Chapter 11

See the biographies by Plutarch and Nepos; Xen.Hellenica, i. 5-iii. 5; Diod. Sic. xiii. 70 sqq., 104 sqq., xiv. 3, 10, 13, 81; Lysias xii. 60 sqq.; Justin v. 5-7; Polyaenus i. 45, vii. 19; Pausanias iii., ix. 32, 5-10, x. 9, 7-11; C. A. Gehlert,Vita Lysandri(Bautzen, 1874); W. Vischer,Alkibiades und Lysandros(Basel, 1845); O. H. J. Nitzsch,De Lysandro(Bonn, 1847); and the Greek histories in general.

(M. N. T.)

LYSANIAS,tetrarch of Abilene (seeAbila), according to Luke iii. 1, in the time of John the Baptist. The only Lysanias mentioned in profane history as exercising authority in this district was executed in 36B.C.by M. Antonius (Mark Antony). This Lysanias was the son of Ptolemy Mennaeus, the ruler of an independent state, of which Abilene formed only a small portion. According to Josephus (Ant.xix. 5, 1) the emperor Claudius inA.D.42 confirmed Agrippa I. in the possession of “Abila of Lysanias” already bestowed upon him by Caligula, elsewhere described as “Abila, which had formed the tetrarchy of Lysanias.” It is argued that this cannot refer to the Lysanias executed by M. Antonius, since his paternal inheritance, even allowing for some curtailment by Pompey, must have been of far greater extent. It is therefore assumed by some authorities that the Lysanias in Luke (A.D.28-29) is a younger Lysanias, tetrarch of Abilene only, one of the districts into which the original kingdom was split up after the death of Lysanias I. This younger Lysanias may have been a son of the latter, and identical with, or the father of, the Claudian Lysanias. On the other hand, Josephus knows nothing of a younger Lysanias, and it is suggested by others that he really does refer to Lysanias I. The explanation given by M. Krenkel (Josephus und Lucas, Leipzig, 1894, p. 97) is that Josephus does not mean to imply that Abila was the only possession of Lysanias, and that he calls it the tetrarchy or kingdom of Lysanias because it was the last remnant of the domain of Lysanias which remained under direct Roman administration until the time of Agrippa. The expression was borrowed from Josephus by Luke, who wrongly imagined that Lysanias I. had ruled almost up to the time of the bestowal of his tetrarchy upon Agrippa, and therefore to the days of John the Baptist. Two inscriptions are adduced as evidence for the existence of a younger Lysanias—Böckh,C.I.G.4521 and 4523. The former is inconclusive, and in the latter the readingΑνσ[ανιου]is entirely conjectural; the name might equally well be Lysimachus or Lysias.

See E. Schürer,Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes(3rd ed., 1901), i. p. 712; and (especially on the inscriptional evidence) E. Renan, “Mémoire sur la dynastie des Lysanias d’Abilène” inMémoires de l’institut impérial de France(xxvi., 1870); also P. W. Schmiedel in theEncyclopaedia Biblica, s.v.

LYSIAS,Attic orator, was born, according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the author of the life ascribed to Plutarch, in 459B.C.This date was evidently obtained by reckoning back from the foundation of Thurii (444B.C.), since there was a tradition that Lysias had gone thither at the age of fifteen. Modern critics would place his birth later,—between 444 and 436B.C.,—because, in Plato’sRepublic, of which the scene is laid about 430B.C., Cephalus, the father of Lysias, is among thedramatis personae, and the emigration of Lysias to Thurii was said to have followed his father’s death. The latter statement, however, rests only on the Plutarchic life; nor can Plato’s dialogue be safely urged as a minutely accurate authority. The higher date assigned by the ancient writers agrees better with the tradition that Lysias reached, or passed, the age of eighty.1Cephalus, his father, was a native of Syracuse, and on the invitation of Pericles had settled at Athens. The opening scene of Plato’sRepublicis laid at the house of his eldest son, Polemarchus, in Peiraeus. The tone of the picture warrants the inference that the Sicilian family were well known to Plato, and that their houses must often have been hospitable to such gatherings.

At Thurii, the colony newly planted on the Tarentine Gulf (seePericles), the boy may have seen Herodotus, now a man in middle life, and a friendship may have grown up between them. There, too, Lysias is said to have commenced his studies in rhetoric—doubtless under a master of the Sicilian school—possibly, as tradition said, under Tisias, the pupil of Corax, whose name is associated with the first attempt to formulate rhetoric as an art. In 413B.C.the Athenian armament in Sicily was annihilated. The desire to link famous names is illustrated by the ancient ascription to Lysias of a rhetorical exercise purporting to be a speech in which the captive general Nicias appealed for mercy to the Sicilians. The terrible blow to Athens quickened the energies of an anti-Athenian faction at Thurii. Lysias and his elder brother Polemarchus, with three hundred other persons, were “accused of Atticizing.” They were driven from Thurii and settled at Athens (412B.C.).

Lysias and Polemarchus were rich men, having inherited property from their father; and Lysias claims that, though merely resident aliens, they discharged public services with a liberality which shamed many of those who enjoyed the franchise (In Eratosth.20). The fact that they owned house property shows that they were classed asἰσοτελεῖς,i.e.foreigners who paid only the same tax as citizens, being exempt from the special tax (μετοίκιον) on resident aliens. Polemarchus occupied a house in Athens itself, Lysias another in the Peiraeus, near which was their shield manufactory, employing a hundred and twenty skilled slaves. In 404 the Thirty Tyrants were established at Athens under the protection of a Spartan garrison. One of their earliest measures was an attack upon the resident aliens, who were represented as disaffected to the new government. Lysias and Polemarchus were on a list of ten singled out to be the first victims. Polemarchus was arrested, and compelled to drink hemlock. Lysias had a narrow escape, with the help of a large bribe. He slipped by a back-door out of the house in which he was a prisoner, and took boat to Megara. It appears that he had rendered valuable services to the exiles during the reign of the tyrants, and in 403 Thrasybulus proposed that these services should be recognized by the bestowal of the citizenship. The Boulē, however, had not yet been reconstituted, and hence the measure could not be introduced to the ecclesia by the requisite “preliminary resolution” (προβούλευμα). On this ground it was successfully opposed.

During his later years Lysias—now probably a comparatively poor man owing to the rapacity of the tyrants and his own generosity to the Athenian exiles—appears as a hardworking member of a new profession—that of writing speeches to be delivered in the law-courts. The thirty-four extant are but a small fraction. From 403 to about 380B.C.his industry must have been incessant. The notices of his personal life in these years are scanty. In 403 he came forward as the accuser of Eratosthenes, one of the Thirty Tyrants. This was his only direct contact with Athenian politics. The story that he wrote a defence for Socrates, which the latter declined to use, probably arose from a confusion. Several years after the death of Socrates the sophist Polycrates composed a declamation against him, to which Lysias replied. A more authentic tradition represents Lysias as having spoken his ownOlympiacusat the Olympic festival of 388B.C., to which Dionysius I. of Syracuse had sent a magnificent embassy. Tents embroidered with gold were pitched within the sacred enclosure; and the wealth of Dionysius was vividly shown by the number of chariots which he had entered. Lysias lifted up his voice to denounce Dionysius as, next to Artaxerxes, the worst enemy of Hellas, and to impress upon the assembled Greeks that one of their foremost duties was to deliver Sicily from a hateful oppression. The latest work of Lysias which we can date (a fragment of a speechFor Pherenicus) belongs to 381 or 380B.C.He probably died in or soon after 380B.C.

Lysias was a man of kindly and genial nature, warm in friendship, loyal to country, with a keen perception of character.and a fine though strictly controlled sense of humour. The literary tact which is so remarkable in the extant speeches is that of a singularly flexible intelligence, always obedient to an instinct of gracefulness. He owes his distinctive place to the power of concealing his art. It was obviously desirable that a speech written for delivery by a client should be suitable to his age, station and circumstances. Lysias was the first to make this adaptation really artistic. His skill can be best appreciated if we turn from the easy flow of his graceful language to the majestic emphasis of Antiphon, or to the self-revealing art of Isaeus. Translated into terms of ancient criticism, he became the model of the “plain style” (ἰοχνὸς χαρακτήρ, ἰοχνὴ, λιτὴ, ἀφελὴς λέξις:genus tenueorsubtile). Greek and then Roman critics distinguished three styles of rhetorical composition—the “grand” (or “elaborate”), the “plain” and the “middle,” the “plain” being nearest to the language of daily life. Greek rhetoric began in the “grand” style; then Lysias set an exquisite pattern of the “plain”; and Demosthenes might be considered as having effected an almost ideal compromise.

The vocabulary of Lysias is pure and simple. Most of the rhetorical “figures” are sparingly used—except such as consist in the parallelism or opposition of clauses. The taste of the day—not yet emancipated from the influence of the Sicilian rhetoric—probably demanded a large use of antithesis. Lysias excels in vivid description; he has also a happy knack of marking the speaker’s character by light touches. The structure of his sentences varies a good deal according to the dignity of the subject. He has equal command over the “periodic” style (κατεστραμμένη λέξις) and the non-periodic or “continuous” (εἰρομένη, διαλελυμένη). His disposition of his subject-matter is always simple. The speech has usually four parts—introduction (προοίμιον), narrative of facts (διήγησις), proofs (πίστεις), which may be either external, as from witnesses, or internal, derived from argument on the facts, and, lastly, conclusion (ἐπίλογος). It is in the introduction and the narrative that Lysias is seen at his best. In his greatest extant speech—thatAgainst Eratosthenes—and also in the fragmentaryOlympiacus, he has pathos and fire; but these were not characteristic qualities of his work. In Cicero’s judgment (De Orat.iii. 7, 28) Demosthenes was peculiarly distinguished by force (vis), Aeschines by resonance (sonitus), Hypereides by acuteness (acumen), Isocrates by sweetness (suavitas); the distinction which he assigns to Lysias issubtilitas, an Attic refinement—which, as he elsewhere says (Brutus, 16, 64) is often joined to an admirable vigour (lacerti). Nor was it oratory alone to which Lysias rendered service; his work had an important effect on all subsequent Greek prose, by showing how perfect elegance could be joined to plainness. Here, in his artistic use of familiar idiom, he might fairly be called the Euripides of Attic prose. And his style has an additional charm for modern readers, because it is employed in describing scenes from the everyday life of Athens.2

