Demosthenes 21 (Against Meidias): Construction and Deconstruction in Forensic Speech

I justly protected the right to exact punishment on behalf of the laws, the god, and you,
and I have now handed him over to you. (40)1
Truth and fiction are the two poles between which a lawsuit evolves. A just sentence requires a
truthful view of the case in question, while the parties use any possible means that may lead
away from truth they lie, deceive, and mislead in order to persuade the judges or the jury of their
respective claim. In classical Athens, this reality assumes a very particular nature.
Scholars have pointed out that we cannot comprehend the Athenian judiciary system by simply
applying our understanding of justice where the judges simply ascertain who is right and who is
wrong (e.g. Cohen 1995 f 163ff). Given the structural arrangement of the Athenian law
courts, lawsuits became a venue for litigants to seek revenge against their enemies and pursue
private feuds (Cohen 1995 101, 163). Randomly selected jurors, who changed every day, simply
heard each side present its argument without cross-examination of witnesses or expert
evaluation of evidence and then voted (id. 105) such a procedure asks for particularly efficient
ways of proposing ones case. When the judgment could only rest on probability, the credibility
of the litigants was key. To win a case, the litigants needed to win the jurors favor by appealing
to what they would like or expect to hear and find convincing on a deeper level, they needed to

SimplenumbersinparenthesesrefertoDemosthenesspeechAgainstMeidias.

Demosthenes21:ConstructionandDeconstructioninForensicSpeech(AndreasKramarz)

play on their inner convictions, fears, and hopes.2 The most effective means of persuasion,
however, according to Aristotle, was the character (personal goodness) of the speaker (Rhet.
1.1356a),3 which led to the display of the speakers moral qualities and the discrediting of his
enemys character. Vilification of ones enemy was such an important method of persuasion that
it even led to an institutionalized form of gossip (Hunter 1990 305-30).
In the following pages I will use Demosthenes Against Meidias to illustrate how truth and
character are created through the psychological game that the speaker plays with his audience.
Although we have no way of telling what the true facts were, we can, however, discover to a
certain degree how a speaker constructs or deconstructs reality and personality to achieve his
goal. I will limit my focus to the way that Demosthenes creates his own image in contrast to the
one of his opponent eidias and how he endeavors to win the audience over to himself. This will
help to evaluate whether Demosthenes has successfully made his case.
A) The Case
Demosthenes accuses eidias of a punch in the face at the City Dionysia (1), which constituted
the climax of a long history of enmity between the two litigants. It began4 when eidias burst

Cohen1995:92f:Thelitigantsmanipulatethenormativeexpectationsofthecommunitytoconvincethepublic
(theAtheniancourt)thattheydeserveaspersons,toprevail.Thusforensicorationsinevitablyemployrhetorical
topoiwhichfocusuponthereputationandgeneralconductofthepartiesratherthanuponthelegalissues
technicallygermanetothematterathand.
2

Aristotlementionsherethos(themoralcharacter),pathos(theemotionalappeal),andlogos(theargument
itself)asthemodesofpersuasion.Thequestionofthosisdevelopedfurtherin1368bandatthebeginningof
bookII,e.g.1377b27ff:Thattheoratorsowncharactershouldlookrightisparticularlyimportantinpolitical
speakingandlaterin1380a:Clearlytheoratorwillhavetospeaksoastobringhishearersintoaframeofmind
thatwilldisposethemtoanger,andtorepresenthisadversariesasopentosuchchargesandpossessedofsuch
qualitiesasdomakepeopleangry.(translationbyW.RhysRoberts)
3

IskiphereDemosthenesstillearlierconflictwithhisguardiansabouthisinheritance(78andDemosthenes2729
AgainstAphobus).
4

Demosthenes21:ConstructionandDeconstructioninForensicSpeech(AndreasKramarz)

into Demosthenes house in an attempt to enforce an antidosis5 (), followed by several

lawsuits (1) which eidias ignored or sabotaged. Demosthenes lists a series of offenses
committed against his duty as a chorus producer for the festival (13-1), culminating in the
above-mentioned physical blow for which Demosthenes lodged a probole.6 The Assembly voted
in favor of Demosthenes, but then he did not (immediately) proceed to bring the case to the
Peoples Court. nly after a period of about one year, supposedly at the petition of others (2) and
after eidias had continued harassing him, did he prepare the present speech for trial.
A brief view of the structure of the speech will allow a first approach to Demosthenes strategy.
After the proemium in which Demosthenes presents the justification for the court case and
already brings up most of the key points of his argument (1-12), the first major part of the
diegesis deals with the accusations regarding the hybris that eidias inflicted on Demosthenes
during the Dionysian festival (13-6). ext, he discusses the long smoldering conflict and
previous faults of eidias (-101), followed by charges related mostly to eidias alleged
attempts to corrupt people involved in the process, including the pisteis, against previous and
possible counter-arguments that the defendant will make in his speech (102-130). The last
section of the main body, another diegesis, engages in a direct discrediting of his enemys
personality (131-21). In his epilogue (21-22) Demosthenes concludes with a strong appeal to
the audience pleading for a just punishment of the accused.
In order to prove his accusations against eidias, Demosthenes presents some objective facts he
cites laws (, 10, 94, 113) and the testimony of witnesses (22, 2, 93, 10, 121, 16, 14) he

