Some points there are in his
sumed a dangerous aspect for Macedonia.
sumed a dangerous aspect for Macedonia.
William Smith - 1844 - Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities - a
The answer which who was present as pålagoras, effected a decree
the Athenians sent to Philip was probably not against the Locrians of Amphissa for having un-
Prry satisfactory to him, for he immediately sent lawfully occupied a district of sacred land. The
another embassy to Athens, headed by Python, Amphissacans rose against this decree, and the
with proposals for a modification of the late peace, Amphictyons summoned an extraordinary meeting
although he subsequently denied having given to to deliberate on the punishment to be intiicted
Python any authority for such proposals. (Dem. upon Amphissa. Demosthenes foresaw and fore-
de Jalones. p. 81. )
told the unfortunate consequences of a war of the
Philip had for some time been engaged in Amphictyons, and he succeeded at lcast in persuad-
the formation of a navy, and the apprehensions ing the Athenians not to send any deputies to that
which the Athenians entertained on that score extraordinary meeting. (Dem. de Coron. p. 275;
were but too soon justitied; for no sooner were Aeschin. c. Ctesiph. $ 125, &c. ) The Amphictyons
his preparations completed, than he took possession however decreed war against Amplissa, and the
of the island of Halonesus, which belonged to command of the Amphictyonic army was given to
Athens. The Athenians sent an embassy to clain Cortyphus, an Arcadian; but the expedition failed
the island back ; but Philip, who had found it in fron want of spirit and energy among those who
the hands of pirates, denied that the Athenians took part in it. (Dem. de Coron. p. 277. ) The
had any right to claim it, but at the same time he consequence was, that in B. c. 339, at the next
offered to make them a present of the island, if ordinary meeting of the Amphictyons, king Philip
they would receive it as such. On the return of was appointed chief commander of the Amphic:vo-
the ambassadors to Athens in B. c. 313, the oration nic army. This was the very thing which he had
on Halonesus (nepi 'Anovhoov) was delivered. It been looking for. With the appearance of justice
is usually printed among the orations of Demos- on his side, he now had an opportunity of establish-
thenes, but belongs in all probability to Hegesip ing himself with an armed force in the very heart of
pus. This and other similar acts of aggression, Greece. He set out without delay, and when the
which at length opened the eyes of the Athenians, Athenians received the news of his having taken
roused them once more to vigorous and energetic possession of Elatea, they were thrown into the
measures, in spite of the efforts of the Macedonian deepest consternation. Demosthenes alone did not
party to keep the people quiet. Embassies were give up all hopes, and he once more roused his
sent to Acarnania and Peloponnesus to counteract countrymen by bringing about an alliance between
Philip's schemes in those quarters (Dem. Phil. iii. Athens and Thebes. The Thebans had formerly
p. 129), and his expedition into Thrace, by which been favoured by Philip, but his subsequent neg-
the Chersonesus was threatened, called forth an lect of them had effaced the recollection of it;
energetic demonstration of the Athenians under and they now clearly saw that the fall of Athens
Diopeithes. The complaints which Philip then would inevitably be followed by their own ruin.
made roused Demosthenes, in B. C. 342, to his They had before opposed the war of the Amphic-
powerful oration tepi twv év Xepporúsa, and to tyons, and when Philip now called upon them to
his third Philippic, in which he describes the allow his army to march through their territory or
king's faithlessness in the most glaring colours, to join him in his expedition against Athens, ihey
and exhorts his countrymen to unite and resist indignantly rejected all his handsomne proposals,
the treacherous aggressor.
Soon after this, the ty- and threw theinselves into the open arms of the
rants whom Philip had established in Euboea were Athenians. (Dem. de Coron. p. 299, &c. ) This
expelled through the influence and assistance of was the last grand effort against the growing power
Demosthenes (Dem. de Coron. p. 254); but it was of Macedonia ; but the battle of Chaeroneia, ou
not till B. c. 311, when Philip laid siege to Perin- the 7th of Metageitnion, B. C. 338, put an end to
thus and attacked Byzantium, that the long-sup- the independence of Greece. Thebes paid dearly
pressed indignation of the Athenians burst forth. for its resistance, and Athens which expected a
The peace with Philip was now declared violated similar fate, resolved at least to perish in a glorious
(1. c. 310); a fleet was sent to relieve Byzantiuin struggle. The most prodigious efforts were made
(Plut. Phoc. 14), and Philip was compelled to to meet the enemy; but Philip unexpectedly ofiered
withdraw without having accomplished anything to conclude peace on tolerable terns, which it
Demosthenes was the soul of all these energetic would have been madness to reject, for Athens
He had proposed, as early as the Olyn- thus had an opportunity of at least securing its
thian war, to apply the theoricon to defray the existence and a shadow of its former independence.
expenses of the military undertakings of Athens The period which now followed could not be
(Dem. Olynth. iii. p. 31); but it was not till Phi- otherwise than painful and gloomy to Demosthenes,
lip's attack upon Byzantium that he succeeded in for the evil might have been averted had bis ad-
carrying a decree to this effect. (Dionys. Ep. ad vice been followed in tine. The catastrophe of
amm. i. 11. ) By his law concerning the crierarchy Chaeroneia might indeed to some extent be re-
(vóuos tpinpapxikós), he further regulated the garded as his work; but the people were too ge-
Bymmoriae on a new and more equitable footing. nerous and too well convinced of the purity of his
(Dem. de Coron. p. 260, &c. ) He thus at once intentions, as well as of the necessity of acting as he
gave a fresh impulse to the maritime power and had acted, to make him responsible for the unfur.
enterprise of Athens, B. C. 310.
tunate consequences of the war with Philip. It
Philip now assumed the appearance of giving was, on the contrary, one of the most glorious
himself no further concern about the affairs of acknowledgments of his merits that he couid have
Greece. He carried on war with his northern received, that he was requested to deliver the fu-
neighbours, and left it to his hirelings to prepare neral oration upon those who had fallen at Chaeru.
:
measures.
## p. 986 (#1006) ###########################################
986
DEMOSTIIENES.
