This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
‘Of the four kinds of metaphors, the proportional are the most popular’. On metaphor in general, and the proportional metaphor in particular, see Appendix B to Bk. III, Introd. p. 374. Here follows a string of pointed, striking, sayings, exemplifying τὸ ἀστεῖον in style; all of them metaphors, and most of these conveyed in single words. They do really, I think, deserve the character attributed to them. The passage, τῶν δὲ μεταφορῶν—πειρᾶσθαι δοῦναι, is transcribed by Dionysius, Ep. I ad Amm. c. 8, in his enquiry into the date of the Rhetoric. The most important variation from the text of Ar. is the omission of the example from Leptines “by all the MSS” (Spengel's Tract on Rhet. Munich 1851 p. 47), though it has been supplied in the printed copies; he begins the quotation with κατὰ λέξιν οὕτω γράφων. The only other difference of any importance is ἀγαγόντα for ἔχοντα, and διδόναι οὕτως for δοῦναι. ‘As Pericles said, that the youth that had perished in the war had vanished out of the city, as though one were to take the spring out of the year’. On this saying, and Pericles' claim to it, see note on I 7.34. ‘And Leptines of the Lacedaemonians, (to the Athenian assembly,) that he would not let them look on whilst Greece became one-eyed (lost one of her eyes—the other being of course Athens; Athens, the eye of Greece, Milton, P. R. IV 240). Victorius has produced similar expressions from Cic. pro leg. Manil. c. 5 § 11, de Nat. Deor. III 38, Hi duos illos oculos orae maritimae effoderunt. “Similiter Cimon Atheniensibus suasit, μήτε τὴν Ἑλλάδα χωλήν, μήτε τὴν πόλιν ἑτερόζυγα περιϊδεῖν γεγενημένην, Plut. Cim. 489 C, ὡς ὁ εἰπών, μὴ ποιήσητε ἑτερόφθαλμον τὴν Ἑλλάδα (Plut. Polit. Praecept. 803 A),” Victorius. The Leptines here mentioned is no doubt the proposer of the law περὶ τῆς ἀτελείας against which Demosthenes delivered the speech c. Leptin. in B.C. 355. He may possibly be the same as the Leptines mentioned by Demosth. c. Androt. § 60, ὁ ἐκ Κοίλης. Wolf, Proleg. ad Dem. Leptin. p. 45, note 12 (Schäfer, Appar. ad Dem. p. 8), supposes that the author of this saying and the opponent of Demosthenes are the same person. The occasion on which Leptines produced his metaphor was the embassy sent by the Lacedaemonians to Athens in their extremity, after the defeat of Leuctra (371 B. C.), during the invasion of their country by the Thebans, B.C. 369; see Xen. Hellen. VI 5. 34, 35, Isocr. Archia § 64, seq. Grote, Hist. Gr. Vol. X [ch. LXXVIII] p. 320 seq. Thirlw. Hist. Gr. ch. XXXIX (Vol. v. p. 106, 1st ed.). Isocrates, Areop. § 69, alludes to the same event, ὥστε Λακεδαιμονίους, τοὺς ἐπὶ τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας ὀλίγου δεῖν καθ᾽ ἑκάστην τὴν ἡμέραν προστάττοντας ἡμῖν (see the fragm. of Lysias, Or. 34, quoted in note on II 23. 19, on this Lacedaemonian ‘dictation’, 404 B. C.) ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ τῆς δημοκρατίας (369 B. C.) ἱκετεύσοντας καὶ δεησομένους μὴ περιϊδεῖν αὑτοὺς ἀναστάτους γενομένους. [A. Schaefer's Dem. u. s. Zeit, I p. 75, note.] ‘And the saying of Cephisodotus, in his indignation at Chares' eager ness for the scrutiny of the accounts (of his charge) in the conduct of the Olynthian war, “that he drove the people into a fit of choking by his (pertinacity in the) attempt to offer his accounts for scrutiny in this way.”’ He wanted to force his accounts down their throats, and nearly choked them in the attempt. I have followed Dionysius' version of this extract, which is plainly preferable to the text of Aristotle. ἄγειν εἰς πνῖγμα is Greek and sense; ἔχειν εἰς πνῖγμα neither one nor the other; and διδόναι οὕτως, at the end, has far more meaning than the simple δοῦναι of our text. With the vulgar reading, ἔχοντα must be taken with τὰς εὐθύνας, “with his accounts in his hands”—which is so far graphic, as it indicates the eagerness with which he was trying to force them upon the people—but then δοῦναι τὸν δῆμον εἰς πνῖγμα, for ‘to drive them into a choking-fit’, is surely indefensible. Cephisodotus, ὁ ἐκ Κεραμέων, has been already quoted; see III 4.3 note (near the end of the section [p. 53]), where some account is given. Two more of his pungent sayings are quoted further on. Chares, with his mercenaries, was sent to take the command in the Olynthian war in 349 B. C. (Clinton, F. H.). Olynthus was taken by Philip, 347. This notice is cited by Max Schmidt in his tract On the date of Ar.'s Rhetoric, p. 15, as a piece of evidence on that question; but the limit of the period of publication can be brought much lower down. See Introd. On the date of the Rhetoric, p. 36 seq. πνῖγμα or πνιγμός, and its congeners, is a medical term, used by Hippocrates, expressive of choking, stifling, suffocation. ‘And the same (Cephisodotus) once in an exhortation to the Athenians said that they must