Thirty-four speeches (three fragmentary) have come down under the name of Lysias; one hundred and twenty-seven more, now lost, are known from smaller fragments or from titles. In the Augustan age four hundred and twenty-five works bore his name, of which more than two hundred were allowed as genuine by the critics. Our thirty-four works may be classified as follows:—A.Epideictic.—1.Olympiacus, xxxiii. 388B.C.; 2.Epitaphius, ii. (purporting to have been spoken during the Corinthian War; certainly spurious), perhaps composed about 380-340B.C.(“soon after 387,” Blass).B.Deliberative.—Plea for the Constitution, xxxiv., 403B.C.C.Forensic, in Public Causes.—I.Relating to Offences directly against the State (γραφαὶ δημοσίων ἀδικημάτων); such as treason, malversation in office, embezzlement of public moneys.1. For Polystratus, xx., 407B.C.; 2. Defence on a Charge of Taking Bribes, xxi., 402B.C.; 3. Against Ergocles, xxviii., 389B.C.; 4. Against Epicrates, xxvii., 389B.C.; 5. Against Nicomachus, xxx., 399B.C.; 6. Against the Corndealers, xxii., 386B.C.(?) II.Cause relating to Unconstitutional Procedure(γραφὴ αρανόμων). On the Property of the Brother of Nicias, xviii., 395B.C.III.Causes relating to Claims for Money withheld from the State(ἀπογραφαί). 1. For the Soldier, ix. (probably not by Lysias, but by an imitator, writing for a real cause), 394B.C.(?); 2. On the Property of Aristophanes, xix., 387B.C.; 3. Against Philocrates, xxix., 389B.C.IV.Causes relating to a Scrutiny(δοκιμασία);especially the Scrutiny, by the Senate, of Officials Designate.1. Against Evandrus, xxvi., 382B.C.; 2. For Mantitheus, xvi., 392B.C.; 3. Against Philon, xxxi., between 404 and 395B.C.; 4. Defence on a Charge of Seeking to Abolish the Democracy, xxv., 401B.C.; 5. For the Invalid, xxiv., 402B.C.(?) V.Causes relating to Military Offences(γραφαὶ λιποταξίου, ἀστρατείας). 1. Against Alcibiades, I. and II. (xiv., xv.), 395B.C.VI.Causes relating to Murder or Intent to Murder(γραφαὶ φόνου, τραύματος ἐκ προνοίας). 1. Against Eratosthenes, xii., 403B.C.; 2. Against Agoratus, xiii., 399B.C.; 3. On the Murder of Eratosthenes, i. (date uncertain); 4. Against Simon, iii., 393B.C.; 5. On Wounding with Intent, iv. (date uncertain). VII.Causes relating to Impiety(γραφαὶ ἀσεβείας). 1. Against Andocides, vi. (certainly spurious, but perhaps contemporary); 2. For Callias, v. (date uncertain); 3. On the Sacred Olive, vii., not before 395B.C.D.Forensic, in Private Causes.—I.Action for Libel(δίκη κακηγορίας). Against Theomnestus, x., 384-383B.C.(the so-called second speech, xi., is merely an epitome of the first). II.Action by a Ward against a Guardian(δίκη ἐπιτροπῆς). Against Diogeiton, xxxii., 400B.C.III.Trial of a Claim to Property(διαδικασία). On the property of Eraton, xvii., 397B.C.IV.Answer to a Special Plea(πρὸς παραγραφήν). Against Pancleon, xxiii. (date uncertain).E.Miscellaneous.—1. To his Companions, a Complaint of Slanders, viii. (certainly spurious); 2. Theἐρωτικόςin Plato’sPhaedrus, pp. 230 E-234. This has generally been regarded as Plato’s own work; but the certainty of this conclusion will be doubted by those who observe (1) the elaborate preparations made in the dialogue for a recital of theἐρωτικόςwhich shall beverbally exact, and (2) the closeness of the criticism made upon it. If the satirist were merely analysing his own composition, such criticism would have little point. Lysias is the earliest writer who is known to have composedἐρωτικόί; it is as representing both rhetoric and a falseἔρωςthat he is the object of attack in thePhaedrus.F.Fragments.—Three hundred and fifty-five of these are collected by Sauppe,Oratores Attici, ii. 170-216. Two hundred and fifty-two of them represent one hundred and twenty-seven speeches of known title; and of six the fragments are comparatively large. Of these, the fragmentary speechFor Pherenicusbelongs to 381 or 380B.C., and is thus the latest known work of Lysias.3In literary and historical interest, the first place among the extant speeches of Lysias belongs to thatAgainst Eratosthenes(403B.C.), one of the Thirty Tyrants, whom Lysias arraigns as the murderer of his brother Polemarchus. The speech is an eloquent and vivid picture of the reign of terror which the Thirty established at Athens; the concluding appeal, to both parties among the citizens, is specially powerful. Next in importance is the speechAgainst Agoratus(399B.C.), one of our chief authorities for the internal history of Athens during the months which immediately followed the defeat at Aegospotami. TheOlympiacus(388B.C.) is a brilliant fragment, expressing the spirit of the festival at Olympia, and exhorting Greeks to unite against their common foes. ThePlea for the Constitution(403B.C.) is interesting for the manner in which it argues that the wellbeing of Athens—now stripped of empire—is bound up with the maintenance of democratic principles. The speechFor Mantitheus(392B.C.) is a graceful and animated portrait of a young Athenianἱππεύς, making a spirited defence of his honour against the charge of disloyalty. The defenceFor the Invalidis a humorous character-sketch. The speechAgainst Pancleonillustrates the intimate relations between Athens and Plataea, while it gives us some picturesque glimpses of Athenian town life. The defence of the person who had been charged with destroying amoria, or sacred olive, places us amidst the country life of Attica. And the speechAgainst Theomnestusdeserves attention for its curious evidence of the way in which the ordinary vocabulary of Athens had changed between 600 and 400B.C.All MSS. of Lysias yet collated have been derived, as H. Sauppe first showed, from the Codex Palatinus X. (Heidelberg). The next most valuable MS. is the Laurentianus C (15th century), which I. Bekker chiefly followed. Speaking generally, we may say that these two MSS. are the only two which carry much weight where the text is seriously corrupt. InOratt.i.-ix. Bekker occasionally consulted eleven other MSS., most of which contain only the above nine speeches: viz., Marciani F, G, I, K (Venice); Laurentiani D, E (Florence); Vaticani M, N; Parisini U, V; Urbinas O.Bibliography.—Editio princeps, Aldus (Venice, 1513); by I. Bekker (1823) and W. S. Dobson (1828) inOratores Attici; C. Scheibe (1852) and T. Thalheim (1901, Teubner series, with bibliography); C. G. Cobet (4th ed., by J. J. Hartman, 1905); with variorum notes, by J. J. Reiske (1772). Editions of select speeches by J. H. Bremi (1845); R. Rauchenstein (1848, revised by C. Fuhr, 1880-1881); H. Frohberger (1866-1871); H. van Herwerden (1863); A. Weidner (1888); E. S. Shuckburgh (1882); A. Westermann and W. Binder (1887-1890); G. P. Bristol (1892), M. H. Morgan (1895), C. D. Adams (1905), all three published in America. There is a special lexicon to Lysias by D. H. Holmes (Bonn, 1895). See also Jebb’sAttic Orators(1893) andSelections from the Attic Orators(2nded., 1888) and F. Blass,Die Attische Beredsamkeit(2nd ed., 1887-1898); W. L. Devries,Ethopoiia. A rhetorical study of the types of character in the orations of Lysias(Baltimore, 1892).

A.Epideictic.—1.Olympiacus, xxxiii. 388B.C.; 2.Epitaphius, ii. (purporting to have been spoken during the Corinthian War; certainly spurious), perhaps composed about 380-340B.C.(“soon after 387,” Blass).

B.Deliberative.—Plea for the Constitution, xxxiv., 403B.C.

