REPUBLISHED,TEXTS,IN,THE,ATTIC,ORATORS

Zilong Guo

IHAC, NENU, Changchun

This article undertakes a detailed examination of the act of republishing texts, or what we would nowadays call self-plagiarism, in the Attic orators, with particular emphasis on that of Antiphon (5.14 and 87–89 ≈ 6.2 and 3–6) and Demosthenes(27.44–45 and 55–58 ≈ 29.44–45 and 47–50; 37.1 and 58–60 ≈ 38.1 and 21–22;22.47–78 ≈ 24.160–186). It argues that the mirrored passages highlight the common practice of logographers and the use of recurrent themes in Athenian judicial discourses. The slight modifications in the course of republishing indicate that the logographers would adapt themselves to suit changing socio-political circumstances and performative contexts, and thus constitute a valuable resource for tackling their compositional strategies and habitual way of (re)writing.

Intra- and intertextual passages in the Attic orators should be treated as a complex phenomenon. In the discussion of Demosthenes’ early years of writing his stockin-trade, Arthur W. Pickard-Cambridge, following Leonhard von Spengel, refers to the mirrored passages in Andocides and Lysias that bid for a fair hearing in the lawcourt and makes the following statement that when preparing an argument for presentation, an orator would have had a repertoire at hand:

For nearly every speaker, and certainly every rhetorical teacher, formed a collection of prologues and epilogues, and of passages dealing with each of the more frequently recurring topics; these he adapted, as might be convenient, to the purposes of the particular speech upon which he was engaged. Rhetorical teachers appear not only to have imparted such collections to their pupils, but also to have published them, and hence we find not only verbal or almost verbal repetitions in different orations of the same speaker, but also passages which are identical in the speeches of different composers.1See Andoc. 1.1, 6–7; Lys. 19.2–5 with Pickard-Cambridge 1914, 27. See also Spengel 1828, 106–109; Maidment 1941, 338, n. 2; Lavency 1964, 155–157; Zinsmaier 1998, 411–412; Edwards 1999,123–124; Doulamis 2011, 26–27. On Pickard-Cambridge and the modern reception of Demosthenes,see Herrman 2019, 32.The term “publish” should be understood broadly, as the act of releasing that embraces any sort of dissemination, distribution, or circulation of a work,especially that in written form.2Dover 1968, 151–154 and 168–175; Trevett 1996, 425, n. 1; 2019, 427; Edwards 2000, 230–231 and 240–241. More generally on “publication” of ancient literary works, see Dorandi 2007, chs. 4–5.There is a presumed connection of textuality with orality, but repetitions may be less striking in oral communication, and it is not certain to what extent a written speech reflects its oral counterpart: on a primary level of ring composition in the oral version, see Worthington 1996, 170–171.This, in turn, requires a consideration of a wide range of possibilities of “passages dealing with each of the more frequently recurring topics.” The first thing we need to look at is parallels in different speeches of the same orator. In some cases, they are due to the fact that these speeches derive from successive prosecutions and are actually interrelated:whereas for Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias is “original” (καινός) in every speech, in Lys. 28.9 and 29.13 we find very similar arguments that the dicasts should refrain from the payment of a bribe “at any price” (oὐκ ἔστι τoσαῦτα χρήματα);3D.H. Lys. 17. See also Carey and Reid 1985, 10; Pernot 1986, 275.Dem. 39.23 is identical with Dem. 40.29 in arguing that a husband and wife in mutual anger would become reconciled because of their common offspring.4Cf. also ὅθεν oὖν (or δὲ) ῥᾷστα μαθήσεσθε περὶ αὐτῶν, ἐντεῦθεν ὑμᾶς καὶ ἐγὼ πρῶτoν πειράσoμαι διδάσκειν in Dem. 27.3; 30.5.In other cases, parallels are due to the orator’s fixed expressions and stylistic preferences. Antiphon is renowned for introducing the argument of what scholars would call “hypothetical role-reversal” by stating the condition “had I”(εἰ μὲν ἐγώ).5Antiph. 1.11; 5.38; 5.74; 5.84; 6.27; 6.28. See Solmsen 1931, 6; Due 1980, 27, n. 8; Gagarin 1997,113 and 196; 2002, 143 and 146.Repetitions of key points of argumentation within a single work,e.g., Antiph. 1.7, 5.18 and 6.49–51, are likewise devices of persuasion.6Gagarin 1997, 32. See also Vatri 2017, 316–318.

The second possibility concerns plagiarism (Gk. κλoπή; Lat.furtum) among different orators. Isocrates accuses other orators of making use of his works, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus notes that many are “not ashamed” (oὐκ ἐν αἰσχύνῃ)to yield to appropriation.7Isoc. 5.93–94; 15.74; D.H. Lys. 17. On the idea of authorship in Isocrates, see Section 4.Yet the distinction between plagiarism and literary emulation (Gk. μίμησις; Lat.imitatio) seems not so clear-cut in antiquity.8For frequent claims of plagiarism as literary theft, see Stemplinger 1912; Ziegler 1950, 1974–1975;Behme 2004, 208; Roscalla 2006; McGill 2012, 6–9 and passim. The classical usage of plagiarius in reference to a literary plagiarist is only attested in Martial 1.52.9: see, most recently, Nisbet 2020, 56, n. 2.For example, in the legal disputes with his guardians, Demosthenes employs many commonplace arguments drawn from his instructor Isaeus, who may have specialized in inheritance law.9E.g., Is. 8.5 ≈ Dem. 27.3; Is. 8.12 ≈ Dem. 30.37; see also Pearson 1981, 41–44 and 88–89; Roisman and Worthington 2015, 173; Daix and Fernandez 2017, 46, 61, and 76. On the teacher-student relationship, see Plut. Dem. 5.6; [Plut.] Mor. 839f = Caecilius fr. 125 Ofenloch; 844c.The minor Attic orator Dinarchus is reported to have based his first speech,Against Cleomedon, on Demosthenes’Against Conon(Dem. 54), and indeed both deal with cases involving wounding and battery. Be that as it may, in literary critiques Dinarchus is simply described as a“close follower” (μάλιστα ἐμιμήσατo) and “gingerbread Demosthenes” (κρίθινoν Δημoσθένην).10Cf. D.H. Din. 5; Hermog. Id. 2.11.399 Rabe; Clem. Str. 5.14.89.1; Eus. PE 10.3.17; 10.3.23 with Stemplinger 1912, 54–55 and 281. See also Denniston 1952, 91; Russell 1979, 11–12; Pernot 1986,274–275.The speech in question is now lost, but in extant instances there is an anti-Demosthenic expression (Din. 1.35) that is reminiscent of Aeschines’(3.164) as it claims that Demosthenes walked about dangling a Persian letter from his fingertips. In Hyperides (Dem. 16), we find a lurking borrowing from Aeschines (3.209) that Demosthenes owns a house at Piraeus as anchorage on his way out of Athens.11Whitehead 2000, 409.Interestingly, however, in his earlier years as Demosthenes’ally, Hyperides is supposed to have composed hisAgainst Diondaswith striking parallels toOn the Crown(Dem. 18).12See Horváth 2014, 165–176 for a full list. See also Carey et al. 2008, 3; Todd 2009, 163–165.Contemporary affairs aside, Aeschines(2.172–176) draws heavily on the history of fifth-century BC, recounted by Andocides (3.3–9), namely the Pentecontaetia.13Pickard-Cambridge 1914, 27, n. 1; Thomas 1989, 119; Dover 1997, 10–11; Trevett 1996, 433.

All the above phenomena belong to the wider study of intra- and intertextuality. With this in mind, I shall limit myself to the substantially mirrored passages in different speeches that are composed by the same orator. Scholars tend to use “doublets” as shorthand for these passages, but this cannot properly highlight an author’s intention to reuse texts that had previously been published or distributed.14E.g., Dover 1968, 166; Fossey 1986; Trevett 1994, 181–186; 1996, 438; Gagarin 1997, 32.In theEthnicaof Stephanus of Byzantium, for example, we find several doublets of entries for place names such as “Agbatana”/“Ecbatana” and“Eleutherai”/“Eleutheris.” Nevertheless, these cases seem to exhibit his failure to note and eliminate repetitive contents in the compilation; in other words, it is unlikely that he reuses them consciously.15See Steph. Byz.: A 28; E 28; E 46; E 48 with Whitehead 2000, 44.What is more, a doublet is not a diachronically stable concept, for it can refer not only to a pair of hendiadyses such as the intertwining of “loyalty” (εὔνoια) and “zealousness” (πρoθυμία) in Demosthenes, but also to two parallel passages that complement each other.16Hendiadys/doubling: Dem. 18.312 with Blass 1962, vol. III/1, 96–100; Cook 2009, 43–46; parallel passages: [Dem.] 47.68–73 with Tulin 1996, 34–37 and 47.As for the category “self-plagiarism,” it is more often applied to Roman poets such as Ovid in scholarship, and in Greco-Roman antiquity the formal accusations that Rossini and Balzac suffered did not exist.17E.g., Ov. Am. 3.2; Ars am. 1.135–162: Merkle 1983. But Dalzell 1996, 140–141 considers this term misleading in reference to the passages discussed.Demosthenes introduces inAgainst Timocrates(Dem. 24.159) his self-borrowings fromAgainst Androtion(Dem. 22) with a kind of apology. By stating that “I will tell you nothing that you have already heard, unless some of you were present at the trials of Euctemon,”however, it can be disputed that his main concern is about repeating the samewordsandcontent, not about the textual similarities.18Cf. MacDowell 2009, 195, but Wayte 1893, xl mentions with prudence the view that the Athenians had an appreciation of brilliant oratory and were desirous of a second hearing. See also Too 1995, 47;Westwood 2020, 79.In view of their specific characteristics, I propose to use “republished texts” as a working concept to describe the mirrored passages that arise through reuse of works in the Attic orators.

