The Orator Demades: Classical Greece

Reimagined through Rhetoric

Sviatoslav Dmitirev
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-orator-demades-classical-greece-reimagined-thro
ugh-rhetoric-sviatoslav-dmitirev/
i

The Orator Demades

ii

This inscription, IG II2 1623.B = EM 8096 (courtesy of the Epigraphic

Museum, Athens), from Demades’s lifetime, mentions him (lines 166–​
167), together with Demosthenes (lines 188–​189), among the guarantors of
triremes loaned by Athens to the people of the island of Chalcis in 341–​340
b.c. (for a discussion of this text, see Chapter 1). By provoking the question
of how the historical Demades differed from a later rhetorical construct car-
rying his name, this text invites us to explore the surviving evidence about
him in its chronological context, while raising a broader issue of the problem-
atic foundations of our knowledge about classical Greece.
iii

The Orator
Demades
Classical Greece Reimagined
through Rhetoric
z
SVIATOSLAV DMITRIEV

1
iv

1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2021

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data

Names: Dmitriev, Sviatoslav, author.
Title: The orator Demades : classical Greece reimagined through rhetoric /​
Sviatoslav Dmitriev.
Description: New York, NY, United States of America : Oxford University
Press, 2021. | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020030316 (print) | LCCN 2020030317 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780197517826 (hardback) | ISBN 9780197517840 (epub) |
ISBN 9780197517833 (updf ) | ISBN 9780197517857 (online)
Subjects: LCSH: Demades, approximately 380 B.C.–319 B.C. | Rhetoric,
Ancient. | Oratory, Ancient. | Orators—​Greece—​Athens—​Biography. |
Politicians—​Greece—​Athens—​Biography.
Classification: LCC PA3948.D35 D55 2021 (print) | LCC PA3948.D35 (ebook)
| DDC 885/​.01—​dc23
LC record available at https://​lccn.loc.gov/​2020030316
LC ebook record available at https://​lccn.loc.gov/​2020030317

DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197517826.001.0001

1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Printed by Integrated Books International, United States of America
v

matri optimae

in memoriam

patri carissimi
vi
vi

Contents

Preface ix

INTRODUCTION: Approximating the historical Demades 1

PART I : Demades in the world of people

1. Making sense of the evidence 13

2. Texts and contexts 36

3. The rhetorical persona of Demades 63

PART II : Demades in the world of images

4. Paideia: education with edification 97

5. The art of being earnest 126

6. Demades the politician 155

PART III : Demades’s rhetorical history

7. History, rhetoric, and legends 195

8. Athenian political rhetoric 220

9. Demades’s last years and words 251

vi

viii Contents

EPILOGUE: Constructing the rhetorical Demades 283

APPENDIX: Interpreting ps.-​Demades’s On the Twelve Years 291

Abbreviations and select bibliography 297

Index of sources 317
Index of personal names, technical terms, and important words 345
ix

Preface

The roots of this book go back to June 2010, when an unexpected e-​mail
arrived, conveying an invitation for me to participate in Brill’s New Jacoby
project and offering a choice from a list of personalities. Among my picks
was Demades, a politician from classical Athens, because I remembered him
from classes on Plutarch at Moscow University (who presented Demades as
an arrogant and immoral enemy of Demosthenes), and because of my old
interest in classical rhetoric, for which there never had been enough time.
The task seemed easy. Demades was a marginal figure who received limited
attention from ancient authors: Jacoby’s less-​than-​one-​page entry (FGrH
227) comprised only two texts—​the Suda, δ 414 and a later commentary
on Hesiod’s Theogony 914—​and made references to two works allegedly by
Demades: the History of Delos and the Record (Rendered) to Olympias on
His Twelve Years. My new, more-​than-​400-​pages-​long entry on Demades
included almost 280 texts, divided about evenly into testimonia and
fragmenta.
Even more important, this evidence revealed a difference between the his-
torical Demades, of whom we know very little, and the rhetorical Demades,
a product of the Roman and Byzantine periods that generated most of the
available information we have about him. Explaining how and why this later
Demades emerged centuries after his historical prototype was possible only
by contextualizing him within the rhetorical culture of those periods. This
task required a separate project. It grew naturally into an examination of ed-
ucational and literary practices that were inseparably connected with the de-
velopment of rhetoric as a professional field, and the ways in which the figure
of Demades and other historical characters were molded to accommodate
later intellectual, social, and literary conventions. The project finally took the
shape of a book when such evidence about Demades was used as one facet of
a larger picture of later rhetors and sophists fabricating a distorted image of
x

x Preface

classical Greece, which continues to dominate modern scholarship and pop-

ular culture.
It was a pleasure to work once again with Stefan Vranka and his amazing
team of collaborators at Oxford University Press. This book is dedicated to my
mother, Galina N. Dmitrieva, in memory of my father, Victor N. Dmitriev
(1939–​2016).
1

Introduction
Approximating the historical Demades

For what gives more courage to men who

are afraid than the spoken word?
—​D io Chrysostom 18.2

Unlike Alexander the Great and Demosthenes, his contemporaries,

and acquaintances, Demades has never been an average household name. He
is known, however, as the only Athenian who always managed to stay on good
terms with both the irascible and impulsive Alexander III (the Great) and
his more cunning and self-​controlled father, King Philip II of Macedonia.
Demades far outstrips all of his contemporaries in the number of surviving
inscriptions with decrees adopted in the Athenian assembly from his proposals
(see Chapter 1). His quick wit, powerful extemporaneous speeches, and out-
standing diplomatic skills were praised centuries later. Relying on ancient
accounts, modern studies agree that after Philip and Alexander decisively de-
feated Athens and her allies in the battle of Chaeronea in 338 b.c.—​with a
thousand Athenians dead, two thousand captured, and scores fleeing the city
in fear of her impending siege and destruction—​Demades’s skilful oratory
persuaded Philip to restore the Athenian dead and prisoners of war free of
charge, and helped to arrange a peace treaty that was unexpectedly favorable
to Athens. Ancient authors also tell how, when Philip died in 336, Demades
kept the Athenians from joining the revolt by the city of Thebes against the
young Alexander, thus saving them from the fate of the besieged Thebans.
A furious Alexander had the remaining Theban men killed, women and
children sold as slaves, and the city razed to the ground. He then demanded
that the Athenians surrender several anti-​Macedonian politicians, including
Demosthenes, and threatened Athens with destruction if its citizens resisted.
We read that, unlike some who refused to interfere in this conflict, fearing for

The Orator Demades. Sviatoslav Dmitriev, Oxford University Press (2021). © Oxford University Press.
DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197517826.003.0001
2

2 In t roduct ion

their lives, Demades eagerly volunteered to go to Macedonia and succeeded

in persuading Alexander to drop his demand. He thus once again saved his
fellow citizens and the city. Our sources tell us that, in addition to issuing a
special decree in his honor, the people of Athens rewarded Demades with a
bronze statue in the marketplace and the right to a daily free meal (along with
the city councilors on duty) for himself and his descendants. He is thought
to have been the first of the Athenians to receive all of these exceptional
privileges—​during his lifetime—​and did so long before Demosthenes, who
obtained such honors only posthumously.1 When Alexander departed on his
campaign to the east, Demades is said to have forestalled any military coop-
eration between Athens and the Spartan king Agis III, whose revolt against
Macedonian rule in 331–​330 ended in his defeat, his eventual death, and the
final demise of Sparta. And, according to ancient texts, when Athens revolted
over the news of Alexander’s death in 323, only to be defeated and humiliated
by his general Antipater, Demades again stepped in and saved his city. After
Phocion, famed as the people’s advocate, bluntly refused to travel for risky
negotiations with Antipater, the Athenians once more turned to Demades.
He readily agreed to undertake this mission, defended the interests of Athens
before Antipater with dignity and force, and paid with the price of his life,
and that of his son, for the sake of his city in 319. Together with the death of
Alexander the Great and the suicide of Demosthenes in the following year,
the execution of Demades marked the end of classical Greece.
It is puzzling, then, that despite Demades’s many valuable services to
Athens, and all of Greece, he received predominantly negative treatment by
ancient authors. Their disapproving attitude survived into modern works, be-
ginning in the nineteenth century—​when Demades first attracted the atten-
tion of scholars, who saw him as a “man without character or principle” and
“accessible to bribes from whatever quarter they came, ever ready to betray
his country and his own party”—​and into our times.2 Several recent studies

1. Demades: Din. 1.100–​101; Long. Inv. (544.21–​545.11); Aps. 10.6; Lib. Or. 15.42, with Kralli
1999–​2000, 136–​138, 142–​143, 147; see Chapter 9. The earlier honors of either a statue or the
sitesis, which is the right to meals at public expense: Cleon (Aristoph. Equ. 167, 575, 709, 766,
1404), Conon and his son Timotheus (GHI 128: c. 375 b.c.; Dem. 20.70; Schol. Dem. 21.62
[200]), and Iphicrates (Dem. 23.130, 136; Schol. Dem. 21.62 [200]). See also Osborne 1981,
159 for Diphilus (“330s”; with a question mark), referring to Din. 1.43 and Dionys. Din. 11.
Demosthenes: ps.-​Plut. X Or. 847d and 850f–​851c = Marasco 1984, 151–​152, with MacDowell
2009, 424–​426 and Canevaro 2018a, 73. Ps.-​Plut. X Or. 843c, while claiming that Lycurgus re-
ceived such honors during his lifetime, dated them to the much later archonship of Anaxicrates.
2. For example, Schmitz 1844, 957 (the quotations); Glotz 1936, 363: “he saw only his interest
in politics”; Harding 2015, 59: “Demades cared about nothing but himself.”
3

Introduction 3

have tried to reconsider the image of Demades, pointing to the many benefits
of his policies for Athens.3 While this evidence is well known, however, such
studies have failed to explain Demades’s mostly negative posthumous image;
in fact, they have hardly ever raised this question. Another question that no
one has ever asked is why more than one image of Demades has survived: an-
cient texts give divergent, and sometimes contradictory, descriptions of his
looks, character, and oratorical style. A pot-​bellied fellow for some, he was
good-​looking for others. Accusations of Demades as a dishonest politician
and self-​indulgent bon vivant coexisted with references to him as the author
of philosophical and moralistic maxims. Some ancient accounts censured
his oratory as flattery, while others commended him as an outspoken truth-​
teller.4 Attempts to create a balanced view of Demades have failed to reconcile
such disagreements in the sources. Although more recent reassessments of
Demades have done their best to avoid some of the most odious clichés and
grotesque epithets typically applied to him, problems still remain.
The most discordant of them is that any study of Demades necessitates
interpreting the same evidence—​about 280 texts that range from one line
to several pages long—​that largely postdates his death by three or more
centuries. Some have accepted each text at face value, trying to connect
it with a certain moment in his life, even though many of the texts con-
tradict one another, dissolving the figure of Demades into irreconcilable
images. Others have advocated a selective approach, sometimes interpreting
references to Demades or his alleged quotations as genuine, while at other
times discarding them as inauthentic. Treves, for example, rejected the genu-
ineness of the fragment: “After Demades moved an illegal proposal and was
censured by Lycurgus, someone asked him whether he looked in the laws
when moving the proposal. ‘No, I did not,’ he said, ‘for they were in the shade
of the Macedonian arms,’ ” while De Falco and Marzi accepted it as rendering
Demades’s own words.5 This situation, which is characteristic of studies about

3. Williams 1989, 19–​30; Marzi 1991, 70–​83; Marzi 1995, 615–​616, 619 n. 104; Brun 2000, 15,
39–​40, 171–​172; Squillace 2003, 751–​752; Cawkwell 2012, 429.
4. Pot-​belly: Athenae. 2, 44ef; Demad., no. 8 (112) = Sternbach 1963, 94, no. 242.
Dishonesty: Diod. 10.9.1. Self-​ indulgence: Athenae. 2, 44ef; Plut. De cup. div. 526a.
Flattery: Plut. Dem. 31.4–​6; ps.-​Max. Planud. Comm. Herm. (214.25–​215.1); P.Berol. 13045.67–​
68. Good looks: Tzetz. Chil. 5.342–​349. Moral behavior and sayings: Emp. Math. 1.295. Flattery
and truth-​telling: Chapter 5.
5. Demad., no. 1 (108) = De Falco 1954, 21, no. V = Sternbach 1963, 92, no. 235 = Marzi 1995,
640, no. V. Treves 1933a, 109–​110; De Falco 1954, 25; Marzi 1995, 640, 645.
4

4 In t roduct ion

Demades, poses a question about what criteria might serve for authenticating
the available evidence.
Two approaches for identifying genuine information about Demades have
been suggested. The authors of the most comprehensive collections of evi-
dence about Demades for their times, De Falco (1954, 38) and Marzi (1995,
665), proposed disqualifying those texts that were paralleled by descriptions
of the same episodes involving other characters or the same quotations
ascribed to different personalities. They thus rejected the authenticity of
Demades’s proposal to count Philip II among Olympian deities, as mentioned
in the Art of Rhetoric by Apsines (third century a.d.), since ps.-​Maximus
Planudes (the fourteenth century or later?) attributed a similar proposal to
Demades’s fellow politician, the orator Aeschines.6 Although this method
has obvious merits (without necessarily solving all the problems), the authors
themselves have not applied it consistently. De Falco accepted references
by such late authors as Tzetzes (c. 1110–​1185) and ps.-​Maximus Planudes to
Demades leaving his son, still a youth, alone at the court of Philip, thereby
catering to the king’s lustful advances, although these references replicated
Demosthenes’s insinuations against Phrynon, a relatively distinguished con-
temporary Athenian political figure, also mentioned by Sopatros at a later
date.7 De Falco and Marzi similarly acknowledged the above-​mentioned ref-
erence to Demades’s words about the laws being shaded by the Macedonian
arms as authentic, although the same phrase was also ascribed to Hyperides,
one of Demades’s fellow politicians.8 De Falco and Marzi were likewise eager
to consider an excerpt from one of Plutarch’s essays—​“Phocion also, when
Demades shrieked, ‘The Athenians if they grow mad, will kill you,’ elegantly
replied, ‘And you, if they come to their senses’ ”—​as referring to a certain dis-
agreement between Phocion and Demades on clauses of the peace treaty be-
tween Athens and Macedonia, without identifying this treaty. Here, though,
they are treading on dangerous grounds because elsewhere Plutarch described
a similar altercation between Phocion and Demosthenes. While De Falco
and Marzi were thus sidestepping their own method for identifying authentic
evidence about Demades, Treves had already rejected the authenticity of this

6. De Falco 1954, 47, no. LXXXI; ps.-​Max. Planud. Comm. Herm. (367.23–​25). Demad., no. 1
(108) = De Falco 1954, 21, no. V = Sternbach 1963, 92, no. 235 = Marzi 1995, 640, no. V.
7. Tzetz. Epit. rhet. (677.12–​14), and Chil. 6.16–​17; ps.-​Max. Planud. Comm. Herm. (377.12–​
14). Dem. 19.230. Sopatr. Comm. Herm. Stas. (631.29–​632.1). De Falco 1954, 45. For this story,
see Chapter 6.
8. See n. 5 above. Hyper. fr. 27–​28 = ps.-​Plut. X Or. 849a. De Falco 1954, 25; Marzi 1995, 640.
5

Introduction 5

reference, interpreting it as an example of wordplay, precisely because Plutarch

also mentioned a similar argument between Phocion and Demosthenes.
Plutarch’s use of different characters undermines any attempts to associate
this episode with some specific event.9 In what looks like a similar situation,
Treves rejected the genuineness of Stobaeus’s words that “Demades compared
the Athenians to flutes: if one takes away their tongues, there will be nothing
left,” by pointing out that Aeschines used the same phrase. Even while noting
this fact, De Falco and Marzi still accepted Stobaeus’s words as a genuine quo-
tation from Demades.10
De Falco and Marzi justified their approach to the evidence by holding
these doublets as phrases that Dinarchus, Aeschines, Demosthenes, and other
Athenian orators originally voiced and Demades recycled.11 However, such
justifications neither overturn the selective treatment of the surviving sources
nor offer a good reason that Demades—​counted among the best orators of the
time—​needed to recycle the statements of his contemporaries. Others, like
Treves (1933a, 108 n. 1), chose to reject ascribing such references to Demades.
The fallibility of establishing the authenticity of Demades’s expressions on
the basis of their (alleged) use by other people is also revealed by occasional
disagreements between De Falco, who accepted the above-​mentioned story
of Demades leaving his young son alone at the court of Philip as genuine, and
Marzi, who left this account out of his collection of evidence about Demades
specifically because Demosthenes made a similar accusation against Phrynon.
In the end, this approach amounts to no more than personal choices.
Additionally, it neither can nor does offer any help when we have more than
one version of the same episode involving Demades, such as the case of three
very different stories about Demades’s address to King Philip after the battle
of Chaeronea. While De Falco, followed by Marzi, rejected the authenticity
of the story by Sextus Empiricus because it included the same phrase that
the philosopher Xenocrates allegedly uttered to Antipater at a later time, De

