the figures of language, as the rhetors called them, that is to say, balanced antitheses, alliterations at the end of clauses, and such like, he made but sparing use of figures of thought, such as indignant questions, invocations of the gods, and such indications of emotion as we should certainly leave to nature, but which these strict theorists had discussed as mere rhetorical devices. It was remarked that five of these, the aposiopesis, the assumed hesitation (dianópnois), the emphatic repetition of a word (aradinλwais), the climax, and the use of irony, were unknown to him. But this is not true of irony, which is prominent enough in the Herodes speech, when the speaker is refuting the point that, as no murderer had yet been discovered, he is bound to clear himself by making the discovery.

The sum of these remarks leads us to the conclusion, that while the early condition and incomplete development of oratory made Antiphon adhere more closely than his more subtle and variously trained successors to a fixed and symmetrical plan, he did not equal them in the smoothness and grace of their structure, or in the artful simplicity of their narratives. Nevertheless he makes an august and haughty impression, even when pleading in the person of others. His tone is severe and dignified, his language strong and clear, without being fervent or passionate; and he stands before us not only as the fit organiser of an anti-democratic revolution, but as the master and model of the historian Thucydides.

$359. Turning to the external history of Antiphon's work, we note that, though greatly esteemed by his actual contemporaries, he was soon eclipsed by succeeding orators, whose developed graces were more agreeable than the harsh harmonies of the antique rhetor. His commonplaces are mentioned by Aristotle as of the same kind as those of Gorgias, and it is probable that Aristotle refers to the extant tetralogies, which may have been part of the well-known Tέxvn. But the other earlier writers on rhetoric do not seem to have paid any attention to him. He was not a model for either late Attic or Roman eloquence. Dionysius often refers to him as being, like Thucydides, a writer of the old rough style, and as being with Lysias and Isocrates a leading orator

sant.

of Thucydides' day—as being a fine writer, but not pleaCæcilius of Calacte appears first to have made a special study of him, and we have many good things cited from his criticisms in a special treatise on Antiphon and in his Lives of the orators. Hermogenes speaks of him with equal care and appreciation. The Life in Plutarch's Lives of the Ten Orators, the Greek arguments, and many citations of phrases in the Lexica show that he was studied if not generally read in late Greek times. There was even a special book on Antiphon's figures by Caius Harpocration, and we have extracts given by Photius from the orations.

§ 360. Bibliographical. As to MSS., Aldus tells us, in the preface to his Ed. Princeps, that Lascaris was sent to the East to look for Greek books, and brought back one containing the orators from Mount Athos. This MS. was evidently different from any of those now extant, but not, I think, superior to the best we possess, though in some passages it alone preserves the true reading. Foremost is the Crippsianus (A), used by Bekker as the basis of his text, which is in the British Museum, and of the thirteenth century. But since Mætzner collated the Oxford (N), of about the same age, it has been controversy, to be a better copy of the same

found, after much archetype as A.1 Others are the Laurentian and Marcian, (B and L), and a Breslau copy (Z). After the Ed. Princeps (1513), which contains all the orators save Demosthenes, as well as the speeches attributed to Gorgias and Alkidamas, and is the first edition of them all save Isocrates, there are texts by Stephanus and others; but of highest authority, in our own time, are those of Bekker, Baiter and Sauppe (the Zurich Ed.), Mætzner, and Blass (Teubner, 1871). If these are not professed commentaries on the author, there is a host of critical monographs by Sauppe, Franke, Brieglebe, Spengel, and others, with occasional flashes of light from Cobet in the Mnemosyne. An exhaustive account of the man is given by Blass, and F. Ignatius, de Ant. eloc. (Gött. Diss., 1882), is a partial lexicon.

2

1 Cf. the discussion in Blass' Preface to his text of Antiphon, which differs from his earlier history of Attic oratory in some points.

