gtp logo

Location information

Listed 10 sub titles with search on: Biographies  for wider area of: "PEANIA Small town ATTICA, EAST" .

Biographies (10)



PEANIA (Ancient demos) PEANIA
Demosthenes. A celebrated Athenian orator, a native of the deme of Paeania, in the tribe Pandionis. His father, Demosthenes, was a citizen of rank and opulence, and the proprietor of a manufactory of arms; not a common blacksmith, as the language of Juvenal would lead us to believe. The son was born about B.C. 383, and lost his father at the early age of seven years, when he was left to the care of his mother, Cleobule. The guardians to whom his father had intrusted the administration of a large property proving faithless to their charge and wasting a large portion of his patrimony, the orator's early studies were seriously hampered by the want of sufficient means, to say nothing of the delicate state of his own health. When Demosthenes was some sixteen years of age his curiosity was attracted by a trial in which Callistratus pleaded and won a cause of considerable importance. The eloquence which gained, and the applause which followed, his success so inflamed the ambition of the young Athenian that he determined to devote himself thenceforward to the assiduous study of oratory. He chose Isaeus as his master rather than Isocrates; from Plato, also, he imbibed much of the richness and the grandeur which characterize the writings of that philosopher. At the age of seventeen he appeared before the courts and pronounced against his faithless guardians, and against a debtor to his father's estate, five orations, which were crowned with complete success. These discourses, in all probability, had received the finishing touch from Isaeus, under whom Demosthenes continued to study for the space of four years after he had reached his majority.
    An opening so successful emboldened the young orator to speak before the people in the assembly; but, when he made the attempt, his feeble and stammering voice, his interrupted respiration, his ungraceful gestures, and his ill-arranged periods, brought upon him general ridicule. Returning home in the utmost distress, he was encouraged by the kindness of the actor Satyrus, who, having requested Demosthenes to repeat some passage from a dramatic poet, pronounced the same extract after him with so much correctness of enunciation and in a manner so true to nature that it appeared to the young orator to be quite a different passage. Convinced, thereupon, how much grace and persuasive power a proper enunciation and manner add to the best oration, he resolved to correct the deficiencies of his youth, and accomplished this with a zeal and perseverance which have passed into a proverb. To free himself from stammering he spoke with pebbles in his mouth, a story resting on the authority of Demetrius Phalereus, his contemporary. It also appears that he was unable to articulate clearly the letter R; but he vanquished that difficulty most perfectly, for Cicero says that he exercitatione fecisse ut plenissime diceret. He removed the distortion of features which accompanied his utterance by watching the movements of his countenance in a mirror; and a naked sword was suspended over his left shoulder while he was declaiming in private, to prevent its rising above the level of the right. That his enunciation might be loud and full of emphasis he frequently ran up the steepest and most uneven walks, an exercise by which his voice acquired both force and energy; and on the sea-shore, when the waves were violently agitated, he declaimed aloud, to accustom himself to the noise and tumult of a public assembly. He constructed a subterranean study, where he would often stay for two or three months together, shaving one side of his head, that in case he should wish to go abroad the shame of appearing in that condition might keep him within. In this solitary retreat, by the light of his lamp, he is said to have copied and recopied, ten times at least, the orations scattered throughout the history of Thucydides, for the purpose of moulding his own style after so pure a model.
    Whatever may be the truth of these stories, Demosthenes got credit for the most indefatigable labour in the acquisition of his art. His enemies, at a subsequent period of his career, attempted to ridicule this extraordinary industry, by remarking that all his arguments "smelled of the lamp," and they eagerly embraced the opportunity of denying him the possession of natural talents. This criticism of Demosthenes seems to have rested chiefly on his known reluctance to speak without preparation. The fact is, that though he could exert the talent of extemporaneous speaking, he avoided rather than sought such occasions, partly from deference to his audience and partly from apprehending the possibility of a failure. Plutarch, however, who mentions this reluctance of the orator, speaks at the same time of the great merit of his extemporaneous effusions.
    Demosthenes reappeared in public at the age of twenty-five years, and pronounced two orations against Leptines, the author of a law which imposed on every citizen of Athens, except the descendants of Harmodius and Aristogiton, the exercise of certain burdensome functions. The second of these discourses, entitled "Of Immunities," is regarded as one of his happiest efforts. After this, he became much engaged in the business of the bar, and these professional labours, added to the scanty portion of his patrimony which he had recovered from his guardians, appear to have formed his only means of support. But, whatever may have been the distinction and the advantages which Demosthenes acquired by his practice at the bar, his principal glory is derived from his political discourses. At the period when he engaged in public affairs the State was a mere wreck. Public spirit was at the lowest ebb; the laws had lost their authority; the austerity of early manners had yielded to the inroads of luxury, activity to indolence, and probity to venality. Of the virtues of their fathers there remained to the Athenians little save an attachment, carried almost to enthusiasm, for their native soil. On the slightest occasion this feeling of patriotism was sure to display itself; and, thanks to this sentiment, the people of Athens were still capable of making strenuous efforts for the preservation of their freedom. No one understood better than Demosthenes the art of exciting and keeping alive this enthusiasm. His penetration enabled him easily to divine the ambitious plans of Philip of Macedon from the very outset of that monarch's operations, and he resolved to counteract them. His whole public career, indeed, had but one object in view, and that was war with Philip. For the space of fourteen years this monarch found the Athenian orator continually in his path, and every attempt proved unavailing to corrupt so formidable an adversary. These fourteen years, which immediately preceded the fall of Grecian freedom, constitute the brightest period in the history of Demosthenes. And yet his courage was political rather than military. At Chaeronea (B.C. 338) he fled from the field of battle, though in the Athenian assembly no private apprehensions could check his eloquence or influence his conduct. But, though overpowered in the contest with the enemy of Athenian independence, he received after his defeat the most honourable recompense which, in accordance with Grecian customs, a grateful country could bestow. Athens decreed him a crown of gold. The reward was opposed by Aeschines. The combat of eloquence which arose between the two orators attracted to Athens an immense concourse of spectators. Demosthenes triumphed, and his antagonist, not having received the fifth part of the votes, was, in conformity with the existing law, compelled to retire into exile. A short time after this splendid victory Demosthenes was condemned for having suffered himself to be bribed by Harpalus, a Macedonian governor, who, dreading the anger of Alexander, had come to Athens to hide there the fruit of his extortion and rapine, and had bargained with the popular leaders of the day for the protection of the Republic. Demosthenes, having escaped from imprisonment, fled to Aegina (B.C. 324), whence he could behold the shores of his beloved country, and earnestly and constantly protested his innocence. After the death of Alexander he was restored, and his entry into Athens was marked by every demonstration of joy. A new league was formed among the Grecian cities against the Macedonians, and Demosthenes was the soul of it. But the confederacy was broken up by Antipater, and the death of the orator was decreed. He retired, thereupon, from Athens to the island of Calauria, off the coast of Argolis, and, being still pursued by the satellites of Antipater, terminated his life there by poison, in the temple of Poseidon, at the age of about sixty years, B.C. 322.
    Before the time of Demosthenes there existed three distinct styles of eloquence: that of Lysias, mild and persuasive, which quietly engaged the attention and won the assent of an audience; that of Thucydides, bold and animated, which awakened the feelings and powerfully forced conviction on the mind; while that of Isocrates was, as it were, a combination of the two former. Demosthenes can scarcely be said to have adopted any individual as a model, although he bestowed so much untiring labour on the historian of the Peloponnesian War. He rather culled all that was valuable from the various styles of his great predecessors, working them up and blending them into one harmonious whole. In the general structure of many of his sentences he resembles Thucydides, but is simpler and more perspicuous and better calculated to be quickly comprehended by an audience. On the other hand, his clearness in narration and his elegance and purity of diction remind the reader of Lysias. But the argumentative parts of the speeches of Lysias are often deficient in vigour; whereas earnestness, power, zeal, rapidity, and passion, all exemplified in plain, unornamented language and a strain of close, business-like reasoning, are the distinctive characteristics of Demosthenes. The general tone of his oratory, indeed, was admirably adapted to an Athenian audience, constituted as it was of those whose habits of life were mechanical, and of those whom ambition or taste had led to the cultivation of literature. The former were captivated by strong good sense, urged with masculine force and inextinguishable spirit, and by the forcible application of plain truths; while there was enough of grace and variety to please more learned and fastidious auditors. Another very remarkable excellence of Demosthenes is the collocation of his words. The arrangement of sentences in such a manner that their cadences should be harmonious, and to a certain degree rhythmical, was a study much in vogue among the great masters of Grecian composition. See Colon.
    The question has often been raised as to the secret of the success of Demosthenes. The universal approbation will appear the more extraordinary to a reader who for the first time peruses the orations. They do not exhibit any of that declamation on which loosely hangs the fame of so many aspirants to eloquence. There appears no deep reflection to indicate a more than ordinary penetration, or any philosophical remarks to prove the extent of his acquaintance with the great moral writers of his country. He affects no learning; he aims at no elegance; he seeks no glaring ornaments; he rarely touches the heart with a soft or melting appeal, and when he does, it is only with an effect in which a third-rate speaker would have surpassed him. He had no wit, no humour, no vivacity, in our acceptance of these terms. The secret of his power is simple, for it lies essentially in this, that his political principles were interwoven with his very spirit; they were not assumed to serve an interested purpose, to be laid aside when he descended from the bema and resumed when he sought to accomplish an object, but were deeply seated in his heart and emanated from its profoundest depths. The more his country was environed by dangers, the more steady was his resolution. Nothing ever impaired the truth and integrity of his feelings or weakened his generous conviction. It was his undeviating firmness, his disdain of all compromise, that made him the first of statesmen and orators; in this lay the substance of his power, the primary foundation of his superiority; the rest was merely secondary. The mystery of his influence, then, lay in his honesty; and it is this that gave warmth and tone to his feelings, energy to his language, and an impression to his manner before which every imputation of insincerity must have immediately vanished. We may thus perceive the meaning of Demosthenes himself, when, to one who asked him what was the first requisite in an orator, he merely replied, "Delivery" (hupokrisis); and when asked what were the second and third requisites, gave the same answer as at first (Plut. Vit. X. Orat.). His meaning was this: a lifeless manner on the part of a public speaker shows that his own feelings are not enlisted in the cause which he is advocating, and it is idle for him, therefore, to seek to make converts of others when he has failed in making one of himself. On the other hand, when the tone of voice, the gesture, the look, the whole manner of the orator, display the powerful feelings that agitate him, his emotion is communicated to his hearers, and success is inevitable.
