Page:History of the Literature of Ancient Greece (Müller) 2ed.djvu/524

502 5C2 HISTORY OF THE accused is the common enemy of the judges and of the accuser, the procemium at once conciliates the good will of the judges. It draws the attention of the audience to a highly interesting narrative, in which the fall of the democracy is connected with the ruin of Dionysodorus, whom the accuser seeks to avenge. This narrative, which at the same time unfolds the state of the case, and is premised as the main point in it,* hegins with the battle of iEgos-potami, and details all the detestable manoeuvres by which Theramenes endeavoured to deliver up his native city, unarmed, into the power of her enemies. The fear of Theramenes lest the leaders of the army should detect and thwart his intrigues, led to the guilt of Agoratus : according to the orator's account of the matter, Agoratus willingly undertook to represent the commanders as enemies of the peace, in consequence of which they were apprehended and judicially murdered by the Council under the Thirty Tyrants. This narrative, which is given in the most vivid colours, and, in its main features, is supported by evidence, concludes, with the same artful and well-contrived simplicity which reigns throughout the speech, in a scene in the dungeon, where Dionysodorus, after disposing of his property leaves it as a sacred duty to be performed by his brother and brother-in- law, the accuser, and all his friends, nay, even by his unborn child, that they should take vengeance for his death on Agoratus, who, according to the Athenian way of viewing the matter, was considered as the chief author of it. The accuser now briefly sketches the mischiefs done by the Thirty — who could not have got their power without the intrigues here referred to ; confutes some pleas which Agoratus might bring forward in his justification, by a careful scrutiny of all the circumstances attending his denunciation ; then enlarges upon the whole life of Agoratus ; the meanness of his family, his usurpation of the rights of citizenship, his dealings with the liberators at Phyle, with whom he sought to identify himself, t but was rejected by them as a murderer; then justifies the harsh measure of the summary process (cnrayaiyi'i), which the accuser had thought fit to employ against Agoratus ; and finally proves, that the amnesty between the two parties at Athens did not apply to Agoratus. The epilogue very emphatically lays before the judges the dilemma in which they were placed, of either condemning Agoratus, or justifying the execution of those persons whose ruin he had effected. The excellence of this brief but weighty speech will be perceived even from this status cansce, and immediately follows the exordium ; whereas Antiphon follows up the exordium, without the introduction of any Karao-rain;, by a part of the proofs, e. (j. the direct proof or formal nullification, and then at last introduces the Iwywi; to pave the way for other proofs, such as those springing from probability, •f Here an obscure point remains to be settled — what induced Agoratus to join the exiles at Phyle 1 ? The orator gives no reason for this conduct, but only adduces it as a proof of his shameless impudence, § 77.
 * The hvyntris is elsewhere used by Lysias as the Kardtrrxins, or definition of the