članci: Revisiting The Hill of Pnyx: The Physical, Rhetorical, and Sociocultural Contexts

/ČLANCI
UDK 808.51:32(38)
CERIF: H 300
DOI: 10.51204/Anali_PFBU_23101A
Andreas SERAFIM, PhD*
REVISITING THE HILL OF PNYX: THE PHYSICAL,

RHETORICAL, AND SOCIOCULTURAL CONTEXTS
This paper offers a holistic reconsideration and reexamination of what the

transmitted texts say about the political and rhetorical processes on the hill of
Pnyx in classical Athens. It has three specific aims: (1) to explore existing ancient
literature references to the Pnyx as a physical and constitutional/political
place; (2) to identify and discuss a wide range of aspects of rhetoric in action,
or performance, in a suitable sample of symbouleutic (or political) speeches –
specifically, the three Olynthiacs and the four Philippics of Demosthenes; and
(3) to offer answers to the question about the how physical conditions and
the architectural form of the Pnyx might have affected acoustics and delivery
of speeches, and why the hill was chosen to be the location of the Athenian
Assembly meetings.
Key words: Pnyx. – Assembly. – Political speeches. – Performance. –

Acoustics.
*
Assistant Professor, Department of Classical Studies, Nicolaus Copernicus
University in Toruń, Poland, aseraphim@umk.pl. This research has been funded in
part by National Science Centre, Poland, grant number 2021/41/B/HS2/00755.
I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments. I also owe
sincerest thanks to Professor Christos Zerefos, Secretary General of the Academy
of Athens: it is because of his steady and incisive encouragement that I decided to
reexplore the topographical, institutional, rhetorical, and overall cultural importance
of the Pnyx. This paper is dedicated with gratitude to the staff of the library at the
Academy of Athens for their moral and practical support when life was tough.
1
A. Serafim (str. 1–63)
1. INTRODUCTION
The Pnyx is rightly considered the most important landmark of the

mature phase of Athenian democracy.1 Yet, despite intense interdisciplinary
research, many questions remain unanswered. It is also notable that
in classical scholarship references to the Pnyx are mostly concentrated
in studies about its function within the system of Athenian democratic
politics, and its legislative importance as the location of the meetings
of the ecclēsia, the Assembly (see Hansen 1991, 128–129 for a succinct
description of the physical construction of the Pnyx in a book that discusses
Athenian democracy; Bicknell 1987, 51–92; Bicknell 1989, 83–100 on
the constitutionalized character of political conventions on the Pnyx). A
prominent exception is H.M. Hansen’s full-scale study, entitled The Athenian
Ecclesia: A Collection of Articles 1976–1983 (Hansen 1983; also, Hansen
1985, 129–141; Hansen 1986, 143–153). Another striking common feature
of most publications is that they are early (on archaeological evidence,
following the excavations of the 1930s, and the function of the hill as the
meeting place of the Athenian Assembly see Kourouniotes, Thompson 1932,
96ff.; Thompson 1936; and Thompson, Scranton 1943, 299ff.), leaving the
question why there was no up-to-date interest in intriguing cultural aspects
of the hill. Studies are also focused on technical aspects, e.g., how many
Athenians were allowed to gather on the hill, and where and how they were
seated in the auditorium (see Hansen 1976, 130–132; Hansen 1982, 241–
249; and Hansen 1989, 129–153). The most influential, fully-fledged, and
comprehensive study of several aspects of the Pnyx is The Pnyx in the History
of Athens, by Forsén and Stanton. This volume contains chapters, specifically,
on the archaeological construction of the hill, the shape and size of the place
of the Assembly meetings, the date of its construction, and matters that
1
Aristophanes, Knights 42: “We two have a master who’s rustic in his bad temper,
a bean-chewer, quick to be irritated — Demos of the Pnyx (Δῆμος πυκνίτης or Δῆμος
Πυγκίτης), a peevish little hard-of-hearing old man”; translation: Sommerstein
1981, 15. The assumption of Sommerstein 1981, 146 that the reference may be to
an individual, as in Wasps 98 (“And, by Zeus, if he sees scribbled on a door anywhere
‘Pyrilampes’ son of Demos is beautiful’, he goes on and writes close beside it ‘the
voting-urn’s funnel is beautiful’”; translation: Sommerstein 1983, 13), seems to
be erroneous for two reasons: first, because in the whole of Knights the Orchestra
represents the Pnyx in Athens; and second, because there is a reference to the Pnyx
in relation to Demos, which corroborates the idea that the latter is a reference to the
democratic body of citizens in classical Athens. The combination of two passages
from Aeschines 3, Against Ctesiphon, leaves no doubt that the Pnyx and ecclēsia are
used interchangeably: in §35, where a law is cited, specifying the crowning of the
Athenians who contributed to the protection of the city on the site of the Pnyx, and
§32, where it is mentioned that the crowning should take place in the ecclēsia.
2 Аnali PFB 1/2023

Revisiting the Hill of Pnyx: The Physical, Rhetorical, and Sociocultural Contexts
underline its religious function in the Athenian polis (see Forsén, Stanton
1996). C. L. Johnstone’s combination of textual investigation and field work
on the acoustics of the Pnyx is also memorable in posing and answering
(regrettably, not invariably in a fully satisfactory way) questions about
the physical context of the Pnyx and the practical restraints this imposed
on political speech-making (including the audibility of vocal delivery; on
acoustics on the Pnyx see Johnstone 1996, 122–127; on performance in the
Assembly see Johnstone 2001, 121–143; Johnstone and Graff 2018, 2–88;
and Bers 2013, 27–40).
This paper has three interrelated aims, as per each of the main sections
it comprises. The first is to explore the references that exist in ancient
literature to the Pnyx as a physical and constitutional/political place; hence,
the search for two specific words, Πνύξ and ἐκκλησία, was carried out, to
compile an annotated compendium of references, which will help readers
to find information and passages relating to the Pnyx. The second aim of
this paper is to provide an analysis of rhetoric in action, i.e., performance,
in a suitable sample of symbouleutic (or political) speeches – specifically,
the three Olynthiacs and the four Philippics of Demosthenes. Beyond the
most obvious aspect of performance, hypocrisis, i.e., vocalics and kinesics,
two other aspects are considered – first, the means of establishing and
facilitating the communicative relationship between the speaker and the
audience, and, second, ēthopoiia and pathos. A comparison between forensic
(court) and symbouleutic (Assembly on the Pnyx) performance is carried
out, with the aim of drawing conclusions about the difference in rhetorical
tactics between the two institutional contexts. The third and final aim of the
paper is to offer some answers to two questions that are still largely under-
researched and unanswered by researchers, exploiting the texts of ancient
(Greco-Roman) literature and applying the knowledge of archaeoacoustics
(a field that adopts theories and research tools from a wide range of
disciplines such as archaeology, audio production, and sensory history). The
first question concerns the physical conditions and architectural form of
the place and how these affected the political and rhetorical mechanisms,
specifically what the acoustics on the hill might have been like and whether
they allowed speeches to be delivered to the whole audience of 6,000
Athenians who could gather on the Pnyx at once, or many times to rotating
audiences. The other question concerns the sociocultural significance of the
Pnyx, which has left the scholarly community wondering why it was chosen
to be the location of the Athenian Assembly meetings.
3
2. TEXTUAL REFERENCES TO THE PNYX AND THE ECCLĒSIA
This section, using The Diorisis Ancient Greek Corpus, a digital collection of
820 ancient Greek texts (from Homer to the early 5th century AD), explores
and presents passages that reference the Pnyx, and discusses both its political
function as the nucleus of Athenian democracy in the 4th century and other
practical issues (e.g., seating and buildings). Particularly examined is the use
of two Greek words (in various cases): Πνύξ and ἐκκλησία. The references
to the latter, discussed below, are those that strictly refer to the Pnyx as the
meeting place of the Assembly in the 4th century BC. Surprisingly, there are
only three references to the first term, while there are 104 to the second;
but despite references to the ecclēsia evidently being more numerous than
references to the Pnyx, the frequency is still low – the quotient of the number
of references and the total number of words in the corpus of Attic speeches
is ca. 0.05%.
The dearth of references cannot easily be explained; it presumably may be
due to the self-evident character of the information that is conveyed by the
two terms, i.e., every Athenian (and possibly even non-Athenian) knew that
the ecclēsia was assembled on the Pnyx. The three references to the Pnyx
are all in Aeschines’ speeches. The only reference to the political function of
the place can be found in 3.34: “You hear, fellow citizens, how the lawgiver
commands that the man who is crowned by the people be proclaimed among
the people, on the Pnyx, at a meeting of the assembly, ‘and nowhere else.’”
The mention of the Pnyx in 1.81 has nothing to do with the political function
of the place, but rather concerns topography and residential matters,2 while
the mention in 1.82 refers to the reputation of the place. As such, this is
discussed in the third section of this paper, which examines the sociocultural
reasons why the Pnyx was used as the physical setting for the meetings of
the Assembly.3
2
Aeschines 1.81: “The Senate of the Areopagus appeared before the people in
accordance with the resolution that Timarchus had introduced in the matter of
the dwelling-houses on the Pnyx. The member of the Areopagus who spoke was
Autolycus, a man whose life has been good and pious, by Zeus and Apollo, and
worthy of that body.” Translations of texts in this paper are from LOEB Classical
Library Editions, unless otherwise stated.
3
Aeschines 1.82: “Now when in the course of his speech he declared that the
Areopagus disapproved the proposition of Timarchus, and said, ‘You must not be
surprised, fellow citizens, if Timarchus is better acquainted than the Senate of the
Areopagus with this lonely spot and the region of the Pnyx,’ then you applauded and
said Autolycus was right, for Timarchus was indeed acquainted with it.”
4 Аnali PFB 1/2023

References to the ecclēsia were made most frequently when it was

necessary for the speaker to describe what had happened in the past and
can be classified in three major categories. The first category consists of
references to the Athenians, mainly with the purpose of castigating the
unconstitutional behavior of the audience when, by means of uproar,
they created impediments to the fully free expression of the speakers, or
when the audience members let themselves be beguiled by mere rhetoric,
rather than rational arguments; this kind of references could be labeled as
internal. The second category of references contains those that indicate the
presence of non-Athenians in the ecclēsia, or about matters that regulate or
determine the relation between the Athenians and groups of foreigners; this
kind of references could be labeled as external. The third category includes
what could be labeled as neutral references, i.e., those that simply convey
information about the political gathering of the Assembly.
The following is an annotated list of the references to the political
functioning of the Pnyx.4
4
It is important to note, at this point, that not all attestations of the word ecclēsia
refer to various functions of the Athenian political decision-making body. Those
mentioned in the annotated compendium provided in this paper are those that
relate to the political space of the Pnyx.
5
Table 1 - An annotated list of the references to the political functioning of the Pnyx
Internal references External references Neutral references
Demosthenes 8.32, in a plea for Demosthenes 7.19, Aeschines Aeschines 1.110, 121, 2.63, 65–
the unimpeded right of speakers to 1.180, 2.53, 3.68, Lycurgus 13.8, 67, 82–85, 95, 158, 3.69,17 71 (2
express themselves at the meetings with references to the presence references), 125–126, 146, 149,
of the ecclēsia (the so-called of foreign ambassadors at the 175, 224, on the presence of people
parrhēsia),5 Demades 1.546 and Assembly; from Athens and other Greek cities
9.1, about foreign threats that are in the Assembly,18 251, Andocides
Isocrates 8.59, on the relationship 1.11, 82, Dinarchus 1.42, 99,
discussed;7 between the Athenians and Hyperides 1.3, 3.32, Isaeus 1.38,
Demosthenes 8.33, for the benign foreigners.16 Lycurgus 1.16, Lysias 12.71–72,
behavior that people should 75–76, 13.32, 55, 19.49, 28.9;
exhibit in the Assembly, most likely
indicating that the ccle used to boo
or shush the speaker,8 and Aeschines
2.72 on ways of manipulating the
audience in the Assembly; 9
5
Demosthenes 8.32: “But as to the reason for this—and in Heaven’s name, when I am pleading for
your best interests, allow me to speak freely—some of our politicians have been training you to be
threatening and intractable in the meetings of the Assembly, but in preparing for war, careless and
contemptible.”
6
Demades 1.54: “War, like a cloud, was threatening Europe from every quarter, suppressing my right
to speak my mind in the assembly and taking away all power of free and noble utterance.”
7
Demosthenes 9.1: “Many speeches are delivered, men of Athens, at almost every meeting of the
Assembly, about the wrongs that Philip has been committing, ever since the conclusion of peace, not
only against you but also against the other states.”
8
Demosthenes 8.33: “For it ought to have been the reverse, men of Athens; all your politicians should
have trained you to be gentle and humane in the Assembly, for there you are dealing with rights that
concern yourselves and your allies, but in preparing for war they should have made you threatening
and intractable, because there you are pitted against your enemies and rivals.”
9
Aeschines 2.72: “And Philip from his base in Macedonia was no longer contending with us for
Amphipolis, but already for Lemnos, Imbros, and Scyros, our own possessions, while our citizens
were abandoning the Chersonese, the undisputed property of Athens. And the special meetings of the
assembly which you were forced to hold, in fear and tumult, were more in number than the regular
meetings.”
16
Isocrates 8.59: “But now matters have taken such a turn that the Thebans are saving us and we
them, and they are procuring allies for us and we for them. So that if we were sensible, we should
supply each other with money for our general assemblies; for the oftener we meet to deliberate the
more do we promote the success of our rivals.”
17
Aeschines 3.69: “When now, fellow citizens, the Dionysia were past and the assemblies took place,
in the first assembly a resolution of the synod of the allies was read, the substance of which I will give
briefly before having it read to you.”
18
Aeschines 3.224: “When I convicted you of this in the presence of all Athens and charged you with
being the murderer of your host, you did not deny the impious crime, but gave an answer that called
forth a cry of protest from the citizens and all the foreigners who were standing about the assembly.”
6 Аnali PFB 1/2023

Aeschines 1.178, Demosthenes Aeschines 1.35 (2 references),

8.34, 9.4, and Isocrates 8.52, where 1.81, 3.95 on procedural issues,
instructions are given to audience such as speech-making by others,
members about how to listen to not the speaker himself (these are
the essence of arguments and not simply references that convey
the gist of a case, not to flattery information, but have an ironic
or unreasonable thinking that dimension, which is, however, only
deprives them of the right to make implicit and indirect), Andocides
the best decision; 4.14;
Aeschines 3.2, on the proper
constitutional way of functioning of
the ecclēsia; and Aeschines 2.60–61,
3.24, 27, 32, 35 (2 references), 39,
43–45, 47–48, 204 (2 references),
211 on the constitutional uses of
the place, e.g., for the election of
magistrates, Aeschines 1.22 and
Dinarchus 2.16 on the importance
of the proceedings in the
Assembly;10
Demosthenes 9.6 on the malpractice
of rhetoric in the Assembly,
when speakers are accused of
propagating the arguments of
foreigners;11 Aeschines 1.26,12
1.33 (2 references), 1.86, 2.71,
2.92 (on falsifying the accounts
about the meetings of the
10
Aeschines 1.22: “For when the lawgiver had finished with these laws, he next turned to the question
of the proper manner of conducting our deliberations concerning the most important matters, when
we are met in public assembly.” Dinarchus 2.16: “Like the early lawgivers, Athenians, who made laws
to deal with those addressing your ancestors in the Assembly, you too should try, by your behavior as
listeners, to make the speakers who come before you better. What was the attitude of the lawgivers to
these men? In the first place, at every sitting of the Assembly they publicly proclaimed curses against
wrongdoers, calling down destruction on any who, after accepting bribes, made speeches or proposals
upon state affairs, and to that class Aristogiton now belongs.”
11
Demosthenes 9.6: “If, then, we were all agreed that Philip is at war with Athens and is violating
the peace, the only task of a speaker would be to come forward and recommend the safest and easiest
method of defence; but since some of you are in such a strange mood that, though Philip is seizing
cities, and retaining many of your possessions, and inflicting injury on everybody, you tolerate some
speakers who repeatedly assert in the Assembly that the real aggressors are certain of ourselves, we
must be on our guard and set this matter right.”
12
Aeschines 1.26: “See now, fellow citizens, how unlike to Timarchus were Solon and those men of
old whom I mentioned a moment ago. They were too modest to speak with the arm outside the cloak,
but this man not long ago, yes, only the other day, in an assembly of the people threw off his cloak and
leaped about like a gymnast, half naked, his body so reduced and befouled through drunkenness and
lewdness that right-minded men, at least, covered their eyes, being ashamed for the city, that we should
let such men as he be our advisers.”
7
Assembly),13 3.67, 3.73; Isocrates 7.68 on economic

Dinarchus 1.46, on other forms examination of a debt payment.19
of malfunctioning in, and of, the
1617 18 19
Assembly (e.g., the improper
nonverbal behavior of orators the
unconstitutional election of the
presiding officer in the Assembly,
as in Aeschines 1.26 and 33);
Isocrates 8.25, on how to
keep peace;14 Lysias 13.17, on
the meeting of the Assembly
examining a peace treaty; 15
Aeschines 2.145, Dinarchus 1.99,
Isocrates 8.129–130 and 12.13,
with references to two kinds
of menace against Athenian
democracy, i.e., sycophancy
and the exaggerated love the
Athenians have for participation
in trials and Assembly meetings.
Source: Author
13
Aeschines 2.92: “And now do you imagine that there is one word of truth in his account of what was
done in Macedonia or of what was done in Thessaly, when he gives the lie to the senate-house and the
public archives and falsifies the date and the meetings of the assembly?”
14
Isocrates 8.25: “But I think we should not go forth from this assembly, having merely adopted
resolutions in favor of the peace, without also taking counsel how we shall keep it […].” Lysias 13.17:
“Theramenes and the others who were intriguing against you took note of the fact that there were
some men proposing to prevent the subversion of the democracy and to make a stand for the defence
of freedom; so they resolved, before the Assembly met to consider the peace, to involve these men first
in calumnious prosecutions, in order that there should be none to take up the defence of your people at
the meeting. Now, let me tell you the scheme that they laid.”
15
Lysias 13.17: “Theramenes and the others who were intriguing against you took note of the fact
that there were some men proposing to prevent the subversion of the democracy and to make a stand
for the defence of freedom; so they resolved, before the Assembly met to consider the peace, to involve
these men first in calumnious prosecutions, in order that there should be none to take up the defence
of your people at the meeting. Now, let me tell you the scheme that they laid.”
19
Isocrates 7.68: “But the best and strongest proof of the fairness of the people is that, although those
who had remained in the city had borrowed a hundred talents from the Lacedaemonians with which to
prosecute the siege of those who occupied the Piraeus, yet later when an assembly of the people was
held to consider the payment of the debt, and when many insisted that it was only fair that the claims
of the Lacedaemonians should be settled, not by those who had suffered the siege, but by those who
had borrowed the money, nevertheless the people voted to pay the debt out of the public treasury.”
16
17 8 Аnali PFB 1/2023
18
19
3. RHETORIC IN ACTION: PERFORMANCE IN DEMOSTHENES’