Thechallengeofacitizensrefusaltoperformaliturgy(publicservice)bydemandinganexchangeofproperty.

Publicprosecution[amongothers]againstpersonswhocommittedacrimeduringorinconnectionwitha
religiousfestival,()initiatedintheAssemblybyadenunciation.(Hansen1999:402)
6

Scholarscontinuetodisputewhetherthecasewasactuallypresentedandthespeechdelivered,cf.n.46.

Demosthenes21:ConstructionandDeconstructioninForensicSpeech(AndreasKramarz)

also refers once to an oracle (52f). However, according to Cohen (1995 105), Athenian forensic
speech did not put too much weight on proof of factual evidence (since the reliability of
witnesses was more than questionable because of the principle of solidarity). It seems indeed
that Demosthenes dedicates much more effort to the twofold approach of systematically
attacking and discrediting his enemys image and personality before the audience and advertizing
his own in contrast to the others,9 thus capitalizing on the dimensions of thos and pathos.10 We
will first look at how Demosthenes builds himself up and in a second step how he discredits his
enemy eidias.
B) Constructing Ones Own Identity
In order to make himself appear favorably to the jury, Demosthenes must defend and construe
his behavior in such a way as to conform to the social identity, the claims of honor, status, and
prestige, which he asks the court to affirm (Cohen 1995 94). This procedure can be classified in
the following two ways.
a. Positive Self-Characterization11
First, Demosthenes uses his refusal to accept money to drop the case as proof that he is
incorruptible (3, 215f).12 He says he is not looking for his own advantage but is disinterested I

8
Aboutthereliabilityofwitnesses,eventorturedslaves(whichwastheonlyconditionunderwhichslaveswere
allowedaswitnessesandwaspromotedasoneofthemostcertainproofs),seeGargarin1996,especially1216.

Cohen1995:97f:Demostheneswholespeechtestifiestothefactthatthereputationofeachofthemisatleast
asimportantasthefactualquestionofwhetherornotMeidiasslappedDemosthenesatafestival.Accordingly,a
gooddealofthespeechgoestopaintingMeidiasreputationasdarklyaspossibleandportrayinghimselfasaman
ofsuperiorstanding.
9

10

Seen.3.

Inthisandthefollowingparagraphstheanalysisdoesntfollowthespeechchronologicallybutseekstoassemble
thedifferentelementsinanorderofrelevance,passingfromthelesstothemoreimportantones.
11

Demosthenes21:ConstructionandDeconstructioninForensicSpeech(AndreasKramarz)

chose this suit for which I cannot receive any gain13 (2 see 40, 19). He only seeks justice (24,
120, 192). He displays himself as a person that could be trusted since other victims of eidias
evil deeds approached him (23), and he makes the case of others who have been treated unjustly,
especially Aristarchus (116-122) and Strato (3- 95-96).14 He uses vocabulary of the sacred
(22) and presents himself as protector of the god (40), since the offense against him occurred
in a religious context.15 He praises the law the law is good () and useful (9 see 5) and he
is courageous in defending it. With his lawsuit he does what other do not dare or succeed in
doing (19f, 39f), going as far as placing his goods at the service of the state by making the case
(111, 124, 141, 21916). He further stresses his own generosity (in contrast to eidias stinginess)
by enumerating his services to the state in the form of liturgies (154), such as the mens chorus,
giving feasts to his tribe, (156) leading his symmory1 and paying the eisphora like the richest
(15). In all of this, Demosthenes emerges as an openhanded benefactor for the city something
which allows him to attack eidias wealth despite being wealthy himself (see p. 12). verall he
displays himself as someone who is at the service of the city in general and the court jury in
particular (3, 13, 24, 190, 20-210).
How Demosthenes emphasizes his self-restraint deserves particular attention

12

Suchacommentwouldberidiculoushadheinfactlaterdoneso,asAeschinesclaims(3.52);cf.latern.46.