9. Plut. Praec. ger. reip. 811a; De Falco 1954, 33; Marzi 1995, 658. Plut. Phoc. 9.8, with Pelling
1980 on Plutarch’s reusing the same stories in his different works. Treves 1933a, 117 n. 3.
10. Stobae. 3.4.67 = Sternbach 1893, 159, no. 245 = ps.-​Max. Conf. 54.22/​23 (859). Treves 1933a,
108 n. 1. Aeschin. 3.229. De Falco 1954, 36; Marzi 1995, 663.
11. Dinarchus: Demad., no. 2 (109) = De Falco 1954, 24, no. XI = Marzi 1995, 644, no. XI.
Aeschines: Stobae. 3.4.67 (see previous note). De Falco 1954, 36, no. LVII = Marzi 1995, 662,
no. LVII. Demosthenes: Plut. Praec. ger. reip. 811a = De Falco 1954, 33, no. XLVII = Marzi 1995,
658, no. XLVII; Plut. Phoc. 9.8.
6

6 In t roduct ion

Falco acknowledged very different accounts of Demades’s address to Philip,

by Diodorus and Stobaeus, as genuine.12
Lamenting the lack of a definitive criterion for determining authentic ev-
idence about Demades, Treves (1933a, 121) pessimistically observed that, ex-
cept for Demades’s famed witticisms, we do not see the man behind a “few
incomplete fragments.” His words pointed to the other method used for
identifying authentic passages by Demades—​his oratorical style: references
to his witticisms, aphorisms, metaphors, and concise sayings allowed ancient
and modern authors to speak of Demades’s special style of oratory.13 As with
the first method, however, relying on this style as the criterion for authen-
ticity of the evidence about him has similarly produced diverse opinions.
The genuineness of Demades’s humorous reference to his insatiable belly and
privy parts was rejected by De Falco but accepted by Marzi as conforming
to the style of Demades’s oratory.14 Conversely, while De Falco saw certain
passages in the later text On the Twelve Years (see the Appendix) as originally
belonging to one of Demades’s speeches, although he was unable to identify
that speech, Marzi rejected the authenticity of those passages as not displaying
features characteristic of Demades’s oratory.15 Such disagreements cast doubts
on whether references to Demades’s style or his alleged quotations can prove
their authenticity. Most importantly, style cannot serve as an authentication
criterion, since not one of the six surviving literary texts mentioning Demades,
which (allegedly) belonged to his lifetime, mentions his oratorical style,16
while, as ancient authorities acknowledged, Demades’s speeches were not
available in writing.17 The only evidence of Demades’s style of oratory is there-
fore from much later sources, the earliest of which emerged three centuries
after his death. One of them, ps.-​Demetrius’s On Style, generally dated to the
first or second century a.d., attributed the force of Demades’s speeches to

12. Diod. 16.87.1–​2; Emp. Math. 1.295; Stobae. 4.14.47 (see Chapter 5). De Falco 1954, 33–​
34 and 38; Marzi 1995, 665–​666. Xenocrates: Diog. Laert. 4.2.9 = Xenocr. fr. 109 = Isnardi
Parente 2012, 45–​52, Test. 2.
13. Ps.-​Demetr. 282, with Chiron 2001, 304–​305. For example, Gärtner 1964, 1456; Williams
1989, 20 n. 9. Discussions: Brun 2000, 22, 28–​31.
14. Demades. no. 8 (112) = Sternbach 1963, 94, no. 242; Marzi 1995, 668, no. LXXI; De Falco
1954, 40, no. LXXI.
15. Ps.-​Demad. Dod. 1–​3; De Falco 1954, 28–​29; Marzi 1995, 650, 669–​670 (with n. 1).
16. Arist. Rhet. 2.24.8, 1401b.29; Dem. 18.285; Hyper. 1.25 and fr. 76; Din. 1 and 2.
17. Cic. Brut. 36; Quint. 2.17.13, 12.10.49.
7

Introduction 7

“allusions, the employment of allegorical element, and hyperbole.”18 But what

served as the foundation of these much later observations? It is not at all un-
reasonable to guess that they were derived from On the Twelve Years and other
texts that circulated in the form of Demades’s speeches and sayings in later
centuries. Attributing such evidence to Demades on the basis of his orator-
ical style and then using this material to illustrate that style creates a circular
argument.
No viable method therefore exists for establishing the authenticity of the
evidence derived from later texts. With the system’s justification built into
the system, literary sources offer no solid foundation for reconstructing the
historical Demades. This situation prompted Patrice Brun to seek an objec-
tive portrayal of Demades by focusing on evidence from his lifetime, most of
which comprises a handful of inscriptions in the form of decrees, accounts,
and honorific texts. As public documents, they were available for all to see
and, although this accessibility does not guarantee that such texts necessarily
provide objective information, they still appear to be more reliable than later
literary works. Such an approach, however, can hardly achieve Brun’s declared
aim. These few public inscriptions include only standard laconic formulas
pertaining to certain aspects of Athenian administration and politics.19 They
tell us nothing about Demades’s life, personality, and oratory. As insufficient
sources of information, scarce bits of inscriptional evidence from Demades’s
lifetime are traditionally rationalized by being woven into a consecutive nar-
rative fabric together with later literary texts, which, as we have seen, offer
contradictory references. Consequently, inscriptional evidence, too, receives
diverse interpretations. Finally, limiting a study of Demades to the evidence
from his lifetime does not solve—​nor does it address—​the problem of his
many and diverse images in later texts.
The figure of Demades receives a different treatment in this book. Its basic
premise is to distinguish between the actual person who lived in the fourth
century b.c. and the fictional Demades, whose image acquired a life, or lives,
of its own after the historical prototype passed away. The view of Demades as
an influential politician who enjoyed his life to the full and who was always
eager to crack a joke, and to rise and speak on the spur of the moment with

18. Ps.-​Demetr. 282, 286, followed by Chiron 2013, 47.

19. Brun 2000, 33–​34, with Brun 2013, 92 (distinguishing not so much between contemporary
and later sources as between official documents and moralizing or partisan texts). For a critique
of this limited approach, see Squillace 2003, 752–​754, who, however, arrived (764) at essen-
tially the same conclusion as Brun.
8

8 In t roduct ion

a ready tongue and a quick wit, made an attractive picaresque hero for many
among the ancient scholars and even some from our times. A commoner
with no written legacy, he had neither education nor edification, and the
vulgarity of his oratory and character provided an instructive contrast to the
professional training and polished morals of refined literati, who controlled
intellectual life and education in later centuries. These images of Demades
emerged during the Republican period, continued throughout the Roman
Empire into late antiquity, survived until the fall of Byzantium in the mid-​
fifteenth century, and, eventually, found a safe place in modern works.
The book’s subtitle, Classical Greece Reimagined through Rhetoric, reflects
the core of its argument: later authors reinterpreted the figure of Demades
by their current educational and social norms, just as they retrospectively
molded the vision of classical Greece. Multiplying, diversifying, and self-​
perpetuating, later images of Demades eventually concealed, obscured, and
effectively replaced their historical prototype. While this chronological and
geographical expanse embraced several historical periods with different social
and political realities, it maintained a great deal of cultural continuity insofar
as intellectual life and the system of education were rooted in the same ma-
terial from classical antiquity. When examined within this cultural and in-
tellectual context, evidence about Demades elicits several observations. Not
all of this evidence was or had to be historically reliable: since many later ac-
counts about what he did and said were only images created for a purpose, it
is not necessary to connect every known reference to Demades with an actual
historical event or to interpret it as his genuine words. Nor is it correct to in-
discriminately use all available sources about him. This book therefore does
not strive to assemble every known such reference—​although almost all of
them will be examined—​conceding that the task to reconstruct the histor-
ical Demades is unattainable. The following pages aim to both delineate the
emergence and rationalize the coexistence of his many diverse, and often con-
tradictory, later images (which is virtually all that we have about him) within
their social, intellectual, and educational context. Examining the origins
and purpose of the demadeia, or the later fictitious rhetorical sources about
Demades, exemplifies how and why later authors refurbished the overall ap-
pearance of classical Greece, creating a significantly distorted vision that still
dominates academic scholarship and popular views.
This objective determined the structure of the book, which, unlike most
previous studies that tried to weave every known bit of evidence about
Demades into a narrative of his life, does not organize the surviving material
chronologically. Instead, the book is structured thematically, around major
9

Introduction 9

themes of social life, political activities, and educational practices across many
centuries after his death. Part I centers on the world of real people, beginning
with a critical overview of the available evidence about Demades; moving to
the rise of rhetoric as the staple of education for members of the social and
political élite—​who perpetuated their cultural and social norms by shaping
historical evidence through rhetorical exercises and declamations, or fic-
titious judicial and deliberative speeches; and, consequently, rationalizing
images of Demades as reflections of the realities and mentalities of the ed-
ucated class in later centuries. The other two parts look at how later authors
developed and applied specific images of Demades. Part II studies the ways
and methods with which exponents and students of rhetoric promoted their
professional interests, using the figure of Demades to demonstrate the im-
portance of rhetorical training that refined and accentuated political roles of
the educated élite under the Roman Empire, including its interaction with
outside authorities. Part III examines the uses of Demades in retrospective
perceptions of the classical past, which have formed what has been termed
“rhetorical history.” Its three chapters focus on how images of Demades helped
later authors to develop and elaborate on their vision of famous events, like
the Trojan War and the struggle of the Greeks against Persian invasions, the
history of classical Greece and the campaigns of Alexander the Great, and,
finally, Athens’ relations with other Greek city-​states and with Macedonian
leaders, from Philip II to Antipater and Cassander.
10
1

PA RT I

Demades in the world of people

As noted in the Introduction, this part deals with the world of real
people: Demades and his contemporaries on the one hand, and the many
later generations that left most of the evidence we have about Demades on
the other. Chapter 1 offers a critical overview of inscriptions and literary
texts, from Demades’s lifetime and later centuries, as well as their suggested
interpretations. Chapter 2 outlines intellectual development during the
Roman Empire and late antiquity, which produced almost all of our ev-
idence about Demades. The chapter’s focus is on how rhetorical education
and literary culture preserved, shaped, and transmitted knowledge about
the past. Chapter 3 approaches the same period from a different angle, by
contextualizing the surviving references to Demades within the cultural, ed-
ucational, and intellectual norms of the later centuries, when teachers and
students of rhetoric manipulated historical knowledge for instructional and
moralistic purposes. In this fashion, they continued to create a body of ev-
idence about classical Greece and its main characters, including Demades,
without regard for the fine line that exists between history and fiction.
12
13

Making sense of the evidence

Orators prefer to live in a democracy,
the worst form of government.
—​P hilod. Rhet. (1, 375: col. xcvii.3–​8).

Philodemus characterized the régime of popular political rep-

resentation and participation as someone who ended his life in observing the
last convulsions of the Roman republic. Many intellectuals who lived both be-
fore and after him held the opinion that democracy—​the rule of the people,
regardless of their learning and social propriety—​led to turbulence and insta-
bility. However, it was only in a democracy, in which the citizens made polit-
ical and legal decisions after being persuaded by the speeches of their leaders,
that oratory had real power.1 Limiting his reference to orators, Philodemus
retrospectively reflected the reality of the classical period, when a politician
had to be an orator, and it is in this sense that orators were juxtaposed with
private citizens in classical Athens.2 It is also in this sense that Plato (Gorg.
503bc) and Demades’s contemporary Aeschines (1.25) labeled the famous
fifth-​century Athenian political leaders Pericles, Themistocles, and Aristides
“orators,” whereas Demosthenes (18.242) lambasted Aeschines, his peren-
nial political foe, as being, among other things, a “counterfeit orator.” The
power, and potential danger, of orators were reflected by the procedure of
scrutinizing orators (dokimasia ton rhetoron), which verified whether they
were socially, legally, economically, and morally qualified to advise the People

1. On rhetoric developing out of democratic polis: Schofield 2006, 63–​74; Bearzot 2008, 77–​
78; Erskine 2010, 272.
2. For example, Pl. Gorg. 513b. Wohl 2009, 163: “by the fourth century a ‘career politician’ was
referred to simply as a rhetor” (and n. 5 with further bibliography). This juxtaposition: Dem.
10.70, 24.66; Aeschin. 1.165; Lyc. 1.31.

The Orator Demades. Sviatoslav Dmitriev, Oxford University Press (2021). © Oxford University Press.
DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197517826.003.0002
14

14 Dem ades in t he world of people

on matters of public policy,3 and by specifically distinguishing a legal action

against orators, rhetorike graphe, from a general graphe paranomon, the suit for
bringing an illegal proposal, in later texts.4
Orators did not merely prefer to live in a democracy. They were a neces-
sary feature of a democratic state that made all decisions through argument
and persuasion. The power of persuasion gave oratory, and orators, an inte-
gral and oftentimes decisive place in public life.5 Characterizing democracy
as being inherently connected with public speaking, Thucydides’s Cleon
(3.38.5–​7) castigated late fifth-​century Athenians, saying, that

what each of you particularly wants is to be able to make a speech him-

self, and, if not, to contest with those who can speak in this way by not
appearing to lag behind an argument, by praising an argument before
it had been completed, and by being as quick at seeing how a point will
be made as you are slow at foreseeing what it will lead to. Searching for
something other, so to speak, than the circumstances in which we live,
you do not think about the reality of present circumstances. You are
simply slaves to the delight of listening, and more like spectators of a
sophist than men deliberating on the affairs of the state.

Similarly marking the rising popular interest in the beauty and adornment of
public speaking at the expense of its practical content and societal orienta-
tion, Plato reflected on the importance of public oratory when he identified
politicians as orators (Gorg. 513bc), arguing that oratory had to be moral and
oriented toward the public good (502d–​518e), and blamed Pericles for having
made Athenians talkative and idle (515e). Regardless of whether such criticisms
were justified, they highlighted the importance of public oratory to Athenian
democracy and its continued appreciation in much later times: Plutarch
noted the reference by Stesimbrotus from the fifth century b.c. to the power
and readiness of speech as characteristic of Attic dwellers, while, in the first
century b.c., Diodorus rationalized Demades’s persuasiveness by referring to

3. Dem. 22.21–23; Aeschin. 1.28, 32, 186, 196; Din. 1.71; Lyc. fr. 5.1a (= Harp. δ 74), b (= Schol.
Aeschin. 1.195 [387]); Borowski 1975, 82–​103; MacDowell 2005, 80–​81; Feyel 2009, 198–​
207; Todd 2010, 77–​78, 102, 105. Solon’s alleged regulation on the order of speakers in the
Assembly: Aeschin. 3.2–​3 with Leão and Rhodes 2015, 137–​138.
4. This interpretation of the rhetorike graphe: Harp. ρ 3; Phot. Lex. ρ 107 (321); the Suda, ρ 151.
5. The role of orators: Ober 1989, 314–​324 (and 165–​177 on the dangers of oratory); Mossé
1995, 136–​153.
15

Making sense of the evidence 15

the “Attic charm” of his speaking.6 Other régimes needed no political oratory.
By the late fourth century, after the classical Athenian democracy came to
an end, public speaking turned into the refined art of rhetoric. Its initiates
curried the admiration of educated élites and impressed Roman officials, in-
cluding emperors. Few of them, however, were active in politics, and none
was a politician in the same sense as in classical Athens. Nor was their audi-
ence a mass of deliberating citizens who made decisions by themselves and for
themselves.
During Demades’s lifetime, which covered a larger part of the fourth cen-
tury, the primary political concern of the Athenians was their relations with
the Macedonian kingdom.7 Long relegated to the margins of Greek political
life, Macedonia experienced a spectacular rise to political stability, military
might, and territorial expansion under the rule of Philip II (c. 360–​336). Not
lacking in personal charm, he unleashed a whirlwind campaign of bribery, di-
plomacy, and military action to establish control over a large part of the Greek
world, eventually forcing other Greeks to put aside their disagreements and
join forces against him. Athens played a singular role in the Greeks’ attempts
to stop Philip’s push for domination, with Demosthenes as the most vocal of
the anti-​Macedonian politicians in Greece. In addition to Philippics, his fa-
mous speeches against Philip, Demosthenes served on diplomatic missions,
forging alliances, collecting money, and shoring up support for Greek city-​
states that were being attacked or threatened by Philip. In 340, after the break-
down of the shaky peace of Philocrates that had been established between
Philip and Athens in 346 and amended twice, the Athenians found them-
selves at war against Philip. He decisively defeated the Greek army, led by
Athens and Thebes, in the battle of Chaeronea in 338, in which the Athenians
suffered a thousand dead and two thousand captives.8 According to ancient
and most modern authors, the battle that sealed the fate of Greece also proved
to be a watershed event for Demades, marking a sudden beginning to his po-
litical career. He orchestrated a peace treaty that gave the Athenians safety
and security for the next fifteen years—​although their relations with Philip

6. Plut. Cim. 4.4; Diod. 16.87.3. For the discussion of this evidence, see Chapter 5.
7. While the death of Demades is universally put in 319, his birth is dated to either c. 390
(Osborne and Byrne 1994, 103 [4]‌; Harding 2015, 58) or the early 380s (Gärtner 1964, 1456;
Davies 1971, 100; Weissenberger 1997, 415; Brun 2000, 12 n. 5) or the period between 388 and
380: Marzi 1991, 71 and 1995, 623; Squillace 2013, 1988–​1989.
8. Treves 1933a, 113; De Falco 1954, 93–​94; Williams 1989, 21. The peace of Philocrates: Dmitriev
2011b, 67–​73.
16

16 Dem ades in t he world of people

and later Macedonian rulers were never easy—​and he played an essential role
in Athens’ politics for the rest of his life.
Ancient references to Demades naturally focus on his life after 338.
Information exists, however, on his political involvement before Chaeronea,
raising questions about the reliability of the evidence that falls into two very
unequal groups: close to thirty inscriptions and about 250 literary texts, which
we shall examine in turn below. Juxtaposing and comparing inscriptional and
literary texts will elicit a better understanding of their character and limita-
tions. The other division—​into contemporary works, including inscriptions
and several literary texts, and later literary evidence—​poses further questions,
from establishing whether all the literary texts dated to Demades’s lifetime
actually came from that period or emerged as products of later rhetoric that
took the form of classical speeches, to explaining numerous contradictions
in the information about Demades by later authors. While these questions
received a brief overview in the Introduction, they will be the focus of the
following pages.