C.Forensic, in Public Causes.—I.Relating to Offences directly against the State (γραφαὶ δημοσίων ἀδικημάτων); such as treason, malversation in office, embezzlement of public moneys.1. For Polystratus, xx., 407B.C.; 2. Defence on a Charge of Taking Bribes, xxi., 402B.C.; 3. Against Ergocles, xxviii., 389B.C.; 4. Against Epicrates, xxvii., 389B.C.; 5. Against Nicomachus, xxx., 399B.C.; 6. Against the Corndealers, xxii., 386B.C.(?) II.Cause relating to Unconstitutional Procedure(γραφὴ αρανόμων). On the Property of the Brother of Nicias, xviii., 395B.C.III.Causes relating to Claims for Money withheld from the State(ἀπογραφαί). 1. For the Soldier, ix. (probably not by Lysias, but by an imitator, writing for a real cause), 394B.C.(?); 2. On the Property of Aristophanes, xix., 387B.C.; 3. Against Philocrates, xxix., 389B.C.IV.Causes relating to a Scrutiny(δοκιμασία);especially the Scrutiny, by the Senate, of Officials Designate.1. Against Evandrus, xxvi., 382B.C.; 2. For Mantitheus, xvi., 392B.C.; 3. Against Philon, xxxi., between 404 and 395B.C.; 4. Defence on a Charge of Seeking to Abolish the Democracy, xxv., 401B.C.; 5. For the Invalid, xxiv., 402B.C.(?) V.Causes relating to Military Offences(γραφαὶ λιποταξίου, ἀστρατείας). 1. Against Alcibiades, I. and II. (xiv., xv.), 395B.C.VI.Causes relating to Murder or Intent to Murder(γραφαὶ φόνου, τραύματος ἐκ προνοίας). 1. Against Eratosthenes, xii., 403B.C.; 2. Against Agoratus, xiii., 399B.C.; 3. On the Murder of Eratosthenes, i. (date uncertain); 4. Against Simon, iii., 393B.C.; 5. On Wounding with Intent, iv. (date uncertain). VII.Causes relating to Impiety(γραφαὶ ἀσεβείας). 1. Against Andocides, vi. (certainly spurious, but perhaps contemporary); 2. For Callias, v. (date uncertain); 3. On the Sacred Olive, vii., not before 395B.C.

D.Forensic, in Private Causes.—I.Action for Libel(δίκη κακηγορίας). Against Theomnestus, x., 384-383B.C.(the so-called second speech, xi., is merely an epitome of the first). II.Action by a Ward against a Guardian(δίκη ἐπιτροπῆς). Against Diogeiton, xxxii., 400B.C.III.Trial of a Claim to Property(διαδικασία). On the property of Eraton, xvii., 397B.C.IV.Answer to a Special Plea(πρὸς παραγραφήν). Against Pancleon, xxiii. (date uncertain).

E.Miscellaneous.—1. To his Companions, a Complaint of Slanders, viii. (certainly spurious); 2. Theἐρωτικόςin Plato’sPhaedrus, pp. 230 E-234. This has generally been regarded as Plato’s own work; but the certainty of this conclusion will be doubted by those who observe (1) the elaborate preparations made in the dialogue for a recital of theἐρωτικόςwhich shall beverbally exact, and (2) the closeness of the criticism made upon it. If the satirist were merely analysing his own composition, such criticism would have little point. Lysias is the earliest writer who is known to have composedἐρωτικόί; it is as representing both rhetoric and a falseἔρωςthat he is the object of attack in thePhaedrus.

F.Fragments.—Three hundred and fifty-five of these are collected by Sauppe,Oratores Attici, ii. 170-216. Two hundred and fifty-two of them represent one hundred and twenty-seven speeches of known title; and of six the fragments are comparatively large. Of these, the fragmentary speechFor Pherenicusbelongs to 381 or 380B.C., and is thus the latest known work of Lysias.3

In literary and historical interest, the first place among the extant speeches of Lysias belongs to thatAgainst Eratosthenes(403B.C.), one of the Thirty Tyrants, whom Lysias arraigns as the murderer of his brother Polemarchus. The speech is an eloquent and vivid picture of the reign of terror which the Thirty established at Athens; the concluding appeal, to both parties among the citizens, is specially powerful. Next in importance is the speechAgainst Agoratus(399B.C.), one of our chief authorities for the internal history of Athens during the months which immediately followed the defeat at Aegospotami. TheOlympiacus(388B.C.) is a brilliant fragment, expressing the spirit of the festival at Olympia, and exhorting Greeks to unite against their common foes. ThePlea for the Constitution(403B.C.) is interesting for the manner in which it argues that the wellbeing of Athens—now stripped of empire—is bound up with the maintenance of democratic principles. The speechFor Mantitheus(392B.C.) is a graceful and animated portrait of a young Athenianἱππεύς, making a spirited defence of his honour against the charge of disloyalty. The defenceFor the Invalidis a humorous character-sketch. The speechAgainst Pancleonillustrates the intimate relations between Athens and Plataea, while it gives us some picturesque glimpses of Athenian town life. The defence of the person who had been charged with destroying amoria, or sacred olive, places us amidst the country life of Attica. And the speechAgainst Theomnestusdeserves attention for its curious evidence of the way in which the ordinary vocabulary of Athens had changed between 600 and 400B.C.

All MSS. of Lysias yet collated have been derived, as H. Sauppe first showed, from the Codex Palatinus X. (Heidelberg). The next most valuable MS. is the Laurentianus C (15th century), which I. Bekker chiefly followed. Speaking generally, we may say that these two MSS. are the only two which carry much weight where the text is seriously corrupt. InOratt.i.-ix. Bekker occasionally consulted eleven other MSS., most of which contain only the above nine speeches: viz., Marciani F, G, I, K (Venice); Laurentiani D, E (Florence); Vaticani M, N; Parisini U, V; Urbinas O.