FordirectcitationsfromDemosthenes21IamusingthetranslationbyWolpert2011withthepermissionofthe
author.
13

14
Itwouldleadtoofartoshowherehowtheseexamplesarequitecleverlychosentowardoffsomeofhisown
weakpointsandtounderscorehisideologicalthrust;e.g.Ober(1989:211):Stratoistheexemplaroftheaverage
workingAthenian,justasMeidiasistheexemplaroftherich,hubristicman.Demosthenesthusappealstothe
middleclassmajorityofhisaudienceandrehabilitatesaprotagonistinhisownlitigationhistory.
15

Thisisalsohislastpointin227:especiallyforthesakeofthegodwhosefestivalthismanwascaughtprofaning.

Povertyisoneofthestockexcusesforfailingtodefendoneselfinthecourts.(Ober1989:238,n.66),whilefor
Demostheneshiseconomicpositiongiveshimacertainprotectionagainstthehubristicrichman(id.239).
16

Groupofwealthycitizenswhosharedtheobligationtopayeisphora[propertytax(Hansen1999:390)]orto
performaliturgy(Hansen1999:405).
17

Demosthenes21:ConstructionandDeconstructioninForensicSpeech(AndreasKramarz)

I believe, men of Athens, that I responded prudently, or rather fortunately, when I held
myself back at that time and was not provoked to do anything that could not be undone.
() From you and the laws, I believe, and an example ought to be made to everyone else
not to defend himself in an act of anger against those who commit outrage and are
licentious, but to bring them before you since you guarantee and insure that the laws
protect the victims. (4, 6).
Herman observes The more eidias provoked him, the more self-restraint he exercised
(Herman 2006 16). Cohen comments that He thus seeks to portray himself not as a passive
victim (hence, humiliated, dishonored), but as a man of honor who keenly felt the insult, but
whose strong character and high regard for the rule of law enabled him to restrain himself
(1995 95). Cohen views this argument as an attempt to explain why he chose to prosecute
eidias rather than retaliate immediately after the insult and adhere to current normative
expectations about revenge and honor (ibid.). Herman, for his part, disagrees with this reading
and suggests instead that Demosthenes actually boasts about not having reacted violently to
eidias punch (Herman 2006 12).1 This view depends on Hermans analysis of Athens not
being a feuding society as Cohen pictures it19 but a place where grave insults and serious
injuries were deliberately portrayed as having been met with forbearance and self-restraint. (id.
13). Herman cites examples from philosophy and history to support this vision20 and describes
the Athenian pattern of reaction with tit for two tats as not their only, but their preferred
strategy of interpersonal interaction (id. 402-410).21 The question whether Demosthenes acted in

18

AlsoMacDowellsayshepridedhimselfonhisselfrestraint(1990:8).

19
AccordingtoHermansanalysis,suinginplaceoffeudingisincompatiblewithfeudingsocieties(2006:170n.27
andthefollowingpages).

Thisissummarizedonp.214andillustratedonindividuallevelonthefollowingpages;e.g.hepointsoutthatan
individualpersonshouldnotcarryoutcoerciveactsinthenameofthestate,whenoverwhelmedbyemotion(id.
237,n.71).SeealsoabouttwoprinciplesoftheAtheniancodeofbehavior():commitmenttopreventing
personalconflictsfromescalatingintomajorbloodfeudsandtheplacingofthepublicgoodaboveabsolutejustice
totheindividual(id.:295).
20

HermanquotesPlatosProtagoras324ab:Noonepunishes(kolazei)wrongdoerssimplybecauseheknowsthe
factandthenatureoftheirwrongdoing,unlessheismerelystrikingbackimpulsivelyasawildanimaldoes.The
21

Demosthenes21:ConstructionandDeconstructioninForensicSpeech(AndreasKramarz)

accord with the common moral code or not will be significant for the evaluation of the
effectiveness of the speech (see p. 13f).
b. Identification With the Audience
Apart from the fact that Demosthenes parades his generous and selfless attitude in order to gain
sympathies,22 throughout the speech he seeks to create a bond between himself and the audience
in order to appear united with them against eidias. The orator who succeeded in generating in
his audience a group-versus-individual state of mind had won the day, since by definition the
group must prevail over the individual in a direct democracy of the Athenian model (ber
199 166).
From the very outset Demosthenes pursues the strategy of identifying himself with the audience
I, however, did just what each of you would have also chosen to do (1), and eidias has
committed outrage not only against me, but also against you and the laws and everyone else ().
He uses with certain frequency the statement all of you know (e.g. 13, 149),23 or even we all
know (64), and tirelessly underscores the public interest (e.g. ) of the case, until saying that
ow together by all and on behalf of all () he ought to be punished as a common enemy of the
state (142). His appeal to the democratic ideal of community becomes the strongest in his