OLYNTHIACS AND PHILIPPICS
3.1. Performing in the Court and the Assembly: Convergences and

Divergences
This section aims to examine “rhetoric in action”, a term that is comparable

to and almost synonymous with “performance”: both describe how rhetorical
strategies were used by speakers in public speaking forums in antiquity,
with the aim of communicating effectively with the audience and winning it
over cognitively – both in terms of reason and emotion. Seven high-profile
symbouleutic (political) speeches of Demosthenes (the three Olynthiacs
and the four Philippics)20 are selected for a case study about what were the
features of rhetoric in the Assembly and how they were used for agonistic
political processes, to achieve the principal desired outcome – persuasion.
Three categories of rhetorical stratagems are examined: those used to
establish a relationship between the speaker and the audience, enabling
the former to win over the latter; techniques of ēthopoiia (presentation of
the character and general behavior of individuals and collectives, e.g., the
Athenians or foreign ethnic/cultural communities) that rouse emotions
(pathopoiia); and hypocrisis, i.e., the clues in the text that point to the use of
vocalics and kinesics of all sorts.
The recently published book Attic Oratory and Performance (Serafim
2017) offers a full theoretical reinterpretation of performance, how it was
practically applied to the ancient forensic oratorical context, and what
impact this may have had on the trial audience. By examining the same
aspects of performance that have been examined in recent studies, it
is the aim of this paper to reconstruct a picture of the convergences and
divergences between forensic and symbouleutic performance – a topic that
20
A note on the selection of the seven specific speeches is necessary at this point.
The decision to discuss these speeches was made for two reasons. The first is that
these speeches were given at crucial points in Athenian political and military history,
when the escalation in the relationship between Athens and Macedon was at its
peak, requiring urgent action by the former to diminish the strength of the latter
and impede its expansion into mainland Greece. The second reason for exploring
these seven symbouleutic speeches was that they are by Demosthenes, whose
speeches 18 and 19 have recently been a topic of updated discussion in Serafim
(2017). Given that in this chapter, performance in forensic and symbouleutic
oratory are compared, it was necessary to choose speeches by the same author,
since arguably performance differs from author to author. Oratorical performance is
neither simply a matter of place (e.g., law court or Assembly) nor is it only tailored
to the expectations of the occasion (e.g., the need for military action), but it is also
determined by the distinctive personal and rhetorical style of the speaker.
9
remains, in classical scholarship, an essential research enquiry (for attempts

to examine oratorical performance, centered on forensic speeches, see Hall
1995, 39–58; 2006, 353–392; Serafim 2017). Johnstone and Bers argue that
the performative style of speakers (with special reference to hypocrisis)
was vastly determined by the architectural and topographical development
of the Pnyx, and that for this reason performance of symbouleutic oratory
was significantly different from that of forensic oratory (see Johnstone 1996,
128–133; Bers 2013, 27–40).21 I argue for the opposite: that, despite some
differences between rhetoric in forensic and symbouleutic oratory, mainly in
style and frequency, the similarities are noteworthy, effectively implying that
persuasion was uniform in public speaking settings, despite the variations in
the character and etiquette of the institutional contexts in Athens. The notable
difference in the approach to and analysis of performance and persuasion in
forensic and symbouleutic oratory between this paper and the work of Bers
(2013, 34, 36) is perhaps due to the approach adopted by the latter: it bases
its conclusions about the relationship between symbouleutic and political
oratory largely on rhetorical theory (despite occasional glimpses into the
use of language, e.g., the particles οὖν, τοίνυν, and τε...τε). On the other hand,
I explore symbouleutic passages themselves to discern linguistic, stylistic,
and rhetorical patterns, and compare these aspects of rhetoric in action/
performance with those that can be found in Attic forensic oratory.
Before proceeding to the core of this research inquiry into the texts
themselves, it is worth mentioning and shedding light on the notion
of performance. Performance is, as Bauman (1990, 41) suggests, “an
aesthetically marked, heightened form of communication, framed in a
special way, and put on display for an audience,” or, as Taplin (1999, 33)
argues, “an occasion on which appropriate individuals enact events, in
accordance with certain recognized conventions, in the sight and hearing
of a larger social group, and in some sense for their benefit.” This “benefit”
is strong in political speech-making on the Pnyx, since all the meetings
evidently were regarding important political, military, and economic
matters, and discussions determined the decisions of the Athenians, which
had the greatest impact on the polis. The following definition of the notion
of performance adds another dimension that enhances the “benefit” that
Taplin mentions in his book: “performance is the [kind of] communication
between a performer and an audience, which is informed by the etiquette of
a specific occasion and is based on the interactive communication, explicit or
otherwise, between the transmitter of a message and its receiver” (Serafim
2017, 16–17). Benefit can be obtained from the communication between the
21
On the three phases of the construction of Pnyx, see Section 4.1. below.
10 Аnali PFB 1/2023

speaker (performer) and the audience, especially inasmuch as the audience

is not a passive recipient of stimuli but rather an active co-producer of them
via thorubos (the vocal or nonverbal reaction, such as booing or applauding
the speaker (see Bers 1985, 1–15; Thomas 2011, 175–185).22 The reactions
of the audience, which are sometimes described in the speeches themselves
(such as, e.g., in Demosthenes 18.52),23 regardless of whether accurate or
not, convey to us the opinion of the wider public about individuals and
actions alike (on fake news in oratory, see: Worthington 2020, 15–31;
Serafim, forthcoming).24 Therefore, the available texts reveal a lot about the
mindset and practice of ancient civic and cultural communities.
The similarities that have been argued above exist among the seven
symbouleutic speeches (of Demosthenes), which were delivered in the
Assembly on the Pnyx and law court speeches, cover all three broad areas
of features of rhetoric in action that this paper examines. The techniques
that Demosthenes uses to establish a channel of communication with the
audience, in both the Olynthiacs and the Philippics, are addressed to the
audience specifically: the presentation of the speaker in the role of the good
advisor to the Athenian dēmos, criticism of the Athenians for inertness and
indecisiveness, and the importance of the proverbial synergy between divine
will and human determination. The techniques of ēthopoiia in forensic and
in symbouleutic speeches also share commonalities in that in both oratorical
genres the speaker constructs and deconstructs the ēthos of the Athenians
and his/their opponents, depending on the circumstances and the purposes
he aims to serve. Hypocrisis, finally, is indicated in the transmitted texts by
22
Cf. Aristophanes, Acharnians 40–42: “Oh! Athens! Athens! As for myself, I do
not fail to come here before all the rest, and now, finding myself alone, I groan,
yawn, stretch, break wind, and know not what to do.” It is of course necessary to
say that there were no provisions for direct and unimpeded conversation between
the speaker and the audience in the law court and perhaps possibly in the Assembly
on the Pnyx, but the reaction of the audience, which revealed its knowledge of
and attitude towards the matter of discussion, was important in determining or
altering the arguments of the speakers and their way of communicating them to the
audience.
23
Demosthenes 18.52: “But it is not so. How could it be? Far from it! I call you
Philip’s hireling of yesterday, and Alexander’s hireling of today, and so does every
man in this Assembly. If you doubt my word, ask them; or rather I will ask them
myself. Come, men of Athens, what do you think? Is Aeschines Alexander’s hireling,
or Alexander’s friend? You hear what they say.”
24
We can say, as a matter of principle, that the transmitted oratorical speeches are
not “objective” accounts of historical reality or actions, but rather a biased means
by which the speakers present (part of the truth about) what happened. In other
words, fake news is not simply occasional in speeches, but an inherent feature of
the speeches themselves.
11
figures of speech (such as repetition); the accumulation of questions and/

or their elaborate use (e.g., when questions are asked without the need for
or expectation of answers, or in the form of hypophora, when the speaker
answers his own questions) to make the speech more forcible; direct speech;
use of strong moralistic terms and other expressions that denote emotions;
and references to religion, which are accompanied, at least according to
ancient sources, by gestural and vocal ploys.
The similarities between the law court and the Assembly indicate that,
when persuasion is the purpose and desired outcome of political or public
speaking processes, the techniques employed do not vary considerably. The
setting that accommodates speech-making, the specific occasion to which
an oration is tailored, and institutional processes, i.e., what happens in the
settings of forensic, symbouleutic, and epideictic orations, determine the use
of argumentative and stylistic modes (see Serafim 2021, especially Chapters
1 and 2). This conclusion about the patterns of using religious discourse
is in full alignment with the theory of New Institutionalism, according to
which different institutions have different “logics of appropriateness” that
condition the ways in which discourses interact and affect society. The
findings of the present paper, however, indicate that, when it comes to
persuasion, the difference between forensic and symbouleutic oratorical
texts and public speaking contexts does not generate significant divergences,
despite what scholars argue about the differences between other generic
oratorical dichotomies, i.e., public and private cases (on how appeals to
emotion are made in speeches and how other rhetorical techniques are
used, see Rubinstein 2004, 187–203; 2005, 129–145).
The only considerable identified divergence concerns the use of tragic
and comic markers, i.e., themes, language, and imagery that draw on ancient
drama, mostly for ēthopoiia, the depiction of characters. The lack of such
techniques in symbouleutic speeches is easily discernible. In the seven
Demosthenic speeches examined in this paper, the only identified passage
that may, arguably, have some affinities with tragedy is in Demosthenes
2.18 (the Second Olynthiac), where Philip is told to put aside the soldiers
who prove themselves skillful and talented on the battlefield – because
they overshadowed him.25 This is reminiscent of the behavior of tyrants, as
presented in tragedy, who, being suspicious of their (apparent) allies, do not
25
Demosthenes 2.18: “If there is anyone among them who can be described as
experienced in war and battle, I was told that Philip from jealousy keeps all such in
the background, because he wants to have the credit himself of every action, among
his many faults being an insatiable ambition. Any fairly decent or honest man, who
cannot stomach the licentiousness of his daily life, the drunkenness and the lewd
dancing, is pushed aside as of no account.”

hesitate to put them aside or even kill them (e.g., the depiction of Creon in
Antigone, Medea, and Oedipus at Colonus). But this is merely a intuition, as
there is nothing in the text itself – no specific word, for example, as we have
in forensic speeches – that points unambiguously to tragedy (on the use of
language, themes, and imagery that have implications for or strong affinities
with tragedy in forensic speeches, see Serafim 2017, 99–105). After all, the
depiction of tyrants as suspicious and cruel toward their allies is also made
in non-dramatic works (cf. Herodotus 3.39 and Polyaenus, Στρατηγήματα
1.23, where Polycrates is depicted as having obtained power unlawfully and
killed his associates; and Periander in Herodotus 3.49, 5.92, who killed his
wife).
Demosthenes 2.18 is the only section of the seven speeches that vaguely
resembles a theme that appears in and is thematized by tragedy. It has
been argued – and rightly so – that the law courts and the Assembly share
significant features, given the politicized nature of trials that are, at times,
about important political matters, as are the meetings in the Assembly. As
argued elsewhere, “often, it was the synergy between forensic rhetoric and
political momentum that determined the outcome of trials” (Serafim 2021,
68). The key suggested for answering the intriguing question about why
there is a significant lack of dramatic patterns in symbouleutic oratory (at
least in the seven speeches of Demosthenes examined in this paper) is that
histrionic and theater-related techniques may have been deemed indecorous
and inappropriate when there were urgent matters of discussion and
decisions to be made, which would have benefited or harmed the polis as a
whole, rather than a single individual. Speakers in trials – even in those that
had to do with political affairs, both within the city and in the Hellenic world
in general – had the convenience of discussing the past without the pressure
of persuading the judges to make decisions that would affect the historical
present of the entire city. One can be as elaborate and sophisticated as one
likes in articulating arguments in a way that appears decorous, proper, and
potentially persuasive, when there is time to do so, but it is necessary to
be to the point, without using theatricalized ornaments, when the decisions
one is convincing the audience to make will instantly affect the entire civic
community. Knowing one’s audience and being specific, clever, and effective
in using rhetorical strategies for persuasion, but not diverting from the core
political, military, and moral argumentation is key when fellow citizens need
to urgently make up their minds and pass their verdict. Carefully targeted,
not “literary” and thus also a bit vague, arguments are necessary in times of
political and military crises, such as those at the center of the seven speeches
13
of Demosthenes explored in this paper.26 One of the most notorious features

of the forensic speeches of Demosthenes, which leaves him vulnerable to the
accusation of insincerity, especially speeches 18 and 19, is the extensive use
of probability arguments and the overelaboration of rhetoric, not least the
use of theatrical quotations and dramatic patterns for the presentation of his
character and that of Aeschines.
The following sections discuss passages that show how rhetoric was set
in action in the Assembly to satisfy persuasive ends. Emphasis is placed on
two levels: the macroscopic (the overarching), i.e., how the speakers try to
communicate with and engage the audience, and what their purpose is in
each case; and the microscopic, examining the pragmatic features of the text
(e.g., language, religious discourse, issues of morality), which reflect the
socio-political and cultural context of the time when the speech was given
and indicate the beliefs, customs, and general mindset of the Athenians.
3.1.1. Speaker–Audience
It is reasonable expect – at least from a modern standpoint – that the

speaker, whether at a political convention, other occasions for public
speaking, or even in the private company of friends, will try to win over the
audience through cajoling, establishing in them a sense of self-value and self-
importance, in order to indicate how much he supports and admires them
and how many values they all share within the group. Sustaining groups
to which the speaker and the audience both belong is an effective way of
swaying the decision-making body to accept the speaker’s propositions and
arguments. As Burke (1969, 54–55) argues, rhetoric can generate unity
(which presupposes exclusion); it focuses on appealing to core groups and
defining oneself against others. A speaker gives signals to the audience that
indicate that his “characteristics” are the same as or similar to those of the
audience, thereby affirming a shared community.
Of all the means that Demosthenes uses in the political meetings of the
Assembly, the most puzzling, yet intriguing, is the criticism that he hurls at
the Athenians regarding their inaction and indecision. It is undoubtedly risky
26
Cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Isaeus 4, on the claim that the process of
construction of Demosthenes’ speeches aroused suspicion in people. Dionysius
refers to Pythias’ allegation that the speeches of Demosthenes, like those of his
teacher Isaeus, were generally suspected of chicanery and deception “because
of their great rhetorical skill” (4.23–24: τῆς πολλῆς ἐπιτεχνήσεως). Plutarch,
Demosthenes 8.4–6 refers to Pythias’ barbed comments on Demosthenes’ speeches
as having the “smell of lamp” because he prepares them in advance.

to accuse the members of the decision-making audience of not being worthy

of their ancestral glory and of being unable to defend the polis and promote
its best interests because they cannot make up their minds about the actions
that should be undertaken. But the Pnyx is not called the cradle of democracy
for nothing: the speakers had parrhēsia, the freedom and determination to
express themselves without restraint and at any cost to them as politicians;
this is a diachronically praiseworthy virtue not only of speakers but also
of all citizens who might want to prove themselves useful to their country
and fellows. I do not argue that Athenian (what is erroneously called Greek)
democracy was perfect: it evidently was not. It was marred by exclusion (e.g.
of women, slaves, and metics), socio-economic discrepancies that affected
the right of some people to speak (those who could not afford to pay for
the services of a speechwriter did not have any chance of preparing and
delivering an effective oration in court, let alone winning a case), procedural
malfunctions and undemocratic deliberations described and complained
about by the speakers themselves (e.g., Demosthenes in 4.29).27 Rhetoric
was misused in the Athenian forums of public speaking for deceiving or
misleading the audience and distorting the truth. Yet, the orators on the
Pnyx showed integrity, decency, and sincerity whenever it came to matters
that concerned the polis. This is perhaps because their own lives were not in
immediate danger that they had the license to speak freely and criticize the
audience for what they thought was not right for the city.28
In the Pnyx orations that are examined in this paper, Demosthenes steadily
accuses the Athenians of inaction. Examples of this accusation can be found
in 1.8, 9–11, 14–15, 19–20; 4.2, 8; 9.5; and 10.1, 6, 8–9, 20, 29. There is,
unsurprisingly, yet also interestingly, an incessant play between the notions
of inaction and action, and indecision and decisiveness. Demosthenes says,
specifically, that the Athenians are slow in making decisions and taking
action (if they ever do so), while it is decisive communities (and individuals)
who see themselves as benefitting from the gods and prospering. A good
example of this line of criticism can be found in 2.20:
27
Demosthenes 4.29: “Your habit, then, is not to listen until, as now, the events
themselves are upon you, and not to discuss any question at your leisure but
whenever Philip makes his preparations, you neglect the chance of doing the same,
and you are too remiss to make counter-preparations; and if anyone speaks out, you
drive him from the platform, but when you learn of the loss of this place or the siege
of that, then you pay attention and begin to prepare.”
28
Criticism of the audience also happened in the law court, but the frequency at
which such tactics were used in the Assembly is significant.
15
καίτοι ταῦτα, καὶ εἰ μικρά τις ἡγεῖται, μεγάλ᾽, ὦ ἄνδρες