    Of the orations we have sixty-one (half of them spurious), and fifty-six Introductions, or prooimia demegorika. In confining ourselves to the classification adopted by the ancient rhetori cians, we may arrange all these discourses under one of three heads. (I.) Deliberative discourses (logoi sumbouleutikoi), treating of political topics, and delivered either before the Senate or the assembly of the people. (II.) Judicial speeches (logoi dikanikoi), having for their object accusation or defence. (III.) Studied or set speeches (logoi epideiktikoi), intended to censure or praise.    Seventeen of the orations of Demosthenes belong to the first of these classes, forty-two to the second, and two to the third.
    Of the seventeen discourses which compose the first class, five treat of various subjects connected with the Republic, and twelve of the quarrels between the State and Philip. Our limits allow an examination of only a few of these that are most important in their character. Of the twelve harangues that turn upon the quarrels of the Republic with Philip, the first was pronounced in B.C. 351; the second, third, and fourth in B.C. 349; the fifth in B.C. 347; the sixth in B.C. 346; the seventh in B.C. 344; the eighth in B.C. 343; the ninth in B.C. 342; the tenth and eleventh in B.C. 341; and the twelfth in B.C. 340. The order here given is that of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, but no manuscript and no editions observe it. The manuscripts give the First, Second, Tenth, and Eleventh Philippics of Dionysius by name, and regard his fifth as forming the conclusion of the first. They give the title of Second, Third, and First Olynthiacs to his Second, Third, and Fourth. The remaining four (Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Twelfth) have the following titles: "Of Peace," "Of Halonesus," "Of the Chersonesus," and "On the Letter of Philip." We shall now speak of them in chronological order. The (1 and 2) Pros Philippon logos protos, the First Philippic. Demosthenes here exhorts his fellow-citizens to prosecute the war with the greatest vigour against Philip. This monarch had, after the defeat of the Phocians, assumed a threatening attitude, as if wishing to establish himself in their country. The discourse we are now considering has been divided into two parts, which, according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, were pronounced at different times; but this opinion is contradicted by most critics. (3, 4, 5) Olunthiakos A, B, G--The three Olynthiacs. Their object is to stimulate the Athenians to succour Olynthus and prevent its falling into the hands of Philip. (6) Peri tes eirenes, "Of the Peace." Philip having obtained a seat in the council of the Amphictyons, Demosthenes advises his countrymen to preserve the peace with this prince. Libanius thinks that this discourse, though written by Demosthenes, was never delivered. Modern scholars are, however, of a different opinion. (7) Kata Philippou logos B, the Second Philippic, pronounced after the return of Demosthenes from the Peloponnesus, where he had negotiated a peace between Sparta and Messenia. (8) Peri tes Halonesou, "Of Halonesus," or, rather, of a letter of Philip's, by which he makes a present to the Athenians of the island of Halonesus, which he had taken from the pirates, and demands of the Athenians to share with them the office of protecting the seas. Demosthenes strenuously opposes so insulting an offer; it is, however, far from certain whether he ever pronounced such a discourse as this. Libanius says that the ancient critics ascribed it to Hegesippus, the friend of Demosthenes. Suidas and the author of the Etymologicum Magnum agree with him. (9) Peri ton en Cherronesoi pragmaton, e ho peri Diopeitheous, "Of the events in the Chersonesus, or of Diopithes." That general, sent at the head of a colony into the Chersonesus, had committed hostilities against the city of Cardia, the only one which Philip had reserved for himself in the conditions of peace. Diopithes had even made an inroad into Macedonia. Philip insisted on his being punished. Demosthenes undertakes in this oration to justify the conduct of the Athenian commander. (10) Kata Philippou logos G, the Third Philippic. The progress which Philip had made in Thrace, where he was preparing to lay siege to the cities of Perinthus and Byzantium, form the subject of this harangue. (11) Kata Philippou logos D, the Fourth Philippic, pronounced at the time when Philip had raised the siege of Perinthus, in order to fall upon Byzantium. Valckenaer, Wolf, and Bekker do not acknowledge this as a production of Demosthenes. (12) Ho pros ten epistolen Philippou logos, "On the Letter of Philip." The letter of the king, to which this harangue refers, still exists. It contains many complaints, but no declaration of war. Taylor, Reiske, Valckenaer, and Bekker consider this letter to be spurious.
    We come now to the second class of the orations of Demosthenes, namely, those of a judicial nature; and here a distinction must be made between those which refer to affairs connected with the State and those which relate to individual interests: in the former case, the procedure was called kategoria; in the second, dike--words which may be translated by "accusation" and "pleadings." Of the first species we have twelve harangues remaining, the most important one of which is that entitled Peri Stephanou, "On the Crown." Demosthenes had been twice crowned in the theatre during the Dionysiac festival: the first time after the expulsion of the Macedonian garrisons from the island of Euboea, and again after the alliance with the Thebans. In the year B.C. 338, Ctesiphon, who was then president of the Senate, had a decree passed by this body that, if the people approved, Demosthenes should be crowned at the approaching Dionysiac festival, in the public theatre, as a recompense for the disinterested manner in which he had filled various offices, and for the services which he had never for a moment ceased to render the State. This matter had to be confirmed by a psephisma, or decree of the people; but, before it was brought before them, Aeschines presented himself as the accuser of Ctesiphon. He charged him with having violated the laws in proposing to crown a public functionary before the latter had given an account of the manner in which he had discharged his office; and to crown him, too, in the theatre, instead of the senate-house or the Pnyx, where this could alone be done; finally, in having alleged what was false, for the purpose of favouring Demosthenes. He concluded by demanding that a fine of fifty talents be imposed upon Ctesiphon. The matter remained for some time pending, in consequence of the troubles that followed the battle of Chaeronea. When, however, the influence of the Macedonian party had, through the exertions of Antipater, gained the ascendency in Athens, Aeschines believed it to be a favourable moment for the revival of his accusation. It was brought forward, therefore, again, in B.C. 330, or eight years after the proposition of Ctesiphon had been made. Aeschines thereupon pronounced his famous harangue, to which Demosthenes replied. This speech of Demosthenes is regarded, and justly so, not only as his masterpiece, but as the most perfect specimen that eloquence has ever produced. It is said that after this discourse Demosthenes no longer appeared as a public speaker. Ulpian, in his commentary on the oration De Corona, relates an anecdote which has been often cited. Demosthenes is endeavouring to fix the charge of bribery on Aeschines, whom he represents as corrupted by Philip and by Alexander, and consequently their hireling and not their friend or guest. Of this assertion he declares his willingness to submit the truth to the judgment of the assembly. "I call thee," says the orator, "the hireling, first of Philip and now of Alexander; and all these who are here present agree in opinion with me. If thou disbelievest it, ask them the question; but no, I will ask them myself. Athenians, does Aeschines appear to you in the light of a hireling or a friend of Alexander's?" In putting this question, Demosthenes purposely commits a fault of accentuation: he places the accent improperly on the antepenultima, instead of the last syllable, of misthotos--in the words of Ulpian, hekon ebarbarisen--in order to draw the attention of the people from the question to the pronunciation. This had the desired effect: the accurate ears of the Athenians were struck with the mistake; to correct it, they called out misthotos, misthotos, "a hireling! a hireling!" from every part of the assembly. Pretending to receive the word as the expression of their sentiments on the guilt of Aeschines, he cried out, "Dost thou hear what they say?"
    The simple pleadings (dikai) relative to matters of private interest, constitute the second class of judicial actions. Of these we have thirty remaining, which are as follows: (1) Discourses having relation to the proceedings instituted by Demosthenes against his guardians. They are five in number: of these, two are against Aphobus, and two against Onetor, his brother. (2) Logoi paragraphikoi, or, as Cicero calls them, constitutiones translativae. We have seven discourses of this class from the pen of Demosthenes, viz.: against Zenothemis, against Apaturius, against Lacritus, against Phormion, against Pantaenetus, against Nausimachus, and Xenopithaea. (3) Discourses relative to the rights of succession and to questions of dower. These are four in number: against Macartatus, against Leochares, against Spudias, against Boeotus for his mother's dowry. (4) Discourses in matters of commerce and of debt. These are three in number: against Calippus, against Nicostratus, against Timotheus. (5) Actions for indemnity and for damages (blabe, aikia). The discourses under this head are five in number: against Boeotus, against Olympiodorus, against Conon, against Dionysiodorus, against Callicles. (6) Actions for perjury: two discourses against Stephanus, and one against Euergus and Mnesibulus. (7) Three discourses on the subject of the antidosis (q. v.), or exchange of estates. The discourses under this head are the following: against Phoenippus, against Polycles, and respecting the crown of the trierarchia. It is unnecessary to speak of each of these thirty pleadings; a few [p. 494] remarks on some of them must suffice. The five discourses which Demosthenes pronounced against his guardians contain valuable details respecting his youth, his fortune, and the Athenian laws. Aphobus, one of the guardians, was condemned to pay Demosthenes the sum of ten talents. It does not appear whether he brought the two other guardians to trial or not. These discourses have some resemblance to those of Isaeus, his master. The paragraphe for Phormio against Apollodorus has furnished occasion for a reproach to the memory of Demosthenes. We are told by Plutarch that Demosthenes "wrote an oration for Apollodorus, by which he carried his cause against the general Timotheus, in an action for debt to the public treasury; as also those others against Phormio and Stephanus, which formed a just exception against his character. For he composed likewise the oration which Phormio had pronounced against Apollodorus. This, therefore, was like furnishing the enemies with weapons out of the same shop."
    The discourse against Macartatus, respecting the succession of Hagnias, is interesting from the circumstance of our having the defence of Macartatus by Isaeus, and from our being thus able to compare the pupil with his former master. It remains to speak of the third class of Demosthenes's orations, the logoi epideiktikoi, "studied or set speeches." We have only two remaining, and these, very probably, are spurious. The one, epitaphios logos, is a eulogy on the Athenians who had perished at Chaeronea; the other, erotikos logos, is written in praise of the beauty of the young Epicrates.
    There are also six letters ascribed to Demosthenes; five of them are addressed to the people of Athens. All, however, are forgeries.
    Good manuscripts of Demosthenes are rare, but several of them are as old as the eleventh century, and most of them contain a very large portion, if not the whole, of the extant works. In all, there are some 170 MSS. They are divided by editors into three groups, of which the first is headed by a Codex Parisinus (S or S) of the tenth or eleventh century, distinguished by remarkable omissions in the text; the second is headed by a Marcianus Venetus (F) and another Codex Parisinus (g), both of the eleventh century; the third by a Codex Monacensis (A), also of the eleventh century, distinguished by curious simplifications of hard passages. Editors are not entirely agreed as to the value of S or S, some maintaining that it gives the authentic text, others believing that it gives an edition by a clever scholar. The scholia on Demosthenes are inferior, the best being those in C. Muller (Paris, 1846-47) and Scholia Graeca in Demosth. (Oxford, 1851). On the MSS. see Vomel's Prolegomena Critica to his edition (Halle, 1856-57).

