 
 (XVI), in Lysias' speeches on the other side, (XIV, XV), in 
 Lysias VI, against Andocides, and, to some extent, in the 
 Epitaphii. The question of use in court cannot fairly be said 
 to afifect its literary value. What a " frigid sophist " would 
 write as an exercise, Lysias could not write for a client. I am 
 therefore of the opinion that XXIV is genuinely Lysianic, and 
 at the same time, epideictic. 
 
 XXVII. 
 
 Francken ' has been the only scholar ' to question the genuine- 
 ness of XXVII, K-o-T 'EviKpaLTOv^ [koI twi' crvfjLirpio-fSevTwv cTriAoyos, 
 U.S ©ioSiopo^] . His objections, based partly on supposed peculiar- 
 ities in diction, partly on the parallel passages in XXX, kotu 
 NiKo/iaxou, and XXVII, which led him to the conclusion that the 
 author of XXVI I was a late imitator, were opposed by Kayser ' 
 and Blass,* and refuted in considerable detail by Hentschel." 
 
 The indefiniteness of the accusation and the obscurities that 
 render interpretation of the case difficult have suggested many 
 questions to scholars which, however, they have answered in 
 various ways. I'""rancken cut the knot and rejected the si)cech. 
 Herwerden' acquiesced in this rejection. Ilolschcr thought it 
 
 ' 194 flf ; 238, " rhetoris reccntioris ". 
 
 * Nowack refers to Schomann, 584, where, however. altliouKli XX\, 
 Kari. NiKo^dxou, is suspected, there is no mention of XX\'II. ^^■^■ 
 
 '450, n. I. Blass points out that Hentscliel's ohjeclion to fx^pu rwv 
 ddiKrjftaTwv in 6, is groundless. 'op. cit., 26 ff. ' 194 ^-
 
 78 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 an tVi'Aoyos/ delivered by the last of several accusers. In this, 
 he was followed by Falk,' Scheibe,* Francken,'" Baur." Blass, 
 who first " thought it a SevrepoXoyta, later " left undecided the 
 question whether it is an eVt'Aoyos in the sense used above, or a 
 mere peroration, but inclined to the latter view. 
 
 Hamaker " thought that XXVII in its present form is the 
 result of a contaminatio, such as Wilamowitz saw in XX, of 
 two Lysianic speeches, the first sentence of i, together with 9 
 from TTois yap to the end, being the original peroration of an 
 accusation against Epicrates, and the remainder from one held 
 " in logistas vel euthynos, quum magistratus sui rationem red- 
 derent ". Scheibe " and Francken '* attacked his arguments ; 
 against them, Parow " defended Hamaker's view with a slight 
 modification in detail. Hentschel " gave the final blow to this 
 theory, and it has not been revived. 
 
 Kayser," Hentschel,'" Thalheim" think XXVII merely the 
 peroratio of the original, and that the entire first part has been 
 lost. It seems to me that an answer to this question must be 
 more or less subjective. If KaraStw^at cited by Bekker, Anecdota 
 103. II, fromAuai'as* Kara 'EiriKparovi is not found in XXVII, 
 there is as much reason to assume that there were two speeches 
 against Epicrates," as that the greater part of one has been lost. 
 
 Scholars disagree on the question of the actual charge brought 
 against Epicrates. That he is identical with the Epicrates men- 
 tioned in Dem. XIX. 227 is generally assumed, though Baur*' 
 opposed this view and Blass " held out against it. Most scholars, 
 among them Blass, think Epicrates was accused of theft and 
 accepting bribes. To me it seems more probable that Thal- 
 
 ' no. The words Kal tQv avinrpea^evruv eiriXoyos, added in the title 
 by a late grammarian, Theodorus, are of little value. ° 306. 
 
 * Vind. Lys., 95 ; ed., LXXXV, " deuterologia est ". According to 
 Blass, 454, he assumes the loss of the preceding part in ed.^ LXXXIII. 
 In ed.', LXXXIII, he assumes the mutilation of XVIII and XXI. Is 
 not Blass in error? '"204. "387 f. " Annales liter. Jenenses 1874, 15. 
 
 "454. "72ff. "Vind. Lys., 94 ff- . "202. "42!?. "46!?. '"I.e. 
 
 '"51 ff. His arguments are not decisive. "XLVII. 
 
 " We know of two speeches against Alcibiades, two against Andocides, 
 two against Diogenes (cf. Blass, 366), and two for Iphicrates (cf. Dion. 
 of Hal., de Lysia 12). ^1. c. "453f.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 79 
 
 heim's "' view that the case is identical with the one on the false 
 embassy mentioned in Demosthenes, is correct.^ Only I should 
 think that Lysias never wrote for the actual trial, but composed 
 XXVII as a demonstration against the SrjixayMyoi mentioned in 
 10," of whom Epicrates was obviously one,** taking advantage 
 of the opportunity ofifered by Epicrates' trial for the false 
 embassy. This accoimts for the assumption in i that the accusa- 
 tion on the charge of the false embassy has been completed, and 
 the end of the speech, i6, seems to show knowledge of Epicrates' 
 escape from the sentence, which, as we know from Dem. XIX. 
 277, was passed upon him. 
 
 Whether Lysias' other speech against Epicrates, thus 
 assumed, dealt with the direct accusation in this trial, it is impos- 
 sible to say. He might have used as a background the previous 
 lawsuit against him, mentioned in 4, to which Hentschel,"' 
 following Francken, referred Plutarch Vit. Pelop. 30. It is 
 likely, also, that we should find some characterization of Epic- 
 rates, which is entirely lacking in XXVII, where a class of men, 
 rather than the individual, is attacked. 
 