DEMOSTIJENES.
neia, and that the funeral feast was celebrated in chastise the rebellious neighbours of Macedonia,
his house. (Dem. dle Coron. p. 320, &c) But the than a false report of his death called forth another
fury of the Macedonian party and of his personal insurrection of the Greeks. Thches, which had
enemies gave full vent to itself; they made all suffered most severely, was foremost, but the in-
possible efforts to humble or annihilate the man surrection spread over Arcadin, Argos, Elis, and
who had brought about the alliance with Thebes, Athens. llowever, with the exception of Thebes,
and Athens to the verge of destruction. Accus there was no energy anywhere. Demosthenes
tions were brought against him day after day, and carried indeed a decree that succours should be
at first the most notorious sycophants, such as sent to Thebes, but no efforts were made, and De-
Sosicles, Diondas, Melanthus, Aristogeiton, and mosthenes alone, and at his own expense, sent a
others, were employed by his enemies to crush supply of arms. (Diod. xvii. 8. ) The second sud-
him (Dem. de Coron. p. 310); but the more noto- den arrival of Alexander, and his destruction of
rious they were, the easier was it for Demosthenes | Thebes, in B. c. 335, put an end to all further
to unmask them before the people. But matters attempts of the Greeks. Athens submitted to ne-
soon began to assume a more dangerous aspect cessity, and sent Demades to the king as mediator.
when Aeschines, the head of the Macedonian party, Alexander demanded that the leaders of the popu-
and the most implacable opponent of Demosthenes, I lar party, and among them Demosthenes, should
came forward against him. An opportunity offered be delivered up to him; but he yielded to the in-
soon after the battle of Chaeroneia, when Ctesiphon treaties of the Athenians, and did not persist in
proposed to reward Demosthenes with a golden his demand.
crown for the conduct he had shewn during his Alexander's departure for Asia is the beginning
public career, and more especially for the patriotic of a period of gloomy tranquillity for Greece; but
disinterestedness with which he had acted during party hatred continued in secret, and it required
the preparations which the Athenians made after only some spark from without to make it blaze
the battle of Chaeroneia, when Philip was expected forth again in undiminished fury.
This spark
at the gates. (Dem. de Coron. p. 266. ) Aeschines came from Harpalus, who had been left by Alex-
attacked Ctesiphon for the proposal, and tried to ander at Babylon, while the king proceeded to
shew that it was not only made in an illegal form, India. When Alexander had reached the castern-
but that the conduct of Demosthenes did not give most point of his expedition, Harpalus with the
him any claim to the public gratitude and such a treasures entrusted to his care, and with 6000
distinction. This attack, however, was not aimed mercenaries, fied from Babylon and came io Greece.
at Ctesiphon, who was too insignificant a person, but In B. C. 325 he arrived at Athens, and purchased
at Demosthenes, and the latter took up the gaunt the protection of the city by distributing his gold
let with the greater readiness, as he now had an among the most influential demagogues. The
opportunity of justifying his whole political conduct reception of such an open rebel could not be viewed
before his countrymen. Reasons which are un- by the Macedonian party otherwise than as an act
known to us delayed the decision of the question of hostility towards Macedonia itself; and it was
for a number of years, and it was not till B. c. 330 probably at the instigation of that party, that
(Plut. Dem. 24) that the trial was proceeded with. Antipater, the regent of Macedonia, and Olympias
Demosthenes on that occasion delivered his oration called upon the Athenians to deliver up the rebel
on the crown (Hepi otedávov). Aeschines did not and the money they had received of him, and to
obtain the fifth part of the votes, and was obliged put to trial those who had accepted his bribes.
to quit Athens and spend the remainder of his life Harpalus was allowed to escape, but the investiga-
abroad. All Greece had been looking forward tion concerning those who had been bribed by him
with the most intense interest to the issue of this was instituted, and Demosthenes was among the
contest, though few can bave entertained any doubt persons suspected of the crime. The accounts
as to which would carry the victory. The oration of his conduct during the presence of Harpalus at
on the crown was, in all probability, like that of Athens are so confused, that it is almost impossible
Aeschines against Ctesiphon, revised and altered to arrive at a certain conclusion. Theopompus
at a later period.
(ap. Plut. Dem. 25, comp. l'it. X Orat. p. 816)
Greece had in the mean time been shaken hy and Deinarchus in his oration against Demosthenes
The death of Philip, in B. c. 336, state, that Demosthenes did accept the bribes of
had rerired among the Greeks the hope of shaking Harpalus; but Pausanias (ii. 33. $ 4) expressly
off the Macedonian yoke. All Greece rose, and acquits him of the crime. The authority of his
especially Athens, where Demosthenes, although accusers, however, is very questionable, for in the
weighed down by domestic grief, was the first first place they do not agree in the detail of their
joyfully to proclaim the tidings of the king's death, statements, and secondly, if we consider the con-
to call upon the Greeks to unite their strength duct of Demosthenes throughout the disputes about
against Macedonia, and 10 form new connexions in Harpalus, if we remember that he opposed the re.
Asia. (Plut. Dem. 23; Aeschin. c. Ctesiph. § 16); ception of the rebel, and that he voluntarily of-
Diod. xvii. 3. ) But the sudden appearance of fered himself to be tried, we must own that it is
young Alexander with an army ready to fight at least highly improbable that he should have
damped the enthusiasın, and Athens sent an em- been guilty of common bribery, and that it was
bassy to him to sue for peace. Demosthenes was not his guilt which caused his condemnation, but
one of the ambassadors, but his feelings against the implacable hatred of the Macedonian party,
the Macedonians were so strong, that he would which eagerly seized this favourable opportunity
rather expose himself to the ridicule of his enemies to rid itself of its most formidable opponent, who
br returning after having gone half way, than act was at that time abandoned by his own friends
the part of a suppliant before the youthful king. from sheer timidity. Demosthenes defended him-
(Plut. Dem. 23; Aeschin. c. Ctesipl. & 161. ) But self in an oration which Athenneus (xiii. p. 592) calls
no sooner had Alexander set out for the north to sepi tou xpuoiou, and which is probably the same
new storms.
## p. 987 (#1007) ###########################################
DEMOSTHENES.
987
DEMOSTIJENES.
P.