This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks

Demosthenes, the greatest of the Greek orators, was the son of one Demosthenes, and born in the Attic demos of Paeania. Respecting the year of his birth, the statements of the ancients differ as much as the opinions of modern critics. Some of the earlier scholars acquiesced in the express testimony of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ep. ad Amm. i. 4), who says that Demosthenes was born in the year preceding the hundredth Olympiad, that is B. C. 381. Gellius (xv. 28) states that Demosthenes was in his twenty-seventh year at the time when he composed his orations against Androtion and Timocrates, which belong to B. C. 355, so that the birth of Demosthenes would fall in B. C. 383 or 382, the latter of which is adopted by Clinton. According to the account in the lives of the Ten Orators Demosthenes was born in the archonship of Dexitheus, that is, B. C. 385, and this statement has been adopted by most modern critics, such as Becker, Bockh, Westermann, Thirlwall, and others; whereas some have endeavoured to prove that B. C. 384 was his birthyear. The opinion now most commonly received is, that Demosthenes was born in B. C. 385. For detailed discussions on this question the reader is referred to the works mentioned at the end of this article.
  When Demosthenes, the father, died, he left behind him a widow, the daughter of Gylon, and two children, Demosthenes, then a boy of seven, and a daughter who was only five years old (Plut. Dem. 4; Dem. c. Aphob. ii; Aeschin. c. Ctesiph.171). During the last moments of his life, the father had entrusted the protection of his wife and children and the care of his property, partly capital and partly a large sword manufactory, to three guardians, Aphobus, a son of his sister Demophon, a son of his brother, and an old friend Therippides, on condition that the first should marry the widow and receive with her a dowry of eighty minae; the second was to marry the daughter on her attaining the age of maturity, and was to receive at once two talents, and the third was to have the interest of seventy minae, till Demosthenes, the son, should come of age (Dem. c. Aphob. i, ii). But the first two of the guardians did not comply with the stipulations made in the will, and all three, in spite of all the remonstrances of the family, united in squandering and appropriating to themselves a great portion of the handsome property, which is estimated at upwards of fourteen talents, and might easily have been doubled during the minority of Demosthenes by a prudent administration. But, as it was, the property gradually was so reduced, that when Demosthenes became of age, his guardians had no more than seventy minae, that is, only one twelfth of the property which the father had left (Dem. c. Aphob. i., c. Onet.). This shameful conduct of his own relatives and guardians unquestionably exercised a great influence on the mind and character of Demosthenes, for it was probably during that early period that, suffering as he was through the injustice of those from whom he had a right to expect protection, his strong feeling of right and wrong was planted and developed in him, a feeling which characterizes his whole subsequent life. He was thus thrown upon his own resources, and the result was great selfreliance, independence of judgment, and his oratory, which was the only art by which he could hope to get justice done to himself.
  Although Demosthenes passed his youth amid such troubles and vexations, there is no reason for believing with Plutarch (Dem. 4), that he grew up neglected and without any education at all. The very fact that his guardians are accused of having refused to pay his teachers (c. Aphob. i.) shews that he received some kind of education, which is further confirmed by Demosthenes's own statement (de Coron.), though it cannot be supposed that his education comprised much more than an elementary course. The many illustrious personages that are mentioned as his teachers, must be conceived to have become connected with him after he had attained the age of manhood. He is said to have been instructed in philosophy by Plato (Plut. Dem. 5, Vit. X Orat.; Diog. Laert. iii. 46; Cic. Brut. 31, Orat. 4; Quintil. xiii. 2.22, 10.24; Gellius, iii. 13). It may be that Demosthenes knew and esteemed Plato, but it is more than doubtful whether he received his instruction; and to make him, as some critics have done, a perfect Platonic, is certainly going too far. According to some accounts he was instructed in oratory by Isocrates (Plut. Vit. X Orat.; Phot. Bibl.), but this was a disputed point with the ancients themselves, some of whom stated, that he was not personally instructed by Isocrates, but only that he studied the techne rhetorike, which Isocrates had written (Plut. Vit. X Orat., Dem. 5). The tradition of Demosthenes having been a pupil of Isocrates is, moreover, not supported by any evidence derived from the orations of Demosthenes himself, who speaks with contempt of the rhetorical school of Isocrates (c. Lacrin.), and an unbiassed reader of the works of the two orators cannot discover any direct influence of the elder upon the younger one, for certain words and phrases cannot assuredly be taken as proofs to the contrary. The account that Demosthenes was instructed in oratory by Isaeus (Plut. Dem. 5, Vit. X Orat.; Phot. Bibl.), has much more probability; for at that time Isaeus was the most eminent orator in matters connected with the laws of inheritance, the very thing which Demosthenes needed. This account is further supported by the fact, that the earliest orations of Demosthenes, viz. those against Aphobus and Onetor, bear so strong a resemblance to those of Isaeus, that the ancients themselves believed them to have been composed by Isaeus for Demosthenes, or that the latter had written them under the guidance of the former (Plut. Vit. X Orat.; Liban. Vit. Dem., Argum. ad Orat. c. Onet.). We may suppose without much hesitation, that during the latter years of his minority Demosthenes privately prepared himself for the career of an orator, to which he was urged on by his peculiar circumstancesno less than by the admiration he felt for the orators of his time, and that during the first years after his attaining the age of manhood he availed himself of the instruction of Isaeus.
  Immediately after becoming of age in B. C. 366, Demosthenes called upon his guardians to render him an account of their administration of his property; but by intrigues they contrived to defer the business for two years, which was perhaps less disagreeable to him, as he had to prepare himself and to acquire a certain legal knowledge and oratorical power before he could venture to come forward in his own cause with any hope of success. In the course of these two years, however, the matter was twice investigated by the diaetetae, and was decided each time in favour of Demosthenes (Dem. c. Aphob. i., c. Aphob. iii.). At length, in the third year after his coming of age, in the archonship of Timocrates, B. C. 364 (Dem. c. Onet.), Demosthenes brought his accusation against Aphobus before the archon, reserving to himself the right to bring similar charges against Demophon and Therippides, which, however, he does not appear to have done (c. Aphob. i.; Plut. Vit. X Orat.; Zozim. Vit. Dem.). Aphobus was condemned to pay a fine of ten talents. This verdict was obtained by Demosthenes in the face of all the intrigues to which Aphobus had resorted for the purpose of thwarting him and involving him in a series of other law-suits (c. Aphob.). The extant orations of Demosthenes against Aphobus, who endeavoured to prevent his taking possession of his property, refer to these transactions. Demosthenes had thus gained a signal victory over his enemies, notwithstanding all the extraordinary disadvantages under which he laboured, for his physical constitution was weak, and his organ of speech deficient--whence, probably, he derived the nickname of Batalos, the delicate youth, or the stammerer,--and it was only owing to the most unwearied and persevering exertions that he succeeded in overcoming and removing the obstacles which nature had placed in his way. These exertions were probably made by him after he had arrived at the age of manhood. In this manner, and by speaking in various civil cases, he prepared himself for the career of a political orator and statesman. It is very doubtful whether Demosthenes, like some of his predecessors, engaged also in teaching rhetoric, as some of his Greek biographers assert.
  The suit against Aphobus had made Meidias a formidable and implacable enemy of Demosthenes (Dem. c. Aphob. ii., c. Meid.), and the danger to which he thus became exposed was the more fearful, since except his personal powers and virtues he had nothing to oppose to Meidias, who was the most active member of a coterie, which, although yet without any definite political tendency, was preparing the ruin of the republic by violating its laws and sacrificing its resources to personal and selfish interests. The first acts of open hostility were committed in B. C. 361, when Meidias forced his way into the house of Demosthenes and insulted the members of his family. This led Demosthenes to bring against him the action of kakeloria, and when Meidias after his condemnation did not fulfil his obligations, Demosthenes brought against him a dike exoules (Dem. c. Meid.). Meidias found means to prevent any decision being given for a period of eight years, and at length, in B. C. 354, he had an opportunity to take revenge upon Demosthenes, who had in that year voluntarily undertaken the choregia. Meidias not only endeavoured in all possible ways to prevent Demosthenes from discharging his office in its proper form, but attacked him with open violence during the celebration of the great Dionysia (Dem. c. Meid.). Such an act committed before the eyes of the people demanded reparation, and Demosthenes brought an action against him. Public opinion condemned Meidias, and it was in vain that he made all possible efforts to intimidate Demosthenes, who remained firm in spite of all his enemy's machinations, until at length, when an amicable arrangement was proposed, Demosthenes accepted it, and withdrew his accusation. It is said that he received from Meidias the sum of thirty minae (Plut. Dem. 12; Aeschin. c. Ctesiph. 52). The reason why Demosthenes withdrew his accusation was in all probability his fear of the powerful party of which Meidias was the leader; his accepting the sum of thirty minae, which, however, can scarcely be treated as an authentic fact(Isid. Epist.iv. 205), has been looked upon as an illegal act, and has been brought forward as a proof that Demosthenes was accessible to bribes. But the law which forbade the dropping of a public accusation (Dem. c. Meid.) does not appear to have been always strictly observed, as it was merely intended to prevent frivolous and unfounded accusations. If, on the other hand, Demosthenes did receive the thirty minae, it does not follow that it was a bribe, for that sum may have been required of him as a fine for dropping his accusationn against Meidias, or Demosthenes may have regarded that sum as a satisfactory acknowledgement of the guilt of his enemy. This affair belongs to the year B. C. 353, in which also the extant oration against Meidias was written, but as Demosthenes did not follow up the suit, the oration was left in its present unfinished state.
  Demosthenes had some years before this event come forward as a speaker in the public assembly, for in B. C. 355 he had delivered the orations against Leptines and Androtion (Dionys. Ep. ad Amm. i. 4), and in B. C. 353 the oration against Timocrates. The general esteem which Demosthenes enjoyed as early as that time is sufficiently attested by the fact, that in B. C. 354, in spite of all the intrigues of Meidias, he was confirmed in the dignity of Bouleutes, to which he had been elected by lot (Dem. c. Meid.), and that in the year following he conducted, in the capacity of architheoros, the usual theoria, which the state of Athens sent to the festival of the Nemean Zeus (c. Meid.). The active part he took in public affairs is further attested by the orations which belong to this period: in B. C. 354 he spoke against the projected expedition to Euboea, though without success, and he himself afterwards joined in it under Phocion (Dem. de Pace, Meid.). In the same year he delivered the oration peri summoron, in which he successfully dissuaded the Athenians from their foolish scheme of undertaking a war against Persia (Dem. de Rhod. lib.), and in B. C. 353 he spoke for the Megalopolitans (huper Megalopolton), and opposed the Spartans, who had solicited the aid of Athens to reduce Megalopolis.
  The one hundred and sixth Olympiad, or the period from B. C. 356, is the beginning of the career of Demosthenes as one of the leading statesmen of Athens, and henceforth the history of his life is closely mixed up with that of his country; for there is no question affecting the public good in which he did not take the most active part, and support with all the power of his oratory what he considered right and beneficial to the state. King Philip of Macedonia had commenced in B. C. 358 his encroachments upon the possessions of Athens in the north of the Aegean, and he had taken possession of the towns of Amphipolis, Pydna, Potidaea, and Methone. During those proceedings he had contrived to keep the Athenians at a distance, to deceive them and keep them in good humour by delusions and apparently favourable promises. Demosthenes was not, indeed, the only man who saw that these proceedings were merely a prelude to greater things, and that unless the king was checked, he would attempt the subjugation, not only of Athens but of all Greece; but Demosthenes was the only person who had the honesty and the courage openly to express his opinions, and to call upon the Greeks to unite their strength against the common foe. His patriotic feelings and convictions against Macedonian aggrandizement are the groundwork of his Philippics, a series of the most splendid and spirited orations. They did not, it is true, produce the desired results, but the fault was not his, and the cause of their failure must be sought in the state of general dissolution in the Greek republics at the time; for while Philip occupied his threatening position, the Phocians were engaged in a war for life and death with the Thebans; the states of Peloponnesus looked upon one another with mistrust and hatred, and it was only with great difficulty that Athens could maintain a shadow of its former supremacy. The Athenians themselves, as Demosthenes says, were indolent, even when they knew what ought to be done; they could not rouse themselves to an energetic opposition; their measures were in most cases only half measures; they never acted at the right time, and indulged in spending the treasures of the republic upon costly pomps and festivities, instead of employing them as means to ward off the danger that was gathering like a storm at a distance. This disposition was, moreover, fostered by the ruling party at Athens. It was further an unfortunate circumstance for Athens that, although she had some able generals, yet she had no military genius of the first order to lead her forces against the Macedonian, and make head against him. It was only on one occasion, in B. C. 353, that the Athenians gained decided advantages by a diversion of their fleet, which prevented Philip passing Thermopylae during the war between the Phocians and Thebans. But a report of Philip's illness and death soon made room for the old apathy, and the good-will of those who would have acted with spirit was paralyzed by the entire absence of any definite plan in the war against Macedonia, although the necessity of such a plan had been pointed out, and proposals had been made for it by Demosthenes in his first Philippic, which was spoken in B. C. 352. Philip's attack upon Olynthus in B. C. 349, which terminated in the year following with the conquest of the place, deprived the Athenians of their last stronghold in the north. At the request of several embassies from the Olynthians, and on the impressive exhortation of Demosthenes in his three Olynthiac orations, the Athenians had indeed made considerable efforts to save Olynthus (Dem. de Fals. Leg.; Dionys. Ep. ad Amm. i. 9), but their operations were thwarted in the end by a treacherous plot which was formed at Olynthus itself, and the town fell into the hands of Philip.