rationalpunisherisnottakingrevengeforwhathasalreadybeendone,sinceitcannotbeundone;heisprotecting
thefuturebypreventingboththewrongdoerandanyoneelsewhoseeshimpunishedfromeverdoingsucha
thingagainThissoundsverymuchlikeDemostheneswhoissaidtohavestudiedPlatoeagerly(Lesky1958:644,
withreferencetoCicero).
Cf.Ober(1989:229f)bringsupthepointofjudicialcharis,gratitudethejuryowestoalitigantwhich
Demosthenesindirectlyclaimsforhimself(154159)anddeniestohisopponent(160),andwhileDemosthenes
accusesMeidiasofostentatiouslyharpingonhisliturgiesateverymeetingoftheAssembly,hedoesnotfall
shortondoingsohimself(Ober1989:232).
22

Ober(1989:149)infersAristotlesrecommendationofthisdeviceinRhet1408a3236.However,since
Demosthenesisnarratingsomethingthathappenedinpublic,inthiscasecommonknowledgeofthemainfacts
mayactuallybetrue.
23

Demosthenes21:ConstructionandDeconstructioninForensicSpeech(AndreasKramarz)

exhortation that only if he and the audience stay united they will be able to stand up against such
a powerful and wealthy enemy (140, 142 cf. ber 199 249f). Demosthenes is eager to show
his audience that his personal interest is identical to their collective interest (id. 22), and that
his fears are theirs.
To further assure the benevolence of the Court jury, Demosthenes takes recourse to humbly
asking for pity (mentioned three times in 5-6), and begging and imploring (), - while later
warning the audience that the exact same strategy might be applied, of course, falsely, by
eidias (16f). He praises the audience You have reached such a degree of generosity and
piety (12) and praises in them the very virtue he claims to possess himself one could see so
much self-restraint in each of you out of reverence for the gods (59). But he also reminds the
jurors of their responsibility of ensuring justice (e.g. 124f, 13-15, 212), especially to avoid
setting a bad precedence in what ber calls the normative function of state institutions not to
create an example (deigma) of forgiveness of the rich man, when they had formerly convicted
without pity a man who was moderate (metrios) and who conformed to democratic values (ber
199 160-163). He calls upon the oath each of the jurors has sworn (24, 34, 42, 212) and
especially upon their responsibility for protecting the law (20, 42, 5, 213). The whole epilogue
is closing in strongly on the laws on the one hand the laws make you powerful (223), and on
the other What makes the laws powerful You do, if you enforce them and authorize them
every time someone needs them (224).24 This his alleged care for the laws is to be seen in direct
contrast to eidias who derives his power not from the law but from his wealth (see following
section).

24

Cf.Ober1989:300.

Demosthenes21:ConstructionandDeconstructioninForensicSpeech(AndreasKramarz)

c. Deconstructing the Opponents Identity

When Demosthenes engages to create a bond between himself and the audience, he only sets the
foundation on which his accusations against eidias can rest and find acceptance. As ber
writes, Demosthenes applies here the familiar tactic of isolating the opponent completely from
the citizen group by depicting him as a renegade whose interests are irreconcilably at odds with
the interests of the rest of the citizen population (199 210).
It is impossible here to enumerate all the individual crimes25 that he charges eidias with, and
Demosthenes says he even leaves many of them still unmentioned (129). In general, he is
accused of committing impiety ( )26 against the god, the oracle, or sacred duty (51, 55, 61,
126f, 130) violating the laws (20, 29, 35, 61, 91f, 20) harming his own family (130)
destroying public property (1) and preventing his victims from seeking satisfaction (20). In
addition, he is willing to deceive the jury (24, 204), use legal tricks (25-2, 1) and bribe
officials in order to escape justice (5f, 104, 10). Virtually pushy, however, is Demosthenes
insistence on one term under which he basically subsumes everything else2 hybris.2 Since this
is a key term in the speech, we need to briefly look at its significance before continuing the
discussion of Demosthenes accusations.