1.1. Inscriptional sources

Chronologically, our earliest piece of available evidence is an inscription
(IG II2 1623.B) that mentioned “Demades, son of Demeas, of the deme of
Paeonidae” among the Athenians who volunteered as guarantors of triremes,
or three-​decked military ships, loaned by Athens to the people of the is-
land of Chalcis in 341–​340.9 Because Demades belonged to the deme of
Paeonidae, he had full political rights in Athens once he had reached the age
of eighteen.10 The text of this inscription, whose image graces the frontispiece
of this book, shows that Demades was neither a stranger to political life nor
a destitute sailor before the battle of Chaeronea in 338, as later authors typi-
cally presented him (see page 65, with nn. 2–​4). Opinions have disagreed on
whether the triremes participated in a combined attack of Athens and Chalcis
on Euboean Oreos and Eretria, which were inclined toward Philip II, or on
whether Athens handed the ships to Chalcis with the aim of patrolling along
the coast of Thessaly, which Philip II then controlled.11 Whatever the intended

9. IG II2 1623.B (= Syll.3 962.B).160–​199. The dokimasia of ships: Feyel 2009, 49–​52.
10. See also IG II3 321 and 355; Osborne and Byrne 1994, 103 [4]‌.
11. The former: Cawkwell, in Phoenix 32 (1978), 43, 55, 67 n. 37; Davies 1971, 101; Picard 1979,
252. The latter: Marzi 1991, 71.
17

Making sense of the evidence 17

purpose of the military ships might have been, this text shows Demades’s anti-​
Macedonian stance before the battle of Chaeronea. Regardless of his putative
family connection to Demosthenes, also of the deme of Paeonidae—​which
has been much, and inconclusively, discussed and remains only a matter of
attractive possibility—​Demades appears to have occupied the same political
position as Demosthenes, who similarly volunteered as one of the guarantors,
as also follows from the text of IG II2 1623.B: “Demosthenes, son of
Demosthenes, of the deme of Paeonidae.” Another inscription, IG II2 1629.C,
listed the remaining sum that some of these people still owed in the mid-​
320s.12 The identical amounts of the owed money suggest that the guarantors
pledged the total sum together, by offering to provide equal shares. The ab-
sence of Demades and several other people, including Demosthenes, on the
latter list implies that they had already paid their portion in full. Even if this
text alone cannot confirm that Demades retained the same anti-​Macedonian
stance into the 320s, it shows that the real-​life relationship between Demades
and Demosthenes was different from that of the later rhetorical tradition that
juxtaposed them personally and politically (see Chapter 8).
Marzi connected the list of guarantors from 341–​340 with Plutarch’s
words about how Demades would speak in defense of Demosthenes when his
speeches received a hostile response from the Athenians. In Marzi’s opinion,
this passage might have been referring to the time before the battle of
Chaeronea, when Athens was trying to create a naval alliance against Philip.13
Even if Demades did speak for Demosthenes, we know neither the precise
moment—​as Marzi himself acknowledged, and Plutarch’s wording suggests
that this sympathetic defense happened on more than one occasion—​nor,
accordingly, the topic. A negative reaction by the Athenians to an anti-​
Philip plan in 341–​340 would have been surprising, provided they upheld
Demosthenes’s proposal to militarily support the people of the town of
Olynthus against Philip in 349–​348 and, ultimately, voted for a war against
him in 340. Treves interpreted one of the passages ascribed to Demades in a
later text as a reference to an anti-​Macedonian campaign in 339–​338, and saw
it as another hint for dating the beginning of Demades’s political career to

12. IG II2 1629.C.516–​543. 325–​324: J. Kirchner, ad IG II2 1629.C; Oikonomides 1956, 121;
Hansen 1983, 163. His possible family connection with Demosthenes: Badian 1961, 34 n. 134;
Whitehead 2000, 438–​439; and Brun 2000, 51–​52.
13. Plut. Dem. 8.7; Marzi 1991, 71. Beloch 1884, 243–​244 saw this passage as marking the change
in Demosthenes’s stance in 335 (see n. 52 below).
18

18 Dem ades in t he world of people

before 338.14 However, both the genuineness of this work and Treves’s identi-
fication of the mentioned event are in doubt.
All other pieces of inscriptional evidence from Demades’s lifetime belong
to the post-​Chaeronean period, including a series of honorific decrees that
he proposed for various people. The recipients would receive the status of ei-
ther a polites, which is usually translated as a “citizen,” although a “permanent
resident” would be a better description; and/​or that of a proxenes, a “public
guest,” who had the honor, and obligation, to (legally) represent—​and also to
protect and entertain—​people from the granting city when they stayed in his
community; and/​or that of an euergetes, a “benefactor” of the city, which came
with exclusive rights and privileges.15 The names of some of the honorands did
not survive, because of the lacunose nature of these texts, and even the topic
of Demades’s proposals is not always certain.16 In other cases, the recipients’
names suggest either no identification or more than one. Alcimachus could
be identical to (or the father of ) Alcimachus, son of Alcimachus, from
Apollonia, who was made an Athenian polites in 333–​332; or the Alcimachus
mentioned by Hyperides, who received politeia and proxenia from Athens; or
the Alcimachus (son of Agathocles, from Pella), who served as general and
envoy for Philip II and Alexander III.17 While references to Philip II suggest
that [—​—​]eus, son of Andromenes—​who received the status of a proxenos
and a benefactor via a decree moved by Demades—​was quite likely, though
not necessarily, in the service of Philip, there are no solid grounds for fol-
lowing Oikonomides, who held him as a Macedonian.18 The identity of
Amyntor, who—​together with his descendants—​received Athenian politeia
through a proposal by Demades is similarly uncertain.19 The same is true for
[—​—​]us, son of Aristides, whom the Athenians honored with the xenia,

14. Treves 1933a, 113 n. 1, with reference to Demad. Exc. palat., no. 20 (491).
15. For the status of a benefactor (of the city), see esp. Gauthier 1985, 59–​67.
16. IG II3 321 (337–​336 b.c.) and 334 = SEG 21, 274 (334–​333 b.c.), with Hansen 1983, 163;
Schwenk 1985, 131.
17. IG II3 319 = SEG 21, 267 (337–​336 b.c.). These identifications: (i) IG II2 391; (ii) Hyper. fr.
77 = Harp. α 76, with Horváth 2008, 33. Brun 2000, 65 has questioned whether Harpocration’s
words correctly reflected the content of the decree. However, grants of politeia often came to-
gether with grants of proxenia; (iii) Arr. 1.18.1, with Osborne 3–​4, 1983, 71; Harris 1995, 136;
Heckel 2006, 9–​10; and Lambert 2012, 126 n. 103. The latter two could be one and the same
person: Jensen 1917, 128, and Marzi 1991, 72, and accepted by Heckel, loc. cit.
18. IG II3 322 = Syll.3 262 (337–​336 b.c.). Oikonomides 1956, 114–​115, no. 4.
19. IG II3 335a = SEG 21, 275 (334–​333 b.c.). Osborne 2, 1982, 87; cf. Brun 2000, 92 (with
n. 44).
19

Making sense of the evidence 19

or the honorific treatment of foreign visitors in the Prytaneum, the official

building of the fifty prytaneis (who represented one of the Athenian tribes
as a standing committee of the city council for each of the ten months of the
Athenian year ),20 as well as for [—​—​], son of [—​—]​ oerus, from Larisa.21
And, finally, in the cases of two honorific decrees—​for a certain Callixenes
and for someone whose name did not survive—​it is not even certain if
Demades was the proposer.22
Demades is also known to have successfully proposed a decree in honor of
Eurylochus, from Cydonia, a city in northwestern Crete. As this island was
a famed pirates’ nest, the text probably honored Eurylochus for ransoming
Athenian captives.23 Demades continued to move honorific decrees after the
death of Alexander the Great, when Athenians and other Greeks challenged
Macedonian rule in what we know as the Lamian War (323–​322). During
these several years before his death in 319, Demades proposed decrees in
honor of (i) Lyco[—​—]​ ; (ii) O[—​—​] (iii) [Eu]charistus, (son?) of Chi[. . .
(from) . . .] on; and (iv) [Nicostratus, son of —​—​]lon, Phil[ippeus].24 The
very fragmented state of the inscriptions precludes the identification of the
first two recipients. There is no evidence that points to their having received
honors as representatives of the Macedonian kingdom. Eucharistus was a
merchant who sold his grain to the Athenians at a moderate price and, ac-
cording to the text of the inscription, performed other benefactions for
them. Rewarding merchants who sold their goods to locals at a low price
with politeia and other rights was an established practice in Greek cities.25

20. IG II3 346 (332–​331 b.c.). The xenia: Miller 1978, 4–​12, 22–​24; Osborne 1981, 153–​170; and
Henry 1983, 262–​275.
21. IG II3 356 (329–​328 b.c.).
22. IG II3 330 = SEG 35, 65 = Agora XVI, no. 76 (335–​334 b.c.). IG II2 398a (c. 320–​319 b.c.),
in which the name of the proposer is missing, and which has been identified as a decree moved
by Demades on the basis of its similarity with IG II3 358 (see next note): J. Kirchner, ad IG II2
398a; Osborne 2: 1982, 101 (with n. 395).
23. IG II3 358. This interpretation: Brun 2000, 149 (with n. 85 for further bibliography). For
the date in 328–​327, see Habicht 1989b, 1–​5, followed by Brun 2000, 149 n. 85; Lambert 2012,
134–​137 and, tentatively, in IG II3 358.
24. (i) IG II3 384 = SEG 21, 300a = Agora XVI, no. 95; see Lambert 2012, 357, no. 7 (with ex-
tensive bibliography), and SEG 55, 196, with different suggestions for the honorand’s name
(322–​321 b.c.); (ii) SEG 21, 305 (320–​319 b.c.); (iii) IG II2 400 (320–​319 b.c.); (iv) Meritt
1944, 234, no. 6.1–​9 = Agora XVI, no. 100 (320–​319 b.c.).
25. For example, IG II3 367 (325–​324 b.c.); Syll.3 354 = I.Eph. 1455 (c. 300 b.c.); SEG 39, 1159
(Ephesus, c. 325–​275 b.c.); Syll.3 493 (Histiaea on Euboea, c. 230–​220 b.c.); and IG XI.4, 605
(c. mid-​3rd cent. b.c.).
20

20 Dem ades in t he world of people

The identity of Nicostratus remains unclear. His place of origin has been ten-
tatively identified as the Macedonian city of Philippi, founded by Philip II
in 356 b.c. Even if correct, this identification does not necessarily mean that
Nicostratus was in the service of the Macedonian rulers. The decree could have
reflected his benefactions to Athens, of which, however, we know nothing.26
It is also interesting to note that Demades could propose more than one hon-
orific decree at a time, like the two decrees that mentioned the same president
of the proedroi, or “chairmen,” the board of nine people selected by lot—​one
from each tribe, except for the presiding tribe—​for just one day whenever
there was to be a meeting of the Council and Assembly.27
Although inscriptional and literary texts pay similar attention to
Demades’s public activity, inscriptional evidence offers no support to the view
upheld in the ancient literary texts and shared by some modern authors that
Demades actively moved decrees to extend Athenian honors to people who
were in the service of Macedonian kings, for personal profit.28 Another way
in which the two groups of the available evidence differ is that literary sources
mention thirty-​eight decrees moved by Demosthenes, ten by Demades, and
one by Lycurgus, while inscriptions show sixteen (or eighteen, depending on
identification) decrees moved by Demades, ten by Lycurgus, and only one
by Demosthenes.29 This contrast raises a general question of the discrep-
ancy between the literary and inscriptional texts at our disposal. Judging by
inscriptions, Demades’s known decrees constitute the largest number by far
for any Athenian politician of that period, demonstrating his political prom-
inence in Athens after 338.
Demades’s public activity was not limited to moving honorific decrees.
In addition to volunteering to be one of the guarantors of triremes loaned by

26. Skepticism: A. G. Woodhead, in Agora XVI (1997), 151. This identification and sugges-
tion: Brun 2000, 122.
27. IG II3 321 and 322, with Schwenk 1985, 48, and S. D. Lambert’s comment ad IG II3 322.6. The
proedroi: Arist. Ath.Pol. 44.2, with P. J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion
Politeia (Oxford 1981), 533–​534.
28. Cf. Hyper. 1.25, who accused Demades, and Demosthenes, of moving honorific decrees for
profit, without identifying the honorands, with Whitehead 2000, 438–​439. On the honorands
as people in service of the Macedonian kings: Marzi 1991, 72; Cuniberti 2006, 29.
29. The numbers: M. H. Hansen, in GRBS 25 (1984), 132–​133 (who mentioned only eleven
decrees by Demades in epigraphic sources); repr. in Hansen 1989: 25–​33. Lambert 2012, 269
accepted Hansen’s number of eleven known decrees proposed by Demades, as attested in
inscriptions; but see S. D. Lambert, in Attic Inscriptions Online Papers 6 (2015), 6 n. 17 on “eight
or nine extant self-​standing decrees erected before 321/​0” that were proposed by Demades, and
on “at least eight” proposed by Lycurgus. Cf. IG II3 330 and II2 398a (see n. 22 above).
21

Making sense of the evidence 21

Athens to Chalcis in 341–​340, as mentioned above, he also performed impor-

tant diplomatic missions. Demosthenes (18.285) acknowledged that Demades
played an instrumental role in establishing peace between Philip II and the
Athenians after the battle at Chaeronea in 338. Although too fragmentary
to allow for any meaningful restoration, a decree moved by Demades in
337–​336 contained references to Lemnos, suggesting that it concerned (some
part of ) that island’s population.30 Lemnos came into Athens’ possession
early in the fifth century b.c., possibly as a result of campaigns by the famous
Athenian general Miltiades (c. 550–​489). Having lost it—​probably twice, to
the Persians and the Spartans—​the Athenians recovered Lemnos in 392 and
managed to preserve control over the island through the provisions of the
so-​called King’s Peace of 386. We hear of Athenian control of Lemnos again
at the end of the fourth century, when the Lemnians fought on the Athenian
side. In light of Athens’ long, even if not necessarily continuous, possession
of Lemnos, it is natural that Lemnos was occupied by Athenian colonists and
their descendants, who probably received Athenian politeia early in the fourth
century. Schwenk and Brun interpreted this inscription as having some con-
nection with confirmation of Athens’ possession of Lemnos by the grace of
Philip after he defeated the Athenians in the battle of Chaeronea. Given that
Demades arranged a peace treaty between them, it would not be surprising if
he also had a hand in Lemnian affairs.31
Demades’s political activity is further illustrated by his participation as
one of the Athenian hieropoioi, or “sacred ambassadors,” to the sanctuary of
the god Apollo in Delphi, arguably the most important and famous of all
Greek oracles. We see his name in the inscription accompanying the text of
a sacred dedication (of a tripod) set up by ten Athenian hieropoioi, including
Demades, on behalf of the People of Athens to Delphi in c. 330 b.c.32 It is
probably in connection with this mission that Demades—​as, almost cer-
tainly, all other of his fellow hieropoioi—​received honors and privileges, both
personally and for his descendants, from the People of Delphi:

30. IG II3 326a = SEG 35, 63 = Agora XVI, no. 72. For Lemnos, see IG II3 326b.10 and 19.
31. Miltiades: Htd. 6.136–​40. The loss: Arena 2002, 318 n. 47. The recovery: Andoc. 3.12; Xen.
Hellen. 4.8.15. The King’s Peace: Xen. Hellen. 5.1.31; Arist. Ath.Pol. 61.6, 62.2. IG II2 550 (314–​
313 b.c), 1492.B.133 (305–​304 b.c.); Meiggs 1972, 425. Athenian colonists: Meiggs 1972, 424–​
425; Arena 2002, 320 with n. 60; Culasso Gastaldi 2008, 193–​202. Their politeia: N. Salomon,
Le cleruchie di Atene (Pisa 1997), 76–​81, 139–​150. Schwenk 1985, 47, and Brun 2000, 143 n. 52.
32. F.Delphes 3.1, no. 511 = Syll.3 296, dated to 330–​325 b.c.: Brun 2000, 144 (with n. 57).
2

22 Dem ades in t he world of people

God[s]‌. The Delphians gave to Demades, son of De[meas], of Athens,

(of the deme of Paeonidae—​ to him and his descendants—​ the
proxenia, the promanteia, the proedria, the prodikia with respect to
the Delphians, the asylia, and immunity on everything, in conformity
with the law).33

In addition to the proxenia, which was explicated above, Demades and his
descendants received the promanteia, or a preferential right to consult the or-
acle of Apollo without the need to wait in line; the proedria, or the right to
occupy front seats at public performances and other special occasions; the
prodikia, or the priority of trial in case of a legal dispute with a local Delphian;
and the asylia, or the inviolability of the recipient’s person and property.
It is possible that the increased political importance that Demades
enjoyed after helping to orchestrate peace with Philip allowed him to occupy
a position on Athens’ city council. Larsen proposed dating a fragmented in-
scription listing Demades among city councilors to 341–​340, a time frame
that would have provided further testimony that Demades began his polit-
ical career before the battle of Chaeronea. However, the first editor of this
text, Charitonides, followed by Brun, put it in 336–​335, while acknowledging
that the date of Demades’s councilorship remained uncertain.34 Another
inscription—​containing the account of the treasurers of Athena and the Board
in charge of the Nikai, Processional Vessels, and Canephoric Ornaments,
from 334–​333—​mentioned Demades as the treasurer of the Military Fund
that covered military expenses of the Athenians:

We have (received) the (following amount of ) money in g[old] for (the

construction of ) the Nik[ai and (for) the (Solemn) Proc]ession—​in the
fifth pry[tany] of (the tribe of ) [Aean-​or Leon]tis from the treasurer
of the Mi[litary Fund De]mades of (the deme of ) P[aeonidae? —​—​in
the prytany of (the tribe of ) Hip]pothont[is from the treasurer of the
Mi]litar[y Fund Demades of (the deme of ) Paeo]nidae: [—​—​in the

33. Syll.3 297.A.1–​13 (c. 330 b.c.). The Delphians quite likely honored each of the ten Athenian
hieropoioi; cf. Syll.3 297.B.
34. Charitonides 1961, 32, l.144 = Agora XV, no. 42.14, with J. Larsen, in CPh 57 (1962), 104–​
108; Brun 2000, 137.
23

Making sense of the evidence 23

pry]tany [of (the tribe of ) Ce]cropis f[rom the treasurer of the Mili]
tar[y Fund Demades of (the deme of ) Paeonidae: —​—​].35

According to Aristotle, Ath.Pol. 49.3, the city council of Athens, jointly with
the treasurer of the Military Fund, took care of the construction of the Nikai
and the prizes for the Panathenaic games. The Board in charge of the Nikai,
Processional Vessels, and Canephoric Ornaments was quite likely a recent
creation that had been instituted by Lycurgus (before 383–​c. 322), a prom-
inent Athenian statesman, who largely controlled Athenian politics and fi-
nancial administration from 338 to the end of his life.36 The text served to
confirm that the treasurers of the Board had received the amount of money
in each of the prytanies, or representations of one of the ten Athenian tribes,
whose fifty delegates served as the standing committee of the city council for
one-​tenth of a year. Because Aristotle, Ath.Pol. 43.1 noted that the treasurer
of the Military Fund served “from Panathenaea to Panathenaea,” evidently
meaning the quadrennial celebration, or the Greater Panathenaea, Demades
is thought to have held his post from the summer of 334 until the summer of
331 (Mitchel, Brun) or 330 (Wilamowitz-​Moellendorf, Develin, Habicht).37
Demades therefore served as the treasurer of the Military Fund in the late
330s.38
His diverse involvement in Athens’ administrative and social life is further
shown by the following inscription, which dates to the late 330s or early 320s:

As for the triremes carrying horses, which had been given for the voyage
from the dockyards, the People decreed that the following ships and
gear had become useless in the course of war, in accordance with the

35. IG II2 1493.7–​17, as restored by Mitchel 1962, 218 (= SEG 21, 552).7–​21, with his correction
in AJA 70 (1966), 66.
36. Ps.-​Plut. X Or. 841bc, 852b. Mitchel 1970; J. Engels, in Ancient Society 23 (1992), 5–​29;
Osborne and Byrne 1994, 288 [4]‌; Hintzen-​Bohlen 1996, 87–​112; Wirth 1999, 30–​53, incl. 30
with n. 77 on the death of Lycurgus by 326.
37. Wilamowitz-​Moellendorf 1893, 208 n. 36; Develin 1989, 380, 390; Habicht 1989a, 84–​87;
Mitchel 1962, 219–​221; cf. Mitchel 1970, 178 (Demades held the position of the treasurer
of the Military Fund from 334–​333 to 330–​329 b.c.); Brun 2000, 87, 139. Others have lim-
ited Demades’s tenure to a year, probably thinking of the annual, or Lesser, Panathenaea; see
Hansen 1983, 163; Schwenk 1985, 244 (334–​333 b.c.).
38. Habicht 1989a, 84–​85, 87 (September–​October of 334 to September–​October of 330). Cf.
J. L. Shear, “Polis and Panathenaia: The History and Development of Athena’s Festival.” Ph.D.
Diss. (University of Pennsylvania 2001), 570–​573 and 834 on the Great Panathenaeae in 334–​
333 and 330–​329.
24

24 Dem ades in t he world of people

decrees that had been proposed by Demades, (son) of Demeas, of (the

deme of ) Paeonidae: Gnome, the work of Nausinicus, whose trierarch
was Apollodorus, (son) of Diophanes, of (the deme of ) Gargettus; (it
has) its hanging gear complete, of wooden (gear, it has) oars: (the value
of ) 60 (drachmas). Asclepias, the work of Hagnodemus, whose trierarch
was Alcimachus, (son) of Alcetes, of (the deme of ) Paeonidae; it has
its hanging gear complete, of wooden (gear, it has) oars: (the value of )
60 (drachmas). Callixena, the work of Chaerion, whose trierarch was
Euthycles, son of Ctesias, of the deme of Deiradiotae; it has its hanging
gear complete except for the undercover (?), of wooden (gear, it has)
oars: (the value of ) 60 (drachmas).39

This inscription lists several military ships (triremes), together with the names
of those who built them: Gnome (“Resolution,” by Nausinicus), Asclepias
(“Swallowwort,” by Hagnodemus), and Callixena (“Beautiful Stranger,” by
Chaerion). Since masters were indicated only by their first names, they belonged
to the Athenian metics, or “resident aliens.” This text also mentions the trierarchs,
that is, the people who were required to perform the trierarchia, or financing
of the building and the upkeep of triremes, and commanding them in battles,
which was a form of a public obligation performed by wealthy Athenians.
Demades’s decree about the state of military ships and their equipment
raises a question about his background and profession. He also moved a pro-
posal concerning the fine imposed on some of the trierarchs, a motion that
authorized them to pay their arrears to the Grain Fund (sitonika) of Athens.
Marzi put such evidence together as referring to Demades’s participation in
the naval administration of Athens in 326–​325 b.c.40 However, as Athens was
a naval state, its politics revolved around maritime affairs. Neither trierarchs,
who were elected to perform that duty only on the basis of their financial
resources, nor politicians, who suggested and implemented political and mil-
itary decisions, had to be professional seafarers. The list of the guarantors
for the Athenian loan of triremes to Chalcis in 341–​340 included not only
Demades but also Demosthenes, who certainly had no immediate connec-
tion to seafaring and naval activities.41 Such evidence alone therefore offers

39. IG II2 1627.B.241–​265, dated by the editor to 329–​328; by Hansen 1983, 163, to 330–​329; and
by Oikonomides 1956, 121 and Marzi 1991, 75, to 326–​325.
40. IG II2 1629.D.859–​869 with Oikonomides 1956, 121, no. 19 (326–​325 b.c.). Marzi 1991, 75.
41. IG II2 1623.B and 1629.C.516–​543 (see nn. 9 and 12 above).
25

Making sense of the evidence 25

no support to the view of many ancient authors and modern scholars about
Demades’s naval background.
Patrice Brun interpreted the decree concerning the fine imposed on some
of the trierarchs as a reference to Demades being in charge of the “grain supply
of the city (of Athens).” Brun linked this text with the decree concerning
Piraeus, an administrative district of Athens and her port city as well as the
naval base, adopted on Demades’s motion in 320–​319:

It was re[sol]ved by the People. Demade[s,] (son) of Demeas, of (the

deme of ) Paeonidae, proposed: For the marketplace i[n]‌Pirae[us]
to be fur[n]ish[ed] and leveled in the most beautiful fashion, a[nd]
for every[th]ing whatever still needs in the agorano[m]ion to be r[ep]
aired. Goo[d fo]rtune. It has been reso[lv]ed by the People. Let the
agorano[m]oi in Piraeus take [ca]re of all these matters, and let the
expense for this come [from] the money that is administered by the
agor[a]nomoi. Whereas when also the responsibility of the astynomoi
had been assigned to the agor[a]nomoi, let the agoranomoi take care of
the avenu[es] where marches the procession for Zeus the Savio[r an]
d Dionysus, so that they be levelled and furni[sh]ed in the most ex-
cellent fashion. The exp[en]se for this will c[om]e from t[he] mon[e]
y that is administered by t[he a]goranomoi. And, if need be, they will
[r]esp[on]d in whatever fashion they might dec[id]e to those who
t[hr]ow [d]ust in these av[e]nues. Whe[nev]er what is nece[ssa]ry for
th[e] agoranom[i]on and the market p[la]ce and the avenues [through
which] the procession for Ze[us the S]avior and [Dion]ysus proceeds
is being restored, let those who are in charge of (awarding) [pr]ize[s
by] law [con]tri[bu]te the re[ma]ining m[o]ney. So that the c[o]
ns[tru]cti[ons], in the ma[rk]et place of Pi[raeus] and i[n] the avenues,
will remain in the bes[t fa]shion for t[he] fu[tur]e as well, let it not be
allowed [for anybody] either to th[row] dust or any[thing else nor]
dung . . . in the market place [or in th]e [avenues. And if someone]
doe[s such a thing], if he i[s a slave or a metic, he w]ill rec[eiv]e 50
la[shes, and if he] is a [fre]e pers[on . . . ].42

The decree pertained to the local needs of Piraeus, including a redivision of

duties between the astynomoi (or officials in charge of maintaining order,

42. Brun 2000, 33 (and n. 86). IG II2 380 = Syll.3 313 (320–​319 b.c.).
26

26 Dem ades in t he world of people

which involved the upkeep of public buildings) and the agoranomoi (or
city officials in charge of the legality of transactions within the marketplace,
the agora), and the repair of the agora and of the road for the procession in
honor of Zeus Soter and Dionysus. The interconnection between the parts of
Demades’s proposal is unclear. Mikalson believed that “Demades proposed an
administrative reshuffling to ensure that the Piraeic roads on which the pro-
cession for Zeus Soter and Dionysus was held were smoothed and otherwise
made ready,” whereas, according to Williams, Demades “proposed that the
astynomoi be abolished and their duties given to the agoranomoi, indicating a
consolidation of positions in Athenian government due, perhaps, to a reduc-
tion in the available workforce caused by the disfranchisement of the poor.”43
A reference to Dionysus seems to point to the festival of the Dionysia in
Piraeus, also known as the Peiraic Dionysia.44
The two inscriptions cannot be linked as suggested by Brun, not only be-
cause they belonged to different times, but also, first and foremost, because
the latter text had no connection with the trierarchs. While the change in
the administration of Piraeus could have resulted from its occupation by the
Macedonians after the Lamian War, as advocated by Brun (2000, 148), the
status of Piraeus as a vital trading region in Athens offers a similarly viable
explanation. All of the goods moved in or out of Athens by sea went through
Piraeus, while its residents were a lively community made up of entrepre-
neurial Athenians and numerous resident and visiting aliens, all of whom
were diversely engaged in trading activity and were connected, in one way or
another, with seafaring. Regardless of which of the suggested explanations for
Demades’s proposal of that decree is preferred, such evidence alone makes any
kind of conclusion about his original background hypothetical.
Interpretations of inscriptional evidence directly depend on establishing
its precise dating. As noted above, we do not know when exactly Demades held
a place on the city council of Athens. A fragmented inscription, “Demades,
of the deme of Paeonidae, (was) a fellow-​contributor of Leosthenes [, of the
deme of Cephale, —​—]​ ,” offers a similar example. While there seems to be

43. Mikalson 1998, 51; Williams 1989, 26. The parallel established between Demades’s pro-
posal and the activities undertaken in Piraeus by the régime of the Thirty is a stretch: for this
view, see Bayliss 2011, 224–​225 n. 16, who relied on the later image of Demades as a tyrant (see
Chapter 8).
44. See Garland 1987, 124–​126, 233–​234. Ziehen 1937, 70–​71 identified this festival with the
festival known as the Piraea. However, both are mentioned side by side (albeit in a much later
inscription: IG II2 1039.55: 83–​73 b.c.); and therefore Garland 1987, 240 listed the Piraea sepa-
rately, under “unidentified cults.”
27

Making sense of the evidence 27

an agreement on the content of the text as referring to Demades making a

financial contribution to the trierarchia of Leosthenes,45 the date of this
event is in dispute. Davies spoke of it as “undeterminable,” Worthington
opted for 325–​324, whereas Kirchner and Brun squarely dated it to the time
of the Lamian War, or 323–​322.46 If the latter dating is correct, Demades’ fi-
nancial backing of one of the trierarchs at the moment when the Athenians
and other Greeks were fighting to shake off the Macedonian yoke suggests
that he openly threw his support behind anti-​Macedonian military action,
just as he did in 341–​340. While we are left to wonder how Demades might
have positioned himself publicly during the interim decades, putting these
two inscriptions together would indicate his consistent political stance.
However, the question of whether Demades refused to support the Lamian
War, as Ferguson believed, or upheld the decision of the Athenians to go to
war against Macedonia after Alexander’s death, as Brun advocated, depends
on dating his financial contribution to Leosthenes’s trierarchia, a date that
cannot be established with certainty.47
A fragmented inscription concerning the financial administration of
Athens offers further insight into Demades’s political activities. It was clear
from the moment it was found that this inscription consisted of the ending
and beginning parts of two decrees and that the second included the name of
Demades as its proposer. Since what remained of the first decree referred to
the board of the dioiketai, which did not emerge until later, this decree had
to be dated to the early third century b.c., and therefore the second decree
was supposed to belong to the same or a later period. Hence, this Demades
was identified as a homonymous grandson of the orator. Adolf Wilhelm
then demonstrated, however, that the first decree included a provision to re-​
inscribe an earlier decree.48 Holding the second decree to be earlier than the
first, to which it was appended, identifies its proposer as the orator Demades.49
The Athenians therefore continued to approve of Demades’s policies many

45. IG II2 1631.605–​606. For Leosthenes, see Davies 1971, 342–​344, no. 9142.
46. Davies 1971, 342–​344; I. Worthington, in Historia 36 (1987), 490–​491; Brun 2000, 108.
47. W. S. Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens: An Historical Essay (New York 1911), 14; Brun 2000,
109–​110.
48. IG II2 713, with A. Wilhelm, Attische Urkunden, II.iv, in SB Wien 180 (1916), 2, 3–​9, repr.
in A. Wilhelm, Akademieschriften zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde (1895–​1951), vol. 1 (Leipzig
1974), 427–​433, who identified the purpose and the name of the honorand, even though he
was not entirely convincing in Lambert’s opinion: 2011, 184.
49. Byrne 2010, 127–​128, followed by Lambert 2011, 184 (with nn. 36 and 39).
28

28 Dem ades in t he world of people

decades after his death. Inscriptional evidence overturns the traditional vision
of Demades in literary texts as a corrupt traitor of Athens and an enemy of
her democracy,50 revealing another discrepancy between the two groups of
evidence about him.