 2S 
 
 J. J. (1878), 553 ff; ed.. XLVIII. 
 
 He points out the striking coincidence of dates, and the probability 
 that Theodorus added Kal twv avfiTrpeapevTuv to the title if he found it 
 in I, rather than that he inserted it in both places, and then omitted it 
 in 16. Blass, 453, n. i, objects to the form of the word, instead of 
 avfiwpia^fwv, but avixitptafiti'TTiv occurs in Aesch. I. 168. 
 
 " Dem. XIX. 277 speaks of F^picratcs in the following terms, di-Tjp . . . 
 airovbaioi Kal iroWa. xpr)ai.ij.oi tti TroXei Kal twv tK Ilctpaiws KarayayovTwi' 
 Tov Sij/xov Kal &\\it>s drj/jLOTiKos. XXVII seems to be an attack precisely 
 upon his strong point of defence. In 10, ovk dyadwi' STjuaywyuv is the 
 reverse of Demosthenes' picture. Theophrastus (Jebb-Sandys ed., 
 152) makes his man of oligarchic disposition say, irSre iravadfitOa vtrbroiv 
 XeiTOvpyiwv Kal Tpiapxi-^v aTroXXv/xtfoi ; Kal ojs fiiariTbv t6 Twf Srjfiajwjuiv 
 yivo^. "cf. Harp. s. v. 'ETriKpoTTjs. '" 10 f.
 
 8o SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 XXVIII. 
 
 The genuineness of XXVIII, Kara ' E/oy ok Ac'ous ' ['ETriAoyo?] 
 has been questioned only by Sittl,' who thought it strange that 
 Lysias should attack a friend of Thrasybulus the Stirian, and 
 objected, furthermore, to the address, <5 avSpes 'Adrjvaloi^ as used 
 to the judges here and in VI. Nowack," however, pointed out 
 that the same form of address is used repeatedly, in XII (69), 
 XIII (3, 8, 15, 18, 43, 93 twice), XXVII (i, 8), XXXIV (i, 3, 
 9, 11), and explained, in addition, that no definite rule can be 
 laid down for Lysias' use of such formulae. 
 
 Lysias wrote a speech Kara @pa(Tv/3ov\ov* in all probability 
 against the Stirian.° As Thrasybulus never returned to Athens 
 after the expedition of 390 B. C, the speech may have been, 
 like those against Andocides and Alcibiades, merely a literary 
 work, introducing the character of a prominent man into a 
 background of fictitious arraignment." 
 
 * Ergocles himself is not mentioned in Xenophon's account of the 
 expedition, Hell. IV. 8. 25-30, but is probably to be identified with the 
 one mentioned by Demosthenes (XIX, 180) as one of a series of gen- 
 erals, condemned for injury to Athenian interests in the Hellespont. 
 Even so, it is unnecessary to assume that XXVIII was written for 
 actual use. There is no reason why Lysias should not have written a 
 purely literary piece, on the occasion of a notorious trial. 
 
 '153. '103. 
 
 * Mentioned by Harpocration four times without comment, s. vv. 
 'Ava^i^ios, inideTOVs ioprds, ^evdijs, ^Tpov07)$ ; four times with el yvTfffioi, 
 s. vv. AiKaioTToXis, 'Ifffiijvias, YloXiiffTparos, Ilvppa. " Blass, 456. 
 
 ° This assumption is at least as well founded as that of spuriousness. 
 cf. Blass, 448, n. 2, " Sauppe halt mit Holscher die Rede Kara OpaffvpovXov 
 f iir eine spatere Deklamation ".
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 8l 
 
 XXIX. 
 
 The fashion of seeing in every speech an epitome, — a fashion 
 justly decried by Nowack/ — led Francken' to see in XXIX 
 Kara <l>iAoKpaTors ['ETriAoyos] a possible epitome of an unques- 
 tionably Lysianic speech. His theory has found no approval. 
 His only ground for it is what seems to him a lack of transition 
 between 4 and 5. As a matter of fact, a careful reading shows 
 the intimate connection between the arguments advanced in 
 3 and 4 to prove that Philocrates had some of Ergocles' money, 
 and the two possible lines of defence opened to him in 5. Phi- 
 locrates may prove that he did not have the money, or that 
 Ergocles was unjustly condemned ; otherwise he is, ipso facto, 
 guilty. The reasoning is concise, logical, uninterrupted. The 
 genuineness of XXIX has never been questioned. 
 
 The absence of testimony and proof convinced Blass " that 
 the word eViAoyos appended to the title is correct ; that, like 
 XXVIII, this was written for, and delivered by the last of 
 several prosecutors appointed by the state. If we are to believe 
 that the speech was actually delivered, it is difficult to discover in 
 I anything but evidence that all the other accusers had dropped 
 out,* and in that case they could certainly not have been (rwyyopoi. 
 I cannot see why the speaker, as Blass objects in answer to 
 Francken's view that this was the only speech against Phi- 
 locrates, cannot have been responsible for the dTroy/aa^^ because 
 
 of the words in I, Kd/xot SokcI ovBevoi eXarrov eivai TeKixrjpioy tj/s 
 airoYpa(f>ri<: OTi a\rj6rj<i ovaa Tvyxdvti. Ihe tViAoyo? in the mSS. was 
 probably inserted by a grammarian who found no other way of 
 accounting for the absence of testimony and proof.' But it is 
 not necessary in order to maintain belief in its genuineness, to 
 call a speech, because it is without proftf .-hk! tesliinoiiy, cither 
 
 ' i<X) f. '2.38; 228. '460. *cf. rranckfii. J_'6. 
 
