Demosthĕnes
（
Δημοσθένης). (1) A celebrated Athenian orator, a native
of the deme of Paeania, in the tribe Pandionis. His father, Demosthenes, was a citizen of rank
and opulence, and the proprietor of a manufactory of arms; not a common blacksmith, as the
language of Juvenal (x. 130) would lead us to believe. The son was born about B.C. 383, and
lost his father at the early age of seven years, when he was left to the care of his mother,
Cleobulé. The guardians to whom his father had intrusted the administration of a
large property proving faithless to their charge and wasting a large portion of his patrimony,
the orator's early studies were seriously hampered by the want of sufficient means, to say
nothing of the delicate state of his own health. When Demosthenes was some sixteen years of
age his curiosity was attracted by a trial in which Callistratus pleaded and won a cause of
considerable importance. The eloquence which gained, and the applause which followed, his
success so inflamed the ambition of the young Athenian that he determined to devote himself
thenceforward to the assiduous study of oratory. He chose Isaeus as his master rather than
Isocrates; from Plato, also, he imbibed much of the richness and the grandeur which
characterize the writings of that philosopher. At the age of seventeen he appeared before the
courts and pronounced against his faithless guardians, and against a debtor to his father's
estate, five orations, which were crowned with complete success. These discourses, in all
probability, had received the finishing touch from Isaeus , under whom Demosthenes continued
to study for the space of four years after he had reached his majority.
An opening so successful emboldened the young orator to speak before the people in the
assembly; but, when he made the attempt, his feeble and stammering voice, his interrupted
respiration, his ungraceful gestures, and his ill-arranged periods, brought upon him general
ridicule. Returning home in the utmost distress, he was encouraged by the kindness of the
actor Satyrus, who, having requested Demosthenes to repeat some passage from a dramatic poet,
pronounced the same extract after him with so much correctness of enunciation and in a manner
so true to nature that it appeared to the young orator to be quite a different passage.
Convinced, thereupon, how much grace and persuasive power a proper enunciation and manner add
to the best oration, he resolved to correct the deficiencies of his youth, and accomplished
this with a zeal and perseverance which have passed into a proverb. To free himself from
stammering he spoke with pebbles in his mouth, a story resting on the authority of Demetrius
Phalereus, his contemporary. It also appears that he was unable to articulate clearly the
letter R; but he vanquished that difficulty most perfectly, for Cicero says that he
exercitatione fecisse ut plenissime diceret. He removed the distortion of
features which accompanied his utterance by watching the movements of his countenance in a
mirror; and a naked sword was suspended over his left shoulder while he was declaiming in
private, to prevent its rising above the level of the right. That his enunciation might be
loud and full of emphasis he frequently ran up the steepest and most uneven walks, an exercise
by which his voice acquired both force and energy; and on the sea-shore, when the waves were
violently agitated, he declaimed aloud, to accustom himself to the noise and tumult of a
public assembly. He constructed a subterranean study, where he would often stay for two or
three months together, shaving one side of his head, that in case he should wish to go abroad
the shame of appearing in that condition might keep him within. In this solitary retreat, by
the light of his lamp, he is said to have copied and recopied, ten times at least, the
orations scattered throughout the history of Thucydides, for the purpose of moulding his own
style after so pure a model.
Whatever may be the truth of these stories, Demosthenes got credit for the most
indefatigable labour in the acquisition of his art. His enemies, at a subsequent period of his
career, attempted to ridicule this extraordinary industry, by remarking that all his arguments
“smelled of the lamp,” and they eagerly embraced the opportunity of
denying him the possession of natural talents. This criticism of Demosthenes seems to have
rested chiefly on his known reluctance to speak without preparation. The fact is, that though
he could exert the talent of extemporaneous speaking, he avoided rather than sought such
occasions, partly from deference to his audience and partly from apprehending the possibility
of a failure. Plutarch, however, who mentions this reluctance of the orator, speaks at the
same time of the great merit of his extemporaneous effusions.
