Polemological Thought in Rhetorical Speeches of the Classical Period

Polemology, as a science of studying war, is in the interest of representatives of most fi elds and academic disciplines. In a special way, this kind of refl ection should be sought at the very source of Europe’s culture, that is, in the political and legal thought of Ancient Greece. In turn, part of this research should be the study of rhetorical speeches of the classical period, whose goal was to create incentives to war, or which, on the contrary, advised making peace. Given the above, the aim of this article is to attempt to look at the war rhetoric as an issue at the crossroads between diff erent disciplines. The incentive for such an approach is given by the socalled counselling speeches about war and peace by such speakers as, for example, Lisias, Aeschines, Isocrates, Cleon, Diodotus, Andocides, and Demosthenes. It is also worth noting that funeral speeches by such eminent personages as Gorgias, Lisias, Plato, Demosthenes, Pericles, and Hyperides also constituted part of the war rhetoric of Ancient Greece. These speeches are not only a manifestation of rhetorical art, but as they refer to such ideas as freedom, democracy, Panhellenism, or just war, they become a valuable source material for scholars dealing with rhetoric, as well as for historians of political and legal doctrines. Given the above, the author’s intention is to show manifestations of polemological thought in the rhetorical speeches of the classical period (mainly in the political exciters) and to verify the hypothesis about the existence of common research areas for students of rhetoric and political and legal doctrines. In the professional literature there are clear defi ciencies in such an approach. This article is therefore also trying to encourage an increased interest in research on war and the rhetoric of war, in particular through the prism of the history of political and legal doctrines.


Marcin Niemczyk
it is probably also this way today, and that is why the considerations in this respect have a timeless and universal value.
Given the above, it is not surprising that research into the genesis, nature, and objectives of war are within the realm of interests of representatives of most academic fi elds and disciplines.The hierarchical structure and specifi c timelessness of this kind of refl ection prompts one to seek answers to these questions which are already to be found at the very source of European culture, that is, in the political and legal thought of ancient Greece.It seems that an especially fascinating part of this search should be the research on rhetorical speeches of the classical period, whose objective was to create incentives to war on the one hand, or, on the contrary, to advise in favour of making peace. 1 It is also worth noting that the funeral speeches by such authors as Gorgias, Lysias, Plato, Demosthenes, Pericles, and Hyperides constituted a signifi cant component of the war rhetoric of Ancient Greece.These speeches are not only a manifestation of rhetorical art, but as they refer to such ideas as freedom, democracy, Panhellenism, or just war, they have become a valuable source of material for scholars dealing with rhetoric, as well as for historians of political and legal doctrines.
Given the above, the author's intention is to show manifestations of polemological thought in the rhetorical speeches of the classical period and to verify the hypothesis about the existence of common research areas for rhetoric and political and legal doctrines.There are clear defi ciencies in this approach in the professional literature, and the present text is also an attempt to encourage increased interest in research into war, in particular through the prism of rhetoric and the history of political and legal doctrines.
The term "polemology" used in the title requires an adequate explanation.It should be etymologically derived from two Greek words: πόλεμος [pólemos] -war, dispute, fi ghting and λόγος [logos]-reason, science, explanation.It was created by the French sociologist and economist Gaston Bouthoul [1896-1980], the author of a work entitled Polemology.Sociology of Wars (Traité de polémologie.Sociologie des guerres) published in Paris in 1970.In accordance with the assumptions of polemology, learning about the nature of war is to be the basis for acting for the implementation of peace, and the research on war itself is interdisciplinary and is not limited to learning about the art of war.Therefore, polemology focuses i.a. on methodological, doctrinal, technical, sociological, economic, demographic, and psychological issues. 2Since, as M.Howard writes, war has always been a part of human fate, it is impossible to undertake research into this phenomenon in isolation from the environment in which it is waged. 3Such a holistic approach justifi es the author's assumption about the possibility of looking for common research areas concerning war and peace for both political and legal doctrines as well as for rhetoric.
