During the democratic period, the Greeks would customarily crown the valiant accomplishment of an extraordinarily brave warrior meeting the expectations of the nation. They would thus honor brave men and admit their privilege. The poet Eupolis was one who earned such an honor by showing bravery in the battle of Marathon.
Later, some envious people accused him of having harbored ill will for his nation. By this, they intended to remove from the hearts of the nation the respect he commanded. They wanted the public to abhor him. Eupolis tried to defend himself against such accusations in a poem. Two of the relevant verses are being translated here:
No, by the crown embellishing my head, bestowed upon me at the Battle of Marathon, none of my foes can prove that I am harboring ill will [for my nation].[1]
We see that the poet has taken an oath by the crown he received from his nation. He seeks to prove that he did not bear ill will for them. It is as if he says: “How can I bear ill will for my people after they honored me greatly.”
We see in this example, and among other similar ones, that an oath is not specific to the deities. This brings down the foundation of Longinus’ viewpoint. Those who considered the oath of Demosthenes and Eupolis as belonging to the same genre are correct. Both of them have used oaths by way of evidence and examples. They did not intend in their oaths the glorification of the muqsam bihī. If the muqsam bihī itself contain any kind of glory, it is a mere coincidence and not the intention of the oath-taker to establish it. An oath in and of itself does not speak of glorification of the muqsam bihī. On the contrary, sometimes it implies the negation of glory in the muqsam bihī. ‘Urwah b. Murrah, whose verse we have already mentioned in the eleventh chapter, takes an oath by the Markhah tree in order to exemplify weakness and insignificance.