Alonethesemanticfieldforcrimeinthespeechisvastandincludestermssuchas: (1), ,
, (19), (23), ,
, , , (109,whichisapassageparticularly
richofsuchwords).
25

26

ForadiscussionofthisaccusationseeMacDowell1990:17f

Wolpert2011:81counts130occurrencesofhybrisrootwordsinthespeech.Demosthenesbeginsthespeech
rightawaymentioningthebrutalityandoutrage[hybris]towhichMeidiasalwayssubjectseveryone(1).
27

istranslatedbyMacDowell(1990:23)withinsolenceandbyWolpertwithoutrage.Inordertoavoida
discussionaboutthebesttranslationIkeepthetransliteratedGreekword.IformyselffindthattheGermanwords
bermutandHochmuttogethercoverprettymuchallapplicationsthatMacDowelllistsinhistextof1976;
especiallytheformertermcoversbothhighspiritedandarrogant,althoughthelatterwouldfitbetterto
translatetheterminthisspeech.
28

Demosthenes21:ConstructionandDeconstructioninForensicSpeech(AndreasKramarz)

10

cDowell states that, although the prosecution has formally as its object a misdeed within the
Dionysia,29 Demosthenes keeps asserting that he is guilty of asebeia and hybris, because he
thinks that will make the jury more ready to convict (1990 16f). The discussion about what
hybris really means is ongoing. The text of the law cited by Demosthenes (4) does not explain
the term. acDowell (1990 19-23) ponders several definitions his own (from 196 21/30
having energy or power and misusing it self-indulgently, caused (mostly) by youthfulness,
abundance of food, or wealth)30 the one of Hooker (195 simply exuberant physical strength
wrongly applied), and of Fisher (199 45, who bases himself on Aristotles definition31 and
sees it as a behaviour that causes dishonour to individuals, to groups, or to the values that hold a
society together). He concludes that Fishers definition needs to be modified considering rather
the hybristic mans state of mind than the effect on the victim, and thus the notion of selfindulgence, indiscipline and self-confidence would be a primary element in hybris (id. 21f).
Cairns now, based on a more precise analysis of Aristotles definition, mediates between Fisher
and acDowell and describes hybris as gratuitous insult, motivated by a desire not to achieve
any ulterior purpose, but to obtain the intrinsic pleasure of demonstrating one's own superiority
through the dishonouring of another (1996 4),32 including greed for money or honor (

) or

Heassertsthesameinhisfirstessay(1976:29),butthisreadingdependsonwhetherthecourtcaseisjusta
(late)continuationoftheproboleoralreadydifferent;thelawonhybrisisquotedbyDemosthenes,butnotinthe
firstposition.Sincetheoffenseitselfmightnotbestrongenoughforthepunishmenthedemands,Demosthenes
seestheneedtowidentheaccusations.
29

Inhisfirstessay,MacDowelladdsthathybrisisconsideredalwaysbadandhastobevoluntary(ibid.,pointedout
againstMeidiasbyDemosthenesin38,41,and66)andhealsocitesDoversdefinition:behaviourinwhicha
citizentreatsafellowcitizenasifheweredealingwithaslaveoraforeigner(Dover1994:54)whichhefindsto
narrowalthoughitwouldbeacceptableforthespeechdiscussedhere.
30

Behaviourintendedtoproducedishonourorshametoothers,onthepartofthosewhoderivepleasurefrom
suchbehaviour(Rhet1374a,quotedfromFisher1976:177)
31

Cohen(1995:94,n.14)getsclosetothisdefinitionwhileOber(1989:208)remainslikeHookertoogenericwhen
hedefinesitasviolentinsult,eitherverbalorphysical.
32

Demosthenes21:ConstructionandDeconstructioninForensicSpeech(AndreasKramarz)

11

the like (id. 5). This corresponds well to how Demosthenes characterizes eidias.33 acDowell
is pointing in the right direction when he says that hybris is not the status of the victim () but
the character of the act itself (1990 22), but with Cairns we could add that it is the character of
the person who commits this sort of acts. This sheds some light on the question acDowell
raises about the reasons for the whole conflict between the two (1990 ). We can certainly only
speculate about the true reasons since Demosthenes would not tell us if he himself provoked
eidias in any way nevertheless, Demosthenes argument is that eidias is in his character a

,34 which is why he is prone to hubristic actions, commits them against everyone (1) and

is not going to change.

Dover (1994 5f) cites Demosthenes ridiculing of the circumstances of eidias birth (14f)
(which ber calls a mock tragedy 199 20) as a testimony for the Greek belief that
character is innate into the person (and, as a matter of fact, the racial inheritance of moral
character).35 If eidias character is indeed irredeemably hubristic and evil, this would justify
Demosthenes demand for capital punishment, because there would be no hope for him to ever
change to the better and would always remain a public threat.36
Thus we have arrived at another crucial element in Demosthenes strategy of dismantling
eidias reputation. As we have seen above, Demosthenes seeks to pull the audience on his side

33
Cairnsexplainsfurther:Tobeahybristsisnotjusttopossessadrive,tendency,orintentiontocommit
hybristicacts,buttoentertainamisguidedandinflatedconceptionofoneselfandone'splaceintheworld(id.:8).
34

Cf.thebitterness( )inhissoulandthemalice( ),whichhekeepssecrettohimself(204).