Bibliography.—Editio princeps, Aldus (Venice, 1513); by I. Bekker (1823) and W. S. Dobson (1828) inOratores Attici; C. Scheibe (1852) and T. Thalheim (1901, Teubner series, with bibliography); C. G. Cobet (4th ed., by J. J. Hartman, 1905); with variorum notes, by J. J. Reiske (1772). Editions of select speeches by J. H. Bremi (1845); R. Rauchenstein (1848, revised by C. Fuhr, 1880-1881); H. Frohberger (1866-1871); H. van Herwerden (1863); A. Weidner (1888); E. S. Shuckburgh (1882); A. Westermann and W. Binder (1887-1890); G. P. Bristol (1892), M. H. Morgan (1895), C. D. Adams (1905), all three published in America. There is a special lexicon to Lysias by D. H. Holmes (Bonn, 1895). See also Jebb’sAttic Orators(1893) andSelections from the Attic Orators(2nded., 1888) and F. Blass,Die Attische Beredsamkeit(2nd ed., 1887-1898); W. L. Devries,Ethopoiia. A rhetorical study of the types of character in the orations of Lysias(Baltimore, 1892).

(R. C. J.; X.)

1[W. Christ,Gesch. der griech. Litt., gives the date of birth as about 450.]2See further Jebb,The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeus, i. 142-316.3[Some remains of the speech against Theozotides have been found in the Hibeh papyri; see W. H. D. Rouse’sThe Year’s Work in Classical Studies(1907)].

1[W. Christ,Gesch. der griech. Litt., gives the date of birth as about 450.]

2See further Jebb,The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeus, i. 142-316.

3[Some remains of the speech against Theozotides have been found in the Hibeh papyri; see W. H. D. Rouse’sThe Year’s Work in Classical Studies(1907)].

LYSIMACHUS(c.355-281B.C.), Macedonian general, son of Agathocles, was a citizen of Pella in Macedonia. During Alexander’s Persian campaigns he was one of his immediate bodyguard and distinguished himself in India. After Alexander’s death he was appointed to the government of Thrace and the Chersonese. For a long time he was chiefly occupied with fighting against the Odrysian king Seuthes. In 315 he joined Cassander, Ptolemy and Seleucus against Antigonus, who, however, diverted his attention by stirring up Thracian and Scythian tribes against him. In 309, he founded Lysimachia in a commanding situation on the neck connecting the Chersonese with the mainland. He followed the example of Antigonus in taking the title of king. In 302 when the second alliance between Cassander, Ptolemy and Seleucus was made, Lysimachus, reinforced by troops from Cassander, entered Asia Minor, where he met with little resistance. On the approach of Antigonus he retired into winter quarters near Heraclea, marrying its widowed queen Amastris, a Persian princess. Seleucus joined him in 301, and at the battle of Ipsus Antigonus was slain. His dominions were divided among the victors, Lysimachus receiving the greater part of Asia Minor. Feeling that Seleucus was becoming dangerously great, he now allied himself with Ptolemy, marrying his daughter Arsinoë. Amastris, who had divorced herself from him, returned to Heraclea. When Antigonus’s son Demetrius renewed hostilities (297), during his absence in Greece, Lysimachus seized his towns in Asia Minor, but in 294 concluded a peace whereby Demetrius was recognized as ruler of Macedonia. He tried to carry his power beyond the Danube, but was defeated and taken prisoner by the Getae, who, however, set him free on amicable terms. Demetrius subsequently threatened Thrace, but had to retire in consequence of a rising in Boeotia, and an attack from Pyrrhus of Epirus. In 288 Lysimachus and Pyrrhus in turn invaded Macedonia, and drove Demetrius out of the country. Pyrrhus was at first allowed to remain in possession of Macedonia with the title of king, but in 285 he was expelled by Lysimachus. Domestic troubles embittered the last years of Lysimachus’s life. Amastris had been murdered by her two sons; Lysimachus treacherously put them to death. On his return Arsinoë asked the gift of Heraclea, and he granted her request, though he had promised to free the city. In 284 Arsinoë, desirous of gaining the succession for her sons in preference to Agathocles (the eldest son of Lysimachus), intrigued against him with the help of her brother Ptolemy Ceraunus; they accused him of conspiring with Seleucus to seize the throne, and he was put to death. This atrocious deed of Lysimachus aroused great indignation. Many of the cities of Asia revolted, and his most trusted friends deserted him. The widow of Agathocles fled to Seleucus, who at once invaded the territory of Lysimachus in Asia. Lysimachus crossed the Hellespont, and in 281 a decisive battle took place at the plain of Corus (Corupedion) in Lydia. Lysimachus was killed; after some days his body, watched by a faithful dog, was found on the field, and given up to his son Alexander, by whom it was interred at Lysimachia.

See Arrian,Anab.v. 13, vi. 28; Justin xv. 3, 4, xvii. 1; Quintus Curtius v. 3, x. 30; Diod. Sic. xviii. 3; Polybius v. 67; Plutarch,Demetrius, 31. 52,Pyrrhus, 12; Appian,Syriaca, 62; Thirlwall,History of Greece, vol. viii. (1847); J. P. Mahaffy,Story of Alexander’s Empire; Droysen,Hellenismus(2nd ed., 1877); A. Holm,Griechische Geschichte, vol. iv. (1894); B. Niese,Gesch. d. griech. u. maked. Staaten, vols. i. and ii. (1893, 1899); J. Beloch,Griech. Gesch.vol. iii. (1904); Hünerwadel,Forschungen zur Gesch. des Königs Lysimachus(1900); Possenti,Il Re Lisimaco di Tracia(1901); Ghione,Note sul regno di Lisimaco(Atti d. real. Accad. di Torino, xxxix.); andMacedonian Empire.

(E. R. B.)

LYSIPPUS,Greek sculptor, was head of the school of Argos and Sicyon in the time of Philip and Alexander of Macedon. His works are said to have numbered 1500, some of them colossal. Some accounts make him the continuer of the school of Polyclitus; some represent him as self-taught. The matter in which he especially innovated was the proportions of the male human body; he made the head smaller than his predecessors, the body more slender and hard, so as to give the impression of greater height. He also took great pains with hair and other details. Pliny (N.H.34, 61) and other writers mention many of his statues. Among the gods he seems to have produced new and striking types of Zeus (probably of the Otricoli class), of Poseidon (compare the Poseidon of the Lateran, standing with raised foot), of the Sun-god and others; many of these were colossal figures in bronze. Among heroes he was specially attracted by the mighty physique of Hercules. The Hercules Farnese of Naples, though signed by Glycon of Athens, and a later and exaggerated transcript, owes something, including the motive of rest after labour, to Lysippus. Lysippus made many statues of Alexander the Great, and so satisfied his patron, no doubt by idealizing him, that he became the court sculptor of the king, from whom and from whose generals he received many commissions. The extant portraits of Alexander vary greatly, and it is impossible to determine which among them go back to Lysippus. The remarkable head from Alexandria (Plate II. fig. 56, inGreek Art) has as good a claim as any.

