66 Ἔτι κἀκείνων μνημονευτέον, ὅτι τραυλὸς μὲν ἦν τὴν γλῶτταν ἐκ φύσεως, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ἀτονώτερος· ἐξ ὧν ἀμφοτέρων συνέβαινε 25 φαυλοτάτην αὐτὸν τὴν ὑπόκρισιν παρεχόμενον οὐκ εὐδοκιμεῖν τὸ κατ ̓ ἀρχὰς ἐπὶ τοῖς λόγοις, διὸ καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἐρωτήσαντα “ τί ἐστι ῥητορική” ἀπεκρίνατο ὅτι ὑπόκρισις, δυσχεραίνων ὅτι διὰ ταύτην τῶν χειρόνων ἥττων ἐφαίνετο. ἀλλὰ καὶ ταῦτα μελέτῃ κατώρθωσε 4 καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα αὐτῷ πρὸς δημαγωγίαν ὑπῆν ἐλαττώματα. καὶ γὰρ δειλὸς ἦν τὸ πρῶτον πρὸς τοὺς τοῦ δήμου θορύβους καὶ εὐκατάπληκτος, ὥστε εὐθὺς ἐξίστασθαι. διὰ δὲ τοῦτό φασιν αὐτὸν ἄνεμον ῥαγδαῖον τηροῦντα καὶ κινουμένην σφοδρῶς τὴν θάλατταν, 5 παρὰ τοὺς αἰγιαλοὺς βαδίζοντα λέγειν, καὶ τῷ τῆς θαλάττης ἤχῳ συνεθίζεσθαι φέρειν τὰς τοῦ δήμου καταβοάς. μνημονεύονται δὲ ἀπεκρίνατο ὅτι ὑπόκρισις] Cicero, Orat. i. c. 17, wrote, "ut jam non sine causa Demosthenes tribuerit et primas et secundas et tertias actioni." But in actio' was included pronuntiatio,' so that any deficiency or infirmity of voice was in compatible with a good ὑπόκρισις, and Cicero indeed defines actio as quasi corporis quaedam eloquentia cum constet è voce atque motu.' So also Quintilian, xi. c. 3, says : " Pronuntiatio a plerisque actio dicitur . . . Utraque appellatione indifferenter uti licet. Equidem vel mediocrem orationem, commendatam viribus actionis, affirmaverim plus habituram momenti quam optimam eandem illa destitutam. Siquidem et Demosthenes, quid esset in toto dicendi opere primum, interrogatus, pronuntiationi palmam dedit eidemque secundum ac tertium locum, donec ab eo quaeri desineret: ut eam videri posset non praecipuam, sed solam judicasse." To the same purport Cicero observes "Et infantes actionis dignitate, eloquentiae saepe fructum tulerunt : et diserti deformitate agendi multi, infantes putati sunt.” The lesson thus conveyed to speakers and preachers is confirmed by Quintilian's reasoning: "Neque enim tam refert qualia sint quae intra nosmetipsos composuimus, quam quo modo efferantur, nam ita quisque ut audit, movetur." And referring to the effects produced by Scenici auctores on the stage, he adds: “ Quod si in rebus, quas fictas esse scimus et inanes, tantum pronuntiatio potest, ut iram, lacrimas, solicitudinem afferat; quanto plus valeat necesse est ubi et credimus?” Comp. Cicero (De Amic. c. vii.) : " Stantes plaudebant in re ficta: quid arbitramur in re vera fuisse facturos ?" ὥστε εὐθὺς ἐξίστασθαι] so that he was immediately disconcerted.' This must, I think, be the meaning, not that he immediately withdrew or shrank from the crowd. Compare τέλος δ ̓ ἀποστάντα τοῦ δήμου (Plut. Demos. c. 4), where a different verb is used with a different meaning. Hesychius defines a person in opevòs