The present volume contains the text and translation of the “Comparison of Demosthenes and Aelius Aristeides”, a treatise written by the famous scholar of the Palaiologan Renaissance Theodore Metochites in 1330, towards the end of his life. It is an interesting text, in which Metochites compares the literary merits of those two ancient orators, concluding that Aelius Aristeides is the most apt model for contemporary Byzantine rhetoricians. This was because he had lived in a similar society, which permitted him to develop his talents without being afraid of the reactions of his audience, as was the case with Demosthenes, who, living in a Greek polis under democratic rule, was obliged to pay attention to the sensibilities and the anxieties of his audience, thus exposing himself to all the dangers coming from a regime totally different from that of Metochites’ times. The text was first published by M. Gigante, and then by I. Polemis and E. Kaltsogianni in 2019. Clerc sometimes follows the first edition and other times the second one, to the detriment of his translation as we shall see.
It is to Didier Clerc’s credit that he examines the sources of this treatise exhaustively, attempting to establish its intellectual context both in his introduction and in the extensive commentary following his translation. After dealing with the life and works of Metochites (chapter 1), Clerc discusses the reception of both Demosthenes and Aristeides in Byzantium (chapter 2).
In chapter 4 Clerc attempts to reveal the methodological principles determining Metochites’ comparison of these two authors, touching on texts as diverse as Plutarch’s Parallel Lives, several comparisons of ancient authors by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Cicero, and Michael Psellus, even taking into account the progymnasmata comparing various persons, situations, cities, or even seasons of the year.
In chapter 5 Clerc attempts to treat the text through the lens of modern intertextuality, but his effort to compare Metochites’ work with the Vita of St. Theoktiste of Lesbos, a tenth-century text from an entirely different genre, does not seem especially fitting. In the next chapters the author tries to discern what Metochites draws from the preceding literary tradition (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Plutarch, Lucian, Hermogenes, and Aphthonius), and what his personal contribution to the subject is. Dealing with the more personal aspects of that treatise, Clerc concludes that through it Metochites tries to justify his own balance between the contemplative and the active life.
I regret to say that the translation is not entirely satisfying. In many cases Clerc follows the incorrect punctuation of the older edition of Gigante and misunderstands the text. An indicative and by no means exhaustive list of these mistakes follows.
2, 15-3,1 ἔπειτα λέληθας ἀβελτερίας αὐτόθεν ὑπεύθυνος ὤν. 3. Καὶ γέλωτ’ ὄφλων, οἶμαι. Τhe translator adopts the punctuation of the Gigante edition, which is wrong. ὄφλων modifies the verb λέληθας. So γέλωτ’ ὄφλων means: “and you do not realize that you are ridiculed”, and not “Et, en m’exposant au rire”.
6, 10-12 ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν ὁμοίων καὶ ἀναμφηρίστων καλῶν τοῦ ἀεὶ παρόντος, οἶμαι, κατὰ τὴν ἐποπτείαν ἤ τινα χρῆσιν, μάλιστ’ ἀεὶ πάντ’ ἂν ἴσχοντος καὶ πρὸς ἑαυτοῦ ποιεῖσθαι δυναμένου τὸν ἐποπτεύοντά οἱ ἢ καὶ ὁπῃοῦν χρώμενον. Τhe French translation “comme dans le cas des bienfaits immuables et incontestables de quelque chose qui est toujours à notre disposition-je crois-pour la contemplation ou pour quelque usage, en particulier de quelque chose qui pourrait tout contenir en soi-même” is wrong. The translator does not realize that ἴσχοντος is genitive absolute, its subject being τοῦ ἀεὶ παρόντος. Τhe correct translation is “what is present in front of our eyes from all beautiful things (surrounding us) keeps under its spell the one who contemplates it”.
7, 6 The translator adopts the wrong punctuation of Gigante, artificially dividing ὅτῳ from its apodosis τούτῳ. Τhe real meaning of the text is that anyone who happens to deal with any work of Demosthenes or Aristeides admires it, considering it better than any other writer’s; afterwards, when he happens by chance to open another book by those orators, he changes his mind and regards the new book as the best of all, and so on.
8, 5-7 αὶ μὴν ἔτ’ ἀμέλει καὶ τὸ ἦθος αὐτὸ καὶ τὴν οἴκοθεν φύσιν καὶ τὴν τοῦ λέγειν ἕξιν καὶ τὸ κράτος ἀπηντηκέναι σφίσι. It is clear that Metochites believes that the gift and the power of speech of any author depends on both the external situation of his society and his character and natural gifts (τὸ ἦθος αὐτὸ καὶ τὴν οἴκοθεν φύσιν). Therefore, the French translation “il parait clair qu’en outre aussi le caractère, la capacité naturelle, la maîtrise de l’art de la parole et la force sons présents sans aucun doute” is wrong. The edition of Polemis-Kaltsogianni correctly places a semicolon after τὴν οἴκοθεν φύσιν. The accusatives ἦθος and φύσιν depend on the previous particle κατὰ (8, 2); therefore, they are not subjects of the infinitive ἀπηντηκέναι: that function is fulfilled only by the two accusatives ἕξιν and κράτος.