As head of the great athletic school of Peloponnese Lysippus naturally sculptured many athletes; a figure by him of a man scraping himself with a strigil was a great favourite of the Romans in the time of Tiberius (Pliny,N.H.34, 61); and this has been usually regarded as the original copied in the Apoxyomenus of the Vatican (Greek Art, Plate VI. fig. 79). If so, the copyist has modernized his copy, for some features of the Apoxyomenus belong to the Hellenistic age. With more certainty we may see a copy of an athlete by Lysippus in the statue of Agias found at Delphi (Greek Art, Plate V. fig. 74), which is proved by inscriptions to be a replica in marble of a bronze statue set up by Lysippus in Thessaly. And when the Agias and the Apoxyomenus are set side by side their differences are so striking that it is difficult to attribute them to the same author, though they may belong to the same school.

(P. G.)

LYSIS OF TARENTUM(d.c.390B.C.), Greek philosopher. His life is obscure, but it is generally accepted, that in the persecution of the Pythagoreans at Crotona and Metapontum he escaped and went to Thebes, where he came under the influence of Philolaus. The friend and companion of Pythagoras, he has been credited with many of the works usually attributed to Pythagoras himself. Diogenes Laertius viii. 6 gives him three, and Mullach even assigns to him theGolden Verses. But it is generally held that these verses are a collection of lines by many authors rather than the work of one man.

LYSISTRATUS,a Greek sculptor of the 4th centuryB.C., brother of Lysippus of Sicyon. We are told by Pliny (Nat. Hist.35, 153) that he followed a strongly realistic line, being the first sculptor to take impressions of human faces in plaster.

LYTE, HENRY FRANCIS(1793-1847), Anglican divine and hymn-writer, was born near Kelso on the 1st of June 1793, and was educated at Enniskillen school and at Trinity College, Dublin. He took orders in 1815, and for some time held a curacy near Wexford. Owing to infirm health he came to England, and after several changes settled, in 1823, in the parish of Brixham. In 1844 his health finally gave way; and he died at Nice on the 20th of November 1847.

Lyte’s first work wasTales in Verse illustrative of Several of the Petitions in the Lord’s Prayer(1826), which was written at Lymington and was commended by Wilson in theNoctes Ambrosianae. He next published (1833) a volume ofPoems, chiefly Religious, and in 1834 a little collection of psalms and hymns entitledThe Spirit of the Psalms. After his death, a volume ofRemainswith a memoir was published, and the poems contained in this, with those inPoems, chiefly Religious, were afterwards issued in one volume (1868). His best known hymns are “Abide with me! fast falls the eventide”; “Jesus, I my cross have taken”; “Praise, my soul, the King of Heaven”; and “Pleasant are Thy courts above.”

LYTHAM,an urban district and watering-place in the Blackpool parliamentary division of Lancashire, England, on the north shore of the estuary of the Ribble, 13½ m. W. of Preston by a joint line of the London & North Western and Lancashire & Yorkshire railways. Pop. (1901) 7185. It has a pier, apleasant promenade and drive along the shore, and other appointments of a seaside resort, but it is less wholly devoted to holiday visitors than Blackpool, which lies 8 m. N.W. A Benedictine cell was founded here at the close of the 12th century by the lord of the manor, Richard Fitz-Roger.

LYTTELTON, GEORGE LYTTELTON,1st Baron(1709-1773), English statesman and man of letters, born at Hagley, Worcestershire, was a descendant of the great jurist Sir Thomas Littleton (q.v.). He was the eldest son of Sir Thomas Lyttelton, 4th bart. (d. 1751), who at the revolution of 1688 and during the following reign was one of the ablest Whig debaters of the House of Commons.1Lyttelton was educated at Eton and Oxford, and in 1728 set out on the grand tour, spending considerable periods at Paris and Rome. On his return to England he sat in parliament for Okehampton, Devonshire, beginning public life in the same year with Pitt. From 1744 to 1754 he held the office of a lord commissioner of the treasury. In 1755 he succeeded Legge as chancellor of the exchequer, but in 1756 he quitted office, being raised to the peerage as Baron Lyttelton, of Frankley, in the county of Worcester. In the political crisis of 1765, before the formation of the Rockingham administration, it was suggested that he might be placed at the head of the treasury, but he declined to take part in any such scheme. The closing years of his life were devoted chiefly to literary pursuits. He died on the 22nd of August 1773.

Lyttelton’s earliest publication (1735),Letters from a Persian in England to his Friend at Ispahan, appeared anonymously. Much greater celebrity was achieved by hisObservations on the Conversion and Apostleship of St Paul, also anonymous, published in 1747. It takes the form of a letter to Gilbert West, and is designed to show that St Paul’s conversion is of itself a sufficient demonstration of the divine character of Christianity. Dr Johnson regarded the work as one “to which infidelity has never been able to fabricate a specious answer.” Lord Lyttelton’sDialogues of the Dead, a creditable performance, though hardly rivalling either Lucian or Landor, appeared in 1760. HisHistory of Henry II.(1767-1771), the fruit of twenty years’ labour, is not now cited as an authority, but is painstaking and fair. Lyttelton was also a writer of verse; hisMonodyon his wife’s death has been praised by Gray for its elegiac tenderness, and hisPrologueto theCoriolanusof his friend Thomson shows genuine feeling. He was also the author of the well-known stanza in theCastle of Indolence, in which the poet himself is described. A complete collection of theWorksof Lord Lyttelton was published by his nephew, G. E. Ayscough in 1774.