Finally and importantly, the examination of republished texts requires a consideration of the authenticity of the speeches. The numerous mirrored passages inOn Organization(Dem. 13) need therefore to be set aside, since there is an ongoing debate as to whether or not it is a later pastiche in imitation of Demosthenes.19E.g., Sealey 1993, 235–237; Trevett 1994, 190; Sing 2017, esp. 107–108 and 112; Harris 2018, 17, n. 4;Westwood 2020, 79–80.And, granted that the speech is authentic, the wide-range of the mirrored passages in this “strange beast” would exceed a manageable scope.20Cf. Sing 2017, 117.The same applies to the passages in Dem. 2.14–23 and Dem. 11.8–17, because there is a tendency among both, ancient commentators and modern scholars, that Dem. 11 is spurious; so, too, Dem. 8.38–51 and 52–67 ≈ Dem. 10.11–27 and 55–70.21But it should be noted that the genuineness of Dem. 10 and 11 has been increasingly accepted: cf.Blass 1962, vol. III/1, 382–392; Daitz 1957, 148; Hajdú 2002, 44–49; MacDowell 2009, 354–355 and 361–363; Trevett 2019, 420–421. As for the habit of using lexical/syntactic variations in Dem. 13,cf., e.g., στρατηγoῦντα (13.21) / νικήσαντα (23.196), oὐδὲν αὑτῶν κρεῖττoυς ὅντας (13.21) / oὐδ’ὑπερηγάπων (23.196), and πρότερoν τoύτoυ (13.24) / πάλιν (23.200), all of which are characteristic of Demosthenes (Section 3).Neither should we treat Antiph. 5.84 ≈ Antiph. 6.28 and 47, Lys. 10.4–8 ≈Lys. 11.1–4, and Dem. 3.25–31 ≈ Dem. 23.206–210 as republished texts, because the orators almost rework the earlier versions in a, more or less, improved form.22See Pickard-Cambridge 1914, 166, n. 1; Dover 1968, 166–167; Due 1980, 59–60; Papillon 1998,105–111; Gagarin 1997, 237; Todd 2007, 702–703; Worthington 2013, 113, n. 54; Harris 2018,102, n. 234; Herrman 2019, 150. For the “unitarian” view that this Antiphon is identical with the homonymous “Sophist,” see, e.g., Gagarin 1997, 5–6; 2002, 7 and 38–52; for the “separatist” view:Pendrick 2002, 1–26. But this issue seems immaterial for our purposes.

I begin by examining the case of Antiphon of Rhamnus (c. 480 – c. 411 BC),who is generally considered as the first logographer to ghost-write professional forensic speeches in classical antiquity.23The term, analogous to the contemporary “lawyer,” comes from the Greek λoγoγράφoς/λoγoγραφία and is to be distinguished from the chroniclers before Herodotus. For a comprehensive study, see Lavency 1964, ch. 1; in brief, e.g., Carey and Reid 1985, 13–18; Todd 1993, 95–96.More precisely, he was the first logographer to “publish” these speeches.24Thuc. 8.68.1–2; [Plut.] Mor. 832c–e (cf. Caecilius fr. 99 Ofenloch); Hermog. Id. 2.11.401 Rabe;Phot. Bibl. 486a; Quint. 3.1.11; Clem. Str. 1.16.79.3. See also Dover 1968, 176; Edwards 2000, 233–242, who moves the date of Antiphon’s speechwriting (if not publishing) activities back to as early as the 440s BC; Gagarin 2002, 2–4 and 171; Whitehead 2004, 155.The oratorical legacy of Antiphon consists of some sixty deliberative and forensic speeches that have been transmitted under his name, of which thirty-five are considered genuine.25[Plut.] Mor. 833c = Caecilius fr. 100 Ofenloch; Phot. Bibl. 485b–486a. See also Edwards 2000,232.The six speeches we possess all concern the action for homicide or murder (dike phonou),and it is widely believed that this results from ancient ordering and numbering of thecorpus: the Antiphontean speeches, we are led to believe, were arranged by subject-matter, with those for homicide cases coming first.26Blass 1962, vol. I, 150–151; Dover 1968, 6; Gagarin 2002, 52–53; Dilts and Murphy 2018, v–vi.

As regards the republished texts, the most salient examples are found in the last two surviving speeches in the corpus,On the Murder of Herodes(Antiph. 5) andOn the Chorus Boy(Antiph. 6).27See also Spengel 1828, 109–110; Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1900, 411–414; Maidment 1941, 222,n. 12; Dover 1950, 45–46; Lavency 1964, 149–153; Due 1980, 54; Gagarin 1997, 32; Carawan 1998,320; Zinsmaier 1998, 412; Plastow 2020, 30–31.Both are defence speeches for the action for homicide. The mirrored passages show that Antiphon republishes them almost word by word as self-contained units, though the underlined passages indicate that some sections are paraphrased or expanded to a large extent. Incidentally,it should be noted that alternative spellings of Greek words, elisions, and contractions are not treated as representative signs of rewriting as quite possibly they are subject to scribal whims or copying carelessness.28E.g., if not rhythmically, ἀεί (5.14) / αἰεί (6.2); ξυνειδώς (5.87) / συνειδώς (6.5); ὥστε oὐ (5.14) /ὥστ’ oὐ (6.2). The same may be true for ἡ τoύτων αἰτίασις (5.89) / ἡ τoύτoυ αἰτίασις (6.6), and for the case of Demosthenes, e.g., ἑαυτoῦ πατέρα (22.56) / αὑτoῦ πατέρ’ (24.168); τoῖς ἑαυτῆς δoύλoις(22.71) / τoῖς αὑτῆς δoύλoις (24.179); ἐπoιήσατo ὑμῖν (22.73) / ἐπoιήσαθ’ ὑμῖν (24.181); καταλιπών(27.55) / καταλείπων (29.47); ἐμέλλετε (27.57) / ἠμέλλετε (29.49). Cf. Dover 1950, 57–58; Gagarin 1997, 26; 2002, 171–172; Dilts and Murphy 2018, xiii–xvi for Ionicisms in Antiphon.

On the Murder of Herodes 5 On the Chorus Boy 6 CLARITY OF EXPOSITIONὁ γὰρ χρόνoς καὶ ἡ ἐμπειρία (14)ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῶν νόμων τoὺς τoῦ κατηγόρoυ λόγoυς, εἰ ὀρθῶς καὶ νoμίμως ὑμᾶς διδάσκoυσι τὸ πρᾶγμα ἢ oὔ (14)ἐὰν ὑμεῖς μoυ καταψηφίσησθε (87)πιστεύσας αὑτῷ ὅτι oὐκ ἔνoχός ἐστιν, oὔτε ξ υ ν ε ι δ ὼ ς α ὑ τ ῷ τ o ι o ῦ τ o ν ἔ ρ γ o ν εἰργασμένῳ μὴ oὐ χρῆσθαι τῷ νόμῳ (87)ὁ χρόνoς γὰρ καὶ ἡ ἐμπειρία (2)ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῶν νόμων τoὺς τoύτων λόγoυς, εἰὀρθῶς ὑμᾶς καὶ νoμίμως διδάσκoυσιν ἢ oὔ (2)ἄλλως τε καὶ ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ ὁ τιμωρήσων (87)ὑμεῖς ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ δίκῃ μὴ ὀρθῶς γνῶτε (89)ἐὰν ὑμεῖς καταψηφίσησθε (4)πιστεύσας ὅτι oὐκ ἔνoχός ἐστι τῷ ἔργῳ,oὔτ᾿ αὖ συνειδὼς αὐτὸς αὑτῷ ἔργoν εἰργασμένoς τoιoῦτoν μὴ oὐ χρῆσθαι τῷνόμῳ (6)κἂν μὴ ὁ τιμωρήσων ᾖ (5)ὑμεῖς μὴ ὀρθῶς γνῶτε (6)COMPOUND διδάσκει (2)μαθεῖν (2)καταγνωσθεῖσα (3)ELLIPSIS μέγιστόν ἐστι σημεῖoν (14)ἀσέβειά ἐστιν εἴς τε τoὺς θεoὺς καὶ εἰς τoὺς νόμoυς (88)ἐκδιδάσκει (14)καταμανθάνειν (14)γνωσθεῖσα (87)μέγιστoν σημεῖoν (2)ἀσέβεια εἴς τε τoὺς θεoὺς καὶ τoὺς νόμoυς (6)EMOTION (“HOPE”)ἐλπίζων oὕτως…ἐν ταῖς ἐλπίσιν (4–5)HYPERBATON τῶν δικῶν ἕνεκα τoῦ φόνoυ (88)τῶν δικῶν τoῦ φόνoυ ἕνεκα (6)INTERJECTION AND POLYPTOTON πάντας ἂν oἶμαι ὁμoλoγῆσαι κάλλιστα νόμων ἁπάντων κεῖσθαι καὶ ὁσιώτατα (14)πάντες ἂν ἐπαινέσαιεν κάλλιστα νόμων κεῖσθαι καὶ ὁσιώτατα (2)LEXICAL/SYNTACTIC VARIATION καίτoι (14)γε (14)ὁμoλoγῆσαι (14)τoῦ κατηγόρoυ (14)ὑμῖν κεῖναι (14)τιμωρία ἐστὶ τῷ ἀδικηθέντι (88)ἁμαρτίαν (89)καί (2)absolute μέν (2)ἐπαινέσειαν (2)τoῦ κατηγoρoῦντoς (2)ἔχoυσιν (2)τιμωρία ἐστὶν ὑπὲρ τoῦ ἀδικηθέντoς (6)αἰτίαν (6)

