A Rhetorical Study OF THE STYLE OF ANDOCIDES A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF UNIVERSITY STUDIES OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY SAMUEL SHIPMAN KINGSBUEY BALTIMORE JOHN MURPHY COMPANY 1899 A Rhetorical Study OF THE STYLE OF ANDOCIDES A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF UNIVERSITY STUDIES OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY SAMUEL SHIPMAN KINGSBUKY BALTI MORE JOHN MURPHY COMPANY 1899 SYNOPSIS. Introduction. Page. (a). Literature on Style of A ndocides, 5 (6). His Works, 9 Chapter I. The Man and his Environment, 9 (a). His Character, -... 9 (6). His Environment, 12 (c). Elements of his Style, - 13 Chapter II. Method of Procedure, - 15 Chapter III. His Vocabulary, - 16 Chapter IV. His use of Tropes and Figures. Hiatus, 19 (a). Varying Views, 19 (b). Tropes and Poetic Figures, metaphor, synecdoche, metonymy, zeugma, anastrophe, 21 (c). Figures of Repetition, paronomasia (1st class), parechesis, polyptoton, epanaphora, antietrophe, symploce, epanastro- phe, kvk\os, epanadiplosis, amplificatio, "chain-shot," arsis, figura etymologica, alliteration, unordered repetition, - 22 (d). Enlivening Figures, prosopopoeia, apostrophe, paronomasia (2nd class), hypophora, hypostrophe, hyperbaton, irony, meiosis. oxymoron, asyndeton, polysyndeton, rhetorical question, 31 (e). Conversational Elements, - 36 (/). Gorgianic Figures, parieon, paromoion, antithesis, parono- masia, 36 (v fivarijpicov than elsewhere. Undoubtedly his most obvious trait of character is his pride. It is the pride of an Athenian aristocrat of the old school. He has the old aristocratic contempt for the manufacturing class, which comes out in bold relief in Or. 1, 146, where he says that it is a dis- grace to the city that the ancient house of Andocides and Leogoras should be occupied by Cleophon the lyremaker. This old home- stead of the family, to which he often refers with pride, seems to have been one of considerable pretensions. 1 In speaking of it he always employs the pompous position of the attributive adjective (cf 1, 48. 62. 146). It is tt]v oIk'iclv rrjv r)p,€repav. He was proud of his wealth, 2 of his influence with foreign poten- tates, 3 and of the ability which he had shown in regaining the fortune lost in his youth. 4 It is interesting to note on the one hand the utter contempt he has for the man who made his living by the manufacture of lyres, 5 and on the other the pride he takes in the fact that after coming into poverty and want, on account of the misfortunes of the city, he had reimbursed himself, rfj r)cn ®eo$paa"ro9, ii; (ov v opo/xdroov, zeal tt} a l so > tne statement of Dionys. de Thuc, c. 22. It will, therefore, be interesting to examine from what sphere our author draws his vocabulary, having already been assured by Dionys. that the diction of Andocides is pure Attic (cf. de Lys., c. 2). As the words of ordinary conversation are proba- bly preserved for us in comic poetry better than elsewhere, it is worthy of note that about 84 per cent, of the words employed by Andocides are to be found in Aristophanes. Of those remaining about 1 per cent, (of the whole) may be classified as legal terms and about 4 per cent, as technical, such as Aristophanes himself would doubtless have employed if he had had occasion to do so. In this class are included some numerals, terms expressing rela- tionship, names of state offices, etc. About 2 per cent, may be classified as abstracts, if we may venture to employ a classification which the Greeks themselves did not recognize. Such words I mean as aheoa, dvavSpta, iriaroTr]^, ktX. About 5 per cent, are verbs compounded with prepositions, frequently double. This tendency to use long prepositional compounds may be observed in Aeschines, and is especially characteristic of tragic poetry. It seems to lend a certain grandness to the style. Of the remaining words not found in Aristophanes many are not adapted to the ordinary metre of comic poetry. There are, however, some words used by Andocides which must have been less familiar in the ordinary conversation of his day or even in the language of the other orators. Such a word is dvcopOia- %ov 1, 29, which is not found elsewhere in classical prose. Cf. Aeschyl. Choeph. 