I Advise War.I Advise Peace.Polemological Thought in Rhetorical Speeches... Professional literature indicates that considerations about war and security and peace have an almost unlimited epistemological plane. 4Since the beginning of time, war has therefore been a popular subject for consideration, both for practitioners and for theoreticians. 5It was not much diff erent in the Ancient Athens of the classical period, where discussions about war and peace constituted an immanent part of the busy socio-political life.The history of Ancient Greece is to a large extent the history of continuous wars. 6ven then one could see the anticipation of the political dimension of war and peace, which Carl von Clausewitz identifi ed by writing that "war is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means". 7In that sense, war is therefore the sphere of activities under which violence is legitimised to achieve political goals. 8The military reality of Ancient Athens and the importance of this issue also probably led Aristotle, to write in the 1 st Book of Rhetoric that one of the fi ve most important issues which are discussed by everyone and which are the subject of advisors' public speeches is war itself. 9he directness of Athenian democracy meant that it was a system based on discussion, although due to the number of participants in the Ecclesia -the People's Assembly, the public dialogue was often signifi cantly impeded.It should also be remembered that only a small minority of speakers took the fl oor by speaking or by suggesting draft resolutions.This minority, traditionally called "speakers", ρήτορες [rhétores] by the Athenians, is identifi ed today with the term "politician".It is not a particularly accurate term because in Ancient Greek there is no equivalent for the word "politician", though, it also appears in Polish translations of rhetorical speeches of the classical period. 10Ρήτορ [rhétor] meant the initiator, or someone who supports or opposes, initiatives proposed by others.Sometimes, the term χω πολιτευόμενος [ho politeuómenos] was used synonymously.It meant a person who was actively exercising their civil rights.Otherwise, the word δημαγωγός [demagogós] was used.However, it had an ambiguous, positive--pejorative meaning. 11he importance of speeches, including counselling speeches, resulted from Hellenistic tradition dating back to the archaic era.Even then, the Greek culture was a typical culture of the spoken word.In his introduction to his selection of Demosthenes' speeches, R. Turasiewicz even writes that the Greeks, without knowing the art of writing for a long period of time, in a special way developed a sensitivity to the spoken word.They were to experience aesthetic pleasures by listening to speakers and admiring their ingenuity, virtuosity of vocabulary, wealth of imagination, and gestures.12It can therefore be said that there was a cult of a living word there, and the speakers were listened to with pleasure. 13herefore, the power of the spoken word, not without reason, was described by Gorgias in Encomium of Helen, as "a powerful potentate, who with frailest, feeblest frame works wonders.For it can put an end to fear and make vexation vanish; it can inspire exultation and increase compassion." 14he sources and the importance of the power of counselling speeches can be found in Homer's poems: The Iliad and The Odyssey. 15 Admittedly, in Homer's stories there is no apotheosis of war as a social phenomenon, but it is already clearly noticeable that soldierly virtues: bravery, courage, strength, and honour gain an ethical confi rmation, which will be repeatedly mentioned later in rhetorical speeches.16 But it was only the Athenian expansiveness, the struggle for domination in the Hellenic world and the development of the democratic system that became the cause of the dynamic development of political counselling speeches.Their special manifestation were speeches about war or peace.Rhetorical orations related to polemology can be called exciters [Lat.excito -I move, excite, awake]. Thy are a typical example of counselling speeches, since they relate to the future, and because the primary objective of the speakers is to encourage or discourage a specifi c action.Exciters, whose subject is war, can be divided into two types: the political and the martial.A political exciter, usually delivered by a politician, was to an interesting example of a hypocritical counselling speech.This applies to Agamemnon, who spoke in front of the army in such a way that it seemed that he advised them to return home, although in reality his goal was quite the opposite.We read, "Listen to what I say: Let everyone -come back.It's time to hurry up to your beloved homeland.When it's hard to be happy at the victory over Troy".Homer, Iliad, Wrocław 2004, p. 35.  IThe Odyssey, an advisory thread often appears, also from the gods.Acting in disguise, Athena advised Telemachus, "Come now, give ear, and hearken to my words.On the morrow call to an assembly the Achaean lords, and speak out thy word to all, and let the gods be thy witnesses.As for the wooers, bid them scatter, each to his own; and for thy mother, if her heart bids her marry, let her go back to the hall of her mighty father".Homer, Odyssey, Wrocław 2004, pp.17-18.For more on Homer's infl uence on the development of rhetoric see: M. Tkacz, Homer a klasyczna teoria retoryki (Homer and a Classic Theory of Rhetoric),  "Meander" 2001, Vol.1-2, pp.41-53.convince listeners to initiate a war, or to maintain or make peace.In turn, a battle exciter, was most often delivered just before the clash of troops, and the speaker was the commander, who, in this way, wanted to raise the morale of his soldiers.Due to the above--mentioned purpose of this text, the main subject of further considerations will be only those speeches, whose main theme was war or peace.This category includes both proper counselling speeches and funeral speeches delivered in honour of soldiers who died in the war.The speeches whose subject was the Panhellenic idea of unifying Greek poleis to fi ght the common enemy form a somewhat separate category.The uniqueness of these speeches is therefore based on their dual task.On the one hand, they encouraged peace (among the Greeks) and on the other, they encouraged war (with the common enemy).