march out (at once) to Euboea (to the aid of the Euboeans), and there provide themselves with provisions’ (read by all means ἐπισιτισομένους, the future, with Spengel; Bekker retains the vulgata lectio ἐπισιτισαμένους, which spoils the point), ‘like Miltiades' decree’ (with all the unhesitating haste prescribed by Miltiades' decree at the time of the first Median invasion). They were therefore not to lose any time in making provision at home, but to get to Euboea with all speed and there provide themselves: the future is necessary: Victorius, though he reads the aorist, translates it as the future. This hurried expedition to Euboea occurred in 358 B. C., Clinton, F. H., sub anno, Dem. c. Androt. § 14, ἴσθ᾽ ὅτι πρῴην Εὐβοεῦσιν ἡμερῶν τριῶν ἐβοηθήσατε κ.τ.λ. and Aesch. c. Ctes. § 85. It was made to assist the Euboeans against the Theban invaders; and in the archonship of Cephisodotus himself. τὸ Μιλτιάδου ψήφισμα] is explained by the Scholiast, quoted by Vater, τὸ μὴ βουλεύσασθαι: Μιλτιάδης μὴ βουλευσάμενος ἐξῆλθεν κατὰ τοῦ Ξέρξου: and more at length by Ulpian in Shilleto's note to Dem. de F. L. § 346, ἐπιόντων τῶν Μήδων, ἐξαρχῆς καὶ ὁ Μιλτιάδης δραμεῖν εὐθὺς ἐπὶ τὸν Μαραθῶνα ἐψηφίσατο καὶ μὴ ἀναμένειν ἕως συλλεγῶσιν οἱ συμμαχήσοντες. As to the grammatical construction of the accusative, it seems to be a substitution of τὸ Μιλτιάδου ψήφισμα for the proper cognate accusative ἔξοδον, to make an expedition, such as, on the principle of, Miltiades' decree, with all haste, and without deliberation. ‘And Iphicrates, indignant at the truce that the Athenians had made with Epidaurus and the neighbouring coasts, said of them that “they had stript themselves of their provisions (not ‘for the way’, but) for the war”’. ἐφόδια are viatica, provisions for a journey; which in the absence of inns the traveller had to carry with him: here, provisions for the support and maintenance of war and its expeditions. Hdt. writes ἐπόδια, Xen. ἐφόδιον (sing.). Arist., Pol. II 5, 1263 a 37, uses it of provisions for hunting expeditions in Lacedaemon. The small independent state of Epidaurus, bounded by the territories of Corinth, Argolis, Troezen, and the Saronic gulf, was at this time in alliance with Sparta, to which it supplied troops, in the great contest with the confederate Greeks, allied for the reduction of the Lacedaemonian power, terminating in the battle of Corinth, 394 B. C., see Grote, Hist. Gr. Vol. IX [ch. LXXIV] p. 422, 425; and Xenophon's description of the battle, Helen. IV 2.9—23. It appears from this passage that the Athenians had made a truce with Epidaurus. Cephisodotus' indignation was aroused at the folly of making a truce with people who had a sea-board, which the Athenians with their naval superiority could have plundered with impunity, and so have supported the war. ‘And Peitholaus (called) the Paralian (trireme) “the people's cudgel”, and Sestos “the corn-stall of the Piraeus”’. Whether this Peitholaus is the same as the one already mentioned III 9. 7, as associated with Lycophron in the government of Pherae, we have no means of precisely determining. The probability is that he is. For even Aristotle's carelessness could hardly have carried him so far as to neglect to mention the distinction between two persons named so nearly together, if there were any. This being so, it appears again, as from the former passage, that he lived at Athens after his downfall. τὴν πάραλον] This vessel and its companion the Σαλαμινία were two picked vessels, fast sailers, and with carefully chosen and highly paid crews, kept in reserve at the Piraeus for state purposes; such as sacred embassies, θεωρίαι, to carry the admiral of the fleet in a naval expedition, for ordinary embassies, ‘for the transport of money and persons’ (Böckh, Publ. Econ., Bk. II. c. 16, Lewis' Transl. p. 240), and for the pursuit and conveyance to Athens of state offenders who had made their escape; as Alcibiades after the mutilation of the Hermae, Thuc. VI 53, 61 bis, of the Salaminia. As illustrating the use of the Paralus as a ῥόπαλον, Demosth. περὶ τῶν ἐν Χεῤῥονήσῳ, § 29 is still more in point; ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ μὲν τοὺς ἐχθρούς, οὓς οὐκ ἔστι λαβεῖν ὑπὸ τοῖς νόμοις, καὶ στρατιώτας τρέφειν καὶ τριήρεις ἐκπέμπειν καὶ χρήματα εἰσφέρειν δεῖ καὶ ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν, ἐπὶ δ̓ ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς ψήφισμα, εἰσαγγελία, Πάραλος, ταῦτ̓ ἐστίν, i. e. the special decree, impeachment, and the Paralus, were the three principal instruments of punishment of offenders amongst the Athenian citizens. The Πάραλος therefore is here compared to a ῥόπαλον or cudgel, because it is the instrument with which the state deals her heaviest blows, not only upon those that have escaped her justice, but upon all those who offend her. Πάραλος: μία τῶν παρ᾽ Ἀθηναίων