 'For similar reasons it has l)ccn inserted in the titles of XVIII, 
 XXVII and XXVIJI. But it is not necessary to lay stress ui)on this. 
 Scholl. 17, merely voices the general attitude of scliolars when he says 
 that it is impossible to i)ut any faitli in the traditional titles.
 
 82 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 an epitome or an tVi'Xoyos. It is, in my opinion, simply an epi- 
 deictic speech of the type of Isocrates' aixapTvpos, written on the 
 lines of to eiVos without the frankness about this type of argu- 
 ment that we find in Antiphon, Tetralogy I. The beginning 
 of the proem, i, is simply a commonplace of background which 
 gives an opportunity for the rather sophistic conclusion that 
 Lysias draws from it. Finally, as I have previously pointed out, 
 it seems strange that awrjyopoi should need to hire writers of 
 their speeches. 
 
 XXX. 
 
 XXX, Kara NtKO/xa;(OD ' [rpa;u./x,aT£<o? (.v6vvG>v Karj^yopi'a], is cited 
 once by Harpocration '' with the familiar reservation, d yvr/o-ios. 
 He uses the patronymic NiKoixaxiSr]';, however, which we find 
 used once in the speech itself.^ 
 
 In the judgment of Dobree * it is " acerba et acuta, subinde 
 vehemens ", though less ** eleganter scripta " than XXVII and 
 XXVIII. Hamaker ' was the first to suggest that the form of 
 XXX is due to mutilation, though he suggested as an alternative 
 that it may be a avvrjyopia. He considered what remained merely 
 the epilogue of the original speech, and accounted in this man- 
 ner for the obscurity of the case and the difficulty of its explana- 
 tion. Scheibe,' however, defended it as not " manca et mutila ", 
 but " Integra ", accounting for the obscurity by the inadequacy 
 of modern as compared with contemporary knowledge of 
 Athenian affairs. 
 
 ' S. V. e7rt/3oX^. 
 
 ' For a list of various suggested identifications of this Nicomachus 
 with others of the same name, see Giilde, i f. 
 
 '§11. Taylor, 835 f., censured Meursius (Jan de Meurs) for not 
 identifying with XXX the speech cited by Harpocration; modern 
 scholars have unanimously accepted the citation as referring to this 
 speech. *255. °86f. ' Vind. Lys., 104 ff.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 83 
 
 The first doubt of genuineness was expressed by Francken/ 
 who, however, considered the style Lysianic, and, on the whole, 
 contented himself with explaining " historical discrepancies " 
 by the assumption that the author was a clever speechwright 
 rather than an honest man. To Frankel,' it seemed unques- 
 tionably genuine. Schomann ' expressed a doubt, finding im- 
 probable or incredible many statements that, contrary to Lysias' 
 usual manner (Dion, de Lysia 18), are not irvfiolaiv 6/xota. The 
 speech, he thought, was never delivered in court, nor ever 
 written for that purpose, but was published by an enemy of 
 Nicomachus in the form of a legal speech. Whether Lysias 
 wrote it for himself or for another, Schomann did not deter- 
 mine, but Harpocration's ci yvr/o-tos suggested to him the possi- 
 bility, at least, of spuriousness. Gleiniger '" held that this speech, 
 among others, has been more or less worked over, but gave no 
 evidence in confirmation of his view. 
 
 Frohberger," to whom Schomann '' had recommended close 
 study of XXX, followed Sauppe in thinking it a SevrepoKoyia, 
 though he admitted that there is no evidence for believing that a 
 speech against Nicomachus preceded this. 
 
 Albrecht " and Stutzer " both expressed the opinion that 
 XXX is an epitome, but without giving reasons to substantiate 
 this view. Stutzer has not fulfilled his promise of more detailed 
 treatment. Rauchenstein " and Fuhr " considered it genuine 
 
 and a Sevre/JoAoyia. 
 
 Giilde,'' after a careful examination of the speech, came to 
 the conclusion that it was the real accusation, and that it has 
 come down to us intact. lie admitted, however, that there 
 might be some reasonable objection to the form of the narra- 
 tive, which is very brief (2-5) and interspersed with accusa- 
 tions. Schomann's idea he rejected because the reading of 
 dvTiypa^at before the trial dispensed with the necessity for ex- 
 
 '222; 238, " Ly.siac esse potest". '8, ".Sine dubio Ktrmana ". 
 •584. '"168,11. "249f. "I.e. "65, thesis 3. 
 "531, n. I ; 564, n. i, lie stated his inability to see wliat conent reasons 
 led Harpocration to rejection. "II, 61. "ibid. "oj). cit.
 
 84 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 treme definiteness and detail in the accusation. The speech, he 
 thought, cannot be a SeuTcpoAoyta, because there is no trace of a 
 speech preceding it, and because anticipation and refutation of 
 the accusation that Nicomachus will bring against the speaker 
 (17-19) points to his being the main accuser. His argument 
 from 7 is, as Blass " pointed out, based on a misinterpretation 
 of the passage. 
 
 F. Schultze.'" while agreeing with Giilde that the possibility 
 that XXX is a SevrepoXoyla is virtually precluded, insisted that 
 in any case this assumption would not avail to explain the 
 obscurity. To condemn the speech as spurious seemed to him 
 no better expedient, since in its present condition it could not 
 have been delivered in court. Therefore he concluded that it 
 must be an epitome, but admitted that the epitomizer worked 
 over only the first part of a genuinely Lysianic speech. 
 