  The next event in which Demosthenes took an active part is the peace with Philip, which from its originator is called the peace of Philocrates, and is one of the most obscure points in the history of Demosthenes and of Athens, since none of the historians whose works are extant enter into the details of the subject. Our only sources of information are the orations of Demosthenes and Aeschines on the embassy (peri parapresbeias), which contain statements so much at variance and so contradictory, that it is next to impossible to come to any certain conclusions, although, if we consider the characters of the two orators, the authority of Demosthenes is entitled to higher credit than that of Aeschines. The former may, to some extent, have been labouring under a delusion, but Aeschines had the intention to deceive. The following particulars, however, may be looked upon as well established. During the Olynthian war, Philip had expressed his willingness to conclude a peace and alliance with Athens, and the Athenians, who were tired of the war and unable to form a coalition against the king, had accepted the proposal. Philocrates accordingly advised the Athenians to commence negotiations and to send an embassy to Philip. Demosthenes supported the plan, and Philocrates, Aeschines, and Demosthenes were among the ambassadors who went to the king. The transactions with Philip are not quite clear, though they must have referred to the Phocians and Thebans also, for the Phocians were allied with Athens, and the Athenian ambassadors probably demanded that the Phocians should be included in the treaty of peace and alliance between Macedonia and Athens. But this was more than Philip was inclined to agree to, since he had already resolved upon the destruction of the Phocians. It is, therefore, very probable that he may have quieted the ambassadors by vague promises, and have declined to comply with their demand under the pretext that he could not make a public declaration in favour of the Phocians on account of his relation to the Thessalians and Thebans. After the return of the ambassadors to Athens, the peace was discussed in two successive assemblies of the people, and it was at length sanctioned and sworn to by an oath to the king's ambassadors. Aeschines censures Demosthenes for having hurried the conclusion of this peace so much, that the Athenians did not even wait for the arrival of the deputies of their allies, who had been invited, and the contradictory manner in which Demosthenes himself (de Fals. Leg., de Coron.) speaks of the matter seems indeed to cast some suspicion upon him; but the cause of Demosthenes's acting as he did may have been the vague manner in which Philip had expressed himself in regard to the Phocians. At any rate, however, quick decision was absolutely necessary, since Philip was in the meantime making war upon Cersobleptes, a king of Thrace, and since, in spite of his promises to spare the possessions of Athens in the Chersonesus, he might easily have been tempted to stretch out his hands after them: in order to prevent this, it was necessary that Philip, as soon as possible, should take his oath to the treaty of peace and alliance with Athens. It was on this occasion that the treacherous designs of Aeschines and his party became manifest, for notwithstanding the urgent admonitions of Demosthenes not to lose any time, the embassy to receive the king's oath (epi tous horkous), of which both Aeschines and Demosthenes were again members (the statement in the article Aeschines, that Demosthenes was not one of the ambassadors, must be corrected: see Newman in the Classical Museum, vol. i. p. 145), set out with a slowness as if there had been no danger whatever, and instead of taking the shortest road to Macedonia by sea, the ambassadors travelled by land. On their arrival in Macedonia they quietly waited till Philip returned from Thrace. Nearly three months passed away in this manner, and when at length Philip arrived, he deferred taking his oath until he had completed his preparations against the Phocians. Accompanied by the Athenian ambassadors, he then marched into Thessaly, and it was not till his arrival at Pherae that he took his oath to the treaty, from which he now excluded the Phocians. When the ambassadors arrived at Athens, Demosthenes immediately and boldly denounced the treachery of his colleagues in the embassy; but in vain. Aeschines succeeded in allaying the fears of the people, and persuaded them quietly to wait for the issue of the events. Philip in the meantime passed Thermopylae, and the fate of Phocis was decided without a blow. The king was now admitted as a member of the Amphictyonic league, and the Athenians, who had allowed themselves to act the part of mere spectators during those proceedings, were now unable to do anything, but still they ventured to express their indignation at the king's conduct by refusing their sanction to his becoming a member of the Amphictyonic league. The mischief, however, was done, and in order to prevent still more serious consequences, Demosthenes, in B. C. 346, delivered his oration " on the peace" (pepi eirenes), and the people gave way.
  From this time forward the two political parties are fully developed, and openly act against each other; the party or rather the faction to which Aeschines belonged, was bribed by Philip to oppose the true patriots, who were headed by Demosthenes. He was assisted in his great work by such able men as Lycurgus, Hyperides, Polyeuctus, Hegesippus, and others, and being supported by his confidence in the good cause, he soon reached the highest point in his career as a statesman and orator. The basis of his power and influence was the people's conviction of his incorruptible love of justice and of his pure and enthusiastic love of his country. This conviction manifested itself clearly in the vengeance which the people took upon the treacherous Philocrates (Aeschin. c. Ctesiph. 79). But this admiration and reverence for real and virtuous greatness soon cooled, and it was in vain that Demosthenes endeavoured to place the other men who had betrayed their country to Philip in their embassy to him, in the same light as Philocrates (Dem. de Fals. Leg.), for the people were unwilling to sacrifice more than the one man, whom the Macedonian party itself had given up in order to save the rest. It was undoubtedly owing to the influence of this party that Aeschines, when after a long delay he consented to render an account of his conduct during the embassy, B. C. 343, escaped punishment, notwithstanding the vehement attacks of Demosthenes in the written oration peri parapesbeias.
  In the mean time Philip followed up his plans for the reduction of Greece. With a view of drawing the Peloponnesians into his interests, he tried to win the confidence of the Argives and Messenians, who were then perilled by Sparta; he even sent them subsidies and threatened Sparta with an attack (Dem. Phil. ii.). Sparta did not venture to offer any resistance, and the Athenians, who were allied with Sparta, felt unable to do anything more than send ambassadors to Peloponnesus, among whom was Demosthenes, to draw the Peloponnesians away from the Macedonian, and to caution them against his intrigues (Dem. Philip. ii.). In consequence of these proceedings, ambassadors from Philip and the Peloponnesians met at Athens to complain of the Athenians favouring the ambitious schemes of Sparta, which aimed at suppressing the freedom of the peninsula, and to demand an explanation of their conduct. The Macedonian party at Athens, of course, supported those complaints; their endeavours to disguise Philip's real intentions and to represent them to the people in a favourable light, afforded an opportunity for Demosthenes, when the answer to [p. 985] be sent to the king was discussed in the assembly, B. C. 344, to place in his second Philippic the proceedings and designs of the king and his Athenian friends in their true light. The answer which the Athenians sent to Philip was probably not very satisfactory to him, for he immediately sent another embassy to Athens, headed by Python, with proposals for a modification of the late peace, although he subsequently denied having given to Python any authority for such proposals (Dem. de Halones.).
  Philip had for some time been engaged in the formation of a navy, and the apprehensions which the Athenians entertained on that score were but too soon justified; for no sooner were his preparations completed, than he took possession of the island of Halonesus, which belonged to Athens. The Athenians sent an embassy to claim the island back; but Philip, who had found it in the hands of pirates, denied that the Athenians had any right to claim it, but at the same time he offered to make them a present of the island, if they would receive it as such. On the return of the ambassadors to Athens in B. C. 343, the oration on Halonesus (Peri Halonedon) was delivered. It is usually printed among the orations of Demosthenes, but belongs in all probability to Hegesippus. This and other similar acts of aggression, which at length opened the eyes of the Athenians, roused them once more to vigorous and energetic measures, in spite of the efforts of the Macedonian party to keep the people quiet. Embassies were sent to Acarnania and Peloponnesus to counteract Philip's schemes in those quarters (Dem. Phil. iii.), and his expedition into Thrace, by which the Chersonesus was threatened, called forth an energetic demonstration of the Athenians under Diopeithes. The complaints which Philip then made roused Demosthenes, in B. C. 342, to his powerful oration peri ton en Cherrhoonesps, and to his third Philippic, in which he describes the king's faithlessness in the most glaring colours, and exhorts his countrymen to unite and resist the treacherous aggressor. Soon after this, the tyrants whom Philip had established in Euboea were expelled through the influence and assistance of Demosthenes (Dem. de Coron.); but it was not till B. C. 341, when Philip laid siege to Perinthus and attacked Byzantium, that the long-sup-pressed indignation of the Athenians burst forth. The peace with Philip was now declared violated (B. C. 340); a fleet was sent to relieve Byzantium (Plut. Phoc. 14), and Philip was compelled to withdraw without having accomplished anything. Demosthenes was the soul of all these energetic measures. He had proposed, as early as the Olynthian war, to apply the theoricon to defray the expenses of the military undertakings of Athens (Dem. Olynth. iii.); but it was not till Philip's attack upon Byzantium that he succeeded in carrying a decree to this effect (Dionys. Ep. ad Amm. i. 11). By his law concerning the trierarchy (nomos trierarchikos), he further regulated the symmoriae on a new and more equitable footing (Dem. de Coron.). He thus at once gave a fresh impulse to the maritime power and enterprise of Athens, B. C. 340.
  Philip now assumed the appearance of giving himself no further concern about the affairs of Greece. He carried on war with his northern neighbours, and left it to his hirelings to prepare the last stroke at the independence of Greece. He calculated well; for when in the spring of B. C. 340 the Amphictyons assembled at Delphi, Aeschines, who was present as pylagoras, effected a decree against the Locrians of Amphissa for having unlawfully occupied a district of sacred land. The Amphissaeans rose against this decree, and the Amphictyons summoned an extraordinary meeting to deliberate on the punishment to be inflicted upon Amphissa. Demosthenes foresaw and foretold the unfortunate consequences of a war of the Amphictyons, and he succeeded at least in persuading the Athenians not to send any deputies to that extraordinary meeting. (Dem. de Coron.; Aeschin. c. Ctesiph.125). The Amphictyons however decreed war against Amphissa, and the command of the Amphictyonic army was given to Cottyphus, an Arcadian; but the expedition failed from want of spirit and energy among those who took part in it (Dem. de Coron.). The consequence was, that in B. C. 339, at the next ordinary meeting of the Amphictyons, king Philip was appointed chief commander of the Amphictyonic army. This was the very thing which he had been looking for. With the appearance of justice on his side, he now had an opportunity of establishing himself with an armed force in the very heart of Greece. He set out without delay, and when the Athenians received the news of his having taken possession of Elatea, they were thrown into the deepest consternation. Demosthenes alone did not give up all hopes, and he once more roused his countrymen by bringing about an alliance between Athens and Thebes. The Thebans had formerly been favoured by Philip, but his subsequent neglect of them had effaced the recollection of it; and they now clearly saw that the fall of Athens would inevitably be followed by their own ruin. They had before opposed the war of the Amphictyons, and when Philip now called upon them to allow his army to march through their territory or to join him in his expedition against Athens, they indignantly rejected all his handsome proposals, and threw themselves into the open arms of the Athenians (Dem. de Coron.). This was the last grand effort against the growing power of Macedonia; but the battle of Chaeroneia, on the 7th of Metageitnion, B. C. 338, put an end to the independence of Greece. Thebes paid dearly for its resistance, and Athens which expected a similar fate, resolved at least to perish in a glorious struggle. The most prodigious efforts were made to meet the enemy; but Philip unexpectedly offered to conclude peace on tolerable terms, which it would have been madness to reject, for Athens thus had an opportunity of at least securing its existence and a shadow of its former independence.
  The period which now followed could not be otherwise than painful and gloomy to Demosthenes, for the evil might have been averted had his advice been followed in time. The catastrophe of Chaeroneia might indeed to some extent be regarded as his work; but the people were too generous and too well convinced of the purity of his intentions, as well as of the necessity of acting as he had acted, to make him responsible for the unfortunate consequences of the war with Philip. It was, on the contrary, one of the most glorious acknowledgments of his merits that he could have received, that he was requested to deliver the funeral oration upon those who had fallen at Chaeroneia, [p. 986] and that the funeral feast was celebrated in his house (Dem. de Coron.). But the fury of the Macedonian party and of his personal enemies gave full vent to itself; they made all possible efforts to humble or annihilate the man who had brought about the alliance with Thebes, and Athens to the verge of destruction. Accusations were brought against him day after day, and at first the most notorious sycophants, such as Sosicles, Diondas, Melanthus, Aristogeiton, and others, were employed by his enemies to crush him (Dem. de Coron.); but the more notorious they were, the easier was it for Demosthenes to unmask them before the people. But matters soon began to assume a more dangerous aspect when Aeschines, the head of the Macedonian party, and the most implacable opponent of Demosthenes, came forward against him. An opportunity offered soon after the battle of Chaeroneia, when Ctesiphon proposed to reward Demosthenes with a golden crown for the conduct he had shewn during his public career, and more especially for the patriotic disinterestedness with which he had acted during the preparations which the Athenians made after the battle of Chaeroneia, when Philip was expected at the gates (Dem. de Coron.). Aeschines attacked Ctesiphon for the proposal, and tried to shew that it was not only made in an illegal form, but that the conduct of Demosthenes did not give him any claim to the public gratitude and such a distinction. This attack, however, was not aimed at Ctesiphon, who was too insignificant a person, but at Demosthenes, and the latter took up the gauntlet with the greater readiness, as he now had an opportunity of justifying his whole political conduct before his countrymen. Reasons which are unknown to us delayed the decision of the question for a number of years, and it was not till B. C. 330 (Plut. Dem. 24) that the trial was proceeded with. Demosthenes on that occasion delivered his oration on the crown (peri stephanou). Aeschines did not obtain the fifth part of the votes, and was obliged to quit Athens and spend the remainder of his life abroad. All Greece had been looking forward with the most intense interest to the issue of this contest, though few can have entertained any doubt as to which would carry the victory. The oration on the crown was, in all probability, like that of Aeschines against Ctesiphon, revised and altered at a later period.
  Greece had in the mean time been shaken by new storms. The death of Philip, in B. C. 336, had revived among the Greeks the hope of shaking off the Macedonian yoke. All Greece rose, and especially Athens, where Demosthenes, although weighed down by domestic grief, was the first joyfully to proclaim the tidings of the king's death, to call upon the Greeks to unite their strength against Macedonia, and to form new connexions in Asia (Plut. Dem. 23; Aeschin. c. Clesiph.161; Diod. xvii. 3). But the sudden appearance of young Alexander with an army ready to fight, damped the enthusiasm, and Athens sent an embassy to him to sue for peace. Demosthenes was one of the ambassadors, but his feelings against the Macedonians were so strong, that he would rather expose himself to the ridicule of his enemies by returning after having gone half way, than act the part of a suppliant before the youthful king (Plut. Dem. 23; Aeschin. c. Ctesiph.161). But no sooner had Alexander set out for the north to chastise the rebellious neighbours of Macedonia, than a false report of his death called forth another insurrection of the Greeks. Thebes, which had suffered most severely, was foremost; but the insurrection spread over Arcadia, Argos, Elis. and Athens. However, with the exception of Thebes, there was no energy anywhere. Demosthenes carried indeed a decree that succours should be sent to Thebes, but no efforts were made, and Demosthenes alone, and at his own expense, sent a supply of arms. (Diod. xvii. 8.) The second sudden arrival of Alexander, and his destruction of Thebes, in B. C. 335, put an end to all further attempts of the Greeks. Athens submitted to necessity, and sent Demades to the king as mediator. Alexander demanded that the leaders of the popular party, and among them Demosthenes, should be delivered up to him; but he yielded to the intreaties of the Athenians, and did not persist in his demand.
  Alexander's departure for Asia is the beginning of a period of gloomy tranquillity for Greece; but party hatred continued in secret, and it required only some spark from without to make it blaze forth again in undiminished fury. This spark came from Harpalus, who had been left by Alexander at Babylon, while the king proceeded to India. When Alexander had reached the easternmost point of his expedition, Harpalus with the treasures entrusted to his care, and with 6000 mercenaries, fled from Babylon and came to Greece. In B. C. 325 he arrived at Athens, and purchased the protection of the city by distributing his gold among the most influential demagogues. The reception of such an open rebel could not be viewed by the Macedonian party otherwise than as an act of hostility towards Macedonia itself; and it was probably at the instigation of that party, that Antipater, the regent of Macedonia, and Olympias called upon the Athenians to deliver up the rebel and the money they had received of him, and to put to trial those who had accepted his bribes. Harpalus was allowed to escape, but the investigation concerning those who had been bribed by him was instituted, and Demosthenes was among the persons suspected of the crime. The accounts of his conduct during the presence of Harpalus at Athens are so confused, that it is almost impossible to arrive at a certain conclusion. Theopompus (ap. Plut. Dem. 25, comp. Vit. X Orat.) and Deinarchus in his oration against Demosthenes state, that Demosthenes did accept the bribes of Harpalus; but Pausanias (ii. 33.4) expressly acquits him of the crime. The authority of his accusers, however, is very questionable, for in the first place they do not agree in the detail of their statements, and secondly, if we consider the conduct of Demosthenes throughout the disputes about Harpalus, if we remember that he opposed the reception of the rebel, and that he voluntarily offered himself to be tried, we must own that it is at least highly improbable that he should have been guilty of common bribery, and that it was not his guilt which caused his condemnation, but the implacable hatred of the Macedonian party, which eagerly seized this favourable opportunity to rid itself of its most formidable opponent, who was at that time abandoned by his own friends from sheer timidity. Demosthenes defended himself in an oration which Athenaeus (xiii.) calls peri tou chrusiou, and which is probably the same as the one referred to by others under the title of apologia ton doron (Dionys. de Admir. vi dic. Dem. 57, Ep. ad Amm. i. 12). But Demosthenes was declared guilty, and thrown into prison, from which however he escaped, apparently with the connivance of the Athenian magistrates (Plut. Dem. 26, Vit. X Orat.; Anonym. Vit. Demosth.158). Demosthenes quitted his country, and resided partly at Troezene and partly in Aegina, looking daily, it is said, across the sea towards his beloved native land.
  But his exile did not last long, for in B. C. 323 Alexander died, and the news of his death was the watchword for a fresh rise of the Greeks, which was organized by the Athenians, and under the vigorous management of Leosthenes it soon assumed a dangerous aspect for Macedonia (Diod. xviii. 10). Demosthenes, although still living in exile, joined of his own accord the embassies which were sent by the Athenians to the other Greek states, and he roused them to a fresh struggle for liberty by the fire of his oratory. Such a devotedness to the interests of his ungrateful country disarmed the hatred of his enemies. A decree of the people was passed on the proposal of Demon, a relative of Demosthenes, by which he was solemnly recalled from his exile. A trireme was sent to Aegina to fetch him, and his progress from Peiraeeus to the city was a glorious triumph: it was the happiest day of his life (Plut. Dem. 27, Vit. X Oral.; Justin, xiii. 5). The military operations of the Greeks and their success at this time, seemed to justify the most sanguine expectations, for the army of the united Greeks had advanced as far as Thessaly, and besieged Antipater at Lamia. But this was the turning point; for although, even after the fall of Leosthenes, the Greeks succeeded in destroying the army of Leonnatus, which came to the assistance of Antipater, yet they lost, in B. C. 322, the battle of Cranon. This defeat alone would not indeed have decided the contest, had not the zeal of the Greeks gradually cooled, and had not several detachments of the allied army withdrawn. Antipater availed himself of this contemptible disposition among the Greeks, and offered peace, though he was cunning enough to negotiate only with each state separately. Thus the cause of Greece was forsaken by one state after another, until in the end the Athenians were left alone to contend with Antipater. It would have been folly to continue their resistance singlehanded, and they accordingly made peace with Antipater on his own terms. All his stipulations were complied with, except the one which demanded the surrender of the popular leaders of the Athenian people. When Antipater and Craterus thereupon marched towards Athens, Demosthenes and his friends took to flight, and, on the proposal of Demades, the Athenians sentenced them to death. Demosthenes had gone to Calauria, and had taken refuge there in the temple of Poseidon. When Archias, who hunted up the fugitives everywhere, arrived, Demosthenes, who was summoned to follow him to Antipater, took poison, which he had been keeping about his person for some time, and died in the temple of Poseidon, on the 10th of Pyanepsion, B. C. 322 (Plut. Dem. 29, Vit. X Orat.; Lucian, Encom. Dem.. 43).
  Thus terminated the career of a man who has been ranked by persons of all ages among the greatest and noblest spirits of antiquity; and this fame will remain undiminished so long as sterling sentiments and principles and a consistent conduct through life are regarded as the standard by which a man's worth is measured, and not simply the success--so often merely dependent upon circumstances--by which his exertions are crowned. The very calumnies which have been heaped upon Demosthenes by his enemies and detractors more extravagantly than upon any other man--the coarse and complicated web of lies which was devised by Aeschines, and in which he himself was caught, and lastly, the odious insinuations of Theopompus, the historian, which are credulously repeated by Plutarch,--have only served to bring forth the political virtues of Demosthenes in a more striking and brilliant light. Some points there are in his life which perhaps will never be quite cleared up on account of the distorted accounts that have come down to us about them. Some minor charges which are made against him, and affect his character as a man, are almost below contempt. It is said, for example, that he took to flight after the battle of Chaeroneia, as if thousands of others had not fled with him (Plut. Dem. 20, Vit. X Oral.; Aeschin. c. Ctesiph.); that, notwithstanding his domestic calamity (his daughter had died seven days before) he rejoiced at Philip's death, which shews only the predominance of his patriotic feelings over his personal and selfish ones (Plut. Dem. 22; Aeschin. c. Ctesiph.77); and lastly, that he shed tears on going into exile--a fact for which he deserves to be loved and honoured rather than blamed (Plut. Dem. 26). The charge of tergiversation which is repeatedly brought against him by Aeschines, has never been substantiated by the least evidence (Aeschin. c. Ctesiph.173, c. Timarch.131, de Fals. Leg.165; Plut. Dem. 15). In his administration of public affairs Demosthenes is perfectly spotless, and free from all the crimes which the men of the Macedonian party committed openly and without any disguise. The charge of bribery, which was so often raised against him by the same Aeschines, must be rejected altogether, and is a mere distortion of the fact that Demosthenes accepted'subsidies from Persia for Athens, which assuredly stood in need of such assistance in its struggles with Macedonia; but there is not a shadow of a suspicion that he ever accepted any personal bribes.
  His career as a statesman received its greatest lustre from his powers as an orator, in which he has not been equalled by any man of any country. Our own judgment on this point would necessarily be one-sided, as we can only read his orations; but among the contemporaries of Demosthenes there was scarcely one who could point out any definite fault in his oratory. By far the majority looked up to him as the greatest orator of the time, and it was only men of such over-refined and hypercritical tastes as Demetrius Phalereus who thought him either too plain and simple or too harsh and strong (Plut. Dem. 9, 11); though some found those features more striking in reading his orations, while others were more impressed with them in hearing him speak. (Comp. Dionys. de Admir. vi die. Demosth. 22; Cic. de Oral. iii. 56, Brut. 38; Quintil. xi. 3.6). These peculiarities, however, are far from being faults; they are, on the contrary, proofs of his genius, if we consider the temptations which natural deficiencies hold out to an incipient orator to pursue the opposite course. The [p. 988] obstacles which his physical constitution threw in his way when he commenced his career, were so great, that a less courageous and persevering man than Demosthenes would at once have been intimidated and entirely shrunk from the arduous career of a public orator (Plut. Dem. 6). Those early difficulties with which he had to contend, led him to bestow more care upon the composition of his orations than he would otherwise have done, and produced in the end, if not the impossibility of speaking extempore, at least the habit of never venturing upon it; for he never spoke without preparation, and he sometimes even declined speaking when called upon in the assembly to do so, merely because he was not prepared for it (Plut. Dem. 8, Vit. X Oral.). There is, however, no reason for believing that all the extant orations were delivered in that perfect form in which they have come down to us, for most of them were probably subjected to a careful revision before publication; and it is only the oration against Meidias, which, having been written for the purpose of being delivered, and being afterwards given up and left incomplete, may be regarded with certainty as a specimen of an oration in its original form. This oration alone sufficiently shews how little Demosthenes trusted to the impulse of the moment. It would lead us too far in this article to examine the manner in which Demosthenes composed his orations, and we must refer the reader to the various modern works cited below. We shall only add a few remarks upon the causes of the mighty impression which his speeches made upon the minds of his hearers. The first cause was their pure and ethical character; for every sentence exhibits Demosthenes as the friend of his country, of virtue, truth, and public decency (Plut. Dem. 13); and as the struggles in which he was engaged were fair and just, he could without scruple unmask his opponents, and wound them where they were vulnerable, though he never resorted to sycophantic artifices. The second cause was his intellectual superiority. By a wise arrangement of his subjects, and by the application of the strongest arguments in their proper places, he brought the subjects before his hearers in the clearest possible form; any doubts that might be raised were met by him beforehand, and thus he proceeded calmly but irresistibly towards his end. The third and last cause was the magic force of his language, which being majestic and yet simple, rich yet not bombastic, strange and yet familiar, solemn without being ornamented, grave and yet pleasing, concise and yet fluent, sweet and yet impressive, carried away the minds of his hearers. That such orations should notwithstanding sometimes have failed to produce the desired effect, was owing only to the spirit of the times.
  Most of the critical works that were written upon Demosthenes by the ancients are lost, and, independent of many scattered remarks, the only important critical work that has come down to us is that of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, entitled peri tes tou Demosthenous deinotetos. The acknowledged excellence of Demosthenes's orations made them the principal subjects of study and speculation with the rhetoricians, and called forth numerous imitators and commentators. It is probably owing to those rhetorical speculations which began as early as the second century B. C., that a number of orations which are decidedly spurious and unworthy of Demosthenes, such as the logos epitaphios and the erotikos, were incorporated in the collections of those of Demosthenes. Others, such as the speech on Halonesus, the first against Aristogeiton, those against Theocrines and Neaera, which are undoubtedly the productions of contemporary orators, may have been introduced among those of Demosthenes by mistake. It would be of great assistance to us to have the commentaries which were written upon Demosthenes by such men as Didymus, Longinus, Hermogenes, Sallustius, Apollonides, Theon, Gymnasius, and others; but unfortunately most of what they wrote is lost, and scarcely anything of importance is extant, except the miserable collection of scholia which have come down to us under the name of Ulpian, and the Greek argumenta to the orations by Libanius and other rhetoricians.
The ancients state, that there existed 65 orations of Demosthenes (Plut. Vit. X Orat.; Phot. Bibl.), but of these only 61, and if we deduct the letter of Philip, which is strangely enough counted as an oration, only 60 have come down to us under his name, though some of these are spurious, or at least of very doubtful authenticity. Besides these orations, there are 56 Exordia to public orations, and six letters, which bear the name of Demosthenes, though their genuineness is very doubtful.