Demosthenes
The growing power of Philip II of Macedon was a special canvas for the subject of war in rhetorical speeches of the classical period.Among the Athenian speakers, whose literary immortality was guaranteed by the speeches given in connection with the activities of Philip II of Macedon, was Demosthenes.The rhetorical triptych, his Philippics, allows eff ectively to depict the entire oratory talent of the Athenian speaker who was fl uent in applying all three tonal styles. 17These speeches also contain a clearly polemological subject matter.For in each of the speeches it is possible to fi nd the elements of a call to belligerent activities, specifi c political and military solutions, and references to values which were threatened by the growth of Macedonian power.The fi rst of the speeches delivered against Philip was also a special one in Demosthenes' life.Never before had he spoken at the Ecclesia prior to all other speakers.He began his speech in a typical way, indicating why he was speaking and why he was not waiting until others had spoken fi rst.However, after a short introduction, he expressed in concrete words both hope for improvement of the political situation of Athens and a reprimand for those gathered.He pointed out to the Athenians that they had evaded the fulfi lment of public tasks, which, in his opinion, caused an exceptionally bad situation for their polis. 18Such an unambiguous position was one of the characteristic features of Demosthenes' style -he was not afraid to criticize publicly the inhabitants of Athens whenever the good of the state was at stake. 19y completing the basic function of a counselling speech, Demosthenes in his orations called on his listeners to take concrete action.In "The First Oration against Philip"  Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego" 2004, Vol.60, p. 169. 18Demosthenes, The First Oration against Philip [in:] Demosthenes, Orations…, p. 48. 19Demosthenes said straightly, "But if an orator could in reality, as in words, pass over whatever might be off ensive to his Audience, all popular Orations should be formed only to please.But when this pleasing art of speaking, if not in some measure profi table, is in fact pernicious, it is shameful, O men of Athens, to delude yourselves, and by rejecting what may perhaps be disagreeable, to be for ever too late in all your operations".Demosthenes, The First Oration against Philip [in:] Demosthenes, Orations…, p. 71.I Advise War.I Advise Peace.Polemological Thought in Rhetorical Speeches... he spoke using these words, "When therefore, o men of Athens, when will you act, as your glory, your interest demands?When some new event shall happen?When, in the name of Jupiter! some strong necessity shall compel you?" 20 It is important to remember that among these calls, Demosthenes' speeches also contain not only a general idea of action, but also specifi c guidance as to what kind of actions they are supposed to be.Very often these were pieces of advice relating directly to the preparations and war activities suggested by the speaker.He encouraged the Athenians to abandon any excuses allowing them to avoid involvement in war aff airs.He called on the wealthy to make voluntary additional donations to feed the war budget, on the youth to fi ght in the ranks of the army, and on all residents to believe in the need to rely on themselves and not wait for action from others. 21n 349 B.C. the attention of the Athenians, gathered at the Ecclesia, focused on the question of the inhabitants of Olynthus, a city on the Peninsula of Chalcidice.The attack of Philip II of Macedon forced them to off er the Athenians the conclusion of a defensive alliance and to summon them for help.However, the complex nature of the earlier relations between Athens and Olynthus did not allow for an easy answer.A discussion and the argumentative force of Demosthenes was needed.In his three orations he advised the Athenians in favour of the military support of Olynthus' inhabitants; he polemicized with representatives of the political party advocating peace, and presented specifi c solutions to fi ght the Macedonian aggressor eff ectively.The fi rst of these speeches emphasized the relationship between the fate of Olynthus and the fate of Athens, the second one showed the weaknesses of the Macedonian state, and the third one was a kind of programme that allowed for the strengthening of Athens' military forces. 22It is worth emphasizing that the specifi city of the solutions proposed by Demosthenes also referred to the sphere of law.In The Third Olynthiac we can fi nd a specifi c piece of advice on legal solutions and the legislative process.Interestingly, in the part which concerns the statement about the existence of law infl ation in Athens, one can see a very current and timeless call to the need to reduce the amount of unnecessary regulations.Demosthenes advised: You may constitute Magistrates for the preservation and inspection of our laws, yet suff er not those Magistrates to enact any new laws.Indeed, they are already abundantly suffi cient.Let them repeal those, which are at present prejudicial; or, to speak plainly, those, which regard the theatre and the army.Some of these distribute the military funds in theatrical entertainments for our loiterers at home.Others protect in impunity whoever refuses to enlist, and consequently render them, who would willingly perform their duty, less animated in the performance. 23eaking of a theatre fund, Demosthenes takes a critical stance towards the Athenian "peace faction" represented by Eubulos, who, from about 355 B.C., was the manager of this fund and an informal manager of foreign policy. 