We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 September 2009
The contrasts could hardly be drawn more boldly than in the speech On the Crown: from the majestic tone of the prayers that articulate the opening, the conclusion, and some transitions (18.1, 8, 141, 324) to the scurrility of the portrait of Aeschines' parents (18.129–30), from the noble conception of Athens' historical mission as leader in the fight for freedom (18.66ff., 199ff.) to the reading off of the names of the traitors of all the Greek states, a veritable muster-roll of infamy (18.295), from the portrait of the orator's own work in building a resistance to Philip (18.79–94,169ff.) to the depiction of his opponent's inertia, venality, obstructionism, and collaboration with the enemy. Black and white divide the canvas between them with very little room reserved for shading.
1. See especially Plut, . Mor. 542b and 543bGoogle Scholar.
2. Bruns, Ivo, Das literarische Portrdt der Griechen im 5. und 4. Jahrhundert vor Christi Geburt (Berlin, 1896), p. 573Google Scholar.
3. Aeschines Against Ctesiphon, ed. Richardson, Rufus (Boston, 1889), p. 28 n. 4Google Scholar, with reference to the remarks on Aeschines' mother at 18.129; note, however, that the mother's profession is among the topoi of invective of the Attic orators: cf. passages cited by Süss, Wilhelm, Ethos: Studien zur älteren griechischen Rhetorik (Leipzig-Berlin, 1910), pp. 248—9Google Scholar.
4. Burke, Edmund M., Character Denigration in the Attic Orators, with Particular Reference to Demosthenes and Aeschines, diss. (Tufts, 1972), p. 232Google Scholar; cf. Demosthenes, , Rede für Ktesiphon über den Kranz, erl. v. Wankel, H., 1 (Heidelberg, 1976), p. 59Google Scholar.
5. Burke, , op. cit., p. 233Google Scholar.
6. Wankel, , op. cit., pp. 13 and 17Google Scholar; Dem. 18.226.
7. On the underlying psychological mechanisms cf. Silver, M. and Sabini, J., ‘The Perception of Envy’, Social Psychology 41 (1978), 107f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Cf. n. 1 above.
9. Cf. n. 4 above.
10. Cf. n. 13 below.
11. Cf. Schaefer, Arnold, Demosthenes und seine Zeit, l 2 (Leipzig, 1885), pp. 219 ff.Google Scholar; Bruns, , op. cit., pp. 576–7Google Scholar.
12. Dem. 19.196ff. with Aesch. 2.4 and 153 and Demosthenes, ed. Dindorf, Gul., 8: Scholia Graeca … (Oxford, 1851), p. 424, 27Google Scholar.
13. In spite of the weakness of his case on legal grounds: cf. Wankel, , op. cit., pp. 15ff.Google Scholar; Gwatkin, W. E. Jr, Hesperia 26 (1957), 129–41Google Scholar; Burke, , op. cit., p. 230Google Scholar.
14. TAPA 97 (1966), 402Google Scholar, followed by Burke, , op. cit., p. 236Google Scholar; against Rowe cf. Wankel, , op. cit., p. 60 n. 139Google Scholar.
15. Ribbeck, O., Alazon (Leipzig, 1882)Google Scholar.
16. Pace Rowe, , op. cit., p. 402Google Scholar, who offers as examples only the tragedians Aeschylus and Euripides in Aristophanes' Frogs.
17. Ibid., p. 403.
18. Ibid., pp. 397–8, after Blass, Friedrich, Die attische Beredsamkeit, 3 (Leipzig, 1893), pp. 92–3Google Scholar.
19. Cf. Kirchner, J., RE 2.2 (1896), 2149, 8ffGoogle Scholar.
20. On this topic cf. Wankel, H., RhM 120 (1977), 185–6Google Scholar.
21. Cf. the simile of the physician who offers unseasonable advice: Dem. 18.243 with the reply at Aesch. 3.215–6.
22. Cf. Perelman, Chaim and Olbrechts-Tyteca, Lucie, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, tr. Wilkinson, J. and Weaver, P. (Notre Dame, Ind., 1969), pp. 144–5Google Scholar.
23. Bruns, , op. cit., p. 573Google Scholar: for stupidity he cites only Dem. 18.120: cf. also 18.243 (⋯μβρ⋯ντητε), as well as Pearson, Lionel, The Art of Demosthenes (Meisenheim am Glan, 1976), p. 181Google Scholar.
24. On Aeschylus cf. Dawe, R. D., PCPS 189 (1963), 21–62Google Scholar; on Sophocles, von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, Tycho, Die dramatische Technik des Sophokles (Berlin, 1917)Google Scholar, with Lloyd-Jones, H., CQ 22 (1972), 214–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
25. Burke, , op. cit., p. 236Google Scholar; in general it can be said that Burke's contrast between the ‘real passion’ of Aeschines and the more artistic but insincere attack of Demosthenes is overdrawn.
26. This paper has benefited from the advice of my colleagues D. L. Blank, B. D. Frischer, and M. W. Haslam, all of whom I sincerely thank.