271, /cd^opOia^wv iroXXd. A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 17 dvavfiaxiov 1, 74, does not occur elsewhere in classical writers. Of. dvav/j,d%r)Tov, Lys.fr. 71, and avavs, Aesehyl. Pers. 666. aTre/cepSaivofiev 1, 134, occurs elsewhere only in Eur. Oycl. 432, in classical authors. dpaaafxevoi, 1, 31, is for the most part a poetic verb, although it occurs occasionally in prose, as Hdt. 1, 132. Cf. iirapoafievov, Ant. 5, 11. eiveica. And. has five instances of this form against fourteen of €V€fca, the regular Attic prose form found in Thuc, Ant., Lys., Isoc, Aeschin., Dinarch., and Soph. The longer form is used by Hdt., while Horn., Hes., Pind., Aesehyl., Eur., Aristoph., Xen., and Dem. show both forms. €7rtaK7]7rro) 1, 32. "In the meaning here common in tragedy." March. iireyq/jLe 1, 128. This is the only occurrence of this word in classical prose. Cf. Eur., Or. 588 and Al. 306. k\t}8(ov (= 4>7]/u,r)) 1, 130. "Only instance in Attic prose. Cf. Hdt. and tragedy." Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 15. tcado/jLoXoyTJaas 1, 42, occurs only here in classical writers, with the exception of Plato. Cf. Gorg. 499 B, Orito, 49 c, and Ps.-Dem, 56, 14. KaraireTTTWKv'ia^ 1, 108, does not occur elsewhere in the orators, but is to be found occasionally in Plato, Xenophon, Thucydides, the tragedians, Pindar and Homer. On the use of ol (dat. pers. pron.) in prose, cf. Krug. 51, 2, 4, and C. W. E. Miller, Rev. of Dyroff, A. J. P., xvm, 221. In Andocides it is found in 1, 15. 38. 40. 41. 42. (126). Tricniv aTTUTTOTaTriv 1, 67, Blass cites as borrowed from tragedy, paralleled by such expressions as vofios avofios, %api? a-^apc^. irpoppi^ov 1, 146, does not occur elsewhere in the orators, and it seems at least plausible that our author had in mind, Soph. El. 765, Trpoppi^ov ecpdaprai vy6vTG>v eVi to?9 /xv err n plot?. 1, 38, 6 arparvycxi - - o ^aX/covs. 1, 68, o'l vvv opoiai rod rjXiov to co<> oV ifjbi (cf. Od. 10, 498). 1, 107, rr/v crcfieTepav - - aperrjv iKavrjv - - ra> irXr^det - - avrtrd^acrOat {cf. Thuc. 3, 56). 2, 7, i\6elv eh Totavrr/v av^opav twv (fapevoov. Zeugma. — Zeugma is found in 1, 63, -^aXeTrcorepot - - i%dpol r) aWoc - - <})i\oi, and 1, 81, o~(p%eiv rr/v ttoXlv rj ras i8la<; ri/xtupta?. Anastrophe. — One instance of the use of anastrophe is found in the orations of Andocides, 3, 34, elpr}vr/<; Se rrepi. Such transposi- tions as this are extremely rare in prose literature, with the excep- tion, perhaps, of Herodotus, and according to Aristot. poet., c. 22, were completely foreign to actual life. (c). Figures of Repetition. We turn next to the consideration of the rhetorical figures which may be grouped together as various forms of repetition. Now repetition of any kind arises either intentionally or uninten- tionally : intentionally, for the sake of emphasis or ornament ; 1 In the comparison it must be remembered that the compass of Aeschines' orations is about three times that of Andocides'. A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andorides. 23 unintentionally, as the result of negligence or poverty of resource. Cornif, iv, 14, 21, says: "in his quattnor generibns exornatio- num (repetitio, conversio, complcxio, traductio) quae ad hue pro posita sunt, non inopia verborura fit, set inest festivitas quaedam, quae facilius auribus diiudicari quam verbis demonstrari potest." Robertson, after quoting this passage from Cornificius, says that " In most cases the effect of rhetorical repetition is cumulative, serving to strengthen an idea by repeating it, and that the effect of repetition when not rhetorical is simply that it displays a pov- erty of vocabulary and of linguistic resources." We appear justified in considering as rhetorical all repetition that seems calculated by the author to produce some effect. In the case of Andocides the repetition appears to be largely for the sake of emphasis, sometimes from negligence or poverty of resource, and seldom if ever for the sake of mere ornament. If his repe- titions were entirely the result of negligence, as some have thought, we should not find, as we do, that occasional effort to secure variety by the use of synonymous expressions. And if this is less fre- quent than we should expect we must bear in mind that the eager pursuit of iroiKik'ia is for the most part post-Isocratic. His posi- tion is rather that of a