As the one referred to by others under the title of | farne will remain undiminished so long as sterling
dwodoylu rwv Öúpwv. (Dionys. de Admir. ri dic. sentiments and principles and a consistent conduct
Dem. 57, Ep. ad Amm. i. 12. ) But Demosthenes through life are regarded as the standard hy which
was declared guilty, and thrown into prison, from a man's worth is mensured, and not simply the suc-
which however he escaped, apparently with the cess--so often merely dependent upon circumstances
connivance of the Athenian magistrates. (Plut. -by which his exertions are crowned. The very
Dem. 20, Vit. X Orat. p. 846 ; Anonym. l'it. De calumnies which have been heaped upon Demos-
mosth. 158. ) Demosthenes quitted his country, thenes by his enemies and detractors more extra-
and resided partly at Troczene and partly in Aeyi vagantly than upon any other man-the coarse
na, looking daily, it is said, across the sea towards and complicated web of lies which was devised by
his beloved native land.
Aeschines, and in which he himself was cauglit,
But his exile did not last long, for in B. c. 323 and lastly, the odious insinuations of Theopompus,
Alexander died, and the news of his death was the historian, which are credulously repeated by
the watch word for a fresh rise of the Greeks, which Plutarch,-have only served to bring forth the po-
was organized by the Athenians, and under the litical virtues of Demosthenes in a more striking
vigorous management of Leosthenes it soon as- and brilliant light.
Some points there are in his
sumed a dangerous aspect for Macedonia. (Diod. life which perhaps will never be quite cleared up
xviii. 10. ) Demosthenes, although still living in on account of the distorted accounts that have
exile, joined of his own accord the embassies come down to us about them. Some minor charges
which were sent by the Athenians to the other which are made against him, and affect his charac-
Greek states, and he roused them to a fresh strug- ter as a man, are almost below contempt. It is
gle for liberty by the fire of his oratory. Such a said, for example, that he took to fight after the
devotedness to the interests of his ungrateful coun- battle of Chaeroneia, as if thousands of others had
try disarmed the hatred of his enemies. A decree not fled with him (Plut. Dem. 20, l'it. X Orat.
of the people was passed on the proposal of Demon, p. 845; Aeschin. c. Clesiph. $$ 175, 244, 253) ;
a relative of Demosthenes, by which he was so- that, notwithstanding his domestic calamity (his
lemnly recalled from his exile. A trireme was daughter had died seven days before) he rejoiced
sent to Aegina to fetch him, and his progress from at Philip's death, which shews only the predomi-
Peiraeeus to the city was a glorious triumph : it nance of his patriotic feelings over his personal and
was the happiest day of his life. (Plut. Dem. 27, selfish ones (Plut. Dem. 22; Aeschin. c. Ctesiph.
Vit. X Orut. p. 846 ; Justin, xiii. 5. ) The mili- 77); and lastly, that he shed tears on going into
tary operations of the Greeks and their success at exile-a fact for which he deserres to be loved and
this time, seemed to justify the most sanguine ex- honoured rather than blamed. (Plut. Dem. 26. )
pectations, for the army of the united Greeks had The charge of tergiversation which is repeatedly
advanced as far as Thessaly, and besieged Anti- brought against him by Aeschines, has never been
pater at Lamia. But this was the turning point; substantiated by the least evidence. (Aeschin. c.
for although, even after the fall of Leosthenes, the Cuesipl. 173, c. Timarch. Ⓡ 131, de Fals. Leg.
Greeks succeeded in destroying the army of Leon- $ 165; Plut. Dem. 15. ) In his administration of
natus, which came to the assistance of Antipater, public affairs Demosthenes is perfectly spotless,
yet they lost, in B. C. 322, the battle of Cranon. and free from all the crimes which the men of the
This defeat alone would not indeed have decided Macedonian party committed openly and without
the contest, had not the zeal of the Greeks gradu- any disguise. The charge of bribery, which was
ally cooled, and had not several detachments of the so often raised against him by the same Aeschines,
allied army withdrawn. Antipater availed himself must be rejected altogether, and is a mere distor-
of this contemptible disposition among the Greeks, tion of the fact that Demosthenes accepted subsi-
and offered peace, though he was cunning enough dies from Persia for Athens, which assuredly stood
to negotiate only with each state separaiely. Thus in need of such assistance in its struggles with
the cause of Greece was forsaken by one state Macedonia ; but there is not a shadow of a suspi-
after another, until in the end the Athenians were cion that he ever accepted any personal bribes.
left alone to contend with Antipater. It would His career as a statesman received its greatest
have been folly to continue their resistance single- lustre from his powers as an orator, in which he
handed, and they accordingly made peace with has not been equalled by any man of any country.
Antipater on his own terms. All his stipulations Our own judgment on this point would necessarily
were complied with, except the one which de- be one-sided, as we can only read his orations;
manded the surrender of the popular leaders of the but among the contemporaries of Demosthenes
Athenian people. When Antipater and Craterus there was scarcely one who could point out any
thereupon marched towards Athens, Demosthenes definite fault in his oratory. By far the majority
and his friends took to flight, and, on the proposal looked up to him as the greatest orator of the time,
of Demades, the Athenians sentenced them to and it was only men of such over-refined and hyper-
death. Demosthenes had gone to Calauria, and critical tastes as Demetrius Phalereus who thought
had taken refuge there in the temple of Poseidon. him either too plain and simple or too harsh and
When Archias, who hunted up the fugitives every strong (Plut. Dem. 9, 11); though some found
where, arrived, Demosthenes, who was summoned those features more striking in reading his orations,
to follow him to Antipater, took poison, which he while others were more impressed with them in
had been keeping about his person for some time, hearing him speak. (Comp. Dionys. de Admir, vi
and died in the temple of Poseidon, on the 10th of dic. Demosth. 22; Cic. de Orat. iii. 56, Brut. 38 ;
Pyanepsion, B. c. 322. (Plut. Dem. 29, Tit. X Quintil. xi. 3. § 6. ) These peculiarities, however,
Orat. p. 816; Lucian, Encom. Dem. 43, &c. ) are far from being faults; they are, on the con-
Thus terminated the career of a man who has trary, proofs of his genius, if we consider the temp-
been ranked by persons of all ages among the tations which natural deficiencies hold out to an
greatest and noblest spirits of antiquity; and this incipient orator to pursue the opposite course. The
## p. 988 (#1008) ###########################################
GSC
DEVOSTIJENES.
