by Demosthenes
It is worth your while, men of Athens, to consider this also — that you punished Archias, who had been hierophant, when he was convicted in court of impiety and of offering sacrifice contrary to the rites handed down by our fathers. Among the charges brought against him was, that at the feast of the harvest he sacrificed on the altar in the court at Eleusis a victim brought by the courtesan Sinop, although it was not lawful to offer victims on that day, and the sacrifice was not his to perform, but the priestess’. [117] It is, then, a monstrous thing that a man who was of the race of the Eumolpidae, born of honorable ancestors and a citizen of Athens, should be punished for having transgressed one of your established customs; and the pleadings of his relatives and friends did not save him, nor the public services which he and his ancestors had rendered to the city; no, nor yet his office of hierophant; but you punished him, because he was judged to be guilty; — and this Neaera, who has committed acts of sacrilege against this same god, and has transgressed the laws, shall you not punish her — her and her daughter? [118]
I for my part wonder what in the world they will say to you in their defense. Will it be that this woman Neaera is of Athenian birth, and that she lives as his wife with Stephanus in accordance with the laws? But testimony has been offered, showing that she is a courtesan, and has been the slave of Nicaretê. Or will they claim that she is not his wife, but that he keeps her in his house as a concubine? Yet the woman’s sons, by having been introduced to the clansmen by Stephanus, and her daughter, by having been given in marriage to an Athenian husband, prove beyond question that he keeps her as his wife. [119] I think, therefore, that neither Stephanus himself nor anyone on his behalf will succeed in proving that the charges and the testimony are false — that, in short, this Neaera is an Athenian woman. But I hear that he is going to set up some such defense as this — that he is keeping her, not as a wife, but as a mistress, and that the children are not hers, but were born to him by another woman, an Athenian and a relative of his, whom he will assert that he married at a earlier date. [120] To meet the impudence of this assertion of his, of the defense which he has concocted, and of the witnesses whom he has suborned to support it, I tendered him a precise and reasonable challenge, by means of which you would have been enabled to know the whole truth: I proposed that he should deliver up for the torture the women-servants, Thratta and Coccalinê, who remained loyally with Neaera when she came to Stephanus from Megara, and those whom she purchased subsequently, while living with him, Xennis and Drosis; [121] for these women know perfectly well that Proxenus, who died, Ariston, who is still living, and Antidorides the runner, and Phano, formerly called Strybel, who married Theogenes, the king, are children of Neaera. And if it should appear from the torture that this man Stephanus had married an Athenian wife and that these children were borne to him, not by Neaera, but by another woman who was an Athenian, I offered to withdraw from the case and to prevent this indictment from coming into court. [122] For this is what living with a woman as one’s wife means — to have children by her and to introduce the sons to the members of the clan and of the deme, and to betroth the daughters to husbands as one’s own. Mistresses we keep for the sake of pleasure, concubines for the daily care of our persons, but wives to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households. If, therefore, Stephanus had previously married an Athenian woman, and these children are hers and not Neaera’s, he could have shown it by the most certain evidence, by delivering up these women-servants for the torture. [123]
To prove that I so challenged him, the clerk shall read to you the deposition regarding these matters and the challenge.
Read the deposition and then the challenge.”Deposition
Hippocrates, son of Hippocrates, of Probalinthus, Demosthenes, son of Demosthenes, of Paeania, Diophanes, son of Diophanes, of Alopecê, Deinomenes, son of Archelaus, of Cydathenaeum, Deinias, son of Phormides, of Cydantidae, and Lysimachus, son of Lysippus, of Aegilia, depose that they were present in the agora, when Apollodorus challenged Stephanus, demanding that he deliver up the women-servants for the torture in regard to the charges preferred against Stephanus by Apolodorus concerning Neaera; and that Stephanus refused to deliver up the women-servants; and that the challenge was the one which Apollodorus produces.” [124]
Now read the challenge itself which I tendered to this Stephanus.”Challenge
Apollodorus tendered this challenge to Stephanus in connection with the indictment which he preferred against Neaera, charging that she, being an alien, is living as wife with him, a citizen. Apollodorus is ready to receive for examination by the torture the women-servants of Neaera, Thratta and Coccalinê, whom she brought with her from Megara, and those whom she subsequently purchased while living with Stephanus — Xennis, namely, and Drosis — women who have accurate knowledge regarding the children of Neaera, that they are not by Stephanus. These are Proxenus, who died, Ariston, who is now living, Antidorides the runner, and Phano. And if they agreed that these children are Neaera’s, I demanded that Neaera be sold as a slave in accordance with the law, and that her children be declared aliens; but if they agreed that the children are not hers but were born of some other woman who was an Athenian, then I offered to withdraw from the action against Neaera, and if the women had been injured in any way as a result of the torture, to pay for the injuries sustained.” [125]
On my tendering this challenge to Stephanus, men of the jury, he refused to accept it. Does it not, then, appear to you, men of the jury, that a verdict has been given by Stephanus here himself that Neaera is guilty under the indictment which I preferred against her, and that I have told you the truth and produced testimony which is true, whereas whatever Stephanus may say to you will be wholly false, and he will himself prove that he has no sound argument to advance, inasmuch as he has refused to deliver up for the torture the women-servants whom I demanded of him? [126]
I therefore, men of the jury, as an avenger of the gods against whom these people have committed sacrilege, and as an avenger of myself, have brought them to trial and submitted them to be judged by you. It is now your duty to render the verdict which justice demands, knowing well that the gods, against whom these people have acted lawlessly, will not be unaware of the vote each one of you shall cast. It is your duty to be avengers in the first place of the gods, but also of your own selves. If you do this, you will be held by all men to have given an honorable and just decision on this indictment which I have preferred against Neaera, charging that she, being an alien, lives as his wife with an Athenian citizen.
THE FUNERAL SPEECH
Translated by Norman W. DeWitt
Demosthenes’ Funeral Oration was delivered between August and September of 338 BC, following the Battle of Chaeronea. In the previous year, Philip II of Macedon had defeated the smaller combined forces of Athens and Thebes, securing Macedonian hegemony in Greece. Nevertheless, Philip felt indulgent towards Athens and actually proposed a new peace treaty, offering terms that were somewhat favourable for the defeated party. Demosthenes prompted the fortification of Athens and was appointed by the Assembly to the duty of delivering the customary funeral speech, honouring the Athenians who died for their city. Although he was the leader of the anti-Macedonian faction, his countrymen chose him for this honourable duty and not Demades or Aeschines, who would have been more pleasing choices for the King of Macedon. Demosthenes’ selection to deliver this speech demonstrates his political influence in Athens, despite the fact that his anti-Macedonian policy had resulted in the total defeat of his city.
In the preamble of the speech, Demosthenes declares his intention not only to laud the bravery of those that lost their lives at the field of the battle, but to mention as well the achievements of their ancestors. In the beginning of the main part of the speech, he underscores that the Athenians are acknowledged to be true gentlemen and the indigenous children of their land. He then exposes the mythological history of his city, while linking his speech to the deeds of those dead
at the field of the battle. He praises their virtues and bravery, maintaining that the Athenians were the first to foresee the growing power of Macedon and show a sound judgment joining with public spirit. According to the orator, his countrymen have to thank the valour of these men, along with the foolishness of their opponents, that Philip did not set foot upon Athenian land.
In the epilogue, Demosthenes asserts that it is a grievous thing for fathers and mothers to be deprived of their children and in their old age to lack the care of those that are dearest to them, but it is a proud privilege to behold them possessors of deathless honours and a memorial of their valour erected by the State, and deemed deserving of sacrifices and games for all future time. He closes the oration remarking on how it is painful for children to be orphaned of a father, but it is a beautiful thing to be the heir of a father’s fame.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus questioned the authorship of the speech and asserted that its style is unworthy of Demosthenes. Nineteenth century scholarship tended to agree with Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and this view continued to be held by scholars of the twentieth century. However, from the beginning of the twentieth century, arguments began to be made for the authenticity of The Funeral Speech. As early as 1928, Ioannis Sykutris argued that the speech is genuine and Robert Clavaud, the editor of the Budé edition of the oration, argued that evidence of its inauthenticity is lacking.
THE FUNERAL SPEECH
After the State decreed that those who repose in this tomb, having acquitted themselves as brave men in the war, should have a public funeral, and appointed me to the duty of delivering over them the customary speech, I began straightway to study how they might receive their due tribute of praise; but as I studied and searched my mind the conclusion forced itself upon me that to speak as these dead deserve was one of those things that cannot be done. For, since they scorned the love of life that is inborn in all men and chose rather to die nobly than to live and look upon Greece in misfortune, how can they have failed to leave behind them a record of valor surpassing all power of words to express? Nevertheless I propose to treat the theme in the same vein as those who have previously spoken in this place from time to time. [2]
That the State seriously concerns itself with those who die in battle it is possible to infer both from these rites in general and, in particular, from this law in accordance with which it chooses the speaker at our public funerals. For knowing that among good men the acquisition of wealth and the enjoyment of the pleasures that go with living are scorned, and that their whole desire is for virtue and words of praise, the citizens were of the opinion that we ought to honor them with such eulogies as would most certainly secure them in death the glory they had won while living. [3] Now, if it were my view that, of those qualities that constitute virtue, courage alone was their possession, I might praise this and be done with the speaking, but since it fell to their lot also to have been nobly born and strictly brought up and to have lived with lofty ideals, because of all which they had every reason to be good men, I should be ashamed if I were found to have passed over any of these topics. I shall begin from the origin of their race. [4]
The nobility of birth of these men has been acknowledged from time immemorial by all mankind. For it is possible for them and for each one of their remote ancestors man by man to trace back their being, not only to a physical father, but also to this land of theirs as a whole, a common possession, of which they are acknowledged to be the indigenous children. For alone of all mankind they settled the very land from which they were born and handed it down to their descendants, so that justly one may assume that those who came as migrants into their cities and are denominated citizens of the same are comparable to adopted children; but these men are citizens of their native land by right of legitimate birth. [5] In my view also the fact that the fruits of the earth by which men live were first manifest among us, even apart from their being a superlative boon to all men, constitutes an acknowledged proof that this land is the mother of our ancestors. For all things that bring forth young produce at the same time nutriment out of the organism itself for those that are born. This very thing has been done by this land. [6]
Such is the pride of birth that belongs to the ancestors of these men throughout the ages. As for Courage and the other elements of virtue, I shrink from rehearsing the whole story, being on my guard for fear an untimely length shall attach to my speech , but such facts as it is worth while even for those who are familiar with them to recall to mind and most profitable for the inexperienced to hear, events of great power to inspire and calling for no tedious length of speech, these I shall endeavor to rehearse in summary fashion. [7] For the ancestors of this present generation, both their fathers and those who bore the names of these men in time past, by which they are recognized by those of our race, never at any time wronged any man, whether Greek or barbarian, but it was their pride, in addition to all their other good qualities, to be true gentlemen and supremely just, and in defending themselves they accomplished a long list of noble deeds. [8] They so prevailed over the invading host of the Amazons as to expel them beyond the Phasis, and the host of Eumolpus and of many another foeman they drove not only out of their own land but also from the lands of all the other Greeks — invaders whom all those dwelling on our front to the westward neither withstood nor possessed the power to halt. Moreover, they were styled the saviors of the sons of Heracles, who himself was the savior of the rest of mankind, when they arrived in this land as suppliants, fleeing before Eurystheus. In addition to all these and many other noble deeds they refused to suffer the lawful rites of the departed to be treated with despite when Creon forbade the burial of “the seven against Thebes.” [9]
Now, omitting mention of many exploits that are classed as myths, I have recalled to mind the above-mentioned, each of which affords so many charming themes that our writers of poetry, whether recited or sung, and many historians, have made the deeds of those men the subjects of their respective arts; at the present time I shall mention the following deeds, which, though in point of merit they are no whit inferior to the former, still, through being closer in point of time, have not yet found their way into poetry or even been exalted to epic rank. [10] Those men single-handed twice repulsed by land and sea the expedition assembled out of the whole of Asia, and at their individual risks established themselves as the authors of the joint salvation of all the Greeks. And though what I shall say next has been said before by many another, still even at this date those dead must not be deprived of their just and excellent praise. For I say that with good reason those men might be judged so far superior to those who campaigned against Troy, that the latter, the foremost princes out of the whole of Greece, with difficulty captured a single stronghold of Asia after besieging it for ten years, [11] whereas those men single-handed not only repulsed a host assembled from an entire continent, which had already subdued all other lands, but also inflicted punishment for the wrong done the rest of the Greeks. Furthermore, checking all acts of selfish aggrandisement among the Greeks themselves, assigning themselves to each station where justice was arrayed, they went on bearing the brunt of all dangers that chanced to arise until the lapse of time brings us to the generation now living. [12]
Let no one think I have enumerated this list of achievements because I am at a loss what to say about each of them; for if I were the most helpless of all men in discovering what it becomes me to say, the sheer virtue of those dead reveals what sentiments lie to hand and are easy to rehearse. It is my intention, however, after calling to mind their noble birth and the magnificent things done by their ancestors, with all speed to link my speech with the deeds of these dead, to the end that, just as they were akin in the flesh, so I may make the words of praise spoken over them to apply to both alike. I assume that this would be gratifying not only to the ancestors but, best of all, to both them and these dead, if they should come to share one another’s merit not only by virtue of birth but also by reason of our words of praise. [13]
In the meantime it is necessary to interrupt my discourse for a moment, before declaring the deeds of these men, to solicit the goodwill of those born outside this race who have accompanied us to the tomb. For if I had been appointed to do honor to this burial through expenditure of money or by providing some different kind of a spectacle consisting of equestrian or gymnastic contests, the greater my zeal and the more lavish my expenditure in preparing such spectacles, the better I should have been thought to have done my duty. Having been chosen, however, to extol these men in a speech, unless I have the sympathy of my hearers, I fear that because of my eagerness I may effect the very opposite of what I ought. [14] For wealth and speed of foot and strength of body and all other such things have their rewards self-assured to their possessors, and in those fields they win who have the luck, even if not one of the others wishes their success. On the other hand, the persuasiveness of words depends upon the goodwill of the hearers, and with the help of this, even if the eloquence be moderate, it reaps glory and gains favor, but lacking this help, even if it be surpassingly good, it is thwarted by those who hear. [15]