Ἀθηναῖοι, δείγματα τῆς ἐκείνου γνώμης καὶ κακοδαιμονίας
ἐστὶ τοῖς εὖ φρονοῦσιν. ἀλλ᾽, οἶμαι, νῦν μὲν ἐπισκοτεῖ
τούτοις τὸ κατορθοῦν: αἱ γὰρ εὐπραξίαι δειναὶ συγκρύψαι
τὰ τοιαῦτ᾽ ὀνείδη: εἰ δέ τι πταίσει, τότ᾽ ἀκριβῶς αὐτοῦ ταῦτ᾽
ἐξετασθήσεται. δοκεῖ δ᾽ ἔμοιγ᾽, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, δείξειν οὐκ
εἰς μακράν, ἂν οἵ τε θεοὶ θέλωσι καὶ ὑμεῖς βούλησθε.
These are perhaps trivial things, and yet, Athenians, to wise
men they afford an important proof of the infatuation of his
character. For the present, however, his prosperity throws all
this into the shade (for success is apt to cover a multitude of
faults); but if he trips, then we shall know all about his vices.
And it seems to me, Athenians, that we shall not have to wait
long for the exposure, if heaven wills and you so resolve
(emphasis by the author).
The speaker claims that the success of Philip is not due to his ability, but
to the supineness of the Athenians. But if Demosthenes’ fellows take decisive
action and Philip fails, the entire Hellenic world will realize how weak the
king of Macedon truly is. By mingling divine will with human determination
in stating that together they make things happen in human (political and
military) history, Demosthenes underlines the value of self-initiative, while
also reminding his fellows of the cultural belief that the gods (and tychē)
intervene in human affairs, and that prosperity is the result of the synergy
between them and people (whether individuals or communities).29 Beyond
the speaker himself, who, a few paragraphs later, in 2.23, repeats that “one
who is himself idle cannot possibly call upon his friends, much less upon the
gods, to work for him,” other sources also underline the synergy between
the gods and humans as the determining factor of progress; cf. Aeschylus
(fr. 395) notes, “φιλεῖ δὲ τῷ κάμνοντι συσπεύδειν θεός” (“god loves to aid the
man who toils”); Sophocles fr. 407: “οὐκ ἔστι τοῖς μὴ δρῶσι σύμμαχος τύχη”
(“good luck never accompanies those who do not work”). Aesop (6th century
BC) also underlines the significance of action in his notable phrase “σὺν
Ἀθηνᾷ καὶ χεῖρα κίνει” (“along with Athena, move also your hand”) (Fables
29
References to the belief that the gods and fortune intervene in human affairs:
for Eubulides’ prayer to the gods that a son might be born to him as a daughter had
been see Against Macartatus 12, for rituals devoted to specific gods in order for
them to issue a divine portent and send good fortune see §66). References to the
belief that individuals are attached to ill fortune for the misfortunes that befell the
Athenians because of Theocrines, see Against Nicostratus 7; Against Theocrines 60.
On tychē in particular, see Demosthenes 1.1, 3, 10–11.

30: Shipwrecker; cf. Proverbs 36). Demosthenes, perhaps capitalizing on

these established cultural patterns, many times in his symbouleutic speeches
(as indeed in 2.1)30 points out that the gods (and tychē, as in 4.12)31 favor
the city of Athens.
A question that may readily occur to modern readers of Demosthenes is
why in some parts of his speeches he presents Philip’s success as being fragile,
while mentioning in others (as in 4.42 and 10.23)32 that it is stable because it
is the admirable result of his steadfast determination and hyperpolitical and
skillful military action. This is because the speaker has different purposes
to serve at different points in his speech. The central argument remains the
same throughout his three Olynthiacs and four Philippics: Philip is exploiting
the inactivity of the Athenians – and he has the gods on his side for this
very reason. If the Athenians change course, Philip’s luck will, almost Surely,
vanish and be overturned; in Demosthenes’ words, “[w]herever, I believe, we
send out a force composed partly or wholly of our citizens, there the gods
are gracious and fortune fights on our side.”
A clearer example of Demosthenes’ claim about the instability of Philip’s
power can be found in 4.8:
30
Demosthenes 2.1: “On many occasions, men of Athens, one may, I think,
recognize the manifest favour of heaven towards our city, and not least at the present
crisis. That Philip has found men willing to fight him, situated on his frontiers and
possessed of considerable power, above all so determined that they regard any
accommodation with him as both delusive and fatal to their own country— this has
all the appearance of a superhuman, a divine beneficence.”
31
Demosthenes 4.12: “Nor is this all. If anything happened to him, or if Fortune,
which always cares for us better than we care for ourselves, should bring that result
about, remember that you must be on the spot if you want to take advantage of
the general confusion and to control the situation at your pleasure; but in your
present condition you would be unable, even if the opportunity offered, to take over
Amphipolis, having neither a force nor a policy ready to hand.”
32
Demosthenes 4.42: “It seems to me, Athenians, as if some god, out of very
shame for the conduct of our city, had inspired Philip with this activity. For if he did
nothing more but were willing to rest satisfied with what he has already captured
and subdued, I believe some of you would be quite content with what must bring
the deepest disgrace upon us and brand us as a nation of cowards. But by always
attempting something new, always grasping at more power, he may possibly rouse
even you, if you have not utterly abandoned hope.” 2.23: “No wonder that Philip,
sharing himself in the toils of the campaign, present at every action, neglecting no
chance and wasting no season, gets the better of us, while we procrastinate and
pass resolutions and ask questions. I cannot wonder at this: the contrary would
rather surprise me, that we, performing no single duty of a combatant, should
overcome the man who fulfils them all.”
17
μὴ γὰρ ὡς θεῷ νομίζετ᾽ ἐκείνῳ τὰ παρόντα πεπηγέναι

πράγματ᾽ ἀθάνατα, ἀλλὰ καὶ μισεῖ τις ἐκεῖνον καὶ δέδιεν, ὦ
ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, καὶ φθονεῖ, καὶ τῶν πάνυ νῦν δοκούντων
οἰκείως ἔχειν: καὶ ἅπανθ᾽ ὅσα περ κἀν ἄλλοις τισὶν ἀνθρώποις
ἔνι, ταῦτα κἀν τοῖς μετ᾽ ἐκείνου χρὴ νομίζειν ἐνεῖναι. Κατέπτηχε
μέντοι πάντα ταῦτα νῦν, οὐκ ἔχοντ᾽ ἀποστροφὴν διὰ τὴν
ὑμετέραν βραδυτῆτα καὶ ῥᾳθυμίαν: ἣν ἀποθέσθαι φημὶ δεῖν
ἤδη.
Do not believe that his present power is fixed and

unchangeable like that of a god. No, men of Athens; he is a
mark for the hatred and fear and envy even of those who now
seem devoted to him. One must assume that even his adherents
are subject to the same passions as any other men. At present,
however, all these feelings are repressed and have no outlet,
thanks to your indolence and apathy, which I urge you to throw
off at once (emphasis by the author).
Apostrophizing the Athenians directly, Demosthenes claims that Philip’s

power conceals his great weakness, that he is isolated from the rest of the
Macedonians, a situation that is in turn caused by his high-handedness, as
indicated in the text by three strongly emotional verbs: Philip is accused of
hating (μισεῖ), fearing (δέδιεν), and envying (φθονεῖ). It is notable that the
speech in 4.8 starts with an imperative, which issues a forceful and prompt
exhortation to the audience to realize that Philip’s power is not as stable as
that of the gods. Present-stem, or imperfective/durative, imperatives denote
that the order, i.e., the request of the speaker to the addressees, is constant,
continuous, and repeating; “[this] is the obvious choice for an imperative
when there can be no doubt as to what action the person addressed is
supposed to be taking – whether 1) because this action has been mentioned
or implied earlier or 2) because he is already performing it – and the
imperative serves to ask him or her either to continue or stop doing so”
(Sicking 1991, 157, emphasis in original). Imperatives, as in the context of
4.8, do not have an abrasive, aggressive, or impolite character or force, but
they do aim to instill forcibly in the mind of the audience members the need
to take immediate action (see Serafim 2021, 388–417). The first part of the
text in 4.8 links well to the last part: “do not believe Philip’s power is stable,”
Demosthenes asks the Athenians, and “take action against him” (“βραδυτῆτα

καὶ ῥᾳθυμίαν ἀποθέσθαι”). Imperatives that urge actions are regularly used
both in forensic and in symbouleutic orations (as in 1.25 and 4.14; for more
on imperatives in symbouleutic orations see Serafim 2022).33
An interesting feature of Demosthenes 2.20 is the use of the civic address,
ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι. It has been argued that any speaker in Athens had at his
disposal three stock formulas of address: in addition to the civic address, he
also had the judicial address (ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί) and the descriptive one (ὦ
ἄνδρες). And however reasonable and expected the use of the civic address
in political orations may be, it is also important to underline the persuasive
role this pattern serves by reinforcing the belief in the Athenians that their
decision is important for the entire city, and that they should, therefore,
cast their vote responsibly (on addresses to the audience see Martin 2006,
75–88; Serafim 2017, 26–41; 2021, 71–98). The speaker thinks that he has
an important message to convey to his audience, as indeed indicated at the
beginning and end of 2.20, where he states emphatically the need for the
Athenians to act, so that they would have the support of the gods. The use of
the civic address in this context makes it abundantly clear that the audience,
as members of the city, should take immediate and decisive action. Because
the addresses have this important message to communicate to the audience,
they are used heavily in all seven speeches that are explored in this paper,
and they occur evenly, i.e., from exordium to peroration: Olynthiac 1, 14
instances; Olynthiac 2, 19 instances; Olynthiac 3, 20 instances; and Philippic
1, 25 instances; Philippic 2, 5 instances; Philippic 3, 10 instances; Philippic 4,
14 instances.
The civic addresses to the audience also enable Demosthenes to undertake
the political role he always reserves for himself: he is talking to the men of
the city as their virtuous advisor. In his words in 6.1:
If the question before us were a new one, men of Athens,

I should have waited until most of the regular speakers had
delivered their opinions, and if satisfied with any of their
33
Demosthenes 1.25: “One point more, men of Athens. Do not forget [μηδὲ...
λανθανέτω] that you can today choose whether you must fight there, or Philip
must fight here. If Olynthus holds out, you will fight there, to the detriment of his
territory, while you enjoy in security the land that is your home. But if Philip takes
Olynthus, who is to prevent his marching hither? The Thebans?”; 4.14: “Wait till you
have heard everything before you pass judgement [κρίνατε]. Do not be premature
[μὴ πρότερον προλαμβάνετε]; and even if at the outset I seem to be suggesting
a novel kind of expeditionary force, do not imagine that I am trying to postpone
our operations. It is not those who cry ‘at once’ or ‘today’ that really speak to the
purpose, for no dispatch of forces now could prevent what has already happened.”
19
proposals, I should have remained silent, but if not satisfied, I

should then have tried to express my own views. Since, however,
it is our fortune to be still debating a point on which they have
often spoken before, I can safely claim your indulgence if I
am the first to rise and address you [ἡγοῦμαι καὶ πρῶτος
ἀναστάς]. For if in the past their advice had been sound, there
would be no need for deliberation today (emphasis by the
author).
Demosthenes claims that he alone can offer the best advice to the
Athenian dēmos on the Pnyx, whereas the other speakers are failed advisors
whose help has led the city into misfortune and political turmoil. This
strongly resembles the phraseology in 18.172–173, where Demosthenes,
after describing the panicked reactions of the Athenians to the news that
Philip had captured an allied polis, Elatea, claims that he was the only citizen
willing and able to stand up in the Assembly and advise the Athenians about
how to cope with their foreign enemy (for further details see Serafim 2015,
103–105).34
3.1.2. Ēthos and Pathos
It is well established in both ancient and modern theory that the

presentation of character is persuasive because it stirs up emotions.
Aristotle, to mention an important figure in the process of systematizing
ancient rhetorical theory, says that to persuade is “to put the hearer into a
certain frame of mind” (“τὸν ἀκροατὴν διαθεῖναί πως“; Rhetoric 1356a1–4), a
condition achieved by means of the portrayal of moral character and pathos.
Ēthopoiia, the process of presenting character, often mentioned in works
of modern scholarship (Serafim 2017, 25), aims to create groupings that
unite or divide people – both those present on the Pnyx and those absent
from the political proceedings of the Assembly. It is important to note that
symbouleutic speeches were made for political reasons (as indeed trials were
politicized), not simply to sway those citizens present in the audience, but
34
Demosthenes 18.172–173: “But, it seems, that day and that crisis called not
only for the patriot and the rich man, but for the man who had followed the course
of events from the beginning and had calculated correctly the reason and purpose
of Philip’s actions. For anyone who had not grasped those purposes, or had not
studied them long beforehand, however patriotic, and however wealthy he might
be, was not the man to appreciate the needs of the hour, or to find any counsel to
offer to the people. Well, I was the man who came forth on that day and addressed
you.”

also all the Athenians in the polis. This is the distinction between immediate
and distant audience that has been made elsewhere by the author (Serafim
2017). Unity and division, as argued in modern sociological theories, e.g.,
the social identity in Tajfel, Turner (1979) and the emotional community in
Rosenwein (2002), determine the cognitive attitudes toward persons and
actions (see Tajfel, Turner 1979; Miller et al. 1981, 494–511; Conover 1984,
760–785; Lau 1989, 220–223; Rosenwein 2002, 821–845; Huddy 2003,
511–558; Hall 2006, 388; Rosenwein 2006; Arena 2007, 151; Michalopoulos
et al. 2021). The speaker presents himself in such a way as to denote that
he belongs to the same group as the other audience members because they
all espouse the same values, the most important of which is love of the
polis, and must cope with common dangers that are fondly encapsulated by
their opponents within and outside the polis, both individuals and hostile
communities. This is close to the Aristotelian assertions that “the orator
persuades by moral character when his speech is delivered in such a manner
as to render him worthy of confidence” (Rhetoric 1356a4–6) and “character
has almost, so to speak, the greatest authority in winning belief” (1356a13;
cf. 1377b20–24; 1378a6–15). Ēthopoiia also generates division, alienation
or dissociation, and prolongs hostility, denigrating individuals against the
background of societal preconceptions, with the aim of isolating them from
the community, and persuading the audience by setting up people, matters
and ideas as antithetical to the listeners.
The construction (positive presentation) and deconstruction (negative
presentation) of character is a common feature of both symbouleutic and
forensic oratory. There is a difference in technique, however, in that, in
symbouleutic oratory, the character of collectivities, i.e., civic/ethnic and
cultural communities, is presented positively or negatively, whereas, in
forensic oratory, it is mostly the character of individuals that is depicted. This
is reasonable, given that forensic speeches are accusations or apologies about
a past legal incident, in which individuals are involved either as perpetrators
or as victims of the illegality. Symbouleutic orations, on the other hand, are
about matters that concern and affect the entire city – that is why there
are abundant references to the city itself: its ancestral past, its historical
successes and failures, and the attitude its people have toward important
matters of inter– and intra-state politics. It is not surprising, therefore, that
in the symbouleutic speeches that are examined, Demosthenes at times
praises the Athenians as a political whole and at times castigates them,
depending on his aim at crucial points in the process of speech-making in
the Assembly on the Pnyx.
21
His accusations mostly revolve around the supine attitude that he accuses
the Athenians of showing toward Philip, as he does in Olynthiac 1.24. What
marks this attempt of the speaker to deconstruct the collective ēthos is the
use of terms that have strong emotive value. The text is as follows:
δεῖ τοίνυν ὑμᾶς, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τὴν ἀκαιρίαν τὴν