DEMOSTIENES.
obstacles which his physical constitution threw in worthy of Demosthenes, such as the dózos étirá
his way when he commenced his career, were so olos and the epwtirós, were incorporated in the
great, that a less courageous and persevering man collections of those of Demosthenes. Others, such
than Deinosthenes would at once have been inti- as the speech on Ialonesus, the first against Aris-
midated and entirely shrunk from the arduous cogeiton, those against Theocrines and Neaeri,
career of a public orator, (Plut. Dem. 6, &c. ) which are undoubtedly the productions of contem-
Those carly difficulties with which he had to con- porary orators, may have been introduced among
tend, led him to bestow more care upon the compo those of Deniosthenes by mistake. It would be
sition of his orations than he would otherwise bave of grcat assistance to us to have the commentaries
done, and produced in the end, if not the impossi- which were written upon Demosthenes hy such
bility of speaking extempore, at least the habit of men as Didymus, Longinus, llermogenes, Sallus-
never venturing upon it; for he never spoke with tius, Apollonides, Theon, Gymnasius, and others;
oui preparation, and he sometimes eren declined but unfortunately most of what they wrote is lost,
speaking when called upon in the assembly to do and scarcely anything of importance is extant, ex-
so, merely because he was not prepared for it. cept the miserable collection of scholia which have
(Plut. Dom. 8, l'it. l' Orat. p. 818 ) There is, come down to us under the name of Ulpian, and
however, no reason for believing that all the extant the Greek argumenta to the orations by Libanius
orations were delivered in that perfect form in and other rhetoricians.
which they have come down to us, for most of The ancients state, that there existed 65 orations
them were probably subjected to a careful revision of Demosthenes (Plut. lit. X Orat. p. 847; Phot.
before publication; and it is only the oration Bibl. p. 490), but of these only 61, and if we de-
against Meidias, which, having been written for duct the letter of Philip, which is strangely enongh
the purpose of being delivered, and being after counted as an oration, only 60 have come down to
wards given up and left incomplete, may be re- us under his name, though some of these are spu-
garded with certainty as a specimen of an oration rious, or at least of very doubtful authenticity.
in its original form. "This oration alone sufficiently Besides these orations, there are 56 Exordiu io
shews how little Demosthenes trusted to the im- public orations, and six letters, which bear the
pulse of the moment. It would lead us too far in name of Demosthenes, though their genuineness is
this article to examine the manner in which De- very doubtful.
mosthenes composed his orations, and we must The orations of Demosthenes are contained in
refer the reader to the various modern works cited the various collections of the Attic orators by Aldus,
below. We shall only add a few remarks upon H. Stephens, Taylor, Reiske, Dukas, Bekker,
the causes of the mighty impression which his Dobson, and Baiter and Sauppe. ' Separate editions
speeches made upon the ininds of his hearers. The of the orations of Demosthenes alone were pub-
first cause was their pure and ethical character; lished by Aldus, Venice, 1504; at Basel in 1532;
for every sentence exhibits Demosthenes as the by Feliciano, Venice, 1543; by Morellus and
friend of his country, of virtue, truth, and public Lambinus, Paris, 1570; by H. Wolf, 1572 (often
decency (Plut. Dem. 13); and as the struggles in reprinted); by Auger, Paris, 1790; and by Schae-
which he was engaged were fair and just, he could fer, Leipzig and London, 1822, in 9 vols. 8vo.
without scruple unmask his opponents, and wound The first two contain the text, the third the Latin
them where they were vulnerable, though he never translation, and the others the critical apparatus,
resorted to sycophantic artifices. The second cause the indices, &c. A good edition of the text is
was his intellectual superiority. By a wise ar- that by W. Dindorf, Leipzig, 1825, 3 vols. 8vo.
rangement of his subjects, and by the application We subjoin a classified list of the orations of
of the strongest arguments in their proper places, Demosthenes, to which are added the editions
he brought the subjects before his hearers in the of each separate oration, when there are any, and
clearest possible form ; any doubts that might be the literature upon it.
raised were met by him beforehand, and thus he
I. POLITICAL ORATIONS.
proceeded calmly but irresistibly towards his end.
The third and last cause was the magic force of
A. Orations against Philip.
his language, which being majestic and yet simple, Editions of the Philippics were published by
rich yet not bombastic, strange and yet familiar, J. Bekker (Berlin, 1810, 1825 and 1835), C. A.
solemn without being ornamented, grave and ver Rüdiger (Leipzig, 1818, 1829 and 1833), and J.
pleasing, concise and yet tluent, sweet and yet im. T. Vomel
. (Frankfurt, 1829. )
pressive, carried away the minds of his learers.
1. The first Philippic was delivered in B. C. 352,
That such orations should notwithstanding some and is believed by some to be made up of two dis-
times have failed to produce the desired efiect, was tinct orations, the second of which is supposed to
owing only to the spirit of the times.
commence at p. 48 with the words å mer nueis.
Most of the critical works that were written (Dionys. Ep. ad Amm. i. 10. ) But critics down
upon Demosthenes by the ancients are lost, and, to the present time are divided in their opinions
independent of many scattered remarks, the only upon this point. The common opinion, that the
important critical work that has come down to us oration is one whole, is supported by the MSS. ,
is ihat of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, entitled tepland is defended by Bremi, in the Philol. Beiträge
της του Δημοσθενους δεινότητος. The acknow- aus der Schweiz, vol. i. p. 21, &c. The opposite opi-
ledged excellence of Demosthenes's orations made nion is very ably maintained by J. Held, Proleijer
them the principal subjects of stndy and specula- mena ad Dem. Orat. quae vulgo prima Phil
. dicitur,
tion with ihe rhetoricians, and called forth nume- Vratislaviae, 133), and especially by Seebeck in
sous imitators and commentators. It is probably the Zeitschrift für d. Alterthumswiss. for 1838,
oring to those rhetorical speculations which began No. 91, dic.
as early as the second century B. C. , that a number 2—4. The first, second, and third Olynthiac
of orations which are decidedly spurious and un- 1 orations belong to the year B. C. 349. Dionysius
## p. 989 (#1009) ###########################################
DEMOSTIIEXES.
989
DEMOSTIJENES.
(Ep. ad Amm. i. 4) makes the second the first, Bekker with scholia, Halle, 1815, and Berlin, 1823.
and the third the second in the series; and this by Bremi (Gotha, 1834), and ly Dissen (Grit-
order has been defended by R. Rauchenstein, de tingen, 1837). Comp. F. Winiewski, Comment.