  The orations of Demosthenes are contained in the various collections of the Attic orators by Aldus, H. Stephens, Taylor, Reiske, Dukas, Bekker, Dobson, and Baiter and Sauppe. Separate editions of the orations of Demosthenes alone were published by Aldus, Venice, 1504; at Basel in 1532 ; by Feliciano, Venice, 1543; by Morellus and Lambinus, Paris, 1570; by H. Wolf, 1572 (often reprinted); by Auger, Paris, 1790; and by Schaefer, Leipzig and London, 1822, in 9 vols. 8vo. The first two contain the text, the third the Latin translation, and the others the critical apparatus, the indices, &c. A good edition of the text is that by W. Dindorf, Leipzig, 1825, 3 vols. 8vo. We subjoin a classified list of the orations of Demosthenes, to which are added the editions of each separate oration, when there are any, and the literature upon it.

A. Orations against Philip.
Editions of the Philippics were published by J. Bekker (Berlin, 1816, 1825 and 1835), C. A. Rudiger (Leipzig, 1818, 1829 and 1833), and J. T. Vomel. (Frankfurt, 1829.)
1. The first Philippic was delivered in B. C. 352, and is believed by some to be made up of two distinct orations, the second of which is supposed to commence at p. 48 with the words ha men hemeis. (Dionys. Ep. ad Amm. i. 10.) But critics down to the present time are divided in their opinions upon this point. The common opinion, that the oration is one whole, is supported by the MSS., and is defended by Bremi, in the Philol. Beilrage aus der Schweiz, vol. i. p. 21, &c. The opposite opinion is very ably maintained by J. Held, Prolegomena ad Dem. Orat. quae vulgo prima Phil. dicitur, Vratislaviae, 1831, and especially by Seebeck in the Zeitschrift fur d. Alterthumswiss. for 1838, No. 91, &c.
2--4. The first, second, and third Olynthiac orations belong to the year B. C. 349. Dionysius (Ep. ad Amm. i. 4) makes the second the first, and the third the second in the series; and this order has been defended by R. Rauchenstein, de Orat. Olynth. ordine, Leipz. 1821, which is reprinted in vol. i. of Schaefer's Apparatus. The other order is defended by Becker, in his German translation of the Philippics, i. p. 103, &c., and by Westermann, Stuve, Ziemann, Petrenz, and Bruckner, in separate dissertations. There is a good edition of the Olynthiac orations, with notes, by C. H. Frotscher and C. H. Funkhanel, Leipzig, 1834, 8vo.
5. The oration on the Peace, delivered in B. C. 346. Respecting the question as to whether this oration was actually delivered or not, see Becker, Philippische Reden, i. p. 222, &c., and Vomel, Prolegom. ad Orat. de Pace, p. 240, &c.
6. The second Philippic, delivered in B. C. 344. See Vomel, Integram esse Demosth. Philip. II. apparet ex dispositione, Frankf. 1828, whose opinion is opposed by Rauchenstein in Jahn's Jahrb. vol. xi. 2, p. 144, &c.
7. On Halonesus, B. C. 343, was suspected by the ancients themselves, and ascribed to Hegesippus. (Liban. Argum. p. 75; Harpocrat. and Etym. M. s. v.; Phot. Bibl. p. 491.) Weiske endeavoured to vindicate the oration for Demosthenes in Dissertatio super Orat. de Halon., Lubben. 1808, but he is opposed by Becker in Seebode's Archiv. for 1825, i. p. 84, &c., Philippische Reden, ii. p. 301, &c., and by Vomel in Ostenditur Hegesippi esse orationem de Haloneso, Frankf. 1830, who published a separate edition of this oration under the name of Hegesippus in 1833.
8. Peri ton en Cherrhoonesoi delivered in B. C. 342.
9. The third Philippic, delivered in B. C. 342. See Vomel, Demosthenis Philip. III. habitant esse ante Chersonesiticam, Frankf. 1837; L. Spengel, Ueber die dritte Philip. Rede des Dem., Munich, 1839.
10. The fourth Philippic, belongs to B. C. 341, but is thought by nearly all critics to be spurious. See Becker, Philip. Reden, ii. p. 491, &c.; W. H. Veersteg, Orat. Philip. IV. Demosth. aljudicatur, Groningae, 1818.
11. Pros ten Epistolen ten Philippou refers to the year B. C. 340, but is a spurious oration. Becker, Philip. Reden, ii. p. 516, &c.
B. Other Political Orations.
12. Peri Suntaxeos, refers to B. C. 353, but is acknowledged on all hands to be spurious. F. A. Wolf, Proleg. ad Leptin. p. 124; Schaefer, Apparat. Crit. i. p. 686.
13. Peri Summorion, was delivered in B. C. 354. See Amersfoordt, Introduct. in Orat. de Symmor. Lugdun. Bat. 1821, reprinted in Schaefer's Appar. Crit. vol. i.; Parreidt, Disputat. de Instit. eo Athen. cujus ordinat. et correct. in orat. Peri Summ. inscripta suadet Demosth., Magdeburg, 1836.
14. Huper Megalopoliton, B. C. 353.
15. Peri tes Rhodion eleutherias, B. C. 351.
16. Peri tonpros Alexandron sunthekon, refers to B. C. 325, and was recognized as spurious by the ancients themselves. (Dionys. de Admir. vi die. Dem. 57; Liban. Argum. p. 211.)
17. Peri Stephanou, or on the Crown, was delivered in B. C. 330. There are numerous separate editions of this famous oration; the best are by I. Bekker with scholia, Halle, 1815, and Berlin, 1825, by Bremi (Gotha, 1834), and by Dissen (Gottingen, 1837). Comp. F. Winiewski, Comment. Historica et Chronolog. in Demosth. Orat. de Coron., Monasterii, 1829. The genuineness of the documents quoted in this oration has of late been the subject of much discussion, and the most important among the treatises on this question are those of Droysen (Ueber die Aechtheit der Urkund. in Denmosth. Rede vonm Kranz, in the Zeitschrift fur die Alterthumsw. for 1839, and reprinted separately at Berlin, 1839), and F. W. Newman (Classical Museum, vol. i. pp. 141--169), both of whom deny the genuineness, while Vimel in a series of programs (commenced in 1841) endeavours to prove their authenticity. Comp. A. F. Wolper, de Forma hodierna Orat. Demosth. de Coron. Leipzig, 1825 ; L. C. A. Briegleb, Comment. de Demosth. Orat. pro Ctesiph. praestantia, Isenac. 1832.
18. Peri tes Parapredbeias, delivered in B. C. 342.
19. Peri tes ateleias pros Leptinen, was spoken in B. C. 355, and it has been edited separately by F. A. Wolf, Halle, 1789, which edition was reprinted at Ziirich, 1831.
20. Kata Meidiou peri tou kondulou, was composed in B. C. 355. There are separate editions by Buttmann (Berlin, 1823 and 1833), Blume (Sund. 1828), and Meier (Halle, 1832). Compare Bockh, Ueber die Zeitverhaltnisse der Midiana in the Abhandl. der Berlin. Akadem. for 1820, p. 60, &c.
21. Kata Androtionos paranomon, belongs to B. C. 355, and has been edited separately by Funkhanel, Leipzig, 1832.
22. Kata Aridtokratous, B. C. 352. See Rumpf, De Charidemo Orita, Giessen, 1815.
23. Kata Timokratous, B. C. 353. See Blume, Prolegom. in Demosth. Orat. c. Timocrat., Berlin, 1823.
24 and 25. The two orations against Aristogeiton belong to the time after B. C. 338. The genuineness of these two orations, especially of the first, was strongly doubted by the ancients themselves (Dionys. de Admir. vi dic. Dem. 57; Harpocrat. s. vv. Theoris and nealh/s; Pollux, x. 155) though some believed them to be the productions of Demosthenes. (Liban. Argum. p. 769; Phot. Bibl. p. 491.) Modern critics think the first spurious, others the second, and others again both. See Schmidt, in the Excursus to his edition of Deinarchus, p. 106, &c.; Westermann, Quaest. Demosth. iii. p. 96, &c.
26 and 27. The two orations against Aphobus were delivered in B. C. 364.
28. Pros Aphobon pseudomarturion, is suspected of being spurious by Westermann, Quaest. Dem. iii. p. 11, &c. Comp. Schomann, de Jure Publ. Graec. p. 274.
29 and 30. The two orations against Onetor. See Schmeisser, de Re Tutelari ap. Athen., &c., Freiburg, 1829. The genuineness of these orations is suspected by Bockh, Publ. Econ. of Athens, Index, s. v. Demosthenes.
31. Paragraphe pros Zenothemin, falls after the year B. C. 355.
32. Pros Apatourion paragreraphe, is of uncertain date.
33. Pros Phormiona peri daneiou, was spoken in B. C. 332. See Baumstark, Prolegom. in Orat Demosth. adv. Phorm., Heidelberg, 1826.
34. Pros ten Lakritou paragraphen, is of uncertain date, and its genuineness is doubted by some of the ancients. See the Greek Argumentum.
35. Huper Phormionos paragraphe, belongs to B. C. 350.
36. Pros Pantaineton paragraphe, falls after B. C. 347.
37. Pros Nausimachon kai Xenopeithe paragraphe, is of uncertain date.
38. Pros Boioton peri tou onomaatos, belongs to B. C. 351 or 350, and was ascribed by some of the ancients to Deinarchus. (Dionys. Hal. Deinarch. 13.) See Bockh, Urkund. uber. das Att. Seewesen, p. 22, &c.
39. Pros Boioton nper proikos metroias, B. C. 347.
40. Pros Spoudian huper proikos, of uncertain date.
41. Pros Phainippon peri antidoseos, of uncertain date. The genuineness of this oration is doubted by the author of the argum. to it, Bockh, Index to Publ. Econ. of Ath/ens, and Schaefer, Appar. Crit. v. p. 63.
42. Pros Makartaton peri Hagniou klerou, of uncertain date. See de Boor, Prolegom. zu der Rede des Demosth. gegen. Makartatus, Hamburg, 1838.
43. Pros Leochare peri tou klerou, of uncertain date.
44 and 45. The two orations against Stephanus, belong to the time previous to B. C. 343. The genuineness of the first is doubted by I. Bekker. See C. D. Beel, Diatribe in Demosth. Orat. in Stephan., Lugdun. Bat. 1825.
46. Peri Euerlou kai Mnesiboulou pseudomarturion, belongs to the time after B. C. 355. Its genuineness is doubted by Harpocr. s. vv.)Ekaki/stroun and h)|thme/nhn, H. Wolf, Bockh (l. c.), and I. Bekker. See Schaefer, Appar. Crit. v. p. 216.
47. Kata Olumpiodorou blabes after B. C. 343.
48. Pros Timotheon huper chreeos, falls between B. C. 363 and 354, but is considered spurious by Harpocrat. s. v. Kakotechnion, boxke, and Bekker (see Schaefer, Appar. Crit. v. p. 264). It is defended by Rumpf, de Orat. adv. Timothy , Giessen, 1821.
49. Pros poluklea peri tou epitrierarchematos, after B. C. 361.
50. Peri tou Stephanou tes trierarchias, after B. C. 361, is suspected by Becker, Demosth. als Staatsmann und. Redner, p. 465.
51. Pros Kallippon, spoken in B. C. 364.
52. Pros Nikostraton peri ton Arethousiou andrapodon, of uncertain date, was suspected by Harpocrat. s. v. Apographe.
53. Kata Kononos abikias, B. C. 343.
54. Pros Kallaklea peri choriou, of uncertain date.
55. Kata Dionusodorou blabes, B. C. 329.
56. Ephesis pros Eubouliden, after B. C. 346.
57. Kata Theokrinou endeixis, belongs to B. C. 325, but is probably the work of Deinarchus. (Dionys. Deinarch. 10; Argum. ad Orat. c. Theocrin. p. 1321; Harpocrat. s. vv. agraphiou and Theokrines; Schaefer, Appar. Crit. v. p. 473.)
58. Kata Neairas, refers to B. C. 340, but is considered spurious both by ancient and modern writers. (Dionys. de Admir. vi die. Dem. 57 ; Phrynich. p. 225; Harpocrat. s. vv. gerrha, demopoietos, dienguesen, Hipparchos, and Kolias ; Schaefer, Appar. Crit. v. p. 527.)
59. Epitaphios, refers to B. C. 338, but is un questionably spurious. (Dionys. de Adnir. vi dic. Dem. 23, 44; Liban. p. 6; Harpocrat. s. tv. Aigeidai and Kekroipis; Phot. Bibl. p. 491; Suid. s. v. Demosthenes; Bekker, Anecd. p. 354; Westermann, Quaest. Dem. ii. p. 49, &c.) Its genuineness is defended by Becker (Demosth. als Staatsm. u. Red. ii. p. 466, &c.) and Kriiger (in Seebode's Archiv, i. 2, p. 277).
60. Erotikos, is, like the former, a spurious production. (Dionys. de Adnmir. vi dic. Dem. 44 ; Liban. p. 6; Pollux, iii. 144; Phot. Bibl. l. c.; Westermann, Quaest. Dem. ii. p. 70, &c.)