έκστασις as ὁ εἰς ἑαυτὸν μὴ ὤν. Wyclyfe translates ἐπέπεσεν ἐπ ̓ αὐτὸν ἔκστασις, Act. Apost. x. 10, by a ravishing of spirit fell upon him.' Compare Mark iii. 21, ὅτι ἐξέστη. ῥαγδαῖον] Suidas (s. v.) says, κατὰ μεταφορὰν ἀπὸ τῶν ὄμβρων οἱ κεκινημένοι καὶ σφοδροὶ καὶ βίαιοι. τῷ τῆς θαλάττης] Quintilian (Χ. 3) says "Demosthenes, in litore in quod se maximo cum sono fluctus illideret, meditans, consuescebat concionum fremi. tus non expavescere." καταβοάς] I do not remember any other use of this word in the plural. The singular occurs in Thucydides, i. 73, Αισθόμενοι δὲ καταβοὴν οὐκ ὀλίγην οὖσαν ἡμῶν. Also viii. 85, Εἰδὼς τοὺς Μιλησί ους πορευομένους ἐπὶ καταβοῇ τῇ αὐτοῦ. Dionysius, Halic. (Epist. ii. ad Amm. § 3) classes it not as Schäfer says, with words γλωσσηματικά et ἀπηρχαιωμένα, but among ποιητικά, and himself uses the phrase πολλῇ καταβοῇ ἐχρῶντο (Antiq. Rom. lib. vi. c. 43). Plato uses καταδραμεΐν in the English sense of running a man down, i. e. by vituperation. αὐτοῦ καὶ οἰκήσεις κατάγειοι καὶ ξυρήσεις ἀπρεπεῖς, ἵνα δι' αἰσχύνην μὴ προΐοι τοῦ τῆς οἰκίας δωματίου, καὶ ὡς οὐδὲ τὰς 10 νύκτας ἐκάθευδεν, ἀλλὰ διεπονεῖτο πρὸς φῶς περὶ λόγους. ὅθεν καὶ Πυθέας σκώπτων ἔφη τοὺς λόγους τοῦ Δημοσθένους λύχνων ἀπόζειν. πρὸς ὃν ὁ Δημοσθένης ἀστείως ἅμα καὶ πικρῶς “ οἶδα” εἶπεν, “ ὅτι σε λυπῶ λύχνον καίων” διεβέβλητο γὰρ ὡς λωπο- 15 δυτῶν νύκτωρ ὁ Πυθέας. καὶ μὴν ὅτι τε ὕδωρ ἐπετήδευε πίνειν, ἵνα ἐγρηγορυῖαν μᾶλλον παρέχηται τὴν διάνοιαν, ἅπασιν ὡμολόγηται, παρειλήφαμεν δὲ κἀκεῖνο, ὡς καὶ ξίφος ποτὲ ἐκ τῆς ὀροφῆς ἀπήρτησε καὶ ἱστάμενος ὑπὸ τοῦτο ἔλεγεν. ἐποίει δὲ τοῦτο δι' αἰτίαν τοιαύτην. ἐν τῷ λέγειν ἀπρεπῶς τὸν ὦμον εἰώθει κινεῖν· 20 ὑπερεκρέμασεν οὖν τοῦ ὤμου τὸ ξίφος ἐν χρῷ, καὶ οὕτω τῷ δέει τῆς πληγῆς ἠδυνήθη κατασχεῖν ἑαυτὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ πρέποντος σχή ματος. ̓Αναγκαῖον δὲ διηγήσασθαι καὶ ὅπως εἶχε τά τε τῶν Ἑλλήνων καὶ τῶν ̓Αθηναίων πράγματα, ὅτε ἐπὶ τὸ δημαγωγείν ἦλθε 4η: 25 μοσθένης. Θηβαῖοι Λακεδαιμονίους ἄρχοντας τῶν Ἑλλήνων καὶ μεγίστην δύναμιν ἔχοντας ἐν Λεύκτροις τῆς Βοιωτίας μάχη νικήσαντες αὐτοὶ παρῆλθον εἰς ἰσχὺν, καὶ μετ ̓ ὀλίγον πρὸς Φωκέας πό Πυθέας ... λύχνον καίων] Here two stories are clumsily turned into one. Pytheas was a blustering demagogue, who accused Demosthenes (Epis. iii. Dion. Halic. de Isaco, c. 4) of receiving bribes from Harpalus, described by Plutarch (Phoc. c. 21) ας λάλος καὶ θρασύς, and the burglar was one Chalcus (Χαλκούς). To the sneer of Pytheas, that his arguments smelt of the lamp, Demosthenes answered, Οὐ ταὐτὰ γὰρ, ἐμοὶ καὶ σοὶ, ὦ Πυθέα, ὁ λύχνος σύνοιδε, intimating that his enemy spent his nights in dissipation. To the remark of the burglar on the same subject (els τὰς ἀγρυπνίας αὐτοῦ καὶ νυκτογραφίας πειρώμενόν τι λέγειν), he replied, οίδα ὅτι σε λυπῶ λύχνον καίων. Ὑμεῖς δὲ, ὦ ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι, μὴ θαυμάζετε τὰς γενομένας κλοπὰς, ὅταν τοὺς μὲν κλέπτας χαλ. κοῦς, τοὺς δὲ τοίχους πηλίνους ἔχωμεν. (Plut. in Vita, c. 8 and c. 11). Gas-lamps and police-officers must have been much wanted in the city of Athens according to this story. It may be compared with the state of Paris in 1609, as described in Duruy, Histoire de France, ii. 192 : “ Une ordonnance de 1609 prescrivit aux comédiens des deux theatres qui existaient alors de jouer leurs pièces, de deux heures à quatre heures et demie, les rues de Paris n'étant pas sûres le soir. En effet, Il n'y avait point de lanternes, il y avait beaucoup de boue, très peu de carrosses et quantité de voleurs.'" ἐν χρῷ] grazing his skin. Quintilian (xi. 3) tells the fact thus : " Jactantur et humeri: quod vitium Demosthenes ita dicitur emendasse, ut quum in angusto quodam pulpito stans diceret, hasta humero dependens immineret: ut si calore dicendi vitare id excidisset, offensatione illa commoneretur." ὅτε ἐπὶ τὸ δημαγωγείν] In B.C. 355, the year of his public or political orations against Androtion and Leptines. In this year also the social or confederate war concluded, after lasting three years (Diod. Sic. xvi. 22). Λεύκτροις] Β.C. 371. As for the μετ' ὀλίγον, it was not till fifteen years afterwards (B.C. 356) that the Phocian war began, and lasted ten years. παρῆλθον] This is the reading of the MSS., which Bekker retains, but Dindorf and Rüdiger adopt προῆλθον from the 6 margo ed. Paris. a. 1570. I think the MSS. are correct; for Libanius wishes to λεμον ἐξήνεγκαν. ἦσαν δὲ οἱ Φωκεῖς ἔθνος ὅμορον τῇ Εὐβοίᾳ, πόλεις ἔχον δύο καὶ εἴκοσιν. οὗτοι καταλαβόντες τὸν τοῦ Πυθίου ναὸν, 5 πλησίον ὄντα, ἐσύλησαν· ἀνθ ̓ ὅτου καὶ οἱ Θηβαῖοι πόλεμον ἐξήνεγκαν πρὸς αὐτούς. ἐπολέμουν δὲ καὶ ̓Αθηναῖοι τὸν συμμαχικὸν κληθέντα πόλεμον· Χῖοι γὰρ καὶ Ρόδιοι καὶ Βυζάν- 5 τιοι πάλαι ποτὲ ὄντες ὑπήκοοι Αθηναίων, τότε μετ ̓ ἀλλήλων συστάντες καὶ συμμαχίαν ποιησάμενοι, πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἐπολέμουν. καὶ οὕτω μὲν ἡ Ἑλλὰς εἰς πολλὰ μέρη διῄρητο, 'Αθηναίων πολεμούντων πρὸς τοὺς προειρημένους καὶ Θηβαίων πρὸς Φωκέας καὶ Λακεδαιμονίων πρὸς Πελοποννησίους. κατὰ δὲ τοῦτον τὸν καιρὸν 10 Φίλιππος ὁ ̓Αμύντου παῖς εἰς τὴν Μακεδόνων βασιλείαν παρῆλθεν. ̓Αμύντα γὰρ τῷ Μακεδονίας βασιλεῖ τρεῖς ἐγένοντο παῖδες ἐξ Εὐρυδίκης τῆς Ἰλλυρίδος, ̓Αλέξανδρος, Περδίκκας, Φίλιππος. τούτων ὁ μὲν πρεσβύτερος ̓Αλέξανδρος δολοφονηθεὶς ἐτελεύτησεν, 15 ὁ δὲ Περδίκκας πρὸς Ιλλυριοὺς μαχόμενος· Φίλιππος δὲ ὁ νεώτατος ἐτύγχανε μὲν ἐν Θήβαις ὁμηρεύων, ὡς δὲ ἐπύθετο τὸν Περδίκκου θάνατον, ὑπεξελθὼν λάθρᾳ καὶ ὀξέως εἰς Μακεδονίαν ἀφικόμενος κατέσχε τὴν ἀρχήν. ̓Αθηναῖοι δ ̓ ἄρ ̓ ἕτερόν τινα, 20 γένους μὲν ὄντα τοῦ βασιλικοῦ, φυγάδα δὲ ἐκ Μακεδονίας, ἐπὶ βασιλείαν κατήγον μετὰ πολλοῦ πλήθους στρατιωτῶν. τούτοις