Orat. Olynth. ordine, Leipz. 1821, which is re- Historica et Chronolog. in Demosth. Orut. de Coron. ,
printed in vol. i. of Schaefer's Apparatus. The lionasterii, 1829. The genuineness of the docu-
other order is defended by Becker, in bis German ments quoted in this oration has of late been the
translation of the Philippics, i.
the Athenians sent to Philip was probably not against the Locrians of Amphissa for having un-
Prry satisfactory to him, for he immediately sent lawfully occupied a district of sacred land. The
another embassy to Athens, headed by Python, Amphissacans rose against this decree, and the
with proposals for a modification of the late peace, Amphictyons summoned an extraordinary meeting
although he subsequently denied having given to to deliberate on the punishment to be intiicted
Python any authority for such proposals. (Dem. upon Amphissa. Demosthenes foresaw and fore-
de Jalones. p. 81. )
told the unfortunate consequences of a war of the
Philip had for some time been engaged in Amphictyons, and he succeeded at lcast in persuad-
the formation of a navy, and the apprehensions ing the Athenians not to send any deputies to that
which the Athenians entertained on that score extraordinary meeting. (Dem. de Coron. p. 275;
were but too soon justitied; for no sooner were Aeschin. c. Ctesiph. $ 125, &c. ) The Amphictyons
his preparations completed, than he took possession however decreed war against Amplissa, and the
of the island of Halonesus, which belonged to command of the Amphictyonic army was given to
Athens. The Athenians sent an embassy to clain Cortyphus, an Arcadian; but the expedition failed
the island back ; but Philip, who had found it in fron want of spirit and energy among those who
the hands of pirates, denied that the Athenians took part in it. (Dem. de Coron. p. 277. ) The
had any right to claim it, but at the same time he consequence was, that in B. c. 339, at the next
offered to make them a present of the island, if ordinary meeting of the Amphictyons, king Philip
they would receive it as such. On the return of was appointed chief commander of the Amphic:vo-
the ambassadors to Athens in B. c. 313, the oration nic army. This was the very thing which he had
on Halonesus (nepi 'Anovhoov) was delivered. It been looking for. With the appearance of justice
is usually printed among the orations of Demos- on his side, he now had an opportunity of establish-
thenes, but belongs in all probability to Hegesip ing himself with an armed force in the very heart of
pus. This and other similar acts of aggression, Greece. He set out without delay, and when the
which at length opened the eyes of the Athenians, Athenians received the news of his having taken
roused them once more to vigorous and energetic possession of Elatea, they were thrown into the
measures, in spite of the efforts of the Macedonian deepest consternation. Demosthenes alone did not
party to keep the people quiet. Embassies were give up all hopes, and he once more roused his
sent to Acarnania and Peloponnesus to counteract countrymen by bringing about an alliance between
Philip's schemes in those quarters (Dem. Phil. iii. Athens and Thebes. The Thebans had formerly
p. 129), and his expedition into Thrace, by which been favoured by Philip, but his subsequent neg-
the Chersonesus was threatened, called forth an lect of them had effaced the recollection of it;
energetic demonstration of the Athenians under and they now clearly saw that the fall of Athens
Diopeithes. The complaints which Philip then would inevitably be followed by their own ruin.
made roused Demosthenes, in B. C. 342, to his They had before opposed the war of the Amphic-
powerful oration tepi twv év Xepporúsa, and to tyons, and when Philip now called upon them to
his third Philippic, in which he describes the allow his army to march through their territory or
king's faithlessness in the most glaring colours, to join him in his expedition against Athens, ihey
and exhorts his countrymen to unite and resist indignantly rejected all his handsomne proposals,
the treacherous aggressor.
Soon after this, the ty- and threw theinselves into the open arms of the
rants whom Philip had established in Euboea were Athenians. (Dem. de Coron. p. 299, &c. ) This
expelled through the influence and assistance of was the last grand effort against the growing power
Demosthenes (Dem. de Coron. p. 254); but it was of Macedonia ; but the battle of Chaeroneia, ou
not till B. c. 311, when Philip laid siege to Perin- the 7th of Metageitnion, B. C. 338, put an end to
thus and attacked Byzantium, that the long-sup- the independence of Greece. Thebes paid dearly
pressed indignation of the Athenians burst forth. for its resistance, and Athens which expected a
The peace with Philip was now declared violated similar fate, resolved at least to perish in a glorious
(1. c. 310); a fleet was sent to relieve Byzantiuin struggle. The most prodigious efforts were made
(Plut. Phoc. 14), and Philip was compelled to to meet the enemy; but Philip unexpectedly ofiered
withdraw without having accomplished anything to conclude peace on tolerable terns, which it
Demosthenes was the soul of all these energetic would have been madness to reject, for Athens
He had proposed, as early as the Olyn- thus had an opportunity of at least securing its
thian war, to apply the theoricon to defray the existence and a shadow of its former independence.
expenses of the military undertakings of Athens The period which now followed could not be
(Dem. Olynth. iii. p. 31); but it was not till Phi- otherwise than painful and gloomy to Demosthenes,
lip's attack upon Byzantium that he succeeded in for the evil might have been averted had bis ad-
carrying a decree to this effect. (Dionys. Ep. ad vice been followed in tine. The catastrophe of
amm. i. 11. ) By his law concerning the crierarchy Chaeroneia might indeed to some extent be re-
(vóuos tpinpapxikós), he further regulated the garded as his work; but the people were too ge-
Bymmoriae on a new and more equitable footing. nerous and too well convinced of the purity of his
(Dem. de Coron. p. 260, &c. ) He thus at once intentions, as well as of the necessity of acting as he
gave a fresh impulse to the maritime power and had acted, to make him responsible for the unfur.
enterprise of Athens, B. C. 310.
tunate consequences of the war with Philip. It
Philip now assumed the appearance of giving was, on the contrary, one of the most glorious
himself no further concern about the affairs of acknowledgments of his merits that he couid have
Greece. He carried on war with his northern received, that he was requested to deliver the fu-
neighbours, and left it to his hirelings to prepare neral oration upon those who had fallen at Chaeru.
:
measures.
## p. 986 (#1006) ###########################################
986
DEMOSTIIENES.
