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