speaker, without a very extensive vocabu- lary at his command, so absorbed in the idea which he wishes to express that it continually comes to the surface, and in cases where the repetition is not for the sake of emphasis, he has not acquired the technical skill to change the phraseology artistically. He must emphasize the thought, so he repeats it. Paronomasia. — The simplest form of repetition is that variety of paronomasia in which the same word (or a word from the same root) is simply repeated without any play upon words and without regard to the position in the sentence which the repeated words occupy. This is one of the two main divisions of paronomasia, according to Straub, p. 136, who bases his assertion upon the authority of the ancient rhetoricians. The second form occurs when the word is understood differently in the two places and is somewhat analogous to our modern pun. The former class at times does not differ from polyptoton. Robertson, in his treat- ment of paronomasia, seems to admit only that variety in which there is a change in the meaning of the word repeated, for he says 24 A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. (p. 21) "that the nature of paronomasia and parechesis is that a certain similarity in sound between two words is accompanied by a dissimilar meaning." While this may be the only variety of paronomasia to which Gorgias gave prominence, yet certainly in some of the examples cited from other authors the difference in meaning between the words repeated approaches the vanishing point. As to the sphere of paronomasia, we may quote the words of Casanowicz (Paronomasia in the Old Testament, J. H. U. dissert., 1894): "Figures based on similarity of sound probably date beyond the rise of any regular literature and originated in popular poetry and proverbs. By their nature they recommend themselves to the popular mind and popular ear, appealing as they do not so much to the intellect as to the attention, imagination and emotion. From the popular language these figures passed over into litera- ture as devices of style, and unlike the higher beauties of thought and expression, their proper home in literary style will have to be sought in a diction which approaches the popular speech. Judi- ciously employed, and subordinated to the higher ends of speech, these figures can be made to give tone and color to an entire passage. In prose they may serve to bring into relief the most important ideas, to combine correlated words by the concrete bond of sound and to impress them on mind and memory. In poetry they contribute to its music and give it characteristic tone and energy. They support the serenity and liveliness of comedy, while to the tragic tone they may convey a certain dignity and solemnity." As an example of the use of this figure we may quote the following: 1, 36, eVetS?) - - 6 fcijpvi; - - to arj/xelov ica8e\oi, to5 aura) crr/fieccf) f) fiev /3ov\rj et? to /3ov\evT?]piop fjei. The instances of the use of paronomasia of the first class in Andocides are the following : 1, 2. 4. 7. 12. 19. 21. 22. 24. 25. 27. 30. 32. 36. 39. 40. 42. 73. 80. 82. 86. 99. 111. 116. 127. 128. 131. 134. 138. 143. 2, 1. 6. 8. 10. 11. \2(bis). 13. 17. 24. 3, 7. 11. 12. 13. 17. 29. 32. 33. 35. 39. 41. Parechesis. — Parechesis differs from paronomasia in that in the latter figure the words of similar sound are from the same root, while in the former they are from different roots. Only those instances have been noted, as clearly intentional, in which an anti- thesis is marked by employing as the important words in the two A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 25 clauses such as have a general correspondence in sound, as in 2, 24, to fiev awfxa rvy^dvec ravrbv en ov, - - r\ Be i nrap v/juv, aXX" ovk ev Aafce8atp,ovioi<; . Arsis occurs occasionally in the fables, but is quite abundant in tragic diction. It is said to be especially frequent in Herodotus and in the artistic orators. Figura Etymologiea. — Figura Etymologica, which Volkmann calls the simplest kind of paronomasia and purely grammatical, occurs when two words from the same stem are used in gram- matical connection. This relation is most frequently, but not necessarily, that of a verb and its cognate accusative, or that of subject and predicate. The vulgarity of the figure seems to