DEMOSTHENES
§ 1. _Introduction_
The art of rhetoric could go no further after Isocrates, who, in addition
to possessing a style which was as perfect as technical dexterity could
make it, had imparted to his numerous disciples the art of composing
sonorous phrases and linking them together in elaborate periods. Any
young aspirant to literary fame might now learn from him to write fluent
easy prose, which would have been impossible to Thucydides or Antiphon.
If the style seems on some occasions to have been so over-elaborated that
the subject-matter takes a secondary place, that was the fault not so
much of the artist as of the man. Isocrates never wrote at fever-heat;
his greatest works come from the study; he is too reflective and
dispassionate to be a really vital force.
With Demosthenes and his contemporaries it is otherwise; they are men
actively engaged in politics, actuated by strong party-feeling, and
swayed by personal passion. This was the outcome of the political
situation: just as feeling was strong in the generation immediately
succeeding the reign of the oligarchical Thirty at Athens, so now, when
Athens and the whole of Greece were fighting not against oligarchy but
the empire of a sovereign ruler, the depths were stirred.
A new feature in this period is the publication of political speeches.
From the time of the earliest orator—Antiphon—the professional
_logographoi_ had preserved their speeches in writing. The majority of
these were delivered in minor cases of only personal importance, though
some orations by Lysias and others have reference indirectly to political
questions.
Another class of speeches which were usually preserved is the
_epideictic_—orations prepared for delivery at some great gathering, such
as a religious festival or a public funeral. Isocrates was an innovator
to the extent of writing in the form of speeches what were really
political treatises; but these were only composed for the reader, and
were never intended to be delivered.
Among the contemporaries of Demosthenes we find some diversity of
practice. Some orators, such as Demades and Phocion, never published any
speeches, and seem, indeed, hardly to have prepared them before delivery.
They relied upon their skill at improvisation.
Others, for instance Aeschines, Lycurgus, and Dinarchus, revised and
published their judicial speeches, especially those which had a political
bearing. Hyperides and Demosthenes, in addition to this, in some
cases gave to the world an amended version of their public harangues.
Demosthenes did not always publish such speeches; there are considerable
periods of his political life which are not represented by any written
work; but he seems to have wished to make a permanent record of certain
utterances containing an explanation of his policy, in order that those
who had not heard him speak, or not fully grasped his import, might
have an opportunity for further study of his views after the ephemeral
effect of his eloquence had passed away. It is probable that most
of the speeches so published belong to times when his party was not
predominant in the State, and the opposition had to reinforce its speech
by writing. The result is of importance in two ways, for the speeches are
a serious contribution to literature, of great value for the study of
the development of Greek prose; and they are of still greater historical
value; for, though untrustworthy in some details, they provide excellent
material for the understanding of the political situation, and the aims
and principles of the anti-Macedonian party.
§ 2. _Life, etc._
Demosthenes the orator was born at Athens in 384 B.C. His father,
Demosthenes, of the deme of Paeania, was a rich manufacturer of
swords; his mother was a daughter of an Athenian named Gylon, who
had left Athens, owing to a charge of treason, at the end of the
Peloponnesian War, settled in the neighbourhood of the Cimmerian
Bosporus (Crimea),[299] and married a rich woman who was a native
of that district. We know nothing more of her except that Aeschines
describes her as a Scythian. She may have been of Hellenic descent; even
Plutarch doubts the assertion of Aeschines that she was a barbarian; the
suspicion, however, was enough for Aeschines, who is able to call his
enemy a Greek-speaking Scythian.
Demosthenes the elder died, leaving his son seven years old and a
daughter aged five. By his will two nephews, Aphobos and Demophon, and a
friend Therippides, were appointed trustees. The two former, as nearest
of kin, were, according to Attic custom, to marry the widow and her
daughter, but these provisions were not carried out. During the years of
Demosthenes’ minority his guardians ruined the sword business by their
mismanagement, and squandered the accumulated profits.
At the age of eighteen Demosthenes, who had been brought up by his
mother, laid claim to his father’s estate. The guardians by various
devices attempted to frustrate him, and three years were spent in
attempts at compromise and examinations before the arbitrators. During
this time Demosthenes was studying rhetoric and judicial procedure under
Isaeus, to whose methods his early speeches are so deeply indebted that a
contemporary remarked ‘he had swallowed Isaeus whole.’[300] At last, when
he was twenty-one years old, he succeeded in bringing his wrongs before
a court; thanks to the training of Isaeus he was able to plead his own
case, and he won it. The ingenuity of his adversaries enabled them to
involve him in further legal proceedings which lasted perhaps two years
more. In the end he was victorious, but by the time he recovered his
patrimony there was very little of it left.
Being forced to find a means of living he adopted the profession of
a speech-writer, which he followed through the greater part of his
life.[301] He made speeches for others to use, as his father had made
swords, and he was as good a craftsman as his father. He succeeded by
this new trade in repairing his damaged fortunes.
In addition to forging such weapons for the use of others, he instructed
pupils in the art of rhetoric. This practice he seems to have abandoned
soon after the year 345 B.C., when public affairs began to have the
chief claim on his energies.[302] From that time forward he wielded with
distinction a sword of his own manufacture.
It is said that as a youth barely of age he made an attempt to speak in
the ecclesia, and failed. His voice was too weak, his delivery imperfect,
and his style unsuitable. The failure only inspired him to practise that
he might overcome his natural defects. We are familiar with the legends
of his declaiming with pebbles in his mouth and reciting speeches when
running up hill, of his studies in a cave by the sea-shore, where he
tried to make his voice heard above the thunder of the waves.
The training to which he subjected himself enabled him to overcome to
a great extent whatever disabilities he may have suffered from, but
he never had the advantage of a voice and delivery such as those of
Aeschines. Legends current in the time of Plutarch represent him as
engrossed in the study of the best prose-writers. He copied out the
history of Thucydides eight times, according to one tradition. This we
need not accept, but it may be taken as certain that he studied the
author’s style carefully. He may not have been a pupil of Isocrates
or Plato, but from the former he must have learnt much in the way
of prose-construction and rhythm, and the latter’s works, though he
dissented from the great principle of Plato that the wise man avoids the
_agora_ and the law-courts, may well have inspired him with many of the
generous ideas which are the foundation of his policy. From the study of
such passages as the Melian controversy and others in which the historian
bases Justice upon the right of the stronger, he may have turned with
relief to the nobler discussion of Justice in the Republic, and indeed,
in his view of what is right and good, Demosthenes approaches much nearer
to the philosopher than to the historian.
A professional speech-writer at Athens might make a speciality of some
particular kind of cases, and by thus restricting his field become a real
expert in one department, as Isaeus, for instance, did in the probate
court; or, on the other hand, he might engage in quite general practice.
A farmer might have a dispute with his neighbours about his boundaries,
or damage caused by the overflow of surface water;[303] a quiet citizen
might seek redress from the law in a case of assault against which he was
unable or unwilling to make retaliation in kind;[304] an underwriter who
had been defrauded in some shady marine transaction might wish to bring
another knave to account.[305] But besides these private cases, whether
they are purely civil,[306] or practically, if not technically, criminal
actions, there is other work of more importance for a _logographos_.
The State may wish to prosecute an official who has abused its trust. In
times when honesty is rarer than cleverness it may find the necessity
of appointing a prosecutor rather for his known integrity than for his
ability in the law-courts. Such a prosecutor will need professional
assistance; and this need evoked some of the early political speeches
of Demosthenes, _Against Androtion_, _Timocrates_, and _Aristocrates_
(355-352 B.C.). It is noticeable that we have no trace of his work
between the speeches delivered against his guardians and the first of
this latter group. Probably he spent these ten years partly in study and
partly in the conduct of such cases as fell to the portion of a beginner.
In this time he must gradually have built up a reputation, but he may not
have wished to keep any record of his first essays which, when he had
arrived at his maturity as a pleader, could not, perhaps, have seemed to
him worthy of his reputation.
It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of these varied activities
to the career of Demosthenes. In the course of these early years he must
have made himself familiar with many branches of the law; he was brought
into intimate relations with individuals of all classes, and all shades
of political opinion. In order to be of use vicariously in political
cases he must have made a careful study of politics. Such studies were
of great value in the education of a statesman, and by means of the
semi-public cases in which he was engaged, though not on his own account,
and perhaps not always in accordance with his convictions, his own
political opinions must gradually have been formed.
In 354 B.C., the year after the trial of Androtion, Demosthenes appeared
in person before the dicastery on behalf of Ctesippus in an action
against Leptines. This was a case of some political importance. A few
months later he came forward in the assembly to deliver his speech _On
the Symmories_, which was shortly followed by another public harangue _On
behalf of the people of Megapolis_ (353 B.C.). Two years later he came to
the front not as a mere pleader, but a real counsellor of the people, and
began the great series of _Philippics_.
His career from this point onward is divided naturally into three periods.
In the first, 351-340 B.C., he was in opposition to the party in power
at Athens. The beginning of it is marked by some famous speeches, the
_First Philippic_ and the first three _Olynthiac_ orations (351-349
B.C.). Till this time the Athenians had not realized the significance of
the growth of the Macedonian power. It was only eight years since Philip,
on his accession to the throne, had undertaken the great task of uniting
the constituent parts of his kingdom which had long been torn by civil
war, of fostering a national feeling, and creating an army. He had won
incredible successes in a few years. By a combination of force and deceit
he had made himself master of Amphipolis and Pydna in 357 B.C. In the
following year he obtained possession of the gold mines of Mt. Pangaeus,
which gave him a source of inexhaustible wealth, and enabled him to
prepare more ambitious enterprises. This was an important crisis in his
career: the bribery for which he was famous and in which he greatly
trusted could now be practised on a large scale.
In the early speeches of Demosthenes there is little reference to
Philip; he is certainly not regarded as a dangerous rival of Athens.
There is a passing mention of him in the _Leptines_ (384 B.C.);[307]
in the _Aristocrates_ he plays a larger part, but is treated almost
contemptuously: ‘You know, of course, whom I mean by this Philip of
Macedon’ (ἴστε δήπου Φίλιππον τουτονὶ τὸν Μακέδονα) is the form in which
his name is introduced (§ 111). He is considered as an enemy, but only
classed with other barbarian princes, such as Cersobleptes of Thrace.
But Philip was not content with annexing towns and districts in his own
neighbourhood in whose integrity Athens was interested—Amphipolis, Pydna,
Potidaea, Methone, and part of Thrace. He interfered in the affairs of
Thessaly, which brought the trouble nearer home to Athens (353 B.C.). In
352 B.C. he proposed to pass through Thermopylae, and take part in the
Sacred War against Phocis, but here Athens intervened for the first time
and checked his progress.
After this one vigorous stroke the Athenians, in spite of Philip’s
renewed activities in Thrace and on the Propontis, relapsed into an
apathetic indifference, from which Demosthenes in vain tried to rouse
them.
The language of the _First Philippic_ shows that Demosthenes fully
recognized the seriousness of the situation, and the imminent danger to
which the complacency of his countrymen was exposing them; he wishes to
make them feel that the case, though not yet desperate, is likely to
become so if they persist in doing nothing, while a whole-hearted effort
will bring them into safety again:
§ 2. ‘Now, first of all, Gentlemen, we must not despair about
the present state of affairs, serious as it is; for our
greatest weakness in the past will be our greatest strength in
the future. What do I mean? I mean that you are in difficulties
simply because you have never exerted yourselves to do your
duty. If things were as they are in spite of serious effort on
your part to act always as you should, there would be no hope
of improvement. Secondly, I would have you reflect on what some
of you can remember and others have been told, of the great
power possessed not long ago by Sparta; yet, in face of that
power you acted honourably and nobly, you in no wise detracted
from your country’s dignity; you faced the war unflinchingly in
a just cause....’