2 AB. i. ch. iii.

§361. In connection with the technical development of rhetoric by Antiphon, it may be well to add a word on some contemporary or immediately succeeding men, whose main activity is to be placed before the archonship of Eucleides, and who are specially noted in Plato's dialogues, in Cicero's rhetorical works, and by Dionysius, as marking epochs in the history of Attic eloquence. The fact that their writings are almost wholly lost prevents their claiming any considerable space in this short history. Foremost stands Thrasymachos of Chalkedon, who can be inferred from the extant notices to have flourished during the later years of the Peloponnesian war. He figures as a leading personage in Plato's Republic, where he appears in the character not of a rhetor, but of a bold and vulgar sophist, of blustering manner, and of low moral tone. But whether this portrait is indeed a fair one may well be doubted. In the Phædrus he is mentioned with Theodorus as a cunning rhetor, and this is more in consonance with our other notices of him. His technical treatises are referred to as ἀφορμαὶ ῥητορικαί (which probably do not differ from his great techne), as έmideiktikoi, and as malyvia. Perhaps the deliberative speeches, of which a fragment remains, were also technical models. From his ἀφορμαί were cited various set proems, ὑπερβάλλοντες, or climaxes, and λto, or appeals to pity; Plato' speaks of him as able to excite to rage, and to soothe again the minds of his hearers, and this praise seems not ironical. But more generally, Blass has shown from a comparison of the ancient authorities" that he was regarded as the real founder of the newer Attic eloquence, inasmuch as he adopted in style the just mean between poetically artificial diction, on the one hand, and vulgar colloquialism, on the other. Secondly, he determined more accurately the rhetorical period, a proper rounding of sentences for proper effect, where everything is subordinate, and related to the main thought, no loose or disconnected clauses being admitted. Thirdly, according to Aristotle, he first used the pæonic rythm, beginning his period with a first pæon, and ending with a first or fourth-a subtlety which is now of little interest, 2 AB. i. 246.

1 Phædrus, 266-7.

and, as Blass shows, not verified by the extant fragments, but which tells how profoundly artificial was Greek oratory in comparison with ours. Cicero, however, also observes in Thrasymachus this strict attention to rythm, but observes that both he and Gorgias made their clauses too short, and therefore their rythms too manifest. This Blass illustrates from Gorgias' remains (AB. iv. 331). Thrasymachus seems accordingly to have been a valuable guide to Lysias, and other practical orators of the next generation. Only two short fragments remain.

We have the same sort of praise in Plato's Phædrus1 of Theodoros of Byzantium, and of Euenos of Paros, who seem to have been fertile in separating each part of an oration into subdivisions, such as προδιήγησις, διήγησις, and ἐπιδιήγησις, πίστωσις, and ἐπιπίστωσις ; Euenus also suggested indirect and, as it were, accidental effects, which he called Taρéπαivo, Tapápoyo, and the like. But all these subtleties belong strictly to the history of Greek rhetoric, and require no special treatment in a general history of literature.

CHAPTER V.

THUCYDIDES-ANDOCIDES, CRITIAS.

§ 362. THUCYDIDES is said, upon late and doubtful authority, to have been born in 471 B.C., and to have been therefore forty years old at the opening of the Peloponnesian war. This agrees, however, fairly well with the two passages in his work1 in which he states that he began his study of the war from its commencement, being then of mature age, and having perceived its importance; that he wrote down the events as they occurred, and lived all through it to the close. As to the historian's early life, we can only affirm that, while he is not known to have taken any active part in politics, and yet had sufficient means to permit perfect leisure, he must have studied with care in the rhetorical schools of Gorgias, and still more of Antiphon, as well as in the sophistical schools of philosophical scepticism. He further tells us that he was the son of Oloros, that he himself suffered from the plague at Athens, which he so graphically describes; 2 also that he was appointed general for the protection of Athenian interests in Thrace, and that he was sent for from Thasos, where he was occupied, by his colleague Eukles to save Amphipolis, but that having failed in this object, owing to Brasidas' promptness, he secured Eion.3 He tells us that, owing to his possession of gold mines in Thasos and on the opposite coast of Thrace, he was of great influence in that country, but that he was banished after the affair at Amphipolis (BC. 424) for twenty years, and thus had the opportunity of studying the other side of the conflict, especially the Peloponnesian affairs.

1 i. I, and v. 26.

2 ii. 48.

8 iv. 104-6.

This circumstance may have caused his appointment as strategus, without any expeditionary force, in that region.