35

ThisideaissubstantiatedwithplentyofreferencesinDover1994:8395.

DoveradmitsacertaininconsistencyintheGreekperceptionofhereditarycharacter,butratherthansimply
stating,asDoverdoes,thatconsistencyisnotanotablefeatureofGreekspeakersattacksontheiropponents
(1994:88),perhapswecouldconcludethattheGreeksdidnotgosofarastoassumeadeterministicviewof
hereditarycharacter,especiallysincethepointismadethathisupbringingandaboveallhiswealthhavecorrupted
him;butthiscorruptionisseenasdefinitive.
36

Demosthenes21:ConstructionandDeconstructioninForensicSpeech(AndreasKramarz)

12

by showing that he is acting in the interest of the public.3 To show that his conflict with eidias
is not just a case of private enmity but affects the whole citizenry (Cohen 1995 95), he points
out the damages he has inflicted upon others (e.g. Strato -99 Aristarchus 116-122), how he
has damaged the reputation of the city (132-135), how he is a threat to the poorest and the
weakest (123, 2093), and that eidias puts into question the whole order of equality and
democracy (6f, 12439).
This leads to another principal accusation that is directed against eidias wealth which
Demosthenes describes as the main cause for his hybris: You ought to deprive him of the source
of his insolence rather than save him because of it (9, cf. 66, 9-91, 96f,13, 152-14 see 211
that superfluous wealth which now incites him to engage in outrage). The connection between
wealth and hybris emerges clearly from Aristotles definition as discussed above. Demosthenes
is careful not to speak out against wealth as such,40 since he himself is not really a beggar.41
Rather, the vulgar and ostentatious display of his riches (ber 199 20),42 without (or little and
only grudgingly) using them for the benefit of the state as Demosthenes claims that he himself
does (see p.5), places eidias outside the fiction of equality which, according to bers

ThereisanexuberanceofinstanceswhereDemosthenesingeneraldefinestheproblemasapublicone(25
31,37,4446,66,81,98,126137,140142,217227).AccordingtoCohenthisisadefenseagainstthepossible
objectionthatMeidiasbehaviorwasjustsomethingnormalinanagonisticsociety(1995:96).
37

Demosthenesresortstoacounterfactualexampletoshowthejurorsjusthowperverseitwouldbetoallow
Meidiastogofreeforthesakeofhismoney.(Ober1989:218)
38

HereDemosthenesconcludesthatMeidiasisnotdoinganythingotherthandeprivingusofourshareoffree
speechandliberty,touchingoncorevaluesoftheAtheniandemocraticsystem,seeOber1989:305,especially.n.
25.
39

40

See212wherehesaysaboutMeidiasverywealthyfriendsthatisfine.

Demosthenesfindshimselfbeingaccusedofhisownrichesinothercases,cf.Ober1989:232f.Oberalsoclarifies
thatDemosthenesdoesnotmovetowardsthedemandforanyeconomicrevolution(id.:201).
41

SeealsoOber1989:255:Theattributesofbirth,wealth,andpowerwereintolerableifassociatedwithhubris
(withreferenceto143inthespeech).
42

Demosthenes21:ConstructionandDeconstructioninForensicSpeech(AndreasKramarz)

13

analysis, held society together (cf. id. 240-24).43 This reveals arrogance and hatred of the
people44 which might be expected to result in antidemocratic, revolutionary activity (id. 215
cf. 316). eidias is so dangerous because the protection of the law is undermined and perverted
by his power over the legal process through bribes, threats, fear, and certain advantages in the
procedure) (e.g. 13-141, cf. ber 199 21). In short he is a common enemy of the state
(142).
d. Effectiveness of the Speech
Although many more tactics Demosthenes uses to discredit eidias could be discussed,45 the
material gathered so far allows us already to address sufficiently the question concerning the
effectiveness of Demosthenes speech.
Cohen (1995 100f) regards Demosthenes case as little successful (a no-win situation), but
this seems for one part to be due to the fact that he believes Aeschines claim that Demosthenes
did not deliver the speech but dropped the case in exchange of 30 minae (Aeschines 3.52),
something which is questioned by other scholars.46 Cohens other point is that, being Athens an

Cf.Cohen1995:98:Meidias"violatestheegalitarianprinciplescherishedatAthens.Demosthenesapplies
shrewdlytheantithesisofthey(therich)andtherestofusin111f.
43