§ 4. ‘If any of you thinks that Philip is invincible,
considering how great is the force at his disposal, and how
our city has lost all these places, he has grounds for his
belief; but let him consider that _we_ once possessed Pydna,
Potidaea, and Methone, and the whole of that district; and many
of the tribes, now subject to him, were free and independent
and better disposed to us than to Macedon. If Philip had felt
as you do now, that it was a serious matter to fight against
Athens because she possessed so many strongholds commanding his
own country, while he was destitute of allies, he would never
have won any of his present successes, or acquired the mighty
power which now alarms you. But he saw clearly that these
places were the prizes of war offered in open competition; that
the property of an absentee goes naturally to those who are on
the spot to claim it, and those who are willing to work hard
and take risks may supplant those who neglect their chances.’
§ 8. ‘Do not imagine that he is as a God, secure in eternal
possession. There are men who hate and fear and envy him, even
among those who seem his closest associates. These feelings are
for the present kept under, because through your slowness and
your negligence they can find no opening. These habits, I say,
you must break with.’
§ 10. ‘When, I ask, when will you be roused to do your
duty?—When the time of need comes, you say. What do you think
of the present crisis? I hold that a free nation can never be
in greater need than when their conduct is of a kind to shame
them. Tell me, do you want to parade the streets asking each
other, “Is there any news to-day?” What graver news can there
be than that a Macedonian is crushing Athens and dictating the
policy of Greece? “Philip is dead,” says one. “Oh no, but he
is ill,” says another. What difference does it make to you?
Even if anything happens to him you will very soon call into
existence a second Philip if you attend to your interests as
carefully as you are doing now. For it is not so much his own
strength as your negligence that has raised him to power.’
The orator proceeds to give detailed advice for the conduct of the
war; he asks for no ‘paper forces,’[308] such as the assembly is in
the habit of voting, irrespective of whether they can be obtained or
not—ten or twenty thousand of mercenaries or the like. He requires a
small but efficient expeditionary force, of which the backbone is to be
a contingent of citizen-hoplites, one quarter of the whole; a small but
efficient fleet, and money to pay both army and navy—this was a matter
often overlooked by the assembly—and an Athenian general in whom the host
will have confidence. The advice was moderate and sound in the extreme.
Demosthenes probably knew what he was talking about when he said that
two thousand hoplites, two hundred cavalry, and fifty triremes were
enough for the present. A resolute attack on Philip by such a force would
probably have put fresh heart into the many enemies whom he had not yet
completely subdued.
There is a further point which marks the difference between the present
advice and that of previous counsellors. The army is not to be enlisted
for a particular expedition only; it is to be maintained at its original
strength as long as may be necessary.[309] Soldiers will serve for a
certain limited time, and at the end of their term will be replaced by
fresh troops.[310] The army which he suggests will not be enough to
defeat Philip unaided, but enough to produce a strong impression. They
might send a large force, but it would be unwieldy, and they could not
maintain it.[311]
The _First Philippic_ failed to produce the effect desired. The
_Olynthiac_ speeches which closely followed it were also ineffectual.
In 349 B.C. Philip seized a pretext for making war on Olynthus, which
appealed for help to Athens. The alliance, which had been sought in
vain in 357 and 352 B.C., was now, apparently, granted with little
opposition, and Chares with two thousand mercenaries sent to the help of
the Olynthian league. Demosthenes tries to emphasize the importance of
the situation, the aid which has been voted is not enough; they ought
to act at once, sending two forces of citizens, not mercenaries; the
one to protect Olynthus, the other to harass Philip elsewhere. Large
supplies of money are necessary, and he hints that the Athenians have
such supplies ready at hand. He refers to the Festival Fund (θεωρικόν),
but concerning this he is in a delicate position. The ministry of
Eubulus was in power, and a law of Eubulus had pronounced any attempt to
tamper with the Θεωρικόν a criminal offence. Demosthenes, being one of a
weak minority, could only move cautiously, suggesting that a change of
administration was desirable, but not proposing a definite motion.
There is a marked difference in tone between the first two speeches and
the third. In the former Demosthenes insists that everything is still to
be done, but he points out that there are many weak points in Philip’s
armour, and a vigorous and united policy may still defeat him. In the
third he makes it clear that the opportunity is past, and the lost ground
can only be recovered by desperate measures. He openly advocates the
conversion of the Festival Fund into a military chest, and this is the
main theme of the oration, to which every argument in turn leads up.[312]
The efforts of Athens were dilatory and insufficient; Olynthus and
the other cities of the Chalcidian League fell in the following year
(349 B.C.); they were destroyed, and all the inhabitants made slaves.
Attempts to unite the Peloponnesian States against the common enemy were
futile, and negotiations were begun between Philip and Athens. They were
conducted at first informally by private persons, but in 347 B.C., on
the proposal of Philocrates, an embassy was sent to Philip. Philip’s
answer, received in 346 B.C., demanded that Phocis and Halus should be
excluded from the proposed treaty. Demosthenes contested this point, but
Aeschines carried it. A second embassy was sent, and the discreditable
Peace of Philocrates was signed. The result was the ruin of Phocis.
Although Demosthenes disapproved of the peace, later in the year, in his
speech _On the Peace_, he urged Athens to keep its conditions, arguing
that to break it would bring upon them even greater disaster.
In consequence of the peace, Philip had been able to convoke the
Amphictyonic Council, and pass a vote for the condemnation of Phocis.
Twenty-two towns were destroyed, and the Phocian votes in the Council
transferred to Philip, who was also made president of the Pythian Games.
Thus the barbarian of a few years ago had received the highest religious
sanction for his claim to be the leader of Greece. Athens alone, whose
precedence he had usurped, refused to recognize him, and Demosthenes saw
that to persist in a hostile attitude might involve all the States in
a new Amphictyonic war. It was better to surrender their scruples, and
to regard the convention not, indeed, as a permanent peace, but a truce
during which fresh preparations might be made. Six years of nominal
peace ensued, during which Philip extended his influence diplomatically.
Whether from principle or policy he treated Athens with marked courtesy,
and, through his agents, made vague offers of the great services which he
was prepared to render. Many of the citizens believed in his sincerity,
notably Isocrates, who in 346 B.C. spoke of the baseless suspicions
caused by the assertions of malicious persons, that Philip wished
to destroy Greek freedom.[313] Demosthenes was never duped by these
professions. He was now a recognized leader, and was gathering to his
side a powerful body of patriotic orators such as Lycurgus and Hyperides.
Philip, after organizing the government of Thessaly and allying himself
with Thebes, interfered in the Peloponnese by supporting Messene,
Arcadia, and Argos against Sparta.
An Athenian embassy, led by Demosthenes, was sent to these states to
advise them of the danger which they incurred by their new alliance.
Some impression was produced, and apparently an embassy was sent by some
of the states to Athens. In reply to their representations, of which no
trace is preserved, Demosthenes delivered the _Second Philippic_. In it
he exposes the king’s duplicity. ‘The means used by Athens to counteract
his manœuvres are quite inadequate; we talk, but he acts. We speak to the
point, but do nothing to the point. Each side is superior in the line
which it follows, but his is the more effective line (§§ 1-5). Philip’s
assurances of good-will are accepted too readily. He realized that
Thebes, in consideration of favours received, would further his designs.
He is now showing favour to Messene and Argos from the same motive. He
has paid Athens the high compliment of not offering her a disgraceful
bargain (§§ 6-12). His past actions betray him; as he made the Boeotian
cities subject to Thebes, he is not likely to free the Peloponnesian
States from Sparta. He knows that he is really aiming at you, and that
you are aware of it; that is why he is ever on the alert, and supports
against you Thebans and Peloponnesians, who, he thinks, are greedy
enough to swallow his present offers, and too stupid to foresee the
consequences’ (§§ 12-19). The epilogue contains an indictment of those
whose policy is to blame for the present troubles. In accordance with
Demosthenes’ general practice Aeschines and Philocrates, at whom he aims
the charge, are not mentioned by name.
The anti-Macedonian party grew in strength in 343 B.C. Hyperides
impeached Philocrates, who retired into exile and was condemned to death.
About the same time Demosthenes himself brought into court an action
against Aeschines, which had been pending for three years, for traitorous
conduct in connexion with the embassy to Philip. The position was a
difficult one for two reasons: his own policy in that matter could not
be sharply distinguished from that of Aeschines; the accusation depended
largely on discrimination of motives, and he had practically no proof
of the guilt of Aeschines. Considering the technical weakness of the
prosecutor’s case it is not surprising that Aeschines escaped; it is more
remarkable that he was acquitted only by a small majority.
In 342 B.C. Philip, whose influence in the Peloponnese had slightly
waned, began a fresh campaign in Thrace, and in 341 B.C. had reached
the Chersonese. The possession of this district meant the control of
the Dardanelles, and, as Athens still depended largely on the Black Sea
trade for her corn supply, his progress was a menace to her existence.
Diopeithes, an Athenian mercenary captain, had in 343 B.C. taken
settlers to Cardia, a town in the Chersonese in nominal alliance with
Macedon. Cardia was unwilling to receive them, and Philip sent help to
the town. Diopeithes, who, in accordance with the habit of the times,
in order to support his fleet, exacted ‘benevolences’ from friends and
foes impartially, happened to plunder some districts in Thrace which
were subject to Macedon. Philip addressed a letter of remonstrance to
Athens, and his adherents in the city demanded the recall of Diopeithes.
Demosthenes in his speech _On the Chersonese_ urged that the Chersonese
should not be abandoned at such a crisis: a permanent force must be
maintained there. He defends the actions of Diopeithes by an appeal
to necessity. The Athenians were in the habit of voting armaments for
foreign service without voting them supplies; consequently the generals
had to supply themselves.
‘All the generals who have ever sailed from Athens take money
from Chios, Erythrae, or from any other Asiatic city they
can. Those who have one or two ships take less; those with a
larger force take more. Those who give, whether in large or
small amounts, are not so mad as to give them for nothing; they
are purchasing protection for merchants sailing from their
ports, immunity from ravages, safe convoy for their own ships
and other such advantages. They will tell you that they give
“Benevolences,” which is the term applied to these extortions.
‘Now in the present case, since Diopeithes has an army, it is
obvious that all these people will give him money. Since he got
nothing from you, and has no private means to pay his soldiers
with, where else do you imagine he can get money to keep them?
Will it fall from the skies? Unfortunately, no. He has to live
from day to day on what he can collect and beg and borrow.’[314]
In addition to including a plan of campaign, the speech contains, as many
of the orations do, a frank statement of the position of affairs, and
the usual invectives against Athenian apathy. The concluding section,
however, contains a more solemn warning than is usual, showing that
Demosthenes almost despairs of success.
