His views may be treated under the following heads:--

1. _The Atoms and Cosmology_ (adopted in part at least from the

doctrines of Leucippus, though the relations between the two are

hopelessly obscure). While agreeing with the Eleatics as to the eternal

sameness of Being (nothing can arise out of nothing; nothing can be

reduced to nothing), Democritus followed the physicists in denying its

oneness and immobility. Movement and plurality being necessary to

explain the phenomena of the universe and impossible without space

(not-Being), he asserted that the latter had an equal right with Being

to be considered existent. Being is the Full ([Greek: plêres], plenum);

not-Being is the Void ([Greek: kenon], _vacuum_), the infinite space in

which moved the infinite number of atoms into which the single Being of

the Eleatics was broken up. These atoms are eternal and invisible;

absolutely small, so small that their size cannot be diminished (hence

the name [Greek: atomos], "indivisible"); absolutely full and

incompressible, they are without pores and entirely fill the space they

occupy; homogeneous, differing only in figure (as A from N), arrangement

(as AN from NA), position (as N is Z on its side), magnitude (and

consequently in weight, although some authorities dispute this). But

while the atoms thus differ in quantity, their differences of quality

are only apparent, due to the impressions caused on our senses by

different configurations and combinations of atoms. A thing is only hot

or cold, sweet or bitter, hard or soft by convention ([Greek: nomô]);

the only things that exist in reality ([Greek: eteê]) are the atoms and

the void. Locke's distinction between primary and secondary qualities is

here anticipated. Thus, the atoms of water and iron are the same, but

those of the former, being smooth and round, and therefore unable to

hook on to one another, roll over and over like small globes, whereas

the atoms of iron, being rough, jagged and uneven, cling together and

form a solid body. Since all phenomena are composed of the same eternal

atoms (just as a tragedy and a comedy contain the same letters) it may

be said that nothing comes into being or perishes in the absolute sense

of the words (cf. the modern "indestructibility of matter" and

"conservation of energy"), although the compounds of the atoms are

liable to increase and decrease, appearance and disappearance--in other

words, to birth and death. As the atoms are eternal and uncaused, so is

motion; it has its origin in a preceding motion, and so on _ad

infinitum_. For the Love and Hate of Empedocles and the _Nous_

(Intelligence) of Anaxagoras, Democritus substituted fixed and necessary

laws (not chance; that is a misrepresentation due chiefly to Cicero).

Everything can be explained by a purely mechanical (but not fortuitous)

system, in which there is no room for the idea of a providence or an

intelligent cause working with a view to an end. The origin of the

universe was explained as follows. An infinite number of atoms was

carried downwards through infinite space. The larger (and heavier),

falling with greater velocity, overtook and collided with the smaller

(and lighter), which were thereby forced upwards. This caused various

lateral and contrary movements, resulting in a whirling movement

([Greek: dinê]) resembling the rotation of Anaxagoras, whereby similar

atoms were brought together (as in the winnowing of grain) and united to

form larger bodies and worlds. Atoms and void being infinite in number

and extent, and motion having always existed, there must always have

been an infinite number of worlds, all consisting of similar atoms, in

various stages of growth and decay.

2. _The Soul._--Democritus devoted considerable attention to the

structure of the human body, the noblest portion of which he considered

to be the soul, which everywhere pervades it, a psychic atom being

intercalated between two corporeal atoms. Although, in accordance with

his principles, Democritus was bound to regard the soul as material

(composed of round, smooth, specially mobile atoms, identified with the

fire-atoms floating in the air), he admitted a distinction between it

and the body, and is even said to have looked upon it as something

divine. These all-pervading soul atoms exercise different functions in

different organs; the head is the seat of reason, the heart of anger,

the liver of desire. Life is maintained by the inhalation of fresh atoms

to replace those lost by exhalation, and when respiration, and

consequently the supply of atoms, ceases, the result is death. It

follows that the soul perishes with, and in the same sense as, the body.

3. _Perception._--Sensations are the changes produced in the soul by

external impressions, and are the result of contact, since every action

of one body (and all representations are corporeal phenomena) upon

another is of the nature of a shock. Certain emanations ([Greek:

aporrhoai, aporrhoiai]) or images ([Greek: eidôla]), consisting of

subtle atoms, thrown off from the surface of an object, penetrate the

body through the pores. On the principle that like acts upon like, the

particular senses are only affected by that which resembles them. We see

by means of the eye alone, and hear by means of the ear alone, these

organs being best adapted to receive the images or sound currents. The

organs are thus merely conduits or passages through which the atoms pour

into the soul. The eye, for example, is damp and porous, and the act of

seeing consists in the reflection of the image ([Greek: deikelon])

mirrored on the smooth moist surface of the pupil. To the interposition

of air is due the fact that all visual images are to some extent

blurred. At the same time Democritus distinguished between obscure

([Greek: skotiê]) cognition, resting on sensation alone, and genuine

([Greek: gnêsiê]), which is the result of inquiry by reason, and is

concerned with atoms and void, the only real existences. This knowledge,

however, he confessed was exceedingly difficult to attain.

It is in Democritus first that we find a real attempt to explain colour.

He regards black, red, white and green as primary. White is

characteristically smooth, i.e. casting no shadow, even, flat; black is

uneven, rough, shadowy and so on. The other colours result from various

mixtures of these four, and are infinite in number. Colour itself is not

objective; it is found not in the ultimate _plenum_ and _vacuum_, but

only in derived objects according to their physical qualities and

relations.

4. _Theology._--The system of Democritus was altogether anti-theistic.

But, although he rejected the notion of a deity taking part in the

creation or government of the universe, he yielded to popular prejudice

so far as to admit the existence of a class of beings, of the same form

as men, grander, composed of very subtle atoms, less liable to

dissolution, but still mortal, dwelling in the upper regions of air.

These beings also manifested themselves to man by means of images in

dreams, communicated with him, and sometimes gave him an insight into

the future. Some of them were benevolent, others malignant. According to

Plutarch, Democritus recognized one god under the form of a fiery

sphere, the soul of the world, but this idea is probably of later

origin. The popular belief in gods was attributed by Democritus to the

desire to explain extraordinary phenomena (thunder, lightning,

earthquakes) by reference to superhuman agency.

5. _Ethics._--Democritus's moral system--the first collection of ethical

precepts which deserves the name--strongly resembles the negative side

of the system of Epicurus. The _summum bonum_ is the maximum of pleasure

with the minimum of pain. But true pleasure is not sensual enjoyment; it

has its principle in the soul. It consists not in the possession of

wealth or flocks and herds, but in good humour, in the just disposition

and constant tranquillity of the soul. Hence the necessity of avoiding

extremes; too much and too little are alike evils. True happiness

consists in taking advantage of what one has and being content with it

(see ETHICS).

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Fragments edited by F. Mullach (1843) with commentary

and in his _Fragmenta philosophorum Graecorum_, i. (1860). See also

H. Ritter and L. Preller, _Historia philosophiae_ (chap. i. ad fin.);

P. Lafaist (Lafaye), _Dissertation sur la philosophie atomistique_

(1833); L. Liard, _De Democrito philosopho_ (Paris, 1873); H. C.

Liepmann, _Die Leucipp-Democritischen Atome_ (Leipzig, 1886); F. A.

Lange, _Geschichte des Materialismus_ (Eng. trans. by E. C. Thomas,

1877); G. Hart, _Zur Seelen- und Erkenntnislehre des Democritus_

(Leipzig, 1886); P. Natorp, _Die Ethika des Demokritos_ (Marburg,

1893); A. Dyroff, _Demokritstudien_ (Leipzig, 1899); among general

works C. A. Brandis, _Gesch. d. Entwickelungen d. griech.

Philosophie_ (Bonn, 1862-1864); Ed. Zeller, _Pre-Socratic Philosophy_

(Eng. trans., London, 1881); for his theory of sense-perception see

especially J. I. Beare, _Greek Theories of Elementary Cognition_

(Oxford, 1906).

DEMOGEOT, JACQUES CLAUDE (1808-1804), French man of letters, was born in

Paris on the 5th of July 1808. He was professor of rhetoric at the lycée

Saint Louis, and subsequently assistant professor at the Sorbonne. He

wrote many detached papers on various literary subjects, and two reports

on secondary education in England and Scotland in collaboration with H.

Montucci. His reputation rests on his excellent _Histoire de la

littérature française depuis ses origines jusqu'à nos jours_ (1851),

which has passed through many subsequent editions. He was also the

author of a _Tableau de la littérature française au XVII^e siècle_

(1859), and of a work (3 vols., 1880-1883) on the influence of foreign

literatures on the development of French literature. He died in Paris in

1894.

DEMOGRAPHY (from Gr. [Greek: dêmos], people, and [Greek: graphein], to

write), the science which deals with the statistics of health and

disease, of the physical, intellectual, physiological and economical

aspects of births, marriages and mortality. The first to employ the word

was Achille Guillard in his _Éléments de statistique humaine ou

démographie comparée_ (1855), but the meaning which he attached to it

was merely that of the science which treats of the condition, general

movement and progress of population in civilized countries, i.e. little

more than what is comprised in the ordinary vital statistics, gleaned

from census and registration reports. The word has come to have a much

wider meaning and may now be defined as that branch of statistics which

deals with the life-conditions of peoples.

DEMOIVRE, ABRAHAM (1667-1754), English mathematician of French

extraction, was born at Vitry, in Champagne, on the 26th of May 1667. He

belonged to a French Protestant family, and was compelled to take refuge

in England at the revocation of the edict of Nantes, in 1685. Having

laid the foundation of his mathematical studies in France, he prosecuted

them further in London, where he read public lectures on natural

philosophy for his support. The _Principia mathematica_ of Sir Isaac

Newton, which chance threw in his way, caused him to prosecute his

studies with vigour, and he soon became distinguished among first-rate

mathematicians. He was among the intimate personal friends of Newton,

and his eminence and abilities secured his admission into the Royal

Society of London in 1697, and afterwards into the Academies of Berlin

and Paris. His merit was so well known and acknowledged by the Royal

Society that they judged him a fit person to decide the famous contest

between Newton and G. W. Leibnitz (see INFINITESIMAL CALCULUS). The life

of Demoivre was quiet and uneventful. His old age was spent in obscure

poverty, his friends and associates having nearly all passed away before

him. He died at London, on the 27th of November 1754.

