previous next

Four epithets given to the style of Andokides by the author of the Plutarchic Life.

It is somewhat difficult to analyse the style of a speaker whose real strength lay in a natural vigour directed by a rough tact; and who, in comparison with other Greek orators, cared little for literary form. An attempt at such an analysis may, however, start from the four epithets given to Andokides in the Plutarchic Life1. He is there said to be ‘simple’ (ἁπλοῦς); ‘inartificial in arrangement’ (ἀκατάσκευος); ‘plain’ (ἀφελής); and ‘sparing of figures’ (ἀσχημάτιστος). The first two epithets apparently refer to the order in which his thoughts are marshalled; the last two, to the manner in which they are expressed. We will first speak of the latter, and then come back to the former.
The diction of Andokides is ‘plain’ (ἀφελής).

The sense in which the diction of Andokides is ‘plain’ will be best understood by a comparison with Antiphon and Lysias. Antiphon consciously strives to rise above the language of daily life; he seeks to impress by a display of art. Lysias carefully confines himself to the language of daily life; he seeks to persuade by the use of hidden art. Andokides usually employs the language of daily life; he is free, or almost free, from the archaisms of Antiphon, and writes in the new-Attic dialect, the dialect of Lysias and his successors2. On the other hand, he does not confine himself to a rigid simplicity. In his warmer or more vigorous passages, especially of invective or of intreaty, he often employs phrases or expressions borrowed from the idiom of Tragedy3. These, being of too decidedly poetical a colour, have a tawdry effect; yet it is evident that they have come straight from the memory to the lips; they are quite unlike prepared fine things; and they remind us, in fact, how really natural a speaker was Andokides,—neither aiming, as a rule, at ornament, nor avoiding it on principle when it came to him. The ‘plainness’ of Lysias is an even, subtle, concise plainness, so scrupulous to imitate nature that nature is never suffered to break out; the ‘plainness’ of Andokides is that of a man who, with little rhetorical or literary culture, followed chiefly his own instinct in speaking. Lysias had at his command all the resources of technical rhetoric, but so used them towards producing a sober, uniform effect that his art is scarcely felt at any particular point; it is felt only in the impression made by the whole. Andokides had few of such resources. As his

and sparing of figures (ἀσχημάτιστος.)
biographer says, he is ‘sparing of figures.’ Here the distinction already noticed between ‘figures of language’ and ‘figures of thought’ must be kept in mind. Andokides uses scarcely at all the ‘figures of language’: that is, he seldom employs antitheses —aims at parallelism between the forms of two sentences—or studies the niceties of assonance4. His neglect of such refinements—which, in his day, constituted the essence of oratorical art, and which must have been more or less cultivated by nearly all public speakers—has one noticeable effect on his composition. There is no necessary connection between an antithetical and a periodic style. But, in the time of Andokides, almost the only period in use was that which is formed by the antithesis or parallelism of clauses. Hence, since he rarely uses antitheses or parallelisms, Andokides composes far less in a periodic style than Thucydides or Antiphon or even Lysias. His sentences, in the absence of that framework, are constantly sprawling to a clumsy length; they are confused by parentheses, or deformed by supplementary clauses, till the main thread of the sense is often almost lost5. But while he thus dispenses with the ornamental ‘figures of language,’ Andokides uses largely those so-called ‘figures of thought’ which give life to a speech;—irony—indignant question, and the like6. This animation is indeed one of the points which most distinguish his style from the ordinary style of Antiphon, and which best mark his relative modernism.
The method of Andokides is simple (ἀπλοῦς) and inartificial (ἀκατάσκευος.)

As Andokides is ‘plain’ in diction and avoids ornamental figures, so he is also ‘simple’ in treatment of subject-matter, and avoids an artificial arrangement7. His two speeches before the ekklesia— that On his Return and that On the Peace—shew, indeed, no distinct or systematic partition. In his speech On the Mysteries he follows, with one difference, the arrangement usually observed by Antiphon and more strictly by Lysias. There is a proem, followed by a short prothesis or general statement of the case; then narrative and argument; lastly epilogue8. But the narrative as a whole is not kept distinct from the argument as a whole. Each section of the narrative is followed by the corresponding section of the argument. Dionysios notices such interfusion as a special mark of art in Isaeos9. In Andokides it is rather a mark of artlessness. He had a long story to tell, and was unable, or did not try, to tell it concisely. The very length of his narrative compelled him to break it up into pieces and to comment upon each piece separately. He has not effected this without some loss of clearness, and one division of the speech is thoroughly confused10. But it should be remembered that a defective ordering of topics, though a grave fault, was less serious for Andokides than it would have been for a speaker in a different style. The main object of Andokides was to be in sympathy with his audience—amusing them with stories, however irrelevant—putting all his arguments in the most vivid shape—and using abundant illustration. Lucid arrangement, though always important, was not of firstrate importance for him. His speeches were meant to carry hearers along with them, rather than to be read and analysed at leisure.

1 [Plut.] vit. Andok. § 15, ἔστι δὲ ἁπλοῦς καὶ ἀκατάσκευος ἐν τοῖς λόγοις, ἀφελής τε καὶ ἀσχημάτιστος.

