Definición de prueba

Up to now we have explored the relationships of forensic speeches in Chariton, Achilleus Tatios, and Heliodoros with rhetorical theory. As we have seen, there is a certain policy the authors follow in their courtroom speeches, which can be traced to the rhetorical manuals. The question that arises now is whether the novelists were familiar and used material coming directly from classical Greek orators. As our reference point for this issue we take the extensive courtroom speeches of Achilleus Tatios.

This chapter investigates to what degree principles of classical oratory are diffused in the courtroom speeches of Achilleus Tatios’ novel. Our knowledge about possible interconnections between these two areas is restricted here to the small sample of forensic oratory which we possess from Achilleus Tatios’ novel and also the speeches of classical rhetores which have come down to us. Demosthenes, Lysias and Isokrates are among the most promising orators whose models and ideas seem to exist, in different degrees, in the novel of Achilleus Tatios.

Oddly, it is the earliest orator whose basic rhetorical technique our author seems to echo. Antiphon’s speeches concern homicides; especially his tetralogies

present a striking similarity in their inner rhetorical technique. Antiphon, as indeed Achilleus Tatios, is conspicuous in using the inner elements of a case in order to prove his point. His principal technique is not to use the facts but to find the inherent details of the case and to build up his arguments. It is probabilities that he is looking for in a trial case and not facts and witnesses. The arguments in the courtroom speeches of Achilleus Tatios’ novel are mainly modelled on this kind of sophistry. Almost all speakers and especially Kleinias and Thersandros follow this technique.

Demosthenes is another orator who seems very promising in the discussion of the relationship between Achilleus Tatios and classical rhetoric. Sopatros, the professional rhetor who defends Thersandros, is strongly reminiscent of, if not actually modelled on, the figure of Demosthenes. He is extremely self-confident.

he speaks with great assurance and he is quite assertive. He states from the very beginning with absolute confidence that he is going to establish not only one accusation against Kleitophon but two: “otav ovv àjtoôeCÇa) ôuo'i Savdtoiç evoxov ô v t a , . . ( 8 , 10, 2). The same style of speaking we find in Demosthenes. In his A gainst Onetor, for example, he uses the same language: “àjtoôeiÇco yag

auTov oi) [Aovov rqv jtgoix’ où ôeôcoxoTa, . . . , olXXol xoi èÇ dp%f|G tolg èpioiç

èjtiPouA.EUovTa’’ (30.4). Besides, there is a special detail in his description that betrays his model. After his introduction the quite experienced looking rhetor is described as making the following gestures: “T au ra eljtwv xdl TepaTevodpevoç xai TQiipaç TO JtQOGcojtov . . . ecpTi” (8, 10, 2). Likewise, Demosthenes is described quite dramatically (but rather sarcastically) by Aischines in his speech On the Embassy, “èip’ djiaoi b’ f|[xiv dvCoTatai xeXeuxaîoç AqjioaOévTiç, xai xegaxeuodtievoç, (nojtEp e i c o O e , xcp oyq^axi xdl xpi\i>aç xqv xEcpaA,qv . . . Eq)T]” (2.49).^ Moreover, Aischines and Lysias are relevant to the investigation of their influence on Achilleus Tatios.

The influence of classical oratorv in the introductions of the courtroom speeches in Achilleus Tatios' novel.

The extent of the influence of classical rhetoric in the introductions of the courtroom speeches is quite remarkable. This does not happen - strictly speaking - only in introductory parts of the speeches but also in the introduction to a new issue within the speech. The main common ideas which are shared between real speeches of the classical era and the ones in Achilleus Tatios are the following: i) I will speak briefly, ii) I will tell everything from the beginning, iii) I am sure I will forget certain things, etc.

The idea of the first statement (i) works quite well in those circumstances where judges and audience may be subjected to hearing long speech full of unnecessary details. Therefore, the assurance that this will not happen is a relief and helps attract the audience’s interest. In Achilleus Tatios’ novel, Kleinias uses this idea

^ See Vilborg (1962) pp. 134-135. In his section on “the faults in the use of the hands” (XI, III, 117ff.) Quintilian suggests that such movements indicate nervousness (IX, III, 121) and dismisses the “striking of the forehead” as a “purely theatrical trick” (XI, III, 123; transi, by Butler); see also Schwartz (1998) p. 220.

in his introduction: “ct be y]Xvxt]oe ôià Ppaxecov epw" (7, 9, 3). In Demosthenes’

