Page:EB1911 - Volume 17.djvu/198

 and a fine though strictly controlled sense of humour. The literary tact which is so remarkable in the extant speeches is that of a singularly flexible intelligence, always obedient to an instinct of gracefulness. He owes his distinctive place to the power of concealing his art. It was obviously desirable that a speech written for delivery by a client should be suitable to his age, station and circumstances. Lysias was the first to make this adaptation really artistic. His skill can be best appreciated if we turn from the easy flow of his graceful language to the majestic emphasis of Antiphon, or to the self-revealing art of Isaeus. Translated into terms of ancient criticism, he became the model of the “plain style” ( : genus tenue or subtile). Greek and then Roman critics distinguished three styles of rhetorical composition—the “grand” (or “elaborate”), the “plain” and the “middle,” the “plain” being nearest to the language of daily life. Greek rhetoric began in the “grand” style; then Lysias set an exquisite pattern of the “plain”; and Demosthenes might be considered as having effected an almost ideal compromise.

The vocabulary of Lysias is pure and simple. Most of the rhetorical “figures” are sparingly used—except such as consist in the parallelism or opposition of clauses. The taste of the day—not yet emancipated from the influence of the Sicilian rhetoric—probably demanded a large use of antithesis. Lysias excels in vivid description; he has also a happy knack of marking the speaker’s character by light touches. The structure of his sentences varies a good deal according to the dignity of the subject. He has equal command over the “periodic” style ( ) and the non-periodic or “continuous” ( ). His disposition of his subject-matter is always simple. The speech has usually four parts—introduction , narrative of facts ( ), proofs , which may be either external, as from witnesses, or internal, derived from argument on the facts, and, lastly, conclusion . It is in the introduction and the narrative that Lysias is seen at his best. In his greatest extant speech—that Against Eratosthenes—and also in the fragmentary Olympiacus, he has pathos and fire; but these were not characteristic qualities of his work. In Cicero’s judgment (De Orat. iii. 7, 28) Demosthenes was peculiarly distinguished by force (vis), Aeschines by resonance (sonitus), Hypereides by acuteness (acumen), Isocrates by sweetness (suavitas); the distinction which he assigns to Lysias is subtilitas, an Attic refinement—which, as he elsewhere says (Brutus, 16, 64) is often joined to an admirable vigour (lacerti). Nor was it oratory alone to which Lysias rendered service; his work had an important effect on all subsequent Greek prose, by showing how perfect elegance could be joined to plainness. Here, in his artistic use of familiar idiom, he might fairly be called the Euripides of Attic prose. And his style has an additional charm for modern readers, because it is employed in describing scenes from the everyday life of Athens.

Thirty-four speeches (three fragmentary) have come down under the name of Lysias; one hundred and twenty-seven more, now lost, are known from smaller fragments or from titles. In the Augustan age four hundred and twenty-five works bore his name, of which more than two hundred were allowed as genuine by the critics. Our thirty-four works may be classified as follows:—

A. —1. Olympiacus, xxxiii. 388 ; 2. Epitaphius, ii. (purporting to have been spoken during the Corinthian War; certainly spurious), perhaps composed about 380–340 (“soon after 387,” Blass).

B. —Plea for the Constitution, xxxiv., 403

C. —I. Relating to Offences directly against the State ( ); such as treason, malversation in office, embezzlement of public moneys. 1. For Polystratus, xx., 407 ; 2. Defence on a Charge of Taking Bribes, xxi., 402 ; 3. Against Ergocles, xxviii., 389 ; 4. Against Epicrates, xxvii., 389 ; 5. Against Nicomachus, xxx., 399 ; 6. Against the Corndealers, xxii., 386 (?) II. Cause relating to Unconstitutional Procedure ( ). On the Property of the Brother of Nicias, xviii., 395 III. Causes relating to Claims for Money withheld from the State. 1. For the Soldier, ix. (probably not by Lysias, but by an imitator, writing for a real cause), 394 (?); 2. On the Property of Aristophanes, xix., 387 ; 3. Against Philocrates, xxix., 389 IV. Causes relating to a Scrutiny ; especially the Scrutiny, by the Senate, of Officials Designate. 1. Against Evandrus, xxvi., 382 ; 2. For Mantitheus, xvi., 392 ; 3. Against Philon, xxxi., between 404 and 395 ; 4. Defence on a Charge of Seeking to Abolish the Democracy, xxv., 401 ; 5. For the Invalid, xxiv., 402 (?) V. Causes relating to Military Offences ( ). 1. Against Alcibiades, I. and II. (xiv., xv.), 395 VI. Causes relating to Murder or Intent to Murder ( ). 1. Against Eratosthenes, xii., 403 ; 2. Against Agoratus, xiii., 399 ; 3. On the Murder of Eratosthenes, i. (date uncertain); 4. Against Simon, iii., 393 ; 5. On Wounding with Intent, iv. (date uncertain). VII. Causes relating to Impiety. 1. Against Andocides, vi. (certainly spurious, but perhaps contemporary); 2. For Callias, v. (date uncertain); 3. On the Sacred Olive, vii., not before 395