24he rhetorical eff orts of the speakers at the Ecclesia can also be a source of polemologic knowledge on the tactics of war.By advising the Athenians to help the inhabitants of Olynthus, Demosthenes presented a classical principle of conducting warfare as far as possible from the home territory.He therefore spoke directly of the necessity to move the war away from their native land, as well as of the need to direct it towards the country of Philip II of Macedon.In his opinion, such an expedition would also be an opportunity for young people to gain wartime experience, so that in this way they could become fearsome defenders of their native land in the future. 25In The First Oration against Philip Demosthenes also presents military realism, saying directly that the Athenians have no way of raising an army that could face Philip in the open fi eld.Therefore, he advises the use of hit-and-run tactics with a small army, consisting of both citizens and mercenaries.Therefore, he criticizes the concentration of the military force of the state only on mercenary troops, which had been a relatively common practice since the time of the Peloponnesian War.He was saying quite ironically that since mercenary troops fi ght without the participation of the Athenians, they can only win victories over friendly or allied countries. 26emosthenes was also familiar with other secrets of the art of war, which had already been described by Sun Tzu, in the oldest known textbook of the art of war. 27Therefore, the Athenian speaker perceived the necessity to include in the war preparations the whole geographical condition of the country which was to be the theatre of war.Advising this approach, he praised Philip II of Macedon for his ability to use the blowing winds and changing seasons, which would give him an advantage over the Athenian armies. 27Sun Tzu wrote: "The art of war, then, is governed by fi ve constant factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations, when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the fi eld.These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth; (4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger".Sun Tzu, Art of War, http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html(access: 22.01.2018). 28As he said, "[Philip is] waiting for the North-East winds in summer, and the violence with which they blow in winter, he makes his attacks, when we are unable to sail out of our harbours to oppose him".Demosthenes, The First Oration against Philip [in:] idem, Orations…, pp.65-66.
I Advise War.I Advise Peace.Polemological Thought in Rhetorical Speeches... Therefore, once again, he counselled against the use of mercenary troops, because their actions would always be late, and instead, he advised using a regular army on standby. 29

Political realism in international relations
The war orations from the classical period were also a source for development of the idea of political realism in the theory of international relations.In this context it is essential to mention two dialogues.The fi rst took place during the meeting of the Ecclesia in the year 428 B.C. where the counselling speeches discussed the issue of the departure of the Mytileneans from the ranks of the Athenians' allies.The Athenian army, under the strategist Paches, captured the rebellious city, and thanks to Cleon's speeches, it was decided that all men in the rebellious city would be killed, and that the women and children would be sold into slavery.Thanks to the eff orts of the deputies from Mytilene who were present in Athens, it was decided, however, to discuss this matter once again.Then, Cleon and his interlocutor, Diodotus, took the fl oor again.In the end, the cruel decision was changed, but it was not the death of a thousand citizens of Mytilene that survived in historical consciousness, but the oratories presented in this matter.Cleon, defending the original version of the resolution, argued by referring to the concept of collective guilt and justice based on the idea of retribution. 30He said therefore, The Mytileneans to have been honoured by us on the same footing as the rest, and in that case they would not have come to such a pitch of insolence; for in other instances, as well as theirs, man is naturally inclined to despise those who court him, and to respect those who do not stoop to him.But let them even now be punished as their crimes deserve; and let not the guilt attach to the aristocracy, while you acquit the commons. 31 turn, Diodotus, opposed the proposed severity and maintained that not only would such a punishment fail to stop other poleis from rebellion, but it would prolong their resistance to the limits, while the eff ort expended in the destruction of Mytilene would reduce Athens's income. 32Therefore, he argued with these words: The second of the rhetorical examples of political realism, in which there is no room for ethical nuances, can be found in the statements of Athenian deputies spoken to the authorities and prominent citizens of Melos.This text, contained in book V of the History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides, is known by the name of the Melian dialogue.Although the inhabitants of Melos were Lacedaemonic colonists, they wished to remain neutral during the Peloponnesian War.However, the Athenians gave them an ultimatum: they were to join the Maritime Union, or the island was to be destroyed.In view of the refusal of the inhabitants of Melos, the Athenians fulfi lled their threat, and ultimately, the army under the command of Philocrates captured the city.Consequently, all the captured men were murdered, and the children and women were sold into slavery.Considering the contemporary realities, the cruelty of the fate of the Melians is not exceptional.On the other hand, the rhetorical message of the Athenian deputies was rather unique.They rejected all moral considerations and scruples, and openly proclaimed the view that violence was just, and that the law of the strongest results from the law of nature. 