1.2. Literary evidence

Literary sources from the Roman imperial and Byzantine periods, which pro-
vide the vast majority of our evidence about Demades, will serve as the basis
and the focus of the examination for all subsequent chapters in this book.
Here, I would like to address a few general issues about literary evidence, largely
in conjunction with inscriptional references to Demades that were examined
above. Some of the literary texts about Demades were authentic and belonged
to his lifetime, like a reference in Demosthenes’s speech On the Crown, dated
to 330, stating that Demades arranged the peace between Philip and Athens
after the battle of Chaeronea (18.285). This passage reflected the situation
immediately after the battle: while Demades was negotiating and compro-
mising with Philip, Demosthenes delivered the Funeral Oration, in which he
boldly praised the fallen Athenians, comparing their bravery and virtue with
those of their ancestors who had defended the freedom of Athens in the past
(Dem. 60). Did this juxtaposition mean that Demades and Demosthenes
held different stances on Athens’ policy toward the Macedonian kingdom?
Those who thought that in real life Demosthenes and Demades had very
close if not the same political attitudes challenged the traditional view of
Demades as a subservient pro-​Macedonian conformist.51 Some, like Badian,
held Demades to be Demosthenes’s “friend and collaborator,” while Beloch,
Carlier, Marzi, and Brun thought that the two men were politically close only
because Demosthenes changed his position after he narrowly escaped the
danger of being surrendered, along with several other Athenian politicians,
to Alexander in 335. Still others, like Wankel, interpreted their relationship in

50. This inscription also casts doubt on the idea that Demosthenes’s nephew, Demochares, trig-
gered the tradition of juxtaposing Demades as an enemy to democracy with Demosthenes as a
democratic hero in the late fourth century: see Chapter 8.
51. This traditional view: Thalheim 1901, 2703–​2704 (on Demades changing his stance after
the battle of Chaeronea); Gärtner 1964, 1456; Weissenberger 1997, 415–​416; Westwood 2020,
277. Corresponding discussions: Davies 1971, 100–​101; Lingua 1978, 27–​28 (with n. 1), 44–​45;
Marzi 1995, 603–​604; and Brun 2000, 45 (with n. 14) and 52.
29

Making sense of the evidence 29

the sense that Demades’s cautious policy left no place for a political compro-
mise between them.52
The first part of this chapter showed that inscriptions offer no defini-
tive support for seeing Demades as a pro-​Macedonian agent in Athens. In
fact, they easily uphold the opposite opinion. The vision of Demades as a
Macedonian collaborator has relied on literary texts, with some allegedly
from Demades’s lifetime but most belonging to later centuries. Dating these
texts is closely connected with the question of their authenticity. The former
group consists of just eleven texts (out of about 250 known literary references
to him), which purportedly derive from works by Demades’s fellow Athenian
politicians. In addition to the passage from Demosthenes’s On the Crown
(18.285) mentioned earlier, they include an excerpt from another speech in
the Demosthenic corpus, though not by Demosthenes; a fragment ascribed
to Hyperides (390–​322 b.c.), a renowned Athenian orator and statesman, and
a passage from one of his speeches; and seven excerpts from two orations (six
and one, respectively) that have traditionally been attributed to a prominent
Athenian speechwriter and orator, Dinarchus (c. 361–​c. 291 b.c.).53
The honorific decree for Euthycrates, which Demades supposedly moved,
and which has received a great deal of attention in studies both on Demades and
on late classical Greece and Athens, offers a vivid illustration of the problems
typically posed by literary evidence. The fragment ascribed to Hyperides (fr.
76) by Frederic G. Kenyon and Christian Jensen refers to Demades’s alleged
proposal to grant proxenia to Euthycrates, who was said to have betrayed his
native city of Olynthus, located in the region of Chalcis, to Philip II in 348
b.c. This information has been accepted as fact. The corresponding debate
has focused only on the dating of this proposal, with the suggested date set
in the period between 346 and 338, which is before the battle of Chaeronea
(Worthington), or between 338 and 336 (Hansen), or in 337–​336 (Develin),
or 337 (Brun), or 336 (Engels, Marzi), or prior to 335 (Williams).54 However,
there are several problems with accepting the information from Hyp. fr. 76 as

52. Badian 1961, 34; Beloch 1884, 243–​244; Carlier 1990, 238; Marzi 1991, 73–​74; Wankel 1976,
1218–​1219; Brun 2000, 77–​78.
53. Ps.-​Dem. 25.47; Hyper. fr. 76; Hyper. 1.25; Din. 1.7, 11–​12, 45, 89, 100–​101, and 103–​104,
and 2.15.
54. Worthington 1991, 92. Hansen 1983, 162. Develin 1989, 348. Brun 2000, 66. Engels 1993,
138, 142. Marzi 1995, 640. Williams 1989, 24 n. 29. See also Beloch 1884, 234; Kralli 2000, 115
(n. 8), 130; Squillace 2003, 762–​763; and Sawada 2019, 344, all of whom also accepted this ev-
idence at face value.
30

30 Dem ades in t he world of people

authentic and contemporary. One of them is that it does not fit with the pre-
viously examined inscriptional evidence, which shows that Demades held an
anti-​Macedonian stance in the late 340s and offers no reason to believe that
he changed it after the battle of Chaeronea. Another problem arises when
Hyp. fr. 76 is juxtaposed with other surviving descriptions of this part of
Hyperides’s speech. Two of them, from later rhetorical manuals, have almost
identical wording. The first, which belongs to the Art of Rhetoric attributed to
Apsines of Gadara, reads as follows:

We shall also make a reminder by introducing a decree, as Hyperides

did when attacking the decree introduced by Demades who proposed
that Euthycrates should be made proxenos. In its place, Hyperides
proposed another decree and in so doing recapitulated what had been
said: “The arguments which this person (Demades) has brought for-
ward,” he says, “do not contain the real reasons for the (grant of the)
proxenia. If he (Euthycrates) is to be your proxenos, I will be submitting
to you a proposal in writing with the services for which this will be his
reward.” Then he submits the proposal: “It has been resolved that he
shall be proxenos, because he speaks and acts in the interests of Philip;
because, as cavalry commander, he betrayed the Olynthian cavalry
to Philip and through this act was responsible for the destruction of
the Chalcidians; because, on the capture of Olynthus, he became the
assessor of the war captives; because he opposed the city’s interests
concerning the temple at Delos, and, when the city was defeated at
Chaeronea, neither buried any dead nor ransomed any prisoners.”55

The other passage comes from the rhetorical manual On Invention authored
by Cassius Longinus (a.d. 213–​273). There are minor wording differences
that their different ways of looking at Hyperides’s text have explained.56
However, while their using the same source indeed offers the best expla-
nation for the almost identical references, this source was not necessarily a
speech by Hyperides. More likely, Apsines and Longinus borrowed from On

55. Hyper. fr. 76 = Aps. 10.9. M. Heath, in AJP 119 (1998), 89–​111 questioned the attribution
of the Art of Rhetoric to Apsines. Even if Apsines did author this work, it evidently received a
considerable posthumous editing; see Kennedy 1983, 87 and 2005, xvi: largely written in the
third century and “revised into its present form in the fifth or sixth”; Dilts and Kennedy 1997,
xvi–​xvii; O’Rourke 2005, 37–​38; pace Patillon 2001, vii–​xvii.
56. Long. Inv. (547.1–​17). See Jander 1913, 13 n. 9 (“uterque rhetor aliter Hyperidis verba
excerpsit”).
31

Making sense of the evidence 31

Invention by Hermogenes (late second–​early third century a.d.), an undis-

puted authority in the field, whose views influenced Greek rhetoric until the
fall of Byzantium.57 The rhetorical manuals of Apsines and Longinus utilized
Hermogenes’s material—​from the original or an intermediary—​to illustrate a
“recapitulation” (anakephalaiosis) and explain the use of a “fictitious speech”
(plasma).58
Two other descriptions of Demades’s alleged proposal to honor
Euthycrates belonged to even much later works: the Suda, a giant Byzantine
encyclopedia, generally dated to the tenth century, and the commentary
to Hermogenes’s On Invention by John Doxopatres from the eleventh cen-
tury. The Suda cannot be held as an independent source, since it indiscrimi-
nately relied on whatever surviving material was available at that time, while
Doxopatres quoted Hyperides’s speech against Demades as follows:

If Demades had wished to speak any truth about Euthycrates, he ought

to have proposed a decree like the following . . . on account of which he
made Euthycrates proxenos. I will draw up a record of his conduct, in
Demades’s name, and read it to you. “Demades, son of Demeas, of the
deme of Paeonidae, proposed: Because Euthycrates betrayed his own
city of Olynthus to Philip, and was responsible for the forty cities of
the Chalcidians having been destroyed (and so on).”59

The difference between this description and the narrations by Apsines and
Longinus raises the question of Doxopatres’s source. While Hermogenes is
thought to have written a treatise on invention, this work is believed to have
been lost. Therefore, the surviving work known as On Invention and ascribed
to Hermogenes is generally considered spurious.60 A comparison between
the texts by Apsines and Longinus on the one hand and by Doxopatres on

57. G. L. Kustas, in Viator 1 (1970), 65–​72; Kustas 1973, 5–​26; Schouler 1984, 139; E. Jeffreys
and A. Kazhdan, “Hermogenes,” in ODB 2 (1991), 921; Fryde 2000, 215; Emmett 2008, 114–​
162. See nn. 60–​61 below.
58. On anakephalaiosis: Aps. 10.1–​3 with Patillon 2001, 80. On plasma (plasis): Aps. 10.57;
Long. Inv. (568.6, 596.12).
59. The Suda, π 2539: “(Demades) proposed that Euthycrates, who had been punished with
atimia by the Athenians, should be held as having a valid status and as a proxenos of the
Athenians.” Rabe 1908, 144 = Jensen 1917, 128.
60. The lost work: Patillon 2008, v–​vii; Patillon 2012a, viii–​x. The spurious work: Kennedy
1994, 211–​212 (the third or fourth century); Patillon 2012a, xi–​xv (the second or early third
century). Davis 2005, 196–​197 suggested no date.
32

32 Dem ades in t he world of people

the other suggests that the original On Invention by Hermogenes was lost
sometime between the fourth and eleventh centuries. It could have been
supplanted by later versions and recensions that became accepted as copies
of the genuine treatise, one of which was used by Doxopatres.61 The rhetor-
ical nature of the story about Demades’s honorific decree for Euthycrates like-
wise follows from Apsines and Longinus presenting Euthycrates as not just
a traitor of his native city of Olynthus to Philip, but also an assessor for the
property of its seized citizens. The elder Seneca developed the theme of the
miserable fate of the captured Olynthians in one of his controversies, which
described how the Athenian painter Parrhasius bought an old captive from
Olynthus and used him as a model for his painting of Prometheus, thereby
torturing him to death. Such later rhetorical pieces relied on material from
classical speeches, like references in Demosthenes’s speech On the False
Embassy (19.196–​198, 305–​306) to an Olynthian woman, who, as a war cap-
tive, suffered mistreatment at the hands of several men, allegedly including
Aeschines, and to Atrestidas, who carried away Olynthian captive women and
children as a boon from Philip. The powerful rhetorical effect of the topos of
someone who was both a traitor to his city and an assessor of his captured
fellow citizens made later authors apply it even to Aristotle, a near contem-
porary of Demades: one of the works by Eusebius, a Christian author with a
solid rhetorical background, made Aristotle not only betray his native Stagira
to Philip but also act as an assessor of its citizens’ property.62
The speech by Hyperides against Demades’s proposal to grant proxenia to
Euthycrates turns out to have been a similar rhetorical fiction; it demonstrates
how later rhetors used classical speeches as sources for their orations. The
same speech by Demosthenes accused some of the leaders of the Chalcidians
of betraying the Chalcidian cavalry to Philip, and urged the Athenians to stay
on guard against traitors in their midst (19.266–​268):

Before the war had lasted a year, they had lost every town in Chalcidice
through treachery, and Philip could no longer pay any attention to
the traitors, and hardly knew what to capture first. He took five hun-
dred horsemen with all their equipment through the treason of their
officers—​a number beyond all precedent. The perpetrators of that

61. Cf. A. Kazhdan, “Doxopatres, John,” in ODB 1 (1991), 660: Doxopatres might have used
one of the Byzantine renditions of Hermogenes’s original text.
62. Hyper. fr. 76 = Aps. 10.9, and Long. Inv. (547.1–​17). Sen. Con. 10.5.1. Euseb. Prep. Euang.
15.2.6 (347).
3

Making sense of the evidence 33

infamy were not put to the blush by the sun that shone on their shame
or by the soil of their native land on which they stood, by temples or by
sepulchers, by the ignominy that waited on their deeds. Such madness,
men of Athens, such obliquity, does corruption engender! Therefore
it behooves you, you the commonality of Athens, to keep your senses,
to refuse toleration to such practices, and to visit them with public
retribution. For indeed it would be monstrous if, after passing so stern
a decree of censure upon the men who betrayed the Olynthians, you
should have no chastisement for those who repeat their iniquity in
your own midst. Read the decree concerning the Olynthians. [Decree]
Gentlemen of the jury, by the universal judgment of Greeks and
barbarians alike, you acted well and righteously in passing this vote of
censure upon traitors and reprobates. Therefore, inasmuch as bribe-​
taking is the forerunner of such treasons, and for the sake of bribes
men commit them, whenever, men of Athens, you see any man taking
bribes, you may be sure that he is also a traitor.