9, 3-4 ὥστε καὶ δεδιέναι τοὺς ἀκροωμένους μήπως δόξειε σφίσιν ἔξω τοῦ καιροῦ σοφίζεσθαι περιττά. Νοt “de sorte aussi que ceux qui l’ecoutaient craignaient qu’il ne leur parut concevoir de discours vains”, but “so he (Aristeides) did not have to fear his audience, lest they suspect him of behaving like a sophist”.
9, 11 ὡς ἔστι καὶ ἀληθῶς οὕτως, εἰ χρὴ παρρησί’ ἐρεῖν. Ἀνὴρ χρώμενος καὶ γυμνάζων ἑαυτὸν τοῖς παλαιοῖς. Τhe translator, following Gigante’s punctuation, fragments the syntactic unity ἔστι … χρώμενος καὶ γυμνάζων, adopting the punctuation of Gigante and translating erroneously as well.
10, 10 ἰδιοπραγίαν ἐπὶ τῆς ὕστερον αὐτοῦ βιώσεως. Metochites refers to Aelius Aristeides, who was unconcerned with the reactions of his audience, since he lived at a time when the affairs of the state were the exclusive domain of the emperors. The French translation “vers la fin de son existence” is wrong. Metochites means that Aristeides lived at a later period (in comparison to Demosthenes), i.e., at the time of the Roman empire.
13, 4-9. Discussing the effects of Demosthenes’ oratory, Metochites points out that his adversaries had two options: either to fight against him and destroy him, an undertaking as difficult as destroying the walls of Babylon built by Semiramis, or to stop speaking at all. Metochites accumulates a series of infinitives as subjects of ὡς ἀνάγκην ἀπαραίτητον εἶναι. But the real options are two: a. either to fight against him (ἢ τἀναντία παραβάλλεσθαι φέροντας καί, ὡς οἷόν τ’, ἀντιπράττοντας περιγίνεσθαι καὶ κρατεῖν ἢ κρατεῖσθαι, ὃ παντὸς μᾶλλόν ἐστι, τὸ πρότερον ἐργωδέστατον, καί, κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν, Σεμιράμεια κατασπᾶν τείχη ἢ μηδὲ τοῦτο μᾶλλον, ἀλλ’ ἢ μετὰ τῆς παροιμίας, αὖ ἑτέρωθεν κινεῖν τἀκίνητα καὶ τηνάλλως μοχθεῖν), or b. to choose not to speak at all (ἢ σιωπῆς καθάπαξ ἀνύποπτα, πῶς ἄν τις, ἑκόντας ἢ ἄκοντας αἱρεῖσθαι). The translation “ou bien de rivaliser en apportant des arguments contraires et-autant que possible-de l’emporter et de vaincre en s’opposant; ou bien-ce qui est le plus probable-d’être vaincu d’emblée apres avoir prodigué le plus grand labeur, et d’ essayer, selon le dicton, d’abbatre les remparts de Sémiramis; ou bien, plutôt, en accord avec la dicton, d’essayer au contraire de déplacer l’inamovible et de peiner en vain; ou de choisir -comment pourrait-on dire?-volontairement ou non les avantages du silence” is problematic. The translator fails to realize that the infinitives κατασπᾶν τείχη, κινεῖν τἀκίνητα and τηνάλλως μοχθεῖν, are simply clarifications of the infinitive περιγίνεσθαι, not different options available to the opponents of Demosthenes. Moreover, destroying the walls of Semiramis has nothing to do with the defeat of Demosthenes’ opponents, as the translation seems to imply. Quite the opposite is the case: defeating Demosthenes is a work equal to destroying the walls of Semiramis.
16, 6-7 μηδὲν μᾶλλον ἐνεργὸς τοῖς πράγμασιν ἢ καὶ οἱ ἐν ὀνείροις μισθὸν μόνον ἔχων τῶν ἄθλων ἢ ζημίαν, τὸ παρὰ τῶν ἀκροωμένων θαῦμα. Τhe translation “mais plutôt en considérant, dans ses rêves, comme sa seule récompense ou sa seule sanction pour ses joutes oratoires l’admiration ou non de la part des auditeurs” requires modification. Aristeides does not imagine in his dreams that he receives the admiration of his audience as a recompensation for his labours. Metochites just says that he is no more involved in the affairs of his speeches than those men having a dream; his only reward is the admiration of his audience which is real, not imaginary.