‘If you grasp the situation as I have indicated, and cease to
make light of everything, it may be, it may be that even now
our affairs may take a favourable turn; but if you continue
to sit still and confine your enthusiasm to expressions of
applause and votes of approval, but shirk the issue when any
action is required of you, I cannot conceive of any eloquence
which, without performance of your duty, can guide our State to
safety.’[315]
The _Third Philippic_ was delivered in the same year (341 B.C.). The
situation is in all essentials the same. Demosthenes again demands
that help should be sent to the Chersonese and the safety of Byzantium
assured; but he does not enlarge on these points, which have been treated
by previous speakers.[316] ‘We must help them, it is true, and take care
that no harm befalls them; but our deliberations must be about the great
danger which now threatens the whole of Greece.’[317] It is this breadth
of view which distinguishes the _Third Philippic_, and makes it the
greatest of all the public harangues.
In the _Chersonese_ Demosthenes had suggested the dispatch of numerous
embassies; he now enlarges on this topic; the interests of Athens must
be identified with those of all Greece, and all States must be made to
realize this. Philip’s designs are against Greek liberty as a whole;
Athens must arm and put herself at the head of a great league in the
struggle for freedom.
‘I pass over Olynthus, Methone, and Apollonia, and thirty-two
cities in the Thracian district, all of which he has so
brutally destroyed that it is hard for a visitor to say whether
they were ever inhabited. I am silent about the destruction of
a great nation, the Phocians. But how fares Thessaly? Has he
not deprived the cities of their governments, and established
tetrarchies, in order that they may be enslaved, not only city
by city, but tribe by tribe? Are not the cities of Euboea now
ruled by tyrants, though that island is close on the borders of
Thebes and Athens? Does he not expressly state in his letters
“I am at peace with those who will obey me”? And his actions
corroborate his words. He has started for the Hellespont;
before that he visited Ambracia; he holds in the Peloponnese
the important city of Elis; only the other day he made plots
against Megara. Neither Greece nor the countries beyond it can
contain his ambition.’[318]
This short extract is a fair example of Demosthenes’ vigorous use of
historical argument, but it can give little idea of the speech as a
whole. It abounds, indeed, in enumerations of recent events bearing on
the case, and in contrasts between the present and the past.
This running appeal to example to a great extent takes the place of
reasoned argument, but the effect of the whole, with its combined appeals
to feeling and reason, is convincingly strong.
The orator himself must have attached great importance to this speech
as an exposition of his policy, for he appears to have published two
recensions of it. Both are preserved in different families of MSS. The
shorter text contained in S (_Parisinus_) and L (_Laurentianus_) omits
many phrases and even whole passages which occur in the other group. It
is believed that the shorter is the final form in which Demosthenes
wished to preserve the speech.[319]
The _Fourth Philippic_ contains the suggestion that Athens should make
overtures to the Persian king for help against Philip. The speech is
probably a forgery, but one of a peculiar kind. About a third of the text
consists of passages taken directly from the speech _On the Chersonese_,
and one division (§§ 35-45) is in favour of a distribution of the Theoric
Fund, which is quite opposed to the policy of the _Olynthiacs_ and the
Chersonese speech. On the other hand, some passages are in a style and
tone quite worthy of Demosthenes, and consistent with his views. There
can be little doubt that we have here a compilation from actual speeches
of Demosthenes, expanded by a certain amount of rhetorical invention.
The ‘answer to Philip’s letter’ and the speech περὶ συντάξως are, on the
other hand, simple forgeries. This concludes the list of the _Philippic_
speeches.
Our record of Demosthenes’ public speeches ceases with the _Third
Philippic_, at the moment when his eloquence had reached its greatest
height. The great speeches belong to the years of opposition; now, after
eleven years of combat, he had established himself as chief leader of the
assembly. He spoke, no doubt, frequently and impressively, but, engaged
in important administrative work, he had no leisure or need for writing.
The years 340-338 B.C. were a time of vigorous revival for Athens. For
a short but brilliant period it seemed that the city-state might emerge
triumphant from the struggle against monarchy. Enthusiasm inspired the
patriotic party to noble efforts. Euboea was removed from Philip’s
influence, and Athens inaugurated a new league, including Acarnania,
Achaea, Corcyra, Corinth, Euboea, and Megara. Philip himself suffered a
check before Byzantium, which had appealed to Athens for help, and had
not called in vain.
In internal affairs, a new trierarchic law not only increased the
efficiency of the fleet, but abolished a great social grievance by making
the burden of trierarchy fall on all classes in just proportion to their
means, whereas hitherto the poorer citizens had suffered unduly. A still
greater reform was the execution of the project, so long cherished, for
applying the Theoric Fund to the expenses of war (339 B.C.). In 338 B.C.
Lycurgus was appointed to the Ministry of Finance, an office which he was
to fill with exceptional efficiency for twelve years to come.
But Philip held many strings, and was most dangerous when he seemed to
turn his back on his enemies. Unsuccessful on the Hellespont, he withdrew
his fleet and undertook an expedition by land against a Scythian prince
who had offended him. This journey had no direct relation to his greater
designs, and Athens was pleased to think that he might be defeated or
even killed. He was, indeed, wounded, but he returned to Macedonia in
339 B.C., having accomplished what was probably his chief object, to
restore the confidence of his soldiers after their reverses in recent
encounters with the Greeks.
Meanwhile events in Greece, which perhaps were partly directed by his
influence, pursued a course favourable to his plans.
In 340 B.C. two enemies of Demosthenes, Midias and Aeschines, represented
Athens as _pylagorae_ at the Amphictyonic Council. Aeschines describes
how, apparently from no political motive but for the satisfaction of a
personal grudge, he himself inflamed the passions of the Amphictyons to
the point of declaring a sacred war against the Locrians of Amphissa.
Any war between Greeks was to Philip’s advantage. The Amphictyonic War
was carried on in a dilatory way, and in the autumn of 339 B.C. the
Council, still under the influence of Aeschines, nominated Philip to
carry the affair to a conclusion. The king had recovered quickly from his
wound, and eagerly embraced the sacred mission which allowed him to pass
through Thessaly and Thermopylae unmolested. On reaching Elatea, once the
principal town of Phocis, but now desolate, he halted and began to put
the place in a state of defence. The news was received at Athens with
great consternation, as Demosthenes vividly describes.[320] An assembly
was hastily summoned, and Demosthenes explained the full import of this
action. It was a threat to Athens and Thebes alike. All the masterly
eloquence of the great statesman was exerted to the utmost of his powers
to induce Athens to forget long-standing enmities and offer to Thebes
the help of her entire fighting force freely and unconditionally. It was
probably the greatest triumph of eloquence ever known that Demosthenes
was successful in his plea. War was inevitable sooner or later, and it is
greatly to his credit that he brought about the Theban alliance, though
it ended disastrously for all the Greeks concerned in the battle of
Chaeronea (338 B.C.).
Henceforward the influence of Athens on external affairs was strictly
limited, though she retained her independence, for Philip was a generous
foe.[321] Demosthenes busied himself with internal matters; to him was
committed the repair of the fortifications, to the expense of which he
gave a contribution of 100 minae. For this act Ctesiphon proposed in 337
B.C. that he should be rewarded with a gold crown. Aeschines indicted
Ctesiphon for an illegal motion, and the famous case of _The Crown_,
which produced great speeches from both the rivals, was the result. The
case, however, was not heard till six years later.
In 336 B.C. Philip was murdered. Demosthenes set the example of rejoicing
by appearing in public crowned with flowers, though he was in mourning
for his daughter at the time. The great hopes which the city-states had
entertained were dashed to the ground by the energy of Alexander, who,
though only twenty years old, proved himself an even greater general and
statesman than his father.
Thebes was induced to revolt by Demosthenes, who was supported by Persian
gold, but Alexander crushed and destroyed Thebes before help could
reach it, and sent an ultimatum to Athens. He demanded the surrender of
Demosthenes, Lycurgus, and eight other orators of their party. They were
saved, it appears, by the intervention of Demades.[322]
Alexander departed for Asia, and Athenian statesmen were left to quarrel
about the politics of their city. It was now that the great case in which
Demosthenes and Aeschines were concerned came up for trial. The matter
nominally in dispute was only a pretext; it was really a question of
reviewing and passing judgment on the political life of the two great
antagonists for the last twenty years.
The charges of illegality brought against Ctesiphon were three: (1) That
the decree, falsely asserting that Demosthenes had done good service to
the State, involved the insertion of a lie into the public records. (2)
That it was illegal to crown an official who, like Demosthenes, was still
subject to audit. (3) That proclamation of the crowning in the theatre
was illegal.
On (2) and (3), the technical points, the prosecutor had a strong case,
but the first section was the only one of real importance, since the
process was really aimed at Demosthenes. The main part of the speech of
Aeschines against Ctesiphon is accordingly devoted to an indictment of
the public life of Demosthenes. Four periods are taken: (1) From the war
about Amphipolis to the peace of Philocrates (357-346 B.C.). (2) The
years of peace (346-340 B.C.). (3) The ministry of Demosthenes (340-338
B.C.). (4) The years after Chaeronea (338-330 B.C.).
The reply of Demosthenes (_de Corona_) is mainly concerned with a
defence of his own policy, the technical points on which the issue
nominally depended being kept very much in the background. It is
remarkable that in dealing with the early years he makes no attempt to
take credit for the great speeches by which in that time he attempted to
influence his country—the _First Philippic_ and the three _Olynthiacs_.
He discusses chiefly the peace negotiations. He speaks more fully of the
second period, and lays the greatest stress on the third—the years during
which he was the acknowledged leader of the people, so that an eulogy of
the national policy must involve a tribute to his own patriotism. Only
short allusions are made to the last period, the years since the battle
of Chaeronea.
The order is not chronological, and the structure is not apparently
systematic; nevertheless the _de Corona_ is the greatest of all Athenian
speeches.
The speech cannot be represented by extracts; it must be read as a whole
to be appreciated. All that a summary can do is to draw attention to the
peculiarities of structure, which are possibly due in some measure to the
length of the speech and the variety of the subjects which have to be
treated:[323]
1. §§ 1-8. The conventional exordium, in this case both
introduced and finished by a solemn prayer.
2. §§ 9-52. Refutation of the calumnies uttered by Aeschines.
This section consists chiefly of Demosthenes’ own version
of the negotiations for the peace of 346 B.C., showing that
Aeschines and his associates were really guilty of treason in
their dealings with Philip.
3. §§ 53-125. Defence of Ctesiphon—Demosthenes undertakes
to prove (_a_) that he deserved to receive a crown, (_b_)
that on the legal point Ctesiphon is not to blame. (_a_) He
summarizes the condition of Greece during the years of peace,
and immediately after it records his own public services
and justifies his policy. (_b_) He examines the question of
legality, and proves that Ctesiphon is on the right side of the
law.
4. §§ 126-159. Invective against Aeschines. This might be
called a pseudo-epilogue, but is really only an interlude. It
deals with (_a_) the birth and life of his rival, and (_b_) in
particular, his action which kindled an Amphictyonic war.
5. §§ 160-251. Demosthenes continues the discussion of his past
policy, in regard to the Theban alliance and the last war with
Philip.
6. §§ 252-324. An epilogue of exceptional length, mainly
devoted to a comparison between Demosthenes and Aeschines. The
speaker closely identifies himself with the city, whose policy
he has shaped; so that in attacking him, Aeschines attacks
Athens. The speech ends, as it began, with a prayer.
§ 3
For the next few years Demosthenes probably spent some of his time in
composing private speeches for others, though the extant speeches of
this period are mostly of doubtful authenticity. He also remained as a
prominent figure in Athenian politics. He had not changed his views, but
he seems to have been deposed from the leadership of the patriotic party
by others whose patriotism was of a more violent type than his, so that
he must be now counted as a moderate in opinion. It may have been this
position which brought him into danger in 324 B.C.
Harpalus, who had been left as Alexander’s governor at Babylon, on
receipt of a rumour of his master’s death in India, made off with the
royal treasure, and, accompanied by a force of six thousand men, took
ship and sailed for Greece. He appeared off Piraeus, and the fervid
patriots proposed that Athens should welcome him and use his treasure and
his men to help them in a revolt.
Demosthenes opposed an open breach with Alexander, and on his motion
admission was refused to the flotilla. Harpalus came a second time
without his army, and was admitted. Close on his heels came messengers
from Alexander to demand his surrender, but this was resisted by
Demosthenes and Phocion. On the motion of Demosthenes it was decided to
temporize; Harpalus was to be treated as a prisoner, and the treasure
deposited in the Parthenon. The amount of the treasure was declared by
Harpalus as 720 talents, but it soon became known that only 350 talents
had been lodged in the Acropolis. Harpalus in the meantime had escaped
from prison and disappeared, and suspicion was roused against all who
had had any kind of dealings with him. To allay the public excitement
Demosthenes proposed that the Council of the Areopagus should investigate
the mystery of the lost talents. Six months later the Council gave its
report, issuing a list of nine public men whom it declared guilty of
receiving part of the lost money. The name of Demosthenes himself headed
the list; he was charged with having received twenty talents for helping
Harpalus to escape. This declaration did not constitute a judicial
sentence, but in consequence of it prosecutions were instituted, ten
public prosecutors were appointed, and Demosthenes was found guilty. He
was condemned to pay a fine of fifty talents, and being unable to raise
the money he was cast into prison. He soon escaped, and fled first to
Aegina and then to Troezen, where, according to Plutarch, he sat daily by
the sea, watching with sad eyes the distant shores of Attica.
The whole affair is obscure; we do not know how Demosthenes defended
himself, but we possess two of the speeches for the prosecution, by
Hyperides and Dinarchus. Neither is explicit. The report of the Areopagus
was held to have established the facts, so that no further evidence was
required; it was the business of the court only to interpret motives and
decide the degree of each defendant’s guilt.
Hyperides[324] affirms that Demosthenes began by admitting the receipt of
the money; but he afterwards denied it, declaring that he was ready to
suffer death if it could be proved that he had received it.[325] It was
certainly Demosthenes who proposed that the Areopagus should investigate
the affair.
Two details in the case give rise to perplexity: the fine inflicted—two
and a half times the amount involved—was light, considering that the law
demanded ten-fold restitution; secondly, it is difficult to see when
Demosthenes can have received the money. Harpalus could not pay him at
the time of his escape, or indeed at any time subsequent to his arrest,
for he did not take the money to prison with him. It seems improbable
that the money should have been paid earlier, for Demosthenes was acting
against Harpalus all the time. Professor Butcher supposed that payment
might have been made when Demosthenes resisted the surrender of Harpalus
to Alexander.[326]
Two theories have been proposed with a view to the complete or partial
exculpation of the orator—one, that he was absolutely innocent, but
became the victim of a combination of his political enemies, the extreme
patriots, who were dissatisfied with his moderate policy, and his ancient
foes the Macedonian party. The other view is that he received the money
and spent it, or intended to spend it, on secret service of the kind on
which every State spends money, though it is generally impossible to
give a detailed account of such expenses. Even if he could not prove
such a use, the offence of receiving bribes was a venial one, as even
his prosecutor Hyperides admits, if they were not received against the
interests of the State. In Demosthenes’ favour we have the late evidence
of Pausanias, who affirms that an agent of Harpalus, when examined by
Alexander with regard to this affair, divulged a list of names which did
not contain that of Demosthenes.
A minor charge of bribery is brought by Dinarchus, who asserts that
Demosthenes received 300 talents from the Great King to save Thebes in
335 B.C., but sacrificed Thebes to his own avarice because he wished
to keep ten talents which had been promised to the Arcadians for their
assistance. The story is ridiculous.
In 323 B.C. Alexander died; the hope of freedom revived, and Demosthenes
started at once on a tour of the Peloponnese to urge on the cities the
need of joint action. He was reconciled with the party of Hyperides and
recalled from exile. He was fetched home in a trireme, and a procession
escorted him from the harbour to the city. By a straining of the law,
the public paid his fine. The Lamian war opened successfully under
Leosthenes, but at the battle of Crannon Antipater crushed the Greek
forces. Athens was forced to receive a Macedonian garrison, to lose her
democratic constitution, and to give up her leaders to the conqueror’s
vengeance. Demades carried a decree for the death of Demosthenes and
Hyperides. Demosthenes had already escaped and taken sanctuary in the
temple of Posidon on the island of Calauria. Here he was pursued by an
agent of Antipater, one Archias, known as the exile-hunter, who had been
an actor. This man tried to entice him forth by generous promises, but
Demosthenes answered, ‘Your acting never carried conviction, and your
promises are equally unconvincing.’ Archias then resorted to threats, but
was met by the calm retort, ‘Now you speak like a Macedonian oracle; you
were only acting before; only wait a little, so that I may write a few
lines home.’ While pretending to write he sucked poison from the end of
his pen, and then let his head sink on his hands, as if in thought. When
Archias approached again he looked him in the face and said, ‘It is time
for you to play the part of Creon, and cast out this body unburied. Now,
adored Posidon, I leave thy precinct while yet alive; but Antipater and
his Macedonians have left not even thy shrine undefiled.’ He essayed to
walk out, but fell and died upon the steps of the altar.[327]
Lucian, in his _Encomium of Demosthenes_, has given a fanciful account of
Antipater receiving the news from Archias; these are the concluding words:
‘So he is gone, either to live with the heroes in the Isles
of the Blest or along the path of those souls that climb
to Heaven, to be an attendant spirit on Zeus the giver of
Freedom; but his body we will send to Athens, as a nobler
memorial for that land than are the bodies of those who fell at
Marathon.’[328]
§ 4. _Literary Reputation_
The verdict of antiquity, which has generally been accepted in modern
times, ranked Demosthenes as the greatest of orators. In his own age
he had rivals: Aeschines, as we have seen already, is in many respects
worthy of comparison with him; of his other contemporaries Phocion was
impressive by his dignity, sincerity, and brevity—‘he could say more in
fewer words’; the vigorous extemporizations of Demades were sometimes
more effective than the polished subtleties of Demosthenes; Aeschines
claims to prefer the speaking of Leodamas of Achamae, but the tone in
which he says so is almost apologetic, and the laboured criticism to
which Aeschines constantly subjects his rival practically takes it for
granted that the latter was reckoned the foremost speaker of the time.
Later Greek authorities, who are far enough removed to see in proper
perspective the orators of the pre-Macedonian times, have an ungrudging
admiration for Demosthenes. The author of _The Sublime_ saw in him many
faults, and admitted that in many details Hyperides excelled him.[329]
Nevertheless he finds in Demosthenes certain divine gifts which put him
apart from the others in a class by himself; he surpasses the orators of
all generations; his thunders and lightnings shake down and scorch up
all opposition; it is impossible to face his dazzling brilliancy without
flinching. But Hyperides never made anybody tremble.
In later times we find Demosthenes styled ‘The Orator,’ just as Homer is
‘The Poet.’ Lucian, whose literary appreciations are always worthy of
attention, wrote an _Encomium of Demosthenes_, containing an imaginary
dialogue, in which Antipater is the chief speaker. He pays a generous
tribute to his dead enemy, who ‘woke his compatriots from their drugged
sleep’;[330] the _Philippics_ are compared to battering-rams and
catapults, and Philip is reported to have rejoiced that Demosthenes
was never elected general, for the orator’s speeches shook the king’s
throne, and his actions, if he had been given the opportunity, would have
overturned it.
Of Roman critics, Cicero in many passages in the _Brutus_ and _Orator_
expresses extreme admiration for the excellence of Demosthenes in every
style of oratory; he regards him as far outstripping all others, though
failing in some details to attain perfection. Quintilian’s praise is
discriminating but sincere; in fact we may say that the Greek and Roman
worlds were practically unanimous about the orator’s merits.
It is difficult to take a general view of the style of Demosthenes,
from the mere fact that it is extremely varied; the three classes of
speeches—the forensic speeches in private and public suits, and the
public harangues addressed to the assembly, all have their particular
features: nevertheless there are certain characteristics which may be
distinguished in all classes.
First of these is his great care in composition. Isocrates is known to
have spent years in polishing the essays which he intended as permanent
contributions to the science of politics; Plato wrote and erased and
wrote again before he was satisfied with the form in which his philosophy
was to be given to the world; Demosthenes, without years of toil, could
produce for definite occasions speeches whose finished brilliancy made
them worthy to be ranked as great literature quite apart from their
merits as contributions to practical policy.
It is a well-known jest against him that his speeches smelt of midnight
oil, but he must have had a remarkable natural fluency to be able to
compose so many speeches so well. It is quite possible, on the other
hand, that the speeches which survive are not altogether in the form in
which they were delivered. It seems to have been a habit among orators of
this time to edit for publication their speeches delivered in important
cases, in order that a larger audience might have an opportunity of
reading a permanent record of the speakers’ views on political or legal
questions which had more than a transitory interest.
We have indirect evidence that Demosthenes was in the habit of
introducing corrections into his text. Aeschines quotes and derides
certain expressions, mostly exaggerated metaphors, which do not occur
in the speeches as extant to us, though some of them evidently should,
if the text had not been submitted to a recension.[331] We may note the
remark of Eratosthenes[332] that while speaking he sometimes lost control
of himself, and talked like a man possessed, and that of Demetrius of
Phaleron, that on one occasion he offended against good taste by quoting
a metrical oath which bears the stamp of comedy:
‘By earth and fountains, rivulets and streams.’[333]
This quotation is not to be found in any extant speech, but it is
noticeable that formulae of the kind, typically represented by the
familiar ὦ γῆ καὶ θεοί—‘Ye Earth and Gods’—are commonly affected by
Demosthenes, as indeed they are to be found in his contemporary Aeschines.
Evidently the Attic taste was undergoing a modification; such
expressions are foreign to the dignified harmonies of Isocrates and of
rare occurrence in the restrained style of Lysias; but they begin to
appear more frequently in Isaeus, whose style was the model for the
early speeches of Demosthenes. Certain other expressions belonging to
the popular speech, and probably avoided by Isocrates as being too
colloquial, are found in Demosthenes’ public speeches—_e.g._ ὁ δεῖνα and
ὦ τᾶν.
Under the same heading must come the use of coarse expressions and terms
of personal abuse. In many of the speeches relating to public law-suits
Demosthenes allows himself all the latitude which was sanctioned by
the taste of his times. In the actual use of abusive epithets—θηρίον,
κατάρατος and the like—he does not go beyond the common practice of
Aeschines, and is even outstripped by Dinarchus; but in the accumulation
of offensive references to the supposed private character of his
political opponents he condescends to such excesses that we wonder how a
decent audience can ever have tolerated him.[334] Evidently an Athenian
audience loved vulgarity for its own sake, apart from humour.