 I have already spoken of the impossibility of proving that 
 any one of these speeches is an epitome. In reference to XXX, 
 the assumption that it is an epitome is particularly ill-founded. 
 Why should an epitomizer suddenly weary of his task, and copy 
 out a great part of his original without change? Is it not 
 more Hkely that he would, in such a case, indicate in the broadest 
 outline the substance of the speech? The Lysianic corpus, 
 moreover, does not show a desire on the part of compilers to 
 include every scrap of Lysias available ; the lists of works 
 attributed to Lysias rather indicate selection. Blass ^ in refer- 
 ence to Schultze's conclusion wrote, " Das verfehlteste Aus- 
 kunftsmittel ist, die iiberlieferte Rede fiir eine Epitome zu 
 erklaren ". 
 
 Sittl," though he pointed out that in XXX we have the only 
 example of a " Kapitalprozess " in which the judges are 
 addressed as oj avSpe? SiKaarai, did not on this account question 
 the genuineness of the speech. He agreed with Blass that by 
 the assumption that it is a SevrepoAoyta all difficulties are re- 
 moved. Blass furthermore found the parallels between XXX 
 
 " 466, n. 5. " De Lysiae oratione trigesima, Berlin, 1883. 
 '" 1. c. " 152 f.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 85 
 
 and XXVII significant of identity of authorship, though he had 
 refused to assign any such import to the parallels between 
 XXX and XIV. 
 
 Sachse" rejected the possibility that XXX could be either 
 an epitome or a SevrepoXoyia. The confusion and obscurity in 
 the charges brought against Nicomachus convinced him that 
 the speech could not have been a success in court ; therefore he 
 adopted Schomann's idea that it was never delivered, and, more- 
 over, declared it to be spurious. 
 
 This conclusion was opposed, and the arguments, in part, 
 refuted by Albrecht,^^ who had already abandoned his theory 
 that XXX is an epitome, and come to the conclusion that it is 
 genuine, though considerably mutilated." Nowack '^ also felt 
 the inadequacy of Sachse's arguments, especially in considera- 
 tion of the genuinely Lysianic diction.^*" Yet he did not decide 
 to accept the speech unconditionally, and so we read as his 
 ultimatum, " authentiam teneo, quamquam eam extra omnem 
 dubitationem non positam esse concedo ". Herwerden " ac- 
 cepted XXX as genuine, as did also Thalheim,"^ who agreed 
 with Hamaker that the first part of the speech has been lost. 
 
 The main objection to this speech has been the so-called 
 obscurity and confusion in the first part, that is, in the accusa- 
 tions brought against Nicomachus. The justice of these accusa- 
 tions may be doubted, but difficulties in interpretation arise only 
 from attempts to insist upon conformity with what would be 
 suitable for the conviction of a defendant in court. That 
 Nicomachus was a well-known figure in Athens may be assumed 
 from the mention of him in Aristophanes, Frogs 1505. That 
 the class of viroy pa fifiaTtl<: was held in contemjit may be deduced 
 from Frogs 1084, (reading viroypaufxaTtiov as one word, as do 
 most modern editors following Bcrgk's suggestion "). Un(jues- 
 tionably his maladministration was generally known, if not 
 
 n 
 
 "ijher die rlreissigste Rede dc-s Lysias, Posen, 1886; Bursian, 94 f. 
 
 Zeits. f. Gymn. XIJI (1888). 213 ff. 
 "Zeits. f. Gymn. XXXVII (1883). " 106 f. 
 
 "Investipatcd in detail by Schultzc. 37 ff. " oj). cit. "XL\ III. 
 "ep. ad Scliillerum, in .Schiller's ed. of Andocides, 146 ff.
 
 86 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 generally discussed. Lysias then had no need to do more than 
 recall to the Athenians their knowledge of Nicomachus. The 
 neglect of the amnesty decree which is displayed in the refer- 
 ences to events that took place immediately after the administra- 
 tion of the Four Hundred points also to the unfitness of the 
 speech for delivery. There is no narrative, because there is noth- 
 ing in the facts to afford suitable opportunity for one, and 
 Lysias probably kept to the facts, though unquestionably to his 
 own version. The anticipation of Nicomachus' attacks upon the 
 speaker serves, in each case, merely as a framework upon which 
 to build a similar accusation against Nicomachus himself. The 
 speaker then falls into invective, first against Nicomachus 
 personally, and here we find a typically Lysianic passage of 
 rhetorical questions and answers (26, 27) ; then against vtto- 
 ypanfiaTei's as a class ; he ends with animadversions against those 
 who will defend Nicomachus. 
 
 I should, therefore, without questioning the genuineness of 
 XXX, maintain the view first held by Schomann that it was 
 written as a demonstration against Nicomachus ; that, although 
 it was couched in the form of a speech, it was never intended 
 for delivery in court. Assuming this, we are not confronted 
 with the necessity of determining the exact dicanic status of the 
 speech, which has been for scholars a serious difficulty. 
 
 XXXI. 
 