A gainst Stephanos I the speaker makes a similar statement: “èÇ ôp/fig ô’ d)ç ctv oîoç t ’ d) ôià pQaxi^tdtcov eîjteiv jieipdaoiAai Tct iieKQay\ié\a noi tiqoç OoQuicüva” (45.2). In A gainst Olympiodoros (48.4) he gives the same promise: “eoTi ÔÈ ppaxhç 6 Xoyog.” Lysias in his speech A gainst Eratosthenes explains that although the case is very complicated he is going to make as short a speech as possible: “ôncaç ôè JieipdaojAai u^dg èÇ dpxf|g wg dv buvcojiai ôi’ èXaxCoTODV ôiôdÇai” (12.3). In another case Lysias promises that he will speak briefly: “jtotfjoonai Ô8 TT]v d7toX,0 7iav (bg dv buvcofxai did ppaxuTdttüv” (Lysias, In

defence o f Mantitheos, 16.9). Brevity therefore is an idea shared by speakers in Achilleus Tatios and classical orators.^

Stating that you pursue clarity (case ii) in your speech in a trial is quite helpful for the judges who try to understand what has really happened in the case. This is another useful trick in the introduction which is used by many speakers. Kleitophon is one who uses it in his confession to the court; he promises that he is going to say the whole truth: “èyà) ôè Jtdoav u^iiv epw rqv dXfjGeiav” (7, 7, 3). Lysias in his speech “ujièp rot) ’EpatooOevoug tpovou” makes the same statement: “Eycb xoCvuv dpxf|g u^iiv d jtav ta èjciôeCÇo) xd e^auxou Jtpdynaxa, OÛÔÈV jtapaXeiJtcDV, dXXd Xèywv xdXq8q" (1.5).^

The third case is the one when the speaker gives the impression that he may fail to cover everything he should say about the case, either because he is not a good speaker or because there are so many things which should be mentioned that he may forget (or intentionally avoid) some of them. In his second speech Thersandros makes a similar statement. More specifically, he claims that there are so many offences the adverse party has committed that some of them may escape him (qjoPoupiai nq dxekfig (ioi 6 Xoyog yevqxai, xf|g xcbv àXXœv [ivfjuTig xqv yXœooay ècp’ exaoxov éXxouoqg; 8, 8, 2). In the same introduction Thersandros asserts that he does not know from where to start his speech and what to say first and what second because the offences are numerous and all

^ Gabaudan (1987) also deals with this theme in classieal oratory and there are some other examples on p. 220ff.

^ Likewise, Antiphon (1. 13) makes a similar statement just before the narrative: “jiegi ôè xœv yevo^évoüv T ceL Q doo|A ai 'Ofxlv Ô L T iy r io a a B a i tt|v àXfjOeiav.”

equally serious. The same idea can be found in many classical speeches as, for example, in Lysias' A gainst Eratosthenes. The speech's very first lines are:

"ou% ap^aoSaC pioi ôoxeî âjiopov Eivai, w âvôpeç ôixaoTai, xriç xaTqyopCag,

bXka Jtauoaoôai XéYOVtf to ia u ta aÛToîç tb peyeSoç xol Tooauta tb %Xq8og eipYaoTai, (uote prit’ ctv ipEUÔo^iEvov ÔEivoTEpa tô&v ujiapxdvTcov xatTiYOpT|Ocxi, liqTE tàX,T]6r| PouXdp^vov eikeiv ctjtavta ôuvaoGai" (12.1). Moreover, in Lysias 28.1: “xà [iÈv xax'nYop'npEva ouxcoç èoxl jtoXXb xai ÔEivd, m dvôpEç A6T)vaioi, woxE oux dv noi ÔOXEÎ ôuvaoSai ’EpYoxX,î|ç ujiep évbç éxdoxou xcnv jtEJipttYnévcDv aÙT(p jtoXXdxig djto0avà)v ôoüvai ôCxqv dÇiav xcp ujiETEpCf) jtXfîGEi.’’

Thersandros is in a similar puzzle caused by the seriousness and the variety of the offences. He asserts that he does not know where to start: “oux oiôa xCvog dp^ojiai Xoyou xdl jt60Ev, oùôÈ xivcov xaxqYOpfÎGü) Jtpwxov xai xtvcov ÔEUTEpov” (8, 8,1). In the same way Gorgias expresses puzzlement as to where to start his speech: “Hep'i xouxwv ôè ji60ev dp^ojxai; xi ôè TCptnxov EiJto);”'^ In a later stage of his speech De Corona Demosthenes makes a similar statement: “Oux djlOpO) Ô’ OTl %pT| JtEpl O O Û xdl TWV OCÜV eIjTEIV, djiopcb XOU JtpCOTOU |ivqo00)" (18.129).^ This rhetorical device, therefore, is well known to the orators and in fact it is one of their favourites.