Demosthenes reappeared in public at the age of twenty-five years, and pronounced two
orations against Leptines, the author of a law which imposed on every citizen of Athens,
except the descendants of Harmodius and Aristogiton, the exercise of certain burdensome
functions. The second of these discourses, entitled “Of Immunities,” is
regarded as one of his happiest efforts. After this, he became much engaged in the business of
the bar, and these professional labours, added to the scanty portion of his patrimony which he
had recovered from his guardians, appear to have formed his only means of support. But,
whatever may have been the distinction and the advantages which Demosthenes acquired by his
practice at the bar, his principal glory is derived from his political discourses. At the
period when he engaged in public affairs the State was a mere wreck. Public spirit was at the
lowest ebb; the laws had lost their authority; the austerity of early
manners had yielded to the inroads of luxury, activity to indolence, and probity to venality.
Of the virtues of their fathers there remained to the Athenians little save an attachment,
carried almost to enthusiasm, for their native soil. On the slightest occasion this feeling of
patriotism was sure to display itself; and, thanks to this sentiment, the people of Athens
were still capable of making strenuous efforts for the preservation of their freedom. No one
understood better than Demosthenes the art of exciting
 |
|
Demosthenes. (Vatican Museum, Rome.)
|
and keeping alive this enthusiasm. His penetration enabled him easily to divine the
ambitious plans of Philip of Macedon from the very outset of that monarch's operations, and he
resolved to counteract them. His whole public career, indeed, had but one object in view, and
that was war with Philip. For the space of fourteen years this monarch found the Athenian
orator continually in his path, and every attempt proved unavailing to corrupt so formidable
an adversary. These fourteen years, which immediately preceded the fall of Grecian freedom,
constitute the brightest period in the history of Demosthenes. And yet his courage was
political rather than military. At Chaeronea (B.C. 338) he fled from the field of battle,
though in the Athenian assembly no private apprehensions could check his eloquence or
influence his conduct. But, though overpowered in the contest with the enemy of Athenian
independence, he received after his defeat the most honourable recompense which, in accordance
with Grecian customs, a grateful country could bestow. Athens decreed him a crown of gold. The
reward was opposed by
Aeschines (q.v.). The combat
of eloquence which arose between the two orators attracted to Athens an immense concourse of
spectators. Demosthenes triumphed, and his antagonist, not having received the fifth part of
the votes, was, in conformity with the existing law, compelled to retire into exile. A short
time after this splendid victory Demosthenes was condemned for having suffered himself to be
bribed by Harpalus, a Macedonian governor, who, dreading the anger of Alexander, had come to
Athens to hide there the fruit of his extortion and rapine, and had bargained with the popular
leaders of the day for the protection of the Republic. Demosthenes, having escaped from
imprisonment, fled to Aegina (B.C. 324), whence he could behold the shores of his beloved
country, and earnestly and constantly protested his innocence. After the death of Alexander he
was restored, and his entry into Athens was marked by every demonstration of joy. A new league
was formed among the Grecian cities against the Macedonians, and Demosthenes was the soul of
it. But the confederacy was broken up by Antipater, and the death of the orator was decreed.
He retired, thereupon, from Athens to the island of Calauria, off the coast of Argolis, and,
being still pursued by the satellites of Antipater, terminated his life there by poison, in
the temple of Poseidon, at the age of about sixty years, B.C. 322.
Before the time of Demosthenes there existed three distinct styles of eloquence: that of
Lysias, mild and persuasive, which quietly engaged the attention and won the assent of an
audience; that of Thucydides, bold and animated, which awakened the feelings and powerfully
forced conviction on the mind; while that of Isocrates was, as it were, a combination of the
two former. Demosthenes can scarcely be said to have adopted any individual as a model,
although he bestowed so much untiring labour on the historian of the Peloponnesian War. He
rather culled all that was valuable from the various styles of his great predecessors, working
them up and blending them into one harmonious whole. In the general structure of many of his
sentences he resembles Thucydides, but is simpler and more perspicuous and better calculated
to be quickly comprehended by an audience. On the other hand, his clearness in narration and
his elegance and purity of diction remind the reader of Lysias. But the argumentative parts of
the speeches of Lysias are often deficient in vigour; whereas earnestness, power, zeal,
rapidity, and passion, all exemplified in plain, unornamented language and a strain of close,
business-like reasoning, are the distinctive characteristics of Demosthenes. The general tone
of his oratory, indeed, was admirably adapted to an Athenian audience, constituted as it was
of those whose habits of life were mechanical, and of those whom ambition or taste had led to
the cultivation of literature. The former were captivated by strong good
sense, urged with masculine force and inextinguishable spirit, and by the forcible application
of plain truths; while there was enough of grace and variety to please more learned and
fastidious auditors. Another very remarkable excellence of Demosthenes is the collocation of
his words. The arrangement of sentences in such a manner that their cadences should be
harmonious, and to a certain degree rhythmical, was a study much in vogue among the great
masters of Grecian composition. See
Colon.