ἐκείνου καιρὸν ὑμέτερον νομίσαντας ἑτοίμως συνάρασθαι τὰ
πράγματα, καὶ πρεσβευομένους ἐφ᾽ ἃ δεῖ καὶ στρατευομένους
αὐτοὺς καὶ παροξύνοντας τοὺς ἄλλους ἅπαντας, λογιζομένους,
εἰ Φίλιππος λάβοι καθ᾽ ἡμῶν τοιοῦτον καιρὸν καὶ πόλεμος
γένοιτο πρὸς τῇ χώρᾳ, πῶς ἂν αὐτὸν οἴεσθ᾽ ἑτοίμως ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς
ἐλθεῖν; εἶτ᾽ οὐκ αἰσχύνεσθε, εἰ μηδ᾽ ἃ πάθοιτ᾽ ἄν, εἰ δύναιτ᾽
ἐκεῖνος, ταῦτα ποιῆσαι καιρὸν ἔχοντες οὐ τολμήσετε;
Look then, Athenians, upon his difficulties as your
opportunity. Be prompt to take up the challenge. Send
embassies when necessary. Take the field in person. Rouse
all the other states. Reflect how eagerly Philip would march
against you, if he had such a chance as we have, and if the war
were on our frontiers. Are you not ashamed if, having the
opportunity, you lack the courage to do to him what he would
certainly do to you if he could (emphasis by the author)?
The speaker addresses the Athenians directly (this is why the civic address
is most pertinent in the given context) to exhort them strongly as to what
decisions they should make and what actions should be urgently undertaken
against Philip of Macedon. This part of the Demosthenic speech ends
climactically with a rhetorical question, a means of argumentative auxēsis,
i.e., the strengthening of the argument that a speech puts forward, which
adds to the liveliness of the speech and generates emotional reactions, given
also that a word that carries strong emotional force is used (αἰσχύνεσθε). By
its very lack of restraint – meaning that this word has an innate aggressive
character, as it is used to accuse the audience of inertness and exert moral
and emotional pressure – αἰσχύνεσθε works well in the general context
of the question, as a means of grasping the attention of the audience and
affecting the way its members think of others (i.e., Philip and how to oppose
him), but above all of themselves (i.e., what to do to regain self-confidence
and protect themselves from the infamy of inaction). Demosthenes is clever
here in twisting the standard version of character assassination: instead
of claiming that the Athenians have a blameworthy collective character, he
says they will acquire such a character if they do not stand up to Philip. The
deconstruction of character is, thus, forthcoming, imminent, and potentially
perdurable, in the sense that the Athenians will be ashamed whenever they

do not stand up to their enemies, especially when they have opportunities

to do so effectively. This negative ēthopoiia is intended to intimidate the
Athenians, who are emphatically urged by the speaker to avoid shameful
inaction in perpetuum; the burden on their shoulders is extremely heavy.
Regarding the use of questions in particular, ancient theory acknowledges
that, if skillfully used, they serve strategic purposes. For Longinus in On the
Sublime 18.1–2, for example, questions add to the vehemence of a speech.
Demetrius, in his treatise On Style 279, points out that “in speaking it is
sometimes forcible to address questions to the audience without disclosing
one’s own view. For instance: ‘nay, he was appropriating Euboea and
establishing a fortress to command Attica; and in so doing was he wronging
us and violating the peace, or was he not?’ The orator forces his auditor
into a sort of corner, so that he seems to be brought to task and to have
no answer. If the positive statement ‘he was wronging us and violating the
peace’ were substituted, the effect would be that of precise information
rather than of cross-examination.” Tiberius, in Figures 13, recognizes four
functions of questions: to engage the audience and grasp the attention of its
members, to clarify matters, to create vividness or convey excitement, and to
refute an opponent’s arguments (Serafim 2020, 229–248; Hall 2022).
Therefore, ēthopoiia, which is achieved by means of combined rhetorical
techniques, such as questions and carefully chosen wording, increases
the emotional power of political oration and perhaps its effectiveness
in controlling the audience. An intriguing aspect of the emotions that
the speeches of Demosthenes delivered on the Pnyx aim to stir up (e.g.
intimidation in 1.24, 1.2, 12–14, and 4.11, and anger in 1.8–11, 4.42) is that
they aim unambiguously to lead to decisive actions. Fear can thus be defined
as “an intervening variable between sets of context-dependent stimuli
and suites of behavioral response” (Adolphs 2013, 1). It has been proved
by experimental psychological and neurophysiological research that fear
scenarios, such as danger and inescapability, may lead to passive or active
behavioral responses. Passivity in responses describes an utter lack of physical
or mental/cognitive action (e.g., fear leads to freezing and immobility). Unlike
anxiety, which leads to prediction and preparedness, fear may cause people
to “cringe” when they see or must face a shocking incident and are unable
to perform cognitive processes. To be in fear means, in some cases, to be in
a state of helplessness, having no way to extricate yourself from excruciating
difficulties. Activeness in behavioral responses is when a living creature that
faces a threatening stimulus reacts by physical movement (both kinetic, e.g.,
running, and vocal, e.g., screaming) and cognitive activity (e.g., working out
how to overcome danger; see Adolphs 2013, 1). Researchers seek to explain
the difference between passive and active responses to fear through the lens
23
of physiology. Adolphs notes, for example, that “switches from passive to

active fear responses ([from] freezing to fleeing) are tightly dependent on
distance from a predator, because different behaviors would be adaptive at
different distances (for example, the possibility of evading detection versus
the need to engage). [...] A major contextual factor in the evaluation of fear-
inducing stimuli is whether or not escape might be possible, or whether
the threat seems inescapable, a distinction related to the modulatory factor
of control that we noted earlier. The former is typically associated with
flight, whereas the latter is typically associated with freezing and defense”
(Adolphs 2013, 10).
Thousands of years before Adolphs and other researchers thought of
and undertook experiments to explain the difference between passive
and active responses to fear, Demosthenes himself presented these two
kinds of behavior when, in 18.170, he described his fellow Athenians as
being so terrified by the news that Philip had conquered an ally of theirs,
the city of Elatea, that they did not even dare to ascend the bēma in the
Assembly to debate how they could escape the dire consequences of Philip’s
imperialism.35 They rather ran around (this is an example of a kinetic, active
response to fear), as we are told in §169,36 but were unable to think, make
decisions, or implement them.
It is noteworthy that in the speeches delivered on the Pnyx, which are
examined in this paper, where emphasis is placed on the actions of the
Athenians against Philip, Demosthenes makes sure his fellow citizens receive
as clearly and forcefully as possible the message that they should act in a
cognitively coherent and effective way. A good example is in 4.11:
35
Demosthenes 18.170: “The Council arrived, the presiding Councilors formally
reported the intelligence they had received, and the courier was introduced. As
soon as he had told his tale, the marshal put the question, ‘Who wishes to speak?’
No one came forward. The marshal repeated his question again and again, but still
no one rose to speak, although all the commanders were there, and all the orators,
and although the country with her civic voice was calling for the man who should
speak for her salvation; for we may justly regard the voice, which the crier raises as
the laws direct, as the civic voice of our country.”
36
Demosthenes 18.169: “Evening had already fallen when a messenger arrived
bringing to the presiding councillors https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?
doc=Dem.+18+169&fromdoc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0072 the news that Elatea had
been taken. They were sitting at supper, but they instantly rose from table, cleared
the booths in the marketplace of their occupants, and unfolded the hurdles, while
others summoned the commanders and ordered the attendance of the trumpeter.
The commotion spread through the whole city. At daybreak on the morrow the
presidents summoned the Council to the Council House, and the citizens flocked to
the place of assembly. Before the Council could introduce the business and prepare
the agenda, the whole body of citizens had taken their places on the hill.”

“Is Philip dead?” you ask. “No, indeed; but he is ill.” And what
is that to you? Even if something happens to him, you will soon
raise up a second Philip, if that is the way you attend to your
affairs; for even this Philip has not grown great through his
own unaided strength so much as through our carelessness.
Demosthenes calculatedly tries to present Philip as a threat, and thus a

source of fear – in perpetuum (as in 1.24, discussed above): even if “the current
Philip” dies, another will emerge to move against the Athenians. Audience
members and citizens are made the center of actions and events; they bear
all the responsibility for whatever might happen. They cause the problem
because of inactivity, i.e., character deconstruction or negative ēthopoiia, but
they have a solution to that: changing their collective character and showing
dynamism in dealing with their enemies. Inaction is what causes fear in this
passage, so it can no longer be the Athenians’ choice.
More bitter and thorny are the words of Demosthenes in 4.42. Fear is
no longer the emotion that he thinks will best serve his purposes; instead
he chooses to elicit anger from the Athenians, but without simply referring
to Philip’s ēthos – how rapacious he is and how aggressive toward Athens
he shows himself to be (e.g., in 2.5 where Philip is accused of perjury and
chicanery; or in 4.9 and 10.2, passages that derogate Philip systematically,
from beginning to end).37 Demosthenes 4.42 is as follows:
It seems to me, Athenians, as if some god, out of very shame

[αἰσχυνόμενος] for the conduct of our city, had inspired Philip
with this activity. For if he did nothing more but were willing to
37
Demosthenes 2.5: “Now to call a man perjured and faithless, without drawing
attention to his acts, might justly be termed mere abuse; but to describe his conduct
in detail and convict him on the whole count fortunately requires only a short
speech. Moreover, I have two reasons for thinking the story worth the telling: Philip
shall appear as worthless as he really is, and those who stand aghast at his apparent
invincibility shall see that he has exhausted all the arts of chicanery on which his
greatness was founded at the first, and that his career has now reached its extreme
limit.” 4.9: “For observe, Athenians, the height to which the fellow’s insolence has
soared; he leaves you no choice of action or inaction; he blusters and talks big,
according to all accounts; he cannot rest content with what he has conquered; he is
always taking in more, everywhere casting his net round us, while we sit idle and do
nothing.” 10.4: “Now the extent of the recklessness and rapacity that Philip shows in
his dealings with all men is indeed as great as it has been described to you; but how
impossible it is to stay him in this career by argument and declamation, assuredly
no one is ignorant. For indeed, if no single thing else can teach a man the truth
of that, let him weigh the following consideration. When we have had to speak in
defence of our rights, we have never yet been defeated or proved in the wrong, but
in every case we vanquish all our opponents and have the best of it in argument.”
25
rest satisfied with what he has already captured and subdued,

I believe some of you would be quite content with what must
bring the deepest disgrace upon us and brand us as a nation
of cowards. But by always attempting something new, always
grasping at more power, he may possibly rouse even you, if you
have not utterly abandoned hope. (emphasis by the author)
It appears that the target of anger in this passage is not only Philip,
however covetous, insolent, and reckless he is presented to be. The target
of anger is mostly the Athenians themselves, since the actions that Philip
undertook are masterfully correlated in the passage with their inertness.
Rhetoric is put into action superbly here. Demosthenes identifies the target
audience by means of the address – the Athenians are the recipients of
the central message that they need to become active agents by deciding to
stand up to Philip, immediately and decisively. Therefore, the agents are
directed by the speaker to blame themselves for the actions of the king of
Macedon. “Self-anger” leads to the urgent undertaking of actions before it
is too late to act. Anger at Philip may have theoretically been caused by the
events themselves, since he had conquered the allied cities of Athens one
after another; this, however, led to no action by the Athenians if we are to
believe Demosthenes. But the feeling that the Athenians themselves should
be ashamed – specifically, that the gods feel that the citizens of Athens have
brought shame on their city through their political and military conduct –
aims to move them decisively forward. Shame generates a sense of guilt,
and this leads to self-anger, relief from which is achieved by removing the
cause of shame and guilt – inaction, in the case of the Athenians (on the
phenomenology of shame and guilt see Gilbert, Pehl, and Allan 1994, 23–36;
Deonna, Rodogno, and Teroni 2011).
Because anger is mostly other-directed (at individuals, groups, and
institutions), its self-direction is left vastly understudied in modern
interdisciplinary phenomenology, as also in classical scholarship on the
Attic orators (see Ellsworth, Tong 2006, 572–586). Current research
unambiguously indicates that anger is, of all humanly felt emotions, the one
that generates action; as L. Silva points out, “unlike other negative emotions
such as sadness, where coping potential is paradigmatically low (little can
typically be done to change the saddening event or its consequences), anger
involves an element of optimism regarding the agent’s capacity to change
the triggering event, keep it from repeating itself, or seek reparations for

it” (Silva 2022, 2; cf. Roseman 1991, 161–200; Scherer 2005, 312–324).
A superb description of self-directed anger is offered by Plato at Republic
439e–440b (see also Jimenez 2020, 285–307).38
The construction, i.e., the positive depiction, of the collective ēthos of the
Athenian community is also made by means of the presentation of exceptional
examples of citizens who encapsulate the ancestral glory and the civic ideal
of kalokagathia, virtue and goodness. Heroes and respected statesmen, and
the stories told about them, frame a community’s consciousness, worldview,
and perception of the past. As James Mayer pointed out, “[t]hey are seen
as exemplars of the community ideal and they attain (semi-)divine status
in the worldviews of those who are imagined as their descendants. [...]
Constructing myths around the stories of heroic figures is a straightforward
means to streamline a complex history into a simple and instructive narrative.
Heroic figures carry preconceived associations that can be easily attached
to new narratives, and the form of the epic or other heroic narrative is an
entertaining and easily memorable structure to transmit and perpetuate
understandings of the community’s past” (Mayer 2011, 15–16). One such an
example of how exceptional individuals represent the whole Athenian body
politic is given in Demosthenes 3.26:
ὥστε τὴν Ἀριστείδου καὶ τὴν Μιλτιάδου καὶ τῶν τότε

λαμπρῶν οἰκίαν εἴ τις ἄρ᾽ οἶδεν ὑμῶν ὁποία ποτ᾽ ἐστίν,
ὁρᾷ τῆς τοῦ γείτονος οὐδὲν σεμνοτέραν οὖσαν: οὐ γὰρ εἰς
περιουσίαν ἐπράττετ᾽ αὐτοῖς τὰ τῆς πόλεως, ἀλλὰ τὸ κοινὸν
αὔξειν ἕκαστος ᾤετο δεῖν. ἐκ δὲ τοῦ τὰ μὲν Ἑλληνικὰ πιστῶς,
τὰ δὲ πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς εὐσεβῶς, τὰ δ᾽ ἐν αὑτοῖς ἴσως διοικεῖν
μεγάλην εἰκότως ἐκτήσαντ᾽ εὐδαιμονίαν.
The houses of their famous men, of Aristides or of Miltiades,
as any of you can see that knows them, are not a whit more
splendid than those of their neighbors. For selfish greed had
38
Plato, Republic 439e–440b: “Leontius, the son of Aglaion, was going up from the
Piraeus along the outside of the North Wall when he saw some corpses lying at the
executioner’s feet. He had an appetite to look at them but at the same time he was
disgusted and turned away. For a time, he struggled with himself and covered his
face, but, finally, overpowered by the appetite, he pushed his eyes wide open and
rushed towards the corpses, saying, ‘Look for yourselves, you evil wretches, take
your fill of the beautiful sight! I’ve heard that story myself. It certainly proves that
anger sometimes makes war against the appetites, as one thing against another.
Besides, don’t we often notice in other cases that when appetite forces someone
contrary to rational calculation, the person reproaches himself and gets angry with
that in him that’s doing the forcing, so that of the two factions that are fighting a
civil war, so to speak, spirit allies itself with reason?’”
27
no place in their statesmanship, but each thought it his duty to

further the common weal. And so by their good faith towards
their fellow Greeks, their piety towards the gods, and their
equality among themselves, they deserved and won a great
prosperity (emphasis by the author).
As argued elsewhere by the author, Demosthenes makes a tacit yet

skillful association between religion and politics: one of the praiseworthy
qualities that the two prominent Athenians share, beyond their integrity,
honesty, love for the polis and care for Hellas as a whole, and sense of
justice, is reverence for the gods. “By choosing to refer specifically to these
two historical Athenian statesmen, Demosthenes invites the Athenians to
identify themselves with Aristides and Miltiades and all they represent,
including piety” (Serafim 2021, 134–135). Religion is closely connected with
patriotism and politics, an association that is succinctly described in theory
as polis-religion (see Sourvinou-Inwood 1988, 259–274; 1990, 295–322).
The reference to Ἑλληνικά, fellow Greeks or Greek affairs, is also important
in the context of 3.26, where Demosthenes’ aim is to persuade his fellow
Athenians to stand up to Philip and protect Olynthus. Two of the exemplified
and ideal personages of the glorious ancestral past cared for Hellas – and
so should the Athenians. The message of the speaker becomes, in context,
crystal clear: to become as kaloi kagathoi as Aristides and Miltiades were,
encapsulating the glory of Athens, they should stand up for their allies and
the entire Greek world.
3.2.3. Hypocrisis
The transmitted symbouleutic speeches of Demosthenes contain specific

textual markers that give us clues to the likely use of gestures and vocal
ploys (such as the elevation of tone and volume to give emphasis to his
arguments). Unfortunately, we cannot be more assertive, given the lack of
any visual records of what was said and happened on the Pnyx. The markers
that point to hypocrisis include direct speech, questions (either rhetorical
or followed by immediate answers, which is known as hypophora), figures
of speech (such as repetition, as in 2.10, 3.33, 4.46, and antithesis, as in 2.5
and 10.70), ritualistic dicta, such as prayers and invocations to the gods
and oaths (as in Demosthenes 3.17; 9.54; 10.7, 20, 25), which would have
been accompanied, according to sources, by gesticulation and sonorous
vocal recitation (on hypocrisis that accompanies ritualistic dicta in Attic

oratory see Serafim 2021, 83–95),39 and the use of words that have strong
emotional value and point to the vehemence and forcefulness of the oration.
The purpose of hypocrisis, as already recognized in ancient rhetorical theory,
is to emphasize the arguments and maximize the persuasive potential of
orations. As Aristotle, for example, notes in Rhetoric 1404a1–5, “since the
whole business of rhetoric is to influence opinion, we must pay attention
to it, not as being right, but necessary. Now, when hypocrisis comes into
fashion, it will have the same effect as acting. Wherefore people who excel
in this in their turn obtain prizes, just as orators who excel in delivery; for
written speeches owe their effect not so much to the sense as to the style.”
Several other sources also highlight the significant persuasive potential of
hypocrisis in public speaking, e.g., Plutarch, Lives of the Ten Orators 845b1–
5; Demosthenes 11.2–3 (on the potential of hypocrisis to add verve to the
features of an oration and maximize its persuasive impact upon the audience
see Serafim 2017; 2021, 83–84).
A notable feature of the seven Assembly speeches of Demosthenes that
are examined in this paper is that they are full of questions, which are used
evenly, from exordium to peroration.40 This is evidently because questions,
as has already been argued, introduce a sense of liveliness and immediacy
to the speech; their use is a signal by the speaker of his will to communicate
with the audience. This communicative approach to the audience is rather
artificial, of course, as there was no institutional provision for the speakers
and audience on the Pnyx to formally engage in conversation during an
oration. Questions are also a means of highlighting important arguments
by grasping the attention of the audience: interrupting the narrative to ask
a question indicates that the point that follows, due to the change in the
mode of expression, is “special”, noteworthy and important, especially when
questions accumulate in the narrow space of a few sections (as in 3.16–17
and 4.43–44, where nine and six questions respectively are used in a row,
and 9.32–35 where twelve questions are used). It is Demosthenes 4.43–44
39
According to Demosthenes 18.259–260, in praying, the performer would have
raised his voice, while also raising his hands to the heavens. Pseudo-Aristotle says
that people in antiquity raised their hands to the sky when praying (On the Universe
400a16), a reference that is also made in Demosthenes 43.66. In Laws 717a, Plato
also informs us that whenever someone called on the Olympian gods he would raise
his right hand, whereas when he prayed to chthonian gods, such as Earth, he would
raise his left hand.
40
Questions can be found in the following sections of Demosthenes’ seven
symbouleutic speeches, which are examined in this paper: 1.15, 24; 3.6, 16–17, 19,
22, 29, 27, 30; 4.10, 26, 43–44; 6.20; 9.27; 10.65–66.
29
that Longinus discusses in On the Sublime 18 to illustrate the vehemence

that hypophora, a pattern of asking and answering questions,41 injects into
an Assembly (or any other) oration.42
A superb example of rhetoric in action through hypophora – or pathētikē,
to borrow the Longinus’ expression in On the Sublime 18 – i.e., its aim to stir
up emotions in the Athenians and urge them to take action, can be found in
Demosthenes 10.64–66:
§64: [1] What do you imagine is his motive in outraging

[ὑβρίζειν] you now—I think no other term describes his
conduct—or why is it that, in deceiving the others, he at least
confers benefits upon them, but in your case he is resorting
to threats? For example, the Thessalians were beguiled by his
generosity into their present state of servitude; no words can
describe how he formerly deceived the miserable Olynthians
by his gift of Potidaea and many other places; the Thebans he
is now misleading, having handed over Boeotia to them and
relieved them of a long and trying war.
§65: So each of these states has reaped some benefit from
him, but while some have already paid the price by their
sufferings, the others have yet to suffer whatever shall fall to
their lot. As for you, I do not say how far you have been robbed,
but in the actual making of the peace, how completely you
were deceived, how grievously you were robbed! [2] Were
you not deceived about Phocis, Thermopylae, the Thrace-ward
districts, Doriscus, Serrium, Cersobleptes himself? [3] Is not
Philip now holding the city of the Cardians, and admitting that
he holds it?
41
Examples of hypophora can be found in Demosthenes 1.25; 2.3, 26; 4.2, 11, 25,
20, 22, 27, 34; 6.7, 31; 9.15, 18, 56, 70; 10.44, 51, 58, 61, 64–66.
42
Longinus notes in On the Sublime 18: “The impassioned rapidity of question
and answer and the device of self-objection have made the remark, in virtue of its
figurative form, not only more sublime but more credible. For emotion (τὰ παθητικά)
carries us away more easily when it seems to be generated by the occasion rather
than deliberately assumed by the speaker, and the self-directed question and its
answer represent precisely this momentary quality of emotion (μιμεῖται τοῦ πάθους
τὸ ἐπίκαιρον). Just as people who are unexpectedly plied with questions become
annoyed and reply to the point with vigor and exact truth, so the figure of question
and answer arrests the hearer and cheats him into believing that all the points
made were raised and are being put into words on the spur of the moment.”