The first republished texts (5.14 ≈ 6.2) invite the tribunal audiences to privilege laws over speeches, and the second group (5.87–89 ≈ 6.3–6) concerns the authority of verdict with the goal of obtaining a favourable one. Thematically,the commonplace that the dicasts are persuaded to obey laws instead of speeches is well attested in Attic prose.29Cf. Thuc. 2.37.3; 3.37.2–5; Lys. fr. 195.2 Carey = Ath. 12.76; Dem. 21.45; 23.206; 35.54; 41.10;43.72; [Dem.] 56.10; 59.77. See also Gagarin 2002, 177.This is even more so in the cases of homicide since the Athenians considered the laws on murder to be the oldest.30Cf. Dem. 23.70 with Canevaro 2016, 419. See also Tulin 1996, 14–15; Pendrick 2002, 20–21;Plastow 2020, 30–31.Stylistically, the cognate object construction of ἔργoν εἴργασθαι recurs in ξυνειδὼς αὑτῷ τoιoῦτoν ἔργoν εἰργασμένῳ (5.87) / συνειδὼς αὐτὸς αὑτῷ ἔργoν εἰργασμένoς τoιoῦτoν (6.5) – “if he [himself] knew that he had committed such a crime,” and “for all these reasons” (αὐτῶν δὲ τoύτων ἕνεκα) in Antiph. 5.88 and 6.6 may lean on the following ὅτι-clause, not the preceding discussion.31See Pendrick 2002, 327.More vital features, however, are the slight modifications. For they highlight the actual performative contexts and show to what extent Antiphon practisesvariatioin the course of republishing.32Pace, therefore, Trevett 1994, 187: “It would be otiose to provide a full list.”Notice, for instance, the expression“the laws, oaths, sacrifices, proclamations, and in fact the entire aspects of procedure in connection with cases of homicide are very different from other cases” (5.88 ≈ 6.6). The word order of “in connection with cases of homicide”deserves our close attention. The mild hyperbaton, τῶν δικῶν ἕνεκα τoῦφόνoυ (5.88), may occur incidentally as the counterpart of τῶν δικῶν τoῦφόνoυ ἕνεκα (6.6), but I am induced to assume that Antiphon has a different purpose, since the historical backgrounds and legal procedures of the two speeches are quite different.33Cf. Gagarin 1997, 29.InOn the Murder of Herodes(Antiph. 5), the defendant/speaker is a young Mytilenean named Euxitheus. He is accused of murdering an Athenian named Herodes, and a significant factor is that after the revolt the territory of Mytilene is garrisoned by Athenian cleruchs, of whom Herodes was probably one. Significantly, Euxitheus’ father played some part in the revolt. For the moment Euxitheus will not only be prosecuted by adike phonou, but is also arrested beforehand by an unorthodox procedure ofapagoge(afterendeixis/“denunciation”), which is usually used against the“common criminals” (kakourgoi). On account of this he is prohibited to post sureties, imprisoned until the trial takes place, and will still face the regular homicide prosecution (dike phonou) if the plaintiffs failed to convict him on this occasion. Given the actual political circumstances and procedural issues,Antiphon may have changed the word order deliberately to stress that Euxitheus is treated unfairly as akakourgos, now under “summary arrest” and facing two trials.34Cf. Antiph. 5.85.In the ὅτι-clause (5.88), when he points out that “because adike phonouis of the highest importance to determine the facts correctly when so much is at stake,” the dicasts are supposed to abandon any preconceived notions that may be misleading; rather, they should take the case with great seriousness as adike phonouso as not to “offend both gods and laws” (5.88). It is a reasonable guess, therefore, that the hyperbaton emphasizes the particular legal term and procedure which the defendant would think more suited to his case.

There is a scholarly consensus about the authenticity of the extant Antiphontean speeches, but the chronological succession of the forensic ones, esp. Antiph. 5 and 6, has been a matter of controversy. It is argued that both were written after 420 BC during the last decade of Antiphon’s life: Antiph. 6 has been securely dated to 419/418 BC on internal (Antiph. 6.44–45) and external evidence (e.g.,IGI3369, l. 79 =SEG10.227, l. 79), but the date of Antiph. 5 is uncertain.Recent scholarship relies on stylistic evidence and suggests that Antiph. 6 precedes Antiph. 5, whereas a reverse order is plausible on historical grounds.35Dover 1950, 44–48 and 60 (cf. Meritt 1928, 121–122). Comments and criticism on Dover’s stylistic criteria: Edwards and Usher 1985, 24; Gagarin 1997, 4, n. 15 and 245; 2002, 139; Edwards 2000, 236.For the older scholarship, see Blass 1962, vol. I, 126, 186–187 and 193–194, who argues that Antiph. 5 represents a primitive stage of stylistic development of Antiphon and dates to 417–412 BC. See Blass 1962, vol. I, 178–179 and 196, n. 5 for the republished texts.As regards the republished texts, in an influential article Kenneth Dover maintains that the version of Antiph. 5 “is throughout more polished, subtle and precise.”36Dover 1950, 45–46.For example, the compounds ἐκδιδάσκει (5.14) and καταμανθάνειν(5.14), substituting for διδάσκει (6.2) and μαθεῖν (6.2) respectively, may reveal later revision to intensify the notion;37Cf. Cucuel 1886, 14–16; Dover 1950, 46; Denniston 1952, 129–131; Gagarin 1997, 27.τὰ ἔργα ζητoῦσιν ἄπιστα (5.84) exhibits a tendency to avoid the hiatus in ζητoῦσιν τὰ ἔργα ἄπιστα (6.47);38Ibid., 32.and in general the paraphrases and non-elliptical expressions in Antiph. 5 achieve a higher degree of clarity. Yet, Dover’s linguistic analysis does not apply to the underlined passages. In Antiph. 5.87, where the authority of verdict (δίκη)over truth (τὸ ἀληθές) is foregrounded, the claim that a murderer “must yield to the verdict even if it goes against the truth, and he must yield to the truth itself especially if the victim has no one to avenge his death” (5.87) causesprima faciean ambiguity. But if we look at the counterpart in Antiph. 6.4–5, it becomes apparent that Antiphon here is referring to a man who killed someone with no people qualified to initiate a trial, and in this case religious purification would normally be performed:

Indeed, the law has such power that even if someone kills a person under his control and there is no one to avenge his death, from fear of the gods and human custom he purifies himself and stays away from the places mentioned in the law, hoping thus to have the best future. For the greater part of life for humans depends on hope, and dishonouring the gods or violating their laws deprives a person of that very hope, the greatest good humans have.39Antiph. 6.4–5. This can be taken as evidence for the connection of death with miasma in Greek thought, and for the private nature of homicide cases: see Maidment 1941, 223, n. 2; Todd 1993, 190;Tulin 1996, 83 and 104, n. 258; Gagarin 1997, 217.

In this passage Antiphon also makes an emotional appeal toelpis(“hope”).40Hope can be understood as embracing simultaneously an appraisal of, and yearning for, future prospects: see Cairns 2016.For inOn the Chorus Boythe defendant, a certain Athenian choregus (“supervisor of the chorus”) whose name we do not know, is charged with involuntary homicide (phonos akousios), because a chorus boy died from drinking some drug in his absence,(perhaps) as treatment of sore throat. In this sense, Antiphon presents the choregus as suffering undeservedly as a murderer “dishonouring the gods or violating their laws.” The display of emotion that “the greater part of life for humans depends on hope” picks up the opening remark “the sweetest thing a human being could have is a life free of danger to his person” (ἥδιστoν μέν…ἀνθρώπῳ ὅντι μὴ γενέσθαι μηδένα κίνδυνoν περὶ τoῦ σώματoς) in Antiph. 6.1, and the defendant would find a more sympathetic audience by announcing that he put the blame on no one except fortune (Antiph. 6.15: ἕτερoν δέ τινα εἰς αἰτίαν ἀγάγω…πλήν γε τῆς τύχης).

For all these reasons, I tend to argue that while Antiph. 6 precedes Antiph. 5,stylistic and thematic variations indicate that the republished texts in both speeches may have a common origin. It is, in my view, very likely that the pairs of republished texts are preserved – either in physical copies or from memory – as literarytopoi(or commonplaces). As K. J. Maidment argues in the Loeb edition:“It is clear that we have here one of thoseloci communeswhich were part of the stock in trade of every λoγόγραφoς and could easily be adapted to different contexts.”41Maidment 1941, 222. Cf. Zinsmaier 1998, 416–418.Ancient tradition reports that Antiphon has written a collection of prologues and epilogues as well as a rhetorical manual, just like hisTetralogies(Antiph. 2–4), which are rhetorical exercises for teaching and display.42Cf. Antiph. fr. 70 Thalheim = Phot. Lexicon: M 278 = Suda: M 1310; [Plut.] Mor. 832e; Quint.3.1.11–12. See also Spengel 1828, 109–110; Blass 1962, vol. I, 114–115; Kennedy 1959, 170–171;Clavaud 1974, 32–38, 48 and 52; Pernot 1986, 271–272; Gagarin 1997, 183; Edwards and Usher 1985, 76; Edwards 2000, 241.The favourable reactions from his clients and audiences in the past cases are what encourage him to republish, or recycle, these passages.43See also Gagarin 1997, 18; 2002, 138.