The question has often been raised as to the secret of the success of Demosthenes. The
universal approbation will appear the more extraordinary to a reader who for the first time
peruses the orations. They do not exhibit any of that declamation on which loosely hangs the
fame of so many aspirants to eloquence. There appears no deep reflection to indicate a more
than ordinary penetration, or any philosophical remarks to prove the extent of his
acquaintance with the great moral writers of his country. He affects no learning; he aims at
no elegance; he seeks no glaring ornaments; he rarely touches the heart with a soft or melting
appeal, and when he does, it is only with an effect in which a third-rate speaker would have
surpassed him. He had no wit, no humour, no vivacity, in our acceptance of these terms. The
secret of his power is simple, for it lies essentially in this, that his political principles
were interwoven with his very spirit; they were not assumed to serve an interested purpose, to
be laid aside when he descended from the bema and resumed when he sought to accomplish an
object, but were deeply seated in his heart and emanated from its profoundest depths. The more
his country was environed by dangers, the more steady was his resolution. Nothing ever
impaired the truth and integrity of his feelings or weakened his generous conviction. It was
his undeviating firmness, his disdain of all compromise, that made him the first of statesmen
and orators; in this lay the substance of his power, the primary foundation of his
superiority; the rest was merely secondary. The mystery of his influence, then, lay in his
honesty; and it is this that gave warmth and tone to his feelings, energy to his language, and
an impression to his manner before which every imputation of insincerity must have immediately
vanished. We may thus perceive the meaning of Demosthenes himself, when, to one who asked him
what was the first requisite in an orator, he merely replied, “Delivery”
(
ὑπόκρισις); and when asked what were the second and third
requisites, gave the same answer as at first (
Vit. X. Orat.). His meaning was
this: a lifeless manner on the part of a public speaker shows that his own feelings are not
enlisted in the cause which he is advocating, and it is idle for him, therefore, to seek to
make converts of others when he has failed in making one of himself. On the other hand, when
the tone of voice, the gesture, the look, the whole manner of the orator, display the powerful
feelings that agitate him, his emotion is communicated to his hearers, and success is
inevitable. Cf. Quintil.
Inst. Or. xi. 3 init.
Of the orations we have sixty-one (half of them spurious), and fifty-six Introductions, or
προοίμια δημηγορικά. In confining ourselves to the
classification adopted by the ancient rhetoricians, we may arrange all these discourses
under one of three heads.
- I. Deliberative discourses (λόγοι συμβουλεύτικοι),
treating of political topics, and delivered either before the Senate or the assembly of the
people.
- II. Judicial speeches (λόγοι δικάνικοι), having for
their object accusation or defence.
- III. Studied or set speeches (λόγοι ἐπιδείκτικοι),
intended to censure or praise.
Seventeen of the orations of Demosthenes belong to the first of these classes, forty-two to
the second, and two to the third.
Of the seventeen discourses which compose the first class, five treat of various subjects
connected with the Republic, and twelve of the quarrels between the State and Philip. Our
limits allow an examination of only a few of these that are most important in their
character. Of the twelve harangues that turn upon the quarrels of the Republic with Philip,
the first was pronounced in B.C. 351; the second, third, and fourth in B.C. 349; the fifth in
B.C. 347; the sixth in B.C. 346; the seventh in B.C. 344; the eighth in B.C. 343; the ninth
in B.C. 342; the tenth and eleventh in B.C. 341; and the twelfth in B.C. 340. The order here
given is that of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, but no manuscript and no editions observe it.
The manuscripts give the First, Second, Tenth, and Eleventh Philippics of Dionysius by name,
and regard his fifth as forming the conclusion of the first. They give the title of Second,
Third, and First Olynthiacs to his Second, Third, and Fourth. The remaining four (Sixth,
Eighth, Ninth, Twelfth) have the following titles: “Of Peace,”
“Of Halonesus,” “Of the Chersonesus,” and
“On the Letter of Philip.” We shall now speak of them in chronological
order.
- The (1 and 2) Πρὸς Φιλίππον λόγος πρῶτος, the
First Philippic. Demosthenes here exhorts his fellow-citizens to prosecute the war with the
greatest vigour against Philip. This monarch had, after the defeat of the Phocians, assumed
a threatening attitude, as if wishing to establish himself in their country. The discourse
we are now considering has been divided into two parts, which, according to Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, were pronounced at different times; but this opinion is contradicted by most
critics.
- (3, 4, 5) Ὀλυνθιακός Α, Β, Γ—The three
Olynthiacs. Their object is to stimulate the Athenians to succour Olynthus and prevent its
falling into the hands of Philip.
- (6) Περὶ τῆς εἰρήνης, “Of the
Peace.” Philip having obtained a seat in the council of the Amphictyons,
Demosthenes advises his countrymen to preserve the peace with this prince. Libanius thinks
that this discourse, though written by Demosthenes, was never delivered. Modern scholars
are, however, of a different opinion.
- (7) Κατὰ Φιλίππου λόγος Β, the Second Philippic,
pronounced after the return of Demosthenes from the Peloponnesus, where he had negotiated a
peace between Sparta and Messenia.
- (8) Περὶ τῆς Ἁλονήσου, “Of
Halonesus,” or, rather, of a letter of Philip's, by which he makes a present to
the Athenians of the island of Halonesus, which he had taken from the pirates, and demands
of the Athenians to share with them the office of protecting the seas. Demosthenes
strenuously opposes so insulting an offer; it is, however, far from certain whether he ever
pronounced such a discourse as this. Libanius says that the ancient critics ascribed it to
Hegesippus, the friend of Demosthenes. Suidas and the author of the Etymologicum
Magnum agree with him.
- (9) Περὶ τῶν ἐν Χερρονήσῳ πραγμάτων, ἤ ὁ περὶ
Διοπείθεους, “Of the events in the Chersonesus, or of
Diopithes.” That general, sent at the head of a colony into the Chersonesus, had
committed hostilities against the city of Cardia, the only one which Philip had reserved
for himself in the conditions of peace. Diopithes had even made an inroad into Macedonia.
Philip insisted on his being punished. Demosthenes undertakes in this oration to justify
the conduct of the Athenian commander.
- (10) Κατὰ Φιλίππου λόγος Γ, the Third Philippic.
The progress which Philip had made in Thrace, where he was preparing to lay siege to the
cities of Perinthus and Byzantium, form the subject of this harangue.
- (11) Κατὰ Φιλίππου λόγος Δ, the Fourth
Philippic, pronounced at the time when Philip had raised the siege of Perinthus, in order
to fall upon Byzantium. Valckenaer (Or. De Phil. p. 250), Wolf (Ad
Lept. Proleg. p. lx.), and Bekker do not acknowledge this as a production of
Demosthenes.
- (12) Ὁ πρὸς τὴν ἐπιστολὴν Φιλίππου λόγος,
“On the Letter of Philip.” The letter of the king, to which this
harangue refers, still exists. It contains many complaints, but no declaration of war.
Taylor, Reiske, Valckenaer, and Bekker consider this letter to be spurious.
We come now to the second class of the orations of Demosthenes, namely, those of a judicial
nature; and here a distinction must be made between those which refer to affairs connected
with the State and those which relate to individual interests: in the former case, the
procedure was called
κατηγορία; in the second,
δίκη—words which may be translated by
“accusation” and “pleadings.” Of the first species we
have twelve harangues remaining, the most important one of which is that entitled
Περὶ Στεφάνου, “On the Crown.” Demosthenes
had been twice crowned in the theatre during the Dionysiac festival: the first time after the
expulsion of the Macedonian garrisons from the island of Euboea, and again after the alliance
with the Thebans. In the year B.C. 338, Ctesiphon, who was then president of the Senate, had
a decree passed by this body that, if the people approved, Demosthenes should be crowned at
the approaching Dionysiac festival, in the public theatre, as a recompense for the
disinterested manner in which he had filled various offices, and for the services which he
had never for a moment ceased to render the State. This matter had to be confirmed by a
ψήφισμα, or decree of the people; but, before it was
brought before them, Aeschines presented himself as the accuser of Ctesiphon. He charged him
with having violated the laws in proposing to crown a public functionary before the latter
had given an account of the manner in which he had discharged his office; and to crown him,
too, in the theatre, instead of the senate-house or the Pnyx, where this could alone be done;
finally, in having alleged what was false, for the purpose of favouring Demosthenes. He
concluded by demanding that a fine of fifty talents be imposed upon Ctesiphon. The matter
remained for some time pending, in consequence of the troubles that followed the battle of
Chaeronea. When, however, the influence of the Macedonian party had, through the exertions of
Antipater, gained the ascendency in Athens, Aeschines believed it to be a favourable moment
for the revival of his accusation. It was brought forward, therefore, again, in B.C.