πρὸς τὰς δημοσίας χρείας διαπεμπομένων τριήρων, Harpocr. s. v. He adds that the crews of the two vessels received four obols a day, and stayed at home the greater part of the year. Photius has four articles on the word, one of them borrowed from Harpocr., almost in the same words. The first of the four identifies the Salaminian and Paralian. There is an article upon this in Smith's Dict. of Ant. (s. v. Salaminia). Sestos, on the Hellespont, seems from this passage to have been one of the emporia for the corn which was imported from the coasts of the Black Sea and the adjacent regions. It is mentioned with others by Isocr. ἀντίδ. § 107, as an important and well-situated town. Strabo, in writing of Troas, makes no mention of the corn-stores of Sestos. [Büchsenschütz, Besitz und Erwerb, pp. 421—430 (on the corn-trade between Greece and the Euxine). The present passage, which he does not quote, suggests a modification of his statement on p. 426 that Sestos and Abydos were less important emporia than Lampsacus.] This corn-store or warehouse is compared to the ‘shopboard’ or ‘stall’ τηλία, the tray on which corn was exposed for sale in the shops. The word was used for a ‘stand’ or ‘stage’ of various kinds. A passage which illustrates the use of it referred to here (which does not appear in the Lexicons) is Arist. Hist. An. VI 24. 3, where there is an account of a wonderful mule, that lived to the age of 80; after it had been released from labour by reason of its age, it used to walk by the side of the teams which were dragging the stone for the building of the temple (doubtless the Parthenon), and not only urged them on to their work, but helped them itself to drag the load up the hill (how this was done by the animal is not explained); ὥστ᾽ ἐψηφίσαντο μὴ ἀπελαύνειν αὐτὸν τοὺς σιτοπώλους ἀπὸ τῶν τηλιῶν. This clearly explains the particular sense of τηλία in this passage. The τηλία is the tray or stand at the corn-dealer's door, in which the corn is exposed for sale. In Aristoph. Plut. 1038, it means ‘a sieve’, κοσκίνου κύκλος sive περιφέρεια, Schol. ad loc., Etym., Suidas and Hesychius. ‘And Pericles bade (his countrymen) get Aegina out of the way (get rid of it, as a plague or obstacle to their enjoyment or happiness) “the eyesore of the Piraeus”’. This saying is quoted by Plutarch, Pol. Praec. 803 A, amongst the πολιτικὰ παραγγέλματα: and also μὴ ποιήσητε ἑτερόφθαλμον τὴν Ἑλλάδα, without the author's name. It is attributed to Demades by Athen. III 99 D, Δημάδης ὁ ῥήτωρ ἔλεγε τὴν μὲν Αἴγιναν λήμην εἶναι τοῦ Πειραιῶς. Comp. Plut. Apophth. Reg. et Duc. 186 C, and Wyttenbach note β́ ad loc. It suggested to Casaubon an emendation of an apparently unmeaning word in Strabo IX p. 395, of the islet of Psyttalea, between Salamis and the mainland, νήσιον ἔρημον πετρῶδες (δύσορμος Aesch. Pers. 450) ὅ τινες εἶπον λιμένα (lege λήμην) τοῦ Πειραιῶς. λήμη and λημᾶν seem (from the Lexx.) to be almost confined to Aristophanes amongst the earlier writers. Arist. Lysistr. 301, with a pun upon λήμνιον πῦρ (on which see Schneidewin on Soph. Philoct. 799); Plut. 581, Κρονικαῖς λήμαις (old-fashioned prejudices, dimnesses of sight) ὄντως λημῶντες τὰς φρένας ἄμφω. Nub. 327, λημᾷν κολοκύνταις. (They occur however as medical terms in Hippocrates.) They are not found, where they were to be most expected, in the Fragments of the other Comic writers. No instance of either is to be found in the very complete Index to Meineke, Fr. Com. Gr. ‘And Moerocles said that he was in no respect a greater knave than —one of the respectable (upper) classes that he named: for the other played the knave at the rate of 33 per cent., he (himself) only at ten’. The degree of knavery is compared to the rate of interest of profit which is made upon each: “a very respectable person indeed!” says Moerocles “and a very respectable interest he makes upon his respectability (or, rightly interpreted, roguery): why! I only get a third of that for mine.” Of Moerocles an account is given in Smith's Biogr. Dict. s. v. Μοιροκλῆς, Σαλαμίνιος τῶν παρ᾽ Ἀθηναίοις οὐκ ἀφανῶς πολιτευσαμένων. Harpocr. He was a contemporary of Demosthenes, who mentions him four times, see Sauppe's Ind. Nom. ad Or. Att. III 99, and an anti-Macedonian orator. He seems from the allusion, de F. L. § 293 (§ 335) to have been a greedy fellow, and inclined to exaction in money-matters. On the rates of interest at Athens, and the modes of computing it, see Böckh, Publ. Econ. Bk. I. c. 22, Lewis' Tr. p. 130. ‘And Anaxandrides’ iambic verse about (not ‘on behalf of’, of which there is no evidence in the text) the daughters' (so in the Scriptures, ‘daughters of Jerusalem’, &c) ‘who were over long about marrying, “I find (μοί) the young ladies have passed the day for their marriage.”’ [“My daughters' marriage-bonds have passed their date.”] ὑπερήμερος, here metaphorically used by Anaxandrides, is properly a technical term of Attic law, signifying one who has failed to pay a fine, or to comply with any judgment or verdict imposed by the court on the day appointed: one who has passed the prescribed term or the day fixed. It takes the genit. here, as if it were ὑπὲρ τὴν ἡμέραν τῶν γάμων, like ἄχαλκος ἀσπίδων, ἄπεπλος φαρέων, ἀψόφητος κωκυμάτων, &c. Anaxandrides was a poet of the Middle Comedy, Meineke, Fragm. Com. Att. Vol. I. p. 367 seq. The line here quoted is Fragm. Inc. XVII, Meineke III 200. Anaxandrides is quoted again, c. 11. 8, an equally uncertain fragment, No. XVIII, and probably again, 11. 10, also 12. 3, and Eth. N. VII 11. ‘And that of Polyeuctus to one Speusippus who was paralysed, “that he could not keep still (was as restless as ever), though bound (fettered, confined) by fate (or accident) in a pillory- (or stocks-) complaint” [“bound in a perfect pillory of pain”]’. Polyeuctus, probably of (the Ath. deme) Sphettus, an Attic orator, contemporary with Demosth. and of the same political party, viz. antiMacedonian. See Plut. Vit. Demosth. 846 C, which connects him with Demosthenes. Also, Vit. Parallel. Demosth. c. 10, ὁ δ᾽ αὐτὸς φιλόσοφος (Ariston of Chios) Πολύευκτον ἱστορεῖ τὸν Σφήττιον, ἕνα τῶν τότε πολιτευομένων Ἀθήνῃσιν, ἀποφαίνεσθαι μέγιστον μὲν εἶναι ῥήτορα Δημοσθένη κ.τ.λ. A short account of him is to be found in Smith's Biogr. Dict. s. v. No. 2, (the writer says that “the orations (!) of P.” are here referred to). There are six of the name mentioned in the Orators—Sauppe Index Nominum (ad Or. Att.) III 117.—It is uncertain whether the P. who appears in Dem. c. Mid. § 139 is the same as he of Sphettus. Sauppe distinguishes them: Buttmann, ad loc. Mid. 560. 2, has this note: “Orator temporis illius, praeter hanc Midiae defensionem, cum Demosthene coniunctissimus, si credimus Ruhnkenio, qui eundem putat ac Sphettium. Augerus non item;” nor, apparently, Sauppe [nor Arnold Schaefer, Dem. u. s. Zeit, II. p. 100, who elsewhere quotes Dem. Phil. III. § 72, Πολύευκτος ὁ βέλτιστος οὑτοσί (of the Sphettian)]. The speaker quoted by Ar. was doubtless the best known of them, the Sphettian. See the reff. in Westermann, Gesch. der Beredts. § 53, 5, 6. ἀποπληκτικός, ἀπόπληκτος, one who has received a shock or stroke (as of palsy), which has driven him away from (ἀπό) himself and his normal condition, and so disabled, paralysed, him: of an ‘apoplectic stroke’, but not here; also, like ἐκπλήττεσθαι, to be startled out of one's wits, or driven mad, attonitus. I have followed Victorius in the interpretation of the saying; that Speusippus, though his body was now paralysed, and motionless as if he had been fastened in the stocks or pillory—or worse, in an instrument that confined his head, hands, and feet—had his mind as restless and excitable as ever. πεντεσύριγγος is a transfer from a wooden instrument with five ‘pipes’ or holes, kept in the prison for the punishment of refractory prisoners, which confined at once the head, hands, and feet, to a disorder which paralyses and deprives of motion. Arist. Eq. 1049, δῆσαί σ᾽ ἐκέλευε πεντεσυρίγγῳ ξύλῳ. “πέντε ὀπὰς ἔχοντι, δἰ ὧν οἵ τε πόδες καὶ αἱ χεῖρες καὶ ὁ τράχηλος ἀνεβάλλετο.” Schol. ad loc. πεντεσυρίγγῳ ξύλῳ, τῷ ποδοκάκῃ: πέντε γὰρ ὀπὰς ἔχει, δἰ ὧν... (as before) ἐμβάλλονται (Suidas). Comp. Ib. s. v. ποδοκάκκη (a later form of ποδοκάκη), Δημοσθένης κατὰ Τιμοκράτους (in a law, § 105), τὸ ξύλον τὸ ἐν τῷ δεσμωτηρίῳ οὕτως ἐκαλεῖτο κ.τ.λ. To which Harpocr. adds, s. v. ποδοκάκκη, Λυσίας δ᾽ ἐν τῷ κατὰ Θεομνήστου, εἰ γνήσιος, ἐξηγεῖται τοὔνομα: φησὶ γάρ: ἡ ποδοκάκκη αὐτό ἐστιν ὃ νῦν καλεῖται ἐν τῷ ξύλῳ δεδέσθαι (Lys. c. Theomn. ά § 16. q. v.). On this, and the various other punishments in use at Athens, see Becker's Charicles, pp. 369, 370. He says “Suidas is wrong in taking this (π. ξ) to be synonymous with the ποδοκάκκη:” but does not tell us why, or upon what authority (probably on account of the name, ποδο-κάκη). ‘And Cephisodotus called the triremes parti-coloured (gaily-painted) (mills i. e.) millstones’ from their crushing and grinding (exactions and oppressions) the Athenian tributaries and others. Comp. on this expression III 6. 1, as an instance of a “privative epithet”, the note on that section, near the end. On ποικίλους, Victorius quotes Virg. Georg. IV 289, pictis phaselis [cf. St John's Hellenes III 302]. On Cephisodotus, ὁ λεπτός, ὁ ἐκ Κεραμέων, see note on III 4. 