ὁ Φίλιππος ἐπιθέμενος ἐνίκησε μάχῃ· καὶ ὅσους συνέλαβεν αἰχμα λώτους τῶν ̓Αθηναίων, ἀφῆκεν ἄνευ λύτρων, οὐ κατ ̓ εὔνοιαν τῆς πόλεως οὐδὲ δι ̓ ἐπείκειαν τρόπου. imply that the Thebans stepped into the place of the Lacedaemonians, rather than that they advanced to great power. εἰς τὴν . · παρῆλθεν] succeeded to the throne. This was in B.c. 359, and at the age of twenty-three. For a like use of παρελθεῖν see Philip. iii. § 31, Λακεδαιμονίοις παρελθοῦσιν εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν δυναστείαν ὑμῖν. Αλέξανδρος δολοφονηθείς] Diodorus Sic. (xv. 71) records that he was killed by one Ptolemy of Alorus: Πτολεμαῖος ὁ ̓Αλωρίτης ὁ ̓Αμύντου υἱὸς ἐδολοφόνησεν Αλέξανδρον τὸν ἀδελφὸν, καὶ ἐβασίλευσε τῆς Μακεδονίας ἔτη τρία. But Diodorus is wrong in describing them as brothers. ἕτερόν τινα] His name was Argaeus. Diod. (xvi. 3) says θεωρῶν τοὺς ̓Αθηναίους ὑπὲρ τοῦ τὴν ̓Αμφίπολιν ἀνακτήσασθαι τὴν πᾶσαν φιλοτιμίαν εἰσφερομένους καὶ διὰ τοῦτο κατάγοντας τὸν ̓Αργαῖον ἐπὶ τὴν βασιλείαν, ἑκουσίως ἐξεχώρησε τῆς πόλεως ἀφεὶς αὐτὴν αὐτόνομον. κατήγον] * were trying to bring him back from exile for the crown.' τρόπου] “ Post τρόπου videtur deesse alterum phraseos membrum, in hunc ferme sensum: sed quia hoc expedire suis rebus existimabat, et ut clementiae laudem assequeretur” (Auger). 25 ΠΕΡΙ ΤΩΝ ΜΕΡΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΡΗΤΟΡΙΚΗΣ. Τῆς ῥητορικῆς μέρη τρία, ἐπιδεικτικὸν, δικανικὸν, συμβουλευ- 6 τικόν. τοῖν μὲν οὖν δυοῖν ἄκρος ἀγωνιστὴς γέγονε, τοῦ τε δικανικοῦ καὶ τοῦ συμβουλευτικοῦ· ἐπιδεικτικοὺς δὲ οὐκ ἔχομεν αὐτοῦ λόγους. τοὺς γὰρ φερομένους οὐ πιστευτέον εἶναι Δημοσθένους, τὸν ἐπιτάφιον καὶ τὸν ἐρωτικόν· πολὺ γὰρ τῆς ἐκείνου δυνάμεως ἀπο- 5 λείπονται. καὶ οὐχ ἡμετέραν γνώμην λέγομεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ Διονυσίῳ τῷ ̔Αλικαρνασσεῖ τοῦτο συνδοκεῖ. ὅτι μὲν γὰρ εἶπεν ἐπιτάφιον τῆς ῥητορικῆς μέρη τρία] This division is the same as that of Aristotle, Rhetor. i. 3, who says, Έστι δὲ τῆς ῥητορικῆς εἴδη τρία τὸν ἀριθμόν· τοσοῦτοι γὰρ καὶ οἱ ἀκροαταὶ τῶν λόγων ὑπάρχουσιν ὄντες. Ανάγκη δὲ τὸν ἀκροατὴν ἢ θεωρὸν εἶναι ἢ κριτὴν, κριτὴν δὲ ἢ τῶν γεγενημένων ἢ τῶν μελλόντων. ἔστι δ' ὁ μὲν περὶ τῶν μελλόντων κρίνων οἷον ἐκκλησιαστὴς, ὁ δὲ περὶ τῶν γεγενημένων οἷον ὁ δικαστὴς, ὁ δὲ περὶ τῆς δυνάμεως, ὁ θεωρός. ὥστ ̓ ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἂν εἴη τρία γένη, τῶν λόγων τῶν ῥητορικῶν, συμβουλευτικὸν, δικανικὸν, ἐπιδεικτικόν. Συμβουλῆς δὲ τὸ μὲν προτροπὴ, τὸ δὲ ἀποτροπή. Δίκης δὲ τὸ μὲν κατηγορία, τὸ δὲ ἀπολογία. Επιδεικτικοῦ δὲ τὸ μὲν ἔπαινος, τὸ δὲ ψόγος. Χρόνοι δὲ ἑκάστου τούτων εἰσὶ τῷ μὲν συμβουλεύοντι, ὁ μέλλων, τῷ δὲ δικαζομένῳ ὁ γενόμενος, τῷ δὲ ἐπιδεικτικῷ κυριώτατος μὲν ὁ παρών κατὰ γὰρ τὰ ὑπάρχοντα ἐπαινοῦσιν ἢ ψέγουσι πάντες, προσχρῶνται δὲ πολλάκις καὶ τὰ γενόμενα ἀναμιμνήσκοντες