Mediasneverappearsamongthosewhoshareinthepleasureandjoyofthedemos.(202)Heclaimstobe
theonlyonewhoisrich,theonlyonewhocanspeak,andallothersareforhimgarbageandbeggars,andnoteven
human.Whenthemanhascometothisdegreeofarrogance,whatdoyouexpecthimtodoifheisnow
acquitted?(198f).
44

SuchascomparingMeidiaswithotherswhoavoidedsuchextremes(5861,6264,165)orwhowereconvicted
forlessercrimes(7173,143153,175183),ordirectlywithhimself(154158,186188),accusinghimof
committingthesamecrimesofwhichheblamesothers(110,132135,193197)andofinconsistencyinhis
behavior(114f,118,186f),callinghimacoward(160162),exaggerations(1,12,21,70,118,131,135,148,195),
ridiculing(132134,148f),orthethreetimesaddressingMeidiasdirectlyinaclimaticfashion(101,133135,195f,
callinghimtwiceacursedcreature,cf.19,103,164(cursedcoward),216,217).
45

46
Cf.Ober1989:207,n.28;withmorereferences;alsoWolpert2011:80.Section108,whereDemosthenesseems
tofillthetimebecausethelawisnotreadytoberead,wouldbequiteanoriginalliteraryfiction.Seealsonn.7and
12.

Demosthenes21:ConstructionandDeconstructioninForensicSpeech(AndreasKramarz)

14

agonistic society,4 eidias behavior should not have been anything extraordinary, only that
no one ever went so far as eidias, who deserves to be punished for going beyond the bounds of
acceptable rivalry (id. 96).4. This seems to be supported by bers reference to Aristotle
(199 219) stating that eidias was not a unique case and by the fact that Demosthenes
mentions other examples of similar acts (see n. 45). If in the agonistic society of classical
Athens, the chain of conflict and litigation () would have seemed entirely natural (Cohen
1995 90f), if aggression was a natural and acceptable means for establishing social hierarchies
(ibid.), and if there were many others committing similar crimes constantly, why would
Demosthenes think that acquitting eidias would be a dangerous precedent (e.g. 199, 22)
From what we have seen, it is the quality of hybris which makes eidias actions so particular.49
It is interesting that hybris is not mentioned in any of the other examples given in the speech50
except for Alcibiades, which was is a very particular case, many decades before Demosthenes.51
Thus, eidias is seen as hubristic by character which is part of his nature, truly barbaric and
hateful to the gods (150). And serious hybris was by no means accepted by the Athenians but
punishable, even if applied against slaves (46-50). Herman, who admits that Athens was no
paradise on earth (2006 206), concludes that
If behavior of this sort was indeed punishable by death, it becomes increasingly difficult
to uphold the argument that the Athenian public conscience was suffused with the spirit
of vengeance. In genuinely feuding societies whose public conscience is suffused with

InfavorofthisdescriptionisthatDemosthenescourtcaseswerenotabletofinishthelonglingeringconflict(cf.
Cohen1995:8790,92),suchastheprobolewhichdidntstopMeidiasfromharassingDemosthenes.
47

InthesamewayCohenarguesthatDemosthenesattackonMeidiaswealthisonlyoneaboutpreeminence:
whodeservesmoreclaimonspecialtreatmentbecauseofhisservicetothestate(id.:99).
48

49

ThisiswhyDemosthenesevenadmitsthattheoffensesperhapsnotinthemselvesappearworthyofatrial(15).

Oneofthem,Euthynus,committedacrimebecausehebelievedthathehadbeentreatedoutrageously[with
hybris](72).
50

AndevenhereDemosthenestunesitdownsayingthathefeltcompelledtobehaveinadisgustingand
outrageousfashion(143,cf.147).
51

Demosthenes21:ConstructionandDeconstructioninForensicSpeech(AndreasKramarz)