34The Athenian deputies therefore advised the inhabitants of Melos not to follow a poorly conceived sense of honour and ambition, and nor to hope in any forthcoming help from their ally Sparta.They also rejected the proposal of friendship from the Melians, saying directly that other poleis allied with Athens would perceive such declarations of friendship as a sign of weakness, while enmity between them would be a demonstration of their power.The words of the Athenians were full of merciless realism, Since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suff er what they must […] Of the gods we believe, and of men we know, that by a necessary law of their nature they rule wherever they can.And it is not as if we were the fi rst to make this law, or to act upon it when made: we found it existing before us, and shall leave it to exist for ever after us; all we do is to make use of it, knowing that you and everybody else, having the same power as we have, would do the same as we do. 35e polemological aspect of the rhetoric of the classical period is also evident in the speeches that deal with advising in favour of peace.A special place in this regard is taken by the speeches given in connection with the conclusion of the so-called Peace of Philocrates between Athens and Macedon.Interestingly, Demosthenes, the uncompromised enemy of Philip II, gave a speech in defence of the peace.The speech titled On Peace which he delivered in 346 B.C. is another demonstration of the rationalism and political pragmatism in Demosthenes' thinking, since he saw that in its current situation, the preservation of peace was in line with the Athenian political interest.Pointing to his total impartiality in public activities, he advised the Athenians to follow the principle that the desire to win new allies, increase the state's income, or give it any other favour cannot come at the expense of peace, even though the treaty is not particularly benefi cial for them. 36In this speech, Demosthenes also expressed the conviction that the preservation of peace would give the Athenians more benefi ts and fewer disputes and arguments, and 34 R. Turasiewicz, Tukidydes (Thucydides), Wrocław 1987, p. 44. 35Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perse us%3Atext%3A1999.01.0200 (access: 22.01.2018). 36As he said: "It does not mean that it is a peace worthy of you or especially benefi cial for you.But whatever would be there, it would be more appropriate to your current state interests not to make it at all, rather than to break it now, because the numerous losses that we have suff ered mean that today we would have I Advise War.I Advise Peace.Polemological Thought in Rhetorical Speeches... that in Athens's current situation, the undertaking of actions leading to the outbreak of war would be a manifestation of blindness and political naivety. 37he peace, concluded in 346 B.C., between Macedon and Athens, became the source of many political and legal disputes.It is enough to mention that the Ecclesia accused its main author, Philocrates, of treason and accepting a bribe from Philip II.Philocrates fl ed from Athens before the trial began, but he was sentenced to death in absentia.Equally serious was the case of Aeschines, one of the most important Athenian politicians, who, by insisting that Philip II had no hostile intentions towards Athens, was accused of being philo-Macedonian.Aeschines was an excellent speaker, which made him one of Demosthenes' most powerful political adversaries.Both politicians were part of the Athenian delegation which was sent to meet Philip II, and regarding the events connected with this political mission, Demosthenes brought legal proceedings against Aeschines for betrayal of the deputy mission, παραπρεσβεια [parapresbeia], accusing him, too, of accepting a bribe. 38Aeschines gave his defence speech, recalling the story of the deputy mission to Philip, and also attacking Demosthenes directly, calling him a bastard, a liar, and an eff eminate libertine.He also admitted to have stood for making peace with Philip, but only because in his opinion it would have been much better choice than war.Arguing for peace, he spoke in such a way that his words gained timelessness.He said that during a war some people grow richer from the state coff ers and "peace does not feed laziness". 39He also noticed the interdependence between the preservation of the state of peace on the one hand, and the possibilities of development of and the survival of the democratic system on the other.He expressed his disdain for the supporters of the war party in Athens, accusing them of pushing the polis into the dangers of war, and at the same time accusing them of inciting the people while avoiding direct involvement in warfare themselves.As he said: "[These men are] trying to put an end to the peace, wherein lies the safety of the democracy, and in every way fomenting war, the destroyer of popular government". 40At the end of his speech, he argued that the acquittal of the supporters of peace and state security would gain the polis many collaborators ready to expose themselves for the benefi t of the entire state.