§66: [4] Why then does he deal in that way with the other
Greeks, but with you in this way? Because yours is the one city
in the world where immunity is granted to plead on behalf of
our enemies, and where a man who has been bribed can safely
address you in person, even when you have been robbed of
your own. It would not have been safe in Olynthus to plead
Philip’s cause, unless the Olynthian democracy had shared in
the enjoyment of the revenues of Potidaea (emphasis by the
author).
Four questions (numbered) can be found in the three sections that are
cited above: they function, in context, as repeated “punches” to the audience,
an incessant stimulus of the mind, conscience, and collective civic/cultural
ego of the Athenians. Demosthenes, calculatedly, starts by levelling a heavy
accusation against Philip – that he is insulting the Athenians in an outrageous
way (hybris), which leads to infamy and humiliation. Then, to maximize
the effect of the question that will almost certainly trigger anger and
exasperation among the Athenians, he claims that Philip is crueler toward
them than toward the other Hellenes. But instead of making this point by
means of narrative, he exploits the surprise element of the first question in
§64, while also enhancing the vehemence of the accusation and inviting the
audience to get involved in the game of negatively evaluating Philip’s hostile
behavior toward Athens. The answer to the first question is not given in
the next section, §65, but rather Demosthenes prolongs the excruciation of
the audience by continuing to ask upsetting questions about Philip’s stance
toward the Athenians. These questions are designed to incite anger and
direct it against the enemy. The final blow to the audience is given in §66: it
is here that the question of §64 is repeated and answered. In other words,
the hypophora starts in §64 and is concluded two sections later. Extending
the emotional pressure that is place on the audience from section to section,
asking questions that force the Athenians to think and feel – putting them,
in other words, in a sort of inescapable cognitive “corner” – Demosthenes
aims to elicit a reaction, which in fact is an action against Philip. To keep up
the forcefulness of hypophora from the first to the last section of this part of
his oration, and to thus maximize its effect on the audience, it is likely that
Demosthenes would have used vocal ploys – such as raising his tone of voice
– when he asked the four questions and when he gave his answer.
31
In addition to questions, direct speech is also ubiquitous in all the parts of

Demosthenic symbouleutic orations: exordium, main part (pistis/apodeixis
and narrative), and peroration.43 The combined use of direct speech and
questions (as in 3.19, 22, 29) aims to maximize the liveliness of the speech
and its communicative efficacy. A possible reason why Demosthenes uses
direct speech so frequently throughout his speeches could be because it
has the effect of surprising and engaging the audience, in the sense that
it breaks up the “normal”, and perhaps also “dull”, succession of narrative
sections, adding to the verve and immediacy that a speech delivered before
a live audience should have. It is very likely that, to strengthen the sense
of immediacy, the speaker would have used vocal ploys, inasmuch as it
appears that some instances of direct speech invite sarcastic or playful
mimicry, especially when the alleged utterances of enemies or excuses of
the Athenians – which the speaker considers petty – should be emphasized.
A caveat is necessary here: the examination of the markers that oratorical
(and any other) texts contain as indicators of mimicry (and, more broadly,
hypocrisis) is mostly based on the intuition of individual or group readers
(known in theory as interpretative communities). The textual markers that
point to aspects of hypocrisis can, arguably, be of two kinds: “objective”, i.e.,
those that give us unambiguous clues as to what aspects of gesticulation and
vocality are used by speakers (e.g., deixis, manifested usually by pronouns,
almost certainly requires the use of hand or head gestures to direct people’s
gaze toward the intended target); and “subjective”, i.e., those that take
meaning from the ways in which readers understand the text.
Mimicry belongs to the second category. It is my view that it is the context,
not every instance of direct speech independently of it, that creates the need
for mimicry. One such context is in Demosthenes 3.22:
But ever since this breed of orators appeared who ply you
with such questions as “What would you like? What shall I
propose? How can I oblige you?” [“τί βούλεσθε; τί γράψω; τί
ὑμῖν χαρίσωμαι;“] the interests of the state have been frittered
away for a momentary popularity. The natural consequences
follow, and the orators profit by your disgrace [αἰσχρῶς]
(emphasis by the author).
43
Instances of direct speech can be found in 1.14; 3.10, 19, 22, 29; 4.44; 9.27, 42;
10.11, 27, 70.

Not only does the text contains three staccato questions that are placed
in direct speech, it is also that the context is adversarial, in the sense that
the speaker is accusing his opponents – whom he deems irresponsible – of
bringing disgrace upon the Athenians because they are cajoling their fellows
to gain temporary popularity, despite the dire consequences this behavior
may have for the polis. The severe accusation that is levelled against his
opponents – enhanced by the use of the strong moral term αἰσχρῶς, which
aims to incite anger and indignation toward the alleged perpetrators –
arguably demands the use of vocal emphasis. To undermine the public/
political status and authority of the orators to whom he scathingly refers, he
would surely have delivered the utterance he calculatedly attributes to them
in a such a way as to highlight their boldness and shamelessness. After all,
it is highly unlikely that the adverb αἰσχρῶς was delivered deadpan, either
here or elsewhere, as in 10.25,44 where there is an accumulation of strong
moral terms – αἰσχρόν and ἀνάξιον. The expression of emotion can become
authentic through hypocrisis, as Plutarch’s Demosthenes 11.2–3 clearly
indicates.45
4. PHYSICAL CONDITIONS AND SOCIOCULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE
This section raises two questions that have not been satisfactorily
answered, despite having been addressed in some works of modern
scholarship. The first is how the physical setting of the Pnyx affected the
political workings of the Assembly. It has been argued by Johnstone (1996,
127) that speeches were passed from the front to the rear of the auditorium,
and those Athenians who could not hear the speakers adequately because
of the distance and noise, made their judgments based on “the speaker’s
name and reputation”. Enos (1998, 331) opines that the speakers delivered
44
Demosthenes 10.25: “By Zeus and all the other gods, it would be disgraceful
[αἰσχρόν] and unworthy [ἀνάξιον] of you and of the resources of your city and the
record of your ancestors to abandon all the other Greeks to enslavement for the
sake of your own ease, and I for one would rather die than be guilty of proposing
such a policy.”
45
In Demosthenes 11.2–3, Plutarch says that “there is a story about Demosthenes,
that he was approached by a man asking him to help him plead in court. When the
man explained how he had been beaten by someone, Demosthenes said ‘But you
haven’t at all suffered what you say you have suffered.’ The man raised his voice and
screamed ‘Have I, Demosthenes, not at all suffered?!’ and then Demosthenes said,
‘Oh yes, now I do hear the voice of someone who has been wronged and suffered.’
This shows how important for persuasion he considered the pitch (of voice) and
delivery to be of those who speak.”
33
their pieces to “rotating audiences”. This topic is examined further, together

with the second question: what sociocultural qualities of the Pnyx made the
hill the center of political speech-making and, in fact, the cradle of Athenian
democracy?
4.1. The Physical Setting of the Pnyx: Construction and Acoustics
Before going further into the two questions – especially the first one
about the acoustic conditions in the auditorium – it is necessary to depict the
setting. The Pnyx is a well-designed platform, theater-like in shape, which
was carved into the rocky heights in the western part of the city of Athens.
There were three phases of construction and architectural development.
None of the three phases altered the main structure of the site: the Assembly
area was unroofed and roughly semi-circular in form. Each of the three
phases did, however, have its own unique features. During the first, around
500 BC, the auditorium followed the natural slope of the hillside, but this
was thought not to have been completely practical, because the auditorium,
approximately 40 meters deep and 60 meters wide, would have probably
been exposed to wind.46 The second phase of construction took place in 404–
403 BC, when the auditorium was moved from the north to the southwest
slope, in order for the seats to be protected from strong winds. Johnstone
(1996, 116) argues that the acoustics improved on Pnyx II because of the
reorientation of the auditorium and the speaker’s platform, with northeast
winds blowing from behind the bēma. The third and final structural phase
probably occurred around 330 BC (see Rotroff, Camp 1996, 263–294),
when the auditorium were enlarged considerably (to 60 m deep and almost
120 m wide) by the addition of stoas that were never fully constructed
(Figures 1 and 3).47 The landmark of the site, which is still visible on the
hill, is the stone bēma (the platform or “the stone”, ὁ λίθος, as it is known; cf.
46
The speech of Andocides, On His Return, is perhaps the only transmitted piece
of political oratory that was performed on Pnyx I (possibly delivered between 410
and 406 BC).
47
If Pnyx III is to be dated around 330 BC, contrary to the argument that it was
constructed around 340 BC, it is possible that none of the transmitted symbouleutic
speeches of Demosthenes were actually delivered there. The speech dated most
closely to 330 BC is the spurious On the Treaty with Alexander (speech 17), which,
according to Hitchings (2017, 194) would have been delivered between late 334
and late 333 BC.

Aristophanes, Acharnians 683) for the speaker (Figure 4a-b-c; for the dating
of the site on the slope of the Pnyx and detailed descriptions of the place see
Kourouniotes, Thompson 1932, 90–217; Moysey 1981, 31–37).
The issue of the acoustics of the Pnyx and the practical, non-verbal
arrangements in the ecclēsia has relatively recently attracted the interest of
scholars. Johnstone, though with somewhat impromptu and methodologically
faulty fieldwork, attempted to reconstruct the acoustics of the site, concluding
rather dishearteningly that, even in ideal physical and meteorological
circumstances, the speeches, passing from the rear of the auditorium to the
front, would have been heard by three-quarters of the audience members
only, requiring the remainder to base their decisions upon the reputation
of the speakers rather than the essence of their argumentation. A strong
voice would be a fundamental prerequisite for speakers to be able to deliver
orations in the Assembly, which is why Demosthenes supposedly tried hard
to overcome the vocal shortcomings which both he himself and the late
textual tradition attribute to him.48
Johnstone notes that not even a strong voice would make a speech fully
audible and comprehensible to the audience on the Pnyx. What Johnstone
does not consider, however, is that environmental circumstances in today’s
Athens, especially the level of noise, are vastly different from those of the
ancient city, and this difference almost certainly has a significant impact on
audibility on the Pnyx (as indeed in every precinct of Athens). Therefore, any
conclusions that can be drawn will always remain merely conjectural, even
if by revisiting the political arena of the Pnyx, we use modern climatological,
architectural, and topographical evaluations of the setting. This is what
the Academy of Athens intends to do. It should also be underlined that the
ancients were more performatively competent than we are, not least because
of their education and high level of knowledge of performative matters,
especially sound, as texts indicate (e.g., Aristophanes, Clouds 961–972).49
48
Demosthenes, referring apparently to his vocal shortcomings, calls himself
Βάτταλος, “lisper” or “stammerer” (18.180). Demetrius of Phalerum claims, as
reported by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (On the Style of Demosthenes 53) and
Plutarch (Demosthenes 11.1-3), that he was personally aware of Demosthenes’
vocal shortcomings. The validity, factuality, and reliability of these reports are
doubted; even if there is any truth in the tradition, it may have been derived from
the credulous taking of Demosthenes’ own comments at face value.
49
Aristophanes, Clouds 961–972: “I will, therefore, describe the ancient system
of education, how it was ordered, when I flourished in the advocacy of justice, and
temperance was the fashion. In the first place it was incumbent that no one should
hear the voice of a boy uttering a syllable; and next, that those from the same
quarter of the town should march in good order through the streets to the school
of the harp-master, naked, and in a body, even if it were to snow as thick as meal.
35
Therefore, even if you have the voice of Luciano Pavarotti, whom Johnstone
thought of when delivering Demosthenes 4 (the first of the Philippics) with
strained vocal cords (see Johnstone 1996, 131), this does not mean that one
has the speaking skills of the ancients, nor the audience’s listening skills.
But what do the transmitted texts say about the acoustics on the Pnyx?
The answer to this question is relatively disheartening because ancient
texts are largely silent on this topic. Given that texts and material evidence
are the only ways we have to try to reconstruct an impression of what
happened in the past, our knowledge and understanding of audibility in the
amphitheater on the Pnyx will perpetually be fragmentary and uncertain.
The texts, unfortunately, do not tell us anything about the acoustics on the
Pnyx, and not much about the acoustics in theaters or other sites of public
speaking, but there are some limited, and hitherto largely under-discussed,
sources that are worthy of (re)examination. The correlation between the
theatrical and the political space on the Pnyx is methodologically pertinent:
if theatergoers at the Asklepion of Epidaurus, who could number as many
as 14,000 (not to mention larger theaters such as the one in Megalopolis
in Arcadia, with a capacity of 20,000 spectators), can listen to unamplified
voices in the back row, about 60 meters from the skēnē and the broader
scenic building (Figure 5), then it is possible that audience members in the
Assembly crowd of 6,000 on the hill of Pnyx also could. Both the theater and
the Assembly are – to use the expression from Hall (2002, 7) – “a palette
of vocal techniques“: voice was of paramount importance for the activity in
both settings, and one is justified in arguing, as modern scholars do, that
performers were trained as to vocally perform their roles as effectively as
possible (see Pickard-Cambridge 1968, 167–171; Csapo, Slater 1995, 256–
258 and 265–268; MacDowell 2000, 352; Hall 2002, 22–23; Ley 2006, 54; on
voice in law court speaking see Serafim 2017, 28–32 and 114–136).50
The theoretical foundations of the systematic science of sound in Greek
antiquity, especially concerning the interrelation between pitch and the
length of the vibrating string, were laid by Pythagoras (6th century BC).
Then again, their master would teach them, not sitting cross-legged, to learn by rote
a song, either ‘pallada persepolin deinan’ or ‘teleporon ti boama’ raising to a higher
pitch the harmony which our fathers transmitted to us. But if any of them were to
play the buffoon, or to turn any quavers, like these difficult turns the present artists
make after the manner of Phrynis, he used to be thrashed, being beaten with many
blows, as banishing the Muses.”
50
On the importance of voice for actors see Plato, Republic 568c3; Aristotle,
Rhetoric 1403b26–33; 1413b14–28; Aristotle, Problems 11.22; Demetrius, On Style
193-5; Demosthenes 18.308–309; Diodorus Siculus 15.7, 16.42; Plutarch, Life of Ten
Orators 848b.

Later, in the 4th century, Archytas described the production of sound as a

phenomenon of having two objects strike each other, while also examining
the conditions of sound propagation in a physically designated scenery
(Guthrie 1962, 371). Nearly a century later, Aristoxenus, one of Aristotle’s
disciples, discussed the principles of auditory matters in the performative
settings of the ancient polis. Burkert (1972) also refers to the theories of
Plato and Aristotle (mainly in Poetics on music, a form of sound in the theater,
and in Problems, presuming that this treatise can credibly be assigned to
him) about sound propagation, with the former arguing that the movement
of sound is a matter of pitch (higher pitch leads to faster propagation),51
a topic that is also examined by Theophrastus of Eresus (see Hunt 1978).
Matters pertaining to the propagation of sound waves were also examined
by the Stoic philosopher Chrysippus and the Roman architect and engineer
Marcus Vitruvius Pollio (born ca. 80 BC). Selected passages from his treatise
On Architecture (which is dedicated to Augustus and was probably composed
between 16 and 13 BC) are discussed extensively below. Perhaps the earliest
examination of acoustics in ancient literature is the account of Herodotus,
in Book 4 of the Histories, about the underground passageways that the
Persians dug to get underneath the walls of the city Barce during their siege
of it.52
Vitruvius’ remark in 5.3.4, about theater architecture that allows sound
to travel unimpeded, is useful in shedding light on how the height of the
Pnyx and its onsite structures would have helped the propagation of sound
as well:
The number of passages must be regulated by the height of

the theatre, and are not to be higher than their width, because
if made higher, they will reflect and obstruct the voice in its
passage upwards, so that it will not reach the upper seats
above the passages, and the last syllables of words will escape.
51
This idea about the pitch of the voice playing a role in determining the speed
and the quality of the sound is rejected by Vitruvius: “Herein the ear does not
perceive any difference of tone between the beginning and ending, by the voice
rising higher or descending lower; neither that from a high pitch it becomes lower,
nor the contrary” (5.4.2).
52
Herodotus 4.200: “As for the tunnels, a blacksmith discovered them by the
means of a bronze shield, and this is how he found them: carrying the shield around
the inner side of the walls, he struck it against the ground of the city; all the other
places which he struck returned a dull sound; but where there were tunnels, the
bronze of the shield rang clear. Here the Barceans made a counter-tunnel and killed
those Persians who were digging underground. Thus, the tunnels were discovered,
and the assaults were repelled by the townsfolk.”
37
In short, the building should be so contrived, that a line drawn

from the first to the last step should touch the front angle of
the tops of all the seats; in which case the voice meets with no
impediment.
In 5.3.7, Vitruvius also makes a comment that applies indirectly to the

acoustics on the Pnyx, even if this is not the subject of his transmitted
treatise on architecture:
In the same manner the voice spreads in a circular direction.