Demosthenes (8.40, 19.265) also mentioned Euthycrates as the person who

had betrayed Olynthians to Philip in return for a generous reward. Later
authors applied this material for rhetorical and moralistic purposes, without
necessarily adducing the figure of Demades. A famous fourth-​century theo-
retician and practitioner of rhetoric, Libanius, decried Euthycrates together
with other “traitors of Greece” in two of his progymnasmata, or rhetor-
ical exercises: encomium for Demosthenes and invective against Aeschines,
making no mention of Demades. Libanius’s equally distinguished contem-
porary Himerius, an orator and teacher of rhetoric, referred to “traitors of
Greece” in his declamation that assumed the form of a speech by Hyperides
on behalf of Demosthenes. Recycling classical material for the sake of his dec-
lamation, Himerius borrowed Demosthenes’s expression “the epidemic (of
betrayal),” exemplifying the manner of later rhetors, who strove to make their
speeches look like genuine classical orations.63

63. Lib. Prog. 8.5.8 and 9.4.13. On progymnasmata exercises, see the next chapter. Himer. 1.6 and
13; cf. Dem. 19.259. On the need for the sophists to continuously read and memorize classical
orations, see Philostr. VS 618: “Hippodromus [the Thessalian], among those who ranked after
Alexander the Cappadocian as blessed with good memory, learned more by heart than any of
the Greeks, and he was the most widely read . . . Hippodromus never neglected his study of the
art of declamation, either when he was living in his country estate or when travelling by road.”
Such readings and memorizations were essential for making extempore speeches, which were a
mark of professional rhetors: see Chapter 3.
34

34 Dem ades in t he world of people

Plots of declamations were brought together, published, and disseminated

as lists of actual speeches pronounced by classical orators, including Demades.
Hence, although no copies of Demades’s orations were available in the late
Republic (Cic. Brut. 36), and it was common knowledge by the first century
a.d. that he never put his speeches in writing (Quint. 2.17.13, 12.10.49), later
texts included lists of his many speeches (see Chapter 3). The massive circu-
lation of fictitious speeches and plots of declamations for use by orators as
well as proponents and students of rhetoric created a great confusion in an-
tiquity: it was not always possible to draw a line between authentic works
and fictions.64 One such example was the alleged speech by Hyperides against
Demades (Hyper. fr. 76). As discussed above, its nature as a rhetorical exercise
explains the similarities in its renditions by Apsines and Longinus, as well
as the differences between their accounts and the one by Doxopatres. This
observation receives striking corroboration from the use of several rhetorical
topoi that were so widespread in the Roman imperial period—​like betraying
one’s native city to an enemy, a theme that later authors polished at the ex-
pense of Demades himself (see Chapter 6), or presenting the traitor as also
being an assessor of the war captives after the fall of a city. The same situation
transpired with the texts of speeches. Rhetorical exercises in the guise of clas-
sical orations were offered and often came to be treated as genuine speeches.
Not surprisingly, other references to Hyperides’s speech against Demades
were made, or attributed to, such late authors as Plutarch, Athenaeus,
Harpocration, and Porphyry, all of whom lived in the period from the second
to the fourth century a.d.65 No reliable proof exists of Demades moving an
honorific decree for Euthycrates, which would have confirmed Demades’s
pro-​Macedonian stance. Our re-​examination of the relevant evidence shows
that a reference to a contemporary author or text should not necessarily be
accepted on its face: although presented as (excerpts from) classical works,
many such sources belonged to later times and conveyed later ideas.
Surviving texts about Demades both illustrate the most important
events in late classical Greece—​when the Greeks fell under the control of
the Macedonian kings Philip II and Alexander III—​and pose challenging
problems. The latter include contradictions between the inscriptional and lit-
erary evidence, and between references in literary texts to the same events, as in

64. See, for example, a debate on the authenticity of some of Demosthenes’s speeches in circu-
lation: Gibson 2001, 192–​195.
65. Plut. Praec. ger. reip. 810c; Athenae. 10, 424d; Harp. ο 25; Porph. Qu. Hom. α' (283–​284).
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Dien ochtend juist had z’n vrouw voor ’t eerst zoo gegriend omdat ze
vergeten had voor de jongens eten klaar te maken. De kerels
hadden gescholden en op tafel gebonkt met d’r zwarte, gebarsten
knuisten.… dat se vrete mosse.… dat se dáás leek.… En er was
thuis ’n lawaai wéést van wa-ben-je-me. Toen had hij d’r, in z’n
grimmigheid ’n opstopper pal tegen d’r snoet gemept, dat ze te
duuzelen stond; en niks zei ze, bleef ’m alleen maar [26]aanzien, met
oogen die besefloos wijd vraagstaarden, staarden naar wat ie nòu
dààn had. Plots was ze heviger in grienen uitgebarsten en had ze
krampzwaarder snikken uit d’r borst gescheurd. Daar kon ie dien
ochtend met z’n gedachte maar niet van af. Hij was ’n
ongeluksvogel. Nou dattie wel dacht ’n beetje rust te krijgen, werd
z’n wijf mal, stapel. En al maar had ie aan dat grienende mormel
gedacht, met telkens stijgende woedevlagen, bij elkaar harkend
nijdig de blaren, tot gouïge lichtduintjes, rond groen-brons en
roodgegloeid boomgeglans. Midden in z’n harken, hoorde ie weer d’r
snikken. Zoo mal, woestgillend en heesch had ze gegriend, ’m al
maar ankijkend. Toen, in-één, was dolangstig door ’m heengeschokt
’n gedachte, die ie zichzelf bijna niet voorhouen durfde.… aa’s z’n
wijf, z’n bloedeigen wijf nou d’r maar zoo deed om sain te snappen,
om achter de waarheid te komme van z’n rommelen in de donkere
kelderhoekjes, als d’r niemand was dan zij. Angst-zweet was er op
z’n lijf gewazemd, en zwel-benauwing had ie in z’n gorgel gevoeld.
Nou, là die dokter moar klietere, had ie gebromd, die hep gekoop
seure.… hài sat t’r mee.….. in huis.….. hai.… hai alleen! da’ verrekte
waif!.… da lamme waif!.… f’ r’ wâ sei dokter nie wa’ d’r skol.… dan
wist ie t’met’.… waa’s ’t puur uit!—

’n Jongen die ’m zag staan, stil met z’n hark, had toen, midden in z’n
woedend gemopper geschreeuwd.…

—Haei! Hassel.… Blommepot!.… mo je niet strak-en-an na huis.…

je waif stong op wacht.… t’met al ’n uur!.…
En teruggeschreeuwd had ie—„vast nie, la moar stoan”.… lacherig
gemaakt, valsch, want de buurlui, en ’t heele stedeke wisten al, dat
z’n vrouw zoo raar deed. Telkens dien ochtend weer, was de angst in
’m teruggedraaid, dat ze zich zoo maar hield, die feeks, die lintwurm,
dà sluwe kreng. Want in den laatsten tijd had ie voor hààr veel
minder z’n steeldrift verborgen, had ie al ’n beetje gerekend op ’r
vergeetkop. Zichzelf inpratend, dat ze zich toch vergiste, dat ze
werkelijk zwak van kop was, had ie gauw afgeharkt om te kunnen
snuffelen in de winterkasten of daar t’met nog wat lag, dat ie hebben
wou. Bij z’n rondgaan, langs den tuin-achterkant, had ie ’n [27]trap
tegen de deurluiken gegeven, omdat alles zoo stom-gesloten en
potdicht-sarrend ’m beloerde.… Vroeger elke plek besnuffeld!.… Wat
had ie al niet mee gepikt, toen de weduwe nog leefde.…
Damesskoentjes met gespeltjes.… brokkies van dat faine goed mit
kanten skulpies.… En linte!.… en grafbloarkranse.… en zilveren
suikerlepeltjes.… En plate en kemieke poppetjes.… Elk jaar wat.…
En armbande.. gevonde in den tuin na ’t krikkete.… En
damespetoffels.… van sai.… so glad as ’n mol om d’r over te
straike.… En meiderokkies.… onderrokkies.… gekleurd.… En
damesrokkies, allemaal geel mit sai.… prêchtig! En twee peresols.…
rooie.… he!.… hè!.… da was mooie woar.… En wa lai da nou
allemoal kloar voor sain!… precies hoe en wanneer ie die dingies
gekaapt had.… Dàt nou allemaal had ie gevoeld dien ochtend in
dien tuin.… En de heeleboel zoo maar verstopt, nauwelijks verstopt
àchterof, in ’n vuile hoek, bij ’t vat gepekeld vleesch, achter àn, in de
donkerste kuil, daar, in ’n groot zwart hok, waar niemand kwam, dan
hij zelf, zachies an met stukkies en beetjes afgeschut. Daar lei ’t
verknaagd en beskimmeld ’n beetje. Maar daar lei ’t. ’t Was toch wel
lollig weest dà’ s’n waif soo’n vuilpoes hiete, soo klieterde en stonk
t’met van ’t smeer.… Da se nooit-nie keek na d’r kelder, en da hai,
alleenig, bai skoonmoak ’t eerst rondrommelde.… En.… da Guurt d’r
de koning te raik mee was da sai d’r niks mee van doen had.… ook
soo’n skoone!.. Wel lollig toch dà’ hai nou joar an joar, veur
skoonmoak sorgde doar.… en al die hoeke … dà’ t’r leê, z’n spulle.…
rustig.… bestig.… Soms kreeg ie zoo’n vreeselijk verlangen er naar
te kijken dat ie ’t niet uithouen kòn. Dan moest ie zien, ’s nàchts, als
allen snurkten en ronkten. Want na z’n zware ziekte sliep ie weinig,
lag ie soms halve nachten wakker, en dan was ’t maar
prakkeseere.… met open ooge, tegen ’t donker beskot van de
bedstee.… Ja dat had ie daar nou allemaal staan.… Nou kon ’t
verrotte voor zijn part, as ie maar wist, dat ie ’t had, dat ’t van hem
was.… Zoo voor zijn eige òòge en hànde.. dat ie ’t kon grijpen en
zien wanneer ie wou.—Maar ’t zalige ook was, dat geen
[28]sterveling wist dàt ie gapte,.… hij de fesoenlijkste tuinder van de
plaats. En als ie nagong,—al liep ie in Amsterdam,—da s’n spulle
dààr leie.… in zijn kelderhoek.… God-kristus! dat ontroerde zoo
hevig, gaf ’m zooveel geluk, dat ie d’r bevingen van kreeg, in z’n
armen en beenen, en handen, en dat z’n hart ging hameren.… En
helsch-lekker was ’t, dat niet één uit de plaats, niet één bij ’m thuis
wist waar ’t lag.… zelfs z’n vrouw niet. Elke dag effetjes zag ie z’r bij
dwalen, dàn Dirk, dàn Piet, dan z’n meid Guurtje.… maar vast
niks.… Nooit niks merken.… En spannend, zag ie ze, nou jaren en
jaren achtereen, wegduiken in de rotte kelder, en weer opduiken en
nooit niks, nooit nooit niks!.… Dat gaf ’m nog weer ereis gloeiende
vreugd, maar stil, stil.… in zichzelf gesmoord.…

Met z’n stoel strompelde ouë Gerrit nog dichter bij de kachel,
onbewust, ’t zelf niet merkend, in brandende opwinding, blij iets te
bewegen. Z’n vrouw zag ie sjokkeren van den stal naar de keuken,
met ’n peinzerig gezicht, en rooie huil-oogen, ’n paar kopjes
wegdragend van ’t koffieblad. Vandaag had ie puur trek om er is te
kaike na z’n spulle.… Maar hij dorst nie.… Guurt, s’n dochter mos
sóó komme.… aa’s tie ’t moar weer es sag.…

Wà’ kon ie lolle, lolle, soo in ’t donkere hok, tusschen z’n gestolen
rommel in.… Wa genot! om te stikke! Wà’ had ie ’t netjes an rijtjes
legd lest.… Die vervloekte muize.… allegoar goatjes d’r in.… Hij kon
se de kop afbijten.—Nee, vandaag zou die ’r geen poot anzette, als
ie ’t moar sàg, soo moar sag, kon ie al sterven van heetige lol.—Wâ
spulle! Wà’ kon die ’r mee doen.… Nee, toch niks doen d’r mee.…
Alleen moar hebbe, wéte, al moar wéte en beseffe, dat ’t van sain
was.…, dat ie ’t kaapt had van andere.… andere.… Kristis, wà’ lol,
wà’ salig.… So moar had ie ’t gegannift van ’n aêre en nou was ’t
van sain, van hèm, van hem, van sain. Wat zoet, wat zalig zoet dat
toch was, dat nemen! Hoho!.. ho.. ho.… Van g’n waif, van g’n waive
hield ie zooveul.… Da [29]gappe.… puf!.… naar je toe.… En zoo
verborgen weg duufele in je eige kelder.… En dan, aas de
menschen je vrage en segge.… Hai je al hoort?.… dà’s stole of dit is
stole, dan verbaasd meekijke en lache, en dan zoo zeker, zoo zeker
wete dà’s se hem, hèm, mit z’n grijze kop, z’n faine noam net soo
min verdenke, aa’s den bestolene self.… En dan lol, brandend lollig
van binnen, daà’ niemand je sien hep.… niemand, nooit niks!.… En
dan àl maar meer lachen om ’n grappie ertusschen en schudden met
de zilveren haren, en dan, daardoor heen, maar genieten, bij ’t
spreke d’r over … En wrijven door de baard, en zalig, zoet van
binnen weten: jonge, kerel, dà’ hep jài nou,.… dà’ lait nou stikempies
op z’n rug, bai jou.… Niemand hep sien.… En dan ’t genieten er van,
de eerste week.… nachten, als ie niet slapen kon, in het kelderhok,
met ’t lampie.… en soms, als ie ’t niet kon houen, als ie van binne
opbrandde van zien-dorst, dan op den dag ook nog effe.. Aa’s ’t
most, en ’t kwam, dol-heet-begeerend, dan omkeerend van ’n
boodschap en dan loeren op ’n vrij gelegenheidje. En dan de tweede
nacht, aa’s ’t verlange om te zien zoo hevig was, dat ie lag te beven..
om z’n spulle te pakken.—Als ’t door ’m heengierde, onrustig gehijg
van kijkdrift en voeldrift. Als ie zich dan al lekkerangstig eindelijk
voelde, òver z’n wijf, heenstapte.… bang-vol en blij dat ze ’m wouen
snappen, en eindelijk met wild lichtgejuich in z’n oogen, in en uit z’n
kelder kwam, zonder dat ie gesnapt was. Dan in bed weer zien,
rustiger en verzadigd, hoe alles gelegen had, kijkend met oogen
dicht. Herinnerend hel-schittering van knoppies, blinking van
lepeltjes, en na-tastend in z’n verbeelden de kleuren en ’t zachte
goedje.—Dan den volgenden nacht weer, kijken en tasten, slaaploos
met zweet-hoofd van angstig-zwaar genot.—Na ’n week begon lust
te luwen, bleef ie ’r maanden zonder, dacht ie er nog alleen maar
aan, in z’n bedstee, stil-starend tegen beschot-donkerte, dat ’t daar
lei, effe onder ’m.. dat ie ’t kon zien, kon hebbe aa’s ie wou.. dingen
al van veertig jaar, nooit niks van verkocht.… nooit niks.… gegapt
voor sain … zalig zoodje.. Nou vàn sain, vàn sain alleen. En geen
[30]sterveling die wat wist van z’n zalig genot, geen die iets wist van
z’n sluipen ’s nachts, z’n waken, z’n woest-geheime passie, z’n
heethevig begeeren.

Van heel klein al had ie ’n diep jubel-genot gekend voor stil stelen,
juist op de gevaarlijkste plekken. Nou nam ie alleen wat ’m beviel,
maar toen, nog jong, nam ie elk onbeheerd ding mee. Telkens werd
’t ’m toen afgenomen, kreeg ie ransel en straf, omdat ie ’t nog niet
goed wist te verbergen, of handig genoeg weg te kapen. Op later
leeftijd was ie zich gluip’riger gaan toeleggen op stil-stelen, op dat
loerend geheim-zoete stelen, met uren-geduld van ’n poes,
onbeweeglijk, rumoerloos dan toespringend als de kansen schoon
stonden, en dan alles vergeten, om te hèbben, te hèbben. Eerst had
ie, als eenmaal de dingen van hem waren, er niks meer voor
gevoeld. Later tikte ie de zaakjes op hun kop, maar bewaarde ze
meteen; werd zoo nieuwe prikkelhartstocht, dien ie eerst niet gekend
had. En nooit nog had ie goed beseft hoe ie eigenlijk aan dien
steeldrift kwam. Zóó zag ie iets, zóó gréép ie, zonder dat z’n
hartstocht ’m kleinste nàdenkruimte liet. ’n Vrouw pàkken en stelen,
maar stelen nog liever.—Verder was z’n heel leven niks voor ’m
geweest. Z’n land ging al jaren bar slecht; z’n zoons bestalen ’m, z’n
pacht en schulden al hooger, de opbrengst al minder.… Maar ’t gong
z’n triest gangetje nog.… Toch was ’r niks geen pienterigheid meer in
z’n werk; z’n steellust was alles, ging nog ver boven lijfbegeeren
uit.… ontzettend, van genot, van stil genot.

