² Thus Dittmar, H., Aischines von Sphettos (Berlin, 1912), pp.293–4.Google Scholar

³ On Demosthenes' use of similes see Ronnet, G., Étude sur le style de Démosthé (Paris, 1951), pp.176–82.Google Scholar

⁴ Ad Ammaeum 1.12.

⁵ The emendation was first suggested by Spengel. See further Meerwaldt, J.D., ‘De Aristotelis erga Demosthenem anima’, Mnemosyne 54 (1926), 348–69, at 348–58.Google Scholar On Nicodemus see Aesch. 1.170–73; 2.148;Dinarch. 1.30, 47;MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes: Against Meidias (Oxford, 1990), pp.328–30. Nicanor was well known as the officer of Alexander who presented the Exiles Decree to the Greeks in 324, and with whom Demosthenes dealt (Dinarch. 1.81, 103; Hyper. Demosth. col. 18;Diod. 18.8). He was also the son-in-law of Aristotle (Diog. Laert. 5.12), and his name would readily have sprung to mind in connection with either Demosthenes or Aristotle.Google Scholar

⁶ On Mantias' career see Davies, J.K., Athenian Propertied Families 600–300 B.C. (Oxford, 1971), p.367.Google Scholar

⁷ 1399b16–8:

⁸ 1420a8: .

⁹ The allusion is to Lys. 2.60.

¹⁰ Dover, K.J., Lysias and the Corpus Lysiacum (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968), p.26 n.3.Google Scholar

¹¹ It was included by Baiter, J.G. and Sauppe, H. in their collection of fragments, Oratores Attici (Zurich, 1839–41).Google ScholarSee in general Hansen, M.H., ‘Two notes on Demosthenes' symbouleutic speeches’, C &M 35 (1984), 57–70Google Scholar at 60–70, reprinted in his The Athenian Ecclesia II (Copenhagen, 1989), pp. 283–97 at 286–97.

¹² Dover [n. 10], pp. 25–6.

¹³ Kennedy's translation ‘they have been bought’ is apparently wrong: see LSJ s.v. ὠνομαι II.

¹⁴ See [Dem.] 59.91 with Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens (Brussels, 1981–3), vol. iii pp. 62–3. The problem is that the speaker says that Peitholaus and Apollonides of Olynthus were stripped of Athenian citizenship, but says nothing of Lycophron. Is ‘Apollonides’ a slip for Lycophron? Osborne suggests that both brothers were first enfranchised and then had the grant cancelled.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The grant was rescinded in court (afciXero TO SiKaorrjpiov: [Dem.] 59.91). The date of the trial is uncertain: Apollodorus, speaking in the late 340s, describes it as recent.

¹⁶ See the discussion of Hansen, M.H., Eisangelia: The Sovereignty of the People–s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century B.C. and the Impeachment of Generals and Politicians (Odense, 1975), pp.100–1. A further passage (1398a17–22) probably refers to the same occasion.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Fr. 45–9 and 11–15 (Thalheim) respectively. That Lysias wrote both speeches is asserted at [Pint.]Mor. 836d.

¹⁸ Thus Cope, E.M., The ‘Rhetoric’ of Aristotle, with a Commentary (Cambridge, 1877), ad loc. Kennedy in his translation supplies ‘speech’.Google Scholar

¹⁹ 1365a28; 1367b18; 1398a4–7; 1399a35; 1405a19; 1411all; 1416alO.

²⁰ 1398a4 is directed at Aristophon; 1405a19 gives both Iphicrates' words and the retort of Callias; 1416alO is a reply to Nausicles.

²¹ There is no evidence that Aristotle knew Iphicrates, although, for what it is worth, they both had connections with the Macedonian court (see Nepos, Iph. 3.2; Aesch. 2.26–9 for Iphicrates).

²² Cicero (Brutus 9.36) and Quintilian (12.10.49) were adamant that Demades left nothing in writing, and the speech ‘On the Twelve Years’ attributed to him is generally thought spurious. On the other hand, numerous remarks of his were known in the later fourth century (see Demetrius, On Style 282–6), and it is possible that some of the fragments which constitute ‘On the Twelve Years’ are genuine. See V.de Falco, Demade Oratore: Testimonianze e frammenti(Naples, 1954), pp. 12–18 for the possibility of a ‘gnomologio demadeo’.