330, or eight years after the proposition of Ctesiphon had been made. Aeschines thereupon
pronounced his famous harangue, to which Demosthenes replied. This speech of Demosthenes is
regarded, and justly so, not only as his masterpiece, but as the most perfect specimen that
eloquence has ever produced. It is said that after this discourse Demosthenes no longer
appeared as a public speaker. Ulpian, in his commentary on the oration
De
Corona, relates an anecdote which has been often cited. Demosthenes is endeavouring
to fix the charge of bribery on Aeschines, whom he represents as corrupted by Philip and by
Alexander, and consequently their hireling and not their friend or guest. Of this assertion
he declares his willingness to submit the truth to the judgment of the assembly. “I
call thee,” says the orator, “the hireling, first of Philip and now of
Alexander; and all these who are here present agree in opinion with me. If thou disbelievest
it, ask them the question; but no, I will ask them myself. Athenians, does Aeschines appear
to you in the light of a hireling or a friend of Alexander's?” In putting this
question, Demosthenes purposely commits a fault of accentuation: he places the accent
improperly on the antepenultima, instead of the last syllable, of
μισθωτός—in the words of Ulpian,
ἑκὼν
ἐβαρβάρισεν—in order to draw the attention of the people from the
question to the pronunciation. This had the desired effect: the accurate ears of the
Athenians were struck with the mistake; to correct it, they called out
μισθωτός, μισθωτός, “a hireling! a hireling!” from every
part of the assembly. Pretending to receive the word as the expression of their sentiments on
the guilt of Aeschines, he cried out, “Dost thou hear what they say?”
The simple pleadings (
δίκαι) relative to matters of
private interest, constitute the second class of judicial actions. Of these we have thirty
remaining, which are as follows:
- 1. Discourses having relation to the proceedings instituted by Demosthenes against his
guardians. They are five in number: of these, two are against Aphobus, and two against
Onetor, his brother.
- 2. Λόγοι παραγράφικοι, or, as Cicero (De
Invent. 1, 8) calls them, constitutiones translativae. We
have seven discourses of this class from the pen of Demosthenes, viz.: against Zenothemis,
against Apaturius, against Lacritus, against Phormion, against Pantaenetus, against
Nausimachus, and Xenopithaea.
- 3. Discourses relative to the rights of succession and to questions of dower. These
are four in number: against Macartatus, against Leochares, against Spudias, against Boeotus
for his mother's dowry.
- 4. Discourses in matters of commerce and of debt. These are three in number: against
Calippus, against Nicostratus, against Timotheus.
- 5. Actions for indemnity and for damages (βλάβη,
αἰκία). The discourses under this head are five in number: against Boeotus,
against Olympiodorus, against Conon, against Dionysiodorus, against Callicles.
- 6. Actions for perjury: two discourses against Stephanus, and one against Euergus and
Mnesibulus.
- 7. Three discourses on the subject of the ἀντίδοσις
(q. v.), or exchange of estates. The discourses under this head are the following: against
Phoenippus, against Polycles, and respecting the crown of the trierarchia. It is
unnecessary to speak of each of these thirty pleadings; a few remarks on
some of them must suffice.
The five discourses which Demosthenes pronounced against his guardians contain
valuable details respecting his youth, his fortune, and the Athenian laws. Aphobus, one of
the guardians, was condemned to pay Demosthenes the sum of ten talents. It does not appear
whether he brought the two other guardians to trial or not. These discourses have some
resemblance to those of Isaeus, his master. The
παραγραφή
for Phormio against Apollodorus has furnished occasion for a reproach to the memory of
Demosthenes. We are told by Plutarch that Demosthenes “wrote an oration for
Apollodorus, by which he carried his cause against the general Timotheus, in an action for
debt to the public treasury; as also those others against Phormio and Stephanus, which formed
a just exception against his character. For he composed likewise the oration which Phormio
had pronounced against Apollodorus. This, therefore, was like furnishing the enemies with
weapons out of the same shop.”