The _Philosophical Transactions_ contain several of his papers. He

also published some excellent works, such as _Miscellanea analytica

de seriebus et quadraturis_ (1730), in 4to. This contained some

elegant and valuable improvements on then existing methods, which

have themselves, however, long been superseded. But he has been more

generally known by his _Doctrine of Chances, or Method of Calculating

the Probabilities of Events at Play_. This work was first printed in

1618, in 4to, and dedicated to Sir Isaac Newton. It was reprinted in

1738, with great alterations and improvements; and a third edition

was afterwards published with additions in 1756. He also published a

_Treatise on Annuities_ (1725), which has passed through several

revised and corrected editions.

See C. Hutton, _Mathematical and Philosophical Dictionary_ (1815).

For _Demoivre's Theorem_ see TRIGONOMETRY: Analytical.

DEMONETIZATION, a term employed in monetary science in two different

senses. (a) The depriving or divesting of a metal of its standard

monetary value. From 1663 to 1717 silver was the standard of value in

England and gold coins passed at their market value. The debasement and

underrating of the silver coinage insensibly brought about the

demonetization of silver in England as a standard of value and the

substitution of gold. During the latter half of the 19th century, the

tremendous depreciation of silver, owing to its continually increasing

production, and consequently the impossibility of preserving any ratio

of stability between it and gold, led to the abandonment or

demonetization of the metal as a standard and to its use merely as token

money. (b) The withdrawal of coin from circulation, as, for example, in

England that of all pre-Victorian gold coins under the provisions of the

Coinage Act 1889, and the royal proclamation of the 22nd of November

1890.

DEMONOLOGY ([Greek: Daimôn], demon, genius, spirit), the branch of the

science of religions which relates to superhuman beings which are not

gods. It deals both with benevolent beings which have no circle of

worshippers or so limited a circle as to be below the rank of gods, and

with malevolent beings of all kinds. It may be noted that the original

sense of "demon" was a benevolent being; but in English the name now

connotes malevolence; in German it has a neutral sense, e.g.

_Korndämonen_. Demons, when they are regarded as spirits, may belong to

either of the classes of spirits recognized by primitive animism (q.v.);

that is to say, they may be human, or non-human, separable souls, or

discarnate spirits which have never inhabited a body; a sharp

distinction is often drawn between these two classes, notably by the

Melanesians, the West Africans and others; the Arab _jinn_, for example,

are not reducible to modified human souls; at the same time these

classes are frequently conceived as producing identical results, e.g.

diseases.

Under the head of demons are classified only such spirits as are

believed to enter into relations with the human race; the term therefore

includes (1) human souls regarded as genii or familiars, (2) such as

receive a cult (for which see ANCESTOR WORSHIP), and (3) ghosts or other

malevolent revenants; excluded are souls conceived as inhabiting another

world. But just as gods are not necessarily spiritual, demons may also

be regarded as corporeal; vampires for example are sometimes described

as human heads with appended entrails, which issue from the tomb to

attack the living during the night watches. The so-called Spectre

Huntsman of the Malay Peninsula is said to be a man who scours the

firmament with his dogs, vainly seeking for what he could not find on

earth--a buck mouse-deer pregnant with male offspring; but he seems to

be a living man; there is no statement that he ever died, nor yet that

he is a spirit. The incubus and succubus of the middle ages are

sometimes regarded as spiritual beings; but they were held to give very

real proof of their bodily existence. It should, however, be remembered

that primitive peoples do not distinguish clearly between material and

immaterial beings.

_Prevalence of Demons._--According to a conception of the world

frequently found among peoples of the lower cultures, all the affairs of

life are supposed to be under the control of spirits, each ruling a

certain element or even object, and themselves in subjection to a

greater spirit. Thus, the Eskimo are said to believe in spirits of the

sea, earth and sky, the winds, the clouds and everything in nature.

Every cove of the seashore, every point, every island and prominent rock

has its guardian spirit. All are of the malignant type, to be

propitiated only by acceptable offerings from persons who desire to

visit the locality where it is supposed to reside. A rise in culture

often results in an increase in the number of spiritual beings with whom

man surrounds himself. Thus, the Koreans go far beyond the Eskimo and

number their demons by thousands of billions; they fill the chimney, the

shed, the living-room, the kitchen, they are on every shelf and jar; in

thousands they waylay the traveller as he leaves his home, beside him,

behind him, dancing in front of him, whirring over his head, crying out

upon him from air, earth and water.

Especially complicated was the ancient Babylonian demonology; all the

petty annoyances of life--a sudden fall, a headache, a quarrel--were set

down to the agency of fiends; all the stronger emotions--love, hate,

jealousy and so on--were regarded as the work of demons; in fact so

numerous were they, that there were special fiends for various parts of

the human body--one for the head, another for the neck, and so on.

Similarly in Egypt at the present day the _jinn_ are believed to swarm

so thickly that it is necessary to ask their permission before pouring

water on the ground, lest one should accidentally be soused and vent his

anger on the offending human being. But these beliefs are far from being

confined to the uncivilized; Greek philosophers like Porphyry, no less

than the fathers of the Church, held that the world was pervaded with

spirits; side by side with the belief in witchcraft, we can trace

through the middle ages the survival of primitive animistic views; and

in our own day even these beliefs subsist in unsuspected vigour among

the peasantry of the more uneducated European countries. In fact the

ready acceptance of spiritualism testifies to the force with which the

primitive animistic way of looking at things appealed to the white races

in the middle of the last century.

_Character of Spiritual World._--The ascription of malevolence to the

world of spirits is by no means universal. In West Africa the Mpongwe

believe in local spirits, just as do the Eskimo; but they are regarded

as inoffensive in the main; true, the passer-by must make some trifling

offering as he nears their place of abode; but it is only occasionally

that mischievous acts, such as the throwing down of a tree on a

passer-by, are, in the view of the natives, perpetuated by the Ombuiri.

So too, many of the spirits especially concerned with the operations of

nature are conceived as neutral or even benevolent; the European peasant

fears the corn-spirit only when he irritates him by trenching on his

domain and taking his property by cutting the corn; similarly, there is

no reason why the more insignificant personages of the pantheon should

be conceived as malevolent, and we find that the _Petara_ of the Dyaks

are far from indiscriminating and malignant, though disease and death

are laid at their door.

_Classification._--Besides the distinctions of human and non-human,

hostile and friendly, the demons in which the lower races believe are

classified by them according to function, each class with a distinctive

name, with extraordinary minuteness, the list in the case of the Malays

running to several score. They have, for example, a demon of the

waterfall, a demon of wild-beast tracks, a demon which interferes with

snares for wild-fowl, a baboon demon, which takes possession of dancers

and causes them to perform wonderful feats of climbing, &c. But it is

impossible to do more than deal with a few types, which will illustrate

the main features of the demonology of savage, barbarous and

semi-civilized peoples.

(a) Natural causes, either of death or of disease, are hardly, if at

all, recognized by the uncivilized; everything is attributed to spirits

or magical influence of some sort. The spirits which cause disease may

be human or non-human and their influence is shown in more than one way;

they may enter the body of the victim (see POSSESSION), and either

dominate his mind as well as his body, inflict specific diseases, or

cause pains of various sorts. Thus the Mintra of the Malay Peninsula

have a demon corresponding to every kind of disease known to them; the

Tasmanian ascribed a gnawing pain to the presence within him of the soul

of a dead man, whom he had unwittingly summoned by mentioning his name

and who was devouring his liver; the Samoan held that the violation of a

food tabu would result in the animal being formed within the body of the

offender and cause his death. The demon theory of disease is still

attested by some of our medical terms; epilepsy (Gr. [Greek: epilêpsis],

seizure) points to the belief that the patient is possessed. As a

logical consequence of this view of disease the mode of treatment among

peoples in the lower stages of culture is mainly magical; they endeavour

to propitiate the evil spirits by sacrifice, to expel them by spells,

&c. (see EXORCISM), to drive them away by blowing, &c.; conversely we

find the Khonds attempt to keep away smallpox by placing thorns and

brushwood in the paths leading to places decimated by that disease, in

the hope of making the disease demon retrace his steps. This theory of

disease disappeared sooner than did the belief in possession; the

energumens ([Greek: energoumenoi]) of the early Christian church, who

were under the care of a special clerical order of exorcists, testify to

a belief in possession; but the demon theory of disease receives no

recognition; the energumens find their analogues in the converts of

missionaries in China, Africa and elsewhere. Another way in which a

demon is held to cause disease is by introducing itself into the

patient's body and sucking his blood; the Malays believe that a woman

who dies in childbirth becomes a _langsuir_ and sucks the blood of

children; victims of the lycanthrope are sometimes said to be done to

death in the same way; and it is commonly believed in Africa that the

wizard has the power of killing people in this way, probably with the

aid of a familiar.

(b) One of the primary meanings of [Greek: daimôn] is that of genius or

familiar, tutelary spirit; according to Hesiod the men of the golden

race became after death guardians or watchers over mortals. The idea is

found among the Romans also; they attributed to every man a genius who

accompanied him through life. A Norse belief found in Iceland is that

the _fylgia_, a genius in animal form, attends human beings; and these

animal guardians may sometimes be seen fighting; in the same way the

Siberian shamans send their animal familiars to do battle instead of

deciding their quarrels in person. The animal guardian reappears in the

_nagual_ of Central America (see article TOTEMISM), the _yunbeai_ of

some Australian tribes, the _manitou_ of the Red Indian and the bush

soul of some West African tribes; among the latter the link between

animal and human being is said to be established by the ceremony of the

blood bond. Corresponding to the animal guardian of the ordinary man, we

have the familiar of the witch or wizard. All the world over it is held

that such people can assume the form of animals; sometimes the power of

the shaman is held to depend on his being able to summon his familiar;

among the Ostiaks the shaman's coat was covered with representations of

birds and beasts; two bear's claws were on his hands; his wand was

covered with mouse-skin; when he wished to divine he beat his drum till

a black bird appeared and perched on his hut; then the shaman swooned,

the bird vanished, and the divination could begin. Similarly the

Greenland _angekok_ is said to summon his _torngak_ (which may be an

ancestral ghost or an animal) by drumming; he is heard by the bystanders

to carry on a conversation and obtain advice as to how to treat

diseases, the prospects of good weather and other matters of importance.

The familiar, who is sometimes replaced by the devil, commonly figured

in witchcraft trials; and a statute of James I. enacted that all persons

invoking an evil spirit or consulting, covenanting with, entertaining,

employing, feeding or rewarding any evil spirit should be guilty of

felony and suffer death. In modern spiritualism the familiar is

represented by the "guide," corresponding to which we have the

theosophical "guru."