17, 11-13 Ὅλως δὲ τὸ περιοδικὸν αὐτὸ σχῆμα τῆς ἑρμηνείας πολὺ μάλιστ’ εὔχρηστον καὶ ἀνυσιμώτατον ταῖς ἐμβολαῖς καὶ ἐπιχειρήσεσι τῷ Δημοσθένει, καθάπερ τὰ ἀμφήκη τῶν ξιφῶν· αὐτός γ’ ἐστὶν ὁ καθυποδείξας σχεδόν. Τhe punctuation of Gigante adopted by Clerc is wrong: τὸ περιοδικὸν σχῆμα is the object of καθυποδείξας. The translator believes that the word σχῆμα is the subject of the (implied) verb ἐστί.
20, 11-13 καθάπερ ἐν σαγήνῃ τοιαύτῃ μάλιστ’ ὀλίγῃ τὸ ἀντιπράττον ἅπαν καὶ ἄρκυσιν εὐπεριορίστοις ἄρρηκτά τε συνίσχειν αὐτόθεν καὶ ἄφυκτα. Τhe translator believes that the words ἄρρηκτα and ἄφυκτα are objects of the infinitive συνίσχειν (“elles contiennent toutes seules des moyens oratoires indomptables et inéluctables”), not realizing that these two words are used adverbially: whatever is resisting him, is contained inside those nets, so that it is entirely incapable of escaping.
22, 11-12 ὥστε καὶ πάσης περιγίνεσθαι κραταιότατα τῆς κατὰ φύσιν ἑπομένης νόσου καὶ εὐτελείας καὶ δυσκολίαις χρῆσθαι. The translator takes the word νόσου literally and believes it to refer to Demosthenes’ own physical deficiencies (“qu’il domine tout entier son état maladif et sa faiblesse qui le poursuivent par nature”). In my view, it refers to the natural inadequacy of human tongue to give expression to one’s thoughts, a fact which Metochites has already lamented.
31, 3-6 κἂν εἰ ἐνίοτε τὸ πικρὸν τῷ ἀνδρὶ κατὰ φύσιν τοῦ ἤθους ἐκφέρειν ἐνταῦθα βιάζηται καὶ ἐκφέρῃ μὲν οὖν, οὐ μὴν γε ὥς (an incorrect correction by Clerc of the ὥστε in the editions of Gigante and Polemis-Kaltsogianni). Ἀλλὰ καὶ μὴ<ν> αὖθις ἐπικρατέστερον εἶναι καὶ περιγίνεσθαι τὸ τοῦ λογισμοῦ καίριον ἐφ’ ἅπασι. Τhe translator adopts the correction μὴν of the first editor Gigante (who, unlike Clerc, places a lacune before ἀλλὰ), instead of the reading μὴ of the MS, which is perfectly sound. The false correction of Gigante leaves the infinitives εἶναι and περιγίνεσθαι without an anchor. The text of Polemis-Kltsogianni edition (οὐ μήν γε ὥστε ἀλλὰ καὶ μὴ αὖθις ἐπικρατέστερον εἶναι καὶ περιγίνεσθαι τὸ τοῦ λογισμοῦ καίριον ἐφ’ ἅπασι) is clearly correct. The combination ὥστε ἀλλὰ does not surprise anyone who has a familiarity with the intricacies of Metochites’ style). Its meaning is: “even when sometimes the innate bitterness of this man leads him astray, this never happens in such a way as to prevent him being in a position to impose the rule of his powerful mind”.
In the commentary, Clerc discusses both the vocabulary and the ideology of Metochites, trying to detect his sources. The references to the works of Demosthenes and Aelius Aristeides, which justify Metochites’ positions, are quite useful for any reader who wishes to delve deeper into Metochites’ thought. Where the commentary is somewhat lacking is in the absence of references to some of Metochites’ contemporaries who were engaged with rhetoric and necessarily dealt with related topics, even indirectly. I did not find any references to Manuel Gabalas, Theodore Hyrtakenos, or Nikolaos Lampenos, orators connected with Metochites. Their approach to matters of style and rhetorical discourse would have helped Clerc to discuss more deeply the relevance of Metochites’ treatise within the ideological context of the fourteenth century.
In the Didier Clerc’s defence, the style of Metochites is extremely complicated and obscure; many years of study are necessary before one may venture a translation. The book is useful as a general introduction to the treatise of Metochites, but is not a fully accurate and rigorous interpretation of that difficult text.