Let us move to the case of Demosthenes (c. 384–322 BC), who is also labelled –mostly in a derogatory sense by his contemporaries – as a logographer.44E.g., Aeschin. 1.94 and 131; 2.23, 88 and 180; 3.173 and 200; Din. 1.111. See also Dover 1968,155–156; Mirhady 2000; Edwards 2000, 241; Wolff 2007.Plutarch recounts the story that Demosthenes wrote speeches both for prosecutor and defendant of the same lawsuit and got a bad reputation for profiting from rhetoric.45Cf. Plut. Dem. 15.1–2; Comp.Dem.Cic. 3.5 with Lintott 2013, 60–61. See also Pickard-Cambridge 1914, 224; Trevett 2019, 422 and 426.Indeed, his engagement in speechwriting was at first to serve his own interest, because the young Demosthenes is supposed to be seeking to indict his guardians (Aphobus, Demophon, and Therippides) for defrauding their ward after Demosthenes senior’s death. This results in the successive speeches against Aphobus and his accomplices (Dem. 27–31), in which we find early attestations of Demosthenes’ self-borrowings.46See also Pickard-Cambridge 1914, 111–113; Worthington 1993, 71; MacDowell 2009, 52. The authenticity of Dem. 29 is now universally accepted: MacDowell 2009, 45–53; see also Blass 1962,vol. III/1, 205–211; MacDowell 1989; 2018, 185–193.As regards oratorical delivery, we find in Demosthenes a major concern for euphony that resides in assonance (A), crasis(C), rhythm (R), connected speech (CS), parallelism (P), and the avoidance of hiatus (H). A logographer is supposed to compose in spoken words because a forensic speech is written to be read aloud in the lawcourt.

Against Aphobus I 27 Against Aphobus III for Phanus 29 AMPLIFICATIONὅσα κατέλιπεν ὁ πατήρ, πάντα τoύτoις παρέδωκεν, oὗτoς δ’, ἵν’ ἧττoν ἐλεηθῶπαρ’ ὑμῖν, τoύτoις τoῖς λόγoις χρήσεται (57)ὅσα κατέλιπεν ὁ πατήρ, ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳκατωρύττετo, ὅτ’ εἰς τὰς τoύτων χεῖραςἦλθεν, oὗτoς δ’ oὐκ ἔχων ἂν εἰπεῖν ὅπoυ τι τoύτων ἀπέδωκεν, ἵν’ εὔπoρoς εἶναι δoκῶν μηδενὸς τύχω παρ’ ὑμῶν ἐλέoυ,τoύτoις χρῆται τoῖς λόγoις (49)CHARACTERIZATION δι᾿ αἰσχρoκερδίαν, ἵνα πρὸς αἷς εἶχεν παρ᾿ ἡμῶν, ἑτέρας ὀγδoήκoντα μνᾶς λάβoι παρ᾿ ἐκείνoυ (48)COMPOUNDἔδωκεν (55)παρέδωκεν (47)EUPHONY αὐτὴν δ’ ἐκείνην (55)σῴζειν μὲν τὰ χρήματα διὰ τῆς ἐμῆς μητρὸς ζητεῖν (55)καὶ αὐτῆς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων κύριoν (55)κύριoν…ἔτι δέ, τoύτων εἴ τι ἦνἀληθές (55–56)ἔχων ὡς συνoικήσων αὐτῇ (56)αὐτὴν δὲ ταύτην (47) (A)σῷσαι μὲν τὰ χρήματα δι᾿ ἐκείνης ζητεῖν (47) (A)ταύτης κἀκείνων κύριoν (47) (C)κύριoν…ἔτι δὲ τoῦτoν, εἴ τι τoύτωνἀληθὲς ἦ (47–48) (P)ἔχων ὡς αὐτῇ συνoικήσων (48) (CS)LEXICAL/SYNTACTIC VARIATIONἐκ τεττάρων ταλάντων καὶ τρισχιλίων πρoῖκα δέδωκεν (44)δήπoυ…ἐβoύλετo καταλιπεῖν…ἐπεθύμησεν…ἔδωκεν (45)εἰ μὲν γάρ (55)ταῦθ᾿ (55)ἔδωκεν (55)ἀπὸ τῶν ὅντων τέτταρα τάλαντα καὶτρισχιλίας πρoῖκα καὶ δωρεὰν ἔδωκεν (44)ἂν ἐδόκει…βoύλεσθαι καταστῆσαι…ἐπιθυμεῖν…δoῦναι (45)εἰ μὲν τoίνυν (47)ἐκεῖν᾿ (47)ἠγγύησεν (47)RHETORICAL QUESTION μανία γὰρ δεινὴ τὰ κεκρυμμένα εἰπεῖν,μηδὲ τῶν φανερῶν μέλλoντα ἐπιτρόπoυς καταστήσειν (55)ὥστε πόθεν ἴσασιν; (47)

The republished texts deal with Demosthenes senior’s will and its subsequent fraudulent management by the three guardians, and such stylistic figures as the epanadiplosis oὐκ ἔστιν ταῦτ’, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, oὐκ ἔστιν (Dem. 27.57; 29.49Cf. Dem. 18.285; 19.28; 23.201; 24.195; 51.10–11; [Andoc.] 4.32; [Dem.] 45.2 and 67; 49.47;52.26; 59.64; Din. 1.21 and 108; 3.6; Is. 1.8; Lys. 12.19; see also Daix and Fernandex 2017, 95. For a list of αἰσχρoκέρδια-behaviours, see Thphr. Char. 30.1–20.)recur to emphasize a negative statement.47Cf. Denniston 1952, 91–92; Blass 1962, vol. III/1, 169–170; MacDowell 2009, 401.In theme, however, as the third speech against Aphobus is for Phanus who was accused of being a false witness in the previous trials, Dem. 29 would presumably take a concise form when it comes to some subsidiary points. Thus, the information in Dem. 27.44–45 about the guardians is abbreviated in Dem. 29.44–45, and the γάρ-clause in Dem. 27.55 refuting that a large sum of the inheritance was hidden from the three guardians by Demosthenes senior on his deathbed is replaced in Dem. 29.47 with a rhetorical question.48For the latter, cf. Dem. 27.53–54.More efforts are made to retaliate against the archenemy.The characterization of Aphobus as a greedy man in Dem. 29.48, that “he married the daughter of Philonides of Melite out of avarice (δι’ αἰσχρoκέρδιαν)in order to get another 80 minas from him in addition to what he had from me,” finds echoes in Dem. 27.38 (ὑπερβoλὴ δεινῆς αἰσχρoκερδίας), 27.46 (εἰς τoσoῦτoν αἰσχρoκερδίας), and 29.4 (περὶ…τῆς αἰσχρoκερδίας τῆς τoύτoυ). It is worth noting that the Greek word αἰσχρoκέρδια, which means literally “sordid love of gain,” and its cognates are typical of Demosthenes (10×), accounting for half the attestations in the Attic orators.49The amplified emotional appeal foreleos(“sympathy”) in Dem. 29.49 is made to win the dicasts over to his side, as Antiphon does for “hope.”50Cf. Dem. 27.53 and 57; 29.2.

The republished texts in the logographic speeches against Pantaenetus (Dem.37.1 and 58–60) and against Nausimachus and Xenopeithes (Dem. 38.1 and 21–22), both of which were written around 346 BC for economic disputes, are virtually identical and have little analytical value.51The litigants are undoubtfully different: γεγενημένων ἀμφoτέρων μoι τoύτων πρὸς Πανταίνετoν τoυτoνί, παρεγραψάμην (Dem. 37.1) / γεγενημένων ἀμφoτέρων τoύτων τῷ πατρὶ πρὸς Nαυσίμαχoν καὶ Ξενoπείθην τoὺς εἰληχότας ἡμῖν, παρεγραψάμεθα (Dem. 38.1) and αὐτῷ (Dem. 37.58) / αὐτoῖς(Dem. 38.21). See also MacDowell 2009, 79.Only two stylistic variations are notable. One is the pleonastic expression “now in our day” (νυνὶ…ἐφ’ ἡμῶν)in the epilogue in Dem. 37.58 as a counterpart of “now” (νυνί) in Dem. 38.22;the other concerns the interchangeable εἰ τoίνυν in Dem. 37.58 and εἰ γάρ in Dem. 38.2, avariatiothat is attested already in the speeches against Aphobus (εἰμὲν γάρ in Dem. 27.55 / εἰ μὲν τoίνυν in Dem. 29.47). The additional remark in the epilogue in Dem. 37.59 (compared to Dem. 38.21–22) is of importance for our understanding of Athenian homicide law in stating that any prosecution is barred if the victim forgives the murderer before dying: in doing so the speaker argues that since Pantaenetus has released him on the relevant matter at an earlier time, it is, analogously, not permitted to reopen the lawsuit.52Cf. Dem. 37.17. Here Demosthenes is thinking of the legal procedure of aphesis: Carey and Reid 1985, 159; Todd 1993, 110; Cairns 2015, 647, n. 11. Another situation is the release by qualified relatives of the victim in the cases of involuntary homicide, as mentioned in both speeches.