Among the lost orations of Demosthenes the following are mentioned :--Diphiloi demegorikas aitounti doreas. (Dionys. Deinarech. 11.) 2. Kata Medontos. (Pollux, viii. 53; Harpocr. s. v. Dekateuein.) 3. Pros Polueukton paragraphe. (Bekker, Anecd. p. 90.) 4. Peri chrusiou (Athen. xiii. p. 592) is perhaps the same as the apologia ton doron. (Dionys. Ep. ad Amm. i. 12, who, however, in Demoosth. 57, declares it a spurious oration.) 5. Peri tou me ekdounai Harpalon, was spurious according to Dionysius. (Demosth. 57.) 6. Kata Demadou. (Bekker, Anecd. p. 335.) A fragment of it is probably extant in Alexand. de Figur. p. 478, ed. Walz. 7. Pros Kritian peri tou enepiskemmatos. (Harpocrat. s. v. Enepiskemma, where Dionysius doubts its genuineness.) 8. Huper petoron, probably not a work of Demosthenes. (Suid. s. v. Hama. 9. Huper Saturou tes epitropes pros Chaaridemon, belonged according to Callimachus (ap. Phot. Bibl. p. 491) to Deinarchus.
Besides the ancient and modern historians of the time of Philip and Alexander, the following works will be found useful to the student of Demosthenes : Schott, Vitae Parallelae Aristot. et Demosth. Antwerp, 1603; Becker, Demosthenes als Staatsmann und Redner, Halle, 1816, 2 vols. 8vo.; Westermann, Quaestiones Demosthenicae, in four parts, Leipzig, 1830--1837, Geschichte der Griech. Beredtsamkeit, §§ 56, 57, and Beilage, vii. p. 297, &c.; Bohneke, Studien auf dem Gebiete der Attischen Redner, Berlin, 1843.