καὶ τὰ μέλο λοντα προεικάζοντες. This division was adopted by the great majority of ancient writers on this subject. "Nec dubie," says Quintilian (iii. c. 4), ". prope omnes utique summae apud antiquos auctoritatis scriptores, Aristotelem secuti, hac partitione contenti fuerunt," viz. under the three heads, demonstrativum, suasorium or deliberativum, and judiciale. The two latter correspond respectively to the oratory of the statesman and the advocate. Indeed Aristotle sometimes uses ἡ δημη γορική as synonymous with ἡ συμβουλευτική (nomine tantum alio contionalem pro deliberativa appellat). The demonstrativum, as Quintilian says, "constat laude et vituperatione,” including funeral orations, panegyrics, scientific or literary lectures (ἐπιδείξεις), and according to Libanius even λόγοι ερωτικοί. "Quod genus,” viz. the ἐπιδεικτικὸν or demonstrativum (says Quintilian), “ videtur Aristoteles atque eum secutus Theophrastus, a parte negotiali hoc est πραγματικῆς removisse, totumque ad auditores relegasse; et id ejus nominis, quod ab ostentatione dicitur, proprium est (Quint. lib. iii. c. 7). In the same chapter (ad fin.) he adds, “ Totum autem (sc. τὸ ἐπιδεικτικόν) habet aliquod simile suasoriis, quia plerumque eadem illic suaderi, hic laudari solent.” Westermann (Quaest. Demos. Part ii. c. 1) has a long article, . De demonstrativo genere orationis ante Demosthenem, in which he remarks, "Rectius puto quam demonstrativum, appellaverit quispiam illud dicendi genus ostensionale." But the word is of very doubtful Latinity. Lampridius applies it to the soldiers, "qui ad ostentationem et pompam Principem comitabantur." Facciol. s. v. τοὺς γὰρ φερομένους] • those that are reported to be.' τοῦτο συνδοκεῖ] Dionysius (de Adm. vi dicen. in Demos. c. 44) says, Пaνηγυρικοὺς μὲν οὖν λόγους οὐκ ἔχομεν αὐτοῦ (Demosthenis) παρασχέσθαι· πάντας συμ λόγον Δημοσθένης, ὡμολόγηται· οὐ μὴν τοῦτον εἰκὸς εἶναι τὸν ὑπ ̓ 10 ἐκείνου ῥηθέντα, πάνυ φαύλως καὶ ἀσθενῶς ἔχοντα. τῶν δὲ βουλευτικῶν αὐτοῦ λόγων οἱ μὲν αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἔχουσιν ἐπίγραμμα, συμβουλευτικοὶ, οἱ δὲ οὐδὲν μὲν ἧττόν εἰσι συμβουλευτικοὶ Φιλιππικοὶ δὲ ἐπιγράφονται, ἐκ τοῦ περὶ τῶν τοῦ Φιλίππου πραγμάτων εἰρῆσθαι τὴν κλῆσιν λαχόντες. καὶ τῶν Φιλιππικῶν ἕκαστος ἰδίαν 15 τινὰ ἐπιγραφὴν ἔχει κατὰ τὴν τῶν πραγμάτων ἑκάστων ἰδιότητα. γὰρ ἔγωγε τοὺς ἀναφερομένους εἰς αὐτὸν, ἀλλοτρίους εἶναι πείθομαι, ὧν ἐστιν ὅ τε φορτικὸς καὶ κενὸς καὶ παιδαριώδης ἐπιτάφιος καὶ τὸ τοῦ σοφιστικοῦ λήρου μεστὸν ἐγκώμιον εἰς Παυσανίαν. Westermann (Quaest. Demos. Part ii. c. iii. and c. iv.), De epitaphio Demosthenis,' and De Demosthenis Erotico,' maintains the same opinions at some length. Φιλιππικοὶ δέ] Bekker retains the common reading of Φιλιππικοὶ δὲ οἵδε. ἰδιότητα] As the περὶ Εἰρήνης, Ολυν θιακοί, περὶ τῶν ἐν Χεῤῥονήσῳ. |