DEMOSTIJENES.
neia, and that the funeral feast was celebrated in chastise the rebellious neighbours of Macedonia,
his house. (Dem. dle Coron. p. 320, &c) But the than a false report of his death called forth another
fury of the Macedonian party and of his personal insurrection of the Greeks. Thches, which had
enemies gave full vent to itself; they made all suffered most severely, was foremost, but the in-
possible efforts to humble or annihilate the man surrection spread over Arcadin, Argos, Elis, and
who had brought about the alliance with Thebes, Athens. llowever, with the exception of Thebes,
and Athens to the verge of destruction. Accus there was no energy anywhere. Demosthenes
tions were brought against him day after day, and carried indeed a decree that succours should be
at first the most notorious sycophants, such as sent to Thebes, but no efforts were made, and De-
Sosicles, Diondas, Melanthus, Aristogeiton, and mosthenes alone, and at his own expense, sent a
others, were employed by his enemies to crush supply of arms. (Diod. xvii. 8. ) The second sud-
him (Dem. de Coron. p. 310); but the more noto- den arrival of Alexander, and his destruction of
rious they were, the easier was it for Demosthenes | Thebes, in B. c. 335, put an end to all further
to unmask them before the people. But matters attempts of the Greeks. Athens submitted to ne-
soon began to assume a more dangerous aspect cessity, and sent Demades to the king as mediator.
when Aeschines, the head of the Macedonian party, Alexander demanded that the leaders of the popu-
and the most implacable opponent of Demosthenes, I lar party, and among them Demosthenes, should
came forward against him. An opportunity offered be delivered up to him; but he yielded to the in-
soon after the battle of Chaeroneia, when Ctesiphon treaties of the Athenians, and did not persist in
proposed to reward Demosthenes with a golden his demand.
crown for the conduct he had shewn during his Alexander's departure for Asia is the beginning
public career, and more especially for the patriotic of a period of gloomy tranquillity for Greece; but
disinterestedness with which he had acted during party hatred continued in secret, and it required
the preparations which the Athenians made after only some spark from without to make it blaze
the battle of Chaeroneia, when Philip was expected forth again in undiminished fury.
This spark
at the gates. (Dem. de Coron. p. 266. ) Aeschines came from Harpalus, who had been left by Alex-
attacked Ctesiphon for the proposal, and tried to ander at Babylon, while the king proceeded to
shew that it was not only made in an illegal form, India. When Alexander had reached the castern-
but that the conduct of Demosthenes did not give most point of his expedition, Harpalus with the
him any claim to the public gratitude and such a treasures entrusted to his care, and with 6000
distinction. This attack, however, was not aimed mercenaries, fied from Babylon and came io Greece.
at Ctesiphon, who was too insignificant a person, but In B. C. 325 he arrived at Athens, and purchased
at Demosthenes, and the latter took up the gaunt the protection of the city by distributing his gold
let with the greater readiness, as he now had an among the most influential demagogues. The
opportunity of justifying his whole political conduct reception of such an open rebel could not be viewed
before his countrymen. Reasons which are un- by the Macedonian party otherwise than as an act
known to us delayed the decision of the question of hostility towards Macedonia itself; and it was
for a number of years, and it was not till B. c. 330 probably at the instigation of that party, that
(Plut. Dem. 24) that the trial was proceeded with. Antipater, the regent of Macedonia, and Olympias
Demosthenes on that occasion delivered his oration called upon the Athenians to deliver up the rebel
on the crown (Hepi otedávov). Aeschines did not and the money they had received of him, and to
obtain the fifth part of the votes, and was obliged put to trial those who had accepted his bribes.
to quit Athens and spend the remainder of his life Harpalus was allowed to escape, but the investiga-
abroad. All Greece had been looking forward tion concerning those who had been bribed by him
with the most intense interest to the issue of this was instituted, and Demosthenes was among the
contest, though few can bave entertained any doubt persons suspected of the crime. The accounts
as to which would carry the victory. The oration of his conduct during the presence of Harpalus at
on the crown was, in all probability, like that of Athens are so confused, that it is almost impossible
Aeschines against Ctesiphon, revised and altered to arrive at a certain conclusion. Theopompus
at a later period.
(ap. Plut. Dem. 25, comp. l'it. X Orat. p. 816)
Greece had in the mean time been shaken hy and Deinarchus in his oration against Demosthenes
The death of Philip, in B. c. 336, state, that Demosthenes did accept the bribes of
had rerired among the Greeks the hope of shaking Harpalus; but Pausanias (ii. 33. $ 4) expressly
off the Macedonian yoke. All Greece rose, and acquits him of the crime. The authority of his
especially Athens, where Demosthenes, although accusers, however, is very questionable, for in the
weighed down by domestic grief, was the first first place they do not agree in the detail of their
joyfully to proclaim the tidings of the king's death, statements, and secondly, if we consider the con-
to call upon the Greeks to unite their strength duct of Demosthenes throughout the disputes about
against Macedonia, and 10 form new connexions in Harpalus, if we remember that he opposed the re.
Asia. (Plut. Dem. 23; Aeschin. c. Ctesiph. § 16); ception of the rebel, and that he voluntarily of-
Diod. xvii. 3. ) But the sudden appearance of fered himself to be tried, we must own that it is
young Alexander with an army ready to fight at least highly improbable that he should have
damped the enthusiasın, and Athens sent an em- been guilty of common bribery, and that it was
bassy to him to sue for peace. Demosthenes was not his guilt which caused his condemnation, but
one of the ambassadors, but his feelings against the implacable hatred of the Macedonian party,
the Macedonians were so strong, that he would which eagerly seized this favourable opportunity
rather expose himself to the ridicule of his enemies to rid itself of its most formidable opponent, who
br returning after having gone half way, than act was at that time abandoned by his own friends
the part of a suppliant before the youthful king. from sheer timidity. Demosthenes defended him-
(Plut. Dem. 23; Aeschin. c. Ctesipl. & 161. ) But self in an oration which Athenneus (xiii. p. 592) calls
no sooner had Alexander set out for the north to sepi tou xpuoiou, and which is probably the same
new storms.
## p. 987 (#1007) ###########################################
DEMOSTHENES.
987
DEMOSTIJENES.
P.
As the one referred to by others under the title of | farne will remain undiminished so long as sterling
dwodoylu rwv Öúpwv. (Dionys. de Admir. ri dic. sentiments and principles and a consistent conduct
Dem. 57, Ep. ad Amm. i. 12. ) But Demosthenes through life are regarded as the standard hy which
was declared guilty, and thrown into prison, from a man's worth is mensured, and not simply the suc-
which however he escaped, apparently with the cess--so often merely dependent upon circumstances
connivance of the Athenian magistrates. (Plut. -by which his exertions are crowned. The very
Dem. 20, Vit. X Orat. p. 846 ; Anonym. l'it. De calumnies which have been heaped upon Demos-
mosth. 158. ) Demosthenes quitted his country, thenes by his enemies and detractors more extra-
and resided partly at Troczene and partly in Aeyi vagantly than upon any other man-the coarse
na, looking daily, it is said, across the sea towards and complicated web of lies which was devised by
his beloved native land.