have been recognized by as early a critic as Dionysius, at least. Kiihner (1086, 2) thinks that the more pleonastic forms (as oiiciav ocKoSo/xelv) have been taken into the literary language from the popular speech. Accord- ing to Schulze (" De figurae etymologicae apud oratores Atticos usu"), the figure is not of great frequency in the Attic orators compared to the bulk. The same author says that Demosthenes and Aeschines were the most zealous in its use, Isocrates 1 and Lycurgus avoided it, while the remaining orators used it with moderation and prudence. Newhall (" Dramatic and Mimetic features of the Gorgias of Plato ") calls the figure familiar and old-fashioned and thinks that there is evidence to show that it was a favorite usage of Socrates and that Plato became scarcely less devoted to it than his master. That the figure was not ex- cluded from the loftier diction of tragic poetry an abundance of examples will testify. It is interesting to note, however, that nearly two-thirds of the examples from the Iliad occur in speeches. The figure is found quite frequently in the inartistic prose of the proverbs and fables, and also occurs in Aristophanes, who even sometimes coins a word for the sake of using it in connection with 1 Blass goes too far when he says : die dem Isokrates vollig fremde figura etymologica, III, 2, 203. See Schulze. 30 A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. another from the same stem, as in Birds, 42. All of these things show its essentially popular conversational nature. The following examples may be cited from Andocides : [xdpTvpes /x€/j,aprvp7]Ka(Tiv 1, 19. 25. dywva dywvio-aavai 1, 20. p,rjvv(T€i<; - - ifjbrjvvcre 1, 28. rj/jLaprrj/coai - - dpbapri]fiara 1, 30. dpacrduevoi - - dpd? 1, 31. eyyvwrds - - rjyyv^aavTO 1, 44. Trpvrdveis - - TrpvTavevaavTas 1, 46. epyov elpyacrfievov^ 1, 52. T60vea)T€ 1, 73. 147. eyyvas i)yyvr)Kei - - rfj fxrjrpl ical rf Ovyarpl, iepev<; o)v rfjs fjLWTpbs ical rrj<; dvyarpos, kt\. Also 1 , 24. 61. 65. 81. 100. 107. 115. 127. 131. 138. 147. 2, 22. 3, 27. Hypophora. — Hypophora is the raising of an anticipated objec- tion for the sake of refuting it. Of course, the natural province of this figure is in the speech for prosecution rather than that for defence, and as might be expected in the case of Andocides we find the large majority of instances in the third oration. They are : 1, 148, riva - - ava(3i/3dcrofjLai - - ; top irarkpa ; dWa reOvnicev. dWd tov$ a8e\vlSov - - auTt] epLrjvvcrev, kt\. Also 1, 27. 30. 88. 95. 2, 11. 3, 5. 23. Hyperbaton. — Hyperbaton consists in the wide separation of words which belong together. The term is most frequently applied to cases in which the emphatic word is drawn to the head of the sentence or cases where the article and noun are widely separated. The effect produced by the use of either of these forms of expres- sion is to attract attention, in as much as the mind is held in sus- A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 33 pense for a greater or less length of time. According to Volkmann this figure is somewhat artificial. For the latter variety Andocides shows no special inclination, although there do occur expressions which might reasonably come under this head, as in 2, 27 and 28. Hyperbaton of the former kind is rather more frequent, but is not a marked feature of his style. The following, however, may be cited : 1,1, rrjv fiev irapaaKevrjv w avSpes - - ware, kt\. - - o-xeBov re Trdvres eTrlarao-de. Also 1, 59. 64. 73. 90. 91. 95. 112. 118. 120. 2, 8. 19. 3, 36. . Irony. — A subtle vein of irony runs through the orations of our author and quite frequently comes to the surface, as in 1, 133, Ayvppios yap ovtoctl, 6 /ca\6<; icayaOos, ktX. Also 1, 4. 22. 37. 54. 93. 94(6w). 100(6is). 101. 115. 127. 129. 137. 139. 3,26. 27. 29. His irony is for the most part good-natured, so that we find very little use of the biting sarcasm seen in some of the greater orators. One form that elpwvela sometimes takes is Meiosis or under- statement, which is found at 1, 143, koX yap avrSiu twv epywv - - ovk i\d%io-Tov p,epoevv, kt\. Also 1, 73 (cf. 80. 103. 107. 109). 88. 135. 2, 27(6is). 