This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited June 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks

(Demosthenes, by J.F.Dobson, The Greek Orators, London, 1919)

  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.

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), 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.' 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. 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. 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; 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; an underwriter who had been defrauded in some shady marine transaction might wish to bring another knave to account. but besides these private cases, whether they are purely civil, 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.); 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' (iste derou Philirron toutoni ton Makedona) 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 countryment 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,' 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 citizenhoplites, 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. Soldiers will serve for a certain limited time, and at the end of their term will be replaced by fresh troops. 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.
  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 (theorikon), 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 theorikon 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.(1)
  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 (Isocr., Philippus, § 73-74). 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 manoeuvres 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 goodwill 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." Chers., §§ 24-26.

  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." Chers., § 77.

  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 (§ 19). '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.' (§ 20). 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.' §§ 26-27.

  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.(2)
  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 peri suntaxeos 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 (de Cor., §§ 169-170). 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.).
  Hence forward the influence of Athens on external affairs was strictly limited, though she retained her independence, for Philip was a generous foe.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 (Plut., Dem., ch. xxiii).
  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:
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.

The end of his life
  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 (Against Dem., fr. 3, col. xiii) 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 (Dinarchus, Against Dem., § 1). 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.
  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.
  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.'

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 Acharnae, 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 preMacedonian 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. 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'; 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. We may note the remark of Eratosthenes 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.' 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 o ge kai theoi--'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. ho deina and o tan.
  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--therion, kataratos, 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. 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;(3) 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.

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 o tan, ho deina and such expletives as ne Dia, 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 lago bion ezes--'you lived a hare's life,' or, to give the proper equivalent, 'a dog's life,' (de Cor., § 263) or the famous kakon Ilias-- 'Twenty-four books of misery.' (de Falsa Leg., § 148). Colloquial vigour is apparent in some metaphorical uses of single words, e.g. heola kai psuchra--'stale and cold' (applied to crimes, Midias, § 91), proselosthai--'to be pinned down,' (Ibid., § 105), 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.' There is bold personification of abstractions in 'Peace, which has destroyed the walls of your allies and is now building houses for your ambassadors,' (de Falsa Leg., § 275) and such phrases as tethnasi toi deei tous toioutous apostolous --'they are frightened to death of so and so,' are more vigorous than literary.
  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' (de Cor., § 296); 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 (de Cor., § 169); 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--all' ouk estin, ouk estin horos hemartete--'But surely, surely you were not wrong.' (de Cor., § 208). 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. 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." Against Conon, §§ 3-5.

  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." Against Conon, §§ 8-9.

  Dionysius observes that the ecclesia and the courts were composed of mixed elements; 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? . . ." (Demos., ch. xxii.)

  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.
  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, naive, 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.
  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. An unusual order of words may often be explained by reference to this practice.
  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 (-uuu or uuu-) at the beginning and end of a sentence (Arist., Rhet., iii. 8. 4).
  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. Conversely the multiplication of long syllables makes the movement slow, and produces an effect of solemnity.
  Demosthenes seems to have been the first prosewriter 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. He never affected any metrical formula for the end of sentences comparable to Cicero's famous esse videatur (-uW--) or the double trochee (-u-u) 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.

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.' de Symmor., §§ 24-26.

  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. Third Olynthiac, §§ 10-11.

  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.
  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 (above) 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.First Olynthiac, §§ 25-26.

  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.(4)
  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.
  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, 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.Timocrates, §§ 139 sqq.

  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. 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. de Corona, §§ 261-262

  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. As Dionysius says: "Not on all men is every gift bestowed."
  If, as his critic affirms, 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 cats-paw. 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 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 (§ 90). Towards the end of the speech a statement is made which conflicts with one on the same subject in the exordium.
  But such rhetorical devices are only trivial faults to which most politicians are liable.(5) 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.

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.
  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 ou, 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 al'?; 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. 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.

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 dike exoules.
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 highroad was the natural water-course.
Against Conon (possibly 341 B.C.). 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.
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 (paragraphe) 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 paragraphe 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 (ephesis) 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 ephesis 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 extrierarchs 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. [p. 260]
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 paragraphe 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 paragraphe stating that he had fulfilled his contract.
Against Dionysodorus, 323-322 B.C. Another action for breach of contract in a similar case.

Speeches in public causes
Against Androtion, 355 B.C., written for Diodorus. Androtion had proposed the bestowal of a golden crown on the Boule 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 (ateleiai) 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.' (§ 136). This debasement of the State is compared to a debasement of the coinage (§ 167), which is a capital offence.
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.
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. Demosthenes laid a complaint, and Midias was declared guilty of 'contempt' in a religious sense (adikein peri ten heorten). 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 (Ctes., § 52), 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 , 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. 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, 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.,5 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.'

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; 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. (see above Life)
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. (see above Life)
On the Peace, 346 B.C. (see above Life)
Second Philippic, 344 B.C. (see above Life)
On the Chersonese. (see above Life)
Third Philippic, 341 B.C. (see above Life)
The spurious Fourth Philippic (341-340 B.C.) has been discussed (see above Life). 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.(6)
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 peri suntaxeos (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.

1. I have assumed the traditional order of the Olynthiac speeches to be the correct one. The question is much disputed, and is lucidly discussed by M. Weil in his introductions to the speeches (Les Harangues de Demosthene).
2. The subject is admirably discussed by M. Weil (Les Harangues de Demosthene (2me ed.), pp. 312-316). His arguments should be carefully read by those interested in the subject. I quote only his conclusions: Nous avons deja vu que plusieurs passages, qui manquent dans S et L, ne pouvaient guere emaner que de Demosthene lui-meme (p. 314). Le resultat de cet examen, c'est que nous nous trouvons en presence de deux textes egalement autorises, et que les additions et les modifications qui distinguent l'un de l'autre doivent etre attribuees a l'orateur lui-meme . . . (p. 315). These conclusions are adopted by Blass (Att. Bered., 1893) and Sandys (1900), who, however, considers that the shorter version was the orator's first draft. Butcher (Demosthenes, 3rd ed., 1911) considers that the shorter text represents 'the maturer correction of the orator.'
3. Notably the caricatures of Aeschines' private life and family history in the de Corona, §§ 129-130, 260. Mr. Pickard-Cambridge makes it clear that the habitual members of the law-courts would be of a lower average socially than the ecclesia. The pay in either case was not enough to attract any but the unemployed, but whereas members of the leisured classes would have sufficient motives for attending the ecclesia, and well-to-do business-men might sacrifice valuable time unselfishly for the good of the State, there would be little inducement to such people to endure the wearisome routme of the law-courts,
4. Chersonese, §§ 61-67. The recital of the present condition of Phocis is a simple but impressive piece of argument by description: ?It was a terrible sight, Gentlemen, and a sad one; when we were lately on our way to Delphi we were compelled to see it all, houses in ruins, walls demolished, the country empty of men of military age; only a few poor women and little children and old men in pitiable state--words cannot describe the depth of the misery in which they are now sunk? (de Falsa Leg., § 65).
5. Mr. Pickard-Cambridge observes: "Men who are assembled in a crowd do not think. . . . The orator has often to use arguments which no logic can defend, and to employ methods of persuasion upon a crowd which he would be ashamed to use if he were dealing with a personal friend." This is partly true, but should be accepted with reservations. The arguments in the harangues of Demosthenes will generally bear the light, and the public speeches by distinguished statesmen of this country on the causes of the Great War have frequently appealed to the higher nature of their audiences.
6. Thus Hegesippus, an orator of secondary importance, was an ardent supporter of the patriotic party. In 357 B.C. he had brought an accusation against one Callippus in connexion with the affairs of Cardia (de Halon., § 43, and the hypothesis to the speech). In 343 B.C. he was one of an embassy sent to Philip (Demos., de Falsa Leg., § 331). He was still alive in 325 B.C. The extant speech consists of a clear and straightforward discussion of the various points in Philip's proposal; the style is easy, but without distinction, and Dionysius, who did not doubt that it was the work of Demosthenes, remarks that the orator has reverted to the style of Lysias (de Demos., ch. ix.). Hiatus is frequent and there are some monotonous repetitions. Critics were somewhat shocked by the concluding phrase of § 45 -- 'If you carry your brains in your heads, and not in your heels so as to walk on them.' Aeschines calls the orator krobulos, from his affected way of wearing his hair in a 'bun' on the top of his head.

This text cited on Aug 2004 from The Perseus Digital Libray URL below and is based on the book: The Greek Orators. J. F. Dobson. Anne Mahoney. edited for Perseus. Methuen and Co. London. 1919.

Demosthenes: Lives, by Plutarch

Editor’s Information
The e-texts of the works by Demosthenes are found in Greece (ancient country) under the category Ancient Greek Writings.

Editor’s Information
The e-texts of the works by Demades are found in Greece (ancient country) under the category Ancient Greek Writings.

You are able to search for more information in greater and/or surrounding areas by choosing one of the titles below and clicking on "more".

GTP Headlines

Receive our daily Newsletter with all the latest updates on the Greek Travel industry.

Subscribe now!
Greek Travel Pages: A bible for Tourism professionals. Buy online

Ferry Departures