Aeschines, and in which he himself was cauglit,
But his exile did not last long, for in B. c. 323 and lastly, the odious insinuations of Theopompus,
Alexander died, and the news of his death was the historian, which are credulously repeated by
the watch word for a fresh rise of the Greeks, which Plutarch,-have only served to bring forth the po-
was organized by the Athenians, and under the litical virtues of Demosthenes in a more striking
vigorous management of Leosthenes it soon as- and brilliant light.
Some points there are in his
sumed a dangerous aspect for Macedonia. (Diod. life which perhaps will never be quite cleared up
xviii. 10. ) Demosthenes, although still living in on account of the distorted accounts that have
exile, joined of his own accord the embassies come down to us about them. Some minor charges
which were sent by the Athenians to the other which are made against him, and affect his charac-
Greek states, and he roused them to a fresh strug- ter as a man, are almost below contempt. It is
gle for liberty by the fire of his oratory. Such a said, for example, that he took to fight after the
devotedness to the interests of his ungrateful coun- battle of Chaeroneia, as if thousands of others had
try disarmed the hatred of his enemies. A decree not fled with him (Plut. Dem. 20, l'it. X Orat.
of the people was passed on the proposal of Demon, p. 845; Aeschin. c. Clesiph. $$ 175, 244, 253) ;
a relative of Demosthenes, by which he was so- that, notwithstanding his domestic calamity (his
lemnly recalled from his exile. A trireme was daughter had died seven days before) he rejoiced
sent to Aegina to fetch him, and his progress from at Philip's death, which shews only the predomi-
Peiraeeus to the city was a glorious triumph : it nance of his patriotic feelings over his personal and
was the happiest day of his life. (Plut. Dem. 27, selfish ones (Plut. Dem. 22; Aeschin. c. Ctesiph.
Vit. X Orut. p. 846 ; Justin, xiii. 5. ) The mili- 77); and lastly, that he shed tears on going into
tary operations of the Greeks and their success at exile-a fact for which he deserres to be loved and
this time, seemed to justify the most sanguine ex- honoured rather than blamed. (Plut. Dem. 26. )
pectations, for the army of the united Greeks had The charge of tergiversation which is repeatedly
advanced as far as Thessaly, and besieged Anti- brought against him by Aeschines, has never been
pater at Lamia. But this was the turning point; substantiated by the least evidence. (Aeschin. c.
for although, even after the fall of Leosthenes, the Cuesipl. 173, c. Timarch. Ⓡ 131, de Fals. Leg.
Greeks succeeded in destroying the army of Leon- $ 165; Plut. Dem. 15. ) In his administration of
natus, which came to the assistance of Antipater, public affairs Demosthenes is perfectly spotless,
yet they lost, in B. C. 322, the battle of Cranon. and free from all the crimes which the men of the
This defeat alone would not indeed have decided Macedonian party committed openly and without
the contest, had not the zeal of the Greeks gradu- any disguise. The charge of bribery, which was
ally cooled, and had not several detachments of the so often raised against him by the same Aeschines,
allied army withdrawn. Antipater availed himself must be rejected altogether, and is a mere distor-
of this contemptible disposition among the Greeks, tion of the fact that Demosthenes accepted subsi-
and offered peace, though he was cunning enough dies from Persia for Athens, which assuredly stood
to negotiate only with each state separaiely. Thus in need of such assistance in its struggles with
the cause of Greece was forsaken by one state Macedonia ; but there is not a shadow of a suspi-
after another, until in the end the Athenians were cion that he ever accepted any personal bribes.
left alone to contend with Antipater. It would His career as a statesman received its greatest
have been folly to continue their resistance single- lustre from his powers as an orator, in which he
handed, and they accordingly made peace with has not been equalled by any man of any country.
Antipater on his own terms. All his stipulations Our own judgment on this point would necessarily
were complied with, except the one which de- be one-sided, as we can only read his orations;
manded the surrender of the popular leaders of the but among the contemporaries of Demosthenes
Athenian people. When Antipater and Craterus there was scarcely one who could point out any
thereupon marched towards Athens, Demosthenes definite fault in his oratory. By far the majority
and his friends took to flight, and, on the proposal looked up to him as the greatest orator of the time,
of Demades, the Athenians sentenced them to and it was only men of such over-refined and hyper-
death. Demosthenes had gone to Calauria, and critical tastes as Demetrius Phalereus who thought
had taken refuge there in the temple of Poseidon. him either too plain and simple or too harsh and
When Archias, who hunted up the fugitives every strong (Plut. Dem. 9, 11); though some found
where, arrived, Demosthenes, who was summoned those features more striking in reading his orations,
to follow him to Antipater, took poison, which he while others were more impressed with them in
had been keeping about his person for some time, hearing him speak. (Comp. Dionys. de Admir, vi
and died in the temple of Poseidon, on the 10th of dic. Demosth. 22; Cic. de Orat. iii. 56, Brut. 38 ;
Pyanepsion, B. c. 322. (Plut. Dem. 29, Tit. X Quintil. xi. 3. § 6. ) These peculiarities, however,
Orat. p. 816; Lucian, Encom. Dem. 43, &c. ) are far from being faults; they are, on the con-
Thus terminated the career of a man who has trary, proofs of his genius, if we consider the temp-
been ranked by persons of all ages among the tations which natural deficiencies hold out to an
greatest and noblest spirits of antiquity; and this incipient orator to pursue the opposite course. The
## p. 988 (#1008) ###########################################
GSC
DEVOSTIJENES.
