chapter twenty-six

DEMOSTHENES

M. Edwards

As one would expect of the orator regarded by most critics ancient and modern as the master of his art, displays in his speeches both familiarity with established methods and a readiness to adapt these for his own purposes. The present discussion will be confined to the forensic speeches, taking as examples one of the shorter cases from a private suit (54, Against Conon, which has 44 sections in modern editions) and one of the longer speeches from a public suit (19, On the False Embassy, 343 sections).1 We should note, however, that pieces such as the Embassy and On the Crown speeches, though technically forensic, were essentially concerned with issues of public policy, and clearly they were edited for publication as political documents.2 Demosthenes’ forensic speeches tend to open in standard fashion withashortproemfollowedbyanarrative.Avarietyofmetanarra- tive narratorial interventions indicates the transition to the narrative, including expressions such as ‘I shall try to show/tell you’ (e.g. 27.3; 30.5; 36.3) and ‘I must tell/narrate’ (23.8; 34.5). The narrators promise to tell the whole story, from the beginning and as briefly as possible (34.5; 36.3; 37.3; 40.5); and they also take pains to interact with the narratees, with expressions such as ‘it is necessary to remind you, men of Athens’ (18.17), ‘you will hear’ (32.3),and‘Iaskyoutolistentome favourably, gentlemen of the jury’ (35.5,cf.55.2). Regularly, the begin- ning of the narrative is marked by gar, with or without an address to the narratees (e.g. 18.18; 27.4; 30.6; 40.6; 55.3), though there are exceptions (e.g. 23.8; 36.4; 37.4). Some Demosthenic speeches may be regarded as having a single, long narrative in the manner of , whose end is indicated by a concluding narratorial intervention such as ‘the dowry, then (toinun), he acquired in this way’ (27.17,precededbydepositions). But in the great majority of cases Demosthenes follows the practice of

1 For commentaries on these speeches see Carey and Reid 1985;MacDowell2000. 2 See, e.g. the remarks of MacDowell 2000: 22 n. 66. 344 part five – chapter twenty-six his tutor , who tended to break up his complex narratives of fam- ily history into two or more sections, which provide the crucial details of a case in an apparently straightforward manner.3 This approach is already evident in Demosthenes’ early private speeches, such as 29, Against Aphobus III, where a pattern emerges of alternating narrative and proof sections. Further, although sometimes the end of the first narra- tive is clearly indicated by a concluding remark such as ‘these are the facts, gentlemen of the jury’ (30.9;cf.37.17), on other occasions there is no clear distinction between the sections of narrative and proof, and indeed conventional narrative may be abandoned (as in speeches 36 and 38). In the longer speeches in particular, Demosthenes will insert several sections of narrative, so avoiding monotony. For example, in the Crown speech he divides the narrative of his own career into three major stages (18.17–52, 53–109, 160–226) and adds a narrative of ’ treachery in connection with the war against Amphissa (139–159). The later sections of narrative are frequently introduced in similar fashion to the first narrative, with metanarrative narratorial interventions and gar (e.g. 32.24; 55.23), though there are numerous exceptions in the exten- sive corpus of this most versatile of orators. Demosthenes 54, Against Conon, was delivered by Ariston in his pros- ecution of Conon for serious assault. It recalls Lysias 3, Against Simon, in its subject matter, but far exceeds the earlier speech in the vividness of the description of the assault and its consequences. The narrator in this speech is internal and overt (§3,‘youwillhear’,cf.9,‘Iwould shrink from saying some of it in your presence’, ‘I shall tell you this’, 11, ‘as you hear’) and makes interventions (3, ‘Conon’s sons camped near us, as I could wish they had not done’, cf. 4, 7), but admits to gaps in his knowledge (8, ‘one of them, I don’t know which’). After a brief proem (§§1–2), whose very first word sets the tone for the rest of the speech (hubristheis, ‘having suffered gross outrage’), an extended narra- tive is given of the alleged events (3–12), which characterizes Ariston as a shy and reserved man, in stark contrast to the drunken and violent Conon, his sons and their friends. Its start is clearly and familiarly indi- cated at the end of §2 with the metanarrative narratorial intervention ‘I shall narrate (di¯eg¯esomai) to you from the beginning (ex arkh¯es)howeach incident occurred in the fewest words (dia brakhutat¯on) I can’. It is then broken up into four stages by witness statements, and its end is marked

3 See Usher 1999: 128.