Eens had ie, zoo in ’n angst-bui, die ’m in z’n jonge jaren maar heel
zelden bekroop, aan dominee in ’t geheim verteld dat ie zoo graag
dingen wegnam, die van hem niet waren, zoo alleen maar om ze te
hebben, en om te doen, te doèn vooral. Maar die man had ’m
uitgescholden, had ’m de deur gewezen in woede.… zeggend dat ie
niet verkoos voor den gek gehouen te worden. En hij in z’n boerige
stommiteit en blooheid had niks verder kunnen zeggen. Toen had ie
dominee in de kerk nog es hooren dreigen met de hel, dat dieven
monsters waren.. [31]En hij had dol-angstig gegriend, bang, bang, de
hel, de hel.… En de ouë vrome, streng-bijbelsche dominee had hèm
onder de preek aangekeken. ’n Tijdje was ’t stil in ’m gebleven. Maar
z’n begeerte vrat dieper in. Geen rust had ie waar ie was. ’t
Verlangen, heet schroeiend, kwam in ’m opblakeren, als ie iets zag,
van verre al, hartkloppingen beukten z’n slapen en z’n binnenste
stond in brand. Dan de gréép.… En als ’t gedaan was, voelde ie zich
opgelucht, lollig, lekker.… tot ie later weer moest, en de hitte-greep
weer kwam. Door dominee’s gedreig had ie nooit iemand meer iets
durven zeggen, wat ie toen wel gewild had. Want ’t werd ’m soms,
zoo zwaar, zoo bang,—maar dan weer vond ie ’t zoo zalig, zoo
zoet.… Zoo was ’t geweldiger in ’m doorgevreten, met de jaren
erger, kon ie ’r niet meer zonder. En om zich heen zag ie niemand
die wist wat in hem omging, hoe wreed-rauwelijk ie genoot, en hoe ie
leed, als ie wroeging, angst voelde. Want elke week precies toch
ging ie naar de kerk, soms als ’n zelf-marteling om te hooren wat ’m
te wachten stond. En elk woord paste ie dan toe op zich-zelf, elken
zin, elken uitleg. En soms midden door z’n donkeren, hoog-donkeren
angst, schoot dan berouw, klagelijk deemoedig voornemen, dat ie
nooit meer iets van ’n ander zou wegnemen. Twee dagen daarna als
de woorden van dominee afgekoeld waren, zat ’t alweer in hem te
hijgen, als ie maar iets zag, dat alleen stond, dat ie hebben moèst.
Dan bleef ie in zoete streel-stemming van z’n eigen begeerte, tot ze
onstuimiger, brandender oplaaide, niet meer te houen, en duizelde ie
van nieuw genot, dat te wachten stond. Dan kwam er al dagen
vooruit, licht of doezelig geduizel in z’n hoofd, vreemde ontroeringen
en gevoelige toeschietelijkheid thuis, in alles.… zelfs z’n stem begon
te vleien, lichtelijk.

En dan had je ’t, volop ’n groote blij ontroerende angst voor wat ie
doen ging en voor wat nou weer in ’m woelen en snoeren kwam. Zoo
wàchtte ie op zich zelf, dook er grillige benauwing ônder z’n
hartstocht uit.—Soms klaar-fel in één, heel kort, zag ie zich-zelf,
begreep ie, hoe ie Onze Lieveheer bedroog, den dominee, de
menschen, de wereld.. Dat kwam dan meestal ’s nachts, als ie
wakker lag, niet slapen kon, en er klare kijklust [32]juist in z’n oogen
kittelde; in die lange, donker-dreigende nachten, als ie verschuil-
angst voelde, angst dat ie slecht was, dat ie toch eens gesnapt zou
worden, dat z’m in de kelder zouen pakken en opsluiten, of dat ze ’m
eerst midden op den weg zouen sleuren, zóó, midden op straat
jagen, en dat iedereen ’m dan kon zien met z’n grijzen kop, z’n lange
haren.… dat ze’m zouen uitjouwen, uitgieren en met steenen gooien.
Dan werd ie week, voelde ie, hoe hardvochtig ie was voor z’n wijf en
kinderen.… In die angstnachten voelde ie zich aan alle kanten
bedreigd, zàg ie klaarder dan op den dag, hóórde ie beter, de
vreemdste tikjes, kraak-lichte geluidjes, strak-zuiver in de
nachtstilte.. En hij, hij die nooit niks gevoeld had,—wel duizend keer
in ’t holst van winternachten dwars door ’t Duinkijker bosch, van ’t
zeedorp Zeekijk, naar Wiereland was geloopen,—híj huiverde dàn,
en kippevelde van angst, hij lag daar te stumperen, te beven en
benauwend te zweeten, naast z’n wijf, beschutting zoekend àchter
haar dooie, snorkende lijf, toch blij dat zij er tenminste was, ’n
mensch net als hij, die ie hoorde ronken.… die hij kende.… die hem
kende.… En als ie dan, loerend stil, in ’t pikdonkre vunzige ruimtetje
van het hollig bed-steetje, uit groenig vuur op ’m zag aangrijpen,
handen met kromme, scherpe worg-nagels, vreeslijke, knokige,
graaiende handen, beenderige geraamte-handen, vaal en grauw en
hij lag te steunen, zoetjes in zweetangst te kermen, zich verkrimpend
en kleinmakend àchter ’t half-wezenlooze lijf van z’n vrouw—dan
begon ie stil tegen haar lichaam te praten, òp te biechten, luid, met
beverige stem, tegen haar rug.… Dan angstigde ie uit, dat ie ’t haàr
wel zeggen wou, z’n slechtighede.… aa’s se’t maar nie verklikte …
da’ se ’m steenige souê … En dat alles, alles in de kelder lei.…

In den stillen nacht hoorend z’n eigen holle beefstem, weenend van
wanhoop, keek ie even òp achter het ronkend lijf van z’n vrouw of ’t
groenige vuur nog liktongde—van ’t donker beschot naar ’m toe.
Maar als ie dan geen beenige grauwige geraamte-hand meer zag,
zweeg ie gauw met biechten, verroerde ie zich niet meer, ’n kwartier,
’n half uur, al spijtig, gejaagd dat ie te veel had [33]gezegd, dat ie zich
had laten bangmaken. Bleef ’t weg, ’t groenige vuur, dan begon z’n
zweet-benauwing wat te luwen, gingen er knellingen los van z’n kop,
z’n beenen, begon ie weer ’n beetje ruimer te ademen .… in zichzelf
gerustgesteld, dat ie toch iemand opgebiecht had wat ie deed—En
aa’s ze wakker was zou ie ’t weer zeggen. Stilletjes wel, dacht ie
’rbij, dat ze toch alles weer vergat,.… maar dat kon hem niet
schelen, had hij niks mee van noode. Hààr zou ie ’t zeggen, dan wist
ie ’t ten minste niet meer alleen. Als ie dan eindelijk achter ’t deurtje
van ’t donkere bed-holletje durfde kijken, in de scheemrige
schijnseltjes, naar de stille schaduw-schimmen van de roerlooze
kamer en hij zag op ’t ruit, aan den straatweg, ’t nachtlichtje,
blompotjes-schaduw en tak-vormpjes, grillig-dwars en puntig op ’t
vaal-geel gordijntje lijnen, kreeg ie weer moed, zei ie zichzelf, dat ie
’n lintworm was, drong ie zich op, dat ie nog nooit-ofte nimmer
kwaad had gedaan.….

.… Dief? .… dief.…? nee, dâ was tie nie, heelegoar nie.… En

snappe?.… nooit!.… nooit!.… Wou ie stele om geld?.… bah! kon ’m
geen zier skele.… ’t Was lekker, ’t was puur zalig.… Hij mos
gappe.… hij mòs of ie wou of nie.… Soms wou ie zelf nie.…, en toch
most ie.… En dan had ie al branding en wilde jeuking in z’n
handen.… Nee pakke dée ze’m nooit van d’r leve.… want sluw, sluw
was ie, aa’s de beste.… En wie had d’r ooit erg in sain? Hij mit z’n
grijze kop, hij diake weest?.… Hij die nooit dronk, hij die met jare
beule en ploetere, eindelijk ’n stukkie grond had gekocht, met veul
hypetheek?.… ze zeie allemoal wat van z’n zachtzinnigheid, en hoe
goeiig ie omging met z’n ongelukkig suf waif.…

Maar aa’s tie alleen was met haar, kon ie z’n geduld niet houên. Dan
griende ze, had ze vergeten waar ze woonden, wist ze niet meer den
naam van haar kinderen; dan griende ze maar, grienen. En hij er
tegen in, haar meppend met wat ie maar in handen kon krijgen. Dan
griende ze erger, mepte hij harder, uit drift, uit dolle drift, dàt ze
blerde.… En toch vergat ze waàrom ze griende, wist ze na ’n paar
minuten niet meer, [34]dat haar man ’r geranseld had, sjokte ze weer
stil-droevig voort, alleen brandende pijn-plekken voelend op ’r lijf en
handen..

Eergisteren nog had ie ’n paar mooie ronde bollemanden gekaapt, ’n

stel witgeschuurde klompen en ’n nieuwe overschieter.… Donders,
vaa’n arme kerel, dat had ’m even heel erg gespeten, maar ’t stond ’r
zoo zalig voor.… Niet lang was de bedenking. Door z’n bars boeren-
verstand, wrokkig, eigenzinnig en steenhard-achterlijk was de
gedachte gegaan dat ’t maar ’n zuiplap was, hij er toch nies an had.
Listig en bijgeloovig, dat was ie, bang en brutaal. En gisteren had ie
alles aangedurfd.… Zoo, in de zon had ie staan blinken, de
overschieter, en de mandjes ’n eind verder, en bij ’n ander de witte
klompies. ’t Was plots in ’m gaan kriebelen, hij had zich voelen bleek
worden, gejaagd, kloppingen op z’n borst, in z’n strot, hooger op
naar z’n kop.… En opgejaagd in zichzelf gromde ’t: da mo je hewwe
Ouë, da mo je hewwe.… Er was licht in z’n oogen geloensd, raar
valsch licht, als uit de oogappelspleet van ’n kat die ’n vogeltje met
stil lijf en zachte kopwending alleen beloert.—Z’n handen waren
gaan woelen in z’n broekzakken en voor ie zelf wist of ’t kon, of
niemand ’m zàg, had ie ’t beet, beet, beet, schuurde ie met z’n stille
juichstem langs brandende hebzucht, die nou te blakeren lag, wild in
z’n strot, had ie ’t ding in knelkramp vast, schroefvast en daverde z’n
hart in geweldsbonzen, dat z’n ooren dicht suisden van woest genot.
Zoo was ie weggehold, keek ie strak voor zich uit, zwaar, lang
genietend, om te voelen hoe ’t afloopen zou.… met ’t heete steel-
gevoel in ’m, zoo zàlig zoet-spreidend over z’n harsens, dierlijk
genietend van eigen benauwing.… En dwars door vage-angst-van-
pakken, lol dat niemand ’m in den weg was getreden, dat ie dadelijk
kwam, waar ie wezen wou, dat ’t dadelijk kon geduwd in z’n kelder
en daar begulzigd met z’n oogen. Toen, alleen z’n wijf thuis, kon ie ’t
raak-zeker wegstoppen waar ie wou. Eén huilgenot was uit ’m
gevloeid. En gisterennacht had ie ’t weer gezien. Tranen van
ontroering had ie zitten schreien in z’n kelder. [35]

Over z’n spullen gebogen, beaaiend met z’n kijk, had ie ’rbij gezeten
in z’n rooie wollen onderbroek en z’n wilden zilveren haarkop, te
schreien in z’n kelderhok, met z’n klein lampje, rossig-geel, bewalmd
in vunshoek, genoot ie van z’n doorgestane spanning, duizendmaal,
zacht-snikkend in stembeving zich zelf zeggend, in huil, dat ’t nou
van hem was, van hem.… Dat ’m dat geen sterveling kon afnemen,
Dirk niet, Piet niet, Guurtje niet.… En stil als ’n faustig spooksel,
kromde z’n verdonkerd rood lijf zich in z’n lage kelder, veegde ie z’n
tranen van de handen, snikte ie zachter, luchtte ie op, lag ie om en
om z’n gestolen waar, zoet-innig streelend, en bleekte z’n zilveren
haardos en kindergezicht, in het wazige kelderschimmige
lampschijnsel òp, met gelukslach en zalige verrukkings-koorts.

Nee, niks kon ’m meer skele.… z’n kinders, z’n waif, z’n pacht, z’n
schulden, z’n hypetheek.… Alleen die lamme notaris, die ’m ’r in had
met vijfhonderd gulde losgeld en al de rente, ses pissint, zat ’m
dwars.… En de dokter.… die z’n rekening hewwe wou.. en veurskot
van grondbelasting.… Snotverjenne, dat was nou ruim dertig joar
puur, dat notaris ’m losse duiten leent had.… En nou, nou Dirk en
Piet bij andere wat wouen knoeien mit grond, nou eischte ie op, in
één s’n geld, met dertig jaar rente.… godskristis.….. Da was puur ’n
slag.… miskien ’n kleine twee duuzend gulden mit de rente van àl ’t
deze! En nou weer ’n paar termaine hypetheek achter en pacht en
nog drie joare raize achter.… Nou dan moest s’n brokkie moar an de
poal.… Hai verrekke.… sullie ook verrekke.… Hai had toch se
genot.… Moar dwars, dwars zat ’t ’m; nòg twee koebeeste voorschot
waa’s tie ook achter! Nee, dwars zat ’t sàin!.… ’n suinige boel!.…
Aa’s s’n heule rommel achtduuzend beskoûde, was tie d’r.… Maar
da had ie t’met an volle skuld!.… Tug, ’t brok stong nog onder sain
klompe!.… [36]

[Inhoud]

II

Guurt, de mooie blonde dochter van Gerrit Hassel, kwam op ’r

fameuze dij, met ’n groote witte schaal grauwe erten aansjokken, en
’n pan uien met aardappelenbrei, die vettig smeulden en geurden in
wasem voor d’r uit. Guurt was de mooiste blonde van Wiereland,
met zwaar-korpulent, hoog boerinnelijf, rompig-rond en heupmollig,
dat droeg, droomerig fijn klein hoofdje, wonder-blauw starende
oogen, fijn poppig gezichtje, potsierlijk-lievig, teer en damesachtig in
’t zware zonneblond van haardos, kontrasteerend-pronkend op ’r
vetten schommelenden vleesch-groei van flank en boezem.
Vrouw Hassel zat stil-ontdaan, met ’r huilerig gezicht vlak voor ’t
raampje op den weg te kijken naar de kale tuinderijen, en de goor-
gele hooi-klampen. Haar versmoezelde trekmuts zat scheef-
achterover, en de eindkrullen ervan hingen slapvuil langs d’r slapen.
Even blies ’n geraas door ’t vertrekje, en hoog-plechtig sopraande de
staartklok ’t twaalfuurtje uit, na elken slag meetrillend ’n zangerig
geluid als van tooneelklok, die vreemd-bekorend-sonoor, ’n
nachtelijk spanningsuur aanluidt, in melodrama.

Achter in den stal, rumoerden de jongens binnen, zich in haast ruw

neerschuifelend met stoelen aan tafel, beslijkt van grondwerk, overal
langs schurend met hun modderplunje, gulzig laag bukkend in
dierlijken vreetstand voor d’r borden.

Ouë Gerrit zat in gemakstoel, tegenover z’n vrouw. Plots zakte stom
z’n kop op de borst; kruisten zich z’n handen in krampigen bid-buig.
De jongens en vrouw Hassel brabbelden wat meê, gejaagd.

Gulzig-spraakloos begon er geëet, klikklakking van lepels op borden

en schaal, die naar alle richtingen getrokken werd. Piet had zich
zwaar-vol opgeschept, ruw-weg bij-lepelend, dat het donker
klonterde op z’n borst, erwten met vet en kleine ertusschen
gesnipperde vleeschbonkjes. Dirk kauwde, kauwde langzaam,
zwaarder, met bij-zijduwing van kaken, en schoof na iederen hap z’n
vuile lepel in de schaal, langzaam, langzaam, [37]zoekend naar
plekjes met vleeschbonkjes. En Piet er haastiger tegen in,
opstapelend nieuwe lepelingen, telkens met z’n slijk-bruine vingers,
reuzige grauwe klauw, erwteklusjes, druipend bedoopend met vet,
wegzuigend, van mondgulzige toppenduw, z’n spreekholte in. Want
telkens had ie wàt te zeggen, met barst-vollen, spuug-spattenden
mond. Ouë Gerrit smakte zuinigjes z’n bord erwten op. Alleen vrouw
Hassel at niets, bleef suffig-beteuterd kijken naar éen plek buiten ’t
raam, met oogen flauw-versluierd van tranen.
Jammerlijk druilde stilte op haar grauw-verflenst gezicht dat sufte
onder ’t vuil-grijze haar, bijzij steekmutsfloddering los uitkrullend. Om
haar heen bleef zuigen stil gesmak van uitgehongerde kerels, die
met zweet en vuil nog op rood-grauwe gezichten, stil maar hapten
en kauwden, in grimmig kaakbeweeg, rauw en vraatvol, zich
vergulzigend als beesten.—Guurt kwam pas zitten, met geschuifel
van ’n stoel en wegduwing van Piet’s arm, vluggelijk biddend.

—Mo’k nie sitte?.… jai la nou nooit niks veur ’n ander.…, mokte ze
bits.

—Jonges, zei Hassel plots bezorgd, morge is ’t houtvailing bai jonker

van Ouenaar.… wie goat t’r hain.…? Sel ik ’t moar sain, hoho!