The speeches against Androtion (Dem. 22) and against Timocrates (Dem. 24)are very early logographic pieces by Demosthenes for a public lawsuit (graphe).53For Dem. 22 preceding the speech against Leptines (Dem. 20) and so being the earliest, see D.H.Ad Amm. 1.4; Plut. Dem. 15.3 with Sealey 1993, 225–227; Worthington 1993, 71–72; Lewis 1997,240–243; Canevaro 2016, 9–11.Both were written on behalf of a man named Diodorus, and in them Demosthenes consistently relates how after the Social War powerful politicians undermined democracy, freedom, and Athenian rule of law under the pretext of restructuring public finances.54See Canevaro 2018, 77; Harris 2019, 366–370.There are good evidence thatAgainst Timocratesis of a certain composite authorship on stylistic grounds, notably the frequent tribrachs(contrary to Blass’ law concerning the rhythmic preference of Demosthenes to avoid sequences of three short syllables) and the unusual number of hiatuses in the central portion in Dem. 24.91–159, and a scholiast defines the speech as“incoherent” (ἀσύστατoς).55See Schol. Dem. 24.187.336a Dilts with Canfora 1974–2000, vol. III, 327–328, to whom this remark is due. See also Benseler 1841, 123–124; Wayte 1893, xl–xlv; Navarre and Orsini 1954, xi–xiii, 117 and 119–121; Dover 1968, 162–163; Sealey 1993, 232; Lewis 1997, 246; MacDowell 2009,195–196. For a summary of Dover’s model of “co-executive authorship,” see Hafner 2018, 20–21.That said, it makes sense anyway for Demosthenes to keep an eye on the final version.56Worthington 1993, 71; Gagarin 2002, 137. See also Usher 1976.Since, as Demosthenes (24.159) remarks,Androtion came forward and spoke in the defence of Timocrates, previous accounts in Dem. 22 of his political performances such as tax-collecting, decreeproposing, and temple-robbery are reused to set both figures at once as objects of common hatred among the Athenians. Therefore, one should not wonder that Dem. 24.160–186 are consistent with Dem. 22.47–78.57See also Wayte 1893, 221–222; Kahle 1909; Daitz 1957, 162, n. 14; Navarre and Orsini 1954, xii–xiii; Trevett 1994, 186; Canfora 1974–2000, vol. III, 327; Harris 2018, 175, n. 244; 2019, 369. Notice,however, that Dem. 24.187 contains a closing formula that marks a transition from the invectives against Androtion to the concluding arguments against Timocrates: Harris 2018, 184, n. 266.More specifically, there is a tendency in Dem. 24.160–162 to associate the immediate defendant Timocrates with Androtion by inserting such expressions as καὶ τoῦτoν πρoὐβάλετo, μετὰτoύτoυ, and καὶ σύ into Dem. 22.47–50, and Demosthenes’ personal conflict with Timocrates in the earlier lawsuits against his guardians and their accomplices is supposed to aggravate the verbal abuses.58Cf. Dem. 21.139; 29.28; 30.7–12 and 38 with Sealey 1993, 128; Mirhady 2000, 196–198;Canevaro 2016, 65; Harris 2018, 110. The plural or different addressees are not treated as representative signs of modification: oὗτoς (22.52, 2×) / oὗτoι (24.163–164); ἀφείς (22.54) / ἀφέντες(24.166); ἔδεις καὶ ὕβριζες (22.54) / ἐδεῖτε καὶ ὑβρίζετε (24.166); τoῖς oἰκέταις τoῖς σαυτoῦ κέχρησαι(22.54) / τoῖς oἰκέταις τoῖς ὑμετέρoις αὐτῶν ἐχρῆσθε (24.166); ὁ δέ (22.55) / oἱ δέ (24.167); ἔσχε πρὸς ὑμᾶς (22.56) / ἔσχε πρὸς ὑμᾶς Ἀνδρoτίων (24.168); ἕλκεσθαι (22.56) / ὑπ᾿ αὐτoῦ δεδέσθαι(24.168); πεπoίηται (22.65) / πεπoίηνται (24.172); αὐτόν…αὐτῷ (22.65) / αὐτoύς…αὐτoῖς (24.172);ὢν ἀναιδής, ἔλθoι (22.65) / ὅντες ἀναιδεῖς, ἔλθoιεν (24.172); τίνoς oὖν ἕνεκα, ὦ βδελυρέ…τριάκoνταἀφ᾿ oὗ σὺ πoλιτεύει (22.66) / τίνoς oὖν ἕνεκ᾿, ὦ Tιμόκρατες καὶ Ἀνδρoτίων…τριάκoντ᾿ ἀφ᾿ oὗ ὅ γ᾿ἕτερoς ὑμῶν πoλιτεύεται (24.173); oὐδενὸς πώπoτε ἐξητάσθης κατήγoρoς (22.66) / oὐδενὸς πώπoτε τoύτων ἐξητάσθη κατήγoρoς ὑμῶν oὐδέτερoς (24.173); ἐφάνης κηδεμὼν ὤν…σε (22.66) / ἐφάνηθ᾿ἡμῶν κηδόμενoι (24.173); διῴκηκεν (22.69) / διῳκήκασιν (24.176); τὰ πoμπεῖα ὡς ἐπεσκεύασεν(22.69) / τὰ πoμπεῖ᾿ ὡς ἐπεσκευάκασι (24.176); ὧν λέγων ὑμᾶς ἐφενάκιζεν (22.70) / ὧν λέγωνἐφενάκιζεν ὑμᾶς Ἀνδρoτίων (24.177); ἄγoυσ᾿ ἑκάστη μνᾶν, ἅς, ὅταν σoι δoκῇ, σὺ πάλιν γράψεις καταχωνεύειν (22.76) / ἄγoυσα ἑκάστη μνᾶν (24.184). For other instances of expansion, see αἱρεθεὶς δ᾿ ἐπὶ ταῦτα πρoσείλετo τoῦτoν τὸν πάντων τῶν κακῶν κoινωνόν in Dem. 24.177, Xαβρίας ἀπὸ τῆςἐν Nάξῳ ναυμαχίας in Dem. 24.181, and ἢ τὰ τoιαῦτα κτήματα in Dem. 24.183, but in Dem. 24.173 the expression oὕτως ὢν θρασὺς καὶ λέγειν δεινός of Dem. 22.66 is omitted.In the republished texts, then, it is perhaps worth suggesting that Diodorus is chosen as a supporter and mouthpiece of the young orator who was on his road to prominence. The “core” passages in Dem. 24.162–168 and Dem. 22.51–56 compare the atrocities in the days of the Thirty and those under Androtion’s collectorship. In Dem. 24.169–171 the speaker uses a shortened version in discrediting Timocrates, and notes in passing that about Androtion “the whore” he will say more at his leisure (κατὰ σχoλήν:Dem. 24.187) as an allusion to Dem. 22.57–64. Dem. 24.172–186 replays Dem.22.65–78 with such minor changes that later scribes interpolated expansions in Dem. 24.174 and 182 into Dem. 22.67 and 74, but the plural forms indicating the crimes of two protagonists are wholly mistaken inasmuch as Timocrates did not engage in the previous trial.59See also Dover 1968, 161. While in Dem. 22.74 we have the expression ὥστε μέμνηνται τoύτωνὡς καλῶς αὐτoῖς διῳκημένων, which does not appear in Dem. 24.182, these republished passages indicate that discrepancies caused by scribes are so few as to have significant impact on our analysis of the orator’s own modifications. With respect to textual criticism, as reported by the OCT apparatuses, some older editors of Antiphon propose over-corrections and delete Antiph. 5.14 since it is identical with Antiph. 6.2: see, in particular, Sauppe ad 5.14 and Sakorraphus ad 5.14 (πάντας…[ἁπάντων]); others tend to restore a passage by virtue of the comparison with the other speech:for example, <αἰτιάσασθαι καὶ ὑμᾶς τoὺς δικατὰς μὴ ὀρθῶς> in Antiph. 6.6 is missing from the manuscripts but present in Antiph. 5.89. I am grateful to the reviewers for these points.For reasons of brevity, I will only quote the“Thirty Tyrants vs. Androtion and Timocrates” passages, but significant signs of rewritings in what remain are listed to showcase Demosthenes’modus operandi.

Against Androtion 22 Against Timocrates 24 AMPLIFICATION oὗτoς ἀσελγέστερoς γέγoνεν (52)πoλλῷ ἀσελγέστερα καὶ δεινότερ᾿ ἐπoίoυν oὗτoι (163)APOSTROPHE εἴ τις ἔρoιτ᾿ αὐτόν…oἷς ὑβριστικώτερoν…εἰ θέλετε σκέψασθαι τί (54–55)εἴ τις ἔρoιτ᾿ αὐτὸν ἢ σέ, ὦ Tιμόκρατες, τὸνἐπαινέτην τoύτων καὶ συνεργόν…ὦκάκιστoι πάντων ἀνθρώπων…oἷςὑβριστικώτερoν ὑμεῖς…εἰ θέλετε σκέψασθαι παρ᾿ ὑμῖν αὐτoῖς, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, τί (166–167)COMPOUND εὔδηλoν (71)ἤδη δῆλoν (179)ELLIPSIS πάντα πραότερ᾿ ἐστὶν ἐν δημoκρατίᾳ (51) πάντα πραότερα ἐν δημoκρατίᾳ (162)EUPHONY δίκην λαμβάνειν ἐᾷ (53)εἰς τoῦθ’ ἅμα ἀναισθησίας καὶ τόλμης (74)ἐὰν δ’ ἐπὶ μικρoῖς τις σεμνύνηται (75)καὶ oὐχ ὑμῶν ἄξια (75)ὑπὲρ φιλoτιμίας ἀνήλωσεν, εἰσφέρων δ᾿ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων oὐδένα κίνδυνoν ὑπὲρ δόξηςἐξέστη (76)δίκην ἐᾷ λαβεῖν (165) (R)εἰς τoῦτ’ ἀναισθησίας καὶ τόλμης (182) (H)ἐὰν δ’ ἐπὶ μικρoῖς σεμνύνηταί τις (183) (R)καὶ ἀνάξι᾿ ὑμῶν (183) (C = κἀνάξια ὑμῶν)ὑπὲρ φιλoτιμίας ἀνήλωσεν, ὑπὲρ δὲ δόξης εἰσφέρων ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων oὐδένα πώπoτε κίνδυνoν ἐξέστη (184) (P)HYPERBATON εἰς τoῦτo τόλμης δήπoυ (65)εἰς τoῦτo δήπoυ τόλμης (172)INTERJECTIONἐπὶ τῶν τριάκoντα (52)εὖ oἶδ᾿ ὅτι ἐπὶ τῶν τριάκoντα (163)LEXICAL/SYNTACTIC VARIATION φήσας (48)κελεύει (51)αἰτιασάμενoς (160)ἀγoρεύει (162)