3, 26. Asyndeton and Polysyndeton. — Asyndeton arises by the omis- sion of connectives ; polysyndeton by the multiplication of them. According to Aristotle (Rh. 3, 12) asyndeton, because of its liveli- ness is especially suited to practical oratory. Its effect is to pro- duce av%r)(Tis, in as much as many things seem to be said at once. Blass says that it occurs in Antiphon only where he does not try to shine with sophistic art, and that in Andocides it is in a high degree conducive to the naturalness and freshness of his style. In Oration 2, where the influence of his predecessor is to some degree perceptible, he avoids the use of asyndeton. It is to be found at 1, 18. 22. 38. 40. 42. 43. 48. 119. 122. 126. 3, 4. 6. 7. 24. 3 34 A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. Polysyndeton lacks the abruptness of its counterpart and lends more of dignity and leisureliness to the style of the author employ- ing it. Perhaps the best examples to be cited from Andocides are at 1, 48. 80. 101. Rhetorical Question. — The Question as an element in rhetorical effect is not very extensively treated by the Greek rhetoricians. Alexander's division of the question is two-fold (cf. Spengel, 3, 24- 25) ; (a) ipcorv/uia is a question that can be answered by " yes " or " no," while (6) irva/xa is a question where it is necessary to go into more detail. Very much to the same effect is the statement in Zonaeus (S. 3, 163) and Anonymus (S. 3, 179). Tiberius (S. 3, 64) says that the objects to be gained by the use of the rhetorical question are four : irpoao'xfi (attention), aacfrrjveia (clearness), ivdpyeia (vividness), and eXe^o? (confutation). Andocides makes abundant use of the rhetorical question, there being an average of about one to a Teubner page in the three genuine orations. The proportion is largest in the third. Most of the questions employed by Andocides may be comprised under five heads, according to the purpose for which they are employed : (1) for affirmation, (2) for negation, (3) for amplifica- tion, (4) as an appeal to the feelings, (5) such as are difficult or impossible to answer. Besides this he uses questions in hypophora, apostrophe, prosopopoeia, and SiaTropwais (dubitatio). Questions of the first two classes may be subdivided into those which have a direct answer and those which have not. If a direct answer is not given by the speaker, the question is so framed that the affirmation or negation is perfectly evident. Those of the third class all have answers, while those of classes four and five are all unanswered. The instances of the use of rhetorical question may be classified as follows : T I. For the sake of affirmation : (1) With a direct answer, as 1, 101(a) and (b), el yap rore r)ywvL^6fxrjv, Tt? av jxov /carwyopei ; ov^ ovtos virripyev, kt\. ; Cf. also 1, 129(a) (b). ^he letters (a), (b), etc., are used when there is more than one question in a section, and they designate the first, second, etc., question of that section. A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 35 (2) Without a direct answer, as (a) 1, 22(b), oi>x o vibs ovroal ftemvvm Kara aov, kt\. ; Cf also 1, 138. 3, 23(b). 25. 27. (b) With 7TW'/, 1, 95. 114. 2, 17(a). 17(b) (rl aXko ij). III. For the sake of amplification, as 1, 27, fxera ravra ri iyevero ; followed by the explanation. Cf also 1, 73. 87. 90. 91(bis). 95(a) 109. 117. 128. 129(fer). 3, 6(b, c). 12. 20. 21(sexies). 23(a). 24(a). 26(c). IV. To excite feelings of various kinds : (1) Pity, 2, 7. (2) Scorn, 1, 100. (3) With insinuation, 3, 19. 22. (4) Appeal to judges' fairness, 1, 57. (5) Appeal to judges' apprehension, 1, 104(6/«). V. Questions difficult for opponent to answer, as 3, 26(a), Iovtcov 8e Aa/ceSaifjLOvicov eh "Apyos irbrepov ftorjdrjao/jiev avroi? 7} o& ; Cf also 1, 2Q(bis). 131. 3, 15(c). 26(b). VI. Miscellaneous : (1) In hypophora, as 1, L48(quater), riva yap koX avafiifida-opbaL Serjaofievov virep ifxavrov ; rbv rraripa ; dWa TeOvwicev. Cf. also 3, 13. U(quater). 15(a), (b). (2) In apostrophe, as 1, 99, irorepov, to avKoc^civra ical iirlTpi- tttov /clvaSos, /cvptos 6 vop,o<; oS' iarlv r) ov /cvpios ; Cf aiSO 1, U(ter). (3) In prosopopoeia, 1, 101 (sexies), the mock trial between Chari- cles and Andocides. (4) In SiaTToprjaL*;, as 1, 51, irorepa irepuhw tov9 ifiavrov avyyeveZs diroWvfievovi aSt/cw? - - - rj eiirct) 'AOnvaiots airep rjKovcra - - ; 36 A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. (e). Conversational Elements. Besides the figures already noted whose sphere lies especially in familiar and conversational language, such as "figura etymologica/* alliteration, and some forms of paronomasia, there are to be found in the orations of Andocides certain other elements of stylistic ex- pression which may properly be considered characteristic of con- versational diction. In the first place conversational language is for the most part characterized by not infrequent anacolutha. These are quite numerous in Andocides, as 1, 4. 