Another example of a rhetorical encouragement to make peace, this time with Sparta, is Andocides' oration On the Peace with the Lacedaemons.Andocides, one of the ten most prominent Attic speakers, supposedly delivered it in 392 or 391 B.C., although there are also voices that question his authorship of this text.From the very fi rst sentence of his speech, Andocides expressed his conviction that the Athenians should understand that it is better to make peace on fair terms than to fi ght a war.Then, convinced that one should use the examples of the past to understand better the future, he presented the history of the peace treaties concluded by the Athenians and the benefi ts they derived from them. 41He also saw the relationship between the conclusion of peace and the permanence of the Athenian political system, saying that the war would bring about the overthrow of democracy.He also believed that a state should only resort to war when harm is done or when it is helpful to a victim.Therefore, he asked: Why are we to continue fi ghting?To free Athens?She is free already.To be able to build ourselves walls?The peace gives us that right also!To be allowed to build new triremes, and refi t and keep our old ones?That is assured us as well […].So, if we have no reasons for prolonging the war, no enemy to fi ght, and no resources, why should we not make every eff ort to secure peace? 42docides ended his speech by addressing the gathering and stressing that the choice belonged to them, and that each speaker in the debate becomes a deputy who has the power to make peace or initiate a war.In the last sentence, he called on the voters to make a choice that they would never regret in the future. 43

Panhellenism in speeches
In the list of rhetorical speeches of the classical period, a special place is occupied by those whose goal was a kind of hybrid approach consisting of encouraging the conclusion of peace among Greeks in order to fi ght a common enemy.Speeches of this kind were written and delivered in connection with the development of Panhellenic ideas, which assumed strengthening the military forces of poleis by abandoning the feuds between them and uniting them in the face of shared threats.
Perhaps the fi rst speech where this kind of idea is expressed is the Olympic Speech by Gorgias of Leontinoi.It has survived to the present day only in a small fragment, but it is also described by the Sophists' biographer Philistratus, a philosopher, who mentions that Gorgias called for reconciliation among the Greek poleis which were then at war.He even used the term ομοφωνία [homofonia -unanimity, unity, compatibility of views, unison], which was used to describe relationships in a family or polis.However, in Gorgias' speech, this term referred to relations between Greek city-states, and acquired a new, more universal, and broader meaning. 44In the same spirit, another Olympic Speech was written by Lysias.Being a logographer by profession, Lysias, was valued for writing in beautiful and simple language, which was considered a model of Attic eloquence. 45The author of this speech urges the Hellenic people to live in a universal harmony under the auspices of the Lacedaemons and sees a danger threatening the Greeks on two sides: from the tyrant Dionysius I of Syracuse and from the Persians.Although Lysias probably did not deliver the speech himself, and it was written for an opponent of the rule of the tyrant of Syracuse, the Panhellenic idea is clearly visible in it. 46The following appeal can be read in it, We ought therefore to relinquish our mutual warfare, and with a single purpose in our hearts to secure our salvation; to feel shame for past events and fear for those that lie in the future, and to compete with our ancestors, by whom the foreigner, in grasping at the land of others, was deprived of his own, and who expelled the despots, and established freedom for all in common.[…] Let us not wait for forces of both our foes to advance upon ourselves, but while there is yet time let us arrest their outrage. 47nhellenic ideas were also manifested in the works of Isocrates, who remained faithful to them until the end of his life, even though, as S. Schneider writes, no one would call this speaker a man of constant and unshakeable convictions. 48Several times, for instance, he changed his opinions as for who should lead the Greek army against Persia.Initially, it was Athens, then Sparta, and fi nally Macedon under Philip II. 49This apparent change of hope associated with Panhellenic unity was only an expression of the conviction that such a unifi cation is possible only when there is an appropriate "guiding factor". 50It does not change the fact that Isocrates' entire thesis is somehow permeated with politics and is a manifestation of his political thought, at the heart of which was always the wellbeing of democratic Athens. 51Panhellenic ideas were already included in Panegyricus, over which the work lasted for a few or even several years, starting from 392 B.C. Isocrates wrote directly about his intentions, "I […] am justifi ed by a twofold motive in devoting most of your attention to these points: […] that we may put an end to our mutual rivalries and unite in a war against the barbarian". 52And another extract, stems from the fact that Isocrates drops there his moderate style and allows himself to be outraged and even bitter in order to give the oration a specifi c tone. 54Panhellenic ideas accompanied Isocrates constantly, although, as mentioned above, they are expressed in a variety of diff erent versions, including in the speech Panathenaicus, published at the end of his life, which T. Sinko even called his "political testament". 55Isocrates was ninety-seven at the time, and the basic content of this speech is a review of Greek history from the perspective of Athens and Sparta, and in particular the events that took place between the invasion of Xerxes and Isocrates' times. 56