2 As exceptions may be noted the frequent use of the formula τοῦτο μέν.. τοῦτο δέ (e. g. de Myst. § 103: de Red. § 16: de Pace § 40): and of the dative οἱ—avoided, as a rule, by the other orators: eg. de Myst. §§ 15, 38, 40, 41, 42, etc.

3 E.g. De Myst. § 29, οἱ λόγοι τῶν κατηγόρων ταῦτα τὰ δεινὰ καὶ φρικώδη ἀνωρθίαζον: (cf. Aesch. Choeph. 271,ἐξορθιάζων πολλά”.) Ib. § 67, πίστιν τῶν ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἀπιστοτάτην. Ib. § 68, ὁρῶσι τοῦ ὴλίου τὸ φῶς—a phrase which, however, occurs also in the fragment of the speech of Lykurgos against Lysikles. Ib. § 99, συκοφάντα καὶ ἐπίτριπτον κίναδος: (cf. Soph. Ai. 104,τοὐπίτριπτον κίναδος”.) Ib. § 146 (γένος) οἴχεται πᾶν πρόρριζον: (cf. Soph. El. 765πρόρριζον...ἔφθαρται γένος”.) De Pace, § 34, εἰρήνης πέρι: cf. Arist. Poet. c. 22, where the collocation Ἀχίλλεως πέρι instead of περὶ Ἀχίλλεως is specially instanced as a violation of the idiom (διάλεκτος) of ordinary life. Add to these examples the use of the poetical φρενῶν in De Red. § 7, τοιαύτην συμφορὰν τῶν φρενῶν: which, however, occurs also in the peroration of Demosth. de Corona, § 324, τούτοις βελτίω τινὰ νοῦν καὶ φρένας ἐνθείητε. Both instances, perhaps, come under the principle of Aristotle (Rhet. III. 7. § 11) that unusual or poetical words μάλιστα ἁρμόττει λέγοντι παθητικῶς. The writer of the speech κατ᾽ Ἀλκιβιάδου has imitated the tragic vein which appears in the genuine speeches of Andokides: § 22, παρανομώτερος Αἰγίσθου γέγονεν. Cf. § 23.

4 In technical language, he seldom attempts, (1) ἀντίθεσις, the opposition of words, or of ideas, or of both, in the two corresponding clauses of a sentence: (2) παρίσωσις, a general correspondencc between the forms of two sentences or clauses: (3) παρομοίωσις, correspondence of sound between words in the same sentence. See on these, Mr Sandys's ed. of Isokr. Ad Demonicum, and Panegyricus, p xiv. One special form of παρομοίωσις, viz. ὁμοιοτέλευτον, occurs e.g. in Andok. De Pace, § 2, διά τε τὴν ἀπειρίαν τοῦ ἕργου διά τε τὴν ἐκείνων ἀπιστίαν: another special form, viz. παρήχησις, e.g. in De Red. § 24, εἰ γὰρ ὅσα οἱ ἄνθρωποι τῇ γνώμῃ ἁμαρτάνουσι, τὸ σῶμα αὐτῶν μὴ αἴτιόν ἐστι, κ.τ.λ.: where there is a general resemblance of sound between γνώμη and σῶμα. But such artifices, so common in the other orators, are rare and exceptional in Andokides.

5 See e g. De Myst. § 57: εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἦν δυοῖν τὸ ἕτερον ἑλέσθαι, καλῶς ἀπολέσθαι αἰσχρῶς σωθῆναι, ἔχοι ἄν τις εἰπεῖν κακίαν εἶναι τὰ γενόμενα: | καίτοι πολλοὶ ἂν καὶ τοῦτοεἵλοντο, τὸ ζῆν περὶ πλείονος ποιησάμενοι τοῦ καλῶς ἀποθανεῖν: | ὅπου δὲ τούτων τὸ ἐναντιώτατον ἦν, | σιωπήσαντι μὲν αὐτῷ τε αἴσχιστα ἀπολέσθαι μηδὲν ἀσεβήσαντι, ἔτι δὲ τὸν πατέρα περιιδεῖν ἀπολόμενον καὶ τὸν κηδεστὴν καὶ τοὺς συγγενεῖς καὶ ἀνεψιοὺς τοσούτους, οὓς οὐδεὶς ἀπώλλυεν ἐγὼ μὴ εἰπὼν ὡς ἕτεροι ἥμαρτον: | Διοκλείδης μὲν γὰρ ψευσάμενος ἔδησεν αὐτούς, σωτηρία δὲ αὐτῶν ἄλλη οὐδεμία ἦν πυθέσθαι Ἀθηναίους πάντα τὰ πραχθέντα: | φονεὺς οὖν αὐτῶν ἐγιγνόμην ἐγὼ μὴ εἰπὼν ὑμῖν ἥκουσα.Here the parenthesis, καίτοι πολλοί...τοῦ καλῶς ἀποθανεῖν, first of all disturbs the original plan of the antithesis; this plan is resumed by the words ὅπου δὲ τὸ ἐναντιώτατον ἦν: but then the speaker goes off into a new antithesis, σιωπήσαντι μέν, κ.τ.λ., which is never completed; for the clause οὓς οὐδεὶς ἀπώλλυεν ἐγώ, κ.τ.λ. leads to a new parenthesis in explanation, Διοκλείδης μὲν γάρ...τὰ πραχθέντα: and the final clause, φονεὺς οὖν αὐτῶν ἐγιγνόμην, κ.τ.λ., is a conclusion drawn from this parenthesis, not the proper completion of that second member of the original antithesis which the words ὅπου δὲ τὸ ἐναντιώτατον ἦν commenced.This is a strong example; but it is typical of the perplexity in which many passages of Andokides are involved through the same cause— imperfect or careless structure of antithesis.

