[164] E.g. Or. v. 23, ἡγούμενοι οὐκ ἂν αὐτὸν βεβαιώσειν, κ.τ.λ. Or. v. 31. ὡμολογήσαμεν ἐμμενεῖν οἷς ἂν γνοῖεν. Or. v. 43, δαπανηθείς (in middle sense).
[165] E.g. καθιστάνειν, ψηφίσεσθε, ἄξαντες.
[166] The Estate of Apollodorus (Or. vii.), § 5.
[167] Ciron (Or. viii.), § 28.
[168] Nicostratus (Or. iv.), §§ 7-10.
[169] de Isaeo, ch. 3.
[170] de Isaeo, ch. 4.
[171] Ibid., ch. 5.
[172] Lysias, fr. 46.
[173] Isaeus, fr. 15.
[174] Cf. de Isaeo, ch. 14.
[175] de Isaeo, ch. 16.
[176] Ibid., ch. 3.
[178] E.g. Orr. 2, 3, 7, 8, 9.
[179] Or. 8 (Ciron), § 46.
[180] de Isaeo, ch. 16.
[181] Antid., § 161.
[182] Phaedr., pp. 278-9.
[183] καὶ ἀρχὰς δὲ [και] (τὰς?) περὶ τὴν Χίον κατέστησε καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν τῇ πατρίδι πολίτειαν. Ps.-Plut., 837 B.
[184] However, if we pressed this passage, we must regard the journey with Timotheus as unhistorical. All the evidence is to be found in Blass, Att. Ber., vol. ii. pp. 16-17.
[185] Antid., §§ 159 sqq.
[186] de Comp. Verb., ch. xxiii.
[187] de Comp. Verb., ch. xxiii. He quotes Areop., §§ 1-5.
[188] Isocrates allows elisions of certain short vowels, but he is more sparing than most poets in the use of it. In the epideictic speeches the commonest elision is of enclitics or semi-enclitics (τε, δέ, etc.) and of personal pronouns. Crasis, except of καὶ ἄν is rare. In the forensic speeches (his early work) elision is much less restricted.
[189] Maxim. Planud. ad Hermog., v. 469.
[190] Vol. ii. p. 144.
[191] Rhet., Book III. 8. 4.
[192] Ibid.
[193] θαυμάζειν καὶ ζηλοῦν, ἐπαινεῖν καὶ τιμᾶν, etc.
[194] E.g. Paneg. § 5, ὅταν ἢ τὰ πράγματα λάβῃ τέλος ... ἢ τὸν λόγον ἴδῃ τις ἔχοντα πέρας, where τέλος and πέρας, two words for end or completion, are not really distinguishable, or, at any rate, the distinction is very slight. So in Evagoras, § 11, εὐλογεῖν and ἐγκωμιάζειν are used antithetically (to praise—to eulogise).
[195] E.g. Evagoras, § 10, αὐταῖς ταῖς εὐρυθμίαις καὶ ταῖς συμμετρίαις ψυχαγωγοῦσι τοὺς ἀκούοντας. Elsewhere we find μετριότητες, λαμπρότητες, αὐθάδειαι, ἀργίαι, etc.
[196] Aristoph., Clouds, passim.
[197] Cf. Isocrates’ reference to this passage in Antid., § 193.
[198] Hel. (Or. x.), § 1, οἱ δὲ διεξιόντες ὡς ἀνδρία καὶ σοφία καὶ δικαιοσύνη ταὐτόν ἐστι.
[199] §§ 9 sqq.
[200] Antid., §§ 187-189.
[201] §§ 19 sqq.
[202] Rhet., i. 1. 10.
[203] τὸ τολμᾶν, § 192.
[205] Or astrology?
[206] Antid., Summary of §§ 181-303.
[207] Antid., § 11, ἰδέαι.
[208] Ep. 1, § 87. This letter is referred to in Philippus, § 81; the text of the letter remaining to us is incomplete.