His sonThomas(1744-1779), who succeeded as 2nd baron, played some part in the political life of his time, but his loose and prodigal habits were notorious, and he is known, in distinction to his father “the good lord,” as the wicked Lord Lyttelton. He left no lawful issue, and the barony became extinct; but it was revived in 1794 in the person of his uncleWilliam Henry, 1st baron of the new creation (1724-1808), who was governor of S. Carolina and later of Jamaica, and ambassador to Portugal. The new barony went after him to his two sons. The 3rd baron (1782-1837) was succeeded by his sonGeorge William Lyttelton, 4th baron (1817-1876), who was a fine scholar, and brother-in-law of W. E. Gladstone, having married Miss Mary Glynne. He did important work in educational and poor law reform. He had eight sons, of whom the eldest,Charles George(b. 1842), became 5th baron, and in 1889 succeeded, by the death of the 3rd duke of Buckingham and Chandos, to the viscounty of Cobham, in which title the barony of Lyttelton is now merged. Other distinguished sons were Arthur Temple Lyttelton (d. 1903), warden of Selwyn College, Cambridge, and bishop-suffragan of Southampton; Edward Lyttelton (b. 1855), headmaster of Haileybury (1890-1905) and then of Eton; and Alfred Lyttelton (b. 1857), secretary of state for the colonies (1903-1906). It was a family of well-known cricketers, Alfred being in his day the best wicket-keeper in England as well as a fine tennis player.

For the 1st baron see Sir R. Phillimore’sMemoirs and Correspondence of Lord Lyttelton, 1734-1773 (2 vols., 1845).

1Sir Thomas (or Thomas de) Littleton, the jurist, had three sons, William, Richard and Thomas. From the first, William, was descended Sir Thomas Lyttelton, 1st bart. of Frankley (1596-1650), whose sons were Sir Henry, 2nd bart. (d. 1693), and Sir Charles, 3rd bart. (1629-1716), governor of Jamaica. The latter’s son was Sir Thomas, 4th bart., above mentioned, who was also the father of Charles Lyttelton (1714-1768), bishop of Carlisle, and president of the Society of Antiquaries. The male descendants of the second, Richard, died out with Sir Edward Littleton, bart., of Pillaton, Staffordshire, in 1812, but the latter’s grandnephew, Edward John Walhouse (1791-1863) of Hatherton, took the estates by will and also the name of Littleton, and was created 1st Baron Hatherton in 1835; he was chief secretary for Ireland (1833-1834). From Thomas, the third son, was descended, in one line, Edward, Lord Littleton, of Munslow (1589-1645), recorder of London, chief justice of the common pleas, and eventually lord keeper; and in another line, the baronets of Stoke St Milborough, Shropshire, of whom the best known and last was Sir Thomas Littleton, 3rd bart. (1647-1710), speaker of the House of Commons (1698-1700), and treasurer of the navy.

LYTTELTON,a borough of New Zealand, the port of Christchurch (q.v.) on the E. coast of South Island, on an inlet on the north-western side of Banks Peninsula. Pop. (1906) 3941. It is surrounded by abrupt hills rising to 1600 ft., through which a railway communicates with Christchurch (7 m. N.W.) by a tunnel 1¾ m. long. Great breakwaters protect the harbour, which has an area of 110 acres, with a low-tide depth of 20 to 27 ft. There is a graving dock accessible for vessels of 6000 tons. The produce of the rich agricultural district of Canterbury is exported, frozen or preserved. Lyttelton, formerly called Port Cooper and Port Victoria, was the original settlement in this district (1850).

LYTTON, EDWARD GEORGE EARLE LYTTON, BULWER-LYTTON,1st Baron(1803-1873), English novelist and politician, the youngest son of General William Earle Bulwer of Heydon Hall and Wood Dalling, Norfolk, was born in London on the 25th of May 1803. He had two brothers, William (1790-1877) and Henry (1801-1872), afterwards Lord Dalling (q.v.). Bulwer’s father died when the boy was four years old. His mother, Elizabeth Barbara, daughter of Richard Warburton Lytton of Knebworth, Hertfordshire, after her husband’s death settled in London. Bulwer, who was delicate and neurotic, gave evidence of precocious talent and was sent to various boarding schools, where he was always discontented, until in the establishment of a Mr Wallington at Ealing he found in his master a sympathetic and admiring listener. Mr Wallington induced him to publish, at the age of fifteen, an immature volume entitledIshmael and other Poems. About this time Bulwer fell in love, and became extremely morbid under enforced separation from the young lady, who was induced by her father to marry another man. She died about the time that Bulwer went to Cambridge, and he declared that her loss affected all his after-life. In 1822 he entered Trinity College, Cambridge, but removed shortly afterwards to Trinity Hall, and in 1825 won the Chancellor’s medal for English verse with a poem on “Sculpture.” In the following year he took his B.A. degree and printed for private circulation a small volume of poems,Weeds and Wild Flowers, in which the influence of Byron was easily traceable. In 1827 he publishedO’Neill, or the Rebel, a romance, in heroic couplets, of patriotic struggle in Ireland, and in 1831 a metrical satire,The Siamese Twins. These juvenilia he afterwards ignored.