But, whereas the circles in water only spread horizontally, the
voice, on the contrary, extends vertically as well as horizontally.
Wherefore, as is the case with the motion of water, so with
the voice, if no obstacle disturbs the first undulation, not only
the second and following one, but all of them will, without
reverberation, reach the ears of those at bottom and those at
top.
The analogy between the acoustics of the theater, described by Vitruvius,

and the acoustics of the Pnyx is clear: the site of the ecclēsia does not present
any architectural hindrance to the easy diffusion of sound, and this, in
combination with the height of the hill, would allow sound to reach the ears
of the audience members at the top and the bottom. This conclusion may
seem speculative, since there is no direct reference to the Pnyx in Vitruvius’
treatise, but the similarities between theater architecture and the Pnyx
make any assumption about the properties of sound in the latter more than
reasonable. The Pnyx, according to its physical description, is not a dissonant
place, i.e., one of those “in which the voice, rising first upwards, is obstructed
by some hard bodies above” (5.8.1). Its openness and the minimal structure
of the buildings allow for optimal propagation of sound.
The wide span of the auditorium (as seen in Figure 1, the auditorium
space steadily grew from phase I to phase III) and the distance that separates
the speaker and the pulpit on the Pnyx from the audience seating, are key
factors that allow sound to travel better. As Chourmouziadou (2007, 80)
argues, “the more the actor approached the audience, the smaller the part
of the audience that received the direct sound, due to the propagation of
sound at nearly grazing incidence”. Another architectural feature of the site
of the ecclēsia on the Pnyx appears to be relevant to the discussion about
the propagation of sound: as seen in Figures 1, 2a and 2, the platform of
the speaker is placed at a lower level than that of the auditorium, allowing
its rear to function as a sound reflector, exactly like the rear of the raised
stage in the theater (Camp 1996, 45 offers a different approach regarding

the level of the auditorium on Pnyx III, arguing that it was either level with
or sloping downward away from the raised speaker’s platform. This cannot
be the case if one accepts the presentation of Pnyx III in Figure 1). This
contributes to increased reverberation (see Wiles 1997). This suggestion
is corroborated by Lucretius (1st century BC), who points out that “among
solitary places the very rocks give back the counterparts of words each in
due order, when we see our comrades wondering amid the dark hills, and
with loud voice summon them scattered here and there. [...] So does hill to
hill buffet the words and repeat the reverberation [...] no one can see beyond
a wall although he can hear voices through it” (On the Nature of Things
4.522–721, translated by Sinker 1937; on reverberation not worsening
sound or impeding intelligibility see Manzetti 2019, 434–443). Modern
interdisciplinary acoustic experiments also suggest that ground-level or
low theatrical platforms are more efficient than higher platforms, in terms
of sound propagation (see Izenour 1977; Barkas 1994, 39–56), while also
indicating that the gradual raising of the platform, mostly in Roman times,
had a negative impact on the intelligibility of the theatrical performance
(see Canac 1957; Athanasopoulos 1976; Barkas 1994, 39–56). The same
principles can be applied to the sites of the ecclēsia on the Pnyx.
Beyond architectural features, the effectiveness of speech projection
and the quality of sound propagation are also determined by other onsite
measurements: the number of audience members (a maximum of 6,000, in
the case of the Pnyx), their seating and clothing, and other aspects of the
physical scenery, such as wind and heat. The Pnyx, as has been previously
stated, was likely windy, therefore, the meetings of the Assembly would not
have taken place during the winter.53 But the “windy character” of the physical
setting on the Pnyx, which can reasonably be assumed to have hindered the
audience, preventing them from comfortably attending the Assembly due to
low temperatures and humidity, is thought to have increased and facilitated
the propagation of sound. Goularas (1995) argues that the open-air theater
design where the wind blows toward the audience, in combination with a
minimum temperature of 8°C, is superior, a conclusion that is not unopposed
53
Cf. Thucydides 8.97, on the use of the Pnyx as the place of the meetings of the
Assembly. The Pnyx was not the only place where the meetings of the Assembly
were held; sources also indicate that the Theatre of Dionysus was also used, though
not for environmental reasons, but rather for religious. Both Aeschines 2.61 and
Demosthenes 21.8 mention that the Assembly was moved to the theatre after
specific festivals: Aeschines speaks about the celebration of the City Dionysia (when
it is reasonable for the meetings to be held nearer the precinct of Dionysus) and
Demosthenes about the Pandia (festival of Zeus).
39
by other modern research studies (see Declercq, Dekeyser 2007, 2012;

Johnstone 1996, 124, which presented the opinion that wind reduced
intelligibility in the Assembly amphitheater).
The strengthening of acoustics is accomplished by a specific type of
paraphernalia called ἠχεῖα, a bronze vessel that acts as a megaphone, on the
principle that sound propagates by setting air in movement. The functioning
of these vessels is known in archaeoacoustics as “the Vitruvian secret” (in
1.1.9):
So, the vessels, called ἠχεῖα by the Greeks, which are placed
in certain recesses under the seats of theatres, are fixed
and arranged with a due regard to the laws of harmony and
physics, their tones being fourths, fifths, and octaves; so that
when the voice of the actor is in unison with the pitch of these
instruments, its power is increased and mellowed by impinging
thereon. He would, moreover, be at a loss in constructing
hydraulic and other engines, if ignorant of music.
These vessels work, specifically, as a technical means of improving the

clarity of the voice, not its strength. In Vitruvius’ words (5.5.3):
The voice which issues from the scene, expanding as from a

centre, and striking against the cavity of each vase, will sound
with increased clearness and harmony, from its unison with
one or other of them.
In 5.3.8, Vitruvius also claims that the bronze loudspeakers were tuned
to correspond with the voices of the actors (“since in bronze or horn wind
instruments, by a regulation of the genus, their tones are rendered as clear as
those of stringed instruments, so by the application of the laws of harmony,
the ancients discovered a method of increasing the power of the voice in a
theatre”). That the material of Vitruvius’ vessels, bronze, is a good reflector
and radiator of sound and was known to the Ancient Greeks, as indicated
in Aristotle’s On the Soul 2.8, where it is remarked that “not all bodies can
by impact on one another produce sound; impact on wool makes no sound,
while the impact on bronze or other body which is smooth and hollow
does. Bronze gives out a sound when struck because it is smooth; bodies
which are hollow owing to reflection repeat the original impact over and
over again, the body originally set in movement being unable to escape from
the concavity.” Something similar about the capacity of bronze to produce
strong sound is mentioned in Pollux, Onomasticon 4.70, in a description of
the “watery aulos”, a musical instrument consisting of bronze pipes that

are blown from below, with water compressing air upward. Pollux says,
specifically, that “the bronze gives the aulos a bolder sound” (Onomasticon
4.70: καὶ ὁ χαλκὸς ἔχει τὸ φθέγμα ἰταμώτερον; cf. comments in 4.85–86, on
the material of the salpinx, another musical instrument made of bronze and
iron).
The existence of bronze sound vessels and their use are still uncertain
and vastly controversial issues. Vitruvius refers, in On Architecture 5.5.8,
to Roman General Lucius Mummius, who, upon returning to Rome from
Corinth (perhaps in 146 BC), “brought [...] some of its bronze vases, and
dedicated them as spoils at the temple of Luna.” It is indeed argued that there
were niches in theaters, beneath the diazōma (the corridor that separates
the upper and lower tiers of the theater and facilitates the circulation of
spectators), that held the bronze loudspeakers – this seems to be so in
the case of the theater at Aizanoi, a Phrygian city in western Anatolia (1st
century AD), despite scholarly dissent (see Dilke 1948, 137). “The ‘bell’ is
inserted in the cavity and is supported by wedges of half a foot, which is
the same height as the neck. The niche must thus be higher, about two or
three feet (60–90 cm) what [sic] makes the internal volume larger than the
volume of the neck” (see Valière et al. 2013, 72). An attempt has been made
by scholars to reconstruct the placement of Vitruvius’ bronze vessels based
on his writings (Figure 6): they are evenly distributed in all diazōmata and
rows (13 in each) in the theater (see Sevillano et al. 2008); it is perhaps
this even distribution that makes the acoustics effective. Izenour (1977)
has also described the existence of nine cavities behind the diazōma in the
ruins of a Roman theater in Beit She’an, Israel (expressing doubts about the
effectiveness of the use of bronze vessels). The fact, however, that similar
technology has been used extensively throughout history to strengthen
the acoustic potential of places of spectatorship is enough to indicate that
the acoustic pots would have been effective in fulfilling the purpose they
were designed for. Similar vessels dating from the 10th to the 16th centuries
have been used all across Europe (Figure 7)54 and in the Ottoman Empire,
inside the walls of churches and mosques (on the use of acoustic pots in
Irish churches see Fitzgerald 1855, 303–310; on the use of vessels in Danish
churches from 1100–1300 AD see Bruel 2002; Valière et al. 2013, 70–81; on
the use of acoustic pots in the Ottoman Empire see Atay, Gül 2021, 1–12).
There are two caveats to bear in mind when reading Vitruvius’ intriguing
treatise: first, we do not know whether this technology was used in 4th
century BC classical Athens (it may not have been used until Vitruvius’
54
Figure 7 presents an acoustic (or resonance) pot incorporated in the wall of the
church at the Chartreuse du Val de Benediction, Villeneuve-lès-Avignon, France.
41
time, or only in other areas of the Roman Empire); and second, if it was
used, whether it was used in the auditorium of the Assembly on the Pnyx,
or only in the theater. Given that Vitruvius’ treatise draws information from
earlier treatises on construction, especially Aristoxenus (5.5.6; see Valière
et al. 2013, 73), it should not be considered impossible that his description
applies to Ancient Greek theaters of the 4th century. There is no reason why
the vessels, if used in the Greek theaters, would not have also been used in
the Athenian Assembly, unlike other paraphernalia, such as masks, which
were strictly confined to the theatrical space, where it is argued that they
had a voice-enhancing function (on the use of dramatic masks as a means of
amplifying the voices of actors see Vovolis, Zamboulakis 2007, 1–7).55 It is
the placement of the pots on the site of the Pnyx that poses the most difficult
question. They may have been placed beneath the floor, as in the Hazine-I
Evrak Building in İstanbul (Figure 8); this possibility should be explored (by
archaeologists).
Another intriguing remark by Vitruvius is that there was no need
for sounding vessels in wooden auditoriums that were built in Rome,
because the boarding itself was resonant.56 Assuming that the reference
in Aristophanes’ Acharnians 23–26 is correct, the Pnyx would have had
the same acoustic potential as Roman auditoriums because it had wooden
seats in the pit, the main area of the auditorium. Stone seats were hewn
out in the wall of the terrace, but the other benches would probably have
been made of wood: “οὐδ᾽ οἱ πρυτάνεις ἥκουσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀωρίαν/ ἥκοντες εἶτα
δ᾽ ὠστιοῦνται πῶς δοκεῖς/ ἐλθόντες ἀλλήλοισι περὶ πρώτου ξύλου,/ ἁθρόοι
καταρρέοντες” (“The Prytanes even do not come; they will be late, but when
they come they will push and fight each other for a seat in the front row”).
There is, then, considerable ancient evidence and steadily growing modern
interdisciplinary knowledge which both point to the function of physical
scenery and the construction of Greek theatrical spaces – and thus also on
the Pnyx – as natural amplifiers of the voices of performers (whether actors
55
On the acoustic capacity of musical instruments, such as the trumpet, see Julius
Pollux, Onomasticon 4.88, where it is mentioned that the instrument could be heard
at a distance of 10 km (or 50 stades).
56
Vitruvius 5.5.7: “Someone may perchance urge, that many theatres are yearly
built in Rome, without any regard to these matters. But let him not be herein
mistaken, inasmuch as all public theatres which are constructed of wood, have
many floors, which are necessarily conductors of sound. This circumstance may be
illustrated, by consideration of the practice of those that sing to the harp, who when
they wish to produce a loud effect, turn themselves to the doors of the scene, by the
aid of which their voice is thrown out. But when theatres are constructed of solid
materials, that is of rubble, squared stones, or marble, which are not conductors of
sound, it is necessary to build them according to the rules in question.”

or public speakers), which would compensate for the energy loss due to the
open-air setting and the seasonal adversities this causes (see Barkas 2019,
337–353). Declercq, Dekeyser (2007) even argues that the “geometry of the
theatre”, i.e., the benches and the limestone cavea (audience area), would
boost the sound while muffling the background audience noise. There is,
therefore, no reason for classicists to assume that speeches in the Assembly
were delivered before rotating audiences, or that the audience members
based their decisions on the name and the authority of the speakers in front
of them. Rumor could, arguably, be thought of as having divine status, at
least according to Aeschines 1.127–130 (see Serafim 2021, 34–36, 73–74),57
but it would be sheer speculation to argue that it was a key factor in political
decision-making in Athens.
4.2. The Sociocultural Importance of the Pnyx
In answering the second question about the sociocultural reasons for

choosing the Pnyx as the meeting place of the Assembly, scholars refer
with puzzlement to Aeschines 1.82, where it has been argued that the poor
reputation of the place by 346/5 BC (when the speech was delivered) is
underlined (Harrison 1890, 107; Judeich 1931, 86; Kourouniotes, Thompson
57
Aeschines 1.127–130: “But in the case of the life and conduct of men, a common
report which is unerring does of itself spread abroad throughout the city; it causes
the private deed to become matter of public knowledge, and many a time it even
prophesies what is about to be. […] You will find that both our city and our
forefathers dedicated an altar to Common Report, as one of the greatest gods;
and you will find that Homer again and again in the Iliad says, of a thing that has
not yet come to pass, ‘Common Report came to the host’; and again you will find
Euripides declaring that this god is able not only to make known the living,
revealing their true characters, but the dead as well, when he says, ‘Common Report
shows forth the good man, even though he be in the bowels of the earth’; and Hesiod
expressly represents her as a goddess, speaking in words that are very plain to those
who are willing to understand, for he says, ‘But Common Report dies never, the
voice that tongues of many men do utter. She, too, then, is divine’. You will find
that all men whose lives have been decorous praise these verses of the poets. For all
who are ambitious for honour from their fellows believe that it is from good report
that fame will come to them. But men whose lives are shameful pay no honour
to this god, for they believe that in her they have a deathless accuser. Call to mind,
therefore, fellow citizens, what common report you have been accustomed to hear
in the case of Timarchus. The instant the name is spoken you ask, do you not, ‘What
Timarchus do you mean? The prostitute?’ Furthermore, if I had presented witnesses
concerning any matter, you would believe me; if then I present the god as my
witness, will you refuse to believe? But she is a witness against whom it would
be impiety even to bring complaint of false testimony” (emphasis by the author).
43
1932, 186. Fisher (2001, 217) argues that “we can glean only that specific
proposals concerned areas around the Pnyx itself: unbuilt-up, secluded
areas, erēmiai, deserted house-sites, cisterns, all places of inactivity or
seclusion.” There are arguments for the opposite, in line with the concerns
in Thompson, Scranton (1943, 361), as well as about the validity and the
factuality of what Aeschines says. The passage in 1.82 is as follows:
ἐπειδὴ δέ που προϊόντος τοῦ λόγου εἶπεν ὅτι τό γε εἰσήγημα

τὸ Τιμάρχου ἀποδοκιμάζει ἡ βουλή, ‘καὶ περὶ τῆς ἐρημίας
ταύτης καὶ τοῦ τόπου τοῦ ἐν τῇ Πυκνὶ μὴ θαυμάσητε, ὦ ἄνδρες
Ἀθηναῖοι, εἰ Τίμαρχος ἐμπειροτέρως ἔχει τῆς βουλῆς τῆς ἐξ
Ἀρείου πάγου,’ ἀνεθορυβήσατε ὑμεῖς ἐνταῦθα καὶ ἔφατε τὸν
Αὐτόλυκον ἀληθῆ λέγειν: εἶναι γὰρ αὐτὸν ἔμπειρον.
When, in the course of his speech, he [Autolykos] said that
the Areopagos council was opposing Timarchos’ motion and he
added “on the subject of that deserted spot and the place on
the Pnyx, you should not be surprised, Athenians, if Timarchos
is more experienced than the Council of the Areopagos,” at that
moment you burst into uproar and said that Autolykos was
telling the truth: you said that he was certainly experienced
with those places (translation: Fisher 2001, 90).
It is not only that we cannot trust what Aeschines says about Timarchus,
as Thompson and Scranton rightly remark, not least because used every
opportunity to attack his adversary at the trial and undermine his public
(speaking) credentials. Carey (2000, 52 n. 90) and Rydberg-Cox (2000, 426)
are correct in suggesting that Aeschines makes, in 1.82, a clever innuendo
about Timarchus engaging in prostitution, which could only be fully practiced
in the secrecy of desolate places.58 It has recently also been argued that the
physiognomic details that are attributed to Timarchus, especially about his
stature, are fake (see Serafim, forthcoming). Therefore, a speaker who would
dare distort details about the body of his adversary, while he was present in
58
I would like, however, to take issue with the expression of Carey, when he
claims that Aeschines accuses Timarchus of “grubby sexual encounters.” If this is a
reference to prostitution, as it should be, it is not fully clear – and that is a problem.
“Sexual encounters” may, arguably, be an insinuation of homosexual encounters,
which were not, however, considered “grubby” at the time. Carey could have been
clearer about the point he is making here. The point made by Fisher (2001, 220) is
more coherent.

