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 ” (lox:/ds Xapaxrijp, loxvfi, NH), ¢i.¢e))s }é§ ts: 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 (nareirrpauaéwy Mins) and the non-periodic or “ continuous ” (eipoyévn, 6io.)e)wpévr;,). His disposition of his subject-matter is always simple. The speech has usually four parts-introduction (irpooljuov), narrative of facts (étijy-rjois), proofs (irlareis),1 which may be either external, as from witnesses, or internal, derived from argument on the facts, and, lastly, conclusion (é7|'liAO'YOS). 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 Oral. 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 Augustari 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. EPIDEICTIC.*-I. Olymptacus, xxxiu. 388 B.C.; 2. Epitaphius, u. (purporting to have- been spoken during the Corinthian War; certainly spurious), perhaps composed about 380-340 B.c. (“ soon after 387, " Blass). N
B. Deliberative.-Plea for the Constitution, xxxiv., 403 B.C.
C. FORENSIC, IN Punuc CAUSES.—I. Relating to Ojences direct? against the State (-ypa4>a.t énaoatwv déixqaarwv); such as treason, maversation in ojice, embezzlement of public moneys. I. For Polystratus, xx., 407 B.C.; 2. Defence on a Charge of Taking Bribes, xxi., 402 B.C.; 3. Against Ergocles, xxviii., 389 B.C.; 4. ~Against Epicrates, xxvii., 389 B.C.; 5. Against Nicomachus, xxx., 399 B.C.; 6. Against the Corndealers, xxii., 386 B.C. (P) ll. Cause relating to Unconstitutional Procedure ('ypa4>1) irapavbpwf). On the Property of the Brother of Nicias, xviii., 395 B.C. III. Causes relating to Claims for Money withheld from the State (&1roypo.¢at). I. For the Soldier, IX. (probably not by Lysias, but by an imitator, writing for a real cause), 39 4 B.C. .(?); 2. On the Property of Aristophanes, xix., 387 B.C.; 3. Against Philocrates, xxix., 389 B.C. IV. Causes relating to a Scrutiny (5ma;iairta); especially the Scrutiny, by the Senate, of Ojicials Designate. 1. Against Evandrus, xxvi., 382 B.C.; 2. For Mantitheus, xvi., 392 B.C.; 3. Against Philon, xxxi., between 404 and 395 B.C.;'4. Defence on a Charge of Seeking to Abolish the Democracy, xxv., 401 B.C.; 5. For the Invalid, xxiv., 402 B.C. (?') V. Causes relating to Military Ojences ('ypu.¢~al Al-7f'0TU.ELOU, aiorpafelas). I. Against Alcibiades, I. and ll. (xiv., xv.), 395 B.C. VI. Causes relating to Murder or Intent to Murder (ypadat ¢61/au, rpabliaras éic irpovolas). I. Against Eratosthenes, xii., 403 B.C.; 2. A ainst Agoratus, xiii., 399 B.c.; 3. On the Murder of Eratosthenes, i; gdate uncertain); 4. Against Simon, iii., 393 B.C.; 5. On Wounding with Intent, iv. (date uncertain). Vll. Causes relating to I mpiely (ypaoat aaetietas). 1. Against Andocides, vi. (certainly spurious, but perhaps contemporary); 2. For Callias, v. (date uncertain); 3. On the Sacred Olive, vii., not before 395 B.Cl,
D., FORENSIC, IN PRIVATE CAUSES.-I. Action for Libel' (atm xamryoptas). AgainstTheomnestus, x., '384-383 B.C. (the so-called second speech, xi., is merely an epitome of the first). II. Action by a Ward againsta Guardian (/St/<11 é-/rirpa-r?;s). Against Diogeiton, xxxii.,400B.C. III. Trial of a Claim to Property (éiaéucaata). On the property of Eraton, xvii., 397 B.C.' IV. AnswertoaS ecialPlea (1rp6s1rapa.'ypa¢i§ 1/). Against Pancleon, xxiii. (date uncertain?
E. NLISCELLANEOUS.-'If To his Companions, a Complaint of Slanders, ;viii. (certainly. spurious); 2. The épwrucés in Plato's Phaedrus pp. 230 E-234. This has generally been re arded as Plato's own work; but the certainty of this conclusion wih. be doubted by those -who observe (1) the elaborate preparations made in the dialo ue for a 'recital of the épwrirbs which shall be verbally exact, and é) 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 épwrtxol; it is as representing both rhetoric and a false Epo; that he is the object of attack in the Phaedrus.
F. FRAGMENTS.-Three hundred and fifty-five of these are collected by Sauppe, Oralo-res 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. B.C., 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 B.c.), 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 A goratus (399 B.C.), one of our chief authorities for the internal' history of Athens during the months which immediately followed? the' defeat at Aegospotami. . The OlympiacuS (388 B.C.) 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 B.C.) is interesting for the manner in which it argues that the well being of Athens—now stripped of empire-<-is bound up with the maintenance of democratic principles. The speech For Mantitheus (392 B.C.) is a graceful and animated portrait of a young Athenian iirirébs, 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 maria, 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 B.C.
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. Bekkergoccasionally 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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.-Editio princeps, Aldus (Venice, 1513); by I. Bekker (1823) and SW; S. Dobson (1828) in Oratores Attici; C. Scheibe (1852) and T. Thalheim (1901, Teubner series, with bibliography); C. G. Cobet (4th ed., by J. JL Hartman, 1905); 'with
variorum notes, by J. J. Reiske (1772). Editionsof select speeches by J. H. Bremi (1845); R. Rauchenstein (1848, revised by C. Fuhr, 1880-1881); H'. Frohberger (1866-1871); H. van Herwerderi (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 lebb's Attic Orators (1893) and Selections from the Attic Orators (2nd
- See further jebb, The Attic Oralors from Antiphon to Isaeus, i. 142-316. V 1
- [Some remains of the speech against Theozotidesihave been found in the Hibeh papyri; see W. H. D. Rouse's The Year's Work in Classical Studies (1907)].