Meanwhile he had begun to take his place in society, being already known as a dandy of considerable pretensions, who had acted as second in a duel and experienced the fashionable round of flirtation and intrigue. He purchased a commission in the army, only to sell it again without undergoing any service, and in August 1827 married, in opposition to his mother’s wishes, Rosina Doyle Wheeler (1802-1882), an Irish beauty, niece and adopted daughter of General Sir John Doyle. She was a brilliant but passionate girl, and upon his marriage with her, Bulwer’s mother withdrew the allowance she had hitherto made him. He had £200 a year from his father, and less than £100 a year with his wife, and found it necessary to set to work in earnest. In the year of his marriage he publishedFalkland, a novel which was only a moderate success, but in 1828 he attracted general attention withPelham, a novel for which he had gathered material during a visit to Paris in 1825. This story, with its intimate study of the dandyism of the age, was immediately popular, and gossip was busy in identifying the characters of the romance with the leading men of the time. In the same year hepublishedThe Disowned, following it up withDevereux(1829),Paul Clifford(1830),Eugene Aram(1832) andGodolphin(1833). All these novels were designed with a didactic purpose, somewhat upon the German model. To embody the leading features of a period, to show how a criminal may be reformed by the development of his own character, to explain the secrets of failure and success in life, these were the avowed objects of his art, and there were not wanting critics ready to call in question his sincerity and his morality. Magazine controversy followed, in which Bulwer was induced to take a part, and about the same time he began to make a mark in politics. He became a follower of Bentham, and in 1831 was elected member for St Ives in Huntingdon. During this period of feverish activity his relations with his wife grew less and less satisfactory. At first she had cause to complain that he neglected her in the pursuit of literary reputation; later on his disregard became rather active than passive. After a series of distressing differences they decided to live apart, and were legally separated in 1836. Three years later his wife published a novel calledCheveley, or the Man of Honour, in which Bulwer was bitterly caricatured, and in June 1858, when her husband was standing as parliamentary candidate for Hertfordshire, she appeared at the hustings and indignantly denounced him. She was consequently placed under restraint as insane, but liberated a few weeks later. For years she continued her attacks upon her husband’s character, and outlived him by nine years, dying at Upper Sydenham in March 1882. There is little doubt that her passionate imagination gravely exaggerated the tale of her wrongs, though Bulwer was certainly no model for husbands. It was a case of two undisciplined natures in domestic bondage, and the consequences of their union were as inevitable as they were unfortunate.

Bulwer, meanwhile, was full of activity, both literary and political. After representing St Ives, he was returned for Lincoln in 1832, and sat in parliament for that city for nine years. He spoke in favour of the Reform Bill, and took the leading part in securing the reduction, after vainly essaying the repeal, of the newspaper stamp duties. His pamphlet, issued when the Whigs were dismissed from office in 1834, and entitled “A Letter to a Late Cabinet Minister on the Crisis,” was immensely influential, and Lord Melbourne offered him a lordship of the admiralty, which he declined as likely to interfere with his activity as an author. At this time, indeed, his pen was indefatigable.Godolphinwas followed byThe Pilgrims of the Rhine(1834), a graceful fantasy, too German in sentiment to be quite successful in England, and then inThe Last Days of Pompeii(1834) and Rienzi (1835) he reached the height of his popularity. He took great pains with these stories, and despite their lurid colouring and mannered over-emphasis, they undoubtedly indicate the highwater mark of his talent. Their reception was enthusiastic, andErnest Maltravers(1837) andAlice, or the Mysteries(1838) were hardly less successful. At the same time he had been plunging into journalism. In 1831 he undertook the editorship of theNew Monthly, which, however, he resigned in the following year, but in 1841, the year in which he publishedNight and Morning, he started theMonthly Chronicle, a semi-scientific magazine, for which he wroteZicci, an unfinished first draft afterwards expanded intoZanoni(1842). As though this multifarious fecundity were not sufficient, he had also been busy in the field of dramatic literature. In 1838 he producedThe Lady of Lyons, a play which Macready made a great success at Covent Garden: in 1839RichelieuandThe Sea Captain, and in 1840Money. All, exceptThe Sea Captain, were successful, and this solitary failure he revived in 1869 under the title ofThe Rightful Heir. Of the others it may be said that, though they abound in examples of strained sentiment and false taste, they have nevertheless a certain theatricalflair, which has enabled them to survive a whole library of stage literature of greater sincerity and truer feeling.The Lady of LyonsandMoneyhave long held the stage, and to the last-named, at least, some of the most talented of modern comedians have given new life and probability.

In 1838 Bulwer, then at the height of his popularity, was created a baronet, and on succeeding to the Knebworth estate in 1843 added Lytton to his surname, under the terms of his mother’s will. From 1841 to 1852 he had no seat in parliament, and spent much of his time in continental travel. His literary activity waned somewhat, but was still remarkably alert for a man who had already done so much. In 1843 he issuedThe Last of the Barons, which many critics have considered the most historically sound and generally effective of all his romances; in 1847Lucretia, or the Children of the Night, and in 1848Harold, the last of the Saxon Kings. In the intervals between these heavier productions he had thrown off a volume of poems in 1842, another of translations from Schiller in 1844, and a satire calledThe New Timonin 1846, in which Tennyson, who had just received a Civil List pension, was bitterly lampooned as “school miss Alfred,” with other unedifying amenities; Tennyson retorted with some verses in which he addressed Bulwer-Lytton as “you band-box.” These poetic excursions were followed by his most ambitious work in metre, a romantic epic entitledKing Arthur, of which he expected much, and he was greatly disappointed by its apathetic reception. Having experienced some rather acid criticism, questioning the morality of his novels, he next essayed a form of fiction which he was determined should leave no loophole to suspicion, and inThe Caxtons(1849), published at first anonymously, gave further proof of his versatility and resource.My Novel(1853) andWhat will he do with it?were designed to prolong the same strain.

In 1852 he entered the political field anew, and in the conservative interest. He had differed from the policy of Lord John Russell over the corn laws, and now separated finally from the liberals. He stood for Hertfordshire and was elected, holding the seat till 1866, when he was raised to the peerage as Baron Lytton of Knebworth. His eloquence gave him the ear of the House of Commons, and he often spoke with influence and authority. In 1858 he was appointed secretary for the colonies. In the House of Lords he was comparatively inactive. His last novels wereA Strange Story(1862), a mystical romance with spiritualistic tendencies;The Coming Race(1871),The Parisians(1873)—both unacknowledged at the time of his death; andKenelm Chillingly, which was in course of publication inBlackwood’s Magazinewhen Lytton died at Torquay on the 18th of January 1873. The last three of his stories were classed by his son, the 2nd Lord Lytton, as a trilogy, animated by a common purpose, to exhibit the influence of modern ideas upon character and conduct.

Bulwer-Lytton’s attitude towards life was theatrical, the language of his sentiments was artificial and over-decorated, and the tone of his work was often so flamboyant as to give an impression of false taste and judgment. Nevertheless, he built up each of his stories upon a deliberate and careful framework: he was assiduous according to his lights in historical research; and conscientious in the details of workmanship. As the fashion of his day has become obsolete the immediate appeal of his work has diminished. It will always, however, retain its interest, not only for the merits of certain individual novels, but as a mirror of the prevailing intellectual movement of the first half of the 19th century.

Back to Index Next