15

the spirit of vengeance such forms of behavior are encouraged, not checked by the most
formidable of sanctions. (id. 29)
Thus we deduce, on the one hand, that Athenian society was perhaps not as violent as Cohen
assumes,52 and, on the other, that Demosthenes could count on the support of his audience by
emphasizing eidias hubristic character which, combined with his wealth as one of its main
causes, makes him a threat to the whole society, while Demosthenes in his exhibition of
generosity and self-restraint suggests himself to be quite the opposite. Hence we can expect
Demosthenes to have indeed won the day if he calculated properly that his exposition was in
agreement with the value system of his audience (cf. ber 199 166).
ne last question may be discussed briefly Demosthenes seems to vacillate between calling for
capital punishment (12, 21, 0, 92, 130, 142, 201, most strongly in 11 how does he not
deserve to die ten times, or rather ten thousand times over) and deprivation of his wealth (e.g.
9, 211) the ambiguity is most clear in 152 nor do I suppose that you will impose on him a
punishment less than that which paid will end his outrage ideally, this is death, or else
confiscation of all his property. This is analogous to whether eidias hybris (which calls for
death) or wealth (which calls for confiscation) is the real problem. Does this ambiguity hurt his
cause Perhaps Demosthenes is not sure that he will actually get through with his maximum
demand.53 Since he aims at stopping hybris, confiscation of the wealth would be a real option
since he sees it as its principal cause. His insistence on death may also be rather rhetorical and
the only thing Demosthenes really wants is revenge and so he can leave it completely open in
his closing phrase cast a vote that is pious and just, and punish him (22). Either way it seems

52

Herman(2006)collectsagoodamountofevidencewhichresizestheamountofviolenceenactedinAthens.

53

SoWolpert(2011:80)whosaysDemosthenesmaybehedginghisbets.

Demosthenes21:ConstructionandDeconstructioninForensicSpeech(AndreasKramarz)

16

that leaving the measure of the penalty at the discretion of the jury does not thwart his overall
strategy.
C) Conclusion
In his forensic speech Against Meidias, Demosthenes undertakes to persuade the court jury by
presenting some factual evidence, but above all by pledging his own credibility and discrediting
his opponent. Positive self-characterization in virtue, especially in his self-restraint, and generous
service to the public, is shored up by appealing to the value system of the audience respect for
law, divinity, and the integrity of the democratic society, especially of its weaker members, thus
assuring the identification between the speaker and the listeners. Demosthenes launches a frontal
assault against his enemy in which he accuses him of a long series of offenses committed in an
attitude of hybris and enacted out of a position of excessive power and wealth. The defendants
character is described as hubristic in nature and a threat for the common good and even the
democratic ideal of equality. Having exploited all possible devices and anticipated the most
dangerous possible objections, it seems that the speech should have been able to achieve its
purpose of moving the jury to convict eidias. The historical record leaves doubts about the
actual outcome nonetheless, Demosthenes speech has for good reason been delivered down to
us as a masterpiece of rhetoric and a meaningful document about dealing with conflicts within
the democracy of fourth century Athens.

Demosthenes21:ConstructionandDeconstructioninForensicSpeech(AndreasKramarz)

17

D) Bibliography
Cairns, D. 1996. Hybris, Dishonour, and Thinking Big. Journal of Hellenic Studies 116 132.
Cohen, David. 1995. Law, Violence, and Community in Classical Athens. Cambridge
Cambridge University Press.
Dover, Kenneth James. 1994. Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle.
Indianapolis Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
Fisher, .R.E. 196. Hybris and Dishonour I.Greece and Rome 23 193.
Fisher, .R.E. 199. Hybris and Dishonour II. Greece and Rome 26 324.
Gagarin, ichael. 1996. The Torture of Slaves in Athenian aw. Classical Philology 91 11
Hansen, ogens Herman. 1999. The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes:
Structures, Principles, and Ideology. orman University of klahoma Press.
Herman, Gabriel. 2006. Morality and Behaviour in Democratic Athens. A Social History.
Cambridge Cambridge University Press.
Hooker, J. T. 195. The original meaning of

. Archiv fr Begriffsgeschichte 19 125-3.

Hunter, Virginia. 1990. Gossip and the Politics of Reputation in Classical Athens. Phoenix 44
299325.
esky, Albin. 195. Geschichte der griechischen Literatur. Bern Francke Verlag.
acDowell, Douglas . 1990. Demosthenes. Against Meidias (Oration 21). Edited with
Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. xford Clarendon Press.
acDowell, Douglas . 196. Hybris in Athens. Greece and Rome 23 1431.
ber, Josiah. 199. Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens: Rhetoric, Ideology, and the Power of
the People. Princeton Princeton University Press.
Wolpert, Andrew. 2011. Demosthenes 21 Against eidias. In Wolpert, Andrew, and
Kapparis, Konstantinos, Legal Speeches of Democratic Athens: Sources for Athenian
History, 9-136. Indianapolis Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
FrAndreasKramarz,LC,Ph.D.,isDeanofStudiesattheLegionofChristCollegeofHumanitiesin
Cheshire,CT,USA(www.LCCollege.org),andteachesLatin,Art,History,andMusic.Thepresentworkisa
revisedversionofapaperproducedinthecontextofacourseonAthenianDemocracyofferedbythe
DepartmentofClassicsattheUniversityofFlorida,Gainesville,in2008.