[209] Philippus, 346 B.C.
[210] Ibid. (Or. v.), §§ 14-17.
[211] Isocrates is said to have spent ten years over the composition of the Panegyricus; it was probably published in 380 B.C.
[212] I.e. the victory of the 10,000 at Cunaxa.
[213] The truth of this maxim is illustrated by our records of the impromptu performances of Demosthenes, vide infra, p. 190.
[214] de Isaeo, ch. xix., παχύτερον ὄντα τὴν λέξιν καὶ κοινότερον.
[215] Rhet., iii. 3. 3.
[216] Arist., Rhet., iii. 3. 4.
[217] Busiris, §§ 5-6. He endeavoured to make Socrates responsible for the misdeeds of Alcibiades.
[218] de Isaeo, ch. xx.
[219] Dion., de Isocrate, ch. xviii.: τὴν ἀπολογίαν τὴν πάνυ θαυμαστὴν ἐν ταῖς πρὸς Ἀριστοτέλη ἀντιγραφαῖς ἐποιήσατο.
[220] See Timarchus, § 49, where Aeschines states, in 346 B.C., that he is rather over forty-five years old.
[221] Aesch., de Leg., § 147. Dem. (de Cor., 129 sqq.) asserts that he was originally a slave named Tromes (Coward), but changed his name to Atrometus (Dauntless).
[223] However, his elder brother, Philocrates, was elected general three times in succession, and his younger brother, Aphobetus, was sent as an ambassador to the Great King.—Aesch., de Leg., § 149.
[226] See de Pace (passim) delivered in the same year.
[227] Aesch., Ctes., §§ 222-225.
[228] Dem., ch. 24, περὶ Ῥόδον καὶ Ἰωνίαν σοφιστεύων κατεβίωσεν.
[229] de Leg., § 16, τοῖς γὰρ καιροῖς ἀνάγκη συμπεριφέρεσθαι πρὸς τὸ κράτιστον καὶ τὸν ἄνδρα καὶ τὴν πόλιν.
[230] Ibid., § 157, ὁ τῆς μεγίστης σύμβουλος πόλεως.
[231] Hyper., adv. Dem., xxiv.
[232] de Leg., § 79.
[233] Dem., de Falsa Leg., §§ 145, 166-177; de Cor., § 41.
[234] Timarchus, § 174; Ctes., § 58.
[236] de Leg., § 163.
[238] ἐπῆλθέ μοι, Aesch., Ctes., § 118, where A. complacently relates the whole incident.
[239] de Cor., §§ 129, 262, etc. Further, de Falsa Leg., § 246. A tritagonist would ordinarily have to play the parts of kings and tyrants, who must as a rule be majestic characters (cf. ὁ Κρέων Αὶσχίνης, de Falsa Leg., § 247).
[240] Timarch., § 25.
[241] Dem., de Falsa Leg., § 252.
[242] Dem., de Falsa Leg., § 255, σεμνολογεἳ ... φωνασκήσας, etc.; de Cor., § 133, σεμνολόγου; and numerous references to τριταγωνίστης.
[243] Aesch., de Leg., § 41, τὴν φύσιν μου μακαρίζων, etc. (of the behaviour of Demosthenes during the first embassy).
[244] Ctes., §§ 228-229, ἐξ ὀνομάτων συγκείμενος, etc.
[246] Dem., de Cor., § 128.
[247] References to himself as πεπαιδευμένος, to his adversaries as ἀπαίδευτοι, to their ἀπαιδευσία, τό ἀμαθές, etc., are very common in the speeches against Timarchus and on the embassy.
[249] Timarch., § 26. Aeschines adds a characteristically Greek touch—‘his body was so horribly out of condition through his drunkenness and other excesses that decent people covered their eyes.’ It was the neglect of the body, rather than the exposure of the arms and legs, which is exaggerated into ‘nakedness,’ that really shocked the spectators, in addition to the ‘rough-and-tumble’ gestures of the orator.
[250] Timarch., §§ 37-38.
[251] Timarch., § 39. Ἄκυρος is used in a double sense; the early actions of Timarchus are unratified in the sense of not proved; the actions of the Thirty are not ratified by the succeeding governments. It is a looseness of expression which does not spoil the general sense, and there is, perhaps, an implied reference to the Amnesty, declared after the expulsion of the Thirty. Similarly Aeschines declares an amnesty for all the offences of Timarchus before a certain date.
[252] Ibid., § 55. In § 70 there is a further apology. Cf. also § 76.
[253] Timarch., § 53.
[255] Timarch., § 48.
[256] Dem., de Falsa Leg., §§ 2, 257.
[257] ξενία, expressing the mutual relations of host and guest, cannot be adequately translated into English.
[258] de Cor., § 51.
[259] Ibid., § 284.
[260] Aesch., de Leg., §§ 25-33.
[261] Ibid., §§ 75-78.
[262] Ibid., § 79.
[263] Ctes., §§ 119-121.
[264] Aesch., de Leg., § 153.
[265] E.g., de Leg., § 147. His esteem for his mother is expressed, ibid., § 148.
[266] de Leg., § 152.
[267] p. 178.
[268] Ctes., § 218.
[269] Cf. the frequent use of δεινός and δεινῶς—δεινὴ ἀπαιδευσία, ἀναισχυντία; δεινῶς σχετλιάζειν, ἀσχημονεῖν, ἀγνοεῖν, etc., and compounds such as ὑπεραγανακτῶ, ὑπεραισχύνομαι.
[271] The speech of Lysias against Eratosthenes, for instance, contains many complicated sentences which are unnecessarily obscure.
[272] ὁρώντων φρονούντων βλεπόντων ὑμῶν. Ctes., § 94.
[274] E.g. de Leg., § 183, τοὺς εἰς τὸν μέλλοντ’ αὐτῷ χρόνον ἀντεροῦντας. Blass, vol. iii. pt. 2, p. 232, notes that there is more consistent care on this point in the de Legatione than in the other two speeches.
[275] Ctes., § 99.
[276] Ibid., § 78.
[277] de Leg., § 81.
[278] Cf. Ctes., § 198, ὅστις μὲν οὖν ἐν τῇ τιμήσει τὴν ψῆφον αἰτεῖ, τὴν ὀργὴν τὴν ὑμετέραν παραιτεῖται, ὅστις δ’ ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ λόγῳ τὴν ψῆφον αἰτεῖ ὅρκον αἰτεῖ, νόμον αἰτεῖ, δημοκρατίαν αἰτεῖ, ὧν οὔτε αἰτῆσαι οὐδὲν ὅσιον οὔτ’ αἰτηθέντα ἑτέρῳ δοῦναι.
[279] E.g. iambics, Ctes., § 239, ἃ σωφρονῶν ὁ δῆμος οὐκ ἐδέξατο; and de Leg., § 66, μίαν δὲ νύκτα διαλιπὼν συνηγόρουν, etc.; anapaestic effect, ibid., 223, ἀεὶ τὸ παρὸν λυμαινόμενος, τὸ δὲ μέλλον κατεπαγγελλόμενος; and a curious combination, ibid., 91, ἁπάντων μετασχὼν τῶν πόνων τῇ πόλει, ⏑––|⏑––|–⏑–|–⏑–.
[280] Ctes., § 135.
[281] de Leg., §§ 110, 21.
[282] Ctes., §§ 192-193.
[283] Ctes., §§ 133-136.
[284] Ctes., §§ 99-100.
[285] Dem., de Cor., §§ 129, 259.
[286] Ctes., §§ 172-173.
[287] de Leg., §§ 106-107.
[288] de Leg., §§ 34-35.
[289] Ctes., § 212, οὐ κεφαλὴν ἀλλὰ πρόσοδον κέκτηται. The play upon words is not easy to reproduce: κεφαλή, of course, suggests κεφάλαιον, ‘principal,’ or ‘capital,’ while πρόσοδος is ‘income’ or ‘revenue.’
[290] de Falsa Leg., § 339.
[291] Aesch., de Leg., § 1.
[292] La Litt. Grecque, iv. 643, with reference particularly to Ctes., § 133 (quoted above, p. 186) and §§ 152 sqq.
[294] de Sublim., ch. xxiv., οὐ γέλωτα κινεῖ μᾶλλον ἢ καταγελᾶται.
[295] Mommsen (Book v., ch. xii. pp. 609-610, Eng. ed. of 1887) could write of Cicero: ‘Cicero had no conviction and no passion; he was nothing but an advocate, and not a good one.’ ... ‘If there is anything wonderful in the case, it is in truth not the orations but the admiration which they excited.’
[298] Frogs, 892, αἰθήρ, ἐμὸν βόσκημα, καὶ γλώττης στροφίγξ, καὶ ξύνεσι, etc.
[299] Aesch. (Ctes., § 171) says only ἀφικνεῖται εἰς Βόσπορον, which is ambiguous, as there were several Βόσποροι. The fact that he calls the woman Σκυθίς seems to prove that he meant the Crimea.
[300] Pytheas, quoted by Dionysius.
[301] The last private speeches of which the genuineness is undoubted are dated about 346 and 345 B.C., but others, e.g. Against Phormio, of which the authenticity was not questioned in ancient times, go down to 326 B.C. or even later. The genuineness of the Phormio is at least probable.
[302] Aesch. (in 345 B.C.) in the Timarchus, §§ 117, 170-175, refers to him as a teacher. In the Embassy (343 B.C.) there is no reference to this profession.
[303] Against Callicles.
[304] Against Conon.
[305] The speeches Against Zenothemis, Lacritus, Dionysodorus, and Phormio.
[306] E.g. Against Boeotus.
[307] § 61. ‘Pydna and Potidaea, which are subject to Philip and hostile to you.’ Also § 63.
[308] ἐπιστολιμαίους δυνάμεις, § 19.
[309] § 19, δύναμιν ... ἢ συνεχῶς πολεμήσει....
[310] § 21, χρόνον τακτὸν στρατευομένους, μὴ μακρὸν τοῦτον, ἀλλ’ ὅσον ἂν δοκῇ καλῶς ἔχειν, ἐκ διαδοχῆς ἀλλήλοις.
[311] § 23, οὐ τοίνυν ὑπέρογκον αυτήν (οὐ γὰρ ἔστι μισθὸς οὐδὲ τροφή), οὐδὲ παντελῶς ταπεινὴν εἶναι δεῖ.
[312] I have assumed the traditional order of the Olynthiac speeches to be the correct one. The question is much disputed, and is lucidly discussed by M. Weil in his introductions to the speeches (Les Harangues de Démosthène).
[313] Isocr., Philippus, § 73-74.
[314] Chers., §§ 24-26.
[315] § 77.
[316] § 19.
[317] § 20.
[318] §§ 26-27.
[319] The subject is admirably discussed by M. Weil (Les Harangues de Démosthène (2me éd.), pp. 312-316). His arguments should be carefully read by those interested in the subject. I quote only his conclusions: ‘Nous avons déjà vu que plusieurs passages, qui manquent dans S et L, ne pouvaient guère émaner que de Démosthène lui-même’ (p. 314). ‘Le résultat de cet examen, c’est que nous nous trouvons en présence de deux textes également autorisés, et que les additions et les modifications qui distinguent l’un de l’autre doivent être attribuées a l’orateur lui-même....’ (p. 315). These conclusions are adopted by Blass (Att. Bered., 1893) and Sandys (1900), who, however, considers that the shorter version was the orator’s first draft. Butcher (Demosthenes, 3rd ed., 1911) considers that the shorter text represents ‘the maturer correction of the orator.’