Funereal speeches
A particular example of the speech whose subject was linked to the issues of war and peace, was the Athenian επιτάφιος λόγος [epitáfi os lógos].Funeral speeches played an important political role because, thanks to them, the art of speaking, gaining an offi cial rank, experienced a certain legitimacy in Athens. 57And although, as N. Loraux writes, they were closer to speeches appropriate for aristocratic societies, they were political speeches "marked with the seal of democracy". 58The speeches of this kind, which in the Aristotelian classifi cation are categorised as epideictic oratory, had their own specifi c composition arrangement. 59Thus, they included praise of ancestors and of the political system of Athens and the character traits of its inhabitants, historical and mythological references to the Athenian polis, the usual lamentation of the dead, and consolation. 60he tradition of delivering these speeches goes back at least as far as the Persian Wars and is closely linked with the Athenian funeral ritual.The cult of the dead in ancient Greece played a vital role in the social life, becoming a bonding element not only to the family but the entire polis. 61A description of a collective funeral organised from national funds, is owed to Thucydides, who describes the Athenian burial ceremony dedicated to the heroes who died in the fi rst year of the Peloponnesian War. 62It is worth emphasizing that the task of presenting an epitaph was assigned to the speaker elected at the Ecclesia, and that this was a manifestation of a special recognition from the Athenian people. 63ndoubtedly, the best known funeral speech is the one delivered by Pericles, whose content we know thanks to Thucydides.A known Hellenist, Ulrich von Wilamowitz, called it even slightly maliciously a funeral speech in honour of Athenian democracy. 64It is not only a source of information about Pericles' rhetorical artistry, but also, or perhaps above all, is the most extensive example of praise for the Athenian system.The speaker clearly indicates that one of the reasons for the power of the state is a systemic form adopted by the Athenians, which is based on three distinct pillars: equality, freedom, and the rule of law.Pericles begins the characteristics of democracy by indicating that it is a system based on the majority of citizens and by expressing a belief that it is not the result of imitation of foreign laws; on the contrary, it is rather the Athenians that are a model for others.He further argued about the equality of citizens before the law, and the rule according to which poverty or an unknown origin does not interfere with the attainment of honours in the service of the homeland.In Pericles' opinion, freedom commands the Athenians to respect the privacy of citizens and respect their interests without the danger of scornful looks from their fellows.According to Pericles, forbearance in private life relates to the respect for law in public life and obedience to the current power and law, especially unwritten. 65He continued: Nor are these the only points in which our city is worthy of admiration.We cultivate refi nement without extravagance and knowledge without eff eminacy; wealth we employ more for use than for show […].Our public men have, besides politics, their private aff airs to attend to, and our ordinary citizens, though occupied with the pursuits of industry, are still fair judges of public matters; for, unlike any other nation, regarding him who takes no part in these duties not as unambitious but as useless. 66ese words clearly show that for the Athenians civic membership was considered the only remarkable relation and would dominate over other types of interpersonal relations. 67However, considering the elitist character of Athenian democracy, one should, of course, object to the treatment of Pericles' characteristics as a real refl ection of the political image of Ancient Athens.In the professional literature, one can also fi nd voices that this speech, at least in part, was arranged by Thucydides to present a more general lecture on democracy. 68However, the ideas indicated by Pericles that form the foundations of a democratic public order, remain up-to-date, which undeniably makes this speech timeless.Until contemporary times, other funeral speeches authored by Gorgias, Lysias, Plato, Demosthenes, and Hyperides have also been preserved, in whole or in fragments.But it is Pericles' speech, despite some dissimilarities with those of the others [e.g.lack of a lamentation], which is a specifi c point of reference in terms of structure, style, and axiological message.