One can find it in different parts of a speech apart from the introduction as, for example, in the epilogue; in Lysias' A gainst Alkibiades I, there is an interesting statement: “’Eycb pièv ouv cog èôuvd|XT]v dpioxa xaxTiYOpiixa, ejtCoxafAai ô' bxi oi nèv dkkoi xcbv dxpoonEvcav 0au^idÇouoiv, ojtcog 7co0’ ouxcog dxpiPcog ÊÔuvq0qv E^EUpEiv xd xouxcov d|iapxfî}iaxa, ouxog ôè jiou xaxayekd, bxi oùôè mokkooxbv fiEpog Eipqxa xcbv xouxoig ujtapxdvxcov xaxcbv” (14.46). Likewise, in Isokrates’

Evagoras the speaker states that he is not afraid of exaggerating the deeds of Evagoras but he is rather afraid of not rendering them rightly (9.48). Aischines in his distinctive way asks the judges to enquire if they feel that he has missed out something and expresses puzzlement as to where he should start (djtopw ô' 6jto0Ev xpq Jtpcbxov dpÇao0ai).^

^ Gorgias, PaJam., 4. ^ See p. 80, note 14.

^ A similar puzzlement is found in the introduction of the speech; see Aischines, On the E m bassy 2. 7: “àjioQœ Ô’ ÔJioOev xo^l JtQwxov âeÇaoOat.”

Sometimes the speaker, wishing to overstate his self-confidence, makes it clear that he will not only prove his main point but also something more. Sopatros makes such an assertion at the beginning of his speech: “o tav ouv àjtoÔei^a) ôuoL 0avdtToiç evo%ov ôvca” (8, 10, 2). Demosthenes in his speech A gainst

Oogfor claims that he will prove not only that Onetor has never given money to Demosthenes but also that he has been treating him unfairly for a long time “àjtoôeiÇü) yap autov où jxovov . . . oXko. xot” (30.4). Isokrates makes a similar statement: “ajtobeCIo) ôè KaXkCpaxov où pdvov Jtapct Tctç ouvOfîxaç ôixaÇofXEvov, oXka xol Jtepi tô)v eyxXTipdTCDV ipeuôopevov, xol jtQooéti . . This is, therefore, another common element shared by Achilleus Tatios and classical orators.

Character and its role in the process of persuasion.

In many speeches of classical orators the speakers are preoccupied with the matter of character and morality. They often try to prove the truthfulness of their side by presenting the immaculate character of the person they defend (and vice versa). On the other hand, a speaker may try to prove his points by “revealing” the real character of the adverse party and showing that his opponent is a man of poor morality, a totally unreliable person. This is common practice in the trial with which we are dealing, as it is indeed with trials from classical antiquity. The speaker is not only interested in the facts of his case but tries to make an attack on the whole life of his opponent. This trick is useful, as bad rumours about a person are more easily accepted than good ones.

There are many ways in which a character of a person can be presented in a trial; there are at least four:

i) you can give specific examples of one’s actions in order to illuminate your point;

ii) you can attack a person with specific accusations about the quality of his character;

iii) you can go back to his previous life and reveal some kind of insolent behaviour which people do not seem to remember or even know;

iv) when all these fail or you do not want to waste too much time trying uncertain methods, you can use a more powerful resource: accusation of sexual perversion, using illuminating examples if possible.

As we saw earlier,^ in Tatios’ trial scene some of the above techniques are used by various speakers. It is interesting to notice that the fewer arguments or pieces of evidence one has, the more one turns to such areas to prove a point; this policy can also be used by a speaker with quite strong arguments in order to make sure that he will convince even the most awkward judge.

The use of character exposition in the process of proving a point is used more intensively in the second part of the trial (book 8). Here are some examples; when Thersandros realises that Kleitophon and Leukippe are protected by a local priest, he applies for a new trial where he complains that the law has not been imposed; even the convicted Kleitophon is still free and enjoys every right an innocent citizen can have. He blames the priest for this violation of the law, because, as he argues, instead of staying away from criminals the priest is protecting them. This is an act that shows the priest’s real character and his attitude towards law and order; he disdains them. However, the same accusation is made against Thersandros by the priest; he wonders where Thersandros found the right to imprison Kleitophon in his house in the first place; there is no law which says that private individuals have the right to judge and punish people for their deeds. The same kind of argumentation is also used by Sopatros, one of the professional rhetors hired by Thersandros. In his single speech he tries to convince the judges not to believe what the priest has said earlier because, he claims, he is not respectable person; it is not suitable for a priest to speak in the way he did, namely making gross allegations and comic statements about Thersandros’ sexual life.