 XXXI, Kara ^i\o)vo<:, estimated already by Dobree * as " cras- 
 siore filo ", was first regarded with suspicion by Scheibe," owing 
 to the assonance in 26 and 32, the commonplaces in 6 and 11, 
 the antitheses in 28. Most scholars, even though they admit 
 that these peculiarities are a variation from the Lysianic norm, 
 
 ^372. The question of spuriousness is not raised in his edition.
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 87 
 
 yet consider them insufficient proof of spuriousness ; so Rau- 
 chenstein," Frohberger." Blass,'" Huss." In the same year as 
 Scheibe, Halbertsma ' spoke of the speech as scarcely worthy 
 of Lysias, because of the " argumentorum paucitas. ratiocina- 
 tium rhetoricum moles, pueriles verborum lusus et antithetica 
 rhetorica ". Schomann * thought it strange that Solon's law, 
 even if it was at the time antiquated, should not have been cited. 
 He remarked that Halbertsma might have used this as an argu- 
 ment, but did not draw any final conclusion about the genuine- 
 ness of XXXI. 
 
 Francken ' thought the form, composition, and course of 
 argument truly Lysianic, and rejected Scheibe's strictures as 
 containing no proof of spuriousness. Nevertheless, mainly on 
 linguistic grounds, he believed that the speech has been to some 
 extent worked over. His objections were answered, in part, by 
 Kayser ; '" what remains unaccounted for, such as the unique 
 expression, exOpav fji.€TaTrop€v6/x€vo<: (2), is insufficient warrant for 
 an assumption of redaction. Baur," without attacking the 
 genuinensss of XXXI, doubted if it was ever delivered in court, 
 because of the slightness and fancifulness of the accusations 
 against Philon. The argument from the mother's will (20-24) 
 seemed to Baur especially typical of an " Ubungsrede ". Sittl " 
 suggested that variations in 14 and 23 from the usual formulae 
 for summoning witnesses might point to spuriousness, but as 
 we have previously seen," Sittl overestimated the need for abso- 
 lute uniformity in these formulae. Wagner " expressed doubts 
 of its genuineness, and remarked upon the extraordinarily 
 large number of articular infinitives, eleven in thirty-four para- 
 grajjhs. 
 
 Nowack " classed this speecli and tin- preceding one, Kara 
 NiKoiJMxov, as " dubiae " ; in addition to the non-Lysianic char- 
 
 ' I, 130. *6r. He rejected I'rancken's theory of a late redaction. 
 '485. 'op. cit; cf. FroliI)erKer, I'liil. Am.. 11 (1869). ^'<w. 
 'Do MaRis. proh. ap. Ath. Deventer. 1841. .31. ' I, 588. 
 '230; 238. " Lvsiae. sed TrapaTTtTroiTjra.". '"33,^- " l-'.' " 152. 
 "See under XIX, XXIII, XXVIII. "4. " i'>7-
 
 88 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 acteristics observed by Scheibe and Frohberger, another con- 
 sideration inclined him to consider it spurious: neither the 
 amnesty decree of 403 nor Solon's law insisting upon participa- 
 tion in party strife is mentioned. Liibbert's " explanation of the 
 first omission, and Liiders'" of the second, failed to satisfy 
 Nowack. 
 
 The simplest explanation, however, is that in an epideictic 
 speech to which, as we have seen, the slightness of the argu- 
 ment, essentially based upon irtWets ck tov ^6ov<s, and the rhetori- 
 cal ornament of XXXI point," there is not the same necessity 
 for mention of the amnesty and the law of Solon, that there 
 would have been in a speech designed for use. Nowack's argu- 
 ments, therefore, suggest that it is a literary fiction, but do not 
 prove spuriousness. 
 
 Vogel " believed that XXXI is a late school exercise, and 
 explained by this assumption the intangibility of the historical 
 personages and the vagueness of the time relations. His other 
 objections to the plays on words and the commonplaces, and to 
 some constructions differing from Lysianic usage (among 
 which the undesirable presence or absence of av may be due to 
 the text tradition) , are not sufficient to prove his point. Biichle '" 
 also condemned the speech. He emphasized the vagueness and 
 indefiniteness of the narrative of Philon's neutrality at the time 
 of the strife. The story of his robbing the old citizens seemed 
 to Biichle " leblos ". In the third narrative, — of his non-fulfil- 
 ment of duties, — we hear nothing of Philon himself. Also there 
 are objections to the " Gliederung " of XXXI and to the use of 
 commonplaces, as well as to the failure to cite definite laws. 
 All this, he admitted, does not argue against Lysianic author- 
 
 "De amnestia anno CCCCIII a Chr. n. ab Atheniensibus decreta, 
 Kiel, 1881, 91. He thought that Philon was excluded from the benefits 
 of the amnesty, because he did not belong to either of the two parties 
 concerned, but had committed crimes against the entire state. 
 
 "J. J. XCVII (1868), 54. His idea that the law was obsolete in 
 Lysias' time was confirmed by Rauchenstein, Fuhr, and Blass. 
 
 " cf . Blass, 485, esp. n. 2. 
 
 " op. cit. ; Bursian, 96. ^ op. cit. ; Bursian, 95 f ,
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 89 
 
 ship. So that it is only upon the basis of individual peculiarities 
 found by him in the speech, that he concluded that it lacked 
 ethopoiia, and that rhetorical devices had been employed to 
 excess. It is therefore " eine Ubungsrede, aber aus vvirklich 
 lysianischen Flecken meist nicht immer gliicklich zusammen- 
 gesetzt ". 
 
 It is not true, in my opinion, that the speech lacks ethopoiia, 
 though of course it is Philon, and not the speaker, who is cast 
 into the foreground. The rhetorical figures are not in excess 
 if the work is epideictic, so Biichle's arguments serve rather to 
 uphold this view than to disprove the genuineness of XXXI. 
 