The above-mentioned counselling speeches fully correspond to the characteristics presented by Aristotle.As he wrote in Rhetoric, the aim of a counselling oratory is to incite benefi t or harm, and the speaker presents in it a thing recommended as better than the one he advises against. 69Calling for the initiation of war, or the preservation or establishment of peace, ancient speakers always showed that the position they proposed was in the interests of the whole polis.In Athens, there were plenty of people with extraordinary abilities, who at the same time wanted to devote themselves to politics, although it should be remembered that the remuneration they received was rather symbolic, and the risks that they were exposed to were real indeed. 70The discussed speeches, in accordance with the Aristotelian characteristics, also carried out the goal of bringing goodness and happiness, typical of a counselling speech.Due to the political decision-making system in Athens, they concerned debatable matters because, as Aristotle writes, "no council is given for matters that are or will become inevitable or are or will be impossible." 71Furthermore, the analysis of these speeches easily convinces that the speakers used typical rhetorical means of persuasion, which referred to logical, ethical, and emotional arguments.
The history of human thought contains many answers to questions about the nature of war. 72Following the thought of Heraclitus of Ephesus, one can assume that the ancient belief in this area to a large extent accurately refl ects the philosopher's belief that "War is the father and king of all: some he has made gods, and some men; some slaves and some free". 73However, in harmony with Heraclitean philosophy, it should be remembered that these opposites complement each other, so when we talk about war, we must also remember peace.The particularly signifi cant nature of both these phenomena has made them the subject of lively discussion since ancient times, and our knowledge of ancient disputes in this area comes mainly from the reading of rhetorical orations.For these reasons, it seems that research into the achievements of the classical period speakers is still worth undertaking.The multidimensionality of their achievements also encourages one to reach for new research fi elds, such as those that allow the search for connections between rhetoric and political and legal thought.Rhetorical speeches of the classical period, whose subject matter is war or peace can be analysed through the prism of the style, ways of argumentation, but also purpose of the given speech.This means that these studies can be conducted by representatives of various fi elds and disciplines: philologists, historians, anthropologists, and historians of ideas.While from the linguistic or historical point of view, the achievements of ancient speakers seem to have been 69 Aristotle, Rhetoric…, p. 55, 1358 b. 70 M.I.Finley, Grecy (The Greeks), Warszawa 1965, p. 75. 71Aristotle, Rhetoric…, 1359 a. 72 J.J. Piątek, Wojna -wyzwanie dla historyka (War -a Challenge for a Historian) [in:] Wojna jako przedmiot badań historycznych (War as a Subject of Historical Research), ed.K. Olejnik, Toruń 2006, p. 62. 73 Heraclitus of Ephesus, Zdania (Sentences), Gdańsk 2005, p. 22.
I Advise War.I Advise Peace.Polemological Thought in Rhetorical Speeches... largely examined, this area of research still awaits an in-depth analysis by historians of political and legal doctrines.Among the admiration for the style of ancient masters, analyses of the used topoi, fi gures, and rhetorical tropes, and the skilful use of questions, exclamatory sentences, requests, and praise, one can fi nd huge amounts of extremely valuable information for learning about the development of political and legal thought.This applies in particular to the understanding of such ideas as freedom, equality before the law, rule of law, raison d'état, or service to the homeland.The rhetorical speeches can also complement our knowledge derived from ancient philosophical treatises which consider some forms of the political system, democracy in particular.Reaching for rhetorical statements seems to be even more necessary because the great philosophers of Ancient Greece such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle spoke of democracy in a critical way.Obtaining the full spectrum of assessments from ancient times regarding the system that is so common in the civilization of the Western world today seems to be indispensable, also for the contemporary debate on democracy.Finally, as the examples of rhetorical speeches mentioned above indicate, they can be an intriguing source of knowledge in the fi eld of polemological thought.They discuss the actions taken to prepare for war, but also fi eld tactics as such, and fi nally the actions of the state vis-à-vis the dead soldiers and their families.
The persuasive eff ectiveness of counselling speeches of the classical period deserves a separate study, although in this context it is worth returning once again to Demosthenes, with whose death this great political expression of democracy also went to the grave. 74fter his death, the Athenians founded a bronze statue in his honour, and on its pedestal, they placed an inscription that fully refl ected his invaluable merits.The inscription said: "If thy strength had only been equal to thy purposes, Demosthenes, never would the Greeks have been ruled by a Macedonian Ares."