16. 27. 29. 57 f. 88. 95. 2, 16. 17. 3, 33. Another feature no less characteristic of conversation, and even more abundant than anacoluthon in Andocides, is the insertion of explanatory parentheses, which are in some cases so protracted as to lead the author to forget the principal subject. As a result of the use of parentheses arises the necessity for the employment of hypostrophe. An extremely careful author would be apt to employ this figure after most of his parentheses in order that the connec- tion might not be lost. Andocides uses it only a few times in com- parison with the number of his parentheses. For the numerous use of the latter we may cite the following sections : 1, 15(6is). 16. 18. 25. 27. 41. 45. 47(6/s). 48. 53. 54. 56. 57. 58. 60. 62. 65. 66. 75. 88. 89. 90. 95. 99. 100. 111. 113. 117(6is). 124. 127. 132. 138. 142. 144. 149. 2, 4. 7. 11. 15. 23. 26. 3, 2>{bis). 20. 21. 22. 28. 29(6is). 31 . 40. (/). Gorgianio Figures. A discussion of the figures of Andocides would be incomplete without some reference to the question as to whether he is depend- ent upon Gorgias. It is sometimes assumed that if an author employs the a-^fiara Xefetw?, he must have done so under the influence of a movement started by Gorgias. Hence the question arises in the treatment of Andocides, whether his occasional use of the so-called Gorgianic figures represents dependence upon Gorgias, imperfectly at the hands of an untrained genius, or whether he was employing elements natural to the language which Gorgias did not invent but only perfected and made artificial by exaggeration. A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 37 Robertson, p. 7, after sifting the various authorities, comes to the conclusion that the figures properly called Gorgianic are anti- thesis, parison, paroraoion, and paronomasia. Aristotle's defini- tions of parison and paromoion seem to be the best available. Aristotle says (Rhet. 3, 9, 1410a, 24), -rrapiawa^ S'iav tea ra KOiXa, TrapofAoloMTis 6° eav o/xoia ra eaxafa exv e/cdrepov to Kmkov. And further, as to the limitations of paromoion, he says, avdjKT] 8e rj ev dpxfl V e' 7 ™ reXevTfjs e%€LV. ical dpxv fiev del ra opo/xara, rj Be reXevrr] ta{3td&ov, whether Ando- cides was the author or not, there is much discussion. Yet the similarity of style, the numerous periods ending in anacolutha, etc., etc., aside from the historical inaccuracies, would indicate that he was the author of the oration against Alcibiades." We should be glad if he had specified to what the etc. refers. And as to historical data, Andocides' inaccuracies occur in reference to early history, not concerning contemporaneous facts such as the mistakes found in Oration 4. On the contrary, Andocides is said to have gained his place in the canon of the Attic orators partly on account of his value as a historian of the times in which he lived. Taylor attributed this oration to Phaeax, and was answered, but inconclusively, by Valckenaer and Ruhnken, who defended Ando- cidean authorship. These three dissertations occur in Becker's "Andocides ubersetzt und erlautert." Blass and Jebb consider the oration spurious, and set it down as 42 A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. the work of a sophist of a later date, agreeing in this with Meier and Grote (c/. 