court, would not hesitate to accuse him of grubby actions, inasmuch as he

would not credibly expect the audience members to fully remember actions
from the past.
It is also the case that Aeschines never refers to the Pnyx as being
desolate and, thus, ill-reputed. The text contains two prepositional phrases:
the first is clear, καὶ περὶ τῆς ἐρημίας ταύτης; the second is unseen, but we
can find it by adding the preposition περί, which is missing because it is, in
context, syntactically and semantically self-explicable, καὶ [περὶ] τοῦ τόπου
τοῦ ἐν τῇ Πυκνί. The conjunction καὶ indicates a distinction between the two
prepositional phrases: “this deserted spot and the area of the Pnyx.” So it is
possible that “the deserted spot” may not refer to the Pnyx, the place where
the ecclēsia took place, but to another, unidentified place, perhaps one that
is adjacent to the meeting place of the Assembly, or to a specific spot on
the hill – neither the Pnyx as a whole nor the central part of it.59 This is
all the more likely bearing in mind that the delivery of Aeschines 1 almost
coincides with the start of the enlargement of the Pnyx, which may have
improved accessibility. The unidentified spot to which Aeschines 1.82 points
may or may not be the same place as that in Xenophon’s Ways and Means
2.6; the ancient “complaint” about the housing policy of Athens, made in
Xenophon’s account, indicates that there were other deserted places in the
broader territory of the polis.60
Pushing aside I stigma Aeschines attaches to the physical place of the
Pnyx, the ancient texts are marked by a surprising paucity of information
about why the hill was preferred as the meeting place of the Assembly. To
combat this textual silence, the following section will explore the criteria
of theater– and temple-building. There are two interrelated aspects of the
cultural identity of the ancient polis, since many theaters were built around
sanctuaries (e.g., the theater in Epidaurus, which is located on the west
side of mount Kynortio, was erected as part of the general development of
the sanctuary of Asklepios) to decode the rationale behind the choice of
the places where activities important for democracy were carried out. It is
not coincidental that “the layout and orientation of the Pnyx borrowed the
59
This suggestion is evident in the translation of the text in Rydberg-Cox (2000,
426): “During his speech, Autolycus said that the council did not approve of the
proposition and said, ‘Do not be surprised if Timarchus has more knowledge than
the Areopagus council about this isolated spot on the Pnyx’” (emphasis by the
author).
60
Xenophon, Ways and Means 2.6: “Then again, since there are many vacant sites
for houses within the walls, if the state allowed approved applicants to erect houses
on these and granted them the freehold of the land, I think that we should find a
larger and better class of persons desiring to live at Athens.”
45
theatrical innovations that took place under the tyrants, including the layout
of the agora and the rise of the single actor, or protagonist[ē]s, facing and
answering the chorus and audience, attributed to poets like Thespis in the
sixth century” (see Fredal 2006, 123).
The Pnyx was not protected from the wind and other natural pestilential
causes of health problems, as described in ancient literature. An invaluable
source of information is Vitruvius’ On Architecture, despite this being
significantly late and thus not fully relevant to the reasoning behind choosing
a specific natural scenery for constructing important sites in democratic
Athens. In 1.6.3, Vitruvius refers to the topographical reasons for choosing
a specific place to erect public edifices, which mostly have to do with the
observation of natural effects (in addition to other sociocultural reasons,
including religiously laden ones, such as soothsaying,61 or even the gods
themselves choosing the place to erect their temples, as, for example, in the
Homeric Hymn to Apollo 244–304):62
In a place sheltered from the winds, those who are in health

preserve it, those who are ill soon convalesce, though in other,
even healthy places, they would require different treatment,
and this entirely on account of their shelter from the winds.
The disorders difficult to cure in exposed situations are
colds, gout, coughs, phthisis, pleurisy, spitting of blood, and
those diseases which are treated by replenishment instead of
exhaustion of the natural forces. Such disorders are cured with
61
Vitruvius, On Architecture 1.4.9: “The precepts of the ancients, in this respect,
should ever be observed. They always, after sacrifice, carefully inspected the livers
of those animals fed on that spot whereon the city was to be built, or whereon
a stative encampment was intended. If the livers were diseased and livid, they
tried others, in order to ascertain whether accident or disease was the cause of
the imperfection; but if the greater part of the experiments proved, by the sound
and healthy appearance of the livers, that the water and food of the spot were
wholesome, they selected it for the garrison. If the reverse, they inferred, as in the
case of cattle, so in that of the human body, the water and food of such a place
would become pestiferous; and they therefore abandoned it, in search of another,
valuing health above all other considerations.”
62
In the Homeric Hymn to Apollo 244–304 there are details of the physical scenery
that beguiled Apollo to choose it for the construction of his temple, as, for example,
in 267–274 (Telphousa, the Boeotian Naiad-nymph of the Telphousian spring on
Mount Tilphousios, talks to Apollo): “Lord, you are than I am, yours surely the
strength that is greatest— do you in Krisa erect it, below a ravine of Parnassos.
There will no beautiful chariots ever be dashing, or swift-hoofed horses be clattering
loudly, surrounding your well-built altar; rather, to you great gifts will the glorious
nations of mankind bring, as Ië́ paíán, Hail Healer; delighting in mind you then will
receive fine victims from all of the neighboring peoples.”

difficulty. First, because they are the effect of cold; secondly,

because the strength of the patient being greatly diminished
by the disorder, the air agitated by the action of the winds
becomes poor and exhausts the body’s moisture, tending to
make it low and feeble; whereas, that air which from its soft
and thick nature is not liable to great agitation, nourishes and
refreshes its strength.
And again, in 5.3.1–2:
When the forum is placed, a spot as healthy as possible is

to be chosen for the theatre, for the exhibition of games on the
festival days of the immortal gods, according to the instructions
given in the first book respecting the healthy disposition of
the walls of a city. For the spectators, with their wives and
children, delighted with the entertainment, sit out the whole
of the games, and the pores of their bodies being opened by
the pleasure they enjoy, are easily affected by the air, which, if
it blows from marshy or other noisome places, infuses its bad
qualities into the system. These evils are avoided by the careful
choice of a situation for the theatre, taking especial precaution
that it be not exposed to the south; for when the sun fills the
cavity of the theatre, the air confined in that compass being
incapable of circulating, by its stoppage therein, is heated, and
burns up, extracts, and diminishes the moisture of the body. On
these accounts, those places where bad air abounds are to be
avoided, and wholesome spots to be chosen.
At another point, 5.9.9, Vitruvius points out there are two reasons for
the choice of the locations for public edifices: “they are conducive to two
good purposes; to health in time of peace, and to preservation in time of
war.” The Pnyx may satisfy the second reason, providing protection to the
Athenians in times of war because it sits above the city, but it certainly does
not fulfil the first reason, to protect against natural causes of ill health. As
mentioned above, on Pnyx I, when the edifices followed the natural slope,
the challenge was that the pulpit and the seats were stricken by north winds.
This problem has already been stated in Kourouniotes, Thompson (1932,
136), when arguing that “there must have been many days when it would
have been utterly impossible to hold a public meeting on the place unless
some protection [was] available against the whistling, piercing wind. On
such days, however, the Theater of Dionysus would lie in perfect calm and
comparative warmth as a result of the shelter afforded by the Acropolis to
the north.”
47
Therefore, there may be other reasons why the ecclēsia took place on the
slope of the Pnyx, specifically three. The first is the hill’s central location
in Athens. Theatrical performances, which attracted the interest of vast
Athenian and non-Athenian audiences, were held in the Theater of Dionysus,
on the south slope of the Acropolis, and near two other key areas of the
ancient polis: the agora, the center of political, economic, and other public
activities, and the Pnyx. In Acharnians 1–42, Aristophanes commented on
the behavior of the presiding officers in the Assembly, saying that they came
to the meetings late because “they are gossiping in the marketplace, slipping
hither and thither to avoid the vermilioned rope.” All the important activities
of democratic Athens took place in the broad political area, with Fredal
noting that “the Pnyx is not located in the physical center of the city, but as
the site for collective deliberation among the entire demos, it constituted the
political center, signified by the fact that it ‘centered’ upon the agora” (see
Fredal 2006, 121, emphasis by the author). In 1.7.1 Vitruvius corroborates
the idea that sacred edifices, “if inland, should be in the centre of the town.”
Therefore, given that the Pnyx is close to the other important precincts, it is
reasonable to presume that its centrality made it a good choice for the place
where the Athenians took decisions about the city.
The second reason is the height of the hill and the views it offers. In 4.5.2
Vitruvius points out that “the temple is to be turned as much as possible, so
that the greater part of the city may be seen from it” (cf. 1.7.1, “the temples
of the gods, protectors of the city, also those of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva,
should be on some eminence which commands a view of the greater part
of the city”). This appears to be the case with the Pnyx: the physical setting
where the Assembly held its meetings should face the polis, functioning as
a proper and (cognitively/emotionally) effective reminder to the decision-
making Athenians of their sacred duty to cast their vote to the advantage
of the city. The location of the ecclēsia on the Pnyx, therefore, acquires a
symbolic dimension: the Athenians climbed the hill to see what they must
protect by their vote – the city below. Their decision was not, therefore,
driven by an abstract idea of their land, but by a very concrete one, which
may have functioned as a source of inspiration for the speakers (see
Wordsworth 1855, 55; Fredal 2006, 121–122), while also creating a sense
of magnitude and solemnity that enhanced the allure of the place where
important decisions about the city were taken (cf. Aristotle, Poetics 1451a).63
63
Aristotle, Poetics 1451a: “As then creatures and other organic structures must
have a certain magnitude and yet be easily taken in by the eye, so too with plots:
they must have length but must be easily taken in by the memory.”

The third architectural and topographical reason why the Pnyx was
selected for Assembly meetings is suggested by Fredal, who argues that “[u]
nlike the bema on a plain (the agora), which would raise the speaker above
his audience, the Pnyx (period 1) placed the speaker below his audience,
who looked down upon him. [...] [T]he whole audience was kept before
him so that they could be seen easily at a glance” (Fredal 2006, 122–123,
emphasis by the author). To add to Fredal’s reasoning, the setting allows
the audience members to appear before the speaker as a seamless decision-
making body – and this enhances the sense of unity among them, reminding
them pertinently that, despite their argumentative and rhetorical clashes,
which underline the stark differences between political factions, they are
united on the hill, as they should be, for the benefit of the polis. The Pnyx
promotes somatic unity to harness its symbolic, civic meaning; after all, it is
civic unity that guarantees that Athens will function properly and prosper
unequivocally.
5. CONCLUSION
Despite its extensive length this study is but a modest step forward in
the direction of researching and further understanding the topographical,
rhetorical, and other cultural workings on the Pnyx. The aims of this study
were threefold. The first was to prepare an annotated compendium of
references in Attic oratory to two words that most often describe the place
and the political workings there: Πνύξ and ἐκκλησία. The second aim was to
offer an analysis of performance as it is incorporated into and indicated by
the text of seven symbouleutic speeches of Demosthenes – three Olynthiacs
and seven Philippics. Analysis of performance in the Assembly is compared
with that in the law court, with some overarching conclusions being drawn
about how much of a difference the etiquette of specific institutional settings
truly makes in sustaining a lively presentation of the speech and in achieving
persuasion. The third and final aim of this study was to explore aspects
that have to do with topography: the physical setting, the construction of
the Assembly and its acoustics, and the impact that topography may have
had on determining the character of the political processes in the Assembly.
Another aim has been to answer the question of why the hill was chosen as
the meeting place for the Athenians when they sought to make decisions
about crucial matters that regulated the internal functioning of the polis
and its relationship with other poleis. The arguments that this paper puts
forward have the potential to ignite further interdisciplinary work and help
49
scholars better and more adequately understand what happened in the hill
whose name is synonymous with democracy and political deliberation in
classical Athens.
REFERENCES
[1] Adolphs, Ralph. 2013. The Biology of Fear. Current Biology 23: R79–
R93.
[2] Arena, Valentina. 2007. Roman Oratorical Invective. 149–160 in A
Companion to Roman Rhetoric, edited by W. Dominik, J. Hall. London:
Wiley-Blackwell.
[3] Athanasopoulos, Christos. 1976. Problems in Contemporary Theatrical
Developments. Athens: Edition Sideris.
[4] Barkas, Nicolaos. 1994. The Acoustical Parameter of Ancient Greek
Theater Design. Thessaloniki Greece: Monument & Environment.
[5] Barkas, Nikos. 2019. The Contribution of the Stage Design to the
Acoustics of Ancient Greek Theatres. Acoustics 1: 337–353.
[6] Bauman, Richard A. 1990. Political Trials in Ancient Greece. London and
New York: Routledge.
[7] Bers, Victor. 1985. Dikastic Thorubos. 1–15 in Crux: Essays Presented
to G. E. M. de Ste Croix on his 75th Birthday, edited by Paul A. Cartledge
and David Harvey. Devon: Duckworth.
[8] Bers, Victor. 2013. Performing the Speech in Athenian Courts and
Assembly Adjusting the Act to Fit the Bēma? Bulletin of the Institute of
Classical Studies 123: 27–40.
[9] Bicknell, Peter J. 1987. Voting in Tribal Groups in the Athenian Assembly.
Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies 28: 51–92.
[10] Bicknell, Peter J. 1989. Athenians Politically Active in Pnyx II. Greek
Roman and Byzantine Studies 30: 98–100.
[11] Bruel, Per V. 2002. Models of Ancient Sound Vases. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America 112: 2333.
[12] Burke, Kenneth. 1969. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
[13] Burkert, Walter. 1972. Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[14] Camp, John M. 1986. The Athenian Agora: Excavations in the Heart of
Classical Athens. New York: Thames and Hudson.
[15] Canac, François. 1957. L’acoustique des Theatres Antiques, ses
enseignements. France: Centre national de la recherche scientifique.
[16] Carey, Christopher. 2000. Aeschines. Austin: University of Texas Press.
[17] Chourmouziadou, Kalliopi. 2007. Ancient and Contemporary Use of
Open-air Theatres: Evolution and Acoustic Effect on Scenery Design. Diss.
The University of Sheffield.
[18] Conover, Pamela Johnston. 1984. The Influence of Group Identifications
on Political Perception and Evaluation. The Journal of Politics 46: 760–
785.
[19] Csapo, Eric, William J. Slater. 1995. The Context of Ancient Drama. Ann
Arbor: Michigan University Press.
[20] Declercq, Nico F., Cindy S. A. Dekeyser. 2007. Acoustic diffraction effects
at the Hellenistic amphitheater of Epidaurus: Seat rows responsible
for the marvelous acoustics. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America 121: 2011–2022.
[21] Deonna, Julien A., Raffaele Rodogno, Fabrice Teroni. 2011. In Defence of
Shame. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[22] Dilke, Oswald Ashton Wentworth. 1948. The Greek Theatre Cavea. The
Annual of the British School at Athens 43:125–192.
[23] Ellsworth, P. C., E. M. W. Tong. 2006. What Does it Mean to be Angry
at Yourself? Categories, Appraisals, and the Problem of Language.
Emotion 6: 572–586.
[24] Enos, Richard Leo. 1998. Review of Theory, Text, Context: Issues in Greek
Rhetoric and Oratory, by C. L. Johnstone. Rhetoric Review 16: 327–334.
[25] Fisher, Nick. 2001. Aeschines, Against Timarchos: Introduction,
Translation and Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[26] Fitzgerald, E. 1855. On Acoustic Vases and Other Relics Discovered
in Restorations Lately Made in the Church of St. Mary, Youghal.
Proceedings and Transactions of the Kilkenny and South-East of Ireland
Archaeological Society 3: 303–310.
[27] Forsén, Björn, Greg Stanton. 1996. The Pnyx in the History of Athens.
Proceedings of an International Colloquium Organised by the Finnish
Institute at Athens, 7–9 October, 1994. Athens: Finnish Institute at
Athens.
51
[28] Fredal, James. 2006. Rhetorical Action in Ancient Athens: Persuasive

Artistry from Solon to Demosthenes. Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press.
[29] Gilbert, Paul, Julie Pehl, Steven Allan. 1994. The Phenomenology of
Shame and Guilt: An Empirical Investigation. British Journal of Medical
Psychology 67: 23–36.
[30] Goularas, Dionysis. 1995. Acoustics of Ancient Theatres. Diss. Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki.
[31] Gülnihan, Atay, Zühre Sü Gül. 2021. Clay Pots of Ottoman Architecture:
Acoustics, Structure, and Ventilation. Proceedings of Meetings on
Acoustics 42: 015003.
[32] Guthrie, William Keith Chambers. 1962. A History of Greek Philosophy:
Volume 1, The Earlier Presocratics and the Pythagoreans. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
[33] Hall, Edith. 1995. Lawcourt Dramas: The Power of Performance in
Greek Forensic Oratory. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 40:
39–58.
[34] Hall, Edith. 2002. The Singing Actors of Antiquity. 3–38 in Greek and
Roman Actors, Aspects of an Ancient Profession, edited by Patricia
Easterling, Edith Hall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[35] Hall, Edith. 2006. The Theatrical Cast of Athens. Interactions between
Ancient Greek Drama and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[36] Hall, Edith. 2022. Some Functions of Rhetorical Questions in Lysias’
Forensic Orations. TBA in Style and the City: Form and Functions of
Language in Attic Oratory (special issue in Trends in Classics), edited by
Alessandro Vatri and Andreas Serafim.
[37] Hansen, Mogens Herman. 1976. Apagoge, Endeixis and Ephegesis
against Kakourgoi, Atimoi and Pheugontes. Odense: Odense University
Press.
[38] Hansen, Mogens Herman. 1982. The Athenian Ecclesia and the
Assembly-Place on the Pnyx. Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies 23:
246–248.
[39] Hansen, Mogens Herman. 1983 The Athenian Ecclesia: A Collection of
Articles 1976–83. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.
[40] Hansen, Mogens Herman. 1985. Demography and Democracy: The
Number of Athenian Citizens in the Fourth Century BC. Herning: Systime.
[41] Hansen, Mogens Herman. 1989. The Athenian Ecclesia II, A Collection of
Articles, 1983–1989. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.