D. —I. Action for Libel ( ). Against Theomnestus, x., 384–383 (the so-called second speech, xi., is merely an epitome of the first). II. Action by a Ward against a Guardian ( ). Against Diogeiton, xxxii., 400 III. Trial of a Claim to Property. On the property of Eraton, xvii., 397 IV. Answer to a Special Plea ( ). Against Pancleon, xxiii. (date uncertain).

E. —1. To his Companions, a Complaint of Slanders, viii. (certainly spurious); 2. The  in Plato’s Phaedrus, pp. 230 E–234. This has generally been regarded as Plato’s own work; but the certainty of this conclusion will be doubted by those who observe (1) the elaborate preparations made in the dialogue for a recital of the  which shall be verbally exact, and (2) the closeness of the criticism made upon it. If the satirist were merely analysing his own composition, such criticism would have little point. Lysias is the earliest writer who is known to have composed  ; it is as representing both rhetoric and a false  that he is the object of attack in the Phaedrus.

F. —Three hundred and fifty-five of these are collected by Sauppe, Oratores Attici, ii. 170–216. Two hundred and fifty-two of them represent one hundred and twenty-seven speeches of known title; and of six the fragments are comparatively large. Of these, the fragmentary speech For Pherenicus belongs to 381 or 380 , and is thus the latest known work of Lysias.

In literary and historical interest, the first place among the extant speeches of Lysias belongs to that Against Eratosthenes (403 ), one of the Thirty Tyrants, whom Lysias arraigns as the murderer of his brother Polemarchus. The speech is an eloquent and vivid picture of the reign of terror which the Thirty established at Athens; the concluding appeal, to both parties among the citizens, is specially powerful. Next in importance is the speech Against Agoratus (399 ), one of our chief authorities for the internal history of Athens during the months which immediately followed the defeat at Aegospotami. The Olympiacus (388 ) is a brilliant fragment, expressing the spirit of the festival at Olympia, and exhorting Greeks to unite against their common foes. The Plea for the Constitution (403 ) is interesting for the manner in which it argues that the wellbeing of Athens—now stripped of empire—is bound up with the maintenance of democratic principles. The speech For Mantitheus (392 ) is a graceful and animated portrait of a young Athenian , making a spirited defence of his honour against the charge of disloyalty. The defence For the Invalid is a humorous character-sketch. The speech Against Pancleon illustrates the intimate relations between Athens and Plataea, while it gives us some picturesque glimpses of Athenian town life. The defence of the person who had been charged with destroying a moria, or sacred olive, places us amidst the country life of Attica. And the speech Against Theomnestus deserves attention for its curious evidence of the way in which the ordinary vocabulary of Athens had changed between 600 and 400

All MSS. of Lysias yet collated have been derived, as H. Sauppe first showed, from the Codex Palatinus X. (Heidelberg). The next most valuable MS. is the Laurentianus C (15th century), which I. Bekker chiefly followed. Speaking generally, we may say that these two MSS. are the only two which carry much weight where the text is seriously corrupt. In Oratt. i.-ix. Bekker occasionally consulted eleven other MSS., most of which contain only the above nine speeches: viz., Marciani F, G, I, K (Venice); Laurentiani D, E (Florence); Vaticani M, N; Parisini U, V; Urbinas O.

—Editio princeps, Aldus (Venice, 1513); by I. Bekker (1823) and W. S. Dobson (1828) in Oratores Attici; C. Scheibe (1852) and T. Thalheim (1901, Teubner series, with bibliography); C. G. Cobet (4th ed., by J. J. Hartman, 1905); with variorum notes, by J. J. Reiske (1772). Editions of select speeches by J. H. Bremi (1845); R. Rauchenstein (1848, revised by C. Fuhr, 1880–1881); H. Frohberger (1866–1871); H. van Herwerden (1863); A. Weidner (1888); E. S. Shuckburgh (1882); A. Westermann and W. Binder (1887–1890); G. P. Bristol (1892), M. H. Morgan (1895), C. D. Adams (1905), all three published in America. There is a special lexicon to Lysias by D. H. Holmes (Bonn, 1895). See also Jebb’s Attic Orators (1893) and Selections from the Attic Orators (2nd