 XXXIII. 
 
 The Olympiacus of Lysias is preserved, in part, by Dionysius 
 of Halicarnassus, de Lysia 30, as an example of his epideictic 
 manner. It is referred to, without question of its genuineness, 
 by Pseudo-Plutarch, Hermogenes, and Harpocration.' 
 
 Scheibe in 1841 ' advanced various arguments (later refuted 
 by Blass'), in the belief that the fragment is spurious, but in 
 his edition accepted it as genuine without question. Schiifer * 
 defended the date assigned by Diodorus, 388 B. C, against 
 Grote's attempt ' to place the speech four years later. Never- 
 theless he adopted one of Grote's arguments, and insisted upon 
 the impossibility of Lysias' speaking of the Spartans in such 
 words as are used in 7. lie concluded therefore that the 
 demonstration against Dionysius, tyrant of Sicily, at the Olym- 
 pian festival came from Xenophon's circle, though Lysias may 
 have written the speech, and conjectured that the man who 
 delivered it was Themistogcnes of Syracuse, to whom Xeno- 
 phon (Hell. III. 1.2) ascribed his Anabasis. But it is not clear 
 
 'See Holsrlicr. nof. '37.3- '4.34- ^ , ^, ^„, 
 
 *Philol. XVIII (1862;, i8«lT. •IX.29iff. (and X. 306 fT.).
 
 90 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 why Lysias could not himself utter words that he could write. 
 It is unlikely that an Olympiac speech would be local or sec- 
 tional in any case. The speech was not that of a person in a 
 private capacity ; the speaker was the mouthpiece of the com- 
 munity .° Since the speech is a plea for peace, and no doubt the 
 result of an earnest endeavour to secure it, how better could 
 Lysias have proved his sincerity and that of the Athenians, 
 than by a show of frank appreciation of Sparta? Perhaps 
 Lysias had heard a rumor of the coming peace of Antalcidas, 
 and was making a last appeal to bring Sparta over to the side of 
 Greece against Persia as well as against Syracuse. 
 
 There is no reason why we should not believe, on the unani- 
 mous testimony of the ancients, that Lysias wrote and delivered 
 the speech. 
 
 " Not, however, in an official capacity. The fact that Lysias was a 
 metic need not have interfered with the delivery of this speech. 
 
 THE EROTICUS. 
 
 The Eroticus in Plato's Phaedrus, though scarcely within the 
 province of this dissertation, deserves mention as having been 
 twice in recent years included in editions of Lysias.' Vahlen's 
 defence of it as genuinely Lysianic would seem to have turned 
 the tide of criticism completely in that direction." But Wein- 
 stock,^ in a long and elaborate dissertation has taken once more 
 the opposite, and to my mind correct point of view. 
 
 * In the editions of Herwerden and Hude, as in Holmes' Index 
 Lysiacus, Bonn, 1895. 
 
 ^798, he overlooks the fact that Herwerden's edition included the 
 Eroticus (as well as that of Franz in 1831). 
 
 ^ op. cit. To his list of defenders of Plato's authorship may be added 
 the following : Leutsch, Theses Sexaginta, 1833, 13 ; Stallbaum, Lysiaca 
 ad illustrandas Phaedri Platonici origines ; Mahaffy, 142 ; Baur, 71 ; 
 Jowett, 553 ; to champions of Lysianic authorship : — Keil on Phaedrus 
 234; Kiel on Athenaeus XI. 505 f. ; Heindorf on Phaedrus, 187; Wytten- 
 bach on Plut. Moralia, 340; Franz, nepl Avalov rov prjTopos, 15; (cf. De 
 locis quibusdam Lysiae arte critica persanandis, 3, n. 2, and his edi-
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 9I 
 
 His first chapter is a detailed investigation into the language 
 of the Eroticus, including rhetorical figures, rhythm, composi- 
 tion and choice of words, and general style. His second 
 chapter, dealing with the authorship of the Eroticus, attempts 
 in the first instance to draw conclusions from the investigations 
 in the preceding chapter. It appears * that in details, such as 
 use and avoidance of figures, there is a strange consonance he- 
 tween Lysias' speeches and the Eroticus, though in the latter 
 his brevity and clearness are lacking. The rhythm and a few 
 words are not Lysianic. These discrepancies cannot, accord- 
 ing to Weinstock, be entirely explained away by the nature of 
 the subject treated, and the only possible conclusion is that 
 Lysias is not the author. 
 
 With the warning that resemblances to Lysias' speeches can 
 never prove his authorship of the Eroticus, since Plato, in writ- 
 ing it, must have imitated his characteristic tricks of thought 
 and style, Weinstock examines the parallel passages cited by 
 Vahlen and proves, by citation from other orators, that they 
 are forms of expression common to all Attic oratory. The 
 repeated occurrence of rhetorical formulae used by Lysias is 
 the result of conscious imitation, and as we should expect it is 
 the imitator, not the original author, who out-Herods Herod. It 
 is even possible, he thinks, that Plato may have copied from 
 an actual work of Lysias. (This, to me, seems improbable, 
 but is in no case of any consequence for the argument.) 
 