4. ‘And “the Dog” (Diogenes the Cynic) called the taverns (or wineshops) “the Attic messes”’. Of Diogenes, ὁ Κύων1, see Grote's Plato III p. 507, seq. ch. 38. “Diogenes seems to have been known by his contemporaries under this title. Aristotle (l. c.) cites from him a witty comparison under that designation.” u. s. p. 509. He receives this name from the little boys or the bystanders in several of Diogenes' (Laert.) stories about him. A long list of his sayings, often witty, but usually bitter and sarcastic, is to be found in Diogenes Laertius' Life. This does not appear amongst them. τὰ καπηλεῖα] retail shops (καπήλων), cook-shops, wine-shops and taverns. Comp. Isocr. Areop. § 49; speaking of the change of habits and manners in Athens in the author's time: ἐν καπηλείῳ δὲ φαγεῖν ἢ πιεῖν οὐδεὶς οὐδ᾽ ἂν οἰκετὴς ἐπιεικὴς ἐτόλμησεν: σεμνύνεσθαι γὰρ ἐμελέτων ἀλλ̓ οὐ βωμολοχεύεσθαι2. These scenes of riot, drunkenness, and licentiousness, says the satirical Diogenes, are what the Athenians call their συσσίτια; this is their substitute for (or representative of) the sober and orderly Spartan φιδίτια. See the description in Grote, H. G. II 513 [chap. VI], Müller, Dor. IV 3, on the meals of the Dorians. φιδίτια, or as it is usually written φειδίτια, is the name given by the Spartans to what the Athenians and others called συσσίτια, the public tables or messes at which all the citizens dined in common. Müller, u. s. § 3, II 294 Lewis' Transl.), remarks, note 2, “It is very probable that this φειδίτια, (spare or scanty meals) was a ludicrous distortion of an ancient Spartan name φιλίτια, i. e. love-feasts.” This is made still more probable by the fact that Ar. in his Politics always writes the word φιδίτια—τὰ συσσίτια τὰ καλούμενα φιδίτια, II 9, 1271 a 27, Ib. 10, 1272 a 2, c. 11, 1272 b 34—and the constant interchange of d and l (δάκρυ, lacrima; Ὀδυσσεύς, Ulysses). They were originally called ἀνδρεῖα, men's meals, both by Cretans and Spartans, the institution being common to both peoples, the Spartan being in this, as in other particulars, borrowed from the Cretan. Pol. II 10, 1272 a 2, καὶ συσσίτια παρ᾽ ἀμφοτέροις ἐστίν: καὶ τό γε ἀρχαῖον ἐκάλουν οἱ Λάκωνες οὐ φιδίτια ἀλλ̓ ἄνδρια, καθάπερ οἱ Κρῆτες, ᾗ καὶ δῆλον ὅτι ἐκεῖθεν ἐλήλυθεν. And of the Carthaginian constitution, Ib. c. 11, 1272 b 34, ἔχει δὲ παραπλήσια τῇ Λακ. πολιτείᾳ τὰ μὲν συσσίτια τῶν ἑταιριῶν τοῖς φιδιτίοις κ.τ.λ. ‘And Aesion, that (the Athenians) had emptied (or drained) their entire city into Sicily’. Meaning, that the Athenian forces sent over for the invasion of Sicily in 415—413 B. C. were so enormous in proportion to the population of Athens, that they might be said to have completely drained it. ‘For this is a metaphor, and sets the thing before our eyes’. Aesion's name occurs, but only as the father of Euctemon, in Demosth. Mid. § 165. Also in a citation from Hermippus, in Plut. Vit. Demosth. (Vit. Parall.) c. 11, in which he compares Demosthenes' speeches, especially for reading, advantageously with those of his predecessors. The only other notice of him that I have been able to find is Suidas s. v. Δημοσθένης: which is merely that he (Dem.) συνεφιλολόγησε Αἰσίωνι τῷ Ἀθηναίῳ; which implies community of studies. He was therefore an Athenian orator, contemporary with Demosthenes. ‘And’—Aesion again—“so that Greece cried aloud”: this again is in some sense a metaphor, and a vivid expression’. A metaphor no doubt (though Victorius says it is a mere hypallage), since it transfers the voice from an individual to a collective people, or country. It is πρὸ ὀμμάτων in that it animates an inanimate object, or abstraction; c. 11. 2, 3. Demosthenes has used this twice, de F. L. § 92, ἡ γὰρ ἀλήθεια καὶ τὰ πεπραγμένα αὐτὰ βοᾷ, and § 129, ταῦτ᾽ οὐχὶ βοᾷ καὶ λέγει ὅτι χρήματ̓ εἴληφεν Αἰσχίνης: and a very near approach to it, Olynth. ά § 2, ὁ μὲν οὖν παρὼν καιρός...μόνον οὐχὶ λέγει φωνὴν ἀφιεὶς ὅτι κ.τ.λ. Aesch. Agam. 1106 (Dind.), πᾶσα γὰρ πόλις βοᾷ. Eur. Hippol. 877, βοᾷ βοᾷ δέλτος ἄλαστα. ‘And as Cephisodotus bade (the Athenians) take care not to convert many of their mobs into assemblies’ (lit. their mobs, in any numbers). Cephisodotus we have had three times already as the author of pointed sayings, III 4. 3, and 10. 6, bis. The point of this saying seems to lie in the word συνδρομάς, which is substituted for συγκλήτους ἐκκλησίας. It implies that most of their ordinary assemblies are mere mobs, tumultuary gatherings, riotous and unruly, instead of σύγκλητοι, regularly convoked for special occasions in due form and order. It would certainly be better without ἐκκλησίας, as Wolf proposes. It would then mean “not to hold their—mobs too frequently.” Both Bekker and Spengel retain the vulgata lectio: the latter with a comma between συνδρομὰς and ἐκκλησίας. ‘And Isocrates, “to those that flock together promiscuously (scramble, as it were) in the general festivals”’. This is an expression of precisely the same import as the preceding. It occurs in Isocr. Phil. § 12, and runs thus, ὅτι τὸ μὲν ταῖς πανηγύρεσιν ἐνοχλεῖν καὶ πρὸς ἅπαντας λέγειν τοὺς συντρέχοντας ἐν αὐταῖς πρὸς οὐδένα λέγειν ἐστίν, κ.τ.