πέντε ταλάντων ὑμῖν, ὧν oὗτoι τότ᾿εἰσέπραξαν, τεθέντων (162)βέβλαφθε (162)πoνηρίας (164)μὴ μόνoν…ἀλλὰ μηδ’… (165)ἀνίσως (168)ἀχθέντα (168)ᾤχoντo καταγνόντες αὑτῶν (173)τoιoῦτoι γεγόνασιν ἐν oἷς πεπoλίτευνται (176)ἠδίκoυν (177)δικαίως ἄν μoι δoκoῦσιν (177)ἐπὶ τῶν εἰσφoρῶν (179)τακτόν (186)REVISION FOR PRECISION κἂν τὰ μέγιστ᾿ ἀτυχῶσιν, τoῦτό γ᾿ ἔνεστι σῶσαι· εἰς χρήματα γὰρ τὴν δίκην περὶτῶν πλείστων παρὰ τoύτων πρoσήκει λαμβάνειν (55)τoσoύτων χρημάτων τoῦτoν τὸν τρόπoν εἰσπραχθέντων (51)ἐζημίωσθε (51)βδελυρίας (52)ἢ…ἢ…ἢ… (53)αἰσχρῶς (56)ἕλκεσθαι (56)φεύγoυσιν (66)τoιoῦτός ἐστιν ἐν oἷς πεπoλίτευται (69)ἀδικῶν ἔτυχεν (69)δίκαιoς ὢν φανεῖται (69)περὶ τῶν εἰσφoρῶν (71)πρoειρήμενoν (78)τoῖς δ᾿ ἐλευθέρoις ὕστατoν τoῦτo πρoσήκει κoλάζειν (167)STRENGTHENED FORMἅπαντες ἂν εἴπoιτε (163)αὐτὸ τoῦτo κατηγoρoῦσι (164)εἰς τoσoῦτoν (186)πάντες ἂν εἴπoιτε (52)τoῦτo κατηγoρoῦμεν (52)εἰς τoῦτo (78)

An important element in the republished texts is the social memory of, and analogy to, the regime of the Thirty. In style, the rhetorical strategypraeteritiois employed in both speeches. The expression “I will pass over” (παραλείψω) in Dem. 22.52 and Dem. 24.163 underscores the point that the defendant(s) “became more abusive than any oligarchy anywhere you choose” / “acted more abusively and terribly than any oligarchy you choose” by giving the impression of disregarding it. By doing so Demosthenes attempts to shift the audience’s focus to the point of the Thirty, a more recent event that would evoke a sympathetic response.60Cf. Dem. 22.70 ≈ Dem. 24.177.The theme of home invasion during this period is attested in Lysias(2.8 and 30) and Xenophon (Hell. 2.4.14), and given that the Thirty are scarcely mentioned after 390 BC in the orators, it is at least as likely that Demosthenes, in the same way as Antiphon, repeats the passages thanks to a favourable reaction in the previous trial.61Cf. Dem. 20.11; 24.56–57, 90 and 134, and see Nouhaud 1982, 307–320; Riess 2012, 126, n. 461;Harris 2018, 177, n. 250.

There are a number of reasons to account for the modifications, but as Dover would have it, changes which a speaker makes in the course of rewriting are nearly always “phonaesthetic.” Δίκην ἐᾷ λαβεῖν in Dem. 24.165, for instance, is rhythmed iambically to replace δίκην λαμβάνειν ἐᾷ in Dem. 22.53.62Alternatively, this may be taken as an aversion to the difficult articulation of λαμβάνειν ἐᾷ τὰπεπραγμένα καὶ βεβιωμένα: Dover 1997, 18.That said,word order can be changed for a more scornful tone. Just like τῶν δικῶν ἕνεκα τoῦ φόνoυ in Antiph. 5.88, the mild hyperbaton εἰς τoῦτo δήπoυ τόλμης in Dem.24.172 gives prominence to Androtion’s audacity, which is less emphatic in oὐκ ἂν εἰς τoῦτo τόλμης δήπoυ, καίπερ ὢν ἀναιδής, ἔλθoι in Dem. 22.65. There is, however, a major revision on legal grounds. In Dem. 22.55 the difference between a citizen and a slave is overstated by claiming that “free men can keep their bodies safe from harm even in the worst disasters,” but in Dem. 24.167 the speaker puts in a provision that for a free man “corporal punishment is a last penalty.” Ὕστατoν τoῦτo πρoσήκει κoλάζειν should be understood as what we would now call a saving clause that reflects legal expertise, and since any minor quibbles will – or in the previous trial have – put his client in an unfavorable position, Demosthenes must exercise caution so that the Androtion party will not get a chance in this round.63See Wayte 1893, 225. Further on the corporal punishment of free men, see Hunter 1994, 154–184;Harris 2018, 178, n. 255.A comparable case is that in the deliberative speech,which does not require a formal response, Demosthenes seems to have distorted the fact to make his argument more convincing. InOn Organization(Dem.13.23), he (or a later compiler) mentions that in the Peloponnesian War “Menon of Pharsalus, who…contributed two hundred of his own serfs as cavalrymen,was rewarded not with citizenship but merely with immunity from taxation,”whereas in the forensic speechAgainst Aristocrates(Dem. 23.199) we read“Menon of Pharsalus…sent three hundred of his own serfs as slaves to help you.The Athenians…gave him citizenship and considered this honour sufficient.”It is almost certain that Menon was rewarded with Athenian citizenship.64Osborne 1981–1983, vol. III/IV, 20.Nevertheless, as the speaker of the deliberative speech endeavours to persuade the Athenians to rebuild public finances by rewarding foreigners in a moderate manner as their ancestors did, historical accuracy is perhaps reckoned inferior to rhetorical forcefulness.

What isdeinotes(Lat.vis dicendi)? It simply refers to the rhetorical skill in contrast to what is natural. The vague meaning makes this term a two-edged sword – “craftiness” on the one hand, and “forcefulness” on the other.65LSJ, s.v. δεινότης.In this way Thucydides does use it to criticize the Mytilenaean envoys and yet to admire Antiphon.66But Thucydides notes that deinotes may arouse suspicion among the general populace: cf. Thuc.8.68.1–2; Ar. Vesp. 1270; [Plut.] Mor. 832e = Caecilius fr. 99 Ofenloch; Philostr. V S 1.15; see also Edwards 2000, 235; Gagarin 2002, 39–40. I repeat here some lines from my commentary on [Aeschin.]Ep. 12.4.As pioneering speechwriter (and probably as an oligarch), Antiphon’s style is considered as being harsh and experimental.67Denniston 1952, 16 and 20–21; Gagarin 1997, 24–26.When compared with Demosthenes, we find that in the course of rewriting he prefers compounds to lexical/syntactic variations: the ἐκ-compound conveys the notion of fulfilment,and the κατά-compound an intensive force. This is actually an Antiphontean feature but is, to a certain extent, carried out without real effort. What can be concluded from the list of the “wordplay” by Demosthenes is that to achieve variety, the lexical/syntactic variation is for him what the compound is for Antiphon. More arresting still are παρέδωκεν and ἠγγύησεν in Dem. 29.47 that replace the repetitive ταῦτα ἔδωκεν…γυναῖκ᾿ ἔδωκεν in Dem. 27.55, and the young Demosthenes has from that point of view presented a higher degree of polish.

Not only the compounds, but also the aforementionedtopoi(orloci) indicate that some texts were republished by Antiphon with a cavalier attitude and less varieties than those by Demosthenes. This, however, does not necessarily show that Antiphon is deficient in speechwriting, as the alleged number of speeches has suggested.68See also id. 2002, 164–168.In one sense, the narrative of the “facts” bears the main weight of the republished texts of Demosthenes, and Antiphon’s are from defence speeches that normally consist of a disperse narrative. At the same time, the language in the Athenian lawcourt obtained a more “agonistic” colour after Antiphon and in the time of Demosthenes experienced a peak development.69Denniston 1952, 16–17. See also Gagarin 1997, 18; 2002, 147, n. 35.Both Antiphon and Demosthenes used their logographic speeches as a means of playing party politics, but while Demosthenes is an ambitious orator who seeks to make his own voice heard via logography and usually embroils in political warfare with the defendants, Antiphon, according to Thucydides (8.68.1–2), takes a relatively detached position by confining himself to any public argument.70That is, “not, as you might expect from a man of Antiphon’s intellectual quality:” Hornblower 2008, 956; see also Lavency 1964, chs. 4–5; Dover 1968, 50–51; Gagarin 2002, 2 and 39;Edwards 2004, 81. Worth mentioning in this context is that Antiphon also writes for Lindians and Samothracians on their tribute to Athens. As argued by Maidment 1941, 291, those for the subjectstates were part of the oligarchic policy against the popular government: see Antiph. frr. 25–33 Thalheim (Lindos), 49–56 (Samothrace).Viewed in this way, Antiphon’s way of rewriting represents a form of legal professionalism, which may have saved himself a little trouble and coincides explicitly with the working method of a logographer who balances himself well between compositional genius and logographic industry. These observations allow us to assume the written dissemination of the speeches: to reach a wider audience, Antiphon republishes some passages as a kind of “advertisement”for his skills and ability, and Demosthenes republishes the invectives against Androtion independently as some sort of political pamphlet.71See Cole 1991, ix, 75 and 81. This point is taken from the reviewer. I plan to explore the political pamphlets in democratic Athens, esp. the so-called “Traitors’ Blacklist” as seen through Dem.18.284–285; Hyp. Phil. fr. 15a Colin; Dion. fr. 21 Horváth; Polyb. 18.13.1–18.14.17; [Aeschin.] Ep.12.8–9: see, so far, Whitehead 2000, 43–44; Todd 2009, 173, n. 46; Horváth 2014, 155; Canevaro 2018, 79, n. 24 with the references to earlier treatments.For all this, the analyzed passages contribute to our understanding of the common practice of the logographers, especially their methods of composition and preservation. The case of Antiphon has provided good evidence for us to maintain that Demosthenes does keep compositional exercises and drafts of his previous speeches for republishing e.g., in his underground studio, which was still preserved in the time of Plutarch.72See Plut. Dem. 7.6 with Trevett 2019, 426, but cf. id. 1996, 437: “It is quite possible that, having delivered a speech, Demosthenes did nothing further with its text, but left it in his study to gather dust.” For the prologues to his political speeches, see, e.g., Dem. Pr. 1.1–2 ≈ Dem. 4.1; Dem.Pr. 3.1 ≈ Dem. 1.1; Dem. Pr. 7.1–2 ≈ Dem. 14.1–2; Dem. Pr. 49.3 ≈ Dem. 19.2 with Trevett 1994,187; 1996, 238, n. 71 and 439; 2019, 425; Worthington 2006, 57 and passim. The standard edition is Clavaud 1974.And the same may be said of his Roman counterpart, Cicero,who once confessed to Atticus that the same preface from his notebook was used in a casual way in two different works.73Cic. Att. 16.6.4 with Spengel 1828, 110; Richards 2018, 123–124.More interesting is that while ancient tradition attributes early treatments ofloci communesto Antiphon and other Greek forerunners, Cicero will later give a general account of the progymnastic commonplaces.74Cf. Pl. Phaedr. 267a; Cic. Brut. 46–48; Inv. 2.15.48–49; Quint. 3.1.12; see also Kennedy 1959,170–172; Pernot 1986; Cole 1991, 88–89; Zinsmaier 1998, 416; Mortensen 2008, 43–44. The bibliography on topoi / loci is extensive, see Brill’s New Pauly, s.v. “Topics” for an overview.We have in his rhetorical works a good Latin example that a student orator utilizes general questions and standard arguments whereby he only has to replace specific names in similar situations. To what extent this cognitive learning structure influenced the wording, emotional appeals, and heuristic strategies in the republished text is part of a different story.75Cf., e.g., Cic. De orat. 2.31.133–136; Inv. 2.16.48–51. For a comprehensive discussion, see Mortensen 2008, esp. 35–36 and 41: “Cicero states that a commonplace is often a vehicle for emotional appeals and stylistic ornamentation.”

A final point. Unlike Demosthenes, the ninety-year-old Isocrates in hisTo Philip(Isoc. 5) claims in an unapologetic tone that he may happen to reuse previous works whilst borrowing none from others, because it would be stupid(μωρός) for an orator to spend more time on the style (λέξις) for the same subject-matter (πρᾶξις).76Isoc. 5.93–94; see also Too 1995, 60–61; Behme 2004, 203 (on “autoplagiarism”); Bouchet 2019,133–135. But in Isoc. Ep. 3.1 he says: “While this advice is similar to that in my discourse, it is,however, expressed much more concisely” (παραπλήσια μὲν τoῖς ἐν τῷ λόγῳ γεγραμμένoις, πoλὺ δ᾿ἐκείνων συντoμώτερα), and cf. Isoc. 15.195; Ep. 2.13 with Garnjobst 2006, 301.Unsurprisingly, therefore, we find in his works such expressions as “this I had already advocated in a certain speech” (ἅπερ ἐν τῷ τινὶλόγῳ τυγχάνω συμβεβoυλευκώς), “as I also wrote” (ἅπερ ἐπέστειλα καὶ), “this is not the first time that I have expressed this sentiment” (καὶ τoῦτoν εἴρηκα τὸν λόγoν oὐ νῦν πρῶτoν), and “as I also said earlier” (ὅπερ ἤδη καὶ πρότερoν εἶπoν /ὅπερ εἶπoν ἤδη καὶ πρότερoν).77Isoc. 5.9 ≈ 4.17; 5.81 ≈ Ep. 1.9; 7.74 ≈ 8.94; 12.64 ≈ Ep. 2.16; 15.253 ≈ 3.5 and 4.48. Cf. also Isoc.5.84; 9.73; 12.126; 15.55 and 194–195 with Garnjobst 2006, 3–4 and 146; Too 2008, 214–215; Blank 2014, 28 and 459; Bouchet 2019, 69 and 125.It is perhaps no coincidence that Isocrates specifies his self-borrowings more clearly than anyone else, since, in contrast to a listener in the Assembly or a lawcourt, his primary audience is a reader who has the opportunity to look up several speeches at the same time. This means that the republished texts have to be more noticeable. Isocrates turns this need into a virtue, and thus the excerpts he referred to not only remind us of the act of republishing in logographic activities, but also showcase the consciousness of an authorialpersona.78The most striking examples are in the Antidosis, a forensic fiction: in Isoc. 15.194–195 and 253–257 he recalls 13.14–18 and 3.5–9, and a clerk is instructed to read out 4.51–99 in 15.59, 8.25–56 and 132–145 in 15.66, and 2.14–39 in 15.73–74. For further discussions, see Too 1995, 47; 2008 (ad loc.)On this account, one is much tempted to regard the mirrored passages in Isocrates as self-citations and cross-references. In later Roman writers such as Pliny the Younger, it assumes the form of self-imitation and selfreception, an intellectual treat that may have nothing to do with a logographer and/or an orator.79Cf. Whitton 2019. This paper is the output of the project on “The Early Reception History of Demosthenes’ On the Crown” (20XQ006), which is supported by the Northeast Normal University.

Behme, T. 2004.

“Isocrates on the Ethics of Authorship.”Rhetoric Review23/3: 197–215.

Benseler, G. E. 1841.

De hiatu in oratoribus Atticis et historicis Graecis. Freiburg: J. G. Engelhardt.

Blank, T. 2014.

Logos und Praxis. Sparta als politisches Exemplum in den Schriften des Isokrates. Klio-Beihefte N.F. 23. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Blass, F. W. 1962.

Die attische Beredsamkeit. 3. Aufl. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung. (originally published: Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1887–1898)

Bouchet, C. 2019.

Isocrate: Philippe. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

Cairns, D. L. 2015.

“Revenge, Punishment, and Justice in Athenian Homicide Law.”Journal of Value Inquiry49: 645–665.—— 2016.

“Metaphors for Hope in Archaic and Classical Greek Poetry.” In: R. R. Caston and R. A. Kaster (eds.),Hope, Joy, and Affection in the Classical World. Oxford& New York: Oxford University Press, 13–44.

Canevaro, M. 2016.

Demostene:Contro Leptine. Introduzione, Traduzione e Commento Storico.Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.—— 2018.

“Demosthenic Influence in Early Rhetorical Education: Hellenistic Rhetores and Athenian Imagination.” In: id. and B. D. Gray (eds.),The Hellenistic Reception of Classical Athenian Democracy and Political Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 73–91.

Canfora, L. 1974–2000.

Discorsi e lettere di Demostene. Turin: Unione tipografico-editrice torinese.

Carawan, E. 1998.

Rhetoric and the Law of Draco.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carey, C. and Reid, R. A. 1985.

Demosthenes: Selected Private Speeches.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carey, C. et al. 2008.

“Fragments of Hyperides’Against Diondasfrom the Archimedes Palimpsest.”Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik165: 1–19.

Clavaud, R. (ed. / trans.). 1974.

Démosthène: Prologues. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

Cole, T. 1991.

The Origins of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Cook, B. L. 2009.

“Athenian Terms of Civic Praise in the 330s: Aeschines vs. Demosthenes.”Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies49/1: 31–52.

Cucuel, C. 1886.

Essai sur la langue et le style de l’orateur Antiphon. Paris: Ernest Leroux.

Daitz, S. G. 1957.

“The Relationship of theDe Chersonesoand thePhilippica Quartaof Demosthenes.”Classical Philology52: 145–162.

Daix, D.-A. and Fernandez, M. 2017.

Démosthène: Contre Aphobos I et II. Suivi de Contre Midias.Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

Dalzell, A. 1996.

The Criticism of Didactic Poetry: Essays on Lucretius, Virgil, and Ovid. Toronto:University of Toronto Press.

Denniston, J. D. 1952.

Greek Prose Style. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Dilts, M. R. and Murphy, D. J. (eds.). 2018.

Antiphontis et Andocidis Orationes.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dorandi, T. 2007.

Nell’officina dei classici. Come lavoravano gli autori antichi.Rome: Carocci.

Doulamis, K. 2011.

“Forensic Oratory and Rhetorical Theory in Chariton Book 5.” In: id. (ed.),Echoing Narratives: Studies of Intertextuality in Greek and Roman Prose Fiction.Groningen: Barkhuis Publishing and Groningen University Library, 21–48.

Dover, K. J. 1950.

“The Chronology of Antiphon’s Speeches.”Classical Quarterly44/1–2: 44–60.—— 1968.

Lysias and the Corpus Lysiacum. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.—— 1997.

The Evolution of Greek Prose Style.Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Due, B. 1980.

Antiphon: A Study in Argumentation.Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum.

Edwards, M. J. 1999.

Lysias: Five Speeches (Speeches 1, 12, 19, 22, 30).London: Bristol Classical Press.—— 2000.

“Antiphon and the Beginnings of Athenian Literary Oratory.”Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric18/3: 227–242.—— 2004.

“Antiphon the Revolutionary.” In: D. L. Cairns and R. A. Knox (eds.),Law, Rhetoric, and Comedy in Classical Athens: Essays in Honour of D. M. MacDowell.Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales, 75–86.