[42] Hansen, Mogens Herman. 1991. The Athenian Democracy in the

Age of Demosthenes: Structure, Principles, and Ideology. Oxford and
Cambridge/MA: B. Blackwell.
[43] Harrison, Evelyn B. 1890. The Athenian Agora. Princeton, NJ: American
School of Classical Studies at Athens.
[44] Hitching, Sam. 2017. The Date of [Demosthenes] 17, On the Treaty with
Alexander. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 109: 167–197.
[45] Huddy, Leonie. 2003. Group Identity and Political Cohesion. 511–558
in Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, edited by David O. Sears,
Leonie Huddy and Robert Jervis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[46] Hunt, Lester H. 1978. Character and Thought. American Philosophical
Quarterly 15: 177–186.
[47] Izenour, George C. 1977. Theater Design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[48] Jimenez, Marta. 2020. Plato on the Role of Anger in Our Intellectual
and Moral Development. 285–307 in Emotions in Plato, edited by Laura
Candiotto, Olivier Renaut. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
[49] Johnstone, Christopher Lyle, Richard J. Graff. 2018. Situating Deliberative
Rhetoric in Ancient Greece: The Bouleutêrion as a Venue for Oratorical
Performance. Advances in the History of Rhetoric 21: 2–88.
[50] Johnstone, Christopher Lyle. 1996. Greek Oratorical Settings and the
Problem of the Pnyx: Rethinking the Athenian Political Process. 97–127
in Theory, Text, Context: Issues in Greek Rhetoric and Oratory, edited by
Christopher Lyle Johnstone. Albany: State University of New York Press.
[51] Johnstone, Christopher Lyle. 2001. Communicating in Classical
Contexts: The Centrality of Delivery. Quarterly Journal Speech 87: 121–
143.
[52] Judeich, Walter. 1931. Topographie von Athen. 2d ed. Munich: Beck.
[53] Kim, Kyungyoon, Bret Jackson, Ioannis Karamouzas, Moses Adeagbo,
Stephen J. Guy, Richard Graff. 2015. Bema: A multimodal interface
for expert experiential analysis of political assemblies at the Pnyx in
ancient Greece, 2015 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI),
19–26.
[54] Kourouniotes, Konstantinos, Homer A. Thompson. 1932. The Pnyx in
Athens. Hesperia 1: 90–217.
[55] Lau, Ronald Siu Man. 1989. Individual and Contextual Influences on
Group Identification. Social Psychology Quarterly 52: 220–231.
53
[56] Ley, Graham. 2006. A Short Introduction to the Ancient Greek Theater.
Rev. ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[57] MacDowell, Douglas. 2000. Demosthenes, On the False Embassy. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
[58] Manzetti, Maria Cristina. 2019. The Performances at the Theatre of the
Pythion in Gortyna, Crete. Virtual Acoustics Analysis as a Support for
Interpretation. Open Archaeology 5: 434–443.
[59] Martin, Gunther. 2006. Forms of Address in Athenian Courts. Museum
Helveticum 63: 75–88.
[60] Mayer, James. 2011. Mythological History, Identity Formation, and the
Many Faces of Alexander the Great. https://digitalcommons.macalester.
edu/classics_honors/11/ (last visited 16 February 2023).
[61] Michalopoulos, Andreas, Andreas Serafim, Alessandro Vatri, Flaminia
Beneventano della Corte (eds.). 2021. The Rhetoric of Unity and Division
in Ancient Literature. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.
[62] Miller, Arthur H., Patricia Gurin, Gerald Gurin, Oksana Malanchuk. 1981.
Group Consciousness and Political Participation. American Journal of
Political Science 25: 494–511.
[63] Moysey, Robert A. 1981. The Thirty and the Pnyx. American Journal of
Archaeology 85: 31–37.
[64] Pickard-Cambridge, Arthur Wallace. 1968. The Dramatic Festivals of
Athens. Oxford: Clarendon University Press.
[65] Roseman, Ira J. 1991. Appraisal determinants of discrete emotions.
Cognition and Emotion 5: 161–200.
[66] Rosenwein, B. 2002. Worrying about Emotions in History. American
Historical Review 107: 821–845.
[67] Rosenwein, B. 2006. Emotional Communities in the Early Middle Ages.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
[68] Rotroff, Susan I., John McK. Camp. 1996. The Date of the Third Period
of the Pnyx. Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical
Studies at Athens 65: 263–294.
[69] Rubinstein, Lene. 2004. Stirring up Dicastic Anger. 187–203 in Law,
Rhetoric, and Comedy in Classical Athens. Essays in honour of Douglas M.
MacDowell, edited by Douglas L. Cairns and Ronald Arbuthnott Knox.
Wales: Classical Press of Wales.

[70] Rubinstein, Lene. 2005. Differentiated Rhetorical Strategies in the

Athenian Courts. 129–145 in The Cambridge Companion to Ancient
Greek Law, edited by Michael Gagarin and David Cohen. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
[71] Scherer, K. R. 2005. Unconscious Processes in Emotion: The Bulk of the
Iceberg. 312–334 in Emotion and Consciousness, edited by Lisa Feldman
Barrett, Paula M. Niedenthal, Piotr Winkielman. London and New York:
The Guilford Press.
[72] Serafim, Andreas. 2015. Making the Audience: Ekphrasis and Rhetorical
Strategy in Demosthenes 18 and 19. Classical Quarterly 65: 96–108.
[73] Serafim, Andreas. 2017. Attic Oratory and Performance. London and
New York: Routledge.
[74] Serafim, Andreas. 2020. ΕΡΩΤΗΣΟΝ ΑΥΤΟΥΣ: Questions, Rhetorical
Purpose, and Hypocrisis in Attic Forensic Oratory. 229–248 in Law,
Magic, and Oratory, edited by Gerhard Thür, Sima Avramović, Andreja
Katančević. Belgrade: University of Belgrade Faculty of Law.
[75] Serafim, Andreas. 2021. “I, He, We, You, They“: Addresses to the
Audience as a Means of Unity/Division in Attic Forensic Oratory. 71–98
in The Rhetoric of Unity and Division in Ancient Literature, edited by
Andreas Michalopoulos, Andreas Serafim, Alessandro Vatri, Flaminia
Beneventano della Corte. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.
[76] Serafim, Andreas. 2021. Religious Discourse in Attic Oratory and Politics.
London and New York: Routledge.
[77] Serafim, Andreas. 2022. The Mood of Persuasion: Imperatives and
Subjunctives in Attic Oratory. 299–317 in Style and the City: Form
and Functions of Language in Attic Oratory (special issue in Trends in
Classics), edited by Alessandro Vatri and Andreas Serafim.
[78] Serafim, Andreas. Forthcoming. As in a Game of Minesweeper:
Fakeness, Imprecision, and Truth about the Body in Attic Oratory.
TBA in Fake News in und aus der Antike: Formen und Funktionen von
“Falschmeldungen” in der antiken griechischen Literatur und ihre
Auswirkungen auf das moderne Verständnis, edited by Amphilochios
Papathomas, Diego De Brasi and Theofanis Tsiampokalos. Mnemosyne
Supplements.
[79] Sevillano, Arturo Barba, Radu Lacatis, Alicia Giménez, José Romero.
2008. Acoustics Vases in Ancient Theatres: Disposition, Analysis from
the Ancient Tetracordal Musical System. The Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America 123: 3604.
55
[80] Sicking, Christiaan Marie Jan. 1991. The Distribution of Aorist and
Present Tense Stem Forms in Greek, Especially in the Imperative. Glotta
69: 14–43, 154–170.
[81] Silva, Laura. 2022. On Being Angry at Oneself. Ratio 35: 236–244.
[82] Sinker, A.P. 1937. A Verse-Translation of Lucretius Lucretius, De Rerutn
Natura. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[83] Sommerstein, Alan H. 1981. The Comedies of Aristophanes. Warminster:
Aris & Phillips.
[84] Sourvinou-Inwood, Christiane. 1988. Further Aspects of Polis Religion.
AION 10: 259–274.
[85] Sourvinou-Inwood, Christiane. 1990. What is Polis Religion? 295–322
in The Greek City: From Homer to Alexander, edited by Oswyn Murray
and Simon Price. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[86] Tajfel, Henri, John. C. Turner. 1979. An Integrative Theory of Intergroup
Conflict. 33–37 in The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations,
edited by William G. Austin, Stephen Worchel. Michigan: Brooks Cole
Publishing.
[87] Taplin, Oliver. 1999. Spreading the Word Through Performance. 33–
57 in Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy, edited by Simon
Goldhill and Robin Osborne. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[88] Thomas, Rosalind. 2011. And You, the Dēmos, Made an Uproar:
Performance, Mass Audiences, and Text in the Athenian Democracy.
161–187 in Sacred Words: Orality, Literacy, and Religion, edited by
André P. M. H. Lardinois, Josine H. Blok and Marc G. M. van der Poel.
Leiden and Boston: Brill.
[89] Thompson, Homer A., R. L. Scranton. 1943. Stoas and City Walls on the
Pnyx. Hesperia 12: 269–383.
[90] Valière, Jean-Christophe, Bénédicte Palazzo-Bertholon, Jean-Dominique
Polack, Pauline Carvalho. 2013. Acoustic Pots in Ancient and Medieval
Buildings: Literary Analysis of Ancient Texts and Comparison with
Recent Observations in French Churches. Acta Acustica united with
Acustica 99: 70–81.
[91] Vovolis, Thanos, Giorgos Zamboulakis. 2007. The Acoustical Mask of
Greek Tragedy. Didaskalia 7: 1–7.
[92] Wiles, David. 1997. Theatre and Citizenship: The History of a Practice.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[93] Wordsworth, Christopher. 1855. Athens and Attica: Notes of a Tour.

London: John Murray.
[94] Worthington, Ian. 2020. ‘Fake News’: The Greek Orators’ Rhetorical
Presentation of The Past. Roda da Fortuna: Electronic Journal about
Antiquity and Middle Ages 9: 15–31.
FIGURES
FIGURES
Figure 1. The three phases of the Pnyx. Drawing by John Travlos.

Figure 1. The three phases of the Pnyx.
http://www.agathe.gr/democracy/the_ekklesia.html Drawing
(last byFebruary
visited: 20 2023) http://
John Travlos.
www.agathe.gr/democracy/the_ekklesia.html (last visited: 20 February
2023).
57

Figure 2 (a-b-c). 3D models showing the evolution of the Pnyx assembly area and
relative
Figuresize of the three
2 (a-b-c). 3Dphases.
modelsKim,showing
Kyungyoon al. 2015. of the Pnyx assembly
theet evolution
Figure 2 (a-b-c). 3D models showing the evolution of the Pnyx assembly area and
area and relative size of the three phases. Kim, Kyungyoon et al. 2015.
relative size of the three phases. Kim, Kyungyoon et al. 2015.
Figure3.3.
Figure The
The Pnyx,
Pnyx, aboutabout 500
500 BC. BC. by
Model Model by C. Mammelis.
C. Mammelis. Athens,
Athens, Agora Museum.Agora
Museum. http://www.agathe.gr/democracy/the_ekklesia.html
http://www.agathe.gr/democracy/the_ekklesia.html (last visited: 20 February(last
2023)visited:
20 February 2023).
59
Figure 3. The Pnyx, about 500 BC. Model by C. Mammelis. Athens, Agora Museum.
http://www.agathe.gr/democracy/the_ekklesia.html (last visited: 20 February 2023)
Figure 4a. The remnants of the bēma, the speaker’s platform, on the Pnyx. Source:
the author.
Figure
Figure 4a.
4a.The
Theremnants of the
remnants bēma,
of the the speaker’s
bēma, platform,
the speaker’s on the on
platform, Pnyx.
theSource:
Pnyx.
the author.
Source: the author.
Figure
Figure 4b.4b.The diateichisma
Thediateichisma – –a anew
new fortification
fortification wallwall behind
behind the stoas,
the stoas, built
built in the
4th the th BC.
century The Source:
Figure
in 44b. BC.the author.
diateichisma
century – a the
Source: newauthor.
fortification wall behind the stoas, built in the
4th century BC. Source: the author.
60
Аnali PFB 1/2023

Figure 4c. Remains of the retaining wall built during the third phase of the Pnyx’s
development. Source: the author.
Figure4c.
Figure 4c.Remains
Remainsofofthethe retaining
retaining wallwall
builtbuilt during
during the phase
the third third phase of the
of the Pnyx’s
development. Source: the
Pnyx’s development. author. the author.
Source:
Figure
Figure 5.5.The
The reconstruction
reconstruction of Vitruvius’ ēcheia byēcheia
of Vitruvius’ by (after
R. Floriot R. Floriot (after
Panckoucke’s
1847 publication of Vitruvius). Source: Valière et al. 2013, 70–81.
Panckoucke’s 1847 publication of Vitruvius). Source: Valière et al. 2013,
Figure
70–81.5. The reconstruction of Vitruvius’ ēcheia by R. Floriot (after Panckoucke’s
1847 publication of Vitruvius). Source: Valière et al. 2013, 70–81.

61

Figure 6. Reconstruction of Vitruvius’ information about the distribution of bronze

acoustic
Figure pots in an ancient theatre.
6. Reconstruction Source: Sevillano
of Vitruvius’ et al. 2008.
information about the distribution of
Figure 6. Reconstruction
bronze of an
acoustic pots in Vitruvius’ information
ancient theatre. about
Source: the distribution
Sevillano of bronze
et al. 2008.
acoustic pots in an ancient theatre. Source: Sevillano et al. 2008.
Figure 7. Acoustic pot that is embedded in the wall of the church of the
Chartreuse Notre-Dame-du-Val-de-Bénédiction, Villeneuve-lès-Avignon,
Figure 7. Acoustic pot that is embedded in the wall of the church of the Chartreuse
France. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_jar
Notre-Dame-du-Val-de-Bénédiction, (last visited: 20 February
Villeneuve-lès-Avignon, France.
2023).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_jar (last visited: 20 February 2023)

Figure 7. Acoustic pot that is embedded in the wall of the church of the Chartreuse
Notre-Dame-du-Val-de-Bénédiction, Villeneuve-lès-Avignon, France.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_jar (last visited: 20 February 2023)
Figure8.8.Clay
Figure Claypots
potsused
usedininthethe
flooring system
flooring of the
system Hazine-i
of the EvrakEvrak
Hazine-i Building in
Building
Constantinople. Source: Atay, Gül (2021, 1–12, on p. 8).
in Constantinople. Source: Atay, Gül (2021, 1–12, on p. 8).
Article history:
Received:Article history:
14. 10. 2022.
Received: 14. 10. 2022.
Accepted: 03. 03. 2023.
Accepted: 3. 3. 2023.

63

članci: Revisiting The Hill of Pnyx: The Physical, Rhetorical, and Sociocultural Contexts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

članci: Revisiting The Hill of Pnyx: The Physical, Rhetorical, and Sociocultural Contexts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

članci: Revisiting The Hill of Pnyx: The Physical, Rhetorical, and Sociocultural Contexts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

/ČLANCI

Andreas SERAFIM, PhD*

REVISITING THE HILL OF PNYX: THE PHYSICAL,

This paper offers a holistic reconsideration and reexamination of what the

Key words: Pnyx. – Assembly. – Political speeches. – Performance. –

The Pnyx is rightly considered the most important landmark of the

2 Аnali PFB 1/2023

2. TEXTUAL REFERENCES TO THE PNYX AND THE ECCLĒSIA

4 Аnali PFB 1/2023

References to the ecclēsia were made most frequently when it was

6 Аnali PFB 1/2023

Internal references External references Neutral references

Aeschines 1.178, Demosthenes Aeschines 1.35 (2 references),

Internal references External references Neutral references

Assembly),13 3.67, 3.73; Isocrates 7.68 on economic

3. RHETORIC IN ACTION: PERFORMANCE IN DEMOSTHENES’

3.1. Performing in the Court and the Assembly: Convergences and

This section aims to examine “rhetoric in action”, a term that is comparable

remains, in classical scholarship, an essential research enquiry (for attempts

10 Аnali PFB 1/2023

speaker (performer) and the audience, especially inasmuch as the audience

figures of speech (such as repetition); the accumulation of questions and/

12 Аnali PFB 1/2023

of Demosthenes explored in this paper.26 One of the most notorious features

It is reasonable expect – at least from a modern standpoint – that the

14 Аnali PFB 1/2023

to accuse the members of the decision-making audience of not being worthy

καίτοι ταῦτα, καὶ εἰ μικρά τις ἡγεῖται, μεγάλ᾽, ὦ ἄνδρες

16 Аnali PFB 1/2023

30: Shipwrecker; cf. Proverbs 36). Demosthenes, perhaps capitalizing on

μὴ γὰρ ὡς θεῷ νομίζετ᾽ ἐκείνῳ τὰ παρόντα πεπηγέναι

Do not believe that his present power is fixed and

Apostrophizing the Athenians directly, Demosthenes claims that Philip’s

18 Аnali PFB 1/2023

If the question before us were a new one, men of Athens,

proposals, I should have remained silent, but if not satisfied, I

3.1.2. Ēthos and Pathos

It is well established in both ancient and modern theory that the

20 Аnali PFB 1/2023

δεῖ τοίνυν ὑμᾶς, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τὴν ἀκαιρίαν τὴν

22 Аnali PFB 1/2023

do not stand up to their enemies, especially when they have opportunities

of physiology. Adolphs notes, for example, that “switches from passive to

24 Аnali PFB 1/2023

Demosthenes calculatedly tries to present Philip as a threat, and thus a

It seems to me, Athenians, as if some god, out of very shame

rest satisfied with what he has already captured and subdued,

26 Аnali PFB 1/2023

ὥστε τὴν Ἀριστείδου καὶ τὴν Μιλτιάδου καὶ τῶν τότε

no place in their statesmanship, but each thought it his duty to

As argued elsewhere by the author, Demosthenes makes a tacit yet

The transmitted symbouleutic speeches of Demosthenes contain specific

28 Аnali PFB 1/2023

that Longinus discusses in On the Sublime 18 to illustrate the vehemence

§64: [1] What do you imagine is his motive in outraging

30 Аnali PFB 1/2023

In addition to questions, direct speech is also ubiquitous in all the parts of

32 Аnali PFB 1/2023