λ. ‘And the example in the Funeral Oration, that “Greece might well have her hair cut off (go into mourning) over the tomb of those that died at Salamis, for her freedom and their valour were buried in the same grave”: for had he only said “that she might well weep for the virtue that lay buried with them”, it would have been a metaphor and a graphic touch, but the (addition of) “freedom with the virtue” carries with it a kind of antithesis’. This really affecting passage, which Aristotle has partially spoiled by omission and alteration, runs thus in the original— the funeral oration attributed to Lysias3, Or. 2, in Baiter and Sauppe's Or. Att. I 68, § 60: “and therefore Greece might well that day cut off her hair over yonder tomb (the orator is on the spot, and points to it) and mourn for those that lie buried here, seeing that her own (the text has αὐτῶν, their own, the collective Ἑλλάς being resolved into its component members) freedom and their valour are laid together in one grave”. Aristotle has very much marred the simple beauty of the sentence (which if it be not Lysias', is at all events quite worthy of him) by his alterations; especially the substitution of the frigid, explanatory, τῷ τῶν ἐν Σαλαμῖνι, for the graphic τῷδε and τότε of the original (I here follow Victorius). [The context of the original passage shews that the substitution is really a blunder, as the reference is not to the Athenians who fought at Salamis but to those who died at Aegospotami and elsewhere towards the close of the Peloponnesian war.] The metaphor lies of course in the word κείρασθαι, by which Greece is personified and compared to a woman who, according to the national custom, cuts off her hair as a sign of mourning—on this custom see Becker's Charicles, p. 398; comp. Eur. Troad. 141, Orest. 458, Alc. 515, Suppl. 97, 974, Hel. 1060, πένθιμος, πενθήρης, κουρά, κουραί. Aesch. Choeph. 6 (Paley's note ad loc.), Hom. Il. XXIII. 142, &c. The last two passages shew that this custom was not absolutely confined to women, though it was especially characteristic of them. In Lysias the personification, which is most tastelessly interrupted by the plural αὐτῶν, is resumed in the next clause, ὡς δυστυχὴς μὲν ἡ Ἑλλὰς τοιούτων ἀνδρῶν ὀρφανὴ γενομένη κ.τ.λ. Here Greece becomes a bereaved mother. ‘And as Iphicrates said, “the course of my argument cuts right through the middle of Chares' acts”: a proportional metaphor; and the “right through the middle” sets the thing vividly before our eyes’. This was said by Iphicrates in the same case as that which is noticed in II 23. 7 (see note), the prosecution, namely, of him and his colleagues Menestheus and Timotheus, together with Chares, who were all brought to trial by Aristophon the Azenian in 355 B. C. on the scrutiny of their accounts, for misconduct in their command during the Social war. Sauppe u. s. p. 191, commenting on this passage, says “Iphicrates se et collegas accusatos defendens exponit quam male Chares rem gesserit. Hoc facturus dixit, iter orationes suae ferre per medias Charetis res gestas, quasi de itinere per hostium fines faciundo diceret.” The proportion of the metaphor is this: As a road is carried, or an army or expedition marched, right into the heart of an enemy's country, so Iphicrates in his defence carried hostility and destruction (exposure and censure) into Chares' conduct during their joint command. ‘And the saying, “to invite dangers to the help (rescue, remedy) of dangers” is a vivid metaphor’. The author, and occasion, of this sentence are alike unknown. I have followed Schrader in the translation. To rid yourself of one danger another must often be invoked or invited, as a man saves himself from a shipwrecked vessel by throwing himself overboard and clinging to a plank. He also quotes Florus, I. 17, Fabius Maximus periculosissimum bellum bello explicavit. The metaphor lies in παρακαλεῖν and βοηθήσοντας, which are transferred from men to dangers, which are thereby ‘animated’; τὸ ἄψυχον becomes ἔμψυχον. ‘And (what) Lycoleon (said) in his defence of Chabrias, “not even awed by that symbol of his supplication, the bronze image (yonder)”’. Of Lycoleon nothing seems to be known, beyond what may be gathered from this passage, that he was an Athenian orator, and defended Chabrias in his trial B. C. 366. The circumstances referred to are briefly these. In 366 B. C. Chabrias was brought to trial with Callistratus, the orator, on a charge of misconduct leading to the loss of Oropus. See ante, note ad I 7. 13. Grote, Hist. Gr. X [chap. LXXIX] pp. 392, 3, and note 34. Chabrias had greatly distinguished himself on a former occasion, described in Grote, Hist. Gr. X [chap. LXXVII] pp. 172, 3, in an action near Thebes fought against Agesilaus and the Lacedaemonians, 378 B. C. Agesilaus “was daunted by the firm attitude and excellent array of the troops of Chabrias. They had received orders to await his approach on a high and advantageous ground, without moving until signal should be given; with their shields resting on the knee, and their spears protruded” (Diodorus, XV. 33, Cornelius Nepos, Chabr. c. 1, obnixo genu scuto). “The Athenian public having afterwards voted a statue in his honour, he made choice of this attitude for the design.” Ib. 173, note 1. This is also referred to, the details being passed over, in Dem. c. Lept., in a long enumeration of all Chabrias' services to his country, §§ 75—78; πρὸς ἅπαντας Πελοποννησίους παρετάξατο ἐν Θήβαις, § 76. See also Wolf, ad loc. p. 479. 