DEMOSTIENES.
obstacles which his physical constitution threw in worthy of Demosthenes, such as the dózos étirá
his way when he commenced his career, were so olos and the epwtirós, were incorporated in the
great, that a less courageous and persevering man collections of those of Demosthenes. Others, such
than Deinosthenes would at once have been inti- as the speech on Ialonesus, the first against Aris-
midated and entirely shrunk from the arduous cogeiton, those against Theocrines and Neaeri,
career of a public orator, (Plut. Dem. 6, &c. ) which are undoubtedly the productions of contem-
Those carly difficulties with which he had to con- porary orators, may have been introduced among
tend, led him to bestow more care upon the compo those of Deniosthenes by mistake. It would be
sition of his orations than he would otherwise bave of grcat assistance to us to have the commentaries
done, and produced in the end, if not the impossi- which were written upon Demosthenes hy such
bility of speaking extempore, at least the habit of men as Didymus, Longinus, llermogenes, Sallus-
never venturing upon it; for he never spoke with tius, Apollonides, Theon, Gymnasius, and others;
oui preparation, and he sometimes eren declined but unfortunately most of what they wrote is lost,
speaking when called upon in the assembly to do and scarcely anything of importance is extant, ex-
so, merely because he was not prepared for it. cept the miserable collection of scholia which have
(Plut. Dom. 8, l'it. l' Orat. p. 818 ) There is, come down to us under the name of Ulpian, and
however, no reason for believing that all the extant the Greek argumenta to the orations by Libanius
orations were delivered in that perfect form in and other rhetoricians.
which they have come down to us, for most of The ancients state, that there existed 65 orations
them were probably subjected to a careful revision of Demosthenes (Plut. lit. X Orat. p. 847; Phot.
before publication; and it is only the oration Bibl. p. 490), but of these only 61, and if we de-
against Meidias, which, having been written for duct the letter of Philip, which is strangely enongh
the purpose of being delivered, and being after counted as an oration, only 60 have come down to
wards given up and left incomplete, may be re- us under his name, though some of these are spu-
garded with certainty as a specimen of an oration rious, or at least of very doubtful authenticity.
in its original form. "This oration alone sufficiently Besides these orations, there are 56 Exordiu io
shews how little Demosthenes trusted to the im- public orations, and six letters, which bear the
pulse of the moment. It would lead us too far in name of Demosthenes, though their genuineness is
this article to examine the manner in which De- very doubtful.
mosthenes composed his orations, and we must The orations of Demosthenes are contained in
refer the reader to the various modern works cited the various collections of the Attic orators by Aldus,
below. We shall only add a few remarks upon H. Stephens, Taylor, Reiske, Dukas, Bekker,
the causes of the mighty impression which his Dobson, and Baiter and Sauppe. ' Separate editions
speeches made upon the ininds of his hearers. The of the orations of Demosthenes alone were pub-
first cause was their pure and ethical character; lished by Aldus, Venice, 1504; at Basel in 1532;
for every sentence exhibits Demosthenes as the by Feliciano, Venice, 1543; by Morellus and
friend of his country, of virtue, truth, and public Lambinus, Paris, 1570; by H. Wolf, 1572 (often
decency (Plut. Dem. 13); and as the struggles in reprinted); by Auger, Paris, 1790; and by Schae-
which he was engaged were fair and just, he could fer, Leipzig and London, 1822, in 9 vols. 8vo.
without scruple unmask his opponents, and wound The first two contain the text, the third the Latin
them where they were vulnerable, though he never translation, and the others the critical apparatus,
resorted to sycophantic artifices. The second cause the indices, &c. A good edition of the text is
was his intellectual superiority. By a wise ar- that by W. Dindorf, Leipzig, 1825, 3 vols. 8vo.
rangement of his subjects, and by the application We subjoin a classified list of the orations of
of the strongest arguments in their proper places, Demosthenes, to which are added the editions
he brought the subjects before his hearers in the of each separate oration, when there are any, and
clearest possible form ; any doubts that might be the literature upon it.
raised were met by him beforehand, and thus he
I. POLITICAL ORATIONS.
proceeded calmly but irresistibly towards his end.
The third and last cause was the magic force of
A. Orations against Philip.
his language, which being majestic and yet simple, Editions of the Philippics were published by
rich yet not bombastic, strange and yet familiar, J. Bekker (Berlin, 1810, 1825 and 1835), C. A.
solemn without being ornamented, grave and ver Rüdiger (Leipzig, 1818, 1829 and 1833), and J.
pleasing, concise and yet tluent, sweet and yet im. T. Vomel
. (Frankfurt, 1829. )
pressive, carried away the minds of his learers.
1. The first Philippic was delivered in B. C. 352,
That such orations should notwithstanding some and is believed by some to be made up of two dis-
times have failed to produce the desired efiect, was tinct orations, the second of which is supposed to
owing only to the spirit of the times.
commence at p. 48 with the words å mer nueis.
Most of the critical works that were written (Dionys. Ep. ad Amm. i. 10. ) But critics down
upon Demosthenes by the ancients are lost, and, to the present time are divided in their opinions
independent of many scattered remarks, the only upon this point. The common opinion, that the
important critical work that has come down to us oration is one whole, is supported by the MSS. ,
is ihat of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, entitled tepland is defended by Bremi, in the Philol. Beiträge
της του Δημοσθενους δεινότητος. The acknow- aus der Schweiz, vol. i. p. 21, &c. The opposite opi-
ledged excellence of Demosthenes's orations made nion is very ably maintained by J. Held, Proleijer
them the principal subjects of stndy and specula- mena ad Dem. Orat. quae vulgo prima Phil
. dicitur,
tion with ihe rhetoricians, and called forth nume- Vratislaviae, 133), and especially by Seebeck in
sous imitators and commentators. It is probably the Zeitschrift für d. Alterthumswiss. for 1838,
oring to those rhetorical speculations which began No. 91, dic.
as early as the second century B. C. , that a number 2—4. The first, second, and third Olynthiac
of orations which are decidedly spurious and un- 1 orations belong to the year B. C. 349. Dionysius
## p. 989 (#1009) ###########################################
DEMOSTIIEXES.
989
DEMOSTIJENES.
(Ep. ad Amm. i. 4) makes the second the first, Bekker with scholia, Halle, 1815, and Berlin, 1823.
and the third the second in the series; and this by Bremi (Gotha, 1834), and ly Dissen (Grit-
order has been defended by R. Rauchenstein, de tingen, 1837). Comp. F. Winiewski, Comment.
Orat. Olynth. ordine, Leipz. 1821, which is re- Historica et Chronolog. in Demosth. Orut. de Coron. ,
printed in vol. i. of Schaefer's Apparatus. The lionasterii, 1829. The genuineness of the docu-
other order is defended by Becker, in bis German ments quoted in this oration has of late been the
translation of the Philippics, i.