—Nou, gromde Dirk, z’n lepel uit z’n mond zuigend en gravend in de
weer vol geplompte schaal,.… daa’s net, wà’ hai je meer?.…

De Ouë wist wel dat ie moest, al vond ie ’t lam werk. Maar als Dirk
en Piet zeien dat ’t gebeuren zou, durfde hij niet nee zeggen, bang
dat ze ’r de heele boel op ’n goeien dag bij neersmeten.

—Aa’s t’r t’met wat is.… vier en vaif.… enne nie genog!..

—Mit staive stàp d’r moar op an Ouë .… sal wel wa sàin.…

seurderij.…, bromde Dirk, met vollen mond, in z’n altijd klanklooze
kortsnauwende bitse zinnetjes.

De ouë zei al niets meer, keek sip voor zich, verschuchterd, zat star
op z’n met zware duimvegen uitgelikt bord te kijken.

—Godverjenne moeder, barste Piet los, zwaar-boerend voor [38]zich

uit, in zangrige stijging van Wierelands spreekgeluid, godverjenne,
waa’t is t’r t’met mi je veur.… ik sien je kwalik ’s murregens.…
—Wa?.. wa?.. wa sait tie?.… wa sait tie?.… schrikte vrouw Hassel
òp uit ’r sufkijk over het kale land.

Piet brokkelde weer onverstaanbaar iets verder, met uitgebuilden

mond, stamp-vol van uien en aardappelenbrei, die z’n lippen
overdrongen. Telkens greep ie met z’n grauwe vuile modderhanden
in de pan, rondwroetend tusschen breiklodders, om direkt weer in te
stoppen als ie met beklemming van zacht-roggelende ademhaling,
ingeslikt had. Zoo aldoor met vollen mond blijvend, wou ie spreken,
iets driftigs uitstooten, dat brabbelend wegsmoorde in z’n
uienkauwsel.

Vrouw Hassel zat te wachten, maar hoorde niets meer.… Eindelijk

na zware ademhaling, kraste er stemgeluid op, had ie alles
doorgeslikt. Guurt, naast ’m, zat te giegelen om z’n gulzig geslobber,
lachend, lijf-schuddend achter haar dikke handen.

—Nou moeder, wa’ kaik je aa’s ’n skoap.… f’rjenne!.… je sou main

broek làpt hebbe.… d’r sit ’n gat in.… daa’ k’r t’met deurvalle sel.…
hai je dà nou weer f’rgete?.… bin je dan t’met fe’gete daa’k ’n broek
droag?.… geep.… dwarrel!.… wa skeel je.…?

—Sai vergeet puur d’r kop van d’r romp, woedde de Ouë.

—En.… ne.… de bloedworst, hai je ’m kloar moeder, vroeg Dirk er

loom midden in.

Vrouw Hassel zat met inspanning naar ’t stemgekruis te luisteren, vol

angst-trekken om d’r ingevallen mageren neus en mond, vooruit al
voelend, dat ze wat leelijks te hooren kreeg. Maar herinneren van
bloedworst en broek deed ze zich. niets meer. Al wat zij haar
voorhielden was nieuwtje, hoorde ze nou pas voor ’t eerst, meende
ze.
—Ja, ja, stamelde ze in verwarring terug.… ik wee nie wâ main
skeelt.… ik bin d’r puur f’rskote van kinders!.… En zwaar te huilen
begon ze.

—Seg waif, bler nie.… valt rege sat.… snauwde hard [39]de Ouë en
allen nu snauwden mee, van lamme kemedie, gesanik van dit-en-
van-dat, scholden eruit voor luiwammes, die gluipertjes wou maken.
En stil snikte ze door, zonder dat ze zich met ’n woord meer
verdedigen kon. Uitgesuft zat ze weer. Niemand die voelde wat ze
had, wat ze leed. O! leed?.. leed?.. Nee, pijn had ze niet. Alleen zoo
raar, zoo doovig, zoo rare banden kruislings over d’r hoofd,
gespannen! en zoo knellend, zoo stevig.… En niks, niks meer kon ze
onthoue.. Ze huilde weer harder.… Guurt keek ’r àn, met d’r
glimlacherige blauwe oogen, of ze zeggen wou: hou je je aige moar
stiekem van de domme, je bin immers zoo sterk aas ’n paard.…

Dirk grabbelde ’n pijp vol, met kop in de tabaksdoos geduwd, en Piet

diepte mee in. ’n Paar minuten bleef er stilte-gepaf van alle lijven.
Alleen Gerrit en de vrouwen vouwden de handen, prevelden
plechtig-mechanisch dankgebed.

—Seg Ouë.… kristus! wa he’k ’n pain in main polse.… kristus!.…

main klauwe!.… saa’k verbrande aa’s ’k weet hoe ’k sitte mot.…
jesis wa pain.… main stuit.…

Afbrekend eigen zin bleef Dirk op z’n doorbarste spithanden

staren.…

—Nou Ouë, murge goant beertje d’r an—Met ’n schonkigen draai

van z’n zwaar lijf keerde ie zich naar Gerrit, ’m drie maal zwaar
boerend vlak in ’t gezicht. Vader Hassel keek bedrukt.

—Tjonge, daa’s te vroeg, f’rdomd, daa’s te vroe-eg, zàng-zeurde z’n

stem.
—Nou maor, hai goant, daa’s main werk.… ikke hep ’r lol in.… Ikke
hou van da werkie.… Aas ’t poar weke verduufle gong he’k g’n fait
meer.… nee.… nou mot tie.… jesis! me sai laikt of ’k spersie-bedjes
maok hep.… da verrekte diepspitte..

Dirk was rood van stille woede dat de ouë tegensprak, woede die
aan kwam stuiven in bloedvlekken op z’n woest-kakigen wreeden
kop. Z’n vlassige brauwen gramden in dreiging naar elkaar, en z’n
kaken beefden. Dàt was z’n grootste hartstocht, slàchten; zelf ’t mes
in ’t plooiige nek-vette van ’t varken te vlijmen, ’m bij z’n strot te
smakken, dat ie spartelde, dan ’m te zien rochelen en hooren gillen,
met bloed op z’n handen, [40]warm-lauw, stankig en rood. Dan
genoot ie met ’n bedaarde lol, niemand mocht er an komme thuis. As
ie ’t niet zelf kon doen, vrat ie ’t niet; most ’t vleesch verkocht. Al de
kippen, die niet meer legden, draaide ie even gemoedereerd den
kop om. Guurt joeg ze op, greep ze, en hij alleen wrong ze den hals
af. En Guurt zàg ’t ook dol-graag, al griende ze ’r soms bij van
rillerigheid. Zij, zij met ’r meidehanden dee ’t altemet eerder dan
Kees, de erge strooper, waar ieder in de plaats bang voor was; Kees
de Strooper, oudste zoon van Hassel.

Piet had zich languit met z’n modderlaarzen en slijkgoed op den

grond neergesmakt, vlak bij de rookige kachel, om wat te tukken.
Dirk zat te smoken, slaperig weggedoezeld in blauwe rookkrullen,
stomp, naar den straatweg kijkend. Ouë Gerrit voelde slaaploomte
en rilling.

’n Paar uur maar had ie vannacht geslapen. Alleen Guurt lachte luid
en brutaal, joligde tegen Dirk, die stom aanluisterde zonder zich te
verroeren, wat ze snapte van Annie en Geert Slooter, dochters van
’n tuinder, bij hen in de buurt.

—Nou Dirk.… enne.… nou mo je wete.… nou sait se Annie.… se

binne veur sain in ’n f’rseeekering … aas sain … sie je.… d’r vader.…
aas sain nou wa beurt.… dan.… danne kraige sai ’n prais.… ’n prais
sa’k moar segge.… van ’t Nuuwsblad.… En nou sait Geert.…
hohà!.… nou sait Geert.… gom.… ikke wou moar da die ouë suiplap
soo dood bleef aa’s ’n pier.… in se werk.… he?.… dan heppe wai
vaifhonderd poppies.… Is da nou woar Dirk.…? kraige sullie dan
soveul?.… puur vaifhonderd.… tog jokkes hee?

—Nou seker, bromde Dirk, wrevelig dat ie spreken moest, aa’s t’r
stoat, sal wel ’t uitkomme t’met.…

—Nou, en nou sait Annie, sait se main.… f’r wa’ sai nooit niks meer
van je sien, s’avens.…

—La se stikke.… mestvarke.… hep màin noodig.… dwarrel!

kabbeloebelaap!.…

—Nou hait s’nie g’laik.… sa’k stikke aa’s se ’n sint los kraigt van den
ouë.… nou is tie weewnoar.… en hokke [41]mi Jan en alleman dat ie
doe.… ’n wijd skandoal.… Nou lest, mi Sint Jan mosse Annie en
Geert.… mosse ze ’n poar nuwe laarse.… hai gaift g’n sint.… strak-
en-an komp ie thuis.… stroal!.… En hài an ’t danse.… de guldes
rolde sain broek uit.… sóó, langs se paipe op de vloer.… Dà’ ware
sullie bai aa’s kippe hee?.… Se heppe grabbeld en vochte.… Hai
was smoor.. en niks het ie sien.… ha! ha!.… ha! ha! ha!.…

Wat ’n beeste, wat ’n maide.… nou binne sullie skoene goan

koope.… Ho-je-wi! wa ’n pinkebul!—

Gieren deed Guurt, met ’n bord in ’r hand, wild op ’r dijen patsend,

dat ze schommelde.

—Hep jai Kees nie sien maid, vroeg dwars-vreemd en stroef Dirk er
tegen in.

—Kees? Kees? sien ik t’met nooit.

—Wâ? en Grint dan, sain buurman? Kom je’r nie meer? Skarrel je
doar nie?.… en se seun?.… is da doàn? verdomme.… Die jonge
was puur mal op je.…

—Wa? die staive hark? die .. kikker.. àn main blouze seg!.… gierde
Guurtje, wild naar achter stormend, met vingergetrommel op borden.

—Houw doar smoele.… kaa’n g’n tuk pakke.… schorde Piet

slaperig-stemlui van den grond, zich wild in protest, met lijf-lawaai,
omdraaiend.

—V’rek, kom bai je, goedigde Dirk, zich aan den anderen kant van
den kachel neersmakkend.

—Guurt, denk ’r an, één uur!

—Ja, stem-gilde ze uit ’t achterend, ja sel d’r sain!

Om één uur moesten ze weer op, spitten, spitten tot oneindige

troosteloosheid van winterdonkering over avondvelden kwam
droeven.

En Guurt bleef met ingehouen, geluid-dempende bewegingen

vaatwerk-rommel beploeteren. Haar princessekopje roezemoesde.
Zij was de mooiste meid van Wiereland. Iedereen had ’t gezeid.… en
ze wist ’t zelf ook wel. Ze had wel nooit wat geleerd, maar de
jongens keken d’r an, of ze ’r t’met allegaar teg’lijk wouen. Maar
mooie Guurt wist wat ze waard was. ’n [42]Meneer wou ze hebben, ’n
meneer mit mooie mesjette, in nette kleere, en ringe om se hande.…
’n faine hoed.… en faine jas. En dan niks g’n konkelefoesies om den
meneer, maar blij om den stand, om ’t hooger-opkomme. Dat was
brandendste eerzucht in ’r. En aa’s tie, onfesoenlijk wou, voor d’r
trouwe, sou se’m meppe.… O! se hield ’r wel van soms, maar so als
die meide van Wiereland, soo dol.… nee, dà’ had se nooit niks soo
erg naar verlangd. Die gooie zich te grabbel. Die moste wel, die
hadde niks anders. Maar zij, de mooiste meid van Wiereland! De
apetheker haalde d’r stiekem àn.… dacht moar.… stom
boerinnetje.… En de dokter wou er soene.. t’met de heule ploats.…
Lest mit d’r seere vinger wou die vent d’r nie helpe.… of eerst ’n
lekkere soen.… so’n vuilpoes!.… dà’ hep ’n waif.… acht kooters.…!
En dà kreeg se, en dî kreeg se; allegoar van meneere.… En mee
ging se.… met kennissies en skarrelaars, die wà’ graag de meneere
van de plaots ànhaakte.… Nou, da had ze t’met puur sien.. maar bai
haar, niks g’n kansies.… Zij wou nooit, nooit gemeen sain.… Alleen
moar lolle en lache.… en pronke.… en t’met alle kemedies sien. En
dan moar al die manne opwinde, en net doen of se wou.… of se soo
moar te neme was.… En aa’s se dan woue toehappe.… pats, dan
d’r van langs, mit d’r stevige knuiste, dan seie se niks meer.… dan
was ’t glad f’rbai.

Zoo was mooie twintigjarige Guurtje, met haar dames-hoofdje, haar

prachtig goudhaar, haar lichten lach, haar fijne trekjes en blauwe
oogen-vreugd, met ’r hoog-zwaar, frisch boerinne-lijf, haar
schommelend-onderstel, de begeerlijkste meid van ’t dorps-stadje,
waarvan geen tuinder, geen meneer zich op beroemen kon dat ie ’r
gepakt had. Maar allen had ze dol gemaakt en opgejaagd, van
hartstocht. Midden in ’t paringsgedrang van beest-menschjes,
koketteerde zij grof en stoeide met allen zoo goed en zoo kwaad als
haar sluwe meisjesnatuur met berekening dat klaar kon spelen. Zij,
vrij koud voor lijfgenot, zocht naar zwakkelingen met geld, die op ’r
verkikkerd werden, [43]ambtenaartjes eerste klas.—Op één had ze al
lang ’t oog, ’n heel piek-fijn heertje, ’n rijk, wellustig slap-blond
mannetje, maar chiek, ruikend naar odeur, met lokkende snor en
streelend baardje, en zooveel geld as tie maar wou.… Die most se
anhake, hebbe, al kwam de onderste steen boven, hem met z’n
duiten, z’n chiek, z’n geurtjes en odeurtjes. En hij wou haar ook,
maar d’r lijf alleen. Alles sloeg ze àf, en toch maakte ze ’m vuriger
door ’r verleidelijke gekunstelde boerinne-onschuld. Hij, ouderloos
mannetje, zwak dobberend, afgezwabberd, wou iets om handen,
was ambtenaartje geworden.… later burgemester.… misschien! .…
zoekend naar rijke heere-boerdochter, die z’n afgezwabberd lijf wel
hebbe wou.… Toen, in één verkikkerd op ’t frisch-wellustige lijf van
Guurt, ’r blonde haaraureool, ’r fijn snoetje.… Maar veel gegeven,
weinig meegenomen, nooit iets kon ie bij ’r gedaan krijgen; niet eens
mocht ie d’r met ’n zoen besmakkeren. Ze had ’m gezeid dat als ie ’r
hebben wou, ie maar met ’r trouwen most. Hij stond wel op zich-zelf,
en dertig jaar, kon ie doen wat ie wou.… Maar van die platte familie
gruwde ie, die ruwe broers, die vuile moeder.… Daarom draalde
ie.… En zij voelde z’n dralen. Sluw, hitste z’m met ’r lijf-mooi erger
op, zich nog minder gevend dan eerst. Zoo was ze ’m gaan
beheerschen.… En nou most ze zich bekennen, dat ze hem toch
ook wel aardig vond, met z’n manchette, en z’n blondkrullend
snorretje vooral, met dat gleufie in ’t midden, en z’n zachte kijkers,
z’n goeie netuur.… o ja alles vond ze mooi an ’m. Maar ’t meest was
’t ’r te doen om z’n duiten, z’n lekkere duiten.…

Dat ze zich prachtig kon maken, dat ze baas over ’t ventje was.… zij
met ’r dijen, waarachter ie zich verschuilen kon, zonder dat z’n
neuspunt te zien kwam. Maar hij wou, durfde maar niet. En zij,
doorkoketteerend, met andere jongens van de plaats en van Duinkijk
en van de sekretarie, dat ie dol werd van heetige jaloersigheid. En
de anderen gebruikte zij om ’m op te winden, metéén te laten zien,
dat ze maling aan hem had, en dat kerels als boomen om ’r
heendrongen, naar ’n [44]gunstje bedelden. Zoo, als ’n plompe, maar
stomp-sluwe dorps-Carmen had ze Jan Grint den tuinderszoon, dien
ze al van ’r schooljaren kende, mal gemaakt, maar toen ie met liefde
en vuiligheid kwam had ze ’m de deur uitgesmeten. Ze kreeg
smeekbrieven van ’m; dat hij d’r vroegste minnaar was en dat ie zich
z’n handen van de romp zou afsnijen, aa’s sai ’t puur hebbe wou.…
Maar ze dàcht niet aan ’m. Ze wou met ’m lachen en uitgaan of