1. Against Kinesias.—Harpokration mentions two speeches of Lysias against Kinesias. One of these was probably identical with that speech of Lysias ‘For Phanios’ from which Athenaeos (XIII. p. 551 D) gives an extract. Phanios had been accused by Kinesias of proposing an unconstitutional measure ( παρανόμων). The short extract in question is a personal attack upon Kinesias, whose impiety, and unfitness, therefore, to be the champion of the laws, are set forth. He is described as having belonged to a club the members of which styled themselves κακοδαιμονισταί—‘the Mephistophelians’ —in ridicule of societies who chose carefully euphemistic names ² . As the latter held their meetings on the first of the month, the seventh, or some such auspicious day, so this society made a point of meeting on one of the black days of the calendar ( ἀποφράδες ἡμέραι). Kinesias is satirised by Aristophanes, partly for his dithyrambs, partly for his atheism ³ ; and enjoyed the distinction of having a whole comedy written about him by Strattis ⁴ .

The next four fragments have all been preserved by Dionysios; who quotes the first of them in comparing Lysias with Demosthenes—the other three, in contrasting Lysias with Isaeos.

2. Against Tisis.—Tisis, a young Athenian, had quarrelled with one Archippos at the palaestra; had treacherously invited him to supper afterwards; and then tied him to a pillar and flogged him. Archippos brought an action for assault and battery ( αἰκίας δίκη); and the present speech was written for him by Lysias. The extract given by Dionysios ⁵ contains the narrative of the facts, which he compares with the similar narrative in the speech of Demosthenes against Konon (§§ 3—9). The critic remarks that to other excellences Demosthenes joined those which distinguished the narrative style of Lysias—clearness and naturalness.

3. For Pherenikos.—This fragment is concerned with historical names. Plutarch ⁶ mentions Pelopidas, Androkleidas, Pherenikos as the principal of the Thebans who fled to Athens when the Kadmea was seized by Phoebidas in 382 B.C. It appears that Androkleidas had died soon after their arrival, and that Pherenikos had taken possession of his property. He was sued for it by a rival claimant, probably also a Theban; and the present speech was made in his defence by an Athenian citizen, who had been hospitably received at Thebes by Kephisodotus, father of Pherenikos, in the exile of 404 B. C. Dionysios expressly says that the speech was made for Pherenikos as for a ξένος—which is against the improbable statement of Aristeides ⁷ that the Athenian franchise had been given to the Theban exiles on this occasion. As the exiles were restored to Thebes in 379, this speech must belong to the year 381 or 380, and is therefore the latest known work of Lysias. Quoting a passage of the same kind from a lost oration of Isaeos ⁸ —in which the advocate explains the motives of gratitude which have prompted him to come forward—Dionysios compares it with this extract. In Isaeos, we hear the rhetorician; here it is the private friend who recounts in the simplest but most telling words the great services which Pherenikos and his father had rendered to the Athenian refugees.

4. Against the Sons of Hippokrates.—A guardian is here defending himself against a charge of malversation in his trust which had been brought against him by his wards. Dionysios ⁹ places an extract from the opening of this speech beside a defence written by Isaeos for a guardian; and remarks upon the difference between the styles in which they respectively resent the imputation. The client of Isaeos uses elaborate phrases; the client of Lysias speaks like a plain man, expressing a natural sense of hardship at the recompense which his wards are giving him.

5. Against Archebiades.—A young Athenian citizen who has lately succeeded to a fortune by his father's death is sued by Archebiades for a debt alleged to have been contracted by his father. The point of the contrast which Dionysios ¹⁰ illustrates by an extract from this speech is the same as in the two last cases. Isaeos, too, had once occasion to write for a young client inexperienced in lawsuits. Yet even here he could not prevent his artificialism from showing itself. Lysias, on the contrary, has given to the life the character of a man who was never in a law-court before, who does not deserve to be there now, and who hopes never to be there again.

6. Against Aeschines.—The Aeschines in question here is that disciple whom Sokrates once advised ‘to borrow from himself by shortening his commons’ ¹¹ . Athenaeos ¹² quotes a curious passage from this speech by way of exemplifying the truth that philosophers are not always philosophers. ‘Who would have supposed,’ he says, ‘that Aeschines the Sokratic had been such a character as Lysias makes him in one of his speeches on contracts?’ ( ἐν τοῖς τῶν συμβολαίων λόγοις.) The ‘contract’ to which the speech cited by Athenaeos referred was a debt, due from Aeschines to the speaker. It is not clear, as Blass remarks, how Aeschines came to be plaintiff instead of defendant in the action; that he was so, however, is plain from the opening words. Aeschines had applied for a loan to help him to set up in business as a distiller of perfumes ( τέχνην μυρεψικὴν κατασκευάζεσθαι). The speaker had lent him the money, ‘reflecting that this Aeschines had been a disciple of Sokrates, and was in the habit of discoursing impressively concerning Justice and Virtue.’ Then come some scandalous stories about Aeschines. The genuineness of the speech has been elaborately attacked by Welcker ¹³ , who takes it to be the work of a later rhetorician, inspired by hatred of philosophers generally. He thinks it too coarsely defamatory for Lysias. This kind of argument is scarcely satisfactory when not supported by particular evidence; and in this case there is none. Sauppe and Blass seem right, then, in holding the fragment to be genuine. The broad comedy of the latter part is remarkable ¹⁴ .

Letters are mentioned among the writings of Lysias by Dionysios, by the pseudo-Plutarch and by Suidas ¹⁵ . The last-named speaks of seven; one, ‘a business letter’ ( πραγματικήν), is generally identified with the letter to Polykrates cited by Harpokration. In the other six may probably be included the letter (or address) in the Phaedros; the Erôtikos quoted by Harpokration; and the letters to Asybaros and Metaneira. A few short sentences are all that remain. But two of these are interesting; each belongs, apparently, to a letter written after some coolness or misunderstanding with a friend; and each of them shows in the writer a characteristically eager warmth towards friends.