 As a result of his stylistic investigation, Vahlen concluded 
 only that Lysias might have been the author.' Weinstock 
 
 tion, 340 f., in wliich the Eroticus is included, 249 fF.) ; Vater, N. J. 
 Suppl. IX (1843), 176; Grote, Plato and the Other Companions of 
 Socrates, II, 254 ff . ; 'Ihompson, op. cit. ; Kckcrt, op. cit., 14 )T. ; Fluntkc. 
 Plato's Urtcil ul)er Isocratcs, 1871, 8 f. ; .Steiiiliart, Platons Lcln-ii. Leip- 
 zig, 1873, ij') (retracting liis statement made in liis i)raef. ad II. Mailer's 
 German version of Plato, IV, Leipzig, 1834, cited by Weinstock, 34) ; 
 Constantinides. 'AOrifaiov IV (1875), IV 32 ff. ; Jebb, 30?, ff. ; Weineck, 
 20 f.; Teichmiiller, op. cit., i)assim ; Sittl, 148; Bockb. l-'.ncyclopiidie 
 der Philologie, 212 f . ; Nowack, lOf); Herwerden and Hude, who include 
 the Eroticus in their editions. To the list of neutral sdudars may In- 
 added :—K>ickcrt, on Plato Symp., 232; Van Heusde. Init. i)bil. Plat. I. 
 lOl. * 33. '8o8f., though he speaks less guardedly in the preface.
 
 92 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 proves, as he thinks, that Vahlen's whole argument is " vana 
 atque irrita ", by pointing out words and constructions, which 
 are not Lysianic, but in Platonic usage. Of the words which he 
 singles out as not occurring in Lysias, one, WdAoyos, occurs in 
 IV which he brackets, another in VIII, which he with most 
 scholars, rejects. As he suggests, the non-occurrence of words 
 may be due to chance, and it is impossible to draw valid con- 
 clusions from the small proportion of Lysias' work that has 
 survived, especially since his ipwriKol Xoyoi have all been lost. 
 No doubt they differed considerably from his dicanic speeches 
 (whether or not these latter were written for actual use in 
 court). To a certain extent, choice and use of words and 
 phrases are determined by the genre of the work.* Nor is the 
 appearance of certain Platonic, but apparently not Lysianic con- 
 structions conclusive ; the element of chance must be reckoned 
 with. From an examination of the rhythm, it appears that the 
 Eroticus resembles more closely Socrates' first speech in the 
 Phaedrus than the Olympiacus. Here again on this debatable 
 ground of rhythm, it seems as if genre might be a determining 
 factor. In my opinion therefore no decisive conclusions can be 
 drawn from these facts, though they point to what I hold to be 
 the correct view. 
 
 According to Weinstock, Plato imitated Lysias as closely as 
 possible ; the Eroticus is a " verissirna atque simillima veri 
 imago orationum Lysiacarum ". At the same time, it is " luce 
 clarius " that the Eroticus was written not by Lysias, but by 
 Plato. Philologians are too clever to be deceived by Plato, but 
 " quicumque integro liberoque animo legerint oratiunculam, 
 Eroticum esse vere Lysiacum certe iudicabunt ". Are we to 
 take it that Plato wrote for philologians? Or to deceive in- 
 genuous readers? Has Vahlen the unprejudiced mind, and is 
 Weinstock the philologian? It seems to me that Plato could 
 not seriously have intended his readers to believe that the 
 
 'This explains satisfactorily the non-occurrence in what remains of 
 Lysias of poetic and erotic words and phrases, such as voauv, used of 
 the mind, depairevwp rjSovrii', iipa. cf. Weinstock, 48 f. 
 
 THE LffiRARY 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IX THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 93 
 
 Eroticus was Lysianic, unless it had already been published 
 under Lysias' name. In that case, the Phaedrus is a literary 
 book review. But unquestionably he intended that his readers 
 should understand that the Eroticus is a subtle Platonic version 
 of Lysias' manner, — almost a Lysianic inversion of the manner. 
 The reading public would detect precisely where groping philo- 
 logians fail, the element of caricature. 
 
 Weinstock then turns to the Phaedrus itself, to see what con- 
 clusions can be drawn about the authorship of the Eroticus.^ 
 The word " parody " so frankly applied to the Eroticus by 
 Thiele,* seems to have aroused Vahlen's indignation and in- 
 spired his article, and here, at least, Weinstock agrees with 
 him that it could not have been a parody. These two scholars, 
 however, seem to interpret " parody " as a " grotesque mis- 
 representation ", whereas Platonic parody is something at once 
 more artistic and more subtle. To the " parody " idea, Wein- 
 stock objects that, on this assumption, Lysias is subjected to a 
 threefold criterion, first in the parody itself, then in Socrates' 
 first speech, and finally in Socrates' detailed criticism of it. Now 
 the parody would seem to me, besides being the chef d'oeuvre 
 of the dialogue, a tacit suggestion of the following criticism, 
 which is, justly for Plato's purpose, of three kinds : — first, of the 
 treatment of the subject (Socrates' first speech) ; second, of 
 the choice of subject (Socrates' second) ; finally, of the details 
 of composition, of the rhetoric (in the second j^art of the 
 dialogue). Weinstock's plea that Plato thought too highly of 
 Lysias to parody him, may be good sentimentalism. but is poor 
 psychology. In the remainder of this section, he adequately 
 refutes Vahlen's arguments drawn from the references within 
 the dialogue to the Eroticus as being Lysias' speech, by pointing 
 out that these were the only possible words in which reference 
 could be made to it." He justifies the detailed criticism in the 
 
 '51 ff. 'Hermes XXXVI (\<m), 268. n. f. 
 
 "The same arKumcnt annuls tlu- testimony of (lie ancients, amonR 
 whom we have reiJeaterl references to it as Avalov Xofos. Weinstock, 
 67, has dealt satisfactorily with the only trouhlcsome reference, that of 
 Hermias.
 