6 Among the minor σχήματα διανοίας used by Andokides, asyndeton is one of the most frequent. It often adds life and vigour to his style: see e.g. De Myst. § 16:—τρίτη μήνυσις ἐγένετο. γυνὴ Ἀλκμαιονίδου, γενομένη δὲ καὶ ΔάμωνοςἈγαρίστη ὄνομα αὐτῇαὕτη ἐμήνυσεν, κ.τ.λ.: cf. §§ 33, 115, 127. He also uses the figure called ἀναφορά—i.e. the emphatic repetition of a word at the beginning of successive clauses: and ὑποφορά—the ‘suggestion’ of some argument or objection which is then refuted. In De Myst. § 148, ἀναφορά and ὑποφορά occur together:—τίνα γὰρ καὶ ἀναβιβάσομαι δεησόμενον ὑπὲρ ἐμαυτοῦ; τὸν πατέρα; ἀλλὰ τέθνηκεν. ἀλλὰ τοὺς ἀδελφούς; ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ εἰσίν. ἀλλὰ τοὺς παῖδας; ἀλλ᾽ οὔπω γεγένηνται. ὑμεῖς τοίνυν καὶ ἀντὶ πατρὸς ἐμοὶ καὶ ἀντὶ ἀδελφῶν καὶ ἀντὶ παίδων γένεσθε: εἰς ὑμᾶς καταφεύγω καὶ ἀντιβολῶ καὶ ἱκετεύω: ὑμεῖς με παρ᾽ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν αἰτησάμενοι σώσατε.

7 As he is ἀφελής and ἀσχημάτιστος, so he is also ἁπλοῦς and ἀκατάσκευος. The word ἀκατάσκευος is, indeed, often closely synonymous with ἀφελής and ἁπλοῦς: e.g. Dionys. Isae. c. 7, ἀκατάσκευον φαίνεται εἶναι καὶ ὡς ἂν ἰδιώτης τις εἰπεῖν δύναιτο τὸ εἰρημένον: cf. Ernesti Lex. Tech. Gr. Rhet. s.v., who quotes from Menander διαιρ. ἐπιδ. p. 624, εἶδος ἀπαγγελίας ἁπλοῦν ἀφελὲς καὶ ἀκατάσκευον. But in one or two places the usage of Dionysios seems to confirm the view that the author of the Plutarchic Life of Andokides meant ἁπλοῦς and ἀκατάσκευος to refer mainly to arrangement of subject-matter, as the other two epithets refer mainly to diction. Contrasting the method of Lysias with the method of Isaeos, Dionysios says (Isae. c. 3): παρὰ Λυσίᾳ μὲν οὐ πολλὴν τὴν ἐπιτέχνησιν οὔτ᾽ ἐν μερισμοῖς τῶν πραγμάτων οὔτ᾽ ἐν τῇ τάξει τῶν ἐνθυμημάτων οὔτ᾽ ἐν ταῖς ἐξεργασίαις αὐτῶν (τις) ὄψεται: ἁπλοῦς γὰρ ἀνήρ. Again, he says (ib.) that Isaeos ‘in proportion as he falls short of the other's grace, excels him in cleverness of artificial arrangement’— ὅσον ἀπολείπεται τῆς χάριτος ἐκείνης, τοσοῦτον ὑπερέχη τῇ δεινότητι τῆς κατασκευῆς. In the essay of Dionysios on Thucydides, again, (c. 27) τὸ φορτικὸν τῆς λέξεως καὶ σκολιὸν καὶ δυσπαρακολούθητον are opposed to τὸ ἀγενὲς καὶ χαμαιπετὲς καὶ ἀκατάσκευον.

8 Proem, §§ 1—7: prothesis, §§ 8—10: narrative and argument, §§ 11—139: epilogue, §§ 140—150.

9 Dionys. Isae. § 14: τοτὲ δὲ μερίσας αὐτὰς (τὰς διηγήσεις) εἰς τὰ κεφάλαια, καὶ παρ᾽ ἕκαστον αὐτῶν τὰς πίστεις παρατιθείς, ἐκμηκύνει τε μᾶλλον καὶ ἐκβαίνει τὸ τῆς διηγήσεως σχῆμα, τῷ συμφέροντι χρώμενος: ‘sometimes he divides his statement under heads; and, presenting the proofs under the several heads, adds somewhat to the length of the narrative, while he departs, as may be expedient, from its strict form.’

10 §§ 92—150.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: