Demosthenes, Speeches 60 and 61, Prologues, Letters

Prologues

PROLOGUES introduction The following are prologues to political speeches delivered in the Assembly .1 Here, citizens over the age of 18 debated and voted on all matters of domestic and foreign policy. An Assembly meeting started at about dawn and lasted until the mid-afternoon. An agenda was carefully worked through, proposals were put to the people and speeches made for and against them (in theory, anyone had the right to speak); they were discussed and voted on by a show of hands.2 A majority vote carried the proposal. Classical rhetorical theory divided a speech into four sections: prologue (prooimion), narration (diēgēsis), proof (pistis), and conclusion (epilogos). In this arrangement (taxis), each section had its own distinct role. Of the prologue, Aristotle tells us that it was like “the prologue in poetry and the prelude in flute-playing; for all these are beginnings, and as it were a paving the way for what follows” (Rhetoric 3.14.1). Hence, the prologue was more than a mere opening: it foreshadowed what was to come and had the important rhetorical function of gaining the goodwill of the audience (captatio benevolentiae) from the outset.3 1 Only 55 of the 56 are actual prologues of speeches as Number 54 is an account of state sacrifices performed in honor of various gods in order to protect the city’s safety. It was wrongly included in the collection of prologues. 2 On the Assembly, see Hansen 1991. 3 For lengthy discussions by the classical rhetoricians of the use of prologues in all types of speeches, see Arist., Rhetoric 3.14; Anaximenes, Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 29; and Quintilian 4.1; cf.Cicero,de Oratore 2.80. For some general remarks, 56 demosthenes Moreover, often in no more than a dozen or two lines, multiple themes were lucidly outlined, and the audience was advised what to do. The prologue was also meant to balance the conclusion to a speech, which summarized the case and attempted to persuade the audience to be well disposed to the speaker (Arist., Rhetoric 3.19.1, Anaximenes, Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 36). The prologue was meant to capture the goodwill of the audience. Hence, it is plausible to assume that the information contained in them is accurate, for speakers would not wish to incur their audience’s enmity. Equally as important as the prologues’ rhetorical value, then, is their historical value: they give us insights into the Athenians’ attitude to their democracy as well as to the reactions and even expectations of the audience at an Assembly. The Prologues often criticize the speakers and the shortcomings of the people in the Athenian democracy . This, however, is in keeping with their theme that democracy is the best form of government. The criticisms are meant to stress the responsibilities of both sides. We also have glimpses of the restlessness of the people and their penchant to heckle speakers who talked for too long (21.1, 36, 46), of their boredom from listening to speeches (29.3, 34.2), and of their quickness in forcing speakers not to go off at tangents (56). There was probably not a great deal of time to deal with all the business in hand, and we can expect a fair degree of impatience on the part of speakers anxious to speak and of listeners anxious to vote and leave. Some of the prologues indicate that hasty decisions were sometimes made because of the rushed order of business (18 and 21). Of interest is the level of decorum expected in an Assembly. In a court of law, abuse of opponents was accepted, but this was frowned upon in the Assembly, even though the same people who sat as jurors attended the Assembly. Attitude was something that these Prologues clearly address. Not only should there be no personal abuse against other speakers in a speech (11, 20, 31, 52, 53.1–2), but also such practice is a disservice to the people and reflects badly against the speaker himself (6, 31, 53.1–2). cf. Usher 1999, pp. 22–23, and see especially de Brauw 2006, and Yunis 1996, pp. 247–257. prologues 57 4 Early specific studies are by Swoboda 1887 and Rupprecht 1927. Clavaud in the Budé Text has an excellent discussion, and see now Worthington 2004b. 5 Swoboda (1887) rejected them, but those who believe they are Demosthenic include Blass 1898...