In real forensic speeches of classical antiquity this is a favourite kind of allegation made by the speaker as a substitute for evidence. Demosthenes is one of the orators who use it quite often. In his speech A gainst Stephano^ Phormion is the victim of a strong attack on his character, his ingratitude and his

® See p. 83f., p. 92, and p. 106. ^ Demosthenes. 45.71ff., esp. 45.79f.

immorality. Again in A gainst Olympiodoros the speaker presents Olympiodoros as âôixoç (48.56), ccjcXTiOTog xai alaxQOX8QÔT]ç (48.67).

In his speech A gainst Aphobos Demosthenes claims, similarly to Thersandros, that the law has not been imposed. Although Aphobos has been condemned to pay him a certain amount of money in damages, he received nothing until that day; instead Aphobos continued to dissipate his belongings and after destroying his house he went to Megara. These actions indicate clearly his real character and the respect he pays to the court. Therefore, it is only just for him to be loathed by the judges for his deeds (dSote jtoX,ù av ôixaioteQov ôià t a b t a t a epya toutov HiofioaiTe, Ag. Aph. Ill, 29.3). By exposing these details of his opponent’s deeds the speaker can win over the judges and convince them that they should dispense justice. In the closely related speech A gainst Onetor Demosthenes claims that Onetor is of a far worse character than his brother-in-law judging by what he has done to him; he is telling lies in order to avoid the decision of the court and he even expelled Demosthenes from the farm-house which Onetor now possesses illegally. Therefore, the judges will find out that Onetor is a very unjust person (ex ye Ttt)v JCQOç èpè jtEJtQayfiévœv yvwoeoSai, ô ti xoi tov oXKoy %p6vov èXdvôavE aùtbv xdxiotoç wv xai dôixcoTatoç djidvtcov Ag. On. I, 30.4). In another speech of Demosthenes we hear a certain speaker defending his friend Phormion; his stepson has brought him to the court accusing him of exploiting his real father’s fortune. Thus the speaker reminds him that he has no right to say anything against his father-in-law since he has done nothing illegal; on the contrary, he has administered his property in the best possible way. The son reacted in this way because of his “insatiate greed” and his character (dXX’ oipai TTjç of|g djtA.T]OTCaç xdl tou oov tqojiou tiç dv ôuvait’ ÊcpixéoOai; For Phormion

36. 44-45). He later explains that what this man is doing is causing people to think disgraceful things about his family and the city which granted them citizenship (36. 46-47). Demosthenes uses the same method of argumentation, this time positively, to prove his friend’s good character (36. 55ff.): he mentions the services that his friend has offered to his country and that he has harmed nobody until that day; his deeds indicate that he has proven to be a man of an immaculate character and for this reason the judges should believe his side. In De Corona Demosthenes claims that his opponent (Aischines) has accused other

people of every offence he has committed in his life (18. 261); later, he characterises Aischines as a cruel and malignant person who accuses him of every misfortune he has had in his life (AioxCvtiçtoCvuvtoooütov ÜMEçpép^xev txTtavtaç âv0Qo5jtouç (bpioTriTi xai auxocpavTiçt . . . 18.275). This man brought Demosthenes to the courts only because of personal malice, jealousy and meanness against him (lôiaç 6%8pag xai cp06vou xai nixpoij;u%Cag eotl otijieÎov, OÙÔEVOÇ xp^OTou (18.279).

All these examples imply that a person acts against another because of personal faults of his character. Some are accused of scorning the law, others that they failed to act according to law and to decisions of previous courts, others are motivated by personal enmity and wish for revenge, others show violent behaviour and others show ingratitude to their parents. By giving examples of your opponent’s malignant behaviour you can easily render him vulnerable to your accusations. That is why the persons involved in the trial case of Achilleus Tatios’ novel try so often to use this way of argumentation. Thersandros complains that both Kleitophon and the priest utterly scorn the law. The latter accusation is equally made by the priest against Thersandros, while Thersandros’ rhetor tries to focus more on the priest’s “immoral” character.

Looking back at somebody’s life is another easy way of focusing on theirs mistakes and faulty behaviour which can produce quite a bad impression of their personality; this is especially true in the case of allegations which cannot be easily proved. With some degree of exaggeration he may be branded as totally untrustworthy. This is used in quite serious cases as in the accusations of Aischines against Demosthenes in On the Embassy. Aischines in defence tries to depict Demosthenes’ character with the worst colours presenting briefly his past