(c) The familiar is sometimes an ancestral spirit, and here we touch the

fringe of the cult of the dead (see also ANCESTOR WORSHIP). Especially

among the lower races the dead are regarded as hostile; the Australian

avoids the grave even of a kinsman and elaborate ceremonies of mourning

are found amongst most primitive peoples, whose object seems to be to

rid the living of the danger they run by association with the ghost of

the dead. Among the Zulu the spirits of the dead are held to be friendly

or hostile, just as they were in life; on the Congo a man after death

joins the good or bad spirits according as his life has been good or

bad. Especially feared among many peoples are the souls of those who

have committed suicide or died a violent death; the woman who dies in

childbed is held to become a demon of the most dangerous kind; even the

unburied, as restless, dissatisfied spirits, are more feared than

ordinary ghosts. Naturally spirits of these latter kinds are more

valuable as familiars than ordinary dead men's souls. We find many

recipes for securing their aid. In the Malay Peninsula the blood of a

murdered man must be put in a bottle and prayers said over; after seven

days of this worship a sound is heard and the operator puts his finger

into the bottle for the polong, as the demon is called, to suck; it will

fly through the air in the shape of an exceedingly diminutive female

figure, and is always preceded by its pet, the pelesit, in the shape of

a grasshopper. In Europe a similar demon is said to be obtainable from a

cock's egg. In South Africa and India, on the other hand, the magician

digs up a dead body, especially of a child, to secure a familiar. The

evocation of spirits, especially in the form of necromancy, is an

important branch of the demonology of many peoples; and the

peculiarities of trance mediumship, which seem sufficiently established

by modern research, go far to explain the vogue of this art. It seems to

have been common among the Jews, and the case of the witch of Endor is

narrated in a way to suggest something beyond fraud; in the book of

magic which bears the name of Dr Faustus may be found many of the

formulae for raising demons; in England may be mentioned especially Dr

Dee as one of the most famous of those who claimed before the days of

modern spiritualism (q.v.) to have intercourse with the unseen world and

to summon demons at his will. Sometimes the spirits were summoned to

appear as did the phantoms of the Greek heroes to Odysseus; sometimes

they were called to enter a crystal (see CRYSTAL-GAZING); sometimes they

are merely asked to declare the future or communicate by moving external

objects without taking a visible form; thus among the Karens at the

close of the burial ceremonies the ghost of the dead man, which is said

to hover round till the rites are completed, is believed to make a ring

swing round and snap the string from which it hangs.

(d) The vampire is a particular form of demon which calls for some

notice. In the Malay Peninsula, parts of Polynesia, &c., it is conceived

as a head with attached entrails, which issues, it may be from the

grave, to suck the blood of living human beings. According to the Malays

a _penanggalan_ (vampire) is a living witch, and can be killed if she

can be caught; she is especially feared in houses where a birth has

taken place and it is the custom to hang up a bunch of thistle in order

to catch her; she is said to keep vinegar at home to aid her in

re-entering her own body. In Europe the Slavonic area is the principal

seat of vampire beliefs, and here too we find, as a natural development,

that means of preventing the dead from injuring the living have been

evolved by the popular mind. The corpse of the vampire, which may often

be recognized by its unnaturally ruddy and fresh appearance, should be

staked down in the grave or its head should be cut off; it is

interesting to note that the cutting off of heads of the dead was a

neolithic burial rite.

(e) The vampire is frequently blended in popular idea with the

Poltergeist (q.v.) or knocking spirit, and also with the werwolf (see

LYCANTHROPY).

(f) As might be expected, dream demons are very common; in fact the word

"nightmare" (A. S. _mær_, spirit, elf) preserves for us a record of this

form of belief, which is found right down to the lowest planes of

culture. The Australian, when he suffers from an oppression in his

sleep, says that Koin is trying to throttle him; the Caribs say that

Maboya beats them in their sleep; and the belief persists to this day in

some parts of Europe; horses too are said to be subject to the

persecutions of demons, which ride them at night. Another class of

nocturnal demons are the incubi and succubi, who are said to consort

with human beings in their sleep; in the Antilles these were the ghosts

of the dead; in New Zealand likewise ancestral deities formed liaisons

with females; in the Samoan Islands the inferior gods were regarded as

the fathers of children otherwise unaccounted for; the Hindus have rites

prescribed by which a companion nymph may be secured. The question of

the real existence of incubi and succubi, whom the Romans identified

with the fauns, was gravely discussed by the fathers of the church; and

in 1418 Innocent VIII. set forth the doctrine of lecherous demons as an

indisputable fact; and in the history of the Inquisition and of trials

for witchcraft may be found the confessions of many who bore witness to

their reality. In the _Anatomy of Melancholy_ Burton assures us that

they were never more numerous than in A.D. 1600.

(g) Corresponding to the personal tutelary spirit (supra, b) we have the

genii of buildings and places. The Romans celebrated the birthday of a

town and of its genius, just as they celebrated that of a man; and a

snake was a frequent form for this kind of demon; when we compare with

this the South African belief that the snakes which are in the

neighbourhood of the kraal are the incarnations of the ancestors of the

residents, it seems probable that some similar idea lay at the bottom of

the Roman belief; to this day in European folklore the house snake or

toad, which lives in the cellar, is regarded as the "life index" or

other self of the father of the house; the death of one involves the

death of the other, according to popular belief. The assignment of genii

to buildings and gates is connected with an important class of

sacrifices; in order to provide a tutelary spirit, or to appease

chthonic deities, it was often the custom to sacrifice a human being or

an animal at the foundation of a building; sometimes we find a similar

guardian provided for the frontier of a country or of a tribe. The house

spirit is, however, not necessarily connected with this idea. In Russia

the _domovoi_ (house spirit) is an important personage in folk-belief;

he may object to certain kinds of animals, or to certain colours in

cattle; and must, generally speaking, be propitiated and cared for.

Corresponding to him we have the drudging goblin of English folklore.

(h) It has been shown above how the animistic creed postulates the

existence of all kinds of local spirits, which are sometimes tied to

their habitats, sometimes free to wander. Especially prominent in

Europe, classical, medieval and modern, and in East Asia, is the spirit

of the lake, river, spring, or well, often conceived as human, but also

in the form of a bull or horse; the term Old Nick may refer to the

water-horse Nök. Less specialized in their functions are many of the

figures of modern folklore, some of whom have perhaps replaced some

ancient goddess, e.g. Frau Holda; others, like the Welsh Pwck, the

Lancashire boggarts or the more widely found Jack-o'-Lantern (Will o'

the Wisp), are sprites who do no more harm than leading the wanderer

astray. The banshee is perhaps connected with ancestral or house

spirits; the Wild Huntsman, the Gabriel hounds, the Seven Whistlers,

&c., are traceable to some actual phenomenon; but the great mass of

British goblindom cannot now be traced back to savage or barbarous

analogues. Among other local sprites may be mentioned the kobolds or

spirits of the mines. The fairies (see FAIRY), located in the fairy

knolls by the inhabitants of the Shetlands, may also be put under this

head.

(i) The subject of plant souls is referred to in connexion with animism

(q.v.); but certain aspects of this phase of belief demand more detailed

treatment. Outside the European area vegetation spirits of all kinds

seem to be conceived, as a rule, as anthropomorphic; in classical

Europe, and parts of the Slavonic area at the present day, the tree

spirit was believed to have the form of a goat, or to have goats' feet.

Of special importance in Europe is the conception of the so-called "corn

spirit"; W. Mannhardt collected a mass of information proving that the

life of the corn is supposed to exist apart from the corn itself and to

take the form, sometimes of an animal, sometimes of a man or woman,

sometimes of a child. There is, however, no proof that the belief is

animistic in the proper sense. The animal which popular belief

identified with the corn demon is sometimes killed in the spring in

order to mingle its blood or bones with the seed; at harvest-time it is

supposed to sit in the last corn and the animals driven out from it are

sometimes killed; at others the reaper who cuts the last ear is said to

have killed the "wolf" or the "dog," and sometimes receives the name of

"wolf" or "dog" and retains it till the next harvest. The corn spirit is

also said to be hiding in the barn till the corn is threshed, or it may

be said to reappear at midwinter, when the farmer begins to think of his

new year of labour and harvest. Side by side with the conception of the

corn spirit as an animal is the anthropomorphic view of it; and this

element must have predominated in the evolution of the cereal deities

like Demeter; at the same time traces of the association of gods and

goddesses of corn with animal embodiments of the corn spirit are found.

(j) In many parts of the world, and especially in Africa, is found the

conception termed the "otiose creator"; that is to say, the belief in a

great deity, who is the author of all that exists but is too remote from

the world and too high above terrestrial things to concern himself with

the details of the universe. As a natural result of this belief we find

the view that the operations of nature are conducted by a multitude of

more or less obedient subordinate deities; thus, in Portuguese West

Africa the Kimbunda believe in Suku-Vakange, but hold that he has

committed the government of the universe to innumerable _kilulu_ good

and bad; the latter kind are held to be far more numerous, but

Suku-Vakange is said to keep them in order by occasionally smiting them

with his thunderbolts; were it not for this, man's lot would be

insupportable.

Sometimes the gods of an older religion degenerate into the demons of

the belief which supersedes it. A conspicuous example of this is found

in the attitude of the Hebrew prophets to the gods of the nations, whose

power they recognize without admitting their claim to reverence and

sacrifice. The same tendency is seen in many early missionary works and

is far from being without influence even at the present day. In the

folklore of European countries goblindom is peopled by gods and

nature-spirits of an earlier heathendom. We may also compare the Persian

_devs_ with the Indian _devas_.

_Expulsion of Demons._--In connexion with demonology mention must be

made of the custom of expelling ghosts, spirits or evils generally.

Primitive peoples from the Australians upwards celebrate, usually at

fixed intervals, a driving out of hurtful influences. Sometimes, as

among the Australians, it is merely the ghosts of those who have died in

the year which are thus driven out; from this custom must be

distinguished another, which consists in dismissing the souls of the

dead at the close of the year and sending them on their journey to the

other world; this latter custom seems to have an entirely different

origin and to be due to love and not fear of the dead. In other cases it

is believed that evil spirits generally or even non-personal evils such

as sins are believed to be expelled. In these customs originated perhaps

the scapegoat, some forms of sacrifice (q.v.) and other cathartic

ceremonies.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Tylor, _Primitive Culture_; Frazer, _Golden Bough_;

Skeat, _Malay Magic_; Bastian, _Der Mensch in der Geschichte_;

Callaway, _Religion of the Amazulu_; Hild, _Étude sur les démons_;

Welcker, _Griechische Götterlehre_, i. 731; _Trans. Am. Phil. Soc._

xxvi. 79; Calmet, _Dissertation sur les esprits_; Maury, _La Magie_;

L. W. King, _Babylonian Magic_; Lenormant, _La Magie chez les

Chaldéens_; R. C. Thompson, _Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia_;

Grimm, _Deutsche Mythologie_; Roskoff, _Geschichte des Teufels_;

Sibly, _Illustration of the Occult Sciences_; Scott, _Demonology_;

Pitcairn, _Scottish Criminal Trials_; _Jewish Quarterly Rev._ viii.

576, &c.; Horst, _Zauberbibliothek_; _Jewish Encyclopedia_, s.v.

"Demonology." See also bibliography to POSSESSION, ANIMISM and other

articles. (N. W. T.)

DE MORGAN, AUGUSTUS (1806-1871), English mathematician and logician, was

born in June 1806, at Madura, in the Madras presidency. His father,

Colonel John De Morgan, was employed in the East India Company's

service, and his grandfather and great-grandfather had served under

Warren Hastings. On the mother's side he was descended from James

Dodson, F.R.S., author of the _Anti-logarithmic Canon_ and other

mathematical works of merit, and a friend of Abraham Demoivre. Seven

months after the birth of Augustus, Colonel De Morgan brought his wife,

daughter and infant son to England, where he left them during a

subsequent period of service in India, dying in 1816 on his way home.

Augustus De Morgan received his early education in several private

schools, and before the age of fourteen years had learned Latin, Greek

and some Hebrew, in addition to acquiring much general knowledge. At the

age of sixteen years and a half he entered Trinity College, Cambridge,

and studied mathematics, partly under the tuition of Sir G. B. Airy. In

1825 he gained a Trinity scholarship. De Morgan's love of wide reading

somewhat interfered with his success in the mathematical tripos, in

which he took the fourth place in 1827. He was prevented from taking his

M.A. degree, or from obtaining a fellowship, by his conscientious

objection to signing the theological tests then required from masters of

arts and fellows at Cambridge.

A career in his own university being closed against him, he entered

Lincoln's Inn; but had hardly done so when the establishment, in 1828,

of the university of London, in Gower Street, afterwards known as

University College, gave him an opportunity of continuing his

mathematical pursuits. At the early age of twenty-two he gave his first

lecture as professor of mathematics in the college which he served with

the utmost zeal and success for a third of a century. His connexion with

the college, indeed, was interrupted in 1831, when a disagreement with

the governing body caused De Morgan and some other professors to resign

their chairs simultaneously. When, in 1836, his successor was

accidentally drowned, De Morgan was requested to resume the

professorship.

In 1837 he married Sophia Elizabeth, daughter of William Frend, a

Unitarian in faith, a mathematician and actuary in occupation, a notice

of whose life, written by his son-in-law, will be found in the _Monthly

Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society_ (vol. v.). They settled in

Chelsea (30 Cheyne Row), where in later years Mrs De Morgan had a large

circle of intellectual and artistic friends.

As a teacher of mathematics De Morgan was unrivalled. He gave

instruction in the form of continuous lectures delivered extempore from

brief notes. The most prolonged mathematical reasoning, and the most

intricate formulae, were given with almost infallible accuracy from the

resources of his extraordinary memory. De Morgan's writings, however

excellent, give little idea of the perspicuity and elegance of his viva

voce expositions, which never failed to fix the attention of all who

were worthy of hearing him. Many of his pupils have distinguished

themselves, and, through Isaac Todhunter and E. J. Routh, he had an

important influence on the later Cambridge school. For thirty years he

took an active part in the business of the Royal Astronomical Society,

editing its publications, supplying obituary notices of members, and for

eighteen years acting as one of the honorary secretaries. He was also

frequently employed as consulting actuary, a business in which his

mathematical powers, combined with sound judgment and business-like

habits, fitted him to take the highest place.

De Morgan's mathematical writings contributed powerfully towards the

progress of the science. His memoirs on the "Foundation of Algebra," in

the 7th and 8th volumes of the _Cambridge Philosophical Transactions_,

contain some of the most important contributions which have been made to

the philosophy of mathematical method; and Sir W. Rowan Hamilton, in the

preface to his _Lectures on Quaternions_, refers more than once to those

papers as having led and encouraged him in the working out of the new

system of quaternions. The work on _Trigonometry and Double Algebra_

(1849) contains in the latter part a most luminous and philosophical

view of existing and possible systems of symbolic calculus. But De

Morgan's influence on mathematical science in England can only be

estimated by a review of his long series of publications, which

commence, in 1828, with a translation of part of Bourdon's _Elements of

Algebra_, prepared for his students. In 1830 appeared the first edition

of his well-known _Elements of Arithmetic_, which did much to raise the

character of elementary training. It is distinguished by a simple yet

thoroughly philosophical treatment of the ideas of number and magnitude,

as well as by the introduction of new abbreviated processes of

computation, to which De Morgan always attributed much practical

importance. Second and third editions were called for in 1832 and 1835;

a sixth edition was issued in 1876. De Morgan's other principal

mathematical works were _The Elements of Algebra_ (1835), a valuable but

somewhat dry elementary treatise; the _Essay on Probabilities_ (1838),

forming the 107th volume of _Lardner's Cyclopaedia_, which forms a

valuable introduction to the subject; and _The Elements of Trigonometry

and Trigonometrical Analysis, preliminary to the Differential Calculus_

(1837). Several of his mathematical works were published by the Society

for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, of which De Morgan was at one

time an active member. Among these may be mentioned the _Treatise on the

Differential and Integral Calculus_ (1842); the _Elementary

Illustrations of the Differential and Integral Calculus_, first

published in 1832, but often bound up with the larger treatise; the

essay, _On the Study and Difficulties of Mathematics_ (1831); and a

brief treatise on _Spherical Trigonometry_ (1834). By some accident the

work on probability in the same series, written by Sir J. W. Lubbock and

J. Drinkwater-Bethune, was attributed to De Morgan, an error which

seriously annoyed his nice sense of bibliographical accuracy. For

fifteen years he did all in his power to correct the mistake, and

finally wrote to _The Times_ to disclaim the authorship. (See _Monthly

Notices_ of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. xxvi. p. 118.) Two of

his most elaborate treatises are to be found in the _Encyclopaedia

metropolitana_, namely the articles on the Calculus of Functions, and the

Theory of Probabilities. De Morgan's minor mathematical writings were

scattered over various periodicals. A list of these and other papers

will be found in the _Royal Society's Catalogue_, which contains

forty-two entries under the name of De Morgan.

In spite, however, of the excellence and extent of his mathematical

writings, it is probably as a logical reformer that De Morgan will be

best remembered. In this respect he stands alongside of his great

contemporaries Sir W. R. Hamilton and George Boole, as one of several

independent discoverers of the all-important principle of the

quantification of the predicate. Unlike most mathematicians, De Morgan

always laid much stress upon the importance of logical training. In his

admirable papers upon the modes of teaching arithmetic and geometry,

originally published in the _Quarterly Journal of Education_ (reprinted

in _The Schoolmaster_, vol ii.), he remonstrated against the neglect of

logical doctrine. In 1839 he produced a small work called _First

Notions of Logic_, giving what he had found by experience to be much

wanted by students commencing with _Euclid_. In October 1846 he

completed the first of his investigations, in the form of a paper

printed in the _Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society_

(vol. viii. No. 29). In this paper the principle of the quantified

predicate was referred to, and there immediately ensued a memorable

controversy with Sir W. R. Hamilton regarding the independence of De

Morgan's discovery, some communications having passed between them in

the autumn of 1846. The details of this dispute will be found in the

original pamphlets, in the _Athenaeum_ and in the appendix to De

Morgan's _Formal Logic_. Suffice it to say that the independence of De

Morgan's discovery was subsequently recognized by Hamilton. The eight

forms of proposition adopted by De Morgan as the basis of his system

partially differ from those which Hamilton derived from the quantified

predicate. The general character of De Morgan's development of logical

forms was wholly peculiar and original on his part.

Late in 1847 De Morgan published his principal logical treatise, called

_Formal Logic, or the Calculus of Inference, Necessary and Probable_.

This contains a reprint of the _First Notions_, an elaborate development

of his doctrine of the syllogism, and of the numerical definite

syllogism, together with chapters of great interest on probability,

induction, old logical terms and fallacies. The severity of the treatise

is relieved by characteristic touches of humour, and by quaint anecdotes

and allusions furnished from his wide reading and perfect memory. There

followed at intervals, in the years 1850, 1858, 1860 and 1863, a series

of four elaborate memoirs on the "Syllogism," printed in volumes ix. and

x. of the _Cambridge Philosophical Transactions_. These papers taken

together constitute a great treatise on logic, in which he substituted

improved systems of notation, and developed a new logic of relations,

and a new onymatic system of logical expression. In 1860 De Morgan

endeavoured to render their contents better known by publishing a

_Syllabus of a Proposed System of Logic_, from which may be obtained a

good idea of his symbolic system, but the more readable and interesting

discussions contained in the memoirs are of necessity omitted. The

article "Logic" in the _English Cyclopaedia_ (1860) completes the list

of his logical publications.

Throughout his logical writings De Morgan was led by the idea that the

followers of the two great branches of exact science, logic and

mathematics, had made blunders,--the logicians in neglecting

mathematics, and the mathematicians in neglecting logic. He endeavoured

to reconcile them, and in the attempt showed how many errors an acute

mathematician could detect in logical writings, and how large a field

there was for discovery. But it may be doubted whether De Morgan's own

system, "horrent with mysterious spiculae," as Hamilton aptly described

it, is fitted to exhibit the real analogy between quantitative and

qualitative reasoning, which is rather to be sought in the logical works

of Boole.

Perhaps the largest part, in volume, of De Morgan's writings remains

still to be briefly mentioned; it consists of detached articles

contributed to various periodical or composite works. During the

years 1833-1843 he contributed very largely to the first edition of

the _Penny Cyclopaedia_, writing chiefly on mathematics, astronomy,

physics and biography. His articles of various length cannot be less

in number than 850, and they have been estimated to constitute a

sixth part of the whole _Cyclopaedia_, of which they formed perhaps

the most valuable portion. He also wrote biographies of Sir Isaac

Newton and Edmund Halley for Knight's _British Worthies_, various

notices of scientific men for the _Gallery of Portraits_, and for the

uncompleted _Biographical Dictionary_ of the Useful Knowledge

Society, and at least seven articles in Smith's _Dictionary of Greek

and Roman Biography_. Some of De Morgan's most interesting and useful

minor writings are to be found in the _Companions to the British

Almanack_, to which he contributed without fail one article each year

from 1831 up to 1857 inclusive. In these carefully written papers he

treats a great variety of topics relating to astronomy, chronology,

decimal coinage, life assurance, bibliography and the history of

science. Most of them are as valuable now as when written.

Among De Morgan's miscellaneous writings may be mentioned his

_Explanation of the Gnomonic Projection of the Sphere_, 1836,

including a description of the maps of the stars, published by the

Useful Knowledge Society; his _Treatise on the Globes, Celestial and

Terrestrial_, 1845, and his remarkable _Book of Almanacks_ (2nd

edition, 1871), which contains a series of thirty-five almanacs, so

arranged with indices of reference, that the almanac for any year,

whether in old style or new, from any epoch, ancient or modern, up to

A. D. 2000, may be found without difficulty, means being added for

verifying the almanac and also for discovering the days of new and

full moon from 2000 B. C. up to A. D. 2000. De Morgan expressly draws

attention to the fact that the plan of this book was that of L. B.

Francoeur and J. Ferguson, but the plan was developed by one who was

an unrivalled master of all the intricacies of chronology. The two

best tables of logarithms, the small five-figure tables of the Useful

Knowledge Society (1839 and 1857), and Shroen's Seven Figure-Table

(5th ed., 1865), were printed under De Morgan's superintendence.

Several works edited by him will be found mentioned in the _British

Museum Catalogue_. He made numerous anonymous contributions through a

long series of years to the _Athenaeum_, and to _Notes and Queries_,

and occasionally to _The North British Review_, _Macmillan's

Magazine_, &c.

Considerable labour was spent by De Morgan upon the subject of

decimal coinage. He was a great advocate of the pound and mil scheme.

His evidence on this subject was sought by the Royal Commission, and,

besides constantly supporting the Decimal Association in periodical

publications, he published several separate pamphlets on the subject.

One marked characteristic of De Morgan was his intense and yet

reasonable love of books. He was a true bibliophile and loved to

surround himself, as far as his means allowed, with curious and rare

books. He revelled in all the mysteries of watermarks, title-pages,

colophons, catch-words and the like; yet he treated bibliography as

an important science. As he himself wrote, "the most worthless book

of a bygone day is a record worthy of preservation; like a telescopic

star, its obscurity may render it unavailable for most purposes; but

it serves, in hands which know how to use it, to determine the places

of more important bodies." His evidence before the Royal Commission

on the British Museum in 1850 (Questions 5704*-5815,* 6481-6513, and

8966-8967), should be studied by all who would comprehend the

principles of bibliography or the art of constructing a catalogue,

his views on the latter subject corresponding with those carried out

by Panizzi in the _British Museum Catalogue_. A sample of De Morgan's

bibliographical learning is to be found in his account of

_Arithmetical Books, from the Invention of Printing_ (1847), and

finally in his _Budget of Paradoxes_. This latter work consists of

articles most of which were originally published in the Athenaeum,

describing the various attempts which have been made to invent a

perpetual motion, to square the circle, or to trisect the angle; but

De Morgan took the opportunity to include many curious bits gathered

from his extensive reading, so that the _Budget_, as reprinted by his

widow (1872), with much additional matter prepared by himself, forms

a remarkable collection of scientific _ana_. De Morgan's

correspondence with contemporary scientific men was very extensive

and full of interest. It remains unpublished, as does also a large

mass of mathematical tracts which he prepared for the use of his

students, treating all parts of mathematical science, and embodying

some of the matter of his lectures. De Morgan's library was purchased

by Lord Overstone, and presented to the university of London.

In 1866 his life became clouded by the circumstances which led him to

abandon the institution so long the scene of his labours. The refusal of

the council to accept the recommendation of the senate, that they should

appoint an eminent Unitarian minister to the professorship of logic and

mental philosophy, revived all De Morgan's sensitiveness on the subject

of sectarian freedom; and, though his feelings were doubtless excessive,

there is no doubt that gloom was thrown over his life, intensified in

1867 by the loss of his son George Campbell De Morgan, a young man of

the highest scientific promise, whose name, as De Morgan expressly

wished, will long be connected with the London Mathematical Society, of

which he was one of the founders. From this time De Morgan rapidly fell

into ill-health, previously almost unknown to him, dying on the 18th of

March 1871. An interesting and truthful sketch of his life will be found

in the _Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society_ for the 9th

of February 1872, vol. xxii. p. 112, written by A. C. Ranyard, who says,

"He was the kindliest, as well as the most learned of men--benignant to

every one who approached him, never forgetting the claims which weakness

has on strength."

De Morgan left no published indications of his opinions on religious

questions, in regard to which he was extremely reticent. He seldom or

never entered a place of worship, and declared that he could not listen

to a sermon, a circumstance perhaps due to the extremely strict

religious discipline under which he was brought up. Nevertheless there

is reason to believe that he was of a deeply religious disposition.

Like M. Faraday and Sir I. Newton he entertained a confident belief in

Providence, founded not on any tenuous inference, but on personal

feeling. His hope of a future life also was vivid to the last.

It is impossible to omit a reference to his witty sayings, some

specimens of which are preserved in Dr Sadler's most interesting _Diary

of Henry Crabb Robinson_ (1869), which also contains a humorous account

of H. C. R. by De Morgan. It may be added that De Morgan was a great

reader and admirer of Dickens; he was also fond of music, and a fair

performer on the flute. (W. S. J.)

His son, WILLIAM FREND DE MORGAN (b. 1839), first became known in

artistic circles as a potter, the "De Morgan" tiles being remarkable for

his rediscovery of the secret of some beautiful colours and glazes. But

later in life he became even better known to the literary world by his

novels, _Joseph Vance_ (1906), _Alice for Short_ (1907), _Somehow Good_

(1908) and _It Never Can Happen Again_ (1909), in which the influence of

Dickens and of his own earlier family life were conspicuous.

DEMOSTHENES, the great Attic orator and statesman, was born in 384 (or

383) B.C. His father, who bore the same name, was an Athenian citizen

belonging to the deme of Paeania. His mother, Cleobule, was the daughter

of Gylon, a citizen who had been active in procuring the protection of

the kings of Bosporus for the Athenian colony of Nymphaeon in the

Crimea, and whose wife was a native of that region. On these grounds the

adversaries of Demosthenes, in after-days, used absurdly to taunt him

with a traitorous or barbarian ancestry. The boy had a bitter foretaste

of life. He was seven years old when his father died, leaving property

(in a manufactory of swords, and another of upholstery) worth about

£3500, which, invested as it seems to have been (20% was not thought

exorbitant), would have yielded rather more than £600 a year, £300 a

year was a very comfortable income at Athens, and it was possible to

live decently on a tenth of it. Nicias, a very rich man, had property

equivalent, probably, to not more than £4000 a year. Demosthenes was

born then, to a handsome, though not a great fortune. But his

guardians--two nephews of his father, Aphobus and Demophon, and one

Therippides--abused their trust, and handed over to Demosthenes, when he

came of age, rather less than one-seventh of his patrimony, perhaps

between £50 and £60 a year. Demosthenes, after studying with Isaeus

(q.v.)--then the great master of forensic eloquence and of Attic law,

especially in will cases[1]--brought an action against Aphobus, and

gained a verdict for about £2400. But it does not appear that he got the

money; and, after some more fruitless proceedings against Onetor, the

brother-in-law of Aphobus, the matter was dropped,--not, however, before

his relatives had managed to throw a public burden (the equipment of a

ship of war) on their late ward, whereby his resources were yet further

straitened. He now became a professional writer of speeches or pleas

([Greek: logographos]) for the law courts, sometimes speaking himself.

Biographers have delighted to relate how painfully Demosthenes made

himself a tolerable speaker,--how, with pebbles in his mouth, he tried

his lungs against the waves, how he declaimed as he ran up hill, how he

shut himself up in a cell, having first guarded himself against a

longing for the haunts of men by shaving one side of his head, how he

wrote out Thucydides eight times, how he was derided by the Assembly and

encouraged by a judicious actor who met him moping about the Peiraeus.

He certainly seems to have been the reverse of athletic (the stalwart

Aeschines upbraids him with never having been a sportsman), and he

probably had some sort of defect or impediment in his speech as a boy.

Perhaps the most interesting fact about his work for the law courts is

that he seems to have continued it, in some measure, through the most

exciting parts of his great political career. The speech for Phormio

belongs to the same year as the plea for Megalopolis. The speech against

Boeotus "Concerning the Name" comes between the First Philippic and the

First Olynthiac. The speech against Pantaenetus comes between the speech

"On the Peace" and the Second Philippic.

Political career and creed.

The political career of Demosthenes, from his first direct contact with

public affairs in 355 B.C. to his death in 322, has an essential unity.

It is the assertion, in successive forms adapted to successive moments,

of unchanging principles. Externally, it is divided into the chapter

which precedes and the chapter which follows Chaeronea. But its inner

meaning, the secret of its indomitable vigour, the law which harmonizes

its apparent contrasts, cannot be understood unless it is regarded as a

whole. Still less can it be appreciated in all its large wisdom and

sustained self-mastery if it is viewed merely as a duel between the

ablest champion and the craftiest enemy of Greek freedom. The time

indeed came when Demosthenes and Philip stood face to face as

representative antagonists in a mortal conflict. But, for Demosthenes,

the special peril represented by Philip, the peril of subjugation to

Macedon, was merely a disastrous accident. Philip happened to become the

most prominent and most formidable type of a danger which was already

threatening Greece before his baleful star arose. As Demosthenes said to

the Athenians, if the Macedonian had not existed, they would have made

another Philip for themselves. Until Athens recovered something of its

old spirit, there must ever be a great standing danger, not for Athens

only, but for Greece,--the danger that sooner or later, in some shape,

from some quarter--no man could foretell the hour, the manner or the

source--barbarian violence would break up the gracious and undefiled

tradition of separate Hellenic life.

What was the true relation of Athens to Greece? The answer which he gave

to this question is the key to the life of Demosthenes. Athens, so

Demosthenes held, was the natural head of Greece. Not, however, as an

empress holding subject or subordinate cities in a dependence more or

less compulsory. Rather as that city which most nobly expressed the

noblest attributes of Greek political existence, and which, by her

preeminent gifts both of intellect and of moral insight, was primarily

responsible, everywhere and always, for the maintenance of those

attributes in their integrity. Wherever the cry of the oppressed goes up

from Greek against Greek, it was the voice of Athens which should first

remind the oppressor that Hellene differed from barbarian in postponing

the use of force to the persuasions of equal law. Wherever a barbarian

hand offered wrong to any city of the Hellenic sisterhood, it was the

arm of Athens which should first be stretched forth in the holy strength

of Apollo the Averter. Wherever among her own children the ancient

loyalty was yielding to love of pleasure or of base gain, there, above

all, it was the duty of Athens to see that the central hearth of Hellas

was kept pure. Athens must never again seek "empire" in the sense which

became odious under the influence of Cleon and Hyperbolus,--when, to use

the image of Aristophanes, the allies were as Babylonian slaves grinding

in the Athenian mill. Athens must never permit, if she could help it,

the re-establishment of such a domination as Sparta exercised in Greece

from the battle of Aegospotami to the battle of Leuctra. Athens must aim

at leading a free confederacy, of which the members should be bound to

her by their own truest interests. Athens must seek to deserve the

confidence of all Greeks alike.

Theoric fund.

Such, in the belief of Demosthenes, was the part which Athens must

perform if Greece was to be safe. But reforms must be effected before

Athens could be capable of such a part. The evils to be cured were

different phases of one malady. Athens had long been suffering from the

profound decay of public spirit. Since the early years of the

Peloponnesian War, the separation of Athenian society from the state had

been growing more and more marked. The old type of the eminent citizen,

who was at once statesman and general, had become almost extinct.

Politics were now managed by a small circle of politicians. Wars were

conducted by professional soldiers whose troops were chiefly

mercenaries, and who were usually regarded by the politicians either as

instruments or as enemies. The mass of the citizens took no active

interest in public affairs. But, though indifferent to principles, they

had quickly sensitive partialities for men, and it was necessary to keep

them in good humour. Pericles had introduced the practice of giving a

small bounty from the treasury to the poorer citizens, for the purpose

of enabling them to attend the theatre at the great festivals,--in other

words, for the purpose of bringing them under the concentrated influence

of the best Attic culture. A provision eminently wise for the age of

Pericles easily became a mischief when the once honourable name of

"demagogue" began to mean a flatterer of the mob. Before the end of the

Peloponnesian War the festival-money (_theoricon_) was abolished. A few

years after the restoration of the democracy it was again introduced.

But until 354 B.C. it had never been more than a gratuity, of which the

payment depended on the treasury having a surplus. In 354 B.C. Eubulus

became steward of the treasury. He was an able man, with a special

talent for finance, free from all taint of personal corruption, and

sincerely solicitous for the honour of Athens, but enslaved to

popularity, and without principles of policy. His first measure was to

make the festival-money a permanent item in the budget. Thenceforth this

bounty was in reality very much what Demades afterwards called it,--the

cement ([Greek: kolla]) of the democracy.

Forensic speeches in Public causes.

Years before the danger from Macedon was urgent, Demosthenes had begun

the work of his life,--the effort to lift the spirit of Athens, to

revive the old civic loyalty, to rouse the city into taking that place

and performing that part which her own welfare as well as the safety of

Greece prescribed. His formally political speeches must never be

considered apart from his forensic speeches in public causes. The

Athenian procedure against the proposer of an unconstitutional law--i.e.

of a law incompatible with existing laws--had a direct tendency to make

the law court, in such cases, a political arena. The same tendency was

indirectly exerted by the tolerance of Athenian juries (in the absence

of a presiding expert like a judge) for irrelevant matter, since it was

usually easy for a speaker to make capital out of the adversary's

political antecedents. But the forensic speeches of Demosthenes for

public causes are not only political in this general sense. They are

documents, as indispensable as the Olynthiacs or Philippics, for his own

political career. Only by taking them along with the formally political

speeches, and regarding the whole as one unbroken series, can we see

clearly the full scope of the task which he set before him,--a task in

which his long resistance to Philip was only the most dramatic incident,

and in which his real achievement is not to be measured by the event of

Chaeronea.

A forensic speech, composed for a public cause, opens the political

career of Demosthenes with a protest against a signal abuse. In 355

B.C., at the age of twenty-nine, he wrote the speech "Against

Androtion." This combats on legal grounds a proposal that the out-going

senate should receive the honour of a golden crown. In its larger

aspect, it is a denunciation of the corrupt system which that senate

represented, and especially of the manner in which the treasury had been

administered by Aristophon. In 354 B.C. Demosthenes composed and spoke

the oration "Against Leptines," who had effected a slender saving for

the state by the expedient of revoking those hereditary exemptions from

taxation which had at various times been conferred in recognition of

distinguished merit. The descendants of Harmodius and Aristogeiton alone

had been excepted from the operation of the law. This was the first time

that the voice of Demosthenes himself had been heard on the public

concerns of Athens, and the utterance was a worthy prelude to the career

of a statesman. He answers the advocates of the retrenchment by pointing

out that the public interest will not ultimately be served by a

wholesale violation of the public faith. In the same year he delivered

his first strictly political speech, "On the Navy Boards" (Symmories).

The Athenians, irritated by the support which Artaxerxes had lately

given to the revolt of their allies, and excited by rumours of his

hostile preparations, were feverishly eager for a war with Persia.

Demosthenes urges that such an enterprise would at present be useless;

that it would fail to unite Greece; that the energies of the city should

be reserved for a real emergency; but that, before the city can

successfully cope with any war, there must be a better organization of

resources, and, first of all, a reform of the navy, which he outlines

with characteristic lucidity and precision.

Two years later (352 B.C.) he is found dealing with a more definite

question of foreign policy. Sparta, favoured by the depression of Thebes

in the Phocian War, was threatening Megalopolis. Both Sparta and

Megalopolis sent embassies to Athens. Demosthenes supported Megalopolis.

The ruin of Megalopolis would mean, he argued, the return of Spartan

domination in the Peloponnesus. Athenians must not favour the tyranny of

any one city. They must respect the rights of all the cities, and thus

promote unity based on mutual confidence. In the same year Demosthenes

wrote the speech "Against Timocrates," to be spoken by the same Diodorus

who had before prosecuted Androtion, and who now combated an attempt to

screen Androtion and others from the penalties of embezzlement. The

speech "Against Aristocrates," also of 352 B.C., reproves that foreign

policy of feeble makeshifts which was now popular at Athens. The

Athenian tenure of the Thracian Chersonese partly depended for its

security on the good-will of the Thracian prince Cersobleptes.

Charidemus, a soldier of fortune who had already played Athens false,

was now the brother-in-law and the favourite of Cersobleptes.

Aristocrates proposed that the person of Charidemus should be invested

with a special sanctity, by the enactment that whoever attempted his

life should be an outlaw from all dominions of Athens. Demosthenes

points out that such adulation is as futile as it is fulsome. Athens can

secure the permanence of her foreign possessions only in one way--by

being strong enough to hold them.

Principles of policy.

Thus, between 355 and 352, Demosthenes had laid down the main lines of

his policy. Domestic administration must be purified. Statesmen must be

made to feel that they are responsible to the state. They must not be

allowed to anticipate judgment on their deserts by voting each other

golden crowns. They must not think to screen misappropriation of public

money by getting partisans to pass new laws about state-debtors. Foreign

policy must be guided by a larger and more provident conception of

Athenian interests. When public excitement demands a foreign war, Athens

must not rush into it without asking whether it is necessary, whether it

will have Greek support, and whether she herself is ready for it. When a

strong Greek city threatens a weak one, and seeks to purchase Athenian

connivance with the bribe of a border-town, Athens must remember that

duty and prudence alike command her to respect the independence of all

Greeks. When it is proposed, by way of insurance on Athenian possessions

abroad, to flatter the favourite of a doubtful ally, Athens must

remember that such devices will not avail a power which has no army

except on paper, and no ships fit to leave their moorings.

Athens and Philip.

But the time had gone by when Athenians could have tranquil leisure for

domestic reform. A danger, calling for prompt action, had at last come

very near. For six years Athens had been at war with Philip on account

of his seizure of Amphipolis. Meanwhile he had destroyed Potidaea and

founded Philippi. On the Thracian coasts he had become master of Abdera

and Maronea. On the Thessalian coast he had acquired Methone. In a

second invasion of Thessaly, he had overthrown the Phocians under

Onomarchus, and had advanced to Thermopylae, to find the gates of Greece

closed against him by an Athenian force. He had then marched to Heraeon

on the Propontis, and had dictated a peace to Cersobleptes. He had

formed an alliance with Cardia, Perinthus and Byzantium. Lastly, he had

begun to show designs on the great Confederacy of Olynthus, the more

warlike Miletus of the North. The First Philippic of Demosthenes was

spoken in 351 B.C. The Third Philippic--the latest of the extant

political speeches--was spoken in 341 B.C. Between these he delivered

eight political orations, of which seven are directly concerned with

Philip. The whole series falls into two great divisions. The first

division comprises those speeches which were spoken against Philip while

he was still a foreign power threatening Greece from without. Such are

the First Philippic and the three orations for Olynthus. The second

division comprises the speeches spoken against Philip when, by

admission to the Amphictyonic Council, he had now won his way within the

circle of the Greek states, and when the issue was no longer between

Greece and Macedonia, but between the Greek and Macedonian parties in

Greece. Such are the speech "On the Peace," the speech "On the Embassy,"

the speech "On the Chersonese," the Second and Third Philippics.

First Philippic.

The First Philippic, spoken early in 351 B.C., was no sudden note of

alarm drawing attention to an unnoticed peril. On the contrary, the

Assembly was weary of the subject. For six years the war with Philip had

been a theme of barren talk. Demosthenes urges that it is time to do

something, and to do it with a plan. Athens fighting Philip has fared,

he says, like an amateur boxer opposed to a skilled pugilist. The

helpless hands have only followed blows which a trained eye should have

taught them to parry. An Athenian force must be stationed in the north,

at Lemnos or Thasos. Of 2000 infantry and 200 cavalry at least one

quarter must be Athenian citizens capable of directing the mercenaries.

Later in the same year Demosthenes did another service to the cause of

national freedom. Rhodes, severed by its own act from the Athenian

Confederacy, had since 355 been virtually subject to Mausolus, prince

([Greek: dynastês]) of Caria, himself a tributary of Persia. Mausolus

died in 351, and was succeeded by his widow Artemisia. The democratic

party in Rhodes now appealed to Athens for help in throwing off the

Carian yoke. Demosthenes supported their application in his speech "For

the Rhodians." No act of his life was a truer proof of statesmanship. He

failed. But at least he had once more warned Athens that the cause of

political freedom was everywhere her own, and that, wherever that cause

was forsaken, there a new danger was created both for Athens and for

Greece.

Euboean War.

Next year (350) an Athenian force under Phocion was sent to Euboea, in

support of Plutarchus, tyrant of Eretria, against the faction of

Cleitarchus. Demosthenes protested against spending strength, needed for

greater objects, on the local quarrels of a despot. Phocion won a

victory at Tamynae. But the "inglorious and costly war" entailed an

outlay of more than £12,000 on the ransom of captives alone, and ended

in the total destruction of Athenian influence throughout Euboea. That

island was now left an open field for the intrigues of Philip. Worst of

all, the party of Eubulus not only defeated a proposal, arising from

this campaign, for applying the festival-money to the war-fund, but

actually carried a law making it high treason to renew the proposal. The

degree to which political enmity was exasperated by the Euboean War may

be judged from the incident of Midias, an adherent of Eubulus, and a

type of opulent rowdyism. Demosthenes was choragus of his tribe, and was

wearing the robe of that sacred office at the great festival in the

theatre of Dionysus, when Midias struck him on the face. The affair was

eventually compromised. The speech "Against Midias" written by

Demosthenes for the trial (in 349) was neither spoken nor completed, and

remains, as few will regret, a sketch.

Olynthiacs.

It was now three years since, in 352, the Olynthians had sent an embassy

to Athens, and had made peace with their only sure ally. In 350 a second

Olynthian embassy had sought and obtained Athenian help. The hour of

Olynthus had indeed come. In 349 Philip opened war against the Chalcidic

towns of the Olynthian League. The First and Second Olynthiacs of

Demosthenes were spoken in that year in support of sending one force to

defend Olynthus and another to attack Philip. "Better now than later,"

is the thought of the First Olynthiac. The Second argues that Philip's

strength is overrated. The Third--spoken in 348--carries us into the

midst of action.[2] It deals with practical details. The festival-fund

must be used for the war. The citizens must serve in person. A few

months later, Olynthus and the thirty-two towns of the confederacy were

swept from the earth. Men could walk over their sites, Demosthenes said

seven years afterwards, without knowing that such cities had existed. It

was now certain that Philip could not be stopped outside of Greece. The

question was, What point within Greece shall he be allowed to reach?

Peace between Philip and Athens.

End of Phocian War.

Eubulus and his party, with that versatility which is the privilege of

political vagueness, now began to call for a congress of the allies to

consider the common danger. They found a brilliant interpreter in

Aeschines, who, after having been a tragic actor and a clerk to the

assembly, had entered political life with the advantages of a splendid

gift for eloquence, a fine presence, a happy address, a ready wit and a

facile conscience. While his opponents had thus suddenly become warlike,

Demosthenes had become pacific. He saw that Athens must have time to

collect strength. Nothing could be gained, meanwhile, by going on with

the war. Macedonian sympathizers at Athens, of whom Philocrates was the

chief, also favoured peace. Eleven envoys, including Philocrates,

Aeschines, and Demosthenes, were sent to Philip in February 346 B.C.

After a debate at Athens, peace was concluded with Philip in April.

Philip on the one hand, Athens and her allies on the other, were to keep

what they respectively held at the time when the peace was ratified. But

here the Athenians made a fatal error. Philip was bent on keeping the

door of Greece open. Demosthenes was bent on shutting it against him.

Philip was now at war with the people of Halus in Thessaly. Thebes had

for ten years been at war with Phocis. Here were two distinct chances

for Philip's armed intervention in Greece. But if the Halians and the

Phocians were included in the peace, Philip could not bear arms against

them without violating the peace. Accordingly Philip insisted that they

should not be included. Demosthenes insisted they should be included.

They were not included. The result followed speedily. The same envoys

were sent a second time to Philip at the end of April 346 for the

purpose of receiving his oaths in ratification of the peace. It was late

in June before he returned from Thrace to Pella--thus gaining, under the

terms, all the towns that he had taken meanwhile. He next took the

envoys with him through Thessaly to Thermopylae. There--at the

invitation of Thessalians and Thebans--he intervened in the Phocian War.

Phalaecus surrendered. Phocis was crushed. Philip took its place in the

Amphictyonic Council, and was thus established as a Greek power in the

very centre, at the sacred hearth, of Greece. The right of precedence in

consultation of the oracle ([Greek: promanteia]) was transferred from

Athens to Philip. While indignant Athenians were clamouring for the

revocation of the peace, Demosthenes upheld it in his speech "On the

Peace" in September. It ought never to have been made on such terms, he

said. But, having been made, it had better be kept. "If we went to war

now, where should we find allies? And after losing Oropus, Amphipolis,

Cardia, Chios, Cos, Rhodes, Byzantium, shall we fight about the shadow

of Delphi?"

Second Philippic.

Third Philippic.

During the eight years between the peace of Philocrates and the battle

of Chaeronea, the authority of Demosthenes steadily grew, until it

became first predominant and then paramount. He had, indeed, a

melancholy advantage. Each year his argument was more and more cogently

enforced by the logic of facts. In 344 he visited the Peloponnesus for

the purpose of counteracting Macedonian intrigue. Mistrust, he told the

Peloponnesian cities, is the safeguard of free communities against

tyrants. Philip lodged a formal complaint at Athens. Here, as elsewhere,

the future master of Greece reminds us of Napoleon on the eve of the

first empire. He has the same imperturbable and persuasive effrontery in

protesting that he is doing one thing at the moment when his energies

are concentrated on doing the opposite. Demosthenes replied in the

Second Philippic. "If," he said, "Philip is the friend of Greece, we are

doing wrong. If he is the enemy of Greece, we are doing right. Which is

he? I hold him to be our enemy, because everything that he has hitherto

done has benefited himself and hurt us." The prosecution of Aeschines

for malversation on the embassy (commonly known as _De falsa

legatione_), which was brought to an issue in the following year, marks

the moral strength of the position now held by Demosthenes. When the

gravity of the charge and the complexity of the evidence are considered,

the acquittal of Aeschines by a narrow majority must be deemed his

condemnation. The speech "On the Affairs of the Chersonese" and the

Third Philippic were the crowning efforts of Demosthenes. Spoken in the

same year, 341 B.C., and within a short space of each other, they must

be taken together. The speech "On the Affairs of the Chersonese" regards

the situation chiefly from an Athenian point of view. "If the peace

means," argues Demosthenes, "that Philip can seize with impunity one

Athenian possession after another, but that Athenians shall not on their

peril touch aught that belongs to Philip, where is the line to be drawn?

We shall go to war, I am told, when it is necessary. If the necessity

has not come yet, when will it come?" The Third Philippic surveys a

wider horizon. It ascends from the Athenian to the Hellenic view. Philip

has annihilated Olynthus and the Chalcidic towns. He has ruined Phocis.

He has frightened Thebes. He has divided Thessaly. Euboea and the

Peloponnesus are his. His power stretches from the Adriatic to the

Hellespont. Where shall be the end? Athens is the last hope of Greece.

And, in this final crisis, Demosthenes was the embodied energy of

Athens. It was Demosthenes who went to Byzantium, brought the estranged

city back to the Athenian alliance, and snatched it from the hands of

Philip. It was Demosthenes who, when Philip had already seized Elatea,

hurried to Thebes, who by his passionate appeal gained one last chance,

the only possible chance, for Greek freedom, who broke down the barrier

of an inveterate jealousy, who brought Thebans to fight beside

Athenians, and who thus won at the eleventh hour a victory for the

spirit of loyal union which took away at least one bitterness from the

unspeakable calamity of Chaeronea.

Municipal activity.

But the work of Demosthenes was not closed by the ruin of his cause.

During the last sixteen years of his life (338-322) he rendered services

to Athens not less important, and perhaps more difficult, than those

which he had rendered before. He was now, as a matter of course,

foremost in the public affairs of Athens. In January 337, at the annual

winter Festival of the Dead in the Outer Ceramicus, he spoke the funeral

oration over those who had fallen at Chaeronea. He was member of a

commission for strengthening the fortifications of the city ([Greek:

teichopoios]). He administered the festival-fund. During a dearth which

visited Athens between 330 and 326 he was charged with the organization

of public relief. In 324 he was chief ([Greek: architheoros]) of the

sacred embassy to Olympia. Already, in 336, Ctesiphon had proposed that

Demosthenes should receive a golden crown from the state, and that his

extraordinary merits should be proclaimed in the theatre at the Great

Dionysia. The proposal was adopted by the senate as a bill ([Greek:

probouleuma]); but it must be passed by the Assembly before it could

become an act ([Greek: psêphisma]). To prevent this, Aeschines gave

notice, in 336, that he intended to proceed against Ctesiphon for having

proposed an unconstitutional measure. For six years Aeschines avoided

action on this notice. At last, in 330, the patriotic party felt strong

enough to force him to an issue. Aeschines spoke the speech "Against

Ctesiphon," an attack on the whole public life of Demosthenes.

Demosthenes gained an overwhelming victory for himself and for the

honour of Athens in the most finished, the most splendid and the most

pathetic work of ancient eloquence--the immortal oration "On the Crown."

Affair of Harpalus.

In the winter of 325-324 Harpalus, the receiver-general of Alexander in

Asia, fled to Greece, taking with him 8000 mercenaries, and treasure

equivalent to about a million and a quarter sterling. On the motion of

Demosthenes he was warned from the harbours of Attica. Having left his

troops and part of his treasure at Taenarum, he again presented himself

at the Peiraeus, and was now admitted. He spoke fervently of the

opportunity which offered itself to those who loved the freedom of

Greece. All Asia would rise with Athens to throw off the hated yoke.

Fiery patriots like Hypereides were in raptures. For zeal which could be

bought Harpalus had other persuasions. But Demosthenes stood firm. War

with Alexander would, he saw, be madness. It could have but one

result,--some indefinitely worse doom for Athens. Antipater and Olympias

presently demanded the surrender of Harpalus. Demosthenes opposed this.

But he reconciled the dignity with the loyalty of Athens by carrying a

decree that Harpalus should be arrested, and that his treasure should be

deposited in the Parthenon, to be held in trust for Alexander. Harpalus

escaped from prison. The amount of the treasure, which Harpalus had

stated as 700 talents, proved to be no more than 350. Demosthenes

proposed that the Areopagus should inquire what had become of the other

350. Six months, spent in party intrigues, passed before the Areopagus

gave in their report ([Greek: apophasis]). The report inculpated nine

persons. Demosthenes headed the list of the accused. Hypereides was

among the ten public prosecutors. Demosthenes was condemned, fined fifty

talents, and, in default of payment, imprisoned. After a few days he

escaped from prison to Aegina, and thence to Troezen. Two things in this

obscure affair are beyond reasonable doubt. First, that Demosthenes was

not bribed by Harpalus. The hatred of the Macedonian party towards

Demosthenes, and the fury of those vehement patriots who cried out that

he had betrayed their best opportunity, combined to procure his

condemnation, with the help, probably, of some appearances which were

against him. Secondly, it can hardly be questioned that, by withstanding

the hot-headed patriots at this juncture, Demosthenes did heroic service

to Athens.

End of Lamian War.

Demosthenes condemned.

Next year (323 B.C.) Alexander died. Then the voice of Demosthenes,

calling Greece to arms, rang out like a trumpet. Early in August 322 the

battle of Crannon decided the Lamian War against Greece. Antipater

demanded, as the condition on which he would refrain from besieging

Athens, the surrender of the leading patriots. Demades moved the decree

of the Assembly by which Demosthenes, Hypereides, and some others were

condemned to death as traitors. On the 20th of Boedromion (September 16)

322, a Macedonian garrison occupied Munychia. It was a day of solemn and

happy memories, a day devoted, in the celebration of the Great

Mysteries, to sacred joy,--the day on which the glad procession of the

Initiated returned from Eleusis to Athens. It happened, however, to have

another association, more significant than any ironical contrast for the

present purpose of Antipater. It was the day on which, thirteen years

before, Alexander had punished the rebellion of Thebes with

annihilation.

Flight to Calauria.

Death.

The condemned men had fled to Aegina. Parting there from Hypereides and

the rest, Demosthenes went on to Calauria, a small island off the coast

of Argolis. In Calauria there was an ancient temple of Poseidon, once a

centre of Minyan and Ionian worship, and surrounded with a peculiar

sanctity as having been, from time immemorial, an inviolable refuge for

the pursued. Here Demosthenes sought asylum. Archias of Thurii, a man

who, like Aeschines, had begun life as a tragic actor, and who was now

in the pay of Antipater, soon traced the fugitive, landed in Calauria,

and appeared before the temple of Poseidon with a body of Thracian

spearmen. Plutarch's picturesque narrative bears the marks of artistic

elaboration. Demosthenes had dreamed the night before that he and

Archias were competing for a prize as tragic actors; the house applauded

Demosthenes; but his chorus was shabbily equipped, and Archias gained

the prize. Archias was not the man to stick at sacrilege. In Aegina,

Hypereides and the others had been taken from the shrine of Aeacus. But

he hesitated to violate an asylum so peculiarly sacred as the Calaurian

temple. Standing before its open door, with his Thracian soldiers around

him, he endeavoured to prevail on Demosthenes to quit the holy precinct.

Antipater would be certain to pardon him. Demosthenes sat silent, with

his eyes fixed on the ground. At last, as the emissary persisted in his

bland persuasions, he looked up and said,--"Archias, you never moved me

by your acting, and you will not move me now by your promises." Archias

lost his temper, and began to threaten. "Now," rejoined Demosthenes,

"you speak like a real Macedonian oracle; before you were acting. Wait a

moment, then, till I write to my friends." With these words, Demosthenes

withdrew into the inner part of the temple,--still visible, however,

from the entrance. He took out a roll of paper, as if he were going to

write, put the pen to his mouth, and bit it, as was his habit in

composing. Then he threw his head back, and drew his cloak over it. The

Thracian spearmen, who were watching him from the door, began to gibe at

his cowardice. Archias went in to him, encouraged him to rise, repeated

his old arguments, talked to him of reconciliation with Antipater. By

this time Demosthenes felt that the poison which he had sucked from the

pen was beginning to work. He drew the cloak from his face, and looked

steadily at Archias. "Now you can play the part of Creon in the tragedy

as soon as you like," he said, "and cast forth my body unburied. But I,

O gracious Poseidon, quit thy temple while I yet live; Antipater and his

Macedonians have done what they could to pollute it." He moved towards

the door, calling to them to support his tottering steps. He had just

passed the altar of the god, when he fell, and with a groan gave up the

ghost (October 322 B.C.).

Political character.

As a statesman, Demosthenes needs no epitaph but his own words in the

speech "On the Crown,"--_I say that, if the event had been manifest to

the whole world beforehand, not even then ought Athens to have forsaken

this course, if Athens had any regard for her glory, or for her past, or

for the ages to come._ The Persian soldier in Herodotus, following

Xerxes to foreseen ruin, confides to his fellow-guest at the banquet

that the bitterest pain which man can know is [Greek: polla phroneonta

mêdenoss krateein],--complete, but helpless, prescience. In the grasp of

a more inexorable necessity, the champion of Greek freedom was borne

onward to a more tremendous catastrophe than that which strewed the

waters of Salamis with Persian wrecks and the field of Plataea with

Persian dead; but to him, at least, it was given to proclaim aloud the

clear and sure foreboding that filled his soul, to do all that true

heart and free hand could do for his cause, and, though not to save, yet

to encourage, to console and to ennoble. As the inspiration of his life

was larger and higher than the mere courage of resistance, so his merit

must be regarded as standing altogether outside and above the struggle

with Macedon. The great purpose which he set before him was to revive

the public spirit, to restore the political vigour, and to re-establish

the Panhellenic influence of Athens,--never for her own advantage

merely, but always in the interest of Greece. His glory is, that while

he lived he helped Athens to live a higher life. Wherever the noblest

expressions of her mind are honoured, wherever the large conceptions of

Pericles command the admiration of statesmen, wherever the architect and

the sculptor love to dwell on the masterpieces of Ictinus and Pheidias,

wherever the spell of ideal beauty or of lofty contemplation is

exercised by the creations of Sophocles or of Plato, there it will be

remembered that the spirit which wrought in all these would have passed

sooner from among men, if it had not been recalled from a trance, which

others were content to mistake for the last sleep, by the passionate

breath of Demosthenes.

Oratory.

The orator in whom artistic genius was united, more perfectly than in

any other man, with moral enthusiasm and with intellectual grasp, has

held in the modern world the same rank which was accorded to him in the

old; but he cannot enjoy the same appreciation. Macaulay's ridicule has

rescued from oblivion the criticism which pronounced the eloquence of

Chatham to be more ornate than that of Demosthenes, and less diffuse

than that of Cicero. Did the critic, asks Macaulay, ever hear any

speaking that was less ornamented than that of Demosthenes, or more

diffuse than that of Cicero? Yet the critic's remark was not so

pointless as Macaulay thought it. Sincerity and intensity are, indeed,

to the modern reader, the most obvious characteristics of Demosthenes.

His style is, on the whole, singularly free from what we are accustomed

to regard as rhetorical embellishment. Where the modern orator would

employ a wealth of imagery, or elaborate a picture in exquisite detail,

Demosthenes is content with a phrase or a word. Burke uses, in reference

to Hyder Ali, the same image which Demosthenes uses in reference to

Philip. "Compounding all the materials of fury, havoc, desolation, into

one black cloud, he hung for a while on the declivity of the mountains.

Whilst the authors of all these evils were idly and stupidly gazing on

this menacing meteor, which darkened all their horizon, it suddenly

burst, and poured down the whole of its contents upon the plains of the

Carnatic." Demosthenes forbears to amplify. "The people gave their

voice, and the danger which hung upon our borders went by like a cloud."

To our modern feeling, the eloquence of Demosthenes exhibits everywhere

a general stamp of earnest and simple strength. But it is well to

remember the charge made against the style of Demosthenes by a

contemporary Greek orator, and the defence offered by the best Greek

critic of oratory. Aeschines reproached the diction of Demosthenes with

excess of elaboration and adornment ([Greek: periergia]). Dionysius, in

reply, admits that Demosthenes does at times depart from

simplicity,--that his style is sometimes elaborately ornate and remote

from the ordinary usage. But, he adds, Demosthenes adopts this manner

where it is justified by the elevation of his theme. The remark may

serve to remind us of our modern disadvantage for a full appreciation of

Demosthenes. The old world felt, as we do, his moral and mental

greatness, his fire, his self-devotion, his insight. But it felt also,

as we can never feel, the versatile perfection of his skill. This it was

that made Demosthenes unique to the ancients. The ardent patriot, the

far-seeing statesman, were united in his person with the consummate and

unapproachable artist. Dionysius devoted two special treatises to

Demosthenes,--one on his language and style ([Greek: lektikos topos]),

the other on his treatment of subject-matter ([Greek: pragmatikos

topos]). The latter is lost. The former is one of the best essays in

literary criticism which antiquity has bequeathed to us. The idea which

it works out is that Demosthenes has perfected Greek prose by fusing in

a glorious harmony the elements which had hitherto belonged to separate

types. The austere dignity of Antiphon, the plain elegance of Lysias,

the smooth and balanced finish of that middle or normal character which

is represented by Isocrates, have come together in Demosthenes. Nor is

this all. In each species he excels the specialists. He surpasses the

school of Antiphon in perspicuity, the school of Lysias in verve, the

school of Isocrates in variety, in felicity, in symmetry, in pathos, in

power. Demosthenes has at command all the discursive brilliancy which

fascinates a festal audience. He has that power of concise and lucid

narration, of terse reasoning, of persuasive appeal, which is required

by the forensic speaker. His political eloquence can worthily image the

majesty of the state, and enforce weighty counsels with lofty and

impassioned fervour. A true artist, he grudged no labour which could

make the least part of his work more perfect. Isocrates spent ten years

on the _Panegyricus_. After Plato's death, a manuscript was found among

his papers with the first eight words of the _Republic_ arranged in

several different orders. What wonder, then, asks the Greek critic, if

the diligence of Demosthenes was no less incessant and minute? "To me,"

he says, "it seems far more natural that a man engaged in composing

political discourses, imperishable memorials of his power, should

neglect not even the smallest details, than that the veneration of

painters and sculptors, who are darkly showing forth their manual tact

and toil in a corruptible material, should exhaust the refinements of

their art on the veins, on the feathers, on the down of the lip, and the

like niceties."

Works.

More than half of the sixty-one speeches extant under the name of

Demosthenes are certainly or probably spurious. The results to which the

preponderance of opinion leans are given in the following table. Those

marked a were already rejected or doubted in antiquity; those marked m,

first in modern times:[3]