25 (Schäfer, Appar. ad Dem. III 168). Lycoleon in his speech points to this statue which stood in the ἀγορά in sight of the court, and taking advantage of the posture of it, which he interprets as that of a suppliant, appeals from it to the feelings of the judges, at the same time reminding them of the merits of the original. The effect no doubt must have been very striking. The metaphor resides in ἱκετηρίαν, which is transferred from the suppliant's olive-branch (ἐλαίαν) to a suppliant attitude in general, implied in the posture of the kneeling figure. On the accusative of the object of awe with αἰσχύνεσθαι, see note on II 2. 22. ‘For it was a metaphor at the moment (whilst Lycoleon was speaking and Chabrias was in actual danger), but not for ever (i. e. so long, and no longer; not permanently), but yet perpetually (repeat ἀεί, Schrader) before the eyes (vivid and graphic): for it is only while he (Chabrias) is in danger that the image seems to supplicate, but the inanimate is ever animated—“the monument of his deeds for the city”’. This very obscure sentence seems intended as an explanatory com mentary on the preceding extract. It is truly obscurum per obscurius, a masterpiece of Aristotelian brevity, and a complete illustration of the Horatian brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio. I follow Schrader and Victorius in the interpretation. First he says that there is a metaphor: this of course is in the word ἱκετηρίαν, as above explained. But the metaphorical application of it only continues during the danger of the person represented; when that is over, and the suppliant out of danger, the statue loses indeed the suppliant character with which it was invested for the time by the application of Lycoleon, but retains the posture and its associations as “the memorial of his services to the state.” (I agree with Victorius in supposing that this is a continuation of the extract, and τὸ ὑπόμνημα therefore in apposition with τὴν εἰκόνα τὴν χαλκῆν. He ingeniously suggests an alternative, that it may be a second extract from the same speech, alibi in eadem causa, and another example of a pointed and graphic saying.) κινδυνεύοντος γάρ...ἡ εἰκών is the explanation of ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἀεί, and τὸ ἄψυχον ἔμψυχον of πρὸ ὀμμάτων. Comp. c. 11. 2, 3, a vivid representation gives animation to inanimate objects. If this explanation be correct we must read δέ for δή: by which the explanation of ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἀεί is contrasted with that of πρὸ ὀμμάτων. δή is retained by all the Edd., but I cannot discover any sense in which it is here applicable. It seems also that ὑπέρ has dropt out in the phrase τὸ ὑπόμν. τῶν (ὑπὲρ) τῆς πόλεως ἔργων. ὑπόμνημα occurs in the same sense, Isocr. Paneg. § 156, and de Pace § 124. ‘And, “in every way practising (or studying) meanness of spirit”, for studying is a kind of increasing or promoting.’ μελετᾶν being a ‘kind’, εἶδος, of αὔξειν, the metaphor is one ἀπὸ τοῦ εἴδους ἐπὶ γένος, Poet. XXI 7, one of the four kinds of metaphor. ‘To study’ therefore, which is one kind of the genus ‘promoting’, is here put metaphorically for the general term ‘to promote’. And the point of the metaphor lies in the unusual application of ‘study’: a man usually studies or takes pains to promote some worthy object, to cultivate some virtue: here the object is an unworthy one, a vice or defect. This is taken from Isocr. Paneg. § 151, in a note on which passage Coraes ingeniously proposed to read ἀσκεῖν for αὔξειν in Aristotle's comment on μελετᾶν. ‘And “that God kindled (lit up) reason as a light in the soul”: for both of them shew something (make things clear and visible)’. This is a proportional metaphor. As light to material, so reason to intellectual objects. Cuius haec verba sunt nondum repperi, says Victorius, and no subsequent commentator has supplied the deficiency. ‘(The peaces that we make are nugatory) for we do not put an end to wars (do away with them altogether), but merely postpone them’. This also comes from Isocr. Paneg. § 172. ‘For both of them look to the future (to future results), both actual postponement (in its proper sense and application) and a peace of that kind’. This therefore is a metaphor from εἶδος to εἶδος, from one kind of postponement, to another, analogous, kind. ‘And to say “that the treaty is a far fairer trophy than those