²³ It is not even certain that these speeches were works of the fourth century, and not later fabrications.

²⁴ Momigliano, A..The Development of Greek Biography ² (Cambridge, MA, and London, 1993), pp.66–73, esp. 72–3.Google Scholar

²⁵ Cf. the collections of 158 Politeiai (Diog. Laert. 5.27).

²⁶ See Hinks, D.A.G., ‘Tria genera causarum’, CQ 30 (1936), 170–6;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBuchheit, V., Untersuchungen zur Theorie des Genos Epideiktikon von Gorgias bis Aristoteles (Munich, 1960);Google ScholarKennedy, G.A., The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton, 1963), pp.152–203.Google Scholar

²⁷ Panegyricus: 1408b15–7;Philip and Antidosis: 1418b26–7;On the Peace (referred to as Symmachicus): 1418a32–33.

²⁸ Allusions to Helen (10.18–22, 41–8) and Evagoras (9.51–2) at 1399al–6.

²⁹ Pericles: 1365a31–3and 141 la2–4; Alcidamas: 1373b 18 (where the quotation is missing), and 1397all–2; Gorgias, Olympicus: 1414b31–2; Encomium: 1416al–3.

³⁰ Socrates (1399a8) was no doubt an apology, comparable to Plato's Apology; the Nomos (1398b6, 1399bl) seems from these references to have been a political pamphlet criticizing Athens' reliance on mercenaries: see Sauppe [n. 11], ad loc.

³¹ 1398a22, 1401b20. It was presumably an encomium or apology, perhaps an answer to Gorgias' and Isocrates'Helen.

³² Alcidamas and Lycophron are criticized for frigidity at 3.3 passim. Gorgias: 1403b26; 1406b8–10, 15–9; 1408b20; 1418a34–8; 1419b4–6. As far as we know, these men never wrote forensic or deliberative speeches.

³³ Apophthegms: Plut.Per. 8.5–6. His speeches did not survive according to Plut. Per. 8.4 and Quint. 3.1.12 (this is also implicit in the claim at Plato Phdr. 257d that the ‘compositions’ which fifth-century politicians left to posterity were the decrees which they passed);contra Cicero, De orat. 2.93.

³⁴ For a full list of passages quoted or alluded to see Wartelle, A., Lexique de la ‘Rhetorique’ d'Aristote (Paris, 1982), pp. 493–500.Google Scholar

³⁵ 1409a27 (possibly an intrusion) and 1417a7.

³⁶ For Lysias' mastery of character-depiction see Dion. Hal. Lys. 8 with Usher, S., ‘Individual characterization in Lysias’, Eranos 63 (1965), 99–119.Google Scholar

³⁷ Halliwell, S., Aristotle's Poetics (London, 1986), pp.39–41.Google Scholar

³⁸ See most recently Kennedy [n. 1], p p.299'305. The claim of Demades (p. 371 above) was apparently made after the battle of Chaeronea in 338. Otherwise, the allusion to the death of Diopeithes (1386a14) can hardly have been written earlier than 340.

³⁹ The classic statement of the ‘evolutionary’ view is Solmsen, F., Die Entwicklung der aristotelischen Logik undRhetorik (Berlin, 1929). See t oo Kennedy [n. 26], pp.82–7;Google ScholarRist, J.M., The Mind of Aristotle: A Study in Philosophical Growth, Phoenix Suppl. 25 (Toronto, 1989), pp.85–6, 136–44.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ On the reasonable hypothesis that the dialogue Gryllus or On Rhetoric was written shortly after the death of Gryllus in 362: see further Chroust, A.-H., Aristotle: New Light on his Life and on Some of his Lost Works (London, 1973), vol. i ch. 8 and vol. ii ch. 3.Google Scholar

⁴¹ On the chronology of Lysias' career see Dover [n. 10], ch. 3.