The discourse against Macartatus, respecting the succession of Hagnias, is interesting from
the circumstance of our having the defence of Macartatus by Isaeus , and from our being thus
able to compare the pupil with his former master.
It remains to speak of the third class of Demosthenes's orations, the
λόγοι ἐπιδεικτικοί, “studied or set speeches.” We have
only two remaining, and these, very probably, are spurious. The one,
ἐπιτάφιος λόγος, is a eulogy on the Athenians who had perished at Chaeronea;
the other,
ἐρωτικός λόγος, is written in praise of the
beauty of the young Epicrates.
There are also six letters ascribed to Demosthenes; five of them are addressed to the
people of Athens. All, however, are forgeries.
Good
manuscripts of Demosthenes are rare, but
several of them are as old as the eleventh century, and most of them contain a very large
portion, if not the whole, of the extant works. In all, there are some 170 MSS. They are
divided by editors into three groups, of which the first is headed by a Codex Parisinus (S or
Σ) of the tenth or eleventh century, distinguished by
remarkable omissions in the text; the second is headed by a Marcianus Venetus (F) and another
Codex Parisinus (
γ), both of the eleventh century; the third
by a Codex Monacensis (A), also of the eleventh century, distinguished by curious
simplifications of hard passages. Editors are not entirely agreed as to the value of S or
Σ, some maintaining that it gives the authentic text,
others believing that it gives an edition by a clever scholar. The scholia on Demosthenes are
inferior, the best being those in C. Müller
(Paris, 1846-47) and
Scholia Graeca in Demosth. (Oxford, 1851). On the MSS. see
Vömel's
Prolegomena Critica to his edition
(Halle,
1856-57).
Bibliography
For the life of Demosthenes, the reader is referred to Schäfer's
Demosthenes und seine Zeit (2d ed. Berlin, 1882); and for an
exhaustive literary criticism, to
Blass's Attische Beredsamkeit
(1880). Butcher's
Introduction to the Study of Demosthenes
(London, 1881) and Brodribb's
(1877) are useful. See also
Croiset,
Des Idées Morales dans l'Eloquence Politique de
Démosthène (1871). The standard texts are those of
Bekker
(1866) and of L. Dindorf (Leip. 1878; rev. by Blass). For critical study
of Demosthenes, the Apparatus Criticus of Schäfer in 5 vols.
(London,
1824) is valuable, as are also the three volumes of
Annotationes
Interpretum of Dindorf
(Oxford, 1849). The
editio
princeps of Demosthenes was that of Aldus
(Venice, 1504). Good editions
of the various orations with notes are as follows:
De Corona, T. K. Arnold
(London, 1860), Holmes
(London, 1871), Drake
(London,
1866), Simcox
(Oxford, 1873), containing also the oration of Aeschines,
D'Ooge
(Chicago, 1875), Blass
(Leipzig, 1890);
De Falsa
Legatione, Shilleto
(London, 1874);
Contra Leptinem,
Beatson
(London, 1864), King
(London, 1880), and especially Sandys
(Cambridge, 1890);
In Midiam, Holmes (Buttmann),
(London,
1868); of the
Olynthiacs, Wilkins
(London, 1860), T. K.
Arnold
(London, 1877); of the
Philippics, Heslop
(London,
1868), T. K. Arnold
(London, 1868), Westermann
(1825); of
the First Philippic, Gwatkin (Rehdantz),
(London, 1883);
Adv.
Timocratem, etc., Wayte
(Camb. 1883); collections of
Select
Private Orations, Penrose
(London, 1853), Sandys and Paley, in 2 pts.,
9 orations
(Camb. 1874-75), with French notes, Weil
(Paris, 1877).
See also Baiter and Sauppe's
Oratores Attici, 8 vols. or one large quarto
(1850); Bekker, 10 vols. with indices
(Oxford, 1828); Dobson with
variorum notes
(London, 1828); and Jebb
(London, 1882). Useful is
Mitchell's
Index Graecitatis, 3 vols.
(London, 1828); and
Westermann's Geschichte d. Beredsamkeit (1835) is to be
commended for a general conspectus. The best translation into English is that of Kennedy in 5
vols.
(London, 1852-63).