 94 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 
 
 latter part of the Phaedrus by insisting that the Eroticus is not 
 a parody. He might better have justified it by acknowledging 
 that the justness of the criticism is not impaired by the fact 
 that its immediate object is only an imitation of Lysias, because 
 its ultimate object is Lysias' epideictic work as a whole, — 
 perhaps even, all writing of epideixis, in the narrower sense of 
 the word, by rhetoricians or sophists. It must finally be kept in 
 mind that the Phaedrus is, par excellence, a piece of literature, 
 and not strictly accurate, objective criticism, and that the ele- 
 ment of humour was less readily overlooked and underestimated 
 by contemporaries than by the more meticulous scholars of 
 to-day. 
 
 In the third section Weinstock grants to Vahlen that no con- 
 clusions can be drawn from comparison with the Protagoras 
 and the Symposium, but points out at the same time that 
 Norden's '" argument from the principle of unity must prove, 
 at first sight, the authorship of Plato. 
 
 The third chapter deals with the place of the Eroticus in the 
 composition of the dialogue; the first part, with the genre of 
 the piece ; the second, with Plato's judgment upon it. The 
 Eroticus is a -naiyviov, a " scholastica exercitatio sive declamatio, 
 quales Lysias discipulis proponere solebat in exemplum ad 
 recitandum ". Plato's judgment of it is justifiable. 
 
 On the whole, therefore, Weinstock has done little to prove 
 his conclusion, though it is, to my mind, the correct one. His 
 compromise that it is not a parody only leads him into extraor- 
 dinary contradictions." The argument of literary unity ad- 
 vanced by Norden, Plato's general manner of work, the improb- 
 ability that the work of one author should be quoted at such 
 length in what is, ipso facto, a work of art, — these are the 
 strongest arguments against Lysias' authorship. The answer 
 to the question must be more or less subjective. 
 
 "1,91. 
 
 "So we read, 51, " quicumque integro liberoque animo legerint ora- 
 tiunculam, Eroticum esse vere Lysiacum certe iudicabunt ", and 67, 
 " antiquitus nemo in banc potuit incidere sententiam Eroticum esse 
 Lysiae ".
 
 SPURIOUS SPEECHES IN THE LYSIANIC CORPUS 95 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 From the foregoing examination of the causes that led 
 scholars to reject the speeches under consideration, it is seen 
 that the radical treatment of Lysias' work is not justifiable. 
 The Lysianic corpus is the result of continued exclusion of 
 supposedly spurious work. There is no contemporary evidence 
 that Lysias wTote speeches for clients to deliver in court. The 
 arguments for and against the genuineness of speeches, of 
 which the authenticity has been questioned, rest on peculiarities 
 in choice of words and syntax, and on suitability for actual 
 delivery in court. These arguments should not be used for 
 rejection, in a case where a dramatic and ironic master of 
 ethopoiia is concerned, where the composer is simply a literary 
 man, and at that not an Athenian nor a lifelong resident of 
 Athens. 
 
 Therefore the balance of evidence is in favour of the genuine- 
 ness of any speech of Lysias preserved, and any investigation 
 of the work of Lysias must proceed on that assumption, and, if 
 necessary, the use of what is to-day considered solecistic in 
 classical Greek must be recognized as legitimate in passages that 
 do not otherwise call for emendation. 
 
 The case of Lysias, if my view be correct, justifies a recon- 
 sideration of the question of the purely epideictic nature of the 
 work of the other canonical orators.
 
 VITA. 
 
 I, Angela Charlotte Darkow, was born in Vienna, Austria, 
 on November 15, 1889. My father is Dr. Martin Darkow; my 
 mother, Flora Singer Darkow. I was prepared for college in 
 the Philadelphia High School for Girls. In 191 1 I received 
 the degree of Bachelor of Arts from Bryn Mawr College, in 
 191 2, that of Master of Arts. 
 
 I spent three years doing graduate work in the departments 
 of Greek and Sanskrit at Bryn Mawr, as scholar in Greek 
 191 1-12, and as fellow in that department 1912-14. To Dr. A. E. 
 Welden and to Dr. Roland Kent of the University of Pennsyl- 
 vania, I am indebted for instruction and encouragement in my 
 work in Sanskrit and Comparative Philology. Dr. Wright has 
 kindly criticised my dissertation and assisted me in all my work. 
 I am deeply indebted to Professor Sanders, at whose instigation 
 I began my work in Sanskrit and Comparative Philology, 
 through whose inspiration and assistance I have continued my 
 work in Greek, without whose encouragement and aid I could 
 not have written this dissertation. I wish to take this oppor- 
 tunity to express my gratitude and sense of obligation to these 
 professors and to the faculty of Bryn Mawr College. 
 
 May, 1914.
 
 
 W 
 
 AV^^i^ 
 
 M 
 
 2r.m-Hi,'41(2491)
 
 A^ 
 
 3 1158 00990 4681
 
 ■■.rr.;.-:- 
 
 
 
 I ^A-kjv 
 
 
 ';! . \'V :^ ■•--.'4.*^.> -.■«-A'^.,- ,-,^w^^^. ,ir^ _^*^4.AAfi ■ 
 
 
 .1 >H.., i.>v.'^K> «. ^VM/<<M 
 
 •:).;;•;•■ 
 
 'y::\'T.'-xf.-'.\ 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 V 
 
 i 
 
 J 
 
 'c 
 
 * 
 1 
 
 i