In the private speeches there is at times a certain
coarseness—inevitably, since police-court cases are often concerned with
sordid details. Offensive actions sometimes have to be described;[335]
but this is a very different matter from the irrelevant introduction of
offensive matter.
In the speeches delivered before the ecclesia Demosthenes set himself
a higher ideal. Into questions of public policy, private animosities
should not be allowed to intrude, and throughout the _Philippics_
and _Olynthiacs_ Demosthenes observes this rule. Under no stress of
excitement does he sink to personalities; his political opponents for the
time being are not abused, not even mentioned by name. The courtesies of
debate are fully and justly maintained.
§ 5. _Style and Composition_
Though Demosthenes wrote in pure Attic Greek, it is to Lysias and
Isocrates rather than to him that Dionysius assigns praise for the most
perfect purity of language. It is probable that Demosthenes was nearer
to the living speech. Even in his deliberative speeches he can use such
familiar expressions as ὦ τᾶν, ὁ δεῖνα and such expletives as νὴ Δία,
the frequent use of which would have seemed to Isocrates to belong to
the vocabulary of Comedy. The epideictic style would also have shunned
such vigorous touches as λαγὼ βίον ἔζης—‘you lived a hare’s life,’ or,
to give the proper equivalent,’ a dog’s life.’[336] or the famous κακῶν
Ἰλιάς—‘Twenty-four books of misery.’[337] Colloquial vigour is apparent
in some metaphorical uses of single words, _e.g._ ἕωλα καὶ ψυχρά—‘stale
and cold’ (applied to crimes),[338] προσηλῶσθαι—‘to be pinned down,’[339]
or the succession of crude metaphors in the account of how Aristogiton,
in prison, picked a quarrel with a newcomer; ‘he being newly caught
and fresh, was getting the better of Aristogiton, who had got into
the net some time ago and been long in pickle; so finding himself
getting the worst of it, he ate off the man’s nose.’[340] There is bold
personification of abstractions in ‘Peace, which has destroyed the walls
of your allies and is now building houses for your ambassadors,’[341]
and such phrases as τεθνᾶσι τῷ δέει τοὺς τοιούτους ἀποστόλους—‘they are
frightened to death of so and so,’ are more vigorous than literary.[342]
Demosthenes seems to discard metaphor in his most solemn moments. In a
spirit of sarcasm he can use such expressions as those quoted above about
the disorderly scene in prison, and in an outburst of indignation he can
speak of rival politicians as ‘Fiends, who have mutilated the corpses
of their fatherlands, and made a birthday present of their liberty
first to Philip, and now again to Alexander; who measure happiness by
their belly and their basest pleasures’;[343] but on grave occasions,
whether in narrative or in counsel, he reverts to a simplicity equal
to that of Lysias. The plainness of the language in which he describes
the excitement caused by the news of Philip’s occupation of Elatea is
proverbial;[344] and the closing sentences of the _Third Philippic_
afford another good example:
‘If everybody is going to sit still, hoping to get what he
wants, and seeking to do nothing for it himself, in the
first place he will never find anybody to do it for him, and
secondly, I am afraid that we shall be forced to do everything
that we do not want. This is what I tell you, this is what I
propose; and I believe that if this is done our affairs may
even yet be set straight again. If anybody can offer anything
better, let him name it and urge it; and whatever you decide, I
pray to heaven it may be for the best.’
The simplicity of the language is only equalled by the sobriety of tone.
The simplest words, if properly used, can produce a great effect, which
is sometimes heightened by repetition, a device which Demosthenes finds
useful on occasion—ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἔστιν, οὐκ ἔστιν ὅπως ἡμάρτετε—‘But surely,
_surely_ you were not wrong.’[345] We realize a slight raising of the
voice as the word comes in for the second time. Dinarchus, an imitator
of Demosthenes, copies him in the use of this ‘figure,’ but uses it too
much and inappropriately. In this, as in other details, his style is an
unsuccessful parody of the great orator.
Dionysius compares Demosthenes to several other writers in turn. He finds
passages, for instance, which recall the style of Thucydides.[346] He
quotes the first section from the _Third Philippic_, and by an ingenious
analysis shows the points of resemblance. The chief characteristic
noticed by the critic is that the writer does not introduce his thoughts
in any natural or conventional sequence, but employs an affected order of
words which arrests the attention by its avoidance of simplicity.
Thus, a parenthetical relative clause intrudes between the subject and
the verb of the chief relative clause, while we are kept in long suspense
as to what the verbs are to be, both in relative clauses and in the main
clause itself. The peculiar effects which he notices cannot be reproduced
in a non-inflexional language such as English.
At other times, especially in narrative, Demosthenes emulates the
lucidity of Lysias at his best. Dionysius quotes with well-deserved
approval the vivid presentment of the story on which the accusation
against Conon is based. As the speech gives us an excellent picture of
the camp life of an undisciplined militia, it will be worth while here to
quote some extracts:
‘Two years ago, having been detailed for garrison-duty, we
went out to Panactum. Conon’s sons occupied a tent near us;
I wish it had been otherwise, for this was the primary cause
of our enmity and the collisions between us. You shall hear
how it arose. They used to drink every day and all day long,
beginning immediately after breakfast, and this custom they
maintained all the time that we were in garrison. My brothers
and I, on the contrary, lived out there just as we were in
the habit of living at home. So by the time which the rest of
us had fixed for dinner, they were invariably playing drunken
tricks, first on our servants, and finally on ourselves. For
because they said that the servants sent the smoke in their
faces while cooking, or were uncivil to them, or what not,
they used to beat them and empty the slops over their heads
... and in every way behaved brutally and disgustingly. We
saw this and took offence, and first of all remonstrated with
them; but as they jeered at us and would not stop, we all went
and reported the occurrence to the general—not I alone, but
the whole of the mess. He reprimanded them severely, not only
for their offensive behaviour to us, but for their general
conduct in camp; however, they were so far from stopping or
feeling any shame that, as soon as it was dark that evening,
they made a rush on us, and first abused us and then beat me,
and made such a disturbance and uproar round the tent that the
general and his staff and some of the other soldiers came out,
and prevented them from doing us any serious harm, and us from
retaliating on their drunken violence.’[347]
Another passage quoted from the same speech gives a companion picture of
the defendant’s behaviour in civil life:
‘When we met them, one of the party, whom I cannot identify,
fell upon Phanostratus and held him tight, while the defendant
Conon and his son and the son of Andromenes fell upon me, and
first stripped me, and then tripped me up, and dashed me down
in the mud. There they jumped upon me and beat me, and so
mishandled me that they cut my lip right through, and closed up
both my eyes. They left me in such a weak state that I could
neither get up nor speak, and as I lay on the ground I heard
them uttering floods of abominable language. What they said
was vilely slanderous, and some of it I should shrink from
repeating, but I will mention one thing which is an example
of Conon’s brutality, and proves that he was responsible for
the whole incident—he began to crow like a game-cock after a
victory, and the others told him to flap his arms against his
sides in triumph. After this I was carried home naked by some
passers-by, while the defendants made off with my coat.’[348]
Dionysius observes that the ecclesia and the courts were composed of
mixed elements;[349] not all were clever and subtle in intellect; the
majority were farmers, merchants, and artisans, who were more likely to
be pleased by simple speech; anything of an unusual flavour would turn
their stomachs: a smaller number, a mere fraction of the whole, were
men of high education, to whom you could not speak as you would to the
multitude; and the orator could not afford to neglect either section. He
must therefore aim at satisfying both, and consequently he should steer a
middle course, avoiding extremes in either direction.
In the opinion of Dionysius both Isocrates and Plato give good examples
of this middle style, attaining a seeming simplicity intelligible to
all, combined with a subtlety which could be appreciated only by the
expert; but Demosthenes surpassed them both in the perfection of this
art. To prove his case he quotes first the passage from _The Peace_ which
Isocrates himself selected for quotation, as a favourable example of his
own style, in the speech on the _Antidosis_. With this extract a passage
from the third _Olynthiac_ is contrasted, greatly to the advantage of
Demosthenes, who is found to be nobler, more majestic, more forcible,
and to have avoided the frigidity of excessive refinement with which
Isocrates is charged.
The criticism professes to be based on an accumulation of small details,
but there is no doubt that Dionysius depended, in the main, not upon
analysis, but upon subjective impressions. After enumerating the points
in which either of the writers excels or falls short, he describes his
own feelings:
‘When I read a speech of Isocrates, I become sober and serious,
as if I were listening to solemn music; but when I take up a
speech of Demosthenes, I am beside myself, I am led this way
and that, I am moved by one passion after another: suspicion,
distress, fear, contempt, hate, pity, kindliness, anger,
envy—passing successively through all the passions which can
obtain a mastery over the human mind; ... and I have sometimes
thought to myself, what must have been the impression which he
made on those who were fortunate enough to hear him? For where
we, who are so far removed in time, and in no way interested
in the actual events, are led away and overpowered, and made
to follow wherever the speech leads us, how must the Athenians
and other Greeks have been led by the speaker himself when the
cases in which he spoke had a living interest and concerned
them nearly?...’[350]
Dionysius, as we know from many of his criticisms, had a remarkably acute
sense of style; he had also a strong imagination. In this same treatise
he recounts how the forms of the sentences themselves suggest to him the
tone in which the words were uttered, the very gestures with which they
were accompanied.[351]
Though we modern students cannot expect to rival him in these peculiar
gifts, it is still possible for us to sympathize with his feelings.
We cannot fail, in reading a speech like the _Third Philippic_, for
instance, to appreciate how fully Demosthenes realizes the Platonic
ideal, expressed in the _Gorgias_, that rhetoric is the art of
persuasion. We need not pause to analyse the means by which he attains
his end; he may resemble Lysias at one moment in a simple piece of
narrative, at another he may be as involved and antithetical as
Thucydides, or even florid like Gorgias; he can be a very Proteus, as
Dionysius says, in his changes of form; but in whatever shape he appears,
naïve, subtle, pathetic, indignant, sarcastic, he is convincing. The
reason is simple: he has a single purpose always present to his mind,
namely, to make his audience feel as he feels. Readers of Isocrates were
expected, while they followed the exposition of the subject-matter,
to regard the beauties of the form in which it was expressed; in
Demosthenes there is no idea of such display. A good speech was to him a
successful speech, not one which might be admired by critics as a piece
of literature. It is only incidental that his speeches have a literary
quality which ranks him among the foremost writers of Attic prose; as an
orator he was independent of this quality.
The strong practical sense of Demosthenes refused to be confined by any
theoretical rules of scholastic rhetoricians. He does not aspire to the
complexity of periods which makes the style of Isocrates monotonous in
spite of the writer’s wonderful ingenuity. Long and short, complex and
simple sentences, are used in turn, and with no systematic order, so that
we cannot call any one kind characteristic; the form of the sentence,
like the language, is subordinate to its purpose.[352]
He was moderately careful in the avoidance of hiatus between words, but
in this matter he modified the rule of Isocrates to suit the requirements
of speech; he was guided by ear, not by eye; thus we find that hiatus is
frequently omitted between the _cola_ or sections of a period; in fact
any pause in the utterance is enough to justify the non-elision of an
open vowel before the pause. Isocrates, on the contrary, usually avoids
even the appearance of hiatus in such cases.