which are obtained in wars: for the one is for the sake of (to commemorate) a trifling success and a single chance, but this for (on behalf of, marking the issue of,) the entire war”: for both of them are signs of victory’. Isocr. Paneg. § 180, quoted by Aristotle, as Mr Sandys says in his note, memoriter. μιᾶς τύχης is explained by Isocr. Antid. § 128. It is ‘a single stroke of fortune’, a mere lucky accident, as opposed to a series of successes, which prove design, skill, and knowledge. (ὅτι, the mark of quotation). ‘Again, “Cities pay a heavy reckoning (render a terrible account, for their misdeeds) to (or by?) the censure of mankind.” For the “account” or “reckoning” is a legal damage or punishment’. The explanation shews, first, (as Bernays also remarks, Dialog. des Arist. p. 16,) that εὔθυνα here expresses not merely the account itself that is rendered, but the penalty consequent upon it, if unsatisfactory: and secondly, that the metaphor is a transfer from the legal and particular scrutiny or account rendered by the officer on laying down his command, and extended from this to an account or scrutiny in general, the penalty paid by whole cities to the judgment and censure of mankind and posterity: consequently it is a metaphor from εἶδος to γένος, from species to genus. The passage referred to in Bernays' treatise will furnish a commentary on the use and signification of εὐθύνας and λόγον or λόγους διδόναι, pp. 15, 16. εὔθυνα] This, according to some authorities, as Böckh and L. Dindorf, is the only true Attic form of the word, εὐθύνη belonging to the later Greek. G. Dindorf writes εὐθῦναι, Dem. Olynth. ά. 17. 15, and Böckh, Publ. Econ. Bk. II, ch. 8, note 177, εὔθυνα, εὔθυναι (p. 190 Lewis' Transl.), Schäfer (App. Crit. p. 229) note on the passage of Dem. Shilleto on Dem. de F. L. § 19, not. crit., acknowledges both plurals, εὔθυναι and εὐθῦναι: “εὐθύναι, quod nihili est...” The Zurich Editors have εὔθυναι. In Lysias κατὰ Θεομνήστου β́ § 9, εὔθυναν is found without various reading. The parallel form ἄμυνα, ultio, is cited by Phrynichus p. 23 (Lobeck) as forbidden; also by Moeris and Thomas Magister. It is however approved by Timaeus (p. 26 Ruhnken). Ruhnken in his note indignantly denies the use of the word in Plato, and refers it to the later Greek. ‘And so we have despatched the subject of the pointed sayings that are derived from the proportional metaphor and by the vivid graphic language that sets things described before your eyes (presents them vividly to your mind's eye, as it were to the actual sense)’. εἴρηται] is done, and over, and enough of it. Note on I 11. 29.
2 This passage of Isocr. Areopag. is cited by Athen. XIII 21, 566 F, on tavernhaunting, ὃς ἐν τοῖς καπηλείοις καὶ τοῖς πανδοκείοις ἀεὶ διαιτᾶται, καίτοι Ἰσοκράτους τοῦ ῥήτορος ἐν τῷ Ἀρεοπαγειτικῷ εἰρηκότος—here follow the words quoted in this text. Athenaeus continues Τ̔περίδης δὲ ἐν τῷ κατὰ Πατροκλέους...τοὺς Ἀρεοπαγίτας φησὶν ἀριστήσαντά τινα ἐν καπηλείῳ κωλῦσαι ἀνιέναι εἰς Ἄρειον πάγον. σὺ δέ, ὦ σοφιστά, ἐν τοῖς καπηλείοις συναναφύρῃ οὐ μεθ᾽ ἑταίρων, ἀλλὰ μετὰ ἑταιρῶν κ.τ.λ. Plut. Vit. X Orat. Demosth. 847 F, Διογένης δὲ ὁ κύων θεασάμενος αὐτόν (Demosth.) ποτε ἐν καπηλείῳ αἰσχυνόμενον καὶ ὑποχωροῦντα, εἶπεν, ὅσῳ μᾶλλον ὑποχωρεῖς τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον ἐν καπηλείῳ ἔσῃ. These extracts descriptive of the character of these taverns will throw some light upon Diogenes' pleasantry.
3 This speech is condemned as spurious by [Dobree and] Baiter and Sauppe [and also by Blass, die Attische Beredsamkeit, I p. 431, and Jebb, Attic Orators, I p. 208. It contains some close parallels to the Panegyric of Isocrates and would appear to have been written by one of the pupils of that rhetorician, from whom Ar. (it will be observed) takes the quotation just preceding the present passage]. Let us hear on the other side Mr Grote, Hist. Gr. vol. VI [chap. XLVIII] p. 191, note, “Of (the funeral orations) as<*>ribed to Plato and Lysias also, the genuineness has been suspected, though upon far less grounds (than that attributed to Demosth.)..... but this harangue of Lysias, a very fine composition, may well be his, and may perhaps have been really delivered—though probably not delivered by him, as he was not a qualified citizen.” In this judgment I entirely agree; and it seems to derive some authority from the citation of this extract here, as a specimen of pointed style, which shews that it was at all events well known to Aristotle and the Athenian public, and well remembered, though the author's name is not given; perhaps for this very reason, that the authorship of it was so well known.
4 Diog. Laert., III 3. 24, says that Plato also was engaged in the defence of Chabrias, no one else daring to undertake it. See Grote's Plato, I 128, note i.
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.