4, 203; 6, 10; 7, 144) and most recent writers. Thirl wall, however, devotes five pages (3, 493-8) to a review of the evidence and thinks the work must still be considered Ando- cidean. Blass says that nothing demands placing it later than some time in the fourth century. We know that such speeches were written in the time of the Panegyricus of Isocrates (cf. § 188), and even by such men as Lysias and Polycrates. Most of the proof hitherto given for the spuriousness of the speech is based upon the misconception of ostracism and the historical impossibility of the oration having been delivered. My effort will be to examine its authenticity by a stylistic study of the fourth oration. The first question to be settled is whether the speech was actually delivered, as it purports to have been, or is merely the written work of a later author. If the speech was delivered, the date may be fixed by internal evidence. Valckenaer strangely enough, not taking account of the reference to Melos, used as an argument for Andocidean authorship the statement in § 8, rerpd/cK! dycovi^ofievof airefywyov, declaring that they have reference to the trials on account of the mutilation of the statues of Hermes, the disclosure of the mysteries and his return, which, according to this, must have all taken place before the delivery of this oration. The reference to the capture of Melos shows that the delivery must be placed after that event, which occurred in the winter of 416- 415 b. c. Then Nicias left Athens in the spring of 415, never to return. So, if the occasion of this oration was historic, the scene of its delivery could only be laid in the early part of the year 415. Here the internal evidence contradicts itself. In §§ 22 and 23 there is an incongruity which Thirlwall, 3, 496, glides smoothly over by calling it a " rhetorical exaggeration," and adopting the suggestion of Droysen (Ueber die Hermoh, p. 199, note), that the Melian captive was taken in the early part of the siege. Further, the speaker in § 8 says that he has been four times tried, and in § 41 that he has been an ambassador to Molossia, Thesprotia, Italy and Sicily. But Andocides, in Oration 2, 7, speaking of this year 415, in which Oration 4 must have been given, if delivered at all, pleads that he was young and foolish at the time. A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. 43 Grote, 6, 11, says that the story of Alcibiades 5 duplication of the tribute, §§ 11 and 12, is virtually contrary to the statement of Plutarch, probably borrowed from Aeschines, who says that the demagogues gradually increased the tribute to 1300 talents (Plutarch, Aristeid., c. 24). Furthermore, there are some particular mistakes which an intelligent man could hardly have made in speaking of the events of his own and recent times. In § 33 Kimon is said to have been banished because he married his own sister. In § 13 the com- mander at Delium, a battle fought only nine years before the supposed date of the speech, is called Hipponikos instead of Hippocrates. Then the speech represents an entire misconception of the idea of ostracism such as could exist only after the institution had fallen into disuse. Under this ancient form of the secret ballot law anything like an open rivalry between two candidates and an attempt to prejudice the popular vote would be impossible. With the Attic delicacy of feeling the man making such an attempt would be sure to lose his case by this bold assumption that he was prominent enough to necessitate recourse to ostracism. Moreover, no writer mentions Andocides as in danger of ostracism in connec- tion with Alcibiades and Nicias. Phaeax is named by Plutarch with Nicias and Alcibiades as being liable to ostracism at the same lime. It was this which led Taylor to ascribe the speech to Phaeax. It is hardly necessary to reply to this, for the proof seems conclusive that it was not delivered at all. Accepting this conclusion, our next inquiry will be as to whether the composition of the work can be attributed to Andocides. Apart from the mistakes and inconsistencies already noted, the investigation may be pursued still further by observing some of the differences in the style of composition between the fourth oration and the first three. It will be remembered that one of the prominent features of the style of Andocides is his abundant use of the various forms of repetition, intentional and unintentional. Apparently this very thing was especially repugnant to the author of the fourth oration, for one of the most noticeable characteristics of his style is his eager search after variety in expression. Take, for example, § 25, where within the space of five lines we have avrepelv - - Xe^eiv - - 44 A Rhetorical Study of the Style of Andocides. aTToXoytjcreardai - - Strjyrjcro/Aai. In § 26 compare fjXde %evyo<; ittttcov dywv with a*:',> *iu