There is one other formal rule of composition which Demosthenes follows
with some strictness; this is the avoidance of a succession of short
syllables. It is notable that he very seldom admits a tribrach (three
short syllables) where a little care can avoid it, while instances of
more than three short vowels in succession are very exceptional.[353]
An unusual order of words may often be explained by reference to this
practice.[354]
We know from Aristotle and other critics that earlier writers of artistic
prose, from Thrasymachus onwards, had paid some attention to the metrical
form of words and certain combinations of long and short syllables.
Thrasymachus in particular studied the use of the _paeonius_ (–⏑⏑⏑ or
⏑⏑⏑–) at the beginning and end of a sentence.[355]
The effect of increasing the number of short syllables, whether in verse
or prose, is to make the movement of the line or period more rapid.
The frequent use of tribrachs by Euripides constantly produces this
impression, and an extreme case is the structure of the Galliambic metre,
as seen, for instance, in the _Attis_ of Catullus.[356] Conversely the
multiplication of long syllables makes the movement slow, and produces an
effect of solemnity.[357]
Demosthenes seems to have been the first prose-writer to pay attention to
the avoidance of the tribrach; Plato seems to have consciously preferred
a succession of short syllables where it was possible. The difference
between the two points of view is probably this—that Plato aimed at
reproducing the natural rapidity of conversation, Demosthenes aimed at
a more solemn and dignified style appropriate to impressive utterance
before a large assembly.
This is the only metrical rule which Demosthenes ever observed, and one
of the soundest of modern critics believes that even this observance was
instinctive rather than conscious.[358] He never affected any metrical
formula for the end of sentences comparable to Cicero’s famous _esse
videatur_, or the double trochee –⏑–⏑ at the beginning of a sentence,
approved by later writers. An examination shows that he has an almost
infinite variety both in the opening and the close of his sentences. He
seems never to follow any mechanical system.
Much labour has been expended, especially in Germany, on the analysis
of the rhythmical element in Demosthenes’ style. There is no doubt that
many orators, from Gorgias onwards, laboured to produce approximate
correspondence between parallel or contrasted sections of their periods.
In some cases we find an equal number of syllables in two clauses, and
even a more or less complete rhythmical correspondence. Such devices
serve to emphasize the peculiar figures of speech in which Gorgias
delighted, and may have been appropriate to the class of oratory intended
primarily for display, but it is hard to believe that such elaboration
was ever consciously carried through a long forensic speech.
The appendix to the third volume of Blass’ Attic oratory is a monumental
piece of work. It consists of an analysis of the first seventeen sections
of the _de Corona_, and the whole of the _First Olynthiac_ and _Third
Philippic_ speeches, and conveys the impression that this Demosthenic
prose may be scanned with almost as much certainty as a comparatively
simple form of composition like a Pindaric ode. It is hard to pronounce
on such a matter without a very long and careful study of this difficult
subject; but the theory of rhythmical correspondence seems to have been
worked out far too minutely. In many cases emendation is required; we
have to divide words in the middle, and clauses are split up in an
arbitrary and unnatural way. I am far from believing that analysis
can justifiably be carried to this extent; it is more reasonable to
suppose that Demosthenes had a naturally acute ear, and that practice
so developed his faculty that a certain rhythm was natural to all his
speech. I am not convinced that all his effects were designed.[359]
§ 6. _Rhetorical Devices_
Isaeus, the teacher of Demosthenes, was a master of reasoning and
demonstration; Demosthenes in his earliest speeches shows strong traces
of the influence of Isaeus, but in his later work he has developed
varied gifts which enable him to surpass his master. Realizing the
insufficiency, for a popular audience, of mere reasoning, he reinforced
his logic by adventitious aids, appealing in numerous indirect ways to
feeling and prejudice. One valuable method of awakening interest was his
striking use of paradox:
‘On the question of resources of money at present at our
disposal, what I have to say will, I know, appear paradoxical,
but I must say it; for I am confident that, considered in the
proper light, my proposal will appear to be the only true and
right one. I tell you that we need not raise the question of
money at all: we have great resources which we may fairly and
honourably use if we need them. If we look for them now, we
shall imagine that they never will be at our disposal, so far
shall we be from willingness to dispose of them at present; but
if we let matters wait, we shall have them. What, then, are
these resources which do not exist at present, but will be to
hand later on? It looks like a riddle. I will explain. Consider
this city of ours as a whole. It contains almost as much money
as all other cities taken together; but those individuals who
possess it are so apathetic that if all the orators tried to
terrify them by saying that the king is coming, that he is
near, that invasion is inevitable, and even if the orators were
reinforced by an equal number of soothsayers, they would not
only refuse to contribute; they would refuse even to declare
or admit the possession of their wealth. But suppose that the
horrors which we now talk about were actually realized, they
are none of them so foolish that they would not readily offer
and make contributions.... So I tell you that we have money
ready for the time of urgent need, but not before.’[360]
Similarly in the _Third Olynthiac_ he rouses the curiosity of the
audience by propounding a riddle, of which, after some suspense, he
himself gives the answer. The matter under discussion is the necessity of
sending help to Olynthus. There is, as usual, a difficulty about money.
‘“Very well,” you may say; “we have all decided that we must
send help; and send help we will; but how are we to do it;
tell me that?” Now, Gentlemen, do not be astonished if what I
say comes as a surprise to most of you. _Appoint a legislative
board._ Instruct this board not to pass any law (you have
enough already), but to repeal the laws which are injurious
under present conditions. I refer to the laws about the Theoric
Fund.’[361]
This mention of the Festival Fund suggests some reflections on the
orator’s tenacity and perseverance. He is not content to say once what
he has to propose, and leave his words to sink in by their own weight.
Like a careful lecturer he repeats his statement, emphasizing it in
various ways, until he perceives that his audience has really grasped its
importance. The walls which he is attacking will not fall flat at the
sound of the trumpet; his persistent battering-rams must make a breach,
his catapults must drive the defenders from their positions. Such is the
meaning of Lucian’s comment in the words attributed to Philip.[362]
The speech _On the Chersonese_, for instance, may be divided into three
parts, dealing successively with the treatment of Diopeithes, the
supineness of Athens, and the guilt of the partisans of Philip; but in
all parts we find emphatically stated the need for energetic action. This
is really the theme of the speech; the rest is important only in so far
as it substantiates the main thesis.
The extract last given[363] shows with what adroitness he introduces
dialogues, in which he questions or answers an imaginary critic. This
is a device frequently employed with considerable effect. The following
shows a rather different type:
‘If Philip captures Olynthus, who will prevent him from
marching on us? The Thebans? It is an unpleasant thing to
say, but they will eagerly join him in the invasion. Or the
Phocians?—when they cannot even protect their own land, unless
you help them. Can you think of any one else?—“My dear fellow,
he won’t want to attack us.” It would indeed be the greatest
surprise in the world if he did not do it when he got the
chance; since even now he is fool enough to declare his
intentions.’[364]
Narrative, too, can take the place of argument; a recital of Philip’s
misdeeds during the last few years may do far more to convince the
Athenians of the necessity for action than any argument about the case of
a particular ally who chances to be threatened at the moment.[365]
Demosthenes’ knowledge of history was deep and broad. The superiority of
his attainments to those of Aeschines is shown in the more philosophic
use which he makes of his appeals to precedent; his examples are apposite
and not far-fetched; he can illuminate the present not only by references
to ancient facts, but by a keen insight into the spirit which animated
the men of old times.[366]
The examples already quoted of rhetorical dialogue with imaginary
opponents will have given some idea of his use of a sarcastic tone.
Sarcasm thinly concealed may at times run through a passage of
considerable length, as in the anecdote which follows. We may note in
passing that he is usually sparing in the use of anecdote, which is never
employed without good reason. Here it may be excused by the fact that it
figures as an historical precedent of a procedure which he ironically
recommends to his contemporaries.
Inveighing against the reckless procedure of the Athenian politicians,
who propose laws for their own benefit almost every month,[367] he
recounts the customs of the Locrians, and, with an assumption of
seriousness, implies a wish that similar restrictions could be imposed at
Athens:
‘I should like to tell you, Gentlemen, how legislation is
conducted among the Locrians. It will do you no harm to have an
example before you, especially the example of a well-governed
State. There men are so convinced that they ought to keep to
the established laws and cherish their traditions, and not
legislate to suit their fancy, or to help a criminal to escape,
that any man who wishes to pass a new law must have a rope
round his neck while he proposes it. If they think that the law
is a good and useful one, the proposer lives and goes on his
way; if not, they pull the rope and there is an end of him. For
they cannot bear to pass new laws, but they rigorously observe
the old ones. We are told that only one new law has been
enacted in very many years. Whereas there was a law that if a
man knocked out another man’s eye, he should submit to having
his own knocked out in return, and no monetary compensation was
provided, a certain man threatened his enemy, who had already
lost an eye, to knock out the one eye he had left. The one-eyed
man, alarmed by the threat, and thinking that life would not be
worth living if it were put into execution, ventured to propose
a law that if a man knocks out the eye of a man who has only
one, he shall submit to having both his own knocked out in
return, so that both may suffer alike. We are told that this is
the only law which the Locrians have passed in upwards of two
hundred years.’[368]
This, however, occurs in a speech before the law-courts; it is excellent
in its place, but would have been unsuitable to the more dignified and
solemn style in which he addresses the assembly. Equally unsuitable to
his public harangues would be anything like the virulent satire which
he admits into the _de Corona_, the vulgar personalities of abuse and
gross caricatures of Aeschines and his antecedents.[369] For these the
only excuse is that, though meant maliciously, they are so exaggerated
as to be quite incredible. They may be compared to Aristophanes’ satire
of Cleon in the _Knights_, which was coarse enough, but cannot have done
Cleon any serious harm. Demosthenes indeed becomes truly Aristophanic
when he talks about Aeschines’ acting:
‘When in the course of time you were relieved of these duties,
having yourself committed all the offences of which you accuse
others, I vow that your subsequent life did not fall short
of your earlier promise. You engaged yourself to the players
Simylus and Socrates, the “Bellowers,” as they were called, to
play minor parts, and gathered a harvest of figs, grapes, and
olives, like a fruiterer getting his stock from other people’s
orchards; and you made more from this source than from your
plays, which you played in dead earnest at the risk of your
lives; for there was a truceless and merciless war between you
and the spectators, from whom you received so many wounds that
you naturally mock at the cowardice of those who have never had
that great experience.’[370]
He is generally described as deficient in wit, and he seems in this point
to have been inferior to Aeschines, though on one or two occasions he
could make a neat repartee.[371] As Dionysius says:
‘Not on all men is every gift bestowed.’[372]
If, as his critic affirms,[373] he was in danger of turning the laugh
against himself, he had serious gifts which more than compensated this
deficiency.
It must not be supposed that he was entirely free from sophistry. Like
many good orators in good or bad causes he laboured from time to time to
make a weak case appear strong, and in this effort was often absolutely
disingenuous. The whole of the _de Corona_ is an attempt to throw the
judges off the scent by leading them on to false trails. It may be urged
in his defence that on this occasion he had justice really on his side,
but finding that Aeschines on legal ground was occupying an impregnable
position, he practically threw over the discussion of legality and
turned the course of the trial towards different issues altogether. In
this case, admittedly, the technical points were merely an excuse for
the bringing of the case, and were probably of little importance to the
court. The trial was really concerned with the political principles and
actions of the two great opponents, while Ctesiphon was only a catspaw.