⁴² Kennedy [n. 1], p.230 n. 61. Cf. Meerwaldt [n. 5], who believed, on n o solid evidence, that Aristotle later came to agree with Demosthenes' view.

⁴³ Chroust [n. 40], vol. i chs. 6, 10–13;Brunt, P.A., Studies in Greek History and Thought (Oxford, 1993), pp.282–342, at 290–9 and 334–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ On the number of his speeches see Dover [n. 10], ch. 1. On character-depiction see n. 36 above.

⁴⁵ Hill, F., ‘The Amorality of Aristotle s Rhetoric’,Google ScholarGRBS 22 (1981), 133–47 at 140, argues that his remarks on the enthymeme presuppose knowledge of the Topics and the Prior Analytics (to which in any case he often refers).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ This fundamental distinction between forensic and deliberative oratory on the one hand, and epideictic on the other, was briefly drawn by Blass, F., Die attische Beredsamkeit ² vol. ii (Leipzig, 1892), p.122.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Hudson-Williams, H.LI., ‘Political speeches in Athens’, CQ 1 (1951), 68–73; Hansen [n. 11].CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁸ ‘Did Demosthenes publish his deliberative speeches?’, Hermes forthcoming.

⁴⁹ This emerges from Aristotle's comparison of the written and ‘agonistic’ styles at Rhet. 3.12. Alcidamas limits the use of writing to ‘epideixeis delivered before the masses’ (On the Sophists 31), and the author of the (epideictic) Demosthenic Eroticus writes that the speech ‘has been written in the manner which one would employ for putting in a book’ (Dem. 61.2).

⁵⁰ We find the following accounts of an epideictic speech being read: the Lysianic Eroticus in the Phaedrus; the funeral speech of ‘Aspasia’ in the Menexenus; the Philippus of Isocrates in the Letter of Speusippus (Epist. Socr. 30.1–2).

⁵¹ Cf. my ‘Between performance and text: written speeches in fourth-century Athens’, forthcoming.

⁵² Thus Blass [n. 46], p. 122: ‘Nur so kann man es verstehen, dass Aristoteles, der den Demosthenes doch selbst gehört haben konnte, ihn doch nur ganz beiläufig und ohne ihm irgend grossene Bedeutung beizulegen erwähnt.’ So too Drerup, E., Demosthenes im Urteile des Altertums (Würzburg, 1923), p.23Google Scholar and Lossau, M.J., Untersuchungen zur antiken Demosthenesexegese, Palingenesia 2 (Bad Homburg, Berlin and Zurich, 1964), pp.22–31, arguing that Demosthenes– speeches were not on Aristotle–s syllabus (see next note).Google Scholar

⁵³ For the idea of a syllabus see H. Diels, ‘Über das dritten Buch der aristotelischen Rhetorik’, Abh. Akad. fViss. Berlin phil.-hist. Cl. (1886), 1–37, esp. 5.

⁵⁴ Cole, T., The Origins of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece (Baltimore and London, 1991), p.174 n. 16.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Hyperbole: 1413bl–2;diatribai: 1418a29–33.

⁵⁶ He does, however, recognize that delivery is important, and his statement that a manual has not yet been written suggests the possibility of his writing such a work in the future. The deficiency was later made good by his pupil Theophrastus (Diog. Laert. 5.48). See in general Fortenbaugh, W.W., ‘Aristotle's Platonic attitude toward delivery’, Philosophy and Rhetoric 19 (1986), 242–54.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Plut. Dem. 7; [Plut.] Mor. 845b (both referring to Demosthenes).

⁵⁸ Democracy was one of the three perverted constitutions in the Politics (4.2), and Athens could hardly be said to exemplify the best (i.e. most agrarian) form of it (6.4). See further Lintott, A., ‘Aristotle and democracy’, CQ 42 (1992), 114–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁹ See 1355a20–b2 with Hill [n. 45].

⁶⁰ Philodemus, Rhetoric II p.50 (Sudhaus); Quint. 3.1.14.

⁶¹ That they were open to the public is stated by Gellius N.A. 20.5.1–5. For the extent of the knowledge of Aristotle's system that is assumed see n. 45 above.

⁶² Rhetoric II p.59 (Sudhaus).