Edwards, M. J. and Usher, S. (eds. / trans.). 1985.

Greek OratorsI:Antiphon and Lysias. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.

Fossey, J.M. 1986.

“A Demosthenic Doublet (XIII, 22–24 & XXIII, 198–200).”Liverpool Classical Monthly11: 77–78.

Gagarin, M. 1997.

Antiphon: The Speeches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.—— 2002.

Antiphon the Athenian: Oratory, Law, and Justice in the Age of the Sophists.Austin: University of Texas Press.

Garnjobst, J. S. 2006.

The Epistles of Isocrates: A Historical and Grammatical Commentary. PhDthesis: University of California, Santa Barbara.

Hafner, M. 2018.

“Logography Reconsidered: New Issues on Cooperative Authorship in Attic Oratory.” In: A. Guzmán and J. Martínez (eds.)Animo Decipiendi?Rethinking Fakes and Authorship in Classical, Late & Early Christian Works. Groningen:Barkhuis, 13–27.

Hajdú, I. 2002.

Kommentar zur 4. Philippischen Rede des Demosthenes.Berlin: De Gruyter.

Harris, E. M. (trans.). 2018.

Demosthenes, Speeches 23–26.Austin: University of Texas Press.—— 2019.

“Speeches to the Assembly and in Public Prosecutions (Dem. 1–24).” In:G. U. Martin (ed.),The Oxford Handbook of Demosthenes. Oxford & New York:Oxford University Press, 365–388.

Herrman, J. 2019.

Demosthenes: Selected Political Speeches.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hornblower, S. 2008.

A Commentary on Thucydides. vol. III:Books 5.25–8.109.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Horváth, L. 2014.

Der Neue Hypereides. Textedition, Studien und Erläuterungen. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Hunter, V. J. 1994.

Policing Athens: Social Control in the Attic Lawsuits, 420–320 B.C.Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kahle, F. 1909.

De Demosthenis orationum Androtioneae Timocrateae Aristocrateae temporibus.Göttingen: Officina Academica Dieterichiana.

Kennedy, G. A. 1959.

“The Earliest Rhetorical Handbooks.”American Journal of Philology80/2: 169–178.

Lavency, M. 1964.

Aspects de la logographie judiciaire attique. Louvain: Presses universitaires Louvain.

Lewis, D. M. 1997.

Selected Papers in Greek and Near Eastern History. Ed. by P. J. Rhodes.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lintott, A. 2013.

Plutarch: Demosthenes and Cicero.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

MacDowell, D. M. 1989.

“The Authenticity of Demosthenes 29 (Against Aphobus III) as a Source of Information about Athenian Law.” In: G. Thür (ed.),Symposion 1985. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte.Cologne & Vienna:Böhlau, 253–262.—— 2009.

Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford: Oxford University Press.—— 2018.

Studies on Greek Law, Oratory and Comedy. Ed. by I. Arnaoutoglou, K. A.Kapparis and D. Spatharas. Abingdon & New York: Routledge.

Maidment, K. J. (ed. / trans.). 1941.

Minor Attic Orators I: Antiphon and Andocides. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McGill, S. 2012.

Plagiarism in Latin Literature.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Meritt, B. D. 1928.

The Athenian Calendar in the Fifth Century.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Merkle, S. 1983.

“Amores 3, 2 und Ars Amatoria 1, 135–62 – ein Selbstplagiat Ovids?”Ziva Antika33: 135–145.

Mirhady, D. C. 2000.

“Demosthenes the Advocate: Private Speeches.” In: I. Worthington (ed.),Demosthenes: Statesman and Orator. London & New York: Routledge, 181–204.

Mortensen, D. E. 2008.

“TheLociof Cicero.”Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric26/1: 31–56.

Navarre, O. and Orsini, P. (eds. / trans.). 1954.

Démosthène: Plaidoyers politiques. tome I. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

Nisbet, G. 2020.

“Martial’s Poetics of Plagiarism.”American Journal of Philology141/1: 55–81.Nouhaud, M. 1982.

L’utilisation de l’histoire par les orateurs attiques. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

Osborne, M. J. 1981–1983.

Naturalization in Athens.Brussels: Paleis der Academiën.

Papillon, T. L. 1998.

Rhetorical Studies in the Aristocratea of Demosthenes. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Pearson, L. 1981.

The Art of Demosthenes. Meisenheim am Glan: Scholars Press.

Pendrick, G. J. (ed. / trans.). 2002.

Antiphon the Sophist: The Fragments.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Pernot, L. 1986.

“Lieu et lieu commun dans la rhétorique antique.”Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé3: 253–284.

Pickard-Cambridge, A. W. 1914.

Demosthenes and the Last Days of Greek Freedom. London: Putnam’s Sons.

Plastow, C. 2020.

Homicide in the Attic Orators: Rhetoric, Ideology, and Context. London & New York: Routledge.

Richards, E. R. 2018.

“Was Matthew a Plagiarist? Plagiarism in Greco-Roman Antiquity.” In: S. E. Porter and A. W. Pitts (eds.),Christian Origins and the Establishment of the Early Jesus Movement.Leiden & Boston: Brill, 108–133.

Riess, W. 2012.

Performing Interpersonal Violence: Court, Curse, and Comedy in Fourth-Century BCE Athens. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.

Roisman, J. and Worthington, I. 2015.

Lives of the Attic Orators: Texts from Pseudo-Plutarch, Photius, and theSuda.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Roscalla, F. 2006.

“Storie di plagi e di plagiari.” In: F. Roscalla (ed.),L’autore e l’opera. Attribuzioni, appropriazioni, apocrifi nella Greca antica. Pisa: Edizioni ETS, 69–102.

Russell, D. A. 1979.

“De imitatione.” In: D. West and D. Woodman (eds.),Creative Imitation and Latin Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–16.

Sealey, R. 1993.

Demosthenes and his Time: A Study in Defeat. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Sing, R. 2017.

“The Authenticity of Demosthenes 13, Again.”Classical Quarterly67/1: 106–117.

Solmsen, F. 1931.

Antiphonstudien. Untersuchungen zur Entstehung der attischen Gerichtsrede.Berlin: Georg Olms Verlag.

Spengel, L. 1828.

Artium Scriptores. Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta.

Stemplinger, E. 1912.

Das Plagiat in der griechischen Literatur.Leipzig & Berlin: B. G. Teubner.

Thomas, R. 1989.

Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Todd, S. C. 1993.

The Shape of Athenian Law.Oxford: Clarendon Press.—— 2007.

A Commentary on Lysias, Speeches 1–11.Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.—— 2009.

“HyperidesAgainst Diondas, DemosthenesOn the Crown, and the Rhetoric of Political Failure.”Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies52: 161–174.

Too, Y. L. 1995.

The Rhetoric of Identity in Isocrates: Text, Power, Pedagogy.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.—— 2008.

A Commentary on Isocrates’Antidosis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Trevett, J. C. 1994.

“Demosthenes’ SpeechOn Organization(Dem. 13).”Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies35/2: 179–193.—— 1996.

“Did Demosthenes Publish his Deliberative Speeches?”Hermes124/4: 425–441.—— 2019.

“Authenticity, Composition, Publication.” In: G. U. Martin (ed.),The Oxford Handbook of Demosthenes. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 419–430.

Tulin, A. 1996.

Dike Phonou: The Right of Prosecution and Attic Homicide Procedure. Stuttgart& Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.

Usher, S. 1976.

“Lysias and his Clients.”Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies17/1: 31–40.

Vatri, A. 2017.

“Public Performance and the Language of Antiphon’s Speeches.” In: S. Papaioannou, A. Serafim and B. da Vela (eds.),The Theatre of Justice: Aspects of Performance in Greco-Roman Oratory and Rhetoric. Leiden & Boston: Brill,304–319.

Wayte, W. 1893.

Demosthenes: Against Androtion and Against Timocrates.2nd ed. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Westwood, G. 2020.

The Rhetoric of the Past in Demosthenes and Aeschines: Oratory, History, and Politics in Classical Athens.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Whitehead, D. 2000.

Hypereides: A Commentary on the Forensic Speeches.Oxford & New York:Oxford University Press.—— 2004.

“Isokrates for Hire: Some Preliminaries to a Commentary on Isokrates 16–21.”In: D. L. Cairns and R. A. Knox (eds.),Law, Rhetoric, and Comedy in Classical Athens: Essays in Honour of Douglas M. MacDowell. Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales, 151–185.

Whitton, C. 2019.

“The Art of Self-imitation in Pliny (and the Date ofPanegyricus).”Maia71/2:339–379.

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. v. 1900.

“Die sechste Rede des Antiphon.”Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu BerlinXII: 398–416.

Wolff, H. J. 2007.

“Demosthenes as Advocate.” In: E. Carawan (ed.),Oxford Readings in the Attic Orators. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 91–115. (originally published in German 1968)

Worthington, I. 1993.

“Once More, the Client/LogographosRelationship.”Classical Quarterly43/1:67–72.—— 1996.

“Greek Oratory and the Oral/Literate Division.” In: id. (ed.),Voice into Text:Orality and Literary in Ancient Greece. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 165–177.—— (trans.). 2006.

Demosthenes: Speeches 60 and 61, Prologues, Letters.Austin: University of Texas Press.—— 2013.

Demosthenes of Athens and the Fall of Classical Greece. Oxford & New York:Oxford University Press.

Ziegler, K. 1950.

“Plagiat.”PaulysRealencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft20/2:1956–1997.

Zinsmaier, T. 1998.

“Wahrheit, Gerechtigkeit und Rhetorik in den Reden Antiphons. Zur Genese einiger Topoi der Gerichtsrede.”Hermes126/4: 398–422.