But a study of other speeches results in the discovery of many minor
points in which, accurately gauging the intelligence of his audience,
he has intentionally misled them. Thus, his own knowledge of history
was profound; but experience has proved that the knowledge possessed
by any audience of the history of its own generation is likely to be
sketchy and inaccurate. Events have not settled down into their proper
perspective; we must rely either on our own memories, which may be
distorted by prejudice, or on the statements of historians who stand too
near in time to be able to get a fair view. This gives the politician his
opportunity of so grouping or misrepresenting facts as to give a wrong
impression.
Instances of such bad faith on the part of Demosthenes are probably
numerous, even if unimportant.
In the speech on the _Embassy_[374] he asserts that Aeschines, far from
opposing Philip’s pretension to be recognized as an Amphictyon, was
the only man who spoke in favour of it; yet Demosthenes himself had
counselled submission. In the speech _Against Timocrates_ there are
obvious exaggerations to the detriment of the defendant. Timocrates had
proposed that certain debtors should be given time to pay their debts;
Demosthenes asserts that he restored them to their full civic rights
without payment.[375] Towards the end of the speech a statement is made
which conflicts with one on the same subject in the exordium.[376]
But such rhetorical devices are only trivial faults to which most
politicians are liable.[377] The orator himself would probably feel that
even more doubtful actions were justifiable for the sake of the cause
which he championed. We must remember that all the really important cases
in which he took part had their origin on political grounds, and during
his public career he never relaxed his efforts for the maintenance of
those principles which he expounded in his public harangues. Until the
end he had hopes for Greek freedom, freedom for Athens, not based on any
unworthy compromise, but dependent on a new birth of the old Athenian
spirit. The regeneration which he pictured would be due to a revival of
the spirit of personal self-sacrifice. Every man must be made to realize
first that the city had a glorious mission, being destined to fulfil an
ideal of liberty based on principles of justice; secondly that, to attain
this end, each must live not for himself or his party but wholly for the
city. It is the consciousness that Demosthenes has these enlightened
ideas always present in his mind which makes us set him apart from other
orators. Lycurgus, a second-rate orator, becomes impressive through
his sincerity and incorruptibility; Demosthenes, great among orators,
stands out from the crowd still more eminently by the nobleness of his
aspirations.
§ 7. _Structure of Speeches_
The structure of the speeches will give us a last example of the
versatility of the composer and his freedom from conventional form.
We find, indeed, that he regularly has some kind of exordium and
epilogue, but in the arrangement of other divisions of the speech
he allows himself perfect freedom; we cannot reckon on finding a
statement of the case in one place, followed regularly by evidence, by
refutation of the opponent’s arguments, and so forth. All elements may be
interspersed, since he marshals his arguments not in chronological nor
even, necessarily, in logical order, but in such an arrangement as seems
to him most decisive. He is bound by no conventional rules of warfare,
and may leave his flanks unprotected while he delivers a crushing attack
on the centre. In some cases it is almost impossible to make regular
divisions by technical rule; thus, in the _de Corona_ there is matter for
dispute as to where the epilogue really begins.[378]
The majority of the speeches actually end, according to the Attic
convention which governed both Tragedy and Oratory, in a few sentences of
moderate tone contrasting with the previous excitement; a calm succeeds
to the storm of passions. In the forensic speeches there is usually
at the very end some appeal for a just verdict, or a statement of the
speaker’s conviction that the case may now be safely left to the court’s
decision; thus the _Leptines_ ends with a simplicity worthy of Lysias:
‘I cannot see that I need say any more; for I conceive there
is no point on which you are not sufficiently instructed’; the
_Midias_ more solemnly, ‘On account of all that I have laid
before you, and particularly to show respect to the god whose
festival Midias is proved to have profaned, punish him by
rendering a verdict in accordance with piety and justice.’
In the _de Falsa Legatione_ there is more personal feeling: ‘You must
not let him go, but make his punishment an example to all Athens and
all Greece.’ The _Timocrates_ is rather similar: ‘Mercy under these
circumstances is out of place; to pass a light sentence means to
habituate and educate in wrong-doing as many of you as possible.’ The
_Androtion_ ends with a personal opinion on the aspect of the offence,
and the _Aristocrates_ is in a similar tone. The (first) speech against
Aristogiton appeals directly to the personal interests of all the jurors:
‘His offence touches every one, every one of you: and all of you desire
to be quit of his wickedness and see him punished.’
The _de Corona_ is remarkable in every way; this great speech, which,
arising from causes almost trivial, abandons the slighter issues, and is
transformed into a magnificent defence of the patriotic policy, begins
with a solemn invocation: ‘I begin, men of Athens, with a prayer to
all the gods and goddesses that you may show me in this case as much
good-will as I have shown and still show to Athens and to all of you.’ It
ends in an unique way with an appeal, not to the court but to a higher
tribunal, an appeal which is all the more impressive as its language
recalls the sacred formulas of religious utterance. ‘Never, ye gods of
heaven, never may you give their conduct your sanction; but, if it be
possible, may you impart even to my enemies a sounder mind and heart. But
if they are beyond remedy, hurl them to utter and absolute destruction by
land and sea; and to the rest of us grant, as quickly as may be, release
from the terrors which hang over us, and salvation unshakable.’
The speeches before the assembly are naturally different in their endings
from the judicial speeches; there is no criminal to attack, and no crime
to stigmatize; the hearers themselves are, as it were, on their defence,
and Demosthenes freely points out their faults, but, as has been noticed,
individual opponents escape; if there have been evil counsellors, the
responsibility for following bad advice rests with the public, and they
can only be exhorted to follow a better course. The speeches on the
_Symmories_ and on _Megalopolis_ end with a summary of the speaker’s
advice. So, too, does that _On the Freedom of Rhodes_, the last words
containing a fine appeal to the lesson of antiquity. ‘Consider that your
forefathers dedicated these trophies not in order that you might gaze in
admiration upon them, but in the hope that you might imitate the virtues
of those who dedicated them.’
Several of the speeches dealing with the Macedonian question end with a
short prayer for guidance: thus, the _First Philippic_, ‘May that counsel
prevail which is likely to be to the advantage of all’; the _First
Olynthiac_, ‘May your decision be a sound one, for all your sakes’; the
_Third Philippic_, ‘Whatever you decide, I pray to heaven it may be to
your advantage’; the _Third Olynthiac_, ‘I have told you what I think is
to your advantage, and I pray that you may choose what is likely to be of
advantage to the State and all yourselves.’
Sometimes there is a greater show of confidence, as in the _Second
Olynthiac_: ‘If you act thus, you will not only commend your present
counsellor, but you will have cause to commend your own conduct later
on, when you find a general improvement in your prospects.’
The _Second Philippic_ ends with a prayer rather similar to that in the
_de Corona_, though less emphatic; the speech _On the Chersonese_ with a
reproof and a warning.[379] _The Peace_ contains no epilogue at all, but
breaks off with a sarcasm.
* * * * *
An indication of the nature of the subjects of the genuine speeches may
be useful for reference. They may be taken in their three groups: A.
Private, B. Public, C. Deliberative speeches.
A.—SPEECHES IN PRIVATE CAUSES
_Against Aphobus_, i. and ii., 363 B.C., delivered in the action which
Demosthenes brought against his guardian for the recovery of his property.
_For Phanos against Aphobus_, 363 B.C. Aphobus, convicted in the former
case, accused a witness, Phanos, of perjury: Demosthenes defends the
latter.
_Against Onetor_, i. and ii., 362 B.C. Another case arising out of the
guardianship. When Aphobus was convicted it was found that he had made
over some of the property to his father-in-law Onetor, against whom
Demosthenes was forced to bring a δίκη ἐξούλης.
_On the Trierarchic Crown_, between 361-357 B.C. Apollodorus, having been
awarded the crown given each year to the trierarch who first had his ship
in commission, claims a second crown for having given the best equipped
ship.
_Against Spudias_ (date unknown). One Polyeuctus died, leaving his
property equally to his two daughters. The husband of the elder claims
that the dowry promised with her was never paid in full, and that
Spudias, the husband of the younger daughter, has consequently no right
to half of the _gross_ estate. The debt to the complainant should be
discharged first.
_Against Callicles_ (date unknown). Callicles, a farmer, alleges that the
defendant’s father built a wall stopping a water-course; consequently the
plaintiff’s land was flooded in rainy weather. The defendant denies the
charge, and ridicules it on the ground that the high-road was the natural
water-course.[380]
_Against Conon_ (possibly 341 B.C., see Paley and Sandys’ edition).
Ariston prosecutes Conon for assault. The quarrel dated from a time
when the two parties were on garrison duty, and Conon and his sons
deliberately annoyed Ariston and his friends. Subsequently the defendant,
aided by his sons and others, members of a disreputable ‘Mohock’ club
called the ‘Triballi,’ violently assaulted the speaker.[381]
_For Phormio_, 350 B.C. Phormio, chief clerk to Pasion, the famous
Athenian banker, succeeded him in the business. Some years later
Apollodorus, Pasion’s elder son, claimed a sum of money, said to be
due to him under his father’s will; Phormio, however, proved that a
compromise had been made which rendered the present action invalid.
_Against Stephanus_, i., 349 or 348 B.C. Apollodorus accuses Stephanus,
a witness for Phormio in the previous case, of perjury. It is noticeable
that Demosthenes, the professional speech-writer, has now changed sides,
an action of rather dubious morality if judged by strict standards.
_Against Boeotus_, i., 348 B.C. Mantias, an Athenian politician,
had three sons, Mantitheus (legitimate), and Boeotus and another
illegitimate. Boeotus laid claim to the name Mantitheus, and the true
Mantitheus brought an action to restrain him from using the name.
_Against Pantaenetus_, 346 B.C. A plea (παραγραφή) by one Nicobulus
against Pantaenetus, who had charged the former with damaging his mining
property. The case is hard to follow, since the mine in question was held
in succession by no less than six different parties, whether as owners,
mortgagees, or lessees.
_Against Nausimachus_ (about 346 B.C.). Nausimachus and Xenopeithes,
orphans, brought an action against their guardian Aristaechmus with
regard to their estate, but agreed to compromise for three talents, which
was duly paid. After his death they brought an action against his four
sons, renewing their original claim. The sons put in a παραγραφή to stop
the action on the ground of the compromise.
_Against Eubulides_, 345 B.C. Euxitheus, who has been ‘objected to’ at
the revision of the list of citizens, claims that he is a citizen by
rights, but has been removed from the roll maliciously by Eubulides. The
present case is his appeal (ἔφεσις) to the court against the decision.
The remaining private speeches were quite possibly not composed by
Demosthenes, though proof is generally impossible. They seem, however, to
be genuine speeches, composed for delivery by some author or authors of
the Demosthenic period, and are of extreme interest and importance to all
students of private life at Athens.
_Against Callippus_, 369 B.C. An ἔφεσις or appeal to a court from an
arbitration which, according to the plaintiff Apollodorus, Pasion’s
son, was informal, as the arbitrator had not taken the oath. The case
arises from a claim made by Callippus for money deposited with the banker
Pasion, and by him paid out to one Cephisiades.
_Against Nicostratus_, 368-365 B.C. Apollodorus had declared that
Arethusius, a debtor to the State, possessed two slaves, who were liable
to be confiscated in payment of the debt. Nicostratus, brother of
Arethusius, declared that the slaves were his. Apollodorus in this speech
has to prove that the claim is false.
_Against Timotheus_, 362 B.C. Apollodorus claims from Timotheus money
which, he affirms, the latter borrowed from Pasion.
_Against Polycles_, 358 B.C. Apollodorus was forced to act at trierarch
beyond the appointed time, as Polycles, his successor, was not ready to
take over the duty. The former claims damages.
_Against Stephanus_, ii. See _Against Stephanus_, i., to which this is a
supplement.
_Against Euergus and Mnesibulus_, 356-353 B.C. A prosecution for perjury
of witnesses in a case of ex-trierarchs who are state-debtors.
_Against Zenothemis_, date unknown. An intricate story of fraud and
collusion in connexion with money borrowed on the security of a ship and
an attempt to scuttle the ship.
_Against Boeotus_, ii., 348-346 B.C. (see the first speech _Against
Boeotus_). Mantitheus claims from his brothers the payment of his
mother’s dowry in addition to his share of his father’s inheritance.
_Against Macartatus_, _c._ 341 B.C. A case dealing with a forged will and
conflicting claims to an inheritance.
_Against Olympiodorus_, _c._ 341 B.C. Olympiodorus and Callistratus,
brothers-in-law, obtained the inheritance of Conon. Their title being
questioned, judgment went against them by default. They brought a fresh
action, Olympiodorus claiming the whole and Callistratus half, but they
had secretly agreed to divide the booty equally. Olympiodorus was awarded
the whole, and kept it, so Callistratus brought an action on the ground
of their agreement.
_Against Lacritus_, date unknown. Lacritus disclaims responsibility for
the debts of his brother Artemon, whose property he has inherited.
_Against Phaenippus_, 330 B.C. (?). The petitioner, chosen for the
trierarchy, claimed that Phaenippus was better able to afford it, and
should submit to _antidosis_, or exchange of property. He accuses
Phaenippus of making a false declaration.
_Against Leochares_, date unknown; another case of disputed inheritance.
_Against Apaturius_, 341 B.C. (?). Apaturius claims that the speaker has
certain liabilities towards him in accordance with an agreement which
he has lost. The speaker affirms in a παραγραφή that the contract was
fulfilled some time ago and the document torn up.
_Against Phormio_, _c._ 326 B.C. Phormio having borrowed money on the
security of a ship’s cargo in a voyage to the Bosporus and back, shipped
no cargo on the return journey, but as the ship was lost, evaded his
liabilities. When Chrysippus, the debtor, claimed repayment, Phormio put
in a παραγραφή stating that he had fulfilled his contract.
_Against Dionysodorus_, 323-322 B.C. Another action for breach of
contract in a similar case.
B.—SPEECHES IN PUBLIC CAUSES
_Against Androtion_, 355 B.C., written for Diodorus. Androtion had
proposed the bestowal of a golden crown on the Boulé for their services
during the year. Euctemon and Diodorus attacked the proposal as illegal
because the navy had not been increased during the year. Demosthenes
in this speech attacks the retrograde naval policy, pointing out by
historical argument the importance of the navy, and inveighs generally
against the corruptness of the party which Androtion represents, as well
as his personal character.
_Against Leptines_, 354 B.C. This is the first appearance of Demosthenes
in a public court. Leptines had proposed the abolition of hereditary
immunities from taxation (ἀτέλειαι) granted to public benefactors. It was
a salutary measure in view of the existing financial embarrassment, but
Demosthenes opposed it as being a breach of faith. ‘You must take care
not to be found guilty of doing, as a State, the sort of thing that you
would shrink from as individuals.’[382] This debasement of the State is
compared to a debasement of the coinage, which is a capital offence.[383]
_Against Timocrates_, 353 B.C. Another speech written for Diodorus,
contains several passages repeated from the _Androtion_. This man and
others, having failed to repay certain moneys which they had embezzled,
were liable to imprisonment. Timocrates proposed an extension of the
time within which they might pay. Demosthenes maintains that the law was
informally passed and was unconstitutional. Many of the arguments are
sophistical or trivial, but some are weighty, and on general grounds,
that retrospective legislation in the interests of individuals is bad,
this speech is very sound. The peroration contains an eulogy on the laws
of Athens.[384]
_Against Aristocrates_, 352 B.C., is an important authority for the
Athenian law of homicide. Aristocrates had carried a resolution making
the person of Charidemus inviolable. This man, an Euboean by birth,
was a mercenary leader, who having helped to lose Amphipolis, was now
proposing to recover it. He was at present commanding the forces of the
Thracian chief Cersobleptes. Demosthenes wrote this speech for Euthycles,
who impeached the proposal. It contains an unusually careful arrangement
in three divisions: (1) The proposal is illegal, (2) it is against our
interest, (3) Charidemus is an unworthy person. Demosthenes is seen at
his best in his appeal to legislative principle, his use of historical
argument, and his description of the conditions of mercenary service and
the politics of the barbarian fringe. The case against Charidemus is
strong; he has been in the service of Athens, Olynthus, Asia, and Thrace,
and has played fast and loose with all.
_Against Midias_, 347 B.C. A fine speech on a trivial subject, which all
the eloquence of Demosthenes cannot dignify. Strong emotion is evident
all through, the tone is exalted, there are pathetic and humorous
passages, and all about a box on the ear!
Midias, who had a long-standing personal grudge against Demosthenes,
was also his political opponent. When Demosthenes undertook to furnish
the chorus for his tribe at the greater Dionysia in 348 B.C., Midias
did all that he could to ruin the performance. On the day itself he
slapped Demosthenes in the face in the presence of the whole people in
the theatre.[385] Demosthenes laid a complaint, and Midias was declared
guilty of ‘contempt’ in a religious sense (ἀδικεῖν περὶ τὴν ἑορτήν). This
preliminary vote involved no penalty, and Demosthenes was determined
to push the case to extremes. Midias, having assaulted an official in
discharge of his duty, and, further, committed sacrilege in so doing,
might be condemned to death or confiscation of property. In the end,
however, as we learn from Aeschines,[386] a compromise was made, and
Demosthenes accepted half a talent as compensation for his injuries.
This sum was quite inadequate, but there is good reason to believe that
Demosthenes gave way for political reasons, since at the end of this year
we find there is an understanding between him and the party of Eubulus,
to which Midias belonged.
_On the Embassy (de Falsa Legatione)_, 344 B.C.
We come now to the two great speeches arising out of the political
hostility of Demosthenes and Aeschines, the speeches _On the Embassy_,
344 B.C., and _On the Crown_, 330 B.C. The history of the quarrel has
been given in earlier chapters, and the speeches themselves to some
extent described, since an account of the lives of the two orators
must have been very incomplete without a full reference to their
antagonism.[387] A few supplementary remarks may, however, be in place
here.
In the _Embassy_ Demosthenes has to fight an uphill fight; he accuses
Aeschines of having, from corrupt motives, concluded a dishonourable
and fatal peace. He can bring no direct evidence of the guilt of his
rival, but his presumptive evidence is strong. He has one undisputed fact
to work upon: Aeschines, on his return from the second embassy, made
certain statements and promises which misled the people, and resulted in
the occupation of Thermopylae and the ruin of Phocis. Aeschines himself
must either have been duped or bribed by Philip, and as he has never
admitted that he was a fool, it becomes certain that he was a knave. A
long section of the speech (§§ 29-97) is devoted to a description of the
effects of Aeschines’ policy, and another (§§ 98-149) infers his guilt on
the lines indicated and from other incidents in his career. A presumption
of guilt had already been reached in the opening sections (§§ 9-28) where
the sudden change of front of Aeschines is described. The impression
is strengthened by a review of the events of the second embassy (§§
150-178). The charge has now been established as far as circumstances
permit; the remainder of the speech, almost as long as this first part,
is really a supplement. It is more discursive, and in some places, by
its enunciation of general principles, recalls the tone of deliberative
oratory.
The speech _On the Crown_,[388] 330 B.C., surpasses even the preceding
speech in the appearance of disorder, which is probably due to deep
design. The unity and consistency of the whole is preserved by the
thought, which pervades every section, that the speaker must identify
himself with the city; his policy has been hers; personal interests
are merged in those of the community, and the case is to be won not on
technical points of law but by a justification of the broader principles
which have underlain all actions of the State.
The speeches _Against Aristogiton_, 325-4 B.C.,[389] are generally
considered spurious; Weil, however, defends the authenticity of the
first, while abandoning the second. The process is an attempt to crush a
malicious and dangerous sycophant.
Two more public speeches by contemporary writers are included wrongly
in editions of Demosthenes: _Against Neaera_, written for Apollodorus
between 343 and 339 B.C., on a question of the legal status of a
_hetaira_, and _Against Theocrines_, about 340 B.C. Theocrines was
another sycophant, whom Demosthenes branded for ever by using his name as
a term of abuse, referring to Aeschines as ‘a Theocrines with the bearing
of a tragic actor.’[390]
C.—DELIBERATIVE SPEECHES
_On the Symmories_, 354 B.C., deals with a rumour that Persia intended
to invade Greece. Demosthenes points out that this apprehension is
unfounded, and discourages any rash steps; but admits that trouble is to
be anticipated in the future, and so finds an opportunity for introducing
a scheme of naval reform. The money could be obtained when the danger was
imminent;[391] it was necessary now to perfect the machinery. The style
is Thucydidean.
_For the people of Megalopolis_, 353 B.C. Megalopolis, the city of
the Arcadian league, instituted by Epaminondas, was threatened with
disruption by Sparta, and appealed to Athens. Sparta sent an embassy
at the same time. Demosthenes, professing neutrality, really supported
the Arcadians, wishing to preserve their integrity for the sake of the
balance of power. He failed in his object.
_First Philippic_, 351 B.C., _vide supra_, pp. 206-210.
_For the Liberty of the Rhodians_, 351 B.C., supports the claim of the
islanders against oppression by Artemisia, widow of Mausolus of Caria.
Demosthenes failed again, chiefly through the prejudice against Rhodes,
which had revolted against Athens in 357 B.C.
_First_, _Second_, and _Third Olynthiacs_, all in 349 B.C., _vide supra_,
p. 210.
_On the Peace_, 346 B.C., _vide supra_, p. 212.
_Second Philippic_, 344 B.C., _vide supra_, pp. 213-214.
_On the Chersonese_, 341 B.C., _vide supra_, pp. 215-216.
_Third Philippic_, 341 B.C., _vide supra_, pp. 216-218.
The spurious _Fourth Philippic_ (341-340 B.C.) has been discussed
(_supra_, p. 218). The speech on _Halonnesus_ (342 B.C.) is attributed to
Hegesippus. It is a reply to an offer on the part of Philip to present to
Athens the island of Halonnesus which he had seized, after clearing out
the pirates who occupied it.[392]
_On the Treaty with Alexander_, date uncertain, probably 335 B.C., is
also by a contemporary of Demosthenes. The theme is,—Treaties should
be observed by all, but Macedon has broken promises, so this is an
opportunity for Athens to recover her freedom.
The _Answer to Philip’s Letter_ and the speech περὶ συντάξεως (on
financial organization) are generally regarded as rhetorical forgeries.
Two epideictic speeches, the _Epitaphius_ and _Eroticus_, are almost
certainly not by Demosthenes, and the six _Letters_ are doubtful. The
fifty-six _prooemia_, or introductions to speeches, are probably genuine
exercises of the orator’s early days.